To be discussed at the Public Inquiry 6/6/96
During the course of the archaeological investigation in April 1996 I noticed a new crop mark appear in the field immediately below Wilting farm house. This is the field in which the Highways Agency commissioned trial trenching in 1995.
However the crop mark was to the south of where this work was completed Two photographs are included marked CropA and CropB. These are reproduced here:
This first photograph shows the crop looking north towards the farm house.
This second photograph shows the view looking west.
The two photographs can be aligned to show clear indications in the crop that features may lie in this field. The regular features shown on the first photograph CropA show all the hallmarks of archaeological remains.
It is interesting that this mark should reveal itself at this time. Upon questioning the tenant farmer he stated that this was the first time that he had planted cereals on this field. Until now he had regularly planted rape seed. As a consequence of this action the sensitivity of the crop to ground and its ability to take up water resulted in these marks.
I propose that these marks confirm the existence of further extensive archaeology in the field immediately below the farm house. If I am correct that the settlement of Hastings was located within the confines of this farm here is direct evidence which needs to be investigated and may confirm my thesis. Certainly the resistivity indicated possible anomalies and whilst the trial trenching failed to locate a building line this is not unusual where it is unusual for trial trenching to hit anything of substance. Trial trenching is a hit and miss exercise designed to sample an area to establish whether more work should be done. Clearly the pottery evidence for this site indicates that this is the case and now we have visual evidence produced by a crop square.
Before finalising this section let me lastly make sure that you are not misled by the dark green swathe on photo CropB, on the left of the photo. This is not of interest since this is produced by cultivation. What we are looking at is the subtle features that lie under the obvious pattern.
During the course of the inquiry and in the Wessex report the issue of foundation stones has been raised. It has been said that one would expect to find large stones on the top field if this were the site of a castle.
My view is the same now as it has always been and this is that if the Normans moved their center of operations from the Combe Haven valley to Priory valley, for what ever reason, it was likely that if stone building materials were used they may have taken them with them.
Remember however that there is no evidence of stone building materials being used in castle construction in the period I claim the Normans were resident on this site. However stone was used later and we would expect some if not all of the wooden buildings to have their walls replaced with stones.
During digging in the garden of the manor house Mr Blackford has
in the last fortnight accidentally located what appear to be foundation
stones. These are photographed here:
These stones are located within the subsoil immediately adjacent to the house and appear to be situated in alignment with the corner of what was once a substantial wall. Whilst it might appear that these stones are something to do with the manor house, it is possible that they sit in a trench, because the alignment is in a north/south direction in a trench that may connect with the eastern line of the old castle wall.
Whilst it cannot yet be proven that these stones are part of the development of the castle site, there is a strong possibility that the stones have been laid on an earlier site. Otherwise the alignment is not logical since the current manor building is on a different alignment.
The Highways Agency would like to make a point that there are no stones in the area we have examined. This is no longer the case and in any event I am aware of several large walls running through this area from dowsing. However it is equally important to stress that it has been made clear to me that it is not my right to expect the Highways Agency to go prospecting for Norman walls on private land outside of the road corridor. I was asked to place one trench in this area and prove my case from just one. As it turns out fate is conspiring to provide me with the evidence I might not be able to find myself in Mr. Blackford's personal garden.
Certainly the crop markings came as a total surprise and now stones
from a totally different source from those that I have seen on
the site before. However that was nothing compared to the surprise
I was given when cleaning out my finds fridge, at the end of last
week.
There in the compartment in the bottom of my fridge, pushed towards the back was a carrier bag containing a lump of peat. I had excavated this out of the Monkham Inlet, where the Norman boats are located two years ago.
I had been looking lower down in the inlet for the head off of the front of a Norman boat. My research had indicated that removable heads were placed on the front of all the Invasion boats. These were removable because of the old Icelandic law requiring removal of the heads before landfall in order not to frighten the land gods. In consequence logic dictated that the heads might possibly still lie in the bottom of the marsh since it would be unlikely that the heads would be removed from the location of the boats. I believed that these heads might prove conclusively that this is the site of the Norman Invasion.
I had found no obvious head whilst excavating a small pit on the east side of the inlet, about half way between the beach and the earthen dam. All that I could identify was some very ancient wood in a layer about twelve inches below the surface, above a layer of silty grey clay. Below the clay was peat and in the peat large pieces of well preserved natural wood (with bark still intact). This was at a depth of approximately 1 meter.
Having found no recognisable boat or Norman head I placed the
lump of peat in a carrier bag with a view to cleaning it at a
later date. Unfortunately I never did get round to doing it because
I got sidetracked on a different site, where I found the boat
parts shown in my manuscript. I did not believe that anything
would be found in the peat, because it appeared to be too small
to be a Norman boat head. Whilst having no details of how big
these heads would be I assumed that they must be at least the
size of a human head, because the Bayeux Tapestry shows this to
be the case. However closer scrutiny of the Tapestry shows that
some of the heads are smaller than that.
What I would say is that the size of the head is difficult to be specific about. All I do know is that I am now certain that I made a mistake in assuming what was in the fridge was irrelevant.
Having made the decision to clear the fridge, because the Inquiry was now coming to an end, I cleaned the peat away from what appeared to have a solid center. To my total surprise a small dilapidated head appeared. Similar in look to a fox a dog or possibly a ram, with ears that were folded over.
A side-on photograph follows:
You can see that it is about 14cm long with clear features for the face and eye sockets. It is however extremely dilapidated and may be covered with a blown form of covering.
Having found this item I have been faced with a dilemma. Should I give this to Dr Gardiner to examine or should I seek independent evaluation. I have, as a result of my experience in dealing with the Highways Agency and their contractors, decided that I cannot leave this issue for them to resolve. They have been given their chance to conduct their study in an even handed way. Whilst I have been completely happy with the quality of the work done I am extremely angry about what I would call professional bias towards their commissioning client .
If I were a professional archaeologist myself I would undoubtedly be prepared to trust my colleagues. However I am not and when those who say they are going to do something fail to keep their words I am not prepared to give them a second change. In this instance the authors of this report have proven that they have not read my thesis when I was assured by Dr Gardiner that they would. I was also assured by Dr Gardiner that no excavation would start on the boat parts until I was present to identify the site but they started anyway whilst I was still accompanying the Inspector on the site visit.
I am therefore not prepared to accept any more assurances by the Highways Agency or Dr Gardiner, who has consistently demonstrated that his judgment has been at fault. In fact I am not prepared to entrust this object to anyone connected with any of the archaeological agencies who deal with the Highways Agency. I have decide to send it to a specialist laboratory in Europe for evaluation, where they have no knowledge of its source.
As a result of the sensitivity of the evaluation I am not even prepared to tell the Highways Agency where it is being sent, because it is not relevant to their position. All they need to know is that it will be dealt with by experts and I expect confirmation of its origin.
In conclusion I will reiterate that I have been happy with the standard of work completed by Wessex Archaeology. I was happy with the co-operation given to me on site within the limits imposed by the relationship of investigators and official objector. The evidence speaks for itself . Nothing in this report undermines or undervalues the basis of my thesis Secrets of the Norman Invasion. Whilst the Highways Agency were looking for a quick kill, they must now accept that this is not going to happen. The discovery of the huge archaeological site on the top of Wilting hill is devastating news for the highways Agency case. What could be dismissed as illogical and improbable now is proven to be both logical and likely. What could never be the port of Hastings now might be just that. What the Highways Agency claimed could not be Iron Age activity now might be exactly that.
In fact every basis of the Highways Agency case has been disputed by the evidence of the Wessex work. Yet NOTHING undermines the veracity of my thesis. EVERYTHING can be explained in the context of the thesis just like the forty items which tie in directly to this site.
The weight of evidence lies with the Highways Agency to prove my thesis wrong where the great historical minds of the day have accepted the historical evidence. The Highways Agency have failed to do this and can therefore only seek to prove my thesis improbable. Dr Gardiner stated in his Proof of Evidence (para 5.2)that "Absolute proof is rarely possible in historical or archaeological studies. Historians and archaeologists are used to balancing probabilities, to assessing the strength of one argument against another." This is indeed correct and as a result of the Wessex archaeological work we can conclude that those probabilities which I have outlined are still as valid today as the day the Wessex work started and have subsequently improved considerably. In consequence if it is in the fullness of time deemed that this archaeological study was a test, in which my ability as a dowser, or my ability as a historian and archaeologist were put to the test, I have undoubtedly passed. Dr Gardiner's Proof of Evidence, which has been commissioned by the country's major road builder, to seek to undermine my position, does not stand the same test of veracity. Many of the clauses have been shown to be based upon false assumptions whilst my assumptions have all be proven to stand the test of scrutiny.
In consequence the Wessex study is now complete and more work is now required. The Highways Agency route is no longer viable, faced with the discovery of a major archaeological site of probable Norman dating immediately adjacent to the claimed Norman Invasion site. If the Wessex report had found no foundation ditches, which were not on an east/west axis where the church and castle are located. If there was no post hole where the old wooden castle perimeter wall was located. If they had not found parallel ditches in the defensive bank. If there were no earthworks on the top of Wilting field. If stones were not found in alignment with the old castle wall. If they had not found pottery that could be from the time of the Conquest. If they had not found a ditch where I said there was one in the Lower Norman fort. If they had not found a ditch where I said there would be one in the Iron Age fort and if they had not found the layer of charcoal industrialisation under water where the old port was located - then Wilting farm might not be the site of the Norman Invasion. The plain truth is that it probably is and if it is probabilities we have to address, rather than certainties as confirmed by Dr Gardiner. There can only be one tenable conclusion.
This is that Upper Wilting farm is the Norman Invasion site. Conclusive evidence will probably take a lot more work and may take many years, even when the Norman boat connection is proven, because that is the nature of archaeological and historical proof.
What is clear from the Wessex work is that Dr Gardiner's simplistic picture of what is probable cannot be relied upon. If his assumptions were correct the Norman Invasion site would have been found many years ago. Almost without exception his judgment has been at fault. I say that it is an unacceptable risk to the nation's heritage to build this road now that the Wessex work has been completed. Dr Gardiner may be prepared to accept that risk from his position in Ireland, but it is the people of this country who will loose if that road is built. Who will be responsible when the certain evidence that is held in the marsh is found . I believe that I have proven to the satisfaction of all reasonable men that such circumstances must never happen.
END
RETURN TO CORRESPONDENCE INDEX