Evidence in Person 5

BAYEUX************************
The Bayeux Tapestry is a truly wonderful reference source, because it has an absolutely authentic providence, dating back to approximately 1077, when it was displayed in the Bayeux Cathedral in northern France.
William the Conqueror undoubtedly saw it there, and in consequence historians have always treated this seventy meters of cloth, with the same degree of reverence as if it were embroidered by the Pope himself.
That is not to say that it has been accepted without attempts at interpretation, but has been accepted as an authentic representation of the events of the Invasion and battle, in a visual form that is far more expressive than could be achieved in text.
Whilst historians may disagree about what each element of the Tapestry may mean, there is a consensus opinion that the designer of the Tapestry had expert knowledge of the events of the time, and these were drawn in embroidery format in a style contemporary with the age. I deal with the details in my manuscript in pages 44 - 60 in some depth.
In consequence I decided to go to Bayeux to look at the Bayeux Tapestry in person, rather than in the plate by plate format, as seen in a book. I wanted to see the original tapestry, in person, to see if there were any clues, as to the camp and landing site, which might not be obvious in print. In particular I wanted to look at the words "AD PEVENSAE", embroidered on the tapestry in the Invasion sequence, which have been relied upon by historians since Victorian times, to mean that the Normans sailed to Pevensey.
Examination of the manuscripts that we have looked at to date, and the Domesday data, clearly indicated to me that the actual landing site was probably at Hastings. The historical research that I had conducted independently, led me to the conclusion that William had told his men that he was heading for Pevensey. The probable explanation for landing at Hastings being William's innate ability as a commander, to ensure the maximum chance of success, by deliberately misleading his chaplains, who were known to have strong contacts with England and Harold's court.
William was no fool, and having spent the summer in St Valery, they had already caught spies seeking out knowledge of their plans, as detailed in the Wace manuscript. I wanted to know if the Bayeux Tapestry, a unique record of the events of the time, supported Pevensey, or like the other documents we have looked at, could be interpreted a different way, once you knew the correct landing site.
I reasoned that those who designed this pictorial essay, knew the story well. So would those who judged it when it hung at Bayeux for all to see. In consequence it must be a true version of events, and therefore it must be able to be interpreted to fit Hastings as the landing site, if my thesis that the Normans landed at Hastings, could be correct.
If I was wrong, the Highways Agency would tear my case apart, on account that the Bayeux Tapestry, the world's leading authority on the Norman Invasion, clearly showed that the Normans landed at Pevensey.
I was surprised to find that in Bayeux, at the Bayeux Tapestry Exhibition, one of the major national French tourist attractions, the Wace Chronicle is related as the main authority ,in relation to the text of the Bayeux Tapestry. A document which has been ignored by British historians, since the Victorian era. In England historians have never been able to agree, whether Wace should be relied upon or not. Clearly the French, for whatever reason, hold no qualms in this respect.
Wace stated that "they arrived near Hastings" and "on the morrow came to a castle called Pevensey". Meaning that they landed near Hastings on the day of the Invasion and went to Pevensey the following day.
I looked carefully at the Tapestry, and found many detailed items that would help confirm the site of the camp. ( these are listed in detail in my manuscript pages 44 -60). I take the view, that if the weavers of the Tapestry, were prepared to be correct in almost every detail, in connection with the dress and armour, of those portrayed, as well as the order of events, it is reasonable to assume that other items such as the lie of the land, and the buildings, contain clues, that have never before been identified. The reason these clues have not been identified, is the error of seeking to place the landing site at Pevensey. This is a simple misunderstanding, of the text AD PEVENSAE in the Bayeux Tapestry, and reliance upon Poitiers statement in his manuscript which states "they all reached Pevensey", which is dealt with in my manuscript under pages 8 and 9, and has been dealt with earlier today. It is my view, as we have already seen, that the weight of documentary evidence, with six out of eight documents, is firmly on the side of Hastings.
The Bayeux Tapestry firmly confirms Hastings as the landing site. There is no drawing of Pevensey Castle at the landing or anywhere else, and the words "the soldiers hurried to Hastings to requisition food", is positioned exactly at the point of landing in the tapestry. I would like to look at this now on Plate 10 of page 54 of my manuscript.
The words AD PEVENSAE, are located almost dead centre of the invasion fleet scene, where the boats are crossing the channel. This can be seen on Plate 9 in my manuscript page 51. If we look at that now. I can accept that it may be considered appropriate, to interpret these words to mean, that the fleet was heading TO Pevensey. However Wace reports that during the night the fleet stopped mid channel, where William waited, whilst the slow vessels caught up.
There is no further explanation of this event, but I would not be surprised, if this was planned, and it may be where William told his captains of their eventual destination. It is of course also in my view probable that those same words have the same interpretation as Poitiers manuscript we have looked at, to mean that they headed TOWARDS Pevensey. This is not the same as landing AT Pevensey and even if Pevensey was the intended landing site, Ms Chibnall is correct to state that every beach between Hastings in the east, and Pevensey in the west was probably known as Pevensey in those days, when no other inhabitation existed that we know of (my bundle page 31).
In consequence of my visit, I became aware that the Bayeux Tapestry was a mine of information about the landing site. Whilst recent historians had accepted that the detail for the events, the clothing and the armour were authentic, there was considerable debate about the buildings and terrain.
I believe the reason why this debate emerged in the first place, was because trying to apply the details of the Bayeux Tapestry to Pevensey clearly cannot fit. Faced with the authenticity of the work, historians have been forced to concede that details such as buildings and objects in the scenes must be invention.
This is in my view wrong, and an error that can only be explained, by applying the events of the Bayeux Tapestry, to a place other than Pevensey. When you apply these events to Wilting, every element of the Tapestry is explained, and a whole new interpretation of the events is bought into our understanding.
This is extremely exciting for historians, because the observations in the Tapestry, indicate that the designers knew everything about the Invasion site. They also appeared to know about the land in the immediate vicinity, and were accurate in almost all respects. Something that historians have suspected for years, but never been able to prove with any conviction, because of the application to Pevensey (see Ms Chibnall's letter my bundle page 25).
The first observation that I made, in regards to other elements of the Tapestry, relates to the numbers of boats and men in each boat, together with the number of horses and shields. These boats are small by present day standards, not much bigger than a large canoe. If the boats are portrayed in a ratio of size and men, to the number of boats reported by Wace (696), we can conclude that 5,046 men were involved in the Invasion.
This might seem a far fetched speculation, but we know that the Tapestry shows a man with his quivers for his bow at his waist. Historians have argued that this indicates that William used crossbows at Hastings, for the first time, because bowmen only used arrows from the waist when using crossbows, whereas traditional bowmen, held their arrows on their shoulder. There is no record of crossbows being used in battle for another eighty years, however Wace reports the use of crossbows at Hastings, resulting in the Pope banning their use, as an unholy weapon thirty years later.
If Wace is correct, then the inclusion of that solitary bowman represents a contingent of crossbowmen, and each man portrayed in the Tapestry, can be used to calculate the total quantities of each element of the landing and battle.
What is remarkable, is that if Wace's equation of 696 ships, is applied to the quantities of men in boats shown in the Invasion sequence, we can conclude that 5046 men and 1914 horses, were transported between Normandy and Hastings.
The figures are significant, because most eminent military historians also agree, that 5,000 men were used in the landing (see my manuscript page 52 for full details).
There are two important Tapestry observations that 1) confirm Wilting as the site of these events and 2) confirm Hastings as the landing site.
We have already seen that Hastings is named in the Invasion sequence. In the same sequence we see that there are two different forts shown on the Bayeux Tapestry. The first fort is shown on Plate 12 of page 56 of my manuscript.
Here it can be seen to be located with a hill behind. The hill clearly showing the strip farming of the period.
The second fort is shown being built later, in the period between landing and leaving for battle, in Plate 13 on page 58 of my manuscript. If we look at this.
Here we can see the same hill, which I believe we have demonstrated was called Hedgeland (or Ridgeland). At the bottom of the hill, you can see the same tower as was incorporated into the design of the fort on Plate12. However we can now see a second defence, built at the top of the same hill but now with a wooden stockade.
The consequence of this observation, is that the Bayeux Tapestry shows two forts. One at the bottom of the hill, where they first landed, and one at the top, built within the two weeks when they consolidated their position.
Needless to say, I am not William the Conqueror, but I do know that you do not build your defences at the bottom of a hill. In consequence this observation is important, because at Wilting I claim there are two separate defences, one at the bottom and one at the top of the same hill. Coincidence - I think not.
Bearing in mind the Carmen's reference to "dismantled forts", in the plural, it is not surprising to find, that William would have taken possession of these and reinstated them. Only the site at Wilting explains this otherwise unexplainable feature in the Bayeux Tapestry.
If the Highways Agency is correct, in stating that the "conventional view" is that the Normans landed at Pevensey, please can they explain how these two forts relate to the site at Pevensey, and if they are going to rely on this as evidence to counter my claim, would they please place a pin on the map to show where the Normans can be proven to have landed?
I am happy to give Mr Webbe or his experts my pin now for him to do the honours. Perhaps I should pass him the blindfold first, so that he can put the tail on the donkey at the same time. However we all know that this is no party game.
Mr Webbe knows, as well as I do, that there is NO EVIDENCE that the Normans landed at Pevensey. I shall say it again, there is NO EVIDENCE that the Normans landed at Pevensey.
English Heritage, look after the Pevensey Castle site, and have published the Official Pevensey Castle booklet. This is included in my bundle pages 16 - 49. It was written by the late Sir Charles Peers and is an excellent short account of the history of Pevensey Castle.
What is of interest to me, and should be of interest to the Inspector, is not what it says, but what it fails to say. There is no reference to the Normans landing at Pevensey, or the Normans landing at Pevensey Castle. To assume that they did, is a complete figment of the imagination, of those seeking to hide behind the fog of misinformation and lack of research into the matter.
If the Normans had landed at Pevensey, and there was proof of this great event, in the form of any archaeology at all, English Heritage would have stated as such in their official booklet. In consequence before any claim about Pevensey, or the "conventional view" is to be believed, proof must be supplied by the Highways Agency. In the absence of proof their counter-claim in respect of any Pevensey landing, must be dismissed by all the rules of evidence. They have none of substance, whilst all the substance lies with the Wilting site.
There is one last element of the Bayeux Tapestry, which in many respects eliminates the possibility of Pevensey being the landing site completely. This is the portrayal of the feast scene on the night of the landing. This is shown on Plate 12 of my manuscript page 56. I would like to look at that now.
I propose in my manuscript pages 56 - 57 that this scene, is the same scene described in the Wace manuscript, which follows the chronological events of the Bayeux Tapestry in all other respects.
Here we can see Bishop Odo blessing the food, on the evening of the landing. It has been suggested that the scene represents Bishop Odo taking the lead position, at the head of the table, as spiritual leader, in a scene representative of the last supper in style.
The crucial element here, is that the Bishop is seen eating fish, on the table in front of him, and the man on his left appears to be doing the same.
I make the case that the fish is of significance, because it confirms the Wace story, because Wace shows in his description of the same events that the scene takes place on the Friday 29^th September 1066 - the day of the landing.
If this is correct, as I believe it is, the Normans could not have sailed to Pevensey in the morning of 29^th February and sailed or ridden up the coast and landed at Hastings, as shown in the Bayeux Tapestry, later on the same day. Neither the tide nor the logistics would have allowed it.
In consequence the Bayeux Tapestry confirms that the landing site was Hastings, by virtue of the Bishop's fish supper. This was not a fish supper at the Blue Dolphin fish and chip shop in Hastings, certainly thought to the best fish and chip shop in this part of the country, but a fish supper of great consequence.
I have to accept that this is circumstantial evidence in support of my case. However there is not a single item in the Bayeux Tapestry that is inconsistent with the Wilting site, whereas none of the circumstances identified in my manuscript can be applied to any other proposed landing site. The fish supper is in many respect the icing on the cake because it can be used to give additional weight to the argument. I have to ask the question "Why show the Bishop eating fish if it wasn't a Friday?" They were not on a fishing expedition and I can guarantee that whilst it may be questioned now, when Wilting is proven to be the landing site, every child in the country will be taught that the Bishop was eating fish because it was the Friday of the landing.
Circumstantial evidence it may be, but it is also compelling, because it is just another coincidence too far.
The Highways Agency have had over a year to analyse the evidence that I accumulated in my manuscript, and put forward an alternative site, where even one of the elements of the Bayeux Tapestry could fit. They, in common with historians throughout the ages, have been unable to do this, because you can only apply these matters to the correct site. That site is at Wilting farm, on the Combe Haven valley, not some mythical site, somewhere not yet known, but might be near or in Pevensey, or if I was to be a little inventive I might suggest that it has been washed away by the sea - that's a really good idea if I can't find what we are looking for.
I'm sorry I don't buy that because I have told the Highways Agency where to look..
My case does not make abstract unquantifiable claims. It is specific. It is itemised and it is evidence, as good as if those who wrote these matters were alive today.
Lastly in respect of the historical documents I shall look at the
ANGLO SAXON CHRONICLES*********************
In my manuscript I look at the Abingdon, Worcester and Peterborough Chronicles on pages 61 - 63 of my manuscript. The Worcester Chronicle states that "The Count William came from Normandy to Pevensey on Michaelmas Eve, and as soon as they were able to move on, they built a castle at Hastings" This manuscript appears to support Pevensey, however the Peterborough Chronicle states "Meanwhile Count William landed at Hastings on Michaelmas Day". That is the extent of the writings. One for Pevensey and one for Hastings - whom should we believe - that has been the quandary of historians through the ages. I believe the misunderstanding of Pevensey, as an area, as opposed to a town explains this quandary completely.
I believe, that having looked at the manuscript evidence, we are now better equipped to look at the site at Wilting, in the context of the historical documents.
It is my case, that all the elements, of all the manuscripts, in relation to the geography, and circumstances of the landing, can be explained in relation to the Wilting site. This is a unique observation, in relation to analysis of the Norman Invasion documents that we have looked at.
Until now, each manuscript we have looked at, has produced inconsistencies with the Pevensey site and with other documents from the same era. A detailed list of these inconsistencies is contained in my manuscript on pages 72 - 74. The traditional way of dealing with these inconsistencies, was to assert that the documents must be unreliable. Or even better that the site must have been lost to the sea by erosion. Yet there is no evidence to support this conclusion and one has to wonder why the Carmen should refer to dismantled forts, in the plural, if they were not there.
Equally well, why should the different reports relate stories about the Norman camp on the hill, if there is no hill at Pevensey, holding such a camp.
If the area around the camp was laid waste, as reported by the Carmen and Poitiers, why were none of the manors around Pevensey laid waste, in the Domesday Survey, yet those around the Combe Haven valley were?
In practice I have identified not two or three elements, but forty elements that relate to the landing and camp site, in my manuscript (pages 66-71). All taken from the eight documents we have looked at. I have not detailed them all here, because it is not necessary to repeat what I have already included in my written evidence.
I make the case that these documents are the "sand on the shoes" of the burglar. When taken in conjunction with the "fingerprints" - of the archaeological evidence, they will produce the inevitable conclusion that Wilting is the site of the Norman Invasion, and the first Camp of William the Conqueror. I could argue that upon the basis of these documents alone, and the fact that at least 36 of the 40 items can be applied to Wilting, and no-where else, is reasonably conclusive evidence of Proof of the Normans.
Since Proof of the Normans, is in this case required, in order to justify preserving this site for the enjoyment of future generations.
I do not rest my case upon the historical documents alone, no matter how convincing the arguments might be, because these arguments are ultimately open to interpretation, academic attack and debate, especially on a point by point basis. Only when they are all taken together, do they make the most convincing case necessary, to persuade the hardened traditionalist that the site at Wilting must be preserved. The historical documents are the background upon which we paint the picture. Without the historical documents, our case would be flimsy. In fact as flimsy as any claim that the Normans landed at Pevensey or anywhere else.
However the case for Wilting as the landing site is unequivocally supported by at least six of the eight manuscripts we have looked at, whilst the remaining two can certainly be open to "new interpretation". I must conclude that the evidence that there is for a Pevensey landing is worse than thin. The reason that historians have accepted Pevensey is because no-one has undertaken the necessary in depth study, and most importantly, without a suitable landing site to recommend itself, any theory would be just that - a theory incapable of proof.
What I present here, is not a theory, based upon a theoretical hypothesis, but real proof based upon real things in the ground. This is because my case does not rely solely on the historical document, but rests on the archaeological evidence as well, held at the Wilting site.
