Dr Gardiner claimed that agricultural lynchets form with slopes as little as 2 to 3%, yet he has failed to convince me that the top field at Wilting was formed by this method, because there was not enough evidence to support this proposal. If there was Wessex, experts in these matters, would have identified this feature as a lynchet, which they failed to do. I would draw the inspector' attention to Page 18 Day 80 of Dr Gardiner's spoken evidence where he states "I actually disagree with Wessex Archaeology. They suggest, I think, two things its fair to say, they suggest it could be a lynchet, or it could be the result of soil being thrown up from underneath, that is to say from lower down the slope onto the slightly higher ground." However I have checked the written and spoken record and no-where is there any confirmation that this feature is a confirmed lynchet. It is confirmed in the Wessex report, under the heading CONCLUSIONS, as a "possible post-medieval agricultural feature." (Wessex para 8.6.2 page 19.) It is not possible to twist this statement to mean that the feature has been identified by Wessex as a lynchet.
Wessex have been held up to us as independent experts, yet when they fail to confirm the lynchet to be such a construction, and suggest that earthmoving is involved, Dr Gardiner does an about face and seeks to deny the opinion of the experts he has otherwise promoted as being correct in all matters. A view that does not in this case stand the test of scrutiny.
You must remember that until the ditches were found in the middle of this bank Mr Gardiner's view was somewhat different, believing that the bank was caused by soil moving down the slope, forming a positive and negative lynchet (as per his paragraph 12.3.2 of his Proof of Evidence). Neither he nor I could know that this field was always a relatively flat topped peninsula - ideal for a defensive position.
Here is an expert who is sending out conflicting messages at every turn of the dice. Dr Gardiner states (Day 80 page 11 of the transcript) that the top field at Wilting is "a flat site" at the top of a hill, when it suits him in relation to questions on Norman Castles, yet seeks to justify" a sloping field" later in the same day when discussing lynchets (Day 80 page 20), where it is necessary to show a slope in order to prove their formation. Although he does refer to it as a "modest lynchet", something that was called a "big lynchet" by the visitors from English Heritage, who viewed photographs of the same feature (Day54 page 18 of Unchecked Record).
None of this evidence adds up when the same day the Inspector questioned Dr Gardiner about the soil movement, Dr Gardiner used these words "Nevertheless it is a labour". The labour in question being moving the soil by hand, at the same time appearing to concede that some of the soil was moved other than by agricultural means along the front edge of the field.
It is logical to put the ditches on the perimeter of the settlement on the top of the field. It is not however logical to move the earth from the bottom of the field to the top for agricultural reasons. Dr Gardiner's hypothesis does not seek to answer how or why this could happen. The proposal that this happens automatically is implausible.
The substructure of the rock shows conclusively that Chapel Field was and always was one field. Dr Gardiner claims without any justification that a field boundary once existed where the ditches are located. If this is the case why does the field have one name, and why cut two ditches into rock requiring a mammoth task, which probably circumvent a 5 acre field. Yet Wessex confirm in their report that the ditches predate the soil movement.(para 7.3.2. Wessex report).
If these ditches predate the soil movement the soil from the stratiagraphic information could not have originated higher up the slope because at that stage the slope was continuous and the soil must have been spread over the whole field on a level basis.
I do not believe it tenable that the movement of soil was the result of agricultural activity. The archaeology appears to prove a great deal of earth was probably moved, by the standards of the day. The question is by whom and when. Wessex tried their hand at a plausible explanation, which was rejected by Dr Gardiner - the two experts employed by the Highways Agency proposing different ideas which might accommodate their different evidence. Nothing Dr Gardiner has said convinces me that he is right. .However there is a glaring flaw in Dr Gardiner's logic in relation to the construction of the banks in Chapel Field. This is because there is not just one bank but four. One on each side of the top of what he called a "flat field".
Dr Gardiner sought to prove a "modest" lynchet was possible on this field because he believed that a slope of 2-3% is adequate for them to form. However this ignores the size of the upside slope of the field in question - less than 50 meters to the centre of the field. The upside slope just could not accommodate enough soil for it to fall downhill to create the upside lynchet.
The evidence provided by Wessex on figure 3. of their report shows the scale drawing of trench B. The scale in question is 1cm equals 1 meter. I have as a result of the evidence given By Dr Gardiner and Roland Smith of Wessex needed to check this plan and the only point where approximately 1.3meters of soil could be considered the depth of soil on this field, is in the centre of the upper ditch, which runs along the centre line of the bank. This measures 1.2 meters in depth - not 1.3 meters as shown in the report. Should the inspector wish to check this matter he will note that a number 128 is situated on the plan at this point. He will also note that in Appendix 1. of the same Wessex report, Trench B is identified as having a maximum depth of 1.2meters (as drawn on the plan), confirming that the depth of soil on this top field is not as deep across the whole field as we have been led to believe in general discussion at this inquiry. The depth of soil at the front edge of this field is therefore 1.1 meters, less the depth of the ditch. This is shown by Wessex as the combined depth of features 127 and 128. This is also shown in the Appendix as 0.6meters.
What this means is that the consequence of this evidence, given by Wessex ,and accepted as accurate by Dr Gardiner and the Highways Agency, is that the front edge of this field, where the bank is located, the soil is 1.2 meters deep, less 0.6 meters for the ditches, because the ditches are in the rock below the field level.
This means that the soil, at the front of the bank, is only 0.6meters thick - that is 60 cm- less than half of what we have been led to believe by the opening paragraph of the Wessex Report (para 4.3.1.). Even if there is an error on the drawing this only increases by 10cm to 70cm above the parallel ditches. At no point during discussions on this feature did either Dr Gardiner or the Wessex expert seek to advise us of this point. 1.3meters was used throughout this discussion as the depth of soil on the field edge.
.This is in my view completely inexcusable, since the Inspector asked Roland Smith of Wessex on Day 80 page 15 "Are you suggesting Mr Smith that the topsoil was bought to a depth of 1.3meters, along the whole of the Upper Field". Mr Smith did not mention that this was the soil height to the bottom of the ditch which runs through the middle of this bank.
In the whole of that discussion neither Wessex nor Dr Gardiner bought this matter to our attention - leading to the inevitable conclusion, that the figures used in this discussion, where completely wrong.
At the other end of this trench I have now checked the Wessex drawing, and these show the soil depth at the southern end of the trench, are shown as 0.5meters - half a meter. Not the 80cm I believed to be there as a result of taking the figures off the Wessex Appendix, being the Ground height less the Natural height.
I have to ask the question - Is it normal in Public Inquiries for experts, who know the truth, to ignore errors that have been presented to the Inspector by objectors, in the belief that failing to own up to the correct figures, will somehow help their case?
I am appalled by this, because I think that I may have been deliberately misled, as to the depth of soil on the front edge of this field.
So that there is no room for doubt I draw the Inspector's attention to paragraph 4.3.2 of the Wessex report, where it states in relation to the two parallel ditches, that they "lay more or less directly beneath the centre line of the lynchet/bank". Not the edge of the field, which was discussed in great detail at the Inquiry.
An error, which lends credence to Dr Gardiner's proposal, where it carries none, once the true depths of soil is known.
The soil depths taken from Figure 3 of the Wessex report are correct. I raised the issue at the Inquiry in my evidence, and Roland Smith of Wessex confirmed that the plans are correct, and I draw the Inspector's attention to the discussion which took place on Day 80 (page 17 of the unchecked record).
What we have is an increase in soil depth over the southern 15 meters of the trench B, of only 20- 30cm, amounting to just a 2% slope on only the last ten meters of the field. Thereafter it levels, as indicated in my evidence to virtually no slope at all - exactly the visual conclusion which I drew in my evidence.
You can also examine this evidence in another way, just to make sure, that any conclusion you may come to is correct.
