The Mildenhall Treasure: Late Roman Silver Plate from East Anglia 086159200X, 9780861592005

Citation preview

This publication will have international appeal to archaeologists, historians and art historians due to the empire-wide importance of the material, and will be of particular interest to those studying the material culture of the late Roman Empire, especially Roman Britain.

Richard Hobbs is the Weston Curator of Roman Britain at the British Museum. His research interests include the deposition of precious metals, the ancient economy and banqueting, particularly in the late Roman Empire. Previous publications include (with Ralph Jackson), Roman Britain: Life at the Edge of the Empire, The Mildenhall Treasure (British Museum Objects in Focus) and Currency and Exchange in Ancient Pompeii (Institute of Classical Studies). Other recently published Research Publications A Catalogue of Late Antique Gold Glass in the British Museum Daniel Thomas Howells

Research Publication 196

The Portable Antiquities Scheme and Roman Britain Tom Brindle

Research Publication 181

Cosmetic Sets of Late Iron Age and Roman Britain Ralph Jackson

Research Publication 179

New Light on Old Glass: Recent Research on Byzantine Mosaics and Glass Edited by Chris Entwistle and Liz James

ISBN 978-0-86159-200-5

9 780861 592005

£40

The Mildenhall Treasure: Late Roman Silver Plate from East Anglia

Richard Hobbs

Research Publication 198

The Mildenhall Treasure: Late Roman Silver Plate from East Anglia

Discovered in Suffolk during the Second World War, the Mildenhall Treasure is one of the most spectacular collections of late Roman silver tableware from the Roman Empire. This generously illustrated book offers a comprehensive study of the 28 pieces of the Mildenhall Treasure in the British Museum, the majority of which was crafted in the fourth century AD. The catalogue section provides an in-depth study of the form, decoration and mythological themes of the individual pieces, as well as discussing parallels with other items of silver plate known from this period. Supplementary essays provide further background to the discovery of the treasure and place it within a wider archaeological and art-historical context. The book also features new scientific analyses of the contents of the treasure and discusses the inscriptions found on individual objects.

Richard Hobbs

Research Publication 200

The Mildenhall Treasure: Late Roman Silver Plate from East Anglia Richard Hobbs With contributions by Janet Lang, Michael J. Hughes, Roger Tomlin and Jude Plouviez

For my tutors, John Arnold, Stan Wolfson and Richard Reece, who set me on a path

In memoriam Kenneth Scott Painter, 1935–2016

Published with the generous support of

The Eyre Family Foundation

Robert Kiln Charitable Trust

Publishers

The British Museum Great Russell Street London wc1b 3dg Series editor

Sarah Faulks

The Mildenhall Treasure: Late Roman Silver Plate from East Anglia Richard Hobbs isbn 978 086159 200 5 issn 1747 3640 © The Trustees of the British Museum 2016 Front cover: Front of the Bacchic plate (cat. 3) with satyr and maenad from the Mildenhall treasure. British Museum, 1946,1007.3

Printed and bound in the UK by 4edge Ltd, Hockley Papers used by The British Museum are recyclable products made from wood grown in well-managed forests and other controlled sources. The manufacturing processes conform to the environmental regulations of the country of origin. All British Museum images illustrated in this book are © The Trustees of the British Museum. Further information about the Museum and its collection can be found at britishmuseum.org.

Contents

Foreword

Hartwig Fischer



iv

Acknowledgements

v

1. Introduction

1

Catalogue Arrangement of the Catalogue

15

2. The Bacchic Platter (cat. 1)

18

3. The Bacchic Plates (cats 2–3)

63

4. The Niello Platter (cat. 4)

81

5. The Large Flanged Bowls (cats 5–8)

100

6. The Small Flanged Bowls (cats 9–10) 147 7. The Flanged Bowl with Upstand and Cover (cats 11–12)

159

8. The Fluted Dish (cat. 13)

178

9. The Pedestalled Plates (cats 14–15)

195

10. The Deep-bowled Spoons (cats 16–20)

209

11. The Long-handled Spoons (cats 21–8)

220

12. The Graffiti and Inscriptions

233

13. The Mildenhall Treasure: Technical Aspects of Construction and Decoration Janet Lang and Michael J. Hughes

240

14. The Mildenhall Treasure in a Late Roman Context

250

Roger Tomlin

15. The Production, Circulation and Assembly of 263 Silver Plate and the Dating of the Mildenhall Treasure 16. The Assemblage in Use and Ownership

