It is possible that the Highways Agency may seek to rely upon this point in their conclusion and that the Inquiry may be swayed by this evidence to conclude that what I saw could not have been boat parts. In consequence the weight with which this evidence is accepted hinges upon whether Dr Gardiner and Wessex are correct or not. I have seen no evidence to support their claim. However at Sutton Hooe, the best comparable Viking boat excavation in this country, not one single rivet nor one single speck of iron was recovered. That too was an excavation in acid ground (sand in that particular case). Here we have a site where it was once salt conditions upon a peat base, where each year the water table rises above the remains and each year it falls, leaving the oxygen to oxidise the remains. I say that both Wessex and Dr Gardiner are completely wrong in their claim that iron remains will be found at this site.
I have accepted that clearing the boat site in a day in April is not going to produce a result, when the images which we sought were found in midsummer excavating one square meter in seven days. Having identified where these boat parts lay, I cannot be sure that the process of excavation may have irretrievably damaged them, for later excavation. As stated at the site visit, I believe the failure to recover the images is of the Highways Agency making, and does not undermine my case at all. The reason being that having failed in this instance, I am now resolved to excavate another boat later this summer, when Smyth and Jennings are present to witness the results. Failure to get a result is in my view a poor result for the Highways Agency, because if they had taken my advice regarding the timing of this investigation, they might not have been left with no result. Failure to identify the remains does not confirm they were not there. The photos exist and the archaeologists found the sand I left on the top of the images. Now I must find another boat and finish the work. There are many to chose from and now other people are sufficiently interested to attend the excavation.
What is certain is that the Highways Agency cannot rely upon the Wessex report to dismiss my claim that no Norman boats are located at Upper Wilting farm in the Combe Haven valley. They can state that they looked at one specific site, where I have indicated, but failed to identify the remains because of the poor conditions. This leaves the door open for me to find the conclusive proof ,which I do believe to be there, and bring it to the attention of the authorities in the course of time.
This may be a calculated risk by the Highways Agency, in the hope that I will never find that definitive proof, but a risk that neither I nor the public should be expected to accept, when so much public money is tied up in the route of a bypass. In consequence the methods employed to examine my claims were not thorough enough. The haste shown in commissioning and exploring the excavations has produced an inconclusive result for the Highways Agency, because failure to identify my remains confirms the inability to recover those elements identified using the methods employed. It is not possible to argue in a logical way that failure to find evidence proves nothing is there. Clearly there is quite a lot that we have found, and more will undoubtedly materialise. Failing to find Norman boats now does not disprove my hypothesis, because evidence has been found and it all needs to be evaluated. Including the earthen bank which seals the inlet and the sites of the other boats.
Even if the head from the front of a boat, which we have seen, is not examined by a Highways Agency expert, it cannot be denied to exist, and a report will be produced in time. The fact that it resembles a "beast" head from the right era, does not rule out the possibility of a Norman connection. It is certainly an uncanny piece of luck for it to materialise now, and I am not the sort of person to believe in coincidences. It may therefore not be worth considering in evidence for this Inquiry, but its origin will be known sooner or later. If it is from a Norman boat, I suppose I will have to rest my case then.
The Wessex report confirms on page 18 paragraph 8.2 that trench G, in what I have called the port area, "could contain evidence of prehistoric activity". A layer of soil exists, which I located. It was necessary for me to request Wessex, with the assistance of Dr Gardiner, to partially excavate this trench properly. The archaeologists argued forcefully that the subsoil at this site was continuous clay. Only after they had augured the mound immediately adjacent to the marsh was the layer of soil found, where I told them evidence of industrialisation would be found. Even then they did not want to complete an excavation down to the depth of the soil layer, because it was argued that it was not necessary. Now that the work has been done this layer, which the archaeologists had not wanted to investigate, is shown to contain, and I quote: "evidence of probable human activity in the form of charcoal and burnt clay/soil inclusions; several pieces of possible slag and possibly natural iron concretions (para 7.8.2 of the same report). Exactly the evidence you would be looking for to prove a centre of industrialisation or as I have called it a port. What the evidence shows is that whilst I cannot be considered conclusively correct, the archaeological investigation, consisting of a minuscule pit only two feet or so square, in a trench 10 meters long, by a meter wide, in an area of several acres, produced evidence that needs further investigation. Instead of removing any doubt about my claims by finding nothing it has added to our knowledge of this site, by a very small amount.
The fact that I called the earthen structures jetties, does not take away from the over all position, since it is clear that the structures have existed throughout the period under discussion. In truth one man's jetties is another man's quay or loading area.
This layer of soil and charcoal is not just a sliver of soil but 80 centimeters thick. It will probably confirm much more than a port in the course of time. To skip over this evidence in the written report, as if it were inconsequential, is a failing in the presentation of the Wessex evidence, which Simon Jennings detailed in his letter dated 20th May 1996. Mr Jennings, as a professional, was of course being generous in his criticism.
Fortunately neither I nor the public need to rely upon the Wessex report, because Smyth and Jennings have promised to conduct a thorough and extensive survey of the port area and serving water channels. I am confident, as are they, that scientifically supportable evidence will be found, which will confirm an established port in the Redgeland area, now they know where to look.
What is clear to me is that contrary to the intention of the Highways Agency, the Wessex Archaeology investigation of those selective elements of the Upper Wilting site, have not removed the elements of doubt which it was hoped that they would. Instead the elements of doubt that might have existed have now turned into something approaching certainty, in the minds of those who live in this area.
It is no longer possible for the Highways Agency to claim categorically that the original town of Hastings or the original castle of Hastings, with the chapel of St Mary in the Castle is not located in that top field, because the work by Wessex does not close the door on that possibility. It is no longer possible to be sure that the port is not located where I say it is, because the charcoal layer may be the proof of industrialisation, which ultimately leads us to proof of the existence of the port.
When you look objectively at these matters, it can be seen that it is not me that is changing my position, it is the Highways Agency, because they must now seek to address the truth. That truth does not accommodate a major new trunk road. They must therefore seek to interpret the results in the best way they can, but you will now see from the tell tale signs that their position is untenable.
Looking impartially at the Wessex report you must ask yourself what is the substance of the eighteen pages of Wessex writing, and one week of excavating so called trial trenches. Trenches which should require six months excavation each, if the correct approach and resources were given them.
The answer is that all the work carried out by Wessex confirms an early medieval settlement that could be 10th, 11th or 12th century, where I say the settlement of Hastings pre-1094 was located. Wessex say there is no evidence of a castle or chapel. I say that the foundation ditches we have found prove a large wooden building on an east/west axis. These foundations will support the castle/chapel thesis in the course of time, and after extensive further excavation work is completed. In the last few weeks foundation stones have been located on the same axis in a different part of the site showing the later development.
The foundation ditches are in the right place - neither Wessex not the Highways Agency can deny this. The fact that these archaeological remains have been found at all, on a virgin site, is remarkable and does not disprove my thesis. This is a serious if not fatal flaw in any claim by the Highways Agency, that this is not the original Norman site. Extensive work on this site prior to now has failed to locate any evidence to support the manor site as being located where these trenches have been found.
I say that the evidence supports my case, because there are buildings crossing the whole of the top field at Upper Wilting, and I have demonstrated that they exist in the trenches that were commissioned. They are in the same alignment and you must ask yourself why would people build buildings in the same east/west alignment, when the field itself is not aligned east/west.
I was only asked to provide two trenches. If you want more I am happy to show you where to dig. The evidence is in the form of ditches, which held buildings and enclosures. Some of these have no pottery in because they are probably pre-medieval and may support earlier habitation. The pottery will probably be found later in pits near-by.
The trenches in the Lower Norman fort were also inconclusive, for the same reasons, as nothing was found in the Monkham Inlet excavation. When you examine the photographs of cracked clay subsoil in the Lower Norman fort I ask you to ask yourself can we really believe that these were ideal times to conduct this type of archaeological investigation? An investigation where the fingerprint of Norman occupation may require forensic treatment, not men with earthmovers.
You have heard from Dr Paul Graves-Brown earlier in the Inquiry when he states that he believes that the work done by the Highways Agency has not been detailed enough, and that the sample rates did not meet minimum standards. Whilst I cannot comment on that aspect I believe that the new crop mark, in the field through which the published route is planned to pass, is a clear warning that there is much more to the Wilting site than first meets the eye. Trial trenching is a hit and miss art, where only luck will normally put a trench through a section of value to archaeologists. Yet we now have further visual evidence in the same field, where trial trenching has taken place, and a clearly visible ground formation can be seen. Given this new additional evidence, it would be completely wrong to conclude anything except further investigation is now completely necessary, before any road can be put through this field.
Looking at the Lower Norman Fort area the elements which have been emphasised so much in Inquiry, have been confirmed by the process of excavation to be correct. Firstly the ditches in the fort area are exactly where I indicated that they would be found. The ditch that I shown to be the same ditch as portrayed in the Bayeux Tapestry, is located where I said it would be. Similarly the Iron Age ditch can also be seen on the photos which I took.
I was surprised at the failed attempt by the Highways Agency to seek to undermine my evidence about the positioning of the Wessex trench, by imposing one map upon another, using different scales and alignments. However this clearly shows what a dilemma this evidence presents to their case. Having surveyed the field in question I know exactly where the boundaries run and I also know that the ditches align perfectly with the resistivity survey. It shows absolutely how dangerous it is to accept evidence based upon assumptions that have not been checked, and how the failure to undermine my evidence concerning those ditches, and the line of the Roman track, cannot be explained in terms of natural features. Having challenged these false assumptions made by Dr Gardiner and Mr Bromley, we are left with the inevitable conclusion that the evidence is unchallenged.
The photos I have shown you clearly show the ditch of the edge of the Iron Age settlement, and the smaller Norman ditch. Exactly the same as the one shown on the Bayeux Tapestry, and in exactly the right place. Are we seriously expected to ignore this evidence. How can they conclude that these ditches are natural, from one elementary bulldozed excavation? How can they disregard the fact that the stones placed in the high ground between the two ditches are by coincidence in the same position as the Roman track running right across the site, yet fail to address these issues? Stones do not lay themselves in a line across a fifteen acre site by themselves.
In the same area stones do not lay themselves under a mound. Yet the Wessex evidence states (para 4.4.2) that "It is possible that they (the stones) had been placed in a shallow cut or hollow in the ground". This observation raises many more questions than it seeks to answer. If these stones were placed there the question must be asked "Why" and what were their purpose?
At the Inquiry Dr Gardiner stated that he thought that the uneven ground in the Lower Norman Fort area was "an area of quarrying" yet no evidence of quarrying was found in this trench.
I believe that the evidence clearly shows, to an impartial viewer, that much more work is now required to extend the knowledge that we have gained.
The end result of the archaeological investigation is that the Norman Landing Site will still be located at Wilting after this Inquiry is completed.
The people of this area have explained in great detail why they want the Highways Agency to leave the Combe Haven SSSI alone, but the Highways Agency have insisted upon seeking to force through a route, which the people in this area do not appear to want, whilst ignoring the potential benefit of the cheaper route.
The value to this area of a heritage site on the outskirts of Hastings, adjacent to a major trunk road cannot be over estimated. Such a site could attract hundreds of thousands of visitors a year, bringing a wealth and prosperity to this area, that it rightly deserves. Isn't this the reason why roads are built? Not as a short cut across open countryside.
When my hypothesis is proven correct, won't the benefit to this area be immeasurable. Won't the adjacent trunk route provide additional value to the economy of this area? Isn't this the sort of trunk road that private enterprise will want to build, if that is the decision about how this and other roads will be funded in the future? A trunk route that will bring people to and from the most important heritage site in the country? .There is no value written into the Highways Agency economics that takes this into account. In consequence the economic evaluation is grossly distorted and must be balanced accordingly. Taking the longer term view this road will be a far better road if it passes by the Norman Invasion site, rather than going directly through it.
At the end of the day there is no personal glory in the discovery of a field where some boats landed 930 years ago. Upper Wilting is THE NORMAN INVASION SITE A place where I believe children will learn about a real invasion story in a history that happened here - not on seventy meters of cloth or in history books. Where you can stand on the very place where William the Conqueror fell ( or probably fell) as he got out of his boat, and where you can still enjoy the true peace of the countryside right next to a major town. It is a remarkable coincidence that Upper Wilting Farm is run by an Educational Heritage Trust - the perfect organisation to take the position of guardians of this special place.
There are times in your life when you have to do the right thing, even though you know it is difficult. You know it is going to cost you money, and you know that it will take up a lot of your time, and you know that to do it is illogical. But none the less you do it anyway, because something inside you says it is the right thing to do. Sometimes this is a difficult thing to do, because it relies upon trusting your instincts - something I do all the time, and something that must be done in this case.
The right thing to do is to save Wilting, and the adjacent SSSI, from the threat of this road, by adopting the cheaper less damaging alternative. As I came to this Inquiry, Dr van Houtts from Cambridge wrote to me a charming letter, and said that I needed courage and wisdom. I did not understand at the time why she had said this, and was flattered that she cared. Now all the press and media are going crazy, I realise what she must have meant. She meant that I should need wisdom to present my case in an even handed way, and that I needed to be brave, because the going will get rough, but I should not flinch, because my case is solid, and in the end that silver thread of truth will shine through. No amount of smoke created by the fires of doubt, by those who have financial motives, or less vision, can extinguish that thread no matter how hard they may try.
This matter does not end when I walk out the door, because there are two elements to my hypothesis. One is the archaeological and one is the historical evidence. In order for the Highways Agency to provide a satisfactory case, that can be relied upon, addressing the archaeology on its own is not enough. The Highways Agency must produce a case that counters my hypothesis for Hastings as the Norman Landing Site, with a conviction that the Inspector and those historians whom we rely upon for expert guidance can agree with. Unfortunately for the Highways Agency case they have not produced one single historian who has read my case, other than Dr Gardiner, who is prepared to go on record as disputing my claims. Dr Gardiner has failed to join any academic debate upon the matter in the public forum, when he has had every opportunity, but prefers to keep his critique, as it was always intended, - secret. I have no more to say on this, since silence speaks a thousand words in the eyes of the media. In short the Highways Agency have no valid rebuttal for the historical issues. A fundamental and total flaw in their case. All they can do, is rely upon "conventional understanding", which is now long past its sell by date, since the proposal that "the Normans landed at Pevensey" now carries no weight at all amongst those who matter - not only the eminent historians of our day, but more importantly the public. If the Highways Agency case carried any current merit, the first thing they would have done would have been to roll out a respected historian or two, who is credible in the field of critical Norman history to counter my claim. They have not been able to do this, because there is no-one of any substance prepared to stand up to the combined weight of Dr Chibnall and Dr van Houtts, regardless of all the fine words I have heard in this forum.
As I finish my presentation to this Inquiry it is right and proper to ask the question whether the case I have presented has changed in evidence. I believe that this is best test of the veracity of my case and is answered by reading my manuscript again, now that the additional information from the process of Inquiry has been aired. I do not believe you can change the historical truth to fit your circumstances, and you will find that my case has not, as I have stated, changed at all. Not even after the Wessex archaeology report has been completed. Even the jetties appear to perform that function, albeit in a different way. Equally well you cannot find the historical truth if you only look at those matters you disagree with, a ploy used in the Highways Agency case. It is necessary to be able to address all issues. In retrospect I can agree that to have used the word "unequivocal" was asking for trouble, when faced with a QC of Mr Calvert's ability. However the use of that, and similar words of emphasis in my manuscript, does not ultimately undermine my case.
The object of completing the Wessex investigation was to eliminate the possibility that Upper Wilting farm was the site of the camp of William the Conqueror, and the site of the Norman Invasion. Now that we have discussed these matters, I am sure that you must conclude that some of the doubt which may have existed prior to the investigation has been removed. What has happened is that the evidence that has been found can be interpreted in order to confirm my hypothesis. If the investigation was a test of the veracity of my manuscript it must, from the evidence alone, have passed. Whilst the Highways Agency may wish to ignore those elements which do not support their view, nothing will change the historical truth. That historical truth has begun to unravel itself.
In the bars and pubs and clubs in this area and across the land a new understanding of the Norman Invasion has come into existence. People stop me in the street and say "Nick, I never really did believe that story about William sailing past Hastings and coming back the next day". People around here understand that with just a castle at Dover and one at Pevensey the area was known as either Pevensey or Dover, depending upon where you were, thus explaining those confusing words from the Bayeux Tapestry. In consequence I know that I have already won my case with the people. The people have decided who is right about where the Normans landed, because William only did what was logical and now everything can be explained in terms of the logical.
Back to Correspondence Index