1,600-year-old Roman coffin unearthed in London

Googer

Lifer
Nov 11, 2004
12,576
7
81
I cannot legaly copy the CNN version, so here is the link.

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. @ CNN.com


The BBC Version

Ancient body prompts new theories

A Roman sarcophagus discovered near Trafalgar Square could lead to the map of Roman London being redrawn.

The limestone coffin containing a headless skeleton was found during excavations at St-Martin-in-the-Fields Church, central London.

The find, which dates from around 410AD, lies outside what were the city walls of Roman London.

Archaeologists previously thought Westminster possibly contained Roman roads but not sacred buildings.

Taryn Nixon, director of the Museum of London Archaeology Service, said: "It means that perhaps St-Martin-in-the-Fields has been a sacred site for far, far, far longer than we previously thought.

"This gives us an extraordinary glimpse of parts of London we haven't seen before, particularly Roman London and Saxon London.

"All of a sudden we're having to rethink what Roman London really was. This work has literally stopped us in our tracks and given us a new phrase, Roman Westminster."

Sacred site

Vicar Rev Nicholas Holtam said: "I can't tell you how thrilling it is to have discovered these finds.

"St Martin's history tells us that the earliest church that we know of on the site was there in 1222, but these discoveries take us way before that.

"It's certainly a sacred site, possibly a Christian site, going right back into the late Roman period."

It is thought the skeleton's head was removed by workmen building a sewer during the Victorian period.

Excavations began at St-Martin-in-the-Fields in January 2006 as part of £36m renovations at the church.


Video http://dynamic.cnn.com/apps/tp/video/wo...6usa%26539%2633601%2610%26-%26-%26-%26
 

slash196

Golden Member
Nov 1, 2004
1,549
0
76
Interesting, but I'm not sure how "Roman" the site is if it dates to after the fall of the Roman Empire.
 

Googer

Lifer
Nov 11, 2004
12,576
7
81
Originally posted by: slash196
Interesting, but I'm not sure how "Roman" the site is if it dates to after the fall of the Roman Empire.

The Roman empire fell around 500AD so these remains do fit with in the timeline and meet up with their claim of 400-410AD
 

compuwiz1

Admin Emeritus Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
27,112
930
126
Did people really have spines back then?

Oh, and no head? Signs of barbaric times. Someone probably took it in to town for a ransome.

I believe Iraq and Iran do the no head thing, too. Of course they are still barbaric cultures. ;)
 

Schadenfroh

Elite Member
Mar 8, 2003
38,416
4
0
The reason the head is not there is obvious. They had to bury it separately from the body or risk the vampire returning........
 

feralkid

Lifer
Jan 28, 2002
16,827
4,926
136
Originally posted by: compuwiz1
Did people really have spines back then?

Oh, and no head? Signs of barbaric times. Someone probably took it in to town for a ransome.

I believe Iraq and Iran do the no head thing, too. Of course they are still barbaric cultures. ;)



:cookie: