stella

Oh good! I don't have to be polite anymore! I'm bloody angry as well! The deficiency in the Treasure Act is well documented and, according to a letter in The Times today, a review of the Act was due in 2007 which would have covered such items which fell out of the terms of the original Act. The letter goes on to state: 'We believe, however, that the definition of treasure should be extended without further delay to ensure that public interest is more reliably safeguarded in the future. This can be done by order and does not require primary legislation'. The letter is signed by: Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn (Chair, All-Party Parliamentary Archaeology Group) Lord Howarth of Newport (Vice-Chair) Lord Redesdale (Secretary), House of Lords So, as a start, a short letter of support to Lord Renfrew would not go amiss. In addition, I intend to contact the Tullie House Museum directly to lend support to any further action they might take. Then, I guess, it is Archaeological bodies and publications e.g.British Archaeology, Current Archaeology and the CBA. Asking your local archaeological society to write a leter of protest to the above bodies and their local MP might also be useful. I can only hope that the helmet is such and unusual, important and individual item that public awareness can be raised. Your point about financial speculators buying up such items is an interesting one and makes me even more angry! However, rumour has it that it may have been bought by the Getty Museum which, if true, the Museum should be at least pressurised to allow the Helmet to go on public display preferably at Tullie House! Finally, members of this forum could also write expressing their dismay at such items disppearing into private collections! Good luck!

For those of you who have access to the publication British Archaeology, there is a superb, full page picture of the helmet in the Nov/Dec issue. The detail is superb!

There appears to be little information about the circumstances of this find. From what I can glean, it was found and taken from the ground by a metal detectorist. It was not excavated professionally so much information may have already been lost although I believe that there has now been a preliminary assessment of the field with a view to a fuller assessment later and an investigation of some previously undated nearby earthworks. In addition, the mask was found in 67 pieces and was professionally restored by conservators at Christies Auction House. However:

an additional link to the BBC site which includes a Youtube report on the mask!! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-11287093 This is such a superb piece, that it does deserve to be bought for public display rather than disappear into a private collection

Very interesting article about the find of a very rare Roman helmet-and-face mask: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8000018/Rare-Roman-helmet-and-face-mask-discovered.html "The helmet, with its enigmatic and virtually intact features, would have been worn, possibly with colourful streamers attached to the object, as a mark of excellence by Roman soldiers at cavalry sport parades............... Excellent photos as well!

Hi Klingan Current Archaeology publish a 'Digs' supplement each year in spring. It is a good, comprehensive guide to available digs in the UK. However, the majority of digs nowadays seem to be either training digs or those you have to pay for as a way of financing the excavation. This does make life difficult for those of us who have a few weeks to spare and who are happy to work for free, paying only for accommodation! The majority of volunteer digs take place in the summer months i.e to coincide with the University holidays. I will see if I can find my copy of the Guide and see if there are any suitable contacts for you as some digs run over several years.

Interesting article and the idea that the 'Round Table' was not a physical table but more of a meeting circle seems logical and plausible. However, despite what the 'camelot historian' says, there is absolutely no proof of this site having any connection with the fabled Arthur. I am surprised that a newspaper like the Telegraph publishes articles such as this without also printing a counter-argument. Reads like a lead-in to a 'sensationalist TV programme to me!

The 'Ancient Britons' do indeed appear to have used soap but not for personal hygiene; it appears to have been mainly used in the washing of wool. There are references on Sumerian tablets c2500 BC of the use of type of soap in the processing of wool. A building in Pompeii has been traditionally identified as a soap factory but the evidence is somewhat sketchy, but a form of soap was used in Roman textile production It does seem that most early soaps were basically a paste and not in the form of 'hard soap' used today. "

More info on this link: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p...467&ps=cprs It includes this rather cryptic/unclear paragraph: 'On June 14, the researchers will launch a Web site with the basic evidence so the public can vote. The vote is a good way of introducing people to the problems of archaeology, Walker says. ' Think those of you on here with specialist knowledge could have quite an imput!

Just had a quick look at the site. Fabulous link! Thanks! Will keep me happy for days!

My problem is with the 'dumbing down' of museums with a few 'carefully' chosen exhibits and basic, simple explanatory text or audio-visual explanations. That's fine as museums have to survive and attract the general public but so often there is very little for those with a more specialist interest or who want in-depth explanations. The only reasonably local museum I know which has managed successfully to get round this problem was at Verulanium (St. Albans). Last time I visited it had the, by now usual, visual setting displays and audio-visual presentations, etc., but, underneath the displays, masses of pullout drawers so if you wanted to study hundreds of different roman keys, fibulae, hairpins, etc., they were readily available. I often feel that many museums are trying to be tourist attractions rather than repositorys and disseminators of in-depth knowledge.

Waves! Please may I be included as well!

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-arch...-From-Rome.html Interesting article discussing several imperial villas including those of Marcus Aurelius, Tiberius, Hadrian and Diocletian

http://www.adnkronos.com/AKI/English/Cultu...d=3.1.444198950 It is only a short article but quite interesting.

At the moment.........cold, wet, aching back, sore knees, numb bum, blistered fingers, stiff neck, and a sinking feeling of 'I'm getting too old for this lark', just about covers it! Am doing one day a week on a domestic Roman site with absolutely nothing to report...yet!

thanks for posting the links Melvadius! The map of Canterbury is especially interesting. I am afraid I am a complete technophobe; am much happier with a trowel than a laptop!

This is in my neck of the woods!:- "WORK on the

Also from the Christian Science Monitor: 'Dr. Price, who is director of the Center for Judaic Studies at the conservative Liberty University in Lynchburg, Va., was the archaeologist on the Chinese-led team in 2008 when this alleged discovery was first made. He says he has

Hi! i've been lurking for a few months and have at last decided to join in. I'm particularly interested in Roman history so I suppose this is a good place to hang out! Love Rome and have been lucky enough to visit 8 or 9 times. On of my favourite places to visit is the Mithraeum under San Clemente as it is usually possible to be alone down there so the atmosphere is unbelievable! Am equally happy wandering the ruins just building them up in my mind. Was also lucky enough to visit the Domus Aurea twice. Have also participated in the excavation of two villas in England...just getting down and dirty!