The specialists in Norman history, have concluded that previous assumptions "the basis of history as we knew it in relation to the Norman Invasion" no longer has the weight of authority it used to have. The Norman Invasion Site, which was always "probably at Pevensey" , is now as a result of my work, and the publicity generated from this Inquiry, "probably at Hastings". Nothing major earth shattering about that, if this site were not under threat from a major trunk road. Dr Gardiner agrees the inference to "probably" at Pevensey. However in 100 years, even if no Norman boats are found, the weight of understanding of where the Normans landed now falls upon Hastings. The word "probably" will almost certainly be dropped from the colloquial expression, just like has happened in the last 200 years at Pevensey.
What I can say with absolute conviction is that no new books will be written stating that Pevensey is the Norman Landing Site - because it will now be known in academic and research facilities around the world that there is no physical evidence for a mythical Pevensey landing site, and the historical manuscripts still support the site at Wilting. Only Upper Wilting Farm eliminates all previous inconsistencies, something that the Highways Agency have not even attempted to address in their presentation. They prefer to rely upon these inconsistencies, the same inconsistencies that makes their case extremely wobbly, so wobbly that no historian with any credit in the area of Norman history, will give any credence to it. The Highways Agency cannot explain the "dismantled forts", they cannot explain how boats where "earthed up" and yet in a different manuscript "burnt". They cannot explain satisfactorily how Hastings was the leading Cinque Port, yet no trace has ever been found until now. They cannot and have not attempted to explain the various early references to salt works at Hastings, an arrangement not suited to open sea shore and yet are prolific in the Combe Haven. They cannot explain why the Combe Haven should not have the conventional meaning of a haven (a place where boats are kept safe), yet would argue that such a place cannot be a port, except at the mouth of the river, completely against the conventional understanding of the place name meaning and against Mrs Gelling's own letter to me.
Dr Gardiner provides no reason why his opinion should be accepted against Mrs Gelling's, the country's leading place name expert. Dr Gardiner disputes Smyth and Jennings findings, but the Highways Agency quote them as reliable evidence for their Environmental Statement as does the recent Wessex Archaeology work. This work by Jennings and Smyth is accepted as reliable by everyone, including the Highways Agency authors of the Environmental Statement, yet Dr Gardiner seeks to claim that their conclusions may be "interpreted differently". If this is the case why hasn't Dr Gardiner produced a single published work which confirms such an unsubstantiated claim in relation to the Jennings and Smyth work. Other interpretations on other sites are welcome, but have absolutely no relevance to the unique nature of the Combe Haven valley. Simon Jennings letter confirming his position makes the issue clear (letters dated 16th and 23rd May 1996).
It is not in my view acceptable as evidence to claim Jennings and Smyth's work as having alternative conclusions to the authors themselves, when there is no written evidence from any expert to contradict the experts themselves. In the absence of any written alternative Smyth and Jennings conclusions must stand.
You are asked to believe that the Domesday evidence that I have detailed is a coincidence and that it is not important whether a manor was wasted or not, when seeking to establish which manor the Normans were based in. This in my view is one of several pieces of nonsense which we have been asked to believe by someone who claims to be an expert on Norman affairs. The Norman camp must have been located in a wasted manor, and it is illogical and unconvincing to seek to claim otherwise. I am unaware of any serious historian who has ever suggested that the Normans did not camp in a wasted manor.
Even more unlikely is the concept of lack of wasting in the Pevensey area as being due to the possibility of an "amenable commander" (Day 59 page 8 of the unchecked record). To agree that William, the commander, was amenable to the enemy in 1066 is not in my view credible and undermines Dr Gardiner's arguments completely.
I say that the wasted manor where the Normans camped was Wilting, for the reasons given in my manuscript. You are asked to ignore the evidence of where the Hastings to Pevensey road went in 1066, because Dr Gardiner does not believe that it is possible to research this element of my thesis, and at the same time admits that he has not attempted to research the matter himself. When asked directly in cross-examination "Have you studied the road?" he replied "No" (Day 59 page 19 unchecked record). This does not instil confidence in his testimony or research into this matter or any other addressed in his critique.
A critique can only be valid where the work in question has been investigated. He failed to do the due diligence in this matter and the claim that a centre of waste cannot be identified, does not stand up to scrutiny, when it is clear that the evidence in my manuscript shows the opposite, and is confirmed by world experts on the matter Dr Chibnall and Dr van Houts in their written support (page 30 and 34 of my bundle)
There is evidence that points directly to a connection between wasting in the Hastings area, the London to Hastings and Pevensey to Hastings roads, and the most wasted manors adjacent to the Combe Haven valley. His own document on the Domesday data provides no enlightenment, but relies upon the possibility that land holdings, and woodland in particular, might be located outside of the immediate vicinity of the manor. You are therefore asked to believe that the primary asset of the manors of the day, woodland, would be ignored from the values of the manor as a whole.
Dr Gardiner's own statement that "Domesday Book is not concerned with the geographical situation of lands" but was a "record of where taxation was collectable" (Day 59 page 14 of the unchecked record) appears to confirm on the one side that woodland must be included in the asset value, but he argues at the same time against this - in my view an inconsistent and illogical position that cannot be sustained.
You are asked to believe that the fact that no archaeological remains at all have been found in the Priory Valley, below Hastings castle, prior to the 12th Century, is of no significance as far as the establishment of Hastings town is concerned. You are expected to believe that coastal erosion in the 14th century somehow accounts for a port at Hastings in the Priory valley before the 12th century, but that it has been removed by the sea, even though the archaeological evidence of the cricket ground report conducted in the last few years by Dr Gardiner himself, confirms absolutely the existence of a shingle bank at the mouth of the valley, beyond which lies the open sea.
You are asked to ignore the fact that the Hastingas tribe, who ruled a considerable area of Sussex, should have no established centre of operations or settlement, confirmed by any major archaeological finds, or that this too may have disappeared into the sea along with Hastings castle at some stage in the past. An unproven position, but totally unconvincing in the face of the flood of new archaeological evidence coming out of Wilting, and the Combe Haven, as a result of the publication of my manuscript.
You are asked to ignore the fact that the stream running through the centre of the Combe Haven is called the "Asten" a possible derivative of the name "Hasta" first lord of the Hastingas. You are asked to ignore completely everything that I have identified at Upper Wilting farm as being possibly Iron Age. You have to ignore the ditch that runs around the earthworks at the top field at Upper Wilting. You have to ignore the fact that people of this time took hill tops as the natural place to live, and you have to ignore what a fine defensive position Upper Wilting farm top field is. You must assume that those people who lived at Upper Wilting in the long distant past, were resident in a lone manor house, ignoring the size and complexity of the site. Ignoring the fact that buildings on one side of the top field are in the same alignment as buildings on the other side of a five acre field, and the possibility that a crop mark shows the settlement covering more than just the top field. Ignoring the possibility that those farmers who are known to have occupied the lower edges of the Combe Haven valley in the Bronze Age would have moved to that fine defensive position, at the top of the same hill, as the same settlement developed into the Iron Age, when their counterparts all over the country did exactly that. The assertion that in this instance there is no record of this development may have been true six weeks ago, but only if you ignored the compelling Smyth and Jennings evidence. This is now no longer the case with the discovery of the ditches and settlement evidence on the top field at Upper Wilting, as well as the extensive flint and pottery evidence held in the Wessex archive, which is now available for inspection in Hastings Museum.
What was once claimed by me to be the site of the original Hastings Castle and Chapel of St Mary in the Castle is proven to have the potential to be a major archaeological find. I cannot at this stage confirm that it is but neither can the Highways Agency confirm that it is not - something they sought to do at the beginning of this Inquiry.
The ditches cut into the bedrock do not prove that the Normans landed at Upper Wilting farm, but it does prove that I can identify by dowsing what may be a major archaeological site. The question must therefore be asked "if I am correct about the top field, then am I not more than likely to be correct about the other elements of my thesis?". If I can show through dowsing what was once hidden, why should the core of my thesis be wrong, when nothing contained in the Wessex report or any evidence presented at this Inquiry undermines the veracity of my thesis.
It is no longer possible for the Highways Agency to state absolutely there are no archaeological remains on the top field at Upper Wilting, because there undoubtedly are. They will argue that these remains can only be dated in a broad range of dates. However I have shown that these are within the limits of probability of Conquest construction. It would be possible to excavate trenches in almost any other manor in this county, and not find anything - yet we are asked to believe the Highways Agency, that these ditches which we have found are expected to be there. - That simply is not the case. No-one - especially the Highways Agency experts ever expected to find anything in the trenches dug by Wessex. I am certain of that because absolutely no mention of that possibility was ever discussed until after the finds.
