Corpus of Ancient Brooches in Britain: by the late Mark Reginald Hull. Pre-Roman Bow Brooches (PBB) 9780860544500, 9781407317830

Citation preview

Corpus of Ancient Brooches in Britain by the late Mark Reginald Hull

Pre-Roman Bow Brooches (PBB)

M. R. Hull (t1976) and C. F. C. Hawkes with the co-author's revisions and additions (1977 - 85)

BAR British Series 168 1987

B.A.R. 5, Centremead, Osney Mead, Oxford OX2 ODQ, England.

GENERAL EDITORS A.R. Hands, B.Sc., M.A., D.Phil. D.R. Walker, M.A.

BAR 168, 1 987: 'Corpus of Ancient Brooches in Britain by the late Mark Reginald Hull: Pre-Roman Bow Brooches'.

© The executors of the late M. R. Hull and C. F. C. Hawkes The authors’ moral rights under the 1988 UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any form of digital format or transmitted in any form digitally, without the written permission of the Publisher. ISBN 9780860544500 paperback ISBN 9781407317830 e-book DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9780860544500 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library This book is available at www.barpublishing.com

CONTENT S Frontispiece: Mark Reginal Hull, 1897-197 6. page Preface, by C.F.C.Hawkes Acknowledgements

iv

General Introduction: Brooches and their features; Terminology. M.R.Hull. Introduction for the Bronze and the Earlier Iron Age. M.R.Hull with additions. Origin and early development of brooches in Europe

4 5

Brooches claimed, most often dubiously or falsely, from Britain, Bronze Age 7 and Iron Age other than La Tene: Groups A to L. M.R.Hull with additions. 12 A. 'Spindlersfeld' type (on Rhine by 11th century B.C.); AA. 'Violin-bow' 13 BB. Iron-Age Greek (towards 9th century) 14 B. Italian, arc bows and 'leech' bows ( l l th-9th centuries) 20 With disc foot 22 C. Italian, 'leech' and 'boat' bows, foot long (8th-7th centuries) 28, 29 Cushion-shaped and 'knee' bows 30 D. Italian, with twin lateral knobs (7th-early 6th centuries) 32 E. Italian and Hallstatt, with leaf bow and knobs (late 7th-middle 6th) 33 F. NE.Italian (once in S.Spain), bow triply knobbed, foot very long (6th-5th) 35 G. Elbowed bow, thence serpentine bow (in Italy late 8th-early 5th) 39 GG. Italian, broad bow with lateral knobs (perhaps 6th) 40 H. 'Spectacle', S.Italy and Yugoslavia (9th and 8th) to Hallstatt (mostly 7th) Late forms, unilateral spring: middle Italy to Alpine and N of Alps (6th-5th) 41 J. Excursus: Ixworth (Suffolk): reputed brooch-finds. C.F.C.Hawkes.

46

K. Atlandc, crossbar head, disc on upright toe: in SW.Britain (?5th,?3rd).C.F.C.H. 49 KK.W.Balkan: double-'crossbow' form, bead on bow (5th-3rd). C.F.C.H. 53 Lx and L. M.R.Hull with expansion and additions. Lx: Late Hallstatt, certainly from Britain (later 6th-middle 5th); L: British derivatives. Lx, 56,63; L, 63-67 Brooches of La Tene I and II and Early III: Introduction. M.R.Hull with additions. 68 Brooches of La Tene I, II and Early III, in Britain. M.R.H. revised and expanded 72 Type 1A, with correlations and discussion (mid-5th century to early 4th) 72 Distribution, 75; Catalogue, 79 Groups 1Bx, 1By and lBz (late 5th to early or middle 4th). C.F.C.H. 87 1Bx, with correlations and discussion, 87; Catalogue, 89 1By, with correlations, discussion, and Catalogue, 91 1Bz, with correlations and discussion, 92; Catalogue, 93 Type 1B: lBa-1Bd, definitions, M.R.H.; 1Ba- lBb (essentially 4th century), correlations and discussion, M.R.H. expanded 95 Catalogues, M.R.H. (some entries expanded) and others C.F .C.H. 1Ba, 98; 1Bb, 101 1 (A or B)+ (damaged, imperfect) 104 1Be, leaf-shaped bow (4th century and ?later), C.F.C.H. Catalogue, partly M.R.H. expanded 108 lBd, 'Dux' or Duchcov type (late 4th to start of 3rd), C.F.C.H. with Catalogue, partly M.R.H. expanded 113 Type 1C , bow low or straight (late 4th and onward in 3rd): definition; 1Ca and 1Cb, correlations and discussion, all expanded from M.R.H. 116 Catalogue, 1Ca, partly expanded from M.R.H. 119 123 Catalogue, l Cb, partly expanded from M.R.H., with discussion, C.F.C.H. 130-131 IC in Scotland (within 3rd century), C.F.C.H.: discussion and Catalogue,

Type 2: La Tene II brooches, foot (when normal) collared to bow. C.F.C.H. 133 2Aa, Wetwang-Otford type, foot reverted slanting (from rather before 250): discussion followed by Catalogue, M.R.H. 1 entry, 2 M.R.H. expanded.134,135 2Ab, Sawdon-Cold Kitchen type, foot level, bow straight (from barely later): discussion and Catalogue, M.R.H. 7 entries, 2 M.R.H. expanded 139 2B, Decorated forms, peculiar to Britain (essentially 3rd century onwards): introduction, followed by Catalogue of 2Ba, with partial use of M.R.H. 143 Catalogue, 2Bb 147 152 Catalogue, 2Bc Catalogue, 2Bd 154 2C, Involuted brooches (from middle 3rd century till later); 2Ca, involuted gently, Danes Graves type; 2Cb, involuted more tightly, Beckley type. introduction, M.R.H. expanded, as also are some of his 18 catalogue-entries 156 Catalogue, 2Ca 158 Catalogue, 2Cb (with a 2Cc, 167) 163 2D, 'S' or 'Proto-Dragonesque' type: description and Catalogue, C.F.C.H. 168 La Tene III brooches from Arras-Culture graves, C.F.C.H. 169 Type 3: La Tene II brooches, further types. C.F.C.H. and (partly) M.R.H. Introduction; and 3A (around 200 B.C.), discussion (Catalogue, 172) 171 3B, with long spring (towards and after 100): discussion 173 3B and variants, Catalogue, partly M.R.H. 175 3C, foot ending wrapped around bow (late 1st B.C. probably, and 1st A.D.): discussion, C.F.C.H.; Catalogue, essentially M.R.H. 179, 180 3D, with protected spring and hook for chord (1st cent. A.D.): discussion and Catalogue, M.R.H. 183 Type 4: with multi-looped wire for bow or set along it (here 1st B.C.). Discussion and Catalogue, C.F.C.H., using M.R.H. partly

184

Excursus on Type 5, with Type 1 D: formerly alleged British but really all from NW.Germany. C.F.C.H.

187

190 La Tene III brooches: Introduction. C.F.C.H. Introduction continued, M.R.H.: to his La Tene III (Group 1) and Roman series 192 Type 6: like 3B but with cast La Tene III foot (primarily 1st century B.C.). Discussion, M.R.H. expanded (his Glastonbury type) Catalogue, all essentially M.R.H.

193 194

Type 7: the La Tene III 'Harp' brooch and forms related, Continental and British, with certain others (all primarily 1st B.C.): an essay. C.F.C.H.

197

Type 8: La Tene III with expansion of head into a cap (towards middle 1st B.C. and into 1st A.D.). Discussion and Catalogue, M.R.H.

206

Bibliography (Abbreviations 207)

209

Index

225

PLATES 1-50 and S l-S7 (Supplementary).

MARK REGINALD HULL (1897-1976)

Corpus of Ancient Brooches in Britain PRE-ROMAN BOW BROOCHES

Preface The creator of the Corpus, Pre-Roman no less than Roman, was M. R. Hull. He had worked on every part of it for many years before his death, unexpected even though in his 80th year, in what time he was able to find among his duties, as Curator of the Colchester and Essex Museum (1926-62), his labours in producing exhaustive volumes on Colchester's Roman antiquities, and the conducting and publishing of many and important excavations. His Corpus was first accepted for publication by the British Academy; but in spring 1976 work on the printer's proofs was suspended, and he called upon several colleagues, outside of Colchester, for advice on what best should be done, vis-a-vis the Academy, for bringing out the work complete. Among these, besides Professor S. S. Frere, were myself and Dr. Grace Simpson. The Academy, through its Publications Committee, which invited Prof. Frere and me and Dr. G. C. Boon to attend a meeting, specially held at Oxford that July, proposed then a role of supervision in the matter for Frere, consulting the others as might be required, and also (at my suggestion) Dr. Simpson. Mr. Hull's untimely death (14 November) led next to an arrangement, still with Professor Frere, for Dr. Simpson to attend to the proofs, both of the whole text and the many plates of illustrations. More especially, this was in view of her standing as a student of Roman Britain, since its brooches are by far the greater portion of the Corpus's total. I, having Pre-Roman studies as my major concern, should be useful chiefly on the Corpus's Iron Age portion, as Mr. Hull before his death had explicitly told me that he personally wished. Dr. Simpson presently asked me to assist her by attend­ ing to all this portion of the proofs and illustrations (it indeed began within the Bronze Age); the Academy, duly informed, and Professor Frere being both content, she and I each started freely on what by then we had seen was required: an editing widened to include revision, wherever appropriate, and addition of further brooches to whichever of the portions. The Academy's Secretary now was Mr. John Carswell; he and the Publications Committee remained for a long time patient, but Dr. Simpson and I (who was not free from other commitments) each meanwhile found the work to be so demanding, that it outran the allowance of time that had been given us. Accordingly, the Academy then withdrew, only requesting that its support, for so long maintained, should be acknowledged in the eventual publication. Finally there came, in September 1983, separation of the work thenceforward, between the two of us acting independently; responsibility thus, for the present volume I, is mine alone. We had previously agreed, on Dr. Simpson's own initiative, that our work had had to pass beyond the strictly editorial, and had justified our adding our names to Mr. Hull's as his co-authors: mine now here and hers in the succeeding volumes. In this one I gladly acknowledge, as Dr. Simpson will in her own, the British Academy's support in the early and the early-middle years of the project; Professor Frere's while he was acting on its behalf; and throughout the middle years, Dr. Simpson's patience with me as her colleague. The list of museum officers, excavation-directors and others, who have aided this volume with descriptions and drawings of brooches, mostly additions up to 1986, is given on p. iv under 'Acknowledgements'; with it is that of the scholars, mainly Conti­ nental, who have helped me in further ways, most often with advice and with copies of works of their own. I thank them all; and especially those two former university students, who gave me, when my work was not yet far advanced, typescript photocopies of their i

theses complete with illustrations. One, Mr. Gareth R. Griffiths, had studied at Nottingham; the other, at Belfast (Queen's University), was the then Miss Anne Wardman, now Mrs. Given. Both were on British bow brooches of La Tene I forms (for the name, see p. 68 ); Miss Wardman's has been of particular value throughout that part of the volume. But here I want to return to my old friend Hull. His labours on the Corpus project after and before his war-time years in the Observer Corps - took him out to visit most of the country's museums having brooches of the periods it covered, leaving only the Anglo­ Saxon and later ones aside. His method was to draw and describe each brooch from the original: none should be entered in the Corpus that he had not seen, and (apart from any not now traceable) exceptions were few. Of the Pre-Roman Iron Age at any rate, there have indeed been some that he missed; as far as I have been able, I have added these here, together with those not found or rendered accessible till after his death. He checked every entry he made for reliable proof of the brooch's provenience, and he hardly ever failed to discern any dubious or false ones. Further to all of this were his researches in libraries. That in the Museum at Colchester exceeds in inclusiveness most in provincial institutions, and he used with it that of the Society of Antiquaries of London (he had long been a Fellow). The works which he consulted, as including or comprising a treatment of brooches, make a large part of this volume's Bibliography (pp. 207 -224); when not in English they may be either (in order of frequency) in German, Italian, French, and in one case Swedish. Along with the completed Bibliography, all the typescripts made for this volume (together iri part with my manuscript), embodying his own work and mine, have by his daughters' wish been deposited at Burlington House with the Society of Antiquaries - first through Professor Cunliffe at Oxford and then directly by me. They will remain in the Society's archives; and at Colchester, the Museum has a photocopied set of his unaltered typescripts, besides that noticed below which was made of his drawings. Rex Hull combined the characters of a field archaeologist and excavator, a productive and a careful writer, critical in judgment, a steady curator, a sensitive and accurate draughts­ man, and with it all an international scholar - made a Corresponding Member of the German Archaeological Institute. He was Northumbrian, son of a long-lived Rector of Belford, in whose bent towards natural history he was early a partner. In the First World War a young officer, he served in the Northumberland Fusiliers (for a time with a Major C. P. Hawkes: my father); I was one of his closer friends since 1930, and a generous friend and colleague he always was. And I owe best thanks to his daughters, Mrs. Sheila More and Mrs. Maureen Reid, who have aided and encouraged the Corpus work, both his own and then mine and Dr. Simpson's. Dr. Simpson too will be writing a preface, to her essentially Roman volumes of text and plates; she will include in those the Penannular brooches of the Iron Age along with the Roman, besides her period's Plate brooches and its vastly more numerous Bow brooches. It was Hull who ruled, for the Corpus as a whole, that the catalogue-numbers should throughout be of four digits, letting them reach 9,999. In the event, the total of brooches will now be rather greater; and the device of using a number more than once by adding bis to its second occurrence, and tris for its third if needed, had in fact begun to be employed by Hull himself. Any catalogue-numbers here in Vol. I that are not Hull's own have been transferred, for me to use, by Dr. Simpson from the Roman portion: she had detected occasional inclusions by Hull of the same brooch more than once, with a different number each time, so could transfer some of the numbers so saved for my giving to additional brooches. But I have had to resort to the bis or tris device for the rest of these. Duplication of numbers between our volumes, I believe, will thus have been avoided; and the total register and index of brooches with their numbers, compiled progressively by her, should nowhere be found discrepant with my Index here (pp. 225 - 236). Transition from this volume over to hers, involving some latest Iron Age brooches and some Iron Age proto­ types for Roman ones, was effected by Hull when expecting a single volume to embrace both periods; how I have arranged my side of it now, will be explained where the matter is ii

reached: pp. 197-205 below, with plates S6-S7. It has to be recorded here that the drawings by Hull, of the brooches (all his Pre-Roman included) on his plates from 1 to 100, are today represented by photocopies only: by some mischance the mounted originals were lost, unknown to him and to the British Academy's management, who only discovered the loss when the rest of the material was passed to Dr. Simpson. However, this included several photocopy sets of all the plates, from beginning to end, so that the first hundred of each of them were ready to be used instead of the originals; moreover at Colchester, Hull had already had a complete set of photocopies made, and by the kindness of the presentCurator, Mr. DavidClarke, and Dr. Paul Sealey as the officer most concerned, reproductions have been made for me of those for the Iron Age. Only in cases where any were weak, whether in all or in particular details, have careful re-drawings been made, most by Mr. Nicholas Griffiths, whom I duly thank; also of a few of Mr. Gareth Griffiths's photocopies, and some with aid of Miss Wardman's (in a few other cases used direct). The reproduction of all by the staff of BAR, from Mr. P. Scremin's photographs of my mountings, has done good justice to the skill of Hull himself, and of that of the various others, Nicholas Griffiths among them again and Mr. John Dent notably, who have drawn the additional brooches. Acknowledgement for each of these will be found in theCatalogue. It has not been possible to add, throughout this volume, references for brooches to the recent books by Mr R. A. Hattatt. I therefore owe him much thanks for supplying the following details of these, and commend them to readers' attention. Hattatt, Richard 1982 Ancient and Romano-British Brooches: Sherborne, Dorset PublishingCompany. Pp. 224; 93 figs., illustrating 212 brooches; 2 Tables.

Iron Age and Roman Brooches: Oxford, Oxbow Books. Pp. 24 2; 91 figs., illustrating 506 brooches; 6 Tables. In preparation 1987: a third such book presenting at least 600 more brooches. C. F.C.H. 1985

iii

A C K N O W L E D G E M ENTS For aid of many kinds, 1977-86, my gratitude is due to all in the following list. C.F.C.H. Dr J. Alexander (Cambridge), Mr David Allen (Winchester), Mr K. Annable (Devizes), Dr M. Avery (Belfast), Mr C. J. Balkwill (formerly Ipswich), Dr M. H. Ballance (Eton), Mr G. C. Boon (Cardiff), Prof. K. Branigan (Sheffield), Dr Anne Brown (Oxford), Dr Marilyn Brown (Edinburgh), Mr Robin Brown (Saham Toney), Mr J. Carswell, Dr Sara Champion (Southampton), Dr and Mrs R. W. Chapman, Mr D. T.-D. Clarke (Colchester), Dr J. Close­ Brooks (formerly Edinburgh), Mr N. Cook, Mr J. Cotton (Mus. of London), Mrs M. E. Cox (Oxford), Miss M. Cra'ster (Cambridge), Prof. B. Cunliffe (Oxford), Mr D. B. Dannell, Prof. W. Dehn (Marburg), Mr J. Dent (Beverley), Dr P. Dixon (Nottingham), M. Alain Duval (St.-Germain), Mr J. F. Dyer (Luton), M. Michel Feugere, Mr A. Fitzpatrick (Bristol), Mrs E. Fowler (St. Albans), Prof. S. S. Frere (Oxford), Prof. O-H. Frey (Marburg), Ms H. Ganiaris (Mus. of London), Mr G. R. Griffiths, Mr N. A. Griffiths, Mr G. Guilbert (Notting­ ham), Dr D. B. Harden, Prof. D. W. Harding (Edinburgh), Mr R. A. Hattatt (N€w Milton), Mrs Sonia Hawkes (Oxford), Prof. R. Hodson (London), Mr J. Hopkins (London as Society of Antiquaries Librarian), the late M. Rene Joffroy (formerly St-Germain), Prof. E. M. Jope (Oxford), Dr G. Korner (Li.ineburg), Prof. W. Kramer (Wiesbaden), Dr V. Kruta and Mme L. Kruta-Poppi (Paris), Miss J. Macdonald (formerly Mus. of London), Dr A. MacGregor (Oxford), Dr E. MacKie (Glasgow), Prof. F. Maier (Frankfurt), Dr G. Mansfeld (Ti.ibingen), Dr M.-E. Marien (Brussels), Mr N. Merriman (Mus. of London), Miss L. Millard (formerly Royal Mus. Canterbury), Dr M. Millett (Durham), Mr S. Minnitt (Taunton), M. J-P. Mohen (St.-Germain), Mrs Sheila More, Mr E. F. Newton (Harlow), Mr A. J. J. Parsons (St. Paul's Cray), Mr R. N. R. Peers (Dorchester), Dr E. J. Peltenburg (Edinburgh), Prof. S. Piggott (Challow), Mr L. M. Pole (Saffron Walden), Dr H. Polenz (Munster), Mr R. Reece (London), Mrs Maureen Reid, Dr Sabine Rieckhoff-Pauli (Regensburg), Ms Valerie Rigby (British Museum), Dr P. Robinson (Devizes), Miss Jane Ross, Mr P. R. Saunders (Salisbury), Dr P. Sealey (Colchester), Dr C. A. Shell (Cambridge), Dr Grace Simpson, Mr S. C. Stanford (Ludlow), Dr I. M. Stead (British Museum), Dr W. E. Stockli (Basel), Dr M. Szabo (Buda­ pest), Miss C. Unwin (Oxford), Dr G. J. Wainwright (London), Miss A. Wardman, now Mrs Given (Belfast), Prof. J. Werner (Munich), Mr R. Whimster (Cambridge), Mr A. White (Lincoln). Furthermore I must record my gratitude to my wife, Sonia Hawkes, F.S.A., for unstinted support all through the ten years of my working on this volume; and in the final months especially, for her advice and many helpful actions. C. F. C. H.

V

GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO BROOCHES AND THEIR FEATURES: TERMINOLOGY M. R. HULL

'Brooch' is the name given normally in English to a fastener having a pin, to run through a garment, and a covering member, to which it is attached by its head. This member, what­ ever its shape, carries a catch, to secure the pin's sharp end when the brooch is done up. 'Brooch' should have denoted, strictly speaking, only the pin, being derived from the French word broche, in its primary sense of a sharp rod such as a skewer, or a spit for roasting meat on: Early-medieval brooches, where they were large, could invite this English derivation by the length of their pin. 'Pin', from Latin penna, meaning quill-feather, came into English for simple pins, leaving 'brooches' for those, whatever their size, with a covering member and a catch - for lack of which a simple pin has to risk dropping out. When the member is a wire, or is cast or forged like a bar, whether curved or varied or straight, its end where the pin is attached is the brooch's head; the other, with the catch, is its foot. In all such cases, the member itself is the bow - like a bow for arrows: thus in German both are Bogen (bow of a brooch alternatively Bugel), while in French both are arc, meaning 'arch' (Latin arcus), which in German is Bogen again. 'Bow Brooches' is thus our collective name for such brooches in general, inclusive of all that are treated in the present volume: from the Bronze Age through the two divisions, Hallstatt and La Tene, of the Western European Pre-Roman Iron Age. 'Fibula', alternative name for a bow brooch, is Latin, with plural fibulae which although it is carried by some into English, we shall here replace by 'fibulas' - an English plural matched e.g. for Latin flower-names (campanulas, ptimulas). Latin fibula, short for *figi­ bula, means literally "little fixer"; it becomes in German Fibel, plural Fibeln, and fibule(s) in French. A brooch with a covering member shaped as a disc (German Scheibenfibel) or any other form (including openwork) of 'plate' (French broche in its secondary sense; German Plattenfibel) has the pin-head attachment and the catch either running out of this or hidden beneath it. In the parts of Europe relating to Britain, and in Britain itself likewise, these 'Plate Brooches' are not a Pre-Roman type; the Corpus deals with them therefore in its Roman volumes. However, one further form differs also from the Bow Brooch, and differs in a quite peculiar manner of its own. This is the Penannular Brooch, which instead of a bow has a 'hoop': circular but for a gap, which is narrow and flanked by the hoop's twin terminals. The pin's little head, bent over or perforated through, rides loose on the hoop; when its shank has pierced the garment and is passed through the gap, the fastening is done by sliding it sideways, to be pressed against the hoop by the pull of the garment. To unfasten the brooch, the process is simply reversed. Penannular Brooches first appear in the middle Pre-Roman Iron Age; they pass right on into the Roman period and through it - and in the British Isles were developed much further after that. Our Corpus deals with them all, Pre-Roman and Roman, in the Roman volumes; they will only call for occasional mention in this one. In the structure of all bi:ooches except Penannulars, the controlling mechanical feature is the method of attaching the head of the pin. Where the pin is a separate member, having a loop in its head for riding on the axis of a hinge, the brooch is two-piece. The tension for keeping the pin's point firmly in the catch is thus given it by the pressure of the garment, but may be aided by an ear on the pin's head, pressing on the under-side of the brooch­ head next to the hinge. The hinge's axis, a transverse rod, being held between a pair of lugs, protruding downwards and perforated to carry it, lets the pin swing freely except when the brooch is done up. I

The alternative method is that of the one-piece brooch. The brooch-head here is prolonged in a continuous wire; this is coiled to form a spiral spring , from which the wire, still continuous, runs out and so itself becomes the pin. There are British cases (Hodson 1971 ), where the wire is not continuous, but is disguised within the spring to make it appear so; some or all of the tension is thereby lost, and the spring becomes a mock spring to be stiffened by an axial rod through the coils and bow-head. A spring with its coils on only one side of the brooch-head is unilateral; bilateral when they are carried across to both sides. Effecting this requires the wire to return, from the end of one side's coils to the start of the other side's; this connecting stretch of it, normally straight, is the chord. If it is passed close under the bow-head, it is called internal (or interior or inferior); if outside it, external (or exterior or superior). On certain Late Hallstatt brooches occurring in limited parts of the Continent, external chords may be doubled, even trebled, and anyhow may be trained into rows of loops. Late in La Tene times, the normal straight external chord could be gripped in its middle by a hook: a wire or a flat projection from the bow-head, later often rendered in the casting as a perforated lobe. If, on the other hand, the coils are on an axial rod but are without any chord, only one of them (or both of two), free of any others, will carry the pin, being simply its head, which turns on the rod like a hinge: this.version of the mock spring will thus be called a mock-spring hinge (name devised by the Miss Anne Wardman named on p. ii), and ring-hinge where the coils become simply rings. Bilateral springs in Late Hallstatt times could be long, with their row of light coils held together by an internal chord that is gently curving; the effect was thus a resemblance to a miniature crossbow, which term is used to describe this form of contstruction (en arbalete in French; Armbrustkonstruktion in German). The purpose of a chord on any kind of bilateral spring, where the coils on either side of the bow were more than one or two, was to bring the pin's emergence back to the centre-line of the brooch. While in Early La Tene the coils were large, and in total occasionally two but normally four, though sometimes six, and this La Tene I arrangement could in II be retained or be variously altered, it was not until III that some springs were given coils again so numerous, as to seem to need a protection across their top. This, like the top of a T cast in with the Bow-head , was normally a crossbar, in section flat or a little curved over, of which the halves on either side, called sometimes 'wings', will here be called arms. In the same period the catch was formed as a trough along the base of a catchplate; the vertical expanse of this, like a hanging fringe on the foot, is sometimes called its web, and may be pierced by openwork, at first in curving or fret designs, then simplified to mere round holes. On the foot of any brooch, if a feature prolongs it past the catchplate, this is the toe, or is a feature upon it. Some Late Hallstatt brooches have a toe turned vertically up, or a vertical feature rising from the foot, and are thus called tall-foot brooches; such a footdecoration , German Fusszier, may alternatively be not much more than a knob. But the critically vital development, sometimes late in that period already, but distinctive of Early La Tene from its first years onwards, was to change the upturned toe into a tail-like appendage, the appendice caudal in French, bent up and then inwards to be reverted towards the bow, its English name being thus reverted foot; either reverted horizontally, to be parallel with the foot, or in a slant to aim at the bow's upstanding arch. Its terminal feature, a disc or knob, may run out into a tongue, single or occasionally double, to approach the leg of the bow or even touch it. In the period's Middle phase, La Tene II, and first on the Continent, this slant and the whole brooch, especially if iron, could be lengthened out, and the end of the reverted foot began to be attached to the top of the bow: at first by a clip or a ring, which by Hull has been called the 'button', or else, increasingly later, by a pair of fingers of its own, with which the bow is pinched or wrapped (this term being G. C. Dunning 's, 1932) . Particular brooches in Britain, most often ornate, in which the foot and bow are joined in a single casting, will be treated below in their place. It shows them clearly preceding the Late La Tene, La Tene III, when the Continent's typical brooches, and very soon Britain's, had their foot invariably cast or forged with the bow - sometimes, however,

2

keeping the La Tene II 'button' as a functionless adornment. In conclusion, readers may be helped by the following Glossary. (Its including the forms, marked R, for some of the Roman types of Brooch, may be useful even here. ENGLISH

GERMAN

FRENCH

Axial rod Achse (f) goupille (f) Bilateral beidseitig bilateral Bow Bogen (m); Biigel (m) arc (m) Bow brooch Bogenfibel, Biigelfibel fibule (f) Bronze (all 3 languages) = all copper alloys used for brooches. Button (p. 2) Knopfchen (n) bouton (m) Cap-plate Schal enformiges Kopf (n) coquille (f) ( Schiisselfibel) Catchplate Nadelhalter porte-ardillon (m) port-agrafe (m) Chord Sehne (f) corde (f) Windungen Coils enroulements; spires (f) arbalete (f) Crossbow Armbrust Cylindrical head (R) Roll enkap Roll enhiilse broche (f) Disc-brooch Sch eibenfibel Email (m & n) Enamel email (m) Ey e Auge (n) oeil (m); circle pointe Ey e-brooch Augenfib el fibule oculee Fibula Fibel, Gewandnadel fibule (f) Foot Fus s (m) pied (m) Kopf (m) Head tete (f) Headplate Kopfplatte Headstud (R) Kopf scheibe Hinge Scharni er (n) charniere (f) Hook Sehn enhaken griffe (f) Hoop, see Ring Horned, Winged (R) Fliig elfibel type a ailettes Kn ee-brooch (R) Kni efibel Knopf (m) Knob Lugs Backen (f) Mock spring , Mock-spring hinge, Ring-hinge, see p .2 On e-piece Ein gliedrig Open foot Durchbroch ener Fuss pied a claire-voie, ajoure Openwork Durchbrochene Arbeit en ajoure, ajour Penannular brooch Rin gfibel f. penannulaire Om egafibel Nad el (f) Pin epingle (m) Pin of a brooch Nad el (f); Dorn (m) ardillon (m) Plate Platt e (f) Ring Ring bague (f) Serp entin e Schlangenformig serpentine Sheath Hul se (f) Spring Spiral (f), Feder (f) ressort (m) Distelfibel Thistle brooch , f. a queue de paon Rosette brooch (R) Web of catchplate Saum des Nadelhalters

3

INTRODUCTION

FOR THE BRONZE

AND THE EARLIER

IRON AGE

M. R. Hull with additions (C. F. C. Hawkes) BACKGROUND LITERATURE

AND EUROPEAN PERIODS

A survey of the brooches surviving from ancient times, in the Old World or even in all Europe, cannot yet be exhaustive; there are areas and periods where they are still not thoroughly recorded. Even beyond these, problems remain for wider study. But significant studies began to be made in 18_72, when differences of form among brooches received their first analysis, and a historical theory had its basis thence laid down , by the Swedish Hans Hildebrandt in Stockholm. There followed the better-known study by Otto Tischler, 1881; his similar methods gave relative chronology a system, fundamental in its principles to work on the subject ever since. Tischler did a further study, of the brooches from the Gurina, a stronghold above the Carinthian river Gail, south-western Austria, for A. B. Mayer's report on the site , published at Dresden in 1885. Of the same pioneering period are two scholars' works on the origin of brooches altogether: S. Undset, 1889 , and M. Hoernes in the Festschrift for the Austrian Hartel, Serta Harteliana, Vienna 1890. The work of R. Beltz, 1911, though essentially centred on Germany, was in its day the most generally comprehensive survey. In France, chapters on brooches appeared in each of the Iron Age volumes, respectively on the First Iron Age and the Second , of the Manuel d'Archeologie by Joseph Dechelette , 1913 and 1914. Of encycl op edia articles, two may be mentioned: by F. von Duhn in RE= Pauly-Wissowa-Kroll, Real-Encyclopiidie der . .. Altertumer, Supplement iii (1918), cols. 491-522; and in RV = Reallexikon der Vorgeschichte iii (1925), pp. 283-314 (Beltz, v. Duhn, Karo). Handier today is Alexander 1973 , or his article of 1982. Otherwise the most substantial studies have been regional, though seldom lacking an inter-regional importance. Thus Blinkenberg, 1926, covered Greece and the Nearer East; an adapted version of his system of types is included in Myres 1930. Subsequent studies for Greece need only be mentioned where specifica lly relevant, in Earlier Iron Age contexts , variously below. Italy, however, ought here to be particularly mentioned. The wealth of material in Italian reports and periodicals - as Notizie degli Scavi, Monumenti Antichi, Bullettino di Paletnologia Italiana - had its fullest systematic treatment from Oskar Montelius. After his outline in Antiqvariska Tidskrift for Sverige (Stockholm) 6, part 2, came the full-scale studies of broo ches in his massive volumes on Italy, Northern (vol. i) and Central (vol. ii), Stockholm 1895 and 1904/ I 0, La Civilisation primitive en Jtalie depuis !'introduction des metaux; also his Die vorklassische Chronologie Jtaliens, Stockholm 1912, in the wider setting of his work Die iilteren Kulturperioden im Orient und in Europa, Stockholm 1903. Based on his scheme for Italian brooches was the brief but well-illustrated summary, pp. 40-4 of the British Museum Guide to the Early Iron Age (by Reginald A. Smith), 1925. Since his day , the Italian contributions have increased and been supplemented elsewhere, and his classificati on has repeatedly been critically worked on from later-won knowledge. Best known among these revisions is the work by Sundwall, 1943. In studying brooches and in reading what here will follow, attention needs to be paid to European chronological terms. Of the Italian Bronze and Iron Age sequence, 13th to 5th century B.C., the later portion corresponds to the Hallstatt Iron Age north of the Alps , so named from the celebrated Alpine Austrian site, with its cemetery excavated 1846-64 by Ramsauer, whence von Sacken's work of 1868 is superseded now by Kromer, 1959, and Hodson's monograph on Ramsauer's graves, due 1987. Outside its area there and the extensions that followed, just as previously outside Italy (and earlier, Greece), Iron Age 4

advances had not yet extinguished the Bronze Age. This Hallstatt period opens from the middle 8th century onwards; its culture was well-established, in its central regions, towards 700. South Germans nonetheless, and many Central Europeans, use 'Hallstatt A' and 'B' terms of the system of Paul Reinecke (on the brooches, see his 1925) - for the 12th-11th and the I 0th-8th centuries respectively (or close approximations). They are kept notwithstanding that the culture they connote had bronze as its chief metal always, and is commonly known from its cemetery-rite, cremation in urns, as the 'Urnfield': H. Muller-Karpe, 1959, adapted Reinecke's system with subdivisions of his own: in part, not very successfully, so that Kimmig and others have preferred to use the culture's name, Urnenfelderkultur or UFK, as a systematic term, comprising three chronological divisions. So the Hallstatt period following, or true First Iron Age - called so in French, which divides it therefore into Hallstatt I and II - has in German to be labelled 'Hallstatt C' and 'D': Reinecke's system again, as (with subdivisions) in Kossack 1959 for Southern Bavaria. Iron now prevailed, though bronze had still much use, and was normal for the brooches. These became increasingly distinct, and were affected in 'D' from the western Mediterranean. On brooches there (Schille 1961; and in his 1969) and in the Hallstatt lands, from the outset in Italy, and notably in France, recent researches are important for the brooches in Britain. For France, this is true especially of Duval-Eluere-Mohen, 1974, in Gallia 32. Of brooches prior to the mid-5th century, recorded for Britain, there are many. They lie in many museums, of every category, or else in private hands. Many again, though not all, have proveniences named , from places in Britain , though seldom with very satisfactory record of discovery. The earliest, a fragment of a type out of Northern Europe, dated in the Bronze Age, requires us to add one more to our remarks on terminology. North-European archaeology adheres to the ·scheme first formed by Montelius, of numbering its Bronze Age periods in succession, I to VI. Our fragment is of III. It stands apart from all of the others that are dealt with in our following section. As prelude to this, we give a summary for Europe as a whole, thus le~ding in to Britain.

ORIGIN AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT OF BROOCHES IN EUROPE

The brooch, a European improvement on the dress-pin, appeared in the course of the Bronze Age. It did so in two distinct areas, almost simultaneously- a phenomenon regarded in the past with needless suspicion. Its Bronze Age series in Northern Europe, namely southScandinavian lands, with ensuing German extension, is of two-piece brooches, the pin and the bow being separate. In a one-piece brooch they are continuous, formed of a rod bent over on itself; of this , the primary forms are from Greece (with Crete) and north-eastern Italy - regions connected by the Adriatic Sea. Like the two-piece series, these one-piece brooches had the bow at first typically straight: like the bow of a violinist (the pin, straight too, representing its strings), whence their name of violin-bow ('fiddlestick') brooches. This straightness common to both, and their degree of closeness in earliest dates - within the hundred years that centre on 1300 B.C. - has long suggested an inter-relation of origins. That the two-piece type is derived from the dress-pin fitted with a cord , passed through a loop in its head or a perforation in a swollen shoulder, which confined the piece of dress that it pinned, with the end lapped round below, is agreed; such pins were being worn in inland Europe already in the early and the middle Bronze Age. Their cord (less probably a thin leather thong), when rendered in metal, becomes the rod-like bow of the two-piece brooch. That they equally might give rise to the one-piece type, has been held by some, though admitting innovation in its bending of bow into pin. Yet an inland source whence it might pass south , while the two-piece idea passed north , was negated for Austria by Reinecke, 1925, and for Bohemia and Moravia finally, in 1937, by Willvonseder (in spite of Childe 1929 and Bohm 1932/3). Merhart's claims for a source between Carpathians, Balkans and Alps, bound as they were to belief in invasions of Italy and Greece from there , may now seem less 5

impressive than his valour in upholding them (1927-54: see tMerhart/Kossack 1969). So the two, while meeting the same requirement of a safer fastening for dress, have origins that seem not inter-related formally. The one-piece is often named from Peschiera (NE Italy). More likely is the one-piece type's independent invention. For Blinkenberg, 1926, this was prompted by a dress-pin stopped from slipping down by being bent, near its middle, into two straight parallel lengths. Such a pin has a date in Crete not long before the first violin-bow brooches: south Greek and north-Italian, yet like no Italian dress-pin unless a spiral head is added to their catch. With it or without, their Greek spread (Myres 1930, after Blinkenberg) is matched by an Adriatic one, north-eastern Italy to Sicily (MullerKarpe 1959) and east to Yugoslavia (Alexander 1962). The bow could be varied, as by 8figure twisting or flattening out into a leaf shape; it could be stilted up from the catch into an elbow, or raised in a symmetrical arc. This arched form, taking in a thicker fold of cloth, appeared within the 12th-11th centuries; its bow could then be stouter than the pin, and could thereupon be cast in any heavier shape, along with its catch and any ornamental details. Blinkenberg's scheme (somewhat simplified by Myres) for such developments in Greece, and then east of the Aegean, takes them on through the Iron Age there to reach the 7th century , when they had declined as popularity returned to dress-pin~; modern general chronology, Snodgrass 1971, 122-3 ; Table, 134-5. After the arched bow's advent, Italy diverged; but essential all through, for the dress to be safely fastened, was the coiling of the bend between the bow and the pin into a spring, to give a tension, as the modern steel safety-pin does - 'invented' by one Walter Hunt in 1849, yet really, but for its metal, re-invented. This indispensable tension was that of a wire. A bronze pin or rod can be rendered wiry by drawing through a perforated draw-plate , but this has been nowhere attested at so early a date. So the portion required to be wiry for the coiling could be toughened only by handwork: by hammering after heating, and then by annealing. Where the bow was not developed by casting to be heavy, but was kept as a rod, whether stilted or arched, wiriness was given it by hand-work again, for new bends, and one or more further coils. The resulting forms, which later might be developed into castings, were typical of Italy, and of lands with Italian influence - or Sicilian, as was Cyprus, from which one version was passed to Spain, while Sicily and Italy proceeded with their own. (Sicily-Cyprus-Spain: Maxwell-Hyslop 1956; Birmingham 1963; Almagro 1966, citing previous studies; for Italy altogether, most modern Late Bronze and Early Iron Age research is presented, with chronologies defined, in Ridgway D. & F. (eds.) 1979.) From Italy north, by the Alps , violin-bow forms had been sometimes taken , but reception continued slight till later , when besides its wiry developments, Italy had made more progress with the heavy-cast bow brooch. (Muller-Karpe 1959; Close-Brooks 1969 .) In France, after rare violin-bow examples, reception from Italy increased, to judge by the number of heavy-cast bows among the widespread scatter through the country. By the 7th century there may even have been local production in a few localities. Then, from north of the Alps and east of the Rhine , the country as far as Burgundy received an extension of the Hallstatt Iron Age, with brooches of its own, transcending Italian inspiration. France throughout will be here best taken with Britain, for comparison of both in their points of resemblance and of difference. Until this point, around 700, they both had continued in the Bronze Age; while the Hallstatt elements were spreading, they did so still. But both have many more brooches to consider, of the 7th and the 6th-5th centuries, before, starting early in the 5th and spreading onward , there arose the new forms that are called La Time. The background literature for these, and their sequence of periods, I-II-III, or A-B-C-D, each series having subdivisions, will be treated below, p. 68 etc.; but features that they have together with terms denoting these, are included in the section on brooch terminology here.

6

BROOCHES

CLAIMED FROM BRITAIN, OTHER THAN LA TENE:

BRONZE GROUPS

AGE AND IRON AGE A TO L

M. R. Hull, revised by C. F. C. Hawkes Reviser's note. The text has been kept where revision by the author, had he lived, would never have been needed. Elsewhere, however, in what follows and in places in the Catalogue (pp. 12-26, 31-46) , it has had to be brought into line with research which he had not been able to consult. This treatment has required fresh writing very often, the reviser being solely responsible. Gratitude is due to one fellow-researcher: Miss Jane Ross, the author of an Edinburgh thesis on just this subject , and through her professor, Stuart Piggott, made acquainted with the Corpus in this opening section , most generously furnished a summary comprising the principal result s of her work , and the lines of thought she had adopted for reaching her conclusions. The reviser' s own study of the claims of these brooches .to authentic discovery in Britain , long though int ermittently pursued, had led to a position very like Miss Ross's , and consonant in general with Hull's. This is, that the brooches' claims are doubtful or false in many cases, yet are not to be dismissed in all on that account alone. To judge between acceptanc e and rejection must be hard because discovery has never hardly ever - had a cont ext in th e t erms of a trustworthy excavation. This was written before North It aly' s brooches were published in PBF: XIV.5 , 1986. The largest proportion of all th e typ es that are thus represented is Italian. The revision, which has need ed th eir assessing by th e yardstick of modern Italian archaeology , owes much to th e unpublish ed Oxford the sis (Close-Brooks 1969) giving Dr. Joanna Close-Brooks's review from the 12th to th e early 7th century; this followed two published articles by her , and much new work has now ensued on it (for th e English reader , Ridgway 1968 a-b, 1973 , 1976, and Ridgway D. & F . 1979 . Correlation through the Alps with Urnfield regions beyond (Muller-Karp e 1959), and with Iron -Age Hallstatt following there (Peroni 1973 ), has had a brisk brief summary in Ridgway D. & F. 1976. For Hallstatt west of the cemetery at Hallstatt itself (Kromer 1959) and of south ern Bavaria (Kossack 1959), most relevant recently are Spindl er 1971-7 (Black Fore st) and Wamser 1976 (E. Franc e). Betzler 1974 for S. and W. German y, Austria and Switzerland , has the brooch es of Urnfi eld age and those that continu e th ereaft er into Hallstatt ; his sequ el on thos e of exclusively Hallstatt age is to follow. Brooch es in Franc e (Duval , Eluere and Mohen 1974) , and from the Languedoc and Catalonia far into Spain (Schille 1961 , 1969) , have especially affected the revision for their bearing on Britain . For South Italy and Sicily, see Lo Schiavo in PBF XIV.8.

