UM-Bot Posted May 31, 2015 #1 Share Posted May 31, 2015 New research has revealed that the stone's inscription does not relate to the person buried beneath it. Discovered earlier this year during an archaeological dig in Cirencester, England, the 1,800-year-old Roman tombstone bears the inscription "D. M. BODICACIA CONIUNX VIXIT ANNO S XXVII", which is thought to mean "To the shades of the underworld, Bodicacia, spouse, lived 27 years. " Read More: http://www.unexplain...roman-tombstone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonardo Posted May 31, 2015 #2 Share Posted May 31, 2015 (edited) Why presume a 'spouse' had to be of the opposite sex? Maybe 'Bodicacia' was transsexual? Edited May 31, 2015 by Leonardo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
odiesbsc Posted June 1, 2015 #3 Share Posted June 1, 2015 Why presume a 'spouse' had to be of the opposite sex? Maybe 'Bodicacia' was transsexual? Or perhaps a woman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pallidin Posted June 1, 2015 #4 Share Posted June 1, 2015 Good points. "Spouse" is not gender specific. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSpoonyOne Posted June 1, 2015 #5 Share Posted June 1, 2015 (edited) I'm not understanding what the mystery is? "Spouse" in English means either husband or wife. It stems from "Spondere" which in Latin apparently means "betroth", so unless the word in Latin on this epitaph had a female specific conotation, I don't see what the question is? Unless the archaeologists are erroneously thinking "spouse" is female specific? One of those words people often assume means one thing when it actually means something more? Edited June 1, 2015 by TheSpoonyOne 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowSot Posted June 1, 2015 #6 Share Posted June 1, 2015 Ir it cod be editorialized to get you to read the article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aftermath Posted June 1, 2015 #7 Share Posted June 1, 2015 This article is stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert1 Posted June 3, 2015 #8 Share Posted June 3, 2015 This article is stupid. I agree. It does seem quite pointless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zalmoxis Posted June 3, 2015 #9 Share Posted June 3, 2015 (edited) It may not be true. If the tombstone is genuine then perhaps they buried the wrong bloak. Edited June 3, 2015 by Zalmoxis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now