Recent Posts31
Resources / Re: Recent Discoveries of Tetrarchic Hoards from Roman Britain
« Last post by Heliodromus on March 30, 2024, 03:23:08 PM »There's also a free PDF version available, which apparently only differs in having lower resolution photos (but OTOH, you can copy them, which is useful).
https://britishmuseum.iro.bl.uk/concern/books/c640c432-9184-49eb-9676-28f95b671655?locale=en
The BM's server seems to be overloaded, but I tried a few dozen times over a couple of days and was finally able to get it. Might be less load late at night, perhaps.
The images, while small, are still quite serviceable, such as attached one from the Tomares hoard.
There was one piece of info I wasn't aware of about the Rauceby hoard, which is that in the (limestone lined) pit the pot was buried in there was some burnt organic matter underneath the pot, which they are suggesting may have been some sort of (sacrificial) offering. The authors also note that the limestone blocks covering the pot were very similar to those lining the pit, suggesting it was buried all at once. I still find it hard to believe this was a votive offering though, as opposed to being buried for safekeeping, perhaps while the owner went off to war (never to return).
One thing I noticed about the BM's numbering scheme for the Rauceby coins is that they are numbered by type, not by specimen. When I bought my Rauceby coin (RIC 66 - London Constantine) I was told it was BM # 102, so was initially surprised that this report/book illustrates a different coin for # 102. I then realized that the hoard had 11 specimens of RIC 66 (!!) all listed as part of type/number 102. Quite a wide weight variation of ~2g among these 11 specimens, with mine the heaviest at 11.3g.
It's really a shame that the Rauceby finders chose to remove the coins ("for safety") from the pot rather than leaving it to the pros who would have recorded the different layers of coins in the pot, which would have helped confirm or refute the theory that the coins were all deposited at the same time.
https://britishmuseum.iro.bl.uk/concern/books/c640c432-9184-49eb-9676-28f95b671655?locale=en
The BM's server seems to be overloaded, but I tried a few dozen times over a couple of days and was finally able to get it. Might be less load late at night, perhaps.
The images, while small, are still quite serviceable, such as attached one from the Tomares hoard.
There was one piece of info I wasn't aware of about the Rauceby hoard, which is that in the (limestone lined) pit the pot was buried in there was some burnt organic matter underneath the pot, which they are suggesting may have been some sort of (sacrificial) offering. The authors also note that the limestone blocks covering the pot were very similar to those lining the pit, suggesting it was buried all at once. I still find it hard to believe this was a votive offering though, as opposed to being buried for safekeeping, perhaps while the owner went off to war (never to return).
One thing I noticed about the BM's numbering scheme for the Rauceby coins is that they are numbered by type, not by specimen. When I bought my Rauceby coin (RIC 66 - London Constantine) I was told it was BM # 102, so was initially surprised that this report/book illustrates a different coin for # 102. I then realized that the hoard had 11 specimens of RIC 66 (!!) all listed as part of type/number 102. Quite a wide weight variation of ~2g among these 11 specimens, with mine the heaviest at 11.3g.
It's really a shame that the Rauceby finders chose to remove the coins ("for safety") from the pot rather than leaving it to the pros who would have recorded the different layers of coins in the pot, which would have helped confirm or refute the theory that the coins were all deposited at the same time.
..and what about this Sol?