An archaeological and historical survey of the Hindhead Common estate, Hindhead, Surrey

centred on SU 89500 36000

Volume 1: historical text, appendices & maps

by Christopher K Currie BA (Hons), MPhil, MIFM, MIFA & Neil Rushton BA (Hons) MA Ph.D AIFA

CKC Archaeology

Report to the National Trust

June 2005 Hindhead Common Archaeological Survey 2 CKC Archaeology

Contents page no.

Summary statement of archaeology significance 4

1.0 Introduction 6

2.0 Strategy 6

3.0 Description of study area 3.1 The study area 8 3.2 Background history 9 3.3 Background archaeology: work prior to current study 10 3.4 Background archaeology: summary to current survey results 12

4.0 Early landscape history 4.1 Prehistoric landscape 15 4.2 Iron Age and Roman landscape 16 4.3 Saxon landscape 16

5.0 Medieval and post-medieval landscape history 5.1 The medieval landscape 17 5.2 The post-medieval landscape 20 5.3 The rise of middle-class Hindhead & popular tourism 28 5.4 Routes across Hindhead Common 31

6.0 Conclusions 32

7.0 Archive 34

8.0 Acknowledgements 34

9.0 References 35

Hindhead Common Archaeological Survey 3 CKC Archaeology

Appendices

Appendix 1: Key to tithe map field numbers 38

Appendix 2: Rentals for Thursley properties in Highcombe Bottom, 1785-1891 42

Appendix 3: SSSI listing for Hindhead Common 45

Appendix 4: Acquisition list for NT properties making up Hindhead Common 47

Appendix 5: catalogue of photographs taken during this survey 48

Appendix 6: glossary of archaeological terms 50

Maps

Figures 1- 35 53-88

CD

ADDENDA

Christopher Currie tragically died at the end of May 2005 whilst carrying out an archaeological survey for the National Trust on the Isle of Wight. This current survey of Hindhead Commons was undertaken by Christopher Currie and myself during late 2004 and early 2005, and most of the fieldwork was complete by the time of Chris’s death. I have completed the survey text and illustrations to the same format usually used by CKC Archaeology for such reports. However, I have added a CD with all text, illustrations, photographs and GIS material, in order that the survey can be made as accessible as possible for those wishing to consult it.

Neil Rushton London, June 2005

Hindhead Common Archaeological Survey 4 CKC Archaeology

Summary statement of archaeological significance

This survey was proposed by the National Trust as part of their continuing enhancement of their land management of their properties. It is eventually hoped that all National Trust properties will be incorporated on a centralised Sites and Monuments Record computerised database (henceforth SMR) held at the Cirencester office. The brief was drawn up for the survey by Caroline Thackray, Archaeological Adviser. C K Currie of CKC Archaeology was asked to undertake the survey on behalf of the property management. The work was carried out between December 2004 and May 2005 by C K Currie and Dr Neil Rushton.

The study area appears to have been rough common grazing since the later Bronze Age. There is very little recorded about activities there until the later post-medieval period. To date prehistoric finds have been rare, but this may be as much because of a lack of systematic activity by archaeologists than because of any genuine contemporary absence. It is possible that the poor sandy soils and the steep sided valleys in the study area led to the limited agricultural and settlement activity.

What limited settlement can be discerned seems to be confined largely to the valleys containing small streams and sufficient flat ground to enable reasonable fields to be made thereon. There is only one apparent exception to this, and that is the enclosures sited on the ridge at Invall. Elsewhere settlement and agricultural activity is confined to Highcombe Bottom, Diggins Bottom and Nutcombe Valley. Of these there is only documentary survival for Highcombe Bottom. It has to be assumed that the other areas containing fields may have been in existence in the medieval period, but this cannot be proven.

It has been assumed that the enclosures in Highcombe Bottom are of medieval origin. However there is some documentary evidence to contradict this. It is quite possible that the origins of enclosure here began in the medieval period, but it is certain that a good proportion of the present fields and cottages were created in the post-medieval period. Although it has been suggested by a previous study that the entire system had been created by 1222, and was subsequently reordered in the Tudor period, no evidence has been found to support this, and until this is forthcoming it has to be assumed that this is supposition.

The earliest reference to the creation of fields in Highcombe Bottom dates from 1555. At this date one John Boxall inherited 12 acres of purpresture from his father. That the land is still referred to as purpresture could suggest that it had only recently been enclosed.

Where other properties can be identified they seem to have been recent creations. A good example of this is the current youth hostel. This is referred to in 1695 as being granted along with an acre of grounds that was formerly a part of the waste. This suggests recent enclosure, with the cottage being erected thereon at the same time. It is further notable that the amount of land attached to this cottage has increased to an acre and a half by the end of the 18th century. Although the evidence is by no means conclusive there are definite suggestions that enclosure from the waste is taking place in the post medieval period.

Hindhead Common Archaeological Survey 5 CKC Archaeology

Another good example is near Keeper's Cottage. On the hillside to the west of this cottage relict field banks can be identified in woodland. The tithe survey shows two cottages here with two enclosures, marked as gardens, attached. By 1874 the cottages have disappeared and two new fields are shown on the steep slope of the hill. These two new fields have clearly been made between 1840 and 1874, and are not medieval as a previous study indicated.

Between 1906 and 1924 Lord Pirrie of Witley Park incorporated the former field system at Invall into a new designed landscape. This was marked on OS maps of 1920 as a ‘deer park’. It included an ornamental summer house, with fine views, called the ‘Temple of the Four Winds’, and an elaborate system of iron fencing and gates. There is also a large mound within this area, but it is presently uncertain if this was made by Pirrie as part of his design or was an earlier feature.

Both this study and the previous survey have been unable to locate archaeological features of any great significance. The earlier survey seemed to indicate that there were numerous lynchets indicating agricultural activity on the steep hill slopes, but this study has been unable to locate any features of this type and it is considered that there is no evidence to support their existence. This study has confirmed that the bulk of the archaeological features within the study area comprised mainly relic field and wood banks, holloways, and evidence for quarrying.

Some new sites have been located. These include three building platforms, identified from the tithe map, on the west side of Highcombe Bottom. It also includes a well preserved lime kiln within the field system at Invall and the possible air raid shelter on Weydown Common. The survey also includes mention of the radar station site located on the property in World War II.

It would seem that the archaeological significance of the property lies more in the landscape quality than in individual archaeological and historical sites.

Hindhead Common Archaeological Survey 6 CKC Archaeology

An archaeological and historical survey of the Hindhead Common estate, Hindhead, Surrey

Centred on SU 489500 136000

This report has been written based on the format suggested by the Institute of Field Archaeologists' Standard and guidance for archaeological desk-based assessments (Birmingham, 1994) and The National Trust guidelines for Sites and Monuments Record creation and estate surveys, Guidelines on the archaeological & historic landscape survey of National Trust properties (1998). The ordering of information follows the guidelines given in these documents, although alterations may have been made to fit in with the particular requirements of the work. All archaeological work undertaken by CKC Archaeology is carried out in accordance with the Code of Conduct and other By-laws of the Institute of Field Archaeologists.

1.0 Introduction

This survey was proposed by the South East Region of the National Trust as part of their continuing enhancement of their land management of their properties. It is eventually hoped that all National Trust properties will be incorporated on a centralised Sites and Monuments Record computerised database (henceforth SMR) held within the Archaeology Section of the Conservation Directorate. The brief was drawn up for the survey by Caroline Thackray, Archaeological Adviser. C K Currie of CKC Archaeology was asked to undertake the survey on behalf of the property management. The work was carried out between December 2004 and May 2005 by C K Currie and Dr Neil Rushton.

2.0 Strategy

2.1 Survey methodology

The survey included the following:

1. An appraisal of the documentary history of the property. This was based on relevant collections in the Surrey History Centre, but also included any other records pertaining to the estate area. These include: Saxon charters, royal medieval records (Domesday Book, Close and Patent Rolls, Inquisitions Post Mortem etc. in the Public Record Office), wills, contemporary published accounts, and cartographic sources (early OS maps, Tithe and Enclosure Maps, Parish Maps etc.).

2. Interpretation of the documentary sources.

3. A survey of the landscape that included looking at land use types, past and present, and how this has evolved; woodland types; hedgerows; boundaries and trackways; built structures; watermeadows, mills, ponds, and any other traces of water-management.

Hindhead Common Archaeological Survey 7 CKC Archaeology

Where possible ploughed fields were subjected to a field scan. This did not include formalised field-walking, merely a walk-over of fields to note the in situ occurrence and date of any human debris that may be present as a surface scatter. Collection was not undertaken, but presence of artefacts was recorded to six grid points where possible.

4. The production of a full SMR for the estate. This included all identifiable earthworks, crop or soil marks, and any other known archaeological remains. The information was written according to the format recommended by the National Trust, and entered onto the central archaeological database at Cirencester.

5. Although a full analysis of buildings is not covered by this survey (this being the remit of the NT vernacular buildings survey), it has made an outline assessment of the exterior of any historic buildings on the estate, such as garden structures, cottages, barns etc. Where they exist, VBS records have been incorporated into the computerised database.

6. The survey identifies areas of archaeological sensitivity wherever possible.

7. A photographic record was made of the estate and its historic/archaeological features and landscapes, where this is considered appropriate. This is incorporated into the SMR.

8. Management recommendations have been made to ensure the sensitive treatment of historic/archaeological features and landscapes within the estate, where this is considered appropriate.

9. Maps, at appropriate scales, have been provided to identify archaeological and historical features etc. These indicate major landscape changes of the period.

10. The survey has included provisional interpretation of some tree plantings, and any other historical plantings or matters pertaining to the historical ecology on the estate where this was considered appropriate.

2.2 Time expenditure

The project was carried out between December 2004 and May 2005. It is estimated that the total time spent on the project was about 50 person days of eight hours each. 25% was devoted to documentary research and project liaison, 40% was devoted to fieldwork, and 35% to drawing, writing up and editing.

2.3 Limitations of documentary research:

Recommendations for further work are given in section 7.4

Although most of the primary sources relating to the estate were looked at, some more general documents relating to the history of the parish were too large to undertake more than a selected search. In particular, the local Court Rolls pertaining to the study area were only looked at selectively for references to the estate.

Hindhead Common Archaeological Survey 8 CKC Archaeology

This survey project did limited research on newspaper articles and oral sources, as it was considered that this was unlikely to reveal any substantial amount of data relating to the project brief.

The air photographs at the National Monuments Record were examined. All those found in the NMR were entered into the National Trust SMR database, although some of the later photographs may have been entered as groups defined by date, rather than individually.

As far as the photographic collections of the estate were concerned, these were found to be widely scattered in local libraries and other sources. The authors went through a limited proportion of them selecting those that showed either landscape views or pictures of specific archaeological sites and historic buildings. Of the photographs seen, those that fell within these criteria were incorporated into the Sites and Monuments database.

2.4 Limitations of the field survey

Recommendations for further work are given in section 7.3

During the period of the survey, only the fields ploughed then were examined. Other fields may have subsequently been ploughed, or are proposed for ploughing. To obtain a fuller coverage of areas that are ploughed, it would be necessary to monitor the fields over a number of years.

The former woodlands and heathlands on the estate are extensive, and heavily overgrown in places, and some sites may have been missed. Many of the sites that might exist here may only be discovered by chance.

3.0 Description of the study area

3.1 The study area

The National Trust property known as Hindhead Commons comprises five main units of land. These are Hindhead Common proper, Golden Valley and Whitmore Valley, Nutcombe Valley and Tyndall's Wood, Polecat, and Weydown Common. Hindhead Common proper is best known for the feature known as the Devils Punch Bowl to the north of the A3. In fact this land unit is divided by the A3.

Hindhead Common is the only part of the property to contain significant heathlands within it. It is estimated that the current ratio of heathland to woodland within this property is about 50-50. The proportion of woodland is currently higher to the south and east of the A3 particularly around Invall, Polecat and Nutcombe Valley/Tyndall’s Wood. Golden Valley is also covered by woodland in its eastern part (see figure 15). To the north of the A3 is Highcombe Bottom, where there are a small group of old farms and cottages surrounded by small pasture enclosures. It would appear that the area in Highcombe Bottom may have once contained more enclosures than at present, but these have subsequently reverted to woodland.

Hindhead Common Archaeological Survey 9 CKC Archaeology

Golden and Whitmore Valleys were once part of Hindhead Common but have now been divided from it by the Churt Road and development around Beacon Hill. Historically it would seem that this area was once heathlands within the last hundred years or so it seems to have reverted mainly to woodland with conifer plantations predominating. Within this land unit there are a small group of pasture fields around the site of Dickens Farm in Diggins Bottom.

Nutcombe Valley and Tyndall's Wood may also have once been mainly heathlands. On the tithe survey map much of the area is shown as Nutcombe Common. At the south-west end of the Valley there are still two pasture fields that once made up a much larger area of small enclosures. Some of these enclosures are now covered by suburban villas on the north side of Nutcombe Lane whereas the remaining enclosures within the National Trust property have now reverted to woodland. The greater majority of this land unit is now on the woodland, again with conifer plantations predominating.

A similar pattern of land use exists at Polecat. It would appear that there were once enclosed fields here, but the sole remaining field is currently used as a recreation ground.. The rest of this land unit is now woodland with conifer plantation predominating.

Weydown Common is the smallest of the five main units making up his property. This is now mainly woodland although at one-time it would have formed part of a larger area of heathland common. There are a number of other smaller units in the area between Polecat and Weydown Common (Stoatley Green being the largest, but these are barely more than a hectare in extent and have little archaeological value.

3.2 Background history

Very little is known about the early history of Hindhead Commons. Whereas many of Surrey's heathlands commons can demonstrate prehistoric activity, there is limited evidence for this at Hindhead. Even on nearby Witley and Thursley Commons prehistoric activity is obvious from the groups of Bronze Age barrows present as well as frequent scatters of worked flint. There are no known barrows anywhere on the Hindhead property, and even the ubiquitous flint scatters that are found on all the neighbouring commons do not appear to be present at Hindhead. To date there have only been three instances of worked prehistoric flint being found at Hindhead and in each case they were single isolated items.

Nevertheless it must be assumed that the commons were cleared during the prehistoric period and then abandoned to rough grazing when the friable sandy soil quickly became exhausted. Rough grazing must have continued over the majority of the property well into the post medieval period. It is probably only in the last 50 years that tree cover has spread over much of the landscape. The National Trust is now attempting to reverse this trend and is encouraging the reversion to heathlands.

There are a few groups of enclosures scattered around the property. These appear to be of medieval origin, although it is not impossible that they are earlier. However, to date, there

Hindhead Common Archaeological Survey 10 CKC Archaeology has been no evidence of earlier settlement in the form of late prehistoric, Roman, or Saxon artefact scatters.

The earliest recorded mentions of the commons around Hindhead referred to it is a bleak and lonely place on the road from London to Portsmouth. Commentators in the 17th and 18th centuries considered the place to be positively dangerous. A number of travellers have commented of their unease about crossing Hindhead without a guide. This reputation was brought to public notice in 1786 when an unknown sailor was murdered by three vagabonds on Hindhead Common. The perpetrators were captured and subjected to a well attended public trial before being found guilty and executed. Their bodies were hung on a gibbet on that part of Hindhead Common now known as Gibbet Hill.

Hindhead also came to public attention through the novel, The Broom Squires, in the later 19th-century. This spoke of a community of cottagers who lived on the common and made their living by making brooms from the heather. A careful study of the landscape history suggests that this vision of the common was romanticised. It is unlikely that anyone living on the common made a full-time living from this occupation. At best it was probably a sideline practised by some of the poorer cottagers.

Towards the end of the 19th-century Hindhead became a popular venue for suburban villas. This was mainly the result of the promotion of the area by a Professor Tyndall as being good for the health. Middle-class development spread rapidly over the former baron heathlands. This can be plainly seen by the number of large houses with extensive grounds that now exist all round the edges of the National Trust property.

The National Trust began to acquire property here following a gift of a large part of Hindhead Common in 1906. This gift was influenced by the actions of one of the National Trust’s founders, Robert Hunter, who voiced the anxieties of many when faced with the loss of common land through the practice of enclosure. Acquisition of Hindhead Common was a direct reaction to these concerns. It has been added to subsequently and now covers over 600 ha.

3.3 Background archaeology: work prior to current survey

The Surrey County Council Sites and Monuments Record list is only three sites for Hindhead Commons property. These are all find spots for isolated pieces of prehistoric worked flint. This might suggest that the property was little used during prehistoric times. Compared with the prehistoric sites found on nearby Thursley Common, this is a very sparse concentration. Nevertheless it should be assumed that conditions on the Hindhead Commons were similar to those at Thursley Common. Exactly why the prehistoric flint finds and barrows sites on Thursley Common are not found anywhere on the Hindhead property is a mystery. The soils are similar and although the topography of the Hindhead property is steeper than that at Thursley, it is difficult to see why prehistoric peoples left extensive flint scatters on parts of Thursley Common but not at Hindhead.

Hindhead Common Archaeological Survey 11 CKC Archaeology

Since the early 1990s the Hindhead Commons property has been subjected to a number of archaeological surveys. In 1992 a survey was undertaken on behalf of the National Trust by Stephen Dyer for the Surrey County Archaeological Unit. This was completed in March 1996 when a report was submitted. This survey was undertaken with the help of volunteers from the Surrey Archaeological Society. It identified 416 sites, but the majority of these were designated as boundary banks, holloways, and lynchets or river terraces. Very few of these sites were considered to be of any great archaeological significance and the overall opinion was that the importance of the archaeology of the property lies in the character of the landscape rather than in the individual sites themselves (Dyer 1996).

The approximate breakdown of Dyer’s 416 sites produces 209 boundary banks or ditches (50.24%), 75 holloways (18.03%), 62 lynchets or river terraces (14.9%), and 27 quarry sites (6.49%). Of the rest, the most numerous were nine building platforms (2.16%), followed by standing buildings and ruins, both with four each. Other sites appearing more than once included three paths/tracks, three ponds, three sawpits, two areas of army trenches, two memorial stones and two ornamental mounds. Only one find spot was recorded for the entire property, a remarkably low figure. This was a Mesolithic core found near the youth hostel.

Since Dyer’s survey there has been additional interest in the property resulting from proposals for a new route to the A3 that will bypass the problematic Hindhead traffic lights. This has resulted in a number of surveys being undertaken of the various proposals for the new route of the A3. The earliest of these surveys was an assessment of a number of different routes by the landscape architects, Chris Blandford Associates. This study narrowed the choice down to a route passing through Tyndall's Wood and passing under Gibbet Hill via a tunnel to re-join the A3 to the north of Boundless Copse.

Chris Blandford Associates then commissioned the Surrey County Archaeological Unit to undertake fieldwork along the line of this route. From the archaeological point of view the results of this work were disappointing. No important sites were identified on National Trust property, and trenching was restricted to examining minor features such as linear hollows and boundary banks. Only one boundary bank revealed any information that could have been of interest. This was a section cut through the boundary between the National Trust property and Boundless Copse. This section revealed a buried soil horizon that might have had potential for pollen analysis. Unfortunately the horizon was heavily disturbed by roots and was therefore not considered worth sampling (Dyer 1994).

In 2004 Wessex Archaeology commenced work on the archaeological requirements for the A3 Environmental Statement. This commented on some other features identified during the previous surveys and assessments. With regard to Nutcombe Valley the following comments were made:

Features interpreted as either strip lynchets of possible early medieval date, or as river terraces, (WA10) have been recorded on Nutcombe Down and in Tyndall’s Wood. No features corresponding to strip lynchets were noted in these areas during the walkover survey. A series of parallel earthwork features (WA11), interpreted as lynchets of possible medieval date, are visible in Nutcombe Valley. These are located with, and extending south from, a land parcel first shown on the 1839 Frensham tithe map… as an isolated field at the head of

Hindhead Common Archaeological Survey 12 CKC Archaeology

Nutcombe Bottom, suggesting the extension of cultivation along the valley’s lower slopes, areas of which were subsequently enclosed (Wessex Archaeology 2004).

During this present survey these same lynchets could not be found. The ‘series of parallel earthwork features’ were thought by the authors of this report to be part of the field system shown on Frensham tithe map, a conclusion shared by Wessex Archaeology. These are thought to be field banks and not lynchets.

Further assessment by Wessex Archaeology in the area of Boundless Copse looked at field boundaries here and concluded that they were most probably post-medieval as opposed to the medieval date given by Dyer (1995).

It is expected that there will be further work on the A3 scheme in the near future, but at present the project has been suspended and it is unlikely that any further work will be done before this current report is issued. However, the conclusion of the Wessex assessment is that it is unlikely that there will be many further discoveries of archaeological sites. Their exact statement says: ‘The relatively low number of archaeological finds probably reflects the low level of arable cultivation and the extensive heath and woodland cover, conditions that make the discovery of archaeological sites unlikely.’ (Wessex Archaeology 2004).

As well as the work outlined above a preliminary appraisal of Highcombe Copse was made during a pilot survey of Surrey woodland by Nicola Bannister (Bannister 1992). This identified a series of features connected with woodland management, including charcoal burning sites, saw pits, and a series of banks. Most of these sites were subsequently included in Dyer's historic landscape survey issued in 1995.

There is also some brief comment on the Hindhead region in the Surrey Historic Landscape Characterisation Project. This gives some useful information on the percentages of certain landscape types in the area (Bannister & Wills 2001, 44), but the data is not study area specific and is therefore of limited value. The statistics suggest that 27.94% of the heathland area was developed at the late 19th-century, with a further 10.44% of heathland settled in the 20th century. Heathland on the common land still dominates the landscape making up 18.5% of the total, with heathland woods making up a further 7.27%. Between the heaths are pockets of ancient landscapes in the valleys made up of a mix of assart fields at 5.96%, and ancient woodland at 12.82%.

3.4 Background archaeology: summary of current survey results

Obviously the first thing the current survey had to do was check the sites listed in the Dyer survey. This came up with a reasonably large number of queries. The largest of these related to the 62 sites designated as lynchets or river terraces. Only one instance of these was found and this was a bank on the site of a lynchet in Weydown Common (SMR no 130314). This was not surprising as one of the reasons for the re-surveying of this property was the failure of the property staff and their archaeological advisers to locate these features. Consequently none of these features, apart from the bank at Weydown, has been included in the new site inventory.

Hindhead Common Archaeological Survey 13 CKC Archaeology

Other problems arose from the number of sites listed by the Dyer survey. The property management had long considered the numbers of sites of relatively low significance difficult to manage, and it was considered that some sort of rationalisation or grouping together of similar features in close proximity would be beneficial. Thus, for the field boundaries surrounding the existing fields in places like Highcombe Bottom (the northern part of SMR no 130206), Diggins Bottom (SMR no 130248) and Nutcombe Valley (SMR nos 130255- 56), rationalisation was a logical step. Therefore, rather than giving a single SMR number for each stretch of boundary, each group of fields was given a single number and designated ‘field system’. The same was the case for groups of fields now overgrown or converted to woodland, such as those on the west side of the main track through Highcombe Bottom (the southern part of SMR no 130206) and those at Invall (SMR no 130232). These were given a single SMR number as a ‘field system’, with management recommendations applying to the group rather than to individual banks. Likewise grouping of parallel features such as holloways, or areas of quarrying were given a single number as a group. This had already been done in places by the Dyer survey, particularly in areas of quarrying.

There were obviously areas where sites were open to individual interpretation. It is not intended to enumerate these separately. Apart from the lynchets/river terraces previously mentioned these were relatively few, and it would be foolish to claim that any individual can have a monopoly on being correct in these circumstances. For the most part these are left to the management and readers to decide. In some rare cases with sites that were considered of minimal significance where there was considered to be doubt about the interpretation, these were left out of the present inventory. In addition, not all of the building platforms identified by Dyer were taken up by the present inventory, either because, as on the sites of Dickens (SMR no 130247) and Highcombe Bottom Farm (SMR no 130205), they could be covered by a group number, or, because the authors simply decided they were not convincing archaeological features. Strictly speaking all sites in doubt should have been included, but the property management and their archaeological advisers felt that the site numbers needed to be reduced to a manageable number, and, to this end, the authors were asked to treat the survey as if starting from scratch. It was therefore considered better to leave off a small number of sites whose presence might cause confusion in the future.

There were, however, some clear examples where sites had been misinterpreted. Dyer seemed to assume that nearly all field boundaries in Highcombe Bottom were in existence by 1222, and were subsequently subjected to re-ordering in the Tudor period. There was no clear evidence for this block supposition, and in a number of cases, proof was found to the contrary. Thus, relict field banks in woodland to the west of Keeper’s Cottage can be shown to have come into being between 1840 and 1874 (SMR no 130207), and were not medieval as previously designated. Likewise, there is evidence to suggest that some fields around Gnome Cottage and Highcombe Farm may be post-medieval creations (SMR no 130269).

Other areas of reinterpretation include the ruin in Nutcombe Valley (SMR no 130258). This was given as possibly military, but map evidence shows that it came into being at the end of the 19th century, had two enclosures attached to it, and is likely to be non-military. Local tradition ascribes it as an outhouse serving Nutcombe House (Andrew Storey pers comm).

Hindhead Common Archaeological Survey 14 CKC Archaeology

There were only a small number of new sites identified during this survey. One serves as a good example of how easy it is to misinterpret sites. At the head of Golden Valley, the authors noticed a curving dam had been built across the small stream. This gave the appearance of being a small fishpond of historic origin (SMR no 130240), but the property warden has since informed C K Currie that this bank was built in the early 1990s to help alleviate erosion in the valley by slowing down the flow of flash floodwater in the valley.

Nevertheless, some genuine new sites were identified. The best of these were a possible lime kiln site at Invall (SMR no 130320), and three former sites of buildings in Highcombe Bottom (SMR nos 130208-210). The former is a well-preserved example of a kiln. This is a circular bank, about 1.5m high and a maximum width of 10m, with a hollow in the middle. Within the hollow are stones and occasional bricks that show evidence of intensive firing, and in the bank and in the topsoil surrounding the site are numerous pieces of chalk. The latter is not natural to the area, and is the best evidence for the kiln being for lime manufacture.

In Highcombe Bottom three sites can be located where there had been buildings on the tithe map, but where they have subsequently disappeared. All are within a few hundred metres of Keeper’s Cottage, and all can be located by levelled areas within the otherwise sloping ground. Two sites are former cottages (SMR nos 130208-09), with the third being a barn or similar type of outbuilding (SMR no 130210).

None of the other new sites were of any great significance. These include a sunken brick and concrete structure at Weydown just outside the NT boundary, possibly an air raid shelter (SMR no 130311), a saw pit (SMR No 130234) and the site of a possible building at Invall (SMR no 130321), sites related to the former radar station at Hindhead (SMR nos 130323- 27), the site of possible lime kilns in Boundless Lane (SMR no 130322) and a ‘kiln’ field name at Polecat (SMR no 130293). Most of the other new sites related to quarrying activity (eg SMR no 130308).

One final feature seems to require some discussion. This is the large mound to be found at Invall (SMR no 130231). This was interpreted by Dyer (1996) as an ornamental mound associated with the designed landscaping undertaken by Lord Pirrie of Witley Park between 1906 and 1924. Initial inspection by this author saw no reason to doubt this hypothesis. However, since then, the property warden has pointed out a number of anomalies that could throw doubt on the ornamental thesis. Firstly, there is no reference to this mound in historical documents from the Pirrie era. Admittedly there are none known for the nearby summer house site either, but the location of the mound begs many questions. If ornamental, it would have been sited to get the best view. Why is it not on the site of the summer house, where the view seems to be better? Furthermore, why not site the summer house on the mound for an even better view, either in its present location, or by building the mound on the site of the summer house itself? Finally, the mound seems to partly block the view from the summer house.

These anomalies have led people to question whether the mound could be a barrow? It is sighted on a false summit, in common with many other barrows, so that it can be seen from

Hindhead Common Archaeological Survey 15 CKC Archaeology the valley below. Siting it on the summit itself (ie the summer house site) would have meant it would have been slightly obscured by the hill slope when seen from the valley. It could be argued that it is rather large for a barrow, but a mound almost as large that has been given barrow status can be seen at nearby Witley Common (Currie 2004). Another oddity is that at the time of the tithe survey, this was one of only two enclosures within the Invall ‘field system’ that were retained as a plantation by the landowner, Mary Chandler, the rest being let to tenants. Was this because the mound existed at this date, and so the enclosure would have been useless for any other land use? This might mean that the mound already existed because it was an ancient feature, and the field boundaries were laid out exactly around it (as they appear to be), or that it already existed because it was erected as a tree planting mound prior to the tithe survey. Either way, the suggestion is that it may not be a Pirrie feature. The alternatives are that it is a late 18th/early 19th-century tree planting mound, or that it is an earlier feature of unknown origin. Whatever is true, the mound should not be dismissed too casually as an early 20th-century feature. Admittedly neither alternative makes exact sense. Post-medieval tree planting mounds are not normally this big, but then again neither are barrows, but, as far as the latter is concerned, large barrows (or tree planting mounds) should not be considered impossible, and it would appear that excavation may be the only way to resolve this issue.

4.0 Early landscape history

4.1 Prehistoric landscape

Unlike many Surrey Commons, there have been few prehistoric finds made on Hindhead Common. Despite this apparent lack of activity, it seems likely that clearance of the flatter areas may have begun in the Neolithic or Early Bronze Age, although it is unlikely that the steeper slopes were cleared for agriculture. It is likely that these were gradually cleared for the timber growing there and regeneration was prevented by grazing over the course of the prehistoric periods.

Pollen analysis of samples taken from this area might give some clues to the evolution of vegetation and land use hereabouts. Samples taken from peat in Boundless Copse, on the edge of the National Trust property, during the 1994 assessment of the proposed route of the new A3 has suggested that the woodland here has had a long history, but has been progressively diminished, possibly as a result of agricultural expansion beyond the study area boundaries. This sequence seems to have begun in the prehistoric period, with the Bronze Age being the most likely. Samples taken from beneath a suspected medieval bank at Kiln Copse indicates that heathland predominated by this period (Scaife 1994).

There have been no prehistoric finds on any of the outlying units, and only three find spots are recorded in the county Sites and Monuments Record (see figure 8). The find spots include a Mesolithic core found near the Youth Hostel in Highcombe Bottom, a Mesolithic flake found on Gibbet Hill, and a Neolithic adze found at an undefined spot on Hindhead Common. It is hard to imagine a genuine lack of prehistoric activity on Hindhead Common, but this lack of significant activity could suggest the area was little used in prehistoric times.

Hindhead Common Archaeological Survey 16 CKC Archaeology

It is perhaps worth quoting the conclusions from a recent survey of prehistoric sites from the adjoining Thursley Common:

Certainly it is interesting to note that the common, which previously had been a ‘blank’ on the map of prehistoric Surrey, was in fact used throughout the period. Apparently ‘blanks’ in the record, at least in this part the country, are more likely to reflect the destruction of the archaeological record by casual collecting over the past 150 years or so than to represent an absence of activity in the prehistoric period. Until very recently, at best, such collections ended up in local museums labelled as ‘ unprovenanced’ or as being from a general area and at worst, were thrown away unrecorded. Given goodwill, and a wider understanding of the issues, as shown at Thursley, perhaps it is still not too late to recover some idea of human exploitation of the Greensands in the prehistoric period. (Graham et al. 1996, 169).

4.2 Iron Age and Roman landscape

There have been no Iron Age or Roman finds discovered on this property, nor are there any indications of contemporary features in the field. Nevertheless, Roman material has been found, just outside of the National Trust property at Stoatley Rough and just below Invall. This suggests that there may have been Roman presence in Coombeswell Valley. There has been a fair amount of Roman material found just to the north of Hindhead Common around the village of Thursley. This would seem to suggest that in Roman times, as later, there was contemporary activity around the edge of the common. It might be assumed that during these periods Hindhead Commons were used mainly for rough grazing, and that settlement activity within the property boundaries was minimal.

4.3 Saxon landscape

There is little evidence of Saxon activity on Hindhead Commons. The only reference to the property is to be found in a royal charter of AD 909 giving the hundred of Farnham to the bishop of Winchester. This defines the bounds of Farnham hundred and follows the Smallbrook Stream along innan hegcumbe (Highcombe Bottom) before cutting south westwards up the steep slope of the Devil's Punch Bowl near the head of the valley (see figure 9). The charter calls this slope the wolfore (wolf slope), and this may suggest that the area was an isolated place, where wolves had been known to gather.

The only other evidence we have for the Saxon landscape within the study area comes from place-names. The following names seem to have some antiquity and may be derived from Old English sources: Highcombe, Invall, Diggins Bottom, Hindhead, Hurt Hill, Weydown, Nutcombe. Other local names such as Tyndall’s Wood derive from more recent sources (Gover et al 1934, 165-66, 214-15).

It would appear that Highcombe derives from Haycomb, suggesting that this refers to the meadow land running along the edge of the Smallbrook Stream. The appearance of this name in an Old English form suggests the land use existed during the Saxon period when these Old English names were first coined. Hindhead appears to derive from ‘hind hill’, but this name does not appear until the 17th century.

Hindhead Common Archaeological Survey 17 CKC Archaeology

Invall appears first in the early 17th century as ‘Infields Hill’ (Gover et al 1934, 214), and this suggests that enclosures had appeared on the hill by this date. It is interesting to note that the oval shaped enclosure at Invall is suspected as being an early assart. It is particularly notable that most of the place-names in the Thursley area first occur in the 16th and 17th centuries. It is unlikely that enclosure and settlement creation occurred throughout the area at this late date but that these are the earliest records to survive.

Historically the study area has been divided between five parishes: Elstead, Frensham, Haslemere, Thursley, and Witley (see figure 2). It is worth commenting on how these parishes were formed. Elstead and Frensham were part of the Bishop of Winchester's manor of Farnham. This is contiguous with a hundred of Farnham and had been granted by Cadwalla, King of the West Saxons, to found a minster at Farnham around AD 688 soon after the conversion of the Saxons to Christianity (Sawyer 1968, no 235). It is also possible that Cadwalla was signalling West Saxon expansion into Surrey, previously a Mercian satellite, by appropriating the south-west corner of the county for this newly founded minster. Conversely Thursley and Witley were part of the Hundred of Godalming, an area thought by Blair (1991, 14) to belong to the separate territory belonging to a conjectured people called the Godhelmingas.

Despite Blair's view that the hundreds of Farnham and Godalming were separate territories during the Middle Saxon period, this author has uncovered evidence to suggest that the expansive areas of heathland waste within south-west Surrey had been shared between these two areas at one time. This is derived from a later charter of AD 909 in which King Edward gives the hundred of Farnham to the bishop of Winchester (Sawyer 1968, 382). This is the same charter that records the boundary between Farnham and Godalming that passes through Highcombe Bottom. In an earlier study by Currie (2001) it was noted that the common lands of Puttenham manor could be found on both sides of the AD 909 boundary. This suggests that the common lands in this area were once shared between the hundreds of Farnham and Godalming. If this is the case for Puttenham, it is possible that the lands in Highcombe Bottom were once part of a much larger estate that only became subdivided at some time in the later seventh century.

5.0 Medieval and Post-Medieval landscape

5.1 Medieval landscape

One of the great curiosities of the study area is the fact that even as late as 1905, when Hindhead Common was first presented to the National Trust, the manorial rights to the common were purchased from the estate of the former by lord of the manor of Witley. This is because Thursley had been a chapelry of Witley during the medieval period and it is said that it did not become a parish in its own right until 1838 (Redstone 1911, 61). Thursley was not even a manor in its own right, the manor of Witley extending over the parish (ibid, 59). Thus it was that the common rights of the parish of Thursley were held by the manor of Witley. This dependence on Witley was of great antiquity, and Thursley is not recorded in the Domesday Book survey of 1086.

Hindhead Common Archaeological Survey 18 CKC Archaeology

It is considered that the details of Thursley at the time of the Domesday survey were entered with Witley. Witley had been in the hands of Earl Godwin before the Conquest, and afterwards passed to Gilbert son of Richere. In Saxon times it answered for 20 hides, but in 1086 it answered for 12. The manor is listed as containing 37 villagers and three cottagers with 13 ploughs (Wood 1975, 24.1). This high population in relation to the number of ploughs has been taken by some commentators to suggest that the area was one of dispersed settlement, an opinion that is still supported by the settlement structure within the study area.

The descent of the manor of Witley is tortuous and involved and need not be repeated here. It can be found in the Victoria County History (Redstone 1911, 62-64). The manor reverted to the Crown in the reign of Mary, and in 1599 Queen Elizabeth sold it to trustees for Elizabeth Egerton, widow of Sir John Wolley and sister of Sir George More, her favourite maid of honour. For details of the subsequent post medieval descent see the following section 5.2.

Very little is known about the Elstead and Frensham portions of the study area from contemporary documents. Neither manors are recorded in the Domesday survey, their details presumably being subsumed in the entry for Farnham (Wood 1975, 3.1). The original parish boundary of Elstead is unusual in the way that a long finger extends into Frensham and Thursley at Highcombe Bottom. This would suggest that the assarts along the valley bottom on the west side of the stream were in existence at the time that the parish boundaries formed, probably no later than the late 12th century.

It is difficult to imagine the exact nature of settlement during the medieval period on the Hindhead Common property. Based on present topography it would seem that most of the settlements on Hindhead Common originated as assarts. It is not possible to determine exactly when these assarts were formed, but the most likely period would be the medieval or early post medieval. There are five basic areas of enclosures within the property: Highcombe Bottom, Highcombe Farm, Nutcombe Valley, Dickens Farm, and a roughly oval area of enclosures at Invall. It is notable that the Highcombe Farm, Nutcombe Valley, Dickens Farm and the Invall enclosures are all of a roughly oval shape. There is a second enclosure to the south-west of the Invall enclosure that is also oval and is also notable for having produced some Roman pottery.

The one exception to this presumed rule is Highcombe Bottom. Here the enclosures form a roughly linear line along the west side of the stream. It is uncertain exactly when these enclosures were formed but we can prove that at least two of the enclosures now lost within the woodland of Highcombe Copse were created after the tithe survey. Thus the group of four fields to the west of the present track near Keeper's Cottage, now subsumed in woodland, were originally enclosures around two cottages. The northern and the western of these four enclosures were not medieval or early Tudor as assumed in Dyer's earlier survey, but were created after the tithe survey and are shown for the first time on the first edition Ordnance Survey 6 inch map. However it might be assumed that the field system shown on the tithe survey may have had a medieval origin, if not earlier.

One of the characteristics of all the enclosed areas within the property are that the fields, at the time of the tithe survey, are all small. Very few of the enclosures are larger than two acres

Hindhead Common Archaeological Survey 19 CKC Archaeology and most are less than one acre. It is a characteristic of medieval assarts into common land that the fields are generally small.

Although the Nutcombe Valley follows a small stream as in Highcombe Bottom the enclosures are divided by a central trackway running just above the flood plain. The enclosures form an elongated oval. At Dickens Farm the oval shape is more regular, but there is also a stream towards the southern part of the area.

The enclosures around Highcombe Farm form an oval that is divided into three by trackways running through it. It is curious that at the time of the tithe survey it is Gnome Cottage that is the largest land holding in this group. Even then this holding barely exceeded seven acres and the present Highcombe Farm was then two cottages with only the minimal amount of land attached to them.

The most unusual enclosure is the one at Invall. This is a larger area of enclosure than at Highcombe Farm or Dickens Farm, but there is no evidence of a farmstead associated with it on any historic maps. However the oval shape and the fact that it is still shown on the first edition Ordnance Survey large-scale map as partly fields suggests that it could have been created as a medieval assart. A further oval shaped enclosure to the south-west has produced Roman pottery and this might suggest that these enclosures are of some antiquity. The Invall enclosure has subsequently become woodland and in the 1920s was marked on the Ordnance Survey map as a deer park. It would seem that in the early 20th-century this enclosure became part of a late designed landscape.

Although the date of these enclosures mentioned above must remain conjectural certain mutual characteristics suggest that they are all of a similar date. The most obvious date for such oval enclosures subdivided into small fields would be the medieval period, or, at the very least, in early post medieval times.

Dyer gives the date of 1222 as the terminus ante quem for the creation of the Highcombe Bottom field system, but no reference is given for this date and it has not been possible to find any primary source that refers to a field or settlement in Highcombe at that date. Dyer (1995, 10) records that his primary source for medieval period is the bishop of Winchester's pipe rolls, but there are no references to Highcombe in 1222 in this source. The earliest possible reference to Highcombe comes from the pipe roll for 1224-25, when ‘Ailis de Cumbe’ is recorded paying a 6d fine (HRO 11M59/B1/11). Later in 1256-57 ‘Thomas the tannar’ paid a rent of 6s 9d for 4 1/2 acres of land in ‘La Cumbe’ (HRO 11M59/B1/27). Finally in 1290-91 Cecilia ate Cumbe played a fine of 12d for four acres of land from her husband (HRO 11M59/B1/50). Nevertheless with all these references the assumption is made that ‘Combe/Cumbe’ can be equated with Highcombe. The earliest definite reference to Highcombe does not appear until 1555 when there is a reference to assarting at ‘Haycombrede’ (HRO 11M59/B1/259).

Although he does not mention the study area, a recent study by Page (2003) of the bishop’s manor of Farnham has shown that purpresture increased dramatically from the last years of the 13th century through until the Black Death. During the first half of the 14th century over

Hindhead Common Archaeological Survey 20 CKC Archaeology

20% of all land transfers within the manor had purpresture attached to them. Although none of the examples quoted mentioned the study area specifically, these figures show that the advance of enclosure into the expansive waste of Farnham manor was extensive in these years. It is perhaps worth recording that during a recent landscape characterisation survey of Surrey it was noted that even today 12% of all land in south-west Surrey is designated as assarted fields (Bannister 2004, 126).

5.2 Post-Medieval landscape

In 1605 Sir George More purchased the manor of Thursley from his nephew Sir Francis Wolley. In 1613 he sold the park of Witley to his brother-in-law Sir Edward More and the manor to Henry Bell of Rake. The latter was then settled on Bell's great nephew, Anthony Smith. The manorial rights descended with the Smith family until 1763 when Mary Smith married Philip Carteret Webb. Robert William Webb of Milford House sold the manor to the financier Mr Whitaker Wright of Lea Park. Wright was committed to prison for fraud in 1904 and committed suicide. When his estate was sold in 1905 the bishop's manor included the rights to Hindhead Common within both Thursley and Witley parishes as they then were (Redstone 1911, 64).

The strip of Highcombe Bottom on the west side of the stream continued to be within Elstead parish until after the tithe survey. The rest of the study area west of Highcombe Bottom fell within the parish of Frensham, with a small portion in the southern part of the study area being within Haslemere. Very little is known about the Frensham and Haslemere portions of the estate in the post medieval period. In more recent years the parish boundary has changed and Elstead has now been excluded from the study area. The boundary of Thursley now extends to the top of a ridge of Highcombe Edge, taking in the former Elstead portion. The parts of the study area which were once in Frensham, such as the Nutcombe Valley, Golden Valley, and the Whitmore Valley, have all been transferred to Haslemere. The latter has also gained that part of Thursley on its northern border, and the boundary between Thursley and Haslemere now follows the track that leads from the National Trust warden's office towards Invall. A small portion of the study area at Hurthill remains within the parish of Witley.

It is only during the post-medieval period that documents containing any detail about everyday affairs in the study area survive, and even these are scanty, giving only a rough picture of what life was like there. The earliest proper reference to Highcombe occurs in 1555 when John Boxold paid a fine of 12d for six acres of purpresture called Haycombrede and a further twelve acres of purpresture called Ridgeway by the surrender of his father (HRO 11M59/B1/259). The Boxold family were one of the longest-lived families in the Highcombe area. They can be traced in the area back to 1349 when one John Boxolde took up seven acres of purpresture in Elstead that had formerly belonged to John atte Church (HRO 11M59/B1/102). It is not possible to state that the seven acres were in Highcombe, but at least it shows that this family were active in the neighbourhood during the medieval period. By the later post medieval period the name had corrupted to Boxall, and there is a lane near Dicken's Farm named after them.

Hindhead Common Archaeological Survey 21 CKC Archaeology

At the time that John Boxold was entering into his father's land in Highcombe other members of his family were also active in the vicinity. Richard Boxall, son of Thomas, paid two shillings for purprestures that included two acres called Greenreed following the death of his father. In the same year John Boxall leased purprestures called Truxford and Pennyreed from this same Richard (ibid). We cannot be exactly certain where these ‘reed’ place-names come from, but it is worth mentioning that the field now known as Broughshane Field was known as The Reeds at the time of the tithe survey (SHC 864/1/123-4). In order to associate these ‘reed’ names mentioned in 1555 with the area to the north of Hindhead Common it is necessary to look at other documents relating to the fields in this area to see if we can find any reference to ‘reed’ names. There are none on the tithe survey, but it is possible that the names changed by that time because in a deed of 1632 an arable field called Gillreed is mentioned (SHC 212/102/7a). It is recorded that this butts onto Roode Lane1 on its west side, Hindhead Common on the south side near to the stone quarry, and a piece of common called Heath Splick on the east. From this description it is possible that the field described is close to where Highfield Lane enters the common near Broughshane Field.

Another deed of 1744 seems to refer to the same land. In this document land that John Mansell senior had sold to John Blake of Chawton is mentioned. This includes 60 acres of land called Shorters, and is mentioned with a further 15 acres adjoining. The field names are not given, but the 15 acres are recorded as bounding on a lane from Godalming to Liphook on the east, the common or heath called Hindhead on the south and a lane called High Hold Lane on the west (SHC 212/102/29). It can be assumed that the line from Godalming to Liphook is the road that six years later became the turnpike road from Portsmouth to London. High Hold Lane seems to be Highfield Lane.

