07-03-2004, 08:50 PM
<em>Oh, I've got one! Page 149 of the first edtion, in the description of the Dura Europas scutum. The thickness of the strips of wood used in its construction is given as "15-20 mm (1/2-3/4 in)", the total thickness as "50 mm (2 in)". Clearly there was a typo at some point in the metric measurements, which should be 1.5 mm to 2 mm, with a total thickness of c. 5 mm. The English measurements must have been calculated AFTER this typo got in! (Of course, a scutum of that size with a thickness of 2 inches is going to weigh about 80 pounds.)</em><br>
<br>
That one was got at an early stage, but thanks anyway. I spotted it after somebody commented on it without realising it was wrong. So far as I can work it out, the decimal points were dropped at the editorial stage when the imperial measurements went in (a bizarre process, as I <em>think</em> the original report was in imperial anyway and we converted to metric... if you're still with me ;-) Should have picked it up at the proof stage, though.<br>
<br>
The scale on the Rottweil <em>spatha</em> will be correct this time too (that was wrong in the original report and I stupidly believed it).<br>
<br>
<em>The weird thing is that the book on late Roman equipment by I.P. Stephenson copied this error verbatim! One of the many reasons I never bought that one...</em><br>
<br>
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery... which is how I have to interpret all those 'after Bishop' re-draws that crop up in certain Tempus books :-(<br>
<br>
Keep 'em coming.<br>
<br>
Mike Bishop <p></p><i></i>
<br>
That one was got at an early stage, but thanks anyway. I spotted it after somebody commented on it without realising it was wrong. So far as I can work it out, the decimal points were dropped at the editorial stage when the imperial measurements went in (a bizarre process, as I <em>think</em> the original report was in imperial anyway and we converted to metric... if you're still with me ;-) Should have picked it up at the proof stage, though.<br>
<br>
The scale on the Rottweil <em>spatha</em> will be correct this time too (that was wrong in the original report and I stupidly believed it).<br>
<br>
<em>The weird thing is that the book on late Roman equipment by I.P. Stephenson copied this error verbatim! One of the many reasons I never bought that one...</em><br>
<br>
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery... which is how I have to interpret all those 'after Bishop' re-draws that crop up in certain Tempus books :-(<br>
<br>
Keep 'em coming.<br>
<br>
Mike Bishop <p></p><i></i>
