Investigation of a C1 AD battlefield in Denmark

[Duncan Head]

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/05/15/1721372115

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/denmark-battle-bones-fighters-alken-enge-danish-archaeology-a8363821.html

[Erpingham]

I'd seen mention of this site, so great to have a detailed write up.  Thanks Duncan.

[Patrick Waterson]

Yes, excellent find.

[Duncan Head]

It might be worth noting - in the lights of remarks about journalism in other threads - that the Indy article in this case contains interpretations that don't seem to be drawn directly from the original journal article (though maybe there was a press release as well?):

- The line "Many of the bones had injuries on their right side, suggesting that fighters may have been holding shields" doesn't seem to appear in the original,
- The line "It is possible the remains are from Roman soldiers, who were expanding through the continent at the time"; well, the paper does refer to the context of Roman expansion at this date, but says "The provenance of the fighters is still unresolved. The weapons are local Germanic style, but their affiliation with either of the opposing sides in the conflict is uncertain"; and also that the skeletal data suggests little previous military experience. So the authors aren't saying it's impossible that one side was Roman, but there's no sign that they were, and if anyone was Roman soldiers, it seems unlikely to have been the dead side.

Whether this is good or bad, it's a different style of journalism than we've been discussing elsewhere.

[Patrick Waterson]

Indeed.

One sentence in the report may be misconceived:

"The relative absence of healed sharp force trauma suggests that the deposited population did not have considerable previous battle experience."

This assumes that winners would come away with deep penetrating wounds or slashes cutting through to the bone.  Somewhow I doubt that they would: experienced warriors traditionally bore skin scars, not bone injuries.  Becoming an experienced warrior generally involved not collecting potentially debilitating wounds, just superficial ones which would probably not show on the skeletal record, particularly after the bones had been gnawed by the local wildlife.

The assumption of lack of battle experience is probably more valid for the 4.7% of the skeletal material assessed as being under 20.  68.6% is assigned to the 20-40 age group, which leaves one wondering whether under 20s were rare or simply better at running away from a losing battle. 1.2% of the bone material is considered to fall into the 40-60 age group with 25.4% deemed unclassifiable.  Even with the latter unassigned, the 20-40 age group is solidly represented, as one would expect of military manpower, or at least manpower fielded for military purposes.

Were the Romans involved?  Without a pilum through a skull it is hard to be sure.

[Duncan Head]

This assumes that winners would come away with deep penetrating wounds or slashes cutting through to the bone.  Somewhow I doubt that they would: experienced warriors traditionally bore skin scars, not bone injuries.

I'm  not sure I entirely agree:

Eleven (16% of MNI) individuals exhibit a total of 16 well-healed antemortal cranial traumata. Five of the 11 individuals showed multiple trauma.

- Gladiator skeletons at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0379073805005815

... the mass graves of these two battles (Visby and Towton) are very illustrative not only of the grisly manner of the soldiers' demise but also wounds the men sustained in earlier combat which healed prior to death. Several bones with healed or partially-healed incised wounds were found during excavations of the battlefield of Aljubarrota ...

- from Wounds and Wound Repair in Medieval Culture

From these parallels, if the deceased at Alken Enge were experienced warriors, one might indeed have expected several to show evidence of earlier wounds.

[Erpingham]

I think the idea that they were all unskilled because we don't have much sign of previous trauma is understandable but speculative given the numbers involved.  Healed serious wounds tend to occur in relatively low percentages and our sample may not include them.  They are also short of crania, which is a common place for healed serious injuries. 

[Dangun]

The 4 ossa coxae on a stick requires some explaining.

Its not something you could do soon after a battle because it would require a significant reduction of the corpses.
So I guess it was a possession of one of those killed?

[Erpingham]

The 4 ossa coxae on a stick requires some explaining.

Its not something you could do soon after a battle because it would require a significant reduction of the corpses.
So I guess it was a possession of one of those killed?

As the bones had sat around being chewed by animals for up to a year, disarticulated bits could be there for the picking up and threading on sticks.  Was it a ritual action or just a bit of "fun"?  The implication that, some time after the battle, the victors came back and ritually deposited the remains in the water seems only one option.  Leaving your enemy's dead on the field was a sign of both of victory (retaining the field) and disrepect.  Perhaps a later expedition by the losers came back and disposed of the remains of their dead?

[Dangun]

As the bones had sat around being chewed by animals for up to a year, disarticulated bits could be there for the picking up and threading on sticks.  Was it a ritual action or just a bit of "fun"?  The implication that, some time after the battle, the victors came back and ritually deposited the remains in the water seems only one option. 

But if you came back a year later for fun and desecration, why would you then leave your new ossa-coxae-on-a-stick behind?
That's why I suggested it might have been a possession of the defeated.

[Patrick Waterson]

From these parallels, if the deceased at Alken Enge were experienced warriors, one might indeed have expected several to show evidence of earlier wounds.

You may be right, although the question arises whether we are comparing like with like.  In an era when the primary weapon was presumably the framea, would we expect recoverable wounds to leave much of a record on bone?

[Duncan Head]

But if you came back a year later for fun and desecration, why would you then leave your new ossa-coxae-on-a-stick behind?

"Daddy daddy daddy, Guntheric's playing with the bones again!"
"Put them down, you silly boy, don't be rude to the spirits of the dead!"

[Patrick Waterson]

I wonder if the multiple pelvis carrier was just that: if we have a situation where orders are to collect all the bones and put them in a mound, Joe Tribesman (or Slave) might just speed up the process with multiple conveyance methods.  When he got to the last instalment, would there be any point in extracting the purpose-built conveyer for non-use elsewhere, or would he just leave it?  Joe Slave in particular might not wish to be seen carrying anything which could be mistaken for a weapon.

If this conjecture is correct, all we are seeing is the last load in a day of thankless ossuaring as opposed to a ritual object (or fun and games with pelvic components - if that is the way to put it).

[Erpingham]

I'm reminded of I think it was the Varian disaster where the Romans decades later launched a punitive expedition and found the remains of their army still on the battlefield, which they then properly disposed of.  Not suggesting the Romans were involved in this battle but I wonder if there is a parallel there.

[Patrick Waterson]

The same thought occurred to me.