Posts Tagged With: battle abbey

Battle Abbey foundation document confirms battlefield at Crowhurst

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..

Nick Austin

14th July 2016

Advertisements
Categories: Announcements, battle abbey, port of Hastings | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Mole report: Archaeologists to return to Battle Abbey

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.

Categories: Announcements | Tags: , | 1 Comment

Time Team repeat: Military Expert not correctly briefed

The Time Team programme which sought to identify the Battle of Hastings was repeated on More Four this evening and it is clear from the presentation that Richard Kemp the military expert rolled out by the Time Team to support their crass supposition that the battlefield was at Battle Abbey near the roundabout had not been informed of the evidence confirming the correct battlefield at Crowhurst or its topographical connection (including LIDAR evidence) to the port and special circumstances that forced the battle to last all day. Not only was due diligence not undertaken but Richard Kemp, who is an outstanding military commander, was effectively missinformed before producing his statements on UK national television. English Heritage has I am told instructed Time Team not to allow my evidence to be presented to third parties. Col. Kemp had not evaluated the military significance of the Crowhurst site compared to the one claimed by both British Heritage and the Time Team on a like for like basis and clearly there was an intention to avoid this.

I have tried to contact Mr Kemp and would like him to evaluate Crowhurst in the context of the known reports for the battle using his military expertise. John Grehan who wrote his book is also a military historian and its quite clear to me that military historians and experts hold the clues to identifying the correct site. If anyone has an address I would be pleased to send him my book so he can understand what is at stake and the importance of establishing the most important battlefield in English history which everyone now knows is not at Battle Abbey or Caldbeck Hill.

Categories: Announcements | Tags: , , , , , , | 2 Comments

English Heritage on the hook

Here is the correspondence with English Heritage. I request information is made available to those who are adjudicating the application that Battle Abbey field in front of the Abbey where Dr Foard conducted his Time Team evaluation, which is currently listed as a protected battlefield, is delisted if the battle took place somewhere else. This blog is well read I am sure these comments will not go unnoticed, as this is starting to look remarkably as if someone at English Heritage has used their position of influence to tilt the story in their favour, otherwise there would be no reason to lie, and lie it certainly appears to be. I know this because I asked Time Team’s Alex Lawson why I was lied to by Time Team and he confirms the lie in writing only for English Heritage to now deny their involvement. I have waited till after Christmas to deal with this and have been waiting for English Heritage to respond.

Alex had no reason to lie to me because it was a condition of the filming – as simple as that. The response that the decision was made by the producers of the show does not mean English Heritage have no responsibility if it was a condition they imposed upon those producers – which clearly it was. I work in television and I and anyone else can see exactly who did what so please pass this information on to the relevant authority English Heritage administration, to those responsible for getting a proper evaluation of the Abbey and Crowhurst sites, since partiality cannot be hidden so easily. This response appears to confirm the partiality of an organisation prepared to stop at nothing to avoid looking at the archaeology in the Crowhurst Valley. The monks lied about the site and now we have our own Heritage organisation, charged with evaluating that lie, imposing a restriction that meant the shows producers had to lie to me – and now they deny it because I have found out about it. Whatever the result of the so called battlefield evaluation this story is continuing to run as independent archaeologists will now start the work in the Crowhurst Valley soon – stay tuned – details will be published shortly.

I am sorry that this issue has had to become public. The reason is English Heritage’s official denial of the facts as detailed in this correspondence. They knew they did it and have tried to palm off the truth on the shows producers – bad decision – Time Team dont lie unless they are forced to.
My original email to Alex Rowson:
Sent: 24 November 2013 21:36

To: Alex Rowson
Subject: Battle of Hastings lies and truth

I read this with interest Alex:

Tony Robinson gives the history books one in the eye by discovering where the Battle of Hastings was really fought. The battle is the most famous in English history but not a single bit of archaeological evidence for it has ever been found. Have historians put the battlefield in the wrong place?

Time Team set themselves the task of uncovering the true location of England’s most famous defeat.

For decades there has been dispute over the site, even though Battle Abbey is supposed to stand exactly where Harold fell. In 2012 a bestseller claimed that Caldbec Hill, a mile away, was the real site. But most historians still believe the main focus of the fighting was in the fields below the Abbey.

Time Team excavate both sites to seek evidence of either one being a battlefield.

Digging alone is inconclusive. But a cutting edge aerial technology called LIDAR to map the terrain proves that the traditional battlefield would have been too boggy for William’s Norman cavalry.

So military analysts study the data to see where Harold, a skilled commander, would most likely have mounted his defence against William’s invading army.

They identify the only ideal battlefield. It seems Harold’s fearsome Saxon shield wall straddled a narrow strategic pass that is on today’s A2100.

It leads to a surprising conclusion about where the heart of the battle was fought, and why William won and Harold lost.

==

Well done, you must have seriously hit problems to have come up with the solution you think you have found. Strange I was told by you that no archaeology was going to be done.. Why did you do that if it wasn’t true? The above is part of the official press release. I gave you access to everything and you have now delivered the story that the Battle of Hastings is not at Battle Abbey – well done again but it wont help those who put you up to this. I understand that and so will the world, which of course delivers the story into my hands for the next programme currently being planned.

But I have to ask why lie to me I don’t understand that and would like to know because you misled me and I appeared on your programme because of that and don’t understand what was to be gained from not telling me the truth. Are you going to provide an explanation please? I would like to know. As you know I am very media savvy and don’t like to be lied to in order to get my co-operation but have quite broad shoulders.

I have tapes of our conversations so I need a response otherwise this issue will become public.

regards

Nick

The following Day Alex replies:
On 25 November 2013 10:52, Alex Rowson  wrote:

Hi Nick,

Good to hear from you! Apologies for my tardy reply, I have now left Time Team and only check my emails every other week.

Yes the 1066 programme has been confirmed for this Sunday, a TX card will be sent out from the office to all contributors with further details. I have yet to see the fully finished film so i’m as keen as anyone to see the end result!

Please accept my apologies for not telling you about the dig. It was decided before any work took place that we should keep it secret. EH and Time Team felt that this was a sensible approach and would negate press or visitor interruptions. Most people in Battle and indeed visitors to the site didn’t realise that the work was going on! This is also Time Team’s normal policy with many of its digs, as we have to respect the wishes of the landowners and the academics who carry out the work. However I will say that the work we completed was only a pilot sample of the area, and I really hope that EH will expand the work in the future and make it more accessible to the public.

During the programme it was our aim to look at all the theories surrounding the location of the battlefield of Hastings, giving each a fair and equal platform to present the archaeological evidence, which I believe we have achieved. We have also tried to add something new to the debate with a limited sample of fieldwork and a recent aerial LiDAR survey at Battle.

Time Team have evaluated the evidence and presented their own independent conclusions. It is not mean’t to be definitive and we are keen to encourage future archaeological work in order to help find more evidence for the events of Oct 1066.

We really are incredibly grateful for all your help, and hope that our involvement will go some way to raising the public’s awareness as to the battlefield debate. I remain fascinated by your theories and I wish you all the best with your future investigations.

Many thanks,

Alex.

——————————————————————————–

Nick Astin further email Sent: 25 November 2013 11:04
To: Alex Rowson
Subject: Re: Battle of Hastings lies and truth

OK Alex thanks but it does really look this end like we have been done over in the Crowhurst valley for the time being and a magnificent opportunity missed. Having done the archaeology on the battlefield its now clear that my thesis that the battlefield was not at Battle is correct and the Chronicle of Battle Abbey is an authentic document. It also tells us where the Normans camped at the port and thats now looking very close to confirmation again thanks to LIDAR.

I still dont understand why having got agreement amongst the experts that it could not have been fought at Battle the site at Crowhurst was rejected in the face of there being claimed archaeology that was not looked at whereas there is none in Battle or John Grehan site – that doesnt really stack up as normal practice to look somewhere else does it:)

Nick

Alex final word This is all before the programme ran
On 25 November 2013 11:24, Alex Rowson wrote:

Hi Nick,

It is a fascinating subject and I think the clear message that comes out of the programme is just how difficult it is to find preserved battlefield archaeology from this time.

We felt that LiDAR analysis might be able to add something new to the debate and this was undertaken by an independent landscape archaeologist. However as you point out, without archaeological evidence to back it up it is still just speculative. The plot thickens as they say.

All the best,

Alex.

——————————————————————————–

My letter to English Heritage
Sent: 13 January 2014 18:27

To: Pearson, Lorraine
Subject: Re: English Heritage

The documents that you refer to are completely inadequate in terms of analysis of the battlefield because the ones quoted have made assumptions not supported by any documents written at the time of the Battle. If they were to rely upon the documents of the time they would identify the Malfosse on or next to the battlefield – indeed none do and all established historians accept the absence of this major feature without explanation or justification. The assumptions you refer to which are well out of date with current thinking are therefore supposition, based upon a false theory that cannot be proven unless archaeology confirms it. The archaeology now done by Dr Foard and his team shows the cavalry could not have used the current protected battlefield and it therefore no longer needs protection. There is no justification for protecting a field that could not have featured in the battlefield action and that has been accepted by the archaeologists as a major error for those who have in the past accepted that it could.

The recent archaeology undertaken by English Heritage proves conclusively these assumptions from past historians are false. You cannot quote documents from the recent past (last 200years) to support the battlefield at Battle without archaeology when archaeology has proven the battlefield to be elsewhere other than the place Dr Foard looked. History is confirmed by archaeology and until so it is just theory. Many theories exist and become dust when proven to be incorrect. You are quoting dust and old thinking. (intentionally with-held).

Until it was known that there is no archaeology to support the battlefield theory at Battle Abbey and the LIDAR confirmed the ground was too boggy for Norman cavalry everyone assumed the story passed down by the monks was correct. It is highly foolish to quote sources who have been shown to make false assumption in the past, because those who are shown to be incorrect are not likely to be right in other matters. None can explain why the Normans were able to see the Saxon camp on the night of the battle yet two sources at the time confirm this visual observation. Everything points to conclusions that are completely wrong in recent years. Repeating the claims does not mean they now remain to be correct. Your response is therefore completely inadequate.

The recent Time Team work undertaken at Battle Abbey has shown English Heritage have sought to influence the producers ability to work independently and even handily and shows bias. The claim of bias against English Heritage now stands confirmed. This is because I was seriously misled by the shows producers who tell me that English Heritage instructed them that the archaeological investigations at Battle Abbey must remain secret from me when I had been asked to appear on the programme to show my work and the evidence in the Crowhurst valley. I was told by the producers that there was to be a desk top study of the three sites and the Crowhurst Battlefield site was to be compared with the two other sites without any archaeology taking place at any of the sites.

The producers then recorded three days filming with me and I was expecting a further day which never materialised. I then found out at broadcast that an attempt was made to discredit me and my work on film by showing only one element of the Crowhurst battlefield. It was a disgracefully inept attempt to blacken me by associating my work with dowsing, when none of the material relevant to the Crowhurst battlefield relies upon dowsing. One element was taken out of context and the minute or so of exposure for the Crowhurst Battlefield showed the public that something was wrong. Taken in the broader sense the show made the claim there were three claims for the battlefield at the Battle of Hastings. Two had no archaeology to back them up and the one that claimed there was a lot of archaeology was not going to be looked at. Kick me if I’m being stupid but this is not what the Time Team have ever done on any other show so please explain 1) why I was not told the truth and 2) why no archaeology was allowed to take place where it was claimed to exist on the Crowhurst battlefield and lastly 3) why the show was not allowed to film the Malfosse in Crowhurst which is a unique feature of the site of the Battle of Hastings in most accounts at the time and only exists at the Crowhurst site.

I have an email from the Time Team director confirming that I was misled and now I believe this should be known to those who are responsible for adjudicating on the Battle of Hastings site. There is no reason for me to be misled or for any issues to be secret in this matter because it is national heritage that is at stake. The fact that someone at English Heritage conspired to mislead me in order to avoid investigation of the Crowhurst archaeology shows something seriously wrong in the English Heritage evaluation process. The end result of failing to investigate the Crowhurst battlefield was to send the message to the nation that the only site with claimed archaeology was not looked at – you now need to explain why? this is neither logical or in the interests of historical truth and those who were most damaged by this action are suffering from complete failure to prove the Battle Abbey site. Indeed I cannot see anyone next year attending the English Heritage site because now it is known to be false by almost everyone in the country.

