The construction of the Roman Limes was quite possibly influenced by the concept of the Great Wall in China, though the two great buildings of the world are far away from each other, said archaeologists and historians.
Although there is no evidence that the two constructions had any direct connections, indirect influence from the Great Wall on the Roman Limes is certain, said Visy Zsolt, a professor with the Department of Ancient History and Archaeology of the University of Pecs in Hungary.
Visy made the remarks in an interview with Xinhua as he attended an international conference in Xi'an, capital of northwest China's Shaanxi Province recently, and his opinion was shared by some Chinese and foreign scholars.
The Roman Limes are Europe's largest archaeological monument, consisting of sections of the border line of the Roman Empire at its greatest extent in the 2nd century AD.
There's not much in this story to convince the reader that the Romans really got anything from China in terms of building a fortification wall/set of walls. Mostly the article details some similarities between the two sets of fortifications. Nothing really indicative of anything other than parallel evolution, if you want to call it that (similar structures for similar purposes).
Happily, however, it gave us the opportunity to learn a new term (Roman Limes) which we'd never come across before:
Limes at Wikipedia
German Limes
More limes plus pictures
Homo sex #1 A Mystery, Locked in Timeless Embrace
It was extremely rare in ancient Egypt for an elite tomb to be shared by two men of apparently equal standing. The usual practice was for such mortuary temples to be the resting place of one prominent man, his wife and children.
And it was most unusual for a couple of the same sex to be depicted locked in an embrace. In other scenes, they are also shown holding hands and nose-kissing, the favored form of kissing in ancient Egypt. What were scholars to make of their intimate relationship?
Sum: Three hypotheses are discussed, 1) They're twins, or at least brothers; 2) They're gay; and 3) They're Siamese twins. We believe we made some note of this in the recent past. It's a good article and touches on a lot of thoughts regarding Egyptian representations in tomb drawings. It's true most of the representations are not generally meant to be photographic recordings of life, and that it's really unclear just what these two are supposed to represent.
We tend not to like the gay angle, particularly because it's based on the assumption that particular images (e.g., embracing) have a readily accessible meaning. After all, literature from the relatively recent past involving male-male relationships strikes us today as being borderline erotic in many cases, but considered fairly bland fare at the time.
OTOH, the Siamese angle is bothersome as well. We tend to think something like being JOINED TOGETHER would be something one would want to represent. After all, dwarves were represented as dwarves, not normally proportioned beings.
So, eh, we'll stick with the twin brothers for the time being.
Homo sex #2
John Hawks has an entry comparing how the ID crowd can project their views on television compared to the way evolution, specifically human evolution, is usually portrayed.
We're kind of at a loss on this one. There are so many hokey archaeology programs out there, especially the ones having to do with ancient Egypt. It's true that "sexing things up" can garner some attention, but in the end there has to be something there for the average viewer. It's the usual problem involved in popularizing science: balancing scientific accuracy -- not to mention the complicated arguments, uncertainties, and subtle differences among practitioners -- while still keeping Joe Public interested enough to stay tuned. Plus, you know, how many times can you do a program on How The Pyramids Were Built. Sometimes, of course, there's really something new to show, like Lehner's discovery of the workers' village near the pyramids which threw the character of the labor practices used in that period wide open.
Hawk's mention of CGI overkill only applies marginally to archaeology, except when you get into the real prehistoric stuff involving mammoths and saber toothed cats and what not. Otherwise, CGI has probably been a good thing for archaeological documentaries since it enables landscapes -- that is, temples, palaces, and cityscapes -- to be recreated with minimal cost (compared to making mock-ups).
We think the most effective programs make minimal use of actor portrayals since it really doesn't add much to the science. How many times do we have to sit through battle scenes composed of a couple dozen actors going at it, the cameras all nice and close in to the action so we don't see that there are really not 50,000 warriors duking it out? You'd think there are enough Hollywood movies you could pilfer footage from that looks far more realistic. The best docs tell a scientific story with experts in the field providing much of the commentary, and a clear delineation of the issues and who stands where. The recent PBS doc on so-called "Solutrean Americans" comes to mind as a good representative of the genre.
More on Hamoukar A 5,500-year-old mystery emerges
In the shadow of a much more recent war, a five-year excavation on the Syrian-Iraqi border has uncovered an ancient settlement of unexpected sophistication that was suddenly wiped out by invaders 5,500 years ago.
The discovery sheds light on an early stage of human history in a time and place when cities were first emerging, and it suggests a massive battle waged at its walls.
It also poses a mystery: Who destroyed the city, and why?
A BONE OF CONTENTION
POLICE launched a murder probe after a skull turned up on a beach - only to find the "victim" died 5,230 years ago.
Officers searched the area and checked missing persons files when tests indicated the death should be treated as suspicious.
But carbon dating found the skull was a young Neolithic man's and is one of the oldest found in Britain.
It had probably been washed into the sea at Coatham beach, Cleveland, from a burial ground.
Archaeologist Peter Rowe said: "It dates from when people first grew crops and herded cattle . They would have buried their dead in groups."
That's the whole thing.