Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T19:08:34.224Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Exhibits at Ballots

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 April 2011

Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Other
Information
The Antiquaries Journal , Volume 65 , Issue 2 , September 1985 , pp. 446 - 481
Copyright
Copyright © The Society of Antiquaries of London 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1 Lowery, P. R., Savage, R. D. A., Wilkins, R. L., ‘Scriber, graver, scorper, tracer: notes on experiments in bronzeworking technique’, P.P.S. xxxvii pt. 1 (1971), 167–82, particularly pl. xiGoogle Scholar.

2 Fulford, M., ‘Excavations on the sites of the amphitheatre and forum-basilica at Silchester, Hampshire: an interim report’, Antiq. J. lxv pt. 1 (1985), 39–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 For the treatment of animals in Late Iron Age art in Britain, see Fox, C., Pattern and Purpose: a Survey of Early Celtic Art in Britain (Cardiff, 1958), 73–81Google Scholar.

4 Bellows, J., ‘On some bronze and other articles found near Birdlip’, Trans. Bristol & Glos. Arch. Soc. v (1880-1881), 139,Google Scholar pl. XIII, 11; Smith, R. A., ‘On a late Celtic mirror found at Desborough, Northants., and other mirrors of the period’, Archaeologia, lxi pt. 2 (1909), 332,Google Scholar fig. 2; for comment on the date of this burial see Fox, , op. cit. (note 3), 74,Google Scholar and Fox, A. and Pollard, S., ‘A decorated bronze mirror from an Iron Age settlement at Holcombe, near Uplyme, Devon’, Antiq. J. liii pt. 1 (1973), 27–8Google Scholar.

5 Stead, I., ‘A La Tene III burial at Welwyn Garden City’, Archaeologia, ci (1967), 38,Google Scholar fig. 23, where other examples of triangular knives are also noted.

6 P. Garrard and L. Sellwood, ‘A razor from the St George's Street bath-house site’, in Frere, S. S. and Stow, S., Excavations in the St George's Street and Burgate Street Areas, Archaeology of Canterbury, 7 (Maidstone, 1983). 333.-4. fig. 143Google Scholar.

7 I am indebted to the Grosvenor Museum for permission to exhibit their brooch (CHE/HSS 81: small find no. 1210) and to publish this note in advance of the site report. Mr Strickland kindly provided details of its discovery, for which see Strickland, T. J., ‘Chester: excavations in the Princess Street/Hunter Street area, 1978-1982. A first report on discoveries of the Roman period’, J. Chester Arch. Soc. lxv (1982), 5–24,Google Scholar especially p. 15 and n. 8; see also Med. Arch, xxvii (1983), 170, pl. XIVaGoogle Scholar.

8 I am grateful to Mr B. Ó Ríordáin for permission to illustrate this brooch from his excavations at High Street (E43:2086) on behalf of the National Museum of Ireland. See Graham-Campbell, J., Viking Artefacts: a Select Catalogue (London, 1978), no. 200 (with refs.)Google Scholar.

9 I am indebted to Mr Hayward for permission to exhibit and publish his brooch and to Miss Owles, of Moyses Hall Museum, for her information and assistance (reg. no. L-1984-4).

10 For an introduction to the Borre and Jellinge styles, see Wilson, D. M. and Klindt-Jensen, O., Viking Art, 2nd edn. (London, 1978), chs. 3 and 4Google Scholar.

11 Jansson, I., ‘Kleine Rundspangen’, in Arwidsson, G. (ed.), Birka, 11, 1: Systematische Analysen der Gräberfunde (Stockholm, 1984), 58–74,Google Scholar especially p. 60 and Abb. 8:2.

12 Hope, W. H. St J., Heraldry for Craftsmen and Designers (London, 1913), 297–300;Google ScholarSplendours of the Gonzaga, exhibition catalogue (London, 1981),Google Scholar ed. D. Chambers and J. Martineau, 105-7; C. Blair, ‘The Dublin Civic Swords’, Proc. Royal Irish Acad., forthcoming, in which the author also makes valuable observations on the significance of the letters of S.

13 The collar was found not to be Treasure Trove by a coroner's inquest.

14 By kind permission of Mr B. Williams; variants include Museum of London no. A295 (London Museum Medieval Catalogue (1940), pl. LXXIV, 62) and British Museum, Dept. of Medieval and Later Antiquities, nos. 56.7-1.2124 and 2143 (Smith, C. Roach, Catalogue…London Antiquities (1854), 143–4)Google Scholar.

15 The ring is very similar to a form of brooch fashionable in the early fifteenth century, e.g. the Doune Castle brooch (National Museum of Antiquities, Edinburgh): Evans, J., A History of Jewellery, 1100-1870, 2nd edn. (London, 1970), pl. 14aGoogle Scholar.

16 Vince, , ‘The Saxon and medieval pottery of London’, Med. Arch, xxix (forthcoming)Google Scholar.

17 Schabacker, P. A., Petrus Christus (Utrecht, 1974), 83–5Google Scholar.

18 Bury, S., Jewellery Gallery Summary Catalogue (London, 1982), 65Google Scholar.

19 The Goodman of Paris…, ed. Power, E. (London, 1928), 303Google Scholar.

20 Gay, V., Glossaire archéologique, 1 (Paris, 1887), 3Google Scholar.

21 Reproduced by kind permission of Messrs R. and I. Smith (a and b), D. Morgan (c) and J. Auld (d).

22 For example, Musée de Cluny no. 17882 and Museum of London no. 85.50/2.

23 For example, Musée de Cluny no. 17530 and Museum of London no. 8881.

24 I am indebted to Mr F. Mellish for submitting this find.

25 Analysis of the spots was helpfully undertaken by Dr Ashok Roy and Dr Raymond White of the National Gallery, London.

26 Partridge, E., A Dictionary of the Underworld, 3rd edn. (London, 1968), s.v. ‘Fulhams’Google Scholar.

27 Ascham, R., Toxophilus (1545), ed. Arber, E. (Eng. Reprints, London, 1869), 54Google Scholar.

28 ‘A Manifes t Detection…of Dice-play’ in Judges, A. V., The Elizabethan Underworld (London, 1930), 26–50.Google Scholar Privy purse expenses, from John of Gaunt's to those of Elizabeth of York and Henry VIII, reveal habitual dice-play in courtly circles, often for very high stakes.

29 Ward, F. A. B., A Catalogue of European Scientific Instruments in the Department of Medieval and Later Antiquities of the British Museum (London, 1981), 55–6,Google Scholar cat. no. 146, pis. XVII, XVIII. The inv. no. is 60.5-19.1.

30 Dorset County Museum, inv. no. DORCM 1973.7.

31 See, for example, Honour, H., Romanticism (London, 1979)Google Scholar; Turner, G. L'E., ‘Originals and imitations: a study of scientific instruments’, Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, viii (1983), 274–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

32 Turner, G. L'E., ‘Mathematical instrument-making in London in the sixteenth century’, in Tyacke, S. (ed.), English Map-Making 1500-1650 (London, 1983), 93–106.Google Scholar By January 1985, the total of Cole instruments has risen to twenty-five.

33 Bonelli, M. L. Righini, H Museo di Storia delta Scienza a Firenze (Milan, 1968), 170,Google Scholar no. 140, inv. no. 2519. For Robert Dudley, see pp. 27-8.

34 Whitwell's dates have been taken from Brown, J., Mathematical Instrument-Makers in the Grocers' Company 1688-1800 (London, 1979), 24Google Scholar.

35 Ibid., 61, n. 8.

36 Gunther, R. T., ‘The Great Astrolabe and other scientific instruments of Humphrey Cole’, Archaeologia, lxxvi (1927), 273–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

37 Ward, , op. cit. (note 29), 120,Google Scholar cat. no. 346, inv. no. 94.6-15.2.

38 Museum of London Ace. No. 84.244. External dimensions of ring: width 21 mm.; depth 18 mm. Internal dimensions: width 19 mm.; depth 16 mm. Total height 20-5 mm. The hoop, which is 1 mm. thick, is 2-5 mm. broad at its narrowest point to 5 mm. at the bezel.

39 Plate is 16 mm. in height and 15 mm. in width at the point where the capitals of the columns project.

40 For the site see ‘Roman Britain in 1982’ in Britannia, xiv (1983), 311,Google Scholar and ibid. xv (1984), 308.

41 The analysis was kindly undertaken by the British Museum Research Laboratory through the good offices of Dr M. Tite, F.S.A., and by Dr M. J. Hughes, F.S.A., using the energy-dispersive X-ray fluorescence spectrometer (Link Systems type). The resulting analyses indicated metal composition of silver 94.1 per cent, copper 4.4 per cent, gold 1 per cent and lead 0.42 per cent (iron omitted). Dr Hughes comments that this composition is quite typical of Roman silver plate and other items of this period: see Hughes, M. J. and Hall, J. A., ‘X-ray fluorescence analysis of late Roman and Sassanian silver plate’, J. Arch. Science, vi (1979), 321–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

42 Henig, M., ‘Continuity and change in the design of Roman jewellery’, in King, A. and Henig, M. (eds.), The Roman West in the Third Century, B. A. R. S109 (Oxford, 1981), 127-43, esp. p. 129Google Scholar.

43 Charlesworth, D., ‘Roman jewellery found in Northumberland and Durham’, Arch. Ael. 4th ser. xxxix (1961), 15–16Google Scholar and 31, no. 95; Henkel, F., Die römischen Fingerringe der Rheinlande (Berlin, 1913), 15, no. 93Google Scholar(with legend on hoop Vivas mi pia Optata); Tóth, E., ‘Romische Gold- und Silbergegenstzände mit Inschriften im Ungarischen Nationalmuseum—Goldringe’, Folia Arch, xxx (1979), 160Google Scholar and 164, no. 8 (with legend Decuri(i) on bezel); Marshall, F. H., Catalogue of the Finger Rings, Greek, Etruscan and Roman, in the Departments of Antiquities, British Museum (London, 1907), 187,Google Scholar no. 1184; M. Henig in Birley, R., Vindolanda. 1976 Excavations Interim Report (Bardon Mill, 1977), 35–6,Google Scholar no. 6;id. in Proc. Dorset Nat. Hist. & Arch. Soc. cvi (1984), 142–3.Google ScholarNat. Hist. & Arch. Soc. cvi (1984), 142–3Google Scholar.

44 Henkel, , op. cit. (note 43), 50, no. 361Google Scholar(bezel includes legend Inc Fort, perhaps ‘Incede Fortiter’) and 15, no. 92 (with inscription Felic(itas) Auror(ii) on bezel).

45 Barb, A. A., ‘Diva Matrix’, J. Courtauld & Warburg Institutes, xvi (1953), 193–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

46 Adriani, A., Le Gobelet en argent des amours vendangeurs du musée d'Alexandrie (Alexandria, 1939)Google Scholar; Stuveras, R., Le Putto dans I'art romain, Coll. Latomus 99 (Brussels, 1969), 53 and 77, pl. LIXGoogle Scholar.

47 Henig, M., A Corpus of Roman Engraved Gemstones from British Sites, B. A. R. 8, 2nd edn. (Oxford, 1978), 277, no. 756Google Scholar.

48 Stuveras, , op. cit. (note 46), 153–64,Google Scholar cf. pl. XVIII, fig. 42 (wall-painting in House of Loreius Tiburtinus, Pompeii, depicting Venus reclining on a shell and a cupid on a dolphin).

49 Mildenhall: Painter, K. S., The Mildenhall Treasure. Roman Silver from East Anglia (London, 1977), 26, no. 1. Thetford:Google ScholarJohns, C. and Potter, T., The Thetford Treasure. Roman Jewellery and Silver (London, 1983), spoon pp. 107–9,Google Scholar no. 50; rings pp. 83-4, nos. 5 and 6.

50 R. I. B. I; Hall, J., ‘A Roman silver mount from London’, Antiq. J. lxii (1982), 363–5. See, in general,Google ScholarHenig, M., ‘Death and the Maiden’, in Munby, J. and Henig, M. (eds.), Roman Life and Art in Britain B.A.R. 41 (Oxford, 1977), 347–66, esp. 354-5Google Scholar.

51 Also the ring from Augst (Henkel no. 92) which surely alludes to the Felicity of Aurorius.

52 Acts 19: 23-39.

53 Toynbee, J. M. C., ‘A Londinium votive leaf or feather and its fellows’, in Bird, J., Chapman, H. and Clark, J. (eds.), Collectanea Londiniensia. Studies in London Archaeology and History Presented to Ralph Merrifield, London & Middlesex Arch. Soc. Special Pap. 2 (1978), 128–47Google Scholar.

54 Allason-Jones, L., ‘A lead shrine from Wallsend’, Britannia, xv (1984), 231–2,CrossRefGoogle Scholar pls. XI, XII, and Dr Graham Webster, F. S. A. (pers. comm.).

55 Dolley, M., ‘Some new light on the Viking Age silver hoard from Mungret’, N. Munster Antiq. J. viii, 3 (1960), 116–33Google Scholar.

56 I am grateful to Mrs Margaret Gardner for making the object available for study: it will be deposited in Colchester and Essex Museum.

57 British Library, Add. MS 42130, f. 206v.

58 Heidinga, H. A. and Smink, E. H., ‘Brick spit-supports in the Netherlands (13-16th century)’, Rotterdam Papers, iv (1982), 63–82Google Scholar.

59 Ibid., 64-5.

60 See most recently J., W. and Rodwell, K. A., Rivenhall: Investigations of the Roman Villa, Church, and Village, 1950-77,. 1, C.B.A. Res. Rep. 55 (London, 1985)Google Scholar.

61 Cutts, E. L., ‘Roman remains at Coggeshall’, Trans. Essex Arch. Soc. i (1855), 99-109, at p. 108Google Scholar.

62 Beaumont, G. F., A History of Coggeshall in Essex (Coggeshall and London, 1890), 9Google Scholar.

63 Heidinga, and Smink, , op. cit. (note 58), 76Google Scholar.

64 Gardner, J. S., ‘Coggeshall Abbey and its early brickwork’, J. B. A. A. ser. 3, xviii (1955), 19–32;Google ScholarDrury, P. J., ‘The production of brick and tile in medieval England’, in Crossley, D. W. (ed.), Medieval Industry, C.B.A. Res. Rep. 40 (London, 1981), 126-42, at pp. 126–7Google Scholar.

65 Cutts, , op. cit. (note 61), 108Google Scholar; Beaumont, , op. cit. (note 62), 9Google Scholar.

66 Heidinga, and Smink, , op. cit. (note 58), 74Google Scholar.

67 Drury, P. J., ‘Braintree: excavations and research, 1971-76’, Essex Arch. Hist, viii (1976), 1-143, at p. 78Google Scholar and fig. 32.7.

68 P. J. Drury, ‘Stamped clay fireback fragments’, in Crummy, P., Excavations at Lion Walk, Balkerne Lane, and Middlesborough, Colchester, Essex, Colchester Arch. Rep. 3 (1984), 194–5Google Scholar.

69 Heidinga, and Smink, , op. cit. (note 58),Google Scholar fig. 9; both stamp patterns are combined on no. 12, from Friesland.

70 Rodwell, and Rodwell, , op. cit. (note 60), 11 (forthcoming)Google Scholar.

71 XThomas, C., Christianity in Roman Britain to A.D. 500 (London, 1981), 131, fig. 13 (p. 124), and 382, n.45Google Scholar.

72 Johns, C., Antiq. J. lxiv (1984), 393–4Google Scholar.

73 The author would like to thank David Clarke, F.S.A., and Mark Davies of Colchester Museum for all their help. The ring was sold at Christie's sale on nt h July 1984, and now has the museum ace. no. P. 1984.10-1.1.

74 The author is grateful to Dr Mike Tite, F.S.A., of the British Museum Research Laboratory, who authorized the analysis, and Duncan Hook, who carried it out.

75 Johns, , op. cit. (note 72)Google Scholar.

76 Henkel, , op. cit. (note 43)Google Scholar.

77 Thomas, , op. cit. (note 71), 130–2Google Scholar.

78 York: M. Henig, ‘Intagli’, in MacGregor, A., Finds from a Roman Sewer System and an Adjacent Building in Church Street, Archaeology of York Fasc. 17/1 (York, 1976), 6–10,Google Scholar fig. 6 and pl. 1. Caerleon: information from David Zienkiewicz. Bath: M. Henig, ‘The gemstones from the main drain’, in Cunliffe, B., Roman Bath, Soc. Antiq. London. Res. Rep. 24 (1969), 71–88.Google Scholar M. H. is grateful t o David Zienkiewicz and to our Fellow George Boon for further discussion of the Bath gems.

79 Henig, in MacGregor, , op. cit. (note 78), 6–8, no. 9Google Scholar.

80 See Chiesa, G. Sena, ‘Le gemme nel Museo di Aquileia’, Antichita Altoadriatiche, xxiv (1984), 13–28,Google Scholar esp. 25 and fig. 13, where the Caerleon gem is attributed to an Aquileian workshop.

81 Henig, in MacGregor, , op. cit. (note 78), 6-7, no. 8.Google Scholar There are, incidentally, four examples of this type from the Caerleon drain.

82 Veyne, P., ‘“Tenir un buste”. Une intaille avec le Génie de Carthage, et le sardonyx de Livie à Vienne’, Cahiers de Byrsa, viii (1958-1959), 61–78.Google Scholar There is no good argument, apart from find-spot, why this figure should be Carthage rather than Caesarea (see note 83 below).

83 Gersht, R., ‘The Tyche of Caesarea Maritima’, Palestine Exploration Quart, cxvi (1984), 110–14. See alsoCrossRefGoogle ScholarSeyrig, H., ‘La Tyche de Césarée de Palestine’, Syria, xlix (1972), 112–15,Google Scholar for a bronze figurine of the type evidently from the Levant.

84 Jentel, M. O., ‘Alexandria (Alexandria)’, Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae, 1 (1981), 489,Google Scholar type Ab nos. 13–16.

85 Ibid., 491, type Bg nos. 52–9.

86 See Henig, M., ‘Throne, altar and sword: civilian religion and the Roman army in Britain’, in Blagg, T. F. C. and King, A. C. (eds.), Military and Civilian in Roman Britain. Cultural Relationships in a Frontier Province, B. A. R. 136 (Oxford, 1984), 227-48, esp. p. 242Google Scholar and pl. iv, for previous brief publication of this intaglio.

87 Ist edn. (London, 1937), 4th edn. (Ipswich, 1975), 191.

88 Proc. Bury & West Suffolk Arch. Inst. i (1853), ill. p. 156, discussion p. 158Google Scholar.

89 Dept. of Medieval and Later Antiquities no. 51.11-27.1. Recently exhibited in Turner, N. and Jones, D. (eds.), Selig Suffolk (Ipswich Museum, 1984), cat. no. 109Google Scholar; first exhibited in 1850 in London at the Society of Arts: Exhibition of Ancient and Medieval Art, and illustrated on p. 196 of the Illustrated London News of 23rd March 1850.

90 ‘English medieval base metal church plate’, Arch.J. cxix (1962), 204–5Google Scholar and Pl- 27A-B; see also J. B. A. A. xiii (1857), 232–3.Google Scholar Oman does not mention the three chrismatories in the British Museum, or the two in the Victoria and Albert Museum—all very similar—the latter published in the catalogue of English Medieval Art (Victoria and Albert Museum, 1930), nos. 462 and 463Google Scholar.

91 Astle, T., The Will of Henry VII (London, 1775). 38Google Scholar.

92 cf. Braun, J., Das christliche Altargerät (Munich, 1932), pls. 53 and 54Google Scholar.

93 Illustrated in Minute Book XV, p. 381; listed in the Catalogue of the Ashmolean Museum (Oxford, 1836) as no. 349b on p. 133Google Scholar.

94 Wilts. Arch. & Nat. Hist. Mag. xlii (1922-1924). 302–3Google Scholar.

95 Lancaster, W. T., The Early History of Ripley and the Ingilby Family (priv. printed, Leeds and London, 1918)Google Scholar.

96 The other main type of enamelled travel-ling candlestick found at this period is discussed by Baker, E., ‘The Grove Priory candlestick’, Antiq. J. lxi (1981), 336-8, pl. 53, 54Google Scholar.

97 The Flannery candlesticks (with hexagonal bases) are illustrated in the sale catalogue: Sotheby's, 1st December 1983, lots 38, 39. The Basilewsky candlesticks (with round bases) are described in Rupin, E., L'Oeuvre de Limoges (Paris, 1890), 526.Google Scholar Rupin illustrates the Louvre candlesticks (with round bases) as figs. 584-90, pp. 521-3.

98 Compare the seal of 1280 used by Charles of Anjou: Pastoureau, M., Traité d'heraldique (Paris, 1979), 185,Google Scholar fig. 229. I am grateful to John Goodall, F.S.A., for this reference.

99 The arms of Jacques D'Euse (or Duèse) appear on the outer wall of his chapel in the cathedral of Avignon: Galbreath, D. L., Papal Heraldry, 2nd edn., rev. by Briggs, G. (London, 1972), 77,Google Scholar fig. 133. For D'Euse's career, Valois, N., ‘Jacques D'Euse’ in Histoire Littéraire de France, xxxiv (1914), 391–630.Google Scholar The Frankfurt candlestick (255 mm. on height) is in the Museum für Kunsthandwerk, inv. no. WMF 6. I am grateful to Dr Hildegard Hoos, for the photograph.

100 The papal tiara and crossed keys would have been used by this date; compare the splendid crozier of Benedict XIII (1394-1422) enamelled with his arms and papal emblems, now in the Archaeological Museum, Madrid: see Valdovinos, J., Catalogo de la plateria (Madrid, 1984), 38,Google Scholar cat. no. 2, figs. 4 and 5.

101 Gaucelin or Gaucelme Déuse (also Deuze/De Eauza/Dueza) is mentioned in Weakland, J. E., ‘John XXII before his Pontificate, 1244-1316: Jacques Duese and his family’, Archivium Historiae Pontificiae, no. 10 (1972), 178,Google Scholar and brief details of his career given in Weakland, J. E., ‘Administrative and fiscal centralization under John XXII’, Catholic Historical Review, liv (1968-1969), 301–2,Google Scholar n. 125. See also Lunt, W. E., Financial Relations of the Papacy with England to 1327, 1 (Cambridge, Mass., 1939), 167–8, 564, 567Google Scholar.

102 ‘A brief summary of the Wardrobe account ’ of the 10th, nth, & 14th years of King Edward II‘, by Stapleton, Thomas in Archaeologia, xxvi (1836), 323,Google Scholar 324, 326, concerning 10 Edward II (1317).

103 Commonly indicated by a red Cardinal's hat, as in the fourteenth-century enamelled candlestick in the Victoria and Albert Museum ( M 579-1910), which bears arms, possibly those of Cardinal Napoleone Orsini (d. 1342): Victoria and Albert Museum Picture Book, Medieval Enamels (London, 1927), fig 11Google Scholar.

104 Lunt, , op. cit. (note 101), 567Google Scholar; Middleton, A. E., Gilbert de Middleton (Newcastle upon Tyne, 1918), 15, 24-30Google Scholar.

105 Other enamelled candlesticks bearing the English Royal arms but lacking a more precise association are the Basilewsky candlesticks mentioned in note 97 above and an example formerly in the Industrial Art Museum in Berlin: Rupin, , op. cit. (note 97), 524Google Scholar.

106 I am very grateful to David Caldwell and the National Museum of Antiquities in Edinburgh for allowing me to exhibit this candlestick. I am also much indebted to Michael Holmes of the Victoria and Albert Museum for his comments at very short notice on the heraldry.

107 One piece was in the rubble fill of a stone-built wall in Hut Circle 3; all the other pieces came from a restricted area outside Hut 3. The vessel is now in Sheffield City Museum (inv. no. 1984.514.1) and was made available for this Ballot by Miss Pauline Beswick, F.S.A., Keeper of Antiquities.

108 I am grateful to Dr David Williams, Department of Archaeology, University of Southampton, for this information.

109 Though the piece in the fill of the wall of Hut 3 suggests that the bowl was broken at the same time as, or earlier than, the construction of the hut.

110 Professor R. G. Newton, F.S.A., has also studied this vessel and I have benefited greatly from discussion with him.

111 For a detailed discussion of the technique of ‘sagging’, see Cummings, K., The Technique of Glass Forming (London, 1980), 23–37Google Scholar.

112 D. B. Harden and J. Price in Cunliffe, B. W., Excavations at Fishbourne 1961-1969, 11: The Finds, Soc. Antiq. London Res. Rep. 27 (1971), 323–6, nos. 2 and 4, fig. 137, pl. xxvGoogle Scholar.

113 Nash-Williams, V. E., ‘The Roman legionary fortress at Caerleon in Monmouthshire’, Arch. Camb. lxxxvii (1932), 87, fig. 35, 51 and 51aGoogle Scholar.

114 D. Charlesworth in Neal, D. S., ‘North-church, Boxmoor and Hemel Hempstead Station: the excavation of three Roman buildings in the Bulbourne Valley’, Hertfordshire Arch, iv (1974-1976), 31 and fig. xix, 1Google Scholar.

115 Fremersdorf, F., Römisches Buntglas in Köln: die Denkmäler des römischen Köln, III (Cologne, 1958), 51 and pl. 109Google Scholar.

116 Fremersdorf, F., ‘Zur Zeitstellung und zur Herkunft der Millefiori-Gläser aus den wandalischen Fürstengrabern von Sacrau bei Breslau’, Altschlesien Mitteilungen des Schlesischen Altertumsvereins, viii (1939), 85–90Google Scholar.

117 e.g. Wroxeter: Bushe-Fox, J. P., Second Report on the Excavations on the Site of the Roman Town at Wroxeter, Shropshire, 1913, Soc. Antiq. London Res. Rep. 2 (1914), 20Google Scholar and fig. 12; Caerhun: Reynolds, P. K. Baillie, ‘Excavations on the site of the Roman fort at Caerhun: 7th interim report’, ‘small finds’, Arch. Camb. xci (1936), 228Google Scholar and fig. 54, 4; York: Harden, D. B., ‘Roman glass in York’, in R. C. H. M., York, 1: Eburacum (1962), 136 and fig. 88, HG 218Google Scholar.

118 The vessel is now in the Buckinghamshire County Museum, Aylesbury. It was brought to my attention by Mr D. C. Mynard, Manager of the Milton Keynes Archaeology Unit, and made available for the Ballot by Mr C. N. Gowing, curator of the Museum. The site will be published in the near future in the Records of Bucks. Milton Keynes Monograph Series, 1.

119 Though Cummings (op. cit. (note III), 44 and fig. 47) has suggested that ‘gold band’ mosaic was sometimes added to blown unguent bottles.

120 Harden, and Price, , op. cit. (note 112), 324–6,Google Scholar nos. 6-7, fig. 137, pl. xxv; two fragments with wine-coloured ground and opaque green, yellow, light blue and white streaks found in the ploughsoil. The base did not have a pontil mark.

121 D. Charlesworth in Frere, S. S., Verulamium Excavations, 1, Soc. Antiq. London Res. Rep. 28 (1972), 212Google Scholar and fig. 79, 63. A fragment with emerald green ground with short rods of opaque yellow and patches of opaque red, from a deposit dated A.D. 280-90; D. Charlesworth in Frere, S. S., Verulamium Excavations, III, Oxford University Committee for Archaeology (1984), 159–61.Google Scholar Three body fragments from two vessels, one amber-streaked with opaque yellow from a deposit dated A.D. 300-50, and the other opaque(?) turquoise and yellow from a deposit dated A.D. 140-70.

122 Fremersdorf, , op. cit. (note 115), 51–2Google Scholar and pls. 110-12.

123 Goldstein, S., Pre-Roman and Early Roman Glass in the Corning Museum of Glass (New York, 1979), 252Google Scholar no. 751, pl. 35; Cooney, J. D., Catalogue of Egyptian Antiquities in the British Museum, iv: Glass (London, 1976), 139, no. 1713 and pl. 11Google Scholar.

124 Rütti, B., 3000 jahre Glaskunst von der Antike bis zum Jugendstil (Lucerne, 1981), 65, no. 178.Google Scholar The same vessel is also published in Ancient Glass (formerly the Kofler-Truniger Collection), Christie's Sale Catalogue (London, 1985), no. 171Google Scholar.

125 J. Price in Gracie, H. S. and Price, E. G., ‘Frocester Court Roman Villa, second report’, Trans. Bristol & Glos. Arch. Soc. xcvii (1979), 40 and pl. VIbGoogle Scholar.

126 Glass at the Fitzwilliam Museum (Cambridge, 1978), 28, no. 45Google Scholar.

127 Curie, J., ‘An inventory of objects of Roman and provincial Roman origin found on sites in Scotland not definitely associated with Roman constructions’, Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot. lxvi (1931-1932), 296Google Scholar and fig. 68.

128 Isings, C., Roman Glass from Dated Finds (Groeningen, 1957), Form 85Google Scholar.

129 King, D. J. C., Castellarium Anglicanum (New York, 1983), 1, 261Google Scholar.

130 Lincolnshire Red Portfolio, p. 11.

131 Pevsner, N. and Harris, J., The Buildings of England: Lincolnshire (Harmondsworth, 1964), 528–9,Google Scholar pl. 61a. The gatehouse is dated 1825. For the castle see also White, W., History, Gazetteer, and Directory of Lincolnshire (Sheffield, 1856), 714–15; andGoogle ScholarTrollope, E., Sleaford and the Wapentakes of Sleaford and Aswardburn (London, 1872), 510–11Google Scholar.

132 Assoc. Architect. Socs. Reports and Papers, vi (1861-1862), pp. xiv–xvGoogle Scholar.

133 Archaeologia, iv (1786), 356Google Scholar ff. and pl. xxi.

134 Steingraber, E., Antique Jewellery (London, 1957), 24, pl. 14Google Scholar.

135 Blair, C. H. Hunter, ‘Armorials upon English seals from the twelfth to sixteenth centuries’, Archaeologia, lxxxix (1943), 1–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

136 Ellis, W. S., The Antiquities of Heraldry, (London, 1869), 178,Google Scholar 181-5; and Pastoreau, , op. cit. (note 98), 194–6Google Scholar and carte III, discusses the lion and shows its relative frequency as a charge in medieval European heraldry.

