Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T06:49:52.490Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Exhibits at Ballots

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 November 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
Exhibits at Ballots
Information
The Antiquaries Journal , Volume 60 , Issue 2 , September 1980 , pp. 328 - 357
Copyright
Copyright © The Society of Antiquaries of London 1980

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 Nicholas Banatvala of Little Acre, Henham.

2 The writer is deeply grateful to Mr. and Mrs. R. Smith of Pledgdon Hall for their help and interest.

3 Thanks are due to K. Mercer of the Conservation Laboratory, Institute of Archaeology, London, for carrying out this work on which a full report has been provided.

4 I am indebted to Miss Veryan Heal for her interest and for providing this report.

5 Coles, J. M., Heal, S. V. E. and Orme, B. J., ‘The use and character of wood in prehistoric Britain and Ireland’, Proc. Prehist. Soc. xliv (1978), 1–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 Schwabendissen, H., ‘Die Ausgrabungen im Satruper Moor’, Offa, xvi (1958), 5–39, fig. 8aGoogle Scholar.

7 Clark, J. G. D.The Earlier Stone Age Settlement of Scandinavia (1975), p. 188Google Scholar.

8 Morris, G., ‘Some Neolithic sites in the upper valley of the Essex Cam’, The Essex Naturalist, xx (1923), 49–68Google Scholar.

9 Hazzeldine Warren, S., ‘Some geological and prehistoric records on the north-west border of Essex’, The Essex Naturalist, xxvii (1945), 274–6Google Scholar.

10 Roe, F., ‘Stone mace-heads and the latest Neolithic cultures of the British Isles’, in Coles, J. M. and Simpson, D. D. A. (eds.), Studies in Ancient Europe (1968), pp. 145–72Google Scholar.

11 The samples were taken on site and studied by Robert G. Scaife, Institute of Archaeology, to whom I am much indebted for the results of his findings which are summarized here.

12 I am very grateful to our Fellow Robert Wilkins for supplying photographs.

13 Henig, M., A Corpus of Roman Engraved Gemstones from British Sites (BAR 8, 2nd edn., 1978), nos. 718, 719Google Scholar.

14 Toynbee, J. M. C., Art in Roman Britain (London, 1962), no. 69Google Scholar.

15 e.g. Chiesa, G. Sena, Getnme del Museo Nazionale di Aquileia (Padua, 1966)Google Scholar, no. 1502 with Cancer, Capricorn, Libra; Maaskant-Kleibrink, M., Catalogue of Engraved Gems in the Royal Coin Cabinet, The Hague. The Greek, Etruscan and Roman Collections (The Hague, 1978)Google Scholar, no. 1026, Scorpio and Capricorn; ibid. no. 692, Scorpio with star; Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge, ace. no. B343(CM) with the same device.

16 Bonner, C., Studies in Magical Amulets chiefly Graeco-Egyptian (Ann Arbor, 1950), pp. 77–8Google Scholar; also see Delatte, A. and Derchain, P., Bibliotheque Nationale. Les Intailles magiques Grico-figyptiennes (Paris, 1964), pp. 269–73, nos. 388–92Google Scholar.

17 Barb, A. A., review of Delatte and Derchain in Gnomon, xli (1969), 305Google Scholar, n. 4. For yellow jasper gems see, for instance, Chiesa, Sena, op. cit. in n. 15, nos. 1380, 1382, and 1384Google Scholar; Chiesa, G. Sena, Getnme di Luni (Rome, 1978), no. 150Google Scholar; Hamburger, A., ‘Gems from Caesarea Maritima’, ‘Atiqot, viii (1968), no. 161Google Scholar; Maaskant-Kleibrink, , op. cit., no. 1026Google Scholar(also with Capricorn) and the gem in Cambridge cited in n. 15. Also the amulet, Henig, M., The Lewis Collection of Engraved Gemstones in Corpus Christi College, Cambridge (BAR SI, 1975), no. 260Google Scholar.

18 Certainly the ‘Abraxas-gem’ from Sil-chester seems to have been set in a ring for the upper surface was a little worn while the lower surface is fresh; the Aesica ‘Abraxas-gem’ is indeed still set in its ring. Henig, op. cit. in n. 13, nos. 366, 367. On theamuletic properties of gems, note that amethyst prevented drunkeness (as its name suggests), that Jupiter is often shown on a milky chalcedony, and Demeter on a green jasper.

19 Chiesa, Sena, op. cit. in n. 15, nos. 1379–84Google Scholar; Chiesa, Sena, op. cit. in n. 17, nos. 159–51Google Scholar; Hamburger, , op. cit., no. 161Google Scholar; Maddoli, G., ‘Le Cretule del Nomophylakion di Cirene’, Annu-ario Scuola Archaeologica di Atene, xli–xlii (1963–1964), 125 and fig. 42, nos. 883–6Google Scholar.

20 On sealings and the metal stamps from which they were generally struck see my report on a bronze cube from Kingscote, Gloucester-shire, . Antiq. J. lvii (1977), 320–1Google Scholar.

21 Arch. Ael. 2nd ser. x, (1884–1885), 254 and plate of sealings no. 1Google Scholar; Grenier, A., Manuel d'Archiologie Gallo-Romaine, ii (Paris, 1934), pp. 648–52Google Scholar and especially fig. 228,17 and 18.

22 Mattingly, H., Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum. V. Pertinax to Elagabalus (London, 1950), p. 176Google Scholar, no. 127, pl. 29, 18; p. 116, no. 464, pl. 19, 18.

23 Grenier, , op. cit., fig 229, 79Google Scholar.

24 Amongst gems in general see Henig, , op. cit. in n. 13Google Scholar, nos. 314–23; on the Blackfriars coin see Marsden, P. R. V., A Ship of the Roman Period from Blackfriars in the City of London (London, c. 1965), pp. 36–7, pls. 7 and 8Google Scholar.

25 For this patterned style on gems showing Caracalla see Richter, G. M. A., Engraved Gems of the Romans (London, 1971), nos. 582, 583.Google Scholar On gems depicting Maaskant-Klei-brink, Fortuna, op. cit. (1978), nos. 750 and 751Google Scholar.

26 The intaglio was originally in the collection of the late Mosheh Oved and the gold ring in which it is now set was made by his widow San Oved in 1979. It is no w in the possession of David Peace, F.S.A.

27 Chiesa, G. Sena, op. cit. in n. 15, no. 1010.Google ScholarGramatopol, M., Les pierres gravies du Cabinet numismatique de l'Acadtmie Roumaine (Brussels, 1974), no. 605Google Scholar; Furtwangler, A., Konigliche Museen zu Berlin. Beschreibung der geschnittenen Steine (Berlin, 1896), no. 8303Google Scholar; Walters, H. B., Catalogue of Engraved Gems, Greek, Etruscan and Romanin the British Museum (London, 1926), no. 2584Google Scholar.

28 Blanchet, A., ‘Recherches sur les “grylles”, Revue des Etudes Anciennes, xxiii (1921), 43–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar, especially p. 45, fig. 2.

29 e.g. from Caesarea Maritima, Hamburger, A., op. cit. in n. 17Google Scholar, nos. 126, 127; from British sites, Henig, M., op. cit. in n. 13Google Scholar, nos. 373–83, app. 149; see Hafner, G, ‘Neu Misch-wesen des 4 Jahrhunderts’, Wiener Jahre-shefte, xxxii (1940), 25–34Google Scholar on combinations upon Greek vases, and Thompson, H A. in Hesperia, xviii (1949), 226 and pl. 46, 5,Google Scholar no. J 110 for a gemstone from a jewellery hoard of the third century A.D. found in the Roman baths on the north-western slope of the Areopagus, Athens.

30 Pliny, , N.H. xxv, 37Google Scholar.

31 Aristophanes, Frogs n, 937 f.

32 Quaest. Conviv. v, 7, 681, and see Blanchet, op. cit., p. 50.

33 Vollenweider, M. L., Musee d'Art et d'Histoire de Genève. Catalogue Raisonné des Sceaux, Cylindres, Intailles et Camées (Mainz, text 1979, illustrations 1976), pp. 346f., nos. 388, 389Google Scholar.

34 For instance Sen a Chiesa, op. cit. in n. 15, no. 1286 (eagle); Henig, op. cit. in n. 13, no. 109 (cupid as horseman).

35 However, see Guiraud, H., ‘Une Intaille magique au Musée d'Arles’, Revue Archeologique de Narbonnaise, vii (1974), 207–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar for a combination employe d on one side of an amulet of Graeco-Egyptian type.

36 Maaskant-Kleibrink, M., op. cit. in n. 15, pp. 154 ff.Google Scholar; see p. 346 for combinations which she designates ‘Mask-Animal gems’ and hesitates to date closely.

37 It is hoped to open parts of the building, the natatio and frigidarium mostly, to the public. For earlier work see my Isca (1972), pp. 77–82Google Scholar; for later, Britannia, ix (1978), 409–10Google Scholar; x (1979), 273–4; and xi (1980), 351.

38 Kindly identified by Dr. Peter Northover of the University of Oxford.

39 Russell, J., Anatolian Studies, xxiv (1974), 95–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar I am grateful to Mr. Mark Hassall, F.S.A., for drawing my attention to this site in the first place. έλούσου is not, it appears, a hapaxlegomenon.

40 Walters, H. B., Brit. Mus. Cat. Bronzes (1899), no. 2455 = Guide to…Google ScholarGreek and Roman Life (1929), p. 113, fig. 118Google Scholar; Bónis, É. B., Folia Archaeologica, xix (1968), 25–58, Abb. 12–14Google Scholar; Schroder, B., Der Sport im Altertum (1927), Taf. 100Google Scholar.

41 Ginouvès, R., Balaneutike (1962)Google Scholar, passim; Schroder, Abb. 43, etc.

42 Ibid., pp. 158–62.

43 As interprete d by Beazley, J. D., Amer. J. Arch, lxxxix (1935), 480–1.Google Scholar It may be added that there was usually a second anointing, nothing to do with the athletics, after the bath; so the word Aovco is perhaps not so strained after all. Several of the figures in Ginouvès, op. cit., are engaged with strigils in washing themselves at a louterion, or labrum.

44 Bónis, 56; Brit. Mus. Cat., loc. cit.; George Witt noted the resemblance in his original publication of this pai r of strigils, which was found in a grave nea r Diisseldorf (Archaeologia, xliii (1871), 255, cf. pl. xxiv)Google Scholar.

45 Diodorus Siculus iv, 14. 1–2; Pausanias v, Elis i, 7.9; Apollodorus ii, 7.2 s 6; cf. Bdnis, 55–6, refs.

46 This was the same technique as had been used centuries previously for the wonderful inlaid daggers of Mycenaean Greece, cf. Karo, G., Die Schachtgrdber von Mykenai (1930), p. 313,Google Scholar etc. The best pictures are in Marinatos, S. and Hirmer, Max, Crete and Mycenae (1960), pls. XXXV–VIII.Google ScholarMaryon, H., Metalwork and Enamel-ling (1954 edn.), pp. 159–50Google Scholar, describes the same method. There is no mention of any adhesive.

47 Matthies, G., Athenische Mitteilungen, xxxix (1914), 104–29, Taf. 9, leftGoogle Scholar.

48 Cf. Klügmann, A., Annali dell'Istituto di Corrispondenza Archaeologica, xxxvi (1864), 310–11Google Scholar.

49 Diodorus Siculus iv, 11–16; Apollodorus ii, 5.

50 Pick, B., Jahrbuch des Instituts, xiii (1899), 140–5,Google Scholar Taf. 10, no. 8. Also in Brauer, R., Zeitschriftfiir Numismatik, xxviii (1910), Taf. 5, no. 20, but not so clearGoogle Scholar.

51 e.g. no. 92 in the Planudean Appendix to the Greek Anthology (Loeb edn., by W. R. Paton, v (1918), p. 208).

52 Loc. cit., pp. 318–19.

53 Squarciapino, M., La Scuola di Afrodisia (1943), p. 89.Google Scholar It is shown, J. Roman of Studies, xxxviii (1948), pl. 8Google Scholar, 2, near trie top.

54 Lavagne, H., Revue Archiologique, 1979-ii, 284–6Google Scholar.

55 Boardman, J., Athenian Black Figure Vases (1974), pl. 68Google Scholar.

56 Ibid., p. 197; cf. pls. 56, 126, 174, 204, and another very good picture in a delightful book by Flaceliere, R. and Devambez, P., Heracles: Images et Recits (1966), pl. 9 (i).Google Scholar In all these the Amazons are shown in the guise of hoplites, not as in later work and on the strigil, cf. Devambez, ibid., 88–9.

57 Diodorus Siculus iii, 52–54; 55.3.

58 Dattari, G., Num. Augg. Alexandrini (1901)Google Scholar; Poole, R. S., Brit. Mus. Cat. Coins of Alexandria and the Nomes (1892)Google Scholar; Brauer, R., Zeitschriftfiir Numismatik, xxviii (1910), 35–112Google Scholar.

59 Poole, , op. cit., introduction, xlviiiGoogle Scholar.

60 Walters, Bronzes, no. 865, is an example of a genuine group of three strigils.

61 Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum v, no. 4500. Dessau's notion (no. 5725) seems strained. Here we have only a literal invitation: ‘wash well’-‘bathed safe and sound’-‘take (off) the filth’.

62 See Rademacher, F., ‘Fränkische Gläser aus dem Rheinland’, Bonner Jahrbücher, 147 (1942), 285–344Google Scholar, esp. pp. 3x4–8. pls. 65–8; Pfeffer, Waltraud von, ‘Frankisches Glas’, Glastechnische Berichte, 33 (1960), Heft 4, 136–4 2, esp. p. 139, no. 5. 7, and fig. i, p rGoogle Scholar; and Harden, D. B., ‘Glass vessels in Britain and Ireland, A.D. 400–1000’, in Harden, (ed.), Dark Age Britain: Studies presented to E. T. Leeds (1956), pp. 132–67, esp. pp. 142 f. and 165, type xi b, fig. 25, pi. xvi, hGoogle Scholar.

63 For this type in general see Kisa, A., Das Glas in Alterum (1908), pp. 800–4.Google Scholar Lists and discussion of the nineteen from dep. Aisne and the Namur region will be found in Werner, J., ‘Les e'cuelles de verre souffle en moule’, in Breuer, J. and Roosens, H., Le cimetiere de Haillot (Archae-ologia Belgica, xxxiv (1957)Google Scholar, extracted from Annales Soc. archiol. Namur, xlviii (1956), 171–376Google Scholar), Annexe II, pp. 307–11; and A. Dasnoy, ‘Coupes en verre ornees de symboles Chretiens’, ibid., Annexe VIII, pp. 360–73, pls. XIII-XXVIII. The specimen from Mézieres, found during the winter of 1967–8, is published by Perin, P., ‘Deux verreries exceptionelles provenant de la necropole merovingienne de M6zieres’, J. Glass Studies, xiv (1972), 67–76Google Scholar, esp. 72 ff., figs. 6–7, and the lost Westbere bowl by Jessup, R. F., ‘An Anglo-Saxon cemetery at Westbere, Kent’, Antiq. J. xxvi (1946), 11–21, esp. 17, fig. 2, pl. in, 29CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

64 Dasnoy, op. cit. in n. 63, 370, no. 1, pi. xm (Armentieres) and 371, no. 11, pls. xx-xxi (Samson).

65 Dasnoy, , op. cit. in n. 63, 363, 371, nos. 9–10, pls. XVIII-XIXGoogle Scholar.

66 Jessup, , op. cit. in n. 63Google Scholar.

67 ibid., 17 f.

68 Pdrin, , op. cit. in n. 63, 74 f.Google Scholar, emphasized how greatly the ornamental motifs on the Namur bowls differed from those on the Aisne bowls and showed that the bowl from Mézières, a place which lies half-way between the locations of those two groups, is clearly linked in design with the north French rather than the Belgian glasses.

69 Breuer, and Roosens, , op. cit. in n. 63, 282 fGoogle Scholar.

70 Périn, , op. cit. in n. 63, 74Google Scholar.

71 Dasnoy, op. cit. in n. 63, 368.

72 Harden, D. B., J. Glass Studies, ii (1960), 45–81, figs. 1–39Google Scholar.

73 Originally published in Archaeologia, lv (1896), 205–8Google Scholar; for subsequent bibliography see Harden, , op. cit., 47, n. 8Google Scholar.

74 Antiq. J. xxvi (1946), 17–19Google Scholar.

75 Archaeologica Belgica, xxxiv (1957), 307–11. Mont-Hermes is about 100 km. west of SoissonsGoogle Scholar.

76 Cf. St John's Gospel xv, 1 ego sum vitis vera.

77 Bibliotheca Sanctorum, xi (1968), cols. 8

78 Archaeologica Belgica, xxxiv (1957), 338, map.

79 Ada Sanctorum, xxiii (June vol. iii), 284–7.Google Scholar For the site, just east of Soissons, see Tabula Imperii Romani Sheet M. 31 (Paris), with bibliography p. 43 for co-ordinatesGoogle Scholar.

80 His existence is doubted in Jones, A. H. M., Martindale, J. R. and Morris, J.The Prosopo-graphy of the Later Roman Empire, i (1971), p. 706Google Scholar.

81 Compare, for example, the bronze cups from Rudge in Wiltshire and Amiens, with enamel inlay, which list by name the forts at th e Western end of Hadrian's Wall above a stylized representation of th e Wall itself. These will bot h originally have belonged to sets of three cups which together named all the wall forts; see (most recently) Moore, C. N., ‘An enamelled skillet-handle from Brough-on-Fosse and the distribution of similar vessels’, Britannia, ix (1978), 319–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

82 The last three major towns on the road are Soissons, Amiens, Boulogne. For the Amiens patera see th e previous note.

83 Dr. John Hare contributed thi s note on the context of the find. There are areas of the ivory where the carving is worn smooth and it is possible that it found secondary use as a burnisher of some kind. I am grateful to Dr. Hare and to Mr. Paul Williamson for discussing the ivory with me and to Dr. Jane Geddes who first brought it to my attention.

84 See Beckwith, John, Ivory Carving in Early Medieval England (London, 1972), cat. nos. 29 and 91Google Scholar.

85 Ibid. no. 92 and Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries, second ser. vi (1873–6), 126.

86 On the post-Conquest use of ‘Winchester’ acanthus in carving see Zarnecki, George, The Winchester Acanthus in Romanesque Sculpture (Wallraff-Richartz-Jahrbuch, vol. 17, 1955), pp. 211 ffGoogle Scholar.

87 Beckwith, John, op. cit., nos. 58, 78, 89, 93, and 94Google Scholar.

88 It appears that in England in the fourteenth century double volute terminals were use d on cantors’ staffs; see Ottawa, National Gallery of Canada, Art and the Courts (1974), vol. ii, p. 126–7 (cat. no. 38)Google Scholar.

89 Excavations directed by Kevin and Marion Blockley under the general supervision of Tim Tatton-Brown, at whose suggestion the finds were exhibited.

90 Taylor, A. K., ‘Römische Hackamoren und Kappzaume aus Metall’, Festschrift Hundt, Teil 2 (=Jahrbuch des romisch-germanischen Zentral-museums Mainz, xxii (1975), 106–33)Google Scholar.

91 See, for example, Webster, G. A., ‘A hoard of Roman military equipment from Fremington Hagg’ in Butler, R. M. (ed.), Soldier and Civilian in Roman Yorkshire (1971), pp. 107–25Google Scholar, with parallels. The most famous find of such equipment comes from Doorwerth in Holland where the pendants and other fittings remain attached to the original leather straps; Holwerda, J. H., Oudheidkundige Mededeelingen, supplement bij nieuwe reeks xii (1931), 1–26Google Scholar.

92 Taylor, Annabel (Dr. Lawson), Roman Horse Equipment, unpublished Ph.D. thesis, London University 1978.Google Scholar Dr. Lawson will be publishing a full report on the hoard in due course for the Trust. She divides harness pendants int o six types: ‘winged’, ‘tear’, ‘vine leaf, ‘phallic’, ‘crescent’, and ‘trifoliate’.

93 Böhme, Astrid, ‘Pferdegeschirr’ in Schön-berger, H., Kastell Obserstimm (Limesforschungen xviii (1978)), pp. 211–13.Google Scholar Dr. Bohme derives the most elaborate of the pendants, the trifoliate, from the winged type.

94 SeeBohme, , op. cit., fig. 73.7Google Scholar.

95 I am most grateful for information, comments and other assistance from E. A. Alcock, D. W. Brough, J. H. Dickson, H. B. Duncan, D. B. Harden, A. MacKenzie, M. Ryan, E. A. Slater, M. Solly, S. L. Stevenson and R. Warner.

96 Christison, D., Early Fortifications in Scotland (Edinburgh, 1898), pp. 208–13Google Scholar.

97 Summary in Alcock, ‘Early historic fortifications in Scotland’, in Guilbert, G. (ed.) Hill-fort Studies (Leicester University Press, forthcoming)Google Scholar.

98 Stevenson, R. B. K., ‘The nuclear for t of Dalmahoy, Midlothian and other Dark Age capitals’, Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scotland, lxxxiii (1948–1949), 186–98Google Scholar.

99 Discussion in Alcock, ‘Populi bestiales Pictorum feroci animo: a survey of Pictish settlement archaeology’, in Hanson, W. S. and Keppie, L. J. F. (eds.), Roman Frontier Studies 1979 (BAR International ser. 71, Oxford, 1980), pp. 75–8Google Scholar.

100 Stevenson, R. B. K., ‘The Hunterston Brooch and its significance’, Med. Arch. xviii (1974), 16–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

101 Bruce-Mitford, R., The Sutton Hoo Ship-burial. Vol 2. Arms, Armour and Regalia (London, 1978), pp. 536–64Google Scholar.

102 Brough, D. W., The interpretation of organic material from a Pictish hillfort at Dundurn in Perthshire, B.Sc. Dissertation, Department of Botany, University of Glasgow, 1980Google Scholar.

103 Some examples are gathered in Aberg, N., The Anglo-Saxons in England (Uppsala, 1926), pp. 29 ffGoogle Scholar.

104 Evangelia Quattuor Codex Durmachensis (Olten-Lausanne, 1960)Google Scholar.

105 Harden, D. B., in Stead, I. M., ‘A La Tene III burial at Welwyn Garden City’, Archaeologia, ci (1967), 14–16Google Scholar.

106 Pin-head: Armstrong, E. C. R., ‘Irish bronze pins of the Christian period’, Archaeologia, lxxii (1921–1922), 74, fig. 2, no. 8Google Scholar; the multiple loops cannot be discerned on this drawing, but they are clear on a photograph kindly provided by Mr. M. Ryan. Bead: Hencken, H., ‘Lagore Crannog’, Proc. Royal Irish Acad. liii (1950), 138, fig. 66, no. 125Google Scholar.

107 Hencken, H. O'N., ‘Ballinderry Crannog No. 1’, Proc. Royal Irish Acad. xliii (1936), 175–90Google Scholar, pl. xxv.

108 Allen, J. Romilly and Anderson, J., The Early Christian Monuments of Scotland (Edinburgh, 1903), p. 75Google Scholar; accessible illustration in Mowbray, C., ‘Eastern influence on carvings at St. Andrews and Nigg, Scotland’, Antiquity, x (1936), 428–40, pl. VICrossRefGoogle Scholar.

109 Museum of London Accession No. 78. 107/1; Christies’ sale, 24th Apri l 1978, lot 28 5 (previously catalogued for sale on 17th November 1977, lot 553, but withdrawn). Mor e specific information on the place and circumstances of the find is contained in the Museum records.

110 Wheeler, R. E. M., London Museum Catalogues: No. 6. London and the Saxons (London, 1935), pp. 177–9Google Scholar.

111 Evison, V. I., ‘A decorated seax from the Thames at Keen Edge Ferry’, Berks. Arch. J. lxi (1963–1964), 28–36Google Scholar.

112 Ibid., 34 and n. 3.

113 Musty, J., Wade, K. and Rogerson, A., ‘A Viking pin and inlaid knife from Bonhunt Farm, Wicken Bonhunt, Essex’, Antiq. J. liii (1973), 287, pl. LVIIIbGoogle Scholar; Saunders, A. D., ‘Excavations in the church of St. Augustine's Abbey, Canterbury’, Med. Arch, xxii (1978), 55Google Scholar, no. 13, fig. 11; Rahtz, P., The Saxon and Medieval Palace at Cheddar, Excavations 1960–62 (BAR 65, Oxford, 1979), p. 264, no. I.O.31, fig. 90Google Scholar.

114 Wilson, D. M., Anglo-Saxon Ornamental Metalwork 700–1100 (London, 1964), pp. 150–1, no. 43Google Scholar.

115 Ibid., pp. 172–3, no. 80, pi. xxx (British Museum Reg. No. 81, 6–23, 1).

116 Museum of London Accession No. 78. 107/2; Christies’ sale, 24th April 1978, lot 284.

117 Bruce-Mitford, R., The Sutton Hoo Ship-Burial. Vol. 2. Arms, Armour and Regalia (London, 1978), pp. 55–65Google Scholar.

118 Kennett, D., ‘Some decorative aspects of the Anglo-Saxon shield’, Beds. Arch. J. ix (1974). 55–70Google Scholar.

119 Hills, C., ‘A chamber grave from Spong Hill, North Elmham, Norfolk’, Med. Arch. xxi (1977), 173–5, fig. 64Google Scholar.