I do not want this matter to rest here. I want some sort of explanation from English Heritage as to what happened and who was responsible for interfering in the production of this programme. The conclusion that the Battle of Hastings was probably held on the roundabout has no authentic historian showing himself on television to agree such a mad supposition. There is no-one I know prepared to go on television and support this nonsense and writing to me quoting the sources you have to promote the idea is plainly laughable.

Answers are required and I have copied my MP and Michael Bernard as this is serious. It is one thing to make a mistake, but its another completely to try to cover your actions by implementing television coverage based upon misrepresentation of the facts. Misrepresentation has happened and now I would like to know why. The producers blame you and this means that English Heritage have deliberately sought to mislead me and in so doing have misled the public on national television. It is not right for a public heritage organisation to be partial in this way and use its position to mislead the public through national television, using a third party producer whom they control through secret instructions, as result of having a long term working relationship with them.

regards

Nick Austin
Hastings

English Heritage’s reponse:
On 23 January 2014 09:42, Champion, Dawn wrote:

Dear Mr Austin,

Our Customer Services department has passed on your email of 13th January 2014 for my attention. I can confirm that there is no truth to your allegations of a secret deal with Time Team.

The editorial decisions were made independently by the programme makers.

The evaluation on English Heritage land was not kept secret: visitors to the site were told about it and English Heritage staff and Time Team archaeologists answered questions from the public on site. We did not and would not seek to influence any decisions regarding filming in any other locations.

Over a number of years your views regarding the issue of the location of the Battle of Hastings have been represented to us and noted.

As you are aware English Heritage is already considering a review of the battlefield site following your application.

We therefore have no further comment to make regarding this matter.

Yours sincerely,
Dawn Champion

Categories: Announcements | Tags: , , , , , , | 5 Comments

Caen stone identified at Crowhurst Manor confirms Norman construction on site of abbey foundations

The stone for the building at the manor house site in Crowhurst has been identified by the author Alan Gillet in his 1989 book Battle and Robertsbridge Old Photos.

A copy of the reference relevant page was kindly sent to me by Cordelia Silver. Cordelia says “Caen stone is a limestone, harder than our local sandstone, yet carveable. Battle Abbey has some Caen stone in the building, but according to British History on-line, most of the stone was quarried locally.”

Alan Gillet book Battle and Robertsbridge Old Photos

The significance is that Caen stone was usually used in great buildings built by the Normans, usually upon the instructions of the King, at the time of the Conquest. The primary use was Canterbury Cathedral, Norwich Cathedral and the Tower of London and a relatively small amount at Battle Abbey. The confirmation of Caen stone on this site in Crowhurst is good solid evidence of Norman involvement in the construction.

I am in the process of getting confirmation from a stonemason source and am waiting to hear from Canterbury Cathedral where they have a team working on Caen Stone. Hopefully they will be able to assist. Clearly this reference is not to what is below ground and relates to those stones that were probably robbed out at the time of the building of the current ruin (estimated to be 1220AD).

I am sending this evidence to English Heritage who must take this into account when they review the battlefield application. The presence of Caen stone indicates Norman construction or re-use of Norman stonework re-used in the Manor House construction and would confirm why the Norman arches are present in the wall previously misidentified as 13th century by W.S.Walford in 1884 and appears to confirm Norman construction, as only the Normans had access to this building material in this early period of History. It is possibly significant that the other site in the area which has Norman Caen stone elements is the Church in the Wood Hollington – the nearest church to the Manor House and Wilting Manor where the Normans landed.

Categories: Announcements, caen stone | Tags: , , , , | 10 Comments

Crowhurst Manor Geophysics published

Crowhurst Manor Geophysics

The geophysics for the Crowhurst Manor site report by Archaeology South-East is published here. Please note the conservative nature of this document prepared for English Heritage. Having been involved in a number of different resistivity surveys over the last 26 years it confirms the presence of the foundations (as a minimum element) but also probably some substantial footings (due to the depth of the mound and the limited depth of the recording equipment). The high resistivity peaks appear to confirm a building in an east/west and north/south orientation where we know buttresses are present from the previous survey work done on the site, with walls and robbed out areas at least a meter thick. The real surprise is the lack of any low resistivity areas normally associated with ditches and the extent of the site covering an acre and certainly as big as the original Battle Abbey, all completely hidden from view.

The significance of this survey, for those unfamiliar with the background to this story, is there is written evidence in a Chronicle written at the time of the Invasion by the monks at Battle Abbey (the first 22 folios of the Chronicle of Battle Abbey published around 1180), that confirms the abbey that William ordered to be built on the site of the battlefield, was started next to a low wall at the bottom of the ridge that surrounds Hastings at a place called Herste. The monks then moved the Abbey a few years later to where it is today. This information has been ignored by historians because the building could never be found. Finding the foundations of the original abbey site confirms the site of the Battle of Hastings in the Crowhurst Valley. There can be no other interpretation of this information.

Those who want to process the raw data from this survey (which has not had the time spent on it that it should, due to lack of funding to date) can contact me and I will also make it freely available here when I have the time. This week is extremely busy with ITV today and You and Yours Radio Four lunch time Friday after the Sunday Times last weekend.

Categories: Announcements | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Crowhurst Manor House report

This is a video of the Crowhurst Manor House site where we will shortly be doing a full resistivity survey.

The video can be found at this link http://youtu.be/C6D55o0df58

The manor house may in the course of time be the proof of the battlefield. If we are correct, as the detail in the documents confirm, then William’s camp at Wilting will ultimately be confirmed from the same documents and in particular the Bayeux Tapestry, which can be seen to be recording all the events according to the topography of the valley.

Thank you Phillip for the plane which gives a good perspective of the size of the battlefield plain where we believe the two sides assembled before the battle.

Categories: Announcements | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Battle Abbey not supported by Saxon Chronicles or William of Malmesbury

Those who support keeping the claim that Battle Abbey was built on the battlefield use this statement as support for their cause as taken from a review of John Grehan’s book at
http://www.historytoday.com/blog/2013/05/battle-hastings-uncomfortable-truth

What of the traditional site? The authors assert that the story of the abbey’s altar being erected on the spot where Harold raised his standard occurs only in the Chronicle of Battle Abbey, written a hundred years after the event. On the basis that the same chronicle contains other known distortions, they then rule its testimony out of court. But the Battle Chronicle is far from being the only source of the altar story. Half a century earlier the Anglo-Norman historian William of Malmesbury said exactly the same thing. Even more compelling is the testimony of the ‘E version’ of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, recording William the Conqueror’s death in 1087: ‘On the very spot [On ðam ilcan steode] where God granted him the conquest of England he caused a great abbey to be built.’ Thus an English source, demonstrably written before 1100, confirms what is alleged here to have been a Norman conspiracy.

This has been wheeled out on a number of television shows as something that seems to speak the truth of the matter.

The very first thing to understand is that the Chronicle of battle Abbey was not written half a century after William of Malmesbury. William of Malmesbury was written after 1100 and the Chronicle of Battle Abbey was published to the King in 1180ish, but relied upon the source document written in the first 22 folios in the hand of a monk giving a first hand account of the events of the battle – that is the authority upon which the Abbey relied – so academic nonsense talking about William of Malmesbury being 50 years before since it is the source that matters.

Ok so let’s think about what we say happened. We say the Chronicle of Battle Abbey was correct and the Abbey was started in Crowhurst where the foundations can be found and was moved by the French monk six years after they started (and left the foundations there to build the manor house on for the Count of Eu).

Now those who wrote the Anglo Saxon Chronicles also reported that William landed at Hastings (along with William of Malmesbury) and we know this is correct and the statement that he built his abbey on the battlefield was also correct, because the foundations are in the right place. The words which are being relied upon are:

‘On the very spot [On ðam ilcan steode] where God granted him the conquest of England he caused a great abbey to be built.’

