Evidence in Person 12

GRAVES XXXXXXXXX
In my manuscript pages 152 to 154 I make the claim that I have excavated two sites on Upper Wilting Farm which I believe to be grave sites. Both of these are located in the vicinity of the Lower Norman Fort.
I do not wish to reveal their location here, because I believe that it would be wrong to make the locations public. However I can state that they are on headlands and one of them could be the grave of Harold Godwinson the last Saxon King of England.
I have not recovered anything from these sites because the circumstances of the excavation led me to conclude that this was not something that I should be doing at that time.
In consequence I abandoned this work and this is the reason there has been no emphasis on my part regarding these mounds. However I cannot leave this Inquiry without reporting their existence. Mounds where the substructures of the soil are loose and there appears to be a high possibility of remains which will verify the validity of the site. Here we have a couple of photographs showing the subsoil structure. Completely different to anything nearby (photos 24 and 25).
I do not rely on this evidence but see it as part of the over all picture of the Norman camp area. I have strong suspicions that these mounds are connected to the Norman Invasion but at present this is nothing more than a hunch which needs investigation, at the same time as the other matters are looked at.
I would now like to look at the Trial Trenching Survey conducted by Wessex Archaeology on behalf of Chris Blandford associated for the Highways Agency. Reference 39211a.
Under aims and objectives paragraph 2 (a) page 1 of the report it states that the aims of the report were to " verify the nature, extent, quality and survival of archaeological evidence in the designated areas as of potential archaeological importance following assessment of the results from the minimally-intrusive archaeological evaluation" and " evaluate the archaeological potential of areas within the proposed route corridor".
The commissioning of this report had come about as a direct result of receiving a copy of my manuscript. As soon as I found this out from the tenant farmer, Mr Blackford, I wrote a letter to English Heritage, who I was told were involved in the issue. This letter is enclosed in my bundle page 52.
I that letter I state that I cannot see how trenching on the Highways Agency route will possibly be of assistance since the evidence is not contained there.
On 2^nd March 1995 I received a response form Mr Kendall at English Heritage, my bundle page 54, Conservation South East. He states in his letter that it is not possible to schedule the land upon the basis that it might be the landing site. He states that land can only be scheduled after there is an investigation and clear evidence is found.
He goes on to state "You have criticised the proposal for trail trenching on the proposed roadline. The purpose of this is not to prospect for evidence of Norman occupation." Indeed my criticism was nothing compared to what actually happened when the bulldozers turned up.
Mr Kendal states in his response to my criticism about trenching that "responsibility for meeting the cost of evaluation and any subsequent mitigating measures including excavation lies with the Highways Agency as part of the cost of building a road. It is not the responsibility of English Heritage to pay for such archaeological works" - so there we have the kernel of the nut. English Heritage would not pay for an investigation. This was to be a recurring theme in our correspondence and so ultimately no matter how I tried to involve the organisation charged with looking after our heritage, they would not come to Hastings, because no-one would pay them.
These events took place in March last year. I wrote again to Mr Kendal on 22^nd March when I found that the trenching in question was to take place on April 10^th without any assistance in finding the correct place to look. I had done some preliminary work in the field below the farmhouse and believed I could locate a ditch and post holes where huts had been located.
You will see from the correspondence that my letter is a little sharp and to the point.
When the team arrived to do the work I marked out those areas which I though would be of most interest and was told I would be contacted when it was appropriate. In practice this call never came.
The trenching consisted of using bulldozers to excavate trenches 1.8meters wide x 30 meters long at the rate of three or four a day, possibly more. I was horrified when I found out what was happening, but could do absolutely nothing to stop it.
You must remember that my experience of excavation was to take three weeks with a brush and excavation tool picking through the soil until you come to what you are looking for. The archaeologists here were what I would call a team of shovels, five feet wide by two to three feet deep. All they wanted to do was look at the subsoil to see if there were any marks and to check for flints or other remains.
I was completely shocked by the scale of the attack on the land and even more shocked that this method should be used to evaluate Norman habitation. I have to say that this was more a rape than an evaluation, and when they dug the trench through my own marking nothing could be seen except grab marks from the bulldozer.
I queried what was going on with the archaeologists, who had been told not to talk to me, and was told this was common practice in areas where a road was going through. The principal being that the land would be lost anyway, so they might as well use destructive methods to get the job done quickly.
