WESSEX REPORT 2.CONTINUES:

1. 4.3 Trench B (Figs 2 and 3; P1. 1)
   

1. 4.3.1 This trench, under pasture, was excavated by machine down to the top of natural, hard, yellow sandy weathered rock which sloped gently down from the south-east with no evidence for any terracing. The possible lynchet or bank aligned approximately east-west on the crest of the slope appears to be a positive feature which has been created by embanking topsoil/subsoil to a height of C. 1.3m along this line; elsewhere, towards the north-west and south-east ends of the trench, the topsoil was as thin as 0.3 5m deep overlying natural bedrock.
2. 4.3.2 Apparently sealed by the topsoil/subsoil were four linear features. Two of these (122 and 128) were parallel to each other and lay more or less directly beneath the center line of the lynchet/bank One (122) terminated within the trench, but both may have been ditches, up to 1.5m wide and 0.35m deep. The other two linear features (123 and 125) lay towards the south-east end of the trench. at 90 degrees to each other, and on a differing alignment to 122/128 but on similar north-south/east-west alignments to the archaeological features in Trench A. These also may have been small ditches or gullies. However, in this case feature 125 clearly cut and was therefore later than feature 123. No finds other than a few pieces of undiagnostic slag and fired clay were recovered from any of the features in Trench B, and no finds were noted in the topsoil.

NA Comment: This trench B is the one located on the northern boundary of the top field at Wilting. This trench is of equal importance to Trench A because it confirms the existence of the Iron Age fort. Here, confirmed by the archaeologists as "two linear features" located within the bank of the "so called lynchet". It should be noted that in deference to Dr Gardiner this report has not come out and said directly that the bank is not a lynchet. However I am confident that the Inspector will be sufficiently cautious to note that no-where within this report does it call this feature "a lynchet" - because contrary to Dr Gardiner's consistent claims, both in writing and in person at the Inquiry - this feature is not a lynchet. It is a natural formation, which has been built upon by past human involvement.

I would firstly draw attention to a photograph of the excavation in close-up. It should be noted that the photograph accompanying this report does not show the construction of the bank and "so called lynchet" (so called only by Dr Gardiner)very well. In consequence it is not possible to easily tell from the report what the substructure of the bank is. This omission is now rectified.

It can be seen that this excavation follows the line of the rock subsoil. We are looking south from the lower half of Chapel Field. This subsoil forms a natural rise exactly where the bank is located. Half way up the bank are two parallel dark lines, where the ditches have been cut into the rock, and filled with soil. These two ditches are exactly in the right place to confirm the existence of an ancient defense, within the bank.

Once the subsoil/rock rises to the edge of the bank it levels out to run almost parallel to the surface of the field reducing slightly as it proceeds into the center of the field. The report notes that there is no evidence of terracing and no pottery can be found in these two parallel ditches and in consequence no dating can be made. The fact that Wessex seek to allocate a date for this activity does them no credit as independent experts. The fact that no dateable evidence is located must be noted in this respect.

The next photograph is another aerial photo taken from an 80ft mast. The shadow of the mast can be seen along the western side of the trench. The photograph is taken looking north with the two people located at the center of the bank. This bank cannot be seen because of the elevation. The gentleman in the white T-shirt is standing on the lower side of Chapel Field.

It is important to note that the report comments that the two ditches may have been up to 1.5 meters wide and would therefore run the complete length of the embankment. Whether they run around all four sides of the field is as yet unknown, but given the position that they have been found in I would say that this is likely. As a result of their position and the structure of the subsoil, these ditches must predate the arrival of the large quantity of soil on the upper field noted in the report at 1.3 meters.

The L featured ditch to the southern end of the trench is on the same alignment as those features contained in Trench A, on the other side of the 5 acre field. It is my contention that these parallel ditches confirms the upper field as a defensive position, and the alignment of the L shaped ditches confirm that the two sites on either side of the field are connected.

Dr Gardiners assertion that this feature in the middle of Chapel Field is a lynchet is clearly completely wrong. If it were a lynchet there would be evidence of a structure to hold back the soil. No such structure was found and no evidence of a previous structure.

If we look at Dr Gardiner's drawing of the structure of the lynchet there is no similarilty between this and the two halves of Chapel Field. Chapel Field has two natural levels. The assumption that the soil moved downhill from an original slope is incorrect.

However the existence of two ditches cut into the rock subsoil within the bank confirm the adaptation of a natural defense by man's activity in the distant past. I believe that when proper archaeological excavation of this site is undertaken it will be proven that one of these ditches is from an Iron Age settlement. This ditch feature probably contained a fence structure, which was later adapted by the Normans, who built the second ditch when they built their palisade. The absence of Norman or Iron Age artifacts is not surprising since there are no Norman artifacts in any of the other local Norman sites. Iron Age artifacts will be found within pits within the field once further archaeological work is undertaken.

The following photograph shows the L shaped ditches within the trench at the southern end of Trench B, the Upper Fort area, before the archaeologists performed their section. The absence of pottery from these ditches confirms the possibility of earlier habitation, where it was common for Iron Age settlers to leave pottery in pits ( as opposed to ditches).

It is important to note from this photograph that the subsoil runs approximately parallel to the surface at a consistent depth. In consequence the drawings provided in the report are difficult to reconcile with the photographs. It is possible that there may be an error on the drawings caused by the speed with which the work was completed. I do not think it is material to the case since clearly this is not a lynchet and exhibits the hallmarks of a defense. There is no other plausible explanation.

This is the drawing completed by the archaeologists of a plan of Trench B:

Clearly the elevation drawing in the bottom half of this plan does not deliver the same impression as the actual photos of the site. The bank appears to have been leveled out in the this drawing and the subsoil/rock bank de-emphasised where it lifts and levels. This is unfortunate, but it is possible that this effect may have been caused by the flattening of the sides of the bank by the excavation machine during the excavation process. I must therefore conclude an error may have occurred in the transcription process because of the speed of the work. I am sure that no misrepresentation was intended. What is important is the confirmation that the photos provide confirming this is a natural formation that has been adapted by man.

Of particular interest is the fact stated by the archaeologists that the northern lower section of Chapel Field has topsoil as thin as 0.35m deep over a rock base. This is significant because of the conclusions drawn further in the report. The stated depth of 0.35m is very very shallow and not sufficient to allow normal cultivation, other than by grazing.

The archaeologists also report that no finds were noted in the topsoil. However it should also be noted that like Trench A there was no brief to examine the excavated topsoil in detail. No time was available to sieve or examine the topsoil in anything other than a surface examination. In consequence the failure to note any pottery for recovery or associated artifacts does not mean that nothing was there. In fact it is highly unlikely that nothing would be there, given the existence of considerable other archaeological features. The failure to find anything in the spoil is to be expected where the spoil was not examined in detail. The inclusion of this statement is not helpful given the original brief.

The final photograph from this Trench B shows the view from 80ft looking west. This shows the western bank of the field (center), together with the view to the west commanding the superb defensive position on this side of Chapel Field. However of particular interest are the field markings located in the foreground. These suggest the existence of further trenches or buildings located in the corner of Chapel Field connected to the known ditch system. Discoloration of crops and grass, viewed from a height often reveals the site of buildings which cannot be seen from the ground.

RETURN TO CORRESPONDENCE INDEX