Melvadius

Surnames are not necessarily a good indicator of genetic inheritence, however a few years back there was a major study into the

You are covering centuries of time in describing the Caledonii as 'present along Hadrian's Wall'. For most of the Roman period as Northern Neil has pointed out they lived at least 120 miles away from the Wall area, so would not have been an immediate threat to Roman activity. I should point out that only about 45 miles of the eastern end of Hadrian's Wall was ever rebuilt in stone the other 31 miles at the Western end, where there was less availability of suitable building stone was only ever built in turf as an earthern embankment - the same as the Antonine Wall was. As such the western end probably did have a palisade top but there would have been no need for a wooden top to a stone wall at the eastern end. As far as the Wall being over run this mainly seems to have occured when the garrrison troop strengths were reduced due to civil wars or campaigns in other parts of the Empire. Even if the wall was over run the fall back positions would have been the individual fortified buildings - the watch towers, mile castles and forts. Why would the defenders run out into the open over open moorland away from possible help from other garrision troops who were in easy reach to help out and usually located only a few miles away to the east or west along the wall? If everything went 'pear' shaped it would be much more sensible to sit things out in a defended position until help could arrive along the military road. The 'berm' lies to the north of Hadrian's Wall. The Caledonii lived to the north of the Wall. The vallum ditch (including the earthern mounds immediately north and south of it) lies to the south of the Wall. The vallum mounds are too high and/or too far from the wall to let defenders fire over them at any potential attackers so probably did not have a primarily defensive function. The vallum therefore most likely provided a demarkation zone for areas directly controlled by the military. It did have some crossing points but these would have been needed to control direct access to the wall area and funnel traders to where they could be searched and made to pay any necessary taxes on the goods they were carrying with them. Melvadius [edited to clarify a couple of minor ponts]

Let me put it this way. first of all you are looking at remains which have been there for at least 1,600 years but more likely had their origins nearly 1,800 years ago. Hadrian's Wall and its associated works run approximately east - west across a narrow point in the British mainland from coast to coast, mainly across a natural ridge of rock with a sheer face to the north in places. The Romans approached this area from the south, while the unconquered or semi-pacified natives (in some Roman texts a few of of whom were referred to as Caledonians), lived to the north of the wall. The original military presence was a series of forts along the Stangate a military road built by the Romans. This was later 'fortified' with the construction of Hadrian's Wall which mainly ran to the north of the orginal defensive line, although incorporating a few of the original forts. North of the wall was a defensive ditch with a raised 'berm' immediately north of it that made a sloping approach to the ditch embankment allowing defenders on the wall to fire missiles on any enemy trying to attack the wall. Some time after the wall was built a second ditch was built at least 60 feet to the south of the Wall (in some places nearer quarter of a mile south of the Wall), which is referred to as the vallum. From archeological excavations it has been proved that vallum was not constucted in the same 'defensive' way as the berm to the north as a ramp which could be fired on from the Wall defenders instead it had simple earthwork mounds constructed a short way back from the ditch. The usual interpretation of such a structure by archaeologists as having a non-defensive but more demarkation/ border control area use seems obviously correct to me. Could you explain why do you instead think the Caledonians, who lived a long way to the north of the Wall, would be trying to attack the Wall across it from the south on a regular basis? [Edit - This posting seems to have originally been made overlapping with that by Northern Neil but I agree with the other points he raised] Melvadius

I

The short answer is yes. Hadrian's Wall immediately to the east of Housteads fort runs down to a hollow only bout 50-100 yards along the Wall line where it crosses the course of a small stream. The Romans built a small culvert into the base of the Wall at this point. I have a photograph of it somewhere about the house so if I find it I will post it onto the gallery when I next get the chance. Melvadius

It is worth emphasising. I'm not confused however, I just consider the wall, the parallel road, and the vallae as part of the same system, a controlled frontier with politically unstable territory either side. As you will have seen from my original posting I have no arguments about the Wall being part of a complex frontier system. My comments were more about some of the other ideas which have been suggested. I have visited the Wall area several times and also done some drystone walling in my time. I have to say that it is pretty typical upland moorland so yes local farmers need to maintain their drystone walls (drystone dykes in Scotland) but that is a normal feature of such unmortared walls and routine maintenance simply means that normally all they have to do is tap back into place any loose stones once or twice a year. By doing that, unless in exceptionally difficult circumstances, drystone walls have been known to stand for 50 or even 300 years without needing a major rebuilding. Major rebuilding normally is a result of routine maintenance not being carried out for several years rather than due to what seems fairly standard upland soggy ground conditions. Melvadius

I think there is a bit of confusion in this posting, it is generally agreed that the Vallum is a secondary structure built after the Wall had been completed which runs behind the Wall. As the English Heritage website states it was generally built 50 to 90 metres behind the Wall. It therefore acted to define the rear of the military zone, and as most historians/ archaeologists working on the Wall area now believe was probably intended as a 'customs' barrier controlling movement of people into and out of the the military area c/f images and short text on the English Heritage website at: http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/server/show/nav.1163 In actual fact in at least one instance it was a lot further than 90 metres away. As such it is unlikely that it was intended to make the Wall 'more stable'. Thie probablye 'customs' aspect of the vallum probably was a major issue at the Western end where one of the tribal areas has apparently been cut in half by the route of the Wall - unfortunately it is not recorded what they thought of this but it probably would have been unprintable The ditch in front of the Wall with its accompanying glacis has a more obviously military/defensive use, so in my view could not be considered as primarily to have a stabalising purpose. In point of fact there is recorded evidence for at least one section of the Wall (just west of Segendunum at the eastern end of the Wall) actually collapsing into the defensive ditch while still in use and having to be rebuilt. The Romans did include some small tunnels in the wall to allow the passage of water in streams from one side to the other as well as bridging several more major river barriers along its course. Therefore the Romans did take some account of the issues of water but probably not in the way suggested. Melvadius

I tend to the view that there is no simple or simplistic answer to who 'owns' the past. A lot of what has turned up in the various museums around the world has been looted at one time or another. In many instances during long periods of occupation by what is now considered a 'foreign' power. As has already been noted to a great extent the Elgin Marbles survive today simply because they were 'bought' by Lord Elgin and removed from the Acropolyse during the Ottoman occupation of Greece. There are various arguments about the legality or otherwise of the original purchase but equally about the British Museum being allowed to return them because of its charter of operation. Such arguments could be overcome in time but may need an Act of Parliament to resolve but this is only one example. The Getty and other major museums in America have had a series of embarassing revelations about recent purchases in their collections also being looted material this despite a general requirement for the provenance of such items to be provided (and checked) before they are purchased. There are problems with 'returning' some items to their coutries of origin to take a theoretical example where should an Egyptian statue found on a Roman shipwreck in Maltese waters be displayed - Egypt, Italy or Malta? If it was found 200 years ago and bought by an American Museum do they still have any right to it? At what point if there are further complications to determining 'ownership', including the sale of stolen antiquities does the answer stop being either/or and become who is now best placed to look after it? I suppose my own view is along the lines that with our modern multicutural societies museums should have the ability to exchange representative marterial amongst themselves. However there should ideally also be 'definitive' collections maintained preferably in their country of origin where that is possible or if not then in whichever museum has the best collection which can be used as primary reference collections for further research. Melvadius

Granted, I thought that was what you meant but thought it was worth pointing out what I felt was a serious lack in the CDI information. On the other hand, judging by dates even if not down to Bush we can now put a few of the others on the list down to actions by his father Melvadius

I think this article has it just about right. I believe that the claim that his policies have kept Americans safe since 9/11 is preposterous and arrogant - the diligence of the CIA and other security agencies have, rather, protected Americans from the extremism and terrorism fostered by his foreign policy. However, the trade center was destroyed prior to the policies that speak of. Here's a good list indicating the run up of terrorism against the US that had nothing to do with Bush. Presidents, as with any world leader, often get too much blame or credit for many things. I think the CDI site is too simplistic as it makes no attempt to identify who committed the terrorism or more importantly why it was carried out - several of the attacks listed have no link to the arab world including those by some home-grown American bombers. In cases where the attacks did have Arab links it could be claimed they were intended as a response to US involvement &/or polices towards the Arab world - especially their continual support of Israeli occupation of Palestine. Unfortunately terrorism really does beget terrorism and the Israeli continuing occupation of Gaza and the rest of Palestine has long been indefensible as far as most of the world is concerned, when they actually think about the root causes of much of Arab related terrorism dating from the 70's and 80's. Although not perfect this site (http://www.simplytaty.com/broadenpages/terrorism.htm ) gives a few more details, including where it is known which group claimed responsibility and/or who was convicted - in some cases there remains a degree of doubt if the convictions were really justified. Melvadius

I have to admit that in my view January 2009 cannot come soon enough and is at least 4 years if not 8 overdue. Most electoral systems are flawed but I somehow feel that a campaign trail and 'Democratic' process that takes up the best part of 2 years is way too long. I much prefer the UK system of a six week campaigning period and effectively immediate transfer of power after the election. Having said that the right man from the final list does appear to have been elected and the sooner he is in post the better, not just for America but the World at large. Hopefully he will make one of his priorities reining back on the increasingly overstepping of international law and blatant abuse of military power against everyone (including both friendly and non-aligned powers) that has apparently become standard American foreign policy. BTW a point of information the new US president may be many things but from a British perspective his views are more what would be considered liberal than socialist. To us most American politicians would be categorised as right of centre Melvadius

From STV news "Archaeological dig hopes to uncover rare Roman artefacts". An archaeological dig at Cramond in the north of Edinburgh is hoping to uncover rare Roman artefacts and help solve some of the mysteries of the fort which once stood there. Local people have been helping excavate the area, which has already produced one of Scotland's most important finds. Uncovering centuries of history, volunteers are hoping to shed light on the Roman settlement at Cramond, have already made some significant discoveries. ..... [Cramond is famous for the large stone 'lion' statue that was found on the shore line there a few years back] Video and rest of article at: http://www.stv.tv/news/Archaeological_dig_...080910185943156

A remote area of the Amazon river basin was once home to densely populated towns, Science journal reports. The Upper Xingu, in west Brazil, was once thought to be virgin forest, but in fact shows traces of extensive human activity. Researchers found evidence of a grid-like pattern of settlements connected by road networks and arranged around large central plazas. There are signs of farming, wetland management, and possibly fish farms. The settlements are now almost completely overgrown by rainforest.... cont'd at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7586860.stm AAAS members can read full article at: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/321/5893/1148 [EDIT for more links] "National Geographic" article at: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...zon-cities.html "EurekAlert" article at: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/200...of-ar082508.php

The BBC have just posted a video from the opening of the second coffin: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7563141.stm

A nice spot DecimusCaesar, unfortunately trying to find out more I discovered that there appears to be some confusion with this article. There is a report from their 2004 annual report on the Mary Rose's website (23/11/04) that they were already treating some 700 timbers raised from the Gela wreck in summer 2004. This was also reported in a '24 hour museum' article dated 18/11/2004. c/f: http://www.maryrose.org/news/news_archive_2004.htm http://www.24hourmuseum.org.uk/nwh/ART24950.html. I suppose that it is possible that another wreck has been recovered similarly located and aged which is also being sent to the conservation facilities run by the Mary Rose Trust. Alternatively it may simply be that another section of the hull has now been raised. Unfortunately the National Geographic article quotes different dimensions for the hull from the 2004 articles but makes no mention of the earlier collaboration between Gela and the Mary Rose Trust. In ships of that age '700 timbers' could represent all or only the majority of a ship's remains. Personally I suspect that it may actually be more timbers from the same ship but unless anyone knows differently it may well take another search of the Mary Rose newsletter later in the year to make things clearer BTW if anyone is in the area of Portsmouth, the Mary Rose is always worth a visit, and you may incidently be able to see the Gela timbers if they have been laid out in the main hall in front of her as part of their preservation process. http://www.maryrose.org/visit/index.html

Sagalassos, Turkey, August 12

I am no expert although both subject areas sound like they could be profitably researched for a masters as you suspect doing the research may be subject to a number of difficulties and may need to rely heavily on implication and/or allegory rather than direct reportage. The major problem is obviously what material you will have access to, as you haven't provided a home location the following may not help but I am a member of the Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies and as such have access to the Classics Library, based in Senate House (University of London). Doing a quick search under "Roman Medicine" I found that they have 9 books listed so it does appear to be an area where some secondary sources will be available to aid your research. However the relatively few boks listed may be a reflection of limitations with the primary sources such as only a few major medical works surviving from the period. As far as Judaism/Christianity is concerned there is obviously a lot of both primary and secondary material around however I am unsure how much direct connection you will find in them to medical practices. A lot will obviously also depend on whether you are completely reliant on English translations of relevant text books/primary sources. Is there any chance that you professor will have done research in a similar area or your university have similar interests? Melvadius

Unfortunately this could be another case where modern politics and/or religious beliefs, even if unconciously rather than deliberately, having an influence on what or rather how things are reported.

I am sorry if this cuts across some of what has now been added to this thread but with your clarificiation I think that you may have originally used the wrong phrase for how the Great War was perceived across what was the British empire and indeed the rest of the world at the time. Like many having had several relatives involved in it I have done a little family research into the period to try and understand the issues that motivated my own family members and indeed others who served in any way - not all in a directly military capacity. The majority of the 'white' ANZAC population were probably, at most, only one or two generations removed from their 'British' roots so had a direct connection to the 'homeland'. However across the Empire, at all strata's, society was polarised very heavily to the view that it was right and proper to defend the Empire from 'foreign aggression'. This included defending against encroachment on the Emperor's and/or the wider Empire's interests no matter how poorly those interests may have been understood locally. On the 'British' side, at least at the start of the conflict, every corner of the Empire willingly supplied as many men and as much resources as they could and there was a great esprit de corp at all levels, even amongst the Chinese coolies who may have only been tasked to carry supplies to the Front Line, let alone amongst the 'fighting' men. Put simply there was a sense of pride in being part of a global Empire and that translated across the Empire into vast numbers enlisting to fight no matter what their original race, creed or colour. Similar factors led to equally high numbers enlisting in the German, Austrian and Turkish armies as well as the French, Russian, Japanese and other combatants in the war. Ultimately it was a clash of ideals and sense of pride and place which transended choice let alone 'chance' but which sucked vast numbers into a horrendous conflict. They thought it would be the 'war to end all wars', such was the horror encountered by the armed forces and civilians who were affected or fought in it. However even after the horror became known it didn't stop millions more joining up and fighting for many of the same reasons as their fellow had at the start of the war. It is very easy to sit in an armchair some 90 odd years after the event and question why people did something but the fact is that in most cases given a choice men probably join up to fight a war because they want to. Even if there are factors which they know about which may have 'forced' that choice they rarely if ever admit to them

Ruins of a Roman temple from the second century CE have recently been unearthed in the Zippori National Park. Above the temple are foundations of a church from the Byzantine period. The excavations, which were undertaken by the Noam Shudofsky Zippori Expedition led by of Prof. Zeev Weiss of the Institute of Archaeology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, shed light on the multi-cultural society of ancient Zippori (also known as Sepphoris). The discovery indicated that Zippori, the Jewish capital of the Galilee during the Roman period, had a significant pagan population which built a temple in the heart of the city center. The central location of the temple which is positioned within a walled courtyard and its architectural relation to the surrounding buildings enhance our knowledge regarding the planning of Zippori in the Roman era. Full article at: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/...80811072503.htm

On Arwad Island off the coast of Syria, a group of 20 sailors-to-be are preparing for a voyage their captain believes has not been undertaken for two and a half millennia. They plan to set off on Sunday on a journey that attempts to replicate what the Greek historian Herodotus mentions as the first circumnavigation of Africa in about 600BC. Their vessel, the small, pine-wood Phoenicia, is modelled on the type of ship the Phoenician sailors he credited with the landmark voyage would have used. .... Full article at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7550162.stm

Sounds a lot like the Charge of the Light Brigade at Balaclava in 1854 to me. Did they really ever have the chance of doing so? Depends what you mean by "did they ever have a chance". The Charge of the Light Brigade had several elements in common with the landings at Gallipoli; The Light Brigade were originally asked to attack a single position (some allied guns which had been captured by the Russians) which if successful would have led to relatively minor loss of life for them but instead their commander sent them the wrong way. Those actions may have been partially influenced by the actions of 300 men from the Heavy Brigade (although finally supported by the other 600). Earlier in the day the Heavy Brigade had been suprised on the march by at least 2,000 Russian cavalry. Instead of disengaging and withdrawing as fast as they could, the commander had instantly ordered the attack and possibly by a combination of luck and fighting ability they had routed the Russians with minimal losses on their side - 300 men had struck first pushing back the Russian centre and drawing the Russian wings around them which is when the remaining 600 had hit what was effectively now the rear of the Russian forces. Unfortunately this earlier victory may have partially sown the seeds of the later defeat of the Light Brigade as it appears to have been the same Russian Cavalry who withdrew and after recovering supported the cannons which the Light Brigade later charged. Tennysons poem commemorating the Heavy Brigade charge is at: http://classiclit.about.com/library/bl-ete...chargeheavy.htm The map of the battle can be found at : http://www.britishbattles.com/crimean-war/balaclava.htm At Gallipoli the original landing site may have led to a successful campaign where the allied troops could have been reinforced and quickly spread out instead of being bottled up around their original landing point and ending up fighting a defensive war while the Turks could make use of their superior numbers and position overlooking the beaches. [missed a bit so EDIT below] I would say that on the whole they did "have a chance" but as happens all too often with depressing regularity in military conflicts as soon as they engaged the enemy in the way (and when) they did that "chance" rapidly and bloodily evaporated. At Gallipoli after the initial landing failure there was a diminishing probability that the Commonwealth, French (and some British) Troops could break out from their beach head and in the event after several months of fierce fighting the campaingn failed. c/f: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gallipoli

The BBC has a short article and associated video about the re-opening: "Hundreds of Roman artefacts are to go on public display for the first time since they were excavated 60 years ago. The 240 items were found at Lullingstone Roman Villa, near Sevenoaks in Kent, during digs at the site from the late 1940s until 1961. Lullingstone, a prosperous farm occupied for more than 300 years, is said to be one of the most complete Roman villas discovered in Britain. The new display follows a

Quite an interesting programme and worth catching if only for a glimpse of the remains of a defensive wall, which Hadrian had built in north Africa. The section shown is apparently in Tunisia, seemed to be standing almost to it's full height. It was part of a longer series of walls which blocked particular access routes into the Roman empire along the southern limes of the empire.

From personal experience I would point out that one winters day, despite ice starting to form and even some snow falling, I found that wearing lorica hamata under a cloak, was a fairly efficient way of keeping the upper body warm . At least it was so while we were drilling, although those wearing lorica segmentata didn't seem to find things as comfortable After a little while I didn't even notice whether my feet were cold or not despite splashing through several icy puddles but then again that last could have been hypothermia setting in