Mary Beard is marvellous

[TheYuleLogLady]

i love her. i want to go to pompeii and sare a botle of wine with hr.

think my word was 'kind', actually. not fond of nice. trop milquetoast pour moi.

Oh right. So you demand that I make a comment about Ancient Rome and then tell me that actually we are talking about the AAG review ... ?

However, if this is to be about AAG then I'm off as I have absolutely no desire to fall into his nasty little trap of talking about how unpleasant he is.

i don't know what it's to be about any more than you do, senua. that's MN for you, no-one can dictate how threads will go... repeat after me, 'we are all individuals'.

Oh, sorry, but I too want to go back to the programme rather than the clothes (lovely as they were).

Does anyone know how they do tell if a skull is African or not? This also came up on something else I watched recently and it's fascinating, but I'd love to know how certain it is.

Hi.. on the skull: without DNA, it's impossible to be certain (and DNA has proved very hard to sequence for Pompeii, though not from other archaeological sites). The appearance of the skull STRONGLY SUGGESTS that it is AFrican.. making it likely, even very likely, but not 100% m

"DNA has proved very hard to sequence for Pompeii, though not from other archaeological sites"

Ah! Hadn't thought of the effect of the volcano on DNA.
Thanks for the reply.

Thanks very much Mary, that makes sense now.

Btw, I liked the way you were very respectful about the bones having belonged to living people. Looking forward to the next episode!

the funniest thing in Gill's review is where he says, 'This isn't sexist or beside the point.'

this isn't sexist. Because he says so. So there.

god, yes, lenin. this is exactly the problem. however if you look at the mail, which is pretty much the model for a successful newspaper these days (oh yes it iiiiis ) their sales do suggest a love of outrage in the british persona.

Has anyone got a link to the full article? Or did you all nip out and buy the Times?

Loving the 'this isn't sexist or beside the point'! Right then, I'm convinced ...

we get it delivered. Every 6 weeks or so some piece of outrageous sexism catches my eye and I vow to end our order forthwith....

come to think of it, the last few weeks have been unusually good for brainy middle aged woman on tv. I would add Ruth Goodman (Edwardian Farm) to the list - not super-intellectual but she knows loads and is extremely good at stuff and is engaging because of that, not because of how she looks.

Thanks all.. onwards and upwards! I think Amanda Vickery is brill.. I really liked the Radio 4 thing she did on the Old Bailey records or criminal cases.

Ooh yes, I liked Ruth on Edwardian/Victorian Farm too. She talks through eg how you make sanitary towels in the old times, and has a strip wash while talking you through it - without any salaciousness of course I mean.

I thought your post was very thought-provoking, SethStarkadder'sMum. Speaking as one monstrous mum to another, that is. (I often do wonder when I see you post whether we chose our MN nicknames for similar motives - and if so, what this shows about our esteemed Alma Mater)

I'm already boycotting The Times because of a so-called gardening article that was nothing more than a puff-piece for Mr Vodafone owner's palatial new pad.

What other good history programmes are coming up? I really wanted to like the programme set in a Northamptonshire village, but didn't. I feel I need to know quite a bit about a historical period before I can really enjoy a TV programme on it, not sure why.

I often find that, compared with radio, TV moves very slowly, because they feel they've got to constantly show you images dissolving in and out. Meanwhile, I'm thinking, 'come on, you told me that, on to the next nugget of information'.

agreed, i think that is because tv people are kind of justifying to themselves that they don't work in radio. some good graphics/animation work recently though on BBC4, which, for me, allows information to penetrate efficiently and then move on.

I often wonder about the problem of having to use imagery in TV factual programmes. Often, of course, it is entirely helpful; but there are many times when you wish they had the confidence just to allow the Knowledgable Speaker to do a piece to camera with Some Books behind them. In the nineties in particular there seems to have been a terrified flinging of busy visual conceit in documentaries. They got over that by making every factual programme into some drama of a Real Person going to America to Find Out about their diagnosis/ancestors/whatever-the-fuck. I want people in bad suits with blackboards like the old OU progs.

oh god, me too. actually that has been the great thing about this recent history theme on bbc4, at least they have been knowledgeable talking heads rather than a comedian with a vague interest in genealogy.

did anyone see the stats show with... hans someone, was it? absolutely FANTASTIC. in fact, the one last year about quantum physics with mark thingybob from eels was also great, entirely tolerable on the celeb front because he was the son of QP guy. visuals for that were spectacularly good, so much so i was moved to send an email to the director to congratulate her.

I loved the crash history of Christianity that BBC4 did a few months ago with Diarmaid MacCulloch. Plenty of opportunity for good visual content there. He was a bit of a 'personality' but v good. Wonderful.

bbc4 is knocking it out of the park a lot, i think. actually sky arts is doing interesting stuff as well.

I keep seeing in a TV listings that there are good things on Sky Arts but never actually make the leap to watching it - I need to get my act together.

Agree re the repetition you often find in TV factual programmes, and thus the slowness of it all - I think the audience are often wildly underestimated. That's one of the reasons the Pompeii show was refreshing - there were no unnecessary recaps.