At the recent meeting between the main society and representatives of sections it was suggested that the different (archaeology-related) sections consider doing more fieldwork projects together. It was suggested that a joint project be initiated to study the Kingdom of Elmet. The intention is to bring together members of the Roman and the Medieval sections to look at the period of time between the end of Roman West Yorkshire and the annexation of the post-Roman kingdom of Elmet by Northumbria in 617 AD. This would cater for both the Romanists, with their interest in the end of things Roman in Yorkshire, and the Medievalists who want to know how (from their point of view) things started.
With the professionalisation of excavation from the 1960s, and given the fact that digging (not to mention post-excavation) nowadays is costly, time-consuming and requires experience, expertise and equipment to which the society does not have access in a sustained way, it was suggested that the sections consider the possibility of doing less intensive kinds of fieldwork such as field-walking, and working together in areas of shared interest. After all, one of the attendees commented, the divisions between different periods of history and archaeology are rarely sharp dividing lines but chronological grey areas with lots of room for overlap and crossover.
So I have recently started pulling together everything I can find on Elmet with a view to organising a day-school on the subject perhaps in spring 2015. However, my first steps were not encouraging because the Claremont didn’t have a single reference to Elmet on its card index. Thank heaven for the chapter by Margaret Faull ‘West Yorkshire in the Post Roman Period’. In M.L.Faull and S.A.Moorhouse (eds.) West Yorkshire: an archaeological survey to A.D.1500 Wakefield, West Yorkshire Metropolitan County Council,1981:171-224. Margaret Faull and Stephen Moorhouse are both members of the Medieval Section. Since then the Rylands library at Manchester has been very helpful and I must have located more than half a dozen papers that deal with Elmet in some detail. More on this in a later blog but let me know if you’re interested in the dayschool.
Saturday’s meeting at Claremont to discuss the relationship between the main society and the sections reminded me that we ought to do more to highlight and celebrate some of the softer, less tangible benefits of the Yorkshire Archaeological Society, namely that we are a community of like-minded individuals who share a passionate interest in the county and we come together every so often to celebrate shared interest in more relaxed ways and settings, such as our Medieval Section Xmas Party. With apologies to anyone I have caught inadvertently mid-munch in the photos attached but it was a great meeting. Firstly Bob Woosnam-Savage from Royal Armouries gave us a wonderfully entertaining talk about the identification of the remains of Richard III. The summary of the lecture should be available on the appropriate part of the section website in due course. Sincerest thanks to all those – too numerous to name individually – who brought in food and drink. I know a great time was had by all. So much so that the ladies working on the digital successor to the Society’s newsletter Update would like to feature some photos of Medieval Section members enjoying themselves. Don’t say I didn’t warn you.
Early Medieval battle reenactment. Image courtesy of Ian Uzzell and Vikingasaga
The purpose of this lecture summary is to share with members of the Medieval Section news of the discovery in Manchester Museum collection of an important group of human skeletons dating from the time of King Aethelfrith of Northumbria, early in the 7th century AD. They were excavated at Heronbridge, near Chester, in 1930-1 (Petch 1933). David Mason of Durham Archaeology has already made a good case for them being the remains of men who were killed at the Battle of Chester (c.AD 616), which is described in Bede’s Ecclesiastical History of the English People (Mason 2005). As the bodies are likely to have been buried on or very close to the battlefield, it seems likely that Heronbridge was the site of the battle. If this is the case, then this will be the earliest battlefield located in the UK, pre-dating Maldon by some 300 years. This summary is based in part on a paper submitted to the Society of Museum Archaeologists Newsletter in spring 2012 but adds new information about the injuries suffered by the men who lost their lives in the battle.
Bryan Sitch, who is Hon. Secretary of the Medieval section, was careful to explain the justification for attributing the remains in Manchester Museum to Bede’s battle of Chester. The story of the collection dates back to the early 1930s when the Chester Archaeology Society was excavating the site of Heronbridge, to the south of Chester. When the skeletons were found it was assumed they were of Roman date because significant quantities of Roman material were also discovered on the site. Dr Elwyn Davies, who wrote the bone report appended to the site report, suggested that the trauma were inflicted by Roman cavalry swords or spathae:
‘Nine crania show signs of injury. Long cuts traverse the vaults of the skulls and their clean –cut nature suggest they were inflicted with a sharp-edged instrument of long leverage… some form of long sword or the spatha… it is of interest to note that these cuts are mostly along the vaults of the skull, which suggest that they might possibly have been inflicted by cavalry. If these injuries were received during life, and there is every appearance that this is the case, the individuals met with a violent death.’ (Davies 1933: 47)
Skull from skeleton 3, Heronbridge
The 1933 report stated that the remains would be deposited at the Manchester Museum and a detailed report lodged with the university library. On the basis of this published statement a number of people had enquired at Manchester Museum and the university library but neither the bones, nor Davies’ detailed bone report, could be located. Nor was there any evidence on paper, such as old index cards, museum minutes, acquisitions lists or annual reports to show that they had ever entered the Manchester Museum collections. It was only a chance re-reading of the 1933 skeletal report that enabled Bryan, who is Curator of Archaeology at Manchester Museum, to identify the bones in the collection. In a table appended to Elwyn Davies’ bone report, the various skeletons were listed and biometric data given in a number of columns. The number of each skeleton provided a heading at the top of each column of data. However, Bryan noticed that half way across the table the numbering of the skeletons suddenly changed and a dual numbering system was adopted. The second number was a letter from the Greek alphabet.
Long bone with label alpha from Heronbridge
This turned out to be the key that solved the puzzle because during earlier surveys of the human remains collection Bryan had noticed a number of bones which had distinctive labels with Greek letters written on them. This suggested that the bones were from Heronbridge. This hypothesis was tested to see if the bones had the cuts and slices on them described by Elwyn Davies in his 1933 report. They did. Further confirmation was provided by the discovery of an impacted fracture on one of the skulls that was described in considerable detail by Davies in his report, and the fact that the dimensions of some of the bones matched those given in the published table of biometric data. There could be little doubt that the group of un-provenanced human bones did indeed come from Heronbridge, near Chester and had been excavated in the early 1930s.
One of the researchers who enquired about the Heronbridge bones was David Mason of Durham Archaeology. David directed the excavations on the Heronbridge site that were reported in Current Archaeology (Mason 2005: 517). Two male skeletons were lifted during this work and examined by palaeo-pathologist Malin Holst. The evidence of trauma, especially on the men’s skulls, as before, showed that they died under extremely violent circumstances (see Current Archaeology no.202, pp.520-521 for photographs of injuries to the skulls). The number of dead and the burial context, with the bodies laid out side-by-side in pits, suggested these were casualties that had been ‘tidied up’ following a significant engagement. The two skeletons lifted in 2004 were radiocarbon-dated with a 95% chance of probability of being within the range AD 430-640, or 59% probability within the range AD 530-620, and with 95% probability of being within the range AD 530-660, or 51% probability within range AD 595-645. These results are consistent with a calendar date in the early 7th century AD. As Manchester Museum’s skeletons were recovered from the same burial pits at Heronbridge, all things considered, they must also date from the same time and relate to the same historical event. However, this assumption needs to be tested by radiocarbon-dating.
Historically one contender for an engagement of this date, involving considerable numbers of combatants, would be the Battle of Chester which is described by Bede:
That very powerful king of the English Aethelfrith… collected a great army against Civitas Legionis which is called Legacaestr by the English and more correctly Caerlegion by the Britons, and made a great slaughter of that nation of heretics. When he was about to give battle and saw their priests, who had assembled to pray to God on behalf of the soldiers taking part in the fight, standing apart in a safer place, he asked who they were and for what purpose they had gathered there. Most of them were from the monastery of Bangor… After a three-days’ fast most of these had come to the battle in order to pray for the others. They had a guard named Brocmail whose duty it was to protect them from the swords of the barbarians while they were praying. When Aethelfrith heard why they had come he said “If they are praying to their God against us, they are fighting against us…” He therefore directed his first attack against them, and then destroyed the rest of the accursed army, not without heavy loss to his own forces. It is said that that of the monks who came to pray about 1200 perished in this battle and only 50 escaped by flight. Brocmail and his men took to their heels at the first assault leaving those whom they should have protected unarmed and exposed to the sword strokes of the enemy.
Bede Ecclesiastical History of the English People Book 2, chapter 2 (translated by Leo Sherley-Price for Penguin Classics)
In response to an article about the Heronbridge excavations that appeared in Current Archaeology, readers speculated whether the two skeletons lifted might be those of some of the monks who were slaughtered on the orders of Aethelfrith in Bede’s account of the battle (see above). It seems unlikely, however, that the remains are those of monks. In an article about the monastery of Bangor-is-y-coed, which supposedly provided a contingent of monks to supplement the ranks of the outnumbered British army, Prof. Nick Higham of the University of Manchester Department of Medieval History argued that the account should not be regarded as reliable (Higham 2001). Prof Higham argues that the presence of monks in this account owes more to Bede’s narrative purpose in writing ‘providential history’ than it does military realities on the battlefield.
Dr Robert Stoddart of University of Manchester
Even if they are not the remains of the monks, there seems to be good reason to believe that the remains are those of men killed during the Battle of Chester. Dr Robert Stoddart kindly examined the Heronbridge skeletons. Skeleton 3 had suffered large sword injuries, mostly from the front, extending half way back across the calvarium, as well as further sword injuries to the side of the head and through the forehead. In addition there are triangular holes in the skull deficit, that could possibly represent stabs from pointed weapons such as spearheads, which is likely to be the weapon used by most of the rank-and-file at this period.
Skeleton 5 is another example. This individual suffered a large sword-cut halfway down the left parietal bone. Indeed another similar sword-cut crosses the first at right angles and has penetrated through the bone. There is also a large, crushed, penetrating fracture down the frontal bone, originating in a blow from an edged weapon (probably an axe). There are numerous hairline fractures at many places in calvarium. The most severe of the injuries was a blow across the facial skeleton, leaving the edge of the left orbit. In addition to other injuries to the skull, there appear to be cuts behind and to the side of the left knee and a cut to the right knee.
Skull of skeleton 5 from Heronbridge
Skeleton Y (15) suffered even more extensive wounds including a deep, heavy sword or axe blow into the face, penetrating deeply and causing extensive fracturing and loss of internal bones of the skull. The injury appears to reach as far as the circle of Willis, as well as indirect damage to the brain stem and cerebellum. There must have been associated damage to the inferior parts of the frontal lobes and their blood supply. And of course we only know about these wounds because the bones have survived. We do not know about the soft tissue wounds because the flesh rotted away in the ground.Overall the trauma on the bones are similar to those recorded on the skeletons of six individuals excavated in an Anglo-Saxon cemetery at Eccles, Kent, who met a similarly violent death (Wenham 1989: 123).
Skull from skeleton Y (15) with reconstruction of blow to the face.
In some cases the pattern of fractures of the skull suggest that the individual was wearing a helmet, perhaps similar to that excavated, complete with a boar as a crest, at Benty Grange in Derbyshire by Thomas Bateman in 1848. Iron bans supported plates of horn. The Wollaston Helmet is another 7th-century Anglo-Saxon boar-crested helmet found by archaeologists at a quarry near Wellingborough in Northamptonshire (Marzinzik 2007: 41). Much closer to home is the Coppergate helmet dating from the later 8th century AD.The Sutton Hoo is another high status helmet and fairly close in date to the time of the battle of Heronbridge.
Hollywood may give the impression that an ancient battle was a display of fancy sword-work, a veritable fencing match between the protagonists, but the reality, so far as the Heronbridge bones are telling us, was brutally pragmatic: chop the opponent off at the knees, bring him down and slice and hack at the head to make sure he was dead before stepping over the body to fight the next man. These men didn’t take part in a fencing match but went through a meat mincer! It brings home the callous, almost industrial nature of killing on the battlefield at this period, and fills one with a deep sense of compassion for the men who experienced this level brutality, which is all the more poignant at this time of year, at the time of writing, on Remembrance Day.
We are left with a group of about a dozen incomplete skeletons, many bearing edged weapon trauma, all men and all aged between their late teens and middle age. No women or children are present. This is clearly a biased sample. The burial context, in pits, the dead aligned side-by-side, and the numbers involved, suggests this was a battle of some size, although the numbers of men may not have been very great, up to 5000 in each army perhaps? The fact they were treated respectfully suggests they were buried by the victors, who Bede tells us were the Northumbrians. The British dead presumably were left on the field of battle for wild animals to feast upon until the belated reinforcements arrived. David Mason interprets the 5.7 hectare oval enclosure with bank and ditch beside the River Dee at Heronbridge to the Northumbrian army.
Heronbridge looking south showing earthwork. Photograph courtesy of Erik Grigg
How did the material from Heronbridge enter the Manchester Museum collection? And why was it not recorded? The 1933 report states clearly that the human remains were deposited at the Museum but there is no mention of this acquisition in the Museum’s annual reports. However, we do know that in the late 1950s William Jones (‘Bill’) Varley (died 1976) deposited boxes of human remains at the Museum where they became the responsibility of the curator James Forde-Johnston. Varley is best known for the excavation of hill forts in the North West, the Midlands and Yorkshire (e.g. Varley 1936, 1948). Varley was a former student of H.J.Fleure (1877-1969), Professor of Geography at the University of Manchester, member of the Manchester Museum Committee, and author of numerous books and articles covering geography, archaeology, anthropology and anthropometrics (Garnett 1970). The Heronbridge excavation took place in 1930-1, i.e. about the time Fleure moved to Manchester from Aberystwyth. Both Varley and Fleure are acknowledged for supporting the excavation in the 1933 report, Varley and his wife in particular are credited with the recovery of the human remains (Davies 1933: 48). Davies, moreover, was a friend of Fleure. What we appear to have is evidence of a circle of people around Fleure who were all involved in the Heronbridge excavation and post-excavation work, and who might well have been encouraged to consider the Manchester Museum as an appropriate home for the material.
Prof H.J.Fleure
Given Fleure’s position on the Museum Committee and his keen academic interest in anthropology and anthropometrics, exemplified by his long-standing survey of the Welsh people, is it possible that Fleure asked for the Heronbridge remains to be sent to the Manchester Museum where he could study them further because he recognised their research significance? If so, he was to be disappointed because archive correspondence held by the Chester Archaeological Society shows that the Museum committee turned down the proposal to acquire the bones during the 1930s. Fleure retired in 1944. Varley must have transferred the human remains to the Museum before he left to teach in Africa in 1957. Former Keeper of Archaeology Prof. John Prag, remembers the Curator of Anthropology at Manchester, James Forde Johnston, telling him that Varley had not passed on records of the finds. Varley for his part may not have felt inclined to share what he knew about the bones, remembering that the Museum had turned down the chance to acquire them 15 years earlier! At present this seems to be the best explanation for how the Heronbridge bones entered the Manchester Museum collections and why it is, lacking supporting information, that they sat unrecognised on the shelves for some 60 years.
The re-discovery of the Heronbridge skeletons throws light on a fascinating period in early Medieval English history, the time of the so-called Dark Ages. Not only are they a historically and archaeologically significant group of material, they are arguably one of the earliest conflict assemblages that can be related to a historical source. In this they will be extremely useful for comparison with more recently excavated and more complete assemblages from the same site. Unfortunately, but perhaps not entirely unexpectedly, there are no associated finds with the skeletons. One would expect them to have been recycled on the battlefield or before burial. If comparable material was needed to complement the skeletons, one has only to think of the incredibly rich discoveries at Sutton Hoo in the 1930s, or the material found in the Staffordshire hoard, though of a somewhat later date. A selection of the remains was displayed in the Ancient Worlds galleries that opened at Manchester Museum last year. The Grosvenor Museum will show some of the remains in a temporary exhibition next year.
Acknowledgements
Thanks are due to Dr Robert Connelly of the University of Liverpool and Dr Robert Stoddart of the University of Manchester who both very kindly examined the Heronbridge remains; David Mason, Durham County Archaeologist, provided information about the more recent work at Heronbridge in advance of publication; Prof Nick Higham supplied a copy of his paper about the monastery of Bangor-is-y-coed and discussed the passage in Bede; Erik Grigg kindly provided photos of the site; and Adrian Havercoft shared his memories of Bill Varley.
Bibliography
Davies, E. (1933) ‘Appendix 1: report on the human remains’, Journal Chester Archaeological Society (New Series) 30 (1): 46-55
Garnett, Alice. ‘Herbert John Fleure. 1877-1969’, Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society, London: The Royal Society, 1970): 253-278.
Hawkes, S.C. (ed.) 1989. Weapons and Warfare in Anglo-Saxon England Oxford University Committee for Archaeology Monograph 21
Higham, N.J.(2001) “Bancornaburg: Bangor-is-y-coed Revisited”. In Archaeology of the Roman Empire A Tribute to the Life and Works of Professor Barri Jones, ed. Nicholas J. Higham, British Archaeological Journal International Series 940, 2001 311-318.
Marzinzik, S. (2007) The Sutton Hoo Helmet British Museum Press
Mason, D.J.P. (2005) ‘AD 616: the Battle of Chester’, Current Archaeology 202, 516-524.
Petch, J.A. et al. (1933) ‘Excavations at Heronbridge (1930-31)’. Journal of the Chester and North Wales Architectural Archaeological and Historic Society, New Series Volume 30, Part 1, 30, 5-45
Varley, W.J. (1936) ‘Recent investigations into the Origins of Cheshire Hill Forts’, Transactions of the Lancashire and Cheshire Antiquarian Society 51, 51-59.
Varley, W.J. (1948) ‘The Hill forts of the Welsh Marches’, Antiquaries Journal 105, 41-66.
Wenham, S.J. (1989) ‘Anatomical interpretations of Anglo-Saxon weapon injuries’. In Hawkes 1989: 123-139.
Detail of horse or camel rider from Manchester Museum’s Fragmentary Ancestors exhibition
I hope members will forgive me if I momentarily step beyond our usual Yorkshire boundaries to encompass some African archaeological material of a date broadly comparable with the early to mid Medieval period in Britain. The material is so spectacular it seemed churlish not to share it with anyone with an interest in matters Medieval, however specialised.
With little more than a week to go before we open our new temporary exhibition, Fragmentary Ancestors Figurines from Koma Land Ghana, on 25th October there is a real sense of expectation and anticipation building at Manchester Museum.
Work on this project began about a year ago when it was decided to put on an exhibition featuring the results of archaeological fieldwork in Koma Land in Northern Ghana involving the University of Manchester, the University of Ghana and the Ghana Museums and Monument Board.
Head of figurine from Koma Land, Ghana
This exhibition is the first ever officially approved showing of the clay figurines, which were made by a previously little-understood people in Koma Land in Ghana in West Africa. The figurines are often fragmentary and depict stylised two-headed creatures, bird figures, and animals. They are believed to represent the ancestors. It is possible that some had liquid offerings or libations poured into channels in the figurines, and that some might have been linked with healing and medicine. Scanning is now being carried out to study these channels in detail and to try and identify any substances that survive in them.
Terracotta head of man wearing cap from Koma Land
The figurines were discovered during archaeological fieldwork directed by Professor Ben Kankpeyeng (University of Ghana) and has involved Professor Tim Insoll (University of Manchester) with the Ghana Museums and Monuments Board (GMMB). The Koma figurines have been dated to between approximately 500 and 1300 AD. This corresponds broadly-speaking to the early to mid Medieval Period in Britain.
We don’t know a great deal about how the figurines were used but it would appear that they were used in special ceremonies and rituals in which the spritis of the ancestors were invoked. In the course of these ceremonies the figurines were deliberately broken. Later the fragments buried in mounds, possibly because they were felt to have residual power and had to be disposed of carefully.
Janus figurine from Koma Land
As will be clear from the photos the figurines are full of character and have tremendous presence. For that reason the Koma Land figurines have generated considerable interest amongst collectors on the international art market with the result that the mounds where the figurines are found have been looted by treasure hunters. Of course, once removed from their original contexts and localities and the relationship between the objects as archaeological finds destroyed, a huge amount of invaluable information is lost. The GMMB and the University of Ghana have been working with local people to explain to them the cultural importance of the figurines and to support them in protecting the mounds. Though other figurines have been displayed outside Ghana these are the first to be exhibited abroad with the approval of the Ghanaian authorities.
The Fragmentary Ancestors exhibition opens to the general public on 25th October and runs until 5th May 2014. I’d be delighted to offer a tour of the exhibition for members of the Medieval section if we can agree a convenient date for any members who’d like this. Do drop me a line if you’re interested and hopefully we can arrange something
The beautiful photographs for the Fragmentary Ancestors exhibition were taken by Alan Seabright, photographer at Manchester Art Gallery. You can read a transcription of an interview with one of the Ghanaians who played a leading role in the campaign to save the Koma Land figurines on Manchester Museum’s Ancient Worlds blog.
This, the first lecture in the new-look programme for the Medieval Section for 2013, by Pam Judkins of Wakefield Council Arts Museums and Heritage, gave an account of the remarkable commemorative retracing of the route of the funerary procession from Pontefract to Fotheringhay for Richard Duke of York of July 1476, which was organised by Wakefield Historical Society in July 2010.
Bar where Richard of York’s head was displayed
Pam described the historical context for Richard’s death, which occurred near Sandal Castle, in December 1460 during the Wars of the Roses. The Duke’s frustration with the lacklustre rule of Henry VI had led him to press his own slightly stronger claim to the English throne, which directly threatened the right to succession of the son of Henry and his queen, Margaret of Anjou. In the fight at Sandal the Duke appears to have fallen into an ambush and his head, decorated with a paper crown, and that of his son Edmund, Duke of Rutland, were displayed above Micklegate Bar in York. The battle was one of the smaller engagements of the Wars of the Roses. It looked as though the Yorkist cause was dead but another son, Edward, having won a battle of his own in Wales, returned and on Palm Sunday 1461, with the help of his father’s old ally Warwick, defeated the Lancastrians at Towton. This may well be the largest and bloodiest battle ever to have taken place on English soil. Edward became Edward IV.
Once secure on the English throne, Edward made plans to give his father a decent funeral which involved taking the body in a formal procession from Pontefract in West Yorkshire to the favoured residence of the family at Fotheringhay Castle in Northamptonshire. It is not clear why it took quite so long -16 years – to bring this about but the unsettled politics of the time and the reglazing of Fotheringhay Chuch may have had something to do with it. The route would take in many towns along the great north road that had been pillaged by Lancastrians after the Battle of Sandal. At each of a number of overnight stops the body lay on a funeral bier in a church. Four hundred poor men were paid to follow the procession. Anyone who turned up to join the procession received a penny and pregnant women received 2d. Richly clothed wooden effigies of the Duke and his son Edmund lay on the coffins. The event was carefully planned and choreographed lest there be any repetition of the unedifying scenes at the funeral of Charles VI of France when clergy and members of his household had squabbled over the funeral pall and clothing.
Having exhumed the bodies of the Duke and his son Edmund at Pontefract, the procession set out from Pontefract on 22nd July, staying in Doncaster on 22nd-23rd July, Blyth on 23rd-24th July, Tuxford on 24th-25th July, Newark on 25th-26th July, Grantham on 26th-27th July, Stamford on 27th-29th July (an extra day was allowed because this was a Sunday), and finally reaching Fotheringhay on 30th July 1476.
Wakefield Historical Society hoped to commemorate the procession but unfortunately an application to the Heritage Lottery Fund failed, and the organizers threw themselves on the mercy of churches and local societies along the route. In hindsight this was not an entirely disastrous outcome because it did result in local people being involved on a more voluntary and ad hoc basis. Wakefield Historical Society decided not to re-enact the procession but to follow the route on the dates when the procession had taken place, staying at the same locations overnight where the body of Richard had rested. They were helped in this by the fact that the Richard III Society had published contemporary accounts of the procession [see Anne F.Sutton and Livia Visser-Fuchs with P.W.Hammond (1996) ‘The Reburial of Richard Duke of York 21-30 July 1476’ The Ricardian, the Journal of the Richard III Society, vol. X, no.127, December 1994]. Some stretches of the route had long since disappeared because of later development and changes to the modern road lay-out but the participants did walk the route where they could. Our speaker described this as quite an emotional experience and said that being there was important. Due to changes in the road lay-out some places that had been thriving historically were now quiet backwaters. The present day tranquil bridge at Wentbridge, for instance, had been widened three times, reflecting the importance of the river crossing when this was the main north-south road for travellers and a route for herds of animals being taken to London for slaughter. The participants also visited other Medieval places of interest along the route that would have been there in the late 15th century.
At Doncaster the Duke’s body lay overnight in Greyfriars’ Franciscan Friary. What the connection was with the Franciscans was, is not known but Edward’s sister, Margaret of York was also a patron of the order. Much of the Medieval Doncaster has been lost through development so the participants visited the site of an important Medieval shrine to the Virgin Mary, recently revived by the Roman Catholic Church. A Vespers service was held at this and each of the subsequent overnight stops. It is probably no accident that a number of towns along the route had been granted charters by Edward IV in the years before the funeral procession. Perhaps this was in recognition of, and to make amends for, the widespread looting of places along the route by Lancastrians after their victory at Sandal.
The next section of the route to Blyth has been destroyed by extensive mining but the participants called at Conisborough Castle where Richard was born and Roche Abbey, which was close enough to send a party of monks to join the funeral procession. The body rested at Tickhill were there was a Benedictine Priory, a daughter-house of Rouen. There the participants saw a Doom painting which had survived the Reformation. Blyth appears to have been more important historically but now that the route of the A1 has shifted, it is quiet backwater.
Gainsborough Old Hall
On 24th July the party travelled to Tuxford. The participants walked a quiet stretch of what is very likely to have been the main north-south road with a local guide and society. They diverted to Gainsborough Old Hall which was owned by the Yorkist de Burgh family and which was said to have been destroyed by Lancastrians. However, tree-ring dates taken from timbers suggests many of the trees were felled in the 1460s so perhaps the devastation was overstated. The Medieval kitchen is particularly well-preserved there. The party also visited Laxton where strip farming is still practised and where court leet meetings are still held to manage disputes. At Tuxford the party squeezed into the small church for Vespers. Again the presence of large inn betrayed the fact that the town had been far busier in the past.
From Tuxford they travelled to Newark. The body of the Duke lay at St Mary Magdalene in Newark. The money for the church came from wool. Newark retains its open marketplace and a number of buildings around it give a real sense of what it was like in the Middle Ages. The procession may have doubled the size of the population the night that the funerary procession spent there.
From Newark the party went to Grantham, another town that benefited from a charter from Edward IV. Again the body stayed overnight at the Greyfriars even though there was an impressive church there. The facade of a 15th century hotel still survives at Newark.
From Newark the party travelled to Stamford. They saw Elis Manor with its wall paintings dating from about 1500 depicting woodland scenes. Tickencote and Losecote, nearby, was the site of another battle during the Wars of the Roses. The body lay for two nights at Greyfriars in Stamford as the following day was a Sunday. The George Inn at Stamford is an early courtyard inn.
The next day, Monday, the party travelled to Fotheringhay, stopping at Longthorpe Tower near Peterborough to see some 14th century wall-paintings. Apethorpe Hall was built about 1500 and is so close to Fotheringhay it may have been linked to the House of York.
On 29th July the body arrived at Fotheringhay. Little remains of the castle save for a mound and ditch. A procession led by Edward IV came to meet the funerary procession. The body was guarded overnight by men who had served with the Duke. The funeral took place on Tuesday 29th July. Requiem masses were sung by and a sermon preached by the Bishop of Lincoln. A black war horse was ridden into the church. There were 400 lights on the hearse. In 2010 the Deputy Lord Lieutenant, the Duke of Gloucester, came for the final event. A plaque was presented to the church as at each of the previous overnight stops. In 1476 some 1500 people were served food and drink in tents but perhaps 5000 may have attended. £311 17s 1d was spent on 8000 gallons of beer, 48 beef, 210 sheep, and large quantities of fish and poultry. Cooks were brought up from London to provide the catering.
Our speaker finished her talk by saying that she felt the Wakefield Historical Society had made a real contribution to making members of the general public more aware of their history, especially in stopping off points along the route of the procession, as well as linking historical events at the local and national level.
Lecture summary by Bryan Sitch, Hon Secretary, Medieval Section. For any errors the writer is responsible.
Given the insanitary conditions of the time and poor hygiene, parasites like roundworm must have been endemic. Archaeological evidence of astringents to clear the gut of such parasites have been found at Soutra hospital near Edinburgh, a medieval hospital that straddled the main highway between England and Scotland. Excavations there yielded the secrets of an extensive pharmacopoeia:- http://www.independent.co.uk/news/prozac-opium-and-myrrh-the-ancient-arts-of-anaesthesia-are-unlocked-1238659.html
Tormentil (Potentilla erecta) – with thanks to Claire Miles and Rachel Webster in Manchester Museum’s Botany Department
At last Saturday’s AGM as there were no nominations for the vacant posts on the committee it was suggested that it might be appropriate to disband the Medieval Section”. Only one serving officer, the Treasurer, was willing to continue – me (!).
After 44 years of promoting Medieval archaeology in Yorkshire this is a particularly sad, but far from hopeless, state of affairs. I said in my Treasurer’s report that we have a stable membership of about 130 with 16 institutional members. Nor are we short of funds, though some of it will be needed to publish the section journal Medieval Yorkshire. The Prehistoric and the Roman sections are both thriving, so why not the Medieval section? I can think of no richer region for Medieval archaeology than Yorkshire with all its abbeys and castles, not to mention fantastic museum collections and people actively researching many different aspects of the period.
A number of people at the AGM felt that something should be done to save the section and Janet Senior, Roy Andrews and I have formed an embryonic committee with the intention of recruiting new members and officers.
We need another three ordinary committee members and a Chairman. Jo Heron has kindly agreed to serve as Treasurer, allowing me to take over from Mike Edwards as Hon.Secretary. Stephen Moorhouse will continue as Hon.Editor. We have also had offers to serve on committee from staff at the International Medieval Institute.
Other volunteers would be most welcome. With quarterly meetings on a Thursday evening at Claremont it is not onerous and you do get to find out what’s happening across the county and make your voice heard in how the section is run.
We are not out of the woods yet but just over a week after the AGM I think we are within sight of forming a fully-functioning committee. Our remit will be to turn round the section and make it sustainable. We’d like more members to attend meetings at Claremont and in time to become members of committee and continue the work of running the section.
We also need to re-engage the members. With that end in mind Janet, Roy and I have put together a provisional programme of lectures for autumn this year and spring 2014. Starting in September there will be lectures on a range of different topics 2-3.30pm every second Saturday of the month at Claremont and it would be great to see members attending. I will post details once the Committee has approved the programme, all being well after May 9th. We hope to confirm a talk on the recent identification of Richard III‘s remains at Leicester in December.
I would very much appreciate it if members reading this Blog would respond with your thoughts and suggestions. What sorts of activities would you like to see: talks, day schools, excursions, visits to museums, social activities (like the famous Xmas high tea)? If you can suggest speakers for our programme for coming years or places to visit do please let us know. Even better, why not join us on committee?
We run the section in order to promote interest in Medieval Yorkshire and we genuinely want to offer events and activities that members will take part in and enjoy. Please help us to ensure that the Medieval section continues.
Bryan Sitch
Hon.Secretary
Medieval Section
Yorkshire Archaeological Society
Medieval Section of the Yorkshire Archaeological and Historical Society 