Talk:Hoxne Hoard/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Hoxne Hoard. 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

Ok, this is my first contribution to Wikipedia i will expand this article further, but I am just figuring out how formatting etc. works here. Constructive criticism most welcome. Tascio 12:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

We need to list the sources available for this article. Could those of you going to the British Museum for this project please ask for a bibliography? Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 23:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I've sent out an email to all of the curators asking exactly this. This is what I've received back so far - I'll add more as they come through:

Witty Lama 14:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

→ Please use the working sub-page /sources as a collaborative white-board for pending and recommended sources and citations. Fæ (talk) 17:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Please add a summary or notes for sources you have read. It is easier to keep track of what is in which source that way. Also, then we will know what sources have been mined for info. Awadewit (talk) 12:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I now have a digital copy of the Johns "The Hoxne Late Treasure" which is the definitive catalogue of the hoard. I'm not allowed to send it around but I can look up quotes and references if you need. Witty Lama 14:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that if we can find the relevant material, this article would benefit from sections covering:

1. How was the hoard discovered?
2. What exactly was in the hoard?
3. What conservation work has been done to it?
4. What have archaeologists and historians learned from the hoard?

ϢereSpielChequers 09:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

This may be a useful starting point for sources? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

In addition to those 4 areas I think we need to discuss theories about why it was buried and set the scene a little about the Roman departure. The Land (talk) 17:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

And a thought. How much would those coins be worth in today's money? I recall from an episode of Time Team a few weekends ago when someone remarked in passing that 10 pieces of silver in the 4th Century would buy you a haircut at a barber, or an evening with a prostitute.... :-S The Land (talk) 17:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Right, I have added a bit of historical context. I have the article from Britannia with the details of the finds, as well, that should be helpful... The Land (talk) 20:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh and I meant to say - would be grateful if someone who knows more about the subject could review my summary of the time period in the "Historical Background" section 7 suggest another general source or two for Britain in 407-450... The Land (talk) 22:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Hope I am not stepping on anyone's toes here, but we should not cite John Morris's The Age of Arthur, which is a controversial (to put it mildly) book that falls into the category of Questionable sources (one published review called it "an outwardly impressive piece of scholarship" that "crumbles upon inspection into a tangled tissue of fact and fantasy which is both misleading and misguided"). We should replace those citations with something more current.

See the discussion on this reference at the Wikiproject European History/Sub-Roman Britain task force, which also has some likely alternative references. I've added Christopher Snyder's 1998 An Age of Tyrants: Britain, AD 400-600 (Penn State U. Press.) to our Sources list. - PKM (talk) 03:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

PS: the historical summary in this article is probably fine, but I'd prefer to cite a different source since the Morris is held in such disrepute that it might affect our FA. I'll try to check it against another source this weekend. - PKM (talk) 03:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I suspected as much, actually. The number of bold statements which Morris didn't appear to have any real evidence for raised my eyebrows. It was just the one book on my shelves with any coverage of the period at all! If you could update that section with some higher-quality references, it would be much appreciated. The Land (talk) 09:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Done, citing Snyder (who uses some different translations here and there). It's a bit long, but as the article progresses I don;t think that will be a problem. If I can I'll add a second source to some of this. Removing Morris from the bibliography. I won't be able to contribute much more in the next week as I am traveling. Will check in as I can. - PKM (talk) 01:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Please help us keep organized by listing tasks we need to do!

• Find sources and find the best ones (if we want to make this an FA, we have to use the "best" sources)

• Take notes online so that everyone can see what each source says - perhaps we should create a sandbox for notes?

• Create several possible structures for the article based on the collected notes

(this was unsigned, by Awadewit Johnbod (talk) 03:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC))

• The best sources, by a mile, are the big BM catalogues, which will be available, with their authors even. With such vast numbers of items, I think we need to define in general terms what level of detail we need on the items & groups of items. We don't need to decide the final sequence or hierarchy, but I think we should define a number of potential sections & sub-sections, if only to apportion the work, so everyone isn't doing the same thing. I think such an intended scheme can best be finalized on the day, in consultation with the experts, but we can usefully work on alternative drafts now. Then in the course of writing, or afterwards, alternative arrangements may seem best, but we need a plan when we start. I'd say something like:

• Lead
• Summary description of finds
• Discovery, treasure trove process & BM acguisition
• Wider context of Roman hoards
• Context in which the hoard may have been deposited
• The finds - some individual ones; most by group/type; need to define these
• Conservation
• Lessons of the hoard

- not necessarily in that order of course. Johnbod (talk) 03:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

This sounds like a good working plan to me and I agree that the BM experts will be very helpful in establishing a structure for the "Finds" and how best to describe the various groupings. Awadewit (talk) 10:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Anybody attached to these. Should go, imo. Ceoil (talk) 19:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I understood citation templates were practically required for FA. - PKM (talk) 22:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

They are not - I never use them. However, since we have so many people editing this article simultaneously, perhaps we should use them? Awadewit (talk) 01:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Does that follow? Wouldn't it be easier without? I don't understand them at all & never use them. Since the order of sections is quite likely to be rearranged, even ref names are murder when you do that. I'd say just use the bare refs & tidy up later. Johnbod (talk) 03:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The make editing so difficult. Whenever I come across them I move along and think, eh...whatever. Ceoil (talk) 07:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I always use them, the templates ensure consistency in larger collaborations and the end result is an article with citations that are the most widely accepted format with no need for local debates and even benefits from the auto-formatting Citation bot. Any editor can use the inbuilt cite button available in wikEd and there are a variety of tools to automatically extract the correct data and format references from WorldCat and Google Books so that the editor does not even have to re-type the citation data (see http://userscripts.org/). Fæ (talk) 08:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but look at all the html they create, and look at how inconsistent they are rendering in the curent version of the page. Ceoil (talk) 08:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the inconsistency is from not using a standard template? If you always use a format that differs from the layout of {{citation}} perhaps you would be kind enough to share it with us so we can reach a consensus over what gets italics, brackets, full stops etc. and avoid the inconsistency you are worried about. Fæ (talk) 08:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

As I understand, templates are to spell out for inexperienced editors? I dont see the point here. Here they are just generating noise. As you asked me to share...The Garden of Earthly Delights uses the format I prefer. Ceoil (talk) 08:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

That's a good example, it is FA status but because citation templates have not been used in the Bibliography there are inconsistencies in format as a result. Glancing through with my proof-reading hat on, I note one with quote marks incomplete, one with a date rather than a year and inconsistent use of italics when using chapter titles. Perhaps the citation template would help improve that article too? As I cannot see a consensus on that article's talk page as to citation format, all I can do is point out inconsistency rather than format errors, a good reason to have a consensus here. Fæ (talk) 08:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I fixed, easily, the 3 depreciations since FAC, for your pleasure. It took me about 85 seconds. They were not really the basis to form a world view on. 85 seconds it took. Ceoil (talk) 09:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I note but did not fix: hmm. Ceoil (talk) 09:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not averse to having citation templates in the article, but I never use them myself. I'd probably prefer to approach this article by allowing these kind of differences to persist while the article gets written and then fix them towards the end at the copyediting stage. (Frankly, none of the articles I've submitted to FAC have had consistentyly formatted citations until halfway through their candidacy. If then.) We do have plenty of offers of copyediting help, so I'm sure our citations will end up being consistent. :-) The Land (talk) 09:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

With regard to Ceoil's "hmm", I did not fix the citations at the time because I wanted to finish the discussion here first. If you have a complaint about my behaviour please state it clearly, rather than leaving it as humming and implication. A bit of good faith goes a long way. Fæ (talk) 10:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

This is not the most important issue facing the article. I would suggest we either take a vote and decide that way or leave this issue for much later, letting each person use the style they prefer and standardizing at a later date. Awadewit (talk) 10:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I've added a number of references which have subsequently been altered. I have no strong views as to what style we should use, but are people happy for me to go on adding referenced info to the article? If so I'm happy for the references I've added to be ruthlessly edited by others into whatever style the MOS purists think is most likely to propitiate the pantheon at Olympus. ϢereSpielChequers 13:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I think arguing about what form of citation is putting the cart before the horse a bit... We should put as many references in as we can and we can work out if/how they need to be standardised later on. In this situation there is a lack of people with access to the sources/experts and not a lack of people who can help with copyediting (which is kind of the opposite to the usual). So, given the limited time we have I'd say just put references in and we can ruthlessly edit them later. Witty Lama 22:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I note that the Further reading section has been merged into the References section and then renamed to Bibliography. This means that references used to validate the text are mixed with unused citations. If the consensus is not to have a Further reading section then I suggest the unused citations are deleted to avoid any confusion. See WP:FNNR for related guidance. Fæ (talk) 21:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but sicne we are likely to have some citations referencing these sources in due course, it probably makes sense to leave them there for now? The Land (talk) 21:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

In which case, why not leave them in Further reading until they are used (if ever) rather than merge them confusing the reader and going against the guidelines? Fæ (talk) 22:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Witty Lama 11:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The footnotes referencing to "Snyder 1973" are a bit cryptic as there is no such citation in the Bibliography. Does it need repairing or replacing? Fæ (talk) 09:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Am pretty sure it's Snyder, Christopher A. (1998), An Age of Tyrants: Britain, AD 400-600, University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, ISBN 0217017805 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum - se the /sources page. The Land (talk) 09:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Feh, those were my bad replacing Morris 1973 with Snyder 1998 after rewriting the sections. I was editing the existibg citations rather than starting over. Sorry. - PKM (talk) 16:43, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Currently in the "context" section we have the sentence: "From 410 on Roman Britain was, militarily and administratively, essentially an independent Romano-British state or states which were subject to invasion from Germanic North European tribes" Three thoughts on this. First, I think that as well as the Germanic tribes, Britain was attacked during this period by the Irish and the Picts. Secondly, I think the nature of the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons isn't clear, and several of the possibilities aren't covered well by the word "invasion". Thirdly, why not use the term Anglo-Saxon? The Land (talk) 09:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, the dates listed in the new "turmoil in britain" section are actually wrong - the Romans left Britain earlier than that (so said Richard Hobbes to me yesterday when flipping through the article with me). I think "turmoil" is probably a loaded term - could we go with "changes" or something less dramatic? Witty Lama 11:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

As far as this region was concerned its the Germanic tribes who later became the AngloSaxons who in my understanding are the relevant invaders as the Picts and Irish were further west and North. I'm not sure it would be accurate to describe them as Anglo-Saxon this early, I thought at this stage the Angles, Saxons and Jutes were still very much separate tribes. Turmoil may not be the right word, but changes is IMHO way too euphemistic for what was happening in that area at this time. I'll look into the dating of the withdrawl - perhaps we can discuss this next Friday but we may be getting mixed up between the withdrawl of the legions and the fall of the province. Also it might be an idea to review some of the related articles with the curators - in my view much detail on things like the Roman departure from Britain are best done as a link to that article. ϢereSpielChequers 12:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not very happy with the sentence "essentially an independent Romano-British state or states which were subject to invasion from Germanic North European tribes" either. By all means let's clean that up. I agree we should make this as short as possible while setting the context for people burying treasure like this and never coming back to unearth it. "Turmoil" was my word and I am certainly not married to it. "A time of unrest...?"

And if the experts have newer consensus on dates and better citations let's grab those. (A number of our articles on Sub-Roman Britain could use help...) - PKM (talk) 16:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Think "turmoil" is probably right though (though, admittedly, turmoil on a scale of a century is a different thing to turmoil on a scale of a year...). I think we should also aim to make the context section more relevant to East Anglia, and less generally British - hopefully the BM folks can help with that. :-) The Land (talk) 10:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I've just started reading the Bland and Johns booklet, but I think we ought to have a section on symbolism as this gives an important insight into the people who made this hoard. However its something I want to talk through with the curators next Friday - things may have moved on since that book was published in 94. ϢereSpielChequers 12:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I have a copy of the 2010 Johns book now and will look for this over the weekend. It is the definitive work on the collection (and we'll have digital and physical copies on the day) so it's the one we'll end up citing the most. Please do leave me questions like this one and I can look them up in the mean time. Witty Lama 12:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

OK I think we have enough to describe the hoard owners as Christian, but there is some pagan symbolism. ϢereSpielChequers 13:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to help with the article, but I don't have the sources. Would it be useful for me to do a review at any point, or to do a copyediting or MOS pass? There are enough good editors here already that it may not be necessary for me to help in that way, but let me know if there's anything I can do. Mike Christie (talk) 13:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I see Jstor used as a source in the article. That has limited access and I do not have an affiliation to provide access to me. Being able to access such sources is essential for verification and composition. Is there one for certain Wikipedia editors? Seems appropriate that there ought to be (although I understand the need to limit it so it does not open a floodgate). Therefore, if anyone can share access to that resource with me, please ask for my e-mail address to provide it. ----83d40m (talk) 11:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Please do not ask for passwords as this is against the JSTOR terms and conditions for users. If you need an extract from an article for research purposes, or verification of details, then you can either ask here or put in a request at REX. Fæ (talk) 12:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Fae, I understand -- just thought that, as a significant publisher, Wikipedia might be a participant in Jstor and provide its access to certain editors. Can someone give details of the material where Jstor is cited as the source in this article? It would be very helpful to review the source material in order to contribute to the article. ----83d40m (talk) 12:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks as if the direct contacts at REX will provide the information needed. Incidentally, to be correct, the citation should read, Johns, Catherine and Bland, Roger, The Hoxne Late Roman Treasure, Britannia, Vol. 25, (1994), pp. 165-173 (article consists of 14 pages), Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies; Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/526995 for most readers to be able to follow the references. That is a better way to identify this major source directly for the article, it is the primary source, and many readers may be able to access the it more readily than JSTOR, although the link is provided as well for those who can access JSTOR. ----83d40m (talk) 15:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I've just received this from Richard Hobbs and Catherine Johns - the curators of the hoard - suggesting a structure for the article:

...as follows:

1. Summary
2. Discovery and excavation
3. Objects
   1. The coins
   2. Gold jewellery
   3. Silver objects (tableware and toilet implements)
   4. Other objects (e.g. the traces of wood, small padlocks, bone inlay etc)
4. Significance of the hoard
   1. In antiquity (can include ownership, burial date etc0
   2. In modern times (publicity led to good reporting, display at BM etc)

We would suggest that subjects such as inscriptions, techniques, metallurgical analysis are subsumed within the categories above rather than making them separate entries.

