8/14/2019 Gnosall 2005
1/31
Project No 15
Gnosall Report 2005
by
Jan Holland
January 2008
8/14/2019 Gnosall 2005
2/31WAG Gnosall Report 2005 2
Table of contents
Introduction.......................................................................................................................................... 3
Methodology........................................................................................................................................ 3
Area 1............................................................................................................................................... 3
Area 2............................................................................................................................................... 9
Discussion .......................................................................................................................................... 13
Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................... 15
References..........................................................................................................................................17
Appendix............................................................................................................................................ 18
GNO 05 A1/T4 PLAN 18................ 19
GNO 04/A1/A1/EXT2 Deep Area Sondage PLAN 19.................20
GNO 05 A1/T4/ PLAN 20 .................21
GNO 05 A2/ SITE PLAN 2 .........22
GNO 05 A1/EXTENSION 2/ East Facing Wall SECTION 24........... 23
GNO05 /AREA 2/TRENCH 1 / SONDAGE 1/ East Facing Wall SECTION 25...........24
GNO05 / AREA 2/ TRENCH 1 /SONDAGE 1 /North Facing Wall SECTION 26 ..........25
GNO05 / AREA 2/TRENCH 1 /SONDAGE 1 /West Facing Wall SECTION 27 ..........26
GNO05 / AREA 2/TRENCH 1 /SONDAGE 1 /South Facing Wall SECTION 28 ..........27
GNO 04 A1/T4//SOUTH FACING SECTION 29..........28
Finds...............................................................................................................................................29
Acknowledgements. ..........................................................................................................................31
List of figures
Figure1 Geophysics (resistivity) of the field area ............................................................................. 3
Figure 2 Plan 19 .................................................................................................................................. 4
Figure 3 Section 24 ............................................................................................................................. 4
Figure 4 Trench 4 looking north........................................................................................................ 5
Figure 5 Plan 18 and photograph of Trench 4................................................................................... 5
Figure 6 Plan 20 .................................................................................................................................. 6
Figure 7 Section 29, South facing section of Trench 4..................................................................... 6
Figure 8 Aerial photograph of Selman Street. Courtesy of Google Earth...................................... 7Figure 9 Aerial photograph with tithe and geophysics superimposed ............................................. 8
Figure 10 Site Plan of Area 2 ............................................................................................................. 9
Figure 11 Area2 Trench 1 in relation to church ..............................................................................1 0
Figure 12 Area 2 Trench 1 Sections of sondage .............................................................................1 1
Figure 13 Area 2 Trench 1 and Trench 2.........................................................................................12
Figure 14 Plan of Trenches 2 & 3 ....................................................................................................12
Figure 15 Map of Gnosall Township showing the apportionments [8] ........................................14
Figure 16 1902 OS Map of Gnosall [1] ...........................................................................................14
8/14/2019 Gnosall 2005
3/31WAG Gnosall Report 2005 3
Introduction
Our previous two seasons at Parkside, a former vicarage built in 1854 to the east of Selman
Street in the Staffordshire village of Gnosall, were centred on the search for a 16th
century
vicars mansion of four small chambers built by Leonard Harcourt prior to 1549. We also
checked two anomalies showing on geophysics in the upper garden area as a dark c ircular
feature and a linear feature further south towards the ha-ha. Neither of these fea tures proved to
be significant in our search for the vicarage. The circular feature was probably due to a semi-
circle of trees removing moisture from the ground and the second feature may be geological as a
sandstone ridge was found across the trench. Our final season focussed on trying to pinpoint the
position of a dwelling, evidence for which was found in our excavation last year (2004) and also
to look at an area in the lower garden/field section where the geophysics shows a low resistance
area (figure 1), possibly a holloway leading towards the church. Large stones were also visible
in the area near the presumed holloway and these were examined by putting a trench across the
area. The pipeline evident in the geophysics of the area (fig 1) is of unknown origin as the
current owners were unaware of its existence. Unfortunately six weeks into the dig I broke my
elbow and forearm leaving me unable to continue as site director. Emma Hughes kindly took
over the overall site direction while Andy Pearsall directed Area 2.
