Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
NCA-017
17th-21st May & 4th-6th August 2010
Andy Gaunt and Emily Gillott
Nottinghamshire Community Archaeology
Nottinghamshire County Council
Contributors
The survey was undertaken by Andy Gaunt and Emily Gillott of
Nottinghamshire County Council Community Archaeology, along with
members of the Woodborough Photographic Recording Group and members
of the community archaeology volunteers group, and was funded by the
Nottinghamshire County Council Local Improvement Schemes.
Acknowledgements
St. Swithuns PCC through churchwarden Alan Wright
Woodborough Photographic Recording Group
Woodborough WI for 1982 survey records
Nottinghamshire Family History Society for transcripts of burial records
Archive Location
Nottinghamshire Historic Environment Record, Nottinghamshire County
Council, 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, NG29BJ.
community.archaeology@nottscc.gov.uk
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
1. Introduction
Members of the Woodborough Photographic Recording Group (WRPG)
commenced a social history survey of the headstones in the St. Swithuns
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 Swithuns 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).
5. Methodology
5.1 Mapping of surface features
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
Figure 4: St Swithuns Churchyard map showing surface gravestones, subsurface features and
cremation memorials.
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.
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 stone
are five clay bricks used as packing stones to prevent the stone collapsing
due to subsidence above the burial.
Headstones
Chest Tombs
Memorial Stone
Flatstone
Other
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).
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
1790
1800
1810
1820
1830
1840
1850
1860
1870
1880
1890
1900
s
1750
s
1740
1780
s
1730
1770
s
1720
s
1710
1760
s
1700
Figure 8: Bar chart showing the number of memorials from each decade period.
3
22
Sandstone; Readable
Sandstone; Partially Readable
Sandstone; Unreadable
Slate; Readable
Slate; Partially Readable
66
55
Figure 9: Pie chart showing the relative legibility of sandstone monuments against the slate monuments
in the graveyard.
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.
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.
Lost Pieces
Become Broken
Lost Decorative
Elements
Repositioned
Become Buried
Collapsed
Leaning
Sunk
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
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.
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.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
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.
Photograph 3
Photograph 4
Fragments of grave slabs with incised cruciform decoration (Left; No. 164, Right; No. 161)
Occurrences
6
2
1
1
1
Surname
Alvey
Jones
Helton
Slight
Occurrences
1
1
1
1
Figure 12: Table showing the surnames readable on the interior monuments. (Note No. 173 contains
both Cartwright and Lacock surnames).
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.
Not Inscribed, 3
Readable, 10
Partially
Readable, 5
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.
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 through
damp.
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 18th and 19th centuries. The 3dimensional 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.
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.
Appendix I
Graveyard Survey Map and Data
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Surname 1
Cumberland
Cumberland
Cumberland
Lees
Baxter
Glover
Stephenson
Toplis
Toplis
Baguley
Pinder
Smith
Bradley
Cumberland
Baguley
Parker
Hallam
Person 1
William
Ann
John
Mary
James
Mordecla
Ann
Samuel
Ann
Harriett
Joseph
Abel
Henry
William
Elizabeth
Ann
Joseph
Date
1808
1806
1823
1802
1851
Clay
Hanson
Hucknall
Hucknall
Hucknall
Hucknall
Winfield
Winfield
Mary
Mary
Mary
Joseph
William
Hannah
William
Mary
1830
18?4
1844
1835
1837
1838
Southorn
Southorn
1862
1814
30
Lealand
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
Lealand
Aslin
Toplis
Spencer
Ford
Elizabeth
Samuel
Edward
Newham
Ann
Newham
Sarah
John
Martha
Mary
1829
1831
1858
18??
1857
Hogg
Robinson
William
Georgina
1820
1853
39
Foster
Ann
1842
1831
1843
1837
1878
1875
187?
1872
1850
18?2
1828
1840
Person
2
Date
Elizabeth
Hannah
Mark
18??
Mary
18??
