JGolomb
-
Posts
315 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Static Pages
News
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Downloads
Posts posted by JGolomb
-
-
20,000...that seems like a lot of artifacts for one place.
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
Melvadius - very cool. Are you a professional archaeologist? Where is this dig?
-
Hesse unveils fragments of Roman emperor statue found in stream
Published: 27 Aug 09 15:55 CET
Online: http://www.thelocal.de/sci-tech/20090827-21537.html
Hessian Science Minister Eva K
-
Wow...this is something else. A couple of classic lines:
They say only frequent counter-attacks with increasing force would eradicate the fictional creatures.
In their scientific paper, the authors conclude that humanity's only hope is to "hit them [the undead] hard and hit them often. They added: "It's imperative that zombies are dealt with quickly or else... we are all in a great deal of trouble.
I have heard about this, I think, in just about every news source known to man! I would love to know why scientists are not doing something with this money on "Zombie Research" that is useful to humanity! Not that I am not into the dead some-day walking the earth, eatting everyones brains and here comes the next evolution of man...or anything....just wow...in todays world...this is all they can do is research Zombie attacks?
-
Erik,
I'm by no means an expert, but here's what little I know...
- They did coexist, but I'm not sure for how long
- The Romans were aware of the Huns and the potential danger they presented in the later years of the Empire (at least late 300s/early 400s)
- Attila was born the same year, 406, that a mass of several hundred Germanic tribes walked across the frozen Rhine and entered Gaul. This was a key moment in the decline of the Empire and is fictionalized (in a terrific sequence of battles) in Wallace Breem's "Eagle in the Snow".
- One of the pressures on the tribes in Germania may have been the Huns migration westward. The huns already had a terrible reputation and so many tribes wanted to get out of the way. Italy was still strong enough to fend off attacks within Italy itself. Geography was limited to the North. The Huns were coming from the East...and so the only direction available was West across the Rhine into poorly defended Gaul.
Hi there,I am new to this cool forum and found a place on which I can post my question and that is the following :
I am interested in the history of the Huns and the Romans together, I want to know if they coexisted in a time some 2.ooo years ago or even before Christ.
What was their relationship, where they fighting each other, which I think they did.
Where the Huns a threat to the Roman Empire and did they attack the Romans at times ?
What time schedule can you give me of the coexistance of the Huns and the Romans ?
I like to thank you for your thought.
Erik.
-
What is the woman poisoner's name who Livia got to before Agrippina's people did during Piso's trial?
Martina?
-
From Times Online
August 4, 2009
The 10 most historically inaccurate movies
Interesting look at some terrific films:
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol...icle6738785.ece
#3 on the list is 10,000 B.C. which my kids and I enjoyed for the pure spectacle, but it was a little tough to get pas the Wolly Mammoths helping to build the pyramids. And basically everything that was supposed to be in 10,000 B.C.
#8 is Gladiator which I know this group will enjoy. Here's what it says:
Joaquin Phoenix
-
From Discovery.com:
Ancient Scylletium Found? Don
-
A new archaeological dig has begun at a Roman town in Norfolk to establish whether there was a much older settlement on the site.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england...olk/8219620.stm
-
Nephele - thank you very much! I like it. :-)
Quick question...I understand what group I'm in: Plebes and how I rise in social standing by being more, well, social.
But what is the "Miles" designation? And how is that controlled?
Thanks
Jgolomb, you belong to a gens that took so much pride in having come from the oldest Latin town -
Thank you. I'll order it when it's released in about a month.
I'm about to put in an Amazon order and it looks like you enjoyed the Forgotten Legion by Kane. How does it match up against the Scarrow series?
J
I've recently finished the third book in the Genghis Khan (Conqueror) trilogy by Conn Iggulden, I know he gets a pretty bad press around here for his "stretching" of the truth but for out and out fast paced entertaining storytelling IMO he's one of the best around.Genghis Kahn, Life, Death and Resurection by John Man.
Ancient Warfare: A Very Short Introduction by Harry Sidebottom.
Currently reading Warrior of Rome: Fire in the East pt 1 also by Harry Sidebottom.
Think I might get the book recently reviewed by Ursus called Black Ships by Jo Graham, sounds like quite an interesting read.
Gaius - it appears that Warrior of Rome is just being published in the US this fall. Sounds like it was popular overseas? Did you like it?
Jason
I think the book was fairly popular over here, It didn't break any records or anything like that but on the whole I think it was pretty well received. I for one thoroughly enjoyed it, I thought it had a great storyline, interesting characters and above all else it was very well researched.
The second book in the series "King of Kings" has just been released over here, I haven't got round to reading it yet but judging by the reviews I've read it appears to be even better than the first book.
-
Nephele - I just came across this thread. VERY cool. I just recently joined the forum and love having a place to go to share my excitement around Roman history.
But I'm sad...because I don't have a cool name like everyone else.
So here's my scrambled name: Jsona Air Obmglo
Here it is smooshed together into a single scramble: GlorsNmaIooajb
And I'm a dude. :-)
Do you need anything else?
-
Reading The Aztecs by Michael Smith. Fascinating! The Aztecs (and maybe the Incas) are the only Native American tribes in which I had an interest. I believe it is because the Aztecs at least have a few things in common with Rome.
Ursus - I have a deep appreciate for Aztec and Inca pre-columbian and conquest-era history. My office has a connection to Hiram Bingham and his discoveries at Machu Picchu and so my heart is in the Andes.
However I've done some reading on the Aztecs and one of the most memorable books I've ever read...and I mean I keep having flashes of memory from this book...is "Aztec" by Gary Jennings. It's a beast (just over 1000 pages), but it's deep, and expansive and very touching. And I felt like I was learning something on top of it.
-
I've recently finished the third book in the Genghis Khan (Conqueror) trilogy by Conn Iggulden, I know he gets a pretty bad press around here for his "stretching" of the truth but for out and out fast paced entertaining storytelling IMO he's one of the best around.
Genghis Kahn, Life, Death and Resurection by John Man.
Ancient Warfare: A Very Short Introduction by Harry Sidebottom.
Currently reading Warrior of Rome: Fire in the East pt 1 also by Harry Sidebottom.
Think I might get the book recently reviewed by Ursus called Black Ships by Jo Graham, sounds like quite an interesting read.
Gaius - it appears that Warrior of Rome is just being published in the US this fall. Sounds like it was popular overseas? Did you like it?
Jason
-
I just finished "Eagle in the Snow" by Wallace Breem. It was a far departure from Scarrow and Duffy and took a good 50-75 pages before it sucked me in.
But I'm still thinking about it. I think that, for me, defines a special kind of book.
-
i am not sure why our current gallery is not suitable, you can comment, you can put up description, you can make categories, you can rate it, you can discuss it, anything i am missing? http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?autoco...si&img=1342
cheers
viggen
Viggen - A couple of quick questions about the gallery.
1. I'm able to access the galleries from you link, but for some reason I don't see a galleries link on the main page of the forums. Is it under a higher level topic? Or has today been too long of a week for me already. :-)
NEVERMIND, I FOUND THE LINK AT THE TOP OF THE FORUMS PAGES. :-/
2. I wasn't able to rate images. Might I not have the proper access?
Thanks,
Jason
-
Melvadius,
I guess it ultimately comes down to money: how much there is and how it's distributed. I'm sure the politics of archaeology are pretty ugly in Itay as well.
It's still remains a surprise that there's very little relative infrastructure to something so foundational (historically and financially) as the remains of the Roman Forum.
Thank you again for your insights.
-Jason
Melvadius - thank you for the terrific insight. I should have been more aware that the underpinnings of Italian politics would cause more issues than dollars specifically (sorry...Euros).I would imagine that with the wealth of archeological activity throughout Italy, the underlying mechanisms and bureaucracies must be rather dense. Are archaeological work and related sites well funded in Italy? I would imagine they're such a proportionally high driver of tourism that they'd be near the front of the line to receive funding.
Are sensitivities still very high around Mussolini? It's hard to have proper context and understanding coming from an American education and perspective.
Thanks for your detailed response...
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
-
I just posted a reply to a Scarrow review (from a few years ago) in the book review section and then came across this thread.
Scarrow's work is simply fun. It's not literature, it's not particularly deep. But it's just fun and enjoyable. And in between a good serious history, it's nice to be able to just let go and enjoy the ride.
And there's enough solid history in it that it's spurred me on to find out more from the early British Roman era.
I have to side with Lanista and NN on this one, I'm a big fan of the Eagle series too. Macro and Cato are great characters, they are always involved in some sort of rip roaring, life threatening adventure in the Roman world, it's good to see how their lives and friendship evolves throughout the series of novels.For me it's a bit of light hearted release from some of the more heavy in depth factual books I like to read, but still focusing on the topic I love.
I totally see where The Augusta and others are coming from but like I've said many times before, I don't read these kind of novels to learn new things about Rome and it's people, I consider myself fairly knowledgeable about the subject already, I read them because I enjoy the characters, the fast paced action, the entertainment and most of all because it's about Rome and all things concerning the Roman world.
No historical fiction author can write these kind of novels with out thoroughly researching the period it's set in first, if they did then it would just get laughed of the shelves. Yes it's true that the truth is sometimes stretched a little bit, sometimes a lot in Igguldens case, but at the end of the day it's still based (if sometimes loosely) on fact. And if after reading these books it makes even just one person want to get a little bit more knowledgeable about Ancient Rome and maybe even study it as we do then surely it's got to be a good thing.
Simon Scarrow's books are a good, well written, light hearted Roman read but remember at the end of the day it is just a novel.
-
All,
Sorry for joining the convo a little late...
I wasn't specifically aware of the Vinland map, but I was wondering if this group had seen Marco Polo's "Map with Ship"?
Here's an article that compares a number of maps that supposedly present pieces of the Americas before they were "discovered":
http://www.marcopolovoyages.com/LibCongres...rThompson4.html
Here's a more detailed look at the Marco Polo maps:
http://www.marcopolovoyages.com/Articles/M...wWorldMaps.html
Another famous map called the Waldseemuller map is the first map to use the word America, was published in 1507, but appears to have a pretty distinct and correct (but skewed visually) presentation of the WEST coast of the Americas. Check the bottom left here:
http://www.umc.sunysb.edu/surgery/waldseemuller-loc-big.jpg
While there are arguments on both sides, pulling back to look at the bigger picture, it certainly feels like there's enough evidence in aggregate to presume that Christopher Columbus was not the first non-native-American to come across the Americas. Who and when specifically? It's impossible to tell. Either way, Columbus was the first to break the news to the world (though he still thought he'd found the Indies until the day he died).
-
I'm way late in piping in, but I just discovered the "Eagle" series by Scarrow and share the enthusiasm with the other posters in this thread. It's a fun series to read. I'm in the middle of #3 - "Where the Eagle Hunts", and so far I like the second book best of the first three.
Nobody's going to accuse these books of being too deep, but they're just downright fun.
-
I thought this book was a terrifically fun read. What it lacks in depth it more than makes up for in excitement. The characters are a little crudely drawn, and after just watching Gladiator for the first time in a few years, I realize that much of the core plot was ripped straight from the movie. But as Skarr warned in the review, I had trouble putting it down. I wondered how Duffy would be able to differentiate one gladiator battle from the next, but he imaginatively twists and turns the scenes to make each one individual and unique.
The dialogue is a bit obvious and made-for-tv, but at the end of the story, I couldn't help but care about Quintus, Lindani and even Amazonia. And I couldn't help but hate Lucius.
For long commutes or flights, or if just seeking a diversionary story, I'd highly recommend this.
Another review has been completed for our Roman Books section, thanks to community member Skarr.From the very first line in the action packed first book that author James Duffy crafted in this series on the gladiators of the empire, you are transported to a gory, violent world that was ancient Rome, particularly in the arenas that recreated much of the action that the common plebeians hungered for. Packed to the gills, these sand filled arenas provided most of the entertainment that the weary citizens of Rome looked for, a vicarious substitute that provided all the excitement, danger and blood in a relatively safe environment, except for the occasional riot or accident of fate, when wild animals were set loose into the spectator stands, claiming several innocent lives....
...read the full review of Sand of the Arena by James Duffy
-
Terrific thread here...sorry if I'm jumping in way late.
I have a couple of thoughts, however.
The Question: What is the definition of "greatest"? It's impossible to say in the context of this conversation. Most popular? Most impactful? "Best"? The world of sports has a notion of an MVP - Most Valuable Player. Generally this means the best overall player of a given sport. However the specific definition, or rule, when votes are cast for such an award define MVP as "the player most valuable to his team". I always try to think in terms of this: what would team A have done if MVP Candidate So-and-So hadn't played for them this season. Often times it's pretty clear that if an MVP candidate was on a team, that team would've sucked gladiuses. More often than not, votes are cast on a much broader and vague set of conditions.
1. Caesar was a game changer. He was the catalyst for a new Rome and you can't deny the impact he had. I'm a hockey fan, so I'll go with that flow for a moment. Before Bobby Orr played in the NHL, defensemen didn't score. They might've score a few here and there, but by and large, their job was to prevent goals, not to score; stop the other team and get the puck up to your offense. But Bobby Orr changed that perspective forever. Every team now HAS to have a defenseman or two that can pitch in with goals here and there...AND stop the other team from scoring. Caesar changed the landscape for Rome and in that context you can make a real strong argument than he was the Greatest Roman Figure.
Question: What if Caesar had not existed? Would a different general have recast what an Emperor is? Sulla served in a similar role shortly before Caesar's rise, but clearly didn't have the lasting impact of Caesar.
2. Caesar changed the rules of the game, but left well before the new rules were established. Augustus had to pick up those pieces and remake what had been undone. He was the first player of the game of which Caesar changed the rules. His rise to the top is arguably more fantastic than Caesars and his legacy is more foundational than what Caesar was able to do during his short time at the top. Augustus' famous quote is that he started with a city of brick and left with a city of marble. The marbleized city of Rome is one of the most foundational images of the Empire.
Question: What if Augustus had not existed? Or what if Mark Antony had beaten Augustus at the Battle of Actium? I doubt Mark Antony (and Cleopatra?) would've ruled the same way as Augustus (and Livia?). Would a different ruler have established as solid of a presence as Augustus, or recast how the Roman government should run?
3. In terms of longest lasting impact, I think you could make an argument for Hadrian. He's considered learned, worldly, artistic, sensitive and he stabilized the Empire. While Caesars' and Augustus' lasting impacts can fill volumes and speak to governing philosophies and strategies, Hadrian left the world ever-lasting monuments to the Empire: Pantheon, Hadrian's Wall, Hadrian's Villa, and a seemingly never-ending list of monuments and buildings not just in Rome, but all across the great expanse of the Empire.
Question: What if Hadrian had not existed? Surely there would still be monuments, they'd just be different. But perhaps not quite as pervasive or long lasting. Other Emperors certainly built monuments and often to themselves, but it dosen't seem that any did quite in the expansive way that Hadrian did.
-
Melvadius - thank you for the terrific insight. I should have been more aware that the underpinnings of Italian politics would cause more issues than dollars specifically (sorry...Euros).
I would imagine that with the wealth of archeological activity throughout Italy, the underlying mechanisms and bureaucracies must be rather dense. Are archaeological work and related sites well funded in Italy? I would imagine they're such a proportionally high driver of tourism that they'd be near the front of the line to receive funding.
Are sensitivities still very high around Mussolini? It's hard to have proper context and understanding coming from an American education and perspective.
Thanks for your detailed response...
Hello JColomb, and welcome aboard! When I visited the forum I noticed the lack of seating, which was a bit irritating. Regarding reconstructing buildings, I believe the Curia was indeed reconstructed round about 1930 - hence its intact state. I suppose the reasons for not continuing this practice are many and varied; some archaeologists see this as further damaging an ancient building, whilst holders of budgets would say their money has to be spread evenly to finance the upkeep of what is already there.In addition to the obvious financial constraints with the sheer number of standing (and excavated) Roman remains there is also the issue that much of the reconstruction which has historically been done in Italy and in parts of its former Empire was under the auspices of Mussolini (c/f Ara Pacis being moved to its current site and the reconstruction of the Theatre at Ostia top name but two). Since Mussolin was toppled there has been an understandable backlash to the 'political imperative' under whcih much of the previous reconstruction was undertaken -(the greateness of Italy's future reflected in the 'reconstructed' remains from the past) so the idea of 'reconstruction' per se in Italy has since then generally been renounced.
The other issue whcih affects most archaeological reconstructions is where material is missing have the archaeologists or whoever ahs been given the job of reconstruction correctly interpreted what was orignally there - I haev seen examples of reconstruction drawings which were mad of the same building which are markedly different by three different artists.
The argument iwith any reconstruction s generally that it must remain possible to unpick modern reconstruction interpretations for the orignal material unlike the situation at Saalburg in Germany reconstrcuted on the same site under the orders of the Kaiser in the early 20th Century. The scale of destruction of original material that such ptojects involved has led in most instances to an aversion amongst most modern authorities to even attempting reconstruction on the same site -they now generally only build small scale reconstructions on relatively 'clean' or at least fully excavated areas c/f in Britain the interpretations of the turf and stone wall built at Vindolanda just off the middle of Hadrian's Wall and the more recent 'reconstructed' bath house at Segendunum and 'commadents' quarters and barrack block at Arbeia at the eastern end of Hadrian's Wall.
Melvadius
-
I just came across the UNRV site and it's wonderful. I'm excited to be part of such an exciting and robust community.
I recently visited Rome with my wife for our 15th anniversary. I'm a huge world history buff and she's all about American history. She couldn't get her arms around who Hadrian was, what he did, when he was from, and why we kept seeing things he built. I told her that if it was Ben Franklin she'd know every niggling detail. She agreed.
At any rate...I saw this blog post from Mary Beard reviewing the state and condition of the Roman Forum:
http://timesonline.typepad.com/dons_life/2...-any-worse.html
I loved the Forum, but there were a few possible improvements that struck me as well.
1. The modern art that you can see in the picture on the blog above was horrible. I'm not a big modern art fan, but really? Big Blobbie things right next to the Temple of the Vestal Virgins? I assume it's a ploy to generate more traffic (and more ticket sales).
2. There was no place to just sit - to admire the ruins, to rest. Nothing. This seems to be the case throughout Rome.
3. There were no signs throughout the "exhibit". There were a few things inside the Curia, but I can't recall any real signage anywhere else. My wife and I brought Rick Steves' audio tour on my iPod and we used that as our guide. We could also have purchased the audio tour. We noticed that this was the case at almost every location we visited throughout Rome (and in much of Venice). It occurred to us that it's done in deference to the tour guides that crawl over the sites with their groups in tow.
Any thoughts?
Random thought: Have they ever considered rebuilding one of the temples nearby (or perhaps even in situ). I actually like the little books they sell throughout Rome that have the transparencies that present a view of what a temple or building looked like before it was ruins. But why not have a blinged out marble building that demonstrates the true magnificence that existed during Roman times?
-
HERE'S a bit more on the villa from Mary Beards column in The Times, casting her doubt that it is really anything to do with Vespasian at all.
Jason here...just joined the community and this is terrific. Gotta find a way to spread the word!
Anyway - I love this behind the scenes politics of science. By the time news usually reaches the masses, it's likely to have gone through months (if not years) of hand-ringing, discussion, exploration, study, peer reviews, and general highs and lows. I find it amazing that any of the experts stood too firmly behind the Vespasian declaration. While the masses might throw out a "who cares", the impact to the researchers reputation could be terrifically damaging.
From Beard's story:
"Even the excavator, Filippo Coarelli, who 'has form' with a whole series of over-optimistic 'identifications', admits that there isn't exactly any evidence for this. It's just a large Roman house of roughly the right date in roughly the right place."
I wonder what drove the hullaballoo around Vespasian specifically, WITHOUT enough real evidence. From a purely scientific perspective, it would be hard to argue for its identification. And yet the media tends to perpetuate this 'news' with language declaring that it is, in fact, Vespasian crib. I wonder if there's a BBC or Discovery special in the works and this became the first marketing element of the exclusive? Maybe it's the only way for archeology to compete with Britney, Lohan, and the latest sex tapes.
-Jason
What's the last book you read?
in Libri
Posted
I just finished the third in Scarrow's "Eagle" series. Much stronger end than start to the story.
Just starting Matthews' "Age of the Gladiators"