137 Birch, W. de G., Catalogue of Seals in the…British Museum (London, 1887-1900), no. 6403Google Scholar.

138 Saunders, I. J., English Baronies: a Study of their Origin and Descent 1086-1327 (1960), 46Google Scholar.

139 Lloyd, L. C. and Stenton, D. M., Sir Christopher Hatton's Book of Seals, Northants. Record Soc. 15 (1950), 204,Google Scholar n. 297, 60-1, n. 88 and 296, n. 425.

140 The medieval pit (Old Market Hall site 1967-9, Phase V, trench D2E 5X, pit 14, layer DCT) was in the N. range of the fortress principia. It had cut through floor levels and overlying debris in the room immediately W. of the sacellum. I am grateful to Mr T. A. Heslop, F.S.A., Dr M. J. Hughes, F.S.A., Mr D. J. P. Mason and Mr D. Petch, F.S.A., for their help.

141 The sources for Bishop Peter are listed in the D. N. B. XLV (1896), 46Google Scholar.

142 The four are Wulfstan of Worcester, 1062-96 (see Heslop, T. A., ‘English seals from the mid ninth century to 1100’, J.B. A. A. cxxxiii (1980), 12)Google Scholar; Simon of Worcester (consecrated 1125) (B.L. no LVII 81); Selfrid of Chichester (consecrated 1125) (cast in Society of Antiquaries); and the first seal of Alexander of Lincoln (consecrated 1123) (B.L. no LVII 59).

143 Analysis by B.M. Research Lab. (file no. 5167). The only seal matrix with a similar high quantity of lead (93-5 per cent) is that of Benedict the Baker found at Dunwich (Tonnochy, A. B., Catalogue of British Seal Dies in the British Museum (London, 1952), no. 161Google Scholar.

144 For the seal of the Chapter of St Andrews, now in Carlisle Museum, see Proc. Soc. Antiq., 2nd ser. viii (1879), 128.Google Scholar The seal of Bishop Magnus of Vexio was found in Fakse churchyard, Denmark (could it have been buried in his grave?), and is now in the National Museum, Copenhagen, inv. no. D 1619.

145 The four lead forgeries in the British Museum (Tonnochy, , op. cit. (note 143), nos. 4, 785, 802, 822)Google Scholar are all lead-tin alloys. No. 4 (forgery of the great seal of Henry II) is 81.7 per cent lead and 17-3 per cent tin; no. 785 (forgery of Robert Archbishop of Canterbury) is 68.7 per cent lead and 30.3 per cent tin; no. 802 (forgery of Alexander, Bishop of Lincoln) is 48.8 per cent lead and 50.4 per cent tin; no. 822 (forgery of William of St Barbe, bishop of Durham) is 40.1 per cent lead and 55.4 per cent tin. No. 785 approximates to a typical ancient solder known as plumber's solder (70 per cent lead; 30 per cent tin).

146 English Romanesque Art 1066-1200, exhibition catalogue, Hayward Gallery (London, 1984), no. 363Google Scholar.

147 Tonnochy, , op. cit. (note 143), no. 1Google Scholar.

148 After the death of Richard of Bury, bishop of Durham in 1345 his four seals were broken and Richard of Wolveston made a silver-gilt chalice for the altar of St John the Baptist from them (ibid., p. x/iii).

149 We are grateful to the Curator of the Barrow-in-Furness Museum for help given. Furness Manor is shown in an elaborate engraving in Vetusta Monumenta, 1 (Soc. Antiq., 1747). 27Google Scholar.

150 The measurements of both reliefs are57 by 41 cm. For information on the Malines alabaster-carving industry in the seventeenth century, see Exposition de sculptures anglaises et malinoises d'albâtre (Brussels, 1967), 33–9Google Scholar.

151 Ibid., cat. no. M/47, fig. 33.

152 They measure 57 cm. (the Evangelist) and 57-5 cm. (the Baptist) in height. For rood-loft in the Victoria and Albert Museum, and the sculpture on it, see Avery, C., ‘The rood-loft from Hertogenbosch’, in Victoria and Albert Museum Yearbook, 1 (London, 1969), 110–36, figs. 24-7Google Scholar.

153 For a survey of Netherlandish sculpture in the seventeenth century, see Neurdenburg, E., De zeventiende eeuwsche beeldhouwkunst in de noordelijke Nederlanden (Amsterdam, 1948)Google Scholar.