Alternative Norman landing site theories

By tradition, the Normans landed and temporarily camped at modern Pevensey before moving to modern Hastings. Our 2016 book 'The Battle of Hastings at Sedlescombe' explains why we think this is implausible. We propose instead that they landed and temporarily camped on the north bank of the Brede estuary, then crossed the river to a more permanent camp at modern Winchelsea. Others have realised that the orthodox Norman landing narrative is absurd. In this paper, we will investigate the non-orthodox Norman landing site candidates.

One, first proposed by Samuel Jeake in his 1678 analysis of Cinque Port charters, is that the Normans landed at Bulverhythe in Combe Haven. This theory was reiterated by E S Creasy in his 1851 book 'Fifteen Decisive Battles', then fleshed out by Nick Austin in his 1994 book 'Secrets of the Norman Invasion' (SOTNI). The other, first proposed by Sir James Ramsay in his 1898 book 'Foundations of England', then reiterated by David Dennis in his 2025 paper 'The Battle of Hastings and Cooden Moat', is that they landed on the east bank of Pevensey Lagoon at or near Cooden Moat. 

All but one of these alternative landing site theories are rudimentary, their proponents offering no evidence to support their argument. Instead, they reject the orthodox landing theory for a variety of reasons, then arbitrarily state that Combe Haven or Cooden Moat are the most likely alternatives. The exception is Nick Austin who provides lots of supporting evidence that we will investigate shortly. Before getting into any detail, we should explain some background.

Two of the earliest and most trusted contemporary accounts - Poitiers and Jumièges - clearly state that the Normans made a temporary camp near their landing site before moving to their main camp. They name those places 'Penevesellum' and 'Hastingas'. By tradition, based solely on the sound of these names, they referred to modern Pevensey and modern Hastings. Penevesellum does not sound that much like Pevensey - note the 'n/v' switch - but other accounts say that the Normans arrived near 'Pevenesel', a cognate of 'Pefenesea', so it is thought to be a corrupted cognate. 

It would have been difficult to reload horses onto ships without specialist equipment, and the Tapestry depicts the Norman knights riding to 'Hestinga', so it is generally assumed that they rode to modern Hastings. Poitiers and Wace describe William inspecting his fleet at the main camp. The only plausible explanation that would not contradict the rest of the orthodox landing narrative is that men and equipment were reloaded onto the ships and the fleet sailed to modern Hastings.

Even the most ardent supporters of the orthodox landing theory would have to admit that a landing at modern Pevensey and a move to modern Hastings are inconsistent with logistics and simple military tactics. They are also inconsistent with the contemporary accounts which make the move sound trivial. Indeed, the Chronicle of Battle Abbey specifically says that the landing site and main camp were nearby, and Orderic says that they were defended by 'one body of men' which only makes sense if they were adjacent. None of the contemporary accounts say or imply that the Norman fleet moved. The likely explanation is that while the landing placenames used in the contemporary accounts sound like Hastings and Pevensey, they did not refer to modern Hastings and/or to modern Pevensey. Hence, proponents of the alternative landing site candidates relocate one or the other or both, making them close enough that the fleet did not need to sail between the two. 

Some contemporary accounts describe the landing geography. Carmen: “Since leaving the sea behind, you seize a sheltered strand”; Warenne Chronicle: “[sailing] unopposed between the forts of Hastinges and Penenesellum he [William] entered the land of the English”; Baudri of Bourgueil: “Whither would ye flee? Our fleet is far from the shore: we removed all hope of escape when we moved away from that”. They are saying that the Normans landed in a sheltered inlet or estuary. Ports and harbours are nearly always located in sheltered inlets or estuaries, so this is consistent with the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, the Chronicle of Battle Abbey, Benoît and Wace all of which say that the Normans land near a port or harbour. 

Wace describes the Channel crossing: “The ships steered to one port [or harbour]; all arrived and reached the shore together; together cast anchor, and ran on dry land; and together they discharged themselves. They arrived near Hastingues each ship ranged by the other’s side.” In other words, the Norman fleet landed together. William was expecting the landing area to be defended, so it makes military sense. Landing together would have had much the same advantages in 1066 as it had at D-Day, stretching the defence as thin as possible, ideally until it had holes into which a beachhead could be established and horses unloaded. Once the horses were unleashed on level ground, the defence could be overwhelmed.

An inland landing has another valuable military advantage against a defended strand. If the defenders were on one bank, William would have landed on the other, buying time to unload horses and establish a bridgehead. If the defenders were on both banks, he would have landed on the weaker side, halving the defence at the very least. We sometimes refer to this as the 'mid-stream anchoring ploy'.

There are only three inlets and estuaries in the theatre of war with strands that could accommodate most or all of the Norman fleet, namely: Pevensey Lagoon, Combe Haven and the Brede estuary. They are the only credible landing candidates. The diagram above shows the location of these places on our QGIS regression of the 11th century East Sussex coastline.

Both banks of each of the three landing candidates were long enough to accommodate the Norman fleet. However, in practice, one bank was far preferable to the other. The west bank of Pevensey lagoon was lined by marshland, making it less appealing than the east bank. The west bank of Combe Haven was on the narrow-necked Bexhill Peninsula, making it less appealing than the north bank. The east bank of Pevensey Lagoon was on the other side of this peninsula, but it is still preferable to the west bank. The south bank of the Brede estuary was broken by tidal streams draining off the Hastings Ridge, making it less appealing than the north bank. Therefore, the only genuine landing candidates are the Pevensey Lagoon east bank, the Combe Haven north bank and the Brede estuary north bank.

The diagram above depicts our QGIS regression of 11th century Pevensey Lagoon. Note that the lagoon was retained behind a shingle bar - known as 'The Crumbles' - that roughly corresponds with the current coastline. Streams drained through the shingle to divide the bar into a string of islands. West to east they were Langney (L), 'pefenes ea' (pe), Southeye (S) and Northeye (N).

David Dennis proposes that the landing was at Cooden Moat (C), but it is barely 1km long, far too short to accommodate the entire fleet or to stretch any defence. If the landing was on Pevensey Lagoon's east bank and incorporated Cooden Moat, the landing zone would have stretched all along the southern bank of the Barnhorn Peninsula. It looks an unlikely landing place to us with no saltpans to provide the firm level strand that William needed for his horses. Moreover, it was on the western side of what was then a narrow-necked peninsula - the Bexhill Peninsula - whose isthmus at 'The Thorn' (T) might be blockaded by defenders. While this peninsula was rich in farmland, it had no military advantages that might have persuaded William to risk getting trapped there.

Many years ago, when we too believed that the Normans landed on Pevensey Lagoon's east bank, we were thinking they landed in Hooe Haven (H) which was sheltered and inland, which had a long level firm strand thanks to its string of 34 saltpans, and which was not on the Bexhill Peninsula. Hence, we will generally refer to Dennis's proposed landing site as 'Cooden/Hooe' and we will assume it had any landing benefits that might accrue from either Cooden Moat or Hooe Haven. 

The diagram above depicts our QGIS regression of 11th century Combe Haven. Bulverhythe (B) was an island in those days. Nick Austin proposes that the Normans landed at what is now Redgeland Wood (R). For context, Battle Abbey is labelled A.

A comparison of Norman landing site evidence between Combe Haven, Cooden/Hooe and the Brede estuary

These are the clues we use to analyse potential landing site candidates, marked for the Brede estuary, Combe Haven and Cooden/Hooe.

✓ = Yes / Consistent;  ✖ = No / Inconsistent	Brede	Combe Haven	Cooden/ Hooe
Roman infrastructure and Anglo-Saxon burh
1. Roman iron production ('000 of tons)	✓ (80)	✓ (10)	✖
2. Evidence of a Roman roads	✓	✖	✖
3. Evidence of Roman castra	✓	✖	✖
4. Evidence of a Roman port	✓	✖	✖
5. Evidence of Hæstingaceastre burh	✓	✖	✖
Hæstingaport & Anglo-Saxon natural resources
6. Evidence of salt production (Domesday salt-pans)	✓ (100)	✖	✓ (34)
7. Evidence of timber production	✓	✖	✖
8. Evidence of port	✓	✖	✖
9. Consistent with a separate mercantile centre	✓	✖	✓
Consistency with contemporary account geography
10. Length of contiguous strand (km)	8	5	5
11. Overlooked by sea cliff	✓	✖	✖
12. Familiar to Norman monks of Fécamps Abbey	✓	✖	✖
13. Firm level plain adjacent to the landing strand	✓	✖	✓
14. Penevesellum	✓	✖	✖
15. Near the Hastings Peninsula but not on it	✓	✖	✖
16. Wilting farm sales catalogue	✖	✓	✖

 

These clues have been divided into three sections. The first, Roman infrastructure, is directly relevant to the landing through a simple reasoning chain: a) The contemporary accounts say that the main Norman camp was near where they landed; b) The main Norman camp was at Hæstingaceastre, or a cognate of it; c) Places with 'ceastre' names were at pre-Anglo-Saxon fortifications, nearly always Roman; d) Roman fortifications were serviced by Roman roads. Therefore, the Norman landing site and both Norman camps were at or near a Roman road and a Roman fortification. 

1. Roman iron production. Abundant natural resources give a reason for the Romans to build roads, ports and castras. The Weald was one of the richest sources of iron ore in the Roman empire. According to Henry Cleere, 80% of its ore was extracted from the Brede basin. The four biggest mines in the Brede basin produced 75000 tons of iron blooms, whereas the entire Combe Haven basin produced only 10000 tons, and the entire Cooden area produced none. By this measure, the overwhelming majority of Roman infrastructure in the theatre of war was in the Brede basin. There might have been some minor Roman infrastructure in the Combe Haven basin, nothing in Cooden/Hooe.  
2. Roman roads. The south side of the Brede basin was covered in a network of proven metalled Roman roads. The Rochester Roman trunk road crossed the Brede on a bridge at Sedlescombe then forked with one branch going to Beauport Park, while the main trunk road continued to modern Winchelsea. Metalled mining tracks branched to Footlands, Little Hides, Old Place Icklesham, and probably to all the other open cast mines in the Brede basin. Contrastingly, no physical evidence of Roman transport infrastructure has been found near Cooden, and there is no reason for it to have had any. No evidence of Roman transport infrastructure has been found in Combe Haven either, although we expect there was a metalled mining track between Crowhurst Park's mines and a minor port in Combe Haven. 
3. Roman castra. The Rochester Roman road terminated at modern Winchelsea, strongly suggesting that there was a castra at modern Winchelsea. The Rochester Roman road was the only Roman trunk road on the Hastings Peninsula, so modern Winchelsea is the only likely location for a castra on the Hastings Peninsula. Moreover, there is a manor named Wickham adjacent to modern Winchelsea. 'Wiccham' or similar was the Old English name for Anglo-Saxon settlements at former 'vici' which were civilian settlements found outside almost all Roman fortifications. There is no evidence of a vicus in or near Combe Haven or Cooden/Hooe. Also, coastal castras were located for good visibility and fast troop deployment. Modern Winchelsea had a Roman trunk road for troop deployment and an uninterrupted 160° sea view south and east. Bulverhythe would have had much the same view, but Austin thinks that Hæstingaceastre was at Redgeland which had a narrow 15° sea view south. Cooden had a 45° sea view southwest. To summarise, while no physical evidence of a Roman castra has been found on the Hastings Peninsula, the circumstantial evidence suggests it had a castra and that it was at modern Winchelsea in the Brede basin. 
4. Roman port. A Roman port in the theatre of war is not direct evidence of anything relevant to the Norman landing, but it would be further evidence for the location of the castra that defended it. The Hastings Ridge forms the Brede basin's southern watershed. The land south of the Hastings Ridge is divided into the Combe Haven basin, the Hooe Haven basin and the Ash Bourne basin. There is no credible reason that bulky goods like iron blooms would be hauled over the Hastings Ridge, so the Brede basin's iron would have been exported from a port in the Brede, while Crowhurst Park's iron was probably exported from a port in Combe Haven. Therefore, there was a major Roman port in the Brede estuary - Ptolemy's 'Novus Portus', we think - and perhaps a minor Roman port in Combe Haven, the former being roughly eight times the size of the latter. There is no reason for Cooden/Hooe to have had a Roman port.
5. Anglo-Saxon burh. Hæstingaceastre was an Alfredian burh. We explain in 3 above why the only likely place for a Roman castra on the Hastings Peninsula was at modern Winchelsea. It is also the most likely location for a burh fortification. Alfred's burhs were positioned to defend population centres and transport routes from Viking raids. There were no major Anglo-Saxon population centres in East Sussex, but there was a mint and an important transport route, namely the Rochester Roman road. A burh at modern Winchelsea would have controlled access to that road. A burh in Combe Haven or Cooden/Hooe woujld have controlled no valuable assets. Indeed, both places were on the south side of the Hastings Ridge, unable to see Viking raiders entering the Brede estuary and therefore unable to prevent them plundering the along the Rochester Roman road's hinterland. 

The best clue for the location of the Norman landing and main camp is that most of the contemporary accounts say they were near Hæstingaport or cognate. A hundred and fifty years after the Conquest, each of the alternative Norman landing site candidates had a port: the Brede estuary had Old Winchelsea, Combe Haven had Bulverhythe, Cooden/Hooe had Northeye. Of these, Old Winchelsea shipped roughly ten times the freight volume of the rest combined. However, this is not necessarily related to the relative size of these ports at the time of the Conquest. Perhaps, for example, Old Winchelsea grew from a minor fishing port to service the new Norman castle at modern Hastings. We think not.

'Winchelse' (Old Winchelsea's name at the time of the Conquest), Bulverhythe and Northeye are Old English names, so all three must have had Anglo-Saxon settlements. Coastal settlements usually had a fishing fleet, so all three probably had a harbour. But a harbour is not a port: the latter handles freight or passengers or both, the former is a sheltered place to moor ships. Even if Old Winchelsea, Bulverhythe or Northeye had an Anglo-Saxon port at some point, it was not necessarily still active in the 11th century.

The Anglo-Saxon population of east Sussex was too low to draw significant imports and its surplus agricultural production would have been too low to need an export port. Hæstingaport therefore must have exported natural resources. The Romans mined out the region's iron ore. Hæstingaport must have exported the region's other natural resources: salt, salted herrings and timber. 

6. Salt production. Domesday lists salt-pans by manor. Rameslie manor which spanned the Brede had 100 salt-pans, Hooe manor had 34, the manors around Combe Haven had none.
7. Timber production. All three of the Hæstingaport candidates would have been below heavily wooded slopes. However, moving logs over land in medieval times was incredibly difficult. Anywhere that produced a significant quantity of timber would have flumed logs to the nearest waterway and floated them to a port downstream. The only slopes in the region that are consistently steep enough to flume timber are those on the north bank of the Brede and medieval flumes are still there. No flumes have been found around Combe Haven or Cooden/Hooe.
8. Evidence of a major 11th century Anglo-Saxon port. There are documentary references to a port at Old Winchelsea from the late 8th century through to its destruction in the late 13th century. Pre-Conquest coins issued at Hæstingaceastre's mint are stamped with an abbreviation of Hæstingaceastre, or an abbreviation of Hæstingaport or an abbreviation of Winchelse (meaning Old Winchelsea), implying that Hæstingaport and Old Winchelsea were cognates and that the port was active at the time of the Conquest. The 'hythe' part of Bulverhythe's name implies it was a small Anglo-Saxon port, but Hæstingaport was a major international port, and there is no evidence that Bulverhythe was active in the 11th century. Indeed, there is no evidence that the ports in Combe Haven or Cooden/Hooe Haven were active before the 13th century. 'De viis Maris' corroborates this by saying that the only 'good port' on the Hastings peninsula in the mid-late 12th century was at Old Winchelsea. Old Wincheslea was serviced by a metalled Roman trunk road, ideal for the delivery and distribution of freight, whereas Combe Haven and Cooden/Hooe had no metalled roads. Moreover, they were separated from the hinterland by the Hastings Ridge, a formidable barrier for the delivery and distribution of freight. Domesday says that Hastinges in the Bredeside manor of Rameslie had four burgesses, nearly always an indication that the manor contained a port or trading centre, whereas the Combe Haven and Cooden/Hooe manors had no burgesses. Domesday also lists Rameslie manor with a large population and little farmland, implying it had significant non-farming economic activity, whereas the populations of the Combe Haven manors and Cooden/Hooe manors are consistent with them being populated only by farmers. 
9. Mercantile centre. Old Winchelsea, Bulverhythe and Northeye were shingle islands, impractical for the distribution of freight, exposed to the elements, and barren. They were probably serviced by a nearby mercantile centre on the mainland. This might also explain Hæstingaport's name which implies it serviced a region named Hastinga - analagous to modern East Midlands Airport for example - whereas all the other Anglo-Saxon ports were known by the name of their settlement: Dover and Southampton, for example, were known as Dofras and Hantun. If, as we think, all three Norman landing candidates were proto-entrepôts, their mercantile centres would have been at Iham (modern Winchelsea) for Old Winchelsea, Redgeland for Bulverhythe, or Cooden/Hooe for Northeye. There is no evidence of Anglo-Saxon settlement at Redgeland, so we believe that Combe Haven's port was Norman. Both Iham and Hooe are well-attested Anglo-Saxon manors that have revealed physical evidence of Anglo-Saxon occupation. 

