Archaeologists may have unearthed the remains of a woman whose execution had a lasting impact on the writer Thomas Hardy, inspiring the fate of one of his most beloved creations – Tess of the d’Urbervilles.



Excavators found the bones at Dorchester prison in Dorset, where a 16-year-old Hardy watched the public hanging of Martha Brown after she was convicted of murdering her violent husband.

Remains including a skull were uncovered at the prison – which closed in 2013 – ahead of the building of a housing development. The discovery has caused huge excitement among Hardy enthusiasts, who believe the bones may be those of Brown, whose hanging inspired Tess’s unpleasant end.

Thomas Hardy’s manuscript for Tess of the d’Urbervilles. Photograph: 12174/The British Library

They are calling for work to be carried out to confirm who the remains belong to, and for them to be given a proper burial before work to build 190 homes and commercial units begins on the site.

Nick Gilbey, a Dorset-based film-maker and Hardy fan, said: “I don’t think it would be too difficult to establish if any of the remains are those of a woman. If they are, they are almost certain to be the remains of Martha.”

He said a full examination of the prison site should take place. “I think more work needs to be done, and we need to make sure that whatever remains are found there are given a proper, decent burial. Martha is an important historical figure because of the Hardy connection.”

Hardy was among a crowd of up to 4,000 people who watched Brown’s hanging in August 1856. It was an event that had a huge impact on his life and work. Seventy years later, he wrote to a friend, Lady Hester Pinney, expressing his shame at being present, adding: “My only excuse being that I was but a youth, and had to be in the town at that time for other reasons.”

Still, he could not resist describing the hanging in vivid detail: “I remember what a fine figure she showed against the sky as she hung in the misty rain, and how the tight black silk gown set off her shape as she wheeled half-round and back.”

Tess of the d’Urbervilles was published in 1891. There are superficial similarities between Tess and Brown: both women were executed for murdering men who had wronged them in some way. In Tess’s case, she stabs Alec d’Urberville, the architect of her downfall. Brown was found guilty of killing her husband with an axe, though she always claimed she was innocent.

Martha Brown was executed at Dorchester prison in 1856, watched by a young Thomas Hardy. Photograph: Rex/Shutterstock

In his novel, Hardy does not describe Tess’s death in detail. Instead, he tells how two onlookers watch the cornice of a tower as a tall staff is fixed to it. “A few minutes after the hour had struck something moved slowly up the staff, and extended itself upon the breeze. It was a black flag. ‘Justice’ was done.”

In handwritten notes of her conversations with Hardy, Lady Pinney describes how he talked of Martha and Tess. “His sympathy for these unhappy women was wonderful,” she wrote.

Developer City & Country has made a planning application for the prison site. As part of the scheme, the company commissioned an archaeological survey. In their report, the archaeologists say the remains were found outside consecrated ground, adding: “It is known that executed prisoners convicted of murder were buried outside of consecrated ground from the 1830s and it cannot be ruled out that this may be associated with such execution.

“It is the intention that any human remains which may be disturbed by the proposal development will be adequately recorded and removed prior to disturbance, with the intention to rebury the remains following appropriate assessment and analysis.”

Mike Nixon, the secretary of the Thomas Hardy Society, said more work should be done on the site before it was developed; “Hardy is well known for storing up experiences and using them decades later. When he wrote Tess, I’m sure he had in mind Martha Brown. We believe the remains should be respected, whoever they belong to, but it would be neat if they were shown to be those of Martha.”

A spokesperson for Cotswold Archaeology, which carried out the survey, said: “At this stage, it is not possible to determine whether the remains are male or female, as the remains have not been removed for recording or analysis.”