I.—The Distribution of the Angles and Saxons Archaeologically Considered

E. T. Leeds

doi:10.1017/S0261340900009802

I.—The Distribution of the Angles and Saxons Archaeologically Considered

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 July 2011

E. T. Leeds

Article contents

Extract
References

Get access

Extract

This monograph was originally intended as a study of the various types of so-called small-long brooch and their distribution. It has, however, grown far beyond the limits of a single class, because for purposes of comparison I found myself led on to compile one map after another illustrating the distribution of other of the humbler Anglo-Saxon brooch-types, and also certain aspects of the distribution of better known types and of other objects in use among the Anglo-Saxons outside eastern Kent. This series of maps, it is hoped, will supplement those relating to the more ornate brooches published in my Early Anglo-Saxon Art and Archaeology (Rhind Lectures, 1935).

Type: Research Article
Information: Archaeologia , Volume 91 , 1945 , pp. 1 - 106

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261340900009802 [Opens in a new window]
Copyright: Copyright © The Society of Antiquaries of London 1945

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 2 note 1} Antiq. Journ., xvii, 424–37Google Scholar; Antiquity, xi, 389–99Google Scholar; Norfolk and Norwich Arch. Soc, xxvii, 185–212Google Scholar.

^{page 3 note 1} A summary of grave-groups providing such associations is given in Appendix II.

^{page 5 note 1} To facilitate classification of the types I have adopted a terminology which, even if not strictly accurate in detail, at least allows a rapid distinction to be made between the numerous varieties of form in which these brooches were made. The term trefoil-headed is not new, and the term cross pattee has also been employed in the past, not always quite correctly. In many of the older accounts of grave-finds the term cruciform is used, sometimes quite loosely. The catalogue accompanying this paper allows them, I trust, to be determined exactly in every case.

The term cross potent is, I believe, new in this connexion; I have adopted it to cover a large group which apparently has a different history from those covered by the term cross pattee. The term cross potent in its heraldic connotation is a right-angled cross with rectangular finials, the distinction between it and the cross pattee being well illustrated on the arms of the See of Lichfield, which blazons (omitting the tinctures) per pale, a cross potent quadrat between four crosses pattee ( Parker, J. H., Glossary of Terms used in Heraldry, 2nd ed., p. 175)Google Scholar. The first group of brooches included under this head have rounded instead of right angles to the arms, and a second group with rounded angles are more akin to what is heraldically termed thecross patteeformee (op. cit., p. 171)Google Scholar, but it seems certain that (morphologically) they both belong to the cross potent rather than to the cross pattee class or to an entirely separate class. The eventual development into a form exactly corresponding to the cross potent quadrat of heraldry is the justification for the adoption of this nomenclature.

Even the use of cross pattee is not absolutely accurate, because the early forms have always a round notch, or rather an incomplete perforation at the apex of the angle between the arms of the cross. In some old accounts the term ‘spade-shaped’ occurs; this, as will be seen, could be quite misleading, since in addition to brooches of the square-headed class it could include examples which I have catalogued in both the cross potent and cross pattee classes; together with some of those grouped under brooches with lozenge-shaped feet.

^{page 6 note 1} Shetelig, H., Cruciform Brooches of Norway, pp. 91–2Google Scholar.

^{page 6 note 2} I have noted also a similar example from Frøstrup-Korup, Fünen, in Odense Museum.

^{page 6 note 3} Mestorf, J., Alterthümer von Schleswig-Holstein, pl. XLIX, no. 592Google Scholar; Shetelig, H., op. cit., pp. 133–7, figs. 161 and 167Google Scholar; Salin, B., Altgermanische Thierornamentik, fig. 166Google Scholar; Plettke, A., Die Urnenfriedhöfe in Niedersachsen, Ursprung und Ausbreitung der Angeln und Sachsen, Taf. V, 10 and 12Google Scholar.

^{page 6 note 4} See myArchaeology of the Anglo-Saxon Settlements, p. 94 and fig. 18, second in upper rowGoogle Scholar; Boeles, P. C. J. H., Friesland tot de elfde Eeuw, pl. xxxn, 6Google Scholar.

^{page 6 note 5} Steeger, Albert, Funde der Völkerwanderungszeit aus Krefeld (1937), no. 28Google Scholar.

^{page 7 note 1} Shetelig, H., Vestlandske Grave fra Jernalderen, 133, fig. 316Google Scholar.

^{page 8 note 1} Plettke, A., op. cit., Taf. 10, 9Google Scholar.

^{page 8 note 2} Another variety with a broad-armed cruciform head-plate is figured byVedel, , Bornholms Oldtidsminder og Oldsager, fig. 63Google Scholar.

^{page 8 note 3} Rochester Museum, C. 123.

^{page 9 note 1} Salin, B., Altgermanische Thierornamentik, fig. 165Google Scholar.

^{page 10 note 1} Archaeologia, xxxiii, pl. XIII, 2Google Scholar.

^{page 10 note 2} Ibid., fig. 4.

^{page 10 note 3} This foot recurs on a small square-headed brooch from North Luffenham, Rutland.

^{page 10 note 4} I have throughout followed the differentiation so made of the two cemeteries at Barrington bySir Fox, Cyril in his Archaeology of the Cambridge Region, p. 250Google Scholar.

^{page 10 note 5} This dating is confirmed by a clumsy brooch from Barrington A (Ashmolean Museum 1909,285;Leeds, , Archaeology of the Anglo-Saxon Settlements, fig.14, lower row, no. 4)Google Scholar with its lobes almost fused into an oval, a deeply waisted crescent-ended foot and a high pyramidal bow.

^{page 14 note 1} In the Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Cambridge.

^{page 14 note 2} Plettke, A., op. cit., Taf. V, 9Google Scholar.

^{page 16 note 1} Barrington A, Cambs. (A.M. 1909. 289);Barrington, B (Cambridge Ant. Soc. Comm., xxxv, 144, pl. vi a)Google Scholar. Another from Barrington A (A.M. 1909. 281) has prismatic faceting on the bow, a trait which, as already noted, may be taken to indicate an advanced date.

^{page 16 note 2} This brooch is figured among cross pattee derivatives (fig. 14h), to which group it might equally well belong, since the round notch had disappeared in the cross potent group before the introduction of lappets.

^{page 20 note 1} An example of this group (variant marked on the distribution-map (fig. 12)) occurred at Hoogebeintum, Friesland (see myArchaeology of the Anglo-Saxon Settlements, fig. 18)Google Scholar; it is most probably an export from England.

^{page 22 note 1} Plettke, A., op. cit, p. 15, pl. v, 11Google Scholar.

^{page 22 note 2} Montelius, O., Remains of the Iron Agefrom Scandinavia, pl. 5, fig. 6Google Scholar.

^{page 24 note 1} See Appendix II.

^{page 24 note 2} Certain brooches which possibly have some claim typologically to be included in this group I have scheduled with the main class of square-headed brooches (see p. 30), where the matter is discussed.

^{page 26 note 1} For what must I think be a parallel development in Norway seeShetelig, H., Vestlandske Grave fra Jernalderen, fig. 316 (herefig.2 c)Google Scholar.

^{page 30 note 1} The late Mr. Reginald Smith, who did so much for the promotion of Anglo-Saxon studies, mentions two square-headed brooches found in an urn atBay, Robin Hood's (V.C.H. Yorks., ii, 93)Google Scholar as being in the Pickering Museum. The Mitchelson collection to which they apparently belonged was acquired by the Yorkshire Museum at York, but Dr. Collinge informs me that the brooches are not in that museum. It is of course not entirely certain whether they belonged to this or to some other class. A letter of inquiry to Mr. Smith reached him too late to elicit a reply.

^{page 30 note 2} Barrington (Ashmolean Museum, 1909, 302); cp. the exotic example noticed among the trefoilheaded class (p. 10). There is a similar imperfect brooch from Sarre, Kent, in Maidstone Museum.