The evidence of Iron Age settlement is much harder to find than digging one trench in less than one 1,000th of a field. I was asked to locate the site of Hastings castle and the Chapel of St Mary in the castle. I believe I have done this and I ask the Highways Agency to prove otherwise. Without further exhaustive work I cannot prove my case and neither can the Highways Agency. Only a proper excavation of the whole site, over a number of years, will enable the questions to be answered. It must be remembered that Wessex did not look at the bulk of the soil excavated by earthmovers on the top field. This is where I found my Anglo-Norman pottery, less than one meter from their trench. Now if I can find numerous pieces of Anglo-Norman pottery, without looking in a ditch cut into the rock base, how much more is there waiting to be excavated.
Earlier I mentioned that I considered that we had been asked to believe what I called several pieces of nonsense. The second piece of nonsense, which I am obliged to detail is the assertion by Dr Gardiner that the date of the ditches in the top field at Wilting, are best dated by taking the date of the last piece of pottery found within them. This is not correct, and can never be correct, in terms of dating human activity on this site. A different issue from the one disposed of by Dr Gardiner's evidence.
What Dr Gardiner asks us to believe is that where a ditch is dug into rock, the only sure way of dating the ditch, is to take the last dated piece of pottery from the ditch, and that will be the most reliable date, because of the possibility of residuality - the possibility that some pottery may have fallen into the ditch at a later date.
This may happen on the rare occasion, but that does not alter the fact that the settlement must have existed, for the earlier pottery to have fallen in when the ditches were cut. This means that the site was occupied from at least 950AD. The last date for pottery is not a tenable argument in my view, because here Dr Gardiner is seen to be promoting an extremely implausible case. Is he suggesting that all the pottery we found fell in the trenches by mistake? The logical extension of this logic being that we take the 20th century as the date for the trenches, because 20th century pottery and a sheep burial were also found in the excavation? Neither of these proposals carry the weight of conviction, when faced with the issue of what date this site was occupied, and if it contains evidence of Norman occupation.
The top field at Wilting is immensely important because I claim the old settlement of Hastings was probably located there. Any pottery evidence that exists will probably lie in the soil which Wessex did not even look through. Earlier pottery will probably lie in pits, which cannot be excavated until found. This is why further work is required before any definitive answer could be given.
The Highways Agency ask us to believe that the Bayeux Tapestry was just an interpretation of events and not pictorially correct, even though we know that those who took place in the landing would have seen it, including the King, at the inaugural hanging at Bayeux Cathedral.
It cannot be denied that Wace recorded a banquet at the landing site, as a written explanation of the scenes in the Bayeux Tapestry. This means that the scene with the Bishop eating the fish also confirms the site to be at Hastings, and the event must have taken place on Friday 29th September 1066. Whilst addressing the Bayeux Tapestry issue on its own the Highways Agency have failed to provide a satisfactory explanation of the Wace manuscript in this respect. When addressing the pictorial issues the argument is completely unconvincing and if an alternative source relays the same events, must address this as well if you are to prove your point. Wace confirms 29th September, but the Highways Agency have failed to address this issue, because Dr Gardiner admitted that he had not read the text.
Dr Gardiner confirmed his own lack of knowledge regarding the Bayeux Tapestry when he stated on 23rd April "I am unaware that historians have ever contended, with the exception of yourself, that the Bayeux Tapestry is a photographic representation" (Day59 page 21 unchecked record). Yet when questioned he appeared to seek to distinguish between the words "photographic" as opposed to "accurate representation of buildings". Mr Gardiner appears to seek to draw a very fine line here, one that I do not feel supports his case one jot, when it was shown that the issue of representation on the Tapestry is a constant subject of academic debate. I simply cannot accept Dr Gardiner's dogmatic and unproven views. No more than I can accept the idea that William would have sailed past Hastings from St Valery to land in front of a major fortification at Pevensey, which more likely than not would have been occupied, and then move the whole shooting match back down the coast to Hastings taking a 30 mile detour to avoid the inlets.
