Hallam Village And Aula 'found'

[ThemWotDays]

Hi all, new poster here, though I've been reading the threads with considerable interest for some time.

A recurring theme of interest on this forum, unsurprisingly, has been the discussions over the years (Hunter, Addy, Charlesworth, et al) of the location of Waltheof's aula and the origainal manor of Hallam (Hallun) in which it was located, as mentioned in Domesday Book 1086 but now lost....or is it?

I came across this chap's cliams on a genealogy website.....seems too good to be true. My link

Anyone seen this before / heard about this bloke? Is he a scammer wanting US$38 to a PO Box and sending nothing back in return? Did some digging around on the net about his background and he seems to be a genuine person - born Newcastle Upon Tyne, emigrated to Canada decades ago, interested in the origins of Hallam (the place) owing to research into the surname of Hallam which he shares.

The thing is, the posts on the genealogy forum go back to 1999/200; then nothing since. He made out that his draft paper would soon be finished for publication, in which case why wasn't there a big splash about this in the media at the time? He made the astonishing claim in a follow up e-mail (July 2000) that he had to remove the word "lost" from his last version of the paper because the village was "now found" (does he mean found by him, a few months earlier, or found by someone else who has litterally found archaelogical evidence?).

My link

I've not paid $38, so don't know where he concludes it was, but I'm guessing that his conclusion is that the aula and village stood at Hallam Head (Sandygate/Lodgemoor) because reading another thread on the Hallam name genealogy forum (thread about the name of Sheffield Hallam University), in his posting written December 2000 (after his last posting on the "Lost village.." thread), he states "the village of Hallam was located at a place east of Sheffield at Hallam Head on the Redmires Road"...yes he does say EAST, which leads me to question the thoroghness of his research!

My link

[RichardS]

Quite odd you posted this today, my father and I were talking about something we've noticed for years and always wondered if it could be related to the 'Lost' Aula.

Just off Fulwood Rd close to Redmires, strange earthwork thingy. There are lots of weird lumps and bumps when looking at the area on Google Earth.

This is whats caught our eye in the past though (image from Google Earth street view)

[Bayleaf]

Quite odd you posted this today, my father and I were talking about something we've noticed for years and always wondered if it could be related to the 'Lost' Aula.

Just off Fulwood Rd close to Redmires, strange earthwork thingy. There are lots of weird lumps and bumps when looking at the area on Google Earth.

This is whats caught our eye in the past though (image from Google Earth street view)

When I first started researching the area I was intrigued by the humps and bumps too, particularly the row of parallel banks to the north of your site.. However, I'm assured by a local geologist that it's all natural. The nearest earthwork listed in the South Yorkshire Sites and Monuments record is a promontory fort above (i.e. West of) Peter Wood. It's on the list, but as far as I can trace it's never been investigated.

[Bayleaf]

Hi Themwotdays, good to see members pitching in, particularly so long after joining, you must have found a lot to read up. We look forward to hearing more from you!

And a beauty of a subject to join in with. I'm sure you'll have read up everything on here about Hallam and its mystery location so I'll not repeat stuff.

I hadn't come across Mr Hallam's stuff before. I'd like to know his archaeological evidence for placing it where he does. The problem has always been the fact there is no evidence there. On the contrary, the latest archaological research at the site of Sheffield castle discovered a saxon site underneath the castle, which a growing body of opinion thinks is very likely Watheof's hall or Aula.

As to the destruction of the village during the Harrowing of the North, this is often linked with the nearby name of Burntstones. On the other hand, Alan Hay does not believe any village round here was so destroyed, that all the destuction was further north.

I must say I'm very sceptical about placing Hallam near Lodge Moor. The evidence is very sketchy, and a growing body of evidence places it elsewhere.

But the one thing that bugs me is that on the slopes of the Porter Valley, in Harrison's Survey of 1637, he mentions 'Hallam Fields' . And where was it? Bang next to the supposed site of Hallam village!

There's an earlier reference in the manorial records of 3rd May 1568 when "Robert Oxspringe, in consideration of £22 13d 4d to him paid by John Stones surrendered all that land meadow common and pasture lying in the Field of Halome..."

So you pays you penny and takes your chances!

[ThemWotDays]

Thanks for the warm welcome Bayleaf.

Sadly I've not spent the last two years just reading threads on this forum, so I'm not an expert. However I have at various times in the last few months dipped into excepts of Hunter (and by inference some of Harrison's survey), of Addy, of Leader etc particularly on this subject; I'm no historian (pro or ameteur), nor archeologist, just an ex-pat Sheffielder who's never ceased to be amazed by how little we know of the distant history of this city. My pet topics at the moment are Hallam / aula and the Battle of Brunanburh (at Brinsworth or not; I think not, but I'm better read on that one - deserves another post / thread altogether).

Anyway, I realised that current educated opinion prefers the Castle as the site of the aula, but from what I recall briefly reading on the internet (not the actual archaeolical report) a long time ago it wasn't conclusive as to whether the remains were the aula or even saxon (could it have been bits of DeLovetot's norman motte and bailey affair built before the stone DeFurnival castle but after Waltheof's time?). If this is correct then the debate will rage on; hence my complete surprise when this Robert Llewellyn Hallam fella seems to declare (as if a proven fact) that the village and aula of Hallam are no longer lost (in advertising his paper 10 years ago he claims to have identified the site to within an accuracy of just 100m radius!).

What intrigues me about R Hallam's advert for his 'paper' is that he seems to have discovered pre-Domesday documents helping to identify the village. I found one document on the web discussing his paper but only in the cotext of its accuracy in identifying the migration of the Hallam name into North America through the ancestory of one Thomas Hallam; in this critique document the author (who presumably did hand over his $38) claims that R Hallam states "...although there is previous reference to a village of 'Hulum' in surviving Anglo-Saxon Chronicles", he doesn't actually say whether this is believed to be the same as the Sheffield Hallam or not, but it's news to me. My link

To summarise my knowledge of proposed aula sites so that people can inform me of any I've missed:

Sheffield castle (relies on Hallun and Escafeld being interchangable terms for the same place over time)

Stannington south of Oldfield Road / Church Street junction (still a water course there today in modern dwelling's back garden - from old moat?)

Hallam Head

Burntstones, Sandygate/Crosspool (near Hallam Head)

Stumperlowe Hall, Fulwood (near Hallam Head)

If the harrying of the north by William the Conquerer bypassed Hallam then why have no remains of aula or village ever been catagorically found in the last 200 years of turning over the earth to expand this city, unless it because they were buried under the castle hundreds of years ago?

If it was wasted though (William made a special case of Hallam because chief traitor Waltheof had interests there, or the harrying from the Humber to the Tees included Hallam because it was thought of as 'north of the Humber' because it perhaps because was north of its ultimate tributary the border Sheaf therefore in Northumbria) then is it ever possible to find by archaelogical survey the remains of a group of (presumably timber built) buildings that have been burned to the ground 900 years ago?

[Bayleaf]

If it was wasted though (William made a special case of Hallam because chief traitor Waltheof had interests there, or the harrying from the Humber to the Tees included Hallam because it was thought of as 'north of the Humber' because it perhaps because was north of its ultimate tributary the border Sheaf therefore in Northumbria) then is it ever possible to find by archaelogical survey the remains of a group of (presumably timber built) buildings that have been burned to the ground 900 years ago?

An interesting point, and the answer may simply be that no-one was looking, or failed to recognise what they saw. In London, there is a recognisable ash layer in the strata which has been reliably dated to the burning of the the town by Boudicca. The castle and village/town of Sheffield was burned to the ground in the barons' rebellion of 1266, and it would be expected that a similar ash layer exists. However, this has not been found, not least because no-one has looked for it, or recognised it for what it is if they did.

[Guest InSheffield]

I've not paid $38, so don't know where he concludes it was, but I'm guessing that his conclusion is that the aula and village stood at Hallam Head (Sandygate/Lodgemoor) because reading another thread on the Hallam name genealogy forum (thread about the name of Sheffield Hallam University), in his posting written December 2000 (after his last posting on the "Lost village.." thread), he states "the village of Hallam was located at a place east of Sheffield at Hallam Head on the Redmires Road"...yes he does say EAST, which leads me to question the thoroghness of his research!

My link

Have you seen this webpage, which has a quote from his work?

"On the basis of all the available evidence, we conclude that the Domesday village of Hallam was located just south of the old Roman road (Redmires Road) near what is now simply known as Hallam Head. The village was roughly bounded on the north by the old Roman road, on the west by the Great Hallam Field Road (now Hallam Grange Rise [see map], on the south by Stumperlowe Grange Farm, and on the east by Carsick Hill Road [see map]. It encompassed within its precincts Hallam Head, the site identified by Hall in 1931, Hall Carr House (now Hallam Primary School) and Broom Fields), Tom Lane, Carsick Hall."

Without seeing the rest of the book, I've no idea whether his evidence for this is any good!

[Bayleaf]

Have you seen this webpage, which has a quote from his work?

"On the basis of all the available evidence, we conclude that the Domesday village of Hallam was located just south of the old Roman road (Redmires Road) near what is now simply known as Hallam Head. The village was roughly bounded on the north by the old Roman road, on the west by the Great Hallam Field Road (now Hallam Grange Rise [see map], on the south by Stumperlowe Grange Farm, and on the east by Carsick Hill Road [see map]. It encompassed within its precincts Hallam Head, the site identified by Hall in 1931, Hall Carr House (now Hallam Primary School) and Broom Fields), Tom Lane, Carsick Hall."

Without seeing the rest of the book, I've no idea whether his evidence for this is any good!

Hi and welcome to the Forum! Thanks for that link, I hadn't come across it before. I think the key words are "On the basis of all the available evidence, we conclude that..."

Unfortunately others could start their version with the same words and come to the opposite conclusion! I think it's a case of you pays your money....!

How about you InSheffield? Is it something you've an interest in, and have you reached any conclusion?

[Guest InSheffield]

Hi and welcome to the Forum! Thanks for that link, I hadn't come across it before. I think the key words are "On the basis of all the available evidence, we conclude that..."

Unfortunately others could start their version with the same words and come to the opposite conclusion! I think it's a case of you pays your money....!

How about you InSheffield? Is it something you've an interest in, and have you reached any conclusion?

Thanks for the welcome!

I do have an interest in the Anglo-Saxon period and, in particular, its architecture. I don't have any specialist knowledge on the aula, mostly what I've read in David Hey's books and some of the older sources. I thought that Hey is quite persuasive in making the case for the city centre site; it does seem a more likely site for a late Saxon settlement, and I remember few if any pre-Conquest settlements in this area up at the kind of elevation of Hallam Head (no doubt I've forgotten somewhere obvious!).

I feel very doubtful about this author's claim to have found new evidence in pre-Conquest documents of the location of the aula - but I'm always willing to be proved wrong!

[mike142sl]

Hi Chaps, as a born and bred LodgeMooron I've had a passing interest in this mystery location and lost count of the number of 'theories'. The first I ever heard was that of the Burnstones area, but an area I have never heard anything about is the settlement that is on what is now known as Ash Cabin Flat west of Wyming Brook. Has this ever been linked to the village of Hallam?

[saw119]

Well, Ash Cabin Flat is primarily a prehistoric landscape with a Stone Circle, Menhir, barrows and a hillfort. All these things span from the Neoloithic through to the Iron age but I wouldn't have said anything later than Roman conquest. However, it is an interesting landscape.

[History dude]

Just to make things clear this Hall was not there in 1086. For if I read the Doomsday Book translation right it clearly states Waltheof HAD a Hall.

So trying to find something in the ground which was destroyed before 1086 is going to be near impossible, well to confirm that is.

[ThemWotDays]

I've now read the archaeology report for the Sheffield Castle dig in 1927 when the old Co-op was being built and now apprciate how convincing the evidence was that the timber and wattle floor structures found under the castle remains were indeed Saxon of origin and likely to be of a large structure, probably a Long House. These saxon remains were clearly separate from and a good deal below the presumed DeLovetot motte and bailey castle remains, which in turn were clearly distinguishable from mighty the DeFurnivall C13th stone castle which lasted until after the English Civil War in the C17th.

With this in mind I am personally (as a layman) 90% convinced that the castle site was indeed the site of Waltheof's aula in Hallam. The great news about that being that, ironincally for a site in the longest-lived urbanised part of the city, is that more remains of the aula are likely to have been inadvertently preserved and will hopefully be investigated in tehnext few years as part of the proposals to conduct a major dig during the redevelopnment of the castle markets site. In those times they just built the ground up and built on to of of the old buildings' foundations; had the aula lain under a 1930/50s suburb there would have been a good chance of them digging away all the evidence to sink deep foundations.

By the way History Dude, the reason the Domesday book of 1086 said "Waltheof HAD an aula in Hallam" could simply be because Waltheof was executed in 1076 ten years earlier; the aula might stilll have been around and survived the harrying (generally thought of as restricted to further north), although the use of the past tense would suggest that no-one else was formally occupying it at Domesday.

That said, it still seems a possibility to me that there was a 'vill' of Hallam in saxon times and that, whilst the aula was located in the manor of that name, the original vill might lie elsewhere than the old centre of Sheffield. These are some of the reasons that various historians have identified for old Hallam not being the same as old Sheffield, although their arguments always seem to assume that the aula and vill were next to each other, which is where I'm not completely sure:

1) The first written mention of Sheffield states that it was formerly "inland domense (domain)" of the manor of Hallam, as if the two places were not (or not always) the same.

2) There are a lot of (apparently ancient) field, road and place names with the word Hallam (long before the modern fashion of calling Sheffield businesses / institutions Hallam / Hallamshire) located in the west of the current city - Hallam fields, Hallamgate, etc

3) In Romano-British times and earlier iron age the climate was warmer and (I think I've heard that) the soil chemistry of the pennines was different (not strongly acid) so the uplands in the west of the city's current boundaries would have not been so hostile an environment for farming communities - hence iron age hill forts and field enclosures

and possible romano-british farmsteads have been found at Lodge Moor and Fulwood respectively. It seems probable to me that Angles would have slowly moved into these already productive areas displacing the celts after the Roman army had left Britain. Combine this with the fact that later conjectured maps of Hallamshire and C17th Harrison's survey of the Manor of Hallam for his lord, the Earl of Shrewsbury (Lord of Hallamshire), all seem to point to a western boundary roughly where the modern City of Sheffield western boundary is now (i.e. well into the Peak District, pretty much up to the Derwent) yet the eastern boundary (from my memory) didn't include Handsworth, Darnall, Attercliffe, Brightside Bierlow, etc, then the centre of the manor would be around Hallam Head.

I'm sure I've also read once that one academic's reading of the etomology of the word "Hallvn" (in hallam) as it appears in the Norman scribe's Domesday text, there are other etymologies, is "in the place of the halls" i.e. a dative PLURAL. If this is the true etymology, and depending at what time it aquired this name (must have been at some point in Saxon era as this etymology is an Old English one) then might other Saxons (Angles) historically have had aula in Hallam? Might one of these halls been at the historic centre of the vill of Hallam?

[History dude]

These saxon remains were clearly separate from and a good deal below the presumed DeLovetot motte and bailey castle remains, which in turn were clearly distinguishable from mighty the DeFurnivall C13th stone castle which lasted until after the English Civil War in the C17th.

Though I might not disagree on the rest of what you say ThemWotDays the above is not true. For in the death inquests into both De Furnival's (for a period of 100 years) the castle is worth nothing. So the castle that was demolished in the Cival War was John Talbots, not Furnival's! He rebulit it when he was made Earl of Shrewsbury, for he had money and the previous lords of Sheffield hadn't.

We will no doubt find out more when a modern archaeology team get to work, as I wouldn't personally have much faith in the 1927 findings. As anyone who watches Time Team will know, most of these old reports don't add up when they get dug again.

[Bayleaf]

Though I might not disagree on the rest of what you say ThemWotDays the above is not true. For in the death inquests into both De Furnival's (for a period of 100 years) the castle is worth nothing. So the castle that was demolished in the Cival War was John Talbots, not Furnival's! He rebulit it when he was made Earl of Shrewsbury, for he had money and the previous lords of Sheffield hadn't.

We will no doubt find out more when a modern archaeology team get to work, as I wouldn't personally have much faith in the 1927 findings. As anyone who watches Time Team will know, most of these old reports don't add up when they get dug again.

Sorry I think that's extremely unfair to the 1927 excavations. They were carried out to the highest standard of the day, and the report was made public in full. Admittedly they didn't have the advantage of modern geophys techniques, but that doesn't detract from the professionalism and standards.

Frankly the comparison with Time Team doesn't hold up. The fact that sometimes they come up with more information than earlier digs is simply a reflection of the new technology available to them (though the track record of the geophys element is far from good)

. Unfortunately they have a very poor track record for publishing results, and the timescale of 3 days is risible, given the advance research involved, more often than not done by the local amateurs they come to 'help'. It's entertaining, but not really serious archaeology.

Unfortunately that's what the public think it is. A number of university archaeology departments have reported that the upsurge in applications over the last few years has been in part due to Time Team, but it is worrying the number of applicants who are convinced that all archaeological digs are limited to 3 days!

[History dude]

Sorry I think that's extremely unfair to the 1927 excavations. They were carried out to the highest standard of the day, and the report was made public in full. Admittedly they didn't have the advantage of modern geophys techniques, but that doesn't detract from the professionalism and standards.

Frankly the comparison with Time Team doesn't hold up. The fact that sometimes they come up with more information than earlier digs is simply a reflection of the new technology available to them (though the track record of the geophys element is far from good)

. Unfortunately they have a very poor track record for publishing results, and the timescale of 3 days is risible, given the advance research involved, more often than not done by the local amateurs they come to 'help'. It's entertaining, but not really serious archaeology.

Unfortunately that's what the public think it is. A number of university archaeology departments have reported that the upsurge in applications over the last few years has been in part due to Time Team, but it is worrying the number of applicants who are convinced that all archaeological digs are limited to 3 days!

The standards of 1927 would not match up to day is what I was implying in that case. Recording techniques would not be good enough, but I think a lot of assumptions were made on the evidence they found, which has lead to speculation on the Hall of Waltheof being there. However I was fully aware of the problems of Time Team. Why do you think they never been to Manor Lodge? It wasn't for lack of trying on their part I can tell you. In another case English Heritage refused any digs by Time Team for a while, after a dig where they did not put back the site right. So yes they do have a reputation.

I allways have my doubts with many of these experts, digging small trenches here and there, but if other archaeologist in Universities etc consider them not serious I have greater doubts about them, as the people on Time Team are not amateurs in the field, but the same people who teach archaeology to students who think that digs last 3 days. That says a lot about education in general too if you ask me! In other words they are attacking themselves. Ironic too that the 3 day thing was due to Mick Aston only having that time to do digs, because he had to get back to his students.

I happen to think that if any archaeologists where digging the ruins of Big Ben and Buckingham Palace, they would be unable to say that one had a clock in it, plus the other was even a Royal residence. :P

[Bayleaf]

I Still think you do Armstrong a disservice. Agreed, excavations at the time were not of today's standard, being carried out largely by labourers rather than archaeologists, but they were closely supervised, and the standard of recording was good.

Armstrong didn't propose that the Saxon remains were the Aula of Waltheof. He points out that no similar remains have been found at the other proposed locations, but says, " Whether the Aulaof Waltheof stood upon this site or not is likely to always remain a matter ofopinion." In other words, he reported the facts and left the conjecture to others.

Overall you seem to have a very poor opinion of professional archaeologists, but at least we can agree about Time Team!

[duckweed]

I think the main consideration about Armstrong is that he had insufficient time to do a detailed survey and as such his theories are but conjecture. I don't think he would have said that his examination of the ruins was done in ideal conditions but was little more than a glance in at the holes dug and asking the builders for find.s I note that the Gritty earthenware that he thought of as Saxon is now listed from further find in the well at Norfolk Row and under the wall at upper chapel as medieval 11th century so could be either Saxon or Norman but seems to be linked with the Lovetots first recording building of a castle on that site. I am sceptical that De Busli didn't put up some sort of fortification before then. Given that he was William's righthand man and was involved in harrying the North. I doubt he would have only used Tickhill.

There does seem to be some doubt among more modern archeaologists that there is a saxon hall under the castle but wherever Hallam hall is it will have to be strategically a good position.

I think we will never know whether it is under the castle is for archeaologists to have access to the castle when the market comes down and a systematic approach to the layers that are available.

[RichardB]

You're talking a load of stratigraphy Duckweed.

... and a systematic approach to the layers that are available.