EXCAVATIONS AT NORTH PARK FARM,

BLETCHINGLEY, SURREY

THE MEDIEVAL AND LATER ARCHAEOLOGY

EXCAVATIONS AT NORTH PARK FARM, BLETCHINGLEY, SURREY

THE MEDIEVAL AND LATER ARCHAEOLOGY

by

Phil Jones

with contributions by

P Austin, N Marples

Surrey County Archaeological Unit Surrey History Centre

130 Goldsworth Rd, Woking, GU21 6ND Telephone 01483 518777 Facsimile 01483 518780

Project Manager Rob Poulton Authors Various Date of this revision Mar 2011

The material contained herein is and remains the sole property of the Surrey County Archaeological Unit and is

not for publication to third parties without the prior written consent of Surrey County Council, otherwise than in

pursuance of the specific purposes for which it was prepared

EXCAVATIONS AT NORTH PARK FARM, BLETCHINGLEY, SURREY: THE MEDIEVAL AND LATER ARCHAEOLOGY CONTENTS INTRODUCTION THE STRATIGRAPHY The early medieval hearth and feature cluster Cross-valley ditch 28/29 and its associated features The ‘trackway’ Ditch 79 Ditch 109 and pit 191 The eastern field system The eastern pits The buried woodland soil The causeway The beam-slot building The post-medieval topography of the site Discussion SAXON & MEDIEVAL POTTERY The southern feature cluster Other medieval features and layers Medieval pottery from later contexts Discussion OTHER FINDS The iron harness mount Baked Clay CHARCOAL MACRO-REMAINS Phil Austin Introduction Methodology Results Discussion Summary DISCUSSION BIBLIOGRAPHY CATALOGUE OF MEDIEVAL AND LATER CONTEXTS

i

Figures Fig 1 Location plans Fig 2 Geology and topography of the 2005 area Fig 3 Location of the Saxon and medieval features uncovered in 2001-2009 Fig 4 Plan of the 2005 site showing all medieval and later features Fig 5 Plan of the southern feature cluster Fig 6 Medieval pottery nos 1-20 Fig 7 The medieval harness mount Fig 8 The area as shown on the Clayton map of 1761 Fig 9 The area as shown on the Tithe map of 1841 Fig 10 The area as shown on the 1st Edition Ordnance Survey map of 1871 Tables Table 1 Saxon and medieval pottery by count and weight Table 2 Charcoal samples: summary of results Table 3 Charcoal samples: Taxon presence (absolute values)

ii

INTRODUCTION Archaeological fieldwork undertaken by the Surrey County Archaeological Unit in the North Park Farm sand quarry proceeded westward from 1988 and included a major excavation in 1988-9 of a medieval and Tudor complex at Hextalls (fig 1; Poulton 1998). Further west in 2001 the stripping of a 4.7Ha swathe of land between the present site and east to Green Lane led to the discovery of Bronze Age and possibly Early Iron Age features, as well as a dense array of Mesolithic struck flints in the head of a short valley towards the southern end of the area (Hayman 2004). This culminated in 2005 with the stripping of up to a metre of plough soils from a little over a hectare of almost the whole valley area, in advance of a series of excavations focussed on the nature and extent of the Mesolithic activity (Jones forthcoming a). The later archaeology was not neglected during that fieldwork, however, and further Bronze Age and early Iron Age features were investigated, as well as an early medieval settlement and field system and a late medieval or slightly later stone causeway across the valley. A full account of the geological and topographical background of the site is provided in the report on the Mesolithic archaeology and need not be repeated here, but the most salient details can be summarised. The site comprised the head and greater part of a short east-west valley in the gently undulating landscape of the Lower Greensand Folkestone Beds sands nearly 230m east of Place Farm. The valley met with an approximately north-south flowing stream just east of the site that rises on the North Downs escarpment, and lies on the western side of a narrow, but important watershed of two river catchments, with streams flowing east to the Medway and west to the Mole and on to the Thames. The earliest valley deposits are re-deposited sands derived from the Folkestone Beds and presumed to have been wind-blown. They lay very deep within the head area, but lessened in depth further west. The origin of the valley remains uncertain, but seems unlikely to have resulted from fluvial action. The presence of an inter-cutting complex of siltstone indurations towards the head may have resulted in differential aeolian erosion that created the hollow. Overlying the re-deposited sands within the valley was a thin horizon of ‘dirty’ sands that palynological analyses have not been able to determine whether it was an original soil or a bioturbated, oxidised surface that had developed on the surface of the sands. Through the centre of the valley the ‘dirty’ horizon was blanketed by a humic ‘woodland’ soil that, although sealing the fills of medieval field ditches, may have formed much earlier, with the upper profiles of the latter perhaps having been destroyed by earthworms and other agencies of bioturbation. A succession of two plough-soils subsequently accumulated over the whole of the site. The later medieval or early post-medieval causeway was laid over the first of these, and the second was a soil that had been improved by the application of lime during the post-medieval period, and which sealed the causeway to a depth of c0.5m.

Subsequent to the initial stripping of the ploughsoils, the area was divided into a grid of alpha-numerically notated 100m2 squares, and then large areas of the woodland soil were also stripped when their relatively late dating became apparent.

1

THE STRATIGRAPHY Introduction Part of the backlands of a late 11th or early 12th century occupation site was revealed along the southern edge of the stripped area, as well as several field ditches and features infilled during the late 12th or early 13th century. A north-south stone causeway had been constructed in the late medieval or early post-medieval period over one of the medieval ditches, and a medieval or later beam slot structure that might have been a barn was found in the north-east of the site above the valley head.

The early medieval hearth and feature cluster Evidence of settlement was provided by sixteen sunken features (32, 37-46, 48, 49, 51, 53 and 54) and a hearth (30) along the southern edge of the cleared area, mostly in squares E9 and D9, but extending into E8 and E10. In 2001 another eight pit and posthole features were discovered between 10 and 15m south-west of the 2005 site, but a wedge of unexcavated land up to 3m wide remained between the two areas. Forty metres of land that remains intact between the 2001 features and Place Farm Road probably contains the focus of the occupation. All but four of the features of the present site contained black charred material, as did most of the 2001 features, although there had been, in many instances, some side collapsing of the Folkestone Beds sands into which they had been dug before they were filled. Most were circular or oval in plan, ranging in size from the largest, 40, at 0.77m x 0.45m, to a vaguely stakehole-type feature, 38, although it is likely that truncation by the plough may have severely reduced their depth. Some were very shallow, such as 37, 40, 43 and 53, but a few, like 38 and 48, were almost as deep as they were wide. One with a black fill, 41, also contained many carstones, and it may not be a coincidence that it lay only 2.5m from the hearth. Another, 32, even closer to the hearth, contained two sherds of contemporary pottery, and the only other finds from any of them, apart from re-deposited Mesolithic flints, were two tiny fragments of medieval tile from 44. Because of their size, however, they may have intruded into the fill, especially since all other medieval finds from the area pre-date the re-introduction of tile production in the mid 12th century. Three features contained fills of brown sandy soil, of which one, 46, contained a single sherd, and the other, 6, three sherds of early medieval pottery. The third, 49, was very irregular and may have been disturbed by animal burrowing. The last of the sunken features, 5, contained a complete shell-tempered storage jar standing upright in the pit that had been specially dug to accommodate it. Though broken in antiquity, it had clearly been left in situ. Storage jars set within pits are widely known at prehistoric sites, but are rarely found on medieval settlements. Samples of charcoal from four of the pits were of sufficient size and number to allow reasonable estimates of proportions to be established. Almost all the charcoal in storage pit 5 was of oak, as also in pit 53, although 13% of the latter was of acer. Pit 40 had roughly equal quantities of hawthorn and blackthorn, amounting to 88%, and over 50% from pit 45 was of alder, with c30% more of blackthorn. With the possible exception of pit 5, which has an oak-dominated assemblage like the hearth (see below), much of the charcoal may derive from hedge-trimmings.

