Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T06:51:59.807Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sugar-Loaf Shield Bosses

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 November 2011

Vera I. Evison
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The description Zuckerhut has been used in German publications to distinguish the tall shield bosses of the eighth century which have certain variations in form but remain constant in being unusually tall in proportion to their width. The term is taken from the shape of the clay mould in which, as late as the end of the nineteenth century, sugar was left to drain and set, the walls of the resulting sugar-loaves being usually slightly convex, rising to a point. ‘Sugar-loaf’ is therefore used here as a general term for the whole species of shield boss of tall proportions, but more specifically for the high, curved cone. The straight-sided cone may be more properly referred to as conical. Some of these have been noticed in England, and as they begin at the end of the pagan period when grave goods are sparse, it seemed likely that a study of them with their associated finds and relations overseas might provide a useful contribution to this part of Saxon chronology. It must be remembered that examination of shield bosses of this period is often made difficult by a thick coating of rust with other accretions, but the inside is sometimes less affected and yields more information. Although every effort has been made towards accuracy, it is possible that details may have been missed which might become visible after cleaning, but a number of the bosses are so fragmentary that further treatment would not seem to be advisable.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Antiquaries Journal , Volume 43 , Issue 1 , March 1963 , pp. 38 - 96
Copyright
Copyright © The Society of Antiquaries of London 1963

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

page 38 note 1 Deerr, Noel, History of Sugar (1950), i, pl. viGoogle Scholar, a painting of a Sicilian factory by Hans van der Straat (1536-1605) which shows rows of sugarloaves and their moulds; for a description of their use, ibid., ii. 465.

page 38 note 2 Bushe-Fox, J. P., Richborough, iv (1949), 155Google Scholar, item 352, pl. LXIII, LXIV. The ditches were dug at the end of the third century and filled in not earlier than A.D. 350, ibid. 66–70.

page 38 note 3 Ibid., p. 80; p. 155, items 349, 352, pl. LXIII.

page 38 note 4 Ibid., pl. LXIII, 351.

page 38 note 5 Ibid., pl. LXIII, 350, 352.

page 39 note 1 Universitetets Oldsaksamling, Oslo, 12830, Molden Gran, Hadeland, Oppland. Grieg, S., ‘Hadelandseldste bosetnings historia’, Skrifter utgitt av det Norske Videnskaps-Akademi i Oslo (1925)Google Scholar, Hist.-Filos. Kl. II, p. 47, fig. 34. Rygh, O., Norske Oldsager (1885), fig. 218, p. 10Google Scholar.

page 39 note 2 Tischler, F., Das Gräberfeld Oberjersdal, Kr. Hadersleben (1955), Taf. 12 and 5Google Scholar.

page 39 note 3 Werner, J., ‘Eberzier von Monceau-le-Neuf’, Acta Arch, xx (1949), 248–57Google Scholar.

page 39 note 4 Mém. Soc. Ant. Picardie (Amiens), x (1850), 216–20Google Scholar; Werner, J., Bonner Jahrbücher (1958), 158, S. 405, Taf. 82–83Google Scholar.

page 39 note 5 Ibid., Abb. 11.

page 39 note 6 Zeiss, H., ‘Schildbuckel von Zuckerhutform’, Reinecke Festschrift (1950), 175–6Google Scholar.

page 39 note 7 Eck, Th., Les deux cimetières gallo-romains de Vermand et de St-Quentin (1891), pl. 11Google Scholar; Boulanger, C., Le mobilier funéraire (1905), Taf. 10 and 20Google Scholar.

page 39 note 8 Warhurst, A., ‘The Jutish Cemetery at Lyminge’, Arch. Cant, lxix, p. 7, fig. 3, 4Google Scholar; p. 10, fig. 4, 5; Evison, V., ‘An Anglo-Saxon Cemetery at Rainham, Essex’, Arch, xcvi, 169, fig. 6Google Scholar; Petersfinger, Wilts., Leeds, E. T. and Shorn, H. de S., An Anglo-Saxon Cemetery at Petersfinger (1953), 8 and 9Google Scholar.

