Get permission from the relevant agency to dig a trench across one of those graves, then dig the damn trench! Run a decent metal detector along the three defensive lines, and do some digging there too. Ditto the side trenches where so many died and the Lake of Blood too. If it really happened where you are saying, there will be ample evidence at any of those sites. The most likely site would be the Lake of Blood, as artifacts like armour and weapons would have probably sunk into the anaerobic zone and - after a millennia - be covered by about a metre of sediment. So look there first. A simple suction dredge would work for a preliminary look (even a big magnet on a line), and would bring up bone fragments and artifacts if they exist. You need to find something else just walk away. (But please, for the next few weeks at least, please stay home and beat Covid-19!)
Simple idea: get some experienced detectorists and let them loose on the battlefield sites, especially the "last stand" site. If there's anything there, they will find it.
The logic and reasoning behind your theory is credible - even to an ignorant buffoon like me... so why is it that after all these years, some deep-pocketed benefactor with a genuine interest in one of our history's most important events, hasn't stepped up to the plate and funded the practical archaeology? And how peculiar is the land-owner whose main concern is his pending hay harvest, when (if proven) his patch of fetid marshland could become internationally famous and endure in memory for another thousand years (or more)?
My granddad farmed in Crowhurst and found relics that he passed down to me...as I have posted previously. I am sooo passionate about the lie of the 1066 invasion pivoting at (the promoted site of) Battle Abbey I am a bit of a bore. People can't mention a BBC TV programme about baking without me discussing the 1066 location-myth!! (n.b. I intentionally do NOT own a TV as all it does is perpetuate the Establishment fairytale!). Anyway... My point is, seeing this video is/was a surprise to me! if I'd known it was happening I'd have helped make sandwiches and bought along some biscuits and flasks of tea. I worry that your group is more interested in 'back-slapping' than genuinely, truly, exposing the truth of what happened in "Cru'rst" 952 yrs ago. I've some spearheads ploughed up near the Malfosse from my gramps in the (I guess?!?) 1940~50s... and iron crossbow bolts found along the footpath from the farm to the railway bridge, as recently as last year... but you people only seem to want to massage your own egos. Does history not matter? Do facts not matter? If what (actually!) matters is being part of your "social circle/gang" then your version of history is as valid/invalid as that version spouted by William's "social circle/gang".... Forget the harrowing of the north...and the myth of English Heritage's (lucrative) Battle site being the site of the 3rd major autumn battle in 1066... it's all just as pointlessly worth arguing!" I've contacted you via every single means possible... offering you my inherited finds... I guess I'll just carry on passing on my granddad's spear heads (and all the metal stuff found over the subsequent years) down to my kids, with a warning, to not bother to hand them over until people actually can TRULY be bothered to fight for history and put their egos aside... English Heritage shills!!!! How can we trust any of you guys???? NOT ONCE HAVE YOU ASKED TO SEE THE BOX OF MY GRANDAD'S FINDS THAT I HAVE !!!! You don't really care do you? Your egos are quite evidently as fragile as those that man the 'kerching' tills at Battle Abbey!!! I despair... but then again all I am interested in are facts... banal, boring, facts... no drama... just facts...
Sign up to the web site on facebook and join the group thats where everyone is. facebook.com/groups/secretsofthenormaninvasion if you want to remain anonymous thats ok Knitted Gandi no-one else is though. We have not heard from you before and this is not the main site. It sounds like you have something important so would like to hear from you.
Hi Knitted Gandhi. I have checked around the group, and no-one recalls hearing from you before now. But we sure want to. Can I ask you to email me on sotninvasion@gmail.com and we will certainly be in touch.
Here hear. Have your Grandads finds been seen by the group yet. I couldn't interest English heritage in a ritual inauguration site. A golden lacunae, 6 inch x 7 Mare & Stallion Eponia figure's. A bronze mortar & 7 bronze baubles with a pile of butchered horse bones, circa 3,000 b.c.e. They wanted the objects but didn't believe i'd found what they thought were latine style celtic relics in Derbyshire England. Too high a quality for England they thought. They treat me with incredulity, like an old liar & dismissed me as it didn't fit their educated narrative with the Brittons as crude & primitive. I also have a large heavily pitted wrought iron Viking axe found not so very far away from the Stamford bridge site. Iv'e kept it to myself. In fact i don't bother anyone with my finds. Flint tools from Dogerland washed up on a storm tide i,e. As far as i'm aware they'd be the first. But it's pointless for Oiks to try and share interests with the Tofts & their interests. Their loss.
@@ogmium I, amongst others do not have access to FB for reasons to rediculous to explain here , so not everyone is part of Zuckerbergs empire. Hopefully ghandi has been in touch and after 1000 years the type of iron used in those days should still be detectable under the soil.
I even joined the Facebook Group to try to discover what was new, but each time I try to go onto Facebook it says my account has been suspended. And that's before I ever got a chance to use it!! I do find it hard to believe the Normans would take the time and trouble to bury dead Saxons though? Surely they would simply leave them where they fell, and move on?
It might seem more invasive/crude/damaging to the finds but on a smaller scale why not use a power auger to dig some exploratory holes down 7' or so? Use the scans to choose likely spots. The holes could easily be refilled so virtually no impact on cutting and gathering hay. Yeah,I'm late to the party. :)
Bob... agreed. However, having worked as an Archaeological excavator since the early 80's, my view is that the excavations carried out by the crew are just not sufficient in any way to derive any conclusions at all. Indeed, they might have been lucky enough to have dropped right down onto an amazing find, such as House-Carl's axehead or spangenhelm, but such fortunes rarely occur with trial-trenching. It's a shame they were restricted solely to the use of hand tools... a serious handicap from the start. Those trial trenches simply just aren't extensive enough nor numerous enough to glean much info at all. The mounds in the forested area would be my priority, especially with the detector readings sounding out. Let's hope further work proves them right, which I personally think is very likely indeed.
@@cuhurun The excavations were not close to sufficient. I found myself talking to the monitor. This video is two years old, surely they have the GPR scans analyzed before now. Negative results are better than no results.
@@macnutz4206. Indeed so. This question relating to the exact location of the battle and the events/locations of the first days of the invasion needs re-appraising by the hallowed halls of 'orthodox archaeology', without a doubt. I'm sure these guys are very likely on to something significant, but it needs a professional team to step in and help. The accuracy of the 'hole' dug into one of the 13 earthworks in the wooded area says it all... they need help. As for further updates regarding the geo-fiz... ??? ... still waiting.
@@macnutz4206 : Absolutely, me too. Naturally I understand archaeology in the UK is always financially fraught and usually only threatened sites and features gain some degree of excavation. However, the historical magnitude of this possible re-writing of what is really a core point in British history certainly warrants serious investigation. Perhaps the intended new road will act as a catalyst for such, not that I personally wish to see more of Britain's beautiful countryside fall under the weight of the terrible tarmacadam, but let's hope something pops up during the early stages of construction.
Looks like a nice site, have to pop down myself to look at the lay, looks to have a nice funnel (present). I suppose a core sample would tell how old the pond's were (any bones etc. (2nd burial site)) E.H. - Sings a good song, but I think they spent too much time in the local hostelry deciding 'old things'. So many battlefields under RAF airfields, Ammo dumps, 'and anyway, it's not a battle because they didn't bring footsoldiers' , and of course the misleading signs etc.
Unfortunately this is not the site where the battle took place. You're over looking one major geological issue regarding the battlefield site you've stated. The advancement of the Normans from your stated location along 'the plain' would not have been possible back in 1066 as 'the plain' was a river valley! This is the reason why this is a 'level ground'. The sea inlet at Bulverhythe reached through Combe Valley stretching up to and through the cricket ground at Crowhurst then reaching further through 'the plain' then streaming south along the manor house embankment then branches off westward with waters extending up the ' malfosse'. So really the area you've marked out as the Saxon defence line would of been a pointless act for Harold, facing meters from a river bank and the 'malfosse' to the left....no battle would of even taken place! I'm not saying the battle never took place within Crowhurst but just not in the area you've stated. Hope this helps with further investigations and finding the real battlefield site. Don't give up and good luck!
A trench already there on a battle field after a battle when all are exhausted; is the best option to bury your dead and anything else you want to put under the ground; and move on. Some things do change. Keep looking.
You'd have been able to go deeper and cover more area if you use hand augers and see if you turn up any bone fragments. Just my 2-cents from a geologist's perspective.
Your idea of three Saxon defence lines doesn't really work for me. The Saxons fought only on foot whereas the Normans had a couple or more thousand on horseback. As Harold had experience of just how devastatingly effective those horsemen could be (having seen this for himself in Normandy) I do not think that he would have contemplated such defence lines as being practicable, knowing that if the Normans broke the shield wall at the first line of defence the Norman cavalry would make mincemeat of the retreating Saxons. Could a shield wall retreat in perfect order? I do not think so - not given the distance between each line of defence. And why retreat if the shield wall held? Retreat to where? Are there natural delineations on the terrain so that the Saxons would know, whilst being under continual attack, where each defence line was? I don't think so, and they wouldn't have been given the time to construct anything themselves. I doubt if they carried shovels. Sorry to kibosh your theory of how the battle unfolded. Also Harold's final stand really is some distance away from the supposed siting of the Abbey where, as William would have it, the last Saxon King of England died However I can now see that the malfosse really does carry back quite some way. I can also see how tempting it is to put the first line of defence between the Abbey and the lower malfosse but even with about 7000 fighters that is to string them out somewhat. I have yet to visit the site myself but I have a theory. The actual terrain might damage the theory but subject to that, if I had been Harold, I would have had my army straddle the Lower London Road and the Abbey site. That would be, psychologically, to block the road to London.The higher ground there would then be in the centre of the line giving Harold a good command and rallying point. His army would be massed upon this shortened and only line of defence, which would be the only way to deal with William's shock horsemen. Harold's strategy would be surely to stand and fight and break the morale and fighting strength of the opposition, which is actually how the battle has been described as proceeding. This places the battle as some way off from the malfosse but it still provides some cover from a flanking attack on that side. We know that some Norman horseman came to grief in the malfosse but that could be because in their excitement they forgot about it in the chase, having hived off a section of Harold's eastern flank which then made for the fosse. I think that maybe you have been rather seduced (with your arrows showing the direction of the Norman advance) by the fact that today this is open land, whereas the flora and ground conditions, if not the topography, may have been quite different back then. Does this help in any way? Maybe you have been concentrating your attention on the wrong side of the road.
Sorry but I think you are barking up the wrong tree. If you want to prove that this is the site of the battle there needs to be a professional approach and not just an enthusiastic bunch of tea drinking amateurs.
Ok im done here nothing happening. Go get yourself a cup of thee and do your laundry. Nothing of interest here for me im sorry. I have just dug a trench in my garden, with a normal shovel, in clay soil measuring 8 meters long by 40 cm wide. Without help. Greetings,, Kitty.
A lot of speculation, certainly. Nothing more. The Malfosse didn't even get a mention - and surely that would have been identifiable from LIDAR. I too thought it was a very poor TimeTeam program - and their conclusion particularly unscientific and actually unprofessional. Since the topography fits at least as well in Nick Austin's theory, and the FACT that the numbers of finds is effectively zero for both the English Heritage and the alternative SOTNI proposition, I am especially unimpressed by the disposition of TimeTeam to Crowhurst being supported in a fully funded field survey and geophys research (whoever undertakes it).
![Chris Langan - The Interview THEY Didn't Want You To See - CTMU [Full Version; Timestamps]](/img/n.gif)
Keep at it guys! I'm getting frustrated now... but not nearly as frustrated as your team must be! I cannot wait for the next video!
Get permission from the relevant agency to dig a trench across one of those graves, then dig the damn trench! Run a decent metal detector along the three defensive lines, and do some digging there too. Ditto the side trenches where so many died and the Lake of Blood too. If it really happened where you are saying, there will be ample evidence at any of those sites.
The most likely site would be the Lake of Blood, as artifacts like armour and weapons would have probably sunk into the anaerobic zone and - after a millennia - be covered by about a metre of sediment. So look there first. A simple suction dredge would work for a preliminary look (even a big magnet on a line), and would bring up bone fragments and artifacts if they exist. You need to find something else just walk away.
(But please, for the next few weeks at least, please stay home and beat Covid-19!)
Simple idea: get some experienced detectorists and let them loose on the battlefield sites, especially the "last stand" site. If there's anything there, they will find it.
The logic and reasoning behind your theory is credible - even to an ignorant buffoon like me... so why is it that after all these years, some deep-pocketed benefactor with a genuine interest in one of our history's most important events, hasn't stepped up to the plate and funded the practical archaeology?
And how peculiar is the land-owner whose main concern is his pending hay harvest, when (if proven) his patch of fetid marshland could become internationally famous and endure in memory for another thousand years (or more)?
I've followed all of your videos with interest and am fascinated by the implications of your theory. Do you have any updates?
And suddenly It got cut at the moment we'd discover what the 'researcher' was going to say.
Thanks for the fantastic job, pls keep working on it and looking forward to your new updates
It's been almost two years and since then... radio silence...
For that hole at the end, try magnet fishing...works well with a powerful magnet. Come on guys, you can do better than this.
My granddad farmed in Crowhurst and found relics that he passed down to me...as I have posted previously.
I am sooo passionate about the lie of the 1066 invasion pivoting at (the promoted site of) Battle Abbey I am a bit of a bore. People can't mention a BBC TV programme about baking without me discussing the 1066 location-myth!! (n.b. I intentionally do NOT own a TV as all it does is perpetuate the Establishment fairytale!). Anyway... My point is, seeing this video is/was a surprise to me! if I'd known it was happening I'd have helped make sandwiches and bought along some biscuits and flasks of tea.
I worry that your group is more interested in 'back-slapping' than genuinely, truly, exposing the truth of what happened in "Cru'rst" 952 yrs ago.
I've some spearheads ploughed up near the Malfosse from my gramps in the (I guess?!?) 1940~50s... and iron crossbow bolts found along the footpath from the farm to the railway bridge, as recently as last year... but you people only seem to want to massage your own egos.
Does history not matter? Do facts not matter?
If what (actually!) matters is being part of your "social circle/gang" then your version of history is as valid/invalid as that version spouted by William's "social circle/gang".... Forget the harrowing of the north...and the myth of English Heritage's (lucrative) Battle site being the site of the 3rd major autumn battle in 1066... it's all just as pointlessly worth arguing!"
I've contacted you via every single means possible... offering you my inherited finds...
I guess I'll just carry on passing on my granddad's spear heads (and all the metal stuff found over the subsequent years) down to my kids, with a warning, to not bother to hand them over until people actually can TRULY be bothered to fight for history and put their egos aside...
English Heritage shills!!!!
How can we trust any of you guys????
NOT ONCE HAVE YOU ASKED TO SEE THE BOX OF MY GRANDAD'S FINDS THAT I HAVE !!!!
You don't really care do you? Your egos are quite evidently as fragile as those that man the 'kerching' tills at Battle Abbey!!!
I despair... but then again all I am interested in are facts... banal, boring, facts... no drama... just facts...
Sign up to the web site on facebook and join the group thats where everyone is. facebook.com/groups/secretsofthenormaninvasion if you want to remain anonymous thats ok Knitted Gandi no-one else is though. We have not heard from you before and this is not the main site. It sounds like you have something important so would like to hear from you.
Hi Knitted Gandhi. I have checked around the group, and no-one recalls hearing from you before now. But we sure want to. Can I ask you to email me on sotninvasion@gmail.com and we will certainly be in touch.
Here hear. Have your Grandads finds been seen by the group yet. I couldn't interest English heritage in a ritual inauguration site. A golden lacunae, 6 inch x 7 Mare & Stallion Eponia figure's. A bronze mortar & 7 bronze baubles with a pile of butchered horse bones, circa 3,000 b.c.e. They wanted the objects but didn't believe i'd found what they thought were latine style celtic relics in Derbyshire England. Too high a quality for England they thought. They treat me with incredulity, like an old liar & dismissed me as it didn't fit their educated narrative with the Brittons as crude & primitive. I also have a large heavily pitted wrought iron Viking axe found not so very far away from the Stamford bridge site. Iv'e kept it to myself. In fact i don't bother anyone with my finds. Flint tools from Dogerland washed up on a storm tide i,e. As far as i'm aware they'd be the first. But it's pointless for Oiks to try and share interests with the Tofts & their interests. Their loss.
@@ogmium I, amongst others do not have access to FB for reasons to rediculous to explain here , so not everyone is part of Zuckerbergs empire. Hopefully ghandi has been in touch and after 1000 years the type of iron used in those days should still be detectable under the soil.
@@SOTNI1 can we be accepted into Facebook group
Why aren't you guys continuing with your quest. I think you're onto something. Recruit more folk to help you.
I even joined the Facebook Group to try to discover what was new, but each time I try to go onto Facebook it says my account has been suspended. And that's before I ever got a chance to use it!! I do find it hard to believe the Normans would take the time and trouble to bury dead Saxons though? Surely they would simply leave them where they fell, and move on?
I have to say, that inspite of very compelling hypotheses, I've yet to see anything that can be described as unequivocal evidence.
What happened with the mounds? Did you do a section trench across one of those?
Any more updates ?
Need the follow up!!!! What happens next? Loads more evidence of the potential missing evidence. Feel like time team need to try again!!!
It might seem more invasive/crude/damaging to the finds but on a smaller scale why not use a power auger to dig some exploratory holes down 7' or so? Use the scans to choose likely spots. The holes could easily be refilled so virtually no impact on cutting and gathering hay. Yeah,I'm late to the party. :)
Thank you for uploading this. Brilliant video!
Get Baldrick and Co on the case
Well, it's been two years, anything new since?
No
Why have you turned the comments off on your next video?
So nothing happened in 2019. Anything going to happen in 2020 ?
The theory sounds very plausible. It's a shame no evidence was found to support it.
Bob... agreed. However, having worked as an Archaeological excavator since the early 80's, my view is that the excavations carried out by the crew are just not sufficient in any way to derive any conclusions at all. Indeed, they might have been lucky enough to have dropped right down onto an amazing find, such as House-Carl's axehead or spangenhelm, but such fortunes rarely occur with trial-trenching. It's a shame they were restricted solely to the use of hand tools... a serious handicap from the start. Those trial trenches simply just aren't extensive enough nor numerous enough to glean much info at all. The mounds in the forested area would be my priority, especially with the detector readings sounding out.
Let's hope further work proves them right, which I personally think is very likely indeed.
@@cuhurun The excavations were not close to sufficient. I found myself talking to the monitor. This video is two years old, surely they have the GPR scans analyzed before now. Negative results are better than no results.
@@macnutz4206. Indeed so. This question relating to the exact location of the battle and the events/locations of the first days of the invasion needs re-appraising by the hallowed halls of 'orthodox archaeology', without a doubt. I'm sure these guys are very likely on to something significant, but it needs a professional team to step in and help. The accuracy of the 'hole' dug into one of the 13 earthworks in the wooded area says it all... they need help. As for further updates regarding the geo-fiz... ??? ... still waiting.
@@cuhurun Yes, watching this makes me wish I were a rich fellow.
@@macnutz4206 : Absolutely, me too. Naturally I understand archaeology in the UK is always financially fraught and usually only threatened sites and features gain some degree of excavation. However, the historical magnitude of this possible re-writing of what is really a core point in British history certainly warrants serious investigation. Perhaps the intended new road will act as a catalyst for such, not that I personally wish to see more of Britain's beautiful countryside fall under the weight of the terrible tarmacadam, but let's hope something pops up during the early stages of construction.
Looks like a nice site, have to pop down myself to look at the lay, looks to have a nice funnel (present). I suppose a core sample would tell how old the pond's were (any bones etc. (2nd burial site))
E.H. - Sings a good song, but I think they spent too much time in the local hostelry deciding 'old things'.
So many battlefields under RAF airfields, Ammo dumps, 'and anyway, it's not a battle because they didn't bring footsoldiers' , and of course the misleading signs etc.
IF you make another video, keep us updated, why have you stopped.
Unfortunately this is not the site where the battle took place. You're over looking one major geological issue regarding the battlefield site you've stated. The advancement of the Normans from your stated location along 'the plain' would not have been possible back in 1066 as 'the plain' was a river valley! This is the reason why this is a 'level ground'. The sea inlet at Bulverhythe reached through Combe Valley stretching up to and through the cricket ground at Crowhurst then reaching further through 'the plain' then streaming south along the manor house embankment then branches off westward with waters extending up the ' malfosse'.
So really the area you've marked out as the Saxon defence line would of been a pointless act for Harold, facing meters from a river bank and the 'malfosse' to the left....no battle would of even taken place!
I'm not saying the battle never took place within Crowhurst but just not in the area you've stated. Hope this helps with further investigations and finding the real battlefield site. Don't give up and good luck!
A trench already there on a battle field after a battle when all are exhausted; is the best option to bury your dead and anything else you want to put under the ground; and move on. Some things do change. Keep looking.
You'd have been able to go deeper and cover more area if you use hand augers and see if you turn up any bone fragments. Just my 2-cents from a geologist's perspective.
Well I have a MD and a mate of mine could work the ground and find some "things of interest" possibly....
How much would it cost to compensate the field owners for the loss of hay, to use a small digger?
Literally less than 100 pounds. In the US, a ton of hay (about 2-3 round bales) go for $50 each.
any updates?
Your idea of three Saxon defence lines doesn't really work for me. The Saxons fought only on foot whereas the Normans had a couple or more thousand on horseback. As Harold had experience of just how devastatingly effective those horsemen could be (having seen this for himself in Normandy) I do not think that he would have contemplated such defence lines as being practicable, knowing that if the Normans broke the shield wall at the first line of defence the Norman cavalry would make mincemeat of the retreating Saxons. Could a shield wall retreat in perfect order? I do not think so - not given the distance between each line of defence. And why retreat if the shield wall held? Retreat to where? Are there natural delineations on the terrain so that the Saxons would know, whilst being under continual attack, where each defence line was? I don't think so, and they wouldn't have been given the time to construct anything themselves. I doubt if they carried shovels.
Sorry to kibosh your theory of how the battle unfolded. Also Harold's final stand really is some distance away from the supposed siting of the Abbey where, as William would have it, the last Saxon King of England died
However I can now see that the malfosse really does carry back quite some way. I can also see how tempting it is to put the first line of defence between the Abbey and the lower malfosse but even with about 7000 fighters that is to string them out somewhat. I have yet to visit the site myself but I have a theory. The actual terrain might damage the theory but subject to that, if I had been Harold, I would have had my army straddle the Lower London Road and the Abbey site. That would be, psychologically, to block the road to London.The higher ground there would then be in the centre of the line giving Harold a good command and rallying point. His army would be massed upon this shortened and only line of defence, which would be the only way to deal with William's shock horsemen. Harold's strategy would be surely to stand and fight and break the morale and fighting strength of the opposition, which is actually how the battle has been described as proceeding.
This places the battle as some way off from the malfosse but it still provides some cover from a flanking attack on that side. We know that some Norman horseman came to grief in the malfosse but that could be because in their excitement they forgot about it in the chase, having hived off a section of Harold's eastern flank which then made for the fosse.
I think that maybe you have been rather seduced (with your arrows showing the direction of the Norman advance) by the fact that today this is open land, whereas the flora and ground conditions, if not the topography, may have been quite different back then.
Does this help in any way? Maybe you have been concentrating your attention on the wrong side of the road.
I dont get the multiple lines of defense. There was no way the English could have retreated in good order that far fighting separate engagements.
I was confused too, surely they would’ve been cut down trying to fall back
@@qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnm3937 By being well organized and with forethought and planning
Good luck
So what's the latest news ?
Its been inactive ever since sadly..
Oh well, there is no shame in admitting your theories are/were wrong. At least they've tried it. But they should've at least let us know.
@@Lepercurtidoo it isnt wrong - they have been active on their facebook group so i suggest you join it
Dig a proper test pit of a Meter or 2 square
All digging in the wrong places.
I take it nothing has come of this?
So here we are in 2020 and can we conclude this whole theory was a bust? Not a arrowhead or a spear head found?
Perhaps The Time Team can help!!
Agreed the guy slags off English Heritage for having no proof but can offer non of his own to bach up his claims.
Did the govt shut you down?
Whole lotta nothing.
Sorry but I think you are barking up the wrong tree. If you want to prove that this is the site of the battle there needs to be a professional approach and not just an enthusiastic bunch of tea drinking amateurs.
@Nicholas Ennos Perhaps. But am I wrong?
Why didn't you take a heavy grafting spade to break through the clay? Watching you lot dig was somewhat pathetic
So no evidence at all again to back your "theories".
Ok im done here nothing happening. Go get yourself a cup of thee and do your laundry.
Nothing of interest here for me im sorry.
I have just dug a trench in my garden, with a normal shovel, in clay soil measuring 8 meters long by 40 cm wide. Without help.
Greetings,, Kitty.
Worst Episode Of Time Team Ever....
A lot of speculation, certainly. Nothing more. The Malfosse didn't even get a mention - and surely that would have been identifiable from LIDAR. I too thought it was a very poor TimeTeam program - and their conclusion particularly unscientific and actually unprofessional. Since the topography fits at least as well in Nick Austin's theory, and the FACT that the numbers of finds is effectively zero for both the English Heritage and the alternative SOTNI proposition, I am especially unimpressed by the disposition of TimeTeam to Crowhurst being supported in a fully funded field survey and geophys research (whoever undertakes it).