![]() |
FSARG 2005-7
|
| Associated Documents |
| Excavation Reports |
| Small Finds |
| 2007 Evaluation Meeting |
Please treat this information as provisional. If you disagree with an interpretation of the evidence, with an identification or assigned date, do not hesitate to contact us though the website – indeed, the seeking of alternative views is the main reason for online publication at this stage.
This account describes an attempt to launch a Community Archaeology project from scratch in the small historic market town of Faversham in Kent and is written at the end of the first season. During this first season the project touched the lives of hundreds of the local people, some more than others, and has already increased understanding of the development of this ancient settlement. This Interim account reports not only on the archaeological findings but also on the organisation of the project itself, and the different ways in which a variety of people participated.
1. Research aim
In the autumn of 2004, the challenge was to find a
significant research question which could be addressed using
archaeological methodologies, yet which:
a) Did not trespass on the province of professional/commercial archaeological units.
b) Investigated an aspect of Faversham’s history which had been neglected up to now.
c) Did not, to begin with, require levels of skill unlikely to be possessed by novice volunteers.
The project should be relatively short term and involve as many members of the local community as possible, in a variety of ways.
After background research, the Saxon period (AD 410 to around AD1000) emerged as the most enigmatic for Faversham. An exceptionally rich Jutish (a Saxon tribe) cemetery had been uncovered and looted in south Faversham during the building of the railway in the 1860s, and there are documentary hints that the town had a clear identity during the rest of the first millennium. Apart from a loom weight found on the post office site in the 1970s, there has been no confirmed archaeological evidence for Anglo-Saxon settlement in the area, yet the 2003 Kent Historic Towns Survey by the Kent Archaeological Service designated a ‘Saxon Zone’ in the part of the town now occupied by Tanners St and lower West Street.
The so-called Saxon Zone is located where a low bluff overlooks the West Brook, a powerful spring-fed stream which runs down to become Faversham Creek. The tidal limit of the creek could have been in this area in Saxon times, although this has not been confirmed. Downstream from this area, the stream would have widened out to become shallow and marshy, and the crossing point here would have been the lowest crossing point. The east west route that crosses is accepted as an ancient coastal route way running from the Seasalter-Blean area along the north Kent creek-heads, more or less parallel to Watling Street.
In present day Faversham, this Saxon Zone area is
unlikely to have any kind of redevelopments in the foreseeable
future (criterion a) and its designation seemed to be based on
nothing but common sense speculation (criterion b). Because it is
largely built up, small scale, short term methods would have to be
used for investigation, methods where a meticulous approach would
count for more than uncovering large areas (criterion c). Thus ‘Hunt
the Saxons’ emerged as the research focus.
The test pits would have to be mapped using measuring techniques, laying out a grid for the whole area not being feasible. They would be 1 metre square pits, excavated to a depth of 1.2 metres maximum (for safety reasons). The pits would be excavated in 30cm spits, taking material out in 5 cm layers, with the option of switching to single context methods if necessary. This approach would be evaluated and modified appropriately before the next season. Finds processing would take place alongside the excavation, with the target of having basic processing (sorting, cleaning, first aid conservation, weighing and bagging) completed by the end of the excavation season.
Post excavation work would concentrate on bulk pottery, brick and tile (CBM) and metal work. Small finds would be identified as accurately as possible. Specialist knowledge would be used to train volunteers rather than used directly to produce specialist reports. Local experts would be consulted, especially for documentary sources.
Equipment would be borrowed as far as possible. In the first season, this would be easy, as no mechanical tools or survey equipment would be used. Later on, and especially between the first and second seasons, resistivity survey equipment would be needed to test out ideas. If any larger trenches are dug in 2006, surveying equipment will be needed.
Community involvement would be achieved in a number of ways. The volunteers would be drawn from the local area and their participation fitted around their commitments. Householders would be involved through offering their gardens. A base would be established in the area and visitors encouraged. At least one day would involve digging in a public open area, coinciding with a Faversham Open House day so that excavation itself could be seen. An exhibition would be mounted in the autumn at the Fleur de Lis Heritage Centre, and visits from schools encouraged. A website, linked to the Faversham town website, would be set up by Christmas 2005 to carry an interim report. The support of local newspapers would be sought throughout.
Although the local community is the prime
audience, the archaeological community would be kept in touch
informally through the KAS in the first year, with attention to a
wider audience after the second year. The Faversham Society
Publications series would be used for publishing the final
account. Cantiana could be approached for findings of wider
interest. Finally, notification of findings would be made to the SMR
and site reports lodged with the necessary authorities.
In April 2005, a simultaneous appeal was launched for volunteers, gardens and equipment and by the end of June the following was in place:
The local papers had been briefed and had given
some publicity. Exhibition space had been booked at the Fleur.
A 4 x 30cm spit method had been selected for excavation based on an assumption of garden churn. i.e. that there would not be any clearly stratified deposits. In fact, as will be clear from the following Test Pit (TP) reports, the situation was nowhere near as simple as this. In one case (TP25) the archaeology revealed by the bottom of spit 2 was so clearly stratified and feature-laden that instead of going deeper, the pit was widened to give a 2 x 1 metre mini trench. This trench was then excavated contextually with scale plans and sections drawn. In other pits, surfaces and other features were encountered which were too important or simply too bulky to be disturbed. In one case (TP12) the natural surface was found at a depth of just over 60cm. Finally in some cases, shortage of time meant that spit 4 was only partly excavated to the full 1.2 metres, usually as a quadrant. Only two pits (TPs 8 & 22) were fully excavated to the 1.2 metres maximum allowed. All spoil, without exception, was sieved.
For the test pits, the spit recording sheet worked well, and the site notebook was extensively used by both supervisors and volunteers to record observations and ideas. Small finds identified in the ground were recorded using coordinates derived from the 1 metre planning square: those identified at the sieving stage by eye or metal detecting could be at least allocated a spit reference.
During the season, all bulk finds were processed at the work base. Small finds were also recorded and bagged appropriately for later identification. Where possible, identifications were made as the season progressed, and the knowledge fed back to excavators. The finds processing was very efficient indeed and for most categories, notably pottery, recovery was 100%. Compromises did, however, have to be made over the large quantities of CBM, coke/ clinker and mortar found in some pits. Bringing all of these back to base for weighing was impracticable, so in these cases an estimate was made of the quantities and recorded in the site notebook with only a sample sent back to base for processing.
All these compromises will be reviewed before next
season. For this interim report, however, they mean that care has
had to be taken in comparing quantitative findings for test pits, in
particular for Spit 4 and quantities of CBM and coke/ clinker need
to be seen as estimates.
Reports follow for eight of the eleven Test Pits (TPs). TPs 8 and 24 are in preparation at the moment. TP25 is being left until last as it generated a lot of further research.a) Test Pit reports
A full version of the overall summary will be available in spring 2006, when all TP reports are complete. For now, certain general points can already be madeb) Overall
Finally, NO, we did not find the Saxons – but
there’s always next year.
Pat Reid
08.12.05.
(To be read as a follow-on from the above report)
Please treat this information as provisional. If you disagree with an interpretation of the evidence, with an identification or assigned date, do not hesitate to contact us though the website – indeed, the seeking of alternative views is the main reason for online publication at this stage.Introduction This account follows on from the 2005 Interim, and is written at the end of the second season. As with the 2005 report, this one will report on the community aspects as well as the archaeological findings.
1. Research aim
The research aim remained unchanged from 2005.
2. Strategies A well-attended open meeting was held in April 2006 where all aspects of the 2005 season were reviewed and decisions made about the 2006 season. We all knew the Tanners St/ West St area far better that had been the case in 2005, not just archaeologically but also historically from documents, maps and the expertise of local historians. Team members also had hands-on experience of excavation in the study area, so the decisions set out below were very well informed.
In short, as predicted in the 2005 report, the field approach would be much more focussed and skilled in 2006.
3. Preparation for 2006 In October 2005, an application had been made to the KAS for a small grant to cover expenses. In April, a sum of £300 arrived, which was much appreciated. It was set aside to pay for First Aid training, Finds identification training and consumables such as finds bags.
4. Methods in practice Seven test pits were dug in the 2006 season, making seventeen overall. Three were in gardens on the west (stream) side of Tanners St (TPs 16, 26 &26A) and three were in gardens on the high, eastern side of the street (TPs1, 11 & 29) We had decided not to dig in West St this year because the deposits were so deep (see 2005 reports from 75, West St TP22, and 78 West St TPs 23A & 23B). The seventh one was in the grounds of the Almshouses, chosen mainly for its suitability for public access for the Open Weekend but also to give a useful ‘non-residential’ base line for comparisons with garden TPs. Unless there were good archaeological reasons for stopping, all but one TP was taken down to the 1.2 metre maximum depth possible.

Fig 1: Excavation spots over the two seasons, with TP numbers. OS 1907 XXXIV.9
5. Findings Reports follow for all of the seventeen 1 x 1 m Test Pits, plus the report for the 2 x 1 pit dug in 2005 (TP25). For Small Finds (SFs) mentioned in the reports, go to the Small Finds section of this web site, and for further details on individual clay pipes, go to the Clay Pipe database (2006 updates available Jan-Feb 07). TP 27 will also follow shortly. In 2006, one of the new team members took on animal bone recording as a special task, and the production of a database for animal bone will be ongoing over this winter.
6. Towards final reporting This project has produced an enormous amount of information, as the Test Pit reports show. Much of this must be checked and fully archived over the next year. The considerable amount of glass found in all pits has yet to be dealt with in any detail. Yet there is a limit to the usefulness of precise artefactual detail in a situation of such complex stratification and narrow keyholes of investigation, and it seems more productive and manageable to treat the record as a resource and pull out certain threads for reporting upon. At present, these are the most obvious ones:
The material will also contribute towards
medieval pottery and clay pipe catalogues for Faversham, in the
longer term. Discussion is at present also taking place about the
lodging of findings on the Kent Sites and Monuments Register.
We have become quite expert on the strengths, limitations and
practical issues to do with mini- excavations in old urban areas,
and would like to share this with a wider audience: the new CBA
Community Archaeology website may well provide a forum.
7. Finally -what about the Saxons? We did finally find small amounts (93gm) of what we think is Ipswich ware in TP1 and a few sherds that might be Saxon elsewhere. TP1 was a particularly interesting pit with Roman material as well as a lot of small, highly abraded medieval pottery sherds, so in a limited sense we did find them. We have increasingly begun to feel, however, that we are looking in the wrong place, and in 2007 will turn our attention to a different part of town.
![]()