Evidence in Person 7

UPPER NORMAN FORT
It is an important part of my thesis to provide evidence of two forts at Wilting Manor, thus fulfilling the requirements of the images drawn on the Bayeux Tapestry, which we looked at earlier.
As well as showing that the upper and lower sites were connected by a road, by which the essential supplies were delivered, the Upper Norman Fort is an essential pre-requisite of a commander of the quality of William the Conqueror. Since it would be foolish to land and camp on a headland leaving the hill above him unguarded.
In consequence if Wilting is the Norman Invasion landing and camp site, we would expect to find a camp at the top of the hill as well.
This is in fact exactly what we do find, and this can be seen in diagrammatic format on page 145 of my manuscript. Here we have the top field, known as Chapel Field. This is named after a chapel which is located there.
The chapel was first recorded in the twelfth century, but no artefacts or building have ever been found. In my manuscript I make the case in pages 148 and 149 that this chapel is probably the original St Mary in the Castle Chapel, which was referred to in Foundation Charter of the Collegiate Church before 1100.
Its discovery within the walls of the original fort at Wilting, on the top field, places a high likelihood that the name Chapel Field is also connected to the events of the Invasion. Since it was reported by Wace, that chapels were set up the night before the battle in the Norman camp. It was also reported that after the battle, the Normans returned to their camp to conduct the necessary honours.
In consequence it is highly likely that this chapel may hold remains that can be directly linked to the Norman Invasion. Since the evidence suggests that this chapel is within the boundary of the main Norman camp.
Evidence for the chapel was located originally by virtue of the aerial photographs. If we look at page number 148 of my manuscript, you will see markings on the ground indicating the outline of a building of some size. This has been drawn with a dotted outline.
As a result of the speculation that I had made in my manuscript, in relation to this being the original St Mary in the Castle Chapel, which had been lost, I decided to start a resistivity survey of the top field. After all I could be wrong, and it would not be right to present evidence here, which we knew had been proven to be incorrect.
In the Summer of 1995 I managed to do two days work, covering a corner of the section of field where I show the castle being located.
You can see from this plan that the outline of the fort is marked. This field is approximately five acres in size, with earthworks on all four sides. It overlooks the London road and gives the defenders at least one hour's warning of any approaching army. In many respects an ideal defence, with a steep northern front, with steep hill on three sides. In military terms an ideal defensive position. Once it was taken all William had to do was sit and wait for Harold. The site confirms in my mind William's brilliance as a military tactician - personal view only.
Page 132 of my bundle shows the first results of the resistivity survey of Chapel Field. This plot is 120 meters by 60 meters, with north to our right, looking slightly south of west. In consequence the data shows what is probably a building aligned towards the East. Completely in agreement with the thesis outlined in my manuscript. A chapel would be expected to be aligned in a east-west axis.
Mr Gardiner does not address the issue of the chapel in Chapel field, or the claim that this is connected to the Norman Invasion, through its name and connection with the landing site. I must therefore conclude that in the absence of any challenge, the Highways Agency accept the possibility, that the two are connected and have omitted this information, like the other items omitted from their rebuttal.
Having completed the first element of this survey, I decided that it would be necessary to conduct a preliminary excavation, just to make sure that the evidence that we could see on the survey, was in fact archaeology, and not geology.
I conducted a preliminary excavation one meter wide, by 1.5 meters long and one foot deep, within the boundary of the area marked on the resistivity survey. The exact location will be available to experts if required.
In this excavation, I found a number of large stones of a masonry type, together with thirty sherds of medieval pottery. This was the first time that I had found any pottery on this site of any antiquity.
I sent some of the pottery away to a number of experts for appraisal. In order to get an impartial view, I did not tell them too much about the site. One of those people I sent the pottery to was Mr Gardiner, at South Eastern Archaeological Services. I had contacted him in early 1992 (my bundle pages 157 to 158).
I had asked him for assistance, because at that time I was investigating Redgeland Wood. Unfortunately he was unable to help. However this time he did report on the pottery (see my bundle pages 160 and 161).
