The Chronicle of Battle Abbey Revisited

The Chronicle of Battle Abbey is strictly speaking two manuscripts, which were bound together by the monks of Battle Abbey. It tells how the Abbey was founded by William the Conqueror on the site of the Battle of Hastings. It also claimed special privileges, which allowed it to enjoy a degree of autonomy, free from the prying eyes of the taxman and other institutions. The first 22 folios deal with the Norman Invasion and battle in one person's handwriting, followed by a different section in a different hand.

We know the Chronicle is written after 1155, nearly 100 years after the Battle. However it contains information that is not available anywhere else. With the benefit of knowledge of exactly where the Normans landed and camped, it throws light upon the events of the day, confirming matters that might otherwise just be supposition.

First it is necessary to understand that the document came into existence as a justification for the Abbey itself. No sooner was the Abbey built than the politics of the day sought to interfere in it's activities. Church and State didn't like the idea of monks existing in Sussex in an autonomous fashion. As a consequence of work reported by Eleanor Searle (Oxford Medieval Texts, The Chronicle of Battle Abbey 1980 p2.) we know now that the Charter was forged and the Chronicle of Battle Abbey followed about thirty years later. This was mainly as support for the Charter, but also in order to instruct those who followed in the legal administration of the Abbey estate.

What I found is a document packed with information that could only have come from the time. Much of that information was later used by the monks to seek to justify their own position. However they dared not change the names of the places passed down to them, for fear of undermining their own authority. Understanding what it tells us requires an understanding of the thinking of the time.

The Chronicle was a simple thing to understand in the real world, when sitting in Battle Abbey in 1180, some thirty years after it was first written. Those who were familiar with it's content would ask themselves where the places that are named in the Chronicle were actually located. It is a natural thing to do, especially if the Chronicle and Charter came under the scrutiny of the crown, who would like to reinstate their authority and charge appropriate taxes upon those who sought to use it to justify their exemption.

The answer is to name every place that appeared in the early pages of the Chronicle within the Abbey lands. This supported what was written, without the need to address those who lived outside the Abbey’s control. In many respects this was probably not a deliberate deception, but simply an observation. If the Chronicle stated that the Normans could be seen on the night of the Battle, then that must be where Hedgeland was located. This is because the Chronicle names Hedgeland as the Norman camp site at the time of the Invasion. Hedgeland was consequently located adjacent to Telham – a name that features in other manuscripts in the place that was the very furthest visible from the Abbey buildings.

This worked in terms of satisfying local curiosity, but at the same time created some serious flaws in the thesis that was being created. That thesis was that the Abbey was built on the site where William made what was called his "battlefield oath". It forms the basis of the authority of the Abbey. It states William addressed his men before the Battle thus:

The problem with this oath is that it isn’t mentioned in any other document of the time detailing the events of the Battle of Hastings, even the Bayeux Tapestry, which might be expected to, because the Tapestry was planned to be hung in Bayeux Cathedral. The Chronicle states the oath was sworn on the battlefield after William left his camp at a hill called Hedgeland, at a site "near Hastings". The monks could not drop the name Hedgeland from the first part of the manuscript, without undermining their own authority. This was because Wace and the Carmen identify that this place Hedgeland, where William camped, must be visible from the Abbey. It is further known that a copy of Wace's Roman de Rue was also held in the same library at Battle Abbey, and so any contradition would immediately have become obvious.

In order to create the justification for Hedgeland, it was created on the boundary of the Abbey around 1180, shortly after the Chronicle was written. This was of course the logical thing to do. Not necessarily as a deliberate deception, but by virtue of the authority of the Chronicle. After all, if the Chronicle says that the Normans can be seen on the night of the Battle from where they sat, then they knew where that place must be located, simply by looking out of their window.

The monks did not know where the Normans camped, and they certainly did not appear to know that the camp was located at “the port of Hastings” according to their own Chronicle. This is probably because the manuscripts were in two parts. Those who wrote the second part may well not have known what was in the first. When the two were put together only then would the issue come to light, and only then if you have knowledge of the actual original events, which had taken place several generations before them. The original document could not be altered or destroyed, so the result was the creation of all the elements necessary to support the story within their own land. Eleanor Searle in her book The Chronicle of Battle Abbey concludes, in relation to the Charter:

"It had become the 'natural' commencement of their own story, and a tradition that even the fastidious main chronicler was willing to foist upon his successors as truth: a lie, as he must have known, but one that would be harmless to their interests in the years to come.". This lie eventually has become a fraud that was continued by the church, in order to obtain funds and authority.

The creation of the forged Charter showed that the reason for doing these things was not in the interests of creating a false story, but in order to justify their own existence. This is the reason the correct names were left in the documents and bound into the second manuscript as one. It was probably considered right to include the original document because it gave credibility to the second.

We have the benefit of understanding the circumstances of the origination of the Charter and Chronicle. We can read what is written there and now see a story emerge that firstly confirms that the Abbey created this Charter to justify what could not be justified any other way. Secondly it tells us with the benefit of hindsight that the Abbey was not built in the place that William had ordered it to be built.

This comes as a massive surprise to a historical researcher. You may suspect the truth for twenty odd years, but the last place you expect to find it is in the 12th century document that was used to support the authority the Abbey claimed.

On folio twelve the monks have invented a reason to explain why the Abbey was not built straight away. This needed to be explained, if the battlefield oath really took place. Historians understand the device of the battlefield oath to be something employed on many occasions to justify ecclesiastical enterprises. Few if any had any basis in fact. Once the person who is supposed to have made the oath is dead, it suited the church to confirm such practice as authentic, but there is no evidence to support any such oaths being taken.

In this instance the Abbey was not built straight after the Battle. The monks came from Marmoutier in France several years later. The Abbey was not finished until 1094, meaning William never saw it, leaving the question in people's minds - why such a gap? In order to address this the scribe states, according the the expert Eleanore Searle, in one paragraph on folio 12:

The Latin original text is important because two specific sentences are written with these words:

"Qui memoratum belli locum considerantes cum ad tam insignem fabricum minus idoneum, ut uidebatur, arbitrarentur in humiliori non procul loco, uersus eiusdem collis occidentalem plagam, aptus habitandi locum eligentes ibidem ne nil operis agere uiderentur mansiunculas quasdam fabricauerunt."

Followed by:

The key to understanding these sentences is the Searle translation of "Qui" meaning They studied the battlefield, is also understanding the "Qui", as used in "Qui locus", whom Searle has then translated as "This place". I do not believe it can possibly be the intention of the writer to apply this meaning. The scribe who wrote this was referring to "Qui" at the start of both sentences, identifing the common subject under discussion - the battlefield. The naming of the original site, from where it was moved, was intentional as a means of explaining the move. There is no other possible explaination for its inclusion that can make any sense.

The way it reads there is an assumption that "This place" is the place lower down on the ridge where the huts are located. This meaning does not make sense, because the Abbey was not built at Herste, but to the east of that location. In order to be sure about the interpretation of the Latin I contacted Dr Martin Brett, an expert in medieval Latin, at Cambridge University and asked him to provide a translation. Dr Brett was familiar with the Searle translation and agreed that the meaning given by Searle was in essence correct if not the exact words, since translation is an art. He confirmed that the original translation had been vetted by the most eminent living Latinist in England Michael Winterbottom.

The important point is the second singular verb and use of the word locum as "site", or as Searle chooses "place", supports a completely different understanding of the paragraph, even with the same translation, which could otherwise leave it open to possibly refer to the place of the huts, as opposed to the site of the battlefield and abbey. A more precise understanding would be to understand this translation of this paragraph to read as follows:

"They studied the battlefield and decided that it seemed hardly suitable for so outstanding a building. They therefore chose a fit place for settling, a site located not far off, but somewhat lower down, towards the western slope of the ridge. There lest they seem to be doing nothing, they built themselves some little huts. The site (ie. the battlefield), still called Herste, has a low wall as a mark of this."

"Qui" at the start of both sentences is the common reference, because they each refer to the same place "Qui locus" and that site is the battle site and battlefield.

This is something that academics can mull over for the next ten years. The important issue is that Searle recognises the problem in her translation. She adds a footnote attempting to explain why her translation states that the Chronicle of Battle Abbey says the Abbey was moved and the reference is to Herste - when it is apparent to everyone that it was not reported as moved anywhere else. It is well known the place the monks named Herste was within their boundary to the north-west of the Abbey. That place, like the others included in the Chronicle , were invented at the time the Charter was forged. Her footnote identifies the location of Herste, but cannot explain the anomoly so ignores it. If the translation were correct it would tell us that the Abbey was moved from Herste and not to it. If this translation provided by Searle were correct we would have to assume that everything in the Chronicle was fabricated, because it would be shown to be completely unreliable in the most basic information, if the rules of Victorian England were applied today.

When discussing this with Dr Brett he sees the position as one that can only be explained in relation to the understanding that the monk wished to create. I do not think any academic is going to dissagree with Searle that the monk reports the Abbey being moved. It is more a matter of seeking to explain this in terms of what is written later.

Dr Brett states "For what it's worth I am entirely happy to accept the outline of the story as the Searle translation (which was vetted by one of the most eminent living Latinists in England, Michael Winterbottom) represents it. It may not be true, but I'm confident it is what he meant"(referring to the scribe who wrote the original text)

I would simply make the point that the text identifies the original battle site at Herste and that is an absolute truth. Even if like Searle we seek to ignore this we cannot escape confirmation, in the document written to justify the Abbey, that the Abbey was moved from the battlefield. That truth is now exposed and provides absolute confirmation of the location of the correct site. It also removes the authority of Battle Abbey to make the claim that it was built on the Abbey site. A claim that stands in the way of discovery of the true site of the Battle of Hastings.

Here we can see that the monks started to build the Abbey at a place called Herste, which has a low wall as an identifying mark. Consequently the monks created the place called Herste, again within the boundary of their lands, but this time it was created to the north and west of the Abbey. The problem with this place, like the one the monks named Hedgeland, was it was not as described “low down on the western side of the ridge”. It is no-where near the ridge, as defined by the understanding of those who live in the area. Those who study this in a desktop exercise will never see this or understand the expression "the ridge". That expression is a specific place in the Hastings area. It is the place that encompasses the population of most of Hastings and still today retains that name - it is not a description of land mass.

Understanding the text as identifying the correct battle site at Herste could in some respect explain why it was necessary to create Herste within the Abbey's control. Indeed it could be described as "not far off", but does not escape the deception of later seeking to claim it was where the Abbey was built and is where it is today. As Searle comments the whole document was "a lie..harmless to their interests in the years to come". It is impossible for any thorough historian to disagree with this assessment.

Unknown to the monks who wrote this document, who were probably French, there is a place low down on the western side of the Ridge, which is identified by a low stone wall built into the churchyard for the last 1,000 years, it is called Crowhurst. We know that the low wall has been there 1,000 years, because that same churchyard has a yew tree that is approaching 2000 years old growing next to it . The yew and wall have been co-habiting that churchyard since the time of the Invasion. The roots of the tree have been confined by that wall, which is under it's bough at the far end of the wall in this photograph:

A further photograph shows the size of the girth of the trunk of the tree, with the low stone wall out of shot down to the left.

It could of course be argued that this is not the same stone wall as referred to in the Chronicle. I would answer that by stating that this comment regarding the stone wall is not in any way conclusive. It is however another part of the jigsaw that needs to be taken into account. It should be remembered that the time that this event is referred to (1066), stone was not a common building material. All castles and buildings (including churches) were normally made from wood. The existence of the stone wall warranted it's inclusion in the original manuscript as a landmark, which would allow it's identification by the reader of the day. No such stone wall exists in the place that was subsequently named Herste by the monks north and west of the Abbey. This stone wall is probably the oldest feature in Crowhurst and it is located next to ruins, which we shall deal with later. It is my contention that this low stone wall is identified in the bayeux Tapestry, which we shall also address later.

The Sussex Crowhurst yew should not be left to an unscientific investigation, since the Battle of Hastings was named after an old tree (The Battle of the Hoary Apple Tree Saxon Chronicles). I was therefore exceedingly grateful to Alan Meredith, the world's greatest authority on the age of yews to contact me. His work can be found on the ancient-yew.org web site. That site contains reliable data that supports the dating methods used.

The study of the growth of yews shows that growth is not a straight line. It's age is determined by trunk girth, but also a complicated equation related to the years of growth, as the rate varies according to age. Fortunately the Crowhurst yew has been studied in detail since 1680, thanks to Alan Meredith and those who came before him who care about such trees. Consequently an accurate estimate of age can be obtained.

Alan tells me that The Crowhurst Yew was 27ft in girth in 1680. When he last measured it in 1982 it was 28ft at a height of 4ft from the ground. This makes the Sussex Crowhurst yew one of the slowest growing in the world and probably much older than first thought. The reason for this slow growth is probably in part due to the restriction to its roots, determined by its position between the church and the stone wall.

The measurements confirm previous data gathered in 1835, 1879, 1894 and 1954. As a result Alan confirmed to me that contrary to what a casual observer may feel the tree is nearer 2,000 years old than 1,000.

Alan's observations therefore have the effect of actually verifying that the wall must have been there much longer than we might expect. The wall could not have been built when the yew was already 1,000 years old, because the roots would have been too well established and the wall would have had to have been built further from the tree. What we therefore have is a record in the landscape that confirms that at the time of the Battle of Hastings this yew was almost certainly near 1,000 years old, and the oldest tree in the landscape then, as it is now.

It would be strange if it were not noticed, being next to the then London Road. Even stranger if it were not recorded in the Bayeux Tapestry, if that yew was in the valley where the Battle of Hastings took place. We shall look at that later.

I would like to think the monks of Battle Abbey wrote down what they knew to be true and recorded it in the Chronicle of Battle Abbey. They worked for God and therefore sought to record for their own benefit and the benefit of God's work what was necessary. That Chronicle confirms that the monks started to build the Abbey in a place they knew as Herste, unaware that this is the local dialect for the name Crowhurst. I know this to be true, not because of what I have read in any book, but because Mary Oliver, God bless her soul now deceased, told me that when she was a child the people of Crowhurst never used the Crow part of the word. They only ever called it Hurst. I believe that information to be true and can be confirmed by those who study the local Sussex dialect.

The monks version confirms the Abbey site being moved from the battlefield at the very start of the Chronicle - this is really the only point that we have to concentrate upon. It is a really significant point. The rest of the text is all diversion aimed at justifying the events that took place later. The Chronicle then goes on to explain why the Abbey wasn't built to the north and west of the Abbey in the place where the monks named Herste. This needed to be done in order to explain why the Abbey wasn't where they said it should have been:

"Accordingly, when the solicitous king inquired meanwhile about the progress of the building, it was intimated to him by these brethren that the place where he had decided to have the church built was on a hill, and so dry of soil, and quite without springs, and that for so great a construction a more likely place nearby should be substituted, if it pleased him. When the king heard this he refused angrily and ordered them to lay the foundations of the church speedily and on the very spot where his enemy had fallen and the victory been won."

The story as detailed in the Chronicle confirms the one important decision. That was to build the Abbey in Herste before the monks from Marmoutier come from France and moved the location. The fact that this new location is referred to as the one where Harold's banner fell has little relevance, because we know that the basis of the whole Charter was also a deception. Those words can no more be relied upon than those of the Charter. In a court of law a judge would see through this presentation of evidence straight away. It is remarkable that historians have swallowed this misinformation until now. I can only assume that few, if any, have actually examined this particular document. Like so many internet documents the past is simply repeated without anyone actually looking at the documents concerned - especially if they challange conventional thinking.

The reasons for moving the Abbey from the slopes of the Ridge are as outlined in the Chronicle. Not only is there no water, but the site of the real battle is a logistical nightmare for anyone who had the job of leveling the intense slope. The gradient is probably approaching 1 in 10 in places, with no easy road access. Almost every document referring to the Battle of Hastings calls the ground steep and it truly is on the correct site - unlike the position chose by the monks from France, who chose the convenient and relatively level access point to the peninsular, near the bottom of the rear of the Ridge.

Fortunately for this research the monks, who probably never travelled beyond the edges of the land they controlled, effectively identify Herste as the original actual battle site. This site is not identified in any other document. It is truly inconceivable that anyone would start to build the Abbey anywhere other than the actual battle site given William’s reported reaction to being told it was in the wrong place – also reported in this Chronicle. If Battle truly were the Battle site, then it would have featured in the data held in the Domesday Book, as the most wasted manor. There would have been no need to include the story of it's movement, or any of the authentication elements that are added to the text to justify the move. The fact is the Abbey building site was moved and that is the reason this information was included in the Chronicle of Battle Abbey. The Domesday data confirms the deception in Graph 3.

The Domesday data undermines the claim of authenticity, because Battle suffers no damage from Norman involvement, because it is off the peninsular and out of range of the Norman’s activities - which is spread along the coast and peninsular roads. If the Battle of Hastings took place where it was believed, then Battle is the manor that should have a zero value recorded in Domesday - it does not, because the monks built the Abbey in its current location, for the reasons given in the Chronicle. Who in their right mind would build a new Abbey in a manor with no resources to sustain the work force?

The Chronicle of Battle Abbey is therefore an important documents, because within its pages we do not find the detail that supports the Abbey battlefield, but one that provides the true story. Having forged the Charter upon which the Abbey relied it could not change the history upon which it was believed to be built. As a result of naming the lands that were written into the early folios, within their own Abbey boundary at the time of the creation of the forged Charter, they inadvertently identified the true story, because they retained the names passed to them.

The identification of the Norman camp by this Chronicle at Hedgeland, at the port of Hastings, in conjunction with other documents confirms that the Battle site has been moved. The Battle Abbey site cannot see any port and never could. The monks created a site they could see in about 1180, but could do nothing about the port reference, and so it was left unaltered.

This same discussion was run in the 1800s to discredit Wace in the eyes of the Historical Society, incorrectly as it turns out. It is an inevitable conclusion that this Chronicle confirms that the Abbey movement took place and then sought to justify it. That justification confirms that it happened; otherwise it would not be there. In effect the Chronicle of Battle Abbey, no matter how you look at it, confirms the Battle site was moved, because the building was moved and condemns itself through its own words.

At the time it was written it was never suspected that anyone else would ever see the documents that concern us. As Eleanor Searle says it was a simple lie that would never harm anyone - now the truth is out, because we have identified the site that fulfils the requirements and the archaeology. The name of that site is the one that the Chronicle of Battle Abbey confirms as the place where the Abbey was started. They wrote what they heard applying their French thinking to the word. The Anglo-Saxon word Herste meaning a clearing in a wood. The Anglo-Saxon word Hurst meaning a wood or thicket. Words in those days had no correct format and were written in phonetic terms – especially surnames and places, which could have various spellings, depending upon the education of the person writing. The Normans assumed it to mean a clearing and named their Herste accordingly, where a clearing was located to the north-west of the Abbey site. This was an easy mistake for a Norman to make, since the English language was even then difficult to understand, by those who were not born here.

Those who believe Herste is not the same Hurst low down on the west side of the ridge at Hastings, have not understood the topography or language of the area. This document identifies the connection and has drawn together all the other threads that confirm a major deceit by the monks from Marmoutier. That deceit was never uncovered, because William never returned to the site.

The monks are now gone from the Abbey, the building is not even in ruins, not a standing stone exists for the original 11th century Abbey, and those who benefited from this deceit had I believe God’s judgement visited upon them with the passing of time. The silver thread of truth can now be seen and those who question the conclusions I draw must ask themselves this simple question. If the Chronicle of Battle Abbey states that the Normans camped at Hedgeland at the port of Hastings, how can you reconcile the Abbey being positioned 5.5miles from the port of Hastings, out of sight low down on the northern side of the Ridge, where no line of sight is possible?

If the Chronicle of Battle Abbey, the only document that supports the building of the Abbey states the abbey was moved from the battle site to where it is today - as translated by the world's leading expert on that text - how can you deny this evidence?

It is impossible to see the Norman camp at the port from the Battle Abbey site. It is not possible to argue that they might have moved the day before, because it is confirmed in a number of other documents that they were in the camp at the port on the night before the Battle, when these events happened. This is an irreconcilable issue that can remain hidden no longer. The discovery of the correct site of the Battle of Hastings, together with the correct site of the Norman camp at the port of Hastings, confirms the site at Battle Abbey cannot be the battle site. At the same time it confirms that it was not only the Charter that was forged, but the Abbey was also built upon a written deception designed to enforce the forged charter. The location of the Abbey, which has never produced any battlefield relics or archaeology of any kind in the last 943 years, was also a lie and can now be confirmed as such.

I shall now move on to the other important document that is by far the most detailed account of the actual battle, known as the Roman de Rue by Wace.

RETURN TO INDEX