Talk:Mamucium

Broken sentence?

In the history section, we've a broken sentence:

In about the 120sThe fort was demolished some time around 140

I wasn't entirely sure what is mean here, but it's certainly a mistake of somesort. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Good catch, it was the start of a sentence I decided not to finish. I must have written something else and saved the change without remembering to delete that bit. It now reads:

Manchester and the Roman fort at Slack – which neighboured Castleshaw – superseded Castleshaw Roman fort in the 120s.[14] Mamucium was demolished some time around 140.

Nev1 (talk) 17:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect Date?

Sorry to be pedantic, but I note that William Stukeley is described as a 19th century writer - doubtless an error in the source cited, as he died in 1765. I would edit the article accordingly, but not being an expert on Manchester, I wondered if the citation might refer to a later historian of the same name? Ikayess (talk) 15:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, it is the William Stukely who died in 1765 and the article has been corrected accordingly. Nev1 (talk) 21:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mamucium/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I'm going to review this nom. Intothewoods29 (talk) 20:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to put this article on hold until a few problems are resolved:

• In "Location", the sentence "In the Roman period where the River Medlock and River Irwell joined and the crossing point were separated by an area of marshland" needs work. I think it means "The rivers Medlock and Irwell joined at point A, and the fort protected the river crossing at point B. Between pt. A and b was marshland." Is the marshland even relevant? Was the fort built on marshland? I hope I didn't misread the sentence.

• Removed the bit about the marsh, doesn't seem important now. Nev1 (talk) 22:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• What does it mean that the fort was "linked" to other forts (in the Location section). You might want to clear that up.

• The links were mainly administrative, I hope I've made that clear in the article. Nev1 (talk) 22:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Same thing: what does "sourced their materials" mean? (I'm not a history expert, if you couldn't tell).

• It just means they got the tegulae from the same place, I've edited the sentence to make that clearer. Nev1 (talk) 22:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• The second sentence in the second paragraph of Location doesn't relate to the rest of the paragraph. Maybe explain how it changed, or what happened as a result of the change.

• A bit more has been added into the next sentence to make it clear how the two sentences are linked. Nev1 (talk) 22:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Add "In addition," to the beginning of the Deansgate paragraph, or some other kind of transition to link Coccium to Deansgate.

• Done, and I've moved that sentence to where it belonged: in the previous paragraph when the roads were discussed. Nev1 (talk) 22:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• This sentence "Deansgate, a busy thoroughfare, passes close to the east of the fort and follows the general line of Roman road to Ribchester and Castlefield – the area the fort is in – is on the south west corner of Manchester city centre." is really like two sentences. IMO, it should be cut at the first hyphen and turned into two sentences/or in some other way made clearer.

• Split as suggested. Nev1 (talk) 22:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Again, work on transitions, like for the last sentence in Locations

• The second paragraph of the section has been rearranged. Nev1 (talk) 22:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Final note for locations: it'd be nice to have a visual for locations, but not totally necessary

• It's difficult to find a good one, would an image of the fort with a back drop of modern buildings be acceptable? (That's the modern location) I may be able to find something. Nev1 (talk) 22:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• In History, you say a "sherd of broken pottery". Is it supposed to be shard?

• Archaeologists seem to use sherd, whereas everyone else uses shard. Changed. Nev1 (talk) 21:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Was the fort built in 79 by the Setantii? If so, say so. If not, don't put "it was built in 79" in the same sentence as the sentantii.

• Fixed, it now reads "Although the area was in the territory of the Celtic tribe Brigantes until the Romans annexed the area, it may have been under the control of the Setantii, a sub-tribe of the Brigantes.[9] The fort was built around 79;[10] it was built as part of the fortifications erected under Gnaeus Julius Agricola during his campaigns against the Brigantes after the treaty with the Celtic tribe failed". Nev1 (talk) 21:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• It was "designed to be garrisoned by a cohort, about infantry". What's the last part mean?

  It was meant to read "about 500 infantry", fixed. Nev1 (talk) 21:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• "Manchester and the Roman fort at Slack – which neighboured Castleshaw – superseded Castleshaw Roman fort in the 120s"... superseded THE castleshaw? I'm not sure, otherwise I'd change it myself.

• I've changed the text to avoid this problem, it now reads "superseded the fort at Castleshaw in the 120s". Nev1 (talk) 21:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Outline the three main phases of construction: "The second phase included a vicus..."

• I've included a brief statement: "Excavations have demonstrated that the fort had three main phases of construction; one in 79, the second in 160, and the third in 200". Is this enough? Nev1 (talk) 21:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

And that's about it. The later part seems fine, just the beginning is the problem. The pictures are all tagged, the refs are fine, it's stable and Neutral. Good job. Just make it clearer and it should pass.

As for FA recommendations, I'd suggest adding a map for Locations and some other pics, if possible. Also (this is just me) but you might consider moving the layout section up in the article or incorporate it into the article. I'd also (this is just my pickyness again), but I'd separate the first paragraph in history into time periods. Good job anyway Intothewoods29 (talk) 21:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to summarise, I've made these changes per your review. Nev1 (talk) 22:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Response to Nev1

Thank you. That's so much better. I think all of my concerns have been addressed, so I'm going to go ahead and promote this article to GA status. Thanks for your speedy work! Intothewoods29 (talk) 22:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

1. Organized, clear, flows well
2. Reliable refs
3. Stays on topic
4. Neutral
5. Stable
6. Pics all have tags

Roman finds near the fort

I don't know if this link will work as I'm logged on under my library account, so I'll copy and paste the article text. It may be of interest to this article:

---

Manchester Evening News: 2,000 years on, a lonely Roman soldier's gift to gods is found in Manchester Manchester Evening News (England) - Thursday, April 10, 2008 Author: david ottewell HE was many miles from home - a Roman soldier posted to Manchester, perhaps feeling cold and lonely, longing for loved ones left behind.

He was called Aelius Victor. And now after 2,000 years an altar he built to keep a promise to the goddesses he prayed to has been unearthed in the middle of the city. The altar - described by experts as being in 'fantastic' condition - was discovered during an archaeological dig at a site on Greater Jackson Street earmarked for development.

Aelius Victor had dedicated it to two minor goddesses.

A Latin inscription on the altar says: "To the mother goddesses Hananeftis and Ollototis, Aelius Victor willingly and deservedly fulfils a vow."

The find marks the first time in nearly 400 years that archaeologists have been able to put a name to a Mancunian Roman solider. In 1612 another altar was found by the River Medlock, dedicated by Lucius Seniacianius Martius, a centurion - an officer - with the 20th Legion from York.

It is believed that Aelius Victor may have been a centurion commander posted from Germany - where worship of Hananeftis and Ollototis originates.

Norman Redhead, Greater Manchester's county archaeologist, said: "This is the first Roman stone inscription we have found for 150 years. It is a very, very valuable find and it is in fantastic condition, considering it has been in the ground for 2,000 years."

The altar was discovered during a pre-development dig at the site at the junction of Great Jackson Street and Chester Road.

Evidence suggests it may have been constructed in the latter part of the first century AD and later discarded, as it was found on top of an ancient rubbish pit.

The existence of a number of pits and ditches in the area suggest it was cleared for farming use.

The site is only hundreds of yards from a known fort and civilian settlement of Roman Manchester, dropping down to a ford across the River Medlock.

Mr Redhead said that, traditionally, that was the kind of area where places of worship were located. The altar will go on display at Manchester Museum.

General Julius Agricola (40-93AD), the commander of the invading legions, first founded a Roman settlement at the meeting point of the Rivers Irwell and Medlock. He called the place Mamuciam - meaning 'breast-shaped hill' because of the shape of the outcrop.

Archaeologists will be holding an open day at the dig site on Saturday between 10am to 3pm.

---

Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks PoD, it's already mentioned in the article:

"In 2008 an altar dating from the late 1st century was discovered near the Roman settlement. It was dedicated to two minor Germanic gods and described as being in "fantastic" condition.[20] The county archaeologist said "It’s the first Roman stone inscription to be found in Manchester for 150 years and records only the second known Roman from Manchester ... The preservation of the stone is remarkable. On top of the stone is a shallow bowl which was used for offerings of wine or blood or perhaps to burn incense."

Nev1 (talk) 14:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Etymology

The paragraph as is stands is hopelessly overstated. It should really read "The origins of the name are not understood. So far there are three competing and mutually exclusive lines of thought: 1. Breast..... 2. Mother..... 3. Manceinion....."

These need proper elaboration:

1. If "breast" were correct, where is the breast shaped hill? I cannot see any from the maps (there are many places where there are mountains which are indeed breast shaped and so named - eg Bennachie in Aberdeenshire). But if you are going to advance this suggestion and not just parade some onomasticians' obsession with breasts, for goodness sake make it plausible by identifying the landmark - or say "people have imagined and advanced this, but entirely without support".

2. If "mother" were correct, where is the evidence of a goddess going by that name? Or is this a(nother) circular argument/proposition?

3. I am disappointed that the contributor left 'Manceinion' hanging - and so rightly invoking the "citation needed" line. However....

(a) The fact is that using a Welsh Dictionary it is simplicity itself to parse the name: "Man" means "place/where" "Ceinion" means "works of art, gems, jewels". This sits comfortably with Ptolemy's identification of the Mersey as "Seteia" - for Irish "Sét" means "jewels/Chattels". However I have no idea whether further support for this line can be found.

(b) As can be seen "ceinion" is plural and I cannot find the full range of singulars which it might derive from.

(i) "Ceiniog arian" means the flower honesty, Ceiniog can mean "a penny" or a round spot of colour. Could this be not, perhaps a "pennyland" but rather a place which cost a few pence?

(ii) "Ceinach" means a "hare" - might this have been a place abounding in hares?

(iii) "Ceinio" is variously (a) to insult or provoke, (b) to beautify or adorn and (c) to perceive or behold. If the Romans chose this site for a fort, it is likely that it had a good line of sight over the surrounding areas - or was it just "the beautiful place" (hmmm.... that WOULD be ironic).

The fact that these things remain broadly not even discussed suggests a laziness on the part of soi-disant placename experts - and in my view there would be no harm in Wikipedia bringing this carelessness to public attention. Freuchie (talk) 11:39, 26 March 2022 (UTC)