Woodborough Churchyard Survey

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


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]


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


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


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.


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


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


8/47

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


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


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.


11/47

Photograph 1: Buried feature 001 facing west.

Photograph 2: Buried feature 002 facing west.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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).


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.


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.


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.


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


22/47

Appendix I

Graveyard Survey Map and Data


23/47


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


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


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


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


28/47

157 Wyld Joseph 1819 Ann 1809


29/47

Appendix II

Internal Memorials Map and Data


30/47


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


32/47


33/47

Appendix III

Cremation Memorials Map and Data


34/47


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


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


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


38/47


39/47

Appendix IV

Record Sheet example


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


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


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


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


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


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)


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:


47/47

CONDITION SKETCH

USE THIS SHEET TO SKETCH THE OVERALL MONUMENT, MARKING THE EXTENT OF

DAMAGE / VEGETATION.

Woodborough Churchyard Survey

Documents

Transcript of Woodborough Churchyard Survey