The Snettisham torcs and the British Museum

The recently published Snettisham hoard volumes are long awaited, and contain much that is of use and interest to anyone studying Iron Age Britain. However, as a gold researcher, working with a team of goldsmiths, silversmiths, jewellers and metalworkers, there is a significant amount of interpretation in these volumes that cannot be evidentially supported. There are a number of fundamental errors which show a basic lack of gold and metal working knowledge. Citations do not have page numbers and there are examples which, when checked, do not back up what is being said in the text. There are confused areas of text and basic metrics are missing. There are also a number of occasions when mine and Roland’s published – peer reviewed – research into the technology and manufacture of torcs is either ignored, claimed as being ideas of the British Museum team, misreported or misunderstood. Before anyone says it, yes, we’ve all had pieces of writing where, despite hours and hours of editing, proof reading and checking we find glaring errors that we only see when the publication lands on our desks, fully formed and uneditable. But this is not that. This is a wide ranging suite of errors that should have been spotted and corrected, either during writing, editing, proofing or peer review. Many should not have been written in the first place. Any publication from the British Museum will be deemed to be learned and ‘of record’: that the sections of these volumes which refer to the torcs contain multiple errors of fact, or omission, is a concern. This article places my concerns on record. Inevitably, as one of only a very few researchers working on the gold Iron Age torcs of Britain, much of what I refer to will be mine – and Roland Williamson’s – research. This is not a situation I feel entirely comfortable with. However, this research is not just the product of one or two minds: my research utilises the knowledge and understanding of a wide range of trained and experienced goldsmiths, silversmiths and jewellers and thoughts from additional craftspeople I have talked to over the last few weeks are incorporated here also. Throughout this piece I will refer to torc and/or page numbers as given in the Snettisham volumes: these volumes can be downloaded for free from here and I would encourage you to check my work. As ever, I hold that all research should be transparent and open access, and any reader should be able to examine any and all the evidence for themselves and be able to discuss it with the author. So please do drill down into what I’m saying and if you’ve got any thoughts or questions, I’m always happy to talk. My contact details are here.

Publication Details

Journal
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Published
2024-12-11
DOI
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15251449
Primary Topic
Metallurgy and Cultural Artifacts
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

The Snettisham torcs and the British Museum

Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Metallurgy and Cultural Artifacts
article

The Snettisham torcs and the British Museum

article en

Abstract

The recently published Snettisham hoard volumes are long awaited, and contain much that is of use and interest to anyone studying Iron Age Britain. However, as a gold researcher, working with a team of goldsmiths, silversmiths, jewellers and metalworkers, there is a significant amount of interpretation in these volumes that cannot be evidentially supported. There are a number of fundamental errors which show a basic lack of gold and metal working knowledge. Citations do not have page numbers and there are examples which, when checked, do not back up what is being said in the text. There are confused areas of text and basic metrics are missing. There are also a number of occasions when mine and Roland’s published – peer reviewed – research into the technology and manufacture of torcs is either ignored, claimed as being ideas of the British Museum team, misreported or misunderstood. Before anyone says it, yes, we’ve all had pieces of writing where, despite hours and hours of editing, proof reading and checking we find glaring errors that we only see when the publication lands on our desks, fully formed and uneditable. But this is not that. This is a wide ranging suite of errors that should have been spotted and corrected, either during writing, editing, proofing or peer review. Many should not have been written in the first place. Any publication from the British Museum will be deemed to be learned and ‘of record’: that the sections of these volumes which refer to the torcs contain multiple errors of fact, or omission, is a concern. This article places my concerns on record. Inevitably, as one of only a very few researchers working on the gold Iron Age torcs of Britain, much of what I refer to will be mine – and Roland Williamson’s – research. This is not a situation I feel entirely comfortable with. However, this research is not just the product of one or two minds: my research utilises the knowledge and understanding of a wide range of trained and experienced goldsmiths, silversmiths and jewellers and thoughts from additional craftspeople I have talked to over the last few weeks are incorporated here also. Throughout this piece I will refer to torc and/or page numbers as given in the Snettisham volumes: these volumes can be downloaded for free from here and I would encourage you to check my work. As ever, I hold that all research should be transparent and open access, and any reader should be able to examine any and all the evidence for themselves and be able to discuss it with the author. So please do drill down into what I’m saying and if you’ve got any thoughts or questions, I’m always happy to talk. My contact details are here.

Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Quality Education
Openalex Percentile: Top 39%
Metallurgy and Cultural Artifacts
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.