He did not tell me that he had written a critique of my manuscript, and presented it to the County Archaeologist without any discussion with me. Neither does the County Archaeologist advise me of this. I only found out about the correspondence when I asked the Highways Agency in January of this year to forward me all copies of correspondence on the matter. For what ever reason Mr Gardiner did not want to be open and frank with me, but preferred to keep his critique secret and his involvement in this investigation secret from me. Perhaps that is why he did not want me to accompany him round the site earlier in the year. As a result of these actions by Mr Gardiner, I cannot be sure whether the information that he includes in the letter dated 26^th September about the pottery is not tainted by his apparent belief that Wilting cannot be the Norman landing site.
I would therefore prefer not to rely upon it until the pottery in question has been seen by more people. However I can report that Malcolm Lyne received a similar sample from the excavation and reported back to me on 23^rd November last year.
Mr Lyne is a pottery expert, whose speciality is pottery from Sussex. He was recommended to me by Hastings Museum, because I told them that I wanted a second opinion, since pottery dating could be subject to wide variations of opinion. I believe this is where I can be shown to be exercising caution, and have not just jumped to conclusions.
Mr Lyne's letter is enclosed in my bundle page 162. He states that the pottery I sent him is "mid 11^th century to late 13^th century" - exactly the dates we are looking for.
His letter confirms that medieval pottery from the right era is to be found in Chapel Field. It does not prove the Norman Invasion, but with Norman pottery found on site it, certainly increases the possibility, given all the other factors we have discussed and the failure to find any similar pottery in the old town of Hastings.
Norman pottery has been found in one excavation only in an area, where the excavation is minuscule compared to the field in question. Anne Scott from HAARG saw my small excavation plot late last Summer, and immediately volunteered to help with a dig this Summer. She saw what I saw, and we both know that this is just the tip of the iceberg for Wilting. I believe it is possible that the whole mystery may be solved by excavations in this top field, because I believe the evidence points to the fact that it was also the main Norman camp, for the two weeks before the battle, and was in use for a number of years before the Count of Eu abandoned the site to build his new castle on the headland of the Priory valley.
Mr Gardiner seems to make the point in his Proof of evidence para 4.2.4 that only 5 sherds of pottery belong to the period of the Norman Invasion. Mr Gardiner has not seen all the pottery and in any event the size of the excavation is so small as to indicate the possibility of a very large amout of pottery still awaiting excavation. Mr Gardiner has not seen all the pottery from Wilting. He has only seen five pieces which I sent him. There are in the region of thirty, from this one excavation, just big enough to sit in. If he wants Norman pottery, I can tell him where it is. Unfortunately he has refused to look, because he says it is "impossible", and doesn't want to talk with me, so that makes it a little difficult.
However a few pieces of pottery do not an Invasion make - or so I have been told a number of times, by a number of people. In consequence I submit the pottery evidence as confirmation that Norman pottery was used on this site, and it remains to be seen whether those users were Normans from the Norman Invasion or not. What I can say with certainty is that the Highways Agency must sit up and take note that Norman pottery, similar to that found at Battle Abbey, has been found at Wilting. I am led to believe that no such Norman pottery has ever been found in the immediate area and none at any proposed landing site before. This could be considered supportive evidence to the total thesis.
The reason I believe that the top field at Wilting was the centre of operations for the Norman Army, in the two weeks before the battle, was the enormous earthworks on the top of that hill. This takes the form of a flat field, with four embankments on each side. The northern side is still very pronounced, as is the western side, whereas the southern side is now in the hedgeline, and the eastern side borders the road.
I would now like to look at these embankments. This is the first photo number 22 looking east, with Wilting farmhouse in the eastern corner.
Standing in this field at the very summit of a hill, which overlooks a large section of area, the field can be seen to have undergone major surgery at some stage.
What I mean is that it appears to have been flattened by earth moving on a pretty grand scale.
I believe this earth moving was done at the time of the Invasion or may even have been previous to that, and the Normans inherited the site, since this would better explain the words "dismantled forts" we have looked at earlier. Photo number 23 shows the northern edge of the fort, clearly defined with the cow showing the scale.
To the left we have the edge of Chapel Wood, just out of sight, and this is a geological fault line, providing an almost inaccessible climb up the short cliff, except for entrance through the earthen rampart, that climbs up through the centre of the wood. Here we can see where the chapel field drops to the central rampart in the wood. It is my proposal that th earthed moved from this section of field was used to form the main ramp and this explains the indentation where the road used to run.
These ramparts and terraces are now barely recognisable due to the ravages of the woodland.
Clearly some major developments were in progress in this wood and the field above, at some stage in the distant past. The aerial photo on page number 145 of my manuscript shows the layout of the wood, the terraces and the original route of the road through the fort.
Mr Gardiner offers no explanation for the earthworks and ramparts in Chapel Wood. He chooses to ignore these items as if they did not exist and seeks to suppose that the earthworks in Chapel Field, are "confidently identified as lynchet produced by agricultural activity".
Mr Gardiner goes into some detail about lynchets in paragraph 12.3.1 and 12.3.2 of his critique. He explains that these are formed by agricultural activities, where soil travels downhill, until it reaches a barrier, forming a positive lynchet, and on the lower side, it forms a negative lynchet, and has produced a drawing to support his case.
I cannot disagree with this, since it was confirmed to me by Mr Kendall of English Heritage, when we discussed lynchets and their construction. However this would only appear to be correct for a lynchet on the side of a hill.
However Mr Gardiner's explanation is not as straight forward as he claims, since firstly he uses the words "The earthworks may be confidently identified as a lynchet produced by agricultural activity". But has not conducted an excavation, in consequence this statement is a prediction rather an actual identification.
When I showed the pictures you have seen to Bill Startin, the English Heritage representative at a meeting to discuss the statutory position of Upper Wilting in February this year, his words were "WoW that's a huge lynchet isn't it?" I asked him how he could be sure it was not an Iron Age earthworks? And he said well he couldn't be sure and the only way to be sure was to cut a section through the edge.
He also volunteered the information, for which I am grateful, that it was not uncommon for lynchets to have been formed upon the remains of previous archaeological features. Mr Gardiner does not mention this, but it must have been known to him.
I therefore decided to look into the question of lynchets in more detail.
Firstly if this field, Chapel Field, has four lynchets, the construction is unusual since it occupies four sides of a field which is the top field of the hill, with no other lynchets located in any other fields on the farm.
Mr Gardiner is very familiar with lynchets since he wrote a book entitled The South East to AD 1000 several years ago, with co-authors Peter Drewett and David Rudling. In that book Mr Gardiner regularly mentions lynchets in relation to the development of agricultural settlements in East Sussex. I have here the extracts from thirteen separate references in the period 1400 - 600BC of the use of lynchets in field systems associated with ancient inhabitation. None of these have any recent agricultural connection, since they help prove habitation going back 2.5 - 3,500 years.
Mr Gardiner did not say anything about that in his critique - in fact he gives the clear impression to me that a lynchets must be associated with recent farming practice - not farming practice going back thousands of years - which actually supports my case.
As if to help me further with my case the Gardiner book kindly shows a photograph of Burpham Fort, near Arundel. Which I would like to look at. This is a poor reproduction, but the point can still be made. The photograph is number 24.
The wording below the photograph says "The fort constructed as a defence against the Vikings, occupied a natural tongue of land rising sharply above the river flood plain, which surrounds it on three sides. On the fourth side a high bank and ditch was thrown up to control access from the North. Incredibly similar to circumstances which arise at the top field at Wilting. Identical in many ways.
You will see from the bottom photograph that there is no sign of a ditch on the modern landscape, any more than there is in my photograph number 23 or 22.
I therefore dispute Mr Gardiner's conclusion on two accounts: Firstly he has not conducted an archaeological trenching exercise, to see if any archaeological remains exist below the edge of the field, where such remains can often be found, and Secondly the discovery of lynchetts on this top field supports the possibility of ancient habitation, dating to long before the Invasion - thus increasing the likelihood that these may be lynchets, which were turned into defences at the time of the Invasion.
The Chapel Field boundary, where the embankment is located, is marked on the 1844 tithe map of Hollington as having an embankment, by the use of regular dots. This is shown in my manuscript page 96, but can be better seen on this copy, which I have marked in orange (my bundle page 412).
