Evidence In Person 2

HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS

I would firstly like to look at the historical documentation which supports my case that the Norman Invasion site is located along with the first camp of William the Conqueror at Upper Wilting. However before discussing the detail it is important to understand the background to the investigation prior to the discovery of any artefacts.
BACKGROUNDxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Until recently, and by that I mean the last four years, I was not convinced that the Norman's landed at Hastings. If I was I would not have spent several years looking around the Pevensey marsh area for a suitable site. It is therefore unfortunate for the Highways Agency that there is no mileage in seeking to press the case against me that I had made my mind up to find this site and then sought to make one fit the bill on the route of this road. This is confirmed by the time scale of the events and the caution expressed in the correspondence listed in my bundle. Throughout my spoken evidence I shall refer to "my bundle", this is of course my bundle of documents, which I have compiled into some sort of definitive list, in order to assist the Inspector. The pages in the bundle are numbered, after a fashion. I apologise if the numbers are a little squiggly at times, but putting this case together has taken many a late night and quite a few bottles of port, before being moulded into shape. In consequence the handwriting is not always at its best. However I shall refer to these numbers, in order to avoid confusion with other numbering systems, which I have not had access to.
The conviction that Wilting is the right site comes from an accumulation of knowledge that is impossible to place into one neat pigeon hole. However once the archaeological elements started to fall into place from 1992 onwards I was forced to accept the same conclusion that I hope you will draw.
REASON*************************
The reason I started what may appear as an illogical quest to look for the Norman Invasion site was because I live in Crowhurst. You have been told by Mr McCall of the Crowhurst Action Committee that Crowhurst is a small village not far from the Wilting site. You will also remember that he told you that it is a very active community, where the villagers have acted together to retain their individuality from the encroaching metropolis of Hastings to the East, Bexhill to the West and Battle to the North.
In 1986 I found myself sitting in the village hall at a public meeting where volunteers were requested to help prepare a case to protect Crowhurst from planned development in the Marline Valley, to the East of Crowhurst. It appeared to me, at the time, that Hastings developers wanted to remove the last green land separating Crowhurst from the ravages of the Hastings Development Area housing estates. Some of which have since then destroyed Filsham Farm at the eastern end of the Combe Haven Valley.
In consequence I did what some would consider a very foolish thing, I put my hand up at that meeting to volunteer to help. Within a week I was the press officer for the Crowhurst Action Committee, mainly because of my experience dealing with the press in my job with the record company that I worked for.
Every other Friday, almost without exception, from 1986 until 1989 we met in the village pub, the Plough, the same village pub that I understand Mr Webbe still delivers documents for Mr McCall of the Crowhurst Action Committee, late on Friday nights. Where we would discuss how to advance our case. Such was the feeling in the area that the Daily Express heard about what was going on and came to write an article called the Second battle of Hastings. A copy of this article is enclosed (NA bundle page 411 and 412).
This article is not very flattering about the views that we may have had of planners or the planning process. However it shows you that Crowhurst people are prepared to fight for the right to keep their village identity, and it will come as no surprise to find that in the end we won our case, ensuring that the integrity of the Marline Valley and Crowhurst as a village is not violated by Hastings developers.
In consequence I received my baptism of fire fighting for the life of my village, Crowhurst, at a planning Inquiry not dissimilar from the one I am attending today. However the Daily Express article in their colour magazine produced a torrent of supporting mail. One of which was from an 86 year old gentleman in Gloucester. Unfortunately I never kept the letters. However he said that he supported our case because he lived in St Leonards when he was a boy. When he was a young man he told me he used to meet every Sunday with Rudjard Kipling and Rider Haggard for a Sunday morning soiree. At those meetings he used to discuss with other eminent gentlemen and artists, who lived in the area, all sorts of local issues, but one element of conversation continually arose, and that was whether the Normans really did land at Pevensey. This ageing gentleman believed that he recognised the signpost in the article, as the one up on the battle Ridge. Where he used to go looking for the ghosts of Harold's army, as a young man, every October 13^th, where local rumour stated the soldiers could be heard assembling for the battle in the dawn mist. This interested me greatly!
We started corresponding for a while, because this subject was frequently touched upon in our own regular Friday meetings, where fighting for the Marline Valley was just part of the lively weekly discussion.
There appeared to be a complete flaw in the traditional story that the Normans landed at Pevensey. This is so clear to anyone who lives in this area, because we all knew that Bulverhythe and the Combe Haven Valley was open to the sea at the time of the Invasion. Most people who live on the Combe haven valley know that it has a tidal entrance and floods every winter. It therefore could not be true that the Normans landed at Pevensey and then marched down the coast to Hastings - the story we were taught at school.
As a result of this initial correspondence I decided to look into the matter myself, regardless of what the text books might say. I think you can say that I caught the Norman history and archaeology bug.
The first thing I did was contact Battle Museum and asked to see some relics from the battle. I was told that there were none because the soil is acid in this area. I thought that this was strange because I knew that archaeologists at Beauport Park, up at the Roman bloomery on the Ridge, had found lots of Roman remains and there was material in the Hastings Museum dating back to the stone age.
I then contacted Hastings Museum and asked them what they had in relation to the battle of Hastings or the Norman Invasion and was told that they had nothing either.
I then contacted Bexhill Museum and was told the same. This had not been what I had expected and I must admit that something nagged at me to start looking more seriously.
I appeared to have drawn a complete blank. No Norman artefacts in the area and no evidence of the Normans at all. However there was Hastings Castle, there was Battle Abbey and there was Pevensey Castle, I was told that whilst there were no traditional artefacts these buildings were all the proof at was available.
Now most people might accept this as enough proof to keep them happy. Certainly this could be called Proof of the Normans. However I have a habit of needing to see proof myself before I will accept things at face value. Here there clearly was no satisfactory Proof of the Normans, in the conventional artefact sense. There were none of those things you might expect to find - cooking pots, pottery of all sorts, buckles, armour, graves or all the usual archaeological cacophony associated with an important historical site. Historians appeared to have accepted the story as we knew it, so I needed to find out why.
EXPERT ASSISTANCE SOUGHT*************
It was at this stage that I decided to find a Norman expert to help me. It is important to state that I am not a qualified Norman expert. I am from the television and media business, so I have no qualifications or experience in these matters. I needed to talk to someone, with expert knowledge in the subject, who could guide me through the minefields of historical research.
I spoke to the Battle and District Historical Society, to see who could be recommended as being an expert in this very specialist field. There were apparently none in the area with any qualifications in Norman history at all. I was told that I would need to go to Cambridge, which was the hot seat for academic thinking regarding the Battle of Hastings and the Norman Invasion.
This was how I found myself in the study of Elisabeth van Houts at Nunham College Cambridge in the Spring of 1990. Ms Houts had recently published her study of the Carmen of Hastings, an ancient manuscript, written shortly after 1066(NA bundle pages 144-156),. The story been picked up by the Independent newspaper and made national headlines in changing the way historians viewed the events of the landing and the battle, turning previous "traditional thinking" on its head, reinstating The Carmen as the pre-eminent source for knowledge of events at that time.
Coming from the media business I thought that I would be able to find the answer to my questions from such an authority.
Unfortunately I was wrong, because the answers I received simply added to my confusion. Ms Houts confirmed to me that there was certainly no archaeological evidence of either the Norman landing site, or the battle itself. If I wanted to look into these things I would need to do some extensive reading in order to familiarise myself with the historical context of the Invasion and battle. Ms Houts was bemused by my interest and the fact that I had travelled so far to see her upon nothing more than what appeared to be a hunch. She told me that the sole evidence for the battle site rested with the report of William's oath to build an abbey on the actual site of the battle. I later found this was also most probably historical rhetoric of the time, and although the Abbey accepted this version of events, the Charters upon which is was founded, were almost certainly forged (my manuscript page 19). This undoubtedly puts a question mark over the validity of the oath since it is not reported anywhere other than the Abbey's own Chronicle.
There was serious money to be made from the foundation of an Abbey which did not report dues to any other authority. This eventually got up the nose of the local Bishop, resulting in a court challenge which lasted many years. Now it can be shown conclusively that the foundation of Battle Abbey is based upon forged Charters as a result of the in depth work of Eleanor Searle (my manuscript page19).
It was explained to me by Ms Houts that serious historical research needs to look at source, or as near to source documents as could be obtained. In the circumstances of the Norman Invasion anything over 150 years after the battle would almost certainly contain errors repeated from previous copies, and therefore could not be relied upon. It was Ms Houts stated belief, that those documents written within 150 years of the battle, could be relied upon in part to contain sufficient elements of the truth, concerning those events, to be worthy of study. Since I am not an expert in this field and she undoubtedly is, I bowed to her advice, and immediately left to start research in the libraries. Before leaving Ms Houts made it clear to me that she had no reason not to believe the conventional events of the Norman Invasion. I do not believe she ever expected to hear from me again, let alone receive my manuscript five years later.
DOCUMENTS**********************
I had been told that there were a number of lesser known works, but there were eight that carried the weight of authority. These were:
William of Jumieges - Gesta Normannorum Ducum written in approximately 1070
William of Poitiers - Gesta Guillelmi written in 1072
The Carmen of Hastingae Proelio - now accredited to Guy Bishop of Amiens in 1067
The Chronicle of Battle Abbey - written in or around 1180
The manuscript by Master Wace - called the Roman de Rou in 1160
Very importantly the Domesday Survey in 1085/6, colloquially known as the Domesday Book
The Bayeux Tapestry
and lastly the Anglo Saxon Chronicles.
I therefore resolved to study each of these manuscripts with a view to extracting from them only the relevant information in relation to the camp and landing site of the Invasion. The reason for adopting such a strategy is that where eight known authorities, from different backgrounds, with a variety of different sources to call upon, write about the same event, there is a logic that dictates the certainty that descriptions of the events in different texts would contain a central core of information of common features. These common features would allow me to identify the terrain between Pevensey and Hastings, which best fitted the descriptions in order to allow me to find the site of the Norman camp.
I would not at this stage look into the battle. The battle was initially the reason I started to research the events of the Norman Invasion, however the events of the battle could not in my view be examined with any authority until the landing site itself was found. If I was able to identify this site, when no-one else in a thousand years could, those who do not understand all the circumstances and have not done the research themselves will be prepared to listen to my case, where otherwise they would clearly not. This view has later been confirmed by the failure of the County Archaeologist to review the evidence, the failure of English Heritage to visit the site or review the evidence, and the general fear amongst professionals in the archaeology field to associate themselves with a thesis which runs "contrary to conventional understanding".
I shall address the issue of "conventional understanding" when I look at the critique of my manuscript by Mr Gardiner. However before doing that I need to look at the eight manuscripts in turn, not to interpret what they say, but just to read the words. Historians are the ones that do the interpretation. What I intend to do is let you conclude what they mean and determine whether you can apply them to the Upper Wilting site.
This is not the forum for historical debate upon the merit or otherwise of each document. Such debates revolve in continuous circles, of claim and counter claim, of no value other than to the ego of those concerned. I believe that this forum is the one where I shall produce Proof of the Normans. Either there is proof that occupation of the site in question is contained in these historical documents or there is not.
Either you can apply those elements to the Wilting site, without contradiction, or you cannot.
If the Highways Agency can produce proof that you cannot apply all the major elements of these documents to Upper Wilting, then they may have a case. They certainly cannot apply these findings in my manuscript to any other place on the section of coast that I have examined, between Hastings Pier in the east and Pevensey Castle in the west. If they can produce one single place, where all the details covered in my manuscript can be applied, I would like to be told. This in itself would in my view, and in most courts of law, be acceptable as proof.
If a defendant is caught with mud on his shoes and left fingerprints in the house which was burgled, this would be considered proof, and would almost inevitably produce a conviction. However if there are also eight witnesses who report the sighting of the same man before, during and after the event, this would also be considered absolute proof. Should the Highways Agency seek to undermine the validity of this proof I say to them, find me another site where these observations fit and I say you might have some sort of case for dismissing the historical documents. These historical documents are in my mind as good a proof as you can get, because they are written proof, from an age where there are no other witnesses. In a court you have to take the written word of a witness as valid, where the witness is no longer living. In that respect these documents are the best witness you can get, whilst the archaeological evidence, that I shall present later, is the sand on the shoes and the fingerprints that will convince you that the Normans did camp in the Combe Haven valley in 1066.
The first manuscript was written by
WILLIAM OF JUMIEGES*****************
The detail assessment of this manuscript is contained in my manuscript (pages 4 - 8)
Jumieges states that the Normans arrived with 3,000 ships and appears to say that they landed at Pevensey, "where they built a castle". In my manuscript I address the logistics of landing at Pevensey, and then moving down the coast, or sailing to Hastings. Neither of which can be supported by any archaeological evidence whatsoever.
It is known that the Normans did not build the castle at Pevensey, but Pevensey Castle was built by the Romans. The Norman element was added some time later after the Invasion, inside the existing walls. In practice William of Jumieges states very little other than one paragraph, which I study in my manuscript, which cannot be supported by the logistics. Ms Chibnall, a Norman history expert, from Cambridge, addresses her view of Jumieges on page 24 of my bundle. She agrees with me that he undoubtedly exaggerated about the size of the fleet and that there is "a weakness of much of his account of the events in England" This weakness is an inherent flaw in Jumieges account, confirming that his one paragraph version of events should be treated with suspicion. However it is the duty of a investigator to report all the facts and not just those which make the case stick. I therefore make the point that I could have excluded Jumieges from the evidence altogether, if I wanted, to unjustifiably bolster my case. The idea being to leave out those manuscripts which did not fit my thesis.
However if all the evidence in all the manuscripts was unanimous there would never be a debate on the matter in the first place. It is because there are discrepancies that all the manuscripts need to be explained. Jumieges, as the first is explained by Ms Chibnalls expression. It has an inherent weakness and it is my view that this brings it into doubt as being reliable for either the size of the fleet, the place of the landing or the question of building a castle at Pevensey. It would in my view be foolish to rely on this one paragraph as proof of a Pevensey landing.
When you take into account the error about who built the castle at Pevensey, and the impossibility, accepted by all military historians, that 3,000 ships could not have been involved in a single day's landing, and then remove these from the paragraph there is nothing left that can be considered proof at all.
I therefore conclude that Jumieges manuscript, if produced to support a landing at Pevensey, has little or no value at all.
Next
WILLIAM OF POITIERS******************
The study of the William of Poitiers manuscript is considered in full in my manuscript on pages 8 - 11.
Poitiers states two pertinent points 1)"they all reached Pevensey together" and then 2)"Rejoicing greatly at having secured a safe landing, the Normans seized and fortified Pevensey and then Hastings".
In my manuscript (page 66) I explain that neither Poitiers nor Jumieges stated that the landing was at the town of Pevensey. It must be remembered that Hastings castle did not exist at the time of the Invasion and without this major landmark, the whole section of coast, certainly as far east as Bulverhythe, may have been known as Pevensey. This satisfactorily explains the first point of reaching Pevensey , since that is the place they intended to go to.
Dr Marjorie Chibnall, is in my view probably the world's leading expert on Norman affairs. She confirms this view in her letter to me (my bundle page 31) where she states "You can't take William of Poitiers too literally for the daily or hourly events after the landings took place. Chroniclers named Pevensey and Hastings because they were well-known, and because the Conqueror certainly built forts there. Their readers would not have known the names (even if the Normans did) for the beaches strewn along the coast between Pevensey and Hastings and in the estuaries". This expert opinion explains Poitiers first statement of reaching Pevensey using the words "they all reached Pevensey together".
The second issue is dependant upon the exact drafting of the second element of the paragraph. "Rejoicing greatly at having secured a safe landing, the Normans seized and fortified Pevensey and then Hastings". Read in chronological order, as opposed to applying the whole sentence as one event, the paragraph reads exactly as events happened, without any contradiction to the Normans landing at Wilting.
This seems impossible having just heard what I read to you a few minute ago.
Let me read it to you again, but this time I will explain it as we go along.
Poitiers says ""Rejoicing greatly at having secured a safe landing," Here the Normans landed at Hastings at the inland port - "a safe place". Hastings is not named here, (but is inferred by the safe landing place), then" the Normans seized and fortified Pevensey and then Hastings" here they went to Pevensey to seize and fortify the existing castle on the day after the landing. Their fort, which they bought with them was already in place (according to the Wace manuscript which we look at later), so they had a firm bridgehead, essential in any military campaign. They then sent a raiding party to Pevensey, where the major Roman fortification was in place, and was known to be guarded throughout that previous summer by Harold's guard. This would be exactly what a good commander would do in these circumstances. He could not afford to leave a military base intact, where Harold could rally an army, and at the same time remain secure within the walls of Pevensey castle. They fortified Pevensey in order to secure their presence, and in the following two weeks built their own proper wooden defence at Hastings. Now that sentence I first read, which historians have failed to understand has a new meaning because it fits the landing at Hastings: "Rejoicing greatly at having secured a safe landing, the Normans seized and fortified Pevensey and then Hastings
So - Poitiers does not therefore contradict the Hastings landing site, as has been claimed in the past. The words can mean that they landed at Hastings, if you know where they did land, and you read what is written with that in mind. It is not so much what was written but what was not written that is assumed to be known.
This is not creative reading, but explaining an otherwise unexplainable paragraph. Poitiers is well respected amongst historians for his accuracy and here we have total accuracy, without stating that they landed at Hastings. Poitiers here appears to be the master of the pen, a true diplomat, in his ability to satisfy the obvious discrepancies amongst those other writers of the time, who had identified both Pevensey and Hastings as the landing site.
In a brilliantly drafted paragraph he covers both Pevensey and Hastings as the landing site, depending upon which way you read it. It is possible that he did not know where the landing took place, but as a true diplomat did not state what he did not know, but drafted an all encompassing brilliant let-out clause. A clause that has confused historians for nine hundred years. I would not underestimate the writings of this man and understand why his writings are so well respected by historians today.
Ms Chibnall goes into some detail about Poitiers on page 25 of my bundle. She knows Poitiers writings better than anyone else in the world, as she was appointed by Oxford Medieval Texts to edit the Poitiers works of Raloph Davis, when he died. She states that "Historians have not gone blindly for Pevensey"(page 25 of my bundle) and that she "quite likes" my theory about William spreading misinformation amongst his chaplains, to ensure total secrecy about the exact detail of the landing site.
Whilst Ms Chibnall brings to my attention a host of information in this letter and the others (pages 24 -32 of my bundle) there is no attempt to undermine the validity of my case, on this or any of the other documents I have studied. She does brings to my attention, what she believes may be errors in my sources or interpretation, but this should not be interpreted as strict criticism, since she has formulated these opinions and like all historical sleuths is most importantly exercising that great art of historical debate. Only through open debate on these matters can truth emerge.
If I were completely wrong in my thesis, Ms Chibnall would be the first to tell me, and she would be the first to tell you, as she would not allow me to present these matters to you, unless she agreed with the broad conclusion, that Wilting needs to be investigated, because it appears to her, and me, that it is probably the main site of the Norman Invasion and the Norman Camp (she confirms this in her letters in my bundle page 28, 30 and 32), three separate letters confirming this belief, and a plea to the Inspector to take this matter seriously.
Poitiers goes on to state that the ground is rough at the site of the landing, because William had to return to his camp on foot. He states that Harold's body was bought back to the Norman camp after the battle, and that the Normans "laid waste" the neighbourhood of their camp. This same expression "laid waste" was used in the Domesday Survey, which we shall look at later. He also states that the Norman camp is close to his ships, which were guarded.
In conclusion Poitiers manuscript, whilst not adding any great new element, can be shown in a new light, to support a landing and camp at Hastings, where "conventional understanding" has ignored this aspect of the evidence, proposing the simplistic view that Poitiers names Pevensey as the landing site. I believe that I have shown that this is not the case at all.
To SUM UP so far*******************************
Two of the eight manuscripts, Poitiers and Jumieges, do not deliver conclusive evidence for landing at Pevensey, as is claimed to be the "conventional understanding". Jumieges evidence is totally questionable, whilst Poitiers text can actually confirms Hastings as the camp and landing site, once the chronology of the events is known.
Lined up in direct opposition to Pevensey as the landing and camp site are all of the remaining six documents. In each case Hastings is shown to be the landing and camp site.
The first of these is the document we touched on earlier called the Carmen of Hastingae Proelio, or as it is known colloquially -
THE CARMEN*************************
This document is a poem containing 835 lines of great detail and information to scholars of the period. The evidence is covered in my manuscript in detail from pages 11 - 17.
The information that we are interested in is contained in a number of different paragraphs:
The first of these says" They reached an area of safe landing places, leaving the sea astern"as", the third hour of the day was rising over the earth". Where they arrived "in a calm bay"
This text is important evidence for the landing at Wilting, because the Combe Haven Valley was at this time flooded, with what I believe I can show is the old port of Hastings sitting inland from the sea. I would like to show you where this is on a map so that the text makes sense.
I would like to look at the Southern Water map of the flood plain in the Combe Haven Valley, this can be seen as shaded grey on the map on page 416, of my bundle. Even today it can be seen that the flood level covers the whole valley in the Winter, right up to the recreation ground at Crowhurst (marked orange on the plan).
The site where I propose that Hastings port was located is marked green. Wilting farm is outlined in pink
The exit of the flood plain to the sea is marked X, in blue, in the bottom right hand corner. This is south.
If we now compare this to the Smyth and Jennings borehole map of the Combe haven Valley, page 415 of my bundle, you can see the valley flood plain in relation to the coast. In this version I have coloured the flood plain yellow. The sea and coast lies at the bottom of the screen.
You can see how the port lies well inland by the standards of conventional ports. The name Bulverhythe confirms its identity as a port, and I shall look at this later when we examine the place name evidence later.
In relation to the Carmen's statement "leaving the sea astern" we can see that in order to arrive "in a calm bay" the fleet needed to negotiate the mouth of this estuary. Shown on the plan as now being next to the Pebsham Rubbish tip.
There are compelling reasons to believe that William assembled his fleet together so that they could land in unison. Since in Wace's manuscript it is reported that they" reached the shore together" and landed in unison.
The Carmen gives us the time of day - the third hour, about nine o'clock in the morning at that time of the year. The third hour being three hours since sunrise. This means that the whole fleet would have been carried into the bay on the huge flood tide rushing through the tidal inlet, by borehole C3. Once in the bay they could assemble at their convenience "in a safe place" and land in unison across a wide front on the height of the tide at 12 noon.
From a military point of view this plan is almost faultless, since any defending army could not stop those ships as they entered the bay. They reached this position any defenders would not be able to defend all four sides of the bay. In consequence the invaders could chose the weakest front. If Harold and his army had assembled at the port area, William would have landed to the south on what is now the Bexhill peninsula. As it turned out once 500 of these small vessels arrived in the bay, the inhabitants fled for fear of their lives. Once in the bay the town that I believe was on that shore, Hastings, was lost to the invading army. Only at this site can these events have taken place, as described in the Carmen. No similar site exists between the old town Hastings and Pevensey.
If these events, told in the Carmen, had been at Pevensey, the Normans would have been pushed ashore by the onshore wind or tide. Only in this calm bay, at the old port of Hastings, in the Combe Haven valley, devoid of wind and tide, could William have sustained this brilliant military manoeuvre. Only at this site could the words "calm bay" and "left the sea astern" be used.
The Carmen continues, "Fearing to lose the ships, you surround them with earthworks" and "You restored the dismantled forts and guarded the shores". Two more important observations, since William orders the ships to be earthed up. This means that some or all of the ships are probably still where they were left, incapacitated.
The reference to dismantled forts (in the plural) indicates two or more dilapidated fortifications at the site, Whilst the word "shores" further supports the Combe Haven Valley. None of these support any other site, since none has been found - no site where "shores" which could be guarded, no earthed up remains of Norman boats, no remains of dismantled forts (in the plural).
I propose that all these elements are incorporated into the Wilting site and nowhere else.
The Carmen tells us about the spy who goes immediately to York to tell Harold about the landing. This has no immediate relevance, except when examined later in the context of the Wace evidence.
Lastly the Carmen confirms Poitiers view that Harold's dismembered body is returned to the Norman camp by the sea, and this camp is at the port. The words are in plain English for all to understand "swearing that he would sooner entrust the shores of that very port to him - under a heap of stones".
A marker stone is placed on the grave confirming "By the duke's commands, O Harold, you rest here a king. That you may still be guardian of the shore and sea". As if to rub the point home the Carmen finishes this with the words "For a fortnight William remained in the camp at the port of Hastings and from there he directed his march towards Dover".
The Carmen is not open to interpretation . It states clearly exactly where the Norman Camp was - at what was then known as the port of Hastings - where it claims the body of King Harold, the last Saxon king, was buried - not below the cliff where Hastings Castle was built some twenty years later, in a totally indefensible position, but on a site that indicates military genius, using the tide and the geography of the bay to give immense military advantage, from whatever circumstances may materialise on the day.
As I have shown in my manuscript (pages11-17) the Carmen completely supports the site of the Norman Invasion at the port of Hastings, situated where I have indicated on the maps, in the north-east corner of the Combe Haven Valley, at Upper Wilting.
Now I would like to look at the fourth manuscript I studied called
THE CHRONICLE OF BATTLE ABBEY********************

RETURN TO CORRESPONDENCE