All language subtitles for BBC - Blood Of The Vikings - 2 - Invasion

Last time, in Blood of the Vikings, I
found new evidence for hit -and -run

by Vikings from Norway.

Tonight, my journey follows the first
invasion of England by Danish Vikings.

The first Viking warrior to be excavated
in modern time.

How did he get such brutal wounds?

Are these brooches evidence of the
Vikings' trading?

Or settling down?

And can genetics help us to track Viking
immigrants in Dark Age Britain?

They were described as a great raiding
army, bigger than any Viking force that

had been seen before.

By 865, they'd laid waste to much of
Europe.

Hungry for new targets, they set a
course across the Channel, to Britain.

English monks reported that it was
somewhere here, along the coast of East

Anglia, that the Vikings first came to
Britain as a full -scale army.

It marked the beginning of a century of
fighting, not just for the land of

England, but for the very souls of its
people.

Historical records are sketchy. We don't
know what triggered the invasion.

but it's likely the force numbered
several thousand, gathered from a ragbag

pirate groups and led by Danish
chieftains like Guthrum, Halfdan and the

ferocious Ivar the Boneless.

Once ashore, they took horses and headed
inland.

The area that is now England.

was populated by a mixture of indigenous
Britons and invading Angles and Saxons.

There were four separate kingdoms.

Wessex was under Saxon rule, while
Northumbria, Mercia and East Anglia were

controlled by Angles.

Divided, they were vulnerable to the
Vikings' tactics of surprise.

866, here the raiding army went from
East Anglia over the mouth of the Humber

York City.

An immense slaughter was made of the
Northumbrians.

The Vikings' trail of destruction is
easy to follow from grim accounts in the

Anglo -Thaxon Chronicle.

869. Here the raiding army took winter
quarters at Thetford.

And the Danish killed the king.

870, here to Reading in Wessex.

A great slaughter was made. There were
many thousands killed and fighting went

on till night.

These writings paint a vivid picture of
the impact of the Viking army on

England. But were events really this
dramatic?

And did Viking warriors eventually
become Viking settlers?

I hoped to find new evidence by
following in the tracks of the great

873. In this year, the army went from
Lindsay to Repton and took up winter

quarters there, and they conquered all
that land.

My journey brings me to a village in the
Midlands.

Repton, in the 9th century, was home to
the main royal monastery of Mercia, so

capturing it was an important victory
for the Vikings.

But for once, we have more than just the
monks' words.

What's really exciting to me is that
this is the only place in the whole of

England where archaeological discoveries
bring us face to face with this

terrifying Viking army.

The first clear evidence appeared at the
ancient parish church of St Whiston's.

In the 1970s and 80s, an excavation was
mounted here by Oxford archaeologists,

Professor Martin Biddle and his Danish
-born wife, Birte Kolby Biddle.

It was this place with its stone
buildings, its wealth, its people who

ransomed, its books who could be
ransomed, that attracted the Vikings in

autumn of 873.

When they came, this place was the most
important place in Mercia.

And they caused mayhem.

They damaged the church.

so that it had to be rebuilt afterwards.
They turned it into a fortress. They

buried their people outside it and
inside it.

It's a pivotal site in the history of
England.

But there's one thing that is certain.

It would be best not to be here in 873.

The Middles started by investigating the
history of the church.

But before long, strong evidence emerged
in Repton for the presence of Vikings.

Well, we might have a ditch in here.

So we're trying to find the edges of the
ditch.

The ditch was part of a massive D
-shaped enclosure that ran between the

and the River Trent, a classically
Viking defensive structure with the

part of the fortress.

Then pagan burials began to appear right
next to the church.

And we were digging here, and gradually
we came down to the lair.

We found a stone, a little stone mound
here.

a broken sandstone.

Excavated that, and below that we found
two graves, and one of them was lying

just there.

We were excavating it. It seemed
special, maybe, because of the stones

A very experienced volunteer was digging
the head end of it, and she said, I

found something strange.

And I said, what is it, Joan?

Well, it's shaped like an anchor.

I said, oh my God, it's a sword hammer.

And Thor's hammer is the mark of the
pagan god Thor, and pagan Vikings, men

especially, would be buried with that as
a sign of his power, like we could be

buried with a cross.

And I was actually digging the foot end,
and I said, it's very strange, he's got

three legs, and I said, oof!

We've got a sword. We've got a Viking
sword.

And I just ran off to find Martin and
tell him all about it. And there it was.

Mysteriously, a boar's tusk had been
placed between the man's legs.

And at the top of his femur was what
looked like a particularly nasty wound.

It's the first Viking warrior grave in
England to be excavated using modern

archaeological techniques.

He was buried with a companion.

And nearby, a third skeleton was found
buried with a Viking gold ring.

But if these were members of the Great
Army, where are the others?

The Biddles turned their attention to
the vicarage garden.

So there was this mound in the garden,
and the vicar said to us, look, we might

have to sell off the vicarage garden.

Never happened, fortunately.

Please come and have a look at this
mound first, tell us what it is. And so

that's how we started here in 1980.

So when you came here, there was still a
mound, was there?

There was indeed, yes.

The Biddles' research uncovered a
strange report of an excavation way back

1686.

One Thomas Walker told the story of how
he dug up an enigmatic mound and

discovered a stone coffin containing a
humane body nine foot long, surrounded

a hundred other bodies.

Was this the same mound as the one at
the bottom of the vicar's garden?

Martin and Beata wanted to know.

Well, now, what on earth is it?

The worst possible is that it's a
Victorian garden feature when the house

built. Next possibility, medieval mill
mound.

Next possibility, Viking burial mound.
So we don't know and we'll have to find

out.

Gradually, as the first layers were
removed, evidence of a pagan burial

was revealed.

But what they eventually found...

was beyond all their expectations.

They unearthed the bones

of 250 people lying in an ancient
charnel house which had later been

a pagan mound.

80 % of the bodies were male.

And even though many of them were
particularly tall, there was no sign of

giant mentioned in 1686.

But among the bones were clues that
pointed to the great army.

So we had this extraordinary mass of
completely disordered human bones, but

also got four and a half silver pennies,
absolutely datable to 873 -4, exactly

when the Anglo -Saxon chronicle says the
Vikings wintered here.

The evidence from the coins points to
the use of the mound at the time of the

Great Army.

But what about the missing giant?

By coincidence, one of the army's
original leaders, Ivor the Boneless,

his immense physical stature, is thought
to have died in 873.

One might discuss whether it's either or
not, but this is a very coherent

suggestion that it is. It has to be an
absolutely major leader.

We know it's 873 -4, so it's one of
those very, very rare occasions when

archaeology actually does confront a
historic event.

We have the historic event in the Anglo
-Saxon Chronicle. We've got these things

happening here. We now can flesh out
that enormously.

We've got this great person buried.

It might be either.

The big problem is who are these people
buried around the central burial?

Are they English, are they Mercians, or
are they Scandinavian?

We may not have found the Viking's
leader, but we do have the warrior with

Thor's hammer and sword.

His skull has been sent to medical
artist Dr Caroline Wilkinson at

University.

She'll use the anatomy of the skull to
put a face to him.

Initially, this technique was developed
as a forensic tool for the

identification of...

unidentified bodies.

As you can see here the muscles of the
face have been built onto the skull one

by one.

So we start with the larger muscles that
you use for eating and talking and

opening and closing your eyes and then
we end up with these finer muscles that

you use for facial expression.

So at the finished muscle stage that you
can see here you can already see the

shape and proportions of the face and
the overall shape.

You can already get some idea of what
this person's going to look like.

By coincidence, while Caroline was
working on the skull, a pathologist

passing by noticed something unusual
about it.

Prompted by his comments, the Biddles
invited him to take a fresh look at the

whole skeleton.

The probable cause of death is two
superimposed penetrating wounds here.

Two separate wounds delivered one after
the other. The width of the wound is too

narrow for an Anglo -Saxon sword.

The only thing that really fits the bill
is a two -edged long thin spear.

But there are other wounds.

For example, the arm here.

has been struck by some very sharp
object which has cut right through

and into the bones of the lower arm. So
that is a slicing wound, then? It is a

wound that has come straight down the
arm.

Effectively, he's had a chunk of his arm
cut out.

But is that the sort of injury that you
could sustain if you were fighting, you

know, glancing sword black or something
like that?

Yes, but that wouldn't kill him
immediately.

Then... In the spine, there is an area
here in the lower

thoracic spine where there is very clear
evidence of a cut like this across the

body of the vertebrae. But is that
inside?