It is the archaeological evidence that confirms Wilting, as the Norman Invasion site, supported by the documents. It is the archaeological evidence that is the "fingerprint" that will produce the Proof of the Normans. This is real evidence, that even historians cannot argue about. It has been made available to the Highways Agency for over a year, and for what ever reason they have failed to do their due diligence in investigating the claims made in my manuscript (pages 71 - 160). They have had every opportunity to investigate every element contained in my manuscript, but have actually failed to conduct any proper archaeological investigation at the Wilting site, outside of the narrow corridor of land restricted to the published route.
I have thought about this a lot and cannot really come to terms with this response from the Highways Agency. Here we have a detailed document, supported by experts in Norman history in Cambridge, advocating proper archaeological investigation of a site which is likely to be of immense national heritage importance. The cost of such an investigation, to either prove the case, or dismiss it, is insignificant compared to the legal costs of this Inquiry or the cost to the taxpayer of having to divert the route.
Yet the Agency failed to commission any archaeological work in relation to the claims made in my manuscript. I must therefore pose one rhetorical question "did they deliberately fail to do this, because if they conducted the archaeological work, and found it had a basis of truth, they knew that the road would never cross this site." It appears to me as the only possible reason why a proper archaeological survey of my claims has not been implemented. - They did not want to prejudice the possibility of loosing the road altogether - unaware in the early days that I would be submitting an alternative route that was cheaper and acceptable to the majority of the local community.
What they did do was commission a critique of my manuscript by Mr Gardiner, which I shall look at later. However whilst I have every respect for Mr Gardiner's wish to promote his traditionalist ,"conventional understanding", about history, his lone voice cannot carry any authority in relation to an archaeological study, where he himself admits that he has not studied any of my claims outside the route of the narrow corridor of the Highways Agency published route, and has not carried out any archaeological investigations himself at the site of the camp or the boats.
This is after all not a history lesson but one where the main claim is that Wilting is the site of the first Norman Camp (which has not been investigated) and contains the Norman fleet (which has not been investigated).
In respect of producing evidence to counter mine, I am at a total loss when Mr Gardiner states "The archaeological investigation commissioned by the Highways Agency was confined to the road corridor. It did not investigate the sites of the forts and castles identified by Mr Austin" (para 4.2.3 M Gardiner Proof of Evidence). The road corridor being the published route corridor and ignoring route S6A and all the others.
and ""it was not considered appropriate to trench the sites of the Iron Age fort, the Roman fort or the two Norman forts"(para 4.2.11 M Gardiner Proof of Evidence)
and "The archaeological work undertaken for the Environmental Statement, and subsequently for the Public Inquiry, did not examine the area of the two suggested forts, nor the site of the Norman boats" (para 4.5.2 Appendix L2 M Gardiner review of archaeological evidence).
Apart from these matters Mr Gardiner did not look at any archaeological remains as far as I can identify. In consequence the whole of his work has no relevance to an archaeological investigation, since it offers opinions without having examined any evidence.
If we were to accept expert evidence, from expert witnesses, who have not seen the evidence themselves, but seek to interpret matters upon the basis of their beliefs of what is normal or what is not, we would be on a very slippery slope. We would never need to conduct archaeological surveys at all - we could just call in Mr Gardiner, he would tell us that he had not seen anything worth excavating, because he had not looked in the ground, therefore according to his rules of evidence there could not be anything there. In consequence the Highways Agency could build their road, where ever they liked, without fear of ever needing to spend a penny on a proper archaeological investigation - yet this is what the Highways Agency are presenting to this Inquiry, as a basis for challenging the claims in my manuscript. I hope that the Inspector sees through this smoke screen.
Whilst we are all entitled to provide our opinions, an opinion is only another idea when the expert in question has not viewed the evidence. I would argue that in these circumstances ideas of this nature cannot be relied upon and must be excluded from consideration as having the authority of a valid witness.
What I would like to do now is look at those matters covered in my manuscript from pages 88 through to 154, covering the archaeological evidence that I have indicated to the Highways Agency exists at Wilting farm. None of which has to my knowledge been subject to proper archaeological survey, by Mr Gardiner, or the Highways Agency, or East Sussex County Council County Archaeologist, or English Heritage, or any other organisation. In fact the only person to do any in depth work in this site on the Norman camp, the Norman fort and the Norman boats is myself.
ARCHAEOLOGY**************************

RETURN TO CORRESPONDENCE