eBay

All the below is copyright and is being sold together with the painting by Joseph Farington.

This is an opportunity for somebody to own the Battle of Hastings and in effect all the artifacts found arising from it.
Including those related to the Knights Templar - founded upon the success of William's campaign. This arising from the copyright being sold here, which itself is based upon the unique observation that William is seen sitting at the foot of a lighthouse on the Bayeux tapestry. This observation itself, is derived from the discovery of the painting shown here, included in the sale , by Joseph Farington, showing the remains of Williams' castle at Hastings in 1797.

This is The only first hand evidence of the Battle of Hastings. (the site being lost to history beneath modern day Hastings, immediately after the painting was made.)

Public record of the ruins of William's castle were lost in an appropriately mysterious fire. (Additionally the painting itself shows a unique perspective of the ruin, from a viewpoint which was blown up in 1832 to make way for a coast road)). Ownership of the copyright is effectively ownership of the battle (of Hastings) , as there is no other first hand evidence of it and there has never been before an observation that the tower shown on the Bayeux tapestry - at Hastings, is a lighthouse. (which makes a lot of sense if one thinks that William came at night)-

-One might note in passing that Caligula's lighthouse at Boulogne stood 300 ft above the sea, (recorded as being refurbished by Charlemagne in 811AD (perhaps with the invasion of Britain in mind). William might have had a mast 90 ft tall and Hastings lighthouse may have been 150 to 200 ft tall. Adding in that William arrived on a spring tide, one can surmize a continuous light across William's path to Hastings (which couldn't be observed by his other smaller boats.) Hence they would follow William as recorded. In fact, the current painting showing the site of William's castle -and therefore lighthouse, as shown on the Bayeux tapestry, suggests that William's route was selected because of the lighthouses and indeed perhaps the light house at Hastings was built specifically for the purpose of William's navigation between the light of Calligula's lighthouse at Boulogne and the one built as shown on the Bayeux Tapestry at Hastings. From this, one may estimate the height of the ligthouse at Hastings. Indeed - if one assumes this, then it is apparent that William's fleet left from St.Valery - within sight of Calligula's lighthouse....not by accident. Following the arc of the light from Calligula's lighthouse would take William about 26-29 miles across the channel. (depending upon how high the look-out on his mast was (the replica boat, now being built at Honfleur, is 33 metres long)) When and whereupon he could pick up the light of the Hastings lighthouse...itself 47 miles from Boulogne as the crow flies. This is one of the advantages of leaving on a spring tide...when the lights would be seen from a much greater distance due to the lower sea level.. And the main reason that his own ship was by far the longest (and tallest). (William needed a lighthouse for 3 main reasons -.... 1) because the clifftops are often hidden by mist (which is why generally modern lighthouses are not built on cliff-tops) and 2) the crossing was a total secret - 3) the light source that night needed to be secure on enemy territory. (A light-house in 1066 also was essentially a fortress and signal station against Danish raiders) The lighthouse would also mark the deep-water access to Hastings itself - suitable for his own deep keeled boat and demarking the location of adjacent shallow ponds where his fleet would land (as shown on Farington's painting (seen here for the first time)) . Hastings itself was still regarded as a harbour, even in 1574 when it was marked as 'Hastings Haven Inunded', meaning a harbour at high water, on the Speed map (published1610).
The Roman Arabic emperor Septimius Severus likely built the roads (hara (meaning both line and lane in arabic) and fort with integral lighthouse at Hastings (In Arabic -Haaysaateanyghana) as he also had previously constructed in Leptis Magna.

Publisher
Peter T. Reynolds
1 Lever Street
Hazel grove
Stockport SK74EN
United Kingdom
(business details and contact info below, editor Kim Rathbone)
Owners of copyright and to whom licensing enquiries should be addressed.
This is a six page dossier showing context including the derivation of the name Hastings from the Roman fort called Hay saat ea ynaghana - from the Arabic meaning 'It will succeed us'

Epic film rights for those prepared to act quickly
THE BATTLE OF HASTINGS
The Most Dramatic Story of a 1000 years
Even giving rise to 'The sign of the Cross' as seen in the Christian and other religions.(an iron cross flung as an unstoppable weapon from hilltop beacon forts in the early iron age) As seen at 'The Cross In Hand' site of the battle.(Also the site of major Cross-roads and Harold's beacon (on the hill lane Haran Apuldran) hillfort, armory and quarry dominating east west - north /south travel in Sussex.) With an avenue of pollarded trees used to fuel the beacon and supply fruit whilst also cover from archers. (The Fosse) Whilst also reeds were cultivated at its foot - where the farm is still named Reed Bell farm) (Likewise the Fosse of the 'Fosse Way' referring to a ' bank of new growth' (avenue of pollarded trees) for fuelling beacons alongs its length. (far from simply a ditch as descibed previously)
(The iron cross with flattened ends being used by the religious due to their not being allowed to draw blood.) Also the origin of the German Iron Cross - A sharpened version)
+ Great background discovery story
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 Heathfield' as it should be known at the exact site here pictured in the listing) now at Cross In hand at the hill of the now site of the English Tree Nursery) Previously the site of the beacon at 'cross in hand'.
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) 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 Heathfield - I show exactly the site of the battle and thus 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 oe 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 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. The name of the Roman concrete fort being 'Hay saat ea ynaghana' or 'It will succeed us', being named conjointly with the name of the tribe first existing there - the 'Hestingas' .(Horse followers) Thus the Romans would trade with the local tribe just as William would a 1000 years later to gain unopposed access to land at Hastings, guided by the Burj Hestinga (signal tower /lighthouse of the Hestinga.)
The name also suggestive of 'it will follow us' - the domestication and training of horses by the Hestingas.
(The lighthouse 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 at Hastings would be called the 'burh' prior to William's arrival. From the Arabic 'Burj'. Burhs defined geographically as a system of communicating signal towers. Th Borough of Hastings would thus be - 'burh hestingas'. And this is shown in the Bayeux tapestry.
I'd be interested in any legally qualified person who would wish to defend this copyright covering , film. media. print and television rights.
PTR 23/03/2021
update
23/03/2021 Harold would await the arrival of his navy and archers at the beacon hill fort of Senlac (between the string of sandy lakes of the Malfosse at its base - still present in 2021 at what today is Cross In Hand) at the site of the ridge of the English tree nursery as shown in the above image. William would camp, armed at Ashburnham (from the Arabic for 'Highport' - the closest Harold's navy could get to Harold at his stronghold at what would now be called the ''Cross In hand' beacon (also the site of his armory, (Isenhurst) - from the German Isenherst or iron foundry - where they would make iron crosses suitable for throwing down from his hill-fort and giving it the name 'cross in hand' (also to become the symbol of Christianity)
the date of the battle would be the 14th of October - the day after the second Spring high tide of the lunar month beginning at the first Spring High tide on the 28th September, when William landed at Hastings, guided by the lighthouse seen and integral to William's castle at Hastings a shown on the Bayeux Tapestry and in prints and paintings of the late 17 early 1800s. After the 14th of October William would be sure that Harold's fleet could not land in support of Harold and receiving word of Harold's fleet leaving harbor would make the judgement that they could not reach Harold if William now engaged him.
William would take an oath - The so-called 'WILLEM OATH' never to reveal the role of the Hestengs in his invasion. This defended to this day by the Knights Templar and Order of Garter of the Royal Household etc.
Update - letter sent to Hastings Museum 18/03/21 - 14.00 hrs
Sorry, - I had the addition at the bottom explaining why the battle took place at 'Cross In Hand' beacon hill.
The reason was - that William was trying to get to Harold before he could rendez-vous with his navy at Pevensey - (William who had landed at Hastings unopposed (using the lighthouse to navigate the rocks etc at night)) . William camped and armed at Ashburnham (Highport -from Arabic-Danish), ('Highport', the nearest Harold's navy could have got to Harold, had the wind been in the right direction) (Harold's navy armed with his archers, having regrouped to the west after William had landed). William armed and ready for the fight at Ashburnham if the wind had changed and allowed Harold's fleet to get there. William forced to intercept Harold before he could turn South West and get to Pevensey - where he could await his archers and navy. Likewise, William could not wait for Harold's archers to get to him at Cross In Hand, nor could he afford to split his army, so abandoning Pevensey, on the basis of intelligence that Harold's fleet could not get there in time. (The lighthouse keeper 'Boum' recorded as fighting in the battle- and recorded on the 1798 map of Hastings -critical in sending signals)
For Harold - In the absence of a favourable wind, which would bring his navy and archers, next best was to use the prepared hill-fort at the beacon of Cross-in Hand. pre-stocked with stone, with a clear steep killing field, protected flanks and the site selected to draw William away from the coast - so that Harold's navy and archers could land when the wind allowed. (The sandy lakes (or Malfosse) at its foot, giving its name 'Senlac') ('Sandy Cross' also a district of the nearby Heathfield - the name given to the battle before 1900))
William had to fight before Harold's archers arrived.
He knew that Harold had no archers - otherwise he wouldn't have deployed his own in the front rank - with Harold's archers out ranging them (and out of sight) from the top of the hill - and / or, protected, behind the ridge top, had they been there.
When you read this listing - you will realize - whosoever you are - just how much you didn't know about the Battle Of Hastings (Battle Of Heathfield -pre 1900) - and realize just how powerful the present painting is, as the only and critical first hand piece of evidence there is of 1066 in the public domain and thus it is the key to revealing the actual truth of the events of 1066. Revealing for the first time in a thousand years that the tapestry shows a lighthouse & signalling tower integral to William's castle at Hastings , although it must have been made prior, of stone, in all probability paid for by William himself , and the painting revealing it's exact location - also as described in the 1097 records of Battle Abbey, as being 'at the foot of a cliff before being washed away' and revealing the tidal lagoons, which he built his navy bespoke, to land in, and revealing the actual site of his first foot on land - and more-over and of equal relevance - the exact time of his first foot as being on the 28th September 1066 at 10.55.am. (15 minutes after high tide at Pevensey)
(a crucial time difference between spring high tide in Pevensey and Hastings - which I go on to explain, as being of tactical significance - the tide then falling at Pevensey - where Harold's archers awaited to repel William's landing) and revealing the sea-state and lay of the land which he would have seen himself - as he approached the beach, navigating at night from the light tower and sounding box marking the dangerous rock strewn channel into the deep water access and landing beach at Hastings. (a proven navigation - as according to the Hastings Guidebook of 1797, 3 tons was landed regularly at the exact site (still using the ruins of William's motte)
And in studying its detail, realize and understand that the battle was shrouded in secrecy because it was the tactical template which William had previously used and his prodigies would subsequently use to suppress the rest of the country and indeed subsequently the 'Holy land' in a sequence of 'Crusades'. (and perhaps is still being used today) If Harold had known the secret of William's tactics, including his buying off-of locals, prior to 1066 - he would not have lost the battle. The Romans in all likelihood used exactly the same tactics when they invaded a thousand years earlier. Because William kept the secret to himself, the Normans - using funding from the 'Knights Templar' rather than being bank rolled from the Pope, as was the case in 1066, would carry the same tactics to the Holy Land, conquering in the name of pursuing the 'Holy Grail'. Hence the Templar of necessity shrouded in absolute secrecy. Indeed to this day.......In short making this the most desirable object - perhaps more-so than the Grail itself. (In one of my other listings, the Grail debunked - as in my film of the ICEMAN (2017) - as being a simple hand-held-mirror, albeit the one first used by a significant religious leader.................

A letter from myself to Hastings museum, sent today 0.9.17 am...... 12/03/2021
Hi
I have deduced that the battle of Hastings was at the site of what is now the 'The English Woodlands nursery' at Cross In Hands near Heathfield Sussex. On the A267.
Am I legally entitled to the value of any of the finds there?
I suggest it was the site of a becon (beacon) and an ancient hill fort developed in 1066 as a pre-existing defensive position , one of a chain of such defensible hill-forts , used by Harold. William having developed the tactic of feigning retreat to get such fort's occupants from their otherwise impregnable positions, as he would meet such defenses everywhere. He developing cavalry for the purpose.The site would be selected by Harold in 1066 for its difficulty to use cavalry against it.
Harold would take up the position, and be waiting for the signal from the coast, that his navy and importantly his archers had arrived at Pevensey from the Isle Of Wight, having regrouped there, after William had landed at Hastings unopposed - using its unique geography (tidal port and lagoons) (marked 'Hastings Haven inunded' on the Speed 1610 map.). (and conspiring with local 'Hestengs or horse-people or followers - offering to buy his horses from them, in return for their co-operation {as Harold and leaders of the time did not use Cavalry - so this a tactic William had developed prior to his invasion - and a part of his reason for developing cavalry as a weapon }). However the wind on the day of the battle would not be in the right direction, just as it had not been when William landed and both would receive signal that Harold's fleet with its archers had not landed. (had both William and Harold been waiting for the wind to be in the right direction - in order to execute their battle plans?)
The Cross In Hand beacon (becon) would be selected by Harold to draw William north and just far enough from Pevensey so that his navy could land unopposed; and so that a signal could be seen to indicate to Harold that his navy and crucially his archers, had made land-fall. William could not afford to split his forces and so would neglect Pevensey, predicting the wind would not be favorable for Harold's archers and navy to arrive in time to assist Harold.
Harold's method of fighting, being ancient - at the sites of fortified hill-top becons.
William knew Harold didn't have any archers - even though he wouldn't have been able to see them behind the ridge from where they would fire their arrows defended by the shield-wall in front and ridge. So he positioned his archers in the front rank, otherwise a suicidal position as Harold's archers would have much greater range from the top of the hill. William knew Harold's archers were with his navy, taking the gamble that the wind was persistently in the wrong direction for Harold's fleet to get there in time. And he would be able to see Harold's ships coming - and use beacons to signal such.
I'm just wondering if I am legally entitled to the value of any of the finds there?
The ridge upon which Harold's men stood is now the road to the nursery from it's entrance sign.
The malfosse - the ditches at its base.
There is a high-point from where Harold's right flank would naturally fall on William's left flank. It would have a pre-existing mound of rocks which Harold would use and drive William's left flank down the hill.
William was no stranger to such a lay-out, and would specifically have developed and used his tactic against it.
The place is called 'The Cross In Hand' because the Norman knights would gather there to go to the crusades as it was the site of their greatest victory.
The next beacon along in the chain still exists and would have been used in 1066. Indeed - a book has been written about it - and although mentioning that 'The Cross In Hand Beacon' was the next in the chain, no mention is made of its use in 1066.
Kind Regards

Peter Reynolds
PS would it be possible to forward this to those qualified to answer this question.
Thanks
PS I have published all of this in my ebay listings
and recorded it. Presumably the nursery was acquired in 1912 to cover this up as the association of the battle with Heathfield disappeared at that time. And presumably it has been dug over. Nevertheless I think there are more finds there and at Hastings, of great value.
re previous obviously it's a tactic the Normans would continue to use throughout their conquest- so Producing The Bayeux tapestry as counter intelligence.
It must be noted that there seems to be some inconsistencies between different editions of the Speed 1610 map - both in terms of spelling and in the site of beacons. Perhaps deliberately to hide the site of the battle.
However there was certainly a beacon at the Cross in Hand, it is 9 miles from Pevensey and North of Pevensey - a pre-constructed site of defense which Harold could utilize and it corresponds with pre-1912 descriptions of the 'Battle of Heathfield' -albeit that the Cross in Hand would not have existed before 1066. Only being mentioned in legend as the site of meeting of the Crusaders.c1095.
Like-wise Hastings would not have to pay taxes - so not appearing in the Bayeux tapestry.
The crusades were thought up by the Normans following their conquest - as they had developed the technique of buying horses for the cavalry to gain access to countries. Then develop the cavalry to overcome the ancient way of defending beacon hills.
This was so successful, that they then laid sight on the ultimate goal, to gain possession of Jerusalem. That's why they met at 'The Cross in Hand' before they left. The sight of their collective dominance over England.
The Knights 'Templars' were founded to bankroll the purchase of horses to facilitate this unstoppable and modern tactic.

This auction is for a watercolor painting - (12.5 by 17 inches) executed in 1797 by Joseph Farington on a trip to Hastings. (A similar work was sold at Christies in 2013). A sketch and notebook Farington made on the trip is in the Victoria and Albert Museum. He there shows a sketch from more or less the same spot as this one, but looking the other way, Westward, toward what was then The White Rock headland (thus before it was removed in 1834 to create a road along the coast.). This painting is marked Boats at Hastings by Joseph Farington RA on the mount. It was purchased at Hansons auctioneers, where it was for sale in London in 2018 and it is still listed in the auction catalog to be seen on-line. (although, as is evident from the original picture on-line - originally it was covered in dust and cobwebs, left by the auctioneers in its 'as found' state. (which is to be commended) However removing the dust and cobwebs revealed the fine line detail, typical of Farington - as I had hoped.
It has staining in the sky and has faded somewhat over the last 224 years, as it has not been under glass, but the pen-line drawn detail, is very good.
The painting was conducted at a very interesting time in history as the year prior, the French had attempted an invasion of Britain and executed another failed attempt in 1797. They failed to achieve what William had achieved 750 years prior, despite their technological advances. Similarly the Spanish Armada. All these attempts had failed, not because the British had defended their island, but rather because on each occasion the weather had prevented them from making land-fall.
3 cannons - caught at the Battle of Cape St Vincent, also in this year, 1797, were being mounted on the headland at the site of this painting at approximately it's time of execution (Feb 1797). Four years prior, in 1793, Farington was employed by the army as the official recorder of the 'Siege Of Valenciennes'. Indeed he is thought of as an accurate and prolific painter of landscapes.(see Wikipedia entry) .(he - in effect, was like the press photographer of his day) Many of his paintings and lithographs of the action at Valenciennes can still be seen. Napoleon was expected to attempt an invasion - perhaps at Hastings and indeed he was making plans to do this at the time.
I believe the painting itself is a view from the foot of the Cuckoo Hill cliffs, looking east, before they were leveled to make a road going up and over the White Rock. The site is marked on an 1827 map as 'the cliffs being cut and leveled' by Boykett Breeds. I believe Breeds was using the spoil from cutting the cliff to create sea defenses so that he could make a 'rope-walk' along the seafront for his rope making business - and in doing so also extending Hastings from its then established site on the far side of the 'Castle-Hill' (as shown) toward the site of this painting at Cuckoo Hill. Thus making the land he had purchased at Cuckoo Hill more valuable, especially observing that a new coach road had just been built in the early 1790's which had reduced the travelling time from London to 12 hours from 3 days and there was thus somewhat of a land-grab and gold rush in the area for property to supply the newly founded and ballooning tourist industry (from London), in the light of restricted foreign travel due to the war.
Because of this - the image as it is seen here - is scarce - much of the site would soon be buried under the new Hastings which exists over it today and it was painted before, or at the very start of the tourist boom.
Hieronymous Grimm made a very similar painting in 1784, showing the panorama as viewed from the road which then ran out further seaward at the end of the Cuckoo hill headland. And the detail in the present painting can be compared and corroborated with it, albeit that in that painting - the tide is out, and the beach as seen in the present painting is just around the corner and cannot be seen.
Grimm knew that the scene was littered with ruins, labeling his view - The scene from the road to the West of the 'Priory Ruins' -. Indeed the area at the foot of the 'Castle cliff' (the castle on the cliff dating from the 1200s) is clearly marked on a map by Yeakell & Gardner in 1778 as shown above as 'The Ruins of Hastings'.
Importantly, a print attributed to Grose 1776 - as shown above - looking down to the site from the castle-hill, shows a square ruin.
Such an outline is often indicative of a Roman fort. Interestingly however - until the revelation of this print by myself (Hastings Observer 12th February) - it has been pointed out that there has never been any actual evidence of a Roman fort at Hastings. (Jeremy Haslam - in print - available on-line) despite much postulation that there had been one (D.Hill 1978, 1996 & prior chronicles)
Nor has there been any solid evidence of William The Conqueror's Castle at Hastings, Hill previously suggesting that the Roman Fort and its ruins had been washed away by coastal erosion.
However the record of 'Battle Abbey' of 1097 stated that William's castle at Hastings was  'at the foot of a cliff before it was washed away'
I (Peter Reynolds) posed in an article in the Hastings Observer of the 12th of February 2021 (Did William land his horses at Hastings?) that the ruin clearly shown in the newly revealed Grose print and in this painting are in fact the ruins of William's 'Motte and Bailey Castle' at Hastings and the outline in the Grose print corresponds to that of the Roman Fort that it was built upon. (the 'Motte' just being out of sight in the Grose 1776 print, blocked by the castle-hill.)
Moreover this painting clearly shows a mound - or 'Motte' at the exact site. It clearly being the Motte of William's castle at Hestenga-ceastra as described in the 1097 manuscript of Battle Abbey and as seen on the Bayeux Tapestry. It is marked on a 1798 map (Hastings Observer website) as 'Halloway' (Haulaway) Moreover - the name or word Boum is written on a structure adjacent to it (possibly just seen in the present painting. I believe this to be French for 'Boom' - meaning or derived from the word for 'tree' and thus probably a crane of sorts to load boats from the 'Halloway' . Also of interest, the name 'Boum' was first recorded in England in 1066, when its owner fought at the battle of Hastings.The name Halloway being related to the word for 'Hill' in old English. It thus appears that the 1798 map, corresponding to the ruin in the Grose or Hogg print and to the mound or 'Motte' seen in the present painting, and actually indicates & refers to different parts of the ruin of William's castle. The 'Motte' - simply a 'Hill' - referring directly to the mound appearing in the present painting and here appearing just as it would have appeared in 1066, but in 1066 having a wooden palisade around its foot and on its top.. It may not have been any great height, as there was a need for its rapid building in the wake of William's landing, being in construct more like the Roman Fort on the site, (and still evident clearly on the Grose print in 1776) , a 1000 years prior. (the base either carved into solid rock or made of cement and pebbles by the Romans who had perfected the method of using cement in sea harbours - as seen at Alexandria)
I have super-posed the palisade from the Bayeux Tapestry on the mound or Motte. (Motte was Norman for mound), in the present painting, in order to show an impression of what William's castle might have looked like in 1066, at its actual location as viewed from its seaward side) albeit that the curvature of the top line of the palisade could be an attempt by the artist of the tapestry to represent perspective.
A print from 1807 (above) shows the site being used to unload a large boat moored in a gully adjacent and siding on to the Motte, exactly as would have happened in 1066. (in fact, the ramps shown unload the boat on the opposite side to the Motte, - but this is probably due to the sites accessibility in 1776.) More-over, the whole ruin is shown in the same 1807 print, to exist on a tidal promontory as was usual of Roman forts. Thus, the rudiments of a Roman Fort would have been present when William built his castle upon it and he might have decided to reconstruct it as it would have been in Roman times rather than take the time-consuming effort of building a huge Motte. The site itself being a sufficiently defended location - which as it was, with its unique geography, would allow safe -defended access at high tide, so as to allow boats to reinforce and supply it with the protection of the sea and from which an attacker could be repelled or prevented from mooring or decamping its soldiers.
Thus the 'Motte' as it appears accurately portrayed in the present painting, might be exactly as it appeared when it was constructed by William in 1066.
(all the wooden parts washed away as described in the records of Battle Abbey from 1097) The Motte remaining until 1797 and possibly still existing because, as depicted in the Bayeux tapestry, - it was made largely of rocks and stone or 'shingle' . The men in the tapestry using picks as well as shovels to build it and clearly showing discrete stones on the shovels.
Of great interest also - is the fact that the well dressed gentlemen of the present painting are sailing in what appears to be a flat calm bay - whilst to seaward, two boats are, in contradistinction, seen heeling with the wind in the channel.
It is clear that this flat calm with the gentlemen inappropriately dressed to be upon the sea, and the boat lacking an effective rudder arm- is in fact the tidal lagoon, as clearly shown on the map of Yeakell & Gardner (above) of 1778, the lagoons which would have also existed in 1066, along with the Motte, as it is shown in this painting. One can line up the site of the painter of the painting - appearing somewhat inland of the sea shore today and perhaps in 1066 -his position identified by the fact that the East Hill headland cannot be seen in the painting beyond the castle headland.. One can in fact position it, and the related Motte, from comparison with Google 3D. So the lagoons existing just inland of today's seafront. It would be relatively easy to get a precise fix on the various locations from land marks.
By comparison with the print of 1807, as shown, the Roman fort & William's castle, were situated at this exact site to guard the narrow-bridged entrance to an inland port, (also shown in the 1807 print) (the bridge (later called Priory bridge ) This bridge is also shown behind the sail of the boat in the present painting). This port marked as 'Hastings Haven inunded' on one of the earliest recognized maps of the area - conducted by John Speed from a survey commissioned by Queen Elizabeth in 1574. Importantly meaning that access to the port was entirely tidal in 1574 and, given that William's Motte is still being used to unload boats on the site, as demonstrated by the 1807 print (shown) one may conclude that the site has not changed since 1066,- as it is seen in the 1807 print and in the present painting, albeit that its narrow-bridged entrance partially 'shallowed' by the Great storm of the 1200s. It thus appears that the geography and sea level has not changed significantly - since William's landing in 1066 - as it is so seen here in Farington's 1797 painting.. And nor probably has the sea level changed much until the present day. The ruin still being present where water meets land, beneath the beach and some of the buildings, and the road 'Denmark place', built since then. (one might deduce that it is also the site of Harold's body, placed there so that it did not act as a catalyst for revolution, and remain the prisoner of William until he died (he being superstitious. - it is likely still there today on the seafront at Hastings (William believed to have said it must be buried on the shore of the country he died defending)
The lagoons as shown in the present painting are missing on a number of early pictures and prints (see the Grimm Painting of 1784)
- so one must conclude that they are tidal, like the port, and they too would be called 'Hastings Lagoons inunded' - if the detail of the Speed map allowed, and that in all likelihood they would have also been present in 1066, the area called 'Pond Bay' in The Hastings Guide book of 1825.
Hence William would have seen exactly the scene as it appears in the present painting if he landed at this site - today modern Hastings - at high spring tide on September 28th 1066 -.
Turning ones attention to the boats moored on the shore to the left of the sailboat in the present painting... They are parked adjacent to two logs or rollers which would be used to launch them. This method was that used by the Vikings and would also be used by William. Moreover the boats are long with shallow keels, exactly as William's boats were depicted.
One can reasonably hypothesize from all the foregoing observations that the site was perfectly suited to William's landing. Harold would have left his large navy to guard those ports at which he believed William could land, including Pevensey. , whilst he dealt with the Northern invaders. Moreover - good evidence of this was that Harold did not have any archers at the final battle with William.
One can surmise therefore, that his archers were with his navy, blockading deep water ports, and would not have expected William to land at Hastings because it was purely tidal, and its beach shallow and unsuitable for William's (believed large warships) .
Moreover, why would William build a fleet of 700 shallow keeled boats, unless he intended to land on this particular beach, where he would have faced a large calm tidal lagoon which would stay full and calm - after the tide had receded. It would have appeared as it does in this painting at 4.50am on the 28th of September 1066.
Harold would not have expected William to have had enough time to unload his 7000 men and perhaps horses at the purely tidal port Hastings, at high tide, upon the assumption that William's warships would be the same as Harold's own deep keeled boats shown in early engravings of him actually in one before 1066. This was the same problem faced on D-Day 1944.
Thus one must assume that William did land at Hastings and in doing so, avoided William's navy.
Moreover the name given to William's castle on the Bayeux tapestry -as it also appears in this painting, was 'Hestengaceastre'.
Hestenga is Danish. It means 'Horse-meadow' or 'followers of horses'
If the 'Hestengs' - the local people, were traditionally 'horse-people' or semi-nomadic - grazing their horses around the area (also names exist such as 'Hastingleigh' etc (also of Danish origin - Horse-meadow) - then It is apparent from this painting that these local peoples (The followers of horses) gave their name to the Roman fort - as shown here for the first time. So this painting - combined with the Grose print demonstrates that the name 'Hestenga' goes back - highly probably before Roman times,
and more-over prior to the Anglo-Saxons. One can deduce that the word Saxon actually refers not only to a type of dagger, but a Plough' - both being wooden handled iron implements or 'Seaxe'.
If that is the case, then the Anglo-Saxons (Norse /Danish for 'Ploughed meadow') England - Danish for 'meadow-land'. (Sasanach - Farmers) etc were in nature, farmers. And requiring land with boundaries to farm. Thus, being able to raise taxes.
This being anathema to a people who allowed their horses to roam and graze.
One could thus see a natural ally in William, who used cavalry when Harold didn't, instead Harold fighting from the site of pre-selected Hilltop 'beacons', a method continued from the stone-age using pre-existing stone-age fortifications at the highest points in the landscape for signalling, used as a means of rallying defenders. Sites which negated the need for building castles. Thus, William, who - in effect, made his own hilltops, in the guise of 'mounds' or Mottes, and his more mobile cavalry - who could take a war with him where-ever he went - would be a good customer for their horse-trade.
There would be a strong motivation for the Hestengs to do a deal with William, allowing him unopposed access to their port in return for supplying William with horses.
William would need to be absolutely sure of an unopposed landing if he was to land 2000 horses and building ships 9 months in advance for this purpose.
It is thus evident that he built his 700 shallow keeled boats just as they appear here in this painting, to land exactly at the site in 1066 - as it appears here.
One may conclude that once Harold received the news of William's landing, he would have ordered his ships to regroup - perhaps at the Isle of Wight - and await his arrival with an army.
The history shows that he approached from the north - and in doing so - would have drawn William away from the coast. At that point Harold's large fleet would land, relatively unopposed , probably at the large deep-water port of Pevensey - and crucially his archers would attempt to rendez vous with Harold.
Prima facie Harold had chosen a site for the battle at the top of a hill with a ridge, steep on either side.
So that William's cavalry could not charge up it - and there Harold's archers - when they arrived, would have greater range than William's. It is evident that William's hand was forced by the sighting of Harold's navy - bringing his archers with it. And before Harold's archers could arrive he would engage.
Evidence of this is that William knew Harold didn't have any archers. They would have been positioned behind the ridge of the hill, out of range of Williams archers at the bottom of the hill and out of sight of William.
