Abstract
THIS ARTICLE PUTS FORWARD A MODEL for the development of the settlement and landscape context of the town of Hastings (East Sussex) immediately prior to the battle of Hastings of 1066. It explores the new thesis that a burh or citadel was created on the site of Castle or West Hill at Hastings, the site of the later Norman castle, by King Æthelred II in c ad 990 as one element in a possibly systematic defence of southern England against Viking invaders. The burh was associated with the establishment of a mint, and both led directly to the development of the town of Hastings from that time, together with a probable port and associated ship-building industry. The site of this putative burh, which was likely provided with defences, a tower-nave church and a monumental gateway, survived to be used by Duke William for two weeks in the autumn of 1066 as his military command centre in preparation for the battle which made possible his subsequent conquest of England.
Résumé
Le contexte de l’agglomération et le paysage de la bataille de Hastings par Jeremy Haslam
Cet article soumet un modèle pour le développement du contexte de l’agglomération et le paysage de la ville de Hastings (East Sussex) à la période précédant immédiatement la bataille de Hastings en 1066. Il explore la nouvelle théorie selon laquelle un burgus, ou citadelle, a été créé(e) à Hastings par le roi Æthelred II vers l’an 990, formant l’un des éléments d’une possible défense systématique du sud de l’Angleterre contre lesenvahisseurs vikings. Le burgus était associé à l’établissement d’une monnaie, tous deux ayant conduit directement au développement de la ville de Hastings à partir de cette période, en même temps qu’un port probable avec son chantier naval connexe. Le site de ce putatif burgus, qui était probablement doté de moyens de défense, avec une église à nef-tour et une porte monumentale, a survécu et servi d’état-major militaire à Guillaume le Conquérant à l’automne 1066 dans les deux semaines précédant la bataille, rendant ainsi possible sa conquête ultérieure de l’Angleterre.
Zusammenfassung
Der Siedlungs- und Landschaftskontext der Schlacht von Hastings von Jeremy Haslam
Dieser Artikel stellt ein Modell für die Entwicklung des Siedlungs- und Landschaftskontexts der Stadt Hastings (East Sussex) unmittelbar vor der Schlacht von Hastings im Jahr 1066 vor. Wir beschäftigen uns mit der neuen These, König Æthelred II. von England habe um 990 n. Chr. bei Hastings eine Burg oder Festung errichten lassen, die ein Element einer möglicherweise systematischen Verteidigung Südenglands gegen Wikingerüberfälle bilden sollte. In Zusammenhang mit der Burg wurde auch eine Münzstätte gegründet, und das Vorhandensein beider Strukturen gab den direkten Anstoß zur Entwicklung der Stadt Hastings, wobei es wahrscheinlich auch einen Hafen und eine zugehörige Schiffsbauindustrie gab. Der Stätte dieses mutmaßlichen Burg, die wahrscheinlich mit Befestigungsanlagen, einer Turmschiffkirche und einem monumentalen Tor versehen war, blieb erhalten und diente dann Herzog Wilhelm im Herbst 1066 zwei Wochen lang als militärische Befehlszentrale bei der Vorbereitung auf jene Schlacht, die ihm in der Folge die Eroberung Englands ermöglichte.
Riassunto
Il contesto dello stanziamento e il paesaggio della battaglia di Hastings di Jeremy Haslam
In questo articolo si propone un modello dello sviluppo dello stanziamento e del paesaggio della città di Hastings (East Sussex) immediatamente precedente della battaglia di Hastings nel 1066. Si indaga sulla nuova tesi secondo cui nel 990 d.C. ca. il re Eteldredo II d’Inghilterra aveva creato un ‘burh’ o cittadella come uno degli elementi di possibile difesa sistematica dell’Inghilterra meridionale contro gli invasori vichinghi. Il burh era legato all’istituzione di una zecca ed entrambi, a partire da quell’epoca, portarono direttamente allo sviluppo della città di Hastings insieme a un probabile porto e alla relativa industria navale. Il sito di questo putativo ‘burh’, munito molto probabilmente di difese, di una chiesa turriforme e di un arco monumentale, rimase attivo tanto da essere utilizzato per due settimane nell’autunno del 1066 come centro di comando militare da Guglielmo il Conquistatore per i preparativi della battaglia che rese possibile la sua successiva conquista dell'Inghilterra.
acknowledgements
I am grateful for the help and input from a number of people in the preparation of this paper. Christopher Whittick has offered corrections and local knowledge, David Roffe has supplied perspective on the subject of Domesday Hastings, David Martin and Michael Shapland have helped iron out inconsistencies, and the editor has helped me to further clarify a number of otherwise imprecise statements and conclusions. The viewpoint and errors of judgement are my own, but the thesis presented here stands or falls by the evidence. The research and writing of this paper have not received any funding. The author has received no financial interest or benefit that has arisen from the direct application of this research.
Notes
2 The argument that Hastings was not the site of William’s battle headquarters at all has occasionally been put forward, but is not discussed further here. One notable attempt is that of Combes and Lyne Citation1995; this is examined in detail in Haslam forthcoming.
9 Wilson Citation1985, 172–3, 229, n 40, pls 49–50. For a digital version of the Bayeux Tapestry, see Bayeux Museum Citation2019.
10 See Wilson Citation1985, pls 1, 6, 11, 12, 21–2, 31, 32–3, 47, 48.
13 The assumption that there was a Roman camp on West Hill or Castle Hill at Hastings – or indeed somewhere else in the vicinity – has had a long innings: see Hill Citation1978, 183, 185; Citation1996, 205; Rudling and Martin Citation1999, 15–17; Carroll and Parsons Citation2007, 157; Shapland Citation2019, 56. There is, however, no archaeological evidence for this.
22 Given the likely production date of the Bayeux Tapestry a decade after the Norman Conquest, it is possible that its designers may not have been aware of the distinction between a castle in Hastings constructed in 1066 versus one built in 1068 (as there was certainly a castle there by the mid-1070s). However, my view is that it is more likely there would have been a number of people closely associated with its production who would have been aware of the chronology of castle-building at Hastings.
23 The existence of these elements in contemporary examples in other parts of England is discussed further below.
34 The Bayeux Tapestry in its current state is incomplete; further buildings may have been represented in the now-missing scenes at the end of the tapestry.
43 These are discussed further in Haslam Citation2011, 208–17.
46 Alcock Citation1995, 46–50 for South Cadbury, Hare Citation1984 for Portchester, Rainbird Citation1998, 157, 160 for Oldaport, and RCHME Citation1972, 55–7, Keynes Citation1999, 38–9), and Cramp 2006, 111–12 for Shaftesbury. The latter is inferred from the presence of an inscribed stone of the period which probably came from a new monumental gateway, possibly a burhgeat.
48 Munby et al Citation2019, 25–7, 51–8 discusses St George’s tower, although further analysis by the author has determined that this was not associated with a gate (Haslam Citation2021). Renn Citation1993, 179–81; Blair Citation2000, 5–6; Poore et al Citation2009, 5–6; Shapland Citation2012, 631, 637; Citation2019, 75–9; and Munby et al Citation2019, 75 date the structure.
51 Martin and Martin Citation1999b, context 1000, 1003. The authors give a detailed and forensic examination of the record of the excavations.
52 Ibid, context 1003/I, II and III.
53 Ibid, ditch 4, context 1013.
56 Haslam Citation2011, 206–8, with further references. Baker and Brookes (Citation2013, 406) assume that the date of c 1010 marks the inception of a new defensive policy by King Æthelred. The evidence of Hastings, however, shows that this must have been actively pursued from c 990 at the latest.
67 For Rye Bay see Long et al Citation2007, 193–204 and figs 6.5 and 6.6.
70 Round Citation1899, 38, no 115; Rudling and Martin Citation1999, 16; Gardiner Citation1999, 2–3; Martin, Martin and Whittick Citation2015, 4. For other exchanges made by William, see Roffe Citation2019. David Roffe regards this as being an exchange merely for the area of the castle and the park to its north (the later parish of St Mary) (Ibid., 185). The value of Bury, however, shows that it was exchanged for an area which must have included the whole town together with its ship-building industry, from which Fécamp Abbey must have been receiving a sizeable income in dues of various kinds. Fécamp Abbey, however, retained the area in the Bourne Valley to the east of the castle, which became the parishes of St Clement and All Saints, and which was arguably developed by the abbey after the Conquest as a new town — the novus burgus of Domesday Book. This scenario, however, raises the conundrum of how a town held by a Norman abbey could have been a minting place for coin series issued by English kings.
71 Foord and Clephane-Cameron Citation2015; Foord Citation2018. This interpretation, however, differs from that put forward by Gillian Draper in her recent discussion of the origins of the manor of Rameslie and of Rye (Draper Citation2016, 6–9 and especially n 32). For further discussion on these points, see also Haslam Citation2020, and for the relationship of Hastings to Pevensey, Haslam forthcoming.
72 Electronic Sawyer no 911; Haskins Citation1918, 344; Matthew Citation1962, 200. It may have been the strategic significance of his new burh at Hastings which underlay his reluctance to transfer the manor to Fécamp.
75 For a useful overview of this theme, see Shapland Citation2012, 41–58, 158–208, with further references; and Impey Citation2008, 227–32, with reference to contemporary French developments. For a similar development at Oxford, see Haslam Citation2021.
Naismith, R 2018, ‘Lidanport: a new mint-place for Edgar’s pre-Reform coinage’, Brit Numis Soc Res blog post <britnumsoc.blog> [accessed 20 April 2021] Rainbird, P 1998, ‘Oldaport and the Anglo-Saxon defence of Devon’, Proc Devon Archaeol Soc 56, 153–64. Rainbird, P and Druce, D 2004, ‘A late Saxon date from Oldaport’, Proc Devon Archaeol Soc 62, 177–80. Haslam, J 2019, ‘Report on Reconnaissance at Oldaport, S Devon, September 2018’ (unpubl report), <www.academia.edu/38355658> [accessed 9 April 2021] Gardiner, M 2000, ‘Shipping and trade between England and the Continent during the eleventh century’, Anglo-Norman Stud 22, 71–93. Coad, J 2007, Dover Castle, London: English Heritage. Brindle, S 2012, Dover Castle, London: English Heritage. Baker, J and Brookes, S J 2013, Beyond the Burghal Hidage. Anglo-Saxon Civil Defence in the Viking Age, History of Warfare 84. Carroll, J and Parsons, D N 2007, Anglo-Saxon Mint-Names I. Axbridge–Hythe, Nottingham: English Place-Name Society. Brookes, S 2016, ‘Viking Age Kent’, in S Sweetinburgh, (ed), Early Medieval Kent, Woodbridge: Boydell, 103–32. Hollister, C W 1962, Anglo-Saxon Military Institutions on the Eve of the Norman Conquest, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hooper, N 1989, ‘Some observations on the navy in late Anglo-Saxon England’, in C Harper-Brill, C Holdsworth and J L Nelson (ed), Studies in Medieval History Presented to R Allen Brown, Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 203–13. Lavelle, R 2010, Alfred’s Wars, Woodbridge, Woodbridge: Boydell Press. Bender, B M 2019, England’s Unlikely Commander: the Military Career of Æthelred the Unready, Rounded Globe, <www.academia.edu/38874962> [accessed 20 April 2021]. Clarke, H, Pearson, S, Mate, M et al, 2010, Sandwich: The ‘Completest Medieval Town in England, Oxford: Oxbow. Brookes, S 2016, ‘Viking Age Kent’, in S Sweetinburgh, (ed), Early Medieval Kent, Woodbridge: Boydell, 103–32. Martin, D and Martin, B 1999a, A Re-Interpretation of Hastings Castle, Hastings, East Sussex. Part 1 – Overview, Hastings: Archaeology South-East and Hastings Borough Council. Rudling, D and Martin, D 1999, ‘Pre-1066 land use/occupation — Saxon’, in Martin and Martin 1999a, 14–9. Gardiner, M 1989, ‘Some lost Anglo-Saxon charters and the endowment of Hastings College’, Sussex Archaeol Coll 127, 39–48. Gardiner, M 1999, ‘Saxo-Norman Hastings’, Hastings Area Archaeol Res Gr J NS 8, 1–3. Gardiner, M 1999, ‘Saxo-Norman Hastings’, Hastings Area Archaeol Res Gr J NS 8, 1–3. Martin, B, Martin, D and Whittick, C 2015, A Survivor of Storms: Hastings