Watching Brief at Abbeyfields Play Area, Staines Lane, Chertsey

The groundwork excavations of the foundations were undertaken by a small groundworks team using a variety of hand tools. The interventions were numbered 1 and 2, and deposits contained within these excavations were allocated sequential numbers, commencing at 100 for Intervention 1 and 200 for Intervention 2. The work revealed a stratigraphic sequence of sequential deposits containing a very limited amount of post-medieval material. No cut features or definitively undisturbed medieval deposits were encountered. The WSI associated with this project gave full details of the excavation and recording methods employed by the archaeological contractor during the course of the work (Payne 2024). The excavation work was monitored by the on-site archaeologist and identified archaeological deposits were recorded using pro-forma trench and context sheets, augmented where necessary by plans and/or sections. These were drawn at scales of 1:50, 1:20 and 1:10. Digital photographs were taken of the interventions, a sample of which have been reproduced in Appendix 2 of this document. The aims and objectives as outlined in the report, were for the most part satisfied by the watching brief, whilst the objectives outlined in that document, which included the recovery of finds relating to the pre-Conquest Abbey, or any evidence relating to their usage and arrangements of the fish ponds and moat, were not fulfilled. The deposits encountered during the watching brief can essentially be divided into two categories: (i) The lower fills, namely contexts 101, 102, 201 and 202, which appeared as homogeneous soils, likely to have formed through natural processes. (ii) Deposits 100, 200, 203 and 204, which were all clearly associated with late 19th or 20th century remediation or recreational improvements. Of the homogeneous soils, contexts 102 and 201, which almost certainly represent the same deposit, were noticeably darker than the overlying deposits and could possibly represent a buried topsoil, or organic-rich alluvial deposit. Unfortunately, no artefactual evidence was recovered to assist in the dating of this deposit. The overlying contexts 101 and 202, are almost certainly one deposit, and were noticeably lighter in colour than deposits 102 and 202. The formation process was again uncertain but could represent a naturally formed sub or topsoil horizon, or possibly upcast bank material from the adjacent ditch. Here, the artefactual material retrieved was of late 19th or early 20th century date, although it must be emphasised that finds were only recovered within the uppermost part of this deposit and may not therefore give an accurate date for the formation of the deposit as a whole. The remaining contexts recorded (nos;100, 200, 203 and 204) were all clearly associated with late 19th or 20th century remediation or recreational improvements and are deemed to be of little archaeological interest or significance. The limited nature of the excavations undertaken, and the paucity of finds retrieved were the prohibiting factors that left the objectives outlined in the WSI (see Appendix 1) unfulfilled, and also make any definitive or meaningful interpretations of the encountered deposit difficult. However, given the nature of the homogeneous deposits encountered it would be reasonable to conclude that the bulk of the area around which the work was sited remains largely undisturbed by modern works associated with the existing infrastructure. The statements in paragraphs 7.1-7.6 are the considered views of the Surrey County Archaeological Unit, based on the evidence presented in the earlier part of this report.