Many of the executed men suffered multiple wounds, inflicted by a sharp-bladed weapon, to the skull, jaw and upper spine, all thought to relate to the process of decapitation, the Dorset County Council said.
Some men show evidence of other wounds, including a cut to the pelvis, blows to the chest and stomach, and defensive injuries to the hands, the council said.
The bones still appear cleanly sliced, indicating the men suffered a "sword-based execution," Evans said.
This is somebody, I think, trying to apply modern forensic rules to tenth-century battlefields. After reading all of the story, I don't see any reason to conclude that these were "executions" at all. Wounds to hands aren't necessarily merely "defensive" wounds. They're entirely normal wounds on a battlefield. Curiously enough there are also sword wounds to legs, pelvises, and other parts of the body. Looks like a hard-fought battle to me.
That the cuts were "clean"... well... that's what happens when you cut somebody with a sword. They tend cut stuff sortof... off. Heads... arms... legs... that's what they were for.