Old Town, an Architectural History to 1750, Burgess Hill: Domton. Long, A J, Waller, M P and Plater, A J 2007, ‘The Late Holocene evolution of the Romney Marsh/Dungeness foreland depositional complex’, in A J Long, M P Waller and A J Plater (eds), Dungeness and Romney Marsh: Barrier Dynamics and Marshland Evolution, Oxford: Oxbow, 189–207. Haslam, J 2020, ‘Eorpeburnan and Rye: some aspects of late Saxon settlement development in East Sussex’, Landscape Hist 41:2, 5–25. Johnson, C 1999, ‘The geology’, in Martin and Martin 1999a, 2–7. Martin, D, Martin, B and Whittick, C 1999, A Re-Interpretation of Hastings Castle, Hastings, East Sussex. Part 3 — Historical Background, Hastings: Archaeology South-East and Hastings Borough Council. Martin, D 1993, ‘The development of Old Hastings’, in D Rudling and L Barber, ‘Excavations at the Phoenix Brewery Site, Hastings, 1988’, Sussex Archaeol Coll 131, 73–113. Martin, B, Martin, D and Whittick, C 2015, A Survivor of Storms: Hastings Old Town, an Architectural History to 1750, Burgess Hill: Domton. Round, J H 1899, Calendar of Documents Preserved in France: Illustrative of the History of Great Britain and Ireland, Vol 1, ad 918-1206, London: HMSO Rudling, D and Martin, D 1999, ‘Pre-1066 land use/occupation — Saxon’, in Martin and Martin 1999a, 14–9. Gardiner, M 1999, ‘Saxo-Norman Hastings’, Hastings Area Archaeol Res Gr J NS 8, 1–3. Martin, B, Martin, D and Whittick, C 2015, A Survivor of Storms: Hastings Old Town, an Architectural History to 1750, Burgess Hill: Domton. Roffe, D 2019, ‘Castle construction, conquest and compensation’, Anglo-Norman Stud 41, 175–92. Foord, K D and Clephane-Cameron, N 2015, 1066 and the Battle of Hastings: Preludes, Events and Postscripts, Battle: Battle and District Historical Society. Draper, G 2016, Rye: A History of a Sussex Cinque Port to 1660, Stroud: Phillimore. Haslam, J 2020, ‘Eorpeburnan and Rye: some aspects of late Saxon settlement development in East Sussex’, Landscape Hist 41:2, 5–25. Haskins, C H 1918, ‘A charter of Canute for Fécamp’, Eng Hist Rev 33:131, 342–4. Matthew, D 1962, The Norman Monasteries and Their English Possessions, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Carroll, J and Parsons, D N 2007, Anglo-Saxon Mint-Names I. Axbridge–Hythe, Nottingham: English Place-Name Society. Morris, J 1976, Domesday Book, Sussex, Chichester: Phillimore. Shapland, M G 2012, Buildings of Secular and Religious Lordship: Anglo-Saxon Tower-nave Churches (unpubl PhD Thesis, University College London). Impey, E 2008, ‘The ancestry of the White Tower’, in E Impey and J Ashbee (eds), The White Tower, London and New Haven (Connecticut): Yale University Press, 227–41. Haslam, J 2021, ‘The late tenth-century defences of Oxford and the towers of St George and St Michael’, Archaeol J 178, DOI: 10.1080/00665983.2021.1886707. Lilley, K D 2004, ‘Cities of God? Medieval urban forms and their Christian symbolism’, Trans Inst Br Geog 29:3, 296–313. Keynes, S 2012, ‘The cult of King Edward the Martyr during the reign of King Æthelred the Unready’, in J L Nelson, S Reynolds and S M Johns (eds), Gender and Historiography. Studies in the Earlier Middle Ages in Honour of Pauline Stafford, London: Institute of Historical Research, 115–25. Haslam, J 2013, ‘The unfinished chapel at Bradford on Avon, Wiltshire, and ecclesiastical politics of the early eleventh century’, Archaeol J 170:1, 272–301.
![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})