Archaeologists do it in holes: Tales from the stratigraphy

[Admiral Yi]

What an amazing coincidence that so many of their letters look Roman.

[Sheilbh]

But isn't the Latin alphabet. No doubt same/similar process as Greek to Etruscan to Latin alphabets - this looks influenced by but distinct from (eg 40 characters in five words ).

[Admiral Yi]

I didn't say it was.

Until now, scholars had supposed the Vascones had no proper written language – save for words found on coins – and only began writing after the Romans introduced the Latin alphabet. But the five words written in 40 characters identified as Vasconic, suggest otherwise.

I'm objecting to this.  If the Vascones had started writing before contact with the Romans, they wouldn't have used a bunch of Latin letters.

[HVC]

The  alphabet isn't actually latin. In theory could have even introduced previous to to roman expansion, giving them the benefit of the doubt. Although I do lean to your view, Yi.

[Jacob]

It could also be that they meant to say:

"It was assumed the Vascones didn't start writing until they started doing so using the Roman alphabet. The Vasconic alphabet suggests otherwise."

It doesn't actually say "before any contact with the Romans." Personally I expect that the Vasconic runes were influenced by other alphabets, but whether that was Roman, Etruscan, Rhaetic, Greek, something else - or indeed a combination - is not something that seems immediately obvious to me.

I mean, Elder futhark is thought to be derived from / inspired by Old Italic / Rheatic / Etruscan

[Admiral Yi]

It doesn't actually say "before any contact with the Romans." Personally I expect that the Vasconic runes were influenced by other alphabets, but whether that was Roman, Etruscan, Rhaetic, Greek, something else - or indeed a combination - is not something that seems immediately obvious to me.

I mean, Elder futhark is thought to be derived from / inspired by Old Italic / Rheatic / Etruscan

That's reasonable.

[Razgovory]

The script is Iberian and thus derived directly from Phoenician.  Most alphabets are ultimately derived from Phoenician, including Latin.

[The Brain]

Have we ruled out aliens?

[mongers]

Went into the museum yesterday afternoon, haven't been in a couple of weeks as the decant process has been paused as the museum redevelopment is ahead of schedule;

There were no visitors at 4pm so I went round the main gallery and for the first time ever, did all of the interactive displays that are intended for children. :embarassed:

[Jacob]

Went into the museum yesterday afternoon, haven't been in a couple of weeks as the decant process has been paused as the museum redevelopment is ahead of schedule;

There were no visitors at 4pm so I went round the main gallery and for the first time ever, did all of the interactive displays that are intended for children. :embarassed:

Don't be embarrassed. It just shows it's a well-designed and executed display.

[Tonitrus]

I am always kinda surprised that something from that time would only go for about 40k...

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-dorset-63652647

Plus:  "It belongs in a museum."

[The Brain]

In the never-ending debate on the death of Charles XII of Sweden, was he murdered or killed by an honest enemy bullet, the most recent experimental archaeology suggests the latter.

https://academic.oup.com/pnasnexus/article/1/5/pgac234/6758520

Abstract
The death of King Charles XII of Sweden has remained as a mystery for more than three centuries. Was he assassinated by his own men or killed by the enemy fire? Charles was killed by a projectile perforating his skull from left to right. In this study, we utilized a Synbone ballistic skull phantom and modern radiological imaging to clarify the factors behind the observed head injuries. We examined whether a musket ball fired from the enemy lines would be the most potential projectile. Our experiments with a leaden 19.5 mm musket ball demonstrated that at velocities of 200 to 250 m/s, it could cause similar type of injuries as observed in the remains of Charles . The radiological imaging supported the theory that the projectile was not a leaden but of some harder metal, as we could detect remnants of lead inside the wound channel unlike in Charles' case. In addition, our experiments showed that a 19.5mm musket ball  produces max. 17mm hole into a felt material  . The main evidence supporting 19.5 mm projectile size has been a 19-19.5mm bullet hole in a hat that Charles was wearing during his death. Additional experiments with a 25.4 mm steel ball produced approximately 20 mm hole in the felt. As our musket ball experiments also resulted in considerably smaller cranial injuries than those in Charles' case, we can conclude that the deadly projectile wasn't leaden and was more than 19.5 mm in diameter, potentially an iron cartouche ball that was shot from the enemy lines.

The murder theory has always struck me as fairly fanciful, and I've never believed it to be the most likely scenario. The guy was under enemy fire and was killed by a projectile, no need (explanation-wise) for an assassin.

[Tonitrus]

Considering how tall his head looks in all of the portraits...I'm sure it was an easy shot.

[viper37]

The murder theory has always struck me as fairly fanciful, and I've never believed it to be the most likely scenario. The guy was under enemy fire and was killed by a projectile, no need (explanation-wise) for an assassin.

Why would he have been killed by his own troops and how would they cover it up, even during the battle?  As the King and general, he would be standing behind his men, so he could see the battlefield, surrounded by his bodyguards, a little further away from the action. 

I mean, he was with his men on the front, but just not on the assault.

Besides, I am under the impression that he wasn't particularly hated, right?

[The Brain]

The murder theory has always struck me as fairly fanciful, and I've never believed it to be the most likely scenario. The guy was under enemy fire and was killed by a projectile, no need (explanation-wise) for an assassin.

Why would he have been killed by his own troops and how would they cover it up, even during the battle?  As the King and general, he would be standing behind his men, so he could see the battlefield, surrounded by his bodyguards, a little further away from the action. 

I mean, he was with his men on the front, but just not on the assault.

Besides, I am under the impression that he wasn't particularly hated, right?

His companions were standing down in the trench, while he had climbed up and was resting his arms on the parapet while observing the progress of the siege. There was another Swedish trench being driven forward in front of him, supposedly that's mainly what he was observing. He remained up there much longer than needed to take a peek, possibly for morale reasons to show the soldiers that the king was there, sharing their dangers and observing their work. As an aside, in battle he typically (not always!) fought in the front rank, personally fighting and killing enemy soldiers. Just a few days earlier he had led the storming of an outwork, sword in hand.

He wasn't hated by the soldiers at least. More like worshipped, by this point he had been a living legend for longer than some soldiers remembered. But of course there very likely existed individual soldiers who hated him. He was also an absolute ruler of a country that was being squeezed for every possible resource to fight a desperate war against many enemies. Anyone who had major beef with the Swedish government by definition had major beef with him, even if I suspect that many of those people thought "oh the King is the King bless him, it's probably his damn poor advisors who are to blame...".

The most popular murder theory has to do with the succession. Charles had no kids and hadn't named an heir. There were two factions jockeying for position, one centred around his younger sister and her husband, and one around his deceased older sister's son. The younger sister's husband, the future Frederick I of Sweden, acted very quickly upon the King's death to secure the succession for his wife (and eventually himself). This has looked suspicious to some people. I'm not convinced, making plans for what to do on the death of the King seems like common sense since the King was famously unconcerned with his personal safety.