Figure1 Geophysics (resistivity) of the field area
Methodology
Area 1
Area1/Area1/Extension 2
We removed the backfill and cleaned up the area to bring us back to the situation we had at the
end of our 2004 season. We then dug through the hard, sandy surface 127 to reveal a rubble
layer 131 , 0.49m deep which overlaid the natural sandstone 132 . This layer contained brick,
tile, plaster and mortar fragments. Plan 19 shows the interface of 127 and 131 while section 24shows rubble layer 131 between the sandy layers 127 and natural sandstone 132.. All plans and
sections, together with their keys are shown in the Appendix.
? holloway
Pipe line
8/14/2019 Gnosall 2005
4/31WAG Gnosall Report 2005 4
Figure 2 Plan 19
Figure 3 Section 24
8/14/2019 Gnosall 2005
5/31WAG Gnosall Report 2005 5
Having reached natural sandstone the trench was backfilled and we decided to open a new
trench to the south of the water pipe trench (Area 1/trench 4) to try and define the extent and
orientation of the building.
Area 1/Trench 4
A 2m x 1m trench was opened between the dahlia bed and the hedge (65.7E, 120.07N; 65.4E,
120.4N; 65.2E, 120.5N; 65.04E, 120.1N)
Figure 4 Trench 4 looking north
Topsoil 400 contained animal bone, tile, brick, glass and stone blocks in small amounts and pipe
stem fragments in larger numbers. Pipe stem bore sizes gave us a dating range of 1650 to 1720.
Small amounts of pottery e.g. black glaze ware, brown mottled ware and stoneware were also
present. Findings were similar to those in area 1/area1 and would suggest a connection with the
building in that area. The next layer 402 continued the similarity but also showed the presence
of charcoal (Plan 18).
Figure 5 Plan 18 and photograph of Trench 4
It would suggest that the building extended south to this point but was disrupted by the
excavation of the water pipe trench.
8/14/2019 Gnosall 2005
6/31WAG Gnosall Report 2005 6
Figure 6 Plan 20
Figure 7 Section 29, South facing section of Trench 4
8/14/2019 Gnosall 2005
7/31
8/14/2019 Gnosall 2005
8/31WAG Gnosall Report 2005 8
Figure 9 Aerial photograph with tithe and geophysics superimposed
8/14/2019 Gnosall 2005
9/31WAG Gnosall Report 2005 9
Area 2
In the second area of investigation, the lower garden/field area, the points of interest were the
route of the apparent Holloway and a spread of sandstone blocks found on a previous occasion.
The area grid was set using the same 100E/100N site co-ordinates used in the upper garden area.
Figure 10 Si te Plan of Area 2
Area2 Trench1
A trench 5m by 1m was opened in a roughly north south direction parallel to the boundary hedge(67.9E, 58.9N; 66.9E, 59.0N; 67.5E, 65.0 N; 68.5E, 64.9.0N).
8/14/2019 Gnosall 2005
10/31WAG Gnosall Report 2005 10
Figure 11 Area2 Trench 1 in relation to church
There was a 0.5m drop in contour from north to south along its length. The dry, dusty topsoil
500 contained pipe stems together with a number of pottery sherds covering a date range from
the sixteenth to the twentieth century. This was possibly plough soil or infill. The underlying
layer context 501 was a compacted sandy layer with rounded silicon pebbles and frequent
charcoal. There were few finds but some small pieces of black glazed ware, brown mottled
ware and pipe stems were present. The natural level 503 was sand with river washed gravel at a
depth of 98.0m OD. This compared well with the level of natural of 98.05m OD found in area1/trench 4. A 1m extension at the north end to investigate the ridge area showed a small rubble
spread. The extension was taken down a further 15 cm but appeared empty. Due to the intense
heat making the dig difficult it was decided to put a sondage at the southern end rather than dig
the whole trench. Several new contexts were uncovered including a charcoal layer and a small
plaster layer. Once natural 503 was reached sections were drawn and the trench was back-filled.
8/14/2019 Gnosall 2005
11/31WAG Gnosall Report 2005 11
Figure 12 Area 2 Trench 1 Sections of sondage
8/14/2019 Gnosall 2005
12/31WAG Gnosall Report 2005 12
Area2 Trench2
A second trench (1m by 2m) was opened east of Trench1 at co-ordinates (75.4E, 63.9N; 76.5E,
65.2N; 75.0E, 66.5N; 73.8E, 65.1N).
