- NORMAN CAMP
- I was initially drawn to the site of the Norman camp, as a
result of detailed investigation of the land immediately adjacent
to the Roman tracks, which we looked at earlier, and the inlet
south of Monkham Wood. I was looking for the tell tale signs of
what could be considered the remains of "dismantled forts",
as mentioned in the Carmen.
- If we look at the aerial photo number 12, taken from the Royal
Commission National Library of Air Photographs in Swindon. We
can see a very interesting photograph, of the lower fields at
Wilting, on the edge of the marsh.
- There are numerous markings of ditches, pits and tracks faintly
outlined in accordance with my earlier plans. The Norman fort
area is located immediately next to the inlet in the centre of
the picture.
- You can see the earthen jetties on the east and west, with
a circular formation in the centre of the top, middle field. In
this field, under considerable undergrowth, was located the site
of the first Norman camp. The land here was unique on the farm.
It was protected from ploughing by a sandstone barrier, which
is present less than a foot from the surface in places. The soil
is very shallow, only several inches, and the subsoil of clay
makes farming impossible. In consequence I have every reason to
believe this small headland, for that is what it is, has stayed
untouched since the day the Normans landed.
- This next photograph, number 13, shows the site of this camp
before I started work there. We can see the field behind, still
ploughed in a strip by the tenant farmer, almost identical to
the picture in the Bayeux Tapestry, which we looked at earlier,
with the strips running the other way, as they did before tractors
came along. We are looking inland, in exactly the same perspective
as the pictures in the Bayeux Tapestry.
- Nearly six months work later, we can see the same field looking
north-east towards Monkham Wood (photo number14). The land has
been cleared and we can see there is a ditch running across the
front and back behind the tree.
- (photo 15) This is a better photo from approximately the same
perspective, but at a different time of the year before all the
grass had died. The ditch locating what I call the front of the
fort is still plainly visible.
- I believe this ditch is the one shown in the Bayeux Tapestry
in Plate 13 on page 58 of my manuscript. All the details
that have been observed in the Bayeux Tapestry, can be applied
to this site, and the site of the other fort located at the top
of the same hill, which I shall look at later.
- The outline of the fort is clearly visible, once the land
had been cleared. Excavation of an area immediately adjacent to
the inlet revealed what I identified as post holes. These were
not very big. In fact about 1 inch in diameter, about the size
of a picket fence.
- These post holes are clearly visible in the subsoil because
the clay subsoil is only three to four inches below the surface.
I do not have a printed photograph, but do have a transparency
available for inspection. I should make the point that no-one
has asked to be accompanied around the site, to be directed where
to look, and when I offered to take Mr Gardiner in April he stated
that it was not necessary.
- How this post hole evidence can be evaluated without looking
I have absolutely no idea. The Highways Agency do not deny that
the post holes exist and like the ditch across the front of the
fort, and the other features at the lower Norman fort, there has
been no physical evaluation. Mr Gardiner omits to mention the
main basis of my claim - the excavations at the Norman camp on
the lower headland, next to the Monkham inlet. Presumably in the
hope that the Inspector will fail to notice this omission, amongst
all the red herrings he raises.
- I simply have to restate my case. This is, that the Normans
landed near the Port of Hastings in 1066, and camped at Wilting
farm, next to Monkham inlet. The camp, which was transitional
was located next to Monkham inlet.
- In my manuscript pages 123 to 128 I produced post hole
evidence, this can be seen on page 123 of my manuscript
(look), once the first hole is found the rest were easier to locate,
there is the evidence of the main ditch across the front of the
fort, I believe this is the same ditch which we have already seen
when looking at the Bayeux Tapestry, mounds that contain the remains
of what look like a belt (photo 16, page 124 of my manuscript)
a key (photo 17), and what looks like an axe head (photo 18 page
125 my manuscript) and probably a whole lot more once a
proper excavation is undertaken.
- All of these matters, have been ignored as if they did not
exist. I see no ships I believe Nelson is quoted as saying, as
he held the telescope to his blind eye. I don't think we need
a telescope to see the gist of where the Highways Agency case
is going.
- If you seek to dismiss my case with any conviction, you need
to look at the key elements of the proof from my manuscript,
and dispose of them in a logical and professional way. Here the
Highways Agency have employed professionals, who have failed to
look at the excavation evidence upon the basis that this evidence
does not appear to be in the direct line of the road, and therefore
can be ignored - that is in reality the sole basis of their case.
- This is an inherent mistake, because we are not talking about
some insignificant site of doubtful heritage value. We are talking
about the Norman Invasion site, which has the same, if not more
heritage and educational value to the country, than Stonehenge
or any other heritage site that I can think of outside of London.
- If you look at the small town of Bayeux, in northern France.
It has become a world attraction, bringing hundreds of thousand
of visitors a year, to an otherwise insignificant area of France,
because of seventy meters of cloth, woven to commemorate the events,
that I say took place, just down the road from here, at Wilting
manor.
- Once proper investigation has been implemented, and the truth
becomes fact, as a result of proper archaeological investigation,
the road that so many have fought so hard to defeat, will become
the areas greatest asset, and it will be recognised as such by
those who fight so hard now to retain the current route. This
site, with trunk road access, will turn a town with absolutely
no heritage value, other than a name and a dilapidated castle,
into the same heritage Mecca as Bayeux.
- I don't see this value in any of Dr Webbe's value equations,
as to the cost effectiveness of the road.
- However I am digressing because the issue here is why didn't
the Highways Agency address the issue of the lower camp. It is
crucial to the claim that the Normans landed and camped there.
Mr Gardiner makes the claim that there are only
two types of evidence for the fort - the geophysical evidence
and dowsing. I do not know why Mr Gardiner has made this statement.
He has completely ignored the excavation evidence - a standard
form of archaeological investigation, excavation evidence which
is incontrovertible, has ignored the physical evidence on the
ground, by way of earthworks, and made the statement (para 12.10.1
of his critique) that there are only two types of evidence for
the lower Norman fort, of which one is dowsing - something I have
stated I do not do not rely on and something that is not correct.
- Here Mr Gardiner is what politicians call being economical
with the truth. Leaving out the detail of what he cannot counter
with any logical argument. How can we, as investigators of the
mysteries of the past, rely on Mr Gardiner's document, which clearly
may have lost its objectivity by failing to report all the facts?
Whether they support his case or not. The silver thread of truth
that runs through my case is as clear as day - because I address
all the issues and explain them in full, whether they appear to
support my case or not.
- Having identified the Norman camp site, I decided to conduct
a resistivity survey, as a result of discussions with the County
Archaeologist Dr Woodcock. He proposed that if I wanted to know
whether there were any remains on the Norman camp site, I would
need to conduct a resistivity survey. He organised that I should
borrow the necessary equipment from HAARG - the Hastings Area
Archaeological Research Group - a much respected local group of
amateur archaeologists, of which I am a member.
- I met Anne Scott, of HAARG, on the site of the lower Norman
fort, as seen from my letter to Dr Woodcock on 4/10/93 my bundle
page 216. You will see from my correspondence with him, my
bundle pages 211 to 222, that this is a one way discussion
from me to him. All the correspondence the other way was by way
of telephone.
- I got the distinct impression that my claim concerning the
Norman Invasion was a slight embarrassment to him. You will see
that I touch on this in my letter on page number 214 of my
bundle, where I say "I would like to say that I understand
the difficulty that you find yourself in since establishing my
theory as correct would have a major effect on 1) the site and
2) Hastings and 3) Pevensey".I had after all been trying
for some time to get help to investigate the site. Each time I
was put off and came to the conclusion that my case was difficult
for Dr Woodcock, who was after all employed by a political organisation,
East Sussex County Council. An organisation where the Planning
Department had supported the route proposed through Wilting farm.
