Talk:Vindolanda tablets

Roman Civilizations
-article seems a little short, -maybe you could expand on the history of the tablets, ie: how they were compilled. -you might want to add a picture to your page Diana Nielsen —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dnielsen8 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

Good documentation and very informative. Clear, simple, and to the point makes an effective article.

Looking good billy, i think you can be a little more specific though. But besides for that I like it. -Charles

Changed to Start class
This is a good topic and has been sufficiently expanded and sourced to rise above Stub level. I removed the article's Stub markers, and changed the Stub markers here to Start. SteveStrummer (talk) 22:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Not the earliest letter written by a woman
In the article it says that this may be the earliest letter written by a woman. No source is given for this claim. However, in the article on Zannanza (a Hittite prince) a letter is quoted which was written by the queen of Egypt in the 14th century BC. So I suggest that the claim that one of the Vindolanda tablets was the earliest ever written by a woman should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.212.78.220 (talk) 22:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The current phrasing is accurate, i.e. one of the earliest in Latin. Fæ (talk) 19:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Chronology
If the letters were written during periods 2 and 3 shouldn't the dates be from AD92 to AD103 and not AD92 to AD13088.104.85.96 (talk) 17:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Update
In the last couple of years there have been some update to the Vindolanda Tablets. Bowman has published some more and the Centre for the Study of Ancient Documents at University of Oxford has published a newer version of the Vindolanda Tablets Online publication which includes the newest material in a more interactive way. Digital Humanities research has also been done using the tablets as examples. I would like to update this article to reflect this. Summæ (talk) 06:55, 4 June 2013 (UTC) 09:29, 4 April 2013 (UTC)) I have added this now Summæ (talk) 06:55, 4 June 2013 (UTC) 11:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC) OK, so I've just realised that I'm probably too close to the Vindolanda Tablets projects to actually be editing this article - could one of the other regular editors please check through my changes? I have already removed what I thought was a bit biased. Sorry! Summæ (talk) 06:55, 4 June 2013 (UTC) 12:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Link to de.wikipedia.org
The Article on Vindolanda in the German WP has a section on the tablets. I don't know how to add the link, here is it: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kastell_Vindolanda#Vindolanda-Tafeln 194.174.73.33 (talk) 19:11, 19 December 2014 (UTC) Marco Pagliero Berlin

Note well
The Tablets date to AD 92-103. Hadrian's Wall was constructed AD 122-128. These documents predate Hadrian's Wall. I've had to correct this obvious mistake in the article, & will address this elsewhere. -- llywrch (talk) 14:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Tidied refs
as they had red on. Not too hot on harvnb though so used sfnKeith-264 (talk) 20:55, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Update needed
Apparently, older handwritten documents have recently been discovered in London, see e.g. this Guardian article. So, the article needs updating (we don't have an article for the newly discovered tablets yet, I think?) Gestumblindi (talk) 21:59, 5 June 2016 (UTC) PS: Oh, we do, I see: Bloomberg tablets. Gestumblindi (talk) 22:01, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

could someone
clarify why Birley is credited with "discovery" when Lidell was the one who found them? From what I understand, it is common in archeology to ignore the people actually doing the work, or should I say "depreciate"?, but this somewhat dishonest quirk deserves at least a footnote about 'common practice'.IMHO.72.16.99.93 (talk) 15:13, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Brittunculi
 "Until the discovery of the tablets, historians could only speculate on whether the Romans had a nickname for the Britons."

Why would historians speculate on that? Are they also speculating on nicknames for Parthians, Germans, Dacians etc.? And on Parthian, Dacian etc. nicknames for the Romans? Perhaps we could have a sample speculation referenced here? Otherwise I suspect it's just bad writing. 2A02:AA1:1626:903F:AD26:6255:B576:F4A9 (talk) 21:18, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Challenges: cos?
"Additional challenges for transcription are the use of abbreviations such as "h" for homines (men) or "cos" for consularis (consular), and the arbitrary division of words at the end of lines for space reasons such as epistulas (letters) being split between the "e" and the rest of the word."

This sounds as if abbreviations and weird line breaks are unusual features, but they are standard Roman practise. No classicist could possibly consider "cos" a "challenge". The "epistulas" example given sounds completely unproblematic (also "epistulas" is not the plural of "epistula"). There must be much better examples of transcription difficulties. 2A02:AA1:1626:903F:AD26:6255:B576:F4A9 (talk) 21:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)