Figure 13 Area 2 Trench 1 and Trench 2
The trench was sited over an area where sandstone rubble had been found previously.
Sandstone fragments and rubble were present with sandstone blocks at the south end. There was
some pebble compaction at the 500/501 interface directly under the stone blocks. The trench
was extended a further 3m to investigate the ridge in this area. The central area leading to trench
3 appeared to contain nothing.
Area2 Trench3
The extension was designated trench 3 (73.8E, 65.1N; 72.2E, 63.0N; 71.8E, 61.8N; 72.8E,
61.5N; 73.0E, 62.3N; 74.5E, 64.4N). Sandstone fragments and masonry were again evident.
The areas of sandstone and rubble may have been connected with dry stonewalls. Evidence of a
sandstone wall was found in both A2/trench1 and A2/trench3. It was felt that no further
information could be gained from these trenches so the site was closed.
Figure 14 Plan of Trenches 2 & 3
8/14/2019 Gnosall 2005
13/31WAG Gnosall Report 2005 13
Discussion
The presence of a building on this site is supported both by the Tithe map evidence and the type
of finds we uncovered such as brick, plaster, mortar, nails, roof and floor tiles together with the
trappings of life such as pottery both for cooking and eating and glass for windows and drinking
vessels. Our final season s goal was to try to pinpoint the position and size of the house. We
managed to partially locate the building during our 2004 season when auger bores gave us the
east west location to within 1 m, but the northern limit was lost in demolition rubble and the
southern extent was not located because the water pipeline cut through. Our 2005 excavation
appears to show the southerly extent to be just south of the pipeline as it ran out in A1/Trench 4.The suggestion of a drive or pathway would also confirm that the building terminated near this
point. The current excavation did not add anything to our knowledge of the type of structure on
the site.
Our investigations into the holloway in the lower garden/field area gave no material indication
of one. The Tithe map and current aerial photographs show it to be the most likely route for
pedestrians to take to the church. If one stands at the end of the known holloway, facing the
church, the line of sight takes the route along the edge of the lower garden area. However, the
enclosure hedges may have destroyed the line of the original holloway. The geophysics results
show a high resistance area under the hedge with a definite low resistance channel immediately
adjacent to it. This would be consistent with a holloway in this area. The slag finds could
indicate some type of metalworking or kiln in the area or may have been to do with the building
of the road. The sandstone blocks in the lower garden area are almost certainly associated with
sandstone walls, probably used as field boundary markers. The tithe map (Figure 15) certainly
shows field boundaries on the property.
Looking at the documentary evidence, we know that Leonard Harcourt [2] had built a mansion
house of four little chambers for the vicars choral, worth 16d net per annum, and also gave a
barn and four butts of land in Gnosall. He was the lessee of Sukershall between 1521 and 1545.
The prebend was vacant by October 1551, and Sukershall was no longer standing by 1677. The
Victoria County History [7] states that in 1680, no houses near the church were mentioned.
However, it does mention several ancient stone walls incorporated in outhouses and farmyards
in Gnosall village particularly near the church. In some cases medieval stones have been reused.
An alternative site for the mansion may have been Suker s croft held by Roger Fowke in 1677.
This adjoined a house then standing by the churchyard with a garden, orchard, hemp butt and
voyd ground. ([3], [4]), could the house it adjoined be relevant to our search?;. The house was
named the Manor by 1851 [5]. Suker s croft field (QR410) is west of the farmyard of Manor
farm. The BUFAU excavation ( An Archaeological Evaluation in Gnosall ) states there was no
evidence prior to the 19th
century and no medieval pottery.
8/14/2019 Gnosall 2005
14/31WAG Gnosall Report 2005 14
Figure 15 Map of Gnosall Township showing the apportionments [8]
Figure 16 1902 OS Map of Gnosall [1]
8/14/2019 Gnosall 2005
15/31WAG Gnosall Report 2005 15
It is interesting to note that the word vicarage appears below St Lawrence church (in Figure
16). This area is west of Selman street.
The Victoria County History refers to a fine timber house, near the Duke s Head, probably
dating from the late 16th
century which was demolished in 1838. A contemporary drawing
shows a three storey front with a central projecting porch and two flanking gables. The
timbering of the gables had quadrant and other decorative designs and some lower panels were
filled with diagonal brick noggin. Nearby, another timber house, probably medieval, is shown.
