Does this skull
belong to a soldier of the Battle of Hastings? 1,000-year-old remains found
near famous battlefield reveal man was hacked six times in the head from behind
By Sarah Griffiths
Published: 08:38
EST, 22 May 2014 | Updated: 11:15 EST, 22 May 2014
The famous battle took place nearly 1,000 years ago, but the badly scarred
skull of a man could be the first-ever recorded victim of the Battle of
Hastings.
 |
| Battle scarred: The badly damaged skull of a man (pictured) could be the first-ever recorded victim of the Battle of Hastings. Experts have revealed that it belongs to a 45-year-old man |
Experts have
revealed that it belongs to a 45-year-old man who was hacked six times with a
sword to the back of his head – and could provide first-hand evidence of the
brutal battle of 1066.
No bones have
previously been discovered of anyone who fought and died during the historic
event.
The skull forms
part of a skeleton that was first dug up in 1994 during excavations in Lewes,
East Sussex - around 20 miles from the famous battlefield. |
| The skeleton, which bears the marks of battle, was found in Lewes, around 20 miles from the famous battlefield, thought to be located in Battle, East Sussex |
Bones were originally sent to experts at the University of York as part of preparations to celebrate the 750th anniversary of the Battle of Lewes.
But radiocarbon
testing of the remains at the University of Edinburgh dated them to 28 years
either side of 1063.
Scientists
believe the man was therefore likely to have been involved in fighting at the
time of the Norman invasion and the Battle of Hastings.
Based upon the
way he was buried, they think he was probably British.
Osteoarchaeologist
Malin Holst from the University of York said: ‘The first injury was probably a
cut to the right side of the ear and upper jaw.
‘This was then
followed by a series of sword cuts, all delivered from the left hand side
behind the victim, in a downward and horizontal motion.’
 |
| Tim Sutherland, a battlefield expert from the University of York, said: 'The skeleton is apparently unique in that it appears to be the only individual ever recorded which could be related to the Norman invasion. A remarkable new story could be unfolding.' Sword marks are easily visible on the skull (pictured) |
This skeleton
was found on the site of a former medieval hospital.
 |
| No bones have previously been discovered of anyone who fought and died during the historic event, so the remains of the 45-year-old (pictured) thought to have died in battle, are a first |
Edwina Livesey
from the Sussex Archaeological Society described the find as ‘shocking’.
‘When I heard
the news I was completely gobsmacked. It begins to paint a picture of what
might have happened in the aftermath.
‘They haven’t
found any grave pits of the Normans. The ground is very acidic so the bones may
not have survived.’
Ms Holst said
that from bone analysis they could tell that the man ate a diet rich in marine
fish and was at least 45 years old.
‘He had some
spinal abnormalities and suffered from chronic infection of the sinuses.
‘He showed
age-related wear and tear of the joints of his spine, shoulders and left wrist,
which might have been uncomfortable.
‘He had lost a
few teeth during life, possibly as a result of receding gums. He had two small
tumours on his skull.’
Although he was
violently killed, the man had sustained some other kind of head injury up to
two years before his death.
She said: ‘He
had sustained an injury to the left temple which caused a blood clot to form.
It was well-healed at the time of his death.’
English
Heritage said: ‘This is a fascinating discovery and a potentially very
interesting piece of evidence from the second half of the 11th century. It
certainly demonstrates the violence of the period.
‘It would be a
reasonable hypothesis that this individual could have some links to the Norman
Conquest, but further research is essential in understanding the potential
significance of this skeleton.’
HAROLD'S LAST
STAND WAS ON THE A2100, NOT AT BATTLE ABBEY, EXPERTS CLAIM
In late 2013,
experts claimed that King Harold died with an arrow in his eye not at the site
of Battle Abbey (which has a dedicated vistor's centre - but on a spot that is
now a roundabout on the A2100.
Archaeologists
from Channel 4's Time team excavated grounds around the Abbey and the other
site proposed by historian John Grehan.
They found no
evidence that either place was where the army of William the Conqueror
triumphed over the forces of Harold, the English King.
Using aerial
laser imaging, Time Team then mapped the terrain - on the basis of which a
group of experts agreed that the most likely location for the battle was a
roundabout joining Upper and Lower Lake in the town of Battle.
Time Team said
the mapping had ‘proved’ that the traditional battlefield - on the land
directly below the Abbey - would have been too boggy for William’s cavalry.
‘Military
analysts studied the data to see where Harold, a skilled commander, would most
probably have mounted his defence,’ explained a Channel 4 spokesman.‘They identified the only ideal battlefield. It seems Harold’s fearsome Saxon shield wall straddled a narrow strategic pass that is on today’s A2100.’
 |
| A new battle: In late 2013, experts claimed that King Harold died with an arrow in his eye not at the site of Battle Abbey (which has a dedicated vistor's centre - but on a spot that is now a roundabout on the A2100 |
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2636252/Does-skull-belong-victim-Battle-Hastings-1-000-year-old-remains-near-battlefield-reveal-man-hacked-six-times-sword.html#ixzz32TbkGIky
