Saturday, 25th August 2012 – A further walk of the Norman Invasion landing site. Also, a brief overview of the LIDAR scans covering the area. The LIDAR was supplied by East Sussex County Council. It confirms the presence of the ditches and earthworks which were claimed to exist at the Public Inquiry but denied by the legal representatives of the Highways Agency. Now the work has been done this evidence confirms those Norman earthworks exist at the upper fort and lower fort where the ditch being dug is shown in the Bayeux Tapestry. Ditches dug by the Normans for defences form the major evidence of the use of the land. It can no longer be denied they are there.
There is a good possibility that the boats which are held in the Combe Haven can be identified by non intrusive magnetometry survey – which we plan to do later this year (funds permitting – donate donate donate:).
Point of interest: The mystery seam on the LIDAR is a secondary ditch in front of the mainNorman defense and the reason I have listed this entry from the blog in the discoveries secion. In the past evidence has been provided by the Highways Agency paid archaeologists that has proven to be incorrect. At Public Inquiry it was claimed the earthen bank at the top of the hill at Wilting, now known to be the fort of William whilst he camped at Wilting, was natural and not man made. This false evidence is repeated time and time again by those who oppose the detailed historical evidence that points to this site as the Invasion camp. In order to be clear: the evidence provided by Wessex Archaeology was an assumption put forward by Dr Gardner who sought to dissprove the Norman habitation evidence, by claiming it was a natural lynchet, which form on hillsides or slopes. However once Wessex had done the archaeology it was shown conclusively that it could not be a lynchet because the slop of the underlying hillside was less than 5% – the minimum slope required for one to form. Lynchets do not form on four sides of the same field. The inspector was therefore missled and therefore he dissmissed the evidence of the Norman earthen defense, because he was given false expert evidence at the Inquiry. Similarily post hole evidence containing 11th century pottery was ignored because the expert witness claimed at Inquiry that a very large post hole with 11th century pottery in it did not mean it was an 11th century post hole. If this principal were accepted by archaeologists as true no post holes could ever be used to date sites.
We are now going to look for the other ditches that may be there which we can see on the Lidar.