Talk:Staffordshire Hoard

Title of article

I propose that this be moved to Staffordshire hoard, per this ref. Thoughts? Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Happy to back the name change, see also the earlier Vale of York hoard. yorkshiresky (talk) 14:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe wait a day or so, to see if "Staffordshire hoard" becomes more "official"? I've set up a redirect from that name to here anyway. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

It certainly seems to be the only individual name used for the collection yet, and the current title is more akin to a news story about the discovery than an article about the treasure itself. I like the idea of waiting until Sunday or so and then moving :-). Shimgray | talk | 16:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

It's been moved, with capitalisation to accord with, for example, Vale of York hoard, but not, for example, Mildenhall Treasure. That can be resolved in coming weeks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Vale of York is just wrong too, but unfortunately needs a move request to sort it. "Place Hoard" is always a proper name; most others are correctly done. Johnbod (talk) 18:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

There isn't any doubt about it - see the website, refs etc. As the article will be on either ITN or DYK it should be got right now. Johnbod (talk) 18:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Flickr

• http://www.flickr.com/photos/finds/sets/72157622378376316/

Can we use any licence to dowload some of these? --Mais oui! (talk) 14:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't know - but wow!!! Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, quite!  :) --Mais oui! (talk) 14:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

They're CC-BY - so, yes, we can! Shimgray | talk | 16:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I've requested a batch upload at Commons here. MickMacNee (talk) 23:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

It looks as if they have varying versions of each object (ie white background with or without reflection, black background with or without reflection). If we could decide which version would be best as a general rule, that would certainly lessen the size of the batch by at least 3/4 s. And yes, these are stunning... Lithoderm 00:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Too late. It looks like they've all been changed to Attribution-Non-Commercial 2.0 Generic. All the images already uploaded failed Flickr review, however the one in the lede looks to have been uploaded to Wikipedia before the change, so at least that can be kept, but sadly it is hosted on en.Wikipedia, not commons. MickMacNee (talk) 13:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

this one made it to Commons. MickMacNee (talk) 13:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Shit. I should have uploaded some, but I thought it was better to wait for the batch upload... I suppose I've learned a lesson there... Lithoderm 21:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

CC licences are assigned "in perpetuity", which means that the previous license cannot be retracted... especially if the work is used or uploaded elsewhere. If you can find the photos elsewhere and they were stored prior to the licence change on Flickr, you can still upload them to Wiki Commons... so long as you can prove that they were covered by CC-BY originally. David Bailey (talk) 14:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, my last post below at Talk:Staffordshire Hoard#Photo is not under a suitable free licence has two links to Google caches which showed images with their original CC-BY licenses. One is now CC-NC but "Gold strip with inscription" still shows CC-BY. But how would we prove this? WebCite reports "Page Not Found error" when it tries to store a snapshot of the cache. -84user (talk) 15:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Merge of Mercian treasure

I don't think there's any debate here. It's uniformly called Staffordshire Hoard, and there's no point having a separate article for the hoard and its discovery (at least at the moment). --Mark (talk) 17:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Certainly the articles should be merged. Is it best to do that at the same time as a renaming, say to Staffordshire hoard, or separately? I suppose it would be best if the merge were undertaken speedily, so that there is only one article to edit. The best name may take a little longer to determine. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• Of course a merge is needed. No standard title seems to have emerged yet - when the find site is finally revealed that will very probably give the name, per the usual custom. For now, I think "2009..." is best. All others will redirect anyway. Johnbod (talk) 17:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Moved on, already! Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for waiting! It should of course be Staffordshire Hoard. You haven't fixed the doubnble redirects. Johnbod (talk) 17:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry sorry sorry. See below. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Category:Treasure troves by era

Which subcategory would be most appropriate? Medieval Europe? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes Johnbod (talk) 21:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was page moved. Cenarium (talk) 21:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

---

Staffordshire hoard → Staffordshire Hoard — Capitalisation of word "Hoard" is supported by consensus and consistent with most other similar articles such as Mildenhall Treasure. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support as proper name. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support as proper name. Any chance of closer doing Vale of York hoard, which can't be moved, while we're at it? Other named European Hoards & Treasures I think all ok. Johnbod (talk) 02:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support as proper name. Support move of Vale of York hoard to Vale of York Hoard. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I've proposed at WP:RM that Vale of York hoard be moved to ...Hoard. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! That's been done. Johnbod (talk) 12:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support as proper name used by official sources Nick Ottery (talk) 08:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support as is correct capitalization of the name. Jack1956 (talk) 13:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support per the above. – ukexpat (talk) 18:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support as per the above. Animaly2k2 (talk) 18:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
• Stop pussyfooting, be bold, and move. Nobody's objected, and it's not a huge change.--92.40.4.69 (talk) 20:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: It needs an admin as Staffordshire Hoard already has an edit history. – ukexpat (talk) 20:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• Capital 'H' would be consistent with staffordshirehoard.org.uk.--92.40.116.147 (talk) 06:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

What is the source for "near Lichfield"?

The inline citation at the end of that sentence is to this BBC article, which nowhere mentions Lichfield. (Perhaps it did in an earlier revision, but it does not now.) South Staffordshire is near Lichfield, of course, but without a specific mention of the city in the cited source, I don't think it should be named in the article. Loganberry (Talk) 11:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Alexander Chancellor in today's Guardian says near Lichfield but as its an opinion piece, not sure how reliable. [1] 86.172.137.232 (talk) 12:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

No one outside those involved knows where the site is yet, but it is presumed to be near Burntwood, which is 4 miles from Lichfield. I think its ok as it is for now - Michael Wood on the BBC (Radio 4) was talking about the link with Lichfield, newly made the seat of the "diocese of Mercia" in 669. "Near" is vague enough really. Johnbod (talk) 13:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Given the probably close proximity to Tamworth, which I believe was the capital of Mierce at the given time, we could also say it is near to there. Mere Mortal (talk) 17:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I know exactly where the field is. It has been cordoned off for months with a 24/7 police presence. The site is nearer to Lichfield than Tamworth but the nearest towns are Brownhills and Chasetown. The nearest village is Wall, the former Roman town Letocetum. It is very doubtful that the hoard is Anglo-Saxon in origin, even if one of that kin actually deposited the goods. They weren't capable of producing such things at the time. The fact is that somebody buried the treasure with the obvious expectation of going back to collect it later. This would seem to me to indicate a group of people who were no longer welcome to return, so possibly the original owners were Welsh, the goods having been deposited after a battle in the earlier Dark Ages, after which the losers were obliged to retire to the Wrekin to the west of the place under discussion. - Sulien —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.144.243.59 (talk) 11:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Photo is not under a suitable free licence

I've just noticed this: the photo used on this article is licensed as CC-Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0 (Flickr page), not plain CC-Attribution-2.0 as the file page states. Doesn't that make it unfree by Wikipedia standards? Loganberry (Talk) 11:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes this is correct. We might be able to claim fair use perhaps. But, until that claim is made then the image should not be used. Furthermore, the image is on the MAIN PAGE RIGHT NOW. This needs to be fixed quick. Witty Lama 12:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Damn - it's been relicensed (okay, corrected). It was under CC-BY yesterday, I'm sure. Shimgray | talk | 12:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, if that's the case, that it WAS available under that license, then you/we/us are allowed to publish it. But we need to prove that it was indeed available under the cc-by license. The owner of the copyright has the right to re-license it but if we obtained the image when it was cc-by then we are allowed to keep it. So, can you prove it was cc-by? Witty Lama 13:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I can't prove it, but I think it's moot. We can argue that if we can show it was released under X license that we are entitled to use it under that license, but it seems a bit fairer to assume the original listing of them on flickr as CC-BY was an honest mistake and they've since corrected it to be used the way that they intended. Shimgray | talk | 13:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

It has now been proven thanks to the google chache [2]. This information has been added to the metadata of the image page and the image has now been restored to the frontpage of Wikipedia in the "in the news" section. Thanks everyone for your quick work! Witty Lama 13:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I've got no idea how I missed this section when I posted the update above. This is so annoying, had the Flickr2Commons bot been functional, I would have uploaded at least 20 myself as soon as I saw them last night. MickMacNee (talk) 14:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah; I was rather hoping that this was what had happened. I admit to being very slightly uncomfortable, since I suspect Shimgray is correct to say that the original licence was an honest mistake... but not that uncomfortable! THe irrevocability clause is a clear part of CC, so now that we know the image was cc-by at the time of posting there shouldn't be a problem with using it. Loganberry (Talk) 16:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't claim a victory just yet. I ran across a similar problem when Ford Motor Company uploaded a ton of High-Quality images of their Car Models, some of models very hard to photograph under Wikipedia-friendly CC licenses. Me and other Wikipedian editors literally "sacked & pillaged" the flickr pool for FoMoCo. But, some people questioned the license, and it resulted in a massive purge of alot of FoMoCo images after the license was changed. So just a fair warning, even thought the license changed, someone could strip the images away. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 05:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Out of curiosity I see other flickr image caches still show with a Attribution license: Cheek piece, fittings and zoomorphic mount, here is another: Gold strip with inscription. -84user (talk) 12:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Anglo Saxon Wikipedia

Hands up who knew there was an Anglo Saxon version of Wikipedia! http://ang.wikipedia.org/ Crazy. MickMacNee (talk) 14:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

No less crazy than Latin Wikipedia! – ukexpat (talk) 14:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm really not surprised... There's also a Gothic Wikiepdia, Pennsylvania German wikipedia, etc Lithoderm 00:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Ȝēa, ƿē habbaþ ēac Ƿikipǣdian. —ᚹᚩᛞᛖᚾᚻᛖᛚᛗ (ᚷᛖᛋᛈᚱᛖᚳ) 03:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Splitting of the Find

Anyone know why the hoard is split up 1:1 between landowner and the discoverer? Is there some kind of law in England to support that? What was the guy doing on private property anyway? In other countries it would probably wholly belong to the landowner, and the discoverer wouldn't have even been allowed on the property. This seems very strange to a non-British person such as myself and I've found no explanation in the news media.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.197.82.153 (talk • contribs)

I think I read on the BBC website that the landowner and the discoverer were friends so I presume that the discoverer had permission to be on the land with his metal detector. I can't find the story at the moment but will keep looking. Also relevant is the law relating to treasure trove in the UK, see Treasure trove#United Kingdom. – ukexpat (talk) 14:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Both factors are relevant - especially the law. The English (Scottish is different) system is very effective, as it gives everybody an incentive to report finds. In many countries finds of antiquities belong to the state & there might be no reward at all, & stuff just goes on the black market. Johnbod (talk) 14:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, the hoard itself will not be split, or at least certainly not between the landowner and the discoverer. What the landowner and discoverer will split is the sum of money realized when the hoard is sold to a museum (or consortium of museums), as the law stipulates it must be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathandore (talk • contribs) 12:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The ancient and effective legal system of treasure trove has recently been abolished in England. The new regime provides for the rewarding of both landowner and finder. Purists would say that treasure hunting metal detectorists should get nothing, as they are little better than plundering robbers. However if they were not treated the same way as legitimate finders of treasure they would never report their finds. It is a pity that they still haven't learnt that if they find something of significance they should call in the archaeologists immediately, and not continue to plunder the site How much information was lost as a result of this man digging up 240 odd bags of items. He is no better than a barbarian, albeit now a wealthy one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.110.140 (talk) 23:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Date

I realize that sources will improve over time, but at the moment we are seriously overquoting Lewis, who seems just to be humouring the media. Why would we quote Lewis, verbatim, on pedestrian statements like "our historical sources are limited to people like the monk Bede, who wrote from a Christian perspective"? This is like saying "according to Lewis, the Anglo-Saxons lived in England". Why on earth would we credit Lewis in particular with such a statement? Also, what is it with Bede writing from a Christian perspective, in 731, more than a lifetime after the Christianization of England. I mean, how about pointing out that Bede wasn't writing from a Muslim perspective, because he was unlikely to yet have picked up much Muslim theology a mere 20 years after the conquest of Spain?

