Comments on records

  • VESSEL
David Calow wrote @ 17:41:45 @ 19th March 2014.

I have a similar item from Surrey (not yet recorded). We think it may be a scale pan fixing not a steelyard weight.

About: Vessel BERK-873B70
Roman West Berkshire

  • VERVEL
Ian Richardson wrote @ 15:06:38 @ 27th February 2014.

Hi Helen, I think you are right to be suspicious of describing this item as a vervel - there aren't any examples that I know of with this shape, and its weight would make it very heavy for a simple ring vervel without a shield. What does the inscription say? Cheers, Ian

About: Vervel CAM-950533
Medieval Cambridgeshire

  • SPOON
Garry Crace wrote @ 09:24:44 @ 22nd February 2014.

Or perhaps the terminal end of a seal top spoon

About: Spoon SWYOR-BCB475
Post medieval Rotherham

Eleanor Ghey wrote @ 14:28:22 @ 12th February 2014.

Duplicate entry for the ring is WILT-696257

About: Hoard WILT-DEB017
Roman Wiltshire

  • BELL
Sandie Williams wrote @ 17:56:42 @ 6th February 2014.

Hi, for my MA (Archaeology) dissertation I created a catalogue and typology of Romano-British bells, and can confirm that this is indeed Roman. It is of my Type 5 Shouldered bells. Parallels can be found at Hambleden Roman Villa, Bucks; Catterick; Richborough 150; Wroxeter 122, Carrawburgh Roman fort and York 6323. If you need them, I'm sure I can pull out the full references. There is no fixed date, so 1C - 4th C AD.

About: Bell SF-947455
Medieval Suffolk

  • SPOON
Garry Crace wrote @ 23:52:45 @ 29th January 2014.

This looks very much like a post medieval coat peg/hanger. The iron staining is where the screw part attached for fixing into wood

About: Spoon NLM-564E12
Post medieval Lincolnshire

  • DAGGER
Andrew Rogerson wrote @ 18:04:32 @ 29th January 2014.

Dear Katie, is this not a furniture fitting, a drawer handle backplate, cf. Margeson 1993, nos. 487-8?? Cheers, Andrew R.

About: Dagger HAMP-71E6F6
Post medieval Hampshire

  • FURNITURE FITTING
Adrian Marsden wrote @ 17:29:25 @ 18th January 2014.

This looks like a fragment of a Post Medieval key hole cover

About: Furniture fitting PUBLIC-F02348
Post medieval East Sussex

  • STYLUS
Kevin Leahy wrote @ 15:36:41 @ 3rd January 2014.

I think that this is the shank from a rolled sheet metal pin, (cf Meols, Pl. 46, No. 3093). These are dated to the 16th century.

About: Stylus SUSS-305C44
Roman West Sussex

  • STYLUS
Kevin Leahy wrote @ 15:17:27 @ 3rd January 2014.

I think that 'AWL' might be a safer and more accurate identification. The date range would extend from the Early Bronze Age to Recent.

About: Stylus YORYM-080053
Roman North Yorkshire

  • JETTON
Robert Webley wrote @ 17:25:41 @ 20th December 2013.

Thank you for making these comments, Sally. I have duly corrected the record.

About: Jetton KENT-8D6D44
Medieval Kent

  • HORSE TRAPPING
Dot Boughton wrote @ 15:53:30 @ 20th November 2013.

Hi, the hexagonal cross-section suggests that this is post-medieval or early modern curtain ring - or ring of other function, not prehistoric or Roman.

About: Horse trapping LANCUM-CA67F2
Roman Lancashire

  • UNIDENTIFIED OBJECT
Dot Boughton wrote @ 15:19:15 @ 20th November 2013.

Hi, this is a tanged and collared chisel probably of Late Bronze Age date, ie ca 1000-800BC.

About: Unidentified object WMID-18C2F1
Bronze age Staffordshire

  • AXE
Dot Boughton wrote @ 13:51:36 @ 20th November 2013.

Hi, what kind of axe does this fragment come from? Socketed axes are very rare here in the North West and I would be interested what this one came from. The image is not clear and with only one view it is difficult for me to date it or confirm identification.

About: Axe LANCUM-099711
Bronze age Cumbria

  • TORC
Dot Boughton wrote @ 13:43:34 @ 20th November 2013.

Hi, this does not look like a characteric Iron Age torc fragment. I would probably record this as post-medieval or modern unidentified object as I don't think it is prehistoric. Also, which disc does the note refer to?

About: Torc LANCUM-0BADC6
Bronze age Cumbria

  • RING
Dot Boughton wrote @ 13:33:41 @ 20th November 2013.

Hi, having studied this period (LBA/EIA) in quite great detail I am doubtful that this ring can be dated exactly to 1000-300BC. I think a much wider date range for this would be advisable as it is not certainly from the Late Bronze/Early Iron Age transition or the Iron Age. I hope this helps, Dot

About: Ring LANCUM-93AB32
Bronze age Cumbria

  • METAL WORKING DEBRIS
Dot Boughton wrote @ 13:22:23 @ 20th November 2013.

Hi, I have studied the LBA/EIA transition for a number of years now, but have not come across metalworking debris that could be accurately dated to the transition period. How come this was dated so accurately? Were there any finds associated? Thanks! Dot

About: Metal working debris LANCUM-00C632
Bronze age Cumbria

  • PIN
Dot Boughton wrote @ 12:25:30 @ 20th November 2013.

Hi, what are you basing your identification on? This looks like a copper alloy pin fragment to me, but BA pins in this area are very rare and even in the south of the country they are mainly identified using their heads/terminals. This looks like a stem fragment to me (the picture is not too clear) and it may be more accurate to give this a much wider date range and a 'possible' for the object identification as 'pin'. Hope this helps, Dot.

About: Pin LANCUM-3C9335
Bronze age Cumbria

  • TORC
Dot Boughton wrote @ 12:17:47 @ 20th November 2013.

Hi, I am not sure if this is a torc - I didn't think that iron was used in ornaments and I have not come across any beaded torcs or bracelets with iron. If the iron residue suggests an iron terminal a linch pin may be a better id for this objects. Hope this helps, Dot.

About: Torc LANCUM-4C22E6
Iron age Cumbria

  • MANUFACTURING DEBRIS
Dot Boughton wrote @ 12:10:34 @ 20th November 2013.

Hi, I just was going to make a comment, but see that I already did - a year ago! I just found this looking for something else... can you change it using the description and dating from here: YORYM-79C122 please? Thanks!

About: Manufacturing debris LANCUM-1E7BE6
Bronze age Cumbria

  • MOUNT
Dot Boughton wrote @ 10:38:55 @ 20th November 2013.

I think this maybe part of a post-medieval chafing dish. Like PUBLIC-9E5051

About: Mount LANCUM-A0D2A0
Early medieval Cambridgeshire

Joe wrote @ 13:22:58 @ 5th November 2013.

It appears to me that the two circular marks on the base are finger marks when the vessel was dipped in to the slip.

About: Vessel BH-C10C90
Roman Central Bedfordshire

  • BRASS
John Davis wrote @ 14:54:45 @ 28th October 2013.

This item has now been published in: J. Davis: 'A Palimpsest Gnomon', BSS Bull., 25(i), 28-29 (Mar 2013). which shows its arrangement as a sundial gnomon.

About: Brass SF-71BFE4
Medieval Suffolk

  • COIN
Graham Vickers wrote @ 09:58:33 @ 22nd October 2013.

The association of this type, Type 48, with the Series H coinage of Hamwic (Southampton) was made before finds such as this showed that it was not a Hampshire coinage.

About: Coin LIN-71A5A8
Early medieval Lincolnshire

  • APPLE CORER
Paul Stokes wrote @ 15:03:28 @ 7th October 2013.

This would not be a very good tool for coring apples because it's copper alloy, it would turn the apple greeny brown, bone corers don't stain the apple. A suggestion for this tool would be it was used to de-flesh bones, it looks to have had a handle like a chisel

About: Apple corer HAMP-475323
Post medieval Wokingham

  • COIN
Bernard SOBRA wrote @ 06:39:16 @ 3rd October 2013.

Hello PAS, THis is RIC 297 (observe legend in J3). Reduced siliqua. Best regards Siliquae

About: Coin HAMP-274C05
Roman Hampshire

  • COIN
Bernard SOBRA wrote @ 06:24:50 @ 3rd October 2013.

Hello PAS, With the legend "-VS PF AVG", just HONORIVS and ARCADIVS have one. So this "VIRTVS-ROMANORVM" siliqua come from the house of Theodosivs... From 383 to 420. The small letter "o" of the right of the observ' legend give "Honorivs" as emperor on the observ face. Best regards Siliquae

About: Coin DUR-F286D3
Roman East Riding Of Yorkshire

  • POT
Graham Hill wrote @ 12:28:23 @ 29th September 2013.

Excellent photo of the decoration. I thought the sherd was orientated 90 degrees to your interpretation. On the photo the surface becomes more lumpy from the interior inclusions to the right and the diagonal lines finish at this without an attempt at a scratched boundary line. I think that the decoration is a horizontal band with an undecorated unslipped surface below to the base. The very fine doubled lines are what could be produced with a flint burin.

About: Pot CORN-C2A644
Neolithic Cornwall

  • HARNESS PENDANT
Tom Redmayne wrote @ 20:09:17 @ 20th September 2013.

There are elements to this harness pendant that are very similar to one that I found and recorded in 2011 as Early Medieval. PUBLIC-1FCD40 I would suggest that this object also dates to this earlier period and is of similar design and style.

About: Harness pendant BH-FC86B4
Medieval Bedford

  • CHOPPER
Graham Hill wrote @ 07:40:13 @ 19th September 2013.

The flaking technology appears consistent with that of a hand axe and is not expedient. Only the condition of the patina and flint type differ from a small reference collection of Lower Palaeolithic hand axes that the object is kept with in a private collection. I was with the finder and unlucky not to see it first!

About: Chopper CORN-00B3F7
Mesolithic Cornwall

1 - 30 of 1,079 records.

This page is available in: xml rss atom json representations.

Social Bookmarking: