Reading — 2026 Jan–Apr Recall Set 33

Fishbourne Roman Palace is in the village of Fishbourne in West Sussex, England. This large palace was built in the 1st century AD, around thirty years after the Roman conquest of Britain, on the site of Roman army grain stores that had been established after the invasion during the reign of the Roman Emperor Claudius in 43 AD. The rectangular palace was built around formal gardens, the northern half of which has been reconstructed. There were extensive alterations in the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD, with many of the original black-and-white mosaic floors being overlaid with more sophisticated coloured ones, including a perfectly preserved mosaic of a dolphin in the north wing. More alterations were in progress when the palace burnt down in around 270 AD, after which it was abandoned. Local people had long believed that a Roman palace once existed in the area. However, it was not until 1960 that the archaeologist Barry Cunliffe of Oxford University first systematically excavated the site, after workmen had accidentally uncovered a wall while they were laying a water main. The Roman villa excavated by Cunliffe’s team was so grand that it became known as Fishbourne Roman Palace, and a museum was erected to preserve some of the remains. This is administered by the Sussex Archaeological Society. In its day, the completed palace would have comprised four large wings with colonnaded fronts. The north and east wings consisted of suites of private rooms built around courtyards, with a monumental entrance in the middle of the east wing. In the north-east corner there was an assembly hall. The west wing contained state rooms, a large ceremonial reception room and a gallery. The south wing contained the owner’s private apartments. The palace included as many as fifty mosaic floors, under-floor central heating and a bathhouse. In size, Fishbourne Palace would have been approximately equivalent to some of the great Roman palaces of Italy, and was by far the largest known Roman residence north of the European Alps, at about 500 feet (150 m) square. A team of volunteers and professional archaeologists is involved in an ongoing archaeological excavation on the site of nearby, possibly military, buildings. The first buildings to be erected on the site were constructed in the early part of the conquest in 43 AD. Later, two timber buildings were constructed, one with clay-and-mortar floors and plaster walls, which appears to have been a house of some comfort. These buildings were demolished in the 60s AD and replaced by a substantial stone house, which included colonnades and a bath suite. It has been suggested that the palace itself, incorporating the previous house in its south-east corner, was constructed around 73–75 AD. However, Dr Miles Russell of Bournemouth University re-interpreted the ground plan and the collection of objects found, and has suggested that, given the extremely close parallels with the imperial palace of Domitian in Rome, its construction may more plausibly date to after 92 AD. With regard to who lived in Fishbourne Palace, there are a number of theories. For example, one proposed by Professor Cunliffe is that, in its early phase, the palace was the residence of Tiberius Claudius Cogidubnus, a local chieftain who supported the Romans and who may have been installed as king of a number of territories following the first stage of the conquest. Cogidubnus is known from a reference to his loyalty in Agricola, a work by the Roman writer Tacitus, and from an inscription commemorating a temple dedicated to the gods Neptune and Minerva found in the nearby city of Chichester. Another theory is that it was built for Sallustius Lucullus, a Roman governor of Britain in the late 1st century, who may have been the son of the British prince Adminius. Two inscriptions recording the presence of Lucullus have been found in Chichester, and the redating by Miles Russell suggests that, if the palace was designed for Lucullus, then it may have been in use for only a few years, as the Roman historian Suetonius records that Lucullus was executed by the Emperor Domitian in or shortly after 93 AD. Additional theories suggest that either Verica, a British king of the Roman Empire in the years preceding the Claudian invasion, was the owner of the palace, or Tiberius Claudius Catuarus, following the recent discovery of a gold ring belonging to him. The palace outlasted the original owner, whoever he was, and was extensively re-planned early in the 2nd century AD and subdivided into a series of smaller apartments. Further redevelopment was begun in the late 3rd century AD, but these alterations were incomplete when the north wing was destroyed in a fire in around 270 AD. The damage was too great to repair, and the palace was abandoned and later dismantled. A modern museum has been built by the Sussex Archaeological Society, incorporating most of the visible remains, including one wing of the palace. The gardens have been replanted using authentic plants from the Roman period.

A. Recent research has shown that plants are more aware of their environment and more active in their responses than was ever previously imagined. Simon Gilroy, a professor of botany at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in the USA, has spent much of his career trying to understand how plants work. Now, Gilroy and one of his post-doctoral researchers, Masatsugu Toyota, have produced a series of videos that shows how plants responded when they subjected them to wounds, including scissor cuts and caterpillar bites. B. Gilroy and Toyota discovered that when one part of a plant is attacked or damaged, a wave of calcium spreads throughout the rest of the plant. The calcium alerts the plant to danger and the need to deploy defence tactics. The team were able to see this by utilising a naturally occurring fluorescent-green protein which binds to the calcium, making its path visible. While scientists already knew that plants reacted to danger via an electrical charge that moves across their tissue, they didn't know exactly how it happened. Gilroy and Toyota suspected it had something to do with glutamate—an abundant neurotransmitter in animals—triggers this wave of calcium. C. The find was fortuitous given that Gilroy hadn't intended to study wounding at all. His real passion is understanding how plants sense gravity and seem to know which way is up—something that's proving extremely hard to work out. It was during the early stages of an experiment into gravity that Toyota came across the wounding response. 'We work very intensely on the calcium signal, because it's a ubiquitous signal. Biology uses it absolutely everywhere,' explains Gilroy. 'It makes your heart beat, it makes your muscles contract. Plants use it for a lot of their signalling machinery. We had some hints that the gravity-sensing system is based around the calcium signal, and so we were developing the technology to image calcium cells in real-time.' It was during this process that Gilroy and Toyota realised they'd captured something never usually visible to humans. D. The team found that the calcium travels at one millimetre per second, fast enough to spread to other leaves in just a couple of minutes. From the data collected up to now, it appears that how far the calcium travels depends on the extent of the wound, or, as Gilroy puts it, 'The more you hurt it, the louder it screams.' That 'scream' can result in a range of responses. 'Plants are masters of chemistry,' says Gilroy. 'We deal with the world by running away from it, plants deal with the world by growing in response to it, or by making a tonne of stuff.' That 'tonne of stuff' could be chemicals that poison a hungry insect, or that make the plant unattractive, tough or unpalatable. Some plants even make proteins that block the ability of a caterpillar's gut to digest the plant material. This is dinner that fights back. E. The next step for Gilroy and his team is to delve deeper into the signalling response on a cellular level, dissecting the genes and proteins responsible. In contrast to our understanding of human nerve cells, Gilroy admits that the equivalent responses in plants are still barely understood. He is also going to widen the scope of the study and look at other signals that plants send out—signals regarding temperature and changes in light and touch. Gilroy explains that there may be a wider use for the research, albeit a long way in the future. Once scientists have managed to identify the specific genes that make the signalling process work and can understand what happens when you switch those genes on and off, it's not hard to think about the potential. 'You can imagine that we should be able to take a crop plant and switch on its defences on-call,' says Gilroy. 'We're nowhere near that point yet, but once we get there—say you're in a field and you predict there's going to be an outbreak of some pest, you could go in and pre-defend all of the plants in the field, but you do it on-call so the plants aren't wasting their resources defending themselves the whole time.' F. For now, though, Gilroy is happy to simply increase understanding of plants. He is energetic in his insistence that they are not the inactive and unreceptive organisms that people generally believe them to be. For that reason, he's as enthusiastic about the way the videos bring the response process to life as he is about the future potential of the research. 'When you look at a plant, just because it doesn't do what we do, and it doesn't move, that doesn't mean it isn't doing anything. They're hugely dynamic organisms,' he says.

Charles Darwin, the brilliant anthropologist and creator of the theory of evolution, is not normally associated with the modern business world. Nevertheless, Darwinian evolutionary theory is the foundation of a new wave of ideas about human behaviour in general and particularly the way people behave in the workplace; these ideas have given the title of ‘evolutionary psychology’. Evolutionary psychology revolves around the notion that our brains, like our bodies, have an inherited evolutionary design that has scarcely changed for 10,000 years. As respected evolutionary psychology experts Leda Cosmides and John Tooby comment, ‘our modern skulls house a Stone Age mind’. The US biologist Edward O. Wilson sees evolutionary psychology as being a discipline which is based on both sociobiology, which is the study of the biological basis of social behaviour, and psychology, which is the systematic study of human behaviour. Nigel Nicholson, an organisational psychologist from the London Business School, is a strong supporter of evolutionary psychology and on this subject has published Managing the Human Animal. His book takes the reader on a journey from the Stone Age plains of the savannah to the modern office, and includes a discussion of Darwinism and behavioural psychology, together with a dissection of dysfunctional organisational behaviour. It is an effective approach explaining why people behave as they do, particularly at work. Evolutionary psychology is increasingly being cited in management circles, where managers are trying to understand puzzling aspects of human behaviour and, by doing so, improve the workplace. Nicholson believes that evolutionary psychology can help managers understand what goes wrong in organisational life and what they can do about it. Nicholson maintains that evolutionary psychology dismisses the long-held assumption that our minds are like blank pages just waiting for culture and experience to write on them and shape our nature. He points out that sophisticated research shows the brain actually houses a store of knowledge when we are born, and now genetic research is establishing there are certain genes that account for abilities, tastes and tendencies. The stored knowledge in the human brain has not changed much since the Stone Age. As Tooby and Cosmides stress, there have not been enough generations for a brain that is well-adapted to our post-industrial life to evolve through natural selection. The evolutionary psychology version of human nature revolves around some key elements which we have inherited from our hunter-gatherer minds. One key element is emotion. Emotion was originally essential to keep early man alive and safe from predators. Emotion was, and continues to be, our radar, guiding us throughout today’s techno-defined business world. Despite this, the business world emphasises rational, not emotional, behaviour, and does not admit the importance of emotion. We still use the emotional part of our minds to make sense of other people’s behaviour and to create an impression, so we can often be taken in by appearances. This mental predisposition actually works best in small communities (the tribe), not in much larger environments filled with people we barely know (the modern workplace). Our minds naturally try to re-create our ancestral communities with networks of no more than 150 people, where there are clear hierarchies and leaders. As a consequence, it takes very little to trigger people’s innate distrust of others because our safety in antiquity depended on supporting our near family and friends, whom we valued more than other people. So what advice does Nicholson have for the corporate world? He thinks that by knowing the reasons for people’s behaviour it is possible to mould corporate environments into places that have more chance of working efficiently and being pleasant places to work in. Nicholson admits that not everybody in the business world agrees with his belief in the effectiveness of evolutionary psychology in the workplace. One group that resists the theory of evolutionary psychology is young MBA graduates who are just beginning their careers and feel that evolutionary psychology will make their lives at work more difficult. Older and wiser executives point out that they still tend to cling to the idea of a magic formula to bring people into line with corporate strategy. But that is back-to-front thinking, according to Nicholson, who contends that we should be reinventing our business structures, not our fundamental human nature. At the end of his book, Nicholson gives his forecast of what will and will not change in the business world. He believes that most people will still prefer more traditional forms of work and throughout their lives will continue to aim at lifelong status advancement. He also maintains that the line between work and home will be less defined, but that people will prefer traditional working patterns if working from home leaves them isolated from their work community. He doubts that the high-tech ideas of virtual companies will ever be very successful because people will still want to meet each other face-to-face. Nicholson describes his ideal organisation in the future: it would be decentralised, with small sub-units; the staff would be from diverse backgrounds and be allowed a high degree of self-determination. New endeavours and creativity would replace systems and rationality. Nicholson acknowledges that there is a long way to go in terms of the translation of his ideas of evolutionary psychology into practical propositions, but he is confident more and more people will come round to his way of thinking.