1. NORMAN INVASION FLEET XXXXXXXXXXX
2. During the course of my work in the fields adjacent to Monkham Wood I concluded that the inlet immediately adjacent to the camp must have been significant at the time of the Invasion. Access on the western side was restricted by a sandstone cliff approximately 15 feet high, with a track leading to an entrance near the top, at the northern end.
3. I therefore decided to look for the Norman boats, once the work on the fort was complete. Here I was forced to fall back upon my dowsing talents in order to locate the boats.
4. I received a response to Norman boats almost immediately. Using the technique I had developed over several years I was able to ascertain, albeit in my own mind at that time, the size and length of the boats concerned. I do not rely upon dowsing as a means to prove what I say. I rely on the artefacts which were found.
5. I found a response in many hundreds of locations from what I call the Monkham Inlet right round the bay, as far as to just beyond where the proposed road crosses the marsh. This is marked on my manuscript on the plan drawn on page 88.
6. Here we can see that I have marked the places where boats are believed to be located. It is of interest to me that none are marked in the area between the port and Monkham inlet. I do not know why this is, but expect an explanation will arise once more is known about the site.
7. Before starting to excavate I measured what I thought the size of these boats appeared to be from the dowsing response. They all appeared to be in the region of only just over a meter wide by approximately four meters long. Please remember that these figures cannot be relied upon until an excavation is concluded. However the boats were in an almost continuous parallel formation along the whole shore approximately five meters apart.
8. Interestingly the shore line has a consistent row of very slight mounds at the same interval. This is identifiable if marked out with sticks and you are asked to walk past the sticks. Because the ground is hidden in deep marsh grass you can tell better from the feel of your feet than you can from sight.
9. Whilst conducting this initial survey I suddenly realised that the mouth of the Monkham inlet had been earthed up by a big earthen dam. This was not visible from the landward side, because it was completely hidden by the 10 foot high reed beds. Here we can see the view looking out of the inlet on photo number. Whilst the following photos (number 20 and 21 - together) show two views of the earthen bank from the marsh side.
10. It is built in a similar style to the other dikes in the marsh and therefore it is reasonable to conclude that the construction was done at the same time (in the mid 19^th century)
11. Having spent so much time in this area I was completely amazed, and realised the implications for the landing site story, as told by the Carmen. Here was an inlet, next to the camp where I believed William the Conqueror first landed, and there was an earthen dam across the end sealing it off from the main bay. Exactly as stated in the Carmen - where it states "fearing to lose the ships, you surrounded them with earthworks and guarded the shores".
12. Could this earthen bank really have been built all that long ago?
13. The first thing I did was check the records relating to the drainage ditches and found that the earthen bank marked the field boundary prior to the construction of the ditches.
14. I then looked very carefully at the construction and noted that the field next to the earthen bank, was the only field on the whole of the Combe Haven valley with a square corner. This may or may not be important, but it does support the view that the earth used for the construction, was taken from the adjacent field at the same time, unlike the dikes on the marsh.
15. If we look at the plan on page 136 of my manuscript we can see the layout of this earthen structure. The earthen dam is marked D on the plan, and there is a drainage ditch running along the front inside edge and out into the marsh.
16. The work that Smyth and Jennings did on this structure, confirmed the existence of a deep water channel, running along the right side of this inlet, where the earthen Roman jetties are located. They called it a deep water channel when I was on the marsh with them and I asked them to confirm this to me. I note in the letter dated 3^rd November 1993 that the word "deep" is not included in their letter of confirmation However this is not material because the words "navigable in 1066 up to the Monkham inlet" in para 2 page 17 of my bundle mean the same.
17. Inside the inlet, in the trapped area marked C, I believe I identified 14 boats, some of which were four meters long and some of which were wider by about half a meter and longer by about two meters. These were located at the very front of what I call the beach in my manuscript (page 136).
18. The interesting thing about the earthen bank is that if it were built recently the drainage channel would have been located on the right of the inlet to let the water out at the deepest point. I believe the fact that the drainage channel is located on the left of the bank is because the drainage channels would have been formed at the shallowest point, where the tide or man's intervention could cut the channel easiest.
19. Damming an inlet which has an active stream flowing into it is not a logical thing to do, if the object of the exercise is to drain an area. The conclusion must be that the dam was a temporary structure, which was altered at a later date. Mr Gardiner, comes up with a novel idea in his critique para 12.9 in which he suggests "It seems likely that the bank was either formed by scoured the adjacent ditch, or was intended to prevent flood water in Combe Haven entering the meadowland to the north".
20. He appears to have failed to notice that the earthen bank has a channel cut through it to let out the water out from the stream onto the marsh. If he had spent some time in this place he would know that once Winter comes, the so called meadowlands is most of the time at least a foot under water, because even with the channel cut in the bank, there is so much water entering the Monkham inlet, from Monkham Wood end and the fifty acres of farmland that drains into it, that it is awash.