This is the conventional view that the Highways Agency have sought to promote through their written evidence, because they have in my view received poor advice in regards to the structure of the land in this area at the time of the Invasion. Dr Gardiner stated on 6th July that he had seen "no evidence" as far as he was aware that dated the long shore drift which would have sealed the valley in the 13th century. However he has read Dawson's History of Hastings Castle Volume 1 page 1 whose chapter is entitled Physical Changes to the Coastline at Hastings, because he quotes a reference to it (page 176 of my bundle). He has also read Salzman's Hastings Chapter 2 The Premier Cinque Port (page 12 onwards) dealing with the decay of the harbour and the "eastward drift" (in paragraph 7.2 of his Proof ) where Salzman's Hastings is listed as a reference. He should also have read the published paper entitled Holocene Evolution of the Gravel Coastline of East Sussex by Smyth and Jennings, because this was bound into my manuscript. I must therefore conclude that in seeing no evidence to confirm the longshore drift dating Dr Gardiner prefers not to accept the evidence of these experts or any of the other "well-documented" evidence referred to in Smyth and Jennings letter dated 20th October 1994 (page 21 of my bundle).
I propose that refusing to acknowledge what is accepted by experts in their field to be correct does not further the Highways Agency case at all. If I know that this valley was open to the sea until 1300 ,and those who live here also know this from the evidence held at the Shipwreck Centre in Hastings, how can we be expected to believe otherwise, without any satisfactory evidence to support an alternative date? The big question needs to be asked, and that is why would William land in a so called "safe place" and then exposed the army to completely unnecessary danger prior to making their bridgehead by marching around two inland waterways?
Having put in writing an immense amount of work, and provided hundreds of additional pages of text to support my case, with another eighty detailing the evidence in the Wessex report, there is one further issue which the Highways Agency have adopted through evidence, provided by Dr Gardiner ,which needs redressing and putting in perspective.
Dr Gardiner has presented himself throughout this Inquiry as the Norman history and archaeology expert, employed by the Highways Agency to present a fair appraisal of evidence which falls within his providence. However on numerous occasions in print, and in evidence, Dr Gardiner has suggested that I do not have an understanding of the evidence which I present, or that I have not taken the evidence in the context of how it was written. In other words I have taken evidence out of context and therefore it is unreliable.
I wish to take issue with Dr Gardiner's unsubstantiated assertions, because the opinions he has presented in this respect has no basis in fact. The record of my written evidence, together with the sources listed in my manuscript (154 separate footnotes listed in detail) clearly show that he is wrong to make the assumptions that he has.
Dr Gardiner himself confirmed at the Inquiry that he had not read Wace's manuscript the Roman de Rue (Page 20 day59 unchecked record), which some, myself included, would consider the primary source for the subject under study. Dr Gardiner appeared to make out that this matter was clear from his evidence, but I would make the point that it is far from clear.
If we look at what was said about Wace by Dr Gardiner (on Day 57 pages 42 through to 44 of the transcript) we can clearly see an expert who is pursuing arguments based upon a subject of which he has no first hand knowledge.
It is beyond belief that to summarise his position regarding my observations on the Wace manuscript Dr Gardiner states "What is significant is that we cannot rely upon these historical sources, in detail, and draw inferences from them in detail".
On 23rd April I asked Dr Gardiner the direct question whether he had read Wace. I asked this question because none of the answers given by Dr Gardiner appeared to relate to any of his own observations on the text in question, in this or any other of the manuscripts we studied.
When asked the direct question if he has read Wace Dr Gardiner cannot avoid answering "No" (Day 59 page 20 of the transcript) and then seeks to mitigate this terrible confession by seeking to explain what he had read. Dr Gardiner replied that he had read William of Jumieges insofar as his work "applies to the Norman Invasion". This is the princely amount of two paragraphs, as detailed in my manuscript. He had read William of Poitiers similarly - five pages of text. Dr Gardiner stated "I have read the Carmen similarly", 120 lines of a poem 835 lines long. He went on to state that he had "read the Chronicle of Battle Abbey similarly"- two folios out of one hundred and thirty five folios of text.
Now I do not know why Dr Gardiner chose to answer my question in the way he did. I leave the conclusion to you. However he did confirm that he had not read the Carmen from beginning to end because in his words "But if you are asking me have I read the Carmen from beginning to end, no the answer is not, because it is not always entirely relevant".(Day 59 page 20 the unchecked record)
These words make a nonsense of Dr Gardiner's position as expert for the Highways Agency, as historian on the Norman Invasion. Clearly he has read up on some of the matters, the parts he thinks will be useful, in order to present this case. He has however not read the complete documents he passes judgement upon, and falls foul of the very criticism that he has thrown at me by addressing the issues out of context. How can I rely upon the opinion of an expert who has not read all of the documents he is addressing, because he has judged the matter of the surrounding text inconsequential without reading them. This is not in my opinion the action of a Norman historian familiar with the works involved. This is in my view a totally untenable position, when so much rests upon the opinion of this one man. I can only conclude that the opinions of a man who has not read Wace, eighteen thousand lines of detail, about the events of the day, or the Carmen in full, or all of the manuscripts we have discussed in detail, are not opinions that I can rely upon. If I cannot rely upon it then nobody can and his opinions are unsafe.
Dr Gardiners verbal confirmation that he has not read all the manuscripts eliminates him from any serious discussion group amongst the academic fraternity of the Anglo-Norman conference. His further confirmation that he does not attend this annual evaluation of all things Norman is yet another reason why I cannot accept Dr Gardiner's views, when the members of this group have gone on record as accepting my hypothesis. It is with total irony I read Dr Gardiner's words from his proof of evidence stating "page6 para 4.1.2 It is fundamental mistake to treat these chronicles as if they were newspaper accounts of a contemporary event". I say it is a fundamental mistake for someone to pass judgement, as an expert, upon documents they have not read in full.
What I have done is leave no stone unturned in my manuscript. In consequence my manuscript will now be held as an authority in the new understanding, not Mr Gardiner's secret critique, written by a someone who has not read all the historical texts. A new understanding will come into existence about the Bayeux Tapestry and why the Bishop ate that fish. The Domesday evidence will be accepted to prove that the Combe Haven valley was the probable location of William's camp. Hedgeland now explains why William's camp is at Redgeland on the Combe Haven valley, and Dr Gardiner's assertion that no written evidence connects the landing site to Wilting is plainly incorrect - the name in the Chronicle of Battle Abbey directly links the two sites. This evidence is irrefutable and something that carries immense weight, regardless of other elements of my proof, because of the Chronicle's proven pedigree. As stated in evidence, the connection between Hedgeland and Redgeland has nothing to do with the root of the two different words, but is an error in understanding how these sites were named. It was a transcription error based upon the phonetic understanding of the monks who wrote the Chronicle of Battle Abbey, and based upon their understanding of where the site was probably located, because of their certain knowledge of the Roman de Rue by Wace. In consequence I know that the Highways Agency cannot win the Wilting history element of their case, because even putting the pottery and archaeology aside, the absolute failure to find any Norman remains cannot satisfactorily answer the historical case that I have made. It is from the historian's point of view that this case is so solid, because it does address all the inconsistencies of all the different manuscripts, something that a probable landing site at Pevensey, or anywhere else, has been unable to do. Historians do not need, and certainly don't expect to find Norman relics. They are prepared to accept the evidence that I have presented, upon its own historical research merit.
April's Sunday Telegraph reported in a half page, that this is an issue of national importance by stating "Stephen Blackford and his wife Sarah, who owns the farmland, could become the unwitting custodians of one of the most important historical landmark in the world if Mr Austin's work is vindicated". Dr Gardiner also agreed in evidence that the place where the Normans camped prior to the Battle of Hastings was indeed of national importance regardless of the landing site issue(Page26 of Day59 of the unchecked record).
What the Sunday Telegraph does not realise is that my hypothesis is already accepted by a great number of those who count- the scholars across the world who have studied my document through the Internet World Wide Web resource. Of course in many instances the jury is still out, but knowledge cannot be put back in the box once that box is opened, regardless of any rebuttal or cleverly worded instructions by the Highways Agency or their representative to the archaeologists involved. The Highways Agency are victims of media thirst for knowledge. I have now opened that box and it is as certain as it can be that interpretations of history will be changed forever. How can the Highways Agency claim that this is not the Norman Invasion site, if they cannot prove me wrong, or at least provide an alternative to dispute it?
The Highways Agency put forward the proposal that they would complete a thorough investigation of my claims. However I would state that this is not strictly true since the object of each element of the Wessex investigation was to challenge each element that I had identified, with a view to seeing what was there. The clear intention being to seek to undermine my thesis. Now that I have seen what was involved I know that the style and format of the excavations could only answer part of questions asked, because as I had claimed trial trenching is not the way to evaluate all the elements of this site. Where it might be appropriate for the top field it is clearly not appropriate to use the methods employed by Wessex to evaluate the boat parts, in sandy clay subsoil in the Monkham inlet.
Back to Correspondence Index