| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
 |
|
Hatty has been up to her tricks again. This time it's Whitby Abbey
| Hatty on the Facebook Medieval England Group wrote: | | Whitby has been more thoroughly excavated than any other Northumbrian site and their efforts found artefacts and structures dating back to the Bronze Age but no remains of a monastic site earlier than the 1078 Benedictine abbey, one of the earliest monastic foundations in the north of England, let alone evidence of any 'Viking' presence. The scanty historical records relating to Whitby are medieval documents, written much later than the events they describe and, naturally, produced by monks 'from Whitby'. |
Now the cat has pounced how are the pigeons reacting?
| Charles Duncan wrote: | | On what basis do you assert that there are no remains of an Anglo-Saxon monastic site? Inevitably much will have been lost to coastal erosion but indisputable archaeological evidence is given here. It is confirmed of course, by Bede, writing at length c.731 of Abbess Hilda, the dual monastery, and the Synod of Whitby, 664. https://historicengland.org.uk/.../research.../whitby-abbey/ |
Oh, Dunc, we keep telling you, telling her is not telling it like it is, it is her telling us all off...
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| Hatty wrote: | | No evidence of an Anglo-Saxon monastery have been discovered or, as archaeologists put it, "it has not been possible to identify the site of the minster positively". After more than a century of trying to locate a monastery where they know it 'must have' been sited, one might think the logical conclusion would be that it never existed. |
This is our celebrated "the absence of evidence is evidence of absence". She then charges off at a right angle
| It may be that historians are overly reliant on Bede as a primary source. Perhaps because his account is the only contemporary Dark Age 'history', but, unfortunately for historians, there is no manuscript of Bede's Ecclesiastical History earlier than the Moore Bede (named for its owner, Bishop Moore, 1646–1714). |
I am always telling Hatty not to put irons prematurely in the fire but she won't be told by the likes of me and proceeds, quite unasked, to stand it up.
| It appears no attempt has been made to date the Moore Bede manuscript, judging by the British Library's preference for the 'traditional' stylistic approach rather than scientific dating methods. 'The Moore Bede is traditionally dated to 734–737 on the basis of the so-called Moore Memoranda, a series of chronological notes preserved on f. 128v. Although the validity of these (and similar notes in The Leningrad Bede) as evidence for the manuscript’s date has been challenged vigorously, the manuscript can be dated securely to the 8th century on palaeographic and codicological grounds.' |
Dunc dunks
| Charles Duncan wrote: | | You seem very keen for there to be no evidence of an abbey. Presumably some arcane link with the idea of a megalithic empire? Do tell! |
So naturally our very proper Charlie is going to tell us what that evidence is
| Much of the work of the last 21 years is still being written up and much more excavation remains to be done. I'm not remotely inclined to doubt Historic England's assertion in the link I provided as to the discovery of a site commensurate with a royal abbey and can't begin to imagine what else it can be. |
Whoops, he's just told us there isn't any. /More
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Even though Hatty has muddied the waters with her twin-track approach, I will endeavour to clarify things by sorting out material. First, the archaeology
| Hatty wrote: | If you read the archaeological reports on Whitby, it is clear no ecclesiastical foundation predating the Benedictine abbey has been found. It's worth reading Rosemary Cramp's detailed but highly ambiguous account of the excavations at Monkwearmouth and Jarrow (they are not twinned being eight miles apart by the way). She pointed out at Monkwearmouth "most of the Anglo-Saxon material from the site came from clearance dumps or the infilling of negative features, such as a well-pit or latrine, in the period between the 11th and 13th centuries." and at Jarrow
"No recognisable Saxon structures were discovered and no early material was found.” |
Now that is pretty important. Nobody argues with Cramp, the doyenne of Northumbrian digs. She has admitted (without saying so) that nothing ecclesiastic has been found. So Dunc is forced to muddy his own waters.
| Charles Duncan wrote: | | Bede lived at Monkwearmouth-Jarrow and you have been misleadingly selective in reporting Rosemary Cramp's work. She was in no doubt that, at both sites, she had found evidence of the eighth century monastery. |
The Bede camp suppose that you double his chances by putting him at both places. We point out they've now got two places without a monastery to put him in. Of course Cramp was in 'no doubt'. If you dedicate your life to finding something and can't find it, it's all you've got left. We can ourselves be sure about Cramp not finding anything because of careful ignoral. If she had, Charles D would certainly know and would certainly have mentioned it.
| Charles Duncan wrote: | | You really must tell us what axe you are trying to grind! |
It is fascinating how people assume you must have an axe to grind if you disagree with them. Dunc could have said Hatty was just plain wrong but for some reason he couldn't. The rest is history. Of a sort...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| Charles Duncan wrote: | Your treatment of Bede is risible! He was by any standards a great historian and as long as one reads him with an awareness of his own purposes and limitations, as one must with any historian, his work is of enormous value, especially on a place so close to his monastic home at Monkwearmouth-Jarrow.
Your quibbling about the date of the Moore manuscript is utterly empty, apparently seeking to challenge the traditional dating of 734-7 (immediately after it was written) but ending by admitting that it could be dated securely to the eighth century. If, perhaps, you aren't a historian, 734-7 is in the eighth century. |
This is the start of a good example of historians having to avoid their own rules. First off Charles seems to think Hatty accepts the Moore ms as genuine when she was only saying the BL does. He then sells the pass by admitting that the BL dating is 'traditional'. Good grief, you would think someone would take the trouble to test one of England's most important documents. Unless they daren't because it is.
| Hatty wrote: | | It is well known, if ignored, in academic circles that no 'original' Bede manuscript exists. Surely tracking down the earliest extant manuscript in order to establish the primary source for the period is not 'quibbling' so much as good historical practice. That is, following historians' own rules. |
Now comes a piece of pure magic.
| Charles Duncan wrote: | | There's no exactly contemporaneous Bede manuscript but that's not at all surprising given the depredations of the centuries. There are at least 4 eighth century manuscripts! Stop trying to cast doubts on Bede! |
He's saying that no manuscripts are likely to have survived from Bede's time (eighth century) but four have survived from the eighth century!
| Hatty wrote: | | It took a long time for the pfennig to finally drop but nowadays historians seem less inclined to treat Bede as a credible source (except on occasions when it suits). Oddly enough, Bede is absent from the historical record, almost as if he never existed. Certainly it is wrong to claim there are eighth-century manuscripts of his work. |
I think she means unwise.
| Hatty wrote: | | The St Petersburg Bede manuscript, as with the Moore Bede' may have been 'traditionally', i.e. unscientifically, dated to eighth century but provenance is eighteenth century. The manuscript somehow came into the possession of Peter Dubrovsky (1754-1816) whose private collection, including some runic books which have since been 'lost' and the 'St Petersburg Bede', was donated to Alexander I. The collection became the basis of the Imperial Library's 'Manuscript Depository' i.e. where docs were stashed (Dubrovsky claimed to have 'examined and described' 11,000 manuscripts in seven years). Naturally he got the post of keeper of manuscripts at St Petersburg's Imperial Library. After his death, no valuable items were found in his private collection. |
Hatty has set out her stall pretty robustly. They are all fakes. Will Dunc defend his fellow-practitioners from these importunate charges with dazzling technical virtuoso or will he launch a surprise attack on his attacker?
| Charles Duncan wrote: | | Why do you keep avoiding the question of why you are, vainly, trying to overturn essentials of early medieval history, broadly agreed by the entire respectable academic community. Is it spaceships, ley lines or some other mumbo-jumbo? |
There's some other small change stuff but I'll leave Hatty to post that up if she feels in the mood. I have no doubt whatsoever that Charles Duncan believes he has utterly routed his foe. That is what I find the most depressing aspect of these exchanges.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hatty
Site Admin
In: Berkshire
|
|
|
|
A further contretemps arose following a Medieval England post about Wherwell Abbey, a nunnery founded in the tenth century though it has never been found
Wherwell, Hampshire, England.
The earliest mention of Wherwell is in the Will of King Edred (946 955) when Whorwell, Andover and Clere are bequeathed to Hyde Abbey, Winchester. In 1086, the Domesday Book records six manors (all held by Wherwell Abbey) assigned to the Welford Hundred – Wherwell, Tufton, Goodworth, Little Ann, Bullington and Middleton. Wherwell Abbey was founded in 986 by Queen Elfrida ‘in absolute and total remorse’ for the murder of her stepson Edward the Martyr. Elfrida had married King Edgar the Peaceable after he had slain her first husband Earl Aethelwold in Harewood Forest in 963, because he duped the King about the beauty of Elfrida. King Edward succeeded King Edgar in 975, was murdered at Corfe in 978 and in turn was succeeded by Elfrida’s son King Ethelred II the Unready (circa 968 -1016).
A little over a century after it was founded, the Abbey was burned down during the Stephen and Matilda Wars, but was swiftly rebuilt. About 1186 the Abbess Maud of sweet memory’ and of good and noble birth’ began her rule over the Abbey, which she maintained for forty years, dying at the age of eighty. She was succeeded in 1226 by her friend, the blessed Abbess Euphemia, a remarkable woman who scorned a life of ease, rooted out laxity and evil and encouraged ‘good and useful purposes’. Under her pharmacy she made a water channel through which a stream of sufficient force swept all refuse 'that might corrupt the air', in other words, an early sewage disposal system, still visible today.
|
TME replied
There are reportedly no visible remains of an Anglo-Saxon nunnery/abbey. According to an archaeological team's investigations of Wherwell Priory 1996-99 (published by Hampshire Studies, 2003), "Unfortunately, in the absence of detailed archaeological evidence, the confident identification of any of these elements has proved impossible so far and the debate remains unresolved.". Not an iota of archaeology pre-the twelfth century abbey has ever been found.
The source for an A/S abbey appears to be Eadred's will of 955 A.D, though the sole copy of the will is preserved in a fifteenth-century manuscript, Liber Monasterii de Hyda. The earlier 'original' manuscript of the will has vanished, assuming it ever existed. |
and Charles Duncan took umbrage | As usual, this member is grinding an invisible axe known only to themselves. |
There didn't seem much to be gained by continuing to debate with him except it could be an opportunity to show how we approach these claims of non-existent A/S foundations, to engage a wider audience. Or not?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hatty
Site Admin
In: Berkshire
|
|
|
|
TME plunged into the canyon willy-nilly
It's not quite clear what 'axe' you had in mind, the post was simply pointing out the mismatch between history and archaeology, amply illustrated in the case of Wherwell Abbey.
The situation in England and Wales is that archaeologists have not excavated a single example of indisputably Anglo-Saxon ecclesiastical buildings. Yet they are frequently mentioned in the written sources used by historians who, for reasons of academic seniority, take precedence over archaeologists (even though the two disciplines are complementary, in principle at least). At some point the mismatch will have to be addressed. What would you suggest? |
Two people responded, one at least was encouraging
Mark Fletcher wrote: | Yes, you are right. Even when relevant remains are encountered by contract archaeologists, it can take decades for these to 'recognised' by academia... |
and Charles Duncan who is rooting for ‘historical scholarship’
| I was referring to your reluctance when commenting on Whitby and associated sites, which you now return to, to accept long-established historical evidence for early medieval ecclesiastical institutions. The weight of evidence and the extent of the historical scholarship for their existence is hugely disproportionate to the archaeology which you want to rebut it with. |
to which he added weight
There are of course dozens of Anglo-Saxon churches still standing without any need for excavation!
And here's a recent list of 400 Anglo-Saxon ecclesiastical archaeological sites:
https://www.anglosaxonchurches.co.uk/ | |
|
| |
|
|
|
Hatty
Site Admin
In: Berkshire
|
|
|
|
The exchange was a useful exercise and quite revealing (e.g. the above use of 'of course') though, predictably, the antagonists remained entrenched and increasingly exasperated
TME
| You are correct that the weight of medieval history bears down on all of us. The problem though for historians is the absence of primary sources, i.e. contemporary written accounts, for the period in question. Re Whitby, according to Historic England, "there is no evidence as yet of the pre-Conquest abbey church" and the Domesday Book listing for Whitby doesn't mention a church. But anyway, the list of four hundred should be a handy compendium, we will check it out sometime. |
CD
The 400+ list is at complete variance with your earlier statement that:
""The situation in England and Wales is that archaeologists have not excavated a single example of indisputably Anglo-Saxon ecclesiastical buildings."
As for written sources it is unsurprising that the depredations of time have robbed us of much contemporary evidence. However, there are numerous early law codes, charters and other written sources. We have numerous early manuscripts of Bede. Domesday Book tells us more about the Anglo-Saxons than it does about the Normans. |
TME
| We have beem investigating early manuscript sources for many years. All of them turned out to be medieval, i.e. dated twelfth century or later. The standard explanation is they are copies of a now lost original, unacceptable according to the rules laid down by historians. A list of hundreds of purportedly A/S churches would be indeed at variance with the absence of any contemporary documents. |
which earned a speedy and thoroughly aggrieved response from Charlie
I appreciate that a lot of false information is routinely published on Facebook. You should be aware that this is not obligatory! What you say is complete tosh.
Not only are there numerous surviving Anglo-Saxon charters, law codes, wills and other documents, it is entirely credible that many others are preserved in later authenticated copies like the Textus Roffensis. That was the standard medieval practice for obvious reason.
These documents have been subject to many decades of rigorous scholarly analysis - more than enough to consign your malevolent errors to the pile of rubbish where they find their natural home. |
TME
The Textus Roffensis is a good example of the 'lost original' hypothesis. As you say, it is medieval but, as you don't say, there's no possibility of authenticating the copies of the laws (many of them 'unique') as the original is missing, presumed lost.
"No piece of Part A is original, that is to say, the writer did not compose one phrase in the volume; he was a copyist throughout.. But the direct source is not known to us of any element of the work
...the tract as a whole in this form is a copy of a work perhaps otherwise lost] ; 88, ./Ethelstan's London Law. The labour of collecting,* bringing iuto order, and ascribing to the different kings, had been at least partly done in a lost volume, from which the Roffensis scribe copied page after page." |
To which he merely replied
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
It is fascinating how, as the evidence dwindles, the orthos manage to boost them to unheard of heights. It used to be orthodoxy that only 'a handful' of churches showed signs of Anglo-Saxon origins. Now it is 'dozens' of extant ones and four hundred non-extant ones. Blimey, you won't be able to move for 'em soon.
Hatty and I have satisfied ourselves, after investigating a fair few of them, that there are actually 'zero' and 'zero' in these two categories. Just the two of us though since nobody will be told despite them having to break every rule in the historico-archaeological book to get the numbers up.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hatty
Site Admin
In: Berkshire
|
|
|
|
Whitby Abbey reappeared in another Medieval England discussion on Facebook. Maybe they're celebrating some kind of centenary though it could just be serendipity.
This time the focus is mostly on Abbess Hild, the abbey's literary past and later Viking depradations and it does go on a bit (apologies, though it makes for quite an exciting tale)
In 657AD the Saxon King Oswiu of Northumbria (aka Oswy or Oswig) appointed a nun called Hild (614-80) to found a monastery on a hill overlooking the North Sea (in North-East England).
The abbey became home to a thriving community of monks and nuns, with abbess Hild at its head. It became so prominent in Christian Saxon England that in 664AD, under Hild’s leadership an important meeting of the Church took place: The Synod of Whitby, or to be exact: the Synod of Streaneshalch (or Streonaeshalch), as that was its name in Saxon England (pre-Vikings).
Men and women who had converted from paganism to Christianity gathered here, under the leadership of Abbess Hild (several books have been written by historians on Hild, if you are interested in knowing more about her, her achievements and her times…… Personally I think that she was the inspiration for the nun in the famous books by Bernard Cornwell upon which The Last Kingdom TV series is based: Hild later known as Hildegyth. Even the name is the same, …although this Hild lived about 2 centuries later..).
The Abbey had a long tradition and history as an important centre for writing and learning. Works that survive from the Anglo-Saxon period include: Caedmon’s poem, he is considered the first English poet and cited by 8th century monk and historian Bede in his Historia Ecclesiastica Gentis Anglorum. There is also a surviving letter written by Abbess Aelfflaed of Whitby (654-714). Hild died in 680 and was soon venerated as a saint. The site continued to thrive as a centre of learning and worship.
But then all changed, fast and furious!
The Vikings arrived in 867AD destroying the monastery and renaming the settlement Whitby from the Old Norse for ‘White Settlement’. The monastery was totally destroyed between 867 and 870 in a series of raids by vikings from Denmark under leaders Ingwar and Ubba. |
There's yet more but eventually has the (to my mind) important factual bit
| The ruins that you see are the ruins of the majestic gothic cathedral of the Norman Benedictine monks as destroyed by Henry VIII. |
Treading carefully, TME injected a mild note of caution vis-a-vis sources
| Sources for St Hilda are surprisingly late. St Hilda of Whitby is first mentioned in a late 14th century manuscript (Cotton Tiberius E.1). Her legend is also included in John Capgrave's Nova Legenda Angliae, a 15th century publication. The absence of any contemporary records means the primary sources are late fourteenth century or later though according to John Leland, the 'king's antiquary', doing the rounds of soon-to-be-dissolved monasteries, there was a 'vita S. Hilda' though the text doesn't exist, presumed 'lost'. |
and got a rather strange reply from the poster, Sophie La Cour
| indeed, only a couple of the original works of the monastery survive. But there is a strong oral tradition in the area, about Hild's life and ministry. | |
|
| |
|
|
|
Hatty
Site Admin
In: Berkshire
|
|
|
|
It seemed worth pursuing at the risk of TME sounding argumentative or, worse, boringly didactic
The problem for historians, in the absence of contemporary written references to Hild and company, is being obliged to rely on unverifiable sources, i.e. accounts produced centuries later and documents that lack provenance, or, as you point out, 'oral tradition'.
In situations where written evidence is absent or suspect, it's generally a safer bet to look for evidence of what is (or isn't) on/under the site. Archaeologists have been excavating Whitby since the 1920s but were unable to find confirmation of Hild's purported pre-7th century abbey
"Nothing remains visible of the Anglian minster at Whitby, or of the town which seems to have stood next to it, and it has not been possible to identify the site of the minster positively." After decades of digging, a ditch was uncovered and signs of industrial activity including glass-making but no traces of an Anglo-Saxon monastery. |
Sophie La Cour is unconvinced but, mercifully, not in the least vitriolic
| if you go to the site, and sift through the abbey museum's exhibits, it is true that any original materials (of Hild's time) are rare, also considering that all was distroyed by the vikings incursions, but there are some surviving items. And nowadays with all the techniques available to the contemporary experimental archaeologists and historians so much more is possible. |
Museum displays and the potential results of experimental archaeology/ history have captured Sophie's imagination. That's all there is really.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
They have really been hoist by their own 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' petard. The more they sing hosannas to Hild, Whitby and Northumbrian Anglo-Saxons, the more glaring becomes the total absence of archaeological evidence.
Another example of the Vikings not just destroying everything above ground but sifting the soil for every particle of archaeological evidence they were ever there. Never mind Bernard Cornwell, we need a full TV series of CSI Oslo.
PS You did well not to take the cudgels to the strong oral tradition in this part of the world. They've been talking about Hildy non-stop for fifteen hundred years.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: |
Another example of the Vikings not just destroying everything above ground but sifting the soil for every particle of archaeological evidence they were ever there. Never mind Bernard Cornwell, we need a full TV series of CSI Oslo. |
They would have got away with it, if it wasn't for those damn meddling monks, saving their archives........
| Mick Harper wrote: |
PS You did well not to take the cudgels to the strong oral tradition in this part of the world. They've been talking about Hildy non-stop for fifteen hundred years. |
Hildr survived because she adapted from a Valkrie (folk) to a Norn ally (normally) to a Saint.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
Those meddling Norns.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
Hildr a goddess is often the first part of a kenning, a comparison would be Beo, another god and a kenning.
| Wiki wrote: | | Beowa, Beaw, Bēow [beːow], Beo or Bedwig is a figure in Anglo-Saxon traditional religion associated with barley and agriculture. The figure is attested in the Anglo-Saxon royal genealogies as they were extended in the age of Alfred, where Beowa is inserted as the son of Scyld and the grandson of Sceafa, in lineages carried back to Adam.[1] Connections have been proposed between the figure of Beowa and the hero Beowulf of the poem of the same name and English folk song figure John Barleycorn. |
| Kathleen Herbert draws a link between Beowa and the figure of John Barleycorn of traditional English folksong. Herbert says that Beowa and Barleycorn are one and the same, noting that the folksong details the suffering, death, and resurrection of Barleycorn, yet also celebrates the "reviving effects of drinking his blood."[6] |
I wish I had got there first, still it's now apparent to Wiley that the middle ages were the mead hall ages. It's just no one believes me. I used to be a honeybee-wolf, now I am bitter-wolf.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hatty
Site Admin
In: Berkshire
|
|
|
|
|
Mead, honey-wine, is said to have been drunk since way back when though its origins are unknown. I learnt from a recent family quiz that honey lasts more or less forever which would make it a top-class preservative and, presumably, responsible for mead's claimed longevity (though how it can be dated unless it's found in a dateable context such as a burial seems less clear).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
