We are searching data for your request:
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.
Anarkali (Urdu: انارکلی , lit. 'pomegranate blossom'), was the given nickname of a legendary courtesan who was said to be the love interest of the 16th century Mughal prince Salim, who later became the Emperor Jahangir.
According to legend, Anarkali had an illicit relationship with Salim and hence his father, the Mughal Emperor Akbar, had her executed by immurement. There is no historical evidence of Anarakali's existence and the authenticity of her story is contested among academics. Her character often appears in movies, books and fictionalised versions of history. She is famously depicted in the 1960 Bollywood film Mughal-e-Azam, where she is portrayed by Madhubala.
Members of the upper class of medieval Armenian society were known as nakharars (Armenian: նախարար ) and azats (Armenian: ազատ ), (also aznvakans (Armenian: ազնվական )).
The roots of Armenian nobility trace back to ancient tribal society, when the proto-Armenian tribes separated from the primordial Indo-European community and selected chieftain leaders for governing the community, defending territory and leading military campaigns against their enemies. These chieftains and leaders were usually the strongest members of the clans and tribes, who had become renowned for their strength, intelligence, and deeds. Thus, gradually the upper class of the Armenian society came into existence, namely that of the azats, also known as aznwakans or aznavurs. Translated from contemporary Armenian the word azat literally means "one who is free", a "freeman." However, this term is likely derived from the older Indo-European word "yazata", meaning "the divine one", "offspring of gods", "the one who deserves to be worshipped".
Armenian noble clans traced their origins either back to the gods of the old Armenian religion or to the heroes and patriarchs of the Armenian people or the origins of non-Armenian families. For example, the noble houses of Vahevuni and Mehnuni were believed to be offspring of Vahagn and Mihr, ancient Armenian deities of fire and war, and heavenly light and justice respectively. The House of Artzruni traced its origins to Sanasar, son of Mher from the Armenian epos Sasna Tzrer. According to the Armenian aristocratic tradition, the princely houses of [Poladian]Khorkhoruni, Bznuni, Mandakuni, Rshtuni, Manavazian, Angelea (Angegh tun), Varajnuni, Vostanikyan, Ohanian, Cartozian, Apahuni, Arran tun and some others, are all believed to be direct descendants of Nahapet (Patriarch) Hayk, whose epithet was Dyutsazn (from Ancient Greek θεός, meaning "divine"), or of Hayk's descendants. It is quite common in all parts of the world for members of the nobility to purport to trace their ancestry back to gods, or legendary heroes. Besides that, according to legend the Bagratuni dynasty has origins in Judea, according to Movses Khorenatsi, as they transferred to Armenia in 6th century B.C. The Mamikonyan dynasty also had legends of coming from China. 
The historians mention various numbers of the Armenian noble houses during different periods of Armenian history. Sometimes their number is mentioned to be ninety, yet at other times it reaches up to three hundred. Certainly, the number of the Armenian noble houses did change in the course of time as the aristocratic class was itself subject to flux.
The first attested Armenian royal dynasty was the Orontids which was ruling Armenia as a satrapy of the Persian Empire in the 4th century BC. They are preceded by legendary or semi-legendary patriarchs of Armenian tradition, first recorded in the History attributed to Moses of Chorene (Movses Khorenatsi), written circa the 5th century.   
The noble houses of Rshtuni, Mokats, Artzruni and others originated from tribal rulers or clans already in antiquity. Some others, such as the Mamikonians or Aravelians, were granted noble titles and/or offices, such as aspet (Armenian: ասպետ ), 'coronator' and sparapet (Armenian: սպարապետ ), 'generalissimo' by special decrees of medieval Armenian kings for their services to the royal court or the nation.
Some Armenian Christian historians tend to derive certain Armenian noble houses from Mesopotamian or other roots. For example, in his History of Armenia, Movses Khorenatsi traces the family origins of his sponsor prince Sahak Bagratuni to non-Armenian roots. However, the historical sources prove the existence of the Bagratuni family in the oldest period of Armenian history and speak of them as aboriginal Armenians. The linguistic analysis also maintains that the name Bagarat probably is of Indo-European origin. It is remarkable that Prince Bagratuni himself rejected Khorenatsi's version of the origins of his family. Exotic descents were in vogue among the early medieval Armenian aristocratic families. However, there is no evidence supporting any of these claims of descent.
The nobility always played an important role in Armenian society. This inter alia is evidenced through the evolution of the term nakharar. Initially this term referred to the hereditary governors of the Armenian provinces and was used with the meaning of "ruler" and "governor". The same title could mean a particularly honorable service (nakhararutyun, nakharardom) at the Armenian royal court. Examples of such heritable services or nakharardoms are aspetutyun (coronation, which traditionally belonged to the house of Bagratuni), sparapetutyun (commander-in-chief of the Armenian army, which traditionally belonged to the house of Mamikonean), hazarapetutyun (chancellery and taxation, which were inheritably managed by the houses of Gnuni and Amatuni), and malhazutyun (royal guard that was traditionally organized and headed to the house of Khorkhoruni). However, in the course of hereditary consolidation of gavars (provinces) or royal court services by noble houses, the term nakharar has changed its original meaning and gradually transformed into a generic equivalent of "aristocrat", "nobleman". Accordingly, the aristocratic families started to be called nakharar houses or nakharardoms. Along with this analysis, there is another interpretation of term nakharar, which is based on Armenian nakh and arar, i.e. "the first created" or "the first borne".
The meaning of term nakharar was evolving in parallel with consolidation of the noble houses' hereditary rights over counties of Great Armenia.  For example, the county of Great Albak was traditionally inherited by the noble house of Artzruni, county of Taron by the house of Slkuni, and the county of Rshtuniq by the house of Rshtuni. Even prior to this consolidation the traditional aristocratic emblems and coat-of-arms emerge. The latter often is deeply rooted in the ancient kinship and tribal beliefs and totems of the Armenian clans. Although the information on Armenian heraldry is quite limited, nevertheless it is well known that the most common symbols were those of the eagle, lion, and mountain ram. For example, the coat-of-arms of the Artashesian dynasty consisted of two eagles with the symbol of sun in the middle. An eagle holding a sheep was also the house symbol of Bagratuni nakharardom. The dynastic emblem of the Cilician Armenian royal house of Lusignan (Lusinian) reflected west European heraldic influence and consisted of red lions and crosses on the yellow and blue background of the shield. The nakharar families of ancient Armenia were listed in the so-called Gahnamaks and Zoranamaks, which were the official inventories or registrars that were positioning the families based on the criteria of honor, virtue and esteem. The difference between Gahnamak and Zoranamak were in the listing criteria that were determining the esteem почетности of the noble family. Zoranamak was based on the military strength of the houses, i.e. the number of possessed cavalry and infantry, responsibility in defending the northern, eastern, southern and western borders of Armenia, as well as the size of the troops that the noble houses were placing under the command of the king of Armenia in times of military campaigns. Unlike Zoranamak, Gahnamak was listing the noble houses based on the criteria of political and economic importance of the houses, size of their estates, their wealth, as well as their connections and influence over the royal courts.
Two other notions of the Armenian nobility relating to Gahnamak and Zoranamak are those of bardz and pativ. Bardz literally means "cushion". It was the seat that was occupied by the head of the noble house at the royal table, be it during the council or during the festivities. The word bardz derives from these cushions on which the lords of houses were seated on special occasions. Bardzes - literally cushioned seats at the royal table but more broadly the actual status at the royal court - were distributed on the basis of pativ, i.e. literally the honor and esteem of the noble houses. The latter, most probably wуку fixed in Gahnamaks and Zoranamaks.
Gahnamak (Armenian: Գահնամակ , literally: "throne registrar") - was an official state document, list of places and thrones (bardzes) that the Armenian princes and nakharars were occupying at the royal court of Armenia. The throne of the prince or nakharar was defined by his economic or military strength (according to the Zoranamak, literally: "strength registrar"), as well as according to the ancient tradition. Gahnamak was composed and sealed by the King of Armenia, because the nakharars (lords) were considered to be his vassals. Nakharar thrones (gahs, i.e. the positions at the royal court) were changing rarely and were inherited from father to son. Only in special circumstances - such as high treason, cessation of the family etc. - the king had the right to make some changes in the Gahnamak. The sequence and classification of Armenian lords' thrones had been defined and observed from the ancient times.
According to Khorenatsi, the first actual listing of lords in the shape of Gahnamak was Armenian King Vologases I (Vagharsh I). According to the recorded sources, the classification of Armenian lords' thrones in the form of Gahnamak existed throughout the reign of Arshakuni (Arsacid) dynasty (1st–5th centuries). The same system was continued during the Marzpanian period in the history of Armenia (5th–7th centuries), i.e. during the supremacy of the Sasanian kings of Persia. There are significant discrepancies and inaccuracies in the data of Gahnamaks of different centuries regarding the number of princely houses and degrees of their thrones. According to the Gahnamak of the 4th century preserved in "The Deeds of Nerses", during the reign of king Arsaces II (Arshak II) (c.350-368) the number of the Armenian aristocratic houses reached 400. However the author of "The Deeds" mentions the family names of only 167 lords, 13 of whom did not have a throne. The author himself explains that he is incapable of listing all of them. Armenian historian of the 13th century Stepanos Orbelian also mentions 400 nakharar thrones, who had "throne and respect" at the royal court of king Trdat III (287-332). Pavstos Buzand mentions 900 princely lords, who carried honorary services at the royal court and who sat on a special throne (gah) or cushion (bardz).
The Gahnamak is believed to be written by Armenian Catholic Sahak Parthev (387-439), whose surname indicates distant Persian origin from the Parthav or Parthian clan. Sahak Parthev made the registrar available to the Sasanian Persian court, mentioning a total of 70 Armenian nakharars. In another source of the 4th century 86 nakharars were listed. According to the Arab chronologist Yacoubi (9th century) there were 113 lords in the administrative province of Arminiya, whereas another Arab historian, Yacout al-Hamavi (12–13th centuries) the number of Armenian principalities was 118. Armenian historians Agathangelos, Pavstos Buzand, Yeghishe, Lazar Parbetsi, Movses Khorenatsi, Sebeos and others also provided numerous data and information about Armenian princely houses and lords. However, the Gahnamaks and lists of nakharars (princely houses), based on these data and information, remain incomplete.
Internal divisions Edit
The Armenian nobility had an internal division. The social pyramid of the Armenian nobility was headed by the king, in Armenian arqa. The term arqa originates from the common Aryan root that has equivalents in the name for monarchs in other Indo-European languages: arxatos in Greek, raja in Indo-Aryan, rex or regnum in Latin, roi in French, and reis in Persian.
The sons of the king, i.e. princes, were called sepuh. The elder son, who was also the crown prince and was called avag sepuh, had a particular role. In the case of king's death the avag sepuh automatically would inherit the crown, unless there were other prior arrangements.
The second layer in the social division of the Armenian nobility was occupied by bdeshkhs. Bdeshkh was a ruler of a big borderland province of historical Great Armenia. They were de facto viceroys and by their privileges were very close to the king. Bdeshkhs had their own armies, taxation and duties system, and could even produce their own coins.
The third layer of the Armenian aristocracy after the king and the bdeshkhs was composed by ishkhans, i.e. princes. The term ishkhan derives from ancient Aryan root xshatriya (warrior-ruler). Ishkhan normally would have a hereditary estate known as hayreniq and residence caste - dastakert. Armenian princely houses (or clans) were headed by tanuter. By its meaning the word tun (house) is very close to tohm (clan). Accordingly, tanuter meant "houselord" or "lord of the clan".
Organizationally, the Armenian nobility was headed by Grand Duke - metz ishxan or ishxanac ishxan in Armenian, who in some historical chronicles is also called metzametz. He was the marshal of Armenian nobility and had special privileges and duties. For example, in case of king's death and if there was no inheriting sepuh (crown prince), it was the grand duke who would temporarily take the responsibilities and perform the duties of the king until the issues of succession to the throne are resolved. In reality, however, the successions to the throne would be arranged in advance or would be resolved in the course of feuds and intestine strives.
Thus, the social pyramid of the nobility of Great Armenia includes the following layers:
- Arka or Tagavor (king)
- Bdeshkh (viceroy)
- Ishkhanats ishkhan (grand duke)
- Ishkhan (prince)
This division, however, reflects the specific tradition of Great Armenia in its early period in history. Naturally, in time the social structure of nobility was undergoing changes that would the specifics of Armenian territories, historical era, and the specifics social relations. For example, in medieval times the names and composition of the nobility of the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia (Kilikia) underwent certain changes:
Cilician Armenia adopted many peculiarities of west European classification of the nobility, such as paron (deriving from "baron"), ter or sinyor (senior), berdater (castle lord) etc. Besides, in Cilicia emerged Armenian knighthood which was also considered to be part of the nobility despite the fact that knights themselves - called dziawor и hetzelwor - did not always originate from parons.
Some other features also suffered changes. For example, whereas the salutation for the noblemen in Great Armenia was tiar or ter, in Cilician Armenia a new form of salutation was added to these, namely paron. The latter became the most popular form of greeting and gradually changed its meaning to the equivalent of "mister" in modern Armenian.
Archaeologists identify royal tombs of Pereslavl princes
Archaeologists from the Institute of Archaeology, of the Russian Academy of Sciences have identified the royal tombs of the Pereslavl princes Dmitry Alexandrovich and Ivan Dmitrievich, the descendants of Alexander Nevsky, the legendary Rus’ prince, and saint of the Russian Orthodox Church.
Dmitry Alexandrovich was the second son of Alexander Nevsky, who on the death of his father in AD 1264 was expelled to his native Pereslavl-Zalessky by the inhabitants of Novgorod (which was bequeathed to him by Alexander).
Dmitry spent a decade fighting for his birth right against his uncles, Yaroslav III and Vasily of Kostroma, finally ascending to the throne of Vladimir and Novgorod as the Grand Prince of Vladimir-Suzdal from 1276 until 1281, and then from 1283 until 1293 where he took monastic vows and died the next year.
Following the death of Prince Ivan in 1302, Pereslavl passed to the youngest son of Alexander Nevsky, the first Moscow prince Daniil Alexandrovich, who annexed Pereslavl to the Moscow principality. From that moment on, Pereslavl ceased to exist as an appanage princely town.
Both princes were buried in the Transfiguration Cathedral in Pereslavl, one of the oldest white-stone churches of pre-Mongol Russia.
According to documents from the 19th century, there were three brick tombstones along the southern part of the cathedral: one in the south-eastern corner and two in the western part. Following restoration works, the tombstones were broken, with two tombstones naming Dmitry Alexandrovich and Ivan Dmitrievich erected under the Cathedral’s choir.
In 1939, an archaeological expedition under the leadership of Nikolai Voronin opened the space under the tombstones and found that no one was buried under the slab with the inscription about the repose of Prince Dmitry Alexandrovich.
Under the tombstone with the name of Prince Ivan Dmitrievich, an oak coffin and a white-stone tomb were uncovered, covered with fragments of late gravestones of the 16th-17th centuries. It was suggested that both the son and the grandson of Prince Alexander were buried in this place, with the son in a wooden coffin, and the grandson in a stone sarcophagus, for which historians have adhered to this hypothesis to this day.
Between 2014 and 2020, archaeologists of the Institute of Archaeology of the Russian Academy of Sciences has conducted further excavations to locate the princes.
In the south-eastern corner of the Cathedral, archaeologists have discovered parts of a white-stone sarcophagus, cut from a single piece of stone, and retaining parts of the lid. It was here, according to the sources from the 19th century that the burial place of the Pereslavl prince Dmitry Alexandrovich was originally located.
The design features of the sarcophagus shows that the traditions of the pre-Mongol Vladimir-Suzdal Rus continued in the 13th century. This sarcophagus is similar to another white-stone tomb, which was located in the southwestern part of the cathedral and is believed to be the burial Prince Ivan Dmitrievich.
Vladimir Sedov from the IA RAS and a member of the Russian Academy of Sciences said: “We were only now able to understand where both descendants of Alexander Nevsky were actually buried. Two princely sarcophagi were on the same line in the southern part of the cathedral: the father was buried in the eastern corner, in the side of the altar, and the son – in the western part, which is also a prestigious and important southern part of the Cathedral.”
Header Image – fragments of the white-stone sarcophagus of the burial of Prince Dmitry Alexandrovich – Image Credit : IA RAS
Tomb of the Black PrinceView all photos
In Canterbury Cathedral an effigy of a mustachioed knight in full armor lies atop a marble tomb as if in a slumber that has lasted centuries. Bathed in the kaleidoscopic colored light that pours through the stained glass windows, his gauntleted hands are clasped together as if in prayer and his spurred feet rest upon a small grimacing lioness.
This is the tomb of Edward of Woodstock, aka “the Black Prince,” one of the greatest warriors of medieval England, who fought and survived countless battles of the Hundred Years’ War between England and France, only to die young of a disease caused by a bacterial infection.
Born in 1330 as the son of King Edward III of England and the Flemish-born Queen Philippa, Prince Edward grew up at a militarized time in Britain, during which the threat of a French invasion often seemed imminent. So from a young age, he was schooled not only in philosophy and logic but also in warfare.
His first experience of war came in 1346 when he joined his father in a campaign against the French armies in the famous Battle of Crécy. During the battle, the prince and his division charged into the midst of the fray and he was nearly killed by a furious counterattack. This prompted a knight to send an urgent message to the prince’s father to request reinforcements. In what can only be called an act of extreme “tough love,” the king replied that he would not send help as he wanted his son to “prove his spurs” in battle. The prince was to do exactly this, and the battle eventually resulted in an English victory.
Over the years that followed, the warrior prince fought in countless bloody battles, including the siege of Calais. At one point he (ironically) came to his father’s assistance, saving the king’s life during a French attack. At the naval battle of Winchelsea, the prince and his forces attacked a large Spanish ship allied with the French and, despite being outnumbered and nearly sunk, managed to defeat its crews. From 1355 to 1359 Edward conducted further military expeditions to France and fought and won several battles in the medieval French regions of Aquitaine, Poitiers, and Reims and then went to war as a mercenary in the battles between the Kings of Spain through the 1360s. He later became known as the Black Prince, possibly as a reference to the color of his armor, and possibly because he was merciless in battle.
Considered the quintessential chivalrous knight and a national war hero, Prince Edward proved a promising heir to the English throne. But he would never become king. Despite the Black Prince’s many successes in battle, he could not fight the illness that took his life at age 45, a year before the death of his father.
The World of Medieval Dogdom
The people of medieval Europe were devoted to their dogs one great French dog-lover declared that the greatest defect of the species was that they ‘lived not long enough’.
Detail from Tacuinum Sanitatis, 14th century medieval handbook of health.
T he later middle ages, and the years immediately following, were one of the most ‘doggy’ periods in history. Hunting and hawking were by far the most popular sports of the leisured classes, who also liked keeping dogs simply as pets and the rest of the population used them for protection and herding. Performing dogs were much admired, and people loved to hear fabulous yarns of the extraordinary fidelity and intelligence of dogs.
Indeed, the great Duke of Berry went personally to see a dog that refused to leave its master’s grave, and gave a sum of money to a neighbour to keep the faithful beast in food for the rest of its days. True, rabies was unpleasantly common but that was one of the ills that flesh is heir to, not to be held against the canine race – and for the bite of a mad dog you had a wide choice of remedies, ranging from goat’s liver to sea bathing.
The aristocrats of medieval dogdom were greyhounds and what our ancestors called ‘running hounds’, by which, illogically, they meant dogs that hunt by scent rather than speed. By greyhounds they meant anything of a greyhound type, from an Irish wolfhound to a tiny Italian greyhound, which is one of the difficulties facing dog-genealogists. A greyhound, the favoured gift of princes, was the usual hero of the medieval dog story.
He should, says a 14th-century writer, be courteous and not too fierce ‘wel folowing his maistre and doyng whatever he hym commandeth, he shuld be good and kyndly and clene, glad and joyful and playeng, wel willyng and goodly to all maner folkes save to the wild beestis’. This paragon was the noble lord’s special pet, and his effigy was often placed on tombstones at his master’s feet. The knight’s lady was apt to have lap dogs, and their effigies, too, singly or in pairs, are found carved on tombs, complete with collar and little bells.
Toy dogs, like fashionable clothes, always seem to provoke moralists’ ire, and one 16th-century critic, declaring that they were sought for to satisfy ‘Wanton women’s willes’, condemned them as ‘instruments of follie to play and dallie withal, in trifling away the treasure of time, to withdraw their minds from more commendable exercises, a sillie poore shift to shun their irksome idleness’.
The smaller ‘these puppies’ are, he goes on to say, the more pleasure they provide as
plafellows for minsing mistresses to beare in their bosoms to succour with sleep in bed and nourish with meate at board, to lie in their laps and licke their lips as they lie in their wagons and coches . Some of this kind of people delight more in their dogs, that are deprived of all possiblities of reason, than they do in children that are capable of wisdome and judgement
It has a familiar ring, and this stern admonisher would have been painfully shocked by the clerical author of an earlier and popular encyclopedia who listed among the commendable traits of the species the fact that a dog will warn his mistress and her lover of the master’s approach. But moral discussions apart, what were these toys like? Some of them resembled pugs, but with longer noses. They came with long hair and short, the smooth-coated being more common, and extremes of build such as dachshund legs were not to be found.
Ears might be short or drooping and tails were worn long, our ancestors apparently seeing nothing indecent in a normal tail. Many tombstones and brasses show dogs larger than lap dogs (possibly hounds) and obviously commemorate special pets – notable among these is the tomb of the Black Prince in Canterbury Cathedral. Sometimes the dog’s name was added too, and ‘Jakke’ and ‘Terri’ still eye us gravely across the centuries.
Much has been said about medieval dogs fighting over bones under the table in the great hall, and often enough they did, but 15th-century books of etiquette pronounced it bad manners to stroke a dog or cat at meals or to make one ‘thi felow at the tabull round’, and enjoined the valet preparing his master’s bedroom to ‘dryve out dogg and catte’.
But owners’ notions varied, then as now, and a lady protagonist of hunting stated that spaniels and greyhounds slept on beds, proving that dogs’ tastes remain the same. Actually, dogs were regularly present at the kind of functions to which we would never dream of admitting them. They were often in evidence at royal courts, and, etiquette rules notwithstanding, the Duke of Berry’s Très Riches Heures depicts two small dogs right on the table at a ducal feast while in front of it a servant feeds an expectant-looking greyhound.
The Duke, in fact, was a great animal lover who kept a menagerie as well as extensive kennels. In those simpler times people travelled with dogs without arousing comment or difficulty – Chaucer’s tender-hearted Prioress had her lap dogs, and his hunting Monk his greyhounds.
Our ancestors even brought their dogs to church, a practice to which the authorities objected strenuously but not, it would seem, effectively, judging by the repetition of the protests one of the most plaintive is a 15th-century monastic regulation against dogs and puppies which ‘oftentimes trouble the service by their barkings, and sometimes tear the church books’.
The average man’s dog, however, earned his keep. In a society with no police and plenty of lawless characters, the watch dog had an important place. For maximum efficiency he was supposed to be shut up by day to sleep so as to be fully on guard at night. Many guardians were simply big dogs, but the most highly regarded were usually mastiffs (something like their modern descendants) or alaunts.
Of Spanish origin, alaunts were large, active beasts built something like greyhounds, but heavier, with coarse heads, short muzzles and prick ears (possibly cropped). They came in various colours, preferably white with black spots near the ears. The better-bred ones, or alaunts gentils were valued for hunting, but the coarser variety were in demand as watch dogs and were used by butchers to help herd cattle – they could, it was noted, be fed cheaply on ‘the foule thinges of the boochers rowe’.
They were capable of holding an escaped ox, which made them the obvious choice for bull-baiting. They had a reputation for ferocity and contemporary illustrations often show them carefully muzzled. Shepherds and swineherds, of course, had to have dogs, but they were of no well-defined type and were as much for protection against thieves and wolves as for herding.
Other labourers had their dogs, too, earning this praise from the 13th-century encyclopedist, Bartholomew the Englishman: ‘the mungrell curres, which serve to keep the bottles and bags, with vittell, of ditchers and hedgers will be sooner killed of a straunger than beaten off from their masters apparell and victuall’.
The ubiquitous terrier was also on the scene and was used, as his name implies, in pursuing foxes to their earths, but it is disappointing to his modern friends to find few references to him. Apparently he was simply taken for granted, and fox-hunting rated little notice in those days, as our practical forbears preferred edible game.
Spaniels (so called because they came from Spain) were required for the popular sport of hawking, which attracted many as being both cheaper and less strenuous than hunting. The distressingly sheeplike build of these early spaniels would pain modern fanciers. They were wavy-coated, fairly large and usually more leggy than most of their descendants, with shorter leg ‘feathers’. Their tails were not generally cut, and it is tempting to speculate that the bob-tailed spaniels in the Très Riches Heures are early Brittanys, which are nowadays born short-tailed.
It was held that the hair on the tail should be, if anything, longer than on the body. They were white, or tawny, or speckled, with heads strange to modern eyes, having rather pointed noses inclined to turn up. Nevertheless, they functioned competently enough, and were used to put up game and as retrievers for land birds and for waterfowl, as hawking ‘on the river’ was a favourite amusement. They were also used as setters to assist in taking partridges and quail with nets.
The Elizabethan writer, Edward Topsell, describes ‘water spagnels’ being used to hunt otters and depicts a beast clipped like a poodle so that it might ‘be the less annoyed in swimming’ – and poodle, spaniel and retriever may all dispute it as an ancestor. (The clipped animal that appears in so many of Dürer’s woodcuts, however, is clearly a poodle.)
That great 14th-century sportsman, Gaston, Comte de Foix, author of the finest medieval hunting book, described spaniels as faithful, affectionate and fond of going ‘before their maistre and playeng with their taile’, but he must have suffered from some particularly exuberant member of the breed, for he complains that, if you are taking your greyhounds for a walk and have a spaniel with you, he will chase geese, cattle or horses, and the greyhounds through ‘his eggyng’ will attack too, and thus he is responsible for ‘al the ryot and al the harm’.
He further declares that out hunting spaniels are fighters and put the hounds off the line, which is manifestly unfair as they were never intended for hunting. But Gaston was a fanatical Nimrod and devoted to his running hounds. Duke Charles of Orleans, on the other hand, wrote poems to his favourite spaniel, ‘Briquet of the drooping ears’ (Briquet aux pendantes oreilles) – a charming one in praise of his field prowess and enthusiasm, and another beginning: ‘Let Baude range the bushes, old Briquet takes his rest . an old fellow can do but little’, which sounds the sadder note of the true dog-lover’s affection for his ageing servant.
The most fashionable sport of the time was stag-hunting, and for this both greyhounds and ‘running hounds’ (also termed ‘raches') were used, often together, the greyhounds being slipped to stop the game quickly, or put in as relays to the pack, or, in the great battues sometimes organised for visiting notables, to turn back driven deer to the archers.
The truly serious huntsman, however, liked best to watch the running hounds work alone, for greyhounds and alaunts, says Gaston de Foix, finish the job too quickly but the ‘raches’ must ‘hunt al the day questyng and makyng gret melody in their lan-gage and saying gret villeny and chydeng the beest that thei enchace’. These dogs were rather like modern bloodhounds and a little like the type of hounds used for ‘still’ hunting – heavily built with powerful fore-quarters and short-muzzled heavy heads.
Wide colour ranges were permissable in a pack, earlier taste running to white, black and white, or mottled, while the late Middle Ages preferred tawny brown. Coats were usually smooth, though rough-haired specimens might be found, or even smooth ones with long-haired tails. Although all sorts of animals besides the stag were hunted, the hounds used differed more by training than by breed.
Harthounds, however, were generally larger and faster than harriers, which were all-round beasts so called because they ‘harried’ the quarry (not because they were restricted to hares). Selected dogs, hand-picked for scent, staunchness, and possibly size, were trained as ‘limers’, that is, they hunted on leash and were used to find, or ‘harbour’, the stag, and later in the hunt to untangle the line if the pack should be at fault, but these were individual specialists and not a distinct breed.
These animals, with the working greyhounds, were excellently cared for. Wealthy owners set up astonishingly high standards of kennel management, described in careful detail in Gaston de Foix’s ‘Traité de la Chasse’. The kennel where the hounds sleep, he says, should be built of wood a foot clear of the ground, with a loft for greater coolness in summer and warmth in winter, and it should also have a chimney to warm the occupants when they are cold or wet.
It should be enclosed in a sunny yard, and the door should be left open so that ‘the houndes may go withoute to play when them liketh for it is grete likyng for the houndes whan thei may goon in and out at their lust’ – as every dog lover knows. Hounds should be taken for a walk once or twice a day and allowed to run and play ‘in a fair medow in the sun’, and must be taken to a spot where they may eat grass to heal themselves if they are sick.
The kennel is to be cleaned every morning and the floor thickly strewn with straw, renewed daily. The hounds are to be given fresh water twice a day and rubbed down with straw each morning. The staple food is bran bread, with meat from the chase, and game to be killed specially for them even out of the regular hunting season. Sick hounds may be given more fancy diets, such as goat’s milk, bean broth, chopped meat, or buttered eggs.
Most of the kennel chores were performed by a dog-boy, an embryo huntsman who was expected to start learning his trade at the age of about seven and who, in addition to his other duties, had to learn the names and colours of the hounds and how to spin horsehair for their couplings. Besides this, he or some other child must be constantly in the kennel to prevent fights, even at night. In addition, it is laid down, in the uncompromising fashion of the age, that he should love his master and the hounds, and, furthermore, that he should be beaten if he fails to do as he is told.
These old-time hunting dogs reached a high degree of training, but the methods used must have been something of a trade secret, for not much is divulged – far less than was written on how to train hawks. Gaston de Foix says, indeed, that ‘a hounde will lerne as a man al that a man wil teche hym’, but, apart from the rather obvious maxim that pupils should be rewarded for doing well and punished for mistakes, he gives away little. He lays down that you must never tell your hounds anything but the strict truth. One should not talk to them too much, but when one does it should be ‘in the most beautiful and gracious language that he can’.
‘And by my faith,’ he adds, ‘I speak to my hounds as I would to a man . and they understand me and do as I wish better than any man of my household, but I do not think that any other man can make them do as I do, nor peradventure will anyone do it more when I am dead’ – but then, Gaston believed firmly that things were not as they had been in the old days. Whatever the means, hounds were trained to obey a wide variety of notes on the horn as well as a number of different calls and terms, and they were encouraged by name in fact, examples are given of typical names, such as Beaumont, Latimer, Prince and Saracen.
Considerable attention was bestowed on the medical care of canine ailments. Many of the treatments would startle a 20th-century veterinarian, yet they generally exhibit more common sense and less superstition than was currently applied to human sickness. Indeed, Gaston de Foix shows a critical faculty rare in his day when he states that making nine waves pass over a suspected rabies victim ‘is but litel helpe’. He discusses madness at some length, and nine kinds are listed, some held to be non-contagious.
He recommends that a suspected case be quarantined for four days to discover whether or not is is in fact madness. No kind of madness is regarded as curable, but prompt treatment of the bite of a mad dog might prevent its development. Nearly as much space is devoted to various types of so-called ‘mange’, and some remarkable salves are described.
There are detailed instructions on the care of injuries, including the splinting of broken bones, and Gaston’s English translator, the Duke of York, who was Master of Game to Henry IV, winds up with this exhortation: ‘God forbid that for a little labour or cost of this medicine, man should see his good kind hound perish, that before hath made him so many comfortable disports at divers times in hunting.’
In view of the medieval habit of attributing moral qualities and moral responsibilities to animals, it is not surprising to find that dogs sometimes received some of the benefits of religion. It is recorded that one Duke of Orleans had masses said for his dogs and there was, of course, the famous messe des chiens on St Hubert’s day, a custom which still survives. Certain hounds of Charles VI of France which fell ill were sent on a pilgrimage to hear mass at St Mesmer in order that they might recover.
There was even once a dog saint near Lyon a greyhound was said to have killed a dangerous serpent attacking his master’s child and, like the mythical Gelert, was himself slain on suspicion when the child could not be found. Afterwards his remorseful master buried him honourably beneath a cairn of stones where trees were planted in his memory. Later the dog was revered as St Greyhound, or St Guinefort, and rites were held at the grave for sickly children suspected of being changelings. Before long, of course, the ecclesiastical authorities caught up with St Greyhound and the grave was destroyed.
All in all, it is plain that modern dog-lovers should not be too self-satisfied over their advances in the care and handling of their pets, nor need dog-haters rage at the rising menace of the dog cult. None of it is new. Long ago, even in a rugged and often brutal era, men loved and trained and cherished an enormous number of dogs.
Weird as these beasts may look by Kennel Club standards, their owners recognised and surrendered to their essential dogginess, engagingly the same, whether in snub-nosed Briquet or this year’s ‘Best-in-Show’. From the boy with the mongrel to the champion’s master, what dog-owner does not echo Gaston de Foix’s five-centuries-old plaint that ‘the moost defaute of houndes is that thei lyven not longe inowe’?
This article originally appeared in the February 1979 issue of History Today with the title ‘The Dogs of Yesteryear’.
Researchers Analyze Burial of Ancient Celtic Prince
In 2015, archaeologists in Lavau, France, discovered one of the country’s greatest archeological finds in centuries. In an area being developed as an industrial park, they came across the burial mound of a Celtic prince buried in his chariot along with an assortment of ornate grave goods. Now, Léa Surugue at The International Business Times, researchers are starting to discover how and where many of the treasures were made.
According to Tia Ghose at Live Science, the tomb is believed to be 2,500 years old and shows that the Celts, a culture dating back to the late Bronze Age, were part of the Mediterranean trade network that included civilizations like the Greeks and Etruscans. Among the goods found in the grave were pottery and gold-decorated drinkware as well as a large cauldron decorated with images of the Greek river god Achelous along with eight lion heads. Inside the cauldron there is an image of a Dionysus, the god of wine, looking at a woman.
Ghose reports that merchants from Mediterranean cultures often made lavish gifts to Celtic rulers in centrally located hubs or who controlled important river valleys, hoping to open trade routes to central Europe. That’s likely how the Lavau prince was able to acquire his wealth.
Now, Surugue reports that researchers at France’s National Institute for Preventive Archaeological Research (INRAP) have begun analyzing the cauldron, gold jewelry and other artifacts found with the prince. Using x-rays, tomography and 3D photography, the researchers are determining the state of preservation of the artifacts as well as their composition.
According to Surugue, so far the analysis shows that a belt worn by the prince was woven with threads made of silver, something not found in other Celtic artifacts. Analysis of the bronze in the cauldron shows it was produced by master craftsman who perfected the arts of smelting ore and engraving metal. Even more, the work shows a blending of cultures. One elaborate jug is made of Greek ceramic, decorated in gold with Etruscan figures but also includes silver Celtic designs.
According to a press release, the researchers also examined a sheath that held a knife, finding that it contained very fine bronze threads. They also found that the gold torc—or neck bracelet—as well as several gold bangles show wear marks where they rubbed again the prince’s skin.
The analysis has cleared up one nagging question as well. Researchers were unsure if the skeleton covered in gold jewelry and bangles was a prince or a princess. Analysis of the pelvic bones shows that the Lavau Prince is indeed a prince.
According to the press release, INRAP will continue to analyze the prince and his priceless belongings through 2019.
About Jason Daley
Jason Daley is a Madison, Wisconsin-based writer specializing in natural history, science, travel, and the environment. His work has appeared in Discover, Popular Science, Outside, Men’s Journal, and other magazines.
The Princes in the Tower
When Edward IV died on 9 April 1483, England was nearing the end of the tediously long conflict known as the Wars of the Roses. England needed a period of peace and a stable government, but it was not going to get it.
Edward had two children, Edward, aged 12, and Richard, aged 9. The other player in the scene was Richard, Duke of Gloucester, Edward IV's younger brother and most able supporter and ally. Given the youth of the heir to the throne, a regency would be needed. The two most obvious people to head that regency were Queen Elizabeth and Richard of Gloucester. Richard and the queen were openly hostile, however indeed, there was very little public support for the queen. Edward IV certainly made his own wishes known, appointing his brother Richard as Lord Protector on his deathbed.
At the time of his father's death, Edward V was in the company of his mother at Ludlow, so the queen's cause looked the brightest. But Richard, acting with the decisiveness and courage which marked most of his life, forestalled the queen. He rode quickly to intercept the royal party before they could reach London, and on 29 April, took Edward into his own custody. He arrested the lords Rivers and Grey, who were later executed. The queen took sanctuary at Westminster with her daughters and her second son.
Within six weeks Richard gathered support for a move to declare the princes illegitimate and have himself named king. He arrested those lords most likely to oppose such a move, and had Lord Hastings executed. He pressured the queen into giving Richard, Duke of York, into his care, and Richard joined his elder brother in the Tower of London.
It is worth remembering that the Tower of London did not at that time have the reputation it was later to acquire it was a royal residence, an armoury, a protected place in royal hands. It was not first and foremost a prison. By placing the princes in the Tower of London, Richard was not, in theory, placing them in prison, or under arrest.
Richard then had a tame priest, Dr Shaw, preach a sermon at Paul's Cross, claiming that Edward IV had been precontracted in marriage to another woman before marrying Elizabeth Woodville. Based on this 'evidence' Richard called an assembly which in due course asked him to take the crown as the only legitimate heir of the House of York. After a seemly show of reluctance, Richard agreed and was crowned king.
Were the princes illegitimate?
Richard's claim to the throne was based on his assertion that the princes were illegitimate because Edward had been betrothed before his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville, the prince's mother. Given the customs of the time, a prior betrothal could have invalidated Edward's subsequent marriage, so any children of that union would be illegitimate. Richard would have found it easy to gather support against the queen, for she was very unpopular.
At first glance, it would appear that this claim is a feeble attempt to legitimise Richard's own claim to the throne. However, it is possible that Richard's claim is based on the truth, though not through Edward's betrothal vows. Medieval historian Professor Michael Jones has determined through court records that Edward's legal father, Richard, Duke of York, was over 100 miles away from his mother, Lady Cecily, at the time when Edward must have been conceived. If true, this would mean that Edward IV was illegitimate, and had no claim to the throne. Therefore his children, Edward and Richard, would have had no claim to the throne.
In that case, the person with the best claim to the throne would be Richard, Duke of Gloucester, Edward's brother (or half-brother if the tale of Edward's origins were true). Certainly, tales of Edward's illegitimacy circulated at the time Louis XI of France is known to have believed that Edward's father was an English archer named Blaybourne.
The Princes disappear
The princes were regularly seen playing on Tower Green or taking the air within the walls, but then, around the beginning of June 1483, they dropped out of sight. Rumours began to circulate, perhaps started by enemies of Richard III, that the princes had been murdered. Richard was well aware of these rumours, and it is worth noting that he did not seek to counter them by the obvious expedient of showing the world that the princes were still alive and well. Were they already dead? We simply don't know. It may be that Richard believed that his nephews were truly illegitimate, and, as such, no longer of note.
Rumblings of discontent became open rebellion. Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham launched an abortive revolt, but that came to nothing and the unfortunate lord was beheaded. He might have stood a better chance had his ally, Henry Tudor, Duke of Richmond, joined him as planned. Richmond was in exile in France, but his attempt to sail for England was thwarted by storms, and he arrived only to find that Buckingham's rebellion had come to nothing. Richmond returned to France to bide his time.
In the spring of 1484, Richard had his own son, Edward, confirmed as heir to the throne. Then the unhappy child died, and that was not the last of Richard's family to suffer a sudden and unexpected demise. Richard's queen, Anne Neville, died suddenly. Rumours flew that Richard had killed her himself, in order that he might marry his own niece, Elizabeth, daughter of Edward IV, in order to further solidify his claim to the throne. Public support for Richard weakened considerably at this latest tale, and his former allies flocked to the banner of Henry Tudor.
The Battle of Bosworth
Richard's enemies made the most of the disappearance of the princes to sway public support for their cause. Certainly, the absence of the princes made Henry Tudor's attempts to gather support for his rebellion much easier. Henry landed in Wales and marched into England, gathering support as he did so. Richard gathered his forces and rushed to meet him.
The armies met at Bosworth, Leicestershire. In a furious battle that could have gone either way, Henry prevailed when key allies of Richard deserted him and went over to the Tudor standard. Richard, to his credit, fought on to the end. Legend tells us that the crown of England was found on a thorn bush after the battle, and placed on Henry Tudor's head by Lord Stanley, one of lords who deserted Richard at the crucial moment. At this point Henry seems to have regarded the Princes in the Tower as dead, otherwise his own claim to the throne would have no weight whatever.
In 1674 workmen began preparation for some rebuilding work on the White Tower at the Tower of London. While they were clearing away rubble at the base of a staircase they unearthed a grisly find two skeletons, small enough to suggest that they were those of two youths. The instant assumption made at the time was that these were the skeletons of Edward and Richard, the Princes in the Tower. If such a find were made today a forensic examination might have been made, perhaps DNA evidence might have been gathered, in an effort to determine if the skeletons were indeed those of the unfortunate princes.
However, such practices were not available at the time and the bones were moved to Westminster Abbey for reburial. Since that time there have been several attempts to reexamine the skeletons in an attempt to determine whether they are indeed the remains of the princes. To date no definitive answers have been forthcoming, though the question might well be asked if these are not the remains of Edward and Richard, then who are they? And the most compelling question of all if these are the skeletons of the Princes in the Tower, were they murdered, and if so, by whom?
Who killed the princes in the tower?
First, it is important to remember that we have no definitive proof that anyone killed the princes. All we know is that they disappeared. It is a likely assumption that they were murdered, but it is, in the end, still an assumption. If we indulge in the assumption that they were murdered, then we have to look at those who might have been responsible for such a deed.
- Henry VII - There is no evidence to connect Henry directly with the disappearance of the princes. The case against the first Tudor monarch rests on the question of motive. Henry's claim to the throne was weak, one might say 'nonexistent', even by medieval standards. If the princes lived, they both had a better claim to the throne. For Henry to become king, he needed the princes to disappear. That, in the eyes of many modern historians, makes him a prime suspect.
- Richard III - history has long regarded Richard III as the archetypal wicked uncle who killed his own nephews to pave the way for his own ascent to the throne. The trouble with such historical accounts is that they are usually written by the winners. In this case, much of what we have been taught as 'facts' about Richard rest on subsequent Tudor accounts of him accounts written, it is worth remembering, in the reigns of Henry VII and his descendants. Was Richard the wicked uncle of Shakespeare's play, Richard III? Was he even hunchbacked? One could make a good case that Richard had much to lose by killing his nephews. Doing so would turn public opinion against him, which in fact, is what happened when rumours of the prince's disappearance began to circulate. It is also worth remembering that prior to becoming king, Richard had shown extraordinary family loyalty, supporting his elder brother Edward IV through thick and thin. Richard was, in fact, regarded by many of his contemporaries, as something akin to an ideal knight. Was it in character for him to kill his nephews? Or did the allure of power bend Richard's sense of loyalty too far?
- Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham - Richard's brother in law, but also cousin to Henry Tudor and third in the Lancastrian succession behind Henry and his mother. Stafford supported Richard, while secretly plotting with Tudor. Stafford may have killed the boys to discredit Richard, thus furthering his cousin's ambitions and his own eventual rise to power. Or, Richard may have ordered Buckingham to kill the princes in order to solidify his own claim to the throne.
- James Tyrell - perhaps the instrument of the prince's death if not the person behind the murders. Tyrell was a bit of an unsavoury character, given to plotting and underhanded dealings. In 1502 he was in prison for treason against Henry VII. Under torture, Tyrell confessed that he had killed the princes, though he supplied no information as to why or under whose influence he had acted.
Perhaps the princes did not die in the Tower at all. In 1491 a young man named Perkin Warbeck claimed that he was Richard, youngest son of Edward IV. Over the course of several years, Warbeck gathered support from abroad, and landed in England in 1497. Henry VII easily defeated Warbeck's scanty troops and had him thrown in prison, where he was subsequently executed.
An earlier pretender to the throne - though not one of the princes - was Lambert Simnel. This boy of about 10 claimed to be the son of George, Duke of Clarence, Edward IV's brother. Supported by Irish and Flemish troops, Simnel's 'army' landed in Lancashire, where they were easily defeated by Henry VII. Simnel was pardoned as an unwitting pawn in the designs of scheming adults, and given a job in the royal kitchens. The Simnel cake is attributed to him.
Did the princes survive?
It seems unlikely, but Elizabeth Woodville certainly seems to think they did. The former queen testified before Parliament that she believed the boys to be legitimate, but she would not agree to the assumption that they were dead. She never, to the day of her death, claimed they had been murdered.
Senior Lecturer in British Studies and History [email protected]
David Green is a graduate of the universities of Exeter (BA) and Nottingham (MA, PhD) and a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society. Before joining the British Studies team at Harlaxton in 2007, he lived and worked in England, Scotland, and Ireland teaching at the universities of Sheffield, St Andrews, and Trinity College, Dublin.
Initially, my published work concentrated on the career and retinue of Edward the Black Prince (c.1330–c.1376) – the subject of my doctoral thesis. Later, the chronological and geographical scope of my work extended to focus on two connected themes, the Hundred Years War and later Plantagenet ‘colonialism’. This resulted in a number of journal and encyclopaedia articles and a book for Yale University Press, The Hundred Years War: A People’s History (2014), which examines the impact of the war on various social groups and national institutions. More recently, I’ve sought to explore a wider range of sources, both literary and material, leading to presentations and publications on subjects such as chivalry and later medieval tomb effigies.
I regularly speak and chair sessions at the annual meetings of the International Medieval Congress (University of Leeds, UK) and the International Conference on Medieval Studies (University of Western Michigan, USA). I sit on the editorial board of the biannual journal Fourteenth Century England and am a member of the Harlaxton Medieval Symposium Steering Committee and co-convened the 2014 meeting on ‘The Plantagenet Empire, 1259-1453’, the proceedings of which were published in 2016.
- Fourteenth Century England XI , ed. David Green and Chris Given Wilson (Boydell and Brewer, 2019).
- The Plantagenet Empire, 1259-1453 , ed. Peter Crooks, David Green and W. Mark Ormrod (Shaun Tyas, 2016).
- The Hundred Years War: A People’s History (Yale University Press, 2014 pbk ed. 2015).
- Edward the Black Prince: Power in Medieval Europe (Longman, Medieval World Series, 2007).
- The Battle of Poitiers 1356 (2002 rev. ed. The History Press, 2008).
- The Black Prince (2001 rev. ed. The History Press, 2008 further rev. ed. as e-book 2012).
- with Michael Jones and John Beckett, History at Nottingham: Training, Research and Departmental Life from the 1880s to the Present (Nottingham, 1995).
- 'Edward the Black Prince: Lordship and Administration in the Plantagenet Empire', Ruling Fourteenth-Century England: Essays in Honour of Christopher Given-Wilson , ed. Remy Ambuhl, James Bothwell and Laura Tompkins (Boydell and Brewer, 2019), 185-204. 'The Secular Orders: Chivalry in the Service of the State', A Companion to Chivalry , ed. Robert Jones and Peter Coss (Boydell and Brewer, 2019), 57-68.
- ‘The Memorial Brass of Sir Nicholas Dagworth’, Monumental Brass Society Transactions , 19 (2018), 416-24.
- ‘The Household of Edward the Black Prince: Complement and Characteristics’, The Elite Household in England , 1100-1550, ed. Christopher M. Woolgar (Donington, 2018), 355-71.
- ‘Imperial Policy and Military Strategy in the Plantagenet Dominions, c.1337-c.1453’, Journal of Medieval Military History , 14 (2016), 33-56.
- with Peter Crooks and W. Mark Ormrod, ‘The Plantagenets and Empire in the Later Middle Ages’, The Plantagenet Empire, 1259-1453 (Stamford, 2016), 1-34.
- ‘The Tomb of Edward the Black Prince: Contexts and Incongruities’, Church Monuments , 30 (2015), 106-23.
- ‘The Statute of Kilkenny (1366): Legislation and the State’, Journal of Historical Sociology , 27 (2014), 236-62.
- ‘Colonial Policy in the Hundred Years War’, The Hundred Years War (Part III): Further Considerations , ed. Donald Kagay and A.J. Villalon (Leiden, 2013), 233-57.
- ‘National Identities and the Hundred Years War’, Fourteenth Century England , VI, ed. Chris Given-Wilson (Woodbridge, 2010), 115-29.
- ‘Medicine and Masculinity: Thomas Walsingham and the Death of the Black Prince’, Journal of Medieval History , 35 (2009), 34-51.
- ‘Lordship and Principality: Colonial Policy in Ireland and Aquitaine in the 1360s’, Journal of British Studies , 47 (2008), 3-29.
- ‘Edward the Black Prince and East Anglia: An Unlikely Association’, Fourteenth Century England , III, ed. W.M. Ormrod (Woodbridge, 2004), 83-98.
- ‘Politics and Service with Edward the Black Prince’, The Age of Edward III , ed. J. Bothwell (York, 2001), 53-68.
- ‘The Dark Side of the Black Prince’, BBC History Magazine , 2: 12 (2001), 12-15.
- ‘The Later Retinue of Edward the Black Prince’, Nottingham Medieval Studies , 44 (2000), 141-51.
- ‘The Military Personnel of Edward the Black Prince’, Medieval Prosopography , 21 (2000), 133-52.
- Medieval Warfare and Military Technology: An Encyclopedia , ed. Clifford J. Rogers (Oxford University Press, 2010). Entries: Sir John Chandos Black Prince Jean de Vienne, admiral of France battle of La Rochelle Louis of Bourbon battle of Pontvallain.
- Routledge International Encyclopedia of Military History , ed. James Bradford (New York, 2006). Entries: William the Conqueror, Richard I, battle of Bannockburn, Hundred Years War (2,000 words), Edward III, 1415 siege of Harfleur.
- A Biographical Dictionary of Military Women , ed. Reina Pennington (Westport, Conn., 2003). Entries: Julienne du Guesclin Lady Badlesmere.
- A Historical Dictionary of Late Medieval England , ed. R. Fritze and William B. Robison, (Westport, Conn., 2002). Entries: Edward the Black Prince the Reims campaign, 1359-60 Treaties of London, 1358-1359 chevauchées the Treaty of Brétigny-Calais, 1360.
- The Encyclopedia of Prisoners of War and Internment , ed. Jonathan Vance (Santa Barbara, 2001). Entries: King Jean II the Hundred Years War.
Harlaxton College contributes to fulfilling the overall Mission of the University of Evansville while at the same time our distinctive location and programs evoke an equally distinctive statement of the Mission of Harlaxton College.
↵ 1 F.S.-Q., H.M., and M.F. contributed equally to this work.
Author contributions: A.G., J.S., and M.J. designed research F.S.-Q., H.M., M.F., L.G.-F., E.M.S., L.G.S., R.G., N.H., A.G., J.S., and M.J. performed research H.M., M.F., L.G.-F., G.B., G.N., K.B., S.T., N.C., H.B., R.S., and J.S. contributed samples and conducted archaeological analyses F.S.-Q., H.M., and M.F. analyzed data and F.S.-Q., H.M., M.F., J.S., and M.J. wrote the paper with input from all authors.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
This article is a PNAS Direct Submission.
Data deposition: Raw sequencing reads produced for this study have been deposited in the European Nucleotide Archive (accession no. PRJEB31045).