120 British Museum Reg. No. 1883, 7–2, 22; illustrated by Bruce-Mitford, op. cit., in n. 117, pp. 92–3, n. 7, fig. 69c, and Kennett, op. cit., in n. 118, fig. 5a.

121 Baudry, F. and Ballereau, L., Puits fundraires Gallo-Romains du Bernard (Vendee) (La Roche-sur-Yon, 1873), p. 311.Google Scholar I am indebted to Mr. G. C. Boon for this reference.

122 Singer, C. et al., A History of Technology, vol. 1 (Oxford, 1954)Google Scholar.

123 Petrie, W. M. Flinders, Objects of Daily Use (British School of Archaeology in Egypt) (London, 1927), p. 161Google Scholar.

124 Yadin, Y., The finds from the Bar Kokhba Period in the Cave of Letters (Israel Exploration Society) (Jerusalem, 1963), pp. 151–6Google Scholar.

125 Ambrose, W. R., ‘Sublimation drying of degraded wet wood’, Pacific Northwest Wet-Site Wood Conservation Conference (Neah Bay, Washington, 1976), pp. 7–15Google Scholar; Biek, L., and Cox, T. R. G., ‘Some notes on the freeze-drying of large timbers’, Maritime Monographs and Reports, No. 16 (1975), 25–9Google Scholar; Rosenqvist, A. M., ‘Experiments on the conservation of waterlogged wood and leather by freeze-drying’, Maritime Monographs and Reports, No. 16 (1975), 9–23Google Scholar.

126 Organ, R. M., ‘Carbowax and other materials in the treatment of waterlogged Palaeolithic wood’, Studies in Conservation, 4 (1959), 96–105Google Scholar.

127 The Society of Antiquaries of London: Notes on its History and Possessions (1951), p. 68 and pl. xxiGoogle Scholar.

128 e.g. Caudron, Simone, Les émaux champ-levSs méridionaux dans les cabinets d'amateurs britanniques des XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles (Mém oire de maitrise d'Histoire de l'Art et d'Archéologie, Paris IV, 1975), pp. 101–2 and figs. 45, 46Google Scholar(a copy of her thesis was deposited in the Society's Library as MS. 866); she discusses the chasse from an art-historical standpoint in ‘Les chasses de Thomas Becket en émail de Limoges’, Thomas Becket: Actes du Colloque international de Sédières, 19–21 août 1973, pp. 233–41, where she follows M.-M. Gauthier in suggesting a date before 1200 for th e beginning of th e series (to which the Society's example belongs) and a period of production of 1195 to 1215–1220.

129 ‘The iconography of St. Thomas of Canterbury’, Archaeologia, lxxix (1929), 49 and pl. xix, 2Google Scholar.

130 Sold, again at Sotheby's, in December 1979 and bought for £420,000 for British Rail Pension Fund; now on loan to the British Museum (Country Life, clxvii (1980), 683 and fig. 1).

131 Caudron, S., ‘Connoisseurs of champleve Limoges enamels in eighteenth-century Eng-and’, British Museum Yearbook, ii (1977), 9 ff. and figsGoogle Scholar.

132 ‘An account of an ancient shrine, formerly belonging to the Abbey of Croyland’, Phil. Trans. Royal Society, xlv, 2 (1748), 579–81Google Scholar.

133 op. cit. in n. 131, p. 13. It is worth noting that it was bough t at a sale in 1790 for £11.15s.

134 Acquired after the sale of A. N. L. Munby's library at Sotheby's in 1976.

135 Arch, lxii (1910), 75 and pl. XIIGoogle Scholar.

136 S. A. Mins. xxviii (1800-01), 466–7.

137 op. cit. in n. 132.

138 S. A. Mins. xxii (1787–8), 294–7.

139 Vetusta Monumenta, ii (1789), pls. Li, LII.

140 In litt., 4 March 1980.

141 The most accessible account is in Adrian Fortescue, The Uniate Eastern Churches (1923), pp. 94 ff.; I am much indebted to Mr. Light-bown for drawing my attention to this work.

142 Ibid., pp. 159–68.

143 Borenius, T., op. cit. in n. 129, pp. 29Google Scholar, 48 For a general study of the saint's life and martyrdom, the cult, and its representation in art, see id., St. Thomas Becket in Art (1932).

144 Fortescue, , op. cit. in n. 141, pp. 129–30Google Scholar.