Upload
emily-gillott-at-ncc
View
216
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/18/2019 Woodborough Churchyard Survey
1/47
Woodborough Churchyard Survey
A gravestone recording and condition survey, map
and subsurface survey of St Swithun’s churchyard,Woodborough, Nottinghamshire
NCA-017
17th-21st May & 4th-6th August 2010
Andy Gaunt and Emily GillottNottinghamshire Community Archaeology
Nottinghamshire County Council
8/18/2019 Woodborough Churchyard Survey
2/47
Contributors
The survey was undertaken by Andy Gaunt and Emily Gillott ofNottinghamshire County Council Community Archaeology, along withmembers of the Woodborough Photographic Recording Group and membersof the community archaeology volunteers group, and was funded by theNottinghamshire County Council Local Improvement Schemes.
Acknowledgements
St. Swithun’s PCC through churchwarden Alan WrightWoodborough Photographic Recording GroupWoodborough WI for 1982 survey recordsNottinghamshire Family History Society for transcripts of burial records
Archive Location
Nottinghamshire Historic Environment Record, Nottinghamshire CountyCouncil, Trent Bridge House, Fox Road, West Bridgford, Nottinghamshire,NG29BJ.
Contact Details
Nottinghamshire Community Archaeology, Nottinghamshire County Council,Trent Bridge House, Fox Road, West Bridgford, Nottinghamshire, [email protected]
8/18/2019 Woodborough Churchyard Survey
3/47
Contents
1 Introduction
2 Site location, geology and topography
3 Historical and archaeological background
4 Aims and objectives
5 Methodology
5.1 Surface survey
5.2 Subsurface survey
5.3 Gravestone survey
6 Results
6.1 Mapping and sub-surface survey results
6.2 Gravestone condition survey results
6.2.1 Monuments in the Graveyard
6.2.2 Monuments inside the church
7 Conclusions
8 References and Bibliography
Appendix I: Graveyard survey map and data
Appendix II: Internal memorials map and data
Appendix III: Cremation memorials map and data
Appendix IV: Example record sheet
8/18/2019 Woodborough Churchyard Survey
4/47
1. Introduction
Members of the Woodborough Photographic Recording Group (WRPG)
commenced a social history survey of the headstones in the St. Swithun’s
churchyard in June 2009. The aim was to expand on the survey undertaken
by the Womens Institute in 1982. The work consisted of a photographic record
of the headstones, along with a record of the details from the headstones.
This was compared with the WI list, and resulted in an updated record. The
new record was cross-reference with the parish records. The exercise
resulted in 75% of headstones being recorded, an increase from
approximately 50% achieved by the WI. As part of a Nottinghamshire County
Council Local Improvement Scheme, and in conjunction with the WPGR, a
graveyard condition survey of Saint Swithun’s Churchyard was carried out by
Nottinghamshire County Council Community Archaeology. The survey was
undertaken in three parts; firstly a map of the locations of grave stones on the
surface was created, secondly a sub-surface probing survey searched for
stones that had been lost or buried, thirdly a full gravestone recording
condition survey of the stones and memorials in the churchyard, and church
was undertaken. The survey took place to the specifications for graveyard
recording prescribed by the Council for British Archaeology and English
Heritage (Mytum 2002).
Michael Harrison and Margaret Kirkrecording memorial inscriptions in 2009
David Bagley, Margaret Kirk and John Hoylandprobing for hidden memorials in 2010
8/18/2019 Woodborough Churchyard Survey
5/47
Figure 1: The Village Woodborough Figure 2: Area of survey
2. Site location geology and topography
The Churchyard of St Swithun’s, Woodborough is at OSGR 463170,347710
(see figures 1 and 2). The area is underlain by bedrock of the Triassic Mercia
Mudstones Group. The rocks of this group present at this location are
mudstones and siltstones of the Radcliffe formation, siltstones and
sandstones of the Sneinton formation (known locally as Skerry), and sands of
the Sneinton formation. These bedrock formations are overlain by superficial
Quaternary deposits occupying the lower sections of valleys. These consist of
clay, silt, sand and gravel deposits, including Head (erosional) deposits, and
alluvium (water borne) deposits of Holocene age.
8/18/2019 Woodborough Churchyard Survey
6/47
Figure 3: Geology of Woodborough.
Woodborough is situated in a valley, a tributary of the Doverbeck. The village
is surrounded by high ground to the north, south and western sides.
St Swithun’s church is recorded on the Nottinghamshire Historic EnvironmentRecord as Monument M1892. The graveyard is well maintained, with mown
grass and tended vegetation.
3. Historical and archaeological background
St Swithun’s church dates at least from the Norman period, with the north re-
set doorway (blocked) being ‘Norman, of three orders, with colonnettes with
scalloped capitals and cable zigzag mouldings of the voussoirs’ (Pevsner
1979). The chancel dates from the mid-14th century, but much of the church
was restored in the period 1891-97 and the mid-20th century. The majority of
window glazing dates from the period 1907-1910. The tower has a 13th
century base and a perpendicular top (HER). The church is notable for graffiti,
especially on the external south wall, with a number of mass dials being
preserved.
Previous archaeological work within the churchyard includes the excavation of
foundation and service trenches for the construction of a new extension to the
8/18/2019 Woodborough Churchyard Survey
7/47
south aisle of the church by JSAC in 1999. An inhumation was encountered
lying immediately below the Southwest drainage pipe. This extended outside
the evaluation trench and was left in situ. Also during the excavation work
significant numbers of disarticulated human remains were recovered. A dump
of bones was found below the existing tarmac footpath at the southeast
corner of the new foundation trench. The dump consisted of fragments of at
least four and up to seven human skulls along with a number of larger bones.
The lack of smaller bones pointed to this feature being a re-interment. All
bones were re-buried (JSAC 1999).
A watching brief conducted in 2000 found no archaeological remains (Brooke
2000).
The Nottinghamshire HER also locates a mound in the northeast corner of the
churchyard as element number L10293.
4. Aims and Objectives
• To record the locations of all gravestones in the churchyard, and to
produce a two-dimensional map showing their positions.
• To discover if there are buried gravestones in the churchyard, and to
map their locations. The number of extant gravestones at 154 is far
less than the 2462 burials listed in the parish records from 1572 to
1879 when the records were kept.
• To produce a 3-dimensional model of the site using data recorded
during the survey.
• To record details form the stones including full transcript of surviving
text, measurements of dimensions, photographic and fully illustrated
record.
5. Methodology
5.1 Mapping of surface features
8/18/2019 Woodborough Churchyard Survey
8/47
The survey was carried out using a Leica Flexline TS06 Electronic Distance
Measuring (EDM) Total Station. Points were recorded for each gravestone.
Control of survey was maintained using initial coordinates and height taken
from Ordnance Survey data, further control points were then pegged out
around the site. These points provided lines of site for optical survey, acting
as station location points. Data was prepared and final maps created using
MapInfo Geographical Information Systems (GIS) software.
5.2 Mapping of Subsurface features
The total station mentioned above was used to peg out a 25m baseline in the
south eastern area of the churchyard. From this baseline a grid of 5m squares
was pegged out around the churchyard. This grid was then used as a guide
for probing the ground at 0.5m intervals in both x and y axis. The probe
survey was undertaken using 1m long metal rods, 1cm in diameter. The rods
were entered into the ground to a depth of 10-20cm. Where a subsurface
feature was encountered more intensive probing established its extent.
Shallow features 10-20cm below the surface were uncovered and recorded.
5.3 Gravestone survey
The third phase of the project was to conduct a survey of the monuments in
the graveyard, recording the details, construction materials, decoration, size,
and condition. An example record sheet can be seen in appendix I. The
survey work was carried out by the WPRG Group alongside volunteers from
the community archaeology database. Nottinghamshire community
archaeologists supervised the survey to ensure that standards and guidance
for recording were adhered to. A photographic record consisting of five
photographs per memorial was taken. Each record included an overview
photograph to show the graves location, and photographs with and without a
photographic board.
6. Results
6.1 Mapping and subsurface survey results
8/18/2019 Woodborough Churchyard Survey
9/47
Figure 4: St Swithun’s Churchyard map showing surface gravestones, subsurface features and
cremation memorials.
The mapping survey recorded 158 standing gravestones within St Swithun’s
churchyard. The survey also recorded the names and locations of 103 square
stone cremation memorials, and the location of two buried stones discovered
by the probing survey. The mapped gravestones were given a number and
8/18/2019 Woodborough Churchyard Survey
10/47
details taken to allow comparison with previous work, and to facilitate use of
the map in the gravestone recording survey. The map containing these details
is available as part of the archive, and working copies were given to WPRG
(see figure 4 for the locations of the features mentioned above). The survey
also mapped 18 memorials within the church as shown in figure 5 below.
Figure 5: Map of internal memorials.
The subsurface probing survey discovered only two features present in the
churchyard, which are marked on figure 4. These were photographed and
appear below in photographs 1 and 2. Photograph 1 shows feature 001. The
feature consists of the base of a gravestone broken at ground level. The stone
is 50cm in width and approximately 5cm thick. To the east side of the stoneare five clay bricks used as packing stones to prevent the stone collapsing
due to subsidence above the burial.
8/18/2019 Woodborough Churchyard Survey
11/47
Photograph 1: Buried feature 001 facing west.
Photograph 2: Buried feature 002 facing west.
8/18/2019 Woodborough Churchyard Survey
12/47
Photograph 2 shows what appears to be the top right corner fragment of a
gravestone. The remaining fragment is 35cm left to right by 40 cm bottom to
top as seen in the photograph. Carved bordering can be seen to the top and
right hand sides of the stone. The stone is broken to the left and bottom sides
as seen in the photograph. The illegible remains of carving can be seen
towards the top left of the stone. The stone is of a similar kind to that in
photograph 1, but no definite association is possible from the remains.
As part of the survey height or ‘Z’ coordinates were recorded alongside x and
y locations. This enabled a 3-dimensional digital terrain model (DTM) of the
churchyard to be created in Vertical Mapper software, an extension of
MapInfo GIS software. The results are shown in the image in figure 6.
