Bosworth Marsh Archaeology

All the talk about war horses and White Surrey made me wonder whether, in the newest search for the battle site at Bosworth, if researchers believe they've located the marsh, have they tried to find Surrey's bones. They've found a boar pin near the marsh, and that spray of cannon fire and seemed to think it proof of location, but one might think finding Surrey's remains could help locate not only the field but where the King died, as well.

Or did the scavengers perhaps cut up and carry off the carcass for meat, so it wouldn't have stayed there? Or would such a heavy animal have sunk, as in a bog? I suppose he'd only be there still if he had sunk so deeply no one would have tossed the bones away over the next hundreds of years.

Long ago, I read The Bog People, by P.V. Globb (sp? an unfortunate name, in any case, when combined with the title). While much more has been written since, this was my introduction to the way certain marshland can actually preserve whatever gets sucked down, depending on the pH, chemical content, etc., of the swamp water. In the case of the bodies found in, I believe, Denmark, the state of preservation was so remarkable, even brows and lashes seemed intact. The marsh had "tanned" everything - flesh, clothing, hair; these human remains were easily 800-1000 years old, and appeared to have been ritually killed through strangulation, though whether as punishment for crimes or as a sacrifice to the gods, we'll never really know.

If only Fen Hole had the right sort of chemistry....

Judy
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2013 11:30 AM
Subject: Bosworth Marsh Archaeology


 
All the talk about war horses and White Surrey made me wonder whether, in the newest search for the battle site at Bosworth, if researchers believe they've located the marsh, have they tried to find Surrey's bones. They've found a boar pin near the marsh, and that spray of cannon fire and seemed to think it proof of location, but one might think finding Surrey's remains could help locate not only the field but where the King died, as well.

Or did the scavengers perhaps cut up and carry off the carcass for meat, so it wouldn't have stayed there? Or would such a heavy animal have sunk, as in a bog? I suppose he'd only be there still if he had sunk so deeply no one would have tossed the bones away over the next hundreds of years.

If there ever was a White Surrey which I doubt,
Paul

On 12 Jan 2013, at 17:30, wednesday_mc wrote:

> All the talk about war horses and White Surrey made me wonder whether, in the newest search for the battle site at Bosworth, if researchers believe they've located the marsh, have they tried to find Surrey's bones. They've found a boar pin near the marsh, and that spray of cannon fire and seemed to think it proof of location, but one might think finding Surrey's remains could help locate not only the field but where the King died, as well.
>
> Or did the scavengers perhaps cut up and carry off the carcass for meat, so it wouldn't have stayed there? Or would such a heavy animal have sunk, as in a bog? I suppose he'd only be there still if he had sunk so deeply no one would have tossed the bones away over the next hundreds of years.
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!