the journal of
The British Deer Society
1066 and all that
Did the Norman conquest change the
nature of hunting in Britain?
By Naomi Sykes
A
t school we were all taught how
the Battle of Hastings was a
defining moment in British
history, the victorious Normans
bringing feudalism, motte-andbailey castles, forests and the associated
forest law, as well as their 'passion for the
chase' to post-Conquest England. This
seems clear enough from the historical
evidence, with 11th Century documents
recounting the effects of 1066. Indeed,
when William the Conqueror died in 1087
the authors of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle
devote most of their year's summary to
complaining about him and, in particular,
the restrictions he placed on hunting:
ln
nppp
44
He set apart a vast deer preser
and imposed laws concerning it
Whoever slew hart or hind was to
be blinded
He forbade the killing of boars
Even as the killing of harts
For he loved the stags as dearly
As though he had been their father
Hare, also he decreed should go
unmolested
The rich complained, the poor
lamented.'
1
Whilst the historical sources appear
fairly convincing, most scholars accept
that 1066 was not as revolutionary as
the 11th Century authors would have
us believe. There is now good
archaeological evidence to suggest that
most of the 'innovations' attributed to
the Normans were already present in
Late Saxon England. For instance, as
we saw in the last issue of Deer, Late
Saxon society was already rather feudal
in its structure and the aristocracy
were particularly partial to hunting
and falconry. So why have the Normans
come to be viewed as masters of the
game: is it myth or reality?
We can begin to answer this question
by examining the archaeological record.
If you remember back to the last issue,
I mentioned how the Late AngloSaxon period saw a marked increase in
the representation of wild animals on
sites of high status.' However, looking
at Figure 1, the Late Saxon rise pales
into insignificance compared to the
frequency of wild animals represented
on settlements of the Norman elite.
This would seem to add substance to
the idea that the Normans were indeed
very passionate about hunting and
must have eaten much more game
than their Saxon predecessors.
Furthermore, the fact that none of the
lower-status sites (rural and urban
settlements) show a similar rise in the
representation of game animals hints
at the type of unequal access to wild
resources that would have accompanied
forest law. But is there any actual
evidence that the Normans established
forests? This is more difficult to
determine.
I should start by explaining that
when we think of forests (e.g. denselywooded landscapes) we are envisaging
something entirely different to the
medieval definition: for the Normans
a 'forest' was simply an area (wooded
or not) that came under 'forest law'.
The New Forest in Hampshire, for
instance, was not particularly wooded
in the medieval period - it was just an
area where people were prohibited
from hunting. Given that forests were,
therefore, legal concepts rather than
physical features, it becomes difficult
to date their origins. Some scholars
0 Rural
10
■ Urban
0 Religious Houses
■ Elite
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Early Saxon
Middle Saxon Late Saxon
Norman
Figure 1. Graph showing how the representation of wild mammals varies by site type and date, shown
as a percentage of total number of bones recovered from archaeological sites. Note the significant
increase in the representation of game animals on elite sites of Norman date.
SO 70 60 50 40 30 20 100
J
■ Red deer ■ Roe deer 0 Fallow deer
Early/Middle Saxon Late Saxon
Norman
Figure 2. Whilst the Late Saxon hunting focused on roe deer, red deer became the preferred
quarry in the Norman period. Note also the first occurrences of fallow deer, which were
re-introduced to Britain, most probably from Sicily, in the late 11th century.
have suggested that the name 'New
Forest' is, in itself, highly interesting,
in that it implies the existence of an
`Old Forest' in the Saxon landscape.'
This is a possibility but, as I have
argued in past issues of Deer, Late
Anglo-Saxon aristocratic hunting
appears to have centred on wooded
areas rather than the kind of open
landscape typified by forests. Certainly
this is indicated by the species they
targeted: Figure 2 shows that roe deer
were the favoured quarry during the
Late Saxon period, when they were
caught by driving groups of animals
into haga and haie (presumably
structures for corralling and
dispatching quarry). 4 By the Norman
period, however, there is a sudden and
dramatic shift towards hunting red
deer, a herding species that will readily
adapt to open landscapes. It also is
noteworthy that with the exception
of wild boar, the red deer was the
preferred beast of venery in medieval
France. With this in mind it is
tempting to suggest that the Anglo
Saxon Chronicle's statement that
William 'loved the stags as dearly as
though he had been their father' is
referring to more than just a personal
preference but rather a wider Norman
tradition of hunting red deer across
,
vast preserves'.
With changes in hunting landscapes
and quarry, it might be expected that
post-Conquest hunters would also
have used different techniques to catch
deer. At the most basic level we know
that, unlike the Saxons, the Normans
were in possession of bows and arrows
and certainly used these whilst
hunting (William's son and heir,
William Rufus lost his life after being
shot in a hunting 'accident' in AD
1100). But there is evidence to suggest
that hunting became a far grander
affair in the post-Conquest period.
DEER 21
Figure 3. The unmaking or 'excoriation' of deer at the end of the par force hunt.
Later medieval hunting manuals
describe the chasse par force - a wideranging hunt of day-long duration in
which a single deer was hunted, killed,
and excoriated (skinned,
disemboweled, and butchered) in a
ritualised and formulaic manner.
According to the hunting manuals
excoriation of the deer was the
culmination of the hunt, where the
huntsmen could demonstrate their
`nobility' through their knowledge of
the procedure and the French
terminology surrounding it (Figure 3).
Various texts outline the unmaking
procedure: the earliest is in Gottfried
von Strassburg's Tristan (written in
1210), but the fullest description is
provided by the late fifteenth century
Boke of St Albans. The texts suggest
that, in the case of a stag, its testicles
and penis were first removed. These
were hung on a stick (the forchee)
which was used to collect various
organs and titbits: the forchee would
later be carried at the front of the
homeward bound procession.
Skinning was then undertaken, and
the animal was split from the chin
down to the genitals and out to each
leg before being flayed down to the
22 DEER
spine. At this point the feet were
removed from the carcass but were
often left attached to the skin. The
skin was then spread out to protect the
venison from the ground, but also to
collect the blood, which was later
mixed with the intestines and bread,
and fed to the hunting dogs. After
skinning, the shoulders and the
haunches were removed and the rest
of the carcass was disembowelled,
butchered, and the meat and antlers
carried home in the skin, presumably
using the feet as handles. Certain parts
of the carcass were given to particular
people: for instance, the `corbyn bone'
(possibly the pelvis) was cast away at
the kill site as an offering to the corbyn
(raven) and the left shoulder was
presented to the forester or parker as
his fee. Once the carcass had been
redistributed, the consumption of the
venison (a word which is derived from
the Anglo-Norman venesoun, literally
`the product of hunting') was also
distributed on the basis of rank: while
the lords consumed the prized
portions, such as the liver and
testicles, persons of lower standing
were offered the remaining offal or
umbles. Indeed, the saying 'to eat
humble lumblei pie' is derived from
the social humiliation association with
the consumption of the poorer cuts.
The origins of par force hunting and
the date at which it arrived in Britain
are unknown, but the Gallicised
terminology surrounding it promotes
the Normans as strong candidates for
its introduction. At face value it would
seem difficult to prove whether or not
this was the case; however, if the
excoriation process was followed to the
letter, it should have left a distinctive
trace in the archaeological record.
And it did.
Late Saxon deer assemblages from
elite sites tend to contain all parts of
the deer skeleton, with bones of the
upper forelimb among the most
numerous elements (Figure 4);
however, those from later medieval
settlements of high status (manor
houses, castles, and religious houses)
are typified by an abundance of foot
bones, especially those of the hindlimb
(Figure 5). There is an almost complete
absence of the body parts that would
have been given away as part of the
excoriation process - the pelvis and
elements of the forelimb being
particularly poorly represented. That
shoulder joints did not arrive back at
high-status settlements is reinforced
by the evidence from late medieval
household accounts, which commonly
record haunches of venison but
seldom mention the presence of the
forequarters.' The whereabouts of
these elements has been demonstrated
by excavations of foresters' and
parkers' residences: the deer bone
assemblages from these sites show an
over-representation of fore-limb
elements indicating that the occupants
were regularly receiving their allotted
portions of venison (Figure 6). All of
these examples date to the later
medieval period but studies of multiphase assemblages, including those
from Eynsham Abbey in Oxfordshire,
Faccombe Netherton in Hampshire,
Goltho in Lincolnshire and the
Cheddar Palaces in Somerset indicate
that hindlimb-dominated skeletal
patterns appear for the first time in
the late eleventh century: where dating
Figure 4. All parts of the deer skeleton are
represented on Late Anglo-Saxon sites of
high status.
permits, they first become apparent
shortly after 1066.
Before it is concluded absolutely that
par force hunting was part of Norman
hunting practice imported into postConquest England, it is worth
examining the evidence from France.
Interestingly, studies of deer
assemblages have demonstrated that
patterns of body parts akin to those of
post-Conquest England do not appear
in northern France until the late
twelfth and thirteenth centuries,
suggesting that Normandy was not the
source of these rituals. The only other
location where I have been able to find
skeletal patterning suggestive of
excoriation practices is in Sicily,
notably at the villa site of Brucato.
While data from a single site need not
be representative of the wider
situation, they may suggest that the
unmaking rituals were of southern,
rather than northern, European
origin. This does not exclude Norman
involvement however, because by the
mid-eleventh century the Normans
had also conquered Sicily and the
island remained under their rule for
over a hundred years. Strong
connections between the Normans of
England and Sicily provided ample
Figure 5. Later medieval assemblages from
high-status sites show an absence of shoulder
elements - portions that would have been gifted
as part of the excoriation process.
Evidence suggests these patterns appear
shortly after 1066.
opportunity for the exchange of ideas
and hunting practice no doubt formed
part of this. Gottfried von Strassburg's
Tristan provides some, albeit tenuous,
evidence to support the Sicilian
origins of the excoriation. In the
hunting scene, Tristan demonstrated
how to excoriate the hart according,
he says, to the 'traditions of his
homeland' (Brittany). It is interesting
to note that, although much of the
terminology he uses is French, the
English hunting party refer to some of
it as Arabic: Arab influence was very
strong in Sicily.
The decades following 1066 were
undoubtedly a watershed in the
development of English hunting. By
comparison with Anglo-Saxon drive
methods, the par force technique was
not an efficient means of obtaining
venison and it must be assumed that
sport and, more particularly, social
display were the main functions of this
style of hunting. The arrival of new
and rather flamboyant hunting
traditions embellished with French
terminology, together with the
restrictions that forest law placed on
wild resource exploitation, would have
been powerful devices through which
the victorious Norman aristocracy
Figure 6. Where did the shoulders go?
To the foresters and parkers as their fee for
assisting the hunt - this figure show the
skeletal patterns for deer assemblages from
parkers' residences.
could display their control over the
subjugated population. Furthermore,
the archaeological data demonstrate
the unparalleled increase in
aristocratic hunting following the
Conquest: it is, then, no wonder that
love of hunting has become so closely
identified with the Normans.
For more details on this research,
please contact Naomi Sykes
[email protected] who
will be happy to forward copies of her
academic papers.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Naomi's work on medieval hunting and the
archaeology of the fallow deer has been funded by
The Arts and Humanities Research Council.
REFERENCES
1 Garmonsway, G. N. 1967. The Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle. Dent and Dutton: London., page 221.
2 See 'Keeping up with the Godwinesons' Deer 15(5),
pp20-23
3 For a discussion of this see MEW, K. (2001). 'The
dynamics of lordship and landscape as revealed in a
Domesday study of the Nova Foresta'. AngloNorman Studies 23: 155-66
4 See 'Origins of the English Deer Park', Deer 15(3),
5 Birrell, J. 2006. Procuring, preparing and serving
venison in late medieval England pp. 176-88 in C.
Woolgar, D. Serjeantson and T Waldron (eds.)
Food in Medieval England: History
and Archaeology Oxford University
Press: Oxford. pp24-27 2010
DEER 23