So - I'd say we go with that! :-) Witty Lama 12:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I slightly adjusted the structure, making "in antiquity" and "in modern times" subsections of "Significance". Also, I would suggest a historical background section of some sort. Johnbod had suggested "Context of Roman hoards" - something like that might help readers understand what these hoards are. Awadewit (talk) 22:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and also allow us to get our links in to the key ones of the many hoards we have articles on. Johnbod (talk) 22:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The BM site says that Hoxne is pronounced 'Hoxon', but what they must mean is that it is pronounced as if it were spelled "Hoxon", which would be pronounced /ˈhɒksən/ in British English. However, there is no reference for this IPA transcription. Can anyone confirm what the correct pronunciation is? BabelStone (talk) 22:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I only have anecdotal evidence for the pronunciation - talking with the staff about it and hearing them say the word :-) Not sure if that counts as a reliable source! But, in any case, they've always said to me "Hox'n". There is barely any second vowel. The "n" is pronounced in the same way you might say "fish-n-chips" or "pick-n-mix". It's an almost swallowed sound. Not sure how to represent that in the IPA chart though! Witty Lama 22:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

That sounds exactly like pronounced /ˈhɒksən/. BabelStone (talk) 22:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I think 3 of the items probably have enough content to warrant their own articles, given that Johns devotes about 5 pages to each of them:-

• Empress pepper pot
• Hoxne body chain
• Hoxne tigress

- any views on this? The Land (talk) 21:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that these will eventuate, yes. But - I'd prefer if we started them as subsections in this article and only broke them off into sub articles when they start being of undue weight to the main article. Each should probably end up with its own DYK (or one triple DKY!) but I'd hate for the fact of us spending time editing 4 articles to detract from the main one. Let's build these into the main one and split them off when they're too long. Witty Lama 21:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree; let's see where we are at the end of the exercise. Johnbod (talk) 22:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, but let's focus on this article for the time being. It would be great if our efforts resulted in multiple articles being improved, but let's try to concentrate on making this one really good for now. Awadewit (talk) 22:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense. The Land (talk) 09:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

People might be interested to know that this week's episode of the Wikipedia Singpost features this challenge as the lead item in the "news and notes" section: Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-06-21/News_and_notes. Witty Lama 23:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

And on that note - I think it's time to increase the rating of this article. It was a very stubby-start class when we started but now I do believe it meets the criteria for "C" class - the principal concern of which is the availability of reliable sources of which we have in abundance. Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment#Grades 23:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

In further cool news: in recognition of the "Hoxne Challenge" the British Museum has updated its highlights page to now feature the most famous Hoxne item - the "Empress" pepper pot.[1] furthermore, the museum has also begun linking out to Featured Articles that are about objects in its collection.[2][3] with the phrase "See also the feature quality article about <subject> in Wikipedia". How cool! Witty Lama 23:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Very cool. Good work! :-) The Land (talk) 09:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Now that is impressive. Well done BM! ... I admit that I read about how the BM (et al) changed its mind about metal detetectorists and thought that shows they have open minds. And now more! Well done!

I propose moving the article to Hoxne Hoard as this is a proper name consisting of two words which should both be capitalized, as is the case with Staffordshire Hoard, Vale of York Hoard, Milton Keynes Hoard, etc. BabelStone (talk) 23:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

agreed. Move and redirect the uncapitalised variant. I'll also set up redirects from common misspellings (Hoxon, Hoxen). Witty Lama 23:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Can someone make this change - I'm not an admin so can't do it myself. Witty Lama 16:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

done Victuallers (talk) 17:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Moved the sources and archive sub-pages too ... Fæ (talk) 17:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• ... that the Hoxne Hoard, the largest hoard of Roman silver and gold discovered in Britain, includes pepper pots, silverware and a body chain (pictured) ?

I know its going to be an FA ... but it can be a DYK first / or at the same time. Typically this will take about a week to hit the main page and by that time 9X% of the work should have been done. I looked at the history and chose "at random" four editors who might represent us as "the authors". I think I can squeeze in one or two more if anyone feels that someone in particular (not you please) has been overlooked unfairly. If you think you have a better or want to change the hook then feel free Victuallers (talk) 17:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I had forgotten about the possibility of a DYK for this article. It's not a new article, but it does meet the other criteria of being 5x expansion! Go for it Witty Lama 17:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The map below is based on a BM display shown here. Obviously any help appreciated. If anyone has the time to edit out Iceland, Scandinavia, Jordan etc then that would improve it. WE can change the red dots so that they are the coins as shown on the BM display. Can anyone tell me the location at centre and far right that are illegible on the Flickr pic? Victuallers (talk) 14:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Hoxne needs moving east! Seems to be near Leicester now. Otherwise not bad, though a text colour with more contrast would be good. Can it be cropped to remove the areas not relevant? Johnbod (talk) 14:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll fix Hoxne position. Yes we can clip off the extra map bits. I will have a look at how to do it. Victuallers (talk) 15:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Well I hope you're impressed cos I am! :-) I have made a new map and template and lightened the satellite map to make the text more legible. OK? Victuallers (talk) 20:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes that's much better, though a further crop cutting out Scotland & Ireland would restrict the areas shown to the Roman Empire, & save over 25% of the space. The "Constantinople" label is a bit compromised - ok I fiddled with a few of these. Is that better? Johnbod (talk) 20:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

This map is a great idea. So I hate to say but.... But I'm not sure it will work with images of the coins at the size it'll be possible to display it at... however there must be a way round this. The Land (talk) 21:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC) Thanks. I suspect you're right. I might have a try but I'm not at all sure it will work and may well make the text illegible for little benefit. I'm going to move the map to a section about the coins .... (yet to be written... by someone) Victuallers (talk) 22:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Love the map, shame it leaves out Egypt especially if that is the only other area where the bodychain design is recorded. Is there any chance of adding the boundaries and probable invasion paths? ϢereSpielChequers 11:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I can include Egypt ... what did you have in mind? I did look to see if I could find the boundaries of the Roman empire but the only authoritative ones seemed to be when it was at its max size roughly 300 years before. I'm willing to add more if you can sketch what you are thinking of or you can find the larger map I took if from by following the links on Commons. (Although its not simple as you need to fairly accurately mark up the Latitude/Longitude of any new map. The Land has also suggested we lose Scotland for brevity.

Oh and I see we have a ref to the "Pepper coming from India" ... I can only see speculative evidence for this as I believe there was no pepper found and it is noted that the pepperpots could be used for a variety of spices. Victuallers (talk) 19:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Invasions of the Roman Empire 1.png is fairly close to what I was thinking of adding, but I've no experience in sourcing maps. ϢereSpielChequers 20:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to go through and arbitrarily list some things that pop up to me that should probably be improved:

• "The Treasure Valuation Committee valued the hoard at £1.75 million." When was this valuation carried out? (1992?)
  • Y Have added "at the time" Witty Lama 22:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
• The image in the infobox shows only a tiny fraction of the hoard (three spoons). This seems misleading. Can either a better image be found for the infobox, or the caption modified to highlight the fact that only a tiny subset is pictured, please?
  • Y altered caption to add a second sentence "Alongside coins and jewelery many silver tableware items were found in the hoard." Witty Lama 22:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
• The alt text for the body-chain says that it is mounted on a "bust". It was my understanding that a bust included the head; what I see in the image is closer to a tailor's model or dress form. Is there a better word that can be used, or is "bust" satisfactory?
  • Y (not by me, but I can't find the word 'bust' anywhere now. Witty Lama 22:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
• The article notes that Gratian was "(r. 373–383)", but the article Gratian seems to indicate that he ruled from 375–383. Can this inconsistency be fixed (to correct whichever one is wrong), please?
• Why is the "Significance" section at the end of the article? I think that it might be possible to improve the flow of the article (but that's tricky).
  • I think we'll be working on the structure on the day a fair bit. Witty Lama 22:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
• A number of the references (currently 20–25 or so) reference "Johns 2009". In the bibliography section, the two references which seem to reference Johns are listed as from 2010 and 1994. It looks like there's an error or omission here. Please fix it.

I hope this feedback is useful; this article has greatly improved very quickly; hopefully we can meet the challenge. :) {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 20:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Great points all of them. I'll see if I can fix any tonight :-) Witty Lama 21:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The Johns 2009 vs 2010 confusion stems from the fact that the sources page lists the Johns tome as being 2009, when in fact it's 2010. I assumed the sources page was correct when updating the article but on reflection it clearly isn't as the book itself says 2010! The Land (talk) 21:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I asked her about this personally. The book is published in 2010. Definitely. But the ISBN was reserved in 2009 so that's why some places list is as such. It is a 2010 book and all references should be as such. Witty Lama 21:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I've fixed the references; the new search-and-replace dialog made it a snap to replace all instances of "Johns 2009" with "Johns 2010". {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 01:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Uhhh "search-and-replace dialog", where is that? Paul August ☎ 02:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

It's in the new toolbar that was released with the Vector skin, under the "Advanced" section, on the right, with an icon of a magnifying glass and pencil over a document. It even supports regular expressions! :) {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 15:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Ooh thanks for that - 160.81.189.122 (talk) 23:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC) [PKM incognito]

The account of the 1996 Treasure Act, referenced to The Guardian, is not really correct, nor is the article in the paper. The section "Present-day legal definitions/ United Kingdom/ England, Northern Ireland and Wales" in Treasure trove gives a far more detailed account. What the 1996 Act, among other things, did was abolish the old distinctions arising from the presumed intent of the depositor. It would be better to reference to some of the refs they use, including the official Code of Practice. Johnbod (talk) 01:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

As the Hoxne Hoard predates the 1996 act it is not very relevant to the article, but if we need a live link to the Code of Practice, it is here (on the Portable Antiquities Scheme site). BabelStone (talk) 08:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• We should give the year in which Constantine III crossed the channel; I can't find a source right now but I'm sure it's 407. This is in the "Turmoil" section.
• The paragraph on Treasure Trove reads like a digression into modern law, though I do see the relevance. I suggest we demote the legal details to a footnote, with a compressed version retained in the body of the article.

I understand your thinking, but the resason I put it in was that the Hoxne Hoard was the last major find under the old Treasure Trove laws, and the way it was dealt with differs significantly to the procedure for hoards discovered from 1997 onwards. Indeed, the Hoxne Hoard had an impact on the formulation of the 1996 act that replaced the old laws. Without the background info on Treasure Trove most readers would not understand why the finder was given $1.75m. But some of it can be put in a footnote if necessary -- but I suggest leaving that to the later stages of editing. BabelStone (talk) 08:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• Is there anything in the sources to indicate whether the other items found during the secondary search in 1994 are thought by archaeologists to be part of the original hoard?

The source says "A few Roman artefacts pre-dating the hoard were recovered" which implies that the other 335 items were contemporaneous with the hoard, but we would have to check Suffolk County Council Archaeological Service reports Forrest K/1995/Hoxne Context Project (HXN 019): excavation report/Report No 95/28 to be certain -- I wonder if the BM has it? BabelStone (talk) 08:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• The list of contents under "Items discovered" should indicate whether the list is exhaustive, or if there are miscellanea not mentioned.
• "Fragments of the chest and its fittings were recorded during the excavation." I think "identified" or "found" would be better than recorded. I think this needs a specific source.

Catherine Johns, The Jewellery of Roman Britain: Celtic and Classical Traditions (Routledge, 1996) ISBN 9781857285666 page 217 states: "... has resulted in the preservation of objects such as tiny fragments of decorative bone and wood box-inlay" although it is not clear whether these are from the chest that contained the hoard or from smaller boxes within the chest. BabelStone (talk) 08:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• "The coins allow for dating of the hoard and give a guide to the commerce of the time. The coins manufacture has been traced back to locations in present day France, Germany, Serbia, Italy, Greece and Turkey" This is worth including but needs rephrasing. It's very short for a section of its own and should probably be merged with the one above. The phrase "The coins manufacture" is unclear: does this mean that the mints have been identified as being in France (etc.)? If so it should be rephrased.

-- Mike Christie (talk) 02:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't let's start merging things now - let's see we are on Saturday! Johnbod (talk) 03:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks to BabelStone for those finds; I'm not going to be able to put much more time in this week as work is very hectic, so please add in anything you think worthwhile that you found in response to my comments. Mike Christie (talk) 10:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

One more comment: I don't know if Guy de la Bédoyère's Roman Britain: A New History is regarded as a sufficiently good source for this, but he makes the following comments about the hoard that could be included: "The value in antiquity would have been enormous, so the possibilities are that this was the property of one or more famlies, stolen loot, or goods seized by the authories to pay off barbarians. Another hoard, now lost, was found nearby at Eye in the eighteenth century, and may have been another part of the Hoxne assemblage, separated for security." Pages 258-9, from the 2010 paperback reprint; full cite details available if useful. Mike Christie (talk) 10:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The last sentence in the first para of the lead was cited as follows: <ref name=jstor>[http://www.jstor.org/pss/526995 The Hoxne Late Roman treasure C Johns and R Bland], retrieved 17 June 2010.</ref>. However, this goes to a paper titled "Sound of a propellor at angle of attack: a new theoretical viewpoint", which obviously has nothing to do with the HH. Could someone with JSTOR access please dig out the correct reference? -- ChrisO (talk) 19:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Uhm, I've just checked and the link still works for me. ϢereSpielChequers 21:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

That's really weird, it came up as something completely different earlier and now it seems to be working again??? Maybe a bug in JSTOR? Oh well... -- ChrisO (talk) 21:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

It's about 10 minutes before midday and the start of the tours on-site, but I thought I would just leave a message here saying how cool it is to see this article grow so quickly! We've now got a 30+kb article where before we only had 2kb. Also, I think we're probably at the "B Class" stage now, although I'm not exactly a neutral judge! Does anyone want to re-assess the rating?

I think the bits that are the most wanting at the moment are the Coins section as well as the details about the particlar objects of note (silver tigress, body chain, pepper pots). I would suggest that these are the areas that need to be worked on strongly in order to get this up to the next level.

See you soon! Witty Lama 10:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

We now have WiFi in the editing room at the British Museum - questions for the curators welcome. There are 8 Wikipedians here and just as many curators. Let's begin! Witty Lama 13:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

To avoid conflicts

Victuallers and The Land and Richard Abdy are working on coins re clippings, mints, breakdown by location etc. Victuallers (talk) 14:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The subject of Roman spice trade seems under represented. The sources available for the Southwark mineralized spices and Tomber's book "Indo-Roman Trade" are good evidence for these. Roman trade with India does not represent the Roman period well or correctly.

