Talk:Frome Hoard/Archive 1

Archive 1

Images

The PAS Flickr photostream is not under a Wikipedia-friendly licence, but Dan Pett of the Portable Antiquities Scheme says that he may be able to get some Wikipedia-usable pics later today. BabelStone (talk) 08:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

There are some images of coins from the era on Carausius - could/should these be used, even though they are from another find?— Rod ^talk 10:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I have moved some From Hoard pictures from PAS. These maybe the ones you referred to BabelStone. AS you know I have moved over a 1000 images from PAS which will require cataloguing. A new category for PAS will contain all of these I hope. Victuallers (talk) 20:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, just seen the Frome Hoard pics you uploaded. I think that when I looked (in a rush) this morning I only checked the first page of the flickr stream, which are all on a restrictive licence or copyrighted, but when I looked this evening the last 60 pics are all on a CC-By licence. I have uploaded a few already, and have asked Dan if we could possibly get a Wikipedia-friendly picture of the pot in situ, which would be good for the article, and one of a heap of coins which would be good for the info box. BabelStone (talk) 21:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Co-ords

Apparently [1], the exact location of the find is being hidden from "fear that unscrupulous collectors might visit the site when it is unguarded and damage it in the search for their own 'souvenirs'" – can we use the general co-ords for Frome for now? – B.hotep •talk• 11:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I would support a general link to the area, this adds value without endangering the site. Fæ (talk) 11:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done – B.hotep •talk• 11:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The coords added point to the centre of Frome - however it seems clear the find was between the town and the Wiltshire border, so could probably be moved approx 1km east - however I'd be happy for it to be left as is.— Rod ^talk 11:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm useless with co-ords. I get lost on the way to the pub! Or is that on the way back? If you can get it a bit closer that would be fine, if not I'll have a look when I get back from lunch. :) – B.hotep •talk• 11:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Done.— Rod ^talk 11:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Radial (coin)

The red link to Radial (coin) could possibly be linked to Antoninianus which was known as a radiate (according to Roman currency) or are these totally different things?— Rod ^talk 11:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to leave it red linked for now. The list of coins found [2] only specifies quantity by Emperor reign, not denomination, so I think we'd probably be guessing at this point. – B.hotep •talk• 11:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I can't find a source for radial. Do you think this might have been a mistake? Shall we change it to radiate (which is sourced, but not as Crisp's original find?) – B.hotep •talk• 14:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it may be Crisp's Wiltshire accent in the video.— Rod ^talk 14:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

No, he said radial - I'm an archaeologist (general digger, not a finds expert) and it's a common term to call them radials. They really are tiny - half a fingernail, sometimes. It says radiate in the PAS ref though. 86.133.54.250 (talk) 14:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for that. :) – B.hotep •talk• 14:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Just give me a whack – it actually says "Radial" in the BBC source that I have read over about 100 times today! – B.hotep •talk• 14:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Radial appears to relate to the shape of the crown worn by the figure on the coin.— Rod ^talk 14:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's as much as I could ascertain from other external sources. – B.hotep •talk• 14:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The coins are radiates (also known as antoninianus), not radials. See http://www.finds.org.uk/romancoins/ The hoard contains 5 denarii.• Dan Portableantiquities • 14:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.86.1 (talk)

The metal detectorist was using the common slang name for them that is also used by archaeologists. They are properly known as radiates, but they are also known as radials. Hence that's why he called them that. He wasn't mistaken, he was using a common name rather than the proper one. 86.133.54.250 (talk) 18:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I linked to radiate (coin) but then thought as we don't know for sure that that is exactly a) what he meant by radial (though as I have mentioned above, I am 100% sure it is!) or b), if it is, that that was actually what he found, I thought it best to leave it out for now. The coin is probable carefully logged somewhere as #1 of 52,503, so we may yet learn exactly what it was ...86.133.54.250 (talk) 18:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Table

Good work on the table BabelStone. Hopefully, they will release a full inventory in good time – unless there is one somewhere and we've missed it. – B.hotep •talk• 13:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I know it is sortable - but should the initial presentation of the table be alphabetical or by age -whereas at present it seems to be age per "empire".— Rod ^talk 13:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't sure which was the best default order, so I just did in the conflated order of the three tables on the PAS site. Feel free to change it to a more appropriate order. BabelStone (talk) 21:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK

Has someone put this up for DYK as I believe it now meets the criteria?— Rod ^talk 13:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Was thinking about that or ITN. I can certainly look at it. – B.hotep •talk• 13:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Looking at ITN (at which I have 0% experience), that is for updated articles, plus this technically happened in April anyway, so DYK would probably be best. – B.hotep •talk• 13:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done See here. Please feel free to add alternative hooks under mine. – B.hotep •talk• 13:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Valuation

I have removed the initial valuation of the hoard at £250,000 as the newspaper article that this is sourced to simply states "thought to be worth up to £250,000" without indicating an original source for the valuation, and so this could be just be a figure made up by the journalist. I think it best to wait for the Treasure Valuation Committee to produce their valuation of the hoard, rather than adding speculative valuations that only muddy the water. BabelStone (talk) 22:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Blog entries that may be of interest

By a professional archaeologist with an interest in metal detecting / heritage looting: [3] and it being discussed on his blog in June before the official announcement: [4]. 86.143.69.199 (talk) 10:18, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Any references to Blogspot.com as a source gives me pause. Unless I'm missing something, the analysis on the blog adds little to the official source sites referenced in turn (namely the PAS site and the BBC). The blog entry in June in turn references to "UK metal detecting forums" in a non-specific way, so this is not notable for being the first place discussed and again it adds no original information. The blog may be of general interest but I would not recommend it as a source for this article. It may be worth adding to Metal detecting forums at Curlie, which I shall add to external links in line with the EL guidance. Fæ (talk) 11:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

In general, blogs are not appropriate sources for Wikipedia, although the PAS blogs have been used in this article as they are first-hand accounts of the discovery and excavation of the hoard. The blog suggested above is just a rant, and has no place in the article. BabelStone (talk) 11:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to change lead image

Unfortunately the current image File:Frome_Hoard_4773860885.jpg is highly over-exposed (I just tried fixing it in Photoshop but it is too far gone to credibly correct). Is there an alternative in commons:Category:Frome Hoard that would be a better quality replacement? Fæ (talk) 11:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

This Silver denarius of Carausius Adventus has been described as the best coin in the hoard. The background probably needs some cleaning up, or there is a http://www.flickr.com/photos/finds/4774193860/ version with white background] that could also be uploaded to Commons. However, I think that this picture of a heap of coins that Dan Pett has kindly just changed to a CC-By-SA licence would be good in the info box. BabelStone (talk) 12:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and made those changes, but feel free to change and/or move the pictures around. BabelStone (talk) 12:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

That looks a lot smarter. Fæ (talk) 14:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Date of burial?

Carausius curently says: "The Hoard dates from later than his reign, however, as it includes coins struck at a later date." and two of the coin types are Diocletian (285–305) and Maximian (286–305). So should ".. date to the period AD 253 to 293" read ".. date to the period AD 253 to 305"?

Thanks for noticing that -- I have changed the article accordingly. I guess that as only 60 out of 52,503 coins date to the reigns of Diocletian and Maximian, they may not have been noticed in the preliminary survey, and the earliest descriptions of the hoard may have stated 353-293, which was inadvertently carried over even after these 60 coins were identified. BabelStone (talk) 18:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Treasure trove