This was a hugely valid exercise in learning how the Highways Agency works and an even better insight into the relationship between them and English Heritage. I concluded that I would not allow trial trenching like this anywhere near the evidence I had produced. However as it turned out this was not a problem because no-one had any intention of looking anywhere other than in the corridor of land where the Highways Agency believed their road would go. No-one had considered what an impact such a road would have on such a unique and diverse heritage site. It was assumed by everyone I spoke to on the telephone and in person, that I was never going to win any arguments with the Highways Agency because once they had chosen a route nothing would stop the road
This was an error of judgement of those who should know that nothing is certain in this life. Even Government agencies have to listen to their own masters at times, since there are rules about heritage sites and sites of national importance and I was not going to be put off by the cavalier attitude of those who were not familiar with all the evidence.
When the trial trenching was completed there were 44 trenches, 29 of which were conducted at Upper Wilting, these can be seen on page 137 of my bundle. I believe this indicates how serious the Highways Agency had taken my manuscript. However they completely failed to recognise that the evidence in my manuscript was not located in the route of the road.
The report found evidence that completely vindicated my claim, page 103 of my manuscript, 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 flints found there. It is reasonable to conclude that development of the site continued into the Iron Age and contributed to forest clearance of the valley. This then resulted in a Roman occupation…" . Instead of producing no evidence at all there was considerable evidence in the form of Late Neolithic pottery in trench number 48 - maybe we should look where these are. Up by Wilting Farm house.
Early Bronze Age pottery in trenches 30, 32 and 33. In a line across the bottom field next to where the Norman boats are located. A row of six small stake holes in Trench 22 with sixteen Early Bronze age sherds of pottery almost on the marsh where the Norman boats are located. Medieval tiles in trenches 47 and 50, both remarkably close to Wilting Farmhouse, and finally Romano British sherds of pottery in trench number 50.
This is particularly important because trench 50 crosses the Roman track which I had identified on my plans as leading from the Roman jetties to Beauport Park. I believe the discovery of Roman pottery in this trench confirms my claim that a Roman track passed through this trench.
In trench 41 there is the remnants of a hearth, confirming my belief that iron smelting or other activities on this nature took place in that area of land next to Monkham Wood, since the trench had a spread of charcoal and 33 sherds of Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age pottery and other indeterminate sherds.
Trench 25 also contained fragments of Early Bronze age pottery..
The report concludes on page 14 "On the basis of the results of the trial trenching, the areas of greatest archaeological potential are Area 10 Upper Wilting Farm"
"At area 10: Upper Wilting Farm at least three features of possible prehistoric date were recorded, a ditch of possible Bronze Age date and two spreads of charred material containing pottery of Bronze Age and Early Iron Age date. Colluvium containing sherds of prehistoric pottery was also recorded"
This is to be expected since it completely vindicates Smyth and Jennings work, which using different methods comes to the same conclusion that this site was an important Bronze Age and later Iron Age site. So instead of producing nothing the trial trenching effectively endorses all the conclusion in my manuscript prior to the Norman period.
I continued throughout the year to request that English Heritage visit the site to inspect the evidence but was each time given an excuse. However in January I received copies of a letter sent by English Heritage to Helen Glass, of Chris Blandford Associates dated 6^th September 1995 (my bundle page 62). I had requested copies of all correspondence in relation to my route because I was concerned that I might not know everything that I should.
This letter and the accompanying one to East Sussex County Council attached (page 63 of my bundle) alerted me to what I considered at the time the all too cosy relationship that had developed between English Heritage, guardians of our cultural standards I believed, and the agents for the Highways Agency.
I can read between the lines and what I saw did not please me. English Heritage had written to me earlier in the year stating that the object of the trial trenching was not to prospect for Normans. Yet here in private correspondence between Mr Kendall and Helen Glass was the statement "I found Mark's review of "Secrets of the Norman Invasion" a good response to the claims for the land around Upper Wilting Farm" I suggest that you read the letter in full.
The first paragraph is I believe confirming other discussions that I am not party to since it refers to a response which must have been discussed in other correspondence.
The second half of the letter confirms that the trial trenching has been set up, if set-up is the right expression, in order to justify prospecting for Normans because Mr Kendall says "I note that no "Norman " features were located.". He did not need to write this unless he was seeking to justify the published route.
I got the drift of where Mr Kendall was coming from as a result of this and immediately wrote to Joclyn Stevens, the Chairman of English Heritage in my letter dated 30^th January 1996 stating my case and making a number of pointed comments. I do not believe it proper that this should be read out. However the gist of this letter is that I was being given the run-around by Mr Kendall.
It must be remembered that English Heritage own and run the two largest heritage centres in this area, Pevensey Castle and Battle Abbey. I was concerned in my own mind that the business activities of these concerns might be influencing Mr Kendall's actions.
