My goodness. That scar doesn't look too different from the one left on my husband since his brain surgery in January! My husband's scar starts higher on his head, but it's the same angle, length and depth, etc.
Posted on 05/26/2011 5:30:06 PM PDT by afraidfortherepublic
My goodness. That scar doesn't look too different from the one left on my husband since his brain surgery in January! My husband's scar starts higher on his head, but it's the same angle, length and depth, etc.
Except that there was a female figure in Scottish history about that time who was reputed to have mounted a vigorous defense of the castle in her husband’s absence.
That would be interesting, maybe they will find some more evidence. All the speculation and attribution bothers me, especially when its in the headline I guess.
Yikes. Although, in this case, I suspect the perps weren’t trying to *help* this man in his pursuit of ongoing health.
Knight's skeleton tentatively identified as Robert Morely who died in a battle around 1390.
The male skeleton was 5’7”...
Now you have a catchy poem you can add to your home page! (end of article)
Skeleton reveals violent life and death of medieval knight
A 620-year-old skeleton discovered under the floor of Stirling Castle has shed new light on the violent life of a medieval knight.
By Auslan Cramb, Scottish Correspondent 4:41PM BST 29 Jun 2009
Archaeologists believe that bones found in an ancient chapel on the site are those of an English knight named Robert Morley who died in a tournament there in 1388.
Radio carbon dating has confirmed that the skeleton is from that period, and detailed analysis suggests that he was in his mid-20s, was heavily muscled and had suffered several serious wounds in earlier contests.
He appears to have survived for some time with a large arrowhead lodged in his chest, while the re-growth of bone around a dent in the front of his skull indicates that he had also recovered from a severe blow from an axe.
He eventually died when he was struck by a sword that sliced through his nose and jaw. His reconstructed skull also indicates that he was lying on the ground when the fatal blow was delivered.
The knight was laid to rest under the stone-flagged floor of a chapel near the castle’s royal apartments and his skeleton was excavated along with 11 others in 1997.
However, it was only recently re-examined following advances in laser scanning techniques that not only revealed the nature of the three wounds, but also showed that the knight had lost teeth, probably from another blow or from falling from his horse.
Gordon Ewart, of Kirkdale Archaeology, which carried out the excavation for Historic Scotland, said: “This is a remarkable and important set of discoveries.
“At first we had thought the arrow wound had been fatal but it now seems he had survived it and may have had his chest bound up.”
Mr Ewart said that Morley was by far the most likely candidate. His skeleton also shows the effects of riding on the ankles and muscle injuries caused by lifting heavy loads.
His sturdy upper body and upper right arm are consistent with wielding heavy swords, and his injuries suggest a hard life of hunting, jousting and foot tournaments.
Richard Strachan, Historic Scotland’s senior archaeologist, added: “Radio carbon dating is not an exact science, but the date we came up with for this skeleton was 1390. That’s only two years difference and quite possible.
“We have been able to look at this skeleton with the benefit of new technology and techniques we didn’t have available in 1997. The key may be the teeth analysis. This will hopefully tell us exactly where this person was born and brought up.
“It’s to do with oxygen isotopes and shows the water you drink as a child, which creates a sort of ‘fingerprint’ on the teeth and never changes. This analysis will also hopefully give us some dietary information
“We believe he was aged between 18 and 26 when he died. He was about 5ft 7in tall and was well built, but he clearly had a hard life. These were troubled times.”
|
· join list or digest · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post a topic · subscribe · |
|||
Antiquity Journal & archive Archaeologica Archaeology Archaeology Channel BAR Bronze Age Forum Discover Dogpile Eurekalert LiveScience Mirabilis.ca Nat Geographic PhysOrg Science Daily Science News Texas AM Yahoo Excerpt, or Link only? |
|
||
|
· Science topic · science keyword · Books/Literature topic · pages keyword · |
|||
This is a really silly story.
There is absolutely no evidence this woman was fighting in combat.
She was killed by a military weapon. How do the authors think women died when cities were sacked and the inhabitants killed? The soldiers used the weapons they had with them. As Eowyn said in LOTR, “Those who have no swords can still die on them.”
For a woman to engage in hand to hand combat effectively would have been FAR more difficult than for a woman to engage in today’s military combat. It would have been the rough equivalent of putting a woman into the NFL line. She wouldn’t have lasted very long.
The “female war leader” referenced did not engage in actual combat. She walked the walls of a fortress under siege to keep her fighters’ spirits up. Very brave and all, but I suspect she would have been the first to agree that it was very different from leading a heavy cavalry charge or standing in a battle line. It took great courage, but not the physical strength and stamina required by combat.
The average height for men in England circa 1300 was about 5’4”. Scottish folk are generally taller, so the men could have been 5’8” (they ate a lot of mutton).
the other one:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2725708/posts
“The average height for men in England circa 1300 was about 5’4”. Scottish folk are generally taller, so the men could have been 5’8” (they ate a lot of mutton).”
My girlfriend’s 15 year old son had a sports physical today. He measured in at 6’6.
I know! My nephew is over 6 foot tall, but his dad is 6’6”, and both grandfathers were 6’5”.
Men do not stop growing until their 25-years old, so my nephew may pick up some more height before he stops growing.
I know! My nephew is over 6 foot tall, but his dad is 6’6”, and both grandfathers were 6’5”.
Men do not stop growing until they’re 25-years old, so my nephew may pick up some more height before he stops growing.
Sort of like Patton, Eisenhower, Washington, and any other contemporary General, methinks! You are grasping at straws. What good would it do to have your men dying on the front lines but leave the gates of the castle open?
Cetainly an interesting find and interesting story. But I think there is no firm evidence to connect the body with the personage.
The article claimed she was a physical fighter. The difference is between fighting and directing the fighters.
And, BTW, the war leaders of the day generally fought personally in the front lines. They had to, if they were to keep the respect and allegiance of their notoriously insubordinate noblemen.
There is no reason why a woman could not be just as effective as a general in today’s world as a man. At the level of Force Recon Marines, the rough equivalent of a medieval warrior in physical strength and toughness required, very few females can hang.
To take my analogy of the NFL a bit farther, there is no physical reason a woman can’t be a winning head coach. Nobody in their right mind (including a female coach) would put a woman in the line (or anywhere else on the field, for that matter).
And Patton, Eisenhower, Washington and most other contemporary generals made their way to that eminence during a career where they were in the thick of combat multiple times. Except Ike, who was never really in combat.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
