Hunt The Saxons

A Community Archaeology Research Project in
Faversham, Kent

Interim Report for the 2005 season

Introduction

1. Research aim

2. Strategy (overall and for 2005 stage)

3. Preparations

4. Practice

5. Findings (each TP plus summary)

6. Evaluation of 2005 season (available April 2006)

7. The 2006 season (available April 2006)
 

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:

• 28 gardens had been offered in the selected area, each one of which had been visited and details recorded. Copies of a variety of historical maps had been obtained and research carried out on the properties.
   
• 25 individuals had volunteered to take part. These had met as a group for an introductory session and a practical training day in Health and Safety and basic procedures. The age range was from 16 to 70s.
   
• A base had been negotiated in the garden of the Bull Inn in the heart of the research area, with associated storage and water supply. Arrangements for continuing finds work elsewhere on rainy days had been made.
   
• Equipment loan had been arranged and consumables purchased.

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.
 

• For further details on Small Finds (SFs) mentioned in the reports, go to the Small Finds section of this web site.
   
• For further details on individual clay pipes, go to the Clay Pipe section on this website.
   
• A detailed report on the medieval pottery will be produced in 2006 -7 at the end of the project, as part of a report on the Medieval Pottery of Faversham.

• All eleven pits had evidence for medieval (AD1200-1500) occupation in the area. Sometimes this consisted of small abraded sherds of pottery, sometimes of large clean break sherds. Other evidence of medieval occupation consisted of lead tokens.
   
• In five pits, evidence of Saxo- Norman(AD1000-1200) occupation was found.
   
• In one pit, TP9, evidence for Roman occupation was found (pottery and quern stone).
   
• In two pits, TPs 14 and 25, evidence for medieval tanneries was found. This makes tanning the oldest industry in Faversham for which we have archaeological evidence.
   
• A lot of 16^th-17^th century material (pottery, tokens, clay pipes, brick and tile, a few coins) was found, emphasising the prosperity of this part of Faversham at the time.
   
• In only one pit, TP12, did we reach the natural (undisturbed) surface. Most pits ‘bottomed out’ around the 16^th century.
   
• The importance of the boundary marked by the north-south brick and flint wall became very evident.
   

Finally, NO, we did not find the Saxons – but there’s always next year.


Pat Reid

08.12.05.