1. Introduction

1.1 Context

Winston Churchill once called battles “the punctuation marks of history” (Lynch and Cooksey 2007, p. 19). Names like Antietam, Culloden, Gettysburg and Hastings evoke images of triumph and glory, but also of violence and bloodshed. A battle can end an era or mark the beginning of a new one; it can even raise men to kings. Within the course of a few hours, history can be changed forever. The punctuation mark is set.

But what happens after the battle has been fought? All that is left is a seemingly empty field which played an important role once. Andrew Brown of English Heritage aptly stated that if Churchill was right, “then battlefields are the fragmentary pages on which those punctuation marks were written in blood” (Sutherland 2005, p. 12). As fragments, they are rapidly erased from the shared memory until they are only remembered in local lore or completely forgotten; they can be damaged and reclaimed. If a battlefield survives as a place of importance, however, it becomes a resource to tribes, peoples and nations. The writing is resumed.

Although battlefields have attracted a growing interest both from the academic world and the general public in Britain since the mid-19th century, they have only been acknowledged as heritage resources in the last decades (see App. A). Now, interpretive programmes draw hundreds of thousands of visitors to the fields per year; emerging methods and disciplines contribute to the knowledge about past conflicts. The fragments are rediscovered and reinterpreted.

Management planning for fields of conflict in the United Kingdom has only partially been realised effectively. Even sites which are regarded as visitor attractions have not drawn up management plans. Guidelines have been issued, but if so, address only certain thematic areas. Thus, comprehensive guidance for the management of British battlefields is needed. This dissertation will propose a guideline framework for the compilation of management

1 plans and test it against the planning frameworks of several historic battle sites in the United Kingdom.

After a theoretical review, the methodology is explained and the guideline framework introduced. Results are presented and discussed in relation to the theory. At the end, a summary draws conclusions and gives recommendations.

1.2 Targets

1.2.1 Aim of the Dissertation

Historic battlefields in the United Kingdom have scarcely received attention as management entities. Now, that more and more schemes for their presentation and safeguarding are being initiated, guidance is needed. The aim of this investigation therefore is to establish and test a practical guideline framework for management planning at British historic battlefields.

1.2.2 Objectives

Define British battlefields. Explain the legislative background for the protection of battlefields in the United Kingdom. Describe the current management situation of British battlefields. Develop a guideline framework for the management planning at historic battlefields. Test this framework against case studies from the United Kingdom.

1.2.3 Hypotheses

The investigation aims to test the following hypotheses:

(i) Every British battlefield represented by an organisation needs a management plan. (ii) The presented guideline framework provides appropriate guidance for planners at British battlefields.

1.3 Background

Compared to the measures undertaken in the USA or Canada (see App. B), the efforts for the professional protection and management of conflict sites in the United Kingdom are still at the very beginning. Piekarz (2007) ascribes this to a variety of reasons, such as the lack of confidence in locating the field(s). He goes on to explain that the appeal of battlefields in Britain is not as great as, for example, in the USA, because of the temporal distance and the small scale of the conflicts. Freeman (2001) observed that the opening up of battlefields as an attraction is, in most cases, connected to tourism. But a heightened interest from authorities and the general public and contributions from the academic world have, over the last decade, led to a growing professionalisation of battlefield management in the British Isles.

Separate heritage registers could be introduced for English (EH 1995b) and Scottish (HS 2011b) battlefields. During their compilation battle sites have been investigated with analysis techniques from several disciplines. Some historic battlefields are professionally managed by heritage organisations and local authorities; at others, interest groups have been set up. A remarkable percentage of these have recognised the potential and offer guided tours, trails and/or visitor centres with exhibitions.

In the course of this professionalisation, it is essential to raise the quality of the management to standards established and widely accepted for other properties.

A decade ago, the US National Park Service, responsible for the management of a high number of historic battlefields in the USA, called for the drafting of conservation plans in a

3 never before seen guidance document (NPS 2001). Influenced by the achievements made through structurised management planning at American battlefields, this has been picked up by British authors like Sutherland (2005, with Partida) and Foard (2008). In their publications, they recommend that management plans be drawn up for British historic battle sites.

Guidelines issued in the United Kingdom (Heritage Lottery Fund 2008, Natural England 2008) agree that in heritage, proactive planning in the form of an officially approved document can help in developing a suitable management framework, however small the site. It gives the owner(s), the planners and the general public an overview over the strategies needed for the conservation and presentation of the site and details the necessary steps. Battlefields are complex sites with a varied stakeholder audience: A management plan offers consistent and continuous orientation for all involved parties. Historic Scotland (2011c, p. 9), which equally advocates the advancement of written documents, argues that management planning at battle sites can even set the parameters for “new research or information to be added, developing our knowledge base and understanding of a site over time”.

While particular areas of planning have been addressed in the literature, no comprehensive model has been constructed. Therefore, a framework will be presented and tested in this paper.

1.4 Theoretical Review

1.4.1 Definition of the Resource

Although many historic battlefields of Britain posses high value because of their natural features alone, these fields are important because of the battles which were fought on them. It is the association with a battle that turns the seemingly empty field into a heritage resource (Piekarz 2007). So in order to be able to define a battlefield, crucial to the management of these sites, the first step must be to understand which action constitutes a battle and which not.

Over the course of centuries, warfare has radically changed, not least because of the introduction of firearms at the end of the Middle Ages. It is therefore difficult to propose a single, coherent definition of battle. Foard (2008, p. 4) offers a reconciliatory classification of historic battles:

“A battle is here taken to be an action involving wholly or largely military forces, present on each side in numbers comprising battalion strength (i.e. totalling c. 1000 or more), and normally deployed and engaged on the field in formal battle array.”

The reliance on the number of combatants to define military actions attracted criticism (see Newman 2004). Carman (1997, p. 217) suggests another approach: A military action is classified according to certain characteristics. “Organised violence [...], clear function and purpose [and] ritualised elements” indicate a battle.

Other types of offense actions must insofar be excluded from the definition, in that they lack either the formal array of troops or the declared intent to fight or both. These actions encompass the skirmish, the ambush, the border conflict, the clan warfare, the civil unrest, and the massacre (MacSween 2001, Foard 2004b, Foard and Partida 2005, Sutherland 2005).

The siege takes a special position among military actions. Scott and MacFeaters (2011) emphasise that as a conflict of a primarily defensive nature with built structures predating

5 the action, it has to be classified as a distinct form of warfare. A more detailed overview is given in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 below.

Armed Conflict

Offence Defense

Siege

Armed attack on a fortified built structure, often of longer duration.

Fig. 1: Typology of Armed Conflict and Definition of “Siege” (MacSween 2001, Foard 2004b, Foard and Partida 2005, Sutherland 2005).

Battle •Armed organised conflict of larger scale, with the pre-signalled intent to fight.

Skirmish •Armed conflict of smaller scale, often spontaneous and unplanned.

Ambush •Armed attack on a group of armed or unarmed persons from a concealed position.

Border Conflict •Armed conflict over and along a territorial border.

Clan Warfare •Armed conflict of smaller scale between members and associates of hostile clans in the Scottish Highlands.

Civil Unrest •Armed or unarmed uprising of a group or groups of people against the ruling authority.

Massacre •Armed mass killing of (an) armed or unarmed group / groups of people.

Fig. 2: Types of Offence Actions and their Definition (MacSween 2001, Foard 2004b, Foard and Partida 2005, Sutherland 2005).

Historic battlefields have variously been described as sites or landscapes (Carman 2005). Terminology like battlescape, battle terrain, battle site and field of conflict add to the confusion. Essentially, battlefields are both and this typology needs to be taken into consideration when managing the resource.

In the simplest terms, a battlefield is “an area of land over which a battle was fought or significant activities relating to the battle occurred” (HS 2010, p. 2). The site therefore encompasses the “area of fighting”, “vantage points”, “overnight camps”, “natural [and] built elements” used in the action, “burials” and “memorials” (HS 2010, p. 3).

However, the field should not be regarded as an isolated site. In the majority of cases, historic battlefields were deliberately chosen because of their strategic setting in the landscape (Carman 1997). Lynch and Cooksey (2007) recommend that as a consequence the field be investigated within the context of the wider area. A battlefield thus also needs to be considered as a “landscape associated with military conflict super-imposed on pre- existing natural and cultural forms” (Bull and Panton 2000, p. 8). The term battlescape (Pollard 2004) has been introduced to avoid the comprehensive connotation of landscape. It should not be confused with battle terrain, however, a “component of the battlefield landscape” (Bull and Panton 2000, p. 8). Military terrain comprises all the features on the field which were either used in or created for the action (Carman and Carman 2006).

1.4.2 The Protection and Management of Battlefields in the United Kingdom

. The Legislative Background

Newman (2004, p. 34) identified battlefields as the “most complex and difficult landscape type to characterise and conserve”. Non-visibility of remains, the landscape change over centuries and the lack of research and thus factual information (Pollard 2004, Piekarz 2007) make the definition and protection of the resource a challenge. Battlefields face a variety of threats. Above all, their easy accessibility exposes them to treasure hunters on search for valuable items. Unauthorised fieldwalking and metal detecting do not only

8 contribute to the illegal trade of finds, but with the removal of unrecorded artefacts from the field the opportunity for investigation within the context is also lost (Foard 2008).

While treasure hunting is carried out furtively, large scale developments are visible on many of Britain‟s fields of conflict. Threats encompass road construction, mineral extraction, soil chemistry and cultivation, land use change, forestry, industrial buildings and increasingly, housing schemes (Foard and Partida 2005, Pollard and Banks 2010).

Many initiatives to counter those threats have been put into practice in Britain, however with limited success. As national heritage, battlefields are meant to enjoy protection from treasure hunting both under enacted laws and common law principles.

The Treasure Act 1996, valid in England and Wales, dictates that all finds need to be notified to the local coroner via the police.

In Scotland, all lost and abandoned property automatically belongs to the Crown and needs to be registered with the Treasure Trove Panel.

Northern Ireland banishes metal detecting only from designated historic monuments under the Historic Monuments and Archaeological Objects (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (Lynch and Cooksey 2007).

However, control is barely possible. In a parliamentary debate in 2003, the representative of the Department for Culture, Media and Sports had to admit that no effective protection mechanism is in place for battlefields (Sutherland 2005).

Human remains found on fields of conflict are equally protected by national legislation (a complete catalogue of guidance works can be found in Sutherland 2005). The reinterpretation of a statute introduced in 2008 requires all human remains to be reburied within two years, a process which would significantly affect the research potential and disregard innovative future investigative methods (Sample 2011).

Until recently, no separate heritage inventory for battlefields existed; the recognition of places of conflict was limited to siege sites (Foard 2004b). Experience has shown that legislative substitute designations like Scheduled Ancient Monument or Listed Building have failed to protect the extensive grounds of battle sites (MacSween 2001).

Therefore, English Heritage set up a register for battlefields of national importance in 1995. In order to be included in the list, fields of conflict had to be locatable on a map, and be of political, military and/or biographical significance. This inventory was non-statutory, i. e. no protective designation was awarded to fields of conflict. However, local authorities have been obliged to give listed fields planning consideration status ever since, a strategy which was aimed at ensuring profound assessment before granting planning permission. Out of 69 battle sites, surveyed primarily in the form of historical analysis, 43 were chosen for inclusion on the register (Brown 1994, Foard 2008).

This policy attracted criticism. MacSween (2001) argues that the boundaries are not extensive enough to effect protection. Foard (2008) notes the lack of revision and of systematic archaeological surveying. Pollard (2004) points out the failure of the register‟s agenda with the example of Tewkesbury battlefield, where housing development was initially permitted and could only be halted by public protest (Piekarz 2007).

In 2011, a similar register was introduced for Scotland with the Historic Environment Amendment Act 2011. During the consultation process by Historic Scotland 17 sites of national importance were chosen. 11 further sites will be considered by Local Authorities HS 2011b). Although non-statutory, this inventory will afford a higher level of protection for the listed sites. The lessons from the English register have been learned: Historic Scotland recommends that, in addition to planning consideration, the status of Conservation Area, a local statutory designation, be awarded to battlefields (HS 2011a). Furthermore, sites have been surveyed with a combination of desk-based research, landscape analysis and archaeological investigations. In order to be listed in the inventory, fields have to be identifiable on a map with relative accuracy, be either associated with key historical events or figures, have high archaeological potential and/or relate to the landscape setting (HS 2010).

No such register exists for the fields in Northern Ireland. Cadw, the responsible heritage organisation in Wales, is currently considering the introduction of an inventory (see App. C, Berry no date).

. British Battlefields and their Characteristics

Britain has in many ways been shaped by its violent past and, as such, is a repository of conflict sites (see App. C). However, only battles of national importance were included in the register(s) (Foard and Partida 2005).

The 43 battle sites of the English Register are (in alphabetical order):

Tab. 1: The Battlefields inscribed on the English Register (Piekarz 2007, p. 33). Battlefield County Year Adwalton Moor West Yorkshire 1643 Barnet Greater London 1471 Blore Heath Staffordshire 1459 Boroughbridge North Yorkshire 1322 Bosworth Field Leicestershire 1485 Braddock Down Cornwall and Isles Scilly 1643 Chalgrove Oxfordshire 1643 Cheriton Hampshire 1644 Cropredy Bridge Oxfordshire 1644 Edgehill Warwickshire 1642 Evesham Herefordsire 1265 Flodden Northumberland 1513 Halidon Hill Northumberland 1333 Hastings East Sussex 1066 Homildon Northumberland 1402 Hopton Heath Staffordshire 1643 Langport Somerset 1645 Lansdown Hill Bristol 1643 Lewes East Sussex 1264 Maldon Essex 991 Marston Moor North Yorkshire 1644 Myton North Yorkshire 1319 Nantwich Cheshire 1644 Naseby Northamptonshire 1645 Neville's Cross Durham 1346

Newburn Ford Tyne and Wear 1640 Newbury Berkshire 1643 Northallerton North Yorkshire 1138 Northampton Northamptonshire 1460 Otterburn Northumberland 1388 Roundway Down Wiltshire 1643 Rowton Cheshire 1645 Sedgemoor Somerset 1685 Shrewsbury Shropshire 1403 Solway Moss Cumbria 1542 Stamford Bridge East Riding of Yorkshire 1066 Stoke Field Nottinghamshire 1487 Stow Gloucestershire 1646 Stratton Cornwall and Isles Scilly 1643 Tewkesbury Gloucestershire 1471 Towton North Yorkshire 1461 Winceby Lincolnshire 1643 Worcester with Powick Worcestershire 1651 Bridge

Sites chosen for inscription on the Scottish Register encompass (in alphabetical order):

Tab. 2: The Battlefields inscribed on the Scottish Register (HS 2011b). Battlefield County Year Alford Aberdeenshire 1645 Ancrum Moor Borders 1545 Auldearn Highland 1645 Bannockburn Stirling 1314 Bothwell Bridge South Lanarkshire 1679 Culloden Highlands 1746 Dupplin Moor Perth and Kinross 1332 Dunbar II South Lanarkshire 1650 Falkirk II West Lothian 1746 Glenshiel Highland 1719 Harlaw Aberdeenshire 1411 Killiecrankie Perth and Kinross 1689 Kilsyth North Lanarkshire 1645 Philiphaugh Roxburghshire 1645 Pinkie East Lothian 1547 Prestonpans East Lothian 1745 Sherriffmuir Stirling 1715

Other than the rather recent conflicts in North America or in the colonialised states, battlefields on British soil date back to the pre-industrial period. This makes their investigation and management a challenge. Firstly, historical eye-witness accounts, maps and secondary sources about the battle are either non-existent, brief or inaccurate (Pollard 2009a). Secondly, scarcely any battle terrain survives due to the ongoing land use change and erosion (Bull and Panton 2000). And thirdly, the deployment of small, mobile troops covering only small areas (MacSween 2001), led to limited battle grounds which are difficult to locate. For example, the battle site of Brunanburh (937), a decisive victory of Anglo-Saxon kings against an allied Norse, Gaelic and Northumbrian force, has never been identified. Suggestions placed it on locations ranging from Southern Scotland to the English Midlands (see App. E, Cathers 2002, Halloran 2005).

If a battle site can indeed be verified, archaeological investigations unearth only a small amount of resources, such as iron arrows for the late medieval and early modern period, and lead bullets for the 16th to 18th centuries (Foard and Partida 2005). Finds are limited because battlefields were usually stripped of valuables right after the battle, treasure hunters collected items or resources have decayed. Human remains relating to battles, in (mass) graves or on the field, are a rare find in the United Kingdom. Towton battlefield may be the one exception where an archaeological investigation managed to excavate a large quantity of skeletons (Fiorato et al. 2007).

. The Management of Battlefields in the United Kingdom

Historic battlefields in Britain are represented by a variety of schemes, as depicted in Tab. 3 below.

Tab. 3: A List of British Battlefields with Representation and/or Interpretive Programmes (Personal Communication, Boal, 20th May 2011, Coulson, 11th June 2011, Goodchild, 21st June 2011, Knox, 9th June 2011, Malloy, 12th June 2011, Nock, 8th June 2011, Robinson, 9th June 2011 , Taylor, 12th June 2011; Aberdeen City Council 2011, Battle of Cheriton Project 2008, Battle of Linlithgow Bridge 1526 2009, Battle of Prestonpans no date, Battlefield 1403 ca. 2011, BT 2008, 2011 a, b, and c, Cotsworld Journal 2011, English Heritage 2011, Flodden 1513 ca. 2011, Glenlivet Estate ca. 2011, Hopton Heath Battlefield Memorial Project ca. 2010, McCann 2010, Musselburgh Conservation Society ca. 2011, Naseby Battlefield Project 2011b, NTS 2011 a and b, Pearson 2008, Simon de Montfort Society ca. 2011, The Northern Echo 2011, Visit Bude 2011, Visit York 2011).

Battlefield Representation and/or Programme Bannockburn Bannockburn Heritage Centre (NTS) Boroughbridge Tours by Jorvik Viking Centre (Responsibility: Council / Private Landowners) Bosworth Field Bosworth Battlefield Heritage Centre and Country Park (Responsibility: Council / Landowners) Cheriton Battle of Cheriton Project (Responsibility: Council / Landowners) Cropredy Bridge Trail, linked with Edgehill and Edgcote Battlefields (Responsibility: Council / Private Landowners) Culloden Culloden Visitor Centre (NTS) Dunbar II Heritage Lottery Fund Bid for Development (Responsibility: Council / Landowners) Edgehill Trail, linked with Cropredy and Edgcote (Responsibility: Council / Landowners) Evesham Battlefield Trail (Responsibility: Council / Landowners) Flodden Flodden 1513 (Responsibility: Council / Landowners) Glen Livet Glenlivet Estate Harlaw Commemoration Week 2011 (Responsibility: Council / Landowners) Hastings 1066 Battle of Hastings, Abbey and Battlefield (EH) Homildon Homildon Hill Battlefield Project (Responsibility: Council / Landowners) Hopton Heath Hopton Heath Battlefield Memorial Project (Responsibility: Council / Landowners) Killiecrankie Killiecrankie Visitor Centre (NTS) Linlithgow Bridge Battle of Linlithgow Bridge 1526 (Responsibility: Council / Landowners) Marston Moor Tours by Jorvik Viking Centre, Re-enactments (Responsibility: Council / Landowners) Myton Battlefield Walk, Tours by Jorvik Viking Centre (Responsibility: Council / Landowners) Naseby The Naseby Battlefield Project (Responsibility: Council / Landowners)

Neville's Cross Battlefield Walk (Responsibility: Council / Landowners) Philiphaugh Philiphaugh Estate Pinkie Battlefield Walk and Proposed Pinkie Battlefield Group (Responsibility: Council / Landowners) Prestonpans Battle of Prestonpans 1745 (Responsibility: Council / Landowners) Sherriffmuir Representation by Stirling before Pylons (Responsibility: Council / Landowners) Shrewsbury Battlefield 1403, Visitor Centre (Responsibility: Council / Landowners) Stow Guided Tour, Planned Survey (Responsibility: Council / Landowners) Stratton Battlefield Walk (Responsibility: Council / Landowners) Tewkesbury Tewkesbury Battlefield Society (Responsibility: Council / Landowners) Towton Towton Battlefield Society (Responsibility: Council / Landowners) Winceby Battlefield Walk (Responsibility: Council / Landowners) Worcester with Powick Battle of Worcester Society (Responsibility: Council / Bridge Landowners)

Out of the 60 fields on the registers, six can boast a dedicated visitor centre (Bannockburn, Bosworth, Culloden, Hastings, Killiecrankie and Shrewsbury) with separate site managements, offering trails, guided tours, exhibitions, etc. The artefacts excavated from others are presented in off-site exhibitions. Only few are managed professionally by organisations such as the National Trust for Scotland. So far, estate management plans at Shrewsbury and Philiphaugh encompass the battlefields; at Bosworth and other English battlefields, planners are in the process of drawing up site-specific plans (Personal Communication, Nock 8th June 2011, Knox 9th June 2011, Burley 7th July 2011).

A rather recent phenomenon is the battlefield society or project. Often born from initiatives against imminent threats to a battlefield, the society will gradually evolve into an association of like-minded enthusiasts and possibly come to develop a planning framework. Beginning with the Naseby Preservation Society in 1975 (a fusion to prevent

15 the construction of a road on the battlefield, see App. C, Foard 2004c), this idea was followed up at sites like Towton, Tewkesbury and Prestonpans.

Where the responsible organisation / authority does not own the field and/or where no public rights of way are in place, visitors are unable to experience the sites and the field cannot only be conserved with difficulty. The solution to this dilemma lies in a purchase of lands by the state, a model very successful in the USA (NPS 2001). But as historic landscapes, battlefields are vast. Empty coffers have forced many British authorities to resort to the so-called Antietam Plan, a strategy which was first put into practice at Antietam battlefield in the United States. A small parcel of land, such as the site of a memorial, is owned by the authority, with the rest remaining in private possession (Pollard 2004). This way, the field or at least parts thereof are accessible to all.

1.4.3 The Current State of Guidance

At present, no customised guidance on how to draw up management plans for historic battlefields of the United Kingdom is available. The subject of battlefield management has been touched repeatedly in the academic literature, but usually from a specific angle. Planners in pursuit of comprehensive information have to scan a wide variety of material in order to get a good overview over issues and problem areas. The situation is reversed for practical guidelines issued by British heritage authorities like Natural England (2008) or the Heritage Lottery Fund (2008): Advice on how to draw up management plans is given, but only in very general terms.

The available literature can be grouped into four categories. On the one hand, there are the general manuals applicable to several types of heritage resources, including battlefields. On the other hand, there are books and articles which give guidance on specific subject areas. A third group is formed by those publications which depict a more diversified programme of battlefield research and management, while fourthly, only one guidance publication focuses specifically on the drafting of conservation plans for battlefields.

1) “Conservation Management Planning” is a guideline publication issued by the

Heritage Lottery Fund (2008), addressed at those properties which apply for a grant

(and need to fulfil the criterion of having a written plan). It is aimed to be helpful to

management entities of a wide variety of properties and as such, can be used as an

orientation document by those planning for a historic battlefield. Recommended

sections encompass a general description of the site with inventories / gazetteers,

the management context, the assessment of significance, risks and opportunities,

conservation management aims and a costed action plan. The structure is similar to

the one presented in Natural England‟s “Preparing a Heritage Management Plan”

(2008), where additionally a separate monitoring and review section is highlighted.

2) Battlefield management from a specific angle has been addressed in various books

and articles, most prominently in the resource assessments of English (2008) and

Scottish (2005, with Partida) battlefields for the Battlefields Trust by Foard.

Guidance is given on how to identify threats and appropriate (scientific) research

methods. The latter is the primary topic of “Battlefield Archaeology” by Lynch and

Cooksey (2007) and of manifold publications coming from the Centre for

Battlefield Archaeology at the University of Glasgow. The possibilities for

interpretation on historic battle places are laid out in Piekarz‟s (2007) “It‟s Just a

Bloody Field! Approaches, Opportunities and Dilemmas of Interpreting English

Battlefield”. And finally, “Managing Change in the Historic Environment –

Historic Battlefields” by Historic Scotland (2011c) is a guidance note which is

directed at planning personnel in local authorities. It suggests strategies for the

planning of development on historic battlefields.

3) A broader programme is presented in John and Patricia Carman‟s “Bloody

Meadows” (2006). The project is the result of extensive landscape analyses of

various historic battlefields in Britain and abroad. Advice on how to research,

interpret, mark and protect the resource can be gleaned. Equally comprehensive is

Tim Sutherland‟s “Guide to Battlefield Archaeology” (2005), where first and

foremost archaeological techniques, and secondly issues of tourism,

commemoration and legislative protection are described. The most encompassing

framework can be found in the Vimy Charter (Bull and Panton 2000), a document

which was drawn up after an extensive expert consultation about the conservation

of Vimy battlefield in France. Directed at managers of 20th century sites of conflict,

it is still useful for planners of older sites, because not only does it identify crucial

management areas, it also gives recommendations. “Research and Documentation”,

“Authenticity and Integrity”, “Planning, Treatment and Conservation”, “Repairs

and Maintenance”, “Commemorative Layers”, “Use (Education, Tourism,

Commemoration)” and “Visitor Understanding and Response” (Bull and Panton

2000, p. 9-11) are addressed.

4) The only publication with direct reference to historic battlefields is “Guidance for

developing a Battlefield Preservation Plan” by the US National Park Service

(2001). With focus on the conservation of the resource, it lists the following

components of a management plan:

2) The Location 3) Cultural and 1)The Historical and Geographical Natural Resources Significance of the Area of the on and within the Battlefield Battlefield Battlefield

4) Current 5) Brief History of 6) Current Land Use of the Battlefield Condition of the Past Protection and its Immediate Battlefield Efforts Surroundings

7) Short- and Long- 9) Planning Term Threats 8) Community Capabilities and Past (Man-made and Characteristics Performance of Local Natural) Governments [...]

11) Analysis of the 12) Attitudes of the 10) Priority Most Effective Local Community, Parcels needing Local Elected Protection Protection Officials and [...] Methods [...] Landowners [...]

13) Partnerships, Strategies, and Actions to protect the Battlefield

Fig. 3: The Contents of a Model Management Plan as given in the Guidance Document by the US National Park Service (NPS 2001, p. 4-6).

The guidelines given are applicable to British battlefields, but several aspects

crucial to the management of pre-industrial battlefields are left out. Moreover, it

should not be forgotten that the National Park Service acts as the full or partial

owner of the fields, a status unimaginable for British sites.

Management plans compiled for battlefields in other countries cannot be used as model documents, because in the majority of cases, sites are post-industrial and managed in park- like structures with larger grounds, abundant signage and extensive facilities (Andrus 1999, Parks Canada 2000).

2. Methodology

Historic battle places as resources are complex and even more so as administrative entities. A comprehensive guideline framework tailored to the specific requirements of battlefields was therefore needed. In order to fill this void, the investigation relied on case study research, a strategy which has proven helpful in the phrasing of new management theories (Baxter and Jack 2008). Case study research was preferred over other methods, because it allowed an in-depth exploration of planning mechanisms at several sites (Yin 2009).

In a first step, a theoretical model based on the outcome of the literature research and on original ideas was developed, encompassing strategies and suggestions for practical applications. In a second step, this framework was tested against two carefully screened battle sites in depth and a selection of other battlefields in brief. The report is structured thematically: The theory is introduced and described for every management area and then contrasted with the mechanisms employed at the sites.

Two cases were selected for in-depth study. Culloden battlefield is the professionally managed site in possession of the organisation, while Tewkesbury battlefield is under the joint care of local authority and battlefield society with a varied ownership. Both stand for critical and representative examples in the management landscape of the United Kingdom; a single case scenario would have been likely to yield relevant results. The cross-case synthesis approach employed here, however, increased the comparability and generalisation. Since not only the overall site management is covered, but also the various sub-entities, every case was equally treated like an embedded single scenario (Yin 2009).

This is complemented by a qualitative survey of the representations of six other historic battle places in the United Kingdom. The sample was made up of the 19 battlefields with professional management and/or representation by a society / project, excluding the two in- depth case studies. Fields without active representation had to be disregarded.

Data collection was geared towards elucidating the practical application of management planning at the sites. A questionnaire directed at visitors therefore had to be ruled out, as

20 this would have primarily explored the public opinion and/or perception. For the in-depth cases, sources of data encompassed the relevant literature, site-specific documentation, field observations (App. H), and most importantly, semi-structured interviews with managing staff / volunteers (App. I). A question catalogue was developed on the basis of the guideline framework beforehand and adapted to the characteristics of the site representations.

For the six mini case studies, data was collected through a survey of representative bodies (App. J). The questions in interview form were e-mailed to managers and volunteers from professional organisations, societies and projects. Six interviews were returned. In the first question, the form of management and the situation of ownership at the sites were ascertained (“How do you manage the battlefield? Do you own the field or parts of it? If not, how do you ensure collaboration with the owners?”). Questions two (“What are the issues and challenges in battlefield management?”), three (“How does your management framework look like? What are your key issues?”) and four (“What do you want to achieve over the next five years?) were aimed at elucidating the key issues and future plans of the organisations. As a last step, interviewees were asked if they had a management plan or if they were in the process of doing so.

Pattern-matching (Yin 2009) and SWOT grid analyses were conducted for the interpretation of the data, based on an analysis for heritage properties first suggested by Beeho and Prentic (1997). The original Strengths – Weaknesses – Opportunities – Threats model usually applied to business entities was too general for a suitable analysis. It was therefore changed to a Matches – Incongruities – Prospects – Applicability (Limitations) approach. Beeho and Prentic (1997) define the categories of analysis as activities, settings, experiences and benefits. In this investigation, the guideline framework is contrasted to the results in the categories of programme and planning documentation.

Results obtained through qualitative data are by far not as reliable and valid as those gained through quantitative data collection (as it might contain a bias), but such an analysis would not have been viable because

a) management planning at historic battlefields is difficult to quantify and b) the sample is (as of yet) too small for statistical assessment.

Given that two cases from both ends of the spectrum were intensively studied and that the mini case studies are equally varied, the results derived from the investigation can be generalised for the remaining fields.

3. The Proposed Guideline Framework

3.1 Format of a Management Plan

The guideline publications issued by British authorities recommend that management plans should follow the established standard (Heritage Lottery Fund 2008, Natural England 2008). It is expected that the document contains orientation sections, such as introductory paragraphs, a table of contents and an index. All contributing parties need to be named and acknowledged.

The starting point for the drafting of a new management plan should always be a review of the last plan, if there is one. A comparative analysis between the proposed strategy of the previous plan and the current management reality will identify if aims and objectives have been achieved. This can be done continuously or specifically at the design stage. Ideally, continuous evaluation methods are in place and can feed into the plan.

It is also beneficial to put the site and the management mechanisms into the wider context, e. g. by listing existing designations, agri-environmental schemes (Foard 2008) and other initiatives and/or by referring to local policy documents which encompass the site (HS 2011c).

The description of the property, vital to the understanding of issues, is usually followed by a statement of significance and the elaboration of the management strategy. Thematic paragraphs introduce the current situation and contrast them with the proposed future strategy, expressed in aims and objectives. The realisation of the strategy is addressed under implementation, in most cases with the help of an action plan. It gives a clear overview over the time span and methods and shows when the objectives will be realised.

These formatting standards are fully applicable to battlefield management plans, but need to be adapted to the specific requirements of the heritage resource, as is detailed below (for a model management plan, see Fig. 9 on p. 42-43)

3.2 Special Considerations

o Even before ideas and strategies are structurised in preparation for the actual plan, it is imperative to consult all resource-specific planning legislation and guidance documents, e. g. the planning policy guidelines (PPG and PPS) issued by the government, the local plan(s) and the guidance publications by English Heritage, Historic Scotland, Natural England, Scottish Natural Heritage, etc.

o It is best to limit scope and content of battlefield management plans in the first generation. Average publications cover a 5 to 10 year period and are highly detailed. A scope of less than 5 years and a focus on core issues will serve properties with the representation by a society well. Professionally-managed sites can extend their plans accordingly.

o The vision (or mission statement), the abstract of the planning framework at the beginning of the document, should be phrased with caution. Societies and even professional organisations often lack the financial backing to implement planned projects at battle sites. If worded too ambitiously, the mission statement will convey the wrong message to staff, volunteers and the interested public.

o Battlefields are landscapes. As such, they are not isolated sites, but part of the natural environment and home to a variety of flora and fauna. Where necessary and/or useful, the plan can include measures for biodiversity conservation and landscape management (Heritage Lottery Fund 2008).

3.3 Description and Significance

In planning documents, a specific combination of factors needs to be taken into consideration to characterise battlefields. As both landscapes and sites, places both of associative and archaeological value and as locations with a varied use, the list is extensive (for a comparison, see Tab. 4 on p. 27-28). If not addressed under the thematic sections later, the characterisation also entails the analysis of issues and problems.

The description of the location (with Grid reference and/or coordinates) is ideally complemented by one or several maps (Natural England 2008), showing details of the property and possible buffer zones. Most battlefields in the United Kingdom have not been scientifically surveyed or only in parts, which is why setting clear und undisputed boundaries can be difficult. However, for planning purposes, at least a property boundary needs to be established, depending on the current state of research and/or the consent of land owners. This will encompass the area where the main battle action took place (Foard and Partida 2005). The plan must, by all means, soundly justify the choice of the grounds based on the results obtained so far.

The description of the battle can either be done in continuous text form as has been done in the entries of the Battlefield Registers or with the help of a model, e. g. as proposed in the Bloody Meadows project (Carman and Carman 2006).

Vital components are the historical context and terrain the decision for the battle place the description of the opposing forces, troops and regiments the battle action and the aftermath.

Maps are useful tools to elucidate troop arrays and movements (Foard and Partida 2005, Carman and Carman 2006). The plan must not refer to secondary works only: The analysis of primary sources like historical eye-witness accounts, maps, pictures, drawings and

25 contemporary newspaper articles adds to the quality of the description (and sources should be given in the text) (Lynch and Cooksey 2007, Pollard 2009a).

But such accounts do not necessarily have to be truthful (for various reasons, see Sutherland 2005). Innovative fields of science like battlefield archaeology, landscape analysis and military geology have over the last two decades increasingly contributed to the knowledge base (HS 2011c). Comparisons between historical accounts and survey results have changed the perception of battle actions or even relocated battle grounds, as at Bosworth Battlefield (Foard 2009). If investigations have been conducted at the battlefield, their results are crucial to the battle description.

For the battlefields inscribed on the registers, statements of significance have been drawn up, but not in a concise form. A brief summary of how the criteria set for the inventory are fulfilled, in conjunction with a more elaborate argumentation for authenticity and integrity in the text, is beneficial.

A timeline of the historical use of the field might be added, leading up to the depiction of the current state of the battlefield.

This encompasses: the management context protective designations condition and natural heritage (possible) development threats past conservation measures (Foard and Partida 2005) and facilities and resources on site (buildings, memorials, interpretive markers)

If applicable: Inventories of the military terrain (Bull and Panton 2000), the archaeology and geology (HS 2011c). Inventorisation facilitates the identification of conservation needs and gives a good overview over the features of the field.

Ownership and responsibilities are to be stated clearly; conflicts at historic battle sites arise mostly from disputes about usage (see App. E).

Tab. 4: A Comparison of Descriptive Models for Historic Battlefields (EH 1995a, p. 1-8, Carman and Carman 2007, p. 41, Foard and Partida 2005 (Gazetteer), Parks Canada 2007, p. 13, HS 2011d, p. 1-23, NPS 2011).

English Heritage Register Register of National Battlefields Trust - Historic Landmarks, USA Scottish Fields of Conflicts Gazetteer Name (Date) Name Summary Parishes Picture Context District Place, State Action County County Troops Grid Reference Exact Location Commemoration & Historical Context National Register Number Interpretation Location and Description Resource Type Assessment Landscape Evolution Property Type Location The Sources / The Battle Threat Level Primary Sources Indication of Importance Congressional District Secondary Works Battlefield Area Certified Local Government Battle Archaeology Public Access Battlefield Historic Terrain Maps Visitor Information Significance Statement of Significance Current State of Condition Development Recommendation / Current Designations Change since Last report Potential Threats References Bibliography Scottish Register Register of National Bloody Meadows Project Historic Sites, Canada Date Commemorative Integrity Locations Authority Extent NGR Together with Descriptive Landscape Type Overview Information in Text Form Description of Landscape The Battle and Current Use The Armies Description of the Battle Numbers Marking of Battlefield and Losses Interpretation Action Aftermath and Rules of War Consequences Agreement to fight: Y/N

Events & Participants Mutual Recognition as Context “Legitimate” Enemies: Y/N Other Notable Participants Level of Violence: High, Middle, Low Physical Remains & Potential Marking of battle site:

Physical Remains Participants: Cultural Association Commemoration Functional Aspects & Interpretation Dysfunctional Aspects Battlefield Landscape Location Battlefield Architecture Terrain Features present: Condition Type of Feature used: Inventory Boundary Type of Feature not used: Bibliography Use of Terrain: As cover To impede Visibility To impede Movements Structured Formations: Y/N

3.4 Stakeholders and Public Participation

The importance of good stakeholder relations at battlefields cannot be highlighted enough. Fields of conflict in the United Kingdom are complex sites, often with shared (private) ownership, easy access and considerable numbers of nearby local residents. The majority of the sites are in private hands and/or cared for by volunteers (Pollard 2004). The interests of these preservationists often clash with the owners‟ and industry‟s agenda, as not only numerous examples from America show (see App. E). A community group in Stirling, for instance, fought for the conservation of Sheriffmuir battlefield against a powerline developer (Pearson 2008).

Planners therefore need to take the interests of the stakeholder groups into account and realise the various resulting opportunities. In the planning process, it is purposeful to identify and consult with all relevant stakeholders, but especially with local residents (primarily the local community will be affected by changes, see Brent 2000).

Tab. 5: Relevant Stakeholders of Historic Battlefields in the United Kingdom. Level Stakeholder Group Authorities on National Department for Culture, Media and Sports Level English Heritage / Historic Scotland Natural England / Scottish Natural Heritage Forestry Commission Authorities on Local Level Local Planning Authorities (Councils) Other Projects / Societies / Managements Collaborating Museums and Universities Academics (Archaeologists, Historians, Geographers, Geologists) Nearby Attractions Tour Operators / Touristic Enterprises Visitors Local Residents Land Owners (Future) Developers Media Metal Detectists

A list of stakeholders (see Tab. 5) can be incorporated into the plan, but the section must focus on the overall strategy, i. e. how stakeholder relations can be improved and opportunities can be exploited. For example, a regular exchange with the authorities guarantees up-to-date information on development projects, while contact to research institutions can instigate scientific surveys. Visitor experience programs and/or packages can be developed with tour operators and accommodation boards; the media play an important role as multiplicator of events, interpretive offers and charity campaigns. Additionally, it is useful to detail how the contact to the metal detecting associations is managed. A collaboration, such as under a research institution-led, regulated investigation, can increase the available equipment and manpower in scientific surveys and provide an incentive for legal surveying (Sutherland 2005).

An increase in public participation can generally be achieved in the form of interpretation, by inviting more people to the friends group / society or by various projects, e. g. the erection of a memorial or the development of a local exhibition (as has been done at

Prestonpans battlefield, see App. E). Plans should be presented with aims and objectives; a justification gives reasons for the realisation of the projects.

3.5 Research

Research is one of the cornerstones of battlefield management. Without proper knowledge of the resource, many projects could not be realised effectively. For conservation purposes, the military terrain, the geology and archaeological find scatters need to be identified; the battle and its aftermath cannot be interpreted without neutral und unbiased information (Bull and Panton 2000). It is therefore vital to encompass in the plan why, how and when research was / will be conducted and what it has contributed to / will contribute to the state of information. The results ought to be presented in a thoughtful way, making use of maps, graphics, tables and drawings to undermine and illustrate the statements (NPS 2001).

For decades, research at British battlefields meant the reconstruction of the battle action by military historians through the analysis of documents (Pollard and Banks 2010). While this still plays a central role, advances in science have made other, more reliable approaches possible. Authorities in the field (Sutherland 2005, Lynch and Cooksey 2007, Foard 2007, HS 2011c) agree that a three-tier strategy, consisting of historical research, landscape analysis and archaeological surveying, is most adept to solving the issue (see Fig. 4). An overview over approaches and techniques and examples can be found in App. D and E.

Historical Research

Analysis of Historical Documents / Outcome: Location, Battle Action, Maps / Paintings / Drawings Terrain

Landscape Analysis Earthwork Survey, Geophysical Outcome: Battle Landscape and Survey, Fieldwalking, Analysis of Terrain, Geology Samples, etc.

Archaeological Investigation Excavations, Aerial Photography, Outcome: Battle Landscape and Electromagnetic Conductivity Survey, Terrain, Troop Arrays and Metal Detecting, Fieldwalking, etc. Movements (through Find Scatters)

Fig. 4: The Three-tier Approach to the Research of Battlefields (Sutherland 2005, Lynch and Cooksey 2007, Foard 2007, HS 2011c).

The combination of all three strategies guarantees comparatively unbiased and scientifically-based results. Planners, however, will want to describe in the plan how the methods employed were/are adapted to the specific situation of the field and make sure that the research is realistically planned (resources, equipment, funds, etc.)

3.6 Commemoration

Commemoration at historic battlefields in the United Kingdom fulfils two purposes. As at other battlefields worldwide, it is aimed at the remembrance of the battle, its participants and/or the fallen. Occasionally, commemorative devices also enlighten visitors about the aftermath of the battle, i. e. the consequences and impact. In the United Kingdom with its historic battlefields predating the Industrial Revolution, it has the added benefit of visualising events which took place on the seemingly empty field (Dore 2001). It thus provides a gateway to the understanding of the battle (Carman and Carman 2006).

It is without questioning that on- as well as off-site commemoration should strive for an inclusive and meaningful representation of both sides.

Tab. 6: A List of Devices used for Commemoration on Historic Battlefields (Carman and Carman 2006). Commemorative Device Type Features Memorial Monument Informative and/ or Commemorative Text. Plaque / Marker Plate / Board / Stone Informative and/ or Commemorative Text. Re-enactment Event Costumed and Acted Reconstruction. Commemorative Event Church Services, Celebration Celebrations, Unveiling Ceremonies, Festivals, Themed Days. Contemplative Space Place Designated Space on the Battlefield with or without Commemorative Markers.

There is no miracle solution for how planners should deal with commemoration. But given the variety of possibilities (see Tab. 6) on British battlefields, it is a topic of central importance in management planning. A separate programme might not be necessary, especially for properties which rely on the existing memorials and markers. If, however, commemoration is planned and implemented on a larger scale, the management plan should provide adequate space for the measures. The strategy could, for instance, detail the instalment of new markers (and their costs, materials and locations) or describe planned commemorative events. In this case, an impact analysis might also be beneficial.

3.7 Interpretation and Education

The majority of listed battlefields in the United Kingdom offer some form of interpretation (see Tab. 3 on p. 34). Organisations and societies rely on interpretation because not only can it be implemented with a relatively low budget (on a small scale). It also marks the site, visualises the battle action and raises awareness and appreciation for the conservation

32 of the site (Carman and Carman 2006). Consequently, the inclusion of an interpretive strategy is vital for creating a comprehensive management plan.

First and foremost, a theme should be devised. Based on this theme, interpretive aims and objectives are phrased. Interpretive media and activities are introduced next, complete with aims and objectives and a detailed description. The budget, implementation and evaluation will also have to be considered. A difference between interpretation for adults and for children should be made (Veverka 1998, Brochu 2003).

Interpretation at historic battle places needs to be planned visitor-orientated: Only intriguing storylines will catch the attention of the visitors. And battlefields offer many unusual possibilities, whether it is the re-narration of a soldier‟s experience in the battle (Lees 2001) or the explanation of the use of the historic terrain. The reliance on intriguing storylines does not mean that it will be untruthful and inaccurate. On the contrary, interpretation of battlefields should always take the latest state of research into account (see the example of Hastings battlefield in App. E) (Foard 2007).

If the field is still unmarked, planners will want to focus on the set up of interpretive panels and markers in their strategy (Brochu 2003). A re-narration of the battle action as well as the depiction of the battlescape, the troop arrays and movements are good starting points. Viewsheds at several locations, markers on the field and biographical texts provide more elaborate means of display (and should always be undermined with pictures, drawings and maps).

Interpretive media suitable for battlefields are:

Tab. 7: Media and Activities used for Interpretation at British Historic Battlefields. Interpretive Medium Aim Relevance Guided Tour (often also called To make visitors experience Most used medium on British “Walk”) the battlefield with personal battlefields. Ideally suited for guidance. the contextualisation of events and finds. Audio Tour To make visitors experience In the development stage for the battlefield with audio battlefields. Guided guidance. exploration of the field. Visitors can choose what to listen to and can walk the field in their own pace. Trail (often also called To make visitors experience Set up at some battlefields, it “Walk”) the battlefield independently. offers routes around archaeological find scatters. Visitors can choose what to read and can walk the field in their own pace. Panels To give a brief overview over The standard device at British the battle and the field at battlefields with comparatively strategic points. low costs. Visitors can choose what to read. Website To inform a broad audience Set up for the majority of fields about the offers and under the care of an representation of the site. organisation. Platform for quick and easy information provision. Leaflet or other Print Media To introduce visitors to the Primarily available at battlefield on- and off-site. professionally managed fields. Often used as a medium for trails and/or events. Visitor Centre with Exhibition To provide an information Only set up at a handful of gateway to the battle and the sites, often with flat rooftops battlefield on site. for viewing and panel-rich exhibitions. More centres are planned. Educational Materials / Tours To provide a suitable way for Available at some battlefields. for Schoolchildren children and young persons to understand the significance of the battle and its site.

In battlefield interpretation, it is imperative that no side is favoured, so that no misconceptions about the battle arise (Sutherland 2005). The plan must identify how a balanced information provision will be implemented.

3.8 Communication and Media

Communication is a powerful tool in heritage management. Via the methods of marketing, PR and advertisement, visitors are informed about the site and its offers. Sponsors and donors can be attracted as well as public support for the conservation of the site garnered.

Even though many battlefields now have their own websites, the communicative potential of historic battlefields in the United Kingdom has not been fully exploited so far. But as most battle sites are situated in the countryside, marketing efforts are necessary to draw in visitors and to raise awareness for the resource. Therefore, a separate strategy in battlefield management plans will not only identify necessary steps, but will also co-ordinate these steps with the measures detailed in other programs. The plan needs to state aims and objectives of the communication strategy, the methods, the media which are useful as multiplicators and the target groups.

Communication should not only be directed towards the visitor, but to all stakeholders. In order to achieve a balanced outreach, a variety of measures can be employed, such as press releases, advertisements, websites, blogs, leaflets or fundraising events. These instruments should be employed according to the character of the field (distance to settlements, conservation needs, marketing potential, etc.), the current situation (threats, successes, scientific surveys, etc.), the target group and the budget (Runyard and French 1999). Market research can be linked to a visitor survey or, at bigger properties, conducted in the form of focus groups (as has been done at Bosworth, see App. E).

3.9 Visitor Management

Although British battlefields are far from attracting the numbers of sites like Gettysburg or Antietam, they are visitor attractions in their own right. Where public rights of way and

35 easy access are provided (see Fig. 5), sensitive areas of the field might be trampled and archaeological resources taken away or destroyed (Bull and Panton 2000, Foard and Partida 2005). But battlefields are part of the national heritage and visitation should be enabled. The adoption of a sensible strategy can therefore contribute to avoiding damage. Additionally, offers which enhance the visitor experience and considerations about safety and signage (Shackley 1999) can be introduced and developed within this framework. An analysis of the current situation, together with the overall aims and objectives are to be stated in the plan; separate sections can be dedicated to the improvements.

Fig. 5: Access Model No. 1: Easy Accessibility without Routes.

It is useful to assess the visitor numbers and groups first, e. g. by observation or ticketing. Where the demand is low, it might be sufficient to place interpretive information as well as a request for consideration of the site. Where visitation is high, a more elaborate visitor management system is required (Shackley 1999).

Many heritage sites have had success with the introduction of a walking route or trail system: A circular or linear route directs visitors around the site and explains important facts via the means of personal guidance, information boards, panels, leaflets or, rather recently, handheld devices. Paths can be hardened, depending on the sensitivity of the field (Boyd 2008). The clear advantage of such systems is that the route can be taken

36 independently and laid out onto less sensitive parts of the site. Hardened paths, moreover, are accessible for the disabled (see Fig. 6).

Fig. 6: Access Model No. 2: Trail / Route System.

The above-mentioned Antietam Plan (Pollard 2004) can be an alternative where the battle place is in private ownership. Access is granted to a location within the field, such as a memorial or plaque (see Fig. 7).

Fig. 7: Access Model No. 3: The Antietam Plan (Pollard 2004).

Whichever alternative the representation relies on, it is necessary to address access in the plan and describe routes on and around the battlefield. Collaboration with the owners should be sought in order to allow visitors onto the field (NPS 2001).

Only few of the battlefields in Britain provide purpose-built facilities like toilets, car parks and visitor centres. The latter improves the visitor experience by offering exhibitions and information and serves as an orienteering point. It is questionable whether the dire financial situation will permit more battle site to erect facilities, but at heritage sites without visible remains, such centres are crucial in the presentation. Where nearby facilities can be used, the management plan needs to elaborate how visitors are directed to them.

It can and should describe the on-site offers. Is the property staffed? And if so, how do staff and volunteers assist visitors? Are the needs of the disabled considered? Are informative signs and publications provided? (Shackley 1999).

The plan moreover should consider collaborations with the local authorities, tourist boards and tour operators. Integrating the battlefield in a wider marketing strategy does not only increase the attractiveness of the region, but helps raise awareness and appreciation for the site among visitors.

3.10 Conservation and Protection

The primary aim of battlefield management is the conservation of the resource, i. e. the safeguarding of finds, remains and battlescape and the prevention of negative development. It is pivotal for the maintenance of the field, and consequently, for the preservation of knowledge about the battle (Bull and Panton 2000, NPS 2001). The diversity of the resource allows many different conservation approaches. The choice of an appropriate method depends on the characteristics of the field, the financial situation and the feasibility of the method(s). The strategy can be presented in the current situation – improvement format in the plan, but if measures are planned, separate sections should be dedicated to the methodology and justification.

Built Heritage

Landscape, Artefacts Biodiversity

Conservation

Fig. 8: Conservation of Historic Battle Sites (Birnbaum 1997).

Conserving the resource means either the conservation of the field itself or its flora and fauna (landscape conservation, biodiversity conservation), of finds (artefact conservation) or of remains on the surface, e. g. memorials (conservation of built heritage) (see Fig. 8). All three are largely achieved when the site is both inscribed on one of the battlefield registers and enjoys conservation area status. Other designations are useful for parts of the field. It should be made clear in the plan how these designations contribute to the conservation (MacSween 2001).

A reconstruction of the battlescape, as it has been done in the USA (Pollard 2004), is not applicable to the British fields. Drastic landscape changes have altered the face of many battle sites over the centuries (Carman and Carman 2006) and historic descriptions are not precise enough to justify such reconstructions. Landscape conservation, however, helps to ensure that the battle terrain is largely maintained as it is. Various methods can be detailed in the plan, such as inventories with directives, regular fieldwalking or the relocation of paths (Sutherland 2005, HS 2011c).

For the conservation of finds, battlefield archaeology provides many techniques. No matter which method is used, a systematic and professional recording is crucial so that scientists

39 can interpret the artefact within the context. Finds are commonly stored in museum collections, where they can be conserved with professional expertise. The plan should indicate past and future projects as well as give an overview over finds and their locations.

The plan might also indicate the conservation or even reconstruction of remains. Whether as part of the battlescape or as pre-/post-conflict structures, conserving them can contribute to maintaining the landscape in a complementary state.

The protection of a battlefield in the United Kingdom is not only achieved by conservation, but equally by the involvement and information of stakeholders. This is a proactive approach and direly needed if battle sites are to survive. Planners should think carefully about what their site requires and integrate it into the plan. For example, on-site displays, interwoven with interpretive media, can inform visitors about the proper behaviour (no trampling, no treasure hunting, etc.). If the circumstances permit it, information days can be held. Addressed at volunteers, local visitors and metal detecting associations, a themed day will deepen the understanding about the conservation needs of the site and open up partnership opportunities.

Although initiatives like the Naseby Preservation Society have demonstrated how important reactive projects are (Foard 2004c, see App. E), planners need to consider the development of proactive frameworks for situations of threat in the management plan. Liaising with developers and authorities and the involvement of the local community can contribute to the prevention of harmful projects. At least those battlefields which are inscribed on the registers will be notified of planning applications in time, owing to their special consideration status.

3.11 Fundraising

With a lack of financial resources, fundraising is a major concern for historic battle sites in Britain. Ideally, the plan includes a budget calculation at least for the next 5 years, detailing the income-generating measures and costs. Fundraising can be achieved with admission charges, events, sponsorship opportunities and donations (also in the form of

40 gift-aid admission). In the latter case, it is highly important that the society/project has the status of a charitable organisation. Costs encompass materials and resources, scientific surveys and consultations (if not conducted pro rata), conservation measures, communication efforts and salaries for paid employees. If volunteers are involved, a depiction of the monetary equivalent of their commitment is also useful.

3.12 Monitoring and Evaluation

Monitoring and evaluation are essential parts of heritage management. They ensure a quality control of all the realised measures and, through an analysis of the results, give planners the opportunity to rephrase the strategy accordingly (Natural England 2008). If not already detailed in the above-mentioned points, a separate section in the plan should be dedicated to the various methods. Clearly defined variables need to be used and ideally, employed in the same form over the duration of the plan to enable comparability. The outcome feeds into the review of the plan, a necessary step to improve the strategy.

Title Page 2.2.9 Possible Development and Threats Acknowledgements Table of Contents 2.3 Planning Context List of Tables and Figures Local Plan, Access List of Abbreviations Agreements and Restrictions 1. Introduction 2.4 Statement of Significance 1.1 Context (optional) 1.2 Vision

1.3 Scope of the Plan 3. Stakeholders and Public 1.4 Review of the Last Plan Participation

2. Description 3.1 Characterisation of Stakeholders 2.1 The Resource 3.2 Current State of Stakeholder Collaboration and Public 2.1.1 Location of the Battlefield Participation 2.1.2 Boundary and Buffer Zones 3.3 Measures for Improvement 2.1.3 Historical Context and Terrain Aims and Objectives 2.1.4 The Participants Strategies 2.1.5 The Battle

2.1.6 The Aftermath 4. Research

2.1.7 Sources / Bibliography 4.1 Current State of Research 2.1.7.1 Primary Sources 4.2 Measures for Improvement 2.1.7.2 Secondary Works 4.2.1 Historical Research 4.2.2 Scientific Research 2.2 The Battlefield Past and Present Consultations and Feasibility 2.2.1 Battlefield Management / Methods and Costs Responsibility / Representation

2.2.2 Ownership 5. Commemoration (optional) 2.2.3 Past Conservation Measures

2.2.4 Protective Designations 5.1 Commemoration on the Field 2.2.5 Current Condition 5.2 Plans for Future Commemorative 2.2.6 Past Scientific Surveys and their Devices Results (optional) Demand, Justification and 2.2.7 Inventory of the Terrain, Feasibility Archaeology and/or Geology Plans and Costs (optional)

2.2.8 Facilities and Resources on Site

6. Interpretation and Education 9. Conservation and Protection

6.1 Current Interpretive Programme 9.1 Current State of Conservation 6.2 Measures for Improvement 9.2 Measures for Improvement Theme Aims and Objectives Aims and Objectives Methods and Feasibility Plans for Interpretive Budget and Media and Activities Implementation Budget, Implementation and Evaluation 10. Fundraising

10.1 Current Means of Fundraising 7. Communication and Media 10.2 Measures for Improvement 7.1 Channels and Methods 7.2 Measures for Improvement 11. Monitoring and Evaluation Aims and Objectives 11.1 Monitoring Budget and Methods and Implementation Implementation Market Research (opt.)

11.2 Evaluation 8. Visitor Management Methods and 8.1 Current Access and Route Implementation Systems 8.2 Current Offers and Facilities 12. Budget and Implementation 8.3 Measures for Improvement 12.1 Action Plan Aims and Objectives 12.2 Costs and Projected Income Access

Offers 13. References Visitor Marketing

Budget and 14. Appendices Implementation

Fig. 9: Model Management Plan for British Historic Battlefields.

4. Results

4.1 Typology of the Case Studies

Bosworth Battlefield Heritage Centre and Country Park, Culloden Battlefield, Homildon Hill Battlefield Project, Philiphaugh Estate, The Battle of Pinkie Cleugh, Tewkesbury Battlefield Society and Towton Battlefield Society are the investigated site representations. Geographically dispersed (Fig. 10) and of diverse character (Fig. 11), they represent the wide variety of schemes in place at historic battlefields in the United Kingdom.

Fig. 10: The Locations of the Case Studies (© Google 2011).

In the graphic below (Fig. 11), the degree of professionalisation and the extent of planning of the organisations are expressed (for criteria see App. F).

30 Bosworth Tewkesbury Battlefield 25 Battlefield Society Towton Battlefield Culloden 20 Philiphaugh Battle of Society Battlefield Worcester Society Estate

15 Homildon Hill Battlefield

10 Project Extent of Planning of Extent The Battle of 5 Pinkie Cleuch

0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Organisation - Degree of Professionalisation

Fig. 11: Organisational Typology of Site Representations.

4.2 In-depth Case Studies

4.2.1 Characterisation

Culloden Battlefield (Culloden, Highlands, Scotland)

Fig. 12: Culloden Battlefield as seen from the Visitor Centre.

Culloden is the site of the infamous last battle on British soil. Charles Stuart, the Jacobite pretender, landed in Scotland in 1745 with the declared intention to regain the Scottish, if not the British throne, for his father. The rebellion was suppressed by government forces under the Duke of Cumberland. After previous encounters at Prestonpans and Falkirk, the opponents met on Chùil Lodair Muir near Inverness on 16th April 1746. The Jacobite army, drafted from supporters of the cause, entered the fight tired and severely disadvantaged. Within an hour, they were defeated and the majority of combatants killed. Charles had to flee Scotland and never came back (see App. G, HS 2011d).

Today, Culloden battlefield is managed by the National Trust for Scotland (see Fig. 13). A part of the battlefield, close to Inverness on the B9006, is owned by the organisation and

46 was subsequently granted and bought over the last decades. Culloden was opened up to visitors in 1959, providing a first information centre which was later replaced. A third centre was opened in 2008 (Gold and Gold 2007, MacLean et al. 2007).

General Manager

Fig. 13: The Management Structure of Culloden Battlefield (Boal, Personal Communication, 20th May 2011).

Until a decade ago, the interpretation in the visitor centre was based on inaccurate information, attracting criticism (Gold and Gold 2007, Pollard 2007). This changed with the first archaeological excavations in the course of the TV show Two Men in a Trench, instigated by the archaeologists Tony Pollard and Neil Oliver (2002), and the realisation of the Culloden Battlefield Memorial Project. This initiative was aimed at deepening the knowledge about the battle and its field, and subsequently, overhauling the presentation both in a newly-built visitor centre and on the field. More scientific investigations were conducted, combined with historical research (Pollard and Banks 2010).

Culloden attracts approximately 250,000 visitors per year and is one of only few professionally managed historic battlefields in the United Kingdom (Boal, Personal Communication, 20th May 2011).

Tewkesbury Battlefield (Tewkesbury, Gloucestershire, England)

Tewkesbury is the site of a decisive Yorkist victory in the War of Roses. In a military campaign against the Lancastrians, the deposed King Edward IV already defeated the “Kingmaker” Warwick at the Battle of Barnet on 14th April 1471. The Lancastrian allies, Queen Margaret, her son Edward and the Duke of Somerset, had previously landed at Weymouth in order to reinforce their ranks. On their march to Wales to seek support from Jasper Tudor, they were forced to face the enemy at the river Severn on 4th May 1471 (Fig. 14). Tired and exhausted from the march, they were no opponents for the battle-ready king. Ca. 2,000 men were killed in the battle and many more tried and executed afterwards. Edward IV was reinstated to the throne and reigned peacefully for the next 12 years (see App. G, EH 1995a).

Fig. 14: The Abbey at Tewkesbury, Point of Retreat for the Lancastrian Army, lies North of the Registered Battlefield Area.

Today, the battlefield is managed and partly owned by Tewkesbury Borough Council; the remainder of the grounds are in private hands. An independent volunteer organisation, the Tewkesbury Battlefield Society, is committed to the conservation of the field and offers an

48 interpretive programme in collaboration with the town museum. Founded in 1997, it also organises the annual Medieval Festival of the town, an event which focuses on the battle. Since the council is not the sole owner of the site, it has been unable to treat the battlefield as a comprehensive entity. Attempts have been made, such as with the set-up of a battle trail or the drafting of a management plan in the 2000s (Wilson no date), however with limited success. The latter mainly focuses on the introduction of appropriate signage and the conservation of the historic landscape. None of the detailed measures has been fully realised. Currently, the public body ensures the maintenance of and access to the grounds in possession and considers possible planning applications (Goodchild, Personal Communication, 21st June 2011).

Much of the site has been built over (e. g. in the form of housing and a cemetery) and is enclosed by the settlement. Ca. 500 visitors come to see the battlefield per year (Goodchild, Personal Communication, 21st June 2011).

4.2.2 Management Planning at the Sites

The results for Culloden and Tewkesbury battlefields are displayed on the left- and right- hand side, respectively. The text lists the currently employed mechanisms and provides an outlook on future plans. This is complemented by a grid analysis of Matches, Incongruities, Prospects and Applicability (Limitations) between the guideline framework and the results (see 4.2.3).

 Special Considerations

Culloden does not have a vision / mission statement, but aims to “deliver[...] excellence” (Boal, Personal Communication, 20th May 2011, qu. 1) to the visitors who come to the site. This is expressed in the various offers as well as the purpose-built facilities (visitor centre, car park) (Fig. 15 and 16). Culloden relies on long-term planning (five to ten years), justified by its management under a leading Scottish heritage organisation and its importance in the

49 international and national context (Pollard 2007, Boal, Personal Communication, 20th May 2011, qu. 1 and 10). Cullden battlefield is considered in the Highland Council Local Plan (Highland Council 2006).

Fig. 15: The Visitor Centre at Culloden Battlefield.

Fig. 16: The Fighting Lines are marked with Red Flags for the Government Forces, as seen above, and with Blue Flags for the Jacobite Troops (© Solen Charlou).

Tewkesbury Battlefield Society has a clear vision of its future: “The [...] Society is a group of interested people who want to preserve, promote and interpret the history, archaeology and natural history of the sites associated with the battle for the present and future generations” (TBS ca. 2011). Aims and objectives, laid out for the short, medium and long term and spanning more than 10 years of planning, largely coincide with the ideas elaborated in the management plan. Given the circumstances, they are very ambitious and it is unlikely that they will be implemented in their entirety. Various efforts for the realisation have been made, most notably the drafting of an asset register (TBS 2010), a combined inventory / action plan, which lists all important features of

the field (with ownership, significance, maintenance needs, improvement opportunities, safety and accessibility). The Battlefield is considered in the Local Plan (TBC 2006, p. 73).

 Description and Significance

Culloden was, as the most recent battle on British soil, already well- documented in historical sources, but is after the completion of the Memorial Project one of the best researched historic battle places in the United Kingdom. The results have not only fed into the new exhibition on site, but also in the depiction of the battle and its field in the Scottish battlefield register (Fig. 17). The register entry, which could feed into a management plan, lists crucial components of the description, such as the battle action, the boundary and the bibliography (for a full overview see App. G). The scientific surveys which have been conducted for Culloden are not separately inventorised, but mentioned throughout the text and referenced to in the bibliography. While the characterisation addresses the current use and condition of the battlefield, it does not provide a concise inventory of the features nor an overview over the management context and ownership of the site, something which would have to be added in a planning document. Likewise, no argumentation which briefly states how the criteria for inscription on the register are fulfilled is given. This is due to the fact that authenticity and integrity are argued for in the textual description (HS 2011d).

Fig. 17: The Boundary of the Registered Area of Culloden Battlefield (Delineated in Red) (HS 2011d).

A characterisation of the battle and the battle landscape for Tewkesbury battlefield was drawn up by English Heritage in the course of the Battlefields Register (and this influenced the depiction in the management plan, App. G). It is not comprehensive, omitting crucial points like the condition and focuses on the battle, e. g. in the statement of significance. The presented bibliography is comparatively small: Only two primary sources are relevant for the Battle of Tewkesbury and no secondary sources are given. While the boundary of the registered area is delineated and justified (Fig. 18), the map does not show the distribution of ownership. The entry has not been revised since 1995 (see App. G). No section is dedicated to the depiction of the management context / ownership, neither in the register entry nor in the management plan nor in the asset register (EH 1995a, TBS 2010, Wilson no date). In the case of

Tewkesbury, this would offer the opportunity to explain the intricacies of the shared responsibility between Council and Society.

Fig. 18: The Boundary of the Registered Area of Tewkesbury Battlefield (Delineated in Blue) (© Edina Digimap).

 Aims / Programme

Future aims are clearly defined at Culloden:

Increase of Community Involvement Further Research Maintenance and Improvement of the High Standards of Interpretation Improvement of the Visitor Experience Conservation of the Battlescape Funding

Continuous Evaluation and Monitoring in the Form of Visitor Surveys / Comments and Regular Fieldwalking (Boal, Personal Communication, 20th May 2011)

The strategy of Tewkesbury Battlefield Society is based on three key aims:

The battlefield and associated sites are to be promoted as places of special interest. Educational and touristic possibilities are to be exploited. It is intended to further research and thus, information, about the battle and its site. Ultimately, all efforts are aimed at raising awareness for the site and its conservation needs (TBS ca. 2011, Personal Communication, Goodchild 21st June 2011).

 Stakeholders and Public Participation

The management of Culloden battlefield is liaising with a wide variety of groups, for example with Historic Scotland for the register, tour operators for group visits or the council for planning applications. However, it is convinced that especially the descendants of the combatants, the local community and the wider Scottish population should be more involved in their heritage. This is achieved via various interpretive offers, such as tours for local residents and an artist-in-residency programme, with many more planned (Boal, Personal Communication, 20th May 2011, qu. 4 and 5).

Attempting to maintain regular contact to and communication with the authorities, media, museums, academics, touristic enterprises, developers, land owners and visitors, Tewkesbury Battlefield Society wants to ensure the best possible reconciliation of interests. Focus is put on the increase of public involvement, e. g. through stalls and presences on local events, walks and talks. Currently, the Society is trying to set up a panel, consisting of Council and

Society members, to review the existing management plan and to establish a common strategy (Goodchild, Personal Communication, 21st June 2011, qu. 4, 9, 10, 14 and 25-27).

 Research

Research is one of the cornerstones of planning at Culloden. As a consequence of the efforts of the last decade, a management plan could not only list an extensive bibliography (see App. G), but detail the battle action on the basis of the results obtained (Fig. 19). Various scientific investigations were carried out on and for the site, most prominently the archaeological surveys conducted by the University of Glasgow (Pollard 2009b). While no further investigations are planned in the near future and the designated war graves are not to be excavated, the management is still committed to research, i. e. to the increase of knowledge about the battle. This will primarily feed into the on- and off-site interpretive programmes (Boal, Personal Communication, 20th May 2011, qu. 10-14).

Fig. 19: The Troop Movements during the Battle could be ascertained through Scientific Investigations carried out on the Battlefield (HS 2011d).

Research plays an important role in Tewkesbury Battlefield Society‟s planning, but can only be undertaken with restrictions. The few existing historical accounts have been analysed in detail, and given the limitations, succeed in presenting a comparatively good overview over the battle action. The asset register distinguishes between terrain-significant and -insignificant features. However, only one archaeological survey was conducted on a part of the site (and the unearthed artefacts cannot be indubitably linked to the battle). Other applications for scientific surveying were repeatedly rejected by the authorities. Nevertheless, the Society is eager to increase knowledge about the battle and its field: A ground radar survey, aimed at identifying 15th century graves, is planned (EH 1995a, TBS 2010, Goodchild, Personal Communication, 21st June 2011, qu. 15).

 Commemoration

No further commemoration will be realised at Culloden. Devices on the field (Grave Stones and Memorial Cairn, see Fig. 20 and 21) are a relic of past efforts and visibly favour the remembrance of the “Scottish” combatants. Any additional output, e. g. from the arts-in-residency programme, is coincidental. Culloden‟s programme lacks re-enactment events; at the site of one of the bloodiest battles in the British history, this is seen as “inappropriate”. Therefore, a separate strategy is neither needed nor implementable (Boal, Personal Communication, 20th May 2011, qu. 17 and 18).

Fig. 20: The Clan Grave Markers. Fig. 21: The Memorial Cairn.

With only one monument on the battlefield (Obelisk, Fig. 22), the commemorative strategy of the Society relies on the annual re-enactment of the battle during the Medieval Festival. Admittedly not realistic, it is very popular and contributes to attracting more than 30,000 visitors to the Medieval Festival. The Society is also planning the erection of two wooden horse sculptures on the Gloucester Road roundabout, symbolising victory (horse with rider) and defeat (horse without rider) (Fig. 23) (Goodchild, Personal Communication, 21st June 2011, qu. 12, 13, 19 and 20).

Fig. 23: The Planned Commemorative Sculptures as Wooden Miniatures in Tewkesbury Town Museum

Fig. 22: The Obelisk.

 Interpretation and Education

Tab. 8: Interpretation at Culloden Battlefield (Boal, Personal Communication, 20th May 2011, qu. 9, 12, 15 and 16).

Interpretive Yes / No Medium Guided Tour Yes, with various specialisations. Audio Tour Yes, handheld GPS device. Content is automatically triggered. Trail Yes, in the form of an audio tour, supported by on-site information. Panels Yes, in the exhibition and on the field. Website Yes, embedded in NTS website. Leaflet Yes, informative leaflet. Visitor Centre Yes, centre with flat rooftop for with Exhibition viewing. Interactive multimedia exhibition. Educational Yes, guided tours. Materials / Tours for Schoolchildren

The analysis of the current interpretive provision (Tab. 8) shows that the Memorial Project significantly affected the interpretive programme at Culloden: A new visitor centre was opened in 2008. The exhibition is highly innovative and displays the story of the battle, from its reasons to the aftermath, with the help of mixed media. Panels, audio / video material and artefact cases introduce visitors to the complex issues of the battle and its field. This is complemented by interpretive panels (Fig. 24) and an audio tour as well as markers of the troop arrays and of the fighting line on the field itself. Guided tours in costume, with versions especially for locals or families, and programmes tailored to the needs of school children are offered. The only off- site interpretation is the website, a repository of information and materials. The interpretation represents both sides not equally, but inclusively. The programme revolves around a common theme (The Story of Culloden), aims and objectives (the readdressing of misconceptions about the battle and raising of awareness for the conservation of the resource) and a variety of offers. Despite the comprehensive scope, the management is committed to the ongoing improvement of the information provision and tries to offer new experiences, such as specialised tours or the above-mentioned arts-in-residency programme. All offers are continuously improved and evaluated by occasional visitor surveys (Boal, Personal Communication, 20th May 2011, qu. 9, 12, 15 and 16).

Fig. 24: Interpretive Panel on Culloden Battlefield.

In terms of interpretation, accompanied tours around the battlefield, school visits and a separate section on the battle in the town museum are offered in Tewkesbury. So far, the battlefield is devoid of interpretive signage (Fig.25) (a situation criticised in the management plan, but never remedied by the council (Wilson no date). The introduction of panels on parts of the battlefield, the overhaul of the battle trail and a purpose-built visitor centre are envisaged for the future by the Society. The interpretation of the battle to visitors still at the very beginning: Primary aim of the strategy is to make the presence of a historic battlefield known to town visitors (Goodchild, Personal Communication, 21st June 2011, qu. 16, 17, 23 and 24). Evaluation of the programmes is limited, with only irregular feedback on the tours and formal feedback given to the museum by school visitors (Goodchild, Personal Communication, 21st June 2011, qu. 18).

Fig. 25: Tewkesbury Battlefield is Devoid of Interpretive Signage.

 Communication and Media

Communication and marketing are not central topics in Culloden‟s management strategy. The National Trust for Scotland relies on a tried range of media to convey information about the site, its events and offers:

Website Press Articles Brief Informative Leaflet (NTS no date, accessible on the website) Classical PR Portfolio, encompassing fundraising and sponsorship activities as well as general enquiries offers

Culloden is a “site of significance” (Boal, Personal Communication, 20th May 2011, qu. 28) and as such, is already well-known nationally and internationally. Word-of-mouth recommendations are a pillar of its ongoing success among visitors. Especially in and around Inverness, the property profits from subliminal marketing by tour operators, tourist information centres, etc. Balancing the conservation of the resource with the high demand for visitation can be challenging: Communicative efforts are therefore aimed at exploiting touristic opportunities, without compromising the conservation of the battlefield (Boal, Personal Communication, 20th May 2011, qu. 27-29).

In order to make events and offers known to the public, Tewkesbury Battlefield Society uses the following media:

Separate Websites for the Society and the Festival Activities are announced via Press and Radio Articles, Distributed Leaflets and Posters (Goodchild, Personal Communication, 21st June 2011, qu. 25)

Communication efforts are limited to the regional catchment area, with specific focus on Tewkesbury (e. g. the banners at house fronts in Tewkesbury, standing for participants of the battle, Fig. 26, or garden displays, Fig. 27). The organisers rely on this limited communication because the Festival and Tewkesbury are already well-known regionally and because of restricted funds (Goodchild, Personal Communication, 21st June 2011).

Fig. 26: The Annual Medieval Festival is announced via Garden Displays. Fig. 27: The House Banners in Tewkesbury.

 Visitor Management

With more than 250,000 visiting Culloden per year, the property has developed an elaborate visitor management. The site offers a pay-and-display car park, a visitor centre and the battlefield itself. The latter is freely accessible throughout the year and visited not only for the battle, but also for its recreational value. Hardened footpaths, complemented by interpretive panels, troop / fighting line markers and an audio tour, direct visitors around the site (Fig. 28). The shop and catering facilities in the centre can be accessed without entry fee; to see the exhibition, visitors pay between £ 7.50 and £ 10. The programme is rounded up by the various interpretive offers on site and special events. Surveys and feedback forms ensure that, in addition to visitor numbers, their preferences are determined (Tab. 9) (Boal, Personal Communication, 20th May 2011, qu. 26).

Tab. 9: Visitor Statistics from 2007 (MacLean 2007, p. 227-228)

ca. 200,000 visitors per year ca. 100,000 visitors to the centre

22% of visitors come in groups of 5 or more

41% of visitors are from England and Wales 35% of visitors are from Scotland 18% of visitors are from overseas

Fig. 28: Hardened Paths direct Visitors around Culloden Battlefield.

Facilities available to visitors in Tewkesbury are pay-and-display car parks and soon to be reintroduced public toilets. The battlefield can be accessed via the town or via non-hardened footpaths from other settlements. It is, however, very difficult to find the access points: No helpful signage has been put up and it is not indicated which grounds specifically can be accessed. Disabled visitors can only access from one point (TBS 2010, Goodchild, Personal Communication, 21st June 2011, qu. 21). This problem was described and further offers were discussed in the management plan (Wilson no date), but so far the only hint given are green trail signs, barely visible and without additional information (Fig. 29).

Fig. 29: One of the Trail Signs.

The trail, set up by the council, takes visitors around the field counter- clockwise with the help of a leaflet (available in the Tourist Information Centre). It is problematic, however, in that it starts with the events at the end of the battle, thus adding to the confusion. The Society therefore intends to transform the trail, redirecting it and equipping it with interpretive resources (Goodchild, Personal Communication, 21st June 2011, qu. 10 and 24). With only ca. 500 visitors to the battlefield each year, the improvement of the visitor experience does not seem pivotal, but especially with regard to safety and accessibility it is a necessary step. This is lined out in the asset register (TBS 2010).

 Conservation and Protection

High importance is put on the implementation of conservation at Culloden. Through the purchase of the grounds by the NTS conflict over land ownership could be avoided for decades. But now that the close-by Inverness is one of the fastest growing cities in the United Kingdom, planning applications close to the field are common. In order to prevent negative development in the vicinity of the field, the management is working in collaboration with the Highland Council and monitors the grounds around the site. Conservation has also been made a topic in the site‟s interpretation (Boal, Personal Communication, 20th May 2011, qu. 4). Culloden is one of the few sites where all three types of conservation are employed. The field was cleared of woodland, all modern street furniture was removed and the road was diverted to the north in the 1980s (Pollard and Banks 2010). The management is trying to reconstruct the landscape to the original moorland of the 1740s but due to irreversible changes this is almost impossible. Nevertheless, the terrain is currently conserved as it is and monitored by regular fieldwalking. Finds are either used in the exhibition or given to Inverness museum for conservation. The built heritage on the field, i. e. the Memorial Cairn, the Grave Markers, the enclosures and Leanach

Cottage, all scheduled monuments and/or listed buildings, have been conserved and partially restored (Pollard 2009a). In collaboration with the Highland Council, Culloden explores proactive conservation mechanisms (Boal, Personal Communication, 20th May 2011, qu. 19-23).

Conservation is only practised in one form at Tewkesbury. Since there are no relevant artefacts and all built remains are either in good condition or not significant to the battle (occasionally, the Obelisk is repainted by the Society), only the landscape is conserved. The council is unable to implement conservation on private property, but does so on public land. The grounds are maintained and in some cases used as recreational spaces. Suggestions for more conservation measures were mentioned in the management plan, but never realised (Wilson no date). The Society would like to see more efforts, such as the maintenance of hay shacks, the reintroduction of hedges and the approval of further scientific surveys on the site, but currently, this is not probable due to a lack of funds. In order to keep the field tidy, the Society organises occasional litter picking and fieldwalking (Goodchild, Personal Communication, 21st June 2011). Only a part of the battlefield is under statutory protection: Margaret‟s Camp (Fig. 30) is a non-related Scheduled Ancient Monument. A proposal for the extension of the existing conservation area (Goodchild no date) in Tewkesbury was not approved. Tewkesbury battlefield has been threatened in a variety of ways. The soil has been extensively dug on the housing, garden and cemetery areas, not to mention the drastic landscape changes over the centuries. Even pipes (transporting petroleum and water, Fig. 31) were laid through the field. The Society itself was born from an initiative against housing development in 1997. Only the close collaboration with English Heritage and the recently introduced Battlefield Register could prevent this from going further. The lessons have been learnt: The council is very cautious with new applications and always considers English Heritage in such cases. In order to prevent further damage

and to enable a better collaboration of stakeholders, the Society wants to introduce regular meetings with the council, to enable exchange of ideas and plans. This will shift the current reactive conservation to long-term proactive mechanisms (Goodchild, Personal Communication, 21st June 2011, qu. 6-8, 26, 27).

Fig. 30: Margaret‟s Camp Scheduled Ancient Fig. 31: Site of the Lancastrian Camp, where Monument. Archaeological Excavations unearthed Several

Artefacts and Water / Petroleum Pipes (Personal Communication, Goodchild, 21st June 2011).

 Fundraising

Culloden charges an admission fee and is comparatively well-endowed. The realisation of the Memorial Project and especially the erection of the visitor centre used up large sums of money. Sponsorship and fundraising opportunities have been exploited, e. g. in the form of a “contribution table” in the centre‟s foyer, but for additional funding, Culloden needs to seek the support of the NTS (Boal, Personal Communication, 20th May 2011, qu. 10).

The Society raises funds via merchandising, membership subscriptions, fees for interpretive offers and rents from businesses for banners and stall places during the Festival. No fundraising campaigns have been organised so far. The council contributes to the upkeep with its maintenance works. With more budget cuts at the council in sight, the Society will need to think about effective ways of fundraising. A management plan would offer the opportunity

to list all possible ways and to align them with other measures, e. g. in the area of communication (Goodchild, Personal Communication, 21st June 2011).

4.2.3 Summary: MIPA-Grid Analyses

Tab.10: MIPA-Analysis of Culloden Battlefield‟s Planning Framework (Boal, Personal Communication, 20th May 2011).

NTS Planning Programme Documentation Matches Special Considerations The Planning . Long-term Planning Documentation was . Consideration in the Local Plan not disclosed. . Landscape Conservation

Description and Significance . Comprehensive Register Entry

Aims / Programme . Comprehensive Programme

Stakeholders and Public Participation . Inclusion of a Wide Variety of Stakeholders . Focus on Specific Groups

Research . Historical Research and Scientific Investigations in the Course of the Memorial Project . Further Research

Commemoration

Interpretation and Education . Comprehensive Programme . Variety of Devices and Offers . Different Approaches for Different Audiences . Regular Evaluation

Communication and Media . Balance of Visitor Attraction and Conservation . “Site of Significance”

Visitor Management . Free Acccess to Trails, Car Park and Visitor Centre . Regular Evaluation

Conservation and Protection . Conservation of Landscape, Artefacts and Built Heritage . Proactive Mechanisms . Regular Monitoring

Fundraising (Admission Charge, Commercial Activities, Donations, Corporate Sponsorship)

Incongruities Special Considerations The Planning . No Vision / Mission Statement Documentation was not disclosed. Description and Significance . No Inventory of Features . No Management Context / Contact Information . No Overview over Ownership

Catering and Retailing (not considered in the Guideline Framework)

Prospects The Guideline Framework could / benefit from and be further developed through a More Detailed Study of Culloden’s Management Programme

Applicability It is Doubtable whether the Guideline / (Limitations) Framework can enrich Planning at Culloden, a Well-managed Site. If compiled, a Management Plan would Primarily be able to list Maintenance Measures.

Tab. 11: MIPA-Analysis of Tewkesbury Battlefield‟s Planning Framework (Personal Communication, Goodchild, 21st June 2011).

TBS/ TBC Planning Programme Documentation Matches Special Considerations The Management Plan . Vision / Mission Statement describes the Site, its . Consideration in the Local Plan Historical Significance and analyses the Battle Description and Significance Trail and the . Certain Components of the Register Landscape. Key Issues Entry / Description in the like Ownership and Management Plan Interpretation are . Inventory of Features addressed and

contrasted with the Aims / Programme Management . Comparatively Comprehensive Proposals. This is Programme rounded up by a

Costed Overview. Stakeholders and Public Participation Historical, Landscape . Inclusion of a Wide Variety of and Recreational Stakeholders Objectives are set . Focus on Local Community (Wilson no date).

Research

. Scientific Investigations planned The Asset Register lists

all Relevant Features Commemoration and Parcels of the . Re-enactment Battlefield. Every . Further Devices planned Feature is presented

with Ownership, Interpretation and Education Significance, . Small Range of Offers Maintenance Needs, . Further Measures planned Improvement

Opportunities, Safety Communication and Media and Accessibility (TBS . Comparatively Wide Variety 2010). . Focus on Local / Regional Community

Visitor Management . Public Facilities . Battle Trail (Improvements planned)

Conservation and Protection . Limited Range of Initiatives . Future Measures planned

Fundraising (Membership Fees, Commercial Activities, Charges for Guided Tours)

Incongruities Special Considerations The Management Plan . Long-Term Planning (Battlefield omits Many Significant Society) Aspects like Research and focuses Primarily Description and Significance on the Management of . No Management Context / Contact the Landscape instead. Information It does not structure . No Overview over Ownership the Necessary Methods (no Action Plan is Research included). The . Opportunities not Implementable Implementation furthermore did not Commemoration result in the Desired . Obelisk is placed in Recreational Area Changes (Wilson no date). Interpretation and Education . Field is Currently Unmarked . Irregular Feedback The Asset Register does not describe the Site Visitor Management and only focuses on the . No Signage except for Battle Trail above-specified Points . No Hardened Paths (TBS 2010). . Reversed Trail

Conservation and Protection . Conservation and Monitoring barely Possible

Nature of Collaboration with the Council regarding a Management Plan (not considered in the Guideline Framework)

Prospects The Guideline Framework could Management Plan and help Tewkesbury Battlefield Society Asset Register could be and Tewkesbury Borough Council fused into a New identify Measures for Improvement Planning Document with the assistance of

the Guideline Framework.

Applicability The Guideline Framework will be Applicable Without Clarification (Limitations) in Parts. of Responsibilities and Tasks between Society and Council, a New Plan is Unlikely.

4.3 Mini Case Studies

Homildon Hill Battlefield Project is an initiative formed with the intention to increase historical research about the battle of Homildon Hill.

The field is owned by one landowner and lies partially within the boundaries of Northumberland National Park. The group has yet to decide on a final programme, but for the meantime a focus has been set on research, interpretation, education, promotion, commemoration and events / arts / crafts. For the future, the volunteers envisage more community involvement in their activities (Malloy, Personal Communication, 12th June 2011).

Tab. 12: MIPA-Analysis of Homildon Hill Battlefield Project‟s Planning Framework (Malloy, Personal Communication, 12th June 2011).

Homildon Hill Planning Battlefield Project Programme Documentation Matches Plans for Research, / Interpretation, Education, Promotion, Events, Commemoration Media (Website)

Incongruities Arts & Crafts (not considered in / Guideline Framework)

No Management Framework as such

Prospects The Project is in Its Initial Stages. / The Guideline Framework could assist in developing the Programme.

Applicability The Guideline Framework will It is Unlikely that a (Limitations) be Applicable in Parts. Management Plan will be compiled for the Property in the near Future.

Participation is equally low in The Battle of Pinkie Cleugh, a project set up for the increase of “knowledge [of] and interest” in the battle.

It does not have a management framework as such. Primary aim is to establish a well-working group, which might implement interpretive measures in the future (the field is as of yet unmarked). This is threatened by the attractiveness of the site to housing developers (Coulson, Personal Communication, 11th June 2011).

Tab. 13: MIPA-Analysis of The Battle of Pinkie Cleugh‟s Planning Framework (Coulson, Personal Communication, 11th June 2011).

The Battle of Pinkie Planning Cleugh Programme Documentation Matches Plans for Interpretive Devices / and Battle Trail

Media (Website)

Incongruities No Management Framework as / such

Prospects The Project is in Its Initial Stages. The Group would The Guideline Framework could gladly contribute to an assist in developing the Initiative by East Programme. Lothian Council.

Applicability The Guideline Framework will It is Unlikely that a (Limitations) be Applicable in Parts. Management Plan will be compiled for the Property in the near Future.

The Battle of Worcester Society is committed to the remembrance of two battles (Battle of Powick Bridge 1642 and Battle of Worcester 1652).

A focus is set on raising awareness for the sites by means of interpretation and commemoration; the society is striving for the election of local wardens. Conveying the importance of the battlefield to authorities and the general public is perceived as one of the biggest challenges. Over the next years, the society plans to erect commemorative plaques and a statue on the field (Robinson, Personal Communication, 9th June 2011).

Tab. 14: MIPA-Analysis of The Battle of Worcester Society‟s Planning Framework(Robinson, Personal Communication, 9th June 2011).

Battle of Worcester Planning Society Programme Documentation Matches Vision / Mission Statement / Awareness Raising Plans for Interpretation and Commemoration Collaboration with the Local Authority Media (Website)

Incongruities Plan to elect Local Wardens (not / considered in the Guideline Framework)

No Management Framework as such

Prospects The Guideline Framework could / assist in developing the Programme.

Applicability The Guideline Framework will It is Unlikely that a (Limitations) be Applicable in Parts. Management Plan will be compiled for the Property in the near Future.

Towton Battlefield Society is the volunteer organisation with the most experience among the case studies.

In a never before witnessed initiative, the society reached an agreement banning illegal metal detecting and encouraging legal surveying on the battlefield with all landowners. This has featured prominently in the press and garnered much needed attention for Towton. A Display Centre has been set up in the local pub.

Key issues in the society‟s strategy are the close collaboration with landowners, the prevention of illegal metal detecting and the reconciliation of planning with the protection of battle heritage. An extension of the metal detecting programme, more networking, the increase of local involvement and a purpose-built visitor centre are planned (Taylor, Personal Communication, 12th June 2011).

Tab. 15: MIPA-Analysis of Towton Battlefield Society‟s Planning Framework (Taylor, Personal Communication, 12th June 2011).

Towton Battlefield Planning Society Programme Documentation Matches Landowner Agreements The Compilation of a Media (Website, Articles) Development Plan was Networking (Member of Alliance discussed, but had to to reduce Crime against Heritage) be disregarded because Interpretive Devices the Organisation does Display Centre not own the Field.

Incongruities No Management Framework as / such

Prospects The Guideline Framework could / help in identifying Measures for Improvement.

Applicability The Guideline Framework will It is Unlikely that a (Limitations) be Applicable in Parts. Management Plan will be compiled for the Property in the near Future.

The battlefield at Philiphaugh is managed as a part of the bigger Philiphaugh Estate. For the development of the battlefield as a visitor attraction, a community project was recently set up.

Re-enactments and living history camps will be established as well as archaeological surveys conducted. The field will be equipped with interpretive devices, thus providing a gateway to the understanding of the battle to the general public. Restrictions are primarily met in the form of time and funds (Nock, Personal Communication, 8th June 2011).

Tab. 16: MIPA-Analysis of Philiphaugh Estate‟s Planning Framework (Nock, Personal Communication, 8th June 2011).

Philiphaugh Estate Planning Programme Documentation Matches Plans for Interpretation and A Management Plan Commemoration for the Estate as a Consideration of Access whole was recently Community Involvement drawn up (but could not be accessed).

Incongruities Managed as Part of an Estate /

Prospects The Guideline Framework could The Management Plan help in identifying Measures for could be revised with Improvement. the Assistance of the Guideline Framework.

Applicability The Guideline Framework will / (Limitations) be Applicable in Parts.

The only survey respondent with a professional management framework, Bosworth Battlefield Heritage Centre and Country Park is under the care of Leicestershire County Council. The property is taken care of by two separate teams, the Heritage Team (interpretation at the visitor centre), and the Countryside Team (monitoring the field). A Heritage Lottery Fund grant in 2005 enabled the property to redevelop its interpretive programme, open a renovated visitor centre and locate the place of the battle. The field is only partially owned by the council; access and tenancy agreements ensure public access.

With the identification of the battle ground at a different location, new agreements will have to be negotiated. A focus is also set on collaboration with stakeholders, interpretation and commemoration. For the conservation of the field, the management encourages farmers to join protection schemes, thus reducing invasive farming methods, and plans to increase the use of natural methods like hedge laying (Knox, Personal Communication, 9th June 2011).

Tab. 17: MIPA-Analysis of Bosworth Battlefield‟s Planning Framework (Knox, Personal Communication, 9th June 2011).

Planning Bosworth Battlefield Programme Documentation Matches Heritage Centre and Trail Currently, a Stakeholders (Access and Conservation Tenancy Agreements with Management Plan is Landowners) being drafted. Countryside Management Plans for Interpretation and Commemoration Independent Means of Fundraising

Incongruities Segregate Areas of Responsibility / in spite of the same Organisation (Leicestershire County Council)

Prospects The Guideline Framework could The Management Plan benefit from and be further could be revised with developed through a More the Assistance of the Detailed Study of Bosworth’s Guideline Framework. Management Programme.

Applicability It is Doubtable whether the / (Limitations) Guideline Framework could enrich the Planning at a Well- managed Site.

5. Discussion

5.1 Critical Issues

Matches, Incongruities, Prospects and Limitations of the Framework’s Applicability are elucidated, firstly in the form of a deductive graphic and secondly through an analytical summary. References to the literature complement the discussion.

The following critical issues, which become evident in the results, are discussed:

Tab. 18: Summary of the Case Study MIPA-Analyses.

Matches Prospects

- Existence or Preparation of - Assistance to Planners Management Plans - Assistance to Planners abroad - Compliance with the Case Studies - Further Development

Incongruities Applicability (Limitations)

- The Need for Alternatives - Limited Powers of Societies and Projects - Gaps in the Guideline Framework - Planning in the Initial Stages vs. Established, Comprehensive Programme

 Matches

- Existence or Preparation of Management Plans

More and more managing bodies / societies see the potential of structured planning at historic battle places. Comprehensive management plans are rare as of yet, but documents have been introduced to several sites.

Whereas the academic world in Britain has endorsed the drafting of management plans for historic battlefields for years – Foard (2008, p. 236) proposed “model conservation plans [...] prepared for several battlefields to take in the different periods” – authorities like Historic Scotland and English Heritage do so only just now. The former advocates it for the properties newly inscribed on the Scottish register (HS 2011c) while the latter is currently piloting initiatives at battlefields in North-West England (Burley, Personal Communication, 7th July 2011).

As a consequence, the advantages of written planning documents are increasingly recognised by management entities in the United Kingdom and the recommended “integrated approach” (HS 2011c, p. 9) is realised. The estate at Philiphaugh already has a plan which includes the management of the battlefield; Leicestershire County Council is in the process of compiling a plan for Bosworth. Organisations responsible for or representing other battlefields implement their planning with the help of similar documentation, as is the case for Tewkesbury battlefield (where additionally a management plan was drawn up by the council).

Therefore, the model can provide assistance at a time when suitable guidance is wanted and needed. And it is a decisive moment: The first generation of management plans will set the course for future development.

Not all properties will compile written plans. However, this is currently ascribable to a lack of funds, access and human resources. With more development and growing acknowledgement of the resource, a change of course might be possible in the future.

- Compliance with the Case Studies

The framework matches the programmes of the researched case studies to a high degree. Even though the planning is different, all cases exhibit similarities among each other and with the model.

If compiled, the management plans for all investigated properties would differentiate quite substantially. Bosworth and Culloden battlefields are professionally managed sites, with decades of experience, extensive planning programmes and high investments. Philiphaugh battlefield profits from its integration into a professionally managed estate with a single land owner. Tewkesbury, on the other hand, is a property jointly cared for by a public and a volunteer organisation, whose potential is pending to be realised due to a lack of funds, developments and complex ownership. The situation is more or less the same for the remaining sites of the survey.

However, through the analysis it becomes evident that the management frameworks both of Culloden and of Tewkesbury address the majority of issues presented in the guidelines. Where they do so, they are for the most part congruent with the directives given. This and the fact that both properties rely on a set of essential core strategies, namely the conservation of the field, an inclusive and unfavoured interpretation, appropriate commemoration and further research, is a pattern repeated at the sites of the survey. While the improvement of stakeholder relations is a pivotal topic for societies and projects, professionally managed sites primarily put value on the enhancement of the visitor experience.

The guideline framework covers all these aspects and is therefore applicable to British battlefields.

It could be argued that this congruence is based on a reflection of best practice strategies in heritage management, as detailed in the above-mentioned guideline publications. Conservation, interpretation, visitor management, research and monitoring are crucial strategies in the management of any kind of heritage site (Natural England 2008, Heritage

Lottery Fund 2008). To a certain extent the model is influenced by these standards, but the literature consulted for its creation debates the issues and problem areas from a more specialised point of view. E. g., Carman and Carman (2006), Sutherland (2005) and Foard (with Partida 2005, 2008) offer good insights into the wider “battlefield management programme”, i. e. the marking, interpreting and presenting of battlefields. They equally introduce the reader to archaeological and landscape analysis techniques and debate resource-specific threats.

This explains why a) the methods and media of the framework are in congruence with the ones employed in the case studies and why b) they are or will be used both by well-funded professional organisations and volunteer groups. The management entities might be different, the resource is similar.

But the framework encompasses much more than what has already been discussed in the resource- and topic-specific literature, and the need for this policy becomes evident in the results of the investigated sites. “Awareness raising”, as mentioned by the representative of Worcester Battlefield Society (Robinson, Personal Communication, 9th June 2011), is as much part of interpretation as it is of communication. Or the sourcing of funds, a particular concern at Philiphaugh, has not been treated in this context.

The underlying reason for this gap is the lack of publications which deal with battlefields as comprehensive management entities. The single management-specific guidance document for the United Kingdom (HS 2011c) provides helpful input, but is concerned with the management of change. And even in the only resource- and topic-specific guidance publication, the recommendations by the US National Park Service (2001), it is primarily addressed how to encompass the topics of conservation and stakeholder relations in a management plan.

The guideline framework is applicable to British sites, because it considers the traditional mindset as well as additional issues like the communication of the offers to the interested public or fundraising. Battlefields are treated as the management entities they are or they are gradually becoming.

 Incongruities

- The Need for Alternatives

The guideline model needs to offer alternatives in several thematic sections, having to take the complex nature of battlefields into consideration.

After what could be gleaned from the theoretical review and the results of the investigation, Newman (2004, p. 34) was right with his statement that battlefields are the “most complex and difficult landscape type to [...] conserve”. Moreover, they are one of the most difficult types of heritage properties to manage.

Historic houses, gardens and parks are often in the propriety of major heritage organisations, the state or local authorities, and projects can be financially backed by these entities. Battlefields rarely enjoy such protection in the United Kingdom. This why a diversity of managing and non-managing schemes has formed (see Tab. 3 on p. 14-15), with the consequence that any guidelines offered for the resource need to offer alternatives.

A good example for this policy can be found in the category of Commemoration: Some historic battle sites in the United Kingdom are already well-equipped with devices, others are not. Any addition depends on the specific situation and needs to be judged individually for every site. This becomes evident in the contrast of the in-depth cases: Culloden has been a visitor attraction for decades; the devices on the field are abundant. But at Tewkesbury, the planned commemorative sculptures can contribute to visualising the battle, an important step for an otherwise scarcely marked site.

The same holds true for the strategies employed in Visitor Management and Interpretation: At Tewkesbury, there might never be hardened paths or an extensive range of interpretive media on the battlefield, while Culloden defines itself over these offers. The introduction of such measures is currently not viable at Tewkesbury.

In the framework presented here, a distinction in approaches was therefore primarily made between those organisations with / without ownership and those without / with a lack of funds.

The provision of alternatives is not the case for the existing literature on the subject. The Vimy Charter (Bull and Panton 2000) gives a clear overview over core strategies and methods required for the conservation of a field. Likewise, the guidelines issued by the US National Park Service (2001) provide an unwavering structure in curt paragraphs.

Recommendations per se cannot provide a one-fits-all approach, but in giving advice it is best not to offer too many alternatives and to be consistent with the ideas which are presented. Nevertheless, the statements are guiding principles and every site can still design an individual plan, tailored to the specific needs and requirements. The above- mentioned publications are addressed at schemes with ownership of the field and similar professional structures. A standardisation is much easier to achieve than in Britain.

- Gaps in the Guideline Framework

Guidelines need to encompass all relevant points, but ideally do so in brief and concise statements. In order to be helpful to a variety of sites, the contents and flexibility of the model is therefore limited.

It has been tried to capture all pivotal aspects of battlefield management in this framework, but a focus had to be set on heritage protection, effectively disregarding activities like catering and retailing. This could be done because at present, the commercial generation of income only plays a marginal role at historic battle sites. In a comprehensive management plan for Culloden or Bosworth, however, these activities would have to be included.

The same can be said for scientific investigations in the form of landscape analysis or conflict archaeology. Bosworth, Culloden and Towton battlefields have now been extensively surveyed; the potential of the other sites is great. The investigations conducted

83 for Culloden during the Memorial Project alone fill a single book (Pollard 2009b). Despite or perhaps because of the abundance of literature on the subject, the framework could only mention the possibilities, but not detail them. It cannot give decision-makers a tool to select the method most suitable to the site and/or the financial situation. Planners seeking guidance are recommended to turn to helpful publications such as Freeman and Pollard‟s “Fields of Conflict: Progress and Prospects in Battlefield Archaeology” (2001), Doyle and Bennett‟s “Terrain in Military History” (2002), Hill and Wileman‟s “Landscapes of War” (2002), Sutherland‟s “Battlefield Archaeology Guide” (2005), Schofield et al.‟s “Re- mapping the Field” (2005), Lynch and Cooksey‟s “Battlefield Archaeology” (2007), and journal articles by various authors on the subject.

Last but not least, the framework can set the parameters for appropriate management planning, but it does not identify concrete aims and objectives. This is common practice among the resource-specific guidance publications, as the US National Park Service (2001) and Bull and Panton (2000) have demonstrated. It could be said that especially in the current initial stages of management plans it would be useful to have such listings: The variety of the resource at least allows a generalisation of guidance. However, Culloden and Tewkesbury battlefields exemplify that many factors determine the overall strategy.

 Prospects

- Assistance to Planners

As a specialised guidance publication, the model can provide assistance to the variety of planning groups at historic battlefields in the United Kingdom.

It enables recently set-up projects, societies with long experience, professional managements and local authorities to develop their planning framework, to check it against the established standard and to identify gaps in it.

Some might argue that it is too extensive and too focused on the drafting of a management plan for societies, and not detailed enough for professionally managed sites. However, as sites are different, it will not apply to each and every one in its entirety. And when consulted, it can be done partially and does not have to involve the compilation of a fully- fledged management plan, on the contrary. It has been shown with the results of the survey that some sites at present do not need or want a written plan. Especially in the initial stages of a safeguarding organisation, it is more important to establish good ties with the responsible authorities, land holders and the community. Only after the consent and support from these groups, a step towards the development of a planning framework can be taken (as is the case for Pinkie and Homildon Hill battlefields). Other organisations have drawn up documents similar to a part or parts of a management plan, e. g. Tewkesbury Battlefield Society.

Whether representatives of a battlefield decide for a property, conservation, interpretation or action plan, or no documentation at all, the guideline framework can be used as a template for structured management planning in the future.

- Assistance to Planners Abroad

There is the possibility that planners abroad might benefit from the guideline model.

From the analysis of the existing guidelines on battlefield management it becomes clear that they only partially cater to pre-1770 battlefields. The Vimy Charter (Bull and Panton 2000) extensively debates the treatment of surviving earthworks on the field, while in the US National Park Service guidelines (2001) the vast landscapes of American battlefields are underlined. Even though both documents have originated in France and the USA respectively, it is difficult to confer their standards to older battlefields abroad. At present, initiatives for the opening up of pre-1750 battlefield are sprouting up (e. g. in Germany, 1636 – Ihre Letzte Schlacht 2011), and these schemes might need appropriate guidance in the near future. The guideline framework presented here is specifically tailored to the

85 requirements of the resource “British battlefield”, but that does not mean that planners at historic battlefields in Europe cannot derive useful advice from this paper.

- Further Development

The guideline framework is not a static text. As improved strategies and methods emerge and more experience is gathered, it will have to be adapted to the new standards. More historic battlefields could be turned into visitor attractions in the coming years, e g. Tewkesbury. This would implicate that guidelines on commercial activities would have to be included. Or it could be that the surveying methods in archaeology and landscape analysis evolve to such a degree that even more insight can be gained in the nature of the British fields, e. g. at Culloden. This progress would significantly affect the way battles and battlefields are presented in plans and interpretation.

Whatever the cause of the change, like every planning document the guideline framework will have to be revised and/or expanded if it is intended to present up-to-date, reliable assistance. This offers the opportunity for further research: In a couple of years, when more management plans or documents will have been drawn up, an investigation of its validity might highlight faults and possible improvements. It would also allow for an in-depth study of the then existing management plans.

 Applicability (Limitations)

- Limited Planning Powers of Societies and Projects

Societies and projects might see themselves unable to introduce structured planning to the sites and thus apply the guideline model.

Based on what has been seen in this discussion, the guideline framework is applicable to the British historic battle sites. The findings of the investigations epitomise the compliance

86 between directives and case studies. However, even if the resource is treated equally or similarly, there are major differences in the way they are administrated. Fields without initiatives had to be disregarded. And at those where a non-managing scheme is in place, the decision-makers often lack the necessary powers to implement management planning.

At sites like Tewkesbury, Homildon Hill and Worcester organisations have been founded, but their admittedly good ideas often cannot be realised because neither do they own the land nor are they in a position to make decisions for the area.

This becomes especially evident at Towton: The battlefield society had discussed the possibility of creating a development plan, but as it is not in possession of the site, plans had to be cast aside (nevertheless, the collaboration between society and owners is good).

In the literature, it is recommended that management plans for historic battlefields be drawn up by the responsible local authority (HS 2010). And the findings of this study undermine that in the case of existing voluntary organisations initiatives must come from the local authorities / land owners or be realised in collaboration.

- Planning in the Initial Stages vs. Established, Comprehensive Programme

The guideline framework might be more useful to sites which have not yet established comprehensive planning.

The comparison between Culloden on the one and Tewkesbury on the other hand elucidates the difference in the application of the guideline framework. For Tewkesbury, a property plan would currently be highly useful, as it could outline the necessary measures to be taken for the realisation of ideas. A first step towards such a document has been made with the asset register. The same holds true for other sites of the same nature like Homildon Hill or Worcester.

However, Culloden is a site where regulated management mechanisms are in place. A comprehensive plan would only be able to list maintenance measures, as the major projects have just been realised, and would have made more sense prior to the commencement of the Memorial Project.

This shows that the necessity and feasibility of a management plan needs to be assessed individually for every field.

5.2 The Validity of the Hypotheses

Hypothesis I stated that all historic battlefields in the United Kingdom represented by an organisation need a management plan. This must be partially rejected as a consequence of the above-detailed analysis.

Therefore, the hypothesis has to be rephrased, stating that the compilation of a management plan can be useful for those historic battlefields fulfilling a definite set of criteria (see conclusion). This would have to be tested again in a new study.

Hypothesis II claimed that the guideline framework provides appropriate guidance for the representatives of British battlefields. This has clearly been proven.

6. Conclusion

Officially approved planning documents are gradually being introduced to historic battlefields in the United Kingdom. Some properties have already drawn up written plans, while others intend to do so. The guideline model can be of use to all those sites. Whatever the programme might look like at the various battlefields, it is essential that planners limit their aims and objectives to the realistic options. Over-zealous planning will unnecessarily use up resources and block initiatives which will help conserve and safeguard historic battlefields.

Several conclusions can be drawn from this investigation.

Firstly, a written document is a useful tool for the formal structurisation of ideas and planned measures and their alignment with the necessary actions. If a paper is drawn up, it does not have to be a fully-fledged management plan, but can be a specialised conservation or interpretation plan or even a stakeholder agreement. Planners should not shy away from documenting their programmes and plans: Structured overviews can help towards achieving the set aims and objectives. At historic battlefields, a focus ought to be put on conservation, interpretation and commemoration.

Secondly, a fully-fledged management plan is best suited to certain types of historic battlefields. The criteria are fulfilled when the field is either professionally managed (with the option for maintenance plans) or in the possession of the compiler or both. It is also beneficial in the case of responsibilities between local authorities / managing bodies / societies being unclear and/or major projects being implemented soon. Where volunteer organisations have taken over the responsibility for a battlefield, measures and plans should be agreed upon with the responsible local authority. It is also imperative to seek consent of the land owner.

And thirdly, the level of protection afforded to historic battlefields is not sufficient at the moment. The English register only gives planning consideration status to listed battlefields, a measure which has proven to be unreliable. While for the Scottish register

89 the award of conservation area status is recommended, this does not mean that all battlefields will automatically enjoy statutory protection.

The solution to this dilemma would be the introduction of a national register like in the USA or Canada. This would give protected status to all inscribed properties and ensure that land owner consent does not need to be sought. However, this is unlikely to be realised in the United Kingdom in the near future.

It is hoped that with the presentation of this guideline framework and the subsequent testing of it, a contribution to the professionalisation of battlefield management in the United Kingdom could be made. Management planning for the resource is at a watershed: The development over the next years will show whether historic battlefields will remain present in the heritage landscape and to which extent planning will be realised in the written form. This should be further investigated, e. g. in the form of an in-depth study after more management plans have been drawn up.

However the outcome, historic battlefields form an important part of the nation‟s heritage and should be preserved so that future generations can learn about Britain‟s past conflicts.

7. References

1636 – Ihre Letzte Schlacht [1636 – Their Last Battle], 2011. Veranstaltungen [Events]. Wittstock: Archäologisches Landesmuseum Brandenburg. Available from: http://www.1636.de/category/veranstaltungen/ [Accessed 15th June 2011].

Aberdeen City Council, 2011. Battle of Harlaw Commemoration. Aberdeen: City Council. Available from: http://www.aberdeencity.gov.uk/Events/eve/eve_Battle_Of_Harlaw_Commemoration.asp [Accessed 5th June 2011].

American Battlefield Protection Program Act 1996 (USA)

Andrus, P. W., 1999. National Register Bulletin 40. Guidelines for Identifying, Evaluating, and Registering America’s Historic Battlefields. Revised Edition. Washington: US National Park Service (Department of Interior). Available from: http://www.nps.gov/history/nr/publications/bulletins/pdfs/NRB40.pdf [Accessed 07th March 2011].

Battle of Cheriton Project, 2008. The Battlefield Walk. Cheriton: Battle of Cheriton Project. Available from: http://www.battleofcheriton.co.uk/project_zone/the_battlefield_walk [Accessed 5th June 2011].

Battle of Linlithgow Bridge 1526, 2009. The Battle of Linlithgow Bridge Battlefield Trail Project. Linlithgow: Battle of Linlithgow Bridge 1526. Available from: http://www.bolb.org.uk [Accessed 5th June 2011].

Battle of Prestonpans 1745, no date. The Battle of Prestonpans. Prestonpans: Battle of Prestonpans 1745. Available from: http://www.battleofprestonpans1745.org/heritagetrust/html/prestonpans_dream.pdf [Accessed 5th June 2011].

Battlefield 1403, ca. 2011. Welcome to Battlefield 1403. Shrewsbury: Battlefield 1403. Available from: http://www.battlefield1403.com/home [Accessed 5th June 2011].

Battlefields Trust, 2008. Formal Opening of Evesham Battlefield Trail. Norwich: Battlefields Trust. Available from: http://www.battlefieldstrust.com/news.asp?NewsArticleID=24 [Accessed 5th June 2011].

Battlefields Trust, ca. 2011a. Battle of Neville’s Cross. Norwich: Battlefields Trust. Available from: http://www.battlefieldstrust.com/resource- centre/medieval/battleview.asp?BattleFieldId=28 [Accessed 6th May 2011].

Battlefields Trust, ca. 2011b. Battlefield Walk. Norwich: Battlefields Trust. Available from: http://www.battlefieldstrust.com/resource-centre/civil- war/battlepageview.asp?pageid=450&parentid=448 [Accessed 05th June 2011].

Battlefields Trust, ca. 2011c. Edgcote to Edgehill Battlefields Trail. Norwich: Battlefields Trust. Available from: http://www.battlefieldstrust.com/resource-centre/ [Accessed 5th June 2011].

Baxter, P. and Jack, S., 2008. Qualitative Case Study Methodology: Study Design and Implementation for Novice Researchers. In: Qualitative Report, Vol. 13 (4), p. 544-559.

Beeho, A. J. and Prentic, R. C., 1997. Conceptualizing the Experiences of Heritage Tourists: A Case Study of New Lanark World Heritage Site. In: Tourism Management, Vol. 18 (2), p. 75-87.

Bennet, D., 2008. New Life for an Old Battlefield. In: Interpretation Journal, 13 (1), p. 21- 24.

Berry, J., no date. Appendix 5: Management Issues in Wales. In: Foard, G., Janaway, R. and Wilson, A., eds. The Scientific Study and Conservation of Battlefield Artefact Assemblages. S. L.: Science and Heritage Programme. Available from: http://www.heritagescience.ac.uk/Research_Projects/projects/Projectposters/Conservation_ of_Battlefield_Archaeology_project_report [Accessed 16th April 2011], p. 20-21.

Birnbaum, C. A., 1997. Treatments for Historic Battlefield Landscapes. In: Cultural Resource Management, Vol. 20 (5), p. 21-22.

Boyd, S., 2008. Marketing Challenges and Opportunities for Heritage Tourism. In: Fyall, A., Garrod, B., Leask, A. and Wanhill, S., eds. Managing Visitor Attractions. 2nd Edition. Oxford and Burlington, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann, p. 283-294.

Brent, J. E., 2000. Community Consensus Planning for Battlefield Preservation. In: Cultural Resource Management, Vol. 23 (7), p. 7-11.

Brochu, L., 2003. Interpretive Planning. The 5-M Model fur Successful Planning Projects. Fort Collins, CO: The National Association for Interpretation.

Brooke, R. 1854. Visits to the Fields of Battle in England of the Fifteenth Century. Reprinted 1975. London: John Russell Smith.

Brown, A., 1994. Taking up Arms for Battlefield Conservation. In: English Heritage Conservation Bulletin, No. 24, p. 3-4.

Brown, A., 2004. Geology and the Gettysburg Campaign. 10th ed. S. L.: Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Available from: http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/topogeo/education/es5/es5.pdf [Accessed 18th March 2011].

Bull, N. and Panton, D., 2000. Drafting the Vimy Charter for Conservation of Battlefield Terrain. In: APT Bulletin, Managing Cultural Landscapes, Vol. 31 (4), p. 5-11.

Burne, A. H., 1950. The Battlefields of England. London: Methuen & Co.

Burne, A. H., 1952. More Battlefields of England. London: Methuen & Co.

Caddick-Adams, P., 2005. II. Footprints in the Mud: The British Army’s Approach to the Battlefield Tour Experience. In: Defence Studies, Vol 5 (1), p. 15-26.

Carman, J. and Carman, P., 2006. Bloody Meadows: Investigating Landscapes of Battle. Thrupp: Sutton Publishing.

Carman, J., 1997. Interpreting the Landscapes of Battle. In: British Archaeology, No. 21, page numbers unknown.

Carman, J., 2005. Battlefields as Cultural Resources. In: Post-medieval Archaeology, Vol. 39 (2), p. 215-223.

Carman, J. and P., 2007. Mustering Landscapes: What Historic Battlefields share in Common. In: Scott, D., Babits, L. and Haecker, C., eds. Fields of Conflict – Battlefield Archaeology from the Roman Empire to the Korean War. Vol. I. Westport et al.: Praeger Security International, p. 39-49.

Cathers, K., 2002. “Markings on the Land” and Early Medieval Warfare in the British Isles. In: Doyle, P. and Bennett, M. R., eds. Fields of Battle: Terrain in Military History. Dordrecht: Kluwer, p. 9-17.

Civil War Battlefield Preservation Act 2002 (USA)

Code Pénal (France)

Cooksey, J., ed., 2005. Battlefields Annual Review. Barnsley: Pen and Sword.

Corcoran, A., 1993. This Land is our Land. In: Policy Review, No. 63, p. 72.

Cotswold Journal, 2011. Battlefield Walk in Stow. Cotswold Journal, 20th March 2011. Available from: http://www.cotswoldjournal.co.uk/news/8908269.Battlefield_walk_in_Stow/ [Accessed 05th May 2011].

Loi du 2 Mai 1930 Relative à la Protection des Monuments Naturels et des Sites de Caractère Artistique, Historique, Scientifique, Légendaire ou Pittoresque (JO du 4 mai 1930) (France)

Dehart, H. G., 1997. Preserving Civil War Sites. Maryland’s Voluntary Easement Strategy. In: Cultural Resource Management, Vol. 20 (5), p. 23-27.

Denkmalschutzgesetz (DSchG Mecklenburg Vorpommern) 2006 (Germany)

Denkmalschutzgesetz (DSchG) 2007 (Hamburg, Germany)

Denkmalschutzgesetz des Landes Sachsen-Anhalt 2005 (Germany)

Dore, L., 2001. Once the War is Over. In: Freeman, P. and Pollard, T., eds. Fields of Conflict: Progress and Prospects in Battlefield Archaeology. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports International Series 958, p. 283-289.

Doyle, P. and Bennett, M. R., 2002. Terrain in Military History: An Introduction. In: Doyle, P. and Bennett, M. R., eds. Fields of Battle: Terrain in Military History, Dordrecht: Kluwer. p. 1-7.

Doyle, P., 2006. Military Geology and the Battle of Gettysburg, July 1863. In: Geology Today, Vol. 22 (4), p. 142-149.

Dreyer, B., 2007. Die Ausgrabungen von Kalkriese und die Rekonstruktion des Verlaufes der Varuskatastrophe im Jahre 9 n. Chr [The Excavations of Kalkriese and the Reconstruction of the Order of Events of the Varus Disaster of 9 AD]. In: Tekmeria, Vol. 7, p. 7-47.

East Midlands Tourism, 2008. Q-book Think Access. Leicester: East Midlands Tourism. Available from: http://www.eastmidlandstourism.co.uk/uploads/Think_access_complete190608.pdf [Accessed 10th March 2011].

Edina Digimap, 2011. Map of Tewkesbury Battlefield, 1:26. London: Ordnance Survey. Available from: http://edina.ac.uk/digimap/ [Accessed 5th June 2011].

English Heritage, 1995a. English Heritage Battlefield Report: Tewkesbury 1471. London: English Heritage. Available from: http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/content/imported- docs/p-t/tewkesbury.pdf [Accessed 14th May 2011].

English Heritage, 1995b. Registered Battlefields. London: English Heritage. Available from: http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/caring/listing/battlefields/ [Accessed 6th February 2011].

English Heritage, 2011. 1066 Battle of Hastings, Abbey & Battlefield. London: English Heritage. Available from: http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/daysout/properties/1066- battle-of-hastings-abbey-and-battlefield/ [Accessed 5th June 2011].

Fiorato, V., Boylston, A. and Knüsel, C., 2007. Blood Red Roses: The Archaeology of a Mass Grave from the Battle of Towton AD 1461. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Flodden 1513, ca. 2011. Download Centre. Flodden: Flodden 1513. Available from: http://www.flodden.net/download-centre/index.aspx [Accessed 5th June 2011].

Foard, G. and Partida, T., 2005. Scotland’s Historic Fields of Conflict. An Assessment for Historic Scotland by the Battlefields Trust. Norwich: Battlefields Trust. Available from: http://www.battlefieldstrust.com/resource-centre [Accessed 15th February 2011].

Foard, G., 2004a. Bosworth Battlefield. A Reassessment. Norwich: Battlefields Trust and Leicestershire County Council. Available from: http://www.battlefieldstrust.com/media/269.pdf [Accessed 18th March 2011].

Foard, G., 2004b. Field Offensive. In: British Archaeology, No. 79, page numbers unknown.

Foard, G., 2004c. Naseby. The Decisive Campaign. 2nd Edition. Barnsley: Pen and Sword.

Foard, G., 2007. English Battlefields 991-1685. A Review of Problems and Potentials. In: Scott, D., Babits, L. and Haecker, C., eds. Fields of Conflict – Battlefield Archaeology from the Roman Empire to the Korean War. Vol. I. Westport et al.: Praeger Security International, p. 133-159.

Foard, G., 2008. Conflict in the Pre-industrial Landscape of England: A Resource Assessment. Norwich: Battlefields Trust. Available from: http://www.battlefieldstrust.com/resource-centre [Accessed 23th April 2011].

Foard, G., 2009. Statement by Glenn Foard – Project Officer – Battlefields Trust. Bosworth: Leicestershire County Council. Available from: http://www.bosworthbattlefield.com/battle/archaeology/battlefield/battlefield_bft.htm [Accessed 6th April 2011].

Freeman, P. and Pollard, T., eds., 2001. Fields of Conflict: Progress and Prospects in Battlefield Archaeology. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports International Series 958.

Freeman, P., 2001. Introduction: Issues concerning the Archaeology of Battlefields. In: Freeman, P. and Pollard, T., eds. Fields of Conflict: Progress and Prospects in Battlefield Archaeology. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports International Series 958, p. 1-12.

Gallagher, M. L., 1995. Taking a Stand on Hallowed Ground. In: Planning, Vol. 61 (1), p. 10.

Gesetz über den Schutz und die Pflege der Denkmale im Lande Brandenburg (BbDschG) 2004 (Germany)

Gesetz zum Schutz der Kulturdenkmale (DSchG) 2004 (Baden-Württemberg, Germany)

Gesetz zum Schutz der Kulturdenkmale in Schleswig-Holstein (Denkmalschutzgesetz - DSchG) 2002 (Germany)

Gesetz zum Schutz und zur Pflege der Denkmäler im Lande Nordrhein-Westfalen 2005 (Germany)

Gesetz zum Schutz und zur Pflege der Kulturdenkmäler im Freistaat Sachsen (SächsDSchG) 2009 (Germany)

Gesetz zum Schutze der Kulturdenkmäler (DSchG) 2001 (Hessen, Germany)

Gesetz zum Schutze und zur Pflege der Denkmäler (DSchG) 2009 (Bayern, Germany)

Gesetz zum Schutze von Denkmalen in Berlin (DSchG B) 2005 (Germany)

Gesetz zur Pflege und zum Schutz der Kulturdenkmäler (DSchG Bremen) 2003 (Germany)

Glenlivet Estate, ca. 2011. Battle of Glenlivet (Walk 4). Glenlivet: Estate. Available from: http://www.glenlivetestate.co.uk/battle_of_glenlivet.html [Accessed 5th June 2011].

Gold, J. R. and Gold, M. M., 2007. “The Graves of the Gallant Highlanders”. Memory, Interpretation and Narratives of Culloden. In. History and Memory, Vol. 19 (1) p. 5-38.

Goodchild, S., no date. Comment to the Conservation Area Appraisal Consultation. Tewkesbury: Battlefield Society. Unpublished.

Google, 2011. The Locations of the Case Study Sites, scale unknown. Mountain View, CA. Available from: http://www.google.co.uk [Accessed 18th July 2011].

Gossett, T., 1997. Working Together. In: Cultural Resource Management, Vol. 20 (5), p. 4- 6.

Halloran, K., 2005. The Brunanburh Campaign: A Reappraisal. In: The Scottish Historical Review, Vol. 84 (2), p. 133-148.

Halsall, T. J., 2002. Geology and Warfare in England and Wales 1450-1660. In: Doyle, P. and Bennett, M. R., eds. Fields of Battle: Terrain in Military History. Dordrecht: Kluwer, p. 19-31.

Heritage Lottery Fund, 2008. Conservation Management Planning. Integrated Plans for Conservation, New Work, Physical Access, Management and Maintenance at Heritage Sites. London: Heritage Lottery Fund. Available from: http://www.hlf.org.uk/HowToApply/furtherresources/Documents/Conservation_managem ent_planning.pdf [Accessed 22/12/10].

Highland Council, 2006. Inverness Local Plan. Inverness: Highland Council. Available from: http://www.highland.gov.uk [Accessed 14th June 2011].

Hill, P. and Wileman, J., 2002. Landscapes of War. The Archaeology of Aggression and Defence. Charleston, SC: Tempus.

Historic Environment Amendment (Scotland) Act 2011

Historic Monuments and Archaeological Objects (Northern Ireland) Order 1995

Historic Scotland, 2010. A Guide to the Inventory of Historic Battlefields 2011. Edinburgh: Historic Scotland. Available from: http://www.historic- scotland.gov.uk/guidetobattlefieldinventory.pdf [Accessed 16/12/10].

Historic Scotland, 2011a. Conserving Battlefields. Edinburgh: Historic Scotland. Available from: http://www.historic- scotland.gov.uk/index/heritage/battlefields/conservingbattlefields.htm [Accessed 4th July 2011].

Historic Scotland, 2011b. List of Battlefields Proposed for the Register. Edinburgh: Historic Scotland. Available from: http://www.historic- scotland.gov.uk/index/heritage/battlefields/battlefieldsunderconsideration.htm [Accessed 16th March 2011].

Historic Scotland, 2011c. Managing Change in the Historic Environment Guidance. Note: Historic Battlefields. Edinburgh: Historic Scotland. Available from: http://www.historic- scotland.gov.uk/managingchangebattlefields.pdf [Accessed 4th March 2011].

Historic Scotland, 2011d. Inventory of Historic Battlefields: Culloden. Edinburgh: Historic Scotland. Available from: http://data.historic- scotland.gov.uk/data/docs/battlefields/culloden_full.pdf [Accessed 19th April 2011].

Hopton Heath Battlefield Memorial Project, ca. 2010. Monument Project Background. S. L.: Hopton Heath Battlefield Memorial Project. Available from: http://www.hoptonheathbattlefieldmonumentproject.org/ [Accessed 5th June 2011].

Hutt, S., Blanco, C. and Varmer, O., 1999. Heritage Resources Law. New York et al.: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

King, T. F., 1998. Cultural Resource, Laws & Practice – an Introductory Guide. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press.

Landesgesetz zum Schutz und zur Pflege der Kulturdenkmäler (DSchPfIG) 2008 (Rheinland-Pfalz, Germany)

Lees, W., 2001. Reconnecting with the Hallowed Ground of the American Civil War. In: Freeman, P. and Pollard, T., eds. Fields of Conflict: Progress and Prospects in Battlefield Archaeology. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports International Series 958, p. 143-158.

Leicestershire Promotions, no date. Bosworth Battlefield Case Study. Leicester: East Midlands Tourism. Available from: http://tourism.gloucestershire.com [Accessed 17th March 2011].

Leicesteshire County Council, 2011. Stewardship of Heritage Assets. Bosworth Battlefield Revitalisation Project: 2005-2010. Bosworth: Leicestershire County Council. Available from: http://www.leics.gov.uk/ [Accessed 4th April 2011].

Ley 16/1985, de 25 de junio, del Patrimonio Histórico Español (Spain)

Loi du 2 Mai 1930 Relative à la Protection des Monuments Naturels et des Sites de Caractère Artistique, Historique, Scientifique, Légendaire ou Pittoresque (JO du 4 mai 1930) (France)

Loi du 27 septembre 1941 portant réglementation des fouilles archéologiques (France)

Loi du 18 décembre 1989 relative à l‟utilisation de détecteurs de métaux soumise à autorisation administrative préalable (France)

Loi no. 2001-44 du 17 janvier 2001 relative à l‟archéologie preventive (France)

Loi no. 2003-707 du ler août 2003 modifiant la loi no 2001-44 du 17 janvier 2001 relative à l‟archéologie preventive (France)

Lynch, T. and Cooksey, J., 2007. Battlefield Archaeology. Stroud: Tempus.

MacLean, F., Garden, M. C. and Urquhart, G., 2007. Romaticising Tragedy: Culloden Battle Site in Scotland. In: Ryan, C., ed. Battlefield Tourism: History, Place and Interpretation. Oxford and Amsterdam: Elsevier, p. 221-234.

MacSween, A., 2001. Preserving Scotland’s Battlefields: Powers, Practices and Possibilities. In: Freeman, P. and Pollard, T., eds. Fields of Conflict: Progress and Prospects in Battlefield Archaeology. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports International Series 958, p. 291-296.

McCann, D., 2010. Protection sought for Dunbar Battlefield. East Lothian Courier, 18th March 2010. Available from: http://www.eastlothiancourier.com [Accessed 5th June 2011].

Meller, H., ed., 2009. Schlachtfeldarchäologie. Battlefield Archaeology. 1. Mitteldeutscher Archäologentag vom 09. bis 11. Oktober 2008 in Halle (Saale). Tagungen des Landesmuseums für Vorgeschichte Halle [First Archaeological Conference of Central Germany from 9th to 11th Oct 2008 in Halle (Saale).Conferences of the Federal Museum for Prehistory Halle]. Halle (Saale): Landesmuseum für Vorgeschichte.

Musselburgh Conservation Society, ca. 2011. Pinkie Battlefield Walk. Musselburgh: Conservation Society. Available from: http://www.musselburghheritage.org.uk/Pinkie%20Battlefield%20Walk.html [Accessed 5th June 2011].

Naseby Battlefield Project, 2011a. Naseby Battlefield awarded over £30,000 from Heritage Lottery Fund. Naseby: Battlefield Project. Available from: http://www.naseby.com/theproject/progress/ [Accessed 16th July 2011].

Naseby Battlefield Project, 2011b. The Project. Naseby: Battlefield Project. Available from: http://www.naseby.com/theproject/ [Accessed 5th June 2011].

National Historic Preservation Act 1966 (USA)

100

National Monuments Act 1930 (Republic of Ireland)

National Trust for Scotland, ca. 2011a. Bannockburn Heritage Centre. Edinburgh: National Trust for Scotland. Available from: http://www.nts.org.uk/Property/95/ [Accessed 5th June 2011].

National Trust for Scotland, ca. 2011b. Killicrankie Visitor Centre. Edinburgh: National Trust for Scotland. Available from: http://www.nts.org.uk/Property/39/ [Accessed 5th June 2011].

National Trust for Scotland, no date. Culloden Information Leaflet. Culloden: National Trust for Scotland. Available from: http://www.nts.org.uk/culloden/Downloads/Culloden%20Information%20Leaflet.pdf [Accessed 26th July 2011].

Natural England, 2008. Preparing a Heritage Management Plan. Sheffield: Natural England. Available from: http://naturalengland.etraderstores.com/NaturalEnglandShop/NE63 [Accessed 22/12/10].

Newman, M., 2004. Why fight for Battlefields? In: Landscapes, Vol. 4 (2), p. 34-40.

Niedersächsisches Denkmalschutzgesetz (NDSchG) 2004 (Germany)

Nolan, T. J., 2009. Geographic Information Science as a Method of Integrating History and Archaeology for Battlefield Interpretation. In: Journal of Conflict Archaeology, No. 5, p. 81-104.

Parks Canada, 2000. National Historic Sites of Canada System Plan. Gatineau, Quebec: Parks Canada. Available from: http://www.pc.gc.ca/eng/docs/r/system-reseau/sites- lieux1.aspx [Accessed 14th April 2011].

Parks Canada, 2007. Battle of the Châteauguay National Historic Site of Canada. Management Plan. Gatineau, Quebec: Parks Canada. Available from: http://www.pc.gc.ca/eng/lhn-nhs/qc/chateauguay/plan/plan2.aspx [Accessed 29th March 2011].

Pearson, P., 2008. SHEP Consultation on Battlefields. Stirling: Stirling Before Pylons. Available from: http://www.historic-scotland.gov.uk/stirling-before-pylons.pdf [Accessed 5th June 2011].

101

Piekarz, M., 2007. It’s Just a Bloody Field! Approaches, Opportunities and Dilemmas of Interpreting English Battlefields. In: Ryan, C., ed. Battlefield Tourism. History, Place and Interpretation. Oxford and Amsterdam: Elsevier, p. 29-47.

Pollard, T. and Banks, I., 2010. Now the Wars are Over: The Past, Present and Future of Scottish Battlefields. In: International Journal of Historical Archaeology, 14 (3), p. 414- 441.

Pollard, T., 2004. The Value of Enmity: Remaking and Revisiting Historic Battlefields in the United States and Britain. In. Landscapes, Vol. 4 (2), p. 25-43.

Pollard, T., 2007. Burying the Hatchet? Post-combat Appropriation in Battlefield Spaces. In: Purbrick, L., Aulich, J. and Dawson, G., eds. Contested Spaces: Representation and the Histories of Conflict. London: Palgrave MacMillan, p. 121-145.

Pollard, T., 2009a. Mapping Mayhem: Scottish Battle Maps and their Role in Archaeological Research. In: Scottish Geographical Journal, 125 (1), p. 25-42.

Pollard, T., and Oliver, N., 2002. Two Men in a Trench: Battlefield Archaeology. The Key to Unlocking the Past. London: Penguin and Michael Joseph.

Pollard, T., and Oliver, N., 2003. Two Men in a Trench II: Uncovering the Secrets of British Battlefields. London: Penguin and Michael Joseph.

Pollard, T., ed., 2009b. Culloden. The History and Archaeology of the Last Clan Battle. Barnsley: Pen and Sword.

Pratt, G. M., 2007. How do you know It’s a Battlefield? In: Scott, D., Babits, L. and Haecker, C., 2007. Fields of Conflict – Battlefield Archaeology from the Roman Empire to the Korean War. Vol. I. Westport et al.: Praeger Security International, p. 5-38.

Prestonpans Tapestry, ca. 2011. The Tapestry Background. Prestonpans: Tapestry. Available from: http://www.prestonpanstapestry.org/tapestry/Tapestry_Background.aspx [18th April 2011].

Prideaux, B., 2007. Echoes of of War: Battlefield Tourism. In: In: Ryan, C., ed. Battlefield Tourism: History, Place and Interpretation. Oxford and Amsterdam: Elsevier, p. 17-29.

102

Purbrick. L., 2007. Introduction: Sites, Representations, Histories. In: Purbrick, L., Aulich, J. and Dawson, G., eds. Contested Spaces: Representation and the Histories of Conflict. London: Palgrave MacMillan, p. 1-9.

Runyard, S. and French, Y., 1999. Marketing & Public Relations Handbook for Museums, Galleries & Heritage Attractions. London: The Stationery Office.

Saarländisches Denkmalschutzgesetz (SDSchG) 2006 (Germany)

Sample, I., 2011. Legislation forces Archaeologists to rebury Finds. In: The Guardian, 4th Feb 2011. Available from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/feb/04/archaeologists- forced-to-rebury-finds [Accessed 15th March 2011].

Schofield, J., 2005. Combat Archaeology: Material Culture and Modern Conflict. London: Duckworth.

Scott, D. D. and MacFeaters, A. P., 2011. The Archaeology of Historic Battlefields: A History and Theoretical Development in Conflict Archaeology. In: Journal of Archaeological Research, Vol. 19 (1), p. 103-132.

Shackley, M., 1999. Visitor Management. In: Leask, A. and Yeoman, I., eds. Heritage Visitor Attractions. An Operations Management Perspective. London and New York: Cassell, p. 69-82.

Simon de Montfort Society, ca. 2011. Battle Trail. S. L.: Simon de Montfort Society. Available from: http://www.simondemontfort.org/battle-trail [Accessed 5th June 2011].

Sutherland, T. and Schmidt, A., 2004. Towton, 1461: An Integrated Approach to Battlefield Archaeology. In: Landscapes, Vol. 4 (2), p. 15-25.

Sutherland, T., 2005. Battlefield Archaeology. A Guide to the Archaeology of Conflict. Bradford: British Archaeological Jobs Resource. Available from: http://www.bajr.org/Documents/BAJRBattleGuide.pdf (Accessed 23/12/10].

Tewkesbury Battlefield Society, 2010. Asset Register. Tewkesbury: Battlefield Society. Unpublished.

Tewkesbury Battlefield Society, ca. 2011. Our Aims – Our Objectives. Tewkesbury: Battlefield Society. Available from: http://tewkesbury.org.uk/ [Accessed 10th May 2011].

103

Tewkesbury Borough Council, 2006. Tewkesbury Borough Local Plan to 2011. Tewkesbury: Borough Council. Available from: http://www.tewkesbury.gov.uk/media/pdf/s/q/Adoption_Deposit_TBLP.pdf [Accessed 25th June 2011].

The Northern Echo, 2011. Civil War Battle Re-enactment to take Place. The Northern Echo, 16th June 2011. Available from: http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk [Accessed 5th June 2011].

Thüringer Gesetz zur Pflege und zum Schutz der Kulturdenkmale (ThürDSchG) 2004 (Germany)

Treasure Act 1996 (England and Wales)

US National Park Service, 2001. Guidance for Developing a Battlefield Preservation Plan. Washington: US National Park Service (Department of the Interior). Available from: http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/abpp/RevisedPlanGuidance.PDF [Accessed 8th March 2011].

US National Park Service, ca. 2011. National Register of Historic Places Database. Washington, D. C.: US National Park Service (Department of Interior). Available from: http://www.nps.gov/nr/research/ [Accessed 3rd March 2011].

Veverka, J., 1998. Interpretive Master Planning. The Essential Planning Guide for Interpretive Centers, Parks, Self-guided Trails, Historic Sites, Zoos, Exhibits and Programs. Tustin, CA: Acorn Naturalists.

Visit Bude, 2011. Walk & Talk: Stratton Battlefield Walk 05/01/11. Bude: Visit Bude. Available from: http://www.visitbude.info/site/events/walk-talk-stratton-battlefield-walk- 05-1-11-p915613 [Accessed 5th June 2011].

Visit York, 2011. The Battles of Boroughbridge (1322) and Myton (1319). York: Visit York. Available from: http://www.visityork.org [Accessed 5th June 2011].

Wilson, S., no date. Management Plan for Tewkesbury Battlefield. Tewkesbury: Borough Council. Unpublished.

Yin, R. K., 2009. Case Study Research. Design and Methods. 3rd Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA, et al.: Sage Publications.

104

Appendix A: The Role of Battles in British History and Heritage

Battles rarely last more than a few hours, but their impacts can often be felt for centuries. This is especially true for Britain whose history has been decisively shaped by military conflict (Lynch and Cooksey 2007). While new dynasties were created on Hastings and Bosworth, the aspiring dreams of others were crushed on Sedgemoor and Culloden; the lines between friend and foe blurred in martial periods like the Wars of Roses and the Civil War. Their fields of battle became heritage over time, places used for the remembrance and reconstruction of these conflicts.

The last battles fought on British soil date back to the early modern period (1685 for England and 1746 for Scotland). Thus, only few of many sites have survived as identified battlefields in the shared memory. Historical eye-witness accounts and later secondary works ensured that at least the most important battlefields were commemorated in writing (Foard and Pardita 2005). One of the only elements of society dedicated to their continuous remembrance was the military. After the end of the domestic battle era, it increasingly relied on fields of conflict as teaching resources, a practice which was copied from the battlefield tours of the German army (Caddick-Adams 2005). However, with the rise of romanticism in the 19th century a new wave of interest not only in the historicity of the battles, but also the battlefields themselves arose. Richard Brooke published his “Visits to the Fields of Battle in England of the Fifteenth Century” in 1854; a first archaeological survey was conducted at Naseby battlefield in 1842 (Carman and Carman 2006). Land owners increasingly realised the touristic potential of historic battlefields: Guided tours and exhibitions with finds from the fields were offered as well as memorials erected to the fallen, e. g. at Culloden battlefield (Pollard 2007). This development was further fuelled by the preservation movement in the United States. 30 years after the end of the American Civil War, initiatives fought for the recognition and protection of its battle sites, leading to the introduction of a number of battlefield parks (Andrus 1999).

British battlefields grew in importance over the next decades, not at least with further publications such as Burne‟s The Battlefields of England and More Battlefields of England

105 in 1950 and 1952 respectively. But academic study and the opening up of battlefields as visitor attractions on a large scale did not occur until the 1980s (Pollard 2004). The formation of the Battlefields Trust, an organisation dedicated to the conservation of battlefields, in 1991 and the establishment of inventories by English Heritage in 1995 and by Historic Scotland in 2011 heralded a new appreciation of these resources. In addition to that, several visitor centres were set up on fields of conflict in the 1980s and 1990s.

Historic battlefields in Britain today attract interest from many sides. As national heritage, they appeal to educators, military history enthusiasts, academics and visitors alike: The variety of events, talks, tours and re-enactments testify to that (Sutherland 2005). TV formats like Two Men in a Trench (Pollard and Oliver 2002 and 2003) and Time Team show archaeological battlefield surveys and their results. Print publications such as the Battlefields Annual Review appeal to a broad reader audience (Cooksey 2005). But the treatment of this resource can be difficult: Other than in the USA or Canada, where still third-generation ancestors fought in the rather recent conflicts, the British lack this link to the past (Lynch and Cooksey 2007). In order to relate visitors to the events on the battlefield, an innovative interpretation is needed.

This has only been employed on a minority of places; decades of battlefield interpretation have tended to favour one side. Purbrick (2007, p. 1) aptly calls military sites “inevitably contested”. Especially in Scotland, nationalist sentiment has reversed the unbiased perception interpreters have fought for. A small, devolved nation with many battlefields, sites like Culloden have been abused for political gain (Newman 2004, Pollard 2007). It is now the challenge of planners and decision-makers in the heritage sector to harmonise the ambiguous interpretations of this resource.

106

Appendix B: Management and Protection of Battlefields in other Countries

Europe

Until recently, battlefield conservation on a large scale had only been practised in the United States and Canada. Western Europe, however, has a long tradition of managing battlefields as reconciliatory meeting places as well as visitor attractions. Many have been opened up, not at least the World War I and World War II sites. Every year, hundreds of thousands of visitors travel to sites in France such as Vimy (Bull and Panton 2000) or the fields of conflict of the 30 Years War in Germany, e. g. Wittstock (1636 – Ihre Letzte Schlacht 2011). The majority of managed battlefields in Europe originate from the conflicts of the 19th and 20th century, because earlier military encounters are difficult to locate and to research.

Over the last years, conservation and protection of battlefields have gained momentum in Europe. Conferences like “Erster Mitteldeutscher Archäologentag 2008” (First Archaeological Conference of Central Germany 2008, Meller 2009) in Halle and der Saale, Germany, dedicated to battlefield archaeology are evidence for the growing interest in the academic world. Several excavations at battlefield locations such as the Teutoburg Forest indicate an orientation towards a more scientific stance (Dreyer 2007).

France, Spain, Ireland and Germany all have introduced heritage registers based on national or federal legislation1. Battlefields are increasingly acknowledged as an important

1 France: Code Pénal, Loi du 2 Mai 1930 Relative à la Protection des Monuments Naturels et des Sites de Caractère Artistique, Historique, Scientifique, Légendaire ou Pittoresque (JO du 4 mai 1930), Loi du 27 septembre 1941 portant réglementation des fouilles archéologiques, Loi du 18 décembre 1989 relative à l‟utilisation de détecteurs de métaux soumise à autorisation administrative préalable, Loi no. 2001-44 du 17 janvier 2001 relative à l‟archéologie preventive, Loi no. 2003-707 du ler août 2003 modifiant la loi no 2001- 44 du 17 janvier 2001 relative à l‟archéologie preventive; Spain: Ley 16/1985, de 25 de junio, del Patrimonio Histórico Español; Ireland: National Monuments Act 1930; Germany: Gesetz zum Schutz der Kulturdenkmale (DSchG) 2004 (Baden-Württemberg), Gesetz zum Schutze und zur Pflege der Denkmäler (DSchG) 2009 (Bayern), Gesetz zum Schutze von Denkmalen in Berlin (DSchG B) 2005, Gesetz über den Schutz und die Pflege der Denkmale im Lande Brandenburg (BbDschG) 2004, Gesetz zur Pflege und zum Schutz der Kulturdenkmäler (DSchG Bremen) 2003, Denkmalschutzgesetz (DSchG) 2007 (Hamburg),

107 resource and variously inscribed as monuments (France, Ireland, Germany) or sites / landscapes (Spain). The degree of protection awarded to battlefields by this legislation varies.

Canada

The Commonwealth of Canada relies on a nationwide inventory, called the Canadian Register of Historic Places, which was established with the Historic Sites and Monuments Act (1985). Only heritage sites of national significance are listed by the Historic Sites and Monuments Board within a thematic framework (Peopling the Land, Developing Economics, Governing Canada, Building Social and Community Life and Expressing Intellectual and Cultural Life). While most battlefields are indeed of national importance and thus commonly inventorised under Governing Canada – Military Defense, territorial and local authorities can designate sites independently. Significance is assessed by a concept termed Commemorative Integrity applied to all site types.

Canadian fields of conflict are not listed as landscapes. However, this is overruled by the fact that most battlefields are managed as National Parks by the responsible organisation, Parks Canada. Some fields have been set up as visitor attractions with information centres, while others only offer informative boards on site. Protective measures can easily be realised as Parks Canada owns large grounds of the parks (Parks Canada 2000).

The Canadian heritage organisations are rigorous in their requirements for management planning. Strategic plans have been drafted for several battle sites, such as Batoche,

Gesetz zum Schutze der Kulturdenkmäler (DSchG) 2001 (Hessen), Denkmalschutzgesetz (DSchG Mecklenburg Vorpommern) 2006, Niedersächsisches, Denkmalschutzgesetz (NDSchG) 2004, Gesetz zum Schutz und zur Pflege der Denkmäler im Lande Nordrhein-Westfalen 2005, Landesgesetz zum Schutz und zur Pflege der Kulturdenkmäler (DSchPfIG) 2008 (Rheinland-Pfalz), Saarländisches Denkmalschutzgesetz (SDSchG) 2006, Gesetz zum Schutz und zur Pflege der Kulturdenkmäler im Freistaat Sachsen (SächsDSchG) 2009, Denkmalschutzgesetz des Landes Sachsen-Anhalt 2005, Gesetz zum Schutz der Kulturdenkmale in Schleswig-Holstein (Denkmalschutzgesetz - DSchG) 2002, Thüringer Gesetz zur Pflege und zum Schutz der Kulturdenkmale (ThürDSchG) 2004

108

Chateauguay, Tourond‟s Coulee and Ford Battleford. A common planning framework and regular revision ensure the comparability and topicality of sites.

Canada is one of only few countries which protect their military heritage to such an extent; much of this is owed to the lessons learned from its neighbour, the United States.

The United States of America

The USA have pioneered battlefield protection and management. The first Battlefield Parks were set up in the 1890s as a response to the declining conditions of the Civil War sites. Chickamauga-Chattanooga, Gettysburg, Shiloh and Antietam stand for the shared efforts of a nation to conserve its military heritage to this day (Pollard 2004, Andrus 1999). The long-term experience with the resource has led to a breadth of knowledge within the National Park Service, the responsible authority for battlefields (founded in 1916). Apart from Battlefield Parks, the designations of National Battlefield, National Battlefield Site, National Military Park and National Cemetery have been established (Carman 2006). Managed within these frameworks, most sites are simultaneously listed on the federal National Register of Historic Places or on state and local inventories.

Set up with the National Historic Preservation Act (1966), the register lists more than 200 historic battle sites (King 1998, Andrus 1999). Criteria for listing comprise the association with important events in history (A), with an individual significant to America‟s past (B), the authenticity of architecture and engineering works (C) and the likelihood to yield important information about America‟s history (D). Additionally, a period and area of significance, such as military, as well as categories for integrity (e. g. setting or association) and function (e. g. defense or landscape) have to be assigned (Andrus 1999). Finds and human remains are protected under a variety of other acts, such as the Archaeological Resources Protection Act 1979 (King 1998, Hutt 1999).

In the USA, the protection of battlefields takes precedence over their exploitation as economic resources and is generally defined as preservation or the “steps necessary to

109 sustain the existing form, integrity, and materials of a historic property” (NPS 2001, p. 2). Because the administrative entities follow the general rule of acquisition of valuable land, they have been faced with long and expensive law suits over the years. The introduction of the American Battlefield Protection Program (ABPP) in 1996 and its complimentary Acts, American Battlefield Protection Program Act 1996 and the Civil War Battlefield Preservation Act 2002, was geared towards a proactive surveying and purchase of primarily civil war battlefields (NPS 2001).

Battlefields in the United States today are managed both by the National Park Service (31 in total), by local authorities as well as by private initiatives and organisations such as the Civil War Trust or the National Parks and Conservation Association (Gossett 1997). They range from large-scale visitor attractions like Gettysburg, with regular re-enactments, high quality interpretive programs and visitor centres, to empty fields. The sheer number of historic military conflict sites, estimated to amount to more than 10,000, and the increasing lack of funds have allowed the conservation of only few sites (Prideaux 2007). Of those, only a proportion is opened up as visitor attractions. Compared to the international situation, however, the USA is a vanguard in battlefield protection and management.

The ABPP alone produced reports about ca. 300 battlefields, detailing their condition, threats, and opportunities. Centres for Military History and Archaeology have been set up at various universities. Friends groups, historic associations and re-enactors are strong advocates of battlefield preservation. And last but not least, the level of professionalism in battlefield reconstruction is very high (Pollard 2004, Freeman 2001, NPS 2001).

110

Appendix C: Inventory of Battlefields

The English Inventory of Historic Battlefields

Tab. 1: Battlefields inscribed on the English Register, Complete with Representation and/or Programme (Personal Communication, Goodchild, 21st June 2011, Knox, 9th June 2011, Malloy, 12th June 2011, Robinson, 9th June 2011, Taylor, 12th June 2011, Battlefield 1403 ca. 2011, BT ca. 2011a, b and c, Battle of Cheriton Project 2008, Cotswold Journal 2011, English Heritage ca. 2011, Flodden 1513 ca. 2011, Hopton Heath Battlefield Memorial Project ca. 2010, Naseby Battlefield Project 2011b, Piekarz 2007, p. 33, Simon de Montfort Society ca. 2011, The Northern Echo 2011, Visit Bude 2011, Visit York 2011).

Battlefield County Year Representation and/or Programme Adwalton Moor West Yorkshire 1643 Barnet Greater London 1471 Blore Heath Staffordshire 1459 Boroughbridge North Yorkshire 1322 Tours by Jorvik Viking Centre Bosworth Field Leicestershire 1485 Bosworth Battlefield Heritage Centre and Country Park Braddock Down Cornwall and Isles Scilly 1643 Chalgrove Oxfordshire 1643 Cheriton Hampshire 1644 Battle of Cheriton Project Cropredy Bridge Oxfordshire 1644 Trail, linked with Edgehill and Edgcote Edgehill Warwickshire 1642 Trail, linked with Cropredy and Edgcote Evesham Herefordsire 1265 Simon de Montfort Society Flodden Northumberland 1513 Remembering Flodden Project Halidon Hill Northumberland 1333 Hastings 1066 Battle of Hastings, Abbey and East Sussex 1066 Battlefield (English Heritage) Homildon Northumberland 1402 Homildon Hill Battlefield Project Hopton Heath Staffordshire 1643 Hopton Heath Battlefield Memorial Project, Hopton Heath and Battlefield Walk Langport Somerset 1645 Lansdown Hill Bristol 1643 Lewes East Sussex 1264 Maldon Essex 991 Marston Moor North Yorkshire 1644 Tours by Jorvik Viking Centre Myton North Yorkshire 1319 Battlefield Walk, Tours by Jorvik Viking Centre Nantwich Cheshire 1644 Naseby Northamptonshire 1645 The Naseby Battlefield Project Neville's Cross Durham 1346 Battlefield Walk

111

Newburn Ford Tyne and Wear 1640 Newbury Berkshire 1643 Northallerton North Yorkshire 1138 Northampton Northamptonshire 1460 Otterburn Northumberland 1388 Roundway Down Wiltshire 1643 Rowton Cheshire 1645 Sedgemoor Somerset 1685 Shrewsbury Shropshire 1403 Battlefield 1403 Solway Moss Cumbria 1542 Stamford Bridge East Riding of 1066 Yorkshire Stoke Field Nottinghamshire 1487 Stow Gloucestershire 1646 Battlefield Walk Stratton Cornwall and 1643 Battlefield Walk Isles Scilly Tewkesbury Gloucestershire 1471 Tewkesbury Battlefield Society Towton North Yorkshire 1461 Towton Battlefield Society Winceby Lincolnshire 1643 Battlefield Walk Worcester with Worcestershire 1651 Battle of Worcester Society Powick Bridge

The Scottish Inventory of Historic Battlefields

Tab. 2: Battlefields inscribed on the Scottish Register, Complete with Representation and/or Programme (Personal Communication, Boal, 20th May 2011, Coulson, 11th June 2011, Nock, 8th June 2011, Aberdeen City Council 2011, HS 2011b, Battle of Prestonpans 1745 no date, McCann 2010, NTS ca. 2011a and b, Pearson 2008).

Battlefield County Year Representation and/or Programme Alford Aberdeenshire 1645 Ancrum Moor Borders 1545 Auldearn Highlands 1645 Bannockburn Stirling 1314 Bannockburn Heritage Centre (National Trust for Scotland) Bothwell Bridge South 1679 Lanarkshire Culloden Highlands 1746 Culloden Visitor Centre (National Trust for Scotland) Dupplin Moor Perth and 1332 Kinross Dunbar II South 1650 Heritage Lottery Fund Bid Lanarkshire

112

Falkirk II West Lothian 1746 Glenshiel Highlands 1719 Harlaw Aberdeenshire 1411 Commemoration Week 2011 (Aberdeen City Council) Killiecrankie Perth and 1689 Visitor Centre (National Trust for Kinross Scotland) Kilsyth North 1645 Lanarkshire Philiphaugh Roxburghshire 1645 Philiphaugh Estate Pinkie East Lothian Battlefield Walk and proposed Pinkie 1547 Battlefield Group Prestonpans East Lothian 1745 Battle of Prestonpans 1754 Conservation under Stirling before Sherriffmuir Stirling 1715 Pylons

Scottish Battlefields under Consideration by Local Authorities

Tab. 3: Battlefields under Consideration by Local Authorities, Complete with Representation and/or Programme (Historic Scotland 2011b, Battle of Linlithgow Bridge 2009).

Battlefield County Year Representation and/or Programme Barra Aberdeenshire 1308 Carbisdale Highlands 1650 Cromdale Highlands 1690 Drumclog South 1679 Lanarkshire Fyvie Aberdeenshire 1644 Inverkeithing II Fife 1651 Inverlochy II Highlands 1645 Linlithgow Bridge West Lothian 1526 Battle of Linlithgow Bridge 1526 Mulroy Highlands 1688 Rullion Green Midlothian 1666 Stirling Bridge Stirling 1297

113

Battlefields under further Consideration for the Scottish Inventory

Tab. 4: Battlefields under further Consideration for the Scottish Inventory, Complete with Representation and/or Programme (HS 2011b, Glenlivet Estate ca. 2011).

Battlefield County Year Representation and/or Programme Aberdeen II Aberdeenshire 1644 Athelstaneford East Lothian 832 Carberry Hill East Lothian 1567 Dunbar I East Lothian 1296 Dunkeld Perth and 1689 Kinross Dun Nechtain Highlands 685 Glen Livet Highlands 1594 Glenlivet Estate Inverlochy I Highlands 1431 Louden Hill East Ayrshire 1307 Methven Perth and 1306 Kinross Roslin Midlothian 1303 Sauchieburn Stirling 1488 Solway Moss England 1542 Tippermuir Perth and 1644 Kinross

Welsh Battlefields suggested for Inscription on a Future Inventory (this includes Siege Sites and Sites of Civil Unrest)

Tab. 5: Proposed Sites for the Future Welsh Register of Conflict Sites (Berry no date). Battlefield County Year Representation and/or Programme Campston Hill Monmouthshire 1404 Carregwastad Pembrokeshire 1797 Point Coleshill Flintshire 1157 Craig-y-dorth Monmouthshire 1404 Crug Mawr Ceredigion 1136 Grosmont Monmouthshire 1405 Maes Gwenllian Carmarthenshire 1136 Mynydd Carn Pembrokeshire 1081 Newport Rising Monmouthshire 1839 Painscastle Powys 1198 Pilleth Powys 1402 Pwll Melyn Monmouthshire 1405 St. Fagans Cardiff 1648 Twthill Denbighshire 1461

114

Designated American Battlefields

Tab. 6: The Most Important Designated American Battlefields (NPS ca. 2011). Antietam, MD National Battlefield Big Hole, MT National Battlefield Brices Cross, MS National Battlefield Site Chickamauga and Chattanooga, National Military Park GA and TN Cowpens, SC National Battlefield Park Fort Donelson, KY and TN National Battlefield Fort Necessity, PA National Battlefield Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania, National Military Park VA Gettysburg, PA National Military Park and National Cemetery Guilford Courthouse, NC National Military Park Horseshoe Bend, AL National Military Park Kennesaw, GA National Battlefield Park Kings Mountain, SC National Military Park Manassas, VA National Battlefield Park Monocacy, MD National Battlefield Moores Creek, NC National Battlefield Pea Ridge, AR National Military Park Petersburg, VA National Battlefield Richmond, VA National Battlefield Park River Raisin, MI National Battlefield Park Shiloh, TN and MS National Military Park Stones River, TN National Battlefield Tupelo, MS National Battlefield Vicksburg, MS and LA National Military Park Wilson's Creek, MO National Battlefield

115

Appendix D: Three-tier Approach to the Reconstruction of the Battle and the Battlescape

In a first step, historical research can enlighten about the contemporary and later view of the battle action. Sources mainly used are historical eye-witness accounts, descriptions of the battle by participants. Other documents can be equally helpful, like biographical records, newspaper entries, paintings, drawings or maps. The latter are often surprisingly detailed and offer an alternative source to the interpretation of battle places (Foard 2004b, Pollard 2009a, HS 2011c).

Every source needs to be assessed for its accuracy and neutrality; local as well as national archives should be searched.

If the battle action is sufficiently consolidated, a landscape and/or terrain analysis will identify the battlescape and, ideally, distinguish it from previous or later features (Foard 2007). This can be done in the form of fieldwalking, earthwork surveys or geophysical surveys. GIS has proven to be a highly useful tool in this kind of research (Nolan 2009). Inventories of features and layered maps will then be able to give a good overview over the topography. But not only geographical methods can and should be used. Halsall (2002) showed that geology has, at times, decisively influenced the choice of battle grounds in the United Kingdom.

As a last step, the field should be subjected to archaeological investigation. Battlefield archaeology offers a wide range of methods and some of them can be realised without large scale efforts (Lynch and Cooksey 2007). Fieldwalking provides the opportunity to search the field for archaeological resources non-invasively on the surface. Metal detecting, in combination with GIS, can locate finds in the topsoil. More elaborate methods of analysis are aerial photography and electromagnetic conductivity surveys (Sutherland and Schmidt 2004, Pratt 2007). Excavations on battlefields will usually only be commissioned in the case of relevant previous discoveries.

116

Battlefield archaeology thus does not only give an insight into the features of the field, but through the analysis of the finds, can elucidate troop arrays and movements as well as discern previous features.

117

Appendix E: Example Sites

Locating the Battlefield – Brunanburh

Brunaburh was the site of a Mercian / West Saxon victory against an allied Norse Scottish and Irish force in 937. Various sources, among them the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, a Welsh translation of the Historia Regum (Brut y Tywysogion) and the Icelandic Egils Saga, describe the battle action and where it took place. Confusion has mainly arisen from the fact that the sources use different names and no source clearly states the location, i. e. the wider area or region. The depictions, however, hint at the presence of a large hill close to the battlefield. In a poem in the writings of William of Malmesbury, the battle site is being identified as “Brunanburh” – a name which has been used for it ever since (Cathers 2002, Halloran 2005).

Philological and topographical analyses of the last two centuries have placed the battle at various locations in Mercia, Cumbria, Northumberland and Scotland, often based on the similarity of name. Researchers specifically investigated places with name particles like Brune, Brume, Bron, Brom, Burh and Borough. Examples include Bromborough (Merseyside) and Bromfield (Cumbria). Halloran (2005) argues for Burnswark in Annandale, Scotland, on the basis that the actual name of the battle site is Wendune (to the English: Brunandune), and that closeby earthworks (Etbrunnanwerc or Bruneswerce) represent the hill mentioned in the depictions. However, so far the location could not indubitably ascertained (Cathers 2002, Halloran 2005).

Conflict and Contestation at Historic Battle Site

Antietam Battlefield, MD, USA

At Antietam, the site of a Civil War battle, a National Battlefield had been established by the National Park Service. In the early 1990s, the organisation owned parts of the vast

118 landscape, but wanted to protect the field even more. In order to do so, state and programme funding was secured. The land owners around the field were then approached for the purchase of their grounds; in some cases, only access rights were secured. Primary aim of this strategy was the conservation of the battlefield.

Many land owners co-operated and sold, but for some this meant state interference with their rights. The opponents of the scheme formed a pressure group and regularly organised community meetings. In the end, it was agreed to purchase ground only on a voluntary basis (Corcoran 1993, Dehart 1997).

Manassas Battlefield, VA, USA

At Manassas, preservationists fought hard to prevent commercial development. The plans for a shopping centre on the site of General Lee‟s headquarters were abandoned after a pressure group called Save the Battlefield Coalition had formed in 1988, securing 80,000 petition signatures and the support of several congress members. Consequently, the site was bought by the state and integrated into the Battlefield Park.

In 1993, the Disney Corporation wanted to build a theme park close to the site. This major development initiative was thwarted by various organisations, such as the National Trust for Historic Preservation and the Piedmont Environmental Council. The negative headlines in the press damaged Disney‟s image; the company withdrew the plans.

Both campaigns decisively influenced the protection of battlefields in the United States. As a consequence, the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission and the American Battlefield Protection Program were founded (Gallagher 1995).

Sheriffmuir Battlefield, Scotland

A community group called Stirling before Pylons has been fighting against the construction of an overhead powerline from Ullapool to Denny since 2004. The group argues that apart from impacting on people and the environment, such a line would destroy

119 the scenic vista on and from Stirling. Among other national icons like Stirling castle or the Wallace Monument, Bannockburn and Sheriffmuir battlefields would be affected. Instead, they advocate a diverted underground route (Pearson 2008).

Research and Science

Gettysburg Battlefield, PA, USA

Gettysburg has been examined for it geology since the 1960s. Andrew Brown (“Geology and the Gettysburg Campaign” in 1962 (Brown 2004)) came to the conclusion that a north- south corridor in the Blue Ridge Mountains was favourable to Lee‟s northbound advancement. This was further investigated by Harold Winters. Through a much more recent study by the Pennsylvania State Survey in partnership with Pennsylvania State University as well through an analysis by Peter Doyle (2006), it has been shown that the geology decisively influenced the battle action. For example, the terrain allowed Union soldiers to occupy prime vantage positions, while the Confederates were unable to build trenches. For more information, see Doyle (2006).

Bosworth Battlefield, England

For centuries, the military encounter which gave rise to a new English dynasty was believed to have taken place at a location called Ambion Hill in Leicestershire. Several reliable works (Brooke 1854, Burne 1950 and Carman 2006) describe the battle action in this context. However, over the last three decades this location was called into question. In a concerted effort by the Leicestershire Council and the archaeologist Glenn Foard with funding from the Heritage Lottery Fund the battle and its site were re-analysed. In order to ascertain the true location of the battle, historic documents were re-evaluated, the soil, terrain and landscape investigated and the area on and around Ambion Hill subjected to metal detecting. The surveys revealed that a) the battle was fought between the villages of Dadlington, Shenton, Upton and Stoke Golding and that b) more and heavier firearms were

120 employed than previously assumed. The results will feed into the interpretation on site (Foard 2004a, 2009).

Towton Battlefield, England

The site of Edward IV‟s victory over Henry VI is one of the best-surveyed battle places in the United Kingdom. After the excavation of a mass grave of soldiers who fought in the battle, further investigations were conducted in the course of the Towton Battlefield Archaeological Survey Project. In a re-analysis of SMR records (maps, documents, etc.), features of the battlefield could be determined and insignificant elements (previously encompassed in the boundary for the English Heritage register) excluded. Through fieldwalking, geophysical surveys and GIS recording, it could be ascertained that the area of fighting lies within the register boundary. The investigations also showed that the final part of the battle was fought close to or in the settlement of Towton and confirmed a skirmish to the south (Sutherland and Schmidt 2004).

Interpretation and Education

Prestonpans Battlefield, Scotland

The group committed to the conservation and interpretation of Prestonpans battlefield, Battle of Prestonpans 1745, aims to increase public participation in the project via the arts. In a never-before seen approach, an embroidered tapestry describing the context, action and aftermath of the battle was created, mirroring the famous Bayeux Tapestry. A travelling exhibition throughout Scotland in 2011, the group hopes to be able to bring it to the Scottish diaspora in the future (Prestonpans Tapestry ca. 2011).

Hastings Battlefield, England

A decline in visitor numbers in the early 2000s led to a reappraisal of the interpretive strategy of Hastings battlefield. In consultation with the on-site team, historians and the

121

Battlefields Trust, plans for a new visitor centre and outdoor interpretation were realised. The new centre offers a hands-on exhibition in chronological order with interactive media, panels and visual and audio devices. Different colours are attributed to the English and the Normans, presented on opposite sides of the exhibition route. This is complemented by an audio tour of the battlefield, with specialised versions for children and disabled people, and an exhibition in the Gatehouse. There, visitors can inform themselves about the finds and artefacts from the battle. As a consequence of this new overall programme, visitor numbers rose again (Bennett 2008).

Visitor Management / Marketing

Enhancing the Visitor Experience – Bosworth Battlefield, England

At Bosworth battlefield, visitors can enjoy a variety of offers, such as the dedicated visitor centre with exhibition, on-site interpretation and catering facilities. This was made possible by a £ 1m Heritage Lottery fund grant in 2005, aimed at locating the battle site with an extensive survey and subsequently, the overhaul of the visitor centre. The site is owned and managed by Leicestershire County Council and was awarded the title of Quality Assured Visitor Attraction by Visit Britain.

The management intended to increase visitor numbers and spending through an enhanced experience and therefore undertook a range of research activities to ascertain visitor satisfaction. For example, mystery calls and shopping visits revealed that visitors would like to see book examples on the shop shelves. As a consequence, sales increased by 200%. Test-runs of strollers and wheel-chairs resulted in a new arrangement of tables in the restaurant (seniors and families are target groups of Bosworth‟s marketing). And finally, the management has set up focus groups, a cost-effective method to assess satisfaction and preferences among repeat visitors (Leicestershire Promotions no date, East Midlands Tourism 2008, Leicestershire County Council 2011).

122

Conservation and Protection

Naseby Battlefield, England

Naseby is the site of a colossal defeat of Royalists in the English Civil War in 1645. Ironically, this encounter is often called the first battle of Naseby, the second referring to a pressure group initiative of the 1970s/80s. The battlefield itself had been threatened by negative development in the past: Enclosures, farm houses and a dual carriageway encroached upon the grounds. Archaeological surveys like Fitzgerald‟s investigation in 1842 were carried out, but the unregulated and uncontrolled removal of artefacts from the field was much more common. In 1974, the construction of a road through Naseby was proposed. With the exact route still unclear, a petition against it was signed by inhabitants. Re-enactors (Sealed Knot, Roundhead Association) also prominently figured in the resistance. In 1975, the The Society for the Preservation of the Field of the Battle of Naseby was founded, but even after 20 years of battle for the preservation of the field, the construction of the road could not be prevented. However, it is now only running through the southern edge of the field (Foard 2004c).

In 2000, a new initiative was formed, called The Naseby Battlefield Project. This group is committed to the conservation and interpretation of the battlefield, currently offering three tours (a tour with map, an audio tour and a restricted sight audio tour). A Heritage Lottery Fund grant of 30,000 could recently be secured (Naseby Battlefield Project 2011a).

123

Appendix F: Organisational Typology of the Site Representations

X-Axis: Organisation

The parameters express the degree of professionalisation of the organisation. For every criterion, each organisation receives a maximum of five points. On a 1-5 scale, 1 indicates a low, 5 a high degree of professionalisation.

 The organisation employs professionals.  The organisation is of a large size (> 10 employees / volunteers).  The organisation collaborates with the local authority and landowners.  The organisation is in possession of the grounds.  The organisation has facilities on the property.

Y-Axis: Planning

The parameters express the extent of management planning at the sites. For every criterion, each organisation receives a maximum of five points. On a 1-5 scale, 1 indicates the absence, 5 the presence of a varied planning framework.

 The organisation relies on a comprehensive management planning.  The organisation has clearly defined aims and objectives.  The organisation has the intention to realise projects in the near future.  The organisation employs independent means of fundraising.  The organisation offers interpretive and/or commemorative devices on the field and/or has the intention to do so.

124

Results (in the above-given order)

Bosworth Battlefield X-Axis 5, 5, 5, 3, 5 = 23 Y-Axis 5, 5, 5, 5, 5 = 25

Culloden Battlefield X-Axis 5, 5, 5, 5, 5 = 25 Y-Axis 5, 5, 4, 5, 5 = 24

Homildon Hill Battlefield Project X-Axis 1, 1, 1, 1, 1 = 5 Y-Axis 3, 2, 4, 1, 2 = 12

Philiphaugh Estate X-Axis 4, 5, 5, 5, 1 = 20 Y-Axis 4, 4, 5, 5, 5 = 23

The Battle of Pinkie Cleuch X-Axis 1, 1, 1, 1, 1 = 5 Y-Axis 1, 1, 2, 1, 1 = 6

Tewkesbury Battlefield Society X-Axis 1, 3, 4, 1, 1 = 10 Y-Axis 3, 5, 5, 4, 4 = 21

Towton Battlefield Society X-Axis 1, 3, 5, 1, 1 = 11 Y-Axis 3, 5, 4, 4, 5 = 21

Worcester X-Axis 1, 3, 3, 1, 1 = 9 Y-Axis 2, 5, 5, 3, 4 = 19

125

Appendix G: Characterisations of the In-depth Case Study Sites in the Battlefield Registers

a) Culloden Battlefield

Historic Scotland Battlefields Register Entry (abridged) (HS 2011d, p. 1-23)

“CULLODEN

16 April 1746 Local Authority: Highland NGR centred: NH 739 449

Overview The battle of Culloden was the last pitched battle fought on the British mainland. It was also the last battle of the final Jacobite Rising that commenced in 1745 when Charles Edward Stuart (Bonnie Prince Charlie), grandson of the exiled King James VIII & III, arrived in Scotland from France in July and raised his standard at Glenfinnan on 19 August. His aim was to put his father on the throne in place of the Hanoverian George II. Spurred on by a glorious victory at Prestonpans in September 1745, the Jacobite army made an unsuccessful attempt to march on London in December that year. On their return they were confronted by Government troops at Falkirk in January 1746and, after this indecisive victory, turned north and arrived in Inverness in February. The Government army marched north and arrived at Nairn on 14 April. The two armies met on Drummossie Moor at dawn on 16th April. The battle was a total and bloody defeat for the Jacobites which effectively marked the end of almost sixty years of the Jacobite struggle, as never again would an armed uprising be used in the attempt to return the Stuarts to the throne. The Government victory paved the way for a sustained programme to destroy the power base of the rebel clans.

126

The Battle On the night of 15th April 1746, the Jacobites marched to Nairn in an unsuccessful attempt to surprise the Government force in their camp, following which they were forced to march back towards Inverness with the Government army close behind. Early the following morning, on 16 April 1746, the Jacobite army under Charles Edward Stuart returned to Culloden and took up position between two stone enclosures (Culwhiniac and Culloden Parks) on Drummossie Moor. The Government army formed up around 700m to the east, positioned at a slight angle to the Jacobite line. Seven battalions made up their front line, three ranks deep, with Barrell‟s and Monro‟s regiments positioned on the left. Twin batteries of 3 lb guns were located between each battalion. The second line was initially made up from five battalions, with three in reserve but, before battle commenced, two of these reserves (Pultney‟s and Battereau‟s) were pushed forward to the right flank of the first and second lines to prevent outflanking by the extended Jacobite left. The battle opened with an exchange of artillery fire, during which the Government guns quickly took the upper hand over the Jacobite artillery. After suffering this galling fire for some time, the Jacobite infantry surged forward, beginning with the centre of the line made up from the men of Clan Chattan. The right wing, including men from the Atholl Brigade, was a little slower off the mark, and this staggering of the advance created a diagonal movement, with boggy ground, a track running across the moor, gently sloping topography and heavy fire further directing the advance toward the left flank of the Government line. The MacDonalds and others on the left were the last to move forward. They were not to make good progress as they were starting at a greater distance from the Government line than the centre and the right. Heavy fire from the Government artillery effectively stopped them in their tracks. With the charge underway, the Government artillery changed from round shot to case and grapeshot and, when the Jacobites reached about 45m, the Government troops discharged a volley of musketry into the body of the charging enemy. The losses must have been terrible, but the momentum and determination of the charge was enough to carry the attackers crashing into the front of the Government left, between Barrell‟s and Monro‟s regiments. Although they managed to hack their way into the front line, many Jacobites found themselves sandwiched between the muskets and bayonets of the front and second lines, and it is here that the Jacobite struggle effectively came to a bloody end. At this

127 point, Wolfe‟s and Ligonier‟s regiments counter-attacked, moving from their position on the left of the second line around the left of the front line, from where they could deliver flanking fire into the mass of Jacobites engaged with Monro‟s and Barrell‟s, the latter of which must have been close to breaking. Meanwhile, the dragoons on the Government left, under General Hawley, made intelligent use of the terrain and moved behind the Jacobite right, after passing through breaches made by the Campbells in the enclosure walls to the south of the field. By this time, all was lost for the Jacobites and, under the protection of a covering action by their cavalry and the infantry detachments of the second line, Charles‟ army streamed from the field. Having taken the day, the Government line advanced in close order, dispatching the wounded and those too slow to escape. The cruel aftermath of the battle has entered into the popular imagination and there are many stories of Jacobite wounded being dragged from their places of shelter and shot against walls, and of the barns in which they sheltered being burned to the ground after the doors had been bolted.

The Armies

Jacobite: dominated by clan regiments included Lowland contingents and French regulars largely “amateur” in character entered the fight exhausted, poorly provisioned and without support troops

Government: highly disciplined and experienced 16 regiments on foot, four of them Scottish provisioned by the Royal Navy

Numbers

Jacobite: Total number at Culloden: c. 5,000 foot c.250 horse; eleven 3 lb and one 4 lb guns.

128

Government: Total number at Culloden: 7,000 foot; 800 horse; ten 3lb guns and 6 coehorn mortars.

Losses The official return for British army casualties (Government troops) was 50 officers and men killed and 259 wounded, one missing (a proportion of the wounded later died of their wounds). Jacobite fatalities have been estimated at between 1,200-1,500, with between 400 and 500 prisoners taken in the immediate aftermath and many more in the days which followed. Only the Irish and Scottish troops in French service were treated as bona fide prisoners of war, the rest as rebels.

Aftermath and Consequences Culloden‟s most obvious claims to significance are that it was the last battle of the Jacobite risings and the last pitched battle to be fought on British soil. These accolades aside, the battle has a unique place when it comes to tracing the trajectory of Scottish and British history. The battle of marked the bloody end of more than fifty years of Jacobite struggle and the beginning of a profound shift in the trajectory of British history. It set in place the destruction of the clan system, which in turn created the social conditions in which the Highland Clearances took place. On an international scale, the defeat of the Jacobites also removed the threat of French invasion and allowed Britain to concentrate on its interests in North America and Canada. The British Army went on to defeat the French during the Seven Years War with numerous personalities related to Culloden, including Wolfe of Quebec, playing prominent roles. The defeat of the French in Canada was, in turn, to pave the way for British expansion on a world wide scale, initially to India, and to lay the foundations for the British Empire. Many men who fought on the Jacobite side were later to enlist in or be pressed into the British army and serve in the Seven Years War, where their suitability to the rough terrain was not lost on their commanders. Despite the various popular misconceptions over the battle, strongest among them being that it was fought between the Scots and the English, the emotional draw of the site should not be overlooked. The clan graves in particular serve as a place of pilgrimage to tens of thousands of visitors every year, many of them of Scots descent living overseas.

129

Events & Participants Culloden is an iconic battle. It is of immense historical significance because it was both the final battle of the Jacobite Risings and the last pitched battle on the British mainland. Its importance resulted in detailed contemporary records and maps, and has stimulated considerable subsequent research and archaeological investigation, making it the best understood battlefield in Scotland. The battle brought an end to the series of Jacobite uprisings that had spanned a period of more than fifty years. The immediate aftermath saw sustained oppression of the Highlands by the Government in an attempt to break down the clan system and marked a major change in the trajectory of British history. In the longer term, the influx of Scottish troops, particularly Highlanders, into the British army was to make a major contribution to British success in Canada against the French in the Seven Years War, which broke out in 1756. The two best-known figures in the Battle were Charles Edward Stuart (Bonnie Prince Charlie), grandson of James VII & II and charismatic commander of the Jacobite army, and the Duke of Cumberland, second son of George II. Other notable individuals included numerous clan chiefs and, on the Government side, Major James Wolfe, later famed for his part in the capture of Quebec in the Seven Years War.

Context The Jacobite risings intermittently spanned more than half a century between 1689 and 1746. Their motivation was the return of the exiled Stuart monarchs to the throne, James VII & II having been ousted in 1688 by the Glorious Revolution. The last of the risings commenced in 1745 when Charles Edward Stuart, grandson of the exiled king, and better known as Bonnie Prince Charlie, arrived in Scotland from France in July, raising his standard at Glenfinnan on 19 August. His aim was to put his father, known by his supporters as King James VIII & III, on the throne in the place of the Hanoverian George II. Following Charles‟ call to arms, a number of Highland chiefs joined the Jacobite cause, bringing with them their retainers and dependants. The Jacobite army, which initially consisted of just over 1,000 men, mainly from the MacDonald and Cameron clans, marched eastward in order to recruit more men. The Government and Crown were quick to react, sending a force under the command of General Sir John Cope in pursuit of Charles,

130 which narrowly missed an encounter with the Jacobite host on several occasions. Charles and his army arrived in Perth in early September, where they were joined by Lord George Murray, who had played an active role in the earlier Jacobite risings in 1715 and 1719. Having strengthened his force and found an experienced military commander in Murray, Charles marched south, while Sir John Cope put his troops aboard ships in Aberdeen and sailed to Dunbar where he received the news that Charles was in Edinburgh. Cope marched toward the city, intent on delivering it from Jacobite hands, but on 21 September was intercepted at Prestonpans to the east of the city. After a determined charge by the Jacobites the Hanoverian line broke and Cope‟s troops were chased from the field in a merciless pursuit. Following victory at Prestonpans, the Jacobite army marched south, hoping to collect support from England before moving on London. Although there was some enthusiasm for the Jacobite cause south of the border, this did not translate into the swelling of the army‟s ranks as Charles had hoped. Upon arriving at Derby, it became clear that advance further south was futile, especially as two Government armies were now in pursuit, one of them led by the King‟s son, the Duke of Cumberland. Following a rear-guard action at Clifton the Jacobite army crossed back into Scotland on 20 December. In response to the return of the main Jacobite army (a second, smaller force had been recruited in the north), General Hawley marched from Edinburgh with 8,000 Government troops and the inevitable battle took place at Falkirk on 17 January 1746. Although by rights a Jacobite victory, Charles failed to follow up his slim success on the field and from that point on the Government forces took the initiative. Abandoning the siege at Stirling on 1 February 1746, the Jacobite army turned north and by 21 February had arrived in Inverness, which had been evacuated by most of its Government garrison, consisting largely of Independent Highland units, just a couple of days before. Charles took up residence while his army divided into several units and commenced a relatively successful programme of engaging Highland forts and garrisons including Fort Augustus, Fort William, Blair Castle and Fort George. However, the tide was about to turn in favour of the Government forces. The Duke of Cumberland, after taking command of the main Government army in Edinburgh, quickly marched north via Perth and Aberdeen. After crossing the Spey on 12 April, Cumberland‟s force, which numbered some 9,000 men, rapidly closed on Inverness, being provisioned by

131 the fleet which shadowed the army‟s progress close off shore. In response to this threat Charles reunited what he could of his army and prepared to do battle near his new headquarters at Culloden, on ground then known as Drummossie Moor. By 15 April, the Jacobite army was in no fit state for a pitched battle, with a good proportion of the troops still to join with the main force, while those that did muster on the field were poorly provisioned. Although arrayed for battle the enemy did not arrive, and so at Murray‟s suggestion the Jacobites set out to surprise them in their camp with a night attack. So, late in the evening of 15 April, around 4,500 men began the night march to the enemy camp, some 9 miles to the east. Progress over the rough ground in darkness was slow, with the need to move without making any noise further hindering the advance. With dawn threatening to break and the sound of a drum beating in the Government camp, Murray ordered a rapid return to Drummossie. The aborted night march had only served to further reduce the potential effectiveness of the Jacobite force, many of whom were still scattered across the countryside in search of food. As the exhausted troops caught whatever sleep time allowed, Cumberland‟s force came into view, some 3 miles to the east. At the sound of approaching pipes and drums around 5,000 weary soldiers fell into the lines adopted the previous day, albeit much further to the west. The right flank was anchored on the corner of the dry stone dykes of the Culwhiniac enclosure and the left on the easterly corner of the walled enclosure of Culloden Parks to the north. For the most part, the clan regiments formed the front line with Irish and French troops and others forming the second, and what little cavalry the Jacobites had forming a third line.

Physical Remains & Potential Culloden benefits from being the most intensively archaeologically and historically investigated battlefield in Scotland. In the 1990s geophysical surveys which aimed to identify traces of the long vanished Leanach earthen enclosure, located between the Government and Jacobite lines, were inconclusive. In 2001 a limited programme of metal detecting, geophysical and radar survey, excavation and topographic survey was undertaken. The metal detector survey established that large

132 amounts of unstratified battle debris (in the form of musket shot, artillery shot, buttons etc) survived in the topsoil, most obviously in the area known as the Field of The English. Although limited in scale, this work demonstrated that the location of the hand-to-hand fighting on the left of the Government line was at least 80 m further south than thought at the time. Excavation work of a low rectangular feature attached to the gable end of the Leanach cottage established that it was a 19th century kitchen garden and not the infamous „Red Barn‟ (where wounded Jacobites were taken in the aftermath of the battle and which was burnt on the orders of the Duke of Cumberland). Radar survey carried out across the mounds in the Clan Cemetery revealed that they cover pits, presumably burials. Further anomalies beneath the grassed-over road which runs between the mounds may represent pits buried beneath the road or the ends of the visible mounds covered by the road when it was widened in the 1830s: human bones were reportedly found during its construction. Radar survey in the Field of The English identified an anomaly suggestive of a grave pit not far to the south of the clan cemetery, which could represent the resting place of the Government troops. A further programme of work was undertaken in 2005 to support the re-interpretation of the site and a new visitor centre. A more intensive programme of metal detecting in the vicinity of The Field of the English and the now reconstructed Leanach enclosure confirmed that this was an area of hand to hand fighting, defined by finds of pistol balls, fragments of musket fittings and a bayonet socket. Large numbers of musket balls and pieces of grape and case shot within the Leanach enclosure clearly demonstrated that the Jacobites charged through this area and not around the enclosure as suggested by most historians. The survey also confirmed that the Jacobite starting line was located considerably further to the west than previously believed. Geophysical survey in the Field of The English located a dense concentration of anomalies, two of which could be grave pits. The discovery of a 1752 German Thaler coin above one of these anomalies may represent a visit by a British soldier, perhaps stationed at nearby Fort George, at a time when the graves were still marked in some way. Other circular anomalies may represent prehistoric settlement on the moor, which would not be unusual given the high concentration of prehistoric ritual and funerary monuments in the area. Small-scale trial trenching of an anomaly to the west of Leanach Cottage identified a

133 foundation slot possibly related to one of the other buildings of the Leanach Steading, though further excavation would be required to confirm this. A programme of metal detecting carried out across the areas of the new car-park and the visitor centre uncovered low densities of fired musket balls and Jacobite buttons. These are suggestive of the „mopping up‟ of Jacobites who had broken through the Government lines and were hoping to escape the field to the south and east. The Clan Cemetery is a series of low, grass covered mounds grouped near a later memorial cairn. The mounds originally sat on both sides of the verges of the road across the battlefield (removed in 1984) and each has a roughly hewn block of granite set into its end on which has been carved the name of the clan represented by the bodies within. These headstones were added to the graves by Duncan Forbes of Culloden House in 1881, and there is some uncertainty as to whether they replaced earlier markers: some of the mounds are named by clan on the 1st Edition Ordnance Survey map of 1868. In the vicinity of the graves are other stones which possibly relate to this programme of memorialisation. These include the Keppoch Stone which supposedly marks the spot where the chief, Alasdair MacDonell, 16th of Keppoch fell during the charge. A number of stones have a Government connection including the „Cumberland‟s Stone‟, located on the eastern end of the battleground, which according to local tradition was the vantage point from which the Duke took breakfast and watched the battle. This is a natural boulder and, as there is no doubt that he was with his men during the action, is certainly too far back from the Government position for Cumberland to have been anywhere near it during the battle. The first genuine post-battle monument to the dead was a cairn erected on in the area of the cemetery in 1858 by Edward Power (an earlier planned memorial in 1849 ran out of funds prior to construction and only a time capsule was buried) . It was not completed until Forbes of Culloden took over the task in the 1880s and built a 6 m (20 ft) high circular stone tower. Two unit memorials were erected through the latter part of the 20th century; the Irish memorial stone erected in 1963 by the Military History Society of Ireland and the French stone erected by the White Cockade Society in 1994. Based on map regression work, the National Trust for Scotland (NTS) has reconstructed some of the enclosures that played a key role in the battle: the small horseshoe-shaped turf- built Leanach enclosure and part of the stone-built Culwhiniac enclosure. Traces of the

134 original enclosure can be traced in the fields to the south. Two cottages located within the battlefield still survive and have been recorded in some detail. King‟s Stable Cottage was located behind the position of the Jacobite line and so named because Government horses were stabled nearby in the aftermath of the battle. Although it does not appear on any of the contemporary maps of the battle it is likely to pre-date the battle. The cottage is well preserved and has only undergone minimal restoration. Leanach Cottage, which for some time served as the visitor centre for the site, is located on the eastern side of the battlefield. The structure corresponds to a farmstead that appears on mid 18th century maps sandwiched between the left of the first and second lines of the Government position. Most of the maps show the farmstead consisting of three buildings, with Leanach cottage being the only survivor. The survey identified that the cottage is probably contemporary with the King‟s Stable. It was rebuilt in the 1880s with further repairs taking place throughout the 20th century. Culloden House, a country mansion to the north of the battlefield, was the lodgings of Bonnie Prince Charlie and the headquarters of the Jacobite army prior to the battle. The house was rebuilt in the late 18th century over the footprint of the original structure. Fragments of the earlier mansion were incorporated into the present house at basement level. Culloden has far more contemporary records than any other battle fought in Britain. The numerous letters, journals, army documents and maps reflect the combined influence of increased literacy and ever increasing levels of military bureaucracy. Some of the most valuable of these are the eyewitness accounts that survive from Jacobite and Government sources and the official records from the British army. The surviving battle maps show an incredible amount of detail as they were drawn by both trained cartographers and line officers. Although 38 battle maps survive the majority are based on a much smaller number of maps produced by people who were actually at the battle.

Physical Remains Topographic survey across the core of the battlefield area was carried out as part of the 2001 programme of archaeological work. This survey identified subtle undulations in the terrain, which may have served to partially shield the Jacobites on the right and centre,

135 while their absence on the left explains the failure by the MacDonalds and others to close with the enemy during the charge. The historic building recording of the King‟s Stable Cottage and Leanach Cottage was carried out by T. Addyman on behalf of the National Trust for Scotland. The King‟s Stable was recorded in 2000 and Leanach in 2009.

Cultural Association There is little doubt that Culloden is one of the most emotive battles to have been fought in the UK. It is inextricably linked with the romantic image of Bonnie Prince Charlie and the Highland Jacobites. The battlefield is one of the most popular heritage tourist destinations in the Highlands of Scotland and is almost a place of pilgrimage for ex-patriot Scots and other members of the Scottish Diaspora from places such as USA, Canada and Australia, especially those with Highland ancestry. The greatest focus for modern visitors is undoubtedly the Clan Cemetery. The site continues to be a place of great importance to clan associations and groups such as the White Cockade society. There are, however, popular misconceptions about the battle, among them being that all the Jacobites were Highlanders and that it was a battle between the Scottish and English rather than part of a civil war played out against the backdrop of the pan-European War of Austrian Succession. The battle has featured prominently in literature, art and other media throughout the passage of time since the battle. The most famous painting of the battle titled „An incident in the Rebellion of 1745‟ by French artist David Morier was painted soon after the battle and shows the Government and Jacobite troops in close combat. The battle and its aftermath has featured in popular culture through film, such as Michael Caine‟s adaptation of Robert Louis Stevenson‟s Kidnapped (1971) and television, such as the ground-breaking 1964 BBC docudrama Culloden, based on the popular book Culloden by John Prebble (1961) and an episode of Doctor Who (1966). The NTS has owned and maintained parts of the battlefield since 1945. A purpose-built visitor centre was constructed in 1970 and the Trust embarked on a conservation programme which has succeeded in re-routing the road away from the Clan Cemetery and removing areas of forestry. Further land has been purchased to prevent the sale of parts of

136 the battlefield for housing developments and the current aim of the Trust is to return much of the battlefield to its appearance in 1746. A new state-of-the-art visitor centre with interactive exhibitions was created in 2008 alongside a new network of footpaths, interpretation boards and flags (showing the initial position of the armies as indicated by the archaeological investigations) across the battlefield created to guide the visitors around the site.

Commemoration & Interpretation Each grass covered mound in the clan cemetery has a roughly hewn block of granite set into the end of the mound, into which has been carved the name of the clan represented by the bodies within. The clans named are: Mackintosh; MacGillivray, Maclean, Maclachlan, Atholl Highlanders; Stewarts of Appin; Cameron; MacKintosh, Frasers and mixed clans.

Battlefield Landscape The location of the battle on Drummosie Moor is well established through detailed contemporary maps and archaeological investigations. The moor was used as rough grazing with some arable but with stone walled enclosures to the north and south. The Jacobites anchored their right and left flanks on these enclosures, with the clan regiments in the front line. The Government army advanced on the Jacobites from Nairn to the west. Although the Jacobites had picked the site of the battle, in a location which blocked the approach to Inverness to the west, it was the Government army which set the scale of the field, coming to a halt around 700 m to the east of the Jacobite line. In doing this they maximised the use of their artillery and the distance over which the Jacobites would have to charge, thus creating an extended killing ground for both artillery and musket. The first Government line formed not far to the west of a small farmstead (Leanach), with the second line forming just to the east of it, the farmstead thus being on the left of the Government lines. Leanach was one of a number of farmsteads scattered across the moor and is the only surviving upstanding example. A farmstead was located within the Culwhiniac enclosure and a sketch map by Yorke shows a building located close to the east-west wall of the enclosure which divided it into two. This building appears on the 1st Edition Ordnance Survey map as Park of Urchal (as a ruin) and is also shown on Roy‟s map (1747-55). The much-denuded

137 remains of a building can be identified on the ground at this location. The third farmstead was located to the west of the Culwhiniac enclosure and is no longer extant. Between the Jacobite right and the Government left sat the turf-built Leanach enclosure. Barrel‟s regiment on the far left of the Government line formed across the mouth of this enclosure though some distance to the east of it. The right wing of the Jacobite charge was to pass through the enclosure, which was probably a denuded feature by the time of the battle. The moor on the northern part of the battlefield, in front of the Jacobite left, was wetter ground than to the south, so much so that the Jacobites charging here failed to close with the Government right in contrast to the situation on the left where fierce hand-to-hand fighting took place. The enclosures to the north (Culloden Parks) and south (Culwhiniac) played an important role in the battle as the Jacobite army anchored its left and right flanks respectively upon them. The Government dragoons also passed through breaches made in the walls of the Culwhiniac enclosure, while the Campbells positioned themselves behind its northern wall to deliver fire into the Jacobite flank. The enclosures were demolished in the 1840s but a walkover survey in 2005 identified the possible foundation courses of both, which in the case of the Culwhiniac enclosure corresponded to a modern field boundary. Other aspects of the Culwhiniac enclosure may also have survived from the time of the battle. For instance, a gate in the eastern side of the modern fence line, which correspond to the line of the earlier wall, appears to represent the point at which the Campbells breached the wall in order to allow passage for the dragoons through the enclosure, as it corresponds with the location of the breach on contemporary maps and written accounts of the event. Topographic survey across the core of the battlefield area identified subtle undulations in the terrain, which may have served to partially shield the Jacobites on the right and centre, while their absence on the left may explain the failure of Jacobites on that side to close with the enemy during the charge. The battle was fought on partially open moorland situated on the crest of a broad sandstone ridge which ran from east to west between Nairn and Inverness. The moor is located on gently sloping ground at the base of the Monadhliath mountains. The subtly undulating terrain of the boggy moor which played a key role in the battle is well-preserved and the

138 centre of the battlefield is today occupied by a mosaic of gorse and heather, with pools of standing water and streams giving some impression of the wet conditions that prevailed on the ground at the time of the battle. Spatial relationships between key landscape features such as the stone and turf enclosures of the Jacobite line and the open moor of the Government troops are intact. Important views out over the undulating topography of the moor provide the same outlook as they would have done in the 18th century and it is clear how the Jacobite right and centre would have been partially shielded from the Government artillery during the charge. The National Trust for Scotland has partially restored the terrain to its appearance at the time of the battle. This has included the burial of overhead telephone cables; the removal of forestry from the centre of the site; and the re-routing of the road that ran through the Clan Cemetery. There had long been calls for the road to be moved as its passage through the clan cemetery was seen by many as an act of desecration, though ironically the old route was in fact fairly much the same as that taken by the track that carried across the moor at the time of the battle and is shown on several of the contemporary battle maps. The Trust has also undertaken restoration or partial reconstruction of the Culwhiniac and Leanach enclosures. The current condition of the battlefield is good, with the centre of the battlefield under NTS ownership. The area around the fringes of the NTS property, in which parts of the battle took place, are for the most part occupied by agricultural fields, both arable and grazing and are partly designated as a conservation area. The archaeological potential of these areas is relatively high, with the areas occupied by the left flank of the Jacobite army and the right flank of the Government line sitting to the north of the B9006 and the location of the cavalry action located to the north west of the modern Culchunaig Farm. The major historic threat to the site was the planting of coniferous trees in the 19th century. The NTS have removed most of the trees from their holding, though elements still exist around the boundaries of the property. Archaeological survey within these areas of former forestry indicate that the plantations have severely disrupted the ground and have potentially removed all archaeological evidence associated with the battle. The road that was re-routed in 1984 still passes through the battlefield. The area of the battlefield out- with NTS ownership is under pressure from development and forestry, though part of it has some protection through status as a Conservation Area.

139

Location Although fought on Drumossie Muir (moor), the battle name Culloden was adapted almost immediately, coming from the proximity of Culloden House – the moor sitting within the wider lands of the Culloden estate. Thanks to a number of detailed contemporary battle maps it is possible to accurately locate the battle within the modern landscape. Archaeological investigation has also played an important role here, with the results feeding directly into the re-interpretation of the site presented by the NTS with the opening of the new visitor centre in 2008. The battlefield is located on reconstituted moorland and grazing land some 4 miles to the east of Inverness, in the parish of Croy and Dalcross. The site is at approximately 160m above sea level, on a rolling terrace largely formed from Old Red Sandstone. Stone enclosures to the south of the field (Culwhiniac enclosures) provided cover for the Government dragoons to outflank the Jacobite right and engage from the rightrear, where they were confronted by their opposite numbers among the Jacobite cavalry. The encounter took place across a hollow which is still clearly visible to the north west of Culchunaig farm.

Terrain The National Trust for Scotland has made several attempts to reconstruct the terrain as it appeared at the time of the battle. The first of these was the burial of previously overhead telephone cables in 1962. In 1981, the Trust purchased the area of forestry that now represents the core of the site and removed the trees not long after. In 1984, the route of the B9006, which previously ran through the clan cemetery, was relocated to the north of the site. The previous visitor centre was constructed in 1970 and extended between 1983 and 1984. The Field of the English was acquired by the NTS in 1989 and the Leanach enclosure reconstructed between 1995 and 1996 (there can be little doubt that this occupies roughly the same position as the original). The present, post 2008 interpretation of the site, which includes flags to mark out the Jacobite and Government lines and regimental name markers accurately represent the location of the two armies during the battle, with around 700 metres of open moorland between the two lines.

140

A walk-over survey has possibly identified the partial remains of Culloden Parks enclosure to the north of the battlefield. A stretch of wall foundation was identified in 2005 (Pollard 2006) and this may relate to the western wall of the former enclosure. It seems likely that any other traces have been grubbed out and replaced by ditches and hedges.

Condition Since 1935, a number of features on the site have been designated Scheduled Monuments: the stone commemorating the graves of the English; the graves of the clans; and the Well of the Dead. Old Leanach Cottage and the King‟s Stables are listed buildings.

Inventory Boundary The Inventory boundary defines the area in which the main events of the battle are considered to have taken place (landscape context) and where associated physical remains and archaeological evidence occur or may be expected (specific qualities). The landscape context is described under battlefield landscape: it encompasses areas of fighting, key movements of troops across the landscape and other important locations, such the position of camps or vantage points. Although the landscape has changed to some extent since the time of the battle, key characteristics of the terrain at the time of the battle can still be identified, enabling events to be more fully understood and interpreted in their landscape context. Specific qualities are described under physical remains and potential: these include landscape features that played a significant role in the battle, other physical remains, such as enclosures or built structures, and areas of known or potential archaeological evidence. The Inventory boundary for the Battle of Culloden is defined on the accompanying map and includes the following areas: • Culloden House and grounds. The headquarters of the Jacobite army prior to the battle and the lodgings of Bonnie Prince Charlie. • The west side of the moor. The initial position of the Jacobite army as determined by archaeological survey. This includes the location of the Culloden Park and Culwhiniac enclosure.

141

• The east side of the moor. The direction of the advance of the Government army from Nairn and their initial position on the battlefield. This includes Leanach farmstead and adjacent lands, the former marshland to the north and the Cumberland Stone. • The Leanach enclosure and the Field of the English and lands to the north and south. The centre of the battlefield and the location of hand-to-hand fighting as determined by archaeological survey. This includes the former track which ran across the moorland which was an important feature in the battle and the route of the dragoon movement behind the Jacobite line. • Lands to the south and south-east of the Leanach farmstead. The route of Jacobites who had broken through the Government lines as determined by archaeological survey. This includes the NTS visitors centre and car-park. • Land to the west of Culloden Park and Culwhiniac enclosures. The route of the Jacobite flight. This includes the King‟s Stable cottage. • The Clan cemetery, the Field of The English and other memorial cairns within the battlefield. This land has high potential to contain graves associated with the battle.

Select Bibliography Anderson, P 1867 Culloden Moor and Story of the Battle. (1920 reprint), Publisher, Stirling. Duffy, C 2003 The ’45: Bonnie Prince Charlie and the untold story of the Jacobite Rising. Cassell, London. Harrington, P 1991 Culloden 1746. Osprey History, Wellingborough, Hants. Pollard, T and Oliver, N 2002 Two Men In A Trench: Battlefield Archaeology, the Key to Unlocking the Past. Michael Joseph/Penguin, London. Pollard, T (ed.) 2009 Culloden: The History and Archaeology of the Last Clan Battle. Pen and Sword, Barnsley. Prebble, J 1961 Culloden. Secker and Warburg, Ltd, London. Reid, S 1994 Like Hungry Wolves: Culloden Moor 16 April 1746. Windrowe and Greene, London. Reid, S 1996 1745: A Military History of the last Jacobite Rising. Spellmount, Staplehurst. National Trust for Scotland 2007 Culloden/Cùil Lodair. Guidebook

Information on Sources and Publications Numerous eyewitness accounts exist for the battle in the form of soldiers‟ letters, journals and other memoirs. These personal accounts come from both Jacobite and Government sources and represent a hugely valuable resource. There are also a number of official accounts, and the records for the British army of the time are relatively good, though the equivalent records for the Jacobite army, including morning states and other returns, no longer exist. Coming in the middle of the 18th century, Culloden benefits from an increase in general levels of literacy and the growth of bureaucracy within the military establishment. In short, there are

142 far more contemporary accounts for Culloden than any other battle fought in Britain. One of the most quoted sources is not military in origin but a collection of eyewitness accounts collected by the Jacobite sympathising Presbyterian minister, and later bishop, Robert Forbes, which was later published (1895) under the title, The Lyon in Mourning. Among the diverse collection of letters, journals, speeches and anecdotes are a series of damning accounts of the behaviour of Government troops in the aftermath of Culloden, including the burning of buildings containing Jacobite wounded which gave rise to the tradition of the „Red Barn‟. The documentary resource also extends to a number of battle maps, drawn both by trained cartographers and line officers. It should be noted that by 1746 the perspective technique which produced a hybrid between a map and an illustration had been abandoned in favour of the vertical view map with which we are familiar today. During 1746 alone, no less than 38 battle maps appeared. However, these are by and large based on a much smaller number of maps produced by people who were actually at the battle. These are by Jasper Leigh Jones (Government artillery officer); John Finlayson (Jacobite); Daniel Paterson (Government); John Elphinstone (military engineer in Cumberland‟s service); Thomas Sandby (Cumberland‟s surveyor); Colonel Yorke (Government); and in addition two others, one of them French. There is a vast range of secondary sources on the battle. James Ray‟s A Compleat History of the Rising (London, 1752), is the first history of the ‟45 and although largely a primary source (Ray served on the Government side), also includes a secondary narrative of the campaign. The first real secondary history was Robert Chambers‟ History of the Rising of 1745-46 (Edinburgh, 1869). The battle map in Chamber‟s book incorrectly shows the Jacobite right anchored on the Leanach enclosure. This was later to be repeated in Tomasson and Buist‟s Battles of the ’45 (1962) and was initially the disposition used in the interpretation of the Jacobite line on the site by the National Trust for Scotland (this was corrected in 2008). Another incorrectassumption passed down through secondary sources is the positioning of Wolfe‟s regiment at an angle to rest of the Government line right from the start of the battle – as opposed to coming up to that position after the Jacobites hit the front line regiments. This first appears in Home‟s 1802 work A History of the Rising, but also later appears in Tomasson and Buist (ibid) among others. One of the most important secondary works is Anderson‟s Culloden Moor and Story of the Battle, which first appeared in 1867. This provides a unique snapshot of the site as it appeared around the middle of the 19th century. However, the most popular of the secondary works on Culloden is undoubtedly John Prebble‟s Culloden (1961), which although very well written is frustratingly without reference, which makes sourcing some of his more interesting anecdotes all but impossible. Recent years have seen the appearance of more in- depth military histories, among the most noteworthy being Stuart Reid‟s Like Hungry Wolves (1994), which provides a very well-informed post-mortem of the battle and Christopher Duffy‟s The ’45 (2003), which gives an excellent in-depth account of the entire campaign.

143

Full Bibliography Culloden is by far the most extensively recorded battle to be fought in Britain. Thenumerous letters, journals, army documents etc. reflect the combined influence ofincreased literacy and ever increasing levels of military bureaucracy. Given the scale of this resource, it has not been attempted here to include every relevant document. Therefore the following represents a fully sourced sample of what is available.

Primary Sources

Aberdeen University Special Libraries and Archives [Letter of Alexander Forbes of Pitsligo to his wife at Newe giving news of the Battle of Culloden, 1745; Letter relating to the Duke of Cumberland's armies, 1745]. Shelfmark: MS 2848.

Edinburgh University Library Special Collections Division [papers relating to the Battle of Culloden, Laing Collection, including an account of the battle and aftermath, 22 April 1746]. Shelfmark: La.II.73/48. [Collection of material relating to the Jacobites, 1713-1884]. Shelfmark: Dk.1.3/9; Dk.5.17; Gen.715/5/8-11. [includes letters to the Earl of Belloment about Culloden,1746-1747].

British Library [Hardwicke Papers, vol. DXLI. Narratives and intelligence of the Scottish Rising, chiefly letters and news addressed to the Hon. Philip Yorke, M.P. (2nd Earl of Hardwicke 1764), by Thomas Herring, Archbishop of York, and his secretary, with some additions from Joseph Yorke‟s papers; 1745-1747] Shelfmark: Add 35889. [Among the enclosures are:- Letter of Joseph Yorke to Lord Hardwicke, describing the battle of Culloden; Inverness, 18 Apr. 1746. Copy. f. 105. +_ Plans of the battle of Culloden. ff. 107, 111 b, 113]. [Hardwicke Papers, vol. CIII. Letters from the same to his son-in-law, Philip Yorke, 2nd Earl of Hardwicke; 1745-1780]. Shelfmark: Add 35451. [Among the enclosures are an account of the battle of Culloden by Duncan Campbell, captain in the Argyllshire Militia (f. 36)]. [Hardwicke Papers, vols VI-X. Correspondence of Philip Yorke, 1st Earl of Hardwicke, with his son Sir Joseph Yorke; 1742-1764. Five volumes]. Shelfmark: Add 35354-35358. [Vol. 1 contains Yorke‟s letters written during campaigns including that in Scotland in 1745-1746, including a description of the battle of Culloden(f.218)]. [Letters, papers, and tracts relating to the Royal Family of Stuart and the Risings of 1715 and 1745; 1688- 1788]. Shelfmark: Add 33954. [Manuscripts and printed; the contents include: Order of Battle of the Rebel Army at the Battle of Culloden, fought y 16th of April, 1746 (f. 18); and the London Gazette, 26 Apr. 1746, containing an account of the battle of Culloden, with lists of casualties (f. 23)].

144

[Miscellaneous collection of papers relating to the history of Scotland, and more particularly to the Jacobite risings of 1715 and 1745]. Shelfmark: Stowe 158. [includes Relation of the Battle of Culloden “said to have been drawn up there [at Taymouth Castle] by the officers of his [the Duke of Cumberland's] staff” (f. 215)].

National Archives, Kew [papers relating to the rising of 1745-1746]. Shelfmark: PRO 30/24/46A/86. [Thirty letters, &c., from Duke of Newcastle, Lord Shaftesbury, Malachi Blake and others.Fourteen printed London Gazettes Extraordinary, and a printed account of the victory of Culloden]. [Particulars from the Duke of Cumberland at Inverness, April 18, of the victory at Culloden Apr. 16]. Shelfmark TS 20/2/2. [Includes parole of officers prisoner at Inverness Apr.17; return of rebel officers prisoner at Inverness Apr. 19; return of Ordnance and Stores captured; return of killed and wounded in the army under the Duke's command; a list of prisoners taken in Sutherland Apr. 15 and embarked on H.M.S. Hound; and a list of officers acknowledged by the rebels to have been killed (26 April 1746)] [Cumberland to Secretary Newcastle. On his arrival at Nairn; reporting that the rebels continue to retire before him, and although Charles Edward has marched a mile out of Inverness [to Culloden], “I cannot bring myself to believe that they propose to give us battle” (1746 Apr 15)]. Shelfmark: SP 54/30/16. [Fawkener, reporting the victory and “great slaughter” at Culloden, 1746 Apr 16]. Shelfmark: SP 54/30/19. [Cumberland to Secretary Newcastle. Account of the battle of Culloden, giving a total of 2,000 rebels killed on the battlefield, including Lord Strathallan , 1746 Apr 18]. Shelfmark: SP 54/30/21A. [Return of ordnance and stores taken at, and since, the battle of Culloden, 1746 Apr 18]. Shelfmark: SP 54/30/21E. [Return of the killed and wounded, from Cumberland‟s army, at Culloden, 1746 Apr 16]. Shelfmark: SP 54/30/21F. [List of rebel officers killed at Culloden, 1746 Apr 16]. Shelfmark: SP 54/30/21G. [Lord Justice Clerk Fletcher to the Duke of [Newcastle]. On the battle of Culloden, and Cumberland‟s entry into Inverness, 1746 Apr 19]. Shelfmark: SP 54/30/22A. [Governor of Aberdeen to Lord Justice Clerk Fletcher. An account of the battle of Culloden, 1746 Apr 18]. Shelfmark: SP 54/30/22B. [Andrew Logie to Lord Justice Clerk Fletcher. Concerning the battle of Culloden; the pursuit of the rebels through Inverness, killing about 500 more; and the surrender of the French forces, 1746 Apr 18]. Shelfmark: SP 54/30/22C. [Robertson of Stralock to Atholl. On the night march of Lord George Murray‟s men and the battle of Culloden, 1746 Apr]. Shelfmark: SP 54/30/22D. [Atholl to Lord Justice Clerk Fletcher. Concerning the battle of Culloden, 1746 Apr 19]. Shelfmark: SP 54/30/22E. [List of rebel officers captured at Culloden. ff. 114, 115, 1746 Sep 30]. Shelfmark: SP 87/21/38. [Supplementary list of rebel officers captured at Culloden. f. 116, 1746 Sep 30]. Shelfmark: SP 87/21/39.

145

National Archives of Scotland [letter to John Home, author of The History of the Rising of 1745 from William Home, former Jacobite, 1792 Feb. 28]. Shelfmark: GD 1/53/109. [with recollections of Culloden and Prince Charles‟ conduct there]. [Irvine Robertson papers]. Shelfmark: GD 1/53/81. [account of the battle of Culloden from MS in handwriting of Francis Farquharson of Monaltrie]. [Narratives, letters, permits and copies of commissions relating to the events of the ‟45 and its aftermath]. Shelfmark: GD 1/931/1-15. [includes GD 1/931/15: two letters to John Kinloch from Sir John Wedderburn, containing personal reminiscences of Culloden, 1792]. [Letters and papers of Sir John Clerk, dating to 1745-1746, concerning the 1745 rising]. Shelfmark: GD 18/3245-73. [includes: notes on the battle of Culloden (GD 18/3256); letter to Sir John Clerk from his nephew, John Clerk, giving an account of Culloden, 25 April 1746 (GD 18/3260); printed dispatch of the Duke of Cumberland reporting on Culloden, 1746 (GD 18/3265)]. [Volume of Jacobite papers including correspondence, receipts and passes, 1716- 1748]. Shelfmark: GD 24/5/162/1-32. [includes: copy letter, unsigned and unadressed, giving particulars of the battle of Culloden, 25 May 1746 (GD 24/5/162/30]. [Copy of a letter reputed to be from Captain (later General) Wolfe to a friend, describing the battle of Culloden]. Shelfmark: GD 45/1/229. [Letter concerning Culloden, 1746]. Shelfmark: GD 61/115. [Letters from various people to John Campbell of Barcaldine about the progress of the „45]. Shelfmark: GD 87/1/7-28. [includes: the victory at Culloden]. [Papers including a narrative of Culloden, 1746]. GD 112/47/1/5-13. [Correspondence, mainly letters to Sir Charles Gilmour, 2nd bt., and Sir Alexander Gilmour, 3rd bt., 1745- 1839]. Shelfmark: GD 122/3/15. [includes: letters reporting events of the ‟45, including the battle of Culloden]. [Letters from Major James MacPherson to Duncan Campbell of Glenure]. Shelfmark: GD 170/1354. [including one of April 1746 giving the result of the battle of Culloden]. [Copy of diary of Captain John Maclean, a Jacobite officer, 1745-1746]. Shelfmark: RH 2/8/110. [includes account of Culloden].

National Library of Scotland [papers of the Forbes family of Culloden and Ferintosh] [relevant papers here might include: 16th-18th century deeds, estate, personal papers at shelfmark: MSS 2961-74; Ch 1642-2040; and, 1648-1843 estate papers and correspondence at GD 128/26] [collection of papers including by Sir Robert Strange, of the Battle of Culloden, 1746, published in Dennistoun's Mernoirs. (f. 17)]. Shelfmark: MS14268. [Fletcher of Saltoun Papers: Public Affairs]. Shelfmark: 17498-17605. [includes MS.17523: Lists of prisoners, 1746-7, comprising general lists and lists of those killed or captured at Culloden, of people who surrendered, were set free, or attainted, of those in various gaols, and of those who were taken to Carlisle for trial. 221 ff.].

146

Printed sources

Advocates Library, Faculty of Advocates, Edinburgh Duff, H R (ed.) 1815 Culloden papers: comprising an extensive and interesting correspondence from the year 1625 to 1748; including numerous letters from the unfortunate Lord Lovat, and other distinguished persons of the time; with occasional state papers ... The whole published from the originals in the possession of Duncan George Forbes of Culloden, Esq. To which is prefixed, an introduction containing memoirs of the Right Honourable Duncan Forbes ... Illustrated by engravings. London: printed for T. Cadell and W. Davies. Shelfmark Abbotsford. Maxwell, James [18th cent?] Narrative of Charles Prince of Wales’ expedition to Scotland 1745/by James Maxwell Esq of Kirkconnell. [copy of the ms. written in France after Maxwell‟s escape from the battle of Culloden, and printed by the Maitland Club in 1841]. Shelfmark: Abbotsford.

British Library Caledonian Mercury, 5 Aug.-12 Sept; 25 Sept.-30 Dec. 1745. Shelfmark: Add 29768. [at the beginning are to MS accpunts of the battle of Culloden; at the end are printed copies of the Edinburgh Evening Courant 5 Nov. 1745 and The Glasgow Journal 1 Jan. 1746].

Highland Council Archive Caledonian Mercury, 1746. Shelfmark: D287. [with report of the battle of Culloden from a messenger sent by the Duke of Cumberland].

National Library of Scotland Anon. 1746 The history of the rising raised against His Majesty King George II. From its rise in August 1745, to its happy extinction, by the glorious victory at Culloden, on the 16th of April, 1746. Illustrated with plans of the battles of Falkirk and Culloden. Dublin: printed by A. Reilly for Edward and John Exshaw. Shelfmark: APS.1.83.9. [copy also held by the British Library at shelfmark: 1489.r.70]. Anon. 1746 An authentic account of the battle fought between the Army under his Royal Highness the Duke of Cumberland and the Rebels, on Drummossie Muir near Culloden, on the 16th April 1746. Shelfmark: MS.2960. [printed in Edinburgh; contains A Return of the Rebel Offices and Soldiers now Prisoners in Inverness, 19th April 1746; second copy held on microfilm as Mf.134, reel 4992, no. 7; copies also held as shelfmark 6.162(84) and shelfmark 6.100; copy also held by the National Archives, Kew at shelfmark: SP 54/30/29E; and by the British Library at shelfmark: C.115.i.3.(90.)]. Anon. 1747 A compleat and authentick history of the rise, progress, and extinction of the late rising, and of the proceedings against the principal persons concerned therein. ... Adorned and illustrated with exact plans of the battles of Falkirk and Culloden, ... Dublin: printed for E. and J. Exshaw. Shelfmark: Ry.1.5.330 or

147

Blk.390. [Based on the detailed account which Henry Fielding published weekly in The true patriot; also available on microfilm]. Graham, Dougal 1774 An impartial history of the rise, progress and extinction of the late rising in Britain, in the years 1745 and 1746. Giving an account of every battle, skirmish and siege, from the time of the Pretender's coming out of France, until he landed in France again: with plans of the battles of Preston-Pans, Clifton, Falkirk, and Culloden. With a real description of his dangers and travels through the Highland Isles, after the break at Culloden. Glasgow: Printed by John Robertson. Shelfmark: RB.s.2337. [also available on microfilm as Mf.134, reel 1344, no. 10; copies also in Glasgow University Library at shelfmarks Sp Coll Mu6-g.8; Sp Coll Mu6-h.11; Sp Coll BD1-k.36; Sp Coll Bh13-c.26; Sp Coll Bh13-c.27]. London Gazette, 26 April 1746. Shelfmark: Crawford + E.T.1745-1826. [supplement to the Gazette: “This afternoon a messenger arrived from the Duke of Cumberland, with the following particulars of the victory obtained by his Royal Highness over the rebels, on Wednesday the 16th instant near Culloden. Published by authority”]. Murray, George, Lord 1749 A particular account of the Battle of Culloden. April 16, 1746. : In a letter from an officer of the Highland Army, to his friend at London. London: printed for T. Warner. Shelfmark: RB.s.2315(4) or Ry.1.5.291 or Blk.166(4) or Blk.288(7) or BCL.AA509(6) or BCL.B5021(1) or 2.634A(5). [also available on microfilm as Mf.SP.44(5); copy also held by British Library at shelfmark: 1325.c.19]. The Newcastle Courant, 19-26 April 1746. Shelfmark: News.204.10. [includes and account of the battle of Culloden]. The Newcastle Journal, 3 May 1746. Shelfmark: News.204.09. [includes a description of the battle of Culloden, with lists of killed, wounded and prisoners]. The lyon in mourning, or a collection of speeches, letters, journals, etc relative to the affairs of Prince Charles Edward Stuart. By the Rev. Robert Forbes A. M., Bishop of Ross and Caithness, 1746-1775, Henry Paton ed., I (Edinburgh, Scottish History Society, 1895).

Cartographic and illustrative sources

British Library Anon. 1746? [plan of the battle of Culloden]. Shelfmark: Add 36995 (f.1). [manuscript plan contained with a collection of the correspondence of Major-General Studholme Hodgson, his son, and his grandson, and of other papers relating to them]. Anon. n.d. [engraved plan of the battle of Culloden]. Shelfmark: Stowe 158. [contained within a miscellaneous collection of papers relating to the history of Scotland, and more particularly to the Jacobite risings of 1715 and 1745, at f.211]. Edgar, Will. ca.1746 Inverness, with the adjacent country, including to Nairn upon the east, with the field of the battle near Culloden, Aprile 16, 1746, and the King’s Road to Fort William upon the south-west, survey’d by Will. Edgar. Shelfmark: Maps K.Top.48.60.a. Elphinstone, J. 1746 Map of North Britain done by order of the Earl of Albemarle, Commander-in-Chief of His Majesty’s Forces in Scotland. Shelfmark: Maps K.Top.48.22. [includes a plan of the battle of Culloden].

148

Pocock, Richard 1760 [plan of the order of battle of the rebel army at the battle of Culloden drawn by Dr. Richard Pocock, Bishop of Ossory, in 1760]. Shelfmark: Additional MS.14257.fol5. Roy, William 1746? Plan of Culloden House and the adjacent country, when the battle took place. Shelfmark: K.Top.50.44.1. Skinner, William 1749 [Culloden Moor]. Shelfmark: Add 33231 A-PP. [contained within a collection of maps and plans, chiefly of fortifications or surveys for military purposes, that appear to have been collected by Lieutenant-General William Skinner; see Add. MS.22875 for other copies of many of the plans in this collection]. Yorke, Joseph 1746 [rough sketch of the battle field of Culloden]. Shelfmark: Add 36257 (at f.75). [contained within the Hardwicke papers, shelfmark Add 36257, is the orderly-book of Col. Joseph Yorke, while serving as aide-de-camp to the Duke of Cumberland, 30 Jan-18 July 1746; the book contains this rough sketch of what appears to be Culloden; a reproduction, dating to 1913, of this sketch is held as shelfmark: Maps 9115.(9); further plans of the battle are included in the Hardwicke Papers at shelfmark Add 35889].

