Melvadius

I must join Klingan and Viggen in thanking Dr H

They don't always have perfect views I remember Patrick down in Cornwall for the last full solar eclipse in the UK and only getting a short glimpes before the clouds poured back in. Mind you I doidn't even get that much being a bit further inland we were under heavy cloud cover so didn't see any of the craved for images of the diamond ring etc. What we did see however in our view more than compensated because we could see the shadow line of the Eclipse [Edit - the Terminator] race across the sky at around 1000mph, crossing Bodmin Moor in seconds. VERY spectacular and not something the TV reports ever show. We also had the pleasure of hearing nightjars calling during the total eclipse in the mistaken belief that it was night.

Link fixed now

Which is why archaeologists prefer to use 'targeted' excavations looking to address specific questions in as structured a way as possible. So anyone considering supporting my future excavations with a suitably large donation is always welcome to PM me. BTW I was reminded of the 'true' archaeological definition of 'ritual' last night, which is loosely as follows:

From what I remember from zoo visits giraffes are not the most aggressive of animals except possibly amongst themselves or defending their young. However I suppose an 18 foot tall giraffe could well bring tears ... at the very least ... to the eyes!

I missed the single paragreaph in the Spiegel article referring to isotope analysis but I would still like to know a bit more on this tpic. E.G. something to show how widespread the analysis has been, sample sizes and/or locations involved compared to known cemteries.

Some of the comments on the original website are pertinent to this question particularly that recenty posted by 'Kirsten' which boils down to the fact that what goes into scientific/ archaeological reports will often include several pages of discussion about why a particular site may show signs of 'ritual' activity. What the 'ritual' is or may have involved could vary significantly from activities at other sites of the same period. However what gets reported in the media is generally only that 'they all show signs of ritual activity'. The problem comes with several eminent or would-be eminent archaeologists (and others) who write reams of books, which most archaeologists accept as straight out of the 'twiglet zone', describing at great length and in great detail what those 'rituals' were based on little or no real evidence. The media gobble these up and invite such authors to pontificate on a regular basis while the archaeologist who originally excavated the sites and discussed their 'actual' findings are often ignored.

On the face of it this seems to be a bit of a "volte-face" for Heinrich Harke since he has been working in this field since at least the mid-1990's when he was stating, such as this article from British Archaeology in 1995, a view that the majority of 'Anglo-Saxons' found in cemeteries were actually of British rather than continental descent. I would agree with Sonic here. While DNA evidence has proven to be a boon in some areas of research there are still major issues with it not least interpolation of evidence when sample sizes are very small. There are strong indications that cultural interaction was variable across the UK - with most previous reports suggesting a much earlier (ie pre-Roman) rather than later 'Anglo-Saxon' input to the UK genetic mix. On this basis and especially given how problematical the survival of skeletal evidence from most Anglo-Saxon cemeteries has proven to be I really would like to know what the extent of the evidence base is for this apparent change of view. As things stand, without seeing the precise evidence on which this report is based, I would be a lot happier if it was supported by isotope analysis of teeth. Since isotope analysis is based on chemical changes in the dental layers due to water absorption and trace elements in food it can give a definitive geographic area for both birth and where individuals grew up.

Are you sure that wasn't 80,000 Polish Zloty's if that was the going rate in Poland I somehow suspect there would be a lot of UK and other migrant workers over there. PLN 80,000 would work out about

There is quite a bit more about both the work on the cesspit and the discovery of ancient roof timbers on the foreshore at Hereculaneum in the Aug/Sep 2010 issue of World Archaeology Magazine here. NB Andrew Wallacae-Hadrill's new book Herculaneum: Past and Future which I am currently reviewing for UNVR also devotes part of one chapter to these discoveries.

Sounds like you are re-inventing the residue that you get from making cider - without some of the more 'interesting' additives. Have you thought of trying straining and drinking it? It could possibly make 'white lighting' seem like a soft drink I look forward to hearing how your experiments progress.

The Daily Mail apparently printed an article about this site back in March 2009. This article is worth a look if only for the wide range of photographs of the excavations at the site used in it. However this article from November 2008 in the Smithsonian, always providing it isn't a composite, has a possibly even more interesting photograph heading it.

According to Answers.com Quoting the Oxford Companion to Classical Literature: Boe?tia it states: NB the '?' appearing in the text above is because in the original the second 'o' in 'Boeotia' and the 'a' in 'Copais' have a 'diacritic' bar above them indicating a long vowel which the forum software doesn't print.

Without checking through the few references cited I suspect the author of this piece may have accidently mixed up foot archers with the mounted variety famous for their 'Parthian shot'. Mounted troops were trained to guide their horses away from the enemy and partially turn in the saddle so they coould loose arrows at any pursuing enemy. Any missile armed foot unit could conceivably fire during a retreating manouever in the same way but would have to stop or at least pause before partially turning to fire their missiles to have any hope of accuraccy. As to superiority of one side or another it really depends on the circumstances, the combinations of troops available and the availability of supplies for any campaign. The extended series of conflicts between Rome and her eastern neighbours with in reality only limited shifts in borders argues for neither side being able to gain sufficient assendency in around 5-600 years of conflict therefore the question is fairly moot.

Reminds me of a similar situation a few years back when we travelling south on the A1. We were observing the speed limit as the roads clogged up with the evening rush hour in the outside lane properly overtaking as black 4 by 4 came hammering up behind us at least 20 miles above the speed limit pushing to get past when we had nowhere to move back in safely. As soon as it was safe we did move back in and the 4 by 4 scrapped past accelerating as it went. 5 miles further down the road we actually passed it or rather what was left of it as a mangled heap in the middle of the central reservation crash barriers. Obviously he had tried it again when there was even less room - made us think but the driver and his passengers were past that stage according to the news reports that night. Call it 'evolution in action' or a 'prime candidate for the Darwin Award' if you wish but just hope they don't take anyone else with them when they go

An interesting although highly complex mathematical solution, I just wish that as well as angles some more basic information had been given such as a representative sample of the diameter of the holes on at least one (but preferably a few) of the objects. If he had listed the holes grouped by opposing faces it may have provided proof that opposing sides were intended to be of differing sizes. I also wish there wasn't a glaring error in the first paragraph of his thesis - it doesn't bode well for the rest of the work (:

I don't really see them than caltrops - which are generally simply and quickly made with four spikes designed to land so one spike always points upwards to sink into the unwary foot or hoof. These seem too complex to be either effective as caltrops or to be quicklly made to be used in any number although they seem to have a fairly high degree of regularity in form which seems to argue for a 'manufacturing' process for a specific purpose. The mystery of these objects has some similarities with small Neolithic period carved stones balls which have only really been found in northern Scotland. The suggestion that both the Roman metal objects as well as the earlier Scottish ones may have had possible religious origin does tend to make sense. Although with the Scottish balls, in my view, there is always the possibility that one was originally created as a toy or as an exercise of carving skill with other carvers later taking up the challenge of creating similar interesting shapes.

Dec The use of a coiin as a standard size is a good idea although a lot of the pieces do look fairly small it should give an expert a useful standard size to measure against. It does look like you have some interesting pieces and at least one piece with the remains of the hole used to fix a tile onto a roof (images 903 and 905). Some of the other pieces do look like the bases of pottery but I'm not expert enough to say which type they are precisely. hopefully once the find officer sees them they will be able to give you more information.

I know that there are several sites and books which quote passages about the various forms of possible arena 'entertainment' which may touch on this subject matter but it is not something I have ever had any great interest in researching. Out of curiosity I did however do a quick search for this precise quotation and it seems to turn up on a very large number of websites. Most of the ones I saw listed on the face of it extremely questionable for any possible connection to either the Roman period or indeed the 'apparent' subject matter of the quotation. I did check one site at random where the quotation was 'claimed' to have been found on Wikipedia. Having followed the link I'd be a lot happier about its 'authenticity' if it had still been there when I reached the appropriate part of Wikipedia. Needless to say the fact that it was not there suggests that either it was an entirely false link or else if at one point it had been placed onto Wikipedia it's 'authenticity' has since been questioned and found extremely wanting to say the least. Unless anyone recognises a possible original sourtce for this I think it can safely be categorised as a thumbs down for authenticity.

Even without a fixed scale such as a foot ruler the third last and last images to my eyes provide some of the best information of the range of material you have and evidence for firing. I am no expert on ceramics although I have excavated some CBM in my time and this does match fairly closely with what I have excavated on a major Roman site in Oxfordshire. One thing I suspect rather than tiles some of the material may possibly be the remains of bricks as they seem thicker than I would expect for tiles. The primary indicator for CBM used as tiles are the presence of nail holes but as this is where tiles tend to break along with the evidence for erosion/ wear on them this may explain the lack of such features. I'm glad you are working with the local finds officer especially if as I suspect some of the CBM is brick as well as tile as it will help confirm if this is a new site. Well done for reporting it.

Apparently a slightly longer version of this story appeared in ekathimerini on 5 January 2011:

Dec, In Britain the other people who can advise on finds are the local Portable Antiquities Scheme officers who are contactable here. Although more concerned with the reporting of metal objects and items of 'treasure' if you cannot find the local contact for general advice the local PAS contact should be able to either provide it themselves or at least point you in the correct direction. As to whether you have found a lot of tile fragments it really depends on how large an area they were collected over and the precise mix of material (both by period and type) you have found. 1 kg is only a small proportion of what is usually termed ceramic building material (or CBM) originally used on any large building or group of smaller ones in the Roman or more modern period of history. If the fragments were tightly concentrated then they could indicate the presence of buildings as you suspect. Alternatively they may indicate where there was a kiln making tiles or even where building material has been dumped after use. Plough action over the centuries can scatter CBM over a suprosonmgly wide area especially on a slope. It does however sound promising and definitely should be checked to see if the site is officially known about.

Dec, The general advice, at least within the UK, is that you shouldn't be removing large quantities of ceramic or other historic material from any site as they really belong to the landowner. If the landowner is aware of the site then pottery is something which on an unexcavated site can be used by archaeologists to plot out possible concentrations of activity which can be important when deciding which areas should be excavated later on. To do this they need to know the precise quantities of different material that has been found in which part of the site marked as concentrations on a very precise grided plan of the site. Sites which are known about may be scheduled which means it could actually be illegal to take anything away even by the landowner except under strictly controlled circumstances normally only as part of a licenced archaeological excavation. The best advice is to contact your local sites and monuments liason officer before you remove anything else from the area and check if they know about the site. They may be based with the local records office but if you have a local museum they should be able to confirm where they are and put you into contact with the correct office. Alternatively they may be listed under your main local authority often under the museums service.

Well I finally caught up with this on DVD last night and can find nothing to disagree with the comments by Viggen, Northern Neil and Aurelia immediately above. Gee how much gore do they need to include in movies these days? Unlike Ursus I do have several reservations with the liberties taken with standard Roman military practice in the period:

The BBC are carrying an article inspired by recent Oxford University research into Tudor mortality records which suggests a family tragedy may have inspired shakespeare's depiction of Ophelia's demise in Hamlet. Personally I find the second half of the article much more interesting where it mentions some of the current findings including 56 accidental deaths involving archery practice, the first accidental death from a handgun, suggestively sounding 'maypole acccidents' and "a particularly pungent end faced by a man who fell into a cesspit". It does shine a murky light on how equally inept our ancestors were as those who slip away with only a less than honourable mention in the Darwin Awards to commorate their passing.