WESSEX REPORT 6 CONTINUES:
5. THE FINDS
A small quantity of artifacts was recovered during
the evaluation. These have been cleaned and quantified by material
type, both by number and by weight, within each context (see Table
1). The artifacts have also been briefly scanned in order to ascertain
their significance and potential date range.
Table 1: All finds by context
Quantities are presented by number/weight in grams.
CBM = ceramic building material; Fe = iron; Cu
= copper alloy.
5.1 Pottery
The pottery provides the best dating evidence for the excavated
contexts. With the exception of five modern (19th/2Oth century)
sherds from context 152 (Trench D), all sherds are of medieval
date and all are from Trench A. The range of fabric types present
suggests a potential date range of 12th to 14th century. Sherds
from all contexts except 135 (feature 134) and 145 (feature 144)
are in coarse fabrics with calcareous and/or flint inclusions.
One sherd from 147 (feature 146) has an applied thumbed strip,
and there is a sagging base sherd from 132 (feature 133) , but
otherwise all these sherds are plain and undiagnostic. Although
the possibility of a Saxo-Norman date for such coarseware fabrics
cannot be entirely ruled out, it is more likely that
they are of later date, probably 12th or 13th century. Sherds
from contexts 135 and 145 are in slightly finer sandy fabrics,
mostly grey in colour. The large group from 135 contains sherds
deriving from at least one jug, with curvilinear combed decoration,
and a jar with applied thumbed strip(s). Typologically, and in
terms of fabric type, this group compares well with material dated
to the 14th century originating from the Bohemia kiln at Hastings
(Barton 1979, 189-90). Sherds from context 145 are likely to be
of a similar date.
5.2 Ceramic Building Material
The eight pieces of ceramic building material recovered are all
from roof tiles. On the basis of association with medieval pottery,
these roof tiles are likely to be of similar date (14th century).
5.3 Other Finds
Other finds comprise single fragments of both worked and burnt
(unworked) flint, one piece of featureless fired clay, one piece
of bottle glass, five pieces of slag (probably though not certainly
derived from metalworking), seven pieces of stone (one slate and
six sandstone), one iron nail and a badly corroded copper alloy
object, possibly part of a buckle. Apart from the bottle glass,
which is of modern date, none of these artifacts are closely datable.
The burnt and worked flint could be of prehistoric origin. A medieval
date could be suggested for the metal objects on the basis of
associated
pottery.
NA Comments: The pottery finds are of immense importance because pottery is dateable within broad ranges of dates. These dates depend upon the origin of the pottery, to some extent where it is found and the construction, colour and structure of the pottery itself. However dating pottery is open to interpretation by the expert and is always considered more reliable if a local expert is used who understands the context of the find.
This is particularly important in this area of East Sussex, where pottery could be found from a number of different sources, all of which may look the same to someone without the specialist knowledge of the area. For instance there could easily be an assumption that Norman pottery would be expected to be white in colour because Norman pottery from France has this general characteristic. However there is no evidence to support the view that the Normans imported pottery into this part of the country. This is probably because it was an unnecessary cost to transport such pottery, at the risk of breaking it, when the local sources where both good quality by the standard of the day and readily available.
In consequence no white Norman pottery has been found in Battle, Hastings or Pevensey. All the pottery which supports the occupation by the Normans at the time of the Conquest is Anglo-Norman. This Anglo-Norman pottery is the same style and texture as that recovered in my own excavation and now has been recovered by the Wessex team.
The report however prefer to take the inconclusive route of dating the finds to the 12th to 13th Century - ie.1100AD to 1300AD. This dating cannot in any way be justified because as Dr Gardiner knows pottery of the type in question has no fixed date of origin. It may be in use for many years before being lost or broken, and in deference to the text in the report, if not the over all intention, It confirm that the pottery in trench A has a possible Saxo-Norman date. What this means is the foundation trenches on the top field may have been made at the time of the Norman Conquest. There is no doubt about this, - there it is in black and white for all to read. (para 5.1)
What the report fails to do is flag the importance of this message in the context of this claim that this site is the site of the Norman Invasion. Given the reason for commissioning the report and the weight that might have been placed upon it as an expert opinion I believe that the report has failed in its obligation to the Inquiry to remain impartial. If, as was stated at the Inquiry, any archaeologist would love to be given the opportunity to research this site, why would the report fail to flag what is completely obvious to any impartial observer with a little knowledge of the subject. Why seek to place a date commencing at 1100AD when all independent pottery experts know that this is an untenable position.
This issue was discussed by a group of academics this week at our monthly discussion group to keep those in the village of Crowhurst abreast of all developments. One of the group, just a member of the village with no particular knowledge of archaeology, but a JP in the local court, with a great deal of experience in dealing with contentious issues said what every person in this valley now knows. This was "Well they would say that, wouldn't they ". What he meant and everyone understood was that this report, was not based upon fact, but based upon a desire to support a colleague. Something that might be considered a legitimate degree of discretion. This is of course to be expected provided such support does not result in a miscarriage of natural justice. Here the report deliberately, in my view, understates the correct conclusion. This undermines the credibility of the authors as being independent, if such a claim is to be made. I must conclude that whilst I can rely upon the work done as being honest and true I cannot in any way rely upon the conclusions or unjustified assumptions which they propose. If I cannot rely upon them, as has been stated at the Inquiry, neither can the public.
It is not possible for me to get the pottery dated and inspected before presenting my final case upon 6th June 1996. The independent experts, whom I can rely upon, are not available within the time scale to look at such a large package of finds and produce a report.
Paragraph 5.1 confirms certain evidence of medieval occupation and as stated earlier is of immense importance. However the over all impression of this report is that not very much archaeology is here at all. This is an impression from the way that the report has been presented, but does not sit well with the finds when examined in full.
As a result of doing my due diligence I requested that the pottery from the Upper Wilting site be returned to Hastings Museum (the land owner).The consequence of this request three very large boxes arrived on Wednesday 29th May at Hastings Museum. These boxes contained the pottery and recovered finds from the complete site including the trial trenching. In consequence I was able to examine not only the finds from the pottery in trench A, but finds from the whole site. None of which had been seen by an independent source or examined in the context of the complete site.
I am not a pottery expert, however I have been involved in the search for Norman pottery for an extensive period of time and am familiar with Anglo Norman pottery. Throughout these samples are a variety of exhibits which fall within the time scale of my search. Details of where these finds were made have not been made available to me, but I suspect that the items in Box 3 were those from trench A. If I am correct the remaining pottery and associated finds were located across the farm in the trial trenching exercise. If this is so there is the almost certain probability that some of the previous pottery finds may also be within the time scale of the Saxo-Norman period, and further support my claim. In consequence all the pottery now needs examination by at least one and possibly two independent pottery experts to evaluate the age of these finds. Without the details of where each find was found, all one can assume is that these finds undoubtedly completely support the concept of not only continuous occupation of the site from the Bronze Age, but confirms the scale and size of the potential settlement to cover the complete site.
The following photographs give an idea of how extensive the finds at Wilting are:
The photograph shows some of the more interesting pottery and finds believed to be from trench A.
Photograph of pottery from a range of different ages showing the different construction and style
The two photos above show the bottom sections of pots or jugs of Conquest or pre-Conquest age.
The above pottery selection shows samples from what I believe is the complete range of dates from the Bronze Age through the Roman period to the 14th Century.
This last photograph shows pottery which is probably from the Bronze and Iron Ages. Further detailed and independent analysis is required once the location of each find can be verified and logged. The problem from the perspective of someone interested in researching this site, is that those who completed the trial trenching had no idea that this work would be scrutinised by independent experts at a later date. In the normal course of events the road scheme would be finalised and since the site itself would be lost the exact location would not be of interest.
In order to unravel the whole picture all the details are required and these will not be available until the Autumn. In consequence the conclusions that can be relied upon are limited to generalisations about the whole site.
There is however one inescapable conclusion that can be relied
upon. This is that the site at Wilting has been occupied continuously
since the Bronze Age. This conclusion is supported by the archaeology
100%. The conclusion drawn by Dr Gardiner, that this is not the
case, is like his other conclusions, an error of judgment based
upon insufficient research of what is a unique site of national
importance.
WESSEX REPORT 7 CONTINUES: Over page
RETURN TO CORRESPONDENCE INDEX