21. Therefore Mr Gardiner's proposal that the bank has been made from the spoil from the drainage ditch is not logical. Why build a drainage ditch across the front of the inlet, then pile up the earth so that the water is retained inside the inlet. The effect of this action is to create a huge lake in the area that seeks to be drained, because the water cannot get out. Also the proposal that the bank might be to keep OUT the water from the Combe Haven marsh, just to cover ourselves in case the first theory doesn't stick, is equally impossible because if the bank does not have a drainage channel running through it the water will pile up in the inlet all the time.
22. What Mr Gardiner probably did not know, because he is unfamiliar with the site is that the stream through Monkham Wood is extremely prolific, but passes underground through what he calls the meadowlands on the side of the inlet with what Jenning and Smyth told me was the deep water channel.
23. Unless he spent any time there, and I am assured by the tenant that he did not spend more than half a day last April, he would not know about this, and would draw the wrong conclusions, as he has. Which proves my point that is not qualified to make conclusions in regards of the earthen bank without conducting a proper section.
24. Smyth and Jennings were unable to be of assistance in dating the structure, when I asked them if they would do bore hole tests in the structure across Monkham inlet in 1993 (see para 3 letter on page number 17 of my bundle). They urged caution at this time and confirmed to me that they could confirm that it was made within the last 2,200 radiocarbon years. I was told that if I wanted to be more accurate I would need to obtain a grant to conduct a section through the bank. It could then be established whether this earthen bank was connected to the other items at the port or not.
25. Before proceeding let me just take a step back. The earthen bank is not a material piece of evidence that can be relied upon here because it has not been investigated. Its relevance is only to establish that investigation is necessary and that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that it may be connected to the Norman Invasion.
26. If there were no earthen bank, the Highways Agency could rightly ask me to explain why no ships could be found at this site which were earthed up. My response to that is that this site has ships that are earthed up. If you can show that this is not the case after I have shown you the earthen bank and the ships then you have won the case.
27. Alternatively if you fail to investigate the evidence, you cannot claim that my evidence does not exist, as per Mr Gardiner's case. He states in his conclusion "It has not been possible to check all the details presented by Mr Austin. The archaeological remains which he uncovered are no longer open to view and cannot be re-examined". Remains of this type do not disappear, because there is a Public Inquiry. These remains have been there for nine hundred and thirty years. Is Mr Gardiner seriously telling us that they "cannot be re-examined" - why not? If you want to win the argument you have to look. Failing to look is not a very good excuse, in fact it is not an excuse at all, or indeed a legitimate defence, in fact I conclude that it admits in writing one of the following:
28. either the Highways Agency have no case for rebuttal
29. or the Highways Agency, or their agents have not done their due diligence or
30. even worse someone has been negligent in making sure that the archaeological remains are looked at. To leave them exposed to the air would be a gross act of negligence on my part and cannot be contemplated as a legitimate reason for not looking at the sites of my previous excavations. Since no-one asked to see these things and when Dr Gardiner rang me to tell me that he wanted to look around the site. He rejected my offer to accompany him saying that I was not needed at this stage.
31. Since that was a conscious decision by Dr Gardiner, not to look at the excavations, I must conclude that he is responsible for the consequences of that decision and should not produce half baked ideas for the construction of the earthen structure that cannot stand up on the simplest of understanding of the inlet's structure. I am sorry if this comes across in rather strong terms but I am used to calling a spade a spade and here Mr Gardiner has no case.
32. I think that is enough about the earthen bank. What is important is what is inside the dammed area which the earthen bank retains, shown as section C on page number 136 of my manuscript.
33. The line of what was once a sandy beach is now shown where the dotted line between B and C is marked. I do not have any clear photos of this but if you walk into the inlet there is a sharp drop in elevation in a slight curve that follows the bay line. This is where the majority of the boats are located and are still identifiable as slight mounds. In real terms two or three inches at the centre and otherwise hidden by the marsh grass.
34. Several boats are also located in the middle and deep water side of the area concerned. I would also say to those who are here that you cannot rely on my drawings here to go treasure hunting. The exact locations are not easy to locate and you need to be prepared to spend some time in the very dry season in order to avoid a sticky end in peat bog. This is private land where the landowner has dogs, so think twice before venturing into the no-mans land of Wilting farm, without permission, and never go alone, because the marsh can be a dangerous place for the uninitiated.
35. It is important for people to also understand, that there is no treasure here. Not the sort that can be taken to a bank, or is of any use to a collector. I have been over the whole area with a metal detector, in order to avoid treasure hunters disturbing the site, and there is no magnetic response to anything, either here on the marsh edge, or at the Norman camp. Once treasure hunters realise that the ground has already been covered, the archaeologists can get on with their work undisturbed.
36. This is because the only metal in use in these places was iron and this is replaced by ionic degradation over five or six hundred years, let alone the nine hundred and thirty that are involved in this investigation. Hence when an excavation takes place all that can be seen is a brown image.
37. This is best explained by the understanding that if you leave a nail outside for any length of time, it becomes rust, eventually nothing but a brown powder. When this is encased in soil, the ions in the solution formed with rainwater, effectively dissolve and migrate through the soil in an osmosis type effect. However the image remains in the soil, to be seen and can be preserved with resins, to look exactly the same as the original. If it is touched or left exposed for any length of time before preservation, the effect is very similar to the end sequence of a Dracular movie, when Dracular gets a sticky end with a stake through the heart. Just lots of dust blowing in the wind.
38. In consequence the only people who can recover these items are specialist archaeological preservation experts. The sort of archaeologists who worked at Sutton Hooe long boat excavation from York University. This is not the sort of project to be entrusted to local archaeologists I am afraid to say.
39. I conducted a single excavation in the Wilting inlet bay area, at the front of the shore, where the largest boat is still moored. I believe this may be William's boat because it was the biggest and it was on the beach at the front.
40. The excavation was not what I had expected. The remains were just under the top six to nine inches of soil (my manuscript pages 140 - 141). Here I would like to show you photograph 20A. The photo does not do it justice and shows clearly why archaeologists need to get their hands dirty when examining relics. If we look at page 141 of my manuscript besides this you can get a better view of what we are looking at with photo 21A in close up, showing overlapping sections of ringlets and other unidentifiable features
41. I believe this is the remains of the ship's lantern and the reason I believe this is the Mora - William's boat. I did not state this in my manuscript, because it was not necessary. However the Bayeux Tapestry identifies a lantern and excavation will prove whether I am right or not.
42. I seem to have spent a lot of time drawing attention to the inadequacies of Mr Gardiner's critique. This is not something that I want to do, but is necessary in order that my claims may be put into their true perspective. The Highways Agency have commissioned Mr Gardiner's critique, with a view to discrediting my evidence, in a very obvious way. There is no attempt to present a balanced view and evidence that is crucial to the point is left out.
43. In the case of the Norman boats, Mr Gardiner has failed yet again to look at the evidence and again misquotes me, drawing a completely false conclusion on evidence that he has misquoted
44. Here he states "Corrosion and the dissolution of the corrosion products may take place leaving only a stain in the soil" this we agree on for once, then "This occurs in well aerated and freely draining soils. The clay in which Mr Austin found these remains is neither".
45. Now hold on Mr Gardiner! Where did you get this from?
46. What I said in my manuscript pages 140 and 141 is "I conducted an elementary surface clearance, removing the top six to nine inches of soil (note soil removed). Immediately a pattern appeared, which bore no relation to any other subject I had ever seen".
47. If we care to look at those patterns in the photographs, we can see that the subject is sandy, because this is a sandy beach line, six to nine inches below the soil.
48. I continued the paragraph by stating "I was surprised to find something so close to the surface. However digging further into the inlet revealed that the grey sediment layer of river mud is only just below the surface in some areas".
49. I did not say anything about the boat parts being in mud. I said digging further into the inlet! This is another case of putting words into my mouth by interpretation by Mr Gardiner to support a non existent rebuttal to my evidence.
50. In regards to this rebuttal Mr Gardiner goes one better by confirming my case that these circumstances only occur in well aerated soils - exactly as found at this site.
51. A complete misunderstanding of my evidence by Mr Gardiner and I believe another home goal for the Highways Agency case.
52. In conclusion we have no rebuttal of any value for the main basis of my case that Wilting contains archaeological evidence that show the ancient port located at Redgeland, part of which is on Wilting farm land. We have no reliable rebuttal for the archaeological case that the camp of William the Conqueror is located adjacent to this site and we have no reliable archaeological rebuttal of the Norman boats located in the Monkham inlet. In fact the evidence provided by the Highways Agency kindly confirms that the evidence that I have provided is technically in the right place to appear as it does.
53. I would now like to look at the evidence which proves that Cow Lane on Upper Wilting farm is in the region of 1,000 years old. This lane is shown in my manuscript on page 144.
54. This runs from what is believed to be the site of the original manor. In my manuscript page145 to 147 I make the case that this was the site of the second Norman fort on the top of the hill, as shown on the Bayeux Tapestry and recorded in the Carmen by use of the words "dismantled forts".
55. I make the case that this lane has been established since the Norman Invasion, because it lies at the centre of the landing area, which we examined earlier on page 88 of my manuscript. I make the case that it was used to transport the field equipment to the main advantage point, where they built the main defence. This defence looked over the London road and gave the defenders at least an hour's warning of any approaching army by virtue of the view to the Telham ridge.
56. In the 1987 HAARG report on Wilting farm the hedges to this lane were reported to contain at least seven different species, with eight on the other. This is remarkable in an area that has been heavily farmed for the last hundred years and has a continuous farming record dating back to Domesday.
57. This information is usually used to date hedgerows upon the basis of 100 years per species giving a date very close to the Invasion, thus it is within the realms of possibility that this lane may hold other information that has not been thoroughly investigated.
58. The age of this lane and that of the hedgerow immediately adjacent to the road by Chapel Field has not been addressed by the Highways Agency. In the latter's case we have a hedge count that confirms usage for 1,000 years, putting it exactly into the right age bracket to be considered as supporting the Invasion story.
59. The Highways Agency have not addressed this issue and since it is not challenged must be considered as legitimate evidence to support Wilting as the Invasion site.
60. I would now like to look at the Upper Norman Fort. The one I say was built as the main defence after the initial landing was consolidated.

RETURN TO CORRESPONDENCE