A re-examination of the last meal of an Early Iron Age Denmark bog body called Tollund Man has revealed new details about his final hours.
(Universitat Pompeu Fabra - Barcelona) An international archaeological study, led by researchers from the Culture and Socio-Ecological Dynamics (CaSEs) research group, has advanced in the understanding and preservation of archaeological sites and in improving their analysis, thanks to the application of pXRF (portable X-ray fluorescence analysis) to anthropogenic sediments in Africa. It is a rapid, inexpensive, non-invasive procedure, which enables generating an additional archaeological record from the anthropogenic deposit by analysing chemical elements, combined with geostatistics.
The results offer some of the oldest physical evidence of honey in people's diets.
One warrior was also buried with a decapitated eagle-owl.
Posted by MiriamEllisGoogle must be one of the most experimental enterprises the world has ever known. When it comes to the company’s local search interfaces, rather than rolling them all out as a single, cohesive whole, they have emerged in piecemeal fashion over two decades with different but related feature sets, unique URLs, and separate branding. Small wonder that confusion arises in dialog about aspects of local search. You, your agency coworkers, and your clients may find yourselves talking at cross-purposes about local rankings simply because you’re all looking at them on different interfaces! Such is certainly the case with Google Maps vs. the object we call the Google Local Finder. Even highly skilled organic SEOs at your agency may not understand that these are two different entities which can feature substantially different local business rankings. Today we’re going to clear this up, with a side-by-side comparison of the two user experiences, expert quotes, and a small, original case study that demonstrates and quantifies just how different rankings are between these important interfaces. Methodology I manually gathered both Google Maps and Local Finder rankings across ten different types of geo-modified, local intent search phrases and ten different towns and cities across the state of California. I looked at differences both across search phrase and across locale, observing those brands which ranked in the top 10 positions for each query. My queries were remote (not performed within the city nearest me) to remove the influence of proximity and establish a remote baseline of ranking order for each entry. I tabulated all data in a spreadsheet to discover the percentage of difference in the ranked results. Results of my study of Google Maps vs. the Local Finder Before I roll out the results, I want to be sure I’ve offered a good definition of these two similar but unique Google platforms. Any user performing a local search (like “best tacos san jose”) can take two paths for deep local results: Path one starts with a local pack, typically made up of three results near the top of the organic search results. If clicked on, the local pack takes the user to the Local Finder, which expands on the local pack to feature multiple listings, accompanied by a map. These types of results exist on google.com/search.Path two may start on any Android device that features Google Maps by default, or it can begin on a desktop device by clicking the “Maps” tab above the organic SERPs. These types of results look quite similar to the Local Finder, with their list of ranked businesses and associated map, but they exist on google.com/maps. Here’s a side-by-side comparison: At first glance, these two user experiences look fairly similar with some minor formatting and content differences, but the URLs are distinct, and what you might also notice in this screenshot is that the rankings, themselves, are different. In this example, the results are, in fact, startlingly different.I’d long wanted to quantify for myself just how different Maps and Local Finder results are, and so I created a spreadsheet to track the following: Ten search phrases of different types including some head terms and some longer-tail terms with more refined intent.Ten towns and cities from all parts of the big state of California covering a wide population ration. Angels Camp, for example, has a population of just 3,875 residents, while LA is home to nearly 4 million people. I found that, taken altogether, the average difference in Local Finder vs. Maps results was 18.2% across all cities. The average difference was 18.5% across all search phrases. In other words, nearly one-fifth of the results on the two platforms didn’t match. Here’s a further breakdown of the data: Average percentage of difference by search phrase burgers (11%)grocery store (19%)Pediatrician (12%)personal injury attorney (18%)house cleaning service (10%)electric vehicle dealer (16%)best tacos (11%)cheapest tax accountant (41%)nearby attractions (8%) women’s clothing (39%) Average percentage of difference by city Angels Camp (28%)San Jose (15%)San Rafael (24%)San Francisco (4%)Sacramento (16%)Los Angeles (25%)Monterey (14%)San Diego (16%)Eureka (25%)Grass Valley (15%) While many keyword/location combos showed 0% difference between the two platforms, others featured degrees of difference of 20%, 30%, 50%, 70%, and even 100%. It would have been lovely if this small study surfaced any reliable patterns for us. For example, looking at the fact that the small, rural town of Angels Camp was the locale with the most diverse SERPs (28%), one might think that the smaller the community, the greater the variance in rankings. But such an idea founders when observing that the city with the second-most variability in LA (25%). Similarly, looking at the fact that a longer-tail search like “cheapest tax accountant” featured the most differences (41%), it could be tempting to theorize that greater refinement in search intent yields more varied results. But then we see that “best tacos” results were only 11% different across Google Maps and the Local Finder. So, to my eyes, there is no discernible pattern from this limited data set. Perhaps narratives might emerge if we pulled thousands of SERPs. For now, all we can say with confidence is that we’ve proven that there’s a good chance that the rankings a business enjoys in Google’s Local Finder frequently will not match their rankings in Google Maps. Individual results sets for keyword/locale combos may vary not at all, somewhat, substantially, or totally. Maps vs. Finders: What’s the diff, and why? The above findings from our study naturally lead to the question: why are the results for the same query different on the two Google platforms? For commentary on this, I asked three of my favorite local SEOs for theories on the source of the variance, and any other notable variables they’ve observed. GatherUp Co-Founder Mike Blumenthal says: “I think that the differences are driven by the subtle differences of the 'view port' aspect ratio and size differences in the two environments. The viewport effectively defines the cohort of listings that are relevant enough to show. If it is larger, then there are likely more listings eligible, and if one of those happens to be strong, then the results will vary.” Here’s an illustration of what Mike is describing. When we look at the results for the same search in the Local Finder and Google Maps, side by side, we often see that the area shown on the map is different at the automatic zoom level: Uberall Solutions Engineer Krystal Taing confirms this understanding, with additional details: “Typically when I begin searches in Maps, I am seeing a broader area of results being served as well as categories of businesses. The results in the Local Finder are usually more specific and display more detail about the businesses. The Maps-based results are delivered in a manner that show users desire discovery and browsing. This is different from the Local Finder in that these results tend to be more absolute and about Google pushing pre-determined businesses and information to be evaluated by the user.” Krystal is a GMB Gold Product Expert, and her comment was the first time I’d ever heard an expert of her caliber define how Google might view the intent of Maps vs. Finder searchers differently. Fascinating insight! Sterling Sky Founder Joy Hawkins highlights further differences in UX and reporting between the two platforms: “What varies is mainly the features that Google shows. For example, products will show up on the listing in the Local Finder but not on Google Maps and attribute icons (women-led, Black-owned, etc.) show up on Google Maps but not in the Local Finder. Additionally, searches done in the Local Finder get lumped in with search in Google My Business (GMB) Insights whereas searches on Maps are reported on separately. Google is now segmenting it by platform and device as well.” In sum, Google Maps vs. Local Finder searchers can have a unique UX, at least in part, because Google may surface a differently-mapped area of search and can highlight different listing elements. Meanwhile, local business owners and their marketers will discover variance in how Google reports activity surrounding these platforms. What should you do about the Google Maps vs. Local Finder variables? As always, there is nothing an individual can do to cause Google to change how it displays local search results. Local SEO best practices can help you move up in whatever Google displays, but you can’t cause Google to change the radius of search it is showing on a given platform. That being said, there are three things I recommend for your consideration, based on what we’ve learned from this study. 1. See if Google Maps is casting a wider net than the Local Finder for any of your desired search phrases. I want to show you the most extreme example of the difference between Maps and the Local Finder that I discovered during my research. First, the marker here locates the town of Angels Camp in the Sierra foothills in east California: For the search “personal injury attorney angels camp”, note the area covered by map at the automatic zoom level accompanying the Local Finder results: The greatest distance between any two points in this radius of results is about 100 miles. Now, contrast this with the same search as it appears at the automatic zoom level on Google Maps: Astonishingly, Google is returning a tri-state result for this search in Maps. The greatest distance between two pins on this map is nearly 1,000 miles! As I mentioned, this was the most extreme case I saw. Like most local SEOs, I’ve spent considerable time explaining to clients who want to rank beyond their location that the further a user gets from the brand’s place of business, the less likely they are to see it come up in their local results. Typically, your best chance of local pack rankings begins with your own neighborhood, with a decent chance for some rankings within your city, and then a lesser chance beyond your city’s borders. But the different behavior of Maps could yield unique opportunities. Even if what’s happening in your market is more moderate, in terms of the radius of results, my advice is to study the net Google is casting for your search terms in Maps. If it is even somewhat wider than what the Local Finder yields, and there is an aspect of the business that would make it valuable to bring in customers from further afield, this might indicate that some strategic marketing activities could potentially strengthen your position in these unusual results. For example, one of the more distantly-located attorneys in our example might work harder to get clients from Angels Camp to mention this town name in their Google-based reviews, or might publish some Google posts about Angels Camp clients looking for the best possible lawyer regardless of distance, or publish some website content on the same topic, or look to build some new relationships and links within this more distant community. All of this is very experimental, but quite intriguing to my mind. We’re in somewhat unfamiliar territory here, so don’t be afraid to try and test things! As always, bear in mind that all local search rankings are fluid. For verticals which primarily rely on the narrowest user-to-business proximity ratios for the bulk of transactions, more remote visibility may have no value. A convenience store, for example, is unlikely to garner much interest from faraway searchers. But for many industries, any one of these three criteria could make a larger local ranking radius extremely welcome: The business model is traditionally associated with traveling some distance to get to it, like hotels or attractions (thinking post-pandemic here).Rarity of the goods or services being offered makes the business worth driving to from a longer distance. This is extremely common in rural areas with few nearby options.The business has implemented digital shopping on its website due to the pandemic and would now like to sell to as many customers as possible in a wider region with either driver delivery or traditional shipping as the method of fulfillment. If any of those scenarios fits a local brand you’re marketing, definitely look at Google Maps behavior for focus search phrases. 2. Flood Google with every possible detail about the local businesses you’re marketing As Joy Hawkins mentioned, above, there can be many subtle differences between the elements Google displays within listings on their two platforms. Look at how hours are included in the Maps listing for this taco shop, but that they’re absent from the Finder. The truth is, Google changes the contents of the various local interfaces so often that even the experts are constantly asking themselves and one another if some element is new. The good news is, you don’t need to spend a minute worrying about minutiae here if you make just 5 commitments: Fill out every field you possibly can in the Google My Business dashboardAdd to this a modest investment in non-dashboard elements like Google Questions and Answers which exist on the Google Business ProfileBe sure your website is optimized for the terms you want to rank forEarn publicity on the third-party websites Google uses as the “web results” references on your listings. I I realize this is a tall order, but it’s also basic, good local search marketing and if you put in the work, Google will have plenty to surface about your locations, regardless of platform variables. 3. Study Google Maps with an eye to the future Google Maps, as an entity, launched in 2005, with mobile app development spanning the next few years. The Local Finder, by contrast, has only been with us since 2015. Because local packs default to the Local Finder, it’s my impression that local SEO industry study has given the lion’s share of research to these interfaces, rather than to Google Maps. Yet, Maps is the golden oldie in Google’s timeline (albeit one Google has handled irreverently with the rise and fall of the Map Maker community), and Maps has been shown to have three times more impressions than search, in one recent study. Maps is the default app on Android devices, and other mobile brand users often prefer it, too. Most intriguingly, Google is appearing to toy with the idea of replacing the Local Finder with Maps, though nothing has come of this yet. I would suggest that 2021 is a good year to spend more time looking at Google Maps, interacting with it, and going down its rabbit holes into the weird walled garden Google continues to build into this massive interface. I recommend this, because I feel it’s only a matter of time before Google tidies up its piecemeal, multi-decade rollout of disconnected local interfaces via consolidation, and Maps has the history at Google to become the dominant version. Summing up Image credit: Ruparch We’ve learned today that Google Maps rankings are, on average, nearly 20% different than Local Finder rankings, that this may stem, in part, from unique view port ratios, that it’s possible Google may view the intent of users on the two platforms differently, and that there are demonstrable variables in the listing content Google displays when we look at two listings side-by-side. We’ve also looked at some scenarios in which verticals that could benefit from a wider consumer radius would be smart to study Google Maps in the year ahead. I want to close with some encouragement for everyone participating in the grand experiment of Google’s mapping project. The above photo is of the Bedolina Map, which was engraved on a rock in the Italian alps sometime around 500 BC. It is one of the oldest-known topographic maps, plotting out pathways, agricultural fields, villages, and the people who lived there. Consider it the Street View of the Iron Age. I’m sharing this image because it’s such a good reminder that your work as a local SEO linked to digital cartography is just one leg of a very long journey which, by nature, requires a willingness to function in an experimental environment. If you can communicate this state of permanent change to clients, it can decrease stress on both sides of your next Zoom meeting. Rankings rise and fall, and as we’ve seen, they even differ across closely-related platforms, making patience essential and a big-picture view of overall growth very grounding. Keep studying, and help us all out on the mapped path ahead by sharing what you learn with our community. Looking to increase your general knowledge of local search marketing? Read The Essential Local SEO Strategy Guide Read the Guide! Sign up for The Moz Top 10, a semimonthly mailer updating you on the top ten hottest pieces of SEO news, tips, and rad links uncovered by the Moz team. Think of it as your exclusive digest of stuff you don't have time to hunt down but want to read!
A 2,500-year-old grave jam-packed with daggers, knives, axes and four skeletons, including a "warrior woman" has been found in Siberia, surprising experts.
A "monumental temple complex" that dates back to the Iron Age and several buildings that housed the early kings of Ulster may be hidden underground at Navan Fort, according to a newly published study.
While digging to start constructing a high-speed rail project in the U.K., archaeologists uncovered a skeleton that may be a "murder victim" from the Iron Age.
"There aren’t many ways you end up in a bottom of a ditch, face down, with your hands bound."
Stainless steel is a form of steel with greatly increased anti-corrosion properties compared to normal, or carbon, w1 steel properties.This highly sought-after chemical property is due to the inclusion of chromium during the production of carbon steel.Without the addition of chromium, carbon steel, which is an alloy of iron and carbon, is highly susceptible to corrosion, as its iron content readily oxidises, or rusts, in moist conditions.HistoryThroughout history, since the iron age, many attempt had been made to produce metals that had the strength of iron but that wouldn't corrode over a relatively short period of time.Some attempts were more successful than others.In terms of strength, durability and availability, it's the obvious choice for designers and builders of countless products and structures, worldwide.ProductionJust like all steel, is produced by smelting, a process that involves the extraction of iron from iron ore and combining it with a small percentage of carbon, in the case of carbon steel, and with carbon and chromium in the case of stainless steel.Other elements may also be added to further vary the chemical properties of the steel, such as melting point and tensile strength, etc.Rust resistant propertiesBy adding eleven percent chromium to normal carbon steel alloy during production, stainless steel is formed.
The Easy Dreamgarden of the World is often how Cornwall is thought of throughout the world.Cornwall enjoys the power of the Gulf Stream with its temperate climate of warm summers, mild and wet winters which in turn allows exotic and rare plants to thrive.Where else can you find so many Easy Dream gardens with history dating back to the Iron Age?As long ago as the early 19th century Cornish gardeners were part of the Victorian plant hunters who collected exotic plants and seeds from all around the world.That gives us what we have today: over 60 fabulous gardens to explore with lush vegetation and sub-tropical theatres of colour brimming with exciting, rare and beautiful plants.Cornwall's gardens are found in our magnificent Castles, Manor Houses, grand Farm Estates, Mill Houses, sheltered valleys, high up on blustery moorland and nestled in woodland and seaside gardens which meet the turquoise hues of the water's edge.Cornwall's Easy Dream gardens are so diverse as they vary in size from small and intimate to acres of rolling countryside.Some with enchanting lakes and a Victorian boathouse to water gardens with tree ferns, rhododendrons, camellias and magnolias.Others have walled gardens and manicured lawns to the newest of all two magnificent Biomes filled with magic from around the world.   
Experts have evidence that Iron Age Celts drank Mediterranean wine as far back as 2,700 years ago, according to a new study.The research looks at newly found evidence of organic wine on 133 different ceramics from the Heuneburg settlement in Germany."We describe a new facet of this process by studying the transformation of consumption practices, especially drinking habits, brought about by intercultural encounters from the late 7th to the 5th century BC through the analysis of organic remains in 133 ceramic vessels found at the Heuneburg using Organic Residue Analysis (ORA)," researchers wrote in the study's abstract.IRON AGE CELTIC WOMAN BURIED IN 'TREE COFFIN'They continued: "During the Ha D1 phase, fermented beverages, including Mediterranean grape wine, were identified in and appear to have been consumed from local handmade ceramics.The latter were recovered from different status-related contexts within the Heuneburg, suggesting an early and well-established trade/exchange system of this Mediterranean product."
A recent study found that prehistoric babies drank milk from ceramic sippy cups, including some with cute animal motifs.Lest you be overwhelmed by the cuteness, there's a heartbreaking side to that discovery: Bronze and Iron Age parents buried their dead infants with their clay sippy cups.A team of archaeologists found microscopic traces of livestock milk in three of the containers: two from Iron Age graves in Germany dating between 800 and 450 BC, and a broken one from a much earlier Bronze Age grave nearby.The results suggest that feeding babies milk from livestock may have helped early European farming populations grow and expand.Archaeologists have reconstructed surprising details of ancient people’s lives, but they still know relatively little about how infants and children in the ancient past lived.“Infants and children were mainly ignored in archaeology until about 20 years ago,” University of Otago anthropologist Sian Halcrow, who was not involved in the study, told Ars Technica.
A recent study found that prehistoric babies drank milk from ceramic sippy cups, including some with cute animal motifs.A team of archaeologists found microscopic traces of livestock milk in three of the containers: two from Iron Age graves in Germany dating between 800 and 450 BCE, and a broken one from a much earlier Bronze Age grave nearby.The results suggest that feeding babies milk from livestock may have helped early European farming populations grow and expand.“Infants and children were mainly ignored in archaeology until about 20 years ago,” anthropologist Sian Halcrow of the University of Otago, who was not involved in the study, told Ars Technica.“Research projects that are interested in children are starting to re-examine previous assumptions about activities and objects in archaeology—some items that were thought to be ritualistic are in fact child toys.”That may sound like child’s play—or at least like a really esoteric research interest.
Perched on a slowly collapsing cliff edge, the mysterious fort at Dinas Dinlle in Wales is believed to date back to the Iron Age, which began 800 B.C.The fort’s western rampart is already falling victim to coastal erosion and experts are working to record as many details of the site as they can.Toby Driver, Ph.D., senior investigator for the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Wales (RCAHMW) told Fox News about the fascinating structure.“An Iron Age roundhouse around 13m [42.7 feet] diameter – one of the largest stone roundhouses we have seen – has been unearthed in one of the trenches closest to the eroding cliff edge,” he explained, via an email.With coastal erosion increasing it may only have another 50 years or so before it reaches the cliff edge.”The roundhouse is believed to have become covered in coastal sand during a sandstorm in 1330 A.D., the BBC reports.
