With Sword and Mace? Searching for Blunt Force Trauma from the Cranial Material of the Battle of Good Friday

With sword and mace? Searching for blunt force trauma from the cranial material of the Battle of Good Friday

Anniina Laine Master’s thesis Masterkurs i osteoarkeologi, 30 hp Supervisor: Anna Kjellström Co-supervisor: Astrid Noterman Stockholm University 2020 Abstract The crania from a mass grave associated to the Battle of Good Friday (1520) in Uppsala were re-examined in this study. The total skeletal material has been analysed before, but blunt force trauma was excluded and therefore a comprehensive trauma pattern could not be presented. In the current study, the perimortem cranial weapon-related trauma was examined by reconstructing the crania and conducting a trauma analysis. Standardised methods were used to identify and document blunt, sharp and puncture trauma. The results reveal that new blunt and sharp force trauma as well as one puncture trauma could be identified. Furthermore, the majority of weapon-related trauma were identified as sharp injuries, less than ten percent as blunt injuries and a few as puncture injuries. The cranial trauma pattern is interpreted to reflect the battle tactics, the situations in the battle, as well as the armour and weapons used by the soldiers. The notion of sharp force injuries forming the majority of trauma could imply that bladed weapons were used the most and blunt weapons were used less or caused less injuries visible on bone. The dominance of cranial trauma might indicate that head was a primary target. The trauma pattern implies that blunt weapons were used at least in face-to-face combat and bladed weapons were used in a variety of situations from face-to-face fight to more chaotic situations and against fleeing soldiers. Most of the new documented injuries were observable or easier to observe during or after the cranial reconstruction, indicating that reconstructing the crania is important for observing and identifying the maximal number of injuries possible.

Abstrakt Kranier från en massgrav kopplad till Långfredagsslaget 1520 i Uppsala har analyserats. Hela skelettmaterialet har undersökts tidigare, men trubbig våld fick uteslutas och en komplett bild av traumamönster har tidigare inte presenterats. I denna studie undersöktes spår efter perimortalt vapenrelaterad våld via rekonstruktioner av kranierna och efterföljande trauma-analyser. Standardiserade metoder användes för att identifiera och dokumentera spår av skarpt, trubbig och penetrerande våld. Resultaten visar att nya spår av trubbiga och skarpa skador samt en penetrationsskada kunde identifieras. Vidare framkom att majoriteten av vapenrelaterade skador var skarpa, mindre än en tiondedel var trubbiga och få var penetrerande. Skademönstren hos kranierna tolkas reflektera stridstekniker och situationen i slaget, samt möjlig utrustning och vapen som användes i slaget. Att majoriteten av skador är skarpa kan tyda på att blankvapen var de mest använda och att krossvapen användes mindre, eller orsakade färre skador som syns på ben. Det stora antalet kraniala skador tyder på att huvud var ett primärt mål för huggen. Skademönstren indikerar att krossvapen användes åtminstone i närstrid och att blankvapen användes i varierande situationer från närstrid till mer kaotiska stridsituationer och mot flyende män. De flesta av nya vapenrelaterade skador kunde observeras eller blev lättare att observeras under eller efter rekonstruktionen av kranier. Detta tyder på att rekonstruera kranier är viktigt för att identifiera det mesta möjliga antal skador.

Keywords Uppsala, the Middle Ages, trauma, trauma analysis, reconstruction, cranial material, medieval warfare

Acknowledgements I wish to warmly thank my supervisor Anna for suggesting me to study this most interesting material and for all the advice, comments and the wonderful encouragement and support. My co-supervisor Astrid I would like to thank for all the advice, comments and kind words of support. I am grateful for Berit Schütz from Upplandsmuseet for making it possible to study the complete cranial material. I also wish to thank my teachers in OFL for making such an effort to have the thesis work going on as smoothly as possible during these unusual times. Lastly I would like to thank my bone people for all the good times in the midst of our hard work, and my family and spouse for all their support.

Picture on the cover: Mobilisation of peasant forces. From Historia de Gentibus Septentrionalibus by Olaus Magnus (1555) (Syse 2003:15). Contents

1. Introduction 1.1. Introduction…………………………………………………………………………... 1 1.2. Background…………………………………………………………………………... 1 1.3. Material………………………………………………………………………………. 4 1.4. Reference material: war-related mass graves in (mostly) medieval Europe…………. 8 1.5. Previous research on conflict-related trauma………………………………………… 10 1.6. Late medieval warfare: weapons, armour and tactics……………………………….. 13 1.6.1. Weapons and armour……………………………………………………….. 13 1.6.2. Battle tactics………………………………………………………….……...16 1.6.3. Wounds…………………………………………………………………….. 18 1.7. Aims………………………………………………………………………………….. 19 2. Methods………………………………………………………………………………………. 20 2.1. Trauma analysis……………………………………………………………………… 20 2.2. Timing the injury: antemortem, perimortem and postmortem………………………. 21 2.3. The biomechanics of cranial fracturing……………………………………………… 23 2.4. Blunt force trauma…………………………………………………………………… 25 2.5. Sharp force trauma…………………………………………………………………… 28 2.6. Gunshot and puncture trauma………………………………………………………... 28 2.7. The limits of interpretation…………………………………………………………... 30 2.8. Reconstructing the crania……………………………………………………………. 31 3. Results………………………………………………………………………………….…….. 33 3.1. Blunt force trauma…………………………………………………………………… 33 3.2. Sharp force trauma…………………………………………………………………… 39 3.3. Puncture trauma……………………………………………………………….…….. 43 3.4. Other observations…………………………………………………………………… 44

4. Discussion…………………………………………………………………………………….. 44 4.1. The material from the Battle of Good Friday………………………………...……… 44 4.2. Cranial and postcranial trauma in the Battle of Good Friday and reference assemblages…………………………………………………………… 46 4.3. Cranial trauma types in the Battle of Good Friday and reference assemblages…..… 48 4.4. The distribution of cranial trauma in the Battle of Good Friday and reference assemblages…………………………………………………………… 50 4.5. Penetration, direction and orientation of cranial trauma………………….……..…… 53 4.6. Concluding thoughts………………………….……………………………………… 54 4.7. Benefits of cranial reconstruction……………………………………………………. 55 5. Conclusions…………………………………………………………………………………… 55 6. Summary……………………………………………………………………………………… 57 References……………………………………………………………………………………….. 58 Appendices Appendix 1. Figures Appendix 2. Photographs of the examined crania Appendix 3. Tables

Note

The word cranium is used for a skull without a mandible.

The large bones of the cranium (frontale, parietale and occipitale) are divided into four sectors, either anterior/posterior-superior/inferior or sinister/dexter-superior/inferior. On the occipitale, inferior is located below the nuchal crest. The temporale is divided into anterior and posterior sectors.

Abbreviations: BFT: blunt force trauma, SFT: sharp force trauma, PT: puncture trauma, GSW: gunshot wound UM nr: the current catalogue number Prev. nr: The catalogue number used during the excavations and the analysis in 2002 a: anterior, p: posterior, i:inferior, s: superior si, sin: sinister (left), de, dex: dexter (right), s/d: sinister and dexter, parasagittal n: number no: no associated fractures, nd: not documentable new: documented first during the current study

Photographs Photographs are taken by A. Laine if no other person or source is mentioned. 1.Introduction 1.1. Introduction Medieval texts in the form of prose, poems and chronicles describe the action on the battlefield. The chaos of the battles, the injuring and fatal blows and the fallen men left behind are issues covered in these texts (Woosnam-Savage & DeVries 2015). The preserved medieval weapons and armory tell their own part of the story. In some occasions, armour or weapons are found when excavating battlefields or battle-related mass graves, for instance in Visby (Thordeman 1939). Human skeletal materials offers yet another source of information about the battles. The injuries on bones can imply what type of weapons and armour were used and the way the soldiers fought, what tactics they had, if they faced their enemies or perhaps attempted to escape. This study presents a re-examination of the crania from the skeletal material found in a late Medieval mass grave related to the Battle of Good Friday (1520) in Uppsala. The injuries and what they can reveal about the weapons, armour and situation of the battle are discussed.

1.2. Background In May 2001, human skeletal remains from several individuals were found during the broadening work of a gravel road on the east side of Slottsbacken in Uppsala (see fig. 1.1 & 1.2). At an early stage, signs of trauma were detected on some of the bones. Radiocarbon samples resulted in datings between 1440-1650 AD (cal. with 95% probability, Ua- 17998). The result eliminated all known epidemics related to late medieval Uppsala, but could be associated with the Battle of Good Friday in 1520. The rescue excavations at the site took place in August 2001 (Kjellström 2003:95; Syse 2003:18).

Uppsala is located in the East Figure 1.1. The location of Uppsala marked with red dot and underlining. Map: Hitta.se and online.seterra.com. Edited by A. Middle Sweden, some 70 Laine and J. Ahlamo. kilometres north of Stockholm

(fig. 1.1). Uppsala, earlier Östra Aros (Eastern Aros), was settled in the 11th and 12th centuries. In the 13th century the town expanded like other centres in the region. At the end of the 13th century, the archiepiscopal see was moved from Gamla Uppsala (Old Uppsala), the earlier centre of the region, to Östra Aros, which then was renamed Uppsala. During the Middle Ages, Uppsala developed into one of the most important towns of the country (Syse 2003:26). Since the end of the 14th century, Sweden had been a part of the Kalmar union, a union between the three Scandinavian kingdoms, Sweden, Denmark and Norway. Political unrest and conflicts between Sweden and Denmark arose at the end of the 15th century and carried on until Sweden left the union in 1523

(Kjellström 2005:23; Syse 2003:11; Figure 1.2. Map of Uppsala. The location of the site is marked Sundberg 1998: 16, 27). Since 1517, with a red circle. Map: Lantmäteriet. Edited by A. Laine. the Swedish peasant forces led by Sten Sture the Younger, the regent of Sweden, and the Danish mercenaries led by king Kristian II met in combats (Syse 2003:12-13; Sundberg 1999:396-399). The Danish forces consisted mainly of foreign mercenaries with better armament and knowledge of battle tactics than the Swedish troops, who were mostly peasants with much less experience in warfare (Sandstedt 2003:58; Syse 2003:14). In the Battle of Bogesund in January 1520, Sten Sture was lethally wounded. Lacking leadership, the Swedish forces retreated. At the end of March, the reorganised Swedish forces headed to Västerås, causing damage to the Danish troops retreating to Uppsala, where the main forces of the Danish were located (Sundberg 1999:400). On the morning of Good Friday, the 6th of April 1520, the Swedish forces attacked the Danish troops in Uppsala (Syse 2003:15-16). A contemporaneous source mentions that the weather that day was bad with snowfall and slush (Olaus Petri, 1917:287). This situation prevented the Danish troops to use firearms and hindered the cavalry, as the horses had trouble moving in the snow. The Swedish

2 troops were successful in the beginning of the battle, but according to Olaus Petri (1917), the peasant soldiers took their victory for granted too early. Without competent leadership, the Swedish forces dispersed and were defeated by the attacking Danish troops (Syse 2003:16; Sundberg 1999:400; Olaus Petri 1917:287). Contemporaneous sources are scarce but provide information about the battle. The above-quoted clergyman Olaus Petri started to write En swensk cröneka (A Swedish chronicle) in the 1530’s by the commission of King Gustav Vasa. The chronicle presents the history of Sweden up to the Stockholm Bloodbath in November 1520, where the enemies of the Danish rule were executed (Syse 2003:16). As a medieval chronicle commissioned by the king, En swensk cröneka is most likely biased, favouring the Swedish side. However, considering its latest part, it is a text by someone who witnessed some of the events himself (ibid.). Petri describes that some of the Swedish soldiers were killed in the battle, while some perished in a fire in a brick barn and some drowned in the river Fyrisån (Kjellström 2005:24; Olaus Petri 1917:287). The Swedish archbishop Gustav Trolle, an ally of the Danish rule, is claimed to have ordered that the fallen Swedish soldiers should be left in the marshes for dogs and crows (Kjersgaard & Hvidtfeldt 1963, quoted by Syse 2003:17). To leave fallen men in the field was not exceptional from a historical perspective. The fallen of the battle of Aljubarrota in 1385 were left unburied for some years (Cunha & Silva 1997:596). Sten Sture and his troops had been excommunicated since 1519 by the request of Trolle, so burial to consecrated ground was not possible (Syse 2003:17, 34). Eventually, the fallen Swedes seem to have been buried in the mass graves by Slottsbacken. This is suggested by the commingled bones found in the mass grave in 2001, indicating that the bodies had been left unburied long enough to decompose and disarticulate (Kjellström 2005:45). The fallen from the Danish forces were allegedly buried at the Uppsala Cathedral and its churchyard (Heise & Mollerup 1903-1906, quoted by Kjellström 2005:24). Although not likely, it cannot be completely ruled out that some Danish soldiers were buried in the mass graves as well (Syse 2003:34). It is not known where the battle took place (Syse 2003:31). As some Swedish soldiers are claimed to have drowned in the river Fyrisån, the place should be near the river. The area should also be open and plane to have room for combat. The current Stadsträdgården, the Uppsala City Garden, some 300 metres southeast from the mass grave excavated in 2001, has been suggested as the most likely location for the battle (Syse 2003:31, 34).

1.3. Material The skeletal material from the Battle of Good Friday consists of 54 crania, some of which with mandibles, and additionally of commingled mandibles and postcranial bones. In this study, the crania and the associated mandibles were analysed. Commingled mandibles and postcranial bones were left out. All of the 54 crania were analysed. Nine of these had an associated mandible. In addition, there are cranial fragments which may or may not belong to one of the 54 crania. The crania were well preserved. While the majority of the crania were more or less fragmented, some were quite complete with little fragmentation (appendix 1, fig. 1.2). A great majority of the fragments could be refitted in the reconstructions. Nevertheless, most crania lacked parts even after the reconstruction, from small areas to a third of the crania. While the bones seemed cleaned, most of the bones had some soil on them. The areas around sharp Figure 1.3. The location of the site is marked with a red force trauma had been washed. circle and an arrow. Map: Syse 2003:19. Edited by A. Laine. As mentioned above, human bones were found in a mass grave on the East side of Slottbacken in Uppsala in May 2001 (fig. 1.2 & 1.3). The area was excavated in August 2001, supervised by Bent Syse. The rescue excavation, measuring 8 m2, revealed two pits with human skeletal remains, areas A2 and A4 (Kjellström 2005:25; Syse 2003:18-22; fig. 1.4). The crania, commingled mandibles and a few of the postcranial bones were given an individual number, the rest of the postcranial bones were collected according to area and layer (Syse 2003:142-145). Area A2, the more recent pit, was of 1.8 x 0.7 m size with an east-west orientation. It was excavated in seven layers, and seven crania and a large number of postcranial bones were collected from it. It presented carefully arranged commingled bones with an east-west (i.e. Christian) orientation: the skulls were laid on the western part and postcranial bones on the eastern part of the

grave (fig 1.5 & appendix 1 fig. 1.2). The grave included also the remains of at least two articulated skeletons placed with a similar orientation (head to the west) (Kjellström 2005:25- 26; Syse 2003:20). Based on the stratigraphy area A4 was prepaired before

A2. The pit is larger Figure 1.4. Map of the excavation area with a layer on A2 and the more than A2, and the total complete skeletons on A4 (Syse 2003: 22). extent of it is not known as its margins to the north and south continued beyond the excavation area and a modern road cuts it in the east (Kjellström 2005:26; Syse 2003:22). It was excavated in ten layers (Syse 2003:145). In A4 the bones were mostly commingled or consisted of articulated bone units without any signs of conscious arrangement (appendix 1, fig. 1.1). An exception to this were four skeletons in the top layers, which were postcranially intact and laid in a Christian orientation (Kjellström 2005:26; Syse 2003:22). One of the individuals has been decapitated based on sharp force lesions on a cervical vertebra, and the skull has been placed by the waist (appendix 1, fig. 1.3). Another individual buried on the same layer may have experienced the same fate (Kjellstöm 2005:36, 44). Under A4, another layer with commingled human bones was found. This layer was left intact for future excavations. One mandible was taken, though, for a radiocarbon dating (Ua-20084), which revealed to be Figure 1.5. In area A2, the bones had been carefully arranged (Syse 2003:21).

5 from the same time period as the other datings (Kjellström 2005:26; Syse 2003:24). The stratigraphy indicates thus that a layer of commingled bones was placed directly on the ground or in a shallow pit and covered with soil. The grave pit A4 was above this layer. Grave pit A2 was then dug to the west of A4. In the top layer of the area, four individuals were buried (Kjellström 2005:26). No weapons or armour were found. This is probably due to the fact that the fallen soldiers were left unburied for a long period of time, enabling the looting and plundering of weapons, protective gear and other belongings (Syse 2003:24, 34). Some ten meters from the area excavated in 2002, articulated skeletons of several individuals were discovered during an excavation in 1971, but the bones were not recovered. This could be another mass grave (Syse 2003:30). The total extent of the grave area is not known. It is suggested that the area could hold several grave pits similar to A2 and A4. Bent Syse estimated that the grave area could cover 200-300 m2 and include at least 50 mass graves (Kjellström 2005:26; Syse 2003:25).

The skeletal material was analysed by Anna Kjellström in 2002. Age and sex estimation were carried out, measurements of long bones were taken and height of the individuals, femoral robusticity index as well as MNI (minimum number of individuals) were calculated. Pathological changes, fractures and trauma by weapons (with a focus on sharp force trauma and puncture wounds) were recorded (Kjellström 2005; 2003). Sex estimation resulted in predominantly male characters. The analysis of the age distribution showed that the age interval 25-34 years was dominant, followed by intervals 14- 24 and 35-44 years, with few cases of over 44 year olds. In sum, the results reveal that at least 60 individuals, the majority of which were 20-35 year old males, were recovered from Slottsbacken (Kjellström 2005:30-31; 2003:69). During this first osteological analysis, sharp force traumata and puncture wounds were documented. 85 blade wounds were recorded on 32 crania and seven blade wounds on six commingled mandibles. In addition, three puncture wounds were recorded on three crania. Postcranially, 11 blade wounds on nine bones and one puncture wound were recorded (Kjellström 2005:32, 36; 2003:96, 99, 101). A slight majority of the cranial wounds (54%) were located on the left side (Kjellström 2005:32; 2003:96). The parietal bones are the bones most affected by blade wounds, followed by the parietal-occipital regions. Horizontal blows are slightly more frequent (37%) than vertical (34%), followed by perpendicular (29%). The majority of the blows (65%) were delivered from above. Perpendicular blows were more frequent than blows from below (Kjellström

2005:33; Kjellström 2003:96). The majority of wounds (59%) penetrated the bone (Kjellström 2005:35). Due to lack of time, blunt force trauma was not included in the analysis. To comprehensively observe blunt force trauma by examining fracture patterns, the crania need to be reconstructed, which is time consuming. It was assumed that more blunt force traumata could be observed if the reconstruction was conducted (Kjellström 2003:95). Four healed cases of weapon-related trauma were observed on two crania (Kjellström 2005:37). Healed fractures were documented on 12 postcranial bones. The fractured bones are distributed quite evenly among different elements. The cause of these fractures could be either accident or violence (Kjellström 2005: 36-37; 2003:80-81).

The material was grouped into three main categories: more or less complete skeletons, articulated bone elements and commingled bones (Kjellström 2005:28). This indicates that most bodies had been disarticulated by the time they were buried, with the exception of the four individuals in the topmost layers (Kjellström 2003:105). Based on the taphonomy, Kjellstöm (2005; 2003) interpreted that the bodies of the fallen soldiers were left unburied and laid on the ground. As mentioned above, Gustav Trolle ordered the fallen soldiers to be left untouched in the marshes (Kjersgaard & Hvidtfeldt 1963, quoted by Kjellström 2003:107). The day of the battle the 6th of April, a Good Friday, is described as cold and snowy, so after the battle, the bodies of the dead were probably frozen first and thawn later with warmer weather which could have led to a more rapid decomposition. The low number of gnawing marks by carnivores on the bones could be accounted for protective clothing worn by the soldiers or for the bodies being frozen. The fallen were not left unburied for long, as there are no signs of weathering on the bones. By the time the fallen were buried, their bodies had decomposed to commingled single bones, or bones held together by dried soft tissue and clothes only (Kjellström 2005:38, 44-46; 2003:107). The complete skeletons in the top layers were probably associated with those buried in the mass graves. They may have survived the battle but were later executed and buried on top and could hence possibly have been prisoners of war (Kjellström 2005:46; 2003:107). This may be related to the Stockholm Bloodbath on November 1520 (Kjellström 2005:46).

Odontological analysis was carried out by Hélène Borrman (2003). Toothwear, pathological conditions, toothcare, changes in the temporomandibular joint and trauma were studied. Enamel hypoplasia is rare, while calculus is common in the skeletal material from the Battle of Good Friday.

Caries, osteoarthritis and crowded teeth were also recorded. Some traumata were observed in the mandibles, maxillae and teeth. The fractures in teeth may be perimortem or postmortem (Borrman 2003).

In addition to articles by Kjellström (2005; 2003), photographs and cranium diagrams from the analysis in 2002, as well as continual personal communication, were provided for this study by Kjellström.

1.4. Reference material: War-related mass graves in (mostly) medieval Europe In this chapter, assemblages of human skeletal material from European medieval war-related mass graves, in other words with a similar context as the material from the Battle of Good Friday, are presented. These assemblages have been examined and the traumata have been analysed, and the assemblages are used as reference material. In the following chapter (1.5.), assemblages of human skeletal material from medieval Europe with conflict-related trauma are presented. Here, the focus is on the variety of materials and their contexts as well as the variety of approaches related to trauma analysis of conflict-related materials.

European assemblages of human skeletal material from medieval war-related mass graves are scarce, but some have been studied. The Battle of Good Friday dates to the late Middle Ages in the Nordic countries, creating temporal and spatial distance to some of the other European Medieval battles with human remains recovered. However, as they are similar assemblages with individuals who died at a single violent event, they are used as reference material. The mass grave of Sandbjerget (Denmark) from the first half of 14th century, excavated in 1994, included the skeletons of at least 60 males between 18-60 years. Sharp force trauma was registered. The bodies were buried complete and recovered both complete and articulated (Bennike 2006). In a recent analysis, an attempt to detect blunt force trauma on the analysed 45 individuals resulted in no observations of blunt injuries (Boucherie et al. 2017:70). The analysis of the skeletal material from mass graves associated with the Battle of Visby (Sweden) in 1361 and excavated between 1905-1930 revealed at least 1185 individuals, mostly men in the age “fit for military service” (Ingelmark 1939; Thordeman 1939). The investigation also included a trauma analysis, concentrating on sharp force and penetrating wounds. The difficulty of identifying blunt force trauma is acknowledged, and only four such injuries are recorded. The bodies of the dead were complete when buried but the skeletal collection has been commingled after the excavation (Ingelmark 1939). It should be noted that the interpretations of this study are partly based

8 on obsolete conceptions of medieval combat (Geldof 2015:65) and are therefore to be considered with source criticism in mind. Nonetheless, the study provides valuable data on a battle-related skeletal material. The analysis of skeletal material discovered in 1958 from the battle of Aljubarrota (Portugal) in 1385 with commingled bones of over 400 individuals from a secondary deposit suggested that the buried were males of an age between 20-60 years. Trauma analysis was conducted and blunt force trauma, sharp force trauma and puncture wounds were registered (Pérez Fernández et al. 2015; Cunha & Silva 1997). The analysis of the mass grave associated to the battle of Towton (England) in 1461 and excavated in 1996 involved 38 males between 16-50 years of age, all bodies complete when buried. In the trauma analysis, blunt force trauma, sharp force trauma and puncture wounds were registered (Boylston et al. 2000; Novak 2000a). Excavations between 2002 and 2005 revealed additional complete and disarticulated skeletons. The skeletal material recovered from all excavations included 44 individuals and commingled bones. All individuals are identified as males of an age between 15-50 years. The trauma in the entire skeletal material was re-examined (Holst & Sutherland 2014). The analysis of the skeletal material from the battle of Dornach (Switzerland) in 1499 involved 106 individuals, all males mainly of an age between 20-50 years. Hundred-and-six commingled crania and 33 femurs were analysed, but the total skeletal material from the battle is more extensive. Some of the fallen were buried by the battle field, while the commingled remains of others were gradually collected to ossuaries, churches, museums and universities. Blunt force, sharp force and puncture injuries as well as gunshot wounds were documented during the analysis. Experimental archaeology was included as well, as different weapons of 15th century types were tested on cranium models (Cooper 2010). From a more recent period, a mass grave discovered in Lützen (Germany) in 2011 is associated with the Battle of Lützen in 1632, taking place during the Thirty Years War. The skeletal assemblage involved 47 males between the ages of 15-50 years, who were buried complete. Many of them were struck by gunfire, but also blunt and sharp force trauma were also present (Nicklisch et al. 2017). Although not medieval, the study is worth noting as it is the most recent study of a European war- related mass grave, and the Battle of Lützen is only about a hundred years later than the Battle of Good Friday. Although the assemblages presented in these studies have various stages of preservation (some including complete skeletons while some consisting solely on commingled bones), the analyses of the individuals in these mass graves revealed a similar demography of mainly adult males. Perimortem weapon-related injuries were documented in each assemblage. The assemblages are

9 examined and presented in different ways, but the traumata have been analysed and the type of trauma as well as their distribution have been noted in each study. These observations have been the base for the interpretation of the cause of the trauma, the weapons, armour and the tactics used in the battle, as well as the events of the battle. In more recent studies (Nicklisch et al. 2017; Holst & Sutherland 2014; Bennike 2006; Kjellström 2005; 2003; Novak 2000a), the social side of the life of a soldier is discussed as well.

1.5. Previous research on conflict-related trauma Bioarchaeology of conflict and conflict-related trauma between humans has been a research topic with wide takes both spatially and temporally (see for instance Knüsel & Smith 2014; Martin & Frayer 1997). In this chapter, the study on conflict-related trauma is focused on medieval Europe. The presentation will not be comprehensive, but will introduce a sample of recent studies on the subject.

In a bachelor thesis, a forensic perspective was applied in the analysis of perimortem injuries of both medieval and modern skeletal materials, including the published photographs of a small sample of the skeletal material from the Battle of Good Friday (Navarro 2015). The thesis discussed the advantages of using forensic analysis while researching traumata.

Some anthropological studies have been able to connect the identified patterns of trauma to historical events other than regular battles. Šlaus et al. (2010) present the results of their osteoarchaeological investigation on a skeletal material from a 15th century cemetery in Čepin, Croatia. Sharp force injuries and one penetrating trauma were observed both in adults and subadults. The frequency of individuals with perimortem traumata in Čepin was higher than in other coeval skeletal material from the Balkans. Young adults had suffered more blows than older adults. The distribution and pattern of perimortem traumata in males differed from that of females, indicating attempts of self-protection from attacks from behind while trying to flee. Females exhibited more injuries per individual and element than males. The number of injuries and their location on the anterior side of the skull suggest excessive violence against women. This kind of violence suggests an ambush rather than a battle. The data imply that the studied individuals were victims of a historically documented raid by Akinji cavalry of the Ottoman army in 1441. With the aim to depopulate the area and spread terror, the raiders murdered and mistreated the locals. Violence-related skeletal trauma and historical sources are also connected in the study by Pankowská et al. (2019). A trauma analysis on late medieval skeletal material from Teplá monastery

10 in the Czech Republic revealed 13 males with peri- and antemortem traumata. The pattern of injuries and the antemortem trauma suggest that at least some men had previous combat experience and were killed in violent conflicts. These results correspond with historical records describing defence units protecting monasteries.

Mass graves (excluding those clearly associated with disease) do not need to be connected to a battle in war. In addition, the trauma analysis may reveal individuals with previous combat experience. A grave containing three skeletons of adult males in a cemetery in Bucharest was analysed by Constantinescu et al. (2015). The presence of antemortem trauma and the high number of perimortem trauma, foremost cranial, suggests that these individuals had a military background. The weapons of choice and the injury pattern indicate a violent confrontation. The manner of depositing the bodies is similar to other coeval European multiple graves. An osteoarchaeological analysis by Štefan et al. (2016) of the skeletal material from a cemetery of single graves and a mass grave from Budeč in the Czech Republic revealed that only males were buried in the mass grave, while males, females and children were buried in single graves. Only the individuals in the mass grave had evidence of trauma, some even of decapitation. Some individuals in the mass grave showed antemortem trauma, indicating previous combat experience. The distribution of injuries suggests that the men did not or could not defend themselves during the attack. Commingled bones indicate that the bodies of the fallen remained unburied for an extended time. It is proposed that the individuals buried in the mass grave belonged to a single group residing possibly at the stronghold. The attack is connected to the unstable times in the region during the 10th century.

Studying the trauma of only one or a few individuals provides relevant information on the mechanics of battle or warfare as well. Forsom et al. (2017) present an osteoarchaeological analysis of the skeletal remains of a young male buried inside an abbey church in Øm, Denmark. He had nine perimortem sharp force lesions, suggesting he was a warrior. Five of the injuries were cranial and four postcranial and all are compatible with sword cuts. An attempt to sequence the lesions and to reconstruct the battle were carried out. His legs and arms were probably injured first, weakening his ability to fight. He then received lethal blows to the cranium and fell, receiving the final blows on the back of the head. The multiple injuries are interpreted as an indication of a battle or local feud (Forsom et al. 2017), although other possibilities cannot be completely ruled out. The careful attention to and evaluation of his injuries and burial context provided information not only on medieval fighting tactics but on burial practices as well. The case is suggested to illustrate the usefulness of the forensic

11 approach applied to archaeological cases, and the benefit for pathologists in gaining experience for interpreting modern cases as well (Forsom et al. 2017). One individual of the several victims showing weapon-injuries from an early medieval cemetery in Cambridge was analysed by Patrick (2006). The studied individual was a male with four sharp force injuries, three of which were cranial. The trauma pattern does not suggest a face-to-face combat, but could be indicative of less formalized fighting. Whether the injuries were inflicted in a battle or another kind of conflict is not clear.

Kjellström (2014) applied an intersectional approach when analysing individuals and groups exhibiting signs of violence from medieval rural Västerhus and urban Sigtuna in Sweden. Both studied contexts included single graves, while a mass grave was also found in Sigtuna. The individuals in the mass grave have been interpreted as victims of an attack. Sharp force, blunt force and penetrating force trauma were analysed. Among the individuals buried in single graves, the males have most of the trauma, while only two women showed similar lesions, in both cases blunt force trauma. In the mass grave, adults, both male and female, and subadults, have trauma. The difference in the amount of trauma between males and females in single burials were interpreted as gender related. Violence was regarded as a normal part of the life of men, while violence involving women was more hidden. The trauma of the individuals in the mass grave indicates a non-normative event where social codes were ignored. Another comparative study revealing social differences includes skeletal material from two different kinds of populations from early medieval Ireland (Geber 2015). The Owenbristy population had a significantly higher prevalence of weapon trauma than the Mount Gamble population, but the anatomical distribution of trauma was quite similar in both populations. The frequency of different types of weapon trauma such as chops and stabbings, differed between the populations. This could indicate differences in body armour, battle ethics or methods of fighting. The analysis revealed diverse ranges of violence and the potential of osteoarchaeological analyses to discern the manner in which violence affected different groups and populations. In comparing violence-related cranial trauma in skeletal material from six different sites in medieval London, Krakowka (2017) noted that violence affected all aspects of medieval society, but the pattern of violence was different between gender and burial locations. Lower-status males were disproportionately affected by cranial injuries, especially blunt force trauma. This could suggest the use of interpersonal violence as a tool of conflict resolution. A comparison between the trauma pattern of males in different social strata in Skriðuklaustur in Iceland and Västerås in Sweden by Sundman and Kjellström (2020) implied that ideal masculine

12 behaviour, especially concerning violence, differed between social classes. This was suggested as no trauma was observed among clerics in either Skriðuklaustur or Västerås, but weapon-related trauma was identified among laymen. Most of the injuries were inflicted by violence, but not necessarily battle-related. Sundman and Kjellström (2020) hence suggest that violence was part of the masculinity of laymen but not of the masculinity of the clerics.

A forensic approach and trauma analyses can provide much data about the situation where injuries were received. A trauma analysis offers information for interpretations of individuals and groups of individuals. Injuries and their trauma patterns may also provide insight regarding previous experience of violence; whether the individual or individuals might have been soldiers or laymen. In some cases, historical sources can strengthen the interpretation and in all cases the archaeological context is of great importance. One aspect in some of the presented texts is the social side of conflict. Similarities and differences in trauma patterns between groups divided for instance according to age, sex or class can be revealed, providing information for interpretation about the society and its structures.

1.6. Late medieval warfare: weapons, armour and tactics As mentioned above, the Swedish troops consisted mainly of peasants mustered to war, while the Danish forces were mostly foreign mercenaries, mainly from France, Scotland and Germany. However, German mercenaries in particular fought on the Swedish side as well, especially since the rule of Gustav Vasa from the 1520’s (Sandstedt 2003:50-51). Despite their professionalism and skills in battle, the employment of mercenaries included disadvantages. Mercenaries tended to be expensive and were loyal to those who payed regularly. They could also refuse to fight if the outcome of the battle seemed inauspicious. The costs and unreliability lead to the preference of professionalising the country’s own soldiers through training, creating a native army. This happened in Sweden since the 1530’s (Sandstedt 2003:53).

1.6.1. Weapons and armour The German Landsknechte were mercenaries serving in the infantries of many armies since the end of the 15th century. They were usually armed with a sword, a pike (a spearlike thrusting weapon in the form of a long spike), or a halberd (a staff weapon for cutting and thrusting, consisting of an axe- like blade with a vertical spike on the opposite side). Some had also crossbows or firearms (van Nimwegen 2010:163; Waldman 2005:107, 151; Sandstedt 2003:53).

Forces consisting of peasants obligated for military duty was a Swedish tradition since prehistoric times (Sandstedt 2003:53). The armament of the medieval peasant soldier was regulated by laws, and the required weapons and armour varied in each provincial law (Sandstedt 2003:54-55; Thordeman 1941:56). In the preserved medieval laws, sword or axe as well as shield and kettle hat were common requirements (Sandstedt 2003:54-55; Thordeman 1941:56-58). During the course of the Middle Ages, new demands for equipment were added, including bow and arrows, as well as armour such as a muza and protection for the torso (Sandstedt 2003:54). As the battle tactics developed, the armament requirements changed. In the middle of the 15th century, the requirements in Östergötland included chain mail, shield, kettle hat, crossbow, bolts, spear or glaive (a large staff weapon for cutting and thrusting with a convex blade edge and a long shaft), and pollaxe. A pollaxe is a war axe with an axe blade, a top spike and a back spike on the opposite side of the blade which could be beaklike or hammerlike. The pollaxe was used to drag horsemen down from the horseback and then attacking them (Waldman 2005:107, 156; Sandstedt 2003:54; Thordeman 1941:56-58). The Swedish pole weapons included also a Swedish type of weapon consisting of a long spike with a perpendicular beam of iron for support (Sandstedt 2003:56). The bows demanded in the earlier medieval Swedish laws were replaced by crossbows by the 16th century. The bolts of the crossbow were shorter than arrows, and had a thicker shaft (Sandstedt 2003:57).

Another weapon used in the Middle Ages was the mace, a club weapon with different types for both hitting on close contact and throwing (Sandstedt 1992:74). The simplest type was a wooden club, but the medieval maces could also have a wooden shaft with a metal head, usually of bronze or iron (Sandstedt 1992:74; Oakeshott 1960:258). Figure 1.6. Mace fencing technique presented in Fechtbuch by Hans The form of the metal head Talhoffer (1467). developed during the Middle Ages, resulting in a ‘morning star’, a metal head equipped with spikes, estimated to be in use since the 15th century and still being used during the time of the Battle of Good Friday (Sandstedt 1992:74, 87). Club fencing is also presented in a fencing manual by Talhoffer from 1467 (Sandstedt 1992:92; fig. 1.6).

Firearms using gunpowder became more common during the late Middle Ages and included for instance hand cannon and arquebus. Guns increasingly replaced the bow and crossbow during the 16th century, even though the gun had a time consuming reloading process and lacked the long-range accuracy of the bow. However, a bullet from a gun created greater damage and was better at penetrating armour than an arrow or a bolt, at least at close range (Rogers 2010:209-212; Sandstedt 2003:53). Handguns, pikes and shorter weapons such as halberds became the most common weapons of the infantry (Rogers 2010:214). Swords and different axes, in other words bladed weapons, cause sharp injuries, whereas arrowheads and points of weapons tend to cause puncture wounds and firearms tend to cause gunshot wounds. Maces and hammerlike ends of pollaxes cause blunt injuries.The morning star could cause penetrating wounds with its spikes in combination with a blunt trauma if a larger surface of the mace head struck the opponent (Sandstedt 1992:95-96).

The body armour could include a chain mail or a coat of plates, which consisted of metal plates riveted together and into leather or textile garment. The armour covered foremost the torso but sometimes legs and arms were also protected. During the late Middle Ages the armour developed, culminating in the 15th century to the harness of shining metal plate armour. As this body armour was expensive, only soldiers of higher social standing could afford to protect themselves completely. The helmets worn were kettle hats, a brimmed iron ‘hat’, or a sallet, which had a longer neck brace in the back which shielded the neck (Woosnam-Savage & DeVries 2015:53; Sandstedt 2003:54-56; Oakeshott 1960:261, 284-286). The muza mentioned in the medieval Swedish laws has been interpreted as a mail coif by Thordeman, and as a chain mail by previous research (Thordeman 1941:59-62).

A contemporaneous source describes the combats and equipment of the mercenaries and the Swedes. In his diary from the early 16th century, the German mercenary Paul Dolnstein wrote about and illustrated the combats he participated on behalf of the Danish forces when fighting against the Swedes in Sweden (Dolnstein 1502 in Sandstedt 2003:54). His drawings show two types of very differently armed soldiers. The mercenaries were armed with moden halberds and short katzbalger swords, typical for mercenaries. They wore helmets and were protected by body armour. The Swedish peasants, on the other hand, are illustrated having normal clothing and a coat of plates on top of their

Figure 1.7. Danish and German mercenaries fighting against Swedish peasant forces in 1502. From the diary of Paul Dolstein, early 16th century (Sandstedt 2003:54). clothes, and armed with crossbows, swords and pole weapons. The armour worn by the Swedes seems to be of one type: a coat of plates covering the torso, but the head could be protected with muzas, kettle hats or sallets (Sandstedt 2003:56; Thordeman 1941:65-66; fig. 1.7).

1.6.2. Battle tactics In the Late Middle Ages, the importance of infantry grew, although cavalry remained important in battles as well (Rogers 2010:204). Towards the end of the Middle Ages and beginning of the Early Modern period, a new model for infantry tactics developed, first used by the Swiss infantry. In the Middle Ages, the usual formation was a line, much wider than deep. The Swiss introduced formations in squares, although here square could mean a square or a ‘broad square’ in which the formation was at least twice as broad as it was deep and hence more linear. The Swiss were armed with pikes, halberds and bills. A bill is a staff weapon in which the upper end of the blade has a forward facing hook. On the opposite side of the blade may be a spike (Rogers 2010:206-207; Waldman 2005:115).

The German Landsknechte followed the Swiss tactics, armed with pikes, halberds, swords and handguns (van Nimwegen 2010:163). In square formation, as in any formation, holding the formation was crucial to victory. A disordered formation would lead to soldiers being unable to fight effectively (Rogers 2010:206-207). Hence, attempts were made to break the lines of the adversary on the battlefield, for instance by a charging cavalry or shooting arrows at the formation (Rogers 2010:205). The square formation itself had an advantage in breaking the formation of the enemy, as its mass while advancing gave it great momentum (Rogers 2010:207). The close order, combined weapons and discipline for instance in remaining in formation usually made the troops victorious. Wars were won by the party superior in discipline and training (van Nimwegen 2010: 163, 169). The peasants were not professional soldiers and lacked the rehearsing and discipline of the military professionals in weapon handling and holding the formation. During more troubled times, though, the peasant forces gained experience in battles (Sandstedt 2003:58-59). Olaus Magnus (1555, quoted by Sandstedt 2003:57-58) describes some of the tactics of the Swedish peasant forces, mentioning that bolts were shot up with crossbows so that they “fell down like dense hale” on the horsemen and their horses. The bolts that missed the target fell to the ground, and their pointed shafts injured the horses stepping on them. In one of his drawings, Dolnstein (1502) illustrated a battle in which the mercenaries are in a tight formation with soldiers armed with pikes in the first rows and with halberds and pikes behind them. On the Swedish side, men with crossbows are at the front, followed by men with different kinds of pole weapons and more crossbows (Sandstedt 2003:56; see fig. 1.7).

Although the tactic to stay in formation was emphasized, medieval battles were confusing. Even a rehearsed army and a well-ordered attack could easily lead to a chaotic and disoriented interaction between combatants (Woosnam-Savage & DeVries 2015:31). In confused confrontations, attempts to escape could occur as soon as the odds seemed to turn against oneself. In addition, the search for booty and ransom could become more attractive than the actual fight. In confusion, sudden panic could arise, followed by massacre or large-scale capture of the unexpectedly paralysed defeated (Contamine 1984:229). With many risk factors to acknowledge, tactical errors were easily made. During the Battle of Good Friday, the Swedish troops fought well until they made a mistake, dispersing from the combat before the victory was certain (Sandstedt 2003:59; Syse 2003:16). This dispersal is also mentioned in the contemporaneous account by Olaus Petri (1917:287). It led to the victory of the Danish forces.

The cause for the defeat could be unexperienced commandeering or more willingness to plunder than fight, for instance (Sandstedt 2003:59; Syse 2003:16; Olaus Petri 1917:287).

Medieval fencing manuals provided instructions on techniques to be used with a variety of weapons. The majority of the manuals date to the early 15th century or later (Kellett 2015:128). Instructions could be related to combat ‘in play’ and ‘in earnest’, in other words, combat for entertainment and for real battles. The manuals provide instructions for blows aimed to a specific part of the head, torso or limbs of the opponent, or to openings, parts of the body unprotected by armour design and therefore more vulnerable. Most of the attacks are directed at the torso or the head, depending on the manual (Kellett 2015:130-132; Knüsel 2014:265; Hester 2012:81).

Strikes were aimed to those areas of the body that would cause the most immediate injury and reduce the ability of the opponent to counterattack or continue battling. Disabling blows would be targeted towards the torso or legs. Especially concerning mounted men, blows to the tibia were disabling. In sword fights, injuries to the arms and hands are normal as they are closest to the opponent. Blows to the head and face were more lethal (Forsom et al. 2017:17-19; Knüsel 2014:265-271; Šlaus et al. 2010:369). In the late Middle Ages, most of the blows were aimed to the head. The reason for this change is believed to have been caused by better torso protection or deadlier weapons and tactics (Forsom et al. 2017:17-19; Knüsel 2014:270-271). For fighters of higher status, good protection was much more available than to a peasant soldier, as armour was expensive (Woosnam-Savage & DeVries 2015:53). That the head was the main target in the battles is evidenced by the high number of cranial weapon trauma in osteological materials from the era. But trauma also indicates lack of protective equipment (Woosnam-Savage & DeVries 2015:55). It is suggested that soldiers frequently opened their visors to facilitate seeing, speaking or breathing. Fighting without a helmet could also be regarded as more effective, as helmet restricted the field of vision, increasing reaction time scenario (Woosnam-Savage & DeVries 2015:55; Grabarczyk & Ławrynowic 2013:216). Fleeing soldiers may also have discarded their helmets, or they could be knocked off their heads (Woosnam-Savage & DeVries 2015:55). Lack of helmets due to economic reasons is also a possible situation (Grabarczyk & Ławrynowic 2013:216).

1.6.3. Wounds According to the sources, battles in the Middle Ages were usually bloody, and the wounds of the soldiers are noted in the narratives of medieval battles (Woosnam-Savage & DeVries 2015:33). The

18 soldiers had to endure high numbers of blows, which could have led to more or less healed injuries and scars (Woosnam-Savage & DeVries 2015:46). The survival of wounded soldiers in the Middle Ages had generally two principal reasons: the effectiveness of armour and military surgery (Woosnam-Savage & DeVries 2015:47). Some medieval surgical manuals, such as Chirurgia by Roger of Salerno (1180) or Feldtbuch der Wundartzney by Hans von Gerdoff (1519) include instructions on how to treat wounds sustained in battle. The surgeon should clean the wound, remove all detritus and bandage or suture the wound (Woosnam-Savage & DeVries 2015:49-50). Some late medieval manuals include the figure “The Wound Man” (see appendix 1, fig. 1.4), illustrating the many types of wounds a military surgeon may encounter (Woosnam-Savage & DeVries 2015:50).

1.7. Aims The blunt force trauma from the skeletal material of the Battle of Good Friday could not be studied during the osteological analysis of the material in 2002, as all the crania could not be reconstructed due to lack of time. In this study, the cranial material were reconstructed and the possible evidence of blunt force trauma were registered and studied. Their presence or absence could offer information about the weapons, protective gear and battle tactics used in the Battle of Good Friday. In addition, cranial reconstruction may reveal sharp force and puncture trauma not observed earlier. This would emphasize the benefits of detailed reconstruction. The aim of this study is to examine the cranial blunt force trauma of the skeletal material of the Battle of Good Friday. The number and location of lesions, and those compared to sharp trauma, can reveal more about the battle and the battle tactics.

The aims of this study are: • To re-examine the trauma in the skeletal material by reconstructing the crania, focusing on the blunt force trauma. To consider if the possible new trauma patterns can reveal more about the battle and battle techniques. • To note the possible benefits of detailed reconstruction.

To reach these aims, the following questions are asked: Research questions • What new observations can detailed cranial reconstruction introduce? • Is previously not recorded blunt force trauma present? • What can this (new trauma findings) indicate about the weaponry, battle techniques or the situation in the battle? • Are there adequate benefits in detailed reconstruction?

2. Methods 2.1. Trauma analysis When examining indicators of trauma in skeleton, three points are important according to Galloway et al. (1999:6). Firstly, traumatic defects are to be distinguished from pathological conditions, natural variation in skeletal morphology and taphonomic changes. Trauma is classified according to source: blunt force, sharp force or gunshot. Secondly, the number of incidents and the sequence in which they were delivered should be determined when possible. Thirdly, the injury interval needs to be established and given a timing as antemortem, before death, perimortem, at or around the time of death, or postmortem, after death. Pathological conditions consist of variations of formative changes, resorptive or lytic changes, or the combination of formative and lytic changes (Klaus & Lynnerup 2019:59). To separate trauma from pathological conditions or normal variation tends to be relatively easy according to Galloway et al. (1999:8). In fresh traumatic injuries, the margins of lesion are sharp and there is no sign of bone remodeling. Trabecular or diploic bone and crushing of bone can also be observed. An osteolytic lesion (e.g. due to a bone tumor), which in some cases could be confused with trauma, has smooth edges and undercutting (Kimmerle & Baraybar 2008:43; Galloway et al. 1999:8). New bone formation can also be observed in a defect, but not in a fresh injury (Galloway et al. 1999:8). Developmental anomalies such as excess foramina which could be mistaken for trauma, also have smooth margins and lack the exposed trabecular bone (Kimmerle & Baraybar 2008:42; Galloway et al. 1999:8). Breakage of bone after death can be caused by several taphonomic factors. These include scavenging and trampling. After burial, overburden weight and compression by sediment may cause further fragmentation. In addition, the collection of skeletal material can also lead to the breaking of some bones that have been fragilized by their stay in the ground (Fernández-Jalvo & Andrews 2016:283; Lyman 1994). Determining the number of injuries requires the repositioning of bones in their anatomical position as a single blow can affect multiple bones (Galloway et al. 1999:9). For instance, a single blow may result in fractures to the frontal bone, facial bones and mandible. Sequencing injuries is possible only if the defects intersect each other (Galloway et al. 1999:12). A fracture will generally be halted by a previous fracture, as the energy is dissipated by the pre-existing fracture or open suture (ibid.). In sharp force trauma, the intersection of a defect over another indicates that the underlying mark came first (Reichs 1998:361).

2.2. Timing the injury: antemortem, perimortem and postmortem Trauma can, as mentioned, occur in three different stages: antemortem, perimortem or postmortem (Galloway et al. 1999:12). Antemortem trauma can be distinguished from perimortem and postmortem trauma by the evidence of a living bone response, meaning signs of healing or inflammation (Ubelaker 2015:95; Lovell 1997:145). Bone remodelling in the form of woven bone, callus formation and smooth, blunt or rounded edges of the fracture or injury are all evidence of healing (Kimmerle & Baraybar 2008:55-57). The time required for signs of healing being visible in skeletal material depends on several factors, including the involved bone element, the location and the severity of the injury, the age, health status and genetic background of the individual (Galloway et al. 1999:15; Sauer 1998:322). Sauer (1998) refers to a manuscript by Sledzik and Kelly (n.d.), concluding that evidence for bone remodeling was detectable on bone on an average of thirteen days after the injury, the earliest cases being already seven days after the injury. Hence, signs of healing indicate that the injury occurred at least a week before death. Uberlaker (2015:97) summarizes that bone response can be detected between four to fifteen, and sometimes up to 21 days, after the injury, the earliest end of this range being in juveniles.

Perimortem injuries show no signs of healing (Kimmerle & Baraybar 2008:57). Unlike postmortem fractures, perimortem fractures occur when the bone has a high moisture content and flexible collagen component, is more pliable and has more tensile strength (Galloway et al. 1999:16; Sauer 1998:325). The term perimortem refers to the response of bone with high moisture content, not the exact time of death (see below). Fractures in fresh bone with a high moisture content, in other words perimortem fractures, tend to be clean and helical or curvilinear (Stodder 2008:95; Galloway et al. 1999:16). The fracture angles are usually oblique, obtuse or acute and the fracture edge is often smooth, sharp and bevelled, occasionally with flaking (Moraitis & Spiliopoulou 2006:223-224; Lovell 1997:145). In fresh bone, the fragments may remain attached to one another (Sauer 1998:325 quoting Maples 1986). Typical for perimortem trauma are greenstick, incomplete, spiral and depressed or compressed fractures with patterns of concentric circular, radiating or stellate fracture lines (Lovell 1997:145). In the cranium, fresh fractures usually produce radiating, depressed or concentric circular patterns (Stodder 2008:95). Postmortem fractures occur when the bone is dry, degraded of collagen and less flexible (Stodder 2008:95; Galloway et al. 1999:16). The difference in moisture content makes the bone respond to loading differently than when in a perimortem state (Galloway et al. 1999:16). Fractures in dry bone tend to have right fracture angles and jagged, torn and blunt edges (Moraitis & Spiliopoulou 2006:223-224; Galloway et al. 1999:16-17 quoting Maples 1986). Dry bone is more brittle and thus

21 more likely to shatter into smaller and more regular fragments (Sauer 1998:325 quoting Maples 1986; Lovell 1997:145). The fracture patterning characteristic for fresh bone is absent, and the fracturing occurs in a more angular manner (Stodder 2008:95; Lovell 1997:145). Perimortem fractures can occasionally be distinguished by staining of the fracture surface (Galloway et al. 1999:16). As postdepositional staining affects exposed and unexposed bone differently, there is usually a difference in colour when comparing perimortem and postmortem fracture (Sauer 1998:325). The colour of newly broken bone is notably different compared to the original exposed surface, usually lighter (Sauer 1998:325; Lovell 1997:145). Staining continues throughout the postmortem period (Uberlaker 2015:96). A bone broken late in the postmortem period and immediately prior to recovery will likely exhibit a color contrast between exposed and unexposed bone, but bones broken during the postmortem period long before recovery may not display this diagnostic colour contrast, as they continue to be exposed to staining after being broken (ibid.). Therefore, all postmortem fractures cannot be distinguished from perimortem fractures only by staining.

The concept of perimortem is complex when trying to interpret the timing of trauma, as the term comprehends a wider time interval than the death event itself and as the length of the perimortem phase is not fixed (Uberlaker 2015:98). As bone remodeling is visible on bone at best a week after the injury (Sauer 1998:322), the perimortem phase could be said to begin some days before the death of an individual. The transition between fresh and dry bone is gradual and the time required for a bone to dry depends on the bone and the environment of the burial (Kimmerle & Baraybar 2008:61; Stodder 2008:95). Therefore, distinction between perimortem and postmortem may not be straightforward. Perimortem fracturing can occur after the death of the individual, before the bones become dry (Galloway et al. 1999:16). In some cases, the bones do not dry evenly, and for instance in mass graves, the moisture and body fluids may remain within a mass of bodies for years (ibid.). A test on porcine long bones (Wieberg & Wescott 2008:1033), revealed that the bones maintain fresh properties long after death, with no fresh characteristics after 141 days. Throughout this period, the fractures changed from initial smooth surfaces and oblique angles with curved outlines to jagged surfaces with more right angles and less curved outlines. Uberlaker (2015:97) notes that caution must be exercised when diagnosing perimortem status from alterations frequently associated with perimortem trauma. Alterations suggestive of blunt force trauma, sharp force trauma and even projectile trauma can potentially represent postmortem events. For instance, butterfly trauma, caused by comminuted triangular-shaped fractures in long bones, can occur also postmortem, resulting from effects such as trampling (Uberlaker 2015:97)

In this study, for timing the injury, the following criteria are used: Antemortem fractures (Uberlaker 2015; Kimmerle & Baraybar 2008; Lovell 1997):  signs of healing or inflammation: woven bone, callus formation or smooth, blunt or rounded edges of the fracture Perimortem fractures (Kimmerle & Baraybar 2008; Stodder 2008; Moraitis & Spiliopoulou 2006; Galloway et al. 1999; Lovell 1997):  no signs of healing  smooth and sharp, often bevelled fracture edge  oblique, obtuse or acute fracture angle  often circular, radiating or stellate fracture lines Postmortem fractures (Stodder 2008; Moraitis & Spiliopoulou 2006; Galloway et al. 1999; Sauer 1998; Lovell 1997):  jagged, rugged, torn or blunt fracture edges  right fracture angle  angular fracture patterns and smaller and more regular fragments  in some cases different, usually lighter fracture surface compared to other bone surface

2.3. The biomechanics of cranial fracturing The cranial vault consists of the frontal, parietal, temporal, occipital and sphenoid bones. The vault has a structure of outer and inner tables of cortical bone, and the diploë of cancellous bone between the tables (Galloway 1999:64). The cranium can be structurally divided into the cranial vault that protects the brain, and the face, which is a more delicate structure (Galloway 1999:63). The cranial vault can tolerate considerable compression, while the facial bones are more susceptible to damage (Galloway 1999:63-64). Bone is a composite material, consisting mainly of organic, elastic collagen fibers and inorganic, stiff hydroxyapatite crystals (Galloway 1999:36-38; Berryman & Symes 1998:333). Bone is anisotropic, meaning that it responds differently to loads applied from different directions (Berryman et al. 2012:393). Bone is also viscoelastic and will react differently to different loading and strain rates (Currey 1970:224). It can behave with a ductile or brittle response depending on the velocity, rate, duration and direction of the force applied (Berryman et al. 2012:392). Because of its viscoelastic properties, bone is nearly twice as strong in compression as in tension, and will therefore fracture first under tension (Berryman & Symes 1998:334; Currey 1970:220).

Bone deforms under a load (Berryman & Symes 1998:334). Within its elastic limits, the bone is capable of restoring to its original shape after the load is removed, but when the load exceeds the elastic limits, the bone will be permanently deformed (Galloway 1999:37-39; Berryman & Symes 1998:334). The point of exceeding the elastic limits is called the yield point and it differs between elements and between individuals (Galloway 1999:39). The phase before the yield point is called elastic deformation while the phase after the point is called plastic deformation (Galloway 1999:38-39). When the load becomes too great the bone reaches its Figure 2.1. The deformation of a material under a load. A failure point and will fail and begin to generalized strain curve. The smaller x represents the yield point and the larger X represents the point of failure fracture (Galloway 1999:39; Berryman & (Symes et al. 2012:347). Symes 1998:334; fig. 2.1). As a viscoelastic material, the response of the bone to the load is dependent on the rate and the frequency of the load (Galloway 1999:39-40; Berryman & Symes 1998:336). In other words, deformation and damage of bone depends on how fast and for how long the load is applied in combination with the mass of the force (Galloway 1999:39). A load applied at a slow rate permits the bone to respond and bend through elastic and plastic deformation before failure, whereas in rapid loading the bone does not experience adjustment but shatters (Symes et al. 2012:348; Berryman & Symes 1998:336). For instance, a high-velocity bullet fired into a skull creates great amounts of energy, resulting into explosive failure of the bone with extensive fracturing, while slower loading blunt force trauma may result only in a circular defect with radiating fractures (Berryman & Symes 1998:336). Additionally, the location of injury, and the age and condition of the individual, have an effect on the way the bone responds to a load (Symes et al. 2012; Galloway 1999:39). For instance, bones of younger individuals are more resistant to fracturing due to the higher amount of cartilage and organic material in the bones. Aging and some diseases, such as osteoporosis, weaken the resistance of the bone to fracture (Brickley & Mays 2019:552; Symes et al. 2012:351-352). Direct trauma occurs when a trauma is localized at the point of impact (e.g. from hitting a hard surface or being hit by an object), whereas indirect trauma results in a defect beyond the point of impact (Galloway 1999:57-58). Direct impact may produce a variety of injuries from tapping to linear or crush fracture, while indirect trauma may result in linear fractures, for instance (ibid.).

2.4. Blunt force trauma Blunt force trauma is defined as a relatively low-velocity impact to a relatively large area of bone caused by blunt objects such as hammers, maces or pommels of a sword, as well as falls (Novak 2000a:91; Galloway et al. 1999:5). Cranial blunt force trauma tends to have certain fracture characteristics. Moritz (1954:343) provides the following description: As the impact creates compression on the outer table and tension on the inner table of the cranium, the initial fracture occurs on the inner table, then progressing to the outer table. These fractures radiate away from the impact site. With increased load, concentric fractures perpendicular to the radiating fractures occur, circumscribing the impact site (fig. 2.2). With compression on the inner table, these fractures begin on the outer table and extend to the inner table. This creates wedge- shaped plates of bone, forced inward by the load (Berryman Figure 2.2. Illustration of cranial response to blunt force trauma. & Symes 1998:338). In some A: Blunt object strikes cranial vault, resulting in initial fracture instances, a circumscribed formation; B: fractures radiating away from the impact site; C: blunt object bends the bone inward; D: concentric fractures form segment of the outer table is (Berryman & Symes 1998:341). driven into the diploë without disturbing the inner table, or a segment of inner table is affected with no fracturing of the outer table (Moritz 1954:343). The force may be distributed over a larger area as well, leading to the outward bending of the bone surrounding the point of impact, and with enough deformation, fracturing begins in the outward bending bone (Lovell 2008:350; Galloway 1999:65).