I received an immediate response and a meeting was held at my offices with Mr Kendal and Bill Startin, whilst not a specialist in Norman period, has been responsible for the Monuments Protection Programme. The purpose of the meeting was to seek a qualification to their existing statement that they did not object to the road at Wilting.
I received the following letter dated 12^th March, which I am pleased to give you now. It is not in my view very satisfactory, but the inspector might recognise it as the best I can get from an organisation that has not looked at the evidence either and would prefer to rely on "Mark's review" as Mr Kendall calls it in his letter to Helen Glass. No mention of surnames here. Suggests everyone knows everyone and no-one is rocking the boat to me.
As I write this I think to myself am I sounding a little paranoid here. But then I say to myself I have to tell the story as I see it because that is why I am here. I am not paid to be here and I have not been paid for all the work I have put in. I am here to get to the truth and hope that the inspector recognises that truth.
It is all too easy for the archaeologists with their phd's to loose sight of why they are employed by people like the Highways Agency. I do not believe that Mr Webbe or any of the people here would willingly mislead me or the public. However professionals are employed to do a job and someone they do not know comes along with a Norman Invasion story in the line of a new road, what do you think they might think?
Who am I to seek to turn back history by suggesting that the Normans did not land at Pevensey? A rhetorical question that might easily be answered by closing ranks with those you trust - your colleagues and working buddies.
I am not saying this definitely happened, but it has to be stated that if Dr Woodcock had produced my manuscript all the elements in it would have been excavated by now.
There is still a belief in academic circles that the best way to handle difficulties is to put the paper in the bottom drawer and forget about it. That was the old way of doing things. Now the Internet is here those days are gone.
There has been a huge reaction from the academic world because I put my manuscript on the World Wide Web late last year. This amazing technology allows anyone connected to the Net, including all Universities throughout the world, to read my work.
Over seven thousand people, many of high academic standing have read my work, and I am inundated daily with e-mails wanting to know what is happening and congratulating me on the work.
The reason this interest is there is because the Norman Invasion was a truly unique event in English and World history. I have enclosed some recent correspondence from around the world in my bundle from pages 243 to 261. Some of these are amusing and some serious but all agree that this site must be examined and saved.
Interest does not all come from those interested in academic studies. Recent correspondence has been with North American travel agents who want to send students to the site, and a member of the Canadian Tourist Authority, who wants to do the same.
As a result of posting my document where all can read it free of charge this story is not going to get consigned to the bottom draw or go away, because it is too important to loose.
I am sorry that it appears to me that those who work closely with the roads people appear to have lost their sense of perspective, which other members of the academic world have not.
The result of forcing English Heritage to react regarding this site, was the eventual production of a letter which I have here, which is as near as I am ever likely to get to suit my purpose at this time.
Basically it supports both cases. A truly diplomatic letter which seeks to make sure they are not accused of negligence, which I had accused them of, and one which lets them off the hook by agreeing that an alternative route would be acceptable.
Please remember when reading this letter that English Heritage have not seen any evidence personally. They state that whilst they might be able to put other interpretations on the aerial photos "this does not disprove my hypothesis" and they accept my point that Mark Gardiner's Review is essentially a critique and "does not disprove the hypothesis". A point I have made earlier - it is good to receive confirmation in writing from English Heritage of such a fundamental point.
Page two of the letter lists six queries that are raised over the evidence, finishing with the words "Of course, we have not had the opportunity to visit the remains you have identified".
Page three confirms that "English Heritage does not normally promote road schemes" and with regards to evaluating evidence "such evaluation can be a complex process and it cannot be applied to a wide area outside of the immediate road corridor". Thus seeking to justify not looking where my manuscript pointed them to go.
Now we have the important point of the letter. "We would support the general rule that SSSI's should be avoided wherever possible", and with regards to the Alternative S3A that I have proposed and subject to caveats about due discussion etc "we would not raise an objection to such a route on cultural heritage grounds".
Mr Kendall finishes off his letter by endorsing my own comments when he left our offices. He says "We could be wrong, and you could be right… although we would be pleased if an acceptable route could be found that avoided Upper Wilting Farm and its setting".
So there we have it. A letter from English Heritage - a letter I had to fight hard to get stating they would be pleased if an alternative route could be found.
I believe that ends my case in relation to the heritage evidence. I wish to sum up very quickly by stating that nothing that I have read has countered my Statement of Case with any authority at all. In consequence everything in that Statement of Case still stands. I believe I have made a truthful and just case, which demands to be addressed. I shall therefore now address the implications of my proposed alternative route S3A
ALTERNATIVE S3AXXXXXXXX

RETURN TO CORRESPONDENCE