They let those darn Saxons settle just anywhere!

Almost as soon as I was back from Leeds, I was informed by the web that something extremely relevant to my period had occurred while I’d been out: the University, celebrating its 800th anniversary, had for some reason that neither report I found makes clear organised an archæological dig underneath the oldest University site, the courtyard and cloister known as the Old Schools which is now the centre of the university administration. And they came up with Saxon remains! Not least a dog, of eleventh-century date, but also some other stuff, as you can see from the report on the BBC website here (though I should also mention this Iranian, of all places, site which I saw first and Archaeology in Europe which pointed me at it; News for Medievalists also carried the text of the BBC article and this picture of the skeletal dog).

Eleventh-century dog skeleton found in digs under Cambridge University Old Schools

Eleventh-century dog skeleton found in digs under Cambridge University Old Schools

The thing that bugs me about this (obviously there had to be one, and I mean apart from the anniversary celebrations—they gave out little ‘800’ badges we were all supposed to wear, you know) is that one comes away with the idea that there was nothing here before this find. In particular this quote:

Some material pre-dates its foundation in 1209 by over 150 years, and is said to be the first evidence the area was occupied by an Anglo-Saxon community.

Archaeologists have unearthed several animal bones, boundary markings and signs of quarrying, which a spokesman said suggested that in the final decades of the Saxon era the foundations of Cambridge were being laid.

This is true with one important qualifier: they mean in the city centre. Neither article has this proviso, but St Giles’s up on the castle mound has Saxon fabric buried deep in its Anglo-Norman structure, no-one knows how old St Peter’s also on the mound really is, and there was a thriving settlement on the river at Quayside. This might be more properly called Grantabrycg but it’s all of ten minutes’ walk from the Old Schools, I know having done it many times. The dig, and the reporting, are basically about adding extra antiquity to the University. The peculiar thing is that that agenda is not sharp in the University press release, where actual history (I’m sorry Mary, archæology) has apparently triumphed. Contrast this to the report above, knowing what you now know:

“The site has enabled us to prove what we previously had no proof for – that by the time of the Norman Conquest, there was a thriving settlement in the middle of Cambridge,” Richard Newman, site director with the Cambridge Archaeological Unit, said.

“Until now this was one of the least-investigated parts of the city. What it has shown is that a century and a half before the University arrived and 300 years before it started to build in this area, people were already living and working here. The boundaries marking where their homes begin and end do not change for several centuries, until the University moved in.”

This is a lot more balanced, and they’re still excited about the age of the University, but from the other reports you’d think there was nothing else here at the time of these finds whereas this makes it clear we’re only dealing with a specific area of town. I don’t know who the `spokesman’ the BBC got was, but I bet they were wearing their `800′ badge. The finds are really interesting, and will probably tell us something about what the university bought to establish itself, but they’re being spun, even when the actual experts have tried to prevent it. Pah.

Our badges were rather less splendid than this limited edition theyre selling to alumni...

Our badges were rather less splendid than this limited edition they're selling to alumni...

About these ads

12 responses to “They let those darn Saxons settle just anywhere!

  1. “Eleventh-century dog skeleton found in digs under Cambridge University Old Schools”

    Am I the only one who read this caption and immediately got a mental image of “digs” as student accommodation…?

    The press release seems quite reasonable; is it possible the spokesman, whoever it was, was misquoted?

    • That only struck me on seeing you quote it, perhaps because it’s not really Cambridge slang (students of the older university here have rooms in college or hostels, rather than their own lodging arrangements, for the most part). I see it now, of course… Stranger things have probably been found in student rooms here! As to the latter, well, it’s perfectly possible I guess—how could one tell?—but it seems quite plausible to me that he or she was quoted accurately.

  2. In my day some colleges offered rooms in college for two of the three years of an undergraduate course but for the other year, usually the second, students rented rooms in the city. Sometimes in college-owned houses, sometimes from private landladies. Like everything else, it varied by college. I certainly remember a fair number of jokes about student digs – and as you say, stranger things than a thousand-year-old dog skeleton featured in some of them :-)

    • Possibly just my college experience isolating me from the daily grind, then, as certainly happened in a lot of ways. (I was at Pembroke, and they guaranteed rooms in College for first-years and high achievers, the rest of us were found space in college hostels further out.)

  3. Oh dear… Modern life gives me present participle fatigue.
    How much do you suppose they paid someone to come up with ‘Transforming Tomorrow’ as a slogan?

  4. Pingback: British Chilterners | A Corner of Tenth-Century Europe

  5. When King William, Count Alan Rufus and others were described by Domesday as tenants-in-chief in Cambridge, where was this?

    • This is exactly the kind of question that the Prosopography of Anglo-Saxon England can answer, of course! You can look for Alan Rufus and others yourself, but for King William the main concentrations (of 29 different estates) seem to be around Chesterton, Cheveley and Soham.

      • PASE and Open Domesday (domesdaymap.co.uk) are two of my favourite documentary sites, along with British History Online. (Tenth Medieval is among my favourite blog sites of course.)

        In Cambridgeshire, Alan had two concentrations of properties: around Cheveley and around Duxford. Among Alan’s estimated 782 English estates, 102 were in Cambridgeshire. Perhaps 29+74 = 103 of all his estates had come from Eadgifu the Fair/Rich (as either “Holder” or “Lord”/Lady in 1065), and those were mostly in Cambridgeshire.

        Keats-Rohan thinks Alan’s first estates in England may have been in Cambridgeshire, but Little Domesday mentions an “Alan” who owned Wyken Farm in Suffolk before 1066, and an assortment of circumstantial evidence suggests to me that this was Alan Rufus.

        By 1086 Alan also got at least 8 vills from King Edward (his father’s maternal first cousin – a possible reason why Alan could have got a toehold in pre-Conquest England).

        From Earl Harold he had 11 vills.

        From Earl Gyrth, in Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire, Alan obtained 28 vills, the same number as King William, a fact which I find intriguing given the claim by Guy of Amiens that Gyrth brought down William’s first horse and attempted to kill William but William slew him. You’d think that William would have claimed all of Gyrth’s properties for this feat: why instead did he share half with a Breton?

        Either Alan or Ralph the Staller presumably obtained those 28 vills at first.

        If it was Ralph, perhaps his son Ralph de Gael lost them to Alan after the failed Revolt of the Earls in 1075, among many other properties known to have been so transferred at this time.

        Alan was the commander of the royal household cavalry at Sainte-Suzanne in 1083, leading such notables as William de Warenne, and Wace does say that Alan and his men “did the English great damage”, while Gaimar states that “they struck so well that they won the day”. Alan is known to have been close by the King’s side on many important occasions. Events such as Queen Matilda’s urging King William to grant Edwin’s lands to Alan, and the royal apology to the English issued at the refounding of St Botolph’s Church at York, show that Alan clearly had leverage.

        In either case, it looks as though a Breton may have been at William’s side and borne a great deal of responsibility for slaying Gyrth, thus saving William’s life.

        There’s a note about Alan in one of the Domesday Books that cites “the division of lands between the King and the Count”, a curiously egalitarian form of words given the expected difference in relative power.

        My grandmother Ellen May Tweed’s ancestors are the Tweeds of Cheveley, who also resided at Duxford and several other villages and towns where Alan was a TIC; in fact, they only ever lived in places where Alan was TIC (outside of Cambridgeshire, Tweeds are only ever found in England in counties where Alan was a TIC, or in Ayrshire in Scotland where many Bretons settled during the time when his brother Count Stephen held the Honour of Brittany); the Cambridgeshire Tweeds usually married at Cheveley but one marriage was in Suffolk at Bury St Edmunds (where Alan was buried).

        The Suffolk Tweeds were wool merchants whom my side referred to as “the rich ones”; there’s no evidence of a genealogical link between the two branches as far as the earliest surviving records from the 1400s, so the family must have branched before then.

  6. Oh, and the main point: one of Alan’s properties (Phil, Ref. 14:12) is described as in Cambridge itself. Was that inside the current city?

    • You would need to ask someone a lot more expert in such matters than me for the answer to that one, I fear. I don’t even know how we’d know! I think you’ve already shown that you can gather as much information on such questions as I can. Thankyou for the kind words, though.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s