Talk:List of hoards in Great Britain

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

References[edit]

They appear to be completely absent, as this is a new article it would be best to fully reference it from the start. Nev1 (talk) 14:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks for reminding me. I plan to add them in later today. BabelStone (talk) 14:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be helping to do this too. – B.hotep •talk• 20:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Although it looks like it's done! – B.hotep •talk• 20:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are still a few citation needed tags. If sources are a problem, I recommend using http://www.pastscape.org.uk although it doesn't have information on a hoard's current location as such. Nev1 (talk) 20:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, yes there is. Thanks for that source, Nev. – B.hotep •talk• 20:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Date of burial[edit]

I think the column called "date of burial" is best left as simply "date". Taking the example of Boothstown, while the coins were produced in the late 3rd century, there's no guarantee that's when it was burred. They could have been in circulation for another few decades (you might expect newer coins in there, but it's still a possibility). As far as I know, the dating is based on the contents, with the date of the latest coin providing a terminus post quem but the date of deposition less certain. This applies somewhat to the other hoards, but the problem is best seen with the coins. Unless the sources specifically say that's when they were buried? Nev1 (talk) 20:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good point. In the articles I've created lately, I've deliberately left out the date the sources suspect it was buried. In all cases, they have gone by the "closing date", that is the date of the latest struck coin to be found. So perhaps we could change it to "Closing date"? – B.hotep •talk• 21:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For example, they use the term "closing date" in this source. – B.hotep •talk• 21:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I agree, it was a mistake to change to "Date of burial". The dates which I have given so far are based on the latest dateable object in the hoard. Maybe change back to "Date" and add a note somewhere as to what the date refers to. BabelStone (talk) 21:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Corbridge Hoard[edit]

Looks like there are three:

  1. Corbridge Hoard
  2. The 1911 one mentioned therein
  3. Corbridge Hoard 1835

I was looking for online refs for the one in the list. – B.hotep •talk• 21:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case its not obvious ... write the wiki article about all three Victuallers (talk) 11:49, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May I just repeat that the late-Roman silver lanx (rectangular picture-plate) from Corbridge, now in the British Museum, is an item from yet another 'Corbridge hoard', the first recorded one. (I have already referred to this in my comments on the article generally, below). The lanx came to light in 1735, but two other silver vessels were described and drawn at different dates in the 18thC, though they have not survived, and clearly belonged originally to a single deposit. They are listed and discussed in F. Haverfield, 'Roman silver in Northumberland', Journal of Roman Studies 4 (1914), pages 1-12. This 18th-century Roman silver hoard from Corbridge really deserves an article of its own, because the iconography of the surviving piece is the subject of some debate, and the story of the discovery is a fascinating one which bears on the Enlightenment move towards preserving ancient precious metal for its own sake rather than treating it as bullion. It also provides an interesting insight into the operation of the common law of Treasure Trove in the 18thC. AgTigress (talk) 19:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for following up on this. I added the Corbridge hoard of silverware under the heading "Corbridge Treasure" the day after you mentioned it previously, but I accidentally put the dates as "1831-1860" instead of "1731-1760" -- I have corrected the dates now. I agree that it would definitely be worth an article in its own right. BabelStone (talk) 20:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel competent to initiate a new article yet, and also, I would have to rummage around to find some of the necessary references, but maybe when I get the hang of things a bit more I'll have a go. AgTigress (talk) 21:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We're all here to help each other, Ag. And, according to some, there is no time limit to completing this encylopedia of ours (and others say we will never finish it), so every little helps. Thanks for your input into everything. – B.hotep •talk• 22:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Work in Progress[edit]

