Ogmion
The Landscape Channel Ltd.,
Landscape Studios,
Crowhurst
East Sussex TN33 9BX.

16th May 1996

Dear Nick,

In reply to your letters of 26/4/96 and 1/5/96, we feel that the following points are pertinent to the Inquiry by the Highways Agency. It appears from your letters that a number of points have arisen at the Inquiry concerning our employment, our area of expertise and, more seriously, the comments by Dr. Gardiner regarding the interpretation of our work on the palaeoenvironmental development of the Combe Haven valley. We will take these points in turn, and we suggest that you pass this communication directly to the Inquiry.

1. Our employment and area of expertise ('Day 58 of the Inquiry; page 17 of the 'unchecked record).

1.1. Simon Jennings:

1.1.1.I have been employed full-time in the School of Geography and Environmental Studies at the University of North London since September 1987, and currently hold the position of Senior Lecturer.

1.1.2. The Inquiry may also be interested to know that I have published 24 scientific papers, with another four currently in press. These papers have focused on the palaeoenvironmental development of a number sites, in addition to the Combe Haven valley, and/or on coastal geomorphology.

1.2. Christine Smyth:

1.2.1.I obtained an M.Sc. in Quaternary Environmental Change in 1982, have co-authored a number of papers on the Combe Haven valley and currently hold the position of Head of Geography at Leighton Park School, Reading.

1.3. Our area of expertise is principally palynology (the analysis of fossil pollen grain assemblages), in order to reconstruct past environments and to identify the cause of environmental changes. Allied to this, we examine sediments so that stratigraphies can be established.

2. Comments in response to statements made by Dr. Gardiner at the Inquiry.

2.1. Dr. Gardiner discussed the reliability of radiocarbon dating (Day 57 of the Inquiry; pages 45-46 of the 'unchecked record'), in order, it appears, to cast doubt on the chronology that we have established for a major episode of forest clearance within the Combe Haven valley. There are a number of points that we would like to raise in response:

2.1.1. Dr. Gardiner mentions only two radiocarbon dates. Our full data set contains five radiocarbon dates from the Combe Haven valley (see Smyth & Jennings 1990). The sites where material was sampled are spaced along the full length of the Combe Haven (Smyth & Jennings, 1990, Fig.17.1), thereby allowing a chronology to be established for all of the valley. The dating suggests that clearance may have been initially concentrated in the upper part of the valley, later spreading to the down-valley sections. In detail, this major episode of forest clearance was immediately preceded by a phase of earlier forest clearance, with some regeneration prior to the main clearance episode. The dating indicates that extensive forest clearance occurred from late-Bronze Age to Iron Age times. The Inquiry should also note that our radiocarbon dates were taken close to the top surface of the peat, and from the pollen record (Smyth & Jennings, 1988; 1990) this appears to coincide with either the onset of the major episode of forest clearance or just prior to it, supporting our contention that we have obtained radiocarbon dating for this event. It should also be noted that samples were obtained from pits that we excavated specifically for this purpose, which allowed for careful sampling along a narrow band of the peat. We did not bulk sample.

2.1.2. Dr. Gardiner questions whether the dating is correlated with forest clearance, or whether some of the peat has been lost. We feel that there has not been any loss of peat, and that the radiocarbon dating faithfully records the timing of forest clearance. In favour of this interpretation are the observations that:

1. Our pollen record depicts a transitionary sequence between the peat and the overlying silty clay (see the pollen diagrams published in Smyth & Jennings, 1988; 1990). Transitionary sequences would not be preserved if peat had been lost.

2. Pollen deterioration does not substantially increase in the upper part of the peat (see Smyth & Jennings, 1988, Figs. 9 & 10). If desiccation of the peat had taken place, as Dr. Gardiner speculates on page 45 of the Inquiry's 'unchecked record' (Day 57), pollen deterioration should have greatly increased in that part of the stratigraphy affected by this process.

3. Oxidation within the upper silty clay was recorded in our field notes, but it was very unusual for this to extend down to and within the upper layers of the peat, again suggesting that peat wastage has either been very limited or non-existent.

4. Dr. Gardiner himself does not reach any conclusion on this issue.

2.1.3. On pages 45-46 of the 'unchecked record' (Day 57), Dr. Gardiner correctly warns of the use of conventional/uncalibrated radiocarbon dates. However, we had calibrated our dates (for all five sites), and the calibrated dates (i.e. calendar years) show

no significant change from the conventional dates, which Dr. Gardiner also admits (lies 8-9, p.46, Day 57). To dispel any ideas that our dates are unreliable, we reproduce below the calibrated dates for our five samples. They are expressed to two standard deviations, that is that there is a 96% probability that the true date lies within the range given. Both calibrated BC and calibrated BP dates are given.

2930 + 50 BP (SRR-2684) Calibrated BC dates: 1370-946 Calibrated BP dates: 3319-2895

2730 + 70 BP (SRR-3214) Calibrated BC dates: 1077-790 Calibrated BP dates: 3026-2739

2180 + 70 BP (SRR-3212) Calibrated BC dates: 400-45 Calibrated BP dates: 2349-1994

2170 + 60 BP (SRR-2680) Calibrated BC dates: 390-72 Calibrated BP dates: 2339-2021

2160 + 60 BP (SRR-3213) Calibrated BC dates: 390-45 Calibrated BP dates: 2339-1994.

The calibration was performed using the calibration programme of Stuiver & Becker (1986) published in Radiocarbon, 28, 863-910.

2.2. On pages 17-19 of the 'unchecked record' (Day 58), Dr. Gardiner devotes considerable time to the environmental impact of Iron Age industrialisation within the Combe Haven valley, and especially its role in causing soil erosion, which he disputes.

