The significant and damning fact is that when the report was later discussed at open Inquiry on 6th June 1996, Dr Gardiner admitted that the pottery finds on the top field were dated from 950AD and that the dating range of the bulk of the pottery could well be within the Conquest period. The Wessex pottery dating of 12th to 14th Century is therefore incorrect and all the conclusions based upon this observation totally flawed. What conclusion you may wish to draw from this "error" is up to you.
Dr Gardiner stated at the Inquiry that he had "never worked with Phil Andrews or Roland Smith (of Wessex) before", yet these same gentlemen were upon first name terms from day 1, which made this statement difficult to reconcile. I would be very interested to hear from anyone who knows if Dr Gardiner(South East Archaeological Services) has worked on the same site as Wessex Archaeology or for the Highways Agency, because the impression given by Dr Gardiner was that the two organisations were not in any way connected through their business.
It should be noted that Dr Gardiner had not presented a written response to the report. If I had failed to write mine the results of this investigation would have gone unchallenged.
Many of the points raised appeared to be taken on board by the Inspector. However English Heritage have now written a further hugely embarrassing letter, which has been sent to the Inspector, which I shall file after this report. In that letter they have jumped to conclusions and have failed to check some of the basic facts, either by being present at the Inquiry whilst the evidence was discussed, or asking to see my response. In my view this represents gross incompetence on a matter of national historical interest and possible negligence by Mr Kendall of English Heritage. The views of those who are entrusted to protect our national heritage are intended to be trustworthy, which in this case they cannot be, since their whole premise is based upon false information. I hope that those responsible at English Heritage will put this matter right immediately.
The way the matter of this report has been handled demonstrates in perfect order the way that authorities such as the Highways Agency seek to undermine the truth by selective application of logic, without taking the broader implications into account. The English Heritage file also shows how the Highways Agency, in my view, work in too close association with those who's job it is to act as guardians of our heritage.The correspondence shows quite clearly, in my view, that having made the decision early on that this was not the Norman Invasion site, a decision made without a site visit or archaeological investigation, Mr Kendall has bent over backwards to seek to justify that position in the face of mounting evidence against his judgement. In order to extracate himself from this mess he appears to be seeking to align English Heritage, a government funded body, behind the Highways Agency's so called expert, in the hope presumably of killing my case. Having already filed a letter from English Heritage stating that they "would be pleased if an acceptable route could be found that avoided Upper Wilting Farm and its setting" he obviously feels confident enough to accept the flack that will now materialise in possibly missleading the Inspector. If he worked for me I would throw him out, since his judgement appears to be impaired - this is of course only a personal opinion.
What I cannot understand is how a responsible organisation such as English Heritage is doing aligning itself with the national roads agency in the face of the mounting evidence that this is most probably the Norman Invasion site. How can an organisation funded by amongst other things public subscription expect the public to support it if it cannot stand up and be counted when it is expected to. Here we have a site under threat that has proven archaeological merit and an alternative route which goes around the site. This alternative route is not only cheaper but avoides the local SSSI which 1200 people have objected to at the Inquiry. I cannot reconcile the actions of Mr Kendall and those of an impartial heritage organisation acting in the national interest.
Instead of therefore filing a response in the normal way I applied the same tactics as the Agency themselves. I wrote a critique using the Wessex report as the basis. The text from the original report was scanned into a new document with my comments placed alongside each element. This is the only way to view this report in an objective light and the reason I have filed it at the Inquiry and here in this form:
The following report was commissioned by Chris Blandford Associates on behalf of the Highways Agency. It was commissioned as a direct result of the objections raised by myself at the Public Inquiry in the presentation of evidence made by me in the two weeks commencing 27th March 1996 at Ocean House, St. Leonards, Hastings England. My presentation entitled Proof of the Normans consisted of 169 pages of written evidence in the form of my manuscript entitled Secrets of the Norman Invasion (hereafter referred to as " my manuscript"), together with over 400 pages of supporting documentation from numerous historical and contemporary sources (hereafter referred to as my bundle). These documents I claim show well beyond reasonable doubt that William the Conqueror did not land at Pevensey, as has been claimed by historians since the Victorian era, but most probably landed at Upper Wilting Farm near Hastings.
The evidence taken for eight separate sources, all written within 150 years of the Invasion, confirms that William the Conqueror landed at the port of Hastings, at a place then known as Hedgeland, but subsequently became known as Redgeland. It is my claim that this site is of National and International importance, occupying a unique position in British and world history. It is my claim that as well as confirmed by the manuscript record this unique site still contains an archaeological record of the events of 1066, in the form of the first camp of William the Conqueror, together with his second camp occupying the high ground immediately above the landing site. I claim that this site at Upper Wilting Farm, on the outskirts of Hastings, was the seat of power of the previously lost Hastingas tribe, who founded the then settlement of Hastings. I believe there is sufficient evidence to confirm that the early people of the Hastings area were centered in an area of land immediately adjacent to the Combe Haven valley. The valley so named because it was the largest haven for ships in this area of the south coast. That a port existed in the Combe Haven at Redgeland, which was located inland, as is confirmed by the name Bulverhythe at the exit of the port area. The Old English name hythe meaning inland port, whilst Bulwarahythe meaning in full the landing place of the people (or citizens). It is my claim that boats, including Norman boats, still exist preserved in the margins of what is now a sealed valley and Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), cut off from the sea by storms in the late 13th Century, when the then port of Hastings ceased to perform its functions.
To support this evidence I have presented a completely logical case to the Inspector that the development of this site was a continuous process. It is my contention that the record shows that this Saxon settlement of Hastings, adjacent to the then port on the Combe Haven, had not materialised over night. That there is a continuous record of habitation from the Bronze Age, on the lower slopes of the valley, in the area of land adjacent to where the water once stood, through to the Iron Age, where the settlement spread to the top of the Hill at Wilting. The port area was later used by the Romans to transport their cargoes of iron from the largest bloomery in South East England, where evidence of tracks still exist. These directly connected to this site, from a known center of Roman occupation less than three miles from the port, on the high ground overlooking the coast.
It is my contention that this record of habitation continued through to the Saxon period by which time the fortifications which once existed it the top of the field, at what is now Wilting farm, had become dilapidated and altered to suit the then needs of the day. It is my contention that these fortifications probably consisted of earthworks appropriate to the site. In my manuscript (page 146) I make the case that these original fortifications could be Iron Age both at the top of the site and lower down near the port, or alternatively one of the fortifications may be connected with the Roman period. The reason given for this hypothesis being that the bulk of the Norman invading army were known to be resident at this site for a maximum of five weeks. It is reported that a guard was posted there for three years. Beyond this nothing is known, other than lime was ordered by the Count of EU to build a stone castle on the headland of the Priory valley in 1095. I propose in my manuscript that the camp site at the port of Hastings, now known as Redgeland on Upper Wilting farm, contained a wooden castle on the top field where the original Chapel of St. Mary in the Castle was built immediately after the battle.
The reason for believing that this chapel at Wilting was connected to the Invasion story is the report by Wace that " chapels were erected" in the field where the camp was located. It is also reported that after the battle due ceremony was performed to give respect to the Norman dead. It is my conjecture that the ground used for these ceremonies would be a religious site and this accounts for the chapel within the castle walls. Later in 1094 both castle and chapel were removed to a new site in the Priory valley. There is a reference to this in 1446 when the then King Henry VI made a grant of jurisdiction over the church to the Bishop of Chichester. Where the deed states
" a certain church of the Blessed Mary, within the Castle of Hastings (the one now at the Priory valley) in the county of Sussex, since erected and established into a collegiate church by the former Count of Eu… "
The words "since erected" confirming that the Bishop knew that the church had been moved by the Count.
I concluded from the evidence of the purchase of lime for the construction of Hastings Castle, recorded in the court rolls, that Hastings Castle ,as we now know it, was not built until at least 1094, when the new King William visited Hastings to inaugurate Battle Abbey (also my spoken evidence page 28 of Day 53 12.10pm daily transcript). This was commissioned by his father 28 years before, who never returned to the site,. Therefore as part of the thesis it is not unreasonable to assume that Hastings Castle prior to 1094 was wooden and located at the then Saxon settlement at Upper Wilting farm. Only after 1094 is there any record of stone castles being built by the Normans, and Hastings was undoubtedly the first in the UK. It was argued at Inquiry that the traditional Norman castle would therefore be Motte and Bailey. I agreed with this but also argued later in the Inquiry, when I had a chance to check the record, that when invading other territories this was not always the case, where the Normans found an existing defense, and would not be made of stone before 1094. It had been my case that this site, in order to justify the Carmen description of the landing site, contained " dismantled forts". I also made the point that the Bayeux Tapestry clearly shows what appears to be two different fortifications as the same site, further supporting the Carmen. My case supports two defenses, one at the top of the hill and one at the bottom of the same hill. Neither of which can be true at Pevensey or the traditional castle site.
All of these claims were vigorously attacked by the Highways Agency at Inquiry. The Highways Agency have claimed that there is no evidence of continuous habitation. Claiming that there is solely evidence of Bronze Age activity, concluding that work completed over the last twenty years by Smyth and Jennings is not conclusive and can have alternative explanations.
The Highways Agency deny the possibility that this site at Upper wilting could be the site of the Hastings settlement prior to 1094. They deny that there is any evidence to support the claim that either Hastings Castle pre 1094, nor the Chapel of St. Mary in the Castle could be located on the top field at Wilting.
I made the point in evidence at the Inquiry that a ditch which I claimed to have been dug by the Normans was located at the Lower Norman fort. I stated that this ditch could be located and that an outer ditch could also be located, where the Lower Norman fort could be seen to be positioned inside the perimeter of a previous Iron Age settlement. This claim was also vigorously attacked by the Highways Agency, who stated that no ditch could be seen, even to what I had called the trained eye. Dr Gardiner could not identify the ditches at the site visit.
I claim in my thesis that the Port of Hastings, as it was known in 1066, was located in the Combe Haven valley adjacent to Redgeland Wood. I claim that because of the record of continuous habitation spanning such a large time scale there will also be evidence of what Smyth and Jennings have called "industrialisation", associated with the Iron Age and earlier activities on what was an established waterway. This claim has been vigorously denied by the highways Agency who claim that there is no evidence to support this hypothesis.
I claimed in my manuscript that earthen structures located to the east and west of the Lower Norman fort area were used in association with the port. I had called them jetties, for want of a better word in my manuscript upon the basis that they are connected by a network of tracks that lead back to the bloomeries. The Highways Agency deny that these were used for activities connected with either boats or a port. They deny that they are connected with either the Roman period or earlier, but have been formed by rotational slipping or slumping. They deny the existence of the tracks or any commercial activity connected with the area.
In addition to my written evidence I had prior to appearing received a copy of a written critique of my manuscript. This had been prepared in secret by Dr Mark Gardiner of South East Archaeological Services, Ditchling in Sussex. Upon receiving Dr Gardiner's critique from the Highways Agency in January 1996 I resolved that it was in the public interest that Dr Gardiner's critique should be dealt with by detailed examination of the evidence and statements which he had made in his critique, because the Response to Objection issued by the Highways Agency (Document number 117) showed conclusively that the Highways Agency rely solely upon Dr Gardiner's critique (paragraph B1) to answer my claims. The consequence of this was the preparation of a further 188 pages of evidence to be given at the Inquiry in person.
The consequence of presenting my critique of the Gardiner report was extensive cross-examination of my case by QC acting for the Highways Agency. Early on in giving evidence the Inspector concluded that I was completely correct in my claim that there had been an inadequate investigation of my claims.
He therefore directed the Highways Agency to investigate my claims.
Whereupon the Highways Agency commissioned Wessex Archaeology
to investigate seven trenches. Each trench was designed to investigate
a specific aspect of my thesis and this report which follows is
the Wessex Archaeology text with comments by myself.
The text for this document has been grabbed by computer scan to feature the original documentation (slightly smaller text point size in bold) with the addition of plans and photos in the appropriate places. My comments have been added, where appropriate, or inside ruled sections such as this. This format has been adopted because the file is written in HTML format (HyperText Markup Language). This means that this document can be placed directly onto the World Wide Web and read from any Internet computer anywhere in the world with immediate effect.
It is my belief that this site is of huge significance. It is therefore essential that the members of the academic fraternity who are following the developments of this Inquiry are allowed complete access to all the documentation. As keeper of the 1066 Electronic Archive this document along with all the other documents generated by the Inquiry will now be held at the Archive for the foreseeable future as a result of the recent acquisition of text scanning software. Should the Inspector or any member of the public wish to contact the site you may do so by using any Internet search engine, anywhere in the world, using the search key 1066 or Norman Invasion. The address for the 1066 Archive is: http://www.secretsofthenormaninvasion.com/archive/archive.htm. The availability of this information in a publicly available access archive ensures scrutiny of all aspects of the case as presented.
WESSEX REPORT FOLLOWS:
4 RESULTS
4.1 Introduction
Figure 2 illustrates the trench positions. Plans and sections
of these and any archaeological features are shown in Figures
3 and 4 and in Plates I - 4. Summary trench descriptions are presented
in Appendix 1, with full details available in the archive. A summary
of the total number and weight of finds by category is presented
in Table 1. Curricula Vitae of the principal project staff are
included in Appendix 2.
4.2 Trench A (Figs 2 and 3)
4.2.1.This trench, under pasture, was excavated by machine
down to the top of undisturbed natural hard, yellow, sandy weathered
rock at a depth of C. 0.4m below the surface. Several linear features,
probably small ditches or gullies (133, 134 137, 138, 140, 143,
144) and one possible pit or post-hole (146) were clearly visible
at this level, all filled with a homogeneous greyish brown sandy
silt loam. A sheep burial of recent date (pers. comm. Mr. Blackford)
cut into the top linear feature 137. The linear features were
broadly aligned north-south or east-west - parallel or at 900
to each other, and were up to 1 .2m wide and 0.6m deep. Features
138 and 143, and 140 and 144 appeared to be contemporary and associated
and may have formed corners, but this is uncertain from the limited
area exposed.
4.2.2 Pottery recovered from the various features in Trench A
suggests that they should be broadly dated to between the 12th
and 14th centuries; the largest assemblage of pottery, from feature
134, includes sherds from at two least vessels of probable 14th
century date. Other finds include a few fragments of ceramic rooftile,
part of a copper alloy buckle and an iron nail. No stone building
material was present.
N.A.Comments: Trench A is of immense importance because of the amount and scale of archaeology found. No photographs of this trench were included in my copy of the report. In the interests of impartiality the question must be asked why no pictures were included, of what amounts to a major archaeological find.
It is my view that a picture speaks a thousand words and the following
pictures show the scale of what has been found in Trench A. A
site where no known archaeology existed before this investigation
began. Photographs of the laser prints are included to allow the
Inspector the ability to study the detail:
Here the trench can be seen to the north of Upper Wilting farm on the top field of the Wilting peninsula. This peninsula is connected to the north-eastern ridge by the main road, which runs along the front of the house situated in the foreground. The field in which this trench is dug is over five acres in size and contains foundation trenches for either buildings or enclosures. The alignment of these foundation trenches is in a north/west or east/south orientation confirming their possible use in a religious building, which would be expected to align east/west. This is of particular note given that the field itself is not directly aligned east/west and therefore this building is not built square to what is after all a relatively square field..
This photograph, taken from a height of 80ft clearly shows the dark lines of the foundation ditches exposed by the JCB digger. Excavations pits were made by the archaeologists in each of the ditches. Within these pits a huge number of pottery samples were recovered. The archaeologists have provisionally dated these as 12th to 14th century i.e. 1100 to 1300AD. However it is my contention that the pottery found in these pits fall within the area of use to allow the same pottery to be dated within 100years either way of this date. In consequence this dating cannot be relied upon to be specific since pottery dating is highly controversial, especially where dating of such pottery may or may not be considered highly sensitive to the issues of this investigation.
Having studied the issues of pottery dating, and
having read Dr Gardiner's own book, it is not possible for anyone
to be sure that these pottery finds are not 1050, 1066, 1080 or
1100. My own conclusion, allowing a reasonable margin of error
of 50 years is that the probability is that some, if not all,
may be dated between 1050 and 1350. Given the nature of pottery
dating I do not believe there is an expert who will disagree with
this.
This photograph is taken from ground level looking
south along the open trench. It is my contention that these trenches
confirm the existence of the wooden building that was used as
the castle at Hastings pre-1094 and chapel of St. Mary in the
Castle. The pit located at the bottom left hand corner of this
photograph is a post hole used to hold the main support of one
of the wall timbers for the Norman fort. I was challenged by the
Highways Agency to position this trench to provide proof of my
claims. In order to do that I needed to identify 1) the existence
of buildings dating back to the Invasion period and 2) evidence
of the fort. I claim that this post hole confirms the existence
of the wooden perimeter wall of the fort. It is of a size and
position to confirm my location through dowsing. If you compare
this position with that shown in my manuscript prior to excavation,
for the perimeter of the castle, you will see that they are identical.
I was also required to locate evidence of occupation. Both of
these matters appear now to be proven.
It should be noted that although considerable pottery
was found in this trench it was all located within the ditches
cut into the rock. The spoil from the excavator was not searched
and this would be expected to produce considerable additional
material if excavated in the usual manner. Less than a quarter
of the trenches exposed were actually excavated for pottery remains
due to time constraints and therefore the indications are that
far more pottery exists indicating a major medieval site.
This section of another ditch within the trench is
just over two feet wide with a square cut elevation within it.
A polybag containing pottery samples is located in the bottom
of the ditch.
Shows a section through the trench looking west.
The trench has exposed the rock subsoil, where these trenches
have been excavated by the archaeologists to see their construction.
Who ever built them undertook considerable labour to dig down
into the rock, with foundations cut to just under two feet wide
in places, suggesting foundations for a substantial building.
This post hole takes on great significance when it is understood that it stands on the alignment of the old castle. Only further excavation work will prove conclusively that this is the line of the castle wall. The comment that no stone building material was present is not unexpected. However stone building material is present within the manor house itself and a stone wall is located on the same alignment as the eastern boundary. A photograph of these stones, found within the last two weeks, is enclosed under the heading NEW EVIDENCE, at the end of this report.
RETURN TO CORRESPONDENCE INDEX