Joseph Lancaster Nursery Site, London Borough of Southwark, SE1 4EX: An Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment ©Pre-Construct Archaeology Ltd, June 2017
7 ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL AND SIGNIFICANCE
7.1 General
7.2 The site is located on the southern edge of the Thames Valley Floodplain of the River Thames Basin. The settlement of Southwark grew up around two gravel eyots – often referred to as the north and south islands – that were separated from the ‘mainland’ to the south by the Borough Channel. It was this series of gravel eyots upon which the bridge crossing to Londinium was constructed and connected to the south by Road 1. South of the Borough Channel and on higher ground the road splintered into Stane Street (running to Chichester) and Watling Street (running to Canterbury and Dover). The study area is located south of this road junction in an area that has become identified as the ‘Southern Cemeteries’ to denote it as separate to those cemeteries around Londinium on the north bank of the Thames.
7.3 Prehistoric
7.3.1 Pottery and worked flints found in north Southwark indicate that the area was frequented in the Mesolithic and later settled from the late Neolithic to early Bronze Age period onwards. What had been an intertidal zone would have varied in character depending on the periodic rising and falling of sea level due to climatic fluctuations (Killock 2010:12). However, the nature of that settlement is still poorly understood and most of the finds recorded on the HER from these periods are residual - suggesting a background presence of dispersed activity across north Southwark with the Mesolithic activity focussed closer to the Thames and the gravel eyots. The two main periods of prehistoric activity appears to come from the late Mesolithic period and the Late Neolithic to early Bronze Age periods.
7.3.2 It is possible that the study site was located on higher ground just south of the Borough/Guy’s Channel confluence and therefore on drier ground suitable for settlement which may have occurred in the Bronze Age. There is significant evidence to suggest that the margins of north Southwark’s sand islands were dry enough to allow cultivation during at least part of the 2nd millennium BC (Taylor-Wilson 2001:7).
7.3.3 The Iron Age is very poorly represented in the inner London region, including Southwark. A few Iron Age burials are known from the area but no settlement sites. This may reflect the marginal nature of the area as sea levels rose throughout the later Iron Age then peaked in the early Roman period (Killock 2010:12).
7.3.4 The archaeological potential for prehistoric remains is therefore considered to be low–medium. However, given the understanding of the local environment, it should be considered that the potential for palaeoenvironmental deposits or horizons is moderate- high.
7.3.5 If archaeological or geoarchaeological remains are present, they are likely to be of local significance.
PCA Report Number: R12922 Page 39 of 108 Joseph Lancaster Nursery Site, London Borough of Southwark, SE1 4EX: An Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment ©Pre-Construct Archaeology Ltd, June 2017
7.4 Roman
7.4.1 The early settlement of Roman Southwark is likely to have been primarily focused around the bridgehead area by London Bridge, and/or as ribbon development along the arterial roads leading into and out of the city. Beyond these areas, Southwark is likely to have remained sparsely populated due to the braided river channels which required continual maintenance and management to prevent flooding. Such channels were however responsible for prompting trade and communication routes, and so these areas were not completely uninhabited. The results further suggest an intense usage of Guy’s Channel as a main artery during the period, meaning that this area of confluence was likely heavily trafficked; the southern bank potentially providing a particularly secure highpoint for river access (Reade 2006: 45).
7.4.2 The general impression from work carried out in the vicinity of the study site is that it was given over initially to agriculture and scattered settlement, thereafter to burial and religious activity before finally reverting to agriculture and burial in the later Roman period (Cotton 2008: 160).
7.4.3 The significant number of GLHER entries for the Roman period within 500m of the study site suggests that a focal point of Roman funerary sites was likely to be concentrated to the southern end of Road 1 with a concentration around the junction of Stane and Watling Street (Bird 1996: 74). Inhumations, cremations and ‘mixed’ burial grounds of different periods spread at least as far south as Harper Street (Bird 1996: 75). However, the cemetery area in Southwark is still considered to be difficult to define closely due to the changing boundaries of the Roman settlement (Bird 1996:74).
7.4.4 A number of burials are known from the vicinity of Harper Road, Dickins Square and Trinity Street.
7.4.5 The principal roads in north Southwark consisted of Stane Street (towards Chichester) and Watling Street (towards Canterbury and Kent) the latter of which lies east of the study area. Masonry structures consisting of a temple mausoleum and two walled cemeteries were found at 165 Great Dover Street just 150m north-east of the study site and adjacent to Watling Street. It is probable that the road was lined with small enclosed cemeteries and funerary monuments (Killock 2017).
7.4.6 Taking into consideration the number of known cemeteries in the immediate area and the site’s location south of the crux of the two principal Roman roads south of London it is therefore considered that the archaeological potential for the Roman period is high.
7.4.7 The potential for archaeological remains of this period can range from local to regional significance.
7.5 Early Medieval / Saxon
7.5.1 During a number of archaeological investigations in Southwark, including those in the vicinity of the study site, a dark deposit has been recorded sealing Roman features and deposits. Generally
PCA Report Number: R12922 Page 40 of 108 Joseph Lancaster Nursery Site, London Borough of Southwark, SE1 4EX: An Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment ©Pre-Construct Archaeology Ltd, June 2017
referred to as dark earth, this deposit formed as the area was exploited for agricultural purposes in the late and post-Roman periods. This dark earth layer was also attributed to the early medieval period when found during an excavation at Dickens Square. Although sometimes described as “Saxon” there is little evidence for such a date of the deposit in the vicinity of the site (Boyer 2015). Find spots across the area are sparse and few logged on the GLHER. Of particular note is the absence of Saxon activity in the 5th – 6th centuries as there is virtually no evidence of a sustained Saxon presence in Southwark in the early centuries after Roman rule ended (Killock 2017).
7.5.2 To date, finds from the early medieval period have been piecemeal, fragmentary and often found residually in later contexts. Although it suggests that there is some ‘back ground’ of early medieval activity its nature has yet to be proven through excavation. It would seem that the pattern and density may echo that of the Iron Age detailed above – dispersed farming settlements exploiting local resources.
7.5.3 Taking the above into account, the wider lack of evidence for early medieval occupation would suggest the potential for features or horizons of this date to be low. If found, archaeological remains of this period are likely to be of local significance.
7.6 Medieval
7.6.1 A relatively high number of entries on the GLHER within a 500m radius of the study site, combined with known presence of institutions such as St Thomas’ Hospital and the Marshalsea and King’s Bench Prisons suggest that Southwark was occupied by a not insignificant population during the medieval period. The proximal finds to the site are those related to industry and agriculture, which implies that the character of the area was semi-rural and of a more impoverished nature. Later cartographic data suggests the study site was of agricultural usage and this is likely to have been the case for the earlier period also. The archaeological potential for the medieval period is considered to be low.
7.6.2 If found, archaeological remains of this period are likely to be of local significance.
7.7 Post-Medieval
7.7.1 The cartographic sources show that in the early post-medieval period the study site was located in an agricultural landscape. From the second half of the 19th century in particular, there was increasing urbanisation, represented by industry and dwellings.
7.7.2 The site itself was located within an open, agricultural setting of fields and orchards which was later developed. It was later developed with terraced housing, a road and a concrete works/tram depot was located partially within the site.
7.7.3 The introduction of light industry to the area in general and the proximity of the Concrete Works (later a tram depot) in particular at the end of the 19th century suggests that contamination on site is therefore considered to be moderate to high.
PCA Report Number: R12922 Page 41 of 108 Joseph Lancaster Nursery Site, London Borough of Southwark, SE1 4EX: An Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment ©Pre-Construct Archaeology Ltd, June 2017
7.7.4 It is unlikely that modern development has impacted upon all of the areas of the study site, and the potential for archaeological remains for the post-medieval period is therefore considered to be high.
7.7.5 If found, archaeological remains of this period are likely to be only of local significance.
7.8 Modern
7.8.1 The borough went on to suffer significant damage during the bombing raids of WW2 leading to rapid and large scale clearance and rebuilding during the mid 20th century.