^{page 30 note 3} Lethbridge, p. 30, pl. xvii, B 1.

^{page 32 note 1} Journ. Brit. Arch. Ass., i, 61, fig.

^{page 32 note 2} See also small-long brooches (non-Kentish) from Kent (p. 40; fig. 25).

^{page 32 note 3} Brown, G. Baldwin, The Arts in Early England, iii, pl. XLII, 4Google Scholar.

^{page 32 note 4} Midland Railway Institute, Derby. Since this went to press I have learnt that the Saxby finds have been transferred to the Museum at Stoke-on-Trent.

^{page 36 note 1} The diminutive specimen from Horton Kirby has for once all the appearance of a local imitation of a type borrowed from Anglo-Saxon settlers outside Kent, but made to the scale of the small Kentish square-headed brooches, as fig. 25.

^{page 36 note 2} V.C.H. Beds., i, 190Google Scholar; B.M. Anglo-Saxon Guide, fig. 98Google Scholar.

^{page 36 note 3} Neville, R., Saxon Obsequies, pl. 11Google Scholar.

^{page 36 note 4} V.C.H. Beds., i, col. plate, fig. 1; B.M. Anglo-Saxon Guide, fig. 82.

^{page 36 note 5} British Museum.

^{page 36 note 6} Brown, G. Baldwin, op. cit., iii, pl. XLII, 2Google Scholar.

^{page 38 note 1} In Huntingdon Museum. The actual provenance is uncertain.

^{page 38 note 2} Here may be added one from Woodstone, Hunts., with head-plate with rebated upper corners.

^{page 38 note 3} C.A.S. Comm., v, 18, pl. 11, 3Google Scholar.

^{page 38 note 4} V.C.H. Leics., i, 234, pl. 1, 3Google Scholar.

^{page 40 note 1} This point has been discussed more fully above, p. 30.

^{page 40 note 2} Archaeologia Cantiana, x, 303 and fig. oppGoogle Scholar.

^{page 40 note 3} V.C.H. Surrey, i, pl. opp. p. 257, nos. 2 and 3Google Scholar; they are preserved in Croydon Town Hall.

^{page 40 note 4} Maidstone Museum.

^{page 40 note 5} Rochester Museum, C. 123.

^{page 41 note 1} Montelius, O., Remains of the Iron Age in Scandinavia, pl. iv, 19Google Scholar.

^{page 41 note 2} Surrey Arch. Coll., xxxix, 20 and 36, pl. xv, 4Google Scholar.

^{page 42 note 1} Maidstone Museum.

^{page 42 note 2} Lethbridge, p. 34, pl. 11 D.

^{page 43 note 1} Shetelig, H., Cruciform Brooches of Norway, figs. 177 and 181Google Scholar.

^{page 43 note 2} In the Relph collection, now in the British Museum, from a sketch made in 1935 when I visited the collection while still in Mr. A. R. Relph's possession.

^{page 43 note 3} V.C.H. Yorks., ii, 84, coloured plate, fig. 10Google Scholar.

^{page 44 note 1} University Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Cambridge.

^{page 44 note 2} e.g. from the Celto-Roman station at Woodeaton, Oxon. (Ashmolean Museum), where other varieties occur also, including that so richly represented atLydney, Gloucs. (Lydney Report, pp. 78–9)Google Scholar.

^{page 44 note 3} An example fromBidford-on-Avon, , Archaeologia, lxiii, pl. XII, fig. 2 aGoogle Scholar.

^{page 46 note 1} All three are figured in my Early Anglo-Saxon Art and Archaeology, pl. II, b, c, and d.

^{page 46 note 2} Archaeologia, liv, 377Google Scholar.

^{page 48 note 1} Leeds, , op. cit., pl. 1, 6–7Google Scholar.

^{page 48 note 2} Ibid., pl. 1, middle of second row.

^{page 48 note 3} Akerman, J. Y., Remains of Pagan Saxondom, pl. XII, 2Google Scholar.

^{page 48 note 4} Leeds, , op. cit., 86, pl. xxv dGoogle Scholar.

^{page 49 note 1} See Appendix II.

^{page 49 note 2} Leeds, , op. cit., 98–9Google Scholar.

^{page 49 note 3} Lethbridge, pp. 76–7.

^{page 52 note 1} It is not certain how many of the Woodstone brooches bear the true swastika; nine brooches are simply enumerated in V.C.H. Hunts., i, 272, under the title of swastika. At least eight more have recently been found at Nassington, Northants.

^{page 53 note 1} Sussex Arch. Coll., lvi, 36, pl. xi, 9–9 A.Google Scholar

^{page 53 note 2} Mestorf, A., Altertümer von Schleswig-Holstein, pl. XLII, 499Google Scholar.

^{page 53 note 3} Journ. Northants. N.H.S. and F.C., xv, 96, pl. 1Google Scholar.

^{page 53 note 4} Ibid., xi, pl. 2.

^{page 54 note 1} Classified according to the system suggested below (see p. 69 seq.).

^{page 54 note 2} See p. 72.

^{page 57 note 1} Neither the provenance nor the association is quite certain.

^{page 57 note 2} Ashmolean Museum 1886. 1343.

^{page 57 note 3} Ashmolean Museum 1935. 621.

^{page 57 note 4} Collectanea Antiqua, ii, pl. XLII, 6 and lower part of 10Google Scholar.

^{page 57 note 5} Cambridge: University Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology.

^{page 58 note 1} British Museum, Guide to Anglo-Saxon Antiquities, fig. 100Google Scholar; Leeds, , Early Anglo-Saxon Art and Archaeology, pl. xx a, lowerGoogle Scholar.

^{page 58 note 2} Leeds, , op. cit., chap. VGoogle Scholar.

^{page 58 note 3} British Museum, Anglo-Saxon Guide, fig. 99Google Scholar.

^{page 58 note 4} Ashmolean Museum, 1909. 294.

^{page 60 note 1} Brown, Baldwin, op. cit., iii, pl. xxxvii, 6Google Scholar.

^{page 60 note 2} Arch. Journ., xi, 104–5Google Scholar.

^{page 60 note 3} Camb. Ant. Soc. Comm., xx, 59, pl. VIIGoogle Scholar.

^{page 60 note 4} Rygh, O., Norwegian Antiquities, Part I, figs. 270–1Google Scholar; Shetelig, H., Vestlandske Grave fra Jernalderen, figs. 112, 150Google Scholar.

^{page 60 note 5} Rygh, , op. cit., fig. 268Google Scholar.

^{page 60 note 6} Shetelig, , op. cit., fig. 255Google Scholar, in a grave of mid fifth-century; fig. 317, from a grave dated c. A.D. 550.

^{page 61 note 1} V.C.H. Norfolk, i, 340, col. plate, fig. 1.

^{page 61 note 2} Archaeologia, lxii, 484, fig. 2Google Scholar.

^{page 61 note 3} V.C.H. Leics., i, 238 with fig.; Ashmolean Museum 1938. 19.

^{page 61 note 4} By Kentish as applied to culture I mean, of course, the recognizedly Frankish element.

^{page 62 note 1} Op. cit., iv, 620, fig. 21;Archaeologia, xxxv, 261, pl. xxxv, 5Google Scholar.

^{page 62 note 2} A pair, closely resembling the larger of these, has recently been found at Cassington, Oxon.

^{page 62 note 3} The idea of this foot was probably inspired by the more ornate examples of the radiate-headed class, which have a lozenge-shaped foot terminating in an animal's head, now reduced to a mere moulding.

^{page 63 note 1} Brown, Baldwin, op. cit., iii, pl. xxxvii, 2Google Scholar.

^{page 63 note 2} The three types are illustrated in my Early Anglo-Saxon Art, pl. xv, upper, lower, and middle rows.

^{page 63 note 3} A list is given in Appendix I (p. 102).

