Hastings in Wrong place and English Heritage have bottled it!

[BAJR]

AN AUTHOR who believes the Battle of Hastings was fought in Crowhurst, has failed in his bid to have the site recognised as the official 1066 battlefield.

Nick Austin believes the bloody clash took place in the village, rather than the registered site at Battle.
Mr Austin applied to English Heritage, which is responsible for the battlefield, to examine his evidence, which he believes proves King Harold met his fate in Crowhurst.
But English Heritage has rejected Mr Austin’s bid for a re-assesment of the site.
“This is despite national television coverage by authorised archaeologists, which showed the nation in no uncertain terms there is no archaeology supporting the battle anywhere within the registered battlefield area.
“I was not consulted by any historians, or archaeologists on any evidence referred to in this document, where I can see some serious flaws in what it is claimed that I claim.

ummmmm yes
http://www.ryeandbattleobserver.co.uk/ne...-1-6049908

[kevin wooldridge]

On a slightly different tack but sorta related.....last week there was a news story that archaeologists had 'discovered' Britain's oldest town was now Amesbury and not Thatcham..... I was expecting an immediate response to this story based upon English Heritage's concept of what both 'oldest' and 'town' means, but so far have heard nothing (at least through official channels)...meanwhile Historic Scotland, who once touted Dreghorn as Britain's 'oldest continuously occupied community', also kept their powder dry......

Point is that many of the 'precisions' of archaeology are oft overlooked by historians seeking to advance a theory and archaeologists often reach for a superlative when quiet confidence would suffice. Both groups should be constantly reminded of two things, especially applicable to the case of the Missing Battlefield of Hastings.... absence of evidence does not in any instance constitute evidence of absence....and one date does not always make a happy marriage!!

[barkingdigger]

Last time I looked, Hastings was in exactly the right place - in Hastings! The battle, however, supposedly took place some miles north, on the road to London... :o)


As for the evidence, all we have is a whacking big monastery, approved by Old Bill the B*stard himself to appease the Pope. And if anyone could remember the correct location a few years on, it'd have been him! (Battles in that age leave very scant evidence, especially if the goodies & bodies get picked up afterwards...) And is the article suggesting the Normans arrived on scene in October 1066 with blocks of Caen stone in hand, to start building as soon as the blood dried up? Why else would it matter if any was found at Crowhurst - within a decade of the Conquest there were probably fresh construction programmes all over the place as the new owners "upgraded" their holdings.

Part of the problem is deciding exactly where the Normans landed along that coast, since the routes inland depend on the starting point, and folks have suggested most of the beach from Hastings in the east to Eastbourne in the west of Pevensey Bay. And Crowhurst isn't really on a main thoroughfare, so is less likely to be on the army's route than Battle. Still, let's have some evidence! Til then, any spot south of London is as likely...