dhoop, t. (2015) winchelsea harbour geotechnical survey 2015, geotechnical investigations at the...

Winchelsea, East Sussex, United Kingdom

Winchelsea Harbour Geotechnical Survey 2015

Geotechnical investigations at the ancient port area

Site locations:

Eastwoods

Grid Ref. TQ 90575 17742

Strand

Grid Ref. TQ 90780 17465

St Thomas

Grid Ref. TQ 90481 17353

Thomas Dhoop

University of Southampton

University Rd. SO17 1BJ

[email protected]

Date: 20th April – 1st May 2015

License: National Trust

mailto:[email protected]

Executive Summary

A two-week geotechnical survey was carried out from the 20th of April until the 1st of May 2015 in

Winchelsea, East Sussex, targeting the ancient port area and St Thomas church. The works were

conducted as part of Thomas Dhoop’s PhD research at the University of Southampton.

A number of geophysical anomalies were found in the data from both survey locations at the former

waterfront. In particular the pattern in the southern part of Eastwoods, potentially associated with

the medieval private waterfront plots, is of archaeological interest. Also the feature in the northeast

corner of the strand, possibly the location of a 16th century storehouse, should be considered of

archaeological interest. The auger survey revealed the potential for the study of past climatic events

at Eastwoods. In light of this, in future work, an attempt will be made to date the peat layer found in

one of the cores. Based on those results, a second auger survey to take sleeved cores is a possibility.

The survey at St. Thomas church failed to locate the foundations of the missing part of the structure.

Acknowledgements

This Survey came to fruiting thanks to the backing and support of the Winchelsea Archaeological

Society and in particular Richard Comotto. Also the University of Southampton should be thanked for

their support, specifically Dr. Fraser Sturt, Dr. Julian Whitewright, Kristian Strutt, Dominic Barker and

Penny Copeland. This survey would not have been possible without the effort put forward by the

team: Rodrio Ortiz, Carlos Garrandés, Massimiliano Secci and Catriona Cooper. Also Professor David

Hinton, Professor Jonathan Adams, Dr. Joe Flatman and Casper Johnson should be thanked for their

contributions to the conference Medieval Ports, Ships and Sailors. Finally, Diane and Allen Pope should

be thanked for granting access to their private land where a large of this survey took place.

i

Contents

List of Figures iii

1 Introduction 1

2 Historical Background 1

3 The Cartographic Evidence 3

4 The Survey Sites 4

5 Survey Specific Information 5

6 Eastwoods 6

6.1 Magnetometry Results 6

6.2 Resistivity Results 6

6.3 Core Results 6

6.4 Discussion of Results 7

7 Strand 7

7.1 Magnetometry Results 7


7.3 Core Results 8


8 St Thomas 9



9 Conclusions and Future Work 10

Bibliography 11

The Figures 12

iii

List of Figures

Figure 1: Survey areas and previous excavations. 13

Figure 2: Pilgrimage badge found at Eastwoods, dated to the 14th century, cast in pewter and

originating possibly from Our Lady of Walsingham or a shrine on the Continent. 14

Figure 3: Survey areas plotted on a reconstruction of the AD 1292 layout of Winchelsea. 15

Figure 4: Corporation seal of ca. AD 1300, front- (above) and backside (below). 16

Figure 5: Dugdale map of AD 1662. 17

Figure 6: Stephens’ map of AD 1763. 18

Figure 7: Reconstruction of the AD 1292 map made by Lilley et al. 2005. 19

Figure 8: Second revision of the County Series map showing the word ‘stone’ in the northeast corner

of the strand survey area. 20

Figure 9: Magnetometer results at Eastwoods (scale: 1:1000). 21

Figure 10: Interpretations of the magnetometer results at Eastwoods (scale: 1:1000). 22

Figure 11: Resistivity results at Eastwoods underlying the interpretations (scale: 1:1000). 23

Figure 12: Locations of the cores taken at Eastwoods. 24

Figure 13: BH1-Eastwoods. 25





Figure 18: Magnetometer results at the Strand (scale: 1:1000). 30

Figure 19: Interpretations of the magnetometer results at the Strand (scale: 1:1000). 31

Figure 20: Resistivity results at the Strand underlying the interpretations (scale: 1:1000). 32

Figure 21: Locations of the cores taken at the Strand. 33

Figure 22: BH1-Strand. 34





Figure 27: Resistivity results at St Thomas church (scale: 1:1000). 39

1

1.0 Introduction

1.1 This document discusses the results of a geotechnical survey at the ancient port of

Winchelsea, East Sussex, UK as part of the PhD research of Thomas Dhoop at the University

of Southampton.

1.2 The surveyed fields at the former port are known as ‘Eastwoods’ and the ‘Strand’. Additionally,

also the graveyard of St Thomas church was surveyed (Figure 1).

1.3 A licence for the works at the Strand was provided by the National Trust (contact: Nathalie

Cohen), access to Eastwoods was granted by Diane and Allan Pope and the graveyard was

surveyed with the permission of the church. Funding was made available by the University of

Southampton and the Winchelsea Archaeological Society (contact: Richard Comotto).

2.0 Historical Background

2.1 New Winchelsea, refounded in the 1280’s after severe coastal erosion of its original site, was

a major planned royal port. Until its relative decline from the middle of the 14th century, the

town was an important member of the Cinque Ports Confederation and one of the principal

international ports of the English realm.

2.2 The most comprehensive work on the general history of New Winchelsea remains Cooper’s

(1850) The History of Winchelsea. More recently, shorter versions have also been published

in Volume 9 of The Victoria History of the Counties of England: Sussex (1937) and in Pratt’s

(1998) work which mainly focuses on the town’s more recent past. To this list should also be

added David Sylvester’s (1999a; 1999b; 2004) PhD thesis on the maritime economic history of

New Winchelsea.

2.3 For the archaeologist, the pioneering work by Homan (1949), who used the detailed rental of

AD 1292 to reconstruct the town as it was first laid out, has been of great importance. His map

has subsequently been corrected by David and Barbara Martin (2004: 28, Fig. 4.2) and updated

by Keith Lilley et al. (2005: Core Map 3).

2.4 The Winchelsea Re-assessment Project, launched in 1998, brought together and synthesized

the available historical and archaeological data. This project produced; a quarter-by-quarter

analysis of the town (Martin & Martin 2002a), an overview of the town in the form of an

Extensive Urban Survey (Martin & Martin 2002b), a report on the excavations carried out

within the town during the period 1974-2000 (Martin & Rudling 2004) and an academic

publication titled New Winchelsea, Sussex: A Medieval Port Town (Martin & Martin 2004).

2.5 Three previous excavations, north of Tanyard Lane, are relevant for this report. In 1965, trial

trenches were dug in the southeast corner of Pear Tree Marsh, which according to Stephen’s

map from 1763 is the old name for the field just west of Eastwoods, then called ‘Walnut-tree

Marsh’. A short report (Dulley 1965) indicates that the foundations were struck of a post-

medieval building. The structure was brick-built on substantial footings. The ground on which

the building stood had been levelled by an extensive dump of gravel. The few sherds found in

this layer suggested a date no earlier than the sixteenth century.

2.6 In September-October 2012, an archaeological watching brief was carried out by Balfour

Beatty Mott Macdonald during the construction of a flood alleviation drainage scheme

between Tanyard Lane and the River Brede, the results of which were reported by Dylan

Hopkinson (2012). During the works, a number of worked timbers were identified within

2

waterborne riverside deposits that may have been related to waterfront structures in the

vicinity. However, these were not found in situ and it remains unclear what their age or

function may have been.

2.7 Prior to the redevelopment of the ‘Bridge Inn’ area, archaeological excavations were carried

out by Chris Butler Archaeological Services. During the works, worked timbers were found,

lining up to form a quay structure, at the bottom of which a side (a number of strakes

connected by two frames) of a 15th century clinker boat was found (Pers. Comm. Caspar

Johnson). At the time of this writing, no report of this excavation has been made available.

2.8 The owners of the field at Eastwoods recalled finding large wooden groin-pieces while digging

their pond in 1992. The pieces were reported to, and collected by, the county archaeologist.

An unsuccessful attempt was made to date the timbers and they appear to have been lost

(Pers. Comm. Allan and Diane Pope). During the same works, a pilgrimage badge was found in

the spoil heap by a metal detectorist (Figure 2). It was dated to the 14th century, made in

pewter and cast with integral pin and clasp. The origin is uncertain, but could be Our Lady of

Walsingham or from a shrine on the continent (Pers. Comm. Allan and Diane Pope).