And yet William positioned his archers at the very front of his rank. Where they would have been totally exposed to the greater range of Harold's archers - out of sight . William knew where Harold's archers were.
One can further deduce that Harold would be at a site where a signal could reach him most rapidly, indicating the arrival of his archers at Pevensey.
The most appropriate hill that fits all of these criteria is to the north west of Heathfield. Until 1900, the final battle was called the Battle of Heathfield. Presumably political considerations changed the perception.
It makes sense that the Bayeux Tapestry was commissioned in England to deflect attention away from the role of the Hestengs in William's conquest, as his position was always under threat.
Further evidence of the conspiracy would be that Hastings was not recorded in the Domesday Book.
One presumes, not because it no longer existed - but that it no longer had to pay taxes. - A reward.
Thus above in the last picture I include a google derived picture, of what would have been the battle hill and the arrangement of forces. It was marked as a Beacon Hill in a 1799 map - when expecting the invasion of Napoleon. In 1066 it would have also been selected as a predetermined sit of defense for a predetermined battle plan. Thus Harold would wait there in order to draw William north - including his force at Pevensey and await a signal from the coast that his archers and navy had arrived. Evidently the wind was not favorable, just as it had not been at Hastings prior, to intercept William's fleet landing at Hastings. The hiill fits the description of the battle and the location on the map of the Beacon Hill and the site explains exactly why and how the battle unfolded. With it being slightly higher at one end - which is where William's men would suffer most from bombardment and from that left flank, William's line under the most pressure would flee when William feigned death.
Harold's men would break rank and pursue down to the flatter lower land, as seen on the left of the satellite image, where William's cavalry could engage them. Their own momentum - downhill, would have been difficult to stop when attacking at the steepest part of the site- so naturally falling on William's line and pursuing their flight.
This would have been a practiced tactic of William's army as opponents to his cavalry would take positions on high ground.
Thus the battle would likely to have naturally proceeded to the left as shown in the picture - and Harold's men would be worn down in this way. the 'malfosse' would be a ditch that runs along the foot of the slope of the battlefield.
All the above and more can for the first time be deduced from the evidence presented in this painting.
Identifying the people of the area as being as old as the Romans and probably prior.
Identifying the geography - both as tidal, and having lagoons which are calm and tidal - which were perfect for William's fleet, particularly his horses to land. (one might suggest that William scuttled his boats in these lagoons - allowing his horses to swim out (using the in-built drain plug integrally designed in Viking boats , and cutting his boats in two and allowing his horses to walk out. This also being shown in the Bayeux tapestry. His horses having been towed across the channel - in part in barges, which were un-rigged and lacking a prow figure, exactly as shown in the tapestry. (a smaller boat is shown being towed and holes are shown in the prows of boats so that they can be towed, and boats are shown as cut in two and stacked vertically. Likely they being used as a part pre-fabricated palisade for his castle. Likewise the masts of boats. Speed being all critical at the landing.
Indeed, the castle's form on the tapestry appears to indicate or evoke that of an upturned planked boat - perhaps a nod to its construction.
A note in respect of The Hestengs - the oldest horse fossils in England were found near Hastings -500000 years old.
The Hestengs (today's 'gypsies'); might have come from Denmark, following horses and herding animals after ice sheets had been melted and the land rose to create the western promontory of europe, its coast home to grasslands exposed by the warming land.. Arriving in Hestengs 500 000 years ago.
The wars of Europe over many hundreds of years being related to the discovery of iron and its use as a plough so that a struggle existed between herders and farmers - the latter requiring fixed plots of land upon which they would raise taxes.
Prima facie again - 'Henge' - a declension of Hesteng - a site where traditional nomadic 'horse followers' traded with farmers.
Amazing as to what one painting can reveal.

One might also hazard a guess that the ruins of the Roman fort are also seen on prints of the day - as in the Hogg / Grose print, as it may not have been necessary to have a tall structure to defend the site, rather it being made of a wooden palisade on-top of its base the latter clearly shown on the Hogg /Grose print as shown above. Thus we have found the total remains of the Roman Fort and William's castle, using the detail of the current painting (as alluded to in the 12th Feb article in the Hastings Observer.) Confirmed by the 1807 print as shown. This painting has in fact won a place in history.

Peter T Reynolds. 10/03/2021

Last picture is an 1879 painting of Scarborough - which shows what Hastings would have looked like in Roman times.

Track Page Views With
Auctiva's FREE Counter