Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


T in the Park

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Sign In
Register

Necklace goes on show after 2,000 years in farmer's field



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 20 November 2008
A PIECE of jewellery more than 2,000 years old unearthed by an amateur treasure hunter and sold for £350,000 went on show yesterday.
The gold and silver Iron Age torc, an ancient necklace, was described as the "most valuable single treasure found in Britain in recent times" when it was unveiled at the British Museum to mark publication of the Treasure Annual Report.

The artefact, dubbed the Newark Torc, was found in 2005 by Maurice Richardson in a farmer's field in Newark, Nottinghamshire.

Mr Richardson, 59, said experts initially refused to believe the rare find was genuine.

The torc was bought by Newark and Sherwood Museums Service, with the proceeds split between Mr Richardson and Trinity College, Cambridge, which owns the land.

The Treasure Annual Report said a record 747 objects were reported in 2007. Other finds presented at the museum included a gold and garnet Anglo-Saxon mount and a hoard of more than 3,600 Roman coins.





The full article contains 172 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 19 November 2008 9:34 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

Rulesbutnotrulers,

Federation, not separation 20/11/2008 08:17:30
This Torc is further suggestion a busy British culture and society that existed long before the Romans arrived; and certainly long before Scotland was ever heard of.

All us indigenees are proudly BRITONS!
2

Lianachan,

Highlands 20/11/2008 09:08:04
#1 There's no doubt that there was culture and society in the British Isles long before the Romans, and there were indeed many cultural similarities across the areas for which those periods are well understood. That, by the way, does not include the area that is now Scotland - most of our information about that region comes, ironically, from the Romans and from earlier maps. The archaeological record shows some similarities, but many differences. Where are the brochs or wheelhouses in England, for example? Also, the areas which are well known (mostly in England) show a patchwork of small kingdoms, constantly jostling for power.
In summary: single culture? No, but definately many similarities. One big happy family? Absolutely not.
3

AJ Fife,

20/11/2008 10:01:00
Lianachan 1 Rulesbutnorules 0

The Roman's were able to differentiate between the tough northern Britons and the lilly livered southern lot.
4

John S,

20/11/2008 10:31:41
The 2,000 years gold and silver Iron Age torc photo:: http://tinyurl.com/5aptas
5

Few Against Many,

20/11/2008 10:37:02
AJFife, I think that the chances of you being a pict or original scot are few and far between. With the amount of invasions and migrations this country has had over the years you could quite easily be Gaul Jute, Angle, Norwegian, Danish, Swedish, Irish, English or perhaps the descendant of some exotic slave. I know that even though I consider myself Scottish my Grandmothers madden name was Fleming which would point to her being from Flanders. With the mass migration of people in the ancient world I doubt that you could claim pure decent from picts (Unless you look like Scott Harrison.)
6

Lianachan,

Highlands 20/11/2008 10:44:33
#5 Genetic evidence gathered in the Bristol area, and in the Shetlands, does show that a considerable percentage of the modern populutions of those area are related to the ancient remains that were tested.

The invasion hypothesis is falling (fast!) from favour. It is possible for culture and ideas to move independently of physical people, and this is now considered to be the way that (for example) "Celtic" culture arrived in the British Isles. Of course, there were occassional actual invasions (the Normans, for example) but you can't dismiss totally out of hand the notion that any one individual can be of genuine Pictish descent.
7

Few Against Many,

20/11/2008 10:58:55
That is quite interesting, do you have a link to this evidence? I would like to read more about it.
8

Lianachan,

Highlands 20/11/2008 11:04:32
#7 http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Cheddar-Man

There is some of the Bristol area stuff mentioned there. Google should provide more.
9

Lianachan,

Highlands 20/11/2008 11:16:27
I don't, though, recall seeing our friend from The Kingdom claiming any Pictish descent anyway.
10

Lianachan,

Highlands 20/11/2008 11:42:12
There's a better story about this here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/science/sciencenews/3484377/Metal-detector-mans-350000-Iron-Age-neckband.html

It also happens to mention where in the British Isles the other similar torcs have been discovered. Hardly evidence of a ubiquitous culture.
11

Few Against Many,

20/11/2008 11:53:06
It's a theory no doubt but it could very well be unique to those areas and it could also very well be inaccurate. Even though DNA may point to the people being the same as many of the ancient ancestors of the area that is not to say that they are not Viking, Irish or other. With regards to AJ he was talking about Northern Britons being the ancestors of the Scottish people we are today. I was simply pointing out that Briton has been a melting point of peoples throughout the ages. By the way the Normans never invaded Briton as a migrating people it was simply a regime change. The ruled over the indigenous people already on the isle.
12

Lianachan,

Highlands 20/11/2008 12:23:10
#11 The Cheddar Man is many thousands of years old, considerably pre-dating "Vikings" and suchlike. I don't recall seeing AJ talk about modern northern Scots being descended from their ancient counterparts. He merely said that the Romans could differentiate between the southern and northern populations. This is true. They also further differentiated, in terms in tribes, within the "northern" and (particularly) "southern" groups. The British Isles have been a melting pot, certainly, but the picture is becoming clearer as further research is carried out and long-familiar theories are discarded. There was never, not now, not 2,000 years ago, a single "British" people.

Normans, yes, it was a bad example. That was very much a replacement of the aristocracy, and probably affected the farmer in the field very little.
13

Few Against Many,

20/11/2008 12:57:34
Vikings was a bad example but the point still stands. With regards to AJ he did say 'tough northern Britons and the lilly livered southern lot.' alluding to the Northerns being the ansesters of the Nation today. Anyway I feel we are bickering over nothing. Thanks for the links this is an area that I am intrested in and I enjoyed reading it.
14

Lianachan,

Highlands 20/11/2008 13:06:33
#13 Well, you're welcome. You'd probably enjoy the books of Francis Pryor, particularly "Britain B.C.".
15

P Rayner.,

Latin America 20/11/2008 14:53:13
Few and Lianachen. Heartening contributions from you both.What I find somewhat puzzling is the discrepancy between the population sizes of England and Scotland? Assuming the parallel begining of substantial human habitation of these islands I should have thought population sizes to be much closer. The fact that population has by and large preferred the southern lands certainly indicates to me that, except for very few individuals, the peoples of these islands cannot be separated in any meaningful way.
16

Lianachan,

HIghlands 20/11/2008 15:22:01
#15 England has far more habitable land than Scotland. A lot of Scotland is upland, and many areas have poor soil. Not that much great farming land by comparison. There were also the clearances and whatnot of course, when large areas of the Highlands were heavily depopulated, with thousands and thousands of people being cleared, but it is mostly a reault of the difference in landscapes.
17

P Rayner.,

Latin America. 20/11/2008 17:51:39
16. I´m in Peru,just returned from lunch. Clearly the wealth gathering opportunities made the southern lands for all the peoples of these islands more attractive. I suspect this ceased to be the case two hundred or soyears ago when,I suspect,argriculture was replaced by industry, which had a similar effect.You´ll doubtless concur that despite inferences of Celtic north and Saxon south, my family having its ancient origins in the Rhineland,a bit of a myth? If this is the case it seems as though an opportunity at the time of Union was missed to make Britain pre eminent.
18

Lianachan,

Highlands 21/11/2008 08:36:11
#17 It's not as simple as just saying that a "Celtic" north (Celticness iteself is a myth) and a Saxon south is a myth. The fact that culture and blood move independently of each other really contributes to this. Even I in this century, as a Scottish Highlander, have very little culturally in common with somebody from, say, Sussex.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.