It can be seen from the Tithe map [8] of Gnosall that the Duke s Head is fairly close to QR410
where a garden and orchard are also shown. Could the demolished building have been a
contender for the prebendal mansion?
On the other hand, we know from the 1837 tithe map that a building stood in the grounds of
Parkside, the description of the late demolished house would lend itself to the remains that we
found in our excavations. Was this building demolished early on when the prebends ceased to
function and the sale of the contents and structures were needed to swell the coffers of the
Bishop? The Victoria County History states that in 1839 a house fronting on the road
immediately to the east of the churchyard with barns and a garden attached was in the
occupation of the vicar. Parkside was built 50 yards further east in 1854.The outhouse range
and one of the garden walls contain ancient masonry and it is probable that the site was formerly
occupied by one of the prebendal manors or the sixteenth century house with its four littlechambers.[10] This does suggest a link with this area of land and the church.
Conclusion
We have had a fascinating and frustrating three years at Parkside. Our search for the mansion
house certified in 1549 as being built by Leonard Harcourt for the vicar choral of four small
chambers has not yielded any conclusive results. The documentary evidence poses rather a
dilemma as it could suggest that the vicars mansion stood either to the east or to the west of
Selman Street. However, it is almost certain that it did not survive for any great length of time
in its role as a vicars mansion. as theprebend was vacant by October 1551 and the prebendalhall was no longer standing by 1677. It would seem unlikely that the vicars lived there after the
prebend became vacant and certainly not after Sukershall was demolished.
It is difficult to see from the Tithe Map whether one or two buildings were present alongside the
road as the building crosses a field boundary and lies partly within field 419a. The grouping of
the buildings in the un-numbered area could certainly represent a house and barn. Unfortunately
most of the remains of the building facing the road were lost when the modern driveway was put
in place. Although stone rubble was found on the north east side of the original trench it was not
present as a recognisable feature. If there are indeed 2 buildings here, the building within field
419a may be the 19th
century vicarage and the building in the unmarked area, the lost vicars
mansion.
The Victoria County History [7] states that in 1680 no houses near the church were mentioned
but it is possible that a house stood on the Parkfield site prior to 1680, probably built of stone
and a later dwelling, possibly of timber frame construction with brick infill, replaced it. The
Victoria County History mentions ancient stone walls incorporated in outhouses and farmyards
in Gnosall village near the church which may be re-used stone from the original house. The
most common form of dwelling from the late 15th
century was a 2 or 3 bay hall house [9]. When
trees for crucks became rare, truss construction took ov er . Th e r e- used timbers in the
outbuildings are certainly suitable for this type of structure. The early houses in the village have
stone bases and wooden frames with diagonal brick noggin infill. Stone and brick finds on site
together with the cellar having a similar structure to that of St Lawrence cottage next door
8/14/2019 Gnosall 2005
16/31WAG Gnosall Report 2005 16
supports the idea of a house in keeping with others in the vicinity and probably later than the
date of the vicars mansion. However, finds of window glass, floor tiles, pottery dating from
late medieval to modern times and clay pipe evidence from 1650 to 1850 suggests that a
dwelling has stood on this site for some considerable time. The lack of conclusive evidence
within our site boundaries does not rule out the easterly location for the mansion as artefacts in
the surrounding area i.e. re-used stone in surrounding walls and re-used timbers in outhouses
could support the theory that the house existed within the greater area of Parkside. Artefacts
covering the period of the prebendal manor or the vicar s mansion were found on the site but
they were few and far between. Subsequent demolition and rebuilding of properties has removed
the evidence necessary to give us a positive interpretation of the site as that of the vicars
mansion.
The stone rear wall of the old coach house could be taken as part of the barn for keeping hay, or
even as part of the mansion itself, our building to the front of the property may be simply a later
unrelated dwelling. We know that a vicar s house stoodhere in 1839 prior to the 1854 house that
still stands here but from the spread of artefacts it is difficult to determine how many other
houses stood on the same site. It would be interesting to look for further evidence around the old
coach house but our current investigation is concluded with no definite evidence for the
existence of the vicars mansion within our excavation site.
Archaeological evidence for the continuation of the old holloway from the cemetery to thechurch was not found although the tithe map and aerial photographs show the most likely route
to be along the east side of the hedge. This was backed up by the geophysics results which
showed a high resistance area under the hedge (moisture removed by the roots) and a definite
low resistance channel alongside (consistent with soft soil infill of the path).
The field boundaries shown on the tithe map were almost certainly delineated by sandstone
walls as evidenced by the sandstone blocks found in the lower garden area.
8/14/2019 Gnosall 2005
17/31WAG Gnosall Report 2005 17
References
1. Staffordshire Sheet XLIII, Second Edition 1902
2. SHC 1915 (p105)
3. Ch.coun MS 123896
4. Gnosall (WSL) Gnosall QR 410) quoted in a History of Staffordshire: 115/116.
5. White, Dr Staffs (1857)
6. Tithe Maps & Appt, Gnosall (WSL) Gnosall QR Nos 410, 413, 415, 519.
7. Victoria County History 4 pp111-120
8. Tithe Map of Gnosall Township, 1837 (WSL)
9. Hanawalt 1986 p 35 www.tonygraham.co.uk/house_repair/wattle_daub/WD-2.html
10. Victoria County History 4 p132
8/14/2019 Gnosall 2005
18/31WAG Gnosall Report 2005 18
.
Appendix
8/14/2019 Gnosall 2005
19/31
WAG Gnosall Report 2005 19
GNO 05 A1/T4 PLAN 18
ORIGINAL SCALE: 1:20
PLANNED BY: B RILEY
DRAWN BY: J HOLLAND
KEY
FEATURE CONTINUES
BUT NOT EXPOSED
BRICK
+ GRID POINT
8/14/2019 Gnosall 2005
20/31
WAG Gnosall Report 2005 20
GNO 04/A1/A1/EXT2 Deep Area Sondage PLAN 19
ORIGINAL SCALE: 1:20
PLANNED BY: E HUGHES
DRAWN BY: J HOLLAND
KEY
FEATURE CONTINUESBUT NOT EXPOSED
BRICK
TILE
MORTAR
REDUCED LEVEL
REDUCED LEVELS (m OD)
1 103.62
CONTEXT
131 rubble layer
8/14/2019 Gnosall 2005
21/31
8/14/2019 Gnosall 2005
22/31
8/14/2019 Gnosall 2005
23/31WAG Gnosall Report 2005 23
GNO 05 A1/EXTENSION 2/ East Facing Wall SECTION 24
1 Metre section in SW corner
DATE: 19/6/2005ORIGINAL SCALE: 1:10
PLANNED BY: C WESTWWOD
S FOSTERDRAWN BY: S FOSTER
KEY
FEATURE CONTINUESBUT NOT EXPOSED
CHARCOAL
TILE
BRICK
PLASTER
CHALK
+ DATUM POINT 104.54m OD REDUCED LEVEL
REDUCED LEVELS (mOD)1. 103.112. 103.583. 103.954. 104.43
5. 104.66. 104.757. 105.148. 104.53
9. 104.710. 104.8511. 105.1312. 104.87
13. 104.7414. 104.4115. 103.97
16. 103.717. 103.11
CONTEXTS101 topsoil, pebbles
102 darker, pebbles, moist
133 lens, plaster, fine, powdery
105 orange sandy deposit, evidence of burning
126 rubble layer, grey-white, roof tile, brick fragments,
mortar and plaster
130 brick layer and tile
127 sandy layer
131 rubble layer, brick, tile and plaster
132 natural red sandstone
8/14/2019 Gnosall 2005
24/31
WAG Gnosall Report 2005 24
GNO05 /AREA 2/TRENCH 1 / SONDAGE 1/ East Facing Wall SECTION 25
ORIGINAL SCALE: 1:10
PLANNED BY:
DRAWN BY: E HUGHESA PEARSALL
ILLUSTRATED BY: A PEARSALL
KEY
FEATURE CONTINUES
BUT NOT EXPOSED
REDUCED LEVEL99.99
REDUCED LEVELS (mOD)1: 99.352 99.043 98.894 98.925 98.526 98.36
CONTEXTS500 loamy soil wit h small pebbles 0.05 to 5cm
501 very compacted orange sandy soil, frequent rounded silica pebbles503 natural, sand with ri ver-washed gravel
8/14/2019 Gnosall 2005
25/31
WAG Gnosall Report 2005 25
GNO05 / AREA 2/ TRENCH 1 /SONDAGE 1 /No rth Facing Wall SECTION 26
ORIGINAL SCALE: 1:10
PLANNED BY:
DRAWN BY: E HUGHESA PEARSALL
ILLUSTRATED BY: A PEARSALL
KEY
FEATURE CONTINUES
BUT NOT EXPOSED
+ DATUM POINT
REDUCED LEVEL99.99
REDUCED LEVELS (mOD)7 99.328 99.099 98.8810 98.8011 98.58
12 98.40
CONTEXTS500 loamy soil wit h small pebbles 0.05 to 5cm501 very compacted orange sandy soil, frequent rounded silica pebbles502 dry stone wall with rubble spread503 natural, sand with ri ver-washed gravel
8/14/2019 Gnosall 2005
26/31
WAG Gnosall Report 2005 26
GNO05 / AREA 2/TRENCH 1 /SONDAGE 1 /West Facing Wall SECTION 27
ORIGINAL SCALE: 1:10
PLANNED BY:
DRAWN BY: E HUGHESA PEARSALL
ILLUSTRATED BY: A PEARSALL
KEY
FEATURE CONTINUES
BUT NOT EXPOSED
REDUCED LEVEL
99.99
REDUCED LEVELS (mOD)
13 99.3514 99.1815 98.9316 98.7017 98.42
CONTEXTS500 loamy soil wit h small pebbles 0.05 to 5cm501 very compacted orange sandy soil, frequent rounded silica pebbles
502 dry stone wall with rubble spread503 natural, sand with ri ver-washed gravel
8/14/2019 Gnosall 2005
27/31
WAG Gnosall Report 2005 27
GNO05 / AREA 2/TRENCH 1 /SONDAGE 1 /South Facing Wall SECTION 28
ORIGINAL SCALE: 1:10
PLANNED BY: E HUGHES
A PEARSALL
DRAWN BY: A PEARSALL
KEY
FEATURE CONTINUESBUT NOT EXPOSED
REDUCED LEVEL99.99
REDUCED LEVELS (mOD)
18 98.88
19 98.0120 98.43
CONTEXTS501 very compacted orange sandy soil, frequent rounded silica pebbles502 dry stone wall with rubble spread
Natural
8/14/2019 Gnosall 2005
28/31
8/14/2019 Gnosall 2005
29/31
8/14/2019 Gnosall 2005
30/31WAG Gnosall Report 2005 30
A2/Trench 1 500 501 504
blackglazed ware fine 3 2
blackglazed ware coarse 3 1
burnt coarseware
brown mottled ware 13 8
yellow gl azed ware
brownware 4blue and white 6 1
earthenware
slipware 5 12
purpleware
manganese ware
stoneware 3 2
creamware 6
saltglaze 1
greenglaze(medieval)
white glaze 12
modern
china
green and white
earthenware non glazed 3 2
earthenware slip only
lustreware
pearlware
bone
11+rodent
skull
2
window glass 4 4
glass clear
glass green 2 4
glass blue
glass brown
pipe stem/bowl 21/2 4
tile roof 1
tile floor 6 3
brick
mortar
plaster
metal iron 3 2
metal other
slate
coal 1
shellslag 8 3 abundant
charcoal 5
burnt stone
silver cig paper
silver milk bottle top
salad sieve bowl
tooth
Terracotta pot 1
8/14/2019 Gnosall 2005
31/31
Acknowledgements.
I would like to thank the many members of the Wolverhampton Archaeology Group who gave up
their Sundays to come and dig. Without their enthusiasm and hard work, this excavation would
have been impossible. Martin, as ever, has toiled long and hard to set out this document on the
computer.
I should also like to thank Peter Gillard for his interest and help over the year and also to Mr and
Mrs Herbert for allowing us to return and dig on their property.
WAG Members
Emma Hughes, Assistant Site Director
Sue Foster
Carole Griffiths
Martin Holland
Chris Robinson
Sandra VintClive Westwood
Brian Perrett
Mike Durrant
Barbara Riley
Paul Hadfield
Andrew Pearsall
Brett Harrison
Copyright Notice.
The contents of WAG Projects are copyright and may not be copied or stored in an information
retrieval system without the prior permission of the WAG Chairman.