Melvadius

I did mention that Pearson had taken a wider brief in mentioning several different sets of Roman shore based defensive in his book but had not just looked at the Saxon Shore forts in isolation However I should possibly have made clearer in the previous posting that although the Notitia Dignitatum names only nine forts there are actually eleven shore based Roman period forts in the area of the 'Saxon Shore' all of which as I have indicated above were in operation by the late 3rd Century AD. From other sources it has been possible to positively identify most of the forts named in Notitia Dignitatum but there are two pairings of forts where precisely which is the forts concerned were being named by Notitia Dignitatum is uncertain. The problem with identifying precisely which of the forts has been named in Notitia Dignitatum is the lack of good 'tightly defined' dating evidence, or at least because of proven periods of disuse (or lesser use) and some sites being poorly excavated it is difficult to prove either archaeologically or historically precisely which of the eleven forts may still have been in operational use around the period when Notitia Dignitatum was written.

I am fairly certain that I remember being told during a talk several years back by Robin Birley that the milestone with the inscription is actually a modern interpretation/ reconstruction of what the 'painted' inscription on the Vindolanda milestone may have looked like if it had been inscribed instead of simply painted on. With a quick search I couldn't find anything to directly support this 'memory' but I did find a site with a better photograph where it is obvious that the 'milestone' has been made to look like a column and is comprised of at least in two pieces. The full text reads: IMP(eratori) CAES(ari) TR(aiano) HADRIANO AVG(usto) P(ontifici) M(aximo) TR(ibuniciae) P(otestatis) V CO(n)S(uli) III P(atri) P(atriae) A CORIS M(illia) P(assuum) XX In this context I believe that Coris (Coria) is intended as the Roman abbreviation for Corbridge (Corstopitum), which was the nearby major supply base for the Wall and mentioned several times in the Vindolanda Writing Tablets, as it is approximately 20 miles from Vindolanda along the Stanegate (military road).

Centurion-Macro Probably the best single source of information on the Saxon Shore Forts is actually in Andrew Pearson

My inital reaction on reading this list was to wonder precisely how many of the sites listed could be construed as 'architectural remains' rather than 'artefacts' per se but then that is a distinction open to interpretation and discussion as was pointed out in my class last night even objects which have not been worked by human agency so are in their natural state but have been moved by human agency can be considered as 'artefacts'. As a list of sites to visit for a 'day trip' it really depends where you are starting from how viable each of them would be and as has been pointed out many of the contents of important sites have been removed to museums situated elsewhere. Pompeii and Herculaneum mainly to the Naples Museum but there are numerous other instances where exhibits are not necessarily where you may expect. As sites to visit while based in Rome they provide a good template but there are numerous other sites worth a look-in and if you expand the list to the whole of the Roman Empire then you have to start balancing sites like Ephesus, Leptus Magna, Thuggha, El Dhem, Vindolanda and the rest of the sites on Hadrian's Wall not to forget the other sites on the Limes 'Frontier of Empire Unesco World Heritage Site - currently including the Antonine Wall in Scotland and two sections in Germany but with several other sections being advanced for possible further international expansion. Basically my answer to the question of which sites and/or museums are on the top ten 'must visit' list tends to come down to so many places but so little time to visit them all

To coincide with an appeal to raise additional finances for the Mary rose museum there have been some new announceemnts about finds fromt he wreck 'Carefully preserved relics revealing what life was like on board Henry VIII's warship, the Mary Rose, have been revealed for the first time. A Tudor fiddle and a leather "manbag" are just a few of the items The Mary Rose Trust has allowed to be filmed. The move marks the launch of the Mary Rose 500 appeal to raise the remaining

Currently there doesn't seem to be much detail on the web about this analysis - apart from the BBC article and a few sites which have copied it, it is probable that the research will eventually appear in one of the Archaeological scientific reports or at least one of the local archaeological society publications but so far there is no indication if, when or where this will happen. From a general search it appears that this analysis was undertaken with some financial assistance from a grant by the Bristol & Gloucestershire Archaeological Society: 'Analysis of skeletal material from Kingsholm, Gloucester Carolyn Heighway is carrying out a review of the evidence for Gloucester in the post-Roman period and this includes a re-examination of the cemetery evidence and in particular material from the late cemetery at Kingsholm including burial I excavated in 1972. This burial was of a male aged 25-30 and the grant will enable an analysis of skeletal material to be carried out to provide information about childhood origin and about diet. ' c/f http://www.bgas.org.uk/grants.php The research was originally cited in April 2009 in This is Gloucestershire: http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co.uk/for...il/article.html As I noted above I have found no indication of formal publication of the detailed results but from the descriptions I've found it seems like the analysis has probably involved the isotope analysis of teeth enamel and/or bone fragments as these can help identify both the type of food protein which has been ingested and the general geographic regions where people have grown up. Comparison charts have been created which show the likeliehood of where particular isotopic combinations can be found in skeletal remains and these will have formed the basis of the analysis.

As I cannot see the full research my comments are necessarily constrained to the press articles which on my first reading seemed to indicate they were comparing the first century BC male population of 2-400,000 with the 1st century AD total population of 4-5,000,000 of Roman and stating this was a 200 percent difference which it patently isn't. On second reading it appears that I picked on the wrong article to reference as the other articles give more of an indication that they were talking about the difference in the first century BC estimates and using the incidence of coin hoards only as an indication of political instability rather than a 'causal link' which could be precisely quantified to population per se. I apologise if my misreading accidentally reversed what this study was intended to show. BTW Sylla I tend to be more cynical when it comes to there only being one possible answer to every question which is asked or theretical model which is perfect - there are often varying degrees of probability. Technically it is not only 'dead people [who] were effectively prevented from recovering' hoards there are any number of other factors which could have prevented recovery including to name just a few; being involved in the long period of internal strife and having left Rome with one or other of the armies. Being disabled during the fighting could also prevent return to recover hidden property as would being sent into exile, being captured and held abroad/ being enslaved or put into prison or even either having something built over the site or nearby construction having a landmark removed making recovery uncertain to say the least.

On the face of it this seems to be an important study however, I would tend to agree with Kosmo that while the incidences of hoards are a good indicator of areas under some form of stress they may simply indicate areas subject to population movement rather than necessarily the 'death' of the indiivisual(s) who buried the hoard(s). Statistics is often seen as an arcane art but modelling population decline on this basis is in my view pushing the bounds of what can or cannot be proven to any degree of certainty. As I understand it one of the major concerns in any statisitical analysis is that you are using 'real' differences as your baseline, which given the lack of accurate records from this period leaves this study open to question. The authors seem to have started from the premise that there would be a congruance of population size to the number of hoards rather than is there any other way of modelling ancient populations - that second question seems to remain unanswered.

BBC new report the discovery of new 'Henge' site close to Stonehenge: Archaeologists have discovered a mini-Stonehenge, a mile from the site of Wiltshire's famous stone circle. "Bluehenge", named after the hue of the 27 stones from Wales which once formed it, has been described by researchers as a "very important" find. All that now exists of the 5,000-year-old site is a series of holes where the dolerite monoliths once stood. Bluehenge lies at the end of the "Avenue" - a pathway connecting the larger Stonehenge to the River Avon. The remains of the monument was unearthed over the summer by researchers from Sheffield University. It is thought it was erected around the same time as its neighbour Stonehenge. The circle was made using the Preseli spotted dolerite stone. It is a chemically altered igneous rock - harder than granite - which was mined in the Preseli Mountains in Pembrokeshire and dragged 200 miles to the site on the banks of the river. Full details of the Bluehenge discovery will be published in February. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/wiltshire/8288567.stm Now the fact that full details will not be released until February has not stopped the Daily Mail creating their own report admnittedly they have asked some real archaeologists for their opinion and more or less accurately rteported them. On this basis despite having its fantasy elements in total the report is not as bad as the 'druid' used to illustrate the caption may initially lead you to suspect http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/art...tle-sister.html The issue with Stonehenge as with most pre-historic site is that without written records it is small clues in alignments and identification of possible origins of materials that form the basis of modern interpretation so obviously there is always an element of doubt about how accurate any interpretation can be. At this stage I am still inclined to wait to see the full report before speculating too much about the site and its possible period of use although obviousy location wise it does seem to fit in with the interpretations of how some of the other large monuments in the nearby landscape may have been used. the key question which full analysis may answer is 'when' and for 'how long' to fit in with the 'where'. 'Around 5,000 years is not as precise a term as many people think as recent research on some of the nearby burial mounds has shown there can be quite a degree of difference in dates.

Very likely, although possibly one should more correctly say that: Because nobody dares tells an emperor to put it down again?

The Times reports the results of a British excavation at Portus: 'A lavish Roman amphitheatre, complete with toilet, has been uncovered by British archaeologists in Italy at a site described as being of the same significance as Stonehenge. A team led by the University of Southampton discovered an amphitheatre of a similar size to the Pantheon in Rome after two years excavating an ancient port, close to Fiumicino airport. This is the first time that a large-scale dig has taken place at the site, known as Portus, which was discovered in the 16th century and excavated in the 1860s. Now two miles inland, it would have been twice the size of the port of Southampton and an important gateway between Rome and the Mediterranean. It is possible that it was frequented by 2nd-century emperors. British excavators, including staff from the University of Cambridge and the British School at Rome, said that the amphitheatre was likely to have been built for the private entertainment of a senior statesman or emperor and could have held up to 2,000 spectators....' Contined at: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle6856042.ece N.B. there are some nice photographs with this article but I'm not sure why the toilet seats ended up vertically in the third image BTW the rating of Portus as a whole as important as Stonehenge or Ankhor Wat is possibly a bit confusing but is probably more due to an archaeologistsview that it is potentially an important site which is relativley untouched with good survival of Roman period buildings and contents to also be rated as a World Heritage site. EDIT - The BBC now has an article as well which includes an aerial photogrpah of the 'arena' and in my view its description reads slightly better than the Times one does - clarifying the reason for the sites importance being 'undervalued'. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8283195.stm

I think that the operative term in the original report is that divers have found 7 statue 'bases - not statues. Three statues were recovered from the grotto in 1964 and apparently are in the Casa Rossa Museum, but it was only open in the summer between May 12th and September 13th this year so its no use rushing off to Capri to try and see the statues at present. The image definately looks like it was taken inside a building rather than in the grotto which is a natural cavern The 400 odd feet 'depth' sounds more like the height of the cliff above the Blue Grotto rather than a diving depth but I may be wrong never having gotten into the grotto itself during my previous short visits to Capri. [EDIT - most websites I checked refering to diving in the Blue Grotto are quote the diving depth as anything up to a maximum of about 30 metres (100 feet) so the 150 meters (492 feet) quoted in the article is a major increase (five times as deep) and personally I would like to know the explanation for this difference]. All in all it seems like the Discovery Channel have again managed to blow up a story out of not very much. When and if the divers get back into the grotto and carry out a systematic search and excavation of the cave bottom is when this story will probably equal the current interest.

That is an interesting conclusion; is there any statistical evidence that might support it?How can you define (and identify) the responsible detectorists? Should the irresponsible detectorists be excluded from this activity? You ask for statistics which by their very nature are impossible to quantify except by inference look at any of the National Mapping Programme reports and you will see from the plans sites which are only know from historic records - the details of which mainly come old aerial photographs. Background on the NMP and some extracts of reports can be found at: http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/server/...001002003004003 Examples of sites discovered through the activities of metal detectroists are included in case studies on the Portable Antiquities site at http://www.finds.org.uk/case_studies/ You ask for a definition of a responsible metal detectorist in Britian that would include anyone who obeys the law seeks relevant permission before detecting anywhere and reports their finds through the PAS. Should irresponsible detectorists be excluded from this activity - of course but my question to you is precisely how do you think they can effectively be banned from doing something they know is against the law when they usually operate in isolated and/or rural areas at night?

