Re: HASTINGS - MALFOSSE - AGAIN

From: Martin Reboul (martin.reboul_at_SPAMFUKvirgin.net)
Date: 12/09/04 

Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2004 05:11:35 GMT

"Martin Reboul" <martin.reboul@SPAMFUKvirgin.net> wrote in message
news:bDbtd.9$TO3.6@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
>
> "Paul J Gans" <gans@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:cp24br$ncq$1@reader1.panix.com...
> > In soc.history.medieval Michael W Cook <nuffspam@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >On 6/12/04 6:14 am, in article cp0tcm$cdq$13@reader1.panix.com, "Paul J
> > >Gans" <gans@panix.com> wrote:
> >
> > >> In soc.history.medieval Michael W Cook <nuffspam@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >>> On 4/12/04 9:32 pm, in article cotae4$alb$1@reader1.panix.com, "Paul J
> Gans"
> > >>> <gans@panix.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >Snip
> >
> > >.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> But your dogs *are* adorable, and very well trained.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> I dare say they could tell us things about Hastings
> > >>>>>> (Battle, actually) that we never did smell out.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> ----- Paul J. Gans
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> Probably, although as you saw yourself they are more interested in the
> > >>>>> rabbits or locating a fox.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> It's quite staggering really that nobody has used any of the modern
> > >>>>> techniques in archaeology at Hastings, to at least try and follow up
on
> > >>>>> what
> > >>>>> we already know or find some evidence.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> I thought Lawson's book was good in that he did actually discuss the
> > >>>>> suspected grave pits etc, but what we need is for someone to actually
do
> > >>>>> some digging, or at least some geo-physics.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> Maybe I could get Monty to start digging a pit for us, he seemed quite
> keen
> > >>>>> to get down into Oakwood Gyll ;-)
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Aha! He's on your side about that... ;-)
> > >>
> > >>> He's no choice ;-)
> > >>>
> > >>>> The trouble is that decent archaeology is expensive. Not
> > >>>> expensive in terms that a large business would understand,
> > >>>> but expensive for academicians.
> > >>
> > >>> For sure, it's also time consuming, back breaking work and seasonal.
> > >>>
> > >>>> My thinking is that the Anglo-Saxon grave pits are not far
> > >>>> from the battlefield. Who would bother dragging a couple
> > >>>> of thousand bodies a large distance?
> > >>
> > >>> Exactly, the majority would have been thrown into mass pits, dug
somewhere
> > >>> on the battlefield or very close to it, on the higher ground.
> > >>>
> > >>>> That is, if they were buried at all.
> > >>
> > >>> The Normans would have buried their dead without doubt, but most of the
> > >>> Saxons I'd have thought would have been left, once their bodies had been
> > >>> cleaned of anything useful. Some would have been taken away and some
> further
> > >>> pits could have been dug by locals, but I think that unlikely really as
> > >>> Battle was a sparsely populated area until the abbey arrived.
> > >>
> > >>> Orderic mentions that on his visit to Stamford Bridge the battlefield
was
> > >>> easily identified for all the weathered bones still lying around. Battle
> of
> > >>> course had the Abbey shortly after Hastings, so the monks would have
swept
> > >>> the area collecting any such remains for burial.
> > >>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The Norman dead *might* have been moved further, but likely
> > >>>> not too much further. I'd not be surprised if they were
> > >>>> on the Abbey grounds somewhere.
> > >>
> > >>> I totally agree
> > >>>
> > >>>> I'm sure that the metal bits are all gone. Probably rifled
> > >>>> right after the battle. Still, folks with metal detectors
> > >>>> might find something other than underground piping.
> > >>
> > >>> It's poorly drained soil, so I doubt any metal would have survived
almost
> > >>> 1000 years.
> > >>
> > >>> However, your point about the grave pits and bodies not being
transported
> > >>> great distances is something I've picked up on in my Malfosse studies.
> > >>
> > >>> The Battle Abbey Chronicle notes that bones were found in the Oakwood
Gyll
> > >>> vicinity around 75-80 years after the battle by Norman settlers when
> putting
> > >>> the land under the plough for the first time.
> > >>
> > >>> Eleanor Searle dismisses the Chronicle's explanation of them being the
> grave
> > >>> pits of the victims of Malfosse, describing it as a 'romantic'
> association
> > >>> by the Monks adding to Poitiers and Orderic's description of this
> incident.
> > >>
> > >>> However, she doesn't offer us an explanation as to why the bodies would
> have
> > >>> been transported almost a mile from the battlefield for burial if they
> > >>> indeed weren't from a Malfosse type incident.
> > >>
> > >> Now that's interesting. I didn't know that.
> > >>
> > >> ---- Paul J. Gans
> >
> > >Chronicle of Battle Abbey - Translated by Eleanor Searle.
> >
> > >Introduction pages 15 & 16.
> >
> > >She describes the naming of Malfosse as likely to have come from a Norman
> > >tradition which persisted among local Normans who settled in the area.
> >
> > >So if it's a 'local' tradition, where did this come from ?
> >
> > >I wouldn't have thought it came from Poitiers, as only the Monks could have
> > >been in a position to have seen or read his work, and as we all know he
> > >doesn't identify Malfosse or even name it as such, that is done by the
> > >Battle Abbey Chronicler.
> >
> > >Local traditions tend to originate from an incident or event which became
> > >revered to such an extent and thought so important they are given a name.
> > >This is then passed on from generation to generation along with the story
of
> > >the incident or event, often being blown out of all proportions. Clanchy
> > >discusses this in a roundabout way in "From memory to written record"
> >
> > >However, I digress, Searle goes on to say:
> >
> > >"Yet a ditch filled with bodies suggests a Malfosse of a different sort.
> > >It may well be the site of a mass grave, the knowledge of which came to
> > >light in the hundred years or more following the battle, and had been
> > >identified with the no doubt authentic disaster of the narratives of the
> > >battle....."
> >
> > >She then describes the name Malfosse being given to the land after
> > >reclamation projects and arable cultivation in the late 12th C, which the
> > >Battle Chronicler describes as being "Partly tilled".
> >
> > >She follows on:
> >
> > >"The bones and accoutrements that would have come to light in such a ditch,
> > >as the district was brought under cultivation, would have made the
> > >identification with the famous scene irresistible, I think, to monks as
> > >impressed with their romantic connections as were those of late 12th
century
> > >Battle."
> >
> > >As I said, she then offers no explanation as to why and how such bones came
> > >to be buried such a distance from the battlefield if they weren't from a
> > >Malfosse type incident.
> >
> > >Of course it could have been the bodies of those who were slaughtered in
the
> > >pursuit by the Normans, who were then gathered up and dumped in a pit.
> > >However, most academics believe that the Normans wouldn't have bothered
> > >burying the Saxon dead, and certainly wouldn't have wasted time searching
> > >for bodies and then dragging them to one place for burial.
> >
> > >Personally, I think Searle is wrong, and there can really be only one
> > >explanation for remains of bodies being found in this area, and that the
> > >Battle Chronicler is correct in associating them with Malfosse.
> >
> > Well, I'd guess that they are certainly associated with
> > some major event. Perhaps a medieval football riot?
> >
> > But the point remains as you say. I don't know of any
> > major battlefield grave pits (for that is what they
> > usually were) that are far from the site of the battle.
> >
> > To load and cart a thousand dead bodies (a rough
> > estimate of Norman casualties would be grizzly work
> > for a large number of carts and oxen, had those been
> > available, which I doubt.
> >
> > So your interpretation seems to be the most plausible
> > and certainly is a working hypothesis.
> >
> > The grave site at Wisby is an example, and the number
> > of dead are much less than at Hastings.
> >
> > The site
> >
> > http://www.battlefieldstrust.com/resource-centre/
> >
> > contains a fair amount of information on a number of
> > medieval battles in the UK. Burial information is
> > also sometimes given. Their conclusion is that the
> > most common place for burial was the center of the
> > battlefield.
> >
> > This would minimize the amount of corpse-carrying
> > involved. Corpses decay fairly fast, especially
> > in sunlight. Since burial of the Norman casualties
> > must have been delayed until at least the next day
> > if not longer, it must not have been a pleasant
> > task.
> >
> > Of course, the nobility would have been removed
> > first and packed up to be sent home. The grunts
> > went into the pits.
>
> Has anyone done any serious archaeology on this area (i.e. resistivity, GSR
> etc)?
> If not, why not?
>
> My efforts to get someone to look at the Barnet gravepits have come to naught
so
> far.
>
> I've found them - what more do they want? Do I have to get a shovel out and
do
> it myself? I'm not a bad digger, but 2000+ bodies is more than I fancy
> unearthing alone!
>
> Anyone want to help - they may be in rather good condition in that heavy
clay...
> surely *somebody* is interested?

Still no takers...

Loading