Over Fifty Beheaded Vikings Found in England

[tekisui]

Source: Suite101

Last year workmen for the 2012 Olympics sailing venue in southern England came upon a grisly discovery. Fifty-one men had been severely injured, most of them beheaded, and tossed into a mass grave. The burial site was discovered during the construction of the Weymouth Relief Road, meant to ease traffic congestion on the highway to Weymouth.

Weymouth Bay is found on England's southern coast and will be host the Olympic sailing events during the 2012 London Olympics.

Who Were these Executed Men?

Radiocarbon dating has shown the executed men to have lived between 890 and 1030 C.E., which was just before the Norman conquest of Anglo-Saxon England. England was split at this time with Anglo-Saxons, in the south and west, and the Danes in the north and east. The executors of the buried men were most probably the Anglo-Saxons who were Germanic peoples. From the Anglo-Saxons the English language developed, along with contributions others.

Isotope analysis of teeth can uncover the origin of people from their drinking water and the climate that they came from. Analysis of their teeth has revealed that they came from cold climates such as Sweden and Norway, with one person from as far away as the Arctic Circle. The isotope studies also revealed that the buried men lived on a high-protein diet similar to those from Sweden.

Researchers believe that the buried men were Vikings executed by Anglo-Saxons. The men suffered several blows about the body, and showed defensive wounds on the hands. Those who were beheaded showed clean cuts of decapitating blows that are thought to have come from swords.

The Vikings were found naked and beheaded, with their heads stacked to one side. No sign of clothing has been found, no buttons, no weapons. They were probably war captives all dumped into one pit. The men took many blows but their state of health seems to indicate that they were all alive when decapitated.

Read more at Suite101: Over Fifty Beheaded Vikings Found in England: Viking Men Discovered Near Olympics 2012 Site http://anthropology.suite101.com/article.cfm/over-fifty-beheaded-vikings-found-in-southern-en#ixzz0iAndY0L5

[CAG]

1. How old was Cheney back then?

just sayin'.... :-)

[brewens]

10. He probably didn't participate directly. That would have been

after his first heart attack.

[hlthe2b]

22. He's always been the exhilarated (and excited) spectator

SO, I'll leave it to the imagination, exactly WHAT he was doing at the time...:evilgrin:

[graywarrior]

64. Guffaw!

I nearly choked to death laughing!

[Solly Mack]

2. Thanks for posting!

[saltpoint]

3. ...and Packers fans rejoiced.

[havocmom]

7. best possible response

:rolf:

[Catshrink]

8. Bears fans, too.

[Odin2005]

16. Why you little...

:rofl:

[saltpoint]

17. It's going to throw that entire division into turmoil.

Hell, even the Lions are suddenly in contention for the playoffs.

[ddeclue]

21. DUZY!

[keroro gunsou]

51. was favre among them?

duzy for saltpoint

[tonysam]

97. LOL!!!! I was going to say it must have been a Green Bay fan. n/t

[kiva]

4. K&R for the headline n/t

[ConcernedCanuk]

5. We humans haven't changed much have we . . . ?

.
.
.

Mind you, some of the Norseman may have really liked to watch the carnage from the USA's use of the Atom bombs over Japan;

(sigh)

[oneshooter]

13. And your alternate plan would be? n/t

[ddeclue]

19. how about Japan's rape of Nanking or bombing of Pearl Harbor?

I hate history white washers... Japan was not about to surrender in August of 1945 and still had over 5 million men in the field. It would have been a bloodbath if we had invaded Japan conventionally also.

[ConcernedCanuk]

29. I apologize to those that do not see my point of view

.
.
.

But slaughtering women and children just sort of rubs me the wrong way . .

Men want to make war?

OK - LET THE MEN KILL EACH OTHER . .

But slaughtering families indiscriminately just sorta rubs me the wrong way . .

I AIN'T gonna apologize for THAT opinion

Just cuz the "other" guy does it, is no excuse/rationalization for us to do the same thing.

Regardless what the threat was from Japan was, I am ashamed to think that my country or my country's allies justified slaughtering whole families to "win"

I will NEVER accept mass murder to achieve a "goal"

No other nation is running around the Globe making war wherever they feel like it.

NO OTHER NATION

get it?

[ddeclue]

31. NO I do NOT get idiotic pacifism in the face of a determined enemy who will kill you and yours given

the chance.

I do NOT get people who want to pretend like the Japan and Germany were just poor misunderstood kids who got into a little trouble. I've lived in Germany for 7 years and travelled much of Europe. I've lived in South Korea which Japan occupied and brutalized for the better part of 50 years. You need to get over yourself and your silly absolute pacifism.

Wars are NOT merely fought by armies - they are waged by people working in factories making the bombs and the planes and the rifles and the tanks too. Modern war is not fought by guys who line up in linear formations on big open fields in fancy uniforms and start shooting at each other. Perhaps you are confused as to which century you are in? This is the 21st century not the 18th.

[ConcernedCanuk]

50. Somene mentioned"check your history" in one of their posts.

.
.
.

Check it

Neither Nagasaki or Hiroshima were military targets.

They were "targeted" just for the shock value it would have on killing so many civilians

It worked . . .

[ddeclue]

65. Actually Hiroshima WAS a military target and Nagasaki an industrial one.

Had the US military wanted to drop the bomb merely for "shock" value it would have dropped it over the imperial palace in Tokyo.

[tabasco]

95. LOL.

You're wrong, professor.

[Flaneur]

60. By that logic, everyone in the US is a legitimate target?

The people making the bombs we drop in Iraq and Afghanistan and Somalia and Yemen?

The tax payers who finance our military adventures?

The guys in the factory in Wisconsin building those armored vehicles? And their families?

[ddeclue]

63. Well YES they pretty much ARE... did you not grow up during the Cold War? I did.

[aquart]

70. Duh. What, precisely, do you think terrorism is?

Did you never see all those nice World War II movies where our brave pilots bombed the shit out of armaments factories?

I saw a list of my uncle's missions. He flew as far as Albania. He was knocking out targets in Greece and Italy, North Africa. France. WHAT DO YOU THINK WE WERE AIMING FOR?

Do you think Germany didn't want to bomb OUR factories? They didn't have the range. That's why they were working on missiles. That's why we had to stop them. BECAUSE THEY WERE WORKING TO BE ABLE TO CAUSE LONG RANGE DAMAGE.

There is no army that can go up against our two ocean front right now. Or invade thru Canada or Mexico. We are very sheltered. But highly targeted invasive strikes? TERRORISM? We just arrested a guy who's been working in our nuclear plants. Our security for those plants sucks.

They will keep trying. Logically, what else can they do?

[ddeclue]

74. It's not even about terrorism. Legitimate state based warfare would target civillians as well.

after all that was what nuclear war in the Cold War was going to be - annihilation of each other's cities.

[ConcernedCanuk]

79. Well, if an Iraqi, Afghan, etc., lost their family/friends to a US bomb . . .

.
.
.

who do you think THEY would feel is a legitimate target?

tricky question

I know . .

[Kaleva]

90. In total war, there are no innocent civilians.

[Dreamer Tatum]

35. Then you should have plenty to say about Japanese soldiers skewering Chinese babies, right?

Nope. Didn't think so.

You subscribe to the Rule of the Latest Victimhood, which absolves a country from any past misdeeds so long as it has suffered a more recent grave misdeed at the hands of another country.

Let's check back on August 6, when we do our usual hand-wringing over Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

(ps - exceptions to the Rule of Latest Victimhood include America, United States of)

[ConcernedCanuk]

48. Others evil behaviour does NOT justify us behaving the same way

.
.
.

My neighbor stealing off of me does NOT give me the right to steal off of them.

That's how I see it.

[aquart]

61. Has your neighbor stolen from you? I think not.

You have the complacency of the theoretical, not the fire tried.

And the stealing is a nonsense analogy anyway. Likely as not, your neighbor doesn't have anything you want. And you know you have a justice system in place and working to apprehend your neighbor. Or would you simply call and tell him to enjoy? I don't think so. I think you'd let the police do all the dirty work of the incarceration.

Tell me, would you hire a lawyer for your neighbor?

[ConcernedCanuk]

78. "I have a justice system in place and working to apprehend your neighbor"

.
.
.

matter of fact;

I do.

details later.

I'll post something in the Canada or Poverty forum/group later.

as for your query - "Has your neighbor stolen from you?"

OH YEAH -

again - I'm not going to post details until the situation is resolved, and items recovered

so much for your "I think not"

where do you get these ideas to challenge my veracity anyways?

do you know the "neighbor" of which I speak?

hmmm?

:freak:

[oneshooter]

36. Let me understand

"But slaughtering families indiscriminately just sorta rubs me the wrong way"

But the use of arms to STOP the slaughter is not justified? GET A LIFE!!!

The rape of Nanking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre

The Bataan Death March http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bataan_Death_March

Japanese War Crimes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_atrocities

Learn history, or be doomed to repeat it.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[ConcernedCanuk]

46. I am familiar with all that - sadly . . .

.
.
.

It still just not justify behaving the same way.

Just because others slaughter women and children does not make it right for us to do so

Again,

That's just my way of thinking about it.

[aquart]

62. "Familiar"? War vet?

Or you read it in a book?

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[aquart]

42. You start a war, you do not get a say in how badly it ends.

Japan earned those bombs. They've been pleasantly peaceful ever since.

Nuclear weapons are so vicious that just having them is enough to make nations very very careful of annoying each other. In fact, it is obvious to anyone that only nations WITHOUT the bomb get invaded.

Which is why Iran would like one. I see their point, but I don't care.

[ConcernedCanuk]

45. OMG

.
.
.

Women and children no longer matter it seems.

Not much wonder our World is going down the toilet.

"Japan earned those bombs"

wow

tell that to the thousands of children that got incinerated

hell of a way to "win"

I think I'd rather lose than kill women and children

But that's just me own simple mind

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[apocalypsehow]

67. "crazies"; "Republicans"; "fools"; "a big fuck you." - Now there's some "evolved" discourse, alright

:eyes:

[aquart]

56. "No longer matter"? When did they ever?

We were adorable to the Japanese when we took over that country. Did we deport them all into slavery? That was a pretty standard post-war procedure in the old days. Did we pile up heads by the door? We left the rest of the country intact. We didn't grab everything of value and cart it off home. We very specifically refused to allow our soldiers to blame the ordinary people for the decisions of their leaders. We didn't use rape to keep the population in line. (Although I'm sure there were incidents but those incidents were against policy not the implementation of it.)

We put them on their feet, taught them baseball and WENT HOME. They lost two cities instead of EVERYTHING. Get a sense of proportion. Do you really think our soldiers wouldn't have been happy to kill every man, woman, and child on that island? Think of where they'd been.

I'm impressed with your outrage. I'm sure that during the war you would have been out there every day picketing for the poor Japanese victims of our aggression.

"I think I'd rather lose than kill women and children." Wow, there's a comfortable stance. You can take that position BECAUSE we dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. You have absolutely no fear of invasion. You don't believe anyone will ever enter your home and drag you off to a detention camp. Or kill you because you aren't useful. You don't fear for anyone you know or love.

Nobody messes with us because we murdered two cities and we would do it again. Once that was established, it was easy to be kind and generous. No chance at all that anyone would mistake anything we did for weakness. The other nations who acquired the bomb have had no need to demonstrate their own willingness to use it. We did it all for them. And for you.

Sucks to know your complacency is built on that pile of incinerated children. And blissful ignorance.

[proteus_lives]

77. Isn't it amazing how the US still gets lambasted for the Atomic Bombings...

Yet Japan's wartime activities still get glossed over.

History major here and I will defend the use of atomics until my dying day. I've read things about Japan's activities in WWII and before that would make some DUers vomit. Did the Allies always do the right thing? No but we were goddamned saints compared to Japan.

[Vattel]

98. Didn't you get the memo

Around here, it's horrible to waterboard a known terorrist, but incinerating innocent children by the thousands is OK.

[bvar22]

81. Hate History "White Washers"?

"Japan was not about to surrender."

Many of the Commanders in the region, including McArthur, disagree with you.
Japan had made numerous attempts to surrender prior to the Atomic Bombings.
THAT is documented HISTORY.

[oneshooter]

85. What the Allies demanded

was "Unconditional Surrender" the Japanese military refused to those terms as it was against their "Code of Honor". Only AFTER the Bombings did the civilian government, the Emperor himself, agreed to the terms. And there was an attempted coup by the military days before the surrender.
The Japanese Military had War Plans to arm every man, woman and child with bamboo spears and grenades as a suicide force to defend the country.
More civilian lives were lost in the conventional fire bombing raids against Tokyo, than were lost to either atomic bomb.


Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[bvar22]

87. Well, thats the "Cover Story".

Every condition Japan wanted BEFORE the Atomic Bombings
was GRANTED on the deck of the Missouri AFTER the bombings.

[oneshooter]

94. Not really

No direct communication occurred with the United States about peace talks, but American leaders knew of these maneuvers because the United States for a long time had been intercepting and decoding many internal Japanese diplomatic communications. From these intercepts, the United States learned that some within the Japanese government advocated outright surrender. A few diplomats overseas cabled home to urge just that.

From the replies these diplomats received from Tokyo, the United States learned that anything Japan might agree to would not be a surrender so much as a "negotiated peace" involving numerous conditions. These conditions probably would require, at a minimum, that the Japanese home islands remain unoccupied by foreign forces and even allow Japan to retain some of its wartime conquests in East Asia. Many within the Japanese government were extremely reluctant to discuss any concessions, which would mean that a "negotiated peace" to them would only amount to little more than a truce where the Allies agreed to stop attacking Japan. After twelve years of Japanese military aggression against China and over three and one-half years of war with the United States (begun with the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor), American leaders were reluctant to accept anything less than a complete Japanese surrender.

Following the bombing of Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, the Japanese government met to consider what to do next. The emperor had been urging since June that Japan find some way to end the war, but the Japanese Minister of War and the heads of both the Army and the Navy held to their position that Japan should wait and see if arbitration via the Soviet Union might still produce something less than a surrender. Military leaders also hoped that if they could hold out until the ground invasion of Japan began, they would be able to inflict so many casualties on the Allies that Japan still might win some sort of negotiated settlement. Next came the virtually simultaneous arrival of news of the Soviet declaration of war on Japan of August 8, 1945, and the atomic bombing of Nagasaki of the following day. Another Imperial Council was held the night of August 9-10, and this time the vote on surrender was a tie, 3-to-3. For the first time in a generation, the emperor (right) stepped forward from his normally ceremonial-only role and personally broke the tie, ordering Japan to surrender. On August 10, 1945, Japan offered to surrender to the Allies, the only condition being that the emperor be allowed to remain the nominal head of state.

source: http://www.cfo.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/surrender.htm


Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[WolverineDG]

105. these apologists won't stop until we all hate the US

Sorry, I knew 2 victims of the Japanese from WWII, one of whom was a CHILD at the time. I'm not going to lose sleep over how the US stopped a war the Japanese started.

dg

[oneshooter]

34. Still no answer, If you feel so bad about it

Then give me an alternative plan that would have worked. Canada also participated in WW2, as part of Bomber Command they bombed factories, rail stations and tracks, and had a part in the Dresden bombings.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[ConcernedCanuk]

52. I have no idea what would have "worked" back then

.
.
.

and I wish that our government had never got us involved in the conflicts in the Middle East as "warriors"

We WERE known as peacekeepers - no longer methinks - -

Our government tied us in with the USA's mission in the Middle East.

I'm afraid that Canada went WAY down in the World's view as a peaceful nation.

I am sad for us, almost grateful that I have no children to be concerned about, and only a few decades left to live.

If I knew what I know now, and was in my teens, I would be terrified what will happen in the next century.

At 59, I expect I'll be dead before the whole World goes to shit.

The World has no choice - with all these nuclear weapons around, and the USA pissing everyone off, sumthing's gonna bust in about 20 - 30 years.

Hopefully

I'll be dead by then

Hell of a way to live with that as one of my goals . . . .

(sigh)

[Vattel]

96. Typical apologetics for mass murder.

We didn't have to demand unconditional surrender. We could have fought and negotiated until China and the other occupied territories were free, and our POWS were released, and then gone home. Instead we chose a campaign of mass murder, bombing every major population center in Japan, killing the innocent and the guilty alike.

[oneshooter]

101. The terms of the surrender

were set a Potsdam. The invasion of the Japanese Home Islands would produce, by US estimates 1.5 to 2.0 MILLION casualties. The political leaders were not willing to invade due to these numbers.
Japan had an additional 5 million men under arms in China at the time of the surrender.