The broo ches in th e Catalogu e are in all 160. Those without any attribution to a named locality , even conjectural , repr esent in fact a quite small proportion of the number in museums or collections , lying without an indi cation of source or any attribution to a find-spot; Miss Ross's list of thes e, not finally compl et ed, exceeds 200. Since many in museums besides are certified as modern acquis itions from abroad, mainly from Italy, and partly of types which have alleged localities in Britain , th e same must be likely for most that have no true localities , which th e 20 that are catalogued here represent. The likelihood may also extend among thos e that have got localities alleged, or uncertain; their claims, in other words, may probably be false quit e oft en. So few are record ed as found in acceptable conditions that our approach has had to be governed by oth er criteria (apart from Groups AA, K, Lx and L). Not a few among th e British attributions , it has to be feared , are the fictions of dealers, contrived in th e hop e o f attra cting a prosp ective purchas er. Such dealers would often resort to the names of sites well known for antiquiti es. These sites, in the 19th century, mostly 7

were Roman. Even on Roman excavations, till within the present century, a dealer's piece might have been unwarily accepted, with a story of its finding in or near them. Roman possession of a brooch of greater age is not incredible, and for Britain is possibly attested now and then; but it has never had support from any find in controlled conditions. Nonetheless , some Roman sites are in areas of genuine earlier activity; from any such, a claim for an earlier brooch must not be disallowed automatically. This applies not only if the brooch is La Tene (viz. middle 5th century or after), but also if its form is Hallstatt (previous to that) - though a brooch of this time that is Italian will be rather more suspect. Region and date should be on other grounds credible for relevant oversea connexions. Even then , there may still be suspicion; still more if the condition is inadequately met. Such antiquities as brooches can have often been obtained in this country itself, by dealers or collectors. First brought in by travellers returning from Italy or other such land, or sometimes even by sailors, they could afterwards be scattered: for example, by sale upon an owner's ill-fortune or death. Such occasions, again , might lead to their throwing away, or being buried as rubbish, to be later discovered through ploughing, or digging in a garden; some probable instances of this will be remarked below. A further possibility is offered by the case of those brooches in Colchester Museum, ascribed perhaps rightly to a former exhibition there held for the furtherance of missions, at the end of which many exhibits were abandoned and left there. Such causes or chances have been widely adduced to explain , as adventitious importations, brooches or other such antiquities here that are exotic, especially if Italian. That some might nevertheless be shown as imported into prehistoric Britain, if only there were means to distinguish them from modern introductions, is a theme that on three occasions has been seriously treated: in 1906 by Professor (Sir) William Ridgeway and Reginald Smith , in 1950-1 by Dr. Donald Harden, and in 197 4 by Peter Harbison and Lloyd R. Laing. Brooches were especially noticed by Ridgeway and Smith (1906), and Harden (1950-1) brought their number to 78; this list let him show that most of the findspots claimed were in south-east England, which hardly could be expected if latter-day sources accounted for them all. He added that the virtual absence of Greek, among the many Italian brooches, was surprising if all were modern collectors' purchases; and further, on the British attributions of Mediterranean ancient coins, and vessels of pottery and bronze , he did accept some, though rejecting some others. Next, after Laing (1968) had considered this matter for Cornwall, a list now of 20 find-spots of vessels from 7th century to 3rd, with two other pieces, was given by Harbison and Laing ( 197 4); their general discussion rejected some (especially if of after 400), but accepted 'a handful' as brought to south-eastern Britain from Etruscan Italy, through a trade by the Alps and Rhine, in the 6th-5th centuries. Treating brooches rather briefly (pp. 22-3 ), though allowing for Atlantic Bronze Age currents besides those leading out of Italy , they had mentions of Hallstatt but none of any Urnfield brooches, and nothing on brooches with claims to discovery in France. Both of these lacks were supplied for us that same year: by Betzler 1974 on Urnfield brooch es, with the types that continued into Hallstatt, and on brooches in France by Duval, Eluere and Mohen, 1974. This French assemblage (though excluding Late Hallstatt) is the more important for Britain. Its violin-bow brooches - most 11th-10th century, of Betzler's Kreuznach type with leaf-shaped bow, spread west from the middle Rhine - have locations indeed all south of Paris. But five, near the Yonne (one a hill-fort site, one a hoard with some 20), are -in one of the first regions for intruders from the east with cemeteries definable as Urnfield: Sandars 1957 (before she knew of these brooches), chapter III. Though part of their material has local antecedents, the most of it is out of Switzerland and south-west Germany. The gradual trend towards brooches for the dress, though its traditional fasteners were pins, seems thus to have been started in France from Urnfield sources. In the 9th century when France's reception of Urnfield funeral-custom widened, simple arched-bow brooches, out of Italy, first appear. The locations, here again, are well away from the Channel. Only towards 800, when the bow becomes cast with a gentle 8

thickening, which gradually grows more marked , does the arched-bow brooch become commoner in France; the 'leech-shaped' (Italian a sanguisuga) form, with the bow fully thick, ensues in the 8th century and lasts thereafter. This series of arched-bow forms, when with catch still short , we have called Group B. (The two of Greek type alleged from London, Group BB, we shall easily dismiss.) Group B 8976, with un-thickened wire bow, was reported found in the mud of the Thames in London; however, for this and for our two with the thickening slight (typologically nextearliest), the stated locations are in well-known Roman towns, so while that of 8976 may stand as credible, the other two are doubtfully authentic: Chester for our no. 4544 (plate 1), Colchester for 7327 (huge, plate 2; on this as being noticed near a Bronze Age urn, see below under B, and in the Catalogue). Group B otherwise in Britain , with bows all thicker, should begin less early: after 800, or towards the 8th century's middle. And the find-spots in France for all similar to these now extend to the Channel or near it. Thus as British ones occur within Channel-coast coun ties , and are mainly in the south and south-east, the French distribution should encourage the acceptance of at any rate some of them as genuine. The same holds good for Group C, which has the catch now long, and the bow either 'leech-' or 'boat-shaped' (Italian a navicella: hollow underneath), the latter having someti!lles knobs on the bow, Group D. 'Spectacle' forms , admitte dly (our Group H), which have wide distributions in the east of Middle Europe and to south of it, extending to Poland and to Greece and peninsular Italy (Alexander 1965; Betzler 197 4, Taf. 82-4 ), have only , farther to the west, some ill-attested or vague locations , dubious in France, so unworthy of credence in Britain. The knobbed types issuing from D are E and F, of the late 7th-6th and the 6th-5th centuries respectively; they originate near the Adriatic , and remain far away from their British-claimed specimens. E has only three, and their localities (towns) are all Roman. So again are two of F's, one southern, one eastern like the other three; three more are uncertain (two even have been marked as 'Rhine?'). Thus Fas pre-Roman here is nearly as improbable as E. Pre-Roman importing of 'serpentine' brooches, Group G, though France has some of !hem, seems open to credit rather seldom: see below, pp. 35-8. Only Groups J, Kand L will give us fresh considerations. In geography and dating we can anyhow already see a pattern brought closer to coherence, largely on account of the assembling of the French material. But the find-spots claimed need sorting by grades of credibility. And although our French colleagues, in this, may be more optimisti c than we wish to be for Britain , they have many more brooches found in acceptable archaeological contexts. These number (Duval, Eluere and Mohen , 42-3) approximately fifty. Three were within cremation-urns, two in a double inhumation, eight in the mound-material (not with the interments) in Hallstatt barrows; 10 to 15 were amongst the bronzes in hoards , which amount to a dozen, besides the hoard with 20 violinbows (above); localities for six are habitations , though no association for the brooches can be claimed; the rest appear as dredged from the four rivers , Rhon e, Saone , Doubs and Seine. Som e may be doubtful, but credence is supported more widely by TorbrUgge (1972) , whose find-rich rivers elsewhere include the Rhine and the Thames. Those fiftyodd finds tend mainly to be late, running down into the Hallstatt period; this answers to the tendency observed in the total to be credited before 600. That (ibid., 41) is exactly 213 brooches. In Britain, apart from one early and German (3529, Group A), this tendency recurs , although the broo ches here are fewer. Localities are dubious for most with dates much prior to the middle 8th century. If the reckoning in France were extended to include Late Hallstatt brooches , from after 600, its total would be very much greater, and also the numbers from secure closed contexts. Yet Britain, including Late Hallstatt and all such brooches that are not La Tene, we have seen to have barely 100 even if none of the localities were false. Allowance for untrustworthy find-spots, whether we make it with severity or otherwise , leaves a total still much less than the French, or the Hallstatt regions' beyond. Britain before La Tene stands therefore on the margin of the brooch-using areas, and its brooches with acceptable localities are few enough to suit this. For the brooches of our 9

Groups B to D, when we disallow those having dubious localities, are still such as Italy could pass to France, and into Urnfield regions mainly; some may indeed be suspected as produced there locally. Routes would be over the Alps and by Basel or the Jura (cf. Pauli 1971 ); and by sea to the South French coast from the Middle Italian (Sandars 1957, 31620, 337-9). Reception of Italian brooches, in south-east Britain, where Urnfield influence is otherwise detectable and Hallstatt currents ensued , thus need not all be dismissed as beyond believing. These factors may be viewed as at work from at least 750; of towards 500 and after are some Hallstatt additions. The likely 8th-century upper limit here was independently shown by Miss Ross. The native antipathy to grave-goods, for nearly ten centuries prior to the 5th, has deprived this belief of the support it would have gained from any brooch in a sepulchral context. Neither have we any sign of brooches in our bronze-founders' hoards, even fragmentary scrap. But neither do our hoards have any foreign-type Hallstatt sword; yet this, quite rightly, is never held against those weapons' introduction here, towards or barely after the beginning of the 7th century: Cowen 1967; Hawkes 1976b, 61-63. Where their finding does have a context, this is one shared by other weapons: dredger-finding, mostly in the Thames. They seem to have been offerings. Water-depositing seems in Britain to have ousted grave-depositing (Burgess 1974, 195-6; cf. Torbriigge 1972); dredger-finds in France quite often have included brooches , and deposit as an offering will readily explain such findings in Britain, if authentic. The fewness of our brooches altogether could imply that they enjoyed a particular regard. The technique that supplied their springiness (above, p. 6) would be viewed with admiration: our native bronze-work evinces nothing of the kind. Ceremonial would thus seem likelier than every-day dress wear. They might seem suited for gift-exchange, or even as amulets. In Italy, · the brooches in the Ardea hoard have been proposed as 'pre-monetary' units: Peroni 1966 (which metrology has still to confirm elsewhere: Duval, Eluere and Mohen , 44). Esteem for the brooch as exotic would suit the situation, in the British Late Bronze Age, when the south and south-east had been touched since before 800 by Urnfield elements , and later after Hallstatt intrusions had given us the first beginnings of an Iron Age. A Hallstatt grave in Britain can only be guessed , and then very seldom , from finds nearly all now lost, and described in old accounts, none later than the early 20th, most of the early 19th century. Almost all concern the regions centred on Cam bridge, so were surveyed by Fox: 1923, 76-80, more doubtfully with 326-9 nos. 19 (secondaries), 53 (primary cremation) and 68- 70 ( cremations); datings never certain, but almost all were in barrows. Inhumations were in others , but of those most notable, on the boundary of Whittlesford, and thought to be of Iron Age date, the account of 1819 is fullest only on the northern two (one skeleton in one was sitting up, and had spear with iron head). These might have been Hallstatt, but throughout the whole list no mention is made of any brooches. From flat graves at Pirton, however (some with sitting-up skeletons) , came our brooch 5245, now lost (pp. 39 and 48 , conjectured as Group G). On the other hand our 5217 (G: plate 14), illustrated 1828 with an armlet and pair (alone extant) of bracelets, was from 'clearing the Remains of an ancient Tumulus' which cannot be located in Britain rather than in Italy, where all these types are at home. See explanation offered p. 36 (catalogue-entry); also on 7269- 70, of types again Italian. As for Group G otherwise, 'Cumberland' for 727 5 seems unlikely, 'Hammersmith' for 727 Sbis perhaps less so; they resemble 5217, as do four known in France. And the strange case of 3964 (Berkhamsted) implies that a G brooch somehow was available, damaged , to be alter ed by a probably Roman repair. Late Hallstatt brooches , 6th century to very early 5th, and contemporary Italian, are mostly - though still by no means always - smaller. Women, if rich, wore more of them for ornament than merely for fastening their dress. While the larger ones - men could wear these - run in sequence from our Groups C, D and G, with long straight foot, the smaller were soon made standard with an up-turned toe. The feature had been earliest evolved in South France and Catalonia, and combined in Spain with an arched bow, ribbon-like or

leaf-shaped. To keep this steady on the wearer, the spring was prolonged on each side of the head, by a multiplication of its coils, to give a 'crossbow' form. This form and the upturned toe were then taken by the Rhone to West-central Europe, to be standard Hallstatt features by about 550: SchUle 1960, 1961. North Italy, where next they appeared as something foreign, had continued with its own developments; these, which we shall meet as Group J, disregarded the 'crossbow', and their various foot forms passed into the version with an up-turned knob , which has the name of 'Certosa'. Some of Group J do seem to be admissible in Britain. The western series, introduced to south-west France, took particular forms there; diffused over Spain, it had its longest survival in Galicia and northern Portugal, where the latest of its forms before Roman aggressions and influence began (137 B.C.) made the 'crossbow' spring into a solid-cast bar, on which a separate pin was looped over. The upright toe had been variously ornamentalized, and always was more or less tall (so in Spanish pie alto or largo); it also could be topped by a mushroom-like disc, as in the very late form just mentioned. This was brought to Britain , to appear (Group K) on the coasts of Cornwall and Devon, in the cemeteries of Harlyn Bay and Mount Batten, probably either in the late third century , if not in the early fifth. (But KK, Balkan, we have to reject.) Continental Late Hallstatt brooches , of the regions to north and north-west of the Alps, with foot ornamentalized (in German , Fusszier) , most often had their multi-coil spring's long chord passed under the head , as though th e bow-string of the 'crossbow': the chord is thus internal ; any chord passed above is thus external. The two known at present from Britain, here grouped as Lx, are from north-west Kent, quite close to the Thames, and from its foreshore in th e City of London. The introduction also of others not yet known, with varying featur es, may be guessed from some of th e British adaptations , distinguished nearly all by a novelty: a finial at the head. These, theri, are the earliest brooches of British (southeastern) manufacture ; databl e towards or around 500 and onwards. Some have their Hallstatt character diluted with one or more features derived from the earliest La Tene , as in France on some brooch es of the earlier-to-middle fifth century; how late the British last is not very clear , but rare brooches of the third have certain features that recall them still. They themselves are quite rare , and are grouped as Group L, placed along with the imported Lx. So we pass to a more particular treatm ent of the Groups. Through calling them this, not Types, and distinguishing them by letters , A to L, Hull emphasized the looseness, most often , of their place in the country's record , in contrast to the firm place of the rest , La Tene and Roman. It is those that he assembled under Types , giving every type a number , in the catalogu es starting here on p. 79.

11

A.

'Spindlersfeld' type of the North-European series of two-piece brooches: plate 1.

This type, with a leaf-shaped bow running out at each end into a large wire spiral, was developed on the North-European plain, in the latter part of the Nordic Bronze Age III in Montelius's system. Its name (from a find at Spindlersfeld , a suburb of Berlin) was given it by E. Sprockhoff (his 1938); he distinguished those of Montelius III from those of IV, which have a wider distribution , up the Oder and Elbe to the Danube, and south-west to the Middl e Rhineland; cf. Kossack 1950 , Smith 1957, Sandars 1971. No later than this there appeared, on the Lower Thames, bronze swords of several types from th.at same general quarter (Smith 1957, 233-6; Cowen 1951, '56; cf. Gerloff 1981, comparing various datings for these, and Smith as (Mrs.) M. A. Brown , 1982, 1-8, 33-4, 38), so conceivably one of these brooches arrived here too. Hence Hull's adducing the brooch from Heidesheim (Rheinpfalz), here pl. 1, to compare with the only exa mple claimable from Britain, the same plate's fragmentary no. 3529. However, this is one of the pieces in the old collection (now at Cambridge) formed at Ixworth , W. Suffolk , by a Mr. J. Warren. From the excursus on that collection here below (pp. 46-8) it will appear most probable that Warren got most of it from dealers; this piece, though inevitably treated here as doubtful, might, even so, have been found in Britain; and if it was, might have come, like the swords , from the London area. With the Heidesheim brooch (RGZMus, Mainz: A UHV I.ix Taf. III.2; Beltz 1913, 7 45.4: Hull's refs.) was Urnfield pottery, 'Hallstatt A2' of Muller-Karpe 1959: 11th century as in Smith 1957. C.F.C.H. 3529 'IXWORTH' locality suspect: see above. Half of leaf-shaped bow of Spindlersfeld brooch, dee. incised, wire bent for pin-catch ends in 4-coil spiral. PLATE 1. AA.

Violin-bow ( one-piece) type, bow flattened: plate 1.

This, with its straight bow flattened to a leaf shape, as Blinkenberg 1926 figs. 7 or 8, is one of the types varied (still at most with single spring-coil) from the rod-bow 'Peschiera' type of brooch (p. 6 above), North-Italian: first, as in Greece, 13th century (e.g. CloseBrooks 1969, 20-23); normally with decorated bow, it lasted later, and was spread, though rarely , by the Rhineland to NE . France; in Dechelette , Age du Bronze, 191 0= 1924= 1970, 328-30 fig. 130. While the Italian no. 6 has the pin-catch a simple hook, hammered narrow, this is usually of wire: most often coiled, as in no. 7 from Dept. Marne at St.-Etienne-auTemple, better drawn in Duval, Eluere and Mohen 1974 fig. 2 no. 2, text 4-5; refs., 55, and at 5 to those in Rhineland; also (with 4 and 58) to th e hoard of Villethierry (Yonne), which included 20 comparable brooches, two complete (fig. 2, 3); hoard's context as in Rhineland), I I-10th centuries (French Bronze Final II). From Britain , to which the Marne brooch and these are the nearest, that catalogued here, our only one known, is clearly similar, and acceptable as brought over about I 0th century, in our initial Late Bronze Age. No number AVEBURY DOWN (N. Wiltshire), at about Nat. Grid SU122714; in Jan. 1987 brought newly found to Devizes Mus.; info. Dr Paul Robinson, Curator, who vouched for the find-spot (personally knowing finder's family), sent the brooch to me for inspection, and then supplied drawing; his acquisition-no., 1987 .18. Complete; patina (duller on bow) overall dark brownish-green; being discovered brought up in a recent rabbit-scrape, it had remained beyond the reach of surface corrosion. Straight bow flattened into narrow leaf shape, plain, becoming wire at head for single coil of unilateral spring, continuing as straight pin, still tensile, with tip beyond the simple wire catch, which is a short hook at end of a leg, thinning towards it, bent sharply down from end of bow , and long enough to set this at angle c. l o0 up from line of pin. Differs from type's Continental norm only in its short hook of un-coiled wire and in its bow's being plain. C.F.C.H. PLATE 1. 12

BB. Brooches with arched bow and short catch, of Iron-Age Greek forms: plate 1. Greek arched brooches, after the Italian series diverged from them, were soon being made distinctive in the bow and catch-plate. Of the two examples alleged to have come from 'London', no. 7120 is of Blinkenberg's type 111-4(his 1920, 80), in which, as in 111-3 where the wire of the bow is continuously twisted, the single spring-coil is matched by a coil above the catch-plate. Perhaps from within the I 0th century, of 9th then anyhow, when a few from the Peloponnese could pass into the south-west Balkans (for such Greek rarities there, Alexander 1962, 124-5), the form is in Greece itself rare and was clearly short-lived. For the 'London' locations, only modern transmission can account. The same is true of 7277 (plate I), which has the catch-plate and paired bow-mouldings of the commoner Blinkenberg type 11-12, possibly devised before 900 but in use about then and somewhat after. Its features mark it as earlier altogether than the fragmentary two in South France, averred from the inhabited cave of Rousson (Gard), Amal et al. 1972 as cited by Duval , Eluere and Mohen , 13-14 (with 59): their fig. 7, 4 (of Blinkenberg's VIII) and 5 (of his Vll-22). Neither is before the 8th century , when first Greek sailings there appear to be conceivable . Too early for those, and matched nowhere in the West, our brooches' reaching London must be modern. C.F.C.H. 7120 'LONDON'; this brooch was owned by Dr H. A. Fawcett. Greek type as Blinkenberg

1920, 80 fig. 70 , 111-4(fig. was bought at Athens, Ashmolean G321). The arched wire bow, with one spring-coil at head, had a second one close above the short plain catch. Incredible as ancient import. 7277 'LONDON , Thames at Wandsworth'. R. Mus. Scot. (Chambers St.), Edinburgh, 1901, Greek type as Blinkenberg 1920, 68-70 figs. 45-8, 11-12; cf. 11-10 = Myres 1930, 407, fig. 14, 17, with text 417-19, notes at 588. Datable approx. 900, when incredible as import. PLATE 1.

13

B. Brooches with arched (2 examples) and with Leech-shaped bow (remainder), typically Italian; foot carries catch, and is short: Plates 1-6. BMG ... EIA (1925) 42-3 fig. 40, Ilb-c . The one-piece wire violin-bow brooch, of the later IInd millennium BC, and seen here above (pp. 5-6)to have spread by the Adriatic to north-east Italy, is often there called 'Peschiera' after a lake-side site of that name (south end of Lake Garda). Among its straight bow's variants, the most successful was the Arched, of wire curved high enough for holding a thicker fold of the garment: Ia-Ila in the chart by Reginald Smith 1925, 42-3 fig. 40. Its development in Italy , diverging from the Greek (as in our BB) was at first in thin wire throughout, with a single coil at the head to give tension to the pin, which is straight and was held in a very short catch hammered out at the foot of the bow. This, IIB in the same charts , has an example claimed from Britain: our 8576, reported in 1906 by its owner as from London, found in the mud of the Thames , 'at Paul's Wharf, in 1856' (on the northern foreshore south of St. Paul's between Blackfriars Bridge and Southwark Bridge, Miss J. Macdonald) : Montague 1906 , fig. 11, which appears to show close hatching on a part of the bow. Montague fancied it was Roman , so from Roman London; and as the catalogue's other one, the plain 4544, is in the museum at Chester, famous as a Roman fortress, a location for it there could be false, invented by a dealer, whether or not this might be true of 857 6. Three, plain, are reported from inland France (depts. Jura, Charente and Loiret); three with torsion-rendered bow (like Smith's Ilb); and one with bow partially hatched. Though this is reported from Bourges, once again a Roman town, importation into France from Italy, in the period of the type, remains conceivable, probably anyhow for some. Thus the same might be guessed (although none are from near the Channel) for our very precisely recorded 857 6. The type's period, in Italy as a whole, through the 11th and 10th centuries, reaches the 9th. French localities: Duval, Eluere and Mo hen, 197 4, 8-9, with fig. 4 nos. 1, 5, 7; 2, 3, 4, 8; and 6, reputed from lake-dwelling, middle 10th century onwards, French Bronze final III, at Gresine (Savoie). C.F.C.H. 8576 LONDON locality reported, Thames N. foreshore mud at Paul's Wharf: Montague 1906, cols. 2-3 with his fig. 11 (at 1: 2 but here at full size); it was then in his collection (price he paid for it, 7s. 6d.), but was identified by Hull as having been acquired by Exeter Mus. Though now long missing there , its accession had been recorded with the number 337 (written in red); as our 7257 (below in Group B) was accessed 5/1946 with the number 335 , and is the imperfect brooch, reputed from Bath, which Hull's drawing shows to be identical with Montague 1906 fig. 9 upper, the identity of 857 6 with his fig. 11 shows that Exeter will have acquired them both together in 1946, numbered respectively 337 and 335, the numb ers having been probably Montague's own. One-piece brooch of bronze wire, arched bow with some hatched decoration, single large spring-coil, straight pin, still in very short catch hammered out from foot, point very slightly bent. Discussed above. PLATE I. 4544 'CHESTER' locality suspect: unpublished in the Grosvenor Museum, Chester. Onepiece brooch like 4010 but plain and with wire of bow and coil less thin, pin tapering to point still in quite short hammered -out catch. Discussed above. PLATE I.

Brooches with Leech-shaped bow , either quite slender (as at first) or more often ( soon and onwards) thicker or stout; catch never more than short, not even if with slightly protruding toe; unilateral spring of one coil or two at most,· all typically Italian: plates 1-6. The advance from the arched wire form by thickening the bow, starting already in the 14

10th century, might hav e obtained an only slightly thickened bow not by casting but by arching a thick enough wire and gradually hammering down its legs to the thinner dimension required for the coil and the pin. This could suit our very large 7327 , reputed from Colchest er, with its catch hammered out and folded up to hold the point of the pin. The same might pos sibly be said of 7318 (locality unknown). But casting was soon , and perhaps from the beginning, th e method inevitably used: in a mould to shape the bow (foot thinned for the catch) and a wire running straight from the head, to be bent round , after the casting, for the spring and pin. Th e shape of the bow , curved and in cross-section round or D-like, has named it from its resemb lanc e to a clinging leech: Italian sanguisuga or mignatta. The catch, remain ing short, was usua lly formed by folding th e bow -foot, or less often a disc cast verti cally on to it, as perhaps in 7318. The bow , if still slender , may be (rarely) strung with rings, as on a few from the early 8th- cent ury graves at Cuma (province of Naples), where th eir rows if more than single are interlinked (Muller-Karpe 1959, Taf. 17, A, 1), like th e rings that form separate ornaments (ibid. B, 13); Ridgway 1979 assembles Greek confi rmations of the dating. Our 2415 (plate 4) reputed from Stuntney (Isle of Ely , Cambridg eshire), has twelve on the bow and two more rows attached now only by corrosion: not inter link ed, their ties would be of perishing material. The brooch reached Cambridge Museum some 16 years before the British bronze hoard , found in January 1939 in the fen beside Stuntney (Antiq. Journ. xx, 1940, 52-71 ); Late Bronze Age local activities are amply attested, and an 8th-century date for the hoard, like the brooch , appears quite certain. Yet the coincidence may be a chance one: neither brooch nor rings have a typically fenland patina, and a modern introduction from th e region of Naples is possible, indeed very likely. Though such forms (without the rings) have oc curred in France , they are somewhat sparse there: Duval, Eluere and Mohen 1974, figs. 4-6. This brooch's provenience at Stuntney is thus still dubious. Decoration in patterns of grooves on the bow - obscured on the Stuntn ey one by ancient wear - is present, except on 2962, on all the smaller of the Group B brooches on our plates 2 -4 and 6, and (except on plate I the slender early-looking 4544) on all of the larger, together with the two that have been added on plate 5. At whatever size, th e series shows the trend to heavier 'leech' bow shape, which went with a flattening of the plain side beneath: cross-section on plate 2 no . 7257 (whereas 3523-4 on plat e 4 are fully rounded still). These leech-shaped bows, most often with decorati on , some having dot -in-circle stamps (plates 2 and 4 ), in Italy outrun the 8th century into the 7th. Excessive weight could be avoided by casting them hollow, on a core of clay, or left with an opening beneath. In France they have stated localities widely spread, and reaching to the Channel: Duval, Eluere and Mohen figs. 8-11 , with map fig. 27 (their p. 45) and cata logue arranged by Departments (pp. 48 ff.). None are very large highly-decorated pieces, like our 'London' no. 8970 and 'Kent' no. 8975 (plate 5); both of these, weak in rec ord of discovery, should be modern introductions out of Italy. It is the less showy an d smaller ones that resemble those in France, where though some can be spurious finds (one noticed p. 20), several are from barrows (as recalled p. 22 ). North-westerly French localities occur on the Loire and west of the Seine , stretching into Manche where the bunch round Avranches include s two or three from a hoard (NotreDame-d e-Livoy e); of those near the west coas t , two are in Finistere. This brings us to Truro Museum's three, our 8960-2 (plate 3 ), possible as found in Cornwall (conceivably at Harlyn Bay: see Cat alogu e). Ireland has ostensibly an oth er of Type B, and one of C: P.S.A.L. xxi, 115 (from Wilde's Catalogue). And in Portugal the cemetery at mouth of the Sado, Alcacer do Sal, had a pair (Schille 1969, 49, 72, 143 and 153 with fig. 71 , = 22 on pl. 109); there was also here a scarab of Psamtik I of Egypt, 663-609 B.C . (Bosch Gimp era 1929 , 265 fig. 216, 266, date misprinted). Along a sea-route linking all th ese countries, before 700 and after, will have come the bronze vessels inferred as models for our 'A' Atlantic cauldrons: Leeds 1930, 27-8 , 'not later than the first half of the seventh century' (though his 'about 1000 B.C. ' for Phocaean Greeks should be 'towar ds 600', and for Carthage 'in the sixth' be 15

'at the end of the sixth', or 500). So we might , if we wish, look farther than north-west France for any claimed from west Britain - as we must, for Cornwall and Devon , when we come to Group K (p. 49). Anyhow, our Catalogue of B for Britain as a whole has more than thirty. What is implied is acceptance of some of the localities claimed, but not of all, and leaving preference an open question. Conceivable occasionally too is introduction by Roman s, guessable best, if at all, on any appropriate Roman site, but again with hardly a chance of expectable preference. A final case, inviting disbelief as a prehistoric import, is a brooch in which the foot protrudes as a disc. Italy has brooches in which the short catch was modified , to let the foot protrude in a coil of wire horizontally set; this next became hammered out flat , and was finally rendered as a broad flat disc, usually bordered and stamped with ornamentation. No. 6452 (plate 6) represents this just as in Italy; our closest match cited (in catalogueentry) is the pair's from Veii, from a grave there of phase IlA, c. 800-760. Our bow is of flat bronze rings threaded closely on the axis of the 'leech'; the Veii pair has the like between non-metal segments. The claim that this was found at a spot in Alton (NE Hampshire), with Group G's no. 6461, date of which is later by 60-100 years (p. 46 with plate 16), and with an Egyptian scarab later still, is unacceptable not only because these dates are so discrepant, and the pottery alleged as found with them is Roman, but now by the claimant finder's subsequently recognized ill-repute; see then 6452's catalogue-entry, p. 20. A Roman context has indeed been proved for such a scarab, at the Hambleden villa (Bucks) , cited by Branigan 1977 from Archaeologia 71 (1921 ), 198 with fig. 31, 1. But Alton cannot be fancied a Roman site of any definite kind. M.R.H . and C.F.C.H. 7327 'COLCHESTER': locality declared by the owner, Mr. H. C. Calver (no. 494 in his private collection), as alongside Shakespeare Road, where trenching in May 1959 came upon a bucket-urn, of a type well known in the district, and dated by traditional archaeology within the Late Bronze Age, a period long regarded as begun about I 000, or at least in the 10th century B.C. That date, on Italian grounds, would suit this apparently Italian brooch: p. 15 here above. Mr Calver, inspecting the trenching where the urn had been found, saw the brooch lying thrown on the hedge-bank opposite the place. As the ground had its grass undisturbed apart from the trenching (for foundations of bungalows) , he inferred that this had disclosed not only the urn but also the brooch. This hardly proves that the two were in direct association. In modern views, too, the urn need not (though it might) be of after 1000, many such being earlier. Miss Ross (p. ii), when examining the brooch , found that the bow and pin appeared to be of different bronzes; and the pin seemed 'brazed' to the spring in replacement of a lost one. Whether the brooch might have this done in antiquity may be questioned. Its reaching Britain in what would have been its period in Italy accordingly seems open to doubt (as here expressed for more reasons than one). It is a fine example of its type and exceptionally large; for description and the possible technology, seep. 15. PLATE 2. 7318 UNKNOWN. B.M. Cat. of Bronzes, 28, from 'Mr. Bousfield's Coll.' 1865. Large, solid; dee. severely plain; bow of rounded section. PLATE 3. 7254 'Y ORK , in or near'; was in F . E. Huckle's coll. at Luton , from his uncle who collected in York: Antiq.J. xii, 1932, 453-4, fig. 1. York, as a Roman fortress and city, might draw a dealer to allege this locality falsely; hence it is doubtful. Small, bow and part of catch only; decoration of continuous close-set bands of chevrons in very fine grooving; Sundwall 1943 Abb. 106, from the Piediluco hoard, 10th century B.C., was compared with it by Hull, but many others could be quoted from this Late ('Final') Bronze Age III. The catch and spring would have resembled those of 7318. PLATE 1. 4463 UNKNOWN, in Hull (N. Humberside) Mortimer Mus. Complete; spring of two coils;

16

bow with transverse bands ; plain bands separate the middle ones , done in chevrons. Italian parallels as for 7254. PLATE 2. 7281 'FALKIRK (West Lothian), CASTLE CARY' , loc. declared allowable by R. Munro, Prehist. Scotland ( 1899) , 26 0 fig. 165 with 7280 (Group C) . R. Mus. Scot. (Queen St.) FG4. Bow only: hollow, narrowly open beneath; dee. of transverse bands, alternately plain and sharply hatched in chevrons. Grounds for Munro's opinion not confirmable. PLATE 3 . 6471 ' LITTLE CHEST ER (Derbyshire)' locality alleged, but brooch was in the Towneley coll., early 19th century at latest: now B.M., Cat. of Bronzes 2001. Noted in Intellectual Observer xii (1867); by Llewellyn Jewitt, Grave Mounds (1870), 194 fig. 317, and again in his Half Hours with English Antiquities (1880) , 220 fig. 292; loc. upheld by Ridgeway and Smith 1906, 116; noted by Haverfie ld , VCH Derb y I, 217 fig. 24, whence drawing here, but the site is a Roman fort, so has to be dubious for this brooch. Italian context would be same as for those preceding. Small, with solid bow transversely grooved; spring of two coils; lacks pin and catch. PLATE 2. 7063 'BREDON (Gloucestershire)' alleged; but Bredon Hill has a long-known hillfort , fanciably fitting the brooch , but of an Iron Age date too lat e for it. In Italy , matched from Vetulonia: Sundwall 1943 , Abb. 290. Oxford, Ashmolean Mus. Cat. of 1848 , 177. Small with transverse banded dee. as shown. PLATE 4. 3962 'BERKHAMSTED (Herts)' alleged; has a well-known ruined Norman castle, but see 3964 (Group G below). Verulamium Mus., St. Albans. Bow swelling to rounded form , dee. rather as 7063, but done mor e crudely. PLAT E 3. 8161 'BATH DISTRICT (Avon)' , reputed from, but doubtfully; bought from collector R. T. Clough .of Keighley (Yorks) in 1959 by Bristol Mus. (F. 3794). Complete; spring of two coils; bow solid, with dee. of transverse bands of fine grooves, partly indistinguishable owing to wear. Cf. 8162. PLAT E 3. 8162 'BATH DISTRICT' , reput ed from, as 8161, but bought with it from same collector by same mus. (F 3795); smaller but spring is similar (pin only missing), also bow , but with the grooved bands complete. Both brooches matched in Italy, e.g. from Veii (S. Etruria), Quattro Fontanili cemetery: Close-Brooks 1979 from her 1969) , fig. 2 nos. 17-18 , 24; fig. 5 nos. 17 , 19, 38 (her Phases IIA-B, early to middle 8th century: pp.103-113). PLATE 3.

7257 'BATH', reputed from: Exeter Mus., accessed as 5/1946 with the number 335 (just as was 8576, here p. 14, wit h the number 337). Formerl y (with 8576) in coll. L.A. D. Montague , and published in his 1906 , col. 2 fig. 9 upper (at scale 5: 8); reputed loc. thus doubtful. Spring and pin missing; solid bow , cross-section flattish; dee. of grooving and 4 punched 'eyes'. PLATE 2. 8556 'BITTERNE', outside Southampton , a known Late Roman fortified promontorysite, as loc. for the brooch thus doubtful. Southampton Mus. Complete; spring of two coils; bow solid ; bands of transverse grooves flank its middle , which is blank but for 3 punched 'eyes' , Italian style. PLATE 4. 8960 'CORNWALL , possibly found in': Truro Mus., drawn by H. L. Douch. Pin and catch broken; bow leech-shaped but hollow (like 4464 below in Group C); dee. of transverse grooved bands crossed by linear pattern lengthways. For loc. as just conceivably true , see Discussion p. 15. As 8th-century Italian, see Close-Brooks 1979 (cf. on 8162) . PLATE 3.

17

8961 'CORNWALL, possibly found in': Truro Mus., drawn by H. L. Douch; see on 8960. Small; solid bow with dee. cast in relief (variant of type of 8962). PLATE 3. 8962 'CORNWALL, possibly found in': Truro Mus., drawn by H. L. Douch: see on 8960. Small; solid bow plain, as Close-Brooks 1979 (cf. on 8162), fig. 5, 32. Early 8th century. PLATE 3.

3521 'STOWE'. Ipswich Mus. 1940.79. Drawn N. Griffiths; chevron design.

PLATE 2.

352lbis 'N. W. SUFFOLK'. Bury St. Edmunds Mus. 2166, ex. J. Shirley; Fox 1923, 74-5; Clarke 1940, 98 and fig. 6,2 (whence drawing); design like 3521. PLATE 2. 3522 'ICKLINGHAM (N. W. Suffolk)' locality claimed: Bury St. Edmunds Mus. 261, ex Acton coll., in which various acceptably local finds were many, but with some non-local. Clarke 1940, 96 and fig. 6, 1 (whence drawing here); a similar brooch in N. France is pl. 18a in L. Coutil, L'Epoque Gauloise en Normandie, 1918 (not in Duval et al. 1974). Complete, but catch is bent sideways : bow of round cross-section cast solid but rather slender, with design of chevrons. PLATE 4. 7283 and 7284 'ICKLINGHAM' Bury St. Edmunds Mus. 262-3, ex Acton coll.: see 3522. Fox 1923, 74-5 (dated too late);Clarke 1940, 96. 2415 'STUNTNEY' , I. of Ely. Cambridge Mus. Arch. & Anthrop. Complete: bow worn, but had girth-grooves threaded on it ; 12 bronze rings; two rows of similar rings corroded onto them. See discussion, p. 15. PLATE 4. 3523 and 3524 'IXWORTH (Suffolk)' locality claimed, and upheld by Ridgeway and Smith 1906, 24-5 (.Clarke 1940, pl. v , 6 and 7); but came to Cambridge U. Mus. of Arch. and Anthr. ( 1901, 240-1) from the J. Warren coll., for doubts on which see Excursus pp. 468 below. For the bands of transverse grooving on both, cf. 8161-2 above ('Bath'). PLATE 4. 8973 RIVER WITHAM at LINCOLN: loc. perhaps believed by Bishop Edward Trollope, in whose coll. it passed to the Municipal Technical College; in 1909 the college gave it to Lincoln Mus., there 237 .09; nothing further is known. Info. Mr. Andrew White, there Keeper of Archaeology, July 1982 , in letter with his opinion of the loc. as highly probable; Trollope might nonetheless have been deceived, as Lincoln as a Roman city might attract a false attribution, the river there and downstream having certainly yielded good British antiquities. An alternative guess could be that the brooch had been owned and lost by a Roman, but such guesses are best where more is known, which it seldom is. Catch short, bow hollow, cf. 8960 but open enough beneath to resemble 'boat' shape: Italian a navicella (Group C below) . External dee. is a linear design. C.F .C.H. 8974 'LINCOLN, GREETWELL' : statement of its finding during excavation of the Greetwell Fields Roman villa, made by the dealer W. C. Wells, its vendor in 1915 to Lincoln Mus., 94.15, is shown by his letter , photocopied kindly by Mr. White (see 8973), to be open to some doubt; he had anyhow bought it from a Mr. Thompson of Bailgate, Lincoln, at the time of the villa excavation, and Mr. White in his letter was not satisfied of the loc. The brooch resembles 8973; the mus. has another , but perhaps acquired as a match for both and really from Italy, possibly but doubtfully ex coll. Melville, a known collector there. Hull regarded the loc. alleged as 'suspect'. C.F .C.H. Italian a navicella (see Group C below); external dee. is a linear design.

18

7255 'YORK', loc. claimed on authority of Captain John Ball, from whom the British Museum acquired it in 1919 (B & M 1919, 12-13,1); Antiq.Journ. xii (1932) , 453-5, where 6th-century date is some 200 years too late , with fig. 2 where conjectured foot should probably be shorter. But , even with these corrections, see above on 7254; the same reason for doubt seems valid here. Bow solid, flattened beneath, with angular pattern and transverse bands of bunched 'eyes', Italian style as e.g. 7 527; both ends broken off, leaving spring and foot unknowable. PLATE 4. 8971 'YORK' loc. alleged, but cf. the reason for doubting 7254 and 7255. Birmingham Mus. 688 '53; leech-shaped bow with linear dee. 7278 UNKNOWN , Liverpool City Mus. ; Ridgeway and Smith 1906, 115. Catch appears short (though might have been broken); otherwise resembles 4986 (Group C below). 8972 UNKNOWN , seen by Hull in Hertford Mus. Leech-shaped bow , pin missing.

4985 UNKNOWN, Reading Mus. (213 .61 ), where Hull was informed, Jan. J 966, that the alleged loc. 'Battle Farm near Reading' was now discredit ed. Very small, hollow leechshap ed bow, with multiple pointed-oval grooving. Spring and pin missing, catch broken, but acceptable as short. A similar small broken one was in Dr. H. A. Fawcett's coll. PLATE 4. 7290 'BASINGSTOKE', Hants. , loc. claimed; was in Dr. H. A. Fawcett's coll., when Hull examined it. Large (1. c. 10 cm.) with bow of very round cross-section, cast hollow with

no trace of a joint or seam. Holes in its top, one small oval with bronze plug, one larger originally round, and beneath it one small and round , one oblong with bronze plug, had presumably all had plugs, those in two having fallen out, but at first might all have been open (perhaps for draining away a molten wax core? C.F.C.H.). Surfa ce dee. had become faint, but had had an elaborate grooved design. 8660 'DAVENTRY, Northants':

loc. conjectured, ?BOROUGH HILL (large Iron Age hillfort). Coll. Daventry Junior Comprehensive School. Bow hollow, open beneath; overa ll dee. of lengthwise bands of chevrons , crossed at ends by narrow and blank ones and in middle by broader blank one. Spring of 2 coils, pin missing; foot broken, appearing short (though Hull thought might have been long). Two corroded patches on bow. PLATE 6. 8966 'CHESTER'? Bolton (Lanes.) Mus., bought 1955 from collect or R. T. Clough of Keighley (like 8161 above and 8967 below); he had bought it from a dealer in Scarborough (N. Yorks) who said it came from a coll. formed in Chester (alleged from Roman funerary columbarium!). Examined by Miss Ross (p. ii), who found bow solid, of rounded crosssection slightly flattened beneath, with dee. of fine linear grooving; pin missing; I. 9 .6 cm.

8970 'LONDON' lo c. presumed but not attested. Mus. of London, ex Guildhall Mus. 118 (Cat. 1903, p. 8 no. 23 (cf. 35); 1908, p. 6 no. 38), whence drawing kindly supplied by Mr. Norman Cook, then Curator. Bow solid, dee. of twin hatched triangles, bounded and divided transversely in low relief by plain bands. Spring of 2 coils, pin and foot missing. Green patina, unlike usual Thames or London excavated bronze (Miss J. Macdonald, Mus. of London, 1979). PLATE 5. 8975 'KENT' loc. suggested because from 19th-century Brent coll., formed in Kent; now Royal Mus. Canterbury 4171, whence Curator Miss L. Millard 's drawings for Hull , rendered here by Miss C. Unwin (Oxford Inst. of Archaeology). Very large; bow hollow , spring broken, as is catch, which however was doubtless short; overall length of brooch, 11 cm.

19

Dec. of terminal and central close-hatched bands carrying twin-grooved angular frets, the central one (top worn) flanked on each side by a band of triangles, alternately hatched and plain, set between a pair of cross-hatched bands: all elaborately done in Italian style. C.F.C.H., with next entry. PLATE 5.

4464 'KENT?' Bow only , hollow beneath (top worn); dee . a simpler version of that of 8975. Perhaps from Brent coll. too, but was drawn by Hull and numbered (no catalogueentry extant) next to 4463 , here above with plate 2, so mus. would seem likewise to be the Mortimer at Hull; it had formerly a great repute for variety of purchases. PLATE 4.

With short catch but fo ot prolonged in a horizontal disc. BMG . .. EIA 42-3 fig. 40, ld-e , cf. b-c. This form of Italian lee ch-bow brooch had its foot first prolonged in a horizontal wire spiral; the wire could then be hammer ed out flat , and its spiral can be seen in those discs that reveal this origin ; finally th e disc shows nothing more of that, but is of unitary thin bronze sheet , its upper fac e affording room , within a decorative border , for discrete ornamental motif s done in pun ching or tracer -work. The Italian sequence runs through the 9th century, just reaching the early 8th ; much of it is represented in the Contigliano and Piediluco hands in Umbria, and the First phase of the cemeteries in Southern Etruria at Veii. Hull quoted Sundwall 1943, esp. Abb. 146 from Terni and 152 from a grave (nearer Ancona) at Verucchio; cf. now (very fully) Close-Brooks 1969, and for Veil her 1979. The bow most often has its arch formed with open or close-set girth-grooves, or is strung with discs of bronze or of perishable substance, or of both in alternation; the spring has a single large coil, or two or even three. The pin is long enough to pass beyond the catch and across the disc, which is appended to the foot by a loop, upright, thus guarding the pin's projection. The Italian distribution , from Campania north to Bologna, contrasts by its abundance to the French, which has only three brooches: two in the far south, but the third reputed from Bavay (dept. Nord) , which however was a well-known Roman town, so for this may be a spurious locality (Duval , Eluere and Mohen 1974 , 13-14 fig. 7, nos. 1-2-3). From Britain only this single example is claimed.

6452 ALTON, Hampshire . Was in the Curtis Museum collection formerly at Alton, now in charge of the County Museum Service in its storage at Chilcomb House, adjacent to Winchester (Block 2, Bay 3); this brooch and no. 6461 of Group G , claimed as found with it (p. 36) being two of the items numbered there AOC (= Alton Old Collections) 1891.2/ 1-5, while 1891.3 is the Egyptian scarab claimed to have been found with them both: information kindly given to me , 1986 , by Mr David Allen of the Service, adding further that the allegedly associated pottery (= rest of 2/1-5), as being Romano-British, might itself have been a genuine find. The locality at Alton was one from which material was being dug, apparently in winter 1890-91 , for the mound in the grounds of the Westbrook House Asylum: Ridgeway and Smith 1906 , 104-6 ('some years' before), with fig. whence Hull's drawing here. The claimant finder, a Dr Burnett, became afterwards generally known for untruthful attributions: info. per Mr Allen from Dr Martin Millett, through his Hampshire researches; now FSA and of Durham University Department of Archaeology. The brooch , like Montelius i, pl. I, fig. 9 in series A, has bow given leech shape by set of thin graduated discs, some 60 in all, tightly strung on the hidden rod of its arch; spring of two coils, pin missing. Foot with short catch is prolonged, with an upright loop, to a thin horizontal disc , diameter equal to length of bow; upper face with border (slightly damaged) done finely in tracer-work , linear and zigzag-rocked ; inner space dee. with pair of hatched angular lozenges and pair of hatched swastikas, widely set apart. See Discussion p. 16 ; on Italian grounds , the date should be around 800; that of 6461, 20

towards 700 (Duval et al., 36-37 fig. 22, 1 and 2); while the scarab , turquoise blue and of the Egyptian XXVIth Dynasty (Brit. Mus. authorities cited, Ridgeway and Smith p. 108) is uninscribed and was assigned (by the same) to the late 7th century if not the 6th. So while the Romano-British potsherds are conceivable as found on the spot, the brooches and scarab cannot pass as an associated find there, nor anywhere in Britain; rather will each have been a modern introduction from abroad, acquired, no doubt from a dealer, by Dr Burnett, and planted on the spot to be 'discovered' by himself, thus deceiving the Mr Curtis of the Museum, thence Ridgeway and Smith. C.F.C.H. PLATE 6.

21

C. Leech-shaped and boat-shaped brooches with long foot and catch: Italian BMG ... EIA (1925), 42-3 fig. 40, IIc-e.

From the 'leech' bow with casting left open underneath, it was a very easy step to a standardized open form; its resemblance to the hull of an inverted boat or canoe gives the common name 'boat-shaped': Italian a navicella, German Kahn{fibel). Most of the brooches of our Group C have it, but all are distinguished by the lengthening of the foot, with the catch set along it, forwards in the line of the pin. The feature is first seen in Italy not on these but on brooches of the 'serpentine' sort, our Group G; they can show it already within the 9th century there , and in the early 8th it begins to appear on the leech-shaped. There are still short feet (Group B), and lengthenings were moderate; the middle of the century starts on the fully long foot, both in Southern Etruria and also on the Bay of Naples. Here it is associated first with the Greek painted pottery , which then was giving Italy the means for our closer chronology : Ridgway 1968b, 1973 , 1976 with Ridgway D. & F. 1976 , Ridgway 1979 ; Close-Brooks 1979 , 111, long foot from Etruria; Buchner 1979 , long foot Greek. North Italy had it already before 700. With medium-long or this fully long foot, as now was common farther south , they are subsequently widespread; and are frequent as imports in France , where several are barrow-finds: Duval et al., 21-29. The series in the Hallstatt lands farther east had been opened by about 600. Thus for more than a century before that time , we might expect such brooches in Britain. On plate 6, our no. 3749 , believed found at Clayton in Sussex, has the medium-long foot that lasted on from the oldest examples; some have had the tip broken off, as has no. 8555 (plate 6), supposed from Bitterne at Southampton, and no. 7061 (plate 7), with duck figures cast on its solid leech bow , dug up in an allotment garden near the Holmes at Kingham in Oxfordshire: bows with such ducks may be 8th- 7th century in Italy. On plate 7, -no. 7287 , possibly collected in Dorset , was medium - long-footed, from the length of its pin, projecting out beyond the broken-off foot and catch. This form is seen complete with the medium - long foot in no . 7286 (plate 7), where the bow, wide open beneath and thus boat-shaped , has its large size suited by a richer decoration, with chevrons and dot-in-circle stamps in panels and bands. Its claimed locality, Box near Bath, is a wellknown Roman villa; Italy has many, most often from Southern Etruria, with ornamentation broadly or even almost exactly similar , as from Veii (see Catalogue) one among three from a grave of around 700: of phase IIIA , after end of IIB at 720 (Ridgway D. & F. 1976, 147, Table 1; Close-Brooks 1979, thre e charts whence table at 113, with Ridgway 1979 supporting). No. 7062, despite its broken foot (plate 6 ), has the same date from others that resemble it in Italy; its claim to be from Silchester , the Roman town in Hampshire, must be dubious; so too that of 7286bis as from Thames at Wandsworth. By the early 7th century, the boat-shaped brooch could have a fully long foot, such as we see on plate 8. The large no. 7261 , claimed from near Taunton in Somerset, has bowdecoration less tasteful in style because denser; no. 4986, claimed from near Reading in Berkshire, has lateral chevrons on its well-spaced bands which are matched on 7256; the lost foot of this (plate 10) will have been similarly long. Its claim to be from Leicestershire (Hinckley Castle) seems dubious , but might just be entertained. Banded on a solid bow and smaller is 4195 (plate 6 ), which has its long pin still though not its foot , and is alleged from Great Chesterford, in north-west Essex and a well-known Roman site, so claim dubious. Again with broken foot but with complete long pin, and boldly-formed bow with decoration, is a brooch worth notice showing why it is unillustrated here. This is no. 3954 (for refs. and acknowledgement to Dr. Grace Simpson , see Catalogue), which has passed as found at West Coker (Somerset): June 1861 , in the diggings on the field hence determined as a Roman villa-site, by the owner John Moore, whose descriptions of his findings appeared in 1862 and 3. Though thes e describe as 'Celtic' some 'remains of the stone and bronze 22

periods', most from a spot which he could guess had 'a British interment', yet neither among those, nor with his many Roman relics, did he figure or describe this brooch. Of the collection that he left, we have Haverfield's account (1906), and this notes 'pre-Roman items' - without describing them , however , though the brooch was presumably already then among them. The pottery got by the site's later owner J. Pomeroy was all of it Roman; and St. George Gray's note (1915), which this occasioned, brings nothing on the brooch as from Coker against Moore's silence. Mrs Dobson's declaring it as one of Moore's finds (1931) has thus no warrant. Though credited by Kendrick and Hawkes (1932), it cannot overturn what is the best supposition: that he got it from a dealer or from someone who had had it out of Italy, and left it to be kept among his Coker collection wrongly. Not far from West Coker would have been the place somewhere near Taunton, at which 7261 (above) has been believed to have been found. It was given to the British Museum (1916) by Sir Hercules Read , then a Keeper there and twice the Society of Antiquaries' President; he could nonetheless , perhaps, have been deceived on its locality, and 'Somerset' for 6882 deserves no credit (same type: see Catalogue). Modern imports in the region might have passed through the busy port of Bristol; any handsome as these , or the Box one (plate 7), could be the likeliest among them. It is the middle-sized or small, as we saw for Group B, that have support as prehistoric introductions, out of France. There , four are barrowfinds in Alsace and the east; claimed localities, like Group B's , extend to the Channel; and so do those of brooches that are boat-shaped with side-knobs, our D. France's total of all is 96, or 45 % or all with dates before 600; localities (as some have several) are 52, or 57% of all that are claimed: see Duval , Eluere and Mohen 41, table of all arcs cintres renfl,es (our B, C and D) ; 27 of C are drawn on their figs. 12-14. Our 32 of Group Care a third of the French ; discounting some attributions , and guessing some in France as discountable perhaps, we are left with a numerical relationship quite in proportion to the countries' sizes, especially as most of our localities are southern or south-eastern. Ancient importation thus can seem to have increased from the 8th century on through the 7th; the discounting, whatever the degree of it preferred, need never extend to contradicting this. The Group C brooch 3988 (plate 9 ), among the questionable Ixworth collection (468), is distinguished by the small waisted knob at the toe of its foot; any knob so placed is a late North Italian feature (easterly and Alpine), thence taken over for development in Hallstatt regions. From nearly 600 onward, it has vase-shaped and other elaborations (Hallstatt D): Piroutet 1904 , Wamser 197 6 (Taf. IO and 23, with chronology, 95 Tab. 12) for eastern France; in France out ide those regions it appears to be absent, unless so late as to have lost the boat-shaped bow (see below on Group D). Our brooch should be somewhat pre-600 and Italian, though it might, like those in the east of France, have been exported to a Hallstatt region. Knobbed (plate 9) is the doubtfully Dorset example no. 7260, of probable date about the turn of the 7th-6th centuries. The thin bow of no. 7288 (plate 9) which is matchable in Italy , e.g. from Bologna though claimed as from Newmarket (Suffolk), though suggesting the late forms here reserved for Group J , will have had bone or amber riders to make it leech-shaped. It remains to note those of Group C with a cushion-like bow, peaked bluntly at the sides, and those with knee-shaped bow, both again Italian; see their entries in the Catalogue following. They will lead to the next group , D. C.F.C.H.

7286 BOX (N. Wilts) loc:claimed; but the place has a well-known Roman villa, excavation published 1905 (and see Discu ssion above); acquired by Brit. Mus. April 1911 (4-1,1); EIA Guide , 1925, 93, fig. 92, after Antiq.J. iv, 51 (1924, Reginald Smith); XXI BRGK 1931 (1933) , 132-3 Abb. 29, from Kendrick and Hawk es 1932. Boat-shaped bow, very large, so that foot (at 27 .5 mm. just acceptable as long) seems relatively small; spring has kept only one (incomplete) coil; pin missing. Dec. , all over bow, has transverse bands, chevron-hatched as also in the diagonal bands on the sides, and the four crossing each of the rectangles flanking the double square panel in the middle, set with punched 'eyes' and 23

a double central ring; row of similar 'eyes' along each of its sides; panel with larger one next to the transverse bands, and on either side one still larger, set in triangular panel above the diagonals. All are deeply stamped, and all margins deeply grooved: condition fine. Such a brooch, of Veii phase IIIA, 720-early 7th cent., from grave XVI in Vaccareccia cemetery there: Close-Brooks 1969 fig. 88A; Hull cited one from Montelius and several from Sundwall 1943 , Abb. 295, 298. C.F .C.H. PLATE 7. 7286bis 'LONDON, Thames at WANDSWORTH', loc. alleged, for brooch very like 7286 but with solid bow of leech shape, in the Abbey Mus., Caboolture, Queensland, Australia: info. Father Michael Strong, Research Director there , per Miss Jean Macdonald when in post at Mus. of London. Acq. would have been from collector or dealer, not known to him. For doubt of alleged loc., and also of Box for 7286, see Discussion p. 22: thus both could have come from Italy in modern times. C.F .C.H.

7261 'TAUNTON (Somerset), near', loc. alleged; acq. by Brit. Mus. Oct. 1916 (10-14,1): Antiq.Journ. iv ,51 (1924, Reginald Smith). Boat-shaped bow, very large ; spring .of 2 coils, pin missing; foot complete with catch, very long. Dec.: hatched panel in middle with diagonal cross, set between transverse bands, hatched chevron-wise or linear; all flanked on either side by row of small double ringlets, next to row of slanting lines above diagonal longer grooving; plain transverse mouldings at head and over foot. At Veii, the two from Vaccareccia grave XI have such dee. in less elaborate version: late 8th century to early 7th. See again p. 22. C.F.C.H. PLATE 8. 7062 'SILCHESTER (Rants)?' loc. claimed, but doubtful: was Roman town. Oxford, Ashmolean Mus., 1952.407. Bow hollow, boat-shaped, covered with dee. of chevronhatched bands, latticed square panel in middle, flanked on either side with row of stamped 'eyes': style very similar to that of 7261; date should be same. Spring of 2 coils, pin missing; foot, broken , was almost certainly long . PLATE 6. 3941 UNKNOWN , City Mus. Liverpool (no number for the mainly Kentish Mayer coll.);

sketch sent by Miss E. Tankard shows only middle part of bow surviving, form and dee. resembling 7062; date should be same. 3981 UNKNOWN , Verulamium Mus. (formerly in Herts County Mus.), St. Albans. Bow,

both ends and all else missing , 1.64 mm. but still like 7062's.

7256 'HINCKLEY CASTLE (Leics.)' loc. alleged. Leicester Mus. 193 .151.1. Large; boatshaped bow cast hollow and thin; spring has one remaining coil, pin missing, also foot; above it and at head, plain transverse mouldings; overall between, three groups of fine transverse grooving (worn in middle and near head), crossed on either side by three very large plain narrow chevrons, points toward foot, which was probably long. Cf. Sundwall 1943 Abb. 317 (Novilara) and 4986 here. 'Castle' loc. suggestably false. PLATE 10. 4986 'READING, near' , loc. alleged 'Battle Farm' (Reading Mus. 4 7 .34) discredited for

4985 (above, Group B), so is questionable here. Spring and pin missing, foot long; bow (hollow, open beneath) has five transverse bands of fine grooving, the middle three crossed, on either side of lengthways groove, by three rather narrow chevrons, points towards foot. VCH Berks I, 223 fig. 1; cf. Close-Brooks 1969, fig. 94.l (towards 700 or 7th century), from Marino , Riserva del Truglio, for which her ref. is in text-vol. at p. 37 (fig. 94 in Swedish Inst. Rome 1964: graves in Alban Hills). PLATE 8.

24

4986bis UNKNOWN. Montague 1906, fig. 9; 'belongs to Mr. L. Clements'. Complete brooch, in bow and dee. resembling 4986; foot long , pin slightly longer; spring seems inaccurately drawn in fig., where scale is about 1 :2; 1. '4.1 in.' = 9.2 cm. 3986 UNKNOWN, Liverpool Mus. 61.202.18, whence sketch sent to Hull by Miss E. Tankard shows it 'like no. 4986, similarly decorated, ... could have been found in Britain' (her opinion only). Same brooch, perhaps, as 4986bis? 3966 'LONDON, Queen Victoria Street' loc. alleged. J.B.A.A. xxxix (Q. Waddington, 1934), 386 fig. 8A; was then in Guildhall Mus., now in Mus. of London. Brooch like the three preceding , long foot complete with catch. 3954 UNKNOWN though mistakenly claimed from 'WEST COKER (Somerset)'; mistake found out through research, 1979, by Dr. Grace Simpson , which I gratefully acknowledge (C.F.C .H.). Yeovil Mus. , ex coll. J. Moore. Site, beside a Roman villa, was explored by Moore in 1861; his accounts of his finds, J.B .A.A. xviii (1862), 391-5 and xix (1863), 321-2 , includ e two Roman brooches , penannular and harp-shaped (see Corpus's Roman vols.), but not this ; nor had St. George Gray any proof to give of its finding here, Proc. Som. Arch. & Nat. Hist . Soc. lxi , 2 (1915), 136-7 , though 'pre-Roman items', not described, were mentioned in Haverfield's account of the villa in V.C.H. Somerset I (1906). Claim was first Mrs. D. P. Dobson 's, in her Arch. of Somerset (1931), 101-2 with pl. 4, gazetteer 142, whence Kendrick & Hawkes 1932, 169; it only arose because the brooch had been Moore's, see Discussion , p. 22; he would have bought it and left it unlabelled, perhaps unaware of its coming from Italy where its boat-shaped bow would be normal in the early 7th century. 6882 UNKNOWN, once guessed as 'Somerset?' Ex Stradling coll., now in Taunton Mus., where (info. kindly given to C.F .C.H. by Mr. Stephen Minnitt) it bears a gummed-on label stating that '-this specimen was unlabelled' (i.e. when received ex Stradling); 'it may have been found in Som erset'. But this ad dition has no support, nor any credit as a guess: in Proc. Som. Arch. & NH.Soc . xlviii.l (1902) , 86 , the brooch comes under the heading 'Antiquities from Italy' , and a leech-shaped brooch in same coll. is marked 'Rome 1822, purchased 1902'. 6882 is large and boat-shaped; cf. then 3954. 4125 UNKNOWN but reported as from 'AYLESBURY' (Bucks) and 'probably from the garden of The Primroses in Oxford Road'. Ayl esbury Mus. , ex Field coll.; in 1950 the then curator found no proof of this loc. in the records, nor any disproof; if found really there, a previous occupant might have discarded it, as it is fragmentary only: the leech-shaped bow is thick, suits foot's being long , and has linear ornament. 4195 'GREAT CHESTERFORD (Essex)?' Hull Mus .; cf. 4463 and 4 (Group B), and the conjectured site is a Roman one . Leech-shaped bow small and solid, dee. with transverse bands of chevrons; spring of 2 coils; pin in poor condition but very long , showing similar length broken off from foot and catch. PLATE 6. 3749 CLAYTON (Sussex downland N. of Brighton), loc. reported. Lewes Mus.; owned in 1919 by a Mrs. Weekes of Hurstpierpoint. Ridgeway and Smith 1906, 116 fig. 6,1. Bow seemingly solid, encircled by seven bands of parallel lines (not shown in drawing); spring has one coil, rest and pin missing; foot, not typically short, may at 19 mm. pass as long . Datable in early 7th or latter part of 8th cent. (cf. p. 22 above). PLATE 6. 8555 BITTERNE (for doubt of this loc. see 8556, above in Group B) , outside Southampton; Southampton Mus. , ex Dorchester Mus. Spring and pin missing , foot damaged; bow hollow, as disclosed between its incurving lower edges; surface very worn , effacing decor25

ation on the sides, but top view shows a symmetrical linear design, set between terminal bands of transverse grooves; Italian style. PLATE 6. 7260 'DORSET?' British Mus. 1944, 7-2,8; cf. 6694, Group G below: both had possibly belonged to a 19th-century Captain Sabine, understood to have excavated (anyhow barrows) in Dorset. Narrow boat-shaped bow, moulded as shown; spring of 2 coils complete with pin; foot with catch very long, ending in waisted and oval knob. Best Italian date would be 7th century. PLATE 9. 7287 DORSET? British Mus. 1944, 7-2,5; possibly had belonged to the same Captain Sabine as 7260. Large and massive boat-shaped bow , surface corroded , but dee. has been of parallel lengthwise grooves, set between transverse ones towards head and (with one of chevrons) down to foot, which is missing but was long as is shown by pin, running 9 cm. long from spring of 2 coils. Italian date would be either side of c. 700. PLATE 7.

8968 HARLOW, Essex, found in a garden in Harlow New Town , NG.52/465103, but possibly in soil that had been dumped there for landscaping: info. Mr. E. F. Newton, stating also (with photographs) that its length is 8.4 cm ., its weight 4¼oz. Now Harlow Mus. Resembles in general 7287, but with different dee. on bow, which is large, and hollow as shown by two small openings underneath, one at least of them looking like a flaw, although repaired. Pin, broken near the spring, has a deep slot cut in it, presumably for an attempt at a repair~ foot and catch moderately long. Italian date would be like 7287's. 7061 KINGHAM, Oxfordshire, dug up in an allotment garden near Kingham Holmes, 1929. Oxford, Ashmolean Mus. 1933.514; its Annual Report 1933, 16. Small solid bow, sides swelling to blunted angle; dee. or grooving in bands, four transverse, middle one lengthwise; three duck-like birds surmount it, cast in the round, beaks towards foot, which is broken but was probably fairly long; coil of spring cracked, pin missing. Most of those cited from Italy by Montelius with three such birds, e.g. his 1895, pl. xx1v, 3, have foot as expected here; and though the plate on that from Suessola (Campania), no. 134 in von Duhn 1925, should make it earlier, the rest will be middle 8th century onwards - suiting also Abb. 440 in Sundwall 1943, from Tarquinia in Etruria, while two such bird-bearing brooches (one with bow as in our Group D), at Este in N.E. Italy, are of its period IIIA in Peroni's system, first quarter of 7th: Ridgway F. R. 1979, 435-6, fig. 9 nos. 4 and 5. Thus our brooch will fall securely within that range. One reputed from Montauban in S.W. France (dept. Tarn-et-Garonne) was noted in the 1930s by C. E. Stevens (ms. notebook bequeathed by him to Dr. Grace Simpson); not in Duval et al. 1974. (Some IO km. N. of Kingham is the hillfort of Chastleton, where Early Iron Age occupation, sampled in digging (1928-9) by E. T. Leeds, produced, close to the hearth in Area IV (1929) , a fragment of fine exotic pottery, which he saw should have come from the slender handle of a cup, in a ware that approaches that known as Etruscan bucchero: Antiq.J. xi, 396- 7, fig. 9, Ashmolean Museum: very dark brown ware, burnished surface nearly black , so suggesting the 7th century , not yet the hard black bucchero usual in the 6th. His guessing that the cup had been an ancient import from the south, not ruled out by expert opinion at the time, nor recently (as Dr. Anne Brown very kindly has found), might perhaps be extended to our brooch, loose find though it is. C.F.C.H. PLATE 7. 7282 DERBYSHIRE? Conjectured so by Ridgway and Smith 1906, 115, from Jewitt, Grave Mounds (1870) , 194, fig. 313: attribution to CAERLEON, (Gwent; Roman legionary fortress) thus discounted , though repeated 1861 by Thos. Wright, The Celt, the Roman and the Saxon, 332 fig., and 1902 (6th ed.) , 392 fig. All show the catchplate broken; it was probably long, which would suit the form of bow; this looks as if it would have been hollow. Brooch lost. Grounds for Jewitt's opinion not confirmable. PLATE 7.

26

7254bis 'POCKLINGTON' (North Humberside, E. of York); same coll. and history as 7254 (above, Group B); shown by owner Mr. F. E. Huckle to myself at British Mus., November 1932, where I sketched it. Pin and part of presumed long foot and catch missing; surviving overall I., 3 cm.; bow, at this miniature scale, was like that of the very large 7287 (here above with plate 7 ), both in form and in dee., except for lacking the band of chevrons. Subsequent history unknown. See also below (Group D) note appended to 6456bis. C.F .C.H. 7280 'FALKIRK' (West Lothian), loc. declared allowable by R. Munro , Prehist. Scotland (1899) 260 fig. 165 (with 7281, Group B). Edinburgh, R. Mus. Scotland (Queen St.) FG 5. Bow hollow, dee. of lengthwise grooving separating three transverse bands; spring of 2 coils, pin missing; long foot with catch. Grounds for Munro's opinion not confirmable. PLATE 8. 7289 'CUMBERLAND',

loc. quoted without endorsement by Ridgeway and Smith, 1906, 115 with fig. 26 (mus. not stated). Small (3 cm.); bow semicircular, dee. of transverse mouldings at intervals; spring of I coil , pin complete and still in catch, foot longer but toe broken off. One similar , reputed from Amiens (Somme), Duval et al. 1974, 22 no. 13, was assigned by them (24, nos. 7-13) to a group plentiful in Italy, 7th century, with no. 11, much larger, in a hoard of bronzes, ending perhaps in 7th, from Mulhouse in southern Alsace. Hull compared one from Rome, Sundwall 1943, Abb. 114. See below on 6453, on 7289 (Group C), and 6454 (Group J) . PLATE (scale 3: 2) 8. 8967 'LONDON , found in 1816 ' . Bolton Mus. (Lanes.) , bought of R. T. Clough. Similar in form of bow to 7 280 and 7289 ; 1. overall, 20.2 cm. (info. Miss Jane Ross). 7288 'NEWMARKET (W. Suffolk) , 1889'. Oxford , Ashmolean Mus. Complete (spring of 2 coils) ex cept for the outer end of the foot, which the pin's length shows has been broken off where now worn away. The thin wire bow should be explained by having lost the riders of amber or bone that gave it the look of a leech shape. This kind of brooch, fibula rivestita in Italian , after adopting the long foot in the later 8th century, continued thence through the 7th, north from at least Campania and through the Lazio and Etruria: many examples in Close-Brooks 1969 , and the type is 26c in her 1979, 98 fig. 2 (= Not. degli Scavi 1963, 61 fig. 7); at Bologna in the 7th , it is Montelius 1895 pl. VIII , 85 , or von Duhn 1925 Taf. 85, 144; and is 7th , reaching even 6th, beyond at Este and in the Golasecca culture (SubAlpine): Exx from both in Ridgeway F. R. 1979, where e.g. fig. 39 , 1 (p. 468) shows a wire bow naked through loss of its riders, just as here. PLATE 9. 3989 'IXWORTH, Suffolk' , loc. claimed as for 3523-4 of Group B; same Cambridge mus. 27.721, ex coll. J. Warren of Ixworth. Hollow bow, dee. with transverse multiple bands and broad double chevrons spaced between them; spring of 2 coils, pin missing; foot with catch long , ending plain. PLATE 9. 3988 'IXWORTH, Suffolk', loc. claimed as for 3989 etc.,; same mus. ex same coll. Hollow bow rather larger, dee. varied as drawing shows; spring broken, pin missing; foot with catch long, ending in toe with small double knob. Ridgeway and Smith 1906, 101 fig. 5, 106; Clarke 1940, pl. v.2. PLATE 9. 3518 'IXWORTH , Suffolk' , loc. claimed as for 3988 etc.; same mus. ex same coll. Smaller; solid bow plain, bulging out on either side; spring of 2 coils, pin missing, foot with catch ending plain. Ridgeway and Smith 1906, 101 fig. 4; Clarke 1940, pl. v. l. PLATE 9.

For these three of Group C claimed found at or near to Ixworth, like 3529 of Group A, 27

3523-4 of Group B, 7271 of Group H, and 3526 of Group J , see Excursus pp. 46-48 below, examining their claim to this locality. The bulging of the bow on either side, remarked in 3518, when carried further, gave lateral peaks, on some brooches blunt but on others sharper, producing bows of 'cushion' shape: BM . .. EIG (1925) Ile; Ridgeway and Smith 1906, 114. The addition of a knob to each peak produced Group D, and the six of Group C here following illustrate the typological progression. Lastly, where the bow is not a 'cushion' but a swollen 'knee', with the leg from it down to the foot very nearly vertical, the lateral peaks may either be absent or prominent (Plate 11, 6453 and 6457 here below), but such knee-brooches also enter Group D when knobbed.

Group C Cushion-bow Brooches, Italian: plate I 0. France has only a few: Duval et al. 1974, 27-8 fig. 16, 1-7, with Italian comparisons dated around 600. 7266 BOROUGHBRIDGE , near (N. Yorkshire); for loc. see Antiq.J.

x (1930), 54-5; fig. reproduced in XXI BRGK 1931 (1933), 132-3 Abb. 30. Yorkshire Mus., York. Large hollow bow of cushion form, plain but faceted continuously lengthways; spring of 2 coils, pin and foot with catch complete. Cushion-bow brooches, plain or decorated, large or small, pass in Italy from late 7th century to early 6th (Sund wall 1943, Abb. 346-7 etc.: not very common); of 7 examples in France (Duval et al. 1974, 26-8, fig. 16, 1-7) , scattered from south to north, one (plain, their 4) was in a bronze hoard, 7th century, from Notre-Damede-Livoye (dept. Manche). PLATEll. 5230 WINCHESTER (Hants). In Coll. of given to it by the Rev. J. Milner, 1789: menta III, 13 fig. 3. Bow of cushion form, two zones of transverse grooving; spring whole in mint condition.

the Soc. of Antiqs, Burlington House, London, Minutes of the Soc., xxiii, 306; Vetusta Monudee. of lengthwise cross-hatched bands, between of 2 coils with pin and long foot complete; the PLATE 10.

8978 SUTTON VALENCE , Kent. Maidstone Mus., on loan from Mr. D. A. Boxall, who found it on his land there in Jan. 1973. Complete but for end of foot with catch; cushionshaped bow crossed by slightly raised band bearing lattice dee. applied after casting. D. B. Kelly in Arch. Cant. 88 for 1973 (1974), 208-9, where ascribed to 6th century perhaps soon after c. 600; but 7th is allowed by some other Italian comparisons. Finding-place is only 3 miles (c. 5 km.) from that of 7276 in Group D. 8976 'KENT?', but 'apparent ly' (Ridgeway and Smith 1906, 113-14, fig. 23) only because in Canterbury Mus. (2222) ex Brent coll., and is otherwise unsupported; cf. 8977 in Group D. Lateral peaks of bow quite sharp; dee. of grooves in rectangular pattern; spring of 2 coils, pin missing. Drawing by Miss L. Millard when Curator. PLATE 10. 2881 NORTH WRAXALL (NW. Wiltshire), believed from Roman villa in Devizes Mus. Cat. 1934, 201-2 fig. 33 (no. 425) , after Wilts Arch. Mag. xxxv (1907), 394 fig. I; ex coll. G. Poulett Scrape, MP, excavator of the villa in 1859-60, but not in his report, ibid. vii (1860), 59-75; attribution therefore doubtable. Resembles in all respects 8976; dated too late in Cat. , 202. Probably early 6th century: cf. 8978. PLATE 10.

4223 UNKNOWN. Catalogue-entry by Hull not found, but his drawing shows dee. on bow with surface cross-section of its grooving; spring of 2 coils, pin and most of foot missing. PLATE 10.

28

7263 UNKNOWN; reputed 'Leicester?' but probably falsely (Roman town). Leicester Mus. Solid bow with prominent lateral peaks, dee. of transverse and criss-cross grooving; spring of 2 coils complete with long pin; longer still is foot with catch (and toe perhaps broken off). Early 6th century? PLATE 10.

Group C Knee Brooches, Italian: plate 11. 6453 'CUMBERLAND' (now part of Cumbria). Edinburgh, R. Mus. Scotland (Chambers

St.) 1904.45, whence claim observed by Ridgeway and Smith 1906, 116 fig. 28; but the same for 6454, same mus. 1904.43, here put at start of Group J as being later in date, and the lack of a Cumbrian Iron Age proved contemporary with either, makes the claim very dubious. This brooch, complete, and plain but for transverse notching at the foot, has hollow bow with lateral angles not protruding as peaks; its date is allowably still within the 7th century. PLATE ll. 6457 UNKNOWN; Colchester Mus., Acton coll. 1032. Hollow bow bulging out into protruding lateral peaks; transverse notching at foot, whence extension with catch very long; spring of 2 coils, pin broken. Datable late in 7th or in early 6th cent. PLATE 11.

29

D. Brooches with twin lateral knobs standing out from bow either knee-shaped, or of hollow cushion or narrower loz enge form (this rarely with top-knob); again Italian: Plates 11-12. These are easily understandable from their cushion-shaped precursors of Group C (p. 28 ): from within the 7th thus , they may reach the early 6th century.

6455 HOD HILL , Dorset (hillfort occupied at least from the late 5th century). British Mus. 92 , 9-1 , 909 , ex Henry Durden coll .: BMG ... EIA 1905 , 124 fig. 104 , whence Ridgeway and Smith 1906 , 116; id. 1925 , 93 fig. 93 ; XX/ BRGK 1931 (1933), 132-3 Abb. 31, from Kendrick and Hawkes. Knee-brooch with twin knobs, spring of 2 coils, pin long er than foot , on whi ch are not ch es. Databl e possibly as late as around 600 (varying littl e fr om Ridgw ay F. R . 1979 , 440-1 fig. 14A, 2 , Este period B2); presumed found in 19th -cent ury plough-soil (Richmo nd 1968 , 3) in th e western half of the area fortified first dur ing 'Iron Age A', fragment ary po tte ry of which has occurred , stray , all over the site (ibid . 148 , J . W. Brailsfor d). PLATE 11.

7064 OXFORD , near? (som e neighbo uring Iron Age sites start early, but loc. not precise). Ashmolean Mus. 1948.172. Knee brooch with small solid bow; twin knobs end in bufferdiscs ; spring of 2 coils, pin and foot with catch complete ; see on 6455. PLATE ll. 8290 UNKNOWN. Northampton Mus. Fell 1937 , 60 . Knee-brooch with tall bow, knee bulging but thin , twin knobs like small pellets. Spring of 2 coils, pin broken , foot with catch complete (but for a few small cut-marks). PLATE 12. 4440 BRENTFORD (Thames at) ? Arch. lxix (1920 , Reginald Smith), 19 with fig.; was then in Layton coll. in Brentford Public Library , passed next to London Mus., where was 0.1801, th ence now Mus. of London . Knee brooch , rather large, knee hollow and nearly hemispherical , drilled through by four round holes; twin knobs on short stalks; spring of 2 coils , pin missing, foot with catch unusually long. Knee form abnormal, but date could still be near 600. PLATE 12.

7060 PRINC ETHORPE (Warwickshir e), betwe en Rugby and Leamington ; found along the course of th e Foss Way (Roman road) . Oxford , Ashmolean Mus. 1949 .164. Bow of gentle knee profile but expanded to hollow cushion shape; one lateral knob missing, the other very small ; spring of 2 coils , pin missing , foot also (leaving only thin stump). Cf. Montelius 1895 pl. xxiv , 5. PLATE 11. 7276 BOUGHTON MONCHELSEA (Kent) , The Slade: loc. not far from Roman villa

explored by C. Roach Smith , 1841 (Ridgeway and Smith 1906 , 113 fig. 21 ), nor from finding-place of 897 8, Group C. Maidstone Mus. Gently-arched bow expanded to hollow cushion shape, with twin knobs prominent; spring of 2 coils, pin broken, also (doubtless long) foot . Cf. Monteliu s as 7060. PLATE 12.

7252 SUSSEX , loc. betw een Cock ing and Bignor , as also 7253 , Group G below. Antiq.J. iv (1924) , 50 with photos . Compl ete; bow gently arched , thin and shallow, expanded to lozenge shape with flatt ened t win knobs ; foot with deep and tapering catchplate. PLATE12 6456 BROUGHTON COMMON (Lines .), so credit ed in Brit. Mus. Towneley Coll. (early 19th cent .) no. 24 . Bow of D section , narrowly expanded to twin knobs , prominent on 30

moulded stalk; at end of long foot is a bigger such knob. Spring of 2 coils, pin missing, catch damaged. PLATE 11.

6502 BROUGHTON COMMON as 6456, which it resembles except that the twin knobs are better formed and larger, and that knob on end of foot is scarcely perceptible. PLATE 11. Of brooches in general resembling this and the four here preceding, France has 8 or 9: Duval et al., 28-30 fig. 16, 8-11; fig. 17, 1-5 (the few from Central Europe are also there noticed); the dating in late 7th cent. to perhaps early 6th is stiffened in N.E. Italy at Este with a somewhat longer span: Ridgway F. R. 1979, 435-9, exx. on figs 9, 11, and 12. One like 6502 but with drum-shaped knobs, and lengthwise grooves on the bow like 8297 (here below) was sketched by C.F.C.H. in Brit. Mus., Nov. 1932, when shown him by the owner F. E. Huckle, along with 7254 and 7254bis (Groups Band C above); again from his uncle's coll. formed in York , but alleged, as were several more from it similar to those, to be from BARTON-ON-HUMBER (now N. Humberside). None of these seem to justify cataloguing here.

8297 'CASTOR', loc. claimed (now Cambridgeshire, formerly Northants). Northampton Mus. D 145/1959-60 (Jane Ross reported '1968'). Long overall; bow low and barely expanded; twin knobs prominent but flat beneath; spring's 2 coils are flat in section; pin missing. The lengthwise and transverse dee. on the bow is in sharp and deep grooving. (Castor has Roman pottery-kilns and buildings ; but see further below on 7269- 70 and 5217, all Group G.) PLATE 12. 7262 'IRCHESTER (NorthantsJ}o c. claim ed but doubtfully, as site is Roman. Northampton Mus. D 163/1958-9. Frag. of bow like that of 6456 above , but hollow and with one knob missing, dee. along top with band of notches. Drawing sent to Hull by Mr. W.R. Moore. PLATE 12. 8963 DORCHESTER (Dorset). Bought , with 8964 of Group F, 8965 of Group J , and six Roman brooches, in Lot 528 at Sotheby's, 3 March 1898 , by General Pitt-Rivers for his Farnham Mus., now in Mus. Salisbury , all labelled 'found in digging foundations for houses at the end of South Street, Dorchester, opposite the Junction Hotel'. See Discussion pp. 33, 41. Bow boat-shaped with twin lateral knobs , pin and foot missing. 8977 UNKNOWN, the ascription 'apparently' to Kent by Ridgeway and Smith 1906, 113 fig. 22, being only on strength of its having come to Canterbury Mus., no. 4171 (drawn there for Hull by Miss L. Millard), ex Brent Coll. , in which were other antiquities reputed from Kent: loc. thus otherwise unsupported; cf. 8076 above, Group C. Resembles 6502 but for knobless foot (bent by damage) and bow more boat-shaped, with lateral knobs shorter and top knob, enclosed by four concentric grooves in lozenge pattern: R. F. Jessup, Arch. of Kent (1930), 130 fig. 19. PLATE 12

31

E. Brooches having arched and leaf-shaped bow with knobs, lateral and other. The flattening of the 'boat' into a leaf-shaped bow, with always two lateral knobs, was from late in the 7th century, on into the middle years of the 6th, a feature spread from north-east Italy to south Bavaria: Kossack 1959 , 24-6, 32, 47, 56; Taf. 14, 4-5; Taf. 155, map A. The type thus standardized has no associations after that, yet in Italy it stands among those that lead from- the boat-shaped forms to the later, where the bow is reduced and the foot has a deepened catch-plate: Duhn-Messerschmidt Taf. 34 (Belmonte , S. of Ancona: 219-20) , Taf. 6, 14-15 (Este) with 8d-g (Venetic); chronology, 352-3. Our 6458 and 5 693 have the leaf-shaped bow, but its depressed form on both, and the farmer's deep catch (on the latter broken off), should be late: 6th century. Group E in its homelands seems too remote for contemporary passage through France. The localities claimed for it in Britain are Roman town-sites : Colchester and Cirencester, where the brooches' com_ing each from Italy seems far more probably recent than Roman.

6458 'COLCHESTER' , loc. dubiously claimed; Colchester Mus. Acton coll. I 016. Arch of bow thin and flattened; along it, beaded low double rib, with slight knob at each end; pair of lateral knobs more prominent; spring of 2 coils, pin missing; tapering foot with deep catchplate, long, with tip broken off. An iron brooch similar but lacking knobs was in a grave in France, at Barbaste: Gallia xxv (1967), 363 fig. 55b. PLATE 12 5693 'CIRENCESTER (Glos.)', loc. dubious again because Roman town. Corinium Mus. there, B 409. Bow similar to last but depressed in middle; double rib along it is plain, with slight knob only at head and lateral knobs more rounded out; foot surviving only as thin flat stump. PLATE13.

32

F. Heavier brooches with arched and triply-knobbed or less tilted terminal. Plate 13.

bow, and very long foot with more

These, appearing developed from the Grottazzolina type, represented in NE Italy at Este in phase IIIC in Peroni's system, 2nd and 3rd quarters of 6th century (Ridgway F. R. 1979, 444-6, fig. 17A no. 7, with tables at 434 and 485), are dated to the later 6th and the 5th century. They were standard on the Northern Adriatic side of Italy: Montelius i, pl. 96, 16 and fig. 145 (near Rimini); Duhn -Messerschmidt 1939, Taf. 34, 1 (Belmonte Piceno); passing thence to N.W.Yugoslavia, Stare 1955, pl. XXXII, 2, 5.7, 8 (cf. Alexander 1962). Notable however is one from south-coastal Spain, where older Phoenician colonies received Greek influence; for its find-spot at Torre del Mar see Madrider Mitteilungen 5 (1964) 81 with fig. 2, where Frey (also Kimmig 1974 , 56) recalls that the Greek of Phocaea, in their 6thcentury phase of supremacy at sea, were active on coasts that included Adriatic with Spanish: Herodotus, Histories i.163. Thus a brooch from the one might well .reach the other, on their route to the market of Tartessos (Almagro 1966, 187, same brooch fig. 75, 2). In Britain, of the type 's six claims to have locations, all are eastern, away from the ocean, save one near the down-Channel coast at Dorchester (Dorset). Here no. 8964, a bow with knobs like the others, was along with the Group D fragment 8963 (noticed above) claimed as in a find of nine, having six that are Roman. If believed, the collection could be Roman , including 8963 and 4 then; yet its Group J specimen (below, 8965 , p. 43) could have been picked up locally then, from some site of the Iron Age early enough for its type (p. 41 ). If that were also true of 8964 , this might be guessed to have come by the ocean , from the southerly Spain of 6th -century Phocaeans - despite their lack of any coastal traces.in the north there (Hawkes 1977, 17-22). If it were, its coming into Dorset could in some degree connect, with that western sea-route, the other four locations that are claimed, in eastern Britain: 3520's being 'in Norfolk' , 3519's at Lakenheath in West Suffolk , and 6442's, lastly, Burgh Castle on the Suffolk east coast - though this , a Late Roman fort, must make it suspicious, and though 3214's in Leicestershire 'at Barrow-onSoar' has only had its credit through a recent collector who will meet us later on. No. 4276 (Hull Mus.) is unlocated ; we can leave aside the two mentioned with it in the Catalogue, 'Rhine?', as Germany attests no examples, nor France (too far from its Adriatic homeland). Thus, failing an ocean-rout e guess, with a Roman guess completing it, we should see them all as modern introductions ; yet Dorchester's claim is so peculiar that the guesses need hardly seem improper. C.F.C.H. 3520 NORFOLK, loc. reputed in. Brit. Mus. 53, I 0-29 , 3 ex Greville Chester coll.: Arch. Journ . vii (1850), 404; Ridgeway and Smith 1906 , 113; Clarke 1940, 31 and 95. Head missing; bow hollow with two of the knobs surviving, slender; foot long and flat, dee. with groups of filed grooves; terminal knob on doubly-moulded stem. PLATE 13. 3519 LAKENHEATH(W. Suffolk). Brit . Mus. 54 , 11-7, 13 ex Greville Chester coll.: Arch. Journ. vii (1850), 404; Ridgeway and Smith I 906, 113, from BMG . .. EIA 1905, 99 fig. 91, = 1925, 92 fig. 91; Fox 1923, 74; Clarke 1940, 31 and 97. Bow stout, with the three knobs on a rhomboid centre between low mouldings, each with mushroom head on moulded stem; pin and its attachment missing; foot with dee. as 3520, terminal knob on quintuplymoulded stem. PLATE 13. 3124 BARROW-ON-SOAR (Leics.) Leicester Mus. ex Hildyard coll. Bow as 3519 but

stronger mouldings defin e the centre and the knobs are smaller; pin and its attachment

33

missing; foot as 3520 but plain.

PLATE 13.

4276 UNKNOWN. Hull (Mortimer) Mus. Head and pin missing; bow as 3519 but knobs buffer-ended; foot as 3124 but corroded , with moulded toe and knob on triply-moulded stem. Rather bent sideways at the meeting of bow and foot. PLATE 13. Two similar but smaller in same mus. are marked 'Rhine?'

6442 'BURGH CASTLE (Suffolk)', loc. reputed but without firm evidence. Norwich Castle Mus. 98-50; its Cat. of Antiquities (1909), 4 7 no. 432; Clarke 1940, 96. Fragment of top of bow as 3519 . Drawing from one by Miss B. Green. PLATE 13. 8964 DORCHESTER (Dorset). Bought, with 8963 of Group D, 8965 of Group J, and six Roman brooches, by General Pitt-Rivers as recorded p. 31 (now in Mus. Salisbury), all labelled found in diggings opposite the Junction Hotel at end of South Street. See Discussion here above and pp. 33, 41. Bow alone preserved , of boat shape with twin lateral knobs, and a prominent top knob that shows this brooch to have been of Group F.

34

G. Brooches with Elbowed and thence with Serpentine bows of various forms: Italian 'a gomito ed occhio' and 'serpeggiante '. Plates 14-17. BMG . .. EIA (1925) 42-3 fig. 40, IVa , Illa-c, IVb-e. One of the developments out of the early violin-bow form of brooch (p. 5 ) had a wiry bow raised in a peak like an elbow (gomito ). In the 11th- I 0th centuries in Cyprus central, but in Sicily nearer the foot, it could afterwards there be emphasized by including a coil of the wire , like an eye (occhio): smaller most often than the coil of the spring with the pin, but not when the pin was bent to match the main curve of the bow. Both forms, probably in succession, passed thence to the Italian mainland. This whole sequence of forms was first deployed for English readers by Rachel Maxwell-Hyslop: Proc. Prehist. Soc. xxn (1956), 126-42 , with figs. 4 (Sicily etc.), 2 (Populonia) , and map of distributions. Of the mainland's further developments , 9th-8th centuries and onwards, that with straight pin and large spring-coil might be varied, for a time, by giving its foot the wire or hammeredout spiral or sheet-metal disc, borrowed from the leech-bow form discussed pp. 14-16 , represented by our 6452. See on 7274, and 6694 with disc broken off ; also 7269 with multi-coiled bow. Combining this appendage with a pin very strongly curved, and a springcoil tilted up over the 'eye', with between them a short U bow, gave the so-called Bicycle form (Close-Brooks 1969 , etc.); but more enduring was the version with curve kept mild, foot long and straight, both coils alike small, and bow double-curved in the form called Serpentine (serpeggiante) . Or such a bow could be made without coils, using only the pin's own tension to hold it in the catch (6461, 7275, and 7270 with bow divided); these bows could have pairs of lateral lobes or horns; the plates show several varieties, with them or without. The Italian sequence runs from the late 8th century on through the 7th and 6th, and in the north into early 5th (Ridgway F. R. 1979, tables at 424 and 485 ; figs. between have- numerous examples). Details and some other comparisons are given by Hull in his catalogue -entri es (to which I have only added a few from France, the entry for 3964, and a note on no. 5217. C.F.C.H.). 7274 'LONDON, Mincing Lane, 1845'. Was in T. Bateman's coll. (Youlgrave); then E. M. Beloe's (King's Lynn), Ridgeway and Smith 1906, 109-10 fig. I 7 ; now Nottingham University Mus. Elbow brooch with coil, flat disc on foot. Spring , very large, coiled twice, complete with pin. Cf. Montelius in Ant. Tidskr. for Sverige vi, 169 fig. 101 (his PreClassical period for Italy IV.1), like B.M. Cat. Bronzes no. 2026. In perfect condition. PLATE 14. 6694 'DORSET?' Brit. Mus. 1944, 7-2, 7, 'possibly excavated by Captain Sabine in Dorset';

cf. 7260, Group C. Type as 7274 but foot has disc broken off.

PLATE 14.

3964 BERKHAMSTED CASTLE (Herts), found (probably in the excavations of 1905) on this ruined Norman castle-site ( VCH Herts II, I 908, 114); now in private hands, with a silver pin also so found, age unknown. K. Branigan , Hertfordshire Arch. 4 (1974-6) , 1977, 174-5 with pl. 48 (whence drawing here), shows it an early example of our Group G which

has been purposely deformed, by forcing its concave back to make a convex bow. Known from the site are also Roman coins and pottery (his footnote 4); he surmises that the deformation might have been made in the Roman period, especially if Clarke were right ( 1940, 31) that some at least of the Italian brooches claimed from Roman sites could really have been brought to Britain by Roma n owners. This one has been noticed already: Introduction p. 10. C.F.C .H. PLATE 14 7269 CASTOR, loc. claimed, as for 8297, Group D, and 7270 and 5217 here following.

35

Peterborough Mus., ex coll. E.T. Artis (early 19th cent.), Fox 1923, 75, fig. 1, II (by L. Cobbett). Wire brooch with multi-spiral spring and four more such coils on bow, all tightly wound and in horizontal zigzag arrangement; pin broken , foot bent up for catch and continuing into hammered-out spiral disc (German Spiraldiskusfuss). Type in Italy notable at Terni: Maciver 1927, 140-4 , pl. 32.7 , from Not. Scavi 1914 , lff ., fig. 7, = Sundwall 1943 Abb. 241 with 7 such coils in all; several others from there have two or three ; Maciver compared the 'waved' brooches of Hungary , but Terni seems to have a monopoly in Italy of this type, and our specimen may have come from that neighbourhood; date perhaps 9th century. PLATE 14. 7270 CASTOR , loc. claimed, as 7269 . Peterborough Mus., ex same coll. E. T. Artis; Fox 1923 , 7 5, fig. I , I , by L. Cobbett , whence drawing here. Bow in curve from head to middle is divided into two , with pair of lateral blunt horns at either end, and another pair, beyond the down-curved single portion , abov e the foot (where catch is short). Pin without coil for spring. One in France is claimed from Amiens (Somme : was Roman town) : Duval et al. , 1974 , 37 fig. 22 .5 . See furth er on 52 17. PLATE14. 5217 CASTOR , loc. claimed, as 726 9- 70 . Lost ; but was in same coll. and published by E.T. Artis , pl. x xx 1,8 of his Durobriva e (18 28 ; name from that of the small Roman town near Castor , with which he includ ed th e sites that he was the first to excavate there). The book is a vol. of plates , with captions , but without a companion text-vol. Peterborough Mus. has two of the thre e bronze bracelets found with the brooch (same plate , nos. 1, 2, 7). Caption states that all four 'are antiquities discovered in clearing away an ancient tumulus'; loc. not stated, but the other five on the plate 'are from Ford Green' (not far from Castor). Thence Ridgeway and Smith 1906, 112, gave Ford Green wrongly as the site for the brooch, and VCH Huntingdonshire I,208- 9, for th e tumulus; Fox repeated this error: his 1923,75, 80. If in Castor neighbourhood at all, it would be no. 4 or 5 or 6 on Artis's map, pl. 1. (But the caption gjves no cause for locating it anywhere. (Mr G. B. Dannell has shown me reason for his guessing that it really was in Italy ; and that the finds had been passed on thence to Artis , perhaps then with 8297 (Group D) and 7269-70 , by the collector Lord Fitzwilliam, whom he served as his local land-agent. C.F .C.H.) Artis 's engraving shows that the brooch, complete and well-preserved, was of the same type as 727 5; thus the tumulus might have been dated towards 700 , or not long after. PLATE 14.

7275 'CUMBERLAND ' (now part of Cumbria). Edinburgh, R. Mus. Scotland (Chambers St.) , as also 6453 , kne e brooch in Group C, where reasons for that claim's being very doubtful apply to this too (and to C's 7289 and J's 6454) , though Ridgeway and Smith gave it notice: 1906 , 112 fig. 20. Bow's curve to head continued by pin without spring, only a stop-ring; its downward portion is short , betwe en two pairs of knobbed horns ; most of foot and pin's tip missing. The type is Villanovan in Etruria and at Bologna (in cemeteries including Villanova itself); of the range of its varieties (late 8th to 7th and even 6th cent.), this shows a fairly early one ; on others claimed from France , see Duval et al. 36-8, with fig. 22 and Italian comparisons. PLATE 15.

6461 'ALTON' , Rants. History same as that of 6452, Group B. Large; the bow a serpentine strip with dee. of spaced-.out single chevrons, has had four pairs of lateral lobes, most of them missing; pin very long, tip (broken) passing beyond the tapering catch-plate ; the stop at its head is flat between pair of offsets. See on 6452 for date, towards 700, (p. 21), and for reasoned rejection of find-spot , in spite of Ridgeway and Smith 1906 , 104-6 , with fig. whence Hull's drawing here. PLATE 16. 6460 UNKNOWN. Saffron Walden Mus. 1891.69 , ex W. W. Boreham coll. (as 6462 , Group J). Stout small serpentine bow with foot (head and pin both missing) ; the four pairs of 36

lateral excrescences alternate, between short , buffer-ended, and long, tapered to a pimple end. Montelius 1895 pl. vm.8; Sundwall 1943 Abb. 390 (Bologna) and 393 from Etruria (Tarquinia); can be as late as the early 5th cent. PLATE14.

4982 'WALLINGFORD?' (formerly Berkshire , now Oxfordshire), loc. claimed: V.C.H. Berks. 1, 223 fig. 2; Peake , Arch. of Berks (1931 ), 65. Reading Mus. 21 7 .61, ex coll. (said to be local) of a Mr. Davies. Extremely large; bow of angular serpentine profile formed on the flat, the edges incurved for three pairs of long flat arms , tipped with notched vertical discs; foot has a vertical expa nsion but is misssing beyond it; pin long and curved. Head has a hinge device, lacking its axis, formed by splitting into pair of coils, with pin forked out into a pair to fit outsid e them. This peculiar brooch, seeming late, has a match in silver from Etruria at Bisenzio: Sund wall 1943 Abb . 391. British location surely dubious. PLATE 16. 7291 'ELTON (Derbyshire)', loc. claimed when acquired by Brit. Mus., 1873, ex Lucas coll. Not available for study, but drawn here full-scale from sketch and description (with measurement) in register: 73, 6-2, 53. Large brooch with serpentine bow having single pair of excrescences ending in disc on either side. Pin, missing, would be like that of.7275, but longer and straight to fit the elongated catch. Length overall= I 1.5 cm. PLATE15. 7919 ' LANARKSHIRE'. Glasgow Mus. 26-29c; given 1926 , but donor said 'found long before'. Serpentine bow a plain strip, tapered down from head to foot. Pin , missing, would be like that of 7275; catch moderately long . Drawing after Mrs. M. E. Cox. PLATE 15.

7252bis SUSSEX, between Cocking and Bignor, as 7252, Group D above. Antiq . J. iv (1924), 50 with photos; not stated to be same loc. as 7252, and distance is 7 miles, = 11.25 km. Complete; serpentine bow a narrow strip save for two oval expansions bearing remains of quatrefoil groovings; spring of 2 coils, pin long, in the top view shown in catch but foot in the side view as really, bent out of place above it; toe upturned and spirally rolled back, in the manner of 4981, 4983 and 7273, Group J; the upturned part seems to carry two rivets. PLATE 15. 3979 'WINCHESTER' (Hampshire), loc. claimed (but was Roman town). St. Albans Mus.;

drawing by Dr. D. B. Harden. Bow serp entine but with downward bend sharp, D crosssection; spring and pin missing, long foot as in Group F, with toe bent up. Very like DuhnMesserschmidt 1939, 300-1, Valenzano, which has Greek inscription on top of foot, so probably from Apulia , dated c. 500; cf. silver ex. from Murgedi Bitonto (Bari), Sundwall 1943 Abb. 372. PLATE 15. 3503 BROUGHTON COMMON (Lines.), so credited in Lincoln Mus., where drawn but

now missing (and cf. Group D's 6456 and 6502). Bow as 3979 but of circular thick crosssection , thinned towards foot, where catch is broken off; head shrinks to broken 2-coil spring, pin missing. Date as 3979 or even later. PLATE 15.

3525 FELIXSTOWE (Suffolk), so credited when in Acton coll. (Z 17 5) , but cf. 6458, Group E; now Bury St. Edmunds Mus., Clarke · 1940, 32-3 fig. 6,3; gaz. 96. Very small; bow weakly serpentine between two plain ring-mouldings. Complete, with 2-coil spring, pin, and foot with catch. Matched from Belmonte Piceno; date little earlier, if at all, than 3979. PLATE 14 5245 It remains to recall what was noticed in the Introduction, p. 10 ; the discovery recorded in 1845 by Sir Henry Dryden (Cambridge Antiq. Soc. 4to publ. VIII, p. 21 ), at PIRTON , near Hitchin (Herts) , of a cemetery of inhumations, one with a brooch 5½ in. long (some 14 cm.); made of a wire with four convolutions near its middle that formed the 37

spring. Fox (1923, 80) , citing this, guessed it a serpentine brooch of Italian or allied form such as no. 20 of fig. xvi in the study of the Hallstatt period by Hoernes, Archiv f Anthrop. 3 s. XXXI (1905), 233. One of the serpentine variants from France, from burial in tumulus XVI (Millette 1963, 302) at Ivory, Paran9ot (Jura: Duval et al. 1974, 53, = 37-8 fig. 22, 10), is of wire with precisely four convolutions in its bow, giving tension, to the curve of its head and long pin, like a spring's. Nearly like it is the same fig. 's 9, from a tumulus burial at Alaise (dept. Doubs) (Piroutet 1928, 261 fig. 15). These are both of the phase before c. 550, begun towards 600. If Dryden had figured that Pirton brooch, and if it was really as Fox guessed it, we should have gained a British Hallstatt grave, hardly later than this. C.F .C.H. Finally (next plate), a different matter within Group G: a brooch unique in Britain, declared from Kent, of the Italian series distinct in structure, being two-piece. The bow is drooped between coils on two stilts; the head-stilt's lower end, engaging a hole in the neck of the pin, lets it freely swivel sideways. In the primary version of the series, the pin is straight; straight Urnfield-period dress-pins , on the Continent nearby, could give it forms of head, while the bow-form comes from the one-piece brooches of Italy - little varied from one of their several versions that went into creating Group G. For the conjunction, e.g. see G. von Merhart, Bonner Jahrbucher 147 (1942), 6 ff. with Taf. 2 and 3 and 6: Adriatic/ North Italian , taken up in Central Italy by c. 1000 at the latest, thence west ward and southward well before 900 (full list in Close-Brooks 1969). But beside the secondary versions with the pin curved down, and the extreme one that renders the whole brooch D-shaped, that with straight pin survived through the Iron-Age 9th and 8th centuries: best known from the graves at Cumae and at Terni, Taf. 20-2 and 40-4 of H. Muller-Karpe , Beitrag zur Chrono. der Urnenfelderkultur ... , l 9 59 (Berlin, Rom .-Germ. Forschungen 22). The pincatch, always of wire in a hook or loop or coil, is regularly extended into a horizontal disc; for the absence of this from the Kent brooch, see the following catalogue-entry. 7253 IDE HILL (SW Kent), c. 2.4 km. (1 ½ miles) NE of village, at Nat. Grid TQ 499528. Maidstone Mus., lent by finder ; info. and drawing, 1981, from Mr David Kelly, Curator. Bow of round section, drooped between coils, their sections flattened, at top of two stilts; the head-stilt somewhat swollen but narrowed below, to fit a round perforation in the widened flat neck of the pin, which thus swivels freely sideways. Pin's head burred; next to it, one disc , flat, held apart by a thicker portion from two , confronted and slightly dished, all three rotatable. Shank beyond neck, a thin rod, runs to a shallow flat catch at the other stilt's foot; tip blunt as if originally longer; no trace, however, of any disc beyond the catch. As the bow's and stilts' decoration, of close-set rows of incised chevrons, is absent from the catch-bearing stilt for its lowest 1 cm., this would seem to have been reworked, to end in the abnormal catch, after an originally normal catch and disc, with a sharp tip for the pin, had been broken off and left the break to disappear in the repair. If the brooch reached Britain , whether after that or not, within its type's Italian lifetime, one could expect this probably late in it, 8th century. The find-spot here, without identifiable context, may allow its loss in antiquity still to be possible. PLATE 17. The type is unrecorded in France; but the suggestion by N. Freidin, Antiq. J. Ix for 1980, part 2 (1981 ), 324, that Italian imports there; including brooches, could be explained through a trade in tin, in.which Italy is rather poor, may be worth considering for some of such in Britain (Cornish tin-route along the Channel; followed then by that of Late Hallstatt times (pp. 41 ff.), as proposed by J offroy 1960, 145). C.F .C.H.

38

GG. Brooch with bow a broad strip, slightly curved and bent up from both ends, with large knobs standing out on each side. 8070 'FREMINGTON, Yorkshire'. York, Yorkshire Mus. Kl39. Bow is longitudinally grooved, both ends broken off, dee. with grooves as in drawing; at the end shown uppermost, pierced by two holes, bent out again but then broken off, as is all the other end. Of the two rows of five lateral knobs, one side has lost two, leaving (distorted) one of the stems on which all were mounted, clenched over to secure them at the tip. Though incomplete, will have resembled one from near Perugia (Central Italy), publ. from coll. Guardabassi by Conestabile, Due Dischi pl. vm,2; also one in Atti Accad. Lincei III.II, pl. v, 10 from Suessola (Campania), = fig. I 00 in the Vorklass. Chron. ltaliens 1882 of Montelius, who bought in Naples another (four knobs a side); also Sundwall 1943, Abb. 408 with his dating. (At Fremington Hagg was an early find of a hoard, of Roman military metalwork (also in Yorkshire Mus.: its Handbook, 132), fully described by Graham Webster in Soldier and Civilian in Roman Yorkshire, ed. R. M. Butler (1971 ), 109-25. This might have suggested Fremington as a spurious loc. for the brooch, for so imperfect a piece would hardly have belonged to a Roman collector and thence to the hoard, which is anyhow not explicitly said to have included it; though as scrap-metal it might have, the loc. seems far more probably spurious. C.F .C.H.) PLATE 16.

39

H.

'Spectacle' and 'Double-Spectacle' brooches, made of multi-coiled spirals of wire with pin beneath.

The Spectacle form (single wire in two spirals, one ending in pin and one in catch: mapped in Harden 1950) , Sicilian and South Italian, spreading to the Balkans and into Greece, and from Yugoslavia to Austria, notably at Hallstatt, with outliers northward to the Baltic, has its fullest study in Alexander 1965 (following his 1962 and summarized briefly in his 1973). It is his group I, dated from the early till nearly the middle of the Ist millennium. One example is alleged from Britain ; two are claimed from France, Duval et al. 5- 7 fig. 3, 3 and 4 , placing them 9th- 7th cent. and citing the best-dated Austrian examples: Muller-Karpe 1959 Taf. 143 (Haslau-Regelsbrunn), and at Hallstatt graves 34, 45, 46, 49 , 70 , 84 etc. , Kromer 1959 Taf. 1-3, 5, 8 etc. BMG ... EIA (1925), 36-7 fig. 36, shows one of this group (no. 3) and one of the Double Spectacle form (no. 2). This form is Alexander 's Group IV (II and III need not be mentioned) ; it is composite , formed of a pair of double spirals, crossing each other at the centre, where fixed tog~ther by a rivet passed up from th e middle of a flat narrow bow, turned at the head into the pin and at the foot into the catch. Present in th e south (8th cent.) both sides of the Adriatic, from Yugoslavia the type reached central Hallstatt Europe ; never very common, but Hallstatt itself has many, mostly 7th cent. (Kromer 1959, pl. 55, I 0, etc.), for a variant, see 4984. On the central rivet is often a decorative disc; absent in the nearly complete alleged British example, this is present in the small complete ones claimed from France, Duval et al. 6-7 fig. 3, I and 2; no . 5, given as from Bavay (dept. Nord), is one of the pairs of spirals of a brooch of which the rest has not survived (like another such, alleged from Roanne). Our fragment 7271 is a single spiral only ; 4984 is the Group IV variant, four-branched. Thus Fox was right to call the type 'rare in Western Europe' (1923, 74; cf. Ridgeway and Smith loc. cit.), and the British localities alleged should be treated as spurious. C.F .C.H.

6464 'COLCHESTER?' : loc. entertained by Ridgeway and Smith 1906, 108 (fig. 9, 107); Colchester Mus., but ex Acton coll., which in part is non-local. Large ex. of Alexander's group I, made all of one wire except that the spiral carrying the pin had it broken off, and replaced by a separate pin, itself later broken, held by a rivet (see inset in drawing) with a wide disc head, now corroded, covering the spiral's inner coils. PLATE 17. 4984 'LONDON?' Reading Mus. 2 11.61 , given by a Mr. W. U. Nash, whose father had it from his friend Roach Smith , the antiquary of London whose coll. was essentially of London material (Brit. Mus. since 1856) but included some brooches with locs. explicitly Italian. This one as from London was therefor e doubted by Ridgeway and Smith 1906, 106 (with fig. 8, 107), but only on the strength of their entertaining 6464 (106-8), on which see above. Large ex. (drawing is at I :2) of Alexander's group IV, variant, of one four-branched wire, held at centre by rivet to flat bow beneath with pin and catch. Complete but for loss of one spiral's inner coils. PLATE 17. 7272 'ST. ALBANS?' Verulamium Mus. there (well-known Roman town). Spiral coil exactly like 7271. 7271 'IXWORTH, Suffolk ', loc. claimed as for 3629 , Group A ; 3523-4 of Group B; 3518 and 3988-9 of Group C, and 3526 of Group J ; same Cambridge mus. as those. Ridgeway and Smith 1906, I 08 fig. IO; Clarke 1940 , 31 ( 'spiral wire brooch ', but not= pl. v.4), gaz. 96. One spiral coil with tail flattened for rivet ; has been part of a Double Spectacle brooch of Alexander's Group IV. On the coll. formed at Ixworth see Excursus, pp. 46-8. PLATE 16. 40

J. Late forms with unilateral spring, bow arched or gently curving; some (including 'Certosa ') with up-turned toe. Plates 18-19. These start from arched-bow brooches in the latest of their 'boat' forms (of Group C, with D: pp. 23, 30). From nearly 600 onwards in Italy, especially the north, the bow could be reduced, becoming simple arched ribbon or rod. Likewise simplified were some among the late Group G bows, serpentine in fact no longer, but merely in bent (p. 3 7 : plate 15, nos. 3979 and 3503). The foot, whether flattened now or narrow still, shorter or longer, was at first kept straight. The ring-and-dot-stamped 3099, 'found casually at Baydon' in north-east Wiltshire, may have lost some terminal feature (plate 18); it is sharply arched in the bow, and is matched in Etruria. The foot of the Trumpington (Cambridge) brooch 3528, which is straight, has a terminal knob (plate 18), with bow that suggests 6th century but catch-plate deep, as can be 5th still in Italy; the name 'Certosa' for such, often used in the past, is incorrect: see below on 6462. A plain foot (occurring with gently-curved bows derivative from C-D or G) is rare when angled sharply from an arched J bow. B_ut we have it here on 3096 (p. 43 ), from the Iron Age and Roman site on Cold Kitchen Hill (Brixton Deverill) in south-west Wiltshire, which has also early pottery; 3096 is the earliest of its numerous brooches (see below, p. 100 on 5955 and 3692): doubtless a sanctuary, like Wood Eaton near Oxford (p. 60-2), and near Cambridge perhaps one too (p. 109). Similar to this is 8965 (p. 43 ), found reputedly (50 km. to south) in Dorchester (Dorset), with 8963 of Group D, 8964 of Group F , and six Roman brooches. The location, stated in 1898 (see catalogue) is very precise; any such collection from a town that is Roman, as is Dorchester, would be Roman-assembled if of ancient times at all; and whatever be the case with the pieces of D and F , this of J so resembles 3096 that its finding should be seen as being local. Then the finder of it might perhaps as well have been a Roman as a _modern. But in either case its first local owners, like those of 3096 at Cold Kitchen, could be people hereabouts of its own 6th-century date. These brooches have a match in Alsace; their foot can be matched in the Ticino, in the Swiss-Italian Alps, where the upper-valley folk who shared the Golasecca culture - with a very close match to 3527 (see below) - held the passes leading over both to France and to the Rhine; for this Golasecca traffic from before the 6th century till after, see Pauli 1971; Harbison and Laing 1974, 24-5, route to Britain down-Rhine; Ridgway F. R. 1979; Dehn and Frey 1979. (But on our bro nze ribbed cista from Weybridge (not 'situla') see p. 58 .) Belgium, between the Rhine and Britain, had a brooch from a burial, though its form was destroyed by cremation (p. 55 ; but the 'Incourt' brooch there, with spring-coil falsified, was got from a collector: Marien 1958, 230-1 , with details from him in litt . , 1978). Also metal dress-pins, an abiding tradition, even near the Middle Rhine are barely known, and seem quite absent anywhere closer to Britain. It was Hallstatt people farther south who had the older 'vase-headed' pin and its improvement, which was held in the dress by a swan's-neck bend, both current in the early 6th century. Yet Britain, in spite of the intervening blank, has both (made in iron) from a site then inhabited: All Cannings Cross in Wiltshire (Cunnington 1923, pl. 21, 5 and 1; bronze in Britain too, Dunning 1934, 270-3, comparing Germany). Hallstatt imports of other kinds (or copies) in Britain, till late in the century (Group Lx below), are matched less in France than in western Germany and Belgium: Hawkes 1976 (1978); Jope 1961, 309-12, daggers 113 ; a further dagger in Belgium (Marien 1963) is from Luttre in the Hainaut. All this seems to speak for the Harbison-Laing route. Passing by south-west Germany , it would meet that which brought through there, and off westward into France (Freidin 1982.i , 104-5 , 660) the Central-European bronze bowls or cauldrons with cross-shaped holders for their handles , represented in Britain by the holders in Welby hoard (Arch.I . 105, 1948, 27-40). From th e Compiegne Forest where a hoard con41

taining one of them was found, came also, it appears, a brooch like ours from Cold Kitchen and Dorchester: Freidin 1982.ii, 509-10, fig. 11, 3. So if these, and if the Welby holders too, did not get a passage to Britain after carriage by the Rhine, they could have followed the occasional earlier brooches that we guess to have been brought through France (see above on Groups B to D and E). Their fewness can be no surprise, in the rarity of even ill-attested graves here. But at any rate all these few have claims, though none as an associated find, from likely areas or recognized sites of the Iron Age. (For the Dorchester assemblage, see above on 8965.) It is otherwise with 4983 (plate19), very handsome and large, which is alleged from the Andover district of Roman villas in north-west Hampshire, and (plate 18) 4981 and 7273, alleged respectively from Reading and the City of London. Their extension of the foot, bent upward and back into a coil, is Adriatic-Italian (as Maciver 1927, pl. 26, nos. 3 and the triplicate 11; Duhn-Messerschmidt 1939 Taf. 34: Belmonte Piceno), and brackets them with Types F and H as apparently strange to any British connexion. Those like them but with bird-head for coil are East-Adriatic, and the claim for one at 'Amiens' (Somme), in a collection with some of Groups B, C and G (Ashmolean and Berlin Mus.), seems worthless: Freidin 1982.i, 99-100; ii, 5 50; fig. 12, 11 (with 1-3, 5-10). Their date, 6th ~entury at earliest, is shared by 3526 (plate 18), from the Ixworth (Suffolk) collection discussed below, and 3527 which is claimed from a Roman site at Ixworth (both p. 44). The former's grooved bow is like a couple in South Bavaria (Kossack 1959, Taf. 58, 10-11); the catchplate of 3527 is deep, 6th-5th (as 3528 above), while its up-turned toe, with grooving at the top, is a variant (one among many) of the treatments of the foot at this time in North Italy at large. Except for the grooving, it is perfectly matched in the Ticino (Golasecca culture), and conjecturally might appear an export from there in view of Pauli 1971 and others cited here with him already, p. 41 above. But its case will be judged in the Ixworth discussion, pp. 46-8. The Certosa type, which 6462 represents (plate 19), with its gently-curved bow, heavy catch-plate, and foot with up-turned knob (cf. BMG .. . EIA, 44 fig. 41), was from the late 6th century, and on through the 5th, a standard type of brooch in North Italy. It has its name from La Certosa (the Carthusian monastery) at Bologna, where it was frequent in the excavated cemetery, with dated Greek vases. Its prevalence embraced both the Adriatic area and surroundings, with exports north beyond the Alps (Primas 1967); included thus were Alpine borders, as notably the region of the Golasecca culture (Ticino-Lake Maggiore), where the graves at Cerinasca d'Arbedo chart its growth in weight and length (Frey 1971, 368-9 with 361), through the culture's two-stage phase IIIA (Ridgway F. R., 1979, 47485): the foot-knob and moulding at the head become progressively heavier. From the slightness of these on our brooch, it might be early 5th-century; the rivet through its broken spring's two remaining coils means only that this will have held, or itself was turned into, a replacement (broken ofD for the pin that they originally carried. But the head-moulding anyhow is absent on examp les that are simpler, as is one of those in BMG ... EJA, and in Dechelette as cited in our catalogue (6462). In one of iron found in NE France (foot broken) it is absent again, as the brooch is all wire: from Saulces-Champenoises (Ardennes, on N. border of Mame) , in a grave along with early La Tene I material, 5th century: Flouest & Stead 1979, burial b, 15 and fig. 7 no. 5. This is probably a local imitation of a Golasecca import. If the Pirton bronze brooch was similar at all, it could be thought to be an imitation also. However, 6462 has no claim to any discovery in Britain. Like 6460 (plate 14:Group G), it was owned by a collector at Haverhill (W. Suffolk), whose widow in 1891 gave both to Saffron Walden Museum, amongst miscellaneous pieces in addition to his main, AngloSaxon, collection; information in litt. from Mr. L. M. Pole, Curator: cf. Medieval Archaeology 11 (1967), 1, 3-4. Whence either piece was got by this W.W. Boreham (1804-86) is quite unknown. 42

Thus J, like the groups in our series preceding it, has specimens with false-looking claims to British finding, or with none. Hull's considered judgment, for those altogether (p. 5 ; further expanded, 7-9 ), holds good for this too, on the negative side - yet also on the cautiously affirmative, for we have seen that it admits a few with British claims that cannot lightly be dismissed. And their 6th-5th century datings overlap with Group L's (pp. 54 ff.), which in tum overlap with our earliest of La Tene: Type I (pp. 73 ff.). So before the adoption of brooches (alternative to dress-pins) in Britain as normal, which Group L will soon show us starting, with La Tene to follow on, their wearing might occasionally have begun with Group J, brought in through our Hallstatt contacts. While for any brooches earlier, the most that we could guess was their reception as strange things, possibly as amulets (p. IO), transition to normality as adjuncts to costume, with La Tene, would thus proceed through J and L. However, before we follow it, we shall have to turn to a special case, in the claims of Ixworth (Suffolk) to a varied lot of brooches; and next, in the far south-west, from two authentic and well-known sites, Group K will give a very different case, with an Atlantic background. Meanwhile, here next must come the catalogue of Group J itself. C.F .C.H.

3096 COLD KITCHEN HILL, BRIXTON DEVERILL (SW. Wilts). Devizes Mus. 1211; Wilts Arch. Mag. xlviii (1937), 185-6 , pl. 1. l. Plain; high arched bow of flat cross-section; spring of 2 coils, pin missing; foot has straight narrow catch-plate, ending without any terminal knob. Such a foot with no terminal feature has met us already, e.g. on 6461 (Group G), also in C as matched in France (Duval et al. 21-2 fig. 12, 2-5); and, on derivatives of D, has examples at Hallstatt: e.g. Archaeologia lxvii (1918) 154-5 fig. 12 (Brit. Mus.; cf. others in Kromer 1959) , and in th e Italian-Swiss Ticino canton at Cerinasca d'Arbedo, Viollier 1908 group III no. 9. But in 3096 the angle of bow with catch-plate is sharper; and the nearest to its form in Duval et al. is their 21-2 fig. 12,1, from the Alsace (Haguenau) Kurzgeland tumulus 49 (Schaeffer 1930, 68, 61 fig. 54, = 252-3 fig. 179, Late Hallstatt). So perhaps transmission down-Rhine to Britain may be guessed. Seep. 41 above (comparing our swan's-neck dress-pins). Cold Kitchen Hill is a site well known for its many finds of metal objects of varied kinds, Iron Age (with a little early pottery) and Roman, including La Tene brooches and numerous Roman ones. Many have been surface finds, but more have come from various excavations: see Deviz es Mus. Cat. 1934, 115-30. Those of the earliest 19th century, by Colt Hoare (his Ancient Wiltshire 1, 40) with William Cunnington, included pottery and coins, and wall-plaster, painted and clearly from a Roman building; short earthworks guard the approaches to the hill, which appears to have been a sanctuary site, long-lived like that of Wood Eaton Middle Hill in Oxfordshire, and thus a place for offerings and doubtless for markets (p. 61 below). That this brooch, in whichever way, was brought there in antiquity, need not be doubted as surprising. PLATE 18. 8965 DORCHESTER, Dorset, found reputedly with 8963 of Group D, 8964 of F, and six Roman brooches, in digging house-foundations at end of South Street opposite the Junction Hotel, and bought at Sotheby's (with the information labelled), 3 March 1898, by General Pitt-Rivers; from his Farnham Mus. it is now in Mus. Salisbury. See Discussion, p. 33; in Roman Dorchester, the collection might have been a citizen's, but in any case this brooch could be a local find through its close resemblance to 3096, from a site of wellrecognized antiquity only 50 km. away. The brooch is complete; its story can at least be conjectured. 6454 'CUMBERLAND'. Edinburgh, R. Mus. Scotland (Chambers Street), 1904.43, where see also 6453 of Group C, with claim found dubious in spite of Ridgeway and Smith 1906, 111-12 fig. 19. Arched bow, cross-section round but somewhat expanded along the top, where is a knurled chevron in very low relief; spring of one coil, pin running past 43

catch-plate, at which the foot of the bow has a slightly protruding moulding. In general, but for this and the chevron, the brooch is like 3096 and 8965. PLATE 18. 3099 BA YDON, near to (NE. Wiltshire). Devizes Mus. 41 /27 ; Cat. (1934), 218-21, pl. LXXI.l; ex J. W. Brooke coll., 1911. Wilts. Arch. Mag. XXXV (1907), 394 fig. 2: a casual find. Bow mildly expanded, cross-section nearly flat, summit near the head and nearly angular; dee ., between marginal lines, three stamped concentric circlets, repeated along rectangular top of foot ; spring of 3 coils with pin; catch broken at tip, perhaps with loss of a terminal feature. Matched in Etruria from Orvieto, Montelius 1895 pl. xi,46, of c. 600. The neighbourhood, downland on the Wilts-Berkshire border, had a Roman villa following an Iron Age occupation, begun at least by the 4th century (La Tene I brooch of Type I B from Botley Copse , p.l 03, 2882) and perhaps or probably earlier; if in the 6th, would be the brooch's context. PLATE 18. 3526 'IXWORTH , Suffolk ', loc . claimed as for 3529 (Group A), 3523-4 (B) and 3988-9 (C) ; all Cambridge Univ. Mus. of Arch . and Anthrop., ex coll. J. Warren; see Excursus, pp. 46-48 below , and 35 27 here. Arched bow , mildly expanded, dee. of deep grooves; spring-coil and pin which must have been longer , foot and catch missing. For such in S. Bavaria , 6th cent. Hallstatt , see Ko ssack 1959 , Taf. 58, 10-11. PLATE 18. 3527 IXWORTH, same Cambridge mus. among 'Roman objects found on one site' there: Fox 1923, 75 fig. I, m; Clarke 1940 pl. v,3. See Excursus , pp. 46-48. Arched bow of round cross-section, thinning to head and to foot; spring of 3 coils, pin missing; catch-plate deep, beneath flat foot tapering to toe, which has upturned terminal with sharply-cut girthgrooves and deep-cut cross in the top. Except for these incisions the brooch is just like Viollier I 908, Alpine group II , 9 7, from grave at Castione, Italian-Swiss canton Ticino; the Late Hallstatt brooches, far more widespread, with the upturned terminal of Mansfeld form F4, explained and discussed with Groups Lx and L below, pp. 56 ff., have the spring bilateral , and therefore are distinct. PLATE 18 4981 READING, FRIAR STREET: loc. precise enough for possible acceptance, from the town 's position at confluence of the Thames and the Kennet waterways. Reading Mus. Bow of rounded section, thinning to the head (with a double moulding) and to the foot; all along it, dee. in fine grooving as drawing shows. Spring of 3 coils, with pin less long than narrow catch~plate; at toe is a terminal feature, curled up and inwards, ending knobbed. PLATE 18.

7273 'LONDON, Cheapside , 1846 '. Was with 7274 (Group G) in T. Bateman's coll. (Youlgreave); then E . M. Beloe 's (King 's Lynn); Ridgeway and Smith 1906, 110-11 fig. 16. Large ; bow semicircular , of round cross-section with dee. of chevrons, and slightly thickening up to the middle; on this ride six loose rings. Spring-coil small, pin long, still in narrow catch-plate; terminal feature at toe is like a bent-up finger , slanting and then turned down to end in a spiral. Somewhat like it is that of Sundwall 1943 Abb. 342, from Trevi in Umbria; more closely, one from Italy in the Hohenzollern Mus. at Sigmaringen, A UHV I, vu, pl. 3 fig. 4, while two more from Italy there ; A UHV IV, Taf. xxxvm 24-25 (one with lateral knobs on the bow), have precisely this form of terminal; it also appears on brooches e.g. from Alfedena (to the south of Central Italy), Monumenti Antichi x, 245 , 307, 330, in a 6th-5th century context . London loc. need not be authentic. PLATE18. 4983 FINKLEY , TINKER'S HILL (or 'Tinkler 's), near Andover (Hampshire). Reading Mus. Ridgeway and Smith 1906, 111 fig. 18 (quoting local historian's published statement that the loc. was not the Finkley Roman villa). Very large and handsome example, complete and in fine condition, of the same type as 7273. Narrow and solid semicircular bow, cross-

44

ribbed above over most of its length, with low moulding in middle, but with four inverted chevrons in a panel near the foot. Spring of 2 coils, long pin still in catch; back of catchplate notched with a row of vertical strokes; finger-like excrescence on toe bent up in rising slant, where thickened and cross-ribbed, then down to touch catch-plate's top, where it ends in a spiral. For the type in Italy, and date either side of 500 (this brooch perhaps well within 6th cent.) see on 7273. This is the finest Italian brooch ever claimed from Britain (total I. 17.1 cm.); the hill is crossed by the linear earth work known as the Devil's Dyke, 'on' which it is said to have been found. But the attribution may be false, prompted only by the Dyke; an authentic one can hardly seem likely. PLATE 19.

3528 TRUMPINGTON (outside Cambridge). Cambridge U. Mus. of Arch. and Anthrop. Fox 1923, 74; pl. XVIII,2 {opp. 106); VCH Cambs. 1, fig. 25,2. Small; bow nearly semicircular, cross-section a sideways-pointed oval, with three sharp ridges towards the foot; spring of 2 coils, pin broken; catch-plate deep, slanted in to a terminal mushroom-shaped knob. Not a Certosa brooch (p. 55 above); could still be within 6th cent. A Trumpington Iron Age settlement is known from pottery, most of it late, but not from any proper exploration (see V.C.H.); yet as lying on the way to the crossing of the Cam at Cambridge, it could well have had earlier beginnings (Fox, 111-13). PLATE 18. 6462 UNKNOWN. Saffron Walden Mus. 1891.68, ex W.W. Boreham coll. (like 6460,

Group G). Weakly-formed brooch of the well-known kind called Certosa, from its prevalence in the cemetery of La Certosa at Bologna, late 6th and 5th centuries; the bow is curved low, running into a foot with catch-plate and uptilted terminal knob. Here, bow is narrow oval and of flattened cross-section, so also foot, dee. with triple chevron; near head is a mild swelling. Spring broken after 2 coils only; rivet passed through them implies replacement of pin by a substitute, itself now missing. See Discussion, p. 55: no probability at all of being found in Britain. PLATE 19. It should be added (C.F.C.H.) that 7273, in Cambridge U. Mus. Arch. & Anthrop. (27. 669) from loc. unknown, was reckoned by Hull as a modern forgery, imitating not any Iron Age but the Late Roman 'crossbow' type; others are treated by Dr Simpson in her editing, in that portion of the corpus, his entry for 6662, with the others on pl. 657.