2.6 Despite the small excavations on the site and the extensive historical records, little is known

of the area north of Tanyard Lane. Reconstructions of the 1292 map by Homan (1946), Martin

and Martin (2004) and Lilley et al. (2005) attach private waterfront plots to the current road

(Figure 3). The extent of the river Brede in the late 13th century however, is unknown. The

1292 foundation rental preambles the list of the 79 waterfront plots with the introductory

note: ‘Here are the places delivered for building and rented, under the pendants of the hill on

the north side, on the land next to the salt water and perilous at all flowings of the tide’

(Martin and Martin 2004: 36; Cooper 1850: 53). Shortly after the town was refounded, the

town’s elite members requested that the king gave assistance in enlarging the harbour (Martin

and Martin 2004: 36; Homan 1940: 8-12). This could indicate that parts of the waterfront were

unsuitable for building and needed further work or that the waterfront was simply deemed

too small. However, as early as 1344/5, 33 of the 79 waterfront plots had already been

abandoned, presumably because they no longer provided access to the waterfront due to

silting (Martin and Martin 2004: 36).

2.7 There is no information on the Strand before the introduction of the Corporation records. The

latter indicate that properties near the quay had been confiscated from foreign beer-makers

in 1442 and were subsequently used by Maline Farncombe to endow a chantry (Martin and

Martin 2004: 35). It is unclear exactly where these properties should be situated. After the

dissolution of the chantries in 1547, these properties fell into the hands of the Corporation.

Martin and Martin (2004: 35) suggest that there could have been a number of ‘shops’, used

as workshops for the preparation and storage of goods and the repair and storage of

equipment related to fishing and shipping. Next to this, a storehouse is mentioned a number

of times at the Strand between 1553 and 1587. Soon after 1587 the building may have been

destroyed or became derelict because in 1594 John Vincent requested again that a storehouse

be built at the strand. It would appear this was done, as eight years later the Corporation took

control over the property for non-payment of rent (Martin & Martin 2004: 38). Other

documents of the period refer to a wasteland and a network of small lanes (Martin and Martin

2004: 38).

2.8 The parish church of St Thomas stands alone on its plot, the remainder of which is used as a

graveyard. Only the eastern end and the ruins of the transept remain. It is believed that the

3

crossing piers once supported a central tower with a spire, as is seen on the Corporation seal

(Figure 4) and in a sketch of the town on Dugdale’s map of 1662 (Figure 5). Cooper (1850)

writes that ‘no trace of the foundations, after a recent and very diligent search could be found,

except for the central great piers and a small portion of the town wall at the SW angle, of what

was the south aisle’. Cooper himself created a plan that shows in hachure the foundations

which he discovered. Elsewhere is stated that stone from the nave foundation was removed

in 1790 to be used at Rye harbour. Stephen’s plan from 1763 (Figure 6) and an 18th century

illustration (see Martin and Martin 2004: 79, Fig. 7.11) show a detached tower standing

immediately to the south of the church’s former western end, near the southwest corner of

the churchyard. Martin and Martin (2004: 78) suggest that it may either have been a bell- or

watchtower and may have been depicted on the Corporation seal. There are various theories

concerning the fate of the nave. Some argue that it was never built, while others suggest that

it was destroyed during one of the French raids. According to Martin and Martin the most

likely explanation is that, following the major decline in population, the church was downsized

and the redundant part sold for its materials (see Martin and Martin 2004: 74-80 for a

discussion).

3.0 The Cartographic Evidence

3.1 At Eastwoods, the latest version of the map reconstructed using the 1292 rental roll, produced

by a team from Queens University Belfast (QUB) (Lilley et al. 2005: Core Map 3) (Figure 7),

indicates that, immediately north of Tanyard Lane, private waterfront plots should be located.

The Brede covers the remainder of the field. Dugdale’s map of 1662 (Figure 5) still makes

mention of ‘Winchelsea Harbour’, but the river is situated a certain distance away from the

town hill. The oldest reliable map of the town itself is Stephen’s map from 1763 (Figure 6)

which shows an open field and indicates that the old name for Eastwoods is ‘Walnut-tree

Marsh’. The closest significant structure on the map is the Tanyard, located about 45m east

of the eastern edge of the survey area. Old and recent County Series and National Grid maps

show an open field with no structures.

3.2 At the Strand, the QUB map shows the medieval ditch cutting the survey area in half, leaving

the remainder of the surface blank. Stephens’ maps from 1763 indicates that east of the ditch,

the land was owned by the Earl of Egremont, west of the ditch, the field is called ‘Pierce’s

Cliff’. With the exception of the strand house, the survey is shown as an open field. Across

from the survey area is an area called ‘The Float’, possibly a reference to the location of the

former quay. On the 2nd revision of the County Series map, the word ‘stone’ is written on the

north side of the field (Figure 8). Other versions of the County Series and National Grid maps

show no structures or channels.

3.3 At St Thomas, the QUB map shows the church as complete. Stephens’ map form 1763 shows

a church with three naves and a ruined square tower in the southwest corner of the plot. This

tower is no longer present in the 1st edition of the County Series map and St Thomas is

depicted in its current partial state. The same is true for the other County Series and National

Grid maps. The remainder of the plot is identified as a graveyard. Other than the locations of

the pathways, nothing changes in the succession of County Series and National Grid maps.

4

4.0 The Survey Sites

4.1 Eastwoods, site specific information

Site Name: Eastwoods

Grid Ref.: TQ 90575 17742

County: East Sussex

Date of Survey: 20th April – 1st May 2015

Surveyors: Thomas Dhoop, Fraser Sturt, Julian Whitewright, Kristian Strutt, Dominic

Barker, Rodrigo Ortiz, Carlos Garrandes, Massimilano Secci

Size of area surveyed: 1.18 ha

Weather conditions: Dry and sunny

Geology: Sandstone bedrock, clay, silt and sand superficial lithology

Current land use: Grazing field

Survey types: Magnetometery, resistivity, power auger, hand auger

4.2 Strand, site specific information

Site Name: Strand

Grid Ref.: TQ 90780 17465

County: East Sussex

Date of Survey: 20th April – 1st May 2015

Surveyors: Thomas Dhoop, Julian Whitewright, Rodrigo Ortiz, Carlos Garrandes,

Massimiliano Secci


Weather conditions: Dry and sunny


Current land use: Grazing fields

Survey types: Magnetometry, resistivity, hand auger

4.3 St Thomas, site specific information

Site Name: St Thomas

Grid Ref.: TQ 90481 17353

County: East Sussex

5

Date of Survey: 25th April 2015

Surveyors: Thomas Dhoop, Rodrigo Ortiz, Carlos Garrandes, Massimiliano Secci


Weather conditions: Sunny and dry at the start, slight drizzle near the end


Current land use: Churchyard

Survey types: Resistivity

5.0 Survey Specific Information

5.1 Details of equipment and methodology employed:

Survey type Magnetometry

Instrumentation Bartington Grad-01 Data Logger DL-601

Probe/sensor configuration Parallel twin (2 probes)

Probe/sensor spacing 1 m

Grid size 30 m x 30 m

Traverse interval 0.5 m

Sample interval 0.125 m

Traverse pattern Zig-Zag

Spatial accuracy Grids set out using a Leica CS15 Real Time Kinematic (RTK) GPS

Survey type Electrical Earth Resistance

Instrumentation Geoscan Research RM15 Resistance Meter

Probe/sensor configuration Parallel twin (2 probes)

Probe/sensor spacing 0.5 m

Grid size 30 m x 30 m

Traverse interval 0.5 m

Sample interval 1 m

Traverse pattern Zig-Zag

Spatial accuracy Grids set out using a Leica CS15 Real Time Kinematic (RTK) GPS

Survey type Power Auger

Instrumentation Atlas Cobra TT

Spatial accuracy Points stored using a Leica CS15 Real Time Kinematic (RTK) GPS

Survey type Hand Auger

Instrumentation Eijkelkamp

Spatial accuracy Points stored using a Leica CS15 Real Time Kinematic (RTK) GPS

6

6.0 Eastwoods

6.1 Magnetometry Results (Figures 9 & 10)

6.1.1 In the northern half of the field a distinct pattern of alternating high and low magnetometry

lines is visible. This was also noted in the surface topography of the field while conducting the

survey. These might be the remains of canals dug for past agricultural use of the field. Two

lines of very strong positive and negative values have been confirmed with the resident to be

sewage pipelines. In the southern part of the field, distinct lines of high magnetometry appear

in right angles to one another. These could be drainage ditches which were later infilled, dug

to drain the area of water for some form of construction. They are in the location where the

QUB map places the private waterfront plots and correlate well with the description of these

plots in the 1292 rental roll as ‘perilous at all flowings of the tide’. Alternatively, they could

also be related to the ‘expansion’ of the harbour shortly after the new site was taken into use.

