Melvadius

I agree that both provide good information although froma glance through the Wikipedia site I think it is more aimed at permanent camps rather than the temporary marching camps. I did find another site of interest which provides illustrations as well as the calculations and related information showing how a marching camp may have been laid out (which refers at least in part to Pseudo-hyginus): http://www.garyb.0catch.com/camp3_dimensio...dimensions.html

"A rare hoard of Roman coins has been found in Bath at the site of a new city centre hotel. Around 150 coins have so far been unearthed in the run-up to work on the new Gainsborough Hotel and Thermal Spa. But the Lower Borough Walls site is expected to yield more than 1,000 coins once the whole haul has been examined. The find has been greeted with excitement by archaeologists because some of the coins are thought to date from the middle of the third century, one of the most poorly represented periods for coins in Britain...." Further details at: http://www.thisisbath.co.uk/displayNode.js...;pNodeId=163047

GO! You have spread my evil nickname to yet another innocent user! Sorry KlingAn a slight mistype I blame the spell 'chequer' that I should have been using.

Klingon the book you need to read is Miller and DeVito's 1994 translation of Polybius and Pseudo-Hyginus "Fortification of the Roman Camp, ,Chicago, Ares. In this book Pseudo-Hyginus uses the example of a mixed force including the Emperor his bodyguard and a mixed force of allied tribes to describe how a marching camp would be layed out: There is too much information to really break it down here and there is only limited indexing but a few items may be relevant including in he opening paragaph stating: '...One tent takes up 10 feet, an increase of tent size takes up 2 feet [and] shelters 8 men. A full century has 80 men; there will be 10 tents, which run 120 feet in length. Indeed in regard to the half-lane's width of 30 feet, 10 feet are allowed for the tent 15 feet for the weapons [and] 8 feet for the pack animals, [hence] there are 24 feet...' Paragraph 16 mentions horsemen being allocated 3 feet of space while paragraph 29 along with descriptions of mixed allied tribal units disposition in the camp mentions camels being allocated 5 feet along with their riders. Polybius obviously trying to describe a Republican period force isn't as exact in his measurements as Pseudo-Hyyginus but in describing the tribunes tents in para 27 states that: "The tribunes tents are ranged in a right line, which is parallel to the chosen side of the square, and fifty feet away from this side. The intervening area is occupied by their horses, their pack animals and other baggage." Para 31 is fairly extensive and somewhat confusing but states [in my view possibly hopefully or unrealistically] that the "rampart is 200 feet away from tents on every side" it goes on to mention that in this open area used to sort out troops before leaving the camp "all the spoils and animals that are captured from the enemy are kept safe at night". BTW most mentions of camp followers relate to vici that became established around permanent forts although I believe that one of the issues with the loss of the three legions with Varus was the fact that as the legions had been based in the same location for several years they did have camp followers moving along with them.

I cannot give a definitive answer to this question as I don't carry specific references I can quote however although this theory has been circulatiing for years I am not convinced that it is correct . Most archaeological work on bone finds traditionally concentrates on total volume bone and where possible some sexing and aging however even on cavalry sites the amount of horse bone can be fairly limited and often it is impossible to say what the horse was used for. Horse equipment can give an indication of some dimensions of horses but you need to be a real expert to extrapolate size from the majority of equipment finds. That said the Fell Pony museum believe that there is a body of evidence (on the basis of particular bone dimensions) to support the view that the average size of a horse in Iron Age Britain was around 12.1 hands (equivalent to the Exmoor Pony today) but in the Roman period there were two larger distinct types found one around 13.3 hh and the second 14-15hh. c/f http://www.fellpony.f9.co.uk/fells/rom_dark/size.htm N.B. A similar but opposite argument seems to have been made regarding warhorse sizes in the Medieval period - claiming the largest size horses averaged 17hh - this also is being called into question c/f http://www.florilegium.org/files/ANIMALS/w...e-size-art.html. I spoke to an animal bone expert on this topic a couple of years back and is opinion supports the above findings that in pre-Roman Britain horse sizes were slightly smaller but during and after the Roman period sizes for the larger horses were fairly stable at the larger size. Obviously this doesn't confirm what size of horse was used for which purpose but I have also been told that the Roman's had specialized horse breeding area's so it is logical to suppose they would have used whatever size horse could carry a mounted man and his equipment. During a re-enactment event I did speak to a couple of cavalry re-enactors who used slightly smaller sized horses but despite their being described as pony size on the following link I don't think that they are all that small c/f http://www.roman-empire.net/diverse/reenac...ald-2007-2.html

I think the obvious one is the thumbs up gesture which is commonly taken as a good luck sign I have heard it argued by various Latin scholars that the Roman's would have actually used the thumb's down gesture as a sign that a gladiator had fought well so should live. I couldn't remember all the details of the arguments but have found a website that talks about the thumbs up gesture which argues that in the arena a thumb pressed flat to the hand was used to signify life while a 'stabbing' thumb was used to signify death. Bernd Wechner apparently is quoting from Desmond Morris et al in stating the view that the confusion in meaning may arise from a mistranslation of the i]Pollice verso[/i] or turned thumb gesture used to signify death in the arena. 'Pollice verso does not mean a down-turned thumb it simply means a turned thumb -- one that is moved in some unspecified way. No particular direction can be assumed. The posture of the thumbs of those wishing to spare the gladiator was pollice compresso -- compressed thumbs.' http://bernd.wechner.info/Hitchhiking/Thumb/

A good thought but to be honest a dated inscription is another example of terminus post quem, as with a few minor exceptions you are generally dealing with an item which cannot be earlier than the date on the inscription. The exceptions tend to be with details rather than broad dates. Fairly modern large public buildings often have foundation stones built into the structure early on and I remember hearing of at least one Victorian period instance where the person named did not dedicate the building and a year later than the date inscribed. Roman dedications tended to be at the top of buildings or on public monuments and often were in better quality stone than locally available. In large parts of Britain where good quality building stone is fairly rare you can have some dating problems due to dedication stones being moved and re-used for other purposes so not in-situ with the buildings you would like to identify.

?

Finding a nice little stone with an inscription on it - most of the Roman period archaeologists working in Britain today would love to find such an item. As much of the UK has little in the way of precisely dated inscriptions we have to make do with the methods indicated above. Mind you on my last dig was at a major Romano-British multi-phase probably religious site, which dates from the late Pre-Roman Iron Age through to at least the fourth Century AD. It has been frustrating in its total lack of inscriptions, so has necessitated reliance on dating of artefacts for feature dating. In my final week I was asked to clean up a corner section of a trench by removing a layer of cobbles to confirm that everything under it was part of the same layer only to find the start of a totally unsuspected wall feature cutting into the trench from the direction of what we believe is 'semi-amphitheatre' probably used for religious activity including plays and/or possibly some form of gladiatorial contests. (There have been a lot of votive items such as remains of sacrifices and deliberately broken pottery found around this part of the site). After planning the wall I had to take a section through it which was done for part of the time with the help of the deputy trench supervisor who got the section which contained the fragments of about a third of a Roman pot which had been built into the wall layered as a small stack. OK I was a bit miffed about not getting the section with the pot, however that pot along with a piece of a different pot that I found at the base of the wall may well provide the terminus post quem for that part of the site was very pleasing to know.

Allowing for some slight translation problems which are perfectly understandable this is a very good article covering all the major dating issues. I would add in one important archaeological dating term, which may have been missed accidently, this is terminus post quem - the absolute date that is the earliest a stratigraphic layer can be. The most obvious example is where you examine a structure (e.g. a wall or part of a building) and find a dated coin either built into the structure or else underneath it on an undisturbed layer. In such cases, although it can be later the structure cannot be earlier than the date on the coin. This system can be expanded with pottery or other items where they can be similarily dated through association with other finds that can be dated using one or more of the the other investigative techniques. An example would be the date range of particular types of pottery where the pottery kiln site(s) has been found and through kiln residue both the last firing date of the kiln (and ideally also the earliest known firings from nearby kilns) and the types of pottery being made can be determined.

I don't know enough about the Sybil story to really answer your question, I've only got two or three old prose translations of the Aenied currently to hand, but would observe that from a quick net search there are probably at least five or six ancient sources who make references to the Cumae Sybil. However each seems to have used different names in referring to her, which may indicate that there were a succession of Sybil's rather than just one, alternatively no one knew what her name really was and made up their own. If there were a succession of Sybil's then it seems possible that she would have chosen her own successor either from supplicants who initially served as her attendant or more formally as part of a 'religious' community. Which brings me to Graves, while he made use of Seutonius and Tacitus as some of the basis for his work, I couldn't in all honesty say that what he wrote has been taken as being completely historical fact. As far as the Sybil and her putative mummified predecessors are concerned possibly someone else knows the answer?

I think the problem/association of tattoo's with the military arises from translations of Vegetius which include the 'claim' that men enrolled in the legion were given the 'military mark'. There is nothing to suggest that 'if' they were given such a 'mark' that it was necessarily a tattoo and I understand from threads I have previously read elsewhere that in Roman literature there is strong suggestions that only slaves or criminal's were normally given tattoos. I don't know if the Vegetius translation is accurate regarding the 'military mark' or if it is another case of a poor translation or interpolation for either missing sections or the original text being incorrectly copied and so corrupted during the copying process.

Why thanks for the mention, I'm glad you like the photographs. Another Tunisian Roman site we visited that I believe is well worth a visit in person if you ever get the chance.

If you do a Google search for "Galen Menstruation" you will find that several people cite Galen's views on the subject, and incidently Hippocrates. Unfortunately with a quick look I didn't spot anyone actually citing full references to the specific passage from Galen that it comes from.

I cannot say for certain as this isn't something that my references directly touch on. However Suzanne Dixon (1992) "The Roman Family" does make some reference in her footnotes to Amudsen, D.W. & Diers, C.J. (1970) "The Age of Menopause in Classical Greece and Rome", Human Biology 42, 79-86 so that may be worth looking up if you are interested.

I'm sorry to disagree but under UK copyright Law, where the book was first published, I can find no law of 'Fair use' which mentions 'brevity' allowing the publication of complete chapters. Works remain in full copyright for 70 years from the year in which the author died - in Richmond's case 1965 +70 years. Is only 70 years from publication where the author is unknown i.e. 2035. It may be different within the US where 'Fair use' is acceptable; however in the UK, as far as I am aware only 'Fair Dealing' is allowed and this is much more restrictive. It also appears to take precedence in International Law where the UK is the country of first publication before 1957 and effectively only allows inclusion of a small amount of text as part of making a critical point about a complete book. As part of personal research copying sections for your own personal use, for as long as you needed would of course be different but placing non-temporary copies into the public domain without the author's consent does appear to be in breach of 'Fair Dealing'. Unless a UK copyright lawyer can tell me differently. c/f http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p09_fair_use http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law...ther_exceptions

As you have been to both Pompeii and Herculaneum it is probably superfluous for me to mention that several of the fresco's from both towns depict beds, and in some instances bedding, including what seems to be a decorated blanket. Obviously it is difficult to come to any real conclusion about the use or otherwise of toga's as bedding but I am sure that if on some cold night a senator was feeling the cold and he had run out of spare slaves he may well have grabbed his toga for that extra bit of warmth. I am sure that most of us have, at some time or other, felt the need to throw any available spare clothing over ourselves on some extremely cold aboutnight when the heating and existing bedding seems inadequate. I won't go into detail but a few years back a certain traveller in ladies tights found himself cut off in his car by deep snow during a blizzard in the Highlands of Scotland a few years back and suffice to say that he made full use of his sample case and survived the experience relativel unscathed but probably deeply embarrassed;) As far as mosquito netting is concerned I don't recall ever seeing anything depicted in frescoes that could have been such - I rather suspect that the Romans would have made use of smoking braziers or similar to try and disuade biting insects. Ultimately this probably wasn't too successful given the number of Roman towns such as Paestum and Ostia, that had to be abandoned due to malaria infestations by the ninth century AD as some of the previously navigable rivers silted up and malaria carrying, mosquito infested swamps developed.

As you have guessed the type of beds and bedding used would depend upon the social class of the user. There si an Etruscan bed in the Vatican which is basically made of strips of metal in a latticework pattern on which a mattress would be placed - presumable stuffed with feathers or anything else that was suitably soft. http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=h...m%3D1%26hl%3Den There is evidence for other high class couches and beds in several Roman museums inlcuding the Bardo in Tunisia where the remains of a high class bed was recovered from a shipwreck. There is evidence in both Pompeii and Herculaneum for a range of beds including wooden beds and a variety of matteresses and coverings. Possibly those in the worst position were the slaves especially those working in the brothels in Pompeii who only had stone benches with at best a thin mattress or blanket covering the stone. C/f http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=h...l%3Den%26sa%3DN

I must admit that I have vague memory of once hearing someone talking about a triumphal Arch being taken down in Rome, however I discovered that the LacusCurtius site has an extract from Platner's guide which may explain the confusion as Platner comments on the Arch that: "In the Middle Ages it formed part of the stronghold of the Frangipani, a chamber was constructed in the upper part of the archway, and the level of the roadway was lowered considerably, exposing the travertine foundations. The injury to the structure was so great that it was taken down in 1822 and rebuilt by Valadier, who restored a large part of the attic and the outer half of both piers in travertine. " On that basis it may be that the author's of your book have conflated the Middle Ages activity around the Arch with something else, or possibly simply made a mistake in thinkling that there was another Arch which was removed rather than being taken down as part of being restored. c/f http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Gaze...scriptions.html http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Gaze...i.html#Valadier

To take account of possible differences in personal beliefs and/or faiths, I would like to add in wishing one and all of you all the best of the season. As the Scots would say 'Here's hoping for a Happy and Prosperous New Year' and 'Lang may yer Lum reek' (translation - 'may the your chimney smoke for a long time'; therefore a wish for a long life) . Melvadius

This may be a silly question but isn't this book still in copyright?

Melvadius, can you give me a link for that programme? To be honest with you this kind of stuff is not really my line of study - I am used to reading much more sober stuff - but I do need some material with which to debate all those bizarros and whackos out there that would swallow any codswallop that comes their way and expect others to do the same. I must admit Hancock is new to me, but back in my adolescence I was familiar with other kooks like Berlitz and von Daniken that held so many people in their thrall a few decades ago. A discussion of the 2000 'recut' programme along with transcripts of both the BSC ruling and the Horizon programme itself 'Atlantis Reborn Again' can be found at this link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2000/...bornagain.shtml

Does that mean that you think the premise of the documentary is self-evident or that you disagree with what the experts in the documentary are saying? I must admit my first reaction on reading the original posting was "who is Graham Hancock?" Then I started to watch the video and it alll came flooding back --- just another of the effectivley limitless number of conspiracy theorists who trot out a succession of "experts" and wild theories based on the flimsiest of evidence, while totally ignoring well known and equally well founded archaeological and scientific evidence. Who can foget that fabulous BBC investigation back in 1999? Using his own methods it found more correlation between the location of a random selection of New York buildings and the stars above them than the Cambodian Temple complex Hancock claimed had been built influenced by the position of the same constellations. Incidently Hancock had totally ignored the sequence of construction, dedication inscriptions and another 20 or 30 temples that didn't fit his theory. He and his partner in the programme filed 10 complaints between them to the Broadcasting Standards Commission but only one very minor complaint was partially upheld about one of his 'experts' comments not being fully included in the programme. The BBC then included it in a very slightly remade programme and if anything the "expert" made Hancock look even more of a charlatan or (should I say?) a somewhat misguided person. On the basis of past experience I think I will continue to pass on watching or indeed speculating at any depth if there is even a grain of possibility in any more of his theorems (AKA as usually drivel) if I can possibly avoid them.

Not that I know of. The one obvious problem is that umpteen thousand 'New Age': Travellers, Druids, etc. mill around Stonehenge at summer, which would probably cause major disruption to any Webcast then and it has never really geared up to emphasising its Winter Solstice aspect, although some people do attend then. As far as I am aware however, the major problem is that key elements of the structure have collapsed, which would be needed for properly observing either Solstice, unlike at Maes Howe and Newgrange where they have survived being parts of the more solid cairn structures.