class=notpageimage|
Hoards in Britain Bronze Age Iron Age Romano-British
class=notpageimage|
Hoards in Britain Bronze Age Iron Age Romano-British Anglo-Saxon Viking Medieval Post-Medieval
class=notpageimage|
Hoards in Britain Bronze Age Iron Age Romano-British
Half complete ... Victuallers (talk) 11:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a map of this kind is going to be useful. As the list grows longer – and there are a lot of hoards out there – it's going to become too crowded as they often come in clusters are are concentrated in bands. Already there are problems (at least on my screen) with Hockwold and Hoxne, and two others I can't make out. A map showing the distribution of hoards without names and links would be useful, but only if we can be sure there's a representative sample of hoards present. Otherwise someone could turn up to this article, think it's comprehensive, and draw conclusions from the map which may not be valid.
Eventually this article may require splitting by period. I vaguely recall seeing distribution maps of 3rd- and 4th-century hoards in Britain and there were a lot of dots on those maps. Nev1 (talk) 17:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You may be right - I think this is unlikely to work as one picture. However it is easy to create a map of the Viking finds.... or those in Suffolk. The List of Hoards will also start to complain as the list grows .... there are a lot of hoards! I'm happy to proceed with optimism and see if anything useful is created. Thanks for the warning. Victuallers (talk) 18:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the maps are a very good idea, especially when separated by period/culture rather than all on one map, although I too worry about them becoming too crowded if the list expands too much. However, I think there is no harm in putting them in now (when they are ready) whilst there are not too many hoards, and we can worry about what to do when and if the list grows out of control. BabelStone (talk) 20:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is there such a thing as a four corners map? (four separate maps of four UK regions) It would alleviate the crowding problem still evident on the top right one. – B.hotep •talk• 21:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What about omitting the labels, but have the hoard name show up when you hover over a marker? BabelStone (talk) 00:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how to do what you suggest BabelStone with the technology, would be good if you could but I only know how to do this with image maps which do not have the kml link.. If you want to find out more about the potential number of hoards (and un notable finds) then see here. I think the maps are about as good as they are going to get. I'm happy to leave them here or you can copy and change them. Cheers Victuallers (talk) 12:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the maps are great, and really add value to the article -- many thanks to Victuallers for putting in the time and effort to make them. Just for my own fun and interest I have been working on a Google Map of the hoards as well. BabelStone (talk) 15:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks BS - your comments are appreciated. I'm a bit confused as to where to squeeze in the Roman map? Maybe you could help and find a place? The Google map looks good (pity it doesnt label them when you hover as you suggested). Maybe we'll find find a "free" site that will do this. Cheers Victuallers (talk) 16:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've put each map in a subsection so they are laid out vertically, which I think is the tidiest way of doing it. BabelStone (talk) 16:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked at some other similar list articles (e.g. List of abbeys and priories in England), I see that an alternative to using location maps in the article itself -- which are difficult to maintain and hard for most new editors to understand how to edit -- is to have a column giving the coordinates of the location, and use the GeoGroupTemplate to allow the user to open up an external map of their own choice (e.g. Google Maps or Bing) with the locations overlaid on it. This may be a better solution -- what do people think? BabelStone (talk) 19:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd completely forgotten that was an option. I've used that format myself on list articles before. Although it's quite an effort to implement if you've not done it from the start the Google and Bing maps have the advantage they they can zoom in and out and viewers can choose which sites to show. Nev1 (talk) 20:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely think there will be too many for the maps now, unless we have regional/county maps. May I suggest adding another column for co-ords, like you've all suggested above. Using the {{coord|...|display=inline}} parameter? – B.hotep •talk• 20:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. With all due thanks to Victuallers for all his hard work on the maps, I agree that there are now too many hoards to fit easily on the maps, and the maps are a pain to maintain. BabelStone (talk) 21:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Pleased to see you have found so many. Nev1's idea of a link to Google Maps sounds good. Victuallers (talk) 15:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When the {{coord...}} template is used, it links to a GeoHack page that allows you to chose which map to view. Google's OK, and so is Bing. – B.hotep •talk• 15:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I looked though the List of abbeys and priories in England and it looks great. Suggest this would look good in the same way. However it does argue that we sort the hoards by county. If this was done then other Lists can be written that list "things" in Derbyshire. ie. Hoards and Abbeys.Hope this makes sense. Maybe we can mark the locations to show whether they are Roman? Suggest we need to do some experiments before cutting up what has been done so far? Or do we just coords and leave it as it is? List of abbeys and priories in England seems to imply that we should have articles that pull together templates for each county (or period of time). Other views? Victuallers (talk) 17:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and removed the maps, and added in a Location column giving coords (a lot still need filling in), and a Template:GeoGroupTemplate at the top which links to Google/Bing maps overlaid with all the points. I don't think there is any need to divide by county, as I think a division based on period/culture is more useful. But if we get too many Roman hoards we may need to put them in a separate page which could perhaps be subdivided by county. BabelStone (talk) 17:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some more coords. The Pastscape (English Heritage) website is an excellent source for precise OS grid references of finds, so I've added what I can from there. I've also tried out the Google and Bing maps with all the markers on. It's very impressive. – B.hotep •talk• 18:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding all the coords -- I was going to add some myself, but I'll stay out of your way at present. The maps are excellent, especially the Google Maps one which allows you to filter by period/culture. The distribution of Romano-British hoards is really interesting, running in a NW-SE band. BabelStone (talk) 19:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to work away. I'm done with coords at the moment. I'm going to add some more hoards though, but I will be doing them on a separate page first to avoid edit conflicts. – B.hotep •talk• 19:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Couple of points[edit]

May I make a couple of points? First, to try to include safekeeping hoards and exclude 'votive' ones is a real hiding to nothing. While a few can be fairly confidently classified, it is often impossible to decide. The presence of religious (pagan or Christian) inscriptions is no guarantee of votive status, nor is their absence an indication that the valuables were not votive gifts. It's more complicated, and there is a good deal of academic disagreement on the subject. Furthermore, there are many more than two types of precious-metal hoard deposit. For the Roman period, at least NINE types have been proposed: see C. Johns, 'The classification and interpretation of Romano-British treasures', Britannia 27 (1996), pp. 1-16. Secondly, the Romano-British list is currently missing many important finds, e.g. Backworth (2ndC, temple hoard, found around 1812), Barkway (temple, 3rdC, found 1743), Ashwell (temple, 3rdC, found 2002), Capheaton (temple, 3rdC, found 1747), Chorley (probably safekeeping, 2ndC., found 19thC -- hey, I can't remember ALL these finding dates without looking up), Stony Stratford (temple, 3rdC, found 1789), and Rhayader and Dolaucothi jewellery hoards, probably simple safekeeping hoards, (I forget the finding dates), and that's before we even get into the 4th century.

Corbridge: you have the ironwork deposit listed, but not the silver hoard, which was found piecemeal, probably as the Tyne, changing its course, eroded more and more of the bank that had contained the deposit site, which may have been some way from the river at the time of concealment: the major piece, the Corbridge lanx, came to light in 1735, but a little beaker (now lost) was recorded in 1761 (it's important because it is one of the few parallels for one of the items in the Hoxne treasure), and there was also a flanged bowl with Christian symbols, found in the 18thC and now lost.

Anyway, I don't know what to do about all this, because I am too inept to dare to attempt editing those tables. I'm just saying that there's a good deal more to do.  ;-) --AgTigress (talk) 20:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There most definitely is more to do. So far, I have been adding to the list as and when I do an article and come across other hoards in the same area. For instance, I've just written Milton Keynes Hoard (mainly focussing on the Bronze Age gold find), but also mentioning several other hoards in the MK area in an "Other" section which grew to be as big as the main subject's share. I have yet to add these to the list, and was going to do that when I found that a later find (called the Little Horwood hoard) was related to the 1849 Whaddon Chase hoard, which is mentioned in the MK Hoard article, naturally, and also the Wickham Market Hoard which it is compared to in size, age and composition. The more I look, the more I find to add to stuff we already have, so I think it is an understatement to say that this list is incomplete! – B.hotep •talk• 20:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dear AgTigress, thanks for your suggestions. I agree with you about the impossibility of separating votive and non-votive hoards. When I started the list I rather naively assumed that we could do so, but it soon became evident that it was not possible, and the lead paragraph now reflects that. I think that all the editors of this article are painfully aware that there are hundreds of hoards that are significant enough to be included, and I, at least, see this as a long-term project which will not reach anything near completeness for some time yet. Some of the hoards you mention are on my to do list, and should be added soon, whereas others may take longer to be added as we need to find a reliable reference for each hoard before it can be added, and sources can sometimes be hard to find when you don't have access to a university library or a JSTOR subscription (and of course, we all have lives outside of Wikipedia!). But please feel free to suggest any other hoards that you think should be fast-tracked onto the list. BTW, good to see your contributions to the Thetford Hoard article, which could do with the Hoxne treatment. BabelStone (talk) 23:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scope of article[edit]

I think we need consensus on the scope of the list, in order to ensure that it does not get out of hand.

1) There are a huge number of hoards in Britain, for example the BM website states that over 1,200 Roman coin hoards are known, as well as some 200 from the Civil War. In my opinion including hundreds or even thousands of hoards would be unmanageable and would devalue the article, so I would suggest that we limit the list to notable hoards, i.e. those hoards which are notable for the quantity and/or type of artefacts or coins they contain, or which have a prominent presence on the internet or in print (for example hoards with a separate web page on a Museum web site). As an initial rough guide, I would say that Roman coin hoards comprising fewer than 500 bronze coins or fewer than 100 silver coins with no other notable features should be excluded.

2) When I wrote the stub, I explicitly stated that the list excludes hoards of votive goods and burial goods, but it is no longer clear to me that such a distinction can be easily or usefully maintained. The Thetford Hoard is possibly a hoard of votive offerings; the Snettisham Hoard (or Hoards if I understand correctly) are almost certainly votive; and I understand that the Hallaton Treasure was discovered as a group of hoards in a cemetery, and so would be classified as grave goods. Therefore, I propose loosening the definition of hoards for listing in this article to any large cache of coins or valuable artefacts that have been buried together, whatever the reason for their burial. BabelStone (talk) 21:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary thoughts: I think it's an inherent part of Wikipedia that we only include notable hoards (whether the article is written or not). Reason to include notable hoards where the article hasn't been written yet? So we can get on an write them! In regards to votive or not, if it is a notable votive hoard, I don't see why not. – B.hotep •talk• 21:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think an article (or list) should aim to be the best it can. That includes being comprehensive. In this case, I think the Featured List criteria offer a good guide. As the issue is what to include due to large numbers, the relevant bit is criterion 3a:
"It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing at least all of the major items and, where practical, a complete set of items; where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items"
For the Civil War, I don't think 200 is unmanageable. Large yes, but perhaps not too much to deal with. 1,200 Roman coin hoards is too much to deal with, so the "major items" bit comes into play. Theoretically, including the major items (those which satisfy notability criteria) is a good way to go, but it's a bit woolly and won't necessarily be representative of the whole. Often a hoard is most useful not when it's examined on its own but with a group of other hoards, perhaps comparing dates location etc. So I am wary of Wikipedians being the ones picking and choosing which hoards to include. I would prefer something more objective (notability criteria are somewhat nebulous at times). Nev1 (talk) 21:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm an inclusivist myself, so I would hope the article can be as comprehensive as possible. But I want to be prepared for when some metal detectorist comes along and adds his hoard of half a dozen groats that they found in their back garden. I guess the best thing is to judge each hoard on its own merits. If we get too many Roman hoards then we can always split it off into a separate article. BabelStone (talk) 23:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK[edit]

I have nominated the article for DYK -- please feel free to improve or replace the hook. BabelStone (talk) 23:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone want to look at the DYK nomination ? -- it seems to have stalled because there are too many hook suggestions. BabelStone (talk) 12:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isle of Man[edit]