Should the two treasure trove categories be applied as it hasn't been declared treasure trove yet? 86.133.54.250 (talk) 14:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it can stay for now seeing as the inquest is only a couple of weeks away. At the moment it helps to put it in categories to encourage (and indeed direct) people along to contribute to the article. – B.hotep •talk• 14:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The various treasure trove categories seem somewhat inappropriate to me, as their parent category Category:Treasure troves explicitly states that they are "for articles about objects and hoards of objects that have been legally determined to be treasure trove", and as the legal concept of treasure trove has been obsolete in England and Wales since the enactment of the Treasure Act 1996 the Frome Hoard and other post-1996 hoards are not legally "treasure trove". But changing the description of the parent category to be something like "for articles about objects and hoards of objects that have been legally determined to be treasure trove (pre-1997) or treasure (post-1996)" does not seem an ideal solution either, as this would exclude pre-1997 base metal hoards. My personal feeling is that all the 'treasure trove' categories should be renamed using the neutral term 'hoard' instead of 'treasure trove' (e.g. Hoards in England and Hoards in Roman Britain), but I don't want to take that to Cfd without some consensus. BabelStone (talk) 09:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I would support that based on your rather comprehensive analysis (and notwithstanding that until a couple of days ago I only had a passing interest in hoards, so would defer to anyone with more knowledge of the subject) :) – B.hotep •talk• 09:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Other coin hoards nearby

This site shows and discusses some other Romans coin hoards not far away in Wiltshire. It seems none of these yet have wikipedia articles or even mentions? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Get at it, Martin Victuallers (talk) 19:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I might have a go at the Stanchester hoard. Starting a stub as we speak. Thanks for uploading the pic by the way! – B.hotep •talk• 20:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done Stanchester Hoard. – B.hotep •talk• 22:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Nice work! BabelStone (talk) 22:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

A quick google books search finds no fewer than three Romano-British coin hoards in the vicinity of Frome discovered during the 19th century: 1) 230 Roman coins found 6 miles from Frome in 1864; 2) 452 Roman coins found in a field close to (1) in 1865; and 3) 250 gold British coins, 233 silver British coins, 3 silver Roman coins, and 4 brass Roman coins discovered at Nunney, about 3 miles west of Frome, in 1860. BabelStone (talk) 20:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Is it anywhere near the Shapwick Hoard? – B.hotep •talk• 22:18, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

No, and it is definitely nowhere near the Shrewsbury Hoard either !! (is that 2-all now ?) BabelStone (talk) 23:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. The "See also" sections in all the articles are becoming a bit unwieldy now with all these new additions! Maybe we should just put Other hoards instead? – B.hotep •talk• 07:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Should the West Bagborough Hoard (also in Somerset) have an article (some details here)?— Rod ^talk 20:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Probably -- the more the better I think; but there are literally hundreds of known British coin hoards, so there is plenty to keep us going. BabelStone (talk) 20:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

First stab is up at West Bagborough Hoard.— Rod ^talk 10:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

buy from who?

The article says the museum will buy the hoard if it's "treasure trove". Buy it from who? Who's is it then? And if it's not found to be a "treasure trove", can't they still buy it? noit (talk) 02:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that it belongs to the crown if it is treasure, although the landowner may still have a claim if it is not (see Treasure_trove#England.2C_Northern_Ireland.2C_and_Wales). Ownership is decided by the court under the Treasure Act 1996 and if it is treasure the landowner (who may have an agreement with the person who found it) must sell it to a meseum at a price set by the Treasure Act 1996.— Rod ^talk 08:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe that should be said. Because as an American, the idea that there's royalty who own the country and can just take whatever they want didn't occur to me and led to confusion. I didn't even realize they were involved at all. noit (talk) 12:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I have rewritten the section to clarify the legal process, and better explain who pays what to whom. Note that the common law concept of treasure trove is obsolete in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and has been superceded by the Treasure Act 1996. A clear and simple summary of the current process is available in The Treasure Act: Information for finders of treasure (England and Wales), and if you want more details, you should read The Treasure Act 1996 Code of Practice (2nd Revision). BabelStone (talk) 13:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The same is true for the US with its Antiquities Act. Most countries have similar legislation on the books that treats certain types of treasures or hoards as belonging to the state. ----moreno oso (talk) 13:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Frome Hoard DYK

DYK got 8,800 views, which is very good for this sort of article with a fairly mundane hook -- added to DYKSTATS. BabelStone (talk) 13:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

By comparison the Hoxne Hoard DYK on 3 July only got just over 3,200 views (over 3 days). BabelStone (talk) 13:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)