Tollense Battle Revealed: A Bronze Age Massacre of Merchants & Traders
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 22 มิ.ย. 2024
- The Battle of the Tollense Valley was once thought to be Europe’s oldest known battle. But now it is thought it may have been a massacre. Not a clash of organised armies, but a brutal assault on innocent traders and merchants carrying their wares down one of the ancient trade routes of Northern Europe. As always - there's more to this than meets the eye ... let's see if we can dig a bit deeper!
00:00 - Introduction
03:20 - How the Tollense Valley site was discovered
05:43 - Some context
07:12 - First anomaly
07:51 - The remains in the river
09:20 - Material goods
11:46 - Ancient trade routes
13:50 - More evidence
15:29 - Number crunching
18:04 - There weren’t warriors
20:20 - Nor were there warhorses
21:49 - Envisioning the scenario
29:34 - Wrap-up and goodbyes
Help us make our next film, GÖBEKLI TEPE to STONEHENGE at ...
🟡 BUY ME A COFFEE: www.buymeacoffee.com/prehisto...
If you want to show some love to the Prehistory Guys but don't want the commitment of a monthly subscription (see Patreon link below), you can make a one off donation by following the link above. All single donations go to our current project: GÖBEKLI TEPE to STONEHENGE
🔴 PATREON: / theprehistoryguys
We have a friendly and enthusiastic Patreon community helping us create our content through monthly subscription. Get access to exclusive (ad-free!) content, be on the inside track of what we're up to and help us build the channel.
WEBSITE: theprehistoryguys.uk
Facebook: / theprehistoryguys
Twitter: / prehistoryguys
Instagram: / prehistoryguys
Gentlemen, you should ask a polemologist about this reinterpretation. Caravan attacks are associated with larger conflicts (see the career of Muhammad) and massacre is at the top of the conflict escalation spectrum, not the bottom. The only difference between a caravan and an army that you will find in archaeology is the number of armed men related to the pack animals. FWIW full grown horses were still a bit early for real mounted warfare and likely pack animals. Swords were recovered at the site (“Connected Histories: The Dynamics of Bronze Age Interaction & Trade 1500-1100 BC,” Kristiansen and Suchowska-Ducke 2015) and they were still status symbols associated with leadership of a platoon section-sized element (Wileman 2015). It is not surprising to find worn wealth. Men expected to risk their lives will want payment first. For most of human history, most armies were also accompanied by women and children. Trade and war are not opposite activities, as seen in the Viking example. I find the reinterpretation unpersuasive.
Brilliant. Thank you. M.
Sensible comment. It seems very difficult to discern an army from a caravan after looting (and decay of whatever wooden remains such as wagons or boats could have been present). The weapons were loot too.
Well said.
I read there were victims on both sides, and scientists could determine that they came from different places. So i guess that they were relatively equal in strength and not one side far more powerful than the others like robbers against peaceful traders.
There were slaves in the caravan. They came to trade for slaves. I bet it was a rescue mission.
Great installment. I love it when you return to the same sites with new information.
Surely the correct explanation rests heavily on how you define a "battle". A pirate attack on a treasure ship is in reality a "battle", but the purpose is most decidedly plunder. An attack to acquire land, resources and slaves etc is also a battle, but is more "political" and will leave less obvious traces. The confirmation of the presence of dead women and children and saleable livestock, certainly makes this aggression look much more like a well organised bandit raid.
Certainly interesting, but if this was a bandit raid foe treasure, why did they leave so much booty behind? And of course, wouldn't cattle be a part of that booty? Why slaughter such a valuable prize as liveatock?
The revised interpretation seems to have its own problems and inconsistencies. For example, the fact that the isotope analysis shows that the slain people came from a wide area is arguably more consistent with an army than it is with a large 'wandering caravan'. Merchants from different places have historically usually travelled with compatriots, rather than strangers, and usually with the goal of returning richer than they left, rather than wandering aimlessly far from home. Travelling in large groups might afford some protection against attack, but it would also drive up local food prices at the places they visited and make the whole enterprise less profitable.
On the other hand, it's actually common for armies to be formed of alliances of different groups, called together for the specific purpose of waging war against others. Any glance at the earliest surviving literature describing warfare includes tales of kings summoning allies and vassals to their service from across wide areas (e.g. the various peoples from around the Aegean who are supposed to have participated in the Trojan War), or of mercenaries fighting battles for pay far from their homelands (e.g. Xenophon and the Ten Thousand). The literary tradition of armies gathered from diverse peoples is probably the main reason Tolkien adopted the trope, and although it's exaggerated, there's solid historical evidence of similar events occurring, e.g. The Crusades, Xerxes' invasion of Greece. The presence of the high-quality bronze goods could as easily be the result of war booty seized through raiding, or a treasury for buying supplies or paying mercenaries. Likewise, juvenile horses could easily also be war booty- livestock raiding was an absolutely crucial objective of warfare in many cultures for thousands of years (e.g. The Tain Bo Cuailnge aka the 'Cattle Raid of Cooley').
Historically a lot of the bloodiest parts of battles happened during routs. When defeated soldiers were fleeing for their lives they could be easily slaughtered by pursuing enemies, particularly when cavalry was involved (as appears to be the case at Tollense). Women and children were known to follow armies until relatively recently in history, a phenomenon known as 'camp followers'. They could sometimes be targeted in the event of a defeat, e.g. the Parliamentarian victors at the Battle of Naseby massacred a large group of Welsh women who had been accompanying the Royalist army in the mistaken belief that they were Irish. Swords were valuable items, not everybody could afford them. There's evidence of clubs being used to inflict many of the injuries on the dead and they were found at the site, so they may have been the more common close-combat weapons of the time. Also, being valuable, swords would presumably have been picked up by the victors when they were found, so absence of evidence can't be taken as evidence of absence.
A slaughter of raiders fleeing after a defeat seems just as consistent with the evidence as a massacre of innocent merchants, if not more so. The new perspective is interesting, but it seems far from conclusive.
Yep I agree
I think one of the reasons why they could be from different places is that the people doing the carrying were war slaves, and some long distance marriages weren't out of the question either. Also, armies on the move need baggage trains also so it might have been something like that. Caravan theory is nice, but I don't think it's the whole picture still nor is the army theory.
They were slave traders.
It was an expedition to acquire slaves.
Is it really one big massacre? Sounds like a place where a bunch of outlaws laid in wait killing successive groups of travelers over several years - throwing their bodies in the river and waiting for the next lot.
Could the lack of weapons among the dead be attributed to the victors recovering swords etc at the end of the battle, as these would have been very valuable items?
All of them have been stripped.
The finds are online the pieces that were lost in the muddy river or the arrowheads in their bodies.
This is exactly what i thought hearing they were "unarmed" And why would you shoot arrows with expensive arrowheads at unarmed people ?
Good one guys :) as always the more we learn the more things change and new questions arise :) very interesting and intriguing as always :)
Interesting and entreteining as always! Thancks!
I think it's possible, but the arguments here are not terribly convincing to me. If a caravan had been attacked by raiders, why would they have left so many valuable objects? The presence of women and children is still easily explicable if we consider this to have been a battle - women and children very often die in wars. The fact that some of the men had injuries which might suggest they were warriors in fact supports the conclusion that this was indeed a battle - the explanation that these were 'caravan guards' is simply being employed to fit a presupposition that there was a caravan in the first place, for which there isn't any hard evidence.
It does not make sense that women and children would be there. But it also does not make sense that bronze trade goods were left.
@@StaalBurgher0 I think it does make sense actually. Armies throughout history have frequently made use of civilian baggage trains, which have often employed women, and which have sometimes included children, right up to the 19th century. Nomadic invasions (such as those which took place during the later history of the Roman Empire) included the entire civilian community of a nation or tribe - women, children, the elderly, etc.
In fact I would venture to argue that the presence of remains of women and children make it *more* likely that this was a battle. There's not much reason for a caravan of merchants to take women and children with them. Typically they would be left behind to look after a travelling merchant's home while he was away.
@@patavinity1262 fair enough
@@StaalBurgher0women and children followed armies for thousands of years. It’s only recently, since around 1880 that civilians stopped.
If one group was a bunch of warrior nomads. They’d have all their women and children. If a tribal group was migrating, their warriors would have their entire families with them.
Caravans would have guards surely
The instance of female and child remains always raises questions. Yes, it is evidence that this is probably a merchant or habitually-traveling-as-a-whole-lifestyle group. However, I wonder about the specific females found. What was their age range? Because women have a 'market value' beyond simple labor as slaves - who were the women killed? How many more females might there have been if stealing them for use or re-sale was part of the equation? This estimate might be affected by an examination of the children as well. Were the dead children marketable age/condition for sale? If they were, perhaps they were not interested in re-selling/selling persons at all. This is not just about the fate of the survivors, it is about the motive/organization/life-style of the killers.
Even into the 18th century armies had followers, non combatants either attached to the army or following the army for trade, such as prostitutes, cooks, etc. Manny of these would be women with children.
Most tribal armies had their families on waggons with them. They acted as a support unit for the fighters.
Look at watling street to see what happens when an army tries to retreat, but the carts and waggons of their families hinder them.
I think, the dead women and children were the families of the defeated side, killed in the chaotic massacre when they all tried to run over the narrow bridge at once.
If the battle was fought at the bridge from the beginning, we would see more dead from bohemia, but the battle must have been fought on flat ground and the natives got defeated by the men from bohemia. They tried to flee and were killed at the river. If the defenders were on their own side of the bridge, they could have retreated when battle got ill, while the attackers could not follow as they had to cross the bridge first.
@@jarlnils435
didn't roman legions do the same?
@@fredengels8188 yes roman armies had a baggage train. But it was seperate to the main army column and got a designated place inside most marching camps. But during battle, the people of the baggage train, women and children of the soldiers (not married women), the prostitutes, traders, scribes, slaves and all other civilians would wait inside the camp, armed and ready to assist the unit which was left as camp guard.
Uncivilized armies brought their families as supporters to the battlefield, where they often caused chaos in the case of retreat. Look at the first battle of Bullrun, where all the women and children went in carts to the battlefield to see a real battle. And that was 1861!
And at Watling Street the women and children on their waggons and carts were a barrier, so strong that the retreating Iceni and the warriors of their allied tribes could not escape. The romans slaughtered most of these warriors, while others were pressed or trampled to death by their own people.
Professional armies like the roman legions, the makedonian army of Phillip II or Alexander III or those of their successor states, kept baggage train and fighting troops seperate during the fighting.
The archaeologists well know that people who lived in this area would most often go to war as a whole tribe for another century and a half. Ever heard about Amazonians? Missing swords indicate only one side was warriors? Hair jewelry ascribed exclusively to females? The only explanation I have to why someone would come up with this answers is if they thought they ware looking at the late medieval site... I couldn't be that there is some heavily biased agenda.
Thanks for that update - seems a much more practical and likely narrative than the greatest battle of the ages. Opportunistic thugs have always been lurking in the shadows and I guess things were no different back then.
They came for slaves and the locals were having none of it.
One is also reminded of the great immigrant treks through the interior of the United States, where they needed armed escorts from the US Cavalry to get through hostile territories.
The circling of wagons would have been helpful, alas the river meandered offering interrupted lines of communications. As a useful metric on the logistics, we can make a comparison with the Burke and Wills expedition of August 1860. They set out to cross south to north through the interior of Australia. Albeit on a smaller scale they took 18 men 24 Camels and 21 tons of supplies, as It was their intention to be self sufficient. It all ended badly and one can read about it elsewhere.
The knights Templar where also armed escorts for pilgrims.
Nah, they were in the slave trade, and the locals said no more.
Fascinating, thank you.
I wonder how many people were taken away to be slaves.
I bet they came for slaves. It was a mission to stop the slavery.
why?
@@thehellyousay Curiosity?? - It takes a lot more to capture someone than it do to kill em, killing an enemy is not very profitable. You get their possesions, and theres no longer any danger coming from their side - but it kinda ends there.
Taking people hostage to be used as slaves can potentially be a great source of income(not neccesarily monetary), but it obviously comes with the risk theyl try n kill you somewere down the road. Additionally, then it would require a good deal of organisation.
Youre not able to fight if youre guarding someone.
They would have to have concentrationpoints where multible wounded and tied up enemies could be guarded with very little manpower.
humm. Really enjoy your bringing this to my attention - I sure think we have a lot of speculation on this find(s). Thanks!
Very interesting! It does make the battle idea not so likely. Still, if we look back through history what we could see as military actions were more often than not aimed at "soft" target. Most soldiers want to stack the odds in their favour before commiting to battle. And more often than not, they want loot. So while not a battle it could still be seen as an example of calculated warfare. If you are going to attack a 140+ strong caravan that is also escorted by professional warriors you do not want to take any chances. It is still a risky operation. Also, even if many of the traders are not warriors, I think it is not necessarily the case that they did not know how to defend themselves in some way. So the attacker would still have to take them into account.
Since it was not just about staging a swift hit and run ambush but most likely a determined effort to defeat the caravan totally and taking their goods, preferably without taking to many losses themselves, the attacking force was probably sizeable. At least equal in number or at least say double the amount of potential fighters in the caravan.
So the attack was most likely prepared and planned. The attacking force would have taken up position well before the caravan came into range. Most likely they would have had scouts out to keep an eye on the caravans progress without altering the caravan. The site might have been selected due to the fact that caravans usually went that way, since the terrain restricts movement. And as the caravan was crossing the causeway they had almost no way of getting away. A perfect place for an ambush.
The fact that it was a perfect place should however have been obvious to many of the members of the caravan. So either the attacker counted on them being prepared by bringing in an overwhelming force or they had taken great precautions not to alert the caravan and maybe even having some turncoats in the caravan saying everything was nice and shiny.
A caravan might have expected that brigands would try an get at their goods. But maybe they underestimated the threat or this was indeed and exceptional even, like the massacre at Sandby borg. Someone had planned and prepared and sent in professionals.
A "caravan" of 140+ is no caravan anymore, it is a threat for any local community.
A commercial caravan with so many people make no sense in my opinion.
Fascinating!
Peaceful Traders set upon a Bronze Age Biker Gang is dangerously close to putting a contemporary spin on a historical context. The "traders" might have been a band of slavers (the martial skeletons) or a war band ripe with booty or the context of The Seven Samurai, communities of people rising up to defeat the bandits. The lack of swords is interesting but could be most any dropped swords were picked up and the few truly lost or damaged not likely found. All that can be safely construed is a large more martial band set upon a large less martial band. It is unwise to take sides or declare who was more likely good and who more likely bad.
They came for slaves.
Also swords aren't battlefield weapons. They are prestige weapons mostly used to showcase power and wealth.
Was it a single event?
@@andywomack3414 I think it likely was.
@@nowthenzen Given some thought, if it was a series of events at the same location there would likely be evidence of that, perhaps from deposition stratigraphy, and would have been noted.
Great. A fascinating discussion. I find it interesting that I suspect people's favourite history periods influence their interpretations possibly.
Kinda sad how nothing ever changes isn’t it?
No, it is cause for celebration. Life continues for the species, onward and upwards
To my mind, the picture you give with the large numbers of people slain in the river or at the crossing suggests a very successfull ambush of the caravan during the crossing. Denying the defenders firm ground and having them at the disadvantage being up to the waist in water makes them easy pickings and many of them, especially the wounded would simply drown. It probably also would mean that the ambushers would sustain much less casualties. Probably, to optimize success, the ambushers would want to strike both from the front and the rear to minimize the loss of gods to plunder. I also would guess that the ambushers were the locals who knew the routines of the passing caravan and were familiar with the terrain. Of course all of this is speculation. If I would push that part further, I would suspect that somehow there was a change in the relationship with the annual caravan and the locals. Something like a change in leadership among the locals that the caravan was suprised about. I think that a caravan like that would be much less likely to be ambushed if they didn't trust the locals, and I think that the caravan was dependant of good relationships with the locals in the areas they were passing through. Thanks for all that food for thoughts!❤🌻❤ 31:24
I'm here for the news about old stuff. 🤩
140 or more corpses? Perhaps this was a group of bandits that worked the same river crossing over a number of years. Perhaps it wasn't a single incident. Also, why do we assume it was a caravan? Why would they not be travelling by boat?
Interesting point. Mugging of small travelling groups over time stripping the valuables and throwing the bodies in the river to dispose of them fits the evidence. But there were valuables found among the bones which might weaken the argument. Also, no coins found which supports the mugging argument. Also explains the different origins of the victims. I might add that this site is near Viking territory, maybe this is what they did before they discovered boats.
The suggestion is that the bronze goods also found were trade goods. Large numbers of traders wouldn't have travelled by river in not terribly big boats. They probably came overland along one of the trade routes.
@@andrewwelsh6638did they have coins in the bronze age? I think not. Barter was the way to go.
@@helenamcginty4920 - Except that the amber trade routes (the ones relevant here) did follow the rivers all they could (and the same was true all the way to modern times: barges are faster, especially without proper roads, and load a lot). This is a lesser river but surely the location fits a place where boats would load/unload to the land leg of the route.
@@helenamcginty4920there were no coins till the 8th century bc.
Any possibility these merchants and traders also dealt in the slave trade ???
Thank you.
Good evening from the beautiful SF Bay Area. How interesting, I knew nothing of this event. Thanks.
Curiously, if you read the Iliad and the Odyssey, it is solidly an Urnfield Culture setting. That culture did not reach Greece or Anatolia (contacts perhaps but no more) The Tellense Valley was Urnfield at the time of both the event under discussion and the Trojan War.
This battle allegedly took place in the 13th century BC. Right around the Mediterranean Bronze Age collapse. Connected? Did the whole world collapse?
There was already an Indo-European presence in Anatolia. Hatti /Hittites was an Indo-European culture. Hurrians (=1/2 of the Mittani union /confederation) spoke a language isolate, but their military hardware conformed to the typical Indo-European pattern.
How many of these sites have been found & mislabelled ? It will be interesting to keep watching for more reassessments. ( sorry spelling)
Fascinating stuff!, thank you. I wonder if there had been some sort of trade dispute/double-dealing going on that led to the massacre? Lets face it, business is business and when deals go awry, people get seriously hurt.
They took the wrong slaves.
Yay, here are the flirtatious Prehistory Guys 😊
The German "J" btw is pronounced like an English "Y", as in yard, if you don't mind me telling you so.
Don't mind at all. It's all a learning curve 😊 M.
Did anyone analyze where the horses came from?
Another interpretation could be that it was a fair by the river that was attacked by a warband. The earlier estimates of numbers and a big battle scenario are so highly speculative and assumptive to be ridiculous. The idea that a large group of people wander about for 'thousands of miles' carrying wealth is also a bit silly. What tended to happen more was that territories were traded through by groups that had relationships with the local inhabitants, purchased food, paid tariffs and traded etc, the merchandise then being sold on to be traded further afield by a different group with different connections. Those types of arrangements (and trade protections) are clearly seen a millennium later along the 'Silk Road'. In my opinion, the strontium analysis of teeth more likely suggests that the four southern groups headed north to trade with the northern group with perhaps the whole 'fair' then being set upon - perhaps via a well orchestrated plan to gain wealth through violence.
I visited Tollensetal last year. Had a great time walking around and exploring. I’ve read about the massacre hypothesis, and I really hope it’s wrong as that’s a lot less cool 😅
You'd think that whoever attacked the caravan would have taken everything valuable.
They probably did. As I said, the bodies in the river would have been less easy to take from. Same goes for the possibility of being scavenged. M.
Imagine the bodies fell into the river. All the commotion has the water muddy, bodies mashed into mud....
Maybe running away people start tossing stuff to run faster....
This was not on a concrete freeway with manicured lawns around it.
@@ThePrehistoryGuys ... remembering that historically living people are 'valuables'. Slavery has a long, widespread and multi-faceted history.
@@stripeytawney822 But the swords being larger were not that difficult to retrieve. It figures.
As a layperson historian, I can imagine the river bank, being a chopped-up and not-so-chopped-up human remains dumping ground. I believe future digs will uncover substantial evidence of 'kill zones' where larger groups were gathered together and brutally slaughtered. Nobody cared to gather the dead, it's as if they were stationed as ghastly reminders.
There seems to have been an awful lot of material goods left behind, if indeed this was a case of a raid on a merchant caravan. Were all these valuable items left behind found in the river channel, rather than in the graves? I’d also be interested to know if the bodies of those buried were left with their adornments on them, as I didn’t quite catch that but if it was mentioned in the podcast.
The river took it I would guess. I see an ambush when I hear them presenting their theories. Caravan crossing and being ambushed on both sides of the river, making the proffessional soldiers rather useless in waist high water. The bodies were not buried from what I understood. Most of them would have drowned in the chaos of battle. The main gain of the ambushers would be the wagons and the loot they could get from those the river didn't claim.
No expert here but I just wonder about a couple of things. The quantity of valuable objects that were not taken away by the robbers seems rather high, also is it certain that this is the remains of a single attack ? Bodies are scattered over a very wide area and bodies are from multiple areas. Could it be that this was simply a favoured area of ambush on a popular trading route by a particular raiding band ? I would expect over just a shortish period because I suspect a particularly dangerous area would soon be avoided (or only crossed with a very heavily armed guard.) making it less attractive for bandit bands
I am puzzled. This river currently meanders through flat lands. What was its course in the bronze age? Also was the area wooded? Forrested? Or were river margins marshy scrub?
Where would an attacking force hide?
Now there is a wide flood plain.
There was a road and a bridge crossing the valley
Too many almost infinite number of undeterminable factors in play to ever really answer all the questions that can be brought up. Ultimately a fun and yes interesting game trying to imagine who and what happened but that’s about all. But a good example how a large dose of humility is required in this field.
Swords was higly regarded in the north even up in the viking age so they was for sure taken by the winners after the battle. Then if you read anicent Roman reports the Germanic wimmen was often at the battlefield and chered at their men at the last line so they shouldent retreat.
So your conclutions are very strange.
Greetings from Södermanland.
Hey Prehistory Guys! Maybe just chill, the massacre theory is just a theory, even the lead archaeologist isn't saying a massacre happened, he says maybe that's what happened.
One thing that really sticks out to me is the military planning and tactics that went into this, it indicates one of two things happening to me.
That the attacking force was smaller, though better armed, hence the attack in a confined space. The caravan may have been better defended than the number of recovered weapons show. Swords for example would have been a prized spoil of war. The absence of swords is not evidence of absence of swords, some of those attacking must have died too.
Secondly, the caravan realising they couldn't outrun the attacking force made a stand at a choke point, thereby negating the superiority of said attacking force.
Food for thought gentlemen, and makes me wonder what lies under my feet as I trample over Dartmoor.
But they failed to pick up the gold - possibly just as valuable as the swords.
@@alangknowles There could have been a lot more gold and what's left is the spillage in the confusion of fighting.
Later battle sites when armour was way more metal used, have been hard to pinpoint as valuables get removed, only items in mud banks or the river itself, are left.
The locals didn't like these slavers.
I have slept all the way through it.. Trying again with coffee this time :)
how didnt all the ads wake u XDDDD
@@catansfr3532 adblockers :D
So because the horses were juveniles, you think the horse bones belonged to horses that were meant to be traded?
But why were they killed? Why would robbers attack a caravan and kill the valuable young horses instead of stealing them?
Interesting that so many bodies are found in the river and not robbed. It gives me the impression the violence was not necessarily for material wealth, but rather a conflict over the trespassing of cultural boundaries. If it was well planned and executed, given the location itself as a perfect place of ambush along with the evidence of the number bodies, why would so much material wealth be lost to the river? Unless it may not have been the main cause for the premeditated slaughter. I get the feeling that the attacking force had the means and numbers to just halt the caravan and rob it while not risking casualties on its own side. So, why risk their own unless of course they had been offended or afraid in some way? Just an idea.
The swords, being by far the most valuable item on the field, were likely scavenged extensively by the victors and looters. The carry-weight of the attackers was extremely limited, having already been fully kitted out in gear, so other items were left behind in consideration of this. After refilling their quivers, they moved on, leaving the rest of the arrows on the field.
The location of the bodies is not considered to even be the site of the actual battle. The location of the bodies and their disartoculation suggests they died elsewhere, and the bodies were thrown into the river and flaoted down to where they were deposited.
Bronze swards would be far too heavy to follow the bodies downstream. If they weren't taken by the victors as trophies, they are still buried at the actual battle site, which, as far as I know, hasn't been conclusively determined.
Also, swords were not the most common battlefield weapon of the era. Maces and battle axes were more common from what we know of other bronze age armies. And from what I have read, many of the dead exhibited evidence of crushing wounds.
Again, the lack of these weapons found at the site isn't surprising because, like the swords, they would not float down the river with the bodies if they also weren't kept as trophies.
I like your comparison to ships. If they were passing through scattered settlements along a known trade route, wouldn't the likeliest concentration of force necessary to take them out come from another, rival merchant caravan using the same route and turning pirate?
Was the Tollense event singular? Could these remains be the result of a series of events over a number of years?
One interesting point is that this caravan massacre event in North Europe coincides with the Bronze Age Collapse in the Eastern Mediterranean. Perhaps the rampaging barbarian hordes were not only sailing across the sea to attack civilization but also spreading overland in the European mainland.
I would note that mayhaps those were not rampaging barbarian hordes but remains of kingdoms with a high organization and structure.
Vikings were also merchants and traders, the raiding was just something done in passing, we came in peace!
The other people, who didn't go into the river, might have been taken as slaves.
Would those attacked run into the river to escape?
I am both interested and curious about what happened at Tollense. If there was a massacre of people gathered at a trading post, how is it that almost all the skeletal parts found are from young men? The fact that only a small part of the supposed battlefield has been excavated may be the reason why most of them were found near the watercourse. This is absolutely not questioning, just interested and curious
Because traders and merchants weren't women?
@@Anglisc1682 Do we know this? I'm not sure we do.
@nilcarborundum7001 It makes sense in an Indo-European culture and when we consider that in pretty much every culture, travelling merchants are pretty much always male, no? Just because they were all male, doesn't make it much less likely that they were mostly travelling merchants since it's likely that in their culture(s), it was a male only profession
Whether this was a Massacre of traders or an actual battle, the point remains that a large enough group to Massacre them functioned as a whole. It still m implies one side was organized. Another possibility is that a group migrating into the area were opposed by those already living there. The fact that valuable materials were found would indicate that theft was not very organized, which would be strange if raiders were ambushing a trade caravan. So what actually happened no one can actually be known.
Are we sure it was a single "ambush"? Might it instead have been a series of raids/ambush over a year or two or more, with the bodies building up in number over a relatively brief time?
It seems, given some of the artifacts found on site, that if robbery was the motive, then the booty taken was less than the whole lot.
no wagons: wagons were not really popular for freight until there were good roads in the XVIIIth century :)
most freight went on barges on rivers or on the back of animals even very recently
We don't know. The location fits a place where land and riverine legs of a trade route would merge, or close to it. Land legs on beasts alone would limit the amount ported a lot but then of course human porters (and not just beasts of burden and wagons) were a thing until very recently. Maybe most of those massacred were actually porters? Else where are the corpses of the beasts of burden?
@@LuisAldamizbut we are talking bronze age here. Not the heyday of the great silk road routes. Mind you I've no idea how many traders were in those caravans either. 😅
@@helenamcginty4920 - I never mentioned silk and I was actually thinking of something very Bronze Age-ish: the amber routes (which are in fact even older, from the Copper Age even). Not sure if Northern Europe exported other stuff like furs or whatever but the merchandise that archaeologists mostly relate to that area from the Netherlands to Poland is amber, which even today is gathered in the beaches of that region.
In any case long distance trading was a thing in Europe since what is usually called the Chalcolithic (in Britain sometimes called Late Neolithic) which (much as Neolithic is not really defined by polished stone or even pottery anymore but by farming/herding) is commonly not defined by the presence of copper and other soft metals (gold, silver) metallurgy but by greater levels of social and economic complexity rather, which actually manifest often as long distance trade routes: since the trade of honey-colored flintstone cores from Grand Pressigny to the amber and ivory routes that converge from various directions in Southern Iberia since c. 3000 BCE, including the thriving trade of the Bell Beaker period, some of whose characteristic artifacts, the gold spirals found in many burials, were probably "cash": people probably went around with that (either as jewelry or in a purse) and cut off small pieces as needed with one of those copper knives (or even the teeth maybe in some cases). For safety they surely traveled in groups, armed with bow and arrow, and belonged to a extensive "cultural" network that in the Bell Beaker period spanned all Western Europe from Moravia to the Ocean, from Denmark to North Italy, trascending the ethnic divide between Vasconics and Indoeuropeans at the Rhine (but only had fortified towns that we know in South Portugal and Almería, the first Western civilizations, Bell Beaker culture as such probably originated in Iberia anyhow).
In the Bronze Age such long distance trade continued, first in parameters similar to Bell Beaker era but in the Late Bronze Age, roughly from the date of this battle (c. 1300 BCE) there was the expansion of Urnfield culture (Celto-Italics approx.), from what is now South and Central Germany, Austria, Czechia, German Switzerland, etc. What I once called "the peace of a thousand years" was over and I do wonder how this battle and massacre (both surely) fits in that context. The location fits with a proto-Germanic ethno-culural context but the Celto-Italics (or some related group of Urnfield culture) were close by anyhow, so I suspect that these two ethnicities were the ones involved, although it could also be intestine conflict of the Germanics only.
The variety of trade and the great distances that goods covered during that period, and what appears to be a caravan of merchants of widespread origin--tends to bring to mind the period of the Hanseatic League and the great merchant fairs.
Was this an earlier period with similar conditions?
@@helenamcginty4920 the Bronze Age saw trade routes linking Egypt with Ireland which saw consistent traffic over centuries :) ... I know of those because like 30 years ago I had to do a term paper on Egyptian glass beads finds in Europe and most finds were strung in a line going from Egypt to Southern Italy and Sicily to Southern France to Brittany to England, Cornwall and ended in Ireland. The Bronze Age had its own "silk routes", like the one bringing tin from Afghanistan to the Mediterranean sea. I don't see why there would not be one linking the Baltic Sea to Italy or Britain or some other place. ... Maybe they did not have tin or copper to export but they did have furs and amber, and furs were a hot commodity up to the XIX century.
Weather was significantly warmer than now during the earlier Holocene (barring a few dips here and there), don't know about the bronze age but during the late Neolithic population density was high, not as high as now but definitely comparable with medieval times (when it was colder :-) ), there is a study in Nature from a few years ago (palinology) showing large parts of Czechia were very likely deforested, with forests being replaced with coppiced or pollarded plantations, and the rest cultivated. In the East (Cucuteni-Tripolie area for example) outside of the mountains the habitation density was high, with a village of a few hundred people every 4-5 kilometers, and on the Don they had a couple of very very large cities (possibly 40k people).
The "stick and stone" technology during the Neolithic and Bronze age was not that primitive, it was almost as effective as metal technology from later only tools or weapons needed maintenance more often, and stick-and-stone tools were produced and used until iron became very cheap like 200 years ago. When the Spanish conquistadors met the copper-age Aztecs they were first severely trounced, and only won by finding lots and lots of copper-age allies locally who were tired of being culled yearly for the sake of Aztec rituals. Mexico would have ended the same as India with the new masters being assimilated or replaced had it not been for the cocoliztli epidemic, before that the Spanish were in charge only because they were the compromise option and the local factions trusted them more than they trusted each other.
That almost no swords have been found could be because the winner took them.
The approach of such a large body would have been known days ahead of them. The bridge was a choke point. A small group of armed men could stop the caravan there, while their comrades ambushed from concealment behind the caravan. Trapped against the river, there was nowhere to retreat, and they were driven right into it.
This theory is mostly speculative and extrapolating on evidence that can proof many things. But it is interesting.
How do we know that this happened as one event and not a few to a dozen at a time over a longer span? This could have been a popular ambush spot for bandits, murderers and thieves.
So a flint arrow could penetrate bone! How was it projected?
Not having all the data, would it be possible that the remains were deposited over a short period of time, say months? If a band of thieves were to ambush small groups as they traversed the crossing, could this explain the finds?
I earlier said that a migrating group that included farmers, who were used to hard labor would also account for for people had carried heavy materials or done heavy labor.
Swords then were phenomenally valuable - they would all be picked up if they were present.
They left metals including gold. Also valuable.
Very interesting. I guess I didn't know much about the original story but a massacre does make sense given a closer look at the evidence. A couple of things stand out to me and perhaps it has already been discussed. I am curious if genetic analysis would provide more clues regarding the origins or mixes of the people involved? Bronze age means different things at different times for different people in different regions. Clearly there were cultures with wide spread trading networks all across Europe by that time. Perhaps people got pick up along the way and made a lives of it. But what struck me was the people being attacked carried bronze age items while weapons used against them showed signs of Neolithic? Somehow this reminds of a "Little Bighorn" sort of event. Perhaps there were still remnants of Neolithic type populations that struck out at the changing times? Don't know if that is true but it could make a good story.
Slave traders. They came with slaves to get more slaves. They were not welcome.
It reminds me of Caesar's Gallic Wars I. He said the Helvetii were migrating, but it seems more like they were an armed refugee population. Caesar made war on this whole population and while there were warriors they were accompanies by their families, women and children as well as their portable wealth. So perhaps it was a battle like that, with an army vs a migrant population.
Imagine the bandits that followed Mansa Musa on his hajj..
We tend to overestimate the distance between the Adria and the Amber-Coast. It's only 32 days on foot. That is nothing. Given the amount of Amber and bronze that was traded these caravans must have happened more often. And as it happens, occasionally some traders fall on the bad side of some local power, disagreeing on prices, lodgings or tribute. These people messed with somebody powerful who could and would, and did not care on what his neighbours down the line would think about him interrupting their supply chain. And there must have been a chance of other caravans passing unmolested, or there would be much more and longer conflict in the region. The caravan being the starting-point or the climax of a period of conflicts among the locals.
If there is no signs of further warfare in the region, it was a personal matter of some local warlords and the caravanleaders. If there is a personal insult involved it is more likely that there are also made religious vows, that prevent the plundering of the goods, wowing the posessions of the insultors to the gods. And at least in the Aunjetice-culture there seem to have been military vows and ritual deposits of weapons between a 'warlord' and his warriors. Meaning it was a 'honour-driven' culture. It was less about the belongings of the caravan. Ths was nasty and personal, otherwise one would'nt kill young horses, women and children. And the suffered insult must have been in a way, that the people down the line saw the point, and did not war on the one that killed 'their' tradingpartners.
But where were they going? Were they just going to set up seaside and wait for shoppers? There is a chance that there are the remains of a gardia a bit farther up the causeway.
Swords were a precious commodity in that era, maybe the winners took every single one with them...
I would be very grateful if someone would provide a citation for the revaluation
Rather than a caravan, this could be an actual market place. People from all the diverse areas to the South came together to trade, but were attacked by a local army.
Spiral ingots are easy enough. All you do is drill a hole in a log and pour molten metal in. I do much the same to recast solder scraps. Instead of splitting a log, I clamp 2 pieces of lumber together, same difference tho. Then wrap around anything. Snip mine down and throw them in a box, I don't have to carry them with me.
An early smelting furnace exits into whatever is clever also, you could just draw lines in the earth and fill the troughs. I could tell in person how they were made if the tarnish doesn't soften distinguishing marks to much or they had a secondary "machining" operation.
Fascinating conversation but how can’t we be sure that the area was not that populated? This event was 3000y ago. There’s a farm very near the event and over the centuries the whole landscape is vastly different. Perhaps this was a market center and over the years and signs of cities or settlements had been plowed under or lost in events such as that. If history were pristine then there would be easy answers. People generally don’t just converge, there’s got the be a reason and if this is a confluence of a variety of people for many regions then there’s a reason for that. Perhaps it really is something as simple as there was a large city nearby and this was that market? The signs of the Cory have simply been lost to time.
Even if the attackers were warriors and only a few warriors accompanied the Karasvane, some of the attackers will still have been killed. Where are the bodies? Have any bodies been found that come from the Tollense-area?
What surprises me: As far as I know, there is no legend about this event, although it was certainly a raid with fabulous booty that was told for generations to come.
I expect conflict like this is as old as time. The in group Vs the out group. Conflict starts with something like "We don't like your sort around here". Very sad.
1. Depending on the accuracy of the dating, it's possible this wasn't one event, but a very dangerous pass where highwaymen robbed travelers regularly over many years.
2. Why there, where no cities were? (a) Fewer witnesses, (b) if you attack someone crossing a bridge/narrow pass they have nowhere to go.
3. Why no signs scavenging? The bodies were probably dumped in the river to hide them. And maybe weighted down.
4. The metal spirals were probably owned by a traveling craftsman. Thicker ones could've had multiple uses, but thin ones might have been for soldering jewelry. Solder is still sold in rolls today.
Swords have always been, as far as I know, specialty weapons for professional leader class fighters. It takes a lot of work to make, and lots of training time to be proficient. Farmers, traders, etc would not have the time. Spears are easier to make, easier to use, especially in shield-wall formations.
A sword would be far too valuable to leave behind. They'd be booty for whomever bested its owner.
has any thought been given to possibility of an army baggage train and its loot
Great video but what about the "winners" taking anything and everything of value off the battlefield, if it was a battle including weapons, as is widely attested in later history. In regard of civilians being found at rhe scene this again does not rule out a battle, later cultures took civilians to watch battles on occasion, an example would be the celts(using the term generally). Horses were not used as cavalry in the bronze age at least not in any numbers but they were used as a food source, so potentially one for the trade not battlefield theory
I would suspect more of a scenario like of the later Gallic War where you see the deacendents of these people in Gallic and Germanic tribes wanting to mass migrate and having to ask permission to cross lands, and ending up getting attacked while fording a river. They would have had women, children, and warriors, along with all of their valuables.
It's a bit unclear at 7:25 if you are actually claiming that no swords = clearly no warriors, or are just reporting previous interpretations. Because throughout most of early history warriors and foot soldiers were equipped with spears or polearms as their primary war weapon. Horseman usually used lances. Swords were usually reserved for high status individuals. In other words not every warrior had a sword.
A commercial carawan with so many people? Even today with our high population density it would be rather implausible to consider a commercial track to have so many participants.
Well even in a lost battle swords, being very expensive would more likely be policed up and carried off by the winner.
If a migrating tribe were attacked the non-warrior/civilian class of the tribe would be interpreted as a group of merchants/traders since that merchant class was integrated with the baggage train. This might still be a battle and the bodies we know about might simply represent a late stage of the battle where the warriors had been killed and the enemy now fell upon the unguarded civilians. The main body of the warrior class may have been at a nearby location where they had been deployed to guard the crossing for the civilians.
😎👍
It occurs to me that a "crossing" is a perfect ambush point. But... according to the new theory... why were valuables left behind if theft was the motivation?
I think gold spirals made from materials of value were used as currency and not just decorative
👍
Well, here are my 2 cents:
7:23 The victors looted all of the swords, along with more or less everything else of value? Yes, that does seem remarkably unlikely. . . ;)
8:02 It could be that the dead were all dumped in a river, or it could be that the remains that were found are just those who fell in the river, while everyone whose corpse landed on dry land got the usual funerial treatment, but it's jolly unlikely that there was an altercation of a few hundred and all of the casualties fell into the river.
15:15 Tell it to the vikings.
18:28 Into the modern era, armies would be followed by their camp, which often included soldiers' wives, as well as servants, prostitutes and various other professionals. We have it from Roman sources that the Germanic tribes had a custom of going to war with their entire tribe, bringing the whole family and everything they owned in wagons, presumably including slaves. I don't see any reason to settle on the presumption that the situation was very different circa 1300 BC. The Iliad also describes an attacking army with noncombatants such as priests, servants and slaves and the defending population also present even to suckling babes, not evacuating the conflict.
What's more, classical sources describe Celtic women as participating in battles, so the idea that the females at Tollense couldn't have been there to fight seems ill-considered. The fact that they were killed would seem to suggest that they were considered a threat, in some way or another.
19:52 This really seems terribly naive. Excavations in the near east and Mediterranean have shown armies with very diverse origins from this period, coming from as far away as the Baltic to fight in Egypt or the Levant. It was a very connected world, with relatively low levels of ethnic discrimination, so warriors could and did band together for their goals from great distances.
The Iliad narrates the same situation, as, to some degree, do contemporary written sources from the Egyptians and Hittites, describing the makeup of their armies, with various mercenaries and allies, along with their own diverse subjects.
As a counterpoint, why in the blazes would people from far and wide assemble into a band of travelling salesmen, united by their dream of carting their valuables into hostile territory?
20:29 Interesting that any non-war horses would have died in an attack. Presumably it was accidental. Perhaps a larger number of horses were wounded with arrows, but the adult horses could survive such minor wounds with much higher probability.
I suspect we're looking at a tribe being wiped out. Whether they were invading someone else's land, attempting to migrate through it peacefully or attacked on their own land doesn't seem like something that's likely to be discernable without a time machine.
It could be that they lived by a bridge, exerting a toll on travellers and came under attack from mercenaries hired by people who didn't want to pay anymore or bandits who knew that it was a lucrative position and wanted it for themselves.
It could just as well be a meeting of two hostile tribes, vying for territory, all hands on deck.
145 individuals, probably just part of all the dead. So many people sounds more like an army than an trading party. Mercenaries could come from many areas. Armies often bring families and they bring a "war chest" of valuables. This could be the remains of the looted defeated army's baggage train.
Your content is interesting; reminding me of Metatron, just so you know.
War…war never changes…
if they had swords would the victors take them?
This battle I have never heard of, but gives credence to my theory of the collapse of the Bronze age. It was a peasant up rising of all the bronze age countries. It was a steam roll effect. The farmers and the herdsman's that rose up against the elites and the educated. The peasants killed everything right down the scribes. And that is why the written word was lost. The peasants hated everything society represented. And remember the Greeks called it the age of Hero's. And Hero's are ordinary men doing great things. The sea people were a Sea of People from all corners of the peasants. The only reason Egypt survived was the Niles delta and that sea going vessels have a deeper draft and got stuck in the mud. Plus the delta gave the Egyptians places to ambush the army of peasants. Wouldn't surprise me if you found man made rock obstructions in the Nile delta. But even the Egyptians lost control of large areas of land like the lower Egypt in that peasant uprising. Proving that a well paid army can't stand up to angry peasants. The big battle between the haves and the have nots. Sound famillure to today?
Are you a Russian/Chinese propagandist? Lol I have to ask, bc this is a common comment when we find something fascinating in history. "It must have been bc of Capitalists!"
@@brianwilliams1281 Nope it all is using common logic. First evidence writing stopped after this. Who had writing, the rich and powerful with education. So obviously the rich and powerful educated were wiped out. Who ever the sea people were they even hated the scribes. And killed them too. This battle was between someone who really hated merchant, who were the educated and had scribes. And they were Massacred, that takes a lot of anger not to take any slaves. Homer called this time the age of hero's, now hero's are individuals, not organized armies. So these hero's had to the unorganized masses, ones who stood out in the may lay of battle. So to me the answer is it was like a big Frech Revolution and anyone connected with the establishment died. That is the only answer that fits, but if you got something better/ Please enlighten me. But to has to fit all the criteria and the out come.
@@brianwilliams1281Then you have to also look at the different uniforms of the sea people. That means it is people who have joined together as one with one common enemy. They have identified 9 different uniforms in reliefs from Egypt. Now since there were no known "civilizations" that could mount that big of an army to lay sedge to a fortress, remember there were no sedge engine at the time like catapults and massive wooden structure that could be rolled up against the walls to get over them. It was just man power at that time that forced the collapse of the cities. Who else would have that unlimited man power so angry to sacrifice themselves getting over that wall but farmers, miners and other peasants. As they moved from one country to another more angry peasants joined them and took armor from the soldier of the army of their country. No this had to be a LARGE group of people with a common goal that weren't educated and really hated the establishment. But if that hurts your feeling about the down side of capitalism, I don't give a dam. And no I'm an American.
That is the only people that could have done this. No group of people in the eastern Mediterranean was even close to mount such a big army. Remember this an age before sedge engines. So it was all done with man power and that would take a lot of people. As they conquered each civilization their armies grew with new peasants. They also didn't inhabit those cities they destroyed those cities. A foreign army would have inhabited, only real anger would destroy those cities. And yes I'm an American and if my theory upsets your capitalism, I don't give a dam. And in the end the ball is in your court. And yes I believe we are heading that way again.
@@brianwilliams1281Oh and by the way how the H did the sea people get to Babylonia since there are no connection to the Mediterranean's sea? Did they row across the sand? Do you see how stupid your answer is?
I always thought it was a battle for control of the river to take goods down to Greece between 2 peoples, im guessing they had some defensive weapons for the journey. The battle is on the onset of the collapse of the bronze age so did the climate make all previous allegiances null and void and people thought they had safe passage but they where led into a trap. What is also interesting is the size of people along the trade routes, you can draw a line from the Balkans all the way up into Scandinavia and these are some really tall people that make most people seem small. Not so much here in Yorkshire im 6'1 and i often feel small walking around the supermarket but these people and their marriage alliances has probably sown the seeds to make these people really big...
Greece? The trade routes (amber routes would be relevant here surely) may at times reached as far as Greece but it was not a primary destination at such an old time (1300 BCE, time of Urnfield culture expansion, roughly Celto-Italics, which also expanded northwards but not directly as far as Mecklemburg). These Celto-Italics would have trade routes but Greece was only one of the ultimate destinations: Italy, SE France, broadly the Danube-Balcanic area and even the Black Sea coasts were also destinations of the amber trade by land-river routes, while a marine route reached to Iberia.
Otherwise not in disagreement, except that more direct evidence would be needed to back up your claim of "tall people". Notice that the tallest people in Europe nowadays are the Dutch and they used to be rather short just some centuries ago (and they're not the only people who have changed average height, possibly because of improved nutrition).
@@LuisAldamizyour point about height is a good one. I live in Andalucia and todays young people are as tall as the average in the UK where im from. But their parents and especially grandparents are far shorter. They lived through the privations of the civil war and collective punishments for years after.
@@helenamcginty4920 - And a lot more before that, Andalusia has been essentially a colony since Roman times (except for the Cordoba Muslim period, when it was its own thing -- earlier one has to go to Tartessos, really to find a self-ruled and prosperous Andalusia). If you read for example Miguel Hernández' poem "El Niño Yuntero" (the yoker boy), which is pre-fascism, you probably can understand some of that. Even today Andalusia is basically latifundia: a rich country owned by too few people.
Anyway, a more remarkable case was that of Galicia, which used to have the shortest people of all Spain and a few decades later had the tallest ones in the younger generation.
I must also say that in my little incursions on this issue at European level I found Brits are generally not taller than Spaniards, especially the women are in the short range at European level (Britain is not a country of tall people at all, unlike Scandinavia, the Netherlands and Germany, at least by the available online statistics. It's not a strict north-south pattern in any case: the shortest Europeans are (from memory) Bulgarians, Finnish, French and Hungarians, while the tallest ones also include Serbo-Croats, with most Mediterranean countries being quite average anyhow.
It was a slave mission.
@@grantschiff7544 you sound as if you were there… so tell us ore about what actually happened!
Great knees Rupert 😅
Do you suppose the attackers tossed the dead who didn't fall in to river into the river to cover up their crime after the battle?
this was a time of great movement. just think, a very rich caravan heading to a new destination. what causes people to move is famine or plague. but if you had a raiding army on a peasant caravan, they would take the all the goods; wagons, food, useful people, all tin, bronze, gold, wood and etc... but the use of stone arrow head, showed that they were a remant of unsophisticated people that lived off the land, or a group of refugees from famine. they might have been afraid of water, the people of the caravan ran to the water to escape them got stuck in the mud and were used as target practice. the horses are the confusing part, at that time a horse was the ultimate prize. why were not taken? add in the sticks, could be walking sticks for the elderly. if on land, the amount of wild animals is a limited bunch due to huma population, so if there were a thousand bodies the animals would have stuffed themselves for several days. i have noticed that bodies of birds, squirrels and so forth, after a few days are left to the worms. so animals have a cut off point of eating rotten flesh, probably because the flesh is full of worms
A caravan would be expected to pay for right of way. A jealous competing power might raid the caravan to force traversal through their own territory. Might explain why loot was left behind.