It is interesting to note that in the entries for the year 1555 the Boxall family seem to be heavily involved with purprestures. There is no reference to the present members of the family actually making these purprestures and in each case they seem to be receiving these lands from their fathers. We cannot be certain that the fathers cut these lands from former common as sometimes words like purpresture and assart continue to be used in manorial documents long after the lands have been cut out of the common. The one thing we can be sure of is that the lands being discussed here were once cut from the common and their names seem to suggest that they were in the vicinity of Broughshane Field. It is a notable that the documents do not refer to them as assarts but purprestures. Although we cannot be absolutely certain what this means the word assart often seems to mean cut out of the waste in its own right whereas a purpresture is usually a piece of land cut from waste that has been added to an existing plot. From this it might be suggested that the purprestures being dealt with in the 16th century are additions to earlier assarts.

That the Boxall family are active on the fringes of the manorial common seems to be indicated from a reference in 1640 to one John Boxall being presented at the manorial court for using turf to burn lime and then selling it outside of the bishops manor (Brooks & Graham 1983, 19). This refers to the commonly accepted practice whereby tenants of the manor were allowed to dig on the common for all manner of material provided that they used it on their own property.

1 John Rocque’s map of c. 1770 seems to suggest that the main road was called ‘Road Lane’.

Hindhead Common Archaeological Survey 22 CKC Archaeology

It is also noteworthy that Boxall family were the owners of Dickens Farm at the time of the tithe survey from Frensham in 1841 (SHC 864/1/67-8). Unfortunately there are no earlier records of Dickens Farm, but it might be suggested that, if it is thought that this farm has medieval origins, and the Boxall family had been in the area for over 600 years then it is possible that they may have had an interest in this farm from a much earlier date.

The first mention discovered during this research specifically to Highcombe Bottom comes from the will of Henry Bell, the lord of the manor of Witley. He lived at Rake in Milford and seems to have been responsible for setting up the ironworks at Coldharbour to the NE of Thursley village (for details see Currie 2004). This will was proved in the Prerogative Court of Canterbury on 15th May 1634. In it he left legacies to various family members, including Humphrey Stynt and his sister’s son. The latter was Bell’s godchild, and is listed as ‘of Highcombe Bottom’ (Guiseppi 1903, 32).

In September 1695 Mary Smith of Milford granted Francis Gravett of Thursley a 500 year lease on a cottage and land in Highcombe Bottom. This lease recalls ‘ a cottage garden backside and all that parcel of land thereunto belonging containing one acre lying in Highcombe Bottom in Thursley in the Manor of Witley and occupied by Francis Gravett being parcel of the waste ground of the Manor of Witley adjoining the tenement of Richard Boxall of the East and the common there on the West, North and South.’ (SHC G5/4/91).

This document gives us some interesting information. First, it records that the common land of Thursley is in the Manor of Witley. Although we are used to thinking today of Thursley as being a separate parish, this did not come into being until 1838. Prior to this Thursley had been a chapelry of Witley, and even after this date the advowson of Thursley church remained in the hands of the rector of Witley (Redstone 1911, 61). Right up until the time that the National Trust came into possession of Hindhead Common the rights to the common were held by the Lord of the Manor of Witley from whom they were purchased by the Hindhead Preservation Committee. What is also noticeable about this document is that the Boxall family were also holding property in Thursley parish. All previous mentions of the Boxall family has referred to land that they had held in the Bishop of Winchester's manors i.e. Elstead and Frensham. The cottage mentioned must therefore be in the vicinity of Highcombe Farm. None of the existing cottages match this exact description so it must be assumed that the layout of cottages and fields in this vicinity may have changed since 1695.

It is interesting that the deed refers to the land as being ‘a parcel of the waste’ (op cit). This suggests that the land may have recently been assarted. It might be assumed that Mary Smith was a member of the Smith family that were lords of the manor of Witley from 1634 through to 1763 when the family heiress, another Mary Smith, married Philip Carterat Webb, with the subsequent passage of the manor to her husband’s family (Redstone 1911, 64). As such she would have had the power to sanction the enclosure of waste land. If the descent of Gravett holding is traced, it can be seen that it is today the youth hostel, a building dated by its style to the early 18th century (Surrey Domestic Buildings Research Group report DBRG no 4334). However, the deed quoted above suggests that it may have been built shortly before 1695.

Hindhead Common Archaeological Survey 23 CKC Archaeology

The deed also refers to a tenement to the east in the possession of Richard Boxall. This is most likely the building currently known as Highcombe Farm. Again this shows that there had been a building here in 1695, earlier than previously thought. The Surrey Domestic Buildings Research Group report suggests that the present house dates from the mid-18th century (Domestic Buildings Research Group report no 1705). If this is referring to Highcombe Farm, either the present house is earlier than previously thought or there was an earlier house on or near this site.

There is some further evidence to suggest that land was still being taken from the common in the post-medieval period. On the tithe survey for Thursley the most southerly field in the group around Highcombe Farm is known as New Piece (864/1/123-4), suggesting that this is a field that has been added recently. This field has subsequently reverted to common. At the time of the tithe survey there was also a cottage on the west side of the track by Gnome Cottage that has now been demolished. Although there is very little real evidence to suggest that the field system here was ever much larger than currently existing, there is some evidence to suggest that it was smaller at one time and that it has been enlarged in the post medieval period.

Francis Gravett's cottage appears to occur again in 1731 when Thomas Smith of Witley leases it for 999 years to Richard Gravett of Thursley (SHC G5/5/40). This property was in the hands of William Snelling in 1838.

A perambulation of Witley manor survives for the year 1787. This states:

…to the stone bridge dated 1682 at Truxford follow the watercourse.. [to the] upper end of a green that comes from smallbrook lane following the water course through several peoples lands to the spring head and turning to the right hand at the upper end of the grounds inclosed in Heycombe bottom where is a cross made a little above the springhead and which points to a crab tree about half way up the hill straight from the copse and springhead and straight from the crab tree up the hill before you come to the first way leading to the Turnpike road is a cross made pointing to another cross bearing to the right hand the other side of the road that leads to the turnpike to a cross pointing to a cross made between the old road and the Turnpike road across the Turnpike road to a cartway follow the way about 300 yards bearing to the left hand on the Long Down Hill to a cross made about a rod from the wayside to the bottom between Long Down and Broom Hill follow the cart way to the point of Broom Hill to a cross down the cart way bearing to the right hand to a house over the hedge about two rods up through the garden close by the house leaving the house on the left hand into the Lyon cutting through to pond heads of the waste ground still following the hedge to the corner following a small spring to the road that leads Haslemere… (SHC G152/3/1).

Although this does not tell us much about the local landscape it makes it clear that there was woodland in the form of a ‘copse’ at the south end of Highcombe Bottom at this date. Whether this had always been the case, or whether this woodland had taken over former fields is uncertain.

Our most detailed document depicting the historic study area are the tithe surveys of the 1840s. It is worth analysing these and to that end the data from them has been collected together in Appendix 1.

Hindhead Common Archaeological Survey 24 CKC Archaeology

The main land units within the study area comprising enclosed land are attached to Dickens Farm, Highcombe Bottom Farm, and Gnome Cottage. Other than these the other cottages generally only have a few acres attached to them. Thomas Flutter held seven acres attached to Gnome Cottage. Highcombe Bottom Farm was owned by the Reverend Lancelot Bellas, with Elizabeth Bettsworth as his tenant. This property covered just over 17 acres. The enclosed woodland in Highcombe Bottom was owned by John Hawkins and covered just over 38 acres. It is possible that parts of this woodland, particularly plot 753, Long Coppice, had once been fields. Long Coppice is the area in Highcombe Bottom to the south of pasture fields where relict field divisions can be identified within the woodland.

The present Highcombe Farm was then merely listed as a cottage and occupied by William Snelling Junior and another unnamed tenant. It had less than an acre of land attached to it. The Youth Hostel was owned and occupied by William Snelling Senior and had less than two acres attached to it. There were two other cottages in the Highcombe Farm group that have subsequently disappeared. Both had only small plots attached to them.

Dickens Farm was owned and occupied by John Boxall, whose family had been living in the area at the time of the Black Death. Virtually nothing else is known about this farm. On the tithe map it is given as ‘Diggins’, presumably after a former landowner or tenant that can no longer be identified.

In Nutcombe Bottom the land now within the study area was owned by William Rosswell and tenanted by David White. The unit totalled just over eight acres, but did not have the farmstead attached. Another single plot of the north side of the trackway running through the valley was held as a single unit by Stephen Coombs containing a cottage and garden containing just over half an acre.

The enclosed lands at Invall were in the hands of Mary Chandler, the lord of the manor of Witley. These were later brought into an ornamental landscape by Lord Pirrie in the early 20th-century, but on the tithe survey much of this land was still arable and pasture. It was not farmed as a single unit in the 1840s. Mary Chandler kept the two largest plots of woodland in her own hands and the rest of these enclosures were divided between two tenants, John Hedgecock and William Nash. The entire area is now woodland, but this did not occur until after 1905. The recent discovery of a lime kiln within this former field system was probably created to make fertiliser for the arable land herein, and this further reminds us of its earlier land uses.

It is possible that the area now known as Polecat was once farmland as well. Apart from Long Field, now used as a recreation ground, this entire area has now reverted to woodland. At the time of the tithe survey much of this area was still arable. The land was owned by Edward James Baker, but it was not managed as a single unit.

One of the more interesting points to come out of the tithe survey is the fact that there were at least two cottages in Highcombe Bottom near Keeper's Cottage that had disappeared by 1874. These were on the west side of the main track through the valley. Within the woodland

Hindhead Common Archaeological Survey 25 CKC Archaeology currently covering this area there are relict banks of at least four fields. These were designated as medieval by Dyer, who went on to suggest that they had been reordered in the Tudor period. However the tithe survey does not fully support this suggestion. Two of the fields are not shown on the tithe survey and first appear on the Ordnance Survey map of 1874. The other two ‘ fields’ are shown on the tithe survey as ‘ gardens’, and there are two cottages adjoining. According to the tithe survey both of these cottages are owned and occupied by John Boxall, who also owned and occupied Dickens Farm. It is unlikely that he lived in all three houses, and we must assume that there are some hidden tenants here somewhere. By 1874 both cottages had disappeared and two new enclosures had been added to the former gardens. Therefore we seem to have a situation here where cottages are disappearing but new enclosures are being cut out of the waste.

A deed dating from just before the tithe survey suggests that new intake from the waste was happening on the other side of Highcombe Bottom at Gnome Cottage. This land unit is described in a surrender of June 1833 by Thomas Fludder (Flutter). This records ‘ all that piece or parcel of land containing by estimation eight acres and one half of land situated lying and being at Haccombe Bottom in the tithing of Thursley, without buildings thereon erected and built with all Commons and Common of Pasture, ways, waters, easements and appurtenances thereto belonging and all that small parcel of land formerly part of the waste of the said manor containing about six rods adjoining to the aforementioned premises on the north-west part thereof straight from the corner of the garden to the corner of the field there belonging to the said Thomas Fludder’ (SHC G 152/5/1/4).

This deed seems to suggest that the ‘small parcel of land formerly part of the waste’ had recently been added to this land unit, and that this is another example of a fairly late assart into the surrounding common land. This is probably a small piece of land seen on late 19th- century Ordnance Survey maps to the north-west of Gnome Cottage that subsequently disappears on later maps.

From 1785 there are a series of rentals for Thursley part of the study area. These give details of the tenants of the various properties that currently exist around Highcombe Farm. The 1785 rental is the earliest reference we have too a complete list of tenants and cottages in this collection of enclosures. John Husot was paying 1/6d for a cottage at ‘Heycomb’. John Denyer paid 15 shillings for a copyhold estate there. Stephen Keen paid 1/6d for a property listed as ‘late Hammonds’, whilst Richard Welland paid 2/6d for a copyhold (SHC G152/4/1). All these properties were at ‘Heycomb’.

Cross-referencing the rental information with the Court Rolls allows us to fill in some missing details. It appears that Richard Welland was first admitted to his copyhold in 1779. It had previously been known as ‘Richard Gravett’s copyhold’ and comprised a cottage and one and a half acres. Welland’s death was reported in a court of April 1796. It is recorded that he had surrendered his cottage and one and a half acres of land in October 1794. The land is described as being bounded on the south and east by lands now or late of Stephen Keen, with the common on the west and north. This surrender excludes a pond and eight rods in Hall’s Gulley and a further seven rods of land. The pond and eight rods is described as being ‘in Hascombe Bottom’, with the seven rods at the east corner of the ‘other copyhold’. This was

Hindhead Common Archaeological Survey 26 CKC Archaeology surrendered to Anthony Smart on 10th April 1795 (SHC G152/2/2). It is uncertain if the seven rods are supposed to be attached to the land with the pond or the cottage and one and a half acres.

The next rental dates from 1809. This lists Mary Walker as holding a leasehold in Heycomb Bottom at an annual rent of 1/6d. This is the same property as held by John Husot. George Fludder holds the copyhold that pays 15 shillings rent a year. George Snelling held a leasehold that had formerly been held by Hugh Hall at 1/6d a year. Sarah Karn had a copyhold in Highcombe Bottom, late ‘Smarts’ and a rent of two shillings. Thomas Messingham held the property ‘ late Wellands’ at a rent of 6d (SHC G152/4/2).

The next rental dates to the year 1812. William Denyer now holds the property listed as ‘ late Walkers’. George Fludder still holds the copyhold rated at 15 shillings a year, with George Snelling still holding the leasehold given as ‘ late Halls’. Sarah Karn’s property was now held by John Boxall, and this is given as ‘ late Smarts’. The copyhold that had previously been held by Richard Welland is now held by George Fludder, and is listed as ‘ late Smith's’. (SHC G 152/4/3).

The rentals continue until 1891 and are listed in Appendix 2. As they continue it is possible to work out which of the surviving properties are referred to and which have subsequently disappeared. The copyhold paying 15/- rent is Gnome Cottage, the only holding of this group to hold more than a couple of acres. This is given as 8½ acres in the rentals although it is just over seven acres in the tithe survey. The abandoned cottage site to the west of Gnome Cottage is the 1/6d property that starts in 1785 in the hands of John Husot and descends through Mary Walker, William Denyer George and John Fludder to Andrew Mayhew. Highcombe Farm is the 1/6d property that starts with Stephen Keen, and is then given as ‘late Hammonds’. This descends to Hugh Hall and then to George Snelling. Price’s Cottage, now the youth hostel, begins as the 2/6d property in the hands of Richard Welland. By 1809 it has become subdivided into a two shillings property containing the cottage in the hands of Sarah Karn, ‘ late Smarts’, descending to John Boxall in 1812 and then to William Snelling by 1830. The other portion pays a rent of 6d and is described as a pond and seven rods ‘ late Smith's’ and this is held in the hands of the Fludder family for many years before disappearing from the record (SHC G152/4/1-14).

By 1865 properties around Highcombe Farm can be found in the hands of William Rushbrooke. It is uncertain exactly how this came about but it appears to have been through the inheritance of part of the estate of Viscount Middleton of Peper Harrow. This is rather odd as the tithe survey does not mention Middleton owning any property in Highcombe Bottom. The land ownership, as given in the tithe survey, is listed in Appendix 1. However Middleton must have been some sort of overlord to the landowners listed as it is clearly through him that the properties came to William Rushbrooke. The earliest deeds for the properties show the Smith family, lords of the manor of Witley, issuing long-term leases (999 years in the case of the youth hostel) there, and this may help explain why the real owners are not listed in the tithe survey. It would seem that the properties somehow passed from the Smith family to Viscount Middleton, although the exact details are uncertain. The Middleton estate was divided by Act of Parliament passed in August 1850 with members of the

Hindhead Common Archaeological Survey 27 CKC Archaeology

Rushbrooke family being cited as beneficiaries. It would seem therefore that shortly after 1850 the lands passed to William Henry Rushbrooke.

The rentals continue to list other people (see Appendix 2 for exact details) on these properties until after 1862, but in 1865, and again in 1868, William Rushbrooke is given as holding them. In the rental of 1865 all of those listed in 1862 are given as ‘late’, suggesting that he had to wait until their tenancies had run out before taking over the properties. In the rental of 1873 Miss Frederica Rushbrooke is given as holding the land (SHC G152/4/11). In 1868 it was her, listed as a ‘spinster’ who treated for the shooting rights on the common (SHC G152/6/1/8). Dyer (1996, 19) has suggested that Miss Rushbrooke was acting on behalf of William Rushbrooke, who was her nephew and heir at law. It seems unlikely that the Rushbrookes lived in Highcombe Bottom, so it must be assumed that they let the properties out to tenants. William Rushbrooke is listed as of Bury St Edmunds in Suffolk, whereas Miss Frederica Rushbrooke lived at ‘Elmers, Surbiton’ (SHC G152/4/10; G152/6/1/8). It would appear that Miss Rushbrooke leased the shooting rights on that part of Hindhead Common within the manor of Witley from Robert William Webb, the lord of that manor in 1868 (SHC G 152/6/1/8).

Little is further known about the enclosures on Hindhead Common. It would appear that most of the farmland in Highcombe Bottom came to the National Trust between 1938 and 1939, as a result of a purchase through the W A Robertson Memorial Fund (see Appendix 4 for acquisitions list). Other lands that now make up the property have been acquired at various times since 1906, where the main bulk of the common land (435½ hectares/1076 acres) was presented to the National Trust by the Hindhead Preservation Committee.

The latter acquisition came about through the sale of the manorial lands of Witley. These had passed from the Webb family to the financier, Whitaker Wright of Lea Park at the end of the 19th century (Redstone 1911, 64). Wright was convicted of fraud in 1904 and subsequently committed suicide. His estate was sold in lots which included the manorial rights to Hindhead Common and various other pieces of the form or waste land of the manor. These were purchased by the Hindhead Preservation Committee and passed on to the National Trust.

During the Second World War there was a radar station sited on Hindhead Common. This was known as RAF Gibbet Hill, and obviously used the high point on Gibbet Hill as the centre for this station. Before discussing this site, it is worth noting that military activity had begun at Hindhead before 1939. There are records that the common was used for military training from the 19th century onwards. This activity may not have been as intense as on some other Surrey commons, such as Chobham Common, where Queen Victoria reviewed her forces at the time of the Crimea War (1853-56), or on Witley and Thursley Commons, where there was a massive army camp in the First World War (1914-18) (Currie 2004). Nevertheless, the common fell into the pattern of using common land for military activity, particularly in times of war.

In May 1874 the army at Aldershot made a request to the lords of Witley manor to use the common for army training (SHC 152/11/18). In May 1891 a letter was received by the lords

Hindhead Common Archaeological Survey 28 CKC Archaeology of Witley manor from South Camp at Aldershot asking if it was possible for ‘the usual Signalling Station Company’ to camp at Hindhead for the week commencing 16th May (SHC 152/13/11). The term ‘usual’ implies that this was a regular occurrence, and it shows that Gibbet Hill was considered an important location for military communications even before the invention of radar.

There were four radar masts situated on Hindhead Common during the Second World War. These were on Gibbet Hill itself, on the common to the SW of the hill, by the Dew Pond leading up to the hill, and on the north side of the A3 near the present NT cafe. They were all wooden masts of considerable height, but there were also a number of ancillary buildings. Only one is known to survive, and that is the concrete store building by the present warden’s office. This was thought to have served as a garage.

A recent article of 13th December 2002 in the local newspaper, The Herald, gives some more detailed information about the station. It was managed from RAF Odiham, and continued in use after the war well into the 1950s. Amongst the buildings present was a Reception Block that included the receivers and a rest room, an administration hut, a guardroom and recreation hut, a garage, a chemical toilet block and a hut containing a generator in case of power failure. The station is recorded as being a Gee slave station, working in conjunction with three similar slave stations and a master station. There would appear to have been at least six men stationed here during 1955-56 (The Herald, 13th December 2002). It is not known exactly when the station was abandoned, but local tradition states that the mast by the café was destroyed when an aircraft crashed into it.

5.3 The rise of middle-class Hindhead and popular tourism

It was towards the end of the 19th century that Hindhead began to become a popular location for middle-class residences. Although it is generally accepted that Professor John Tyndall’s move to Hindhead in 1883 sparked the middle-class settlement of the area around the current study area, the area around Haslemere was already becoming popular nearly a generation before this in 1869 when Lord Tennyson adopted Blackdown, 3km to the south of the study area, as his new residence (Trotter 1996, 31).

Prior to its Victorian popularity Hindhead was considered a bleak place. In 1668 the diarist, Samuel Pepys, was forced to engage a guide to conduct him over the road from Guildford to Petersfield by way of Hindhead (Redstone 1911, 59). The road at this date was merely a track, and it was not until 1749 that an Act of Parliament was passed to complete the turnpike road from Kingston to Petersfield. Prior to this the road over Hindhead was merely a track.

Hindhead obtained a new notoriety in 1786 when an unknown sailor was murdered there by three other sailors on his way to Portsmouth. The murderers were apprehended and executed, and their bodies were hung in chains on Gibbet Hill. A memorial stone was erected on the side of the turnpike road shortly after by James Stillwell of Cosford. This stone was moved on a number of occasions, but was subsequently returned to its original site.

Hindhead Common Archaeological Survey 29 CKC Archaeology

The famous radical writer, William Cobbett, made a point of avoiding Hindhead in 1820, calling it ‘the most villainous spot that God ever made’. In 1826 the road was lowered by nearly 60 feet to make the climb over Hindhead less difficult for horses. Despite the creation of the turnpike road and this new diversion the way over Hindhead remained difficult and in 1836 snow blocked the road creating a great traffic jam at Thursley with many coaches stranded there (Foster 1999, 53). As late as 1878 the area was still isolated leaving Louis Jennings to comment that:

At every step some new beauty bursts upon you. There is not a human being near - but one house, a solitary farm faraway on the ridge of Hindhead, is to be seen… It is a surprise that in this lonely waste one sees, between the Devil’s Punch Bowl at the top of a hill, a fine, broad and well-kept road, nor is that surprise diminished when you come upon it, and find that it is as hard and smooth as any road in a private park can possibly be. There are very few marks of wheels to be found upon it, but abundant traces of sheep… I declare that I stood looking at the road in amazement pretty near quarter of an hour, and am inclined to think that if I stayed there till now I should not have seen anybody or anything coming along it in either direction. (Trotter 1996, 22).

It is surprising that Jennings should be writing about Hindhead in this manner because already there had been signs that the isolation of the area was coming to an end. In June 1868 the traffic manager at the London and South Western Railway Company had written in answer to complaints from the steward of the manor of Witley that excursionists disembarking at Haslemere had been responsible for some unnamed misdemeanours at Hindhead (SHC 152/10/64-66). The extension of the railway to Haslemere in 1859 had made Hindhead Commons accessible to tourists from London. The Surrey commons were particularly popular with day trippers following the creation of railways, and many of the local commons were already experiencing difficulties by the time these letters had been written.

Perhaps the incident in 1868 had been an isolated occurrence. Hindhead was still considered to be an isolated spot in the last decades of the 19th-century. It was around this time that it began to attract numerous literary and artistic people. These followed in the wake of Lord Tennyson and Professor Tyndall, and included such famous contemporaries as Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Grant Allen and George Bernard Shaw. Grant Allen was a popular Victorian novelist who lived at Hindhead and wrote the hilltop novels there. It is from one of these, The British Barbarians, that he wrote:

I am writing in my study on a heather-clad hilltop. When I raise my eye… it falls upon miles and miles of broad open moorland. My window looks out upon unsullied nature. Everything around is fresh and clean and wholesome. Through the open Casement, the sense of pines blows in with the breeze from the neighbouring firwood. Keen airs sigh through the pine needles. Grasshoppers chirp from the deep tangles of bracken. The song of a skylark drops from the sky like soft rain in the summer; in the evening, a nightjar croons to us his monotonous passion a love-wail from his perch on the gnarled boughs of the windswept larch that crowns the upland. But away below in the valley, as night draws on, a lund glare reckons the north-eastern horizon. It marks the spot where the great wen of London heaves and festers. Up here on the free hills, the sharp air blows upon us, limpid and clear from a thousand leagues

Hindhead Common Archaeological Survey 30 CKC Archaeology

of open ocean; down there in the crowded town, it stagnates and ferments, polluted with the diseases and vices of centuries. (Trotter 1996, 21).

One of the hilltop writers was the Reverend S Baring-Gould. He came to the area in 1895 to stay with his friend the vicar of Thursley. As a consequence of this he wrote the novel The Broom Squires. This describes the district shortly after the famous murder in 1786 (Trotter 1996, 35). It is clearly a fiction that there are some aspects of it that did not match up with fact. It provides one with an impression of those people who lived in the area, particularly in Highcombe Bottom. It is from this novel that much of the local mythology of the area has been derived. Nevertheless, despite its artistic licence, there do seem to be aspects based on fact as this extract shows:

When the high road nearly reached the summit it was carried in a curve along the edge of a strange depression, a fast basin at the sand hills, seeking 300 feet to a marshy bottom full of oozing springs. This is termed the Devil's Punch Bowl. The modern road is carried at a lower level and is backed up against the steep decline. The old road was not thus protected and ran considerably higher.

At some unknown date squatters settled at the Punch Bowl, at a period when it was as wild and solitary a region as any in England. They enclosed portions of the slope. They built themselves hovels; they pastured their sheep, goats and cattle on the side of the Punch Bowl, and they added to their earnings the profits of the trade they monopolise - that of making and selling brooms.

On the lower slope of the range grew coppices of Spanish chestnut, and rods of this would serve admirably for broom handles. The heather, when long and wiry and strong, covered with its harsh leafage and myriad hard knots that were to burst into flower, answered for the brush.

The Broom-Squires were an independent people. They use the cut turf from the common for fuel and the farmers were glad to carry away the potash as manure for their fields. Another business supplemented farming and broom-making. That was holly cutting and selling.

At the present day there are eight squatter families in the Punch Bowl, three belonging to the clan of Boxall, three to that of Snelling, and two to the less mighty clan of Nash. At time of writing one of the best built houses and the most fertile patches of land was in the possession of the young man Jonas Kink, commonly known as Bideabout.

Bideabout was a rattletrap farmhouse, built partly of brick, mainly of timber, thatched with heather, at the bottom of the Punch Bowl (quoted in Dyer 1996, 30).

It is possible that this description of the inhabitants of Hindhead exaggerates the importance of broom making. Nevertheless, census returns indicate that a reasonable proportion of the inhabitants practised this profession in the 19th century. In 1841 one broom maker is listed, with three listed in 1851, four in 1861 and two in 1871 (ibid, 20).

The literary popularity of Hindhead was short lived. In less than 20 years the area was becoming rapidly developed for middle-class housing. This led George Bernard Shaw to comment in his play ‘Misalliance’, ‘The writing is on the wall! Rome fell! Babylon fell! Hindhead's turn will come!’ (ibid, 25).

Hindhead Common Archaeological Survey 31 CKC Archaeology

With the acquisition in 1906 of Hindhead Common by the National Trust, much of the study area became more accessible to the public and it became a popular venue for day trippers and tourists. However, there had been problems on the common before this acquisition. Two letters dated to 1905 complain about the litter being left at Gibbet Hill by picnic parties and dumping of rubbish, in this case sawdust, on the commons (quoted in Dyer 1996).

The Witley estate itself was purchased by William James Pirrie, the Belfast shipbuilder and chairman of Harland and Wolf. He was made Baron Pirrie of Belfast in 1906, and Viscount Pirrie in 1921. He made Lea Park his home from 1906 and commenced to make various improvements to the outlying portions of his estate. This included incorporating the enclosed lands around Invall into a kind of designed landscape. Very little is known about his purpose in this, but he built a summer house known locally as the ‘Temple of the Four Winds’ at the north end of the Invall enclosures to give views out over the surrounding countryside. He enclosed the lands in ornate iron gates and fences, some of which still survive today. By 1920 the OS maps were marking this area as a ‘deer park’, but its exact nature is not known, and it may be that Pirrie’s plans remained incomplete when he died unexpectedly of pneumonia in a ship off Cuba in 1924 (Doubleday & Howard 1940, 71). Parts of this area have subsequently been acquired by the National Trust. It is uncertain if the large mound to the south of the summer house site was part of Pirrie’s works, although it is stated as such by Dyer (1996), who may have followed local hearsay.

5.4 Routes across Hindhead Common

One of the most common features on Hindhead Common are the numerous holloways that cut across it. Virtually every major valley, and many of the main ridges, have tracks following them. For the most part the tracks along the top of the ridges have remained relatively flat, but where they descend or ascend slopes the local sandy soils have been prone to erode as water runs down them thereby forming holloways.

Apart from the main roads from London to Portsmouth and the old route that used to divert off it near Gibbet Hill for Haslemere (now re-routed as the A287), there were a number of historic routes that can be identified. The earliest source of these routes is Rocque’s county map of c. 1770 (figure X), although it will be noted in section 5.2 that a few historic documents refer to local trackways. For example a deed of 1744 refers to High Hold Lane at the approximate point where Highfield Lane enters the common today (SHC 212/102/29). This track is one of about half a dozen that can be seen on Rocque’s plan crossing the common. In the 18th century it would appear to have been the main trackway from Thursley village to the houses grouped around the present youth hostel. From here it seems to have made its way across Highcombe Bottom to Highcombe Bottom Farm.

Another ancient trackway is the one that runs along the top of Highcombe Edge. This is shown on Rocque, and at the far north end, where it drops down the hill just before leaving the common it becomes a considerable holloway. Another deep holloway follows it overgrown in the bushes to the west of the present track, showing that these routes often altered slightly over time.

Hindhead Common Archaeological Survey 32 CKC Archaeology

Rocque shows that the old road to Haslemere left the Portsmouth Road near Gibbet Hill to follow the deep valley along the common edge near Stoatley Rough. This was then the main route from London to Haslemere. Although there were parallel tracks on the line of the A287 and along Nutcombe Valley in the 18th century, these were slightly lesser routes. The route along Nutcombe Valley was one of the main N-S routes from Farnham southwards, but, since the creation of the turnpike road on the line of the A287 it has deteriorated into a backwater track.

In 1675 Ogilby produced a map (figure X) of the road from Portsmouth to London that shows Hindhead depicted as a major obstacle (Margary 1976). The creation of the turnpike road in 1749 was one of the earliest in the country. It followed the upper track to the south of the present Portsmouth Road until 1826 when it was lowered by some 20m (60 feet) to make the climb less difficult for horses (Foster 1999, 53). As can be seen in section 5.3, as late as 1878 Louis Jennings was led to comment that, despite the Portsmouth Road being broad and well made, he found little trace of activity on it (Trotter 1996, 22). Even then the road was often the same empty isolated place it was a hundred years before when the unknown sailor, commemorated by the memorial stone along the old road, was murdered there.

As motor traffic has increased since the Second World War, the traffic lights at the cross road between the A287 and the A3 at Hindhead have become a major source of complaint. Signs warn of possible delays three miles to the south of the lights on the Portsmouth side, and it is exceptionally rare to get through the lights coming from the south without encountering a traffic jam at least one kilometre in length at any time between breakfast and evening. At peak times, it can be even worse.

To alleviate this proposals to by-pass the junction have been under discussion since at least the 1980s. The present author undertook fieldwork on the original four proposals in 1992 for Chris Blandford Associates, consultant landscape architects who specialise in road schemes. A series of archaeological surveys have since been undertaken to consider mitigation for the favoured proposal, the tunnel option under Hindhead Common. These have included a survey by the Surrey County Archaeological Unit in 1994 (Dyer 1994), and a further survey as part of the Environmental Statement for the tunnel route, undertaken by Wessex Archaeology and published in 2004. At the time of the present survey, the route has been provisionally marked out, with notices erected to inform the public. It is proposed that the new route will leave the A3 near Hazel Grove to enter the new tunnel in Tyndall’s Wood, emerging again about 300mm NE of Gibbet Hill and cutting through Boundless Copse to rejoin the old A3 a few hundred metres NE of Kiln Copse. The main impacts of NT property will be in Tyndall’s Wood, and where it leaves the tunnel on the edge of Boundless Copse. It would appear that impact on the property’s archaeology will be fairly minimal (Wessex Archaeology 2004).

6.0 Conclusions

The study area appears to have been rough common grazing since the later Bronze Age. There is very little recorded about activities there until the later post-medieval period. To date prehistoric finds have been rare, but this may be as much because of a lack of systematic activity by archaeologists than because of any genuine contemporary absence. It is possible

Hindhead Common Archaeological Survey 33 CKC Archaeology that the poor sandy soils and the steep sided valleys in the study area led to the limited agricultural and settlement activity.

What limited settlement can be discerned seems to be confined largely to the valleys containing small streams and sufficient flat ground to enable reasonable fields to be made thereon. There is only one apparent exception to this, and that is the enclosures sited on the ridge at Invall. Elsewhere settlement and agricultural activity is confined to Highcombe Bottom, Diggins Bottom and Nutcombe Valley. Of these there is only documentary survival for Highcombe Bottom. It has to be assumed that the other areas containing fields may have been in existence in the medieval period, but this cannot be proven.

It has been assumed that the enclosures in Highcombe Bottom are of medieval origin. However there is some documentary evidence to contradict this. It is quite possible that the origins of enclosure here began in the medieval period, but it is certain that a good proportion of the present fields and cottages were created in the post-medieval period, although possibly before the mid-17th century. It has been suggested by a previous study that the entire system had been created by 1222, and was subsequently reordered in the Tudor period, but no evidence has been found to support this, and until this is forthcoming it has to be assumed that this is supposition.

The earliest reference to the creation of fields in Highcombe Bottom dates from 1555. At this date one John Boxall inherited 12 acres of purpresture from his father. That the land is still referred to as purpresture could suggest that it had only recently been enclosed.

Where other properties can be identified they seem to have been recent creations. A good example of this is the current youth hostel. This is referred to in 1695 as being granted along with an acre of grounds that was formerly a part of the waste. This suggests recent enclosure, with the cottage being erected thereon at the same time. It is further notable that the amount of land attached to this cottage has increased to an acre and a half by the end of the 18th century. Although the evidence is by no means conclusive there are definite suggestions that enclosure from the waste is taking place in the post medieval period.

Another good example is near Keeper's Cottage. On the hillside to the west of this cottage relict field banks can be identified in woodland. The tithe survey shows two cottages here with two enclosures, marked as gardens, attached. By 1874 the cottages have disappeared and two new fields are shown on the steep slope of the hill. These two new fields have clearly been made between 1840 and 1874, and are not medieval as a previous study indicated.

Between 1906 and 1924 Lord Pirrie of Witley Park incorporated the former field system at Invall into a new designed landscape. This was marked on OS maps of 1920 as a ‘deer park’. It included an ornamental summer house, with fine views, called the ‘Temple of the Four Winds’, and an elaborate system of iron fencing and gates. There is also a large mound within this area, but it is presently uncertain if this was made by Pirrie as part of his design or was an earlier feature.

Hindhead Common Archaeological Survey 34 CKC Archaeology

Both this study and the previous survey have been unable to locate archaeological features of any great significance. The earlier survey seemed to indicate that there were numerous lynchets indicating agricultural activity on the steep hill slopes, but this study has been unable to locate any features of this type and it is considered that there is no evidence to support their existence. This study has confirmed that the bulk of the archaeological features within the study area comprised mainly relic field and wood banks, holloways, and evidence for quarrying.

Some new sites have been located. These include three building platforms, identified from the tithe map, on the west side of Highcombe Bottom. It also includes a well preserved lime kiln within the field system at Invall and the possible air raid shelter on Weydown Common. The survey also includes mention of the radar station site located on the property in World War II.

It would seem that the archaeological significance of the property lies more in the landscape quality than in individual archaeological and historical sites.

7.0 Archive

Copies of this report will be housed at the NT Central Office in Swindon, at the Regional Headquarters at Polesden Lacey, and at the property headquarters based at the Witley Centre. The archaeological inventory that results from the survey will be added to the national computerised database currently being set up by the Trust.

Copies of the report are also to be placed in the Sites and Monuments Record of Surrey County Council and the National Monuments Record, Swindon, Wiltshire.

8.0 Acknowledgements

Sincere thanks are given to all those involved with this project. At the NT Central Office at Swindon, Wilts, Caroline Thackray, acted as Archaeological Adviser to the project. Crispin Scott, Property Manager, provided on-site guidance, assistance and facilities to carry out the research and fieldwork. Assistance was given by the property staff under the Head Warden, Andrew Storey at Hindhead, and at the Regional Headquarters at Polesden Lacey, Surrey. Jason Sidell provided IT advice and guidance for the creation of the estate SMR. Wendy Sigle-Rushton assisted with the fieldwork during two days in Nutcombe Valley and Tyndall’s Wood during March 2005.

Documentary information was obtained from the Surrey History Centre at Woking. Sites and Monuments data was obtained from Emily Brant, the Surrey County Council SMR Officer at County Hall, Kingston-upon-Thames, Surrey. Thanks are given to all the staff of both organisations for their assistance and advice. Information about the bishop of Winchester's Pipe Rolls in the Hampshire Record Office was provided by Audrey Graham.

Hindhead Common Archaeological Survey 35 CKC Archaeology

9.0 References:

9.1 Original sources in the Surrey History Centre (hereafter SHC):

SHC G5/4/40 Deed 1731 SHC G5/4/91 Deed 1695 SHC G152/2/1-5 Court Rolls for Witley Manor, 18th/19th century SHC G152/4/1-14 rentals for Witley Manor, 1785-1891 SHC G152/5/1/4 Deed 1833 SHC G152/5/1/5 Will of George Fludder, March 1831 SHC G152/5/1/6 Surrender of lands in Highcombe Bottom, 1833 SHC G152/5/1/7 Mortgage repayment on lands in Highcombe Bottom, 1838 SHC G152/6/1/8 Shootings rights on Hindhead, 1868 SHC G152/10/64-66 complaints re tourists at Hindhead, 1868 SHC G152/11/18 Letter re army training, 1874 SHC G152/13/11 Letter re army training, 1891 SHC G145 Box 38/2 Rents owed to Lord Middleton, 1843-48 SHC 212/102/29 Deed 1744 SHC 212/102/7a Deed 1632

Maps in SHC:

SHC 864/1/53-4 Elstead tithe map & award, 1841 SHC 864/1/67-8 Frensham tithe map & award, 1841 SHC 864/1/123-4 Thursley tithe map & award, 1849

Ordnance Survey maps in the SHC:

OS 6" sheet 37 (1st ed) OS 6” sheet 44 (1st ed) OS 6” sheet 37.SE (2nd, 3rd & 4th eds) OS 6” sheet 44.NE (2nd, 3rd, & 4th eds)

OS 25” sheet 37.15 OS 25” sheet 37.16 OS 25” sheet 44.4

In the Hampshire Record Office (HRO):

Bishop of Winchester’s Pipe Rolls

HRO 11M59/B1/11 (1224-25) HRO 11M59/B1/27 (1256-57) HRO 11M59/B1/50 (1290-91) HRO 11M59/B1/102 (1349-50) HRO 11M59/B1/259 (1554-55)

Hindhead Common Archaeological Survey 36 CKC Archaeology

In estate archive at warden’s office, Hindhead:

Anon, ‘Memories of a national service man at Hindhead’, The Herald, 13th December 2002

9.2 Original sources in print

Wood, S, (ed), 1975, Domesday Book Surrey, Chichester

Margary, I, (ed), 1976, 250 years of mapmaking in the county of Surrey, Lympne

9.3 Secondary sources

Bannister, N R, 1992, A pilot study of the history of woodland in Surrey, unpublished report Surrey County Council

Bannister, N R, & Wills, P M 2001, Surrey historic landscape characterisation, report to Surrey County Council, English Heritage & the Countryside Agency

Bannister, N R, 2004, ‘ The Surrey historic landscape characterisation project’, in Cotton, J, Crocker, G & Graham, A (eds), Aspects of archaeology & history in Surrey: towards research framework for the county, Guildford, 119-132

Blair, J, 1991, Early Medieval Surrey, Stroud

Brooks, P D & Graham, A 1983, The bishop’s tenants, unpublished typescript

Currie, C K, 2001, An archaeological & historical survey of Puttenham proposed Area of Special Historic Landscape Value (ASHLV), unpublished client report for Surrey County Council & Surrey Archaeological Society

Currie, C K, 2004, An archaeological & historical survey of Witley/Thursley Common proposed Area of Special Historic Landscape Value (ASHLV), unpublished client report for Surrey County Council & Surrey Archaeological Society

Department of National Heritage 1997, The Treasure Act 1996. Code of Practice (England and Wales), London, HMSO

Department of the Environment 1990, Planning Policy Guidance: archaeology and planning, Planning Policy Guidance 16, London, HMSO

Dyer, S, 1994, An archaeological evaluation of the proposed A3 improvements at Hindhead, Surrey County Archaeological Unit unpublished client report

Doubleday, H A & de Walden, H (eds), 1940, The Complete Peerage, London

Hindhead Common Archaeological Survey 37 CKC Archaeology

Dyer, S, 1996, Hindhead Commons, Surrey. Archaeological Survey, 2 vols, Surrey County Archaeological Unit unpublished client report to the National Trust

Foster, E, 1999, The history of Witley, Milford and the surrounding area from prehistoric times to 2000, Haslemere

Gover, J, Mawer, A & Stenton, F M, 1934, The place-names of Surrey, Cambridge

Graham, D, Graham, A & Nicolaysen, P, 1996, ‘Surface Collection of Worked Flints from the Thursley Common Area’, Surrey Archaeological Collections, 86, 163-169

Giuseppi, M S, 1903, ‘Rake in Witley with some notices of its former owners and of the ironworks on Witley and Thursley Heaths’, Surrey Archaeological Collections, 18, 11-60

Institute of Field Archaeologists 1994, Standard and guidance for archaeological desk-based assessments, Birmingham

Page, M, 2003, ‘ The peasant land market on the manor of Farnham, 1263-1349’, Surrey Archaeological Collections, 90, 163-179

Redstone, L, 1911, ‘Thursley’ pp 59-61 & ‘Witley’ pp 61-69, in The Victoria History of the County of Surrey, volume 3, London

Sawyer, P, 1968, Anglo-Saxon Charters, London

Scaife, R, 1994, ‘Pollen assessment of the valley mire at Boundless Copse and buried medieval soil at Kiln Copse, Hindhead’, in Dyer 1994

Surrey Domestic Buildings Research Group report 1705, Thursley Highcombe [sic] Farm (formerly Highcomb), unpublished typescript

Surrey Domestic Buildings Research Group report 4334, Thursley Price’s Cottage, Devil’s Punch Bowl, unpublished typescript

Trotter, W R, 1996, The Hilltop Writers, Eastbourne

Tyler-Jones, M, no date (approx 2003), The National Trust Property Learning Plan. West Weald, West Sussex, unpublished internal report

Wessex Archaeology, 2004, ‘ Cultural Heritage’ in A3 Hindhead Scheme. Environmental Statement, Highways Agency, HMSO

9.4 Other sources:

County Sites and Monuments Record (SMR) at County Hall, Kingston-upon-Thames, Surrey

Hindhead Common Archaeological Survey 38 CKC Archaeology

Appendix 1: Key to tithe map field numbers

In order to try to show how the estate was managed in the past, the groupings of fields are given as in the tithe award. This often reflects units of management or individual farms.

