"Preserving the Battle of Hastings from contamination" Topic

"The Battle of Hastings is regularly fought all over again by enthusiastic re-enactors, before large crowds of spectators. The problem is that they are depositing material that could compromise the archaeology of the historic site. But now the University of Huddersfield's Dr Glenn Foard -- one of the world's leading battlefield archaeologists -- is developing a unique project designed to unearth whatever genuine material survives from 1066.

The first stage, likely to take place in spring 2015, would be to spend a week machining away the top layers of soil at a substantial area of the battlefield, in order to eliminate modern artefacts. Then there would be a search for genuine remains from the battle of 1066.

An important dimension of the project would be public involvement. Trained archaeologists would carry out the actual survey, but there would be parallel sessions nearby, partly aimed at children and parents, which would provide insights into archaeology, including the use of metal detectors to survey a site…"
Full article here
link

Amicalement
Armand

I think Dr Glenn Foard is associated with the Battlefield Trust – and IIRC he was also looking into location issues with the battle….there seems some pretty good evidence that it occured nearby but not where the abbey was built!

Tricky stuff this battlefield archaeology.

Are they looking for a car park in case Harold is underneath?

I thought they had now agreed the actual battlefield was under the roundabout in the middle of town, and the abbey was built on the nearby hill.

I know it's not what they're getting at, but it kinda sounds like they can't tell a thousand year old buckle from a ten year old bottle cap………

"Now the challenge is on to find out what archaeology is there, before it suffers contamination from all the activities that are going on," says Dr Foard. "Whether there is archaeology under the ground to be confused by the re-enactment activities, we don't know yet."

Oh, my, heck. The site is nearly a thousand years OLD. "Contamination" has been ongoing. He will have to sift through centuries of it. A little bit of surface scuffling by re-enactors is not going to disturb asserted artifacts from the 11th century! This guy is a maroon….

"At Hastings, however, everything I have looked at tells me that the battle did take place on the generally accepted site."

The trouble with the argument over which hill "the" battle was fought on is that the entire area around battle was the "battlefield". It is simplistic to view the battle as fought on a single hill. The English army is clearly massed in at least two locations at the start, which fits Caldbec hill and Battle Abbey hill. The Bayeux Tapestry probably shows both battles occurring simultaneously. The battle took all the daylight hours and into the night and spread out over miles….

Oh, my, heck. The site is nearly a thousand years OLD. "Contamination" has been ongoing. He will have to sift through centuries of it. A little bit of surface scuffling by re-enactors is not going to disturb asserted artifacts from the 11th century! This guy is a maroon….

The guy you call a "maroon" (whatever that is) is the guy that found the battlefield of Bosworth – a mile and a half away from where everyone else thought it was. He is the foremost battlefield archaelogist in the UK. If he says the battle took place on the generally accepted site, I for one am inclined to believe him.

Time Team's investigation shifted the battle to the roundabout based on some pretty compelling evidence. That doesn't mean that nothing happened at the very nearby "historically accepted battlesite".

The first investigation would most likely be geophysics – and a pile of re-enactor metal looks like a pile of historical metal (or a pipe…or an old bit of wire…or a 200 year old rubbish dump…or….)

A "pile of re-enactor metal". Really, Who is going to leave a "pile" of their precious kit lying on the ground to be confused with stuff from 1066?

I think this "foremost battlefield archaeologist" has let his eminence go to his head. There is no justification for placing Battle hill off-limits over an assertion that re-enactors and spectators will "confuse" the real evidence. While he's working over the area there will not be room for re-enacting anything. Why would a decade of previous re-enactments of any size disturb or confuse anything at all? If you happen to find a bronze or iron buckle within an inch of the surface it isn't from even a hundred years ago, especially if it is still in sound condition, which a lost piece of re-enactor's kit would be.

And I also believe the traditional site is where the battle was fought. It just wasn't the only site. Look at the evidence, all of it, and you must come to the conclusion I stated above: the battle was lengthy, scattered across pretty much the entire landscape between Telham and north of Caldbec, right down into the marshy headwaters of the Brede and Bulverhythe, and defies location to a simple "hill" and no other.

But I predict that the first genuine, inarguable 11th century battlefield finds will be touted as proof of one theory over the others. If this guy finds evidence for the traditional site, he will trumpet his success and politely ask the naysayers to cease. If someone finds genuine, incontestable battlefield evidence on or around Caldbec, same thing: they will say that this proves the abbey hill was never the site of the battle. Now, if we see finds from both places, what then? If they find bodies north of Caldbec, and elsewhere, say a massed grave SW of the abbey, what would that imply?…

I don't think he's trying to ban re-enactors, more that he's got to get deep enough down to get to the real archaeology.

There is no justification for placing Battle hill off-limits over an assertion that re-enactors and spectators will "confuse" the real evidence. While he's working over the area there will not be room for re-enacting anything.

I don't think that is what the article is suggesting. As you say, while the archaeological survey is underway, there will not be room for any reenactment.

Why would a decade of previous re-enactments of any size disturb or confuse anything at all? If you happen to find a bronze or iron buckle within an inch of the surface it isn't from even a hundred years ago, especially if it is still in sound condition, which a lost piece of re-enactor's kit would be.

That is why the plan is to machine away the top layers.

And I also believe the traditional site is where the battle was fought. It just wasn't the only site. Look at the evidence, all of it, and you must come to the conclusion I stated above: the battle was lengthy, scattered across pretty much the entire landscape between Telham and north of Caldbec, right down into the marshy headwaters of the Brede and Bulverhythe, and defies location to a simple "hill" and no other.

I am not quite sure what evidence you are referring to that would indicate a protracted multi-site engagement?

Now, if we see finds from both places, what then? If they find bodies north of Caldbec, and elsewhere, say a massed grave SW of the abbey, what would that imply?…

I cannot refute your logic on this point. However, the first imperative would be to actually find dateable archaeological evidence from both sites.

I anticipate that "they" will find it, if it's there at all, in places all around and in Battle. Nobody has done any serious archaeological research of the area.

The evidence for a widespread, protracted battle is in the original sources. The Bayeux Tapestry shows a rather steep hill in the area of marshy low ground, with a stylized tree marking the English rear on the rear slope of the hill. This scene has been massaged to make it fit the so-called "hillock" scene proposed in the 19th century seminal histories. By itself, the scene works perfectly to switch to another ongoing battle site while the "main actors" are playing out in the open on Battle hill, i.e. the scene is meant to show Norman cavalry attacking up the steep slopes of Caldbec, a mile to Harold's rear, where the lesser armed rustics of the local levy remained throughout the day. I assert that the "hillock" scene is simultaneously occurring with the main battle where Harold and William were.

The Carmen mentions mounted troops pouring forth from the woods and taking up station on an eminence out in front of said-woods. The only way this could work is for Battle hill to be the next high place south of Caldbec. Any troops taking up station on Caldbec would not have to move with horses at all, or any distance more than a few yards into the open.

Florence of Worcester says that half of Harold's troops had not arrived yet, and when Harold stationed his army in the open it was only a third of the whole that he had on hand, and that many deserted the ranks and few remained faithful to him. It sounds like he ordered an advance into the open to buy time to finish organizing his army on Caldbec.

ASC D says William's army came upon Harold before he had fully arrayed for battle, but that Harold fought with those who supported him.

The original muster place was at the "hoar apple tree", which pretty close to a consensus assigns to Caldbec hill. The edge of the Andresweald forest came to the north side of the hill, just below the summit. The edge of this forest was visible to the approaching Norman army, and they could see it packed with troops with "glittering spears". So when the English army issued from this forest on horseback, dismounted and formed a line it was on the next ridge, or Battle hill, the traditional site. But two-thirds of the English army was not arrayed in the open, and stayed in the trees or at least on Caldbec hill while their king and the core of his army fought a mile before them.

I'm advancing the theory that the original sources were compelled to make prosaic and visual sense out of a very complex collection of eyewitness accounts of a very lengthy and sprawled battle. There was nothing tidy and compact about the entire battle of Hastings. Yet seminal authors have tried to create narratives that make it so. And arguments of which compact, simplified narrative is most correct are therefore quite useless in the face of the reality that the battle defied simplistic description, then (11th century) and now….

You make some cogent points. However, if I have read what you said correctly, the only place where fighting actually occurred (at least before the final Saxon rout) is on Battle hill?

I believe that rather late in the day, strong elements of the Norman army worked their way around the shortened English army on Battle hill and assailed the main bulk of the English army on Caldbec: this portion of Harold's army was that described by Worcester as not remaining faithful to him, and refusing to go out and occupy the "too narrow" position on Battle hill. They comprised (as the Tapestry illustrates) mainly rustics of the local militia and the lesser armed men generally. Their resistance was short and futile, being largely demoralized from the start. So both "battles" were occurring simultaneously for a period of time. Routs from both "battle sites" occurred in all directions, but tending north toward the forest of the Andresweald, as the sources tell us. There were several/many hitches in this part of the Norman victory, where Englishmen turned back and fought some more before retreating again: and plenty of spots in the area of Battle for any number of "Malfosse" incidents. In other words, many similar scenarios involving thousands of men spread out over increasing miles of territory, going on right into early darkness.

Imho, there ought to be plenty of artifacts of the battle (including remains of the dead), just not in one place, but many places. A thorough probing of both hills would be the logical starting point, and as I said, I expect artifact evidence to turn up around both hills, but possibly more at Caldbec since it remained undisturbed for centuries and only finally became built up in the last century and a half. Battle hill, on the other hand, was almost immediately scoured of its hilltop and thoroughly disturbed as the abbey was built and occupied for centuries. I don't expect nearly as much in the way of artifacts from the battle to survive there. The artifacts that any dig turns up will be much later. Caldbec, however, was largely open ground for centuries, and it seems bore its own heavy fighting and copious death.

When we read the sources holistically it becomes obvious that our seminal narratives are in conflict on many points. Then we are either determined to discount some of the conflicts on whatever basis we choose to argue for, or else we try and piece the conflicts together in some plausible way. I have done this for Hastings for many years. It seems reasonable that an eyewitness sharing his experiences of the battle was telling the facts as he remembered them, and those facts were perforce partial to what occurred within his awareness only. He heard subsequently many other eyewitness accounts over the years, and he tried to fit what he had experienced into that growing whole. The monk, or otherwise "historian" of the 11th century took the sum of his eyewitness accountings and distilled them into his written chronicle or "history" if you prefer. The battle of Hastings is uncommonly well provided with accounts of the battle and the events and factors leading up to it. But most of the accounts are very brief and short on details, and there is apparent borrowing between them. Most were produced years after the battle took place. One thing they all share in common is simplicity. I visualize an individual monk collecting every eyewitness version of the battle, and growing more uncertain as the accounts increase in number: rather than getting a clearer picture of what occurred at Hastings, the wealth of details don't exactly fit seamlessly together, quite the opposite. Much of what the monk hears does not even seem to belong to the same battlefield. Where did such and such happen, when, who was involved? etc. Then, WHAT happened? In the end the monk must arrive at the conclusion that many things happened, in many places, with varying results, and involving famous persons, who were both admired and hated, ergo treated by the eyewitness with a degree of prejudice, which colored his observation and memory probably to a considerable degree. There would even be veracity called into question because of said motives. Yet something must be recorded about the battle.

In the end, we wind up with three original sources that delve with any attempt at details: in order of production, imho, the Carmen de Hastingae Proelio, the Bayeux Tapestry, and the history by Wm of Poitiers. The latter borrows from the Carmen, the Tapestry seems to be a separate work but was also probably available to Poitiers.

A thorough probing of both hills would be the logical starting point, and as I said, I expect artifact evidence to turn up around both hills, but possibly more at Caldbec since it remained undisturbed for centuries and only finally became built up in the last century and a half.

From what I undestand of battlefield archaeology, if the site has been built upon, then any extant archaeology will have been prety much destroyed in the process.

Yup. And it seems that this foremost medieval archaeologist is going to take the top layer off the modern re-enactment "battlefield", which isn't where the English army was stationed in the first place. I doubt it ever got down on the lower slopes of the present re-enactment site. The extreme wings, where it is asserted that the English pursued routing (or feigned routing) elements of the Norman army, saw fighting reach the lower slopes of the hill, and it went even into the marshy headwaters of both streams. But both of those locations have been seriously altered in the intervening centuries as well. Caldbec is the best chance for finding anything from the battle at all….

And it seems that this foremost medieval archaeologist is going to take the top layer off the modern re-enactment "battlefield", which isn't where the English army was stationed in the first place.

Not where the Saxon army was, agreed, but the Normans certainly moved over it to attack them.

Caldbec is the best chance for finding anything from the battle at all….

But as you say Caldbec is built over, so isn't finding anything there a tad unlikely (assuming you could get permission to search at all … ) and so compared to anywhere else, the "re-enactment" battlefield is going to be as good as it gets?

There is quite an informative blog post on the subject here:
link

Thanks! That's a terrific, entertaining piece. He didn't say anything I take exception to.

I would like to point out, however, that the Carmen's description of how the two armies first viewed each other does not fit if the English camped/mustered to Battle hill. There was no forest to emerge from or crouch in with "glittering spears". No distance to move mounted across, at all, if the English army was already camped on Battle hill. Obviously in that very early source there are two hills, the one where the English army are first seen in the trees, and the second one some significant distance outside of the forest and directly in front of the advancing Norman army. Battle hill is the only possible site that fits the Carmen's description….