WESSEX REPORT 8 CONTINUES:

NA Comment: This discussion section paragraphs 7. covers much of the ground already covered by the archaeological study. In the interests of economy I do not believe it necessary to cover these points again in detail. However several new items are raised and I shall deal with them in turn. Throughout this section my comments have been added to the paragraphs at the relevant point in italics:

7 DISCUSSION

7.1 Excavation conditions

Weather conditions throughout the period of fieldwork were generally fine, and soil conditions following initial removal of topsoil were considered ideal for detecting archaeological features. (I would prefer to rely upon the evidence of the photographs)

7.2 Trench A

7.2.1 The notable concentration of archaeological features and finds within this trench provide evidence for settlement in the immediate vicinity. The pottery would suggest that this settlement should be assigned a medieval date, probably spanning some part of the 12th - 14th centuries AD. (already discussed - confirms possible Conquest dating).No stone building material was found,( not relevant since all buildings of this date were wooden) but a few fragments of ceramic rooftile were recovered and it is perhaps likely that any buildings were constructed principally of timber.(it is certain they were built with timber if dated at the Norman Conquest) It is possible that some of the shallow ditches and gullies may have been foundation trenches for buildings,(agreed) though it is perhaps equally likely that they represent a series of broadly contemporary plot or small enclosure boundaries.(unlikely given the size of the trenches and the effort required to dig them into solid rock foundations) The nature of the occupation cannot certainly be deduced from the small area excavated,(agreed) but it is considered most likely that the features and finds represent part of a domestic, farming settlement on the relatively high, flat-topped hill which today is the site of Upper Wilting Farm.(given that it has just been stated that the nature of occupation cannot be deduced the stated conclusion is illogical and unconvincing)

7.3 Trench B

7.3.1 The absence of finds means that none of the archaeological features in Trench B are dateable.(Agreed) However, it is tentatively suggested that the small ditches or gullies at the south end of the trench are of medieval date,(this is only a tentative suggestion and one that cannot stand the test of rigid scrutiny since these ditches could be any date) like the similarly-aligned features 150m to the south-east in Trench A.(if correct then why didn't they have pottery in them when all the ditches on the far side of the field did?) Ditches 122 and 128, although differently aligned, may have been of broadly the same date and to have probably been plot or enclosure boundaries.(illogical, differently aligned, no connection whatsoever to do with agriculture proven)

1. 7.3.2 All of these ditches are considered, on the available stratigraphic evidence, to have been earlier than the suggested lynchet or bank running approximately east-west along the crest of the slope in this area.(agreed earlier than bank but do not agree this is a lynchet - no supporting evidence) The section cut through this pronounced, steeply sloping feature showed no evidence for any internal bank or palisade, or external ditch, either or all of which would be expected if it had been created as a defensive feature.(only relevant if natural feature not already there. In any event excavation not substantial enough to qualify as thorough investigation. More trenches required to make this observation. Ditches in the right place to qualify as defensive)

It is therefore considered most likely to represent an agricultural feature intended to conserve soil on the top of the relatively extensive flat-topped hill which it surrounds on the north, south and west sides. The creation of a terrace around part of the crest of the slope (on the 41m AOD contour), although a substantial undertaking, would have restricted the loss of topsoil through colluviation (natural slope wash, usually precipitated by the removal of tree/vegetation cover). It may be pertinent to point out that the pasture on top of this hill is today regarded as the best at Upper Wilting Farm, where most of the farmland is on the relatively poor, thin soil on the surrounding valley sides (pers. comm. Mr Blackford).

7.3.3 The interpretation of this suggested lynchet or bank as an agricultural feature is further strengthened by the fact that it has apparently been created entirely by the redistribution of topsoil/subsoil; this appears to have been scraped up from the lower downslope areas and used to build up the edge of the flat-topped hill creating a steep, scarp slope rather than an upstanding bank. Furthermore, there is no evidence that this work involved terracing into the underlying soft, sandy bedrock. This artificially created scarp slope is less pronounced on the south side of the hilltop and has been partly ploughed out on the east side (where slight traces of probable medieval or post-medieval ridge-and-furrow cultivation are visible downslope).(please note the report confirm my position that the ridge and furrow confidently predicted by Dr Gardiner to be a hop garden is here probably medieval or post medieval ridge and furrow confirming my own opinion) However, the very well preserved profile on the north side suggests that this feature is not very ancient though close dating is impossible. (If it is impossible to date why undermine the credibility by proposing an untenable date. It is more than likely that the bank has been maintained)It was certainly created before the beginning of this century (pers. comm. Mr Blackford),(and confirmed in my evidence by the 1844 tithe map showing the feature) and it is tentatively suggested that it should be assigned a post-medieval (after 1500 AD) date.

Let us have a look in detail as to what the authors of this report are suggesting. Whilst refusing to state in plain language that the bank in question is not a lynchet, which it can be seen from the structure that it is not, they have put forward the idea that the farmer of this land has moved the topsoil from the bottom section of Chapel Field to the top section of Chapel Field - in order to "conserve soil on the top of the relatively extensive flat-topped hill".

Firstly let take a look at this bank:

Photo topfort1

Now let us look at the plan of the rock, shaded grey in the 30m area between the two levels:

This is the original shape of this field. There is a natural rise in the ground where the number 21. Is written. This rises for about ten meters and then levels to a normal relatively flat hill top, where the number 124 is located.

What we know is that once upon a time this field was a normal field with what topsoil there is evenly distributed across the whole field. Although there is no dateable pottery, the report puts forward the proposal that this might be some time around 1500AD. Quite why this date has been chosen is anyone's guess, but it could be because it is half way between the Invasion and now (although this could just be a coincidence).

Then the farmer or industrious landowner decided that in order to conserve his topsoil he would remove the topsoil from the bottom section of this field, which would have approximately 80cm of the best topsoil on the farm, and redistributed it on the other part of the field. This would give him a top half of the field with up to 1.3meters of first class topsoil on one side of the field and leave the section part that he had stripped with virtually no use other than grazing, because all that is left is a thin layer of sandy topsoil over rock which could probably not even be ploughed.

The logic of this operation defies me. The end result for the farmer would be a nice level top part of the field, with nearly twice the level of useable soil, without increasing his yield at all. In fact he would have reduced his best land by a great percentage, in the region of a third.

He would however have needed to labour over this task for some time. The report concedes that this would be a "substantial undertaking". However I believe that this is the answer to the question of whether this field was a defense or not. Because what the report is confirming, without acknowledging it, is major earthworks have taken place on the top of this field.

In order to establish exactly how major I asked William Blake, the Hastings firm of quantity surveyors to look at the Wessex report and measure the field in question. I asked him to look at the drawings of the subsoil given in the report and to calculate how much soil exists, how much has been moved, and more importantly how long it would take using modern methods to do this work. A copy of the report is enclosed in the Annex.

If this work were undertaken in 1500AD they did not have mechanical diggers and dumper trucks to complete the work. I have calculated that using primitive construction methods you might have to multiply the time scale shown in Blake's report by many times, because of the distances needed to transport the topsoil from one side of the site to the other. What would take several months using modern earthmoving techniques would probably take several years prior to the industrial revolution.

Here hidden in this report is the truth about this top field. It is a truth that even the report cannot hide, because it is exposed by the archaeology. Someone has moved a huge amount of soil (over seven thousand tons) and this cannot be denied. I propose that the undertaking of this size required substantial numbers of men and co-ordination that could only be undertaken in conjunction with settlement of land and the defenses that have been shown to have been made by ancient man in those times. To suggest that a lone farmer could undertake this work in 1500AD is not viable and would mean that during the time that the work was undertaken no crops could be planted on the main field adjacent to the manor house for one or two complete years. Such a policy would be catastrophic and could never be contemplated.

The report frequently refers to conversations with Mr Blackford, the farmer, as if to somehow lend credibility to the proposals. Mr Blackford has not been shown this report so I explained the report's proposal to see what his reaction as a farmer would be. His response was "No way!! Even today with all the facilities available to him the undertaking proposed in the report is completely impractical, firstly from a financial point of view and secondly it is not what a farmer would do under any circumstances. Farmers do not move their fields around to conserve topsoil. Road engineers may move fields around for their purpose and so did ancient man, in particular when he sought to protect himself. No other reason for this earthworks is logical and I must conclude that this information is probably the most important in the Report. It confirms beyond reasonable doubt that earthworks exist, albeit probably in an adapted form on the top of this hill, supporting completely the thesis contained in my manuscript Secrets of the Norman Invasion.

7.4 Trench C

1. 7.4.1. There is no evidence that this low mound at c. 15m AOD is anything other than a natural feature, its shape somewhat emphasised by a shallow hollow created by a path which crosses immediately to the south of it. No archaeological features or finds were noted within the trench, and it is tentatively suggested that the small group of stones (iron stone) located just below the surface in Mr Austin's excavation at the west end were either a naturally occurring deposit (as is suggested for those in Trench D), or represent stones collected from the surface when the area to the south was more regularly cultivated. (Some ground on the edge of the marsh in this area is still occasionally ploughed, and the drains were maintained up until the 1960s allowing both arable cultivation and pasturage to continue in the valley bottom in this part Combe Haven).(Dealt with previously)

7.4.2 The 'objects' including a possible axe identified by Mr Austin during his earlier excavation were exposed again and re-examined during the excavation of Trench C. There is nothing to suggest that these are anything other than naturally occurring textural/chemical variations in the silty clay natural; any metal objects would be expected to have survived largely intact in the prevailing ground conditions (cf the iron ?nail and copper alloy ?buckle, both of probable medieval date, from Trench A).(Dealt with previously)

7.5 Trench D

7.5.1 The surface topography in this area, lying at c. 15m AOD, appears to reflect variations in the surface of the underlying silty clay/clay natural. In particular, two slightly lower lying areas, broadly aligned north-east/south-west, clearly follow two fairly wide, shallow channels in the top of the silty clay which probably developed as natural (geological) run-off features (palaeochannels). There was no evidence from either their form or fill that they were man-made features and this is supported by the absence of finds. The bluish grey clay fill of these and several less well defined features is considered (the use of the words "is considered" suggests that other conclusions may be possible) to represent natural fiuvial infill which has remained more or less permanently waterlogged (I thought the report stated that the conditions were ideal - is waterlogged ideal?)(under gleying conditions) causing the distinctive bluish grey colour to develop. Elsewhere, oxidation has occurred where oxygen has been able to permeate the more porous silty clay natural causing it to turn a yellowish brown to orange colour and allowing iron-pan development to take -place. The occasional pieces of shelly limestone and concentrations of iron stone noted in the surface of the silty clay natural may have become incorporated in this material as a result of colluviation (slope wash) from the higher ground to the north. Alternatively, they may be a naturally occurring inclusions within the silty clay natural.(Dealt with previously)

7.5.2 The only finds from this trench are of recent (19th - 20th century) date, and these are likely to derive from farming activity - possibly temporary settlement - on the edge of the marsh which was more intensively utilised in the past than now. The small ditch or gully following the same line as one of the infilled channels may have been a naturally formed drainage feature or else deliberately dug as a drainage ditch in the recent past. (Dealt with previously)

1. Trench E
   

7.6.1.No finds and no evidence for the use of this area other than as an animal track along the east side of Monkham Wood inlet was recorded. The irregular, stepped profile to the edge of the valley at this point is considered likely to have resulted from natural rotational slip (a form of landslip) or slumping along the edge of the fairly steeply sloping valley side. The relatively soft, silty clay natural would have been particularly prone to this form of landslip, especially when wet and after any tree cover had been removed (similar stepping of the valley sides is visible elsewhere in the vicinity, both higher up and lower down, and is not the result of any artificial terracing, revetting or surfacing of the valley side). (Dealt with previously )

1. 7.6.2 It should be noted that in the Saxo-Norman period, boats were normally berthed by beaching on suitable shallow shores. (as shown to exist on the Combe Haven next to trench E.G.and F) Where berthing facilities were constructed, they consisted of gently sloping platforms built of timber, clay and stone, though revetments and timber jetties are also known. (in other words either sort could have existed).Although quays were used in the Roman period (a period of interest to us) this method of berthing was not used again until the 12th century, even in major ports such as London. Earth quays without any form of timber reinforcing appear to be unknown in the Saxo-Norman period and are likely to have proved impracticable even as temporary berthing facilities in tidal waters. Moreover, as the top surface of the putative jetty is at c. 7.2 m AOD and high water in 1066 is likely to have varied from c. 1.3 to 3.0 m AOD, the 'jetty' would have towered over any vessel. ( Having agreed that the Romans used jetties the authors appear to be seeking to discredit the idea that these earthen structures were used in the Saxo-Norman period- something I have never claimed. It shows that the authors of this clause have not read or understood my thesis. Lastly the section of jetty which was exposed was no-where near the waterline. If the author of this clause had read my manuscript they would not embarrass themselves by seeking to draw a conclusion about their use by their height above OD at the site of this tench. The whole point about this jetty is that it runs the whole length of the inlet, two thirds of which is nowhere near where the boats came in - home goal!).

7.7 Trench F

1. No features and only a few small, probably redeposited pieces of slag, worked flint and burnt flint were recorded in this trench (worked flint and burnt flint, together with slag confirms early use of this inlet - the authors cannot do an archaeological survey and then claim that what they find was probably put there by someone at a later date and expect me to agree with this) which was excavated to the same level as the features identified by Mr Austin as the remains of Norman boats.(excavated to above the level of the excavated features is correct) Variations in colour and texture in the surface of the natural silty clay (are shown to exist in this report) can be attributed to a variety of causes including differential vegetation cover,ant hills, animal burrows and differing chemical action resulting from rising and falling water levels in this low-lying area. (there is agreement that the soil exposed varied in colour- there is not agreement over what caused it - as discussed further excavation was abandoned).
   
2. It is apparent that the types of vessels likely to have been used in the Norman Invasion - i.e. warships and transports of C. 20-30 m length built in the Scandinavian clinker tradition, as illustrated in the Bayeux Tapestry - would have left quite substantial and readily recognisable traces in the ground conditions as excavated. (there is no evidence to show that the Normans used boats 20 - 30m long in the Norman Invasion - this is a hypothesis from someone unfamiliar with the written evidence of the Norman Invasion and cannot be considered a reliable hypothesis).Even timbers that had degraded totally would leave some impression over a considerable area and depth, accompanied by concreted ferrous and/or non-ferrous fittings and associated material such as ballast and bilge deposits. Specialist advice confirmed that no identifiable boat remains were present at the level investigated. It should be noted that this level was at c. 4.00 m AOD; high water in 1066 is likely to have varied from c. 1.3 to 3.0 m AOD, which would have meant transporting the boats a vertical distance of 1 to 2.7 m above high water.(Here is a very interesting observation, for which I thank Wessex. If high tide was 1.3m to 3m OAD then the jetty at the port area (jetty G) would have a top of the tide mark exactly where the industrialisation level finished. This provides independent confirmation that this layer of charcoal was probably distributed by the tide and the soil was stacked on top of it to reinforce the bank. As far as this trench is concerned trench F is spot height marked at 4mAOD. As we have shown in the Jennings and Smyth letter this spot height is always potentially half a meter out and may be considerably more because of our observations. It does not seem unreasonable to me that this site could be half a meter above high tide at the time of the Invasion. It is almost certain that they landed, as we have discussed on the turn of the tide at noon and they would have pulled the boat in question up the shore. The amount in question appears to me to be plausible).
   
   

7.8 Trench G

7.8.1 This trench revealed a similar profile to that in Trench E, though the valley side sloped less steeply in this area and the top of this jetty' is at c. 3.5 m AOD. Again, the stepped profile, though less pronounced than in Trench E, has been attributed to natural, rotational slip or slumping of the unstable valley side rather than any form of deliberate terracing or revetment.(Dealt with previously)

7.8.2 However, in Trench 6 a layer (contexts 93 and 94) interpreted as a buried soil was sealed beneath a natural deposit of silty clay. This buried soil contained evidence of probable human activity in the form of charcoal and burnt clay/soil inclusions;(true this is confirmation of human activity) several pieces of possible slag were shown on examination to represent naturally formed iron concretions. Unfortunately, no dateable finds were recovered from this layer but it could be of early, possibly even prehistoric date;(or Roman or Iron Age) two possible hearths, one associated with Early Bronze Age pottery and the other with Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age pottery were found on the north side of Combe Haven at c. lOm AOD some 0.5km to the west during the 1995 archaeological evaluation (Wessex Archaeology 1 995a). (true)

7.8.3 The layer of silty clay (92) which sealed buried soil 94 in Trench 6 is interpreted as a colluvial deposit resulting from slope wash from the higher ground to the north-west, and this is likely to have post-dated the rotational slip/slumping of the valley side.(previously dealt with)

7.8.4 Although, at c. 3.5 m AOD, the 'jetty in Trench G is closer to likely high water in 1066 than the 'jetty' in Trench E, the difference between the height of the two jetties rules out any contemporary association of the two features as tide-dependent structures. (the person who has dealt with the jetties in this report has failed miserably to grasp the issues or understand the what why and how of the jetties use).The comments made about Trench E in relation to beaching and berthing in the Saxo-Norman period are also relevant to interpretation of Trench 6; there is no evidence that the deposits in Trench G relate to a landing site.(yet another home goal clause. I was assured that those who were going to produce this report were 1) going to be familiar with my manuscript and 2)seek to answer the questions raised there. I have never claimed that these jetties have anything whatsoever to do with the Norman Invasion.)

8 CONCLUSIONS (My comments continue in italics)

8. 1 The comparatively extensive flat-topped hill in part today occupied by buildings belonging to Upper Wilting Farm is likely to have been a focus for settlement in the past, and this is supported by the archaeological features and finds made in Trenches A and B (master of the understatement). These suggest probable domestic, perhaps farming settlement from at least the 12th century onwards.(or 1066 onwards) The possible lynchet/bank (is not a lynchet and the use of the word possible in a concluding clause is an error)around part of the top of the hill (on all four sides of this hilltop - does the writer of this report know nothing about this site?) is considered most likely to have been (or may not, since likelihood is not the intention of this study) a post-medieval agricultural feature (although there is no evidence of agriculture connected to the archaeology)created to restrict soil erosion from the top of the hill.(a completely wild unsubstantiated theory).

8.2 No certain evidence for settlement or other activity prior to the l9th/2Oth century was found downslope to the south around the edge of this part of Combe Haven, though it has been tentatively suggested that an undated buried soil in Trench G could represent evidence for prehistoric activity in the vicinity. ( A nice conclusion and whilst technically correct certain evidence of settlement is not the nature of the archaeology we have looked at. There is considerable evidence in the form of pottery from the previous work, including masses of flint, there is certain evidence of the industrialisation from charcoal found below water level in the port. There is a worked and burnt flint found in trench F, there is the reinforced path on the jetty G and there are two enormous ditches exactly where I said they would be found in the area of the Lower Norman fort.)

8.3 All of the other deposits sealed by topsoil/subsoil in Trenches C - G are considered to represent natural deposits.(and considered to represent is exceedingly vague and as an excavation was inconclusive) These include infilled channels -palaeochannels (Trench D) (an assumption not verified by any archaeological or geological study), landslip (rotational slip/slumping) ( not proven and highly unlikely according to the geology) and colluviation (Trenches E and G), and colluviation (Trench F), with the surface sometimes modified by subsequent agricultural activity (again unproven).

8.4 Evidence for landslip and colluviation (slope wash material) is represented by the extensive deposits of silty clay/clay natural in Trenches C - 6. Work by Smyth and Jennings (1988; 1990) suggests that this 'upper silty clay' derives from slope wash which occurred following forest clearance in the Combe Haven valley beginning around the beginning of the 1st millennium BC (c. 900 BC) in the late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age. Whether this slope wash occurred very rapidly or over a longer period is unclear. However, it coincided with a period of climatic deterioration and resulted in widespread denudation of topsoil and subsoil on the slopes around Combe Haven and the deposition of this material in the bottom of the valley. These deposits, a metre or more thick around the edges of the valley, and dense reeds indicated by an underlying 4m thick layer of peat in Combe Haven valley, are considered likely to have rendered the Monkham Wood and Redgeland Wood inlets inaccessible to all but the smallest boats by the Roman period (1st - 5th centuries AD).(completely wrong. If you are going to quote other experts please make sure you check your facts first. Jennings and Smyth letter para2. attached in Annex explains. It does not fill one with great confidence when the Highways Agency hold up the authors of this work as authorities on the subject we are discussing when it is clear from the text that the authors have no idea about the specifics of this site.)

8.5 There is a discrepancy between the probable height of tidal waters in 1066 and the areas investigated as the location of boat finds and jetties.(discussed and further indicates the lack of knowledge of the authors of the report in regards to that which they are supposed to be addressing) In 1066, mean sea level is likely to have been c. 0.75 m lower than at present. (this is subject to differing opinion but I am prepared to accept 0.5m) As the areas investigated lie at between c 3.50 and 7.20m AOD, and present high tide varies from C. 2.05 to 3.75 m AOD, (the spot heights quoted can be at least 0.5 meters out of true one way or the other) the putative jetties ( a word used to attempt to describe their function not their construction) and boat remains would have been c. 0.50 and 4.20m above high water at the time of the invasion. (dealt with and further exposing the author's of the report to the claim that they have not studied the issues or understood what was claimed). This distance is not commensurate with beaching practices and berthing facilities known from the Saxo-Norman period. (the jetties were not relevant to the Saxo-Norman period the authors have come to a completely irrelevant conclusion. How could someone who works for a week on this site in conjunction with myself and having read my thesis produced such a conclusion. The answer of course is that they could not, if they had been one and the same people, and had done what they were supposed to do - read the thesis. What they have done is sought to prove that these jetties were not in use at the time of the Norman Invasion. Very conclusive but totally irrelevant)

1. 8.6 In summary, therefore, the following might be concluded from the archaeological evaluation work undertaken at Upper Wilting Farm in April 1996:. (let us first say that having read the above conclusions from the report we now have a revised set of conclusions based upon some of the faulty earlier observations. This final section repeating the errors is designed for those who receive the report in written format and who cannot be bothered to read the full text. A common literary device which is used throughout the Public Inquiry process, which makes the report look as if it has more in it than it otherwise would, and one designed to reinforce what ever message the authors wish to make. In this case it just duplicates many of the previous errors).

8.6.1 Trench A. The features and finds provide evidence for medieval domestic/farming settlement during the 12th - 14th centuries, but do not constitute evidence for a castle or chapel. (The first mention of castle or chapel in this report I believe. The issue was to establish what is there, not what is not there. What is there is a very large post hole and building foundation trenches aligned east/west indicating a possible religious wooden building. I say it is a chapel and wooden castle site when the Highways Agency representative said there was nothing on this top field at all. If I am correct, and the archaeology does not disprove this poin,t as might have been expected, the whole of the Highways Agency case falls. That is not the sort of risk this investigation was meant to leave standing. The fact that it still does remain standing means that if this exercise was to be considered a test of the veracity of my manuscript I passed and the Highways Agency must admit defeat. The evidence of the trenches does not confirm a domestic building since the trenches investigated only occupy just over one thousandth of the land area on the top of this field, far below the area of land needed to be investigated to qualify any such remark.).

8.6.2 Trench B. The features and finds suggest that the medieval settlement in Trench A may have extended into this area, but there is no evidence for a Norman fort. (This is disputed I claim that one of the two parallel ditches built into the defense is Norman and the other of even earlier age) The feature identified as a possible lynchet/bank forming a rampart to a fort has been interpreted as a possible post-medieval agricultural feature.(the idea of this archaeological investigation was not to superimpose one set of possibles for another. We now know that Dr Gardiners famous picture and description of how a lynchet is formed by agricultural process is plainly completely incredulous in this area now that the substructure of the field is known. Clearly both Dr Gardiner and myself could not both be right. It is clear from the archaeology which has been completed that I was right - the ditches are there. It is no good when you find the ditches in exactly the right place to change your defense to accommodate the new findings. That is the hallmark of a lousy case. The idea that the agricultural element is justified by soil moving on such a large scale further undermines any credibility behind the assertion that the site may have been altered in or around AD1500.)

8.6.3 Trench C. The mound appears to be a natural feature with no evidence for burial within it. (the excavation was not completed and stones had been placed in a hollow. Further work is required before this conclusion can be reached)

8.6.4 Trench D. The two infilled channels are considered to be of natural origin (palaeochannels) and not part of an Iron Age and Lower Norman fort respectively (this is unproven and just an assumption). Areas of stones within the trench are also considered to have been of natural origin rather than deliberately laid surfaces (again this is not proven and if so why can the tracks be seen on the resistivity survey? Stones do not lay themselves naturally in a straight line across a ten acre site). The finds possibly reflect agricultural activity on the margins of the marsh in the 19th - 20th century.(the only finds were in the interface between the topsoil and the subsoil para 4.5.3. so this is completely misleading conclusion because the material was not found in or under the subsoil, where artifacts can be relied upon)

8.6.5 Trench E. The possible jetty is considered to be of natural origin, created by landslip. Its form and estimated height above high tide in 1066 indicate that it did not function as a jetty.(wrong conclusion already dealt with)

8.6.6 Trench F. No remains of boats were found and it is considered unlikely that any post-depositional action could have removed the evidence for them.(staining of the ground was present and the excavation was abandoned above the level of my remains. This conclusion cannot therefore be relied upon) Furthermore, the estimated height above sea level in 1066 makes it unlikely that boat remains of this period would be present in this area at the level investigated. (wrong conclusion already dealt with).

8.6.7 Trench G. The possible jetty is considered to be of natural origin, created by landslip and subsequent colluviation.(probably wrong and already dealt with) Its form and estimated height above high tide in 1066 indicate that it did not function as a jetty. The undated buried soil is considered to be of possible prehistoric date, but may be more recent; what it represents is uncertain for it produced no clear evidence for either domestic settlement or industrial activity. (this final paragraph really takes the biscuit for archaeological gobbldygook. Here the authors have left every possibility open. Firstly the buried layer of industrialisation may be prehistoric, however just in case this is not right because we have no evidence of this we will cover our backs and say that it might of course be some other date - more recent being fairly broad. It goes on to say that "what it represents for certain" is that there is "no clear evidence" for either "domestic or industrial activity". Thus making sure that both domestic and industrial activities are covered in the conclusion. However let's just look at this a little closer. What is the conclusion? There is none at all - they have absolutely no idea whether my claim is correct or not - that is what this clause says. It is an all encompassing get out clause packed with nothing. A suitable end to the report, which says more or less the same throughout.)

9 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Barton, K.J., 1979 Medieval Sussex Pottery

Chris Blandford Associates 1994 A259 Hastings Eastern Bypass Environmental Statement: Volume 2, Report 6: Cultural Heritage Ref: 10060/RC/029/6/A

Chris Blandford Associates 1994 A259 Bexhill and Hastings Western Bypass Environmental Statement: Volume 2. Report 8' Ref: 10059/RC/047/8/A

Hodgson, J.M., 1976 Soil Survey Field Handbook. Harpenden, Soil Survey Technical Monograph S

NOTE: Smyth and Jennings provide major reference documents to this report.

Smyth, C. and Jennings, S. 1988 'Mid- to Late-Holocene Forest Composition and the Effects of Clearances in the Combe Haven Valley, East Sussex' Sussex Archaeological Collections 126, 1-20

Smyth, C. and Jennings, S. 1990 'Late Bronze Age-Iron Age Valley Sedimentation in East Sussex, Southern England' in Boardman, 3, Foster, I D, and Dearing, 3 A, Soil Erosion on Agricultural Land, 273-84

Wessex Archaeology 1995a, A259 Bexhill and Hastings Western and A259 Hastings Eastern Bypasses: Archaeological trial trenching evaluation (WA ref. 39211 a)

Wessex Archaeology 1995b, A259 Bexhill and Hastings Western and A259 Hastings Eastern Bypasses: Archaeological trial trenching evaluation (WA ref. 3921lb)

NA CONCLUSIONS:

The work completed in this report does not disprove the hypothesis put forward in my manuscript in any way. The work produces abundant evidence of occupation at or around the time that the Conquest took place and throughout this report the positive has been understated in relation to my claims, whilst the negative has been overstated, presumably with the intention of assisting Dr Gardiner's case.

It is important to look at this report as a scientific study, but in order to do this ALL the conclusions put forward which cannot be substantiated by the work done must be ignored. When this is done we can see the evidence.

If we look at the evidence alone we shall find the underlying truth about the land that has been exposed to the archaeological gaze. I believe this shows conclusively that the archaeology which has been found supports my case made in my Statement of Case. It supports in an absolute way the theory of continued settlement and in fact poses more questions than this work alone can possibly answer.

Now we need to know whether these parallel trenches in the top field have post holes in them. This requires additional excavation work. We need to find out if the settlement on the east side of the top field is (as the authors have suggested) connected to the one on the far side of the same field and if Iron Age pits exist there. We need to conduct a long term research project to answer all these and other questions that arise.

What is certain is that there is no evidence that has been found in this investigation that removes the likelihood that I am not completely correct in my thesis. In consequence it is now only a matter of time before either I, or one of the team of archaeologists itching to get to work on this site, walk through the door with the definitive artifact that will prove the Norman Invasion connection. This could take any form, but is most likely to come out of the marsh than the land.

Earlier I stated that this might already have been found and in order that these matters can be addressed, and their importance weighed in the mind of the Inspector I wish to present new evidence to support my case. I have been led to understand that evidence would be accepted up until the date that the Inquiry closes. Since the investigation process will not stop I present this evidence now, whilst it can still be taken into account, certain in the knowledge that new evidence will come to light even after this Inquiry is closed. I say that we cannot afford for the Highways Agency or Dr Gardiner to be proven wrong yet again.

ANNEX