Melvadius

It may seem like it to some people but as we have previously extensively discussed AND agreed the important thing with finds such as this are that they ARE reported, fully recorded and available as soon as possible for full archaeological and scientific analysis. Schemes such as the PAS ensure that is happening in Britain much more frequently than in other countries without such as scheme.

It's years since I saw the original and I can't say that, despite the good cast - many of whom went on to better things, it strikes me as a film 'needing' remade. Mind you I only half recognised one of the 'new' cast names (brother of someone else?) which possibly bodes even less well for the remake I suppose asking if they'd brought the carry-out could be considered somewhat risky not to mention totally non-PC.

I seem to have overlapped with you on one of the hoard news items but nice pick-up Jason - especially on the Rezhantsi coin hoard article as this seems to be a collection of some importance but only rarely written about. I managed to track down that some details of the hoard contents has been written up as follows. "Gold staters from the Rezhantsi Coin Hoard (IGCH #411), Pernik district, West Bulgaria", - In: Studia Archaeologica 3. /=Festchrift Volume for Professor Dr L. Getov, University of Sofia/, Sofia 2005, Now all I have to do is find time to get into the BM and join the queue to see the other little items [EDIT - the BBC now has a video and some images of the Scottish torcs find at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/taysid...ral/8342501.stm I do wonder about the Daily Record quoting the find as of Gaulish manufacture citing the other similar Torc being found in France. If as is indicated the gold is a mix of Irish and Scottish gold then could it possibly be a case of both being made in Britain and one exported to Gaul rather than a double shipment of gold one way and a Torc then being returned? Possibly full analysis of both gold content and construction/ artistic techniques used on both finds will provide that answer.]

Another major metal detectorist find has just been reported - this time from Stirlingshire. From the BC: Metal detector finds

Thank you On the issue of environmental agenda IIRC the Maya aspect may have been reported on a few years back when climatic problems and an expanding population in a particular valley were characterised by water systems and fields being built higher and higher up a mountainside before there was a major population crash. On that basis although the potential problems associated with a changing climate are now more commonly accepted and/or reported on I wouldn't necessarily say it was always the first explanation that archaeologists or any other researcher will think of.

The BBC report some findings recently published in the journal of Latin American Antiquity: The ancient Nazca people of Peru are famous for the lines they drew in the desert depicting strange animal forms. A further mystery is what happened to this once great civilisation, which suddenly vanished 1,500 years ago. Now a team of archaeologists have found the demise of the Nazca society was linked in part to the fate of a tree. Analysing plant remains they reveal how the destruction of forests containing the huarango tree crossed a tipping point, causing ecological collapse. The team have published their findings in the journal of Latin American Antiquity. This remarkable nitrogen-fixing tree was an important source of food, forage timber and fuel for the local people "These were very special forests," says Dr David Beresford-Jones from the McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, University of Cambridge, UK who led the team. The huarango tree (Prosopis pallida) is a unique tree with many qualities and played a vital role in the habitat, protecting the fragile desert ecosystem, the scientists say. Cont'd at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/...000/8334257.stm Amongst others aso reported at: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33592777/ns/te...cience-science/ http://www.nature.com/news/2009/091102/ful....2009.1046.html (Nature - subscription) http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/scie...icle6898641.ece

There can be a problem with some people's ideas of what constitutes a hoard - Casey writing in 1986 considered savings, emergency and purse hoards - the last of which are usually the contents of a purse which was lost in antiquity. However he also admits that the classifications can vary depending upon who is making the listing which as we have seen can lead to confiusion. My own tutor prefers the three classes I have already outlined and was of the view that currently amongst numismatists this is now a fairly representative way of general classification of hoards. Regarding your question about ritual hoards; quite simply in most early cultures there are numerous examples of what can only be described as ritual deposition of material sometimes not solely connected to burial's. In Britain and other parts of both the Celtic and Roman world there is a long tradition of votive offerings in sacred pools or wells - In the Roman period in Britain the coins found in bulk within the Roman Baths and temple of Aqua Sulis/ Minerva in Bath is one of the more extreme examples. The issue is normally that from the spread of finds in a single location it may be difficult arcaheologically and numismatically to identify if coin depostion was a single event or built up over a period of time - a single event would classify under UK law as a horde while deposition over time probably would not but it would also depend upon the archaeological information which could be and how the coroners court declared it. There are other sites AND periods where 'ritual' hordes could occur; there are at least two temple sites where late 3rd/4th century coin scatters have been found on paths around Romano-British temple (c/f Bradford and Goodchild). The act of deposition seemed to have been a single event and possibly one of the last acts before the temple went out of use. If the supposed dating is accurate I have heard it argued that it could have been done as a 'ritual' closure of the temple in the late Roman / early Anglo-Saxon period. QED there are three main types of hoard but when comparing older and newer texts you may not fiind agreement on which to group together.

No I have said that the mathematical model which is being proposed by this research will not work in every instance nor in every period of history it will only work where the start and end date of the hoard can be determined precisely and then compared with historical records which in the cases listed have already provided the same answer. It apparently takes no account of differing periods of deposition instead taking an averaged deposition rate. Periods without precisely dated coin series like much of Early Anglo-Saxon England cannot be assessed using this model. I am sorry but I acidently added 'regular' to the line below where I intended. You have not said why ritual hoards were absent - were they not included in the research or are they totally absent from the period surveyed? I would refer you back to post #9 in this thread.

There does appear to be a degree of correlation but I am uncertain if it really answers my question about the reliability of the 'perceived' underlying 'date of closure' (when the hoard was last accessed and coins added) of the hoards used in the research as that is the factor, which from my reading of the articles, does not appear to have been fully addressed by this study. The articles are unclear but I suspect the study may for convenience have accepted the last datable coin as the date of closure of the hoard, however the physical condition of such coins (amount of wear) should also be considered as this can have implications for the 'actual' as opposed to 'perceived' date of closure of the hoard. e.g if the last datable coin was actually a badly worn coin of 53BC this may well indicate that it was in circulation for many years after 53BC. Conversely a group of closely dated 53BC 'new' or at least only partly worn coins would make a 53BC date of closure for the hoard much more certain. It comes down to a matter of correct interpretation of the underlying dating evidence also being an essential aspect of such research and this caveat should be noted when considering, what I agree, are the potentially positive aspects of this model.

Sorry

I'm afraid that you are taking things too literally again While not every remark on this site is intended to have every word analysed to death, there is nothing inconsistent in what I said in either posting. Admittedly a small part of my posting was in jest and if you don't 'get it' then I could say 'so be it' but to put you out of your misery: A couple of points to consider is that when I suggested that a completed 'context' sheet is required for items 'removed from the ground' for proper archaeological analysis, that I meant literally as it provides the key by which objects can be precisely located spatially in an excavation and consequently used to link to other objects and layers found in the wider site. Historic texts can be used to provide background to archeological discoveries and vice-versa, even helping to target excavations. The problem with historic texts, as I understand, them is that in the Agincourt period there can be a mismatch between fiscal and administrative records often with only a major individual being enumerated but not necessarily all of his retainers and supporting men-at-arms. A lot of that is down to how individual record keepers recorded such details but it can also vary depending upon the purpose that the records were being kept while on the English side there is obviously the issue of how many men were fit enough to fight in the battle. In addition letters do not necessarily always tell the truth and period maps can be open to errors in interpretation or in the case of battle plans last minute changes in the face of the enemy, which go unrecorded. These are some of the reasons why several notable academics have already disputed the findings of this 'major' piece of research. It is also why continuing disagreement is the bread and butter of academic research and the Agincourt issue will probably rumble on for years, if not years yet, without ever achieving total agreement on any one side.

Now you are being naive - it is well known in archaeologiocal and numismatic circles that when it comes to hoards you need to look at all of the evidence of the internal composition of the hoard and not simply in isolation as this study appears to have done. There are several distinct versions of hoard composition the main types being: Savings hoards which tend to be long term deposits which are gradually added to by individuals or families. 'Regular' or emergency hoards which reflect the copinage in use of a particular period Ritual hoards - normally deposited in a grave or at a temple site. The internal chronology of the coin sequences, amount of wear, how many of a particular and/or recent issue are included in the hoard, even the number of 'fakes' are all important factors numismatically in determining which type of hoard is being considered and possible reasons for it not being recovered. Changes to the purity of coinage as well as occupation by different regimes can be factors but death is NOT the only reason for non-recovery of hoards which have been recorded as regular deposits in other hoards and later recovery would have continued throughout any period of instability. The question of why a hoard was not recovered is obviously important and war can be a major factor while many of the issues outlined above are to a great extent subjective rather than precisely quantifiable so often do not appear in a quantifiable way in hoard reports. There obviously will have been variations in both the overall number of hoards in operation at any given period and the number in percentage terms actually recovered. For all of these reasons I remain to be convinced that ALL of the hoards involved in this study have been fullly categorised in the way outlined above so they could be appropriately factored into the proposed model.

You shock me (as does Ludovicus) - I thought they were the most famous body of Latin military texts from Britain if not most of Europe (Medieval translations or copies of earlier works, Egyptian ostraca as non-European and Herculaneum papyri as the contents of a single civilian library obviously excepted). Check out the following link to the online version of Bowmans work on the subject (Vols I and II only not the more recent Vol III so far) where each of the tablets found to date and transcribed are described and their text interpreted: http://vindolanda.csad.ox.ac.uk/ The 'subject' search is a good way of targeting particular topics discussed in the tablets at: http://vindolanda.csad.ox.ac.uk/4DLink2/4D...;submit=Subject

With possibly a bit more in the way of provable scientific research than the recent Agincourt re-analysis which was more of a paper based exercise it seems that most visitors may have been trekking around the wrong bit of the countryside for years when looking for the site of the key battle during the War of the Roses in the 15th Century (the Battle of Bosworth):- 'One of the most important battles in British history is marked in the wrong place, according to new research. Bosworth, fought in 1485 and ending in the death of Richard III, was believed to have taken place on Ambion Hill, near Sutton Cheney in Leicestershire. But following a three-year project, the Battlefields Trust said the discovery of ammunition two miles to the south west proved the location was wrong. But officials said the popular visitor centre will stay at the old site. The battle ended decades of civil war which is now known as the Wars of The Roses. The death of Richard ended the Plantagenent dynasty and ushered in the Tudors. Turning point The traditional site has a flag at the crest of the hill, a stone to mark the spot where Richard fell and a recently renovated visitors' centre. But debate over the actual site of the battle had been going on for more than 25 years before a

Best I recall, it was sweeping around the farm, carrying things, and light housework. Also seem to recall that there was a special down-filled garment for children of this age so that if they fell over, the pillow-like dress would catch their fall. The point of this labor wasn't really to put them to much production as much as to prepare them for their later responsibilities. Not an area that I know much about but from a quick 'Google' search articles on the net seem to be favouring the view that it was not so much a case of Locke observing children working but possibly 'stating' the view that they should be 'made' to work from an early age. I have also heard of refernces to the padded suits worn by some children and children being used in the candle making industry trimming wicks but more specifically by the 18th centuries children as young as 6 or 7 were working in cotton and thread mills often being used to tie broken threads while powered machinery was still operating. Accidents in these circumstances could lead to permanent loss of fingers or more serious injuries. I suspect the figures quoted in wikipedia on child labour in cotton mills are fairly representative of the period: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotton_mill#Child_Labour Children were used in a large number of industries in the period including coal mining and there were a series of legal reforms in Britain throughout much of the 18th and 19th into 20th centuries aimed at improving their lot including limits to working hours as well as rights to basic and then full-time education.

I would also add the caveat that in any such statisitical analysis there would normally be a set of assumptions published upon which the research has been based. However these are not normally considered 'news worthy' or else are considered by the press as liable to confuse the average reader so the press tend to cut them out of any articles published about the research findings. To have any chance of understanding the basis of the research I am afraid that unless it has been published on-line it means that anyone interested in further reading will have to obtain access to a full copy of a report which may have only a limited publication run

Really??? Just to mention one line of evidence, is the geographical distribution of the forts from both sides of the Channel not eloquent enough to consider them as an "integrated system"? Sylla, I am a great believer in the Roman's ability to create unified signalling and consequently defensive networks - you just have to read Wooliscroft ' Roman Military Signalling to see how effective it could be. I'm afraid however that you have read the line you have quoted out of context - I was referring to the whole of the British coastal system. Given that the forts on the British 'Saxon Shore' were built over a period of several decades AND the fact that from the archaeological evidence to date several appear to have had phases of being out of use. The phasing of use argues for periods when the coastal defences were not as complete as the geographic locations by themselves would argue for while the other shore based defences in Britain were presumably aimed at other potential threats. I cannot comment in a simlar way on the construction and use dates for the Continental series as I don't have the appropriate references.

Again, that depends on which scholar are you checking out ; some consider that both the British and the Gallic Saxon Shores' forts as integrant parts of the same Roman defensive "Network", which is after all the title of this thread. In any case, the idea of a Roman global coastal defensive system against Germanic naval incursions from both sides of the Channel makes a lot of sense to me . The original posting did specify 'Saxon Shore Fort network in Britain' but I agree that the British shore based defensive network - however extensive a system the Romans actually considered it to be due to the different sources of possible attack - not just Germanic - would have formed only one aspect of the overall later period shore based system. The underlying question of how integrated a system it was in reality, without much more documentarty evidence than we will probably ever have, will probably remain open to continuing discussion.

A report by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research claims that the results of their recent research has proven that: 'The Batavians, who lived in the Netherlands at the start of the Christian era were far more Roman than was previously thought. After just a few decades of Roman occupation, the Batavians had become so integrated that they cooked, built and bathed in a Roman manner. Dutch researcher Stijn Heeren discovered this during archaeological research. Heeren studied excavated artefacts and traces of settlements and burial fields in the neighbourhood of Tiel. In Dutch history, the Batavians are often presented as a brave people who resisted a cruel oppressor. But Stijn Heeren has now demonstrated that these 'simple people' also adopted a lot of Roman customs. According to him the small farming communities changed into villages where Roman practices made their entrance. Roman food and bathing By studying the chronology of the excavation site and by analysing several specific categories of finds, Heeren could show how and when the locals started to participate in the economic, military and cultural structures of the Roman Empire. The archaeologist discovered that within a few decades of Roman occupation, the Batavians used Roman ingredients in their cooking, that the farmers used makeup and oil in the same way as the Romans in their baths and that they built their farms according to the Roman style.....' 'Money and war' section continued at: http://www.alphagalileo.org/Organisations/...anisationId=650 Personally I would say that at base this is simply further confirmation, if it was needed ,that the 'Romanisation' process did not have a single model or was uniform across the Empire. It was an ongoing aspect of Roamn influenced life, including the border area's, with varying degrees of effectiveness, extent or even implementation dates but also had its reverse cultural aspects which are in some respects harder to pinpoint.

A few other news services are starting to pick up this story but so far I have only found one which 'may' possibly have an unattributed image of the excavations, the Euronews site at: http://www.euronews.net/2009/10/22/ancient...vealed-in-rome/ It is possible that as they sort out the links to this news item on Google more articles will be searchable but at present (22/10/09 - 9:50am BST) despite 123 news articles being claimed only about 3 or 4 will actualy turn up and at least 2 of those currently only appear to have stock images of Roman ruins rather than of the excavations

Pearson does make the point that both Carisbrooke and Clausentum (Bitterne) can (and have) been mentioned in association with the

I did not find the image and text on an official site it was at the attached link which as you can see if you scroll down through the images there is a personal site with someone's interpretation of the inscribed tex rather than with an 'official' RIB attribution: http://web.mit.edu/~jsylee/www/photo/inscriptions/index.html As I indicated before I am extremely doubtful of the 'authenticity' of this 'milestone' and I strongly believe it to have been erected by the Vindolanda Trust as part of 'enhancing' the public experience of visiting the site. [Edit - Addendum although I haven't got into the site so far to check (security limitations from my current pc) I have just found a reference to an item on Flickr which seems to confirm my suspicions with someone who works at Vindolanda indicating that it is a reproduction: http://www.flickr.com/photos/gauiscaecilius/100174749/ ]