History and archaeology related

[deralte]

The Vikings tv show is a rather confusing mix of complete historical accuracy, references to the sagas, and total bollocks. The history geek inside me has whiplash.
In other Viking related news, I am uncontrollably excited that they may have finally found a Viking-type 'sunstone'! See?!

Is anyone else amused that Richard III's relatives have banded together to protest where he's going to be reburied?

I still remain very sad that I couldn't find a chance to cite this article (or rather, the associated scholarly reference) in my quals. I couldn't find an excuse to mention piles of skulls, apparently. On the plus side, I did manage to cite Shelach & Pines 2006, which still remains my favourite citation of all time. I hope someday to find an appropriate person whose last name compliments mine, to write an article with.

Comments

[doolabug.livejournal.com]

Vikings! You're absolutely right, of course, but I'm enjoying it nevertheless. It's like Pirates of the Caribbean in that way, and you kind of have to *hand wave* the bollocks parts, enjoy the ships (which are quite well done), and appreciate the pretty.

I hadn't heard about Richie IIIs relatives, although I was kind of surprised when they announced he'd be reburied in Leicester instead of Westminster. Is that what they're upset about?

[deralte.livejournal.com]

Oh, I'm still enjoying it, even if I wince every time I see a short haired viking or when they mention not knowing what lies to the west *headdesk*. I appreciate that they did make some effort to be historically accurate, and the pretty and the ships do help:)

Yeah. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/mar/26/richard-iii-relatives-legal-challenge) The relatives want him buried in York, which is where he spent most of his time while living. The quote at the end of the article makes me wince though because that spokesperson for Leicester Uni really doesn't know archaeological precedent. I'm now quite curious to see who wins.