^{page 63 note 4} V.C.H. Somerset, i, 373, col. pl., fig. 3.

^{page 64 note 1} Leeds, , op. cit., AppendixGoogle Scholar.

^{page 66 note 1} For knowledge of these I am indebted to Mr. F. C. Gurney.

^{page 66 note 2} V.C.H. Suffolk, i, 330, fig. 5Google Scholar.

^{page 66 note 3} Coll. Ant., iv, 162, pl. XXXVIII, 2Google Scholar.

^{page 66 note 4} Akerman, J. Y., Pag. Sax., pl. xxxii, 2Google Scholar.

^{page 66 note 5} British Museum Quarterly, xiii, 132Google Scholar.

^{page 66 note 6} Remains of Pagan Saxondom, pl. XXXVII.

^{page 68 note 1} National Museum of Scottish Antiquities, Edinburgh.

^{page 68 note 2} V.C.H. Bucks., i, 195Google Scholar.

^{page 68 note 3} Leeds, , op. cit., chap. VIGoogle Scholar.

^{page 69 note 1} To be called IV a, the remainder to be classed as IV b.

^{page 70 note 1} Originally published in Early Anglo-Saxon Art and Archaeology, fig.17.

^{page 70 note 2} Several omissions in Åberg's lists, as well as new discoveries, are included.

^{page 72 note 1} SeeLeeds, , op. cit., 82, pl. XXIIGoogle Scholar.

^{page 72 note 2} History, x (1925), 97Google Scholar; Antiq. Journ., xiii, 229Google Scholar.

^{page 76 note 1} Twelve come from the south-eastern counties; on the type seeAntiq. Journ., xiii, 245 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 76 note 2} Barrington B, 28 (C.A.S. Comm., v, 18, pl. v, 1); Holywell Row, 47: Lethbridge, p.5, fig. 11 F.

^{page 76 note 3} The number registered in Archaeologia, lxiii. Many more have been found or noted since that paper was published.

^{page 77 note 1} Roeder, F., Neue Funde auf kontinental-sächsischen Friedhöfen der Völkerwanderungszeit (Anglia, Bd. 57, Taf. xxiv–xxv)Google Scholar.

^{page 77 note 2} Early Anglo-Saxon Art and Archaeology, p. 39, pl. xiGoogle Scholar.

^{page 78 note 1} Antiq. Journ., xiii, 229 ffGoogle Scholar. In this connexion it may be noted that of the saucer-brooches found n i Kent two, the one from Horton Kirby, the other from Faversham, should probably be regarded as imports from Wessex, with the products of which region they agree in style and fabric.

^{page 78 note 2} Roeder, F., Typologisch-chronologische Studien zu Metallsachen der Völkerwanderungszeit (Jahrb. d. Provinzial-Museums Hannover, 1930, N.F., Bd. v, 27 ff.)Google Scholar.

^{page 79 note 1} Id., Die sächsischen Fenstergefässe der Völkerwanderungszeit (xviii. Bericht der Römisch-germanischen Kommission), 1928, pp. 149 ft.

^{page 82 note 1} The pair from Freckenham (Suffolk) are pure Kentish imports.

^{page 82 note 2} SeeLeeds, , Early Anglo-Saxon Art and Archaeology, fig. 17Google Scholar.

^{page 82 note 3} Ibid., 89, fig. 20.

^{page 84 note 1} Antiq. Journ., xvii, 424Google Scholar; Antiquity, xi, 389Google Scholar; Norwich and Norfolk Archaeological Society, xxvii, 185Google Scholar.

^{page 84 note 2} Evidence on this point is to be published in the Third Report on the Anglo-Saxon village at Sutton Courtenay. See alsoAntiquity, xi, 396 and 399Google Scholar.

^{page 90 note 1} ‘Some longitudinal (sic) brooches.’

Article contents

I.—The Distribution of the Angles and Saxons Archaeologically Considered

Extract

Access options

References

Save article to Kindle

Save article to Dropbox

Save article to Google Drive

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests