Melvadius

"A necklace found near Lake Titicaca in southern Peru is the oldest known gold object made in the Americas, archaeologists say. Radiocarbon dating puts its origin at about 4,000 years ago, when hunter-gatherers occupied the area. The researchers say it appears to have been fashioned from gold nuggets. The discovery suggests that the use of gold jewellery to signify status began before the appearance of more complex societies in the Andes, they report. ..." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7323351.stm

My understanding of the term is that it really depends who is talking about it.. in the earliest form it was a group of writings that were kept secret but in later (mainly but not exclusively Christian) writings it tends to mean writings that have been excluded from canonical (accepted) scripture. Of course it also depends which group is being referred to as to what they consider to be "canonical scripture" and consequently what they consider to be heretical texts leading to continuing arguments. This is why the Dead Sea Scrolls which include several different versions of the gospels and other early texts are considered by some scholars to be apocrypha.

I hold no brief for construction workers in general record of site safety nor am I in a position to say who was responsible but some facts have emerged about what happened. The reports that reached here were that the crane was being used on a multi-storey apartment construction and being jacked up to allow a section to be fitted in, lifting it into a higher position to work on the next levels of the construction. BTW I also saw a newspaper article which cited the accident as happening just after 2.00pm so it wasn't exactly the end of the day. Extracts from the BBC news article point out that: "...the crane had broken during a routine operation to extend its height, by inserting a section and raising its top part... " "..a piece of steel fell and sheared off one of the ties holding the crane to the building, causing it to detach and topple..." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7299007.stm And: "...The crane, which stood 19 storeys high, was being used in the construction of a new high-rise apartment building..." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7299650.stm Whatever the cause it is not something that anyone wishes to see happen so those involved have my sympathy.

My Latin is extremely rusty so hopefully one of the others with better Latin will correct this if i am wrong. From memory "hoc" can mean "this" while I think "iter" corresponds to "way" or "route". Combined with "civitatis" (usually "settlement of Roman citizens") will equate to something like "the settlement of X is this way". "Finimitus" I think translates as adjacent or neighbouring, which may be where the interpretation as a boundary marker comes in if the abbreviations are tribal names. The "?" mark in the second attempted interpretation of the Latin simply is an indication of uncertainty over precisely what letter was originally inscribed in the stone. This in turn confirms the reason for the ambiguity and divergance of opinions on what the abbreviations stand for.

Basing my answers on examples from real Roman battles - badly

My German isn't too hot but from a scan of the net it appears that there are several conflicting theories about what the abbreviations may stand for. There may well be more but I did find the following options: C(ivitatemque) A(uderiensium) h(oc) i(ter) Or C(imbros) A(m- brones) H(arudes) an c(ivitatem) A( ) H( ) ?jf(initum) Any takers for which is more likely?

Wikipedia seems to have a reasonable map representation of at lest the main Tibal groups mentioned in Caesar's "Conquest of Gaul" and their probable locations, even if it doesn't include an actual list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallic_Wars If this is insufficient try the Penguin Classics edition (revised by Jane F Gardner in 1982) that does have a full listing of people, places and tribes mentioned in the book.

Being partially successful in my search I thought about inflicting images of my home town (or rather village) here but felt that the ones I could find aren't really scenic enough to justify including especially as they mainly consisted of group photographs of villagers rather than buildings. The slightly confusing if not embarassing aspect to my search was realising that several of the images on the net that I did find have obviously come from our family album that is kept by my father. However, every time I speak to him he denies knowing anything about the net - to the extent of not even owning a computer!

Thanks for posting the article - it brings back a few happy memories:) Having seen the mosaic in the flesh it really is quite spectacular and worth the trip to the museum in Sousse just to see it, let alone the other odds and ends that they have there. Some are very odds and ends not to mention almost completely without written descriptions in Arabic or French let alone in English. I did take a couple of shots there myself including one of the cnetral section that was cropped in the current world Archaeology article c/f: http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?automo...m&album=133 When I get time I hope to put a few more miscellaneous shots from Tunisian museums in the same gallery.

Hmm. Very true. Unless Charles decides to forego the throne in favour of Prince William... Even more fun is if he drops dead before the Queen, in which case somewhat suprisingly to the majority of people the succession goes to Andrew and his heirs as next in line for the throne

They said on the news last night that the next one is in 2010...maybe it's the next one viewable to us here on the West Coast of America? The next total lunar eclipse will apparently only be visible across North and South America. c/f http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21_December_2010_lunar_eclipse

You were lucky, totality was between 3.01 and 3.52am over here and the next one isn't due until until September 28, 2015:(

I'd be a bit happier about the accuracy of this news story if the correct book reference number had been listed. The British Library on-line reference search didn't bring up anything for "ADD 12-150" however with a search on other sites it appears that the correct reference may actually be "BM Add 12.150" and using that there are two works in the British Library listed under "add.12150". I suppose we now wait to see what is published in the appropriate scientific journals for more informaiton on what has actually been found.

Having done both "combat" and "drill" re-enactment in the past I would agree that it really does depend on what it is going to be used for as to what type of weapon should be bought. If a group is long established it should have built up a recommendation list that works for their style of re-enactment and that should generally be any potential re-enactors guiding principle about who to go to for their equipment. My own knowledge is out of date but Deepa used to have a reputation for reasonable prices but variable quality and authenticity of equipment they produced. Irrespective of how sourced a display quality "sharp" will be totally unsuitable for "contact" re-enactment combat and vice-versa, while there are also variation in design depending on the precise period that is being represented - although to a great extent more so with armour than weapons. Once you know what "type" and "style" of weapon is needed the main problem will probably tend to be down to your own group's recommendations on suppliers, the length of a particular armourers order book and whether their price ranges are within reach of your pocket. I suspect that the last two may be the final arbiter of which source you end up using rather than any supplier that we may recommend.

Campbell suggests that Augustus limited the incidence of conscription in Italy although he wasn

It looks incongruous across the dank, misty farmland north of Ypres. A large party marquee erected amongst the winter stubble; but it marks one of the most ambitious battlefield archaeology projects ever attempted..... ....Daily life under fire forced the warring armies to seek safety underground; hundreds of shelters and headquarters were constructed in this sector alone. The archaeologists have spent years searching for one such example - the Vampire Dugout - from where a Brigadier General and his staff planned for attacks that so often proved futile, and costly..... More details on BBC news at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7246038.stm

There's also that funny 'almost' buff colour there.

I cannot really comment on this or any other recent film except those shown on TV - most I've seen ads for I wouldn't touch with a barge pole, however one point of information: If the 'black guy' is based on Eugene Ballard then he does hold the unique position of being the first (and only?) Black guy to fly in the First World War, having first served in the French Foreign Legion before transferring to the Lafayette Flying Corps after being wounded at Verdun. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Bullard BTW I watched Das Boot when it first came out as a six part TV series (subtitled) and as such it is brilliant. While Young Frankenstein, with the great and sadly missed Marty Feldman, responding to the cry of "Werewolves!" as "There wolves...There Castle" must in my view go down as one of the greatest lines in cinema.

I could be generous and say that they may have come up with a theory and sold a book deal on the basis of it only to find when they actually did any real research that their theory didn't hold up much in the way of water (I had to get Atlantis in somehow) so they had to make things up as they went along to fill their deadline. On the other hand I think most of them just found a way to make easy money as their conspiracy type theories generally fly off the shelves, whereas any properly researched book will tend to only sell in small specialist markets or at in least limited numbers.

I have doing a bit of addional thinking about the recent discoveries of Roman forts in Cornwall and there is one obvious point which has as far as I can tell been missed by the news reports of the discoveries. Nanstallon, which previously was the only fort positively identified, lies approximately 2 miles west of Bodmin but of more significance is close to the River Camel which flows north into the Bristol Channel to the north of Cornwall. Lostwithiel is also near Bodmin about 4 miles to the SSW and is also on a river but in this case the Fowey, which flows south into the English Channel. Finally, the new discovery at Calstock (at the South eastern edge of cornawall and about 7 miles NNW of Plymouth) is also on river, in this case the Tamar which again flows into the English Channel. In all three cases the rivers near to the forts would have been navigable, at least seasonally, and coupled with close proximity to mining activity it raises the question if we should also be looking for evidence of Roman wharfs nearby. In my view it is hiughly likely that Romans took the obvious option and removed the bulk of the mined material by the easiest route via the nearest sea port rather than overland. Even with reasonable roads it would probably have taken weeks to get a significant load of processed let alon part processed minerals anywhere. The close proximity of two forts to Bodmin, apparently active around the same time but on different watercourses, coupled with the discoveries of numerous bars of processed metals found around Britain only reinforces both the view of an Imperial monopoly and the consequent close involvement of the Roman Army in mineral extraction during the early Roman occupation.

It is interesting to consider how our knowledge of and interpretation of the Roman occupation, particularily in this part has ebbed and flowed over the years. In several instances sites have been incorrectly 'positively' identified with only the most minimal of evidence and in others it has only been with advances in aerial photography and other archaeological techniques that what in hind sight have been blindingly obvious sites been located. I actually have an old third edition of the OS Roman Britain map as well as a 5th edition and NEMETO STATIO (North Tawton) appears on both several miles to the WNW of Exeter; in the 3rd edition as a minor settlement and in the 5th with a small fort as well as a marching camp. In fact the 3rd edition, to the West of Exeter (ISCA), despite a wide scatter of small Roman finds only has a sum total of 5 small settlements and 3 mines or quarries marked on it as well as 5 milestones (at least two of the latter) are miles from any known Roman road. In comparison the 5th edition claims small forts at both Okehampton and Nanstallon but as you say nothing at Launceston, while there is no mention of any settlements in the area despite one villa and a major building being claimed near Redruth and the inclusion of about 6 'horde' sites. I have seen and heard the complaint from several historians and archaeologists that several fort sites and Roman roads have previously been listed in OS maps purely on the basis of antiquarian reports, some of which have now been pretty much disproved. Without reference to recent site reports it is therefore difficult to tell which, if any, of the forts shown on either of these maps in this area should be taken as fact. I do know that the general opinion of the SW has long been that the Roman military basically came in and conquered any resistance but before they left set up a few mining operations that continued for much of the Roman period.

Early onset Alzheimer's. Let's hope he doesn't lose the plot too soon. Terry has been half jokingly complaining of losing the plot for years since I first met him and it hasn't really slowed his writing down that much, so there is hope for plenty more years of output from him. As to his condition techniques for treating it or at least slowing it's effects down a bit have improved in recent years so again there is a similar chance for continuing improvements in treatment methods for the future.

The "24 Hour Museum" site has a couple of different images in their article, including one showing the distinctively shaped 1st century military ditch: http://www.24hourmuseum.org.uk/nwh_gfx_en/ART53684.html

There are several issues that need to be considered when trying to extrapolate where someone comes from whether you are using cultural, linguistic of some other form of archaeological evidence, which is why there are so many arguments about what people mean and/or should mean by as 'simple' a term as Celtic. I well remember the BBC supported survey "Blood of the Vikings" a few years back. This identified some of the difficulties in determining where people came from and even if their DNA could help identify Scandinavian ancestory. Danish/ Anglo Saxon blood was felt to be too closely related to southern English to be able to tell the difference and IIRC they tried to only use individuals from families which had lived in a given area for at least 6 generations. There is however an opposite problem when it comes to spoken languages where a given word may have more than one meaning. A couple that my parents knew both came from the islands of Scotland but nearly ended up in blows because of a misunderstanding over a word they used in a conversation in Gaelic. While both were native Gaelic speakers the same word meant a different thing on each of their islands so when asked for a table cloth the husband passed the wife a napkin. It is obvious that over time cultural influences spread I have heard the argument that the Anglo Saxon influence in England was only really a few individuals who took over in Eastern England without any large scale migration similar to what happened with the Normans a few centuries later - intermarrying with the native population and influencing that way. This is supported to some extent that words change their meaning and indeed different slang words develop so I suspect oral roots of some words or terms will always be in doubt even if they eventually pass into written language. At the end of the day the argument will probably continue until and if someone invents a time machine to go back and tries to carry out an on the spot survey but then that will probably end up with complaints that they have biased their results by the act of observation. Just picture the scene man with clipboard carrying out a survey in the Norwegien court: "Tell me Eric the Red have you considered taking a ship as far to the west as you can going via Iceland and Greenland to Vinland?"

To be totally neutral and to allow you to draw your own conclusions I would suggest browsing some of the information on the IPCC website about the individual reports to get a better flavour of how they are organised: http://www.ipcc.ch/press/index.htm It may be worth considering how many different nationalities were involved in writing different chapters for each of the reports (the WG I & III group are probably best for that): http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/press-ar4/wg1/wg1authors.pdf http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/press-ar4/wg3/wg3authors.pdf The fact sheets also provide information on the Peer Review process: http://www.ipcc.ch/press/ar4-factsheet1.htm Once you have a few names of individuals involved it may be worth checking out the organizations they belong to and/or what their qualifications are for their work - then compare the antecedents of a few of the climate change cynics and the organizations supporting them.