Dr Woodcock's office was based in the Planning Department, and
this did not bode well for open support for my investigation.
I am not saying that Dr Woodcock was intentionally obstructive,
but my research may have been put on a back burner for his own
reasons.
- I was concerned when having arranged the resistivity equipment
Dr Woodcock suggested that I send him the results of one 20 meter
square survey, in order for him to evaluate whether anything could
be found on the lower Norman camp.
- I contacted Dr Roger Walker of Geoscan Research, who make
the RM4 Resistivity equipment, which HAARG had supplied. He expressed
surprise that Dr Woodcock would ask to be sent one 20 meter square
of readings, in order to evaluate the data. He told me that one
square would be virtually impossible to evaluate, and that I should
do a minimum of four, immediately adjacent to each other, and
preferably more. His advise was "do as large a survey
area as you can, because the larger the survey, the greater the
accuracy".
- I concluded that Mr Woodcock may not have the necessary expertise
to evaluate my readings in this specialist and concluded that
if I sent him my data, without checking it with an independent
third party, I might also get errors in interpretation. I think
it is best to say that I erred on the side of caution, based upon
what I had been told, and decided to do the job properly myslef.
- I made an excuse to hold onto the equipment, and managed to
do so for over a year. In that time I managed to complete a survey
of the whole Norman fort area.
- At the same time I bought the software from Dr Roger Walker,
and learned how to use it. In consequence I produced an exhaustive
survey, which is reproduced on pages128 to135 of my manuscript.
- These results confirm the existence of unexplained archaeological
artefacts within the Norman fort area. Dr Gardiner accepts, on
behalf of the Highways Agency (para 4.2.8 of his Proof of Evidence),
that "Mr Austin very clearly has identified some features,
but I do not agree with his interpretation". Fine
I am pleased that Mr Gardiner agrees that some features have been
identified in the area I suspect as being a Norman fort- in that
case what are the features? I cannot accept at face value a denial
without any attempt to explain what they are
- In fact its no response at all. The Highways Agency has no
response to my evidence in relation to the lower Norman fort.
The response is something to do with expecting to see ditches.
Ditches are as plain as the nose on your face, if you understand
what the data shows.
- Lets look at page127 of my bundle. This is the processed
data showing high resitivity as dark and low resistivity as white.
Hence ditches on this plot and ditches on page 125, page 124,
page 123.
- The problem with Mr Gardiner's treatment is he has used MESH
data. If you look at his plots Fig 1 and Fig 2 of his proof of
evidence (Annex L) you will see in the top left hand corner Site
: Wilting, Mesh:1, on the second plot Fig 2, we have Site: Wilting,
Mesh 1.
- I am not quite sure why Mr Gardiner used what some would call
bad practice, in dealing with these surveys.
- In the meantime I shall be pleased to refer him to the Geoplot
manual, a copy of which is enclosed in my bundle pages
268 - 406. This shows the process of data capture and process.
It is not the best method to print Mesh data and expect to get
any results at all.
- Page 277 of my bundle explains the process. This shows
the correct process: data capture in grid format, create grids,
edit grids, create mesh, create composite, process. Once these
have been done you can then print results and if necessary save
and print. The alternative route shown here does not allow processing
and saving the results using Mesh format.
- Pages 269 to 336 of my bundle show the Process Environment.
Whilst pages 327 and 331 of my bundle explain the difference
between Mesh and Composite data. In brief a Mesh file contains
no survey data, whilst a Composite file is a file which contains
survey data. An important point when seeking to evaluate the data.
- Page 331 states :"A Mesh file may be used to load
data for processing, the resulting processed data cannot be
saved, but can only be viewed or presented in graphic
format. Creating a Composite first, using a Mesh, is the
preferred way of loading data for processing"
Using Mesh files produces unreliable results especially
if processing is needed.
- Pages 337 to 370 of my bundle are concerned with the
method of graphics display, Whilst pages 371 to 406 are concerned
with processing the data. There are 21 ways of processing data,
described on pages 379 to 381, in order to eliminate background
geology and other geological errors.
- The principal point of processing being the removal of the
background geology, in order to leave the residual archaeological
detail. This is described in detail on pages 404 of my bundle,
High Pass Filter and page 405 Smoothing - Low Pass Filter.
- Page 400A of my bundle in paragraph 1) states "You
are strongly encouraged to process data in Composite file format,
not Mesh format, since only then will you be able to save
intermediate results and make essential tests on the effects of
process during a session"
- The reason being that when you print a Mesh file using raw
data you get the result shown on page 132 of my bundle.
A big mass of black squares showing no detail. Similar to that
shown in Mr Gardiner's critique Fig 1 and Fig 2. A survey result
that cannot be relied upon and therefore of no value - that is
why the Geoplot manual advises against the use of Mesh data files,
other than as an intermediary step in the data processing route.
- When the same data page 133 of my bundle is viewed
and printed using a Composite file, without any processing you
can see the differentiation of the building showing clearly. The
areas of low resitivity can now be seen as the areas in white,
whereas previously they had been obscured by using the ill-advised
MESH format of the same information.
- The resistivity data that I have provided has been conducted
to the highest standard, and it is notable that Dr Walker, an
expert in conducting and analysing survey data, confirms in his
letter to me on 13th February 1996 my bundle page 120,
when I sought confirmation that my survey had been completed in
accordance with the high specifications of his manual. He responded
that "we cannot see any immediate cause for concern on
your data presentation". Confirming the results of the
survey as having a solid scientific basis. He later in the same
letter confirms that he will eventually look at the data in detail,
when he has the time (my bundle page 121)
- It is not possible to influence resistivity surveys. The survey
that I have conducted on this site confirms my belief that archaeological
excavation is required. Dr Gardiner is unable to refute the claim
that this data supports the Norman fort because he cannot state
what else it might support. He makes the claim that he printed
out the data using the same parameters as my manuscript
(his critique para 11.3). This is not correct. He has used the
ill advised Mesh file print mode, advised against by the authors
of Geoplot, and I have used the recommended Composite file process
method. In consequence his conclusions are totally unreliable
and mine are absolutely reliable.
- I have to assume that Mr Gardiner may not be familiar with
computers, and Geoplot in particular, or he may have been dependent
upon a third party to interpret the figures, who was not as familiar
as they should have been. I own the local Internet computer services
company for East Sussex, called CableNet, and am completely computer
literate. I have studied the Geoplot manual and have become proficient
in the use of the software with Dr Walker's telephone support,
as a result of using the software for several years. The Highways
Agency have made a major mistake in relying on this resistivity
survey critique, provided by Dr Gardiner. It is flawed, in that
the bias eliminates any possible conclusion, that can be relied
upon.
- I finish this section regarding the resistivity survey, by
restating my conclusion in my manuscript. I do not make
any outlandish claims, but simply state: "As a result
of studying the information received from the resistivity survey,
it must be concluded that the probability that this
is the first camp of William the Conqueror has increased immeasurably,
purely because the data supports all the circumstantial evidence
to date. Unlike the other evidence we have looked at resistivity
data is not circumstantial, it is hard scientific fact, which
requires extensive archaeological investigation, to determine
whether artefacts exist to support the hypothesis".
- Having established beyond reasonable doubt that the port of
Hastings was located at Redgeland, and that the camp of William
the Conqueror is also located immediately adjacent to that area,
I decide to examine the inlet south of Monkham Wood, for remains
of the Norman Invasion fleet.
- NORMAN INVASION FLEET XXXXXXXXXXX
RETURN TO CORRESPONDENCE