Highland Council Archive [Plans of Culloden Muir, from the plan by John Rose, 1840, also plan of the Battle of Culloden 1746 with corrections from the 1840 plan. 1746-1840]. Shelfmark: D230.

National Archives, Kew Finlayson, John 1746 A Plan of the Battle of Culloden and the adjacent Country showing the Incampment of the English Army at Nairn and the march of the Highlanders in order to attack them by Night. Shelfmark: MPF 1/1. [extracted from SP 36/83; Two elaborate cartouches: one containing title and surrounded by arms and tents; another containing notes on the commanders of the English and Highland Army; Ref: Maps and Plans in the Public Record Office: I. British Isles, c.1410-1860, (London, 1967), entry 4048; a copy of this map, dated 1752, is in the British Library [9115(3) and copies are also held by the National Library of Scotland, see below]. Paterson, D 1746 Country from Cullen to Isle of Skye shewing the march of the Royal Army, their different encampments and the Battle of Culloden. Shelfmark: WO 78/1828. [insets of the north and south ends of Loch Ness, Inverness, Culloden; 1746, the coloured drawing probably later in the eighteenth century; copy of the same(?) held by National Library of Scotland, see below].

National Archives of Scotland [papers of the Campbell Family of Stonefield (including Sketch of Hanoverian order of battle at Culloden, 1746)]. Shelfmark: GD 14. [plan of the battlefield of Culloden, 16 April 1746]. Shelfmark: GD 61/118. [Papers including a plan of Culloden, 1746]. GD 112/47/1/5-13. [Papers including a sketch plan of the battlefield of Culloden, 1746]. Shelfmark: GD 248/48/4.

149

[Plan of the battlefield of Culloden, 1746 (copy)]. Shelfmark: RH 1/2/556. [Letters and papers of Sir John Clerk, dating to 1745-1746, concerning the 1745 rising]. Shelfmark: GD 18/3245-73. [includes: sketches of the battle of Culloden (GD 18/3256)].

National Army Museum, London The Battle of Culloden on 16th April 1746, engraved by Luke Sullivan, c.1746 (coloured line engraving; source: SCRAN).

National Library of Scotland Anon. 1746 [A plan of the Battle of Culloden]. Shelfmark: EMS.p.92. [a photostat]. Anon. 1746 Plan of the battle of Culloden. Shelfmark: NG.1521.d.9. [published in The London Magazine for May 1746] Anon. 1746 A plan of the battle of Collodden. Shelfmark: EMS.p.91. [a Photostat divided into 4 sections] Anon. 1746 Plan of the battle of Collodden. Shelfmark: EMS.p.93. [a photostat of a manuscript]. Anon. 1746 The order of the Duke's Army, as they were drawn up the 16 of April 1746 near Cullenden House. (Rebel’s Order of Battle). Shelfmark: EMS.s.159. [published in London for C. Corbet] Anon. 1746 Cullodon Battle 16 April 1746. (Royal Army & Rebels as form’d before ye engagement). Shelfmark: EMS.p.89. [published in London for J. Millan; photostat]. Anon. 1746 A plan of ye disposition of both army’s, in yt. Ever memorable battle & defeat of ye rebels by his R.H. ye Duke of Cumberland. Ap. 16, 1746 near Collodon House. Shelfmark: EMS.s.157. [published in London by T. Dubois; second copy held as EMS.s.157A]. Anon. 1746 A plan of the field of battle, and the adjacent country with the order of His Majesties Army ... as drawn up the 16 April 1746 at the engag[men]t w[ith] the rebels near Cullodon House as also a plan of the rebel army ... distinguishing each clan with their numbers brought into the field. Shelfmark: EMS.s.158. [second copy held as MS.1696]. Anon. 1746 Plan of the battle of Culloden, fought by His Royal Highness the Duke of Cumberland, the 16th of April, 1746. Shelfmark: EMS.p.90. [a photostat; inset: The Royal Army forming from the order of march, to the line of battle, which they performed three times before the action began; includes references]. Anon. ca.1748 Plan of the Battle of Culloden. Shelfmark: Acc. 11323 Anon. 1754 Plan of the battle of Culloden. Shelfmark: Hall.187.j. [from James Ray‟s A Compleat History of the Rising; a photostat of this map is held as EMS.p.88]. Beckington, I 1746 Plan of the Battle of Culloden/ (I. Beckington sculp.). Shelfmark: Blk.147. [published in The British Magazine for May 1746]. Campbell, Dugal 1746 Plan of the battle of Culloden 16 April 1746. Shelfmark: EMS.s.128. [includes references, numbers of the clans, numbers killed etc. Photograph, slightly reduced, of a manuscript map in the Royal Library, Windsor].

150

Campbell, Dugal 1746 Plan of the battle of Culloden 16 April 1746. Drawn by Dug. Campbell . . . (C. Mosley scut.). Shelfmark: EMS.p.87. [a photograph fo the original in the possession of the Duke of Atholl; includes references to the plan; same as above? Campbell, John 1747 A plan of the battle of Culloden, April 16th, 1756/(Jo. Campbell fecit.). Shelfmark: EMS.p.100 [a photographic copy of a manuscript]. Finlayson, John(?) 1746(?) A plan of the Battle of Culloden and the adjacent country, shewing the incampment of the English army at Nairn and the march of the Highlanders in order to attack them by night. Shelfmark: EMS.s.156. [a photostat of this map on a reduced scale, divided into two sections, is held as EMS.p.94]. [Finlayson, John] ca.1747 A General map of Great Britain; wherein are delineated the military Operations in that Island during the years 1745 and 1746, and even the secret Routs of the Pr after the Battle of culloden until his escape to France....[1747]. Shelfmark: EMS.s.91. Jefferys, Thomas 1746 A Map of the River Forth, from Stirling to Barroustouness, including Linlithgow, Falkirk, and the countries adjacent, with the route of both armies to the field of battle/T. Jefferys sculp. Shelfmark: EMS.s.161. [published according to Act of Parliament Feb.15 1745.6 (i.e. 15 February 1746) for E. Cave at St. John‟s Gate, London; relief shown pictorially; subsequently reissued after the Battle of Culloden with a new inset engraved over the widest part of the River Forth showing the troop deployment at that battle; explanation of battle positions, and description of events following the battle are engraved below the map; a copy of the map is also held by the British Library at shelfmark Maps 7406.(2.)]. Jones, Jasper Leigh n.d. A plan of ye battle of Colloden between His Majs. forces under the command of His Royall Highness the Duke of Cumberland and the Sctt. rebels April ye 16 1746/survayd and drawn by Iasper Leigh Iones Lieut. Fireworker in ye Royl. Train of Artillery. Shelfmark: MS.1648 Z.03/30b. [this map shows the array of both forces before the battle]. Paterson, Daniel 1746 The March of the royal army from fochabers to Inverness with ane exact plan of the battle of Culloden April 16 1746. Shelfmark: EMS.p.96. [photostat of a manuscript]. Paterson, Daniel 1746 A plan of the battle of Inverness fought Aprl. 16 1746. Shelfmark: EMS.p.95. [photostat of a manuscript]. Paterson, Daniel n.d. A plan of the battle of Coullodin moore fought on the 16th of Aprile 1746. Shelfmark: MS.1648 Z.03/30a. [This map shows the array of both forces before the battle. As well as the disposition of the opposing troops, the plan shows Culloden House, Castle Stewart, the River Nairn, the Moray Firth, and the road to Nairn, as well as the town of Inverness, with the castle indicated, the River Ness and the road to Fort Augustus. In bottom left hand corner: in box, title, date and “Reference”, with list of numbers, and names of features On plan to which they refer]. Sandby, T 1746 Plan of the battle of Culloden 16 April 1746. Shelfmark: EMS.p.99. [Photostat copy of an original in Windsor Castle; a second photostat copy of this map exists; shelfmark: EMS.p.98] Wootton, J. and B. Baron 1747 His Royal Highness William Duke of Cumberland. &c. &c. &c. : With a view of the routed revel army near Culloden. Shelfmark: RB.case.1(14). [Printed in London by Bern.d Baron, Thos Bowles and John Bowles; “Published according to Act of Parliament August the 10th 1747”; “J. Wootton Pinxit, B. Baron Sculp”].

151

National Monuments Record of Scotland Anon. 1746 Plan of the battle of Culloden, including tiny view of Culloden House. Page 23v/1, Album No 111: Engravings of Buildings of Scotland. Shelfmark: AL 111/23V/1. Roy‟s map – c. 1750 – shows enclosures, Leanach farmstead and moor road. 1st Ed OS 6” map, surveyed 1868 /9/ 70, published 1871/4/6. Nairn sheet VI.

Secondary Sources Anderson, P 1867 Culloden Moor and Story of the Battle. (1920 reprint), Stirling. Duffy, C 2003 The ’45: Bonnie Prince Charlie and the untold story of the Jacobite Rising. Cassell, London. Fraser, A 1905 „The Battlefield of Culloden. ‟ Trans Inverness Sci Soc Field Club. 6, 352-54. Harrington, P 1991 Culloden 1746. Osprey History, Wellingborough, Hants. Pollard, T 2006 Culloden Battlefield: Report on the Archaeological Investigation.GUARD report 1981. University of Glasgow. Pollard T (Forthcoming) Culloden Battlefield: Metal detector survey in advance of visitor centre construction.. GUARD report, University of Glasgow. Pollard, T and Oliver, N 2002 Two Men In A Trench: Battlefield Archaeology, the Key to Unlocking the Past. Michael Joseph/Penguin, London. Pollard, T, Banks, I and Oliver, N forthcoming Reports on Battlefield Investigations carried out for Two Men In A Trench:. BAR. Prebble, J 1961 Culloden. Secker and Warburg, Ltd, London. Reid, S 1994 Like Hungry Wolves: Culloden Moor 16 April 1746. Windrowe and Greene, London. Reid, S 1996 1745: A Military History of the last Jacobite Rising. Spellmount, Staplehurst. Stephen, J 2005 Contemporary Accounts from Culloden. Compiled for the Culloden Battlefield Memorial Project. Unpublished Manuscript. Turner, R 1995 Culloden Turf Dyke Project. Unpublished project proposal, NTS. Wright, APK 2004 The Culloden Battlefield Memorial Project: Heritage Impact Assessment. Forres”

152

b) Tewkesbury Battlefield

English Heritage Battlefield Register Entry (EH 1995a, p. 1-8)

“Tewkesbury (4 May 1471)

Parish: Tewkesbury, Walton Cardiff District: Tewkesbury County: Gloucestershire Grid Ref: SO 889316

Historical Context In the evening of 14 April 1471, only hours after the defeat and death of the Earl of Warwick, the 'Kingmaker', at the Battle of Barnet, Queen Margaret with her son Prince Edward landed at Weymouth. With her plans thrown into turmoil by the news of the Lancastrian defeat, Margaret, accompanied by Edmund Beaufort, Duke of Somerset and John Courtney, Earl of Devon, set out for the north-west. If her cause was to prosper she must recruit fresh, armed strength with which to challenge the victorious Yorkist king, Edward IV. Edward anticipated Margaret's intentions and moved quickly to intercept her force before it could cross the Severn and join the rebels under Jasper Tudor in Wales. Having narrowly missed the Lancastrians at Sodbury, Edward caught up with Margaret at Tewkesbury on the evening of 3 May 1471. The climatic battle of the second phase of the Wars of the Roses was about to be fought.

Location and Description of the Battlefield The battle took place in an area immediately south of Tewkesbury and bounded in the west by the Rivers Severn and Avon and in the east by the River Swilgate. Within that broad arena the initial deployment of the armies has been moved north or south depending upon the views of the historian and his interpretation of the available sources.

153

The contemporary (and near-contemporary) chronicles which deal with the events at Tewkesbury in 1471 enable an outline description of the battlefield to be drawn up. The Short Arrivall sets the scene:

Intelligence of this (Margaret's march to Tewkesbury) being brought to the king, he instantly pursued them with his whole force, and made so rapid an advance, that on the 3rd of May he came within three miles of Tewkesbury, and there lay encamped in the open fields: the following morning, the king moved forward in the finest order, and came before the town, where he found the rebels drawn up and marshalled in a wonderful strong position.

The Arrivall, in describing the Lancastrian decision to spend the night of 3/4 May at Tewkesbury and there to offer battle, provides further detail of the ground on which Margaret's troops camped:

...the same nyght they pight them in a fielde, in a close even at the towndes ende; the towne and the abbey, at theyr backs; afore them, and upon every hand of them, fowle lanes and depe dikes, and many hedges, with hylls, and valleys, a right evil place to approche, as cowlde well have bene devised.

The Lancastrian army, which had reached Tewkesbury via the road from Gloucester, had not attempted to cross the River Severn and they were on guard against a Yorkist army approaching from the south east along the Cheltenham road. From the description in the Arrivall it is clear that the Lancastrian position, at least on the night before the battle, was to the south of the Abbey, in a field close to the edge of the town and that it drew its English strength from the nature of the ground rather than from any formal defensive works. The exact location or name of the field is not mentioned in either of the 'Arrivalls', but John Leland, quoting a monk of Tewkesbury Monastery, identifies it as follows:

154

Eodem anno 3. No. Maii Edwardus Princeps Henrici 6. filius venit cum exercitu ad Theokesbyri, et intravit campum nomine Gastum.

Thus on 3 May 1471 (or 1470 as Leland's monk mistakenly records the year of the battle) Prince Edward, the son of Henry VI entered into a field named 'Gastum' at Tewkesbury. Further, the monk, in listing the battle dead who were buried in the Abbey, refers to those 'Nomina occisorum in bello Gastiensi prope Theokesbyri (....in the battle of 'Gastum' near Tewkesbury). Ever since, this identification has been taken to mean the Gaston field, a grazing area over 40 acres in size covering ground stretching approximately from Lincoln Green westwards to Bloody Meadow, eastwards to Gupshill Farm and northwards through the present cemetery to the Vineyards. 'Gaston', or in Anglo-Saxon 'gaers-ton' meaning 'grass town', is a common field name. The Gaston field was still pasture in 1632 and by 1825 it had been divided into seven sections, thus possibly accounting for it being known today as 'The Gastons'.

Somerset's advance took the Lancastrian vanguard:

by certayne pathes and wayes therefore afore purveyed, and to the Kings party unknown, he (Somerset) departed out of the field, passed a lane, and came into a fayre place, or cloos, even afore the King where he was enbattled, and from the hill that was in one of the closes, he set right fiercely upon th'end of the Kings battayle....

Assuming that Somerset's men began their flanking march from the south-western edge of the Gastons they would cross the lane, which ran towards Tewkesbury along the eastern and northern edge of the Park, close to the spot where it turned north across Bloody Meadow to run along the western side of the Gastons. They would then encounter the northern sector of the Park ('a fayre place, or cloos,') before advancing across and down the slope falling from the high ground in the Park.

With the failure of Somerset's flanking attack and the disintegration of his vanguard the Arrivall records that his men:

155

...were gretly dismaied and abasshed, and so toke them to flyght into the parke, and into the medowe that was nere, and into lanes and dykes, where they best hopyed to escape the dangar....

The meadow thus identified is known today as 'Bloody Meadow' and its original character can still be appreciated.

Although the evocatively named 'Queen Margaret's Camp' - a moated farmstead scheduled as an ancient monument - formed part of the contemporary landscape of the battlefield, there is no evidence that it played any part in the fighting other than possibly as the site of a Lancastrian outpost during the night before the battle.

Landscape Evolution

Tewkesbury is situated on a narrow strip of land flanked by water. In addition to the Severn and Avon which flow to the west, the Carrant Brook and River Swilgate flow variously north, south and east of Tewkesbury, and for centuries the environs of the town have been susceptible to heavy flooding. Until the advent of modern engineering it was not possible to develop the low-lying water meadows and, with the exception of housing at Lincoln Green and on the high ground of Perry Hill/Prior's Park, nineteenth and twentieth- century expansion has been limited in the main to the north and east of the town. To the south, Tewkesbury maintains contact with an arable landscape and with the open acres of Tewkesbury Park, until the late sixteenth century a mixture of wood, arable and fenced deer park. It is now home to a golf course and country club. Parts of the battlefield area show English Heritage Battlefield evidence of ridge and furrow in part broken by later hedgerows, demonstrating the evolution of the field system.

In the medieval period, because of the danger of flooding, Tewkesbury's population was centred in the immediate vicinity of the old town and the Abbey, with relatively isolated settlements such as the Vineyard, Southwick, Walton Cardiff, the Manor at Holme, and the

156 farmhouses at Margaret's Camp and Gupshill, situated around the town on ground above the flood level. This historical pattern survives in many ways to this day, particularly to the south where small, irregular, densely-hedged fields, parkland, watercourses and deep lanes are still to be found.

The impact of Margaret's Camp moated site has been diminished by the spread of housing to the north and east, and the eastern portion of the Gastons has been built over. However, evidence of the dykes and pools which made Edward's approach to the Lancastrian position so difficult can still be seen in the area of the Vineyards, the Golf Course and Bloody Meadow.

The Battle: its sources and interpretation There are two main contemporary sources for the Battle of Tewkesbury: The Historie of the Arrivall1, and the Short Arrivall2. A third, brief source which may be contemporary (to within five years of the battle) has survived as a result of the historical fact-finding mission of John Leland, appointed as the 'King's Antiquary' by Henry VIII. Leland progressed throughout England collecting material of historical interest and he visited Tewkesbury Abbey shortly before its closure in 1540. There he discovered, and made notes from, 'a little book about the history of Tewkesbury Monastery' (Libello de Antiquitate Theokesbiriensis Monasteriri). Leland indicated that the last entries in the book related to events five years after the Battle of Tewkesbury, and the supposition has thus been made that these entries were the work of a monk living in the Abbey in 1471. The original manuscript has not survived and Leland's notes were not published in his lifetime, but they have been made available by subsequent editors3.

As with most contemporary or near-contemporary accounts of historical events, the chroniclers of the Battle of Tewkesbury must be approached with caution. Those, such as Nicholas Harpisfield, Clerk of the Signet to Edward IV, who wrote the Short Arrival while in the King's service, almost certainly sought to maximise the difficulties Edward encountered during the battle in order to stress his valour in overcoming them, while those who supported Margaret, or who wrote with a Tudor monarch on the throne, such as Hall, were clearly aware of the proper line to take. Set against this 'propaganda' element in the

157 case of Tewkesbury, is the fact that both the Short Arrivall and the Arrivall were probably written within a year of the events they describe by an author (Harpisfield) or authors who were almost certainly eyewitnesses. The Short Arrivall is not a later, edited version of the Arrivall but was the first account to be written, certainly before the end of May 1471, and it almost took the form of a 'newsletter' intended to inform Edward's European supporters of his success. The 'Arrivalls' thus have an immediacy and a confident use of detail which is not always present in chronicle history.

Like the chronicles, more recent writers agree that the Battle of Tewkesbury was fought to the south of the town in an area roughly bounded by the Swilgate to the east, Southwick Park to the south, the Avon to the west, and the Abbey fishponds (precinct) to the north. Where they disagree is upon the precise deployment of the armies within that area. These disagreements are not huge, covering in all only some 1,000 metres of ground north or south. They stem from uncertainty concerning the use by the Lancastrians of any existing fortifications outside Tewkesbury, from uncertainty over the extent to which contemporary buildings and enclosures may have limited the battlefield, and from a measure of doubt as to the exact pattern of the medieval roads serving Tewkesbury.

Despite its historic past there has been comparatively little archaeological work carried out at Tewkesbury, and since there have never been any archaeological finds which could be indisputably linked with the battle of 1471, information which might help to pinpoint the position of the rival armies is lacking. Moreover, the actual strength of the respective forces is not clear, with all that that implies for an assessment of their deployment. Somerset is usually credited with the larger force, possibly between 5,000-6,000 men, with Edward fielding approximately 4,000 men, most of whom were better equipped and armed than the Lancastrians. Artillery, more numerous on the Yorkist side than the Lancastrian, played a part in the opening stage of the battle, but there is no evidence that its presence significantly effected the deployment of the armies.

In seeking the position of the Lancastrian deployment, the Arrivall provides us with a description not only of the nature of the ground which Margaret's men took up, but also of their mental and physical state:

158

...they shortly toke theyr conclusyon for to go the next way to Tewkesbery, whithar they came the same day, about four aftar none. By whiche tyme they hadd so travaylled theyr hoaste that nyght and daye that they were ryght wery for travaylynge; for by that tyme they had travaylyd xxxvj longe myles, in a fowle contrye, all in lanes and stonny wayes, betwyxt woodes, without any good refresshynge. And for as mooche as the greatar parte of theyr hooste were fotemen, the othar partye of the hoste, whan they were comen to Tewkesbery, cowthe, ne myght, have laboryd any furthar, but yf they wolde wilfully have forsaken and lefte theyr foteman behynd them, and therto themselves that were horsemen were ryght werye of that iorwney, as so were theyr horses. So, whethar it wee of theyr election and good will, or no, but that they were veryly compelled to byde by two cawses; one was, for werines of teyr people, which they supposed nat theyr people woulde have eny longer endured; an other, for they knew well that the Kynge ever approchyd twoards them, nere and nere, evar redy, in good aray and ordinaunce, to and, padaventure, to theyr moste dyssavantage. They therefore determyned t'abyde there th'aventure that God would send them in the qwarell they had taken in hand. And, for that entent, the same nyght they pight them in a fielde, in a close even at the townes ende; the towne, and the abbey, at theyr backs; afore them, and upon every hand of them, fowle lanes, and depe dikes, and many hedges, with hylls, and valleys, a ryght evill place to approche, as cowlde well have bene devysed.

Nowhere does the Arrivall attribute the strength of the Lancastrian position to anything other than the natural difficulty of the ground. No mention is made by the chronicle of formal field fortifications or of the use of the remaining walls of an abandoned castle by the Lancastrians. Yet some later historians, notably Lieutenant-Colonel J D Blyth4, have argued that the ruined walls of Holme Castle became a Lancastrian strongpoint. As Blyth

159 believed that the ruins of Holme Castle stood on Holme Hill this left the Colonel with no alternative but to pull the deployment of the armies as far north as possible in order to accommodate this central defensive position. As we have seen the Arrivall makes no mention of a castle and subsequent excavation has shown that 'Holme Castle' as envisaged by Blyth never existed, even if ruined walls of the manor house complex did form part of the battlefield landscape.

This is not to say that the Lancastrians did not carry out some field fortification to strengthen their position and Edward Hall states that: 'The Duke of Somerset entending to abide the battayle lyke a pollitique warrior, trenched his campe rounde about of such an altitude, and so strongly....'5. Given the exhausted condition of the Lancastrian troops as stressed by the Arrivall it is unlikely that such fortifications took any more sophisticated form than felled trees and road blocks. Certainly there is nothing to argue against a Lancastrian deployment in the Gastons.

Notwithstanding the actual strength of the Lancastrian position, Edward had to force a battle while Margaret was still vulnerable. He had countered her strategically, but he needed to destroy her army quickly and decisively before it became a focus for wider rebellion, and before it could cross the Severn and effect a juncture with Jasper Tudor. Margaret and Somerset must have appreciated this Yorkist imperative and their initial deployment amidst difficult ground worked hugely in their favour. Any force seeking a speedy and complete victory would prefer to fight on open ground such as the 'great and a fair large plain, called a wold' near Sodbury Hill where Margaret had seemed prepared to offer battle two days earlier on 2 May.

Spurred on by his strategic concerns Edward IV advanced upon the Lancastrian position early on the morning of 4 May 1471. The Yorkist army was deployed in three battles with Richard, Duke of Gloucester commanding the vanguard, Edward the main battle, and Hastings the rearguard. Some 300-400 yards to the north the three Lancastrian battles under Somerset, John Lord Wenlock, and Devon waited for the first shock of action. The young Edward, Prince of Wales was in Wenlock's care with the Lancastrian main battle.

160

Seeing the natural strength of Somerset's deployment, Edward attempted to soften-up the enemy with artillery and archery fire:

Upon the morow followynge, Saterday, the iiij day of May, [the Kynge] apparailed hymselfe, and all his hoost set in good array; ordeined three wards; displayed his banners; dyd blowe up the trompets; commytted his caws and qwarell to Almyghty God, to owr most blessyd lady his mothar, Vyrgyn Mary, the glorious martyr Seint George, and all the saynts; and avaunced, directly upon his enemys; approchinge to theyr filde, whiche was strongly in a marvaylows strong grownd pyght, full difficult to be assayled. Netheles the Kyngs ordinance was so conveniently layde afore them, and his vawarde so sore appresyd them, with shott of arrows, thay they gave them right-a-sharpe shwre. Also they dyd agayne- ward to them, bothe with shot of arrows and gonnes, whereof netheles they ne had not so great plenty as had the Kynge. In the front of theyr field were so evell lanes, and depe dykes, so may hedges, trees, and busshes, that it was right hard to approche them nere, and come to hands.

The Yorkist bombardment it seems produced an immediate and significant result in that Somerset willingly abandoned his position and moved onto ground which apparently placed his own force in a less favourable position for battle:

Edmond, called Duke of Somarset, having that day the Vawardeen, whethar it were that for he and his fellowshippe were sore annoyed in the place where they were, as well with gonnes-shott as with shot of arrows, whiche they ne wowld nor durst abyde, oe els, of great harte and corage, knyghtly and manly avaunsyd himself, somewhat asydehand the Kings vawarde, and, by certayne pathes and wayes therefore afore purveyed, and to the Kings party unknown, he departed out of the field, passed a lane, and came into

161

a fayre place, or cloos, even afore the King where he was enbattled, and from the hill that was in one of the closes, he set right fiercely upon th'end of the Kings battayle....

The chronicler is himself uncertain as to what prompted Somerset to make this move. Hall believed that Somerset was tempted into this tactical error as a result of the Duke of Gloucester, commander of the Yorkist right wing, feigning retreat:

The duke of Gloucester, which lacked no policye, valyantly with hys battayle assauted the treche of the Quenes campe, whom the duke of Somerset with no lesse courage defended, the duke of Gloucester for a very politique purpose, with all hys men reculed backe.

For a Tudor chronicler this provides a more acceptable reason for the initial Lancastrian setback, but it is not mentioned in the Arrivall which it surely would have been if only to reinforce the tactical skill of Edward's army. It is thus more probable that Somerset's advance was made in an impetuous attempt to escape the galling fire of the Yorkist artillery and archers, or as part of a pre-conceived plan to strike the Yorkist right flank via a route which had already been reconnoitred. If the latter, it badly misfired for in the words of the Arrivall:

The Kynge, full manly, set forthe even upon them, enteryd and wann the dyke, and hedge, upon them, into the cloose, and, with great vyolence, put them upe towards the hyll, and so also, the Kyng's vaward, being in the rule of the Duke of Gloucestar.

Edward's success in repulsing the Lancastrian attack was due not only to the fact that Somerset's lunge struck the right centre of the Yorkist line rather than its flank, but also to the fact that the King had prepared a tactical surprise of his own:

162

Here it is to be remembred, how that, whan the Kynge was comyn afore theyre field, or he set upon them, he consydered that, upon the right hand of theyr field, there was a parke, and therein moche wood, and he, thinkynge to purvey a remedye in caace his sayd enemyes had layed any bushement in that wood, of horsement, he chose, out of his fellashyppe, ijc speres, and set them in a plomp, togethars, nere a qwartar of a myle from the fielde, gyvenge them charge to have good eye upon that cornar of the woode, if caas that eny nede were, and to put them in devowre, and, yf they saw none suche, as they thowght most behovfull for tyme and space, to employ themselfe in the best wyse as they cowlde.

Finding no sign of a Lancastrian ambush party, the 200 mounted spearmen were free to intervene at a critical moment by striking the flank of Somerset's vanguard, thereby hastening its destruction and flight:

...for the sayd spers of the Kyngs party, seinge no lyklynes of eny busshement in the sayd woode-corner, seinge also goode oportunitie t'employ them selfe well, cam and brake on, all at ones, upon the Duke of Somerset, and his vawarde, asyde-hand, unadvysed, whereof they, seinge the Kynge gave them ynoughe to doo afore them, were gretly dismaied and abasshed, and so toke them to flyght into the parke and into the medowe that was nere....

It was too much for the Lancastrians and as his men began to stream away into the Park and Bloody Meadow pursued by the Yorkists, Somerset hastened back to his main battle under Wenlock which, apart from some desultory skirmishing, had yet to play any part in the fighting. In Hall's words: 'But whether the Lord Welocke dissimuled the matter for kynge Edwardes sake, or whether hys harte serued hym not, still he stode lokyng on'. According to Hall, Somerset took extreme action: 'seyng the Lord Wenloke standynge still, after he had reuyled hym, and called him traytor, with his axe he strake y braynes out of his

163 hedde'. Wenlock certainly died on the battlefield but there is no additional evidence to support Hall's version of his death.

Edward now left the pursuit of the broken Lancastrian right to Gloucester and turned on the enemy centre. Despite their superior numbers the Lancastrians, no doubt disconcerted by the fate of Somerset's vanguard, quickly broke under this attack, joining their comrades on the right in flight. As the Arrivall succinctly described the end of the battle:

...the Kynge coragiously set upon that othar felde, were was chefe Edward, called Prince, and, in short while, put hym to discomfiture and flyght; and so fell in the chase of them that many of them were slayne, and, namely at a mylene, in the medowe fast by the town, were many drownyd; many rann towards the towne; many to the churche; to the abbey; and els where; as they best myght.

Probably 2,000 Lancastrians fell during the battle and pursuit and amongst them were Edward Prince of Wales, the Earl of Devon, Lord Wenlock, Lord Beaufort, and Sir William Rous. Somerset and others who fled from the field sought refuge in the Abbey and other nearby churches. Somerset and many of his supporters, all implacable foes of Edward IV, were tried and executed at Tewkesbury during the days following the battle.

Indication of Importance

Edward's victory at Tewkesbury, coming close on the heels of his triumph at Barnet, was a climactic point in the Wars of the Roses. It ended the long resistance of Henry VI and Queen Margaret and dashed hopes of a Lancastrian succession. Edward, Prince of Wales, was dead, his father would shortly be put to death, and Margaret was soon to be a prisoner. With the exception of some bloodless skirmishing against the rebels of Kent, Edward IV was never again to campaign on English soil. The second phase of the Wars of the Roses was over and Yorkist monarchs were to rule England for fourteen years.

164

The chronicle evidence for Tewkesbury allows the course of the battle to be reconstructed with some confidence even though uncertainty as to the precise deployment of the armies remains.

The topography of the southern part of the battlefield has retained its agricultural character and in many important respects the course of the fighting can still be followed on the ground, particularly in the area of the Park, in Bloody Meadow, and through the cemetery to the Abbey grounds. Whether this remains so depends upon the outcome of recent (1991) planning applications.

Battlefield Area

The battlefield area boundary defines the outer reasonable limit of the battle, taking into account the positions of the combatants at the outset of fighting and the focal area of the battle itself. It does not include areas over which fighting took place subsequent to the main battle. Wherever possible, the boundary has been drawn so that it is easily appreciated on the ground.

The battlefield area needs in principle to accommodate not only the Lancastrian and Yorkist initial deployments in and to the south of the broad area of the Gastons, but also Edward IV's tactical deployment in the Park, Somerset's flank attack, and the Lancastrian flight towards the Severn and Tewkesbury via Bloody Meadow and the Swilgate bridge.

Given that the combined size of the Yorkist and Lancastrian armies probably did not exceed 10,000 men the key phases of the battle can be accommodated within the following area. The Avon mill stream and the Swilgate were natural boundaries to the field of action and they serve to delineate the battlefield area in the west and east respectively. Turning south and then eastwards from just below the confluence of the Severn and Mill Avon the battlefield runs through Tewkesbury Park and past Southwick Park before turning north to follow the line of the Swilgate. This boundary accommodates the main Yorkist force as well as the ambush of spearmen on the western side.

165

For illustrative purposes, the full extent of the field of battle is represented by a dashed line running north of Prior's Park and following the Swilgate southwards. The battlefield boundary, however, in recognition of the extent to which this northern area has been developed, follows a line south-eastwards from near the Swilgate Bridge to skirt the housing estates and rejoin the Swilgate some 500m north-east of Margaret's Camp moat.

Notes 1. Historie of the Arrivall of Edward IV. in England and the Finall Recouery of His Kingdomes from Henry VI. A.D. M.CCCC.LXXI. ed. J Bruce (Camden Society 1838) 2. 'Account of King Edward the Fourth's Second Invasion of England, in 1471, drawn up by one of his Followers.' Archaeologia, Vol. 21, 1827, pp11-22 3. The Itinerary of John Leland in or about the years 1535-1543 Parts VII and VIII. ed. L Toulmin Smith (London 1909) 4. Blyth, J D 'The Battle of Tewkesbury' Transactions of the Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society LXXX (1961) pp99-120 5. Hall, Edward Chronicle (1809 ed.) p300“

166

Appendix H: Field Observations

Culloden Battlefield

Observations of Culloden battlefield were made on 19th and 20th May 2011 in the afternoon.

First Observer: Franziska Hauck Second Observer: Solen Charlou

The following text is a summary of the results of both observers.

1. The Site

Culloden battlefield can be reached by car, as it offers a pay-and-display car park on its grounds. Visitors also take the bus from Inverness, arrive on foot via the various footpaths or take part in organised bus tours. The site encompasses only the core area of the actual battlefield and is fenced off to the road (B 9006), which bypasses it to the north. Various signs on the road direct drivers to the site; the entry point is labelled with National Trust for Scotland signage.

The car park is directly opposite the entry point to the south and linked to the visitor centre via hardened footpaths. The marked battlefield area can be found west to the centre.

2. The Visitor Centre

The visitor centre, built in 2008, has a modern design with a light grey exterior, glass fronts and a flat rooftop. The entry is decorated with plaques commemorating the Memorial Project and various donors. This is mirrored in the dark grey interior, where an aisle leads visitors to either the shop on the left-hand side, the catering facilities to the far left or the reception desk at the end. The shop offers souvenirs, memorabilia and books; the

167 catering area boats a self-service restaurant, several tables and sofas with view onto the battlefield. Toilets are located in between the catering area and the reception. There, membership to the National Trust of Scotland and tickets to the exhibition can be purchased. It is also the point of help for visitors.

The exhibition has its starting point behind the reception desk. An aisle showcasing the historical context of the battle leads into another aisle in a 90° angle to the left. On a pre- structured route through three more parallel aisles, visitors learn about the participants and commentators of the battle, the battle action and the aftermath.

The exhibition is only dimly lit. Natural light from the glass fronts illuminates the turns. The exhibition is interspersed with artefact cases, panels of varied size and colour and quotations on the walls. The texts on the panels are limited to 50 words per paragraph; the fonts are large and easily readable. Interactive displays, electronic maps and audio / video re-narrations complement the traditional spectrum. Along the aisles, the exhibition is split into two parts and the stories of the opposing forces are told separately. On the left wall, the context is explained for the Government side in red. On the right wall, this is mirrored for the Jacobite side in blue. The colour scheme thus follows the traditional English / Scottish distinction, although the declared aim of the exhibition is to deconstruct misconceptions about the battle. Throughout the exhibition, it is underlined that the battle was not fought between the English and the Scots, but that Culloden was the end to a long drawn out rebellion of Jacobite supporters against the ruling authority. The last aisle leads to a video room, where a recorded re-enactment of the battle is shown. There are no seats and the film is projected to all four sides, creating a raw and realistic atmosphere. The visitor feels as if he/she were part of the battle. Reactions ranged from fascination to shock.

168

At the end of the exhibition, a room is dedicated to the research which has been undertaken during the Memorial Project. Excavated bullets, guns and an overview over battle lines and combatants are displayed. Most eye-catching is a ca. 2 x 3 m big video map close to the exit point. In a ca. 5-minute display, it redraws the battle action by showing it from bird‟s perspective. Government forces are indicated in red, Jacobite troops in blue.

At the exit point, the visitors are issued with an audio tour on a handheld device, available in several languages, and can go out on the field. Most visitors make use of that. The exhibition continues in a last aisle, to the right in a 90° turn. Here, room is given to the aftermath. The exhibition ends at the starting point.

The following observations could be made during the two days:

 Visitors were viewing the exhibition in a reserved, calm manner.  Occasional groups were formed to discuss and evaluate the presented information.  Visitors were mainly drawn to the re-narration of personal accounts and the electronic maps, depicting the armies‟ journeys to the battlefield.  The interactive displays were almost always is use; men seem to be particularly drawn to them.  Almost all age groups were represented, however, only few children were present.  Shop and catering facilities were well-visited.

3. The Battlefield

The field can be accessed via the car park / the visitor centre and explored independently or with the help of the audio tour. The latter takes visitors clockwise around the site, on a network of hardened footpaths. Clearly visible from the access points are the Memorial Cairn, the Grave Stones, Old Leanach Farm Cottage and the flags indicating the battle lines (again in red and blue). The field is not devoid of interpretive signage, but where set up, is attached to seating opportunities in low height. Installed in a 45° angle, the panels are

169 easily readable with large fonts and short texts. Troop markers, small stones with the names of the regiments, have been put on the place of their respective battle array.

The audio tour does not cover the walk over the battlefield continuously, but programmes are triggered automatically by GPS. At key points, the visitor listens to personal accounts of soldiers and comments by contemporaries. More information can be obtained by selecting additional programmes on the handheld device.

At the end of the trail, visitors can access the rooftop via a bridge, suitable for the disabled. There, a balcony with view onto the battlefield enables visitors to experience the site from a different perspective.

At the commemorative devices and generally on the field, votive offerings have been laid down by visitors. These encompass tartan bows, flowers and candles.

With a hill range and the close-by sea shore as backdrops, the battlefield is very scenic. The integration of the interpretative signage into the landscape makes the field appear almost intact; this is mainly disturbed by the fence, the marking flags and the visitor centre. However, the latter shields it off from the car park, thus adding to the reconstructive effect.

The following observations could be made during the two days:

 Visitors walk the paths calmly and mainly stop at panels / locations with an audio programme.  The opportunity to sit is rarely used.  Facial expressions reflect the range of emotions that people feel at Culloden, e. g. respect, shock, sadness.  Almost all visitors use the balcony, either as a starting or finishing point.

170

Tewkesbury Battlefield

Observations of Tewkesbury battlefield were made on 20th and 21st June 2011.

Interpreter: Steve Goodchild, Tewkesbury Battlefield Society Observer: Franziska Hauck

1. The Site

The field as such is not demarcated as a separate entity. There is no signage which indicates the battlefield or directs visitors to the site. Access is granted to those parcels in possession of the council and some privately-held land. The remaining grounds have either been built over or access is denied by the owner. The battlefield is fused with the town of Tewkesbury, so most visitors access it from the settlement. Superimposed on the field is a medieval church, the Abbey. It can be seen from many points on the field.

A separate section in the Town Museum is dedicated to the battle (see below).

Tewkesbury has a medieval motif: In preparation for the annual Medieval Festival, banners have been put up on house-fronts of businesses and private properties. The banners represent coats of arms worn by participants of the battle.

2. The Battlefield

The area where the Battle of Tewkesbury was fought is divided into different sub-sections. Of those, only a fraction can now be accessed. Where this applies, no indication is given that the respective part belongs to the battlefield apart from the green trail signs. The trail, which was set up by the council, is not hardened. It directs visitors counter- clockwise around the battlefield.

171

The following parts still have a “field” character:

King George’s Field / The Vinyards, a recreational ground with sports facilities, has only partially been included in the English Heritage register boundary. It is the place of a commemorative monument, the only visualisation of the battle on the field. Four plaques describe the battle site, the purchase of the Abbey, the town charters and the so-called “Holme Castle”, a manor on the battle grounds.

The cemetery is included in the boundary.

Margaret’s Camp is the site of a scheduled monument, which presumably existed at the time of the battle. A good vantage point, it gives an overview over the battle area. The monument is barely visible beneath the overgrowth.

The Gastons are the site of the Lancastrian encampment. The farmland was subjected to archaeological excavations, but only few items were found. In the course of the expansion of the town, petroleum and water pipes were laid through the field. Hedgerows were cut and replaced by fences.

The area of Lincoln Green is dominated by private housing.

The Bloody Meadows are the site of the Lancastrian slaughter (hence the name). An application for a metal detecting survey there was rejected by the authorities. The interpretation panel which stood there had to be removed because it the writing on it was placed too high and illegible.

Windmilll Hill, now site of the council offices, was home to the so-called Holme Castle, the manor which is mentioned in the accounts of the battle. Here, Queen Margaret observed the events and fled the battlefield. Today, the Medieval Festival is celebrated there.

172

The following could be observed during the two days:

 No visitors were present on the southern half of the registered battlefield area.  Visitors could be observed on King George‟s Field, but it is highly doubtful that they specifically came for the battlefield.  The Battle Trail was not used.

3. Town Museum

The Town Museum, a small council- and privately funded set-up in the town centre, offers a dedicated section on the battle. On the first floor, a small room is host to interpretive panels and models of the proposed commemorative sculptures / of the battle.

173

Appendix I: Interviews with Representatives from Culloden and Tewkesbury Battlefields

The Interview for Culloden Battlefield was conducted with Kathleen Boal, Education and Interpretation Manager, Culloden Battlefield, National Trust for Scotland, on 20th May 2011 at 14:00 hrs.

Franziska Hauck (FH): 1) Do you have a vision / mission statement for the site? Kathleen Boal (KB): I believe it is delivering excellence to the site. But effectively, what our goal is here is to ensure that everybody who comes through the centre has an idea of the intense nature of the battle, the fact that the people who fought here are not just English people and Scottish people, it was not a sort of Scots vs. English war. And that everyone who goes through has an excellent experience, hopefully a powerful experience. But all sections of the visitor centre, for instance the café, the shop, the front desk and the education experience come together in a whole excellent experience.

FH: 2) Culloden has been inscribed on the Battlefields register. How did you define authenticity and integrity? KB: Historic Scotland actually approached us. But it would be wrong not to put Culloden in the register. We tell the stories on the battlefield that are as well-researched and as well- defined as we can. And also, we try to give people a sense of place, when they are here on the battlefield.

FH: 3) Have you established a buffer zone or similar zoning for the battlefield? KB: There is an area surrounding the battlefield that we keep an eye on. And we work in conjunction with the Highland Council in order to maintain that. There are people who wish to build in specific areas because Inverness is one the fastest developing cities in the UK. It is growing so quickly and we are very aware of when development plans go through and how. The Trust itself responds to them.

174

FH: 4) In your view, what are the stakeholders of the battlefield? KB: I think it is very difficult to name stakeholders, to say that this stakeholder is more important. I think we have a responsibility not only to the descendent, but also to the local community and to effectively the wider population of Scotland. We have a really important story here and we have a responsibility to ensure that we are telling it in the most appropriate way.

FH: 5) That brings me to my next question: How do you involve the local community? KB: We do things in a variety of different ways. For instance, last week we had tours specifically put on for local people. Instead of paying the full price to come into the centre, we had them pay a fraction of the price and then go on to the battlefield. We were able to tell the historical story from that angle. Right now, we have the Inverness Art Society, they are actually exhibiting some of their paintings in one of our spaces. We have an artist-in- residency programme, in which we are looking to involve the local community much more intensely with some reflections on the site itself.

FH: 6) How does your management structure look like? How many people are employed here? KB: There is s a property manager, Deirdre Smyth, and then there are area managers. I am the Education & Interpretation Manager, then there is Alex Elliott and he is the Facilities Manager. He makes sure that the building works, that the maintenance of the ground is taken care of and that it looks the way it is supposed to look. Then there is Catherine Cameron for the restaurant and there Mary-Ann Portius for the Shop. And then there is Franky Glover who manages the Front-of-House. And below them, there are their respective teams. We are working within our teams, but we are actually working together.

FH: 7) I saw that there are many historical accounts on the battle. How did you use them to piece the story together? KB: It is kind of difficult for me to answer that question because I was not here when they actually did the work. I have only been in post for two years. But it is my understanding that a survey was done of most of the primary and secondary source material. Using this and consulting with various academics, people like Christopher Duffy and Tony Pollard,

175 the archaeologist, the project team was able to pull together to the best of their abilities what actually happened on the battlefield. The thing is, as people research further, new discoveries are made. So we can only be as accurate as we can be. But as things develop and change and as new stories emerge, we are able to reflect that through our interpretation.

FH: 8) Do you intend to undertake more research in the future? KB: We are always researching. We are always looking for more information. The actual texts and displays in the exhibition will probably not change in the near future, in the sense that it is quite difficult to do. But the research that we do for our presentations (10 min presentations, workshops, handling objects, guided tours) is always informed by continuous research. We are consistently acquiring more information to add to our base.

FH: 9) In your exhibition, there is a map which displays the battle action as an animated sequence. KB: It is really, really good. It is effective because sometimes the language when it comes to battles is difficult. People do not understand, e. g. what “flanking” means. So to watch it, you can actually see there that “oh, right, they just come up from the side and attack from the side!”. So, it is quite nice.

FH: 10) Do you plan scientific surveying in the near future? KB: Not in the near future, although we hope to revisit some of the information. And there is still being research done on the things which were excavated before the centre was built. But archaeology needs quite a bit of money to do. So, that is a funding issue. We would have to work with the Trust to source funding. That does not mean that we would not hope to do more. But I doubt that this will happen in the next years.

FH: 11) Where do you store finds from the survey? KB: Finds go to museum collections, such as Inverness Museum and Art Gallery. In order to hold archaeological material, you have to be a registered museum. There are certain things that you have to go through. We are a visitor centre and we are not an accredited museum, of course. So the closest accredited museum is in Inverness. They have been very

176 generous in loaning material to us, not only for the material that is in the displays. Last year, in October, we did handling sessions (Archaeology Fortnight in the Highlands), so they lent us some material to bring here, to show people so they were able to handle it. That takes a lot of trust on their part. I am happy to say that they were very confident in our abilities.

FH: 12) But you display some artefacts in the cases. KB: There are artefacts in the cases, but they do not necessarily belong to us. You will see that a lot of them are on loan. There are some that do belong to us. Unfortunately, we are not an accredited museum, so we cannot apply for Treasure Trove material.

FH: 13) How do you treat human remains on site? KB: They are not excavating the graves because they consider them to be war graves. Whether they will excavate them in the future, I am not sure. I think it would be very delicate. I think they found some human remains.

FH: 14) That is interesting because Culloden is one of the battlefields where you would expect to still find human remains, as it the most recent battle fought on British soil. KB: In the past, people have dug up the graves and pulled out bones and souvenirs. “Here you go, have a Culloden souvenir!”. But the current stance of the National Trust is that they are war graves, both the Jacobite ones and the Government ones.

FH: 15) You have mentioned your interpretive programme. What does it encompass apart from the exhibition? KB: We do events, things like a Father‟s Day walk. I already mentioned the artist-in- residency programme: There are a lot of intense emotions on battlefields so we are using these artists to reflect some of the emotions, so that people can engage with them in a meaningful way. That way, we can represent some of the stories we are unable to represent in the exhibition (“Hidden History”). We also have things like archaeological events like the Archaeology Fortnight. Tony Pollard came and did a walk. We have a lot of educational programmes here.

177

We are especially interested in people‟s history, so we use research to delve into these. Often, people come here and tell us that family members were affected by the battle. This leads to the wider social and political context.

FH: 16) You also have the audio tour. I found the personal account of the soldier especially interesting. KB: Often, the big people are emphasised, kings, princes, etc. But it has nothing to do with normal people. It is that idea of telling your average person‟s story on the battlefield.

FH: 17) Did you have re-enactments on the site? Are you planning re-enactments? KB: I do not think that it is appropriate here to do a battle re-enactment. It just would not feel right.

FH: 18) You already have an abundance of commemorative devices on the battlefield. Do you feel that you need to add something? KB. There are lots of different ways how people can commemorate the battle. We have had conversations about gardens. It would be nice to have a space for people to reflect, to think about what the battle means to them today. But how and when that would happen I am not sure. We are quite tight for space here. We have strict requirements here. We are not putting things on the battlefield, such as another building. It may be that the artist-in-residency programme develops into more commemorative work, but I think we want to ensure that that the battlefield looks as much as it did in 1746. It is important for people to understand that physically this is a different place.

FH: 19) How do you conserve the battlefield then? KB: In the past, trees have been felled to clear the field. They are trying to restore the battlefield as much as possible to what it would have looked like in 1746. But of course, this is almost impossible. Part of the facilities manager‟s job is to maintain the ground. They are pulling up stuff and trees all the time. He has a team of four people who work with him, managing the landscape. It is a very managed landscape. But again, that was a conscious decision by the interpretive team when they were doing this project.

178

FH: 20) I imagine that is difficult in itself because you have to put paths on it. KB: It is difficult. You will never achieve exactly what it looked like. You also have to ensure accessibility to the site. But we do our best.

FH: 21) You mentioned that the landscape is very managed, so that includes the monitoring? KB: It is monitored, but we rarely have problems with people.

FH: 22) Do visitors stick to the paths? KB: We have two types of visitors here. Visitors come to see specifically the site. But we also have local people, who use the site as an outdoor facility. They bring their dogs here and take them for walks. Yes, people stray off the paths. But for the most part, people are very respectful. I think that there is a sense of place here, of weight of history.

FH: 23) Is the battlefield not fenced off? KB: In Scotland, of course, you have right of access. The field is fenced off in that you cannot go onto the road, but it can be walked without entering the centre and without paying. Again, it belongs to the people of Scotland and it is included in the Scottish Outdoor Access Code. People should be able to use this space without restrictions.

FH: 24) How many visitors do you usually have per year? KB: About 250,000 per year.

FH: 25) Are there seasonal variances? KB: In the winter, it is usually very quiet. And during summer, it is incredibly busy.

FH: 26) How do assess visitor satisfaction? KB: We have surveys run and we have informal feedback as well. Also, every school that comes through fills out feedback forms.

179

FH: 27) How do you make the site known to the public? KB: There are a lot of different ways. It is interesting that we do not have a leaflet. It is mainly through our web presence. Word-of-mouth is the best marketing tool in the world. If people had a good time, then they will tell their friends. And tour guides recommend us to the tourists. It does not matter how much you spend on marketing, it is word-of-mouth in the end.

FH: 28) But you have a lot of international visitors. KB: Culloden is seen as somewhere you should go. It is a site of significance.

FH: 29) Everywhere you go in Inverness, it is about the battle and the battlefield, so that is a kind of subliminal marketing. They advertise for you, in a way. KB: Yes, absolutely.

FH: Thank you very much!

KB: You are welcome.

180

The Interview for Tewkesbury Battlefield was conducted with Steve Goodchild, member of Tewkesbury Battlefield Society, Tewkesbury, on 21st June 2011 at 11:00 hrs.

Franziska Hauck (FH): 1) When was the Tewkesbury Battlefield Society founded? Steve Goodchild (SG): In 1997, with the specific reason that they wanted to build houses on parts of the battlefield. And because we have the Medieval Festival which has been going since 1984. We felt that that was not the right organisation to oppose the application. We needed something a bit more political.

FH: 2) So it started out as a pressure group? SG: Yes, and it still is to some extent.

FH: 3) Your medium and long-term aims seem quite ambitious. SG: Well, you have got to have targets.

FH: 4) What have you been able to do so far? SG: Not a lot, is probably the answer. We have done a lot of awareness raising, education. We do things like school visits. We work closely with the museum on displays, school visits, etc. We certainly raised awareness quite a lot, for example by talks to Historical Societies, Institutes, Universities, etc. We have also got our banner projects, the banners in the streets.

FH: 5) So you organise the Medieval Festival as well? SG: Yes.

FH: 6) What did you do to oppose the housing scheme? SG: We were in the right place at the right time. The Battlefield Register had just been published. English Heritage were not terribly happy about the lack of teeth the register had. It was just something to be taken into account in the planning, rather than a statutory status, just like parks and gardens, for example. There was a threat to what was left of Tewkesbury battlefield and we had quite an interested group of volunteers. Just at the same

181 time, Stamford Bridge was under threat and I think they built at Stamford Bridge. We managed to work with English Heritage quite closely to develop a resistance. We were lucky in a way that they decided to call the planning application in after the Borough Council approved and the planning inspector rejected it. But I think that was to some extent because English Heritage and not just us, but various volunteer organisations worked together, stuck to their own little area and made quite a limited case rather than all making the same case 30 times. So, that seemed to work fairly well.

FH: 7) The register actually gave consideration status to the battlefields. SG: But it had only just been introduced. I think part of the argument was that they have to consider the importance of the battlefield. And it was the first test case for the battlefield register. So, English Heritage put a lot of effort into it. It has nothing to do with us. We were just in the right place at the right time.

FH: 8) For the Scottish Register, Historic Scotland recommends the award of conservation area status to battlefields. SG: That is the latest thing we have done. The conservation area in Tewkesbury was up for reconsideration very recently, and interestingly, they mention the battlefield and its importance several times, but they were no proposals to increase the area and to include the battlefield. So we put in a response to say that it should. We also asked the Battlefields Trust if various regions would do the same and I think several have made that point.

FH: 9) You already mentioned that you give talks, etc. How do you involve especially local residents? SG: With difficulty. We have stalls/presences at various events, we show what we do. We work on projects and try to get people involved. We do litter picking, cleaning of the battlefield, things like that. We try to make ourselves as visible as possible and try to get people to join. A lot of our membership is in Tewkesbury itself, not a lot of them terribly active. That is the problem.

182

FH: 10) The grounds are owned in parts by the council and in parts by private land owners. How do you collaborate with them? SG: We do not at the moment. Some years ago, probably about 10 or 11, the Borough Council decided that they would develop a battlefield management plan of their own. They got Scott Wilson to write it for them. But what annoyed me was that they did not actually talk to anybody in town. It was flawed in lots of areas, but it intended to focus on wildlife, which I think is important. But it left out some other very important things. Firstly, they did the guided walk on the battlefield the wrong way around. So when it comes to interpreting the battle itself, it was starting where it finished and finishing where it started. And it was also more dangerous, they made the point that it was dangerous to cross the road because it was on a bend. If you cross the road the other way, it is perfectly safe. It was little things like that. First of all, you need to decide on what you are going to do in broad terms and then get to the problems. Otherwise, it is not going to work.

FH: 11) How are you funded? SG: Entirely voluntarily. We have very low membership fees which probably pay for the service provided, which is very limited. Most of our funds come from talks and other things. Once a month, we do guided walks around the battlefield. Also, we charge for the rental of the banners and gives a bit of extra money. But we are saving at the moment for the major project.

FH: 12) What is that? SG: It will be a commemorative sculpture at the edge of the battlefield.

FH: 13) There is already a commemorative device on the battlefield, the Obelisk. Do you want to complement that with the sculpture? SG: There is a roundabout at the edge of the field. What we propose is to put a commemorative sculpture on the roundabout. We had a competition as part of our protest, which was funded by the town council. The winner has developed a device of two horses, one which will sit on the roundabout and one, which will sit on the verge. They are about 5m high and they are made out of oak. They are framed sculptures rather than solid ones. A very sustainable material is used, because the oak that they are made of comes from the

183 wood close-by. It is local material. But it has taken us 14 years to get approval. We are hoping that we are meeting next week, so it will be official.

FH: 14) How many volunteers are active in the society? SG: Ca. a dozen people get involved regularly.

FH: 15) No significant scientific surveys have been conducted in the past and if so, finds could not be attributed to the battle without doubt. Do you plan any further investigations in the near future? SG: The problem is that the core of the battlefield has been heavily built on. Part of it is a graveyard and lot of it is gardens. Those have been well dug. Even the green fields have pipes running through them. My colleague is working to get a permission to do a ground radar survey of the area around the abbey. The archaeologists at his university (he is a historian) have convinced him that they can locate 15th century graves by the clustering.

FH: 16) You mentioned your interpretive programme. Is there currently anything on the site? SG: Not at the moment. We have plans but because we are volunteers we have a long way down the road to having interpretation on the site. There is a walk around the battlefield and it has six significant points. So we are redesigning the leaflet to pick up these point and over time, we put interpretation not all of them, but to a lot of them.

FH: 17) You also mentioned school visits. SG: That is always very exciting, they love it. We usually have primary schools. It is interesting to see the difference between boys and girls, the boys are immediately looking to the hedges to see if there are any swords.

FH: 18) Do you get feedback on your tours in any shape or form? SG: Yes, we do. We work with the museum. They get feedback.

184

FH: 19) During the Medieval Festival, there is a re-enactment of the battle. How does that look like? SG: There are about 2,000 of them. And they re-enact the battle. It is not terribly authentic, but generally it is quite good.

FH: 20) Generally, the perception of re-enactment is negative in the academic community. SG: Personally, I think if you do want to talk about men in armour, unless you put the armour on, you do not know what it means. There is a lot of research done. Quite a lot of it is rubbish (re-enactors often get their input from films, etc.), but some things are really good. I think that we have learnt quite a lot from re-enactment.

FH: 21) Are there public facilities close to the battlefield? Yes, there are pay-and-display car parks and soon, there will be public toilets again.

FH: 22) Is it possible to give an estimate of the number of visitors of the battlefield? SG: That is very difficult because it is close to the town and a lot of people walk the battlefield on their own. About 500 are on the walks, but there are many more.

FH: 23) I saw that there is a battlefield trail. SG: Yes, there is a battlefield trail already, but it has been there since 1985.

FH: 24) And that is used? SG: Yes, the Tourist Information office sells a leaflet, but it takes you the wrong way. But we are redoing that in a different format.

FH: 25) How do you make events and offers known to the public? SG: Apart from the print media, we use the local radio and the local press, free advertising. They tend to be interested. And you can, I think, oversaturate it sometimes. So we put up posters at various places. I know that, if I put up a poster at the caravan site, 3 or 4 people will come to the walks from there. Those are the interested people, who do not know much about it and will walk away thinking “Now I know a bit about the battle of Tewkesbury”.

185

When it comes to the festival, there is a website and there is a leaflet, which you will find in every place in the town and every tourist information for miles and miles around. It publicises itself really because it is such a big event. We use things that happened to raise publicity as well. But anything which looks a bit negative, we will turn positive.

FH: 26) Do you think the battlefield will be threatened in the future? SG: I would like to say no. I would also like to say that we can extend the limits of the battlefield a little bit and get better protection of some of the other areas through the conservation area status. It is interesting to know that the Borough Council‟s offices have been built on the battlefield. They now consult EH about the battlefield before they do anything to it. They had some proposals to do something. But they have spoken to EH and decided not to do it because EH objects, which is a very different approach to the 1997 approach. Lessons have been learnt, I think.

FH: 27) Do you meet regularly with the council? SG: Not at the moment. What we would like to do is get a little group of interested people to meet maybe twice a year to review the management plan for the battlefield and to establish what needs to be done medium- and long-term. There is quite a lot of degradation going on at the moment, which they ought to put a stop to but they are not. But they will say that they are short of funds.

FH: Thank you for doing the interview!

186

Appendix J: Qualitative Survey (Mini Case Studies)

a) Bosworth Battlefield Heritage Centre and Country Park (Leicestershire County Council)

The questions were answered by Richard Knox, Bosworth Battlefield Heritage Centre and Country Park, Leicestershire County Council, on 9th June 2011.

How do you manage the battlefield? Do you own the field or parts of it? If not, how do you ensure collaboration with the owners?

After over three hundred years of believing the battle of Bosworth was fought on Ambion Hill (since 1680!) where a Bosworth Heritage Centre telling the story of the battle is located, a five year historical and archaeological survey located the actual Bosworth Battlefield site in 2009. The actual site is around 2km to the South West of the site.

Leicestershire County Council owns very little land in the area of the battlefield; a section of disused railway line with a car park at one end, and rents the Heritage Centre and a small number of fields around it as well as a small car park at nearby Whitemoors. We also manage public access in the area along designated and permissive footpaths. In the past collaboration with the owners and/or their agents has been done through officers of our property department with a series of access and tenancy agreements.

What are the issues and challenges in battlefield management?

There are many issues, but the main one for us as the main heritage stakeholder is that all the land covered by the Battlefield is in private ownership (5 landowners on the known Battlefield and dozens in the whole area around it) so all access needs to be negotiated. The relocation of the Battlefield creates a series of new access challenges for us and the landowners. We need to find a good balance between allowing controlled public access to

187 the area, preferably with good viewsheds and safe parking etc, and allowing the landowners to go about their arcgricultural and conservation practices unimpeded.

Finding and funding an area of useful and safe parking in an area with one fast road and a network of small winding lanes is a major issue.

Another key issue is that of on-site interpretation and we would very much like to have a commemorative area on the Battlefield itself. Such an area would need negotiating with one of the landowners and this would almost certainly involve further renting of land with a cost implication.

How does your management framework look like? What are your key issues?

The management at Bosworth Battlefield Heritage Centre is rather complicated as we have a Heritage Team, who do the interpretation and run the Centre and an external trail around Ambion Hill, and a Country Parks team who do the management of the footpaths, lawn cutting, garden planting etc. The two teams are in different Leicestershire County Council departments so a cohesive approach is not always possible. Also due to Local Government cut backs the Country Parks team has been halved in number making the countryside management much harder to maintain.

The key day to day countryside management issues are keeping public footpaths clear, clean and accessible, we have antisocial behaviour occurring in the remote car parks, which has led to only part time openings of these, keeping the balance between farmland that is other people's livelihood and encouraging visitors to enjoy it is always difficult.

Do you have a management plan / are you in the process of drawing up a management plan?

At present Bosworth Battlefield does not have a Management Plan, but we are currently undertaking work on a Conservation Management Plan, having just done the consultation workshops. This CMP will be looking at more than just the preservation of the Battlefield

188 itself, with the industrial, natural and wider heritage environment all being included to put the Battlefield in its context. We believe that this will be the first true Conservation Management Plan for any British and possibly European Battlefield.

What do you want to achieve over the next five years?

The CMP aims to bring the stakeholders, be they landowners, tenant farmers, walkers, cyclists, local councils and residents etc, together to celebrate and preserve their Battlefield, opening better channels of communication and a better understanding of what everyone's needs are. Hopefully the local planning authorities will adpot its policy guidelines to inform development decisions in the area and also we hope that currently intensive arable farmers might consider joining high level stewardship schemes which will reduce ploughing, helping nature and archaeological conservation in the area. The systematic laying of hedges, a traditional way of consolidating and managing hedges, would increase the viewshed across the battlefield (which is very flat) as well has potentially helping increased biodiversity. As the key Heritage stakeholders we would like to see some form of interpretation on the Battlefield itself - even something subtle and small scale would be great.

189

b) Homildon Hill Battlefield (Homildon Hill Battlefield Project)

The questions were answered by Kevin Malloy, Treasurer, Glendale Local History Society, on 12th June 2011.

How do you manage the battlefield? Do you own the field or parts of it? If not, how do you ensure collaboration with the owners?

Although it is registered battlefield, there is no formal management of the site. The site lies entirely within one farm. The farmer is one of the instigators of the project and is participating fully - "collaboration with the owners" is therefore through his good will. Note that part of the registered battlefield site lies within the boundary of the Northumberland National Park (NNP) and the farmer is subject to the overall NNP management plan for the land lying within the park, particularly with regard to archaeological features - Homildon Hill (now known as Humbleton Hill) is also the site of a highly regarded Iron Age Hillfort. However most of the battle action is likely to have taken place on land outside the park boundary.

What are the issues and challenges in battlefield management?

The short answer is that since there is no battlefield management, there are no issues or challenges. At this stage the project is concerned with the basics of starting off a history research project (what actually happened during the battle and where?) and deciding on how best to sign and publicise the battle and site.

How does your management framework look like? What are your key issues?

We're at the early stages of a community project based on volunteer effort. The "management framework" such as it is, consists of a small coordinating group which is facilitating the setting up of programmes of activities in four "theme groups". The Theme Groups are: Research & Interpretation; Education; Promotion; Commemoration, Events,

190

Arts and Crafts. The main issue is assuring that each theme group builds up sufficient momentum to enable them to establish and achieve goals.

Do you have a management plan / are you in the process of drawing up a management plan?

We do not have a management plan for the battlefield. The nature of a management plan (if any) will depend on the outputs of the theme group activities.

What do you want to achieve over the next five years?

Establishment of continuing activities in each of the theme groups with strong community participation.

191

c) Philiphaugh Battlefield (Philiphaugh Estate)

The questions were answered by Julie Nock, Project Manager at Philiphaugh Estate, on 8th June 2011.

How do you manage the battlefield? Do you own the field or parts of it? If not, how do you ensure collaboration with the owners?

The battlefield is held in trust as part of Philiphaugh Estate. The Philiphaugh Community Project was set up to work on access to the natural landscape and assets like the battlefield.

What are the issues and challenges in battlefield management?

Funding is by far the biggest problem. We rely heavily on volunteers to do a large part of the work.

How does your management framework look like? What are your key issues?

Time. The project has to be completed within a time frame and as most of us work part time there can be issues with continuity.

Do you have a management plan / are you in the process of drawing up a management plan?

Yes.

What do you want to achieve over the next five years?

In August (13/14) this year we will be holding a large scale battle re-enactment with 225 troops in Jacobean dress to launch the battlefield project. There will also be a living history camp. Archaeology of the site started last month and will run until August 2011. The battlefield project will end in 2013 and will be a permanent interpretation. We will produce

192 literature and an audio tour to complement the permanent features installed alongside the landscape. Our long term objectives are to give the general public, schools and higher learning establishments access to a significant piece of Scotland's history.

193

d) Pinkie Battlefield (The Battle of Pinkie Cleugh)

The questions were answered by Andrew Coulson, initiator of The Battle of Pinkie Cleugh Project, on 11th June 2011.

How do you manage the battlefield? Do you own the field or parts of it? If not, how do you ensure collaboration with the owners?

There is no structure in place or in prospect for management of the battlefield. The Pinkie Cleugh Battlefield Group is proceeding piecemeal with projects to raise knowledge and interest in the battle – the horizon limit of our ambitions at the moment, I think, would be a battlefield trail and interpretative display(s) in local museums, etc.

What are the issues and challenges in battlefield management?

The pressing issue at Pinkie Cleugh is that the site is still largely undeveloped, but is an enormously attractive location for housing development. It is wholly part of Edinburgh's green belt, but this does not in itself provide the protection that might be hoped for.

How does your management framework look like? What are your key issues?

== see note above ==

Do you have a management plan / are you in the process of drawing up a management plan?

Following the publication of the Historic Scotland Inventory, and the guidance from the Scottish Government to Local Authorities calling for the development of both planning policies and conservation plans, we are looking forward to contributing appropriately as East Lothian council takes on these responsibilities

194

What do you want to achieve over the next five years?

I am sure that, at least for the present, the most productive and useful approach we can take is just to proceed to take the next obvious step; when our Group is large enough (or rather, when community involvement with the battlefield is wide enough) - that will be the time when it is appropriate to think in terms of five year goals!

195

e) Towton Battlefield (Towton Battlefield Society)

The questions were answered by Mark Taylor, Chairman of Towton Battlefield Society, on 12th June 2011.

How do you manage the battlefield? Do you own the field or parts of it? If not, how do you ensure collaboration with the owners?

The Battlefield is all privately owned and is still working farmland. We have a great relationship with the landowners and in October 2010 we created a ground-breaking landowner agreement when we got all the landowners together and they agreed to ban all metal detecting and trespass on their lands, the police agreed to enforce the ban and we created a Hi Viz vest scheme for authorised users and a database of those allowed on site.

It made national news and has featured on many TV and radio programmes and has been hailed as a ground breaking way of communities taking charge of their Heritage. We now members of ARCH (Alliance to reduce Crime against Heritage) due to this work. I now also advise other community projects on setting up similar schemes.

We have engaged the main landowner and they have now collaborated with Natural England and put in a new Battlefield Trail and bought the local pub (which had closed down), turning the lower floor back into a tavern and the upstairs into a Battlefield display centre. This landowner has always been supportive of our work.

What are the issues and challenges in battlefield management?

They are mainly the following Consistent collaboration with all the landowners. Ensuring that Central/Local government planning decisions match the needs of the community and its heritage. Protecting from rural crime including unwanted metal detecting.

196

How does your management framework look like? What are your key issues?

We do not have a formal framework, you do not need one when you do not own or have any custodian stake in the land. We have found that the biggest obstacle to creating great working relationships is the fear landowners have of external interference and a group of volunteers with a plan for the management of their land is the worst possible start to a relationship.

Do you have a management plan / are you in the process of drawing up a management plan?

As above.

What do you want to achieve over the next five years?

Extend the Heritage Crime process to other parts of the country. Start the journey towards a permanent, built for purpose Battlefield Centre. Embed the process at Towton, so that unwanted metal detecting and other rural crime is eradicated. Get better protection for the Battlefield and others by using our influence at local and national government level. We are active members of the Battlefields Trust and ARCH and I have built a network of great contacts with individuals and organisations other the years. Mainly, ensure that Towton becomes a community hub for heritage, recreation, tourism and business so that its future survival and protection is driven by sustainable community demand and need rather that a group of heritage activists.

197

f) Worcester Battlefield (Battle of Worcester Society)

The questions were answered by Howard Robinson, Membership Secretary and Treasurer for the Battle of Worcester Society, on 9th June 2011.

How do you manage the battlefield? Do you own the field or parts of it? If not, how do you ensure collaboration with the owners?

There were two battles associated with Worcester during the English Civil War (1642 – 1651): the battle of Powick Bridge (1642) right at the start - a minor skirmish with barely a thousand men per side the main Battle of Worcester (1651) right at the end - a major battle with 13,000 men on one side and 24,000 men on the other

Powick Bridge is a discrete site, being an old stone bridge crossing of the River Teme with a main mediaeval road into Worcester over it. It is no longer more than a public footpath having been superseded by a more modern bridge slightly further down and, as far as I know, is not owned by anyone as such. Two plaques have been erected one on each side of the bridge, one commemorating the first skirmish and the other commemorating the role of Powick Bridge in the second major battle.

There is no management plan as such but local enthusiasts periodically go and clear the bridge of the inevitable rubbish that is left there by the locals. At least the site is marked by the two plaques.

The main Battle of Worcester was not a discrete site as such and was spread over a radius of 6 miles around the city and the sites of this battle are: 1. either privately owned --- e.g. Powick Ham as grazing land 2. or have been built over --- e.g. the Wicks housing estates / Red Hill / Battenhall 3. or are on publicly owned areas --- e.g. Perry Wood / Fort Royal Hill park / Battenhall Park

198

Therefore, since we do not own the sites associated with the main battle of Worcester, it is extremely difficult to effect a management plan.

What are the issues and challenges in battlefield management?

The issues and challenges are to: (a) make the local council aware of the heritage that is there in relation to the battle, albeit some beneath housing; some in woods and parks (b) bring attention to the general public of the significance of the battle in various ways - see answer below

What does your management framework look like?

The Battle of Worcester Society (BoWS) is only a small society, steadily growing in numbers, whose aims include, and I quote:

“Seeing what remains of the significant battle field sites protected, preserved, maintained and properly marked for Worcester's residents and future visitors. To this end we will continue to push for: the placement of three maquettes (three dimensional plaques produced by Ken Potts - sculptor) at various strategic positions around the extensive battle site of Worcester in order to inform the general public what important event happened there on 3rd September 1651”.

Thus we want to elect local wardens to loosely patrol all the sites but it is difficult since it is spread over such a wide area.

We also have established a series of guided City Walks - in progress this summer - around the various more local sites of interest to do with the battle in 1651.

The key issues are as outlined in my answer to your question above: What are the issues and challenges in battlefield management?

199

Do you have a management plan / are you in the process of drawing up a management plan?

No, not as such, although we are pushing for the election of local wardens --- see point above --- to keep an eye on the various sites and liaise with us / the local council about any problems that may be arising.

What do you want to achieve over the next five years?

To have erected three plaques, with explanatory text, at three sites associated with the battle: 1. Powick Bridge and the first major skirmish in 1642 2. Fort Royal, a pivotal area during the major battle in 1651 3. Sidbury Gate, the place where Prince Charles {Charles II} was finally pushed back into the city towards the end of the battle in 1651

To have erected a major monument, some 20 feet high - see our website: www.thebattleofworcestersociety.org.uk for more details - near the site of the old Sidbury Gate in order to raise the profile of both the battle and, in the process, the city of Worcester.

ALL we can do is try to raise awareness of this amazingly strategic battle in the establishment of Parliament with its role in a democratic system of government, not only in this country but throughout the world. Worcester was a landmark in this process.

200