There are quite a few hoards (mostly Viking and medieval) from the Isle of Man, but as the Isle of Man is not part of Great Britain (or the UK for that matter) I am not sure whether to include them on this page or whether it would be better to create a new List of hoards in the Isle of Man page. Thoughts, anyone? BabelStone (talk) 22:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Either that or rename the list to "...in the British Isles" which will then include the Isle of Man and Jersey and Guernsey? – B.hotep •talk• 20:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not keen on merging this article and List of hoards in Ireland into List of hoards in the British Isles because: 1) WW3 is likely to break out over the use of the controversial (on Wikipedia at least) term "British Isles"; and 2) it makes sense from an archaeological point of view to keep Ireland separate from Britain as the two islands are culturally distinct during the Bronze and Iron ages, and Ireland has almost no Roman or Anglo-Saxon hoards, whereas Britain has huge numbers of Roman hoards, so they do not mix together well. I am equally opposed to creating List of hoards in the United Kingdom as this would artificially separate Northern Ireland hoards and ROI hoards, and from an archaeological perspective the hoards of the island of Ireland belong together in a single article. BabelStone (talk) 00:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, the Ireland list would remain. I was very careful not to include that in the suggestion! ,-- B.hotep
I wouldn't rush to the IOM hoards but if they are done then either kludge them into the main one (its where you would expect to find it) or leave it alone - we have no list of hoards in France so lets not worry about small lists like list in IOM yet. Also beware! Do you want to argue about geography and politics? No me, I'd prefer to do another article. Victuallers (talk) 06:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I try to steer well clear of wikipolitics and wikiwars, which is why I want to avoid any mention of the "British Isles". I think the sensible course for now is to add any IOM hoards to this article (there are a couple of recent ones that I think are worth adding), and they can always be moved elsewhere if anyone objects. BabelStone (talk) 12:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Viking and Anglo-Saxon hoards[edit]

I'm wondering if these two should actually be divided. For instance, while objects in "Viking" hoards may be associated with Viking material culture, what is to guarantee that the hoard wasn't buried by a Saxon? Nev1 (talk) 18:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Viking hoards do generally comprise loot, and so at least some of their contents may be Anglo-Saxon in origin. However, I think that it is useful to put Viking hoards in a separate section because: a) they are always seem to be explicitly identified as "Viking" in the sources; b) contents of Viking hoards may be of mixed origin; c) Viking hoards are common elsewhere (e.g. in Ireland and Isle of Man), and in those places the loot may not be Anglo-Saxon in origin; and d) it is useful for students of Viking history and culture to see their hoards in one place. However, I think it would be useful to add a comment to the Viking hoards section stating that the contents of Viking hoards may (in Britain at least) be Anglo-Saxon or Celtic in origin. BabelStone (talk) 21:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Background information[edit]

Do people think that it might be appropriate to insert, somewhere in this article, information explaining why more and more precious-metal hoards seem to be coming to light? Basically, from the Middle Ages to the Enlightenment, the discovery of treasure (ancient coinage or other objects made of gold or silver) usually resulted in the objects, whether seized by the Crown or illegally retained by the finder, being melted down as bullion. (The old Treasure Trove common law was designed to ensure that the Crown got the goodies: coinable metal). From the 18th century, the influence of the Enlightenment began to lead to the careful preservation of ancient objects because of their historical and artistic value; museums were starting up (Ashmolean in the late 17thC, British Museum 1753), and these finds were starting to be seen as museum objects rather than an unexpected source of wealth. Since the middle of the 20th century, such discoveries have become far more frequent, at first because of changes in agricultural practices during and after the Second World War, such as deeper ploughing, as well as the cultivation of land formerly left undisturbed, and later because of the rise of the hobby of metal detecting. Archaeology has also evolved rapidly as a discipline throughout the 20th century. The 1996 Treasure Act, and the creation of the Portable Antiquities Scheme, have tried to regularise a lot of the processes involved in ensuring that important discoveries are protected. Finders today may be searching deliberately, rather than coming across hoards by accident, and they usually know something about the right things to do to preserve archaeological information. The upshot of all this is that old finds CANNOT have the kind of detail about provenance and context that we now consider important. Turning-point finds, because they were so newsworthy, were Traprain Law in 1919, Mildenhall (?1942), and also Sutton Hoo (1939), although, as a grave-group, it falls into a different category. The Hoxne find (1992) was also important because the finder did all the right things, and this was fully acknowledged. AgTigress (talk) 15:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of 'hoard'[edit]

I agree with the definition that is being used here for an 'archaeological hoard', namely a collection of objects made of any metal, not only precious metals (gold and silver), but I don't think it is clearly stated. This definition reflects modern archaeological thinking, and also, I am sure, the motivations of many of the ancient owners of metal objects. A collection of bronze, pewter or iron objects would undoubtedly have been hoarded at various periods in the past for some of the same (many) reasons as contemporary hoards of gold/silver artefacts: they had intrinsic value.

However, I think some notice must also be taken of the fact that treasure legislation used to apply solely to precious metals (and still focuses primarily on those metals, with some special exceptions). This is because of the non-existence of any archaeological thinking prior to the 18th century or so, as noted in my previous post. Some explanation of the this evolution is needed.

Also, I think that the issues surrounding the reasons for hoarding need to be addressed, and this is a bit of an academic hot potato, as the interpretative fashions wax and wane, and a rather fuller summary is really needed the many different types of hoards which exist at all periods. AgTigress (talk) 17:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Response also to post above) Your suggestions and remarks are, as usual, much appreciated and very pertinent. I think much of what you said can be incorporated into the Hoard article itself – this being merely a list (see WP:LIST) and not an article per se, it should only have a summary paragraph for each section and then the list table(s), so if you like, I can copy these suggestions over to the Hoard article? – B.hotep •talk• 18:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

B.hotep -- thank you very much. I have had a look at the 'Hoard' article, and it is certainly there where I should be concentrating my efforts rather than in this list. For example, as to types of hoards, you will find that no fewer than nine types of the Roman period are suggested in the following paper: C. Johns, 'The classification and interpretation of Romano-British treasures', Britannia 27 (1996), 1-16, and the author suggested at the time that there might be many more. The broad divisions into 'safekeeping', 'manufacturer's/founder's' and 'religious' are basic, but there are many subdivisions. By all means add some of what I have said above to the Hoard article, and I'll go and have a tinker around there myself shortly. I am expecting some proofs for correction any minute, so with luck I shall disappear from Wikipedia talk pages for a while very soon!  :-D AgTigress (talk) 19:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ribchester Hoard[edit]

See Another hoard[1]Victuallers (talk) 22:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added. BabelStone (talk) 19:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ History of the county palatine ... of Lancaster. The biographical department by W.R. Whatton, 1836, p.20, accessed September 2010

Images[edit]

I'd like to add an "Image" column for a 100px image of the hoard or an item from the hoard where there is one (we have images of at least 37 of the British hoards on Commons:Category:Hoards by country), but there are already too many columns, so I was thinking of combining the current "Place of Discovery", "County" and "Location" columns into a single column to make room for the image column. The other possibility would be to not add an extra column, but just put the image in the first column under the hoard name. What do people think? BabelStone (talk) 23:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd try the first. If you went to "year found" header that might free up some room too. The page is already very long. Johnbod (talk) 02:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinate error[edit]

The following coordinate fixes are need for Colchester Hoard co-ords given put it in some farmer's field. It was on High St. in Colchester

—70.105.68.113 (talk) 01:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC) 70.105.68.113 (talk) 01:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the report -- now corrected (was "51.891,-0.903" but should have been "51.891, 0.903"). BabelStone (talk) 10:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinate error[edit]

The following coordinate fixes are need for Milton Keynes co-ords given place hoard under a paved road in downtown Milton Keynes, and not in a field in Monkton

—70.105.68.113 (talk) 01:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC) 70.105.68.113 (talk) 01:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know exactly whereabouts the field that the hoard was found in is located, but I have moved the coords for the MK Hoard so that they are now at Monkston, in the approximate area of the hoard -- if you know a source that specifies the exact location of the find please let us know. Note that coords for hoards on this page have varying degrees of accuracy. For some hoards the coords do point to the exact find spot, but for many hoards the location is only approximate. BabelStone (talk) 10:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinate error[edit]

The following coordinate fixes are need for Baschurch co-ords given place hoard in middle of north sea

—70.105.98.153 (talk) 18:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC) 70.105.98.153 (talk) 18:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed ("-2.854" was accidentally put as "2.854"), thanks for the error report. BabelStone (talk) 19:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinate error[edit]

The following coordinate fixes are need for there is a UK website called Digital Documents that supposedly pins down the exact locations of finds

—70.105.98.153 (talk) 18:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC) 70.105.98.153 (talk) 18:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have not listed any coordinates. Most finds are reported to only 1km resolution, and many hoards are not easy to precisely locate. We try to do our best, but always welcome corrections and sources for mislocated hoards. BabelStone (talk) 19:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinate error[edit]

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are need for —68.238.12.56 (talk) 01:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC) 68.238.12.56 (talk) 01:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, nothing to do. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 20:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting the article[edit]

The article is now very long and unwieldy, so unless anyone objects I plan to move Iron Age coin hoards (17 hoards) and Romano-British coin hoards (65 hoards) to separate articles (List of Iron Age coin hoards in Britain and List of Romano-British coin hoards respectively), leaving only Iron Age and Romano-British hoards which include significant non-numismatic objects on this page. I would duplicate hoards that comprise significant numbers of both coins and other objects (e.g. Hoxne Hoard) in both lists. More splitting may well be required in future, leaving this as an overview article. BabelStone (talk) 15:24, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds sensible to me. Johnbod (talk) 19:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think thats a good split and might save a "List of hoards in England" article emerging. You could link them together with a nice template so you could still flick between them. Victuallers (talk) 16:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback -- I'll probably work on it tomorrow evening. BabelStone (talk) 20:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Is this a hoard?[edit]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-surrey-25720131

©Geni (talk) 17:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My feeling is a collection of flints may have a specific term rather than 'hoard' but I'm not a pre-historian. Pat: any thoughts on this? Nev1 (talk) 19:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See the first section "neolithic hoards" - all stone & much smaller than this. Johnbod (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion is that whether an assemblage of artefacts is classified as a hoard or not depends on intent. A hoard is an assemblage that has been deliberately deposited, either for later retrieval (e.g. in times of war) or as a votive offering. It is not clear to me from the article whether the 2,400+ flints constitute a hoard or whether they are the remains of a flint-knapping factory ... either the leftovers or perhaps a work place suddenly abandoned. If the flints are concentrated in a single place then it may be a hoard, but if they are spread out over a wide area I think it is unlikely that they are a hoard. But from a Wikipedia perspective, whether they are a hoard or not depends on what the experts say, not what we think, and as yet there are no reliable sources calling this a hoard. BabelStone (talk) 19:54, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is clearly a multi-period site with occupational phases from the late Upper Palaeolithic to the Mesolithic. So definitely not a hoard - or even a flint-knapping factory (I think this term is a complete misnomer). 2,400 tools sounds like a lot; but it's not that many to be dropped over 5,000 years or so! This is probably a series of overlapping occupation surfaces which have been covered with flood deposits (hence the 'excellent preservation'). I haven't heard anything about the site on the grapevine yet though. PatHadley (talk) 22:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Middleham Hoard[edit]

Hi all, PatHadley (talk) here. I'm the Wikipedian-in-Residence at York Museums Trust (Project pages). I've been working with the numismatics curators uploading images of coins from the Middleham Hoard. The whole set can be found here: Category:Coins from the Middleham Hoard (110 images!), I hope that they're useful! Unfortunately the hoard itself is lacking an article. I've just started the bones here: Articles for creation/Middleham Hoard and it would be great if people - could help the curators (new editors - YMT Coins in particular) and myself get the article ready for submission. Also, if there are any ways in which we could help you achieve your goals for the coverage of hoards on Wikipedia that would be great. You can find out a little about the collection on the blog and contact me with any queries. Look forward to working with you! PatHadley (talk) 12:37, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article renamed[edit]

I have moved the article from List of hoards in Britain to List of hoards in Great Britain because the article begins by saying that it is about hoards found in Great Britain. The term 'Britain' is synonymous with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. For those hoards found in what is now Northern Ireland, see List of hoards in Ireland (where 'Ireland', like 'Great Britain', is the geographic entity). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


morley st peter hoard[edit]

There is a saxon hoard by this name that we will need to add.©Geni (talk) 19:48, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on List of hoards in Great Britain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:40, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on List of hoards in Great Britain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:46, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_hoards_in_Great_Britain&oldid=1207220310"