Talk:Thetford Hoard

Reference

May I suggest that someone add the full scholarly catalogue of the Thetford hoard to the list of references? It is The Thetford Treasure: Roman Jewellery and Silver, by Catherine Johns and Timothy Potter, British Museum Press, London 1983. ISBN 0-7141-1372-7 —Preceding unsigned comment added by AgTigress (talk • contribs) 22:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Done, though there's a good deal more formatting and organizing that could be done. Still, it's there now. Mike Christie (talk) 23:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for adding that reference. Might as well have the standard, full monograph cited, even though it was published more than 25 years ago. The text of the article undoubtedly needs more work. e.g. the marked absence of Christian inscriptions and symbols is rare and important at this date, but the presence of a Greek inscription in a Romano-British find is not actually all that unusual; there were plenty of Greek-speakers from the Eastern Empire in the province. AgTigress (talk) 14:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The unusual circumstance that nearly all the gold jewellery appears to be unworn/unused is not mentioned, I think, and an assumption is made that the hoard is a votive one: that is by no means proven. However, I have too much to do to get involved in editing it just now.  :) AgTigress (talk) 14:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Help!

Experienced Wikipedians -- please have a look at this and sort out my references and stuff. I have added some sub-headings and references, but I don't really know how to do references/footnotes yet. I know my facts, but I am still a total novice about how to code things. AgTigress (talk) 20:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I tidied up a bit, though not using the templates. Johnbod (talk) 21:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you SO much! I shall try to learn how to do things properly, but it is all quite complicated.  :-) 86.177.191.6 (talk) 21:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC) Sorry, forgot I wasn't logged in. Argh. AgTigress (talk) 21:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is complicated. :) – B.hotep •talk• 21:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Discovery section

I have added some material in response to the 'clarification' demand about the circumstances of the discovery. I am somewhat reluctant to say much about it, because it involves spelling out the fact that the finder behaved both irresponsibly and illegally, and as nobody knows exactly why he did so, it seems unkind to focus on this in a public forum. I have not mentioned the finder's name for the same reason. The poor man was already ill at the time he made the discovery, and this may well have contributed to his flawed judgement. The details are all available in Johns & Potter 1983 anyway, and that reference is cited, so I really feel that there is no need to say any more here. The crucial point is that the findspot was not, and could not be, investigated by professional archaeologists, and this means that there will always be unanswered questions about the discovery. As I originally said, 'unfortunate'. AgTigress (talk) 11:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Further additions

I have made a few more additions to the sections on the gold jewellery and the silverware. If anyone has time to tidy up the refs. again, that would be kind. I must learn how to do it myself. AgTigress (talk) 13:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC) Have also tinkered with the 'Significance' paragraph, but it needs further tidying up, I think. It's still a bit lame at the moment. The reference I have added to it (Dorothy Watts, in Ant.J. 1988) should go in somewhere, though, since she is the main proponent of the view that the Thetford group isn't really pagan at all. I think she is absolutely mistaken, but the theory needs to be mentioned somewhere. :) AgTigress (talk) 16:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Photo of the rings

Is File:Thetford treasure rings.JPG better? not sure.©Geni 12:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

It's a close call. My photo is not brilliant: it has brightness issues, and is spoilt in places by some smudges on the glass of the display case. But on the other hand, although your photo is better overall, the rings on the left side are a little out of focus, which is perhaps a more serious defect. BabelStone (talk) 20:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree. oh well there is time to try again.©Geni 22:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)