• Tomber, R; Simpson, Antony; Copeland, Penny (2008), Indo-Roman trade : from pots to pepper, Duckworth debates in archaeology., Duckworth, ISBN 9780715636961

—Fæ (talk) 15:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The Hoxne hoard was one thing I thought needed some work on it. Here are some useful photos I took last weekend:

• Photos
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

I've added the text from the relevant info board in the display to the description pages. JMiall₰ 17:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for these, I've used two so far and we can fit more in as the article grows. I'd like a hoard like photo for the lead, as I don't think that the spoons really do justice to the whole collection (we can probably move that image to a tablewear section later). I also would like photos of both sides of a Miliarense though perhaps just for that article. Some of the Latin and and early Christian symbolism would also be good to have (I may be able to take some next week). ϢereSpielChequers 13:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I have also trawled Flickr and put a request in for a license change for those pics which are currently copyright. Victuallers (talk) 15:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

We have some nice new images, but they now form an almost solid border down the right hand side, even the one I'd placed on the left has moved over. Have FA standards shifted in the last few months? If not we ought to alternate between both sides of the page, aside from aesthetics that should reduce the risk of photos being pushed away from the relevant paragraph - remember people will read this in every conceivable screen setting including wide ones that put a lot of text on a line and if all images are right justified will tend to shove images far from where we intend (a further complication is the convention that images should face inwards - so the coin needs to be right justified). ϢereSpielChequers 08:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I moved it as the section appeared unbalanced. I'd suggest avoiding a switch between left and right in the same section. A mix would be aesthetically pleasing though I can imagine image layout could be fiddled with again. Considering more images are likely to appear, would it be a good thing or bad to have a separate gallery section (particularly if several more coin detail examples were to be added)? Fæ (talk) 09:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I like galleries, but I believe the thinking at FAC is that galleries belong at Commons not in articles. We had an article recently where mini galleries were used to show related photos side by side, which might be good for coins. I'm not sure about the avoiding using both sides in the same section s I think that can work unles the photos are closely related. ϢereSpielChequers 10:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I see we have an advert template for the UK portal .... are these OK for an FA. I find them a bit desperate. Wiki articles should be advert-free IMO Victuallers (talk) 15:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed -- it looks totally out of place, and is only marginally relevant. BabelStone (talk) 23:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Adverts seem to have returned. I've deleted them with "see talkpage"... Victuallers (talk) 13:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what portal links are doing on the article page. The appropriate place for them is in the WikiProject templates at the top of the talk page. There could be a dozen portals that are somehow related to this article, and it makes no sense to put them in the actual article. As an example, the England portal is linked to from only 381 articles, which is only a tiny fraction of England-related articles; and the Archaeology portal is only linked to from twelve articles (including this one) -- clearly it is not normal practice to include such portal links in the actual article. I have therefore removed them again. BabelStone (talk) 13:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a workshop draft with the intent of adding final text to the article. Please add any comments and suggestions at the end of the section.

• The problem of the preservation of pepper.
  • There are rare conditions for pepper to survive (either dry or wet). Consequently it is difficult to find clear evidence of the use of pepper in Britain.
  • Roman Southwark produced three examples mineralized peppercorns.^{[pp 1]}

(More on recipes can be added here, most widely used recipes include pepper, particularly using Apicius to give context)

• Cappers, René T J (2006), Roman foodprints at Berenike : archaeobotanical evidence of subsistence and trade in the eastern desert of Egypt, University of California Los Angeles, ISBN 9781931745260

Note the pepper pots are not grinders but vessels, this is misquoted in some sources.

—Fæ (talk) 08:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I'm just beginning to look over the article, at Liam's invitation. I'll go through the article, and post a few suggestions here, as they occur to me; I hope that they're helpful! :)

• In my opinion, the lead needs to be significantly more complete before the article could be classified as a "B". More generally, the writing should be improved throughout. Willow (talk) 15:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Yep. This will hopefully addressed over the weekend as the main body content gets filled out. Witty Lama 22:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• The "mythical marine creature" can't be discerned from the two pictures of it. It's too small in the triplet picture, and the glare obscures it in its solo photograph at the resolution it appears in the article. (I can make it out in the full resolution picture.) Can we get a close-up photograph without the glare? Alternatively, perhaps one could make a black-and-white diagram of the creature? It seems a pity to mention it twice, once very prominently in the lead, and then not show it. Willow (talk) 15:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Photos, especially photos of the objects on display, are very tricky. We got a lot during the gallery tour and a whole bunch during the private tour but the keynote objects on display are behind perspex and there's nothing we can do about it. Witty Lama 22:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I misunderstood this, but won't the BM be willing to provide you with professional photographs of a few items, or allow an outside professional photographer (perhaps hired by the UK chapter) to photograph the objects under supervision of the curators? It seems in everyone's best interest, doesn't it? :) Willow (talk) 02:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

This is one of the arguments, amongst others, that I am making. But in the mean time (and for the purposes of this article's nom.) we are reliant on our own photographs. The fact that we were allowed to take photographs in the study room is already a big step. You can see in the photos that have already been uploaded to commons:Category:Hoxne_hoard that we've got some lovely new shots (and that's not all of them). Witty Lama 09:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• Can we get a photograph of the Empress pepper-pot, and some of the other pieces mentioned prominently in the text? I was surprised to see only six images in commons:Category:Hoxne hoard, several of them redundant. If this is to be an FA, then it needs more lavish illustrations! :) The glare is quite bad in some of the existing photographs, e.g., the inscriptions can't be read on commons:File:Inscribed_silver_spoons_hoxne_hoard.JPG. You might want to re-take those photographs and re-upload them. Willow (talk) 15:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I've just uploaded commons:File:Hoxne piperatoria 1.jpg which has the pepper pot. I'm going to try to get a higher-resolution version of it on Monday. But any 'clean' photo is going to rely on someone editing out the background. The Land (talk) 11:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Reduced the background distraction and cropped the image. Interesting photo until a good replacement comes along. Fæ (talk) 11:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

How did you do that? I have excactly the same picture, but it is totally ruined by the background, whereas in your picture the background is far less distracting. Maybe the best way to do it would be to get some big guy with a plain black T-shirt to stand on the other side of the case, to give a nice black background :-) BabelStone (talk) 11:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• The gold body chain, commons:File:Gold body chain hoxne treasure reflections.JPG, is a beautiful piece, but its photograph could be improved significantly, esp. by eliminating the reflection of the other pieces in the upper right-hand corner. You might consider a different angle, too. Willow (talk) 15:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

More photos definitely on the way, though somewhat limited by the context the exhibits are held in. And the lead will be expanded once we've finished the current discussion we're having about offline about structure right now. The Land (talk) 15:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

That's good to know! I'll hold off on writing the lead myself, then. Re; the photographs, I was mainly suggesting that you eliminate the glare somehow to make the pictures more valuable and FA-worthy. Ideally, the curators would allow you to remove the reflective glass for the purposes of photography, although it might suffice to shade the light sources or choose another camera angle. An experienced photographer could be very helpful! Willow (talk) 16:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah... Images are particularly difficult objects on display behind glass. Although we did get a whole bunch of shots of some objects not currently on display which are much better. These should be up tomorrow I hope. Witty Lama 22:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Great! :) Perhaps the Museum, or an author such as Catherine Johns, might have extra unused photographs that they'd be willing to donate? Their published images are very good! Another alternative would be to try to photoshop the glare away; that might not work on the inscribed spoons, but it seems likely to work on the mythical sea creature. Willow (talk) 02:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

We took some new shots of the spoons not on display as well as new shots of the key items in the cabinet. Both of these issues should therefore be addressed. And yes, I did ask Catherine for her own images but these were all taken under the auspices of the museum and are therefore the museum's copyright. I have also asked the local historical society hoxne.net but nothing yet. Believe me, I'm working on the images issue but it's not as simple as it might seem from our perspective - it has to go all the way to the top of the organisation to introduce the principles of Creative Commons to them. This will take the same amount of time for 1 image as for 100,000 images. Witty Lama 09:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I've got a good picture of the gold body chain with no glare or reflection, that I will upload tonight, although I have had to crop the sides of the dummy because of someone walking across the backgound. BabelStone (talk) 20:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Uploaded here, together with silver tigress and Empress pepper pot. BabelStone (talk) 23:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• With one exception, the images need ALT text for visually impaired readers. Willow (talk) 16:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Most now have alt text, though I'm not sure how to do alt text for maps and am hoping someone else will do that. But I'm not sure what you mean by one exception, at the time when you made the comment the cigni and the body chain both had alt txt - were you not able to access alt text for one of them? ϢereSpielChequers 17:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• When was the hoard taken to the British Museum — perhaps on the 18th? It would help to know that for the story-telling. Also, can we give a reason for its transfer to the BM, e.g., "for cataloging, cleaning and basic conservation"? It's not necessary, but it might make for a better topic sentence of the final paragraph of the "Discovery and initial excavation" subsection. Willow (talk) 16:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The implication of the article in Current Archaeology is that it was taken directly to the BM on the 17th, but it is not absolutely certain. BabelStone (talk) 19:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• Can we get a link to an archived version of the Sun article of 19 November 1992? Willow (talk) 02:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

No public archive is available (and the Sun's pay per view archive only goes back to 1996). BabelStone (talk) 19:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• It would be helpful if the photographs could give a sense of the size of the hoard objects, e.g., the Empress pepperpot. The gold body chain does that well by being placed on a mannikin torso, but I didn't realize the size of the pepperpot until I read the Bland and Johns article in Current Archaeology. An adjacent ruler is a brute-force approach, but perhaps there's a more elegant way? Willow (talk) 17:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

When we put up photos of some of the keynote objects, or write about them in their own subsections, remind me to put in a height/length measure in the caption. Witty Lama 22:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• The reference to the Roman Grey Literature Stage 1 Database may be a necessary evil, but perhaps there's a more user-friendly alternative? I'm afraid that few readers will have the technical skill to get much out of it. Willow (talk) 17:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

It's the only online source that contains the information. As it is a plain text file, you do not need very much skill to access it -- just the ability to use Excel or some other spreadsheet application (or even any text editor or word processing application), which most users should be able to use. The home page for this project, which explains the csv file format, is at http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/archive/greylit_eh_2008/overview.cfm. BabelStone (talk) 19:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• The BM site on the Hoxne Hoard contains a reference to the following book

Potter, T. W. (1997). Roman Britain (2nd ed.). British Museum Press.

whose ISBN I was unable to find; it's not listed at Amazon.com? Anyway, is this work worth citing in this article as well? Willow (talk) 17:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• In the "Inquest and valuation" section, is the capitalization of "Treasure Trove" correct? I believe that most readers would miss an indefinite article: "was declared a treasure trove" and "declared as a treasure trove", but this may be the incorrect usage. Willow (talk) 18:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree no caps, but "treasure trove" is a legal stutus, like "stolen property", so no article needed. Johnbod (talk) 23:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• In the same section, do we need to mention the 1996 Treasure Act? It seems off-topic, don't you think? Willow (talk) 18:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The relationship of this hoard to the law is quite strong, as this helped precipitate the change of the treasure Act towards what it currently is. The hoard is not only significant for the historical context but also for the contemporary legal context. Witty Lama 22:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, you're saying that the discovery of the Hoxne Hoard played a significant role in bringing about the 1996 Treasure Act? I didn't understand that from the prior version. I'll make a change in the wording to reflect that, but please do check it to see if I missed something. Willow (talk) 02:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• Can we get a diagram showing the archaeological reconstruction of the box and the arrangement of items within it? That would be a big help to the reader trying visualize the hoard. It could be a simple SVG schematic, or (more impressive) an rotating 3D re-construction, perhaps done as an animated GIF. Willow (talk) 18:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

This is basically impossible because the box itself (and all internal boxes) had decayed. It is clear what the size was, and it is clear that there were boxes within the main box (on the basis of the small padlocks) but they had all decayed and all that was left was the rough structure and relationship of the objects on top of each other. There is a guess made in the gallery by a reconstructed (perspex) box but it is only a guess as to how the original box was put together. Witty Lama 22:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

A mock-up of the boxes with the rough positions of objects would benefit the article strongly, I believe. If someone at the BM could photograph the existing perspex model, or sketch a schematic in SVG, or make a Blender model, that would work wonderfully. :) Willow (talk) 02:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• Can we get a scale on some of these maps, even a rough one? Thanks! Willow (talk) 19:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• The bullet-point list in the "Items discovered" section is inelegant, and the use of such lists is discouraged in FAs. Can we find a more elegant way of conveying the same information? Perhaps a picture or a table might be helpful? Willow (talk) 19:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I can go with a table, but, given that it is a cache/hoard/trove then the fact that it is a catalogue of items in different groupings (gold, silver, coins....) is quite inherent to the subject. It is how the hoard is described in all the literature - as a collection of x number of this and x number of that type of object. Witty Lama 22:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and I see the difficulty. But let's continue to think about this section; I sense that there ought to be a more elegant solution here! :) Willow (talk) 02:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't see anything in the Manual of Style that says "don't use lists". It would be very clumsy to have the same information presented as prose, so I think a list is the best option. The Land (talk) 11:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Discouraged is not the same as deprecated, if we've considered it and not come up with a better way to present that information then I think we should go to FA, but don't be surprised if someone there can square that particular circle and come up with a more elegant solution. ϢereSpielChequers 17:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't read the IPA, but the second one, that says HOK-sən looks wrong to me. I grew up near Hoxne. It is pronounced Hox'n, (like Cap'n) with the emphasis on Hox. It is definitely not separated out into Hok and sen - which seems an odd thing to suggest anyhow as 'x' isn't normally split into a 'k' and a separate 's' sound, is it?86.142.7.215 (talk) 17:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't read IPA either, but would agree with your assessment. Locally it would be referred to as Hox'n. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Both systems of pronunciation are correctly written, and do represent what you write as Hox'n. The capitalization indicates stress, so it is not divided into two separate parts, but just indicates that the first syllable is stressed. The fact that the 'x' of the spelled form is divided over the 'K' and the 's' does not affect the pronunciation (x = ks). Likewise, in the IPA, the aopostrophe at the start indicates that the first syllable is stressed. The turned e (known as a schwa) in both systems indicates a weak, unstressed vowel, and is the correct symbol to use for the second vowel in the name. Hope this explanation helps a little. BabelStone (talk) 22:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it really does. Thank you. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

But surely it should be written HOKS-ən? Splitting the k and s suggests that the second syllable has an 's' sound deparate from the 'k' sound; if it was wirtten HOKS there is no ambiguity. 86.142.7.215 (talk) 11:13, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

That would be applying spelling rules to pronunciation rules. Phonetically, the word is divisible into two syllables "hok" + "sen", even if it is spelled "hox" + "en". The fact that 'k' goes with the first syllable and 's' goes with the second syllable (and there is a hyphen between them) does not imply that there is a pause between them. BabelStone (talk) 11:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I note that someone has forced the naming of reference anchors using the (rarely used) ref parameter of the cite template. I don't see why automatic naming is a problem for these as without digging into the citation code, any new user would not have a clue as to what name had been arbitrarily chosen for the ref parameters. Why not stick with {{harvnb}} and let the anchor names take care of themselves? Fæ (talk) 00:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

PS I added a {{bot}} tag to avoid the citation bot interfering though, looking through the history, this does not look like an issue here. Fæ (talk) 10:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The hoard was not discovered earlier as the land had not been used as farmland until 1967 or 1968 when blackthorn and grass was cleared from the site. It was thought, by the farmer, that the hoard was eventually disturbed by deeper ploughing when he decided to change his ploughing direction from north-south to east to west in 1990 for that part of the field. This theory is supported by finds of coins away from the central hoard which were found in 1994. Their locations were roughly in an elipse with an east-west major axis. By the time of their discovery, some coins had travelled 20 m. away from the hoard. ref "The Hoxne Late Roman Treasure" P.16?

