Talk:Camulodunum

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Archaeology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. project's importance scale. This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.

Classical Greece and Rome Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Fortifications / British / European / Roman & Byzantine / Classical

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Fortifications task force British military history task force European military history task force Roman and Byzantine military history task force Classical warfare task force (c. 700 BC – c. 500 AD)

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers. This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist. [[Boudica#Boudica's uprising|Iceni rebels]] The anchor (#Boudica's uprising) has been deleted by other users before. [[Caligula#Britannia|may have attempted an invasion of Britain]] Anchor Caligula#Britannia links to a specific web page: Britannia. The anchor (#Britannia) has been deleted by other users before. Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Resolved

 – Article is no longer at that name.

Who calls it Camulodumum (with an 'm' rather than an 'n')? I've never heard that before. Citation please!

-- Tom Anderson 2007-05-08 18:03 +0100 —The preceding

The fact that this is almost certainly the source of the name "Camelot" seem to beg mention here. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 06:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Find a source and put it in the article.

Nev1 (talk) 16:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Added a section on it. Probably needs citation but I struggle to find exact sources, the link to Camelot is all just speculative anyway. Common and notable enough to justify a section though, I believe. Twelvetoner (talk) 21:19, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I've rewritten much of the article, complete with references, over the past few days to try and give more info on the town during its high point and flesh out its history. For such an important part of Britain's Roman past, the old article was very scanty and seemed to imply that the town ended with Boudica, and then turned into Camelot...

Please add more info if you can and more pictures!

Razumukhin (talk) 21:16, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This major find surely needs a mention: http://www.thecolchesterarchaeologist.co.uk/?p=14844 John a s (talk) 23:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a little bit to the Boudican destruction layer section. Please feel free to add more! Razumukhin (talk) 17:53, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I look forward to seeing the treasure in a museum one day. John a s (talk) 21:52, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the "walls" section you mention that a venus statuette was found in 1872-73 that may have been part of the temples. Was it by any chance THIS statuette found in 1870, and now at the British Museum? http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details.aspx?objectId=1394346&partId=1&searchText=diadem&images=true&object=20526&subject=54324&page=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Florimell1919 (talk • contribs) 06:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yep that's the one! Razumukhin (talk) 11:30, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Camulodunum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140603222036/http://www.roman-britain.org/places/colchester_temples.htm to http://www.roman-britain.org/places/colchester_temples.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:35, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Camulodunum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924114318/http://www.roman-britain.org/places/stanway.htm to http://www.roman-britain.org/places/stanway.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.cat.essex.ac.uk/reports/CAR-report-0008

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:32, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The coin image entitled 'Coin of the Trinovantes minted at Camulodunon' may have an incomplete and potentially misleading caption. The coin bears the letters CVN which is the usual shorthand for King Cunobelin. This, in turn, means that the coin would not belong to the early Trinovantes period of Camulodunon (25-10 BC) as appears implied by the article text at this point, but to Cunobelin's reign (c. AD 9-40). A numismatist should check this out, and if necessary, clarify it with an unambiguous caption. Klumpenburg (talk) 18:00, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

jhjhfee Troopersho (talk) 17:37, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]