273

17. The Burial of the Mildenhall Treasure

288

18. Summary and Future Directions

296

Table of Comparanda

299

Bibliography

304

Illustration Credits

311

Index

313

With contributions by Jude Plouviez

Foreword

It seems fitting that the 200th Research Publication that the British Museum has produced, in a series that began in 1978, should be devoted to one of the truly great icons of the Museum’s collection. In the decades since the Museum acquired the treasure in 1946 it has been on almost permanent display, and is a source of constant fascination for the thousands of visitors who stream through the Museum doors every day. But the treasure has also been the star of a number of carefully chosen excursions beyond the confines of Bloomsbury: the magnificent ‘Great Dish’ for example, the centrepiece of the treasure, was selected for the first of a programme of Spotlight loans that the Museum initiated in 2012, returning to its home county of Suffolk on the 70th anniversary of its discovery. What makes the Mildenhall treasure so special? As a museum we are tasked with telling stories about the objects in our care and the number of stories the Mildenhall treasure can tell is manifold. Its discovery by Gordon Butcher inspired one of the most celebrated writers of fiction, Roald Dahl, to publish a ‘buried treasure’ story that children the world over still read to this day. There is something quintessentially and delightfully British about the nonchalant placing of pieces of the priceless treasure on the sitting room sideboard in Mr Ford’s house in a modest Suffolk village, with doors that were never locked, and the manner in which he ate his porridge each morning with one of the treasure’s silver spoons. And then there is the exquisite craftsmanship of the treasure itself: the ‘Great Dish’ is an outstanding example of the way in which an artist can make order out of chaos, creating a beautifully balanced narrative out of a riotously drunken party presided over by Bacchus, the god of wine, where Hercules, overpowered by the effects of drink, shows how wine can deprive even the most robust of their reason. The museum has an extremely active programme of research and requires the support of a number of grantgiving bodies to make research publications such as this possible. I would therefore like to thank the British Academy for the generous award of a mid-career Fellowship to Richard Hobbs in 2012 which allowed the necessary research time on this monograph to be made possible. Hartwig Fischer Director of the British Museum September 2016

iv | The Mildenhall Treasure

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to a large number of individuals and their institutions, mainly in Europe but also in other parts of the world, who have assisted with various aspects of this publication: Jorge Maier Allende (Real Academia de la Historia, Madrid), Mathilde Avisseau-Broustet (Bibliothèque nationale de France), Prof. François Baratte (Université Paris-Sorbonne), Cristina Barducci (Cultural Service, Comune di Cesena), Anna Butler (Dorset County Museum), Mark Carnall (formerly Grant Museum of Zoology, UCL), Hélène Chew (Musée d’Archéologie Nationale et domaine national de Saint-Germain-en-Laye), Katherine Dunbabin (McMaster University, Ontario), Geneviève Galliano (Musée des Beaux-Arts, Lyon), Marc Goutierre (Musée des beaux-arts de Valenciennes), John Hanson (Dumbarton Oaks Collection, Washington D.C.), Mario Iozzo (Museo Archeologico Nazionale, Florence), Vera Krstic (National Museum of Serbia, Belgrade), Sonja Marzinzik (Archäologische Staatssammlung, Munich), Dragana Mladenovic (University of Southampton), Quita Mould (independent finds specialist), Friederike Naumann-Steckner and Klaus Bungarten (Römisch Germanisches Museum, Cologne), Barbara Niemeyer (Staatliche Museen zu Berlin), Richard Petrovsky (Historisches Museum der Pfalz Speyer), Eduardo Sanchez (Getty Museum, Los Angeles), Maeve Sikora (National Museum of Ireland), Nathalie Wüthrich (Musée d’art et d’histoire, Geneva), Prof. Roger Wilson (University of British Colombia) and Will Wootton (Kings College, London). Last, but not least, I am indebted to Annemarie KaufmannHeinimann (Professor Emeritus, Universität Basel) and Prof. Simon Esmonde Cleary (University of Birmingham) for their encyclopaedic knowledge, insight and for saving me from various misjudgements and errors. I am also grateful to the generous support of the Garfield Weston Foundation for supporting my curatorial post and the British Academy for the award of a Mid-Career Fellowship in 2012. This enabled a study trip to examine comparanda in other museums, and I would like to thank the following individuals and their institutions for their assistance during these visits: Damir DoraČiČ, Ivan Radman and Jacqueline Balen (Archaeological Museum, Zagreb), Fraser Hunter (National Museums Scotland, Edinburgh), Dr Irina Nastasi and Prof. Constantin Chera (Museum of National History and Archaeology, Constanza), Zsolt Mráv (Magyar Nemzeti Museum, Budapest), Rodica Oanţã-Marghitu (National Museum of Romanian History, Bucharest), Beat Rüetti and staff (Augusta Raurica, Augst) and Hrvoje Vulic (Vinkovci Museum, Croatia). Thanks are also due to the Eyre Family Foundation and the Robert Kiln Charitable Trust for supporting the publication. At the British Museum, I would like to acknowledge the help and support of colleagues and ex-colleagues: Ralph Jackson, Eleanor Ghey, Marjorie Caygill, Francesca Hillier, Georgi Parpulov, Catherine Johns, J.D. Hill, Saul Peckham, Hayley Bullock, Geoff Pickup, Duncan Hook, Philip Fletcher and Susan La Niece. This book would not have been possible without the imperious editorial work of Sarah Faulks and Carolyn Jones, and the expertise of my colleague Stephen Crummy who provided the illustrations, maps and reconstruction. Finally, on a personal note I want to thank Bonnie for being there. This book is in memory of Kenneth Painter, former Deputy Keeper in the Department of Greece and Rome, who published extensively on the subject of the Mildenhall treasure but sadly passed away a few months before this book was published. Acknowledgements | v

Advertising poster by Adrian Berg, featuring the British Museum colonnade, pigeons and items from the Romano-British collections including the Bacchic platter from the Mildenhall treasure, 1970s. British Museum, Painting.65

Chapter 1

Introduction

This book is a detailed study of one of the most celebrated discoveries from Roman Britain (Pl. 1). The Roman occupation was a period of profound change in the British Isles, and its effects are still discernible in the language, laws, culture and economy of today. The treasure itself, consisting of 28 pieces of silver plate, transports us back to a different world, some of which is familiar, some of which is not. It is a set of prestige dining silver; many will identify with the concept of bringing out the best tableware for an appropriate occasion such as an anniversary or other celebration with the desire to impress, but the figures that adorn the silver, and all the complexities of the messages that they convey, will not necessarily be quite so familiar. This book sets out to explore those messages and meanings, and place them in the context of the time and space in which the silver was manufactured, used and ultimately secreted in the ground. The rest of this chapter provides the background to the discovery of the treasure during the Second World War, the reaction to its discovery when it emerged from hiding in the post-War period and its subsequent life after acquisition by the British Museum. The following ten chapters, which form the core of this book, are a catalogue of the treasure itself. In each of these chapters, full descriptions are provided of the pieces, followed by a discussion of each item in terms of the wider context of late Roman silver plate. Each catalogue chapter concludes with a scientific study conducted by Janet Lang to ascertain how the objects were made, decorated and modified. After this study of the individual items or sets of items, the final section of the book places the treasure as a whole in its wider context. Chapter 12, written by Roger Tomlin,

Plate 1 The Mildenhall treasure, third to fourth century AD. British Museum, 1946,1007.1–34

Introduction | 1

Plate 3 Sydney Ford, in later years, with his collection of lithics Plate 2 Gordon Butcher and family, c. 1946. This photograph was included in Roald Dahl's fictionalized account of the discovery in the Saturday Evening Post, 20 September 1947

discusses the inscriptions and graffiti that are found on some of the pieces. Chapter 13, by Janet Lang and Michael J. Hughes, provides a more detailed overview of the technical aspects of the whole assemblage, including its metallic composition and how the treasure was constructed. The next four chapters (14 to 17) set the treasure in the context of its burial in Britain at a time when it was no longer part of the Roman Empire, and consider its relationship with other treasures of silver plate. Mildenhall is not an isolated find, but one of a number of such deposits whose dates of discovery range from 1628, for the (lost) Trier hoard, right up to the most recent, the Vinkovci treasure of 2012. There is a discussion of what is known about the production of Mildenhall and its dating (Chapter 15), its use as an elite set of dining silver (Chapter 16) and examination of the date and reasons behind its burial (Chapter 17). The concluding chapter summarizes the main findings of the study and considers what future directions research may take. The discovery of the Mildenhall treasure

What is known of the discovery of the Mildenhall treasure, and how it came to be part of the national collection, has

been discussed in some detail elsewhere.1 The salient points are these. The hoard was discovered at the earliest in January 1942. This is the most commonly cited date, but the discovery might have been a year later, i.e. January 1943 – we are reliant on the memory of the protagonists. It would have been easy for them to confuse the years; if they were considering the treasure to have been found in winter 1942, they might have remembered this as the winter at the beginning of the year when in fact it was the one that fell at the end (i.e. the winter of 1942–3).2 The treasure was probably found on or in the vicinity of Thistley Green, and certainly near to the village of West Row, which is just outside the small town of Mildenhall in Suffolk in East Anglia. The finder was certainly Gordon Butcher, a ploughman working for Sydney Ford (Pls 2–3). Ford had been asked to plough a field, the tenant farmer of which was a man called Rolfe (although the field was owned by Sophie Aves), and he subcontracted the work to Butcher. Such arrangements were common in a close-knit rural farming community. As the field was to be sown with sugar beet, Butcher set the plough deeper than was required for other types of crop. This is almost certainly an important factor in the hoard’s discovery; prior to this the field had been ploughed many times, but not at sufficient depth to strike the treasure. Butcher did exactly that: struck the treasure with the plough,

Plate 4 Jack Ford, Sydney Ford’s son. This photograph was taken c. 1944, before the treasure was declared to the police. Parts of the hoard, including the Bacchic platter and plates (cats 1–3), can be seen on the sideboard behind

2 | The Mildenhall Treasure

which caused the ploughshare to break away from the tractor. Damage to some of the objects, particularly the footring of the Bacchic platter (cat. 1) and the four large flanged bowls (cats 5–8), is almost certainly either completely or partially a direct result of the plough strike. Scrabbling around in the soil, Butcher’s fingers met something solid. Digging around further he realized that there was metal in the ground. He may also have had a sense that there was something unusual about what lay in the soil. Whatever his thoughts, he decided to alert his boss Sydney Ford, and the two men dug the silver out of the earth. Exactly what happened next will probably never be known (for example, was there a dispute over ownership?), but it is certain that Ford took the silver back to his agricultural workshop. During his spare time, or by making time, Ford cleaned the silver, and undoubtedly carried out a sizeable amount of ‘repair’ and ‘restoration’ work (see p. 8), for instance on the pedestalled plates (cats 14–15, Chapter 9). It may also be the case that there were more than the 28 pieces of silver that are now in the British Museum.3 In later years, it was rumoured that some bent objects – perhaps spoons – were fashioned into items of jewellery for Ford’s daughters.4 There are also rumours of other items: the Buckinghamshire doctor, Hugh Fawcett (see below), claimed to have seen four pedestalled plates, rather than the two which are known, and an employer of Ford’s, Jack Thompson, is insistent that there was a ‘goblet-like’ silver item with four openwork feet.5 There may also have been coins with the discovery, because another witness, Toby Butcher (somewhat confusingly named, as he was no relation to Gordon), claims that he was also present when the discovery was made, and saw a ‘very large number of greenish coins’.6 This claim has never been verified with material evidence, and indeed, Toby Butcher’s assertion that he was present at the time of the discovery has been vehemently disputed. Another ‘witness’, Jack Thompson, described Toby Butcher’s story as ‘a load of codswallop’, particularly as Toby Butcher claimed to have been seated on the mudguard of the tractor.7 As Ford’s cleaning progressed, exposing the splendour of the decoration, he grew fond of ‘his’ new discovery. He decided to keep it (or, perhaps, it never occurred to him that he was required to report it), and placed some items on open display in his house, with others probably in a cupboard. A famous photograph, taken in about 1944, shows his son Jack seated in an armchair with the Bacchic platter and other items propped up on a sideboard behind him (Pl. 4). The Bacchic platter (cat. 1) was brought out on special occasions, such as Christmas, for the display of fruit. Ford had a favourite spoon with which he reportedly ate his morning porridge.8 The story might have ended there, or at least turned out differently. Maybe Ford intended to seek a buyer when the War ended. Alternatively he might have held on to the treasure, intending to leave it to his family when he passed away, which occurred in 1970. Neither happened, because of the arrival onto the scene of Hugh Fawcett, a General Practitioner from Buckinghamshire (Pl. 5). Fawcett was a doctor by profession, but an avid collector of antiquities in his spare time, with a particular penchant for lithics.9 Fawcett visited Ford during the Easter of 1946 (probably on

Plate 5 Dr Hugh Fawcett, who alerted the British Museum to the discovery

Easter Monday, 22 April), his motivation being to see if Ford had come across any interesting items during the War – for Ford, too, had an interest in antiquities (although whether this extended to small-time antiquities dealing is not known), and also had an interest in stone tools. Ford showed Fawcett some pieces from the treasure. Given that a number of items were on open display, we can imagine that Fawcett spotted them anyway, unless he had not been allowed into the particular room at Grove Villa where they were kept. Ford’s motives are, again, unclear. Perhaps he was curious to have Fawcett’s view on the items. Or possibly he genuinely thought that the pieces were made of pewter, as he later claimed at the coroner’s inquest, although this seems hard to believe – an agricultural engineer surely had a pretty good grasp of the appearance of different types of metal. Maybe the pull of sharing ‘his’ amazing discovery with a fellow enthusiast simply proved too hard to resist. Whatever his motivation, he probably did not expect Fawcett to react in the manner that he did. Either immediately, or very soon after, Fawcett told Ford that he would have to report the discovery. Ford himself may have had nagging doubts of his own right to retain the silver from the start, but probably pushed such troubling thoughts away. Maybe he had at the very least a suspicion, or even a genuine distrust, of authority. It does seem highly unlikely that he had an intimate knowledge of the common law of Treasure Trove. But Fawcett knew that such finds had to be reported, even if he did not necessarily know with exactitude the associated practicalities. After this, things moved forward quite rapidly. Fawcett became the go-between between Ford and the British Museum. Fawcett had his first meeting with Christopher

Introduction | 3

supplied. On receipt, Ford went to the local police station in Mildenhall on 21 June 1946, and reported the discovery to the desk sergeant Owen Cole, with whom Ford was well acquainted. Cole returned to Grove Villa with Ford and loaded the material into a police van.12 Then came the pithy letter from Ford to Fawcett, which evidently demonstrates how much their relationship had soured since the GP’s involvement: Dear Dr Fawcett I reported the find to the police at Mildenhall on the 21st inst, who promptly came along and pinched the lot.13

Plate 6 Receipt given to Ford by Fawcett for items on loan for testing at the British Museum

Hawkes at the British Museum, in which he gave a verbal description of what he had seen, on 8 May 1946. Hawkes probably did not think a great deal about it; it has always been difficult for museum curators to know what they are dealing with until they have inspected something tangible (either images or the objects themselves). Ford agreed to send Fawcett a few fragments of silver, which he had probably retained during his cleaning activities.10 Fawcett sent them to Hawkes.11 Hawkes could do little with them (they were just fragments, so undiagnostic), so next time Ford furnished Fawcett with a spoon (cat. 28, the ‘papittedo’ spoon), one of the bowls of the deep-bowled spoons (cats 16–20) and one of the drop handles from the fluted dish (cat. 13) (Pl. 6). The decisive moment for Ford came in June. Fawcett had sent him the Treasure Trove guidelines that Hawkes had

The hoard was subsequently taken to Newmarket police station, as it was a more secure location than the small station at Mildenhall (Pl. 8).14 The first press report appeared in the Sunday Express on 23 June, rapidly followed by many others.15 Roald Dahl’s well-known fictionalized account of the discovery, based on an interview with Gordon Butcher, appeared in the Saturday Evening Post in America in September 1947.16 On 26 June the treasure was examined for the first time by professional archaeologists, namely Tom Lethbridge and Gordon Fowler, both members of the Fenland Research Committee.17 The Treasure Trove inquest was held only a few days later, on 1 July 1946, at Mildenhall, under the jurisdiction of Thomas Wilson QC. The details of the inquest are outlined in an Antiquaries Journal article;18 suffice to say the hoard was declared Treasure Trove, as was expected. The treasure was transported to the British Museum on 19 July and went on public display the next day (Pl. 7). In due course a reduced reward of £2,000, to take into account the delay in reporting the discovery, was sent to Ford and Butcher, divided equally between the two men. Conspiracy theories

After the treasure had come to light, Lethbridge and Fowler attempted to re-locate the find-spot on 1 September 1946, but concluded that the particular spot in question – which had been indicated to them by Sydney Ford (Pl. 9) – was not the original burial pit (Pls 10–11). They also believed that the site might have been ‘salted’ (i.e. deliberately contaminated), because they found pieces of a silver Georgian teapot. This led, in time, to the promulgation of

Plate 7 Two of the large flanged bowls (cats 6–7), only partially cleaned and in the condition in which they arrived at the British Museum in 1946

4 | The Mildenhall Treasure

Plate 8 Two early images of the treasure, probably taken in Newmarket police station. The image to the left appeared in a number of press reports, for example the Illustrated London News on 29 June 1946

two conspiracy theories: the first, that the treasure was in actuality ‘war loot’, flown into the RAF airbase at Mildenhall at the height of the War, and somehow ending up in the hands of Sydney Ford;19 and a more convoluted theory, which suggested that the hoard had in fact been discovered many years earlier, probably in the 1860s, not at West Row but at Cavenham Heath, and which connected the discovery with a Victorian gentleman by the name of ‘Black Jack’ Seaber.20 Investigations have concluded that neither ‘conspiracy’ has any grounding in reality.21

To be fair to Lethbridge and Fowler, during their time the relative dearth of high-quality Roman material culture derived from British soil, the general lack of monumental remains in the province in comparison to other parts of the empire and the poverty of trust engendered by their dealings with Ford, makes it easier to accommodate their rather fanciful conclusions. And perhaps the recent conflict itself was a factor – did the War breed mistrust of strangers and suspicion of others’ clandestine activities? If so, this may have led them to suspect that Ford had sufficient links with

Plate 9 Sydney Ford’s map of the supposed findspot

Introduction | 5

Plate 10 Image captioned ‘Ford, Bird & Landymore (BB 1947)’, Suffolk County Council. Apparently they are standing in the field where the discovery was made

Plate 11 Fowler (left) and Lethbridge (right) attempting to locate the burial pit, c. 1947

the black market to come into possession of the treasure, although there was never any evidence to suggest that he was any more than an agricultural engineer with an interest in archaeological material – hardly unusual for someone who had spent their life working the land. In the intervening decades, much has changed, particularly with regard to the evidence that can be collated for the deposition of precious metals in the fourth and early fifth centuries. It is now known that East Anglia is

an extremely productive area of Britain for metalwork deposits of all historical periods, including the period to which the Mildenhall treasure belongs: aside from numerous coin hoards, large deposits of gold and silver, including silver plate, have been discovered at Water Newton (1974, 1975), Thetford (1979), Burgate (1991) and Hoxne (1992), all of which can be dated to the fourth century.22 It can also be argued that the treasure fits into a wider European pattern: if the frontier provinces of the Rhine/Danube are extended north-westwards across the North Sea to take in East Anglia, Mildenhall can be set alongside treasures from continental Europe unearthed since it was discovered: for instance Kaiseraugst (1961–2), Izvoarele (1992) and, most recently, Vinkovci (2012). The ‘Seuso’ treasure (probably found in 1978) has been strongly linked with an alleged discovery story in Pannonia (modern Hungary), meaning it too, if the reports are to be believed, was found in the vicinity of the Rhine/Danube frontier.23 So the idea that the Mildenhall treasure was somehow anomalous may have appeared reasonable at the time, but it has now been thoroughly discredited. Even so, Mildenhall remains the most complete dining service of silver plate to have been discovered in the British Isles.

Plate 12 Receipt given to Ford by local policeman Owen Cole when the treasure was taken into police custody

Subsequent research into the find circumstances of the Mildenhall treasure

Since the publication of an article in the Antiquaries Journal in 2008, further documents concerning the find circumstances of the Mildenhall treasure have come to light. Some of these were uncovered in the British Museum archives,24 and others among the materials that the Museum acquired from an independent researcher and journalist, John Gadd, papers which in turn Gadd had purchased from the estate of Tom Lethbridge, alongside documents relating to Gadd’s own investigations into the circumstances surrounding the discovery.25 None of these documents has radically altered the perception of the find circumstances surrounding Mildenhall, although some add further detail and provide useful pieces of information, not previously in the public domain. All these documents are available to those who may wish to consult them. Some of the more interesting snippets are provided below.

6 | The Mildenhall Treasure

The contents of the treasure

First, in Gadd’s documents there is a copy of the receipt that was issued to Ford when the treasure was taken away by the police on 21 June (Pl. 12).26 The receipt provides the following list. The list is annotated (in italics) with the relevant catalogue numbers used in this publication: Received this 21st day of June 1946 from Mr. Sydney Ford of Grove Villa, West Row, the following articles of Treasure Trove, and apparently all silver:Two large trays [cats 1, 4] Four soup pattern plates [cats 5–8] Two small plates [cats 2–3] Two finger bowls [cats 9–10] Two cups [cats 14–15] One salad pattern bowl with handles detached [cat. 13] Five ladles with four handles detached [cats 16–20] One tureen in two pieces [cats 11–12] Eight spoons [cats 21–8] Dated this 21st June 1946 Owen Cole

Although this does not quash rumours of missing pieces,27 it does at least confirm that what was seized from Ford corresponds exactly with what eventually entered the collections of the British Museum. Second, in a new set of letters discovered in the British Museum archives, written by Fawcett to Hawkes, Fawcett offers some new insights into his dealings with Ford, during the time when he was trying to persuade Ford to ‘do the right thing’. For instance, he claims that Ford had a note of ‘(so he tells me) the exact find spot, & also, though some of the objects are polished, to (have) use(d) no scratching abrasives or mechanical violence (the state of preservation is remarkable & most of the articles seemed perfect, unbent & quite complete)’.28 As has been seen, Ford may have known the ‘exact find spot’, but it seems that he did not necessarily share his knowledge with others, particularly not Lethbridge and Fowler. Fawcett also adds an interesting postscript to the same letter: ‘A few gold coins have often caught my eye in his general collection, if from same site, valuable for anti-hoc [? the hand-writing is unclear] dating; but don’t say I told you.’ This corresponds with what Fawcett said many years later in an interview with Gadd, when he claimed Ford had a number of gold aurei (which presumably he might have mistaken for solidi, the type of gold coin contemporaneous with the treasure).29 Again, whether these coins have anything to do with the Mildenhall treasure is now impossible to establish, and their whereabouts remain unknown – and even if they did one day come to light, it would now be nigh on impossible to connect them to the treasure, unless they came with accompanying documentation. Also from Fawcett is a previously unseen letter which he sent to the British Museum on 22 June 1946. Unbeknown to Fawcett, Ford had already declared the find on the previous day. Fawcett nonetheless provides some interesting ‘new’

information concerning the discovery, and a list of what he remembered seeing at Ford’s house that particular Easter: The hoard when seen was partly cleaned (water only he says & ‘silver’ polish) & some of the pieces were set up on his parlour sideboard; others (uncleaned) were in a cupboard underneath. He informed me that one of the spoons had been in domestic use for some time!30

That Ford made regular use of one of the spoons is known from other sources, but this at least confirms the reports. He also volunteered the statement that ‘he had bought out the co-finders interest & acquired all the pieces from him’ (name undisclosed, but we may hear more, later, from this ‘partner’, as I don’t suppose he gave him much for his share!). I understand it was all found together in one place. He told me he had made a note of exact spot, depth, etc. (this is to his credit, & his obvious care of the objects).

This statement does cast a rather different light on Ford’s dealings with Butcher. Fowler had asserted that Butcher had been ‘bought off’ by Ford, which in his mind explained why Butcher had been able to afford to become a smallholder.31 This corresponded with views expressed locally to Chris Mycock, the curator of Mildenhall Museum.32 Fawcett’s statement clearly does not prove that this was the case, but it would seem to give more credibility to the idea that Ford compensated Butcher in some way for taking charge of the silver, which he knew full well was in actuality Butcher’s discovery. In the same letter, Fawcett provides a list of what he recalled seeing at Ford’s house the first time he viewed the treasure: A. Two very large plates or plaques one magnificently decorated in high relief with numerous Roman deities, heroes, etc. & a beaded edge; the other incised with patterns, with central interlocking [followed by a drawing of a triangle and a six pointed star] B. A large fluted bowl with swan like drop handles (on such a sample as seen by Mr. Hawkes) at present detached C. A smaller bowl with ?ornamented fixed handles, in which stood several beautiful D. Spoons (as seen by Mr Hawkes), some with Roman inscriptions in bowl & one (noted) with a small ‘CHI RO [sic]’. (at least 6, I think) E. Four (I think) small bowls or cups (as seen at B.M.) which as far as I remember fitted into separate elaborately ornamented handles F. 3 of 4 (I think – there seemed four of most of the bowl-like objects) large stemmed & based ‘stands’ or ‘fruit dishes’ with ?drop handles & elaborately ornamented (rather like Victorian fruit stands or cake dishes) G. 4 (I think) stemmed goblet like vessels – rather like grapefruit glasses or champagne glasses H. I think (tho. rather vague I’m afraid) there were some plates of ordinary size & some other oddments – I may have forgotten other important pieces – there seemed to be a large mass of stuff & mostly massive & very elaborately ornamented in most cases – of exceptionally good style work. All I saw were in most exceptionally good condition & seemed all there & all perfect – or nearly so.

