An example of the successful archaeological British medieval battlefield
Introduction
In August 1996, building work at Towton Hall, Towton, North Yorkshire, disturbed part of a medieval mass grave from the battle of Towton (fought between the rival factions of the Houses of Lancaster and York, AD 1461). The builders are reported to have removed 24 skulls and the bones from an indeterminate number of skeletons. In September of the same year, a team of osteologists and archaeologists from the University of Bradford and WYAS Archaeological Services excavated the remaining part of the grave. This resulted in the recording of parts of at least 38 skeletons (Sutherland 2000a).
In early 1997 Tim Sutherland, a member of the original excavation team, began research into the battle of Towton, specifically aimed at placing the evidence from the mass grave within the archaeological battlefield context. In late 1997, Sutherland began intensive archaeological investigations as part of a PhD thesis in an attempt to locate and record physical evidence of the medieval battle (Sutherland forthcoming 2), under the title of the “Towton Battlefield Archaeological Survey Project”.
Methodology
The project initially began by assessing the landscape in which the battle was fought. In most battles, the faction that chooses the location of the battle should have a distinct advantage, as it can use landscape features, such as steep terrain, wet ground, enclosed land and settlements to defend its flanks and rear. At Towton, the steep slopes leading down to the River Cock protected the Lancastrian right flank (see Figure 2), who were on the field first, whilst the low-lying wetter ground, which was also highly visible from the raised central ground, protected their left.
If the unknown location of a battlefield is sought, then it is important to analyse the landscape topography and the contemporary road network: the larger the army, the greater their dependence on a good road for the movement of large quantities of equipment and provisions. Existing major road networks allowed access and the movement of troops and, more importantly, baggage trains, to the site of engagement – there are few large historic battles that did not utilise well-constructed roads.
The archaeological survey work at Towton began by looking for ferrous artefacts using archaeological geophysical magnetic surveys. However, when excavating a sample of the ferrous anomalies discovered during several of these surveys, it was concluded that the artefacts were either unrecognisable or were generally a result of modern farming or dumping practises. They were thus perceived of as a form of ‘contamination’ within the battlefield assemblage. This form of battlefield prospection survey was therefore considered inefficient (Sutherland 2000a).
An archaeological field walking survey was also initiated but, once again, virtually all of the artefacts recorded were found to be either unidentifiable, related to manuring practices, or were from a period other than that of the battle. Additionally, in order to examine each unidentifiable ferrous artefact more effectively, expensive and time-consuming radiographs would have to be taken. This procedure was considered to be prohibitively costly. It was therefore initially considered that this method of locating evidence of battle might be too time-consuming as a prospection method alone. However, it later proved effective in the detailed analysis of smaller areas, so its use was adapted (see below).
A decision was then made to alter the method of investigation from the search for ferrous artefacts to those of non-ferrous metals, as non-ferrous artefacts usually have a better rate of preservation compared to ferrous items and can therefore be more easily identified. It was also considered that the site was likely to contain fewer nonferrous metal artefacts, be they fifteenth century or once again ‘contamination’, so that they would be more straightforward to isolate.
As magnetometers will not locate non-ferrous metals, electromagnetic (EM) prospection surveys were initiated using a specific EM survey instrument (White’s TM 808, a large metal detector). The advantage of this instrument was that it could be ‘tuned’ to an infinite number of settings and, with a certain amount of expertise; a logger could be attached to it in order to record the results. Although this instrument was then in its initial stages of development this ‘loggable’ metal detector proved productive in its ability to locate archaeological features and record non-ferrous metal artefacts.
At an early stage of the research (1997) a metal detectorist (Simon Richardson) was approached, who had already been searching the battlefield for several years and making sketch maps of artefact scatters he found that related to the battle.
He was asked if he would join the survey project and transfer all of his data on to 1:2500 scale OS maps. From then onwards he marked the location of where he found any fifteenth century artefacts on these maps. Although time spent searching the battlefield in this manner was limited, due to it being a part time, and unfunded occupation, it proved successful in that details of artefact scatters, not noticed before, became evident.
This eventually developed into a more accurate survey method by employing a small hand held satellite navigation instrument to record a relatively accurate location (plus or minus a few metres) for each artefact. However, a balance had to be achieved between randomly searching the battlefield when fields became available to be detected and a systematic survey of the area. The latter is difficult to achieve, when only a single individual is searching the land and the former produces a bias within the data, as the searcher tends to remain longer in areas that produce a greater quantity of artefacts.
Concurrent with the metal detecting, an additional multidisciplinary array of archaeological prospection techniques was instigated, including aerial photographic analysis, excavation of test pits and the full archaeological excavation of individual features, in an attempt to locate evidence of the battle.
Earthworks were also analysed, former fields systems that would have been contemporary with the battle were recorded, and the geology and topography of the landscape was mapped out to assess which areas of land were most likely to assist or hinder medieval armies as they prepared to engage in battle. The geology of the landscape was also analysed to gauge what the rate of artefact decay would be for artefacts buried in the soil covering the battlefield – there would be little point in searching for artefacts that would have corroded long before they could be located and recorded. Fortunately for the survey results, the buried soil at Towton (soil lying on the surface is open to additional metrological effects) is excellent at inhibiting the corrosion rate of buried metal artefacts and degradation of human bone.