Posts Tagged With: battle abbey

Proof of the Normans evidence (video)

This is the evidence that the Normans landed in Crowhurst and fought in the Crowhurst valley This is the video of the talk at the White Rock Hotel last weekend on the anniversary of the Battle of Hastings. It tells those who have little understanding of the issues in plain language what evidence there is that the Battle of Hastings was fought in the Crowhurst Valley and the Norman Invasion was in the same valley. I say in that presentation that it takes ten seconds to get to the truth and when you get it you will never see this issue in the same light. If you haven’t seen it please watch and pass on to those people who think the Norman Invasion was at Pevensey – take their money off them first with a bet – bet them you can prove the Normans didn’t land at Pevensey and take their money at the end:) – and share share share

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

Eminent historian agrees Battle of Hastings NOT fought at Battle Abbey

Eminent military historian John Grehan agrees that the evidence shows, upon careful examination, that the Battle of Hastings could not have been fought on the traditional site at Battle Abbey. He agrees that a proper investigation of the new battlefield must be undertaken before building work commences on the A259 Link Road. John will publish a book on the subject in January.

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

Email from Independant Historical Research Group

Response to a question I posed asking if the planned metal detect at Battle Abbey had taken place:

No Nick – last we heard was that a Professor was looking into it all.  On speaking with him by e-mail the  Prof neither confirmed or denied this but I did learn that examination of a battle site is sometimes to take  a metre square soil samples and examine in great detail rather than use detectors.  I guess if something is found we will all hear about it and if its negative we will hear nothing.
On a different note – we were asked to search land at Battle Abbey Farm, approximately one half mile from Battle Abbey as the crow flies.  Certainly no sign of Saxon or Norman at this present moment in time.
Categories: Announcements | Tags: | Leave a comment

Norman Defense at Norman Invasion site (earthworks and ditches) 5th September 2012

This is the revised map of Upper Wilting Farm – Chapel Field – through which the A259 link road is planned (red lines mark the land envelope through which it will be dug). We will be showing this on the video soon when we have the right material. It forms definitive proof that the Normans were camped here because no-one had any need to do this work except the Normans. Its not Iron Age and its not medieval and its not farming – it is a serious earthworks defense with ditches and post holes to hold the fences to fall back upon if required. They had two weeks to prepare it. It is currently hidden and only revealed by dowsing. Earth levels shown in the Wessex Archaeology dig of 1979 confirm that earth has been removed from one side of the field and put on top of earlier inhabitation (probably Iron Age) thus confirming the description in the Carmen of Hastings which states the place where the Normans landed had “dissmantled forts” – in this case one at the top of the field and one at the bottom as shown in the Bayeux Tapestry.

Nothing like a real test to sort things out. If the road builders are so confident then they must make sure this claim is investigated by the Oxford archaeologists. After all if I am wrong then its full speed ahead, but theres the double edge to the challenge, because if I am right then these trenches form proof of the Normans. Maybe I am sticking my neck out on this but why not? Dowsing isn’t an infallible art but it works for me most of the time and if I’m right people will know the truth what ever excuse they come up with this time. These ditches can be seen on the LIDAR scans and the eareth is physically piled up on the defense at the East end and the ditches can be seen at the West end of the fort.

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

2nd Norman Invasion Landing Site video and Lidar scan 26th August 2012

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.

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

1st Norman Invasion Landing Site video 24th August 20112

More video footage to help you understand the landing site at Wilting. No digging this weekend as its family time bank holiday – thanks to Phillip.
http://youtu.be/kWsllrSS5-U

Did William, 7th Duke of Normandy. really land his invasion fleet at Pevensey? Not according to some surprising evidence. William had very good intelligence on the best landing sites to use and planned the landings down to the last detail with William Fitzosbern and Roger of Montgomery, the chief architects of the invasion. FitzOsbern’s younger brother, Osbern, was one of Edward the Confessor’s chaplains and possessed the church of Bosham in Sussex. As such he was well placed to pass along intelligence on the situation in England prior to the invasion.

This film covers a preliminary recon of William’s Combe Haven landing site at the Bulverhythe by Hastings Old Port, as well as the lower and upper fort areas he constructed, depicted in the Bayeux Tapestry and original literary sources.

There’s evidence some, if not all of the 700 plus boats of the Norman fleet were specially designed and built so they could be dismantled in England and the wood used to construct forts. The literature implies that some boats were burnt as a statement of intent of ‘no going back’. Others were dismantled for further use. Still others earthed up on the shore. The question is, are those still earthed up below the old shoreline and what might be left?

For more information, see Secrets of the Norman Invasion on Facebook. (Film best viewed in 720p, full screen).

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

Bone found in Malfosse north (horse?)

A bone found in the north malfosse stream responds to horse in dowsing but we have been unable to get confiration. Several vets have looked at it and shrugged. One suggested it might be a sheep but it doesnt appear to be a badger as first though and may be relevant – so we are not throwing it away because it was found just downstream of the Malfosse incident site. If ever we get the facilities we will get it confirmed by an expert. Dowsing responded to Norman Horse:)

image1

image2

image3

image4

image5

image6

image7

image8

image9

Which goes to show even identifying a bone is difficult. It looks like the canon bone of a horse to me – a small horse.

Categories: Announcements, Discoveries | Tags: , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Horse head stick (iron) 20th August 20112

This is what was at the center of the footwell ball of clay (mr footwell). At first it just looked like a bit of iron slag. But after going in the tank it now looks like a horse head on a stick of some kind, again someone has to look at this. The slit in the top where the ear would be initially looks like a split in the iron but careful examination shows the metalwork on the flake away from the main body of the head is a different metal on the inside of the split. Its is definitely a personal weapon of some sort according to the sticks.

image 1

image 2

image 3

image under

Image of ear split featuring different metal

Item needs xray to determine how fixed – probably to metal handle at bottom back

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

Thoughts on 18th August 2012

The most interesting thing about today was that we are starting to understand how everything fitted together. Its nothing like people have imagined at Battle Abbey. It fits exactly all the accounts and to me shows that those who wrote up the events didnt invent anything. They just wrote it down as they had it reported to them – no contradictions and a whole new understanding of how and why the battle was won and lost. Great to have Phillip and his “boys toys” to assist with the aerial shots. I am now a model plane enthusiast. We will be doing more aerials of the top of the battlefield and of course the landing site soon. Then you will hopefully see how the whole battlefield is all part of one unique piece of England and English Heritage, indeed a World Heritage site.

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

August 18th finds

Nick and I were down the site today – phew, hot. As luck would have it, some contractors were digging up the road by the Saxon right flank in Station Rd and piling the dirt up, so we had a bit of a shufty through it with the detector and pointers. Nick’s taken home a huge chunk of Sussex with something in it….

We spent most of the day surveying the whole of the first defence line with the rods and what we found surprised us. Last week while walking the headland, we came upon a 30-yard-wide debris field on the Saxon left. We can now confirm that this is matched in the Saxon centre and right – the area is literally littered with iron and it’s 8+ inches down.

So the options are:
1) either someone’s gone to a lot of trouble to drop ball-bearings everywhere.
2) There’s small bits of iron slag or farm debris EVERYWHERE
3) the option that all of us want.

Nick and I agree that a formal survey of this whole area is really now overdue. The sources remark that the battle started with an intense exchange of missiles, which would have included arrows, javelins, pig-sticks, crossbow bolts and other miscellaneous iron/iron-carbonised projectiles.

The usual iron bits but this time heavily accreted ( a word not in spellcheck:) suggesting they are much older than much of the stuff we have been recently finding.

Not your usual travelling companion – back to the shed for inspection.

Its from the clay line where it meets the upper soil – which is solid with stones in a concrete like mass from under the road opposite the church   Would never normally be able to get there. Consequently Mr Footwell is spending the night in a bucket of water hopefully to soften him up to see if its got anything man made in it or if it is naturally occurring iron.

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

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: