mfg project\esussex\hastdocl .doc
Mr N. Austin submitted to the Highways Agency a document
entitled 'The Secret of the Norman Invasion' as evidence against
the Published Scheme of the A259 Bexhill and Hastings Western
Bypass. In his document he argues that he has located the site
of prehistoric, Roman and Anglo-Saxon settlements, and of the
site of the Norman landing in 1066 and of two Norman forts. The
intended road will go through this area of supposed archaeological
and historic interest lying at Upper Wilting Farm.
Mr Austin's argument is based upon a reading of five
narratives compiled in the 11th, or 12th centuries, Domesday Book
and the Bayeux Tapestry. In addition, he has undertaken archaeological
fieldwork, including excavation and resistivity survey.
A critical examination of Austin's argument suggests
that he has used the historical sources selectively and often
without a proper understanding of their context. He fails to present
a good case in favour of a Norman landing at Hastings, rather
than at the accepted site of Pevensey. Mr Austin draws a number
of conclusions from the Baycux Tapestry, but assumes that the
Tapestry is an almost photographic representation of events.
It is unlikely that the designer of the Tapestry had a detailed
knowledge of the locality.
Mr Austin does not make a convincing case to support
his view that the site of 11th century Hastings lay
around the edge of the Combe Haven valley. His interpretation
of the place-names cannot be sustained.
The data provided by Mr Austin from a resistivity
survey has been re-processed. It shows a disturbed
area, but does not necessarily indicate the Norman fort he identifies.
A study of the earthworks noted by Austin suggests that he has
misunderstood their nature. The aerial photographs used in his
report were re-examined and many of th features identified by
Mr Austin could be interpreted in other ways.
It is concluded that there is little to support the
extravagant claims for the area of Upper Wilting Farm. The evidence,
whether historical or archaeological, is often misunderstood and
interpreted in a tendentious manner. 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.
Contents
Introduction 3
Summary of Mr Austin's argument 4
The narrative histories of the Norman invasion 5
Pevensey at the Norman landing place 8
The evidence of Domesday Book 9
The Bayeux Tapestry 10
The relationship of Bulverhythe and Hastings 12
Place-names 14
Summary of the historical evidence 16
Introduction to the archaeological evidence
from the Crowhurst area 17
Resistivity survey 17
Earthworks at Upper Wilting Farm 18
Aerial photographic evidence 21
Conclusions 23
1. Introduction
1.1 Mr N. Austin of Crowhurst submitted to the Highways
Agency a document entitled 'The Secret of the Norman Invasion'
as evidence against the Published Scheme of the A259 Bexhill
and Hastings Western Bypass. The present review is an examination
of the evidence presented by Mr Austin to determine whether the
claimed sites should be taken into consideration for the bypass
route. This review was commissioned by Chris Blandford Associates.
1.2 The document submitted by Mr Austin comprises
four parts: a review and analysis of the documentary evidence
and a study of the Bayeux Tapestry, a study of the Hastings area
using maps, archaeological evidence from the Crowhurst area, and
a discussion and conclusion.
1.3 Mr Austin argues in his paper that the proposed
road passes close to the site of the Norman landing in 1066, which
he identifies as near to Upper Wilting Farm, Hollington, Sussex.
He claims that substantial material remains survive of the Norman
boats and the forts erected by the Normans close to the landing
place. Not all of the argument presented by Austin is relevant
to the proposed route of the bypass. The present review concentrates
on the claimed sites and their setting which may be affected by
road construction.
1.4 The historical sources cited by Austin have been
considered for the purpose of this review, the aerial photographic
evidence in his possession and elsewhere has been studied and
the earthworks he claims to date from the Norman landing have
been examined. The geophysical data supplied by Mr Austin have
been printed out to reconsider his interpretation.
1.5 The results of Mr Austin's report were discussed
with the East Sussex county archaeologist (Dr Andrew Woodcock)
on the 3rd April 1995, and with the tenants of Upper Wilting Farm
(Mr and Mrs Blackford) and with Mr Austin himself on 11th April
1995. The views of David Smuthwaite of the National Army Museum,
the advisor to English Heritage on historic battlefields, was
also sought on the possibility that the Battle of Hastings might
not have been fought on the traditional site. Mr Austin also provided
copies of letters from the historian, Dr Marjorie Chibnell, a
specialist on 11th and 12th century English history.
1.6 The numbers in brackets in the text below refer
to the page numbers in Mr Austin's report.
2. Summary of Mr Austin's argument
2.1 Mr Austin argues that the Norman fleet intended
to sail to Pevensey on the Sussex coast and
landed not there, but at Hastings. He reasons that the place called
'Hastings' by the chroniclers is not the same as the town which
currently bears the name, but may be identified with Bulverhythe
which lies about 4 km to the west, and with the area of Combe
Haven behind it. In the11th century Bulverhythe was an island
at the head of a bay which occupied the area of the Combe Haven
valley. The Normans sailed to the head of the valley and landed
near to Wilting.
2.2 Mr Austin locates the site of the landing at a site which
he claims has been continuously occupied from the Bronze Age.
Thorough resistivity survey he has identified an Iron Age hillfort.
Close by, he states, is a Roman port with a fort and jetties for
loading iron on to ships, which are recognised from cropmarks,
from aerial photographs, and from earthworks. Mr Austin believes
that there was a Saxon settlement along the shores of the Combe
Haven valley which developed into the settlement of Bulverhythe
by the mid- 11th century.
2.3 By dowsing and subsequent archaeological excavation
in area to the south of Monkham Wood near Wilting, Mr Austin has
located the site of many Norman boats, including the one used
by William the Conqueror. An earth bank close to the site he believes
was constructed by the Normans to seal up their fleet.
