Archaeologists have long studied diseases in past populations. They’ve explored the evolution of pathogens and how they interacted with humans.
Source: Archaeology shows how ancient African societies managed pandemics : The Conversation
Archaeologists have long studied diseases in past populations. They’ve explored the evolution of pathogens and how they interacted with humans.
Source: Archaeology shows how ancient African societies managed pandemics : The Conversation
Leaving a major political body is nothing new for mainland Britain. In 409AD, more than 350 years after the Roman conquest of 43AD, the island slipped from the control of the Roman Empire. Much like the present Brexit, the process of this secession and its practical impacts on Britain’s population in the early years of the 5th century remain ill-defined.
As with the UK and Brussels, Britain had always been a mixed blessing for Rome. In around 415AD, St Jerome called the island “fertile in tyrants” (meaning usurpers) and late Roman writers portrayed a succession of rebellions in Britain, usually instigated by the army – many of whom would have been born in the province.
Around 407AD, the latest usurper, Constantine III, left Britain, taking the remaining elements of the army with him. The late Roman writer, Zosimus, then wrote that the pressure of Barbarian invaders obliged the British to throw off Roman rule and live “no longer subject to Roman laws but as they themselves pleased”, a phrase guaranteed to warm the heart of any Brexiteer.
This episode, around 409AD, seems to have been the end of Roman government in Britain. No “Romans” left, beyond the small number of soldiers who went to the continent to fight with Constantine III. Instead, the end of Roman Britain was, like the proposed present Brexit, a change in a relationship with a distant administration. But how did this change actually affect the people who lived in the island? And what were the consequences?
Source: The Roman ‘Brexit’: how life in Britain changed after 409AD
This is disgraceful and the law should be protecting the victims,the Standing Rock Sioux people.
If true, this is pure barbarism. I blogged earlier this week about protests by Native Americans about the North Dakota Access Pipeline, which is intended to carry oil through the lands of the Standing Rock Sioux people. The tribe are opposing it, as they fear that the pipeline will lead to the pollution of their water supply and the destruction of their lands and its ecosystem. In this piece from Democracy Now!, the anchor Amy Goodson speaks to the tribe’s lawyer, Jan Hasselman, from the chambers Earthjustice, and the tribe’s chairman Dave Archambault.
The oil company has tried a number of tactics to try to close down and disrupt the protests. They local sheriff and officials have pulled cellphone access over the area, to stop citizens uploading videos of the protests to the internet. They’ve also attacked the protesters with dogs and pepper spray. There’s video footage of the bites…
View original post 866 more words
by Sonyo Zofia
A blog for carers of mental health
Thoughts on life... by Donald B. Wilson
By Sandra Js Photography - Make the rest of your life the best of your life.
Counselling for Individuals, Young People and Children
Affiliated to the national Equality Trust
Making Research Real
Voice, Empower, Influence.
from Joe Halewood
We Provide The Facts, You Make The Decisions
Domestic Abuse Survivor 🤍🦋
Your Independent Left Wing pro NHS Media Source
Chris Sterry expressing views and thoughts on disability issues and other interests.
Working Together through Co-production
News, politics, insights, inside information from the left