Blunt force fractures of the cranial vault are usually caused by direct trauma and can be divided into linear and depressed or a combination of these (Spatola 2015:12; Lovell 2008:350). Linear fractures, single or multiple, follow a linear pattern and tend to follow the path of least resistance (Lovell 2008:350; Galloway 1999:66; fig. 2.3). They are often found in blunt force trauma, resulting from low-velocity impacts with a relatively large mass (Galloway 1999:66-67). Diastatic fractures are a variant of linear fractures following the suture (Galloway 1999:67; fig. 2.3).

In depressed fractures the bone fragments are pushed inwards, the depressed area indicating the point of impact with linear fractures radiating away from it (Lovell 2008:351; Galloway 1999:68; fig. 2.3). These are usually irregular and sometimes comminuted, producing a mosaic pattern (Lovell 2008:351). Depression fractures are caused by low-velocity direct trauma and may result for instance from assaults with weapons such as clubs, although higher velocity may also produce depressed fractures (Lovell 2008:351; Galloway 1999:68). Stellate fractures consist of multiple linear fractures radiating from the point of impact, where a depressed fracture may occur (Galloway 1999:68; fig. 2.3).

Figure 2.3. Cranial vault fractures. Some of the different types of Comminuted fractures are usually cranial vault fractures (Galloway 1999:69). crushing incidents caused by low- velocity and heavy impact. The bone is broken into several fragments, producing a cobweb or mosaic pattern (Lovell 2008:351; Galloway 1999:68-69). Crushing force may leave a circular defect where the bone forms a ‘plug’ slightly pressed inwards in the cranium (Kimmerle & Baraybar 2008:152). While cranial fractures may occur in any part of the vault, some areas are more susceptible than others. There are six regions where greater thickness of cranial bones form arches, hindering the horizontal bending of bone and directing fracturing to other areas: the midfrontal, midoccipital, parietosphenoidal and pariopetrous buttresses (Galloway 1999:69-70; Berryman & Symes 1998:337). While the areas of weaker bone are susceptible to more pronounced deformation, the reinforced buttresses can be affected by load as well (Galloway 1999:70).

The face consists of several relatively brittle bones supported on braces of more rigid bone (Galloway 1999:72). These rigid structures are less prone to fracturing and include the alveolar process of the maxilla, the malar eminence of the zygomatics and the nasofrontal process of the maxilla (ibid.). Facial fractures may result from one segment of the face being sheared off from the others through brittle bone or sutures, as well as depressed and comminuted fractures (Lovell 2008:353; Galloway 1999:73). Three patterns of facial fractures are described by René Le Fort (1901, quoted by Lovell

2008:353 and Galloway 1999:73-74; see appendix 1, fig. 1.5). Le Fort I, a mid-face fracture, which separates the upper palate from the maxilla and usually results from a blow directly against the alveolar process of the maxilla on either side of the head. Le Fort II, a pyramidal fracture, separates the maxilla from the face by fracturing through the maxilla into the orbits, resulting from a centrally directed blow. Le Fort III fracture separates the facial bones from the base of the skull by fracturing through the orbits and the bridge of the nose. The majority of facial fractures are variations of these types with comminution and fracturing in other bones as well (Galloway 1999:74). The tripod fracture is the separation of the zygomatic bone from the cranium, occurring normally at the zygomatic arch, the zygomaticofrontal suture and the inferior orbital rim, usually resulting from a blow over the malar eminence (Galloway 1999:74; see appendix 1, fig. 1.6). The fractures of the mandible can be divided according to the location of the fracture. Mandibular fractures may occur to the condyle, angle, symphysis, body, ramus or coronoid process (Galloway 1999:78; see appendix 1, fig. 1.7). The mandible is a ring structure, and thus a fracture at the point of impact may be accompanied by another on the opposite side (Lovell 2008:353; Galloway 1999:77). Assaults tend to result in fractures at the mandibular angle (Galloway 1999:77).

In this study, for blunt force trauma to the cranial vault, the following criteria are used (Kimmerle & Baraybar 2008:152-167; Galloway 1999:48-60 64-72; Berryman & Symes 1998:336-342):  Fracture lines, either linear or concentric: these may be one or several, simple or comminuted  Depressed fracture/depression on the outer table with a possibility for a bony ‘plug’ on the endocranial side  Bone fragments are forced inwards into the skull, while concentric fracturing happens on the outbending part of the injury

For blunt force trauma to facial bones, the following criteria are used (Galloway 1999:72-76; Berryman & Symes 1998:337-338):  a segment of face being separated from the rest of the cranial bones (Le Fort fractures)  depressed or comminuted fractures  tripod fracture on zygomatic bone

2.5. Sharp force trauma Sharp force trauma involves a narrowly focused, dynamic, slow-loaded impact from a sharp object that produces damage to the bone in the form of a narrow or broad incision, often penetrating (cutting through the bone in the cranium or through cortical bone in postcranial bones) the bone (Symes et al. 2012:361-362). The injury is inflicted with an edged or pointed instrument such as knife, saw, axe or sword which may incise, cut, stab, chop, dent or crush bone, depending on the weight and pressure applied (Kimmerle & Baraybar 2008:265; Galloway et al. 1999:6). Incision is a superficial injury whereas cut is deeper and can penetrate the bone (Komar & Buikstra 2008:161). Sharp force trauma tends to have a linear shape with well-defined sharp edges (Kimmerle & Baraybar 2008:268; Wenham 1989:127). As a blade cuts into bone, the wall produced by the blade is called a kerf wall, and the developed floor is called a kerf floor (Symes et al. 1998:394). At least one of the walls (also known as kerf walls) of the defects is smooth and has a polished appearance, the other one may be smooth or flaked, rippled or roughened (Kimmerle & Baraybar 2008:279; Novak 2000b:240; Reichs 1998:358). The walls may have striations perpendicular to the kerf floor (Reichs 1998:359). The cross-section of the incision or cut is of V- or U-shape (Kimmerle & Baraybar 2008:268). Sharp force trauma may combine blunt force features with sharp force characteristics, producing fractures beyond the incised area or have associated features such as chipping, chattering, and breakaway spurs and notches (Kimmerle & Baraybar 2008:274-279; Galloway et al. 1999:6; Symes et al. 1998:398).

In this study, for sharp force trauma on cranial vault, the following criteria are used (Kimmerle & Baraybar 2008:268,274-279; Novak 2000a:91; 2000b:240; Reichs 1998:358-359; Wenham 1989:127):  Linear shape and well-defined edges  At least other wall of the defect is smooth, the other may be irregular as well  Cross-section of the defect is V- or U-shaped  Possible striations on the wall or walls perpendicular to the kerf floor  There may be associated fractures or other features to SFT

2.6. Gunshot trauma and puncture trauma Gunshot trauma, also called ballistic or projectile trauma, is caused by a bullet of a gun and is a fast- loaded force (Passalacqua & Fenton 2012:400; Symes et al. 2012:371). The high velocity of the impact is the factor distinguishing gunshot trauma from blunt and sharp force trauma and causes the bone to act more as a brittle material, fracturing instantaneously with little or no plastic deformation

(Symes et al. 2012:371). Some bullets enter the cranial vault producing only an entrance wound, while some produce fracturing as well (Berryman & Symes 1998:344). Most of the time, the entrance wound is bevelled internally and the exit wound bevelled externally (Symes et al. 2012:374). The entrance wound may be circular, keyhole-shaped, gutter, tangential, eccentric or irregular while the exit wound may be regular, keyhole-shaped or irregular (Kimmerle & Baraybar 2008:353; Berryman & Symes 1998:349). Berryman and Symes (1998:344-345, quoting Smith et al. 1987) describe the fracturing: When fracturing occurs, the fractures radiate away from the entrance site, and the plates of bone produced by these radiating fractures are elevated out of the vault, contrarily to blunt force trauma. As a result, concentric ‘heaving’ fractures develop perpendicular to the radiating fractures. The concentric fractures are initiated in the inner table, advancing to the outer table of the cranium (fig. 2.4). Fractures advance at great speeds and can precede the bullet to the opposite side of the vault. The exit wound may have radiating fractures as well, terminating in preexisting fractures. In addition to gunshot trauma, other projectiles involve higher velocities, for instance arrowheads and crossbow bolts (Novak 2000a:91; Galloway et al. 1999:6). These can have entrance and exit wounds and cause extensive fracturing and damage similar to gunshot trauma. However, as other projectiles are sometimes less high-velocity than gunshot, the fracturing can also be less destructive (Berryman et al. 2012:393-394; Novak 2000a:91). Puncture or penetrative wounds are injuries characterized by a small area of impact and a localized area of distortion, partially or completely penetrating the bone cortex and leaving a Figure 2.4. Comparison of bevel mechanics in concentric fractures by blunt distinct shape that force trauma (A) and gunshot trauma (B). Cross-sectional view. c: compressive stress; t: tensile stress (Berryman & Symes 1998:347). reflects the cross- section of the weapon causing the defect (Lovell 2008:352; Novak 2000a:97). These may be caused by sharp force, for instance a blade such as sword, blunt force, or projectile force, for instance arrowhead (Novak 2000a:97-98). Depending on the bone element, the velocity and the direction of the weapon, puncture wound may have associated fracturing, such as radiating fracture lines (Berryman et al. 2012:393; Novak 2000a:91).

In this study, for gunshot trauma, the following criteria are used (Kimmerle & Baraybar 2008:353; Berryman & Symes 1998:344-349, 374):  Circular, keyhole or irregular shape of entrance wound and regular, keyhole-shaped or irregular shape for exit wound  Internal bevelling on entrance wound and external bevelling on exit wound  Possible radiating fractures emanating from entrance wound and concentric heaved fractures around the entrance wound

In this study, for puncture trauma, the following criteria are used (Lovell 2008:352; Novak 2000a:97):  partial or complete penetration of bone cortex  defect shape reflecting the cross-section of the weapon

2.7. The limits of interpretation Creating assumptions from dry bones alone has its problems. Pinheiro et al. (2015:28-29) have described these challenges. Bones can indicate what happened at the time of death, or before or after that by themselves, and are often the only remaining tissues for analysis. Bones do present much information, but there are still interpretive limitations. The knowledge of what happened to the soft tissue, and knowledge about the context, for instance where the individual was buried and were there artifacts as well, as well as information about what happened to the remains during the postmortem interval will provide additional information, and without this knowledge conclusions may remain vague. Some bone injuries can be misleading and result in errors of interpretation (Pinheiro et al. 2015:39). Although the different types of trauma are usually presented with their typical signature characteristics, it is not always easy (or possible) to distinguish one trauma type from another (Spatola 2015:9). For instance, blunt fracture characteristics are found in sharp force trauma and in gunshot wounds, and in some cases a blunt force trauma can be interpreted as a gunshot trauma (Pinheiro et al. 2015:39; Spatola 2015:9). Sometimes the characteristics found in bone may be different from the expected (Spatola 2015:12). The slow or fast loading usually supports a classification consistent with the observed fracturing, but sometimes a trauma is uncharacteristic: a projectile, for example, can in certain situations cause shallow depressed fractures and no entrance wound (Spatola 2015:12,22). The criteria used to identify blunt force trauma have some limitations (Cattaneo & Cappella 2017:360). A study (Cappella et al. 2014a) suggests that identifying perimortem fractures presents a

30 higher risk of inter- and intraobsever error than postmortem fractures. Taphonomic processes can alter the appearance of bone and hinder the identification of perimortem trauma as well (ibid.). A cut or a perimortem fracture may be destroyed by postmortem damage. According to a study by Cappella et al. (2014b), stab and cut marks as well as gunshot wounds are more easily identifiable after 15 years of inhumation than blunt force injuries, which were highly modified by taphonomy. Taphonomic factors can cause postmortem fractures, destroying perimortem indicators. Warping and abrasion can round off fracture edges and modify colour and outline. Hence, postmortem characteristics modify the original appearance, and may prevent the diagnosis of perimortem trauma.

2.8. Reconstructing the crania In this study, the crania were reconstructed to gain as comprehensive observations of trauma as possible. Kimmerle and Baraybar (2008:22-26) provide guidance for cranial reconstruction, which is partially applied in the reconstruction of the crania from the Battle of Good Friday. Creating two units, the vault and the face, and then uniting these two segments is recommended to create an accurate and stable construction (Kimmerle & Baraybar 2008:22). In this study, the vault is reconstructed in most cases, only the vaults which are too fragmented are left out. Viscerocranium is reconstructed when the fragments are large enough to allow it and more than two facial bones are preserved. When reconstructing the fragmented vault, each bone is first put together as completely as possible before uniting the different structures, as recommended by Kimmerle and Baraybar (2008:22). Their recommendations concerning the order of attaching cranial bones to each other were also applied as far as it did not hinder the reconstruction. After reconstructing each bone, the parietal bones are united first together and then to the frontal or occipital bone, which ever holds the vault firmer together. After this, the frontal or occipital bone, the temporal bones and sphenoids are attached in an order which best enables the reconstruction. The bone fragments are attached to each other using surgical tape and not glue, as recommended by Kimmerle and Baraybar (2008:22), as tape is considered less damaging to the bones and as the crania are easier to disassemble after documentation. The skulls are examined macroscopically for any signs of trauma. The observed traumata are documented in a database with information about trauma type, location, timing, orientation, appearance and possible additional information (see table 2.1 for details). Each trauma is also drawn on a skull chart with trauma types differentiated by colour code. Additionally all skulls are photographed as graphic notes, including overall shots and detail photographs of the trauma.

Table 2.1. Definitions of database entries. UM-number The current catalogue number of the skulls by Upplandsmuseet. Previous number The previous catalogue number, used at the excavations and during the osteological analysis in 2002. Element The location of the defect on a specific bone element of the skull: frontale, parietale, occipitale, temporale, maxilla, zygomaticum or mandibula. A more specific location of the defect. Each bone element in the cranial vault is divided into Region smaller regions. The frontal, parietal and occipital bones are divided into four regions according to position using two of the following: anterior-posterior, superior-inferior or sinister-dexter. The temporal bone is divided into two regions: anterior or posterior. Side The affected side of the skull. Trauma type Blunt force trauma, sharp force trauma, gunshot trauma or penetrative trauma. For blunt force trauma, the general fracture type: linear, depressed or irregular. For sharp force trauma, the associated perimortem fracture type: radiating fracture, diastatic fracture, Fracture type 1 loop fracture, depressed fracture, breakaway spur/notch, no fracture or no documentable fracture. Fracture type 2 For blunt force trauma, more detailed type of fracture: linear, diastatic, depressed, stellate or comminuted. In addition, for linear fracture: radiating, concentric. Timing of the defect. For blunt force trauma and puncture wounds, antemortem, perimortem, Timing postmortem, peri- or postmortem. For sharp force trauma, timing of the associated fracture. Completeness Has the trauma penetrated through the bone or not. Orientation The orientation of the trauma, when applicable: vertical, horizontal or oblique. The size of the diameter of blunt force trauma, gunshot trauma and puncture wounds in Size millimetres. The sharp force trauma were measured during the analysis in 2002. Shape of trauma. For blunt force trauma: linear, circular, irregular. For sharp force trauma: Shape linear, irregular. For gunshot trauma: circular, keyhole, regular, irregular. For penetrative trauma: circular, elongated, angular (triangle, quadrangle etc.), irregular. Direction of the blow, i.e. from: above, below, side, as seen from an anatomical position Direction (although the individual could have been in any posture when trauma occurred.) Comments Possible comments. First documentation: whether the observation was documented for the first time in this study Documentation or during the osteological analysis in 2002.

3. Results Altogether, 118 perimortem trauma on 39 crania were observed and registered during the current analysis. Eleven blunt force trauma on eight crania, 103 sharp force trauma on 36 crania and four puncture wounds on four crania were observed (figure 3.1; appendix 3, table 3.1). Blunt force trauma comprises 9.3%, sharp force trauma 87.3% and penetrative wounds 3.4% of the total amount of perimortem trauma. In total, 72% of the crania had perimortem trauma. On nine of the crania, injuries from two different trauma types were observed: sharp force trauma and either blunt force or penetrative trauma (appendix 3, table 3.1; for an example, see figure 3.7). Of the documented injuries, 27 (23%) were first observed and documented during the present study, including nine blunt force Figure 3.1. The number of different trauma types and the time of the first injuries, 17 sharp force documentation of the trauma. injuries and one penetrative injury. Ninety-one (77%) of the injuries were already documented in 2002: two blunt force trauma, 86 sharp force trauma and three penetrative trauma (figure 3.1; appendix 3, table 3.2.).

3.1. Blunt force trauma As mentioned above, blunt force trauma was left out from the analysis of the skeletal material due to lack of time in 2002. However, two depressed fractures were noted on one cranium (UM 35235). They were described as probably perimortem, but what caused these trauma is uncertain (Kjellström 2003:102). Blunt force trauma is considered difficult to identify, as noted above. In this analysis as well, some of the blunt force traumata are difficult to diagnose with certainty. The perimortem characteristics mainly observed on the crania are smooth fracture surface, oblique fracture edges and concentric and radiating fracture patterns. The postmortem characteristics mainly observed are rugged fracture surface, which may be lighter or have the same colour as the rest of the bone, rugged fracture edge, right fracture angles and more angular fracture pattern. Several fractures have characteristics fitting

33 both perimortem and postmortem criteria, such as partially oblique and partially straight angle or partially smooth and partially rugged surface. Most fracture lines with perimortem or possibly perimortem characteristics in the cranial material have partial postmortem damage. It is also possible that postmortem damage has completely erased blunt force or other perimortem trauma, as most of the crania display fragmentation and postmortem damage. Especially the fragile facial bones have suffered a great degree of postmortem damage, which may have concealed or completely obliterated some of the perimortem, especially blunt force trauma. On some occasions, bones had been glued together during previous analysis, which hindered the observation of fracture surfaces. Considering all perimortem trauma, it can be assumed that there were also numerous blows affecting only the soft tissue which are unattainable in osteological analysis. During the current analysis, eleven blunt force traumata or possible blunt force traumata were recorded on eight crania (table 3.1). These include the two traumata noted in the previous analysis. Of the total of 54 analysed crania, 15% have thus blunt force trauma or possible blunt force trauma. A single blunt trauma was registered on five crania and two blows on three crania. The blunt force traumata are either linear or depressed fractures: seven of them (64%) linear and four of them (36%) depressed. Six (55%) of all blunt force traumata show associated radiating linear fractures (table 3.1). Two of the depressed fractures are located on parietal bones. One of these (UM35225) has concentric fracture lines around it on the outer table (see appendix 2, fig. 2.1), while the other (UM35235) has concentric fractures surrounding it only superiorly and posteriorly (see appendix 2, fig. 2.2). The third depression fracture is on a temporal bone (UM35235) and has irregular fracture lines with only some inbent bone preserved (see appendix 2, fig. 2.2). The fourth depression fracture is also on a temporal bone (UM35206) and has irregular fracture lines with no inbent bone preserved. Figure 3.2. A detail picture of the concentric blunt force trauma Two of the linear fractures are on / gunshot wound on the parietal bone of cranium UM 35237. parietal bones. One of these The pattern includes perimortem or possibly perimortem fractures (red arrows) and fractures with postmortem damage or (UM35204) is a single linear fracture. postmortem fractures (black arrows). The scale measures 5 cm. The other (UM35237) is a concentric

fracture with linear fractures radiating away from the impact point (fig. 3.2). The concentric fracture has suffered postmortem damage and the fracture lines radiating from the lesion display mainly postmortem characters. The fracture surface of the concentric fracture is wider on the inner table, but shows extensive postmortem damage (appendix 2, fig. 2.3). The concentric pattern could indicate either a blunt force trauma or a gunshot wound. The possibility that the trauma is completely postmortem cannot be ruled out either. In blunt force trauma, the concentric fracture Figure 3.3. A detail picture of the linear blunt force trauma around the impact point has a bevelled cross- on UM 35203. The second point of impact is along the section and is becoming wider fracture line marked with a red arrow. A healed trauma is also visible on the parietal bone. endocranially. In gunshot wound, the entrance wound is bevelled and wider endocranially as well. A concentric fracture may form around the entrance wound. In this case, the concentric lesion has characters that could correspond to both blunt injury and gunshot wound. The size of the lesion (20 x 32 mm) could also apply to both blunt and gunshot trauma. Postmortem damage to the fracture lines hinders a more exact diagnosis. If the lesion were a gunshot wound, the trauma would be an entrance wound due to its circular shape. No exit wound could be observed, but the cranium is not completely preserved. Two of the linear fracture lines are on the same cranium (UM35203). One of these is on the parietal bone and has fracture lines radiating away from it, some to the frontal bone (fig. 3.3). The fracture lines display perimortem as well as postmortem characteristics. Some are also glued together. Figure 3.4. A detail picture of the linear blunt force trauma on the temporal bone of cranium Therefore, it is not certain that all the fracture lines UM 35223.

are perimortem. The radiating fracture lines halt on a concentric fracture line. The concentric fracture line halts on another concentric fracture line on the posterior part of the parietal bone. The latter fracture line has hence formed first. One of the linear fractures is on the temporal bone (UM35223). A linear fracture runs above the mastoid process, which has broken off and is not preserved (fig. 3.4; see appendix 2, fig. 2.4). One of the linear fractures is on the maxilla (UM35179). The linear fracture runs horizontally from the orbita and then vertically to the anterior nasal aperture (see appendix 2, fig. 2.5). The location by the nasal aperture and near the sinuses could indicate a LeFort fracture of type II. One of the linear fractures (UM35206) is on the temporale, on the posterior part of the zygomatic process. The fracture line is straight, ending on the posterior side to a breakaway-like, creating a slightly rugged surface. In the following presentation of the results, presentation manners are applied from Kjellström (2005) to facilitate comparison with the previous results from the material. Of the eleven blunt force trauma, eight (73%) wounds were located on the left side, two (18%) on the right side and one (9%) was parasagittal (table 3.1). This shows a strong tendency of blunt force trauma on the left side. When observing the trauma distribution per element, parietal bones are the element most affected by blunt force. Six (55%) of the nine wounds were completely or partially located on parietal bones. Of these six, one affected both a parietal and frontal bone, one affected a parietal and a occipital bone and one affected the parietal bones on both sides of the cranium. Four (36%) of the blunt force traumata occur on temporal bones and one (9%) on a maxilla. Of the blunt force trauma on parietal bones, one is on the right side and one is parasagittal. One of the blunt force traumata on the temporal bone is on the right side. All the other eight blunt force traumata are on the left side (table 3.1; figure 3.6). Examining the distribution of injuries on the regions of the skull, two (18%) of the blunt force traumata are frontal (facial and frontal bones as well as frontal-parietal transition), eight (73%) are lateral (parietal and temporal bones) and one (9%) is located on the back of the cranium (parietal-occipital transition) (table 3.1 & 4.2; fig. 3.5 & 3.6. Two of the lateral blunt force traumata are on the right side and one is parasagittal. All the other blunt force traumata are on the left side of the Figure 3.5. Distribution of cranial blunt force injuries per regions of the skull. cranium.

Regarding the direction of the blows, five (45%) of the blunt force traumata were delivered from above, and four (36%) were perpendicular (table 3.1; see fig. 4.8). In the case of two traumata, the exact direction of the blow could not be established. The other was delivered from below or from the side, while the direction of the other was either from above or from the side. The two blunt force traumata on the right side, as well as the parasagittal one, were delivered from above. The severity of trauma can be examined by dividing the injuries into penetrating and superficial. Of the blunt force injuries, nine (82%) are penetrating and two (18%) superficial (table 3.1). Eight of the blunt force trauma have penetrated the cranial vault and one runs through zygomatic process. The fracture line above mastoid process (UM35223) does not penetrate through bone into the endocranium. One trauma may have been superficial, but in its recent state, a postmortem fracture runs through it, penetrating the endocranium.

Table 3.1. The blunt force traumata observed in the crania.

Figure 3.6. Distribution of the blunt force traumata. The lines represent linear fractures and the star shaped patterns depressed fractures. (Base: Buikstra & Uberlaker 1994)

In addition, five fractures or fracture patterns with both peri- and postmortem characteristics in five crania were noted as uncertain blunt force trauma (table 3.2). These fractures have a combination of peri- and postmortem diagnostics. Three of the fractures or fracture patterns are located on the maxilla, one on a parietal bone and one above the mastoid process of the temporal bone. All of the maxillary fractures are quite straight but have a rugged surface. The fracture pattern on the parietal bone is circular, but the fracture lines have mainly postmortem characters. The fracture line on the temporal bone is straight and has a breakaway-like, slightly rugged surface, where the bone as broken inwards along the direction of the possible blow. All of the uncertain blunt force traumata are linear fractures and have penetrated the endocranium. All maxillary fractures are on the left side of the cranium, while the parietal fracture pattern is on the right side. Direction of the possible blow is from above or perpendicular.

Table 3.2. The uncertain blunt force traumata observed in the crania.

3.2. Sharp force trauma During the analysis for this study, all observed 103 sharp force traumata were recorded (appendix 3, table 3.3). Additionally, perimortem fractures associated to the sharp injuries were recorded and are presented below. During the current analysis, 17 sharp force wounds not recorded in the analysis in 2002 were observed on 14 of the crania. On three of these 14 crania, no sharp injuries were documented in 2002. During the analysis in 2002, 86 sharp force wounds on 33 crania and seven wounds on six commingled mandibles were registered. Eighty-five of the cranial sharp force injuries and the injuries on the commingled mandibles are presented by Kjellström (2005; 2003), while one of the wounds was documented solely on a distribution diagram. One of the cranial wounds documented in 2002 was observed to be on a fragment of a temporal bone that could not be associated to the cranium it was assumed to belong to during the reconstruction in the current study and is now documented as a fragment. Of the 17 sharp force injuries recorded first during the current study, seven are located on occipital bone, two on temporal bone, two on maxilla, one on a zygomatic bone, one on a frontal bone and one trauma affects both a parietal and a temporal bone. In addition, two traumata on two cranial vault fragments that could not be associated with a certain cranium were recorded. On another one of these fragments, the element could not be identified. It should be noted that these two injuries could possibly belong to a lesion already recorded. Furthermore, one trauma was partially recorded in 2002 and partially in the current study, located on frontal bone and maxilla, as the injury on the maxilla was observed only after facial reconstruction during the present analysis. The sharp force injuries first observed during the current analysis were mainly located in a position where they were more easily observable during or after the reconstruction of the cranium. It should also be noted that most crania with recently documented sharp force wounds had sharp force injuries documented already in 2002, from one up to four injuries.

All in all, 103 sharp force wounds are registered on 36 crania (67%) of the total of 54 crania. This number includes the three wounds found on fragments. The sharp force wounds observed have a smooth wall, with well-defined edges on most of them. Striation was discernible on many wounds. Adding the seven lesions on commingled mandibles documented only in 2002 makes the total of the cranial sharp wounds 110. In the following presentation, the information of the recently observed wounds is combined with the results of the analysis in 2002 to gain understanding of the entire cranial material. Two of the new 17 observations will be left out, as the wound is on such a small fragment that only limited information could be attained. It is worth noting, that the commingled mandibles were not a subject of the current study. Therefore, all recordings of these mandibles originate from the analysis in 2002.

The average number of blade wounds per affected cranium is 3.1 and for the total number of crania, 2.0. In the 2002 analysis the average number of blade wounds was 2.7 per affected cranium and 1.6 per the total number of crania (Kjellström 2005:32). The average number of wounds is slightly larger in the current analysis. More than one wound was observed on 27 of the crania inflicted by sharp force (for an example see fig. 3.7). The number of wounds on these crania was from two to six. On three crania, two sharp wounds overlapped each other, for instance in UM35232 (appendix 2, fig. 2.6). Of the total number of blade wounds, 54 (50%) were located on the left side, 44 (41%) on the right side and 10 (9%) were parasagittal (appendix 3, table 3.4). In the 2002 analysis, the numbers were 44 (48%) on the left side, 40

Figure 3.7. A detail picture of multiple sharp force (43%) on the right side and 8 (9%) parasagittal injuries (blue arrows) and one blunt force injury (red (Kjellström 2005:32). Here, the differences arrow) on UM35225. The scale measures 5 cm. between the analyses are marginal. The most affected cranial bones were parietal bones on both sides (fig. 3.9; appendix 3, table 3.4). The next most affected bones were the occipital bone, temporal bone and the parietal-occipital region

40 on the left side, and mandible (see an example appendix 2, fig. 2.7), parietal-occipital region and occipital bone on the right side of the cranium. Regarding the distribution of injuries in the regions of the skull, lateral (parietal and temporal bones) trauma is most frequent with 47 wounds (43%), followed by 32 wounds (30%) in the back of the crania (occipital bone, parietal-occipital and temporal-occipital transition) and 29 frontal (facial bones, frontal bone and parietal-frontal transition) wounds (27%) (fig. 3.8 & 3.9; appendix 3, table 3.4). On the frontal blade wounds, the right side of the cranium dominates (10:18, parasagittal wounds not included). The left side wounds comprise the majority of lateral trauma (27:16, parasagittal wounds not included) and blows on the back of the crania (16:11, parasagittal wounds not included).

The analysis of orientation showed that Figure 3.8. Distribution of cranial sharp force injuries per 39 (36%) of the blows are vertical, 38 regions of the skull. (35%) are horizontal and 31 (29%) are oblique (appendix 3, table 3.4). On the left side, the majority of wounds are vertical and on the right side horizontal. The distribution of the orientation of the parasagittal blows is quite even with a slight dominance of horizontal wounds, but the total number of the wounds is small. Examination of the direction of the blows revealed that 69 (64%) of the blows were delivered from above, 12 (11%) from below and 27 (25%) were perpendicular (appendix 3, table 3.4; see fig. 4.8). The distribution of the direction of blows is similar on both sides of the cranium (left: 33 (61%) above, 7 (13%) below, 14 (26%) perpendicular; right: 28 (64%) above, 3 (7%) below, 13 (29%) perpendicular). Regarding the severity of the trauma, the majority (61%) of the blows had penetrated the cranial vault (appendix 3, table 3.4). The distribution is similar on both sides: 60% of the left side wounds, 61% of the right side wounds and 70% of parasagittal wounds penetrated to the endocranium.

Figure 3.9. The distribution of sharp force traumata and puncture wounds observed on the crania. Black colour represents wounds documented on the analysis in 2002, red colour those first documented during current analysis. Dark grey areas represent parts severed by cuts, documented in 2002. Unfilled lines represent antemortem trauma. Complemented on figure by Kjellström (2005:34). (Base: Buikstra & Uberlaker 1994.)

Several sharp force wounds had associated perimortem fractures, which were registered during the current analysis. Here as well, many fracture lines had both peri- and postmortem characteristics. In this case, the problems with identifying perimortem fracture affects especially the number of radiating fracture lines. Among 29 crania, 60 sharp force wounds have associated perimortem fractures (appendix 3, table 3.3), 39 of these have breakaway notches or spurs (see an example appendix 2, fig. 2.8), 14 have radiating linear fractures and one has a loopfracture. Eight wounds are recorded to have flaking or chipping edges. On 16 crania, 18 sharp force wounds have associated fractures which are either peri- or postmortem, and 16 of them have radiating linear fractures, one has a diastatic fracture and one has chipping.

3.3. Puncture trauma During the analysis in 2002, three lesions were registred as puncture trauma. In the current analysis, one additional puncture wound was identified. Here, all punctures are presented together. Altogether, four puncture wounds in four crania were registered. Two of the puncture wounds had a V- shaped cross-section and were elongated. Both are located on the parietal bone, one (UM35191) on the left side and one (UM34344) on sagittal suture. The first case has penetrated the endocranium. Both were delivered from above. One of the punctures Figure 3.10. A detail picture of the puncture wound on UM35219. The scale measures 5 cm. (UM35219) has a V-shaped cross-section and a trapezoid shape. It is located on the right side of occipital bone. The lesion was delivered from below and has not penetrated the endocranium (table 3.3; fig. 3.10). A cast was made of this puncture wound (fig. 3.11). The pointed shape of the cast indicates that the cranium was punctured by a tip of a weapon. The mechanism of injury of one of the puncture wounds (UM34346) is more unclear. It is a superficial rhomboid-formed impression with distinct margins on the right side of a frontal bone. It has not penetrated the bone and is shallow. Whether the impression was caused by a weapon or by something else cannot be firmly established. In addition, one uncertain puncture wound on a frontal bone (UM35225) was observed. The lesion Figure 3.11. A cast of the puncture wound on has both peri- and postmortem diagnostics. It is UM35219. narrow and elongated with a near V-shaped cross-section and it penetrates the cranial vault. The walls are not smooth but rugged. A postmortem fracture line runs through the lesion.

Table 3.3. The puncture wounds observed in the crania. Trauma Associated Size Documented UM-nr Prev. Nr Element Region Side Timing Completeness Shape Direction Comments type fracture (mm) (year) chipping/ 35191 A4:14 Parietale a-s/i sin PT perimortem through 13 elongated up 2002 flaking Parietale- 34344 A2:16 a-s s/d PT no perimortem not through 8,9 elongated up 2002 parietale 35219 A4:42 Occipitale i-de dex PT no perimortem not through 6x7 triangular down 2020 34346 A2:18 Frontale p-de dex PT? no perimortem? not through 18,8 quadrangular up Possible PT. 2002

3.4. Other observations An arrow-shaped lesion was observed on a parietal bone (UM35239). It has a round triangular form with a deeper elongated part, partly inside and partly outside of the triangular shape. The triangular shape seems to have broken off of the bone. The cause of this lesion is unclear. The lesion might have formed while the bone still had a high moisture content or it could be a taphonomic defect (Noterman 2020, personal communication, 12 March).

4. Discussion 4.1. The material from the Battle of Good Friday During this study, altogether 11 blunt force traumata, 103 sharp force traumata and four penetrative traumata were documented on the cranial material from the Battle of Good Friday assemblage (see fig. 3.1.). Of the 54 crania, 72% (n 39) showed at least one perimortem trauma. In addition to cranial trauma, 12 postcranial traumata were documented during the analysis in 2002 (Kjellström 2005:36). Eleven of the postcranial trauma are caused by a sharp blade, while one is a penetrative injury. The majority, 91% of all trauma, is hence cranial (fig. 4.1; table 4.1). It is worth noting, that the lack of postcranial blunt force trauma may be due to postmortem fragmentation or the fact that fresh fractures on postcranial elements may be yet undetected (Kjellström 2020, personal communication, 16 June). The current

Figure 4.1. The number of cranial and postcranial traumata in study analysed only the cranial material the Battle of Good Friday assemblage. and the analysis in 2002 was conducted

Table 4.1. The number of cranial and postcranial in quite a short time span, making it impossible to traumata in the Battle of Good Friday analyse all postcranial fractures in detail. However, assemblage. Trauma type Cranial Postcranial Total as the number of postcranial sharp force and Blunt force trauma 11 11 penetrative trauma is very low, it may be assumed Sharp force trauma 110 11 121 that the number of postcranial blunt force trauma Penetrative trauma 4 1 5 Total 125 12 137 would be low as well. In total 9% of the cranial trauma from the Battle of Good Friday assemblage were inflicted by blunt weapons, while the majority of cranial traumata (87%) consists of sharp force trauma. The remaining injuries are penetrative wounds (see fig. 4.4). The majority of the blunt force traumata are located on the left side of the crania, whereas the distribution of sharp force trauma between the left and right sides of the crania is quite even. The sharp force traumata are foremost located on frontal bones, followed by the back of the head and then left lateral bones. Trauma to the right lateral part of the head is less common (fig. 4.2; table 4.2). As the total amount of blunt force trauma is small, the distribution pattern is less distinct. However, there is a slight majority of blows to the left lateral side of the cranium. The majority of both sharp and blunt force injuries have penetrated the cranial vault. The blows causing sharp force injuries were most often delivered from above, while blunt force trauma has been mainly caused by blows from above or perpendicular blows. The sharp force traumata first documented during the current study are distributed all around the crania. When the recently documented traumata are added to the sharp force Figure 4.2. The distribution of cranial traumata per trauma type and location in the Battle of Good Friday assemblage. injuries published in 2002, only marginal changes to the previous trauma Table 4.2. The distribution of cranial traumata per trauma patterns results. The overall picture type and location in the Battle of Good Friday assemblage. Lateral, Back of the regarding the patterns remains the same. Trauma type Frontal Lateral, left right head It should be noted that the location of Blunt force trauma 2 5 2 1 29 27 16 32 the injuries is presented as if the Sharp force trauma Penetrative trauma 1 1 1 combatant was standing in anatomical Total 32 33 18 34

45 position at the time of injury. In battle, however, fighters are moving, striking and falling down. For instance, a blow from ‘above’ could mean that the blow was delivered from a mounted opponent, but could as well have been delivered to a victim laying on the ground from a standing opponent.

4.2. Cranial and postcranial trauma in the Battle of Good Friday and reference assemblages As mentioned, there is a clear dominance of cranial trauma compared to postcranial trauma in the material of the Battle of Good Friday, where 72% of the crania have at least one perimortem injury, whereas only 12 postcranial elements have evidence of perimortem trauma (fig. 4.1). The majority of postcranial trauma is concentrated to the lower extremities, more specifically on the tibia (Kjellström 2005:36). In comparison with other medieval war- related mass graves, Towton and Sandbjerget display a dominance of cranial trauma as well (Holst & Sutherland 2014:113; 117; Bennike 2006:314; fig. 4.3; table 4.3). In Figure 4.3. The frequency of cranial and postcranial perimortem traumata per Dornach, the amount battle-related mass grave site. The sites are in chronolocical order (left to right), from 1300-1350 to 1632. The material from the Battle of Good Friday is called of postcranial trauma Uppsala after the town. is very low, as only femurs were included in the trauma analysis Table 4.3. The frequency of cranial and postcranial perimortem traumata per battle-related mass grave site. in addition to crania (Cooper 2010:48, 93). Postcranial Site Cranial trauma Total However, the low number of femoral trauma injuries probably indicates the dominance Sandbjerget 122 63 185 Visby 256 330 586 of cranial trauma in the Dornach Aljubarrota 16 94 110 assemblage as well. In Visby and in Towton 132 56 188 Aljubarrota, postcranial traumata dominate Dornach 417 6 423 (Pérez Fernández et al. 2015:85; Ingelmark Uppsala 124 12 136 Lützen 40 29 69 1939:171; fig. 4.3; table 4.3). Total 1107 590 1697

The crania had often suffered multiple wounds. In the material from the Battle of Good Friday, the average number of cranial perimortem injuries is 3.0 wounds per affected cranium or 2.2 per the total number of crania. For blunt force trauma, the numbers are 1.4 for affected crania and 0.2 per total of crania, and for sharp force injuries, 3.1 per affected crania and 2.0 per the total of crania. The average numbers mentioned above are the minimum, as due to the fragmentation and incompleteness of some crania, probably not all injuries were detected. In comparison, the average number of wounds per cranium is 3.9 at Towton (Holst & Sutherland 2014:115). The large number of wounds is suggested to indicate the intensity of the battles (Kjellström 2005:43). On the postcranial bones of the Towton assemblage, the majority of the perimortem traumata are concentrated to the hand and forearm, interpreted as results of the victims defending themselves (Holst & Sutherland 2014:113). In Visby, the majority of postcranial injuries are on the tibia, and in Aljubarrota, on the lower extremities, especially the femur (Pérez Fernández et al. 2015:84; Ingelmark 1939:167). The concentration of trauma in the lower extremities including the tibia has been interpreted in several ways. The armour may have protected the body, arms and thighs but left the lower legs exposed, becoming a target of attack (Pérez Fernández et al. 2015:86-87; Ingelmark 1939:167). It has been suggested that injuries in the lower legs were due to fighting techniques, for instance blows aimed at horsemen (Pérez Fernández et al. 2015:86-87). Another possible explanation could be the common battle technique in the 14th century Scandinavia, where the opposing foot soldiers were incapacitated by striking the lower legs of each other with a long sword (Holst & Sutherland 2014:114). The small number of typical defence wounds in the postcranial elements from the Battle of Good Friday may imply that the soldiers attacked did not have the opportunity to defend themselves in close combat situation (Kjellström 2005:42). At Sandbjerget, on the other hand, postcranial lesions were located on the upper and lower limbs equally. The injuries to upper limbs are suggested to indicate that the soldiers did fight, not only escape (Bennike 2006:314, 316). The high frequency of cranial wounds implies that the head was the main target during the attack (Novak 2000:99). The high number of injuries penetrating the cranial vault would imply lethal blows to the cranium, emphasizing the targeting of the cranium (Novak 2000:99-100). Moreover, crania with multiple wounds in a specific region could indicate deliberate blows, implying a standardised combat technique (Kjellström 2005:43), again reinforcing the explanation that head was the main target. To aim primarily at the head was a tactic meant to kill or incapacitate the opponent from fighting (Forsom et al. 2017:17). As mentioned, helmets were part of the protective equipment of a soldier, but the dominance of cranial wounds observed in some of the medieval skeletal assemblages implies

47 a lack of protection. It is suggested that the helmets were inefficient protection or that the helmets may have been easy to knock off during the battle (Woosnam-Savage & DeVries 2015:55; Knüsel & Boylston 2000:179; Novak 2000:101). An alternate suggestion is that the helmets were removed by the soldiers themselves, for instance for the sake of better vision or while trying to escape from the attack (Woosnam-Savage & DeVries 2015:55). The lower frequency of cranial trauma in the Visby collection may be due to the available armour, suggested by the large number of mail coifs found in the mass graves (Kjellström 2005:42; Thordeman 1939:99). The availability of armour is not the only possible explanation, as the reason for high or low numbers of cranial trauma could also be caused by the combat technique or the particular situation that the individual soldier is in during the conflict (Kjellström 2005:42-43). An uneven distribution of cranial wounds may also suggest that mounted soldiers were attacking foot soldiers (Kjellström 2005:42). It has been suggested that the number of postcranial trauma is higher than that of cranial trauma during early medieval battles, but that the frequency of cranial trauma steadily increased towards the end of the Middle Ages (Knüsel 2014:270-271). The explanation to this change is believed to be related to the fact that the weapons, tactics and attitude became more deadly (ibid.). However, the pattern of diachronically increasing frequency of cranial trauma is not visible on the sites considered in this study (fig. 4.3). There may be differences in the assemblages included in the study by Knüsel, for instance in preservation and analysis of the material as well as in the presentation of the results that could affect this interpretation. The antemortem wounds usually imply experience from previous battles. Only two skulls in the material from the Battle of Good Friday showed weapon-related antemortem injuries, suggesting that the fallen soldiers were commonly not experienced in battle. This could imply that the fallen were Swedes and not skilled mercenaries belonging to the Danish side (Kjellström 2005:43).

4.3. Cranial trauma types in the Battle of Good Friday and reference assemblages Most of the cranial traumata are sharp force injuries in the material from the Battle of Good Friday. There are notably less blunt force injuries and only a few penetrative wounds. The dominance of sharp force injuries is observable in all the assemblages from medieval mass graves (fig. 4.4; table 4.4). In Visby and Dornach, the number of penetrative trauma is also higher than the number of blunt force trauma (Cooper 2010:86; Ingelmark 1939:191; fig. 4.4; table 4.4). In Sandbjerget and Aljubarrota, no cranial blunt force injuries were observed (Boucherie et al. 2017:70; Pérez Fernández et al. 2015:85; Bennike 2006:313).

The dominance of sharp force trauma could indicate that blade weapons, for instance swords, halberds or pollaxes, were most commonly used (Holst & Sutherland 2014:117). Bladed weapons are also assumed to be the most fatal (Holst & Sutherland 2014:117). The small frequency of blunt force injuries could indicate that weapons causing blunt force trauma were not used to the same extent as those Figure 4.4. The frequency of cranial trauma types in each site. The sites are in causing sharp force chronolocical order, from 1300-1350 to 1632. The material from the Battle of Good Friday is called Uppsala after the town. trauma. Perhaps there were fewer soldiers fighting Table 4.4. The frequency of cranial trauma types in each site. with mace or the hammer-like end of Blunt force Sharp force Penetrative Site Total trauma trauma trauma the pollaxe, or perhaps these were Sandbjerget 122 122 used only at a certain time in the Visby 4 182 125 311 Aljubarrota 12 4 16 battle. Another explanation could be Towton 33 86 13 132 that the weapons inflicting blunt Dornach 28 315 69 412 force trauma did not cause as many Uppsala 11 110 4 125 injuries visible on bone. They could Lützen 13 5 22 40 Total 89 832 237 1158 have only affected the soft tissue. A blow to the head might be incapacitating even without visible injuries to the bone. The number of penetrative trauma is low in the Battle of Good Friday assemblage as well as at Towton (Holst & Sutherland 2014:117; fig. 4.4; table 4.4). In Visby, penetrative trauma covers 40% of all cranial traumata (figure 4.4), and it is estimated that excessive numbers of bolts were shot during the battle, causing severe and incapacitating injuries (Ingelmark 1939:187-188). The fallen in the mass grave in Uppsala are suggested to be Swedes (Kjellström 2005:43), which could mean that the Danish troops did not use crossbows much. Olaus Petri (1917:287) mentions that the Danish could not use their firearms during the battle, so perhaps firearms had replaced most of the crossbows in mercenary troops. Additionally, the single possible gunshot wound from the Uppsala assemblage

49 could imply that firearms were in use, although not much. However, one possible gunshot wound is too insufficient to conclude the actual use of firearms during the battle. Penetrative trauma can be caused by other narrow, pointed weapons as well, for instance the point of a sword or a dagger. It could be considered that striking with the blade of the sword was the common maneuvre, whereas thrusting the opponent with the point of the sword occurred more rarely. The injury patterns are notably different in the 17th century battle-related mass grave material from Lützen in comparison to the medieval materials (fig. 4.4; table 4.4). Most of the perimortem cranial injuries are projectile trauma, not caused by arrows but by gunshot. Blunt force trauma covers a third of perimortem cranial wounds (Nicklisch et al. 2017:12-13). Postcranial trauma are mostly blunt and sharp force injuries (ibid.). Blunt force trauma was mainly distributed on facial bones, mandible, forearms, ribs as well as hand and foot bones. The pattern is explained to have been caused by the targeted use of weapons, falls and kicks by horses (Nicklisch et al. 2017:21). The large number of gunshot wounds is related to the accessibility of firearms. However, the number of postcranial sharp force injuries suggests that bladed weapons were still in use in face-to-face combat, the target being mostly the trunk region (Nicklisch et al. 2017:21-22).

4.4. The distribution of cranial trauma in the Battle of Good Friday and reference assemblages The distribution of cranial blunt force trauma in the material analysed for this study is concentrated to the left side, mainly laterally. Meanwhile, the sharp force trauma is more evenly distributed between left and right side, as well as between the frontal and back side of the head, though wounds in the back of the head dominate slightly (fig. 4.2.). Of the frontal blade wounds, the right side is in majority, while for lateral wounds and trauma to the back of the crania, the left side dominates (fig. 4.2, see appendix 3, table 3.4). The dominance of cranial wounds to the left side is commonly interpreted as an indication of face- to-face combat by a right-handed assailant (Kjellström 2005:42). It is suggested that injuries to the back of the head, on the other hand, indicate that the blows were delivered during a rout, while men were fleeing (Ingelmark 1939:182). On the other hand, in some of the medieval fencing manuals, certain techniques include seizing the opponent from behind. However, these techniques tend to aim the shoulder and the neck instead of the head (Kellett 2015:133; Talhoffer 1467; see appendix 1 fig. 1.8 & 1.9). A dominance of blunt force trauma to the left side of the cranium is noted in the Towton assemblage as well as in Uppsala (fig. 4.5; table 4.5), and hence, is interpreted as indications for face- to-face fighting (Novak 2000:99). In their recent analysis, Holst and Sutherland (2014:117) mention a more even distribution of blunt force trauma, although with a prevalence to the left side on the

Figure 4.5. The distribution of cranial trauma types at medieval sites. The sites are in chronological order, from 1361 to 1520. The material from the Battle of Good Friday is called Uppsala after the town. Other sites are missing due to the lack of numerical data on the subject.

Table 4.5. The distribution of cranial trauma types at medieval sites. crania in the Towton Lateral, Back of the assemblage (fig. 4.5). In the Site Trauma type Frontal Lateral, left right head Visby Sharp force trauma 26 28 13 17 Dornach assemblage, on the Penetrative trauma 12 26 14 8 other hand, the distribution of Sum 38 54 27 25 blunt force injuries is quite

Towton Blunt force trauma 13 5 2 8 uniform, with a slight Sharp force trauma 26 13 11 23 prevalence to the right side Penetrative trauma 1 3 2 6 Sum 40 21 15 37 (Cooper 2010:91). An explanation for the Uppsala Blunt force trauma 2 5 2 1 Sharp force trauma 29 27 16 32 difference in the distribution of Penetrative trauma 1 1 1 blunt and sharp force injuries in Sum 32 33 18 34 the Uppsala sample could be Total 110 108 60 96 that maces and pollaxes with a hammerlike end were used mainly in face-to-face combat, as is suggested also in Towton (Novak 2000:99). While using a pollaxe, the soldier could choose if the hammerlike end or the blade was more efficient for the ongoing situation in the battle. Blades were much likely considered useful more often. It should be noted that also the pommel of the sword could be used in striking an opponent

(Kellett 2015:142; see fig. 4.6). Here again, the soldier could make a choice. It could be considered that the blunt force inducing weapons were more useful in face-to-face combat, while striking with a blade was useful not only during face-to-face battle but also when the situation of the battle became more chaotic. The more even distribution of sharp injuries indicates a greater variety of battle positions than just face-to-face fights (Holst & Sutherland 2014:125). The cranial sharp force trauma is quite evenly spread not only in the Battle of Good Friday assemblage, but also at Sandbjerget (Bennike 2006:314). In Dornach, left side injuries slightly dominate (Cooper 2010:91). In Towton, the frontal and posterior region of the crania as well as left parietal bone were most inflicted by sharp injuries (Holst & Sutherland 2014:117; Novak 2000:96). The dominance of blows to the left side of the frontal and parietal bones is interpreted as an indication of face- to-face fighting (Novak 2000:96), but this could only be used to explain slightly more than half of the blows.

Injuries to the Figure 4.6. Using the pommel of the sword in combat would create a blunt force occipital bones and trauma. Combat technique presented in the Fechtbuch by Hans Talhoffer (1467). right side are suggested to be the result of a variety of combat positions and a more chaotic situation (Holst & Sutherland 2014:125). In Visby, a majority of the sharp force trauma is located to the left side, again implying face-to-face combats, but groups of several sharp injuries are more evenly distributed and are interpreted as blows aimed at fallen soldiers and a more tumultuous scenario (Ingelmark 1939:182, 185; see fig 4.5). The more even distribution of cranial sharp force trauma in the Battle of Good Friday assemblage was interpreted by Kjellström (2005:46) as men not meeting their enemy in the traditional face-to-face fighting, but as illustrating a greater variety of battle positions, and as men were probably trying to escape.

4.5. Penetration, direction and orientation of cranial trauma In the Uppsala assemblage, most of the blunt and sharp force injuries penetrated the cranial vault (fig. 4.7; table 4.6; see appendix 3 table 3.4). On the other hand, only one of the penetrative trauma reach the endocranium (fig. 4.7; see table 3.3). In Towton, the majority of the wounds are penetrating as well (Holst & Sutherland 2014:120; fig. 4.7). The majority of injuries have penetrated the bones also in Visby, and it seems that some of the blows were struck Figure 4.7. The number of injuries penetrating through the cranial vault in Towton and the Battle of Good Friday assemblages. Other sites are missing due to lack of with an enormous numerical data on the subject. force (Ingelmark 1939:163, 165). Penetrating sharp force injuries to Table 4.6. The number of injuries penetrating through the cranial vault in Towton and the Battle the neurocranium imply severe head trauma and are of Good Friday assemblages. considered lethal, likely causing brain damage (Kjellström 2005:43). Penetrative blunt force injuries, especially depressed, were probably very damaging as well. Considering the direction of blows in the material from the Battle of the Good Friday, for blunt force trauma the frequency of blows coming from above and from the side is more even than in sharp force trauma, where the majority of the blows are delivered from above. Blows delivered from below are the least common in both trauma types (fig. 4.8). The difference in direction (i.e. from above versus from the side) between blunt and sharp injuries may suggest that weapons causing blunt and sharp trauma were used to strike in different ways. As the number of blunt force traumata is quite low, the suggestion remains tentative.

Blows delivered from above are most numerous in the Visby assemblage and are suggested to have been received in face-to-face fight or while soldiers were attacked from behind or were fallen (Ingelmark 1939:183- 184). Blows delivered from below were suggested to be delivered on fallen soldiers or when considering tibia, on horsemen (Ingelmark 1939:183-184). The numbers of vertical, horizontal and oblique blows were observed only for sharp force trauma in the Uppsala assemblage (appendix 3, table 3.4). Figure 4.8. The direction of blows in the Battle of Good Friday assemblage. Other sites are missing due to lack of numerical data on the subject. The frequency of horizontal and vertical blows is Table 4.7. The direction of blows in the Battle of Good Friday assemblage. even. The results were compared Trauma type Above Below Side Above/side Below/side to those from Visby by Blunt force trauma 5 3 2 1 Kjellström (2005). The Sharp force trauma 69 12 27 0 0 Penetrative trauma 3 1 0 0 0 difference between the low Total 77 13 30 2 1 number of horizontal blows in Visby (3.5%) compared to Uppsala (36%) is suggested to have been caused by different fighting techniques due to skills or differences in battle situations (Kjellström 2005:43). Horizontal blows were suggested to be inflicted most often on fallen soldiers (Ingelmark 1939:183), which yet again would indicate a situation other than face-to-face battle (Kjellström 2005:43).

4.6. Concluding thoughts As the individuals from the mass grave in Uppsala are suggested to be Swedes, the injuries possibly reveal information mainly about the weapons of the mercenary troops and about the defence weapons of the peasant forces. The dominance of sharp force injuries indicates that mostly bladed weapons were used and were most destructive, while weapons causing blunt force trauma were used less or

54 were less damaging to bones. Mercenaries were usually armed with a sword, a pike or a halberd, as well as crossbows or firearms (van Nimwegen 2010:163; Sandstedt 2003:53). The sword and halberd are bladed weapons inflicting sharp force trauma, and while none are blunt weapons, at least the pommel of the sword could cause blunt injuries. More tentatively, some of the few blunt injuries might have been inflicted by the flat side of the halberds or pollaxes. The common, mainly bladed, mercenary weapons could therefore explain the dominance of sharp force injuries. The dominance of cranial trauma could indicate that battle tactics included targeting the head and that protection for the head was poorer or lacking compared to protection of the rest of the body, perhaps due to lack of helmet or because helmets were occasionally removed. The brimmed kettle hats or sallets the Swedes probably wore (Sandstedt 2003:54-56) protecting the head, could possibly have been easy to remove by the attacker. Although required by law, it could be considered that all the Swedes did not have access to a helmet for the battle. As the fencing manuals instruct blows aimed not only to the head but for other parts of the body as well (Kellett 2015:130-132; Knüsel 2014:265; Hester 2012:81), the manuals do not solely explain why the head was mainly targeted during battles. The distribution of the trauma may imply that the blunt weapons were used mainly in face-to-face fights, while the varying distribution of bladed weapons indicates a more versatile situation of the battle, including men fleeing or being struck while fallen. Medieval battles were confusing, chaotic and disordered. As mentioned by Novak (2000:101), variation in the situation and fighting within a single battle should be expected.

4.7. Benefits of cranial reconstruction The number of new perimortem traumata observed during this study indicates that reconstructing the crania was indeed beneficial. The majority of blunt force traumata became detectable only after the reconstruction. Most of the sharp force trauma first observed during current study were also remarkably easier to notice due to reconstruction. It should be noted, however, that the reconstruction was time-consuming. Therefore, cranial reconstruction is highly recommendable when sufficient time is provided.

5. Conclusions Altogether 118 perimortem trauma were documented during the current analysis: eleven blunt force injuries, 103 sharp force injuries and four penetrative injuries. Of the total number 27 of the injuries are newly identified, first documented during the current study. The aims of this study were to re-examine the traumata in the skeletal material of the Battle of Good Friday by reconstructing the crania, focusing on blunt force trauma. The trauma pattern was to

55 be discussed, as it could reveal new facts about the battle and battle techniques. Possible benefits of detailed reconstruction were also to be noted.

What new observations can a more detailed reconstruction of crania introduce? The thorough reconstructions of the crania revealed new data that offered a more comprehensive illustration of the violence the victims were exposed to. Nine blunt force injuries, 17 sharp force injuries and one penetrative trauma could be added to the complete trauma pattern. The number of new observations is especially notable in blunt force trauma, as during the analysis in 2002, only two such injuries were observed. In addition, perimortem fracture lines associated to perimortem trauma could be detected and documented as the crania were reconstructed.

Is previously not recorded blunt force trauma present? Nine new blunt force traumata were identified in the current study following the reconstruction of the crania. In addition, five fractures or fracture patterns with both perimortem and postmortem characters were documented as uncertain blunt force trauma.

What can this (new trauma findings) indicate about the weaponry, battle techniques or the situation of the battle? As the sharp force injuries dominate in the material, it is suggested that most of the weapons used were bladed, such as swords, halberds and pollaxes. This is in line with the previous investigation of the collection. Furthermore, weapons causing blunt force injuries, such as maces, hammerlike ends of pollaxes or pommels of swords, are suggested to have been used as well. Although these types of weapons seems to have been used to a lesser extent, their presence were less highlighted in the earlier study. It is possible that bladed weapons caused more injuries visible on bone than blunt weapons. The dominance of cranial trauma indicates that tactics included targeting the head, and that helmets did not protect completely or were removed during combat. The difference in the distribution of blunt and sharp force trauma shown in the present analysis indicates variability in battle situations, implying that not only face-to-face battle but also more chaotic combat and fleeing were part of the Battle of Good Friday.

Are there adequate benefits in detailed reconstruction? The number of new perimortem traumata observed during the current analysis indicates that the detailed reconstruction of the crania is beneficial. Most of the new documented injuries were only observable, or easier to observe, during or after the full reconstruction. This applies to blunt force

56 injuries, the majority of which were first documented during this study, as well as sharp force trauma. To observe and identify the maximum number of the injuries as possible, reconstructions of at least the cranial vault is highly recommended. However, the reconstruction is time-consuming and is therefore feasible when a sufficient length of time is provided for the task.

6. Summary The crania from the human skeletal material excavated from a mass grave associated to the Battle of Good Friday (1520) were re-examined in the current study. The battle, a part of the political unrest and conflicts in the Kalmar union, was fought in Uppsala between Swedish peasant troops and Danish mercenaries and ended with the victory of the Danish. The skeletal material was first analysed in 2002. Trauma analysis was included, but due to lack of time, the fragmented crania were not reconstructed. It was assumed that more blunt force trauma could be observed if the reconstruction was conducted. Therefore, a re-examination including reconstruction was carried out, including all 54 crania from the material and focusing on blunt force trauma. In sum 118 perimortem traumata were documented during this re-examination. Eleven of these were blunt force injuries, 103 sharp force injuries and four penetrative injuries. 27 of these injuries were first documented during the current study, including nine blunt force traumata, 17 sharp force traumata and one puncture trauma. The perimortem trauma revealed patterns that offered a fuller understanding of the battle situation and battle techniques. The majority of traumata were sharp force injuries, indicating that mostly bladed weapons, for instance swords, halberds and pollaxes, were used and blunt weapons, such as maces and hammerlike ends of pollaxes or pommels of swords, were used less frequently or caused less visible injuries on the bone. The dominance of cranial trauma implies that targeting the head was a tactic used in the battle, or that the head was not well protected. The differences in the distribution of the trauma implies varied battle situations, probably from a face-to-face battle to more chaotic combat and even fleeing, and that blunt weapons were perhaps mostly used in face-to-face battle, while bladed weapons were used in a variety of situations. Most of the new perimortem trauma observations were made possible or greatly facilitated by the reconstruction of the crania. Hence, the reconstruction of the crania benefits the results of trauma analysis and is recommended. The task is time-consuming and therefore should be carried out when sufficient time can be provided.

References Unpublished Dolnstein, P. 1502. Diary. Landesarchiv Thüringen - Hauptstaatsarchiv Weimar Navarro, S.N. 2015. Violent death - A forensic interpretation of perimortem injuries on human skeletal remains from modern and archaeological cases - understanding human behaviour in violent encounters. Bachelor thesis in Archaeology in Uppsala University. Olaus Magnus. 1555. Historia de Gentibus Septentrionalibus. Sledzik, P.S. and Kelly, M.A. No date. Initial osseous remodeling following trauma. Manuscript. Talhoffer, H. 1467. Fechtbuch. Bayerische Staatsbibliothek. https:// daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/~db/0002/bsb00020451/images/ Used 17.4.2020. von Gerdoff, H. 1519. Feldtbuch der Wundartzney. Strassburg.

Published Bennike, P. 2006. Rebellion, Combat and Massacre: A Medieval Mass Grave at Sandbjerg near Næstved in Denmark. In T. Otto, H. Thrane, and H. Vandkilde (eds). Warfare and Society. Archaeological and Social Anthropological Perspectives. Aarhus, Aarhus University Press: 305-318. Berryman, H.E., Lanfear A.K. and Shirley N.R. 2012. The Biomechanics of Gunshot Trauma to Bone: research Considerations within the Present Judicial Climate. In D. Dirkmaat (ed). A Companion to Forensic Anthropology. Chichester, West Sussex, Blackwell Publishing Ltd: 390-399. Berryman, H.E. and Symes, S.A. 1998. Recognizing Gunshot and Blunt Cranial Trauma through Fracture Interpretation. In K.J. Reichs (ed). Forensic Osteology. Advances in the Identification of Human Remains. Springfield Illinois, Charles C. Thomas: 333-352. Borrman, H. 2003. Tänder som informationskälla – en odontologisk analys. In B. Syse (ed). Långfredagsslaget – en arkeologisk historia. Uppsala, Upplandsmuseet: 109-130. Boucherie, A, Jørkov, M.L.S. and Smith, M. 2017. Wounded to the bone: Digital microscopic analysis of traumas in a medieval mass grave assemblage (Sandbjerget, Denmark, AD 1300–1350). International Journal of Paleopathology 19: 66-79. Boylston, A., Holst, M. and Coughlan, J. 2000. Physical Anthropology. In V. Fiorato, A. Boylston and C. Knüsel (eds). Blood Red Roses. The Archaeology of a Mass Grave from the Battle of Towton AD 1461. Oxfrod, Oxbow Books: 45-59. Brickley, M.B. and Mays, S. 2019. Metabolic Disease. In J.E. Buikstra (ed). Ortner’s Identification of Pathological Conditions in Human Skeletal Remains. London, Elsevier: 531-566. Buikstra, J.E. and Ubelaker, D.H. 1994. Standards: For data collection from human skeletal remains. Arkansas Archaeological Survey Research Series. Fayetteville, AK. No. 44. Cappella, A., Amadasi, A., Castoldi, E., Mazzarelli, D., Gaudio, D. and Cattaneo, C. 2014a. The Difficult Task of Assessing Perimortem and Postmortem Fractures on the Skeleton: A Blind Text on 210 Fractures of Known Origin. Journal of Forensic Sciences 59(6): 1598-1601. Cappella, A., Castoldi, E., Sforza, C. and Cattaneo, C. 2014b. An osteological revisitation of autopsies: Comparing anthropological findings on exhumed skeletons to their respective autopsy reports in seven cases. Forensic Science International 244: 315.e1-315.e10.

Cattaneo, C. & Cappella, A. 2017. Distinguishing between Peri- and Post-Mortem Trauma on Bone. In E.M.J Schotsmans, N. Márquez-Grant and S.L. Forbes (eds). Taphonomy of Human Remains. Forensic Analysis of the Dead and the Depositional Environment. Chichester, John Wiley & Sons Ltd: 352-368. Constantinescu, M., Gavrilă, E., Greer, S., Soficaru, A. and Ungureanu, D. 2015. Fighting to the Death: Weapon Injuries in a Mass Grave (16th–17th Century) from Bucharest, Romania. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 27: 106-118. Contamine, P. 1984. War in the Middle Ages. Oxford, Basil Blackwell Ltd. Translated by Jones, M. Paris, Presses Universitaires de France. Cooper, C. 2010. Forensisch-anthropologische und traumatologische Untersuchungen an den menschlichen Skeletten aus der spätmittelalterlichen Schlacht von Dornach (1499 n. Chr.). Doctoral Thesis in Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz.

Cunha, E. and Silva, A.M. 1997. War lesions from the famous Portuguese medieval Battle of Aljubarrota. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 7: 595–599. Currey, J.D. 1970. The Mechanical Properties of Bone. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 73: 210- 231. Fernández-Jalvo, Y. and Andrews, P. 2016. Atlas of Taphonomic Identifications. 1001+ Images of Fossil and Recent Mammal Bone Modification. Vertebrate Paleobiology and Paleoanthropology Series. Dordrecht, Springer Science+Business Media. Forsom, E., Warner Thorup Boel, L., Jaque, B. and Mollerup, L. 2017. The death of a medieval Danish warrior. A case of bone trauma interpretation. Scandinavian journal of forensic science 23(1): 13-20. Galloway, A., Symes, S.A., Haglund, W.D. and France, D.L. 1999. Trauma Analysis. In A. Galloway. Broken bones. Anthropological Analysis of Blunt Force Trauma. Springfield Illinois, Charles C. Thomas: 5-31. Galloway, A. Principles for Interpretation of Blunt Force Trauma. 1999. In A. Galloway. Broken bones. Anthropological Analysis of Blunt Force Trauma. Springfield Illinois, Charles C. Thomas: 35-254. Geldof, M.R. 2015. “And to describe the shapes of the dead”: Making Sense of the Archaeology of Armed Violence. In L. Tracy and K. DeVries, (eds). Wounds and Wound Repair in Medieval Culture. Leiden, Koninklijke Brill: 57-80. Geber, J. 2015. Comparative Study of Perimortem Weapon Trauma in Two Early Medieval Skeletal Populations (AD 400–1200) from Ireland. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 25: 253-264. Grabarczyk, T. and Ławrynowic, O. 2013. With or without a helmet. Some remarks on equipment analysis of the mercenary troops in Poland in the late 15th century. In L. Marek (ed). Weapons Bring Peace? Warfare in Medieval and Early Modern Europe. Wrocław, University of Wrocław: 213-219. Heise, A. and Mollerup, V. 1903-1906. Danmarks Rigets historie III, 1481–1588. København, Det Nordiske förlag. Hester, J. 2012. Home-Grown Fighting: A Response to the Argument for a Byzantine Influence on MS I.33. Arms & Armour 9(1): 76-84. Holst, M.R. and Sutherland, T.L. 2014. Towton revisited—Analysis of the human remains from the Battle of Towton 1461. Forschungen zur Archäologie im Land Brandenburg 15: 97-129. Ingelmark, B.E. 1939. The Skeletons. In B. Thordeman (ed). Armour from the Battle of Wisby 1361. Vol. 1. Stockholm, Kungliga Vitterhets historie och antikvitets akademien: 149-209. Kellett, R.E. 2015. “…Vnnd schüß im vnder dem schwert den ort lang ein zů der brust”: The Placement and Consequences of Sword-blows in Sigmund Ringeck’s Fifteenth-Century Fencing Manual. In L Tracy and K. DeVries (eds). Wounds and Wound Repair in Medieval Culture. Leiden, Koninklijke Brill: 128-149.

Kimmerle, E.H. and Baraybar, J.P. 2008. Skeletal Trauma. Idenification of Injuries Resulting from Human Rights Abuse and Armed Conflict. Boca Raton, CRC Press. Kjellström, A. 2003. Människorna i slaget – vad benen berättar. In B. Syse (ed). Långfredagsslaget – en arkeologisk historia. Uppsala, Upplandsmuseet: 60–108. Kjellström, A. 2005. A Sixteenth-Century Warrior Grave from Uppsala, Sweden: the Battle of Good Friday. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 15: 23-50. Kjellström, A. 2014. Interpreting violence. A bioarchaeological perspective of violence from medieval central Sweden. In C. Knüsel and M.J. Smith (eds). The Routledge Handbook of the Bioarchaeology of Human Conflict. Oxon, Routledge: 237-250. Kjersgaard, E. and Hvidtfeldt, J. 1963. Danmarks historie. Bind 5. De förste Oldenborgere, 1448–1533. Köpenhavn. Klaus, H.D. and Lynnerup, N. 2019. Abnormal Bone: Considerations for Documentation, Disease Process Identification, and Differential Diagnosis. In J.E. Buikstra (ed). Ortner’s Identification of Pathological Conditions in Human Skeletal Remains. 3rd ed. London, Academic Press: 59-89. Knüsel, C. 2014. Courteous knights and cruel avengers. A consideration of the changing social context of medieval warfare from the perspective of human remains. In C. Knüsel and M.J. Smith (eds). 2014. The Routledge Handbook of the Bioarchaeology of Human Conflict. Oxon, Routledge: 263-282. Knüsel, C. and Boylston, A. 2000. How has the Towton project contributed to our knowledge of medieval andlater warfare? In Fiorato, V., Boylston, A. and Knüsel, C. (eds). Blood Red Roses. The Archaeology of a Mass Grave from the Battle of Towton AD 1461. Oxfrod, Oxbow Books: 169-188. Knüsel, C. and Smith, M.J. (eds). 2014. The Routledge Handbook of the Bioarchaeology of Human Conflict. Oxon, Routledge. Komar, D.A. and Buikstra, J.E. 2008. Forensic Anthropology : Contemporary Theory and Practice. New York, Oxford University Press. Krakowka, K. 2017. Patterns and prevalence of violence-related skull trauma in medieval London. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 164: 488-504. Le Fort, R. 1901. Étude expérimentale sur les fractures de la mâchoire supérieure. Parts I, II, III. Revue de Chirurgie 23: 208-227, 360-379, 479-507. Lovell, N.C. 2008. Analysis and Interpretation of Skeletal Trauma. In M.A. Katzenberg and S.H. Saunders (eds). Biological Anthropology of the Human Skeleton. 2nd ed. Hoboken, New Jersey, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: 341-386. Lovell, N.C. 1997. Trauma Analysis in Paleopathology. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 40: 139–170. Lyman, R.L. 1994. Vertebrate taphonomy. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Maples W.R. 1986. Trauma analysis by the forensic anthropologist. In K.J. Reichs (ed). Forensic Osteology. Advances in the Identification of Human Remains. Springfield, CC. Thomas: 218-228. Martin, D.L. and Frayer, D.W. 1997. Troubled Times. Violence and Warfare in the Past. Amsterdam, Gordon and Breach Publishers. Moraitis, K. and Spiliopoulou, C. 2006. Identification and differential diagnosis of perimortem blunt force trauma in tubular long bones. Forensic Science, Medicine and Pathology 2(4): 221–229. Moritz A.R. 1954. The Pathology of Trauma. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, Lea & Febiger. Nicklisch, N., Ramsthaler, F., Meller, H., Fridrich, S. and Alt, K.W. 2017. The face of war: Trauma analysis of a mass grave from the Battle of Lützen (1632). PLoS ONE 12(5). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178252 Used 10.2.2020.

Nimwegen, O., van. 2010. The transformation of army organisation in early-modern western Europe, c. 1500- 1789. In F. Tallett and D.J.B. Trim (eds). European Warfare 1350-1750. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press: 159-180. Novak, S.A. 2000a. Battle-related trauma. In V. Fiorato, A. Boylston and C. Knüsel (eds). Blood Red Roses. The Archaeology of a Mass Grave from the Battle of Towton AD 1461. Oxfrod, Oxbow Books: 90-102. Novak, S.A. 2000b. Case studies. In V. Fiorato, A. Boylston and C. Knüsel (eds). Blood Red Roses. The Archaeology of a Mass Grave from the Battle of Towton AD 1461. Oxfrod, Oxbow Books: 240-268. Oakeshott, E. 1960. The Archaeology of Weapons. Arms and Armour from Prehistory to the Age of Chivalry. Reprint 1999. Woodbridge, The Boydell Press. Olaus Petri, 1917. En swensk cröneka. Ed. J. Sahlgren, Uppsala, Sveriges kristliga studentrörelses förlag. Pankowská, A., Galeta, P., Spěváčková, P.U. and Nováček, K. 2019. Violence in European medieval monasteries: Skeletal trauma in Teplá monastery (Czech Republic). International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 29: 908-921. Passalacqua, N.V. and Fenton, T.W. 2012. Developments in Skeletal Trauma: Blunt-Force Trauma. In D. Dirkmaat (ed). A Companion to Forensic Anthropology. Chichester, West Sussex, Blackwell Publishing Ltd: 400-411. Patrick, P. 2006. Approaches to Violent Death: A Case Study from Early Medieval Cambridge. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 16: 347-354. Pérez Fernández, A., Alemán, I., Botella, M.C. and Cunha, E. 2015. Perimortem fractures in the osteological collection of Aljubarrota (Portugal). Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 40: 82-88. Pinheiro, J., Cunha, E. and Symes, S. 2015. Over-interpretation of bone injuries and implications for cause and manner of death. In N.V. Passalacqua and C.W. Rainwater (eds). Skeletal trauma analysis. Case studies in context. Oxford, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd: 27-41. Reichs, K.J. 1998. Postmortem Dismemberment: Recovery, Analysis and Interpretation. In K.J. Reichs (ed). Forensic Osteology. Advances in the Identification of Human Remains. Springfield Illinois, Charles C. Thomas: 353-388. Rogers, C.J. 2010. Tactics and the face of battle. In F. Tallett and D.J.B. Trim (eds). European Warfare 1350- 1750. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press: 203-235. Sandstedt, F. 1992. ”Hafdi kylfu stóra hendi” – Ett bidrag till kunskapen om den tidigmedeltida stridsklubban. Meddelande 52. Armémuseum årsbok 1992. Stockholm, Föreningen Armémusei vänner: 73-103. Sandstedt, F. 2003. Långfredagsslaget – soldaterna och vapen. In B. Syse, (ed). Långfredagsslaget – en arkeologisk historia. Uppsala, Upplandsmuseet: 50–59. Sauer, N.J. 1998. The timing of injuries and manner of death: distinguishing among antemortem, perimortem and postmortem trauma. In K.J. Reichs (ed). Forensic Osteology. Advances in the Identification of Human Remains. Springfield Illinois, Charles C. Thomas: 321-332. Šlaus, M., Novak, M., Vytoubal, V. and Bedić Ž. 2010. The Harsh Life on the 15th Century Croatia-Ottoman Empire Military Border: Analyzing and Identifying the Reasons for the Massacre in Čepin. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 141: 358-372. Smith, O.C., Berryman, H. and Lahren, C.H. 1987. Cranial fracture patterns and estimate of direction from low velocity gunshot wounds. Journal of Forensic Sciences 32(5): 1416-1421. Spatola, B.F. 2015. Atypical gunshot and blunt force injuries: wounds along the biomechanical continuum. In N.V. Passalacqua and C.W. Rainwater (eds). Skeletal trauma analysis. Case studies in context. Oxford, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd: 7-26.

Štefan, I., Stránská, P. and Vondrová, H. 2016. The archaeology of early medieval violence: the mass grave at Budeč, Czech Republic. Antiquity 90(351): 759-776. Stodder 2008. Taphonomy and the Nature of Archaeological Assemblages. In M.A. Katzenberg and S.H. Saunders (eds). Biological Anthropology of the Human Skeleton. 2nd ed. Hoboken, New Jersey, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: 71-114. Sundberg, U. 1998. Svenska krig 1521-1814. Stockholm, Hjalmarson & Högberg Bokförlag. Sundberg, U. 1999. Medeltidens svenska krig. Stockholm, Hjalmarson & Högberg Bokförlag. Sundman, E.A. and Kjellström, A. 2020. Medieval Masculinities and Violence: Weapon-Related Trauma in Skeletal Assemblages from Two Religious Houses in Iceland and Sweden. European Journal of Archaeology: 1-18. Symes, S.A., L’Abbé, E.N., Chapman, E.N., Wolff, I. and Dirkmaat, D.C. 2012. Interpreting Traumatic Injury to Bone in Medicolegal Investigations. In D. Dirkmaat (ed). A Companion to Forensic Anthropology. Chichester, West Sussex, Blackwell Publishing Ltd: 340-389. Symes, S.A., Berryman, H.E. and Smith, O.C. 1998. Saw Marks in Bone: Introduction and Examination of Residual Kerf Contour. In K.J. Reichs (ed). Forensic Osteology. Advances in the Identification of Human Remains. Springfield Illinois, Charles C. Thomas: 389-409. Syse, B. 2003. Långfredagsslaget – en arkeologisk historia. In B. Syse (ed). Långfredagsslaget – en arkeologisk historia. Uppsala, Upplandsmuseet: 11–48. Thordeman, B. (ed). 1939. Armour from the Battle of Wisby 1361. Vol. 1. Stockholm, Kungliga Vitterhets historie och antikvitets akademien. Thordeman, B. 1941. Medeltidens folkvapen. In T. von Schreeb (ed). Svenska vapenhistoriska sällskapets årskrift 1941. Stockholm, Centraltryckeriet: 55-66. Uberlaker, D.H. 2015. The Concept of Perimortem in Forensic Science. In K. Gerdau-Radoníc and K. McSweeney (eds). Trends in Biological Anthropology. Volume 1. Oxford, Oxbow Books: 95-100. Waldman, J. 2005. Hafted Weapons in Medieval ans Renaissance Europe. The Evolution of European Staff Weapons between 1200 and 1650. Leiden, Koninklijke Brill. Wenham, S.J. 1989. Anatomical Interpretations of Anglo-Saxon Weapon Injuries. In S. Chadwick Hawkes (ed). Weapons and Warfare in Anglo-Saxon England. Oxford, Oxford University Committee for Archaeology: 123–139. Wieberg, D.A.M, and Wescott, D.J. 2008. Estimating the Timing of Long Bone Fractures: Correlation Between the Postmortem Interval, Bone Moisture Content, and Blunt Force Trauma Fracture Characteristics. Journal of Forensic Sciences 53(5): 1028-1034. Woosnam-Savage, R.C. and DeVries, K. 2015. Battle Trauma in Medieval Warfare: Wounds, Weapons and Armor. In L. Tracy and K. DeVries, (eds). Wounds and Wound Repair in Medieval Culture. Leiden, Koninklijke Brill: 27-56.

Personal communication Kjellström, A. 2020. Conversation with A. Laine, 16 June. Noterman, A. 2020. Conversation with A. Laine, 12 March.

Appendix 1. Figures

Figure 1.1. Under the topmost layer of area A4 with the most complete skeletons, the bones have been buried unarranged (Syse 2003: 24).

Figure 1.2. In area A2, the bones had been carefully arranged. The crania were placed on the western part of the grave pit. The picture provides also an example of the preservation of some the crania (Syse 2003:20).

Figure 1.3. The decapitated individual in area A4 provides an example of a postcranially intact skeleton of an individual buried soon after death (Syse 2003: 23).

Figure 1.4. Wound man in Feldtbuch der Wundartzney by Hans von Gerdoff (1519).

Figure 1.5. Figure 1. Le Fort fractures of the facial bones. 1: Le Fort I; 2: Le Fort II; 3: Le Fort III (Galloway 1999:74).

Figure 1.6. Tripod fracture of the zygomatic bone (Galloway 1999:75).

Figure 1.7. Mandibular fractures are identified by their location (Galloway 1999:78).

Figure 1.8. A fencing technique to strike the opponent on the back side, here on the neck (Talhoffer 1467).

Figure 1.9. A fencing technique to strike the opponent on the back side, here on the neck and back (Talhoffer 1467).

Appendix 2. Photographs of the examined crania

Figure 2.1. Detail picture of the depressed blunt force trauma on the parietal bone of cranium UM35225. The red arrows show the perimortem fractures and the black arrows the postmortem fractures.The scale measures 5 cm.

Figure 2.2. Two depressed blunt force traumata on the left side of the cranium UM 35235. The red arrows show the perimortem fractures and the black arrows the postmortem fractures. Lateral view.

Figure 2.3. Detail picture of the concentric blunt force trauma / gunshot wound, endocranium. UM

35237. The pattern includes perimortem or possibly perimortem fractures better visible ectocranially

(red arrows) and postmortem damage clearly visible as lighter surface and ruggedness as well as postmortem fractures (black arrows). The scale measures 5 cm.

Figure 2.4. Detail picture of the linear blunt force trauma on the temporal bone of cranium UM35223.

Figure 2.5. Detail picture of facial linear blunt force trauma. UM35179.

Figure 2.6. Detail picture of two overlapping sharp force injuries on UM35232. The longer, more horizontal wound is caused by the first blow and the shorter wound by the second blow. Some striation is visible as well. The scale measures 5 cm.

Figure 2.7. Detail picture of mandibular sharp force trauma on cranium UM35184.

Figure 2.8. Detail picture of breakaway notch (red arrow) and multiple sharp force trauma on cranium UM35223. The scale measures 5 cm.

Appendix 3. Tables.

The large bones of the cranium (frontale, parietale and occipitale are divided into four sectors, either anterior/posterior-superior/inferior or sinister/dexter-superior/inferior. On the occipitale, inferior is located below the nuchal crest. The temporale is divided into anterior and posterior sectors.

Table 3.1. The analysed crania and the number of trauma observed in this study.

UM nr Prev nr BFT SFT PT Comments 34340 A2:12 34341 A2:13 34343 A2:15 34344 A2:16 1 34345 A2:17 34346 A2:18 2 1 34347 A2:19 35175 A4:1a This UM-number consists of fragments probably belonging to 35176 A4:1a/b either 35175 or 35177. 35177 A4:1b 1 35177f A4:1b 1 Fragment. 35179 A4:3 1 35181 A4:5 35182 A4:5 1 35183 A4:6 35184 A4:7 4 35185 A4:8 35189 A4:12 2 35191 A4:14 2 1 35192 A4:15 35193 A4:16 35194 A4:17 35195 A4:18 35196 A4:19 1 35198 A4:21 3 35202 A4:25 2 35203 A4:26 2 35204 A4:27 1 4 35206 A4:29 2 2

UM nr Prev nr BFT SFT PT Comments 35212 A4:35 5 35215 A4:38 1 35216 A4:39 5 35217 A4:40 1 35218 A4:41 1 35219 A4:42 4 1 35223 A4:46 1 6 35224 A4:47 35225 A4:48 1 4 35226 A4:49 2 35227 A4:50 3 35229 A4:52a 3 35229b A4:52b 1 35230 A4:53 5 35231 A4:54 3 35231f A4:54 1 Fragment. 35232 A4:55 3 35233 A4:56 3 35234 A4:57 2 35234f A4:57 1 Fragment. 35235 A4:58 2 1 35236 A4:59 2 35237 A4:60 1 1 The blunt force trauma could also be a gunshot wound. 35238 A4:61 5 35239 A4:62 4 35241 A4:64 35242 A4:65 2 35243 A4:66 5 35245 A4:68 4 36925 A2:10 Fragment.

Total 11 103 4

Total number of trauma 118

BFT: blunt force trauma, SFT: sharp force trauma, PT: puncture trauma/wound.

Table 3.2. The number of different trauma types and the time of the first documentation of the trauma.

Year of first documentation Trauma type 2002 2020 Total Blunt force trauma 2 9 11 Sharp force trauma 86 17 103 Penetrative trauma 3 1 4 Total 91 27 118

Table 3.3. The sharp force traumata observed in the crania.

Prev. Trauma Fracture type Timing of associated UM-nr Element Region Side Completeness Orientation Shape Direction Comments Documentation Nr type (Associated fracture) fracture Parietale- breakaway, radiating 35230 A4:53 a-s s/d SFT peri- and postmortem not through vertical linear up 2002 parietale fracture breakaway, radiating 35230 A4:53 Parietale p-s sin SFT postmortem through oblique linear up 2002 fracture 35230 A4:53 Parietale p-s sin SFT loopfracture perimortem through horizontal linear up 2002 Parietale- p-s, a- 35230 A4:53 sin SFT radiating fracture postmortem through horizontal linear down 2002 occipitale s 35230 A4:53 Parietale p-i dex SFT breakaway perimortem through horizontal linear up 2002 35226 A4:49 Parietale a/p-s sin SFT linear fracture peri- or postmortem through oblique linear up 2002 35226 A4:49 Parietale a/p-i dex SFT radiating fracture peri- or postmortem through vertical linear up 2002 35227 A4:50 Parietale p-i sin SFT nd not through vertical linear u-d 2002 35227 A4:50 Temporale a sin SFT radiating fracture perimortem through horizontal linear u-d New 35227 A4:50 Mandibula sin SFT breakaway perimortem not through horizontal linear up 2002 breakaway, radiating 35229 A4:52a Parietale p-s sin SFT peri- or postmortem through vertical linear up 2002 fracture Parietale- 35229 A4:52a p/a-s sin SFT breakaway perimortem not through vertical linear up 2002 occipitale 35229 A4:52a Temporale p sin SFT breakaway perimortem not through horizontal linear up 2002 Parietale- 35243 A4:66 p-s s/d SFT breakaway perimortem not through oblique linear down 2002 parietale 35243 A4:66 Parietale p-s sin SFT no not through vertical linear u-d 2002 Parietale- 35243 A4:66 p-s sin SFT radiating fracture perimortem through oblique linear u-d 2002 occipitale 35243 A4:66 Occipitale i-de dex SFT no through horizontal linear down 2002 35243 A4:66 Temporale p sin SFT no through oblique linear u-d new Frontale- 35242 A4:65 p/a-s dex SFT breakaway perimortem through vertical linear up 2002 parietale 35242 A4:65 Frontale a-de dex SFT breakaway perimortem not through vertical linear up 2002 Frontale- 35239 A4:62 a-i dex SFT radiating fracture postmortem through vertical linear u-d 2002 / New maxilla 35239 A4:62 Parietale p-s/i sin SFT breakaway perimortem not through vertical linear u-d 2002 Parietale- 35239 A4:62 p-s/i dex SFT radiating fracture postmortem through vertical linear up 2002 occipitale 35239 A4:62 Frontale a-si sin SFT breakaway perimortem not through vertical linear u-d New

Prev. Trauma Fracture type Timing of associated UM-nr Element Region Side Completeness Orientation Shape Direction Comments Documentation Nr type (Associated fracture) fracture Frontale- 34346 A2:18 a/p-s sin SFT radiating fracture perimortem through vertical linear up 2002 parietale 34346 A2:18 Parietale a/p-s dex SFT radiating fracture perimortem through horizontal linear up 2002 35238 A4:61 Parietale a-i sin SFT radiating fracture perimortem through oblique linear up 2002 35238 A4:61 Parietale p-i sin SFT breakaway perimortem not through oblique linear down 2002 35238 A4:61 Parietale p-i dex SFT breakaway perimortem not through horizontal linear down 2002 35238 A4:61 Parietale p-i dex SFT breakaway perimortem not through horizontal linear down 2002 35238 A4:61 Temporale p sin SFT nd through horizontal linear up 2002 35237 A4:60 Maxilla sin SFT linear fracture perimortem through oblique linear up New 35236 A4:59 Parietale p-s/i dex SFT radiating fracture perimortem through vertical linear up 2002 35236 A4:59 Occipitale i-si sin SFT nd through horizontal linear up 2002 35235 A4:58 Occipitale i-si sin SFT radiating fracture perimortem through horizontal linear down New Frontale- 35245 A4:68 a/p-s sin SFT breakaway perimortem not through oblique linear up 2002 parietale Parietale- 35245 A4:68 p-s s/d SFT breakaway perimortem through vertical linear up 2002 parietale Parietale- 35245 A4:68 p-s sin SFT breakaway perimortem not through horizontal linear up 2002 occipitale 35245 A4:68 Parietale p-i sin SFT chipping/flaking perimortem through horizontal linear up 2002 35204 A4:27 Frontale a-si sin SFT breakaway perimortem not through vertical linear up 2002 Frontale- 35204 A4:27 p-de dex SFT chipping/flaking perimortem not through horizontal linear up 2002 parietale 35204 A4:27 Parietale p-i sin SFT nd through oblique linear down 2002 35204 A4:27 Temporale p dex SFT nd through vertical linear up 2002 35206 A4:29 Frontale a-si/de s/d SFT nd through horizontal linear up 2002 35206 A4:29 Frontale p-de dex SFT chipping/flaking peri- or postmortem through oblique linear up 2002 Frontale- 35231 A4:54 a-s s/d SFT no not through oblique linear up 2002 parietale 35231 A4:54 Parietale p-s dex SFT linear, diastatic fracture peri- or postmortem through horizontal linear up 2002 35231 A4:54 Occipitale a-de dex SFT no not through vertical linear u-d 2002 35234 A4:57 Occipitale s-si/de s/d SFT nd through oblique linear up new 35234 A4:57 Occipitale s-de dex SFT radiating fracture peri- or postmortem through horizontal linear u-d 2002

Prev. Trauma Fracture type Timing of associated UM-nr Element Region Side Completeness Orientation Shape Direction Comments Documentation Nr type (Associated fracture) fracture 35234f A4:57f Occipitale s-si/de s/d SFT nd through oblique linear up Fragment new 35233 A4:56 Parietale p-s sin SFT radiating fracture peri- or postmortem through vertical linear u-d 2002 35233 A4:56 Parietale p-i sin SFT radiating fracture perimortem not through oblique linear up 2002 35233 A4:56 Maxilla dex SFT nd through vertical linear up new 35196 A4:19 Parietale p-s dex SFT radiating fracture postmortem through vertical linear up new 35198 A4:21 Parietale p-s sin SFT radiating fracture perimortem through horizontal linear up 2002 35198 A4:21 Parietale p-i dex SFT breakaway perimortem through horizontal linear up 2002 35198 A4:21 Occipitale i-si sin SFT nd through vertical linear up new 35202 A4:25 Parietale p-s sin SFT radiating fracture peri- or postmortem not through vertical linear u-d 2002 Parietale- 35202 A4:25 p-s/i sin SFT nd through vertical linear u-d 2002 occipitale Temporale- 35219 A4:42 i/p sin SFT breakaway perimortem not through vertical linear u-d 2002 occipitale Temporale- 35219 A4:42 p/i sin SFT breakaway? perimortem through horizontal linear u-d 2002 occipitale 35219 A4:42 Maxilla i-si/de s/d SFT nd through horizontal linear down 2002 35219 A4:42 Maxilla i-de dex SFT radiating fracture perimortem not through oblique linear u-d 2002 35223 A4:46 Parietale p-s/i sin SFT radiating fracture perimortem through oblique linear up 2002 35223 A4:46 Parietale s-a sin SFT breakaway perimortem not through vertical linear up 2002 35223 A4:46 Parietale s-i sin SFT breakaway perimortem not through vertical linear up 2002 35223 A4:46 Parietale s-a dex SFT breakaway perimortem not through horizontal linear u-d 2002 Parietale- 35223 A4:46 p-i sin SFT no not through vertical linear u-d new temporale 35223 A4:46 Occipitale SFT nd through linear new 35225 A4:48 Parietale a-s sin SFT radiating fracture peri- or postmortem through oblique linear up 2002 35225 A4:48 Parietale a-s sin SFT breakaway perimortem through oblique linear up 2002 35225 A4:48 Parietale p-s sin SFT radiating fracture perimortem through vertical linear up 2002 Temporale- 35225 A4:48 i sin SFT breakaway perimortem through oblique linear u-d 2002 occipitale Parietale- 35215 A4:38 p-i sin SFT radiating fracture peri- or postmortem through horizontal linear down 2002 temporale

Prev. Trauma Fracture type Timing of associated UM-nr Element Region Side Completeness Orientation Shape Direction Comments Documentation Nr type (Associated fracture) fracture Parietale- 35216 A4:39 a-s s/d SFT breakaway perimortem through vertical linear up 2002 parietale Parietale- 35216 A4:39 a/p-s sin SFT radiating fracture peri- or postmortem through vertical linear up 2002 occipitale Maxilla- 35216 A4:39 dex SFT nd through oblique linear u-d 2002 zygomaticum 35216 A4:39 Occipitale s-de dex SFT radiating fracture peri- or postmortem not through vertical linear up new 35216 A4:39 Parietale a-s sin SFT breakaway, concentric peri- or postmortem through vertical linear up new breakaway, radiating 35217 A4:40 Occipitale s-si/de s/d SFT peri- and/or postmortem not through horizontal linear up 2002 fracture 35218 A4:41 Mandibula dex SFT breakaway perimortem through horizontal linear up 2002 Parietale- 35177 A4:1b p/s dex SFT breakaway perimortem through oblique linear u-d 2002 occipitale 35177f A4:1b.f Temporale p dex SFT nd through oblique linear up Fragment 2002 35191 A4:14 Temporale p sin SFT breakaway perimortem through vertical linear up 2002 35191 A4:14 Zygomaticum sin SFT breakaway perimortem through vertical linear u-d new Frontale- 35189 A4:12 a/p-i dex SFT breakaway perimortem not through horizontal linear u-d 2002 parietale 35189 A4:12 Occipitale i-si sin SFT radiating fracture peri- or postmortem not through horizontal linear u-d new breakaway, radiating 35184 A4:7 Parietale a-s/i dex SFT peri- and postmortem not through vertical linear u-d 2002 fracture chipping/flaking, radiating 35184 A4:7 Parietale a/p-s dex SFT peri- and postmortem through horizontal linear up 2002 fracture 35184 A4:7 Occipitale s-si/de s/d SFT breakaway perimortem through horizontal linear up 2002 35184 A4:7 Mandibula dex SFT breakaway perimortem not through oblique linear up 2002 35229 A4:52b Maxilla sin SFT breakaway perimortem through oblique linear down 2002 35182 A4:5 Occipitale sin SFT no not through vertical linear up 2002 35212 A4:35 Parietale p-s/i dex SFT chipping/flaking perimortem through horizontal linear up 2002 Parietale- 35212 A4:35 (p)-i dex SFT nd through horizontal linear up 2002 occipitale 35212 A4:35 Occipitale s-de dex SFT chipping/flaking perimortem not through vertical linear u-d 2002 35212 A4:35 Occipitale i-si/de sin SFT breakaway perimortem through horizontal linear up 2002 Occipitale- 35212 A4:35 i-si/de s/d SFT radiating fracture peri- or postmortem through horizontal linear up 2002 sphenoidale

Prev. Trauma Fracture type Timing of associated UM-nr Element Region Side Completeness Orientation Shape Direction Comments Documentation Nr type (Associated fracture) fracture Parietale- 35232 A4:55 p-s/i dex SFT no through oblique linear up 2002 occipitale Parietale- 35232 A4:55 occipitale- p-s/i dex SFT nd through oblique linear up 2002 temporale Parietale- 35232 A4:55 p-s/i dex SFT radiating fracture perimortem through oblique linear u-d 2002 occipitale

Region: a: anterior, p: posterior, s: superior, i: inferior, si: sinister, de: dexter. Side: sin: sinister, dex: dexter, s/d: sinister and dexter Associated fracture: no: no associated fractures; nd: not documentable. Direction: u-d: perpendicular.

Table 3.4. Number of characteristics on sharp force trauma observed in the crania.

Orientation Completeness Direction Sharp Vertical Horizontal Oblique Through Not From From A-B Element force n n n n through n above n below n n trauma n

Left Parietal 21 9 3 9 12 9 15 2 4 Occipital 6 2 4 4 2 4 2 Temporal 6 1 4 1 5 1 3 1 2 Frontal 3 3 1 2 2 1 Mandible 3 1 1 1 3 3 Maxilla 2 2 1 1 1 1 Parietal-frontal 1 1 1 1 Parietal-occipital 6 3 2 1 5 1 3 1 2 Temporal-occipital 4 1 2 1 3 1 1 3 Parietal-temporal 1 1 1 1 Zygomatic 1 1 1 1 Sum 54 22 16 16 32 22 33 7 14

Right Parietal 14 4 10 9 5 9 2 3 Occipital 4 3 1 1 3 1 3 Temporal 2 1 1 2 2 Frontal 3 1 1 1 1 2 3 Mandible 7 1 3 3 4 3 5 1 1 Maxilla 2 1 1 2 1 1 Parietal-frontal 4 1 2 1 1 3 3 1 Parietal-occipital 6 1 1 4 6 4 2 Zygomatic-Maxilla 1 1 1 1 Frontal-maxilla 1 1 1 1 Sum 44 14 18 12 27 17 28 3 13

Left/right Parietal Occipital 4 2 2 3 1 4 Maxilla 1 1 1 1 Parietal-parietal 4 3 1 2 2 3 1 Occipital-sphenoidal 1 1 1 1 Sum 10 3 4 3 7 3 8 2

Total 108 39 38 31 66 42 69 12 27 n: number A-B: perpendicular