- DOMESDAY*************************
- During the course of my study of the historical documents
it was necessary to look carefully at the data available from
the Domesday Book (pages 30 - 44 of my manuscript). This
exercise is of immense importance in identifying the correct site
for the Norman Invasion, and one that provides in my view conclusive
proof that the Norman camp was in the immediate vicinity
of the Combe Haven valley, and thus supporting the Wilting site.
- The Domesday Book is in effect an authentic government document,
written in 1085/6 giving a clear picture of the value of lands
twenty years after the Invasion. Who owned them, and what the
values were when the landowner acquired them.
- The exercise involved taking all the data from the Sussex
manors, in the Rapes of Pevensey and Hastings. These areas are
shown on page 32 of my manuscript. I would now like to
look at that map.
- I have listed the relevant manors and owners in my bundle
(pages 74 119). If we look at page 78 we see the land listed which
belongs to Battle Church. This is detailed on pages 78, 79 and
80 of my bundle.
- If we turn to the second page (page 79 of my bundle)
you can see that the Abbey ownership marked in orange on my plan,
for the manors of Wilmington, Hooe and Bullington.
- Please note that the manorial holdings are listed by ownership
in my source document - the Sussex version of Domesday by John
Morris.
- In consequence the Battle Abbey land for Bullington, Hooe
and wilmington would be correctly allocated to those manors and
not included in the Battle value, as claimed in Mr Gardiner's
critique.
- In the case of these particular parcels of land they are very
small and in any event are discarded from the analysis because
under the rules which I go into shortly.
- You will see that these manors are listed below the map (the
one on page 32 of my manuscript which we are looking at),
with numbers and letters representing the location of the manor
as detailed in the John Morris Domesday Sussex book.
- BE1 is Bullington, NI 3 is Hooe and L 1.is Wilmington. As
you can see they are nowhere near Battle and have not been included
in the Battle values.
- I then listed the values of each of the manors shown from
the information provided. This shows the value before the Invasion,
at the Invasion and the value at the time of the Survey, 20 years
later.
- If we now look at MAP2 from page 33 of my manuscript
you will see that many of the previous manors have been eliminated
from the search. Including Wilmington L1 in the Pevensey Rape.
This is because I made a very basic assumption that when an army,
at this time in history, was in the area foraging for food, the
resultant devastation from the need to feed men would result in
a depression of the values of those manors effected, until the
worst effected would be worth nothing. Where a manor or parcel
of land was only worth 5 shillings or less in the first place,
any loss of value as a result of such foraging would distort the
over all picture.
- By removing these small parcels of land and also those which
had not decreased in value, as well as those which had increased
in value, we are left with those which were most likely to hold
the main camp of the Norman army. Since the assumption is that
this would be where the greatest impact would be felt because
this would be where the army had been staying the longest.
- In the case of the Battle land at Wilmington it is shown to
have a value of only 15 shillings. It is not removed from evaluation
on that basis, but is removed because the data shows that the
value is neither depressed or increased. In effect we cannot know
for certain that the value remained the same, but in the absence
of any other information to the contrary must conclude that there
was no change, because there is no reference to any change in
the Bullington entry.
- This obviously means that there are areas of data open to
interpretation. However if the rules are applied rigorously smoothing
of any corrupting data through erroneous reporting must be kept
to a minimum.
- I then applied a graphics filter, using the same display,
but this time dividing the manors into bands of value where the
display shows the loss of value, expressed as a grey scale. This
can be seen on page 34 of my manuscript (let us look at
that now)
- Here we are starting to see a clear pattern of devastation
spreading from a central core located in the HASTINGS AREA. There
is virtually no loss of value in Pevensey or any of the manors
around Pevensey.
- This information has been known for many years, but has been
ignored by historians, who frequently fail to challenge any facts
that do not fit current thinking. Yet I am sure it is obvious
to those present, that when an army of several thousand men land
in your manor, unannounced, the impact on the profitability of
your land is likely to take a tumble.
- The Domesday Book shows clearly that the probable site of
the main Camp of William the Conqueror was somewhere in that section
of dark black squares.(point out) I propose that it can clearly
be shown to either in Wilting or Crowhurst manors.
- This can be done by taking this data and applying it in a
linear format, according to the centre of operations of the army
in question. I would now like to look at GRAPH1 on page 35 of
my manuscript.
- This shows the same data we have looked at earlier, but this
time expressed as a percentage value of their original value after
the Invasion, in order of distance from Wilting manor. Wilting
manor has been chosen as the centre for this exercise, since there
must be a logic in the visual display, if my thesis is correct,
that Wilting is the site of the camp. Details of distance used
the map on page 119 of my bundle.
- Looking at this graph there is no apparent pattern, other
than a clear distinction between the value of the
manors in Pevensey and those around Wilting. Those near Wilting
have in the words of Domesday been "wasted" - an expression
that Poitiers uses for the area around William's camp (my manuscript
page 10). It is not in my view a coincidence that the same expression
is used in both texts.
- In order to make sense of this graphical information it is
necessary to know detailed information about the geography of
the land in this area, as it was in 1066. This is where those
who have carried out desktop surveys in the past have fallen down.
Without this information Domesday cannot reveal its hidden information.
- If we now look at MAP5 on page 38 of my manuscript
we can see the coastline as it was in 1066.This is very different
from what it is today. Pevensey marsh was open to the sea and
the Combe Haven valley was a tidal estuary according to Jennings
and Smyth (see NA bundle page 17) certainly as far as the inlet
where I claim the fleet landed.
- There is no doubt in my mind from the Domesday data, that
the Normans did go to Pevensey at some stage, for a brief period,
and Wace appears to throw light on this by claiming that they
went there on the second day. This would be the move of an experienced
general, who would certainly make sure that the local militia
were dealt with. Pevensey was the nearest castle at the time,
and in consequence Wace's version is both logical and believable
since there would be no reason to land below what might be a heavily
fortified castle garrison.
- In those days the road from Pevensey to Hastings (or vice
verse) did not go along the A259 as we know it. If it did William
would have undoubtedly have used the A259 and we would by now
have a bypass. The traffic in those days was a whole lot smaller
and less frequent. However the route can be identified from the
development of the roads that followed, and more importantly the
development of property along the route.
- In Hastings the old road to London was not along the ridge,
as most who are unfamiliar with historical research will be aware,
but along the line of the old manors. This road went from Hastings
to Hollington, to Wilting, to Crowhurst and North to Robertsbridge.
Hence the old coach road followed these well weathered tracks,
which later became the roads we know today.
- If a traveller wanted to move along the coast in 1066, he
could not turn West until after Crowhurst, because of the flooded
Combe Haven Valley. Bore hole tests show that the Crowhurst valley
flooded well past the Church, making the crossing necessary further
north.
- If we look at MAP 4 on page 37, we can now see in close up
this route in detail, from Wilting to the edge of the Pevensey
marsh. Starting in Wilting the first point the road could turn
West, was at the top of Telham Hill, through Broomham (now Catsfield)
and over the bridge or ford at Boreham Bridge. From here the road
follows the edge of the marsh to Pevensey.
- There is a simple explanation to the inconsistency of the
Domesday data shown in the last graph, since you need to apply
this route to the manors shown in the last graph we looked at.
This eliminates the discrepancy of trying to evaluate manors which
may be north or south of the main thoroughfares. This can now
be seen on Graph 2 on page 36 of my manuscript. (explain?)
- If we look at this graph we have a list of manors in their
geographic position in relation to the road of the time from Wilting
to Pevensey. As the distance increases the devastation decreases
in a quite predictable and explainable way.
- This graph shows quite clearly, even to those who might not
clearly understand how the results have been obtained, that there
is a link between the Domesday data and the Wilting to Pevensey
road. This shows the centre of operations of this Norman army
was at Wilting, Crowhurst or Broomham. Since there is a wealth
of manuscript evidence identifying the port of Hastings as the
site of the Norman camp, there is an inescapable conclusion that
leads us to identify Wilting manor at the old port of Hastings
on the Combe Haven valley.
- However this conclusion is further endorsed by the data itself,
when you examine the manors around the Combe Haven valley. If
you take their value before 1066 and at 1086, twenty years after
the Invasion, you can look at the rate of recovery, expressed
as a percentage of their original value, where that information
is available. Here you can see those figures expressed as GRAPH3
on page 42 of my manuscript.
- You will see that those two manors which recovered the least
in the 20 odd years since the Invasion were Crowhurst and Wilting
- both manors adjacent to the Combe Haven valley. This is new
information from the Domesday data that has never before been
evaluated this way.
- Now bearing in mind that the London road leads north from
Wilting, this effect shown here in values is not surprising, since
the Normans took over the Wilting manor and indirectly also contributed
to its recovery. Crowhurst to the North must have taken the full
brunt of the ravages of foraging and in consequence is shown as
the least well recovered, even twenty years after the Invasion.
- What clearer sign could we have to show us that the Normans
landed in the Combe Haven valley. Those manors to the south, on
the southern shores escaped the full weight of foraging, because
they were protected by the open water. Those to the north were
WASTED. An expression used by Poitiers and the Carmen, and those
that were wasted the most, by virtue of the slowest rates of recovery,
were Wilting and Crowhurst. Both on the main London road of the
time.
- I claim in my manuscript (pages 42 - 43) that Wilting
and Crowhurst were the centre of operations of the Norman Invasion,
as supported by the Domesday data. I make the point that Domesday
shows clearly a gradual decreasing of activity the further away
from the epicentre of Norman activity you travel. That epicentre
is Wilting manor on the Combe Haven valley.
- I shall now look at the seventh document which I studied.
This is not technically a document but a cloth of course.
- THE BAYEUX TAPESTRY*******************
RETURN TO CORRESPONDENCE