Licking Dog Hoard

Penny Coombe and Martin Henig The Gloucester Hoard of Roman Bronze. Britannia, 51, 225-264. doi:10.1017/S0068113X20000501

Abstract A cache of Roman copper-alloy fragments was discovered, apparently carefully layered in a pit, in a field in Gloucestershire by metal-detectorists in 2017. The assemblage comprises over 5 kg of metal pieces, predominantly box fittings, but also smaller items of personal use such as a fourth-century belt buckle, a three-strand bracelet, a spoon and a coin (a nummus of Crispus). Most remarkable are the sculptural fragments, including several pieces of life-size statuary and the complete statuette of a dog with fine incised decoration, and part of an incised bronze inscription panel. This article considers the original form of the statuary and the use and deposition of the cache. It is proposed that these fragments represent the remains of the accoutrements of a temple or shrine in the local area, perhaps dedicated to Diana Venatrix, and that they were removed and deposited together in the late fourth century. Supplementary material is available online (https://doi.org/10.1017/S0068113X20000501) and comprises additional figures.

I do not know how anyone who sees/saw the video of these clowns 'excavating' this group of objects (and where's the 'sword" they say they found?) can say there is any evidence of "layering". In a field in Gloucestershire really is no information that allows us to make any meaning from "a temple or shrine in the local area". Why is there "supplementary material" if these is a PAS report (not referenced in the bibliography)? Does this mean that the PAS report is not actually sufficient preservation by documentation by itself?