Written by the TreasureGuide for the exclusive use of the Treasure Beaches Report.
| Dug Eight-Sided Roman Ring. |
An Archaeologist was digging through a drainage ditch and found a 1,600-year-old Roman ring
Here is that link.
Rare eight-sided ancient Roman ring discovered in UK drainage ditch after 1,600 years | Fox News
===
When a story like this one appears online, you can usually find the same story in several places. This one can also be found in Popular Mechanics, NewsBreak, and the History Blog, to give some examples. There are undoubtedly more.
The thing about that is that various publications will often include different details. One of the sources I read, said the ring was bronze, while most others referred to it as copper alloy. Yes, bronze is a copper alloy, but it is more specific. Sometimes one source or another will provide a unique detail left out of the others. Sometimes you can find contradictions.
I believe I've found a couple octagonal rings, but right now I can't say where they are, I doubt I could find them quickly if I tried. That is a common disappointment - to know that you have an item somewhere but not know where to find it. I guess I really wouldn't care that much, because I know where the really good stuff is, and I might not care much about some of the other stuff if I didn't want to use it as an example in my blog. I do know, however, that an item can be overlooked for years as something not very interesting before learning something that I need to check out more thoroughly at a later time. That can result in dismissing something that is really very interesting before it as recognized for what it is.
I also found a square ring before, which I initially mistook for a washer or something and put it away until sometime later when I noticed when it was silver and even had a small stone.
Things like this octagonal ring can be misleading. Simple shapes without much detail can easily be misleading. I'd wonder, at least momentarily, if it might not be a finger ring. From what you can see, it could be something more utilitarian like maybe a spacer or gasket type of thing. I found that one article (not the first that I read) mentioned the ring showed faint symbols of the zodiac on it. I guess those features might suggest something other than a purely utilitarian item but still wouldn't necessarily prove it to be a finger ring. My mind goes to a possible connection between the shape and number of signs and the zodiac or constellations, but I'd want to do more research on a decent connection there that is consistent with other details related to the find.
The inside of the ring looks rough and not very round, but that might be the result of corrosion or maybe it was crudely made. You can't tell that from the photo.
There are other similar items in the PAS database listed as Roman finger rings. This one is classified as a Henig Type IX.
Henig’s classification system groups Roman rings by shank and bezel form, with sub‑types for variations. Type IX is one of the main Roman period types (I–XIII) and is characterized by a polygonal profile - usually having 6, 7. or 8 facets, and typically dates to between 200 and 400 A.D. Some of them are gold or silver.One article described the ring as very "tactile," and other sources indicate it is on the bulky side. I'm not sure if those adjectives are referring to the same quality or something slightly different. Bulky seems to refer mostly to size, or bulk, while tactile might have as much to do with the shape. From the articles that much isn't clear.
If you wonder why a ring would be octagonal rather than round like most bands, could it be the aesthetics of the designer or wearer, or might there be more to it. The octagon could have symbolic, religious or mythical meanings. In religion it is often associated with resurrection or the spirit/body connection while in the Roman world having associations with stability or comfort. Again, though, it could simply be the result of the available tools and materials or aesthetics. More detail on any symbols might help.
----
My first two college degrees were in psychology, so I look at a lot of things, including many of those having to do with metal detecting, through a human information processing lens. My Master's level education in Clinical Psychology was unusual for its emphasis on information theory. I'm glad about that. It ended up helping me and being used in ways I never would have anticipated throughout my consulting and teaching career. You may have noticed how many times I take that view or approach in this blog.
In my consulting career I always liked and appreciated the management level people coming from a World War II background. They didn't sweat the small stuff. A flight maintenance manager at Federal Express once took me aside and told me he didn't care if I sat in an office all day and played the violin if I occasionally gave him great ideas. I spent a few months commuting from Fort Lauderdale area to Memphis every other week or so on a consulting basis but didn't want to take a job there because at that time I was heavy really heavy into metal detecting and there was no way I was going to leave the beach.
I just read an article on World War II educational technology and training methods. Probably the greatest training effort of history, they trained thousands of thousands of men for a wide variety of jobs extremely efficiently. They could make a person functionally literate in a rare language, like maybe Inuktitut, in 144 hours. Their training methods were highly effective. The ingenuity and efficiency is inspiring. It puts our modern educational efforts to shame. It was training (as distinct from education - whatever educational philosophy you might use), and the goal was to train to competency as quickly as possible.
We can actually use many of the same principles and techniques to increase our effectiveness as detectorists. I'll give you an example of one training technique and then show it applies to metal detecting.
They trained personnel many to quickly identify different types of aircraft at a glance. The WEFT (wings, engine, fuselage, tail) method involved identifying planes by looking at individual parts, but that was replaced by a right-brain Gestalt (seeing the whole) process that employed technologies such as the T-scope. Here is a quick esample.
The efficacy of tachistoscopic training dates back to research during the WWII era when the military was investigating training protocols to improve combat readiness. One study involved training pilots to better recognize enemy aircraft. Renshaw used tachistoscopic training to teach U.S. Navy pilots how to quickly and accurately recognize airplanes.
In 1945, Renshaw used tachistoscopic training to demonstrate an increased functional visual proficiency in perceiving forms, sizes, positions and distances. He summarized that; “Tachistoscopic training with digit patterns produces marked increase in reading comprehension and speed, measured by standardized tests. It enlarges form fields, in the vertical as well as horizontal meridians, and assists in the reduction of myopia. Used in Naval Aviation, the method has made a useful contribution to the more accurate and speed...
Here is the link to read more about that.
C:\safe\archive\sally\jbo\jbovol14\godnig14-2.vp
I can't get into the many interesting and helpful processes, but there is right-brain and left-brain processing. The left-brain processes information more analytically or part by part sequentially, while the right brain is more a visual field or Gestalt parallel processor.
I know I'm not explaining this all but the point is that you can process more information more quickly. Think about speed reading for example. But on the beach, you can look at the beach feature by feature. You might look for a cut, notice how high it is, its shape, and length. You might then look at the type of sand or shells, and then the direction of the water. You can look at all the parts piece by piece and analyze the situation, or you can look at the beach and in a more right-brain Gestalt way, instantly get a grasp of what is going on. Sometimes people describe that as feel or intuition. But the process can be developed with experience or training. A beginner will likely look for one thing or another, like with the WEFT method of identifying aircraft. With experience, the detectorist will begin to see things in a more wholistic manner. He will begin to process more information more quickly. He doesn't have to think through every step or add up every separate observation.
I have to wind this up now.
This topic, even though I didn't take time to make it real clear, goes right along with the local viewing process. Though not fast, it is about right brain processing.
I wanted to post a picture of a WWII pocket handbook for identifying aircraft, but it isn't where I thought it was, so maybe I'll do that some other time. Taking time to organize is one thing I haven't learned to do well.
---
