1. CRITIQUEXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
2. Looking at Mr Gardiner's Working Paper entitled A Review of the "Secrets of the Norman Invasion", I have throughout my case called it a critique, using the same words as the County archaeologist in his letter to me. This is because you should not be fooled into thinking that this document examines any evidence, because it does not. It is a written critique expressing nothing more substantial than the opinions of Mr Gardiner, based upon his experience.
3. The first point I would raise relates to the experience of Dr Gardiner, since this is the basis upon which the critique is written. I have no doubt that Mr Gardiner is extremely well qualified in a broad range of archaeological investigations. However I have to raise the question "What experience does Dr Gardiner have in the field of in relation to Norman history, Norman camps and Norman boats? These issues are not addressed in the preamble to his Proof of Evidence. I have conducted a search of the libraries and have been unable to find any documents written by Mr Gardiner on the subject of the Normans, but if I have missed something I am sure I will be told. Mr Gardiner's expertise in the field appears to be predominantly the Saxon and earlier periods of history. He certainly co-wrote the very detailed book entitled "A Regional History of England - The South-East to AD 1000 with Peter Drewett and David Rudling. This covered the complete period from the Bronze Age to the end of the Saxons. I assume, although I stand to be corrected that Mr Gardiner's expertise was especially concerned with the Saxon period.
4. It is noticeable, from my point of view, that when the publishers produced the following book in the series, from AD 1000, they did not ask Mr Gardiner to contribute and I must assume this is because the Norman period, and beyond, is not his specialist area. There may have been other reasons, but given the very specialist nature of this investigation, I believe it is fair to raise the flag over what Norman expertise Mr Gardiner has, in order to qualify as an expert on the Norman elements that he may have passed comment on.
5. It is my view that if Mr Gardiner is a qualified archaeologist in the field of Saxon excavations, then it is reasonable to take into account his views when excavating a Saxon camp, when a Saxon camp is excavated. However I have seen nothing in his evidence to show that he has any experience in work with the Norman habitation in Sussex, or anywhere else. Certainly nothing is published as far as I am aware and publication is the hallmark of expertise in the sciences. The evidence in his Proof clearly points to his work as an archaeology consultant for major trunk road schemes. In other words he appears to makes a living from writing reports on archaeological studies, like the one he produced here.
6. Having done some research on this matter it is not unreasonable of me to call Mr Gardiner a professional archaeological critic. He is the man the authorities call in when you have a bit of difficulty on the archaeological front, and need to present a good case to clear the ground so to speak.
7. Fortunately for me Dr Gardiner has already been active in the Hastings area in the last few years. In 1987 Hastings Council decided that they wanted to build a shopping centre on the cricket ground, in the centre of Hastings, In the Priory Valley.
8. Mr Gardiner was called in to produce a report, to enable Hastings Council to argue that there was no archaeological evidence to support the story that Hastings harbour was located in the Priory Valley. At that time everyone believed that the old Hastings Harbour was on the site of the cricket ground below the cliff where the castle is built. Dr Gardiner was called in to produce a report to show that there was nothing there of any archaeological consequence.
9. That report is included in my bundle pages 163 to 181
10. In this document (page 165 of my bundle) Mr Gardiner states "Dawson , Salzman and the Victorian County History all place the Anglo-Saxon and Norman town of Hastings at the mouth of the Priory Valley". No-one appears to have challenged these matter, but Mr Gardiner is interpreting other people's comments to suit his case. It just is not correct to say that Dawson or Salzman place the Saxon and Norman towns in the mouth of the Priory Valley as a matter of fact.
11. Salzman's comments are contained on pages 193 to 207 of my bundle. Salzman produces a map but does not state that this is fact but taken from circumstantial evidence (my Bundle page 207).
12. Dawsons words are contained on pages 182 to 192 of my bundle. What Dawson says is that "It has been suggested that a more ancient town of Hastings once stood to seaward of our present sea walls, and that an island a mile and a half long lay off the coast of Bulverhythe. However that may be, there can be no question that harbours once existed at Pevensey, Bulverhythe and Hastings, which have now vanished." Dawson did not say what Mr Gardiner wrote in his report for Hastings Borough Council. He did not say that he believed the Norman and Saxon town was located at the mouth of the Priory Valley. Dawson was a very careful man and did not write what he could not prove. He only reports what others have suggested. Mr Gardiner interprets Dawsons written words to suit his case. Like he has done with mine.
13. In his own book South East to AD 1000, Gardiner refers to Dawson as "the mischievous Charles Dawson (infamous for the Piltdown Man hoax)" using Dawson's name to discredit evidence of Roman tiles at Pevensey, yet in another report he is happy to quote Dawson as a source to suit his case. Surely if Dawson is not reliable, he should not be used to support a separate case, because it brings into doubt the credibility of the person writing the report. I cannot accept that this is a valid method criticising research if you really seek the historical truth.
14. The cricket ground report states "There is little evidence for the extent and precise location of the priory Valley Town" and "The documentary evidence for the town of Hastings in the priory Valley is sparse".
15. In fact Mr Gardiner is unable to provide any evidence of Hastings town in the Priory Valley, but concludes "The documentary evidence suggests that the early town of Hastings probably lay further south than the area of cricket ground." Even though the bore hole tests showed that south of the cricket ground was a shingle bank, suggesting that this was where the sea reached the shore.
16. I therefore conclude from this report and the fact that Mr Gardiner has been shown to missrepresent my written words into My mouth and those of Mr Dawson, and Mr Salzman that his report cannot be treated as reliable in all detail. Where it suits his case he has misquoted or will leave out evidence that is clearly relevant to producing a correct interpretation of what is being examined.
17. Mr Gardiner's working paper is marked Annex L in his Proof of Evidence and I shall now comment on it.
18. Under Summary (page 1) Paragraph 1 is a statement of fact.
19. Paragraph two Mr Gardiner states that he has looked at five narratives, Domesday and the Bayeux Tapestry, but has failed to comment or notice the chapter concerned with the Saxon Chronicles in his summary.
20. Paragraph three is an opinion based upon no examination of evidence. It is as he states a "critical examination of Austin's arguments". It was my understanding that the expert evidence we sought was to establish whether the archaeology is valid or not. This paragraph has nothing to do with archaeology and flies in the face of evidence presented in writing by Dr Chibnall and Dr van Houts of Cambridge - both experts on Norman history - which Mr Gardiner is not.
21. Mr Gardiner employs an "Ad Hominem" attack suggesting no "proper understanding" of the sources. I do not accept this argument, because I have an excellent understanding of all aspects of the subject we are discussing. It is a mistake to make an attack like this that cannot be justified. Throughout his paper he consistently accuses me of "misunderstanding" without any basis, which simply exposes the weakness of his case.
22. Mr Gardiner finishes off this paragraph by stating, "It is unlikely that the designer of the Tapestry had a detailed knowledge of the locality" thus finishing a number of personal statements which have no basis in fact but are opinions.
23. Paragraph four Mr Gardiner claims that my place names cannot be justified, employing another personal opinion, which does not stand up to scrutiny, when we examine the case that he makes.
24. In paragraph five of the Summary, Mr Gardiner produces no conclusion from the resistivity survey, other than it does not necessarily indicate a Norman fort. In rebuttal I say that it does, and since Mr Gardiner has not examined the fort in question using archaeological expertise, his argument has no validity. He further advances the "Ad Hominem" attack by claiming that I misunderstand the nature of what I am looking at, and his view of these and other matters "could be interpreted in other ways".
25. Whilst I have every respect for Mr Gardiner as a local archaeologist, who works making a living criticising archaeological theories for the Highways Agency and other organisations, I am not going to roll over and go legs up because Mr Gardiner cannot agree with me. I have not been given any reason why I should support his view over mine in relation to the evidence. If he could quote chapter and verse on any of the subjects he raises, any conclusion from his case might carry some merit. However this paragraph is meaningless. As stated in my Statement of Case Mr Gardiner simply provides his opinion and nothing more. This does not appear to be denied by the Highways Agency in their response to my Objection (Document H), since their response quotes Mr Gardiner's case as their sole rebuttal. Nowhere in Mr Gardiner's case is there any denial that he offers anything other than an opinion. In which case the major point of my Statement of Case remains unchallenged.
26. Lastly the final paragraph of the Summary, accuses me of "extravagant claims" - combining the classic words "extravagant" with "claims" as opposed to his "statements" that are crafted to look like "facts", which of course they are not. This final paragraph employs the statement "Mr Austin has failed to establish a reasonable possibility that the Norman landing took place at Upper Wilting Farm and that significant remains still survive there"
27. A well statement, that like Galileo and his telescope, is I believe designed to buy the Highways Agency the time to drive the road over this site. Disregarding completely whether Mr Gardiner has looked at the evidence or not.
28. In consequence the statement that my claims are "extravagant", is not substantiated by any evidence, and is again another opinion, which has no archaeological basis.
29. Mr Gardiner may state that I have "failed to establish a reasonable possibility that the Norman landing took place at Upper Wilting", that is his prerogative. What is clearly completely wrong in my opinion is for Mr Gardiner to make the statement that I have failed to establish that "significant remains still survive there" when he hasn't looked at the remains that I have excavated. How can he say that in writing, and hope to get away with it?
30. THE WORKING PAPERXXXXXXXXXXXX
31. Introduction Section 1)
32. Para 1.1 to 1.3 is a statement of fact
33. Para 1.4 The earthworks have been studied but not examined in the usual archaeological sense of completing sections to establish the details. To state that the earthworks have been examined by an archaeologist is in my view misleading.
34. Para 1.5 I have dealt with the issue of the County Archaeologist Dr Woodcock in paras 587 to 600. The issues relating to the battle of Hastings has no relevance to whether the Normans landed or camped at Upper Wilting. Introducing this element into the study is simply not relevant to the A259 Inquiry. The rest of the paragraph is a statement of fact.
35. Para 1.6 is a statement of fact.
36. Section Two now summarises "Mr Austin's argument" and is agreed as a statement of fact detailing most of my case, but not all of it since it omits the place name evidence and the earthworks in Chapel Wood.
37. However the most important omission is to state what my case is. This is outlined throughout my manuscript, but never discussed in any detail by Mr Gardiner because it pinpoints the failing in his own case. On page 160 to 161 of my manuscript I state my conclusions relating to the whole of my case. These have been repeated in my Statement of Case to the Highways Agency.
38. In paragraph three of page 160 of my manuscript I say that "I have made a satisfactory case for all these matters to be thoroughly investigated. I believe that this should be conducted by an independent team of archaeologists and historians, who have the necessary expertise and government funding to conduct the detailed and highly specialised nature of the examination" - that is the case that Mr Gardiner has ignored in this document and ignored from my text.
39. Section three relates to narrative Histories of the Norman invasion.
40. Para 3.1.1. Mr Gardiner "suggests" my case is correct that Jumieges did not have access to detailed evidence. The rest of the paragraph is a statement of fact.
41. Para 3.1.2 Mr Gardiner produces a one paragraph statement, which whilst a statement of fact completely over simplifies one of the most respected sources for the Norman period. However I would not wish to suggest that Mr Gardiner does not understand the issues but simply oversimplifies them.
42. Para 3.1.3 Mr Gardiner is not a Norman Historian and cannot be expected to keep up to date on everything happening in the world of history. Mr Gardiner does not I believe claim to be a Jack of all trades in the diverse world of archaeology or historical research. In consequence he quotes R.H.C.Davis who "Argued" about the Carmen in 1978. This argument is now I believe obsolete in Norman historical circles due to the work of E.van Houts, as explained in my manuscript (page 11).
43. Para 3.1.4. You have to admire a man who quotes your own source Ms Elizabeth van Houts, who has read the manuscript and tells you that she "is happy for me to use her name in support of my case" and Mr Gardiner seeks to assert that somehow I have got it wrong. I do not disagree with the sentiment expressed by Mr Gardiner because it has all been taken into account by both myself and Ms Van Houts. Mr Gardiner has no case here.
44. Para 3.1.5. Mr Gardiner does not have much to say about the Chronicle of Battle Abbey. However he has made a blunder by stating that it is a useful guide but tries to discredit it by reference to the Battle of Hastings. The central issue in my manuscript you will remember, relating the Chronicle of Battle Abbey, had no reference to the Battle of Hastings. It is the sole reference to the name Hedgeland. This appears in no other text, making his comments of no value in this respect - the Chronicle is the sole source and therefore could not be obtained from Poitiers or Wace.
45. Para 3.1.6. Mr Gardiner quotes M.Bennet in relation to the Wace manuscript. Why Mr Gardiner chooses Mr Bennet's text in 1982 over many others I do not know. It could possibly be because the manuscript is not located within the library system, as far as I know. I have no reason to respect Mr Bennet's opinion any more than Mr Gardiner's. The text "suggests" in one sentence, "observes" in another and "concludes" with no explanation in the last paragraph that "Vernacular poetry can provide a rich source for material on the history during which it was composed, rather than that which it purports to tell". A meaningless paragraph in relationship to the Norman camp or landing site at Wilting farm, which neither supports my case nor Mr Gardiner's. I have absolutely no idea why it has been quoted, other than an attempt to show that he has addressed the issues raised in Wace, although there is no other reference to a document which in many respects is consistently referred to as my main reference source. Mr Gardiner does not state that he has read Wace and I am not convinced he has read it. In fact Mr Gardiner does not state anywhere in his critique that he has read the source documents that he is writing about. I would have thought this was the only basis to write a critique concerning the documents I have written about. Instead it appears that all the issues are reported second hand - there is no original input from Mr Gardiner at all. In consequence all the conclusions he proposes are the result of other people's observations, without apparent access to any of the documents I refer to. I do not need other people's observations to make my own conclusions, because I have seen the evidence, and those who report on these matters over the past twenty or so years have not. I therefore suggest that observations made using other's conclusions are not valid observations by Mr Gardiner at all and therefore not admissible as evidence to counter the archaeological evidence I have produced.
46. In respect to page 7 of Mr Gardiner's working paper, under the heading "Discussion of historical sources" paragraph 3.2. Mr Gardiner states that "he can identify three processes which may have affected the accuracy of the accounts". He does not state that he has identified three processes that have effected the accuracy of the accounts. Why? Because he cannot know whether the accounts are accurate or not. Therefore any proposal that he might make is simply an opinion based upon supposition and not upon fact. Supposition is not in my view evidence and therefore the three elements he draws to our attention are in my opinion creatively building a smoke screen.
47. If Mr Gardiner has evidence to show that the documents in question are false or have inaccuracies in them he should produce the evidence. Of course he cannot and therefore the whole of section three is a an academic pursuit, that has no bearing on either the evidence, that I have shown exists, nor the statements contained in the documents identifying the site at Wilting and the port of Hastings as the Norman camp.
48. However in order to be thorough I shall address each paragraph as it arises:
49. Paragraph 3.2.1. Mr Gardiner identifies the common classical device of scholars of the day to allude to the classics of the period by incorporating an element of poetic licence. This is well understood, but has no relevance to the segments of verse I have used to establish the validity of the site in question. By way of example The Carmen breaks off in the middle of the battle scene into poetic verse "O Mars god of war, who curbest kingdoms by the sword, to whom the gory corpses of striplings etc etc etc"for sixteen lines of verse before returning to " Suddenly the forest poured forth troops and men, from hiding-places of the woods a host dashed forward".
50. In consequence Mr Gardiner's belief that because sections of classical verse mimicking the great poets of the past were inserted into identifiable sections that the writers were "highly improbable" to reproduce verbatim remarks or be in any way reliable is in my view nonsense, designed to mislead those who have not read the source material or who do not understand the basis of how these old manuscripts were written. I have a full understanding of these matters and suggest that the words Mr Gardiner uses "highly improbable" are not based upon any known case where he can identify evidence that I have used which can be shown to fall into this category. He has not quoted any but relies upon a completely unfounded generalisation. As a generalisation I do not believe this clause qualifies as acceptable evidence to counter any of the archaeological or even historical claims that I have made in my manuscript and is therefore inadmissible as evidence.
51. Paragraph 3.2.2 Mr Gardiner kindly quotes Ms van Houts again using the generalisation this time that "use or absence of a particular word or phrase may not bear close interpretation". This quote is not referenced but I am happy to accept that she may have said this in connection with the Carmen. However the conclusion of Mr Gardiner's quote would be that if you take every quote in the 800 lines of verse and apply such a statement then you could not rely on any of it. This is clearly not Ms Houts meaning and without the context of the quote is a meaningless phrase.
52. Having spoken with Ms Houts and received the letter dated 8^th March this year (page 419 of my bundle) where she states that she is "very happy to use my name in support of your case" I cannot accept that I have interpreted any of the historical documents in an out of hand or incorrect manner. In consequence I must assume that if Mr Gardiner is not going to itemise any detail that I have taken, or show how it qualifies under his proposal, the fact that it MAY or MAY NOT bear close interpretation, is not relevant to my case, this being that the evidence for landing at the port is not open to interpretation. The texts name Hastings. In the case of the Carmen, Ms van Houts specialist subject it states "William remained in camp at the port of Hastings" - Mr Gardiner cannot argue with this. If he is suggesting that this may be wrong because of what Ms Houts said I believe this would be a major distortion of the truth and should be rejected as an argument.
53. Paragraph 3.2.3 seeks to give a lecture on what history is, stating quite correctly that "Absolute, objective history, that is history as an assemblage of incontestable facts, has not been considered achievable since the early 20^th century" - absolutely right Mr Gardiner, but you omit to mention that history changes as new information become available. Advances in technology are turning established "facts" as you like to call them upside down. In recent years battlefields that have been long established in one place have moved as a result of new information, the age of the Sphinx is no longer caste in stone and archaeologists all over the world are requestioning long established myths.
54. Here we are doing exactly that, requisitioning a long established myth upon the basis of new scientific evidence. Yet the basis of your case relies on nothing more than a belief that by sticking to past dogma, without re-examining the basis of the evidence, the previous status quo should remain.
55. Yes Mr Gardiner I understand the limitations of the documentary evidence and that is why I do not rely on it. No-where do I state that the documentary evidence proves the case. I simply state that this reinforces the archaeological case - an issue not addressed in your critique.
56. Paragraph 3,3 Mr Gardiner identifies "The chief problem of Mr Austin's interpretation is his failure to identify the limitation of his sources and his tendency to place excessive emphasis on events that cannot support his interpretation".
57. He goes on to describe where my manuscript states that it is "probable" that because the ground was described as rough was "waterlogged", as detailed in the Poitiers manuscript.
58. Mr Gardiner states that "The passage cannot support the view that the ground was waterlogged", seeking to discredit the whole story by attempting to discredit a part of it. Unfortunately I agree with Mr Gardiner this is a supposition and I have stated as such by the use of the word "probable". I do not claim that the incident where William needed to dismount was essential in any way to my case. I am happy to dismiss it entirely. It was put in because the area around the Lower Norman fort is waterlogged from October through to the Spring. In fact whilst involved in excavations there I had to be pulled out of the mud by the farmer on one very embarrassing Autumn day. I simply recognised that this site could not be easily negotiated on horseback and drew the obvious conclusion. However my case does not rely on it and it is entirely circumstantial evidence.