There are other reasons to believe that the Normans landed and camped in the Brede estuary, or that they did not land or camp in Combe Haven or Cooden/Hooe.

10. The longer the landing strand, the militarily the better. The contiguous strand on the north bank of the Brede estuary was 8km long, the north bank of Combe Haven and Cooden/Hooe were both 5km long. This clue favours the Brede estuary. 
11. Carmen and Wace say that the Norman landing was watched by an observer who stood at the base of a cliff. The Brede estuary was overlooked by Cadborough cliffs. Combe Haven and Cooden were not overlooked by cliffs.
12. William was accompanied on the invasion by monks from the abbey of Fécamps who acted as translators and advisors. They had held the manor of Rameslie which spanned the Brede estuary since 1018. Jo Kirkham proposed back in the 1990s that William would have used their expert local knowledge to plan the invasion. They would have known that the Brede estuary was lined by salt pans that would provide a long level firm strand, ideal for mounted horses. 
13. Wace (Taylor) says: “They [the knights] formed together on the shore, each armed upon his warhorse. All had their swords girded on, and passed into the plain with their lances raised.” He is saying that the Normans landed on a strand that was adjacent to a plain that was level enough to assemble a kit-fortress without first digging a motte, and firm enough underfoot to support mounted horses. This is consistent with the north bank of the Brede which, at that time of year, would have had a firm level plain of top sliced salt pans. The banks of Combe Haven would have been a boggy quagmire at the end of September, and still are despite the effective 5m drop in sea level. The banks at Cooden would have been soft too, but the north bank of Hooe Haven was lined by saltpans, giving a firm dry strand. 
14. Poitiers, Jumièges and Orderic say that the Normans initially landed at Penevesellum. Note the 'n/v' switch, meaning this is not a Pevensey cognate. It is a Latin format name that was only used by Normans. The only likely reason that Normans might have had a Latin name for somewhere in Sussex is that it belonged to the Frankish Abbey of St Denys or the Norman Abbey of Fécamp. They owned Rameslie manor which lined the banks of the Brede estuary, but nothing in the Combe Haven basin or Cooden/Hooe.
15. Bayeux Tapestry scene 40 is captioned: “here the knights hurry to Hestinga to forage for food”. Poitiers, Jumièges and Orderic say that they move to 'Hastingas' after landing and temporarily camping at Penevesellum. We believe that the Tapestry's Hestinga refers to the Hastings Peninsula, consistent with a Brede north bank landing, but inconsistent with Combe Haven and Cooden/Hooe. Hastingas in the other three refers to Hæstingaport. Again, this would be consistent with a Brede north bank landing, but inconsistent with Combe Haven and Cooden because the other landing theories are predicated on the landing being at Hæstingaport. 
16. According to the 1987 HAARG Domesday project, a 1963 sales catalogue for Wilting Farm claimed: "In the heyday of Sussex iron workings, when the transport of iron to water borne transport was of the utmost importance, a road existed from the great blooomery at Beauport to a loading bay in the vicinity of the Coach Bridge [near the on the banks of Combe Haven]. The course of the highway can still be traced across the farm." If this were true, it might imply that Beauport Park's iron blooms were hauled over the Hastings Ridge to be exported from a port in Combe Haven. This would turn on their head some of the first six clues, meaning that the port in Combe Haven was by far the biggest in the region, that it was likely to have had the nearby castra, and so on.

In our opinion, clue 16 is a misunderstanding. We guess that its root was the Turner painting note we mention above. That note seems to be corroborated by a vestigial road from Crowhurst Park to the coast. However, the Turner note is baseless and Colonel Thomas Pelham, Crowhurst Park's owner in the 18th century, built a metalled road from his house in Crowhurst Park to Glyne Gap on the coast. This is the road that is still visible on the landscape, and it does look superficially like a Roman road, with raised carriageway, graded layers, and straight sections. It was only revealed to have been Georgian when it was excavated by HAARG in 1987.

To summarise, the Brede estuary is consistent with all the genuine landing clues, while Combe Haven and Cooden/Hooe are inconsistent with at least 75% of them, and the orthodox landing site at modern Pevensey and modern Hastings is inconsistent with all of them.

Reasons to discount a Brede estuary landing

We doubt that anyone would argue against our analysis above, but proponents of the other landing site candidates have specific reasons to think that the Normans could not have landed in the Brede estuary. If so, they argue that the Normans must have landed in Combe Haven or Pevensey Lagoon, even if they are inconsistent with most of the landing site clues. 

The most obvious reason that the Brede estuary has not been considered as a viable Norman landing site is that the contemporary accounts are thought to be saying that the Normans landed at modern Pevensey and camped at modern Hastings. This orthodox interpretation of contemporary account placenames that sound like Pevensey and Hastings is faulty.

For one thing, modern Pevensey was only founded in 1207. Beforehand, it had no civilian population or port, and it was not known as Pevensey or anything that sounds like it. The pre-13th century place from which modern Pevensey got its name was an island harbour named 'pefenes ea' on the Crumbles shingle bank - see QGIS map above. All the contemporary accounts were written before the 13th century, so their references to somewhere that sounds like Pevensey referred to this island harbour. 

For another, none of the contemporary accounts say that the Normans landed at the place that sounds like Pevensey. The Tapestry says that the Normans: “came to Pevenesæ”; the D recension of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle says that: “Earl William came from Normandy to pefnes ea”; Benoît that the Normans: “Arrived at Pevenesel”; Brevis Relatio that they: “arrived at the fortress of Pevenesel”; the Chronicle of Battle Abbey that they: “arrived safely near to the fortress named Pevenesel”. These accounts imply that the Normans arrived near the coast of England within sight of the Roman fortress of Anderitum at modern Pevensey but did not land. And this is exactly what John of Worcester says: “[William] moored his fleet at a place named Pefnesea”.

That leaves three accounts which specifically say that the Normans landed at Penevesellum. It is always assumed to be an alternative spelling of Pevenesel which is the Latin transliteration of Old English 'pefenes' plus the translation of Old English 'ea' to Frankish 'el', both meaning island. The 'n/v' order is reversed, so Penevesellum does not sound like Pevenesel, but there is some documentary evidence that it was a Pevenesel cognate: a) Orderic's account of Odo's rebellion in 1089 says that Penevesel was held by Robert, Count of Mortain, and he held the manor of Pevenesel incorporating modern Pevensey and pefenes ea, but nothing in Hastings Rape; b) Gesta Stephani's account of Gilbert's rebellion in 1147 refers to Anderitum at modern Pevensey as the castle of Penevesellum. 

In our opinion, Orderic was mistaken and Gesta Stephani copied the error. Poitiers and Jumièges, writing soon after the Conquest, have the first known references to Penevesellum, both saying it is where the Normans landed. There are no references to Penevesellum for the next fifty years until Orderic re-iterates Poitiers almost word for word, then adds that it is where Odo was besieged. He lived all his adult life in Saint-Evroult. There is no reason he would have known about obscure places in England. He clearly used Poitiers and Jumièges as sources for his Norman Conquest narrative. We guess that he incorrectly assumed their Penevesellum referred to modern Pevensey and used the term through the rest of his manuscript. The monk who wrote Gesta Stephani would probably have copied the error when he used Orderic's account of Odo's rebellion as a source for extra information about Anderitum for his account of Gilbert's rebellion (useful because both were holed up at Anderitum). 

Nick Austin has another reason to reject a Brede estuary landing. He reasons that the Normans would have destroyed the manors close to their main camp. The Domesday manors that lost most or all of their value during the Conquest were around Combe Haven while the manors around the Brede estuary increased in value. He therefore concludes that the Norman landing and main camp cannot have been in the Brede basin, but are likely to have been in the Combe Haven basin. 

However, his reasoning is flawed. Rameslie manor which encompassed the Brede estuary was held by the Norman Abbey of Fécamp before and after the invasion. William was the abbey's patron. In effect, the Brede basin and the port of Old Winchelsea belonged to William and the Roman Church. William would not have plundered himself or his most important sponsor, the Pope, so Rameslie manor would have escaped unharmed wherever the Normans camped. Conversely, Harold's ancestral manors were adjacent to Combe Haven, and they had the richest farmland in the region. They would have been plundered and razed wherever the Normans camped. Thus, Austin should not use this as evidence to discount a Brede estuary.

The general assumption that the main Norman camp was at modern Hastings is also flawed. Modern Hastings is referred to as 'Nova Hastinges' in the 12th century Pipe Rolls. This means that there was already a settlement known as Hastinges in the vicinity of modern Hastings when the Norman castle was built. Therefore, the contemporary account references to a landing and main Norman camp at 'Hastinges' are specifically saying it was not at modern Hastings. Another good reason to think that the main Norman camp was not at modern Hastings is that several accounts say or imply that it was at Hæstingaceastre. Places with ceastre names were at pre-Anglo-Saxon fortifications, nearly always Roman, but Roman fortifications were serviced by metalled Roman roads and the Rochester Roman road - the only metalled Roman in the region - did not pass within 6km of modern Hastings.

Evidence supporting a Pevensey Lagoon east coast landing

None of the east Pevensey Lagoon landing theories include any supporting evidence. However, for many years we too believed that the Normans landed on Pevensey Lagoon's east strand and we had a coherent argument.

Lots of contemporary accounts say that the Norman fleet moored in the shallows off pefenes ea which was an island near Pevensey Lagoon. One logical reason to gather the fleet near Pevensey Lagoon is that William intended to land in the lagoon. His ultimate destination was on the Hastings Peninsula. Thus, if the Norman fleet entered Pevensey Lagoon, as Sir James Ramsay pointed out over a hundred years ago, it would have been sensible to land on its east strand. Several accounts say or imply that the Norman landed on a long firm level strand, and Hooe had thirty-four salt pans which would have been firm, dry and level in late September. They needed to feed upwards of ten thousand men and Hooe had the richest farmland in the region. A landing in Hooe Haven seemed to make sense. 

We only changed our minds when we realised that the Rochester Roman road terminated at modern Winchelsea which meant that Hæstingaceastre was at modern Winchelsea. This tied up a bunch of loose ends about Hæstingaport, the mint, the Brede's salt-pans, the land belonging to the Abbey of Fécamps, and much else, all pointing to a Brede estuary landing.

But then why would the Norman fleet gather near pefenes ea if they intended to land in the Brede estuary? One possibility is that they wanted to draw defenders away from their intended landing place. Another, more likely we think, is that it was the standard cross-Channel navigation technique from Normandy. The East Sussex coast is famous for its rocky shoreline, a dangerous place to sail, especially in Viking style longships with no centreboard or daggerboard. The only benign contiguous stretch of coast was (and still is) between Eastbourne and Bexhill. We guess that each Norman port had a pair of navigation beacons that pointed midway between Eastbourne and Bexhill, towards what was then the island harbour of pefenes ea, thereby providing the maximum safety margin for navigation errors and wind changes. It was uncommon to sail at night in those days, but if forced to do so and if it was overcast, they would presumably sound for the shallows at Royal Sovereign Shoals then heave-to and wait for daylight.

We still think that east Pevensey Lagoon is a more likely landing site than Combe Haven or modern Hastings, but far less likely than the Brede estuary. 

Nick Austin's evidence supporting a Combe Haven landing

The diagram above depicts Austin's pre-battle narrative, superimposed on our QGIS regression of the 11th century coastline. It can be summarised as follows. The Normans landed at Redgeland Wood (R) and camped nearby in Monkham Wood (1). They soon moved 800m north onto the hill at Upper Wilting (2) where they camped for the next month. The English camped at Telham (T) on the night before battle. Austin reckons that the Normans could not adopt the obvious strategy, to attack downhill from Blackhorse Hill after marching to Beauport Park (B) along the route of the A2690, because the Ridge was covered in impenetrable woodland. Instead, he proposes that they returned to Redgeland Wood to dress for battle before marching through Green Street (G) to Crowhurst (C). The English moved onto the steepest part of the hill (E). Their flanks were supposedly protected by impenetrable woodland, forcing the Normans to attack up the steep south slope of Telham Hill (white arrow between C and E). 

Austin's evidence is listed below. Clues 1 through 7 come from the first edition of SOTNI. Clues 8 through 14 come from his subsequent research. His Hæstingaport location evidence is divided between the Bulverhythe (B) and Redgeland (R). While the groups of clues seem to contradict each other, Bulverhythe and Redgeland are only 2km apart. To make the clues mutually consistent, it can be assumed that it might have been a composite entrepôt - like the one we propose at Old Winchelsea and Iham - with docks at Bulverhythe and a mercantile centre at Redgeland. 

1. Austin: The Chronicles [i.e. Benoît de Sainte-Maure] state 'There right in front of the port' where William’s fleet 'landed stood a Castle handsome and strong'. The expression 'There right in front of the port' Hæstingaceastre can only make sense when applied to the Hastings port at Bulverhythe, since this is the only place where a castle could stand in a way that you would consider to be in front of the port.
2. Austin: The great Council in the time of William Rufus was held in 1094 at Hastings Castle ... The register of Battle Abbey records “The Castle then stood below the cliff, on ground since overflowed by the sea”. This can likewise only refer to Bulverhythe as the erosion of the coastline, referred to by many writers, is only recorded to have occurred two centuries later in the late 13th century.
3. Austin lists two early references to salt works at the port of Hastings: 1) Charter of Offa dated as early as AD.795 which says “..the ports of my possession which are in the same neighbourhood on the sea, Hastings and Pevensey, with their salt works”; 2) A complaint to King Aedelwulfus AD 857 in which it is stated: “that a monk of St.Denis had bitterly complained of the injuries which the kings men had miserably inflicted on the followers of the Saint in England, especially at Rotherfield, and in Hastings and Pevensey, at their salt works.” He notes that salt has never been worked on the coast near modern Hastings but it might have been worked on the banks of Combe Haven. For evidence, he quotes Dawson's statement: "That there were at Bulverhythe pertaining to the said barony at Hastings - 20 acres of salt pasture worth per annum 6s 8d".
4. Samuel Jeake specifically says that the Normans landed at Bulverhythe. Austin: "Jeakes, in his annotations on the Cinque Ports Charters, speaking of the neighbouring spot called Bulverhythe, sets forth that it was not only the original haven of Hastings, but as such the then supposed place where William the Conqueror landed".
5. Austin: Barry Funnell reporting for the Hastings Area Archaeological Research Group (HAARG) on the America Ground in 1989 states that 'the early chronicles describe Hastings as having the best natural seaport in South East England'. This is indeed only true of Bulverhythe, which was at that time a flooded inland harbour, second only to Poole as the largest natural harbour on the South Coast.
6. Austin: A further study of other writings on this subject produce many examples of cross referenced support for Bulverhythe, as the original port of Hastings, at the time of the Norman Invasion. E.M. Ward in his detailed study 'The Evolution of the Hastings Coastline' states that “Bulverhythe, as a 13th century port was of some importance”. Straker and Lewis make the point that “the haven of Bulverhythe was possibly used as an iron port” for the Romans. Millward and Robinson confirm that “Bulverhythe was probably an important Saxon port and was later a member of the Cinque ports”. Lastly the Patent Rolls still mention the importance of Bulverhythe as a port as late as AD 150 [the reference is actually 1250].
7. Austin: One final clue arises to confirm the fact that Hastings port pre 1066 was almost certainly situated on the Bulverhythe within the natural harbour area. This is that Hastings enjoyed a pre-eminent position in relation to the Cinque Ports. These five ports, Hastings, Romney, Hythe, Dover and Sandwich received special privileges most probably because they were the only source of ships in the absence of a navy. The first reference to the Cinque Ports is in a charter of Henry II according to the eminent historian, and ex curator of Hastings Museum, John Manwaring Baines. In his book 'Historic Hastings' Mr Manwaring Baines makes the point that whilst each of these ports enjoyed a special relationship with the crown Hastings appeared to enjoy special favours. He notes that “all freemen of the ports were called “Barons” and “although not en-nobled by that title, their representatives were recognised as being almost on the level with peerage barons”. They were exempt from taxation and trading dues and had the right to be tried by their own courts. These were extraordinary privileges. However Hastings appeared to enjoy a special privilege, which many attribute to it’s roll as head Cinque Port. This was the right to provide barons to carry the canopy of the King and Queen in procession at the coronation. Further at the banquet after the coronation they sat at the right hand side of the king, in the place of honour. It is my opinion that these honours were special and bestowed upon the people of Hastings because of their special relationship with the crown, dating back to the time of William. This explains why these privileges were granted, but also provides a logical explanation based upon the fact that the port of Hastings was the largest and most influential of all the ports in the South of England. The honours bestowed matched the status of the port and could only be located at Bulverhythe.
8. The Chronicle of Battle Abbey: “specifically names the port at a place named Hedgeland [Hechelande]”. Austin explains that Hechelande would have been pronounced similarly to Redgeland in the local dialect of the day, so Hæstingaport referred to modern Redgeland which was on the banks of Combe Haven at the time of the Norman invasion.
9. The first Norman Sheriffs, namely Reinbert and Ingelrann, were “installed at Wilting Manor”, the location he proposes for the second Norman camp. He says that this reflects Wilting’s “paramount importance”, implying it was the administrative centre for Hæstingaport.
10. Domesday's list of manors that were 'wasted' (i.e., destroyed) during the Conquest are concentrated around Combe Haven. Rameslie manor around the Brede estuary suffered no damage at all. Austin argues that the manors most plundered, and therefore those that lost most value during the Conquest, would have been those closest to the Norman camp. Therefore, he argues that the second Norman camp and Hæstingaceastre and Hæstingaport must have been in Combe Haven.
11. Field boundaries and a terrace near Upper Wilting indicate the route of a Roman road from Redgeland to Beauport Park which was used to transport iron blooms to a Roman port in Combe Haven. Every Roman trunk road ends at a castra, the survivors of which became Anglo-Saxon 'ceastres'. If there was a metalled Roman road that ended at Combe Haven, it is a good candidate to be Hæstingaceastre, and therefore a good candidate to have been the location of Hæstingaport and the Norman landing. 
12. There are lumps in the ground at Redgeland that might be the remains of Roman piers from the Roman port. Roman ports were protected by legionaries that lived in a nearby castra. If the Roman piers are from a Roman port, it would have had a nearby castra and that castra would be a good candidate to have been Hæstingaceastre.
13. LiDAR shows the outline of a rectangular enclosure near Redgeland. That enclosure is the right size to have been the Alfredian burh of Hæstingaceastre based on its description in the Burghal Hidage.
14. Resistivity geophysics survey shows the outline of a Norman keep, perhaps surrounded by the faint outline of fortress walls, at Wilting. Austin notes that the Normans must have been based somewhere before the stone castle at modern Hastings was complete. Being Normans, they probably stayed in a motte and bailey wooden castle, which might have been the one in the geophysics.  

If these clues were valid, they seem to make a coherent case for a Norman landing in Combe Haven. Crowhurst Park produced 40000 tonnes of iron ore in Roman times, all processed at nearby bloomeries. The Weald's iron was made into weapons and armour in France. Iron blooms were heavy and awkward to transport over land. It seems likely that Crowhurst Park's blooms were moved onto sea-going ships as directly as possible, which would have entailed dropping them 1.4km downhill to a port in Combe Haven. If there was a Roman port on the banks of Combe Haven - and Clue 12 might be physical evidence of it - the rest of Austin's evidence could form a coherent narrative as follows. 

Heavy freight like iron blooms was moved by ox-drawn cart on hardcore surfaces. This implies there was a metalled road or mining track between the Crowhurst Park bloomery and a Combe Haven port, and Clue 11 might be physical evidence of it. Roman ports, both commercial and military, were defended by Roman legionaries who lived in camps known as castras. Settlements at former castras were referred to by Anglo-Saxons as 'ceastres'. Hæstingaceastre was therefore at the site of a former castra.  Clue 13 might be physical evidence of it at Redgeland and Clue 2 might be documentary evidence of it at Bulverhythe. This would be consistent with Clue 1 if the viewer was looking from the sea. Clue 8 purports to be direct evidence that Hæstingaport was also at Redgeland. The Romans mined out all the ore in the entire region, so Hæstingaport did not ship iron blooms. Instead, it would have shipped the region's other main natural resources: salt, salted herrings, and timber. Clue 3 is an attempt to show that the Combe Haven basin was rich in these natural resources. Clues 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10 try to show that Combe Haven had an important Anglo-Saxon port and a significant Anglo-Saxon settlement.

The only other landing site candidate that Austin considered was modern Hastings, the orthodox location of Hæstingaport, Hæstingaceastre and Hastinges. Clues 3, 6, 7 and 9 try to show that modern Hastings did not have an Anglo-Saxon port. Austin rejected the Brede estuary as a landing site candidate, as explained in Clue 10 below, so he also rejected Old Winchelsea as a Hæstingaport candidate. He therefore concludes that Combe Haven is the only Norman landing site candidate and that is consistent with the evidence. 

Some flaws in Austin's evidence

Clue 1 is based on Dawson's faulty translation of a passage from Benoît's Chronique des ducs de Normandie, and it is taken out of context. Benoît says "Iloc sampres desus the port, ferment unchastel bel e fort". 'ferment' usually means 'built', but also has a niche meaning 'fortified' or 'strengthened'. We think that Ian Short's translation is more accurate: "[The Normans] Arrived at Pevenesel, at a port [or harbour] beneath a fortress handsome and strong", but he ignores the verb 'ferment'. Our translation is: 'There above the port, they built [or strengthened] a fortress beautiful and strong'. It does not say or imply that the fortress is in front of the port. If the fortress overlooked the port from above, it could have been referring to Pevensey or Winchelsea, but not  Bulverhythe. Moreover, the next sentence starts: 'Apres, ce conte li escriz' meaning 'Afterwards, as the story goes', implying that the narrative is based on hearsay that Benoît does not trust.  

Clue 2 is based on an unreliable note on the back of a JMW Turner painting. There is nothing to substantiate the note's claim and it looks spurious. As far as we know, the origin of the words has never been found. No books or manuscripts are known as the 'Register of Battle Abbey'. Some assume that he was referring to the folios that comprise the Battle Abbey Archive because they have been hidden away in a private American library for over a century, but we have seen them all without finding the painting's reference. We guess that the author of the words “The Castle then stood below the cliff, on ground since overflowed by the sea” was an art auctioneer who assumed that the castle must have been destroyed along with Old Winchelsea because no evidence of its survives. 

Clue 3 is mostly misleading. Austin was trying to say that salt has never been farmed at modern Hastings, which is true, whereas it might has been farmed around Combe Haven, which is unsubstantiated speculation. His evidence that salt was farmed around Combe Haven is an early 14th century reference to salt-marsh around Bulverhythe, not evidence of salt farming and two hundred and fifty years too late to be relevant anyway. On the contrary, there is no evidence that salt was farmed around Combe Haven in Anglo-Saxon times and Domesday does not list it with any salt-pans. Austin's supporting evidence that salt was intensively farmed in Ramleslie manor is also irrelevant because the salt-pans were on the banks of the Brede estuary, and its salt would have been used in or exported from the Brede estuary.

Clue 4 does accurately reflect Jeake's opinion that the Normans landed at Bulverhythe, but he provided no evidence and he was clearly mistaken. Bulverhythe was an island at the time of the Norman invasion. There is no possibility that the Normans landed on an island because they needed fresh water and forage for their horses, they needed to ride to mainland farms to rustle food, and they needed to return livestock to their camp, as depicted on the Bayeux Tapestry. It seems likely to us that Jeake did not know that Bulverhythe was an island at the time of the Norman invasion, so spuriously reasoned that it was the closest place to modern Hastings with a strand long enough to accommodate the Norman fleet and was therefore the most likely landing site. 

Clue 5 is inaccurate. As Funnell implies, medieval sources do say that a port on the Hastings Peninsula was one of the two busiest in southeast England, the other being Dover, but there is no reason to equate that - as Austin does in Clue 5 - with it having the largest natural harbour. Port shipping volume is a function of hinterland natural resources, population and transport infrastructure, of which Combe Haven had close to zero in Anglo-Saxon times. 

Clue 6 is not evidence that there was an Anglo-Saxon port at Bulverhythe at the time of the Norman invasion. It is evidence that there was a port at Bulverhythe in the mid-13th century. It was Norman, and probably developed to service the Norman castle and settlement at modern Hastings. There is no evidence of an Anglo-Saxon port in Combe Haven and no reason for it to have had one. Indeed, the mid-12th century crusader's guidebook 'De viis Maris' says that there was no port in Combe Haven.

Clue 7 is a misunderstanding. The five 'Cinque Ports' are Hastings, Dover, Romney, Hythe and Sandwich. They were obliged to provide 57 ships to the king, allocated in proportion to the value of their tax breaks. The breakdown across the five Cinque Ports was 21, 21, 5, 5 and 5 ships respectively. The name implies that the Cinque Ports were ports, but Hastings and Dover were 'Head Ports'. It meant that the earls of Hastings and Dover each had to raise their 21 ships across the ports in their earldom, which did not necessarily include a port at their administrative centre. It clearly did not in the case of Hastings because the same charter defines its port breakdown and none of them was at modern Hastings. Rather, the allocation was 10 from Old Winchelsea, 5 from Rye, and 6 between Seaford, Old Pevensey, Hydney, Northeye, Bulverhythe, Iham (modern Winchelsea), Beaksborne, and Grench. Bulverhythe was one of eight ports that had to raise a combined six ships, meaning that it probably raised less than one. The Brede basin had to raise more than fifteen. This shows that the Norman port at Bulverhythe in Combe Haven was minuscule compared to those at the mouth of the Brede estuary. 

Clue 8 is ambiguous, and probably duplicitous. The Chronicle of Battle Abbey says that Hecheland is 'a parte' the port. Searle translates this instance of 'a parte' to mean 'in the direction of', Lower as 'towards'. They are just about viable translations but very rare. Latin 'a parte' usually means 'to the side of', and the many other uses of the term in CBA have this meaning. Austin interprets this to mean that the port is at Hecheland or nearby. But the term does not mean 'at' and has no implication of closeness. Indeed, Latin has other common words for nearby. One of them, proximus, is used twelve times in the CBA to mean 'nearby'. In typical use, 'a parte' is used in a more general way - 'riverside', 'hillside', 'western side', and the like - which would be inconsistent with Austin's interpretation. Regardless, CBA has four other references to Hecheland all of which say it was inland, near modern Telham on the Hastings Ridge. If it is being consistent, Hecheland is not referring to a port.  

Clue 9 is misleading. Sheriffs Reinbert and Ingelrann were only subtenants of Wilting Manor, a role they shared with three others. Reinbert was sole subtenant of 15 other Sussex manors, including valuable Udimore and Whatlington, plus joint subtenant of eight more. Ingelrann was subtenant of two big Sussex manors, Hooe and Filsham, and referred to himself as Ingelran of Hooe. It seems to us that their involvement with Wilting was incidental, and their bases were elsewhere.

Clue 10 is the most crucial aspect of Austin's evidence because it is his only argument that the Normans did not land in the Brede estuary. We explain above that this argument is flawed, and that it should not be used to discount a Brede estuary landing nor to support a Combe Haven landing.

Clues 11, 12, 13 and 14 are unsubstantiated speculation. Extensive excavations were made around Wilting before work began on the Bexhill Bypass. They found evidence of 14 Roman bloomeries, but no evidence of enclosures, metalled roads, piers, quays, or Anglo-Saxon occupation. This does not mean they were not there, but there is no evidence they were.

Summary

In summary, the Brede estuary is consistent with all the landing clues whereas Combe Haven and Cooden/Hooe are each consistent with less than 20% of them, and the orthodox landing sites at modern Pevensey and modern Hastings are consistent with none. Nick Austin provides many items of evidence to support his Combe Haven landing theory, but they are all faulty or flawed.