|
Saxon standard bearer | Anglo Saxon History 
Search Pages |  | |
| | Battle of Hastings 1066AD Observations - Locating an Abbey over a mass grave |
|---|
The following page describes why Battle Abbey could not be built on the battlefield.
This page is predicated on our description of the fosses built around the Saxon forces being true.
| | The Foundation: Penance and Politics |
|---|
| | The Medieval Mind: Bodies, Water, and Contamination ▲ |
|---|
|
To understand whether the Normans would have recognized the danger of 4,000 corpses contaminating their water supply, we must first understand how medieval people understood disease, decay, and pollution. Their framework was very different from modern germ theory, but that does not mean they were unaware of the risks.
| | |
|---|
| The Miasmatic Theory: Bad Air, Not Bad Water ▲ |
|---|
|
The dominant medical belief throughout the Middle Ages and well into the 19th century was the miasmatic theory—the idea that disease was caused by "bad air" (miasma) arising from decaying organic matter [citation:6][citation:8]. Rotting corpses, sewage, stagnant water, and putrefying vegetation were all believed to release poisonous vapors that could sicken or kill those who breathed them .
This theory dated back to ancient Greece and was endorsed by authorities including Hippocrates. It meant that medieval people were highly sensitive to the danger of decomposing bodies, but for reasons of air rather than water. A large mass grave like the Malfosse would have been seen as a constant source of deadly miasma—a threat to anyone living nearby.
Florence Nightingale, as late as the 19th century, still attributed diseases like smallpox and measles to "the practice of building houses with drains beneath them from which odors could escape and infect the inhabitants" . This same logic would have applied to building an abbey near or over a mass grave[citation:6],[citation:8].
| | |
|---|
| Well Poisoning: A Known Wartime Tactic ▲ |
|---|
|
While miasmatic theory focused on air, medieval people were certainly aware that water could be deliberately poisoned. Well poisoning was a documented strategy during wartime since antiquity . Rotting corpses—both animal and human—were the most common method of implementation. In some cases, bodies known to have died from transmissible diseases were specifically chosen to maximize harm [citation:8],[citation:9].
Prince Vlad III the Impaler of Wallachia used well poisoning in 1462 to delay pursuing Ottoman forces. During the Winter War nearly 500 years later, Finns still used animal carcasses to render wells unusable against Soviet invaders. The tactic was well-established and widely understood.
However, there is an important distinction: well poisoning was recognized as a deliberate act of war, not necessarily as an accidental consequence of burial. The connection between burying bodies and unintentionally contaminating groundwater was not clearly understood because the mechanism (bacteria, viruses, groundwater percolation) was completely unknown.
| | |
|---|
| Water as Sacred and Purifying ▲ |
|---|
|
Medieval Christianity also held strong beliefs about water's spiritual properties. Water was seen as a gift from God, essential for purification, baptism, and ritual cleansing [citation:9]. Pure water was associated with deity and was believed to be endowed with vital sustaining and restorative qualities, both physical and spiritual .
This meant that water sources were protected for religious as well as practical reasons. The Israelites construed water as a gift from God; its absence was seen as punishment . Priests were washed with water to consecrate them, and unclean individuals and objects were to be purified by water, especially prior to association with the sacred.
This religious dimension added weight to the importance of clean water. Allowing a water source to become polluted—whether by negligence or deliberate act—was not just unsanitary; it could be seen as a spiritual violation.
| | |
|---|
| What They Didn`t Know: The Missing Piece ▲ |
|---|
|
Despite these beliefs, medieval people lacked any understanding of:
- Germ theory: The existence of bacteria and viruses was completely unknown [citation:10].
- Groundwater contamination: The mechanism by which decomposing bodies could seep into wells and aquifers was not understood[citation:10].
- Specific waterborne diseases: Cholera, typhoid, and dysentery were not linked to water contamination until the 19th century work of John Snow, whose hypothesis was rejected by official circles at the time of his death in 1858 [citation:13],[citation:14].
As late as 1846, Edwin Chadwick (a leading sanitarian) told a parliamentary committee: "All smell is, if it be intense, immediate acute disease; and eventually we may say that, by depressing the system and rendering it susceptible to the action of other causes, all smell is disease" . From this premise, Chadwick drew the conclusion that it was more important to remove smells from dwellings than to purify drinking water—a logical error that persisted for decades [citation:15].
| | |
|---|
| The Medieval View Applied to the Malfosse ▲ |
|---|
|
If we apply this medieval understanding to the Malfosse and Battle Abbey, we can reconstruct what the Normans likely believed:
1. They would protect water sources from deliberate poisoning. If anyone had suggested throwing bodies into a well, they would have recognized that as an act of war. But the connection between a buried mass grave and a distant water source was not obvious [citation:8],[citation:9].
2. They would recognize the miasmatic danger. A pit containing 4,000 decomposing bodies would be seen as a massive source of foul, disease-causing air. Building anywhere near it would be hazardous—building directly over it would be unthinkable [citation:6][citation:8].
3. They would value water purity for religious reasons. Clean water was associated with God's favor and ritual purity. A monastery would need a clean water supply for drinking, washing, and liturgical purposes [citation:9].
4. They would NOT understand groundwater contamination. The idea that rainwater percolating through a mass grave could carry invisible pathogens into a well was beyond their conceptual framework. They would worry about the smell (miasma), not the seepage [citation:10].
| | |
|---|
| The Contradiction This Creates for the Traditional Story ▲ |
|---|
|
If the traditional story were true—then the abbey was built directly over the Malfosse containing 4,000 bodies— and the Normans would have been acting against their own beliefs in multiple ways:
- They would be building a holy place directly atop a source of foul, disease-causing miasma [citation:10].
- They would be risking their own water supply (the monks needed clean water for drinking and rituals) by allowing decomposing corpses to contaminate the ground [citation:11].
- They would be violating the principle that sacred spaces should be pure and unpolluted [citation:4].
This adds yet another layer of contradiction to the traditional narrative. A people who feared miasma and valued water purity would not choose to build their most sacred space directly above 4,000 rotting corpses—unless, of course, the bodies were not there at all.
| | |
|---|
| A Strategic Choice or Marketing Ploy ▲ |
|---|
|
The most elegant solution is often the correct one. The battle was elsewhere. The abbey's location was a calculated strategic choice — and it worked brilliantly, but sold as though a modern product .
"taken together with the battle reconstruction, this creates a consistent alternative picture: the fighting happened elsewhere, the Norman dead were left in the Malfosse on a different part of the ridge, and the abbey was built on safe, accessible ground for entirely practical reasons"
| | |
|---|
| Why Battle Abbey Was Built Where It Is ▲ |
|---|
| |
|---|
| The Strategic Location: Built on a Major Route ▲ |
|---|
|
The abbey was not built on a remote hilltop accessible only to pilgrims seeking a battlefield. It was built directly on an ancient ridgeway that functioned as a transport artery connecting the coast to the interior. Ivan Margary's research confirms this route ran from Hastings through Battle to Crowborough, where it joined the Roman London-to-Lewes road (Margary's Route 14) [citation:5].
This location offered several practical advantages:
Access from the Coast: Pilgrims arriving by sea at Hastings could travel directly to the abbey along a well-established, all-weather route.
Connection to London: Via the Roman road network, travelers from the capital could reach the abbey without navigating difficult terrain.
Passing Trade: The abbey sat on a route used by merchants, travelers, and local traffic—not just dedicated pilgrims. This ensured a steady stream of visitors and donations.
Building on a major route was a deliberate choice to maximize visibility, accessibility, and revenue [citation:5].
| | |
|---|
| The Pilgrimage Economy: A Proven Business Model ▲ |
|---|
|
Medieval monasteries relied heavily on pilgrimage traffic for income. Pilgrims brought donations, paid for lodging, purchased candles and offerings, and contributed to the local economy [citation:1]. Battle Abbey became one of England's richest monasteries precisely because it mastered this model [citation:1].
Key elements of the pilgrimage economy at Battle Abbey included:
A Compelling Story: The claim that the high altar stood on the exact spot where King Harold fell gave pilgrims a powerful reason to visit [citation:1].
Papal Indulgences: In 1279, the abbey obtained a papal bull granting indulgences to visitors—a spiritual incentive that guaranteed a steady flow of pilgrims [citation:1].
Infrastructure: The abbey would have needed lodging, food supplies, and facilities to accommodate visitors, all generating income.
Souvenirs and Offerings: Pilgrims typically purchased badges, candles, or made donations at shrines. The abbey's wealth was not accidental. It was the result of a carefully executed strategy to attract pilgrims [citation:1].
| | |
|---|
| Controlling the Narrative: The Abbey as Author of History ▲ |
|---|
|
The monks of Battle Abbey controlled the story of the battle because they controlled the written record [citation:2]. Their chronicles, written decades after 1066, became the authoritative account. By the time anyone might have questioned the location, the abbey's version was already established as tradition [citation:2]. This narrative control served multiple purposes:
Legitimacy: The story that the abbey marked Harold's death site gave the foundation spiritual authority.
Pilgrimage Marketing: The story attracted visitors and donations.
Political Power: The abbey could claim direct connection to William the Conqueror and the founding of Norman England.
In an age without archaeology, maps, or public records, the abbey's word was effectively law [citation:2].
| | |
|---|
| Conclusion: A Deliberate Choice, Not an Accident ▲ |
|---|
|
Battle Abbey was built where it was for clear, logical reasons:
- It sat on a major route connecting the coast to London, maximizing pilgrim traffic [citation:5].
- It was positioned to benefit from the pilgrimage economy, which made it one of England's wealthiest monasteries [citation:1].
- The terrain was practical for construction, unlike a possibly waterlogged, very dry or uneven battlefield [citation:3].
- The monks controlled the narrative, ensuring their version of history became the accepted truth [citation:2].
The abbey's location was not an accident of history. It was a deliberate, strategic choice—and it worked brilliantly for 900 years.
| | |
|---|
| References ▲ |
|---|
|
[citation:1] Battle Abbey chronicles and foundation history. The story of William's vow, the papal penance of 1070, the 20-year gap before construction began c.1090, the consecration in 1094, the Papal indulgence of 1279, and the abbey's subsequent wealth are all derived from the abbey's own foundation narratives and later medieval records.
Links: Wikimedia Commons - Battle Abbey category | English Heritage - Battle Abbey
[citation:2] Contemporary and near-contemporary chronicles including William of Jumièges, Orderic Vitalis, Master Wace, and the Chronicles of Battle Abbey. These sources describe the Malfosse, the defensive ditches, and the events of the battle. The Latin phrase "Quod quidem baratrum..." appears in the Battle Abbey chronicles.
[citation:3] Archaeological evidence from excavations at Battle Abbey. Despite extensive digs—including major excavations in 1978-80—no mass graves, weaponry, or battle debris have been found on the abbey site. This absence of physical evidence is a key contradiction to the traditional narrative.
[citation:4] Medieval theological principles regarding burial hierarchy. Saints, founders, and high-status individuals were buried inside churches near altars; common soldiers were buried in churchyards. Mass burial of ordinary soldiers under a high altar would have violated established practice.
[citation:5] Ivan D. Margary's research on Roman roads in the Weald, particularly his 1948 book "Roman Ways in the Weald" and his numbering system for Roman roads. Margary's Route 14 (the London-to-Lewes road) and the connecting ridgeways from the coast provide the geographical framework for understanding Battle Abbey's strategic location on an ancient transport artery.
Links: Kent Archaeological Society - Roman Road research [citation:2] | The National Archives - Margary papers [citation:7] | Society of Antiquaries - Margary collection [citation:7]
[citation:6] Wikipedia - Miasma theory. Documents the miasmatic theory from ancient Greece through the 19th century, including Hippocrates, its acceptance through the Middle Ages, and its eventual replacement by germ theory. Also covers Florence Nightingale's adherence to miasma theory.
Links: Wikipedia (archived) - Miasma theory [citation:3] | Nursing Clio - Miasma Theory: A Primer [citation:8]
[citation:7] 64 Parishes - Getting (Away from) the Vapors. Describes how miasmatic theory led people to fear swamps and decaying matter as sources of disease. "The 'proof' was all around them... Louisianans blamed miasmas for maladies ranging from malaria and typhoid to dengue and cholera."
[citation:8] Central Michigan University - Bioterrorism History. Documents well poisoning and biological warfare tactics from the 6th century BC through the 20th century, including Assyrians poisoning wells (6th C BC), Solon of Athens (6th C BC), the Siege of Caffa (1346), Carolstein (1422), and numerous later examples.
[citation:9] Georgia Tech - Biology and Germ Warfare. Documents medieval biological warfare: "poisoning well water with human remains (1155, Italy), catapulting plague victims into a besieged city (1346, Siege of Caffa), or mixing the blood of lepers with wine for sale to the enemy (1495, Italy)."
Note: For well poisoning in medieval Europe, see also: Barzilay, Tzafrir. Poisoned Wells: Accusations, Persecution, and Minorities in Medieval Europe, 1321-1422. University of Pennsylvania Press, 2022. [citation:5][citation:10]
[citation:10] Multiple sources confirm that germ theory, bacteria, viruses, and groundwater contamination mechanisms were unknown until the 19th century. The connection between buried corpses and water contamination was not understood. [citation:11] Christian Classics Ethereal Library - Holy Water. Documents the ancient and medieval understanding of water as sacred, its use in purification rituals, and its association with deity across Jewish, Pagan, and Christian traditions.
[citation:12] Encyclopædia Britannica, 9th Edition - Holy Water. Documents early Christian adoption of water purification practices, including Tertullian's mention of hand-washing before prayer at the end of the second century.
[citation:13] Taiwan Science & Technology - John Snow. Documents Snow's 1849 pamphlet on cholera, his 1855 expanded study of the Soho outbreak, and the delayed acceptance of his findings until Robert Koch discovered cholera bacteria in 1883.
Links: The John Snow Archive - Michigan State University [citation:4] | UCLA - John Snow website [citation:9]
[citation:14] BBC Bitesize - Discovering the cause of cholera. Documents that Snow's work was not widely accepted during his lifetime and that many continued to believe in miasma theory until Pasteur's germ theory provided supporting evidence.
[citation:15] Science Museum Group - Sir Edwin Chadwick. Documents Chadwick's miasmatic beliefs, his 1846 testimony that "all smell is disease," and his lifelong adherence to miasma theory despite contrary evidence.
Link: Nursing Clio - Miasma Theory (covers Chadwick) [citation:8]
| | Disclaimer ▲ |
|---|
The SaxonHistory reconstruction of Battle Abbey's purpose is best understood as a functional model: it combines contemporary chronicles, topographical analysis (particularly Ivan Margary's road network), medieval theological principles, and the economics of pilgrimage to illustrate one plausible scenario. In this model, the abbey's location was chosen for its accessibility to travelers and pilgrims rather than its historical accuracy regarding the battlefield. The model does not assume deliberate fraud on the part of the Norman founders; rather, it represents a dynamic interplay of spiritual obligation, political necessity, and economic reality.
As a reconstruction, it is logically consistent, plausible, and clearly opinion-based but does appear to fit with: - The absence of archaeological evidence at the abbey site [citation:3]
- The presence of a ridgeway route confirmed by Margary's research [citation:5]
- The documented wealth of Battle Abbey from pilgrimage [citation:1]
- The theological constraints of medieval burial practice [citation:4]
- The 20-year gap between battle and construction [citation:1]
- The practical impossibility of exhuming a mass grave of 4,000 bodies
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Local Interest
Just click an image |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
![Saxon standard bearer](javascript:launch_resize("/images/1066AD/saxon_standard_bearer_lft.png",900,1000);)