6.2 Resistivity Results (Figure 11)

6.2.1 Only the southern half of the field was surveyed using resistivity. In the western half of the

field, linear features of low resistivity are apparent which line up with the high magnetometry

features discussed above. This appears to confirm the presence of infilled ditches, possibly

drainage canals. Inside these features, areas of marked high resistivity are apparent. Although

these might indicate the presence of structural features, it is impossible to say conclusively

based on the resistivity data alone. The eastern side of the field is less clear-cut. A zone of high

resistivity with no clear pattern can be discerned, but the resolution of the survey is not great

enough to make any reasonable suggestions as to what is present.

6.3 Core Results

6.3.1 Five cores were taken in a northeast to southwest alignment in between Tanyard Lane and

the river Brede. The average spacing between cores is ca. 30 m. Two were taken with a power

auger (BH1 & BH2), the remaining three (BH3, BH4, BH5) with a hand auger (Figure 12).

6.3.2 BH1-Eastwoods (Figure 13): A modern turf horizon of sandy silt loam with a possible made

ground horizon (0.57 m from the surface) of large rock, brick and flint overlays a subsoil of

sandy clay with a high content of iron resulting in manganese staining. At ca. 1.66 m a gradual

boundary occurs to grey riverine silts with clear tidal rhythmites, intersected by a pocket of

sand between 4.66 m and 4.86 m. The sandstone bedrock was hit at ca. 6.66 m.

6.3.4 BH2-Eastwoods (Figure 14): A modern turf horizon of clayish sand with brick and flint

inclusions overlays a subsoil of the same lithology mottled with dark grey inclusions and a high

content of iron resulting in manganese staining. Underlying the subsoil, at ca. 1.29 m deep, a

0.93 m thick layer of peat was found. Grey riverine silts were struck immediately underneath

the peat layer. At a depth of ca. 5.64 m the colour of sediments turned to a slightly darker

grey and the bottom 2 m of the core contained tidal rhythmites.

6.3.5 BH3-Eastwoods (Figure 15): A modern turf horizon of sandy silt with a layer of pebbles and

brick at the bottom overlays a subsoil of sandy clay with a pocket of sand and pebbles from

0.66 m to 0.88 m. From 0.88 m to 2.45 m the sandy clay is mottled with grey riverine silts.

From that point onwards only grey riverine silts were present.

6.3.3 BH4-Eastwoods (Figure 16): A modern turf horizon of sandy clay loam with anthropogenic

disturbance overlays a subsoil of sandy clay with a high content of iron. From 1.2 m to 1.42 m

7

the soil became moister and had fragmented shells in it. Riverine silts were found from 1.42

m onwards, becoming more compact as the depth increased.

6.3.6 BH5-Eastwoods (Figure 17): A modern turf horizon of sandy clay loam overlays a subsoil of

sandy clay with iron inclusions. Underneath lies a layer of sandy clay mottled with grey riverine

silts. From 3.1 m only grey silts are present, becoming increasingly darker and more solid.

6.4 Discussion of Results

6.4.1 The results of the geophysics and the core BH1-Eastwoods suggest the presence of

archaeologically relevant layers just north of Tanyard Lane, the location where maps based on

the 1292 rental have traditionally positioned the private waterfront plots. The orientation of

the presumed drainage ditches however, do not line up with the orientation of the plots

depicted in the reconstructed maps, suggesting that a revision is needed.

6.4.2 The auger survey at Eastwoods demonstrated potential for the study of the development of

the river Brede on the one hand and the relationship between a surge in storm activity,

coinciding with the advent of the Little Ice Age in the late 13th century, and the history of Old

and New Winchelsea on the other.

6.4.3 The power core BH1-Eastwoods was taken in a location of high magnetometry and high

resistivity and contained a possible made ground layer of brick and rock, suggesting a layer

with archaeological structures might be present in the southern area of Eastwoods. The

second power core, BH2-Eastwoods, contained a significant peat layer overlaying riverine

sediments indicating that at a certain point in time, at ca. 90 m of the current location of

Tanyard Lane and ca. 50 m from where geophysical anomalies were found, the silting process

overtook the tidal energy and organics were able to accumulate and decompose.