Figure 6: 3-Dimensional model of St Swithun’s Churchyard.
8/18/2019 Woodborough Churchyard Survey
13/47
6.2 Gravestone condition survey results
6.2.1 Monuments in the Graveyard
A total of 158 monuments were recorded in the graveyard over the course of
3 days. As figure 7 below shows the vast majority (149) of the monuments
are headstones. The other monument types include a chest tomb, flatstones,
and low kerbstone surrounded flat monuments.
Headstones
Chest Tombs
Memorial Stone
Flatstone
Other
Figure 7: Pie chart showing the type of monuments in the graveyard.
The earliest readable date visible in the graveyard is 1700 (monument No
133), and the most recent readable date is 2004 (No 054), although this late
one is a memorial stone rather than a grave marker. As the chart below
shows there is a steep drop-off in monuments from the 1870s to the 1880’s,
and this presumably coincides with the closure of this graveyard and thereferral of subsequent burials to a nearby cemetery. A reference to this is
seen on monument No 048 which reads;
‘In Loving Memory of Ann, Wife of John Mellows, who died June 30 th 1873
Aged 69 Years. Also of John Mellows who died December 2 nd 1884 Aged 82
years, Interred in the Cemetery Grave No 20 ’. This is clear evidence that St.
Swithun’s graveyard was closed to burials prior to 1884.
8/18/2019 Woodborough Churchyard Survey
14/47
With the exclusion of No 054, which is a memorial stone rather than a grave
marker, there is only one burial after the 1800s, and this is memorial No 140.
This marks the grave of Mansfield Parkyns, the mid 19th century owner of
Woodborough Hall who carved the Victorian stalls inside the church (Pevsner,
384).
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
1 7 0 0 s
1 7 1 0 s
1 7 2 0 s
1 7 3 0 s
1 7 4 0 s
1 7 5 0 s
1 7 6 0 s
1 7 7 0 s
1 7 8 0 s
1 7 9 0 s
1 8 0 0 s
1 8 1 0 s
1 8 2 0 s
1 8 3 0 s
1 8 4 0 s
1 8 5 0 s
1 8 6 0 s
1 8 7 0 s
1 8 8 0 s
1 8 9 0 s
1 9 0 0 s
Figure 8: Bar chart showing the number of memorials from each decade period.
22
55
6
66
3
Sandstone; Readable
Sandstone; Partially Readable
Sandstone; UnreadableSlate; Readable
Slate; Partially Readable
Figure 9: Pie chart showing the relative legibility of sandstone monuments against the slate monuments
in the graveyard.
8/18/2019 Woodborough Churchyard Survey
15/47
All but 6 of the monuments within the graveyard are made of slate or
sandstone. There are slightly more sandstone memorials (83) than slate ones
(69), but as is very clear from the chart in figure 9 the sandstone monuments
are far less legible than the slate ones. Just over 26% of the sandstone
graves are fully legible, as opposed to over 95% of the slate ones. In addition
none of the slate graves are completely illegible. Clearly inscriptions in slate
survive much better than those in sandstone. Monuments constructed of
marble and other materials total 6, and all are legible, and have not been
included in the above chart.
Not only was the condition of the inscription recorded, but the condition of the
overall monument was noted in the survey. The chart in figure 10 shows that
the by far the most common noted factor under the condition survey was that
many stones were leaning; 43% of the memorials in the graveyard in fact,
which is equal to 68 stones. This is partly due to the large number of
headstones in the graveyard, which are prone to leaning as the soil around
the grave settles. Just over 9% of the memorials were recorded as sunken.
Gravestones become sunken through the same mechanism, and through
ground levels rising gradually over the years. Only 11 stones were recorded
to have lost pieces through breakage.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Sunk
Leaning
Collapsed
Become Buried
Repositioned
Lost DecorativeElements
Become Broken
Lost Pieces
Figure 10: Chart to show the factors recorded under the condition survey. It is clear that many of the
stones in the graveyard are leaning.
8/18/2019 Woodborough Churchyard Survey
16/47
Another factor that can affect the condition of the monuments is vegetation.
The condition survey recorded instances of lichen, moss, algae and other
vegetation around the monuments. The chart in figure 11 shows the results of
the survey of vegetation, and indicates that over half of the graves have lichen
present on them. This is perhaps an indication of clean air in the area. The
presence of moss and ivy on a number of graves is likely to be related to a
number of the graves being under the canopy of trees, resulting in damper
shaded conditions, ideal for the growth of these organisms. A total of 74
monuments are under the canopy of a tree, reflecting the shaded nature of
the graveyard.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Lichen Algae Moss Ivy Other
Figure 11: Chart showing the types of vegetation present on the monuments, and the percentage of
graves that they are present on.
The monuments within the graveyard are generally in good condition. Some
show signs of slight damage from grass-cutting activities, 43% are leaning
slightly. Very few are leaning at a great angle, and the greatest cause of
illegibility in the stones is through natural weathering of the construction
materials.
8/18/2019 Woodborough Churchyard Survey
17/47
6.2.2 Monuments inside the church
It is harder to apply statistical analyses to the memorials on the interior of the
church, as there are only 18 and they are of very different styles and dates,
but they can be summarised in the following points.