2.4 After landing Mr Austin argues that the Normans
constructed two forts, a lower fort adjacent to Sandrock Field
and an upper fort which lies adjacent to Upper Wilting Farm and
in which was situated the chapel of St Mary in the Castle.
2.5 At a nearby, though
undisclosed site, Mr Austin locates the burial place of the Saxon
king, Harold.
2.6 From a study, mainly of the Bayeux Tapestry,
but also of other sources, he derives criteria against which the
proposed site of the landing must be judged. He concludes that
the place he has identified at Wilting fits these criteria.
3. The narrative histories of the Norman invasion
3.1 Ml. Austin uses five chronicles which may be
briefly summarised. Although none of these may be considered wholly
unreliable, the context for the production of each should be considered.
3.1.1 William of Jumieges - Gesta Normannorum
Ducum
Jumieges's work was written in or shortly after 1070 and therefore provides a near contemporary account of the invasion of England by the Normans. The absence of circumstantial information suggests he did not have access to detailed evidence. The main edition is Gesta Normannorum Ducum, ed. J.
Manx (19 14, Rouen), but tile relevant passages have
been conveniently reproduced in translation in English Historical
Documents 2, 228-30.
3.1.2 William of Poitiers - Gesta Willilmi Ducis Normannorum et Regis Anglorum
Poitiers had served both as a soldier and a cleric
before writing his Gesta. The work is written from a Norman
point of view and is rhetorical in style. However, it was written
about 1071 and therefore represents a contemporary account of
the invasion and Battle of Hastings. Poitiers used many models
for his composition. virgil's Aenid was used as the model for
the Norman sea-crossing, Sallust was used for the battle speeches,
Cicero or Augustine were adopted for the moral or philosophical
dissertations and reference was made to the
Satires of Juvenal, the Agricola of Tacitus and the Lives of Suetonius.(1)
3.1.3 The Carmen de Hastingae Proelio attributed to Guy of
Amiens
The attribution of the authorship of the Carmen
is based upon a reference by Orderic Vitalis that Bishop Guy
of Amiens wrote a poem about the Conquest. It
is not agreed by all historians that the Carmen is that
poem R.H.C. Davis has argued the Carmen
was not written in the 11th century by Guy, but that it is
a 12th century composition. He has disparagingly dismissed it
as a source saying that, 'The Carmen is above all a literary
piece written by a man who had no special information, who know
the names of very few of the individuals involved in his story,
and of equally few places... It is hard to believe that anyone
would ever have thought of this literary exercise as a serious
historical narrative, if it had not been for the chance that made
it the only surviving poem on the battle of Hastings'.
3.1.4 There is no unanimity among historians on the
worth of the Carmen Morton and Muntz who have edited the
text consider it to be a reliable source and accept without question
the identification of the author as Guy of Amiens (2). Van Houts
also accepts Guy as the author, but warns against its use as an
historical text, 'Although it is an early text, it is not necessarily
a reliable source. The poem is a literary work, not a literary
curiosity... It was not written as a school product in a history
lesson in the early twelfth century, but neither was it meant
to be a textbook for twentieth historians'. She notes that
Bishop Guy of Amiens wrote the Carmen de Hastingae Proelio
in imitation of the epics of Virgil and Statius.(3)
3.1.5 The Chronicle of Battle Abbey
The recently published scholarly edition and translation
of the Chronicle provides a useful guide to this source.(4)
Searle who has edited the edition concludes that the account of
the Battle of Hastings can be traced to no one source, but virtually
every incident is traceable to the works of Poitiers or Wace.(5)
3.1.6 Master Wace - Roman de Rou
Bennett has considered the use of the Roman de
Rou as a source for the Norman Conquest and has given some
warnings. He suggests that it may contain genuine oral traditions
not found in other sources, but suggests that it reflects many
of the political events and concerns of the mid 12th century when
it was composed. He notes that Wace describes the Normansdisembarking
and constructing a wooden castle at Hastings from pieces ready-cut
and transported in barrels. Bennett observes that this was not
an 11th century practice, but in 1170/1 two wooden castles were
ferried across from England to Ireland. He concludes 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'.(6)
3.2 Discussion of historical sources
The reports of the landing of the Normans need to
be evaluated against the purposes for which they were written
and the conventions of the period. It would be anachronistic to
treat the Norman chronicles as if they were modern accounts of
a contemporary event. They were generally written by clerics who
had not been present, and represent a rendering of what within
a few years would have become a traditional story of the invasion.
We may identify three processes which may have affected the accuracy
of the accounts
3.2.1 The use of classical models has been discussed
by a number of historians. The reported speech, is a common device
of classical authors, although it is highly improbable that either
they, or Norman historians, actually reproduce verbatim remarks.
William of Poitiers makes an explicit connection between the invasion
of England and the actions of Xerxes, Marius and Pompey. Many
of the actions of the Normans may have been changed or slanted
to make more explicit the classical parallels.
3.2.2 Secondly, the accounts were often written to
flatter, or make or justify a point of view in a dispute, or as
entertainment. As Van Houts has stated, they were not written
for 20th century historians. The accounts need to be used with
great circumspection, and the use or absence of a particular word
or phrase (may not bear close interpretation.
3.2.3 Thirdly, histories are written according to
the interpretation and prejudices of their periods. Absolute,
objective history, that it history as an assemblage of incontestable
facts, has not been considered achievable since the early 20th
century.7 In using earlier sources the historian needs to be aware
of the perspective of the writer, and thus of the limitations
of the source material.
3.3 The chief problem of Mr Austin's interpretation
is his failure to identity the limitations of his sources and
his tendency to place excessive emphasis on events which cannot
support his interpretation. Poitiers writes that William I went
out to lead a patrol but,
Mr Austin (9) interprets this passage to argue that
the ground was probably waterlogged. However, the context of the
passage shows that the incident is reported to show that, unlike
others, William exposed himself to danger by patrolling himself
and in particular by dismounting. It is intended to demonstrate
William's courage and strength The passage cannot support the
view that the ground was waterlogged
4. Pevensey as the Norman landing place
4.1 An important element in Mr Austin's argument
is that Pevensey was not the landing place of the Norman boats.
Instead, he argues that the Norman boats reached land further
east at 'Hastings', not the present town of that name, but one
a settlement lie identifies at or near Bulvedlythe which was formerly
bore that name.
4.2 He argues against the Pevensey landing place
on the following evidence:
a) the text in Jumieges which describes the landing
at Pevensey is unreliable;
b) William of Poitiers repeated the error of the
Pevensey landing place by copying Jumieges;
c) the timing of the landing and the description
of the topography given in the Carmen does not suit Pevensey;
d) the Chronicle of Battle Abbey reports that
William landed safely near Pevensey. It does not state
that he landed at Pevensey. The possibility is left open
that William may have landed near Hastings to which he went shortly
after he had reached England;
e) Master Wace records that the Norman fleet first
sacked Pevensey and then moved to Hastings, but also says that
they arrived near Hastings;
f) the valuations of vills recorded in Domesday Book
suggest significant decreases in the Battle area, but do not show
marked declines in the vicinity of Pevensey. This suggests that
the Norman did not lay waste to the area around Pevensey, though
they did around Battle;
g) the words Ad Pevensae on the Bayeux Tapestry
refer not to the actual landing place, but the original intended
site of landfall, and
h) the Worcester or D-text of the Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle records that William came from Normandy to Pevensey,
but does not specifically mention that he landed there.
4.3 One of the strategic aims of medieval warfare
was to seize control of the towns and of forts which effectively
controlled the countryside. Pevensey and Hastings were the major
ports on the east Sussex coast, and were probably the most important
urban centres in the area in the mid 11th century. William's purpose
in going first to Pevensey and subsequently to Hastings,
according to the conventional view, was to take these
towns. After the Battle of Hastings, William of Poitiers says,
he marched to the towns of Romney and Dover. There is no particular
problem in understanding the actions of William in landing in
one place and then moving to another. It is very likely that the
Normans would have consolidated their position in tile period
of over a week between time handing and the battle with Harold.
4.4 Mr Austin's argument that no landing took place
at Pevensey quires a rather perverse view of the historical sources.
The evidence of Jumieges and Poitiers is simply dismissed by as
incorrect and the Battle Chronicle and the Dtext of the
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is interpreted in an illogical manner.
The text of the Bayeux Tapestry reads Hic Willelm ' dux in
magno navigio mare transivit et venit ad Pevenesae - 'Here
Duke William crossed the sea in a great ship and came to Pevensey'.
This does not support the view that Pevensey was the intended,
but not the actual landing place
4.5 Only Wace mentions a landing place near Hastings
and in a subsequent, possibly contradictory passage, also reports
that they sailed to Pevensey. There is some doubt about the reliability
of the text of Wace which was written one hundred years after
the event, but Mr Austin decides to accept it as a reliable source.
5. The evidence of Domesday Book
5.1 The idea that the path of the Norman army may
be traced in the valuations of Domesday Book, and particularly
in the location of vills reported as wasted is of long-standing.
Baring used the evidence in 1898, and the location of depreciated
vills was mapped by Darby.8 Domesday Book gives three valuations
for estates, the value in 1066, 'later' - when the land was granted
to its Norman lords, and in 1086.
5.2 Mr Austin has compared the valuations in 1066
and 1086, and argued that Wilting lies at the epicentre of the
wasted area. He has also argued that since there is little reduction
in the value of manors in the Pevensey area, that town could not
have been the landing site.
5.3 There are two problems about the interpretation
which he offers. Firstly, in eastern Sussex
the hand recorded under the name of the estate rarely lay
entirely in the immediate vicinity of the estate
centre. For example, the hand within 1.5miles
of Battle Abbey, the lowy (administrative district) of Battle,
included areas which had formerly belonged to the estates of Hooe,
Bullington (Bexhill) and even Wilmington in the rape of Pevensey,
all of which lay some distance away.(9) It is therefore not correct
to assume that all the wasted hand lay around the estate centre.
Secondly, the data does not allow a regression of manorial values
to be performed to identity an epicentre of waste. All that may
be safely concluded from Domesday Book is that the general area
around Battle was wasted. More detailed conclusions are not possible.
5.4 Austin rightly draws attention to the absence
of reduced values in the Pevensey area. This is an interesting
observation, but does not necessarily show that the Normans did
not land in that area (41): they may not have stayed
there for a sufficient period to cause significant damage.
6.The Bayeux Tapestry
6.1 It is now widely agreed that the Bayeux Tapestry
was made in England, possibly at Canterbury, for Odo, Bishop of
Bayeux. The prominence given to Odo and his tenants allows this
to be concluded with some certainty. Other aspects of the Tapestry
are the subject of continued debate.
6.2 One of the more important contributions to scholarship
on the subject has been a study by Brooks and Walker of the composition
and artistic background of the Tapestry. They have argued that
the designer of the Tapestry was provided with a narrative of
the Conquest and provided with the text for the embroidered inscriptions
from which he produced his design. It seems likely that the narrative
was written and not oral from the small but significant mistakes
which have been introduced. In the scene in which William is shown
attacking the Norman town of Dol, his enemy, Conan of Brittany
is shown escaping by climbing down a rope. William of Poitiers
provides a more detailed account which records that Conan was
not within Dol at all. The inscription on the Tapestry quite correctly
records merely that 'they came to Dol and Conan fled', making
no reference to the imagined escape from the town,(10)
6.3 It seems probable that the designer of the Bayeux
Tapestry did not have detailed knowledge of medieval warfare.
He depicts all soldiers, both Norman and English with trouser
hauberks. These certainly were worn by the English, but they could
not have been worn by the mounted Norman knights. The Tapestry
does not show crossbows, although their use is implied by William
of Poitiers and the Carmen. They were apparently not known
to the designer. It is apparent that the designer did not have
detailed personal knowledge of the events surrounding the Conquest.
6.4 There has been considerable debate about the
accuracy of the depiction of architecture on the Tapestry. The
surviving motte at Hastings Castle, for example, has been compared
with the one shown on the Tapestry, and the castle of 'Belrem'
has been compared with the surviving structure at Beaurain and
with Romanesque architecture in general.(11) The arguments in
favour of accurate representation on the Tapestry have shown that
the designer had a reasonable understanding of contemporary building
types and was able to depict the general character of a castle
or church. They have not proved that the designer had detailed
knowledge of the illustrated buildings.
6.5 It is self-evident that the designer of the Tapestry
worked within the artistic conventions of his time. The absence
of perspective and the often incorrect relative sizes of the items
and individuals depicted are common to Romanesque art of this
period. (13) Mr Austin's comments on ship size and number of sailors
which they accommodate do not appreciate the limitations of the
artistic representation (49, 51-2).
6.6 Particular importance is given by Mr Austin to
the scene on the Tapestry showing the Normans dining in a circular
table (56). He identifies this event with a meal on the day of
the landing. He bases this on the consumption of fish by Bishop
Odo. Fish would have been a typical repast for clerics on a Friday,
the day of the landing (57). He argues that 'contrary to previous
historical thinking the Bayeux Tapestry provides further unexpected
and incontrovertible proof by virtue of the logistics of the day
that Hastings was the landing site'.
6.7 The scene of the fish meal in the circular room
has been convincingly shown by Brooks and Walker to have been
based on conventional representations of the Last Supper. The
table in the Tapestry is shown to be set with bread and fish as
is normal in the Last Supper, and Odo adopts the position of Christ
in blessing the food. The shape of the table follows that in Last
Supper pictures, and can be closely paralleled in a north French
gospel book of the second half of the 12th century.(14) The scene
does not provide the 'incontrovertible proof' which Mr Austin
seeks for a Hastings handing site, but merely indicates the limitations
of the Tapestry as a source for detailed interpretation.
6.8 Largely from his study of the Tapestry, Mr Austin
draws up a series of 40 criteria against which he measures his
identified site of Upper Wilting (66-7 1, I 56-9). His interpretation
of the situation of the forts assumed that they are depicted with
near photographic accuracy. He supposes that the camp was at the
bottom of the hill and had agricultural strips behind it (70)
and that the hand was low down below three manor houses set in
a row or upon a ridge (71). It has been argued (paragraph 6.2
above) that the designer of the Tapestry was working from a written
narrative within the artistic conventions of the period, and did
not have any first-hand knowledge of the places he was depicting,
nor of the events. It is not possible to place the weight of interpretation
given by Mr Austin to the conventionalised scenes on the Tapestry.
7. The relationship of Bulverhythe and Hastings
7.1. Austin argues that before 1094 the castle and
port of Hastings were situated at Bulverhythe which lies 5 km
to the west. The site of Bulverhythe, he suggests, was formerly
called Hastings. His interpretation is based on the following
evidence:
a) There is no entry for Hastings in Domesday Book
(79);
b) Domesday Book (1086) mentions a new borough in
the entry for Guestling Hundred. This may have been the town of
Hastings situated in the Bourne Valley, where the town of Hastings
still stands. New Hastings is mentioned in the Pipe Roll of 1182
(80);
c) historians have claimed the earlier town of Hastings
stood in Priory Valley on the west side of the present castle,
but no early buildings, with the exception of Hastings Priory
are known there, and none are shown in Yeakell and Gardner's map
of 1795 (81);
d) no Norman keep has been found at Hastings (82);
e) the description of the landing in the Chronicle
of Battle Abbey does not suit the' topography of Hastings
(84), and
7.2 The conventional view of the evidence is that
the town of Hastings developed in the late
Anglo-Saxon period in Priory Valley on the west side of the present
Hastings Castle. The large number of churches which formerly stood
in that area suggest that they formerly served
an urban centre. Salzman has argued that the
centre of Hastings moved in the late 12th century to 'New Hastings'
mentioned in the Pipe Rolls. He identifies the new
site as the one in Bourne Valley, where the 'Old Town' now stands.(15)
7.3 Bulverhythe was a former medieval port and a
limb (contributing member) of the Cinque Port
town of Hastings. It was very probably an early settlement as
five houses there were given by William, Count of
Eu to Lewes Priory in the 1090s.(16) There
is no evidence that it was formerly called Hastings.
7.4 Hastings is mentioned in Domesday Book, though
there is no entry specifically for it. It is mentioned, for example,
under the entries in the Lincolnshire folios where the toll from
ships from Hastings are recorded. It has been argued that the
large space at the head of the Sussex folios in Domesday Book
was intended for the entry for Hastings town, which was not received
in time to be written in. Hastings would have been recorded in
a similar manner to Dover which heads the
Domesday account of Kent .
7.5 The new borough recorded in the vill of Ramesile
in Guestling hundred is likely to have been at Rye. It cannot
have been at Hastings or Bulverhythe which were probably in the
Domesday hundred of Baldslow. The entry in Domesday Book reads
in translation:
The entry implies that the greatest number of burgesses
were not in Hastings; only four burgesses were. The new borough,
therefore, can hardly have been at Hastings.
7.6 Considerable erosion has taken place at Hastings,
and may well have removed any site of any castle built near the
shore. The extent of the erosion is apparent from the plan of
the present castle which has no enclosing wall on the south side.
The erosion to the sandstone cliff was already well advanced by
1330 when a petition to the king noted that much of the castle
had been destroyed by the sea.
7.7 The evidence put forward by Mr Austin does not indicate that the original town of Hastings lay at Bulverhythe or in the Combe Haven valley. He has suggested that the town of Hastings lay around the periphery of the valley (75, and information from Mr Austin) and adjacent to Bulverhythe. No historical or archaeological evidence has been found to support this contention.
8. Place-names
8.1 Mr Austin agrees that his place-name interpretation
is speculative, but considers that it is impossible for an event
so momentous as the Norman invasion to have passed without some
record of the events appearing among the place names (150). Place-names,
however, are rarely a record of events of national importance,
except when folk memory has applied the name retrospectively,
and often to an incorrect locality. The town of Battle is an apparent
exception to this general principle. It acquired its name not
directly, but from the abbey which was founded on the site. Only
in such unusual situations might a place-name reflect a major
event.
8.2 Monkham Wood
This place-name is not treated by the Place-Names
of Sussex, and there is no information on its antiquity. There
is n6 reason to think that Mr Austin's interpretation is correct,
and it is unlikely to be a priori according to the
principle enunciated above (paragraph 8.1).
8.3 Sandrock Field
The origin of the field-name offered by Mr Austin,
from a sandstone outcrop, is no doubt correct. The suggested corruption
into Senlac (meaning sand stream or sand water-course)
is etymologically implausible. The earliest recorded forms noted
in the 12th century of Senlac are Santlache and Senlac
showing quite clearly that the final element of the place-name
is from the Old English lacu, 'stream' or 'water-course
, and has no relationship to the field-name Sandrock.20
8.4 Bulverhythe
Interpretation of Bulverhythe as 'the landing place
of the people' is not strictly accurate. The place-name means
'the landing place or hythe of the burgesses', presumably referring
to the people of Hastings. Austin's interpretation is not sustainable
(151).( 21 )
8.5 Redgeland
8.5.1 It seems unnecessary to create' a highly doubtful
derivation of the place-name Redgeland, when a more obvious and
satisfactory one will suffice. Hedgeland appears as Hecilande
in the Battle Abbey Chronicle in a passage dating to the early
12th century. The spelling shows clearly its origin from the Old
English hecg, 'hedge'. Hedgeland was mentioned in the 1433
survey of the Abbey estate and survived in usage as a place-name
until at least the 18th century.22 It was applied to a tenement
at Telham. Redgeland, by contrast, is not recorded at a particularly
early date (pace Austin 151), and includes the Old English
element hrycg, 'ridge'. The earliest recorded form is
Ruggelond.(23) In spite of the similarity
of modern spellings, it is very improbable that the two names
would have become confused.
8.5.2 Austin also argues that the monks of Battle
Abbey falsely applied the name Hedgeland to another site, the
place bearing that name at Telham. He argues that they needed
to do this because the Battle of Hastings was not fought close
to the site of the Abbey, but elsewhere. He suggests it was not
that the Abbey was not founded on the site of the battle (18-22).The
Chronicle of Battle Abbey does indeed note that the monks did
try to build the Abbey on another site, which had more abundant
water. However, William I insisted that the high alter of the
Abbey church was situated on the site at which King Harold fell
and nowhere else. We can, therefore, be certain that the surviving
Abbey buildings are situated at the site of the Battle of Hastings.
Mr Austin's argument makes a string of assumptions which are quite
unnecessary if the conventional site' of the battlefield is accepted.
9. Summary of the historical evidence
9.1 Each element of the historic evidence may now
been considered, and the case for tile identification of the Norman
landing place reassessed. In general it is useful to apply the
principles of Occam's Razor - entities should not be multiplied
needlessly - to those instances where the evidence is poor. Put
simply Occam' s Razor says that an interpretation which makes
fewer assumptions is to be preferred to one which makes more.
9.2 The context of the historical sources has been
examined. It has been argued that they cannot sustain the interpretation
placed upon them by Mr Austin. They do not provide sufficient
information to locate precisely the landing place of the Norman
fleet and the early forts, but there does not seem to be sufficient
evidence for overturning the accepted view that the fleet landed
in the vicinity of Pevensey and that the forts were built near
to the still surviving castle at Hastings.
9.3 Domesday Book does not support the interpretation
applied to it by Mr Austin. Apart from noting the area of waste
around Battle itself, Domesday Book does not assist any further
in identifying the camp of the Normans.
9.4 The Bayeux Tapestry has been treated by Mr Austin
as if it was a photographic record of the events of the invasion.
This usage of the Tapestry is tendentious and it takes an anachronistic
view of the representation of landscape.
9.5 The interpretation of Bulverhythe and Hastings
cannot be sustained by the evidence.
9.6 The place-names do not support the interpretation
placed upon them by Mr Austin.
9.7 It may be said that in conclusion that the historical
evidence does not allow a certain identification of the Norman
landing place or of the other events described before the Battle
of Hastings. The identification of Upper Wilting Farm as the handing
site of the Norman fleet and the Norman forts cannot therefore
be sustained.
10. Introduction to the archaeological evidence
from the Crowhurst area
10.1 The archaeological evidence used by Austin is
as follows;
a) the preliminary archaeological field survey undertaken
for the Environmental Statement for the Bexhill and Hastings Western
Bypass, which identified areas of archaeological potential (90-1);
b) a resistivity survey undertaken by Mr Austin in
field 5143 (92);
c) earthworks which are interpreted as jetties for
loading ore on to ships (93);
d) supposed Roman roads from the jetties to Beauport
Park and Crowhurst Park (94-5);
e) cropmarks in Sandrock Field (99), and
f) dowsing in the area of the Roman fort and lower
Norman camp.
10.2 The archaeological evidence presented by Mr
Austin was evaluated by reprocessing the data from the resistivity
survey, visiting Upper Wilting Farm and re-examining the claimed
archaeological sites and by studying aerial photographs of the
area.
Resistivity survey
11.1 A resistivity survey was undertaken by Mr Austin
and others between August 1993 and summer
1994. The total area surveyed measured 560m by 320m and covered
the complete lower Norman fort area.
11.2 Resistivity survey measures the variation in
electrical resistance of the soil. Higher resistance may be produced
by masonry structures, areas with a greater number of stones or
compacted soils. A metalled road would appear as an area of high
resistance. Lower resistance may occur over ditches which have
a looser fill than the surrounding material and contain a greater
proportion of water to soil. Small features such as post-holes
or even graves are rarely detected by resistivity survey.
11.3 The data from the resistivity survey was provided
by Mr Austin and processed using Geoplot version 2.0 1. Print-outs
were made using the same parameters used by Mr Austin in his report.
The results may be compared with the interpretations shown in
the report. Lighter areas indicate lower resistance; darker areas
higher resistance.
11.4 The first plot (fig. 1) can be compared with
the interpretation given on page 129 of the
report. The line marking the 'front edge of the fort' can be recognised
as a band of slightly higher readings, although the line of the
Roman track is not readily identifiable. There is no evidence
of an area of lower resistance parallel to the 'front edge of
the fort', which would mark an accompanying ditch.
11.5 The data is enhanced on the subsequent plots
(130) and these show features interpreted by Mr Austin as a keep
and ditches. All these features are identifiable as areas of higher
resistance, although ditches should appear as low resistance (fig.
2). A U-shape area of masonry is identified as a keep,
although it has only three sides.
11.6 It is clear that the resistivity survey has
identified some features, but their interpretation is difficult
to ascertain. It is not correct to state that the 'resistivity
survey confirms ditches and buildings common to occupation by
man in an area that has previously been devoid of any reported
activity since the Domesday Book was written' (134). This field
has very probably been used for agriculture and appears to have
been quarried (see paragraph 12.6 below). Although the interpretation
of these features is not certain, the resistivity survey does
not confirm that the features suggested by Mr Austin and cannot
support tile interpretation place upon it.
12. Earthworks at Upper Wilting Farm
12.1 Upper Wilting Farm was visited on 11th April
1995 and the earthworks were examined in the presence of Mrs Blackford.
Most fields had been ploughed, but had not been harrowed, and
were well weathered. The opportunity was taken to examine the
surface of the fields to determine whether artefacts were present.
Particular attention was paid to the land within and to the south
of the lower Norman fort, although most of the site of the fort
remains under grass.
12.2 Upper Wilting Farm lies at the head of a small
plateau at the top of a hill. The best land on the farm surrounds
the farm, and include Chapel Field which lies to the north and
west of the farm buildings. Chapel Field is presently under pasture
and is reported to have been lasted ploughed during the Second
World War. The field has low ridge-and-furrow earthworks which
are more evident at the west end below a lynchet which runs across
the present field. Ridge and furrow is also very noticeable in
the field in the field to the south-west of Chapel Wood. Other
earthworks were also noted in that field, including a low bank.
The ditches of the ridge and furrow are only 2 to 3m apart. Medieval
ridge and furrow has a wider spacing. It is probable that the
ridges were produced by hops which the farmer reported used to
be planted around the farm. Hops were grown on the better soils
in the Weald and in the mid 20th century were typically planted
in rows 6ft 6in. (2m) apart.
12.3.1 There are within Chapel Field one prominent
and lesser lynchet which correspond to the south-west and north-west
of the upper Norman fort identified by Austin (148). Examination
he ground confirms the evidence of the aerial photographs.
The bank has neither an internal bank nor an external ditch. The
earthworks may be confidently identified as a lynchet produced
by agricultural activity.
12.3.2 Lynchets form naturally during the process
of cultivation. Ploughing breaks up the soil and allows colluviation,
the movement of soil downhill. The soil travels downhill until
it reaches a barrier such as a hedge-line or the lower limit of
plough. It accumulates at a barrier forming a positive lynchet.
On the lower side of the barrier, the soil which has not moved
further downhill forms a negative lynchet. The result is
to produce a break in a formerly continuous
slope.
12.4 The earthworks identified by Mr Austin jetties
at the south-east corner of Monkham Wood and to the south of Redgeland
Wood were examined (93, 102, 136-8). These are parallel, but discontinuous
terraces lying at right-angles to the slope. It is most likely
that these earthworks have formed naturally through the rotational
slip of the steep land immediately above the marsh. The toe of
the slip can slide into the soft ground of the marsh as Hutchinson
has demonstrated at Lympne.(24) Rotational slipping is a common
feature in the saturated soils of the Weald, and indeed Mr Blackford
reported that some slipping had taken place in the last decade
in Chapel Wood.
12.5 No evidence was found for earthworks in Sandrock
Field, the site of the putative Roman fort (99), and an examination
of the surface of the field failed to recover any artefacts earlier
than the 19th century. The primary evidence for the Roman fort
in this location is from dowsing. Although the potential of dowsing
has been recognised by archaeologists, its results are generally
not accepted without corroborative evidence. It relies upon individual
response and the results may be affected, consciously or unconsciously,
by expected findings. Without corroborative evidence, it does
not provide a reliable indication of sub-surface
remains.
