The remains of Alfred...or not


I thought I should post something on the latest historical kerfuffle making the news - namely, the discovery by archeologists of a piece of human pelvis which might have belonged to Alfred the Great. The bit of old bone was not found inside a cathedral, where you might expect to find the remains of a dead king, but in a cardboard box in a dusty storeroom in Winchester museum, mixed in with a load of animal bones and random human fragments. 
That's right. We gave Margaret Thatcher a state funeral, with politicians lining up to weep over her gaudy jewelled tomb before firing it into space, but for centuries the greatest of England's kings has languished inside a cardboard box. Or at least a bit of him: the rest of his bones were lost in the 18th century, when Hyde Abbey was torn down to make way for a new prison. Just put me in here, I'll be fineI posted quite recently on the subject of digging up the dead, and the ethics of it. Should we really disturb the graves of our ancestors, just because we're curious to know what they looked like? It's not as if the various facial reconstruction techniques are very accurate. If so, then poor old Richard III, who surely had enough to cope with, bore a marked resemblance to Quentin Tarantino.   Quentin IIIIn the case of Alfred, archeologists have found a bit of him in a box rather than digging up his grave, so the question of ethics doesn't apply. The whole exercise seems curiously pointless: they can hardly reconstruct his face from a piece of pelvic bone, and it may not be his anyway. The bone has been carbon-dated to between the late ninth-early tenth century, which at least covers the date of his death in 899, but belonged to a man aged between 26 and 45 at death. Alfred was fifty when he died. The other option is that it may have belonged to his son, Edward the Elder, but that's even further out, for Edward died in his mid-fifties. Perhaps the likeliest candidate is Alfred's youngest son, Aethelweard, who died in 922, probably in his forties.  Whether or not the bone belonged to Alfred, or a member of his family, is unlikely to be top of the agenda in the next few weeks. The official line is that Alfred Has Been Found, for few are likely to be attracted to news stories and TV documentaries devoted to the discovery of a bit of pelvic bone belonging to Aethelweard, a historical nobody with an odd-sounding name.  We are the King of Wessex, not a 'fun ride'The team who discovered the bone are said to be 'elated', as well they might be, since more excavation of the Hyde Abbey site will now be greenlighted...and perhaps some of the tourist dollars about to flow into Leicester could be redirected to Hyde. In due course the site may become the home of the Alfred the Great Fun Centre, with Viking longboat-themed rides and fast food outlets selling Alfred-Burghers, plastic horned Viking helmets and Saxon battle-axes for the kids, Alfred the Great cakes (slightly burned), Alfred the Great t-shirts, plastic replica Alfred Jewels...the possibilities are endless, people! Now, who else can we exhume and make a fat profit from...? 
2 likes ·   •  1 comment  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on January 19, 2014 07:05
Comments Showing 1-1 of 1 (1 new)    post a comment »
dateUp arrow    newest »

message 1: by Blair (new)

Blair Hodgkinson Well, I believe Richard the Lionheart's entrails were buried where he was killed, somewhere near Chalus-Chabrol in the south of France, while his heart was buried at Rouen in Normandy and the rest of him at Fontevrault Abbey in Anjou. Perhaps we could arrange a Richard reunification?

It's Magna Carta's anniversary, next year... We know where King John is at Worcester Abbey. Maybe he could be exhumed to perform as an honorary chairman for any ceremonies. The beauty of it is, if John was as irreligious as is claimed, he probably wouldn't mind!


back to top