45

EXCURSUS IXWORTH (West Suffolk): ITS REPUTED BROOCH-FINDS In the foregoing sections, eight brooches or fragments have been catalogued which passed from a collector at Ixworth, to Cambridge Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology; it also has a ninth reputed found there. As they cover five Groups, their reviewing here together seems convenient. Most had attention first drawn to them by Ridgeway and Smith, in the paper often quoted, P.S.A.L. xxi (1906), 97 ff. For these and all others there published, they felt no need of close absolute datings; having only behind them the earlier work of Montelius (above, p. 4 ), they had a 'Hallstatt period' of very wide range, to the 5th from at least the 9th century. They used it for their brooches throughout, those from Ixworth included, and proposed them as imports into Britain all alike, whatever their real position in the range. Though their optimism met with some doubts, it was revived, after 17 years, by Cyril Fox (1923, 72-5); and after another 17 by Rainbird Clarke (1940, 30-2, with 96) , in a modified form, laying stress upon the final phase. But we have seen the real datings of the lxworth brooches to be various, covering three or four centuries before 500, and adding one earlier than 1000. The collector of all but one was a Mr J. Warren, who had a watchmaking business in 19th-century Ixworth. It would bring to him watches and clocks that he could offer second-hand; but of those, and much else that he obtained, some part would be from dealers - who will hardly have been active entirely in rural Suffolk. It has to be expected that some would have connexions with London. The same is implied by his brooches' diversity of origin: none is even British. And though there might be intermediate dealing Cambridge was less than 30 miles off - nowhere seems likelier than London for most, if not all of them, first to have been handled by such dealers. The collection has drawn both on Italy and Central Europe. Here is the list of the lxworth pieces we have catalogued. Brooches from J. Warren's collection:1. Group A. 3529: plate 1 and p. 12. North German type, and in Rhineland about 1100. 2-3 .Group B. 3523 and 4: plate 4 and p. 18. Italian, 9th-8th century, perhaps both 9th. 4. Group C. 3518: plate 9 and p. 27. Italian, 8th-7th century; small and plain. 5. 3988: plate 9 and p. 27. Italian, 8th-7th century; larger and ornate. 6. 3989: plate 9 and p. 27. Italian, 8th- 7th century; similar but foot without terminal knob. 7. Group H. 7271: plate 16and p. 40. Either Italian or Central-European, but is only one coil broken off from its brooch; 7th-6th century. 8. Group J. 3526: plate 18and p. 44. South German, Bavarian most probably (but foot is missing) ; 6th century. Brooch not from J. Warren's collection; 'from a .Roman site at Jxworth ':9. Group J. 3527: plate 18and p. 44. Matched in the Italian-Swiss Ticino, but for groov. ing on the up-turned toe (a minor d~tail). Sheet-bronze fragment from a bowl :I 0. Mr. Warren's collection - 'large and varied' (Fox 1923, 74) - included the following piece besides the brooches. Sheet-bronze strip, 213 x 43 mm., sole remnant of bowl, torn from its horizontal rim, of a recognized Italian and Hallstatt type (hemispherical body, low

46

pedestal foot): embossed by pre-formed punches in a frieze of small horsefigures, male sex displayed, four legs, in movement to left, tail reverted over back (twelve remaining), between bosses and ladder-pattern outer and inner borders: Clarke 1940, 30, pl. vi. Dr Hartmut Polenz (Romisch-Germanische Kommission, Frankfurt), in kind response to my request, 1977, with photograph specially supplied by the Museum, reported what here I must summarize briefly, in advance of any separate publication. The horse-figures, legs in movement still as in Italian 7th-century prototypes, and thus less merely schematic than the figures in the Hallstatt art that ensued, are also distinguished by a forelock, in front of their face. The sole comparison is offered in the art of the friezes on situlas (wine-buckets), 6th-5th century and now more naturalistic, which from North-East Italy passed to EastAlpine lands. At Novo Mesto there, the horses on situla 2 from grave 3 in barrow IV, newexplored, have again a long forelock: Knez (1973) 1975, 313-15. This is situla art in 5thcentury development, Final Slovenian Hallstatt; the decorative forelocks on the horses, groomed long, should show a custom peculiar to the region. Thus our figures, though in movement as in Italy, so dating their bowl hardly after 600, make it Alpine already, past Italy's north-east fringes. The result for us has to be the passing into Britain, through hands whether ancient or modern, of anyhow the torn-off strip, if not the whole bronze bowl, suitably for letting the strip be acquired by Mr Warren. The region of origin, broadly regarded, is the same as suits also no. 7, his broken-off coil of a spectacle-brooch, Group H; and his bow no. 8, lacking head and pin and foot, but like a Group J form in South Bavaria. So too no. 9, not his but on record as discovered at Ixworth, 'from a Roman site' there: Group J, though its up-turned toe has abnormal grooving ; with other such variants, the type crossed the Alps both north and on their Yugoslav side (Lo Schiavo 1970, 446 ff., 'pseudo-Certosa'), but was first N .E. Italian , as at Este: Ridgway F . 1979, 449-50, figs. 20, I and 21, 2-4. Thus a dealer's source might well have been the same for all of 7-8-9-10 - in Italy or else, perhaps, in Vienna or Munich. Nos. 2-6, however, are entirely Italian: 2 and 3, Group B, are in form rather early for Britain; 5 and 6 , Group C, are rather large, and suspiciously showy. Only no. 4, small and plain , could suit better as an ancient import (through France); yet a single dealer, in London, could have handled all five. He could also have acquired nos. 7 to 10, together, from a Continental source. That would leave only no. I , of Group A, about 11th century and Bronze Age. Though not of a variety commoner in Central Europe, its source could be the same as that guessed for 7-10: like all of those but 9, it is a fragment , so would suit a batch of scraps. A source in Berlin - not impossibl e even for those - might suit it better: the type's occurrence thereabouts is guaranteed by archaeology. Yet so it is also in the Rhineland (p. 12 and our plate I); and from there, at about 1100 too, there were received into south-east Britain, as the London Thames attests, bronze swords - of the Erbenheim and Hemigkofen types (Cowen 1951), and the Nenzingen (one , Gerloff 1981). Might the brooch that no. I represents have been received there along with one or other of those? been thrown in the Thames (when broken) likewise, dredged up, as also were those, and got by a dealer in London, who would sell it to Warren as a find from his Ixworth neighbourhood? The notion should anyhow remind us that British finds too could go to dealers and be given false locations though that could only affect a piece that could seem a British find on other grounds. Ixworth is a place that .has genuinely ancient remains: air-photography attests a Roman fort, and then civil occupation (JRS xxxv, 82; lxviii, 128, with Clarke 1960, 117, 116 map); there is also Early Iron Age pottery (id. 1940, 96; 1960, 98 map), and the neighbourhood has urns and other remains of the Bronze Age (id. 1960, 84, 86, 79 map); being close to the watershed of rivers, East Suffolk and West, it had good communications. Any such remains, e.g. the 'Roman site' averred for no. 9, could have prompted Mr Warren's readiness to hold to his pieces as discovered all locally. If any were, the location should still seem false for the rest, as comparison has shown us; and none need really 47

be a find from West Suffolk at all. Yet if the strip were local, with or without the fragments nos. 7 and 8 - or with or without them had come from the London Thames, as no. I just might have - one could recollect that Suffolk, after London, is a region where swords and their chapes (and razors), of Hallstatt types in bronze, 7th century to early 6th, are attested: Burgess in British Prehistory, ed. Renfrew 1974, 211-13 (map). It has an eastern group and a western (extending to Cambridge); as is usual in Britain, none has ever come from a grave, so the groups are not to be disparaged on account of their sparseness, and might give a context here for a brooch or a piece like the strip, from a vessel. But without an associated find, this has to be doubtful. The Hertfordshire cemetery at Pirton (near Hitchin) and the Cambridgeshire barrows near Whittlesford, in spite of Fox 1923, 77-8 and 80, may pass as slightly later (pp. 10, 37-8); for dismissing the findings 'from a tumulus at Castor', I have welcomed Mr Geoffrey Dannell's explanation, p. 36. To sum up: it is unlikely that any piece of Warren's called 'lxworth' was a local find, although the unlikelihoods vary in degree, from total to rather less certain. It is conceivable, indeed, for no. 9,GroupJ, which is not from Mr Warren's collection (see discussion above on Group J, p. 42); perhaps conceivably also for his fragments - the em bossed bowl-fragment included - though one or two, if not scraps from abroad, might be finds just pos~ibly from elsewhere in Britain. For Warren's collection, however, any likelihood is tenuous; and never can be more, unless bettered through some future discovery. C.F.C.H.

48

K. Brooches of Atlantic type: crossbar head, toe of foot up-turned and bearing disc (C.F.C.H.) Plate 20. Along the South French and Catalan coasts and farther in Spain (p. 14), where brooches had a history going back to their first introduction from the East Mediterranean (p. 8), their Sicilian-influenced form with double spring, 8th century, can already in the 7th have an up-turned toe; it is normal in the South French version with pair of open loops, and was combined in South Spain with an arched ribbon bow by 600. Then at once was devised a long multi-coil spring, bilaterally flanking the head, with chord (passed under it) completing the resemblance to a crossbow (arbalete, Armbrust); this 'crossbow' form was spread, by the middle 6th century, both in Spain and through the Hallstatt regions of France and on beyond. The Final Hallstatt forms there ensuing had varieties of treatment for the toe, based on what in Spain had been its primary up-turned shaping: embellishing the foot (whence Fusszier in German) and tall (whence the Spanish pie largo or alto); Mansfeld's F2 foot (p. 56 below); the sequence, Schille 1961 and 1969. The crossbow spring could be saved from distortion by an axial rod through its coils: neat diagram, Mansfeld 1973, 16. Prolonging th e ends of this rod , and curving them together at the foot to make a ring, gave birth to the Iberian ring-brooch (absent from Britain): Schille 1961, Abb.19 no.7. But in the Peninsula's Celtic (more northerly) parts, where the crossbow might be long or often shorter, the spring-coils are eith er continuous still with the bow-head, or are separate, the axial rod being passed through a hole in it. Schille Abb.1 shows both (and see his 1969, 142-50); this separate crossbow begins quite early in Spain. The versions concerning us here will be those in regions beside the Atlantic. These are two: North Portugal with Spanish (north-westerly) Galicia, and South-west France or Aquitania , beyond th e Pyrenees. Then in Britain's Atlantic region, Devon and Cornwall, are our Group K brooches, which were first by Leeds (1926- 7) compared with the north-Portuguese, and by Hencken mor e tentatively (1932) with the French. Both saw the countries linked by Atlantic navigation. Aquitania has a middle 6th-century start for its broo ches with the up-turn of foot; a terminal ball or disc on the toe is quite plain, and the brooch may be iron, or partly bronze and partly iron , leaving all-bronze examples a minority. La Tene , though its influence begins in the middle 5th century, was slow in extinguishing Hallstatt here altogether: see Fabre 1946 and 1952, with Mohen and Coffyn for the Hallstatt , 1970. North Portugal/Galicia kept modes out of Hallstatt alive till within the time of the Roman advances: 137 and 94 B.C., and finally c. 30/26 to 18/16; the brooches representing this long tradition are numerous, and prevalently bronze. Their upturn of foot may be plain, with big disc on the toe, but more often has a swelling, passing up into a waist below a disc or trumpet-like top. Our Group K brooches are few, and from only two sites: Mount Batten at Plymouth and Harlyn Bay in north Cornwall. These are among the cemeteries of inhumation-graves, in slate or boulder cists - occurring elsewhere singly - which are features of the Iron Age here, and also in Scilly. Their origin, immigrant or native, is in either case obscure; their start is undefined; some last till late, and some seem wholly late. Mount Batten (among the finds destroyed in World War II) had a perfect bronze brooch and half another, with its head: on plate 20, 3984 and 5. From Harlyn Bay (1900 excavations) is the pair 3745-6, from one grave; the plate shows, with one as drawn for Hencken 1932, the pair newly drawn (two views) by Mr Rowan Whimster. His also is the drawing of 3720: iron (from another grave), and recognized first by him, though its crossbow is missing. On the bronze pair, the ornamental discs are unmatched elsewhere; the moulded swelling underneath them, however, is typically Portuguese/Galician. The use of iron for 3720 may recall Aquitania, but can mean alternatively local production over here . With this we may compare the intervening peninsula of Brittany. There, a few of iron 49

have been found - though corroded into fragments - in urns of a couple of cremationcemeteries, Late Hallstatt of towards 450-400 (Giot 1958; 1979, 230, 255, 306). After that, with cremations still or inhumations too, any brooches - iron or bronze - are now La Tene (id. 1979, 247, 259-60). There was thus little time for production of the Hallstatt form; anyhow at first, being iron, it would come from Aquitania. There, where the Arcachon region has it frequently in iron (Mohen and Coffyn pl. XXI with text foregoing), with the coils and chord just visible despite corrosion, their contexts date them before 450-400. The bronze ones from tumulus cremation-graves at Avezac-Prat (Hautes-Pyrenees) - one on Leeds 1926-7 fig. 10 - had 6th-5th century (or hardly later) dates for Dechelette (1913, 665 = 1927, 153); his fig. 262, 13/14 was with a Hallstatt dagger (fig. 222, 7). And then, when the coils are replaced by a crossbar, the pin may be solid with this (Schille 1961, Abb. l, 5, 6, 12) and is not free-riding. North Portugal/Galicia has its own type with crossbar, smooth, and with ends flat or knobbed, affixed to or solid with the bow-head, and pin solid too: Fortes 1905 , type 6 (his figs. 25-30); it is seemingly rare. His other types keep to the spring-coils, and only type 5 has a ring-headed pin - riding free on the axial rod, next the bow, which is heavy and embellished, like the foot; this type is known in Spanish Galicia and the inland Portuguese province Traz-os-Montes (fortes figs. 18-24, 'Tramontanas '; cf. Leeds fig. 10, Castelo da Cidade, lacking head), and at least as far south as Conimbriga beside the Mondego. Otherwise, apart from non-local or already Roman brooches (types 2, 3, 7) , all remain still of the traditional Hallstatt kind: mostly with coils and pin continuous with bow , Fortes type I; type 4, like the similarly two-piece Spanish ones, has separate coils on a rod. These, 1 and 4, are the typical brooches of the castros, forts which in general lasted to the Roman conquest. Dating from evidence in castro excavations is at present unattainable for brooches, as it was when Dechelette chose examples for his fig. 262 (mostly from Fortes). On typology in Schille 1961 and 9, see da Pont e now , 1973 , especially on the 'fibulas Tramontanas' (Fortes type 5), 168-71: examples found in the Conimbriga site-excavations. She dates that type, by its s_trongdeveloped features, only after 300 B.C. This surely is right; and leaves the common type 1, in the region of the most north-westerly conservatism, best understood as continuing throughout - though those with variants of foot could be the later. The twopiece version, type 4, has been fancied to be late, but its disc foot is plain. The rare-seeming crossbar brooches, type 6, again without mouldings, are undated - though the analogous forms in Aquitania should be prior to the years about 400, and the crossbar in both these imitates the Hallstatt coiled spring. Their solid-cast (or cast-on) pin had no tension but its own, so was not very practical: certainly less so than pins on coils, which appear to run right through the period , or those that ride free, type 5, believed after 300. Our British K brooches have the crossbar, but on it their pin was distinctively pivoted. Intact on the complete Mount Batten one, 3984, this was smaller than the ring-headed dress-pins, altogether British (at Harlyn , Whimster 1978, fig. 30, 6 and iron 13), but though it did without their double-curved neck (for fixing in the dress), it is British likewise. Furthermore and better seen on 3985, where the pin was on the right of the bow but is missing, is a ring-moulding, cast in the bar, on the left: when seen on the wearer, the pin's own ringlike head would be matched by this, in a symmetry completed by the bar's twin terminal knobs. Yet the foot is like Avezac-Prat in the concentric circles on its terminal disc, while the swelling beneath recalls some (less elegant) in Portugal: Dechelette fig. 262, 4 and 5, from the castros of Sabroso and Briteiros. At Harlyn , besides the iron 3720, the bronze pair's disc, as we have said, is unparalleled in treatment; the baluster swelling beneath may compare with Portuguese but is bolder in profile; while the crossbar, moulded to imitate coils, had the symmetry again as at Mount Batten, with the ring-moulding seen to match the head of the pivoted pin - now vanished but discernible formerly, as in the drawing made for Hencken, 1932 fig. 33H. This pair, in typology, seems to follow after Mount Batten's, in a series which the fewness of our specimens at present will have masked. The type was not imported (as Whimster 50

1978, 79) but is South-west Britain's own version of the general range of these Atlantic brooch-forms. Aquitania 's, started in the middle sixth century, was extinguished by La Tene about the fourth, as doubtless was Brittany's poorly-r epresented iron counterpart. On the other hand the North Portuguese , though without doubt started by at least 500 , remained independent till the Roman advances of the later second century and first. If British K, like Aquitanian and Breton, had begun before the La Tene, which then extinguished it , th e La Tene I brooches that will signal its extinction are 3074, from Redmore (near St. Austell, Cornwall, found in an ancient tin-working: here 1Bx; pp. 87, 89) which indicates the later fifth century in form of bow and foot, and the two of the fourth from Mount Batten itself,3075 and 3076 (Type IB; p. 104). If current excavation there yields no more, the only other in the region is one with a context in the third: 6888 from Trevone, north Cornwall, in a grave with 6889, an early form of involute brooch, so of little after c. 250 (p. 97; 6888, 104; 6889 , 158). After that, indeed, Cornwall and Devon have no La Tene brooche s known, till late within the time of their reception of decorated bronze-work from elsewhere: first century, and onward into first A.D. (including brooches in the Corpus volume II) from the cemetery on Stamford Hill overlooking Mount ·Batten. So it might have been between those dates that the Portuguese link led to Group K brooches , For Portugal has penannular brooches that match Fowler's (1960) British type Aa, and others that match her B - with Aa's plain terminals developed into spirals; as both occur in Wiltshire at All Cannings Cross, Aa might still have been current, and probably B had already been started, as late as around 300 or the early third century. And as in Portugal the brooches matching B ran late enough to pass into the 'omega' form, first century and later, their first appearance there is hardly likely till within the third, when B and Aa could together have been brought there from Britain. Neither has any Iberian-Peninsular precursors. Discussion of these two types, using the type-num hers given them by Hull, and due for presenting in a subsequent volume of the Corpus (see above, p. iii), is expected to be based on Simpson with Hawkes and Hull, 1979 (in the present context, 319-21 and 327-9). Such a date will thus be early within the gap in south-western Britain, after its last known La Tene I brooch (from Trevone, within middle third still) and before its getting firstcentury decorated bronzes. If then that gap was the time when the Group K brooches were adapted out of Portugal, the penannulars' passing the opposite way could be reciprocal contemporary movement. And Whimster's independant contention (his 1977, 320-1) that the cemeteries of Harlyn and Mount Batten had their (Group K) brooches rather after 200 - not earlier (e.g. fourth century as Jope 1965, 18) - would only need a slight adjustment upward to agree with this view. The Portuguese series in general was then still current - Fortes type 5 being added to it after 300 (see above). On the other hand, all those forms are derivatives of Hallstatt, so that a pre-La Tene dating for our adapted Group K, fifth-century at least, may still seem natural. The present state of knowledge can enforce no choice between this earlier alternative and the later one. When we turn to Group L, we shall find the case quite otherwise; meanwhile, the known five of Group K have here to be catalogued. 3984 MOUNT BATTEN with Stamford Hill (Plymstock) at PLYMOUTH, Devon. Accepted as from Iron Age cemetery (inhumations in cist-graves recorded) in long-occupied site: Clarke 1971, with site's bibliography. (See text above against the terms 'La Tene I' and 'Iberian': her 147, 153, and in Fox A., 1964, 113-14.) The brooch is 24 (two views) in her pl. I, and in Fox C., 1958 pl. 30 (same photograph), used for our drawing to supplement that on pl. XV in Annual Report of the Plymouth Institution xvii, pts. vii-xiv (1928-36); Leeds 1926- 7, 229, fig. 10 bottom right, represented it badly (like another of the drawings there). Now destroyed. Long crossbar, appearing clasped by head of bow, beneath transverse mouldings; pin with head bent like a ring to ride on it freely, next to bow ; on how's other side, to match, faint ring-like moulding; crossbar slightly tapered, to small knob terminals; bow with faint reeding on the arch, down to plain foot and catchplate. Swelling on

51

the upturned toe , between pair of thin mouldings; small disc terminal with 4 concentric circles on it. PLATE]). 3985 MOUNT BATTEN at PLYMOUTH, same ongm as 3984 and ref. to Ann . Rep . Plymouth Inst ., whence our drawing; same photograph in Clarke and Fox , no. 25. Now destroyed. Preserved had been only half of bow having crossbar , stout , solid-cast with it ; between large knob terminals and next to bow, the bar was on one side slightly hollowed for the head of a pin like 3984's; on the other, to match, was a bold ring-moulding. PLATE20. 3720 HARLYN BAY, St. Merryn near Padstow, Cornwall. Site-bibliography , Hencken 1932, 303 (under St. Merryn) , text 116-2 0; Fox A., 1964, 113- 14, with 240 (where on terms describing, see on 3984). Iron. From one of the 130 inhumation-graves, in cists of slate slabs, excavated here on discovery in 1900 ; for refs. see on 3745-6 below. Now Truro Mus.; recognized first by R. Whimster (after excavation renewed , 1976): no. 11 in his drawing, fig. 30 of his 1978, reproduced by his kind permission here. Head missing, low bow, catch corroded off foot ; short up-turn with plain terminal disc. Type Kin .simplified version, probably local. PLATE20. 3745-6 HARLYN BAY, Cornwall, as 3720. Bronze. A pair, found together in one of the cist-graves, 1900. Now Truro Mus., complete with crossbar head but nothing left of any pins. Nos. 1-2 in R. Whimster's drawing fig. 30 in his 1978 (see on 3720), reproduced by his kind permission here; previous drawing of the pair made for Hencken 1932, 116-17, fig. 33H (whence Cunliffe 1974, 147 fig. 10: 16, 'Iberian type'); one here reproduced to show pin-head, then still visible on both. Photographed: Rev. R. Ashington Bullen, Harlyn Bay, 1901-2 and ed. 3, 1912, fig. 8; C.H. Read , P.S.A.L. xxi (1907), 372-4, also showing pin-heads , though wrongly supposing each doubled, to ride on the bar at each side of the (faintly reeded) bow; the pair in present condition, Fox A. 1964, pl. 56; all show the drawing in Leeds 1926- 7, fig. 10 bottom left , to be inaccurate. This bar, very similar on each of the pair , with knob terminals, is cast with mouldings to imitate the coils of a spring; the place for the free-riding pin-head, and the matched ring-moulding, can be seen by comparing the old and new drawings (and the photographs of 1907 and 1964). At the foot, upon the up-turned column with its baluster swelling, th e disc is concentrically moulded round a prominent toe-knob. PLATE2Q

52

KK. Double-'crossbow' brooch with massive bead on bow , of West Balkan type

Besides the south-western extension of Hallstatt elements to Spain and Portugal, with brooches of which Type K was an adaptation in south-west Britain, there was also a widespread extension south-east to the Balkans. One among the forms of brooch to which it led had the spring-coil 'crossbow' repeated at the foot; and this could be combined with the threading of the bow, there popular, with one or more beads; our example here has a single big amber bead. Miss Ross (p. 7) was the first to perceive it as Balkan; were it really found in the Thames as alleged, its dropping there could only have been modern. 2398 UNKNOWN. Mus. of London, ex London Mus. 50·2/67 (in a purchase from a dealer, 1950, as from either 'City of London' or 'Thames at Putney'); found by museum's Conservation Dept., 1979, to be silver, like one in Oxford (Ashm.) from Zenica in the Herzegovina (info. Dr. D. B. Harden). Between two long bilateral spring-coils (one with half missing and with only stump of pin, centre of other with remnant of downward catchplate), the bow is a wire on which is threaded full-length a bead of amber, barrel-shaped (flattened beneath) with lengthwise groovings; in perforation on top, bronze remnant of presumed ornamental stud; running inside through the spring above the foot, thin rod, seeming bronze, now reduced to 1. 17 mm., should be remnant of a stiffening-wire for the coils (both again museum Conservation Dept., 1979). This westerly Balkan form, commonest in western Bosnia and southern Croatia , is reliably dated: 5th-3rd centuries B.C. (Information kindly supplied by Dr John Alexander, 1978, with list of examples, several assured from graves; see his works in Bibliography , p. 209 ; the bead or beads may be amber, glass or bronze ; the groovings here can be matched among contemporary necklace-beads.) Typology : Lo Schiavo 1970, 452 ff. ('H fibulas') with tav. xxxv ,1-7. PLATE21. C.F.C.H.

53

Lx and L. LateHallstatt brooches (Lx) and (L) British derivatives with innovating features, a few having others suggestive of Early La Tene. C. F. C. HAWKES

For our Lx we must look to France (away from the Atlantic, and with South-West Germany behind), from the later 6th century through the early to middle 5th. The Hallstatt Iron Age north of the Alps, having started by at least 720- 700 - in the French terminology Hallstatt I (First Iron Age), C in the German {p. 6) - passed over into Hallstatt II, German D 1, little after 600. This early and middle 6th-century phase can have lasted till towards 530, when the start of Ilb, or D2, becomes dated by its Greek and Etruscan imports. Fifthcentury change to La Tene (Second Iron Age) was not everywhere abrupt: certain Early La Tene I brooches still have a Hallstatt spring or foot, e.g. in Champagne (Bretz-Mahler cited below). S.W. German D meanwhile calls here for a separate summary. From the great Magdalenenberg tumulus close to Villingen (Black Forest) D 1 has its dating confirmed by dendrochronology - though Hollstein (1971 and 1980) has lowered by 27 years all the dates given in Antiq. J. liv.1, 98-100 and Ix.I, 116-18, from the excavator K. Spindler'sMagdalenenberg I and II (1971, '72), 111-V(1973-7) and his 1977 Guide; see then his VI-VIII. Brooches of D are known best from the Heuneburg hillfort (on the Swabian Danube), where typology gains a control from excavation in stratigraphy. Their study by G. Mansfeld (1973), defining D2 between D 1 and a final D3, has been upheld, though in part re-adjusted, by Frau S. Sievers (1984). That phase D3, which brooches define best when with foot of his forms Fl to F4 (here explained p. 56 ), might either last towards 400 with La Tene alongside it (as in Mansfeld pp. 87-91 and 94) or else be replaced by an incoming La Tene around 450. On these alternatives Dr. Mansfeld kindly wrote to me in 1985, as on Sievers did Professor W. Dehn; in the previous last review by Dehn and Professor 0.-H. Frey, their 1979 - using dates from Southern imports in Central Europe (and west of the Rhine: translated original of 1962 (489-97) and supplement written 1976 (497-511) - it was declared confirmed, at supplement p. 500, that D ran on from 6th into early 5th century. Of the D3 Heuneburg alternatives, this is the second; but if the first be somewhat curtailed, yet still be overlapping with Early La Tene , there could be room enough for reconciling the two. And while a distinct D3 can suit the Heuneburg itself, it has sometimes not been used elsewhere, D2 being lengthened instead. In France, HaD may now be used for all 6th-century French Hall, of which the Ilb phase lasts on into early 5th; and HaD/LTI for its overlap then with First La Tene. Hallstatt culture had been earlier brought into its provinces in eastern France, in touch with S.W. Germany but hardly connected with Britain as yet (see above, pp. 52-3). Signs of French connexion come after 550; towards 530 and within D2 as = French Ilb, but continuing in its early 5th-century phase. The burial always prevalent in eastern France was under tumuli: in Alsace (Schaeffer 1930), and (Wamser 1976) in Burgundy and the Jura (wh~re is the fortress of the Camp du Chateau, Salins). On the uppermost Seine where the richest grave, at Vix, had beside it the Mont-Lassois fortress, the late 6th-century imports in both allow a date 530-480. Inhumation was now predominant; one tumulus may have more than one grave; and the tumulus-rite's border in Champagne, now and on through La Tene, confronted the region of flat-grave burial in the Marne (Brisson 1960), repeated in the Aisne and again farther west, in Normandy. But here in Champagne , the Marne was already then the centre of a Hallstatt provinc e; in phase Ilb it is known as 'Jogassien', from the cemetery at Chouilly, Les Jogasses. Literature: Vix and Mont-Lassois, Joffroy 1954, 1960, 1976; Champagne , Thenot 1976 with Favret (on Les Jogasses) 1936, Sangmeister 1969, and Bretz-Mahler 1970, 54

223-5 with pis. 142, 160; broad survey, Hodson & Rowlett 1973, 179-83; Heuneburg system for brooches, Mansfeld 1973, with Sievers '84 (see above); Hallstatt system for the 32 French departments centred on Paris, Freidin 1982.i, 6 11, 100-3, uses HaC for French I, HaD for II in 6th cent., and HaD/L TI for Ilb's overlap then with La Tene. Britain has its signs of connexion in its south-east quarter; unlike the extreme Southwest (with Group K), this has no inhumations in flat-graves - apart, perhaps, from those in the cemetery at Pirton, in Hertfordshire, if the lost brooch from one of them, noted and discussed pp. 37-8, was really of serpentine form and was thus of Group G. If so, and if brought from North Italy (p. 35), it would be 6th-century or even early 5th. In any case, old exploration of barrows, near Whittlesford (south from Cambridge), discovered inhumations perhaps last Hallstatt and earliest La Tene: Fox 1923, 77-9 (add to refs., Dechelette 1913, 635). With cremation (in Norfolk Clarke 1960, 96, superseding 1940 and Fox's 79-80), no barrow of this age can be proved, nor linked with the Hallstatt cremationbarrows in Belgium; one of those had a brooch, but irreparably damaged by the fire (Marien 195 8, 126), with a dagger of D 1, preceding the French Final phase. One could guess the brooch as J, but in Britain none of J is from a burial. Neither have the L brooches here come from graves; and occupation-sites are known for only a few of them. Jn contrast to the Continent, where brooches are abundant in both, our others of this age lack close associations, and have often come out along the Thames. Yet daggers and their sheaths from it have proved the French connexion (succeeding then the Belgian: Jope 1961); and this can firmly be extended to our Group L brooches. In the dagger-sheaths, fine bronze sheet-work and ornament are clearly Continental introductions - as already had been iron-forging, first in Hallstatt C - among Thames-side workers in bronze whose tradition was of casting. And their craft , just like the Southwestern (p . 50 ), was altogether backward in wire-work, in which the Continent's makers of coiled-spring brooches excelled . This explains what Hodson (1971) pointed out first: that most British brooches with a Hallstatt foot are ill-suited at their head to a Hallstatt spring; that one has a Hallstatt spring-form rendered as a solid-cast pair of arms - we can add one with a doubled pair now , and one with a cast pin pivoting between twin lugs; and that after La Tene I springs app ear in Britain, they are often found reduced to being 'mock' springs - or, we have now to add, mock-spring hinges (both p. 2). He wondered whether contact with the Hallstatt Continent was close, knowing no brooch in Britain out of French Ilb (= late D2 or Mansfeld D3); but in 1955 had come in fact the first of two such - here to be grouped as Lx. It is our brooch 234 7 (plate 21 ), which the finder sent to Hull for his opinion. It was found at St. Paul's Cray, north-west Kent, in excavations for the Kent County River Board, by the Cray Antiquarians ' Association, on the site at Sandy Lane where Romano-British burials were adjoined by a boundary ditch; the ditch's final filling was of building-remains with late samian (mortars with lion-spout), but under it was silt, sealing a primary deposit of the middle first century A.D. In this (with 'Patch Grove' ware) the brooch was found by Mr A. J. J. Parsons, the director; he has helped ( 1978) most kindly with a further drawing and with documents. Its spring is at least half missing, as are all its chord and pin; this should explain its discarding - to be dropped ultimately here. Hull regarded as 'a quite unsupported suggestion' that it was broken only then, after lasting long in use; the breaking and discarding will have happened shortly after it was brought into the West Kent neighbourhood. Along with all the Sandy Lane finds, it is in Maidstone Museum (since 1956: Arch. Cant. 71, 228); publication of all was in 1985 still awaited. But Hull in 1955 had seen that it differed from those of Group K, and was in date fifth-century at latest; he told the finder, with this, that it 'is a most remarkable find to be made in this country' , 'an exceptional find to come up in a controlled excavation', and indeed 'a conspicuous addition to British archaeology'. His perception was confirmed in 1980, when the second brooch was found, in the City of London: our 4570 (plate 21 ). The Museum of London has affirmed its trust in the finder and his friend who was the vendor, and who guaranteed its finding: in the City on the nor55

therly foreshore of the Thames, 'east from Dowgate by about 100 yards', so beneath the bridge to Cannon Street railway-station. This is scarcely less than 12 miles WNW, or some 17.25 km., from the St. Paul's Cray site, which is only 6 miles south of the Thames below London. Thus both show that Thames-side bronzesmiths could know such brooches through a quite direct contact; and features in each are amongst those that Hodson showed them putting into forms of their own. Our treating these two, St. Paul's Cray and London Thames, as a segregated group, Lx, will mark their distinction from the British-made forms, of Group L; and let Lx remain open for including any further such Continental brooches found in Britain. Group Lx (plate 21 ). The St. Paul's Cray brooch, 234 7, though without its chord and pin and up to half its long spring, has had the Continental crossbow structure. Its bow is arched high, and in section is flattened like a leaf, of a pointed-oval shape that is repeated by its bordering pair of grooves. The shape occurs in Burgundy once from the Mont-Lassois (Joffroy 1960, 80 ; pl. 21 , 8), with the grooving spread to cover all the bow; we shall find this again on some La Tene I brooches: of Type 1Be (pp. 107 ff.) , and on two of the British Group L the point ed oval occurs adapted , 7029 and 2278 (plate 22 ), themselves with some further French features (pp.61-2). The St. Paul's Cray foot, short and flat along the catch, is turned upward in a straight and slender column at its end, moulded into two little knobs of which the upper is its terminal. Such a foot-decoration, Fusszier in German, whence the broochname Fusszierfibel, had different forms in the South-West British Group K (pp. 49-51 ). And whereas their originals had reached the Atlantic in Hallstatt branches spreading westward farther south, ours of Lx are from the inland spread, which extended into France from South-West Germany. It is within this spread that the forms of the foot-decoration were sorted into four, F 1 to F4: by Mansfeld (1973, 24, 31, 37-38, 43; see Sievers now too, 1984); for France, Freidin 1982.i, 88-97, 100-3; ii, 651, 652-4 list 33, with maps 14-17 (691-4); cf. Dechelette 1913, 850 (1927, 338), fig. 350, 1-6. Fl has the Fusszier pegged into a horizontal foot; F2 has it formed by the foot's turning vertically upward, as in St. Paul's Cray, 2347; F3 has it pegged into a foot reverted in towards the bow, where the London 4570 will have had it, as evinced by its peg-hole; and F4 has it formed by expanding the reverted foot itself. With the expansion like a kettledrum inverted (French timbale) the brooch is the German Paukenfibel, Mansfeld's P; the kettledrum repeated in the bow (double timbale) gives the Doppelpaukenfibel, his dP. But the expansion may be a knob, or else a horizontal disc, as it may in F 1 or 2 or 3; and when these or other ornaments are repeated on the bow, we have Mansfeld's dZ, the Doppelzierfibel. Repetition not on the bow, but at its head, has examples in British Group L (see below). For a brooch, locality unknown, further varying Mansfeld's P, see 4010 below on p. 67. The London Thames brooch 4570 (plate 21) is wholly Continental. Its features thus comprise a very long bilateral spring, continuous with the bow and having 20 tight coils, without any axial rod, and with the chord external. Though an internal chord is what is normal on the Continent, completing the resemblance to a crossbow with bow-string, there are some with external chord from the Berry, Dept. Cher: one from Bourges, and one from Tumulus 2 grave I at Saint-Denis-de-Palin: Freidin 1982.i, 342; ii, 786 fig. 59 no. 3; and i.359; ii, 794 fig. 67, no. 7. Those have the reverted foot ci timbale, F4; but the external chord, with whatever form of foot, has more usually the coils reduced to four, or simply to two. This is like the spring-form of typical La Tene I brooches, their chord being almost always external, and internal very rarely; yet external chords on four-coil springs appear first still together with a Hallstatt foot. And the foot-forms approaching most nearly the La Tene , because reverted back in towards the bow, are of course the F4 (as just noticed from the Cher) and our Thames brooch's form, the F3. The ornament pegged to its F3 foot is now missing, so its peg-hole is empty - precisely as in the Heuneburg brooch 91: Mans-

56

feld 114 and Taf. 11, the spring of which also was continuous with the bow (though only one coil of it remains). The form of his conjecturally-drawn foot-ornament is followed here on plate 2l;just like it is that of a brooch from Mont-Lassois, here reproduced from Joffroy 1960 pl. 26,9; others, there and elsewhere, have variants of this or of a knob , e.g. cylindrical on that reproduced here as drawn by Hull, from Lusigny , dept. Allier (in iron). The spring of this, with 16 coils, has the chord internal; but examples with external chord on such a spring include three from Dept. Saone-et-Loire: one from the river Saone at Fleurville, one from Bragny-sur-Saone and one from Toumus, with a chord triply looped (plate 21 ), and with the ornament on its F3 foot a simple boss (in fact of iron). All three: Feugere 1978, 12-13 (for Bragny , note 11), with pl. 4, 3-4, where Feugere dates 4 (that here reproduced) 500-480 B.C. Thus the London brooch's chord, and the reverting of its foot, show the overlap of Hallstatt and La Tene, which from somewhat after 500 often ran until at least 450. We may now turn back to the Marne , and to the graves of Les Jogass es. The recent fresh study of the cemetery by Hatt and Roualet, 1977 , like the treatment of its brooches with its many other ornaments by Sangmeister, 1969, has the F3 foot started after the F2, which St. Paul's Cray exemplifies in Britain: from their p. 430 ( 440 pl. II), this was started 30 years before 500. Yet at Epernay, among the rue de Bernon graves excavated 197 8 by Freidin (his 1982.i, p. 91 ), both forms were repr esented, one on each of two broo ches found together in his grave 1B;presumably around 500 , then , their uses overlapped. As they appear one each on the two we have from Britain, such brooches might be here hardly later; and an early start within the fifth century for imports, with whatever form of foot, seems probable. For our derivatives, the British Group L, imply acquaintance with some further forms besides these two; little later than the century's middle, furthermore, could come the first we have of true La Tene I (p. 72 ). Group L's divergences from Hallstatt forms will at least have been begun within its first half. And on the Continent, brooches with La Tene I spring, but a foot still Hallstatt (see above) , can have not only F3 or F4 forms of this, but F2 . In Lower Normandy, west of the Seine, the Fort-Harrouard (Eureet-Loir) has it almost in St. Paul's Cray form; and the cemetery at Ifs, nearer the Channel (Calvados) has two nearly similar (inhumations 7 and 9): Verron 197 6, 804-5 fig. 1, 8-9; Freidin 1980.i, 90; Fort-Harrouard, Wheeler & Richardson 1957 , 88-9 fig. 25, A, 7. Verron cites more with this foot, e.g. from Mont-Lassois, and Les Jogasses, as well as seven more from the Marne in Bretz-Mahler 1970, pl. 21; his date for the Ifs two, already fifth-century, is extended by Freidin more widely: to all with a La Tene I spring and still a Hallstatt foot - all those here noticed , with some others. From the Marn e, Thenot 1976 , 834 p. IV , shows the F3 foot on her 2-3-4 and F2 on her 5, very like St. Paul's Cray. Thus while in France such combinations mark advance towards La Tene, completed within the middle part of the century, Britain in the early part, from models still Hallstatt, had started its divergence into Group L. The models might first have been as early as 500, at St. Paul's Cray with F2 foot; the London Thames brooch with F3 perhaps also, though its rare external chord would not compel that. From which parts of France such models could have come is in the present state of knowledge hard to say. Freidin's map, ii 691, Map 14, shows the Marne with some F 1 and many more of F4, but F2 and 3 both there and west of the Seine, as we have seen; the F2 foot there is close to St. Paul's Cray's, but comes already with La Tene I spring, as do the Mame 's with this foot that we have noticed. South of Freidin's map remain the Saone-etLoire Hallstatt brooches, with external chord and foot F3, like the London Thames brooch. South-east of it, Burgundy at the Mont-Lassois does give some direct comparisons with Britain (pp. 54,56), while eastern France, and the farther Hallstatt regions in Germany, seem beyond the range of access here entirely. So the likeliest primary route to Britain for Lx - supplemented next from the Mam e - is from Burgundy northward. This is confirmed by derivativ e features, including a double spring and implications of others, in the British Group L. See further Hawkes in R. Joffroy Memorial Vol., forthcoming (Paris).

57

British Group L (plates 21 and 22 ). Its forms are various; as Hodson observed (1971, 53), when he recognized them first, they make 'a motley but instructive group'. But of their divergences from Continental Hallstatt, one British factor has affected all: the primacy of casting in traditional British workshops, leaving seldom any traces of foreign wire-work. Having stressed this, after Hodson (at p. 55 ), we can now discuss the individual brooches. Some have features from La Tene , the new Continental culture competing with Hallstatt: from 480- 75, successfully first by 450. Calling for notice first are four on plate 21; we may start them with 4282, from the Thames opposite Hammersmith , in west London (see catalogue-entry), named by Hodson Hammersmith "A" (in his 1971 ). The other three are 4282bis and tris and 3560 . The maker of the Hammersmith brooch, British in its fat humped bow, hollowed beneath but not deeply, shows his Britishness even more by his giving it a finial, protruding level from its head - a new and native invention, as Hodson saw (his 1971 ), solid with the head and having three perforations . One is vertical, holding the stump of a bronze peg: without any doubt for an upright knob , though its seating-space shows that it was slimmer than the knob on the foot , which is shaped like a dumpy chess-pawn, stouter than its F 1 models on the Continent , whether pegged like those or fixed by 'casting on' . (For such models see Freidin 1982, 92 : Heuneburg , Alsace, Burgundy (Mont-Lassois), Aisne and Marne.) The horizontal perforations, since there is iron rust in both, should each have held an iron rod; axial rods for a bilateral spring that was double. Supporting Hodson on this (1971 , 51) are Late Hallstatt double-spring brooches published from France: two from Mont-Lassois, Joffroy 1960, pl. 22,1 and 7; one from tumulus at Minot, pl. 23,1 (Burgundy again); he discussed them indeed in a context foreign to Britain, that of an additional 'false chord', external, of twisted wire that makes them a continuous row of loops ('bouclettes'), but though his pl. 22,1 has had this (nearly all of it missing) and 7 has it complete, the rest are on single springs, as again farther east and in a couple from Germany (pl. 24) - though on double springs they re-appear, and even on triple, in Yugoslavia (pl. 25). All those (his pp. 86-9) are irrelevant here; but the long-lived cemetery at Gurgy (Yonne, near Auxerre) has besides two iron brooches (one in fragments), two double-kettledrum brooches with double spring, two brooches with F3 foot and single spring (bouclettes lost from one of each pair) , gold earrings, beads and bracelets, all in a bronze ribbed pail, of the Italian swing-handled series; another was with a cremation and three more double-kettledrum brooches. Both pails have the same 9 ribs as that from Weybridge (BMC . . . EIA 1925, 91-2 fig. 89) , sixth century: Pellet and Delor 1980 , 43-7 (map) , 29- 34. Added to Berta Stjernqvists 's corpus of 1967 (reviewed PPS 35, 1969, 371-2) and Bouloumie's of 1976 (Gallia 34 , 1-30) , they combine with Weybridge to suggest a route to Britain, from at least SE of Paris (Burgundy with Yonne) which then could carry brooch-modes too, springs single or double . Then the Hammersmith spring would be a local imitation of a French one, preferring iron as easier to coil than bronze, with its pair of axial rods set in a finial newly devised for it, and holding also the upright knob. The British Museum, with the brooch, acquired a pivoting pin, ring-headed and of bronze (see plate 21) ; but this, if it belongs, could have replaced , after breakage , an iron pin continuous with the spring, The brooch 4282bis, from the excavations noted in its catalogue-entry on a site at Hillingdon (Holloway Lane), just out of London westwards, has lost its foot (expectably either of Fl form or F2); its bow has a 'leech' cross-section and is humped up high, differing thus, and appearing more archaic , than those of Late Hallstatt brooches on the Continent. But itsspring confirmsitasBritish of that same period: it imitates a double spring, such as those here noted just above, with coils (and pin, broken off) of bronze, bilateral and held in the middle by a narrow little finial extending from the head. This very small brooch when in situ was embedded in an earth-lump, and when disengaged for conservation had many of its spring-coils, loose from the head, in need of putting into place, though partly corroded. Thus X-radiography was twice required, with also a chemical test, before the structure of

58

the spring could be finally determined; great praise is therefore due to Helen Ganiaris, of the Museum of London's Conservation Department, for performing and reporting on the work, 1984-5, for Miss Jean Macdonald there, who corresponded on all of it with me, copying also to me, for the Corpus here, both the first and the final drawings, done with the help of the X-rays by Nicholas Griffiths (plate 21). It results from all this, (a) that each of the two rows of coils had been mounted on an axial rod of iron (shown in the chemical test as HCl /ferrocyanide), burred very slightly at the ends to hold them in. Though they are much corroded on either side of the finial, this must hide a pair of holes, set side by side in it, for the pair of iron rods: the finial's upper edge has a very slight dip between the two, and the Hammersmith brooch, we have seen, has also two; the arrangement, though of course invisible, thus may safely be presumed, as the Museum and Professor Hodson both have agreed. It is unmatched in any of the doublespring brooches on the Continent, which never have a finial; their two rows of coils are held together by loops of their own continuous wire ( or sometimes, in eastern regions, by terminal plates). Moreover, (b) the wire of the Hillingdon coils has in neither of their rows been continuous: the finial interrupts them, and the only point of doubt is of the righthand end seen best in the side-view drawing, where the wire of the outer row might or might not pass over to the inner, but corrosion, and also an oblique crack across it, masks both. Lastly, (c) there is visible, next to the finial, the stump of the pin. Ms. Ganiaris saw that it is very slightly thicker than the wire of all the coils except the one directly next to it; it may thus be guessed continuous only with that, and to have ridden, alone with that, so free of tension, on the inner of the rods. Altogether, our calling the spring an imitation of a true one, a double 'mock-spring hinge', appears to be sufficiently justified. The maker could only coil bronze wire in short lengths: a whole long spring of it, let alone a double one, was beyond his technical powers. On the Sussex brooch, 4382tris, lately brought to light, perhaps from the South Downs hillfort on Ditchling Beacon, I owe information and the drawing by Nicholas Griffiths (same plate 21), to Jean Macdonald (from Mus. of London), and for word of its publication to come in Sussex A.C. by Valerie Rigby (Brit. Mus.), who has been aware of what I write about it here. The broo ch is unique, but especially of interest in comparison with that from Hammersmith (for the knob and bow forms see pp. 58, 63-4 ). It confirms the original presence there of a knob upon the finial, next to the head, by having one next to its own head, matching, in its 'cottage-loaf' shape, the knob on its foot. And this is a reverted foot, F3, like that of the foreign brooch 4570 (Thames foreshore in London), which represents its former knob by the hole for its seating. Furthermore, where the Hammersmith finial has transverse holes, no doubt for a double spring's axial rods like those of the brooch from Hillingdon, the brooch from Sussex represents the double spring by a dummy. It has no finial; it has twin long cylinders, transverse and bilateral, solid-cast (apparently) and at their middle cast on beneath its head-knob; they have paired ringmouldings, spaced along their length. Corrosion, on their middle and the base of the head beside the inner one, can have masked a stump of the otherwise missing pin, and has anyhow hidden whatever was its mode of attachment. It seems that no such dummies are known on the Continent. Professor Dehn, whose article in the Revue Arch. de !'Est, 1980, has been cited above for the double-spring brooch from Gurgy, and who has helped me by letter, 1985, did indeed there figure a brooch from a grave at Bargen (in Bad~n near the tail of Lake Constance), which has two round holes in sockets cast on beneath its head. For this, his 94 fig. 4, he quoted (and has sent me in photocopy) the description and illustration given in the site-report (1970, Akten Denkmalpfl,ege Freiburg) by G. Wamser at her p. 29, with Taf. 43,1: the brooch had had a bilateral spring, but it was single. One of the holes held its axis, of iron, and on the left side extant and jutting beyond its coils (with terminal adjuncts); the other hole held its inwardlybending chord. So though Dehn quotes five true double-spring brooches in Germany, they have no bearing on the Bargen brooch, and his interest in it was less in its spring than in its 59

ornament. Though the Bargen graves were in barrows that were all Late Hallstatt , as were the other two brooches in the grave, seemingly the latest, this one is Early La Tene, and one of those that at head and at foot have an inward-turned bird-head. Such bird-head brooches, widespread mainly in Germany, are derived by Dehn (same article) from Southern France, where there are Late Hallstatt brooches with a stalk at head and foot, slanted (his figs. 1-3) seldom outwards and otherwise inwards - as on their outlier nearest to Germany, from a cemetery already La Tene on the Lake of Geneva (Saint-Sulpice: omitted from his map, 95 fig. 5). The conversion of stalk into bird-head, by the La Tene artistic genius, can be natural enough; but the features that were turned in Britain into upright knobs, on the Sussex and (with one knob missing) the Hammersmith brooch, were those on the foot, Fl, F2 or F3, of Late Hallstatt brooches reaching Britain as our Group Lx: not slanted but themselves upright, and not Southern French. Their French distribution (pp. 56 - 57 ), passes west inland into Burgundy and then scatters northward, with some in Champagne but others less far from the Channel. And the double spring, much rarer but in Burgundy again, has its northernmost French example at Gurgy (Yonne, so already approaching the latitude of Paris). These trends towards south-east Britain contrast with the line from South France into Germany, followed by Dehn for brooches having features that are different, and that overrun the divide between Final Hallstatt and Early La Tene. Though a few of our Group L brooches, to be noticed soon below, have features that seem La Tene, they have nothing to do with the bird-head brooches of Germany. Meanwhile, with the three of them considered hitherto, we have still to add, as fourth, no. 3560 (pl. 22). Brooch 3560, from the Thames south foreshore at Mortlake (up along from Hammersmith), has again a bow of 'boat' shape , hollowed underneath, but humped more abruptly above. At the foot, it is clear that what is missing, broken off beyond the catch, was the upward and inward bend into the terminal portion that still survives, cast solid with its dome-shaped knob and with the bow, of a reverted foot of type F3, like that of the Sussex brooch. At the head, and again solid with the bow , there is a finial: broken off across the vertical hole for the peg of what must have been a second knob, like the peg in the similar hole in the Hammersmith brooch. Also just as in that, where the finial juts from the bowhead, a horizontal hole will have carried an axial rod for a bilateral spring; and its placing here and not through the finial itself must suggest, indeed imply, that a second horizontal hole had passed through the finial's broken-off end. Then both these transverse holes will correspond, in their placing (and the vertical one besides), with those in the Hammersmith brooch, which the Sussex dummy confirms as for a spring like the Hillingdon 's double. So this from Mortlake will again have been a double-spring brooch , British-made, but Frenchinspired as we have argued for the others. We can now proceed further. The F3 foot is more faithfully rendered in 8293, from Hunsbury (plate 22 ), the Northampton hillfort, standing at the edge of the town. The ornament lost from its terminal cup would not be bronze, but possibly coral , repeated in the two further cups on the finial at its head. Such ornament, and the grooving on the bow (though this is rare), could be thought to make it Early La Tene (as Bretz-Mahler 1971, p. 18, 13: her pp. 29, 271 ), which the foot would suit equally; and Hodson saw this (his 1971, 52). But although La Tene influence is possible - and expectably before 450 -the finial must determine the brooch as L (so the foot as F3), just as also does its crossbar. This is solid, and is ringed by mouldings to imitate the coils of a bilateral spring: the dummy of a Hallstatt single spring, answering to the Sussex brooch's dummy of a double one. Puzzling, however, is he absence of any attachment for a pin. This is repeated on brooch 7029, again with Late Hallstatt derivative features supplemented now by a definitely Early La Tene one - a trench along the bow that has been filled with little pellets, probably of coral like the pieces so placed in some brooches from the Marne, pis. 18 (5, I 0) and 19 (4, 6) of Bretz-Mahler 1971 (with her p. 29). While another without any pin-attachment, 2278, comes from Great Chesterford, this brooch with the pellets is from Middle Hill at at Woodeaton, near Oxford, well known as a sanctuary-site: see below and catalogue-entry, 60

with the references. The Sussex brooch 4282tris, considered above for the rest of its features, has again no evident attachment for a pin (though the base of its head is corroded). We have thus four brooches, all of Group L, certainly or at least apparently altogether pinless, one from a hillfort - two if the Sussex one is really from Ditchling Beacon - and one from a well-attested sanctuary. One may thus suggest that such brooches were not for wear, impossible pin-less in any case, but were votive brooch-models, made to be used in a cult as offerings. The numbers of wearable brooches from sanctuary sites, Woodeaton itself and in Wiltshire Cold Kitchen Hill (p. 41 above), should reinforce this suggestion; they cannot negate it. As for the lost pin - unless pivot-lugs (see on 7039 below) have vanished - it could have ridden, if with a head like that of a ring-headed dress-pin, on one of the crossbar's inner hollow mouldings; but positive indication there is none. Perhaps the brooch was never finished. The brooches of Group L from the Woodeaton site just noticed are two: 7029 and also 7039 (plate 22). The La Tene I and later brooches following them there, and other finds including much pottery, show a regular occupation through Iron Age times into Roman; a temple then was built, and the place had doubtless had a sanctity throughout, market-days probably too (see references in Catalogue, and on 3096, p. 43 ). Hunsbury was under SO km. from it, while with London, rather farther, its connexion was the Thames; thus the three places together give an easy distribution this way for Group L. The brooch 7039 is complete both with pin and a pair of lugs for the little rod on which its pierced head pivots; but directly above them, like the Hunsbury brooch, it has a crossbar, ribbed in imitation of Hallstatt spring-coils, and embellished at either end with a prominent knob. There is however no finial; instead, the upright ornament that a finial might have held is placed directly on the head, above the crossbar. The bow is cast stout, and the foot beyond the catch is reverted into F3 form, with its upright ornament matched by the upright on the head. Each is ribbed, and topped by a prominent knob like the crossbar's. The brooch is thus a further advance, compared with the Hunsbury, in British adaptation of the Hallstatt single-spring form, while its knobs are placed at foot and head as in the Sussex brooch, and originally in those from Hammersmith and Mortlake - unlike the Hallstatt Doppelzierfibel (p. 56 ), where the foot-matching knob (or other ornament) stands on the bow, as in the Neuenegg Swiss example on our plate 22. Hull chose it to illustrate this out of Otto Tschumi, Urgeschichte des Kantons Bern bis 1950 (Bern-Stuttgart 19 56), 306-7, Abb. 190,2 (in Hist. Mus. Bern), from a Final Hallstatt barrow with primary cremation (dug 1905), where this and the similar 1 must have come from that primary (though a dig had been attempted before, and they were found misplaced with an Alamannic skeleton); in the cup topping each of its knobs is the whitish trace of an enamel setting, due perhaps to La Tene influence, giving it then a fifth-century date. In our brooch from Woodeaton, what would have been the spring, had it not been reduced to a crossbar, has had its function of carrying the spring transferred to the pivot-lugs, now (and for the first time known to us) explicitly present. This pivoting therefore raises the question of its date. It is a British device, but the other brooches having it begin with Hull's Type 2B; their century cannot be the fifth, and is essentially the third (pp. 133 ff.). So either this brooch is quite anomalously late; or the pivoting was used in the fourth century on brooches still unknown; or had then become disused till re-adopted in the third. No answer can be firm; yet the date of the brooch may still be within the fifth century. The second Woodeaton brooch, 7029, has several parts missing, but its foot was Fl: level along the catch, and with a terminal that still retains the peg that held an upright ornament. (Compare the Neuenegg brooch, above mentioned, which Hull picked to show this: plate 22.) With this Hallstatt feature it has a head with the British finial, ornamentally shaped; on the absence of pin-attachment see above on 8293. Along the top of the arched bow and filled withpelletsofwhatprobablyiscoral, is a trench formed in the casting, of the pointedoval form seen grooved on the bow of the St. Paul's Cray brooch (plate 21 with p. 56 ): 61

Continental, so Group Lx. Late Hallstatt too, but with F 4 kettledrum foot, three in Joffroy 1960 have pointed-oval decoration: his pl. 27, 6-7-8 (with his pp. 171-2), one each from Burgundy, the Marne, and eastern France, besides that from Mont-Lassois with the all-over grooving noticed p. 56. But on La Tene I brooches from the Marne it is fairly common: the grooves may be all-over, or have other decoration in their oval, or some may leave it empty: Bretz-Mahler 1971 shows these variations - her pl. 2, 2 and 9 ; pl. 3, 4 ; pl. 7, 1 and 7; pl. 8, 2 and 8; pl. 10, 6; pl. 15, 1-2, 4-6 and 8; pl. 18, 1, 3 2nd 7. And the oval cast as a trench along the bow, filled up with coral pellets (of a V-shaped section), she notes (p . 29) from six examples - one each from Lavannes and Poix (her pl. 18, 5 and 10), two from Bussy-le-Chateau (pl. 19, 4 and 6) , and one each from Somme-Tourbe and St.-Remy-surBussy. These cemeteries (except Lavannes , La Tene lb : p. 286) ar e of La Tene Ia (284) which opens within the overlap with Hallstatt. So this coral-pellet feature from the Marne adapted here, on a Hallstatt-footed brooch, could be middle fifth-century or at least of before 400. The brooch from Great Chesterford, in north-west Essex near Cam bridge, 227 8 (same plate) , has a bow with the pointed-oval pattern done in multiple grooving, like Joffroy's pl. 21 , 8 from Mont-Lassois (see above). Explicitly Hallstatt is its Fl foot , with the ornament a waisted baluster. But its head has little twin side-knobs, and an ornamental finial; both show it as British. It has decorative cups for a coral-substitute setting , traceable and whitish, one each on the finial and the baluster's top, and projecting three a side along the bow. These last are unique and point to British inventiveness, but only extend what the other two probably show, a borrowing from La Tene - with which the grooving can agree: see above on 7029. Then again the features will be mixed and imply the middle (or at least the later) fifth century. This brooch's site, north from London slightly more than 50 km., has Cambridge less than 15 km. farther; and brooch 8042 (plate 21) came reputedly from somewhere near that. Assigned to Group L (against Fox's Early Roman date) by Hull, his doubting its locality can ~eem uncalled-for. A London-Great Chesterford-Cambridge pattern matches London-Woodeaton-Hunsbury (p. 61, 7039, and p. 60, 8293); and the region 's sites with early native pottery (the 'Ivinghoe-Sandy group ' of Cunliffe 1974) include Great Chesterford, and Trumpington outside Cambridge, whence came our brooch 3528, of Group J (p. 45; pl. 18): Fox 1923, 74; pl. xviii, 2; pottery, 94-5 with pl. xiv. The brooch, a single casting (pin and mechanism lost), consists of two large horizontal discs, connected by a leg and foot with horizontal catch, and having under the head a lug to hold a rod: either long, for the axis of a Hallstatt spring with wire pin , or short like a rivet, for pivoting a pin with a twinned or a single-ring head. One disc forms the bow, while the other, slightly smaller, has the foot turned up into its centre: like a disc-topped F2 foot, as Dechelette 1913, 850 (= 1927, 338) fig. 350 no. 5, Camp du Chat eau, Salins (Jura). But these have no corresponding disc on the bow; those that have (Mansfeld 1973, dZ3: his 146 and 257-9) have the other disc or ornament supported at its centre by an F3 foot (viz. reverted inwards): Joffroy pl. 20, 12, Mont-Lassois, or else not at its centre but at its outer edge - an F4 foot: Joffroy pl. 19, 7, again Mont-Lassois, the two discs on which are otherwise the nearest to the Cambridge ones, along with those on the Camp du Chateau brooch Dech elette 1913 , 697 (= 1927, 185) fig. 266 no. 5. (This is Mansfeld's dP4 (his p. 230) with the discs replacing its kettledrums.) Thus the British adaptation, giving the surface of the discs conc~ntric ornamental circles in relief, has mixed those features in our traditional technique of solid casting. This brooch owes nothing to La Tene , and might be early fifth- century.

The Catalogue entries are here again Hull 's (though for completeness I have sometimes expanded them), except nos. 4570 and 4282, 4282bis and tris, 3560 and 4010, supplied by me. C.F.C.H . 62

Lx: Late Hallstatt brooches continental in all features. 2347 ST. PAUL'S CRAY, north-west Kent. Maidstone Mus. (deposit, from excavations at Sandy Lane, 1955, by the Cray Antiquarians' Association, which discovered it in ditchbottom, sealed beneath material of 1st century A.O.: p. 55 above). 'Crossbow' brooch, having had a bilateral spring; drawn by Hull in condition as sent him by the finder, August 1955; his description then written is the following (two additions are in brackets): - Five coils, amounting to half the spring, or less, are preserved; chord gone; bow flat, bent to a semicircle and pointed at both ends, with marginal grooves (pointed oval); foot, short, flat, with upturned toe ending in two round knobs, one above the other: (a foot-decoration of the form defined as F2 by Mansfeld (1973, 41 : for this in France, Freidin 1982, 90-1; lists, 652-4). Discussion, pp. 55- 7. PLATE 21.

4570 LONDON, found 1980 on R. Thames N. foreshore near DOWGATE (former watergate), at about TQ326807 (NGR), beneath the British Rail bridge in front of Cannon Street Station, between 91 and 92 m. or 'about 100 yards downstream from Dowgate' (state.ment by vendor, 1981, friend of finder). Mus. of London, 81.227; description after that by the then Senior Assistant Keeper Miss Jean Macdonald, kindly sent with drawing, done for mus. by Mr. Nicholas Griffiths; her publication is in Trans. Lond. & Middx. Arch. Soc. 34, 1983. L. 30 mm., made of one piece of bronze wire, running out from head of bow into long bilateral spring (34 mm. across) of 20 tightly-wound coils, 10 a side; no axial rod, but ends connected by external chord; in the middle they end in the pin, nearly straight, though not now meeting the catch, as the spring had been slightly pulled out from the bow-head. Bow well arched, very slightly thickened in section; foot now pulled a little sideways, but reverted quite sharply from the catch, and expanding directly above into a ring round a vertical, nearly circular perforation, the ring's farther edge being almost in contact with the bow. The perforation, d. c. 2 mm., will have been filled by what now is lost: the basal peg of a knob or.of some other upright feature, as e.g. on the Lusigny (Allier) brooch (or on Joffroy 1960 (91) pl. 26 ,9) reproduced beside it on pl. 21. All brooches like that, just as ours, have the F3 foot: defined by Mansfeld 1973, 37; those from France, Freidin 1982, 91-2 , with lists 652-4. Discussion (with 2347), pp . 55-7. 4010, p. 67. PLATE 21. L: Briti sh Late Hallstatt derivative brooches with innovating features, a few having others suggestive of Early La Time. 4282 R. THAMES, opposite HAMMERSMITH (London), from SW side of river, down-

stream from Hammersmith Bridge but less far than Crabtree, viz. distant from the bridge less than 1000 yards (c. 0.9 km.): Lawrence 1930, 88, 'slug-shaped brooch'. ('Back plate' in his description is really its finial (see below), as Miss J. Macdonald, Mus. of London, rightly pointed out to me.) Found not long before acquired, June 1898, by British Museum, B & M Reg. 98, 6-18, 27. Hodson 1971, 50 with pl. XIIIA, his 'Hammersmith fibula A'; but not, as he supposed, from same 'site' as his B and C, of La Tene I, our 2925 (p.108 below) and 2926 (p. 123 ). This is clear from Lawrence as cited; he was recording London finds already in the early 1890s, and finds from the Thames already c. 1894. For the life (1862-1939) of this G. F. Lawrence, of Wandsworth, see the longest of three obituaries, Daily Telegraph 24 Feb. 1939, kindly supplied by Miss Macdonald. Standing out from other dealers of his period, he worked by gaining trust among the men who dredged the river, and thence reliance by the museums that he served, and greatly enriched: besides the British, where amongst his friends on the staff was from 1928 the present writer (C.F.C.H.), they were chiefly the City Guildhall (which he catalogued, 1900-3), and the London Museum (now Museum of London), from its founding in 1911 till his death; its Keeper (from 1926), Mortimer Wheeler, was the prompter of his article here cited ( 1930), in the Archaeological Journal (Wheeler was Editor), vol. 86. It is the sole authoritative record of antiquities from 63

the Thames in its middle and London reaches, throughout the years of his activity down to 1929. Hence its use for the authenticity and locality of this brooch, and of 2925-6, here above; also, from Guildhall (now Mus. of London 91), for 5359, p. 108. The brooch's bow is humped, gently hollowed underneath, cast heavy and solid with projecting finial at head, rectangular in section and vertically grooved on its end; separately cast and mounted on the foot, as on those of the Mansfeld Fl form, Late Hallstatt, is an upright rather like a chess-pawn: a knob on a squat body, with paired ring-mouldings at base and neck. In a vertical perforation in the finial is the stump of a thin bronze peg, fitted flush below but broken off above, which must have secured an upright to match the foot's (though its seating space shows it was slimmer); two horizontal perforations, an inner and an outer, are each nearly totally blocked with an iron corrosion, clearly of wire; so the two will have held the twin axial rods of a bilateral spring that was double, its coils having vanished along with the pin running out of them. The surviving pin, of bronze, in cross-section rectangular, has a ring head blocked again with rusted iron; it would have pivoted free on the inner iron wire, and have replaced the original pin; it was acquired with the brooch, and resembles the pin of 7039 (same plate). Discussion, p. 58, after Hodson 1971, 50-3 with pl. xiii A, its primary publication: his 'Hammersmith A' brooch. Drawing, 1978, by British Museum (2: 1, here 1: 1). PLATE 21.

4282bis HILLINGDON, west Middlesex, from Iron Age site at Holloway Lane, deep in one of its ditches. Mus. London. Report on it by Jonathan Cotton included in Jean Macdonald's on 4570 (p. 63), and Arch. in W. Middlesex, Hillingdon 1986, 52(fig.)-5. This brooch too has been small, but will have had an Fl or F2 foot (now missing). Unlike Continental Late Hallstatt brooches in its bow, humped high and of 'leech ' cross-section, but shown to be derivative British by the finial at its head (though small and narrow), and by its 'mockspring-hinge' imitation of a bilateral double spring, with axial rods of iron and coils of bronze, without any chord, in discontinuous lengths, some lost, and with a pin (now only a stump) running out from the single coil directly on the right-hand side of the finial - which like the Hammersmith finial has had two holes to carry the rods, now hidden by the coils and their corrosion but impossible to doubt. How this mock spring's structure was determined, through minute examination, chemical testing, and X-ray photographs, by Helen Ganiaris, Conservation Dept., Mus. of London, has been recorded above in Discussion, pp. 58-9, as communicated to me by Jean Macdonald in a long correspondence, 1984-5, and presented in the final drawings by Nicholas Griffiths (2: 1, here reproduced 1: 1). Though the brooch when discovered was inside a lump of earth, much of the spring was corroded and some of its coils were found displaced; the only remaining doubt is at its right-hand end, where (as the side-view, using the X-ray photographs, shows) the outer coil's wire might pass into the inner, or might not , but is obscured by corrosion and also interrupted by a crack. On Continental double-spring brooches, see Discussion p. 5 8; this Hillingdon brooch is a mock-spring-hinge adaptation: springs when new c. 17 mm. wide. PLATE 21. 4282tris SUSSEX, locality uncertain but perhaps was the hillfort on Ditchling Beacon. For this and destination expected, see Valerie Rigby, forthcoming in Sussex Arch. Calls. Bow swelling into arch, hollow beneath; foot of Mansfeld form F3; under the catch are three mouldings, and on the reverted end another, next to the seating of an upright knob, fonned of a large round ball and a smaller one above it, the large one being united with the bow , whether the knob was all cast on, or bow and knob were a unitary casting. Next to the head is a knob of similar shape but oval in plan, its large ball touching the head, whether cast with or on to it, and seated on the middle of a pair of transverse cylinders, 3 cm. long, one of their ends being crusted with corrosion, the other less, but with damage slanting from the outer to shorten the inner one. Below the middle, which shows no finial, and on all the lower portion of the bow-head, corrosion has hidden what should here have been an attachment for a pin: so much so, that there never may have been one at all. Each cylinder 64

seems cast on, and appears to be solid; spaced along both are ring-mouldings, reminiscent of spring-coils in spite of being moulded in pairs, and to that extent consistent with what the cylinders evidently are; the dummy of a bilateral double spring, such as the Hillingdon brooch, in mock-spring form, represents. See also above on the Hammersmith brooch, and next on 3560; for the Continent, Discussion, pp. 59-60, but on the doubt of any pinattachments, pp. 60-1; this Sussex brooch was unquestionably made in Britain. Drawing by British Museum, 2: 1, here I : 1. PLATE 21. 3560 MORTLAKE, southern foreshore of the Thames at (WSW London); found by searcher

Mr. John Gibson, now owner, in summer 1977; communicated 1979, by Mr. Jonathan Cotton, in advance of his 1979 publication, Trans. London & Middx. Arch. Soc. 30, 181 fig. A; reproduced from his original drawings here. Bow sharply humped, hollow beneath, cast at head with small finial, broken off across vertical hole for peg to support a (missing) knob, which doubtless matched the crudely dome-shaped knob that stands on the foot (cast on to it or with it or pegged). In the base of the head, a transverse hole must have held an axial rod for a bilateral spring; if the finial's broken-off end had another, as in the Hammersmith 4282, the spring will of course have been double, as ther e presumed and as matched on the Hillingdon 4282bis , rendered in dummy on 4282tris from Sussex; from the placing of the extant hole, this is virtually certain. The pin is missing, but the foot has kept the catch; broken off at its tip, the foot has yet obviously copied the reverted form (Mansfeld F3), but as the portion remaining, over the void so left, grooved and bearing the knob (a little tilted outwards), was cast in one with the bow and the catch, plainly also with the broken-off tip, the whole (except one of the knobs, perhaps both) has been made as a unitary casting. This brooch then too is one of the British adaptations of Late Hallstatt Continental forms, and may safely be taken as the third to have the bilateral double spring - or, if we add the Sussex dummy double spring, the fourth. At present, no other such brooches are known. PLATE 22. 8293 HUNSBUR Y, Northants: the hill-fort adoining Northampton. Northampton Mus. Arch. Journ. lxix, 430-1, fig. 5 (R. A. Smith); xciii, 60-1, fig. 2c (Clare Fell); Fox 1958, fig. 7 c; Hodson 1971, fig. 1a. The bow (see drawn cross-section) is longitudinally grooved, between head with crossbar, moulded to imitate spring-coils, having central cup for a setting now lost, next to finial with larger such cup, and foot reverted over catch, touching the bow with a terminal disc containing a cup like the finial's. No pin nor trace of pin-attachment: see Discussion p. 60 . The reverted foot recalls Mansfeld's form F4, Continenta l Late Hallstatt, in the version that ends in a disc, rarer than inverted kettledrum but likewise principally French: Mansfeld 1973, 41, 253, 278; Freidin 1982, 89-90, citing e.g. two from Les Jogasses (Mame), Hatt & Roualet 1977, graves 77 and 162. But if the setting in its cup, and in the brooch's other two, was rounded upwards, wheth er gently or as nearly a hemisphere, and was either of coral or of a substitute, it would look like those of coral on the foot -disc of certain La Tene I brooches, though these have been held to the centre of the disc by a pin (Bretz-Mahler 1971, pis. 18-19 with pp. 88-9). Early La Tene I brooches have anyhow a foot reverted level, like this one (see below on Type 1A). So this brooch, in most respects one of our British Late Hallstatt derivatives, may have been touched, as re_gards its settings at least, by influence from Early La Tene ; if so then datable at earliest before 450, or between 450 and 400. See Discussion, p.60. PLATE 22. 7039 WOODEATON, same area as next brooch, 7029. Ashmolean Mus., Oxford, 1937.

820; its Annual Report for 1937 pl. iii, I; VCH Oxon. i (1939), 300 and pl. XVIIC; Anne Wardman , unpublished thesis (see Preface) no. 121. Bow stoutly cast with cross-bar at head, ribbed, between terminal knobs, to imitate spring-coils, having pair of lugs under it, pierced for tiny rod-pivot on which the perforated pin-head rides, and on its middle an upstanding knob which is matched on the foot; these two each top a short stem, ribbed 65

like the crossbar, and that on the foot, which is of F3 form as in 4570 (Group Lx), rises up from its terminal disc. This (next to which are grooves) is pressed tight against the bow. See Discussion p. 61, and more widely 54-5. Again a British Late-Hallstatt derivative brooch; untouched by La Tene, and the first to carry lugs for a freely-riding pin. PLATE 22. 7029 WOODEATON, Islip, Oxfordshire. Found in area (Middle Hill) where was site of Romano-Celtic temple, but also pins and pottery starting early in the Iron Age, and brooches both Roman and Iron Age, this and 7039 being earliest: Harding 1972, 64 ff.; 1974, I 03 , pins 138 fig.,pottery 162 fig. Ashmolean Mus. Oxford, R.64 ; Hodson 1971, 52, fig. lb. The head has a projecting finial, ornamentally formed, which may have had lateral extensions forming a crossbar, but is broken on both sides; no pin nor trace of pin-attachment: see Discussion p. 60. Bow of section shown on our plate, with pointed-oval trench, deep and U-shaped, filled, in a manner that occurs on certain La Tene brooches in the Marne, with small pellets of what probably was coral (discoloured: like ivory). For inlay along British La Tene I brooches' bows, see pl. 30 no. 3079 (Preston Candover, inferred); and pl. 39 nos. 2248 (Harborough Cave) and 3693 (Arras), straight slug-shaped. Foot (resembling Late Hallstatt form F 1) has expanded toe with circular emplacement for an up-standing ornament, missing except for its central retaining peg; cf. one on same plate from Neuenegg, Canton Bern, and Discussion: pp. 61-2. PLATE 22. Wider than the trench in the bow of this brooch 7029, but empty and pierced with a hole as if to hold some upright feature, is that in the decorated bow of a La Tene I brooch (Cambridge Mus. of Arch. & Anthrop.) , footless and with only three springcoils left of a presumable six. It was noted and drawn by Miss Wardman (see Preface), no. 133 in her thesis, where she remarked its alleged provenience, "? near Galway, Ireland" (western), as 'highly suspect'. Probably really Continental, it needs no further mention here. C.F.C.H.

2278 GREAT CHESTERFORD, north-west Essex. Cambridge Mus. of Arch. & Anthr. . 48.942. Catalogue of Braybrooke Coll. no. 24; Antiqua Explorata (1847) pl.vii, 2; Fox 1923, 74; Hodson 1971 pl.xivb. No pin; nor could the head's little pair of side-knobs afford an attachment, unless for a pin with a head of some un-attested form: see Discussion p. 60. From the bow-head projects a finial; between its waist and its terminal knob is a socket like a cup, holding traces of a decorative substance, whether coral or a substitute, now decayed white; with similar traces, a larger one tops the ornamental baluster on the foot (cf. Late Hallstatt form Fl), and six of middle size, three a side, stand out from the bow. With the settings lost from these, cf. those of 8293, as probably showing an influence from Early La Tene. Along the top of the how's arch is grooved a pointed-oval figure, with a straight median line and doubled border-lines. Discussion of these features, pp. 60, 62. PLATE 22. 8042 CAMBRIDGE, stated to be from 'near'; no further details. Same mus. as 2278. Fox 1923, pl. xxii, 6 (215, supposing date Early Roman, middle first century A.D.). Two large discs, nearly equal in size, flat-surfaced but concentrically moulded, are mounted in tandem as a unitary casting; the larger forms the bow, while the other crowns the foot, with its centre on a very short stem beyond the horizontal catch. Beneath the head is a single lug, pierced either for the axial rod of a bilateral spring to provide the pin, or else a pivot for a pin like that of 7039, or the presumed secondary pin of 4282. As Hull was the first to see (Discussion p. 62), this must be a British adaptation of a double-disc brooch-form, on the Continent rare but attested once each from Mont-Lassois and the Camp du Chateau hillfort at Satins (Jura): Joffroy 1960, pl. 19,7 (with p. 78 deriving it from the double-kettledrum form, p. 19,5, the dP4 of Mansfeld), and Dechelett e 1913, 697 (= 1927, 185) fig. 266,5. These support the foot-disc by its outer edge (foot F4), ours at its centre (cf. F2) as Dechelette ibid. 850 (= 1927, 338), fig. 350,5 from same Satins hillfort. Hull's drawing reproduces the museum 's, which Mary Cra'ster there supplied to him. PLATE 22. 66

4010 Lx? · but UNKNOWN. Late Hallstatt brooch, a small Spitzpaukenfibel: so called (Mansfeld 1973) from its bow, an inverted hollow 'kettledrum' rising to a top-knob, which here is centrally sunk for a little (missing) inset; finial of head has its outer end pierced for the (missing) axis of a spring; foot (with catch for missing pin) ending in knob. To be classed with the several varieties of Mansfeld's P group (p. 56 above) of which those from the French Jura are apparently the westernmost: Wamser 1975, 47, 49, 92-5, 170, Taf. 10.8 and 11.7, 8, 12, Middle to Late 6th century but not yet 'Vixian' (pp. 54 -5 with Joffroy 1960), so Hallstatt D2 but not D2/3 (French II but not lib). Drawn at 5 :8 by Montague 1906, seemingly then in his collection, col. 2 fig. 9 lower: 'barely 2 in. long' (c. 5 cm.), mis-called 'Roman'. Present whereabouts unknown; it need not have been found in Britain, yet his others claim British localities, and he had probably acquired it here.

TWO ADDITIONAL BROOCHES, TWO LOST, AND A PROBABLE FORGERY Mr. C. J. Balkwill, when Assistant in Ipswich Museum, sent a note of two Suffolk brooches there as 'Hallstatt': no. 1940. 79, as from 'Stowe', ex coll. Major Moore of Woodbridge; and no. 1956.595, as from Felixstowe, transferred 1956 from Moyses Hall Museum, Bury St. Edmunds. The following two are now lost, but had been described already by Hull: 0016 COLCHESTER, Essex. Colchester Mus. 4089.21. One of a number of small objects given by Dr P. G. Laver, as from works in Colchester High Street, lost since description by Hull in register, which stated that its spring was unilateral; in his subsequent opinion it was probably not of Hallstatt but of Nauheim-derivative type, Late La Tene or early Roman (presumably lacking half its spring).

8969 'BURY. ST. EDMUNDS, West Suffolk'. Lost. Old illustration, untraceable showed that it differed from all the five brooches seen by Hull in Bury Museum. 7293 UNKNOWN. Cambridge Mus. of Arch. & Anthropology

now,

27 .669. A solid-cast brooch with pin that is soldered or brazed into a slot in the middle of the long and knobbed crossbar; round this, and both over and under the half-hoop bow and the long flat foot, is ornament in sharp smooth grooves, perhaps done with a file. Hull added: 'I feel that this is a forgery, and that the decoration suggests the same hand as that on some heavy crossbow brooches' - that is, Late Roman in form, and therefore in the Roman portion of the Corpus - 'such as nos. 0642, 6662 and 1286, which are also suspect'.

67

BROOCHES

OF LA TENE

I AND II AND EARLY

III

INTRODUCTION

M. R. Hull (the first seven paragraphs) and C. F. C. Hawkes (the other five).

Just as Hallstatt, from its cemetery's primacy in discovery, gave its name to most of Europe's First Iron Age, so - for the same reason - has La Tene supplied the title for its Second. It is in north-west Switzerland, on the Lake of Neuchatel (German Neuenburger See), where the river Thielle (Zihl) flows out eastward; date, see p. 134. After the Swiss recognition of earlier lake-side sites, of the Stone and Bronze Age, Colonel Schwab of Bienne (Biel) explored it first in 1856. It was still under water, but his finds included artifacts of iron. Then in 187 4-81, through the 'correction des Eaux du Jura', the programme of engineering which changed all the region 's hydrography, the lake had its waterlevel lowered, which exposed the site's timbers and much more of its material. -From the ensuing excavations by Emile Vouga , the material was seen to be later than the Hallstatt, and the name became accepted for the culture it evinced, and for its period. Wide recognition of the culture, from France to South Germany , Bohemia and Hungary, and of its spread to North Italy where in Greek and Roman writers there was a record of invasions by Celts, then enabled the material's distinguishing features to be recognised as culturally Celtic. Pieces with such features, in typology or art, found with imports out of Mediterranean lands and thence dated, let a sequence of types or styles be supported at po ints in an absolute chronology. And the brooches' sequence set out in 1872 by Hildebrand was next continued in three successive works by Otto Tischler: in Beitrdge zur A nthropologie und Urgeschichte Bayerns iv (1881 ), 4 7 ff.; in A. B. Meyer's report on the Gurina oppidum in Carinthia, Gurina im Obergailthal ( Kdrnthen), published in 1885 at Dresden; and lastly in his system for the whole La Tene period, cited here as Tischler 1885. Ending it with the Roman Empire's outset, he divided it into three, Early, Middle and Lat e La Tene; this has everywhere been taken as fundamental. We are keeping his numbers, I - II - III, as did Dechelette (1914); but must note that Paul Reinecke, first in 1902, divided his I by defining an early stage of it as A; the rest of it thus becoming B, and his II an d III then C and D. The Reinecke system is in Germany seen as basic, and has often been adopted elsewhere. That of Tischler and Dechelette, which the Swiss Viollier took (19 0 8, 1916) with I split into Ia, b and c, is the one most used in France and also in Britain. The brooches, as always, are prevailingly in bronze; but some are forged in iron, while silver is rare and gold exceptional. We can present their characters of structure broadly as follows. I. Foot reverted towards the bow; in an early group, mostly in Germany, varied to a human mask or animal- or bird-head, occasionally doubled by a twin above the springcoils (above, p. 79). Bow arched; and normally made in one piece with the pin, through the spring, which is bilateral; chord usually external; internal chords are commonly late. A foot reverted level, against a roundly-arched bow's outer leg, has been recognised as early; rarer, but nearly as early, can be a foot reverted slanting, with a wide-splayed and bluntly-bent bow. In the course of lb this arch sometimes became flatter. In le the forms of bow and foot were various, but the foot was usually long enough to reach the bow's top. Its slanting form became anyhow prevalent; from this began the advance to La Tene II. As set out from the certified sequence of graves at Milnsingen (Canton Bern), these progressions can be readily followed in Hodson's 1968, with its time-chart as Pl. xv in his 1971; in the sixth of his phases, late I overlaps with II. II. Foot reverted, normally slanting up to the summit of the bow and there attached either by binding its tip to the bow by a collar on this, or by ending it in a pair of flat fingers bent round the bow and usually united beneath to give the foot its own collar. 68

From the later mode of attachment came the late-attested form with the fingers widened out and wrapped around the bow, lasting through La Tene III: this in early Roman times was called 'pseudo-La Tene II' by Dechelette (1914). III. The whole of the foot and bow are cast in one piece (in iron, forged). They delimit thus a catchplate which is normally open, but for ornament may be crossed by one or more slender stems or strips. A like effect when later the plate was made solid needed perforations punched or cast in it. From the outset La Tene III forms may have a bow with a collar-moulding, simple or diversified, representing as a skeuomorph the functional La Tene II collar. Of forms without this thf most important is the Nauheim, with flat and tapering bow and spring with internal chord: this is Hull's Type 9. La Tene brooches in their sequences of forms cover territories increasingly extensive. The earliest, centred north of the Alps, were spread from the Rhine to Champagne and east and east-central France, and from the southern half of Germany, with Switzerland and Salzburg, to Bohemia. In final La Tene la they extend to North Italy, and then from Austria down the Danube into Western Hungary, corresponding here to a Celtic spread which echoes in history imply , and in Italy to stages of recorded Celtic invasion. By the end of La Tene I and the outset of II , their regions on the Continent are wid~ned: westward in France , and through Hungary eastwa rd , with an outlying patch in Southern Poland. Britain we shall deal with separately below , but have here to note a fresh extension northward: beyond the Celtic borders into the North German plain, Jutland, some Danish islands and over to Sweden. It began by occasional exporting, but continued till Northern culture had taken sundry characters from the La Tene. Generally late, the effect became strengthened when the Rhine and Danube passed to the Roman Empire. But La Tene brooches in Franc e from final I and throughout II overspread the line of the Rhone to the Mediterranean. Here and there in Central Spain, at least in II, they began to intrude upon the postHallstatt forms of its own tradition. All this returns us to considering the absolute dates . When Dechelette presented Tischler's scheme ~fresh ( 1914 ), he gave for La Tene I 500-300 B.C., for La Tene II 300-100 and for the III the first century or, in France, till Roman culture became established, after Caesar, in his Gaul. The datings of Reinecke for his system (1902, 53), were in 1922 presented afresh by him, as follows (Bayerische Vorgeschichtsfreund I/II , for 1921-2 , 21 ff.): A, from second half of sixth centu ry into second half of fifth; B, from end of this through fourth into third; C, from before 200 on through second; and D, from 121 B.C. when southernmost Gaul became a Roman provinc e, till 15 B.C. when the Romans took the high Rhine valley and advanced from the Alps towards the Danube. Free Germany was then reckoned to be passing to its so-called 'Roman Iron Age'. Carl Schumacher in 1927 made again four periods (Ebert's Reallexikon der Vorgeschichte 8, 266); he numbered them from 1, sixth century's end to 400 , to 2 (= Tischler's I) 400300, 3 (= Tischler's II) 300-100, and 4 (= Tischler's III) c. 100-A.D. 1 But Reinecke's - system was in Ge~many still preferred, and by Kramer , 1962 , 305- 7 (as first in 1961: see his note 44) had its B subdivided: B 1 was in the fourth century (Viollier's lb); B2 ran from lat e in it till towards the middle third; C = Viollier's II, c. 250-c. 100; D, subdivided as Dl-2-3 , = Viollier's III , but lowering its end. (The dates for Dl by Stockli, 1979, were c. 100-c. 50, though in Bavaria allowing some slightly earlier end for the oppidum of Manching; for results obtained there in 1985, seep. 199. C.F.C.H.) Rein ecke's and Dechelette's start for La Tene at 500 has been found too early, but a beginning soon after 480 need not be doubted, giving a start before 450 in Champagne. This allows for th e 'overlap' there with the Final Hallstatt (see pp. 60 -2 above on British Group L) , with its La Tene I elements entering as early as 470 , and the Hallstatt dying out 69

towards 450, though with longer survival farther to the west and south-west. One may therefore expect, by about 450, some La Tene I brooches in Britain , as will soon be confirmed for the earliest known of Hull's British Type 1A. These dates for Champagne are Bretz-Mahler's (her 1971, 219, 223-5), and are quite within the dating-range of the first La Tene phase from its Mediterranean imports and its art-style. Returning now to dates for the whole of the Continental succession, we may first recall Viollier's, given for Switzerland: Ia, 450-400; lb, 400-325; le 325-250; II from 250 (Dechelette had proposed 300) to about I 00 ; III thence on to the Roman Empire. KrutaPoppi's and Kruta's showing (1975-83) of an earlier third-century start for II, from Italian evidence with Bohemian and Swiss (Swiss also with radiocarbon) , will engage us below (pp. 133-4) Dates for the German systems have been noted already (p. 69 ). A more general scheme with its own terms and dates was propounded in 197 8 by J .-J. Hatt , and published in Duval and Kruta (eds.) 1982, 25-34. This, after Final Hallstatt (I, 550-530; Ila, 530-500; Ilb, 500-480), gives six successive phases of 'La Tene Ancienne', which in English = Early La Tene: Ia, 480-450; lb , 450-400; Ila, 400-350; Ilb , 350-300; Illa 300-250; IIIb , 250-220; Middle La Tene follows, 220-120; Final La Tene , 120-50; and in Gaul 'Gallo-Romain Precoce' thence to A.D. 21 (Roman suppression of revolt led by Florus and Sacrovir). On the art-styles, which Hatt fitted into his system, no more need here be said than will furnish a background for occurrences on some of the British brooches. Viollier's La Tene Ia, b and c, were phases in the material , not devised to accommodate art-styles. Nor does Reinecke's system in its modernized German form, making an A, B 1 and B2. When Early Celtic art studies, in 1944, were given their first modern shape by Paul Jacobsthal, he expressly set them apart from such typologies of material: see his 1944 (= 1969) , 206-208, with comparative chart. His Early Style of the art overran their A or Ia; and de Navarro (also in the chart), like Dechelette, kept the whole La Tene I period undivided, leaving artstyle datings within it undefined: Cambridge Ancient History VII (1928), chapter n; Proc. Brit. Academy xxii (1936), 3-47. Much has happened since then: see e.g. Frey 1976, with the works there cited, and especially his distinction, 148-63 , between J acobsthal's Early Style and the next , called by Jacobsthal the 'Waldalgesheim', as differing largely in distribution: this second style stretches much farther east than the Early-Style 'floral' designs (though not than its merely geometrical arcading, a distinct and derivative convention), those designs being proper to the chief area of Mediterranean imports, about and west of the Middle Rhine , of whose basically Greek motifs they were Celtic adaptations. The Waldalgesheim style, so called from its presence in the famous grave found at that place, drew on motifs encountered by the Celtic invaders of Italy , onward in the fourth century from nearly 400; discussion of Frey on it (the pages following his article, to 165) let the date of the grave be less late in the century than had Jacobsthal (or Jope 1971a). In Britain , however, its occurrences seem to be late; they are under discussion still, but touch brooches only seldom. As for brooches with Early-Style ornament in Britain, the fifth century's second half is certain for the first of them: see below on Hull's Type 1A. The later La Tene I phases , lb and le (the German Bl and B2) need no discussion here before being put in correlation with Britain (pp. 117-18); nor will La Tene II (German C), on from the early third century now, as just noticed. La Tene III, lastly, onward from early in the first century, will be considered, likewise with Britain, pp. 190 ff. For France, in each of its regions, there are La Tene-period chapters in Guilaine (ed.) 1976, and on the art by Duval, 1977. Comparison of La Tene in France and Britain was made by Stead, in the British Museum handbook entitled The Gauls, 1981, for its special exhibition of French material, mostly from Champagne (with map, illustrations total 40; text on brooches p. 21 ). Stead's dates (p. 9) were still conventional: for I, 450-250, for II , 250-100 and for III thence on to Roman. His latest pages on brooches, La Tene I to III (Stead 1985b, 28 and col. 1 of 29), discuss them in relation to the art-styles, and to associations in Britain with other metal artifacts. (For his use , there and elsewhere, of the term 'Marzabotto' for early 70

La Tene I brooches of a form here included under Hull's 1A, seep. 75 with the reasons for

its being inappropriate.) The art of the fourth-third centuries, in Duval and Kruta (eds.), 19 82, received particular treatment, with a select bibliography, 1944-79. A fully inclusive bibliography of Celtic archaeology in every country, Britain included, from 1976 to 1980, was issued in annual parts in Germany at Marburg: H. Lorenz (ed.), 1978-81. Professor J. V. S. Megaw's The Art of the European Iron Age (Bath 1970) has a revised edition forthcoming: Art of the Early Celts, London and New York (Thames & Hudson). Meanwhile, for more general books, two in French have the title Les Celtes: Duval 1977 and Kruta 1978; in English, for the Celts of the West, Kruta 1985 is no less rich in photographic illustrations. All have chapters on the art, and make mention of brooches; all have bibliographies; so have Stead 1985a and 1985b. Lastly, Schmidt and Kodderitzsch (eds.) 1986, publishing the papers of the 1982 Bonn conference as Geschichte und Kultur der Kelten, has many that are archaeological, though too late for any fuller notice here (see Bibliography). The foregoing summary account of La Tene on the Continent, in its first part Hull's, has kept his purpose of introducing La Tene in Britain, where its bow-brooch types are this volume's principal subject - leaving aside the penannular types for inclusion in a further one.

71

BROOCHES

OF LA TENE

I, II AND EARLY

III, IN BRITAIN:

Hull Types 1, 2, 3, and 4 to 8 M. R . HULL , REVISED

AND EXPANDED

BY C. F . C. HAWKES

Type 1, representing the classic La Tene I series (C.F.C.H.; see foot of p. 6 ). Hull on the forms of this Type now deserves some expansion. His own classification covered ahnost all of them , and needs little supplementing here. It begins with his Type IA, to which are added subdivisions a-b-c, analogous to those which he devised for his Type I B. His IC will have its own; and all have seemed to be useful here, in part because of brooches that were not yet known to him, in part for a better correlation with the systems of others. Of the published systems, Cyril Fox 's alone (1927) successfully classified all the La Tene I brooches in Britain then known. The foundations of his studr were the two lists previously issued, the first by Goddard (1908) and the second by Gray , in Bulleid and Gray 1911 , 184-8 . This list incorporated Goddard's and brought its total up to 36 brooches, with provenances known and recorded for all but two. Mrs. Cunnington (1923, 190-3) mad e it 49 or 50 ; Fox , four years after her, assembled 68. Hull, by about four dozen years later , had a total of (excluding three really from abroad) 132. This, already nearly twice Fox 's, again has been augmented, by newer finds and by others unknown to Hull, of which seven are from the list compiled by Miss Wardman, and eighteen from that of Mr. G. R. Griffiths: for them both, see Preface p. ii. The use of their drawings here is by the kind permission of each. For the newer finds, acknowledgements are made in their catalogue-entries to the museum officers or others who made them known to C.F .C.H., with drawing~ supplied to him where possible. Hull's total of 132 has thus, in 1986, been raised to more than 180. This fivefold increase in the seventy years from 1911 was accompanied by several other studies, either regional or concerned with particular forms. Margaret Fowler's (1953), on the brooches then known to her from Wessex, went mostly by surface-decoration on the bow ; but also defined the so-called 'Swallowcliffe Down' type, distinguished first by Wheeler (1943, 256) , and included by Hull among the forms of his Type 1C. ApSimon (1959), from the Blaise Castle (Avon) find of brooches, made a study of the early form (here IA) which he named as the 'Hammersmith type'. Hodson (1971 ), from others out of the river Thames at Hammersmith , made the notable study here used in regard to Type L (pp. 58, 63 ff.); in its La Ten e I aspect , it will concern us soon below. And Miss Wardman and Mr Griffiths each essayed a classification; hers (1972) distinguished a 'Box type' and a 'Wessex type'; his (1978) propounded six types: 'Marzabotto', 'Hammersmith ', 'Blandford', 'Later Blandford ', 'Dux ' , and finally 'Long Flat Bow ' . Concordances of all these writers' types with · those of Hull will here successively be given for his I A, B and C; with these will • be correlated any Continental system relevant; e.g. the Swiss, first Viollier's then Ho dson's for Miinsingen , and for Champagne Bretz-Mahler's, 1971. In Paul Reinecke 's German system, first propounded in his 1902, La Tene A== broadly Ia, B ==rest of I, C ==II, D = III. At Miinsingen Hodson 's.'450±', for his Ia, allowed its starting somewhat earlier: e.g . 480, as Duval & Kruta 1982, or our 480- 70 (p. 69 ), giving British 1A its beginning around 450. The end of Swiss Ia will come just after 400 , with the moves of Celts to Italy, and then down the Danube , which attest th e change to the forms of lb; but brooches may be varied regionally too, as were some of the British 1A, the last of which should certainly be placed within the early fourth century. Type IA The following definition is in essential Hull's own. Spring of large coils, of trans72

verse diameter which may reach some 20 mm. in number normally four ( though six would be possible); chord external. The bow of standard form is well arched and upstanding, with legs splayed only slightly if at all. Foot is reverted level or fairly nearly so. (The few most slanted resemble most of lBx (p. 87). Its terminal feature, throughout, can have either of the following alternative forms:lAa: Foot has terminal feature with no protruding snout; 1Ab: Foot has terminal feature with snout. Correlations, British: lAa = Fox (1927) phase A; his phase B included 1Ab. lAa and b = ApSimon 1959 'Hammersmith type' (with brooch related); also= most of Griffiths's 'Marzabotto type', named after (e.g.) Hodson, but see below, p. 75; also= all those among the brooches of Wardman's 'Box type' having the spring-coils defined by Hull as large. Fowler (1954) followed Fox for plain bows, any ornamented made her type 1A = Hull 1B, unless in curvilinear style, her lB (our 2912). Correlations, Continental:Switzerland: 1Aa would have been mostly Ia for Viollier (1908, 1916), though some of his lb could have been included. I Ab would have been mostly his lb, though he might have called some of them Ia. The reservations in both are required because Fox, in his phases A and B to which 1Aa and b here correspond, did not repeat Viollier exactly. But this mattered less to Hull, whose criterion of IA was not the foot , but the large-coiled spring. lAa (well-arched bow) has it s comparisons at Munsingen in Hodson's phase Ia there. Champagne: 1Aa and 1Ab have comparisons from cemeteries of Bretz-Mahler's phase Ia. But the archin g of their bow, when not upstanding as in some, can have any degree of splaying, from slight to quite pronounced. This evidently blurs , as only occasionally in Britain, the distinction among them of any form I Ac. Hull was emphatic that in resp ect of foot terminal, the absence or presence of a snout was not significant, as to Fox it had appeared to be in Britain. He distinguished his Type 1A by its spring of large coils, its well-arched bow, and its foot reverted quite or nearly level. He put the spring's importance first because so evidently functional: the coils were large for strength, and accordingly imply, with the well-arched bow, that the garment to be fastened by the brooch was woven thick, and would be pinned into upstanding thick folds. Miss Wardman in her thesis (p. ii) made the same good point; whether the foot would be snouted or snoutless had no such obviously functional value. That brooches with well-arched bow can have either a snoutless or a snouted foot also in Champagne, and already in Bretz-Mahler 's phase Ia, can be seen among those on her pls. 4 and 7-9. The others figured there that have the bow splayed out will be dealt with here below on pp. 8 7-91, in the separate group to be defined as 1Bx, followed next by 1By and 1Bz. But there too it will be found, comparing also Munsingen in Switzerland, that the foot with terminal snout had an early beginning. Hull was therefore right in rejecting Fox 's belief, in his 1927, that the snoutless foot of his La Tene IA must be followed by the snouted, in a phase IB. Hull has his own 1B, defined as a Type, and the snouted foot can occur in it; but his chief defining feature for it is functional: smaller spring-coils. The introductory groups just noticed, 1Bx-By-Bz, will lead on into its two main varieties, his 1Ba and 1Bb; 1Ba will have the snoutless foot, while only 1Bb will have the snouted. Here, in his Type 1A, we have the like two varieties; but the distinction, just as in Type 1B, is mainly for convenience only. That Type I A's introduction to Britain, in the unaltered form of the Continental phase La Tene Ia, is to be dated about 450, has been seen (pp. 69- 70, 72); that Radiocarbon dates uphold it, within their own intrinsic limits, will appear from 6759 (with 7980) from

73

Crickley Hill, and 3623 from Longbridge Deverill Cow Down; for details see their catalogueentries below. That the true spring thenceforward in Britain will increasingly be competed with by the mock spring, seen in 'hinge' form on a double-spring brooch of Group L, our Hallstatt-derivative group ( 4282bis from Hillingdon: pp. 58-9 and 64 with plate 21 ), can be no surprise (Hodson 1971 ), but may show influence from Group L upon I A. Some of L have ornament possibly or certainly taken from Early La Tene (8293, 7039, 7029, 2278: pp. 60-2, 65-6 with plate 22); perhaps indeed less probably in Britain than directly from abroad, yet L and IA can here have been made (if only briefly) side by side - the one already British, the other now newly introduced. As for the pivoted pin, known first on L's 7039, we have seen that its re-appearance is not yet known before Hull's 3B (p. 61 ). The duration in Britain of Type I A itself can be estimated, however, on different grounds. Its standard form (which some have called the 'Marzabotto', but seep. 75) quite safely assures its reaching as far as 400; moreover, on those of its brooches having an ornamented bow, there is evidence from the several styles of the ornament. For that on two of the three or four brooches seeming imported from abroad (2237, 2241; any on 3530 is doubtful) see the catalogue, and also for 2930. That on the British is evidently more important here. Starting as early as any, but with duration indefinitely later, are the merely geometric patterns seen in simple British versions on plate 23 : plain line zigzag, dotted band, dot-centred circlets. For the 'floral' or plant forms taken first from Greek, through Italy, into Continental Early Celtic art, we have on the Hunsbury brooch 2928, still surely of before 400 (plate 23), the row of palmette-forms pointed in succession along its bow and set with dotting: the Early-Style treatment called 'accumulative' by Frey, e.g. on pp. 144 and 148 of his 1976 (one of his works developed out of Jacobsthal 1944, the basic treatise on Early Celtic art). Stylistically later is the Hunsbury brooch 2929 (same plate); the pattern on this is scroll-work, made continuously curvilinear, and verges towards our most lavish presentation of the coil-ended S-shaped scroll, on 2912 from near Box (northwestern Wiltshire). The enlargement on plate 24 with it, drawn unrolled, shows the design's straight borders, each for a triangle adapted to the scroll's curved outline. The whole should put this brooch into the early fourth century, when the plant-forms' treatment had come to be sinuous or 'flowing', so called by Frey in his 1976, 143-8 and elsewhere (see literature there cited, and for example on the Reinheim tomb), or 'curvilinear' as by Margaret Fowler 1954, on this same brooch ('I a' in her system for Wessex). Less imposing, or sometimes anyhow the worse for wear, is the ornament of either this or rather earlier date on some others (pls. 23-4). That on 2918 from Woodeaton, well preserved, renders scrolls by circlets linked obliquely. The traces of a design on the Hammersmith brooch 3084, badly worn (p. 84), suggest a simplified palmette, which could make it no later than Hunsbury 2928 (p. 79 ); less certainly so is Blaise Castle 8163 (p. 83), which has curving lines that symmetrically run amongst dots. And on the Danebury brooch 1235 (p. 80), is a curving line that runs from a dotted circlet, barely traceable, to the remnant of a much-worn triangle, in shape like those that flank the curved scroll on the Box brooch 2912, though the loss of the rest through wear prevents positive dating on grounds of style. As for ornament applied in coral, or a substitute, traceable already on some of Group L (pp. 60-2) , it was a feature of the bow, and/or the foot, of numerous brooches of La Tene Ia and later (as Bretz-Mahler 1971, pls. 18-19) and in Britain (although now usually missing) is quite proper to Type IA already in its primal fifth-century form. Lastly the Danebury brooch, whether late fifth-century still or early fourth, is one of our earliest three La Tene examples of a brooch with a mock spring - for the meaning of the term see p. 2. While that of 3531 (Suffolk) turns on a tube-rivet, this and Hammersmith 3084 have it turning on a cylinder of wood, in the Hammersmith greatly shrunk. In the Cowlam brooch from Yorkshire, which also has this, 2930 (plate 26), what might have been a mock spring, or perhaps more probably was not, was in either case a replacement (see catalogue pp. 84-86 and p. 78 here below). Mock springs anyhow passed to Type IB (pp. 98 ff.); for 'mock-spring hinges' see p. 2 , and 95 on Type 2. Miss Wardman's form 74

was 'spring-hinge', covering both. A further note on typological terms may be added, to compare with Hull's IA (lAa or lAb). On this as replacing Fox's IA and IB, see above, p. 73. Miss Wardman's term, covering most of Hull's 1A, was 'Box type' (from our brooch 2912). Mr. Griffiths (p. 72 also) took the name for it used by some others (e.g. Hodson 1964), 'Marzabotto'. Stead has done the like (1979, 64) , but remarking that the brooch so named from the NorthItalian site of Marzabotto 'is at best a very atypical specimen'. It is actually a hybrid, between the well-arched La Tene I form and the 'Certosa' (p. 42 above, in Group J). The site was an Etruscan town till Celts destroyed it towards 350, after which it had Celtic graves, and the brooch was an old find: perhaps from the Etruscan cemetery but reported without precision. Its form can only partly show some Celtic-Etruscan contract, over the Alps before the destruction, but no more. For the full demonstration see Kruta-Poppi 197 5, 348.3 54 (348 cited by Stead): the standard IA form was nowhere present in the Celtic graves. 'Marzabotto' as a name for it is misleading, and will not be used here. Distribution

of Type JA. In S.E. England, on the East Kent coast S. of Sandwich, beneath

the Roman temple at Worth, published in 1928, was the brooch 3646 (plate 23) with Iron Age pottery, the earliest matched in Champagne from the start of Bretz-Mahler's La Tene Ia (her 1971, 134,137-9,withpls.111-12and 117-18;inHawkes 1940a,figs. 8-12represent those, figs. 2-6 their counterparts from Worth). The brooch , although the excavation (Klein: see its catalogue entry) gave the pre-temple deposit no internal stratification, should from its form be equally early: bow very small but spring-coils large, foot missing but was probably snoutless (1 Aa), as on Bretz-Mahler's pl. 6; date (see her 21-2) will be middle fifth century or not much later. The site would have been 'sacred' from the start, like that at Woodea ton with its Group L brooches 7039 and 7029 (pp. 61, 65-6), 2918 of Type 1A and 2916 of 1Bx (pp. 79, 89). The geometric ornament of this, on top a zigzag, on foot's disc-terminal five dot-centred circlets, has more of them on the sides of the bow, connected by slanting lines that make the design a geometricized version of an Early-Style plant-scroll pattern. As Kent's two brooches reputed from Ashford are lost (p. 80), the next of IA are from the Thames in West London: the Hammersmith 3084, noticed above (further to catalogue pp. 79-80: plate 23) for its ornament and mock spring probably replacing a true one (pp. 75 and 2), will then have been an early brooch too, and allowable as British; the large 2237 from Syon Reach, opposite Kew, has early features again, but they can mark it as an import: see catalogue p. 80, with plate 25. Reckoned likewise as imported, and even larger (uniquely in Britain) is 2241; reputed a Wallingford find (Middle Thames), it could then have been found in the river: see catalogue pp. 80-1: plate 25. East Anglia, with two of Group L near Cambridge (p. 62), has for Type 1A also two: one reckoned again as an import, the Icklingham 3530 (catalogue p. 81, with plate 25), the other (ibid.) from Suffolk and perhaps same district, 3531, with snoutless disc foot-terminal and bow with some hatching, has a mock spring turning on a tube-rivet, original and declaring it as British. The South Midlands have Type IA from two sites, Woodeaton and Hunsbury, both having also Group L (pp. 65-6). Woodeaton, the 'sacred ' site, has the 2918 noticed here above already for its ornament (and in catalogue p. 79, with plate 23; see also p. 89 for 2916, of 1Bx, with early splayed form of bow). And the Northampton hillfort Hunsbury, in 2928 and 2929 (p. 74 and catalogue 79, with plate 23), has given us on the one our best example of the 'floral' Early Style, fifth century, and on the other, of the early fourth, one of our best two renderings of that style in its subsequent phase, where the treatment has come to be flowing or 'curvilinear'. In contrast, 4385 from Merrow in Surrey is virtually plain, though its foot has had an inlay. Next is Wessex; and the other of those two 'curvilinear' renderings is on 2912, from near Box (p. 74 and catalogue 79, with plate 24 ), which being already not far from the Severn will be noticed again with the brooches from neighbouring Gloucestershire and Avon, the 75

Glamorgan coast and the northward Marches of Wales. From the inner Wessex country comes in Wiltshire the Russley brooch, 7067, marked as early by its remaining large-size spring-coil (catalogue p. 82, with plate 25); in Hampshire the Weyhill brooch 3080 (catalogue ibid.), which though long ago taken to Canada, out of reach, left a memory of its bow that can only denote the IA form. And Wessex has 3081 from Twyford Down near Winchester and a further three of I A, one apiece from those counties and Dorset, found in excavating sites of which two are hillforts, and all have Iron-Age serial occupations. The iron 3623, from the SW. Wiltshire settlement-site on Longbridge Deverill Cow Down, was found in 1960 in a stratified pit (pit 37), with pottery of Early La Tene and charcoal; two layers sealed it above, while the lowermost, next beneath, topped by an iron sickle, again La Tene, consisted of a thick deposit of carbonized grain. Radiocarbon determinations, both from this and from the charcoal, give calibrated ranges of date, and of their extreme acceptable limits the lower are barely after 400, while the upper are considerably earlier. The excavator, Sonia Hawkes, in her forthcoming report on the whole of the work (to 1960 from 1956), will include full details of these, with laboratory comment; of the pottery from every phase of the occupation; and of the finds of other kinds; among them, this brooch will be described as in the catalogue here, p. 82, with a fuller account of its treatment by the Ancient Monuments Laboratory, and Mrs Cox's drawings, of which that reproduced pl. 24 shows the final reconstruction. Though lacking its chord and pin, the brooch was otherwise intact in situ, but so fragile that the treatment leading to this was indispensable. That it was made, no doubt from locally smelted iron, before 400 and perhaps little after 450, can be taken as certain. (Compare the case of 6759, covering also 7980, from Crickley Hill in Gloucestershire, here below.) Of the brooches from Wessex hillforts, the first is 1235 from Danebury, in western Hampshire and familiar through Cunliffe's publications. What little is preserved of its ornament, and its mock spring on cylinder of wood as in Hammersmith 3084, have been noticed above, p. 74 ; it lay above the filling of a pit outside the east entrance of the fort first built - though underneath the outer southern hornwork of the entrance built later - in turfy silt sealing the subsided filling's top, along with haematited bowl sherds, cordoned and with scratched decoration: 550-450, Cunliffe 1984, 242, with 233-4; figs. at 290-1, 309; pit, interim reports, Antiq.J. lvi for '76 (1977), 208-9, improving li.2 (1971 ), 243; lxi.2 for '81 (1982), 242, 253. So the deposit, having this pottery derived from elsewhere, leaves the brooch to be dated only by its features, clearly I A. The other Wessex hillfort with a 1A brooch is Maiden Castle. Wheeler's excavations found it, 2082 (p. 82, plate 23), in a pit-filling (Q4) derived again from the site elsewhere; the pottery in it, called 'Iron Age A', was thus in no really strict association. It is small but with proportionately quite large spring, suiting Type I A although the cable-twist bow is most unusual. Our last Wessex brooch of Type IA, 2600 (pp. 82-3 with pl. 26), raises a different question, as having been found on a site much later than itself. The site is Woodcuts, close to the Wiltshire border of Dorset on Cranborne Chase, a settlement excavated 1884-5 by General Pitt-Rivers (his 1887). The brooch is assigned to IA by the size of its spring-coils (external diameter 11-13 mm.): four, and turning on a tube-rivet, hollow and of bronze. It occurred in surface soil, but would hardly have been discarded (doubtless owing to the loss of its foot) until the site's occupation had begun. That was altogether late: though some pieces of hand-made pottery just might be of either side of 100, all the rest is of the century ensuing, from even perhaps towards its middle, through the hundred years till its Roman phases began; Hawkes 1948 covered all, but misdated the brooch, p. 43, by the start of the settlement - to conform with the duration of the type supposed by Wheeler (1943, 251-4). Really, the case should be one of a brooch long kept in possession, expectably then by a family, till broken, as here, or reckoned to be too antique to be worth preserving. Such cases should include 2919, from the General's villa-site at Iwerne (p. 88); 2618 and 2619 from the settlement-site on Rotherley Down (his 1888); and 8004 and 8163 from the site next noticed here, a hillfort. 76

This, closer to the mouth of the Severn than Box, near which we have had already 2912 (p. 74 ), opens our list of the five sites for IA in the West. It is Blaise Castle hillfort (now in Avon); of the two brooches found there, in the excavations of 19 56- 7, 8064 will be noticed on p. 98, with the early lB group lBa(x), while 8163 is clearly of lAa: catalogue p. 83, with plate 23. They were found both together in the deep Pit A, over its stony main filling but beneath two layers of accumulated humus (excavators' plan and section , fig. 35, precedes (at 156) ApSimon's description in his 1959, 160-4; the finds in the layer with the brooches included eight shards of pottery, 162-3 fig. 37, 1-8, where three of the four of 'saucepan' jars have linear decoration, the fourth and the rest, of other jars and an open bowl, being plain. Matches to five of the plain occurred elsewhere on the site, unstratified, as also, and in the excavators' test-hole 10, did some with 'Glastonbury' decoration, expectably not (or little) older than 100 B.C. The others, and those with the brooches in the pit, need not have been all so late: 'saucepans' in particular are widely known already from at least the third century onwards. But if the site, as seems likely, was settled first within that time, and the pit was dug also then and presently re-filled with its stones, the brooches in the layer above them will still have been old when thrown away. Older still of course if thrown there after 100; but the sherds, though they might _allow this, do not compel it. A conclusion quite sufficient then will be that 8163 , by its type of before 400 or not long after, will have been a couple of centuries old, or even older , when it reached the pit, and 8064 not very greatly younger - discarded perhaps for having been broken , while 8163, although its foot-disc had lost its inlay, was when cleaned, after discovery, found in high condition overall, which implies that before discarding it was kept with care: wrapped, perhaps, for use only on special occasions. The brooches from Crickley Hill, the fort looking out to the Severn at Gloucester, make an altogether different case: its last pr ehistoric occupation, as has been shown by radiocarbon, was ended scarcely later, if at all, than around 425. Dr. Philip Dixon's excavations, carried out through a series of seasons in recent years, obtained the material for this from amongst the _emplacements of the final round houses, the pottery in which, though not abundant , is pre-La Tene. Thus neither of the brooches has a context proper to its type; in both this is Type 1A, so that each would appear to have been lost little later than the type's introduction to Britain. Whether either was acquired by the round-house people, or was dropp ed by immediate successors not staying to settle, remains unclear: the bronze one, 7980 , was found unstratified; the iron 6759 lay, although alone, in a gully plainly shown, by the lay-out of the site, to have belonged to the same phase as the last round houses. See catalogue, 83 with plate 24, 7980 and 67 59. Both show anyhow the presence , in the region, of users of Type 1A within the time when it was current. The next three sites in the West will attest them -farther. Across the Severn estuary, on Merthyr Mawr Warren (South Glamorgan) , in an occupation-spread in its sandhills, where bronze and iron were worked, (Sir) Cyril Fox's explorations came on two bronze brooches; 3078 is of Type 1B (pp. 97,104 with plate 31 ), but 3383 is a fine example of 1Ab: p.84 with plate 26. Its ridged bow, large spring, foot reverted high and level to end in a short snouted disc, concentrically grooved, broadly equate it in date with those across the water in near-by England; so if these were made locally here, those modes were being followed. The same can be said, from their features, of the two of Type 1A from the Marches of Wales, the nearer one in Herefordshire, the farther in the hills of Clwyd. These are 3581 (p. 84 with plate 26), from the interior of Sutton Walls, one of the Herefordshire upland hillforts, when extensively quarried in the 1930s and 40s; for Dr. Kenyon's excavations, with which it was published (1953), see its catalogue-entry. Its features can leave no doubt of its early date. The hill had been occupied first before it was fortified; and though no pre-rampart pottery was seen to be earlier in type than what followed, all of which was later in the Iron Age, yet a bronz e fragment, loose in the spread from the northern rampart's tail (Kenyon pp. 10 and 61 fig. 25 ,2), has survived from what might have been as early as the brooch: a disc in the openwork style represented , in Early La Tene from Champagne, by horse-gear orna77

ments, one of them hung on an iron bridle-bit: Dechelette 1914 and 1970, 1201-2 (1927, 707) fig. 513; Jacobsthal 1944 and 1969, 121 and pl. 251 ffrom grave at Sept-Saulx. And part of what may have been another, itself in iron, was a find in the other hillfort where was a brooch of Type IA, 8188 (plate 26): Moel Hiraddug in Clwyd, close to the coast of north-east Wales. Neither the brooch nor the fragment of disc were found, in the excavations of 1961-2, in places having structural relation to the fort's defences. For their sequence, established afterwards, see the brooch's catalogue-entry, p. 84, quoting report of 1984 by Graeme Guilbert, on all known finds including those. Quite different is the situation in Eastern Yorkshire (now North Humberside), as the barrow-site at Cowlam represents it. The first of the five barrows dug there by Canon Greenwell, numbered Lin his British Barrows, published 1877, is still unique in covering a burial - an extremely old lady's - with a bracelet of a'.form that even on the Continent is rare (Stead 1979, 73, 76) , buried worn; 70 blue glass beads, most of them worn and some extremely; and a brooch, our 2930: of Type IAa but buried when no longer in primary state. The further work at Cowlam by Stead , and the questions it raises, especially by his finding each of the barrows (the group has seven) surrounded by a square-plan ditch, and all erected on a site of previous Iron Age habitation , will best be considered in the brooch's catalogue entry pp. 84-86 with plate 26) , because the questions are partly affected by its structural story, there described. Its original pin, in one with a portion of spring-coil, both being lost, had been replaced by an iron pin, not however one with any coil , but stuck into the wooden peg that had been passed transversely through the spring - this pin being seemingly the brooch's latest feature. The lost portion of spring-coil, if really broken off from the portion remaining, will either have been put back, or replaced by a duplicate, to restore the original four-coil structure of a true spring; but if never so broken, and always a separate piece, it would mean that the brooch in its primary state had had a mock spring. And that would mean its making in Britain. As in all its other features it has a Continental look, they would then have had to have been very closely copied; yet they would much more naturally signify its making on the Continent, and its bringing to Britain, with the bracelet and the beads, either by gift-exchange or trade, or else by an immigrant group, in Early La Tene times penetrating Eastern Yorkshire. Square-ditched barrows are in any case a Continental custom, and in just this region are later frequent, in its 'Arras culture': later-fourth to third century onwards, yet perhaps with this Cowlam group at a preliminary stage of it {p. 85). The possibilities, involving also the rite of interment with two-wheeled cart, were well reviewed by Stead, 1979, 90-3, after presenting the material in detail in the body of his book. Anyhow the Cowlam brooch, if believed to have been made with a true spring, has features that set it apart from the others of Type I A in Britain; and its burial as finally repaired, with other grave-goods worn through time, in the interment of a lady herself very old - whose residence can well have been the prior habitation on the site - it shows that the barrow built over them was so much later than their primary age, that it can serve (as may some of those near it) for somewhat lessening the gap that must at present be admitted, between that primary age and the 'Arras-culture' period. Looking back on this discussion of the brooches of Type I A as a whole, in Britain from middle fifth century to early fourth, one is bound to see in them strong and novel influence from abroad: thoroughly La Tene , and thus distinct from Group L, with its British adaptations of Final Hallstatt (even where touched on occasion by foreign La Tene) at least till a mock spring soon was given to a few {pp. 74-5) of Type IA. Brooch-making first now mastering wire-work for springs as on the Continent, and brooches now widely accepted as accessories to dress, both mark a new cultural era. By what agencies that came about should be considered elsewhere. C.F.C.H.

78

TYPE IA: CATALOGUE The shorter entries by Hull, the rest by Hawkes (some expanded from Hull's). Separation of lAa from I Ab, by the absence or presence of a snout beyond the terminal of the foot (Fox 1927, IA and IB), was for Hull of small importance, and never used in his arrangement of the catalogue, nor his order for the plates. That decision is followed here: the catalogue will note the a or b, whatever the brooch's position in the order of arrangement. La Tene I brooches with spring-coils large, seldom known with more than 4, never fewer~ chord external. Plates 23 - 26. H. St. George Gray's list (Bulleid & Gray 1911, 185-8) of the La Tene I brooches from Britain then known, is complete with refs. to their previous publications. Type IA.

2928 HUNSBURY (Northampton), from hill-fort. Northampton Mus. R. A. Smith, Arch.I. lxix (1912), 427 fig. 3; hence Fox 1927, 83 fig. 16; 84 (misprinted '15'); 107, no. 33 in list (from Bulleid & Gray 1911); Fell 1937, 60-1 fig. 2a; and Childe, 1940, 219-20, fig. 80, 1. Detail of ornament, Leeds 1933, 23-4, fig. 8. Foot with catch and half of pin missing; Smith's reconstruction was from the Box brooch (below) 2912: 'convincing', Fox 84 note I. Bow well arched, covered with band of enclosed palmettes, their points towards head, incised or stamped from a single punch, bordered and filled by punched dots. Discussion, pp. 74, 75. PLATE 23.

2929 HUNSBURY, as 2928. Northampton Mus. Smith as 2928, fig. 4, whence Fox 1927, 83 fig. 15 (as phase B); 84 (misprinted '16'); 107, no. 32 in list as 2928; Fell 1937, 60-1 fig. 2b. Spring and pin missing, catch paralleled by foot reverted level; terminal disc with short snout (lAb), its upper face stamped with 3 concentric circles, centred on a nipple. Bow well arched, rather short, covered with curving plant-scroll ornament , in incised lines and extremely low relief. Discussion, pp. 74, 75. PLATE 23. 2912 BOX (from near), NW Wiltshire. British Mus. 1906, 11-13,1.BMG ... EIA (1925), 94 fig. 94; Fox 1927, 79, 82 fig. 14 (as phase B); 106, no . 10 in list (from Bulleid & Gray 1911) ; 1958, 16-17, fig. 13d; Cunliffe 1974, 145, fig. 10:14, l ; Hawkes in Kendrick & Hawkes 1932, 169-70, fig. 66b, = XXI BRGK 1931 (1933), 133-5 , Abb. 32; in Duval & Hawkes 1976, 9 fig. 5(d), with enlargement by C. 0. Waterhous e of ornament on bow, as here reproduced. True spring, its wire having fine sharp incised longitudinal lines; foot's terminal disc has very short snout (1 Ab), and upper face recessed for (missing) inlay, centrally pinned, its rim stroked radially with fine incised lines, as is the catch transversely. The well-arched bow is covered in low relief with an S-spiral plant-scroll, thickened in the middle, its curve-sided spandrels marked off. Discussion, p. 74. PLATE 24. 2918 WOODEATON (Islip, Oxfordshire). British Mus. 80,12-14,13. Site, 'sacred ', with Roman temple, M. V. Taylor, JRS vii (1917), 103 ff. BMG ... EIA (1925), 94 fig. 95, as

'Water Eaton' (error by R. A. Smith, repeated Cunliffe 1974, 145 fig. 10:14, 5); Fox 1927, 76-7 fig. 7; 107, no. 22 in list (from Bulleid &Gray 1911); 112 note 2, correcting Smith; 1958, 16-18,fig.13b; Harding 1972, pl. 74,o; Hawkes in Duval & Hawkes 1976, 9 fig. 5(a). True spring. 1Aa, foot reverted nearly level, with terminal disc touching well-arched bow; disc's upper face stamped with five dot-centred circlets; bow on either side has three, connected by slanting incised double lines in imitation of scrolls; three single lines along its top form a band with zigzags. Discussion: site, pp. 41, 60-1; ornament, p. 74. PLATE 23.

3084 HAMMERSMITH (W. London), R. Thames at. Mus. London 49.107/996 (ex Richmond Public Library). Fox 1927, 79, 82 fig. 13; 109, no. 51 in list; 1958, 16-18, fig. 13[; 79

ApSimon 1959, 164-7, no. 7 in list of his 'Hammersmith type' (p. 72), so named from it; Hodson 1971, 55, detecting mock spring (cf. 1235). This turns on transverse axis of wood, now shrunken, having disc of thin bronze pinned centrally on either end. Foot reverted slightly slanting; when drawn by Fox, it retained a (now lost) hemispherical boss, red, and declared by him of coral, inlaid (with hidden central pin) in recessed upper face of its terminal disc; the rounded snout on this, matched by moulding on opposite side, makes it lAb. Well-arched bow; traces of curvilinear ornament, worn away on crest of arch; Discussion, pp. 74, 75. The brooch despite the wear is in fine condition, with surface bright. Site, above bridge but in pile-dwelling' area: G. F. Lawrence 1930, 85-6 (with 72). PLATE 23. 1235 DANEBURY (NW of Stockbridge), Hampshire. Andover, Mus. of The Iron Age. B. Cunliffe in Ant.J . li.2 (1971 ), 243 , pl. XXXVIIIb; his 1974, 144 and pl. 22a; 1984, 3413, fig. (7.6) 1.24, where E. M. Jope called its design 'probably developed during the later half of the fourth century B.C. ' , so guessing it some 50 years after Type A's expected end, p. 74. Found 1969 in Cunliffe 's excavations at the hillfort's E. entrance, outside its succession of early gateways and sealed beneath its late S. hornwork , in turfy silt covering the filling of the pit named 'ritual pit C' , lying with sherds of haematited pottery with scratched decoration and cordons , which however , having entered this silt from elsewhere in the early area , cannot dat e the broo ch by guarante e of any close association. See discussion, p. 76, and p. 74 on the brooch 's structure and decoration. It has a mock spring, with coiljunction visible, not concealed, turning on an axis-peg of wood with bronze discs at each end: just as in 3084 (though junction there harder to detect) . The foot, reverted very slightly slanting , has a terminal disc , nearly touching the bow with a very short snout: I Ab. The decoration on the bow shows an incised curving line running up from a dotted roundel to a curve-sided triangle; though the overall design is partly obscured now by wear, the brooch is in fine condition, with patina lustrous. Drawing kindly supplied by Prof. Cunliffe. PLATE 24.

3646 WORTH, E. Kent S. of Sandwich. British Mus. Site, 'sacred' with Roman ternple, Ant.J. viii (1928), 76-86, W. G. Klein with 85 on this brooch, R. A. Smith; xx (1940), 115-21, Hawkes; 120 with fig. (but dated too late); Duval & Hawkes 1976, 7 fig. 3(b). Small; bow short and high-arched; line incised along its top forms axis for opposed triple chevrons; spring unduly large, most of pin missing, with all of foot (restored by conjecture as lAa). PLATE 23. Two bronze La Tene I brooches were reported to Miss Wardman as from ASHFORD, Kent, but as long ago lost and now untraceable. Type therefore uncertain, whether IA or B or C. 2237 SYON REACH (by Kew Gardens, W. London), R. Thames at. British Mus. 1930,

I 0-23 ,2. Ant.I. xi (1931 ), 60 , R. A. Smith (unsigned) , with fig. 3. Foot and tip of pin missing; coils again very large; arch of bow cast stout, with three channels along it (the intervening ridges knurled), which perhaps were trenches for inlay ; this would be coral if, as judged most likely by Smith, the brooch was brought from E. France or SW Germany to Britain. The reverted foot 's position should correspond to the cast projection across the bow below the channels' outer end; Smith restored it reverted level, with terminal disc, so lAa , just as for that of 2928 from Hunsbury (above , plate 23). PLATE 25. 2441 WALLINGFORD (reputed) ; perhaps from R. Thames at, Oxfordshire (formerly Berkshire). Reading Mus. 216.61. VC.H. Berks l , 224, fig. 3; Bulleid & Gray 1911, 187; Fox 1927, I 08, no. 35. Extremely large , so that spring-coils, though up to 18 mm. diameter, are in comparison moderately-sized. Pin is stout , with tip in catch , which has two transverse bands of triple lines incised, but is brok en off beyond, as is the foot where its reversion-

80

curve begins. The bow swells to its arch, which (between similar pairs of bands, double and triple) has three channels cast along it, with notching then applied to the intervening two ridges. Unmatched in Britain, the brooch can be taken as Continental, like 2237 here above; cf. the Wallingford group of Type I Bd, p. 111, where the Wallingford locality's genuineness is discussed. PLATE 25. 3530 ICKLINGHAM, NW. Suffolk. Ashmolean Mus. 1932.515 (ex John Gwilt coll.). Leeds

1933, 3 n. l ('Suffolk'): 'has all the appearance of an importation from the Continent'. R.R. Clarke in Arch.J. xcvi (1940), 31-3, fig. 6 no. 7 ('perhaps a direct import'; so p.75 above). Spring abnormal for Britain in having 6 coils (diameter 16 mm.); pin slender, tapering and sharp; foot reverted level with terminal ball, touching bow with snout (I Ab); bow arched and somewhat splayed; Clarke 's line of dots along crest was not seen by Hull, nor by Miss Wardman. Well matched in Champagne both in the splay and the snouted ball (a boule et bee): Bretz-Mahler 22-3, La Tene Ia (type seemingly never as late as lb): her pl. 8,1-10, and some with attachment-chains, pis. 4 and 5, equally early (20-1; localities of all, 269-70). ApSimon 1959, 165 (no. 15 in list, 168), cites Swiss examples: Viollier 1908, figs. 208 and 214. PLATE 25. 3531 SUFFOLK, probably NW. (Hull thought Lakenheath probable, but this has no auth-

ority). British Mus. 1927 , 12-12,8. Clarke as 3530, fig. 6 no. 4, misleadingly drawn with arch of bow too flat; it is laterally thin, with lines traced down along both its sides, giving a cabled effect, from a line along its top (Clarke's drawing here again not quite as Hull's, nor Miss Wardman's). Foot, reverted slightly slanting, has snoutless oval terminal disc (IAa), recessed for an inlay centrally pinned; pin missing. Mock spring turning on a hollow-tube rivet, the coils of varying diameters, implying a repair after breakage; it is further impaired at one end, by being ground or filed to a flat surface. PLATE 23. 3534 UNKNOWN. British Mus. 1935,3-27, I. Bow stout and well arched; traces of chevrons, doubled or tripled outwards, which have formed two diamond-shaped spaces along its top; foot reverted high and somewhat slanting; I Aa. Upper face of its terminal disc is slightly recessed to hold a (missing) inlay, centrally pinned, and has radial scoring for keying this in place. Drawings by Anne Wardman. PLATE 23.

