Callaecus

I'm not sure what your objection is. In what concerns me, the more people enjoy studying the past, so much the better. If you're concerned that amateurs will start doing all sorts of weird theories, then don't worry about that. First of all, an interpretation must be accepted by others, which means that gross errors wil be easily pointed before something is accepted. Secondly, a lot of fringe archaeology occurs today because archaeologists keep most of the knowledge for themselves. If people can participate more and more in archaeological activity and work and learn with prefessionals that's a good way of ensuring the disappearance of all sorts of weird interpretations.

I think that the battles that took place in the 16th century, when the Ottoman power was at its apex, were way more important to stop the Ottomans than the 1683 siege. Let's see: 1529 - First siege of Vienna, that stopped Ottoman advance into Central Europe 1565 - Siege of Malta 1571 - Battle of Lepanto These two battles stopped Ottoman advance into the Western Mediterranean And last, but definitely not least: 1509 - Battle of Diu (in India), a naval battle where the Portuguese defeated a Muslim armada ensuring in this way that Europeans and not Muslims gained control of the Indian Ocean and through it the riches of Asia. That the Ottoman danger in 1683 was not as great as that, can be seen in the fact that a few years later the Austrians conquered parts of the Ottoman empire.

The trade survived, but it was not as high as in the Roman Era. Besides, let's not forget that some (most?) of the non-Viking material found in Scandinavia was instead the result of their raiding activities. The Vikings were active in the Mediterranean, having even conquered the island of Sicily (more precisely, the Normans), which can also explain the Arabic coins.

That's an excellent point. Thank you. Snails have a larger opening, whereas in the picture provided in the link the opening of these shells appears to be very small. Notice, however, that I find reasonable the interpretation about the shells having been part of a necklace. Yet, I'd like to know more about the context in order to be more sure.

No, it will still take highly trained professionals to interpret the results. If your suggested technique becomes readily available to anyone with a passing interest, it would be a disaster for archaeology. Not really. Notice that in a "real" excavation, mistakes frequently occur; the problem is that such excavation is not reversible because excavation is destruction, which means that all we have at the end of the day is the data provided by the archaeologist, including its mistakes. Now, the great advantage of a digital excavation is that it is reversible, which means that you can make as many virtual digs as you wish and you can compare your results with others. From such comparisons lots of mistakes can be removed and a richer view of the past can be obtained. This means that amateurs can also participate, because any "mistake" that occurs is reversible.

There is a difference between reputation and results. And the truth is that there wasn't much that a small group of Vikings could do in a place so far away such as Vinland.

Yes. The Mongols and the Arabs were absolutely typical with their constant evasive manoeveurs. In the case of the Chinese let's remember Sun-Tzu's work where he argued that the best victories are those were a battle is not fought.

Well, we'll see that when the movie comes out (though I hope it won't). Agree on this point. I doubt however that I will be able to see it until the end. In the case of Vin's movies, I was never able to see beyond the first 10 minutes.

A short answer here: http://webexhibits.org/vinland/ A big one here: http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/arch/vinland/vinland.htm

The neighbouring African coast is a more likeley candidate... Hmm. I doubt that. Taking in consideration the form of Mediterranean ships in the Antiquity, the canoe is a more likely candidate for the boats used in that area during the prehistory.

The more recent theory would be more reliable if they had more samples from more sites. One is not enough. It's also interesting to notice a recent wave of works concerning the end of complex societies. Can't this be seen as an unconscious reflection of the fears that affect our contemporary society?

What is needed instead is the development of ground penetrating radars that allow to make an accurate registration of layers and archaeological remains below ground. In this way we could make a digital excavation in computers without the need of digging with shovels. This would be revolutionary because it would speed archaeological work and would allow us to have access to an enormous number of past remains and , as such, to have a better idea of the past, much of which is still fragmentary and speculative. This would also allow to a lot amateurs to be archaeologists since anyone can do a digital excavation.

No, we're ~2000 years behind Good answer and a more correct one, since our geometrical view of the universe was greatly influenced by the Greeks.

This is just another example on how the past is constructed in order to serve political agendas in the present.

This is indeed sensationalism. However, it must be noted that "holocaust" only has became a dirty word after WW2. The truth is that genocide was and is regularly done in order to get rid once and for all of some die-hard enemies. And the truth is that the Romans did a number of them, such as against the Cathaginians and the Helvetians.

As the Monty Python said in Life of Brian: All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us? Delicious...

Shocking news, indeed! It seems that mainstream Britain is no fan of Rome.

I think Favonius Cornelius is probably correct in his analysis of early Roman warfare based in warbands. The hoplite formation and style of warfare is a Greek invention and one that was later adopted by the Romans through the Greeks living in Southern Italy. Obviouslly, it is not impossible that Greek equipment was sometimes used (maybe it was better or more prestigious, for example), but that does not mean the Greek style of Warfare was also used. To make a modern analogy, the AK-47, was initially used in Soviet armies but it was also later used by guerrilla groups in the Third World.

Very weak article. The author assumes that: 1) Becase Caesar's invasion of Britain left few archaeological remaisn then something similar could also have happened in Ireland. That is a forced analogy and the same could be said for any other place outside the Roman empire such as India. 2) The existence of contacts at the high level between Romans and Hibernians; another forced argument; Pantagathus and Bryaxis Hecatee have already provided a good reply. And the author of the article is the keeper of the Ulster Museum. I wonder what kind of archaeology the Irish are doing?...

One thing I enjoy doing about historical movies is to try to figure out what political aspects concerning our contemporary world influenced it. From what I red in this thread and in the link provided by Primus Pillus, it seems that the purpose of this movie is above all anti-American. Let's start wit the analogies: Rome was the greatest empire ever (a word that today has became ugly), whereas the USA is frequently compared to an empire. Carthage was in Africa, an area that today is part of the Third World; the USA has been and continues frequently engaged in wars in the Third World. So, since Hannibal defeated the Romans in a number of battles and the movie pretends only to give emphasis to them (and perhaps make a lame excuse of his defeat in Zama), one can see here an attempt of portraying Hannibal as an anti-imperialist, Third-World hero, with thw implicit assumption that the "imperialist" Americans can also be defeated today. Actually, this theory gains even more weight if Denzel Washington, who is Black (a colour associated with the Third World), is chosen to perform Hannibal, who was White as one can see in this Roman bust: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bust_of_Hannibal.jpg In this way, the movie also has a racist twist, since it subtly becomes anti-White, being all Whites seen as imperialists.

John Keegan in his book A History of Warfare argues that Eastern Warfare was mostly based in surprise attacks and evasive manoeveurs. The purpose was to caught the enemy unaware and avoid as many casualties as possible on your side. On the other side, Western Warfare, was developped by the Greeks during the Classical period and was based in close combat, being the purpose to settle the dispute once and for all in the battle field instead of wasting time with prolongued campaigns as in te East.

I can assure you that they do not exist in Southern Europe; only in some Northern European bogs.

Taking in consideration that they were hanging gardens it would be a bit difficult to find them in the archaeologicl record; at the most, only the mechanisms that sent water up would be found. But as Phil25 rightly said, the place is not yet fully excavated; besides I agree with those that say that one can believe in the written sources; after all, the remaining wonders of the world existed and one of them - the pyramids - is stil around.

Hmm, interesting article, but I would be a bit careful with the conclusion that the perfuration of the mollusc shells was intended for necklaces, since it could have been done to take out the food. The thesis about the necklace would gain more strength if there were also other shells in the vicinity that were not perfurated; however, the article doesn't say nothing about the context of the findings.

The conclusion of the article is not correct: we do not descend from a single person, since there were also other ancestors; instead, by coincidence, the genes of a single person (it could have been more) who lived many thousands of years ago can be found in all humans today.