These words dont actually say anything that was not known by those who were sold the lie by the monks. The wording is indeed tenuous, because it could be a statement relating to when William made the oath on the so called battlefield, or actually at his camp at the port as recorded by the Chronicle of Battle Abbey alone. Indeed the Chronicle of Battle Abbey is somewhat suspect in this matter – meaning the whole story may well have solely arisen from “tradition” which was correct in that it was a word of mouth statement of fact that William made the oath (but omitting the crucial element that it was then moved). It is ironic that John is accused of the same heinous academic crime of leaving out all sources, yet here the whole story can only stand at Battle Abbey traditional site by leaving out what the Chronicle states as truth.

Eleanor Searle the foremost authority confirmed the lies that arose at the time by the monks, but failed to identify the abbey building where Harold fell statement as a lie, also listed as a tradition, because like all those who have gone before it could not be proven that the abbey was in the wrong place. So she was correct at the time to ignore the issue, now it cannot be ignored.

Identifying the foundations of where the abbey was started in Crowhurst damns the traditional site for ever and those statements made by people who never visited the site, or simply passed on what they had been told by the monks many years, and more than a lifetime later in those days after the events, cannot be a relied upon in any way as an authoritative statement of fact.

William of Malmesbury’s account of the Battle of Hastings is devoid of any substance in regards to the account of the battle and written with nothing to give it authority as a first hand source. It’s content for that reason is assumed to be totally taken from other sources. The fact he repeats what the monks tell him is not surprising. The actual words that he uses are:

“William built another monastery near Hastings, dedicated to St Martin, which was also called Battle, because the principle church stands on the very spot, where, as they report, Harold was found in the thickest of heaps slain”

It is a report from the monks and not an observation from the author. It is time to recognise what is written and realise it is not even a statement of fact, but a third party observation – suggesting that it probably is not correct (otherwise he would not have qualified the statement). This qualification is not present elsewhere in his book the Chronicle of the Kings of England and should not be quoted as confirming that William of Malmesbury says the site at Battle was where Harold fell – he did not – he says others reported that and the others were the monks in the abbey.

The Chronicle of Battle Abbey was presented to the King as the authority of the Abbot and there were no direct lies – tradition was the only lie, because it could not be a tradition at that point in the document. It was a first hand observation of events and the king identified that then, as we should easily understand now.Those who rely upon either William of Malmesbury or the Saxon Chronicles have failed to understand the chronology of the events they seek to rely upon. They are quoting documents that have been edited to support a case which when examined in detail are seen to be lacking. They do not support the traditional site at Battle Abbey. Any serious historian who understands the context of these document and how they came into being should recognise this.

Categories: Announcements | Tags: , , , | 2 Comments

Bexhill talk sold out

Bexhill talk 7th December 2012
Talk at Bexhill last night went very well. Sold out I am told but of course it was free and I’m sure there was one empty seat:) At least we sold 30 books so that helped the campaign budget as the new book version came in about an hour before the talk

Categories: Announcements | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Norman style boat found in Combe Haven

I had been told by several people that a Viking type boat with a large wooden head was found on the Combe Haven marsh after the war. All Norman boats are in the Viking style. However when I tried to locate proof I could not find it. Now Melian has located it through some good detective work and we are going to appeal in the press for witnesses, as the person who found it Charles Somerville is now dead. This evidence confirms we are close to getting what we need. I went down on the marsh today to look for the site, but unless we can establish which ditch is involved access is extremely tough. Good work Melian. Details here. I have a plan of the aerport on the marsh near the caravan park and Filsham pumping station, but no indication where the boat was found. It is possible that the ditch was filled when the recreation end was turned into the caravan park. Does anyone know who runs the caravan park as I would like to dowse there. The claim that there are no Norman boats in the Combe Haven is incorrect. East Sussex County Council politicians should wise up to understand that they will be removed from power if they continue with this road and the evidence for the Norman Invasion is delivered after they have built the road and destroyed the integrity of the site. The electorate will not forgive them. This is firm evidence they are not right to rely upon outdated information.

Categories: Announcements | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 9 Comments

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: