When I was researching the history of The Battle of Kulikovo (битва на Куликовом поле), I was struck by the seemingly complete dearth of available archaeological evidence at the site of the battle (considering the size of the forces - 60-100k by latest estimates from Mamai and 50-60k from Russians).
Here's interview with the guy doing the most recent excavations (in Russian)
From what I could see, they found couple of hundred/thousand metal fragments that are deformed/hard to identify, a very few - explicitly listed - identified ones (a bushing/bearing; a pike base; a ring from chain mail; a broken piece of an axe; brass pieces from sleeves and chainmail hem; and a piece of an armor plate with holes for tying to a leather base).
Given that the battle took place in 1380, and people have presumably lived/farmed in the area since (but NOT built habitats), the reasons for lack of more finds that are usually given are the cost of metal military equipment at the time (meaning great pains may have been taken to collect whatever they could recover after the battle); and the supposed use of ammonium nitrate for fertilizer that is claimed to be detrimental to artifacts.
I have two questions:
Are the explanations presented to explain the lack of artifacts something that sounds legitimate from the point of view of archaeological research of the period?
Are there other examples of well known battles from a similar period where the event is 100% certain to have happened based on historical sources, yet there is almost no archaeological evidence of the battle (obviously excluding battles that happened in places that later had human habitations built over them).