59. None the less the statement that I fail to identify the limitations of my sources is not confirmed by this paragraph. Mr Gardiner states "It is intended to demonstrate William's courage and strength" - hold on - where is this stated. Mr Gardiner is drawing his own conclusions again, and stating his beliefs as facts, without any substantiation. Whilst Mr Gardiner states that "The passage cannot support the view that the ground was waterlogged" neither can he prove it was not. In which case I believe there is no point at all to Mr Gardiner's paragraph 3.3
60. Section 4 is entitled Pevensey as the Norman landing place.
61. I believe that the issue relating to Pevensey is a complete red herring and shows how Mr Gardiner has failed completely to understand the relevance of my case. He now devotes a whole page to stating why I believe the Normans did not land at Pevensey, and then in paragraph number 4.3 seeks to argue that William must have landed at Pevensey first, without quoting a single reason other than his understanding of medieval warfare, which required control of towns and forts. Although Mr Gardiner fails to explain why William would want to land under what may have been a defended castle as opposed to an undefended town, where all the men where known to be away on the annual fishing trip to the north. He states at the end of the paragraph, continued over the page, that it is "very likely" that the Normans consolidated their position in the week between the landing and the battle - my case entirely.
62. What Mr Gardiner fails to grasp is that Pevensey and the issue of the use of its name is of absolutely no relevance to whether the Normans camped at Wilting farm or not. The issue of whether the landing was at Wilting or Pevensey, will only be resolved by archaeological investigation - the reason for submitting the evidence. The reason this site is of national importance is that it holds the secrets of that period in history, because the main camp is at Wilting. Whether the Normans spent a day or so at Pevensey as well, and in what order, has no relevance to the authenticity of the Wilting camp.
63. Mr Gardiner fails to acknowledge that there is no evidence for the Normans landing at Pevensey, but tries hard to find something to support his case, not realising that whilst my thesis could be taken as a slight on the Pevensey Castle site, the authorities, namely English Heritage, as we have seen, have never relied upon the Normans landing there in the first place. If the Normans did land at Pevensey first, I personally would consider it a miracle. It is up to history to decide - certainly not me, and as far as I can see anything that happened at Pevensey is not really relevant to the first camp and landing site at Wilting.
64. It does not matter where they landed first in reality, because they camped and stayed at Wilting, and therefore this is the site of the first camp of William the Conqueror, and is the Invasion site by virtue of the boats in the bay. In consequence Pevensey has no bearing on that issue and it is the boats and fort at Wilting which determines whether the site's integrity should be maintained by diverting the bypass to a more acceptable route.
65. Paragraph 4.4 Mr Gardiner makes three more statements of "fact" which are personal "claims" I believe. His claims cannot be justified, whereas mine can be shown to be correct in relation to the site at Wilting Farm. Therefore it can be shown that my statements have a basis that can be relied upon and his do not.
66. Paragraph 4.5 Mr Gardiner now tries to claim that Wace is unreliable, having quoted Wace as a source in the previous paragraphs 3.1.5 and 3.1.6. If Wace is unreliable please state why and I shall show you why he is not, because as I have stated in my manuscript pages 22 to 29 Wace is undoubtedly the pre-eminent source for the Invasion story. 16000 lines of detail, which is accepted in France as the ultimate authority. I cannot accept the "doubt" you express, because doubt is not one thing nor the other. Either the manuscript is admissible or not. If not, a reason must be given, and in the absence of a reason your doubt has no meaning at all
67. To summarise the sections of Mr Gardiner's manuscript, which attempt to respond to my case, which we have looked at so far, in sections three and four there is not one single paragraph that qualifies as a satisfactory rebuttal to my case. No evidence has been presented and the best that can be said is that Mr Gardiner puts forward his own opinions and presents them as "facts" - where they are no more than a personal opinion.
68. Section 5 deals with the Domesday Book.
69. I have dealt with the issues raised by the Domesday Book in the evidence earlier in paragraphs numbered 172 to 210 of this statement. I shall not deal again with each paragraph of his case because it is clear from listening to my evidence that Mr Gardiner has not evaluated the information correctly. Dr Chibnall from Cambridge states on page 31 of my bundle "To me the heart of your case lies in the Domesday evidence, of the importance of Wilting Farm", whilst Dr E.van Houts states "I find the evidence you collected from Domesday book particularly strong". Both have studied my texts and looked at the conclusions. I therefore respectfully bow to their views as independent historians specialising in the Norman period.
