"Late Roman or early Saxon period" mutilated corpses from Cambridgeshire

[Duncan Head]

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/jun/18/archaeologists-in-cambridgeshire-find-graves-of-two-men-with-legs-chopped-off

With their legs chopped off and placed at their shoulders.

[DougM]

Too lazy to dig long enough holes? Unfortunate accident with a Boadicea style chariot?

[Duncan Head]

Malfunctioning Gallo-Roman reaping machine?

Why did the Gallic reaper invented at that time only live till the fourth century of our era and then disappear from historical records?

Because it chopped people's legs off, we can now say with confidence.

[RichT]

Why did the Gallic reaper invented at that time only live till the fourth century of our era and then disappear from historical records?

Because it chopped people's legs off, we can now say with confidence.

I can't see the Romans viewing that as a particular disadvantage.

[Dangun]

Really interesting.

But why remove the second leg, if not for ease of packing?
Obviously you die within a minute, after the first leg goes.
And I can't think of a Roman tool with which you remove both at once.

Note the article says the bones were of good quality, I guess no obvious signs of disease/malnourishment.

If it was a notable local, why bury them inside the Roman fortification? Seems odd.

A poorly behaved soldier perhaps?

[Patrick Waterson]

A small point of detail (which probably has no bearing on the principal conjectures so far):

"The graves of two men whose legs were chopped off at the knees and placed carefully by their shoulders before burial ..."

contains a misstatement.  Only one corpse was so treated; the other had the disarticulated lower limbs placed alongside the thighs.  Even the one with placement 'carefully by the shoulders' has but one demi-limb so situated: the other is alongside the pelvis.  One out of four is a pretty poor score for 'careful placement'.

If it was a notable local, why bury them inside the Roman fortification? Seems odd.

A poorly behaved soldier perhaps?

Two poorly-behaved soldiers, presumably - leading one to wonder what behaviour two soldiers could have indulged in to merit such disapprobation.

I am more inclined to wonder if they were casualties from an attack on the camp - buried within the site as a siege continued - and truncated for reasons of space.  If this was the case, we should expect more to be found as the excavation continues.

[Dangun]

I am more inclined to wonder if they were casualties from an attack on the camp - buried within the site as a siege continued - and truncated for reasons of space.  If this was the case, we should expect more to be found as the excavation continues.

A further thought.
The effort taken to bury separately and reincorporate leg with body would seem to at least suggest a Roman casualty.
You could even argue that effort would not be expended on naughty soldiers either.

That line of argument would fit with Patrick's Roman military casualty idea. Although the text of the article seems to implicitly assume that these were not combat wounds, which pushes the other way... And two legs at once is an unlikely combat wound, although there is a similar dual-amputation casualty from the medieval mass grave at Visby.

https://books.google.co.jp/books?id=nY0T9n4zAQAC&pg=PA197&lpg=PA197&dq=both+legs+cut+off+Visby&source=bl&ots=bsCc17a6TN&sig=QsSpavA_cWjpxg8-DEwcyKHFzDM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjx-8q9neTbAhVtp1kKHYZHBS8Q6AEIRDAI#v=onepage&q=both%20legs%20cut%20off%20Visby&f=false

Interesting.

[Patrick Waterson]

If they were casualties sustained during a siege, they would probably have died from ingesting missile weapons and the corpses would then require disposal.  Fuel and space might have been in short supply, precluding cremation, so the bodies would just have to be dug into such spaces as could be found between tents or huts or whatever.  So the bodies are shortened (in a non-combat fashion) by the camp surgeon to fit the available spaces.  It is really a faute de mieux conjecture.

[Erpingham]

Before we get too caught up in this, maybe we should consider the dating?  The bodies are Late Roman or Early Saxon.  The military presence is a temporary camp from the 2nd century.

[Patrick Waterson]

Good point.

Which raises the question of what the bodies were doing in a 2nd century camp.

One wonders if the camp was in intermittent use rather than solely for a single occasion.  In theory the excavators should have worked this out by now, of course.

The again, the phrasing is: "... believed to be from the late Roman or early Saxon period ..." albeit the reason(s) for belief are not given.

Similarly, "The Romans then arrived and by stupendous effort drove a huge ditch across it, almost two metres deep and three wide with the spoil heaped up into a huge bank. Despite its size and the labour involved, there was no evidence of large permanent Roman buildings and so the archaeologists believe it was a temporary camp on the march north towards Hadrian's Wall."

Was there evidence of smaller buildings?  The 2nd century AD connection seems to be tied in with the belief that the site was associated with "the march north towards Hadrian's Wall," without specifying whose.  The significant ditch and absence of extensive stone buildings does seem consistent with the building techniques utilised in the Antonine Wall (substantial earthworks with much use of wood, the latter now rotted or purloined), and this may have been seen as a connection.  Yet establishing a ditch of the size discovered at the site argues a time when frontier defences had been breached and the countryside was no longer secure.  This would fit better with the Late Roman/Early Saxon period to which the bodies are assigned.

[Erpingham]

I agree it isn't particularly clear in the report who was marching to Hadrian's Wall and when, but it seems an oddly specific note when all you have is a bit of ditch, which suggests they have got some dateable evidence that makes a link.  If it had 4th century dating, they would more likely have invented a tale about rampaging Saxons for the press.  Having read the article again, there is no connection made between the ditch and the burial.

On the temporary camp idea, would the Roman army have built a series of pottery kilns while marching?  I think that's unlikely.  Or are they implying that they camped next to a pottery production centre and bought up the stock? 

On substantial buildings, it would be a poor archaeologist who couldn't identify a substantial wooden building.  Flimsy structures you might miss but not a big thing like a barracks or a granary.

All in all, a report that sacrifices clarity for sensation.

[Patrick Waterson]

All in all, a report that sacrifices clarity for sensation.

Where would we be without journalism?

[DougM]

All in all, a report that sacrifices clarity for sensation.

Where would we be without journalism?

A lot less informed than we would otherwise be.

[Patrick Waterson]

Where would we be without journalism?

A lot less informed than we would otherwise be.

Journalism appears to prioritise expression of opinion over actual information, as exemplified by this particular article.  That is the whole problem.

On the temporary camp idea, would the Roman army have built a series of pottery kilns while marching?  I think that's unlikely.  Or are they implying that they camped next to a pottery production centre and bought up the stock?

It does seem a little odd.  Another detail which calls the purported ephemerality of the site into question is:

"Within the new enclosure, farming became much more organised and intensive, with wheat and other cereals, beans and root crops being grown."

Not the kind of detail one would associate with a temporary encampment.

On substantial buildings, it would be a poor archaeologist who couldn't identify a substantial wooden building.  Flimsy structures you might miss but not a big thing like a barracks or a granary.

Indeed.  Post-hole spotting and residue detection, or at least soil boundary differentiation, are old favourites.  If what we have is ditch and crops, are we in fact looking at irrigation rather than fortification?  This unfortunately would not explain the bodies.*

*Unless, as Duncan gleefully suggests, a Gallo-Roman reaping machine crew were having a really bad day.

[DougM]

Old school journalism used to drum into heads the mantra of 'what, where, when, how and who'. If it was an opinion piece, you had the luxury of why. Sadly, the distinction between opinion and news has become so blurred, it is hardly surprising you complain. The outsourcing of sub-editing to huge hubs in countries with cheap labour further disconnects the writer and reader. And always the pressure to create a throw away read that will prove irrestible so the advertising can be flogged.