Hugh Beamish
Oxford Archaeology
James House
Osney Mead
Oxford OX2 OES

12/5/06

Dear Mr Beamish,

I understand from Sarah Blackford that you are involved in the research and archaeology associated with the proposed Hastings to Bexhill bypass replacement road.

I have over the last fifteen years done a lot of work on the Wilting Farm site as you probably know. This resulted in the publication of an initial thesis in 1996 which has become the basis of the world’s largest web site associated with the Norman Invasion. Indeed if you type the search string Norman Invasion into Google and most other search engines you will find my site is and has been since 1997 the top site in the world. This is an indication of the public perception of the Norman Invasion issues and most importantly a reflection of the fact that the Norman Invasion is a national curriculum subject matter in both our schools and those in France.

An obvious consequence of this is that almost all schoolchildren research the Norman Invasion in a fairly open minded and thorough way. The reason that the site has grown in stature over the last ten years is because the information that people need is there, but more importantly the basis of that information has not been refuted by any eminent historical authority. This has resulted in the historical establishment in Cambridge accepting that the previously held popular belief that the Normans landed at Pevensey to be probably wrong. Indeed some television companies (Discovery Channel in the USA) have published programmes accepting that the Normans probably landed at Hastings at the port – as detailed in my thesis.

There is clearly a lot of politics in this issue as I am sure you understand. I would point out that there have been three attempts to build a road through Wilting in the form of a bypass and the political will in Hastings appears to be blind to the tourism potential that is under their noses. I could only speculate as to why but ask you to keep an open mind as to the issues regarding archaeology, since you have been asked to report upon the proposed route – a route that keeps changing – like the national political wind.

My reason for writing to you is to hope that you will do your due diligence and also realise that if I am correct the site through which you have been asked to report has national importance as a history site. I would ask that you take this into account when looking at what you have been asked to do.

At the recent Public Inquiry I was told by the Inspector that I could choose seven exact locations of trenches where the search for archaeology could be conducted. A site that it was claimed no archaeology was known to exist. I chose two trenches on the top field and both contained enclosures and one a very large post hole containing Norman period pottery – where no Norman pottery has ever been found in East Sussex. Rather strange you might think. Perhaps an indication of something that doesn’t fit what you might expect.

I knew that archaeology was there because I have been given a gift of finding things through my personal faith. A copy of that is enclosed so that you have the full picture – regardless of what you might otherwise be told. Whether you believe what is written there is not material to the evidence that Wessex archaeology obtained from the top field site. The fact is I looked for it and they found it. I therefore wish to make you aware of that. Not everything in life is explainable in terms of normal events – the history of this site appears to indicate that surprises will follow those who believe that truth can be ignored.

It is my contention that Hastings town pre-1066 was located in the top field at Wilting Farm – the field through which you are researching a road route.

The evidence for this comes from the fact that Hastings port was located at Bulverhythe (meaning inland port) and the first Sheriff of Hastings under the Normans was located at Wilting Manor. There is also no archaeological evidence of any pre-Norman town in the current Hastings and Norman pottery was found at my instructions at the last Inquiry in one of the two trenches with enclosures.

The question I ask is “if a road is to go through this site, shouldn’t the archaeology take account of the context?” At the Inquiry evidence was presented which showed quite clearly that soil on the Northern side of the site had been moved to the South forming a flat enclosure area. You should also be able to confirm this. The claim by Dr Gardiner that this was a lynchett was discredited because the slope fails to meet the minimum required by geology for the soil to move and in any event the movement is uphill

It is my contention, as I contended at the last Inquiry, that the edge of this enclosure was the edge of the top fort at the time of the Norman Invasion and post holes will confirm this because the Bayeaux Tapestry shows a large wooden fortification at that site. The matter was not investigated at the Inquiry but the trench which was dug on the North side of the top field did confirm that the edge of the enclosure contained two parallel ditches conducive to a defence. Your current road will almost certainly cross the post hole line at the Western end.

At the Inquiry Dr Gardner, an archaeologist who later left the UK for Ireland, claimed that the pottery which we located in the post holes on the upper field was 12th century in his written report. Upon cross examination at the Inquiry and evidence from a proper pottery expert he admitted the pottery was 11th century and a “mistake”.

Dr Gardiner then claimed that despite the discovery of Norman period white pottery being found on the top field at Wilting that this did NOT mean that the post hole in question was also 11th century. In fact he claimed to have authority in the matter that it was common for pottery from other periods to find their way into post holes which had been built later than the pottery found in them. I would suggest that you make of that what you will but it does indicate a certain zeal and a tendancy to be economical with the truth when under political pressure.

Wessex, who did the archaeology work obviously found themselves in a very difficult position because they are experts and I am not. The whole episode was extremely embarrassing for them and I am not in the slightest surprised that they “could not find a lead archaeologist willing to take on the new work”. As a result of the attempt to discredit my work I published the whole of the Public Inquiry evidence on my web site. Wessex threatened legal action for defamation to take down the web site but in the face of the truth had to accept that I was entitled to publish what they themselves had endorsed behind closed doors, but were unable to accept in a public forum.

The issues that arise with this new road route are obvious in that any examination of the route across a field were it is claimed the Normans built their first fort in the United Kingdom needs to be investigated properly. I am hopeful that there is no baggage attached to the investigation and an open mind is employed. If it is not in your remit to look immediately adjacent to the route, where the archaeology is known to exist, then perhaps you are being asked to do something without being told all the background to the issues.

I would propose that like Wessex I show you where the archaeology is located and that you investigate it. That would seem reasonable given that half a million people a year visit my web site and are interested in what is going on at Wilting in the name of science and our national heritage. It is an expensive business building a road and the public expect everyone to be thorough quite rightly.

Wilting Farm is of national historical interest. Resistivity surveys will not locate pottery or enclosures so there will be massive objections to any whitewash like that undertaken at the last Inquiry. Time has moved on and if this site is established as an archaeological treasure – as I believe it will be soon as others are taking an interest – then there is the basis for a permanent investigation of the site paid for by Government and lottery funding. I would propose that those who do the initial work should continue to be involved and as part of your due diligence you argue strongly that because of the sensitive issues involved you must be thorough. How could you, as Oxford Archaeology, effectively say that this site was not of archaeological importance if the claim for evidence had not been properly investigated and all the information made known to you?

Please would you be kind enough to return the phots of the work in the top field when you have copied them if you need them.

Yours sincerely

Nick Austin

RETURN TO INTRODUCTION
RETURN TO INDEX