Evidence in Person 6

ARCHAEOLOGY
It is my view, and I believe, that archaeology is the art of observation and recovery of historical artefacts in the surroundings of their habitat. I believe that from detailed excavation and observation, conclusions can be drawn, that provide proof of a sequence of historical events.
The Oxford dictionary describes archaeology as "the scientific study of the remains and monuments of the pre historic period" as well as "displays of old structures and buried relics of the remote past".
This archaeology can provide the nearest we can get to proof, if indeed proof is sought of the Normans at Wilting. Therefore it is in my view, and I hope that of the Inspector, that it is beholden upon the authorities, who wish to build this road, to ensure that the archaeological evidence that is put before them, is investigated properly. In order to investigate archaeology properly, those buried structures and evidence that has been bought to their attention, must be examined in person, by qualified archaeologists in the field. A desktop survey is not intended to replace proper on site evaluation and cannot replace the hands on experience available to a qualified archaeologist.
REDGELAND*************
I started my survey of the coastline from Pevensey in the West to Hastings in the East. This was not a full time occupation but one that allowed me access to the countryside on the occasional weekend, when the weather allowed it. During the course of this survey I was using large scale Ordnance Survey maps in order to check field or farm names against derivatives that may date back to Norman times. Having started predominantly in the west at the Pevensey marsh end I was surprised to find, near the entrance to the Combe Haven Valley, there was a wood called Redgeland Wood.
This was not on the coast, as might be expected, but on the edge of the marsh in the Combe Haven SSSI. It was now the Autumn of 1991 and I resolved to investigate the site.
The reason why the name Redgeland had struck such a chord, was that only one of the eight manuscripts I studied named the site of William's camp. This was the Chronicle of Battle Abbey (my manuscript page number 18). The name used was Hedgeland. A site name which we have seen in my manuscript was identified by the monks of the abbey, as being on the ridge at Battle. This was clearly incorrect, since earlier in the same text it says William's camp is at the port of Hastings.
I immediately wrote to East Sussex County Council's County Records Office requesting information on Redgeland. A copy of the reply is enclosed in my bundle page number 208. In this reply the Archivist appears to throw cold water on any connection between Hedgeland and Redgeland, because of the use of the old English hrycg meaning ridge and hecg meaning hedge. However this response goaded me into action, and far from putting me off had the opposite effect on me, because it was as plain as day that if spoken or written, the two names could easily be substituted or changed by a Frenchman, with little knowledge of dialect. In our own village of Crowhurst the derivative Croghurst, used before the Invasion, was almost certainly shortened to "Crurst" and known as "Urst" to outsiders. In consequence the possibility of the name changing, or being moved to suit the monks - but the site actually remaining with a similar name at the Norman camp site was high.
I went to Redgeland Wood for the first time, and immediately felt that something was there. At this stage I had spent several years looking around coastal and associated areas, on and off. I had detailed knowledge of what I should be looking for, but had no idea that it may be on my own back doorstep, so to speak, in the Combe Haven valley.
"Why did I feel something was there?" you may ask. I would answer this by stating that by now I was a seasoned hunter for archaeological clues. During the winters, when it is not possible to go into the fields, I had spent time reading everything that I could about my favourite subject - the Norman Invasion and archaeology. I had found many artefacts, but none from the right era and I had probably read more about the Norman Conquest than anyone other than a leading expert on the subject. In fact I was and am I believe familiar enough now to obtain a PhD at one of the Universities on the subject if I had time or the inclination.
However I am not an expert, according to the rules of expert witnesses and do not wish to be considered one. What I recognised at Redgeland Wood was something I had never seen before. There were what I called earthen jetties hidden deep in the undergrowth, under briar bushes twelve feet high, there was a strange enclosure built from earth, sectioning off an area of the marsh. There was a large stone cladded structure, hidden deep in the undergrowth, and there is something that you cannot quite put your finger on, but something a seasoned researcher calls instinct that tells you that there is something there that needs to be looked into.
