Posts: 5,739 Location: Wichita, Kansas
Tue 21 Jan, 2014 11:06 pm
| Hadrian Coffin wrote: |
If anyone misinterpreted my remark, I apologise. I was not insinuating anyone here was ignorant --or 14. I do not know any of you. I was simply trying to emphasise the point that we do not know who is answering this type of question.
In regard to Patrick Kelly, while I agree there are plenty of 'blindly ignorant' people in archaeology, and academia.. this is very dependent on the type of institution, and the subject matter being discussed. There are blindly ignorant people everywhere, and -usually- these people are not found in academic circles. I have met far more people who are ignorant outside of archeology than I have within it. It's just museum workers, and archaeologists, are usually quite specialised.. with a very narrow depth of knowledge. |
I agree with your initial point, and I think you're stating the obvious when you mention societies collective ignorance. There's really no need to segue the conversation into a defensive posture. I'll give Finn the benefit of the doubt and assume he's a reasonably intelligent human being, who isn't going to take information obtained from an unknown source on a discussion forum as imperical. On the other hand, he just might find something that can point him in the right direction.
Posts: 1,903 Location: Toronto
Wed 22 Jan, 2014 6:23 am
It might be useful to see a side-view of the cross. Using
Oakeshott's lingo, all the crosses associated with 13th century D pommels that I have seen are either finely tapered type 1 (square or round cross section) or type 2. This one looks like a simpler 1a. That might be another clue that's not part of the 'family' associated with 13th century.
Posts: 219 Location: Scotland
Wed 22 Jan, 2014 12:53 pm
If both the coin hoard and the sword hilt are integral to the find and if the hoard contains a coin securely dated to 1074 (two big 'IFs' I know) then the whole deposition must date after 1074, and to judge by the other items then closer to that date rather than later, so around 1080- 1100. Therefore even if the sword was new when deposited then Type D pommels must have seen the light a lot earlier than has so far been assumed - early 12th century or even late 11th.
Neil
You
cannot post new topics in this forum
You
cannot reply to topics in this forum
You
cannot edit your posts in this forum
You
cannot delete your posts in this forum
You
cannot vote in polls in this forum
You
cannot attach files in this forum
You
can download files in this forum