benner lane, west end, woking surrey - cotswold archaeology · 2019-07-09 · 1 benner lane, west...

Benner Lane, West End, Woking Surrey

Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design

for

Martin Grant Homes Ltd

CA Project: 779036

CA Report: 18166

May 2018

1

Benner Lane, West End, Woking

Surrey

Post-Excavation Assessment and

Updated Project Design

CA Project: 779036 CA Report: 18166

prepared by Sam Wilson, Project Supervisor

date 31/01/18

checked by Karen E Walker, Principal Post-Excavation Manager

date 03/03/18

approved by

signed Karen E Walker, Principal Post-Excavation Manager

date 17/05/2018

issue 02 (after comment from Surrey Heritage Conservation Team)

This report is confidential to the client. Cotswold Archaeology accepts no responsibility or liability to any third party to whom this report, or any part of it, is made known. Any such party relies upon this report

entirely at their own risk. No part of this report may be reproduced by any means without permission.

Benner Lane, Woking, Surrey: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design

2

© Cotswold Archaeology

CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 6

Location, topography and geology .......................................................... 6

Archaeological background ..................................................................... 7

2 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES .................................................................................... 10

3 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................. 12

4 RESULTS ............................................................................................................ 12

Fieldwork summary ................................................................................. 12

Phasing ................................................................................................... 12

Area 1 (Fig. 3) ......................................................................................... 13

Period 4: Medieval/Post-medieval .......................................................... 13

Undated .................................................................................................. 14

Area 2 (Fig. 4) ......................................................................................... 14

Undated .................................................................................................. 14

Area 3 (Fig. 5) ......................................................................................... 15

Period 2: Iron Age ................................................................................... 15

Period 3: Roman ..................................................................................... 17

Period 4: Medieval - post-medieval ......................................................... 18

Undated .................................................................................................. 19

Area 4 (Fig. 6) ......................................................................................... 20

Period 1: Late Bronze ............................................................................. 20

Undated .................................................................................................. 20

6 FACTUAL DATA AND STATEMENTS OF POTENTIAL ..................................... 21

Stratigraphic Record: factual data ........................................................... 21

Stratigraphic record: statement of potential ............................................ 21

Artefactual record: factual data ............................................................... 22

Artefactual record: statements of potential.............................................. 23

Biological record: factual data ................................................................. 24

Biological record: statements of potential ............................................... 25

7 SUMMARY STATEMENT OF POTENTIAL ......................................................... 26

8 STORAGE AND CURATION ............................................................................... 28


3


9 UPDATED AIMS AND OBJECTIVES .................................................................. 28

10 PUBLICATION ..................................................................................................... 29

Synopsis of Proposed Report ................................................................. 30

11 PROJECT TEAM ................................................................................................. 31

12 TASK LIST ........................................................................................................... 31

13 TIMETABLE ......................................................................................................... 32

14 REFERENCES .................................................................................................... 32

APPENDIX 1: STRATIGRAPHIC ASSESSEMENT BY SAM WILSON ............................ 36

APPENDIX 2: POTTERY BY KATIE MARSDEN .............................................................. 38

APPENDIX 3: LITHICS BY JACKY SOMMERVILLE ........................................................ 44

APPENDIX 4: MIXED FINDS BY KATIE MARSDEN AND GRACE P JONES ................. 44

APPENDIX 5: SLAG BY DAVID DUNGWORTH .............................................................. 46

APPENDIX 6: ANIMAL BONE BY MATILDA HOLMES .................................................... 50

APPENDIX 7: ENVIRONMENTAL REMAINS BY SARAH F WYLES............................... 51

APPENDIX 8: OASIS REPORT FORM ............................................................................ 57


4


LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Fig. 1 Site location plan (1:25,000)

Fig. 2 Plan of excavated areas (1:1000)

Fig. 3 Plan of Area 1 (1:200)


Fig. 5 Phased plan of Area 3 (1:500)


Fig. 7 Area 1 sections and photographs (1:20)

Fig. 8 Area 2 sections and photographs (1:20)

Fig. 9 Area 3 sections and photograph (1:20)






Fig. 15 Photographs: Area 2, general pre-excavation view; Area 3, general pre-

excavation view and roundhouse 3006; Area 3, general pre-excavation view and

roundhouse 3003; Area 3, working shot,

List of Tables

Table 1: Pottery Fabric Summary (Appendix 2)

Table 2: Main categories of material (Appendix 5)

Table 3: Summary of material (Appendix 5)

Table 4: Comparable smelting sites in the Thames Valley (Appendix 5)

Table 5: Animal remains recorded by context (Appendix 6)

Table 6 Assessment table of the palaeoenvironmental remains (Appendix 7)


5


Summary

Site Name: Benner Lane Location: Benner Lane, West End, Woking, Surrey

NGR: 495100 161220

Type: Excavation

Date: 17 July to 23 August 2017

Planning Reference: APP/D3640/W/15/3139682

Location of archive: To be Confirmed

Accession Number: To be Confirmed

Site Code: BENL17

A programme of archaeological investigation was undertaken by Cotswold Archaeology in

July and August 2017 at the request of Martin Grant Homes at Benner Lane, West End,

Woking, Surrey. Four areas totalling 6,073m² were excavated across the development area.

The site has revealed evidence of apparently isolated Late Bronze Age activity and of a

small rural settlement dating from the mid-late Iron Age that comprised up to three round

houses and associated four-post structures. There is limited ceramic evidence to suggest

some continuing activity in the early Roman period. The charred plant assemblages are

indicative of a rural settlement with domestic activities, including a small amount of crop

processing taking place in the vicinity. Evidence for iron smelting of this period consistent

with other sites in the Thames Valley was also identified, although no in situ industrial

remains were present. A series of medieval / post-medieval ditches, ditched trackways and a

possible hollow way were also recorded.

This document presents a quantification and assessment of the evidence recovered from the

excavation. It considers the evidence collectively in its local, regional and national context,

and presents an updated project design for a limited programme of post-excavation analysis

to bring the results to appropriate publication. The site is considered to be of local - regional

significance given the lack of available local comparative sites and material. Some further

analysis is proposed. This will include work on the pottery, and selected charred plant

remains, charcoal and metalworking residues. It is further proposed that a summary report

incorporating the updated results should be published in the local county archaeological

journal, Surrey Archaeological Collections.


6


1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 In July and August 2017, Cotswold Archaeology (CA) carried out an

archaeological investigation at the request of Martin Grant Homes at Benner Lane,

West End, Woking, Surrey (centred at NGR: 495095 161218; Fig. 1). Planning

permission (Planning ref: APP/D3640/W/15/3139682) for the erection of 95no.

dwellings, together with vehicular and pedestrian access, car parking, landscaping

and open space was granted on appeal by Surrey Heath Borough Council (SHBC)

conditional (condition 15) on a programme of archaeological work. The excavation

was undertaken in accordance with a detailed Written Scheme of Investigation

(WSI) produced by CA (2017a) and approved by SHBC. The fieldwork also

followed Standard and Guidance: Archaeological Excavation (CIfA 2014), the

Management of Research Projects in the Historic Environment (MORPHE): Project

Manager’s Guide and accompanying PPN3: Archaeological Excavation (Historic

England 2015). It was monitored by Alex Eggington, Archaeological Officer for

Surrey County Council, including site visits on 1 and 16 August.

Location, topography and geology 1.2 The development site is approximately 4.6ha in extent and is located to the east of

the village of West End on relatively level land, with a very slight slope down to the

southeast. The site comprises an irregular parcel, formed of four irregular,

rectangular fields located to the north, east and south-east of the Grade II listed

Malthouse Farm (English Heritage Building ID: 287196).

1.3 The western boundary of the site, north and south of Malthouse Farm, runs

alongside or close to Benner Lane, a small two-lane road. The northern Site

margin is defined by Fairfield Lane which provides access to residences to the

east of the Site. The eastern boundary runs along a historic field boundary, with

four isolated residences beyond. Finally, the southern boundary abuts the Holy

Trinity Church of England Primary School. All of the site margins are defined by

mixed mature trees and hedgerows, predominantly following historic field

boundaries. Internal land divisions (Fig. 2) are also formed of mature tree-lines

and hedgerows. The site lies at approximately 43m aOD (above Ordnance

Datum).

1.4 The underlying bedrock geology of the area is mapped as sedimentary bedrock of

the Windlesham Formation (sand, silt, and clay) formed approximately 34 to 56


7


million years ago in the Palaeogene Period in an environment dominated by

shallow seas. No superficial deposits are recorded (BGS Online, 2018).

1.5 At the time of excavation the site was under rough pasture, with no other land use

apparent.

Archaeological background 1.6 The archaeological potential of the site has been examined in detail in an earlier

Archaeological Desk-Based Heritage Assessment (ASE 2015) a succinct

summary of which is given below.

Prehistoric

1.7 Throughout the prehistoric period in Surrey, evidence for occupation and

settlement is generally sparse. Flintwork deriving from the Upper Palaeolithic and

the Mesolithic periods show that hunter-gatherer communities were exploiting

territory in the county, with a 400,000 year old flint axe being found on a gravel

terrace of the River Wey in Farnham, northwest Surrey, and a 30,000 year old

hand axe as well as mammoth tusks being found at a quarry in Farnham. Most

material has been recovered from river valleys and terraces, and sites on or close

to the Downs (Cotton 2004). There is some evidence to suggest that during the

Mesolithic period activity may have been concentrated on the free draining soils of

the river valleys, lake sides and hill slopes (Cotton 2004, 23).

1.8 During the Neolithic and Bronze Age, forest clearance, the construction of large

earthen monuments, the production of pottery, the domestication of animals and

cereals and the later development of field systems are associated with a change to

a more sedentary existence and development of social and economic complexity.

On West End Common (to the west of the site) a Scheduled Monument (list no.

1007890) includes four partially excavated contiguous bowl barrows surrounded

by a single ditch, which survive well and are of a rare form nationally. Bronze Age

finds have been recovered from Chobham (c. 3 miles to the northeast of West

End; Wakeford, 2014, 1). However, settlement evidence remains elusive,

particularly before the later Bronze Age when much of the evidence is

concentrated in the Thames Valley (Cotton 2004, 28).

1.9 During the Iron Age, settlement appears to have been concentrated in the river

valleys of the county (Poulton 2004, 51). Iron Age discoveries include occupation

sites near Thorpe, Staines, Runfold and Tongham (Bird 2006). Excavations near


8


Farnham at Tongham Nurseries revealed extensive Iron Age settlement (4th to

2nd centuries BC), and at Runfold Farm also showed settlement evidence set in a

landscape of fields and trackways (Preston, 2011).

1.10 Prior to the recent evaluation there were no recorded prehistoric remains within

the site. The evaluation identified an isolated pit containing a large number of

substantial pottery sherds dating to the Late Bronze Age in addition to possible

round house drip gullies and associated features (CA 2017b).

Roman

1.11 Roman rule imposed considerable socio-cultural and economic changes to the

south-east. The period witnessed the establishment of centralised administrative

control from planned urban centres, the development of industry and the

construction of roads providing arteries of communication throughout the country.

However, Bird suggests that a pattern of continuity from the Iron Age may have

characterised many aspects of early Roman Surrey (Bird 2004). No large towns

were planned in the county, possibly due to the proximity of London, and no larger

villa estates have been identified as yet (Bird 2004, 35). For the Romano-British

population of Surrey, daily economic and social life may have continued much as it

always had done. During the Roman period, the Ferley Heath to Bagshot Roman

Road was constructed. The road runs south-east - north-west approximately 380m

west of the Site. Other than the projected line of the Ferley Heath to Bagshot

Roman Road, no other Roman sites are recorded in the vicinity.

Early medieval

1.12 Following the end of Roman rule in the early 5th century AD, the migration into

southern and eastern Britain of peoples from northern Europe introduced a new

language and material culture. However, knowledge of the period following the

departure of the Romans is fragmentary, in part due to issues with dating evidence

as a result of the lack of official coinage and the decline of the big pottery

industries. There may have been some continuity in social networks and territorial

units within the south-east during the early Anglo-Saxon period. Anglo-Saxon

settlement in Surrey was initially limited to the lower river terraces in the north and

east of the county until the 6th century, when settlements began to appear on the

dip slope of the North Downs. During the later Saxon period nucleated villages

developed at the spring line of the Downs, eclipsing their mother settlements, and

in some cases the equidistant spacing of the villages suggests that the boundaries


9


of the parishes may have been inherited from the boundaries of Romanised villa

estates (Brandon 2005, 63). Each parish formed an economic unit with good

arable land, between common downland pasture for sheep and woodland pasture

for the cattle. There are no recorded early medieval sites within the vicinity of the

Site.

Post-medieval

1.13 West End, so named for once being the western limit of Chobham village, was

particularly suited to the growing of rhododendrons and azaleas due to its sandy

soil - to which end several notable nurseries were developed during the 19th

century. A nursery shown within the Site boundaries on the 1915-16 Ordnance

Survey mapping may have had such origins (ASE 2015).

1.14 Historical mapping appears to provide contradictory evidence about the use of the

site in the post-medieval period. Rocque’s map of 1770 suggests that the site was

under arable cultivation, although first series Ordnance Survey mapping of 1816

appears to show it as open heath or pasture. This is supported by the 1845 Tithe

mapping of Chobham Parish which doesn’t illustrate the site, suggesting it is still

peripheral, unenclosed land at that date. By the Ordnance Survey mapping of

1870, the site more or less appears in its modern form.

1.15 It is recorded that a German Heinkel He111 bomber crashed in the fields

immediately to the north-west of the Site on 24th September 1940, and to the west

of Benner Lane, having been hit by anti-aircraft fire over Weybridge (WEVS,

2018).

Previous Work

1.16 An archaeological evaluation was undertaken by Cotswold Archaeology in June

2017 (CA 2017b). The evaluation comprised 33 machine-excavated trenches, 30m

long, over four fields, of which 15 (40%) contained archaeological features at

depths of 0.4 – 0.6m below the modern ground level (Fig. 2). The features

comprised mainly ditches and gullies, but also included a number of small pits,

postholes, a hollow-way and at least one medieval/post-medieval furrow. Many of

the features remain undated, however some discrete features contained clearly

dateable assemblages.

1.17 In Trench 2 a small pit produced a considerable assemblage of Late Bronze Age

pottery, worked flint and animal bone. Even though Trenches 28 and 32 did not


10


produce any diagnostically dateable finds, some of the gullies, including at least

two roundhouse drip gullies, as well as postholes and pits, suggested some

degree of Iron Age settlement activity. Allied to this was further evidence of ditches

in Trenches 29, 31 and 33, perhaps forming enclosures beyond and enclosing the

round houses. To the south of this focus a Late Iron Age/Roman pit was recorded

(Trench 23) truncated by a later substantial ditch. Again the date and nature of this

feature was indicative of Late Iron Age settlement activity on the site.

1.18 In the south-west of the site, a group of undated post holes (Trench 13) and

ditches (Trenches 12 and 14) was thought to be indicative of further later

prehistoric activity. The evaluation suggested evidence of Late Bronze Age and

Late Iron Age/Roman activity on the site (CA 2017b).

2 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

2.1 The aims of the excavation were to establish the character, quality, date,

significance and extent of any archaeological remains or deposits surviving within

the site. This information will assist the Local Planning Authority in making an

informed judgement on the likely impact upon the archaeological resource by the

proposed development.

2.2 The objectives of the excavation were laid out in a project design produced by CA

(2017a) and in accordance with a brief provided by Surrey County Council.

2.3 Further research aims were identified within the regional research framework

(Surrey Archaeological Research Framework, 2006) as follows:

Later Bronze Age

2.4 Whilst there is good evidence of Bronze Age activity (especially funerary) in Surrey

on the gravel terraces, away from this area, especially on the heathlands and clay

deposits evidence by comparison is sparse. Therefore any evidence of funerary

and especially settlement activity for this period is extremely important, and putting

that into a clearly dateable and cultural context even more so. As always

identifying any evidence of transition/continuity from Late Bronze Age to Early Iron

Age will also be a high priority. This site may well offer some insight into issues of

transition/continuity/hiatus etc.


11


Ø The extent to which single family pastoral farmsteads existed needs to be

determined.

Ø The lack of recorded building structures on the heathlands? Does this reflect the lack

of LBA settlement or is this the result of low modern levels of development affording

opportunities for investigation. Heathland barrows are relatively well recorded but

where are the settlements that supported these important burial sites?

Ø Large-scale land divisions are not well understood and there is a need to clarify their

frequency and date: subsequently to discover whether these might have defined land

rights and ownership or land use areas.

Ø Was the Heathland a construct of the Bronze Age expansion of agricultural activity?

Ø The longevity of land boundaries needs to be considered

Ø The changing size of communities into the Iron Age, their social and economic

relationships and the degree of economic inter-dependence in scale, social and

economic basis of settlement

Ø Palaeo-environmental evidence should be used to develop spatial chronologies for

settlement change and to identify functions of specific sites.

Ø Changes in settlement function should be compared to changes in other areas eg

pottery typologies, to look for relationships between them.

Ø Palaeo-environmental evidence, including lipid residues, should be used to try to

elucidate the use of middens and burnt mounds.

Late Iron Age/Early Roman

Ø Key for this period is the question of transition. The heathlands of Surrey are not

heavily developed in the Roman period and there is currently considerable

consensus in the view that the arrival of Roman rule brought little change to this part

of the Empire.

Ø Is there any evidence of change or continuity – consider boundary alignments,

building forms etc.


12


3 METHODOLOGY

3.1 Fieldwork commenced with the removal of topsoil and subsoil from the excavation

areas by mechanical excavator with a toothless grading bucket, under

archaeological supervision. A total 6,073m² was excavated, and comprised Area 1

(4,313m²), Area 2 (1,428m²), Area 3 (287m²), and Area 4 (225m²), targeted on foci of

archaeological features identified in the archaeological trial trench evaluation

(CA2017b).

3.2 The archaeological features thus exposed were hand-excavated to the bottom of

archaeological stratigraphy. All features were planned and recorded in accordance

with CA Technical Manual 1: Fieldwork Recording Manual (CA 2013). Deposits

were assessed for their environmental potential in accordance with CA Technical

Manual 2: The taking and processing of environmental and other samples from

archaeological sites (CA 2012). All artefacts recovered from the excavation were

retained in accordance with CA Technical Manual 3: Treatment of finds

immediately after excavation (CA 1995).

4 RESULTS

Fieldwork summary 4.1 Four areas were excavated, uncovering evidence for isolated Late Bronze Age

activity and low level rural settlement dating from the mid-late Iron Age including

up to three round houses and associated four-post structures, possibly continuing

in use into the early Roman period. Evidence for iron smelting of this period was

also identified although no in situ industrial remains were present. A series of

medieval and post-medieval ditches, ditched trackways and a possible hollow way

were also recorded. This section provides an overview of the excavation results;

detailed summaries of the recorded contexts, finds and environmental samples

(biological evidence) are to be found in Appendices 2-7.

Phasing 4.2 The assigning of features to periods was principally based on the dating of

artefactual evidence, although a number of features produced no dateable material.

Where possible, the latter have been broadly dated on the basis of stratigraphic

relationships with, or similarity to, dateable deposits. On the basis of these criteria,


13


recorded finds and features for both the evaluation and the excavation were

assigned to the following periods:-

· Period 1: Late Bronze Age (c.11000 - 700 BC) (Area 4, Evaluation

Trench 2, pit 205 only)

· Period 2: Late Iron Age (c.700 to AD 43) (Area 3)

· Period 3: Roman (AD 43 – c. AD 410) (Area 3)

· Period 4: medieval - Post-medieval (AD 1066 - c. AD1800) (Areas,1 3 & 4)

· Period 5: modern (1801-2000) (pottery only)

· Undated (Areas 1, 2, 3 & 4)

4.3 The results are discussed below by Area of the site. Not all areas of the site

contained features of all periods and Area 2 contained no features that could be

dated through artefacts. Area 3 contained the greatest density of archaeological

remains and provided evidence for the longest chronological span of use.

Area 1 (Fig. 3) 4.4 Natural geology 1002 of yellowish grey sand and clay with sub rounded flints and

iron mottling was encountered across the area at a depth of approximately 0.4m,

sealed below a subsoil 1001 of mid greyish brown clayey sand and a topsoil 1000

of mid greyish brown clayey sand.

Period 4: Medieval/Post-medieval 4.5 Two broadly parallel ditches were identified on a broadly north west-south east

alignment and continuing beyond the northern and southern boundaries of Area 1.

The easternmost ditch was slightly curvilinear in plan and had been previously

identified in evaluation Trenches 12 and 14. Within the excavated slots 1019, 1028

and 1030, it varied between 0.55-1.04m in width and 0.19-0.29m in depth. 1019

and 1028 contained single fills 1020 and 1029 respectively, of light yellowish grey

clayey sand. Ditch slot 1030 contained a light yellowish green coarse sand primary

fill 1031 of 0.1m thickness overlain by a mid-yellowish grey clayey sand secondary

fill 1032 (Fig. 8, Section EE). It may be that this ditch represents a continuation of

the sinuous ditch 3216 within Area 3.

4.6 Three slots were excavated through the westernmost ditch (1013, 1017 and 1023).

The width of the ditch varied between 0.6-1.2m and the depth between 0.15-

0.46m. They contained single fills 1014, 1018 and 1024 respectively, of

predominantly mid greyish brown clayey sand. Fill 1018 (Fig. 7, Section AA)


14


contained a single medieval pottery sherd (155g) - a possible jug neck, of Cheam

whiteware dateable to the 14th and 15th centuries (Pearce and Vince 1988). The

single pottery sherd is unreliable as dating evidence as there is otherwise relative

lack of medieval finds within Area 1 and the wider site. However, it is possible that

the ditch was located within a peripheral agricultural landscape in the medieval or

post-medieval period, perhaps forming a ditched route way of some form with ditch

1019, 1028, 1030 immediately to the north east. Fill 1014 within slot 1013

contained a single abraded fragment of lava quern of probable roman or medieval

date, the abraded nature suggesting it may be a residual find in a later feature.

4.7 Four isolated pits were identified within the area. Pit 1011 (Fig. 7, Section BB) was

oval in plan with a mid-grey clayey sand fill 1012 and contained two sherds of

pottery (126g) pottery in a hard-fired sandy fabric of medieval date.

Undated 4.8 Undated pit 1021 (Fig. 7, Section CC) was sub-oval in plan with well-defined

edges. It contained a single secondary fill 1022 of mottled mid greyish and

yellowish brown clayey sand. Pits 1015 and 1025 (Fig. 8, Section DD) were both

undated. Pit 1015 was 1.1m in length and sub-circular in plan with a maximum

depth of 0.16m, while 1025 was circular, 0.65m long and 0.3m deep.

4.9 A dispersed array of four undated post holes 1003, 1005, 1007, 1033 was

recorded in the south and west of Area 1, in addition to three (1303, 1305 and

1307) which were previously identified within evaluation Trench 13. All had been

heavily truncated with recorded depths of between 0.06-0.24m. Four of the post

holes (1035, 1037, 1039 and 1041) were not excavated. The post holes did not

form an obvious structural shape.

Area 2 (Fig. 4) 4.10 Natural geology 2002 of mid greyish yellow clayey sand and sandy gravels was

encountered at a depth of 0.37m, overlain by subsoil 2001 of dark reddish brown

silty sand and topsoil 2000 of mid greyish brown silty sand.

Undated 4.11 No further features were identified within the area, other than the north south

oriented undated ditch 2106 which continued beyond both the northern and

southern edges of the excavation area and posthole 2103 previously recorded in

evaluation Trench 21. Two additional slots 2003 and 2005 (Fig. 9, Section FF)


15


were excavated across the ditch with the width being recorded as varying between

0.53-0.68m and the depth varying between 0.19-0.38m. Each contained a single

fill, 2004 and 2006 respectively, of mid brownish grey silty sand with occasional

sub angular flint inclusions. The previously recorded posthole 2103 was oval in

plan, measuring 0.61m by 0.44m and 0.25m deep with two fills resembling a post

pipe and redeposited natural packing material.

Area 3 (Fig. 5) 4.12 The natural geology 3002 varied across the area and consisted of a mid-reddish

brown sand in the north with areas of sandy gravel and sandy clay becoming

increasingly common to the south. It was encountered at a depth of approximately

0.59m, sealed below a light whiteish grey silty sand subsoil 3001 and a mid-

greyish brown silty sand topsoil 3000.

Period 2: Iron Age

4.13 Two roundhouse ring gullies 3003 and 3006 and a small remnant of a possible

third 3116 were identified in Area 3, along with associated four-post structures

3213 and 3214 and evidence of nearby iron smelting.

4.14 The southernmost roundhouse 3003 was circular in plan, approximately 9.8m in

diameter, but truncated through part of the northern circumference. The ring gully

varied in depth and width, measuring up to 0.7m wide and 0.25m deep. (See Fig.

10, section GG gully 3136). Two distinct terminals 3164 (eastern) and 3162

(western), were excavated in the south-east of the gully circumference, indicating

that the original entrance position faced to the south-east. Terminal 3164

contained a mottled mid greyish brown sand fill 3165 containing animal bone, flint

and a concentrated, but disturbed deposit of Iron Age pottery (7, sherds, 254g) in

two fabrics. It is possible this was deposited during deliberate back-filling of the

terminus at the time of the roundhouse disuse.

4.15 The northern roundhouse 3006 was heavily truncated by later features, but of

similar dimensions and plan to 3003, measuring approximately 10.8m in diameter.

The ring gully varied in depth and width, up to 0.17m deep and 0.46m wide and

was most distinct at the southern edge of its circumference, petering out entirely to

the north (See Fig. 10, section HH gully 3026). As with 3003, two distinct terminals

3022 (western) and 3036 (eastern) were identified indicating a south-east facing

entrance which both contained a mid-greyish brown sand fill, 3023 and 3037

respectively, which contained charcoal fragments.


16


4.16 Pit 3171 was located approximately 3.5m to the south east of ring gully 3003. It

was circular in plan, with concave sides and base. It contained a charcoal rich fill

3172. With no evidence of burning in situ, this perhaps represents the disposal of

hearth material contemporary with the occupation of roundhouse 3003.

4.17 Two possible four-post structures were identified immediately north east of ring

gully 3003. Their proximity to 3003 seems too close for the structures to have

been contemporary and it is more likely they are associated with the occupation of

roundhouse 3006 or 3116. It is therefore tentatively possible to suggest at least

two phases of occupation during the Iron Age.

4.18 Four-post structure 3213 consisted of post holes 3085, 3087, 3100 (Fig. 13,

Section PP) and 3114 regularly spaced between 1.5-1.8m apart. The post holes

varied in width between 0.45-0.6m and depth between 0.07-0.22m. Fill 3086 within

posthole 3085 contained a fragment of fired clay, possibly from a loom weight or

similar. Approximately 2.5m to the south east, was the second four-post structure

3214 consisting of post holes 3152, 3158 and 3208 (from evaluation CA 2017b),

with a probable fourth truncated and lost. These post holes varied in width

between 0.35-0.4m and depth between 0.1-0.2m and were regularly spaced 1.7-

1.8m apart. The environmental evidence associated with the four-post structures

suggests the processing of various crops in the vicinity of the settlement.

4.19 It is possible that other post holes within this area, 3110, (Fig. 11, Section KK)

3210 (CA 2017b, Fig. 10, Section EE) and 3212 from Trench 32 (CA 2017b, Fig.

10, Section HH) represent the remnants of other similar structures either pre or

post-dating the occupation of roundhouse 3003, although they did not contain any

directly dateable material. It seems unlikely that they are related to the internal

structure of the house as survival of similar features might be expected in other

areas within 3003, even if some are likely to have been lost through truncation.

4.20 A small, truncated remnant of a possible third ring gully 3116 was located

approximately 8m north east of 3006. It measured 0.37m in width and 0.12m in

depth, dimensions comparable to ring gullies 3003 and 3006.

4.21 There is clear evidence for iron smelting in the vicinity of the site using a non-

tapping technique consistent with other prehistoric sites within the Thames Valley.

Slag was recovered from a number of features including round house terminal


17


3162 and appears to be concentrated within features in the northern and western

part of Area 3.

4.22 To the north of 3116 was a truncated stretch of ditch aligned approximately north

east-south west, previously identified within Trench 33. Terminal 3081 had a

concave side, base and an overall depth of 0.35m. It contained a single coarse

sand fill 3082 which contained iron smelting slag suggesting it may relate to the

Iron Age period of occupation.

4.23 In the north-western corner of Area 3, a possible occupation-related subsoil was

identified which contained pottery of Iron Age date. Three test pits, 3069, 3078 and

3080 were excavated through it and confirmed it to be up to 0.37m thick. It

appeared to have been partially cut, where present, by ditch 3215. In the same

vicinity small pits 3053 (Fig. 10, Section II) and 3112 also contained sherds of Iron

Age pottery. The upper fill of pit 3053, 3055, although root disturbed, consisted of

what appeared to be a distinct deposit of heat affected clay of uncertain origin, and

may be the remnant of a hearth, clay-lined pit or similar feature. However,

environmental sampling produced very little charcoal and there was no indication

that it related to any metal working processes.

4.24 The Iron Age phase of activity in Area 3 is clearly represented by what appears to

be a small scale settlement with round houses and associated structures, along

with evidence for iron smelting and agricultural practices. The limits of the

settlement were not able to be fully defined within the scope of the excavation.

Period 3: Roman

4.25 Ring gully 3006 was truncated by two parallel ditches, 3217 and 3218 forming a

probable track way or drove way, the southernmost with a distinct terminal 3047

0.28m deep (Fig. 11, Section JJ). Fill 3043 within slot 3042 of the southern ditch

3218 contained three sherds (65g) of wheelthrown pottery that can only be broadly

dated to the Roman period. Iron Age pottery from elsewhere in the ditch is likely to

be residual. Ditch 3218 was truncated by a post-medieval hollow way 3177 and

the northern ditch by parallel ditches 3106 and 3130 and ditch 3148, all of

probable post-medieval date.

4.26 In the southern corner of Area 3, evaluation Trench 23 identified a pit 2305

containing small quantities pottery of pottery of probable Middle to Late Iron Age

date (contexts 2306 and 207; 9 sherds, 67g). They include a plain, undifferentiated


18


rim from a vessel of neutral profile and a jar with out-turned rim (context 2307). In

addition, body sherds in a fine, micaceous sandy ware (22 sherds, 61g) of

probable Late Iron Age/Roman date, were also recovered from this context

(Marsden, CA 2017b). The pit was cut by a later but undated ditch 3196 (ditch

2303 in the evaluation (CA 2017)).

Period 4: Medieval - post-medieval

4.27 A feature 2803 identified as a possible ring gully during the evaluation, was found

during the excavation to be wheel rutting presumed to be of relatively modern

date.

4.28 Along the eastern edge of Area 3, a possible hollow way 3118 (Fig. 12, Section

MM), 3185 was identified running in an approximately north west-south east

alignment. It was also identified in evaluation Trench 32. It was irregular in plan

and had irregular sides and base, varying in depth between 0.3 and 0.5m. Fills

3119 and 3186 both contained post-medieval CBM (Ceramic Building Material)

fragments.

4.29 Ditch 3216 crossed Area 3 from the southwestern edge of the excavated area to

the north-eastern edge. It was sinuous, aligned approximately north-south and

demonstrated at least two phases of activity towards the southern extent. Here,

short stretches of recut ditches were identified, seen in interventions 3120, 3123,

(Fig. 12, Section NN) 3138, 3141, 3179 and 3181. Secondary fill 3064 within

excavated slot 3062 consisted of a mid-grey sand and contained a fragment of

post-medieval clay tobacco pipe. A clearly defined terminal 3107 was identified in

evaluation Trench 31 with evidence of a re-cut and perhaps represents the

northern extent of re-cutting within the ditch. Due to the convergence of multiple

features within Trench 31, it was not possible to determine the full extent of

features in plan until the excavation of Area 3. Parallel to the northern limit of ditch

3216 and extending from the northern baulk of Area 3 for approximately 15m was

ditch 3010, 3018 and 3303 from evaluation Trench 33 (CA 2017b). Due to its

parallel nature it may be considered to be of a similar date to 3216, perhaps

forming part of a double ditched trackway, boundary or similar.

4.30 The parallel ditches aligned north east-south west across Area 3 as seen in

interventions 3034, 3067 (Fig. 11, Section LL), and 3070 and 3072 are likely to

have formed a doubled ditched hedged or fenced boundary. Dateable evidence

was sparse but fill 3071 within slot 3070 contained pottery dated mid 16-18th


19


century and post medieval CBM, indicating a probable post medieval date. By

inference of spatial relationship, it can be suggested that terminals 3056 and 3058

form part of the same feature, the gap between them forming an access through

the boundary they defined. Both 3056 and 3058 contained single fills, 3057 and

3059 respectively, of mid-greyish brown sand up to 0.12m deep and 0.58m wide

4.31 There appears to be no correlation between the post-medieval features recorded

on Site and the historic mapping, perhaps indicating that they represent relatively

early forays into the peripheral heathland and maybe related to activities such as

driving animals or assarting.

Undated

4.32 Post holes 3049 (Fig. 13, Section, QQ), 3051 and 3076 did not contain any

dateable material although due to their close proximity to Iron Age dated features it

is possible they are of a similar date.

4.33 A slightly curvilinear ditch 3215 was recorded in the north western corner of the

excavated area. It varied in width between approximately 0.4-1.5m and depth

between 0.29-0.38m ending in a tapering but well-defined terminal 3015 (Fig. 13,

Section OO). It did not appear to extend into the area covered by evaluation

Trenches 7 or 8. Fills 3009, 3075, 3095 within 3215 all contained slag derived from

iron smelting although no dateable material. It is not possible to be confident of the

date of the ditch as it may be that this slag is residual, derived from the Iron Age

occupation deposit through which 3215 partially cuts.

4.34 Large enclosure ditch 3196 in the southern corner of Area 3 was identified in

evaluation Trench 23 (recorded as ditch 2303) as cutting a pit (2305) containing

pottery of Late Iron Age – Early Roman date. Within the excavated area, 3196 was

revealed to curve in plan and measured up to 1m deep and 3.9m wide (Fig. 14,

Section RR). It was identified in two small extensions to Area 3 to the south. A

continuation of the ditch was not found in evaluation Trenches 9 or 10 and it

therefore seems possible that it continued to curve and that it might have been the

same substantial ditch identified in evaluation Trench 11, although the angle of

that feature makes this conjectural and the latter ditch might instead have lain

within the area enclosed by ditch 3196. This would suggest that the ditch is

forming a sub-circular enclosure to the south of Area 3 and is likely to be dated to

the Roman period or later. Ditch 3196 clearly post-dates the pit but any further


20


dating was not possible to discern. A small number of Iron Age pottery sherds

within upper fill 3197 are likely to be residual.

Area 4 (Fig. 6) 4.35 Topsoil 4000 of mid greyish brown silty sand 0.25m in depth overlay a mid-reddish

grey silty sand subsoil 4001, which in turn overlay natural geology 4002 of light

reddish grey silty sand, encountered at a depth of 0.47m.

Period 1: Late Bronze 4.36 A pit previously recorded within evaluation Trench 2, 205 (CA 2017b) contained a

large number of pottery sherds dating to the Late Bronze Age. It was sub-circular

in plan, measuring 0.73m by 0.7m in extent and 0.45m in depth. A total of 123

sherds (2258g) of pottery was recovered, from the two fills. The group includes the

rims from three vessels in a fine, glauconitic sandy fabric with a moderate quantity

of flint. The vessels include two shouldered bowls and a rim fragment from a third

vessel which may also have been a shouldered jar or bowl. The presence of

glauconite in the fabric suggests they were not made on site, and instead originate

from Gault and Lower Greensand deposits probably c. 23km from the site (Lott

and Cameron 2018, fig. 1). The base from a fairly large jar also came from this pit,

split across contexts 206 and 207 (Marsden, CA 2017). The two fills contained

occasional charcoal fragments retrieved through environmental sampling. No other

features of this date were identified within the site.

Undated 4.37 An undated pit 4003 was recorded just to the north east of pit 205. It was 0.36m

wide by 0.14m deep, and oval in plan with gently sloping concave sides and

contained a single, charcoal rich dark greyish black silty sand fill 4004.


21


6 FACTUAL DATA AND STATEMENTS OF POTENTIAL

Stratigraphic Record: factual data 6.1 Following the completion of the fieldwork an ordered, indexed, and internally

consistent site archive was compiled in accordance with specifications presented

in the Management of Research Projects in the Historic Environment (MORPHE):

Project Manager’s Guide (Historic England 2015a). A database of all contextual

and artefactual evidence and a site matrix was also compiled and cross-

referenced to spot-dating. The fieldwork comprises the following records:

Context sheets 257 Plans (1:10, 1:20, 1:100) 0 Sections (1:10, 1:20) 88 Sample sheets 51 Monochrome Films 0 Digital photographs 354 Matrices 4

6.2 The survival and intelligibility of the site stratigraphy was good with archaeological

remains having survived as negative features, albeit heavily truncated in many

instances. Despite a relative paucity of dateable material, most features have been

assigned a preliminary period based on context dates and/or spatial association.

Stratigraphic record: statement of potential 6.3 A secure stratigraphic sequence is essential to elucidating the form, purpose, date,

organisation and development of the various phases of activity represented. This

can be achieved through detailed analysis of the sequence and further integration

of the artefactual dating evidence. As part of the analysis and publication work

‘Structure Numbers’ will be assigned for the round houses and four-post-

structures. The refined sequence will then serve as the spatial and temporal

framework within which other artefactual and biological evidence can be

understood. It may be possible to refine the phasing of some currently undated

features following further post-excavation analysis, however some features will

probably remain undated due to a complete lack of artefactual remains and

stratigraphic relationships.

6.4 While the stratigraphic record forms a complete record of the archaeological

features uncovered, the relative lack of comparable dating evidence available from

other datasets from similar sites in the region, limits the potential for fully

elucidating the function and development of the site.


22


Artefactual record: factual data

6.5 All finds collected during the excavation have been cleaned, marked, quantified

and catalogued by context. All metalwork has been x-rayed and stabilised where

appropriate.

Type Category Count Weight (g) Pottery (Including material from the evaluation)

Bronze Age 123 2258

Iron Age 214 3066 Iron Age/Roman 22 61 Roman 4 72 Medieval 8 366 Post-medieval/modern 13 292 Modern 4 13 Undated 1 3 Total 389 6131 Flint Worked (from the evaluation) 2 3 Burnt Flint 43 715 Fired Clay All 13 1425 Brick & tile (Ceramic Building Material)

All 20 580

Clay Tobacco Pipe All 1 3 Metalworking debris

Residues (slag) - 2999

Stone Objects 1 19

6.6 Finds were generally sparse across the Site as a whole, with small assemblages

pottery and iron smelting slag recovered from several features. Of note is an

assemblage of Late Bronze Age sherds recovered from the pit in evaluation

Trench 2 (Area 4).

Pottery (Appendix 2)

6.7 An assemblage of 220 sherds of pottery, weighing 3492g, was recovered from the

site and a further 169 sherds (2739g) were recovered from evaluation trenches

(Table 1). The majority of sherds are of Late Bronze Age and Iron Age dating, with

small quantities of Roman, medieval and post-medieval pottery also present.

Modern pottery was recovered from evaluation topsoil deposits, amounting to four

sherds (13g) and is not discussed further. The excavation material derives from 30

hand-excavated features (207 sherds, 3386g) and bulk soil sample of five deposits

(13 sherds, 106g), comprising a total of 32 pottery-producing deposits. The

evaluation material was recovered from 13 hand-excavated features, of which

feature was bulk soil sampled.


23


Worked flint (Appendix 3)

6.8 A total of two worked flints (3g) and 43 pieces of burnt, unworked flint (715g) was

recovered by hand-excavation and bulk soil sampling from the evaluation and

excavation of 23 separate deposits.

Mixed finds (Appendix 4)

6.9 The fired clay assemblage is dominated by four fragments (647g) from a single

object, recovered from roundhouse 3003. A further four fragments of fired clay,

weighing 24g, were recovered from curvilinear ditches 3215 and 3216, posthole

3213 of four-post structure 3213, and ditch 3185. Five additional fragments (747g)

of fired clay were recovered from three further deposits.

6.10 A single fragment of clay tobacco pipe, weighing 3g, was recovered from ditch

3062 (fill 3064).

6.11 Twenty fragments (580g) of ceramic building material were recovered from nine

deposits.

6.12 An abraded fragment (19g) from a lava quern was recovered from ditch 1013 (fill

1014).

Slag (Appendix 5)

6.13 The industrial debris from Benner Lane comprises almost 3kg of metalworking

debris. The majority of the material can be positively identified as deriving from

iron smelting.

Artefactual record: statements of potential Pottery

6.14 While there are some published Late Bronze Age assemblages from Surrey (for

example Elsden, 1982; Longley and Needham 1980) and Berkshire, there is a lack

published local Iron Age pottery assemblages. Where local parallels are available,

hillforts dominate the literature. Recent reassessment of the local hillfort

assemblages (Hascombe, Holmsbury and Anstiebury) draws similar conclusions,

noting the county’s under and unstudied assemblages and suggesting pottery

connections with the surrounding counties including Hampshire and Sussex

(Seagar Thomas 2010). Consequently, a full pottery report should be produced for

publication, including full fabric descriptions and an illustrated catalogue. This will

add to our understanding of Later Bronze Age and Iron Age communities in the

area.


24


Worked flint

6.15 As the worked flint assemblage is extremely small and the burnt flint was

recovered from features from a variety of periods, neither adds to the dating or

interpretation of the site. A sentence denoting the presence of the worked and

burnt flints should be included in any publication on the site. No further recording

or analysis is required. No illustrations are necessary.

Mixed finds

6.16 The fired clay group is small and its ability to inform phasing or as indicators of site

activity are limited. Consequently, recording undertaken at this stage is considered

sufficient for the archive and no further work is recommended.

6.17 Recording of the single fragment of clay tobacco pipe undertaken at this stage is

considered sufficient for the archive and no further work is recommended.

6.18 The CBM group is small and its ability to inform phasing or as indicators of site

activity are limited. Consequently, recording undertaken at this stage is considered


6.19 The quern fragment is too small and abraded to identify details of form or use, but

does provide evidence for the import of querns to this area during the Roman or

medieval periods.

Slag

6.20 This site is one of only a few such sites in the Thames valley where prehistoric

bloomery iron smelting took place (all shared the same non-tapping technology).

Most of these sites have not been reported on fully, although at least scientific

analysis has been carried out on assemblages. There is an urgent need to

determine the extent to which the iron smelting activities at these sites forms a

distinct prehistoric regional technology and the nature of the iron manufactured. It

is recommended that selected samples are investigated using SEM-EDS to

determine microstructure and chemical composition. The results should be

compared in detail with comparable sites.

Biological record: factual data 6.21 All ecofacts recovered from the excavation have been cleaned, marked, quantified

and catalogued by context. A total of 51 bulk samples were taken for the recovery

of environmental remains.


25


Type Category Count Animal bone Fragments 63 Samples Environmental 21

Animal bone (Appendix 6)

6.22 Five poorly preserved cattle teeth (three upper molars, first, second and third; and

two lower molars, first or second and a third) were recovered from pit 1021

(context 1022). Several fragments of cremated medium or small mammal-sized

bone were recovered from ditch 3036 (context 3037), ditch 3209 and Iron Age

gully 3164 (context 3165 and 3168).

Plant macrofossil and charcoal (Appendix 7)

6.23 A series of 21 environmental samples (312 litres of soil) were selected from a

range of feature types, mainly from Iron Age features in Area 3, with the intention

of recovering environmental evidence of industrial or domestic activity on the site.

The samples were processed by standard flotation procedures (CA Technical

Manual No. 2).

Biological record: statements of potential Animal bone

6.24 The animal bone was too fragmentary to identify in any more detail. No further

work is recommended.

Plant macrofossil and charcoal

5.17 Further analysis of a small selection the charred plant assemblages from Area 3 has

the potential to provide some limited information on the range of crops and local

crop processing activities and the surrounding environment during these periods.

This data could provide a comparison with other assemblages of a similar date in

the wider area such as at Marnel Park and Merton Rise (Wright et al 2009).

5.18 It is recommended that the charred plant remains from Iron Age four-post structure

3213 posthole 3114 (sample 25) and from four-post structure 3214 posthole 3152

(sample 29) should be analysed.

5.19 There is potential for the analysis of a selection of the charcoal assemblages to

provide some information on the species composition and the management and

exploitation of the local woodland resource during Iron Age period.


26


5.20 It is recommended that the charcoal from Area 3 Iron Age roundhouse 3003 gully

section 3164 (sample 35) and deposit 3168 (sample 39), roundhouse 3006 gully

section 3036 (sample 11), four-post structure 3213 posthole 3114 (sample 25) and

pit 3171 (sample 38) should be analysed.

7 SUMMARY STATEMENT OF POTENTIAL

7.1 The excavation and preceding evaluation identified activity from a range of period.

Features are predominantly indicative of settlement and land management

practices.

7.2 A single pit (205) containing large sherds of Late Bronze Age pottery was recorded

during the evaluation within excavation Area 4. The pit (205) containing parts of

three Late Bronze Age pottery vessels is the only indication of activity of this date

on the site, although a further, smaller pit (4003) which contained no artefacts was

located less than 5m to the northeast. The glauconitic fabric of the pottery itself

probably derives from clay sources near the Upper Greensand and Gault which

runs in an arc through Kent, Sussex and Surrey, c. 23km from the site (Lott and

Cameron 2018, fig. 1). The vessels are bowls and jars. Deposits of parts of single

Late Bronze Age vessels or small collections of sherds in several fabric types in

pits are a phenomenon that has been noted elsewhere. For example, at Twyford

Down, Hampshire, Early to Middle Bronze Age funerary activity (barrow ring

ditches) and later Bronze Age small-scale settlement activity was recorded, as

were one or two alignments of pits containing such Late Bronze Age vessel

deposits. The latter were interpreted as having been made in relation to a

topographical feature subsequently destroyed by ploughing (Woodward, 2000, 51-

2). It has been suggested that at the time, ‘a complex and diverse process of land

allotment’ was taking place at Twyford Down (ibid. 72). None of the linear ditches

recorded during the excavation at the Benner Lane site have shown any indication

that they might have been of Bronze Age date. The closest linear feature to pit 205

was a single northwest/southeast aligned undated ditch located to the west of pit

205 recorded during the evaluation (CA 2017; Trench 1, ditch 103). The only find

from the ditch, a metal nail, could date from either Roman or medieval periods.

The fill itself was very characteristic of the topsoil and subsoil in the area,

suggesting a relatively recent date. This is further supported by the parallel

alignment of the ditch to an extant field boundary to the west. The four bowl

barrows on West End Common (to the west of the site) do however confirm a


27


presence in the area at that time. Collectively, the evidence suggests that Bronze

Age settlement activity is likely to have been present in the relatively close vicinity

of the Site.

7.3 The Site is able to make a small contribution to achieving aims discussed within

the Surrey Archaeological Research Framework. It has demonstrated new

evidence Late Bronze Age activity within the region albeit on a small scale.

7.4 A small Late Iron Age settlement consisting of up to three roundhouses (3003,

3006, 3116), two four-post structures (3213, 3214) and other associated features

was identified in Area 3. It appears to have been unenclosed, but ditches and

trackways suggest that is was sited in a managed landscape. Evidence of iron

smelting using a non-tapping technique typical of the Late Iron Age was also

identified. This is further evidence for Late Iron Age iron smelting within the

Thames Valley, using a technique for which the chronology is not fully understood

at present.

7.5 There was very limited ceramic evidence to suggest continuity into the Roman

period. A pottery vessel from pit 2305 (evaluation Trench 23, Ca 2017) in the

southern part of Area 3 was of Late Iron Age/ Early Roman date.

7.6 Evidence for possible features from the Roman period was also limited. Again in

Area 3, two parallel ditches (3217 and 3218), which formed a possible track way or

drove way, produced three sherds (65g) of wheelthrown pottery that can be

broadly dated to the Roman period. Both of these ditches cut 3006, one of the

Late Iron Age ring gullies. A large undated enclosure ditch (3196) in the southern

corner of Area 3 was identified in evaluation Trench 23 as cutting pit (2305) the pit

of putative Late Iron Age – Early Roman date. A small number of Iron Age pottery

sherds within upper fill of the ditch (3197) are likely to be residual. The ditch

appears to have formed a sub-circular enclosure extending the south of Area 3

and is likely to have dated to the Roman period or later.

7.7 Post-medieval and undated ditches relating to possible field systems or drove

ways were also recorded.

7.8 From a national perspective, the Site adds relatively little new information to what

is already known, but it is on a local and regional basis that the importance of the

site is derived. Little is understood of the archaeology in this peripheral region of

Surrey and the wider Thames Valley, particularly in relation to the Prehistoric


28


occupation and exploitation of the area. There is relatively little published evidence

in particular for Iron Age settlement in Surrey. A small assemblage of Iron Age

and Roman pottery is published from Monument Hill, Old Woking c. 6 miles from

the site (Hastings 1962), and Iron Age settlement is present at Thorpe (c. 10

miles), Tongham (c. 12 miles), Staines (c. 14 miles) (Bird 2006) and Horley (Swift,

2009, c. 40 miles). Such reports as are available will allow for some comparison of

data, and the Site will add an important new piece to an otherwise sparse dataset.

8 STORAGE AND CURATION

8.1 The archive is currently held at CA offices in Andover, whilst post-excavation work

proceeds. Upon completion of the project and with the agreement of the legal

landowners, the site archive and artefactual collection will be deposited with a

suitable local museum.

9 UPDATED AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

9.1 To fulfil the potential of the site data, the following updated objectives have been

set out to provide a framework for the proposed further analysis:

Objective 1: establish the nature of the Iron Age landscape 9.2 Undertake more detailed analysis of the specific charred plant remains and

charcoal, to determine the type and variety of crop husbandry in the vicinity of the

site and any evidence for woodland management and exploitation. In particular to

identify any activity that may be indicative of the transition between the Iron Age

and Roman periods.

Objective 2: establish more secure dating of Iron Age features and associated pottery 9.3 If suitable short-lived material survives, select a limited number of samples for

radio carbon dating in order to provide a more accurate date for Iron Age features,

particularly in relation to those features which contain reasonable assemblages of

pottery for comparison.

Objective 3: further investigate iron smelting on site 9.4 Identify the presence or absence of metal working related residues within a wider

range of environmental samples in an attempt to isolate likely zones of activity

within the Site or its immediate environs.

9.5 In order to achieve the above a programme of specialist work will be undertaken

(see task list below).


29


9.6 The results will then be incorporated into a report for publication.

10 PUBLICATION

10.1 The results from the investigations at Benner Lane, Woking, Surrey are of local to

regional significance and merit publication. Of note is the presence of non-tapping

iron smelting of Late Iron Age date which has been previously identified on other

sites within the Thames Valley. It adds additional information to the current level of

understanding of the transition from non-tapping to tapping iron smelting

techniques between the Iron Age and Roman periods and adds more generally to

the knowledge of Prehistoric occupation transitioning into the Roman period in an

otherwise poorly understood region. It is proposed that a summary report

supported by detailed technical appendices) which will be available on the website

of the Archaeological Data Service (ADS)) should be published in the local county

archaeological journal, Surrey Archaeological Collections.

10.2 A proposed synopsis is presented below.


30


Synopsis of Proposed Report

Evidence for multi-period settlement at West End, Woking, Surrey by Sam Wilson

Words Summary 150 Introduction Location, topography and geology 150 Archaeological background 250 Project background 150 Excavation Results Chronological discussion of the major phases and features of the

site Site 1500

Pottery (Katie Marsden) 1500 Metalworking (David Dungworth) 1000

Plant macrofossil and charcoal (Sarah Wyles, Dana Challinor) 500 Discussion

Continuity and change of regional settlement patterns, land use and

communication networks 1500 Conclusion 350 Acknowledgements 150

Total words c. 7500 Bibliography Appendices

Pottery Fabric descriptions etc. 2000 Other finds (Grace Perpetua Jones, Jacky Sommerville) 500

Metalworking debris 2000

Approximate pages @ 800 words/page Pages 10 Tables

Pottery 2

Plant macrofossil and charcoal 1

Radiocarbon dating results 1 Illustrations

Location of site 1 Site plan with phasing 1

Pottery 2 Total publication estimate c. 18 pages


31


11 PROJECT TEAM

11.1 The analysis and publication programme will be quality assured by Karen E.

Walker MCIfA (Principal Post-Excavation Manager) and managed by Karen Walker who will co-ordinate the work of the following personnel:

Sam Wilson (Project Supervisor): Post-excavation phasing, draft report

preparation, research and archive

Sarah Wyles ACIfA (Senior Environmental Officer: EO)

Specialist report preparation plant macrofossil, molluscs and liason

David Dungworth Archaeometallurgical residues

Dana Challinor: Archaeobotanist (Wood and Charcoal)

SUERC (East Kilbride): Radiocarbon dating

12 TASK LIST

TASK PERSONNEL DURATION/

Project Management SPM 3 Stratigraphic Analysis PO 3 FO 1 Research, comparanda PO 1 Pottery Analysis and report FO 4 Thin sections (if appropriate) Specialist FEE Illustration SI 3.5 Metalworking debris Specialist FEE Radiocarbon dating Analysis Specialist FEE Report preparation FO 0.25 Environmental analysis Charred plant remains SEO 1.5 Charcoal Specialist FEE Preparation of publication report Abstract and introductory material PO 1 Excavation results PO 3 SI 2.5 Compilation of specialist reports, tables etc. PO 0.5 Discussion, conclusions PO 1.5 Acknowledgements, bibliography PO 0.5 Revisions SPM 1 Submission to external referees Editing SPM 1 Revisions PO 1 SUBMISSION OF PUBLICATION TEXT Archive Research archive completion PO 0.5 AO 1 ADS FEE Museum Deposition FEE Publication SAC FEE


32


13 TIMETABLE

13.1 For a journal publication project, CA would normally aim to have completed a

publication draft within six to nine months of approval of the updated publication

project design. A detailed programme can be produced if desired on approval of

the updated publication project design.

14 REFERENCES

ASE (Archaeology South East) 2015 Benner Lane, West End, Surrey: Desk-based Heritage

Assessment. Unpublished report No. 2015261

BGS (British Geological Survey) 2018 Geology of Britain Viewer

http://mapapps.bgs.ac.uk/geologyofbritain/home.html Accessed 31 January 2018

Bird, D. 2004, Roman Surrey, Tempus

Bird, D Surrey 2006 Archaeological Research Framework 2006 Providing the foundations for

future archaeological work in Surrey

www.surreyarchaeology.org.uk/sites/default/files/sarf2006.pdf Accessed 26th March

2018

Brandon, P. 2005, The North Downs, Phillimore

Brown, L. 1995 ‘Pottery Production’ in Cunliffe, B. 1995, 53-65

CIfA (Chartered Institute of Archaeologists) 2014 Standard and Guidance for Archaeological

Excavation

Cotswold Archaeology, 1995 Treatment of finds immediately after excavation: Technical

Manual No. 3

Cotswold Archaeology, 2012, The taking and processing of environmental and other

samples from archaeological sites: Technical Manual No. 2

Cotswold Archaeology, 2014, Fieldwork Recording Manual Technical Manual No. 1

Cotswold Archaeology, 2017a, Benner Lane, West End, Woking, Surrey: Written Scheme of

Investigation for an Archaeological Excavation


33


Cotswold Archaeology, 2017b, Benner Lane, West End, Woking, Surrey: Archaeological

Evaluation. CA Report 17385

Cotton, J. 2001 Prehistoric and Roman Settlement in Reigate Road, Ewell: fieldwork

conducted by Tom K Walls 1945-52 Surrey Archaeological Collections 88, 1-42

Cotton, J. 2004, Surrey’s early past: a survey of recent work, in J. Cotton, G. Crooker & A.

Graham (eds), Aspects of Archaeology and History in Surrey: towards a research

framework for the county. Surrey Archaeological Society

Cunliffe, B. 1984 Danebury: An Iron Age Hillfort in Hampshire vol.2, The excavations 1969-

1978: the finds, CBA research report 52, London

Cunliffe, B. 1995 Danebury: An Iron Age Hillfort in Hampshire vol. 6, a hillfort community in

perspective, CBA Research Report 102, Halifax

Dungworth, D 2007 Heckfield, Hampshire: an examination of middle Iron Age smelting slags.

Research Department Report 104/2007. London: English Heritage

Dungworth, D 2011 ‘The metalworking debris’, in J A Nowakowski and H Quninnell,

Trevelgue Head, Cornwall: the importance of C K Croft Andrew’s 1939 excavations

for prehistoric and Roman Cornwall. Truro: Cornwall County Council, 220–244

Dungworth, D 2014 ‘Who’s afraid of the bowl furnace?’ Historical Metallurgy 48, 1–7

Dungworth, D and Mepham, L 2012 ‘Prehistoric iron smelting in London: evidence from

Shooters Hill’. Historical Metallurgy 46, 1–8

Elsdon, S. 1982 ‘Later Bronze Age Pottery from Farnham, a reappraisal’ Surrey

Archaeological Collections 73, 127-139.

Greig, J. 1991 ‘The British Isles’ in van Zeist, W., Wasylikowa, K. and Behre, K-E. (eds),

229-334

Hanworth, R and Tomlin, D J 1977 Brooklands, Weybridge: The excavation of an Iron Age

and Medieval site, 1964–5 and 1970–71. Guildford: Surrey Archaeological Society

Hastings F. A. 1962 ‘Excavation of an Iron Age and Roman site at Monument Hill, Old

Woking’ Surrey Archaeological Collections, vol 59, 15-18.


34


Historic England 2015a The Management of Research Projects in the Historic Environment:

The MORPHE Project Manager’s Guide

Historic England 2015b Management of Research Projects in the Historic Environment. PPN

3: Archaeological Excavation

Kars, H. 1980 ‘Early-medieval Dorestad, An archaeo-petrological study’, Berichten van de

Rijksdienst voor het Outheidkundg Bodermonderzoek, 30, 393-422

King, D. 1986 Petrology, dating and distribution of querns and millstone. The results of

research in Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Hertfordshire and Middlesex. Institute of

Archaeology Bulletin 23 (1987), 65-126

Leivers, M. 2014 ‘Bronze Age Pottery’ in Thompson, S. and Manning, A. 2014 8-10

Longley, D. and Needham S. 1980 Runnymede Bridge 1976: Excavations on the site of a

Late Bronze Age Settlement, with a report on the bronze finds by Stuart Needham

(pp. 1-85) Surrey Archaeological Society Research Volumes Volume 6

Lott, G. and Cameron, D. ‘The Building Stones of South East England: Mineralogy and

Provenance’ http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/id/eprint/11879/1/lott_cameron.pdf Accessed 13

March 218

Lowther, A W G 1949 ‘Excavations at Purberry Shot, Ewell’. Surrey Archaeological

Collections 50, 9–46

McDonnell, J G 1984 Interim report. Slags, Riseley Farm, Berkshire. AML Report 4422.

London: English Heritage

PCRG 2010, The Study of Prehistoric Pottery: General Policies and Guidelines for Analysis

and Publication, Prehistoric Ceramics Research Group Occasional Papers 1 http://www.pcrg.org.uk/Publications1-2.htm

Pearce, J. and Vince, A. 1988 Surrey Whitewares The Museum of London and the London

and Middlesex Archaeological Society, Hampshire

Poulton, R. 2004, Iron Age Surrey, in J. Cotton, G. Crooker & A. Graham (eds), Aspects of

Archaeology and History in Surrey: towards a research framework for the county.

Surrey Archaeological Society


35


Preston S 2011 Land south of Ash Lodge Drive, Ash and Tongham, Surrey An

Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment TVAS site code Site Code: ALS11/106

Seagar Thomas, M. 2010 A re-contextualisation of the prehistoric pottery from the Surrey

hillforts of Hascombe, Holmbury and Anstiebury Surrey Archaeological Collections

95, 1-33

Stace, C. 1997 New flora of the British Isles (2nd edition), Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Starley, D 1998 The assessment of slag and other metalworking debris from Thorpe Lea

Nurseries, near Egham, Surrey 1990–94. AML Report 1/1998. London: English

Heritage

Swift, D, 2009 A Post-excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design on excavations

on Land at North East Horley, Surrey, Archaeology South East Unpublished Report

ASE, proj no 2470

Thompson, S. and Manning, A. 2014 Late prehistoric settlement and post-medieval industrial

activity on the route of the A3 Hindhead Improvement Scheme Surrey Archaeological

Collection 98, 1-27

van Zeist, W., Wasylikowa,K. and Behre, K-E. (eds) 1991 Progress in Old World

Palaeoethnobotany, Rotterdam, Balkema

Wakeford, I. 2014 Bronze and Iron Age Woking

http://wokinghistory.org/onewebmedia/140124.pdf Accessed 26th March 2018

WEVS (West End Village Society) History of West End

http://www.wevs.org.uk/index.php?p=1_11_History-of-West-End Accessed 31

January 2018

Woodward, A. ‘Prehistoric Pottery’ and ‘Discussion, Late Bronze Age’ in Walker, K.E. and

Farwell, D.E. Twyford Down, Hampshire Archaeological Investigations on the M3

Motorway from Bar End to Compton, 1990-93, Hampshire Field Club Monograph 9,

47-36, and 72-74.

Wright, J, Powell, A.B, Barclay, A. 2009 Excavation of Prehistoric and Romano British Sites

at Marnel Park and Merton Rise (Popley) Basingstoke, 2004-8 Salisbury: Wessex

Archaeology Ltd.


36


Zohary, D., Hopf, M. and Weiss, E. 2012 Domestication of plants in the Old World: the origin

and spread of cultivated plants in West Asia, Europe, and the Nile Valley, 4th

edition, Oxford, Clarendon Press

APPENDIX 1: STRATIGRAPHIC ASSESSEMENT BY SAM WILSON

A total of 263 contexts was recorded during the excavations as detailed below:

Period no. AREA 1 AREA 2 AREA 3 AREA

1 LATE BRONZE AGE - - - 2

2 IRON AGE - - 83 -

3 ROMAN - - 32 -

4 MEDIEVAL/POST-MEDIEVAL 4 - - -

4 POST-MEDIEVAL - - 75 -

5 MODERN - - - 1

UNDATED 30 6 26 4

TOTALS 34 6 216 7

In addition 119 contexts were recorded in the evaluation (CA 2017b).

The provisional phasing for all areas is based upon spot dates from pottery groups, together

with some estimation of the likelihood of redeposition or intrusion gained from stratigraphic

and spatial information. All four areas had been truncated by ploughing and there was little

or no vertical separation of stratigraphy.

AREA 1

All the features across this area appeared to be heavily truncated and were arrayed in a

simple layout with none intercutting. The southern part of the area suffered significant

flooding during excavation. A number of the discrete features had very well defined edges

but appeared largely isolated, as did the cluster of post holes to the south which did not form

a discernible structure. There was little dateable material although based on the limited

evidence it is assumed much of the activity is medieval or post-medieval. There is little

potential for further refinement of dating or sequence.


37


AREA 2

This area revealed no new information from that identified during the evaluation. It also

revealed the features to be heavily truncated.

AREA 3

The focus of historic activity on the Site is clearly contained within Area 3 which provides a

relatively easy to understand palimpsest of activity, taking into account dating evidence,

stratigraphic and spatial relationships. The features in this area, particularly those of Roman

date and earlier were heavily truncated, although in contrast the post-medieval features were

fairly well defined and of reasonable depth in places. The lack of dateable material provides

limited scope for further work and tighter dating although it is possible that some refinement

could be obtained through carbon dating charcoal from selected features. The full extent of

the Iron Age settlement, and in particular its related metal working, is clearly not fully

understood within the scope of the current work. The ability to define the wider Site layout in

future will be unfortunately limited due to the lack of un-developed areas immediately

adjacent to the Site. A possible focus of Roman or post-Roman activity could be contained

within the substantial curvilinear enclosure ditch identified in the southern corner of the Area.

The post-medieval evidence potentially provides some evidence of early exploitation of the

heathland in this region.

AREA 4

There were no further indications of Late Bronze Age activity in this Area and therefore the

pit identified in the evaluation, albeit well-defined, appeared isolated. The level of truncation

here was more or less as identified in the other excavation areas.


38


APPENDIX 2: POTTERY BY KATIE MARSDEN

An assemblage of 220 sherds of pottery, weighing 3492g, was recovered from the site and a

further 169 sherds (2739g) were recovered from evaluation trenches (Table 1, below). The

majority of sherds are of Late Bronze Age and Iron Age dating, with small quantities of

Roman, medieval and post-medieval pottery also present. Modern pottery was recovered

from evaluation topsoil deposits, amounting to four sherds (13g) and is not discussed further.

The excavation material derives from 30 hand-excavated features (207 sherds, 3386g) and

bulk soil sample of five deposits (13 sherds, 106g), comprising a total of 32 pottery-

producing deposits. The evaluation material was recovered from 13 hand-excavated

features, of which feature was bulk soil sampled.

Across both phases of work, the majority of sherds were recovered from linear features

(ditches and gullies; 47%) and pits (44%). The remaining 9% was recovered from occupation

layer (4%), topsoil/subsoil deposits (4%) and postholes (1%).

Recording has been undertaken directly to a MS Access database and in line with national

guidelines for the analysis of prehistoric pottery assemblages (PCRG 2010). The analysis

has included recording of fabric, vessel form (profile) and rim morphology (in archive),

decoration type/location and evidence for vessel use as carbonised and other residues. In

the absence of a type series for Surrey, alpha-numeric codes have been assigned to fabrics.

Late Bronze Age A total of 123 sherds (2258g) of Late Bronze Age pottery was recovered from evaluation pit

205 (fills 206 and 207) (CA 2017b, Fig. 7, Section AA) . This group represents approximately

one third of the total pottery recovered from both phases of work. All sherds occur in a fine,

glauconitic sandy fabric with a moderate quantity of flint-tempering. The glauconite suggests

the fabric derives from clay sources near the Upper Greensand and Gault which runs in an

arc through Kent, Sussex and Surrey, c. 23km from the site (Lott and Cameron 2018, fig. 1).

Form and Decoration

Three vessels were represented within the group. They include a shouldered bowl with short

neck and out-turned rim, of 200mm diameter. Finger impressions residual from the

manufacturing process can still be felt around the rim. A second shouldered bowl is also

represented, with a longer neck and more upright rim, and smaller rim diameter (160mm). A

similar bowl was recovered from site M15 (Bedford Farm) on the A3 improvement scheme,


39


approximately 23km to the south (Leivers 2014, fig. 4, no. 6). A rim fragment from a third

vessel was also recovered, but is broken at the neck and it is therefore not possible to

reconstruct its form, although it too is probably from a shouldered jar or bowl. The base from

a fairly large jar is also represented, with sherds split across both pit fills. It is slightly footed

with frequent flint grits adhering to the base exterior. Despite some surface abrasion, many

of the body sherds display external wiping, and one is burnished on the interior.

Iron Age The Iron Age group comprises 215 sherds (3072g) recovered from 26 excavation deposits

and 2 evaluation deposits. The group totals 55% of the total assemblage. The group is

particularly well preserved, with low fragmentation and a mean sherd weight of 14.3g. One

base and three rim forms were defined.

Fabrics A total of eight fabrics were defined amongst the Iron Age group (Table 1). Fabric group ‘Q’

comprises four quartz-rich fabrics in a variety of densities and grain size. Fabric Q1 is

quartz-rich only and fabrics Q2-Q4 contain additional tempering. The group also included a

flint-tempered fabric (F1), one with ironstone and grog-tempering (I1) and a vesicular fabric

(V1), likely to have a result of leeched calcareous (probably shell) inclusions. Unclassified

fabric U1 has been recorded separately despite containing sparse quartz and flint as both

occur in lower quantities than seen in fabrics F1 and Q4.

As with the Bronze Age fabrics, Fabrics Q1 and U1 contain sparse glauconite suggesting

that these fabrics may derive from a similar clay deposit. No identifying features are present

in the remainder of the fabrics and although a wider range of fabrics was recorded at the

hillforts of Hascombe, Holmbury and Anstiebury (Seagar Thomas 2010), the Benner Lane

fabrics are comparable in their composition. The Surrey hillfort assemblages have been

dated to the Middle Iron Age and are thought to have been sourced from both local and

regional sources (ibid, 3).

Form and decoration

Few forms amongst the Iron Age group are recorded, limited to jar rims and probable cup

bases. Amongst the jars, two rim forms were identified; everted and plain. Rims appear to

indicate vessels of small to moderate size, ranging between 80 and 160 mm in diameter.

Ra. 2, recovered from ditch 3183 (fill 3184) is a Cunliffe (1984) form JD2, a shouldered or

globular jar with a pedestal or footring base and is undecorated. This form, comparable to


40


Seagar Thomas’s decorated ‘curviform’ jars from Hascombe and Holmbury hillforts (2010,

colour pl. 3, vessel DC1) is dateable to the Middle Iron Age (280 ± 70 BC; Cunliffe 1984).

Base and body sherds of the same form of vessel were also recovered from Ditch Group

3003 (fill 3208).

A rim recovered from ditch 3166 (fill 3167) has ‘cabled’ decoration, similar to pre-Roman Iron

Age-dated rims recovered from Ewell, 25km to the east (Cotton 2001). The rim is possibly of

Cunliffe form JB1 (Cunliffe 1984, figs. 6.26 and 6.27), although it is difficult to say with

certainty due to the fragmentation. Decoration is otherwise limited to burnishing on sherds

recovered from Ditch Group 3003 (fill 3005), ditch 3183 (fill 3184) and Ditch Group 3006 (fill

3189).

Bases interpreted as being from cups based on their small diameter (50mm) were recovered

from ditches 3093 and 3183 (fill 3184). A pre-firing perforation was identified on a possible

lid, measuring 280mm in diameter, recovered from Ditch group 3003 (fill 3163).

Roman Four bodysherds of wheelthrown pottery (72g in total), recovered from ditch 3042 (fill 3043;

3, 65g) and from evaluation deposit 1706 (1,7g) occur in a greyware fabric which can only be

broadly dated to the Roman period.

Medieval Eight sherds (366g) of medieval-dated pottery were recovered from four secure deposits and

one mixed-date deposit. A possible jug neck, of Cheam whiteware was recovered form ditch

1017 (fill 1018), dateable to the 14th and 15th centuries (Pearce and Vince 1988). Of similar

date is a bunghole cistern sherd occurring in a Coarse Border Ware fabric (ibid. fig. 31),

recovered from evaluation topsoil deposit 600. The remainder of the group occurs in hard-

fired sandy fabrics of which sources have not been identified. A cooking pot/necked jar with

everted rim was recovered from subsoil 1001 and a jar with everted rim from subsoil 3001.

Post-medieval Glazed earthenware, dateable from the mid 16th to 18th centuries, totalled 13 sherds (292g).

Bowls with undercut rims are represented from evaluation topsoil 500 and ditch 3185 (fill

3186).


41


Summary

Whilst the assemblage is relatively small in size, it is nonetheless well-preserved, as evident

by the low fragmentation. Dating is consistent with an Iron Age date, with a Middle Iron Age

emphasis being probable based on the forms and comparable fabrics from the broader area.

Medieval activity in the area is apparent, and although the group is small, it does indicate a

local production (particularly Cheam, 30km east).

Statement of Potential and Recommendations for Further Analysis There is a lack local published Iron Age sites and where local parallels are available, hillforts

dominate the literature. Recent reassessment of the local hillfort assemblages (Hascombe,

Holmsbury and Anstiebury) draws similar conclusions, noting the county’s under and

unstudied assemblages and suggesting pottery connections with the surrounding counties

including Hampshire and Sussex (Seagar Thomas 2010). Consequently, a full pottery report

should be produced for publication, including full fabric descriptions and an illustrated

catalogue to assist in the understanding of Iron Age communities in the area.

References

Brown, L. 1995 ‘Pottery Production’ in Cunliffe, B. 1995, 53-65

Cotton, J. 2001 Prehistoric and Roman Settlement in Reigate Road, Ewell: fieldwork

conducted by Tom K Walls 1945-52 Surrey Archaeological Collections 88, 1-42

Cunliffe, B. 1984 Danebury: An Iron Age Hillfort in Hampshire vol.2, The excavations 1969-

1978: the finds, CBA research report 52, London

Cunliffe, B. 1995 Danebury: An Iron Age Hillfort in Hampshire vol. 6, a hillfort community in

perspective, CBA Research Report 102, Halifax

Leivers, M. 2014 ‘Bronze Age Pottery’ in Thompson, S. and Manning, A. 2014 8-10

Lott, G. and Cameron, D. ‘The Building Stones of South East England: Mineralogy and

Provenance’ http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/id/eprint/11879/1/lott_cameron.pdf Accessed 13

March 218

Pearce, J. and Vince, A. 1988 Surrey Whitewares The Museum of London and the London

and Middlesex Archaeological Society, Hampshire


42


PCRG 2010, The Study of Prehistoric Pottery: General Policies and Guidelines for Analysis

and Publication, Prehistoric Ceramics Research Group Occasional Papers 1 http://www.pcrg.org.uk/Publications1-2.htm

Seagar Thomas, M. 2010 A re-contextualisation of the prehistoric pottery from the Surrey

hillforts of Hascombe, Holmbury and Anstiebury Surrey Archaeological Collections

95, 1-33

Thompson, S. and Manning, A. 2014 Late prehistoric settlement and post-medieval industrial

activity on the route of the A3 Hindhead Improvement Scheme Surrey Archaeological

Collection 98, 1-27


43


Table 1: Pottery Fabric Summary

Period Fabric description Fabric Code Ct. Wt. (g) Bronze Age Glauconitic sandy ware with fine flint inclusions Gf1 123 2258

Iron Age A moderate amount (10%) of poorly-sorted, sub-angular calcined flint in a sparsely medium-grained sandy matrix F1 2 20

A moderate amount (10%) of well-sorted, rounded ironstone and sparse (3-5%), sub-rounded grog in a dark grey clay matrix I1 1 6

A quartz-rich red-brown clay matrix containing a moderate amount (10%) of fine, well rounded sand Q1 79 1615

A quartz-rich red-brown clay matrix with common (15-20%) rounded fine-medium sand with sparse (c. 7%) well rounded glauconite Q2 86 916

A quartz-rich mid grey clay fabric with sparse (5-10%) rounded ironstone and quartz Q3 2 50

A slightly micaceous (rare, 1-2%) grey clay matrix with sparse (5-10%) rounded fine sand quartz. Rare (1-3%) flint Q4 2 12

A red-brown clay matirx with sparse (3-5%) sub-angular, moderately-sorted calcined flint (2-3mm) and sparse rounded glauconite and quartz U1 41 443

Pale grey fabric, vesicular with 2-4mm elongated voids occuring in a sparse-moderate (7-10%) medium sand matrix V1 1 4

IA/Roman fine micaceous sandy ware Qm1 22 61 Roman Greyware Gw1 4 72

Medieval Cheam Whiteware Chm Wh 1 155

Coarse border ware CBW 1 36

Hard-fired, sandy fabric Med 6 175

Post-medieval Glazed earthenware GEW 13 292

Modern Yellow ware YEL 1 2

Refined white ware RWW 3 11

Undated Vesicular fabric VES 1 3


44


APPENDIX 3: LITHICS BY JACKY SOMMERVILLE

A total of two worked flints (3g) and 43 pieces of burnt, unworked flint (715g) was recovered

by hand-excavation and bulk soil sampling from the evaluation and excavation of 23

separate deposits.

Provenance The worked flints were retrieved from pit 205 (from the evaluation), which was dated to the

Late Bronze Age on the basis of associated pottery, and unphased pit 1021. It is not clear

whether either flake was stratified. The burnt flints were recorded from deposits dated to the

Roman, Iron Age and post-medieval periods, as well as from topsoil and undated ditches,

postholes and gullies.

Range and variety The worked flints are both flakes: the example from pit 205 is burnt and that from pit 1021 is

a distal fragment. No cortex is present.

Statement of potential As the worked flint assemblage is extremely small and the burnt flint was recovered from

features from a variety of periods, neither adds to the dating or interpretation of the site.

APPENDIX 4: MIXED FINDS BY KATIE MARSDEN AND GRACE P JONES

Fired Clay A total of 13 fragments (1,425g) of fired clay was recovered by hand from eight contexts

during the excavation. No fired clay was recovered during the evaluation. The fired clay

assemblage is dominated by four fragments (647g) from a single object, recovered from

roundhouse 3003. They are in a yellowish brown, very fine sand/silty fabric and appear to

derive from a fairly large brick or block. No complete dimensions could be reconstructed, but

the object was at least 90mm wide with at least one curved face. Their deposition in the

terminal of ring gully 3162 may be significant, The pieces are highly abraded but display no

evidence for perforations or other features. They may have been utilised as oven bricks or

other oven furniture, although none show evidence of burning or blackening, so were

presumably not in direct contact with the flames. A further four fragments of fired clay,

weighing 24g, were recovered from curvilinear ditches 3215 and 3216, posthole 3213 of


45


four-post structure 3213, and ditch 3185. All are abraded and amorphous, but probably

derive from hearths or structural material. Five fragments (747g) of fired clay were recovered

from three deposits. The two fragments recovered from posthole 3085 (fill 3086) and ditch

3093 (fill 3095) are amorphous, retaining no surfaces or features indicative of function or

date. The three fragments recovered from ditch 3061 (fill 3062) are probable objects of

indeterminate forms. They are cobble-like in appearance and could be part of a structure or

of large loomweights. They cannot be closely dated due to the fragmentary nature.

The fired clay group is small and its ability to inform phasing or as indicators of site activity

are limited. Consequently, recording undertaken at this stage is considered sufficient for the

archive and no further work is recommended.

Clay Tobacco Pipe A single fragment of clay tobacco pipe, weighing 3g, was recovered from ditch 3062 (fill

3064). The stem fragment retains no closely dateable features and can only be dated

therefore to between the late 16th and late 19th centuries.

Statement of Potential and Recommendations for Further Analysis

Recording of the single fragment of clay tobacco pipe undertaken at this stage is considered


CBM Twenty fragments (580g) of ceramic building material were recovered from nine deposits.

Most derive from tiles, and include peg tile fragments from hollow way ditches 3118 and

3185, and plain, flat fragments from ditches 1014, 3058, 3216 and 3072, and intrusive in

roundhouse 3006. The fragments are 13-16mm thick, and of post-medieval date. Flakes,

probably also derived from tiles, were recovered from the subsoil, pits 1022 and 4006, and

ditches 3071 and 3215.


The CBM group is small and its ability to inform phasing or as indicators of site activity are

limited. Consequently, recording undertaken at this stage is considered sufficient for the

archive and no further work is recommended.


46


Stone Grace Jones

An abraded fragment (19g) from a lava quern was recovered from ditch 1013 (fill 1014).

Lava querns were imported to Britain during the Roman and medieval periods from the

Neidermendig and Mayen areas of the Eifel region in Germany, and from Volvic, in the

Auvergne region of France (Kars 1980, 403; King, 1987, 94). This fragment is too weathered

to identify its form.


The fragment is too small and abraded to identify details of form or use, but does provide

evidence for the import of querns to this area during the Roman or medieval periods.

References

Kars, H. 1980 ‘Early-medieval Dorestad, An archaeo-petrological study’, Berichten van de

Rijksdienst voor het Outheidkundg Bodermonderzoek, 30, 393-422

King, D. 1986 Petrology, dating and distribution of querns and millstone. The results of

research in Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Hertfordshire and Middlesex. Institute of

Archaeology Bulletin 23 (1987), 65-126

APPENDIX 5: SLAG BY DAVID DUNGWORTH

Introduction The metalworking debris submitted for assessment was recovered during archaeological

recording works undertaken by Cotswold Archaeology in the vicinity of Benner Lane,

Westend, Woking, Surrey (approximate NGR SU9561). The excavation revealed a rural

settlement with Late Iron Age to Roman pottery dates.

Methods All of the material submitted for assessment was examined visually and recording following

standard guidance (Historic England 2015). The material was weighed and selected

fragments were photographed. The main categories of material identified are listed in Table

2.


47


Furnace Slag

(Dense)

These are relatively large lumps of slag which formed within an iron smelting furnace

(Starley 1998). They usually lack significant porosity and so appear much denser than

most bloomery slags (although all are dominated by the mineral fayalite). These slags

frequently lack any characteristic surface morphology and in many cases appear to have

been fractured after they formed. These slags are usually present as large enough

lumps to discount iron smithing.

Furnace Slag

(Charcoal

impressions)

These lumps of slag are characterised by the frequent impressions of charcoal on the

surface (and their apparent completeness). These slags are likely to have formed with

an iron smelting furnace (Dungworth 2011) where no attempt was made to remove the

slag by tapping (cf Dungworth 2014).

Flow slag During bloomery smelting some slag will form and flow. In non-tapping furnaces, the

slag will tend to flow vertically and comprise small runs of slag (often with some charcoal

impressions, Dungworth 2011; Dungworth and Mepham 2012; Historic England 2015,

Figure 15). When accumulations of slag were tapped from the furnace, these tended to

form sheets which visually resemble lava flows (Historic England 2015, Figure 16).

Non-diagnostic

Ironworking Slag

Fragments of ironworking slag (fayalitic) which lack any diagnostic surface morphology

that would allow a distinction to be made between smelting and smithing.

Table 2: main categories of material

Results The industrial debris from Benner Lane comprises almost 3kg of metalworking debris (Table

3). The majority of the material can be positively identified as deriving from iron smelting.

Most of the smelting slags would have formed inside a furnace but have not been tapped.

These slags occur in two types: dense slags and slags with abundant charcoal impressions.

The former type of slag is characterised by a high density and (in general) the absence of

any characteristic surface morphology. The high density of these slags is caused by the low

level of porosity. The scientific examination of a range of ironworking slags (including dense

and other types) shows that these are almost all dominated by the mineral fayalite: the

significant factor affecting density is the degree of porosity. The low porosity of dense slags

suggests that they formed in such a way that any porosity could escape before the slag

solidified. Dense slags often have abundant fracture surfaces, suggesting that they originally

derived from larger lumps of slags (possible furnace bottoms). Lumps of slag with abundant

charcoal impressions generally appear to retain their original surface (fracture surfaces are

largely absent). The porosity (and so the density) of such slags varies widely; in some cases

they resemble dense slags, while in others they are strikingly light (Dungworth 2011). Two

fragments of flow slag were recovered from ditches 3081 (fill 3082) and 3093 (fill 3095).

These two fragments of flow slag have a form which suggests that they could have been

tapped from a furnace; however, both are highly abraded (due to exposure to flowing

water?) and neither can be positively identified as tap slag.


48


Context Furnace slag (dense)

Furnace slag (charcoal impressions)

Flow slag Non-diagnostic ironworking slag

Total

3009 54 54

3043 334 334

3055 312 312

3075 125 125

3082 224 224

3095 169 147 316

3125 39 39

3163 1595 1595

Total 1595 498 373 516 2999

Table 3: Summary of material

Conclusions The metalworking residues recovered at Benner Lane provide positive evidence for the

primary production (smelting) of iron using a procedure in which the slag was allowed to

accumulate inside the furnace rather than being tapped). This technology was widely used in

the Iron Age period but had been largely abandoned by the Roman period; the exact

chronology of the change from non-tapping to tapping is imperfectly understood. Iron Age

non-tapping bloomery iron smelting is known from several sites in the Thames Valley (Figure

1; Table 4).

Site Location Comments Reference

Lightwater SU9263 Extensive collection of furnace bottom

and other non-tapping slags

Britannia 17, 424;

Sarah Paynter pers comm

Riseley SU734638 20kg of non-tapping slags PPS 49, 380;

McDonnell 1984

Thorp Lea

Nurseries

TQ017697 28kg of non-tapping slags Starley 1998

Brooklands TQ069632 Bowl furnaces and 44kg of non-tapping

slag

Hanworth and Tomalin

1977

Heckfield SU7260 7kg of non-tapping slags Dungworth 2007

Shooters Hill TQ439766 63kg of non-tapping slags Dungworth and Mepham

2012

Table 4: Comparable smelting sites in the Thames Valley


49


Appendix 5.1. Map of the Thames valley showing the location of other prehistoric iron

smelting sites

Statement of potential and recommendations for further analysis

The assemblage from Benner Lane provides evidence for the manufacture of iron. This site

is one of only a few such sites in the Thames valley where prehistoric bloomery iron smelting

took place (all shared the same non-tapping technology). Most of these sites have not been

reported on fully (Table 3), although at least scientific analysis has been carried out on

assemblages. There is an urgent need to determine the extent to which the iron smelting

activities at these sites forms a distinct prehistoric regional technology and the nature of the

iron manufactured. It is recommended that selected samples are investigated using SEM-

EDS to determine microstructure and chemical composition. The results should be

compared in detail with comparable sites.

References Dungworth, D 2007 Heckfield, Hampshire: an examination of middle Iron Age smelting slags.

Research Department Report 104/2007. London: English Heritage

Dungworth, D 2011 ‘The metalworking debris’, in J A Nowakowski and H Quninnell,

Trevelgue Head, Cornwall: the importance of C K Croft Andrew’s 1939 excavations

for prehistoric and Roman Cornwall. Truro: Cornwall County Council, 220–244

Dungworth, D 2014 ‘Who’s afraid of the bowl furnace?’ Historical Metallurgy 48, 1–7


50


Dungworth, D and Mepham, L 2012 ‘Prehistoric iron smelting in London: evidence from

Shooters Hill’. Historical Metallurgy 46, 1–8

Hanworth, R and Tomlin, D J 1977 Brooklands, Weybridge: The excavation of an Iron Age

and Medieval site, 1964–5 and 1970–71. Guildford: Surrey Archaeological Society

Lowther, A W G 1949 ‘Excavations at Purberry Shot, Ewell’. Surrey Archaeological

Collections 50, 9–46

McDonnell, J G 1984 Interim report. Slags, Riseley Farm, Berkshire. AML Report 4422.

London: English Heritage

Starley, D 1998 The assessment of slag and other metalworking debris from Thorpe Lea

Nurseries, near Egham, Surrey 1990–94. AML Report 1/1998. London: English

Heritage

APPENDIX 6: ANIMAL BONE BY MATILDA HOLMES

Five poorly preserved cattle teeth (three upper molars, first, second and third; and two lower

molars, first or second and a third) were recovered from pit 1021 (context 1022). They were

consistent with a mature, domesticated animal. Several fragments of cremated medium or

small mammal-sized bone were recovered from ditch 3036 (context 3037), ditch 3209 and

Iron Age gully 3164 (context 3165 and 3168). (Table 5). They were too fragmentary to

identify in any more detail. No further work is recommended.

1022 3209 3037 3165 3168

Cattle Mammal Mammal Mammal Mammal

Maxillary tooth 3

Mandibular tooth 2

Cremated fragment 1 9 14 34

Total 5 1 9 14 34

Table 5: Animal remains recorded by context


51


APPENDIX 7: ENVIRONMENTAL REMAINS BY SARAH F WYLES

A series of 21 environmental samples (312 litres of soil) were selected from a range of

feature types, mainly from Iron Age features in Area 3, with the intention of recovering

environmental evidence of industrial or domestic activity on the site. The samples were

processed by standard flotation procedures (CA Technical Manual No. 2).

Preliminary identifications of plant macrofossils are noted in Table 1, following nomenclature

of Stace (1997) for wild plants, and traditional nomenclature, as provided by Zohary et al

(2012) for cereals. The flots varied in size with generally small amounts of rooty material and

modern seeds. The charred material comprised varying levels of preservation.

Area 1

Iron Age

A moderately small quantity of charcoal fragments greater than 2mm but no charred plant

remains were recovered from fill 1012 (sample 4) of pit 1011. This assemblage may be

representative of dispersed domestic settlement material.

Area 3

Iron Age

Roundhouse 3003 Gully

Fills 3165 (sample 35) and 3168 (sample 39) of gully section 3164 contained large quantities

of charcoal fragments, including mature and round wood pieces, and a few stem fragments.

No charred plant remains were observed. These assemblages may be reflective of dumped

waste material.

Low levels of charcoal fragments but no charred plant remains were recorded from fills 3135

(sample 27), 3163 (sample 34) and 3174 (sample 40) of gully sections 3134, 3162 and 3173

respectively. These assemblages may be representative of dispersed settlement material.

Roundhouse 3006 Gully

Fill 3037 (sample 11) of gully section 3036 produced a large quantity of charcoal fragments,

including both mature and round wood fragments, and a bud. Moderately small quantities of

charcoal fragments, including round and twig fragments, but no charred plant remains were

observed in sample 8 from fill 3025 of gully section 3024 and in sample 41 from fill 3189 of

gully section 3188. Fill 3029 (sample 10) of gully section 3028 contained a grape (Vitis

vinifera) pip, and a few charcoal and stem fragments. The assemblage from fill 3037 may be


52


reflective of a dump of settlement waste material whilst the other three assemblages may be

indicative of dispersed material. The grape pip may be later intrusive material.

4 Post Structure 3213

A moderate number of charred plant remains was recovered from fill 3115 (sample 25) of

posthole 3114. The cereal remains included hulled wheat, emmer or spelt (Triticum

dicoccum/spelta), grain and spikelet fork fragments, and barley (Hordeum vulgare) grain

fragments. A number of the chaff elements were identifiable as being those of emmer wheat

(Triticum dicoccum). The other remains included seeds of oat (Avena sp.), brome grass

(Bromus sp.), vetch/wild pea (Vicia/Lathyrus sp.) and celtic bean (Vicia faba), and tuber

fragments. The assemblage also included a moderately small quantity of charcoal

fragments.

Fill 3086 (sample 20) of posthole 3085 contained a few hulled wheat grain fragments and a

moderate charcoal assemblage.

These assemblages may be representative of settlement waste deposits.

4 Post Structure 3214

The charred assemblage recorded from fill 3153 (sample 29) of posthole 3152 included

moderate numbers of hulled wheat and barley grain fragments, a few seeds of brome grass

and a low number of charcoal fragments. Again this assemblage may be representative of a

settlement waste deposit.

Pits

Small amounts of charcoal fragments and no charred plant remains were noted from fills

3054 (sample 14) and 3055 (sample 15) of pit 3053. These assemblages may be reflective

of dispersed waste material.

A large quantity of charcoal pieces, including mature wood fragments, was retrieved from fill

3172 (sample 38) of pit 3171. No charred plant remains were observed. The assemblage

may be representative of dumped material.

Posthole

Fill 3113 (sample 24) of posthole 3112 contained a small number of charcoal and tuber

fragments. This may be reflective of dispersed material.


53


Occupation Layer

Small assemblages were recorded from deposits 3069 (sample 17) and 3080 (sample 19).

These included barley grain fragments and charcoal and stem/root fragments. The charcoal

included round/twig wood pieces. This may be representative of dispersed waste material.

Undated

Ditches

Fill 3061 (sample 16) of ditch 3060 contained a large amount of charcoal fragments,

including mature wood pieces. No charred plant remains were observed. The charred

assemblage provides no clear indication of the likely date of this feature.

A few charcoal and stem fragments, but no charred plant remains, were recorded from fill

3139 (sample 31) of ditch 3138. Again the charred assemblage provides no clear indication

of the likely date of this feature.

Summary

The assemblages generally appear to be indicative of a rural settlement with domestic

activities, including a small amount of crop processing taking place in the vicinity. There is no

indication however from the environmental assemblages of any industrial processes being

undertaken in the locality. The assemblages from samples from Iron Age features date are

generally compatible with the date of the deposits (Greig 1991).

Statement of potential and recommendations for further analysis

Further analysis of a small selection the charred plant assemblages from Area 3 has the

potential to provide some limited information on the range of crops and local crop processing

activities and the surrounding environment during these periods. This data could provide a

comparison with other assemblages of a similar date in the wider area such as at Marnel

Park and Merton Rise (Wright et al 2009).

It is recommended that the charred plant remains from Iron Age 4 post structure 3213

posthole 3114 (sample 25) and from 4 post structure 3214 posthole 3152 (sample 29)

should be analysed.

There is potential for the analysis of a selection of the charcoal assemblages to provide

some information on the species composition and the management and exploitation of the

local woodland resource during Iron Age period.


54


It is recommended that the charcoal from Area 3 Iron Age Roundhouse 3003 gully section

3164 (sample 35) and deposit 3168 (sample 39), Roundhouse 3006 gully section 3036

(sample 11), 4 post structure 3213 posthole 3114 (sample 25) and pit 3171 (sample 38)

should be analysed.

References Greig, J. 1991 ‘The British Isles’ in van Zeist, W., Wasylikowa, K. and Behre, K-E. (eds),

229-334

Stace, C. 1997 New flora of the British Isles (2nd edition), Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

van Zeist, W., Wasylikowa,K. and Behre, K-E. (eds) 1991 Progress in Old World

Palaeoethnobotany, Rotterdam, Balkema

Wright, J, Powell, A.B, Barclay, A. 2009 Excavation of Prehistoric and Romano British Sites

at Marnel Park and Merton Rise (Popley) Basingstoke, 2004-8 Salisbury: Wessex

Archaeology Ltd.

Zohary, D., Hopf, M. and Weiss, E. 2012 Domestication of plants in the Old World: the origin

and spread of cultivated plants in West Asia, Europe, and the Nile Valley, 4th

edition, Oxford, Clarendon Press


55


Table 6 Assessment table of the palaeoenvironmental remains Feature Context Sample Processed

vol (L) Unprocessed

vol (L) Flot Size (ml)

Roots %

Grain Chaff Cereal Notes Charred Other

Notes for Table Charcoal > 4/2mm

Other Analysis

Area 1 Iron Age

Pit 1011 1012 4 7 0 15 5 - - - - - **/** -

Area 3 Iron Age

Roundhouse 3003 Gully 3134 3135 27 19 0 10 40 - - - - - */* - 3162 3163 34 9 0 40 20 - - - - Stem frags **/** - 3164 3165 35 20 20 265 2 - - - - Stem frags *****/***** - C 3164 3168 39 17 0 150 2 - - - - - ****/***** - C 3173 3174 40 9 0 10 40 - - - - - */* - Roundhouse 3006 Gully 3024 3025 8 17 0 20 10 - - - - - **/** - 3028 3029 10 15 0 10 20 - - - * Grape pip, stem frags */* -

3036 3037 11 17 0 475 5 - - - * Bud *****/*****

burnt

C 3188 3189 41 16 0 30 25 - - - - Stem frags **/** - 4 Post Structure 3213 3085 3086 20 5 0 30 10 * - Hulled wheat grain frags - - ***/** -

3114 3115 25 17 0 40 20 *** *

Hulled wheat + barley grains, spikelet fork frag

inc. emmer ** Avena, Bromus, Vicia/Lathyrus,

Vicia faba, tuber frag **/** - P C 4 Post Structure 3214 3152 3153 29 17 0 40 25 *** - Hulled wheat + barley grains * Bromus */** - P Pits 3053 3054 14 20 10 15 10 - - - - Stem/root frags **/* -


56


3055 15 20 20 5 40 - - - - - */* - 3171 3172 38 9 0 125 2 - - - - - ***/***** - C Posthole 3112 3113 24 8 0 20 15 - - - * Tuber frag **/** - Occupation Layer

3069 17 9 0 15 20 - - - - Stem/root frags */** - 3080 19 17 0 50 10 * - Barley grain frags - Stem/root frags **/** -

Undated Ditches 3060 3061 16 17 0 425 2 - - - - - *****/***** - 3138 3139 31 9 0 10 60 - - - - Stem frags */* - Key: * = 1–4 items; ** = 5–19 items; *** = 20–49 items; ****= 50–99 items; ***** = >100 items, P = plants, C = charcoal


57


APPENDIX 8: OASIS REPORT FORM

PROJECT DETAILS

Project Name Benner Lane, West End, Woking, Surrey, Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design

Short description

A programme of archaeological investigation was undertaken by Cotswold Archaeology in July and August 2017 at the request of Martin Grant Homes at Benner Lane, Woking, Surrey. Four areas totalling 6,073m² were excavated across the development area. The site has revealed evidence of isolated Late Bronze Age activity and low level rural settlement dating from the Mid-Late Iron Age including up to three round houses and associated four-post structures, possibly continuing in use into the early Roman period. Evidence for iron smelting of this period consistent with other sites in the Thames Valley was also identified, although no in situ industrial remains were present. Medieval and post-medieval ditches, ditched trackways and a possible hollow way were also recorded. This document presents a quantification and assessment of the evidence recovered from the excavation. It considers the evidence collectively in its local, regional and national context, and presents an updated project design for a programme of post-excavation analysis to bring the results to appropriate publication.

Project dates 17 July to 23 August 2017

Project type

Excavation

Previous work

Field evaluation (CA 2017)

Future work Unknown

PROJECT LOCATION

Site Location Benner Lane, West End, Woking, Surrey

Study area (M2/ha) 6,073m² across four areas

Site co-ordinates 495100 161220

PROJECT CREATORS

Name of organisation Cotswold Archaeology

Project Brief originator Surrey County Council

Project Design (WSI) originator Cotswold Archaeology

Project Manager Richard Greatorex

Project Supervisor Joe Whelan & Sam Wilson

MONUMENT TYPE Round House, Post built structure, ditch

SIGNIFICANT FINDS Pottery, metalworking debris

PROJECT ARCHIVES Intended final location of archive (museum/Accession no.)

Content

Physical Lightbox, Woking Ceramics, flint, metal objects etc

Paper Lightbox, Woking Context sheets, matrices, registers etc

Digital Lightbox, Woking Database, digital photos

BIBLIOGRAPHY

CA (Cotswold Archaeology) 2018 Benner Lane, West End, Woking, Surrey. Post-Excavation Assessment and

Updated Project Design. CA report 18166

London

HAMPSHIRE

WEST SUSSEX

SURREY

CotswoldArchaeology

N

PROJECT TITLE

FIGURE TITLE

FIGURE NO.0 1km

1

Benner Lane, Woking, Surrey

Site location plan

PROJECT NO.DATESCALE@A4

DRAWN BYCHECKED BYAPPROVED BY

77903605/02/20181:25,000

CPAOKW

Andover 01264 347630

Cirencester 01285 771022

Exeter 01392 826185

Milton Keynes 01908 564660

w www.cotswoldarchaeology.co.uk

e [email protected]

© Crown copyright and database rights 2018 Ordnance Survey 0100031673

162000162000

160000160000

494000494000

496000496000

P:\7

7903

6 B

enne

r Lan

e W

okin

g S

urre

y P

XA

\Illu

stra

tion\

Dra

fts\7

7903

6 B

enne

r Lan

e P

XA

Fig

s 2-

6.dw

g

N

DRAWN BY

CHECKED BY

APPROVED BY

CP

AO

KW

PROJECT NO.

DATE

SCALE@A3

779036

01/02/2018

1:1,000

PROJECT TITLE


FIGURE TITLE

Plan of excavated areas

FIGURE NO.

2

Andover

Cirencester

Exeter

Milton Keynes

[email protected]

we

01264 34763001285 77102201392 82618501908 564660

site boundary

excavation area

evaluation trench

archaeological feature

field drain


50m0

P:\7

7903

6 B

enne

r Lan

e W

okin

g S

urre

y P

XA

\Illu

stra

tion\

Dra

fts\7

7903

6 B

enne

r Lan

e P

XA

Fig

s 2-

6.dw

g

N

DRAWN BY

CHECKED BY

APPROVED BY

CP

AO

KW

PROJECT NO.

DATE

SCALE@A3

779036

01/02/2018

1:200

PROJECT TITLE


FIGURE TITLE

Plan of Area 1

FIGURE NO.

3

Andover

Cirencester

Exeter

Milton Keynes

[email protected]

we

01264 34763001285 77102201392 82618501908 564660

site boundary

excavation area

evaluation trench

archaeological feature(excavated/unexcavated)

field drain

section locationB B


10m0

200m0

P:\7

7903

6 B

enne

r Lan

e W

okin

g S

urre

y P

XA

\Illu

stra

tion\

Dra

fts\7

7903

6 B

enne

r Lan

e P

XA

Fig

s 2-

6.dw

g

N

DRAWN BY

CHECKED BY

APPROVED BY

CP

AO

KW

PROJECT NO.

DATE

SCALE@A3

779036

01/02/2018

1:100

PROJECT TITLE


FIGURE TITLE

Plan of Area 2

FIGURE NO.

4

Andover

Cirencester

Exeter

Milton Keynes

[email protected]

we

01264 34763001285 77102201392 82618501908 564660

site boundary

excavation area

evaluation trench


section locationB B


5m0

200m0

T33

T30

TP 3080TP 3080TP 3080

TP 3078TP 3078TP 3078

TP 3069TP 3069TP 3069

T7

T11

T10

T23

T24 T25

T27

Area 3

T28

T29

T32

T31

possible roundhouse ring

gully remnant 3116

roundhouse 3006

roundhouse 3003

ditch 3196

four-post structure

3214

four-post structure

3213

ditch 3216

ditch 3215ditch 3215ditch 3215

309330933093

3010

3303

2305

G

G

H

H

II

J

J

KK

L

L M

M

NN

O

O

PP

QQ

RR

3018

3185

3177

31103210

3212

3118

2803

3171

3081

3148

3130

3106

3042

3058

3056

ditch 3217

ditch 3218

3112

3049

305130513051

3076

3053

161250161250

161200161200

161300161300

495200495200

495150495150

495100495100

CotswoldArchaeology

N

PROJECT TITLE

FIGURE TITLE

FIGURE NO.

5


Phased plan of Area 3



77903605/02/20181:500

CPAOKW

Andover 01264 347630


Exeter 01392 826185



e [email protected]


site boundary

excavation area

evaluation trench

Iron Age

Romano-British

Post-medieval

Modern

Undated

limit of ‘occupation related deposit’

field drain

section locationA A

excavated/unexcavated

1:5000 25m

P:\7

7903

6 B

enne

r Lan

e W

okin

g S

urre

y P

XA

\Illu

stra

tion\

Dra

fts\7

7903

6 B

enne

r Lan

e Fi

gs 2

-6.d

wg

N

DRAWN BY

CHECKED BY

APPROVED BY

CP

AO

KW

PROJECT NO.

DATE

SCALE@A3

779036

01/02/2018

1:100

PROJECT TITLE


FIGURE TITLE

Plan of Area 4

FIGURE NO.

6

Andover

Cirencester

Exeter

Milton Keynes

[email protected]

we

01264 34763001285 77102201392 82618501908 564660

site boundary

excavation area

evaluation trench


field drain

treethrow

section locationB B


5m0

200m0

1018

ditch 1017

42.7mAOD

SW NE

Section AA

1012

pit 1011

42.8mAOD

SW NE

Section BB

1022

pit 1021

42.4mAOD

NW SE

Section CC

Ditch 1017, looking north-west (scale 0.5m) Pit 1011, looking north-west (scale 0.5m) Pit 1021, looking north-east (scale 1m)

CotswoldArchaeology

Andover 01264 347630


Exeter 01392 826185



e [email protected]

PROJECT TITLE

FIGURE TITLE

FIGURE NO.

7PROJECT NO.DATESCALE@A3



Area 1: sections and photographs

77903605/02/20181:20

CPAOKW

1:200 1m

1027

1026pit

1025

42.5mAOD

SE NW

Section DD

1032

1001

1000

1031ditch 1030

43.3mAOD

W E

Section EE

Pit 1025, looking south-west (scale 0.5m) Ditch 1030, looking north (scale 1m)

CotswoldArchaeology

PROJECT TITLE

FIGURE TITLE

FIGURE NO.

8





77903605/02/20181:20

CPAOKW

Andover 01264 347630


Exeter 01392 826185



e [email protected]

1:200 1m

2006ditch 2005

42.8mAOD

W E

Section FF

1:200 1m

CotswoldArchaeology

PROJECT TITLE

FIGURE TITLE

FIGURE NO.

9


Area 2: section and photograph



77903605/02/20181:20

CPAOKW

Andover 01264 347630


Exeter 01392 826185



e [email protected]

Ditch 2005, looking north (scale 0.5m)

3137

ring gully 3136

44.4mAOD

SW NE

Section GG

3027ring gully

3026

44.5mAOD

N S

Section HH

3054

3055

pit 3053

44.8mAOD

NE SW

Section II

South-east facing section of ring gully 3136 or roundhouse 3003 (scale 0.2m)

West facing section of ring gully 3026 of roundhouse 3006 (scale 0.2m) Pit 3053, looking south-east (scale 0.5m)

CotswoldArchaeology

Andover 01264 347630


Exeter 01392 826185



e [email protected]

PROJECT TITLE

FIGURE TITLE

FIGURE NO.





77903605/02/20181:20

CPAOKW

1:200 1m

3048

terminal 3047

44.6mAOD

NE SW

Section JJ3000

3001

3011

ditch 3010

45.6mAOD

SW NE

Section KK

3068 3035ditch 3067

ditch 3034

44.6mAOD

NW SE

Section LL

Terminal 3047, looking south-east (scale 0.3m) Ditch 3010, looking north-west (scale 1m) Ditches 3034 and 3067, looking north-east (scale 1m)

CotswoldArchaeology

Andover 01264 347630


Exeter 01392 826185



e [email protected]

PROJECT TITLE

FIGURE TITLE

FIGURE NO.





77903605/02/20181:20

CPAOKW

1:200 1m

3119

possible hollow way 3118

44.4mAOD

SW NE

Section MM

3122

3121

3002

3125

3124

3124

ditch 3123

ditch 3120

44.2mAOD

W E

Section NN

Hollow way 3118, looking north-west (scale 1m) Ditches 3120 and 3123, looking north (scales 0.3m and 1m)

CotswoldArchaeology

PROJECT TITLE

FIGURE TITLE

FIGURE NO.

12





77903605/02/20181:20

CPAOKW

Andover 01264 347630


Exeter 01392 826185



e [email protected]

1:200 1m

3101

posthole 3100

44.4mAOD

SW NE

Section PP

3050posthole

3049

44.7mAOD

NE SW

Section QQ

3017

3016terminal

3015

44.7mAOD

S EN W

Section OO

Three-point section of terminal 3105, looking north-west (scale 1m) Posthole 3100, looking north-west (scale 0.3m) Posthole 3049, looking south-east (scale 0.3m)

CotswoldArchaeology

Andover 01264 347630


Exeter 01392 826185



e [email protected]

PROJECT TITLE

FIGURE TITLE

FIGURE NO.





77903605/02/20181:20

CPAOKW

1:200 1m

3197

3198

3199

3200

ditch 3196

43.3mAOD

NE SW

Section RR

Ditch 3196, looking south (scale 1m)

CotswoldArchaeology

PROJECT TITLE

FIGURE TITLE

FIGURE NO.

14


Area 3: section and photograph



77903605/02/20181:20

CPAOKW

Andover 01264 347630


Exeter 01392 826185



e [email protected]

1:200 1m

CotswoldArchaeology

PROJECT TITLE

FIGURE TITLE

FIGURE NO.

15

Photographs



Andover 01264 347630


Exeter 01392 826185



e [email protected]

Area 2, general pre-excavation view (1m scales) Area 3, general pre-excavation view and roundhouse 3006 (1m scales)

Area 3, general pre-excavation view and roundhouse 3003 Area 3, working shot Benner Lane, Woking, Surrey

77903617/05/2018NA

EEDJBKW

benner lane, west end, woking surrey - cotswold archaeology · 2019-07-09 · 1 benner lane, west...

Documents