Interestingly, both power cores (BH1-Eastwoods and BH2-Eastwoods) contained tidal

rhythmites, but at different depths. In BH1, from ca. 1.66 m to 2.66 m, in BH2, from ca. 5.64

m to 7.64 m. These indicate episodes of alternating high and low energy levels in the tidal river

Brede, which might correspond to the increase in storminess at the advent of the little Ice Age

in the late 13th century, the same episode that drove the people of Winchelsea from their

original site to the new one.

6.4.4 Further analysis of the cores will attempt to date the peat layer through association with other

cores taken in the Brede valley. The results of this will be included in the PhD thesis of the

author. Based on this analysis, the potential for more work in the immediate future will be

evaluated.

7.0 Strand

7.1 Magnetometery Results (Figures 18 & 19)

7.1.1 Due to the presence of excessive amounts of reed or a very steep surface-topography, parts

of certain grids could not be surveyed.

7.1.2 Two distinct lines of high alternating positive and negative values cross the field at the western

edge, most likely indicating the presence of two pipelines. Just east of these pipelines there is

a possible amount of runoff from the high magnetometry readings. In the southwest corner,

two lines of high magnetomery meet each other at a right angle. These might be dug ditches,

possible for foundations, but it is impossible to say conclusively based on the magnetometry

data alone. To the east of the medieval ditch that cuts the field in half, a linear feature of low

8

values runs from the southwest end to the northern end of the field. Most likely, this is a dug

channel for drainage or sewage. Finally, at the northern end of the field, a high amount of

noise occurs, with an empty square in the middle. Given the straight lines and angles, it is

possible that some structure lies underneath.


7.2.1 The resistivity survey targeted the areas where possible features could be expected, based on

the magnetometry results. Three separate areas were selected and surveyed.

7.2.2 In the southwest corner of the surveyed area, the eastern edge is dominated by high and low

resistivity values. This corresponds to the area where the two possible pipelines were situated

in the magnetometery data. The remainder of the area is largely filled with thick lines of

alternating high and low resistivity. This pattern was also picked up on the surface topography.

For a large part, this pattern falls within the two ‘ditches’ identified in the magnetometry data,

but a correlation between the two is not straightforward. In the southernmost area, east of

the medieval ditch, a thick loop of low resistivity values is lined by high resistivity. The right-

leg of the loop corresponds to the channel identified in the magnetometry data. The left leg

might be another arm of the channel, hidden behind noise in the magnetometry. The lines of

high resistivity might correspond to the embankments of the old and current ditch. The survey

of the northernmost end of the field shows a network of linear low-resistivity features. The

bank of the current military canal on the other hand is lined with high resistivity values. Inside

the ‘empty’ square on the magnetometry data, two semi-circular features of high resistivity

are present. If there was indeed a storehouse built at the Strand, this area appears to be the

most likely location.

7.3 Core Results

7.3.1 Five cores were taken in this field, all of them east of the medieval ditch, using a hand auger.

Three (BH1, BH2 & BH3) were taken along a north to south line while the remaining two (BH4

& BH5) were placed inside the channel picked up on the magnetometry and resistivity data

(Figure 21).

7.3.4 BH1-Strand (Figure 22): A modern turf horizon of sandy loam with semi-rounded pebbles

overlays a subsoil of sandy clay. Through a gradual boundary, a more greyish sandy clay

appeared continuing as a silty clay from 1.54 m to 2.84 m. Underneath, a humified peat

horizon was found going as deep as at least 3.1 m (and onwards).

7.3.2 BH2-Strand (Figure 23): A modern turf horizon of sandy clay with flint inclusions overlays a

subsoil of sandy clay (becoming increasingly more clayish with depth) with iron inclusions and

a layer of small bits of brick and ceramic at 0.9 m deep. From 1.62 m a grey silty clay was found

overlying humified peat which started from 2.86 m onwards.

7.3.3 BH3-Strand (Figure 24): A modern turf horizon of sandy clay overlays a subsoil of grey sandy

clay (becoming increasingly more clayish and grey with depth) with a small horizon of iron

inclusions from ca. 1.6 m to 1.7 m. Underneath was a layer of grey silty clay to 3.05 m after

which cores were lost to about 3.5 m. From 3.5 m to 3.7 m humified peat was found.

