The irritating part of being an osteologist (well, one irritating part anyway) is that you know so many exceptions to the rules, and complications that when you see articles as this one:
A skeleton excavated in the ruins of an Ipswich friary has been identified as a medieval African man, which of course is really interesting, but I do wonder how much of the statements (for example
"the man was born a Muslim in 13th-Century Tunisia, who was taken to England during the ninth Crusade. It is thought he converted to Christianity before living in England for over ten years, [...] before a burial in the Friary itself.") are journalistic shortcuts and how much the scientists could actually pinpoint? 13th century - sure, I accept that. But why specifically Tunisia, and not just "coastal north Africa"? Inquiring minds want to know!
Yes, I could write to the archaeological unit that did the excavation, but you know, that would be
work :-) . Or wait until the proper report gets published.
On a less grumbly note, I can recommend the following site blogs (in Swedish only, I'm afraid) for those of you who have a yearning for being out in the muck and finding cool things:
-
Åkroken i Nyköping: Medieval.
-
Motala Ström: Mesolithic and Neolithic (and some Iron Age too).
-
Kvarteret Druvan/Dovhjorten i Jönköping: 17th century and Medieval.
Any tips on other interesting site blogs?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