There are 18 memorials recorded in the church interior. Of these 11 are
sandstone, and 7 are another material (mostly copper alloy plaques). Four
are wall-mounted and the rest are in the floor of the church.
The earliest visible recorded date is 1668 (No. 175). There are a number of
graves with incised cruciform decoration, but no written date or other details(No’s. 160, 161, 164). These grave slabs may date back as far as the 14th
century.
Photograph 3 Photograph 4 Fragments of grave slabs with incised cruciform decoration (Left; No. 164, Right; No. 161)
It is possible to make out the surnames on all but 1 of the 15 inscribed
monuments, and from this it is clear that the Lacock family were influential in
the 1700’s, although the name Lacock does not appear on any of the
readable monuments in the graveyard.
Surname Occurrences Surname Occurrences
Lacock 6 Alvey 1Bainbrigge 2 Jones 1Bond 1 Helton 1Cartwright 1 Slight 1Wood 1
Figure 12: Table showing the surnames readable on the interior monuments. (Note No. 173 containsboth Cartwright and Lacock surnames).
8/18/2019 Woodborough Churchyard Survey
18/47
The chart in figure 13 shows clearly that the majority of the monuments within
the church are either readable or uninscribed, with only 5 being partially
readable, and none being completely illegible.
Readable, 10Partially
Readable, 5
Not Inscribed, 3
Figure 13: Pie chart showing the legibility of monuments within the church.
Of the 14 memorials laid into the floor 8 have been significantly worn and
damaged by footfall and other scuffing. Of the 6 not significantly damaged in
this way, 4 are copper-alloy. The copper alloy plaques throughout the church
interior are in better condition than the sandstone monuments.
8/18/2019 Woodborough Churchyard Survey
19/47
The wall mounted monuments are in generally good condition, with the
exception of No. 172; the only wall monument constructed of sandstone rather
than copper alloy. This monument, although still readable at the moment, is
suffering surface flaking, peeling and blistering. The other wall monuments
are in good condition, with some tarnishing being the only real sign of age.
Photograph 5: Monument No 172 shows signs of damage to the sandstone surface, perhaps throughdamp.
7. Conclusions
The subsurface survey discovered only two features. These were in close
proximity to each other, with at least one being in-situ. The absence of any
fallen or buried gravestones is an interesting discovery. Although it is
disappointing to not discover new stones, this in itself raises a number of
questions. The absence could either suggest that older gravestones have
been removed, or that stone grave markers were not used of for all of the
burials recorded in the parish records for the 18 th and 19th centuries. The 3-
dimensional digital terrain model in figure 6 above highlights two raised areas
associated with dumped material including rubble and charcoal indicating
possible garden fires and management of the graveyard, the mound
mentioned in the northeast corner of the graveyard (L10293 on HER) appears
to be one of these areas of dumped material.
8/18/2019 Woodborough Churchyard Survey
20/47
The work done by the WPRG and the volunteers represents the first
comprehensive survey of monuments both in the graveyard and in the church,
including a condition survey and photographic record. It demonstrates that
there are a number of graves, particularly those of sandstone construction,
that are already partly or completely illegible, but that the general condition
otherwise, of the churchyard and memorials within it, is relatively good.
Investigative work using parish records, and attempting to decipher gaps in
the surviving text on graves within the churchyard is being carried out by
WPRG, the information gathered in this survey should be a useful platform for
this ongoing work. The information also acts as a benchmark for monitoring
the condition of the monuments, and their rate of decay. The condition of
stones affected by cleaning and or the actions of maintaining the vegetation in
the churchyard can also be monitored.
8/18/2019 Woodborough Churchyard Survey
21/47
10. References and bibliography
Ainsworth, S., Bowden, M., McOmish, D. & Pearson, T. 2007. Understanding theArchaeology of Landscape. English Heritage.
Bannister, A., Raymond, S. and Baker, R. 1998. Surveying. Longman, Essex.
Bettess, F. 1990. Surveying for Archaeologists . Penshaw Press: University ofDurham.
Bowden, M. 1999. Unravelling the landscape. An inquisitive Approach toArchaeology. Tempus, Stroud.
Bowden, M. 2002. With Alidade and Tape – Graphical and plane table survey ofarchaeological earthworks. English Heritage.
Brown, A. 1987. Fieldwork for Archaeologists and Historians . Batsford, London.
Chapman, H. 2006. Landscape Archaeology and GIS. Tempus.
Gaffney, C. & Gater, J. 2006. Revealing the Buried Past: Geophysics forArchaeologists. Tempus Publishing.
Howard, P. 2007. Archaeological Surveying and Mapping. Routledge, Oxford.
IFA 1994 (updated) 2008. Standards and Guidance: for archaeological fieldevaluation. Institute of Field Archaeologists.
Lutton, S. 2003. Metric Survey Specifications for English Heritage . English Heritage.
Menue, A. 2006. Understanding Historic Buildings: A guide to good recordingpractice. English Heritage
Muir, R. 2004. Landscape Encyclopaedia: A reference guide to the HistoricLandscape Windgather Press.
Mytum, H. 2002.Recording and analysing graveyards. Practical handbook inArchaeology 15 . Council for British Archaeology in association with English Heritage.
Ordnance Survey. OS Mastermap Part 1: User Guide. V6.1.1-04/2006 © Crown
Copyright.
Pevsner, N. 1979. The Buildings of England: Nottinghamshire . Penguin Books Ltd.
Websites:
http://www.bajr.org
http://www.bgs.ac.uk
http://www.english-heritage.org.uk
http://www.leica-geosystems.com
http://smartnet.leica-geosystems.co.ukhttp://www.woodborough-heritage.org.uk
8/18/2019 Woodborough Churchyard Survey
22/47
Appendix I
Graveyard Survey Map and Data
8/18/2019 Woodborough Churchyard Survey
23/47
8/18/2019 Woodborough Churchyard Survey
24/47
Number Surname 1 Person 1 DatePerson
2 Date Others
1 Cumberland William 1808
2 Cumberland Ann 1806
3 Cumberland John 18234 Lees Mary 1802
5 Baxter James 1851 Elizabeth
6 Glover Mordecla Hannah
7 Stephenson Ann 1831
8 Toplis Samuel 1843
9 Toplis Ann 1837
10 Baguley Harriett 1878
11 Pinder Joseph 1875
12 Smith Abel 187?
13 Bradley Henry 1872
14 Cumberland William 1850
15 Baguley Elizabeth 18?2 Mark 18??
16 Parker Ann 1828
17 Hallam Joseph 1840 Mary 18??
18
19 Clay Mary 1830
20 Hanson Mary 18?4
21 Hucknall Mary 1844
22 Hucknall Joseph 1835
23 Hucknall William 1837
24 Hucknall Hannah 1838
25 Winfield William
26 Winfield Mary 1857
27
28 Southorn Elizabeth 1862
29 Southorn Samuel 1814 Sarah 1840
30 Lealand
Edward
Newham 1782
31 LealandAnn
Newham 1829
32 Aslin Sarah 1831
33 Toplis John 1858
34 Spencer Martha 18?? Mary 1854
35 Ford Mary 1857
36
37 Hogg William 1820
38 Robinson Georgina 1853
39 Foster Ann 1842ChristineElizabeth
8/18/2019 Woodborough Churchyard Survey
25/47
40 Oliver George 1811
41 Robinson William
42 Robinson Frederic 1828
43 Robinson Easter 1875
4445 Ward William 1831
46 Ward Hannah
47 Wood James 1806
48 Mellows Ann 1873 John 1884
49 Bousfield Sarah Jane 1872
50 Richardson Paul 1864 Elizabeth 1864
51 Wood Annie 1870
52 Alvey Francis 1835
53
54 Studley Vera Maud 1989
AnnDorcasEthel 2004
55 Alvey Samuel 1840 Mary 1858
56 Wakefield Ann 1873
57 Alvey Emily 18??
58 Wood Sarah 1861
59 Wood Thomas 1841 Mary 1844
60 Wood Thomas 1851 Sarah 1831
61 Ragsdale Elizabeth 187462 Pool William 1849 Elizabeth 1852
63 Poole John 1875
64 Poole William 1835
65 Wyld William 1838 Elizabeth 1859
Mary 1854,Edwin1865
66 Lee Frances 1849
67 Lee Elizabeth 1847
68 Lee Frances 1850
69 Lee John 1836
70 Lee Samuel 1823
71 Speechly John 1800
72
73
74
75
76 Donnelly William 1856
77 Donnelly Charles 1828
78 Thomas
8/18/2019 Woodborough Churchyard Survey
26/47
79 Hannah
80 Richardson Jane 1849
81 Southorn Robert 1806
82 Southorn Elizabeth 1806
83 Robinson Edward 183884 Robinson Hannah
85 Donnelly Thomas 1870 Love 1875
86 Donnelly Thomas 1855
87 Donnelly James 1853
88 Donnelly Thomas 1827
89 Orme Rosetta 1853 John 1870
90 Dixon Joseph 1867
91 Jerram Ann 1873
92 Brett John 182793 Brett Elizabeth 1838
94 Osborn Mary 1828 Elizabeth 1826
95 Mary
96
97 Flinders Samuel 1869
98 Flinders Elizabeth 1845
99
100 Thorp Hannah 1824
101
102
103 John 1800
104 Blanson Mary
105 Wotton Kirkby 17??
106 Collisham William 1820 Ann 1797
107 Oldacres
Rev.SamuelLealand 1876
108 Hewes
Thomas
Oldacres 1872109 Andrews Joseph 1784 Mary 1831
110 Hewes Sarah 1824Rev.
James 1837
111 Oldacres Alice 1808Rev.
Richard 1785
112 OldacresRev.
Thomas 1779 Charles 1817
113 Hinpier Robert 17?? Alice 1739
114 Lee John 1712
115 Southorn 1720116 Glover
8/18/2019 Woodborough Churchyard Survey
27/47
117 Glover 1758
118 Glover
119 Southorn John 1753 George 1764
120 Southorn George 1777
121 Southorn Mary 1789122 Rose Mary 1785
123 Rose Miriam 1791
124 Richardson John 1878 Mary 1878
125 Patching Marian 1867
126 PatchingHenry
Watson 1868 Maria 1837 Mary 1840
127 Howitt Sarah 1850
128 Sellars? Sarah 1727
129 Sellars? Christopher 1752
130 Sellars Christopher 1705
131 Ann
132 Brown George 1833
133 Alvey Elizabeth 1700
134 Alvey Mary 1724
135 Alvey 170?
136 Alvey 1718
137 ClayFrancesHucknall 1874
138139 Clay Mary 1876
140 Parkyns Mansfield 1894EmmaLouise 1877
141 Warot Elizabeth 1824
142 Lee Samuel 1732
143 Lee John 1770
144
145 Wyld Christopher 1792 Frances 1833
146 Donnelly John 1780147 Glazebrook Ann 1767
148 Cliff 1768
149
150 Wyld William 1780
151 Wyld Elizabeth 1778
152 Cliff Daniel 1768
153 Foster Thomas 1833
154 Foster John 1851
155 Chouler Louisa 1872
156 Oakley James 1868
8/18/2019 Woodborough Churchyard Survey
28/47
157 Wyld Joseph 1819 Ann 1809
8/18/2019 Woodborough Churchyard Survey
29/47
Appendix II
Internal Memorials Map and Data
8/18/2019 Woodborough Churchyard Survey
30/47
8/18/2019 Woodborough Churchyard Survey
31/47
Names and dates from internal memorials
Number Surname 1 Person 1 Date Other Persons Date
159 Helton John 1767
160 not visible
161 not visible
162 not visible
163Ailwe(Alvey) William
164 not visible
165 Jones John Birch 1918
166 Bond Samuel Rev 1912 Emily Kate 1912
167 SlightFrederick
Goode 1891
168 Lacock Carolus 1683
169 Lacock Charles 1707
170 Lacock Robert 1700
171 Lacock Philip 1707
172 Wood JohnCatherine, John,Bridget, Montagu
173 Cartwright Mary 1693
174 Bainbridge PhilipAnn, Dorothy,
Charles
175 Lacock Philip 1668
176 Bainbridge William 1737 Mary
8/18/2019 Woodborough Churchyard Survey
32/47
8/18/2019 Woodborough Churchyard Survey
33/47
Appendix III
Cremation Memorials Map and Data
8/18/2019 Woodborough Churchyard Survey
34/47
8/18/2019 Woodborough Churchyard Survey
35/47
Names and dates from cremation memorials
Number Surname Person 1 Date Person 2 Date
177 Murphy Alan Michael 2003
178 HaywardDouglasGraham 2009
179 Gorski Brenda 2009
180 Clark Claude Stuart 2007
181 Woodland Edward 2002 Margaret 2009
182 Tew Peter William 2006
183 SmithChristoneElizabeth 2007
184 Hall Pamela 2007DonaldArthur 1972
185 Reeves John Henry 2006
186 Rothera Margaret 2007Maurice SRothera 2007
187 Brewill Royce 2004
188 Brewill Wendy 2008
189 Cotterill Joy 2005
190 Fairchild Frank 2002
191 Turner John Henry 1998
192 Limb Walter 2006
193 Clay Evelyn May 1997194 Redmayne Rosemary Clare 1996
195 RedmayneCecil Procter
Vere 2002
196 Richardson Bertha 1996
197 SmithMary (nee
Richardson) 2001
198 HirdNormanGeoffrey 1995
199 Hanson Arthur Cyril 1993
200 Lawson Derek Peter 1998201 Lee Donald 1992
202Scattergood
Musson May 1995
203 Williams Arthur Wynne 1983
204 Hind Arthur 1992 Irene 1994
205 Litchfielfd Sydney Arthur 1992 Eleanor 2002
206 Molloy Gladys May 1993
207 Guest William Henry 2001
208 Pidd Jack 1993 Lucy 2006209 Welch Herbert 1999
8/18/2019 Woodborough Churchyard Survey
36/47
210 Bleay Sheila 1983
211 Butler Charles 1985
212 Bray Charles Stanley 1986
213 Cram Maureen Helen 1985
214 Welch berenice 1987215 Stanley florence 1991
216 Burton Donald William 1993
217 Paulson Tom 1996 May 1994
218 Taylor Betty Evelyn 1995
219 Jamson Gaenor Gladys 1996
220 Atherton Frederick O 1997 Minnie 1997
221 Van Herrewege Peggy 1997 Ro 2007
222 Small John 1998
223 Kennell Anne Christine 1999RichardWilliam 2008
224 Turner Jane 1999
225 Round Andrew 1999
226 Riggott Sally Anne 2000
227 Fairchild Joan Muriel 2001
228 ParrFrancesMargaret 2001
ThomasEric 2002
229 Pereira Kevin 2004
230 Green Iris 2007
231 Skeen Olive 1981 James 2003
232 DunthorneGreta
Marguerite 1981
232 Duckitt Leonard 2003
233 Clarke Donald 1981
234 Charlton Hildegard 1983
235 Ashton Margaret 1986
236
237 Lamb Geoffrey Arthur 1991
238 Drury James Roy 1981EileenMary 1997
239 Redmayne Harold 1981
240 JonesDora Eleanor
Catherine 1983
241 Redmayne Vera Florence 1986
242 Harrisson Stan R 1987
243 Baguley Richard Wilfred 1983
246 Bingham Percy 1971
246 Richardson Nell 1973
247 Trotman Peter Vaughan 2001248 Cooper Alice 2005
8/18/2019 Woodborough Churchyard Survey
37/47
249 Gard Cara 2003 Maurice 2007
250 Lyon Valerie 2007
251 Humber William Harold 1998
252 Andrews John Henry 1998MarjorieAlthea 2004
253 Brooks Don 2004
254 Geary Gordon 2006
255 Broome Stanley 2006
256 England Lewis William 1999
257 Mee Mick 1995 Rosemary 2001
258 Spencer Charles Edwin 2001
259 GreenThomasKenneth 2002
260 Calthorp-Owen William Gordon 2001
261 Chapman Stephen 2005263 Burston Marian V 1992
264 Perkins Barbara 1981
264 Rook Keith Muir 1995
265 Reavill Ernest W J 1977Stephanie
M 1980
266 Chapman Harold Norman 1969SarahAnn 1983
267 Taylor Joyce 1998FrederickCopley 2004
268 Saunders Archer 1978 Helen M 1978
269 Enderby Iva Myrtle 1985
270 Leslie Edith 1987
271 Hanson Andrea 1987
272 Clarke Mary Starr 1998WilliamNorman 2004
273 No inscription
274 Walker Hilary 2003
275 Parker Alan William 2008
275 Bianchina Enid Mary 2006276 Godfrey Shriley Elzabeth 2007
277 Godfrey Simon Charles 1991
278 WilkinsonCapt. Septimus
Richard 1969
279 MitchellThomasKenneth
8/18/2019 Woodborough Churchyard Survey
38/47
8/18/2019 Woodborough Churchyard Survey
39/47
Appendix IV
Record Sheet example
8/18/2019 Woodborough Churchyard Survey
40/47
NOTTINGHAMSHIRE COMMUNITY ARCHAEOLOGY GRAVESTONE RECORDING FORM
KEY INFORMATION
GRAVEYARD REF: ____________________ MEMORIAL REF:__________SURVEYOR(S):_______________________________________________
DATE:
WEATHER AND LIGHT CONDITIONS
SURNAME(S) VISIBLE ON STONE AND YEAR OF DEATH
MASON /MAKER:
TRANSCRIPT OF TEXT
8/18/2019 Woodborough Churchyard Survey
41/47
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
MONUMENT IS MADE FROM;
□ ENTIRELY STONE □ STONE AND ANOTHER MATERIAL
□ ENTIRELY ANOTHER MATERIAL
MAIN MATERIAL
□ SANDSTONE □ GRANITE
□ MARBLE
□ SLATE
□ OTHER ___________________
OTHER MATERIALS
(TICK ANY OTHERS THAT ARE USED IN THE CONSTRUCTION OR DECORATION)
□ IRON
□ BRONZE
□ TERRACOTTA
□ BRICK
□ ARTIFICIAL STONE
□ CONCRETE
□ PORCELAIN
□ CERAMIC TILES
□ WOOD
□ PHOTOGRAPHY
□ OTHER_____________________
□ OTHER_____________________
LETTERING
(TICK ALL APPLICABLE)
□ INSCRIBED
□ RELIEF
□ INLAID
□ PAINTED
□ LEADED
□ OTHER__________
PAINT
HAS THE MEMORIAL BEEN PAINTED?
□ NO
□ YES □ TOTAL COVERAGE
□ PARTIAL
□ CAN’T TELL
□ WELL PRESERVED
□ WORN / FLAKED
□ FRAGMENTARY
NUMBER OF STONES USED ______________________
DO NOT INCLUDE FOUNDATIONS OR COUNT INDIVIDUAL FRAGMENTS OF BROKEN
MEMORIALS.
DIMENSIONS (IN CM)
HEIGHT WIDTH DEPTH
8/18/2019 Woodborough Churchyard Survey
42/47
ARE THE FOUNDATIONS VISIBLE?
□ NO
□ YES □ BRICK
□ CONCRETE
□ STONE
□ OTHER _____________________
TYPE OF MEMORIAL
□ HEADSTONE
□ LEDGER / FLATSTONE
□ OBELISK
□ STANDING CROSS
□ SCULPTURE
□ CHEST TOMB
□ WALL MONUMENT
□ OTHER
__________________
SCULPTURE, DESIGN AND SYMBOLS
USE THIS SPACE TO DESCRIBE ANY SCULPTURE, DECORATION OR SYMBOLS ON THE
MONUMENT. YOU CAN ALSO DRAW DESIGN OR DECORATION ON THE SKETCH SHEET IF
YOU WISH.
INSCRIPTION EXTENT (MAIN FACE ONLY)
□ NEVER INSCRIBED
□ INSCRIBED BUT NO LONGER READABLE
□ UP TO ¼ SURFACE INSCRIBED
□ UP TO ½ SURFACE INSCRIBED
□ OVER ½ SURFACE INSCRIBED
8/18/2019 Woodborough Churchyard Survey
43/47
SKETCH OF MONUMENT
USE THIS SPACE TO SKETCH THE MONUMENT TO SHOW SHAPE, DESIGN, TEXT LAYOUT,
AND ANY OTHER INFORMATION YOU FEEL IS RELEVANT
8/18/2019 Woodborough Churchyard Survey
44/47
LOCATION
THE MEMORIAL IS □ NOT ENCLOSED
□ ENCLOSED WITHIN A STRUCTURE
□ BUILT INTO A WALL
EXPOSED FACES:
□ ALL □ UPWARD □ NONE
□ NORTH □ EAST □ SOUTH □ WEST
LANSDCAPE FEATURES NEAR TO THE MEMORIAL
MARK WHETHER THEY ARE TOUCHING THE MEMORIAL, OR NEARBY (I.E. WITHIN
APPROXIMATELY 5 METRES OF THE MEMORIAL).
TOUCHING NEARBY
GRASSED SURFACE □ □
SHRUBS / FLOWER BEDS □ □
EXPOSED SOIL □ □
OTHER MEMORIALS □ □
CHURCH / CHAPEL □ □
GRAVEYARD PATH □ □
GRAVEYARD ENTRANCE □ □
BURIAL ENCLOSURE; WALLED □
□
BURIAL ENCLOSURE: OTHER (E.G. RAILED) □ □
ROAD / PUBLIC FOOTPATH □ □
OTHER FEATURE __________________________ □ □
OTHER FEATURE __________________________ □ □
OTHER FEATURE __________________________ □ □
SLOPE
MEMORIAL IS:
□ AT TOP OF A SLOPE
□ PART WAY DOWN A SLOPE
□ AT BOTTOM OF A SLOPE
□ ON LEVEL / GENTLE INCLINE
ORIENTATION OF MAIN FACE
□ NORTH
□ SOUTH
□ EAST
□ WEST
□ DOWN / FALLEN
□ UPWARDS
8/18/2019 Woodborough Churchyard Survey
45/47
CONDITION
GENERAL POINTS; (TICK ALL THAT APPLY)
MONUMENT HAS;
□ SUNK
□ STARTED TO LEAN
□ BECOME BURIED
□ COLLAPSED / FALLEN OVER
□ BEEN REPOSITIONED
□ LOST DECORATIVE ELEMENTS (SUCH AS INLAY)
□
BECOME BROKEN (I.E. LOST THE TOP HALF)
□ LOST PIECES THROUGH BREAKAGE
REPAIR AND REUSE: HAS THE MONUMENT BEEN;
□ CLEANED
□ REUSED
□ REPAIRED
MATERIALS USED:
□ STONE
□ CONCRETE
□ RESIN
□ LEAD
□ STEEL
□ OTHER
____________
VEGETATION (TICK ANY THAT APPLY)
□ LICHEN
□ ALGAE
□ MOSS
□ IVY
□ OTHER PLANTS
____________________________
TREES: MEMORIAL IS
□ NOT UNDER TREE CANOPY
□ UNDER WIDER TREE CANOPY
□ WITHIN 1M OF TREE TRUNK
□ TOUCHING TREE TRUNK
GRASS (TICK ANY THAT APPLY)
□ GRASS KILLER HAS BEEN USED AROUND BASE OF STONE
□ TURF HAS BEEN REMOVED AROUND BASE OF STONE
□ GRASS CUTTINGS HAVE BEEN LEFT ON SURFACE OF STONE
□ EVIDENCE OF DAMAGE CAUSED BY GRASS-CUTTING (GIVE DETAILS)
8/18/2019 Woodborough Churchyard Survey
46/47
DAMAGE
DESCRIBE ANY DAMAGE BEING CAUSED TO THE MONUMENT BY TREES , VEGETATION, OR
ANIMALS (BURROWING ETC).
PEOPLE
IS THE GRAVE VISITED / TENDED? □ NO □ YES
IS THERE GRAFFITI ON THE MEMORIAL? □ NO □ YES
STONE DECAY
USE THE C.S.A. INFORMATION TO HELP YOU FILL IN THIS SECTION.
ARE ANY OF THE FOLLOWING VISIBLE? (TICK ALL THAT APPLY)
□ SURFACE LOSS
□ DIFFERENTIAL WEATHERING
□ CRATERING AND PITTING
□ DELAMINATION
□ CONTOUR SCALING
□ SURFACE BLISTERING
□ SCALING AND FLAKING
□ POLLUTION DEPOSIT
□ SALTS DEPOSIT
□ MISC. STAINING
□ CRACKING AND CRAZING
□ ANY OTHER _______________
ANY OTHER INFORMATION:
8/18/2019 Woodborough Churchyard Survey
47/47
CONDITION SKETCH
USE THIS SHEET TO SKETCH THE OVERALL MONUMENT, MARKING THE EXTENT OF
DAMAGE / VEGETATION.