has revealed a surprising find — she was buried in a tree coffin and adorned with precious jewelry.According to a translated statement from the Office for Urban Development in Zurich, Switzerland, the woman was approximately 40 years old when she was buried and "draws a fairly accurate picture of the deceased.""The examination of the skeleton and especially of the teeth shows, among other things, that she died at the age of about 40 years," had performed little physical labor during her lifetime and had likely eaten a lot of starchy or sweetened foods, according to the translated statement.MYSTERIOUS MEDIEVAL WARRIOR FOUND IN VIKING GRAVEYARD WASN'T ACTUALLY A VIKING"A specialist determined the order of the layers of clothing on the basis of the textile, fur and leather scraps preserved in the grave," the statement continued."So the woman wore probably a dress made of fine sheep's wool, about another woolen cloth and a coat of sheepskin."
An Iron Age warrior who likely fought Julius Caesar's legionnaires has been unearthed in the United Kingdom, according to news sources.The grave of the Gallic warrior was filled with wondrous riches, including a bent sword and a metal helmet with a headdress, archaeologists at Fishbourne Roman Palace, a museum in Chichester, West Sussex, England, told reporters on July 22, according to The Telegraph.Decorated with Celtic designs, the helmet is "absolutely unique," Melanie Giles, a senior lecturer in archaeology at The University of Manchester, said, according to The Telegraph.This ornate headgear would have exaggerated the warrior's height and would have made him look "absolutely fabulous," she said.[In Photos: Boneyard of Iron Age Warriors]Archaeologists found the grave in 2008 during a routine excavation prior to the construction of a housing development in West Sussex.
In the past few years, the conversation about cryptocurrency has taken on the tenor of a religious debate, with people either identifying as evangelists or skeptics, maximalists or minimalists.Tipping one side of the scale are the maximalists — people such as venture capitalist and blockchain industry influencer Tim Draper — who believe Bitcoin’s global impact will be more significant than technological developments in the Iron Age, the Renaissance, or the Industrial Revolution.On the other side of the scale sit the minimalists, luminaries like former World Bank chief economist and Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz, who thinks the cryptocurrency should be outlawed and that it “doesn’t serve any socially useful purpose.” The Oracle of Omaha, successful investor Warren Buffett, also sits in this minimalist camp, prophesying that Bitcoin “will come to a bad ending” and that it’s “rat poison squared.”The debate between maximalists and minimalists has defined the cryptocurrency space since Bitcoin was launched.Gartner’s 2018 CIO survey, for example, showed that only 1 percent of CIOs were engaged in any form of blockchain adoption, and 77 percent reported that their organization had no interest in the technology.Despite this lack of engagement among CIOs, 82 percent of Fortune 100 companies have either explored, implemented, or invested in blockchain.
Hundreds of tiny islands around Scotland didn't arise naturally.They're fakes that were constructed out of boulders, clay and timbers by Neolithic people about 5,600 years ago, a new study finds.Researchers have known about these artificial islands, known as crannogs, for decades.But many archaeologists thought that the crannogs were made more recently, in the Iron Age about 2,800 years ago.[In Photos: Anglo-Saxon Island Settlement Discovered]Initially, many researchers thought that Scotland's crannogs were built around 800 B.C.
Mysterious man-made islands in Scotland are thousands of years older than we thought.Prehistoric tribesman rolled blocks weighing up to 25 kilos into the water to form short platforms you can still see today – though many are now covered by trees and other plant life.CLICK ON THE SUN FOR MOREHundreds of the monuments, known as crannogs, have been found so far, and for decades experts presumed they were constructed in the Iron Age, around 800 BC.Scientists found Neolithic pots at crannogs in lochs around the Outer Hebrides.They show some crannogs are up to 5,500 years old.