I had an interesting call from someone who knows the archeology team. I have no reason to disbelieve him now. He tells me that three boats were found on the route of the road and the evidence has been hidden. They sent the wood off for testing and found that it was two or three centuries after the Invasion but this took months to come back and may be questionable. They key is it proves that boats were moving up and down the waterway and the claim that this was not a port is shot. Apparently everyone has known about this except us and so it is time to ask questions of those who know as they had a duty to tell us. Perhaps a journalist might persist as it raises questions that need to be answered namely why they hid it and why they haven’t looked in the Crowhurst Valley for the answer now it is known it was a port and three boats suggests it was a port.
Well thats a turn up for the books. English Heritage historian Roy Porter admits to the Guardian “The one place we know the armies weren’t is the low ground below the abbey, where most visitors understandably think the battle must have been fought” The Guardian adds ‘To add to the confusion, the annual recreation by costumed reenactors, which will be fought with increased fervour in October, is held in the wrong place, since the town and abbey ruins occupy the true site.‘
Its a step in the right direction as there is no more evidence in the town or the abbey site than the place we have been told for 940 years was the battlefield. Well done Mr Porter for coming clean on an issue that was getting more and more difficult to deal with in historical and not to mention archaeological terms now we know the truth of the matter. Now lets get the issue sorted properly with a proper investigation of the Manor site in Crowhurst. Lets put behind us the errors of the past since we have suffered the illusion that the so called battlefield was the right site for too long. Perhaps someone from English Heritage might now consider after five years of invitations to come to Crowhurst to look at what is here.
nick at secretsofthenormaninvasion.com
There is no battlefield at Battle Abbey.
English Heritage are promoting the 950th anniversary of the Battle of Hastings this year. New analysis of the Chronicle of Battle Abbey proves beyond doubt that the abbey was not the original battlefield. Those who wish to examine this proof can find the evidence here at this link and I would be pleased to hear from anyone who has any reason to doubt either my view or the expert opinions upon whom I rely.
The evidence of the Chronicle, together with the geophysics in Crowhurst is also supported by the Domesday data analysis which shows conclusively that Crowhurst was the most wasted manor in 1066 where the battle took place. This is followed by the second most wasted manor Wilting where the Normans camped at Wilting Manor. The new evidence in the Chronicle of Battle Abbey now explains in a logical manner why these two manors stand out in the Domesday analysis as the two most wasted manors recorded in the Domesday Book. This conclusive analysis together with the fact no archaeological has ever been found at the Battle abbey site means the site of the battlefield in Crowhurst must now be investigated. Despite five years of information coming out and being sent to media and English Heritage nothing has been done to investigate. English Heritage promised to provide a proper archaeological investigation of the Abbey site when Time Team failed to find evidence of the battle. That was scheduled as a public dig in April but canceled without explanation and since then English Heritage has continued to market its battlefield operation to the public, stepping up the spin as the 950th anniversary of the Battle approaches this October 14th.
The question that must be asked is should a national heritage organisation be spending tens of thousands of pounds on radio and press advertising on a site with no provable provenance because they earn money from the gate. Can it be claimed they can spend this money on advertising but cant afford to do the archaeology that is needed. Any impartial organisation interested in national heritage would investigate the claims made for Crowhurst because they were documented at the time of the invasion. Even now faced with evidence they have known about for some time nothing has been done. The justification to continue marketing operations is made because they seek to rely upon ‘tradition’ as their right to continue to earn gate money from the public. Quite a lot of gate money – its not peanuts. That claim of ‘tradition’ can now be shown not to have any validity and is not even supported by the abbey’s own foundation document.
I cannot see how any organisation can sell the anniversary of such an important date in English history without knowing it is selling access to the real site and with public money when there is no evidence for what they claim. Worse still their claim runs contrary to the documentary evidence.If any other organisation were to conduct itself in such a manner it would be stopped and subjected to court proceedings until the veracity of the claims were proven. It is no longer possible to ignore the evidence presented. English Heritage are not behaving in the manner expected from a national heritage organisation when it comes to the most important date and battlefield site in the world..
14th July 2016
The original of this map can be found here.
A) shows clearly defined defense type structure at the proposed site of the Saxon port of Hastings pre-1066. Circular defensive ditch type layout in Five Acre field next to Redgeland Wood where the Chronicle of Battle Abbey states “they camped at Hedgeland” but actually the R may have been misread on the original as no-one knew at the time where Redgeland was. Other Lidar previously shown on this site shows another circular structure within Redgeland Wood where access to the port would have been found before the estuary silted up in 1290s. Hastings Port was the largest of the Cinque Ports prior to its demise. According to the accounts at the time at least 500 ships landed at that port according to Wace – here you can see exactly where it was.
B) is the hill above the port area (now Wilting Manor House- home of the first Norman Sheriffs of Hastings, Engleran and his brother). The Carmen states the Normans “restored the forts which had stood there formerly” (or depending upon your branch of Latin – the “defensive structures” that were there.) This anathema is impossible to explain by Pevensey or Hastings Castle since Hastings Castle was not there and Pevensey had only one defense that was not reinstated. This was a primary reason for the dismissal of the Carmen in the nineteenth century by historians, only to have it’s rightful authority restored on academic grounds by Elizabeth Van Houtts in the last thirty years, whilst I have been doing this work. We can now see the Carmen was right and so was Ms Houtts. Here in this image we see the Saxon Defense by the shore and to the right of the B the original structure of what was called Chapel Field where Wace records “they set up chapels” on the night of the battle. In chapel field is the clear outline of Hastings Burgh which was destroyed by the Normans prior to the Battle and consequently not included in the Domesday survey. There is no Burgh structure anywhere else and within the outline we see an additional ditch which may predate the construction. However one of the DeScotneys (Lords of the Crowhurst Manor was assigned to stay at the Old Burgh of Wilting according to a document I am still trying to get to see the original. The County Heritage map on the other hand shows Chapel Field was recorded as “possible site of early medieval village”. The archeology shows that the earth from the north side of this field was stacked by someone to level it out. The historical record shows this was under King Alfred’s instructions. Proper evaluation of this Burgh is now required because it represents a major heritage asset which like in other Burgh towns will not only add to the Hastings story but be a valuable tourism asset to the county. It would be good for Hastings to have this heritage asset reinstated.
C) shows a feature in the marsh above the C that looks remarkably like a marsh platform of some sort. It is located right in the new road route so hopefully we will get confirmation of what it is in the course of time. Given the location in an area rich in Bronze Age relics and near the Bronze Age tree we found around 1996 which had the axe cuts in it dated the same time as Stonehenge was being used I would not be surprised to find it connected to Bronze Age activity.
Lastly let me add that there is a massive amount of information on the web that is repeated ad infinitum by people who have not looked at any of the original documents. There is no archaeological evidence to even suggest that the Normans occupied Hastings Old town before 1090 when the Count of Eu moved the castle from the port to its present position and like the Battlefield site the assumption that the port was where the castle now stood (above where the cricket ground used to be). However this theory in the absence of evidence was completely discredited by the archaeological report which Hastings Council kindly produced to show they could build the shopping center there. The Hastings Castle of today that is falling into the sea was built on a headland next to a marsh that was always a marsh, with a shingle bank across its entrance, where Debenhams now resides. Taking all this into account the conclusion points to activity in the Crowhurst Valley where Hastings town pre 1066 was probably in existence within the so called “Saxon Doug-nut” and Burgh. It also explains why the Battle became known as the battle of Hastings – because it was in the same valley as the port and town of Hastings. Its time someone sensible in the world of history and archeology came down and had a look.
We take a tour down the new Hastings Link Road and have a look at the site we believe is the Hastings Burgh. Most recently we have been advised that the Burgh is pronounced Burr in local dialect and like the Croghurst name of early Saxon times the gh was silent. This in part explains why the Normans pronounced Crogherst Crerst and then was mistakenly written down as Herst in the Chronicle of Battle Abbey which tells us that was where the Battle was fought and later moved to the present site because it was not so suitable for such a fine building.
It is important to realise that there is no confirmed site for Alfred’s Burgh at Hastings and I urge those who mistakenly believe otherwise to do their due diligence. Now we have the chance to reinstate the historical record and transform an earthworks on the top of an unmarked hill at the old port of Hastings to its correct position in English history. People come from across the world to see history in Hastings and now one of its greatest assets is awaiting confirmation. Hastings Burgh went missing in 1066 in this the 950th anniversary year of the Battle of Hastings it would be perfect timing for its reinstatement into the historic record and growing 1066 tourist trail.
I have been told by my mole in English Heritage that there is a plan to bring archaeologists back to the Battle Abbey site this coming Easter as a result of public pressure to find evidence of the Battle of Hastings. When asked who was planning to do the work I was told it was not going to be Time Team again but would be done by “their people” and would not be drawn on the matter. Elements within English Heritage are “unhappy” that further evidence is needed because they believe their experts should tell the English public to take their word for it (and their money too).
Having not found anything relevant to the period of the Battle of Hastings at the Battle Abbey site, not a belt buckle, pin, ring of chain mail or even a button the claim that the Battle of Hastings was fought at Battle Abbey by English Heritage history experts is currently in ruins and needs a big fix. Visitor figures have I believe plummeted and unless something is found quickly the future of the battlefield as a commercial enterprise must be in doubt in the days when all costs are under pressure. It is my belief that the current site is losing English Heritage a six figure sum per annum and the Heritage Center built at a time when they knew the claim for the battlefield was under threat was a serious mistake.
My view is that the investigation is welcomed and let us agree that a proper investigation of that site is essential in order to eliminate it from the search. That continues in the Crowhurst Valley, where documentation in the Chronicle of Battle Abbey confirms it is to be found.
The Crowhurst archaeology group Secrets of the Norman Invasion completed a number of strategic magnetometry field studies last weekend. Initial images from the survey indicate a large number of anomalies on the site all in the region of 2m long by 1m wide orientated in an East West location. Nick Austin who heads the group is looking for battlefield archaeologists who are prepared to analyse the data themselves and offering to take interested parties to the relevant sites. He is writing to English Heritage to ask them to include the sites in the investigation into the authenticity of the Battle Abbey site when their team are due to come back later this year. No magnetometry evidence to support a battlefield has been found at Battle Abbey. Nick Austin claims this hard scientific evidence supports the Crowhurst site and it should now be investigated by battlefield archaeologists in order to avoid unnecessary public costs on surveys at Battle Abbey, where no magnetometry evidence has ever been found despite a number of archaeological surveys at Battle over many years.
We have found us a company who will rent us the magnetometry equipment we need for the next survey I want to do on the center field of the real battlefield. There are 260 people in the facebook group who will assist if need be in this community enterprise to ensure that the truth comes out. This will show us the spread of any metal left behind and also with any luck identify if any mass graves are present in the fields we can cover. Missing from the fake battlefield are any bodies or mass graves. These will identify the true site as you cant hide 8tons of bodies or move them somewhere else even now. So these graves arent just here and there.
I have strong suspicions that the first field of choice is the field that matters because (dont tell anyone – I am a dowser of ill repute according to Sir Baldrick:) but also because the field in question has three large anomalies identifiable on the LIDAR and its pretty much dead center of the battlefield. A local man reported that he had found a broken sword there 15 years ago in line with exactly where the anomaly is identified so that is where we have to start.
I am looking into issues about software and expertise and if anyone here can assist us set this up from a technical point of view so that my team can do the work at a convenient weekend as soon as possible let me know. It seems we are going to move ahead soon and things may well conclude soon. I am looking for a number of independent archaeologists to work with the raw data so if you want to work with it please let me know I am happy for anyone to put in their two pennies. What we dont want is interpretations of the data that do not agree with one and other – using a number of people interested in the project will avoid that.
Despite assurances from East Sussex County Council that the road works on the Bexhill Link Road would not have any adverse impact upon flooding in the Crowhurst Valley it can be clearly seen that flooding has commenced this year a full two months earlier than it has ever flooded in the 28 years I have looked over this view. I hope East Sussex County Council have adequate insurance against negligence claims if those who stand in the path of this flood plain suffer flood damage as a result of this work. This flood plain does not normally flood until October at the earliest and usually in the New Year. Ominous signs need someone on the Council to do something to rectify this as it has hardly been wet by the standards of the last few years. Indeed it’s so early the hay is still on the ground.