|
Title: Sorry Peter , not good again, but an approximate date would do! Post by: hedgehog on May 06, 2009, 07:17:24 PM What can I say, this is how they come up, I can't see much with a magnifying glass , but I was hoping the reverses would give a pointer?
Thanks for looking Peter! Title: Re: Sorry Peter , not good again, but an approximate date would do! Post by: The Doc on May 06, 2009, 10:40:41 PM I'll see if I can come up with something in a day or so...
Title: Re: Sorry Peter , not good again, but an approximate date would do! Post by: DIGGA on May 06, 2009, 11:51:21 PM a bit rough but still a finds a find well done bud
Title: Re: Sorry Peter , not good again, but an approximate date would do! Post by: romano-brit on May 07, 2009, 06:31:58 AM the denarius looks like a septimus servious, dates 2nd cent
and the bronze looks 3rd cent by the style of the headress Title: Re: Sorry Peter , not good again, but an approximate date would do! Post by: hedgehog on May 07, 2009, 07:15:23 AM Thanks Peter and RB/Digga , don't find many around here but they do date to the Romano British occupation of the village , there are no visible signs so the finds give the only evidence of the time the village was occupied throughout the Roman period.
These two came from an area about 6 metres apart, very few Roman coins come up so it adds to the jigsaw. i.e. if they are that close together does it point to an occupation site that lasted a century plus, or just a field that was ideal for cultivation purposes. One other thing why are they base coins? Does it mean the locals were conned with the coins that they were given? Title: Re: Sorry Peter , not good again, but an approximate date would do! Post by: silverhand on May 11, 2009, 07:33:23 PM nice find bud a fdinds a find and thats one of um
Title: Re: Sorry Peter , not good again, but an approximate date would do! Post by: ROMAN STEVE on May 18, 2009, 10:03:50 PM what ever they are they are roman
some boys who have been detecting for yrs dont find any roman at all well done :) |