7.8.2 The 1939-45 LCC Bombing damage survey shows properties surrounding the study site having been hit whilst a small portion of the study site in the north-west corner was ‘damaged beyond repair’ (Figure 11).
7.8.3 The study area was cleared in the post-war period and then developed in the later 20th century with the current buildings. The Nursey School now on the site is of a single storey without a basement. These modern structures are considered relatively superficial and it is therefore considered that the archaeological potential for the modern period is low.
7.8.4 However, the quantity of bombs dropped on Southwark during the Blitz taken together with the proximity of known bomb damage should be taken into account.
7.8.5 If found, archaeological remains of this period are likely to be of negligible significance.
PCA Report Number: R12922 Page 42 of 108 Joseph Lancaster Nursery Site, London Borough of Southwark, SE1 4EX: An Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment ©Pre-Construct Archaeology Ltd, June 2017
8 IMPACT ON BURIED ARCHAEOLOGICAL DEPOSITS
8.1 Previous Land Use and Existing Impacts
8.1.1 The site is located on what is now believed to be higher ground overlooking the gravel eyots (North and South islands) within the Borough Channel and the River Thames itself. However, excavations at nearby Tabard Square found both clay alluvial layers and a peat bed layer overlying the natural gravels (Killock 22015: 7). Although the site is considered to be located on the fringe of these channels it does not mean alluvial events will not be encountered. As such, there is the possibility of significant and deep alluvial sediments and peat deposits. The presence of potential palaeochannels also means that the current ground surface is the result of land reclamation strategies dating to the early medieval/medieval period onwards.
8.1.2 Cartographic sources provide a general indication of the previous land use of the site. It is generally depicted in the 18th century as being located within cultivated fields and orchards. The overspill of the tanning industry around Bermondsey and along the Thames frontage can be seen to slowly encroach upon the area with the appearance of tanning yards and tenter grounds slowly spreading westward.
8.1.3 As the industry grew so did the population. By the mid and late 19th century the area had become industrialised, criss-crossed with railways, tramways and road networks. Huge swathes of land had been taken up by closely set rows of terraced housing occupying most of the landscape – a pattern which persisted in intensity right up to WW II. The site has been partially affected by the building of a Cement Works (later a Tram Depot), Lawson Road, Beeston and Middleton House and bomb damage.
8.1.4 However, due to land reclamation in the area, and relatively little previous development on the site, the impact of previous development on potential archaeological deposits is considered to be low-medium, given that these deposits are likely to be at some depth below ground level.
8.2 Impact of Proposed Development on the Archaeological Resource
8.3 The proposed scheme covers a relatively small plot of land roughly bounded by Deverell Street and the rear of the buildings on Spurgeon Street and surrounding apartment blocks of Nashe and Middleton Houses. The proposed re-development involves demolishing the existing one-storey, Nursery School building and replacing it with an ‘L’ shaped residential development with a central courtyard or communal garden. The range on the north will face Nashe House and the western range will face onto Deverell Road.
8.3.1 Specific details of the scheme have not been available for the writing of this report, therefore, the impact of the development can only be partially presented at this time.
8.3.2 While the precise foundation designs are unknown at this time, either strip footings or pile locations might have an adverse effect on the potential underlying archaeological resource.
PCA Report Number: R12922 Page 43 of 108 Joseph Lancaster Nursery Site, London Borough of Southwark, SE1 4EX: An Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment ©Pre-Construct Archaeology Ltd, June 2017
8.3.3 The associated landscaping works for the garden areas, and any new service runs, may also have an adverse impact on any potential underlying archaeological remains dependent upon to what depth any excavation or groundworks will penetrate to.
8.3.4 Overall, due to the fairly limited nature of the proposed scheme, impacts to the potential buried archaeological resource are likely to be medium adverse. This magnitude of impact has been determined on the understanding that no basement level is to be proposed; if the scheme is modified to include a sub-surface level the magnitude of the potential impact to the buried archaeological resource would be increased to high adverse.
8.4 Impact of Proposed Development on Known Heritage Assets
8.4.1 The study site is located within an Archaeological Priority Zone, APZ 9 a Class I Archaeological Priority Zone. There are no above ground heritage assets listed within the boundaries of the study site.
8.4.2 Of the above ground designated heritage assets (Listed Buildings), the Geoffrey Chaucer School has been subsequently redeveloped and the remaining two do not have sight lines into the proposed development. Therefore, the proposed development is likely to have a negligible beneficial or negative impact as the street already possesses a number of residential developments.
8.5 Ground Soil Contamination
8.5.1 No ground soil contamination data was available at the time this report was prepared. However, known light industries existed in proximity to the site although a concrete works and tram depot were previously located on the western part of the site. Therefore, the environmental risk rating is considered to be low-moderate.
8.6 Existing Services
8.6.1 It can be presumed that existing buried services which may include gas, telecommunication and electric cables, water supply and drainage pipes associated with the current Nursery will be present. It is also possible that older, defunct services associated with the previous developments may cross the site although it is on the periphery of those other developments.
PCA Report Number: R12922 Page 44 of 108 Joseph Lancaster Nursery Site, London Borough of Southwark, SE1 4EX: An Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment ©Pre-Construct Archaeology Ltd, June 2017
9 CONCLUSIONS
9.1 This report aimed to identify the potential for the occurrence of archaeological remains on the site, the probable period from which they date and the type of remains that can be expected. In addition, the likelihood for the survival of these remains has been assessed.
9.2 The site is located on the southern edge of the Thames Valley Floodplain of the River Thames Basin but on high ground potentially overlooking the Borough Channel and the Thames itself. However, alluvial layers have been recorded at nearby sites so the potential for alluvial deposits remains high. Sites within the nearby vicinity have also recorded prehistoric features relating to activity surrounding the channel banks. The potential for palaeoenvironmental horizons is therefore considered to be high, while the potential for encountering evidence of prehistoric activity is considered to be low to medium.
9.3 The high number of known Roman features recorded within the GLHER, combined with the proximity of a known area of concentrated Roman activity to the immediate north of the proposed development area and the rich burials at Harper Road, the potential for well preserved archaeological remains dating to the Roman period is thought to be high.
9.4 Evidence pertaining to the early medieval period is limited and the potential for archaeological remains dating to this period is considered to be low, while evidence for the medieval period suggests a low to medium potential for industrial or agricultural remains.
9.5 The cartographic and documentary evidence makes clear that the study site was built around – but never on - until the 18th century onwards. From that period the area became increasingly developed, with the site itself being built on in the 19th century. This indicates that there is a high potential for archaeological remains from the later post-medieval period onwards.
9.6 The unique nature of a number of Roman features and artefacts found in the nearby vicinity, and the high potential to encounter well preserved remains related to the channel topography, means that archaeological remains of this period have the potential to be of similar regional significance. If found, archaeological remains from all other periods may be of local significance.
9.7 Previous land-use, as determined through the map regression exercise, suggests a potential pre- existing but medium impact on the more shallow underlying archaeological remains. The building of Beeston House to the east, Middleton House to the south and peripheral bomb damage at the north-east corner would all have imposed a degree of impact upon the underlying archaeological remains, as would the foundations of the Victorian terraces. However, the necessary build up of made ground for land reclamation that occurred principally in the late 18th and early 19th centuries is likely to act as a buffer for deeper archaeological remains, as no deep truncation, such as a basement, is known to exist on the site.
PCA Report Number: R12922 Page 45 of 108 Joseph Lancaster Nursery Site, London Borough of Southwark, SE1 4EX: An Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment ©Pre-Construct Archaeology Ltd, June 2017
9.8 The proposed scheme covers a relatively small plot of land roughly bounded by Deverell Street and the rear of the buildings on Spurgeon Street and surrounding apartment blocks of Nashe and Middleton Houses. The proposed re-development of the land is to demolish the existing one- storey Nursery School building and replace it with an ‘L’ shaped residential development with a central courtyard or communal garden.
9.9 Overall, due to the nature of the scheme requiring deep foundations for a building of nine storeys and the necessary foundation works (Sarah Primarolo pers comm), the impact to the buried archaeological resource is likely to be medium adverse.
PCA Report Number: R12922 Page 46 of 108 Joseph Lancaster Nursery Site, London Borough of Southwark, SE1 4EX: An Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment ©Pre-Construct Archaeology Ltd, June 2017
10 BIBLIOGRAPHY
10.1 Written Sources
Allen, M, J et al, 2005, Excavations at 211 Long Lane, Southwark. Part 1: prehistoric Neckinger- side environment in Southwark and its implication for prehistoric communities, in London Archaeologist 11, No. 3, 73–80
Bird, J (1996) The Southern Cemetery in Interpreting Roman London: Papers in memory of Hugh Chapman. Oxbow Monograph No. 58. Oxford: Oxbow.
Boyer, P (2015) Lyon House, 160-166 Borough High Street, London Borough of Southwark SE1 1LB: An Historic Environment Desk-Based Assessment. Pre-Construct Archaeology Ltd Unpublished Report.
Brown, J., 2008 218-220 Borough High Street, London Borough of Southwark SE1: Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment. Gifford Unpublished Report
Cotton, J (2008) ‘Harper Road Southwark: an early Roman burial revisited’ in, Londinium & Beyond: essays on Roman London & Its Hinterland for Harvey Sheldon. York: Council for British archaeology.
Cowan, C., Seeley, F., Wardle, A., Westman, A. & Wheeler, L., 2009. Roman Southwark: settlement and economy. Excavations in Southwark 1973-91. Museum of London Archaeology Monograph 42.
Cowie, R, & Corcoran, J, 2008, ‘The prehistoric, Roman and later landscape between Watling Street and Bermondsey Eyot: investigations at Rephidim Street and Hartley’s Jam Factory, Bermondsey’, Surrey Archaeological Collections 94, 159–79.
Douglas, A, 2007. An excavation at 5–27 Long Lane, Southwark, London SE1. Trans London and Middlesex Arch Society, Vol 58, 15–52.
Douglas, A, in prep. Excavations at Bermondsey Square, London (working title).
Drummond-Murray, J, and Thompson, P, with Cowan, C, 2002. Settlement in Roman Southwark: archaeological excavations (1991–8) for the London Underground Limited Jubilee Line Extension Project. MoLAS Monograph Series 12, London.
Haslam, A, 2012, An Archaeological Excavation at the Former Whitstable Day Nursery, Stevens Street, London Borough of Southwark, London SE1. Unpublished PCA Report.
Hawkins N & Butler J. 2014 An Assessment of an Archaeological Excavation on Land at the Baitul Aziz Mosque, 1 Dickens Square, London Borough of Southwark, SE1 4JL Unpublished PCA Excavation Report.
PCA Report Number: R12922 Page 47 of 108 Joseph Lancaster Nursery Site, London Borough of Southwark, SE1 4EX: An Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment ©Pre-Construct Archaeology Ltd, June 2017
Killock, D, 2009. Tabard Square, 34–70 Long Lane & 31–47 Tabard Street, London SE1. Unpublished PCA Excavation Report.
Killock, D (2010) An Assessment Of An Archaeological Excavation At 28-30 Trinity Street, London SE1, London Borough of Southwark. London: Pre-Construct Archaeology. Unpublished report.
Killock, D (2015) Temples and Suburbs. Excavations at Tabard Square, Southwark. PCA Monograph 18
Killock, D (2017 in prep) A Roman cemetery at Trinity Street, Southwark. Monograph. In preparation.
Mills, AD (1991) Dictionary of English Place Names. Oxford University Press.
MOLA, 2011. Map of Londinium: Museum of London.
MoLAS/EH,2000. The archaeology of Greater London: an Assessment of archaeological evidence for human presence in the area now covered by Greater London, Museum of London Archaeology Service Monograph.