70. Mr Gardiner has sought to undermine the data by muddying the water with who owned what where. These issues I have already addressed, and show that I believe he has not examined the basis of my evaluation very carefully. His opinion and statements are presented as fact, but are only alternative interpretations that cannot be verified, and therefore supposition, which in the absence of proof cannot stand against evidence for the Wilting landing site.
71. Section 6 now deals with the Bayeux Tapestry.
72. I have dealt with this in my evidence earlier paragraphs 211 - 263. Mr Gardiner continues to claim without substance that I do not "understand" the Bayeux Tapestry whilst he does. That I "do not appreciate the limitations of the artistic representation (para 6.5) and it is "not possible" to place the weight of interpretation given by Mr Austin to the conventionalised scenes on the Tapestry".
73. In order to justify this position he offers nothing new, but statements of his own opinions and the opinion of Brooks and Walker, which cannot be verified as being correct, since for every historian who produces a theory there are others who will disagree.
74. The basis of my case is that the Bayeux Tapestry detail can be applied to one site only. This is located at Wilting Farm. Mr Gardiner fails to address this argument and as such the issues he raises are of no consequence to the authenticity or otherwise of his observations. All that matters is that those things that the designer of the Tapestry drew, can be applied to the site in question. It does not prove that the landing and camp site was at Wilting, but an overpowering suggestion that it most likely was. Mr Gardiner's case in seeking to argue that the Tapestry does not support the Wilting case is unsubstantiated by any suggestion of any other site, and does not state why he makes the claim that "it is not possible to place the weight of interpretation given by Mr Austin to the conventionalised scenes on the Tapestry". If it is not possible please state why rather than simply making a statement of opinion.
75. In paragraph 6.8 Mr Gardiner's critique I would like to pick up on the basis of attack that is employed throughout this document. In this paragraph Mr Gardiner states that Brooks and Walker have argued this case, and therefore as a result of that argument it is not possible to accept my conclusion. This is the application of logic gone mad. Because someone argues a case it cannot be presented as a fact and therefore no other argument or evidence is valid. This subscribes to the philosophy of "I believe this, therefore you are wrong." This is not evidence or balanced thinking, or even legitimate debate, yet Gardiner produces this basis of rebuttal time and time again. It must be seen for what it is - a literary device to cover the fact that Mr Gardiner has no evidence to counter or support his case.
76. The most obvious counter to my case must be the location of the real Norman landing site, if my case is not valid. Mr Gardiner, with the resources of one of the largest Government Departments, does not even pretend that he can make a case for the Normans landing anywhere else. I am tempted to say I rest my case, but there is too much more to clarify.
77. Section 7 deals with the relationship between Bulverhythe and Hastings.
78. Again I present the case that Mr Gardiner has failed to grasp the reason I wrote my manuscript. It was not written for the benefit of the Highways Agency, it was written to give a total understanding of the circumstances that could have arisen to justify the landing and camp at Wilting. Nowhere in my manuscript do I claim that everything I say is sacrosanct, and indeed it would be most unusual, if prior to any proper investigation, every detail of everything I propose where proven to be correct. If that were the case, I would justifiably be accused of having special powers - which you know I do not have.
79. In consequence this whole section relating to an understanding of Hastings town and its removal to the "New Burgh" referred to in Domesday, when this happened, if at all, has no relevance to the case regarding the A259 Bypass. Whether the town was called Hastings or not is supported by the manuscripts I have studied which name the port of Hastings. Only excavation can confirm or deny this proposal. However in the absence of excavations Dr Gardiners summary stating in paragraph 7.7 "No historical or archaeological evidence has been found to support this contention" offers the same response as Galileo and his telescope. Of course no evidence has been found, because no-one has looked. I say I have looked and you Mr Gardiner are looking the other way. This is not a legitimate rebuttal of the evidence I have provided. The evidence as we have seen consists of excavations, aerial photographs, objects in woodland, objects on the marsh and the Smyth and Jennings archaeological work which confirms a port at Combe Haven.
80. I shall now look at the Place Name evidence. This is discussed in my manuscript pages 150 and 151 and is reviewed by Mr Gardiner in his section number 8.
81. PLACE NAMESXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

RETURN TO CORRESPONDENCE