Not sure where this fits ... but use if you can, sorry page number is approx. Victuallers (talk) 13:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that is useful extra information. I have added it to the "Subsequent archaeological investigations" section .... of course, a map showing the distribution of finds over the 3 years would be icing on the cake. BabelStone (talk) 14:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I would like to propose a consistent use of the Harvard citation format for cross-referencing references to the bibliography. This is explained at {{harvnb}} and the same template can be used to easily automatically anchor the footnote to the bibliography entry. Previous citations I have added have had their anchors broken (so x-linking does not work) by adding the "ref" parameter to citation templates or by arbitrarily converting "citation" templates to "cite book" templates. I suggest we let the template use automatic reference naming rather than making up a host of reference names for which there is no consensus and will invariably confuse future editors. Fæ (talk) 14:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I was responsible for breaking any intra-article links, but if so, I apologize. My reason for converting the handful of citation templates to cite templates was for consistency in the reference formatting. The citation templates do not punctuate in the same way as the cite templates, which comprise the majority of the references; for example, you'll notice that there's no concluding period after the reference. I'll leave it to you all to decide how you want to handle that inconsistency. Willow (talk) 15:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd rather keep the {{harvnb}} auto ref naming working and apply the postscript parameter (i.e. |postscript=.) if terminal stops are essential for FA. I've gone ahead and added these for the relevant items. Fæ (talk) 18:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Any objections if I split notes and footnotes, as is done here, for example? I think it's beneficial for the reader; they quickly learn that the notes have information and the footnotes only have citations, which helps them avoid missing the text content of the notes. If no one objections objects I'll do this later today. Mike Christie (talk) 17:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Support - using the obvious ref group name of "notes". We may need to stick a style notice on this talk page to summarize any consensus on technical style choices rather than letting this stuff disappear into the archive. Fæ (talk) 17:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Support - PKM (talk) 18:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Support. BabelStone (talk) 18:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Support; it's often done at the best FAs. :) Willow (talk) 18:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. The first note is now detached from a reference; can someone fix that? The second one has an inline citation, which I personally tend to use inside these notes -- the "See" format, used for the third note, is forced if you're using inlines as they can't recurse, but here we could use an inline for the third note if we wanted to. I think the two ought to be made consistent -- either way would work. Mike Christie (talk) 21:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

One of the areas that I think we should cover is the issue of who the people were who made these objects, - Roman or Romano British. Clearly most of the coins, except for the "forgeries" were Roman and not even from that province, and the only other bodychain evidence we have is from Egypt. But the practice of coin clipping was a Romano British one. Does the newer book go into more detail on this, and is it worth discussing tomorrow? ϢereSpielChequers 12:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Probably worth discussing. I would want to see quality sources to back up any statements relating to objects being associated with "Romano British culture" and the distinction between being Roman and being Romano-British as contemporary documents would have not defined any difference. It should be noted that an object may for example have been imported (e.g. from Gaul) but still be considered a good example of provincial/"Romano-British" culture. Obviously pre-Roman objects are easier to distinguish. Fæ (talk) 12:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how good our other articles are on Roman era metallurgy, but if the items have been assayed then there should somewhere be some work on where the ore came from. Has this been used to identify the source of any of the articles? ϢereSpielChequers 12:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

We asked this but were told all Late Roman precious metal had been recycled too many times for any useful results. Gemstones were different, though I'm not sure what, if anything came off these. Johnbod (talk) 17:47, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Unless someone has plans to considerably expand and improve the Significance section, I suggest removing it. The first paragraph merely summarises the paragraph under Local context, and the second paragraph could best be merged in with the Inquest and validation section. BabelStone (talk) 23:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

...and the lead still needs much more; the first para has points that could go there. But there should ideally be more here, & I suggest leaving it for a while. Johnbod (talk) 23:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

the lead definitely needs much, much more. Someone (not me) needs to take that under hand at the earliest opportunity. I think you are right that some of the Significance stuff would go well in the lead. BabelStone (talk) 23:21, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I think there is sense in leaving pulling the lead together till a late stage, but perhaps right now people who have been working on particular sections could each ensure that their bit(s) have an adequate summary there. Johnbod (talk) 23:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I was just going to come and suggest the removal or expansion of this section but here's the thread already. I think this was supposed to be the part that described why this hoard's discovery helped precipitate a change in the law, right? Witty Lama 08:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Side by side pictures won't do for FAC. I think some of the spoon etc pics should be rotated to be vertical, and then placed in a side-by side lineup or a gallery format (with sizes adjusted, or they will be much smaller). Does anyone want to try this? The same for the coins might be good too. Johnbod (talk) 13:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Happy to fiddle with this. Rotated the two spoons photo as suggested. Was your intention to have two gallery sections, one within coins and the other in silver tableware or a separate gallery section for additional images? Fæ (talk) 14:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking maybe 1 x 4 of silver, & 1 x 4 of coins, at each section, but that's just a suggestion. I'm off for a bit now. Johnbod (talk) 14:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'll set it up on that basis unless someone has a better idea. I'm enjoying the weather outside, so rather than fiddling with images on a teeny screen, this will have to wait until I'm back at a desktop later today. Fæ (talk) 14:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean, John - what is wrong with the images? Galleries are discouraged by the MOS and composite images of spoons etc will be difficult to get right because of the scale. The Land

The last major "galleries of images in articles" saga that I was involved in was Inner German border last October (FA standards may have shifted since then - I haven't been active as a reviewer this year). I suspect that if more images from Friday appear we could get close to the amount of pictures and maps that that article had when it achieved FA status. If that is still an acceptable precedent then side by side images are OK in an FA article when they make a useful point - I think the sequence of three clipped and unclipped coins would look good if we could somehow make them three images side by side rather than the current vertical stripe. ϢereSpielChequers 16:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

It would not hurt to break the image into derived images of separate coins and then we can arrange how we see fit. Bit of a drag but I'll fiddle with it shortly. Fæ (talk) 17:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, now cropped as 3 separate images. The sizes are still correct relative to each other, please keep this in mind if you want to touch them up or are tempted to crop for a second time:

As a gallery:

• 
  Siliqua One
• 
  Siliqua Two
• 
  Siliqua Three

I'll defer investing any further time on galleries until we have a positive consensus on how best to comply with MOS. Fæ (talk) 17:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. I've put this in using the gallery function. I think this is a good example of how the gallery function can be used to illustrate a point, and the very opposite of the "miscellaneous gallery for any other photos not good enough to fit in the article" that MOS deprecates. ϢereSpielChequers 19:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no discouragement of useful galleries in either MOS (WP:IG) or at FAC - see eg The Disasters of War. Most recent visual arts FAs have them. But side-by-side pictures are discouraged by both. Johnbod (talk) 19:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry John, but could you explain the difference between a two image gallery and side by side pictures? Is it just the html code, or something about the juxtaposition? ϢereSpielChequers 00:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, just seen this. By "side by side", aka "image sandwich", I meant left and right aligned images opposite each other, with text in between. If the overlap is more than a line or two, these get complained about. Of course my image preferences are set at 11 (ie 300px), so I see partial overlaps where others do not. But they are tough for some with small screens etc. Johnbod (talk) 01:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Those siliquae work fine as a gallery - but of course the point of images of those coins is to illustrate a particular point about the clipping of the coins. Adding a 4th image to the gallery would be counter-productive - and that isn't an option if we just use a 3-coin image. The Land (talk) 13:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

In the same way as the coins, would it be worth collating some of the silver tableware together? At the moment I would like to add the spoon detail shot to the section (it shows the Christian cross present on many of the items) but the section is already crowded with individual thumbnails. Fæ (talk) 22:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• 
  Two cochlearia from the Hoard.
• 
  Detail of spoon bowl showing Christian cross decoration.
• 
  Personal utensils.

I'm not sure what the purpose would be of such a gallery, unless perhaps we could get the different types of spoon? Getting them to the same scale could be tricky though. If we could then perhaps a gallery showing the different types of coin would also be helpful. ϢereSpielChequers 23:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd favour a gallery - perhaps all the white background ones there, & then others in the text. The left hand pointy spoon is the one with "VIVAS IN DEO" btw. Are we still happy with the lead pic? It lacks a wow factor. Do we have a picture of the perspex box display in the gallery? That would be good below the lead pic. Johnbod (talk) 00:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

One of the BM staff promised us a photo of a large part of the collection for early next week, I'm rather hoping that will then be the lead photo, which then demotes the current one to the already crowded spoon section. But it is our only photo at present to show relative sizes of two types of spoon. ϢereSpielChequers 00:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Potentially File:Hoxne Hoard back-room discussion of items not on display 2.JPG shows the full range of utensil in comparison to each other, but I'm not sure this sort of back-room shot is right for the article itself (unless this helps any discussion on restoration or analysis). Fæ (talk) 00:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

With the creation of a table of spoon inscriptions, there appears to be enough room without a gallery. Should we get a significant number of new images, layout can be considered afresh. Fæ (talk) 16:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

In order to comply with MOS guidance, could we ensure consistency by sticking to all Latin phrases or words being italicized but not in quotes? No such format is needed where the term is recognizable in English, a proper name (such as Constantinus) or a quotation already in quote marks. So solidus is always in italics (not to be confused with the English word "solidus" meaning a forward slash), "Utere Felix Domina Juliane" does not need italics and pyxis does not need italics as it is recognized in English (albeit a technical archaeological term, it is in the OED as English). Fæ (talk) 23:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I've also capitalised and changed J/U to I/V (VTERE FELIX DOMINA IVLIANE), following Latin orthography -- and also for consistency with the other Latin quote ("[V]IVAS IN DEO). Mind you, if you look at the actual inscription, it sure looks as if it reads (incorrectly) "VTERET ELIX DOMINA IVLIANE" ! Anyhow, the formula Utere felix is quite common on Roman artefacts, so I will add something about it. BabelStone (talk) 23:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it seems quite stylized and inconsistent (looking at the way A's are formed as an example). It may due to the jeweller being more used to Greek than Latin, but that's speculation on my part... BTW I like the way the BM have an "unwrapped" image of the bracelet, handy bit of photo-shopping. Fæ (talk) 00:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Should IVLINAE be translated as "Juliana" rather than "Juliane" in English? I think that "e" is a case-ending - who's got Latin? - PKM (talk) 02:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

No, Catherine Johns made the point several times. This is a Greek name and should be left that way. Changing to Juliana could be misleading and though some original hoard accounts (including Johns) did this, all later publications stick to the terminal "e" for correctness. Fæ (talk) 08:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Got it, thanks for the clarification. - PKM (talk) 15:29, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• One of the perspex chest display
• One of the tigress - ok scrub that

- has anyone got? Johnbod (talk) 02:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

See here which came from Flickr Victuallers (talk) 10:05, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Can we use that (of the chest) for FAC? Photo itself is fine. Johnbod (talk) 16:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Mike Peel has new shots of the box (and other items) that he took today and will be uploading soon. Witty Lama 18:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Good,... answering JohnBod's issue. Yes, the Flickr picture is attrib only and creative commons. Should be no license issues Victuallers (talk) 18:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Is the red-linked "Nicolaevo" in Note 2 either Nikolaevo or Nikolaevo, Gabrovo Province? - PKM (talk) 02:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

It was a quote from Johns 2010. The common name was Nicolaevo treasure located in Nicolaevo, district of Plevna, modern name Pleven. Fæ (talk) 14:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The article is inconsistent in capitalizing "emperor". I would suggest lowercasing in all instances except in front of a name (i.e. "Eastern Emperor Arcadius" but "Theodosian emperors") as per the guidelines in MOS. If there are no objections, I can make the change. - PKM (talk) 03:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The article is also inconsistent about capitalizing "hoard". I would recommend caps for "Hoxne Hoard" in all instances, but lowercase for "Almost every silver siliqua in the Hoard...". I am less confident of this recommendation; we could use Hoard when we mean "Hoxne Hoard" and hoard when we mean hoards in general. Whichever way we go, we should be consistent. Thoughts? - PKM (talk) 03:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm uncomfortable using "Hoard" on its own to refer to the HH (feels like referring to "the Man said..."). I suggest the hoard is consistently referred to as "Hoxne Hoard" and then "hoard" stays lower-case everywhere else. Fæ (talk) 08:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, using "Hoard" and "hoard" to mean to two different things is asking for trouble. BabelStone (talk) 08:16, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done Standardized emperor, imperial, hoard throughout. - PKM (talk) 15:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I have standardized on Chi-Rho (caps, hyphen) throughout as consistent with the Wikipedia article on the monogram. - PKM (talk) 16:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone read The Heirs of King Verica: Culture & Politics in Roman Britain (ISBN 9780752419602) by Martin Henig (an established historian of Roman art), in which he fictionalises the characters named on objects in the Hoxne Hoard? For example (from Google Book), "The Lady Juliana was sixteen years old, and preparations were in hand for her betrothal party arranged by her indulgent father Aurelius Ursicinus. Someone had told her that Ursinicus came from Ursus, a bear, 'Artos' in Celtic. He was a bear of a man and frightfully, frightfully rich. A great chest of coin was assembled as a dowry and all her friends had showered gifts on her including an exquisite bracelet given to her by her cousin ...". Is it worth adding mention of this fictional account of the lives of the Hoxne Hoard characters anywhere? BabelStone (talk) 09:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe but it raises a red flag for me. The quote you have given could confuse the reader with ideas based on vague modern fictional ideas of Arthurian pseudo-mythology (Artos being Arthur). I seem to be constantly pushing against In Popular Culture lists. I hope that nobody finds out the hoard was used in a Tomb Raider video game or takes this as an invitation to add an index of every TV programme that ever tangentially mentioned the Hoxne Hoard. Fæ (talk) 12:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I think a good way to look at it is to see which way the useful reference runs; if there is a novel which mentions the hoard, and that novel has its own Wikipedia article, then there should be a link to the hoard from that article. The reverse doesn't seem to be true -- the search function (or "What links here") will find all references to the hoard elsewhere in Wikipedia, and there's no need for an article on something to list everything that refers to it. Mike Christie (talk) 12:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Normally "cultural impact" only gets into articles if the impact of the subject is both significant and independently documented. What we don't do (at least in decent-quality articles) is write up every mention of an article subject in fiction, music, etc... The Land (talk) 13:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

"All the jewellery in the hoard is gold, and all gold items in the hoard are jewellery." This statement appears to be inconsistent with the assertion that many of the coins were gold.Eregli bob (talk) 10:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Appears fixed. Fæ (talk) 13:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

These are plus 2; ie page 40 in the proofs = page 38 as published. Johnbod (talk) 17:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:REPEATLINK, a link to the first instance of a term is sufficient unless two occurrences are "far apart". This is of source subjective, but I am cleaning up links with these guidelines:

