WESSEX REPORT 7 CONTINUES:
6 ENVIRONMENTAL EVIDENCE
6.1 Introduction
6.1.1 A bulk sample of 6 litres was taken for
palaeo-environmentai assessment from a horizon 0.5 m deep described
on site as a 'probable buried soil' (Trench 6, context 94) sealed
beneath c. 0.5 m of silty clay colluvium. It contained charcoal
and evidence of possible burning and/or mineral staining. The
sample was assessed to indicate whether this horizon was likely
to be associated with 'industrialisation' (a possibility suggested
by Mr Austin) and to provide some indication of its formation.
6.1.2 A small sub-sample was removed for simple
pedological examination and description while the remainder (6
litres) was processed by standard flotation methods. The flot
was retained on a 0.5 mm mesh and the residue fractionated into
5.6 mm, 2 mm, 1 mm and 0.5 mm fractions and dried. The coarse
fraction (~S.6 mm) was weighed and sorted.
6.2 Description
6.2.3.Physical examination indicates evidence
for burning in or on the deposit locally (charcoal, burnt clay,
burnt soil), and gleying (ferruginous sand mottles)
which is probably a post-deposition process. This examination
does not, however, enable confirmation that this layer was an
in situ buried soil.
6.3Charred remains and other included material
The flot was scanned under a x 10 .x 30 stereo-binocular microscope and the presence of charred remains quantified by Sarah F. Wyles. This was done to provide information about the nature of the charred remains and thus some indication of the activities they represent, and also to examine the state of preservation of charred remains in order to determine their potential for detailed analysis.
6.3.1 Charred remains
The flot (100 ml) was larger than average (average
= 60 ml per 10 litres of sample) and contained 50% rooty material.
No charred grain or chaff fragments were recorded and only a few
burnt weed seeds were present. Unburnt weed seeds were sparse
and can be indicative of contamination. A high number of charcoal
fragments >5.6 mm were retrieved from the flot but none of
this size were noticed in the coarse (>5.6 mm) residue.
6.3.2 Other included material
The coarse (>5.6 mm) residue was small (76g)
but comprised almost wholly of burnt clay fragments (19 mm max
size) with the exception of 5g of natural, dark reddish brown
(SYR 3/3) ironstone. No slag was noticed in any of the residues
and after passing a bar magnet over the residues none was seen
to be magnetic.
6.4 Potential
The palaeo-environmental potential (charred plant
remains) of the sample is low, but the presence of charcoal indicates
burning and this is likely to have taken place within the vicinity
in view of the burnt clay fragments and burnt soil remnants present.
The iron staining is deemed to be a result of natural ground-water
gleying, and therefore, apart from the presence
of burning, no evidence of specific industrial activity could
be detected. The charcoals are identifiable to taxa, but without
other specific evidence or date this is deemed unnecessary.
6.5 Summary
There is evidence of localised burning, but in
the absence of any domestic charred plant remains (grain, chaff
etc.) this does not indicate the presence of domestic activities.
Furthermore, there is no evidence that this layer represents any
form of 'industrialisation'.
NA Comments: Clearly the Highways Agency have sought to address the issue of "industrialisation", the expression used by Jennings and Smyth, because this layer is a huge embarrassment to both the authors of this report and the Highways Agency. Firstly we are told by our expert archaeologists that the jetty on this side of the port is completely natural - formed by rotational slumping or slope wash. Then we are asked to believe that the layer of charcoal and burnt clay beneath an undisturbed subsoil is actually not evidence of industrialisation.
I have a huge difficulty in believing these experts and I expect
anyone else with a critical eye will do the same. As we have seen
there is no geological reason to support the idea of rotational
slumping nor slope wash (see Jennings and Smyth letter para 2
enclosed in Annex). If indeed it were slope wash we would not
expect the field above to experience a 2meter drop at its perimeter
for no good reason. I believe the only reason this has been suggested
is because Dr Gardiner has claimed in his Proof of Evidence that
this jetty is a natural formation. Having continued throughout
the Inquiry to claim this to be the case it is not surprising
that the authors now support his view without any archaeological
or geological support whatsoever.
Let us have a look at this layer of material that Wessex have sought to call "soil".
As you will see this is positioned between the light brown soil of the mound and the grey silty clay of what is the real subsoil. You can see that at the point where this trench is dug, half way through the mound, the layer is petering out towards the shore. This is better seen from the plan where the layer (94) is coloured grey.
I have a great deal of difficulty in understanding how the authors of this report can claim that the charcoal layer number 94 is anything but evidence of industrialisation. Perhaps the expression itself has a specific meaning in archaeological terms, which has been misinterpreted by myself and Smyth and Jennings. My understanding of this expression is the deposit of a layer of material, which would be waste from the process of settlement and commercial exploitation in the port area.
In real term charcoal and burnt clay would be the major waste product from the building of fires and pits to smelt iron and clear woodland. This layer can be seen to consist primarily of exactly that.
It can be seen from the auguring that this layer is not just a few centimeters thick but is in the region of a 0.4meters at the southern end. Also it stops at the edge of the marsh where what I have called the track starts. Doesn't that tell us something about this layer? Doesn't it tell us that this is not a layer of casually burnt land, but is a layer that has been deposited there by man. If it were a casual burning it would compact to a very thin layer with so much soil on top and if it were from the process of agricultural burning it would not be present as a uniform layer stretching out into the marsh.
If you look at the drawing you can clearly see that this layer is not diminishing in size as it passes out into the marsh. In fact it appears to be increasing in thickness slightly.
On the other hand if the soil on top of this layer were slope wash I cannot see how such a depth of slope can be washed onto a charcoal base and survive on the edge of a waterway that is known to have been navigable up to the end of the 13th century.
As a result of not completing the section through to the field behind this site there is no indication how this slope could have moved, leaving the charcoal layer intact right up to the point where the path is located. The subsoil auger at the point of the path confirms that this section cannot have moved. To assume these matters as stated in the report is simply to seek to justify a previously stated position by Dr Gardiner and has no basis in fact.
Lastly there is considerable doubt in my mind about the veracity of the levels shown on the report's drawings. Wessex show the OD height of this layer of industrialisation as commencing at 2meters OD and falling to 1.5meters OD at the marsh end, according to their scale. However Jennings and Smyth have told me that the water levels in this valley in the winter are more or less the same now as they were in 1066 (within half a meter). This just does not tally with the figures as drawn by the report, because to my certain knowledge the foot of this trench is covered by the winter water level.
Maybe this is not that important but the report has been very precise and it is clear from the letter attached by Simon Jennings (included in Annex) that such precise levels are not able to be obtained from a "nearest spot height". I spoke to Mr Jennings on the phone to ask him why this was important and he stated that having spent many years on the marsh doing research the height of a particular point on the edge of the marsh was particularly difficult to be specific about, without using a bench mark for accurate calibration.
In particular he noted that the line of site ridge references that can be seen from within the valley are considered unreliable because of the earthmoving operations on the southern side of the valley. The levels along the ridge have been changed since the last Ordnance Survey was completed. In consequence if any of the ridge lines were used these would almost certainly produce errors. He stated that the only reliable local bench mark was at Lower Wilting Farm in the northern valley. Given the time available to Wessex I believe it is highly unlikely that this bench mark was used.
In consequence it is highly probable that what shows on the Wessex plan as 1.5meter OD at the southern end of this trench is in fact zero OD, thus confirming the visual alignment of the water table in the winter.
In itself this is nothing to get excited about because a small error in surveying such a difficult site, with no usable horizon, is certainly unlikely to cause any problem. Except in this case the layer of charcoal continues down below zero OD and to my certain knowledge proceeds into the edge of the marsh for at least ten meters, and possibly a lot further, because this was the area which was augured by Jennings and Smyth two years earlier.
Whilst I am prepared to accept the report's view that the iron staining present may possibly be due to natural means, I cannot accept under any circumstances the possibility that this layer of charcoal waste was burnt in situ, when there is good evidence that the charcoal layer was part under water for at least 5,000 years.
Clearly the report's proposals are based upon their own assumptions and they have to trust their people to get everything right, otherwise they will make assumptions that are false. I have a better knowledge of this site and so have Jennings and Smyth. If a mistake were made by Jennings and Smyth they would have found out, because the next time they surveyed the error would be found. In consequence Jennings and Smyth have learned from their previous mistakes that it is essential to spend the time on the survey drawing the line from Lower Wilting before attempting to draw conclusions. The report confirms that spot heights were used (page 7 paragraph 3.5) and the exact spot height is not specified. Given the visual observation I must conclude that the report may be wrong about the OD height of the charcoal layer.
In practice how wrong they are is immaterial, because no-one can argue that the layer goes out into the marsh area. This area floods and is within the tidal zone. In consequence this charcoal layer was placed there, most probably as waste from the local economy. It cannot have got there as a result of local burning and is undoubtedly confirmation that this section of shore line was in use as a port. Like all early ports the local inhabitants would dump their waste over the side of the shore and boats, in order for the tide to redistribute it. The fact that the layer starts next to the path is logical. In the course of time the shore line was reinforced with earth producing the mound over the charcoal layer which has been there undisturbed for so long that it looks like subsoil. These earthen structures have now been overgrown, but they once allowed ships to be moored there, on the gentle slope.
There is nothing in the Wessex archaeology to contradict this view, which is both logical and explains all the known elements of these structures, which I have called jetties.
WESSEX REPORT 8 CONTINUES: Over page
RETURN TO CORRESPONDENCE INDEX