I suggest that all this talk about "possible pagans" is just a tabloid attempt of making this hoard more appealing and "mysterious" to the unwashed masses. With Penda's death in 655, Anglo-Saxon paganism was finished. Yes, the hoard may include some artefacts that were still produced during Penda's rule, but that's really all that is "pagan" about this.

While the Beda statement is trite, it is at least not nonsensical like Lewis' "Penda is a bit before this period, and Offa is right at the end, so it has to be someone in the middle"? This is about the impossibility of identifying an "owner" of the hoard. The statement appears to say that if the hoard has some items from the mid 7th century, and some items from the late 8th centuries, the hoard's "owner" must have lived around the early 8th century. Wth? If the youngest artefacts date to the late 8th century, the owner, if we're going to talk about such a hypothetical individual at all, must have lived later than the late 8th century. He would have owned a hoard that included recent items as well as items up to 150 years old. It is frankly beyond me what the "someone in the middle" remark is supposed to mean, and I suggest that it is immaterial, because we aren't obliged to quote everything that was said about this in the newspapers. --dab (𒁳) 17:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your personal commentary and opinions, but it's probably better to let the experts (Lewis, in this case) speak and wait for the debates to play out and expand (rather than inserting your personal opinion on the matter into the article, as you did here: [3] and which someone fortunately caught and swatted here: [4]).

Obviously, the official press release notes that there is the possibility that the deposit was made by pagans, and Lewis examines the same possibility. It's a completely valid and logical topic and something that should be explored, citing experts, in the article. It would seem evident to me that Lewis' point is that Bede is a poor source on Mercia from the period, that Lewis finds Bede's position as a Christian monk something to be considered at the possibility of paganism active in Mercia, that our knowledge of Mercia during the period is hazy to say the least, and that his "someone in the middle" comment is his proposed outline of where whomever was responsible for the hoard would have been chronologically placed. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I kind of assumed that the pagan references were meant to imply Danish involvement - the Great Heathen Army or something. Haukur (talk) 21:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

that's a valid point, Haukur. --dab (𒁳) 22:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Is the horde of Anglo-Saxon c6 c7 origin? On what basis is this conclusion drawn? Is it more likely to originate from the time of Boadicea's uprising after the sacking of London and St Albans, and the relics being plundered from Roman soldiers? Did the defeat of Boadicea's army by Suetonius occur somewhere in Staffordshire? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.43.212.140 (talk) 17:40, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Hoard?

I question the use of the term "hoard" to describe this tiny amount of gold. 5 kilograms? That's no hoard.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.57.78.226 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 25 September 2009

We go with what the references say - they use the word "hoard", so do we. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

In archaeology, a hoard is a collection of valuable objects or artifacts, sometimes purposely buried in the ground. --dab (𒁳) 21:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

it is probably a hoard, or mayb a loot or a profesional goldworkers stash, but i am really disappointed by the lack of context(in every source i checked). i hope it is not as undone as it seems. it was apparently undeeply burried, and got redistributed over a larger area, or not? the birmingham university that has a splendid site offers no additional data either. the film of the find shows an earth void of archeological traces at first glance. but the area excavated is rather big for something presumably burried in a / as a (w)hole. objects appear to only be hit by ploughs quite recently. okay it is a secret where they found it, (they must suspect a palace near;), but they could tell us how they found it, in what state and situation and condition. 24.132.171.225 (talk) 02:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

This is certainly a hoard, it does not have to weigh a ton! Unfortunately a lot of the context and archaeology was lost because it was found by a metal detectorist (AKA robber). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.110.140 (talk) 23:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

External Links

Moved from external links section of the article as they are online newspaper articles which are largely already referenced in the body and therefore don't fall under the category of external link. For any unreferenced ones here they are if you want to include them:

• BBC News, "Hoard shines light on Dark Ages"
• ITN "Treasure is 'best ever' Anglo-Saxon find
• Daily Mail, "The field of gold: How jobless treasure hunter unearthed greatest ever haul of Saxon artefacts with £2.50 metal detector", many photographs
• The Guardian, "Largest ever hoard of Anglo-Saxon gold found in Staffordshire"
• The Independent, "Golden dreams for man with the golden metal detector"
• Experts Awed by Anglo-Saxon Treasure, John Burns, The New York Times, 24 September, 2009
• beecareful.net "Anglo-Saxon treasure trove found in Staffordshire"
• Staffordshire Hoard at Current Archaeology

Nick Ottery (talk) 23:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Formatting

Should Book of Kells and Brut y Tywysogion be italicised?--Breandán MacAmhlaidh (talk) 05:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Since they're recognized as titles, yes. For some reason our Book of Kells article doesn't italicize the title of the book. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

No and yes; manuscripts are not works but objects, & aren't usually italicised, any more than buildings. The Book of Kells contains the 4 gospels. Brut is a work, existing in various manuscript versions. Johnbod (talk) 06:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

That would explain why then. That's something nice to know. I stand corrected! :bloodofox: (talk) 06:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Why is there a "note 1" and a footnote with the number one? This seems kind of confusing, but I'm not clever enough with note formatting to figure out the proper style to render these notes differently. Wcoole (talk) 23:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Origin of the material

I notice that the article does not mention where the material (the gold and jewels, etc) came from, exactly. When this story was covered on Channel 4 News they stated specifically that a lot of it was imported from Byzantium (the gold) and even Sri Lanka (the gems). I would have thought that this was pretty noteworthy, so why is there apparently no mention of this in the article, CH4 couldn't have been completely wrong could they? --Hibernian (talk) 06:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I haven't seen this anywhere yet. Of course, to report on it here, all we need is a reliable source. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I also heard that the gold came from Byzantium and the gems from Sri Lanka on Radio 4, but I can't remember who made the claim. The only online source I can find to corroborate the claim is the Daily Mail, but it does not give a source for the claim: "The jewels are thought to have come from Sri Lanka - carried to Europe by traders. The gold probably came from the Byzantine Empire, the eastern remnant of the Roman Empire based in what is now Istanbul." BabelStone (talk) 08:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Until metallurgical analysis has taken place, the origin of the gold won't be known so can't be stated as yet. There are UK sources of gold (Dolaucothi Gold Mines). The workmanship style will indicate where the objects were made (ie were they made in England or imported as finished items) but only the analysis will show where the gold originally came from. 86.172.137.232 (talk) 08:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

It is not very likely to show that. Most old European gold, then and later, has been melted, mixed and re-used several times, as coins and objects, before it gets lost. I don't think any conclusions of this type have been drawn from the Sutton Hoo gold. It's clear from the statements so far that the overall workmanship is seen as Anglo-Saxon, though when they get it all sorted out possible imported pieces may appear. The garnets may be tracked to a source, although they might well have been reused Roman materials several centuries out of the ground - as at Sutton Hoo the individual inlay pieces are very small. Sutton Hoo had specific silver pieces made in the Byzantine Empire, with Greek inscriptions etc. Nothing like that has been mentioned here that I've seen. Johnbod (talk) 14:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, if that's correct then I wonder why Channel 4 and others have stated the exotic origin as a known fact. Where are they getting their information from? --Hibernian (talk) 05:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Tense of statements

Why has somebody (haven't checked to see who) made sure that all the quotes by the various players in this are in the present tense - X says rather than said, etc.? It reads, to me, very oddly. They gave all these quotes in the past - a few days ago. At what point should they be placed in the past tense? Is there any good reason for them being in the present tense now? Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC) PS:They seem (at least mostly) to be the work of User:Bloodofox. Why? Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Since the views haven't been rescinded, I've stuck with present tense in my additions to the article. Of course, it should be consistent, and if you prefer past tense I don't oppose the change. :bloodofox: (talk) 14:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to see what others think. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

the current revision reminds me of the first few days of Darwinius. We are trying to write an article about an archaeological discovery based on interviews and news items. Obviously this is the best we have for now, but there is little point in polishing the article as it stands now, because the sources we currently use are going to be replaced by better ones sooner rather than later. --dab (𒁳) 22:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Great stuff, but...

In the picture, some of the jewels are covered up by mud. Why haven't they fully cleaned it up first? Is it too delicate? - Yorkshirian (talk) 23:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Tha knaws, they're just mucky boogers in t'Midlands ... Johnbod (talk) 23:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

They would be cleaned very slowly and carefully. It could easily take a couple of hours per item. With 1500 items, that's a couple of man-years worth of work. You've got to remember that it's been less than four months since the initial discovery. I'm guessing here, but I would bet that the emphasis has been on getting the stuff out of the ground before word leaked out and the site started attracting looters. Cleaning, describing cataloging, etc. will come later. Dsmdgold (talk) 04:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Excessive quoting

I'm not sure what to do about this: until more information is released, most material on significance and purpose will have to be quoted from experts in the field. --Mark (talk) 23:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I have reduced the quotes down to two (they're both pretty short) and removed the tag. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Problems in the "Purpose" section.

One of the sentences in the "Purpose" section was completely incomplrehensible, so I checked the cited work (Leahy) to see if I could find the source of the statement in order to re-write it. However, I could not find anything related to the sentence in the cited work. It might be there, but I sure couldn't find it. As it stood, the sentence was to indecipherable to add any real value to the article, (but if you think really hard you might get the gist of what it was meant to say,) so I removed it.

I have found several other claims in the section (often starting with "Leahy notes",) that also appear to be similarly made up. I would like for somebody to double-check this and clean-up if necessary, as I'm a novice editor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Broodoobob (talk • contribs) 06:26, 27 September 2009

You're quite right that the cited reference for the Leahy quote - here - now doesn't seem to contain any of his words, although he is quoted elsewhere using different words, for example here. I don't think his quotes were "made up" - they were included on earlier versions of the website. (Assume good faith, please). Given that there is a constant stream of new media reports on this, and changes to websites, all editors need to keep monitoring the refs on the page to make sure they are up-to-date. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

PS: The PAS report here "is the work of Kevin Leahy, who would like to thank Leslie Webster, Michelle Brown and Elisabeth Okasha for their comments." But, I think it would be better if the Purpose section were edited, with the verbatim quotes further reduced per WP:QUOTE, and their sense incorporated into the text. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Guys, the link used as reference is wrong, what you're looking for is here: [5]. The only things verbatim in the section are the two quotes. I've restored the removed text and added a reference. :bloodofox: (talk) 13:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Significance

The "Dubious" tag in the significance section has this as a note in the tag:"--note that the inserted clause between hyphens is in fact in the journalist's, not Bland's voice. it is also not made clear what we are to understand by a "date of the hoard". Is this the date of burial? Or the average age of the artefacts? --"

It seems to me that rather than using a tag we should just delete that section of the quote if it is unverifiable speculation by the journalist. Colincbn (talk) 01:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, may as well cut it. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Done (with only one minor hiccup along the way)Colincbn (talk) 05:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Anglo-Saxon-ness

Because the period and location in question means that this horde could be British, I'm just curious what makes it so obvious the contents of this horde are "Anglo-Saxon"? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:52, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

The short answer is because that is what the experts say, based on the style of the items in the hoard. For example in his initial report on the hoard Kevin Leahy states: "There is nothing that might have come from a "Celtic context" such as enamel work, with the possible exception of the millefiori on sword pyramid no. 1166." [6]. However, there are some items without precedent, and so it will probably take some time before we know for certain whether the hoard is entirely Anglo-Saxon or whether it does include any Celtic items. The only inscribed item is in Latin, so could conceivably be Anglo-Saxon or Celtic in origin. BabelStone (talk) 00:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Terry Herbert and Incapacity Benefit

User:King of Mercia (AKA 82.37.241.251) has three times added in the statement that Terry Herbert is an "Incapacity Benefit claimant", which has been reverted by myself and User:Ukexpat. I do not believe that the fact that he claims incapacity benefit is relevant to the article or appropriate to be noted in an encyclopedia. According to the Sun [7], Mr Herbert also claims rent allowance and has been on the dole for years, and whilst Sun readers may be angered by the revelation that that they have been paying for his hobby, I do not believe that these details are appropriate for Wikipedia. BabelStone (talk) 23:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Why isn't his occupation appropriate? If he was, for example, a postman, it wouldn't be omitted so why leave out the FACT he is/was a claimant of Incapacity Benefit? You are concluding it connotes negativity but nobody else is. And what's this bullsh*t about Sun readers? King of Mercia (talk) 23:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It would be appropriate to mention his occupation, if he had one, or even simply that he was unemployed. People define themselves by their job, not by what particular benefit they happen to be claiming. The negative connotations of the phrase "Incapacity Benefit claimant" will be obvious to most British readers, just look at the Sun article: "Jobless loner Terry Herbert has collected THOUSANDS in handouts while metal-detecting instead of working". BabelStone (talk) 00:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The fact that he is a benefit claimant is wholly irrelevant to the article. The question to ask is "does it add to the reader's understanding of the subject?". It doesn't, so leave it out. It's just about as encyclopaedic in this context as his favourite colour or the football team he supports. – ukexpat (talk) 01:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Alternative names

Following the discovery of the hoard there were a number of different names bandied around before "Staffordshire Hoard" became its commonly agreed title. These included the Mercian gold (used in a news campaign by the Tamworth Herald http://www.thisistamworth.co.uk/merciangold) and the Mercian Hoard. The latter name was commonly used within Birmingham City Council, and was put forward as the preferred name by the Lord Mayor of Birmingham (as shown on his personal blog at http://michaelwilkesblog.blogspot.com/2009/11/staffordshire-horde.html), and continues to be commonly used as a descriptor within the city. While much of the evidence I can give is based on numerous meetings I've attended with officers of the council (where I've also heard it used by Mike Hodder, the city archaeologist), I accept this falls foul of original research. However, I would argue that the Lord Mayor's blog IS a good reference demonstrating use of the term as an alternative name. Metabaronic (talk) 08:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Personally I don't think that a reference is really needed. A simple google is sufficient to show that "Mercian Hoard" is an alternative name. In a pre-internet age, it would probably have been eventually named the "Hammerwich Hoard" after the place it was found at, but in today's world of instant knowledge the ugly place-holder name "Staffordshire Hoard" has taken over the internet, and we are stuck with it. BabelStone (talk) 17:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Google turns up blogs, message boards, and mirrors of the article. None of those are suitable.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 06:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Rather than just rejecting the argument and removing the reference why not just help? I am Birmingham-based and the term is in common use, particularly by people who want to stress the hoard's proximity to Birmingham (which isn't in Staffordshire). I'd be interested to know what what constitutes suitability in your view, because the fact that the term IS used in blogs is evidence that it is an alternative name. Even this article was merged with an entry under a Mercian title, and every time I do a search I find something that seems appropriate. Here's a direct quote in the Birmingham Post from Coun. Martin Mullaney, again dated after "Staffordhire Hoard" was the accepted title: http://www.birminghampost.net/news/west-midlands-news/2009/09/25/birmingham-s-battle-to-keep-hold-of-staffordshire-s-anglo-saxon-treasure-65233-24782380/ ; and here's a Birminghampost.net story dated April 1st that does the same, even though the author is from Stratford: http://www.birminghampost.net/birmingham-business/birmingham-business-news/legal-business/2010/04/01/the-preils-of-the-hoard-65233-26157110/

As far as I know there are only two alternative names that have continued to be used: "Mercian Hoard", which is used because everyone within the boundaries of Old Mercia then have a sense of ownership, and the corruption "Stafford Hoard" which is used... near Stafford.I've put it back, but have left the reference out until we can agree what best suits wikipedia criteria. Metabaronic (talk) 08:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The wording "...sometimes referred to as..." would be preferable to "...also known as..." - it acknowledges that the term is used, but gives more primacy to the more established term "Staffordshire Hoard". Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. The primacy of the term "Staffordshire Hoard" has never been in question. Well, not since October 2009. Metabaronic (talk) 16:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Metabaronic, you haven't provided a single good reference yet. [8] just quotes someone describing it: "It is a Mercian hoard and should be displayed in Mercia". I'm sure thousands of people have called it all sorts of things, "a Viking hoard", "a Saxon hoard", "a Celtic hoard", "a barbarian hoard". The second link [9] says: "The Staffordshire Hoard (also known as the Mercian Hoard) is the name given to the largest hoard of Anglo-Saxon gold yet found." and this is just a copy and paste of a prior version of the Wikipedia article.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 09:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Brianann, let's have some common sense here. OK, I accept the 1st April article I quoted is itself quoting Wikipedia (my bad - I thought I’d added the Mercian Hoard name after that date, but it appears that it I was restoring it and not adding it for the first time). The Mullaney quote has, however, appeared all over the press, and it is your interpretation of that (as opposed to my own) is therefore what invalidates it. I won't argue semantics.

What you must realise is that there’s an underlying problem here: the official and most common name, undoubtedly and without question, is the Staffordshire Hoard, and on that basis all official stories relating to the find have, since October 2009, been using that title. The few I’ve found that have mentioned it seem to fail your reliability test. I’d have used this quote from a Birmingham Post article by Chris Upton, Senior Lecturer in History at Cardinal Newman College, as it does meet all the criteria (WP:IRS says that “some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control.”): http://www.birminghampost.net/2009/10/21/chris-upton-how-staffordshire-horde-of-gold-eclipsed-matthew-boulton-s-silver-65233-24978552/. Except he can’t spell.

If official sources are consistently referencing the accepted name, this limits the type of evidence that can be put forward.

What I don’t understand is why you are deleting the alternative name and not just the references, as a "citation needed" tag would be more constructive. Is this a revert war, or has the article been nominated for GA or FA status?

Are you merely questioning references, or disputing that ‘Mercian Hoard’ is an alternative name that is commonly used? If the former, then let the edit be restored without references. If the latter, why? By trawling google as you have done, you will see that the term ‘Mercian Hoard’ is being used in blogs by politicians and academics who have been involved in the various debates surrounding the hoard.

If Cllr. Michael Wilkes, the Lord Mayor of Birmingham, is expressing a preference for the name ‘Mercian Hoard’ after the term "Staffordshire Hoard" has been formally adopted, and if Cllr. Martin Mullaney (Birmingham City Council’s Cabinet member for Leisure, Sport and Culture) is lamenting the fact that the name they settled on was the Staffordshire Hoard rather than the Mercian Hoard, this is clear evidence not just that name was in use, and remains in use, but also that there has been a political dimension to the naming of the hoard.

One further problem I’ve found with references is it is often called ‘the Mercian gold hoard’, ‘the Mercian treasure hoard’ or ‘the Mercian royal hoard’. The fact that some bloggers are also be using the term interchangeably, or even in preference to its official name, should also be seen as evidence that the term hasn’t been made up, even if an appropriate reference hasn’t been given.

References aside, what is your objection to the term Mercian hoard being acknowledged as being in common use? The fact that it is (and has been confirmed as such by every academic involved) a Mercian hoard, surely differentiates it from the other things it may have been called prior to validation by expert testimony. It is not Viking (too early; south of the Danelaw), not Saxon (the area was settled by Angles, and the Saxons never fought any battles that far north), not Celtic (too late) and certainly not Barbarian (again, too late).

The hoard is occasionally referred to as the ‘Anglo-Saxon hoard’ (http://birminghamculture.org/news/anglo-saxon-hoard-saved-), but the reason this is not being put forward as an alternative name is that the same term is used for the Sutton Hoo treasure, suggesting its use as a more generic term for any anglo-saxon treasure find emerging from this period.Metabaronic (talk) 16:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I really have no idea why the alternative name "Mercian Hoard" should not be included. It is a name that is quite common on the internet, and it helps the reader to include this alternate name in order to make it clear that the "Mercian Hoard" and the "Staffordshire Hoard" are one and the same thing. I do not see this as being at all controversial. As I said earlier, an alternative name should not really need a reference at all as it is self-evidently true -- just type "Mercian Hoard" into the Wikipedia search box. I concur with Metabaronic that other alternative names such as "Anglo-Saxon Hoard" do not need to be added as that is too general (Google gives 363,000 hits, of which only a fraction refer to the Staffordshire Hoard). BabelStone (talk) 19:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". Consider "also known as Mercian Hoard" challenged. This bit shouldn't be put it back into the article until there is some substantial evidence which warrants its inclusion. Something significant, something published, like the rest of information in the article. Things other than passing mentions in blogs, tweets, forums, and personal websites. GoogleNews turns up one hit for "Mercian Hoard", and it's a copy-paste job of this article. That should tell us something right there. Just search GoogleNews: it's easy to find numerous news-stories describing the hoard with different names. So what?

Metabaronic was the first, and the only editor, to add "also known as..." to this article, and I'm not the only editor that has removed that bit. Every edit Metabaronic has made to this article has been concerned with that bit, and the addition of a new "Mercian" category. He's also recently flogged his new "Mercian" wiki-project here on the talkpage, and all his recent edits concern "Mercia". Metabaronic also noted here that "I am Birmingham-based and the term is in common use, particularly by people who want to stress the hoard's proximity to Birmingham (which isn't in Staffordshire)".

I think that this little episode shows how a Wikipedia article can influence the web. Look at the blogs, forums, and that Birmingham news-article, which just copied the lead, and were influenced by this article. We ought to be more careful of what we put in the lead. Especially when things get political and personal. The lead, and alternate names, shouldn't be used to promote local interests, or as a way to 'get the word out'. I don't see how an unbiased editor can get bent out of shape over this. Significant coverage in reliable and neutral sources. That can't be too much to ask for. Everything else in the article seems to follow that principle.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 04:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, my interest is Mercia, which doesn't mean you have to get personal, which I haven't. I have repeatedly supported my edits with additional evidence, and additional clarification. You have blatantly ignored every comment I have made while I have patiently answered your concerns. You are falling foul of Wikipedia's advice to assume good faith by making an ad hominem argument. I'm not, as you imply, promoting a falsehood to "get the word out", I'm just flabbergasted by your persistent and unhelpful attitude in this case. If you must know, I was born in Staffordshire, and I just happen to work in Birmingham. I am absolutely non-political. I've tried very hard to maintain an NPOV throughout this. If you want to do your research about me, check my involvement in other discussions - this is the only case where I've seriously challenged reversions of this kind.

Now, let's have some wikilove, take a wikibreak, and give other contributors the chance to consider this. I'm happy to go with consensus, and as you say the only people reverting here have been you and I (and one unknown IP). Lets come back in a week's time, see what other people have to say, and if they haven't formed a view or haven't expressed a care in the world we can go to dispute resolution.Metabaronic (talk) 07:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, Brianann, I accept that the 1st April article that I quoted is itself quoting Wikipedia (I thought I’d added the Mercian Hoard name after that date, but it appears that it I was restoring it and not adding it for the first time). The Mullaney quote has, however, appeared all over the press, and it is your interpretation of that (as opposed to my own) is therefore what invalidates it.

What you must realise is that there’s an underlying problem here: the official and most common name, undoubtedly and without question, is the Staffordshire Hoard, and on that basis all official stories relating to the find have, since October 2009, been using that title. The few I’ve found that have mentioned it seem to fail your reliability test. I’d have used this quote from a Birmingham Post article by Chris Upton, Senior Lecturer in History at Cardinal Newman College, as it does meet all the criteria (WP:IRS says that “some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control.”): http://www.birminghampost.net/2009/10/21/chris-upton-how-staffordshire-horde-of-gold-eclipsed-matthew-boulton-s-silver-65233-24978552/. Except he can’t spell.

If official sources are consistently referencing the accepted name, this limits the type of evidence that can be put forward. What I don’t know is why you are deleting the alternative name and not just the references, as a citation needed tag would be more constructive. Are you disputing that ‘Mercian Hoard’ is a name that is used, or are you just being pedantic? By trawling google as you have done, you will see that the term ‘mercian hoard’ is being used in blogs by politicians and academics who have been involved in the various debates surrounding the hoard.

If Michael Wilkes, the Lord Mayor of Birmingham, is expressing a preference for the name ‘Mercian Hoard’ and Councillor Martin Mullaney (Birmingham City Council’s Cabinet member for Leisure, Sport and Culture) is lamenting the fact that the name they settled on was the Staffordshire Hoard rather than the Mercian Hoard, this is clear evidence not just that name was in use as an alternative name, and remains in use, but also that there has been a political dimension to the naming of the hoard. One further problem I’ve found with references is it is often called ‘the Mercian gold hoard’, ‘the Mercian treasure hoard’ or ‘the Mercian royal hoard’. The fact that some bloggers are also using the term interchangeably, or even in preference to its official name, should also be seen as evidence that the term's use as an alternative name hasn’t been made up.

References aside, what is your objection to the term Mercian hoard being as knowledged as in common use? The fact that it is (and has been confirmed as such by every academic involved) a Mercian hoard, surely differentiates it from the other things it may have been called prior to validation by expert testimony. It is not Viking (too early; south of the Danelaw), not Saxon (the area was settled by Angles, and the Saxons never fought any battles that far north), not Celtic (too late) and certainly not Barbarian (again, too late).

The hoard is also referred to as the ‘Anglo-Saxon hoard’ (http://birminghamculture.org/news/anglo-saxon-hoard-saved-), but the reason this is not being put forward as an alternative name is that the same term is used for the Sutton Hoo treasure, suggesting its use as a more generic term for any anglo-saxon treasure find emerging from this period.Metabaronic (talk) 20:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

You haven't shown that "Mercian hoard" is an alternative name. One blog posting is all you have shown. Come on. One sentence in that blog starts off with "The Mercian Horde". I think he is just being illustrative, and adding some variety to his text. Look at the other ways he describes it: he calls it the "Mercian treasure"; the "Staffordshire Horde"; "the Horde". You are only picking the one you are fond of. I think we've already covered this: the hoard has been described loads of different ways. It is popularly known by one name though. I don't think cherry picking someone's blog is the right way to add "also known as" into an article. Especially when the whole thing about the "alternate name" is personal and political.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 08:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

"Style 2"

...contemporaneous with the 'Style 2' gold and garnet pommels ... "Style 2" will not bring an image to mind even for moderately well-prepared Wikipedia readers. Can this phrase be extended by some description?--Wetman (talk) 03:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• See Migration_Period_art#Animal_style for a discussion of Salin's styles I, II and III.86.148.49.157 (talk) 15:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Wetman's right though, "style 2" will not be a useful description to most of the people who read this article. Nev1 (talk) 17:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not clear to me that 'Style 2' here refers to Salin's Style II ("animals are whole beasts, elongated and intertwined into symmetrical shapes") as Brooks is talking about "gold and garnet pommels and other sword jewels", so I have simply removed the term "Style 2". BabelStone (talk) 22:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Good stuff. The new table is a bit ugly looking. I think this could be resolved by shrinking the columns so there's not so much white space though. I'm not sure why there's so much empty space in the first place, otherwise I'd try to fix it myself. Nev1 (talk) 22:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Try removing style="width: 100%" from the top of the table, and see if that is better for you (I personally like tables full-width, which is why I put that in, but I'm happy to change it if you think the columns are too wide). BabelStone (talk) 22:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It is Salin's Style II - the animals referred to are only part of the repertoire in Style II. The general style of the decoration of the gold and garnet pommels is entirely consistent with Salin's Style II. Trust me on this...86.159.192.150 (talk) 18:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• The direct article is Animal style, though the text is pretty much the same in both. Unfortunately the writer there had confused the styles, describing Style III as Style I, though the description of Style II was appropriate, if not very evocative. I agree with the isp above that Style II is the style of most if not all of the hoard. Johnbod (talk) 07:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Image

What's with the letter 'R' in the picture? - has someone been having fun in photoshop? the original artifact can be seen here http://www.staffordshirehoard.org.uk/artefacts/gallery/?set=72157622378376316&page=4 Bryndlefly (talk) 05:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you are right. That image does not appear, so far as I can see, in any of the official sets of images of the hoard. I think it's a hoax. I'll remove it, pending any authoritative view from those more knowledgeable than me. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

You beat me to it by about five seconds. The image comes from flicker here. And was created for the blog here. So not a hoax but an inapropriate image for WP. Colincbn (talk) 06:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. I don't have a flickr account - someone who does may wish to point this out on that site. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't have one either, but I added a note to the image description on the Wikimedia Commons page of the image here. Colincbn (talk) 07:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Thankfully the image was "only" up here for seven weeks or so (since this). Oops! Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I wonder where free images of the Hoard are available? I would like to replace this one with a similar image. Hopefully I can find one without a "trademark" on it. Colincbn (talk) 07:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Minor grin here. I made the Photoshop file, but had no idea it was up on wikimedia for seven weeks, until victuallers2 left a comment. I also shot the original image, though. If you are still in dire need of CC images, that's available here http://www.flickr.com/photos/vintagedept/4476503731/. (best crop it though) - Ann Wuyts/Vintagedept —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.204.152 (talk) 22:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Fantastic! If someone does not beat me to it I will put this up in the next few hours. I would do it now but I am currently in a hotel and am running late for the Tokyo Game Show... Colincbn (talk) 00:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Collection of recent (March 2010) papers on Hoard from symposium

See http://www.finds.org.uk/staffshoardsymposium/

Many useful scholarly papers can be found at that location, and they seem to post-date most of the references currently used in the article.

Why not found earlier ?

There is a lot of info on this discovery. A question not addressed though is that If farmers have been working this field for hundreds of years, why was it not discovered earlier ?

I hope this question and possible explanations can be added to the article

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.18.239 (talk) 08:35, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I suspect that the simple answer may be that, although successive modern-day farmers may have ploughed to a depth of a foot or more, archaeological remains may lie deeper and will be revealled only by a metal detector or other penetrating sensor. But you are very weclome to search any source in the public domain and suggest material for addition to the article, as appropriate. It is generaly easier, however, to find evidence and opinion as to why an event DID happen, in contrast to why an event DID NOT happen. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

"The immediate locality remained unenclosed waste with no field-names recorded even in the middle of the 19th century. [...] Indeed, travellers in the late 17th century were still afraid to pass this way and Knaves Castle, a kilometre or so west of the hoard spot and a site first recorded in the 14th century (Horovitz 2005), had a reputation, according to Plot (1686), of being a place where watch was kept to guard travellers crossing the heath (formerly wooded) - presumably from highwaymen and the like." Della Hooke, The Landscape of the Staffordshire Hoard, The Staffordshire Hoard Symposium (March 2010). --dab (𒁳) 12:21, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

{{refimprove}}

I have tried to improve the article, as even in 2016 I still found it mostly based on 2009 journalism, and was itself using cringe-inducing journalistic style. I removed references to ""interpretative comments from Nicholas Brooks. Retrieved 22 December 2009" and "Kevin Leahy's Interpretation. Retrieved 26 September 2009" Both pages have been judiciously removed from staffordshirehoard.org.uk, as they were never intended as anything other than preliminary comments as the news of the discovery was first announced. Brooks has a properly published paper from 2010 on the same topic, while I haven't found anything to replace the comments by Leahy. --dab (𒁳) 12:29, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Staffordshire Hoard. 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 User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive {newarchive} to http://www.staffordshirehoard.org.uk/file_download/5/summaryofhoard.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

244 bags?

The article says that in the first five days after discovery "enough gold objects were recovered from the soil to fill 244 bags." It also says that a total of 5.1 kg of gold was found at the site. I may be missing something, but I don't see how these two statements can be reconciled, even if all 5.1 kg of gold was recovered in the first five days. Were these exceptionally tiny bags (each holding about 1 milliliter of gold)? CodeTalker (talk) 02:46, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes (milliliters of gold?). Each fragment got it's own little plastic bag - you know, like on tv cop shows. Johnbod (talk) 03:38, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

If that's the case, the wording, especially the word "fill", seems odd. It conjures up images of hundreds of shopping bags overflowing with gold. If each object was in a separate bag, perhaps simply "244 individual gold objects were recovered"? CodeTalker (talk) 17:18, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Agree. Have changed. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:33, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

“Female Uses”

Does anyone know why the sentence, “The artefacts are nearly all martial in character and contain no objects specific to female uses,” uses the word “female” to characterize “uses?” If this terminology is something found in a source document, I propose the word “female” should be put in quotes. If not, I propose it should be replaced with something clearer and less potentially offensive like “domestic” or “daily” if that’s what the sentence means. In short, I don’t think we should be using the word “female” to denote “domestic” or to contrast with “martial.” Lin Zexu (talk) 00:18, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

It means no female jewellery or or other objects used by females. Except for usually utilitarian knives, AS artefacts are pretty strongly gendered. Your concerns are unwarranted. Johnbod (talk) 02:25, 28 March 2021 (UTC)