Don't give up on bones. My first hands on experience of Battlefield Archaeology was cleaning well preserved hacked femurs from the pre-Roman battlefield site at Ribemont sur Ancre..... a drop in the Ocean to the 50,000 human bones found on that particular site, most neatly stacked in deep piles;
https://fr-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goo...-sur-Ancre
On reflection my Ribemont experience probably has had a significant impact on my interest in, and expectations of, the Boudiccan study, it's a site worth looking into if you're not aware of it.
It's worth noting the Ribemont bones were well preserved due to burial in a chalk substrate (Roman Temples directly above, the siting and form of which suggested a knowledge of the significance of the bones beneath). This characteristic soil chemistry bodes well for preservation should the battlefield be one of the Chiltern candidates.
Like it or not, when you announce your site (I know it well and we are aligned on much) you go on a list that isn't actually that long, for credible candidates anyway. Then, when you publish your proof, the world can assess it.
I was surprised my write up from 2010 got the CS site named in the HER record, it's not something I asked for but it's clear a credible write up is the key to recognition at any level (just ask Webster and Dudley). I'm not sure if any other site has HER recognition yet, so good luck with your application for registration.
"Turning to the Latin, faucibus is the ablative of fauces and it is the latter that we would use when introducing a Latin word into an English sentence. Fauces is unusual in that it is a word that is plural in form but singular in meaning, which creates a problem if you want to refer to multiple defiles." Renatus
Thanks, noted for future reference. Is the second half "problem" directed at the most recent interpretation of the text at Mancetter?
https://fr-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goo...-sur-Ancre
On reflection my Ribemont experience probably has had a significant impact on my interest in, and expectations of, the Boudiccan study, it's a site worth looking into if you're not aware of it.
It's worth noting the Ribemont bones were well preserved due to burial in a chalk substrate (Roman Temples directly above, the siting and form of which suggested a knowledge of the significance of the bones beneath). This characteristic soil chemistry bodes well for preservation should the battlefield be one of the Chiltern candidates.
Like it or not, when you announce your site (I know it well and we are aligned on much) you go on a list that isn't actually that long, for credible candidates anyway. Then, when you publish your proof, the world can assess it.
I was surprised my write up from 2010 got the CS site named in the HER record, it's not something I asked for but it's clear a credible write up is the key to recognition at any level (just ask Webster and Dudley). I'm not sure if any other site has HER recognition yet, so good luck with your application for registration.
"Turning to the Latin, faucibus is the ablative of fauces and it is the latter that we would use when introducing a Latin word into an English sentence. Fauces is unusual in that it is a word that is plural in form but singular in meaning, which creates a problem if you want to refer to multiple defiles." Renatus
Thanks, noted for future reference. Is the second half "problem" directed at the most recent interpretation of the text at Mancetter?