7.3.5 BH4-Strand (Figure 25): A modern turf horizon of sandy clay overlays a subsoil of sandy clay

(becoming increasingly more clayish with depth) with a high content of iron. Between 0.22 m

and 0.44 m a piece of the stem of a clay tobacco pipe was found. Underneath lies a moist grey

clay which overlies a layer of very moist dark grey clay. The layer of dark moist clay can be

9

found between 1.76 m and 3.14 m deep. Beneath this layer lies a horizon of humified peat

which goes down to at least 3.48 m.

7.3.6 BH5-Strand (Figure 26): A modern turf horizon of sandy clay overlays a subsoil of sandy clay

(becoming increasingly more clayish with depth) with iron inclusions. Underneath lies a grey

clay which overlies a horizon of very moist dark grey clay. The layer of dark moist clay can be

found between 1.76 and 3 m deep. Beneath it lies a horizon of humified peat reaching a depth

of at least 3.24 m.


7.4.1 The feature consisting out of two possible ditches meeting at a 90 degree angle is impossible

to interpret without further research. The combination of the linear feature of low

magnetometry values, low resistivity numbers and a layer of black moist clay in cores BH4-

strand and BH5-strand (which is not present in the other three cores) indicates that a large

ditch of ca 3 m wide runs across the eastern part of the surveyed area. There is no mention of

such a feature in the historical record and without further research it is impossible to date.

The feature on the northern edge of the eastern side of the surveyed area might be structural.

If, as the historical records indicate, there was a storehouse built at the Strand, this would be

the most likely location. It is located across from the area called the ‘float’ on Stephens’ map

from 1763 and is angled so that it faces the road and possible waterfront. Some stone features

might have appeared on the surface of the field in the early 1900’s as the 2nd revision of the

County Series map has the word ‘stone’ written on this location.

7.4.2 The five cores taken at the Strand suggest that at some point in time, the area transitioned

from a very low energy and moist (swampy) environment, allowing for the accumulation of

humified peat, to a high energy environment as evidenced by the grey silts. This might indicate

a significant flooding or storm event in the past. Later, the area was drained naturally or by

human intervention as at least from the medieval period, a ditch was cut for drainage.

8.0 St Thomas


8.1.1 Due to time constraints only three 30 m by 30 m grids were surveyed, targeting those areas

where foundations of the missing part of the church were expected.

8.1.2 Across the entire surveyed area a pattern of amorphous high resistivity features are visible

against a background of lower resistivity. These areas most likely correspond to current and

old graves. The high resistivity values near the entrance of the church are possibly the result

of the presence of the old pathways visible on the 1st edition of the County Series map.


8.2.1 There is no sign of the foundations of the missing parts of the church in the resistivity data.

This might be due to interference from modern and old graves, old pathways, but also the low

resolution of the survey (1 m x 1 m) itself. The detached tower is most likely situated further

southwest of the surveyed grids.

10

9 Conclusions and Future Work

9.1 The survey at the ancient waterfront of Winchelsea highlighted a number of geophysical

anomalies, some of which may be archaeological in nature. In particular the pattern found in

the southern end of Eastwoods, potentially associated with the medieval port, shows an area

of high archaeological potential. Also the feature found in the northeast corner of the Strand

should be considered of potential archaeological interest.

9.2 The results of the auger survey illuminated some aspects of the past landscape use and

demonstrated the potential for research into recent episodes of climatic change. Combined

with the rich historical record describing the effects of, and the actions taken against, the

surge in storm activity during the late 13th century, the site offers great potential for the study

of human interaction with a changing environment. In light of this, an attempt will be made

to date the peat layer found in BH2-Eastwoods through association with other cores from the

Brede valley. Based on those results, a second auger survey aimed at taking sleeved cores at

Eastwoods is a possibility.

9.3 The resistivity survey at St. Thomas church failed to locate the foundation of the missing part

of the structure. This might be due to interference from modern and old stone graves or the

low resolution (1 m x 1 m) of the conducted survey. A resistivity survey with a higher resolution

or a (~500 Mhz) ground penetrating radar (GPR) survey is recommended for future work.

11

Bibliography

Cooper, W. D. 1850. The History of Winchelsea, one of the Ancient Towns added to the Cinque Ports.

Lewes: East Sussex County Council.

Dulley, A. J. F. 1965. Excavations at Winchelsea, Sussex Notes and Queries ?: 205-206.

Homan, W. M. 1949. The founding of New Winchelsea, Sussex Archaeological Collection 88: 22-41.

Hopkinson, D. 2012. Archaeological Watching Brief Report. Land North of Tanyard Lane. Winchelsea,

East Sussex. TN36 4JY. Archaeology South-East. Unpublished.

Martin, D. & Martin, B. 2002a. A Quarter-by-Quarter Analysis of the Town of winchelsea, East Sussex.

Unpublished. A copy is available at the East Sussex Record Office.

Martin, D. & Martin, B. 2002b. An Extensive Urban Survey of the Town of Winchelsea, East Sussex.

Unpublished. A copy is available at the East Sussex Record Office.

Martin, D. & Martin, B. 2004. New Winchelsea Sussex: A Medieval Port Town. King’s Lynn: Heritage

Marketing and Publications.

Martin, D. & Rudling, D. 2004. Excavations in Winchelsea, Sussex, 1974-2000. King’s Lynn: Heritage

Marketing and Publications.

Pratt, M. 1998. Winchelsea, A port of stranded pride. Bexhill-on-Sea: Privately published.

Salzman, L. F. 1937. The Victoria History of the County of Essex. Volume 9. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Sylvester, D. 1999a. Shaping the Urban Landscape of Maritime England: the Role of the King and

Barons in the 1292 Founding of New Winchelsea. In J. Bill & B. L. Clausen (ed.) Maritime Topography

and the Medieval Town; Proceedings of the Third International Waterfront Conference. pp. 153-160.

Copenhagen: The National Museum.

Sylvester, D. 1999b. Maritime Communities in Pre-Plague England: Winchelsea and the Cinque Ports.

PhD Thesis. Department of History, Fordham University, New York, USA. A copy is available at the East

Sussex Record Office.

Sylvester, D. 2004. The Development of Winchelsea and its Maritime Economy. In D. Martin & B.

Martin (eds.) New Winchelsea Sussex: A Medieval Port Town. pp. 7-19. King’s Lynn: Heritage Marketing

and Publications.

Lilley, K., Lloyd, C. & Trick, S. 2005. Mapping the Medieval Townscape: a digital atlas of the new towns

of Edward I. Published online on the Archaeology Data Service:

http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/archives/view/atlas_ahrb_2005/index.cfm

http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/archives/view/atlas_ahrb_2005/index.cfm

13

The Figures

Figure 1: Survey areas and previous excavations.

14

Figure 2: Pilgrimage badge found at Eastwoods, dated to the 14th century, cast in pewter and

originating possibly from Our Lady of Walsingham or a shrine on the Continent.

15

Figure 3: Survey areas plotted on a reconstruction of the AD 1292 layout of Winchelsea.

16

Figure 4: Corporation seal of ca. AD 1300, front- (above) and backside (below).

17

Figure 5: Dugdale map of AD 1662.

18

Figure 6: Stephens’ map of AD 1763.

19

Figure 7: Reconstruction of the AD 1292 map made by Lilley et al. 2005.

20

Figure 8: Second revision of the County Series map showing the word ‘stone’ in the northeast corner of

the strand survey area.

21

Figure 9: Magnetometer results at Eastwoods (scale: 1:1000).

22

Figure 10: Interpretations of the magnetometer results at Eastwoods (scale: 1:1000).

23

Figure 11: Resistivity results at Eastwoods underlying the interpretations (scale: 1:1000).

24

Figure 12: Locations of the cores taken at Eastwoods.

25

Figure 13: BH1-Eastwoods

26

Figure 14: BH2-Eastwoods.

27


28


29


30

Figure 18: Magnetometer results at the Strand (scale: 1:1000).

31

Figure 19: Interpretations of the magnetometer results at the Strand (scale: 1:1000).

32

Figure 20: Resistivity results at the Strand underlying the interpretations (scale: 1:1000).

33

Figure 21: Locations of the cores taken at the Strand.

34

Figure 22: BH1-Strand.

35


36


37


38


39

Figure 27: Resistivity results at St Thomas church (scale: 1:1000).

dhoop, t. (2015) winchelsea harbour geotechnical survey 2015, geotechnical investigations at the...

Documents