Tenish years ago, the idea of Tumblr University went viral and then, quite rightly, promptly died. We are not a community well known for our organizational skills. (Dash con anyone?) However, we are a community full of nerds with diverse niche interests. Over the years I have read a great many educational posts that have shocked and amazed me. With this blog I would like to archive and categorize these posts, creating a space for learning and entertainment.
This blog is still very much under construction, please bare with me as I fill it with content. If you have a post you feel should be on this page, please feel free to use the submissions button.
I...tried to make a meme and got carried away and made A Thing that is like partially unfinished because i spent like 3 hours on it and then got tired.
I think this is mostly scientifically accurate but truth be told, there seems to be relatively little research on succession in regards to lawns specifically (as opposed to like, pastures). I am not exaggerating how bad they are for biodiversity thoughârecent research has referred to them as "ecological deserts."
The ground in these places is too compact for water to soak in during wet season which leads to flooding but digging these holes gives the water a place to stop and soak in. And theyâre pushing back the desert with this. By just digging holes.
The new plants also help even more water soak into the ground which reduces flooding even more.
These places also give people places to grow food and graze animals like people are turning completely dry compact desert into a refuge for wildlife and plants and solving regional food insecurity just by digging holes.
The half-circles are called zaĂŻ! They're a traditional farming practice in the Sahel desert, and their introduction + reintroduction can be largely credited to Yacouba Sawadogo, the man linked above! He reintroduced and innovated on the zaĂŻ on his own farm in the 1980s, and did extensive outreach (along with scientist Mathieu OuĂŠdraogo) to encourage other farmers to adopt them as well.
He also promoted the use of cordons pierreux, which are basically just lines of rocks to reduce erosion, preserve sediments, and increase water absorption.
Immensely cool dude. He's been a personal hero since I learned about him.
Fun facts time, can't vouch for the UK but during WWII there were pretty large-scale officially sanctioned drag shows in the US army for morale and entertainment. Here's a quote from Coming Out Under Fire by Allan BĂŠrubĂŠ (fantastic book).
Anyway the Nazi attack during a drag show rehearsal may have been a one time thing but this kind of drag show definitely was not.
When I was drunk one night and watching the Jellyfish livestream, I reached out to the Monterey Bay Aquarium with a dumb question about their jellyfish... And they actually emailed me back.
(yes, these are actually my own screenshots, I am in tears laughing)
DO YOUR ANIMAL EXPERTS HAVE TO UNTANGLE THE JELLYFISH
AND THE ANSWER IS FUCKING YES, THE JELLIES GET TANGLED SOMETIMES LMAO
This marble bust of Cleopatra VII was discovered at Via Appia, between Ariccia and Genzano and was likely on display in a private villa south of Rome.
Cleopatra VII is seen wearing the broad royal diadem of her Ptolemaic lineage, and her hair is styled in typical Greek fashion, the red colour of which, is still faintly visible.
Ptolemaic Period, ca. 51-30 BC.
Now in the Neues Museum, Berlin. Inv. 1976.10
Ok I looked this up and the discription is half true but not in the way you would think. The fossil is a real example of a Stupendemys geographicus, a pre historical turtle species that could grow to the size size of a small car. The man however is misidentified. "Carlos" is actually Dr. Rodolfo SĂĄnchez, Director of the Paleontological Institute and Museum at the University of Zurich in Sweden, who was the team leader of the paleontologists that found the fossil.
This video depicts a moment that is nearly impossible to observe: a sperm whale surfacing with a giant squid clenched between its teeth.
These predators hunt at depths exceeding 800 meters, where light does not penetrate, and only biosonar directs the pursuit. Consequently, clear surface images are exceedingly rare.
This is, factually, the first footage of this that we have ever gotten. This has never been observed by a human being before in recorded history. The only reason we knew these whales ate those squids before was the beaks of the squids found in the stomachs of dead whales, and the battle scars on whales consistent with fighting giant squids.
My favorite thing about this clip is that, in the original uncropped footage, you can see her calf is right beside her, ascending from the depths along with her. Whale calves don't dive until they're taught by their mothers. It is very likely that this footage is of a mother whale teaching her calf to hunt on one of its very first dives.
When I saw this footage for the first time, I cried a little tbh.
OK, I don't know if I've ever seen quite so much footage of platypodes moving before, and I have even more sympathy for the bafflement of European naturalists. Like, not only are they fur-bearing, milk-producing, egg-laying, venomous, billed animals, but they also move like a cross between an alligator and a weasel.
okay. some of you must surely be getting tired of seeing me say this but i literally cannot help myself- THAT IS AN ICE AGE GOAT. THAT CAN GET TO BE 800lbs BIG.
we called them musk-ox because we thought they must be some kind of cow thing, but they are actually a goat thing; this is to a normal wild goat what a woolly mammoth is to a normal elephant, only these things survived.
and i absolutely cannot help myself because of the tizzy my brain goes into over the twin facts of
1: ice-age megafauna that is still alive! and
2: EIGHT HUNDRED POUND GOAT
you can see the goatishness a little more in their babies
i just, i am crazy over the fact that these guys are still alive on our planet
So youâve seen that clip of David Tennant with long hair tenderly kissing another man from that one production of Richard II, and youâve found yourself wonderingâwait, was that real?
This is one of Shakespeareâs historical plays, after all; Richard II was a real guy. Did that actually happen? Was he actually queer?
It certainly seems to be a pattern in the theatre. Productions loves to lean in to Richardâs queerness, whether that be with hair extensions and gold nail polish, or by casting a nonbinary Richard while setting the play in the midst of the AIDS epidemic. Theyâll literally make the character slip his cousins tongue to get the point across. So, is there any actual historical basis to it, or did some director just go balls to the walls with artistic interpretation and everyone else took notes?
In other words:
Is it just a queercoded tragedy, or did a queer code this tragedy??
Those of you who have some historical background are probably expecting me to shove Robert de Vere in your face and come out (no pun intended) with a resounding YESâand donât worry, weâll get to himâbut first, I need to establish some things.
(This is gonna be a long one. Hereâs your cut.)
Firstly: No, Richardâs perceived queerness does not originate from the theatre. It doesnât even originate from Shakespeare. His legacy has been almost inextricably linked with queerness for⌠approximately⌠hold on, let me check my watch⌠oh yes, 625 years. In the cultural zeitgeist, Richard has always been queer, so this is a matter that goes way beyond the whims and artistic interpretations of a modern, progressive society.
Secondly: letâs talk about what it even meant to be âqueerâ in the Middle Ages (14th century England, specifically).
Hereâs the thing. The concept of sexuality as part of someoneâs inherent identity is kind of new. The idea of an individual being âgayâ or âstraightâ didnât really exist; it was more so a matter of whether or not you engaged in âunnaturalâ behaviours. I also think itâs important to mention that the concept of homosexuality was considered in a purely sexual context in the public consciousness, rather than a romantic one. Today, weâve come to see queerness as an expression of love; back then, and for a long while afterward, it was considered more of a sex crime than anything.
And speaking of sex, youâre probably unsurprised to hear that the 14th century fostered a predominantly sex-negative society; one which extended far beyond condemnations of homosexuality. With the large influence of the church on every day life, the societally acceptable morals and values extensively promoted chastity and virginity. But, to quote the bard, âthe world must be peopled,â and so sex was only acceptable for the purpose of procreation, and within strict boundaries. It could only occur between a husband and wife, in the marriage bed, in missionary.Â
Well, okayâitâs important to mention that, just because those were the rules, it didnât necessarily mean people followed them. Social norms can only do so much to stop people from bumping uglies, so regular everyday medieval folks werenât all puritanical by any means, regardless of what their society preached. But I digress.Â
Iâve genuinely seen people argue that, because the concept of âsexualityâ didnât quite exist back then, identifying historical figures with âqueernessâ is meaningless. I, for one, find that fucking ridiculous.
I mean, sure, forego the modern labels and terminology. But there very much is a way to talk about queerness from the Middle Ages within its historical context⌠because queerness is not a modern invention!
It doesnât matter that the word for it didnât exist yet, or that society at large thought it inconceivable or unnatural. At the end of the day, there have always been people that, no matter how much they may have wished it wasnât so, felt attraction towards others of the same gender; people that fell in love with others of the same gender, people that had sex with others of the same gender. In addition, there have always been people who felt restricted by gender roles imposed on them, and felt that in order to express their true selves, they would have to bend those lines and boundaries.Â
I mean, just look at the Ancient Greeks. Enough said.
Queerness has always existed. And hereâs the thing: people back then knew it too!
For context, letâs consider the legacy of a much more explicitly âqueerâ king from around this same time: Edward II, Richardâs great grandfather (also a play, but by Marlowe). Edward, like Richard, was heavily criticized for keeping his male âfavouritesâ too close. He was deposed in 1327 and replaced by his son, Edward III, Richardâs grandfather and predecessor.Â
One of the reasons his queerness is more prominently discussed than Richardâs is because of the popularity of a little something called⌠the hot poker myth. Iâm sure a couple of you have already heard of this, but if not⌠uh, hereâs a trigger warning for homophobic sexual violence. After his deposition, it was widely believed that, while his âfavouriteâ and probable lover was castrated, Edward himself was murdered by having a burning metal poker shoved up his ass. Yâknow⌠âpunishment fitting the crime.â
Now, this is probably not true. Probably. But thatâs not the point. The fact that the hot poker myth exists at all is the interesting factor. It doesnât matter whether Edward liked taking it up the ass or not, what matters is that people THOUGHT he did, and also thought that he should be punished for it. Myths like this donât exist to actually cover up the truth, they exist as social regulationâto promote whatever lesson society at the time felt the public needed to learn. In this case the lesson was: Gay bad. Donât do that.
All this to say, you canât say that because queerness wasnât considered as part of a personâs identity in Medieval times, that it didnât exist, that it wasnât present, and that people didnât know about it. Sure, it was seen much differently than it is today, but it existed nonetheless, and people were actually very preoccupied with the whole ordeal.
Now I know Iâve already talked a whole bunch, and we havenât even gotten to the guy this post is about yet. But bear with me, thereâs a third and final thing I have to address: when it comes to identifying historical queerness, what counts as âevidence?â
Because hereâs the thing. A lot of official writings Iâve read on Richard are quick to shut down the notion of him being queer, with their reasoning being along the lines of: âthereâs no explicit evidence that he had sex with men, so he canât be queer, end of discussion.â In my personal opinion, this leans a little towards a heteronormative bias; like theyâve gone in with the explicit goal of shooting down the rumour, instead of giving it its fair share of consideration.
So, for our purposes, what counts as evidence, then? What is considered queer enough to be undeniably queer? What is the definition of queer, anyway? Is it something objective and concrete, or a concept defined by social norms? A mix of both? Are we judging from the historical societal standard, or ours? Presumably, the end of the spectrum is âhave sex with men,â but though there may be allegations, we canât actually poke our heads into his bedroom 600 years ago to have a peak for ourselves.
But then thereâs all the other things, the little, more gender-adjacent thingsâlike how so many texts on the man are so intent on emphasizing how unmanly he was, how feminine he was, and correlating that with how it made him a weak ruler. What about that? Where did all that come from, and is that pattern (and the obvious bias inherent in their narratives) not enough to make queerness significant to the conversation?
I canât answer every single one of those questions, obviously; some of them get a little too into the philosophical nitty-gritty of what queerness is and on what scale you can measure human existence⌠and Iâm not God. Or a philosopher. But this is is the mindset with which I want to go into this discussion:
When talking about queerness in history, we need to leave room for uncertainty, speculationâand the simple acknowledgment of possibility. Queer people have always existed, but they havenât always had the words to say so, or the safety to make it known. And yet, despite that, their stories still trickle down through the cracks of time, begging to be heard. Even if we never know for 100% certain, we owe it to them to entertain the possibility.Â
Alright, with all that out of the way, letâs finally talk Richard II.
Now I know what youâre actually waiting for me to answer here: goddamn it, just tell us whether he was gay or not! List all the reasons he was definitely fucking Robert de Vere!
Well, everything I already established was to prepare you for the reality of the situation. I canât give you a definite answer! Not only was the middle ages what experts call a long ass time ago, but also, if he was queer, he definitely wasnât going around flaunting it, was he? Certainly not with that hot poker myth going around.
But! Thereâs no shortage of accusations, allusions, and possibility. So letâs acknowledge them! (In other words, youâve been very good following my train of thought until now, so you can have some âgay shitâ as a treat)
If youâre unaware of who Robert de Vere is and why I keep mentioning him, he was one of Richardâs closest favourites before the rebellion of the Lords Appellant in 1388 (about ten years before the events of the play). They were very, very close throughout Richardâs youth and early adulthood, and he was granted titles often reserved for princes, such as the Duke of Ireland, which really pissed off the older nobles. In fact, their closeness was believed to be one of the inciting reason for the rebellion in the first place. When the Lords Appellant came to challenge Richardâs reign, Robert fled the country, and was sentenced to death in his absence, but would die in what was essentially exile in 1392.Â
(If youâve only seen the Shakespeare play and have no idea what the Lords Appellant situation is⌠donât worry about it, just know it was a rebellion much earlier on in Richardâs reign. Surprise surprise! They tried to get rid of that guy more than once. I can make a separate post about it later if anyone wants.)
Chronicler Thomas Walsingham (most of the information we have about events that occurred in history is due to the work of chroniclers like him) accused Richard and Robertâs relationship of being queer, using words such as âobscene familiarityâ and âpolitical sodomyâ to describe them. He also recounted how, when Robertâs body was returned to England for burial, Richard asked for the coffin to be opened so he could gaze upon his face and hold his hand one last time.
And historians will call themâŚ
Well, whatever historians called them, the artists of yore did not agree! Rumours of their relationship werenât exactly stamped out or ignored in the coming years. We, in our modern society, are not the first people to seriously consider the possibility that they were fucking. There was another historical play from 1595 by the name âThomas of Woodstockâ (sometimes even attributed to Shakespeare, though itâs probably not his) that features Robertâs wife as a character, saying the lines:
âMy husband Ireland, that unloving lord
God pardon his amiss, he now is dead;
King Richard was the cause he left my bed.â
Which is really funny to me, I donât know why.
Now, there is one big issue with all of this supposed âevidence,â and itâs Thomas Walsingham himself. See, the guy isnât exactly... an unbiased messenger. In fact, most chroniclers arenât, which is what makes things tricky. Walsingham really didnât like Richardâor Robert, for that matterâso itâs not unlikely that he would kind of just make shit up out of anger and distaste. We kind of have to take everything he says with a grain of salt.
Let me clarify something, though. Throughout this entire post, you may have noticed that Iâve been using the word âqueerâ to refer to Richard, instead of more specific terms like gay or bisexual. This is intentional. I am not just talking about whether or not Richard liked dick. I am talking about queernessâmeaning not only sexual or gender identity that deviates from the cishet ânorm,â but also just strangeness, oddness, otherness, particularly in sexual and gender presentation.
It doesnât matter that I think Richard was probably fucking Robert, and it doesnât matter that others think he wasnâtâwhat matters is that, to society at the time, Richard was seen as queer. And thatâs enough to make queerness relevant to the conversation!
People described him as being very fair (almost excessively so itâs kinda weird) and having a âfeminine faceâ (whatever tf that means).
He didnât have kids, further contributing to him not being seen as âmanlyâ enough.Â
Many people described him as boyish and childish, compared to the âstrong masculine manly menâ like Henry and his uncles.
He was often vaguely accused of letting âperversionâ run through court. I didnât find specific elaborations but it feels relevant.
He was extravagant in spending and ceremony.
More than anything, though, he tried very vehemently to put an end to the hundred years war by compromising with France. Think of how unmanly this is; that instead of doing the super noble masculine thing and fighting, he would rather [gasp] compromise.
In place of war, he prioritized the arts in his court. He commissioned many extravagant pieces of art. You can attribute to this time the internal architecture of Westminster Hall, or the poet Geoffrey Chaucer.
To (most) of us, today, you can see how attributing such traits to someone liking dick is honestly kind of fucked up and problematic. But back then, it was deviant enough to be queer, andâwith what you have to assume was the aftertaste of Edward II still lingering in everyoneâs mouthsâpeople just werenât very tolerant of queer.
Truth be told, Richard really wasnât that bad of a king, at least compared to other kings. He was honestly just kind of⌠meh. His biggest efforts was spent in trying to end the Hundred Years War, which was rendered meaningless when it kind of charged right back up again after he was gone. In fact, he didnât even have full power for most of his reign, initially due to his young age but then because of the Lords Appellant. He really only got his power back for the last two years of his reign, when he proceeded to go on a bit of a revenge spree, and was promptly deposed.
But what can be seen as just plain mediocrity actually turned out to be Henry Bolingbrokeâs biggest weapon, used to paint Richard as weak and girly and queer. He used all the previous things I mentioned to build a narrative, to fear-mongerâto prop himself up as the big, proud masculine hero in comparison to his twinky mctwink-face cousin. Itâs not a far stretch to say Richardâs insistence on ending the war had also struck a nerve with other nobles who benefitted from it, and so they joined Henry to further perpetuate this narrative. A narrative that literally stuck for-fucking-ever.
You can even see traces of this narrative-builing in the Shakespeare play, when Bolingbroke reads out the charges against Bushy and Green, making it sound like heâs accusing them of sleeping with Richard.
âYou have in manner with your sinful hours
Made a divorce betwixt [Richardâs] queen and him,
Broke the possession of a royal bed,
And stained the beauty of a fair queenâs cheeks
With tears drawn from her eyes by your foul wrongs.â (3.1.11-15)
(There arenât any real accusations of the real Bushy and Green having a relationship with Richard, but you can see the point that was being made.)
All this to say, Richard has been boiled down to two things throughout history: queer, and a villain. And if you recall with Edward II, itâs not uncommon for people to equate queerness with perceived villainy and punishment as a form of social regulation.
Iâd argue that Shakespeareâs play, if anything, was kind of an exception in this regard, given that Richard is not an outright villain but more of an anti-hero than anything. Thatâs probably why itâs remained such fertile ground for playing with and exploring Richardâs queerness without outright villainizing him (or toeing that line, at least).
So, whatâs our conclusion?
In my own humble opinionâgranted, I am not a scholar, but a gay shit with an internet connection, so keep that in mindâI donât think âwere they, werenât theyâ should be our main concern. Itâs worth having a discussion about queerness in the context of Richard II simply because, like Edward II, people perceived him as queer, and used it as an excuse to hate him. Itâs been inextricably linked to his legacy for more than half a millennia and only in the last few years has it been in even a remotely positive light.
Essentially, queerness became the scapegoat on which peopleâs political and social vitriol was placed⌠and thatâs not exactly something weâve left in the past, is it? In this context, the topic of conversation becomes less about Richard himself, and more about the way queerness as a subject is treated in the social and political consciousness. The more aware we are of our past and how itâs shaped our present, we become more equipped to guide our future in the right direction.
âŚor something. Thatâs what I took away from it. Iâm sure there are people smarter than me with contradicting thoughts.
When it comes to Richard specifically, the fact that he has been associated with queerness, judged for said queerness (whether or not he actually was), and defamed on the basis of said queerness, is enough to say: yes, his queer depictions have basis in actual history. While we canât definitively say whether he was schtupping Robert de Vere, itâs possible enough that no one can blame you for having that opinion.
Congratulations, folks:
⨠a queer did code this tragedy â¨
Maybe history should have spent a little less time villainizing him for being queer and a little more time villainizing him for MARRYING A SIX YEAR OLD. YEAH HE DID THAT, BY THE WAY. HE MARRIED A FUCKING SIX YEAR OLD.
I mean if it makes you feel more at ease about it, he did die three years after. And the marriage was never âconsummatedâ (yuck).
No but seriously, she did not live with him, and he reportedly was very respectful of her and did not see her as a wife at all, but as âthe daughter he and Anne never hadâ (Anne had been his first wife and, rest assured, the same age as him). The marriage was basically just to secure peace with France. I also read somewhere that they both had the option to annul the marriage when she turned 12 (age of consent/consummation) but I couldnât find a proper source for it. If true, thatâs good, I guess.
More than anything she was a victim of circumstance and a society that used daughters as political bargaining chips via marriage. And I guess, for her sake, thank god she was treated as fairly as one could be in that situation. But alsoâI donât care. I donât care? I donât care. Donât marry children. Ew.Â
If youâre wondering what became of her, she died at 19 in childbirth. Before you get too sad under the assumption that they married her to another old guy right after Richard, her second husband was actually like 14. I DONâT KNOW MAN. HER BIOGRAPHY WAS ROLLERCOASTER. IT ACTUALLY PHYSICALLY HURT ME.
Anyway, rest in peace, Isabella of Valois. Wait who was this post about again?
âââââââââââââââ
I know this was a long one, so if you made it to this point, thank you! I know I teased this post LITERALLY TWO MONTHS AGO and a couple people have been looking forward to it, so sorry it took so long! My long posts are usually analyses of fiction which are a lot easier because I donât have to worry as much about FACTS and RESEARCH. So this took a hot minute. Either way I hope it lived up to expectations, and if you have any additions or corrections, feel free to add! Once again, I am not an expert, but an asshole with an internet connection. I jolted out of bed at 5 am and wrote the first draft of this post in my notes app like a man possessed, and now Iâm making that your problem.
I included that bit about Isabella at the end because I realized I had written a post that might result in some internet folks taking Richard and running with him as some sort of queer icon⌠and I wanted to remind everyone that this was still a powerful white man from 600 years ago. So letâs not babygirl-ify him TOO much. At least not without also acknowledging the fucked up things heâs done. Isabellaâs story has always been heartbreaking to me and I felt needed to be mentioned at least! I might make a separate post on her if I ever have the time.
Anyway, I will answer any questions and concerns to the best of my ability but if you want someone who actually knows what theyâre talking about, give @shredsandpatches a visit.
Tags: @skeleton-richard @kneelbeforeclefairy @l3monivy @len-tilsoup @masnadies @greyycey (lmk if you'd like the tag removed)
Take the memory, leave the shell! Watch what happens when we return seashells to the beach & marine hermit crabs!
Seashells are so important to beaches for a whole host of reasons.
đOver-shelling can affect hermit crabs because it reduces the availability of suitable shells for them to inhabit. Hermit crabs rely on empty shells of other creatures for protection and shelter. When there are too few shells available, hermit crabs may be forced to inhabit inadequate shells & pollution as homes, which can hinder their growth and make them more vulnerable to predators and environmental stressors. This can ultimately impact their survival and reproductive success.
đShells provide homes or attachment surfaces for algae, sea grass, sponges, coral and a host of other microorganisms.
đAnimals such as decorator crabs and octopus use shells as camouflage and many fish use shells as hiding places to avoid predators.
đShells help to stabilize beaches and anchor seagrass.
đShells are used by shorebirds to build nests.
đWhen shells break down, they provide nutrients for the organisms living in the sand or for those that build their own shells. (Shells are a major source of calcium.) Iâm a firm believer in when we know better, we do better. I once shelled, and then when I learned all of this, I returned all shells that were not sprayed with a clear varnish to the beach & watched the marine hermit crabs go wild changing shells that were so needed!
Ancient Roman Horse Cemetery Discovered in Germany
An ancient Roman cemetery uncovered in southern Germany has revealed more than 100 horse skeletons, shedding new light on the role of animals in ancient military life, and one burial is drawing particular attention.
Archaeologists began excavating a site in Stuttgart in the summer of 2024 ahead of a planned construction project. Stuttgart, located in southwestern Germany, is about 400 miles southwest of Berlin.
Based on earlier finds in the area, including scattered horse bones, experts expected to uncover remnants of a Roman cavalry presence. What they discovered went far beyond expectations.
The State Office for Monument Preservation at the Baden-WĂźrttemberg Regional Council announced on April 16 that a vast Roman graveyard had been unearthed.
Dating back around 1,800 years, the cemetery contained over 100 horse skeletons, making it one of the largest known Roman military horse burial sites in the region.
Graveyard linked to a Roman cavalry unit
Archaeologists believe the horses belonged to a Roman cavalry unit stationed in the area during the second century A.D.
Historical records suggest the unit had about 500 riders, which would have required a herd of at least 700 horses to support daily operations, travel, and military campaigns.
Most of the horses appeared to have died from natural causes, injury, or illness. There were no signs of a mass death event, such as battle or disease, said Sarah Roth, the siteâs lead archaeologist. The burials were generally simple, with no special markings or artifacts.
One burial reflects a personal connection
A single horse was found buried with two ceramic jugs and an oil lamp placed near its leg â items commonly associated with human graves in Roman culture.
Roth said the burial appeared to mimic that of a person and pointed to a strong emotional bond between the animal and its owner. âEven after around 1800 years, the mourning over the death of this one animal is still evident,â she explained in the statement.
The human skeleton raises social questions
The team also uncovered a lone human skeleton at the edge of the site. Officials believe the individual may have been an outsider, excluded from formal Roman burial grounds.
The contrast between the simple human grave and the symbolically rich horse burial has raised new questions about the social values of the time.
Further research planned as site closes
Although excavations at the site are now complete, researchers believe the cemetery may be larger than currently documented.
Further analysis of the remains is underway to better understand the Roman militaryâs dependence on horses and the cultural practices surrounding their care and burial.
