 Editor in Chief Bill   | 26 Feb 2015 5:47 a.m. PST |
A "unique" Roman headstone is the first of its kind unearthed in the UK, experts believe.The tombstone was found near skeletal remains thought to belong to the person named on its inscription, making the discovery unique. Archaeologists behind the dig in Cirencester, Gloucestershire, said they believed it marked the grave of a 27-year-old woman called Bodica… link |
| GeoffQRF | 26 Feb 2015 6:05 a.m. PST |
'A' Bodica…. not 'the' Bodica…. Believed to have been a young local woman who married a Roman, hence the roman inscriptions and burial style. |
| Chokidar | 26 Feb 2015 6:22 a.m. PST |
Funny.. we seem to be knee deep in rediscovered buried monarchs whilst the oldest of them all is still above ground! :-) |
| MajorB | 26 Feb 2015 6:51 a.m. PST |
|
| Who asked this joker | 26 Feb 2015 7:21 a.m. PST |
Definitely not the warrior queen for she was a rebel…if that is the right word. Should the Romans have found her body, likely they would have disposed of it so as to make sure she faded from the memory of the people. No shrine. No memorial. No nothing. The girl in the grave could be of the right age though. If it were the real Bodica/Boudica, likely there would be a Celtic stone as it would have been her people who would have buried her. Still a pretty cool and lucky find! |
| rmaker | 26 Feb 2015 10:05 a.m. PST |
The girl in the grave could be of the right age though. If it were the real Bodica/Boudica Unlikely, since Boudicca had at least two teen-aged (or older) daughters. |
TKindred  | 26 Feb 2015 7:26 p.m. PST |
Interesting. I had thought that the Britons practiced cremation of their dead. Was that just reserved for the high mucky mucks, or for everyone? |
| MajorB | 27 Feb 2015 4:07 a.m. PST |
Interesting. I had thought that the Britons practiced cremation of their dead. The Britons probably did. But this was a burial in the Roman tradition. |
| GeoffQRF | 27 Feb 2015 4:13 a.m. PST |
Indeed, that is what is significant about it, in that it appears a Briton has been buried with Roman engraving. Reading the article, her details only cover the top half of the stone, suggessting that the intention may have been for her huusband to have joined her later. It also indicates how lucky it was to be found, possibly due to the stone falling over and becoming lost, as earlier digging had scraped across the top of it. Had it still been standing it would have likely been robbed or smashed by earlier excavations. |
| Mars Ultor | 27 Feb 2015 7:05 a.m. PST |
Burial practices: from early on, Romans have done both practices. Cremation was more expensive or requiring more resources. I can't speak for all time periods all the time, but the periods of archaeological burials that I have read show both contemporaneously; earliest burials in the Roman Forum are of both types and this is a good example of burial in the imperial era. And though she's British, she's labeled as "coniunx" (spouse)obviously of a Roman or she'd not have a Roman burial stone. |
