WESSEX REPORT 4 CONTINUES:
4.6.1 This trench, excavated by hand, lay on the
fairly steeply sloping east side of the Monkham Wood inlet in
an area covered by scrub, brambles and small trees. Silty clay
natural was found to directly underlie a very thin surface cover
of topsoil and leaf mould, Auguring of the natural showed it to
continue, unchanged, to a depth of at least 1.2m below the ground
surface. A pronounced but irregular step or terrace in the natural
was reflected in the surface topography. The lower part of this
step had clearly developed as a track used by animals, and this
had resulted in some staining of the underlying natural from trodden-in
organic matter. No archaeological features or finds were recorded.
NA. Comment: This trench was excavated by hand on the east side of Monkham inlet with a view to seeking to establish the use and structure of these terraces. The work done by the archaeologists was to remove the topsoil with shovels and clean the ground beneath with trowels. A photograph of the final terrace is on the following page.
When I was told that this trench would be excavated by hand I was surprised to see that a very thin layer of topsoil was removed. This was all that was done and the picture above shows the finished work.
A plan of which is shown below:
I explained that I expected them to cut a section through this bank to look at the structure from front to back, but was told that this soil in view was in their opinion the subsoil and therefore this would not be necessary. I agreed that auguring would enable us to see the structure in a limited way and took them at their word that the terrace must be natural and caused by rotational slumping.
This caused me to look in detail again at what these jetties are and reassess the implications. Because this jetty is claimed by the Highways Agency to be of similar construction to the one on the eastern side of the site, at the port, I shall deal with the issues raised under Trench G in this report.
However I take issue that this jetty has "clearly developed as a track used by animals". This is a tremendous leap of credibility which we are expected to accept if it is intended to infer that the development of the bank has been any way caused by animals or constructed by animals. In consequence I believe that the comment is both misleading and unhelpful to our investigation since there is no evidence to support such an illogical conclusion. Whilst the team may be archaeologists of some repute they do not appear to know anything about animal tracks and the concept of a 2meter wide level undisturbed animal track is neither logical nor believable. I would prefer to accept Dr Gardiner's view that this is a natural formation than believe that animals have been involved in the formation of a 2meter wide bank.
What this section of the report may be saying is that animals have used the jetty as a path from the lower inlet into Sandrock Field, where it is known to go. This is hardly surprising since the construction must be intended to allow movement of animals (cattle for instance who now graze the marsh) or carts from that field to the lower Monkham Inlet.
The confirmation that this has taken place is helpful since it shows the use of the construction and the photo confirms the width. However, like other features in this Lower Norman fort area it provides neither confirmation of who made it or indeed how it is made. It is my belief that if the work had been allowed the time and money to perform the section through the bank this question may have been answered.
I had no reason to doubt the archaeologist's view that this was a natural construction because I am not an expert and having been told that this looked like rotational slumping I had no reason to believe otherwise. It was for this reason I accepted that they could finish the work as shown once the auguring was done.
However I now have serious doubts about the conclusions because of the way that the report has been drafted. It is not credible in my mind for independent archaeologists to reach the same conclusion as Dr Gardiner without some form of proof to lead them to the conclusion. Clearly there is no proof of rotational slumping in this report. Yet Dr Gardiner's conclusions have virtually been lifted from his Proof of Evidence.
Now I am in the position of having received an expert opinion upon the construction of rotational slumping from Simon Jennings, the senior lecturer at the School of Geography and Environmental Studies at the University of London. This letter enclosed with this critique deals with a number of issues and in particular the issue of how rotational slumping is formed.
Under paragraph number 3. Mr. Jennings deals with the geology which is required to cause rotational slumping. This "must comprise a material such as clay overlain by a more massive rock, e.g. Sandstone, and the toe of the slope must be undercut".Dr Gardiner has not told us of this requirement and these is no evidence of this structure either on the east or western jetties. In fact the evidence that there is, in the form of auguring from the investigation and the auguring completed by Jennings and Smyth themselves shows that these conditions do not apply on either of these sites.
On the western jetty there is no sandstone overlay because I have excavated on this site and know that the sandstone geology finishes in a cliff at the edge of the Lower Norman fort in the adjacent field. The whole of the terrace as far as we can tell is made of what the report calls subsoil. This is a term which means that it has not been disturbed. However if these jetties were made several thousand years ago and have not been disturbed, there is every possibility that the earthen structures were made by ancient man or even the Romans. The fact that they are not reinforced does not mean that they are modern. In fact it must be concluded that they are not modern and therefore the likelihood of their being associated with the settlement on the field above increases enormously.
In consequence the report is completely inconclusive raising more questions than it answers.
NA Comments: Trench F, not marked on the plan, but located at the center of Monkham inlet, is the site where I proposed in my manuscript that boat parts are located. These boat parts were photographed when excavated several years ago and are shown on the following page from page number 141 of my manuscript.
This site was one of the first to be excavated and was being cleared on the day of the site visit with the Inspector. I was alarmed at the time to see the method employed and the failure by Wessex, despite confirmation by Dr Gardiner, to contact me prior to commencement of the work, to allow me to indicate to the archaeologists where the boat parts that I had identified were located.
After the site visit was over I returned to the location and found the topsoil stripped, very much in the same state as the photograph below.<
As a result of stripping the topsoil it took some time to locate the position of the remains. These could be identified by a layer of sand spread over the excavation prior to my leaving the site when I had found them. I showed the position to the archaeologists confident that they would be able to recover the images which I had previously photographed.
Upon returning I was disappointed to note that the archaeologists were unable to recover any images. I had earlier complained that I considered the ground too hard and that the job of locating and retrieving the images would be very difficult. I was ultimately proved correct.
At a meeting held at the site I was asked what I wanted to do. The topsoil had been removed and it was clear from the excavation which had taken place they were not going to be able to recover anything without destroying the site in the process.
You will see from the photograph that the location of my boat parts on the left of the photograph was below the surface of what the archaeologists call "silty clay natural". Having excavated in this inlet for several weeks in high summer I know that what they called natural and was hard when the work was done is sandy and frail in August. In consequence the excavation was not able to proceed in the interests of further work to be done.
The decision to stop was mine and the archaeologists did not disagree. At a meeting held on the Thursday at trench F I confirmed my disappointment and concluded that having examined the area in detail where my images had previously been recovered there was the possibility that the loss may have been partly my own responsibility. I have to own up to this because I believed that putting the sand down at the time I left would ensure their preservation. However looking at what was present now I must conclude that the excavation process may have caused irretrievable damage. The sand may have had the opposite effect.
I was not to know this but in fairness to the archaeological team it was not something that I could blame them for. The decision to excavate in April was not theirs and in consequence they did the best that they could.
The issue here is that Dr Gardiner had made a fundamental error in assuming that the boat parts which we were looking for were in soil that he had excavated in before and had knowledge of, because of his specialist knowledge of the Weald. He stated in his Proof that "Corrosion and the dissolution of the corrosion products may take place leaving only a stain in the soil. This occurs in well aerated and freely draining soil. The clay in which Mr. Austin found these remains is neither". However his assumptions have been shown time and time again to be wrong. In this instance the area where the excavation took place is in the top foot of ground. This is plunged into water every winter and dried to a sandy free draining environment each summer - exactly the conditions which he has described in his evidence where all metal parts will be lost to just an image in the sand.
However having heard this evidence at Inquiry he agreed with his masters at the Highways Agency to carry out the excavation at a time of year when recovery would be impossible. In consequence you can draw your own conclusions as to why that should be considered appropriate.
I have had some time to come to terms with the problem of how to handle this element of the evaluation. The failure to identify my remains had never crossed my mind, because I spent three weeks painstakingly excavating them only to be thwarted by the process of building roads.
What the archaeology shows us is that even in this remote inlet there is evidence of the activity of man on the edges of this valley. Even when we scrape the surface of a random twenty square meters we find burnt flint and worked flint confirming my thesis of continuing development from the Bronze Age onwards.
What we do not have, and I place the blame squarely on the shoulders of Dr Gardiner is the definitive proof which I hoped this excavation would provide. However I must be pragmatic and conclude that I have learned a valuable lesson.
Unlike the Highways Agency, who have sought to prove that there is no archaeology to support my case, I can rely upon what has been found to prove that there is a case to answer. Whilst this trench provides a temporary setback this is by no means the end of the issue because there are many more boats located in this same inlet. These other boats are not all up on the shore line where they have been exposed to the elements and there is no time constraint as to when I need to excavate them.
Having learned the lesson of this day's work, learning how archaeologists for road schemes are employed, I shall in future work with archaeologists who do not put speed of operation first. In consequence I shall make it a matter of priority to start work again this summer working in this inlet looking for evidence that is conclusive. There is the possibility that I may have in any event already found it, and I shall address this under New Evidence, at the end of this document.
RETURN TO CORRESPONDENCE INDEX