BBC article: Face of Stirling Castle warrior reconstructed

[Peter A. Kincaid]

Interesting article on BBC news yesterday:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/tayside_and_central/8687199.stm

Any guesses on who this could be? That he was
in a lost royal chapel suggests a prominent person.
They date it to the 13th or 14th century.

I think a good candidate would be a former Keeper.
I'm thinking someone like Sir Robert de Erskine
as a good candidate. There is no mention of coat of
arms which one would think would identify the person
if he were noble.

Peter

[Renia]

Post by Peter A. Kincaid
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/tayside_and_central/8687199.stm
Any guesses on who this could be? That he was in a lost royal chapel
suggests a prominent person. They date it to the 13th or 14th century.
I think a good candidate would be a former Keeper. I'm thinking someone
like Sir Robert de Erskine as a good candidate. There is no mention of
coat of arms which one would think would identify the person if he were
noble.

There's going to be a prog on British TeeVee very soon, when they are
going to examine his DNA as well, apparently.

[Cherryexile]

It is a really interesting programme for anyone, even vaguely
interested in the medieval period and with knights and medieval
warfare in particular.

They come up with a possible name (not sure whether to give it away,
so I won't) and the programme can be viewed using BBC's iplayer
service,

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00shjc8/History_Cold_Case_Stirling_Man/

In my opinion, well worth an hour of your time.

[Renia]

Post by Cherryexile
It is a really interesting programme for anyone, even vaguely
interested in the medieval period and with knights and medieval
warfare in particular.
They come up with a possible name (not sure whether to give it away,
so I won't) and the programme can be viewed using BBC's iplayer
service,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00shjc8/History_Cold_Case_Stirling_Man/
In my opinion, well worth an hour of your time.

Can't watch the programme from abroad and I can't wait the 800 years
till it finally turns up on the History Channel.

So tell all. Whose name do they give?

[Merilyn Pedrick]

I've got the same problem from Oz too - blocked from seeing it. So yes, who
the hell was he?

Merilyn



-------Original Message-------



From: Renia

Date: 22/05/2010 11:00:14 AM

To: gen-***@rootsweb.com

Subject: Re: BBC article: Face of Stirling Castle warrior reconstructed

Post by Cherryexile
It is a really interesting programme for anyone, even vaguely
interested in the medieval period and with knights and medieval
warfare in particular.
They come up with a possible name (not sure whether to give it away,
so I won't) and the programme can be viewed using BBC's iplayer
service,
http://www.bbc.co

uk/iplayer/episode/b00shjc8/History_Cold_Case_Stirling_Man/

Post by Cherryexile
In my opinion, well worth an hour of your time.

Can't watch the programme from abroad and I can't wait the 800 years

Till it finally turns up on the History Channel.



So tell all. Whose name do they give?



-------------------------------

To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message

.

[CE Wood]

Great! Message says:

"Currently BBC iPlayer TV programmes are available to play in the UK
only"

Cheeky of you blokes. Did you REALLY find out or is this just a
tease?


CE Wood

Post by Renia

Post by Cherryexile
It is a really interesting programme for anyone, even vaguely
interested in the medieval period and with knights and medieval
warfare in particular.
They come up with a possible name (not sure whether to give it away,
so I won't) and the programme can be viewed using BBC's iplayer
service,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00shjc8/History_Cold_Case_Stirl...
In my opinion, well worth an hour of your time.

Can't watch the programme from abroad and I can't wait the 800 years
till it finally turns up on the History Channel.
So tell all. Whose name do they give?

[Cherryexile]

Post by CE Wood
"Currently BBC iPlayer TV programmes are available to play in the UK
only"

Sorry, I didn't realise.

I won't go through the whole programme in detail, but I wil try and
summarise the evidence.

Stirling Castle is traditionally seen as a Royal seat of Scottish
power, but during the 14th Century the English held it many times as
the two sides fought the wars of Scottish independence. As such the
boby could have been Scottish, French (supporters of Scotland), or
English. Carbon 14 Dating showed him to have died between 1290 and
1400. Analysis of Isotopes in his teeth showed he grew up in Southern
England (Sussex), or possibly Northern France. Further Isotope
analysis of his food showed his diet was 30% sea fish, which
corresponded with a man of arms, as armies took a lot of smoked fish
with them as they travelled (amongst other things). Analysis of the
skeleton showed he was very muscular, but had a much bigger top-half
and right-hand side; consistent with a man who had spent many years
(from a time before his bones had fully developed, both on horseback
and wielding swords, axes and lances. Injuries that had heald, but
altered his skeleton, were consistent with falls from a horse, being
smacked in face with a lance, being struck by a sword or axe on his
head and spinal wear from excessive riding. There was also a barbed
arrow-head in the skeleton, which was probably the cause of death.
Finally, it was rare to be buried inside Stirling Castle, so that
pointed to him being of high status. Fairly compeling evidence of him
being a military person, likely of knightly rank.

They explored the French connection, but the French supporting troops
landed near Edinburgh and moved south, so there is no record of a
Frenchman at Stirling for the period.

However, In the National Archives there is an account of Stirling
Castle while it was held by the English, which includes a list of
individuals at the castle.

In the record for 1340-1 the third name on the list is followed by
both 'Miles' and 'obit' and it shows that Sir John de Strickley he
died in Stirling Castle, on the 10th October 1341. They go on to say
that further research suggests that the family has died out.

The Scots recaptured Stirling in 1342.

So, although there is no proof of who was buried in the Castle, there
is strong circumstantial evidence that this is the identity of the
skeleton (give or take whatever else could have happened 50 years
either side of his death).

[Renia]

Post by Cherryexile

Post by CE Wood
"Currently BBC iPlayer TV programmes are available to play in the UK
only"

Sorry, I didn't realise.
I won't go through the whole programme in detail, but I wil try and
summarise the evidence.
Stirling Castle is traditionally seen as a Royal seat of Scottish
power, but during the 14th Century the English held it many times as
the two sides fought the wars of Scottish independence. As such the
boby could have been Scottish, French (supporters of Scotland), or
English. Carbon 14 Dating showed him to have died between 1290 and
1400. Analysis of Isotopes in his teeth showed he grew up in Southern
England (Sussex), or possibly Northern France. Further Isotope
analysis of his food showed his diet was 30% sea fish, which
corresponded with a man of arms, as armies took a lot of smoked fish
with them as they travelled (amongst other things). Analysis of the
skeleton showed he was very muscular, but had a much bigger top-half
and right-hand side; consistent with a man who had spent many years
(from a time before his bones had fully developed, both on horseback
and wielding swords, axes and lances. Injuries that had heald, but
altered his skeleton, were consistent with falls from a horse, being
smacked in face with a lance, being struck by a sword or axe on his
head and spinal wear from excessive riding. There was also a barbed
arrow-head in the skeleton, which was probably the cause of death.
Finally, it was rare to be buried inside Stirling Castle, so that
pointed to him being of high status. Fairly compeling evidence of him
being a military person, likely of knightly rank.
They explored the French connection, but the French supporting troops
landed near Edinburgh and moved south, so there is no record of a
Frenchman at Stirling for the period.
However, In the National Archives there is an account of Stirling
Castle while it was held by the English, which includes a list of
individuals at the castle.
In the record for 1340-1 the third name on the list is followed by
both 'Miles' and 'obit' and it shows that Sir John de Strickley he
died in Stirling Castle, on the 10th October 1341. They go on to say
that further research suggests that the family has died out.
The Scots recaptured Stirling in 1342.
So, although there is no proof of who was buried in the Castle, there
is strong circumstantial evidence that this is the identity of the
skeleton (give or take whatever else could have happened 50 years
either side of his death).

Interesting! Thank you.

[Renia]

Post by CE Wood
"Currently BBC iPlayer TV programmes are available to play in the UK
only"
Cheeky of you blokes. Did you REALLY find out or is this just a
tease?

What do you mean?

Post by CE Wood
CE Wood

Post by Renia

Post by Cherryexile
It is a really interesting programme for anyone, even vaguely
interested in the medieval period and with knights and medieval
warfare in particular.
They come up with a possible name (not sure whether to give it away,
so I won't) and the programme can be viewed using BBC's iplayer
service,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00shjc8/History_Cold_Case_Stirl...
In my opinion, well worth an hour of your time.

Can't watch the programme from abroad and I can't wait the 800 years
till it finally turns up on the History Channel.
So tell all. Whose name do they give?

[Peter A. Kincaid]

They just pulled a name out of the hat more or less. Over
a hundred year period, lots of people could have come and
gone with no 'surviving' record to pull an obit from. It is also
convenient to pick someone whose family died out.

A key point not addressed is why the person was buried in
the royal chapel! I'm sorry but I can't see how this Sir John
de Strickley would have the honour over the hundreds of
other knights who would have lived and died in this period.

If they were going to pull names out of the hat why not
Sir William Francis who helped recapture Edinburgh castle
from the English. He is also referred to as "le Frank" suggesting
nativity from northern France. His family was prominent
(keepers of royal castles) and he would have been somewhat of
a hero given the story of his initiative in recapturing Edinburgh
castle from the English.

They should try DNA testing on the fellows teeth.

Peter

----- Original Message -----

From: Cherryexile <>
Subject: Re: BBC article: Face of Stirling Castle warrior reconstructed
Date: Sat, 22 May 2010 04:22:27 -0700 (PDT)
[snip]
In the record for 1340-1 the third name on the list is followed by
both 'Miles' and 'obit' and it shows that Sir John de Strickley he
died in Stirling Castle, on the 10th October 1341. They go on to say
that further research suggests that the family has died out.
The Scots recaptured Stirling in 1342.
So, although there is no proof of who was buried in the Castle, there
is strong circumstantial evidence that this is the identity of the
skeleton (give or take whatever else could have happened 50 years
either side of his death).

[Cherryexile]

They just pulled a name out of the hat more or less.  Over
a hundred year period, lots of people could have come and
 gone with no 'surviving' record to pull an obit from.  It is also
 convenient to pick someone whose family died out.
 A key point not addressed is why the person was buried in
 the royal chapel!  I'm sorry but I can't see how this Sir John
 de Strickley would have the honour over the hundreds of
 other knights who would have lived and died in this period.
 If they were going to pull names out of the hat why not
 Sir William Francis who helped recapture Edinburgh castle
 from the English.  He is also referred to as "le Frank" suggesting
 nativity from northern France.  His family was prominent
 (keepers of royal castles) and he would have been somewhat of
a hero given the story of his initiative in recapturing Edinburgh
 castle from the English.
 They should try DNA testing on the fellows teeth.
 Peter

While I don't disagree with the sentiment that there is a lot of room
for alternatives, the programme did not claim they could be sure who
the person was.

One other point I didn't cover was the context for the burial. The
programme suggested that it was not normal to bury people within the
Castle and our man was one of a group of 10 that included a female.
The female's skull had been smashed with a Mace and still had two
square holes in it. The suggestion was that the burial may have been
more one of expediency, rather than high honour. An English garrison
in the Scottish winter would not necessarily be in a position to bury
a number of bodies anywhere else.

That said, they only spent the money on analysing the one man and only
did a visual inspection of the female.

Neil

[Ian Goddard]

They just pulled a name out of the hat more or less. Over a hundred
year period, lots of people could have come and gone with no 'surviving'
record to pull an obit from. It is also convenient to pick someone
whose family died out.

For at least the period when the English had a garrison there - which
happened to be almost right on the median of the 14C range - the
occupants of the castle seem to have been well documented. It wasn't
clear to what extent this applied to the remainder of the period. If
the programme hadn't been put together in the current dumbed-down BBC
fashion (lots of aerial shots of the university, people driving about
the country and a picture of the O2 dome to show we're now in London
where the National Archives are - but not in the O2 dome!) where might
have been time to tell us.

I think the fact that the family had died out was supposed to be a case
of cause and effect.

A key point not addressed is why the person was buried in the royal
chapel!

I don't think the programme (as opposed to the advert masquerading as a
news item in true BBC style) actually said it was a royal chapel.

As far as I could make out it was a room later adapted as a kitchen or
possibly stratified under a kitchen which they thought was a chapel.
Sir John de Strickley was a member of an English garrison which held the
castle for a prolonged period for military reasons; there was no
suggestion that it was a royal residence.

I'm sorry but I can't see how this Sir John de Strickley would
have the honour over the hundreds of other knights who would have lived
and died in this period.

The stable isotope ratios suggested an upbringing in the S of England or
W France which would have cut out a fair proportion of the other
possibles which is why they went trawling TNA. The archivist seems to
have considered at least one other possible but been able to eliminate
it - maybe others were also eliminated. See my comment above.

If they were going to pull names out of the hat why not Sir William
Francis who helped recapture Edinburgh castle from the English. He is
also referred to as "le Frank" suggesting nativity from northern
France. His family was prominent (keepers of royal castles) and he
would have been somewhat of a hero given the story of his initiative in
recapturing Edinburgh castle from the English.

But this was Stirling, not Edinburgh.

[Peter A. Kincaid]

From: Ian Goddard <>
Subject: Re: Fw: BBC article: Face of Stirling Castle warrior reconstructed
Date: Sat, 22 May 2010 22:33:24 +0100

[snip]

The stable isotope ratios suggested an upbringing in the S of England or
W France which would have cut out a fair proportion of the other
possibles which is why they went trawling TNA. The archivist seems to
have considered at least one other possible but been able to eliminate
it - maybe others were also eliminated.

Everything seems to actually be pretty shoddy work with
little consideration of alternatives. First of all, during the period
in question, 1290-1400, the Scots predominantly controlled
the castle. The odds are vastly in favour of them. They seemed
to have jumped on the isotope evidence to say they had to
be English. This clearly gives no regard for the fact that 1) a
number people on the Scottish side once held estates in England,
and, more importantly, 2) many Scots (in particular young heirs)
were sent south as hostages for ransom purposes or to enforce
good behaviour by thier family.

The well so called well documented occupants of Stirling castle
would be the English accounts for their garrison there. They
list names payments were made to but do not list everyone there
(ie. for x and a number of knights and men at arms). Many of
them were actually Scots who kept joining the then winning side.

I was expecting some kind of more solid correlating evidence like
coat of arms, or Y-DNA lining up with a clear surname. This
seems more like entertainment archaeology rather than real archaeology.

Peter

[Ian Goddard]

From: Ian Goddard <>
Subject: Re: Fw: BBC article: Face of Stirling Castle warrior
reconstructed
Date: Sat, 22 May 2010 22:33:24 +0100

[snip]

The stable isotope ratios suggested an upbringing in the S of England or
W France which would have cut out a fair proportion of the other
possibles which is why they went trawling TNA. The archivist seems to
have considered at least one other possible but been able to eliminate
it - maybe others were also eliminated.

Everything seems to actually be pretty shoddy work with
little consideration of alternatives.

Such as the French force they looked at? And which, to pick up on your
point below, also seems to have had pretty thorough documentation in
terms of names.

First of all, during the period
in question, 1290-1400, the Scots predominantly controlled
the castle. The odds are vastly in favour of them. They seemed
to have jumped on the isotope evidence to say they had to
be English. This clearly gives no regard for the fact that 1) a
number people on the Scottish side once held estates in England,

Sufficient to have their children raised from about age 8 to 15 mostly
if not entirely in the home counties?

and, more importantly, 2) many Scots (in particular young heirs)
were sent south as hostages for ransom purposes or to enforce
good behaviour by thier family.

Fair point.

The well so called well documented occupants of Stirling castle
would be the English accounts for their garrison there. They
list names payments were made to but do not list everyone there
(ie. for x and a number of knights and men at arms).

It didn't look like that to me; it looked like a list of names. Maybe
you saw it differently. However, given the conclusions they had come to
from from the osteology all they really needed would have been the list
of knights.

Many of them were actually Scots who kept joining the then winning side.
I was expecting some kind of more solid correlating evidence like
coat of arms,

In what context?

or Y-DNA lining up with a clear surname.

The arrow would have shortened the odds on this expectation.

This seems more like entertainment archaeology rather than real archaeology.

It seems a little unfair to judge the underlying investigation on the TV
presentation.

Remember this isn't the Beeb that produced "Chronicle" or even "Meet the
Ancestors". This is the modern Beeb producing dumbed-down programmes
for the Twitter generation who are deemed incapable of following a
thought that can't be expressed in the confines of an SMS or tweet. You
aren't going to see a thorough examination of the work done. For
instance the cough-and-you'll-miss-it explanation of carbon dating gave
the impression of straight-line decay.