BoneKickers Drinking Game (beta version)

[gorilla]

Hmmm... I think Dig Brother stands every chance of being made [8D]

Anyway, for those of you who can't be ars*d to find the Nancy Banks-Smith review in The Guarniad (or actually doing some work)...

Bonekickers (BBC1) is, it has been noticed, only a syllable short of bonkers. Hugh Bonneville, a decent actor tragically seduced by the temptation of a Harrison Ford hat, plays Professor "Dolly" Parton. Based, he says, on the archaeological adviser for the series, who "literally froths at the mouth". Frankly, I'd hesitate to share a table in an all-night cafe with any one of them.

This episode, The Eternal Fire, was about the forbidden love of Boudicca and a susceptible Roman called Marcus Quintanus. Their affair was conducted, apparently, in the catacombs under the Roman baths at Bath, where the feretting archaeologists discover Boudicca herself. Crystallised, of course. There is some elementary Latin ("Regina mea!") and contemporary Italian ("So! You call me because the fire in your loins is lit once more!") and, as the catacomb fills with gas, a lot of coughing as if we were in for another adaptation of the Bront?s. To be fair, the whole thing obviously cost about as much as Harrison Ford's hat.

Personally, I think it would be much improved by the addition of a lovable, if cowardly, great dane.

On a more serious note... over at DigitalSpy, someone wrote...

"I would have also thought that a group of dedicated archeologists might have expressed regret or remorse at accidentally incinerating the greatest archeological find of all time".

This seems to be a common thing throughout the series (well, the three episodes so far). I hope it doesn't reflect too badly on 'real' archaeologists... I used to get wound up if accidentally I broke a piece of pot (in situ or otherwise)

Ooo, ooo, ooo... I wanna be like you-ooo-ooo

[Digitaldigging]

In response to Mark Horton's

"Everyone seems to have not noticed the extraordinary coincidence
of the Boudicca revolt, the start of the construction of the roman
baths and the great fire of rome all took place within 2 years.
surely they were connected in some way?"

I give you How Rome burned under Nero
(From The Twelve Caesars, Suetonius - full text here http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Ro...Nero*.html)


"For under cover of displeasure at the ugliness of the old buildings and the narrow, crooked streets, he set fire to the city119 so openly that several ex-consuls did not venture to lay hands on his chamberlains although they caught them on their estates with tow and fire-brands, while some granaries near the Golden House, whose room he particularly desired, were demolished by engines of war and then set on fire, because their walls were of stone. 2 For six days and seven nights destruction raged, while the people were driven for shelter to monuments and tombs. At that time, besides an immense number of dwellings,120 the houses of leaders of old were burned, still adorned with trophies of victory, and the temples of the gods vowed and dedicated by the kings and later in the Punic and Gallic wars, and p157whatever else interesting and noteworthy had survived from antiquity. Viewing the conflagration from the tower of Maecenas121 and exulting, as he said, in "the beauty of the flames," he sang the whole of the "Sack of Ilium,"122 in his regular stage costume. 3 Furthermore, to gain from this calamity too all the spoil and booty possible, while promising the removal of the debris and dead bodies free of cost he allowed no one to approach the ruins of his own property; and from the contributions which he not only received, but even demanded, he nearly bankrupted the provinces and exhausted the resources of individuals."

So, there's that coincidence cleared up - Nero set fire to Rome, there for all to see.

And as for Mr. Horton's

"Tacitus and Cassio Dio give completely different accounts of the death of Boudicca - so if one is wrong, why cant both be?"

It has to be said that the accounts do differ, but not a great deal. Here's Tacitus' version (who was alive when the events occured)

"Boudicea put an end to her life by poison."

and Dio

"Nevertheless, not a few made their escape and were preparing to fight again. In the meantime, however, Buduica fell sick and died."

So yes, a little different, but not so different that you would be justified in calling all of it in question.

Horton seems to be under impression that the internet hasn't really taken off yet.

Full texts here -
Tacitus "http://classics.mit.edu/Tacitus/annals.10.xiv.html"
Dio "http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/62*.html"

[BAJR Host]

I could kiss ya!

You got to the Tacitus and Dio texts ahead of me... as its not as if one said she died the other said she escaped and set up a grocers shop in Cheem..

neither of them mention she was abducted by lizardmen either (so perhaps we should allow our imagination to allow for that possibility)

I am worried that the distinction between imagination and youtubeology has been blurred... I spent too much of my time trying to reason with people about the requirement of some facts ... else you end up in DaVinci code land... at least Dan Brown knows it is fiction... and has said so... cleverly weaving a story ... but ye gods, the number of people who believe it to be true!

Archaeologists deal in the quantifiable... and yes, use imagination to say... what if? But then apply strict procedures to provide a theory... not school playground logic that would make a 7 year old blush....


"I don't have an archaeological imagination.."
Borekickers

[Digitaldigging]

And. . .
According to Peter Salway, who is a real authority on Roman Britain. . .

"At Bath, some time in the fifteen years after the (Boudiccan) rebellion, a start was made on the on the grand complex of bath and temple"

Taken from 'A History of Roman Britain', Salway, 2001.

"I could kiss ya!"
[:I]

[Digitaldigging]

oops - the point of which is - where is Horton getting his two year timespan from?

Bouddican revolution 61 - 62 AD

Great fire of Rome - 64 AD

Bath temple complex and Baths - sometime during the fifteen years after the revolution ended.

What's going on? Everything can be checked - why is he doing this?

[Digitaldigging]

Double oops -

Bouddican revolution 60 - 61 AD

[BAJR Host]

Your as bad

Hope you ain't teaching students your false doctrines

"I don't have an archaeological imagination.."
Borekickers

[Digitaldigging]

Just a bit of imagination creeping in. . .

[Fishslice]

quote:Originally posted by oldgirl

I am not quoting verbatim, as I didn't see it. But I gather Nancy Banks-Smith in the Guardian TV review said something along the lines of:

'The programme is only missing the presence of a large dog who is scared of ghosts'. Made me laugh!

To go back to the primary source,as quoted by Gorilla, it should read - "Personally, I think it would be much improved by the addition of a lovable, if cowardly, great dane"

There we have it, a modern version of Tacitus and Dio, two versions of the same story; but if one is wrong, why cant both be.......

[Dirty Dave Lincoln]

At this point I must wade in,in Mark's defence.
You see,there was once an excavation of a roman settlement at Sapperton which showed evidence of "much burning",now the name Sapperton could be a corruption of "the place of the Sappers"-which could indicate a place where explosives (as mentioned in tues prog) were being made.That said,this place would have then been a prime target for the Boudican revolt!
The place might also have been the one mentioned by an unnamed roman general in a now lost (wrote 15 years ago and lost 10 years ago,and is now only remembered in oral tradition) biography.
All you need is a leap of faith (maybe several leaps while blind-folded) and a little imagination.
Oh yes, and a couple of bottles of wine to come up with such explanations!
This post can be read to the theme tune of either the X-files or Jackanory,as Mulder said "the tooth is out there".