If you seek to justify Dr Gardiners own words, that a modest lynchet could be formed on this field, you would need a minimum slope of a 2% across the whole field, not just the last ten meters, because soil would only move where a slope existed. This means a drop of two meters, in every hundred meters, or in the case of Chapel Field a drop of at least one meters from the centre of the top field to the bank on the northern side, when there is a total drop of only 60cm, according to the Wessex evidence and spot heights is shown in cross section. Only just over half the required drop.
Alternatively in the east west orientation along the ridge, there needs to be a drop of 4 meters in order to provide a 2% slope, where none exists at all . What Dr Gardiner has done, is solely address the issue of the bank on the north side of Chapel Field. The lynchet theory cannot scientifically account for the continuation of this same bank on the east, west and south sides of this same field. This is because the ridge, upon which the field is formed, has virtually no slope in an east/west orientation. It is a ridge, yet even the ploughing of this field over the millennium has failed to remove the earthworks concerned on the western boundary.
If a slope exists at all, it runs from west to east according to the Wessex drawings on Figure 3 of the Appendix. The spot height of the natural subsoil is shown level with the 41.45meter mark on trench A . Trench B on the opposite side of the same field on the eastern side is approximately half a meter higher . This means that the natural slope on this other orientation is towards the farmhouse from the west.
This field however is over 200 meters wide, it would need to drop 4 meters away from the farmhouse for it to be able to fulfil Dr Gardiners stated requirement of a drop, for a lynchet to form, on only a 2% inclination. Something which Chapel Field does not and never has done. This is proven by the Wessex archaeology, because the trenches on opposite sides of this same field record the natural rock height. (Figure 3).
This fact undermines Dr Gardiner's lynchet theory completely, and is apparent to anyone who has visited the site. It shows how selective excavation cannot be relied upon, to produce conclusive results, unless all elements of the site are taken into account.
I believe the observation concerning the slope requirements for lynchets, from Dr Gardiner's own evidence, completely removes any possibility that the structure in Chapel Field is a lynchet formed from agricultural activity. Firstly there was not enough soil for the lynchet to form in the first place (at this depth across the whole field), and secondly there is not enough slope for them to form at the top of this hill. I have not proved this point, Dr Gardiner has, with his expert knowledge of lynchets in conjunction with the Wessex archaeological work.
It is my contention that the evidence presented to this Inquiry by the Highways Agency effectively buries the lynchet theory once and for all. What we are left with is the conclusion that there is a flat field, called Chapel Field, on the top of Wilting Farm, which presents an enigma. Soil has been moved but we do not know from our archaeological investigation whether it was moved by the Normans or by earlier activities of man.
This field does not fulfil the normal requirements of an Iron Age settlement, as has been explained by Dr Gardiner, but neither does it fulfil the requirements of formation from normal agricultural processes.
There is only one conclusion which it is safe to draw. This is that more archaeological work is required to reach a safe conclusion. To draw any conclusion at this time, would be unsafe and leave the possibility of a catastrophic error of judgement, which could threaten a site of possible national heritage importance unequalled in this country.
Now that Wessex have found more pottery, dating from 950AD to 1300AD, the Highways Agency can no longer claim that this site was definitely not occupied by the Norman army. The discovery of the ditches aligned on an east/west axis, with a major post hole located where the wall of the wooden castle would be found, further supports my case. Having found a virgin site, where no pottery at all has been located by either HAARG - the Hastings area Archaeological Research Group, the Oxford Field walk or the Wessex trial trenching, I am confident that more work will now produce more evidence, that will enable us to build the necessary picture. In consequence the trenches in Chapel Field may not prove an Iron Age fort yet, nor a Norman castle, but what we have found increases that probability dramatically. A probability that no amount of personal opinions from Highways Agency experts can remove.
In respect to the issue of the Anglo-Norman pottery, I believe this find must be put in the context of other Anglo-Norman pottery finds in this area, in order to establish the weight with which any such evidence should be assessed. Clearly my view that these finds are important, in the historical context of the area as a whole, are not going to be taken at face value, by our learned friends opposite, no matter how much pottery the archaeologist pull out of the fields at Wilting. I must therefore request that in the interests of understanding why the Anglo-Norman pottery is important, the Inspector should visit Hastings Museum to see what is recorded there, where Norman pottery has been found, whether the Normans did bring their own pottery with them or not, and how specific the dating of that pottery can be established. Only then will this matter be understood.
It is my personal belief that unless the archaeological work done on this site is exhaustive and thorough, it will probably not be possible to confirm or deny my hypothesis in a short time scale. This is not only my view, but those of a number of historians and archaeologists to whom I have spoken, as well as the local museum staff, who have attended this Inquiry throughout, and who have had plenty of experience in gathering material from this area.
I believe anyone who tells me, that you can tell from these seven trenches, that a conclusion can be reached ,as to whether this was the Norman Invasion site or not, should be treated with great suspicion. This must be common sense. Yet here, the experts acting for the Highways Agency, are seeking to prove that the historical evidence can be dismissed by archaeology, which finds material that is inconclusive. They are seeking to prove that by finding nothing, the evidence of the manuscripts can be ignored. Yet when something does turn up which does not suit their case, they adopt the fall back position of - well its nothing to do with the Norman Invasion is it? Not in my view very convincing!
If you throw down the challenge, it is no good trying to change the ground rules, when evidence turns up which does not fit your particular view. I accept the need for investigation, and have waited many years to get a team of qualified people to look at my work, but these are the sort of arguments that have been directed at me by those who support Pevensey as the Norman Invasion site, and have not read any research on the matter. 82.Dr Gardiner's case appeared to me to take a dramatic turn, on the Tuesday after we broke for the Easter recess,(Day 59 page 26 bottom paragraph of the unchecked record) when he appeared to concede that the issue of the importance of the main camp of the Norman Invasion was not whether it was the landing site, but where the camp was located. I asked the straight forward question "Isn't the place where they camped going to be of national importance?" Without hesitation Dr Gardiner replied "Yes - I would agree that point".
The Highways Agency expert confirms in evidence that the camp site was probably of national importance, regardless of where the landing took place. This had been confirmed previously, when it was agreed with Dr Gardiner and the Inspector, that Pevensey did not show the characters you would expect when looking at the devastation (Day 59 page 8. of the unchecked record).
Dr Gardiner said at that time "I am quite happy to accept that the Norman army may have, having landed in Pevensey, may have moved to the Hastings area and established some sort of base there" .
This is the traditional story, which the Highways Agency have put so much store by, but the significance is that it does not alter the fact that if this is correct, the Normans could still have occupied their camp at the port of Hastings, because these two statements of Dr Gardiner removes the need to prove a landing at Hastings at all. Since the camp alone would be enough to establish a nationally important heritage site. A point made by the Norman history expert Dr Chibnall in her letter to me. (page 32 of my bundle). I have to agree with Dr Gardiner on this matter because it is easy to get carried away with detail and loose sight of what is at stake here.
If that camp is located where I believe it is, it would still be the first camp of William the Conqueror, still be the first fort of William the Conqueror and still be a national heritage asset, whether boats are found now in the inlet or not. A position which Dr Gardiner in fairness appeared to agree with. In the absence of any landing site at Pevensey, Wilting Farm becomes the Norman landing site de-facto if the camp is there. There is no other site for which claims are made for it to be the Hastings Norman camp site, and never has been as far as I know, with the sort of historical provenance that I have provided in my manuscript.
Speed in examination of any evidence is not my priority - thoroughness is. A great emphasis has been placed upon speed by Dr Gardiner and Dr Webbe, since I am told there would be costs associated with delay. Costs that I am in no way responsible for and therefore I feel no need to sacrifice thoroughness for speed, after seven years work, regardless of any other considerations that may be their concern.
The expression used by the gentleman for English Heritage sums up the situation well. He said "it is not possible to go prospecting for Normans" yet in my view he later sought to justify the absence of Norman remains as "proof" that my manuscript was not correct in one of his letters. A lack of openness and comments such as those written do not instil in me faith in the current system of protection of our national monuments. I hope that this Public Inquiry process will reinstate that faith.
