Ground Radar in Crowhurst supports 1066 battlefield.

hqdefault

A ground radar survey was conducted over the holiday period by members of the Crowhurst Battle team. Evidence in that survey appears to confirm the presence of a large number of unspecified remains, most probably bodies, below ground at a depth of between 1 and 2 meters in two sites in an open field on the proposed battlefield and between 2 and 3 meters down in thirteen mounds in woodland next to the so called “Malfosse”.  They show what look like phosphate spikes and we expect an excavation to show traces of what the bodies would have been wearing. These now need to be looked at by the authorities prior to completion of the Crowhurst Neighbourhood Plan which is currently under consultation with the public. In order to do this the raw evidence needs evaluation by experts in the field of geophysics and it is anticipated that this will take three months before a result is forthcoming. We will then move to the next stage of statutory protection in order to protect the village from unbridled access by builders.

Evidence to support the archaeology comes from the Chronicle of Battle Abbey, Wace, the Carmen of Hastings and Poitiers as well as the Bayeux Tapestry,  resistivity surveys and now ground radar making a compelling case for expert evaluation.

 

Contact Nick Austin 0742 7018081 nick@landscapetv.com

Categories: Announcements | 18 Comments

Post navigation

18 thoughts on “Ground Radar in Crowhurst supports 1066 battlefield.

  1. Dik Cook

    That sounds like great news, Nick. Well done to you & the Battle Field team. Once the expert analysis has been done & it comes back as positive, that must open the door to a re-evaluation of the site of the battle.

  2. Jackie Cleary

    This is so exciting! We have been following your quest since we stayed in Hastings several years ago, in February or March. One day we tried to walk from Bexhill to Battle and found that Coombehaven was under water. This was before the road was begun. Everything Nick wrote made so much sense. May we all live long enough to see him proved right!

  3. Paul James

    Great and exciting to see more work done on the Chrowhurst site. Nick Austin and his team deserve real respect for their tenacity.

  4. Joe Robinson

    Hi Nick, I am a retired journalist; we met 18 months ago, I came to yours to talk battle sites. I tried the number I contacted you on before, but not getting through. I’m on 07768 753 753, can we have a chat? JR

    Sent from my iPhone

    >

  5. andrew minns

    hi nick,found this all very fascinating after stumbling across the youtube videos last year.i remember wandering around the eng heritage site,15 odd years ago, trying to picture events,what a swizz. Maybe im being a bit naive. But cant understand why,7 months on, theres no follow up to the jan 2018 discoveries,of various suspected burial pits.All the talk and speculation.Seems to me all thats required is a cpl shovels from the local hardware store, an a few hrs digging,will tell all or not. yours,Andrew

    • Paul B-R

      Hi Andrew
      I was thinking the same thought. Things seem to stop in 2018.
      Have you had any response?
      -P-

  6. Scott

    What news?

  7. Julian Evans

    any updates

  8. Tony Laynes

    This new battelfield sight has some very compelling and time consuming research behind it.

    Who or what can be stalling such an important potential rediscovery of our heritage history??. SHAME.

  9. How come this site http://www.secretsofthenormaninvasion.com is full of links that no longer work?

    • which ones. You can report them here. They should work. If something is moved it might need changing but unless we know we cant.

  10. Reblogged this on pmayhew53.

  11. Still no updates (not even a “project abandoned because of…” comment..) since 2018?

    A lot of the literary evidence presented held together. The lack of physical evidence at other sites (especially the “traditional site”) helped suggest the Crowhurst theory was a potential runner. Somewhat disappointing then, that this investigation seems to have withered on the vine.

    There HAD been elements of speculation that the “Battle of Crowhurst” project had less to do with a serious search for historical truth so much as part of a campaign to delay/alter the Bexhill-Hastings Link Road and influencing the Crowhurst Neighbourhood Plan.

    The indication, now that these are a fait accomplis, that further investigation has halted without explanation could be construed as supporting that conclusion…

    I DO hope that is not the case…..

  12. Nothing to report yet. It has taken 865years so far what makes you think it will reveal itself so soon?
    The argument is not won on facebook but in the universities and hallowed halls of government and that takes time. You are right the argument is solid and those who oppose will lose because they have no evidence. They made the assumptions you have made and you are wrong to make them have I ever said I was opposed to the road? I was opposed to the route and proposed an alternative which was rejected by those who look at these things because the evidence was not conclusive. My route was cheapest and most environmental friendly. We are now looking for conclusive evidence.

    • I.D.Denyer

      Blimey.. THAT seems to have rattled the cage..

      Firstly, I have made no assumptions… I simply mentioned speculation – and a hope that said speculation was untrue….

      Many folks, given the momentum pre. the Link Road & Neighbourhood Plan, had had their interest piqued and, rightly or wrongly, had hoped (I say hoped, rather than expected) for some progress over the last few years That interest still remains in many quarters.

      Literary interpretations will, as you indicate, without new physical evidence, simply run and run – and only really change with the fashion of the day. Hence hope being pinned on the (clearly elusive) physical evidence.

      That this investigation has been very much a “private project” is appreciated.
      It is acknowledged that it may very well be the case that a lot of investigation work has been been going on over the last couple of years but nothing conclusive has been found (we just don’t know).
      It may even be that potentially supportive evidence HAS been recently found and we are waiting on publication (even those of us on the sidelines of archaeology know how long THAT can take).
      It may be that land ownership issues or Covid has halted/affected operations.
      It may be that a crowd-funding initiative is bubbling away to support further investigation…

      However, without updates here (even the odd “still not news”, or even a “project abandoned/stalled because” comment) this leaves a gap – and, alas, a lot of sticks with the wrong ends in the air for some folk to grab…..

    • Ernest Cady

      Glad to see Nick you still have great interest in finding out what and where 1066 happened. About 2000 Norman bodies were buried with dignity – where are they? About 4000 Saxon dead were left to rot – in 1086 the manors remained wasted and who would farm such bloodied pastures anyway – good farmland would return to woodland within a local memory timescale. Hence, although the argument for William landing in Combe haven is strong, the battlefield may now be woodland?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: