The Medieval Period
(1066 – 1485 AD)
In Hereford Cathedral can be found the largest map from the Medieval world still in existence (Fig 8). The Mappa Mundi was inscribed on a single sheet of vellum around the year 1300. It has been miraculously preserved, allowing the contemporary visitor to view it as the original scribe intended. The scribe ‘Richard of Haldingham and Lafford’ has left his mark on the map. It provides an unparalleled insight into the worldview of the British at the end of the thirteenth century. The Mappa Mundi’s depiction of the world is an intriguing fusion of geography, mythology and theology. Strange mythical beasts, including mysterious dog headed men, lurk on the edges of the known world. Given the context of the Mappa Mundi, it is unsurprising that it depicts a Christian view of global geography. The centre of the map is dominated by Jerusalem, the centre point of medieval Christianity and a continuing flashpoint for religious tension. Paradise, in the form of the Garden of Eden, is depicted around the edge of the earth. Other locations from Biblical geography include Noah’s Ark, Sodom and Gomorrah.
Britain and Ireland are depicted in the north-western corner of the Mappa Mundi. The geography of Britain is depicted in considerable detail reflecting the personal experiences of the scribe. A large number of important settlements are illustrated on the Mappa Mundi. Important settlements are indicated at Winchester, Canterbury and Ely. The latter shows the spire of the cathedral rising over the fens. The illustration of London reveals the Tower of London, constructed by William the Conqueror, looming menacingly over the Thames. Fortifications play a vital role in the topography of Britain as revealed on the Mappa Mundi. Important castles are shown in critical border areas, including Conwy, Caernarvon, Chester and Berwick. To a certain extent, the Mappa Mundi depicts a landscape defined through castles and other fortifications. This was in stark contrast to the earlier periods of British history.
Yet the Mappa Mundi was not solely a medieval creation. It reveals a world view which was informed by the knowledge and imagination of Classical Greece and Rome. Some of the mythical beasts illustrated on the map were taken directly from some of the greatest works of Classical mythology, including the sea monsters Scylla and Charybdis from Homer’s Odyssey. On the edge of the map closest to Britain can be seen an even more impressive figure from the Classical world in the form of the emperor Augustus, who reigned from 31 BC to 14 AD. Augustus was the first Roman emperor and the adopted son of Julius Caesar. Unlike his adopted father, Augustus never set foot in Britain although he expressed his interest in mounting an invasion on several occasions. The emperor is depicted in the form of an important pope. Accompanying text indicates that Augustus ordered this survey of the known world, a subtle reference to the Roman census which prompted Mary and Joseph to visit Bethlehem. The prominent inclusion of Augustus on the Mappa Mundi demonstrates that medieval Britain was as much a product of the past as it was of the present. The British worldview continued to be enriched by its contacts with continental Europe and the memory of historic events and figures.1
THE NORMANS
The beginning of the medieval period is conventionally dated to the victory of William the Conqueror over the forces of Harold Godwinson at Hastings in 1066. The political geography of Britain on the eve of the Norman Conquest can be conveniently divided between England, Scotland and Wales, although these terms were not necessarily in common usage. The actions of Alfred the Great and his descendants in dealing with the Scandinavian masters of the Danelaw had encouraged the gradual growth of a united English kingdom ruled, for the most part, by a single royal dynasty. The inhabitant of Scottish territory did not possess as strong a national identity as the kingdom to the south. Only by the early fourteenth century did a clearly defined Scottish identity appear beneath a single Scottish king. For much of the period under discussion, Scottish territory was peopled by a number of different ethnic groups, including Norse communities in Caithness and the Hebrides, and Cumbrians in the southern lowlands. High status Norman incomers would also play an increasing role in local politics. Wales (a term taken from the Latin Wallenses meaning borderers) was marked by continuing political division and conflict formed by the rivalries of a series of minor kingdoms including Gwynedd and Powys. This lack of political unity, as well as the challenging topography of Wales, proved problematic for the Norman invaders. As a result, they were inclined to rely on a series of powerful lords holding territories along the Welsh borders or Marches to control the population of Wales through violence and terror.2
Our understanding of the Norman impact on England in particular is enriched through the Domesday survey. The name Domesday, which first appears in the twelfth century, reflects the exacting detail of the survey through comparison with the Christian Day of Judgement. The survey was conducted in 1086, two decades after the initial invasion. The impetus for the systematic recording and valuation of most of England came directly from William the Conqueror. There are three possible motives behind the Domesday Survey. First, it allowed the king to obtain a clear assessment of tax contributions at a local level. This was invaluable in maintaining the economic stability of the new kingdom. Second, by examining the resources of all landowners in England, it provided the king with a useful resource in calculating the military resources he could command. It may be significant that the survey was begun barely a year after a threatened invasion from Scandinavia. Third, the Domesday survey had legal implications relating to the ownership of land. This would have been a particularly controversial topic in the decades following the Norman Conquest and a subject of large numbers of legal disputes. The records of the Domesday survey essentially provided new landowners with a level of legitimacy for the prior acquisition of land.
It is difficult to overestimate the scale of the task involved in undertaking the Domesday survey.3 All of England was surveyed with the exception of areas north of the River Tees which were not completely under full Norman control at this date. London was also omitted from the Domesday survey. The city suffered a catastrophic fire in 1086 which may have prevented its inclusion. The rest of England was divided into at least seven circuits, each of which was assigned a group of royal commissioners who oversaw the gathering of data. Initially, local nobles and officials were responsible for the collation of information. The initial findings were then scrutinized by the royal commissioners who assembled juries of English and Norman individuals. Fortunately a copy of the questions posed by the royal commissioners has survived in a document from Ely. Amongst the information gathered was the names of respective landowners in 1066 and 1086, value of the land and the number of male workers. The process was so accurate that the writer of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle complained that not a single farm animal escaped being recorded. The local surveys were collated and entered into a single text named Great Domesday which is remarkably almost wholly the work of a single scribe. Unfortunately, this text is not complete as work seems to have been suddenly halted, perhaps as a result of the death of William in 1087. Additional records for Essex, Norfolk and Suffolk can be found in a supplementary text created earlier in the survey process known as Little Domesday.
English society at the end of the eleventh century was predominantly rural in nature. The Domesday survey records around 270,000 heads of household living in the countryside. The vast majority of rural dwellers were villeins or peasants who worked for their local lord but also retained their own land on the common fields around their settlement.4 The royal commissioners were not interested in the sizes of families, as they had little bearing on taxes, military levies of land ownership. Assessing the overall population size therefore relies upon using reasonable estimates. Calculating the urban population poses additional difficulties. The urban survey is notoriously incomplete as the sizeable settlements of London and Winchester were both excluded. London alone may have supported a population of around 25,000 individuals. Estimate of the total urban population in 1086 vary, but it is not unreasonable to suspect that it may have numbered around 125,000. The whole of England may have held a total population of 2 million, depending on the accuracy of our estimates for family size and the populations of unrecorded areas.5
In stark terms, the Domesday survey records the impact of the Norman Conquest on landownership across the English countryside. By 1086, out of the 180 largest landowners in the kingdom, only two were of English origin. Lower down the scale, there were other English landowners, mainly those who claimed descent from the family of Edward the Confessor or those who served the new king in some capacity. After the initial invasion, William had moved swiftly to seize land belonging to those who had opposed him. This decision had political and military motivations. Unlike previous invasions, the Norman Conquest was not accompanied by a wholesale population movement. It has been estimated that only around 8,000 Normans established themselves within their newly conquered kingdom. Most Norman incomers maintained territories in both Normandy and England. This led to a dual sense of identity in which Normandy was prioritized over England down to 1204 when Normandy itself was conquered. The damage inflicted during the conquest was also recorded in the survey. This was particularly the case in Yorkshire. During 1069 – 1070, William launched a major punitive campaign memorialized as the ‘Harrying of the North’ in response to a series of northern insurgencies. The Domesday survey describes 33% of Yorkshire as waste, presumably as a result of Norman reprisals years earlier, which involved the calculated destruction of agricultural infrastructure and resources.6
The Norman victory was assured and consolidated in large part by their custom of constructing castles. By 1100, Norman lords had established around 500 castles in England. The first of these was hastily constructed at Hastings soon after they landed. According to the twelfth century historian Orderic Vitalis, the Norman Conquest was achieved through the absence of castles created by the English. In conjunction with their use of heavy cavalry, the creation of castles gave the Normans a distinct military advantage over their enemies. Castles are widely seen as classic examples of medieval architecture. Fine examples continue to dominate local landscapes in the present day. Yet there is considerable disagreement between modern scholars as to the purpose and nature of castles in the medieval period. Deriving from the Latin castrum meaning armed camp, castles are often assumed to have served a purely military function. In this regard, they provided a fortified stronghold able to withstand sieges and providing accommodation for nobles, their retainers and troops. This conventional view is no longer sustainable in light of considerable archaeological investigation of the subject over recent decades. As we shall see, the term castle is applied to a range of structures embodying considerable variety in design, size and structure. Whilst some did possess a military function, the key similarity between these structures is their function as a high status residence.7
The first Norman castles to be established in Britain were constructed before the invasion. In 1051, according to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, Norman supporters of Edward the Confessor hastily constructed a series of castles during a period of political crisis. In doing so, they demonstrated the Norman propensity for constructing castles and their primary function as defensive structures in times of war. Five castles are believed to have been established in 1051. Four were built in Herefordshire and a single castle was constructed in Essex. Although their occupation was short lived, they served as a precursor of the rise of castle building after 1066. The eleventh and twelfth centuries witnessed the rapid construction of castles across Britain. The majority of Norman castles used the motte and bailey design. This consisted of a mound topped by a tower (motte) and a lower enclosure providing accommodation, store buildings and a chapel (bailey) (Fig 9). The use of the motte provided an element of surveillance over the surrounding landscape. It also provided a visual demonstration of Norman status and power. The Normans also utilized a ring-work design for some of their castles, consisting of an enclosure surrounded by a fence and ditch. Norman castles were established in rural and urban areas. Of the thirty-six castles constructed by William the Conqueror, no fewer than twenty-four were situated close to urban centres. Contrary to popular opinion castles were not always located on high ground. Often they were positioned in river valleys and other lowland areas where they could control road transport networks and navigable river systems.
One of the castles built by William the Conqueror was established at York in 1068. William recognized the importance of the city in controlling the north of his kingdom. The castle took the form of a motte and bailey. The original motte is now crowned by Clifford’s Tower (Fig 10). Despite possessing a garrison of some 500 men, the castle was attacked by a force of Northumbrian rebels the following year. Returning to the city to rout the rebels, William constructed a second motte across the River Ouse. Even this renewed programme of fortification was in vain. In autumn 1070 a coalition of Danes and Northumbrians raided York. The Norman troops desperately torched the houses closest to the castles to prevent them from being used as source for material to bridge the surrounding ditches. Unfortunately this plan was unsuccessful and the castles were burned. William reconstructed the castles on both banks of the River Ouse upon securing the city. Although both used the motte and bailey design, one in fact had two baileys. By the twelfth century, York Castle served as a notable royal stronghold and played a key role during negotiations with Scottish rulers. In 1190, the castle was the site of a massacre of the Jewish population of York. A mob motivated by a desire to renege on their debts and religious hatred besieged Jewish families in the castle. Unable to escape, the Jewish families committed suicide or were slaughtered by the mob. Around 150 individuals were killed during the persecution. Considerable rebuilding was required after the siege. In 1246, Henry III ordered the reconstruction of the castle in stone. The king realized the strategic importance of York during periods of hostility with Scotland. The project encompassed the construction of Clifford’s Tower and the strengthening of the inner bailey. Construction required considerable logistical management, including the acquisition of lead from Derbyshire. Repairs and additions were ongoing throughout the early fourteenth century, including the refurbishment of one of the gate towers and the creation of a new exchequer building. Flooding has been a consistent problem in York into modern times caused by the presence of the Rivers Ouse and Foss. The castle was not immune to inclement water levels. In 1315 a section of the surrounding wall collapsed due to flooding. Considerable subsidence was noted at the end of the fourteenth century, when attempts appear to have been made to strengthen the banks of the Foss and therefore protect the castle from further flooding. The adverse environmental conditions ensured that considerable investment was required over time to ensure that the castle continued to be fit for purpose. Although Clifford’s Tower remains something of a shell, it gives a fine example of the visual power of mottes and towers in dominating their surroundings.
Despite the novelty of castles in the early medieval period, in some respects their construction demonstrated a considerable level of continuity with the past. In the final stages of the Anglo-Saxon period, elite residences often took the form of rural burhs. These residences usually consisted of a wooden hall and associated outbuildings. They were often surrounded by a ditch and fence ring work enclosure, similar to some of the early Norman castles in England. Although not specifically defensive in purpose, rural burhs used their architecture to display the high status of their inhabitants. A considerable number of early castles were constructed on the sites of earlier elite residences, including Goltho (Lincolnshire) and Trowbridge (Wiltshire). Archaeologists have also noted the frequent conjunction of early castles and churches in close proximity to each other. Such associations may be linked to the existence of an earlier rural burh on the site, which was replaced by a castle. Norman architecture was also used to evoke high status Anglo-Saxon sites. The castle at Exeter was constructed in 1068 after a serious revolt. The gate tower utilized a startling Anglo-Saxon design emulating a rural burh.8 The original gatehouse at Ludlow Castle also used Anglo-Saxon architecture (Fig 11). Individuals approaching the castle would have been struck by its resemblance to Anglo-Saxon elite residences. These similarities were a conscious attempt to link incoming Norman lords and their residences to earlier displays of status and power.
Norman attempts to display continuity with power and authority in the past were not limited to Anglo-Saxons. On the contrary, it can be argued that there relationship with Roman history was of greater significance. Aside from the motte and bailey, Normans also introduced the donjon or stone keep to Britain. The White Tower in London incorporated some of the Roman city walls within its design. The second donjon has aroused considerable interest as it was positioned at Colchester, an area of limited strategic importance to the Normans. However, the castle was constructed on the site of the imperial temple to Claudius erected after the Roman conquest.9 This striking reuse of an area rich in imperial symbolism was a deliberate attempt to link the Norman Conquest to that of Rome. An earlier chapel was preserved close to the castle which appears to have been associated with Cunobelin and the foundation of Colchester. It is possible that the Norman conquerors were consciously emulating the behaviour of Roman invaders over 1000 years before. Other Norman castles were also connected to earlier Roman sites. The first castle to be built by the invaders was on the site of a Roman fort at Pevensey. Although the location may have offered tactical benefits, it was also ripe in symbolism. The castle at Chepstow incorporated an audience chamber in the imperial style and reused Roman stones from the nearby town of Caerwent. The castle at Newcastle was built on the site of the principia or headquarters building of the Roman fort. In doing so it evoked the military power and imperial authority of the Roman past.
WELSH CASTLES
In the thirteenth century, castles formed a key element of the English subjugation of Wales under Edward I. The kingdom of Gwynedd became increasingly powerful during the mid-thirteenth century and exerted its influence over surrounding areas. Gradually the Welsh people came to support a single leader in the form of Llwelyn ap Gruffudd. Llwelyn’s status is shown by the title of Prince of Wales he received from the English king. Relations between the Welsh prince and Edward I deteriorated to such an extent that the English king launched a military campaign into Wales in 1276. The purpose of this campaign was to bring Llwelyn to heel. After accomplishing his objectives, Edward set about constructing a series of castles to consolidate his hold over Wales at Rhuddlan, Flint, Aberystwyth and Bulith. These castles were considerable construction projects and required substantial investment in English time, money and labour. The construction of the castle at Rhuddlan involved straightening the curves of the River Clwyd to allow vessels to navigate the watercourse and supply the castle. Edward’s commitment to establishing new castles demonstrated his intention to maintain firm control over Wales.
In 1283, a serious revolt broke out in Wales which resulted in a hard fought English victory and the death of Llwelyn. Edward’s response was the construction of three new castles at Harlech, Conwy and Caernarfon. These new fortifications symbolized Edward’s military control over Wales in physical form.10 The locations of the castles were carefully chosen for strategic purposes. All were sited next to the sea. This ensured that they could be easily resupplied and prevented them from being encircled and overrun by Welsh rebels. The castles were not built on virgin sites. On the contrary, they were constructed on existing important sites whose destruction displayed English military might and political resolve. Conwy was the location of an important Cistercian abbey which served as the burial ground of Llwelyn’s family line. Its replacement by an English fortification held great symbolic power. Each castle was located no more than a day’s march from its nearest neighbour, facilitating the rapid movement of reinforcements during times of war. At Conwy and Caernarfon the king ordered the construction of new planned towns. These settlements supported the operations of the castles. They also had a political role in demonstrating the economic and social benefits of English rule. Inhabited by English colonists, they bear a close resemblance to colonies imposed by the Roman imperial administration in the provinces.
Arguably the most spectacular of Edward’s castles is at Caernarfon.11 The castle does far more than provide an English stronghold, it also evokes a powerful imaginary past. A number of features at Caernarfon arouse interest. The gatehouse is ornamental in design and includes a decorative statue of the king. Entrance to the castle is via five sets of doors and six separate portcullises. These features go far beyond providing a secure entry point and should instead be seen as processional or ceremonial elements. They promote a sense of drama in keeping with the medieval model of the Arthurian world. Edward was keenly interested in the romantic vision of Arthur and his court. He viewed the bodies alleged to belong to Arthur and Guinevere unearthed at Glastonbury, constructed a round table at Winchester Castle and re-enacted the Arthurian royal court at an event on the Lleyn peninsula. Edward’s enthusiasm for Arthur is also reflected in his attachment to the concept of Roman imperial power. Caernarfon unusually displays plain (not whitewashed) walls featuring prominent stone banding. The castle also possesses polygonal towers. In medieval thought Arthur was believed to have been the grandson of the emperor Constantine. The physical appearance of Caernarfon is strikingly similar to Constantinople. Moreover Caernarfon’s main tower displays stone carvings of imperial eagles. It may also be significant that Caernarfon was the site of the Roman fort of Segontium. The design of Caernarfon demonstrates Edward’s intention to link his rule to Roman imperial power and the imagined reign of King Arthur. The importance of the latter for Edward’s worldview may lie in his legendary role as the king who united Britain.
APPROACHING CASTLES
Castles express the power, authority and influence of their occupants.12 This can be communicated through their size, design or location. Castles occur not in isolation, but within complex landscapes where their importance is signified through their interaction with other features, such as settlements, transport routes and sacred sites. Two castles in particular demonstrate the importance of understanding castles within their wider landscapes, namely Ruthin in Denbighshire and Castle Acre in Norfolk.
Ruthin Castle was created by Edward I during his initial campaign in Wales. The castle was established in a prominent position on a sandstone ridge overlooking River Clwyd. This facilitated surveillance over the surrounding landscape. The red sandstone used to construct the castle made it visually striking. A new settlement was founded close to the castle and other local features associated with the site included a garden, park and mill. The position of Ruthin Castle was particularly important for visitors approaching the area from England. The raised position of the castle allowed it to be seen for miles around. Visitors would first have passed the local gallows, a potent symbol of the authority of the local lord. They would then have crossed the town and viewed the bustling market place. Leaving the town behind them, the visitors would have passed through the park with views over orchards belonging to the local lord before reaching the castle gatehouse. This planned route emphasized the economic, legal and political power of the local lord. Their influence consisted not just of controlling the castle but also the population of the local landscape.13
Castle Acre was first established during the Norman period. The castle overlooks two major transport routes in the forms of the River Nar and a Roman road. Interestingly, the route of the Roman road appears to have been deliberately manipulated through a diversion to enhance the approach to Castle Acre. This diversion encouraged visitors to appreciate a number of features associated with the castle and its lord. Castle Acre can be seen as forming a single component of three individual sites fused together to form an impressive image for the approaching visitor. The first feature viewed on the approach to the castle was the Castle Acre Priory. The association of castles with religious buildings is a particular feature of Norman England demonstrating the piety of the incumbent lord. As previously noted, the relationship between high status residential and religious sites was also reasonably common in the Anglo-Saxon period. After the Priory, the visitor next viewed the local town, whose presence emphasised the authority of the lord over the civilian population. Castle Acre therefore sits within a complex landscape which was deliberately manipulated to enhance the impression it created.14
STOKESAY CASTLE
Stokesay Castle in Shropshire demonstrates the ambiguous nature of many castles beyond the major sites we usually associate with the term. Indeed, it is debatable whether Stokesay should in fact be described as a castle on account of its role as a fortified manor house. Stokesay Castle is located in the picturesque valley of the River Onny. Although situated on slightly rising ground, it can by no means be described as being located on a hilltop position. On the contrary, it is overlooked by the rising sides of the valley. Stokesay was constructed in the 1280s by Lawrence de Ludlow, a wealthy wool merchant from nearby Ludlow. The construction of Stokesay were designed to display Lawrence’s wealth and success.
In terms of understanding the site as a castle, the most important feature consists of the south tower. Stokesay is located close to the main route from Shrewsbury to Ludlow and would have been conspicuous to travellers making their way between the two important settlements. When approaching from the south, the tower appears almost to stand in isolation, with the other buildings less visible. The tower contains prominent arrow slits alongside its existing windows. From a southern perspective, the tower displays two projecting lobes (Fig 12). This image is strikingly similar to the contemporary Welsh castles built by Edward I, including Rhuddlan and Harlech. There is a suggestion that the stones of the tower may have originally been banded which would also provide a visual connection to Edward’s Welsh castles. The moat which originally surrounded the castle would have emphasized the martial nature of this aspect.
The other buildings of Stokesay Castle belie this warlike image presented to passing travellers. Established within a compound surrounded by the moat, the approach to the site was originally via a causeway which passed surrounding ornamental ponds. For any discerning visitor was gained access to the castle, the great hall would have been particularly impressive due to its size and sophistication (Fig 13). The splendid timber cruck roof still survives. Originally, the hall would have provided dining space for Lawrence de Ludlow’s household. A timber staircase provided access to upper rooms. One of these was floored with decorative tiles which also featured in Lawrence’s Ludlow townhouse. Next to the great hall stood the solar block, which provided private apartments for Lawrence’s family. The south tower was built slightly later than the solar block and may reflect Lawrence’s growing status. It was consciously designed to impress visitors, especially those conducting business. By this stage Lawrence was involved in providing commercial and financial services for the king and regional nobles.
Despite its external features, Stokesay was definitively not a defensive structure. The south tower was an isolated feature. The arrow slits in the tower were compromised by the windows embedded within it. Whilst the moat would prove a challenge to hostile forces, the site could not withstand a siege. The position of the site is dictated by the need to be seen rather than defence. Yet some features of the site would have been useful in providing protection against thieves, who would have formed a potential problem given Lawrence de Ludlow’s evident status and wealth. The moat and fortified tower would have provided a useful deterrent to opportunistic thieves. In summary, Stokesay provides an alternative perspective on the use of castles in contrast to the contemporary fortified sites constructed by Edward I in Wales.
TOWTON
Conflict archaeology is not limited to the study of fortifications. From the medieval period onwards, the prevalence of historical sources allows the location of battlefields to be identified in some instances. Battlefield sites can be investigated archaeologically through excavation or, more commonly, less intrusive methods such as metal detecting or field walking. Landscape surveys can also be valuable in analysing the topography of a particular conflict. The analysis of battlefield sites may allow scholars to check the reliability of historical accounts, which can often be skewed by political propaganda or the confusion of war. Conflict archaeology offers opportunities to explore aspects of warfare beyond the normal realm of military history, including medicine, military society and even religion. The challenge of studying the archaeology of battlefields lies in finding remains linked to warfare. For obvious reasons, physical structures are rare. Metal weapons or munitions can be traced through metal detecting and can be used to trace movements on the battlefield. Mass graves are particularly difficult to find, although one spectacular discovery from Yorkshire offers an insight into the horrific violence of medieval conflict.
The medieval period witnessed a period of intense warfare during the Wars of the Roses which began in 1455. The conflict raged between supporters of the Houses of York and Lancaster. One of the most important battles of the Wars of the Roses took place at Towton on 29 March 1461. The battle resulted in a notable Yorkist victory which led to the rise to power of King Edward IV. Contemporary accounts refer to Towton as one of the most savage battles of the conflict. Combat is alleged to have lasted for a total of ten hours and fighting even continued during a heavy snowstorm. William Shakespeare described the battle as a tumultuous fight between elemental forces, such was the savagery and size of the armies. Historical sources claim that a total of 28,000 soldiers were killed at Towton. Whilst this number seems incredibly large, a number of independent sources refer to the same figure, lending credence to substantial fatalities. Many of the deaths seem to have occurred during the Lancastrian rout at the end of the battle, as fleeing soldiers attempted to cross a local river and drowned or were cut down by pursuing Yorkist troops.
Many of the dead at Towton were buried in a series of mass graves, some of which may have been marked by tumuli. Archaeologists have excavated one mass grave which has yielded a remarkable level of detail about the physical realities of medieval combat.15 The mass grave was formed by a single pit measuring 3.25 m x 2 m. Identifying the number of individuals within a mass grave is difficult as bones become jumbled and displaced. A key technique for assessing the number of individuals is to identify the number of unique bones such as the cranium or pelvis. This becomes complicated as bones become fragmented and therefore archaeologists can only identify the minimum number of individuals within a specific assemblage. Skeletal analysis of the Towton grave indicates a minimum of thirty-eight individuals were interred. All of the deceased were male and aged between 16 and 50. There is considerable diversity in the age, stature and physique of the skeletons. Radiocarbon dating indicates a high probability that the mass grave is associated with the battle at Towton, rather than as a result of plague or other serious epidemic. The bodies were laid in the pit in a manner which became gradually more haphazard probably because the gravediggers were eager to finish the task swiftly. If contemporary accounts of severe snowstorm are accurate, this may explain their haste.
Twelve of the individuals buried at Towton betrayed evidence for earlier fractures which had partially or fully healed. This history of violence indicates the harshness of military life in the medieval period. 96% of the visible wounds were inflicted on the craniofacial area or the rear of the skull. There is a clear emphasis on head wounds and facial mutilation. Only a single individual escaped injury to his skull, instead being killed by a slashing blow to his spine. Injuries to arms and hands reflect desperate attempts to shield themselves from slashing weapons. Analysis of one skeleton, designated as Towton 25, has allowed archaeologists to reconstruct the chronology of his wounds. Aged between 36 and 45 years old, this individual already carried a severe fracture perhaps sustained in an earlier fight. His first wounds at Towton came in the form of five slashing wounds to the skull. These were caused by a right handed opponent wielding a sword or similar weapon. The lethal blow was inflicted on the back of his skull. A slashing cut impacted with such force that it caused substantial brain trauma. This injury would have felled Towton 25. However, two further wounds were inflicted probably after death. One of these was a slashing cut to his face.
Skeletal analysis of the Towton mass grave allows us to reconstruct the fates of these men. In the past, it has been suggested that the viciousness of their injuries indicates that they were captured and tortured by the enemy. However, there is little evidence to suggest that they were physically restrained. It seems more likely that their deaths were a result of combat. Only two wounds can possibly be attributed to projectiles. Archery formed a component of the early stages of medieval combat so the occupants of the Towton mass grave probably perished at a later phase in the battle. The prevalence of head wounds suggests that these men were not wearing helmets when they were killed. The absence of helmets could be explained if they had been discarded during a rout. It can therefore be argued that the individuals interred within the mass grave were massacred during the flight of Lancastrians at the end of the battle. The violence of their wounds reflects the desperate struggle for survival in their final moments.
MONASTERIES
The Norman Conquest not only began the process of integrating castles into the landscape, but also revitalized religious houses. Before 1066, less than fifty monasteries were operating in Britain. By the end of the medieval period over 2000 religious houses had been founded. The connection between the promotion of castles and monasteries was not coincidental. Indeed, they were often founded in close proximity to each other, thus demonstrating aristocratic wealth and power. The endowment of religious houses was a popular aspect of Norman culture which was easily transplanted to the new kingdom. William the Conqueror was especially renowned for his generous patronage of religious houses in Normandy. In a world of bloodshed and sin, religious philanthropy offered the possibility of redemption and salvation. Financing a monastery through a donation of money or land would go some way to redressing the sins of bloodshed and murder inherent within a military lifestyle. Some knights chose to become monks themselves towards the end of their lives as a means of assuaging their guilt. The nobility therefore had good reason to associate themselves with religious houses.
Some religious buildings constructed under the Normans nevertheless represented an element of continuity in the use of the landscape. Knowlton Church in Dorset was constructed during the twelfth century to serve the local community. The area was used as a hunting park throughout the medieval period. Intriguingly, the church was situated within a prehistoric ritual landscape. Knowlton sits within Cranborne Chase, a terrain filled with notable Neolithic and Bronze Age monuments. The church itself was sited within the centre of a Neolithic henge (Fig 14). A large barrow stands in close proximity to the site. The Dorset cursus also runs close to the church. The juxtaposition of the Christian church and pagan henge indicates a conscious attempt to display continuity in the religious significance of the site. The henge was not obliterated as it easily could have been, but rather preserved an integral element of the church complex.
The concept of monasticism is closely intertwined with the Christian faith.16 Isolation from a world which was seen as inherently evil and filled with sin became a respected Christian practice by the fourth century. Initially, this involved hermits seeking a solitary life of contemplation in isolated places such as the deserts of Syria and Egypt. This form of monasticism is termed eremitic, where withdrawal from the world promotes closeness to the divine. A second form of monasticism, termed coenobitic, instead takes the form of a religious community where monks live, eat and worship together. The community was still expected to separate itself from the wider world to avoid temptation and seek to be as self-sufficient as possible. This form of monasticism was popular in Britain. One of the most popular works on the organisation of monastic communities was the rule of St Benedict, created by Benedict of Nursia in the early sixth century.
The early monastic houses established after 1066 were Benedictine (following the rule of St Benedict) or Cluniac (following the model of the great French monastery at Cluny) in nature. The distribution of Anglo-Saxon monasteries had been limited to southern England. The Norman influx ensured that new institutions would be found across Britain. Discontent with the piety of Benedictine communities prompted the rise of new monastic orders. Augustinian houses constructed during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries focussed on greater engagement with the wider community. At the other extreme, Cistercian monasteries sought greater austerity and isolation in their interpretation of the rule of St Benedict. The Cistercians founded their monasteries in remote locations across Britain, beginning in Waverley, Sussex, in 1128. To avoid distractions and concentrate on their interaction with the divine, Cistercian monasteries also housed lay brothers whose role was to attend to the daily tasks required in supplying and maintaining the community, leaving the monks to worship. The great expansion in monastic communities across Britain petered out by 1200. New forms of religious philanthropy gained greater prominence. This reflected a renewed emphasis on personal religion within, rather than isolated from, the wider world. This perspective had political connotations in the context of the Crusades. The giving of alms to the poor became increasingly popular and could arguably be seen as an activity closer to the teachings of Jesus as recorded in the Bible than supporting a monastic community. New religious houses continued to be built in the form of friaries. Dominican and Franciscan friars were dedicated to serving the needs of the community through serving the poor in a pastoral role. For this reason, friaries were located close to urban centres although often on poor land. Friars eschewed the trappings of wealth and status, preferring to live in abject poverty like the people they served. This was a radical contrast to the remoteness of other monastic communities. The structure and layout of religious houses reflected the religious order which they served. For example, Cistercian monasteries are associated with substantial accommodation quarters serving the lay brothers distinct from the residential areas occupied by monks. Friaries were constructed in urban areas and contained elements within their layout which facilitated preaching to the public.17
The key factor in choosing the location of new monasteries was the provision of water. This was essential, not only for drinking, but also for cleansing. Monasteries are therefore usually found close to water sources such as rivers, streams or springs. As we have noted, some monasteries were deliberately sited in remote locations to distance their occupants from the temptations of the secular world. As a thriving community, the monastery required a suitable hinterland to supply it with food and other provisions. This could be provided through agricultural land owned by the monastery and farmed by monks, lay brothers or tenant farmers. Alternatively, the monks could engage with local markets. The agricultural outputs of some monastic houses were substantial. By the end of the thirteenth century, the Cistercian monks at Melrose possessed a flock of sheep which exceeded 12,000 animals.18 The layout of monasteries tended to conform to a general pattern which nevertheless allowed for individual variations due to the vagaries of the local landscape. The most important elements of the monastery were the church and cloister. The church was used for worship on a daily basis and included the high altar and seating for the community. Monastic churches were usually rectangular or cruciform in shape. The cloister was important was the hub of the community, where monks would have processed through on the way to complete their duties and rituals. This role was facilitated by the covered walkway. A number of buildings were connected to the cloister. The chapter house hosted daily meetings of the religious community. The refectory served as the dining area for the monks and the dormitory provided their accommodation. Other buildings would have supported the daily running of the institution in the form of kitchens, workshops and barns. Individual farms at a distance from the monastery may have been worked by lay brothers or tenant farmers.
DURHAM CATHEDRAL
The religious landscape of medieval Britain was divided into dioceses under nominated bishops. Each diocese was centralized on a cathedral within an urban area. Medieval cathedrals were organised in two distinct categories. Monastic cathedrals housed a community of monks. Secular cathedrals were led by a dean who headed a chapter of canons. The location of cathedrals within urban locations has left an indelible impact on the landscape of Britain to this day. Ely Cathedral dominates the surrounding Fenlands (Fig 15). Indeed they can be classed as some of the most striking buildings within the modern cityscape. York Minster crowns the skyline of the city. It should be remembered that cathedrals represent considerable investment in resources, money and labour. Durham Cathedral is a particularly spectacular example (Fig 16).19 Perched on a wooded hillside overlooking the River Wear, it dominates its surroundings and is claimed to be the finest example of Norman architecture in Britain. The location of the cathedral was deliberate. It was built in the site of an earlier Anglo-Saxon church, known as the white church, which was placed on an easily defensible location. The religious community claimed descent from the monastery at Lindisfarne and therefore had prior experience of Viking raids. It is hard to imagine the level of engineering excellence required to construct such an edifice. Durham Cathedral was built between 1093 and 1133. It housed the shrine of St Cuthbert and the bodies of St Oswald and the Venerable Bede. Its association with the former ensured that it was a favoured destination for medieval pilgrims. The cathedral was monastic in nature and supported a community of Benedictine monks. Durham was strategically important for the Norman regime as it oversaw the tempestuous northern regions. The cathedral was therefore constructed within the precinct of Durham castle. The latter, which now houses part of the university, was established under William the Conqueror. Responsibility for maintaining order and security in the north of England rested with the Prince-Bishops of Durham who occupied the castle. Durham Cathedral was therefore not simply a religious building but rather part of a larger complex of structures imbued with political meaning. The castle and cathedral therefore asserted a political statement emphasising Norman dominance over northern England.
Durham Cathedral is a key example of Romanesque architecture. This style flourished during the eleventh and twelfth centuries and was named for its resemblance to the architecture of Rome. The exceptional level of preservation within the structure of the cathedral allows archaeologists to glimpse the architectural style applied by the Normans. Analysis of the fabric informs our understanding of the construction of large stone buildings during the early medieval period. The cathedral preserves the earliest surviving large stone vault in the world, incorporating the use of the pointed arch. Durham Cathedral also contains the earliest known example of the use of stone ribbed vaulting. Stone ribs allow the weight of the ceiling to be transferred to the walls of the structure, thereby minimising the possibility of structural problems during the lifetime of the building. This innovation allowed the cathedral to reach a considerable height and appear almost to soar to the heavens. Some elements of Durham Cathedral bear a close resemblance to one of the most important buildings in the Christian world. This was the old St Peter’s Basilica in Rome (to distinguish it from the basilica visible today), the construction of which began under the emperor Constantine during the early fourth century. The religious importance of the basilica lay in its location on the alleged site of the tomb of St Peter. The dimensions of the nave at Durham closely match those of the old St Peter’s Basilica. Moreover, the spiral columns which can be seen within the cathedral evoke those surrounding St Peter’s Shrine. In emulating some of the architectural features of the basilica, the cathedral claims a connection to one of the holiest Christian sites. It may be pure coincidence that the emperor Constantine was originally elevated to imperial power at nearby York.
ST ADRIAN’S PRIORY
The Isle of May is located in the Firth of Forth in Scotland and housed the Priory of St Adrian. The priory housed a small community of Benedictine monks which probably never exceeded ten individuals. Saint Adrian was an inhabitant of the original monastery on the island who was killed, along with many of his fellow monks, during a savage Viking raid in 875. The island was abandoned by its religious community after the Viking attack and left barren for centuries. In the mid-twelfth century the island was granted to Reading Abbey by King David I. Under the auspices of Reading Abbey, a new religious community was founded based around the shrine of St Adrian. The site became a focus for pilgrims and the shrine continued to be maintained even after the priory was moved to another island during the fourteenth century. The priory took the form of a group of four buildings arranged around an open area. The church was rectangular design. The eastern range contained the dormitory where the monks slept and their refectory occupied the southern range. One of the other buildings may have housed guest quarters for visiting pilgrims and important guests.
The Isle of May is a relatively exposed location which must have proved challenging in sustaining even a small religious community. Certainly, crops could not have been cultivated on the site. A small number of sheep and cattle may have been farmed on the island. Most of the food for the religious community must have taken the form of fish and seabirds. Produce may also have been transported across from the mainland. Recent excavations have concentrated on analysing the remains of the human population in the cemetery. Surprisingly, this burial ground was not organized as a series of individual graves dug in an individual manner. Rather, the graves were deposited beneath a burial cairn formed from local beach stones. This form of grave architecture is extremely unusual in a Christian context and is usually associated with pre-Christian pagan burials. The continuity of this burial practice suggests that it had ritual significance. This may be linked to the burials of the original victims of the Viking raid in 875. One male individual was interred close to the church during the fifteenth century. Intriguingly he was buried with a scallop shell placed in his mouth. The scallop was associated with St James and the pilgrimage to Santiago de Compostela in Spain. The shell was used as a symbol by pilgrims who had completed the journey. St James was particularly popular in Scotland due to his association with the Stewart dynasty. It is possible that this particular individual was a pilgrim who undertaken a pilgrimage to Santiago de Compostela in honour of St James and later perished whilst on pilgrimage to the shrine of St Adrian on the Isle of May. His life story demonstrates the piety of individuals during the medieval period and the mobility which such faith encouraged.20
LONDON
As we have seen, London functioned as the provincial capital for most of the Roman occupation. However, during the Anglo-Saxon period the city lost out to rival settlements. Certainly during the tenth century, Winchester possessed a greater claim to being the royal capital of England. Significant remodelling in London appears to have taken place around 900. A new series of streets were laid out with a particular focus on the area around the quayside. From the origins of the city, London’s importance was dictated by its role in facilitating trade and commerce through the River Thames. Emphasis on the river frontage demonstrated the importance of this area in the economic life of the city. Within a century London was firmly reconnected to trading networks encompassing France, Germany and the Low Countries which appear to have been temporarily suspended during the preceding centuries. These international trading links reinvigorated the city. Later kings placed increasing importance on London and it is noteworthy that Edward the Confessor rebuilt Westminster Abbey. This building was chosen as the venue for William the Conqueror’s coronation in 1066. The construction of the Tower of London by the Norman king in 1067, one of only two stone keeps in Britain built under his rule, demonstrates the perceived importance of the city to the incomers.
The eleventh century witnessed rapid growth in London as the city sprawled across the former Roman urban boundary.21 Indeed, at the peak of the urban sprawl the limits of the city were similar to those of the present day. London’s expansion was fuelled by the economic boom provided by commercial links with the continent and supported by the fact that there were no rival urban centres within close proximity. In 1100 London possessed no fewer than 110 parish churches, providing an indication of the size of the city. A century later, there were 18 major religious houses operating within the city. By 1300 this total had risen to 33 individual institutions. Development projects within the city focussed in particular on the area around the quayside. Investment in facilitating effective logistical support and storage space would inevitably reap economic benefits. From 1100 the river frontage was consolidated and gradually expanded into the Thames during the following centuries. Embankments of timber and stone were used to reclaim land from the river, thus increasing the space available for riverside activities. Impressive construction projects continued throughout the medieval period including the creation of ostentatious buildings such as the Guildhall and Leadenhall in the fifteenth century. Traces of the imperial past of the city were still present within the urban fabric. London Bridge was remodelled in stone during the twelfth century but remained on the site of the original Roman crossing. The first Guildhall was constructed on the site of the Roman amphitheatre. Aside from the practical benefits of reusing Roman sites, such activity carried a subtle reminder of the past importance of the city and its previous dominance as an urban centre over the rest of Britain.
Estimates of the population of London at the beginning of the twelfth century tend to suggest around 20,000 individuals living within the city. By 1300 the population had probably quadrupled, although some estimates place the population as high as 100,000 individuals. The outbreaks of plague in the fourteenth century inevitably had a broad impact on population levels, probably more so than later epidemics. A significant proportion of the city’s population was not of British origin. From the eleventh century there is substantial evidence for the presence of merchants and traders from Rouen, Flanders and Germany living in London on a permanent basis. Initial attempts to confine foreign merchants to areas around the riverside were gradually relaxed allowing them to live throughout the city. The presence of a thriving and prosperous migrant community created a multicultural environment which had a significant impact on the nature and economy of the city.
Royal interest in the city of London was motivated by three key factors. The wealth of the merchant and aristocratic classes made them an invaluable financial resource in times of economic crisis through providing economic support in the form of taxes or loans. The proximity of the population of London to the abbey and palace of Westminster ensured that they played a vital role in royal ceremonies and processions. Finally, the political elite of London provided the king with valuable advice and counsel, as well as forming a necessary conduit to the city populace. In the early stages of the medieval period, kingship was usually highly mobile in nature as the ruler progressed around his kingdom in order to meet his nobles, deal with local issues and, most importantly, to be seen by his subjects. Gradually London became increasingly to be seen as the centre of royal power. The reign of Henry III (1234 – 1272) was particularly important in this regard, as the king focussed on the Palace of Westminster as the seat of the bureaucracy associated with his legal and economic obligations. Edward I continued this trend by summoning his retainers to meet with him at Westminster. Although later kings would summon parliaments to meet at other cities, the function of the Palace of Westminster as the centre of the royal bureaucracy made it an attractive seat for the king to meet with his nobles and advisors. The presence of the court brought great benefits to the city of London in terms of its infrastructure and reputation across the western world. This symbiotic relationship ensured that London became the epicentre and hub of the political geography of England.
LUDLOW
The medieval period witnessed substantial growth in urban development. The twelfth and early thirteenth centuries in particular saw the establishment of up to 500 new towns. This growth, often encouraged for political and strategic purposes, was accompanied by numerous economic benefits. Ludlow in Shropshire offers a prime example of a new market town which flourished during the medieval period.22 The name Ludlow is probably derived from two separate terms. Lud refers to the loud waters of the River Teme which roar past the town. Hlau comes from the tumulus, probably of Bronze Age origin, which originally stood in the graveyard of the parish church until it was removed at the close of the twelfth century. The connection between a sacred Bronze Age site and a Christian church indicates continuity in religious belief associated with a specific location. The site of modern Ludlow was not occupied prior to the medieval period. Two ancient trackways did cross the area. The Clun-Clee ridgeway was in use from the Mesolithic period judging by the presence of microliths along its course. Artefacts from the Neolithic and Bronze Age have also been found in association with the ridgeway. A second trackway, possibly dating to the Roman period, crossed the Rivers Corve and Teme close to Ludlow. A substantial Iron Age hillfort was constructed only 3 km from Ludlow. The name of the nearby village, Caynham, betrays the Anglo-Saxon origins of the settlement. The area of modern Ludlow known as Linney references an Anglo-Saxon term for dry land, indicating the area may have been used for the growing of flax close to the River Teme.
In 1086, the site of Ludlow lay within the parish of Stanton. According to the Domesday survey, Stanton possessed twenty-two hides or units of land under the plough and was the most productive manor in southern Shropshire. The population of the parish can be estimated at around 700 individuals. Economic activity was not limited to agriculture. The Domesday survey also recorded the presence of blacksmiths and mills. In the aftermath of the Norman Conquest, this area had been granted by William the Conqueror to one of his closest lieutenants, William FitzOsbern, who controlled most of Herefordshire. In turn, FitzOsbern granted tenancy of a number of his manors to Walter de Lacy I, a Norman knight who accompanied the king to England. After FitzOsbern’s death, his son led an ill-advised rebellion against the king in 1075. As a result, William redistributed the FitzOsbern to loyal Norman knights. Walter de Lacy was the prime beneficiary, receiving 163 manors which made him one of the most important Norman lords to hold land in the Welsh Marches. The king was eager to ensure that loyal and competent barons were in place to protect the frontier with Wales.
A castle was constructed at Ludlow around 1088.23 Construction may be linked to the rebellion of Walter de Lacy’s son against William II. Nevertheless, the castle occupied a strategic position controlling local transport routes and overlooking the River Teme (Fig 17). The original castle was built of stone and took the form of a large enclosure with an imposing tower. The site was probably approached by a bridge. The walls were protected by at least four projecting towers. The Norman section of the castle now forms the inner bailey. At around the same time, a small settlement grew immediately next to the castle in an area now known as Dinham. This settlement was probably occupied by individuals who serviced the castle and its inhabitants. A defensive ditch later became the line for the thirteenth century town wall.
Historical sources indicate that Ludlow possessed its own identity by 1138. The growth of the town during this period has been categorized within four key stages. The first phase consisted of the development of a high street market place running down from the castle. The parish church and graveyard (incorporating the earlier tumulus) were located at the end of the high street. This ensured that the marketplace was framed by the castle and church respectively. The second phase increased the size of the town within a t-shaped plan through linear expansion beyond the marketplace. This development possibly followed an existing transport route. The third phase witnessed the laying out of streets from the marketplace down to the River Teme. Finally, the town was expanded on to the flood plain formerly used for the growing of flax and the infilling of the marketplace with permanent stalls and shop units.
In 1199, the growth of Ludlow was reflected in the reconstruction and expansion of the parish church of St Laurence to 80% of its modern size. A tax assessment of 1377 demonstrates that Ludlow supported a population of 1172 adults, making it the third largest provincial town in England. Although half the size of Shrewsbury, it still ranked as larger than towns such as Southampton and Derby. This expansion required the removal of the Bronze Age tumulus from the church grounds. Medieval Ludlow was known to conform to the laws of Breteuil, the Norman town of FitzOsbern. This required that the town be divided into burgage plots, which were rectangular plots of land held by settlers who paid the local lord an annual rent of twelve pence. The burgage system persisted into the seventeenth century. Analysis of the townscape indicates that medieval Ludlow held more than 500 burgage plots.
By the thirteenth century, Ludlow was a bustling and prosperous market town famed for its connection to the wool trade and cloth production. At least nine mills were operational on the nearby Corve and Teme Rivers. In 1200, the town possessed two schools, one of which was a grammar school. Three chapels were founded during the twelfth century, with more religious houses added later. These included the Austin and Carmelite friaries. Town walls were constructed by 1260, when a tax was levied for their upkeep. The walls provided protection during a time of threat from Wales, whilst the series of gates allowed economic control over goods entering and leaving the town. The Gough Map, produced in the fourteenth century, depicts Ludlow as an important settlement. The church tower can clearly be seen, as can the castle and imposing town walls with projecting towers. In the space of a few centuries, Ludlow had grown from the area around a single tumulus to a thriving market town.
CLIMATE CHANGE IN THE MEDIEVAL PERIOD
In recent years, archaeologists and scientists have focussed increasingly on evidence for climate change in the past and the effects which this has had on economics, agriculture and society. The years between 900 and 1300 have been identified as an area of relatively mild climate in Europe and the North Atlantic region. This period is described as the Medieval Warm Period or Medieval Climatic Optimum.24 Historical records indicate that severe winters were reduced in their frequency and nature. Glaciers were significantly reduced exposing more land to human exploitation. The benefits of these milder conditions are best demonstrated by the Scandinavian colonisation of Greenland. The peak climatic conditions of the Medieval Warm Period varied across the North Atlantic region. In Britain, the most favourable period seems to have occurred between 1150 and 1350. The primary benefit of this milder climate was through agricultural productivity. It is likely that farming was expanded onto higher ground. Harvest yields are likely to have been significantly enhanced. There is even evidence that grapes were grown in Britain during the Medieval Warm Period.
Not all climate change events during the medieval period were advantageous or sustained. This has been most clearly illustrated during a major excavation at Spitalfields cemetery in London.25 The site was connected to the largest medieval hospital in the city known as St Mary Spital. Burials were interred at the site from the early twelfth through to the sixteenth centuries. Over 10,000 graves were excavated during the project providing an insight into the lives of the inhabitants of medieval London. As may be expected from such a large site, most of the graves were carefully and systematically laid out to use the land effectively and prevent later disturbance. However, this approach was not consistent across the cemetery. One hundred and forty pits containing group or mass burials were encountered during the excavation. The discovery of mass graves from the medieval period is normally linked to fatalities from the Black Death of 1348. Yet sophisticated radiocarbon dating techniques revealed that the graves belonged to the mid-thirteenth century. This result is inconsistent with plague victims. Close analysis of the burials revealed two distinct categories of mass graves reflecting two catastrophic events. The first group held up to twenty bodies and may be linked to a notorious famine which struck London in 1252. The second group of mass burials were larger in size and contained up to forty bodies. These graves may be linked to a major volcanic eruption which took place in 1258. Widespread geological evidence in the form of ice cores and ash sediment attests to the severity of the eruption. The location of the volcano remains to be identified. Nevertheless the impact of the eruption is evidence in historical accounts. The eruption spewed material into the atmosphere which limited the amount of heat and light reaching the earth. Contemporary sources record a severe drop in temperature leading to the failing of crops, death of livestock and widespread famine. It is likely that the larger mass graves of Spitalfields contain the remains of those who perished in the aftermath of the eruption.
During the ninth and tenth centuries, large scale changes are evident in land usage across rural areas of Britain. Through a gradual process, isolated farms coalesced into village communities. This shift in settlement patterns had a profound impact on rural society. Each village hosted a manorial court which provided a forum for the resolution of disputes and maintained the wellbeing of the community. Norman landowners in the aftermath of the Conquest appear to have encouraged the development of new settlements in order to simplify their administrative burdens. After all, villagers were far easier to govern than individual farmsteads.
The landscape of the medieval countryside around these new villages was characterized by the development of open fields. This was a system of land ownership which required communal collaboration by local farmers. The open field system facilitated the management of associated farmland by the community as a whole and promoted sustainable farming practices. It also left a lasting mark on British countryside which persists to this day. In its earliest form during the Anglo-Saxon period, each village probably possessed two open fields surrounding the settlement. This is reflected in the prevalence of early field names linked to opposing points of the compass. Through the increase of farmland available to the community through woodland clearance or land management, many villages increased the total number of open fields up to four.
Although there were probably regional or localized variations in the operation of the open fields system, we possess a good understanding of how it was managed. Each field was divided into strips. Every farmer in the village would possess at least one strip in each field. The ownership of strips could be allocated randomly or in a systematic manner. Strips were bundled into furlongs on which the same crops would be grown. This enabled farmers to collaborate according to demand. Livestock would graze on the open fields outside of the growing season. The open fields system brought particular benefits in terms of the quality and fertility of the soil. The farming community would decide on an annual basis which field should be left bare or fallow. This tradition of not exploiting a single field each year ensured that soil nutrients would not be exhausted. As each farmer possessed land in each field, no individual would be unduly discriminated against. Oversight of the management of the open fields rested with the manorial court which had the power to punish individuals who tried to sow crops in a field designated as fallow. In any given year, between 25 – 50% of farming land within the village would be uncultivated depending on the number of open fields.
The prolonged cultivation of medieval fields has left a visual trace in features known as ridge and furrow which can still be seen on modern farmland. Ridge and furrow features appear as undulations in the ground caused by the action of repeated ploughing of a particular field. Ploughing turned the soil and gradually caused the creation of a distinct groove or furrow in the ground. These can be up to 15m in length. The creation of ridge and furrow features was a deliberate act to provide suitable drainage, particularly in areas with heavy soils or a history of flooding. The furrow acted as a drain drawing water away from the raised bed of earth provided by the ridge. The use of ridge and furrow as an effective drainage technique was not limited to the medieval period. Indeed, anecdotal evidence suggests that it was practised during the Second World War.26 In the modern period, great swathes of countryside displaying ridge and furrow features have been lost due to intensive ploughing or shifts in land use. Nevertheless, good examples do remain particularly in the northern regions of England.
The open field system is not simply a relic of a bygone age. On the contrary, it is still used effectively within one English rural community at Laxton in Nottinghamshire.27 Laxton has maintained the open fields system since at least the medieval period, although the amount of farmland available within the open fields has decreased significantly. Currently the village possesses 195 hectares of land divided into three open fields. These are subdivided into 164 individual strips. A manorial court of local farmers still oversees the system and decides which fields should be left fallow on an annual basis. Whilst the return of open fields on a broader scale is incompatible with modern farming practices, it is obvious that the system provided numerous social benefits for rural villages. It promoted the cohesion of a farming community and encouraged collaboration in order to maintain sustainable approaches to agriculture.
Not all rural land was governed in such a collegial manner. The medieval period witnessed the widespread development of parks across lowland areas of Britain. Whilst we nowadays associate parks with areas for public recreation, they were originally areas of enclosed woodland for raising and hunting deer maintained by the nobility. Hunting allowed kings and nobles to demonstrate their martial prowess in a peaceful environment. However, it is questionable how much hunting could be accomplished in heavily wooded parks. The origin of parks can be traced to the ancient Persian Empire. There is no clear evidence for the creation of deer parks in Britain prior to the Norman Conquest. They were particularly common from the twelfth century onwards. One reason for the popularity of deer parks can be found in the introduction of Fallow Deer which proved easier to manage than native species, such as Roe and Red Deer. Woodland parks provided a plentiful supply of venison as well as timber which could be sold on at profit. It has been suggested that there were around 3200 deer parks in England alone by 1300. This may equate to roughly 2% of the English landscape. The Welsh terrain limited the creation of woodland deer parks, although some were established to the west of the Marches. Medieval deer parks have also been identified in southern and eastern Scotland. Most of the evidence for the identification of such sites has been gathered from land ownership records.28
WHARRAM PERCY
Some of the most enigmatic remains of medieval Britain take the form of deserted medieval villages (DMVs). These sites often take the form of mysterious earthworks and rarely leave any trace above ground level. Indeed, many DMVs have left no trace beyond their inclusion on old maps and manorial records. There are over 3000 DMVs in Britain, the majority of which were abandoned by the end of the medieval period. Although often difficult to analyse in depth without a rigorous programme of excavations, DMVs offer an unparalleled opportunity to explore rural life in medieval Britain. Traditionally the desertion of these villages has been attributed to the ravages of the Black Death which first arrived in Britain in 1348 and resurfaced on a number of occasions through to the seventeenth century. In this analysis outbreaks of the Black Death either wiped out entire settlements or took such a toll that they were no longer economically viable. In recent years scholars have moved away from tracing the existence of DMVs to outbreaks of the Black Death. Instead, they are now attributed to a broader range of factors including changes in agricultural practice, economic pressures and the increasing attractions of urban life.
The most well-known and intensely studied DMV in Britain is Wharram Percy near Malton in Yorkshire.29 Wharram Percy was subject to an intensive series of archaeological investigations in the twentieth century which enabled archaeologists to trace the growth and decline of the settlement. Today the village consists of the remains of St Martin’s Church and extensive earthworks which preserve some of the layout of the original village. The area was occupied from the Neolithic period, although the village reached its zenith in the twelfth to the fourteenth centuries. The area was first inhabited during the Neolithic and Bronze Age periods on account of flints recovered locally. Early settlers were probably attracted by the water supply provided by the stream or beck originating from a series of local springs. This water source would have been used to support grazing animals. By the Iron Age at least two farms had been established at Wharram Percy. At least one of these displayed considerable status through the provision of defensive ditches. By the later Roman period, five farms were operating on the site of the later village. Anglo-Saxon occupation has been identified in the form of two Grubenhäuser built on the edge of the village area sometime during the sixth century. Over the following centuries, a village gradually coalesced in the site as opposed to isolated farmsteads.
In the late fourteenth century, the village consisted of thirty houses arranged in two Rows or lines. The first Row consisted of twenty houses along the edge of the hillside. The remainder were located in a single Row along the valley floor. Each plot consisted of a toft (house and associated outbuildings) and croft (associated patch of arable land). Excavations have revealed that the majority of the village houses during the medieval period consisted of longhouses. The longhouse consisted of three distinct areas. The first consisted of a space which may have been used as sleeping quarters or alternatively as a dairy. The main living space was equipped with a hearth for cooking and as the centrepiece of social activities within the house. The final area was used for agricultural purposes, including potential living space for animals. The longhouses were built using a cruck building design. This meant that the roof was supported by robust internal supports whilst the chalk walls appear flimsy and unsubstantial. This means that the houses were stronger structures than they appear archeologically. The waste from the longhouses appears to have been transferred to a midden and then reused as fertiliser on the fields. Each villager would have farmed land on the three large open fields surrounding the village. Each field was divided into unhedged strips of land known as selions. Excavation of the longhouses provided evidence for the daily lives of the villagers. Activities linked to spinning and weaving were identified through finds such as spinning whorls, needles and thimbles. Wooden chests for the secure storage of valuables were noted in some houses. Social life was represented through bone flutes and dice. Perhaps surprisingly, pottery was discovered which had been produced as far away as France and the Mediterranean.
According to the Domesday survey of 1086, Wharram Percy consisted of nine ploughing units. Eight of these were the property of the king with the reminder held by an individual named Chilbert in return for military service. An abbreviation in the text seems to indicate that the village technically had two manors. Archaeologists have identified two manor houses in Wharram Percy. The first, in the south of the village, was established in the twelfth century and probably remained in use into the early thirteenth century. It consisted of a two storied stone building providing private accommodation for the lord and his family. Other buildings would have formed part of the same compound including a hall for receiving villagers and guests. In the mid-thirteenth century, the south manor was demolished and replaced by longhouses. A new manor was constructed in the north of the village. This was a far more impressive series of structures including a hall with dais for the lord, living area for his family, large barn for sheep or grain and a grain drying kiln. A driveway for moving cattle out to the open fields was established. Two stockyards provided animals with further access to grazing areas. The compound may even have contained a private garden for the lord and his family. Interestingly, the north manor was established on the site of a substantial elite Iron Age residence. This area within the village may have been associated with high status for over a thousand years.
The other substantial building at Wharram Percy was the Church of St Martin. The excavation provided archaeologists with a rare chance to examine a parish church in considerable detail. The church was first constructed in the tenth century as a timber building. In the following century, a small stone church was established. This probably functioned as a private church used by the lord and his family. In the twelfth century, a large two celled church including a nave and small tower. This was utilized by whole community as a place of worship. Over the following centuries the church was gradually expanded to include a north aisle, porch and chapel. In the fifteenth century, the local lord added an additional storey to the tower emblazoned with his coat of arms. The churchyard holds the graves of over 1000 villagers. Grave slabs reveal the presence of Anglo-Saxon lords and medieval men at arms in the service of the local lord. Close to the church was a mill and later fish pond.
The abandonment of Wharram Percy cannot be connected to outbreaks of the Black Death. The disease did strike the village. Walter de Heslerton, lord of the manor, died of the plague in 1349. Yet a survey in 1368 revealed that thirty houses were occupied in Wharram Percy. Gradual depopulation may be indicated by the occupation of only sixteen households by 1458. The last record of villagers inhabiting Wharram Percy belongs to 1517. After this date the village appears to have been abandoned and given over to sheep. In 1543 1180 sheep were grazing on the site. The shift from village to sheep pasture suggests that the end of Wharram Percy was economically motivated. The booming wool and cloth trade probably tempted the local lord to replace his human tenants with a sheep flock.
THE DEATH OF A KING
Perhaps the most spectacular archaeological discovery in Britain in recent years has been the unearthing of the probable skeleton of King Richard III in Leicester. Richard III is a divisive historical figure. For centuries, he has been depicted as a cruel and ruthless monarch. This owes much to Shakespeare’s portrayal of the king. In the modern world his qualities and deeds remain a source of controversy and attract both his supporters and detractors. The Richard III Society has been particularly instrumental in encouraging a more considered approach to the king, his reign and legacy. The Society also played a leading role in the archaeological investigation which unearthed the royal grave.
Richard III died during the battle of Bosworth Field on 22 August 1485. His death ended the Wars of the Roses and also signalled the end of the medieval period and beginning of the Tudor dynasty under King Henry VII. The historical sources allow us to reconstruct the fate of Richard’s corpse. After the battle it was transported to Leicester by the new king. Henry’s purpose in moving the corpse was to expose it to public view. This macabre display demonstrated both the end of the war and his victory over his enemies. There could be no hope for Richard’s supporters that the king had evaded death to fight another day. After three days the body of the late king was interred in the church of the Franciscan friary (otherwise known as Grey Friars). Ten years later, perhaps after his personal animosity had abated, Henry VII ordered the grave to be capped by an alabaster tomb.
The archaeological investigation was primarily designed to identify and record the principal buildings of the Franciscan friary.30 Locating the grave of a single historical figure is notoriously problematic. It relies heavily on the accuracy of contemporary historical sources and requires the stripping away of folklore and hearsay. Grey Friars was formally dissolved in 1538. In the following years, it is likely that the buildings were ransacked. One seventeenth century source claimed that Richard’s corpse was exhumed during the dissolution and the bones flung into the River Soar. Archaeologists held little hope of locating the royal grave.
Initial excavations identified several buildings within the friary complex, which was founded between 1224 and 1230. A chapter house and associated cloister walk had been heavily robbed for building materials. The chapter house encompassed around 50 m2 and would have been the location of daily meetings of the religious community. The surviving fabric of these structures was of poor quality reflecting the poverty of the religious order. Further excavations revealed the church building. A number of graves were identified and copper alloy letters which had probably been removed from tomb inscriptions. Surprisingly, the eastern end of the church was constructed or faced in brick, making it one of the earliest medieval buildings in Leicestershire to have used brick. Although the church building had been heavily damaged during and after the dissolution, the graves themselves were undisturbed.
One grave in particular appeared promising to the excavators. Placed in the south-west corner of the church building, it did not occupy an imposing position. Although church buildings were used for the inhumations of high status individuals, they would have had limited public access preventing the grave from becoming a site of pilgrimage or focus for resistance by his former supporters. Excavation indicated a body which had been buried in great haste with little respect. In contrast to the other graves beneath the church building, the grave cut was too short. For this reason, the skeleton was twisted to fit and the head propped up on the corner of the grave. This indicates that the gravediggers were working hastily. This may have been due to the advanced decomposition of the corpse.
The skeleton displayed the marks of a violent death. Its hands were crossed at the wrist. Although this arrangement was common in medieval England, it was not normal practice in Leicester. It is therefore possible that the corpse’s hands were tied. The corpse was buried without a shroud, coffin or clothing. Ten separate wounds were clearly visible on the skeleton. Obviously these do not include wounds which did not penetrate to the bone. Eight of the wounds were inflicted on the skull, and included two fatal sword blows to the back of the head. The top of the skull may have been pierced by short weapon resembling a dagger. The emphasis on wounds to the skull is similar to the patterning of wounds at Towton. The positioning of a number of the wounds suggests that they were inflicted whilst the individual was not wearing armour, including cuts to the ribs and buttock. It is entirely possible that some of these wounds were inflicted after death when the corpse was stripped. Such signs of ‘overkill’ are not unusual in warfare, when heightened emotions prompt warriors to inflict violence on deceased enemies either through sheer fury or to claim some form of personal glory.
Does the skeleton belong to Richard III? A range of evidence suggests that it does. Radiocarbon dating indicates a high probability that the deceased died between 1456 and 1530. The skeleton belongs to a male aged somewhere between his late 20s or late 30s, consistent with Richard’s death at the age of 32. The individual enjoyed a diet rich in seafood, which is indicative of high status. Moreover, the skeleton indicates that the individual suffered from severe idiopathic adolescent-onset scoliosis, a debilitating condition which may have led to visible physical symptoms. Contemporary historical sources make reference to Richard’s physical symptoms, although the validity of some of these accounts is still a matter of considerable debate. Historians have identified two living descendants of Anne of York, sister of Richard III. Mitochondrial DNA allows the female line of descent to be traced. Comparison of the mitochondrial DNA of the living descendants of Richard’s family and the skeleton indicate a close match. Although not direct descendants of the king, this result is sufficiently convincing. Furthermore, this DNA type is considered rare in Europe providing circumstantial evidence for the royal identity of the skeleton. Although further analysis is required to conclusively identify the skeleton as that of Richard III, it seems more than likely on the basis of the current evidence that the identification is indeed correct.