Tollense Battle Revealed: A Bronze Age Massacre of Merchants & Traders 

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.

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.

Great installment. I love it when you return to the same sites with new information.

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.

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!

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.

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.

Fascinating, thank you.

Fascinating!

humm. Really enjoy your bringing this to my attention - I sure think we have a lot of speculation on this find(s). Thanks!

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.

Great. A fascinating discussion. I find it interesting that I suspect people's favourite history periods influence their interpretations possibly.

Thank you.

Good evening from the beautiful SF Bay Area. How interesting, I knew nothing of this event. Thanks.

I'm here for the news about old stuff. 🤩

Kinda sad how nothing ever changes isn’t it?

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.

I wonder how many people were taken away to be slaves.

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.

Any possibility these merchants and traders also dealt in the slave trade ???

Did anyone analyze where the horses came from?

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.

The other people, who didn't go into the river, might have been taken as slaves.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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 😅

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.

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 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?

You'd think that whoever attacked the caravan would have taken everything valuable.

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.

Imagine the bandits that followed Mansa Musa on his hajj..

Would those attacked run into the river to escape?

This theory is mostly speculative and extrapolating on evidence that can proof many things. But it is interesting.

I have slept all the way through it.. Trying again with coffee this time :)

Was the Tollense event singular? Could these remains be the result of a series of events over a number of years?

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.

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.

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?

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

So a flint arrow could penetrate bone! How was it projected?

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.

That almost no swords have been found could be because the winner took them.

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.

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 be very grateful if someone would provide a citation for the revaluation

has any thought been given to possibility of an army baggage train and its loot

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.

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

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.

😎👍

👍

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.

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.

Great knees Rupert 😅

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 then were phenomenally valuable - they would all be picked up if they were present.

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 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

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.

Well even in a lost battle swords, being very expensive would more likely be policed up and carried off by the winner.

Your content is interesting; reminding me of Metatron, just so you know.

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.

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.

Given the diversity of ppl in the main group and its central position in germany,could it have been the market place i.e. people came from miles around to meet and trade. I could see the raiders attacking a market and ppl being herded into the river and cornered by the steep bank to the west of the river. The wagons could have been bogged down and too difficult to recover. The bronze and tin spirals look like they have been wound around some perishable material, the tin spirals look like they could be used for fasteners or similar.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Ohh! What big mikes you both have.

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...

Slave rebellion, the first Spartacus.

if they had swords would the victors take them?

4:14 What kind of force would be necessary to sink an arrowhead that deep into flesh and bone?!

Except, whop would leave a sword behind? Even if it was warped and bronze sword when have been a major treasure. Heck, weapons in general, really.

I think gold spirals made from materials of value were used as currency and not just decorative

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.

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?

10:48 Could it have been a caravan of families immigrating? Certainly if relocating for a new long-term home, these people would have brought with them their valuables and goods. This would also account for the number of individuals, women and children.

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.

How many skulls were found? Wasn't it practice to "collect their heads!"?

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

Why do people say "period of time" all the time? Is it to differentiate between periods of space or periods of length? Perhaps we don't want to confuse it with periods of ball bearings? I always thought time was already implicit in the definition of the word period.

Gypsy's & Vagabonds, disturbing establishment.

07:18 doesnt convince me. swords were immensely valuable. I would think it to totally make sense for survivors or locals to even dive & search the river bed for swords 🤔 ( … nvm, they wouldve taken all other metal items too)

So i read in a german acherology magazine about the site, that alle "women" were later declared "men" after dna analysis. And even if, until the 17th century there were women present at every army.