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
The Secrets Of The Norman Invasion Blog 