Maybe it’s just me, but my first thought on seeing this on the show last night was not that people were dropping swords, losing swords, etc., while crossing a river, but rather being slaughtered as they contested the fords, and their bodies, swords, etc. falling into the water. The bodies would likely wash downstream, their swords probably just sink.
D’oh! This was meant to be its own thread. Sorry.
Does Diet Coke cause swords to be dropped in river beds?
I’m 51.
I have drunk diet coke all my life. (I don’t drink alcohol, tea or coffee).
I still have all my teeth.
Does you friend brush her teeth regularly?
Does her water supply contain flouride?
Perhaps the pain from one’s rotting teeth might distract one and lead to the loss of the sword from carelessly securing it.
Or perhaps the joy of drinking Diet Coke while crossing a river would distract one from the fact that one’s sword is falling off.
Perhaps the issue can be settled by using sword loss during fording by those who were drinking nothing as compared to those who were drinking Diet Coke. To really settle the issue, though, I think you’d want data on sword loss by those who were drinking other diet beverages as well. I have a gut feeling that Fresca consumers, as a group, are less likely to leave their hanger at the bottom of a river.
I didn’t see the show, but, OK, that makes sense.
Only if it’s new Diet Coke with Splenda.
Everyone knows that when swordfish swim upstream after snorting Diet Coke, their nasal cavities collapse, causing them to lose their swords.
A friend once showed me a path through the woods that led to a secluded scenic overlook. The view was awesome. However, the ground was littered with dozens of used condoms. This leads me to say:
Swords were too highly-valued (and simply too expensive) for this to be the case - it’d be like burning your car in celebration.
“watery tarts distributing swords and diet coke is no basis for a system of government.”
.
.
.
.
.
.
(sorry, but I just couldnt resist.)[/end of today’s obligatory Monty Python reference]
Man, I love this place…
ALL RIGHT, ALL RIGHT -
I’m interrupting this thread. It’s gotten silly.
It started off as a nice little thread about swords and rivers, and now it’s just gotten silly. His hair’s too long for a moderator, too.
Let’s change to something decent, and military - some precision drilling. On my cue -
WAIT FOR IT…
Regards,
Shodan
Swords were very valuable. Which is why we mostly find them in burials or in places they couldn’t be recovered from- like fords after a battle occured there. (Lots of battles occured at fords). Anywhere else, and they are picked up.
I was thinkig about the bodies found in the bogs of Northern Ireland (IIRC) were there was a remarkable state of preservation due to the lack of oxygen in the muck to allow decay.
Is it possible that riverbeds may also be oxygen deficient (at a certain depth) to the point that, along with being obscured by water and mud, they are less likely to rust than in the damp soil? Seems this is a factor in fossils as well.
No site, just pondering.
Did they burn their fords to celebrate a victory?
I just read news story about a murder in england 10 years ago, they had just found the body while looking for another in a lake. very minamal decay for that very reason. I’ll see if I can find the cite
You ponder well 
Maybe we should be considering the possibility that trout are getting tired of being hauled out of the water for sport and have decided to start arming themselves.
This is a lot closer to how archaeologists, at least in the UK and Ireland, tend to think about swords in rivers, rather than along the lines of even the more serious speculations offered above.
It’s long been a commonplace observation that rivers in Britain are the richest source of pre-Roman metal weaponry, a pattern not observed for later eras. And it’s also been the majority view for quite some time that this is the result of what was some tradition of deliberate deposition. As an example of how standard this view is, the Museum of London expensively revamped their prehistory gallery a year so two back. An awful lot of what they have in their collection from the period are pieces recovered from the Thames over the last two centuries and the context in which they are presented follows this suggestion that the practice was ritualistic.
Jokes about how “ritual” actually means “we don’t know”, there are apparent patterns in the distribution of finds that any other explanation has to cover. For instance:
[ul]There are early examples, from c.1500 BCE, of imitation daggers in bone found in the Thames. These would have been of no practical use as weapons, yet also show no signs of being, say, jewellry. The suggestion is that, at a time when an actual dagger would be expensive, people were making the gesture of throwing imitation ones in instead.[/ul]
[ul]There’s no obvious correlations with known settlements or other places of everyday human activity. Even though we’re talking about items that are unlikely to significantly move downstream.[/ul]
[ul]Many of the weapons display evidence of deliberate damage, though not of a kind that would be that sustained in battle. This is particularly true of the large quantity of material recovered from the Flag Fen site.[/ul]
[ul]There’s a geographical pattern to the finds, in that they tend to come from rivers in the east of the country. One can obviously worry about systematic differences in how they’re found that might explain this, but England as a whole has been being archaeologically investigated rather thoroughly for some time now. [/ul]
[ul]There are differences in where different objects are found: shields are found in pools, swords in rivers.[/ul]
[ul]The finds seem to peter out gradually c.400-100 BCE.[/ul]
One doesn’t necessarily have to think of this being due to people flinging stuff into rivers. A suggestion has been that perhaps corpses were placed in rivers as an alternative to burial. Long after the body has decayed and dispersed, a sword with it could remain.