7829 UNKNOWN. Ashmolean Mus. 1966.1876. Bow well arched but laterally thin though flat beneath; near its top, a short incision; row of fainter ones runs down it, reaching the base of the first and only remaining spring-coil; foot reverted level, with terminal disc pierced through and cupped above for (missing) inlay; beneath, towards the bow, a small notch. Drawing by Anne Wardman. PLATE 25. 6670 UNKNOWN. British Mus. 78,11-1,272. Bow well arched, spring-coils up to 17mm. diameter, foot missing beyond catch. Drawn by Mr. Compton. PLATE 25 .

Also unknown: British Mus. 80,8-20,25, acq. from a Captain Murchison; though his collection also included a brooch reputedly found in Dorset, it would be wrong to infer the same for this, La Tene IAa: that 'Dorset' brooch is Saxon (silver-plated), and was bought at Sotheby's sale of March 3 1898 (Lot 528P) by General Pitt-Rivers. It is now (ex his Farnham Mus.) in Salisbury Museum. The British Museum, acquiring this brooch in August 1880, registered it as 'pro bably Continental'; it is thus not formally catalogued here. For 6670bis, see Addendum, p. 86. 4385 MERROW, Surrey. Guildford Mus., RB3226. Found(? on Merrow Down?) 1933; till 1980 kept by Mrs H. Cheesman in her family (the finder's). Described by Jonathan Cotton (Mus. of London), Su"ey Arch. Coils. 73 (1982) , 171 note 11: 1.35 mm., bow

81

arched high, median line along its top perhaps giving purposely 'cabled' effect; spring with external chord has had 4 coils, 2 and pin now missing. Foot reverted nearly level over quite short catch; terminal disc, cupped for a missing inlay, meets the bow. 7067 RUSSLEY, Wiltshire. Ashmolean Mus. 1955.204: its Report, 1955, 29, stating found with bronze ring-headed pins. Bow has profile like 2918 (here above), but is laterally thin like 7829; pin and all of spring except the first coil are missing. Foot reverted level, has terminal disc (lAa), slightly dished around its centre, where there might have been an inlay. PLATE 25. 3080 WEYHILL (near Andover, Hampshire), Shoddesdon Farm. Fox 1927, 109 list no. 47: 'taken to Canada many years ago by the owner. Fox (n. 2) quotes the Rev. G. H. Engleheart, F.S.A. (in his time an old and knowledgeable regional antiquary) as writing to him 'My rather strong impression is that the brooch was of an early type. I recall the noticeably high and abrupt hump of the bow.' This implies Type IA (cf. 3531, plate 23). 3081 TWYFORD DOWN (near Winchester, Hants). Winchester Mus. Mentio.ned Wilts. Arch. Mag. xiii (1923), 69; Fox 1927, 109 no. 48; described Proc. Han ts F. C. xi (1930), 127, photo pl. IX, I; location c. ¼ mile SE of St. Catharines Hillfort, 4-5 fig. 3 map (no. 21 ), viz. in dry valley just E of the Twyford Down settlement, xiii.2 (1936), 195. Small: 1. c. 48 mm. if with missing foot restored as on photo, reverted level as suiting high-arched bow; thus probably, despite small size, 1Aa or 1Ab. The Down and the valley-side have fieldsystem lynchets (1936, 188-9, as figs. 1-11), sherds from which have matches among the pottery from the fort, thus including brooch's likely date around 400 B.C. PLATE 23 . 3623 LONGBRIDGE DEVERILL (SW. Wiltshire), settlement-site on the Cow Down, excavated 1956-60 by Sonia Hawkes. Iron; found 1960 in her Pit 37, layer 3, with pottery of La Tene (early) forms, and charcoal including hazel, whence radiocarbon date; another such date from grain in layer 4 underneath, upon which lay a La Tene iron sickle; dates not after 400: see discussion p. 76. Found intact and lacking only chord and pin, but very mineralized and brittle; in the Ancient Monuments Laboratory (English Heritage Commission) it was confirmed as forged from a single iron wire, but broke in two (at forward bend of bow) under treatment, when fragments also fell, the most from the head. Swellings, as on the foot, were corrosion-products only , and a mineralized lump on one side of the head had been botanical material from the pit-fill. X-ray photography traced an axis through the four coils of the spring, showing as not one line but a parallel pair, so suggesting a hollow tubular iron rivet - simply a strengthener, since the spring had been continuous, not a mock spring. In Mrs. Hawkes's site-report are given details of the repairs, with drawings of the brooch before and after (by Marion Cox), and (also by her) the reconstruction from them, here reproduced. Its conjecture for the chord, missing but certainly external, gives an overall length quite consistent with the larger of the type's bronze specimens. It has the typical well-arched bow; and a foot, reverted very slightly slanting, with a terminal disc, upper face faintly swelling, tapered to a tip that hardly constitutes a snout; the brooch can thus be typed as lAa. Reconstructed, it is published here in advance of her report with Mrs. Hawkes 's ready permission . PLATE 24. 2082 MAIDEN CASTLE, Dorset. County Mus., Dorchester. Wheeler 1943, 254-5, fig.

81,1. Small; spring true and relatively large. Bow short and high-arched, cast in ornamental cable-twist; foot reverted almost level; its snoutless terminal disc (lAa) has a dot-centred circle stamped on its upper face. For its finding with pottery in the site's pit Q4, see discussion, p. 76: no closed association can be proved. PLATE 23. 2600 WOODCUTS, north Dorset. Salisbury Mus., ex Pitt-Rivers Mus. Farnham, from exca-

82

vation by General Pitt-Rivers, 1884-5: his 1887, 49, p. XIV .2, found in surface trenching; no. 3 in Gray's list (Bulleid & Gray 1911, 185), whence Fox's 1927, 106: not classified, as foot's reversion missing. Wrongly allowed by Hawkes, 1948, 43 (following Wheeler 1943, 253), to have been made as late as I st century B.C., when the site's occupation began; see discussion p. 76, preferring brooch long kept, before discarding doubtless due to the breakage of most of its foot and pin. Bow plain; arch low enough to suggest I B (p. 9 5 ) ; but spring-coils are large (diams. 12 and 18 mm.), thus conforming to Hull's IA, though he left it unclassified. Through the spring's four coils (with external chord low) runs a hollow tubular rivet, serving as strengthener. PLATE 26. 8163 BLAISE CASTLE hill-fort, Avon (close to Bristol). Bristol City Mus. From excavation 1956-7; ApSimon 1959 (whence Cunliffe 1974, 144-5 fig.IO: 14, 2), 159-60, fig. 36,1; preceding there (147 ff. with plan fig. 33), by the excavators Rahtz and Clevedon Brown, is their report, describing at 156-7 (with fig. 35 and pl. I 03) Pit A, in layer f of which the brooch (pl. 11,4) was found, as was 8064 (p. 98), together with other relics and pottery (ApSimon 162-3 , fig. 37, 1-8). Of the decorated I and 3, the three fragments of I are of 'saucepan' type (6 a plain rim-sherd), which occurs, plain (23, 25, 34- .6), among the 29 sherds from th e site elsewhere; some of those, however, are of 'Glastonbury' types: plain (11, 19, 24, 30 and the lug 18), and decorated (12-14 and the three pieces of 15), as also is 9, from a test-hole (all th ese again in pl. 11,2). The decorated 'saucepan' sherds with the brooches can be prior to those and be 3rd-2nd century; but the brooches even then would have been old - 8163 kept carefully, as its high condition shows ('golden' bronze): see discussion p. 77. The bow is slightly splayed but well-arched; its decoration is a pair of gently curved double arcs, symmetrically opposed, flanked by punch-dotting closely though irregularly spaced. The foot, reverted level, has a terminal disc (1 Aa), its upper face slightly recessed and pin-holed centrally for inlay. PLATE 23. 7980 CRICK.LEY HILL fort, Gloucestershire (on Cotswold scarp overlooking Gloucester). Was in 1986 still with the excavator, Philip Dixon. Found unstratified, well within the fort, in surface-layer over Neolithic ditch, but the fort 's prehistoric occupation ceased at the end of its last phase with emplacements of round houses; since the iron 6759 (below) belonged to that phase, and is again of Type I A, this bronze brooch too may be safely assigned to it, and the phase's Radiocarbon dating can allow it no later date than about the 5th century's third quarter. The brooch is plain (but for 3 grooves beneath the catch), but otherwis e greatly resembles 1235 (above) from Danebury. Foot reverted slanting; terminal a snoutless disc (so lAa), recessed for a missing inlay. Mock spring with external chord, of 4 coils turning on axial cylinder, one surviving end hammered out to act as a rivet (now distorted); joint at which the spring meets its pin-bearing coil is on the under-side, so hidden when the brooch was worn. Pin of sinuous outline, thus recalling a ring-headed dress-pin: see discussion, p. 77. Drawing by David Taylor, kindly supplied by Dr Dixon. PLATE 24. 6759 CRICKLEY HILL fort, same site as 7980 (above). In 1986 still with the excavator

Dr. Dixon : from his excavation season of 1981. Iron ; was conserved in British Mus. Laboratory, whence information and drawing kindly supplied by Dr. I. M. Stead. Found within the fort, in small midden with sherds that assigned it to the occupation's last phase with emplacements of round houses; Radiocarbon dating gives a range for this extending no later than about the 5th century's third quarter. Bow well-arched; what remained of the spring-coils had corroded on to its head , but their conservable metal was discontinuous, only consisting of a single large coil and fragments of others. The foot's metal, likewise found incompl ete beneath corrosion, allowed the reverted end to be restored only slightly slanting; its terminal feature is a ball, forged solid, somewhat pear-shaped with the tapering stump of an evidently very short snout (so I Ab). See discussion p. 77, and compare the ball of the bronze 3530 (lcklingham, probably an import: pp. 75, 81) and the like from Cham83

pagne, some snoutless, quite frequent in Bretz-Mahler 1971, the most from cemeteries of La Tene Ia (contrasting with the very large ball, here rare and late, less rare but equally late in Central Europe). Decoration is apparent on the sides of the bow, given a look of segmentation, done in the forging. PLATE 24. 3383 MERTHYR MAWR Warren (dunes on S. Glamorgan Bristol-Channel coast). Nat. Mus. Wales, Cardiff. The second to be found among the varied traces of Iron-Age occupation here (some industrial); the first was 307 8, p. below. Arch. Cambr. 84 (1929), 146 fig. 6, Cyril Fox; W. F. Grimes, Guide to Prehist. of Wales (Nat. Mus. 1940), 122, fig. 41,2; 2nd ed., The Prehistory of Wales (1951), 126,samefig.;Cunliffe 1974, 144-5,fig.10:14, 3. Spring of four very large coils, external chord low, pin with tip still in catch; foot reverted level; terminal disc, with short tapering snout (IAb), has upper face grooved with three concentric circles. Bow longitudinally ridged, between demarcating bands. Discussion, p. 77. PLATE 26. 3581 SUTTON WALLS hill-fort , Herefordshire. Hereford Mus. Trans. Woo/hope Club xxxii, 167 ; Arch.J. ex (1953) , 187, 59 fig. 23,1, K . M. Kenyon, whence drawing._Not from her excavations (1948-51), but from quarry in fort's interior; described for her by Lily F. Chitty , who noted 'notch ' in forward leg of the extremely high-arched bow, whence she inferred a foot (lost, with half of pin) reverted level to approach it. For the openwork disc fragment, Kenyon 61 fig. 25,2, claimable as no less early, see entry following here, 8188. PLATE 26. 8188 MOEL HIRADDUG hill-fort, Clwyd (formerly Flintshire). Nat. Mus., Cardiff, on loan. Excav. 1961 or 2 by M. Bevan-Evans; rough sketch by I. Edwards in his Digging up our Past ( 1970); drawing here reproduced by permission of Graeme Guilbert, photocopied

from his own, pp. 39-41 fig. 9 in his report on all finds 1960-67, pp. 36-5 5 of article in Flintshire Hist. Soc. Journal 30 (for 1981-2), 1984, 13-88 by him and other authors, including the sequence fixed for the fort's defences. Bevan-Evans found it lying by itself 'in sticky clay, immediately on top of the natural rock, under tumble from the inner rampart' (so reporting it to Hull); the 'tumble' was of stones from this inner rampart's back, but the location has not enabled Guilbert to relate it to the structural sequence of the_defences. The same applies to an early iron dress-pin (Guilbert's report pp. 42-4) and a piece of iron disc in decorative openwork (pp. 45-7, fig. 11); comparable with the bronze one from Sutton Walls (see on brooch 3581 above), found there loose in the spread from the tail of the northern rampart; if both these discs were early, like those from graves in Champagne, especially that quoted, from Dechelette and from Jacobsthal in discussion pp. 77-78, the pre-rampart occupants of each of the forts could have possessed them, even if these came later than the time when they were made; the matter should call for considering separately elsewhere, but involves the same possibility for both the brooches. This brooch, with its four large spring-coils (15 mm. diameter), external chord low, tip of pin still in catch, has its foot reverted level; the terminal disc, set off by triple moulding, has its upper face dished, with the nearly central pinning of lost inlay represented by its hole (doubled either for a repair or by tearing out). The short and wedge-shaped snout (lAb) has its end bevelled off to fit the contour of the bow, which it almost touches; along the how's whole top runs a pointed-oval trench , which might have held an inlay; and its sides bear traces of ornament incised (short curves and dot-centred circlets) . PLATE 26.

2930 COWLAM (Cottam parish), North Humberside(= former East Riding of Yorkshire). British Mus. 79, 12-9,535, ex coll. Rev. W. Greenwell; modern catalogue, Kinnes and Longworth 1985. From Greenwell's excavated grave-group in barrow L of his British Barrows (1877), 208-13: brooch fig. 111, but not there shown in its primary state; Early La Tene bronze bracelet, unmatched in Britain, fig. 110; 70 blue glass beads, 10 now lost, 84

one as fig. 112; contracted or crouched inhumation of aged female; laid all together on old ground-surface under barrow-mound's centre. Excav. 1867 by Greenwell, with also his near-by barrows LI-LIV, all with such inhumations, ages various: in LI with knobbed bronze bracelet; re-excavation 1969 of four, and excavation 1972 of two more, and two flat-graves, all by Stead (his 1971a , 22-4; 1979, 35-6; 99 with this grave-group), showed that every barrow was surrounded by a square-plan ditch, as recognized now in hundreds in this 'Arras culture' region ; rare in Britain elsewhere, they are abundant in Champagne, with others in adja cen t France, Belgium, Netherlands, W. Germany (also Slovakia and once N. Hungary); thus the ditched barrow here has strong Continental connexions: Stead 1979, 29-35. So has the region's rite of burial with two-wheeled cart, 20-29; 1984; that on the Continent having started with the earliest La Tene, the British has progressive divergences, suggesting it first introduced in that same phase. Introduction of the squareditched barrow could be as early, and related: Stead 35. These Cowlam barrows indeed had been preceded on their site by habitation, itself already within the regional Iron Age (Stead ibid.), yet barrow L's bracelet, buried worn as were most of the beads, can be as early, like those, as was the brooch when in primary state . All those matters may bear upon what its features show of its story, but their description is needed first. The type of the brooch is lAa. It is in Stead 1979 (whence Kinnes and Longworth), 64-65 fig. 23,1; associated bracelet 72-3, worn, fig. 27,1; beads 80, much worn, and Guido 1978, 45-8; brooch and bracelet previously, BMG ... EIA (1925), 116-17, figs. 127, 126; brooch, Fox 1927, 107, no. 34 in list (ex Bulleid & Gray 1911 , 187). In overall size rather small (1.49 mm.), it has spring-coils relatively large (d. 10.5 mm.), with external chord low; our drawing (from Stead's) shows their present form effected by repair; found damaged, they had a break, which Greenwell had mended incorrectly, imparting the distortion shown in his engraving (reproduced in his 1906, fig. 4, and in BMG ... EIA ) and in Fox 1958, pl. 2d . They have been four, but the inner coil of one side is incomplete, its end being moreover filed smooth; the part beyond with the pin was lost in the time of the brooch's use, for the strengthening peg of wood, found by Greenwell passed through the coils (cf. 3084 and 1235, here above), had had driven into it the proximal end of a replacement pin, of iron, the shank of this being lost, but its tip still rusted in the catch, where Stead detected it. This clumsy substitution seems the latest of the brooch's features . To the prior question of the coil that is incomplete, two answers are possible. It must have been completed by a separate portion, ending in the pin. If this had been broken off and then replaced , filed smooth at the join to fit the end of the portion remaining, there will originally have been the four coils normal for the true spring proper to the type. If, however, what carried the pin had been a separate portion from the first, the spring will have been a mock spring, and the brooch made therefore in Britain (pp. 74 and 78). Yet its other features are all consistent with believing it an import from the Continent; they are at least distinctly unusual for a British-made copy. Features in any case early are the size of the coils, and the rounded bend of the foot, to a reverted end just enough slanted for approaching the bow's high summit; but their gracefulness (Stead 1965, 46 with fig.) stems partly from the bow's splayed legs, approaching those in the brooches of 1Bx (pp. 87 ff.), rather than in the standard type of 1A brooch here adduced (as 'Marzabotto') by Stead (1979, 64). The splaying closely conforms to examples from Champagne, where though some of those most like this have a thin pill of coral on their foot-disc·(Bretz-Mahler 1971, pl. 18,12; pl. 19,2 and 7 sites, 271, 284), others lack it: her p. 29 describes e.g. a brooch from Vraux (the upper on pl. 175,3) which has circles instead, like 2929 here from Hunsbury; that the Cowlam disc has only a central dimple need not matter. This is not to exclude other areas for possible origin, though likelier if not too far from that region of France. So too for the bracelet (as Stead 1979, 76) , and for the beads (Guido 1978, 45-7; cf. Stead, 80-81). Anyhow the Cowlam brooch's structural story, and the wear on the bracelet and beads, show the grave-group as old when buried; buried moreover with the corpse of a very old lady - the site's pre-barrow habitation 85

might indeed have been her residence. Thus the brooch's funerary context sets it apart from the rest of IA; the culture represented is distinctive; and its Continental background, equally early, may actually mark it as that of a group coming in from the Continent itself bringing the brooch, unless its spring has been really a mock spring. PLATE 26.

Addendum 6670bis R. THAMES, south foreshore of, at KEW (borough of Richmond, in SW of Greater London), found June 1986 by Mr. K. Bellringer. Brooch of Type IA, resembling 6670: complete but for reverted stem of foot; spring of 4 large coils, chord external. Retained by finder, but shown by him to Mr. N. Merriman, Mus. of London, who drew it for record at 1: 1, October 1986, and kindly sent me the photocopy here reproduced. C.F.C.H. PLATE 26.

86

Groups ]B x, ]B y and lB z Before Type 1B, these Groups (although unrecognized by Hull) require separate treatment. Even th e first (wit h a variant includ ed) is small; the others at present have each two brooches only (one a variant) ; but all have foreign features plainly strange to the British tradition that runs from Type lA through the a and b forms of lB. These set them within a range of dates from the late fifth century on, to the early fourth or at latest perhaps to its middle. What kept the groups small will have been the British tradition's strength: one plate is enou gh for them all: our PLATE 27. Group ]Bx: d efinition. Bow bluntly bent , wit h the legs splayed out, in symmetry or rather longer towards the foot; spring-coils small (once only of size 11 mm.) ; foot set slanting, either very long or shorter (in the variant alone reverted level). Foot 's terminal, where preserved, is a disc with snout (it is a knob , without this, in the variant only). Cont inental cor relations . In Switzerland at Munsingen, the bluntly-ben t bow with splayed legs, coils _small, and foot slanting and long, having termina l with snout, is present in phase Ia. This (p. 72) is within the fifth century, when the form joins the already-present standard one, in Britain Typ e I Aa, well-arched, with spring-coils large, foot's terminal snoutless : Hodson 1971, sequence-chart pl. XV, from his 1968, where e.g. two of each form in grave 12. North Italy received the form in the early fourth century. Here the blunt bend upwards of its splay-legged bow is ahnost peaked; the slanting foot is long, with terminal a disc or a slender baluster, snouts tiny. Examples, Kruta 1980 fig. 12, 2-3 ; 1983 fig. 1; 1-2 ; both Bologna-Arnoaldi and assigned (his p. 4) to 'initia l pha se', along with 1980 fig. 1, 4-5. Bows with splayed legs but arch low and with no blunt bend may occur , as in his 1983 fig. I, 3-4, Mod ena region and Marzabotto (Kruta- Poppi I 975 fig. 3, 5), only th e latt er one late in the phase, as coming from a grave not prior t o c. 350 (p . 75). In Champagne, as noted p. 73 for Type 1A, there are bows splayed in varying degrees, some low-arched; more frequent than those well-arched and with legs mor e upright. The splayings are irrespective of the spring-coils' size and of th eir number: sometimes five or six, or two, but usually four. In Bretz-Mahler 1971 pl. 2, examples of the bluntly -bent bow are no. 6 and no. 9, with slanting foot respectively long and short . All these features first appear, as at Munsingen, in phase Ia. Though both her 6 (Mareuil) and 9 (Witry-les-Reims) are from cemeteries that reach into phase lb , and 6 was in a grave not earlier than that Mareuil grave 6), yet the spring-coils of this , of the grave's oth er slanting-footed brooch , and of 9, are only two, a feature that other examples show to be proper to Ia (her p. 18); thus all thre e will have been made in Ia, with the Mareuil grave's brooches old when buried. (When she dated the end of her Ia as late as c. 330 (her p. 219), it was only from taking a too low date for the celebrated grave of Waldalgesheim ; for this as earlier, see (Duval &) Hawkes 1976, 164--5,on Frey 148-59: its 'Waldalgesheim Style' pieces and Italiote bucket. Group 1Bx, the British forms and variant. The closest to the Continental form with long foo t is 3074 , from Cornwall (plate 29), a 19th-cent ury find in an ancient working for tin-ore, at Redmore near St. Austell: bow splayed, foot slanted, with snouted disc termi nal, its upper face grooved with concentric circles. At MUnsingen, those most like it are of pha se Ia : for these and others (North Italy and Champagne) see discussion above. The Redm ore brooch however, at its head , shows only one coil, ending rounded as if smoothed from a break , and bent against the head, one may pr esume, from having passed it to continue in a spring, lost through the break . Miss Wardman's guess that the missing pin had turne d upon an axle-rod would thus be right for the broo ch as then repaired; but the axle could have served a mock spring or mock-spring hinge, as in 2909 below from Iwerne. With its presume d original spring, the brooch would

87

have been plainly of Group I Bx, and its date will therefore be early fourth century at latest. Brooch 2916 (same plate), from Woodeaton near Oxford, the Middle Hill 'sacred' site where brooches start with 7039, fifth century (Group L, p. 65), is complete. It is typical of I Bx in its spring, splayed bow and slant of foot; for the shortness of this cf. BretzMahler pl. 2 no. 9 in discussion here above; for its tightly pressing the bow there are parallels both in Champagne and at Miinsingen. While most of those with splayed bows abroad have wider arches, this is nonetheless a I Bx brooch, and can be as early as that from Redmore. Nearly similar in bow-form is 0001 (same plate), from an unrecorded locality at Colchester (Essex). Missing, besides its spring-coils and pin, is the terminal of its foot; where broken it has a slant that if prolonged would have matched that of 2916. The Maiden Castle iron brooch 2087 (same plate) has a bow-form nearly similar, with a three-coil spring, but has lost its pin and unhappily all of its foot. The pottery that was found with it, of Wheeler's 'Early B', could today be taken as probably second-century, but lay among Iron-Age postholes and pits (one with pottery of his 'A' and brooch 2082 of Type 1A: p. 82) , at the end of the Neolithic Long Mound, some 'riddling' its ditch (Wheeler 1943, 86); so how much earlier was the brooch's own age is not defined by its position. Wheeler (256), on its form , thought an early age for it possible, though iron was then unknown to him for any brooch as early as Type IA (our pp. 82, 83). If of !Bx as its bow suggests it could certa inly be as early , to be broken sooner or later and then discarded. Here it is classed as a local rendering, like the following five in bronze. One of these is from Barrington near Cambridge, 2934, as is probably 2932. Less certain because of missing foot are 2933 from there, and 2891 from Cold Kitchen Hill, SW Wiltshire (pp. 41, 43); these two recall the Colchester 0001 (all are on plate 27). Lastly comes the variant, 2909 , from Iwerne (same plate), NE. Dorset, found in the 1897 excavations done by H. St. George Gray for General Pitt-Rivers. It has been cleaned now and examined under microscope for Salisbury Museum (see further Catalogue). It is a variant because its foot , reverted level, with knob snoutless, is a feature of the British Types 1Aa and I Ba, so will have been borrowed from one of those, most probably I Ba, and combined with I Bx's distinctive bow. It is further of special interest for its spring-coils. These are incomplete on one side, where a break will have lost the chord (presumed external), while the other side has suffered through corrosion, but the coils turned at all events on an axle-rod of bronze, passed through them and through a bow-head perforation (not now visible). Yet the inner coil bearing the pin has been replaced by a coil in iron, to bear an iron pin of course, though this is missing. This implies a second break, repaired in iron to keep the spring as what it always must have been: a mock spring or mock-spring hinge, of wire separate from the bow. This , as original, might suggest the brooch less early than would be guessable from its bow-form alone ; the foot should anyhow make it prior to the late fourth century. It could quite well have been made towards 350. Its keeping after that, broken twice and then mended with iron, could have lasted two centuries and probably more- if th e occupation at Iwerne began no earlier than at Rotherley and Woodcuts, Pitt-Rivers 's principal neighbouring Iron-Age settlements. Iwerne's apparent phase I continued till about A.D .200, so that a start for it earlier than those can appear unlikely. Nothing else known from it is earlier (Hawkes 1948, 50-2 ff.); but the pottery disappeared when the General had died (May 1900). So did Gray's finds-book, and his siteplan, used during the General's last illness for the estate carpenter's model, on which Gray painted the find-spots of the brooches and the coins: still extant (now Salisbury Museum), whence the 1948 plan by Piggott , with phases from Hawkes. As Gray in March 1932 told Hawkes (from what he had learnt when he was attending the General's funeral at Tollard Royal), while the metal finds and five late-Roman pots were safe in his museum (Trust property), like the model, his son on succeeding had immediately sent all the bones to a hairbrush-factory, and had all the other pottery buried on the Rushmore estate by an under-gardener, forbidden on pain of dismissal to tell Gray where. One day possibly (Rushmore now is Sandroyd School) it might be found; meanwhile, if in fact (as at the other two 88

sites) none was pre-first century B.C., this brooch, when at last it reached the spot where it turned up, could have been about 250 years old. Our catalogue quotes the few analogous cases, from our discussions given to each of them elsewhere; the shorter entries are Hull's. 3074 REDMORE, ST. AUSTELL, Cornwall. Ashmolean Mus. 1927.874, ex coll. Sir John Evans; his Ancient Bronze Implements (1881), 400; Leeds 1926-7, 236 n. 1. Fox 1927, 86 fig. 18c; 77-8 (long foot more common on Continent, unusual in Britain), 108 no. 41; Hencken 1931, 109 with fig. 28, 166, 292; Clark, Prehistoric Europe (1952), 194. Found among hearth-remains and peat-fuel, sealed by gravel, beneath about 1.85m. of accumulated peat (6 feet). Discovery was in 19th-century working for tin-ore; hearth shows smelting of ore within lifetime of brooch. See discussion p. 87: its form can indicate making towards or around 400 B.C., but later damage and repair must then be assumed. Foot long; bow bluntly bent and splayed, with single coil at its head; this may be relic of a spring broken off and replaced by a mock-spring hinge, turning on axle passed through the coil as a holding-loop - being bent into the line of the bow and pressed against it (although with a tip not shaped to it). Hull noted foot's terminal, a short-snouted disc, upper face concentrically grooved. PLATE 27. 2916 WOODEATON, Oxfordshire. Ashmolean Mus., No. Pr. 400, ex Gordon coll. Fox

1927, 86 fig. 18A; 77 (plain foot-disc); 107 no. 20, as Gray 1911, 185; VCH Oxon. I (1939), 257, pl. Xlla; Harding 1972, 170.1, pl. 74G, and index 178 for the site (many page refs.), whence also 7839 and 7829 , Group L (pp. 61, 65); 2918, lAa (p. 79) and many later (p. 66 refers); viz. the Iron Age 'sacred' site on Middle Hill, continuing as Roman with temple. Complete: bow plain, cross-section bluntly peaked; external chord on 4-coil spring; foot, with short catch, reverted slanting, grooved crosswise above; terminal a plain disc with pellet-like snout touching bow. See discussion p. 88: form of bow and slant of foot can be consistent with a date towards or around 400 B.C. PLATE 27. The following six brooches will represent Group 1Bx in local renderings (see also p. 98 ). 2934 BARRINGTON , near Cambridge: same locality as 2931 (p. l09, with 96), and 2933 here below. Cambridge Univ. Mus. of Arch. & Anthr., reg. C.J.1888. Fox 1927, list 108 no. 37. Splayed bow and slanting foot as 3074, but shorter, and snouted foot-disc plain. Drawn by Hull with corrosion on most of apparently imperfect spring; pin missing. PLATE 27. 2933 BARRINGTON, as 2934 above, and same mus., 27.654. Fox 1927, 108 no. 38. Bow as 2934 though smaller and slightly thicker; foot beyond catch missing, as are pin and half of spring (with chord); has been a 6-coil spring, since surviving half has 3 coils. Attribution as judged for 0001, perhaps strengthened by locality same as 2934. PLATE 27. 2932 BARRINGTON probably: recorded as 'near Cambridge ', and resembles 2933- 4.

Same mus., 24.659 . Fox 1927, I 08 no. 39. Bow splayed , slender (cross-section round); foot has nail-head snout. PLATE 27. 0001 COLCHESTER, Essex; exact locality unknown. Colchester Mus. Bow round and

smooth; splay suggests this Group, but Hull thought the brooch less probably of Fox's phase A than of his B (with terminal snouted), which again will suit 1Bx; attribution to it conjectural, but judged acceptable. PLATE 27. 2087 MAIDEN CASTLE, Dorset . Dorchester Mus. Wheeler 1943, 255-6, fig. 81, 6. Iron;

3-coil spring, external chord; bow of splayed form must suggest Group 1Bx, but foot missing. For Wheeler was 'possibly of (Fox's) phase A', but see discussion p. 88. Later 89

pottery was found with it, but earlier was also in the area (site Q); the brooch could have been discarded, as soon as broken, for some length of time. PLATE 27. 2891 COLD KITCHEN HILL, BRIXTON DEVERILL, SW. Wiltshire: same site as 3096, Group J (p. 43 ), 5955, 3692, Type I Ba, p. 100, and others later. Devizes Mus., old reg. 1101. Splayed bow as 0001 (but cross-section elliptical), 4-coil spring, chord missing, on transverse axial rod; pin and foot beyond catch both missing. Attribution as judged for 0001 . PLATE 27.

2909 IWERNE, Dorset: 1Bx variant. Salisbury Mus. Gray 1911, 185, no. 4 in list, without illustration; Fox 1927, 77 fig. SA (104, no. 4 in list again) with sketch by Gray; Hawkes 1948, 51-2, fig. 8, 1: his drawing from the original, then in Pitt-Rivers Mus., Farnham, Dorset. Variant foot, reverted level, with snoutless knob terminal; bow splayed; coils four, turning on a rod and lacking chord, but repaired after breakage with the coil that had the pin (itself missing) both in iron: see below. From occupation-site, in area excavated 1897 by H. St. George Gray under General Pitt-Rivers: Hawkes op. cit . 50-62, with 3-phase drawing by Stuart Piggott, interpreting the site-model, in Farnham , now in Salisbury Mus., and marking brooch (from this) in W. corner of the area , Phase I. That phase , preceding II (within 3rd cent. A.D.) and III (within 4th) , each with own Romano-British farm-house, had pits and ditches only (though its area must be bigger), and lasted from Iron Age to c. A.D.2 00 ; for its other brooches, 1st and 2nd cents. A.D., see Hawkes ibid. further. This brooch, of the Fox La Tene I phase A because of the snoutless knob terminal of its foot (reverted level), was for Hawkes, loc. cit., 3rd century (at latest) B.C.; though then in doubt whether any could be earlier, he quoted Wheeler, Maiden Castle (1943 ), 251-4, for the type as 'hanging over' to 3rd from a start in early 4th. Whether that could mean its continuing in production (as Wheeler thought), or any individual brooch's being kept a long time (pp. 76-7, IO 1- 2 ), may depend for this brooch on the features of its spring-coils, obscured by corrosi on till in 1982, after cleaning, disclosed under microscope. Mr. P. R. Saunders, the Salisbury curator, being asked to examine them and getting no result by X-ray, had it cleaned and microscopically examined by Mr. Corfield, Wiltshire County Council Conservation Officer; from his report, which Mr. Saunders kindly summarized for the Corpus, the details found are here presented as follows. The coils appear externally as two on each side of the bow-head, with a bronze rod passed right through for them to turn on, but without sign of a chord to link the pairs. However, besides corrosion, there was damage: of the outer coil on the right-hand side, the lower half is missing. Thus if it had run on into a chord, its breaking could have taken all the chord away too; while of the other end of this, in the left-hand outer coil, any trace could have been destroyed by the corrosion. An original chord , later broken away and lost, would be foreign to the type if it were internal ; Mr. Saunders found this anyhow very unlikely. He saw nothing, however, against its having been external - which our acceptance of belief in it accordingly presumes that it was. Secondly, the left-hand inner coil is iron, not bronze, and the break where it passed into the pin, which is missing, must show that this also was of iron. The report thus allows the belief that at first there was a chord, which broke away, along with half of the right-hand side's outer coil. The spring was then only held in place by th e transverse axlerod. But another break, ne.xt, took the left side's inner coil away, with the pin that had run from it, and this was then repaired with an inner coil and pin, both of iron. It can be seen from the drawing that the spring was not continuous with the bow, though the hole in the head for the rod to pass through is not visible; the original coil, with the presumed chord and pin, all of bronze, will have been a single wire, making the form of mock spring, or of mock-sprin g hinge, for which the bow-head merely holds the axle-rod. For the date see discussion p. 88 above: the splayed bow puts it early, like the primary forms of 1Bx, but the Group 's slanting foot with terminal snout is here exchanged for the

90

level and knob bed foot of Type 1Aa or (likelier) 1Ba. Thus the brooch, though accordingly a 1Bx variant, should be earlier than the slanting foot's return, with Type 1C, in the late 4th century (p. 116), though its wholly mock spring might make it not much earlier than that, or c. 350. The Iwerne site has left nothing else known so early. But its pottery's disappearance, after the General's death in 1900, for the reason recorded p. 88, has deprived us of what might have offered a date for the site's beginning. But since its phase I lasted till around A.D.200, it can seem rather unlikely to have started earlier than the Woodcuts and Rotherley sites (pp. 76, 101), not far distant, also lasting late, and neither starting till after 100 B.C. The brooch would then have been kept, though with breakage suffered twice, for perhaps 250 years until discarded or lost here. It would thus match roughly the cases of our 2600 from Woodcuts, of 8163 from Blaise Castle (p. 77 ), and of 8064 from there to a somewhat lesser extent, like 2618 from Rotherley and 2930 from Cowlam, mended in iron too (p. 85 ). None of those cases retards the date here proposed for its manufacture, around 350; also 3086 from Meare (pp. 92-94). PLATE 27. Group 1By: definition. Bow bluntly bent, with legs symmetrically splayed; spring-coils small, thoug~ larger in large variant made in iron; foot, not reverted, bent up inwards into a coil, small, though in iron variant larger and like a hook. Continental correlations. The bluntly-bent bow is one of the several forms in which the foot has its terminal coiled to imitate a spring: in Champagne most often of two coils with external chord, like the brooch's real spring (four coils in this seem there to be unusual). For these brooches 'with false ornamental spring' on the foot (a faux ressort ornemental) see Bretz-Mahler 1971 pl. 3, and pp. 19-20, expanding her article cited p. 15 n. 14. She made them ten, but an eleventh (Mus. Epernay, in grave-group inv. 31.1.1003-8) from Etrechy, was drawn by A. Brisson wi~h its grave-group to form Taf. 41 in the independent treatment of the type and its derivatives by Sprockhoff, 1959. He added also one in the Tumulus Motte-SaintValentin, Courcelles, Haute-Marne (Dechelette 1914, 1034, 1041-2 from his Collection Millon, 1913), among the four La Tene I brooches found in the mound with secondary burials: his Taf. 37, 7. That the type occurs right from the beginning of La Tene I, he and she both show from the example in a barrow-grave in Alsace (Harthouse: Schaeffer 1930, 109 fig. 96; 25 5 fig. 180, 34) along with a brooch and bracelets still of Hallstatt types, so fifth-century. Sprockhoff's name for the type - in Germany eight examples, in Moravia five at Malomerice (Brno) - was 'Pestrup Type', after the one from the Pestrup field of barrow-graves in Oldenburg (Lower Saxony: his Taf. 30, 4 = 37 , 13). He mapped them all, including some French (Abb . 1), with the three derivative types which are later: one is Hull's Type 4 (p. 184 and plat e SS). A more recent treatment is by Peschel, 1972. The British example and its variant . The bronze 9219, from the Ancaster Quarry settlement, Lincolnshire, was published by its excavator May (1976, 138-40, fig. 69, 1); in Dr F. Schwappach's opinion it could well be fifth-century (May 140 n. 3). From the Pestrup form having foot with two coils only, the single coil of its foot can be seen as a reduction; the date will be given by the early French examples. The variant in iron with which May has compared his brooch is larger and coarser: it is 8444 from Burrough Hill in Leicestershire (both plate 27 ). The Continental influence would have been extremely short-lived, with no further examples; the grouping of the two as 1By may be upheld by future finds, though unlikely to be frequent.

9219 AN CASTER QUARRY, Lincolnshire. Nottingham Univ. Mus. May 1976, 15 8-60, fig. 69, 1 (whence drawing here 1: 1). Complete: small 4-coil spring, external chord; bow typical of Group in its splay ; tip of foot tightly coiled up. See discussion here, giving 91

date as early and coiled foot as probably reduced from that of Continental 'Pestrup' brooches, which copies their spring-coils, starting in Champagne Ia, though lasting from early till later in north and middle Europe. Site was a settlement, excavated 1962-65 (where the quarrying allowed) by May: his 1976, 133 ff. Brooch was in a ditch-filling, north of main area, and lay near side of pot, cylindrical, exterior with scoring down surface (138-9 fig. 69, 6); no necessarily true association can be claimed. PLATE 27.

8444 BURROUGH-ON-THE-HILL, Leicestershire. Leicester Mus. 363. 1965/6; drawing by Mr. D. Mackreth. fron; spring, obscured by corrosion, had probably external chord with 4 coils; bow bluntly bent and splayed widely, dropping to foot, which has pin-catch tapered to coiling-up tip (imperfect?). Surface find in unexcavated hill-fort, Burrough Hill; other finds here resemble Ancaster Quarry's (May 1976, 141); the brooch seems a large iron version of the form represented there by 9219, possible or likely as of rather later date: see discussion here above. PLATE 27. Group 1Bz: definition. Bow with legs widely splayed and arch extremely low, with decoration (thou_gh a plain bow would be possible); spring-coils of medium size, with chord external. Foot reverted more or less aslant ; can have ornamental terminal feature, ending in snout. Continental correlations. As noticed already (pp. 73, 87), splayed bows are distinctly common in Champagne; some are splayed or curved widely, thus the arch may be low - a tendency persisting in the later fourth-century forms, not so splayed and with the spring's chord frequently internal, which will meet us in Britain in Type 1Bd (p . 111 ). A splayed bow too can be as late: Bretz-Mahler 1971 pl. 18 no. 5, from Lavannes, a La Tene lb cemetery, but less certainly so in no. 4, from Caurel, while in pl. 19 nos. 4 and 6, it is early: both are low-arched, and their cemetery is La Tene Ia (Bussy-le-Chateau ; datings pp. 284- 7). The slanting foot of these has the snout of its terminal protruding from a single decorated disc (in her otherwise similar pl. 17, 4 a small ball); rarely the discs may be more than one, set out in line. The leading example of this in Champagne is from the celebrated chariot-grave of Berru: Joffroy 1973, 49-50, fig. 2 no. 1. There the foot is slanting and long, with three discs set out along it; the bow is less low than in the two Bussy-le-Chateau brooches, but matches those and the others noticed in the curving splay of its legs. For the date still within La Tene Ia (openwork discs, early pedestalled vases) see, with Joffroy, (Duval &) Hawkes 1976, 165, on Frey 145-6, fig. Sa, 157, for the decoration of the helmet, as in Early Style of the late fifth century; helmet tall, of the early form, Dechelette 1914 fig. 490 no. 2; Jacobsthal 1944, 178 no. 136, pl. 77; Bretz-Mahler 119-21, pl. 98, 2; Joffroy figures this and all the grave-goods. Brooches of Group lBz in Britain. Our 3086 had a stratified position in the West site of the pair explored at Meare, in the Somerset Levels: Bulleid and Gray 1948, 1953 and (ed. Mrs. M. A. Cotton) 1966. Their diggings were in ·1908, 1910-14, 1921-33, and at the East site thence till 1956. Their presenting both as a 'lake village', all of one period, has been seen now as dubious: by Avery, from his work of 1966 at the East site (his 1968) and of 1968 and 9 at the West, where the brooch was found. For all his revisions and for details of its finding (1914), see catalogue. Its position makes it earlier than the phase he defines as phase 3, which like the near-by Glastonbury village has decorated pottery, though later than the timbers representing phase 1, in the underlying pre-La Tene peat. Over them, and underneath the clay of the phase 3 mounds, was a thickness of black matter, thus phase 2, laid in refuse-tips; the brooch was in one of these, along with a yellow glass bead, bone weaving-comb, and sherd of plain pottery - at that level, where it was frequent, the only ware found. This

92

phase, though its dating-limits are neither of them quite precise, will have included at least the third century B.C. Discarded broken , leaving a pin without any spring, its manufacture could be earlier; and its form speaks positively for this. The bow reminded Gray quite wrongly of the straight bow of 3085, Type 1C (plate 34); 'attenuated' it is, yet its arch is low but curved, and splay very wide, as in the abovementioned early La Tene examples from Champagne. And in its foot's rare decoration, two discs set in line, it recalls that of the Berru brooch, with three such, equally rare though its length is less, snout smaller and simpler, and slant less sharp than is normal abroad. The decoration moreover is far outside the range shown by the feet of Type 1Bd (Kruta 1971, pls. 18-19) , .of the later fourth century. The brooch should have been made within that century's earlier half, probably indeed in its earliest quarter. If thrown away broken in the third, its length of life would not be unique: less than in some other of our cases of survival (pp. 76-7). Further on Meare: Coles, Somerset Levels Papers 12, 1986. In spite of its resemblances to brooches from Champagne, and its differing from most of the British of Type 1B, it is better seen as not itself an import but as imitated here from one. Gray mentioned 'evidence' for its spring's having turned on an axis; this would suggest a mock spring, so proving it British (pp. 74-6). And brooch 3093 (same plate 27) from Charnage Down, has a four-coil spring (external chord) which turns on just such an axis. Among its features, though in part still recalling foreign models, is another that must indicate British influence: that of the 'Wessex' bow of British Type 1B (p. 97). The splay of its bow towards the head is short and sharp, as in many of that form (plates 28