Austin backs up his claim that the Battle of Hastings was fought in Crowhurst

Where was the battle of Hastings really fought? Local historian Nick Austin reckons he has established with a reasonable degree of certainty that the battlefield was in Crowhurst, as he seeks to demonstrate in 1066 the Battlefield, a sequel to  his 2011 book Secrets of the Norman Invasion. Austin talked to Nick Terdre at the location where he believes the battle was fought.

News that the Bayeux Tapestry, which provides an illustrated account of the historic events of 1066, is to be displayed in the British Museum from September next year – despite claims that it is too fragile to be moved – has focused attention on this pivotal moment in English history, as has also a current BBC television series, King & Conqueror, on the two key antagonists, Harold Godwinson, crowned King Harold II a few months before the battle, and William, Duke of Normandy, who claimed Harold had promised him the crown.

In Secrets of the Norman Invasion local historian Nick Austin explained why he believed the battle was fought near Wilting in Crowhurst rather than Battle as claimed in the traditional account. “At the end of the first book I decided I had enough evidence to show that it didn’t take place at the traditional site, but there was a lot of evidence in all the documents to show that Crowhurst and Wilting were the two major sites for the battle and the Norman camp.

“So I ended up doing research on this site and there is physical evidence here,” he told HOT. “It is not definitive – it proves that a battle took place here and can be interpreted to mean this is the site of the Battle of Hastings.”

Questioning the traditional account

We know the generally accepted version: William and his fleet landed at Pevensey, marched to Hastings and then met Harold’s forces for the decisive showdown on the slope above which Battle Abbey was later built. The abbey was built there because William was said to have vowed to build one on the site of the battle if God gave him victory, or made the promise after winning the battle.

That the battle took place is not disputed, but much of the rest of the traditional account is, not only by Austin but an increasing number of other historians and commentators. English Heritage’s own account acknowledges that “…no archaeological artefacts associated with the battle have been found at the abbey…In part the absence of evidence is because there has been relatively little archaeological investigation at the abbey.”

Austin, on the other hand, has spent years – 37 – engaged in archeological research at his own expense, as well as puzzling away at documents trying to make the disparate claims and evidence fit together. Some of the documents are translations from Latin, for example, providing scope for erroneous renderings which have misled scholars and researchers.

Among the claims he questions is that when William’s army landed on 29 September 1066, it was at Pevensey, as recorded in the Bayeux Tapestry. It is said they built a fort there. There is a Roman castle which had been standing there for several hundred years before the Normans arrived. Nowadays it is located about a kilometre from the coast, but 1,000 years ago the sea came far inland, and Pevensey Bay was a marshy area.

It is hard to believe, in Austin’s view, that the Normans, with large numbers of knights on horses, would have landed at Pevensey and then marched 10 or 12 miles east over sections of boggy ground to reach Hastings.

He believes the Pevensey story arose when historians incorrectly concluded that this must be the place indicated by the name Pebesellum, as found in several documents, which in his view is an earlier form of Pebsham.

Port of Hastings

His own account is that they landed in Bulverhythe, sailing up an inlet of the sea that no longer exists to what was then known as the Port of Hastings. Six major manuscripts written within 180 years of the battle name the landing site as the Port of Hastings. Evidence of bloomeries – iron smelters – functioning in Roman times has been found in the area, and it seems reasonable to suppose that the iron produced would have been exported through this port.

When in the 1990s archeological investigations were carried out in the area of the old Hastings cricket ground, following the council’s decision to build a shopping centre on the town centre site, no archeology was found nor any evidence of buildings prior to 1095. It seems that Hastings gained its current location only after the Norman Conquest.

So, according to Austin’s account, after landing at the Port of Hastings the Normans set up camp at what is now Upper Wilting Farm, while William took over the Crowhurst Manor House, which actually belonged to Harold, and in which his common law wife Edith Swanneck had also lived. Meanwhile Harold and his men, who had just defeated the Viking forces of Harald Hardrada at Stamford Brook in Yorkshire, had to rush south, camping on arrival on Telham Hill.

The battle, which was fought on 14 October 1066, then took place in the area between Telham Hill and the present Crowhurst church.

The Normans were camped at Wilting Farm for nearly three weeks, from 29 September until 18 October.

But if William ordered an abbey to be built on the site of the battle, how does it come to be in Battle? According to Austin, the monks entrusted with building the abbey started it in Crowhurst, then abandoned the partially built building and relocated it to Battle, possibly at the bidding of newly arrived monks from France who found the site underwhelming.

Foundations of an ecclesiastical building

Magnetometry and resistivity surveys of the Manor House in Crowhurst have shown what appear to be buttress-like foundations typical of an ecclesiastical building – the first works for the abbey which were subsequently abandoned, according to Austin, as previously reported in HOT.

While no archeological evidence for the battle has been found at the Battle site, Austin has found the remains of artefacts at the Crowhurst site, as well as indications of defensive ditches built by the English at three locations, and what he believes to be the marker stone for the spot where Harold’s body was buried in the upper part of the battle site.

Marker stone

Nothing was visible to the naked eye when Austin, with the aid of several friends and helpers, turned this stone over. But by manipulating the digital images taken with his camera he says he was able to identify an inscription on the underside: Hic rex Harald – here [lies] King Harold.

He was also able to make out the image of a fighting man wearing a crown. Harold is depicted as a fighting man on the banner which the Pope gave to William when he was recruiting his forces for the invasion, and for Austin the crown backs up the case for this being Harold’s gravestone.

Several documents refer to the ‘Malfosse’, a deep overgrown ditch on the eastern side of the battlefield into which a number of Norman knights are reported to have been lured to a grisly end.

Artefacts

In the Malfosse and neighbouring areas Austin has found various artefacts, including what he reckons to be helmet rims, parts of a crossbow, a shield boss, stirrups and spurs, three axe-heads and what appears to be the head of a war hammer, plus some personal items including a bronze pendant and engraved locket.

At the southern end of the battlefield, either side of the railway line, there are some 30 mounds which he reckons to be mass graves containing the bodies of slain Normans. Where the bodies of the slain Saxons were buried – probably some 5,000 died in the battle – has yet to be discovered, he says.

Looking for longboats

What then became of the Norman ships? Having won the battle, the Normans were here to stay, so the boats were perhaps buried or otherwise disposed of. There are indications of buried structures in the shape of longboats which show up in a Lidar survey carried out at Pebsham, though Austin’s attempts to recover a piece of timber for dating proved unsuccessful. (The use of the laser-based remote sensing system known as Lidar – light detection and ranging – has proved a most useful tool in Austin’s researches.)

There is also the oral account of what appeared to be the prow of a longboat being brought to the surface of a water-filled ditch by a construction crew building an airstrip in 1935 in the area of the current Bulverhythe recreation ground. Austin spoke to the son of one of the crew, who confirmed that, rather than allow the construction work to be interrupted, the find was pushed back beneath the waters, and is perhaps still waiting to be found.

To find the truth, you have to have an open mind. Austin accepts that he may be proved wrong, but in his experience the historical and archeological establishments have not only shown little appetite for backing up the traditional account but also have resisted alternative hypotheses without properly examining their merits.

Claims disparaged

He would like to hand over his findings to reputable authorities to investigate, but in the past has not been treated well by the ‘keepers of the faith’, who have ignored him, or rubbished or distorted his claims.

Worse, they have actively acted to disadvantage his claims, notably at the public enquiries held in connection with the proposed Bexhill to Hastings Link Road, which crosses the southern part of the supposed battlefield, when he says misleading evidence was presented to the planning inspector and vital information withheld.

He says he was also badly treated by the Channel 4’s Time Team when they did an investigation in 2013 into the site of the battle. Their interview with him ignored his main claims and appeared intended to discredit his findings. They did, however, rule out the Battle Abbey site on the grounds that it was too boggy to go charging around on horses and suggested, rather improbably, the nearby roundabout at which The Ridge reaches Battle as the battle site.

But Austin believes the guardians of the traditional account may simply be sidelined. “History changes slowly,” he said. “the youngsters in the historical world have got hold of this information now because they can look it up online. I don’t have to do anything, simply making it available is changing the world’s thinking on the Battle of Hastings.” He plans to make a revised application to Heritage England to delist the Battle Abbey site based on his new evidence.

New motivation

In the new book he reveals a new motivation for his search. While ploughing a field in Crowhurst he had a Damascus-like encounter with what he calls the Divine Spirit, which suggested tasks he should do. He decided to follow its instructions. It later revealed to him in a dream the site of the battle of Hastings, and set him off on his mission to prove to the world that the accepted account was wrong. Nostradamus has also been a guiding influence.

A third book is in the works, which, Austin says, will feature proof of reincarnation and effectively tell the story of how he got to where he is. No doubt some readers will find these revelations surprising, even offputting, but Austin’s claims about the battle of Hastings should stand or fall by the strength of the arguments and the evidence he presents – the archaeology, the interpretation of texts, the reasoning.

 

Also in: History

A different commemoration of an individual in the Second World War »