Reviews

REVIEWS The Carmen de Hastingae Proelio of Guy, bishop of Amiens, edited by Catherine Morton and Hope Munz. 8J M.x5| M. Pp. lxxvi+149, pis. 5, maps 2. Oxford Medieval Texts, 1972. £4.50. A new and accessible edition of this text is sometMng of an event. GUes' edition of 1845 was mamly a copy of Francisque Michel's unsatisfactory one of 1840, but it has been the oMy text commoMy used M tMs country. Even worse, sMce 1944, when G. H. WMte attacked the authenticity of the work, Enghsh scholars have been McMied to doubt whether the poem was written by Guy or whether it was a contemporary account of the Hastings campaign at aU. We now have at last a text based on the manuscripts; and the editors argue persuasively that it is Mdeed the work of Guy of Amiens Mmself, and was perhaps written as early as 1067, wMch would make it prior to WilUam of Poitiers, and the earhest origMal text for the campaign of 1066. If tMs case proves acceptable, and I suspect it will, we must look agaM at the Carmen. It has much less detaU than William of Poitiers; but, if we read it with a fresh eye, there is an aotuahty about its account, and an unusual vividness, particMarly M its description of places. There are a number of poMts M the account of the battle itseh0, particularly the suggestion that WUUam was taken by surprise at the start when Harold seized the MU where Battle Abbey now stands, and so was unable to deploy Ms forces as he had hoped before the battle began. But Kentish archseologists will look especially at the description of Dover, and the account of WUliam's activities there. In four hnes: Est ibi mons alius, strictum mare, litus opacum. Hinc hostes cicius Anglica regna petunt. Set castrum Douere, pendens a uertice montis Hostes reiciens, litora tutafacit. there is a topographical picture almost umque M medieval texts, and eompeUMg evidence of a pre-Conquest castle, wMch our field-workers have yet conclusively to find. Guy also tells us of the expulsion of the Enghsh inhabitants of the city, of the settlement there of the long's Norman foUowers as a secmity; and of the mission of the citizens of Canterbury to Dover to make their submission as the first of the other towns of England to do so. In a page or so, Guy teUs us most of what we know of the early Mcidents M the Norman conquest of Kent. It is a text that ought to be exammed by all interested M the subject. BRUCE WEBSTER 245 REVIEWS The Iron Age in the Upper Thames Basin. By D. W. Harding. 9|-X 7\ m. Pp. 178, 81 pis. (+1 colour frontispiece), 9 figs. Clarendon Press: Oxford Umversity Press, Oxford, 1972. £10. TMs weU-produced book is, substantiaUy, Dr. HardMg's Oxford D.PM1. thesis, a study of the pre-Roman Iron Age M the Upper Thames basM M relation 'to adjacent regions of S. Britain'; it is this latter aspect, with its wider implications, that makes tMs study such an important contribution to Iron Age hterature, quite apart from its importance for the narrower area with wMch it is closely concerned. Dr. HardMg's chapter headings and the division of the book mto two parts, each deahng separately with settlements M the region and the cMonology secured from the study of their material remains, foUow a logical sequence examining both the environmental aspect and typology of his sites, their economic and social orgamzation, and their setting witMn the cMonological framework provided by their artifacts; the Mstorical summary and conclusions of Ms survey are a model of scholarly caution. As well as a copious bibUography, there is Mcluded a detailed gazetteer of sites which will be of the greatest value to other workers M tMs field. From the poMt of view of work not primarily concerned with Dr. HardMg's region, the most important feature of this book is the very detailed pubUcation of the finds. Thirty-mne plates are devoted mamly to pottery but also to metalwork and corns; it is M tMs section and M the notes provided that many paraUels will be found with other sites M the south-east and help perhaps in sorting out some at least of the complications of Iron Age pottery. It is to be regretted, however, that it was decided to print these text figures as plates on heavy art paper; for tMs must, undoubtedly, be the main reason for the high price of tMs book which wiU place it beyond the reach of the average student, a fate wMch this study certaMly does not deserve. A. P. DETSICAS Some Kent Children. By Margaret PMlhps. A new history teacMng unit based on K.C.C. ArcMves. Outer cover and seven separate folders. K.C.C. SuppUes Department, Maidstone, 1972. £1 (70p for schools). These folders, illustrating aspects of the fives of Kent chUdren from the seventeenth to the mneteenth centuries, represent tremendous value for money. Each contams abundant illustrative material, McludMg facsimUes of documents, photographs of places, monuments and museum objects, with very fuU explanatory notes for teachers and students. Inevitably, the best sections are those that are based upon 246 REVIEWS private famUy papers, for example, the diary of Eva Knatchbull- Huggessen, aged 12, for 1873 and the coUection of schoolboys' letters from 1670-1790—one cannot but have a feUow-feehng for Tom SackviUe, aged 10, who ended Ms school letter M 1672 with T was M hast or els I wold a writ better and more'. Of the others, perhaps the 'Borough ChUd' and the 'Parish ChUd' are the best but aU contaM material of Mterest wMch would be difficult to find elsewhere. The coUection will be of great value to teachers who appreciate the value of usmg original documentary material m the teacMng of Mstory. A. C. HARRISON The Sutton Hoo Ship Burial. By R. Bruce-Mitford. 9| M.x7£ in. Pp. 103, 8 colour plates, 34 monocMome plates, 36 line drawmgs. British Museum, 1972. £1.50. It is tMrty-tMee years sMce the excavation of the Sutton Hoo ship and its unrivaUed treasure, the study of wMch has revolutionized our concept of seventh-century cultural attaMment. In 1947, the British Museum issued a Provisional Grade to the material when it was first placed on exMbition, the Second World War havMg prevented previous display or pubhcation. The conclusions reached then remaM for the most part unchallenged, although Mtensive research on several objects and leisurely reappraisal of the circumstances of the burial now call for some correction and restatement. The new handbook, reviewed here, brings us up to date with the latest scholarly conclusions and is, both in its text and iUustrations, of exemplary standard. Little more can be attempted in tMs review than to mention several of the new Mterpretations wMch differ from those previously accepted. None of the thirty-seven associated MerovMgian gold coMs is now considered later than A.D. 630 and the hkely date for the assembly is put at 625. TMs makes it probable that the kMg commemorated was Raedwald {d. 625/6) who was converted to Christiamty during a visit to Aethelbert's court M Kent but lapsed into partial pagamsm later. Bede says that he had a temple M wMch was 'an altar for the Sacrifice of Christ side by side with an altar on wMch victims were offered to devUs'. The curious mixture of CMistian and heathen associations M the sMp accords very weU with these Mstorical circumstances. AetheUiere (d. 654), once the favourite candidate, is now ruled out as beMg too late. A phosphate concentration associated with the sword, traced m re-excavating the site M 1966-8, suggests that there may, after aU, have been a body laid on the keel-line, and the sMp and its contents 247 REVIEWS were not necessarfly a cenotaph, the extreme acidity of the soil havmg destroyed aU visible traces of bones and teeth. As for the sMp itseh0, it may have possessed a sail in the opMion of Harald Akerlund, despite the lack of direct evidence of a mast noted by the excavators. OpMion on some aspects of the structure has been mochfied and the provisional drawmgs made m 1939-40 by the Science Museum require considerable correction as to detail. Recent work on the helmet has led to a new reconstruction, and the bronze stag, once thought to have surmounted the iron stand, is shown M fact to have formed the fimal of the whetstone-sceptre—an impressive symbol of Mngly authority. Fragments of what was first recogmzed as a harp are reconstructed as a lyre, and the previous restoration of the two drinkmg horns is seen to be M need of revision. There is less connection with Kent than might appear on first consideration. The cloisonne- jeweUery is different M aU-over style from the Kentish products and may have derived from Swedish workshops. But gold-foU bacMng of the garnet-set cells is paralleled in Kent, as is the filigree on the shoulder-clasps, wMle a brooch from Faversham is recogmzed as of the 'Sutton Hoo' school. Swedish Mfluence is predommant, notably M the hehnet, sMeld, great bucMe and purse-hd decoration, suggesting that the rulMg house of East Anglia, the Wuffingas, was of Swedish origm. Even a work of such scholarsMp as tMs is not without blemishes, and one is startled to find on p. 68, in discussing the sigmficance of the Saulos and Paulos spoons, that St. Paul the Apostle is described twice as havMg been a pagan before his conversion to CMistianity. P. J. TESTER Field Archceology in Britain. By John Coles. 8x5£ M. Pp. 267, 78 figs., 8 pis. Methuen, London, 1972. £3.50. (Also pubhshed as a University Paperback, £1.75.) It is now twenty-five years sMce Methuen pubhshed AtMnson's Field Archaeology, destined to become an Mdispensable aid to professional and amateur field workers ahke and soon out of print; M that time archseology, boosted by television and the publicity given to some dramatic discoveries, became very popular as seen M the continuous growth of local societies and research groups. To cater for tMs popularity, there followed a spate of textbooks settmg out to ensure that at least some of tMs activity was well informed, notable amongst them Kenyon's Beginning in Archceology (1953), Piggott's Approach to Archceology (1959) and Webster's Practical Archaeology (1963); now Coles enters tMs field with Ms weU-presented manual which, M many 248 REVIEWS respects, is not unhke AtkMson's M conception, though naturaUy it does contaM several advances in archseological technology sMce 1946. The author is a preMstorian and, as perhaps is to be expected, tMs period receives promMence; indeed, two of Ms chapter headMgs are 'Prehistoric archseology' and 'The orgamzation of preMstoric archseology M BritaM', but tMs emphasis need not M the least deter those interested in other archseological fields. It is, of course, a commonplace in archseology that, apart from matters generally of detail, basic techMques vary normally httle from one period to another, and tMs book admirably demonstrates tMs. In six chapters, it covers a diversity of subjects both techmcal, such as surveymg, recording and preservation, and procedural, hke how sites may come to hght and what steps may be needed before their exploration may be undertaken as well as topics of a more personal nature, such as labour relations and what the author engagMgly calls 'conscience and confession'; tMs reviewer read with admiration a whole chapter devoted entirely to 'Understandmg the evidence', a topic that some field workers may justifiably be accused of often neglecting. The book is Ulustrated by many diagrams and drawMgs, very clearly reproduced, and several photographs; here, perhaps, an opportumty was missed, in a manual with such a general title, of McludMg a few plates of other sites, too, and redress the balance so heavily M favour of prehistory. The pubhshers should be congratulated not only for adding yet another title to their long fist of archseological publications but also for a first-class production which is very easy to the eye; and the author for writing such a book M a lucid and pleasant style which succeeds in its aim, to Mform and supplement its predecessors in tMs field—it wholly deserves to foUow its parent and soon become out of print. A. P. DETSICAS Thomas Johnson—Botanical Journey in Kent and Hampstead. Edited by J. S. L. Gilmour. 9 M.X6 in. Pp. 167, pis. 26, maps 4. Hunt Botamcal Library, Pittsburgh. (N.p.) TMs is a most weU presented and interesting pubUcation. Mr. Gilmour's precise and careful comments show the simUarity of the Kent flora M Johnson's thne in the 1600s to the present day. Although some species have dechned or become extinct since then, many which are still comparative rarities M the British flora can stiU be found where Johnson clearly records them M the Kent countryside. Credit must also be given to Canon C. E. Raven's translations of Johnson's 'Descriptio Itineris' so well reproduced M the facsmiile plates. A clear comparative map study enables the reader accurately to 249 REVIEWS trace the journeys and a httle ecological detection confirms Mstorical opMion on the nature of the North Kent landscape M the 1600s. Conservatiomsts should take comfort from the evidence of contimiity that tMs earhest Mstory of Kentish plants shows—M what must be one of the parts of the British Isles most altered in the course of the last 300 years. R..M. FOULDS 260