This is not a case where going through the motions will convince anyone, least of all me, and it is me who the press, and the media, both national and regional are turning to for answers, not the Highways Agency. Since this inquiry started I have completed interviews with the Sunday Telegraph, Newsnight BBC Television, Radio Five live, a host of local radio interviews and I will do fifty more when I have time. Now the Wessex study is completed I know that the archaeology supports my case and a proper investigation is now needed.
English Heritage accept that an alternative route to the published route would be acceptable in their letter dated 12th March 1996, and confirmed that they have not examined the evidence at the site. This confirmation was made upon the merit of the site, without accepting Wilting Farm as a site of national importance. Shouldn't this request be taken seriously given all the other elements concerned with this site.
Mr Kendall has written what I consider another embarrassing letter to the Inspector dated 3rd June 1996 (Inquiry reference number ID H1176). I do not wish to criticise English Heritage as an organisation entrusted to provide independent advice and as an organisation which preserve our national heritage. However it appears to me that Mr Kendall has overstepped the mark of reason here.
He has taken at face value the Wessex report without bothering to check any of the detail or indeed do his due diligence in requesting a copy of the critique which I have provided the Inquiry.
He does not wish to dispute any of the interpretations of the Wessex report, yet appears to be completely unaware that the pottery dating in the report is wrong. A conclusion that effectively nullifies almost all of the Wessex interpretations upon which he is relying for his judgement.
It must be remembered that Mr Kendall did not need to write this letter, because the previous letter covered all the matters adequately (letter dated 12th March 1996). I shall be taking up this matter with Sir Joclyn Stevens, Chairman of English Heritage, to seek to get to the bottom of the matter. In the meantime I would make the point that this letter can carry no weight at this Inquiry, because it is based upon false assumptions, both in regards to the error in dating the pottery correctly, and the words "the results of the evaluation of the trenches are accurately described in the Wessex Archaeology report" - which have been shown to have serious flaws at a number of levels.
I do not believe that the Highways Agency grasped at the outset of this Inquiry, either the seriousness of my claim, nor did they understand the very nature of history. It was with some interest I listened to Dr Gardiner's account of the nature of historical study.
I was amazed to hear Dr Gardiner lecture us on the significance of Renaissance art and my lack of understanding of the last supper scene in the Bayeux Tapestry. It makes me wonder if Dr Gardiner has got the same manuscript which I wrote and refer the Inspector to page 57 of my manuscript, where his lecture confirms my own views entirely.
I would address this issue of historical study differently, because I come from the real world, where I do have a proper understanding of how things are. I am not interested in the world of philosophical debate, about what should or shouldn't have happened in the past. Based upon my own personal beliefs. I am only interested in the evidence.
History, as discussed by Dr Gardiner, is an attempt to reconstruct what actually happened using available evidence. This same academic discipline, which Dr Gardiner seeks to rely upon in his case, is clearly stated as "conventional understanding".
Yet the Highways Agency case is ultimately destroyed by its own logic, because those who are seeking to deny my claims have failed to recognise that the very "conventional understanding" upon which their written case relies, has changed in as little as three months. It has not changed completely, but it has changed, and will never be what it was before this Inquiry took place. This is because every word of my hypothesis has been examined and opened to public scrutiny. All the evidence is available for public debate, and any chink in my case has been exposed to the undermining pressure of expert appraisal. I do not believe my case has been broken and as such it still stands unwavering.
History - with a capital "H" is agreed to be "conventional understanding" - something which Dr Gardiner may take heart from. It is established by review of the evidence by one's peers and those brilliant academic minds of the doctors of history from Cambridge, the seats of learning in Universities and faculties throughout the world, as far away as Australia and the numerous University sites in the United States, not private critiques written by Dr Gardiner for the benefit of the Highways Agency, which might or might not be used at a later date if the objector in question decides to turn up (page 62 of my bundle).
Back to Correspondence Index