elanya

In the article I am reading on maritime villas in Britain (Tomalin, J of Mar Arch 1.1, p. 50):

"Unfortunately, the Gurnard Roman building was appropriated by Neptune in 1866 and has eluded scientific investigation."

Also, there is a town referenced in this article called 'Hamworthy'.

...Also, a villa called 'Honeyditches', which sounds like a name of a questionable brothel.

Some lulz, from In Search of the Social: Steamboats, Square Wheels, Reindeer and Other Things, in Journal of Maritime Archaeology vol 3, p. 21:

For the purposes of this paper, I argue: it is not that objects and boat structures were nonsocial— i.e. it is not that we are fetishising boats and other objects in maritime archaeology. Rather, it is the various depictions of social in the rest of the social sciences, which exclude or omit boat structures and other objects that need changing. In addition to boats, we study a wide variety of people-and-things (for a discussion of topics and theory in maritime archaeology see McGrail 2001, pp. 1–13; Adams 2002, 2003, pp. 2–46; Flatman 2003). However, besides maritime/nautical archaeology, no other field of the social sciences is dedicated to the socio-cultural, technological and historical exploration of boats, ships and other forms of watercraft. Therefore, it is necessary to stress our importance in academia and argue that discussions of society, in many other areas of the social sciences (i.e. besides our own), need to start including boat structures, objects, things, materials, animals, landscapes and technologies, on a more equal footing with people, minds, agencies and social structures because objects are a part of the social. They help make the subject. They are part of what makes society possible.

...to quote Steve, "God-damn, why do people who are essentially right have to be so pretentious and dumb?" I'm sure other non-maritime archaeologists will be thrilled to know that they aren't paying enough attention to objects.