It was when I saw these things that I recognised these elements as signs of the long lost port of Hastings. Suddenly I found a site which satisfied all the requirements of the manuscripts that I had studied. The port which had been written about, by so many historians, including Dr Gardiner, might be located in the corner of the marsh where these strange objects could be found. The port's name had been retained through the name Bulverhythe. A hythe meaning an inland port, whilst the name Bulverhythe also alludes to the events of 1066. I discovered this when I checked out the name.
Upon checking the names with Judith Glover's Place Names of Sussex (my bundle page 209) the name Bulverhythe refers to "the main landing place or harbour of the people" of Hastings. Whilst Redgeland appeared to go back through the records to 1399, when it was first mentioned in the Court Rolls (my bundle page 210 - English Place Names Society). At the same time the river ASTEN, which runs through what was then I believe the port, has been suggested by AP Taylor to be a direct derivative of the name HASTA - the first chief of the Hastingas - the tribe from which the name Hastings was derived. In consequence the river ASTEN, can now be connected to the camp of the chief of the tribe, who gave his name to HASTINGS. The inclusion of the INGS, following as a derivative of the earlier settlement.
MARJORIE CHIBNALL**********************
Since writing my manuscript various correspondence has passed between myself and Dr Marjorie Chibnall, the leading authority in the world on the Battle of Hastings and the Norman Invasion (my bundle pages 24-32). Ms Chibnall is eighty years old and has devoted her life to studying the Normans and is the one person who would most probably be able to identify any errors in the conclusions that I draw.
It is important to read these letters, since they confirm her belief that although she cannot agree with everything in my manuscript, I have made a case that deserves to be answered. This correspondence covers many aspects of detail, that must be of interest to historians, and she corrects errors in research, which inevitably happen when someone with so little experience in the Norman period, attempts to draw conclusions.
I must draw the Inspector's attention to the words on pages 30 and 31 of my bundle in particular; The first (page 30) gives Dr Chibnalls academic qualifications (read out) however what it fails to state, is that she took over running the Anglo-Norman annual conferences at Battle, when Allen Brown died, and is probably the most respected authority in the world on the Norman period.
Ms Chibnall states in her letter dated 23^rd January this year that: "There is enough evidence from your explanation of the record of the Domesday Book and the traces of weapons found on the site to indicate that it is probably the site of the base camp of William the Conqueror, after his landing on the Sussex Coast in 1066."
She goes on to say "If further archaeological investigation showed that this was so the site would certainly qualify as a site of national importance, considerably greater than the site of one of the seventeenth century civil wars".
I must emphasise to those here, and the Inspector, that a historian of Dr Chibnall's authority, does not need to write such a letter. It runs counter to what has been referred to as "conventional understanding" by Dr Gardiner (14.1 of his Review). However it appears that "conventional understanding" is not the same as the understanding of those who have studied the subject all their lives.
Not only that but Ms Van Houtts, who kindly gave me my initial help, has also stated in writing: "I would certainly be happy to accept the site of Wilting Manor as the most likely place of William's landing". (my bundle pages 419 - 420) This is absolutely amazing, coming from such an eminent historian, who is so extremely careful about every word she writes. Neither of these ladies need to write this unless the case I have made is compelling enough for them to consider such action necessary.
I am not an expert on the Norman period, but if Dr Marjorie Chibnall says I have made a case for archaeological investigation, I believe that part time critics and part time historians should take note. In the end, we all have to rely upon expert evidence, and here the true experts agree with my case.
Having examined the Bayeux Tapestry I came to the conclusion that the person who drafted it wished to give the impression that they were sailing to Hastings. This is clear in the way that midpoint in the sailing sequence the words AD PEVENSEY have been deliberately positioned. However the landing sequence clearly shows that Hastings is the landing point.
Once the port of Hastings is identified as an inland port on the Bulverhythe, in the Combe Haven Valley, all the historical documents start to make sense. What was once a mystery (where one manuscript appears to contradict another) ceases to be a contradiction, when applied to the correct site at Wilting.
Having found a site which appeared to fit the Norman Invasion story, albeit upon a tentative basis, I needed to examine the locality to try to establish whether part or all the elements of the manuscripts that I studied could apply there.
The first thing I found was a Bronze Age scraper in the field adjacent to the port. This can be seen in photograph number 1, a copy of which I have bought with me. These photographs are the only ones I have so I have not been able to present them as evidence but have included black and white scans in my document where I have been able to reproduce them. I have made the originals available for evaluation by the Highways Agency's experts, but none have asked to see them.
There are in fact a considerable number of flints on this site and all along the shore of the Combe Haven valley. In November 1992 a report was commissioned by the Oxford Archaeology Unit by the Department of Transport, in preparation for the publishing of the line order for the road, I believe.
At the time I heard about this and contacted the Unit to see what they had found. I was not surprised to find that although they had only surveyed one field, not the one I had found the scraper in, they had found ample evidence of Bronze Age and Iron Age inhabitation.
If we look at page 140 of my bundle, we can see the two fields marked 841 and 842 of the survey. You will remember that these two fields we saw earlier and these are located directly next to the site where I claim Norman boats are moored, with the road passing through this site at the west end.
The first plan shows slag deposits from the iron extraction process located in various parts of the fields. The second plan on page 141 shows burn flint deposits with each circle indicating a different number of flints. These indicate the locality of ancient inhabitation in the valley. And lastly page 142 the discovery of one worked flint, like the one I had found further round the Norman Invasion bay.
Just to refresh our memory of where this is we can see on the following page of my bundle the location of fields 841 and 842 in relation to the over all position of Wilting.
Given the lack of any further work I must conclude that it is more than likely that this pattern of artefact recovery would be repeated across the rest of the fields in this area.
It is important to note that whilst the report was commissioned to cover a fieldwalk of the whole section of road, only two sites were considered of archaeological interest along the complete bypass (document ref 10059/RC/047/8/A - the Appendix 1 - Gazetteer of cultural Heritage Features). One of these is situated where the flood plain meets Decoy Pond Stream and the Combe Haven - exactly where I believe remains of the Norman boats are located (see clause 2.2.(b) of the same).
The Fieldwalk therefore confirmed that even on the actual line of the published route there is evidence of early Bronze Age and late Neolithic inhabitation somewhere nearby (para 3.2.2), even without excavation of the contentious site. Also found were a few pieces of Roman pottery (para 3.5.1) and all the slag was pre 1496 (para 3.6.2) indicating an ancient origin.
These observations were not unexpected since Smyth and Jennings had already established beyond reasonable doubt that this valley has a history dating back to Neolithic times. Their paper entitled Late Bronze Age - Iron Age Valley Sedimentation in East Sussex (my bundle page number 4 - 15) is well known.
Here again I would state that I have no expert knowledge of the Combe Haven valley from the point of view of man's development or the development of the historic record through scientific study.
However Smyth and Jennings undoubtedly have and their expert papers have been used by the Highways Agency, and others to justify their detailed research into the effects of the road.
In the paper I have just referred to Smyth and Jennings state: It has been argued previously that this stratigraphic change was a consequence of industrialisation and agricultural activity" in consequence the discovery of slag and associated human activity from the Bronze Age is to be expected along the shores of the valley.
In October 993 I was pleased to receive the letter that is in my bundle, page number 16, from Smyth and Jennings confirming my own thoughts in relation to the development of the history of man in the Combe Haven valley. Through my contact with them in studying issues that arose I asked them to write me a letter in English - as opposed to Palaeolithic gobbledegook - which was very difficult for the layman to understand. They kindly obliged and I would like to quote a couple of extracts, which I believe are important.
These extracts are important and should of course be read in the context of the complete letter at some convenient time, because they are writing me a letter, which is summarising 20 years work, which I have no connection with.
"Through pollen analysis the record subsequent to the Romans can be traced, which includes the growth of Hastings and its original port, which lies within the valley. The above is only a brief summary of our findings, the details of which are available in a number of publications. Clearly, the Combe Haven valley is an area that has important links back in history and prehistory of southern England. The preservation of this unique record is as important as any national monument".
Smyth and Jennings are not beating about the bush here. They say - as experts in their field - that the Combe Haven valley has national importance in the field of their work, regardless of the Norman implications.
The fact that their conclusions with regards to man's development and the importance of the valley, are the same as mine, gives immense weight to the words of my manuscript when I state the following conclusion regarding the development of the Wilting site on page 103.
"I believe that it can be demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that the site in question at Wilting had a Bronze Age settlement over an extensive area within the 200 acres by virtue of the large number of flint instruments found there. It is reasonable to conclude that development of the site continued into the Iron Age and contributed to the forest clearance of the valley. This then led to a Roman occupation of an area that became known as a port, which eventually became known as the port of Hastings, as a result of the occupation of the ancient tribe called the Hastingas."
I came to this conclusion as a result of the existing archaeological record established by Smyth and Jennings and then adding the other elements which bought it up to the Norman period.
These other elements are all detailed in my manuscript and based upon the physical observation at the Wilting site. These observations are open to physical examination and do not rely on dowsing, as has been claimed by those who would like to use dowsing as a means to discredit any evidence presented at this Inquiry.
In order to clarify this point, I want to make it absolutely clear to the Inspector, that there is not one element of proof, that I wish to submit, that has any element of reliance on dowsing. All the evidence that I have presented in my manuscript has been seen, smelt and felt by my traditional senses. If I possess any special senses, which Mr Webbe, or anyone else in this room does not possess, I am happy to accept that no evidence presented here relies on such a sense. To seek to discredit my evidence, by invoking dowsing as the sole means of identifying any element of my case, is a misunderstanding of how dowsing has been used in the evaluation of evidence. Dowsing can in my experience identify sites of interest, but it is down to traditional methods of archaeology, to draw any further information once the site has been identified. It would be completely wrong of me to present evidence, that cannot be relied upon using traditional methods of observation. It is the traditional methods of observation that I rely upon, and trust that any discussion relating to dowsing is now closed, as regards the authenticity or otherwise of archaeological investigations.
The first observation that I made, was the discovery of an area of land immediately adjacent to an inlet, which is raised into a small headland overlooking the whole port area and valley. This is shown in diagrammatic form on page number 92 of my manuscript.
This shows what I believe is an ancient earthworks that is roughly circular but has been destroyed over the last 1,000 years of continuous farming. However I believe that it can still be identified to the trained eye as a possible iron age fort site. Excavation of a trench through the area concerned, is the only certain way of establishing whether this observation is correct.
I decided to consult Dr Addyman at York University regarding the best way to proceed. He advised me that it was essential to look at some aerial photographs of the site, to establish what elements could be seen from the air, which would not necessarily reveal themselves on the ground.
I therefore arranged for a large scale blow-up photograph of the site by a company in Croydon called Geoflex. These people do the work for local government and were most helpful.
The first photograph that I used is available here. It has been available for inspection by the representatives of the Highways Agency, but no-one has asked to see it, no-one has been to my office to look at the photographic evidence and no-one has asked to see any of the original photos which I have bought with me. This seems to indicate to me a remarkable lack of due diligence. Each time a photograph is reproduced it loses definition. The sort of tell tale marks that show on the landscape, after one or two thousand years are very difficult, at the best of times to identify and impossible to see on second or third generation reproductions.
In the Environmental Statement ref 10059/RC/047/6/A September 1994 para 4.11 the Highways Agency make the point that "the archaeology of the Weald is little generally known: this is partly due to the prevalence of woodlands and the fact that the heavy soils are not conducive to cropmarks or soilmarks. A survey of the Weald such as that undertaken by Gardiner (1990) highlighted the need for more detailed research".
I have not been able to access this survey but it appears to me that in this document the Highways Agency are using this information about the lack of cropmarks and soilmarks to justify not doing any work with aerial photos, when it is common practice in any normal archaeological investigation, where one might seek to prove medieval or earlier inhabitation. Given the wealth of information shown on these aerial photos at Wilting I believe this was a major omission.
What is interesting about the Wilting site is not the lack of cropmarks or soilmarks, but is the proliferation of such marks, in an otherwise featureless landscape of the other farms away from the port area.
If we can now look at this photograph we might be able to see something - if we can get it under the camera, and the camera is good enough.
The Combe Haven marsh is on the left side. I have marked the relevant features on the overlay in white.
If we look at the area on the edge of the marsh next to Monkham Wood you can see a line running through the wood and joining a V shaped mark before crossing into the field with a square marked in it. It is at the point of the V that my search began on the ground.
If we remove the overlay we can see the V mark in the early Spring crop. It is my claim in my manuscript that the lines drawn on the overlay all represent long lost tracks, used by inhabitants of the port area. I believe I present a convincing argument in my manuscript pages 93 to 101 that these are primarily Roman tracks used to transport material from Beauport Park, the largest ironworking bloomery in the south of England, to barges based at the port of Hastings.
Having seen the lines on the aerial photographs I went to the site and started an excavation. The enclosed photographs show what was there (photo 2). I call these "cobbles" , this is a close up and they are located in a patch between the two fields within the line of the hedge and identified by a cutting through the edge of the sandrock bank. There was over a square meter, which I uncovered with a friend in an afternoon, and subsequently recovered. They were regular in shape and of slag type material construction.
Here is a set of three photos of two of the cobbles when lifted. Lets see them all together: 3a) at the top shows the end on of both pieces. Note the clear flat edge of the one on the right, and in the middle photograph 3b) we can see the topside and the photo at the bottom shows the rugged side that was on the earth side. The construction of the area which was exposed suggested that evidence of use of small carts could probably be found from the rut shapes on either side of the section.
The next photo, number 4, shows an exposed area of track late on the day that this excavation took place. The area is raised in the centre with several cobbles pushed to the side by an old tree shoot.
Starting at this point it was possible to work my way from this point, on the edge of the old port, back to the Beauport Park and Crowhurst Park bloomeries, proving a connection between the port and the point of departure of the treated iron. As well as following the aerial photographs, which provided a huge number of clues, I was able to research the subject using what is considered the definitive Roman Road hunter's almanac.
This is a book written in I.D.Margary in 1965. This is enclosed in my bundle pages 223 to 231. I was told that Margary is no longer alive, but his manual is an invaluable guide. He lists the source material needed on page 225 and explains in the following pages exactly how to trace your route.
If I wanted to know where the tracks went, I needed to learn how to do it, and this work diverted me for a considerable time, building up the picture of what is now compressed into twelve pages of my manuscript pages 93 -104.
Having spent several months of weekends working in the vicinity of the port, I was constantly amazed by the new information that revealed itself on an almost weekly basis.
Fields which appeared completely normal in the Summer, would suddenly reveal another track in the early Spring, when the land was ploughed and the sun was in the right direction.
By way of example this next photograph, number 5, shows the field where I located the first V section of Roman track - you will remember the V on the aerial photograph. Here you can see that V very very faintly cutting a terrace across the brown field, left to right. In consequence the track could be seen on the ground in the right conditions. Subsequent excavation revealed that no identifiable remains exist because of the continuous ploughing. However this is a good example of even where the "mettaling"of the track has been removed, mettaling is a sort of slag covering the Romans used to toughen their roads, the landscape still retains the imprint explained by Margery.
Once the tracks have passed through Monkham Wood, they cross the main field, where the farm and new road are proposed to be located (photo 6). Here they divide and the two terraces are also still visible on these photographs in the right light. These are not natural features but ones built by the Romans and subsequently ploughed up.
Here in photo 7 and 8 we can see the clear markings in the remains of the crop, now overgrown with weeds of the sites of buildings containing stone edges. I believe that these will subsequently be shown to be of Roman origin connected to the network of tracks, which passed close by, and in one case right through the centre.
(photo 9) Looking south across the marsh in the Spring we can see another feature, which became obvious in May when the new rapeseed crop started to materialise. This photograph shows the section of track running from the hedge line between the two fields, where the cobbles were located, directly into the marsh.
The photo does not tell the whole story because when you get into the field it is clear that there is a crop mark outlining a large square. I tried to photograph this crop mark (photo 10). In order to do this the only accessible place, if you wish to avoid being sucked to a murky end in ten feet of mud and reeds, is found by walking down the centre of the Combe Haven valley from Crowhurst, or take a risk by finding the right track across the marsh from Wilting or Redgeland.
