WESSEX REPORT 5 CONTINUES:
4.8.1 This trench, excavated by hand, lay on the
gently sloping west side of the inlet to the south-west of Redgeland
Wood in an area of rough grass on the edge of the marsh. At the
north-west end topsoil up to 0. 15m deep overlay yellowish brown
silty clay natural.
4.8.2 Towards the centre, the trench crossed a
shallow linear hollow, probably animal track, up to 2m wide and
0. lm deep which was filled with a dark greyish brown soil (context
91) containing some flecks of charcoal, a few fragments of dark
red burnt clay/burnt soil and occasional small, dark purple patches
of manganese staining. Towards the south-east end of the trench,
approximately 0.Sm of redeposited brownish yellow silty clay (context
92) sealed a thin deposit of olive clay and a thicker layer (c.
0.4m deep) of dark greyish brown silty clay/silty clay loam (context
94) containing some charcoal flecking and numerous small patches
and fragments of dull red burnt soil and burnt clay. This in turn
overlay undisturbed yellowish brown silty clay natural. A sample
was taken of layer 94 for environmental analysis and this is discussed
further below (in Section 6). Auguring showed this layer to peter-out
towards the north-east end of the trench but to continue to the
south-east at a similar depth below the surface (0.5m), increasing
in thickness (to >0.4m)out towards the marsh. No dateable finds
were recovered from layer 94 or any other deposits in Trench G.
NA Comment: This is from my point of view probably the most important trench that was examined. Upon first reading the report this is not obvious but it confirms my contention that this area was an area of early industrialisation - the expression used by Jennings and Smyth. They have argued that such an area existed somewhere on the edge of this valley at least from the Iron Age and possibly earlier. Their stratiagraphic record shows the development of the valley, both as an area of forest clearance, and center of human growth. They believe, as do I , that where such an area exists and commerce takes place, this would be where the port was located, because commerce requires the movement of goods and crops. Since Jennings and Smyth have produced evidence that this inland waterway was navigable up till at least the 14th century it is logical to assume that the port would be where the industrialisation evidence would be found. Jennings and Smyth have spent many years looking for this center of activity.
The significance of this evidence for a port cannot be understated because of the overpowering written evidence that William the Conqueror landed and camped at the port of Hastings. I shall not go into the issues of why the Combe Haven should contain the port of Hastings, but will re-emphasise that there is a complete missing historical and archaeological record in the South Coast region of the tribe of the Hastingas. The tribe of early people who occupied a large proportion of what we now know as the Weald. We know that the whole of the Hastings town area has now been developed and yet no archaeological record exists of anything remotely likely to be an early settlement. The activity of building and clearing land around Hastings would have resulted in evidence coming to light if such evidence existed within the current town boundary. Yet here on the Come Haven valley, less than three miles from the center of the post 1066 Hastings, all the elements exist with a complete archaeological record materialising before our eyes.
The Highways Agency may seek to argue that the archaeology does not support the settlement that existed in these fields was being called Hastings. However the town had a mint and this has never been located. In consequence it is now possible that the proof that is required to tie the name to the place will be found from the discovery of dated coins. It is my contention that it is not a coincidence that the river that runs through the Combe Haven valley is called the Asten ( a possible derivative of Hasta - the first lord of the Hastingas).
Bearing these matters in mind let us look at the last trench that the archaeologists excavated low down by the marsh on the east side of the site next to Redgeland Wood, where I say the port of Hastings was located in 1066.
This shows a cross section of the trench with the marsh to the left of the plan. Over the page we can see a picture of two of the team clearing the site. The photograph is taken from the east looking west.
Over the following page we have a second photograph of the same excavation taken from the south, the marsh end, looking inland. You can see that the ground has not been cleared to the edge of the field, as I had originally requested. I was told that the undergrowth made this impossible in the time allocated. Since the issue was to establish the construction and age of these jetties I had no alternative but to accept the position. I had requested that the trench was cut through to the back field to determine whether the slope was connected to the field or whether there was a channel separating the two areas. Without this information it is impossible to conclude whether the slope was caused by rotational slipping or as a result of human activity. The decision not to cut the trench through to the bank was not mine.
In the photograph over the page the large field where the "doughnut"shaped mark in the soil is located with evidence of trenches and tracks are located. This field is approximately 2meters higher than the earthen jetties which drop down towards the marsh, from where the photograph was taken.This plan shows the location of the jetties and where trench G was located
It can be seen that there is a channel running between the back section and a mound that runs along the front of the jetties. It was Dr Gardiner'' assertion at the Inquiry that these jetties are not connected with a port, but are natural formation known as rotational slumping.
In my manuscript I claimed that I thought that these earthen structures were jetties because they both lie next to deep water channels running into the port area according to the auguring completed by Jennings and Smyth
The above picture was taken after the archaeologists had finished their excavation. The channel behind the earthen mound, which runs along the front of the jetty area had been cleared and the following two photographs show the construction.
At a site discussion it was explained to me that the layer in the area of soil behind the earthen ridge, running parallel to the shore, appeared to be reinforcement of some kind indicating that the structure had a path running along the side of the inlet.
However the report states that "towards the centre the trench crossed a shallow linear hollow, probably an animal track, up to 2meters wide, filled with a dark greyish brown soil containing some flecks of charcoal, a few fragments of dark red clay/burnt soil and occasional small, dark purple patches of manganese staining".
There is absolutely no reason to believe that this structure is an animal track. We have already looked at this issue of the jetty on the east side of the site. Here on the west side there is no entrance point and no exit, either from the adjacent field behind, nor to the east or west. It stretches the imagination to firstly believe that any animals would need a 2meter wide track that doesn't lead anywhere. To suggest that the track has then been covered with material and then suggest that it is not connected with the structures under investigation is yet another leap of faith.
However the proposal that this was a path beside the port area has complete credibility. It means that I have to reassess my position regarding my thesis but I do not have any difficulty with this. This is not a difficult exercise if you are interested in the historical truth.
Having discussed the issues of the path behind the front of the jetty I realised that my interpretation of their use had been wrong. I had called them jetties because I had assumed that the areas at the back of the jetties, behind the mounds, had been used as loading bays for boats was wrong. I had assumed that the boats were pulled into the position where the paths were located in order for the boats to be loaded in the most efficient manner from the earthen structures on either side.
The reason for believing this as the most likely scenario is because of the layout of the network of tracks lead to these jetties. However I had not taken on board how these loading bays were connected to the field, some two meters higher than the port jetty level. Clearly there needed to be some form of wooden ramp, since the cargoes could not just be dumped over the side of the field, with the boats ten to twenty meters away.
Having examined the archaeological evidence I decided to go to the point where the paths cross the drop from the field to the jetty. These appear to line up with the cuttings on the western side of the jetties. My original drawing was incorrect in the detail of the alignment. The correct alignment should be as follows:
The dotted lines now show the tracks connecting to the jetties in the correct place, where the paths pass down to the lower level.
In consequence the earthen jetties still perform the function of a jetty. In the sense that a jetty is in my mind a place where you moor a boat. However instead of being pulled up parallel to the shore the boats would have been moored alongside each other and pulled up onto what would have probably been a beach further out into what is now the marsh. My assumption was technically correct that these are jetties. However my mistake was to assume their use based upon my own limited knowledge.
At the site visit the Inspector raised the very point as to why a sailor would perform such an unlikely operation by mooring his boat in the manner I had suggested? As a result of the archaeology we now appear to have a much better viable explanation based upon the known practice of the sailors of the day.
The consequence of admitting my error is to also understand the reason why these structures where built. It was argued on site that finishing the excavation by taking off just the topsoil was enough to show the construction of these jetties without digging a section through the mound. They convinced me that the construction was natural caused by rotational slumping. I was happy to accept this in the belief that the archaeologists are experts. I had reassessed my understanding of how the jetties were used and felt that how the jetties had been formed had no material influence on the issue of how they had later been used. The tracks confirmed the use of the area as a port since the reinforcement had human origin.
However I was unhappy with not completing a section because unknown to the athors of the report Jennings and Smyth had augured in exactly the same spot the previous year and told me that they had found evidence of what they called industrialisation spreading out from the bank into the marsh.
The archaeologists stated that cutting a section was not necessary because they had conducted an auger test on the line of what I call the path and this showed conclusively that the whole structure was subsoil and had never been disturbed. The conclusion being that the bank must have slipped causing the ridge to occur.
I was happy to accept this explanation but wanted an auger put through the mound of the ridge because this information was in direct contradiction with what Jennings and Smyth had told me the following year. It was agreed that one final auger hole would be acceptable and we could conclude the matter the following day at the site visit with the Wessex team leaders and the County Archaeologist.
At that site visit the second auger hole was visible and the material taken from the hole contained dark matter containing flecks of charcoal and what looked like unglazed orange and red flecks of pottery with ash and waste. I asked what this was and where it came from. I was told it was under the mound which the archaeologists had claimed the previous day was one structure of subsoil, which had never been disturbed.
It appeared that this layer was about a foot thick and several feet below what was called subsoil. Immediately alarm bells started to ring in my head. How could our archaeological experts tell me on one day that this is a natural formation which has never been touched by human involvement and at the same time there be charcoal and pottery in a layer at least a foot deep below the mound.?
At the site meeting it was agreed that a small section would be done to look into this matter. The following photograph shows the position of the two auger holes with the section cut out of the mound. The photograph is taken looking south out into the marsh and port area with the flat section in front of us where the path was once located.
The area inside the section showed a layer of what Jennings and Smyth called industrialisation. Or to be more precise the byproducts of industrialisation - dull red burnt soil, charcoal, burnt clay and various elements of ancient debris.
This was sitting directly under the area of the mound but appeared to end where the path began. Under this layer was a grey silty clay and the layer of what I call industrialisation appeared to get thicker the further out into the marsh it went.
Clearly I had been completely justified in my request to check the construction of the mound. If I had failed to do this I would have accepted the archaeologist's statement that this jetty is constructed naturally. Having studied this evidence this conclusion is now very difficult to accept. The evidence from Smyth and Jennings shows that a stone section should overlay this area where none exists. In consequence what the archaeologists have assumed all along was subsoil may not be so. It may have been put there so long ago that it appears as subsoil but was in fact constructed by a primitive people.
The consequence of these events and these observations is that if the archaeologists have made such a fundamental error in their identification of what is or is not subsoil on this site the conclusions of the excavations in trench C, D, E , F and G may all be wrong and therefore cannot be relied upon.
WESSEX REPORT 6 CONTINUES:Over page
RETURN TO CORRESPONDENCE INDEX