12.6.1 The earthworks and soil marks recorded on
aerial photographs (paragraphs 13.5.4, 13.5.5 below) were examined
on the ground. The field has a large number of shallow depression
which were visible in aerial photographs. Although they had been
partially removed by ploughing, they were identifiable as slight
depressions often containing surface water. Some of the pits have
not been ploughed as the ground is too uneven. Adjacent to the
pits are low mounds formed by dumped material.
12.6.2 The upper part of the field lies on Weald
Clay. The Clay commonly contains iron ore which was mined for
iron working. The small pits found at Upper Wilting Farm are more
characteristic of medieval and post-medieval ore extraction, than
earlier working. It seems probable that these pits were produced
by ore extraction.
12.7 The soil marks recorded on the aerial photographs
within the same field can be identified on the ground as patches
of darker soil containing a high proportion of fragmented charcoal.
These areas may have been produced either by ore-roasting or charcoal-making.
The first stage after extracting ore was to roast it in a fire
to drive off some of the impurities. It does not seem that this
is a likely interpretation of the feature in this case, as the
soil did not contain iron ore flecks which are a typical product
of the process. It is more likely that the darker areas mark the
site of charcoal burning. Charcoal is produced by burning wood
with limited access to air. The wood was heaped into a pile, covered
with turves, then lit and allowed to burn under controlled conditions.
The same site was often re-used for charcoal clamps leaving areas
of ground with numerous fine fragments of charcoal.
12.8 The area of the circular soil marks identified
by Mr Austin as possible building sites (117) were examined (paragraph
13.5.6). No artefacts were recovered from the surface of the of
the field.
12.9 The bank identified by Mr Austin as a constructed
by William to 'earth up his boats' (141-4) was examined. It has
not been possible to follow Mr Austin's argument against the association
of the bank with the modern drainage ditches. It seems likely
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.
12.10 Mr Austin wrote to Chris Blandford Associates
on 22nd April 1995 with a report of the discovery of a further
archaeological site at Upper Wilting Farm. This site was reported
after the fieldwork for the review had been completed and it was
not possible to inspect it specifically. However, the field is
used for arable and no earthworks were noted. The relationship
between the new banked and ditched 'Saxon fort' amid the nearby
'upper Norman fort' is not been established by Austin in his letter.
12.10.1 It may be inferred from Mr Austin's letter
that there are two types of evidence for the new fort, the geophysical
data reprocessed by him amid dowsing. The difficulties of interpreting
evidence from dowsing have already been discussed (paragraph 12.5
above). The proposed trial trenching in the area of the newly
identified 'Saxon fort' will establish whether the new site has
been correctly identified.
13. Aerial photographic evidence
13.1 Aerial photographs held by East Sussex County
Council and by Mr Austin were examined to consider the evidence
for the Roman roads in the area of Upper Wilting Farm and to the
north, the supposed Roman fort in Sandrock Field, the lower Norman
fort and the upper Norman fort.
13.2 Archaeological features are manifest on aerial
photographs in three ways. Cropmarks produced by the differential
growth of crops are rarely seen on Wealden soils. Soil marks created
by digging into the subsoil, or by burning the soil are occasional
visible on aerial photographs. Upstanding earthworks, where present,
are generally clearly visible under suitable conditions. The Weald
has not been extensively flown and photographed specifically for
archaeological purposes, because of the low visibility of remains
in the area. Most of the aerial photographic coverage is overlapping
verticals taken for planning purposes, and may not have been ideal
for archaeological purposes.
13.3 The following photographs held by East Sussex
County Council were examined:
1987 CGA Survey for East Sussex County Council, taken
8th May 1987, scale 1:10 000, nos. 10 87 042, 066-7, 175-6.
1991 Geonex UK Ltd for East Sussex County Council, taken 10th September
1991, scale 1:25 000, nos. 42 91134-5.
With the exception of the lynchet to the west of
Upper Wilting Farm, which appeared as a clear earthwork, no other
features were noted.
13.6.3 The 18th century coach road is shown on photographs
reproduced by Mr Austin (114) and has been sectioned by the Hastings
Area Archaeological Research Group.25
13.6.4 Earthworks to the north-west of Sandrock Field
were identified as pits on aerial photographs and this was confirmed
in an examination of the field (paragraphs 12.6.1-2 above).
13.6.5 Aerial photographs taken by Mr Austin (119,
120) show clear dark circular patches within a ploughed field.
These have been discussed above (paragraph 12.7).
13.7 The aerial photographs revealed no other items
of archaeological significance.
14.1 This working paper has been critical of the
evidence presented by Mr Austin in favour of the archaeological
and historical significance of Upper Wilting Farm.
Wherever specific points of his argument may be checked in detail,
they have found to be based on either an inadequate understanding
of the evidence or a partial view of the material
or a tendentious interpretation. When Mr Austin's
interpretation is set against the conventional understanding of
the events of the Conquest, the latter is
generally to be preferred because it requires fewer assumptions.
A better interpretation of the evidence is likely to comprehend
a greater range of the evidence than a poorer one. Mr Austin's
interpretations rarely do so.
14.2 To illustrate this point, we may apply these
principles to the identification of 'Hastings Castle' with earthworks
at Upper Wilting Farm and the proposal that the identification
of a mark on aerial photographs is the site of the chapel of St
Mary in the Castle. A site for Hastings Castle is known within
the present town of Hastings and it contains the ruins of St Mary
in the Castle. A confirmation of the endowment of St Mary in the
Castle, also known as Hastings College, survives in a 12th century
inspeximus (charter of certification). It has been argued
that the original confirmation of endowment must be nearly contemporary
with Domesday Book (1086). However, among those endowments of
St Mary was the chapel of Wilting. Therefore St Mary In the Castle
could not have been the same as Wilting chapel. To sustain Mr
Austin's argument it is necessary to hypothesise two Hastings
Castles, one at Upper Wilting Farm and one in the place which
presently bears the name, and two religious sites at Wilting,
St Mary in the Castle and a separate chapel of Wilting. Hypothetical
entities have been multiplied contrary to the principle of Occam's
Razor, and the interpretation must be Rejected in favour of the
accepted identification of these sites.
14.3 It has not been possible to check all of the
details presented by Mr Austin. The archaeological remains which
he uncovered are no longer open to view and cannot be re-examined.
Nevertheless, the descriptions and photographs of the discoveries
do not encourage the view that the remains were of Norman artefacts
and Norman ships. Equally, it has not been possible to undertake
the fieldwork necessary to locate the town of 'Hastings' which
he postulates is situated around Combe Haven. The evidence in
favour of such a site is extremely tenuous and is not sufficient
to justify further fieldwork.
14.4 No argument is stronger than its individual
elements. The length of Mr Austin's submission to the Highways
Agency and the range of material which he has used to argue his
case do not of themselves give his interpretation credibility.
His interpretation must stand or fall upon the force of the arguments
presented. On these grounds it must be concluded that he has failed
to establish a
probability, or even a reasonable possibility, that the Norman
landing took place at Upper Wilting and that significant remains
still survive there of the forts which they constructed at Hastings.
The foundation of Hastings College has been discussed
by M.F. Gardiner, 'Some Lost Anglo-Saxon Charters
and the Endowment of Hastings College', Sussex Archaeological
Collections 127 (1989), 39-48.
1 R.H.C. Davis, 'The Carmen of Hastingae Proelio', English Historical Review 93 (1978), 260.
2 C. Morton and H. Muntz, The
Carmen de Hastingae Proelio of Guy Bishop of Amiens (1972).
Oxford.
3 E.M.C. Van Houts, 'Latin Poetry and the Anglo-Norman
Court 1066-1135: The Carmen de Hastingae Proelio',Journal ofMedieval
History 15 (1989), 56.
4 E. Searle, The Chronicle of Battle Abbey (1980).
Oxford.
5 Ibid., 16.
6 M. Bennett, 'Poetry as History? The 'Roman de Rou' of Wace as a Source for the Norman Conquest', Anglo-Norman Studies 5 (1982), 37-9.
7 This point is usefully discussed by E.H. Carr, What is History (1961), Chapter 1.
8 F.H. Baring, 'The Conqueror's footprints in Domesday', English Historical Review 13 (1898), 17-25; H.C. Darby, 'The South-Eastern Counties', in H.C.Darby and E.M.J. Campbell (eds), The Domesday Geography of South-EastEngland (1962), 572, fig. 163. Cambridge.
9 Domesday Book i, 17b.
10 N.P. Brooks and H.E. Walker, 'The Authority and Interpretation of the Bayeux Tapestry', Anglo-Norman Studies (1978), 1-34.
11 C. Dawson, Histony of Hastings
Castle 1(1909), frontispiece; A.J. Taylor, "Belrem",
Anglo-Norman Studies 14 (1993), 1-24.
12 That is the general conclusion of R. Allen Brown in 'The Architecture', in F.M. Stenton (ed.), The Bayeux Tapestry: A Comprehensive Survey (2nd edition, 1965), 76-87. A more recent edition of the Tapestry, D.M. Wilson, The Bayeux Tapestry (1985), adds little new to an understanding of the work.
13 This is evident in, for example, the 'Raising of Lazarus' panel in Chichester Cathedral attributed to c. 1125-50.
14 Brooks and Walker, 'The Authority and Interpretation of the Bayeux Tapestry',15, citing Pierpoint Morgan Library MS. 44, f 6v.
15 L.F. Salzman, Hastings
(1921), 6, 24; L.F. Salzman (ed.), Victoria County History
of Sussex 9, 9.
16 Calendar of Documents Preserved
in France, Illustrative of the History of Great Britain and Ireland,
1, ed. J.H. Round (1899), no.1391; The
Chartulary of the Priory of St. Pancras,
Lewes, Part 1, ed. L.F. Salzman (Sussex
Record Society 38 (1933)), 147.
17 J.H. Round,
Feudal England: Historical Studies on the XIth and XIIth Centuries
(1895), 568; Domesday Book i, 375b.
18 Domesday Book i, 17a.
19 F.H. Baring, 'Hastings Castle, 1050-1100, and the Chapel of St. Mary', Sussex Archaeological Collections 57 (1915), 129.
20 A. Mawer and F.M. Stenton,
The Place-Names of Sussex 2 (English Place-Name Society
7 (1930)), 499. Cambridge.
21 Ibid., 535.
22 Chronicle Of Battle Abbey,
51, n. 3; East Sussex Record Office BAT
39, f 30 which is a copy of Public Record Office E3 15/56; East
Sussex Record Office BAT 4421.
23 Mawer and Stenton, Place-Names
of Sussex, 504.
24 J.N. Hutchinson, C. Poole, N. Lambert and E.N. Bromhead, 'Combined -archaeological and geotechnical investigations of the Roman fort at Lympne, Kent, Britannia (1985), 209-36; J.N. Hutchinson, 'Recent Geotechnical, Geomorphological and Archaeological Investigations of the Abandoned Cliff backing Romney Marsh at Lympne, Kent', in J. Eddison and C. Green (eds), Romney Marsh: Evolution, Occupation, Reclamation (1988), 88-9.
25 P. Haines, The HAARG
Domesday Project: Upper Wilting Farm (1987). Hastings.
26 The inspeximus is conveniently
published in The Chartulary of the High Church of Chichester,
ed. W.D. Peckham (Sussex Record Society 46 (1946)), 299-302.
RETURN TO CORRESPONDENCE