2.2.1. We have never argued that industrialisation associated with the iron industry of itself resulted in deforestation and soil erosion. Through a number of papers we argued that there was a combination of activities within the Combe Haven valley during the Iron Age. The principal activity was agriculture, as shown by the presence of cereal pollen (and pollen of other agricultural indicators) at each of our five sites. Since pollen of cereal is only distributed locally, this indicates that there were extensive agricultural practices in the valley during late-Bronze Age - Iron Age times. There is also independent evidence for iron working/occupation in the area during the Iron Age (see Smyth & Jennings, 1988, Fig.2). The key point here is that through a combination of our environmental data integrated with independent archaeological data it can be shown that a thriving economy was established in this area during the pre-Roman Iron Age, and a pertinent question to ask is why was this valley an important agricultural area during that time? The most plausible answer is that cereal was needed to support a growing local population, some of whom were employed in iron workings, and probably some cereal was also exported. If the latter occurred, a port close to the cereal production centre would have been established.

2.2.2. Therefore, we have argued that it was as a result of all this activity that extensive soil erosion occurred during that time. Indeed, we feel that Dr. Gardiner does

not really address the issue of why there was such a major erosion episode in the valley, and one which clearly affected its whole length. Hazel may indeed have been coppiced for the iron industry, as Dr. Gardiner suggests (page 18), but our attention should not be deflected by that suggestion from the catastrophic decline in the native forests that occurred as a result of the economic activity described above in 2.2.1.

2.3. Dr. Gardiner questions whether there was continuous use made of the valley from late-Bronze Age through to the Roman Period and later (page 19, Day 58). To counter this doubt, we suggest that the following points are considered:

2.3.1. Our pollen record from the upper silty clay (i.e. post-Pre-Roman Iron Age) shows no evidence for the regeneration of woodland, and contains an almost continuous record of cereal pollen, which suggests strongly that cereal production continued through the Roman Period and indeed, much later. Of course, we recognise the need for a more detailed pollen sampling strategy from within the silty clay to enable us to make a more detailed assessment of cereal production, but we believe that our sampling has produced a reliable overview of agricultural activity since the pre-Roman Iron Age, and that this overview indicates continuous use of the valley, at least for agricultural purposes.

2.3.2. Does Dr. Gardiner suggest that all activity ceased in the valley during the Roman Period? If so, then he needs to explain the map in Drewett et al. (1988), a publication to which he contributed, which shows Roman occupation in the Hastings -Combe Haven area. It is also known that Hastings was an important centre during Saxon and Medieval times, for example in the minting of coinage, including incidentally, the issue of the first coinage by William the Conqueror (Dudley, 1978).

2.4. On pages 17-18 (Day 58), Dr. Gardiner summarises other work from the Weald to suggest that the Combe Haven valley experienced activity during the Bronze to Iron Ages that was typical of a much wider region. This is, of course true, since the early iron industry became established over a wide area of Sussex and Kent during the Iron Age. We are not disputing that, but what is of interest is the concentration of activity within the Combe Haven during that time, and arguably focused on the Upper Wilting Farm area. It is likely that this area acts as a microcosm of perhistoric activity, and therefore worth preserving.

2.5. Dr. Gardiner casts doubt on the hypothesis that a port could have existed in the Upper Wilting Farm area. The problem here is that insufficient research has been undertaken, so that it is easy to be doubtful on this issue. However, it is also true to say that channels did extend into this area, which, as outlined above, was probably the focus for economic activity during the period we are concerned with. Therefore, in our view the hypothesis that a port existed there is still valid, and awaits further research (see below). We intend to core this area this July, when we expect the water-table to be sufficiently low to allow this work to be undertaken. Through this coring, we hope to establish in detail the nature of these channels, and to radiocarbon date periods of major change to the environment.

2.6. It is clear that there is compelling evidence to support the contention that the Combe Haven valley contains an important record of environmental change since the Bronze Age. It is equally clear that detailed archaeological research, supported by environmental data,

is needed particularly in the Upper Wilting Farm area. Dr. Gardiner has not produced evidence which indicates unequivocally that this area is not the site of important occupation from the Roman Period onwards. The fact that no definitive statement can be made about this area being an important heritage site is not surprising since the necessary work has not been undertaken, although its importance is being realised increasingly. We recommend that construction of the by-pass through this area is prevented, at least until the necessary archaeological work has been done. We understand from you that a start has been made, and we will contribute to this in July, but a detailed archaeological investigation is required. In 1988 we wrote:

"... clearly the area around the Combe Haven valley has the potential

for stimulating archaeological investigations." (Smyth & Jennings, 1988,

page 19.)

The recent debate about the history and importance of this valley has given considerable urgency for these investigations to take place.

References cited

Drewett P., Rudling D. & Gardiner M. 1988. The South-East ID AD 1000, Longman.

Dudley C. 1978. Saxon and Medieval mints and moneyers in Sussex. In: Drewett P.L. (ed.), Archaeology in Sussex to AD 1500, The Council for British Archaeology, 70-77.

Smyth C. & Jennings S. 1988. Mid- to late-Holocene forest composition and the effects of clearances in the Combe Haven valley,East Sussex. Sussex Archaeological Collections, 126, 1-20.

Smyth C. & Jennings S. 1990. Late Bronze Age - Iron Age valley sedimentation in East Sussex, southern England. In: Boardman J., Foster I.D.L. & Dearing J.A. (eds.), Soil Erosion on Agricultural Land, John Wiley & Sons, 273-284.

Yours sincerely,

Signed
Simon Jennings Christine Smyth
16^th May 1996

RETURN TO LETTER TO INSPECTOR JEAPS