Talk:Risley Park Lanx

message: The following is a list of key sources I had only limited access to. Full access would allow help anyone write a fuller treatment of the Risley Park Lanx. Hope it helps.  Aukker (talk) 20:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking of sources, you might want to reconsider if the blog of Erin the Archeogoddess is a reliable source (although I completely, totally, positively understand her predicament ;) Rosenknospe (talk) 10:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Point taken, she's gone. I was just trying to contrast the pontification of the Museum guy. Not just in terms of opinion given, but in, I dunno, the socio-politics of who made it. As opinions both strike me as of equal value, and all the more useful when put together. By-the-by I note from the Citation templates that among the plethora of possibilities newsgroups and, gasp, press releases can be cited. Anyway, no argument here, she's gone. Aukker 05:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sourceful Thinking

message: "Possibly being deliberately cut to improve the quality"
I've had a look at this sentence in para 3, as it seems to have misinterpreted its source, the abstract of the article by Johns and Painter. The sense given in the source is that the lanx was probably 'recast' sometime before its rediscovery, as it was originally discovered in pieces. As it is, the wikipedia article is suggesting that the lanx was somehow further broken in pieces to "improve the quality", which frankly makes no sense. In any case, this part of the sentence should probably be removed entirely, as the issue of whether or not the lanx was recast before rediscovery is no longer important, as it was proved to be a fake.
:You're absolutely right - I have conflated description of the original with the rediscovery! Deleted that bit as you suggested. However, the notion of recasting is important for later, in that it's part of the complicated interpretations that went on re authentication. (Pretty much covered in Rediscovery I guess.) One thing I'm not sure of is reference in the press to the family having "welded" the pieces together. Perhaps they mean family historically. Aukker 04:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd guess that the faked provenance stated that the fragments were bought at the estate sale mentioned in the forged histories of other pieces - perhaps the catalogue included some very general item such as a lot of 'roman silver' - and were put back together by the (present-day) family in an effort to cover the obviously modern elements of the piece. But this is just a guess. If you're keen on getting the backstory, you could always mail the journalist who wrote the piece - they may have further notes.Svejk74 11:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The provenance in this case was a will, the catalogue scam came later. Details which I've now added in and made clearer. So re the lanx, one article says 'found' the other says 'will' (ie inherited), which seems contradictory. I've just assumed it was found/welded historically then passed on. Aukker (talk) 08:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recasting, broken, smelted

message: A photo of the Risley Park lanx, and also, for comparison the Corbridge Lanx (or, by the by, any other lanx).  This latter one I believe might be a good deal easier as its on display, though the Risley was too, once. 
This is always going to be a rather dry article, so anything else imaginative would be appreciated. Like say, a photo of William Stukeley's drawings; or if you like to spend your weekend melting down Roman silver coins, well that'd be good too. cheers Aukker (talk) 22:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Photos