Bosorth Field ... what's in a location?
In 2010, the Battlefields Trust completed an archaeological project which identified where the battle of Bosworth was actually fought - the evidence was conclusive, and, contrary to a tradition popular over the last 200 years, it was not fought on Ambion Hill.
(Bosworth Field)
Apart from anything else, it was pretty much fought on the flat.
In the case of Bosworth, we can pretty much pinpoint when we 'lost' the battlefield.
Speed's map of Leicestershire is from 1610 and marks 'King Richard's Field' and when you compare his location with the archaeological trace, it seems that, after 125 years, people still had a fair understanding of the location.
(detail from Speed's Leicestershire, 1610)
Click for a bigger version. If you look a line from Shenton to Dadlington, you will see that maybe 70% of the field is West of that line. If you compare it with the finds map (below) you can see how closely it is validated by the archaeology.
Compare that with the Ordnance Survey map of 1810, and it is evident that something has changed:
(OS Map of 1810)
The area of the battlefield West of the notional Shenton to Dadlington line has disappeared and is now concentrated up in the area of Ambion Hill (where archaeologists will later find, pretty much, nothing).
How did this happen? In his study published in 1788, William Hutton mixed local anecdote with 'clues' in Holinshed to propose a detailed battlefield based on Ambion Hill, which was picked up by subsequent antiquarians, and by Ordnance Survey. It quickly embeded itself in maps and books - and without any real foundation, became the 'orthodox' location for the next 200 years.
There was never any archaeology to support the Ambion Hill location, and very little sense could be made of the primary sources. Many books have challenged the orhodoxy over the years - but it took intensive archaeology to reveal a convincing alternative.
(some of the 32 canonbals found marking the site of Bosworth Field)
In addition to the cannonballs that provide compelling evidence for the site itself, the archaeologists also found a 'high status' silver gilt boar badge, surely closely associated with Richard and his closest personal supporters in an area of Fenn Hole, marsh in 1485.
(Richard's emblem - the white board)
It seems very likely that this marks where the King met his sticky end, and Plantagenet gave way to Tudor
(Fenn Hole today ... there is even a thorn bush)
The archaeology does not tell us the exact orientation of the troops or their deployments, and as the much delayed BattleDay approaches, the presenting teams will be making their assessments.
2 comments:
Fascinating stuff, Phil. What prompted the 2010 research and evaluation? Was it instigated by the inconsistencies found between the various maps? Where are the results of this study published?
Thanks Jonathan ... yes, the archaeology was prompted by a longstanding need to address the inconsistencies - not least Richard's nonsensical 2-mile 'death ride' to engage Henry in combat in a position that was convenient for other components in the narrative.
You can find the material in Curry and Foard 'Bosworth - A Battlefield Rediscovered' but I prefer the unvarnished summary included in BCA Report 168 'The Archaeology of British Battlefields'
Phil
Post a Comment