Talk:Leekfrith torcs/Archive 1

Archive 1

Picture

Very nice of Staffs CC to release the picture, but do we need an OTRS ticket? I'm a bit puzzled why the BM specifies they were probably worn by women, as Celtic torcs are usually seen as unisex, with the evidence pointing to use by males, where there is any. Johnbod (talk) 15:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

ok, "It is thought by some authors that the torc was mostly an ornament for women until the late 3rd century BC, when it became an attribute of warriors.[14] However, there is evidence for male wear in the early period; in a rich double burial of the Hallstatt period at Hochmichele, the man wears an iron torc and the female a necklace with beads...." from Torc. I should try remembering what I write. Johnbod (talk) 15:44, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Congrats

Just wanted to say well done to all editors involved in getting this article up and to a decent quality so quickly after its public announcement. We in the archaeological community are still buzzing about it, so it's great to see it having a useful main space presence already. Barnstars surely deserved! Zakhx150 (talk) 17:39, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

if you are an archaeologist, could you provide us with actual references so we can replace the journalistic ones (Guardian, BBC) as quickly as possible? --dab (𒁳) 11:39, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Iron Age?

"400–250 BC" was maybe the very end of the Iron Age. I really think there could be a better way to assign these artifacts to a historical period. 173.174.85.204 (talk) 19:11, 1 March 2017 (UTC) Eric

The end of the British Iron Age is the Roman invasion in the 1st century AD. What "better way" do you suggest? Johnbod (talk) 00:50, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

according to the news articles, the torcs aren't from the "British Iron Age" per se, but seem to be imported from the continent. So it would be misleading to call them artefacts of the "British Iron Age". 400-250 is in the first half of the La Tène period. This is right about in the "middle" of the European Iron Age. --dab (𒁳) 11:41, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Nonetheless, imports are very much part of "British Iron Age" life and archaeology. Will people please stop linking to Iron Age, which is rightly mostly about Asia & the NE! We do at least have Iron Age Europe. Johnbod (talk) 18:58, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Iron age art

All significant sources refer to these as "iron age torcs". Category:Celtic art is a member of:

• Category:Ancient art
• Category:Medieval art
• Category:Prehistoric art
• Category:Iron Age art

so adding Category:Iron Age art to this article is not "over categorisation". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:18, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

It is - see WP:OCAT. All "early" (pre-Roman) Celtic art is "Iron Age art", and is just categorized in that sub-cat. That there are other parents is beside the point. Johnbod (talk) 18:23, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Nothing in OCAT says that; see what I wrote, above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:27, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok, it's in the main WP:CAT, "In addition, each categorized page should be placed in all of the most specific categories to which it logically belongs. This means that if a page belongs to a subcategory of C (or a subcategory of a subcategory of C, and so on) then it is not normally placed directly into C. For exceptions to this rule, see Eponymous categories and Non-diffusing subcategories below." Johnbod (talk) 18:38, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

That's a page with a big banner heading, that includes the text "a generally accepted standard... best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". And clearly, it doesn't cover a case like this one where the "most specific category" doesn't differentiate between items that are ancient, medieval, prehistoric or iron age. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:51, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

All the Iron Age items are ancient and prehistoric, by definition. Johnbod (talk) 00:49, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

And medieval? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:30, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Andy, "Celtic art" is just too broad a category, and this article belongs in a narrower category such as "Iron Age art". But an alternative solution that I would favour would be to create categories under "Celtic art" for "Iron Age Celtic art" etc., and only include "Iron Age Celtic art" directly under "Iron Age art". BabelStone (talk) 14:45, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

That is a matter for CFD not here - one problem is where to put intermediate or uncertain pieces. The point for here is that all the many comparable Early Celtic objects are in "Celtic art" and not in "Iron Age art" except through that, and this should be consistent. You will notice there is in fact next to nothing in the main "Iron Age art", and rightly so, as it is not a term much used in art history. In fact, as it stands it is very odd cat, with only one representation of Near Eastern art, let alone Indian etc, because that too is not broken down between Bronze and Iron Age categories (rightly imo). I'm sure there are other more local archaeological Iron Age categories this can go in. Johnbod (talk) 15:13, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I would argue that "Iron Age art" is not an overcategorization; this is the case not because but in spite of "Celtic art" being a subcategory of "Iron Age art": Not all Iron Age art is Celtic art, and not all Celtic art is Iron Age art, hence no overcategorization. If this becomes a problem ("Iron Age" art swamped with articles in the Celtic Iron Age), the solution will be to create a dedicated category "Iron Age Celtic art" or similar. --dab (𒁳) 12:02, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

The best solution, imo, would be to {{merge}} all articles on British Iron Age hoards into a single list article (allowing for WP:SS exceptions for very notable hoards; this article could be summarized in a very short paragraph or table entry in such a summary article). --dab (𒁳) 12:04, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

We already have a List of Iron Age hoards in Great Britain. BabelStone (talk) 12:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, and this needs adding to it. Category issues are best dealt with in category venues. Johnbod (talk) 15:30, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

It seems that there is only one editor who does not think this article should not be in Category:Iron Age art. Accordingly I shall now restore it. Cleanup of categories, if necessary, can be discussed in a more suitable venue, and applied here if and when changes have been made. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:39, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Category contents should be consistent, and none of the other 50-odd articles that deal with Iron Age Celtic art are in that head category. There is no justification for making this an exception. It would make much more sense adding the hundreds of Iron Age objects from Eygpt, the Near East, China etc, which at the moment are not represented at all in the category or its subs. If you want to argue about the category scope, use the category talk or CFD. Johnbod (talk) 19:04, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

What John doesn't say is that he again reverted me. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:32, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Name?

A lot of the references call this the "Leekfrith Iron Age Torcs" rather than just "Leekfrith torcs". Should we follow suit? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. As there are no other Leekfrith torcs to confuse them with, and as torcs are an Iron Age type of ornament, the qualifier "Iron Age" is doubly redundant. Compare also Stirling torcs, Newark torc, Sedgeford Torc, etc. BabelStone (talk) 00:26, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Location

I added the coordinates (3 digits accuracy) as 53.137°N 2.045°W. This is probably reasonably close to the location of the find:

• the torcs were found on the estate of Stuart Heath
• the Heath estate is in Rudyard ("Red Earth Farm") and has "640 acres", i.e exactly one square mile (probably a rounded figure)
• the site is probably within about half a mile of Red Earth Farm and within Leekfrith

This would mean roughly 53.13-53.14 N and 2.04-2.05 W. No accuracy is of course claimed for the final digit. --dab (𒁳) 12:21, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Please avoid original research. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

great, if I had just added the coordinates of Leekfrith, nobody would have raised an eyebrow. But because I actually cited my sources for why I cited the coordinates the way I did, it's suddenly "original research". Please scrutinise geolocation data within what is usual practice on the project .--dab (𒁳) 07:07, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Somebody did indeed added the coordinates of Leekfrith, and I changed the legend of the resulting map to make clear that they represent the settlement of Leekfrith, not the find site. So if you must post such snark, please at least make sure it's not fallacious. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:34, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Quality, tone, references, WP:ENC

" Piecing together how these objects came to be carefully buried in a Staffordshire field will give us an invaluable insight into life in Iron Age Britain."

Why is this article not based on literature, and why do we cite random journalistic soundbites like this? This is not encyclopedic. I tried to improve it, but apparently I was reverted.

"invaluable insight" based on a stray find? Really? So what adjectives would she reserve for, idk, the discovery of an undisturbed tomb, or a previously unknown cemetery or settlement? I can well believe she said this on the phone to a random journalist she wanted to be rid of, but does anyone seriously think this statement has any substance? This is exactly why our articles are suppoed to be based on published literature.

"The torcs were probably worn by wealthy and powerful women, perhaps people from the Continent who had married into the local community"

why do we need to go out of our way to write bad articles? Hey, I know, let's report that the coroner placed the worth of the torcs at "a bob or two", it's in the references! --dab (𒁳) 07:21, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

"go out of our way to write bad articles" Please read and adhere to WP:AGF. The find only having been announced last week, there is as yet no published "literature" to refer to; when there is, no doubt it will be cited as the article develops. You are wrong to imply that sources used fail WP:RS. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:32, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

See the previous section - we now have 10 minutes of video of her explaining just why, very articulately. But I agree we should reference this directly, rather than press scribblers' summaries. Johnbod (talk) 11:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Place made

"The pieces were made in present-day Germany or France" is a direct quote from the Guardian, a reliable source. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:16, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, not that reliable - it's a newspaper journalist with no expertise parroting a press release or news conference we unfortunately don't have access to at present. Note how, despite having a direct quote on the date range from the BM lady, most of them go on distort that straight away. Better sources will emerge. Johnbod (talk) 18:41, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Adjusted text to be more exact per source and attributed the text to deal with possibility there is disagreement on the reliability of the information so we are not using WP's authoritative voice. In general, The Guardian is a RS. We can make changes when and if a more reliable source surfaces.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:20, 1 March 2017 (UTC))

Quoting the Guardian as the source of a piece of scientific information is just plain wrong - are there no available references that attribute this to the scientist who made this assessment? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 00:43, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

"just plain wrong". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:38, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the Guardian (even avoiding anthropomorphising it) did not carry out the research in this sentence. It's not *the* source of the information (although, of course, it can be used as *a* source). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:57, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I wonder if this is "a piece of scientific information". Scientific analysis might be able to give info on where the gold was mined, but I doubt they have messed with the items before a sale to take the necessary samples. And even by this date gold was probably traded/mixed/reused many times in different pieces etc, and remade far from its place of origin. See Broighter Gold for a classic case. I suspect this is a piece of stylistic judgement and archaeological/historical speculation. So much better to distance the remark, and not put it in WPs voice. Johnbod (talk) 14:14, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I see DaB has now changed this to: "According to Julia Farley, curator of British and European Iron Age collections of the British Museum,[4] the torcs were made in the area ...". She is presumably the source, but I'll just note that the reference is to her BM bio, which has nothing about this, or the find. As more info emerges, we should check whether her opinion is quite as emphatic on this point as the press reports suggest. My original change was to something like "considered to be", as blunt certainty on this point seemed questionable in the present state of knowledge. Where people go, goldsmiths can go with them. Johnbod (talk) 15:27, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

As well, the Guardian does not say Julia Farley is the source of the information on where the torcs were made. What the Guardian article does say, to be precise, is, "and, according to Julia Farley of the British Museum, are some of the oldest examples of iron age gold, and of Celtic ornament, ever found in Britain." which is why I sourced to the Guardian rather than Farley.(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC))

See the "Actual press conference" section below. From Farley's video comments, she is indeed more cautious than the Guardian conveys, and says it is "very likely" (from memory) that they were made on the Continent, based on where stylistically similar finds have been made. Johnbod (talk) 12:24, 6 March 2017 (UTC)