The photo does not do it justice, but we are at the right time of year now for it to be seen again, if the more adventurous do not believe me. What you will see when the crop starts to come through, probably towards the end of this month, is a crop mark showing a square with squares in the corners.
These looked like the plan as shown on page 99 of my manuscript. It was dissected by tracks, identifiable from aerial photos or crop marks marking out a cross.
I have put forward the proposal in my manuscript that this is most likely a Roman shore fort. This hypothesis is the only explanation that can make sense, and of course like allohers, will need testing by archaeological investigation.
Similar details can be identified all the way to the sites of the bloomeries. What is interesting about this observation is that no-one connected with the Roman workings of the area finds it at all unusual that this site should eventually be identified at Combe Haven. In practice it is completely logical. Failure to locate it has been simply because the amount of work required is considerable, and until you have a start point, it is impossible to locate the exit from the bloomeries, based in woodland, without the clues that lead you there.
Henry Cleere, who wrote the definitive study of the Roman bloomeries in this area (my manuscript pages 323 - 329), wrote to me (my bundle page 240) stating:
"I see no reason why these roads should not have been used for exporting the finished (or more correctly, semi-finished) product from the ironworks to a suitable harbour… the southward link seems to me to be well worth exploring further."
I have since met Gerald Brodribb, who co-excavated Beauport Park and believe that the discovery of this Roman port and the roads that link them to the largest Roman bloomery complex in the south-east, will have great tourism benefits for both sites, in the long run.
I think the most exciting part of this element of the discovery of the Roman port area at Wilting was the discovery of what I have called the earthen jetties.
These are located at the main port area in the east and also on the western side of the same field section. The location can be seen on the drawings on page 93 of my manuscript with photographs on pages 136 -138. (look at page 93)
Here we can see the network of tracks found in the fields adjacent to what I have called the port area. These have earthen terraces located in the undergrowth on the east and western sides. If we look at the plan in my bundle page 420A we get an over all picture of where these jetties fit into the over all picture.
The jetties are overgrown with briars and difficult to penetrate, although there are a few sections that are easy to locate. They are not land slip, as claimed in Mr Gardiner's critique, because I have performed a small section through the earthen jetties on the eastern sides adjacent to the port, to satisfy myself that they are not natural. These need expert evaluation, but their geometric shape cannot reasonably allow natural formation.
Bearing in mind that the tracks connecting these jetties can also be shown to perform a function, and all the details shown on the plan on the screen perform a function, the arguments presented by Mr Gardiner in respect of one item in isolation do not take into account the totality of the design of the site and the geology of the fields concerned.
In the Monkham Wood inlet, where the jetties can be easily found, the substructure of the land is clay on a sandstone base. This sandstone base forms a cliff along the side of the valley, where water has eroded the side of the valley into a cliff structure. This has been filled over time with debris from the fields and the resultant soil has been sculptured into jetties intercut with an access path to the top fort and field area.
On the eastern side of the field, the jetties are sculptured and at a completely different level, away from the field, with the front edge adjacent to the marsh higher than the back edge, which allows a simple manoeuvre for barges to turn round. It is just beyond belief that Mr Gardiner can claim that these structures are of natural formation, and I seriously have to question whether he has seen them at all.
The problem with attempting to criticise my hypothesis is that nowhere is it claimed by Mr Gardiner, that all these items have all been seen in person, and the photographs do not tell the whole story. Yes I could agree that the photos could look like land slip, but that sows the suspicion in my mind that the critique is a desktop operation, where looking at photos out of context will not provide the correct answers. A bit like trying to guess a man's age, by looking at a photo, rather than looking at his birth certificate. The only way to know the truth about these jetties is to perform a section trench and record the findings. This has not been done by independent evaluators and therefore any conclusion must be speculation at this time. The object of my case is to remove speculation and save the site for proper evaluation by experts.
When I showed the jetties in Monkham inlet to the County Archaeologist, Dr Andrew Woodcock, he stated that he thought these jetties were built in order to access the field to the south. You will see the correspondence on this matter in September 1992 my bundle page 211 and my bundle page 212 regarding the time period concerned to February 1993. This was the first and only time that Dr Woodcock visited the landing site - long before any of the ancillary information, concerning the boats or the camp, and two years before publishing my findings in my manuscript in January 1995.
I shall deal with the issue of the County Archaeologist later in my evidence. However the question must be raised "how is it possible for the County Archaeologist to believe that these terraces were an access route to the lower field" for a farmer on his tractor. The discussion with the County Archaeologist is not something I will forget, because he was adamant that this provided a complete explanation. In consequence I challenged this proposal in my letter on page 213 of my bundle. Remember I had shown him these terraces running the complete length of the inlet, on a guided tour of the jetties. Dr Gardiner states in para 12.4 of his critique that "These are parallel, but discontinuous terraces lying at right angles to the slope". How can the terraces that he examined be discontinuous, whilst the ones I showed the County Archaeologist are not? How could a farmer on a tractor negotiate discontinuous terraces? If I were not kindly disposed to the gentleman in question one might suspect that this was a classic case of a desktop survey?
Here we have a classic case of creative thinking by two independent qualified experts, one of which states that these earthworks have been built or used by the local farmer, and one which identifies the same terracing as land slippage. This is not in my mind a satisfactory way to conduct business, for professional men, on a matter which has the potential for national importance, and concerns this Inquiry.
I do not wish to state any more about the Roman jetties, but clearly both men, the County Archaeologist and Mr Gardiner, would qualify as expert witnesses if called to give evidence in this matter. Both have committed to different solutions to what these jetties are, and both cannot be correct. I therefore must conclude that neither can be relied upon. Neither has supplied any archaeological evidence to support their proposal, and neither solution is based upon expert archaeology. The only way of providing the correct answer to the question - whether these jetties are of Roman origin or earlier, is to perform a proper sectioning of the eastern and western jetties. This will answer this question and an expert appraisal is necessary by a team of qualified archaeologists - clearly one man's opinion will not suffice. I find it remarkable, and a major omission, that Mr Gardiner does not come to the same conclusion.
Other items of great interest at the port area are concealed in undergrowth in the adjacent Redgeland Wood. Prior to the construction of the railway embankment this wood was once flooded. There is a large stone cladded structure, with what appears to be an access walkway. This is drawn on page 108 of my manuscript.
To the south of this is an unexplained enclosure, which Smyth and Jennings were kind enough to look at in 1993, before completing additional borehole tests at the Monkham inlet for me, which I had requested.
They did preliminary tests at the site I have marked as the port, and were as near as I can say, to being excited - for archaeologists. Whilst they have not committed anything to paper yet, they told me that in all the time they had been doing work on the Combe Haven marsh, they had never found the site of the port - although they had evidence to show it existed. Their historic pollen and stratigraphical record from the bore holes, proved to them that there was what they call industrialisation in this valley, in the Bronze and Iron Age.
The preliminary bore holes at Redgeland indicated that this was the site of the elusive port, because of layers of deposits and clinker type material were found in the initial bores which we took. If so, this meant that they would in the course of time be able to pinpoint much more detail. This is confirmed by their letter dated 3^rd November 1993, my bundle pages 17 - 18 where point 1) confirms the site of the port as important, using the words "This site is potentially important archaeologically/historically, and should not be destroyed by road construction until we have carried out this work".
The borehole work that they did at that time confirmed that Bulverhythe was navigable in 1066 (point 2 of same letter) and the inlet at Monkham, as well as the jetties in the port area, were serviced by a deep water channel (point 4). Confirming my belief that boats could have landed at this site in 1066. The tests that Smyth and Jennings were extremely important because if their borehole tests showed that the Combe Haven was not navigable in 1066, my case would have flown out of the window (or maybe a more appropriate expression would be up the creek - or inlet).
They finish their letter by making the point "Redgeland area of the Combe Haven valley is potentially an important site with respect to research into the (pre) historic development, not just of Hastings, but of southeast England in general" - yet again experts agreeing with me, but this time directed specifically at Redgeland, because of the pre historic development of the area.
I spoke to them in October last year, when we were not sure of the date of this Inquiry, asking what had happened to the results of the tests, and they confirmed to me that I appeared to be right about the port, but more work was required this year before anything conclusive could be published - typical of their thoroughness, and rightly cautious. However they kindly wrote a letter dated 17^th November, my bundle page 22, in which their first paragraph states "We note that the date of your finds corresponds to the period when the valley was a port, and was therefore a centre of trade and economic activity". They are referring to the Norman pottery, which I had discussed with them. Please note that this letter no longer says IF but WHEN the valley was a port.
None of this work by Smyth and Jennings, or the conclusions that are drawn from it, is challenged by Mr Gardiner, presumably because Smyth and Jennings are qualified archaeologists, and I must therefore ask the Inspector to accept that the Highways Agency does not challenge these conclusions, drawn by Smyth and Jennings in their letters to me. Whilst Mr Gardiner may challenge other documents relating to the siting of the port of Hastings, he has not challenged these, because I believe that he has not examined the evidence, and is unable to challenge it.
However the conclusion of this must be that if you accept Smyth and Jennings position, that the old port of Hastings is in the Combe Haven valley, any dispute over other document sources is immaterial, and just raising an unnecessary smoke screen, to bolster an otherwise non-existent case.
Not only have the Highways Agency failed to investigate the claim that Redgeland is the site of the old port of Hastings, from the archaeological evidence available from the bore hole tests, done by Smyth and Jennings, but they have not even looked at the structures in Redgeland Wood or the marsh there. If they have looked they have omitted them from their analysis deliberately.
Ignoring these matters from their report does not help their case. It indicates yet further lack of due diligence, which is not commensurate with an issue of national heritage importance. I would hope that this were merely an oversight, however it is an oversight that cannot be left unchallenged, and in the absence of any investigation or challenge of this evidence by the Highways Agency, I must urge the Inspector to find in favour of Smyth and Jennings statement page 16 my bundle - "The preservation of this unique record is as important as any national monument".
I am here presenting a case that shows that the Normans camped and landed at Wilting Farm. Part of that case is that an infrastructure developed at the port of Hastings, where William is reported to have landed, in six of the eight documents we have looked at.
Here we have a highly respected team of archaeologists from the |University of London, the only ones who have done any work of substance, on the marsh area, over the past twenty years, confirming my belief that the port of Hastings is at Redgeland. A central core to the case confirming that the Norman camp is in the same area. What do the Highways Agency do. They ignore this element altogether and seek to dismiss my claim by inferring that I have little understanding of these matters, and I should bow to their expert Mr Gardiner, who has not bothered to report on the matter, because he hasn't looked.
This sounds like the ecclesiastical authorities, who refused to look through Galileo's telescope. By simply refusing to look through his telescope the authorities bought the church over three centuries worth of denial, free and clear. They could say with absolute conviction "I have seen absolutely no evidence to support such ridiculous claims".
I am afraid I can see through this ploy and so can everyone else. The issue at stake here is too high to take risks. This evidence simply cannot be ignored because to fail to challenge it is to admit that it is correct. The Highways Agency have failed to challenge this point, and therefore must accept the case that the old port of Hastings is at Redgeland. Therefore if Hedgeland and Redgeland are one and the same, the camp of William the Conqueror is at Wilting according to the Chronicle of Battle Abbey.
VIEW xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Here I would like to show you a photograph of the view from the hill at Wilting over the Combe Haven valley, with the sea in the distance (photo 11).
The caravan park can be seen in the distance where the Combe Haven narrows. The reed beds are clearly visible in the SSSI as brown, in the marsh section in the middle, and the camp site of the first Norman camp can be seen low down on the right hand side, on a slightly raised headland.
The camp is of immense importance because it is located immediately next to the inlet where I first identified Norman boat parts. I would therefore like to deal next with the first Norman camp.
NORMAN CAMPxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

RETURN TO CORRESPONDENCE