![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
While I was editing the findspot details at the BM the other day, one of the curators asked me not to give precise details of the findspot. He was concerned, particularly if this ends up on the Main Page as a featured article, that it could lead to the farmer being harassed by metal detectorists. I noticed that someone had restored the details that I removed earlier - I've removed them again and I think they should stay out, given these concerns. -- ChrisO ( talk) 15:40, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Hazzah! I've found the actual hammer in the museum database and linked it as a footnote in the Discovery and initial excavation section :-) Registration:1994,0408.400 Witty Lama 09:58, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
May I point out that the hammer has been re-numbered. It is now 1994,0408.410, and is under that number in the published catalogue. The Museum database entries are in the process of being updated, but that process is not yet complete. CMJ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.85.125 ( talk) 11:30, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, CMJ = Catherine Johns. :-) I haven't gone through the whole article yet this weekend. I am sure it continues to improve. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.120.136 ( talk) 12:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I have moved the citations for McFadden and Tomber to a "further reading" section as we are only citing them at second hand via the BBC transcript (and footnotes no longer link to them directly). I think this is perfect illustration of when to use "further reading". -
PKM (
talk) 17:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
It was suggested at the FAR that we separate the tables into an article called something like List of items in the Hoxne Hoard. That's a more drastic change than I would make without consensus. What do others think? And how much of the other text goes with it?
If I were doing this, I would replicate the narrative list from this article (with a {{ details}} reference?) and then move the tables. - PKM ( talk) 19:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
For those who aren't trolling through the Featured Article review comments - we need a few page number citations - can someone look these up the in the catalogue? We can't get our FA without them:
Thanks! - PKM ( talk) 03:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Roman gilding: mercury-gilding was the usual method. Because this is widely known amongst Roman specialists because of the publication of many, many analyses over the last 25+ years, it is only briefly referred to on p.185-6 in Johns 2010 (this is, after all, a book intended for specialists, not the general public), with a footnote to the standard study, Oddy 1983, i.e. W.A. Oddy, 'The gilding of Roman silver plate', in Baratte 1983, pp.9-21. Baratte 1983 is F. Baratte (ed.) Argenterie Romaine et Byzantine, (Paris 1983). CMJ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.25.237 ( talk) 19:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
The full discussion of the typology of Roman piperatoria is in Johns 2010, 76-78. There are a couple of vessels from a 1st-century treasure that may have been spice-containers, but may not have been. From the third century, there are a couple (from the Vienne treasure) that are probably (though not certainly) for sprinkling pepper or other spices, but they are not shaped as statuettes: one is vase-shaped, and the other is a little cylindrical box with a lid. - There are only three non-Hoxne examples, as far as I know, of fairly certain pepper-dispensers where the whole container is in human or animal form, a hollow statuette. These are the examples from the Chaourse and Nicolaevo treasures, and the one in Boston, probably from Sidon. The Hoxne 'Empress' is of this type, as are the Hoxne ibex and the hare-and-hound, though they are zoomorphic rather than anthropmorphic. The Hoxne Hercules-and-Antaeus is different, because although it involves a statuette of human figures, it is a solid-cast statuette on a hollow base: only the base contained the spice, not the figure. - So how many there are depends entirely on which sub-type you are referring to. A group of four pepper-pots in one assemblage is unprecedented, so far. - CMJ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.25.237 ( talk) 13:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Editors of this article may be interested in the discovery of the Frome Hoard that was announced this morning -- 52,500 Roman coins, although mostly debased silver and bronze, so the Hoxne Hoard's claim to be the largeset hoard of gold and silver coins still stands. I have created a stub, but have to go to work now .... BabelStone ( talk) 08:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
You would need several different curators depending on the type and date of the hoard. ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AgTigress ( talk • contribs) 08:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
"The large armlet of pierced gold (opus interassile) showed traces of hematite on the reverse side, which would have been used as a type of jeweller's rouge."
The wonderful reference work "Wikipedia" mentions that this substance was in use as a cosmetic. Why is it thought to have been polish rather than cosmetic that a piece of jewellery was contaminated with? Was it unworn? Rich Farmbrough, 17:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC).
Polish: see Johns 2010 p.187. The position of the traces on the burred inner surfaces of the piercing, which would not have contacted the wearer's skin because of the outer borders of the jewel, make an interpretation as a transferred cosmetic extremely unlikely. As traces of polish used on the exterior, they make perfect sense. Quite apart from the fact that it would be unusual to rouge the upper arm. AgTigress ( talk) 23:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
These were made of "cherry wood and yew". Was it one of each? or both of both? Rich Farmbrough, 17:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC).
See Johns 2010, 144-5. One box made of Prunius avium (wild cherry), one of Taxus baccata (yew). AgTigress ( talk) 23:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
It has been suggested in the FA review and seconded that we create a separate article List of items in the Hoxne Hoard. (Actually, "thirded", as I agree as well.) No one has objected, and following the defense of Thomas More qui tacet, consentire (which translates roughly as "silence gives consent"), I plan to start that list article and move the four collapsed tables out of this article and into the new one, with links. Not sure how soon I can get to it. If anyone feels strongly that the tables should not be moved, please let us know.
The new list article will need attention from folks who participated in the Challenge on site, but I am happy to do the wikiwrangling to create the skeleton, copy/move content and references, and add cats and links (unless someone else is anxious to do that). - PKM ( talk) 20:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I am still not quite clear what this list would include, and what it is for. The tables in the current article list only the inscribed silver objects, so it is primarily a list of inscriptions. Is the proposal to list all of these individually, or all of the inscribed objects (by adding two of the gold items), or all the silver, inscribed or not (nos. 30-184), or the gold and the silver, or everything, including the iron and the organics? Each and every object in the assemblage can already be looked up on the BM registration database, with descriptions, weights, other measurements, etc., so whatever the list covers, it will simply be extracted from the registration sequence. I'm not trying to be awkward, but I simply don't see the rationale here. AgTigress ( talk) 22:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
When I got to the tables of inscriptions I went back and looked through the discussion on this on the talk page. I feel that it would be best to create a separate article called something like List of items in the Hoxne Hoard, and move these two tables to that. That article could have as detailed a list as we have time to create, because it would not be primarily interpretive. If the BM experts are concerned about undue weight, splitting seems a reasonable answer; and I don't feel that hiding the tables fully addresses this. - FA review comment by Mike Christie
A very summary list of all the material in the hoard could easily be incorporated into the main article, but it would need to be brief, and the fact that numbers cannot be precise would also have to be explained: where there are fragments and composite objects as well as complete objects, it is not possible to have neat, precise numbers (e.g. do 5 small separate silver nails all belong to three of the angle-brackets that have lost their nails (total, 3 brackets), or does each nail represent another (missing) bracket (total 8 brackets)?) Bearing that in mind, a summary list would look something like this:
"15,234 coins
29 pieces of gold jewellery
circa 170 complete and fragmentary silver objects
circa 50 iron fragments and nails
5 fragments from an ivory box
circa 265 tiny pieces of bone inlay
traces of wood, leather, straw and linen textile".
Inscriptions could also be summarised much more succinctly than in the existing tables, thus:
"49 of the gold and silver objects bear inscriptions, giving personal names, Christian symbols or references, or both. The total number of Christian, or probably Christian, inscriptions is 26. 9 personal names appear, eight male and one female". (That can be referenced back to the summary in Johns 2010, which I think is p.263-4).
It seems to me that if a separate article were written based mainly on a list of the contents of the hoard, it would need to provide a level of detail and interpretation that would start to duplicate much of what is already in the main article. AgTigress ( talk) 12:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
We seem to be nearly there on the FAC, but Sandy Georgia, the FAC delegate, has pointed out that the four collapsed tables (2 on coins, 2 on silver spoons etc) are contrary to MOS:COLLAPSE. We need to either agree to show these in full again, or move them to a subsidiary list article - preferably quickly, as this is probably all that now delays promotion to FA. Prvious discussion on the spoons is here. Can we have quick comments below? Johnbod ( talk) 12:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I vote for removing the incomplete tables of the inscriptions on silver objects into a new article aiming to list the entire contents of the hoard, where they will appear in a proportionate fashion, and including in the main article the kind of summary I posted above. AgTigress ( talk) 18:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Ok, based on the above I have "revealed" them again. Johnbod ( talk) 03:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
One can read : "The hoard was buried as an oak box or small chest" and, further: "The hoard was concentrated in a single location, within the completely decayed remains of a large wooden chest". So, what was the size of the wooden chest? -- El Caro ( talk) 09:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
The wooden chest was about 60 x 45 x 30 cm (2 ft x 1'6" x 1 ft.); that is, about the size of a medium-size suitcase. With the contents, it probably weighed around 40 kg (90 lb.) (Johns 2010, p.201). Small or large? AgTigress ( talk) 18:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
In the Historical spread and minting section, I've read: "So the latest coins in the hoard[...] belong to [...] the lifetime of the Eastern Emperor Arcadius" . I presume that the latest coins are identified by portraits of Honorius and Constantine. But, how do we know that Arcadius was alive? This interesting point is worth an explanation, in my opinion. -- El Caro ( talk) 12:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
In the first table, concerning silver siliquae struck between 402 and 408: Lyons = 2; Rome = 3; Total = 8. Who stole the missing 3?
In this table, the Rome total is not consistent with the cells of its line, too.-- El Caro ( talk) 19:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I see El Caro has hidden the table of mints and periods of the silver siliquae. I think it would have been OK to just post a note here and follow up, but since it's hidden I wanted to let editors know. The errors are:
Could someone with the source (Guest 2005) check this?
In addition, I see that the table gives the total of silver siliquae as 14,119, but the "Items discovered" section lists 14,212 siliquae. Can someone reconcile these numbers? Mike Christie (talk) 00:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
I have commented out a claim about paleolithic cave drawings of European cave lions which seemed to be claiming that the silver tigress might have been a representation of a lion. Before doing so I did briefly and unsuccessfully look for sources to back up the claim. Please do not re-insert the statements without citing some published material, particularly since all documentation on the Hoxne hoard currently calls the item in question a tigress, not a lion. Revcasy ( talk) 22:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I would be interested to know of any authoritative sources about this lion/tiger issue. Of course there were some different sub-species around, and some very different geographical distributions, in the Roman period, but this was still less than two millennia ago, quite recent in evolutionary terms. Lions, tigers and leopards/panthers (Panthera leo, P. tigris and P. pardus, both standard and melanistic forms of the last-named) are all very abundantly represented in Roman art, and Hoxne no.30 is pretty typical of tiger representations. Tigers in Roman art are frequently specifically represented as female, with well-developed dugs (see discussion in Johns 2010, pp. 68-9). Jocelyn Toynbee drew attention to this in her standard Animals in Roman Life and Art (1973), pp.69-82. Anyway, more about any alleged lion/tiger confusion would be welcome. I don't think that the Romans did confuse them! AgTigress ( talk) 16:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
The comment in the monograph that one aspect of the animal's markings is 'reminiscent of the classic striped tabby' (Johns 2010, p.64) alludes specifically to the presence of the wide black dorsal stripe. We have to be very careful when trying to identify species precisely from artistic representations that may well have been made by artists and craftsmen who had never seen the animal in question, and who may have been using as a source a half-remembered figure or painting by another craftsman who had likewise never seen such an animal in the flesh. Ask the average person to draw a wombat, and you'll see what I mean. Even if the person can (a) draw fairly well and (b) has at some time seen a wombat, the results may not be precisely accurate. I can draw, and I have seen wombats, but I should shrink from that challenge.
I think most of the Roman tigers I have seen, in paintings, mosaics and so forth, have tails that are thickened, though not necessarily obviously tufted/tasselled, towards the tip; in any event, not smoothly tapered. This point, too, is addressed in the published catalogue (Johns 2010, loc.cit.). If we start to analyse the appearance of the Hoxne tigress very closely (let alone the lions and leopards on the repoussé gold bracelets, for example), we find so many elements that are wildly unrealistic or unnatural that we realise that we must shift our standards for identification, allowing for a wide 'grey area' of imprecision. As you will see if you take a look at some of the bracelets, there are some animals that simply cannot be identified at all; there are creatures that might be hounds and might be lions, and one strange beast on bracelet no.12 that looks much like a hare, until one sees that it has an extra, small ear, so that its 'ears' may be horns -- a goat, perhaps? (Johns 2010, p.40). Leopards in Roman art are often very sparsely spotted, with very simple spots or rings, not an attempt at photographic realism, but simply a symbolic indication that there are spots. Indeed, one characteristic feature will often be emphasised to differentiate one animal from another: the Roman artist who had seen pictures (but not photographs!) of lions, leopards and tigers, but at best had seen the live animals only from a distance in the arena, probably thought of them in this way: 'Very big cats. Tigers have stripes, leopards have spots, lions have neither, but the male lion has a mane'. Those features -- stripes, spots, manes -- are important when other details may be vague and inaccurate. Minutely accurate observation of the ears and tails of different large feline species probably lay somewhat somewhat outside the likely competence of a late-Roman craftsman in precious metal.
I am wholly in favour of trying to identify species in Roman art as far as possible, and have always tried to do so in my published work, but I think it is important first for a person to familiarise himself with the relevant artistic conventions, and with the widely varying levels of realism, within Roman art. Have a look at conventional Roman dolphins some time: nearly all of them have tail flukes with THREE lobes; not to mention bodies that can coil into one or more complete spiral loops, and frequently what appear to be bristly manes, like those of a wild boar, along the top of the head. It can actually be difficult to differentiate between a Roman boar and a Roman dolphin where only the head is shown, and at a small scale. And scales remind me -- conventional dolphins in Victorian art frequently have scales. ;-) :-) AgTigress ( talk) 14:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes: it isn't necessarily a matter of artistic competence -- though that, too, plays its part and adds to potential confusions. It is that the balance of 'photographic' realism and symbolic, stylised presentation varies a lot according to the purpose of an object, its size, and the material of which it is made. Most of us can recognise images that have been deliberately stylised to an extreme degree (stick figures, or human faces -- even when shown sideways thus: :-) ). One of the real challenges in understanding the art of another culture is learning where to draw some of the lines. (Or lions...) I warmly welcome any new information about the species of animals extant in the Roman world (it was only a few years ago that I discovered about a now extinct sub-species of African elephant which may be depicted in some of the Roman mosaics from North Africa), and I am eager to learn more about striped lions/lionesses, but from my background of studying Roman art and artefacts very carefully for some 50 years, I remain to be convinced that the Hoxne beastie is anything other than a tigress. ;-) AgTigress ( talk) 16:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Although I now realize thanks to Johnbod, that the introduction to the jewelry contains two words within quotes that are from a reference that is not available to me, the sentence, None of the jewellery is "unequivocally masculine", although several pieces, like the rings, might have been worn by either gender., seems awkward and gives an odd innuendo to me since it is not followed by anything to balance readers going away with the impression that the jewelry is thought to have been masculine in the main—except for several pieces such as rings. I have the feeling that it could have read ..."unequivocally feminine"... as readily, so it implies an interpretation that is not warranted by my understanding.
The two words in quotes do not convey a quote to me, rather, they seem to convey a characterization and could be interpreted as an editor's stress rather than coming from the authority of the reference. The double-negative, none...unequivocally masculine leaves a presumption of what ought to be, masculine. Certainly there are pieces that clearly seem to have been designed to be worn by a woman and significant pieces at that, such as the Lady Juliane bracelet and with high probability, the body chain, and then there are pieces that could have been designed to be worn by either gender. Although this is dealt with later in the article and is summed up at the opposite end of the speculation spectrum, stating the jewelry could have belonged to a single woman or family, I would be more comfortable with a simple introductory statement that some pieces of jewelry could have been worn by either gender and then allowing the discussion later go into the detail of particular pieces; another possible statement might be that few pieces seem to be gender-specific; or, gender-related discussion could be left out of the introductory paragraph altogether.
If left unaltered, perhaps an identification of the author as the one who made such a double-negative statement and a more complete quote of her text might be useful for our context.
Since I misunderstood it, the chance that other readers might as well, should be considered as a reason to consider a redraft of that sentence.
The remainder of the article is well written and all contributing to it, should be proud of the revision. ---- 83d40m ( talk) 01:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC) ---- 83d40m ( talk) 11:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I haven't actually edited the article itself at all, so my conscience is clear. The sentence seems quite clear to me: nothing that has to be masculine-only, so it must all be feminine or 'unisex'. But if that still bends people's brains, here is the deal with the jewellery in more detail: the Hoxne assemblage contains only jewellery that is feminine or gender-neutral. It does NOT contain any pieces that are associated solely with masculine personal ornament in the late-Roman period. The body-chain could only have been worn by a female, and the other chain necklaces were also specifically feminine ornaments. Finger-rings (only three are present) were worn by both sexes throughout the Roman period: bangles/bracelets were normally worn only by women (though some exceptions might be possible in certain regions and ethnic groups). I think all the Hoxne bracelets are feminine jewellery. There are no earrings (women only, except sometimes in certain Eastern provinces), but there are also no belt-buckles, belt-stiffeners and other mounts and strap-ends, all jewels that were clearly, indeed, 'unequivocally', masculine in this period. A woman would have worn them only if she was in drag. Fibulae and plate-brooches are also absent from the assemblage, and certain types of these, in gold, were strongly associated with the costume of high-status males in the Imperial service.
Does that help to clarify it? The discussion in Johns 2010 is on pp.58-9. AgTigress ( talk) 16:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
A thought strikes me about the surprising confusion evidently engendered by the 'unequivocally masculine' sentence: while I have no idea of the nationality of any contributor here, I do know from experience that speakers of American English are often not as comfortable as we (Brits) are with litotes, like 'It was a not unpleasant experience' or 'the play was not unenjoyable'. These constructions, and deliberate understatements, too, are pretty standard in BE (British English) but far less common in AE. We are writing in BE in this article (hence jewellery rather than jewelry), so I think that a characteristically British style is perfectly appropriate. ;-) AgTigress ( talk) 19:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
No, no, no!! This is a common misconception, Revcasy! Saying in all seriousness that something was 'not unenjoyable' is NOT a grudging way of saying it was 'enjoyable': it is a very polite way of saying that one didn't think all that much of it, but it had its moments -- not great, but not TOTALLY hopeless. The construction can be used with the positive meaning in jest, of course, and one needs to watch the context. But this is another thing that Brits like -- very understated humour. The opportunities for misunderstanding between BE and AE speakers are legion. :-) AgTigress ( talk) 19:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
As I mentioned, I have not written or edited any part of this article, so I am not quite sure why I am allowing myself to be drawn into this debate! (If I had written the sentence myself, I should not have used gender to mean sex. :-) ) I have tried to explain the composition of the jewellery above, and I simply do not know how to make it any clearer: there is NO jewellery in the hoard of types worn only by men; there are 3 items that might have been worn by either men or women; the rest of the jewellery was all designed for women. The full quotation from which the disputed expression comes (Johns 2010, p.56) reads as follows: (heading) Was the jewellery designed for male or female wear, or for both? This is the one question that is relatively easy to answer. Three facts provide the evidence: first, there is no item of unequivocally masculine jewellery in the group; secondly, finger rings could be worn by both men or women; thirdly, the body chain, necklaces and bracelets of the types represented here were designed for female wear. Overall, the selection of jewellery in the Hoxne hoard may therefore be regarded as belonging to a woman, or just possibly ... to more than one woman.
What 'bias in the mind of the source' do you see here? I am still at a loss to understand your misunderstanding. Perhaps it would, indeed, be best to delete the reference entirely. It is not a crucial point, in any case. The presence of exclusively masculine personal ornament would actually have been more noteworthy than its absence. That's a thought; would you prefer the adjective 'exclusively'? 'None of the jewellery is of exclusively masculine types'? AgTigress ( talk) 21:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
We all make judgments, appropriately, my personal observation is for our discussion, it has not been inserted into the article. Saying that it seems to me, clearly, expresses my personal opinion. It relates to what I thought and why I find that sentence worthy of being crafted differently. Several in our discussion have confirmed that because of design and size the larger portion of the horde jewelry is interpreted as being designed for women. What I determined from the rest of the article, is supported by several above. Facts presented correctly, should support a reader coming to a correct conclusion. A straightforward manner -- is what I am seeking. It is not present in this sentence. There certainly isn't consensus about what it means. Ag's suggestion is satisfactory, as would be cutting the sentence, I do not see it as pivotal, just eliminating the one thing in the article that doesn't jive.
That would be another solution, which I could support, can we poll about that? ---- 4.247.125.246 ( talk) 22:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Actually we badly need a good Wikipedia article on Roman jewellery. I am too inexperienced to know how to start an article yet, but if one does get started by someone else, I warn you all that shall be in there, throwing my weight about. The general 'Jewellery' page on Wiki, which seems not to have been edited for a while, has a fairly poor section on the Roman period, but you simply cannot deal with the subject in a paragraph. AgTigress ( talk) 16:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, yes: but I think separate articles on 'Roman art' (which would be a monster) and on 'Animals in Roman culture' would make better sense. The latter would need to include the issues of symbolism and mythology, as well as (like all 'Roman' subjects) addressing the issues of metropolitan/traditional Graeco-Roman as opposed to provincial. The basis for the animals topic already exists, of course, in Toynbee's classic study: Jocelyn Toynbee, Animals in Roman Life and Art, London 1973. AgTigress ( talk) 18:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Don't worry -- I realised that that was what you were referring to. I wouldn't really want to embark on a new page until I had done a basic framework for it, anyway. :-) AgTigress ( talk) 19:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
The external link is broken. 92.156.14.206 ( talk) 17:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
oh thank goodness we were conquered by the romans, it a) demonstrates the inferioroty of the britons prior to the invasion of various danish tribes, thus elevating the status of those jutes, angles and assorted mercenaries (i.e. saxons - lit. knifemen); b) by extension provides us with some pretext to impliciate neighbouring tribes who were not conquered in a failure to participate in civilisation - contradictions with a) notwithstanding ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.12.122.147 ( talk) 03:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
It would look much tidier if the list of coin types was directly under the map, to the right. This is probably not apparent if your screen is an old IBM type but on a modern wide screen or laptop it looks badly placed. It tried to move it across and couldn't make it work. Could someone who knows how see if they can fix it?
Amandajm ( talk) 22:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
One of the more interesting reads/success stories on Wikipedia. Was actually compelled to read the whole thing start to finish =) Good job guys. Res Mar 00:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
The assertion at the end of the introduction that the find influenced changes in English Law is "supported" by citation #7 - Johns & Bland 1994, p. 173. After reading the linked article, there is no mention on page 173 of any changes in law or relationship between Archaeologists & metal-detector enthusiasts. The first footnote of the linked article does thank the finder for not disturbing it, but this is not a description of the relationship, and makes no mention of any legal changes.
From the article:
in the other great treasures of the fourth and early fifth centuries, ranging from Thetford,
Canterbury, Water Newton and Traprain Law to finds from further afield such as Kaiseraugst, Desana, and Tenes. It is atypical in one vital respect; as a complete deposit, systematically excavated and recorded, it has a unique potential for deepening our understanding of late- Roman treasure hoards and their significance. It may well hold answers to questions that we have not yet thought of asking.
The British Museum
Note: The " Traprain Law" you see above is another archaeological find, not an actual law.
FunkyDuffy ( talk) 06:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Page view results from being on the main page yesterday can be seen at http://stats.grok.se/en/201011/Hoxne_Hoard. Over 57,000 page views in one day, wow. Fæ ( talk) 07:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
One or two of the Latin inscriptions on the silverware may be mistranslated.
Received an opinion by email from a (non-Wikipedia contributing) expert in this field as below. They noted that they would invariably defer to Johns' book where translations are available but have provided a quick reply without double checking with the source text:
— Fæ ( talk) 15:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Regarding point (3) above, VIRBONUS is an attested early Christian name. A quick google yielded the following examples:
I note that the Thetford treasure also has the inscription VIRBONE VIVAS. Given that all the other dedications are to persons, it seems more likely that this one is likewise, rather than the vague dedication to a "good man". EraNavigator ( talk) 17:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I followed up yesterday on Point 3 with the same historian as emailed above. With further known examples provided by EraNavigator, their informal opinion is that Virbonus may well be a reasonable alternative translation of VIRBONE. However, as a Wikipedian I would still see this as an original research problem (see SYNTH) if we were to add this alternate if not specifically published in a reliable source for the Hoxne Hoard. Any suggestions from editors experienced in similar situations? Thanks, Fæ ( talk) 21:48, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
As Johnbod has already pointed out, the Latin translations are fully discussed, with detailed references, in chapter 9, 'The Inscriptions', by Professor R.S.O. Tomlin, on pp.165-173 of the monograph. Dr. Tomlin is a very distinguished Latin linguist and epigrapher, and has, moreover, been familiar with the Hoxne material since its discovery. The translations are certainly not 'Johns's translations'! Johns is an archaeologist, and would not attempt epigraphic research any more than she would attempt to carry out the metallurgical analyses. EraNavigator is perfectly entitled to disagree with the current published research on these (often rather idiosyncratic) inscriptions, of course, but I feel that he should first read the full published report on them, so that he can follow Tomlin's arguments and sources, and then, if he still holds a dissenting view, he should write up his own interpretation and submit it for publication in an appropriate journal. AgTigress ( talk) 16:03, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Please change "jewellery" to "jewelry" for all instances in this very interesting article because it is inferior English usage according to the Oxford Dictionary Online (which indicates that such usage is "widely regarded as uneducated") and The New Oxford American Dictionary application available with the Apple operating system ( which indicates "Avoid the pronunciation |ˈjoōlərē|, widely regarded as uneducated"). The root word is "jewel" expanded to "jewelry" indicating items containing jewels. The all too common mispronunciation as |ˈjoōlərē| in the United States as well as Great Britain apparently has yielded the all too common misspelling "jewellery". The fact that this mispronunciation and misspelling is ubiquitous doesn't make it right, and allowing it to remain perpetuates through dissemination the inferior English. Thank you, Mark Fengya. MarkFengya ( talk) 19:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Very amusing, good job they didn't notice the use of "artefact". Fæ ( talk) 22:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I would like to propose that auto-spelling scripts like WP:EngvarB are not applied to this article. This particular script forces a choice between "British English" or "British English Oxford spelling" which in my opinion is arbitrary change for the sake of change as English need not be polarized between these choices and I see no absolute standard for what "British English" should be. There is no reason to force "ise" or "ize" endings on all words in the article so long as the article is (tolerably) consistent in itself for particular words. Some words consistently use the primary spelling chosen by the OED and it should be noted that the other "British English" forms are also listed by the OED as British alternatives and in my opinion would be acceptable if used in a consistent style. Fæ ( talk) 19:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
I am translating the article, but I am wondering what is the meaning of "Northern Province" in the sentence "evidence of mineralized black pepper at three Northern Province sites recovered in the 1990s".
The Wikipedia page for Northern Province lists several areas, but none of them in Europe. Could you please disambiguate the term? Thanks! Nicolas1981 ( talk) 08:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
What is the revision of this article in the video:
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Consorveyapaaj2048394 ( talk • contribs) 04:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
This line needs a rewrite. Any use of the word 'seem' is unencyclopedic for a start, but what exactly is 'remote' here? The appreciation? Should the line say the appreciation was unexpected? Why was it unexpected? Was it Lawes' efforts that were remote? That doesn't even make sense. Or is it trying to say that the archeological profession had seemed remote from metal dectorists? Remote in what way? Unappreciated? Superior? The line hints at indifference or even hostility between the two groups but hinting isn't useful for a non-expert reader. I'd fix it myself but when I tried checking the webpage source to better interpret it I found the page charges for access. Mdw0 ( talk) 05:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
In the text it is stated that 569 gold solidi were found but in the Table of mints and periods of gold solidi in the Hoxne Hoard there are 580 altogether? -- Furfur ( talk) 17:55, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
The text currently says: "In November 1993, the Treasure Trove Reviewing Committee valued the hoard at £1.75 million (today £3.21 million), which was paid to Lawes, as finder of the treasure. He shared his reward with the farmer, Peter Whatling. Three years later, the 1996 Treasure Act made it a legal requirement that the finder and the landowner should be rewarded equally." However Peter Whatling was the tenant not the landowner and so the legal requirement that the finder and the landowner should be rewarded equally is therefore irrelevant. Zin92 ( talk) 06:18, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
The article cites Abdy's book which mentions in passing a hoard found in Komin in what is today southern Croatia, and says some 300,000 coins have been found there. So I tried looking up more information about that hoard and it seems little has been published about it except a 1937 research paper by one Z. Barcsay-Amant. A short review of Barcsay-Amant's paper was published in the 1938 edition of The Classical Review (available online) which says the hoard, discovered in 1918 near Komin had "19,755 coins listed by the late J. Brunsmid" - the listing being incomplete, though. However, a 2008 Croatian research paper on two other hoards found in northern Croatia gives a passing mention of the much older Komin hoard, and says it contained "about 30,000 pieces of antoniniani, buried some time after 276 AD." and references a series of archeological papers dated from 1918 to 2003 for that claim. In short, it seems Abdy accidentally added a zero, or simply cited an inaccurate source, so his estimate of Komin hoard's size is off by a factor of ten (though still being larger than the Hoxne Hoard). InflatableSupertrooper ( talk) 20:14, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
While I was editing the findspot details at the BM the other day, one of the curators asked me not to give precise details of the findspot. He was concerned, particularly if this ends up on the Main Page as a featured article, that it could lead to the farmer being harassed by metal detectorists. I noticed that someone had restored the details that I removed earlier - I've removed them again and I think they should stay out, given these concerns. -- ChrisO ( talk) 15:40, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Hazzah! I've found the actual hammer in the museum database and linked it as a footnote in the Discovery and initial excavation section :-) Registration:1994,0408.400 Witty Lama 09:58, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
May I point out that the hammer has been re-numbered. It is now 1994,0408.410, and is under that number in the published catalogue. The Museum database entries are in the process of being updated, but that process is not yet complete. CMJ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.85.125 ( talk) 11:30, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, CMJ = Catherine Johns. :-) I haven't gone through the whole article yet this weekend. I am sure it continues to improve. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.120.136 ( talk) 12:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I have moved the citations for McFadden and Tomber to a "further reading" section as we are only citing them at second hand via the BBC transcript (and footnotes no longer link to them directly). I think this is perfect illustration of when to use "further reading". -
PKM (
talk) 17:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
It was suggested at the FAR that we separate the tables into an article called something like List of items in the Hoxne Hoard. That's a more drastic change than I would make without consensus. What do others think? And how much of the other text goes with it?
If I were doing this, I would replicate the narrative list from this article (with a {{ details}} reference?) and then move the tables. - PKM ( talk) 19:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
For those who aren't trolling through the Featured Article review comments - we need a few page number citations - can someone look these up the in the catalogue? We can't get our FA without them:
Thanks! - PKM ( talk) 03:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Roman gilding: mercury-gilding was the usual method. Because this is widely known amongst Roman specialists because of the publication of many, many analyses over the last 25+ years, it is only briefly referred to on p.185-6 in Johns 2010 (this is, after all, a book intended for specialists, not the general public), with a footnote to the standard study, Oddy 1983, i.e. W.A. Oddy, 'The gilding of Roman silver plate', in Baratte 1983, pp.9-21. Baratte 1983 is F. Baratte (ed.) Argenterie Romaine et Byzantine, (Paris 1983). CMJ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.25.237 ( talk) 19:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
The full discussion of the typology of Roman piperatoria is in Johns 2010, 76-78. There are a couple of vessels from a 1st-century treasure that may have been spice-containers, but may not have been. From the third century, there are a couple (from the Vienne treasure) that are probably (though not certainly) for sprinkling pepper or other spices, but they are not shaped as statuettes: one is vase-shaped, and the other is a little cylindrical box with a lid. - There are only three non-Hoxne examples, as far as I know, of fairly certain pepper-dispensers where the whole container is in human or animal form, a hollow statuette. These are the examples from the Chaourse and Nicolaevo treasures, and the one in Boston, probably from Sidon. The Hoxne 'Empress' is of this type, as are the Hoxne ibex and the hare-and-hound, though they are zoomorphic rather than anthropmorphic. The Hoxne Hercules-and-Antaeus is different, because although it involves a statuette of human figures, it is a solid-cast statuette on a hollow base: only the base contained the spice, not the figure. - So how many there are depends entirely on which sub-type you are referring to. A group of four pepper-pots in one assemblage is unprecedented, so far. - CMJ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.25.237 ( talk) 13:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Editors of this article may be interested in the discovery of the Frome Hoard that was announced this morning -- 52,500 Roman coins, although mostly debased silver and bronze, so the Hoxne Hoard's claim to be the largeset hoard of gold and silver coins still stands. I have created a stub, but have to go to work now .... BabelStone ( talk) 08:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
You would need several different curators depending on the type and date of the hoard. ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AgTigress ( talk • contribs) 08:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
"The large armlet of pierced gold (opus interassile) showed traces of hematite on the reverse side, which would have been used as a type of jeweller's rouge."
The wonderful reference work "Wikipedia" mentions that this substance was in use as a cosmetic. Why is it thought to have been polish rather than cosmetic that a piece of jewellery was contaminated with? Was it unworn? Rich Farmbrough, 17:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC).
Polish: see Johns 2010 p.187. The position of the traces on the burred inner surfaces of the piercing, which would not have contacted the wearer's skin because of the outer borders of the jewel, make an interpretation as a transferred cosmetic extremely unlikely. As traces of polish used on the exterior, they make perfect sense. Quite apart from the fact that it would be unusual to rouge the upper arm. AgTigress ( talk) 23:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
These were made of "cherry wood and yew". Was it one of each? or both of both? Rich Farmbrough, 17:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC).
See Johns 2010, 144-5. One box made of Prunius avium (wild cherry), one of Taxus baccata (yew). AgTigress ( talk) 23:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
It has been suggested in the FA review and seconded that we create a separate article List of items in the Hoxne Hoard. (Actually, "thirded", as I agree as well.) No one has objected, and following the defense of Thomas More qui tacet, consentire (which translates roughly as "silence gives consent"), I plan to start that list article and move the four collapsed tables out of this article and into the new one, with links. Not sure how soon I can get to it. If anyone feels strongly that the tables should not be moved, please let us know.
The new list article will need attention from folks who participated in the Challenge on site, but I am happy to do the wikiwrangling to create the skeleton, copy/move content and references, and add cats and links (unless someone else is anxious to do that). - PKM ( talk) 20:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I am still not quite clear what this list would include, and what it is for. The tables in the current article list only the inscribed silver objects, so it is primarily a list of inscriptions. Is the proposal to list all of these individually, or all of the inscribed objects (by adding two of the gold items), or all the silver, inscribed or not (nos. 30-184), or the gold and the silver, or everything, including the iron and the organics? Each and every object in the assemblage can already be looked up on the BM registration database, with descriptions, weights, other measurements, etc., so whatever the list covers, it will simply be extracted from the registration sequence. I'm not trying to be awkward, but I simply don't see the rationale here. AgTigress ( talk) 22:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
When I got to the tables of inscriptions I went back and looked through the discussion on this on the talk page. I feel that it would be best to create a separate article called something like List of items in the Hoxne Hoard, and move these two tables to that. That article could have as detailed a list as we have time to create, because it would not be primarily interpretive. If the BM experts are concerned about undue weight, splitting seems a reasonable answer; and I don't feel that hiding the tables fully addresses this. - FA review comment by Mike Christie
A very summary list of all the material in the hoard could easily be incorporated into the main article, but it would need to be brief, and the fact that numbers cannot be precise would also have to be explained: where there are fragments and composite objects as well as complete objects, it is not possible to have neat, precise numbers (e.g. do 5 small separate silver nails all belong to three of the angle-brackets that have lost their nails (total, 3 brackets), or does each nail represent another (missing) bracket (total 8 brackets)?) Bearing that in mind, a summary list would look something like this:
"15,234 coins
29 pieces of gold jewellery
circa 170 complete and fragmentary silver objects
circa 50 iron fragments and nails
5 fragments from an ivory box
circa 265 tiny pieces of bone inlay
traces of wood, leather, straw and linen textile".
Inscriptions could also be summarised much more succinctly than in the existing tables, thus:
"49 of the gold and silver objects bear inscriptions, giving personal names, Christian symbols or references, or both. The total number of Christian, or probably Christian, inscriptions is 26. 9 personal names appear, eight male and one female". (That can be referenced back to the summary in Johns 2010, which I think is p.263-4).
It seems to me that if a separate article were written based mainly on a list of the contents of the hoard, it would need to provide a level of detail and interpretation that would start to duplicate much of what is already in the main article. AgTigress ( talk) 12:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
We seem to be nearly there on the FAC, but Sandy Georgia, the FAC delegate, has pointed out that the four collapsed tables (2 on coins, 2 on silver spoons etc) are contrary to MOS:COLLAPSE. We need to either agree to show these in full again, or move them to a subsidiary list article - preferably quickly, as this is probably all that now delays promotion to FA. Prvious discussion on the spoons is here. Can we have quick comments below? Johnbod ( talk) 12:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I vote for removing the incomplete tables of the inscriptions on silver objects into a new article aiming to list the entire contents of the hoard, where they will appear in a proportionate fashion, and including in the main article the kind of summary I posted above. AgTigress ( talk) 18:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Ok, based on the above I have "revealed" them again. Johnbod ( talk) 03:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
One can read : "The hoard was buried as an oak box or small chest" and, further: "The hoard was concentrated in a single location, within the completely decayed remains of a large wooden chest". So, what was the size of the wooden chest? -- El Caro ( talk) 09:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
The wooden chest was about 60 x 45 x 30 cm (2 ft x 1'6" x 1 ft.); that is, about the size of a medium-size suitcase. With the contents, it probably weighed around 40 kg (90 lb.) (Johns 2010, p.201). Small or large? AgTigress ( talk) 18:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
In the Historical spread and minting section, I've read: "So the latest coins in the hoard[...] belong to [...] the lifetime of the Eastern Emperor Arcadius" . I presume that the latest coins are identified by portraits of Honorius and Constantine. But, how do we know that Arcadius was alive? This interesting point is worth an explanation, in my opinion. -- El Caro ( talk) 12:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
In the first table, concerning silver siliquae struck between 402 and 408: Lyons = 2; Rome = 3; Total = 8. Who stole the missing 3?
In this table, the Rome total is not consistent with the cells of its line, too.-- El Caro ( talk) 19:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I see El Caro has hidden the table of mints and periods of the silver siliquae. I think it would have been OK to just post a note here and follow up, but since it's hidden I wanted to let editors know. The errors are:
Could someone with the source (Guest 2005) check this?
In addition, I see that the table gives the total of silver siliquae as 14,119, but the "Items discovered" section lists 14,212 siliquae. Can someone reconcile these numbers? Mike Christie (talk) 00:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
I have commented out a claim about paleolithic cave drawings of European cave lions which seemed to be claiming that the silver tigress might have been a representation of a lion. Before doing so I did briefly and unsuccessfully look for sources to back up the claim. Please do not re-insert the statements without citing some published material, particularly since all documentation on the Hoxne hoard currently calls the item in question a tigress, not a lion. Revcasy ( talk) 22:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I would be interested to know of any authoritative sources about this lion/tiger issue. Of course there were some different sub-species around, and some very different geographical distributions, in the Roman period, but this was still less than two millennia ago, quite recent in evolutionary terms. Lions, tigers and leopards/panthers (Panthera leo, P. tigris and P. pardus, both standard and melanistic forms of the last-named) are all very abundantly represented in Roman art, and Hoxne no.30 is pretty typical of tiger representations. Tigers in Roman art are frequently specifically represented as female, with well-developed dugs (see discussion in Johns 2010, pp. 68-9). Jocelyn Toynbee drew attention to this in her standard Animals in Roman Life and Art (1973), pp.69-82. Anyway, more about any alleged lion/tiger confusion would be welcome. I don't think that the Romans did confuse them! AgTigress ( talk) 16:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
The comment in the monograph that one aspect of the animal's markings is 'reminiscent of the classic striped tabby' (Johns 2010, p.64) alludes specifically to the presence of the wide black dorsal stripe. We have to be very careful when trying to identify species precisely from artistic representations that may well have been made by artists and craftsmen who had never seen the animal in question, and who may have been using as a source a half-remembered figure or painting by another craftsman who had likewise never seen such an animal in the flesh. Ask the average person to draw a wombat, and you'll see what I mean. Even if the person can (a) draw fairly well and (b) has at some time seen a wombat, the results may not be precisely accurate. I can draw, and I have seen wombats, but I should shrink from that challenge.
I think most of the Roman tigers I have seen, in paintings, mosaics and so forth, have tails that are thickened, though not necessarily obviously tufted/tasselled, towards the tip; in any event, not smoothly tapered. This point, too, is addressed in the published catalogue (Johns 2010, loc.cit.). If we start to analyse the appearance of the Hoxne tigress very closely (let alone the lions and leopards on the repoussé gold bracelets, for example), we find so many elements that are wildly unrealistic or unnatural that we realise that we must shift our standards for identification, allowing for a wide 'grey area' of imprecision. As you will see if you take a look at some of the bracelets, there are some animals that simply cannot be identified at all; there are creatures that might be hounds and might be lions, and one strange beast on bracelet no.12 that looks much like a hare, until one sees that it has an extra, small ear, so that its 'ears' may be horns -- a goat, perhaps? (Johns 2010, p.40). Leopards in Roman art are often very sparsely spotted, with very simple spots or rings, not an attempt at photographic realism, but simply a symbolic indication that there are spots. Indeed, one characteristic feature will often be emphasised to differentiate one animal from another: the Roman artist who had seen pictures (but not photographs!) of lions, leopards and tigers, but at best had seen the live animals only from a distance in the arena, probably thought of them in this way: 'Very big cats. Tigers have stripes, leopards have spots, lions have neither, but the male lion has a mane'. Those features -- stripes, spots, manes -- are important when other details may be vague and inaccurate. Minutely accurate observation of the ears and tails of different large feline species probably lay somewhat somewhat outside the likely competence of a late-Roman craftsman in precious metal.
I am wholly in favour of trying to identify species in Roman art as far as possible, and have always tried to do so in my published work, but I think it is important first for a person to familiarise himself with the relevant artistic conventions, and with the widely varying levels of realism, within Roman art. Have a look at conventional Roman dolphins some time: nearly all of them have tail flukes with THREE lobes; not to mention bodies that can coil into one or more complete spiral loops, and frequently what appear to be bristly manes, like those of a wild boar, along the top of the head. It can actually be difficult to differentiate between a Roman boar and a Roman dolphin where only the head is shown, and at a small scale. And scales remind me -- conventional dolphins in Victorian art frequently have scales. ;-) :-) AgTigress ( talk) 14:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes: it isn't necessarily a matter of artistic competence -- though that, too, plays its part and adds to potential confusions. It is that the balance of 'photographic' realism and symbolic, stylised presentation varies a lot according to the purpose of an object, its size, and the material of which it is made. Most of us can recognise images that have been deliberately stylised to an extreme degree (stick figures, or human faces -- even when shown sideways thus: :-) ). One of the real challenges in understanding the art of another culture is learning where to draw some of the lines. (Or lions...) I warmly welcome any new information about the species of animals extant in the Roman world (it was only a few years ago that I discovered about a now extinct sub-species of African elephant which may be depicted in some of the Roman mosaics from North Africa), and I am eager to learn more about striped lions/lionesses, but from my background of studying Roman art and artefacts very carefully for some 50 years, I remain to be convinced that the Hoxne beastie is anything other than a tigress. ;-) AgTigress ( talk) 16:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Although I now realize thanks to Johnbod, that the introduction to the jewelry contains two words within quotes that are from a reference that is not available to me, the sentence, None of the jewellery is "unequivocally masculine", although several pieces, like the rings, might have been worn by either gender., seems awkward and gives an odd innuendo to me since it is not followed by anything to balance readers going away with the impression that the jewelry is thought to have been masculine in the main—except for several pieces such as rings. I have the feeling that it could have read ..."unequivocally feminine"... as readily, so it implies an interpretation that is not warranted by my understanding.
The two words in quotes do not convey a quote to me, rather, they seem to convey a characterization and could be interpreted as an editor's stress rather than coming from the authority of the reference. The double-negative, none...unequivocally masculine leaves a presumption of what ought to be, masculine. Certainly there are pieces that clearly seem to have been designed to be worn by a woman and significant pieces at that, such as the Lady Juliane bracelet and with high probability, the body chain, and then there are pieces that could have been designed to be worn by either gender. Although this is dealt with later in the article and is summed up at the opposite end of the speculation spectrum, stating the jewelry could have belonged to a single woman or family, I would be more comfortable with a simple introductory statement that some pieces of jewelry could have been worn by either gender and then allowing the discussion later go into the detail of particular pieces; another possible statement might be that few pieces seem to be gender-specific; or, gender-related discussion could be left out of the introductory paragraph altogether.
If left unaltered, perhaps an identification of the author as the one who made such a double-negative statement and a more complete quote of her text might be useful for our context.
Since I misunderstood it, the chance that other readers might as well, should be considered as a reason to consider a redraft of that sentence.
The remainder of the article is well written and all contributing to it, should be proud of the revision. ---- 83d40m ( talk) 01:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC) ---- 83d40m ( talk) 11:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I haven't actually edited the article itself at all, so my conscience is clear. The sentence seems quite clear to me: nothing that has to be masculine-only, so it must all be feminine or 'unisex'. But if that still bends people's brains, here is the deal with the jewellery in more detail: the Hoxne assemblage contains only jewellery that is feminine or gender-neutral. It does NOT contain any pieces that are associated solely with masculine personal ornament in the late-Roman period. The body-chain could only have been worn by a female, and the other chain necklaces were also specifically feminine ornaments. Finger-rings (only three are present) were worn by both sexes throughout the Roman period: bangles/bracelets were normally worn only by women (though some exceptions might be possible in certain regions and ethnic groups). I think all the Hoxne bracelets are feminine jewellery. There are no earrings (women only, except sometimes in certain Eastern provinces), but there are also no belt-buckles, belt-stiffeners and other mounts and strap-ends, all jewels that were clearly, indeed, 'unequivocally', masculine in this period. A woman would have worn them only if she was in drag. Fibulae and plate-brooches are also absent from the assemblage, and certain types of these, in gold, were strongly associated with the costume of high-status males in the Imperial service.
Does that help to clarify it? The discussion in Johns 2010 is on pp.58-9. AgTigress ( talk) 16:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
A thought strikes me about the surprising confusion evidently engendered by the 'unequivocally masculine' sentence: while I have no idea of the nationality of any contributor here, I do know from experience that speakers of American English are often not as comfortable as we (Brits) are with litotes, like 'It was a not unpleasant experience' or 'the play was not unenjoyable'. These constructions, and deliberate understatements, too, are pretty standard in BE (British English) but far less common in AE. We are writing in BE in this article (hence jewellery rather than jewelry), so I think that a characteristically British style is perfectly appropriate. ;-) AgTigress ( talk) 19:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
No, no, no!! This is a common misconception, Revcasy! Saying in all seriousness that something was 'not unenjoyable' is NOT a grudging way of saying it was 'enjoyable': it is a very polite way of saying that one didn't think all that much of it, but it had its moments -- not great, but not TOTALLY hopeless. The construction can be used with the positive meaning in jest, of course, and one needs to watch the context. But this is another thing that Brits like -- very understated humour. The opportunities for misunderstanding between BE and AE speakers are legion. :-) AgTigress ( talk) 19:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
As I mentioned, I have not written or edited any part of this article, so I am not quite sure why I am allowing myself to be drawn into this debate! (If I had written the sentence myself, I should not have used gender to mean sex. :-) ) I have tried to explain the composition of the jewellery above, and I simply do not know how to make it any clearer: there is NO jewellery in the hoard of types worn only by men; there are 3 items that might have been worn by either men or women; the rest of the jewellery was all designed for women. The full quotation from which the disputed expression comes (Johns 2010, p.56) reads as follows: (heading) Was the jewellery designed for male or female wear, or for both? This is the one question that is relatively easy to answer. Three facts provide the evidence: first, there is no item of unequivocally masculine jewellery in the group; secondly, finger rings could be worn by both men or women; thirdly, the body chain, necklaces and bracelets of the types represented here were designed for female wear. Overall, the selection of jewellery in the Hoxne hoard may therefore be regarded as belonging to a woman, or just possibly ... to more than one woman.
What 'bias in the mind of the source' do you see here? I am still at a loss to understand your misunderstanding. Perhaps it would, indeed, be best to delete the reference entirely. It is not a crucial point, in any case. The presence of exclusively masculine personal ornament would actually have been more noteworthy than its absence. That's a thought; would you prefer the adjective 'exclusively'? 'None of the jewellery is of exclusively masculine types'? AgTigress ( talk) 21:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
We all make judgments, appropriately, my personal observation is for our discussion, it has not been inserted into the article. Saying that it seems to me, clearly, expresses my personal opinion. It relates to what I thought and why I find that sentence worthy of being crafted differently. Several in our discussion have confirmed that because of design and size the larger portion of the horde jewelry is interpreted as being designed for women. What I determined from the rest of the article, is supported by several above. Facts presented correctly, should support a reader coming to a correct conclusion. A straightforward manner -- is what I am seeking. It is not present in this sentence. There certainly isn't consensus about what it means. Ag's suggestion is satisfactory, as would be cutting the sentence, I do not see it as pivotal, just eliminating the one thing in the article that doesn't jive.
That would be another solution, which I could support, can we poll about that? ---- 4.247.125.246 ( talk) 22:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Actually we badly need a good Wikipedia article on Roman jewellery. I am too inexperienced to know how to start an article yet, but if one does get started by someone else, I warn you all that shall be in there, throwing my weight about. The general 'Jewellery' page on Wiki, which seems not to have been edited for a while, has a fairly poor section on the Roman period, but you simply cannot deal with the subject in a paragraph. AgTigress ( talk) 16:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, yes: but I think separate articles on 'Roman art' (which would be a monster) and on 'Animals in Roman culture' would make better sense. The latter would need to include the issues of symbolism and mythology, as well as (like all 'Roman' subjects) addressing the issues of metropolitan/traditional Graeco-Roman as opposed to provincial. The basis for the animals topic already exists, of course, in Toynbee's classic study: Jocelyn Toynbee, Animals in Roman Life and Art, London 1973. AgTigress ( talk) 18:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Don't worry -- I realised that that was what you were referring to. I wouldn't really want to embark on a new page until I had done a basic framework for it, anyway. :-) AgTigress ( talk) 19:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
The external link is broken. 92.156.14.206 ( talk) 17:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
oh thank goodness we were conquered by the romans, it a) demonstrates the inferioroty of the britons prior to the invasion of various danish tribes, thus elevating the status of those jutes, angles and assorted mercenaries (i.e. saxons - lit. knifemen); b) by extension provides us with some pretext to impliciate neighbouring tribes who were not conquered in a failure to participate in civilisation - contradictions with a) notwithstanding ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.12.122.147 ( talk) 03:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
It would look much tidier if the list of coin types was directly under the map, to the right. This is probably not apparent if your screen is an old IBM type but on a modern wide screen or laptop it looks badly placed. It tried to move it across and couldn't make it work. Could someone who knows how see if they can fix it?
Amandajm ( talk) 22:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
One of the more interesting reads/success stories on Wikipedia. Was actually compelled to read the whole thing start to finish =) Good job guys. Res Mar 00:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
The assertion at the end of the introduction that the find influenced changes in English Law is "supported" by citation #7 - Johns & Bland 1994, p. 173. After reading the linked article, there is no mention on page 173 of any changes in law or relationship between Archaeologists & metal-detector enthusiasts. The first footnote of the linked article does thank the finder for not disturbing it, but this is not a description of the relationship, and makes no mention of any legal changes.
From the article:
in the other great treasures of the fourth and early fifth centuries, ranging from Thetford,
Canterbury, Water Newton and Traprain Law to finds from further afield such as Kaiseraugst, Desana, and Tenes. It is atypical in one vital respect; as a complete deposit, systematically excavated and recorded, it has a unique potential for deepening our understanding of late- Roman treasure hoards and their significance. It may well hold answers to questions that we have not yet thought of asking.
The British Museum
Note: The " Traprain Law" you see above is another archaeological find, not an actual law.
FunkyDuffy ( talk) 06:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Page view results from being on the main page yesterday can be seen at http://stats.grok.se/en/201011/Hoxne_Hoard. Over 57,000 page views in one day, wow. Fæ ( talk) 07:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
One or two of the Latin inscriptions on the silverware may be mistranslated.
Received an opinion by email from a (non-Wikipedia contributing) expert in this field as below. They noted that they would invariably defer to Johns' book where translations are available but have provided a quick reply without double checking with the source text:
— Fæ ( talk) 15:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Regarding point (3) above, VIRBONUS is an attested early Christian name. A quick google yielded the following examples:
I note that the Thetford treasure also has the inscription VIRBONE VIVAS. Given that all the other dedications are to persons, it seems more likely that this one is likewise, rather than the vague dedication to a "good man". EraNavigator ( talk) 17:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I followed up yesterday on Point 3 with the same historian as emailed above. With further known examples provided by EraNavigator, their informal opinion is that Virbonus may well be a reasonable alternative translation of VIRBONE. However, as a Wikipedian I would still see this as an original research problem (see SYNTH) if we were to add this alternate if not specifically published in a reliable source for the Hoxne Hoard. Any suggestions from editors experienced in similar situations? Thanks, Fæ ( talk) 21:48, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
As Johnbod has already pointed out, the Latin translations are fully discussed, with detailed references, in chapter 9, 'The Inscriptions', by Professor R.S.O. Tomlin, on pp.165-173 of the monograph. Dr. Tomlin is a very distinguished Latin linguist and epigrapher, and has, moreover, been familiar with the Hoxne material since its discovery. The translations are certainly not 'Johns's translations'! Johns is an archaeologist, and would not attempt epigraphic research any more than she would attempt to carry out the metallurgical analyses. EraNavigator is perfectly entitled to disagree with the current published research on these (often rather idiosyncratic) inscriptions, of course, but I feel that he should first read the full published report on them, so that he can follow Tomlin's arguments and sources, and then, if he still holds a dissenting view, he should write up his own interpretation and submit it for publication in an appropriate journal. AgTigress ( talk) 16:03, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Please change "jewellery" to "jewelry" for all instances in this very interesting article because it is inferior English usage according to the Oxford Dictionary Online (which indicates that such usage is "widely regarded as uneducated") and The New Oxford American Dictionary application available with the Apple operating system ( which indicates "Avoid the pronunciation |ˈjoōlərē|, widely regarded as uneducated"). The root word is "jewel" expanded to "jewelry" indicating items containing jewels. The all too common mispronunciation as |ˈjoōlərē| in the United States as well as Great Britain apparently has yielded the all too common misspelling "jewellery". The fact that this mispronunciation and misspelling is ubiquitous doesn't make it right, and allowing it to remain perpetuates through dissemination the inferior English. Thank you, Mark Fengya. MarkFengya ( talk) 19:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Very amusing, good job they didn't notice the use of "artefact". Fæ ( talk) 22:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I would like to propose that auto-spelling scripts like WP:EngvarB are not applied to this article. This particular script forces a choice between "British English" or "British English Oxford spelling" which in my opinion is arbitrary change for the sake of change as English need not be polarized between these choices and I see no absolute standard for what "British English" should be. There is no reason to force "ise" or "ize" endings on all words in the article so long as the article is (tolerably) consistent in itself for particular words. Some words consistently use the primary spelling chosen by the OED and it should be noted that the other "British English" forms are also listed by the OED as British alternatives and in my opinion would be acceptable if used in a consistent style. Fæ ( talk) 19:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
I am translating the article, but I am wondering what is the meaning of "Northern Province" in the sentence "evidence of mineralized black pepper at three Northern Province sites recovered in the 1990s".
The Wikipedia page for Northern Province lists several areas, but none of them in Europe. Could you please disambiguate the term? Thanks! Nicolas1981 ( talk) 08:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
What is the revision of this article in the video:
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Consorveyapaaj2048394 ( talk • contribs) 04:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
This line needs a rewrite. Any use of the word 'seem' is unencyclopedic for a start, but what exactly is 'remote' here? The appreciation? Should the line say the appreciation was unexpected? Why was it unexpected? Was it Lawes' efforts that were remote? That doesn't even make sense. Or is it trying to say that the archeological profession had seemed remote from metal dectorists? Remote in what way? Unappreciated? Superior? The line hints at indifference or even hostility between the two groups but hinting isn't useful for a non-expert reader. I'd fix it myself but when I tried checking the webpage source to better interpret it I found the page charges for access. Mdw0 ( talk) 05:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
In the text it is stated that 569 gold solidi were found but in the Table of mints and periods of gold solidi in the Hoxne Hoard there are 580 altogether? -- Furfur ( talk) 17:55, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
The text currently says: "In November 1993, the Treasure Trove Reviewing Committee valued the hoard at £1.75 million (today £3.21 million), which was paid to Lawes, as finder of the treasure. He shared his reward with the farmer, Peter Whatling. Three years later, the 1996 Treasure Act made it a legal requirement that the finder and the landowner should be rewarded equally." However Peter Whatling was the tenant not the landowner and so the legal requirement that the finder and the landowner should be rewarded equally is therefore irrelevant. Zin92 ( talk) 06:18, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
The article cites Abdy's book which mentions in passing a hoard found in Komin in what is today southern Croatia, and says some 300,000 coins have been found there. So I tried looking up more information about that hoard and it seems little has been published about it except a 1937 research paper by one Z. Barcsay-Amant. A short review of Barcsay-Amant's paper was published in the 1938 edition of The Classical Review (available online) which says the hoard, discovered in 1918 near Komin had "19,755 coins listed by the late J. Brunsmid" - the listing being incomplete, though. However, a 2008 Croatian research paper on two other hoards found in northern Croatia gives a passing mention of the much older Komin hoard, and says it contained "about 30,000 pieces of antoniniani, buried some time after 276 AD." and references a series of archeological papers dated from 1918 to 2003 for that claim. In short, it seems Abdy accidentally added a zero, or simply cited an inaccurate source, so his estimate of Komin hoard's size is off by a factor of ten (though still being larger than the Hoxne Hoard). InflatableSupertrooper ( talk) 20:14, 7 October 2016 (UTC)