The Japanese Government started the war, they used rape, torture, mass killings, medical experiments on POW's, transporting POW's in unmarked ships. The pacific theater was as fierce and bloody as the eastern front in Europe.
Bottom line is that the Atomic Bombs shortened the war. And saved the lives of uncounted millions, both Allied and Japanese by forcing the surrender.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Vattel]

103. The Potsdam declaration was the problem.

(And by the way, it wasn't written in stone.)

[oneshooter]

107. No it wasn't, but the mistrust of the Russians

made it necessary.

After President Harry S. Truman received word of the success of the Trinity test, his need for the help of the Soviet Union in the war against Japan was greatly diminished. The Soviet leader, Joseph Stalin, had promised to join the war against Japan by August 15th. Truman and his advisors now were not sure they wanted this help. If use of the atomic bomb made victory possible without an invasion, then accepting Soviet help would only invite them into the discussions regarding the postwar fate of Japan.
The final decision to drop the atomic bomb, when it was made the following day, July 25, was decidedly anticlimactic. How and when it should be used had been the subject of high-level debate for months. A directive (right), written by Leslie Groves, approved by President Truman, and issued by Secretary of War Henry Stimson and General of the Army George Marshall, ordered the Army Air Force's 509th Composite Group to attack Hiroshima, Kokura, Niigata, or Nagasaki (in that order of preference) as soon after August 3 as weather permitted. No further authorization was needed for subsequent atomic attacks. Additional bombs were to be delivered as soon as they became available, against whatever Japanese cities remained on the target list. Stalin was not told. Targeting now simply depended on which city was not obscured by clouds on the day of attack.

http://www.cfo.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/potsdam_decision.htm


Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[AngryAmish]

41. IF one looks at the anthropological evidence, humans are getting less violent over time

The 20th century, with the world wars, gulags, Mao, Rawanda, et al. was the most peaceful in humankind's history.

If one compares neolithic man vs. humans today we have thinner skulls - less able to survive battle. But we get along better nowadays.

[proteus_lives]

75. Or the carnage of Japan's rape of China.

(sigh) :eyes:

[Yavin4]

6. Well, They Did Lose To The Saints in the NFC Championship Game

Man, Childress is one tough coach.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

9. The probably had shampoo in their bags when they went through the security check.

[RandomThoughts]

11. But they weren't Viking Kittens!!!!!! LOL

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x9292978

[lunatica]

12. The Vikings were the pirates of that age weren't they?

For all we know it was their death sentence after some form of trial. Or the result of them raiding the shores for the upteenth time and being overpowered.

[Gaedel]

18. No Geneva Convention at the time

There was quite a bit of border warfare between the Danes settled in the Danelaw and the Anglo-Saxons in the rest of the country. They were not necessarily pirates and may have been settled in England for several generations. Much of the simplification in the prograss of Anglo-Saxon to Modern English was caused by the need to harmonize Old Norse with Anglo-Saxon. Norman French only added a bunch of nouns and verbs to the language. The assimilation of Danish caused significant changes to grammar and structure.

[olegramps]

25. I believe that it was determined that they were raised in Sweden or Norway, not England.

[The Backlash Cometh]

28. Rape, pillage and plunder. It was their signature.

[naaman fletcher]

57. not really..

The vikings were not worse than anyone else. But, they were pagans so they had no problem robbing churches and killng clergymen. And guess who wrote the books back then? Mostly the clergy. That is why the Vikings had a bad rep, but they were no worse than anyone else.

[spoony]

58. They were the Bushco of their time.

Invade, steal resources and establish permanent bases.

[trusty elf]

14. Headless Norsemen!

Interesting, thanks.

[ddeclue]

20. DUZY!

[hlthe2b]

15. While they are assuming these to be executions and not combat

some of the mass burials from battles had to be nearly as grisly. The hand-to hand combat through the middle ages using swords, axes, maces, daggers, short bows, pikes, and all other means of weaponry that I've never even known the name for-- were the ultimate in grisly deaths. Granted guns and mortar and other modern weapons are likewise horrendous, but that personal one-on-one destruction just adds such an elevated level of horror.

I guess some of those scenes in recent movies are not that far from the truth...

[ddeclue]

23. I would guess because the fatal blows were all basically the same - head chopped off.

If they were combat injuries there would be a lot of different kinds - I doubt the Anglo Saxons gathered the dead up, sorted them by injury type and only buried the decapitated ones in one mass grave and the arm chopped off ones in another grave (with apologies to the Black Knight..)

:rofl:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eMkth8FWno

[hlthe2b]

24. Depends on whether Monty Python was collecting the dead...

(or the Anglo Saxons were all severely OCD) ;)

[ddeclue]

27. It's just a flesh wound!

DUZY!...

[TexasObserver]

26. Vikings were pirates, marauders. Not surprised they were beheaded.

The positive image of Vikings has always been a curious one. They were thieves who went to the sea to find and steal the accomplishments of other civilizations. When farming, they were apparently decent citizens, but when they came to your town, it was to rape, pillage and plunder.

These 50 were obviously defeated in battle, unless they all fell ill and couldn't really put up a fight. The fact that they were stripped, then beheaded, suggests they were prisoners who had no option in the matter. This appears to be one of those acts of vengeance against raiders who picked the wrong village to attack.

[ConcernedCanuk]

54. They were thieves who went to the sea to find and steal the accomplishments of other civilizations

.
.
.

Well golly gee

I know a nation that does that today!!

"They were thieves who went to the sea to find and steal the accomplishments of other civilizations"

Now WHAT nation is going all over the Globe withe their aircraft carriers telling the rest of the World what to do?

Is there more than one??

Let me know, OK??

[hayu_lol]

84. Canuk here appears to either having forgotten or is disremembering...

the bloody history of his own forbears when they teamed with Indian tribes and attacked what became the US, killing, raping, burning all the isolated settlers here they could reach. Wasn't until Benedict Arnold with his army(Continentals)trekked to Canada to put an end to the slaughter that it stopped.

Bloody Tories.

[Odin2005]

80. And they were traders and settlers.

Bashing my ancestors = FAIL.

[Gaedel]

83. I just read an interesting book

I don't have the author and title handy right at this moment, but the author has an interesting slant on the advent of the Vikings.

Charlemagne had just completed doing a military number on the Saxons and converted them to Christianity at the point of a sword. He also destroyed the Irminsul, one of the great shrines of Germanic paganism.

The author posits that the Norse attacks on England, France, and later Spain represent Germanic paganism's response to a "holy war" begun by the Christian emperor, Charlemagne. As the Norse were converted to Christianity, the raiding pretty much came to an end. As an example, the Swedish vikings moving through Russia to Constantinople were primarily interested in trading both with the Byznatines and the Arabs. One Swedish viking carved runic graffitti in St Sophia basilica/Hagia Sophia mosque in Constantinople/Istanbul which can be seen to this day.

[Odin2005]

86. Doesn't make any sense to me.

The raids started not too long after the Scandinavians perfected the development of the classic Viking longboat in the 700s, according to a book I have recently read called Empires and Barbarians: The Fall of Rome and The Birth of Europe. It was classic economic opportunism, not the result of overpopulation in Scandinavia as traditionally thought.

[TexasObserver]

89. Traders and settlers who raped, pillaged and plundered.

Complaining about that because you think you're some long lost decendent of them = FAIL.

[kenny blankenship]

109. It's called "opening markets" and we do it all the time.

[Mari333]

30. reminds me of!!!!!......

http://www.echelonrana.com/MiscStuff/viking_kittens.swf

[Fire1]

32. Interesting. n/t

[Enrique]

33. Nobody likes beheadings n/t

[Ikonoklast]

44. Mostly the ones losing their heads.

IMHO.

[scarletwoman]

69. They don't brood over it very long, however.

[pansypoo53219]

37. no buttons back then. DUH.

hell, they didn't invent BUTTONHOLES til the 1800's.

[muriel_volestrangler]

108. No, not really: first use in English of 'buttonhole' 1561, of 'button' (meaning a fastening) 1340

But 'button' before that meant something attached as a decoration on clothing, and that had been around long enough to be in the period concerned.

[scarletwoman]

38. Dammit! One of those guys was my great, great, great, great, great, great grandfather!

My great, great, great, great, great, great grandmother begged him not go on that last trip. "Ole, why can't you just stay home? You're always sailing off with your rowdy friends, getting into fights, raping and pillaging. Mark my words, one of these days those smelly Saxons are going to fight back, and I'll be stuck taking care of the goats all by myself!"

Please excuse me, I have to go change into my mourning dress. :cry:

[NNN0LHI]

39. Didn't Khalid Shaikh Mohammed confess to this?

He confessed to everything else.

Don

[Marr]

40. Thanks for posting this.

Fascinating little peek into England just prior to the Norman invasion. British history is very interesting-- particularly in this stretch of time. I lived over in Britain for awhile myself, and I never got over the compactness of the place. You can take a train ride and coast through several different extinct, but influential fiefdoms in the space of 15 minutes. :D

[hootinholler]

43. They probably wouldn't stop singing that Spam song!

Just in case

:rofl:

-Hoot

[scarletwoman]

49. *snarf*

[marshall]

47. The invasion of First Peoples' land has a long long history

It's an endless struggle.

[aquart]

66. Not an inch of ground without blood on it.

"First Peoples'land." Cute.

[scarletwoman]

68. Who were the "first people" in Britain? Certainly not the Angles or Saxons, they were invaders, too.

The Celts were also immigrants from elsewhere. Maybe the Picts got to Britain first, but they had to have come from somewhere else, too. Was there anyone else in Britain when they showed up?

[Kaleva]

93. The original inhabitants may have adopted the Celtic language

"...the vast majority of the inhabitants of the British Isles, whether they consider themselves to be "Anglo Saxon", "Celt" or otherwise, are descended from the original Mesolithic hunter-gatherers who migrated north from Iberia approximately 13,000 years ago at the end of the last ice age."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celts

[KG]

55. at first my mind read 'Vikings' as 'Lawyers', and i thought: what good start!

[malaise]

59. Fascinating

Thanks. :hi:

[hunter]

71. It's not well known, but Vikings ran the health insurance industry back then.

After this incident the adoption of an Anglo-Saxon Single-Payer-Medicare-For-All health plan was remarkably swift.

[Greyhound]

72. Viking is a verb!

:eyes:

[ddeclue]

76. actually "viking" would be a gerund not a verb.

:rofl:

the infinitive form of the verb would be: "vike"

the past participle would be viked.. as in "He got viked."

as a gerund: "He went viking" - a gerund being a verb used as a noun.

Someone who "vikes" would be known as a "viker"

:rofl:

P.S. found this at the urban dictionary:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Vike

More fun stuff:
http://mkbehr.tumblr.com/post/882173/viking

http://www.ducey.com/pool2000/wk11.html

http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.archaeology/2004-06/0233.html

[NutmegYankee]

82. And it's now the name of a type of people. nt

God Bless English - The Vacuum of languages!

[formercia]

88. The Anglo Saxons were tired of paying protection money to the Vikings

A little payback.

--snip--
Anglo-Saxon silver pennies were the currency used to pay the Danegeld, essentially protection money paid to the Vikings so that they would go away and not ravage the land: as an illustration of how heavy a burden the Danegeld was, more Anglo-Saxon pennies of the decades around the first Millennium have been found in Denmark than in England. In the reign of Ethelred the Unready (978–1016), some 40 million pennies were paid to the Danes, while King Canute (Knut) (1016–1035) paid off his invasion army with another 20 million pennies. This adds up to about 2,800,000 troy ounces (87 tonnes) of silver, equivalent to £250,000 at the time, and worth about £10 million in today's money (however its purchasing power at that time may have exceeded £100 million and as high £1 billion of today's currency).

--snip--

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penny_%28English_coin%29

[Spazito]

91. Huh, I guess they didn't get Capital One cards either!

[Kaleva]

92. victims of a halftime pep talk gone very bad.

[L0oniX]

99. If only it was ...50 banksters heads found in NY

[Kaleva]

100. Will the Obama DOJ ignore this and say they want to look forward?

[joeybee12]

102. And we think we have it tough...life is violent and horrible for many people these days...

...back then, that was the norm.

[rockymountaindem]

104. How in the heck did this get transformed into yet another atomic bomb thread?

It's not even August.

[LeftishBrit]

110. Because King Canute had a Strategic Nuclear Deterrent, of course.

That's how he got to be lord of the wind and the waves.

[tabasco]

106. Whoa.

Sounds like the English had a "zero tolerance" policy for the invaders at that time.

Poor schmucks.