• Link 1st instance of each place or emperor
• Link 1st instance of each coin type (except link mention of solidus in context of jewellery)
• Link 1st instance of Latin

but

• Link both occurrences of niello
• Link 2 occurrences of silver-gilt (but not 3)

and

• Link minerals other than gold and silver

Alternative schemes welcome. Holler if I miss anything. - PKM (talk) 00:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes - 2-3 screens is "far" in my book. Captions are different; most links are repeated in them, but not ad nauseam. I think there were 2 mercurys last time I looked. Johnbod (talk) 00:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I am revisiting this line that people had issues with last weekend: "From 410 on, militarily and administratively, Roman Britain was essentially an independent Romano-British state, or states, subject to incursions from Germanic North European tribes." This paragraph can be tighted, I think. - PKM (talk) 00:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Should we aim to make the FA nomination on Monday? It could probably survive an FA nomination now, but there is a bit more content to come - Victuallers is adding some tables to do with the coins, there is a little more to add on some of the most high-important objects, and some of our friendly experts are thinking about some of the finer points that were raised on Friday afternoon. A few more days will let people copy-edit, tweak prose, and resolve a few more issues about photo quality. The Land (talk) 11:23, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, obviously I'm biased, but I'd love to see it get to FAC :-) Lets see how tidy we can get it over the weekend and I'll make sure to post any comments from the experts ASAP. Witty Lama 11:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Update. Victuallers has problems with the tables I'm afraid. The pictures we took on Friday are too fuzzy to read. Quite willing to do them but I have no source material for pages 39, 41 and 43. I also redid the map I promised of England showing three locations.... but ChrisO's map looks better. I could make that ckickable? Victuallers (talk) 13:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually I think it might be ready to be a candidate now. The two tasks in the to-do list seem to be mentioned in the article, the pepper one is more likely to result in a new article. More details about the key objects can be added but they will then fork into new articles, we don't need any more about them in this article. So should we nominate this, or am I jumping the gun? The Land (talk) 13:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the article is still a little rough in places, and the lead still needs expanding to give a better summary of the hoard. I would wait until Monday. BabelStone (talk) 14:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

FA nomination duly started. Alea jacta est as they say. :-) The Land (talk) 18:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The most prominent name displayed in the Hoard is Aurelius Ursicinus. Would it be appropriate to include theories about his identity? Or perhaps some more concrete analysis of the fantastic wealth this hoard represents for the time and therefore the class or nature of the family or individual to whom it must have belonged. The family name "Ursicinus" occurs in Marcellinus Book XXVIII (in translation here) attached to a vice-prefect of Rome. There is also further theorising about his identity here, and (less fantastically) here. This is purely speculative, and unreliable, but surely we can come up with something more to say about the owner of the hoard. Revcasy (talk) 16:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Difficult. There is of course no evidence that Aurelius Ursicinus was the owner of the hoard.

The Land

Maybe what I am wishing for is more context. What sort of people would have had access to such a treasure? Might they have been late Roman officials? How much wealth does the hoard represent in real terms? (The average person does not know what a single solidus could buy, much less 569 of them, along with various other denominations.) We have some information about the owner/s of the hoard simply by it's scale. Ipso facto, at least viro docto. However, I cannot help but feel that the text should be more explicit about these things, as it is an encyclopedia article, not an article in a scholarly journal. Revcasy (talk) 17:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we can be more explicit than the sources allow... But I agree that a if we can source it some more info on the relative value of the hoard and the purchasing power of the coins might be helpful - though not necessarily in this article. The difficult thing is that the relative prices of many objects will be different "then", now and things may have been very different in 400 CE as opposed to 410 CE. Clearly Pepper as an exotic import was relatively expensive in that era, but I'd hesitate to compare the salary of a Roman legionary to a modern squaddie of any nationality. Its a difficult subject remember even in our day gold is worth several times what it was a decade or so ago. ϢereSpielChequers 17:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I mentioned this on Fri and was basically told "don't bother" - the relative value of goods has changed too much. Might be possible to say what a solidus was worth at some time in some place but who knows what relevance that has to 408 Britain? The Land

So, then we know nothing whatever about the owner/depositor of the hoard, not only specifically, but generally? We know nothing about its value in context? I understand the natural disinclination toward speculation that archeologist and museum curators and historians (nervous chuckle) feel, but really something must be said on this subject. If nothing else "the owner of the hoard must have been wealthy," or "this seems a large amount of currency and movable wealth," or even "the depositor of the hoard must have belonged to a small elite in terms of wealth and access to luxury goods". All of these seem almost laughably cautious statements. I mean over 14,000 siliquae? I can step out on a limb and say this belonged to an elite without endangering my reputation. I can say that the hoard at some point almost certainly belonged to someone culturally aligned with Rome, someone who spoke Latin, if not an actual Roman. The assertion that the owners where Christian seems riskier. Revcasy (talk) 20:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

We have "wealthy" at least twice - lead & gold jewellery. Also the point in the same places that this appears to have only been part of the family's stock of precious metal. Beyong that they got unhappy, but I'll see if I come across any quotes. Johnbod (talk) 21:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Note that I did add some context to the value of pepper (to support the perception of it being a high status commodity) based on the Prices edict but this was to give a sense of relative value by comparing the legislated maximum price for a pound of gold vs. a pound of pepper given in dinarii. I also pointed out that inflation across the Empire makes sources for prices separated by a few decades hard to compare. I think it is fair to compare relative value for items (e.g. silk was more expensive by weight than pure gold) but to quote hard numbers is probably debatable and with weak support of truly contemporaneous records. Fæ (talk) 21:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I understand that prices were volatile in the late Empire. I also understand that the coinage was devalued (though I hesitate to equate this directly with inflation as the coins, at least in the case of solidi, were made of actual gold). As a digression, do the solidi in the hoard show signs of clipping? In any case I am less concerned with concrete numbers (though I have found some: 200lbs of pork/solidus in Rome in 452, a Soldier's food rations for one year in Numidia and Mauretania in 445 @ 4 solidi/year; Jones (1964) The later Roman Empire, 284-602, pp. 446-447) than I am with informing the reader somehow that this was a princely sum of money and precious metals, and that only a very few people in the province would have had access to this kind of wealth. This was not just some random well-off merchant's hoard. Context is too often lacking in our articles. Revcasy (talk) 22:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

It might be worth including some of those specific valuations. But I don't know what justification you have for saying "this ws a princely sum of money and precious metals". Obviously they were wealthy but beyond that I don't think there is any evidence. And of course there is no guarantee that the Hoard represents the wealth of an individual (or single household). The Land (talk) 13:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. After more consideration, I yield the point. The question of exactly how much purchasing power the coinage represents is complex and probably beyond the scope of the article. Also, my use of the descriptor "princely" may be a step too far. What the hoard represents is an unknown amount of money which belonged to a person/s also unknown. Archeology is supposed to tell us something about people though isn't it? What have we learned from this find about people of the time that makes it important? What I am not seeing in the article (even under the "Significance" heading, which mentions the 1996 Treasure Act and not much else) is a real summing up of the significance of the hoard, either to archeology as a discipline, or to our knowledge about actual living people in Britain in the early 5th century. It may be self-evident to archeologist, or the museum curators, but not to the general public; and though the idea of ancient gold buried in the ground fascinates the typical layman, he can find that on any number of shows on the History Channel. I am talking about the difference between an excellent article (FA), and the recitation of bare facts, signifying (if you will pardon the allusion) nothing. Revcasy (talk) 16:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I hav eadded a fair bit to the article about theories about why the Hoard was buried, meaning of the name Aurelius Ursicinus, and the like - without moving too far into fantasy! The Land (talk) 12:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I am much more comfortable with the context of the article now. I think you balanced it nicely. Revcasy (talk) 15:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Note - image map deleted Victuallers (talk) 12:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC) A few comments re File:Hoxne hoard local context map.gif:

1. I like the way that modern features appear faint as they didn't exist then, but I think that includes both a river and the Pye Road which should not be faded as they existed then.
2. The scarlet lettering is inappropriate to my eyes - more correcting pen than result,
3. A scale would help as few will have a mental image of the distance from Hoxne to Scole (I think its less important on the map of Europe).
4. Why is there a question mark after Roman Settlement next to Scole?

ϢereSpielChequers 17:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The sources seem quite clear that it was a Roman settlement (the modern name is of Latin origin), so the question mark should go. It would also be nice to mark the Roman roads in if possible. BabelStone (talk) 17:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Trying to address points above, (See ImageMap above) this may be worse than what you have??, I intend to add a visual clue on the map for where the farm is - where is this Roman road? Victuallers (talk) 15:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC) Oh I see is it the A140 aka Pye Road? Victuallers (talk) 15:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I see Ive left a picture of my cursor on the map ... but apart from that I think its as good as it can be ... comments please Victuallers (talk) 16:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for working on this. Some random comments:

• The names "Scole" and "Eye" are so small I can hardly read them - anything you can do about that?

Yes, but we need to avoid them getting too large.

• Can you label the Home Farm?

Yes.

• Can we use some symbol other than the red Os for the find locations? It's not obvious that Scole and Eye are finds; at first glance those simply look like place markers for local towns/villages, because the symbols are small.

Is it the size? or the "o"s. The middle marker is also an "O" I can fix size obviously

• Is it possible to add a "(Roman Road)" label on Pye Road? Again, it's not obvious that there is reason to mouse-over the road.

Fine

Aesthetically I prefer this map but I am not sure it's more useful.- PKM (talk) 18:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Anyone care to agree/disagree? Any views on the tooltips/Hyperlinks? - Victuallers (talk) 19:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this, and I like the hyperlinks, but I'm with PKM. We don't need markers as dramatic as on the other map, but we do need a map which picks out the two hoards as well as Hoxne village and Scole. I think the road and river are OK but it would be nice if they could be bolded a little or the other elements faded. ϢereSpielChequers 20:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Thx for feedback. I'll have another go, but finding this tricky to keep all satisfied. Do have another go if you think you can. I only have a basic image manipulator and not photoshop. I'll not be offended if another approach satisfies Victuallers (talk) 08:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

This ones editable - add the Farm if you like. (but, the main building is not at the location given for the hoard - but could be a GPS error). Lightening the background map is also easier. I have only labelled those locations mentioned. The Rivers could be labelled but its tricky. Can we agree this is better? (even if you can think of improvements) Victuallers (talk) 12:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Better!! - PKM (talk) 19:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

According to notes Catherine Johns gave me at the workshop, the Hawkesford reference is deprecated. It is only used for a couple of background notes late on in the article, so I imagine it could be steered round and taken out. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Also the early reference Bland & Johns (1993a) should be restricted in its usage to discovery details. This has an impact in a couple of places, in one of which it can be taken out as a second reference. The other is some hypothesising about the provenance of the Hoard; if one of the authors says this no longer is current thinking, I'd say we could accept that. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, how exactly do you deprecate a reference? Hawkesford is cited twice in this article, once concerning the Roman settlement at Scoles and once concerning the 1781 hoard. Although there are almost certainly other sources that could be used to support these two rather innocuous statements, I see no reason why we should arbitrarily remove the Hawkesford citation (is this a case of academic in-fighting, and because Hawkesford has fallen out of favour with the BM people we are supposed to drop any mention of her?). BabelStone (talk) 10:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I think, if it is not a question of neutrality (and I think it is not in this case), we treat the comments we have been given at the workshop as peer review of the article. I am noting what I was told here for that reason. If anyone else has comments about the specifics, of course they should add them here. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I know that Johns 1993 was obviously superseded by later publications by the same authors on the same subject, but what was the rationale for Hawkesford being depreciated?

This topic came up a couple of times at the workshop (as in, which sources were the better quality sources to apply) and it may be worth adding something to the article on how the published view has changed in the years after excavation and how earlier publications have some factual or analytical flaws in the light of later knowledge. Such a summary would serve to enhance the explanation of why the hoard is considered significant from an archaeological perspective. Fæ (talk) 10:58, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

See Talk:Hoxne_Hoard#References. Fæ (talk) 13:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I will be dropping by the BM tomorrow (Monday) & should be able to look at some of the key sources in the libraries if there are any remaining queries. (Also I need to pick up my iPod, which I left there on Friday!) I will also try to get a better pic of the body-chain, which is I think the only major item that needs a better picture. Any requests for me to double-check while I'm there please post here. The Land (talk) 20:58, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Mike Peel came by today and got a lot of new shots (including the back of the bodychain) which will be up later. Otherwise - when you're at the BM give me a call from the info desk. Witty Lama 21:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Cool. Looking at the article, there are a couple of points about theories about why it was buried which I remember reading in Johns 2010. Am also scratching my head about coins still. The Land (talk) 21:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

It is a little closely cropped (because of someone in the background), but I have a reasonable picture of the gold chain here. BabelStone (talk) 21:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The one tigress shot we have is good but a little dark. Another, maybe with flash, and also one from behind showing the stripes, would be great; that could go next to her bit. Also, in the next room, no 40, you will pass the Royal Gold Cup, currently at FAC, in its own case in the central axis. Any tight detail shots of the enamel scenes would be welcome (and used). These are what we have already. The Hamlyn Library (room 2) is the place to start; right off the main entrance hall, through the gift shop & right - in fact it's directly under the gallery with Hoard. Johnbod (talk) 21:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

My camera basically isn't great, particularly at short-range shots. So the best I can really hope is to take very hi-res pics and then maipulate them afterwards. But I'll do my best with the gold cup as well... The Land (talk) 21:44, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Chris, Could you get photos of the tables that were lost that gave the breakdown of where the coins came from in the main Guest book if possible. I have illegible pictures of p.39, 41 and 43 which make this breakdown. I'm feeling guilty cos I said I'd recreate them but I havent beed able to deliver. Cheers Roger (Guest, Peter S. W. (2005), The late Roman Gold and Silver Coins from the Hoxne Treasure, British Museum Press, ISBN 9780714118109.) Victuallers (talk) 22:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The photos that I took of the Hoxne Hoard on Sunday are now up on Commons - 28 images of nearly everything on public display. You can find them in commons:Category:Hoxne hoard. They didn't turn out as well as I'd hoped, though, due to the glass and a lack of a tripod. Wish I could have been there last Friday... Hope that these are useful/helpful. Mike Peel (talk) 21:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Bizarrely I can't see them in the category? i know they're there, I have seen some of them individually, just not in the cat... The Land (talk) 21:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

It's likely to be a caching issue - try visiting [4]. Otherwise, you can see them at File:Hoxne Hoard 1.jpg etc. (replace 1 with any number between 1 and 28). Mike Peel (talk) 21:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

We could have a direct quote from the radio programme[5] as Roberta Tomber contributes as well as MacGregor. This might help either spice up the subject of pepper or help the layman get a feel for the value of the hoard. Would this be too déclassé, a COI botherer, or is it a good thing that we recognize the influence the BBC 100 Objects series is likely to have for people finding this article? Fæ (talk) 22:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that: It's a good, well researched program; a quote from a radio show is a perfectly good source; she's the expert so it would not be unexpected to see a quote from her in the article. The fact that we have an article about the radio show itself is irrelevant IMO. So, go for it. Witty Lama 23:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Now added. There may be other parts of the transcript that may be worth referencing in other sections, perhaps as a footnote to balance the more academic sources. Fæ (talk) 07:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The only image where (I believe) I took both sides of a coin was with File:Hoxne Hoard coin 1.JPG:

Could someone confirm what this coin actually is? With better identification we might either make use of it in this article or add to other articles such as Valens. The image is of rather good resolution at much higher sizes and so may be useful to represent a detail such as mint-marks or the Chi-Rho in the standard. Fæ (talk) 11:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

1994,0401,0067.1 is the only coin in the online collection database that matches the inscripions (D N VALENS P F AVG on the obverse, VIRTVS EXERCITVS and mint mark for SISCIA on the reverse). BabelStone (talk) 11:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Good detective work. I suspect this is an unclipped silver siliqua but unfortunately the BM record does not actually state any denomination, perhaps rather coyly avoiding the modern nomenclature. I'll add to the Commons description based on this record. I note the curator has stated that the figure on the reverse is the Emperor holding a standard, I'm not quite sure what that is based on as intuitively, I would have guessed this to be a soldier representing the army (as per the legend).

I would find it somewhat amazing if this were the only coin minted in Valens period of this format in the thousands found in the hoard, but as you point out, this is the only example matching this inscription on the database. Fæ (talk) 12:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

A bit more thought, going by weight this appears to be a Valens period light miliarense, as it seems too heavy to be called a siliqua. This definition is as given by Pearce, J W; Mattingly, Harold; Sydenham, Edward Allen (2003), The Roman imperial coinage. 9, Valentinian I. - Theodosius I (in Reprint), Spink, OCLC 633924791{{citation}}: CS1 maint: unrecognized language (link). See http://www.ancientcoins.ca/RIC/index.htm

Note, I have corrected by mint-mark reading (not given by the BM record) this is SISCP rather than my previous assumption of SISCI. This fits with the range of known mint-marks from Siscia. Fæ (talk) 12:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to point out that I've taken the liberty of starting an FA nom - please feel free to co-nominate... The Land (talk) 19:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Mike Peel has just uploaded some new photos of the hoard to Commons if people want to check if they can be used instead of/as well as the existing ones - commons:Category:Hoxne_hoard. Witty Lama 21:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I note that this reference has a link but no longer exists. Can someone either put it back in or find a replacement? Fæ (talk) 22:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• Some research shows this to be
  • Goodwin, Stephen (09 March 1996). "Plan to extend protection for buried treasure". The Independent. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• I will put it back in, it would be nice to have an explanation of why it was removed along with several other sources (that I have not checked). If this was a mistake, perhaps someone could undo these deletions en-mass? Fæ (talk) 22:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

They were not deleted, merely moved as part of some reference reorganization. --Cybercobra (talk) 01:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Am adding in two tables of origins/dates of solidi and siquilae respectively. I suck at the table syntax so please improve. :-) The Land (talk) 15:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

These would probably have been better played with in a sub-page draft before adding. After a couple of edit conflicts I'm holding back. In terms of format, I suggest frills such as collapsible and hide functionality are avoided. I can not see much, or any, benefit to being able to sort every possible column by number and such non-standard styling may actually hamper FA status. Fæ (talk) 15:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed ... I mean to the hiding I think the last addition of "355-364" went in the wrong table. I'm guessing. Sorting seems useful to have in a table although we can switch columns off Victuallers (talk) 16:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, sorry about that. The tables are now correctly formatted, any idea how to add captions/refernces/explanatory text to them? The Land (talk) 16:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Refs work as normal I think. You just put the ref tag where you want the superscript. Captions I can add as a null if required Victuallers (talk) 16:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

If you add a table title, then it can be referenced in the text. How about a sort only on the end total as below? Fæ (talk) 16:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Good.... suggest we add one on the Places too so they can be sorted into alpha order. Actually what order are they in now? Should they not start in Alphabetic order? Victuallers (talk) 17:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC) Fixed sorting so bottom line stays where its put Victuallers (talk) 17:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Currently they are grouped geographically. Gaul - Italy - Pannonia - Greece - Turkey. Which is a very logical way of doing it! The Land (talk) 17:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Is this obvious to the average reader? Suggest add country coloumn or changing order would improve accessibility Victuallers (talk) 18:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC) Second thoughts - reading it as "East to West" is obvious Victuallers (talk) 18:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

In the reformatting I have sorted by alphabet but the default layout could be left as the original order (although sorting would not be able to return the table to this default). Fæ (talk) 18:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the article is really improved by the addition of the two tables, and it provides information that I personally find very useful. Just a couple of points: 1) Is it possible to square or explain the discrepancy between the totals in the tables and the stated number of coins in the text (580 vs 569 gold solidi, and 14,119 vs 14,212 silver siliquae) ? 2) the 60 silver miliarenses and 24 bronze nummi coins are probably too few to warrant a table, but is it possible to give a little detail of their dates and mints in the text ? BabelStone (talk) 22:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! The miliarenses are of a similar range of dates and mints, but their small number seems to mean that Guest doesn't draw many conclusions from them, will see if I can add a bit to the article tomorrow. The nummi are basically too ruined to draw any conclusions. I assume the difference in the figures is down to a) Guest counting additional coins retrieved in later work from the same area as the find and this increasing the number of coins to work with (these often seem to be a confounding factor). b) Guest not counting the imitation and counterfeit siliquae when doing this analysis, reducing the number of siliquae. Maybe we should take the numbers from these tables as the canonical ones for the article? The Land (talk) 22:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I have tried to improve the layout of the article and eliminate white space and other problems with floating tables. This has made it necessary to move the tables to the end of the text in that section. I hope everyone approves. Working with floating tables I find tricky, but if someone has a better solution please feel free to change it. Revcasy (talk) 22:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

These format rather poorly for lower resolution widths - the tables split left and right but are not side by side. Perhaps this is a candidate for a split out? The detailed data is not needed right next to the summary text and being in a special detailed hoard stats page would make layout a non-issue and may make it easier to add further background analysis on mint production timelines. Fæ (talk) 00:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

My laptop is 1280 px wide and the side-by-side tables force horizontal scrolling for me. I would recommend we stack them. - PKM (talk) 02:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I have let these default to the left and collapsed them as resulting length on the page seemed excessive. I think using collapsible tables in this way might be a problem when complying with MOS though perhaps this rationale is sufficient. Can anyone advise? Fæ (talk) 08:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The following two paragraphs are from Catherine Johns:

Pics of spoons: the usual convention in illustrating Roman spoons is that they are shown horizontal, with the bowl to the left, that is, as held by a right-handed user -- not vertical (as in the catalogue). This is in part because if there is an inscription in the bowl or on the handle, it will usually run in that direction. It doesn't matter hugely, but in the case of the portion of one of the spoons with a small monogram cross within the bowl, it would make better sense to turn it left through 90 degrees, so that the monogram cross is upright rather than lying on its back.

Monogram cross: I think the image being referred to is [6], so I might have misunderstood the comment as the cross appears upright in the current version. The other spoon images being used started off with the bowl to the left and were flipped by +90° as we might have placed them side by side. I have created an alternate of the spoon image File:Hoxne Hoard two spoons horizontal.JPG so that other pages have a choice of layout. Fæ (talk) 10:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Y See below. Fæ (talk) 05:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

An extra point about the name inscriptions, arising from one of the comments on the talk page: the names on the objects, such as spoons, are the names of the owners of those individual artefacts. We do not know which, if any, are the names of the owner(s) of the hoard as a whole. This is why speculations about names like 'Aurelius Ursicinus' cannot take us very far. He is no more, and no less, likely to be the 'lead' name than the Euherius whose name is on the beaker, or Silvicola, or Juliane. But the Christian status of the owner(s) is very emphatically attested by the presence of no fewer than 25 certain and 2 possible Christian inscriptions/symbols (see summary list on p.263 of Johns 2010). -- Catherine

I've added the Euherius inscription to the table (and made it collapsible like the others to avoid undue prominence to this particular table). Could someone with access to the catalogue check and see (pages 263-264) if there is still anything missing from the table? I have also updated the summary list of objects to include the beaker, changed 5 bowls to 4 bowls and a small dish, and changed "roughly 100" spoons and ladles to "98" for consistency with the 'Silver items' section. May need to add a ref for the beaker in the summary list. Liam might want to try to explain to our friends at the BM that the Wikipedia way is to improve articles where they are deficient rather than simply remove content because someone does not like it. BabelStone (talk) 11:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, I was reading the comments from the BM in this section as pointers on content rather than direct requests for deletion. I suggest our Wikipedia spectacles are tuned to interpret anything that looks like a "must" as a "should" and open to discussion and clarification. Fæ (talk) 11:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

In principle I agree that speculation about the names does not get us very far, but the Wikipedia way is to summarise all the available published research, and not just reflect the views of a single person (however authoritative they may be). As some experts have speculated (and it is only human to do so) about the names, it is right and proper for such speculation to be included in this article. Equally, I would be quite happy to see a note of caution about the value of the names added to the article, reflecting Catherine Johns' views, if there is a published source for such a statement. BabelStone (talk) 11:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The following three paragraphs are from Catherine Johns

Many late-Roman spoons and some other personal items bear the names of their owners. These names can hardly ever be equated with the names of personages recorded in historical documents. As in our own society, lots of people had the same or similar names. As an example, if you found a bracelet inscribed 'Good luck, Susan!', would you (a) assume it had to be a famous person named Susan and/or (b) expect to be able to pin down the one Susan out of hundreds of thousands in the country who might have owned it? Even in a society in which all births and deaths are formally documented, it couldn't be done. Even full names are massively duplicated: anyone who has googled his or her own name is soon disabused of the idea that they are the only person of that name.

There are many, many things that are hugely important about the Hoxne find: its size, its near-completeness, the dating evidence (and the date), the fact it was properly excavated, the presence of several very rare types and a few brand-new, formerly undocumented ones, the organic remains, the matching series of objects, just for starters. The personal names is not one of those things. The presence of names is expected; it is neither unusual nor especially enlightening, and it absolutely, positively does NOT indicate the names of the owners of the whole assemblage. The Christian inscriptions are also expected (Thetford, with its pagan dedications, is much more exciting in that respect). By putting in a relatively detailed, though incomplete, list of the names, the impression is given that these are high in the list of importance of the find. They are not. They are on the same level of importance as the detailed tables I have in the monograph on the figural decoration, or the detailed tables of metal analyses. Anyone who is working on late-Roman names, specifically, or on the names found on late-Roman gold and silver objects, will go to the catalogue itself or at least to the individual registration records on the BM website. For anyone else it really distorts the overall balance of the article.

If you all insist on keeping it in then PLEASE do not cite only the reference to the summary list at the back of the catalogue in the catalogue. There is a chapter on the inscriptions by Roger Tomlin, one of the leading Roman epigraphers in Europe. He has extracted all from these inscriptions that can be extracted in the present state of knowledge. Chapter 9, 'The Inscriptions', is on pp.165-173 of the volume. --Catherine

Summary of changes so far:

• The tables have been collapsed to avoid distracting from the main text with excruciating detail.
• The list of names in the silverware section has been qualified to point out that none of these people can be said to have been involved in hiding the hoard or were necessarily alive at the time (the text added could be improved further and would benefit from a footnoted citation).
• The citation for the table has been extended to include Roger Tomlin's analysis for those referring to the catalogue.

I think these improvements have significantly shifted the emphasis of the section and addressed suggested improvement to any perceived undue weight. Based on conversations with others, I believe that inscriptions are of general public interest and many casual readers will enjoy looking at the summary table within the Wikipedia article and they are unlikely to click the "show" tab if not. As each inscription is linked to the British Museum record, anyone wanting information beyond the scope of an encyclopaedia entry can easily find a better source than Wikipedia.

Interpreting Catherine's recommendations above, overly detailed tables that have to be collapsed should be avoided and I encourage contributors to propose sections are split into further articles (as with the Empress pepper pot) if there is sufficient interest to create a better, self-contained and detailed encyclopaedic entry from one of the summary sub-sections. Fæ (talk) 12:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Error reports from Catherine:

• There is a mistake in the para. now preceding the inscriptions table: it states that the Thetford spoons have 'a mixture of Christian and pagan inscriptions'. Not so. They are all pagan (which is why they are particularly interesting, at that date). One of the spoons has a fish, but that need not be Xtian, and probably isn't in the context.

The source cited argues that the fish and palm engravings and some of the not explicitly pagan inscriptions (e.g. vir bone vivas) are actually Christian, and that the Thetford material is mixed Christian/pagan. However, despite the fact that Wikipedia policy on NPOV would normally suggest that the article should reflect different scholarly opinions, and not just be based on what one authority says is right, I am not going to argue this one (I don't have a fixed opinion one way or the other on the Thetford material -- and the argument is probably best put into the as yet stubby Thetford Hoard article); so I have changed the wording to "the Thetford Hoard spoons have mostly pagan inscriptions" (as some of the inscriptions could be either pagan or Christian), and changed "household" to "household (or households)" to reflect the fact the hoard may come from one or many households. BabelStone (talk) 19:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Back to the article, there are some mistakes in the inscriptions table, too, e.g. the Aurelius Ursinicus set are not all inscribed in the same way: some are inscribed AURVRSICINI and some AVRVRSICINVS. Two have an alpha/chi-rho/omega in addition to the name.

Corrected, thank you for pointing out the mistakes. BabelStone (talk) 20:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Is the Juliane inscription in the list? It should be, as should the monogram cross on the necklace-clasp.

The Juliane inscription and the monogram cross on the necklace-clasp are both discussed separately in the Gold jewellery section, and I do not think that they needs to be added to the Table of inscriptions on silver tableware (note that this section is explicitly limited to silver tableware). BabelStone (talk) 19:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• The monogram cross spoons, eg no.92:The loop which looks like a P is a rho, and it is at the top. The orientation should be with the bowl of the spoon to the left and the handle to the right.

• This means that this image File:Hoxne Hoard spoon detail 2.jpg should be rotated 90 degrees anticlockwise. Witty Lama 17:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. BabelStone (talk) 20:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Incidentally, picking upon another comment on the discussion page, no "authorities" have speculated on the identities of the people represented in the names, because they know better. Plenty of unqualified journalists have done so.

As most of the criticism seems to be directed at me, I would like to point out that the only speculation about names that I have added to the article is: "Soon after the hoard was discovered, there was speculation, based on the name Faustinus engraved on one of the spoons, that the hoard may have come from the 'Villa Faustini' that is recorded in Itinerary V of the Antonine Itinerary ... However, this early theory has since been rejected, both because Faustinus is a common name, and it only occurs on a single spoon in the hoard" which I think is very fair and NPOV (and of course reflects the referenced source).

The caveat "the logic of using the inscriptions to determine ownership is considered flawed" that has since been added to this is, in my opinion, totally unnecessary -- it should be up to the reader to draw their own conclusions as to whether such a method is flawed or not ... and whether it is flawed or not depends upon a number of factors (such as the commonness and fullness of the name).

As for the original source of this speculation, I do not believe that there is a single journalist in this country who could have come up with the theory about Faustinus without some prompting from an academic source. You might dismiss him as a "popular historian", but Guy de la Bédoyère at least has some speculation on the name of "Aurelius Ursicinus" in his Gods with Thunderbolts: Religion in Roman Britain (2002) page 199: "... Aurelius [---]cinus, a name that matches the Aurelius Ursicinus on the Hoxne (Norfolk) early fifth-century hoard of coins, spoons and jewellery. There is absolutely no demonstrable connection between the two, but if the pagan revival was a product of the wealthy villa-owning élite, it would not be surprising if they were one and the same man, or from the same family." You may not like particular sources, and want us to only refer to you or your aproved list of sources, so the finished article closely reflects your particular viewpoints, but it is the Wikipedia way to try to give a fair hearing to all voices. So I would oppose continued removal of cited material from this article just because Catherine Johns disagrees with it. BabelStone (talk) 19:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Can I just interject here - writing as myself - and say that this is starting to get personal rather than about the content and is not actually helping. Argue the content - not the person making the commentary. Witty Lama 21:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

After sleeping on the issue, I find the guidance of WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE helpful. To paraphrase; the inclusion of a published minority view or unproven hypothesis should be based on notability, as judged by the impact of these theories in independent sources. If a particular theory is notable then it should not be excluded, however it must also be given proportionate weight - in proportion to the level of representation in reliable sources. The BM expert comments above relate to a specific sub-section of this article dealing with silver tableware. If sufficient sources can be produced to show any hypothesis as to the Hoxne Hoard "names" is notable then a new sub-section on these theories might be appropriate in order not to unbalance the factual discussion of tableware artefacts. Such text would be best drafted in a sandbox and discussed for inclusion, or proposed as a new split from the article.

Conclusion: Insufficient reliable sources have been identified, so far, to indisputably demonstrate notability of any such theory. To ensure the stability of the article I recommend these theories should not be added to the article until we can reach a consensus on notability based on a draft.

PS, notability need not be based on recognised "Academic" sources, refer to the notability policy. Fæ (talk) 05:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

+1 Witty Lama 11:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The following comes from Catherine Johns:

35. The current article states:

    "In spite of the name, the image does not appear to be that of any empress, or indeed any of the Roman goddesses. Initially, archaeologists thought the bust was similar to that of a set of steelyard weights, but this is no longer the case..."

    This is incorrect. When first seen, the pepper-pot was seen to resemble, iconographically, a type (not a 'set') of Late Antique steelyard bronze weights which were at that time interpreted as images of Empresses. It still does resemble that type, it hasn't changed. The reference for this is in a paragraph in the introductory chapter of my catalogue (p.7): "Continuing work ont he bronze weights is now moving away from this interpretation, and detailed work on the Hoxne empress itself quite independently suggests that 'lady' would be a more appropriate label. However, the object has, in the mean time, become widely known as the 'empress', and careful consideration had to be given to the wisdom of discarding that description completely." Over the last few years both my work on the pepper-pot and the independent work of other scholars on the steelyard weights have led to the conclusion that neither the Hoxne vessel nor the steelyard weights are actually intended to depict Empresses. Nevertheless they are still iconographically similar.

    • Re:Empress pepper pot: I am not fond of that particular note anyway. It does not make clear in what way the pepper pot is or is not similar to the steelyard weights, does not make it clear what steelyard weights are, or which ones are being referred to. The inadequacy is made even more apparent by Catherine Johns comments. The note needs to be expanded and re-worded, or else removed entirely (with a possible brief rewording of the annotated place in the text to clarify "misnomer"). Revcasy (talk) 15:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
      • It needs improvement and careful re-wording. Whether the information is in a note or not is a question of style, the background into why this pepper pot was called "Empress" and how the academic view has shifted is encyclopaedic and notable enough to ensure it is adequately covered. Simple copy-editing rather than removal is the best response here. Fæ (talk) 15:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Y The note has been corrected in line with the suggested changes. Reference added to p.7 of Johns 2010. I took out the brackets pointing out the misnomer, this seemed excessive in addition to the flagged note. I have not added any more detail of what bronze late antique steelyard weights were, this possible somewhat tangential improvement could be added here or an amendment to a more appropriate article, something similar to Ancient Roman units of measurement. Fæ (talk) 17:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
36. Another small point is that the little jug (no.32) which partly matches the beaker (31) is not listed in the summary list of finds. --Catherine
    • Y I've added the little jug to the summary list, but I wonder whether if it would make sense to convert the list to a table, and provide a linked BM reference number for the important and distinctive objects such as the pepper pots, tigress, body chain, and even the silver tableware (minus spoons) as there are only a few of them. I personally find it tiresome to use the BM search engine every time I want to look at a particular item, and would welcome a list of links in a single place. BabelStone (talk) 17:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

A link put on steelyard has only just revealed to me that this phrase has got nothing to do with the metallic alloy called steel. Obvious, I now realise, as this was still the age of iron. I suggest that "steelyard weight" would be better referred to as the weights used on the portable balances known as steelyards to make this clear. Or is it just me? Victuallers (talk) 19:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I too had instinctively thought it was to do with the metal "steel". Yes - clarification would be good :-) Witty Lama 19:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

New term to me as well. Makes more sense now! Revcasy (talk) 20:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Made Change. Anyone going to the Met Museum? I think the relevant weights are these. I cannot find a free picture as it might be useful for the pepper pot article. Victuallers (talk) 21:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I am happy to help with reformatting footnotes (clearly we're going to have to be consistent), but I am not an expert with cite vs citation and with Harvard. Do we just need to change Author (YYYY) to Author YYYY or do we need to use Harvard everywhere? Do we need the year when there is only one title by an author (Guest, Snyder)? - PKM (talk) 03:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no hard rule apart from consistency, the evolved default here has been to use the same style as {{harvnb}} (Harvard, no brackets) which would always include the year. Although it is not required to use an anchor (which is how {{harvnb}} works) to cross-link the footnote with a reference, this might be good practice for FA status. For long term maintenance purposes, I would recommend using the template rather than adding anchors by hand.

See previous discussion #Proposal for consistent cross-referencing. Fæ (talk) 07:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done Changed to {{harvnb}} throughout. - PKM (talk) 03:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Clarification: I reformatted the book citations. I have not addressed journal or newspaper citations. - PKM (talk) 00:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

See #Citation and footnote formats (cont'd) for further discussion. - PKM (talk) 03:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I'll be making another pass through the article. I've been adding ALT text, and added that parameter to the {{Location map}} template. Please check that you agree with what I've written. The goal of ALT text (as I understand it) is to describe the look of the picture without interpreting its meaning; the latter goes into the caption. Willow (talk) 03:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• I think there's a typo in the description of commons:File:Hoxne Hoard coin 2.JPG. I believe that the first word of the inscription reads "VIRTUS" not "VIATUS". Willow (talk) 03:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• This is idle curiosity, but is it possible that the hoard was buried by robbers, and not by its owner(s)? That might account for the fact that the hoard was found so far from a Roman settlement. Oops, sorry! I found this hypothesis by reading further in the text. :) Still, out of curiosity, can it be established whether the items of the hoard belonged to one family? Could it be that the hoard represents the sum of numerous robberies? Willow (talk) 03:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

It can't be established one way or the other - so several robberies is also a possibility.... The Land (talk) 09:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• This is a minor point, but can we agree on a notation of year-dates, especially whether "AD" should added before or after the numeral — or not at all? The article has all three possibilities, e.g., AD 407, 407 AD, and 407. Willow (talk) 12:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I'd go for "nnn AD" format just to be consistent, and it fits well with WP:ERA. Note as per ERA guidance, best practice is that we should not qualify dates like "407" where they are unambiguous, i.e. "AD 407" becomes "407 AD" but where unambiguous unqualified numbers should be left as they are (probably all of these are unambiguous). Fæ (talk) 12:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Reading that guideline it seems that just nnn is most favoured. However perhaps we can retain a few instances of AD (for instance in the lead) so that if someone with no clue at all about history comes along, they get the context. The Land (talk) 13:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that nnn is the most sensible date format, with the possible retention of AD in a few cases to initially establish clarity. I think that AD can be taken as given and that only BC (or dates in other formats such as BCE or BP) need to be specifically noted. I believe that all the dates in the article are AD (?), so it should not be an issue. Revcasy (talk) 14:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I have removed all of the occurrences of 'AD' save the one in the lead and the one in note 3 (77-79 could conceivably be ambiguous in the context of the article since it is so much earlier than all the other dates, and first century dates look a bit odd to me without 'AD'). Revcasy (talk) 17:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• Can we get a photograph of the rings mentioned in the text? The three of them together would be ideal. :) Willow (talk) 14:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

All of the book citations have now been moved to References, and footnotes to them are now in {{harvnb}} format. I don't know how to do {{harvnb}}-style notes to the newspaper and radio citations, if that is possible or necessary, so I have left those as I found them. - PKM (talk) 03:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The same in-text style can be used for newspapers (http://libweb.anglia.ac.uk/referencing/harvard.htm has a good guide), though in this case as the newspaper articles are not being referenced in multiple places, there seems a weak rationale to split them out for the sake of it. Fæ (talk) 06:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, since the news articles are short and don't have page numbers, it's rather pointless to make readers have to follow another link to get to the citation info. --Cybercobra (talk) 08:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

That makes perfect sense to me. I also verified that all of the {{harvnb}}-style footnotes link to their references correctly (if I missed any, or new ones are added that don't work, I am sure a reviewer will let us know). - PKM (talk) 17:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Here is a peer review provided to me just now by Catherine and Richard. Sincerely, Witty Lama 12:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Discovery and Excavation

1. In the first paragraph, it is still stated that Lawes and Whatling initially informed ‘the local museum’ (which?) of the find. This is not what they told me: my understanding was that they first informed the Suffolk County Council, who are the landowners. Peter Whatling is a tenant farmer, and he very properly informed his landlords of the find. They in turn passed on the information to the Suffolk Archaeological Unit, which is also part of the local Council. I think it would be best simply to say that the two men ‘informed the authorities’, who alerted the archaeological unit.
   • Y The phrasing in Hoxne Hoard/Archive 1#Discovery and initial excavation now appears correct and well supported with sources. Fæ (talk) 11:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

   Items discovered

11. This sentence should be corrected: ‘Within the chest, some items had been placed in smaller boxes made of yew or cherry wood while others had been packed in woollen cloth or hay’. Change to: Within the chest, some objects had evidently been placed inside smaller containers, and one group had been wrapped in linen cloth and padded with straw. ‘4 pepper pots, including the Empress Pepper Pot’ : add quotes around ‘Empress’.
    • Y Done. Victuallers (talk) 13:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

    Coins

21. Suggest that the illustration of the clipped siliqua should be captioned ‘a heavily clipped siliqua’.
    • Y Rephrased. Victuallers (talk) 13:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

    Silver items

31. Unclear sentence: ‘The bust of the lady has partial gilding to the detail of fine clothes and jewellery...’ I suggest: ‘The woman’s hair, jewellery and clothing are carefully represented, and gilding is used to pick out many details’. Y Done Victuallers (talk) 14:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC) I still feel that there is an undue emphasis on pepper, especially with the addition of the quotes.

    Done Johnbod (talk) 14:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

    The tigress: we cannot say that she was attached by the hind paws only. There are clear traces of solder beneath the hind paws, but the front paws rested on some element of the parent vessel, and may well also have had some solder, now decayed. So delete the part of the sentence that begins, ‘...by her rear paws only’. The reference cited should be to p.186 of the catalogue as well as p.64.

    Reworked; can someone add the extra ref to the template here?

    Y Page added, just use "pp" instead of "p" parameter. Fæ (talk) 14:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

    In general, I dislike the use of the word gender as a kind of euphemism for sex: nouns have gender, but living creatures have sex. However, this is a stylistic point, not a factual one.

    Y Changed, though it may be objected to by some, as "dugs" was above! Johnbod (talk) 14:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

    Comment - The OED-based rationale for "sex" is fine, in this case a less ambiguous word than gender and so this is not just a style choice but a matter of clarity; the issue with "dugs" was slightly different. Fæ (talk) 14:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

32. Cochlearia: ‘small spoons’, well, they are smaller than the cigni/ligulae, but at this period, they are larger than a modern teaspoon. A minor point.

    Comment I'm not sure what we can do about this. The current text states "51 cochlearia, which are small spoons with shallow bowls and long, tapering pointed handles ...", which does not imply that they were tea spoon sized. I suggest that no change is required. BabelStone (talk) 11:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

33. ‘The Romans did not use forks’ should be edited to read ‘The Romans did not use forks at table’: Roman forks exist, but they were not tableware.

    Y Done Johnbod (talk) 14:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

    Cigni: why ‘flat’ spoons? They are spoon-shaped, concave, not flat.

    Changed to "rather shallow"; is that ok? Johnbod (talk) 14:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

    ‘Monogram cross’, not ‘cross monogram’.

    Y Done. Many thanks for these - I'll leave the next point for others. Johnbod (talk) 14:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

34. I really do not feel that the table of inscriptions is either necessary or useful. This is another example of giving undue prominence to one aspect of the hoard. It provides a lop-sided source of information.
    • Comment: I disagree entirely with the above assessment of the table of inscriptions. Inscriptions are one of the most important features of any collection of artefacts, and not only do they provide valuable information (e.g. whether the hoard was Christian or pagan), but they add a human dimension to the hoard. The information in this table is not available anywhere else on the internet on a single page, and should be very useful to anyone with a serious interest in archaeology. In my opinion, without this table, the article cannot advance beyond B-class (B-class Readers' experience: Useful to many, but not all, readers. A casual reader flipping through articles would feel that they generally understood the topic, but a serious student or researcher trying to use the material would have trouble doing so, or would risk error in derivative work. -- how could a serious student possibly hope to understand the material if the inscriptions that name the owners of the artefacts are omitted?). If the table makes the article seem lop-sided, that is because similarly important detailed information is missing from other parts of the article. In particular, I think that the section on coins is not yet up to standard, and I would like to see it improved by the additon of a summary table of coins by date and type. Without such information the article is of little use to a serious student or researcher. As a reminder, the readers' experience for a featured article is Definitive. Outstanding, thorough article; a great source for encyclopedic information. -- we should be adding more useful information, not deleting valuable information. BabelStone (talk) 14:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

    I have taken it out (though before reading this) - The names are present in the article in other places than this table, as is a discussion of their meaning. The "definitive" work on this subject constitutes two 250-page books, and they contain many data tables. We are writing an encyclopedia article! The Land (talk) 14:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

    Hmm, on reflection I've put it back in. Any other views? The Land (talk) 14:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

    • Second viewpoint: I agree with BabelStone, the table was (is) useful, and referenced out to the individual BM records so that the reader can check the full description and text (these links were nowhere else). I suggest it is replaced (kept) until we have a consensus on what is appropriate for an encyclopaedic entry versus the BM expert's opinion of what they feel is lop-sided (which does not imply cognisance of WP guidance such as WP:UNDUE). In terms of format, perhaps there is a way of slimming down on the page, slapping into a note or splitting out to a list article? Fæ (talk) 14:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

    I agree that it should stay. It may not be the most important thing about the hoard, but the article should clearly set that into perspective elsewhere. The perception of undue weight is only there if the article does not deal with the facts in context. If anything information on the inscriptions help to create context. Also I don't see why one would remove pertinent information from an encyclopedia article. Revcasy (talk) 14:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

    ⇒ See #Table of inscriptions (con't) for later discussion. Fæ (talk) 07:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

    ⇒ See #Feedback on the pepper pot intro for additional points on Silver items. Fæ (talk) 17:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

    Cochlearia / cignus

    Note from Liam - this subsection of the review refers not only to the HH article but the new stubs Cochlearium and Cigni Witty Lama 14:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

41. cochlear, pl. cochlearia (sometimes spelt without the h, because the Greek chi does not exist in Latin) and cignus, pl. cigni -- meaning 'a swan'. Cochlearia were in use throughout the Roman period, but cignus is a name applied only tentatively to a specific and fairly rare late-Roman type, the type with a large bowl and short handle terminating in a bird's head. We don't know that this was what they were called; it is merely a likely hypothesis. Larger spoons, and there were many different types, were usually called ligulae (sing. ligula).

     Question: Ok; is it that "cigni" is used in ancient sources in appropriate contexts, and it is thought that this spoon shape is what it meant? Johnbod (talk) 17:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

    Comment. I think that discussion of the exact form and nomenclature of spoons is something that is best addressed in the relevant Wikipedia articles that are linked to from Hoxne Hoard (Cochlearium and Cigni), and no changes are required to this article. BabelStone (talk) 11:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

    Iron and organic

51. First para: - the iron fittings probably all belong to the outer chest. The identifiable, though vanished, small boxes had silver fittings.
    • Y Rephrased. Fæ (talk) 13:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
52. Could I suggest the following wording for the sentences beginning ‘A fragmentary pyxis...’: Small fragments from a decorated ivory pyxis (a cylindrical lidded box) were found, along with more than 150 tiny shaped pieces of bone inlay or veneer, probably from a wooden box or boxes. Minuscule fragments of wood adhering to metal objects were identified as belonging to nine different species of timber, all native to Britain: wood traces associated with the iron fittings of the outer chest established that it was made of oak. Silver locks and hinges were from two small wooden boxes or caskets: these were made from cherry wood and yew, both decorative timbers. Some wheat straw survived as padding between the plain silver bowls, which also bore faint traces of linen cloth.
    • Y Corrections made as suggested. Fæ (talk) 13:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

    Historical Background

61. First para: ‘modern-day England and Wales’, please.
    • Y done Victuallers (talk) 14:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
62. The road in question linked with London (Londinium) as well as Colchester. - is there a ref? Victuallers (talk) 14:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Y went ahead and added link. may still need a ref. Revcasy (talk) 14:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
      • I feel we do need a ref for this. Our Pye Road article and others say it went to Colchester although on the Roman map there is clearly ..another? road to Londonium. We need the ref to at least change the Pye Road stub. I can't find a ref ... I did quickly look. Victuallers (talk) 14:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
        • Johns 2010 p.9 The Land (talk) 14:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
          • Added the ref. Revcasy (talk) 15:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
63. The latest burial date of AD 450 (which I believe to be too late). Emphasis that it is the absolute latest, and make reference [79] to Johns and Bland 1994, p.168

    Comment. There is no longer any mention of 450 as the latest burial date. A terminus post quem of 408 is given, but no terminus ante quem is given. Do we need to add in an absolute latest date of 450, or just leave it hanging? BabelStone (talk) 11:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

    I think just leave it hanging. The terminus ante quem isn't clearly established, it's simply that the longer after 420ish you go, the less and less plausible it is. I think the natural way of reading "After 408" is "A few years or decades after 408" rather than "at any time between 408 and 2010" - so by omitting a ante quem date we are not misleading people. The Land (talk) 12:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

    Agree; leave floating rather than potentially be misunderstood – for those unaware, this was discussed at the BM workshop. The general view was that 450 was overly conservative but even that would be a speculative TPQ and the more likely range of 420ish would still be an educated guess (even if footnoted to a good source). Fæ (talk) 12:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

    Since we no longer suggest 450 as the terminus ante quem, I think the parenthetical date range on the section head "Turmoil in Britain (406–450)" should be removed. The section actually covers a longer range than that anyway. I added the dates specifically to match the date range for the hoard of 408-450 as it existed in the article on 18 June. If there are no objections I'll remove "(406–450)". - PKM (talk) 23:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

    Agreed - they're fairly arbitrary anyway (as if to say that the place was fine and dandy on either side of that date range :-) Witty Lama 00:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

    Y Dates removed from heading. - PKM (talk) 03:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

64. 3rd para, first sentence. change to ‘...Constantine III, led a British force across the English Channel to Gaul in his bid to become Emperor’.
    • Y Already done by someone. BabelStone (talk) 11:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
65. The ‘Rescript of Honorius’: this is a much-disputed document, and really, this is not the place to go into it. It may have had nothing at all to do with Britain. Richard suggests the following reference, if you must mention it: M.E. Jones, The End of Roman Britain (1996). p.249, fn.19.

    Rescript of Honorius now deleted

    Late Roman Hoards

71. Both Richard and I feel that this is simply not the place for this. The first sentence (about increasing amounts of bullion) needs a reference: neither of us knows about it. Mildenhall: buried in late 4th, but contains earlier material. If Kaiseraugst, Esquiline etc. are to be mentioned, then the relevant catalogues must be cited (all are in the Hoxne bibliography, but they are also listed at the end of this letter). Last para/sentence better deleted. It touches on matters that require FAR more explanation to make any sense at all.

    I think we certainly need something here; this may be the difference between an encyclopedic editorial style & a curatorial style. We have several mentions of the partial picture of contemporary silver that Hoxne provides, and need to say something about the missing part of the picture. "[It]... places the subject in context" is one of the criteria for features articles. The museum is able to display the Mildenhall and Thetford treasures next to Hoxne, we have to give context through text. We can only reference works we have seen, and Kent and Painter's "Wealth of the Roman World", which had a summary and catalogue entries on objects from each of the other hoards in the second paragraph, is perfectly adequate for the few words said on each here, though of course other refs could be used, and BM links should be added to the notes, as one has been for the Egyptian body chain.

    The first sentence has been edited & moved, but was originally referenced to Kent and Painter's introductory section, pp. 15-19. I'll look at this & the last para. I thought Canterbury at least was too late to group in this way. Johnbod (talk) 14:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

    Now redone, changing what were the first & third paras; is this better? Johnbod (talk) 00:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

    Acquisition, display and impact

81. Second para, sentence beginning ‘From 1997...’ Revise latter part to: ‘...and adjacent to the Mildenhall treasure, which contains large vessels of types that are absent from the Hoxne hoard’.
    • Y Already done by someone ("... which contains large silver vessels of types that are absent from the Hoxne hoard"). BabelStone (talk) 11:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
82. The final para. of this section still does not explain the specific impact of the publicity surrounding the Hoxne treasure. Because the finder, Eric Lawes, was repeatedly praised and thanked by the archaeological establishment for his prompt reporting of the find, which enabled professional excavation to take place, other detectorists came to understand that they, too, would be praised rather than reviled if they did the right thing. This was a great change of perception in the metal-detecting fraternity. This is discussed in some detail on p.2 of the 2010 catalogue.

    Amended the final para to deal with this point The Land (talk) 14:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

    A sentence on this is needed in the lead para too. Johnbod (talk) 14:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

    • Y Seems to have already been done. BabelStone (talk) 11:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

    References

91. In general, the use of very early and popular references (such as the 1993 Current Archaeology article) should be avoided. The early articles to use are the 1994 Britannia article and/or the equivalent in JRA.

    Comment. I agree in principle that the Current Archaeology article is not the best source; but as someone trying to make useful contributions to the article without access to any print sources, it was the best on-line resource available for certain information. I don't have any objections to changing any or all of the CA references, but I think that a link to the on-line version of the article should still be kept somewhere in the article (External Links ?) as it would be interesting to the majority of readers, who do not have access to the catalogue or other print sources. BabelStone (talk) 11:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

    Y It's only cited for one payment figure (along with the Independent) and the fact that the finder split the cash with the farmer. Nothing really controversial or requiring analysis/expertise. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

92. Instead of the Helena Hawkesford paper use the up-to-date ref. which is the 2010 catalogue. If you want an earlier piece on the body-chain alone, I wrote one for a Festschrift, which HH used as her source, but you don’t need it anyway because of the catalogue.

     Question: Could someone suggest the best page numbers to reference in the 2010 catalogue as a replacement for the footnotes for the less appropriate Hawkesford paper? Fæ (talk) 08:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

    • Y Done. I have replaced the reference for Roman settlement at Scole with Warner p.38 and "Roman Grey Literature Stage 1 Database" #1081 (the latter has the dates); and replaced the reference for the Eye hoard with Abdy p.58. BabelStone (talk) 11:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
93. * Other possible references The additions below include references to the standard monographs on other treasures, if you want them.
    • Johns, Catherine; Bland, Roger (1994), "The Hoxne Late Roman Treasure", Britannia, 25: 165–173, ISSN 0068113, OCLC 486318148 {{citation}}: Check |issn= value (help)
    • Baratte, François (2002), Le trésor de Carthage : contribution à l'étude de l'orfèvrerie de l'Antiquité tardive, Etudes d'antiquités africaines. (in French), CNRS, ISBN 9782271060099
    • Shelton, Kathleen J (1981), The Esquiline treasure, London: British Museum, ISBN 9780714113562
    • Alföldi-Rosenbaum, Elisabeth; Cahn, Herbert Adolph; Kaufmann-Heinimann, Annemarie (1984), Der Spätrömische Silberschatz von Kaiseraugst, Basler Beiträge zur Ur- und Frühgeschichte, Bd. 9 (in German), Habegger, OCLC 12046808
    • Guggisberg, Martin A; Kaufmann-Heinimann, Annemarie; Ewald, Jürg (2003), Der spätrömische Silberschatz von Kaiseraugst, Forschungen in Augst, 34. (in German), Römerstadt Augusta Raurica, ISBN 9783715100340
    • Bastien, Pierre; Metzger, Catherine (1977), Le trésor de Beaurains, Numismatique romaine, 10.; Mémoires, t. 17 (in French), Wetteren, OCLC 474776900

    Y Partially Done. The Britannia reference is already used; but I do not think there is a need to add footnoted references for the other Roman hoards where they are only discussed in passing (the wikilink to the appropriate article page is sufficient in my opinion), so I suggest that unless anyone has access to the other references and is able to make use of them, they do not currently have a place in the article. BabelStone (talk) 11:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Following paragraph provided by Catherine Johns:
I dislike the table of inscriptions because it is simultaneously too detailed and not detailed enough. One the one hand, It gives registration numbers, but on the other, it lists only the inscriptions with personal names, not the additional ones featuring Christian symbols. There is a summary list of the inscriptions in the catalogue, pp. 263-264. Anyone who wanted to go into this degree of detail would surely have the nous to consult the catalogue, or at least the individual object records accessed via the BM website. -- Catherine

To that end, whilst I've seen the points made above by Wikipedians about WP:UNDUE, could we add in a sentence (or bet a header line to the table) referring to the fact that this is not a comprehensive list (i.e. it ignores the other ones she mentions). Also - can we put in a footnote to the entire table to the page reference she cites? Witty Lama 22:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I could easily put those in as well (I have them in my notes), but I thought it better to simply mention them in the text ("... Three sets of ten spoons, and several other spoons, are decorated with such Christian symbols") rather than include them in the table as they would have no entries in three of the columns. BTW, it does not only list the inscriptions with personal names, but also includes vir bone vivas and vivas in deo.

The whole point of putting this information in the article is so that people can have access to it. If everyone had the catalogue then there would be no need for this article, but as most people won't have access to it we need to include as much useful information as possible. BabelStone (talk) 23:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

If anyone wants to add them to the table:

1994,0408.135 Chi-rho monogram

1994,0408.91-100 monogram cross

1994,0408.52-61 Chi-rho monogram

1994,0408.81-90 Chi-Rho, alpha and omega, plus AVRVRSICINI^†

1994,0408.118-119 Chi-Rho, alpha and omega

BabelStone (talk) 23:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

If the table is going to be a handy index that the BM site does not provide, perhaps my earlier suggestion of splitting it out might be realistic?

As a side-note; if the reader is navigating from the BBC AHOTW in 100 objects website to the BM Hoxne Hoard pepper pot page, then there is a list of references but the catalogue is not currently mentioned. If the BM pages are being updated this might be worth pointing out. Fæ (talk) 23:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Y Added a collapsible table for the symbols only. † - this was already in the main table, so not added to the collapsible version. Footnote citation added back to catalogue as suggested. Fæ (talk) 07:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I think these look much better; hope everyone is much happier with them. Johnbod (talk) 15:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

After some research, I have started a very stubby stub on Cliché forgery (rectifying a red link in the process). The term is not obvious and may require some sort of note or other explanation in this article for context. Anyone with more numismatic expertise than myself is welcome to improve both the new stub and the current article, as my understanding may be incomplete (definitely not my area). Revcasy (talk) 23:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The issues in this article seem resolved with the current wording. Revcasy (talk) 15:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

In one of his comments, Mike Christie (talk) said:

I'm not sure what to do about it, but I think it reads oddly that the first items in the list of the hoard contents -- the coins -- have their descriptions repeated almost verbatim in the next paragraph. The description in the list could be compressed, perhaps by leaving out the dating, or at least the emperors; the subsequent paragraph might instead be rephrased to make reference to the list above it, though that would be harder to do gracefully. As it stands it feels quite repetitive.

I agree, and my inclination is to remove the dates and emperors from the initial list and relocate the footnotes to the following paragraph. I think this would be consistent with the abbreviated descriptions of the other items in that list. But I'd like to see if we have concurrence or if someone else has a more elegant solution before making the change. - PKM (talk) 06:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I resolved the replication by removing the details from the list. I also added the singulars of Latin plurals not ending in -s for those not familar with Latin (which has been bugging me for sometime). I also removed the redundant "coins" after solidi, nummi, etc. in the coinage section. We have established by the list and the section head that these are types of coins. - PKM (talk) 17:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Currently none of the list of mint cities in the Historic spread and minting section are wiki linked. I took the liberty of linking Gaul, and would like to link the other historic names of cities in the section, but I do not want to get into a WP:Overlink situation. I think that Antioch, Nicomedia, Cyzicus, and Sirmium are worth linking as they have all either changed their name or disappeared, and in all cases where the city still exist under a different name an article already exist on the ancient city, and the character and importance of the ancient city is drastically different from its modern counterpart. Any thoughts? Revcasy (talk) 15:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I note that all of the cities are linked on the map, but this may be a case where it is appropriate to link in the text as well? Revcasy (talk) 15:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. Johnbod (talk) 15:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Linked Sicia to Sisak. - PKM (talk) 18:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)