2

The largest feature, 30, lay next to the southern baulk. It was a circular hollow, c2.5m across and with a flat base only 0.1-0.15m deep, but its fill was variously mixed except for a small, upstanding area on the surface of its south-west quadrant that had been the seat of a hearth. Careful examination of this quadrant revealed an original fill of mottled brown sand around the edge of the feature that could represent an early degradation, surrounding a dark grey/black sandy soil. In the south-east quadrant this darker fill contained all the sherds of a shell-tempered cooking-pot that has paired suspension holes around its neck, as well as an iron fitting with a ring handle. Almost all of the charcoal fragments in association are of oak, and probably of fuel wood (see p00). The hearth was comprised of a kidney-shaped ‘island’ of reddened natural sand on the southern edge of the larger feature, with the mottled sand east and west from it and the darker fill immediately to the north. The burnt sand area measured 0.4m east to west x 0.35m north to south, and its flat top had a hard crust. Although much disturbed by burrows and root action, there seems to have been a small posthole immediately north of the hearth and cutting the dark fill. It seems likely that the final use of the cooking-pot had been on the adjacent hearth. From the forms and fabrics of the pottery and excluding the tiny tile fragments that might have been intrusive, the site may have been abandoned relatively early in the 12th century before the introduction of wheel-thrown sandy wares. Since the area of occupation came to be included in the North Park of Bletchingley it is possible that it was cleared for its construction. A park documented at Bletchingley in 1233 has been argued to have been the North Park and that it was then of relatively recent origin (Poulton 1998, 176). It was certainly in existence by 1262, when both Bletchingley parks are documented (Saaler 1998, 5). An outlier of the medieval features may be pit 71, 18m further east in H9. This measured 0.7 x 0.8m across, but was quite shallow, at 0.13m deep. Its fill of charcoal-rich sandy soil matches that of many of the medieval pits, but it contained no dateable finds. Whereas it could be medieval, the fill is also similar to those of a cluster of prehistoric features on the opposite side of the valley. Cross-valley ditch 28/29 and its associated features Towards the west end of the early medieval features described above was an ENE/WSW ditch, 29, the south end of which petered to nothing before reaching the southern baulk of the site. Since this coincides with the crest of the valley it may have been destroyed by the plough or by erosion, and it may originally have extended further, perhaps to the present Place Farm Road. It was not obviously present in the intervening strip of ground examined in 2001, however, although the west end of a probable medieval quarry followed roughly the same alignment, albeit 2-3m further east. Three of the early medieval features (37, 38 and 39) were separated by the ditch from the others further east. On the southern side of the valley two sections (contexts 86 and 87) showed it to have been 0.3m deep, but heavily disturbed by burrows and root action that varied its width from between 0.8m to 1.1m. A medieval floor tile fragment and a 12th century rim sherd were recovered from these sections. Further north in the deepest part of the valley the ditch was sealed below a causeway (see below) on a slightly different alignment, and where it emerged six metres north and on the west side of the causeway it was crossed by the east/west ditch 79.

3

The ditch, now numbered 28 on the north side of the valley, continued the same alignment for 36m, but it was much slighter than further south, being only c0.3m wide and c0.14m deep. A 3.4m length of it (context 97) excavated just north of its enjoinment with 79 provided three joining sherds from the rim of a medieval sand and flint-tempered cooking pot. Further north, on the upper slope of the valley, a 1.2m gap in the ditch was probably a gateway, and both of its rounded terminals were excavated. Hard by the western side of the northern terminal was a circular posthole, 78, that was 0.25m across and 0.11m deep and filled with dark grey sandy soil. Despite its shallowness, probably due to truncation, it is likely to have contained the pivot of the gate. Ditch 28 terminated at pit 27 on the northern lip of the valley, which was relatively large, roughly oval and had been heavily disturbed by burrows and root action. Its dark grey, charcoal-rich sandy soil fill contained twelve sherds of a 12th century sand and flint-tempered ware, a few animal bones, a piece of baked clay that is possibly daub, a fragment of Upper Greensand (121g), some curious pellets of white clay and a fossil sea urchin (micraster coranguinem). Because of the amorphous outline of the pit, with its many undercutting ‘limbs’ of fill material, it may have been a pit or post hole that had subsequently been utilised by a tree. The presence of the medieval artefacts within it, including a still sooted cooking pot sherd, suggests that 12th century activity might have lain close to hand. North from the pit termination of ditch 28, the same general alignment was followed through by a drove-way defined by two ditches that were uncovered during excavations in 2009 (Jones, forthcoming b). The same drove-way was also represented by the dog-leg of ditches revealed in the north-west corner of the area examined in 2001, but by way of another dog-leg of the same ditches towards the north end of the 2009 area (fug 3). The ‘trackway’ Towards the west end of the site two parallel ditches, 137 and 138, traversed the valley floor from north to south on a slightly curving alignment for 18m, but the ends of both petered-out rather than having formal terminations. Two excavated lengths of the western ditch (context 188) revealed mixed fills of dark grey and lighter sandy soils and a variable profile, and the only finds, apart from Mesolithic material were a few small carstones and a tiny piece of medieval tile. The ditch was c0.35m wide and about the same in depth. Two almost opposing small features, 189 and 190, were initially identified along the edge of the southernmost excavated segment, but further examination suggested that these had probably been burrows or root-holes. A 5m length of the eastern ditch 137 and a short length of its northern termination (both 186) were dug and demonstrated the similarity of its profile and fill to those of 138. No finds other than of the Mesolithic period were recovered from its fill. It is probable that these ditches were all that remained of a more continuous track that only survived where they had been dug deeper across the valley floor. Since the distance between them varied from 1.2m to 1.5m, the track may have been too narrow for wheeled traffic, but the ‘ditches’ may instead have been the ruts created by wheeled vehicles. The fills of both linear features were cut by the east/west ditches 79 and 109 (see below).

4

Ditch 79 This west to east ditch ran on a slightly curving east/west alignment down the central axis of the valley and continued beyond the western baulk. Its fill was excavated through I5 and most of G5 (where numbered 118), and other lengths were examined next to the causeway where it met with ditches 28 and 29 (context 98) and further west (context 108). Its proportions varied throughout its length, but the ditch was widest (c1.5m) and deepest (0.3m) towards the east end of I5. Further west in I5 and beyond it varied between c0.75 and 0.80m across, and between 0.23 and 0.30m deep. Dating evidence was provided from the 10m length of it through I5, where four sherds of a 12th century sand and flint-tempered fabric (the same as those found in pit 27) were recovered. Other excavated segments yielded no more medieval finds. The ditch was sealed below the woodland soil (context 34/52), although subsequent subsidence left a linear depression that was still evident immediately prior to the formation of the deep plough soil across the site. Ditch 109 and pit 191 In the far west of the site, another roughly east/west ditch lay south of 79, but not on the same alignment. Its vestigial western end had also cut the fills of the ‘trackway’, but stopped short of enjoining with ditch 79. A short segment was excavated in 2001 (then numbered 54), and this was lengthened to a total of 5.5m in 2005 as context 109. A base fragment of medieval sand and flint-tempered ware was recovered from its fill of dark grey sandy soil. The ditch ran west to east for c27m before turning south 7.5m west of the causeway, and the dog-leg angle was sampled in 2001 (then numbered 53). In 2005, the southern extent of this new alignment of the ditch remained masked below the woodland soil 52, but since it did not reappear in the north-east corner of square D7 where it should have, it must have terminated somewhere in the intervening 13m. Although the medieval pottery from the ditch fill is of the same period as that found in the larger ditch 79, and both lay buried below the woodland soil, they need not have been in contemporary use. In the wedge-shaped gap between ditches 79 and 109 was a circular pit, 191, with a bowl-shaped profile 0.64m across and 0.17m deep. Its fill of dark grey/brown humic sand contained two joining body sherds and a base angle of sand-tempered medieval pottery of later 12th or early 13th century date. The pit could be contemporary with the ditches or slightly later. The eastern field system Ditch 79 terminated in the seat of the valley head, where it bifurcated into ditch 11, running WNW, and ditch 12 that led off SSE, in an approximate right angle at variance with the cardinal dispositions of the linear features further west. Both were found to contain a few worn pieces of later prehistoric pottery in 2001, and longer segments excavated in 2005 (segments 16 and 17) yielded similar, small and abraded sherds. Ditch 11 petered-out up the valley slope, most likely because of plough truncation since its alignment was continued on the higher ground by feature 943. This eastern part of the same the ditch was sampled in 2001 (in segments 935, 934, 929 944 and 945), but only a few worn sherds of later prehistoric pottery were recovered. Another length of possibly the same field system was found to the south of ditches 11 and 12 in 2001. Although on a

5

similar, but not exactly parallel, alignment to ditch 11, the c9m length of ditch 966 was sampled in 2001 (in segments 963-6 and 969), but only a small, worn sherd of Roman greyware pottery was recovered.

The inclusion of 21 Late Bronze Age or Early Iron Age sherds in ditch 11 and three of similar types in ditch 12, might suggest a prehistoric date for the field system they represent, but they are much more likely to have been of early medieval date. This is because the sherds are small and worn, 966 was part of the same system and contained a worn Roman sherd, and 11 and 12 enjoined with the principal axial ditch of medieval date, 79. Two opposed post-holes, 972 and 973, were found on either side of ditch 11 close to its dog-leg with 12.

The buried woodland soil Below the deeply-lying plough soils of the site through the lowest part of the valley was a darker swathe of buried soil, nowhere more than 0.15m deep, that was widest in its central part and gradually narrowed towards the west (see fig 2). East and west of the causeway it was numbered 36 and 52 respectively, both in 2001 and in 2005. Since the layer was initially thought to have been of Mesolithic age, the primary machined clearance of the site left all of it in situ. Hand excavation soon yielded medieval pottery sherds and tile fragments from deep within its make-up, however, as well as many stones dislodged from the medieval or later causeway. On account of its seemingly high humic content it seems most likely that the soil had developed below woodland, although this was not proven by pedological analyses (see 00). Its presence signifies a landscape very different from that which prevailed before it had been allowed to develop. Although it appeared to seal the medieval field ditches, it is strongly suspected that these had been dug before the onset of its accumulation, with their upper profiles having been rendered undetectable due to subsequent worm action. Nevertheless, there must have been a period after their regular use when the ditches had been allowed to become choked, or else deliberately filled, before continued growth of the valley woodland copse.

The causeway Sealing much of the length of medieval ditch 29 was a causeway of undressed stone that crossed the lower part of the valley for a distance of 32m. It was constructed sometime after the onset of the formation of the plough soil, since in the lowest part of the valley the stones lay over 0.25m of such soil and were sealed by 0.6m more. At both ends of the causeway, where the stones trailed off to nothing, however, the ploughsoil below them lay up to 0.4m deep. This is probably because the stones of the causeway in the lowest part of the valley had been more compressed by the passage of traffic across soft ground. The causeway was largely comprised of stones derived from the Upper Greensand, and specifically the glauconitic malmstone that, where extracted further west, was called Reigate or Merstham Stone. Most of its angular clasts were between c0.1m to c0.3m across and had not been shaped in any way. The nearest quarry of such material, now completely overgrown, lies 1km north of the site along the Upper Greensand outcrop. Its period of use is unknown, but it could have supplied Bletchingley church, the medieval fabric of which is largely comprised of such stones. A few ferruginous

6

carstones from the Folkestone Beds and some flint nodules from the Chalk were also present within its make-up. Along both edges of the 2.4m wide causeway, kerbs of roughly squared malmstones had been set in place before one or two loosely coursed layers of the stone rubble were placed over and between them. These were not fully investigated, however, as the integrity of the structure was maintained throughout the excavations. The date of its construction is problematic, in that all that is certainly known is that it overlies a medieval ditch and it is not shown on the Clayton estate map of 1761. The only associated artefactual material was recovered during the trowelled clearance of the final few centimetres of plough soil from its surface, and this includes a few sherds of late 18th and 19th century pottery. These are unlikely to date to the period of use of the causeway, however, especially since it seems not to have been present in 1761. It could have been in use when the quarry to the north of the site had been active, since the most direct route from there to the village of Bletchingley would have been via the causeway and a still extant path that begins from the south side of Place Farm Road. Further evidence of this north/south track was found further north in the area excavated in 2009. Though not discernible as a visible feature towards the south end of the excavated area, its line became apparent as a loose metalling of gravel as soon as the sands of the Fokestone Beds gave way to the clay of the Gault. Just as the causeway buried the north/south medieval ditch in the 2005 area, so also were the drove-way ditches sealed by the metalling (Jones forthcoming b).

The beam slot building In the north-east corner of the site on the lip of the valley, a T-shaped feature comprised of beam slots, 94 and 95 was uncovered, aligned on the same orientation as the field. Both were straight, c0.2m wide and 0.5/6m deep. The east/west member, 94, had a squared termination 2.2m from the T-junction and could be followed east for another 2.1m before it had been destroyed in the present quarry operations. The N/S limb was followed south for 2.5m before it, too, had been destroyed. A few fragments of roof tile were recovered from the fills, suggesting a medieval or post-medieval date. The structure was probably part of a farm building, perhaps aisled, and possibly a barn.

The post-medieval topography of the site

The earliest detailed map of the area shows the Clayton estate in 1761. This was a large holding that included North Park Farm in the east and Place Farm to the west, as well as some of the high ground of the Downs in the north. The area of the present site then lay within Jess Land Field, which is shown as being sub-divided into three plots by, what appear to be, hedges. They include a larger rectangular plot in the east, a central NNE/SSW boundary and a similar sized plot in the west divided east-west to form two roughly square plots. That east-west sub-division did not survive to be recorded in later maps.

The eastern boundary of Jess Land Field was destroyed in the current sand workings, but not before archaeological work had established that it had originally lain up

7

to 25m west of its 1761 and modern alignment. Until its destruction, there had been a short ‘dog-leg’ re-alignment in its north-east corner, but two parallel ditches found in 2001 continued the sinuous alignment of Church Lane through to the Downs. The ditches contained a few medieval sherds, and they represent a section of one of the major north-south trackways through Bletchingley that are likely to have been of Saxon or earlier date (cf Poulton 1998, 176). By 1841, the western of the two plots assumed the original name - then spelt as Geslands- and the eastern one was more prosaically named Five Acres. The northern, sinuous boundary of the originally larger field survives, as does that to the west, which accords with the south-flowing stream, and to the south still runs Place Farm Road. The central division of the field was maintained during the 19th century, and its buried ditch between Geslands and Five Acres was uncovered towards the east end of the stripped area. It was replaced in modern times by a fence boundary that lay between 10 and 20m further west.

Jess Land Field, like its adjacent others both east and south, seems likely to have been used for arable or pasture until recently, and west of its stream boundary lay two meadows that were amalgamated by 1841, and which were attached to Place Farm. No such purpose seems likely for the land north of the field which lay wholly on the Gault. Indeed, the northern part of the field itself lay over outcropping Gault clay, which would have been more intractable than the sands in the south. To the north-west was Kitchin Coppice, which still survives, and a much larger area of woodland may have been maintained on the Gault during the medieval period.

None of the medieval ditches uncovered during the excavations of the site are shown on the Clayton map.

SAXON AND MEDIEVAL POTTERY Ninety-nine sherds were collected, of which two represent almost complete vessels weighing 2.5kg and 1.1kg respectively. The remaining 97 sherds (1.33kg) are all of early medieval types except for three (14g) of Early or Middle Saxon grass/chaff-tempered pottery, four of grey/brown sandy ware (37g) that could date to as late as the 13th century and a single sherd of whiteware fabric of 13th to 15th century date. Fourteen sherds came from three of the medieval field ditches of the site, twelve more from a pit close to the northern baulk and sixteen were sampled from buried soils. Apart from five more from post-medieval contexts or which were unstratified, the remainder, including the two near-complete vessels, were recovered from a cluster of pits, post-holes and a hearth that lay close to the southern baulk (fig 5). The southern cluster will be discussed first, followed by a description of the other medieval assemblages and medieval pottery from later contexts, and there is a general discussion in conclusion. All sherds were examined at x20 magnification, classified wherever possible according to the provisional type series of medieval pottery from Surrey (Jones 1998) and quantified by count and weight (Table 1) as well as by EVEs (estimated vessel equivalents) for each context assemblage. All rim sherds from the 2005 excavation are illustrated (Fig 6).

8

The southern feature cluster A hearth and a group of 19 pits and possible postholes lay close to the southern edge of the area that was stripped in 2005, and another seven or eight features found further south in 2001 belong to the same cluster. Two contained almost complete vessels and five more yielded sherds of medieval pottery that suggest they had belonged to a domestic site occupied during the later 11th and early 12th century. Almost all of the pottery assemblage from the features is of S2 ware, with a temper of crushed shell, and there are only single sherds of QFL3 that is predominantly tempered with quartz sand but also includes some flint inclusions, and Q1D that is similar but contains sparse inclusions of chalk rather than flint. Hearth 30: In the centre of this 1.4m wide circular feature, the original ground surface was left intact and had become baked by being the seat of the hearth. Surrounding that was a slightly sunken zone in which the broken parts of a single cooking pot of S2 shelly ware were found (no 6), as well as 26 other sherds (0.36kg) of the same ware that represent, at least, five more vessels (nos 3-5, 7 and 8). No other fabric types are represented. The sherds of the lower walls of the near-complete cooking pot are sooted, and the vessel has a pair of countersunk perforations c2cm apart on its neck. Since there are no piercings on any of the other neck sherds, and because the two are positioned both sides of, and equidistant from a break, they probably represent a repair of the vessel rather than their use as suspension holes. Four of the other vessels are also cooking pot/jar forms with everted rims, ranging from a small example (no 8) to a larger type of 28cm diameter (no 5). One rim that seems to have an internally finger-impressed edge is more likely to be from a bowl (no 4). Pit 5: Three metres north of the hearth, a complete cooking pot/jar was the only pottery from this feature (no 2). Although broken, it remained upright within the pit, the shape and size of which suggested that it had been dug especially to accommodate the vessel. It seems likely to have been used in situ for storage, perhaps of water or for some other liquid. The jar is a very squat example of the basic cooking pot/jar form, and weighs a little over 2.5kg. It has a sagging base with a weak angle and a simple everted rim that is finger-impressed. Posthole 31: Two sherds of medieval pottery include one of S2 and one of the only two from the site in fabric Q1D. Posthole 32 and Pit 46: Single body sherds of S2 fabric were found in each feature. Pit 524: Four sherds of S2 were recovered, including the everted rim of a large cooking pot/jar with a finger-impressed edge and a sagging base angle (no 16). This, too, might be from a storage jar like that of no 2.

9

Hollow 530: The feature may have been part of a larger hollow, and sherds were found in two basal parts of it. 530A contained three body sherds of S2 ware, and there is a small rim sherd of an S2 cooking pot/jar from 530C (not illustrated) as well as an even smaller fragment of fabric QFL3. Layer 36 in the vicinity of the 2005 features: Seven sherds were recovered from remnants of this ‘woodland’ soil during the cleaning of the area of the feature cluster. Six are of S2 including the everted rim of a cooking pot/jar that is slightly lid-seated (no 11). The remaining sherd is the second of only two from the cluster of Q1D, and is the rim of a cooking pot/jar with an internal bevel (no 13). Other medieval features and layers Ditch 79: This ran along the east to west valley floor and was sample by excavation in 2002 and 2005. Towards its eastern end it yielded a sherd of QFL3 fabric and three thin-walled body sherds, almost certainly from the same vessel, of Saxon hand-made grass and/or chaff-tempered pottery. The matrix of the sherds also displays a moderate quantity of black ooids of glauconite, but it is uncertain whether these had been deliberately added or had been part of the original clay body. From the western length of the ditch came four more sherds of sand and flint-gritted QFL3 fabric, of which three belonged to a single sagging base angle of a cooking pot/jar and the other was a rim from a similar, if not necessarily the same, vessel (no 9). The rim is simply everted, but has a slight beading at its termination. The ditch had been buried beneath ‘woodland’ soil 34, and the presence of sherds of QFL3 suggests that it had ceased to be a visible feature during the 12th century. Ditch 28/29: Three sections of this roughly north/south ditch provided five sherds of medieval pottery. From section 87 is a small fragment from the everted rim of a cooking pot/jar in shell-tempered S2 ware (not illustrated), and from section 97 came a simple everted rim sherd from a cooking pot/jar in sand and flint-tempered fabric FLQ3 (no 10), the upper body of which has at least two horizontal striations. Section 86 yielded three more sherds of S2 including a neck and a base angle. The presence of the two ware types suggests a 12th century date for the sealing of the ditch. Pit 27: This feature lay adjacent to ditch 28/29 close to the northern baulk of the excavation, and produced thirteen sherds of sand and flint-tempered fabric QFL3. All are body sherds from one or more cooking pot/jars, except for part of a sagging base angle. The pit was probably sealed during the 12th century. Layer 36/52: Excluding those in the vicinity of the feature cluster, twenty-two medieval sherds (0.22kg) were recovered from this buried ‘woodland’soil, of which four were found west of causeway 4 and the remainder to the east of it. They include seven from the immediate vicinity of the southern cluster that are described together with the other pottery from those features.

10

Of the remaining fifteen, four from west of the causeway are of QFL3 fabric, as also three more sherds from directly below the causeway, including simple everted rim sherds from cooking pot/jars (nos 14 and 15) and a sagging base angle from one of those or another such vessel. Other sherds of QFL3 from east of the causeway include two more rims of cooking pot/jars, of which one has an incision along its flattened termination (nos 17 and 18). Three sherds from 36 (outside the southern cluster) are of S2 fabric, including a small body sherd from grid square F6-36 and the simple everted rim of a jar of about 15cm diameter from the south-eastern part of the site (no 12). The archaic form of this rim suggests that it may be from a bag-shaped vessel, and its location may indicate that it represents an outlying stray from the feature cluster. Layer 36 within grid square F8-44 yielded the only sherd of a shell-tempered variant, S4A, in which there is almost as much quartz sand grains as shell fragments. This lay on the periphery of the southern cluster of features, to which it may originally have belonged. Two of the four sherds of Q2 fabric from the site were also recovered from layer 36, and both are rim sherds of cooking pot/jars (nos 19 and 20). Medieval pottery from later contexts Causeway 4: During the cleaning of this late medieval or early post-medieval feature that was left in situ during the excavation, two sherds of later post-medieval pottery types were recovered, of which one was of 19th century blue transfer-printed earthenware and the other of 18th century-type Staffordshire white salt glazed stoneware. Both probably derive from the manuring of the later post-medieval plough soil that buried the causeway. A third sherd recovered during the enhancement of the definition of the feature, however, is of greater interest. It is from a jar in shell-tempered ware S2 that is of such seemingly archaic form that it may be the earliest example from the site (Fig 6 no 1). The rim sherd is gently rounded in its simple, everted springing from the body, which, itself, is much thicker (12mm) than is normal for such cooking pot/jars of medieval date, like several others from the feature cluster of the site. It most closely resembles examples from the earliest Group 1 pottery from Abinger motte (Hope-Taylor 1950, 33), although not in fabric, and similar simple-rimmed and round-based jars from Old Sarum (Stone & Charlton 1935, 186). Those are dated to the later 11th century, as might this example from Bletchingley. Ploughsoil 2: Two sherds were recovered from this deep layer during the test pitting of 2002. One is of Q2 sandy ware and the other is the only sherd of medieval whiteware from the site, which is of the finer WW2 and has an external green glaze. This is the only medieval glazed sherd from the site. Unstratified: A relatively large body sherd (23g) of QFL3 was collected from the spoil heaps of the excavation, as also a body sherd of Q2 fabric, which was the dominant coarseware in the district during the later 12th and early 13th centuries.

11

Discussion The earliest post-prehistoric pottery from the excavated area is the three sherds of Saxon grass/chaff-tempered pottery found as residual material in ditch 79. Similar pottery was recovered from a cluster of four features excavated in 2009 further north, and from three features that lay adjacent in 2001 (Jones forthcoming b). The character of the 2005 sherds, although conforming to the organic tempering tradition that prevailed across much of southern England, is idiosyncratic in its use of a clay body that also contains many grains of glauconite. It is not possible to be more precise about the dating of such pottery from Bletchingley, since it could be of Early or Middle Saxon usage, but might even be later. Although there is no certainty in such a conjecture, it is possible that the S2 rim found in association with the causeway may be the earliest of the medieval pottery from the site on account of its archaic form and relatively small size (Fig 6 no 1). If so, it may date to the later 11th century, if not earlier, and could have belonged to the earliest occupation of the southern feature cluster, or represent an as yet undiscovered site. Shell-tempered S2 ware predominates in the southern cluster of features, with 43 sherds (0.55kg) excluding the two near-complete vessels. In this regard the assemblage is similar to those of the early pre-Vicarage levels of the Reigate Cherchefelle site (Poulton 1986), although that of the Bletchingley cluster includes only three sherds of other wares and none that belong to the standard fabrics of the Grey/Brown Sandy Ware tradition that are well-represented in even the basal layers of the Old Vicarage site (ibid; Tables 14 and 15). There is only a single sherd of sand/flint-tempered QFL3, reclassified from the TF1 and 2 fabrics of the Old Vicarage series (ibid, 61) and two of Q1D that best approximates to RQC2 (ibid, 65). This fabric is one of many variants amongst the mixed temper spectrum end of the Grey/Brown Sandy Ware tradition and the bevelled rim from Bletchingley has parallels in the Old Vicarage collection (ibid, Figs 16, 18 and 22 nos 300, 309, 406 and 605), although without the linear grooving. On ceramic grounds, therefore, the date of the occupation that the feature cluster represents can reasonably be assumed to have occurred during the period when Cherchefelle had been a multiply-occupied settlement, and before the foundation of Reigate, in which S2 represents only a minority ware in the earliest deposits. It could, therefore, date to the later 11th or earliest 12th century. In contrast to the dominance of S2 in the feature cluster assemblage, post-Roman sherds from elsewhere on site are mostly of QFL3 fabric (31 sherds; 0.6kg) and these were recovered from the principal co-axial ditches, a pit in the north, and the ‘woodland’ soils. Although these soils may have developed after the emparkment of the area that probably occurred during the 13th century, this sand and flint-tempered fabric is unlikely to have survived so late, and its relative abundance outside the cluster must indicate a continuance of occupation in the near-vicinity of the site during a later stage of the 12th century. The inclusion of twelve sherds of QFL3 in pit 27 might indicate that this may lie north-west of the excavated area. It is possible, however, that some, at least, of the other sherds of QFL3 may have arrived on site by the mechanism of manuring. The recovery of only four sherds of Q2, the principal fabric of the Grey/Brown Sandy Ware tradition, and none of its more orange OQ variants, and of only a single

12

example of medieval whiteware pottery is remarkable, given the size of the excavation and the proximity to Place Farm. Their rarity may represent a period of abandonment of manuring, which is what might be expected for land that was emparked for the whole of the remainder of the medieval period. OTHER FINDS The harness fitting (fig 7) A complete iron object recovered in the south-east quadrant of the hollow of the medieval hearth 30 has been identified as a probable harness fitting of 12th or 13th century type (D Williams pers comm). Most comparable examples have a rectangular or square loop, unlike the oval of North Park Farm example which is also distinguished by the presence of two rivet holes on the main stem of the piece and close to its tip. The fitting is 72mm long and has a flat reverse side and a round-moulded upper surface, a loop that is asymmetric in profile and a false moulded band above a triple-lobed terminal. Baked Clay Apart from the fired natural clay surface within the hearth (30) of the southern feature cluster, the only other piece of fired clay was a fragment (147g) from pit 27 at the northern end of the cross-valley ditch. It includes parts of its irregular surfaces and includes some organic matter. It may be burnt daub from walling or another such structure. CHARCOAL MACRO-REMAINS Phil Austin Introduction This report presents the findings of the analysis of thirteen samples recovered from nine post-Mesolithic contexts (Table 2). Analysis of these samples is of local and regional significance and was undertaken to recover information indicative of the contemporary local vegetation during the the Bronze Age and medieval periods, and to recover information pertaining to wood use, particularly as a fuel in these periods. Methodology According to the quantity of charcoal fragments present in each sample up to a maximum of 100 fragments per sample were examined, as recommended by Keepax (1988). Preparation and examination of fragments followed standard procedures for the analysis of wood charcoal as described in Hather (2000). Only fragments greater than 2mm were examined in this analysis. Fragments

descriptions in Schweingruber (1990) were consulted to aid identification. Nomenclature follows Stace (1997). Results A total of 1130 fragments were examined resulting in the identification of ten hardwoods (Angiosperms) and one softwood (Gymnosperm) – Yew. All the taxa identified are indigenous to southern England. A summary of the results is presented in Table 2. Full data from the analysis is presented in Table 3. Oak and the Maloideae (e.g. Hawthorn) are the only taxa represented throughout all periods. Hazel is represented in all but the prehistoric period sample 141 (context 63). Field Maple is present in Bronze Age and medieval samples only and Sorbus sp. (e.g. Whitebeams) is present in the prehistoric periods. The remaining taxa are each represented in only one period, by three or less fragments. Overall, by both fragment count (510) and weight (18.53g), oak is clearly the most common taxon. Prunus sp. was the next most abundant taxon overall (187 fragments, 6.4g) followed by Maloideae (131 fragments, 4.57g) and Alder (56 fragments, 2.74g). Hazel is also well represented (22 fragments, 0.82g) as are Field Maple (21 fragments, 0.59g) and Sorbus sp. (14 fragments, 1.02g). The majority of Prunus fragments were tentatively further identified as P. spinosa (Blackthorn). The Bronze Age samples were the most taxon rich (nine of the eleven taxa identified) followed by medieval samples (seven of the eleven taxa). In part this reflects the greater quantity of samples and fragments examined for these periods. The lack of taxon diversity in the two Bronze Age samples 147 and 608 (from contexts 68 and 75) is in marked contrast to that of the others examined. These samples, both from cremation pits, contained only two taxa of which Oak was by far the most abundant wood. It was noted that fragments from Bronze Age samples were typically smaller (most

from the site, irrespective of period. All of the woods identified are traditionally regarded as good or exceptional fuel woods. For each of the periods studied a similar pattern of wood use is evident. Typically Oak is the most abundant taxon in all periods with small tree/shrubs, notably Hazel, Prunus and Maloideae, providing a substantial quantity of the 'non-Oak' woods exploited. With the exception of Oak and Alder, large tree taxa e.g. Ash, Elm and Yew are barely represented. Oak is the most abundant taxon in nine of the 13 samples examined. Alder is the dominant taxon in only one sample, that of pit 45 (sample 122), and perhaps significantly this was the only sample in which Oak was not represented. This suggests that the use of wood from large trees other than Oak was negligable and that small tree/shrub taxa were more readily available for fuel. There is little doubt that Oak was a preferred fuel wood and this is most evident in the cremation pits and the medieval hearth in which Oak is used almost exclusively. In other contexts Oak remains a substantial component but is by no means as dominant as it is in the cremation and hearth samples. This pattern suggests that large trees were not generally as readily available as many small tree/shrub taxa were. It is believed that this reflects the composition of the local landscape. From the Bronze Age onwards the local vegetation was seemingly characterised by small areas of Oak woodland adjacent to an otherwise predominantly open landscape with patches of shrub. Field Maple is a light-requiring taxa indicative of open conditions, and is present in both Bronze Age and medieval samples suggesting continuity in the openness of the landscape. Taxa associated with the woodland edge, notably Prunus sp. (in this instance almost certainly Blackthorn) are also well represented in Bronze age and medieval samples supporting this inference. The high representation of Maloideae, which includes Hawthorn, a scrub forming taxon, also suggests that the landscape remained predominantly open from the Bronze Age onwards. Large trees other than Oak appear to have had a minimal presence. The woods identified indicate exploitation of the distinct habitat types located within daily walking distance of the site. Taxa common to alkaline soils such as those characteristic of chalk downland habitats, like those of the nearby North Downs, include Yew, Field Maple, Hawthorn, Blackthorn, Ash and Sorbus sp. for example. Oak would have required more acidic soils and these would have been located on the Lower Greensand escarpment to the south of the site. Also represented are taxa, specifically Alder and Willow/Poplar, closely associated with riverine and other wetland habitats. These taxa, would have grown in association with local streams. However, neither Alder nor Willow/Poplar are particularly well represented. Alder is represented by 56 fragments, all but one of which came from the same sample. Willow/Poplar is represented by a single fragment. Both taxa are only represented in medieval samples. Their low presence suggests that either ecological conditions enabling these taxa to flourish were not extensive, that the areas around watercourses were more or less kept clear of woody vegetation or, alternatively, that for reasons unknown they were not considered suitable for exploitation. The proximity of these different habitat types, and thus the valuable potential resources they offered, may have contributed initially to the site being situated in this location. None of the charcoal examined provided any direct evidence of having been subject to silvicultural practices. It is widely accepted that organisation and control of the

15

landscape and its resources increased and intensified from the Bronze Age onwards. By the medieval period landscape resources, specifically woodland and woodland produce, were under intense and comprehensive political and economic control (Rackham 2006) and had become what we recognise today as 'managed' woodland. Though there is no direct evidence of this in this study it can be inferred from the results that some form of organised resource exploitation was practised. Many of the taxa identified are those traditionally coppiced (Oak, Field Maple, Ash Hazel and Alder) or pollarded (Willow/Poplar) to increase wood production and ensure consistent supplies. The consistent presence in all periods of Oak, for example, is most probably attributable to silvicultural practices, at least by the medieval period. The high occurrence of Prunus (Blackthorn) and Maloideae (Hawthorn) may also reflect some form of resource control or at least landscape maintenance. The thorny properties of these taxa have encouraged their use in forming stock proof hedgerows. Such hedgerows require regular maintenance, through pruning, to remain stock proof. It is possible that the relatively high values for Maloideae and Prunus sp. does indeed reflect the disposal of wood acquired through hedgerow management. However, their presence in the form of hedging, though plausible, is speculative and remains uncertain. Summary The findings of this investigation suggest that locally the landscape remained lightly wooded and predominantly open from the Bronze Age onwards. There is no indications of any significant change in the character and composition of the landscape. The charcoal examined was generated through the use of various locally available woods as fuel. Oak was preferentially selected for fuel, specifically in cremation activities, whilst the use of other woods, presumably derived from non-specialist fires, appears to be less selective and dependant on what was locally available. Whilst some form of resource management was almost certainly in use by the medieval period, this has been inferred (but not demonstrated) to be so. The relatively rich assemblage reflects the diversity of local habitat types and the location of the site in an ecotone.

DISCUSSION The most intriguing aspect of the medieval archaeology was the cluster of features towards its southern edge, which may represent the outlying part of an occupied site by Place Farm Road, although this presumes the contemporaneous existence of the latter. Its features are curious, however, in that most of them contained charcoal-rich fills, another still held an upright storage jar, and a large, shallow hollow contained within it a broken cooking pot and an upstanding fragment of the original ground surface that had been used as a hearth. The latter might need to have been under shelter, but no obvious posthole configuration was found to suggest that, although the area might have been heavily truncated, given its position on the lip of the valley. The contents of the pits might also suggest an industrial or craft function for the complex; perhaps charcoal burning, or even iron processing, given that pit 950, 50m to the north-east, and another pit found in a trial trench to the west of, and even nearer to, the feature cluster, contained considerable quantities of slag. An alternative may be that the industrial features had lain on the edge of a larger, and richer, complex yet to be discovered. If so, then it may be the original site

16

of the manor that came to be represented by Place Farm, 300m further west along the road, unless it was one of perhaps many dispersed settlements within the parish that were abandoned upon the founding of Bletchingley town in the 12th century (Poulton 1998, 3). No pottery from the medieval feature complex need be later than the middle of the 12th century, so it may be presumed that that was when it had been abandoned. That is nearly a century before a North Park is documented in 1263 (see above), however, the creation of which might be thought reason enough to abandon the site in favour of a new one. This presumes, for the sake of argument, that the southern pale of the new park lay along the north side of Place Farm Road. Certainly, despite many years of excavation within the grounds of Place Farm, no sherds have been recovered like those of the predominant shell-tempered pottery of the 2001/2005 site (pers comm. Mike Russell), suggesting that it had not been occupied before the mid 12th century, after which, as excavations in Reigate have demonstrated, the ware was becoming rare (Jones forthcoming c). Perhaps contemporary with the occupation was the field system represented by some of the ditches; principally that which ran roughly north/south, and another that ran west to east to meet with the dog-leg of two others that climbed out of the valley head. In the west of the site the fill of an even earlier cart track was cut by that east/west ditch and by another linear ditch that lay south from it. This other ditch ran east until it turned south in a dog-leg change of direction, leaving a roughly parallel gap of 8m between it and the principal N/S ditch. Too large for a gateway, this may represent a droveway through which perhaps stock could have entered into a triangular holding area between the ditches. Most parts, or all, of the medieval ditches mentioned above were abandoned and perhaps deliberately filled, before being sealed below the woodland soil. It seems very likely that this destruction of the field system was precipitated by its appropriation for use as parkland. The growth of woodland on the valley bottom, perhaps as a copse, may have been encouraged for the cover it provided for game. BIBLIOGRAPHY Hather, J, 2000 The Identification of the Northern European Woods. A guide for

archaeologists and conservators. London: Archetype. Hayman, G, Marples, N, Poulton, R, & Branch, N 2004 An archaeological evaluation of

the Mesolithic hollow at North Park Farm, nr Bletchingley, Surrey (NPF 02), a report submitted to English Heritage.

Hope-Taylor, B, 1950 The excavation of a motte at Abinger in Surrey, Archaeol J 107, 15-43

Jones, P, forthcoming a, Mesolithic archaeology at North Park Farm, Bletchingley, Surrey

Jones, P, forthcoming b, North Park Farm: excavations in 2009 Jones, P, forthcoming c, the pottery, in Williams, D, forthcoming, Excavations in Reigate

town centre Keepax, C A, 1988 Charcoal analysis with particular reference to archaeological sites in

Britain. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of London.

17

Poulton, R, 1986 Excavations on the site of the Old Vicarage, Church Street, Reigate, 1977-82 Part 1 Saxo-Norman and earlier discovereies SyAS Coll 77, 17-94

Poulton, R, 1998 The lost manor of Hextalls, Little Pickle, Bletchingley: Archaeological Investigations, Surrey County Archaeological Unit

Rackham, O, 2006 Woodlands. London: Collins Saaler, M, 1998 Venars and hextalls: The historical evidence 1307-1573, in Poulton

1998, 3-9 Schweingruber, F H, 1990 Microscopic wood anatomy. Birmensdorf: Swiss Federal

Institute for Forest, Snow, and Landscape Research. Stace, C, 1997 New flora of the British Isles. 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press. Stone, J F S, & Charlton, J, 1935 Trial excavations in the eastern suburb of Old Sarum,

Antiq J, 15, 174-92

18

CATALOGUE OF MEDIEVAL & LATER CONTEXTS context square Areas description date 1 all unstratified 2 all plough soil modern 3 all buried plough soil LM/PM 4 F4-E7 causeway LM or EPM 5 E9 MED storage pit (whole pot) L11th/E12th 6 E9 MED pit/ph as above (7 =79) (8 =28, 29) 11 K6 ditch, NE/SW, inc 16. joins 12 medieval 12 K6 ditch, NW/SE, inc 17. joins 11 medieval 13 K6 gully. joins 14 medieval 14 K6 gully. joins 13 medieval 15 K6 recut of ditch 79 medieval (16 segment of 11) (17 segment of 12) 27 G1 pit, at N end of ditch 28 12th C 28 F5-G1 ditch, N/S, inc 97. =8 12th C 29 E7-D9 ditch, N/S, inc 86, 87. =8 12th C 30 E9-E10 MED hearth pit L11th/E12th 32 E9 MED ph L11th/E12th 36 ‘woodland soil’ layer. =52, 151 medieval 37 D9 MED pit L11th/E12th 38 D9 MED sh? as above 39 D9 MED pit as above 40 D9 MED pit as above 41 D9 MED pit with carstones as above 42 E8 MED pit as above 43 E8 MED pit as above 44 E9 MED pit as above 45 E9 MED pit as above 46 E9 MED pit as above (47 K6 segment of 50) 48 F9 MED pit L11th/E12th 49 F9 MED pit L11th/E12th 50 K6 gully medieval 51 F9 MED pit L11th/E12th (52 ‘woodland soil’ layer. =36) 53 F9 MED pit L11th/E12th 54 F9 MED pit L11th/E12th 71 H9 pit medieval 78 F3 posthole 12th C 79 I5 9 ditch, inc 98, 108, 118. = 8 12th C 94 K/L2 beam slot PM

19

context square Areas description date 95 K/L2 beam slot PM (97 segment of 28) (98 segment of 79) 109 E5 ditch medieval 137 C3/4 track gully, inc 186 medieval 138 B3/4 track gully, inc 188, 189, 190 medieval 191 D5 pit LM

20

Fig 1 North Park Farm, Bletchingley. Location plans

Fig 2 North Park Farm, Bletchingley. Geology and topogra-phy of the 2005 area

GT

2

GT1

N0 20metres

tree-throws

woodland soil and other post mesolithic features

exposed pre-woodland soil surface

siltstone indurations

hearths and burnt flint scatters

grey-green fluvial clay

figure 5

Fig 3 North Park Farm, Bletchingley. Location of the Saxon and medieval features uncovered in 2001-2009

2009

2001

Medieval

Saxon

2005

figure 5

0 40m

N

Fig 4 North Park Farm, Bletchingley. Plan of the 2005 site showing all medieval and later features

C4 D4 E4

C3 D3 E3

C2D2 E2

A6 C6 D6E6

C5 D5E5

B4

B6

B5

C8 B8A8

C9B9A9

A7B7

C7

C10

D9 E9 F9

D10 E10 F10

D8 E8

F8

D7 E7F7

G9

F4

F5

F6

F2

F3

H2G2

G3 H3

G4 H4

G5 H5

G6H6

G7 H7

G8H8

H9

G10 H10I10

I8

I9

I6

I7

I5

G1 H1I1

J1 K1

J2I2

13B3

K2

J8 K8

J9 K9

J10 K10

J7 K7

J5 K5

J4 K4

J3 K3

L2

L8

L9

L7

L5

L4

L3

M2

M8

M9

M7

M5

M4

M3

M6

N8

N9

N10

N7

N5

N4

N6

132133

130

131

138

137

128

134

136

135

186 129

70

6364200

62

66

65

74 75

92

93

99

??

68

67

118

206

207

103

104

102

61

105

73

155

111

ca

us

ew

ay

38

40

42

41 32

46

45

44

6

37

39

30

31

5

43

51

4948

54

53

hearth

26ph

19 scatter over 26

24

20

2123

25

108

186

29

6052

ditch cut and fillsegment 98

segment97

2884

71

(36)109

191

(950)

972

973

(951)

188

189

120

190

79

100

99

107

86

87

27

101

16 seg

ditch 11

ditch 12

(17 seg)

(15)

215

59

orange/whitesand

(26)

(27)

(57)

(56)

(48)

A6

Archaeoscapehole2002

(13)

(14)

(54)

(47)

77 22078

175

183185

180

167

160169

176

182184187

157

165

162

170

123

119

156

158

146

147

124

171

139

126 179178

charcoal

142121

141 (55)

(58)

flint concentration

209

210

196

127/143

208

125

181

144

82

96

burnt flint scatter

161

954

953

955

956

952

(FS3) (FS2)(37)

(53)

(38)

(39)

(FS1)

(25)

(26)(34)

figure 5

Post MedievalMedieval

0 20m

N

Fig 5 North Park Farm, Bletchingley. Plan of the southern feature cluster

C8

C9

C10

D9 E9 F9

D10 E10 F10

D8 E8

F8

135

155

38

40

42

41 32

46

45

44

6

37

39

30

31

5

43

51

4948

54

53

hearth

29

87

Medieval

0 10m

N

Fig 6 North Park Farm, Bletchingley. Medieval pottery nos 1-20

Fig 7 North Park Farm, Bletchingley. The medieval harness mount

0 3cm

0 300metres

PlaceFarm

KItchen Copse

LittlePickle

fishpond

N

Fig 10 North Park Farm, Bletchingley. The area as shown on the 1st Edition Ordnance Survey map of 1871

ElliotField

Clamps FieldOxbush

LipslandField

Manor LaneField

Barn Field

BlackmansField

5 Acres

Geslands

KitchenMeadow

BrooksPlat

Meadow

Orchard

Clay Pits

SawPit

Plat

0 300metres

Hop Garden

S h aw

Kitchen Copse

fishpond

N

Fig 9 North Park Farm, Bletchingley. The area as shown on the Tithe map of 1841

0 300metres

Hailworth

OldHouseField Clamp

LipwingField

BlackhandField

JessFieldLand

KitchenMead

BanternMead

Kitchen CoppicePlaceField

OrchardPlat

Kiln FieldManorLand Fields

N

Fig 8 North Park Farm, Bletchingley. The area as shown on the Clayton map of 1761

2005

2005

2005

2005

NORTH PARK FARM 2005 count weightSAXON & MEDIEVAL POTTERY GT S2 S4A QFL3 Q1D Q2 WW2 TOTALS GT S2 S4A QFL3 Q1D Q2 WW2 TOTALS

feature context position

LAYER 2 B11/12 2002 - - - - - 1 - 1 - - - - - 1 - 12 B 8-16 2002 - - - - - - 1 1 - - - - - - 2 2

CAUSEWAY 4 central - 1 - - - - - 1 - 24 - - - - - 24PIT 5 south cluster - 1 - - - - - 1 - 2525 - - - - - 2525PIT 27 north - - - 13 - - - 13 - - - 205 - - - 205DITCH 28/29 86 - 3 - - - - - 3 - 32 - - - - - 32

28/29 97 N/S - - - 1 - - - 1 - - - 50 - - - 5028/29 87 N/S - 1 - - - - - 1 - 3 - - - - - 3

HEARTH 30 south cluster - 1 - - - - - 1 - 1171 - - - - - 117130 south cluster - 26 - - - - - 26 - 368 - - - - - 368

PH 31 south cluster - 1 - - 1 - - 2 - 16 - - 4 - - 20PH 32 south cluster - 1 - - - - - 1 - 2 - - - - - 2LAYER 34 C5-67-1 - - - 1 - - - 1 - - - 2 - - - 2LAYER 36 south cluster - 6 - - 1 - - 7 - 65 - - 15 - - 80

36 below 4 - - - 3 - - - 3 - - - 36 - - - 3636 F6-36-1 - 1 - - - - - 1 - 1 - - - - - 136 F8-44-1 - - 1 - - - - 1 - - 8 - - - - 836 I5-1-1 - - - 1 - - - 1 - - - 13 - - - 1336 south-east - 1 - - - - - 1 - 13 - - - - - 1336 J6 - 1 - - - - - 1 - 9 - - - - - 936 151 - 1 - - - - - 1 - 5 - - - - - 536 A11 76-8 2002 - - - 1 - - - 1 - - - 13 - - - 1336 A12-13 2002 - - - - - 1 - 1 - - - - - 14 - 1436 C16 2002 1 1 2 5 8 1336 B11/12 2002 - - - - - 1 - 1 - - - - - 20 - 20

PIT 46 south cluster - 1 - - - - - 1 - 3 - - - - - 3LAYER 52 C5-66 - - - 1 - - - 1 - - - 5 - - - 5

52 C5-77 - - - 2 - - - 2 - - - 10 - - - 1052 C5-88 - - - 1 - - - 1 - - - 1 - - - 1

DITCH 79 I5 3 - - 4 - - - 7 14 - - 220 - - - 23479 24/25 2002 - - - 1 - - - 1 - - - 6 - - - 6

DITCH 109 45 2002 - - - 1 - - - 1 - - - 24 - - - 24PIT 524 2001 - 4 - - - - - 4 - 84 - - - - - 84HOLLOW 530 B 2001 - 3 - - - - - 3 - 14 - - - - - 14

530 C 2001 - 1 - 1 - - - 2 - 4 - 1 - - - 5unst - - - 1 - 1 - 2 - - - 23 - 2 - 25

TOTALS 3 55 1 33 2 4 1 99 14 4344 8 617 19 37 2 5041

Table 1 Saxon and medieval pottery by count and weight

Table 2. Summary of results: all NPF05 charcoal samples

Prehistoric BA BA/EIA MED All (Totals) Taxon

Common name frags wt. frags wt. frags wt. frags wt. frags wt.

Acer campestre Field Maple - - 3 0.17 - - 18 0.42 21 0.59

Alnus glutinosa Alder - - - - - - 56 2.74 56 2.74

Corylus avellana Hazel - - 9 0.2 5 0.03 8 0.59 22 0.82

Fraxinus excelsior Ash - - 0.023 -- - - 3 0.02

Maloideae inc. Crataegus, Malus, Pyrus Hawthorn, Apple, Pear 55 1.83 27 0.89 5 0.08 44 1.77 131 4.57

Prunus sp. (most c.f. P. spinosa type) Blackthorn 23 0.38 91 3.1 - - 73 2.92 187 6.4

Quercus sp. Oak 8 0.1 190 4.62 109 3.72 203 10.09 510 18.53

Salix/Populus sp. Willow/Poplar - - - - - - 1 0.02 1 0.02

Sorbus sp. inc. Rowan, Whitebeams, Wild Service Tree 11 0.59 3 0.43 - - - - 14 1.02

Taxus baccata Yew - - 0.011 - - - - 1 0.01

Ulmus sp. Elm - - 2 0.19 - - - - 2 0.19

Total 97 2.9 329 9.63 119 3.83 403 18.55 948 34.91

NB: Excludes values for indeterminate frags

Table 3. NPF05: Post Mesolithic Charcoal Analysis: Taxon presence (absolute values)

Prehistoric Bronze Age BA/EIA Medieval TotalsSample

Context Feature Taxon

Frags Wt. Frags Wt. Frags Wt. Frags Wt. Frags Wt.

147 68 Cremation pit (interior) Quercus sp. Maloideae

- - - - 95 5

3.656 0.083

- - 100 3.739g

608 75 Cremation pit (interior) Quercus sp. Corylus avellana Indeterminate

- - - -14 5 31

0.066 0.031 0.689

- - 50 0.786g

141 63 Posthole cutting – possible ring ditch

Maloideae Prunus sp. Sorbus sp. Quercus sp. Indeterminate

55 23 11 8 3

1.828 0.382 0.59 0.103 0.056

- - - - - - 100 2.959g

384

143 Hollow Quercus sp.Maloideae Prunus sp. Sorbus sp. Ulmus sp. Indeterminate

- -

42 24 10 3 2 19

1.2 0.818 0.329 0.425 0.192 0.49

- - - - 100 3.454g

385

127 Hollow Quercus sp.Prunus sp. Corylus avellana Acer campestre Maloideae Indeterminate

- -

33 26 8 3 2 28

1.391 1.871 0.188 0.17

0.053 2.509

- - - 100 6.182g

394

143 Hollow Quercus sp.Prunus sp. Fraxinus excelsior Indeterminate

- -

24 18 2 33

0.313 0.251 0.016 0.442

- - - - 77 1.022g

465 Spit: I4-65-3

127

Hollow Quercus sp.Prunus sp. Corylus avellana Fraxinus excelsior Indeterminate

- -

67 13 1 1 18

1.275 0.289 0.013 0.006 0.252

- - - - 100 1.835g

465 Spit: I4-65-4

127

Hollow Quercus sp.Prunus sp. Taxus baccata Maloideae Indeterminate

- -

24 24 1 1 34

0.436 0.364 0.008 0.017 0.351

- - - - 84 1.176g

1

Prehistoric Bronze Age BA/EIA Medieval TotalsSample

Context Feature Taxon

Frags Wt. Frags Wt. Frags Wt. Frags Wt. Frags Wt.

30 E9-(30A) Hearth Quercus sp.Salix/Populus sp. - - - - - -99 1

8.893 0.019 100 8.912g

106

F9-53 Pit Quercus sp.Acer campestre Indeterminate

- - - - - -85 13 2

1.04 0.145 0.025

100 1.21g

116 D9-40 Pit Prunus sp. cf P. spinosa Maloideae Quercus sp. Acer campestre Indeterminate

- - - - - -

44 44 6 1 5

1.92 1.773 0.112 0.015 0.183

100 4.003g

122

45 Pit Alnus glutinosaPrunus sp. Corylus avellana Acer campestre Indeterminate

- - - - - -

55 29 7 4 5

2.734 1.001 0.579 0.257 0.069

100 4.640g

162

5 Pit Quercus sp.cf Corylus avellana cf Alnus glutinosa Indeterminate

- - - - - -

13 1 1 4

0.043 0.008 0.002 0.01

19 0.063g

Totals 100 2.959 461 13.668 150 4.525 419 18.828 1130 39.98

2

Cover pages med.pdfPhil JonesP Austin, N Marples

NPF 05 med text.pdfThe post-medieval topography of the siteThe early medieval hearth and feature clusterCross-valley ditch 28/29 and its associated featuresTowards the west end of the early medieval features describeThe ‘trackway’Ditch 79

The buried woodland soilThe causewayThe beam slot buildingThe post-medieval topography of the siteThe earliest detailed map of the area shows the Clayton estaCATALOGUE OF MEDIEVAL & LATER CONTEXTS