03-03-2005, 07:27 AM
Pages: 1 2
Anonymous
03-03-2005, 10:18 AM
That's new to me. Very interesting though. Anyone more ideas? Archeological evidence?<br>
<br>
Jurgen/Quintilianus <p></p><i></i>
<br>
Jurgen/Quintilianus <p></p><i></i>
03-03-2005, 10:26 AM
What's the whole picture? <p>Greets<br>
<br>
Jasper</p><i></i>
<br>
Jasper</p><i></i>
03-03-2005, 10:35 AM
Very interesting. For the accuracy of the depiction compare the propeller-like fittings on the belt with the well-known examples found on several spots in the Roman world. Remembers me to the tetrarchs, but obviously is not taken from them. <p></p><i></i>
03-03-2005, 10:38 AM
Hi Arahne,<br>
<br>
Yes I have. It's obviously Late Roman, and I seem to recall similar strap-ends. I'd say 4th century, judging from the propellor-shaped belt-stiffeners.<br>
<br>
The closest image I can find is this one:<br>
<img src="http://www.fectio.org.uk/articles/hwb/21.6.jpg" style="border:0;"/><br>
from Traprain Law.<br>
What image is this detail from? <p>Valete,<br>
Valerius/Robert<br>
[url=http://www.fectio.org.uk/" target="top]fectienses seniores[/url]</p><i></i>
<br>
Yes I have. It's obviously Late Roman, and I seem to recall similar strap-ends. I'd say 4th century, judging from the propellor-shaped belt-stiffeners.<br>
<br>
The closest image I can find is this one:<br>
<img src="http://www.fectio.org.uk/articles/hwb/21.6.jpg" style="border:0;"/><br>
from Traprain Law.<br>
What image is this detail from? <p>Valete,<br>
Valerius/Robert<br>
[url=http://www.fectio.org.uk/" target="top]fectienses seniores[/url]</p><i></i>
03-03-2005, 11:51 AM
Serbia, I guess?<br>
Very, very interesting, an look at the sword with that scabbard slider!<br>
Probably an emperor, isn't it?<br>
<br>
Aitor <p></p><i></i>
Very, very interesting, an look at the sword with that scabbard slider!<br>
Probably an emperor, isn't it?<br>
<br>
Aitor <p></p><i></i>
Anonymous
03-03-2005, 04:02 PM
1 km to the south-west from Berkasovo site. Burial chamber with marble sarcophagus. This is from the one of the panels. I have never seen that belt ends like this. Especially that it can not be pulled through the Ring buckle. I think that it is something like attached medallion (?). And Aitor, if I read you right, you think that circle on the scabard is button for unlocking the sword from the scabbard? <p></p><i></i>
03-03-2005, 06:09 PM
Very interesting! Any chance of getting a photo of the whole figure posted? Is the head clear, and is he helmeted, bareheaded, or wearing a "pillbox" hat? Is this an officer, or an emperor?<br>
<br>
Come to think of it, I've seen lots of circular appliques, surrounded by florate petals, of the same size and appearence as the strap-end of this figure in piles of metal-detected material from the Balkans. I often pull Roman belt plates, buckles, propeller stiffiners and other fittings from these same piles, but always tossed the florate discs back because I couldn't place them as obviously Roman. Now I'll have to go back and take another look...<br>
<br>
T. Flavius Crispus<br>
Leg VI VPF<br>
CA, USA <p></p><i></i>
<br>
Come to think of it, I've seen lots of circular appliques, surrounded by florate petals, of the same size and appearence as the strap-end of this figure in piles of metal-detected material from the Balkans. I often pull Roman belt plates, buckles, propeller stiffiners and other fittings from these same piles, but always tossed the florate discs back because I couldn't place them as obviously Roman. Now I'll have to go back and take another look...<br>
<br>
T. Flavius Crispus<br>
Leg VI VPF<br>
CA, USA <p></p><i></i>
Anonymous
03-03-2005, 07:32 PM
I will post the whole photo soon, in the mean time I can only say that he is an officer. Yes it is a pitty that material from Balkan is coming into piles, well even the Metropolitan Museum bought fibulas stollen from Sirmium's Museum. And such piles are very suspicious, usually from different periods, and sometimes very, very good replicas created from original objects. So, thank you all for your time. <p></p><i></i>
03-03-2005, 08:51 PM
Without launching into the tiresome "private collectors vs. academics" arguments, I'll say that I've seen some of the replicas of which you speak; some are fairly convincing, others less so. But few specially-created replicas find their way into the "piles" I've seen, as it makes no sense to put time and effort into replicating an ancient artifact, only to dump it into a pile of metal-detected scrap metal and sell it for a dollar-per-kilo price. The vast majority of this "stuff" comes from no defined archaeological site, and much of it simply fell off the kit and equipment of the countless armies that trudged back and forth through the Balkans over the centuries. So the question becomes, is it better to just leave the stuff in the ground to decompose, or for some metal detectorist to dig it out, try to make a buck off of it, and have it end up in the hands of a private collector who can recognize it for what it is?<br>
<br>
T. Flavius Crispus<br>
Legio VI VPF<br>
CA, USA <p></p><i></i>
<br>
T. Flavius Crispus<br>
Legio VI VPF<br>
CA, USA <p></p><i></i>
03-04-2005, 08:59 AM
Arahne,<br>
I'd like to see a close-up of that sword but I was meaning nothing like that. Up till now, all the recovered sliders were permanently closed and the strap for hanging the sword either to the belt or to the shoulder (i.e. a baldric) passed through a slit in the slider. That button could be decorative or be related to the way the slider itself was attached to the scabbard. Is there another 'button' below the slider? In case that there would be only one 'button' above the slider (that on the pic) it would recall me those earlier third century metal sliders having a knob-like feature at their upper end...<br>
Above the belt's strap end, don't worry if that portraited on the sarcophagus looks too big to pass through the buckle, in all the real belt sets having strap-ends of that kind that I can remember, the buckle was always wide enough to receive the strap-end through it.<br>
Was the burial chamber plundered? Any remaining grave-goods as to date it? I cannot tell for sure, but the sword hilt seems akin to those of 5th century AD from Nydam and other bogs...<br>
In any case, wow!!!<br>
<br>
Flavius,<br>
I have no right as to judge anybody but I'd like to draw your attention to one vital fact: Competent archaeologists don't dig in search of objects, they dig in search of contexts and contexts are destroyed every time the soil layers are disturbed by developing, ploughing, detectoriing, and plundering in general. Nice objects are saved and end in showcases but all the information originally around them is lost. Poor people from poor countries sell bits of their soul and cultural inheritance to us, the rich people, simply because living and eating everyday is a more urgent matter. The blame is ours, not theirs.<br>
<br>
Aitor<br>
<p></p><i></i>
I'd like to see a close-up of that sword but I was meaning nothing like that. Up till now, all the recovered sliders were permanently closed and the strap for hanging the sword either to the belt or to the shoulder (i.e. a baldric) passed through a slit in the slider. That button could be decorative or be related to the way the slider itself was attached to the scabbard. Is there another 'button' below the slider? In case that there would be only one 'button' above the slider (that on the pic) it would recall me those earlier third century metal sliders having a knob-like feature at their upper end...<br>
Above the belt's strap end, don't worry if that portraited on the sarcophagus looks too big to pass through the buckle, in all the real belt sets having strap-ends of that kind that I can remember, the buckle was always wide enough to receive the strap-end through it.<br>
Was the burial chamber plundered? Any remaining grave-goods as to date it? I cannot tell for sure, but the sword hilt seems akin to those of 5th century AD from Nydam and other bogs...<br>
In any case, wow!!!<br>
<br>
Flavius,<br>
I have no right as to judge anybody but I'd like to draw your attention to one vital fact: Competent archaeologists don't dig in search of objects, they dig in search of contexts and contexts are destroyed every time the soil layers are disturbed by developing, ploughing, detectoriing, and plundering in general. Nice objects are saved and end in showcases but all the information originally around them is lost. Poor people from poor countries sell bits of their soul and cultural inheritance to us, the rich people, simply because living and eating everyday is a more urgent matter. The blame is ours, not theirs.<br>
<br>
Aitor<br>
<p></p><i></i>
03-04-2005, 10:14 PM
Aitor--<br>
<br>
Ah yes, the old "context is everything" argument. I am sure many academics are looking forward to the day when the great Marxist uber-utopia arrives, ropes off every square meter of European earth for eventual archaeological excavation and study (which should take, oh, another four or five millenia or so), and tosses anyone into prison who so much as sticks a shovel in the ground, owns a metal detector, or expresses a desire to collect or study anything outside of their state-designated profession. But until that glorious day comes, the question in many cases will remain, is it better than an object remain undisturbed in the ground until it rots away to nothing in the exceedingly faint hope that it will eventually be discovered in its original context by a properly certified archaeologist, or that it be dug up by an metal detectorist and preserved for future generations by virtue of a private collector?<br>
<br>
In Britain, find contexts are often preserved because of the Trasure Trove law, which allows finders to benefit from their discovered and also gives archaeolgists "first crack" at excavating and aquiring the objects so discovered. In countries with more draconian laws ("you find it, we seize it, you go to jail"), very little gets properly reported because finders know that reporting a significant discovery not only won't be to their benefit, it will likely get them prosecuted. One the one hand, you have a kind of partnership between finders, collectors and academics, and on the other, an elitist war on private collecting that aims to crush it root and branch. Now, which approach works better? In the real world, not some collectivist cloudcuckooland?<br>
<br>
T. Flavius Crispus / Dave Michaels<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p200.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=flaviuscrispus@romanarmytalk>FlaviusCrispus</A> <IMG HEIGHT=10 WIDTH=10 SRC="http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/legiovi/vwp?.dir=/Flavius+photo&.src=gr&.dnm=flavhead2.jpg" BORDER=0> at: 3/5/05 1:26 am<br></i>
<br>
Ah yes, the old "context is everything" argument. I am sure many academics are looking forward to the day when the great Marxist uber-utopia arrives, ropes off every square meter of European earth for eventual archaeological excavation and study (which should take, oh, another four or five millenia or so), and tosses anyone into prison who so much as sticks a shovel in the ground, owns a metal detector, or expresses a desire to collect or study anything outside of their state-designated profession. But until that glorious day comes, the question in many cases will remain, is it better than an object remain undisturbed in the ground until it rots away to nothing in the exceedingly faint hope that it will eventually be discovered in its original context by a properly certified archaeologist, or that it be dug up by an metal detectorist and preserved for future generations by virtue of a private collector?<br>
<br>
In Britain, find contexts are often preserved because of the Trasure Trove law, which allows finders to benefit from their discovered and also gives archaeolgists "first crack" at excavating and aquiring the objects so discovered. In countries with more draconian laws ("you find it, we seize it, you go to jail"), very little gets properly reported because finders know that reporting a significant discovery not only won't be to their benefit, it will likely get them prosecuted. One the one hand, you have a kind of partnership between finders, collectors and academics, and on the other, an elitist war on private collecting that aims to crush it root and branch. Now, which approach works better? In the real world, not some collectivist cloudcuckooland?<br>
<br>
T. Flavius Crispus / Dave Michaels<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p200.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=flaviuscrispus@romanarmytalk>FlaviusCrispus</A> <IMG HEIGHT=10 WIDTH=10 SRC="http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/legiovi/vwp?.dir=/Flavius+photo&.src=gr&.dnm=flavhead2.jpg" BORDER=0> at: 3/5/05 1:26 am<br></i>
03-05-2005, 12:33 AM
Quote:</em></strong><hr>So the question becomes, is it better to just leave the stuff in the ground to decompose, or for some metal detectorist to dig it out, try to make a buck off of it, and have it end up in the hands of a private collector who can recognize it for what it is?<hr><br>
<br>
But is this the real question? I've heard that <em>'If I don't go running around the fields with my lollipop, all this stuff will just decompose</em>' argument before. I'm not sure that it is a valid argument. This 'stuff' often has survived millennia in the earth, a century more won't probably hurt either.<br>
<br>
I AM for a better relation between detectorists and archaeologist. Detectorists are valuable have around, as long as they don't think they know it better (yes, there are some who snub academics as a rule ). I would say, in countries where detectoring is outlawed, don't do it anyway. In countries where one can, work together.<br>
<br>
Quote:</em></strong><hr>Ah yes, the old "context is everything" argument.<hr><br>
There can be none other. A detectorist as a rule is less equipped to judge if the signal he or she gets is from stray finds or from a settlement/grave whatever. Ripping the item out of the ground instead of having archaeologist doing research (geophysics) first <em>will</em> destroy context, which is often more important than the object itself.<br>
I think this is the basic difference between an archaeologist and an MD: the first is context-focused, the latter is totally object-focused.<br>
<br>
Lastly about that private collector, I think they are the real danger here. No, not the mild-mannered interested fella who loves to have some pottery and rusted stuff in a shoebox. I'm thinking of the people who are prepared to pay big bucks (check eBay, you'll see what I mean) for even the small finds. Not only do they ruin it for that first dude by spoiling the market, they put dollar-signs into the eyes of the criminals who don't give a ... about archaeology or proper MD practises and rip everything out of the ground to make money and only that.<br>
<p>Valete,<br>
Valerius/Robert<br>
[url=http://www.fectio.org.uk/" target="top]fectienses seniores[/url]</p><i></i>
<br>
But is this the real question? I've heard that <em>'If I don't go running around the fields with my lollipop, all this stuff will just decompose</em>' argument before. I'm not sure that it is a valid argument. This 'stuff' often has survived millennia in the earth, a century more won't probably hurt either.<br>
<br>
I AM for a better relation between detectorists and archaeologist. Detectorists are valuable have around, as long as they don't think they know it better (yes, there are some who snub academics as a rule ). I would say, in countries where detectoring is outlawed, don't do it anyway. In countries where one can, work together.<br>
<br>
Quote:</em></strong><hr>Ah yes, the old "context is everything" argument.<hr><br>
There can be none other. A detectorist as a rule is less equipped to judge if the signal he or she gets is from stray finds or from a settlement/grave whatever. Ripping the item out of the ground instead of having archaeologist doing research (geophysics) first <em>will</em> destroy context, which is often more important than the object itself.<br>
I think this is the basic difference between an archaeologist and an MD: the first is context-focused, the latter is totally object-focused.<br>
<br>
Lastly about that private collector, I think they are the real danger here. No, not the mild-mannered interested fella who loves to have some pottery and rusted stuff in a shoebox. I'm thinking of the people who are prepared to pay big bucks (check eBay, you'll see what I mean) for even the small finds. Not only do they ruin it for that first dude by spoiling the market, they put dollar-signs into the eyes of the criminals who don't give a ... about archaeology or proper MD practises and rip everything out of the ground to make money and only that.<br>
<p>Valete,<br>
Valerius/Robert<br>
[url=http://www.fectio.org.uk/" target="top]fectienses seniores[/url]</p><i></i>
03-05-2005, 02:04 AM
Aitor--<br>
<br>
OK, we've each said our piece. Now let's agree to disagree on some aspects of this issue, and otherwise work for cooperation and harmony between finders, collectors, trained archaeologists and academics in service of our collective fascination.<br>
<br>
T. Flavius Crispus / Dave Michaels<br>
Leg VI VPF<br>
CA, USA<br>
<br>
www.legionsix.org <br>
<br>
et Freeman & Sear<br>
<br>
www.freemanandsear.com <br>
<br>
<p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p200.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=flaviuscrispus@romanarmytalk>FlaviusCrispus</A> <IMG HEIGHT=10 WIDTH=10 SRC="http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/legiovi/vwp?.dir=/Flavius+photo&.src=gr&.dnm=flavhead2.jpg" BORDER=0> at: 3/5/05 3:20 am<br></i>
<br>
OK, we've each said our piece. Now let's agree to disagree on some aspects of this issue, and otherwise work for cooperation and harmony between finders, collectors, trained archaeologists and academics in service of our collective fascination.<br>
<br>
T. Flavius Crispus / Dave Michaels<br>
Leg VI VPF<br>
CA, USA<br>
<br>
www.legionsix.org <br>
<br>
et Freeman & Sear<br>
<br>
www.freemanandsear.com <br>
<br>
<p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p200.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=flaviuscrispus@romanarmytalk>FlaviusCrispus</A> <IMG HEIGHT=10 WIDTH=10 SRC="http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/legiovi/vwp?.dir=/Flavius+photo&.src=gr&.dnm=flavhead2.jpg" BORDER=0> at: 3/5/05 3:20 am<br></i>
03-05-2005, 03:14 AM
checking ebay I find that there are a whole bunch of people willing to pay "big bucks' for trash. I looked at one dealer who is getting $150 + for several different coins which can be seen to be cast, just by looking at the dealer supplied photo!<br>
<br>
Looking at SEAR you can see the reverse die is not correct for the coin quoted, and you can see some pitting that looks like a hot temperature pour... The CoinForgery discussion list showed several really good "Slavey" reproductions, that are cheaper and look as nice, and don't destroy any historical context. Not that the cast forgeries buried in a cesspit for a few months from Bulgaria and other places destroy any context either,<br>
<br>
Buyer beware!<br>
<p>"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principle is contempt prior to investigation." Herbert Spencer</p><i></i>
<br>
Looking at SEAR you can see the reverse die is not correct for the coin quoted, and you can see some pitting that looks like a hot temperature pour... The CoinForgery discussion list showed several really good "Slavey" reproductions, that are cheaper and look as nice, and don't destroy any historical context. Not that the cast forgeries buried in a cesspit for a few months from Bulgaria and other places destroy any context either,<br>
<br>
Buyer beware!<br>
<p>"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principle is contempt prior to investigation." Herbert Spencer</p><i></i>
Pages: 1 2