Very macarbre discovery in Dorset.

[Will Hooton]

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Headless-Iron-Age-Bodies-Discovered-At-Site-Of-Olympic-Highway-Near-Weymouth/Article/200906215301648?lid=ARTICLE_15301648_HeadlessIronAgeBodiesDiscoveredAtSiteOfOlympicHighwayNearWeymouth&lpos=searchresults

[Will Hooton]

That should be Weymouth, Dorset. A fair distance from London!

[romeo]

tut tut, naughty romans, never ones to over react.

[simmurray]

tut tut, naughty romans, never ones to over react.

Other than the carbon dating there is no evidence it was the Romans; probably sacrifcing to the Gods to stop the Romans 

[Noah]

Diplomacy was dicey business in those times as many regions were, for all practical purposes, mini-theocracies.  Many-a-human (and I am sure many more animals) paid the ultimate price to appease one god or another. 

Best, Noah

[Enodia]

religious sacrifices were usually treated with a bit more respect though.

[Noah]

religious sacrifices were usually treated with a bit more respect though.

I concur, yet the people/animals being sacrificed still met the same end.  Also, I was not implying that this article was of a religious sacrifice with all the trimmings and respect that typically accompanied such events; I was just making a point that was a bit of a tangent...

Best, Noah

[Will Hooton]

I am not sure iron age British tribes practiced human sacrifice and I am certain not on such a large scale and not by decapitation. It is thought (but not proved) that Maiden castle was taken by siege and several remains have been found around the site with signs of violent deaths. However I think that such brutality on the scale we see here is very uncharacteristic of the Romans, their most popular punishments being of course slavery and crucification. I await the archaeologists further investigations eagerly!

[Robert_Brenchley]

Possibly a mass execution of collaborators at some point before the Romans closed in.

[Noah]

I agree that it was probably a mass execution, without religious ties.  Furthermore, it does not fit the Roman MO.  Altough they did execute people, doing so on such a mass scale would be impractical; there is no profit in it (perhaps killing a few as an example, but not all).

Best, Noah

[284ad]

I am not sure iron age British tribes practiced human sacrifice and I am certain not on such a large scale and not by decapitation.

Human sacrifice is one of those things blown totally out of proportion by those who rely on Classical sources. The fact that there is very little archaeological evidence for human sacrifice is usually overlooked.

However I think that such brutality on the scale we see here is very uncharacteristic of the Romans, their most popular punishments being of course slavery and crucification. I await the archaeologists further investigations eagerly!

I wouldn't say it was uncharacteristic at all; maybe the style of death was unusual but the Romans frequently brutally punished small groups like this to make an example. Maybe they were a group of high ranking tribesmen, who it would be dangerous to keep alive even as slaves. IIRC it was not common practice to crucify everyone, especially not those of rank as the Roman's had some respect for class systems.

 I think the decapitation has more to do with the Roman's disrespecting the Iron Age Briton's Religious beliefs but I've tried to type my explanation a few times and it ends up being an essay so I'll leave it for now.

[mwilson603]

However I think that such brutality on the scale we see here is very uncharacteristic of the Romans, their most popular punishments being of course slavery and crucification.

We are talking about the same Romans that practised decimation if there was unrest in the ranks?  Hardly small amounts of brutality Gaius 
regards
Mark

[Will Hooton]

However I think that such brutality on the scale we see here is very uncharacteristic of the Romans, their most popular punishments being of course slavery and crucification.

We are talking about the same Romans that practised decimation if there was unrest in the ranks?  Hardly small amounts of brutality Gaius 
regards
Mark

I am not saying the Romans were not brutal. They had written the book for brutality. But like Noah says, this mass grave doesnt seem consistent with their modus operandi. Ie: the way in which these people were killed is unusual in the archeological record, and even more so when attributed to the Romans.

[284ad]

I am not saying the Romans were not brutal. They had written the book for brutality. But like Noah says, this mass grave doesnt seem consistent with their modus operandi. Ie: the way in which these people were killed is unusual in the archeological record, and even more so when attributed to the Romans.

The whole thing reminds me of another burial site near York.

http://www.yorkromanfestival.com/cgi-bin/template.pl?t=npd2006&ID=11

(I don't think the two are connected but teh other burial site is equally interesting)

I think that ths decapitation's probably had more to do with the Iron Age Briton's religious beliefs regarding heads.

I mean the head was supposed to be the source of a persons power and that could be taken from someone by removing their head. Hence often finding heads of captured enemies in local shrines. So maybe the decapitation could be symbolic

i.e removing their heads therefore removing their power.

[wandigeaux (1940 - 2010)]

Whatever the explanation of the burials; this certainly will provide fodder for some British television program ("Bones in your Back Garden," maybe) with a ninny in shorts with a funny laugh as the presenter (there is apparently no shortage of these guys)!  Cheers, George Spradling

[gavignano]

A desperate act by the Celts, who, faced with horrific odds, sought to "unconventionally' fight the Romans via intercession of spiritual powers? If they find that the limbs have been "cut" so that the marrow could be drained out and eaten, add cannibalism to the mix.
Now, that's a macabre explanation! (Saw it on one of the shows George is fearing will multiply...)

[IhsantheCursed]

tut tut, naughty romans, never ones to over react.

Other than the carbon dating there is no evidence it was the Romans; probably sacrifcing to the Gods to stop the Romans 

I for one have never been particuliarly convinced of the accuracies of Carbon 14 dating in the first place. I saw somewhere that speartips or arrowheads have been found in the North American region, and Carbon-dated, back some 15,000 years. That would (one would assume unintentionally) rule out the Biblical creation account due to the timeframe involved. That PROVES its inacurate alone...in my opinion.

Anyhow...very interesting, but I doubt it was the Romans aswell.

[Enodia]

I agree that it was probably a mass execution, without religious ties.

oh i agree completely. my comment was just to make the point that it did NOT seem to be a religious sacrifice. and as mentioned by others we do not know of human sacrifice by the Celts of Britain, at least in that age.

political sacrifice is quite another matter though.   

[simmurray]

He may have embellished, but even if he doubled, tripled or quadrupled the numbers, it's still a lot of corpses hanging from bits of wood! Then we have two thousand crucified by Quintillius Varus in the aftermath of the uprisings which followed the death of Herod I and six thousand crucified after the Spartacus revolt. If you want to argue that the Romans didn't crucify people in large numbers when they wanted, then you're on a sticky wicket!

I dont wish to argue at all sir. Just discuss. However I stand firmly by my previous post. Sure the Romans crucified in large numbers, but not as often as some would believe. The numbers could have been exaggerated to the point of relative laughability. It is common fact MOST ancient historians always favoured one side over the other in terms of Military victories. Besides, you failed to mention argueably the most well-known Roman mass-crucifiction: When Nero blamed the Christians for lighting the fires of Rome. Ether way , the more deaths the Roman people (or enemies for that matter) HEARD about the military doing, the more they feared punishment. The scribes knew this too.

In the end it is only my opinion that  the Roman people were not mindless butchers seeking to antagonize everyone they came across who was an enemy, but did what they felt they had to do at times in order to expand and glorify the empire. They were civil, elegant, and sophisticated for their day. The empire was the brightest light of the ancient world. It was far worse in the darkness outside the empire. Only my opinion.

Name me an Empire that wasn't barbaric in expansion. Rome/Vikings even to the English Empire - it wasn't a nice business; after invasion came development and the Romans were quite special at that

[ecoli]

The empire was the brightest light of the ancient world. It was far worse in the darkness outside the empire. Only my opinion.

In Europe

Name me an Empire that wasn't barbaric in expansion. Rome/Vikings even to the English Empire - it wasn't a nice business; after invasion came development and the Romans were quite special at that

Or afterwrds

Mostly I concur.  "Being nice to others" is a luxury usually afforded only who have a superior military and no credible adversaries.

[Sri_Sahi]

Sorry hit "quote" by accident.

[Will Hooton]

If this massacre is indeed linked to the fall of Maiden Castle, I assume it may have been Vespasian himself whom presided over the siege. I cannot quite reconcile the image of Vespasian ordering the butcheringing of the locals. What do you think?

[El Reye]

The only connection to the Romans as the article states is the location, near Maiden Castle, the last stand for the Celts. I will wait for the radio carbon dating to see what era this mass grave falls into, as it could predate or postdate the Romans. There is the possibility that this was the work of the Vikings, I heard they we pretty barbaric.

Cameron

[David Atherton]

The storming of Maiden Castle by Vespasian and the 2nd Augusta was a bitter, savage battle. On one side was a professional army... on the other side men, women, and children defending their homes. Basically it was a massacre. Sir Mortimer Wheeler wrote the official guide book to the site and painted a vivid picture of the Roman assault:

What happened there is plain to read: the regiment of artillery, which normally accompanied a legion on campaign, was ordered into action, and put down a barrage or iron-shod ballista-arrows over the eastern part of the site. Following this barrage the infantry advanced up the slope, cutting its way from rampart to rampart, tower to tower. In the innermost bay of the entrance, close outside the actual gates, a number of huts had recently been built; these were now alight, and under the rising clouds of smoke the gates were stormed and the position carried. But the resistance had been obstinate and the fury of the attackers was aroused. For a space, confusion and massacre dominated the scene. Men and women, young and old, were savagely cut down, before the legionaries were called to heel and the work of systematic destruction begun...

That night, when the fires of the legionaries shone out (we may imagine) in orderly lines across the valley, the survivors crept froth from their broken stronghold and, in darkness, buried their dead as nearly as might be outside their tumbled gates, in that place where the ashes of their burnt huts lay warm and thick upon the ground...At daylight on the morrow, the legion moved westward to fresh conquest...

It is not at all surprising a mass grave of native people was found in the area. How they came to be buried there is an interesting question. Perhaps they were buried by the survivors after the Romans had left.

[PeterD]

Excavations on Maiden Castle itelf have uncovered the skeletons of 38 of the defending warriors, buried with food and drink for their journey into the after-life. One of the skeletons had something extra - a spear in his back. He is on display in Dorchester museum.