The sites of William's castle @ Hastings1066 & of The final 'Battle of Hastings'

When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

The sites of William's castle @ Hastings1066 & of The final 'Battle of Hastings':
$806934.15

PublisherPeter T. Reynolds1 Lever StreetHazel groveStockport SK74ENUnited Kingdom(business details and contact info below, editor Kim Rathbone)Owners of copyright and to whom licensing enquiries should be addressed.(A six page dossier outlining the context of the below)I lay claim to the copyright of the below ideas by virtue of their first publication and a share in the finds at the site of Cross In hand Beacon as belonging to the Battle Of Hastings (particularly the 'Battle of Isenherst' or 'Herst' as it should be known (possibly could be called the battle of 'THE HESTINGAS' ('The Hestingas' being the same as 'Hestingas') at the exact site here pictured in the listing) now at Cross In hand at the hill of the now site of the English Woodland Tree Nursery) Previously the site of the beacon at 'cross in hand'.I believe the actual lane on which Harold stood was the lane to the beacon - which was called 'Bell Fire Drum Lane' - a corruption from the Arabicharan apuldran 'Hara Na Pul Dran'' English corruption - 'hara na pel drum' .Also the word for a 'tree' which could be used for all of these signalling functions.. Which more generally gave its name to 'beacon'. I think the letter A means 'Beacon' by virtue of the shape of the letter. So other towns and place names beginning with A are likely beacons. This is perhaps the origin of the letter A.Beacons were crucial for survival in prehistory. The use of the letter or symbol A primal. Perhaps used in cave painting,Maybe an apple tree good for all these functions?Rebecca Welsh pointing out that Puldre might also refer to pollarded.So the avenue to the beacon of pollarded trees used for fuel for the beacon, defence from arrows protecting flanks of the hill fort, a source of food when under siege and called a Fosse from the Latin - 'A bank of new growth' to supply fuel to the beacon or beacons = Hence the Fosse Way a chain of beacons.The suffix Na changing the meaning of Hara from 'Lane' to 'Hot' - So Hara Na actually 'fire lane' in the context of a lane to a beacon.As I also suggest 'Boum' is Norman for lighthouse or signal house - a tree of sound etc. The lighthouse at Hastings (Burj Hestinga), I contest shown on the Bayeux Tapestry next to and integral with, William's castle at Hastings.
By virtue of my discovering the said location of the final Battle Of Hastings (at Senlac) as the site of the Battle of Hastings at Senlac - now the ridge at Cross In Hand (previously believed to be at Battle)The site at Cross In Hand (Prior Heathfield - prior - 'HERST' at haran apuldran) (HERST refering to the quarry which existed at the foot of the hill - appearing on maps from 1920 - previously an iron ore mine and site of Harold's armory and being referred to as the site of the battle in records of Battle Abbey) _The remains of the original Battle Abbey on the Western flank of the ridge before being moved to its current site of 'Battle' as per the records of Battle Abbey......the hill being named Senlac because it is between 'sandy lakes' which still exist at its foot..And which can be identified as Malfosse - a location into which cavalry would fall because of the lay of the land and their charge - along the foot of the hill being precarious - balanced at its edge.Although the Battle Of Hastings has previously been claimed the to be at modern day Heathfield - I show (remebering that Heathfield did not exist in 1066)1.) Exactly the site of the battle, - on the ridge leading from the English Woodland tree nursery (on the A267at modern day Cross In Hand) corresponding to an ancient ridgeway and cross roads (east -west / north- south- in fact in 1066 having the name- 'Haran apuldran' (previouly described as 'The Hoary Apple Tree') which was also used as a key descriptor of the site in texts (It I suggest rather a corruption from the Romano -Arabic for 'Beacon Lane' 'Hara na Pul Dran' - following my identification of the word 'Hastings' as also corresponding to the Arabic 'Hay saat ea ynaghana' - meaning 'It Will Succeed Us' and 'Ashburnham' as the Arabic for 'Arise port' (and thus the tidal port accessible from the sea at Spring High Tide {in this case crucially in respect of the battle -on the 13th or 14th of the October 1066})) - The key feature and locator of the final battle site in 1066 therefore its beacon and the lane of pollarded trees which led up to it (as shown on the Bayeux Tapestry) Identifying it, together with it's quarry at its foot, as a Beacon-Hill-fort. The tree lined lane ('Hara' - possibly 'Hara-n') I contest called a 'FOSSE' , having the joint meaning of a ditch (as a component of defense), but also of, 'Novus Agger' - meaning 'Bank of New Growth' -pollarded trees (they're being pollarded -credit Rebecca Welsh), I contest to supply the beacon with wood. (as also applied to the 'FOSSE WAY' and the beacon sites which were connected by the Fosse Way)2.) I show the original site of Battle Abbey, here shown on the western flank of the ridge along 'hara na pul dran' as described in the records of the relocated Battle Abbey - those records kept at its later site of Battle.3.) I show the site of 'The quarry', which was described as 'Herst' in the records of Battle Abbey, there being described as the site of the Battle. (Herst as seen in the modern name for 'Cross In Hand' - Isenherst - - 'Isen would not have been needed as a descriptor in 1066 as all 'Hersts' would be iron foundries - the uniqueness of this particular 'Herst' as a locator, being that it is at the foot of the (Cross In Hand - prior 'hara na pul dran' - beacon - so locally providing arms to defend the beacon) Located at the intersection with the ridge track, beacon lane (hara na pul dran), from the English Woodland Tree Nursery with the A267In this respect - I also identify 'The Fyrd' - specifically as those 'beckoned' - 'beacon'd' - Fyr being Norse for 'Beacon'. Hence the beacon the key characteristic of Harold's method of fighting (and the then contemporary and highly evolved status quo method of fighting in Britain- turned over by William) . Thus crucially identifying the battle as occurring at a beacon-hill-fort.
Thus I identify where finds should be made and therefore lay claim to a share in those finds.
Moreover I lay claim to the use of the Bayeux Tapestry in the context that it embodies a light or signal house, adjacent and or integral to William's castle at Hastings), the site of which I locate at the foot of what is now the castle headland and I contest marked Boum (French and High german (Bohon or similar) for signal beacon using resonance or amplification of light and sound) on a 1798 map (Hastings Observer 12th Feb 2021). The site being on top of a Roman fort I discovered (and part reported in the Hastings Observer) in a 1776 Grose print of Hastings Castle looking down at the beach.) and I contest is made using a sea-curing Roman concrete made with the admixture of volcanic Ash from Naples and or ash locally from iron workings and lime from the lime kilns on the headland at Hastings. Moreover the name of the Roman fort derived from the Arabic 'HAY SAAT EA YNAGHANA' meaning'IT WILL SUCCEED US'But named in conjoinder with the name of the tribe - TheHestinga- who were already there and remained after the Romans left, deriving their name as horse herders or semi-nomadic horse traders and breeders and crucially having their own historic horse grazing lands around modern day Hastings.(marked on the earliest maps as Haestingas - I suggest this applies undifferentiated to both the area and the tribe The Haestingas (this important to interpretation of events as seen described on the Bayeux Tapestry - and particulay William's relationship withv' The Hestingas '( I contest there referred to simply as 'Hestingas')) This would suggest the Romans were also trading with the Hestinga before they invaded - like William. (Although there is no written record of this - and indeed no reference to Hastings until 700 AD - so one must use the name of the Roman fort, as I here identify, particularly, 'Hay saat ea ynaghana' as the earliest origin of the name 'Hastings' itself (meaning 'It Will Succeed Us' - derived from the Arabic) This throws into serious doubt the previous universally held idea that Hastings derives from the translation from the Old English as 'Followers Of Haesta'. Indeed I here contest - more obviously -the word derives in part as an English corruption from the Danish - 'Followers of Horses' - The Roman name perhaps a marriage in terms of onomatopoetic utterance and functional description of both a 'domesticated horse' and a 'concrete fort'. (It Will Follow Us)
(The lighthouse as I contest seen in the Tapestry used as a beacon for William's landing at Hastings, navigating through a narrow rocky channel to make an unopposed landing in the unique tidal lagoons of Hastings beach. Shown by myself for the first time in this painting by Joseph Farington. The lighthouse -being stone would exist prior to William's landing and would guide him at night through or up until the start of the rocky channel at Hastings, to an unopposed landing in the morning..I'd be interested in any legally qualified person who would wish to defend this copyright covering , film. media. print and television rights.19/03/2021In summary The Cross In Hand - also known historically as Isnhurst, derived from the German Eisenherst or Iron Foundry - actually the site of Harolds armorers. And of a prepared hill top fortress with signal beacon (perhaps referred to as 'The Hoary Apple Tree')Also Cross In Hand strategically the location most accessible, with the most possible routes for Harold's archers with his navy to reach him should the wind prove favorable. William camped at Ashburnham - and ready armed to intercept them should the wind change. (Ashburnham being Arabic for 'Highport' ) Ashburnham covering the most access routes from the coast to Harold, if the wind proved in the right direction.The site being referred to in the Chronicles as being at 'Herst' - meaning Isnhurst. 'The 'Hoary Apple Tree' referring - due to a mistranslation as the 'beacon' (Hurst - translates- to 'Whore' - like 'Hoar' from Swedish or Norse) and beacon 'tree' - at Cross In Hand.I suggest the Cross In Hand might be a particular type of weapon used from the top of a hill fort. Especially an iron cross with 4 sharpened spokes.Harold would have to wait inland to draw William away from the coast so that his navy and archers could land.William forced to engage Harold when he first got news of Harold's navy and archers heading for Pevensey to unite with Harold.0832 - 09/03/2021 I updated this listing with the actual hill of the battle and arrangement of the forces and order of battle. Notice how the asymmetric contour of the hill dictates the order of battle with William's flank attacking the highest point, finding it most difficult and fleeing (as William chooses this exact time to lower his banner and feign death.) ...to lower ground followed by Harold's less experienced flank. Taking Harold's men to flat ground where they can be engaged by cavalry. This action repeated during the battle. Harold's inexperienced flank not realizing what is happening and acting on instinct. The brilliant intuitive tactical plan of William adapting to the contour of the land and fight as it unfolding and responding in real time at critical moments.Hence this detail telling one, that this is the real battlefield of Hastings, seen for the first time in public for a 1000 years and the below is correct.
I dedicate this to those tormented souls who have been looking for the site of the Battle of Hastings for a 1000 years. If you follow this through and believe in it - you should be able to work it out for yourself (Especially with the brief documents I supply)- The Site Of The Final battle of Hastings- and its not at Battle - but it is self-evident.Digest the following and put yourself in Harold's shoes. You'll find yourself at the top of a hill faced by William's army..............It's there on Google if you want to feel it.....to breath it..... All of England and all of France will want to stand there....to hear the cries.....and perhaps will hear the cries, as they echo down the centuries, themillennia....A monument must mark it's thousandth birthday.... Join with me in this truly incredible journey of two tactical Masterminds...William winning -checkmate - with his knights jumping over the pawns to kill the king. Harold's seaborne castlesoutmaneuvered.The most exciting story of all time.I am guessing those in the know- know it - planning to reveal it when the Bayeux Tapestry arrives. Maybe it will visit a replica of William's castle at Hastings or be displayed on the hill shown. It only took me a month to work it out.This is not a book - it is an assemblage of 5 pages of A4 prints and text illustrating the critical clues - which when connected, yield the true story of William's invasion of 1066 . Further expounding upon the story, as first released on the 12th of February 2021 edition of the Hastings Observer.On the 12th of February 2021 my discovery of William's castle at Hastings (for the first time in 1000 years) was revealed by the press (Hastings Observer - Did William land his horses at Hastings?).I am here selling copies of prints, maps and copies of my own accurate painting (executed by Joseph Farington in 1797) from the 1700s to the early 1800s - which allowed me to make these discoveries - together with prints showing the likely site of Harold's body - still in place today - based upon these discoveries. The prints are quite crude, as I do not have a good printer but nevertheless show the exact site of William's castle as it appeared in the late to mid 1700s and early 1800s, as a typical promontory fortification - with its associated distinctive 'Motte', albeit as a ruin, in front of the castle hill. (the sea level being in 1066 essentially the same as it is today) I have indicated on them, in print, the salient features which allowed me to piece together the below argument. The detail is enough to show clear strong first hand evidence, for the first time in 1000 years, allowing one to deduce the events that took place on the beach in 1066 and explaining both the reason for the subsequent publication of the Bayeux Tapestry and the intimately related reason that Hastings did not appear in the Domesday book.........This is not a book - it is a dossier that amounts to about five A4 sheets of prints and text indicating and highlighting the detail. One can possibly obtain originals of the prints - but this provides a core analysis, being marked to show their previously undetermined relevance to the geography - pieced together from both maps and prints - previously not described - or described incorrectly - and showing the resultant sea conditions at the site of William's castle and William's landing in 1066 as controlled by the unique geography of the site - the exact details of which used to a great and critical advantage by William. Hence understanding the exact location of the landing site and of William's castle on a pre-existing Roman fort and Saxon Burh and the interplay of the unique geographical, spatial, physical and temporal factors which were key inunravelingthe exact events of the 28th September 1066 - probably at the high spring tide at 10.50 am. The tide at Hastings, crucially minutes later than that at Pevensey.. The prints quite crude but with enough accuracy to reveal detail critical to the logistics of William's landing, the relevance of this detail not seen or understood for a thousand years - crucially, because the geography of the bay and the location of William's fort and landing had not been known and its importance was not understood over the intervening thousand years due to the fact that William's castle, at the foot of what is now 'the castle cliff' had been washed away. (Its ruin still existing although unidentified until now by myself, so that the true story of William's landing can be told)Personally signed by myself.Notice I also have the original painting by Joseph Farington on my partner's site for sale - but the present listing, although including a print of that image nevertheless shows the ruin of William's castle as it appeared to Farington in 1797, in better detail, even though a print..And it is the only image we have of William's Motte at Hastings after a 1000 years. Plus all the other copies of prints in the present dossier contain analysis not available in that listing including hand drawn maps indicating location of the printed images. And the images are deceptive without further guidance as to consideration of their geographical and historical context and date of print. (remembering that such interpretation has never been made before)I am still investigating the ruins but it is clear from what we know so far that this is the missing link that allows us to understand the Norman invasion and the real origin and course of the Battle Of Hastings. The present discovery of William's fort, on the site of a prior Roman fort and Saxon burh shows other accounts of William's landing over the last 1000 years to be pure fabrication based upon speculation about sea level and the misguided speculation about the geography of the site in 1066.William's landing place, Hastings, firmly at it's center and being the absolute pivot of William's plan , through both the geography of the shallow lagoonal bay west of the current 'Castle Hill' (i.e modern Hastings), with its then deep tidal Priory Stream.And for the first time acknowledging its people of 1066 - their role in the invasion realized and acknowledged here for the first time as 'The Hestengs' or Horse Followers (hesta - horses) The way the 'e' and the 'ae' - both being pronounced and taking meaning - a matter of dialect between those with a Germanic accent and the Hestengs who were ancient - arriving half a million years ago from Denmark (following horses, as continental glaciers melted and land and grass emerged on peninsulas westward toward the warming oceans) (some of the oldest horse fossils being found near Hastings from half a million years ago) - so Hestengs identified clearly and deliberately as such by William on the Bayeux Tapestry (literally Hest-Eng - 'Horse meadow' from the Danish) (rather than thought and described previously as being 'Followers of a nebulous Haesta'). The Hestengs selling William horses for his cavalry when and because Harold did not use cavalry and did not indeed recognize the Hestengs as revealed through the spelling on his maps and coinage. Harold being a farmer (Anglo Saxon {Meadow-plougher} or farmer)Hastings and its people, themselves, thus historically being trivialized on the periphery of the invasion,- Indeed, both overlooked by Harold - to his demise - and ever since - until this listing. But here shown to be the key to the events that transpired and explaining exactly why Hastings does not appear in the Domesday Book.(Below is a copy of a letter I sent to Hastings Museum.)The location of the ruin is adjacent to the original entrance of a deep tidal inlet of the Priory Stream. The inlet and its seaward alluvial deposits - derived from the flooding of a large catchment, - its appearance as a small stream on maps and prints deceptive. In flood it required a substantial 100 foot wide bridge to resist it, carving out agullywhich provided a tidal inlet and haven - navigable when back-flooded by the sea. The gully may still be present beneath the sea, there forming overmillennia,and indeed, this sub-sea terrain might have been responsible for the flooding of Harold Place, at the site of the stream's exit to the sea, in the early 1900s, - just as high tides had likewise washed away the America ground in 1820 and the Roman fort (positioned on the stream's banks to make use of the deep water in an otherwise shallow bay) and to guard the tidal access to the narrow Priory stream - which was still navigable in the early 1700s - as shown on crude maps of the time - (the bay itself referred to as 'Pond-bay' in the 1825 guide book to Hastings). The stream itself having carved a deep gully in flood which was back-filled by the sea at high tide. Likewise William's fort, built on the site, would have been washed away by the same sporadic, unpredictable high tides (created by the position of Hastings on the English channel which funnels random tides from the North sea due to the collision of deep depressions there) which would scour the banks of the gully, with an outgoing tide, (like the river Mersey for example) exactly where the Roman fort , the Saxon burh and William's fort were situated, exactly to make use of the high water-level on the stream's steep banks for loading and unloading whilst boats could remain level up against the bank and horses could walk off of a ramp.... A high tide was thus more damaging than a storm to the site due to a rapid tidal outflow of a large volume of water in the haven, through Priory Stream's narrow gorge - created in flood from ground water and from rapid outlet of the tidal flood. Water level and the height of the tide being crucial to this process, determining the volume of the water in the haven at high tide and the rate it would efflux as the tide receded. Thus sea levels do not appear to have changed since 1066 but the narrow entrance to the tidal 'haven' as recorded on the earliest Speed maps and an early map c1700 (which I will reveal) may have been partially blocked by the great floods of the 1200s.Originally the area appears to have been grazing land of the Hestengs (horse herders or followers) - and not followers of Haesta - as has been described previously in history books (thus explained below)(see Wikipedia etc.)This interpretation of - Hesteng - as seen most prominently on the Bayeux tapestry. William advertising the fact - his clue to what had really happened in 1066. Harold's navy was in all probability to the west of Hastings in Pevensey and the Isle Of Wight. together with his archers and any cavalry he might have had as a mobile response unit to repel or delay William's fleet - just as the British had done prior to invading Danes. However William hadoutmaneuveredHarold and with a falling tide and wind against them - Harold's deep keeled warships (as shown in early depictions of him) could not launch or catch William's fleet. William thus building a Motte at the deep water entrance to the Priory stream so that the deep keeled boats of Harold's fleet could not land behind him. (nor any subsequent invader)William had built his fleet bespoke, to land on the shallow lagoonal beach at Hastings- which as shown on a Yeakell map of 1778 had tidal lagoons (called 'Pondbay' in the 1825 guide book of Hastings.) in which William crucially could scuttle his boats utilizing a design feature observed in Viking long ships. 'A drain plug', I propose for the first time that this plug was key to understanding the transport of livestock by Vikings in relatively small boats, allowing them to be scuttled in shallow water and allowing his horses (or other large animals) to swim to shore - his larger boats mooring in the deep water of the Priory inlet at the site of the Hesteng's fort on top of the old Roman fort and unloading via a ramp with the boat level.. Moreover his horses had been largely towed across the channel in barges without the adornment of dragons on the prow and lacking rigging to avoid heeling in the wind. They are shown having been cut in two, on the Bayeux tapestry, so that the horses could walk out. Then probably stacked to make space on a crowded beach. All of these facts, about the landing of William's fleet, are new revelations - previously not known since 1066. This latter observation concerning the 'Drain Plug' would allow Vikings to steel and trade horses. IIndeed I propose for the first time that the word 'Henge' as in 'Stone Henge' is really a declension of 'Hesteng' - a small meadow and enclosure for horses. Thus explaining the origin of Henges of which there are 100 in Britain. They derive from livestock trading, the Danes bringing the technology of iron in the form of magnets to navigate and build tracks between them and trading horses and livestock - with other horse traders such as the semi-nomadic 'Hestengs' and with the first farmers who could buy 'ploughs' (or Seaxes from them). Such places would also host every other conceivable type of social event as it would be a meeting place for nomadic and farming peoples. (This is a new observation to history)The Bayeaux tapestry was clearly made to deflect attention from the Hestengs who had provided the horses for William's army. More-over William had spread the word (through literate people - (who he trusted less than those who were not) that he would be landing at Pevensey - so that Harold would have his navy there. William possibly sent a skirmishing group to engage them - together with his literate followers who he had also used to spread the subterfuge before the battle. Hence they could not see William's technically secret method of landing on the shallow lagoonal beach of Hastings.(revealed here for the first time) Harold would have believed the subterfuge as his boats required deep water (shown on records of the time) and could not have landed en-masse on the shallow bay at Hastings, - William designing his fleet to do so - knowing that he would be welcomed by the Hestengs who had supplied him with horses). Perhaps a relative of his sacking and stealing horses from Hastings in 1011, thus proving that horses could be transported across the channel in small boats.Finally - Harold did not know that there had been a Roman fort at Hastings ( just as- until this observation - it was believed in the present day that there had not been a Roman fort there- as until now there was no evidence) as there was at Pevensey, and so he would have believed William would have intended to land at Pevensey with its Roman fort, especially if his spies had told him so. I advocate that William told none of the force that he used where he was going other than he might have let out that it was Pevensey. Like on D-Day when 150000 troops did not know where they were when they landed. (secrecy and subterfuge had won the day - the fleet followed William to their landing site) Hastings did not appear in the Domesday book, notbecause it didn't exist but it no longer had to pay taxes. The land was free to the Hestengs after hundreds of years of having been ruled by the farmer Saxons and they may have continued to supply horses to William - their venerated messiah (albeit that they were illiterate.). I wonder if the semi - wild ponies of the moors and of the New Forest are their descendants?The Battle of Hastings was won when William had landed his ships unopposed with the collaboration of the Hestengs.The story rings true 'That upon setting foot on land - he held his hands up and said "I have taken England between mine own hands"Noting that the above fits exactly with the records of Battle Abbey from 1097 which describe William's castle to be 'at the foot of a cliff before it was washed away'.
Below I explain the origins of the Battle Of Hastings in terms of a pre-existing feud between farmers (Anglo-Saxons (Anglo-Saxons - meaning 'Ploughed Land' or meadow (see-below)- hence, farmers, -and horse 'herders' (Hestengs - horse followers - literally 'horse meadow ' from the Danish as clearly written on the Bayeux tapestry). - the area of Hastings traditionally being their land for grazing before Harold's or even the Saxon's or Roman's arrival to take their grazing land.Because of this feud - the Hestengs would supply William with horses for a cavalry which Harold did not use in battle and allow William to land at Hastings unopposed, using their horses to beat Harold.
The division between the Hestengs and Harold would arise from the fact that 'horse herders' - or followers - from where the name ''Hesteng' (Hest Danish Horse - Eng - meadow) derives , as seen on the Bayeux Tapestry - were not recorded in the earliest records of land ownership prior to 1066 - only half the land was recorded officially - the rest assumed to be barren by historians, - I pose that indeed it was barren as far as Harold was concerned as it probably did not yield taxes- prior to 1066. The 'Hestengs' acknowledged by the Romans in the name HastingcEaster - before the true Iron Age arrived in Britain with the Anglo-Saxons - and in fact naming their fort after the 'tribe'Indeed I think it likely that the Hestengs - of Danish origin - probably spoke a different language to Harold - himself primarily of Germanic (Saxon - or 'farming') origin.
Thus the ancestral name of the Haestingas - as seen also seen in 'Hastingleigh' (Really 'Horse meadow' (Hestengleigh) also from the Danish)) and a number of other towns with that prefix around to the east of Hastings and their locale - was not regarded by Harold - to derive from its real original historical routes of a quasi nomadic 'Horse-people', 'horse meadow','horse followers' etc. He preferring the word 'Hastings' to 'Hestengs' (as in records of land ownership - coins etc) - so denying the historical claims of the Hestengs to their traditional lands and the name 'Hastings' emphasizing his own and the Saxons influence in bringing the technology of iron to plough and farm land with the coming of the iron age to Britain, a land previously used by the herders of livestock. As a Saxon (from the word 'Se-ax' - I believe meaning Plough - generally a wooden handled Iron implement - Anglo derivative from the Danish Eng for meadow)) Anglo-Saxon thus meaning 'Ploughed Meadow' or 'farmer'.) (similarly England - Meadowland - Poland - 'Ploughed land' from the Danish for plough) (Saxony -Ploughed land)Harold was thus a farmer and the Hestengs 'Herdsmen'. Hence a strong division and source of contention. This might well have been why Harold did not use cavalry and rather the Hestengs supplying William with horses and his cavalry and allowing unopposed access to the port of the 'Hestengs' as a part of the deal.In fact this could well be the later origin of the dispute of ownership of the land known as the 'America-Ground' -on the exact site of the invasion in 1827-29. A strong unwritten historical and traditional claim to land in the area from 'herders' - (or 'Nomads) as opposed to farmers having transcended many centuries.
Pevensey by distinction would be firmly, Historically under Saxon influence - perhaps Harold had warships there. Perhaps the Saxons had first landed there hundreds of years earlier.This is why the landing was at Hestengs and why it is recorded on the Bayeux tapestry as such.This might also be a good reason why William would keep Harold's body and bury it - forever in prison - in the Bailey of his castle - on the promontory beneath Castle Hill. - Probably still there as the records show that the internal wall of 'HastingcEaster' - built on the ruins of the Roman fort - was 1600 meters. (And upon which William built his castle )Kind RegardsPeter Reynolds
Track Page Views With
Auctiva's FREE Counter