Archaeologists dig up first Viking fortress found in more than 6 decades

DeepseekerADS

Gold Member
Mar 3, 2013
14,880
21,725
SW, VA - Bull Mountain
Detector(s) used
CTX, Excal II, EQ800, Fisher 1260X, Tesoro Royal Sabre, Tejon, Garrett ADSIII, Carrot, Stealth 920iX, Keene A52
Primary Interest:
Other
Archaeologists dig up first Viking fortress found in more than 6 decades | Fox News

By Matt Cantor
Published September 22, 2014

ArchaeologistsdigupfirstVikingfortressfoundinmorethan6decades.jpg

A visitor takes pictures at a display of helmets and weapons at an exhibition entitled 'Vikings: Life and Legend' at the British Museum in central London, Tuesday, March 4, 2014.

Archaeologists have dug up a rare find in Denmark: a Viking fortress. It's the first such discovery in more than 60 years, ScienceNordic reports. Researchers were clued in to its possible existence after examining the placement of fortresses nearby.

"It was clear that there was a fortress missing," says researcher Søren Sindbæk. His team investigated the area using archaeological technology: They developed a "ghost image" of the fortress using data on magnetic variations in the earth, World.Mic reports.

The discovery of "Vallø Borgring," located near Copenhagen, offered "the biggest rush an archaeologist can experience," Sindbæk says. Likely built around the 10th century, the fortress is a ring shape some 476 feet across.

"Although there were Vikings in other countries, these circular fortresses are unique to Denmark. Many have given up hope that there were many of them left," says a historian, as the Delhi Daily News reports.

But Sindbæk thinks there are more Viking fortresses to be found: "I'm excited for the future," he says. (Earlier this year, researchers found a skeleton that may have belonged to a long-lost Viking king.) Skeleton May Belong to Viking King From Ireland
 

S

stefen

Guest
Why is it that whenever bone relics are found in any archeological dig, anywhere in the world, that its assumed that the bone relics belong to a king or a nobleman?...when in fact, it was a lowly soldier, servant or slave...

Just a curious question...:dontknow:
 

Higgy

Bronze Member
Jul 21, 2014
1,415
1,264
NH
Detector(s) used
Xp Deus, Tesoro Tiger Shark, Garrett AT Pro, Garrett Pro-Pointer
Primary Interest:
Metal Detecting
Why is it that whenever bone relics are found in any archeological dig, anywhere in the world, that its assumed that the bone relics belong to a king or a nobleman?...when in fact, it was a lowly soldier, servant or slave...

Just a curious question...:dontknow:

And here's a somewhat cynical answer (and apologies if it sounds too abrasive):

Why do they say it belongs to a king? Follow the money. Nobody really gives a rat's patoot if its a peasant or servant. Big deal. Now, if those are the bones of a an ancient viking king - BOOM! Money starts pouring in from interested organizations for research and thats what keeps an archaeologist afloat for a while longer. I will speculate however, that this discovery will line the discoverers' pockets in many different ways. Thats why they say, "Oh, Ooo! Its the bones of a king!" Then they sit back and see what they can get hooked on the line.

And there it is. I hope it doesnt make me sound bitter, but if you look it, people usually need motivation to part with the cash, and an archaeologist is merely a poor dirt digging scholar if he has no money.
 

S

stefen

Guest
Higgy...well stated...you hit it on the nail...

I learned long ago not to ask a question if I didn't know the answer...

Archeologists have learned to hold a turd by the clean end when polishing...

Any statement relating to a find has a certain stink...
 

Bumpstick

Hero Member
Jun 1, 2008
602
229
Lake Country WI.
Detector(s) used
MineLab/ Excalibur&Exterra705/ Gold Bug
Primary Interest:
All Treasure Hunting
Why do these scholars keep defiling grave sites?

Will they not let these ancient men rest in peace!
 

Top Member Reactions

Users who are viewing this thread

Top