 Youtube ar y Llywodraeth, y Llywodraeth wedi cymhensio â Llywodraeth am y Llywodraeth yng Ngheifftdysgu yn Ffathogel Fyfawr ar Y prisons a'n fawr o'r Llywodraeth yng Ngheifftdysgu yn unrhywgdd ar Y prisons, sy Beth yr Llywodraeth yn y brgynedd bod y para assessed unrhyw ffordd ar gyfer argynno ar gyfer arniogydd Cymru. Diolch i'ch bythigafodd gydag bach o ffaith atweithio, os y llwylo teithio gyntaf, fy ysgrifennu ei gydag i'r ysgrifennu diolch yn yr unid. On afterwards maeth yn ymddydd yn ddigonu mewn oherwydd ac mae'r ysgrifennu twdd, I said that we must thank a 69 o Boeith iawn. Thank you very much for the invitation. I'd like to discuss the archaeology that has taken place at Ashen Gore. For such a famous event, you would think that everybody has had a go at a bit of archaeology over the last 700 years. But it's been very very restrictive. So what I want to do is discuss the work of John Woodford and my work since 2002. Ychydigwyd y fathl efo'u gwir i'r gofod am hwn o'r iawn a'r llawer o'r bwysig yn y cyfnodol yn yr hunain bwysigiaeth i'r cyfrannol. Yn 2002? Yn 2000? Yn 2000. Yn ydych chi'n gwir i'r hoffa'r gweithlo'r hyn – ond mae'n ymddangos i'r holl ffioedd o'r archeolog. Yn ychydigwyd ymddangos i'r ffioedd o'r holl ffioedd, mae'n rhaid i'n gwylltio'r holl ffioedd. Mae'n cyntaf gael y ddechrau yn y ddweud yn ddwyddio ddwydd ymgyrch yn ymgyrch, ein ddwydd yn ymgyrch yn ymgyrch yn y ddwyddio ar y ddwydd John George. Mae'r ddwydd John George yn y ddwydd, hynny lle ar hynny. A'r cyfnod hynny yn ddweud yn y ddwydd 2002, ac mae'n ddwydd i'n cael ei gwybod o'r pobl i'r coleg. Mae'n ddwy'n cael eu coleg yn dweud o ydwydd cyfnod a'r ddwyddol a'r cyfnod a'r ddwydd. Felly yn ddod y rhan ei wneud i ni, felly mae'r llwyth i'w drwy, mae'r llwyth i'w drwy'r llwyth i'w drwy'r llwyth i'w drwy'r llwyth i'w drwy, maen nhw'n dda i'r Llywodraeth, oherwydd o'n ddod o'r morhoedr yn 1785 oed, oherwydd oed o'n sôn y Llywodraeth Llywodraeth a Lleodraeth Susan Gould. Mae'n dda i'r ddod o'r bobl arosodolod ac yn ymgyrch ymddarnol, Ofwys pwynt go iawn i'r ddiogelio, i gael gofyn hefyd yn ddechrau'r panrwy. 14.1970-1894 – dylau'r llyffaeth tyddfawr o'r gwaith ar rydym. Yr anhygoel hefyd, y ddyn nhw'n cael amser yn y Llywodraeth o'r Llywodraeth. Diolch yn fawr o'r gweithio gwn y fawr o ddod yn unig. Elin, Alexander George Woodford, rydyn ni'n meddwl ar y fawr i'w gweithio gwrdd yma ar y fawr o'r gweithio gwrdd. Cymreithio gwrdd yn fawr o'r gweithio gyrdd o'r gweithio. Alexander Lothl, mewn cyfnodd, a John George, mewn cyfnodd yn ymgyrch, nid yn unrhyw o'r pethau yn ymgyrch. John fel yma, ..y'r risoedd yma yn 18th century.. ..y'r risoedd yn Cezig. A'r risoedd yn ystod o'r ddweud o'r rhan yn y cwmysgol. Yn yw ddweud, rydw i ni ddweud o'r rhain. Yn ddweud o'r rhain, yna'n ddweud o'r rhain yn y bwrdd ac yn Ddorion Robert Salbyn.. ..y'r rhagor i chi oed yn ystod. Ond yw'n cael eu bod eich adreu. Yn rhaid, mae'n rhaid i gael, ond rwy'n gallu i'n rhaid i ddweud yn cael gweithio'r iawn yn ymddangos. Rwy'n gweithio, yr adreu, i gael, a'r adreu i gyda'r nghymru yn ymddangos hynny i'r adreu, ac yn ddod i'r ddweud hynny. Yn 1818, John George wedyn gweithio'n cymdeithas y bwyntion dechrau i'r Ffrasig, i ddweud y ddweud hynny'n ffraith yn teimlo i ddweud y ddweud. It took advantage of his position to obtain leave to make a survey of the field at the Battle Base de Coe and its vicinity and to carry out excavations. During his excavations he recorded in the notebook the location, the area he investigated, and what he discovered. Unfortunately this notebook is now missing. Much to my frustration because there's a huge amount of information in there and I cannot gain access to. Mae'n ddweud ar eich gweithio i gael rhai o fynd i ddechreu eu grwm y metal i'r ystyried y cyfrifatau a'i ddysgwm i f monkio gan welwyr gyda y gallu cyfrifiadau ac aeth sy'n meddwl i'r tyfianaeth oherwydd wedi wneud rydym yn o Richard. A oeddwn i'n meddwl i'r lladdai'r lladdai, dwy fyddo i'r lladdai yma, ymliellwch Cyfrifiadau, mewn meddwl ystod yw y Rhyvdeithr Alexander,りu'n meddwl o'r lleon, mewn o'r awnod. yw'r 1st ydyn nhw yw 20 ym 1880, Woodford yn ddaeth yn ffandd ar hynny'n ddod o isio'r ddaeth yn y gweithio'r ddaeth, yn y gwaith, i ddyn nhw'n yn gyfweld, yn y ddod o'r ddod o'r ddod amgylchau gyda'r rhai, ac i ddod o'r ddod o'r ddod o'r ddod o'r ddod, yn y ddod o'r ddod o'r ddod. Rhyw gweithio, yn y ddod o'r ddod, unrhyw gweithio'r ddod o'r ddod, Mae cyntaf, rwy'n gweithio gwelir maen nhw, ac mae yma'r llwyddebos, fe fe'n llwyddebos mi arben a'r llwyddebos ar gyfer rhywbeth. Mae Rhaetyn er mwyneth, mae'n cympanylion gan rwyro yn cymlwm o'r gadw ddau'r bod wedi gweithio. Felly ar yr brujant mae'n gweithio gweithio'r grannu yn y rhan a'n ynchydigol ar wladol. so mynd i ddweud o yr hoffa thysgu yma yn ymwneud ar y bwdd ymwneud o'r mawr. Mae ymwneud yn mawr o'r mwyfydol yn bwysig, a rwy'n meddwl i'r rhaid yn ddweud i'r ffynulwyr, yn ddweud o'r 5800 a'r 5800? A'r ddweud o'r 5800? Mae'r ddull yn ddweud o'r 5800 a hynny'n gallu cyffinu'r ddweud o'r ffynulwyr. Mae'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r mawr. Mae'r ystyried yn 85 yn ymgylchedd yn cyfrwyllfa cyntaf o'r dros. Mae'r cyfrwyllfa cyntaf yn cael ei wneud yn y bwrdd. Mae'r cyfrwyllfa yn ei ddefnyddio. Mae'r rhaid o'r chrysiau o'r prymysgau ar y trwm. Mae yw'r lefydol yn y ffordd o'r 20 oes yn Ffwgfaith. Bydd gweithio, mae'r ydweud o'r ysgolwyr oedd yn rhaid i gyd. Fy ffawr, ond mae'r eich tynnu gwahanol. Mae'r cyfrwyllfa ar hyn yn yr oedd yw'r rhain. Cyngor amdano, yn cael ei wneud yn rhoi gweld, lle iawn yn тыchon. Yn hyn mae'r bosedd wedi'u cyfweld i— fe wnaeth yma, ac rydyn ni angen. Ac yw'r galwau ar eich collant, ac yn oed i yn cael ei gwrs, sy'n gyhoedd yr un i gael'r ryngwyr o'r teimlo'r hirio. Bydd o'r prif. Gųdd hynny'n gweld o'r gwrs, a hynny'n gweld o'r Gųdd gwrs. Mae gennym ffwrdd gwrs gwrs, philosophy fe ffiario, ac yn ddechrau a'r hun, hwnnw, y Caelwydbaeth Gwrs, mae'r bod yn cyffinol, a gyda'n rhoi'r ystod yng nghydganiat. Rhyw i'r rhai ryngwyr ymlaen, bydd bod wedi'i gweld o'r argynodaeth y Bas Y Pwlad Ddau'r Rhywun beeping, 1827, Loeson's Alub minerals. Y Dúd Wrthyn wrote that, the role of Agingcor revives amongst us, all the old enthusiasm to digging up the ground itself by Colonel Woodford after our last continental victory. If you remember this is just afterwards alone. Excited in every Englishman's breast, we remember them handling the roads he's found, so they are actually touching these things with us much your war and interest in particular ring, a dymrwydd, mae gydion gydion mewn drwg, mewn gwirach i ymbrydd yn Mae enw i yn ymweld, felly mae'n gwirach i'r gwirach i'w gwirach i'r gwirach, felly mae'n gwirach iawn ymddarnol yn cydrogylch angen. Felly mae'r bod yn ddigonol i'r gwirach a rheinynt a'r ddigonol i'r ddigonol. Mae'r ddigonol yn teimlo i ffryd yn y ddigonol i ddim yn ei ddigonol ynddyn ni'n gwybod er mwyn cymdeithas, oer bod yn gyllid yr sefyddo i ni'r edrych yn gwneud gwych yn y Cymru. Felly oed yn i'r rhain oed i chi'n gwybod i'r Pyrroedd yn gwasanaethol a'r ddreu iawn ac yn teimlo gwylo ar gyfer hyffordd. Rydym chi'n gweithio cael gweithio? Dyna siarou o gwast y canllun, a'r gweld yn lluniau'r lluniau, mae'r llachau i gwych sprwp. Well, that sounds like another ring again. Membrisieb was found for rings. So this sounds like we've got two, the description of these two rings. Another ring is briefly described in 1847. So John Woodford is in possession of a gold ring. Found on the fieldASHLand, which bears the inscription burrowberto, berpot, hal杂 smarty, beryrio. And that is a charm against bad luck. According to Crossfack, Woodford wrote to the Duke of Richmond ond y 30 sefnod 1874, fydd y ffordd yn ymgynogi fod yn y maen nhw. Mae'n rhaid i'r cyfan, o unrhyw gyda'r cyffredig sydd yn ei wneud ym mwyaf i'n ffordd ymarfer. Rwy'n ffordd yw'n cyfrifiad o'r ffordd ymgyrch yn y ffordd o'r four gol o'r ryngau, oedd yn y Llyfrgell Bwysigol yn ym 1818, ac yn y Llyfrgell Llyfrgell yw'n ymgyrch, mae'r ffordd o'r ffordd o'r rhyw o'r ryngau. Y llwyddoedd nesaf yw'r hyfforddiant y bwrdd rhan i'r unhau yn ddiwethaf i'r rhefn Lywodraeth Cymru fel panhyn Rhymau. Mae'r rhwng yn gaforio panorwni jathodgol o'r bydd y gaffr mewn ffrifau, sydd rwy'n gwneud yn ddau'r Rhymau i eich llwyddoedd y bydd fyrwll yn yr hyfforddiant. Algrifodd yr rhag o bairdo ryn yn gweithio'r wneud, ond rhai o gwbl gweld. Woodfett o eich lefach wedi'w gweld mae'n ddiwedd yw'n gweld lle hwyl. Mae hyревdraeth arall, un gweld gweld eraill yn cydweithio ar y cwbl â'r ffordd yng ngyllianeth. Y ffordd yr anodd, mae'r gweld gweld ar y gwybod yma ar y gweld. responding to waterfalls by Sir Edward Balan in 1823. This, here, is a little velvet pouch that the coin was kept in until very recently. William Suenner painted this, painted the coin as you can see there and then kept the coin in this velvet pouch on the illustration itself. I've seen the illustration, I've held the gold coin in a hand, it is real and therefore I can use it for any reason. rhai Diosblygiad o ran alledwar a'r fromod yn hynny, a ichidd lŵr i gwn ar涵arogion, felly rhai wneud i'ch glwah geworden, lawer, a r bab ddat voluntary iddyn nhw tejw mae fCall QEO deINBED Gweithgellt Prif Weinidyn o fe miedfa ar ynddechrau dda Policekamiad, i feelaf Blaenau o gwneud gyda ll100? Felly gweithg Shawnu uwch gweithio na wneud mor hynny o addictionφawr owr ar hyn hyn yn amlwgr. allan i bryd rydyn ni. Roedd yn cwrwp o'r dechreu'r amser bod oes mae'r cwrwp o ddysgu'r masnwyr? Roedd yw'r dechreu'r amser a yn gyfnog cyntaf o ddysgu'r teimlo o gwrwp o ddysgu'r masnwyr. Dysgu'r masnwyr yn cyfnog o ddysgu'r pwysigol yn gwybod i ddweud. a dduch yn eisiau ddysgu'r hanes Ydweud o ddysgu'r masnwyr o beth oedd yn gweithio, byddai'r defnydd wneud gyda'r wneud Elaborations of what he found. Also a report from the chief of the regional geology dated 20 March 1880, thanks to Ym Christof, who gave it his information, also confirmed that Woodford had carried out excavations and that, quote, the bones were re-interred on that also in the presence of the prefects of St Portsample and the mayor of the port. There is therefore independent documentary evidence that Woodford had found human remains. This is important. So where were the bones and the artifacts probably found? Going back to the letter, the first letter, according to Woodford's first letter, the gold coin was, quote, found in the ground where the knights were buried amongst the quantity of old bones or bones and the remains of skulls particularly teeth. And we now go according to Woodford and the map that this is the location of the current calvary, a place in terms of 5,800 French knights. So we seem to be focusing on one position, one location, and that's this location that is now overgrown with trees and shrubs. I think it's just been clear again of where Christof is, but I think it's been cleared up a bit again hasn't it been recently for the commemorations and stuff. So we seem to be very focused. We've got at least two gold coins. It sounds like we've got several rings, at least three or four. We've got some human remains and we seem to know where they're coming from. That's this location here. How many human remains were discovered? Well, Woodford's letter exactly to the estates of the bones I have collected, a little box full, all bore removal. Now this is quite acidic soil as you go. So the skeletal remains would not have been in perfect condition. So it sounds as though he's finding skeletal remains and then they're virtually falling to pieces as he's digging them up. But he's digging up teeth and a few small bones. But not a great amount. It's not extensive. A small box has a little box full. I've ordered an open sarcophagus for the bones. He made a little illustration in his letter. And given the details and dimensions, but he doesn't say what they are, we don't know if this open sarcophagus is this big or two or three metres, so we don't know how big it is. But should we buy the last letter? It sounds like he's collected a little box full. So it's probably on the smaller size than the larger size. I have settled with the mayor and the curate who deposit them in Agincourt Church, and that's closer to where they went. All of this is confirmed in 1836 in the letter discussion with the Duke of Walton. On the road to Agincourt, he discussed that in 1815 Curlewood would have brought the right of digging there. He got to the very place where François says that the French knights were all buried and he found stirrupines and spurs and other things. There's no other evidence he found stirrupines and spurs. But obviously this is 20 years later and presumably Wellington couldn't remember what he found. After he'd worked a fortnight or three weeks, he came to me and said, you have no idea what a noise this is making. I must beg of you to put a stop to it, so I gave wood for the hint. Dig in the elbow, please go away, you're making my life miserable. This is after the battle of Waterloo. It's supposed to be passing by in French, go away. And that's all he's got to say about it. So in summary, Woodford allegedly excavated the location he called Calvary. He apparently found human remains. He apparently found aspects including at least two gold coins and at least two but allegedly four rings. One coin has been located and now resides near Leeds. The current evidence suggests that Woodford's two letters are an accurate description of events that took place on the battlefield at Agincourt in 1818. There is no reason to doubt that those letters and what he was writing in them is all are authentic. And so we must assume that he excavated at the site of the current Calvary. So in 2002 we were asked to carry out a survey and excavations on the battlefield at Agincourt. Some of it was primarily metal detecting. We did an expensive survey with my colleague, Samuel Ripsison, as part of the Agincourt Battlefields Archaeology Project. This is still ongoing by the way. It's apparently simple and hard to discover and record the physical archaeological evidence of the Battle of Agincourt. That must be simple, surely. Surely of all that huge battle that's been undertaken on that piece of land there must be at least one artifact that I can find and say yes it is. But archaeology isn't that simple. So what qualifications have I got to do this? How dare I go to such a famous battlefield and she might have just wander in there and find something of significance. But we have history. The methods were to be similar to those used during our highly successful surveys of the medieval battlefield in town in 1461 in Yorkshire in England. And we were quite successful. We found, at the moment, well over a thousand artifacts, 15th century material, some of it is battle related, some of it is just very fine equipment and harness. A lot of it is gold leafed, so it's expensive. It's not something that we are normal farmers' cards. At the moment we found over 350 medieval arahas from a very, very small location, probably 200 or 300 square metres. It's not covering the whole of the battlefield. So this is a very small amount of evidence or a large amount of evidence from a very small location. We've also found one of the earliest composite lead shops in the whole of Europe from a very early gun. And we've also found two fragments of one of those guns. We've also found extensive human remains. These are from in and around the town hall, which lies to the north of the battlefield. And as you can see we've got a mass grave that we excavated in 1996. Two individuals from 2003 and 2002. And then another multiple grave and another individual from the excavation in 2005. So we'd be quite fortunate to be able to inspect it. We've also looked on the battlefield and we've now found a location of the mass graves themselves from the majority of the combatants. And so we've got the archaeological discovery of the mass graves. We've done geospatial survey over them and we've actually excavated into them and found that they are disarticulated human remains. They are not complete mass graves for complete skeletons. In fact, majority of it is semi-articulated so we have almost complete hands, almost complete feet. The biggest bone we've found is radius and ulnaw, which has loose bones there. And they were semi-articulated. So when these individuals were excavated in 1483 on the orders of Richard III they were semi-articulated, they were not fully decomposed. So it's only 20-odd years after the Battle of town. So therefore they were not fully decomposed and that's why there are significant big chunks of human remains but not complete skeletons. We were therefore quite confident that if I told you the battle existed in the open only site of Agincourt then we should be able to find some traces of it and we'd have some success from somewhere else. And here we are from the 2002 metal detector survey at Agincourt. The calvary is the red rectangle or rhomboid and the crossroads just to the south of it, all the way down to Maison cell and further north and further to the west. No identifiable medical artifacts were located from this limited sample. It is limited. We were limited by the crop in the field at the time so where the crop had been taken off we were allowed to do some survey but the crop was extensive elsewhere. So it's not definitive. We can't say that is not where the Battle Agincourt is but we can't find any evidence of it which is slightly surprising. Because we've got evidence from, if I can highlight this amount, see this there. That is a prehistoric flint core. There are some Roman coins in that lot. There are some lead and musket bowls and pistol bowls. There are some first world war fragments of ammunition and some second world war evidence of military combat. But there are no medieval artifacts which is very, very unusual because we found Roman pottery, we found later pottery. We couldn't find much medieval pottery which made me tend to think that it may not have been an agricultural site. It might have been grassland which is not what the documents tell us. They say they fought on cultivated ground. So does that mean we're in the wrong location? We don't know. So we can find evidence for it. We don't know yet. We thought we'd found one hour ahead. We went slightly excited when we found this. It looked like an hour ahead. And we took it to the Royal Armies. They've been excavating and excavating all our hours ahead from 10pm to 3.50pm. And they said it's sharp at one end but it doesn't look like an hour ahead because there is no socket on it. So we were completely deflated. But when I compare Woodford's letter with this, that's one of Woodford's hours. And you don't get much more similar than that. So I thought, no. So maybe ours was an hour ahead. Or maybe Woodford's wasn't. So again, we don't know. So it just gets more intriguing as we go on. So what we do is we go to the battlefield itself and we also did some geophysical survey. And we chose to do the area around the enclosure that the Calvary now stands in. And then in 2002 we did around it. And in 2007 we finally got permission to do the geophysical survey inside it. And these are some of the results. And there is no definitive evidence of either an excavation or of grades in there. I've been looking at this more closely recently. And what there is, you can better make out. Because you see this, we don't know what that is. But it's almost as if it's sort of circling to our surface. Now, we dug a very, very big hole here. What you do is you throw all the spoilware and all the spoilware. But if that is a hole, it's huge. It's bigger than this room. Probably about two or three sides of the size of the room. Now Woodford had 60 men at his disposal. It is possible to dig a hole that big. But he said he dug it three feet deep. So it is actually entirely possible that he dug a hole and literally removed everything. From there. We don't know. But we tried and we looked. So we did some small excavations shown by the little rectangles. And also some augers. We drilled holes trying to find evidence of humor or even disturbance in the subsolids. And we couldn't find them. Here's one of the holes in this pit calvary across space. It was about 0.8 metres deep. We couldn't find any trace of any disturbance in the soil. So we even dug an even deeper hole with the auger, drilled through the middle bit and we still couldn't find any traces. So it's either an absolutely massive excavation that he's removed and then put all the soil back. Very, very clean soil. Or he wasn't digging there. But we can't find. We were very, very limited in our ability to excavate there. We have only permission to dig some very, very small holes, which is unfortunate. Here's another hole. As you can see by the soil profile, it just goes from topsoil to subsoil. It goes as deep as you want there. It does not seem to be any evidence of disturbance in that soil. There's certainly no evidence of humor and disturbance, even fragments of humor. What we did find is you go through the gates into the present calvary. I think these are reburied again now because I've had them. You go through some stones and you can see them when we first went there in 2002. So we excavated them when we came across this. And it's a formal wall containing holes, as you see in the big blocks, for railings and a gateway between the road and the present calvary. Now what is it? Is it just a gateway? And there it is. Handling photographs for us. And there it is in situ. Is that all it is? Because it's made up of an 18th century brick and stone. Not modern brick, not 19th century brick, 18th century brick. So is it made up of fragments of the chapel that was stood in this grave, or of the Brawl brick from somewhere else? We don't know. The base of the calvary is made up of 18th century bricks as well, which is interesting. So it looks like there were some bricks on the site. So that's the only photograph showing the calvary and the gate. However, do the excavated remains simply represent a gateway to the enclosure? Or are the remains of the front wall of the chapel built in 1734 because they look remarkably like this? So is that what we've found? Is that what the chapel looked like that is now formally stood in the location of the present calvary? Because if we look at the map from 1825, the pedestrian plan, it does show the place of the ancient chapel of Gascon. But does it illustrate the site of an excavation? It looks, it doesn't look like a building, does it? Does it look like a demolished building? Or does it show, remember it was published in 1825? So it's only a few years after Woodford's been there. Does it show Woodford's excavation? And we don't know. Which, again, is very frustrating. So, more frustration. If Woodford excavated here, why did he not mention the former chapel that's supposed to be standing there? Or did he just completely eliminate it by digging it all the way? Or was it not there at all? Okay, we don't know. So, future work. It is feasible that the 2007 archaeological excavations have missed evidence both of the graves and of Woodford's work. They weren't very deep. They weren't very extensive because women are given permission to do so. They have been limited, shallow surface investigations and were far from extensive, given the conditional and restrictive permission to excavate on that occasion. The only way to determine if the site of the Calvary is a site where the masquerade is a chapel or both is to excavate a much larger, deeper area. But that's a moment beyond our control. But it's a good suggestion. Alternative information. Right, this is where it's slightly... I go off tangent a little bit, but hopefully if you bear with me you'll see where I'm going. Bearing in mind that it couldn't lack of ideological evidence of battle, is it worth revisiting other evidence related to Woodford's notes and maps that he made in 1818? I remember he found something and he was talking to the locals before all this became very, very popular in the later 19th century. Although he drew up his map informed by the standard interpretation of where the battle took place his annotations provide additional points of interest. And this is the rest of his map. We know what the map looked like. And the standard interpretation is shown where the letter is on the right by the English and the French word. But if you look at other things on the map it gets quite intriguing. For example, in the south-west of Ardencourt, he suggested the route of the march of 400 men at out, which is quite a lot of men. Which highlights his belief that a significant number of troops we used in this area, that's of the map. He also noted along his routes a location known as Mont-Maurial, although the map does not explain what its relevance to the battle is, and why did he put it on there. Mont-Maurial, what does it mean in crossfade and lines as by stating that he noticed the elevated ground on the left of the English position called the Mont-Maurial. The inhabitants have always understood from their fathers that the battle commenced on the Mont-Maurial and it was probably over this ground that the English detachment had marched. This information is at odds with all of the descriptions of the battle. This is a French man telling us this, it's not what we are telling other people. And it happened before Woodford. Does it mean anything? In the standard modern interpretation of the battle, this small hill plays no part whatsoever in the engagement as it is significantly different from the intercepted sign. So everybody's ignored it. But what does Mont-Maurial mean? Does anybody know? Anybody got a clue what it might mean? I've looked everywhere, I can't find anything related to Mont-Maurial at all. In which case, it doesn't mean anything. Unless he's got a problem. The map of 1825 shows an adjoining valley, annotating only its length as Lergo, all that, Maureen Valle. Remember this is 1825. This is just around the time that Woodford was excavating when he was there. And this is an old field name. So this is, as with all your scripts on there, these are the old field names that have been supplanted by these rectilinear modern field systems. So we're talking about a very old information from old maps that no longer exist. The suffix valley presumably relates to the word valley. It's in a valley, why shouldn't it? But that leaves us with Maureen. The Latin translation, Maureen, is to die. The connection between the two words possibly suggests a meaning similar to the value of death or of death valley, an intriguing field name. And thus similar to those of the other medieval battlefield sites such as those at Bloody Meadows of town and Tewkesbury. The use of this word, compared with the fact that the locals believed it marked the location of the start of the battle, is intriguing. Has we been getting it wrong this time? The map of 1825 also shows a field to the south of the Maureen Valley annotated with the name Longle. This is a French writing longle, not the English writing longle. So this is something to do with the English. So you put it all together. We are therefore faced with a conundrum. The 1825 map does not give any battle-related names on the traditional sites of the east of Ashingbwrth. But it does include names which might suggest that the battle took place to the west or southwest of Ashingbwrth. The Cassini map of the late 18th century also places a battle to the west of Ashingbwrth. The plan of Nicholl's battle of Ashingbwrth 1827 places the English baggage to the west of Mezawser, approximately in the same location as a field name Longle on the 1825 map. It also places a battle to the southwest of Ashingbwrth in about the same location as the valley noted on Maureen Valley. Crosslake further describes Woodford's annotation by stating that it was probably over this ground that the English detachment marched, which immediately before coming into action, set fire to a farm belonging to the priors of George, and there it is, just inside the village of Ashingbwrth. He noticed particularly the stone, the village of Ashingbwrth, which formerly held a cross, and he sent to mark the spot where a conder shot alone received his mortal wound. A stone in the middle of the village marking the death of some of the important, not to the west, sorry, further to the east on the intercepted battlefield, but in the village of Ashingbwrth itself. The western side of Ashingbwrth is full of early documented possible links with a battle, which even appeared to form a sequence of events, basically from the south, sweeping round the west side, ending up very close to the current battlefield, whereas the eastern side contains only one, the calvary. Have we been getting it wrong, or has it passed us something else, something bigger we don't quite understand? This new information does not rule out the possibility that the battle was also fought in the area between Ashingbwrth and Shanghul. Mediwl battles could be fought over a large area of land, potentially including all areas around the village of Ashingbwrth. What the information does is to suggest that Woodford's overall insertion is potentially incomplete, and at least a part of the initial face of the battle was further to the west. This is incorrect, and a new area of interest opens itself up to further investigation. In order to investigate these queries further, additional archaeological work needs to be carried out on this important site of conflict. It is worth bearing in mind that archaeological investigations at Tapp have now answered many questions relating to that conflict. As a potential analogy, the location of a small chapel at Tapp marks only a small number of graves of the fallen, and the majority of the dead at Tapp are shown to have laid in a mass grave in the centre of the battlefield, almost one kilometre to the south amidst concentrations of artefacts and arrowheads, recording their many hundreds as illustrated on the following map. So we found a battlefield chapel, or the names of the archaeological evidence for that in terms of the burials at Tapp, inside Tapp and Village. There were human remains there, just as there are within the calvary allegedly by Woodford. That's as important. A kilometre or two kilometres from the centre of the battlefield at Tapp, we now know that there are extensive mass graves, or in the process of excavating and recording those. But they are completely different in terms of location. Is this what we're looking at at Agincourt? Have we got a parallel in that there are different areas of human remains, and therefore the battlefield is significantly bigger than we currently assume it is? Much additional work needs to be carried out in the battlefield at Agincourt to enable us to compare it with the results from Tapp. This will rely on extensive co-operation between everyone who believes that the site is not only valued, but that it should be protected and investigated further. If permission is forthcoming, and our Agincourt Battlefield archaeology project would like to continue looking for evidence of the conflict. As we meet today to discuss topics such as the number of combatants and the number of dead, it is so great to realise that there is still currently no physical evidence that Agincourt had any evidence in any location. Did it even exist? Yes, of course it did, because I was found a historical evidence for it. But without the archaeological evidence, we cannot put that into a specific location, and we're only approximating when we say we think we know where it is, because there is currently no evidence for it. So Woodford appears to have found some answers. Have we been ignoring him too long? I know it's a bit short, but thank you very much.