The conclusion must therefore be that if this bank existed in 1844, before agriculture was mechanised, it is more than likely that it was formed by man's involvement many centuries ago. Mr Gardiner fails to date the activity, leaving the reader to draw his own conclusion that the work is recent, by the juxtaposition of the reference to ploughing in the second World War, when addressing the issue of ridge and furrow, in the same section entitled Earthworks (Section 12).
In the definitive study of English Landscapes entitled The Making of the English Landscape, G.W.Hoskins addresses the issue of lynchets. He states on page 22 in the section The landscape Before the English Settlement, that in relation to the people of the early Iron Age "The other visible evidences in the landscape of these early farms are the lynchets or cultivation terraces that abound on chalk downlands in south-eastern England, although they are found sporadically elsewhere also. These Celtic fields represent an immense advance on the tiny, irregular corn-plots of the Bronze Age farmers, for they are more or less rectangular blocks" - really. That's very interesting. Hoskins states that they are usually smaller than the field at the top of Wilting and expresses caution in evaluating their age. However you would think that Mr Gardiner might have told us that lynchets suggest the possibility of Iron Age occupation wouldn't you. I would suggest that this is yet another omission from the Gardiner critique. Mr Gardiner is rather good at leaving out information that does not support his case.
In conclusion Mr Gardiner's confident "prediction" is something less than that in practice. He fails to tell us about the regular connection of lynchets with ancient sites in Sussex, covering the period 1400 - 600 BC, and fails to address the issue of how soil travels uphill at the top of the hill on such a grand scale. This earthen bank has not been formed in the last 150 years and for all I know may have the Iron Age origins that Hoskins suggests, since this is a feature that is well known in Sussex.
Until excavated neither Mr Gardiner nor I can be proven correct. Therefore the case for excavation by experts stands, since the challenge by Mr Gardiner is unfounded.
This particular area of Wilting Farm completely supports the proposal that a medieval village, dating back to the iron Age or beyond, was situated in the immediate vicinity. Firstly we have the question of how the lynchets, if that is what they are, were formed ,and secondly in the same section 12 entitled Earthworks at Upper Wilting Farm by Mr Gardiner, we have the reports of ridge and furrow earthworks in the adjacent field.
Instead of putting two and two together at this stage, which would be reasonable if seeking an impartial assessment, he dismisses the ridge and furrow observation, which I had not seen, by concluding that these ridge and furrow markings must be the result of recent Hops planted on the north-eastern field adjacent to Chapel Field). This is justified because "the ditches of the ridge and furrow are only 2 to 3 meters apart. Medieval ridge and furrow has a wider spacing"(his critique para 12.2). This field is called Kiln Field and can be seen on the same 1844 tithe map and is known to have an ancient name source. Other fields to the north and east of the farm also display the same characteristics.
I believe that if this were a proper archaeological investigation, where the object of the critique was to establish the validity of the thesis, the discovery of ridge and furrow next to a possible major earthworks, would lead to the inevitable conclusion that a mediaeval settlement could be located nearby. Not a conclusion whereby evidence is dismissed. Hoskins also addresses the issue of Ridge and Furrow by stating (page 42 of his book The Making of the English landscape) "the ancient pattern of the medieval and Saxon open fields is perpetuated by the ridge and furrow, which is conspicuous an element in the Midlands today" the area of England he was discussing at the time. Hoskins later warns that not all ridge and furrow is ancient, he states "We need the local historians and topographers to distinguish carefully between the two types".
Mr Gardiner has offered a distinction, based upon the width of the furrows, concluding that these must be or recent origin, disregarding the historical context.
As a result of being alerted to these soil markings, I went to Kiln Field with my camera and was pleased to see that because of the very dry winter and a newly blown snow, the marks on the field were extremely obvious. I photographed them and the next photo shows the field in long shot (photo number 25).
You will see that the ridge and furrow is evenly spread across the whole face of this field, and can also be seen in other fields in the immediate vicinity.
When I went into the field, I measured the distance between the ridges. These were found to be the same at the top of the field, at the sides of the field, and the bottom of the field. In order that I was thorough I measured the widths of the ridges from furrow to furrow where the snow lay (the same as ridge to ridge) in every location that I could see.
Here we have a couple of photographs, showing the tape measure spread across the ridges to measure the distance. It is in fact 13 feet or just over 4 meters from furrow to furrow. Exactly what you would expect on a medieval ridge and furrow agricultural holding. Not 3 or 2 meters, as detailed in Mr Gardiner's evidence for hops.
There is only one conclusion that I can draw when Mr Gardiner says in his critique "The ditches of the ridge and furrow are only 2 to 3 meters apart". Either he is inadvertently misinforming us, because he has taken the word of the farmer instead of measuring them. Or he identified a single ridge and furrow somewhere in these fields that is over a meter narrower than all the rest. If he did it is completely wrong to state that the evidence must be disregarded because the ridges are too narrow because this infers that all the ridges are too narrow, when I have shown that they are not.
In consequence Mr Gardiners conclusions, which the Highways Agency are relying on, are in my view valueless in regards to the earthwords and the ridge and furrow. I would conclude from this that in the interests of caution Mr Gardiner's evidence on this matter should be discarded as evidence, and the matter should be examined by archaeologists who will take the necessary care and attention to detail, to ensure a correct interpretation is reached.
In my manuscript pages 145 to 150 I make the connection between the camp on Chapel Field and the first castle built by the Normans. This was of course wooden, like all castles at that time. Only subsequently in or around 1094, when lime was ordered for the mortar at the castle at Priory valley, did the castle at Wilting get taken down according to my thesis.
In my manuscript I raise rhetorical the question "are the earthworks connected to the Norman Invasion? I believe it is probable that the answer is yes and no. The Carmen reports that they reinstated the forts (in the plural) that were there. It is most likely that this referred to Iron Age defences simply because the Saxon developments were unlikely to be in need of reinstatement. It is also unlikely that the Normans, no matter how inventive, could have moved the amount of earth required in the short time that they were in Hastings before the battle. However I am certain that these defences played a major part in the Invasion plan, since strategically it would be impossible, from a military point of view, to occupy the lower fort and not occupy a similar one on the high ground overlooking the site".
This is not an outlandish proposal, is it? Given what we have seen, it seems reasonable to me, and fits well with the other evidence we have seen. I therefore propose that the evidence we have seen for the Upper Norman Fort is consistent with the proposal that the Normans landed and camped at Wilting in 1066.
Before summing up the archaeological position there are a number of other issues raised in Mr Gardiner's critique, which need to be addressed, since the document has been well crafted, even if the content is at times in my view misleading in its conclusions because of what it leaves out.
COUNTY ARCHAEOLOGISTXXXXXX (Building the pack of cards)
I am aware that a number of people have been circulated with the critique, including the County Archaeologist. I believe that the letter from the County Secretary dated 15^th December (my bundle pages 221 and 222) confirms in the second and last paragraph, that the County has relied upon the County Archaeologist, to reach a conclusion as to the acceptability of the published route or not.
He states "I understand that you have talked to Dr Woodcock, the County Archaeologist, about your paper "Secrets of the Norman Invasion" and that you have walked around some of the sites together". This does not say that the single walk that we had around the site was in 1993, long before any excavations or Norman evidence had come to light. He continues "Dr Woodcock considers that the archaeological remains present in the areas investigated are of relatively low density; nothing has been found to substantiate your views. He therefore does not think that there is any archaeological argument to reroute the bypass in this area"
What the County Secretary could not know, was that the "areas investigated" were not the areas or artefacts shown in my manuscript, but a field walk in a completely different area, which I shall address when looking at the involvement of English Heritage. In consequence Dr Woodcock could only be relying at this stage upon Mr Gardiner's critique.
In fact in his letter to me dated 17^th January this year in my bundle page 221 and 222 Dr Woodcock states that he is "not competent to argue a case for the validity, or otherwise, of your interpretation of the documentary evidence, since that is not my field of work" and continues "My view has been formulated as a result of my archaeological expertise and assessments of the results you have produced, my visits to view the evidence in the field and the results of the excavations and surveys conducted by the Oxford archaeological Unit. I have also read "A review of the Secrets of the Norman Invasion" produced by Mark Gardiner. This seems to be a most masterly critique and it seems a pity that this document is not available on the Internet so that it can be consulted alongside yours".
Without the benefit of detailed study and examination of the actual evidence, as opposed to the evidence which Mr Gardiner writes about in his critique, it is clear that the County Archaeologist has relied upon Mr Gardiner, probably because he is a professional and has a working relationship with him.
Dr Woodcock has only visited Wilting once in 1993 according to my own records and that of the tenant farmer. At that time there was no evidence to look at apart from the "cobbles", which we looked at earlier and the earthen "jetties". In fact what the letter actually says is he has formulated an opinion, based upon his experience, which reading between the lines may well mean his experience at dealing with the public. He has not personally looked at any archaeology, but by studying my manuscript and the Oxford Archaeology Unit report on the field walk. This was of course in a different place from the archaeological remains which I wanted examined, and most importantly the conclusion is reached after reading Mr Gardiner's "masterly critique"
Given our own examination of that critique so far, Dr Woodcock may regret ever having called the critique "masterly". What is clear is that East Sussex County Council has relied on Dr Woodcock and Dr Woodcock relies upon Mr Gardiner .
Clearly the County Archaeologist is a very busy man and did not feel that he could go against the evidence presented by his colleague. Given that Mr Gardiner has been paid by Chris Blandford Associates to examine the evidence presented in my manuscript, he has no valid excuse for not examining my evidence unless these where his instructions from the Highways Agency.
The County Archaeologist confirms my case in his letter to me dated 17^th January 1996 (my bundle page 221), when he states "It strikes me that the validity of a number of your sites could be proved relatively easily by a short piece of intense archaeological investigation ". This has been my point since I filed the manuscript with the Highways Agency on 23^rd December 1994. Throughout this time my requests for assistance from professional archaeologists has been ignored by the authorities I spoke to. Dr Woodcock goes on to conclude "Might this not be just the thing for "The Time Team" to investigate? I am sure that they could help solve the problem one way or another and I am sure it would make good television".
This is not a man who is saying I do not believe that your case is wrong. He has clearly kept an open mind on the matter in the interests of caution. Here we have a man who's job it is to investigate and co-ordinate archaeological work in the County saying - "Well what you really need is a team of archaeologists to look at this, who cover a wide range of expertise within the profession and who are able to investigate your claims thoroughly". Implicit in Dr Woodcock's letter is the inference that he cannot investigate these claims, which I believe are for either political or other unstated reasons, therefore the Time Team would be the best route to tackle this. A team of television archaeological experts.
It is therefore completely wrong for East Sussex County Council's County Secretary to conclude that there is no case to answer at Wilting. Technically the letter dated 15^th December 1995 (my bundle page 422) is correct because it refers to a low density of "archaeological remains present in the areas investigated" not archaeological remains that "need to be investigated". Therefore the conclusions drawn by the County are based upon not understanding the implications of Dr Woodcock's assessment, or a misunderstanding that an archaeological investigation which I propose is indirectly supported by the letter from the County Archaeologist. His letter to me confirms this very point. You cannot say on one hand there is nothing there to indicate re-routing the bypass, and in the same breath say, well you need a team of qualified archaeologists to look into this matter don't you?
I must therefore conclude that it cannot be claimed that the County unreservedly support the proposed route, because it is clear that 1) the officers have not absorbed the implications of County Archaeologists letter to me of 17^th January and 2) the Council members themselves have not been advised of the implications. It is the Councillors, not the officers, who make the decisions in relation to support or otherwise of this road, and if all the evidence in relation to the route across Upper Wilting farm has not been made available for discussion, or the merits of Route S3A have not been discussed. I cannot see how the claim that the route is unreservedly supported by the County can be true. As far as I am aware no discussions have taken place with Councillors regarding the claim that Wilting is the Norman Invasion site, no assessment of the tourism impact of such a site has been undertaken, and in all other respects of the impact of this discovery East Sussex County Councillors are apparently completely in the dark.
I shall now look in detail at the Working Paper "A Review of the Secrets of the Norman Invasion" written by Mark Gardiner in May 1995
CRITIQUEXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

RETURN TO CORRESPONDENCE