Melvadius

I remember that there used to be several good pages on a University site covering the excavations at Kalkriese a few years back, which showed the line of the fortified wall as well as the distribution of finds unfortunately I discovered a year or two ago that it had been taken down. However, the following link to Ancient Warfare Magazine has some background on the battle as well as a map of the distibution of finds which you may find interesting. http://www.livius.org/te-tg/teutoburg/teut...-kalkriese.html NB If I am not mistaken if you click on the 'satellite photo' (actually an aerial photograph) of the site the wavy path running horizontally across the site is actually the line of the wall [edit - which was discovered through excavation].

What you have to envisage is that rather than the relatively well manicured area depicted in the pictures, when the battle occured the Romans were trying to work their way through dense ancient woodland unfder a series of attacks - tree limbs would probably have been closer to the ground with a dense understory of bushes and fallen limbs which would not have been heavily browsed by cattle or other animals making travel difficult. The battle site was also close to lower lying marshy ground and the Romans may have been using a game trail or a narrow path in an attempt to skirt the marshy area. When you see plans of the battle site and associated debris trail these normally show the wall line snaking around the base of a slight rise but getting closer to the marshy land. As the battle is basically described as a running fight which took place over a few days with dense woodland cover and only a limited ability to scout their route the Roman probably did not realise that the 'wall' was there until they were already in the teeth of the final trap.

In Britain we generally do not bother with latitudes and longitudes unless we are in the maritime or aviation industry - Ordnance survey grid references are normally the only terms of reference used for historic sites. I have no argument about the Varian disaster stopping Roman expansion in the short term while forces were realigned and decisions made about the value of further expansion in this as opposed to any other area. The subsequent invasion of Britain although almost 40 years later gives the lie to the Varian disaster forcing total ceasation of the idea of expansion and conquest let alone punitive attacks over the next four centuries. T he limiting factor for Roman expansion is more likely to have been a combination of the extent of power the emperors were willing to grant to individual commanders, extent of supply lines, the resources tied up in controlling the border area and value of the ultimate objective. The Roman ideal can be seen to be areas where there were already significant urban development along with control of specific resources, unlike the result of their southern British conquest which is known to have tied up a significant number of men and other resources for three to four centuries. although there was direct access to some rare or otherwise useful resources in reality only a few urban development reached any significant size throughout the period of Roman control. Regarding the permanence of marching camps they may leave a permanent scar on the landscape however they were generally not occupied for more than a few days unlike the forts and other manned outposts along the Gask Frontier ending at Strathcaro which were occupied over several years. Irrespective of what Strabo or Plinty wrote as I said before 'certainly approaching 100% of the men serving along either limes would have considered it pointless knowing whether one border was [physically] 'north' or 'south' of the other' although they probably did know that in Britain they were in the far north-west of the empire...probably often cold, wet and otherwise unhappy with their lot

Most of it indeed is (like half of Bavaria is an exception); Gallia Belgica was entirely north of that river, not to mention Britannia and obviously the Roman occupied Caledonia; the northernmost confirmed Roman construction is Stracathro (56

I accept that our discussion is only about our personal perceptions of the potential extent of interest in this discovery. While I can understand your argument, irrespective of the views expressed in the original articles, the real test of the extent of interest (whether - historical, archaeological, theological or anything else) is currently is unknowable as it will of necessity depend on what further research reveals. Melvadius

As your latest posting makes clear misundestanding have arisen in both directions. Let me finish by clarifying the main point I have been makings. In my view belief or non-belief in any religion is irrelevant to this debate. As an archeologist my view is that what is written in either the codex or indeed any of the other books in the monastic library is of lesser importance than when, where, how, on what material and why - although admittedly the message itself also needs to be considered as a subset of most of these questions. A monastic laundry list would be of some archaeological but probably not theological interest however; the confirmed discovery of re-used parchment leaves from one book in another will always open up the area of interest enomously, both archeologically and historically, beyond the simple theological debate you envisage. If one work has been re-used in this way then other works probably have also been re-used and their identification provides windows of information far beyond anything coming out of theological debate about whether a comma or any other mark has been added or missed out from a particular work. Think on these points - the style of handwriting will say something about where the scribe was trained but identification of what animal the parchment was made from, microscopic clues to where the animal grew up or the raw materials used in the ink says a lot more about patterns of trade in that part of the ancient world. On a wider basis IF the re-used fragments are from a lost work whether scriptural or otherwise then this would be a real prize worth hunting for and the ramifications will reverbate around the world in the same way as the discovery that some of the papyri from Herculaneum or the Vindolanda tablets could be read. Melvadius

You obviouisly misunderstand how risks are seen in the archaeological world in which the main 'concerns', rather than 'risks' in the British climate, are that the site will be rained off and we will be unable to complete what we wish to in the time remaining to us or we won't have funding in place to conserve all that we wish to keep for research which has come out of the ground. Risk is a term usually reserved for health and safety assessments of have we gone too deep and need to consider shoring up the sides of the trench and/or should we be using fluoresent jackets and hard hats because of nearby heavy machinery. Risk to academic reputation is an occupational hazard and generally only lasts as long as the newest theory is current - there is always the chance that a new discovery will make clearer exisiting (or more likely raise new) questions that need to be asked about a site. Archeologists are fundamentally aware that there never is 'one true' answer and that is the difference from the theological stance you apear to have been arguing huntil now where there is more commonly an unceasing desire to present one 'truth' which historically may never have existed. For several thousand years Jewish scholars have been arguiing in their commentaries on the bible which is the correct reading of every single word and passage their dawning horror has been the discovery that many of the older commentaries refer to passages whcih now appear different from the modern versions. Basically despite precise copying of text being a fiundamental requirement of their faith the 'meaning' of or even the text itself appearing to have changed. On the above basis I am afraid Christian scholars are on an equal hiding to nothing BUT can understand the theological imperative that 'demands' their continuing attempts. Melvadisu

Thereby hangs the difference in our viewpoints I see the discovery of any new archaeologically or historically related material as perscriptive for wider research and/ot interest rather than proscrtiptive as only being of interest to a limited interest group whether a religious one or not. [Endit]

I definately agree that religious wars have been started through differences in interpretation/ translation however the main point I was making is that the discvovery of the fragment raises the question of how many other fragments may have survived in similar circumstances. Until (if or when) the other books rebound by the same team can be investigated it is open to question how much other material remains to be discovered which was similarly used and the question of 'completeness also remains open no matter how complete the Codex currently appears. That is the beauty of archaeological and historical investigation there is always something unexplained / unexpected which mauy be discovered. If one was being entirely unbiased in that investigation you also have to consider that the very name bible comes from the word biblos or library so there is always the possioblity of another 'book' having originally been included in the Codex . Melvadius

Not at all, I am glad that you now realise that your original interpretation of what was being said was incorrect. While I understand that you may have theological views on what or what is not a constituent part of the New Testament historically several different books have been included or excluded from different Chrisitian sects versions of the Bible - sometimes even splitting the earlier Old Testament books into more than one book or at other times merging books together. In fact even today there is a degree of disagreement in the order in which the books should be read and a few additional books included by at least one 'Christian' sect in their version of the bible - and I don't mean the 'M' group On that basis there is little point in spirallling off into what is or isn't canonical because as you have now agreed the 'Codex Sinatiacus' is currently the oldest and most complete version of what historically has been included in the Christian Bible - not just the New Testament. The papyri versions you mentioned tend to be even more incomplete. For historians, if not theologians, the latest discovery of additional leaves from the codex bound into the spines of other library books potentially will make the Codex's 'virtual' recreation even more 'complete'. I am sure that you will agree that from a historical standpoint that can only be a good thing.

So in fact you have agreed that irrespective of whether or not all of it is currently accepted as 'orthodox' teaching the 'Codex Siniaticus' is the oldest written example of the New Testement text ?

Given that the first posting on this thread includes a definition of 'Codex Sinaiticus' as the 'oldest Christian' bible and I specified the link as 'of related interest' then yes

Of related interest is this article from the Independent newspaper in the UK: 'Fragment from world's oldest Bible found hidden in Egyptian monastery A British-based academic has uncovered a fragment of the world's oldest Bible hiding underneath the binding of an 18th-century book. Nikolas Sarris spotted a previously unseen section of the Codex Sinaiticus, which dates from about AD350, as he was trawling through photographs of manuscripts in the library of St Catherine's Monastery in Egypt. The Codex, handwritten in Greek on animal skin, is the earliest known version of the Bible. Leaves from the priceless tome are divided between four institutions, including St Catherine's Monastery and the British Library, which has held the largest section of the ancient Bible since the Soviet Union sold its collection to Britain in 1933. ... Continued at: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/af...ry-1780274.html

Apaprently principal shooting has now commenced according to 'comingsoon.net': 'The Eagle of the Ninth Starts Principal Photography Source:Focus Features August 24, 2009 Filming begins today on the Roman epic adventure The Eagle of the Ninth, directed by Academy Award winner Kevin Macdonald and produced by Duncan Kenworthy. Shooting entirely on location in Hungary and Scotland, the film is co-financed by Film4 with Focus Features, which holds worldwide rights excluding U.K. free-TV. The cast is headed by Channing Tatum (G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra, the upcoming Dear John), Jamie Bell (Defiance, Jumper), two-time Golden Globe Award winner Donald Sutherland, and Mark Strong (the upcoming Sherlock Holmes and Robin Hood). Macdonald is reunited on the new film with Jeremy Brock, BAFTA Award-winning screenwriter of his 2006 film The Last King of Scotland, who has adapted the screenplay of The Eagle of the Ninth from Rosemary Sutcliff's classic novel of the same name. Duncan Kenworthy, an Academy Award and Golden Globe Award nominee for Four Weddings and a Funeral, developed and is producing The Eagle of the Ninth through his Toledo Productions. Caroline Hewitt is co-producer. Focus senior vice president, European production Teresa Moneo

This thread has reminded how much I enjoyed Rosemary Sutcliffes books when I was younger and I did a bit of research as I didn't remember some of the books which have been mentioned - probably in most cases as they were written after I stopped using that part of the library. There seem to be at least one if not more books which are loosely connected through inclusion of people owning the dolphin ring, originally owned by Marcus in the 'Eagle of the Ninth' book, up to the early 'Dark Ages' primarily 'Sword at Sunset' which is also part of the Arthurian series. Wikipedia currently mention 'Sword Song' and 'The Shield Ring' as also being part of the loose series although there is no write-up of either book so how accurate any of this later 'Wiki' information is I won't know for certain until I get my hands on her books again. Melvadius

How about retired unscared ?

The movie was simply called "Caligula" and was released in 1979. It was not actually considered *or*, having even been, I believe, released at the Cannes festival, but it was definately smutty. Caligula - The Movie. I seem to remember hearing at the time of its release a possibly apocrophyl story that several of the main actors claimed to have been unaware of quite how explicit the final film was going to be. The claim ran along the lines that after they had left the set body doubles and umpteen others were brought in to 'spice up' the action - alternatively there were more than one version and what was shown at Cannes was a milder version with the '*or*' element added to later versions. The truth or otherwise of this story I couldn't say never having seen more than a few clips of the movie so you pays your money or not as the case may be for whichever version you wish to see. Melvadius

I don't really subscribe to top/bottom 5/10 etc. so don'tt expect such a list from me but I found some of the alternative options listed in the original article interesting. I suppose Pula is a possible alternative to the Colosseum, although despite its complete triple tier exterior wall its interior doesn't appear to be as well preserved. Personally as an alternative I would have suggested El Jem which is closer to the size of the Colosseum and in my view is well worth the trip to Tunisia. Personaly I've never felt a great desire to commune with stones although I did get to wander through Stonehenge years ago before the present visiting rules were inaugerated on a fairly recent visit the stones were still imposing when you realised that they were all in their original location and had been moved by mucle power. From an Archaeological standpoint I do have concerns about Avebury as an 'alternative' experience. Most of the stones in the circle at Avebury are known to have been either reerected or even moved significant distances from where they originally stood so in my view cannot really be considered as 'real' an experience as visiting Stonehenge.

The excavations are still ongoing so there is no final report that I can point you to however the interim reports for each year which detail trench by trench what has been found are available via the previous link at the bottom of the page. In broad terms what we have found so far is possible evidence for continuity from Iron Age if not Bronze Age activity leading up to the construction of a Romano-British temple complex comprising a temple within a temenos (sacred enclosure) along with what was probably a semi-amphitheatre and at least one altar. The current thinking is that the 'semi-amphitheatre' doesn't appear to have been used for gladiatorial combat - there is no evidence for staging being built on the embankment rather it was probably used for some form of religous activity in the sunken centre fo the semi-amphitheatre the precise nature of which can only be guessed at. If you mean what I have found personally the tally includes a few personal items including bone hair pins and a couple of copper pins along with a lot of broken ceramic items, bones and teeth and a few other metallic objects. However what I am probably most proud of finding, to most people wouldn't seem very much, but archaeologically is really quite important. A couple of years back I found and then helped excavate the foundations of a Roman wall next to the semi-amphitheatre. When we excavated it we found that the wall contained the remains of at least a third of a pot which had been deliberately built as a stack into the foundations. Because the particular style of pot was made in only two places in Roman Britain (London and then at a later date copied in Oxfordshire), when the pottery fabric is fully analyised it will become the 'teminus post quem' for the walls construction - i.e. the earliest possible date for the wall being built. [The London manufacturing period was around a century before the pottery style was copied by Oxford Ware.] As we are dealing with a site where there are no inscribed stones having something like this which can provide specific dating evidence for part of the sites construction and use is very important. Melvadius

Not a professional arcaheologist or working full time ain arcaheology although I have been studying archaeology for a few years now. The site where I have been excavating whenever I've had a chance iover the last few years s the Marcham/ Frilford Romano-British Temple complex near Abingdon (south of Oxford). Details at: http://www.arch.ox.ac.uk/VRP1.html Melvadius

Depends how and what they have been counting. Much will depend on the period and location as to what will be there to be found and what the arcaheologists working the site will record. The site where I have recently been excavating appears to be a major Romano-British temple complex but with middle and late-Iron Age antecedents and some earlier material also turning up which has been excavated for 4-5 weeks every year since 2001. The numbering sequence for 'small finds' which are artifacts that have been deemed important enough to log their actual find spot (e.g jewellry, coins, flint tools and worked bone) is now well up into the 6-7,000 range. In comparison 'bulk finds' (e.g. most pottery fragments, bricks and 'debotage' - residue from making flint tools) run into multi-thousand figures every year. Melvadius

The best I can come up with following a web search is the following link to my search result which found someone 'blogging' from the excavation. I'm not sure if the link will work properly on all PCs but on my screen the search result contains what appears to be a thumbnail of the X-ray image of the dagger. Image: http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=h...t%3D18%26um%3D1 Associated article: http://serf-dig.blogspot.com/2009/08/day-8...y-off-much.html Melvadius

BBC report that: Markings on a 16th Century carving from Stirling Castle could be the oldest surviving piece of written Scottish instrumental music, historians believe. A sequence of 0s, Is and IIs have been found on one of the Stirling Heads - wooden medallions which would have decorated the castle's royal palace. It is believed the music could have been played on instruments such as harps, viols, fiddles and lutes. An experienced harpist has been trying to play the tune. The markings would not have been an exact musical score, but would have given guidance to players who then improvised. There are earlier examples of written music in Scotland, but they were composed for choirs rather than an instrumental band. Barnaby Brown, a lecturer at the Royal Scottish Academy of Music and Drama (RSAMD) who specialises in early Scottish music, said the find could be very enlightening. ... Cont'd at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/taysid...ral/8222727.stm N.B. includes an interpretation of what the music may have sounded like

In actual fact Italy has a similar problem to a complaint I've also heard made about Egypt in that they have an inordinate amount of archaeological remains which have already been excavated but despite tourist numbers at some famous sites have only a fairly limited budget with which to continue maintaining them. The situation at Herculaneum is a good exemplar of the problem; we visited several times over a few years some time back yet in that short time noted attrition to the standing remains as earlier 'strengthening' in some buildings had succumbed to water penetration and/or metal fatigue leading to the partial collapse of some buildings. It is known that there are a large sections of the town which remain unexcavated including the Villa of the Papyrii however it is only in recent years that any further excavation or at least investigation has taken place [c/f article at the Friends of Herculaneum http://www.herculaneum.ox.ac.uk/herculaneu...1/DeSimone.html]. The map at the end of the article is a good indication of the extent of Herculaneum which is probably still buried if you look at the location of the theatre in comparison to the area already expesoed int he bottom right hand corner and with the villa location in the bottom left hand corner. The key issue with the Villa in particular is not just the area which is covered and which would need the buildings above it removed along with the overburden of volcanic material to allow full access to the site but also there are issues of the shifting water table which may lead to destruction or at least further damage of any surviving remains before excavations could be completed. Irrespective of the conservation issues which are liable to arise e.g. should another large cache of papyrii be found, the local museum authorities also have the issue of how they can protect the newly exposed buildings from the elements and make them safe for visitors in the future - all this ideally without anything that is too obtrusive which could detract from the visual impact of anyone seeing the 'actual Roman' buildings in situ and more importantly not create another future problem with strengthening beams starting to deteriorate. In Britain we were able to partially get round this problem at Fishbourne Palace where a covering building was erected just over the exposed foundations containing most of the mosaic floors but if you included all of the ancilliary buildings and the terrace the Villa of the Papyri is a much bigger building covering several levels so the scale of the problem and consequently costs involved would be enourmous. Melvadius