WESSEX REPORT 3 CONTINUES:

1. 4.4 Trench C (Fig. 2; P1. 2)
   
   

4.4.1 This trench, under rough grass, was excavated by machine down to a depth of c.0.6m, as indicated by Mr. Austin, exposing the bottom of his earlier excavations towards the center and at the west end of the trench. The trench cut into brownish yellow silty clay natural which sloped gently from north to south and was overlain by a thin layer of topsoil up to 0.25m deep and a layer of mottled subsoil up to 0. I5m deep.

4.4.2 Careful cleaning of the bottom of the trench revealed no archaeological features. The small group of stones revealed in Mr. Austin's earlier excavation at the west end of the trench were shown to be only one layer thick and to directly overlie natural. It is possible that they had been placed in a shallow cut or hollow in the ground surface though any stratigraphic relationships had been destroyed by the earlier excavation. No finds were recovered from Trench C.

NA Comment: Trench C is the excavation of the mound located inside the boundary of the Norman fort. The excavation found nothing and this is clearly a result of the technique used in trial trenching. In order to explain this I would like to refer to the following photographs:

The first of these shows the process of excavation. It is my contention, as it has always been, that the nature of the relics which we seek to find cannot be recovered from this site using quick fix trenching and excavation methods. This opinion appears to be completely supported by the archaeological excavation in this trench and also trench F which follows:

After a roughly level area has been cleared the archaeologists excavate this area by hand using a trowel. What this means in this case, where a team of seven archaeologists have to excavate seven trenches in less than a working week, is fast and furious ground clearance, more akin to clearing a garden with a trowel. To put this into perspective this trench was cleared in a day, by two of the team scrapping the above soil with a trowel down to what they considered the appropriate depth of subsoil.

This depth was established by myself by showing them the remains that I had previously uncovered. This had been marked by a black bin liner several years before, and having shown the archaeologists where this was to be found they were able to identify the place.

Here my original excavation can be seen with the surrounding area cleaned by trowel. The closer photograph below showing where what I called the belt and key were located.

Lastly the edge of the area was cleared to investigate some stones which were located around the edge of the mound area. This photograph shows the area of excavation.

The area excavated to below the loose stones is located in the bottom half of this picture. It is my contention that the fact that nothing was identified or recovered cannot be considered conclusive. If you look closely at the excavation where the so called "key", "axe" and "belt" were located you will see that the method of excavation using a trowel completely pulls apart the sandy clay. At this time of the year (April) this sandy clay is like a glutinous mass and comes away in lumps pulling everything with it. In consequence the trowel method of excavation simply destroys any possibility of finding any delicate structures in the subsoil, which will part along natural fissures, when at the height of the summer the binding elements no longer have the ability to grip everything. As explained at the Inquiry this work is tedious and delicate requiring a sharp pin like instrument with brush.

I repeat my position taken at the Inquiry and this is that when the ground has dried it is possible to excavate this area inside the fort properly. Having seen the archaeological team in action rushing from trench to trench like Batman and Robin trying to complete the task in the allotted time, I am grateful that no other delicate sites where put at risk by what I consider a wholly inadequate method of excavation. The correct method is the one that I applied in the first place. This involved 1)excavating when the ground was dry and 2) excavating using brushes and pick, once the starting position had been achieved.

I do not wish to infer by these comments that the archaeologists were in any way incompetent and must say that I found them most helpful. The issue here is that I was given assurances by Dr Gardiner that the methods employed were so called standard procedure and that his knowledge of the Weald would ensure that this style of work was the best method available and this was the best time of year to do the work.

What I conclude from this excavation, which is further exposed by the work in Trench D, is that Dr Gardiner's enthusiasm to complete the work quickly on behalf of his masters, before he takes his new post in Ireland, must have swayed his judgment. It had been argued fiercely at the Inquiry that now was the wrong time to excavate down near this marsh. I have been doing this work for a number of years, as have Jennings and Smyth. We know, as do the farmers and all those who live in this valley that April is too early, because of the clay subsoil and the way it interacts with the sandstone deposits cause everything to stick together. Excavating using crude trial trenching techniques at breakneck speed, in the bottom of this valley, on clay deposits, will never find anything along the lines of what I had shown to be there.

The central issue here is that whilst conditions may have been ideal in the field next to Wilting farm, the condition of the ground low down on the site are far from ideal. Whilst the archaeologists made comments at the site to support Dr Gardiner's contentions these are not confirmed by the excavation themselves or the photos which accompany them. A close-up of the soil condition is shown in the next section.

The conclusion of this observation is that given the inability to recover any of the items shown I cannot rely upon this work to conclude that nothing is or was there in the first place. If nothing was recovered and the observation that the stones "may have been placed in a shallow" cut or hollow poses many more questions than it answers, confirming more archaeology is required. The possibility that these stones have been placed there is exactly what I had claimed on site since I had previously indicated that there appeared to be a wide circle of stones. If this is correct, as I have been proven to be with excavations on the top field, why would someone place a large circle of stones in this area if there is nothing there.

This excavation, like the one in the following area was not conclusive. The subsoil itself was only as far as I know part excavated in the area where the stones were located. I agreed that this was acceptable because it was clear from the style of excavation that any further work may cause further unacceptable loss without any valid conclusion being achieved. It is my contention that this was a wise move, given the time and budgetary constraints. This is in no way a criticism of the archaeologists or their professionalism it is noted here so that the Inspector is aware that I believe the evidence, which can be seen with your own eyes, confirms my statement that it was wrong to do trial trenching of this nature on these lower fields at this time of year. I contend that this was yet another error of judgment by Dr Gardiner, which ultimately does not help his case. It shows that his knowledge of this area of the Weald was not as complete as he claims, since there are considerable differences in the geology of the upper and lower site. These differences make excavation at the lower site inappropriate in April and therefore we now find that neither I nor the public can rely upon this report as conclusive. The suggestion of human involvement in this excavation at the position where the old floor of the camp was probably located simply confirms more work is required using conventional methods.

WESSEX REPORT CONTINUES:

4.5Trench D (Figs2 and 3)

4.5.1 This trench, under rough grass, was initially excavated by machine to a depth of c. 0.3m (on 24/4/96) and subsequently deepened, also by machine, to c.0.5m or more (on 29/4/96) to determine the nature of the deposits exposed. This revealed a gently undulating deposit of sticky silty clay/clay natural along the entire length of the trench varying in colour from yellowish brown to bluish grey, sealed by a 0.2m thick layer of peaty topsoil.

4.5.2. The ground surface rose slightly towards the north-west end of the trench and two slightly lower areas on the surface were shown on excavation to reflect natural, infilled channels (paleochannels) up to 6m wide and a meter or so deep with gently sloping sides and slightly rounded/flat bottoms. Both these channels were filled with bluish grey clay and neither produced any finds. The channel towards the center of the trench was marked on the surface by a small, discontinuous ditch or gully no more than 0.5m wide and 0.3m deep which has been interpreted as a possible drainage feature of recent date.

4.5.3 Two concentrations of iron-stone and occasional lumps of shelly limestone were present in the yellowish brown silty clay natural towards the north-west end of the trench, and in some places the formation of an iron-pan or similar natural concretion up to 0.05m thick was noted at interface of the topsoil/subsoil and underlying clay. The only finds were a small quantity of modern (19th-2Oth century) pottery and glass recovered from the interface between the topsoil (context 152) and subsoil along the length of the trench.

NA Comment: Trench D is of particular interest because this is the trench which cuts through the side of the Lower Norman Fort and out into the area I claim to be the original ditch of the previous Iron Age settlement.

This shows two areas of low ditch, with a higher area in-between, where stones may have been laid.

The next picture of this trench is taken from inside the perimeter of the Norman Fort looking east after the first run of the excavator but before the archaeologists started. Three shovels mark points of interest.

The shovel in the foreground marks an area of stones which needed to be investigated. The center shovel marked a grey line in the subsoil marking a ditch. The third shovel in the distance marking the area of high ground where further stones were located and the ditch towards the far end of the trench is now evident, although not obvious at the site visit.

The following photograph shows the state of the soil within this ditch where the first shovel was located (where stones had shown on the resistivity survey as high readings).

It is my contention that this photograph shows better than any other the impossible task the archaeologists were faced with having to evaluate any evidence in this trench and the others on the bottom fields of this valley. Here you can see what the archaeologists call the sticky silty clay has baked in the sun. It is not surprising that they said they found nothing.

However this is not correct because what they have found was two ditches exactly where I said they would be found. One located exactly where the outer wall of the Lower Norman fort was located. This is positioned in the picture with the shovels where the centre shovel is located. It is also in the same position as what the report identifies as a possible modern drainage feature.

This shows as a grey/brown streak in the foreground of the picture. In the plan this is almost center of the drawing where there is evidence. The other ditch at the far end can be seen more clearly here, in the area in front of the survey poles.

These two ditches in this trench are hugely significant since they confirm my thesis. There are two ditches exactly where I said they could be found. The one in the foreground I claim was built by the Normans and is the one shown in the Bayeux Tapestry being built when they landed at the site of the Lower Norman fort. The fact that a recent drainage feature has been added is not unusual when investigating a site covering multiple periods of occupation. If a drain needed to be put through this field the best place to put it was where a previous ditch existed. The fact that no Norman elements have been found is not surprising since we would have to be extremely lucky to find such an item in the 1.5m of ditch in which we looked. Due to the nature of this ground, which is waterlogged in the winter and baked dry in the summer the chances of survival of anything, even metal objects, is highly unlikely.

You will remember in evidence Dr Gardiner stated that only in areas where water levels changed constantly over the years would you expect the possibility of losing all metal content. Here and in the following trench F this is exactly the structure of the land. The most notable feature being the lack of any topsoil (0.2meters) over sandy sticky clay.

The outer ditch is the one that remains from when the area was an Iron Age settlement. The archaeologists state that these ditches are " probably natural" however I maintain that there is no way that anyone can know that for certain, from the little work undertaken and the time scale involved. In exactly the same way they cannot know for certain that the ditches are natural without further exhaustive work when the ground allows proper investigation.

It must be remembered that the object of conducting a trial trench in this location was to prove the veracity of my evidence. Dr Gardiner took great issue with me at Inquiry about my resistivity work. He stated that he could not see any low readings in my work which indicated the existence of ditches. Yet again Dr Gardiner is completely wrong. Here are the ditches, as it happens quite large ditches, and they can be seen to exist exactly where I indicated they would be found.

The evidence of the structure of the soil with only 0.2m of soil in direct contact with subsoil further confirms my belief that this area becomes impassable in the winter, as has been suggested was the case at the Norman camp. Since there is virtually no surface to the ground it is my contention that this place has remained like this for the past 1,000 years. There is nothing of substance to plough and it is of no value to a farmer. However it is a headland of a sort on the lower edge of the marsh and it has running fresh water either side of a large landing site. Ideal for the Conqueror and his army. In consequence the archaeology confirms that this ground around the camp would be difficult, if not impossible after a wet autumn, as shown to have existed in 1066, because of the delay in embarkation for over a month on account of bad weather. I therefore believe that Dr Gardiner is shown yet again to make what is probably a false assumption when he stated in his Proof that the Conqueror returned on foot to his camp because it was "intended to demonstrate William's courage" I contend that the account is accurate and is not intended to show William's courage at all. It was a report of what every man knew at the time - namely that the first camp was built in an area of "rough ground". Dr Gardiner's unsubstantiated assumptions can no longer be relied upon.

Lastly the area of high ground between the two trenches, where I believe the stones have been laid, is the area shown on my resistivity survey to be the Roman track running from what I have called the jetties at Redgeland Wood across the fort to Monkham Wood. I must therefore conclude that it is no coincidence that these two points coincide.

Whilst the archaeologists may conclude that these stones are natural this may or may not be the case. What the resitivity survey shows, and is now confirmed by excavation, is that there is a structure to the tracks that run across these fields and can be identified by excavation at the point where they cross the ditch.

Here is a copy of the resistivity data taken from page 130 of my manuscript showing the location of the Trench D (single light line), the ditches as shown by the archaeology (in black) and the Roman track (light dots).

If you compare the position of the ditches drawn above in black ,with the original resistivity survey on page 130 of my manuscript, you will see that the inner ditch marked on that plan coincides exactly with the area between parallel lines marked on that page as "ditches". The outer ditch of the Iron Age earlier occupied area is less easily defined, but now can be seen once the archaeology has been completed.

No evidence of pits or charcoal burning were found in this trench. This would be expected if such activities were carried out in the immediate vicinity, as proposed by Dr Gardiner in his Proof (clause 12.7). Neither is his conjecture that the field was "probably used for agriculture and quarried "(clause 11.6). The archaeology produces no evidence of quarrying and the lack of topsoil over clay confirms it of no agricultural value, confirming my belief that the site of the Norman camp has never been used for farming.

RETURN TO CORRESPONDENCE INDEX