1,000 Year Old Massacre Uncovered in England, page 1

privacy

Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 1 times

Topic started on 15-3-2010 @ 06:06 AM by smyleegrl

news.discovery.com... ld--massacre-uncovered-in-england.html

Mystery surrounded the identity of the victims since they were discovered by accident last June near Weymouth, Dorset, England, when workers at a 2012 building site, stumbled across a burial pit.

Interesting find.

Seems the Vikings didn't want to be executed (go figure, right?) and put up some resistance, resulting in the "cuts" being "less than skilled."

reply posted on 15-3-2010 @ 06:32 AM by Merriman Weir

This story - which has been in and of the news since the site was first discovered last year - has cropped-up on a few forums I go on. It's been interesting that much of the sympathy appears to be with the Vikings and that this seems to be a yet another example of the cruelty of the English. Completely missing the point that these were all vikings and weren't a small trading group, of course. If this group of men hadn't have been killed themselves, they'd have left a similar sized group of dead, raped women and slaves in their own wake. Beastly English, eh?

Similar story with St Brice's Day and the massacre of the Danes in (mainly the south of) England. Terrible story but placed in context of over a 100 years of raiding and the fact that many of the settled Danes were actually aiding the raids then it becomes a different story.

Here's a good slide show of the site itself.

reply posted on 15-3-2010 @ 06:42 AM by SmokeJaguar67

I enjoy reading about European history and specifically the battles involving the raiders and the peoples of Britain so find these types of stories very interesting indeed.

Years ago there was a news story that talked about a bound book that had been covered with human skin. As it later turned out some monks had been raided by Vikings but during the battle/slaughter one of the Vikings had been captured. He was flayed alive and his skin was nailed to the door of the monastery as a warning. Eventually the skin was divided up and this book was bound with one of the pieces.

To this day whenever I think of the times of the Vikings my mind goes back to this single Viking and his horrifying end. I bet he lingered over some treasure and then took a blow to the back of the head – woke to find his skin about to be peeled –yikes!?!

reply posted on 15-3-2010 @ 06:53 AM by smyleegrl

Completely missing the point that these were all vikings and weren't a small trading group, of course. If this group of men hadn't have been killed themselves, they'd have left a similar sized group of dead, raped women and slaves in their own wake. Beastly English, eh?

reply to post by Merriman Weir

Great point.

Sorry that you'd already heard about this....it was new to me and I did a search here but didn't turn up any information.

Isn't it interesting how our sympathies lie with those killed....when they (more than likely) got exactly what they deserved?

reply posted on 15-3-2010 @ 06:57 AM by Merriman Weir

Originally posted by SmokeJaguar67
I enjoy reading about European history and specifically the battles involving the raiders and the peoples of Britain so find these types of stories very interesting indeed.

Years ago there was a news story that talked about a bound book that had been covered with human skin. As it later turned out some monks had been raided by Vikings but during the battle/slaughter one of the Vikings had been captured. He was flayed alive and his skin was nailed to the door of the monastery as a warning. Eventually the skin was divided up and this book was bound with one of the pieces.

To this day whenever I think of the times of the Vikings my mind goes back to this single Viking and his horrifying end. I bet he lingered over some treasure and then took a blow to the back of the head – woke to find his skin about to be peeled –yikes!?!

The problem with a lot of the Dane skin materials is that, quite often, when tested, they tend to be animal hides. Whereas on the other hand, there's evidence that blood eagles and the like did actually happen.

reply posted on 15-3-2010 @ 07:04 AM by Merriman Weir

Originally posted by smyleegrl

Sorry that you'd already heard about this....it was new to me and I did a search here but didn't turn up any information.

Please don't apologise for this! Just because it was known to me, doesn't mean it will be known to everyone else. I didn't mean it in a 'huh, that's old news' way, more a case of my being interested in the responses that I've seen so far to this story.

It's been a good year or so for archaeology in this period so I'm happy to see the same news stories posted as often as people like!

Isn't it interesting how our sympathies lie with those killed....when they (more than likely) got exactly what they deserved?

My own conspiratorial take - which isn't shared by many - is that, for reasons that don't make sense historically, it's always easier to blame the English (and/or Anglo-Saxons) for everything by default.

reply posted on 15-3-2010 @ 08:09 AM by Solasis

I was under the impression that Vikings had largely been wrongly vilified... That, yes, they did pillage and rape, but not that much!

Now that I've actually typed that outloud, I'm kind of blinking at it.

reply posted on 15-3-2010 @ 08:22 AM by Merriman Weir

Originally posted by Solasis
I was under the impression that Vikings had largely been wrongly vilified... That, yes, they did pillage and rape, but not that much!

Now that I've actually typed that outloud, I'm kind of blinking at it.

I think the real issue is that they had at times in the past - but not always, as our perceptions of the past change with our understanding of the present - had been portrayed as one dimensional and that's all they did.

There's also the issue that there's some who would be happy to go too far the other way and 'under-vilify' them. The reality is that, like all North European cultures, they were capable of a bit of everything and that there wasn't really that much difference between the various cultures, certainly not as much as many would like to make out.

However, to compound the problem, the word viking should be only used to represent either people who did rape and pillage or came from a specific place as that's the etymology of the word. Unfortunately, it's used as a catch all word now for all the people from Scandinavia during a particular period, which isn't exactly helpful.

reply posted on 15-3-2010 @ 08:30 AM by thoughtsfull

reply to post by Merriman Weir

Deleted post: containing details of an earlier time frame that does not relate to this facinating find.

[edit on 15/3/10 by thoughtsfull]

reply posted on 15-3-2010 @ 08:44 AM by Merriman Weir

Originally posted by thoughtsfull
reply to post by Merriman Weir

Do we know if this happened pre or post morten?

Anyway I have to admit that on the conspiracy side, I share your views on the blame the Anglo-Saxon approach *shrugs* but that will never change..

Was what pre or post mortem? Sorry, I'm a bit confused by the question?

I'm sure that I read that some of the wounds (on arms and so on) suggested that they occurred during their life (not during execution) and healed - which lends to the general idea that these were raiders who had the tables turned. I can't say where I read that though as this story has been in and out of the news for a year, sorry.

One of the dead did suffer wounds to his hands where, it's thought, he tried to grab the blade during execution.

It's certainly a grim story, but - quite literally - if you live by the sword, you die by the sword!

reply posted on 15-3-2010 @ 09:21 AM by thoughtsfull

reply to post by Merriman Weir

Deleted post: I was certainly on one today..
Another post containing details of an earlier time frame that does not relate to this facinating find.

That'll teach me not to check newer sources of information to get the right time frame for this find!

[edit on 15/3/10 by thoughtsfull]

reply posted on 15-3-2010 @ 09:59 AM by Merriman Weir

Originally posted by thoughtsfull
reply to post by Merriman Weir

I was wondering if the removal of their heads happened prior to death.. since it could have been symbolic or religous head removal.

The reason I mention this is that it has been known to happen, and similar sites found in France

*I don't have the links to hand, but if you want them, let me know*

Anyway since the area and scope during the implied years means to me that there could be a number of possibilities.

They could be Celt, Saxon, Dane or other European mainland raiders..

Indeed the raiders could have been captured by local Celts if early on in the date range.. or local Celts and Saxons if after the Wessex expansion.. or the reverse could be true and that they are local if the raiders caught them by suprise.

While the Wessex expansionism against the West Welsh during those years could place the bodies as Celtic or Wessex troops captured by the other side and executed.

But I would be interested if anyone knows if the head removal happened before death..

The results of the oxygen isotope surveys done on the teeth suggest that they'd have been 'vikings' and not from Britain. Also, there's more bodies than heads, so it's likely that the head removal was fairly symbolic as a couple of the heads were removed from the site.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'heads being removed before death' though. I'd have thought they'd have been removed very, very shortly before death!

Also, I'm not sure I understand what you mean about 'local celts'. Anyone, whatever their 'ancestry' at that time (910ad - 1030ad), in Wessex would have been 'English' whether they liked it or not! Ultimately it was an English kingdom and had been for quite a while before this event would have taken place.

[edit on 15-3-2010 by Merriman Weir]

reply posted on 15-3-2010 @ 12:10 PM by thoughtsfull

reply to post by Merriman Weir

The articles I read some time ago gave an earlier date range, hence my obvious stupid error, but I will say thank you for the updated info.

reply posted on 15-3-2010 @ 12:50 PM by Merriman Weir

Originally posted by thoughtsfull
reply to post by Merriman Weir

The articles I read some time ago gave an earlier date range, hence my obvious stupid error, but I will say thank you for the updated info.

No problem! Glad to have helped!

You didn't have to delete your posts though. It's not as if you said anything ridiculous or anything that made you look stupid. Roll back the years a bit - and you pointed out that you'd been lead to believe earlier dates - and your scenarios were fairly good ones.

reply posted on 15-3-2010 @ 01:01 PM by thoughtsfull

reply to post by Merriman Weir

No you did help

thanks

However, anyone reading the thread would just get confused with me adding the issues surrounding the Wessex expansion into the area when it does not relate to this find..

Perhaps deleted was to short! tho I could kick myself for going on the early stuff I read

Pages: ^^TOP^^