page 40 note 1 Arch. Cant. lxx (1956), 96Google Scholar.

page 40 note 2 Sussex Arch. Coll. xxxviii, 177. It is not known which grave this came from. It may be worth noting that in the plan of the earliest batch of graves excavated orientation was W–E, but in the case of the two containing shield bosses it was S–N and SW–NE.

page 40 note 3 Sussex Arch. Coll. lvi, pl. xvi, 3.

page 40 note 4 Proc. Hants F.C. and Arch. Soc. xix, 2, fig. 13.

page 40 note 5 Moyses Hall Museum, Bury St. Edmunds; Proc. Bury and West Suffolk Arch. Inst. i (1853), pl. III, 3Google Scholar.

page 41 note 1 W.A.M. xliii, pl. 11, figs. 1–3; V.C.H. Wilts, i, 1, pp. 69, 244.

page 41 note 2 Salisbury Museum 196/39, W.A.M. xlix (1942), 114.

page 41 note 3 Reg. no. 1135.

page 41 note 4 Reg. no. 1018, ’70.

page 41 note 5 Reg. no. 83 12–14 5.

page 41 note 6 Arch, lx, 325.

page 41 note 7 Reg. no. 83 12–14 6.

page 41 note 8 Royal Museum, Canterbury.

page 41 note 9 B.M. Reg. no. 98 8–3 89.

page 41 note 10 B.M. Reg. no. 1911 3–4 1.

page 41 note 11 Brown, G. Baldwin, The Arts in Early England, iii, pl. XXII, 2bGoogle Scholar.

page 41 note 12 B.M. Reg. no. 88 7–19 43.

page 41 note 13 Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Cambridge, Reg. no. 48 1649.

page 41 note 14 Arch. Cant. xix (1892), 35–37Google Scholar.

page 41 note 15 The spear is illustrated in D.M. Cat. ii, pl. LXXXIVa, 5, p. 248, and all three items are preserved in Devizes Museum.

page 41 note 16 Proc. Hants F.C. and Arch. Soc. xix, 2 (1958), pp. 123, 139, figs. 5 and 12Google Scholar.

page 41 note 17 King's Lynn Museum, A. 101.

page 41 note 18 Sussex Arch. Coll. lvi, 38, pl. XVI, 2.

page 42 note 1 Sussex Arch. Coll. LVI, 38, pl. XVII, 6.

page 42 note 2 Ibid., pl. XVI, 4, XVII, 2.

page 42 note 3 Hoare, R. Colt, Ancient History of Wiltshire, ii (1819), 26Google Scholar, pls. XXXVI, XXXVII; D.M. Cat. i, 216–17a, 221, 244, 300, 355; V.C.H. Wilts. i, pt. i, 60.

page 42 note 4 The word ‘lost’ written by Cunnington below the drawings of two spears, a sword and two glasses shows that these had already disappeared by the early nineteenth century.

page 42 note 5 Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Cambridge, no. 48; Fox, C. F., Archaeology of the Cambridge Region (1923), 265Google Scholar: ‘The site is called Mutlow, which points to the former existence of a barrow.’

page 42 note 6 B.M. Reg. no. 95 3–13 30. This was found divorced from its number in the British Museum, but its identification seems certain.

page 42 note 7 B.M. Reg. no. 1019 ‘70.

page 42 note 8 Proc. Cambs. Ant. Soc. xlix (1955) 34–35, figs. 2, 3, pl. IVfGoogle Scholar.

page 43 note 1 Hoare, R. Colt, op. cit. i, 48Google Scholar; W.A.M. xlvi, 164; V.C.H. Wilts, i, pt. i, 119.

page 43 note 2 Excavated by Mr. A. R. Edwardson, Hon. Curator of Moyses Hall Museum, Bury St. Edmunds, in the Mildenhall Road Housing Estate, Northumberland Avenue. This was probably a cemetery, for some years earlier a double grave, man and woman, had been found nearby: it contained a set of toilet implements, bracelet, ring and bronze fragments.

page 43 note 3 Ant. Journ. xxxv, pl. IXa, and fig. 5.

page 43 note 4 Faussett, B., op. cit., fig. 1, p. 55Google Scholar.

page 43 note 5 P.S.A. viii, 507. No trace of bronze now. B.M. Reg. no. 83 12–13 589; the glass vessel 83 12–13 596.

page 43 note 6 Partly excavated in 1960 and 1961 on behalf of the Ministry of Works by the writer. Thanks are due to the Ministry for permission to publish it here.

page 43 note 7 B.M. Reg. no. 88 7–19 42.

page 43 note 8 Referred to as ‘iron bindings of shield’ in D.M. Cat. 243, S. 46; not mentioned W.A.M. xliii, 435–7; W.A.M. xlvi, 157; V.C.H. Wilts, i, pt. i, 27.

page 43 note 9 Trans. Herts. Nat. Hist. Soc. and F.C. iv (1885–7), 40, pl. 11, 10–12; B.M. Reg. no. 1915 12–8 365. The fig. 22b indicates the stud was thought to belong to the apex of the boss, but there is no trace of this.

page 44 note 1 The Portsmouth Reader, 11, no. 3 (1948)Google Scholar.

page 44 note 2 Vol. vi.

page 44 note 3 Faussett, B., op. cit., p. 168.Google Scholar The account is also printed in Douglas, J., Nenia Britannica, p. 106Google Scholar, where the sentence is prolonged by ‘one part of the brim being broken off’. Also Faussett MS., vol. vi, 15.

page 44 note 4 ‘Early Medieval’ scrap-book.

page 44 note 5 Arch, xxx, 49.

page 44 note 6 Proc. Coventry and District Nat. Hist. and Scientific Soc., Fig. 3D.

page 45 note 1 Museum, Thetford, Norfolk Archaeology, 27, p. 240, pl. 14, topGoogle Scholar.

page 45 note 2 Douglas, J., Nenia Britannica (1793) pl. xxvGoogle Scholar, ii. (Misquoted by me as coming from St. Margaret's in Arch. Cant. lxx, 96.) The scale given is rough, but seems to be about 1: 4.

page 46 note 1 Northampton Museum D. 290/1955/6.

page 46 note 2 B.M. Reg. no. 91 6–24 59. This cannot be identified in the original report on the Kempston cemetery: Ass. Archit. Soc. Reports and Papers, 1864, vii, pt. ii, 269–99. Only für shields were mentioned, of which the one found on 2nd February was only a fragment, and the one found on 3rd May had been damaged before burial, and was further wrecked by the workman's pick. It must therefore have been found either on 11th November ‘with four button-headed rivets, by which it had been fastened to the wooden disk. Fragments of bronze, which had been richly gilt, and had formed the rim. Two spearheads and a large knife’ or on nt h December when a boss with a grip and silver rivets was excavated with the silver fish appliqué, and a spearhead.

page 46 note 3 Lincoln City Museum 9758–06: Arch, Journ. xc (1934), 187Google Scholar.

page 46 note 4 Atkinson, D., The Romano-British Site on Lowbury Hill in Berkshire (1916), 15–23, pl. IV–VIGoogle Scholar.

page 46 note 5 It is suggested in the report that the piece of wood and pieces of leather by the comb were part of a comb case. However, the comb and leather owe their preservation to the proximity of the bronze bowl. The piece of wood underneath is presumably preserved for the same reason and could have been part of a much larger object than a comb-case—the shield, for instance, or a coffin or bier. In any event, its maximum thickness of 1·8 cm. seems to preclude use as a comb-case. Fragments of leather show small stitching perforations along the edge, and the pointed ‘flap’ shown in D. Atkinson, op. cit., pl. VIb has perforations along each edge, so that it is likely to have been a gusset (rather than a flap) in something like a glove or a shoe. The bone plate is heavily stained with bronze although it is said to have been found on the left shoulder. It is possible that the stain betrays its original position near the bronze bowl—it might have been displaced by the ‘ill-judged attempt to extract it whole’—and that leather and bone together form a ‘bracer’ for an archer's left arm.

page 47 note 1 B.M. Reg. no. 62 7–22 3; Brown, Baldwin, op. cit. iv, 649Google Scholar.

page 47 note 2 Hoare, R. Colt, op. cit. i, 46–47Google Scholar, pl. IV; D.M. Cat. i, 290, 291a; W.A.M. xlvi, 159; V.C.H. Wilts, i, 1, pp. 84, 243.

page 47 note 3 Others occurred at Desborough, Northants, ., Arch. xlv, 465–71Google Scholar, and Cransley, nr. Kettering, , P.S.A. ix, 93–94Google Scholar; cf. Viking types, Petersen, J., Vikingetidens Redskaper (1951), fig. 212Google Scholar.

page 47 note 4 Grave 36: Lethbridge, T., A Cemetery at Shudy Camps (1936), fig. 7, 2Google Scholar.

page 47 note 5 e.g.Gjessing, G., ‘Studier i norsk Merovingertid’, Skrifter utgitt av det Norske Videnskaps-Akademi i Oslo, Hist.-Filos. Kl. (1934), No. 2, p. 121.Google Scholar Reginald Smith in his account of the Anglo-Saxons in V.C.H. Surrey, i, 259, mentions among the shield bosses from Croydon ‘two tall specimens of conical form with ribs running from point to base’, There seems to be no other physical or literary trace of these, and it should be noticed that there is confusion in the sentence immediately following, where the author regards the boss from the Farthingdown cemetery and the one in the Ashmolean Museum as two separate examples instead of one and the same, On p. 266 he actually says that the Farthingdown boss is preserved in the Ashmolean Museum, and compares it with ‘the specimen mentioned above from Croydon’, thereby implying that there was only one such boss from Croydon. It may be that he was thinking of the Croydon boss, fig. 17b, which in fact has no ribs.

page 48 note 1 There seems to be no other boss with segmentary construction, but it is perhaps worth noting a boss from Rill bei Xanten, Grave 69, which is not of Zuckerhut type but has a high dome, with slight carination and a rudimentary hollow cylindrical knob at the top. The rim, now broken off, is about 2 cm. wide with large disc-headed rivets, so that the dimensions are diam. c. 22 cm., ht. c. 10 cm. (apparently reversed in Bonner Jahrbücher, 148 (1948), where the rim is not illustrated). The inside of the dome is free from rust and eight equally-spaced vertical reverse-ridge lines running from apex to flange are visible. It may be that such structural details exist, but are obscured, on many others.

page 48 note 2 Surrey Arch. Coll. vi, 109–17. The boss and sword only are preserved in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. The bronze buckle with iron tongue is known from a drawing in the original report, of which fig. 30b is a copy. Evidently it had a doubled bronze plate fastened by two rivets. The description of the grip is detailed: ‘on lifting up the umbo, we found a short cylinder, or rather half cylinder, of iron, resembling the longitudinal section of a gaspipe. This corresponded with the diameter of the umbo, and was furnished at each end with a slight wing or projection, for the purpose of attaching it o t the umbo; and it can hardly be doubted that it was contrived as a handle by which the shield could be firmly held.’

page 48 note 3 Dover Museum. Smith, C. Roach, Coll. Ant. i, 99, pl. xxxvii, 1, 5, and 6Google Scholar.

page 48 note 4 B.M. Reg. nos. 1912 12–20 1–4; P.S.A. xxiv, 327; B.M. Anglo-Saxon Guide, 62–63, figs. 69, 70; Vulliamy, C. E., The Archaeology of Middlesex and London (1930), 230Google Scholar.

page 48 note 5 B.M. Reg. nos. 73 6–2 103–5; Lucas, J. F., ‘Notice of the Opening of a Celtic and Anglo-Saxon Grave-mound at Tissington, Derbyshire’, in Jewitt, L., The Reliquary, v, 165–9Google Scholar; Jewitt, L., Grave Mounds and their Contents (1870), fig. 7, 372 and 408Google Scholar; Fowler, M. J., ‘The Anglian settlement of the Derbyshire–Staffordshire Peak District’, Derbyshire Arch, and Nat. Hist. Soc. Journ. (1954), p. 149.Google Scholar It should be noted that in Fowler, M. J., op. cit., p. 150Google Scholar, it is stated that another ‘shield boss of the same kind’ was found at Brushfield, but I am able t o trace no evidence to support this. The fig. 213 referred to in L. Jewitt, Half-hours with British Antiquities, is in fact the boss from Tissington. Although J. F. Lucas, op. cit., compares the burial at Brushfield with that at Tissington, he has nothing t o say about the shape of the umbo, and neither has Bateman, T., Ten Years’ Diggings (1861), p. 70,Google ScholarVestiges (1848), p. 27.Google Scholar

I am grateful to Mr. D. Wilson, British Museum, who arranged for this sword to be X-rayed. The radiograph shows evidence of pattern-welding, apparently in longitudinal and zigzag patterns, three zones and double-sided.

page 49 note 1 Colchester Museum 115·98.

page 49 note 2 Rooke, H., ‘Roman remains in Sherwood Forest’, Arch, x, 378–85.Google Scholar The true nature of this burial was recognized by Bateman, Thomas in 1853, ‘On early burial places discovered in the County of Nottingham’, J.B.A.A. viii, 188Google Scholar; presumably Baldwin Brown was using his description, for the objects do not now appear to exist: Arts in Early England, iv, 774.

page 49 note 3 Hewett, Wm., Hundred of Compton (1844), pp. 153–5, pl. IGoogle Scholar.

page 49 note 4 The Reading Mercury, 28th January 1843. According to this the tumulus was about 100 yards to the west of the Cross Barrows previously opened.

‘Throughout the tumulus numerous pieces of corroded iron of no very determined form were confusedly scattered’. At the hip was a weapon 7 in. long ‘slightly curved and sharp only on the inner side’, i.e. a knife, not a spear (possibly one of those illustrated in Hewett, Wm., op. cit., pl. 1Google Scholar), and ‘another smaller weapon 1½″ long’. The boss was at the foot. ‘Close to this singular vessel were several pieces of corroded metal, from one of which projected a curious hook’ (if this is the object to the right of the boss on Hewett's plate, it is no doubt part of the grip with a bent-over rivet) ‘together with two iron ornaments resembling studs.… About the same spot was also a small, well-executed buckle of brass’ (one of the studs and the buckle are presumably those shown under the boss) ‘together with several fragments of unbaked pottery, ornamented with zigzags and other mouldings, some of which were glazed, and all of them of better material than the fragments of urns contained in the other tumulus’. Sherds from Cross Barrows are shown in Hewett, , op. cit., pl. III, 4, 5, 6Google Scholar.

page 50 note 1 The bosses in the following graves are described as conical: Kingston 124, 127, 130, 163, 164, 167, Gilton 6, 21, 24, Sibertswold 81, 82, 97, 99, 102, 108, 111, 112, 177, Barfriston 47.

page 50 note 2 MS. 723, folio 30, sketches of objects from Kingston Down by H. G. Faussett, and folio 26, sketches by H. G. Faussett of weapons from Sibertswold and Barfriston.

page 50 note 3 Vol. iii, 22.

page 50 note 4 Faussett, B., op. cit., p. 132.Google Scholar The figure from MS. 723 shows the measurements of the tang as 5¾ in., the blade 13¼ in. and 1⅜ in. wide at the widest point near the tang. Also shown is a bronze U-sectioned strip with scored decoration, presumably from the edge of the sheath, and two flat ribbon strips, slightly shorter and probably also from the scabbard.

page 51 note 1 Grieg, S., ‘Merovingisk og norsk’, Videnskaps-selskapets Skrifter, ii, Hist.-Filos. Kl. 1922, no. 9Google Scholar; G. Gjessing, op. cit.

page 51 note 2 H. Zeiss, op. cit.

page 51 note 3 Baume, P. La, ‘Die Wikingerzeit auf den Nordfriesischen Inseln’, Jahrbuch des Nordfriesischen Vereins für Heimatkunde und Heimatliebe, Bd. xxix (1952/1953), 24–28Google Scholar.

page 52 note 1 Oudheidkundige Mededeelingen, N.R., vii (1926), Afb. 33.

page 52 note 2 Stampfuss, R., Der spätfränkische Sippenfriedhof von Walsum (1939), Taf. 6, 3; 12, 1; 13, 6Google Scholar.

page 52 note 3 Rcinecke Festschrift (1950), p. 178Google Scholar, Abb. 4, 5; Stein, F., ‘Das alamannische Gräberfeld von Göggingen, Ldkr. Augsburg’, Bayerische Vorgeschichtsblätter, 26 (1961), 75–107Google Scholar.

page 57 note 1 Rheinisches Landesmuseum, Bonn, 5636.

page 57 note 2 Examples in easily accessible reproductions are: de Wald, E. T., Illustrations of the Utrecht Psalter, pls. XLI, XLIX, L, LI, LV, etc.Google Scholar; Boinet, A., La Miniature carolingienne (1913), pls. XXX, XLIX, CXV, CXXIVGoogle Scholar; Wormald, F., English Drawings of the tenth and eleventh centuries (1952), pl. 32Google Scholar; ivory—Goldschmidt, A., Die Elfenbeinskulpturen (1914. seq.), i, 11aGoogle Scholar.

page 57 note 3 Leiden Museum, L. 1912/L. 29.

page 57 note 4 Oslo, Universitets Oldsaksamling, no. 249B.

page 57 note 5 Oslo no. 22237d.

page 57 note 6 National Museum, Copenhagen, C. 10279. Acta Arch. xxvi (1955), 143.

page 57 note 7 National Museum, Copenhagen, 558/56; Acta Arch. xxvi, 103, fig. 50.

page 57 note 8 Bergen Museum, B. 5807. Shetelig, S. H., ‘Vestlandske graver fra Jernalderen’, Bergens Museums Shifter, Ny Raekke, Bd. II, 1 (1912), 104–7, fig. 246Google Scholar; Gjessing, , op. cit., p. 121Google Scholar.

page 57 note 9 Oslo Museum 12451.

page 57 note 10 Baume, La, op. cit., Taf. 3, 5.Google Scholar Dr. Taute-Stein does not see these as a separate sub-group. She points out that there are many variations of form in this type.

page 57 note 11 Information kindly provided by Tromsø Museum.

page 57 note 12 Museé de la Société d'archélogie, Hôtel Gruuthuse, Roosens, Bruges. H., De Merovingische Begraaf-plaatsen in Belgie (1949), p. 41Google Scholar.

page 57 note 13 Musée de Mariemont, Belgium. The cemetery was excavated in 1911 and the associated objects are not known. Wassenbergh, A. and Wijsenbeek, L. J. F., Van Friezen, Franken en Saksen (1959), no. 19bGoogle Scholar.

page 58 note 1 Oslo Museum 2273.

page 58 note 2 Neuwied Museum.

page 58 note 3 Kurpfälzisches Museum, Heidelberg. Neue Heidelberger Jahrbücher, N.F., 1927, S. 128.

page 59 note 1 Obingheim is omitted from the map as nothing but a very brief description is extant; Harster, W., Die Ausgräbungen d. hist. Vereins d. Pfalz (1886), 65.Google Scholar I am very grateful to Prof. J. Werner for literary references to these bosses.

page 59 note 2 The boss from Hollenstedt II was thought to have a button top, but cleaning has revealed it only possessed the normal small cylindrical stump. Wegewitz, W., ‘Stand der Sachsenforschung im Kreise Harburg’, Die Kunde, N.F., II, 43, Abb. 13Google Scholar.

page 59 note 3 Ibid. 54, Abb. 27, 28, 28b.

page 59 note 4 Stampfuss, R., op. cit., Taf. 6, 3Google Scholar.

page 59 note 5 Schindler, R. ‘Ein sächsisches Reitergrab in Hamburg-Schnelsen’, Hammaburg, viii (1952), 132Google Scholar.

page 59 note 6 Grave 200 at Maschen, in a cemetery of mostly W–E graves, lies isolated at the north edge in a S–N direction: Die Kunde, 11, Abb. 26.

page 60 note 1 It is possible that No. 4, labelled ‘Boulogne’, may have been from this cemetery, which is near Boulogne. The two spots will not be out of place in this area, however, as the cemetery of Hardenthun is said to have produced several of this type of boss.

page 61 note 1 Lethbridge, T. C., Merlin's Island (1948), p. 139Google Scholar.

page 61 note 2 Arch, lxxxix (1943), fig. 17, 66Google Scholar.

page 62 note 1 Haseloff, G., ‘Fragments of a Hanging Bowl from Bekesbourne, Kent’, Med. Arch, ii, 77Google Scholar.

page 62 note 2 Trans. Bristol and Glos. Arch. Soc. lxxi (1952), 79–80Google Scholar.

page 62 note 3 An imitation of this is to be seen in the Melbourn grave, where the rivets are replaced by repoussé knobs.

page 62 note 4 These occurred at Sittingbourne, Rodmead Down, Portsdown, Ilsley, and there was one Bury St. Edmunds.

page 62 note 5 B.M., Sutton Hoo Ship Burial, fig. 5.

page 63 note 1 Leeds, E. T., Early Anglo-Saxon Art and Archaeology (1936), pp. 96 ff.Google Scholar; Lethbridge, T. C., A Cemetery at Shudy Camps, Cambs. (1936), pp. 27–29Google Scholar.

page 63 note 2 B.M., Anglo-Saxon Guide, pp. 55–56.

page 63 note 3 Faussett, B., op. cit., p. 15Google Scholar; Smith, C. R., Coll. Ant. i, 6Google Scholar.

page 63 note 4 Faussett, B., op. cit., pp. 130–2, pl. xi, 1 and 3Google Scholar.

page 63 note 5 Rigold, S. E., ‘The Two Primary Series of Sceattas’, British Num. Journ. xxx, 6–53Google Scholar.

page 63 note 6 V.C.H. Essex i, 328.

page 65 note 1 Rygh, O., op. cit., fig. 565.Google Scholar Taller bosses without spike occur at Vesterhaug, Löten, Hedmark (C. 22138d), and Engelang, Löten, Hedmark (C. 10715).

page 65 note 2 Shetelig, H., Viking Antiquities (1940), iii, 34–38, figs. 15 and 16Google Scholar.

page 65 note 3 Miss W. Slomann kindly informs me there are about half a dozen.

page 65 note 4 Shetelig, H., op. cit., pp. 32–33 and 50, figs. 14 and 29Google Scholar.

page 65 note 5 Ibid, ii, pp. 27–28, fig. 11.

page 65 note 6 Ibid, iv, 18–19.