That is inside. That's done from the
body cavity.

So this man must have been at least
partly eviscerated.

Had his guts taken up?

That was an injury that was brought
about after death.

But this is deliberate mutilation, isn't
it? Yes.

And what about this wound on the thigh?

Yes, that's certainly a wound, and it
extends actually just onto the edge of

the pubic bone.

You can see the continuity of the blow.
Oh, I see. So it's not just in there. In

the process, he would probably have lost
his left testis and most of his penis.

The blow would have come from just about
where I'm standing, I think, and it

would be something like a blow like
that, right down, with...

A long -handled iron axe. We've looked
together at the shape of that cut.

It's quite a big blade, isn't it? And we
are all of the opinion, I think, that a

thickening axe blade is the more likely
implement.

And you'll remember, Julian, that it was
just in that position, lying across the

bottom of the grave here, that we found
the tusk of a wild boar.

And we've always had the suspicion,
without, of course, the medical

be certain, that that might have been a
substitute for his missing parts, so

that literally he would be complete on
going to Valhalla.

There is also evidence of hacking at the
feet.

We've placed the bones of the feet here
in no particular arrangement because

they are so cut about.

Surely, whoever did this must have
really hated this person to have treated

in this way. This treatment reflects not
only what the Anglo -Saxon population

feels about the Vikings, but also what
the Vikings did to the local population.

So this is revenge, basically? This is
revenge.

Here is a vivid picture of a violent
death, a gruesome

expression of the hatred of the time.

But this man, who was so brutally
butchered and who was laid to rest with

companions in the shadow of the church
that they desecrated, is not the only

evidence from Repton for the Viking
dead.

Just two miles away in the hills near
the village, around 60 other mounds have

been found which point to more pagan
Viking burials.

Over the years, The occasional artefact
has been uncovered here, like this sword

with human bone burnt onto it.

Prompted by the discoveries in Repton,
archaeologists have decided to find out

what else might be here.

The excavation is being run by a man who
I've met before in a confusion over a

hotel booking at an archaeological
conference.

Hello, Julian.

Hello, Julian.

It's my namesake, Dr Julian D. Richards.

Yes, in fact, there are two mounds here.

There's a large one that we've nearly
completely excavated and then a smaller

mound to the south of it.

Unlike the Biddle's mound at the church,
these are not yielding complete

skeletons.

Instead, there's evidence of a very
different burial rite.

There's loads of charcoal, isn't there?
That's right. It's just coming up where

we're trowing here. You can see it
starting to show through.

The charcoal suggests that the bodies
were cremated before burial, a practice

common amongst pagan Vikings at the
time.

Some important clues to who these people
were have survived the burning, like

this Viking ring pin that would once
have fastened a Viking's cloak.

But it doesn't necessarily mean that
these people were part of the great

If these really are the burial mounds of
part of the Viking army, then why is it

that on top of this hill they're
cremating their dead and then raising a

over the funeral pyre?

Whereas down in the valley, they're
burying their dead in the grounds of a

Christian church.

I think it would be just too big a
coincidence to have these two very

significant, very unusual Viking sites
within just a few kilometres of one

another and then not to be associated.

We have one group of Vikings choosing to
bury their dead at Repton, another

group choosing to go back to a very
pagan, cremation, animal sacrifice

rite on a hilltop overlooking it. I
think this relates to divisions within

Viking camp.

Although there's no direct evidence to
back up Julian's theory, if, as he

believes, they represent two rival
factions of Vikings,

It could help to explain what the monks
reported next.

874. The Viking army left Repton and
split up into two bands.

One band, under Halfdan, set out for the
province of the Northumbrians.

875.

Halfdan shared out the whole province
between himself and his men, and

with his army, cultivated the land.

This marks the beginning of a whole new
phase of the Viking Age in England.

It's the first time that the chronicles
make any reference to the Vikings

settling down and farming.

In the spring of 874, while Halfdan's
band were heading to Northumbria, the

other group, led by Guthrum, headed
south.

Their mission? To smash the Wessex
Saxons.

They must have fancied their chances
against the Saxons' young king.

His name was Alfred.

For four years, the Viking army batted
its way through Wessex.

The Saxons were on the run.

To win power, the Vikings needed Alfred,
dead or alive.

But Alfred evaded capture.

He ran away and lived deep in the
Somerset Marshes.

where he disguised himself as a peasant.

And a famous legend of Alfred comes from
this time.

He'd been given shelter in a swineherd's
hut.

The swineherd's wife left him watching
some cakes baking on the fire, but

perhaps lost in thoughts of his
threatened kingdom, Alfred let them

Unaware that she was talking to King
Alfred, the woman gave him a good

The king was at his lowest ebb.

We'll never know how Alfred managed to
recover from these debts, to raise an

army and face the Vikings head to head.

But we do know that the decisive battle
was Eddington.

I met on Salisbury Plain, the likely
battle fight, by my guide, a local

expert.

Alfred would be keeping to the low
ground and not trying to expose himself

much. But Guthrum would have been
sticking on the high ground to be able

observe his movement.

And then, of course, Alfred would have
to break cover and form into battle to

meet him.

And then they would have formed
somewhere on one of these ridges up

A line of breath feels interlocked.

And they would have come against each
other, shouting ruderies, banging their

shields with their swords.

And then there would have been an
absolute hand -to

-hand clash.

Brutal, rough, vicious fight.

So this really was the showdown, was it?
Absolutely.

Absolutely. It was totally the showdown.
And the advantage, of course, Alfred

had was that he probably had more
troops.

At length, he gained the victory through
God's will. He destroyed the Vikings

with great slaughter and pursued them,
hacking them down.

It's largely because of his great
victory against the Vikings that Alfred

known as the Great.

But it's also for the way that he
improved the organisation and learning

his kingdom.

My son's school in the heart of Wessex
is just one that's named in his honour.

Simon, what would have happened if
Alfred had lost?

Yes, I can barely bear to think of what
the consequence would have been, but

certainly it would have involved a much
larger spread of the Vikings into

Wessex and the consequences for the
English would have been quite different.

Professor Simon Keynes has translated
the peace treaty that was drawn up after

that decisive battle.

This is the earliest surviving
manuscript of...

the treaty between Alfred and Gudrum.
This is a very important moment in

Anglo -Saxon political history.

The treaty shows that Alfred's victory
was not as complete as it's often

described.

Far from being able to banish the
Vikings back to Denmark, Alfred found it

necessary to do a deal with them and
carve England in two.

And the text goes straight on to
describe this.

The boundary between Alfred's land and
the Vikings ran from east of London to

near Chester.

Alfred's compromise with the Vikings
ensured a period of stability and,

importantly, time to build up his
defences.

So although he accepted Viking rule in
the north, he still managed to enlarge

his own territory to include part of
Mercia.

Guthrum became king of East Anglia, but
he was forced to accept Christianity.

When Alfred signed the treaty, he was
acknowledging for the first time that

Vikings were here to stay.

The area north of the boundary that he'd
agreed with Guthrum was to become known

as the Danelaw.

But just how Viking was it?

A big problem is that the historical
record for northern England now comes to

halt. The Vikings destroyed monasteries,
and with them, their written records.

It was complete media blackout.

But one important piece of evidence that
had survived is place names.

To start with, there are over 850 place
names in England that end in B -Y.

That's the old Danish name ending for
farmstead or village.

Selby and Derby, for example.

Add to this those place names that have
got other Scandinavian endings, like

Thwaite and Thorpe, and those that
combine a Viking name with a Saxon

like Grimston, for example, and you end
up with over 3 ,000 Scandinavian

-influenced place names in England.

When the BY place names are plotted on a
map of England, they fit in almost

perfectly with the area of the Danelaw.

This is strong evidence that the Vikings
had a big impact in northern and

eastern England.

And if these places really are where the
Vikings settled, then I should be able

to find archaeological evidence to back
this up.

But until recently, no clear signs of a
Viking settlement had ever been

discovered.

It's something that's puzzled historians
for decades, but new evidence is

starting to emerge. And it comes not
from archaeologists, but from amateur

enthusiasts.

It's difficult to describe an emotion.
It's just a buzz to think that I've got

something that was lost all those years
ago. It's just a buzz.

that when I pick an object up, I really
get a sense of connection to the person

that owned it and lost it.

The best thing I have found recently is
a Viking harness pendant with the two

stylised serpents swarming their own
tails.

I remember very clearly the first Viking
object I ever found.

It was just in the middle of a cloud
field.

and it was a lovely trefoil strap
distributor.

And as soon as I unearthed it, I knew
what it was, and I just sat there, gave

out a yell, and sat there cheering in
the middle of a muddy ploughed field.

To actually hold a Viking artefact would
mean that I'm taking myself back

in history, back in time to when the
Vikings probably first

came here.

They may be plundering a village.

They may be having a fight and they've
lost whatever it is that I found.

And a very interesting Viking buckle,
which is complete with its signed

That is a very unique one.

As an archaeologist, I've got very mixed
feelings about metal detecting.

I've seen the damage that it can do to
ancient sites.

And personally, I feel that the only
people who should dig up artefacts are

those who are going to make sure that
they end up in a museum.

But having said this, I can't deny that
objects of Viking date excavated and

recorded properly and reported to
museums have made an enormous difference

our understanding of this period.

A new scheme designed to encourage metal
detectorists to declare their finds has

yielded hundreds of Viking artefacts
from the Danelaw. It's very stiff.

Dr Kevin Leahy, from the North
Lincolnshire Museum, believes that they

very important story to tell.

Until recently, until these detective
files started to come out, it could be

seriously argued that all we saw in 877
was a change in leadership.

The leaders of the Great Army came in
and took over. They just sacked the

and took over the running of
Lincolnshire themselves.

and there was no folk movement. Now
we're getting good evidence for a

of people.

And this pattern of Viking signs
corresponds fairly well with the

of Danish place names, all the B -Ys and
Thorps that we've got in Lincolnshire.

It's the everyday objects that are
getting Kevin excited.

Small metal fittings.

brooches, things like that that were
worn by Danish women and we'll be sure

they were worn by Danish women because
they're such

Danish peasant women because they're
such poor quality. They wouldn't be

acceptable to an Anglo -Saxon woman.

No Dane is going to come over here and
give a little brooch like this to his

English girlfriend and expect her to be
impressed.

The woman who wore this little brooch
was making a statement about her Danish

ancestry, about her cultural links.

This sort of poor quality metalwork
doesn't really travel between cultures.

Are these objects changing our whole
picture of Viking settlement, then? It

a real folk movement, but not just a
wholesale uprooting of people, leaving

Denmark absolutely empty.

We now have a picture of Danish Viking
invaders bringing their women with them,

perhaps settling down.

But where are their houses and their
farms?

A couple of years ago, detectrists
searching a remote area of North

turned up a small cluster of unusual
Scandinavian -style objects.

A geophysical survey of the area
revealed what looked like the outline of

buildings.

Their investigation was another task for
Dr Julian D Richards.

And we moved northwards, we moved... and
put a trench in the direction over here

where we're going. So it's on the crest
of the ridge here. On the crest of the

hill, that's right.

And here we found what we think is an
Anglo -Scandinavian farmstead, a Viking

settlement.

It had a massive entranceway looking to
the south, looking down this valley over

there.

And this had a huge ditch with a bank.

behind it, probably a palisade on top of
that, probably a wooden gatehouse as

well. Surely this wouldn't have been the
only farmstead in the area, though,

would it? No, I think there would have
been lots of Anglo -Scandinavian

settlements around here, probably one
every mile, for that matter. So how many

of these do we know about, then?

We don't know about any of them. This is
unique, and the Vikings do seem to be

invisible.

At last, some evidence for a Viking
village.

But perhaps they preferred to live in
towns.

My next stop is York, which, according
to the history books, was a major power

base for the kings of the Danelaw.

And the city is full of Viking names,
roads ending in gate, the Scandinavian

word gata meaning street.

In the 70s, on Coppergate,
archaeologists raced against time to dig

Viking Age York before they disappeared
under a new shopping centre.

We thought that there would be Viking
remains of some sort, but the finds

made have exceeded our wildest
expectations. These fantastic buildings

six feet high and the 13 ,500 good
objects we've got, way beyond our best

York provides a picture of a wealthy
trading centre.

There were exotic items like amber from
the Baltic and silk from the

Mediterranean.

There were dyes for minting coins,
scales and an enormous amount of

York became a Viking boon town.

But none of this evidence tells us just
how many Vikings settled.

So can genetics answer this question?

The BBC has joined forces with
University College London.

to collect DNA samples from volunteers
across England, Scotland, Wales and

Ireland.

In a pioneering survey, they'll be
searching for signs of Viking genetic

inheritance in the male Y chromosome.

The DNA from Britain and Ireland will be
compared to other samples taken in the

Viking Scandinavian homelands and in
Northern Europe.

And you don't have to look far to find
people with theories on their Viking

ancestry.

The name Rima is derived from Rima,
which is Norse for a leather worker.

And curiously enough, I trained as a
saddler and my dad was a leather worker

well.

Now what's your name, please?

DNA can be extracted from cells scraped
from the inside of the cheek.

But in England, the scientists have
teamed up with the National Blood

increase the numbers of volunteers
giving samples.

The team will try and find out if the
Vikings settled in large numbers, and

where. It's something that's never been
achieved before.

Just from the place name, you of course
don't know what happened in terms of the

people. You can imagine an elite group
coming into an area and declaring the

name of the place, whatever they want it
to be. It doesn't mean that they

brought an awful lot of people with
them. And I think fundamentally that's

archaeologists and historians have been
fighting so long about these questions,

because it really just is hard to know
what went on in terms of the people from

a little bit of cultural information.

But in principle, we can get at that
question directly using genetics. So it

really does simply open up a new
perspective into what is an old and very

difficult debate to resolve.

But Goldstein's team have had a setback.

While there are clear genetic patterns
which distinguish the Norwegian Vikings

from other groups in northern Europe,
it's not been possible to distinguish

Danish Vikings quite so neatly.

Three centuries before the Vikings
arrived, Britain was invaded by two

groups of Europeans, the Angles and the
Saxons.

Both came from virtually next door to
what would become the Danish Viking

homeland, and it's proving tricky to
separate these three groups of invaders

genetically.

But at least they seem to have a
different genetic signature from the

population, the native Britons.

Although we haven't been able so far to
distinguish the Danish and Anglo -Saxon

contributions, we have in fact been able
to learn something about the genetic

history of England anyway, because what
we can do is just lump together the

Danes and the Anglo -Saxons and consider
those as invaders in England. And then

we can ask the question, what proportion
of England comes from that invading

population and what proportion is
indigenous?

So if we lump together all the invaders,
the Vikings, the Angles and the Saxons,

What do we find?

Then we can see immediate patterns in
England, and in particular, when we look

in the general area of the Dane law,
there's greater contributions from these

invading populations in comparison with
areas farther south.

So we can see some very clear patterns
in England that tell us something about

the genetic history of England that
wasn't known before. So this is all new

stuff, then? This is all new. So this is
very interesting that we've got this

pattern straight away.

So the people who live in the north and
east of England have more Viking and

Anglo -Saxon in their blood than those
who live in the south and west.

It's extraordinary that the genetic
trace of these invaders is still

today, over 1 ,500 years after the first
of them landed.

Although the Danish Vikings had made
themselves at home in the Danelaw, the

peace between Viking and Saxon was
uneasy.

Sporadic fighting with Wessex resumed,
and 20 years after the finding of the

peace treaty, the Saxons were
threatening to overrun the Danelaw.

But then something happened to reignite
the power struggle.

In 902, the Viking kings of Dublin were
suddenly kicked out by the Irish.

They headed for England.

Once more, the Vikings were a force to
be reckoned with.

Only this time, they weren't Danes. The
heathens described in the Irish annals

were of Norwegian origin.

The Norwegian Vikings had taken the sea
road around the northern and western

isles of Scotland to Ireland.

Dublin was a major trading post and the
centre of their power.

So what happened when they got kicked
out?

A clue was found.

On the route from Norwegian Viking
Dublin to Danish Viking York at

It was here in 1840 that a group of
workmen were repairing the banks of the

Ribble. As they dug, their spades
crunched into something metallic.

They discovered an astonishing 8 ,500
pieces of silver weighing nearly 40

They'd stumbled across what is still to
this day the largest hoard of Viking

treasure ever found.

It dates to the beginning of the 900s,
exactly when the Vikings were being

expelled from Dublin.

The leading authority on the Curedale
hoard is Professor James Graham

The single largest component of the
ornamented material in the hoard is of

we would call Hiberno Viking origin,
made by Viking craftsmen working in

Ireland. Most particularly these very
characteristic broadband arm rings that

have this very bold stamping.

Who were these people? Who were the
people who buried it? It's more than

ordinary merchant's hoard or the pay of
a Viking crew

member.

I quite fancy the old theory that it was
in some way an army paycheque and that

it was related with the attempts of the
Dublins who had been expelled from

Viking Dublin to build up their
resources. I think that's the general

context in which one could envisage the
sort of accumulation of silver

deriving in northwest England.

The Cuyadale hoard contained silver from
as far away as the Hindu Kush.

But what caught my attention was a
beautifully preserved group of coins

Viking York.

If a lot of this material seems to have
come from Ireland, how do you explain

the coins from Viking York? I mean, was
this...

The York Vikings giving a donation to
these people to help them in their

efforts. Well, it wouldn't surprise me
if that was the explanation, because so

many of the York coins have come freshly
from the moneyers' workshops.

They can never have been in circulation.

Just down here, for instance, you can
see how fresh it is.

The Kewardale Hoard is more than simply
an amazing find of Viking treasure.

It seems to be saying something to us
about the politics of the time.

Vikings raising money for arms.

Norwegians and Danes forming an
alliance.

Ominous for their enemies.

Apart from the hoard, archaeological
records for the period are sparse.

But there is one piece of evidence
that's been staring us in the face for

centuries.

The Norwegians who came via Ireland have
left their mark in stone across the

northern Danelaw.

Ancient images that still speak to us of
Viking power.

Hundreds of pieces have been identified
across northern England.

Their study has been a life's work for
Professor Richard Bailey.

These massive sculptures called Hogback
were set over Viking period tombs.

There's about 120 of them in the north
of England.

So rather than cutting up a cross, this
is more like a gravestone. That's right,

yes. And the shape is that of a Viking
house, actually. That curved roof is

exactly like we know Viking houses were
in the period.

Right. These are very expensive
monuments.

We know they were produced between about
920 and 950.

That's a very high number of high
-status people here who are

stones, which in some sense, they look
very high. to date, as Viking

Scandinavians.

Many Viking sculptures seem to mix
Christian symbolism with rather warlike

images.

What we've got here is a little warrior
with his pointed helmet, spear down one

side, battle axe over here, up here a
shield, a sword just here. So what sort

statement were the Vikings making by
putting up crosses like this?

This is a real statement of power and
control.

This is me as a warrior. This is how I
won the land.

I may have been a farmer as well, but
how I and my family want to be

is as a warrior.

To me, the evidence of the sculptures
and the Viking place names suggests a

formidable Viking elite controlling much
of northern England.

This was something that the Saxons would
not be prepared to tolerate.

Despite the arrival of the Norwegian
Vikings, by 937, Alfred's grandson,

Athelstan, had united England.

But he hadn't reckoned on the Scots and
the Irish joining forces with the

Vikings. Their aim? To bring down
Athelstan.

The Anglo -Saxon Chronicle reports a
huge battle between the Anglo -Saxons

the united forces of the Vikings and
their new allies.

It was at a place called Brunnenborough.

No -one's quite sure of the location of
Brunnenborough, but some linguists have

suggested that this old English name
evolved to become Bromborough, which

happens to be the name of this small
town here on the Wirral.

The description of the battle itself is
one of the most lurid and gripping

stories of Dark Age literature.

Never yet in this island.

was there a greater slaughter of people
felled by the sword's edges.

Here King Athelstan, leader of warriors,
struck lifelong glory in strife round

Brunnenborough, cloned for the shield
war.

They left behind to divide the corpses
the horny -beaked black raven, greedy

war -orc, and the wolf, grey beast of
the forest.

Then the northmen, disgraced in spirit,
departed in nailed boats

over deep water to seek out Dublin.

Athelstan had taken the victory.

The surviving Viking leaders, deserted
by their allies, could now only hope to

regain their old power base in York.

After their crushing defeat at the
Battle of Brunnenborough, the Vikings

the retreat.

The last Viking king of York, Eric
Bloodaxe, was killed in 954, and his

marked the beginning of a period in
which England was united under the House

Wessex.

But the story was far from over.

The Vikings would be back with a
vengeance.

Next time, my journey follows the trail
of the first Norwegian Viking pioneers.

Why did they set sail to the northern
and western isles of Scotland?

What happened when Vikings met Picts?
And what drew them irresistibly down the

sea road to Ireland?

And genetics gives us our first glimpse
of where the blood of the Vikings lives

on today.