Re: HASTINGS - MALFOSSE - AGAIN

From: Bryn Fraser (bryn_at_finhall.demon.co.uk)
Date: 12/09/04 

Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2004 08:15:21 +0000

In message <b8Rtd.21$Wv2.14@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net>, Martin Reboul
<martin.reboul@SPAMFUKvirgin.net> writes
>
>"Martin Reboul" <martin.reboul@SPAMFUKvirgin.net> wrote in message
>news:bDbtd.9$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...

Even when I lived on the site I was not tempted... All those springs...
> 

-- 
Bryn