I am very grateful to Kat Baxter, Curator of Archaeology at Leeds Museums and Galleries, for writing this guest blog for the Medieval Section. There is still time to go and see this exhibition, which includes a number of fascinating Medieval skeletons, before it closes on 7th January. So if you are wanting an excuse to get away from the seasonal over-indulgence and sitting in front of the television go and see this great exhibition at the Leeds City Museum.
One of the casualties from the battle of Towton
There isn’t much time before we say goodbye to the wonderful ‘Skeletons: Our Buried Bones’ exhibition in Leeds City Museum. The exhibition, in partnership with the Museum of London and Wellcome Collection, brings together the skeletons of 12 individuals from across Yorkshire and London to unearth their stories and share clues to life and death in the past.
Here are some of the stories written on the bones of the Medieval individuals on display. Visit the exhibition before 7th January 2018 to find out more about these and other skeletons of those who have gone before us.
The Green Goddess
1350 – 1400, St Mary Graces, Royal Mint, East Smithfield, London. On loan from the Museum of London
This skeleton of a woman age 26-35 shows no evidence of disease or trauma. It does, however, show how activities after burial can affect a person’s skeleton. She was buried under the Royal Mint, where coins were manufactured. The process produced copper waste which ended up in the earth and subsequently stained her skull and neck green.
1432-1488, All-Saint’s, Fishergate, York. On loan from The University of Sheffield
This skeleton of a middle-aged lady who lived in York nearly 600 years ago was uncovered in the apse of the Medieval stone church at All-Saint’s.
The lady was probably of high status, considering the prestige placed on being buried in a church at this time. But she was found in an unusual position, tightly crouched with her knees raised up towards her chest.
The Anchoress was buried in a crouched position. Photograph courtesy of On-Site Archaeology
Historical records tell us that there was an anchoress called Lady Isabel German who lived in the All Saint’s churchyard from 1428 until 1448. An anchoress is a female anchorite, or someone who decides to live their life in isolation to concentrate fully on their spiritual growth. The apse of the church was a small room and was likely to have been where she lived out her days with the door sealed shut.
Her bones show that in life she suffered from severe osteoporosis, not surprising if she was confined to such a small space. More surprisingly, the skeleton also shows that she suffered from venereal syphilis, a sexually transmitted infection.
Is it possible that Lady Isabel German became an anchoress to repent her sins because she contracted this disease as a young woman? Was she forced into retreating from society or was it a path she chose for herself? Although we can speculate, we do not know the answers and much of her life remains a mystery.
The Plague Victim
1348-1350, East Smithfield Black Death cemetery, London. On loan from the Museum of London
The skeleton of this man shows that he lived with a serious injury. He was found with an iron arrowhead lodged in his spine, which had just avoided damaging his spinal cord. The bone around it had healed, indicating that he had recovered from the attack. Unfortunately for him he was later killed by the plague which arrived in London in 1348. His bones do not tell us this however – the plague killed too quickly to leave any marks on the skeleton. We know because he was excavated from one of London’s ‘catastrophe’ burial sites, specifically created to accommodate plague victims.
The Soldier
1461, Towton, near Tadcaster, North Yorkshire. On loan from The University of Bradford
This man’s remains were found in a mass burial of 40 skeletons at Towton Hall in 2006, all of whom were soldiers at the Battle of Towton. This skeleton shows evidence of extremely violent injuries, far beyond what would have been needed to kill him. Square holes in his skull were made by a pole axe, and blade injuries are evident on his skull, arms and wrists. Injuries caused to his neck by a bladed weapon suggest that he was decapitated. It is likely that all of the individuals in the mass grave were executed after the battle rather than killed on the battlefield.
Piece of long bone (from a horse?) found during the excavation at Fulford. Butchering and even damage from a mattock have been considered but both seem unlikely for the damage to the bone. The mineralised remnants of the ‘arrow’ are consistent with the weapon embedding itself in the rib cage.
It’s nearly ‘digging’ time again. This year will be rather different. Alongside the digging we will be sorting and conserving the thousands of finds from the project.
The aim of the 2017 digging is to investigate the fringe of the peat, dig a number of test pits and investigate the geology.
The other major activity will be the sorting and conservation of the thousands of finds we have assembled during the project. With six folders of data and over 3000 finds, we really need your help! The aim is to ensure that all of the possible information has been extracted from these finds.
The project runs from Saturday 15 to Sunday 31 July with digging starting at 10ish. The dig welcomes experienced and novice archaeologists as a part of the CBA Festival of Archaeology. I will be camping on the site and you are welcome to join me.
As always, we welcome everybody to come and join the dig. There is no need to book days as the work load will accommodate as many as come. Just turn up. Bring a friend and get them to add their name to the mailing list http ://groupspaces . com/FulfordBattlefieldSociety. Twitter is @earlmorcar.
Last year several diggers had the new ‘Skills Passport’ which allows volunteers to keep a formal record of what they have done. The diverse work we undertake provides opportunities to document your skills skills. A small supply of passports has been obtained and can be purchased onsite (£8,50 or to buy your own in advance visit http ://www . archaeologyskills . co . uk/shop/)
I have uploaded the full dig plan in the ‘files’ tab on our webspace.
Breaking news: I was approached by the Vikings organisation recently to see if we could organise a living history and battle reenactment event at Fulford this year. Plans are still being finalised but we will probably be organising a major event on the site on 23/24 Sept.
Chas Jones has kindly sent details of this year’s commemorations of the battles of Fulford and Stamford Bridge. Fulford was the first and arguably largest of the three battles in the autumn of 1066. Five days after the battle of Fulford the Vikings were caught off guard at Stamford Bridge by King Harold II and badly defeated. These two Yorkshire battles contributed to the defeat of King Harold a few weeks later at Hastings because his army was no longer fresh after its long march up to Yorkshire and back.
The archaeological digs of 2014 and 2015 on the site of the 1066 battle of Fulford yielded many fragments of bone, which appeared to be human. Sadly it was not possible to extract collagen for a carbon date or to do isotope analysis on these bones.
The work will resume this summer with more trenches where the bones were found. Another trench will expose a further section of the ancient road leading to the ford which was discovered last year.
Chas recently launched a ‘Crowdfunder’ appeal, featuring a film by Dan Snow, to get the money to open the site to visitors. As a part of the 950th anniversary of 1066 the site, which is on public land, will be open for families during the summer holidays to visit and dig some of the intriguing archaeology that was uncovered last year.
There will be a number of events to commemorate the Fulford and Stamford Bridge battles, culminating in a battle re-enactment at Stamford Bridge on 25th September, the 950th anniversary date of that battle before the trek south to Hastings. This is being organised by English Heritage.
Chas has spoken to Medieval Section in the past. Chas hopes some of our members might venture over to Fulford to do some digging or just to come and have a look. He also runs newsletter to which you can sign up.
July
As a part of the Council for British Archaeology, festival of archaeology, starting on Saturday 16 July we will be digging at the ford to expose more of the ancient road and land surface of 1066
When the dig is over on 31 July the site will be covered over to protect it from the weather and prepared to allow visitors to inspect the battle surface
August
Open Fulford site with free public access to the archaeology.
Site is open 11-4 every day but accessible outside these hours for unguided access
Access is free but a £10 family ticket is planned for those wanting to take part in the dig
A living history camp will be making items and talking to visitors
Prepare tableaux of three battles with panels to explain the history and the battles
September
The site will remain open to visitors as long as weather conditions permit. The hope is to keep them open until the battle of Hastings in mid-October, weather and floods permitting, to maximise visitor opportunities
Saturday 17
Riccall Rampage – 9.00 Talk at Riccall and Viking ‘breakfast’ when the walk reaches Fulford. The walk takes about 3 hours and is along paths and bike tracks
Living history and site open all day with several battlefield walks during the day
Workshop for school children make armour and paper weapons for the battle, 1-4
Private feast for supporters and sponsors on the site starts at 5
Sunday 18
00 Judging the best dressed Viking prior to Children’s re-enactment of the battle
10 – 12.30 Battle on the playing fields with children and some Viking leaders. Parents must stay behind the barriers. Only children and Vikings allowed on the battlefield. Great photo opportunity as the battle moves back and forth on the surface where the battle was fought
Living history and site open all day with several battlefield walks during the day
Monday 19
Site will be configured to receive field trips from local schools
Tuesday 20 (950 anniversary)
Dedicate the memorial for the warriors of the battle.
Mid-day walk round the battlefield
Focus will be on attracting media attention in the build up to the Stamford Bridge weekend
Wednesday 21
11-4 Brainstorm Conference “Where did the 1066 battles actually take place”
Themed Poetry and music evening in Fulford
Thursday 22
Tadcaster to Stamford Bridge ride & stride
Friday 23
Embroidery day with dye workshop on site
Saturday 24
Full day of events at SB including a battle
Victors feast and celebration for warriors in the evening
Sunday 25 (950 anniversary)
Second day of events at SB
5pm English Heritage ride to Hastings sets off from central York
October 15
English Heritage commemorates 1066 at Battle Abbey with a massive re-enactment
Edited shortened version of lecture given to the Medieval Section of the Yorkshire Archaeological and Historical Society about the St Bees Knight, by Chris Robson of St Bees Historical Society. Filmed at the Swarthmore Education Centre on 12th December 2015, and edited by Bryan Sitch, Honorary Secretary of the Medieval Section. Posted 15th June 2016.
Facial reconstruction of Richard III recently on display at the Yorkshire Museum
The life of Richard III (1452-1485) is a mixture of history and story-telling. One example of the latter is William Shakespeare’s play of 1592 but Richard has been interpreted by many writers. Lawrence Olivier’s portrayal of Richard III has been especially influential in the popular imagination but how accurate are these interpretations? Since the public announcement on 4th February 2013 of the identification of human remains in a Leicester car park as those of Richard III, what does it mean historically? What does this discovery tell us about the last Plantagenet King, the last king of England to die in battle?
Finding Richard’s remains was the final piece in an intriguing jigsaw. Another piece of this puzzle, the discovery of the location of the site of the battle of Bosworth by Glenn Foard, some distance away from where the battlefield interpretation centre stands today at Ambion Hill, slotted into place in 2010. Discovering Richard’s remains was an unbelievable stroke of luck and featured a number of remarkable coincidences. In fact University of Leicester mathematicians worked out the chances of finding Richard were just 0.84%! However, he was found, and, because the skull was preserved, a facial reconstruction could be made. Our speaker commented that he thought the facial reconstruction bears a striking likeness to Quentin Tarantino!
Was Richard a villain? Did he kill the princes in the Tower? Since the discovery, archaeologists, anatomists and historians have been reassessing Richard’s physical life and going back to the documentary sources. This may reveal further information but it won’t tell us what happened to the princes in the Tower. What we do know is that in 1483 Richard was made Lord Protector after his brother Edward IV died. Edward’s eldest son, Prince Edward, was being escorted back to London when Richard intercepted the party and took the prince back to the Tower. The prince’s younger brother joined him there. Arrangements were made for the coronation of the prince as King Edward V but his claim was suddenly declared to be invalid and it was announced that the children were illegitimate. What happened to the princes after August 1483 isn’t known but Bob said that Richard had to be held responsible because they disappeared on his watch.
There were two major rebellions against Richard’s rule. In August 1485 Henry Tudor landed with a small force at Pembroke and marched through Wales, receiving contingents from the Talbots and the Thomases. Richard moved his army toward Tudor from Nottingham to Leicester. On 22nd August Richard with perhaps 8-10,000 men fought Henry Tudor with 5000 men on land where there was a waterlogged meadow. Bob siad that over the last 200 years various historians had fumbled around trying to find the site. One thing all the historians were agreed on is that there was a marsh. Glenn Foard of the Battlefield Trust located evidence of the battlefield near Fenn Lane in 2010, two miles south of the traditional location at Ambion Hill. The investigators recovered artefact assemblages dating from the mid to late 15th century, comparable with material from Towton (1461), including roundshot (the largest concentration of shot yet found on a late Medieval battlefield) apparently confirming Jean Molinet’s account that Richard’s artillery fired upon Henry Tudor’s army. A boar livery badge was found at Fenn Hole next to Fenn Lane, and also part of a gilt sword hilt dating from the late 15th century, which must have been carried by someone of high status.
Richard III livery badge displayed at the Yorkshire Museum
After the battle Richard’s body was taken to Leicester and displayed publicly before its hasty burial in the church of the Greyfriars. Henry Tudor had an effigy set up above the burial in 1495. With the demolition of Greyfriars at the Dissolution in 1538 the location of the body was lost. However, in 2010, in the first trench of the excavation in the car park on the site of Greyfriars, Richard’s remains were discovered. Bob said that Philippa Langley, the President of the Richard III Society, has taken a lot of criticism for her part in a documentary about the discovery but it was thanks to her determination and the support of the Richard III Society that the excavation took place. Bob said that sometimes a bit of obsessiveness is needed to find things. In what he described as a neat piece of Fortean synchronicity Bob said that Richard’s body was found three feet beneath the tarmac under the part of the car park marked with the letter ‘R’! It was a truly amazing discovery and Bob has no doubt that it really is Richard III.
The trauma on the skeleton indicate that this was someone who was killed in battle. The injuries include eight cranial and two post-cranial trauma. The ten wounds represent an incidence of injury higher than that of Towton, and, it must be remembered, we are not seeing flesh wounds, which have not left any evidence. This picture is consistent with historical accounts that say Richard fell in the field, covered in wounds, hacked and hewn at the hands of his enemies. The skeleton shows he suffered from scoliosis or curvature of the spine. This is likely to have started at puberty and this grew worse with age. Richard may have stood 5’6” tall. According to Tudor propaganda Richard was a hunchback but the evidence of the skeleton is real evidence. The condition may not have been as pronounced as Sir Thomas More would have it but Richard’s close family, his armourer and tailor would have known the truth. It did not impede Richard, however. He was admiral of the fleet and took part in three battles. Sampling of the earth inside the grave revealed a different aspect of Richard’s health. He suffered from roundworms but apparently not from fluke, pork or beef tapeworm. His meat must have been well-cooked. At a time when human fecal waste was used as fertiliser, Richard could have acquired the roundworm from eating vegetables that had not been properly washed. Alternatively poor hygiene was the cause because people didn’t know to wash their hands after using the garderobe, if indeed they had access to one.
The Classicist Mary Beard has questioned the excitement about the discovery of Richard, claiming that the excavation of a peasant would tell us more about life in the past but the opportunity to study a king and to examine the wounds he suffered at the time of death is an amazing opportunity. The discovery that he also suffered from worms, creates a picture of Richard in life that we do not get from Medieval chronicles.
The study of the skeleton shows that Richard’s body was hacked about, although the feet are missing because of the later building of a toilet close to the site of the burial. This doesn’t affect the interpretation of Richard’s remains because his thigh bones survived, from which his height could be calculated. Richard was cut down by a bill or halberd. Skeletons from the battlefields of Visby (1361) and Towton (1461) provide comparable material. Bob illustrated a wide range of wounds known by Medieval doctors with a trauma identification chart. We know that Richard was wounded at the battle of Barnet (1471) from a letter written by a Hanseatic League merchant but the team didn’t find any healed injuries from that earlier encounter. All the injuries visible on the skeleton are consistent with ante-mortem trauma. It is known that people could recover from very severe injuries. For example, one of the casualties of Towton suffered a severe wound to the side of the jaw but the man recovered.
The narrative of the battle suggests Richard’s attack was a last-minute decision. Richard charged Henry Tudor and killed his standard bearer, Sir William Brandon, but was stalled by the marshy ground. His horse became stuck in the soft ground. Richard must have come within a few feet of Henry who can have been no more than 10 feet away from his standard. It was at this point that Stanley’s forces intervened and Richard was killed.
Richard’s skeleton tells us a lot about the last few minutes of his life. A cut to Richard’s jaw may suggest that his helmet chin strap was cut in order to remove his helmet. A penetrating wound to the right maxilla may have been inflicted from behind by the same attacker but it would not have been fatal. A scoop-like slice from the top and rear of skull would have bled profusely but would not have killed Richard. The same weapon – a long sword bill or halberd – was used to knock a hole in Richard’s head in the right occipital bone of his skull. Molinet mentions such a weapon in his account. He says a Welshman struck Richard dead with a halberd. It is interesting that a bedstead of 1505 shows the battle scene with a foot soldier carrying a halberd. This wound would not have caused instantaneous death. Casualties from the battle of Dornack in Switzerland (1499) show severe trauma. A casualty of Towton suffered a blow across the back of the head and another face was bisected. These trauma reveal that medieval warfare was vicious and nasty, not chivalrous. It has been claimed in some newspapers that Richard was poll-axed but it is not clear where this story originated. Richard certainly suffered a penetrating wound to the head and this would have brought him down immediately. The sequence seems to have been that he suffered a halberd wound to the head, at which point Richard was still alive, but then he received a penetrating wound to the left occipital and this is in fact what killed him. This is what one of the accounts, The Most Pleasant Song of Lady Bessy, says. An indentation in the surface of the skull may indicate that Richard’s opponents tried to push a rondel dagger into his head. A rondel dagger was used to kill Watt Tyler. An image in the Bibliothèque Nationale shows someone using the mushroom cap pommel of such a dagger to apply pressure to deliver a thrusting blow to the back of Tyler’s head. Towton 21 has a similar injury. The trauma enable us to see Richard’s death in great detail. The fact that there are no definite wounds on the arms, hands or fingers as at Towton where the dead suffered defensive injuries trying to ward off blows, suggest that at this stage Richard must have had the protection of armour.
Two other wounds must have been made after Richard’s armour was removed. These are the so-called humiliation injuries, which were inflicted after Richard’s body had been stripped naked, when he was subjected to indignities. The Crowland Abbey Chronicle of 1486 says that Richard’s body had insults heaped upon it. Richard’s body was lying over the back of a horse at this point, his hands and feet tied. Mutilation of the dead is shocking to us today but it must be remembered that this is a common occurrence in warfare. At the battle of the Little Big Horn (1876) General Custer’s body was mistreated. Bowdlerised versions of the battle circulated until the 1960s. One of the troopers who found the body stated that the Custer’s ears were pierced so he could hear more clearly in the afterlife and that his stomach was cut open to reveal his spirit. Richard, too, had all manner of things done to him. There is a thin line on the bone of the pelvis showing that a knife went all the way through. Perhaps this wound was inflicted using a ballock dagger. This seems to be an act of deliberate humiliation. The body was then taken the 16 miles back to Leicester where it was exposed for public viewing for several days before being bundled unceremoniously into a grave, the hands still bound. Some people have tried to explain away the injury to the hip saying that Richard must have fallen from his horse and landed on a pointed shield but the most likely explanation is mutilation of the king’s dead body by the victors. The skeleton of Towton 32 suggests that the man’s ears were cut off. Richard’s face survived intact either because he was lying face down or because Henry Tudor wanted to ensure that the face remained identifiable. He wanted Richard’s body to be recognizable. Exposure of the body to public view was not uncommon so that the reality of the king’s death would be widely known and accepted. Contemporary knowledge that Richard’s head had suffered damage may lie behind the story that Richard’s head struck the bridge as it was returned to Leicester.
Bob said that this was the first attempt to tell a coherent story about what happened to Richard and doubtless more will be discovered as the study progresses. Work will be done on plaque on Richard’s teeth and this will tell us what Richard ate and drank. Had the body been dug up at an earlier date before modern forensic techniques were invented this sort of work would not have been possible.
In the discussion after the talk a question was raised about Michael Jones’ claim that Richard’s charge failed to reach Henry Tudor because he was surrounded by a contingent of European mercenaries equipped with long spears or pikes. However, Bob discounted this interpretation because Richard spent time on the continent and would have been aware of this development in warfare. He did not think the charge was the last gamble of a desperate man. In 1484 Richard had placed orders for 168 suits of Italian armour for his household, suggesting that his household numbered 2-300 men. The deployment and charge of such a large number of mounted men was not last minute but planned and deliberate and is unlikely to have been frustrated by soldiers armed in this way.
Readers can find out a bit more about Richard’s part in the funerary procession to commemorate his father, Richard of York, who was killed at the Battle of Sandal in an earlier lecture to the Medieval Section.
References:
Michael K. Jones (2002) Bosworth 1485: Psychology of a Battle Gloucestershire: Tempus Publishing
The most pleasant song of Lady Bessy : the eldest daughter of King Edward the Fourth, and how she married King Henry the Seventh of the House of Lancaster” (1829)
Coin of Richard III (kindly sent by Medieval Section member David Harpin)
I am very grateful to Medieval Section member David Harpin who has kindly sent a photo of a silver coin of Richard III. Earlier this week the Daily Telegraph ran a story by Sarah Knapton about the DNA sequencing of the last Plantagenet king’s remains. The development of genetic research and the sequencing of the entire genomes of individuals who lived in the past is revealing new information. Richard III will be one of a relatively small number of people from the past who have been studied in this way. The researchers led by Dr Turi King (University of Leicester) hope to be able to report what colour Richard’s eyes and hair were and whether he would have been susceptible to diseases such as diabetes and Alzheimer’s. The research may reveal evidence of infectious bacteria. It is already known that Richard suffered from roundworm.
In the issue (Wednesday 12th February) Harry Mount, author of How England made the English, was looking forward to finding out the results of the research, which he hoped would shed light on the DNA segments passed down the royal bloodline. He reiterated just how shaky was Henry VII’s claim to the throne in terms of his share of ‘royal’ blood. This line of research will no doubt develop over time but already there are other Medieval characters this could be applied to, such as Alfred, whose remains have been identified. So, as previously mentioned, the next few years are full of exciting potential for Medieval history and archaeology.
Members will remember I’m sure Bob Woosnam Savage’s lecture about the recent research on Richard’s remains. Bob being a consummate professional would not reveal what he knew but intimated to us that further exciting work was taking place. So you could say that you (almost) heard about it at the Yorkshire Archaeological Society Medieval Section lecture first!
Early Medieval battle reenactment. Image courtesy of Ian Uzzell and Vikingasaga
It is not so long ago that a Time Team reappraisal of the topography at Battle revealed a better candidate for the site of the battle of Hastings than the traditional (English Heritage) site. This should come as no surprise to members of the Medieval Section because a number of our lectures this last year have focused on Medieval battles (Fulford, Chester and Bosworth – the lecture summary for this should be available shortly) and in all of them the site of the battlefield has proved to be debatable or subject to revision in the light of new evidence.
I am grateful to Medieval section Treasurer, Jo Heron, for sending a link to an animated presentation of the Bayeux tapestry by PotionGraphics. Jo says she loves the sound effects and asks if it is worth putting on the website?
The tapestry is only partly animated but it really does bring it alive to see people swinging axes to chop down trees or to see the wheels revolving on a cart that’s being pulled along. The action scenes are well done with a compulsory beheading scene which isn’t too shocking and won’t give the children nightmares.
But don’t take my word for it. Watch it for yourselves and let me know what you think. I’ll post comments for other members of Medieval Section to read, gladly.
On the subject of medieval battles, if it is not obsessing on the topic, Medieval Section member Rita Wood has suggested running a medieval Battles in Yorkshire dayschool this autumn. May I take a quick straw poll to find out what the members think? If positive, do you have any suggestions for presentations and speakers?
Early Medieval battle reenactment. Image courtesy of Ian Uzzell and Vikingasaga
The purpose of this lecture summary is to share with members of the Medieval Section news of the discovery in Manchester Museum collection of an important group of human skeletons dating from the time of King Aethelfrith of Northumbria, early in the 7th century AD. They were excavated at Heronbridge, near Chester, in 1930-1 (Petch 1933). David Mason of Durham Archaeology has already made a good case for them being the remains of men who were killed at the Battle of Chester (c.AD 616), which is described in Bede’s Ecclesiastical History of the English People (Mason 2005). As the bodies are likely to have been buried on or very close to the battlefield, it seems likely that Heronbridge was the site of the battle. If this is the case, then this will be the earliest battlefield located in the UK, pre-dating Maldon by some 300 years. This summary is based in part on a paper submitted to the Society of Museum Archaeologists Newsletter in spring 2012 but adds new information about the injuries suffered by the men who lost their lives in the battle.
Bryan Sitch, who is Hon. Secretary of the Medieval section, was careful to explain the justification for attributing the remains in Manchester Museum to Bede’s battle of Chester. The story of the collection dates back to the early 1930s when the Chester Archaeology Society was excavating the site of Heronbridge, to the south of Chester. When the skeletons were found it was assumed they were of Roman date because significant quantities of Roman material were also discovered on the site. Dr Elwyn Davies, who wrote the bone report appended to the site report, suggested that the trauma were inflicted by Roman cavalry swords or spathae:
‘Nine crania show signs of injury. Long cuts traverse the vaults of the skulls and their clean –cut nature suggest they were inflicted with a sharp-edged instrument of long leverage… some form of long sword or the spatha… it is of interest to note that these cuts are mostly along the vaults of the skull, which suggest that they might possibly have been inflicted by cavalry. If these injuries were received during life, and there is every appearance that this is the case, the individuals met with a violent death.’ (Davies 1933: 47)
Skull from skeleton 3, Heronbridge
The 1933 report stated that the remains would be deposited at the Manchester Museum and a detailed report lodged with the university library. On the basis of this published statement a number of people had enquired at Manchester Museum and the university library but neither the bones, nor Davies’ detailed bone report, could be located. Nor was there any evidence on paper, such as old index cards, museum minutes, acquisitions lists or annual reports to show that they had ever entered the Manchester Museum collections. It was only a chance re-reading of the 1933 skeletal report that enabled Bryan, who is Curator of Archaeology at Manchester Museum, to identify the bones in the collection. In a table appended to Elwyn Davies’ bone report, the various skeletons were listed and biometric data given in a number of columns. The number of each skeleton provided a heading at the top of each column of data. However, Bryan noticed that half way across the table the numbering of the skeletons suddenly changed and a dual numbering system was adopted. The second number was a letter from the Greek alphabet.
Long bone with label alpha from Heronbridge
This turned out to be the key that solved the puzzle because during earlier surveys of the human remains collection Bryan had noticed a number of bones which had distinctive labels with Greek letters written on them. This suggested that the bones were from Heronbridge. This hypothesis was tested to see if the bones had the cuts and slices on them described by Elwyn Davies in his 1933 report. They did. Further confirmation was provided by the discovery of an impacted fracture on one of the skulls that was described in considerable detail by Davies in his report, and the fact that the dimensions of some of the bones matched those given in the published table of biometric data. There could be little doubt that the group of un-provenanced human bones did indeed come from Heronbridge, near Chester and had been excavated in the early 1930s.
One of the researchers who enquired about the Heronbridge bones was David Mason of Durham Archaeology. David directed the excavations on the Heronbridge site that were reported in Current Archaeology (Mason 2005: 517). Two male skeletons were lifted during this work and examined by palaeo-pathologist Malin Holst. The evidence of trauma, especially on the men’s skulls, as before, showed that they died under extremely violent circumstances (see Current Archaeology no.202, pp.520-521 for photographs of injuries to the skulls). The number of dead and the burial context, with the bodies laid out side-by-side in pits, suggested these were casualties that had been ‘tidied up’ following a significant engagement. The two skeletons lifted in 2004 were radiocarbon-dated with a 95% chance of probability of being within the range AD 430-640, or 59% probability within the range AD 530-620, and with 95% probability of being within the range AD 530-660, or 51% probability within range AD 595-645. These results are consistent with a calendar date in the early 7th century AD. As Manchester Museum’s skeletons were recovered from the same burial pits at Heronbridge, all things considered, they must also date from the same time and relate to the same historical event. However, this assumption needs to be tested by radiocarbon-dating.
Historically one contender for an engagement of this date, involving considerable numbers of combatants, would be the Battle of Chester which is described by Bede:
That very powerful king of the English Aethelfrith… collected a great army against Civitas Legionis which is called Legacaestr by the English and more correctly Caerlegion by the Britons, and made a great slaughter of that nation of heretics. When he was about to give battle and saw their priests, who had assembled to pray to God on behalf of the soldiers taking part in the fight, standing apart in a safer place, he asked who they were and for what purpose they had gathered there. Most of them were from the monastery of Bangor… After a three-days’ fast most of these had come to the battle in order to pray for the others. They had a guard named Brocmail whose duty it was to protect them from the swords of the barbarians while they were praying. When Aethelfrith heard why they had come he said “If they are praying to their God against us, they are fighting against us…” He therefore directed his first attack against them, and then destroyed the rest of the accursed army, not without heavy loss to his own forces. It is said that that of the monks who came to pray about 1200 perished in this battle and only 50 escaped by flight. Brocmail and his men took to their heels at the first assault leaving those whom they should have protected unarmed and exposed to the sword strokes of the enemy.