Sylla, As you say we 'almost' agree, however I have not 'advocated doing nothing' only pointed out the problems whcih have to be overcome before archaeological 'homicide' or rather more appropriately in this context accidental 'manslaughter' inevitably happens through lack of knowledge rather than inaction. Regarding your main contention that 'far less risky alternatives to locate such sites are available' [for finding archaeological sites]. Yes such methods exist BUT they are not infallible e.g. Britain has an extensive aerial photographic record of both oblique and vertical images dating back to the late 1800's in a few instances but really building up from a base of RAF and Luftwaffe archives which were deposited in the 1940's and comprising private and publically taken images with survey's ongoing. It has its uses in urban areas but very often the older images will show features that are or were originally in rural areas which have already been destroyed through construction, mining or farming activities. Fro instance the photographic sequence has been used in surveys like English Heritages National Mapping Programme to show how earthwork features including ridge and furrow plough marks but also hillforts and villa sites have been extensively damaged since at least the end of the Second World War. Photographic images can be used to identify buried features or monitor the degredation of earthworks but crop marks which are sometimes the best indicators of buried features are notoriously fickle and do not appear in every year or if they do may not be as sharp as aerial observers would like. I have one book showing an earthwork feature in a field which was only visible from one direction and the feature was only spotted after years of overflying on a regular basis. Finds which are isolated from any known building or other archaeological feature, such as the Staffordshire Hoard, will not be identified by such surveys - the find spot would be too insignificant when viewed from any height. Newer aerial techniques such as Light Detection And Ranging (LIDAR) do hold out the hope for finding linear features under tree cover or heavy vegitation but again have their limitations with spot features unlikely to be picked up. Other methods such as field walking after ploughing can be used to pick up concentrations of finds but also has limitiations - you need permission from farmers to go onto their land and if one field cannot be walked for any reason or is under continuous pasture then it is unlikely to appear on any archaeological record. Old maps or historic records may give hints about where a potential archaeological site may lie but there are issues with scale, whether a building being talked about lies in a particular area or in another area with a similar name or a totally different parish because the landowner held land in multiple parishes and didn't record where a particualr building actually lay - there are inumerable instances in Domesday of villages only having 'half a mill' or other significant building. [Edit addendum - electronic methods including GPS, megnetometry and resitivity can also be used but rather than finding totally new sites as these are expensive and labour intensive they are usually only used after as site has already been identified and mainly intended to help target possible excavations or simply to identify how extensive or complex a site actually is.] It comes down to the fact that if a site is unknown then it can be damaged or destroyed before it is identified and even if it is identified often there are only limited resources available to excavate it at best one or two test pits may be attempted but usually the feature is simply recorded with the hope that at some point in the future if it is under risk from future development a trial excavation will be undertaken. On this basis 'accurate' and early reports on find sites by responsible detectorists have become essential in the armoury of archaeologists when trying to identify new arcaheological sites before they are irretrivably damaged.

I cannot speak for the legal position everywhere but within Britain the key points that I was making are that: 'Hidden' sites as you termed them often degrade over time and archaeologists often may not find out about them until there is little or nothing left to excavate - there will inevitably be some destruction of archaeological material as an accidental result of 'legitimate' farming or construction activities - e.g. a farmer may plough slightly deepter than previously or a new road cuts through an unidentified site but also metallic items such as iron degrade over time as does bone and natural fibres so if you leave them long enough all that may be left of some sites may simply be a stain in the ground. Metal detecting is banned from a large number of known archaeological sites however there are no legal restictions on the sale or purchase of metal detectors so anyone can buy and use them if they want. The consequence of the above is that what people 'should' or 'shouldn't' do can be argued at length but what archaeologists have to accept and work with whether we like it or not is reality. As far as archaeological material and sites are concerned, we will inevitably mainly be working on sites which have been the location of years if not centuries or millenia of human and non-human activity. Such activities will always have some impact on what can be found during an organised archaeological excavation - metal detectorists whether officially approved or not are only one factor amongst many with potenially adverse impacts whcih can affect any archaeological site - just consider the action of burrowing animals like badgers or rabbits. If the impact of detectorists can be minimised (e.g. through education or by being persuaded to work with archaeologists) then all well and good but there will inevitably be some who no amount of persuasion or legal penalties will disuade from acting in a irresponsible way when it comes to the prospect of finding 'treasure'. In Britiain the portable antiqities scheme has gone a long way to minimising the loss of archaeological material from the historic record, encouraging many detectorists to report finds which otherwsie may have continued to go unreported to archaeologists. The Staffordshire Hoard is a case in point that it was reported and scientifically analysis has been undertaken on it rather than it being dispersed in job lots on ebay or melted down for the gold and silever content which icould very easily have been its alternative fate. To reiterate, it may seem that the easy answer is to ban everyone from owning and/or using a metal detector but even if we did damage or destruction of archeological sites and material will always happen. The archaeologists job is often to try and minimise such damage or if it has occured to try and unpick as much information as possible afterwards. Liaison with metal detectorists has had and continues to have a positive effect towards this aspect of archeology.

This is another aspect of the debate about who 'owns' historic objects and whether it is 'right' for people to hunt for historic artifacts outside of a properly organised archaeological excavation. There are numerous arguments which can be raised about this but some of the key elements to be considered from 'my' British archaeological viewpoint include: i) Farming is often a destructive process for both historical buildings and artefacts. Every time a farmer ploughs a field or does any form of work such as laying field drains there is a chance that he will go deeper than previously and disturbe or destroy something which has been buried for centuries. ii) Archeologists cannot be everywhere, all of the time, so there will always be items they never see or only hear about after they have been discovered whether by metal detectorists, farmers or simply people walking across a field. iii) There will always be someone who is willing to break the law to get something for free or which they cannot get any other way - eg in metal detecting circles 'night hawks' who will go onto protected archeological sites at night - it is now common for archaeologists to have someone on site the whole time to ward off 'night-time' intruders. iv) Some people, despite regular mentions in the press and on TV do not realise that there are rules about when and where you can use a metal detector (we once found a man trying out his new metal detector with his son within Chesters Roman fort without realising that it was a protected site totally out of bounds to metal detectorists). v) Against the above some metal detectorists are very responsible and regularly work with archaeologists to target excavation 'hot spots' or find metallic material missed during excavation such as occurs with machine stripping of top soil. In the case fo the newly discovered 'Staffordshire Hoard' the farmer had ploughed the field but not yet harrowed it. The archaeologists who excavated the site after the find had been reported believed that harrowing would have pulverised most if not all of of the material that had been raised towards the surface fo the field. Although in an ideal world every discovery of potential significance would be reported to archeologists and a 'properly documentd and controlled excavation take place this is not always possible. Organising a proper excavation can take time and money not least for analysiing and reporting on what has or has not been found. Even if a farmer was willing to delay work on a field if word got out of a major find the find site could easily be trashed by night hawks before archaeological work could commence. Within Britian the Portable Antiquities Scheme has meant that there is a route by which both minor and major finds can be reported and some archaeological and historical information collected from the activities of metal detectorists - by those practicing illegal as well those as using more legal methods - with the farmers permissions and on unlisted sites. I believe that the PAS has also encouraged many of the more responsible detectorists to make attempts to keep accurate records of their finds and bring in archaeologists as soon as they realise that they have made a significant discovery. The finder of the Staffordshire Hoards five days of excavation is unusual in this respect but possibly understandable if he thought that night-hawks were operating in the area adn he couldn't get the PAS man out sooner. I would point out some down sides to the ongoing activities of detectorists: They are ususally hunting or at least targeting metallic objects. By hunting what can be detected with their equipment they must dig down to where the signal is coming from, through potentially important archaeological layers and related materials which are non-metallic. Archeologists use careful plotting of the postion of 'key' archeological material (depednig on period this could be anything from flint or stone objects up to the finest golden necklace) to work out potential relationships between objects. The removal of and potential distrurbance of material by any means can make plotting those relationships difficult or even impossible. This can be a major problem on some sites if there has been a significant quantity of metallic material removed from the site e.g any suggestion that the material was deposited as a 'single event' can be lost forever.

One our American cousins may be able to answer better than me but doing a quick search on a couple of re-enactor websites closer inspection of photographs on their sites seem to show them in front of more modern fortifications (or reproductions there of) generally dating no earlier than the period of the Declaration of Independence. Legio XXIV does seem to have one image in front of a stone and brick wall quoting the archway of Fort Washington as being 'reminiscent' of Roman gatesways.

Glad you liked the images and reports already posted - I was simply lucky to get in early on the reports. I don't normally look at Flickr but have just been told about the following link to 619! images there which show various detailed images of the hoard items both now and at some of the intervening stages of conservation: http://www.flickr.com/photos/finds/sets/72157622378376316/ THe Hoard now has its own website at: http://www.staffordshirehoard.org.uk/ This seems to be a site to keep an eye on as more items pass through the conservation process.

I couldn't comment on that suggestion however I believe that the recovery of fragments from the original structure took several years with the last sections finally being lifted from where they were found much below current ground level and moved to their current location at Mussolini's order. Subsequently it was enclosed in a specially built museum - the latest incarnation of which has received a lot of criticism. I suppose that on that basis someone who was being totally pedantic could probably raise an argument that it is not the 'real' Ara Pacis as it is not in its 'original' position or condition following re-erection. However, I wouldn't personally subscribe to that view.

This find is absolutely stunning...It definately has left several of the archaeologists working on it lost for words and froma radio report I heard has prompted British Museum staff to leave London and start the find conservation work in Birmingham. The UK's largest haul of Anglo-Saxon gold has been discovered buried beneath a field in Staffordshire. Experts said the collection of 1,500 pieces, which may date back to the 7th Century, is unparalleled in size. A spokeswoman for the British Museum said the find, which is due to be classed as treasure, was the equivalent of finding a "new Book of Kells". Terry Herbert, who found it on farmland using a metal detector, said it "was what metal detectorists dream of". It may take more than a year for the gold, which is expected to be classed by a coroner as treasure later, to be valued. The collection contains about 5kg of gold and 2.5kg of silver, making it far bigger than the Sutton Hoo discovery in 1939 when 1.5kg of Anglo-Saxon gold was found near Woodbridge in Suffolk. ..... Continued at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/staffordshire/8272058.stm Addendum: Several newspapers and websites are starting to report on the find including the Times on-line which ahs a more extensive article than the BBC site and includes 3 good photographs of some of the sword fittings amoungst the find, at: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6847081.ece A digfferent image accompanies the Guardian report: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/sep/24/a...-metal-detector The Telegraph report currently (10:00 am 24/9) seems somewhat abbreviated but is at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/622...gold-hoard.html [Edit - addendum] The BBC now have a video on line showing some details of the hoard as part of an interview with a representative of the Portable antiquities scheme at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8272075.stm

BBC have posted another article speculating about the possible Viking origins of the bodies found. There is associated with this article several good photographs of the excavation in progress at: Article at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/dorset/8250295.stm Photographs at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/dorset/8260072.stm

I beleive that these imperial images are a common feature of the later Roman coinage and normally described as 'radiate crown'.

Description of the conservators work to date (more remains to be done) on this important Viking hoard with several good associated pictures on BBC website: 'Porcupine quills and cactus spines are among the tools used to prepare a

This posting probably falls between two stools but I think that it probably fits with Roman slightly better than world archaeology. Although the article talks things up a bit I suspect that IF there is anything of real significance to come from it Roman related we are only liable to hear about it in several months or more after full analysis has been made from the excavations. 'A farmer's field in Moray could hold the key to the Romans failure to conquer Scotland. A major archaeological dig is drawing to a close at Birnie, near Elgin, which has revealed interesting links between the Celts and the Romans. On Wednesday archaeologists were busy unearthing the remains of a Celtic roundhouse dating back to the Iron Age. It is the latest in a number of fascinating finds at the site where the National Museum of Scotland has been digging annually for the last decade. The site was first discovered in the 1980s but is still revealing the secrets of the past - one recent valuable find was a Roman brooch. Dr Fraser Hunter of the National Museums of Scotland said: "Birnie was a major power centre 2,000 years ago. It was one of the high spots of the Moray coastal plane and because the people here were so important it drew the gaze of Rome.....' Continued (including a video report) at: http://news.stv.tv/scotland/north/123531-m...nquer-scotland/