RETURN TO INDEXWell quite a lot really. I was scheduled to spend two days presenting my evidence at the Public Inquiry, into the A259 Bexhill to Hastings Bypass, which passes through the Wilting Farm site. I had spent several months preparing my case and read out a 200 page statement and crtique of the Highways Agency written response to my statement of case.
In addition to this I included over 400 pages of backup paperwork, not including the 196 pages already filed in my manuscript
Needless to say QC acting for the Highways Agency was not amused. The primary case that they relied upon was a critique written by Dr Mark Gardiner of SEAS. He had not conducted any physical archaeological excavation and in consequence there was as far as I was concerned no counter case for them to present.
The essence of the Highways position being that trial trenching had been completed last year and because the excavations which I sought were not in the direct route of the road there was no need for them to investigate my claims in detail. Their whole case thus relies upon the concept of "conventional understanding".
This was a big mistake and one which required me to give evidence and be cross examined for a further two weeks. This appears to be in the misguided belief that by examining every word of my statement it will somehow mitigate the Highways Agency's position. I am not so sure.
During the third day of the Inquiry I had just finished giving evidence and was being cross examined. There were a few journalists in the room reporting for local papers. It was clear from my case that there is no established Norman landing site at Pevensey and the Inspector, Mr Jeaps, had taken a keen interest in what I was saying.It appears that he is a keen sailor and also a military man of a very high rank.
At a strategic point the Inspector told cross examining QC that the evidence which I was giving had great importance since if I was correct it would be impossible to start work on the road, which would have to be redirected.
The significance of these words was not lost on anyone there, least of all the journalists. In consequence the story hit the national Sunday Telegraph newspaper the following Sunday. National BBC TV did a story on the current affairs national Newsnight programme and history has started to change as a result of the publicity.
Sunday Telegraph article
The Inspector ruled that an investigation into my claims should be made as soon as possible. I presented that case that this was not the right time of year to excavate the delicate nature of my finds in the Combe Haven valley - a wetlands and flood plain where the subsoil is primarily clay. Dr Gardiner argued, as an expert, that now is the best time of year because the ground is damp. This opinion I believe to be flawed and has now been proven as such from the results which were obtained
The Highways Agency QC appeared to concentrate his attack upon my thesis on the basis that I indicated that two forts were located at this site and two forts were located in the Bayeux Tapestry, according to my thesis. This emphasis was I am sure intended to undermine my case because there is no written record of such a fort on the upper site and no record of a settlement on the top of this hill. Knowing that these matters were to be investigated by trial trenching ( a sort of hit and miss archaeology) he must have felt fairly secure that nothing would be found. After all the two trenches were only 30 meters by 1.5 meters on a five acre site with no known archaeological background
I shall be interested to know how he will explain the archaeological finds when we go back in front of the Inspector at the end of May. I do not have time to get the stuff on the net yet but should have some photos sometime after 5th May for those following the case.
If I were the Highways Agency I would be looking for another route right now. Of course the archaeology does not show Norman bits yet, but now I have shown that I can locate archaeology from dowsing I will find what we need. They gambled on nothing and lost in my opinion
Of course I will not underestimate their ability to try to pull the wool over the Inspector's eyes. Much of what I have heard has been one sided and no relevance to the search for historical truth. Dr Gardiner has taken a new job at Queens in Belfast I think. I wonder who they will roll out to justify their position when the road gets stopped?
Many thanks for tuning in. I will try to get more up to date stuff, including the Wessex Archaeology report when it comes in (Wessex did the trenches for the Highways Agency). The guys at Wessex were very straight and have a difficuly job, because I believe the brief is designed to help the Highways Agency case. Working for road construction is a thankless task as an archaeologist. However I do not think anything they found, or failed to find, undermines my thesis. What we now have to do is find the funding to get a UK university involved in a long term project to properly excavate the site.
Watch this space
RETURN TO CORRESPONDENCE INDEX