Talk:Mildenhall Treasure

Images
Does anyone happen to know of any images that could be used in this article without breach of copyright? It seems to be the sort of article that is ideally suited for illustration. Silverthorn 16:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

This page says the Roald Dahl short story was published in the Saturday Evening Post, but the page on that short story says it was originally published in the Ladies Home Journal. I believe Dahl himself told the story of publishing "The Mildenhall Treasure" in one of his autobiographies, but I can't find an online citation. How do we reconcile this? Sra. Bibliotecaria (talk) 00:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)Sra. Bibliotecaria

In my 1978 copy of The Wonderful story of Henry Sugar and six more (ISBN: 014 047.140 5) on the copyright page it says "Earlier versions of 'The Mildenhall Treasure' and 'A Piece of Cake' were first published in the Saturday Evening Post".

Dahl writes a page and a half introduction to the short story including, after having interviewed Butcher for several hours: "I wrote the story as truthfully as I possibly could and sent it off to America. It was bought by a magazine called the Saturday Evening Post, and I was well paid." MontagueMewsWest (talk) 19:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions
This page needs a lot of work. I am happy to take some of it on, bit by bit, except that I am still unsure how to do references and footnotes; I haven't yet really understood all the formatting guidelines. The text needs to be divided up further -- and I think Roald Dahl's story needs a small separate section, rather than being mixed up with the description of the objects. Dahl's story is germane to what we know of the discovery, and that aspect has now been fully researched and published by Richard Hobbs.

There is a problem about the statement '34 objects' in the hoard in the opening text: the museum registration sequence is 1-34, but each separate item had to be individually registered in 1946, and soldered components of ancient silver, such as handles, often break off during burial, so that the '34' includes pieces of other objects. Two are the handles from the fluted bowl (now re-attached) and nos. 18-26 are 5 bowls and 4 handles from round-bowled spoons/ladles. The total number of complete or near-complete objects is 28, that is, if one counts the deep flanged bowl and its (secondary) domed lid as two objects rather than one, and if one assumes that there were 5 dolphin-handled ladles, since it is conceivable that not all the bowls and handles actually belong together. That all seems rather too complex to explain in the opening section. Would it be best to just list the objects there? AgTigress (talk) 17:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * If it's easy to list the number of objects it's worth doing so as it's a natural question. However, given your comments, I think it's OK to put in the list, as you have done; the lead is still quite short so it doesn't make it too wordy.  If we later decide the lead needs trimming we can look at it again then. Mike Christie (talk) 18:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Mike. At some point, I'll subdivide the 'History' section into 'Display and publication history (where one can incorporate the Dahl story, and get the main references in) and then a 'Contents of the hoard' section, discussing the objects in more detail. But at the moment, I have managed to mislay one of the essential references, because my study is such a tip... :-) AgTigress (talk) 20:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Basics done
I have done some headings and sub-headings, and described all the objects in the hoard fairly briefly, but there are still aspects that require more discussion, including the rather sparse 'importance' paragraph at the end, which I need to think about. I think I have got the hang of doing footnote references at last, but I still don't understand how to do links to other Wikipedia pages, though. Any comments and revisions welcome. AgTigress (talk) 12:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

My thanks to whoever has gone through creating links in appropriate places. :-) AgTigress (talk) 09:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I am still tinkering with the 'Importance' paragraph, and it should not yet be regarded as complete. AgTigress (talk) 16:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Role of Sydney Ford
Is it known for sure whether or not Dahl's account of Ford's actions and motivations was correct or not? This article seems to go one way in the lead and the other way in the body. My understanding is that the Dahl piece was not fictionalised to any great extent, and so in that respect his account is accurate.

Just as an aside, because it's not notable or sourced, Mr Butcher's son still lives near Mildenhall, and doesn't cycle to work in the dark to plough other mens' fields - he owns a good proportion of the local housing stock rented to USAF and RAF personnel stationed at the nearby airbases. Apparently Butcher put the reward money to good use! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.170.107.247 (talk) 22:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I used the expression 'fictionalised account' advisedly, to emphasise the fact that Dahl's story is not, and was not intended to be, a plain, unvarnished account, but rather, a good and vivid story. Based as it was on his interview with Butcher, is clearly broadly factually accurate, but the author was a journalist and novelist, not an historian, and the characterisation would appear to involve considerable artistic licence.  I have not re-read either the 1947 Saturday Evening Post piece or the story in the anthology, published around 40 years later, for many years, but I think that the shift from colourful reporting to storytelling is evident if one compares them.  But in any case, all these issues are discussed in some detail in the two papers by Richard Hobbs which are cited.  In spite of Dahl's early publication of the story, there is still much that is, and will always remain, unknown about the details of the discovery — which is the usual state of affairs with treasure finds.  AgTigress (talk) 18:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Controversy
I've added a small section on the theories that the Mildenhall Treasure was not originally deposited, or not genuinely discovered, how and when and where the standard account says it was. Not that I'm a conspiracy theorist or anything, or that I have any reason to disbelieve the more widely-held version of events, but I just figure that if a general global survey art history textbook bother to spare the space to mention this, then surely the controversy itself, if not the merits of the counter-argument, is worth at least mentioning. If anyone has any more to add to that section, on the history of the counter-claims, or the like, I think that could be great. Cheers. LordAmeth (talk) 23:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Please forgive me for coming along more than 2 years after your edit, LordAmeth, to comment on it. I have been out of circulation.
 * I think it is fine to have a section about controversy, but really this one needs to emphasise a bit more strongly that some of the queries raised in the past are no longer relevant. Conspiracy theories naturally arose in the case of Mildenhall simply because of the lack of factual information about its discovery.  However, in the light of present knowledge, there is absolutely no archaeological reason to doubt that the hoard was found in Suffolk.  Furthermore, there is one argument that should really be dismissed within the section that you have added, namely the claim that Roman silver of this quality is unlikely to have been found in Britain.  At the time when that argument was put forward by some archaeologists in 1946, it was just barely possible to justify it on the basis of finds from this country, though to do so, they were obliged to disregard not only the treasure of Traprain Law (presumably on account of its findspot outside the Roman province proper) but also the Corbridge silver found in the 18th century.  Now, nearly 70 years later, the argument can be seen to be baseless.  Numerous subsequent discoveries of late-Roman silver from Britannia make it abundantly clear that there was indeed plenty of silver plate of very high quality in use in 4th-century Britain. I feel that even mentioning this argument without a much stronger refutation is rather misleading to anyone without a detailed knowledge of the material. Richard Hobbs addresses all these issues in his publications and ongoing research on Mildenhall.
 * I have not edited the section at the moment, since I am a bit hesitant, for a number of reasons, about getting involved in Wikipedia again. In any case, I would like to have your response first, if you are still watching this page.  AgTigress (talk) 17:36, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, AgTigress. I, too, have been removed from active involvement in editing the Wiki for quite some time. It certainly sounds like you have more up-to-date, or more thoroughly well-informed, things to say on the subject, so, please go ahead and make whatever changes you see fit. You'll get no objection from me. Cheers, LordAmeth (talk) 19:13, 3 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay; I'll just tweak the wording a little to reflect what I have said above.  Probably not today, but take a look in a couple of days and check that you are happy with it.  :)  AgTigress (talk) 20:10, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

"two small pedestalled dishes"
Would any one have a pic of these two particular items in order to possibly better describe them by form name since they sound as if they may be what I have heard as referred to as a footed tazza's (https://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images;_ylt=A0SO8wf7TxBUvJkAhSZXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTB0ZjNrbDcyBHNlYwNzYwRjb2xvA2dxMQR2dGlkA1NNRTU4OV8x?_adv_prop=image&fr=yfp-t-409-s&va=footed+tazza ) which would resemble in some form the letter "Y" to "T" on which to display candies, etc. They could come in metal or glass or pottery.66.74.176.59 (talk) 13:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Flowery phrasing
I'm adding a tag to the article. Wording like:
 * "masterpieces", "by far", "most valuable"

... seems to fall into the realm of WP:FLOWERY and WP:PUFF; ie overly emphatic and 'promotional', not encyclopedic.

I considered making an attempt to tweak the lede on my own, but after glancing further and also noticing such tone elsewhere in the article, I'm opting to open up discussion of the issue here instead so as to offer folks with an established interest in this article opportunity to consider and address the situation.

A fellow editor, --75.188.199.98 (talk) 18:50, 15 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm less than happy to see an IP put up such a notice without prior discussion, and even less happy to see no responses in over two years. I would suggest: 1. Drop the rating of the article to C from its present B class. 2. The article lacks adequate sources, and has links which do not deliver. 3. We need a thoroughgoing improvement all through, which really needs access to the literature and a checklist of needed changes. Macdonald-ross (talk) 18:44, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm removing this well-intentioned tag. The treasure is a highly important one, & the terms are fully justified. Johnbod (talk) 19:12, 24 February 2021 (UTC)