DigSchool.org.uk I Engaging cross-curricular learning-enrichment workshops themed around archaeology

Workshop 1:History CSIPart 1Solving the mystery of an ancient death

Who was this person?

When did they die?

How did they die?

Why did they die?

Who was to blame?

Today’s aim:

Analyse the EVIDENCE to discover

Compare the normal

skull and the

excavated one

Can you see any

damage on the

excavated skull?

Do you think any

damage results from

deliberate injuries?

Is there evidence to

suspect a crime might

have been committed?Human skullSkull from our

excavation

Human skullSkull from our

excavation

So – what did you see?

Human skullSkull from our

excavationFrom above

and behind

So – you are looking at a violent injury by someone pretty handy with

a sword…

When? Why? Who to? Who by…?

To answer these questions, you need to examine the evidence

How was the body found?

Time Team series 6, episode 11 – Bawseyhttps://www.channel4.com/programmes/time-team/on-demand/25721-011

What sort of place was the

body buried in?

In a Christian cemetery, with all graves orientated east-west, on

their backs with heads to the west

© Norfolk Historic Environment Service

A cemetery near a church and settlement, all enclosed by a large ditch

with Anglo-Saxon finds indicating wealth and learning

– most probably a Christian monastery

Location of skeleton

© V Ambrus

Thetford ware

pottery - made

between c. 850 –

1100 AD

But it didn’t stay like that - the Anglo-Saxon monastic cemetery

was overlain by a house and oven, by 1100AD at the latest

The site was entirely abandoned by about 1400AD…

What was the person like

when alive?

Visual inspection showed

very heavy brow ridges,

suggesting it was a male…

Sheelaghlewins.com

But DNA analysis threw

up a surprise

In mammals, two copies of

the x chromosome

indicates a female. That’s

what this skeleton had

They were aged 30-40 about 5’5”

tall, heavily built, very resilient

(nearly survived…) and Christian

What injuries had they

sustained?

Meles Meles

Elsewhere on

the skeleton…

© V Ambrus

Analysis also showed another

skeleton, of a young to middle-aged

adult male, had sword injuries

sword:

• Two severe chops to the front of

the skull and across the back

• A glancing blow to the side of the

left chin, which removed the

lower part of the mandible;

• One on the right shoulder blade;

• Two on the right-side ribs;

• One on the rear of the right tibia

When did the person die?

Thetford ware

pottery - made

between c. 850

– 1100 AD

Finds from the site dated to between 600 – 1000AD, and showed

the cemetery went out of use between 850 and 1100AD

Radiocarbon date:

The woman was

radiocarbon dated to

between 760-880AD.

The second injured

skeleton’s dates centre

around 686-827AD.

If they died at the same

time, it’s likely to be

between 760 and 827 AD

What’s going on in England then?

789-887 – Viking attacks on England

Once cleaned, examination showed the large

section of the skull had been deliberately

removed in a surgical attempt to save life

Bone regrowth after successful

medieval trephination from

Wharram Percy (© Historic

England)

She didn’t die immediately… …but about a week later

© V Ambrus

What was the cause of

death?

© V Ambrus

© V Ambrus

© V Ambrus

So - that’s the evidence…

…what’s the story?

Analyse the evidence to

reconstruct what happened

REMEMBER:

Ideas are different from FACTS.

FACTS won’t be wrong, but

IDEAS (your thoughts about what

the facts are telling you) may be

– they are informed guesses.

You can’t change facts, but you

can change your ideas.

It’s always really important to

remember which bits of an

argument are based on facts and

which on ideas!

End of Part 1

Advice:

Think BEYOND the immediate facts to what your wider knowledge might enable

you to infer from that evidence:

(a)Think about how badgers behave - What sort of places do they like to inhabit?

Do they come out at night or during the day? Are they timid or aggressive?

Why would one bite a human?

(b)Think about how the person was hit - Where would the attacker have to be to

hit them from above? What’s significant about the victim being hit from behind?

How much skill would be needed to get three blows so close together?

(c)Think about how difficult the surgical operation would have been - What sort of

people might have known how to do it at that time? Where would they do the

operation? Why would they have bothered when the injury was so severe?

(d) Think about what was happening in England at the time – Can this attack be

linked to any known historical events?

Workshop 1:History CSIPart 2Solving the mystery of an ancient death

So - what answers did you get?

Question What I think What the evidence? How confident am I aboutthis

1. In what historical period did the person die?

Question What I think What the evidence? How confident am I aboutthis

1. In what historical period did the person die?

In the 700s or 800s AD - that’s the middle Anglo-Saxon period. It’s also when there was a lot of Viking raiding, so in a way it’s the Viking period as well.

Radiocarbon date 9/10 – this scientifictechnique is very accurate, although not always very precise – so it’s won’t give an exact year

What do YOU think?

Have I missed anything you suggested?

Do you disagree with any of my suggestions? Why?

Question What I think What the evidence? How confident am I aboutthis

2. Where were they when they were attacked?

Question What I think What the evidence? How confident am I aboutthis

2. Where were they when they were attacked?

They were outside the monastery, probably in woodland.

The badger bite –badgers don’t live in monasteries and they usually prefer woodland. It wouldn’t have travelled very far to find her.

6/10 – it’s a guess, but badger behaviour is well-known, so the suggestion is worth making. But she could have been attacked somewhere else and then dumped in woodland.

What do YOU think?

Have I missed anything you suggested?

Do you disagree with any of my suggestions? Why?

Question What I think What the evidence? How confident am I aboutthis

3. Why was the person attacked?

Question What I think What the evidence? How confident am I aboutthis

3. Why was the person attacked?

It could just have been because she was female. But I think it’s because she was associated with the wealthy monastery, and killed as part of an attack on that. Maybe for both reasons

She was buried in the monasterywhich suggests she was connected to it, plus she had complex medical treatment, which suggests she was important.

6/10 – there’s no direct evidence, just circumstantial (indirect) evidence.

What do YOU think?

Have I missed anything you suggested?

Do you disagree with any of my suggestions? Why?

Question What I think What the evidence? How confident am I about this

4. What happenedduring the attack?

Question What I think What the evidence? How confident am I about this

4. What happenedduring the attack?

The victim was being chased through woodland by someone on horseback, whenshe was felled by a sword wound to the leg. She was then struck repeatedly with the sword on the head. She was probably robbed and might have had her clothes removed. She was then left for dead.

The skull shows three head wounds from behind and above. The height suggest the attacker was on horseback. The leg wound and the removal of clothing is issuggested by the badger bite – blood would have attracted it to possible food but clothing would have got in its way. A motive for removing her clothing would be look for valuables attackers hoped she had with her.

6/10 – The skull wounds are really strong evidence, but the other details are based on supposition and on naturalists’ knowledge about badger behaviour. – they are omnivorous and will eat carrion

What do YOU think?

Question What I think What the evidence? How confident am I about this

5. What happened after the attack?

What do YOU think?

Question What I think What the evidence? How confident am I about this

5. What happened after the attack?

She lay alone and unconscious in woodland for at least part of a night, but was found while alive and taken to the monastery for surgery to try an save her life. She died a few days later and was buried respectfully in a Christian cemetery.

Badgers are timid and nocturnal. Movement or someone with the victim would frighten the badger away. Documents tell us the monastery would have been the only place with skills to attempt the surgery, The skull shows the procedure, and how long she lived for. The excavation showed she was buried in a Christian manner with others buried the same way

9.5/10 – The evidence from the skull is definite, and naturalists again tell us about badgers. The badger bite must have happened before the operation because she was looked after very carefully after that, right up to burial which was in a proper grave where a badger couldn’t have got at her.

What do YOU think?

Question What I think What the evidence? How confident am I about this

6. What can we say about the attacker(s)?

What do YOU think?

Question What I think What the evidence? How confident am I about this

6. What can we say about the attacker(s)?

I think they were Viking raiders -professionalfighters skilledwith swords, including from horseback whose first motive was plundering the monastery and the people in it for valuables.

The date, the skill of the attack (and its brutality) and the connection with the monastery.

5/10 – there’s no direct evidence, but documents tell us there were lots of Viking attacks on monasteries at this time so they seem the most likely culprit. The wounds are definitely from a skilled swordsman not a causal robber – but Anglo-Saxons were also handy with swords…

What do YOU think?

© V Ambrus

So - do you think the Viking raider is guilty or not?

Summarise your arguments in pages 3 and 4 of your workbook

Developing an argument:

Viking raider guilty

Refuting an argument:

Viking raider not guilty

© V Ambrus

Counting all the jury votes from your group, was the Viking

raider convicted or acquitted?

Between you all, what was the most important evidence?

END