Abbreviations: A-arable; P-pasture; M-meadow; W-wood; F-furze; D-down; H-homestead; Wi-withies; G- garden; Pi-pit; Wa-water; FP-fir plantation; Pl-plantation; WM-water meadow

Tithe Tithe award acreage land map field name in acres use no. rods & perches

Thursley Award (SHC 864/1/124)

Lord Middleton owns & occupies

342 Emley Plantation 18-1-18 W 399 ditto 3-1-30 W

Lord Middleton owns, Richard Lickford occs

155 Kiln Field 7-0-7 A 157 Little Hanger 1-1-38 A 158 The Hanger 2-2-6 A 159 Upper Bottoms 2-2-32 A 160 Middle Bottoms 4-3-27 A 161 Saddle Back Field 2-2-11 A 162 Pond Hanger 2-2-27 A 163 Orchard Field 4-3-20 A 164 Lower Bottoms 1-1-28 A 165 Cottage & garden 1-1-32 340 The Birchetts 2-1-25 A 343 Hawkhurst 5-2-20 A 344 Homefield 4-0-2 A 345 Peaked Field 7-3-22 A 346 Stone Croft 8-1-13 A 347 Middle Croft 8-0-10 A 348 Starve Acre 4-2-31 P 349 Holly Field 15-0-8 A 350 Dunghill Field 4-0-30 A 351 The Birchetts 4-2-10 P 352 Long Burrow 5-0-0 A 395 Kiln Field 6-2-33 A 396 Shrubs Hill 7-0-29 P 397 Homestead 3-2-6 398 Barn Croft 5-0-15 A 400 Hannaker 13-3-7 P 403 Halls Field 5-1-33 A 404 The Soak 5-2-33 P 405 Lag 3-1-23 A

Unit total 152-1-18

Hindhead Common Archaeological Survey 39 CKC Archaeology

Thomas Flutter owns & occupies

442 Further Field 1-1-22 A 443 Upper Field 1-1-34 A 444 Coppice 0-2-36 W 445 The Plot 0-2-2 P 446 The Meadow 1-1-0 P 447 Rick Yard Field 1-1-2 A 448 Cottage etc 0-1-10 455 Cottage 0-0-20

Unit total 7-0-6

Andrew Mayhew owns & occs

449 The Plot 0-0-30 A 450 Cottage & garden 0-0-38 451 Meadow 1-2-28 P

Unit total 2-0-16

Lord Middleton & George Knight owns, William Marsh occs

329 The Reed 3-1-33 A

Unit: single plot

William Snelling Snr owns & occs

452 Little Plot 0-1-32 A 453 Cottage 0-1-19 454 Great Plot 1-0-18 A

Unit total 1-3-29

William Snelling Jnr owns, himself & another occs

456 Cottage & garden 0-1-2 459 New Piece 0-3-25 A

Unit total 1-0-27

William Snelling Jnr owns, William Marsh occs

457 The Plot 0-1-24 P 458 The Meadow 1-2-31 P

Unit total 2-0-15

Mary Chandler owns & occs

497 Butterwedge Firs 9-0-4 W

Hindhead Common Archaeological Survey 40 CKC Archaeology

Elstead Award (864/1/54)

John Boxall owns & occs

733 Cottage 0-0-2 734 Cottage & garden 0-0-16 734a Garden 1-1-2

Unit total 1-1-20

John Boxall owns & occs

735 ---- (no name given) 0-2-5 A

Unit: single plot

Rev Lancelot Bellas owns, Eliza Bettsworth occs

730 Meadow 0-1-15 M 731 Cottage & garden 0-0-25 732 Lower Field 2-0-4 A 736 Middle Field 2-0-17 A 738 Low Meadow 0-2-27 M 738a Coppice 0-0-30 W 739 Barn Field 1-1-32 A 739a Barn 0-0-3 740 Arable 1-0-39 A 741 Low Meadow 0-3-1 M 742 --- 1-3-14 M 743 Highcomb Bottom Farm house 0-0-37 744 Coppice 0-3-36 W 745 Garden 0-0-30 746 Cottage & garden 0-0-37 747 Crofts Field 1-1-13 A 748 Apple Tree Field 0-3-24 M 750 Coppice Field 1-2-25 A 751 Meadow 0-3-9 M

Unit total 17-0-18

John Hawkins owns & occs

723 The Three Acre Field 3-2-17 W 724 The Four Acre Field 3-3-11 A 725 Vanhurst Firs 4-1-23 W 726 Coppice 0-1-20 W 728 Shaw 0-0-8 W 752 Long Meadow 4-2-23 M 753 Long Coppice 13-2-23 W

Unit total 38-0-18

Hindhead Common Archaeological Survey 41 CKC Archaeology

Frensham Award (864/1/68)

John Boxall Owns & occs

950 Hanger Field 1-3-16 A 951 Rough Meadow 0-2-1 P 952 Middle Mead 1-3-24 M 953 Middle Field 1-1-8 A 954 Long Acre 1-2-19 A 955 House & field 0-2-33 A 956 Homestead 0-2-12 957 Stable Field 1-1-33 A 958 Sawpit Field 0-2-35 A 959 House & meadow 1-3-5 P 960 Plot 0-1-6 A

Unit total 12-2-32

Stephen Coombs owns & occs

1129 Cottage & garden 0-2-25

Unit: single plot

William Roswell owns, David White occs

1123 Netcomb Mead 1-2-26 P 1124 Netcomb Field 1-3-16 A 1125 Middle Field 1-3-10 A 1126 Coombs Field 1-0-27 A 1127 Top Field 1-2-13 A

Unit total 8-0-12

Frensham Parish officers own, Joy Williams & others occ

948 Garden & field 2-2-29 949 Parish Piece 2-2-17 A

Edward James Baker owns & occs

1149 Three Acres 3-3-3 A 1151 Broad Ass Field 3-2-14 A

Edward James Baker owns, Robert Luff occs

1137 Pole Cat Coppice 0-3-14 W 1140 Kiln Field 4-3-35 A 1143 Hole Field 3-2-19 A 1144 Long Field 6-1-34 A 1145 Coppice 14-3-20 W

Waste

1217 Netcombe Common 240-1-2 1218 Hindhead Common 1480-1-19

Hindhead Common Archaeological Survey 42 CKC Archaeology

Appendix 2: rentals for Thursley properties in Highcombe Bottom, 1785-1891

These rentals can be found in the Surrey History Centre (SHC) under accession numbers G152/4/1-14.

1785 (G152/4/1):

John Husot for a cottage at Heycomb 1/6d John Denyer for a copyhold at Heycomb 15/- Stephen Keen for late Hammonds at Heycomb 1/6d Richard Welland for his copyhold at Heycomb 2/6d

1809 (G152/4/2):

Mary Walker the leasehold in Heycomb Bottom 1/6d George Fludder for copyhold in Heycomb Bottom 15/- George Snelling late Hugh Halls for leasehold at Heycomb Bottom 1/6d Sarah Karn for copyhold at Heycomb Bottom late Smarts 2/- Thomas Messingham late Wellands at Heycomb Bottom 6d

1812 (G152/4/3):

William Denyer late Walkers 1/6d George Fludder 15/- George Snelling, late Halls, late Stephen Keens 1/6d John Boxall late Sarah Karn, late Smarts 2/- George Fludder late Smith, late Wellands 6d

1830 (G152/4/4):

George Fludder leasehold 1/6d George Fludder for copyhold messuage at eight acres at Heycomb Bottom 15/- George Snelling late Halls 1/6d William Snelling copyhold on late Smarts 2/- George Fludder copyhold late Wellands 6d

1836 (G152/4/5):

John Fludder leasehold 1/6d Thomas Fludder copyhold and 8 ½ acres 15/- George Snelling leasehold 1/6d William Snelling copyhold 2/- John Fludder a pond & 7 rods late Smiths 6d

1842 (G152/4/6):

John Fludder leasehold 1/6d John Fludder a pond & 7 rods late Smiths 6d Thomas Fludder messuage & 8½ acres 15/- George Snelling leasehold 1/6d William Snelling copyhold 2/-

1847 (G152/4/7):

John Fludder a pond & 7 rods 6d Thomas Fludder messuage & 8½ acres 15/- George Snelling leasehold 1/6d

Hindhead Common Archaeological Survey 43 CKC Archaeology

William Snelling copyhold 2/-

Reference should be given here to the tithe survey of 1849 which accurately identifies which properties are being referred to in these rentals (See Appendix 1; SHC 864/1/123-4).

Thomas Fludder holds Gnome Cottage with seven acres Andrew Mayhew holds the now abandoned cottage site to the west of Gnome Cottage. This is the leasehold held by John Fludder in 1842 at a rent of 1/6d. William Snelling senior holds Price’s Cottage, now the youth hostel William Snelling junior holds the cottage that is now Highcomb Farm William Snelling junior holds two plots totalling just over two acres

1862 (G152/4/8):

Andrew Mayhew leasehold 1/6d (abandoned cottage near Gnome Cottage) George Snelling leasehold 1/6d (Highcombe Farm) William Snelling copyhold cottage 2/- (Price’s Cottage) John Fludder pond & 7 rods 6d Thomas Fludder messuage & 8½ acres 15/- (Gnome Cottage)

1865 (G152/4/9):

William Rushbrooke owns:

In Highcomb Bottom late Fludder leasehold 1/6d late Mayhew leasehold 1/6d late Snelling leasehold 1/6d late Fludder copyhold 15/- late Snelling copyhold 2/-

1868 (G152/4/10):

William Rushbrooke owns:

In Highcomb Bottom late Fludder leasehold 1/6d late Mayhew leasehold 1/6d late Snelling leasehold 1/6d late Fludder copyhold 15/- late Snelling copy 2/-

1873 (G152/4/11):

Miss F H Rushbrooke owns:

In Highcomb Bottom 7 rods at Highcomb Bottom 4d tenement late Walker 1/6d tenement Mayhew leasehold 1/6d Messuage, garden & land late William Snelling 1/6d late Fludder copyhold 15/- Cottage & 1½ acres late Snelling 2/- Pond & 8 rods at Halls Gulley late Snelling 2d

Hindhead Common Archaeological Survey 44 CKC Archaeology

1891 (G152/4/14):

Capt W H Rushbrooke owns

In Highcomb Bottom 7 rods at Highcomb Bottom 4d tenement late Walker 1/6d tenement Mayhew leasehold 1/6d Messuage, garden & land late William Snelling 1/6d late Fludder copyhold 15/- Cottage & 1½ acres late Snelling 2/- Pond & 8 rods at Halls Gulley late Snelling 2d

Hindhead Common Archaeological Survey 45 CKC Archaeology

Appendix 3: SSSI listing for Hindhead Common (listed as Devil’s Punch Bowl)

COUNTY: SURREY SITE NAME: DEVIL'S PUNCH BOWL

BOROUGH: WAVERLEY Status: Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) notified under Section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981

Local Planning Authority: WAVERLEY BOROUGH COUNCIL

National Grid Reference: SU 892 370 Area: 279.9 ha

Ordnance Survey Sheet 1 :50,000: 186 1: 1 0,000: SU 83 NE & SU 83 SE

Date Notified (Under 1949 Act): 1955 Date of Last Revision: 1975

Date Notified (Under 1981 Act): 1986 Date of Last Revision: - Other Information: This site lies within the Wealden Greensand Natural Area. Most of the site is owned and managed by the National Trust. Reasons for Notification: This site, comprising Hindhead Common, the Devil's Punch Bowl and the Highcombe Valley supports an excellent series of semi-natural habitats including broadleaved and coniferous woodland, heathland, scrub and small meadows, and is one of the most scenically spectacular areas in the western weald. Hindhead Common, lying on the acidic sandstones of the Hythe Beds of the lower Greensand, supports heathland, scrub and secondary woodland communities. The Devil's Punch Bowl itself forms the head of the steep-sided Highcombe Valley, where the Hythe Beds have been eroded by the action of springs to expose the under-lying Atherfield Clay. Further down the valley the Hythe Beds give way to the harder and more calcareous Bargate Beds where a steep-sided gorge has developed. There are two contrasting areas of ancient woodland in the Highcombe Valley. A stand on the Hythe Beds contains pedunculate oak, Quercus robgr, beech Fag is sylvatica and holly Ilex aquifolium over a sparse ground flora of bilberry Vaccinium myrtillus and wavy hair- grass Deschampsia flexuosa. The woodland in the gorge overlying the Bargate Beds has a canopy of ash Fraxinus excelsior along the streamside with an understorey of hazel Corylus avellana and regenerating wych elm Uhnus glabra over a luxuriant fern-dominated ground flora. Higher up the gorge sides, pedunculate oak occurs together with some very large beeches. The ground flora here is sparser but remains quite rich in species. The soft shield fern Polystichum setiferum is abundant in the gorge, whilst less common species include scaly male fern Dryopteris affinis, toothwort Lathraea squamaria and bird's-nest orchid Neottia nidus-avis.

Secondary pedunculate oak woodland containing much birch Betula spp. and holly with some invasive Scot's pine Pinus sylvestris occurs throughout the site but is best developed on the western slopes of the Highcombe Valley. Bracken Pteridium aquilinum and heath grasses dominate the ground flora. Much of the streamside woodland is extremely wet with a canopy of down birch Betula pubescens, alder Alnus glutinosa and willows Salix spp. The ground flora varies from purple moor-grass Molinia caerulea and bog mosses in the most acidic areas to species-rich flushes containing marsh marigold Caltha palustris, large bitter cress Cardamine amara, opposite-leaved golden saxifrage Chrysosplenium oppositifolium, lady fern Athyriumfilixfemina, bog-bean Menyanthes trifoliata and marsh violet Viola palustris.

Hindhead Common Archaeological Survey 46 CKC Archaeology

The eastern slopes of the Highcombe Valley are largely covered by bracken, gorse Ulex europaeus and scrub woodland. Some areas of open heath land still remain, however, resembling the much larger area south of the A3 road which is dominated by heather Calluna vulgaris and bell heather Erica cinerea, and where bracken and scrub invasion are less extensive.

The site also includes some small enclosed pastures in Highcombe Bottom. These support a grassland flora dominated by common bent grass Agrostis capillaris, fescue grasses Festuca spp. and sweet vernal grass Anthoxanthum odoratum with much pignut Conopodium malus. The damper areas are dominated by rushes Juncus spp. and contain heat-spotted orchid Dactylorhiza maculata spp. ericetorum, bristle club rush Isolepis setacea, lesser skullcap Scutellaria minor and lousewort Pedicularis sylvatica. The Devil's Punch Bowl has a rich and varied invertebrate fauna which has not as yet been fully recorded. The woodland provides a wide range of invertebrate habitats: dead wood is abundant and harbours good populations of characteristic beetles and the locally rare fly Xylophagus ater. The wet woodland supports a crane fly more commonly found in western Britain Limonia distendus and several interesting beetles such as the scarce Malthodes maurus. Heathland areas support good populations of beetles including the local Altica ericeti.

The site contains an outstanding variety of birdlife, with over sixty breeding species. The Highcombe Valley supports breeding wood warblers and redstarts. Rarer woodland breeding species include firecrest, redpoll and crossbill whilst siskin and haw finch may breed occasionally. Heathland breeding species include night jar, stonechat, tree pipit and whitethroat. Dartford warblers have bred occasionally.

Hindhead Common Archaeological Survey 47 CKC Archaeology

Appendix 4: acquisitions list of NT property making up Hindhead Commons

Hindhead. lnvall & Weydown Commons etc 12m SW of Guildford on both sides of the Portsmouth road (A3) [186: SU8936].1076 acres (435½ ha) of connected common, heath and wood. To the east of Hindhead village lie the Devil's Punch Bowl and the viewpoint of Gibbet Hill (895ft); to the south-east, Invall and Weydown Commons. The greater part of this area was given in 1906 by the Hindhead Preservation Committee.

Frydinghurst Common, 2 acres of larchwood on the edge of Invall Common, and two strips of Weydown Common, were added in 1910. Highcomb Copse (210 acres of heath, farmland and coppice) and two cottages on the west side of the Punch Bowl bought in 1938 through the W. A. Robertson Memorial Fund. 14½ acres of land in the Punch Bowl, known as Highcomb Bottom. acquired In 1939 after a public appeal.

3 acres at the north end of Hindhead Common acquired in 1953 under the will of the 1st Lord Broughshane.

63 acres at Hurthill, between Hindhead Common and Invall, bought from a bequest by Mr E. S. Arnold in 1955.

Nutcombe Down, Tyndall Wood & Craig’s Wood Between the Haslemere (A287) and Portsmouth roads, S of Hindhead (186: SU887352]. 107 acres (43¼ ha) of heath and wooded valley. 21 acres are held alienably. Nutcombe Down given in part by Miss M. James in 1908, in part by Haslemere U D C in 1952;

Tyndall Wood in 1931 by Mrs L. C. Tyndall;

Craig's Wood in 1948 by Mrs M. N. Craig in memory of her husband;

14 acres at West Down bought in 1975 of with the help of local subscribers;

Polecat Copse Just S of Nutcombe Down on E side of A287 [186: SU885338]. 36 acres (14½ ha), principally woodland. 2½ acres of woodland and car park are leased, and held alienably. Transferred to the Trust in 1958 through National Land Fund procedures.

Pollock’ s Path 1 m SW of Hindhead. N of the Portsmouth road (186: SU879349]. A lane and a small piece of land, between Nutcombe Down j and Kingswood Firs, Bought in 1912 with the help of Dr & Mrs A. Lyndon.

Stoatley Green 1 m N of Haslemere station, ½ m from Frydinghurst and Weydown Commons (186: SU895338]. 5 acres (2 ha). Acquired in 1910 after a local appeal

Windy Gap [186: SU863367]. 15 acres (6 ha). ¾ acre of road side verge is held alienably. 14 acres of heath, between Churt Road and Whitmore Vale, bought in 1975 with the help of local subscribers. A further acre of land was bought in 1980, with a cottage, held alienably, let and not open.

Woodcock Bottom & Whitmore Vale ¼ m NW of Hindhead, on S side of the Frensham road (A287) [186: SU880361]. 19O½ acres (77 ha) of wood and heath, including Golden Valley and Whitmore Vale. 105 acres bought in 1927-28 by subscription, with the help of Dr Marie Stopes, 50½ acres given in 1973 by Haslemere U DC and Cdr Ronald Manners-Clarke.

Beacon Hill, 33¾ acres of mainly pine-covered heathland lying between the Trust's existing property at Windy Gap and Whitmore Vale on the south side of the Frensham Road, A287; bought in 1990 with local funds; access from the Whitmore Vale road.

1 acre on the east side of Whitmore Vale Road. acquired in 1991 with a bequest from Miss E. M. Earl and local Management Committee appeal funds; access from Whitmore Vale Road.

Hindhead Common Archaeological Survey 48 CKC Archaeology

Appendix 8: catalogue of photographs taken during this survey

All photographs were taken in digital format as indicated. Missing numbers indicate discarded shots. All photographs are included on the attached CD in Jpeg format.

Photo no. Description

Series prefixed ‘Hindhead’ taken by C K Currie, variable quality

Hindhead 2 Highcombe Farm from SE (SMR No 130204) Hindhead 3 Youth Hostel from W (SMR No 130212) Hindhead 5 Invall, lime kiln from E (SMR No 130320) Hindhead 6 ditto Hindhead 4 Punch Bowl from Highcombe Edge looking E Hindhead 9 Robertson War Memorial on Highcombe Edge from ESE (SMR No 130266) Hindhead 10 Linear feature on Highcombe Edge from S (SMR No 130202) Hindhead 12 View over Punch Bowl from Highcombe Edge looking ESE towards A3 Hindhead 13 Gnome Cottage from SW (SMR No 130213) Hindhead 14 View over Punch Bowl from Highcombe Edge looking E Hindhead 15 View over Punch Bowl from Highcombe Edge looking NE towards Thursley Hindhead 16 View over Punch Bowl from Highcombe Edge looking E towards Highcombe Farm Hindhead 17 View over Punch Bowl from Highcombe Edge looking NE Hindhead 21 Holloway at N end of Highcombe Edge from SE (SMR No 130203) Hindhead 22 Track/Holloway leaving NT property at N end of Highcombe Edge from S (SMR No 130310) Hindhead 23 Bank in Vanhurst Copse from NW (SMR No 130268) Hindhead 24 ditto, portrait view Hindhead 26 Keeper’s Cottage from N, landscape view (SMR No 130211) Hindhead 27 Keeper’s Cottage from N, portrait view Hindhead 28 Track through Highcombe Bottom near Keeper’s Cottage from N (SMR No 130273) Hindhead 29 Fields in Highcombe Bottom looking towards Keeper’s Cottage from SW Hindhead 30 ditto, portrait view (SMR No 130206) Hindhead 32 Bank in woods near Keeper’s Cottage from NE at SU 8884 3741 (SMR No 130207) Hindhead 33 Bank in 31 turns east at right-angle at SU 8885 3723 from S (SMR No 130207) Hindhead 34 Bank at SU 8887 3743 from W (SMR No 130207) Hindhead 35 Bank at SU 8886 3742 from ENE (SMR No 130207) Hindhead 37 Sailor’s memorial stone from S, landscape view (SMR No 130264) Hindhead 38 ditto, portrait view Hindhead 39 Embanked pond (modern) in Golden Valley from S (SMR No 130240) Hindhead 39a ditto from SE Hindhead 40 Bank in Golden Valley at SU 8742 3580 from SW (SMR No 130241) Hindhead 41 Bank in Golden Valley (out of focus) from NW (SMR No 130244) Hindhead 43 Nutcombe Valley, track & bank from S (SMR No 130309) Hindhead 44 Nutcombe Valley, field system from N (SMR No 130255) Hindhead 45 ditto, portrait view Hindhead 46 ditto from S Hindhead 47 ditto, portrait view Hindhead 49 Ruin of late 19th-century building in Nutcombe Valley from NE (SMR No 130258) Hindhead 50 Tyndall’s Wood, parallel linear hollows from NE (SMR No 130259) Hindhead 52 Polecat, former field now recreation ground from NE (SMR No 130302) Hindhead 56 Invall, site of possible building from W (SMR No 130321) Hindhead 57 ditto from E Hindhead 58 Warden’s Office, concrete store building thought to have been part of radar station from S (SMR no 130327) Hindhead 59 View N from Gibbet Hill Hindhead 60 Memorial cross on Gibbet Hill from E (SMR no 130263)

Hindhead Common Archaeological Survey 49 CKC Archaeology

Photo series prefixed ‘NR’ taken by Neil Rushton, quality good.

NR22 Highcombe Bottom, former field bank in woodland (SMR No 130207) NR27 Highcombe Bottom, field banks now in woodland From W (SMR No 130207) NR25 Highcombe Bottom, saw pit from NW (SMR No 130216) NR28 Highcombe Bottom, saw pit from NW (SMR no 130217) NR29 Highcombe Bottom, charcoal burning site from NW (SMR no 130218) NR30 Highcombe Bottom, holloway nr Highcombe Bottom Farm ruins from W (SMR no 130272) NR31 Ruins of Highcombe Bottom farm, various shots NR32 Site of cottage from E (SMR no 130209) NR33 Broughshane Field from N (SMR no 130219) NR34 Hindhead Common, pond from W (SMR no 130220) NR35 Hindhead Common, linear quarry hollows, various shots (SMR no 130251) NR36 Hindhead Common, quarry hollows from S (SMR no 130221) NR38 Highcombe Edge, linear hollows from N (SMR no 130202) NR39 Hindhead Common, linear ditch (SMR no 130225) NR40 Hindhead Common, quarry pits (SMR no 130227) NR45 Invall, boundary bank from SW (SMR no 130229) NR46 Invall, iron gates from SW (SMR no 130223) NR47 Invall, site of summer house (SMR no 130230) NR48 Invall, mound from S (SMR no 130231) NR49 Hindhead Common, saw pit (SMR no 130234) NR50 Invall, iron gates (SMR no 130235) NR51 Invall, holloway & bank from NE (SMR no 130236) NR52 Invall, bank from SW (SMR no 130237) NR53 Invall, pond from W (SMR No 130238) NR54 Hindhead Common, holloway from S (SMR No 130239) NR56 Nutcombe Valley, boundary bank (SMR No 130256) NR58 Nutcombe Valley, field boundary from E (SMR No 130312) NR59 Nutcombe Valley, linear bank from NE (SMR No 130257) NR60 Nutcombe Valley, poss building site (SMR No 130257) NR61 Nutcombe Valley, field system from NW (SMR No 130255) NR62 ditto, poss building platform from SE (SMR No 130313) NR63 ditto, ruin from N (SMR No 130258) NR64 ditto, field bank from NE (SMR No 130255) NR65 ditto, bank from W (SMR No 130256) NR66 ditto, field bank from SW (SMR No 130256) NR67 ditto from W NR68 Polecat, Long Field from N (SMR No 130302) NR70 Polecat, bank from SE (SMR No 130308) NR71 Polecat, banks from SE (SMR No 130298, 130302) NR72 Polecat, bank from SE (SMR No 130303) NR75 Polecat, holloway from S (SMR No 130305) NR76 Polecat, bank from W (SMR No 130298) NR77 Polecat, bank from NW (SMR No 130300) NR79 Polecat, banks from E (SMR No 130299-300) NR80 Polecat, quarry from E (SMR No 130294) NR85 Weydown, bank from N (SMR No 130314) NR86 Weydown, brick tunnel from E (SMR No 130311)

Hindhead Common Archaeological Survey 50 CKC Archaeology

Appendix 9: glossary of archaeological terms

Archaeology: the study of man's past by means of the material relics he has left behind him. By material relics, this means both materials buried within the soil (artefacts and remains of structures), and those surviving above the surface such as buildings, structures (e.g. stone circles) and earthworks (e.g. hillforts, old field boundaries etc.). Even the study of old tree or shrub alignments, where they have been artificially planted in the past, can give vital information on past activity.

Artefacts: any object made by man that finds itself discarded (usually as a broken object) or lost in the soil. The most common finds are usually pottery sherds, or waste flint flakes from prehistoric stone tool making. Metal finds are generally rare except in specialist areas such as the site of an old forge. The absence of finds from the activity of metal detectorists is not usually given much credibility by archaeologists as a means of defining if archaeology is present

Assart: usually taken to be a clearing made from former common or waste. This term tends to imply a medieval date for colonising of former uncleared or unenclosed land.

Bote: the right to take certain materials from the common. The prefix usually denotes the type of material. For example heybote, means the right to take wood to make fences or hedges; housebote means the right to take wood for repairing houses.

Burnt flint: in prehistoric times, before metal containers were available, water was often boiled in pottery or wooden containers by dropping stones/flints heated in a fire into the container. The process of suddenly cooling hot stone, particularly flint, causes the stone to crack, and form distinctive crazed markings all over its surface. Finds of large quantities of such stone are usually taken as a preliminary indication of past human presence nearby.

Desk-based assessment: an assessment of a known or potential archaeological resource within a specific land unit or area, consisting of a collation of existing written or graphic information, in order to identify the likely character, extent and relative quality of the actual or potential resource.

Environmental evidence: evidence of the potential effect of environmental considerations on man's past activity. This can range from the remains of wood giving an insight into the type of trees available for building materials etc, through to evidence of crops grown, and food eaten, locally.

Evaluation: a limited programme of intrusive fieldwork (mainly test-trenching) which determines the presence or absence of archaeological features, structures, deposits, artefacts or ecofacts within a specified land unit or area. If they are present, this will define their character, extent, and relative quality, and allow an assessment of their worth in local, regional and national terms.

Furlong: when used as an open field term, it means the length of a furrow. In time 'furlongs' came to apply to a block of furrows.

Hedgebanks: banks of earth, usually with a ditch, that have been set up in the past on which is planted a stock- proof line of shrubs. There is written evidence that they were made from at least Roman times, but they are suspected as existing in prehistoric times.

Hide: the amount of land that could be ploughed in a year by one family. Usually 120 acres, but local variations existed from 60 to 180 acres dependent on soil quality.

Hundred: administrative division of the shire that declined in importance in the later medieval period. Exact definitions can not be made, but a hundred usually comprised a number of later parishes or manors. Often thought to represent 100 taxable hides.

Lord/Lordship: a man, woman or institution (such as an abbey) who holds manorial rights.

Hindhead Common Archaeological Survey 51 CKC Archaeology

Manor: land held by a lord, usually with the right to hold its own manorial court to enforce the local agricultural customs. Some manors later developed into parishes, but many parishes could contain four, five or more manors within them. Occasionally manors can be spread over two or more parishes.

Open Fields: also known as Common Fields, a system of communal agricultural without permanent internal fences. These fields were farmed by the village as a whole, each tenant ploughing a series of strips, often distributed at random throughout the field.

Perch: variable measure between nine and 26 feet, often standardised at 16 1/2 feet.

Period: time periods within British chronology are usually defined as Prehistoric (comprising the Palaeolithic, Mesolithic, Neolithic, Bronze Age, Iron Age), Roman, Saxon, medieval and post-medieval. Although exact definitions are often challenged, the general date ranges are as given below.

Prehistoric c. 100,000 BC - AD 43. This is usually defined as the time before man began making written records of his activities.

Palaeolithic or Old Stone Age 100,000 - 8300 BC Mesolithic or Middle Stone Age 8300 - 4000 BC Neolithic or New Stone Age 4000 - 2500 BC Bronze Age 2500 - 700 BC Iron Age 700 BC - AD 43

Roman AD 43-410

Saxon AD 410-1066

Medieval AD 1066-1540

Post-medieval AD 1540-present

Pottery sherds: small pieces of broken baked clay vessels that find their way into ancient soils. These can be common in all periods from the Neolithic onwards. They often find their way into the soil by being dumped on the settlement rubbish tip, when broken, and subsequently taken out and scattered in fields with farmyard manure.

Purpresture: an illegal enclosure, usually added to an existing property or plot of land. In this case, land taken out of the common by encroachment. Although strictly illegal, the lord of the manor tended to accept the situation in return for an annual rent or fine.

Site: usually defined as an area where human activity has taken place in the past. It does not require the remains of buildings to be present. A scatter of prehistoric flint-working debris can be defined as a 'site', with or without evidence for permanent or temporary habitation.

Project Design: a written statement on the project's objectives, methods, timetable and resources set out in sufficient detail to be quantifiable, implemented and monitored.

Settlement: usually defined as a site where human habitation in the form of permanent or temporary buildings or shelters in wood, stone, brick or any other building material has existed in the past.

Stint: the number of animals a tenant is allowed to put on the common.

Stratigraphy: sequence of man-made soils overlying undisturbed soils; the lowest layers generally represent the oldest periods of man's past, with successive layers reaching forwards to the present. It is within these soils that archaeological information is obtained.

Hindhead Common Archaeological Survey 52 CKC Archaeology

Villein: term for medieval tenant farmer, often holding by unfree tenure. In the earlier medieval centuries, would have performed services to the lord for his land, but from c. 1300 this was often commuted to a rent.

Virgate: unit of land in medieval England, usually 30 acres, but it could vary from 8 to 60 acres depending on the locality.

Watching brief: work, usually involving ground disturbances, that requires an archaeologist to be present because there is a possibility that archaeological deposits might be disturbed.

Worked flint or stone: usually taken to mean pieces of chipped stone or flint used to make prehistoric stone tools. A worked flint can comprise the tools themselves (arrowheads, blades etc.), or the waste material produced in their making (often called flint flakes, cores etc.).

Hindhead Common Archaeological Survey 53 CKC Archaeology

Map figures 1-35

Figures 1-14 have been created using the GIS software Maptitude 4.6. All the information contained in these figures has also been incorporated in the enclosed CD as a Maptitude map file (*.map) and also as individual layers in ESRI shapefiles (*.shp) and MapInfo interchange files (*.mif). This will enable the user to import each map layer with the data from the survey into the relevant GIS software and view the maps and data at any desired scale and incorporate them into other media if needed.

It is not possible to periodise many of the features in the study area into medieval and post- medieval timescales. Features such as holloways and embankments are almost impossible to date, and could represent early medieval features or post-medieval features created as late as the 18th century. The field systems in the study area are also difficult to date (see main text, 5.0) and could represent medieval or early post-medieval landscape developments. The appropriate chronological maps (figures 10-11) are therefore divided into periods c. 1100- 1650 and c. 1650-present, which best represent the most likely timeframes. But these must remain approximate chronologies until further research sheds light on the dating of any of these features.

Figures 15-35 are historic maps of the study area reproduced from archive copies. All the maps are included on the CD under the file ‘map figures 1-35’ as portable network graphic files (*.png).