https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/apr/25/swedish-archaeologists-uncover-brutal-5th-century-massacre
Original study freely available here (https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/antiquity/article/moment-frozen-in-time-evidence-of-a-late-fifthcentury-massacre-at-sandby-borg/5C803B7E77A41439BC3B50D4BF96560E) if you hit the pdf or other export buttons.
Quote from: Duncan Head on April 25, 2018, 01:43:40 PM
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/apr/25/swedish-archaeologists-uncover-brutal-5th-century-massacre
Original study freely available here (https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/antiquity/article/moment-frozen-in-time-evidence-of-a-late-fifthcentury-massacre-at-sandby-borg/5C803B7E77A41439BC3B50D4BF96560E) if you hit the pdf or other export buttons.
Yep, just about to post this, but it's confusing, the story says no weapons were found, but it's illustrated with a sword pommel.
Quote from: DougM on April 25, 2018, 01:45:20 PM
Yep, just about to post this, but it's confusing, the story says no weapons were found, but it's illustrated with a sword pommel.
Full article lists a few pieces found at various times:
QuoteThe evidence for interpersonal violence at Sandby borg contrasts with the almost total lack of weapons and military equipment. Finds of this type are limited to a couple of sword fittings, a small chape, a sword pendant, a lance head and a few arrowheads.
Thanks Duncan. Sloppy sub-editing then.
Very interesting.
It begs the question - why.
Sufficient valuables were recovered to perhaps suggest that looting/theft/profit was not a high priority.
The lack of weapons and the placement of the victims suggest the event was unexpected/no obvious threats.
Obviously the buildings or location were not occupied so the motive was perhaps not territorial.
Which leaves us with what motive for the attack?
I'm not sure we can dismiss looting. There seem to be a number of scattered goodies, possibly missed or dropped. Without an idea of the wealth of the settlement, it is hard to say what proportion of lootable stuff has been left behind.
Another motive might simply be to remove a rival group - a feud, or revenge for a previous raid (reaping the whirlwind) or even claimants for land or title. Or slave raiding - not much of the settlement is excavated yet so getting a perspective on whether the dead represent the whole population or just a portion is hard to judge.
Just some random thoughts.
Quote from: Dangun on April 25, 2018, 05:20:26 PM
Very interesting.
It begs the question - why.
Sufficient valuables were recovered to perhaps suggest that looting/theft/profit was not a high priority.
The lack of weapons and the placement of the victims suggest the event was unexpected/no obvious threats.
Obviously the buildings or location were not occupied so the motive was perhaps not territorial.
Which leaves us with what motive for the attack?
revenge....?
Quote from: Erpingham on April 25, 2018, 05:56:45 PM
Or slave raiding - not much of the settlement is excavated yet so getting a perspective on whether the dead represent the whole population or just a portion is hard to judge.
This is a good thought. Although there is a high body count among the non-combatant / potential slaves e.g. children - inconsistent with slave raiding.
If the population was high enough we could check gender ratios or age distribution to see whether a set of people had been removed for the purpose of slavery/wives etc.
Quote from: Dangun on April 25, 2018, 09:09:38 PMIf the population was high enough we could check gender ratios or age distribution to see whether a set of people had been removed for the purpose of slavery/wives etc.
QuoteA lack of osteological evidence for females among the dead suggests that the massacre at Sandby borg may have been gender-biased towards the male inhabitants. This theory is weakened, however, by the relatively small area of the site excavated to date, and may be refuted through further excavation and analysis. The discovery of infant bones reveals that women were present at the site, although not necessarily at the time of the attack.
All due reservation as to small sample size, but it does look possible that the adult females were being carried off as slaves.
Quote from: Dangun on April 25, 2018, 05:20:26 PM
Very interesting.
It begs the question - why.
Sufficient valuables were recovered to perhaps suggest that looting/theft/profit was not a high priority.
The lack of weapons and the placement of the victims suggest the event was unexpected/no obvious threats.
Obviously the buildings or location were not occupied so the motive was perhaps not territorial.
Which leaves us with what motive for the attack?
Elimination of a rival power centre?
The article suggests that weapons were removed, perhaps for sacrificial deposition in a bog or lake (which practice is well known for the period).
Curious, though, that nobody thought to visit the site later to make off with left-over valuables. The brooches etc. might have been in hard-to-find caches, but there must have been a fair bit of simpler implements with some second hand value standing around in the open. Tempting to suppose the site was thought to be cursed or haunted.
It may interest someone to know that Sandby borg means "Sand Village Fort/Castle".
I wondered about a local 'abject lesson in power', had they refused to pay a tribute? So a punishment or revenge pour encourager les autres?
Weapons removed, also symbolic, and loot left lying to show it wasn't for money.
No religious aspects to this?
Quite apart from the archaeological excitement, that the site's taboo status has lasted to the present day is fascinating. Would be interesting to know if there are local folk tales about what happened there.
Reading our comments, I think we can see why the site is so interesting for archaeologists :)
Why didn't anyone go back? One answer is the "cursed" nature of the place, but that may be retrospective. Another is that there was no-one, or just the odd survivor who might have picked up a couple of items left behind and trekked off to another village to make a fresh start.
interesting that no one wanted to or took the time to bury them so an isolated village or one that had been 'set off limits' by the perpetrators
Quote from: Holly on April 26, 2018, 11:52:48 AM
interesting that no one wanted to or took the time to bury them so an isolated village or one that had been 'set off limits' by the perpetrators
Yes. You could test the isolation theory with a bit of field work. If there do seem to be local settlements then they are shunning the place for a reason e.g. warned off, superstition, they wiped the place out.
Quote from: Erpingham on April 26, 2018, 12:30:18 PM
Quote from: Holly on April 26, 2018, 11:52:48 AM
interesting that no one wanted to or took the time to bury them so an isolated village or one that had been 'set off limits' by the perpetrators
Yes. You could test the isolation theory with a bit of field work. If there do seem to be local settlements then they are shunning the place for a reason e.g. warned off, superstition, they wiped the place out.
I think it was stated somewhere that the area had a large amount of settlements and so the likelihood of close proximity of another village would be quite high (unless that had the same treatment as well!)
Quote from: Erpingham on April 26, 2018, 12:30:18 PM
Quote from: Holly on April 26, 2018, 11:52:48 AM
interesting that no one wanted to or took the time to bury them so an isolated village or one that had been 'set off limits' by the perpetrators
Yes. You could test the isolation theory with a bit of field work. If there do seem to be local settlements then they are shunning the place for a reason e.g. warned off, superstition, they wiped the place out.
What would also be interesting (if possible) would be to see whether the wiped out the settlement but kept farming the land. But it would be amazingly lucky to come up with evidence for that after this length of time
Quote from: Jim Webster on April 26, 2018, 01:05:01 PM
Quote from: Erpingham on April 26, 2018, 12:30:18 PM
Quote from: Holly on April 26, 2018, 11:52:48 AM
interesting that no one wanted to or took the time to bury them so an isolated village or one that had been 'set off limits' by the perpetrators
Yes. You could test the isolation theory with a bit of field work. If there do seem to be local settlements then they are shunning the place for a reason e.g. warned off, superstition, they wiped the place out.
What would also be interesting (if possible) would be to see whether the wiped out the settlement but kept farming the land. But it would be amazingly lucky to come up with evidence for that after this length of time
very tricky i guess. its one of the more interesting conundrums thrown up by archaeology