Sarah
1840
Mary
1854
1857
1782
Christine
Elizabeth
Others
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
Oliver
Robinson
Robinson
Robinson
George
William
Frederic
Easter
Ward
Ward
Wood
Mellows
Bousfield
Richardson
Wood
Alvey
William
Hannah
James
Ann
Sarah Jane
Paul
Annie
Francis
Studley
Alvey
Wakefield
Alvey
Wood
Wood
Wood
Ragsdale
Pool
Poole
Poole
Vera Maud
Samuel
Ann
Emily
Sarah
Thomas
Thomas
Elizabeth
William
John
William
1811
1828
1875
1831
1806
1873
1872
1864
1870
1835
1989
1840
1873
18??
1861
1841
1851
1874
1849
1875
1835
Wyld
Lee
Lee
Lee
Lee
Lee
Speechly
William
Frances
Elizabeth
Frances
John
Samuel
John
1838
1849
1847
1850
1836
1823
1800
Donnelly
Donnelly
William
Charles
Thomas
1856
1828
John
1884
Elizabeth
1864
Ann
Dorcas
Ethel
Mary
2004
1858
Mary
Sarah
1844
1831
Elizabeth
1852
Elizabeth
1859
Mary 1854,
Edwin
1865
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
Richardson
Southorn
Southorn
Robinson
Robinson
Donnelly
Donnelly
Donnelly
Donnelly
Orme
Dixon
Jerram
Brett
Brett
Osborn
Hannah
Jane
Robert
Elizabeth
Edward
Hannah
Thomas
Thomas
James
Thomas
Rosetta
Joseph
Ann
John
Elizabeth
Mary
Mary
Flinders
Flinders
Samuel
Elizabeth
1869
1845
Thorp
Hannah
1824
1800
1849
1806
1806
1838
1870
1855
1853
1827
1853
1867
1873
1827
1838
1828
107
Oldacres
108
109
Hewes
Andrews
John
Mary
Kirkby
William
Rev.
Samuel
Lealand
Thomas
Oldacres
Joseph
110
Hewes
Sarah
1824
111
Oldacres
1808
112
113
114
115
116
Oldacres
Hinpier
Lee
Southorn
Glover
Alice
Rev.
Thomas
Robert
John
Blanson
Wotton
Collisham
17??
1820
Love
1875
John
1870
Elizabeth
1826
Ann
1797
Mary
Rev.
James
Rev.
Richard
1831
Charles
Alice
1817
1739
1876
1872
1784
1779
17??
1712
1720
1837
1785
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
Glover
Glover
Southorn
Southorn
Southorn
Rose
Rose
Richardson
Patching
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
Patching
Howitt
Sellars?
Sellars?
Sellars
Brown
Alvey
Alvey
Alvey
Alvey
1758
John
George
Mary
Mary
Miriam
John
Marian
Henry
Watson
Sarah
Sarah
Christopher
Christopher
Ann
George
Elizabeth
Mary
1753
1777
1789
1785
1791
1878
1867
George
1764
Mary
1878
1868
1850
1727
1752
1705
Maria
1837
Emma
Louise
1877
Frances
1833
1833
1700
1724
170?
1718
137
138
139
Clay
Frances
Hucknall
Clay
Mary
1876
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
Parkyns
Warot
Lee
Lee
Mansfield
Elizabeth
Samuel
John
1894
1824
1732
1770
Wyld
Donnelly
Glazebrook
Cliff
Christopher
John
Ann
1792
1780
1767
1768
Wyld
Wyld
Cliff
Foster
Foster
Chouler
Oakley
William
Elizabeth
Daniel
Thomas
John
Louisa
James
1780
1778
1768
1833
1851
1872
1868
1874
Mary 1840
157
Wyld
Joseph
1819
Ann
1809
Appendix II
Internal Memorials Map and Data
Number
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
Surname 1
Helton
not visible
not visible
not visible
Ailwe
(Alvey)
not visible
Jones
Bond
167
168
169
170
171
Slight
Lacock
Lacock
Lacock
Lacock
172
173
174
175
176
Wood
Cartwright
Bainbridge
Lacock
Bainbridge
Person 1
John
Date
1767
Other Persons
Date
Emily Kate
1912
William
John Birch
Samuel Rev
Frederick
Goode
Carolus
Charles
Robert
Philip
John
Mary
Philip
Philip
William
1918
1912
1891
1683
1707
1700
1707
Catherine, John,
Bridget, Montagu
1693
Ann, Dorothy,
Charles
1668
1737
Mary
Appendix III
Cremation Memorials Map and Data
Number
177
Surname
Murphy
178
179
180
181
182
Hayward
Gorski
Clark
Woodland
Tew
183
Smith
184
185
Hall
Reeves
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
Rothera
Brewill
Brewill
Cotterill
Fairchild
Turner
Limb
Clay
Redmayne
195
196
Redmayne
Richardson
197
Smith
198
199
200
201
Hird
Hanson
Lawson
Lee
Scattergood
Musson
Williams
Hind
Litchfielfd
Molloy
Guest
Pidd
Welch
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
Person 1
Alan Michael
Douglas
Graham
Brenda
Claude Stuart
Edward
Peter William
Christone
Elizabeth
Pamela
John Henry
Date
2003
2009
2009
2007
2002
2006
Person 2
Date
Margaret
2009
Donald
Arthur
1972
Maurice S
Rothera
2007
Irene
Eleanor
1994
2002
Lucy
2006
2007
2007
2006
Margaret
Royce
Wendy
Joy
Frank
John Henry
Walter
Evelyn May
Rosemary Clare
Cecil Procter
Vere
Bertha
Mary (nee
Richardson)
Norman
Geoffrey
Arthur Cyril
Derek Peter
Donald
2007
2004
2008
2005
2002
1998
2006
1997
1996
May
Arthur Wynne
Arthur
Sydney Arthur
Gladys May
William Henry
Jack
Herbert
1995
1983
1992
1992
1993
2001
1993
1999
2002
1996
2001
1995
1993
1998
1992
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
Bleay
Butler
Bray
Cram
Welch
Stanley
Burton
Paulson
Taylor
Jamson
Atherton
Van Herrewege
Small
Kennell
Turner
Round
Riggott
Fairchild
Sheila
Charles
Charles Stanley
Maureen Helen
berenice
florence
Donald William
Tom
Betty Evelyn
Gaenor Gladys
Frederick O
Peggy
John
1983
1985
1986
1985
1987
1991
1993
1996
1995
1996
1997
1997
1998
1999
1999
1999
2000
2001
228
229
230
231
Parr
Pereira
Green
Skeen
232
232
233
234
235
236
237
Dunthorne
Duckitt
Clarke
Charlton
Ashton
Anne Christine
Jane
Andrew
Sally Anne
Joan Muriel
Frances
Margaret
Kevin
Iris
Olive
Greta
Marguerite
Leonard
Donald
Hildegard
Margaret
Lamb
Geoffrey Arthur
1991
238
239
Drury
Redmayne
1981
1981
240
241
242
243
246
246
247
248
Jones
Redmayne
Harrisson
Baguley
Bingham
Richardson
Trotman
Cooper
James Roy
Harold
Dora Eleanor
Catherine
Vera Florence
Stan R
Richard Wilfred
Percy
Nell
Peter Vaughan
Alice
2001
2004
2007
1981
May
1994
Minnie
Ro
1997
2007
Richard
William
2008
Thomas
Eric
2002
James
2003
Eileen
Mary
1997
1981
2003
1981
1983
1986
1983
1986
1987
1983
1971
1973
2001
2005
249
250
251
Gard
Lyon
Humber
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
Andrews
Brooks
Geary
Broome
England
Mee
Spencer
259
260
261
263
264
264
Green
Calthorp-Owen
Chapman
Burston
Perkins
Rook
Cara
Valerie
William Harold
John Henry
Don
Gordon
Stanley
Lewis William
Mick
Charles Edwin
Thomas
Kenneth
William Gordon
Stephen
Marian V
Barbara
Keith Muir
2003
2007
1998
1998
2004
2006
2006
1999
1995
2001
Reavill
Ernest W J
1977
266
Chapman
Harold Norman
1969
267
268
269
270
271
Taylor
Saunders
Enderby
Leslie
Hanson
Joyce
Archer
Iva Myrtle
Edith
Andrea
1998
1978
1985
1987
1987
Clarke
No inscription
Walker
Parker
Bianchina
Godfrey
Godfrey
278
Wilkinson
279
Mitchell
2007
Marjorie
Althea
2004
Rosemary
2001
2002
2001
2005
1992
1981
1995
265
272
273
274
275
275
276
277
Maurice
Mary Starr
1998
Hilary
Alan William
Enid Mary
Shriley Elzabeth
Simon Charles
Capt. Septimus
Richard
Thomas
Kenneth
2003
2008
2006
2007
1991
1969
Stephanie
M
Sarah
Ann
Frederick
Copley
Helen M
William
Norman
1980
1983
2004
1978
2004
Appendix IV
Record Sheet example
KEY INFORMATION
GRAVEYARD REF:
SURVEYOR(S):_______________________________________________
DATE:
WEATHER AND LIGHT CONDITIONS
MASON/MAKER:
TRANSCRIPT OF TEXT
MAIN MATERIAL
ENTIRELY STONE
SANDSTONE
GRANITE
MARBLE
SLATE
OTHER ___________________
OTHER MATERIALS
(TICK ANY OTHERS THAT ARE USED IN THE CONSTRUCTION OR DECORATION)
IRON
PORCELAIN
BRONZE
CERAMIC TILES
TERRACOTTA
WOOD
BRICK
PHOTOGRAPHY
ARTIFICIAL STONE
OTHER_____________________
CONCRETE
OTHER_____________________
LETTERING
(TICK ALL APPLICABLE)
INSCRIBED
INLAID
LEADED
RELIEF
PAINTED
OTHER__________
PAINT
HAS THE MEMORIAL BEEN PAINTED?
NO
YES
TOTAL COVERAGE
WELL PRESERVED
PARTIAL
WORN/FLAKED
CANT TELL
FRAGMENTARY
WIDTH
DEPTH
NO
YES
BRICK
CONCRETE
STONE
OTHER _____________________
TYPE OF MEMORIAL
HEADSTONE
STANDING CROSS
WALL MONUMENT
LEDGER/FLATSTONE
SCULPTURE
OTHER
OBELISK
CHEST TOMB
__________________
YOU WISH.
NEVER INSCRIBED
UP TO SURFACE INSCRIBED
UP TO SURFACE INSCRIBED
SKETCH OF MONUMENT
USE THIS SPACE TO SKETCH THE MONUMENT TO SHOW SHAPE, DESIGN, TEXT LAYOUT,
AND ANY OTHER INFORMATION YOU FEEL IS RELEVANT
LOCATION
THE MEMORIAL IS
NOT ENCLOSED
EXPOSED FACES:
ALL
UPWARD
NONE
NORTH
EAST
SOUTH
WEST
TOUCHING
NEARBY
GRASSED SURFACE
EXPOSED SOIL
OTHER MEMORIALS
CHURCH / CHAPEL
GRAVEYARD PATH
GRAVEYARD ENTRANCE
SLOPE
MEMORIAL IS:
AT TOP OF A SLOPE
AT BOTTOM OF A SLOPE
ON LEVEL/GENTLE INCLINE
NORTH
EAST
DOWN/FALLEN
SOUTH
WEST
UPWARDS
CONDITION
GENERAL POINTS; (TICK ALL THAT APPLY)
MONUMENT HAS;
SUNK
STARTED TO LEAN
BECOME BURIED
BEEN REPOSITIONED
CLEANED
REUSED
REPAIRED
MATERIALS USED:
STONE
STEEL
CONCRETE
OTHER
RESIN
____________
LEAD
VEGETATION (TICK ANY THAT APPLY)
LICHEN
IVY
ALGAE
OTHER PLANTS
MOSS
____________________________
TREES: MEMORIAL IS
DAMAGE
DESCRIBE ANY DAMAGE BEING CAUSED TO THE MONUMENT BY TREES, VEGETATION, OR
ANIMALS (BURROWING ETC).
PEOPLE
IS THE GRAVE VISITED / TENDED?
NO
YES
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
POLLUTION DEPOSIT
SALTS DEPOSIT
DELAMINATION
MISC. STAINING
CONTOUR SCALING
SURFACE BLISTERING
CONDITION SKETCH
USE THIS SHEET TO SKETCH THE OVERALL MONUMENT, MARKING THE EXTENT OF
DAMAGE/VEGETATION.