Palmer, D (2002) An Archaeological Watching Brief at Former Duchess of Kent Public House, 67 Deverell Street, London, SE1, London Borough of Southwark. London: AOC Archaeology Ltd. Unpublished report
Perkins, W (2016) 5 Vine Yard, Borough High Street, Southwark: An Historic Environment Desk- Based Assessment. London: Pre- Construct Archaeology. Unpublished report. Ridgeway, V, 2003, ‘Natural environment and human exploitation on the southern shores of Horselydown’, London Archaeologist 10, No. 4, 103–10
Sidell, J., Rayner, L. & Cotton, J., 2002. The Prehistory & Topography of Southwark & Lambeth. Museum of London Archaeology Service Monograph 14.
Smith, J, et al., 2001, Georgian Bermondsey: Architectural Investigation Report, English Heritage
Stabler, K, 2000. An Archaeological Evaluation at 32 Long Lane, SE1. Unpublished AOC Archaeology Group Report.
Stirk, D 2000 An Archaeological Watching Brief at 32 Harper Road, London Borough of Southwark. London: AOC. Un-published report.
Tames, R, 2001, Southwark Past, Historical Publications: London
Taylor-Wilson, R., 2002 Excavations at Hunt's House, Guy's Hospital, London Borough of Southwark. Pre-Construct Archaeology: Monograph 1.
Watson, B., 2009. ‘Saxo-Norman Southwark: a review of the archaeological & historical evidence’. London Archaeologist 12/6, 147-152.
PCA Report Number: R12922 Page 48 of 108 Joseph Lancaster Nursery Site, London Borough of Southwark, SE1 4EX: An Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment ©Pre-Construct Archaeology Ltd, June 2017
Watson, B, 2010. The Roman Boat Adjoining New Guy’s House, London SE1. Museum of London Archaeology Unpublished Report.
Weinreb & Hibbert 1983. The London Encyclopaedia Macmillan Press
Yule, B. 1988. Natural Topography of north Southwark. In Hinton (ed), Excavations in Southwark 1973–6, Lambeth, 13–17.
Yule, B., 2005. Prestigious Roman building complex in Southwark. Museum of London Archaeology Service Monograph 23.
10.2 Cartographic Sources
Rocque, 1745
Horwood, 1799
Horwood, 1819
Stanford 1862
Ordnance Survey map, 1862
Ordnance Survey map, 1878
Ordnance Survey map, 1895
Ordnance Survey map, 1911
LCC Bomb Damage map, 1939-45
Goad, Fire Insurance Plan, 1950’s
Ordnance Survey map, 1965
Ordnance Survey map, 1984
10.3 Online Sources
Bomb Sight: Mapping the WW2 bomb census
http://bombsight.org/explore/greater-london/southwark/
British Geological Society:
http://mapapps.bgs.ac.uk/geologyofbritain/home.html
http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/597698/images/12229516.html
English Heritage 2011: The Setting of Heritage Assets. English heritage Guidance http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/publications/setting-heritage-assets
Institute for Archaeologists (IfA) 2012 Standard and Guidance for Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment. 2012 Revision. http://www.archaeologists.net/codes/ifa
PCA Report Number: R12922 Page 49 of 108 Joseph Lancaster Nursery Site, London Borough of Southwark, SE1 4EX: An Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment ©Pre-Construct Archaeology Ltd, June 2017
11 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
11.1 Pre-Construct Archaeology Ltd would like to thank Leathermarket CBS commissioning this report through their agent Playle and Partners LLP. Particular thanks are extended to Sarah Primarolo for her help. PCA are pleased to acknowledge the assistance provided by Neil Hartley, Igloo Regeneration and Bell Philips Architects and Conisbee Engineers.
11.2 Pre-Construct Archaeology Limited is grateful to the Greater London Historic Environment Record Office for providing information for the GLHER search. The author would also like to thank the staff of Southwark Local History Library for their assistance with provided information.
11.3 Additional thanks are extended to Gary Brown for his project management and editing of the report, and to Mark Roughley for compiling the illustrations.
PCA Report Number: R12922 Page 50 of 108