Bede Ecclesiastical History of the English People Book 2, chapter 2 (translated by Leo Sherley-Price for Penguin Classics)
In response to an article about the Heronbridge excavations that appeared in Current Archaeology, readers speculated whether the two skeletons lifted might be those of some of the monks who were slaughtered on the orders of Aethelfrith in Bede’s account of the battle (see above). It seems unlikely, however, that the remains are those of monks. In an article about the monastery of Bangor-is-y-coed, which supposedly provided a contingent of monks to supplement the ranks of the outnumbered British army, Prof. Nick Higham of the University of Manchester Department of Medieval History argued that the account should not be regarded as reliable (Higham 2001). Prof Higham argues that the presence of monks in this account owes more to Bede’s narrative purpose in writing ‘providential history’ than it does military realities on the battlefield.
Dr Robert Stoddart of University of Manchester
Even if they are not the remains of the monks, there seems to be good reason to believe that the remains are those of men killed during the Battle of Chester. Dr Robert Stoddart kindly examined the Heronbridge skeletons. Skeleton 3 had suffered large sword injuries, mostly from the front, extending half way back across the calvarium, as well as further sword injuries to the side of the head and through the forehead. In addition there are triangular holes in the skull deficit, that could possibly represent stabs from pointed weapons such as spearheads, which is likely to be the weapon used by most of the rank-and-file at this period.
Skeleton 5 is another example. This individual suffered a large sword-cut halfway down the left parietal bone. Indeed another similar sword-cut crosses the first at right angles and has penetrated through the bone. There is also a large, crushed, penetrating fracture down the frontal bone, originating in a blow from an edged weapon (probably an axe). There are numerous hairline fractures at many places in calvarium. The most severe of the injuries was a blow across the facial skeleton, leaving the edge of the left orbit. In addition to other injuries to the skull, there appear to be cuts behind and to the side of the left knee and a cut to the right knee.
Skull of skeleton 5 from Heronbridge
Skeleton Y (15) suffered even more extensive wounds including a deep, heavy sword or axe blow into the face, penetrating deeply and causing extensive fracturing and loss of internal bones of the skull. The injury appears to reach as far as the circle of Willis, as well as indirect damage to the brain stem and cerebellum. There must have been associated damage to the inferior parts of the frontal lobes and their blood supply. And of course we only know about these wounds because the bones have survived. We do not know about the soft tissue wounds because the flesh rotted away in the ground.Overall the trauma on the bones are similar to those recorded on the skeletons of six individuals excavated in an Anglo-Saxon cemetery at Eccles, Kent, who met a similarly violent death (Wenham 1989: 123).
Skull from skeleton Y (15) with reconstruction of blow to the face.
In some cases the pattern of fractures of the skull suggest that the individual was wearing a helmet, perhaps similar to that excavated, complete with a boar as a crest, at Benty Grange in Derbyshire by Thomas Bateman in 1848. Iron bans supported plates of horn. The Wollaston Helmet is another 7th-century Anglo-Saxon boar-crested helmet found by archaeologists at a quarry near Wellingborough in Northamptonshire (Marzinzik 2007: 41). Much closer to home is the Coppergate helmet dating from the later 8th century AD.The Sutton Hoo is another high status helmet and fairly close in date to the time of the battle of Heronbridge.
Hollywood may give the impression that an ancient battle was a display of fancy sword-work, a veritable fencing match between the protagonists, but the reality, so far as the Heronbridge bones are telling us, was brutally pragmatic: chop the opponent off at the knees, bring him down and slice and hack at the head to make sure he was dead before stepping over the body to fight the next man. These men didn’t take part in a fencing match but went through a meat mincer! It brings home the callous, almost industrial nature of killing on the battlefield at this period, and fills one with a deep sense of compassion for the men who experienced this level brutality, which is all the more poignant at this time of year, at the time of writing, on Remembrance Day.
We are left with a group of about a dozen incomplete skeletons, many bearing edged weapon trauma, all men and all aged between their late teens and middle age. No women or children are present. This is clearly a biased sample. The burial context, in pits, the dead aligned side-by-side, and the numbers involved, suggests this was a battle of some size, although the numbers of men may not have been very great, up to 5000 in each army perhaps? The fact they were treated respectfully suggests they were buried by the victors, who Bede tells us were the Northumbrians. The British dead presumably were left on the field of battle for wild animals to feast upon until the belated reinforcements arrived. David Mason interprets the 5.7 hectare oval enclosure with bank and ditch beside the River Dee at Heronbridge to the Northumbrian army.
Heronbridge looking south showing earthwork. Photograph courtesy of Erik Grigg
How did the material from Heronbridge enter the Manchester Museum collection? And why was it not recorded? The 1933 report states clearly that the human remains were deposited at the Museum but there is no mention of this acquisition in the Museum’s annual reports. However, we do know that in the late 1950s William Jones (‘Bill’) Varley (died 1976) deposited boxes of human remains at the Museum where they became the responsibility of the curator James Forde-Johnston. Varley is best known for the excavation of hill forts in the North West, the Midlands and Yorkshire (e.g. Varley 1936, 1948). Varley was a former student of H.J.Fleure (1877-1969), Professor of Geography at the University of Manchester, member of the Manchester Museum Committee, and author of numerous books and articles covering geography, archaeology, anthropology and anthropometrics (Garnett 1970). The Heronbridge excavation took place in 1930-1, i.e. about the time Fleure moved to Manchester from Aberystwyth. Both Varley and Fleure are acknowledged for supporting the excavation in the 1933 report, Varley and his wife in particular are credited with the recovery of the human remains (Davies 1933: 48). Davies, moreover, was a friend of Fleure. What we appear to have is evidence of a circle of people around Fleure who were all involved in the Heronbridge excavation and post-excavation work, and who might well have been encouraged to consider the Manchester Museum as an appropriate home for the material.
Prof H.J.Fleure
Given Fleure’s position on the Museum Committee and his keen academic interest in anthropology and anthropometrics, exemplified by his long-standing survey of the Welsh people, is it possible that Fleure asked for the Heronbridge remains to be sent to the Manchester Museum where he could study them further because he recognised their research significance? If so, he was to be disappointed because archive correspondence held by the Chester Archaeological Society shows that the Museum committee turned down the proposal to acquire the bones during the 1930s. Fleure retired in 1944. Varley must have transferred the human remains to the Museum before he left to teach in Africa in 1957. Former Keeper of Archaeology Prof. John Prag, remembers the Curator of Anthropology at Manchester, James Forde Johnston, telling him that Varley had not passed on records of the finds. Varley for his part may not have felt inclined to share what he knew about the bones, remembering that the Museum had turned down the chance to acquire them 15 years earlier! At present this seems to be the best explanation for how the Heronbridge bones entered the Manchester Museum collections and why it is, lacking supporting information, that they sat unrecognised on the shelves for some 60 years.
The re-discovery of the Heronbridge skeletons throws light on a fascinating period in early Medieval English history, the time of the so-called Dark Ages. Not only are they a historically and archaeologically significant group of material, they are arguably one of the earliest conflict assemblages that can be related to a historical source. In this they will be extremely useful for comparison with more recently excavated and more complete assemblages from the same site. Unfortunately, but perhaps not entirely unexpectedly, there are no associated finds with the skeletons. One would expect them to have been recycled on the battlefield or before burial. If comparable material was needed to complement the skeletons, one has only to think of the incredibly rich discoveries at Sutton Hoo in the 1930s, or the material found in the Staffordshire hoard, though of a somewhat later date. A selection of the remains was displayed in the Ancient Worlds galleries that opened at Manchester Museum last year. The Grosvenor Museum will show some of the remains in a temporary exhibition next year.
Acknowledgements
Thanks are due to Dr Robert Connelly of the University of Liverpool and Dr Robert Stoddart of the University of Manchester who both very kindly examined the Heronbridge remains; David Mason, Durham County Archaeologist, provided information about the more recent work at Heronbridge in advance of publication; Prof Nick Higham supplied a copy of his paper about the monastery of Bangor-is-y-coed and discussed the passage in Bede; Erik Grigg kindly provided photos of the site; and Adrian Havercoft shared his memories of Bill Varley.
Bibliography
Davies, E. (1933) ‘Appendix 1: report on the human remains’, Journal Chester Archaeological Society (New Series) 30 (1): 46-55
Garnett, Alice. ‘Herbert John Fleure. 1877-1969’, Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society, London: The Royal Society, 1970): 253-278.
Hawkes, S.C. (ed.) 1989. Weapons and Warfare in Anglo-Saxon England Oxford University Committee for Archaeology Monograph 21
Higham, N.J.(2001) “Bancornaburg: Bangor-is-y-coed Revisited”. In Archaeology of the Roman Empire A Tribute to the Life and Works of Professor Barri Jones, ed. Nicholas J. Higham, British Archaeological Journal International Series 940, 2001 311-318.
Marzinzik, S. (2007) The Sutton Hoo Helmet British Museum Press
Mason, D.J.P. (2005) ‘AD 616: the Battle of Chester’, Current Archaeology 202, 516-524.
Petch, J.A. et al. (1933) ‘Excavations at Heronbridge (1930-31)’. Journal of the Chester and North Wales Architectural Archaeological and Historic Society, New Series Volume 30, Part 1, 30, 5-45
Varley, W.J. (1936) ‘Recent investigations into the Origins of Cheshire Hill Forts’, Transactions of the Lancashire and Cheshire Antiquarian Society 51, 51-59.
Varley, W.J. (1948) ‘The Hill forts of the Welsh Marches’, Antiquaries Journal 105, 41-66.
Wenham, S.J. (1989) ‘Anatomical interpretations of Anglo-Saxon weapon injuries’. In Hawkes 1989: 123-139.
Fulford is arguably the battle that made the Norman Conquest possible, although it has largely been overshadowed by the battles of Stamford Bridge and Hastings. Over the last years a considerable amount of work has been done to try and identify the site of the battle. On Saturday 21st September Medieval Section members visited Fulford for a tour of what is very probably the site of the 1066 battle. Our guide, Chas Jones, is careful to point out that it is the evidence that points to Fulford as the site of the battle, not him, and English Heritage are unambiguous in saying that this is the likely location.
Scandinavian fleet (from Chas Jones The Forgotten Battle of 1066 Fulford)
The historical context for the battle is as follows. In the summer of 1065 the Northumbrians rebelled against the unpopular rule of Tostig. Having lost control of northern England Tostig appealed to his brother Harold Godwinson of England to reinstate him but when Harold refused, Tostig sought help from abroad. In September 1066 whilst Harold was waiting for the Normans to land on the south coast, Tostig and Harald Hadrada of Norway landed in East Yorkshire and sacked Scarborough. They sailed up the Humber with a large fleet, exploiting high tides to land at Riccall about 3.5 miles from Fulford. Tidal rises of between 7 and 11m have been recorded which would have helped the Scandinavians. In the Domesday Survey Tostig is recorded as the owner of the manor and 25(?) hides at Fouleforde, and so he must have been familiar with the phenomenon of high tides at this time of year. Earls Morcar and Edwin moved their forces to cover the likely invasion routes on the rivers Wharfe and Ouse. The Northumbrian army marched out from York to meet the invaders. Chas points out that all of the experts who have looked at the evidence (e.g. the English Heritage Battlefields Panel) say that Germany Beck is the’ probable/most likely place’ for the battle. A plaque in the playing field commemorates what an earlier generation of researchers thought to be the site, very close to where Chas and other reserachers also believe the battle took place.
Commemorative plaque for the battle of Fulford
Sources for the battle are sketchy at best but Chas has drawn on material from Scandinavian sagas and related it to the topography at Fulford. Though written down in the 13th century there are grounds to suppose that the composer was concerned to record historical information accurately.
Chas Jones
Having set out the historical context for the battle, Chas explained the topography at Fulford, which is crucial to understanding the battle. The glacial moraine on which the village now stands is key. It overlooks low-lying swampy ground and there are steep slopes on either side, so that the defending force would have its flanks protected. In addition the watercourse, Germany Beck, would have served as a moat, protecting the approach to York from the south along the moraine.
the slope down to the Germany Beck
Chas drew on the Icelandic Saga written by Snorri Sturluson after 1220 to give us an account of the battle. An excerpt appears in Joan Pickering and Irene Briddon’s A History of Fulford, a copy of which can be found in the Yorkshire Archaeological Society library at Claremont:-
Harold (Hadrada) began to array his men. One wing stood upon the river bank, and the other higher up, near ditch, which was deep and broad and full of water. The jarls (Jorvik men) let their arrays go down along the river and most of their men in line. The standard of Harald was near the river, there the ranks were thick, but they were thickest at the ditch, and least to be depended upon. Thither Morkere came down with his standard. The wing of the Northmen by the ditch retreated, and the English followed them, thinking they were going to flee, but when Harald saw that his men retired along the ditch, he ordered a war-blast to be blown and urged them on. He had the standard ‘Landwaster’ carried forward, and made so hard an attack that all were driven back. There was great slaughter in the Jarl’s host. Walthof (Morkere’s brother) had had his standard brought along the river, downward against the army of Harald, but when the king hardened the attack, the Jarl and his men fled along the river upward. Only those who followed him escaped, but so many had fallen that large streams of blood in many places flowed over the plain. When the Jarl had fled, Harald surround Morkere and the men who had advanced along the ditch with him. The English fell by hundreds. Many jumped into the ditch and the slain lay there so thick that the Norsemen walked across it with dry feet on human bodies. there Morkere perished.
What seems to have happened is that Tostig’s forces tried to cross the Germany Beck but were thrown back by Morcar and the Northumbrians. However, the Northumbrians were then taken in flank by Hadrada’s Scandinavians who, having pushed back Edwin’s men along the river bank, had been waiting for their moment in low-lying ‘dead’ ground close to the River Ouse. Perhaps the falling tide allowed them to cross the Germany Beck which had earlier proved too great an obstacle. A scene in the Fulford Tapestry sewn in the style of the Bayeux tapestry shows the battle. The Northumbrians fled along the Germany Beck to escape encirclement and Chas told us about archaeological work in the area immediately north of the battlefield which has revealed hearths and furnace bottoms where broken arms and armour were recycled. Chas showed us the centre of the battlefield on the moraine, the Germany Beck and the ‘dead’ ground near the river from which the Scandinavians attacked. Walking back to the village it was striking just how steep the edge of the moraine is.
edge of moraine
Over a number of years Chas has sampled various areas of the battlefield looking for evidence. He thinks he may well have this confirmatory evidence but unfortunately he couldn’t show us any military finds when we visited because the objects are in the York conservation lab. However, he did say that iron nails and furnace bottoms found along the supposed line of the Northumbrian retreat have excited considerable interest amongst Scandinavian archaeologists.
A short time after the battle King Harold arrived, having marched the length of England at great speed. He caught Hadrada, Tostig and part of their army by surprise at Stamford Bridge on 25th September. Orders were sent back to the fleet at Riccall for reinforcements but the Scandinavians suffered heavy casualties. It was said that only a small fraction of the original invasion fleet returned to Norway. Having learnt that William of Normandy had landed, Harold returned south. His men were tired after their epic march and not all of the reinforcements had arrived. At Hastings on 14th October Harold was killed with many of his closest supporters and William I became king of England.
Sadly the site of the battlefield is threatened by development – a housing estate and a road – surprisingly located on low-lying ground liable to flooding. Chas has challenged the development in the courts but the battlefield is still under threat. For trowelling opportunties in advance of development see http://www.medieval.yas.org.uk/bl0g/?p=218
One of the suggestions that came out of this our first meeting of the new Medieval Section programme for 2013-14 was that we hold a dayschool looking at Yorkshire and Yorkshire related Medieval battlefield archaeology. Chas’ talk at Fulford certainly gets us off to a good start if this is something members would seriously like the Committee to explore. Any thoughts?
Facial reconstruction of Richard III on display at the Yorkshire Museum
Members of the Medieval Section may be interested to know that there is a small display about Richard III at the Yorkshire Museum. I stumbled across it at the weekend whilst showing some international curators some of the York’s cultural heritage on Saturday. It is more of an ‘installation’ in the Yorkshire Museum’s existing Medieval gallery and it is fairly modest: the facial reconstruction of Richard III made by Caroline Wilkinson of the University of Dundee for the recent documentary, supported by four text panels and a number of exhibits from the Yorkshire Museum’s stunning collection of treasure items from the period, star exhibits such as the Middleham jewel, the Middleham ring and a boar badge worn by those of Richard’s household and affiliation.
Livery badge in the shape of a boar
The exhibition is open until 13th October and then moves on to Northampton Museum and Art Gallery, the British Museum and Gloucester Museum and Art Gallery. After touring, the facial reconstruction will return to Leicester for permanent display in the new King Richard III visitor centre.The tour was organised by Leicester Arts and Museums Service and the model has been kindly loaned for display by the Richard III Society.The tour is supported by the University of Leicester, the University of Dundee and Darlow Smithson Productions.
The sign outside the Yorkshire Museum generated expectations in me that were not actually met. This is clearly quite a modest affair though it does create a new focus for beautiful objects in the museum’s collection. With the discovery of the king’s remains in a Leicester car park, has the time come for a major block-buster re-evalutation of the last Plantagenet king’s brief but controversial reign? Should the section hold a dayschool on Richard III incorporating lectures on the recent excavation, a reappraisal of the battle of Bosworth, the Medieval landscape at Middleham and contributions by authoritative historians? As we are shortly going to meet at Fulford battlefield perhaps we should run a dayschool on battlefield archaeology?
Medieval Section of the Yorkshire Archaeological and Historical Society 