Project No 15

Gnosall Report 2005

by

Jan Holland

January 2008
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...................................... 7
Figure 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 .............................................................................. 10
Figure 12 Area 2 Trench 1 Sections of sondage ............................................................................. 11
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

WAG Gnosall Report 2005 2

Introduction
Our previous two seasons at Parkside, a former vicarage built in 1854 to the east of Selman
th
Street in the Staffordshire village of Gnosall, were centred on the search for a 16 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 circular
feature and a linear feature further south towards the ha-ha. Neither of these features 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.

Pipe line

? holloway

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 24
shows 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.

WAG Gnosall Report 2005 3

Figure 2 Plan 19

Figure 3 Section 24

WAG Gnosall Report 2005 4

 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.

WAG Gnosall Report 2005 5

Figure 6 Plan 20

Figure 7 Section 29, South facing section of Trench 4

WAG Gnosall Report 2005 6

We decided to re-evaluate the current route of Selman Street in relation to the Holloway and the
neighbouring properties. The path of the Holloway is still evident alongside the modern
cemetery situated on the Stafford Road opposite the lower garden area of Parkside.

holloway
Figure 8 Aerial photograph of Selman Street. Courtesy of Google Earth

The geophysics (fig 1) shows the possible line of the Holloway through the lower garden area en
route to St Lawrence church, the original entrance of which was on the north side of the
building. With this in mind we looked again at the composite diagram of the overlaid aerial
photograph and tithe map onto the Parkfield site (Figure 9) to determine how the course of the
road may have changed.

It appears that the church boundary has moved 5 m in towards the church and the boundary of
the property has moved 5m north towards St Lawrence Cottage. The original line of the road
ran approximately along the line of the current dahlia bed. A possible boundary onto the
property is shown at ninety degrees to the road to bring the frontage of the property in line with
St Lawrence Cottage. As seen on Plan 20, the current investigation may have possibly picked
up a corner of the property and a driveway surface. The high proportion of pipe stems to other
finds in the trench would support this being an outdoor area.

WAG Gnosall Report 2005 7

Figure 9 Aerial photograph with tithe and geophysics superimposed

WAG Gnosall Report 2005 8

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 Site 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).

WAG Gnosall Report 2005 9

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 area
1/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.

WAG Gnosall Report 2005 10

Figure 12 Area 2 Trench 1 Sections of sondage

WAG Gnosall Report 2005 11

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

WAG Gnosall Report 2005 12

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
th
evidence prior to the 19 century and no medieval pottery.

WAG Gnosall Report 2005 13

Figure 15 Map of Gnosall Township showing the apportionments [8]

Figure 16 1902 OS Map of Gnosall [1]

WAG Gnosall Report 2005 14

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
th
dating from the late 16 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 little
chambers.[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 the prebend was vacant by October 1551 and the prebendal
hall 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
th
419a may be the 19 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
th
most common form of dwelling from the late 15 century was a 2 or 3 bay hall house [9]. When
trees for crucks became rare, truss construction t o o k o v e r . T h 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
WAG Gnosall Report 2005 15
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 stood here 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 the
church 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.

WAG Gnosall Report 2005 16

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

WAG Gnosall Report 2005 17

.

Appendix

WAG Gnosall Report 2005 18

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

WAG Gnosall Report 2005 19

GNO 04/A1/A1/EXT2 Deep Area Sondage PLAN 19

ORIGINAL SCALE: 1:20

PLANNED BY: E HUGHES

DRAWN BY: J HOLLAND

KEY

FEATURE CONTINUES
BUT NOT EXPOSED

BRICK

TILE

MORTAR

REDUCED LEVEL

REDUCED LEVELS (m OD)

1 103.62

CONTEXT

131 rubble layer

WAG Gnosall Report 2005 20

GNO 05 A1/T4/ PLAN 20

ORIGINAL SCALE: 1:20

PLANNED BY: A PEARSALL

E HUGHES

DRAWN BY: M HOLLAND

KEY
FEATURE CONTINUES BUT NOT EXPOSED

BRICK

REDUCED LEVEL
99.99

REDUCED LEVELS (mOD)

1 104.94
2 104.78
3 104.62

WAG Gnosall Report 2005 21

GNO 05 A2/ SITE PLAN 2

ORIGINAL SCALE: 1:50

PLANNED BY: A PEARSALL

DRAWN BY: A PEARSALL

WAG Gnosall Report 2005 22

GNO 05 A1/EXTENSION 2/ East Facing Wall SECTION 24
1 Metre section in SW corner
DATE: 19/6/2005
ORIGINAL SCALE: 1:10

PLANNED BY: C WESTWWOD

S FOSTER
DRAWN BY: S FOSTER

KEY

FEATURE CONTINUES
BUT NOT EXPOSED

CHARCOAL

TILE

BRICK

PLASTER

CHALK

+ DATUM POINT 104.54m OD

REDUCED LEVEL

REDUCED LEVELS (mOD)

1. 103.11
2. 103.58
3. 103.95
4. 104.43
5. 104.6
6. 104.75
7. 105.14
8. 104.53
9. 104.7
10. 104.85
11. 105.13
12. 104.87
13. 104.74
14. 104.41
15. 103.97
16. 103.7
17. 103.11

CONTEXTS
101 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

WAG Gnosall Report 2005 23

GNO05 /AREA 2/TRENCH 1 / SONDAGE 1/ East Facing Wall SECTION 25

ORIGINAL SCALE: 1:10

PLANNED BY:

DRAWN BY: E HUGHES

A PEARSALL

ILLUSTRATED BY: A PEARSALL

KEY

FEATURE CONTINUES
BUT NOT EXPOSED

REDUCED LEVEL
99.99

REDUCED LEVELS (mOD)

1: 99.35
2 99.04
3 98.89
4 98.92
5 98.52
6 98.36

CONTEXTS
500 loamy soil with small pebbles 0.05 to 5cm
501 very compacted orange sandy soil, frequent rounded silica pebbles
503 natural, sand with river-washed gravel

WAG Gnosall Report 2005 24

GNO05 / AREA 2/ TRENCH 1 /SONDAGE 1 /North Facing Wall SECTION 26

ORIGINAL SCALE: 1:10

PLANNED BY:

DRAWN BY: E HUGHES

A PEARSALL

ILLUSTRATED BY: A PEARSALL

KEY

FEATURE CONTINUES
BUT NOT EXPOSED

+ DATUM POINT

REDUCED LEVEL
99.99

REDUCED LEVELS (mOD)

7 99.32
8 99.09
9 98.88
10 98.80
11 98.58
12 98.40

CONTEXTS
500 loamy soil with small pebbles 0.05 to 5cm
501 very compacted orange sandy soil, frequent rounded silica pebbles
502 dry stone wall with rubble spread
503 natural, sand with river-washed gravel

WAG Gnosall Report 2005 25

GNO05 / AREA 2/TRENCH 1 /SONDAGE 1 /West Facing Wall SECTION 27

ORIGINAL SCALE: 1:10

PLANNED BY:

DRAWN BY: E HUGHES

A PEARSALL

ILLUSTRATED BY: A PEARSALL

KEY

FEATURE CONTINUES
BUT NOT EXPOSED

REDUCED LEVEL
99.99

REDUCED LEVELS (mOD)

13 99.35
14 99.18
15 98.93
16 98.70
17 98.42

CONTEXTS
500 loamy soil with small pebbles 0.05 to 5cm
501 very compacted orange sandy soil, frequent rounded silica pebbles
502 dry stone wall with rubble spread
503 natural, sand with river-washed gravel

WAG Gnosall Report 2005 26

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 CONTINUES
BUT NOT EXPOSED

REDUCED LEVEL
99.99

REDUCED LEVELS (mOD)

18 98.88
19 98.01
20 98.43

Natural
CONTEXTS
501 very compacted orange sandy soil, frequent rounded silica pebbles
502 dry stone wall with rubble spread

WAG Gnosall Report 2005 27

GNO 04 A1/T4//SOUTH FACING SECTION 29

ORIGINAL SCALE: 1:10

PLANNED BY: E HUGHES

A PEARSALL

DRAWN BY: J HOLLAND

KEY
FEATURE CONTINUES BUT NOT EXPOSED

+ DATUM POINT 105.19m OD

REDUCED LEVELS (mOD)

1. 1105.38
2. 105.19
3. 104.93
4. 104.66

CONTEXTS
500
501
502

WAG Gnosall Report 2005 28

Finds
A1/Trench 4 400 402
blackglazed ware fine 10 2
blackglazed ware coarse 2 2
grey coarseware 1
brown mottled ware 7
yellow glazed ware
brownware 2 1
blue and white
earthenware
slipware 2 1
purpleware 1
manganese ware
stoneware 2 1
creamware 3
saltglaze
greenglaze(medieval)
white glaze 1
modern 1
china
green and white
earthenware non glazed
earthenware slip only
lustreware
pearlware 1
bone 6 3
window glass 1
glass clear 1
glass green 3 6
glass bottle part 1
glass brown 1
pipe stem/bowl 15/1 21/1
tile roof
tile floor 4 1
brick
mortar 3
plaster
metal iron 1
metal other
slate
coal
shell
slag
charcoal 3
burnt stone
silver cig paper
silver milk bottle top
salad sieve bowl
tooth
Flint 1

WAG Gnosall Report 2005 29

 A2/Trench 1 500 501 504
blackglazed ware fine 3 2
blackglazed ware coarse 3 1
burnt coarseware
brown mottled ware 13 8
yellow glazed ware
brownware 4
blue 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
11+rodent 2
bone skull
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
shell
slag 8 3 abundant
charcoal 5
burnt stone
silver cig paper
silver milk bottle top
salad sieve bowl
tooth
Terracotta pot 1

WAG Gnosall Report 2005 30

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 Vint
Clive 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.

WAG Gnosall Report 2005 31