Most of this list corresponds with the treasure as known. Fawcett’s ‘C’ is probably the flanged bowl with upstand and

Introduction | 7

cover (cats 11–12). Fawcett’s ‘E’ might seem a rather odd description, but probably relates to the flanged bowls (cats 5–8), for the flanges could be viewed as ‘handles’ into which the bowls ‘fitted’. ‘F’ is rather mysterious; Fawcett might conceivably be referring to the two smaller flanged bowls (cats 9–10), but thought he saw more, and these do not have ‘drop handles’, although admittedly he qualifies this with a ‘?’ Fawcett’s ‘G’ is arguably the most concrete case for there being additional pieces, unknown to the current assemblage, because Fawcett subsequently claimed that he believed that there were four, not two, ‘goblet’-like vessels, which surely corresponds with the pedestalled plates (cats 14–15). He made the same claim at the inquest,33 and also in his statement given to the police on 27 June 1946.34 He does not mention, however, the vessel with feet described by Jack Thompson35 – Thompson, therefore, appears to be the sole individual to have made this claim. Another interesting piece of correspondence concerns the find-spot, and was sent by Fowler to Wilson, the coroner in charge of the inquest, on 28 June 1946.36 In the letter, Fowler expresses concern over the location of the find-spot, because having not been able to examine it before the inquest, he suggests that its relationship with the remains of a Roman ‘villa’, excavated by Lethbridge in 193237 could not reasonably be established. He therefore makes the following suggestion: In view of what I have said above, you may think that after taking all the other evidence it will be desirable to adjourn the Inquest till such time as the exact site of Mr. Ford’s find has been examined by competent persons and searched for still more of the treasure.

Indeed, in hindsight, this might have been a desirable way to proceed, not least because it might have occurred to the parties involved to ask for Butcher’s view on where he discovered the treasure.38 But as is known, such an adjournment was never made, and subsequent attempts to re-locate the burial spot – and indeed, perhaps items missed – proved to be fruitless.39 A royal visit, Roald Dahl and other press reports

A fascinating piece of information is provided by Lethbridge in some summary notes entitled ‘Comparisons and conclusions’:40 13 July 1946 Queen, Princess E & M visited Newmarket police station & inspected treasure.

This means that Queen Mary, the Princess Elizabeth (then aged 20) and her sister Margaret (then aged 16), were taken to see the treasure. A magazine article also ran the following story: ‘Plough revealed hidden treasure’ – with a subheading entitled ‘A visit from the Queen’, and essentially repeats Lethbridge’s note.41 It also seems as if Fawcett was not the first non-family member or close acquaintance of Ford to set eyes on the treasure in Grove Villa before it was reported to the police. A letter from a Mr Woodward, sent to Country Life and published in July 1949,42 alleges that he saw the Mildenhall treasure during the War years (the letter was a response to Dahl’s publication in the Saturday Evening Post):

8 | The Mildenhall Treasure

Either late in 1943 or early in 1944 [I visited] Mr. Ford … He was delighted with my interest [in his collections] and told me that his life hobby had been to collect any objects found in the district. He then said, ‘But do look at that pewter, I have spent a long time cleaning it.’ And there on the sideboard was arrayed what has now been called the Mildenhall Treasure … I was merely a business acquaintance of Mr. Ford, not a personal friend, and if he was so willing to show me this treasure, placed upon his sideboard for all to see, no doubt anyone else visiting the house could see it. This does not tally with the impression given in your article, of a closely guarded secret….

In addition, although Dahl had been unable to speak with Ford about the discovery in 1946,43 it appears that Ford was prepared to speak, some years later, to the Farmer’s Weekly. In an article of January 1960,44 Ford is quoted as saying: We are agricultural engineers, established 100 years, doing contract ploughing, threshing and so on. I also farm. The war was on at the time. Gordon Butcher and I were working not far from a Roman villa, turning up chalky soil on the edge of the Fen, ploughing deep, about 12 inches, getting the land ready, as far as I can remember, for sugar beet. Because so many bog oaks were about, we used safety-plugs between the tractor and the plough. Well, the plough struck. We went to the hedge and cut another plug and started off again. The plug broke again and the tractor ran forward. Gordon Butcher came to me and said: I’ve struck something. I said I’d take a spade with me and dig it out. A big tray (now the famous Great Dish, see picture), upside down, covered everything. It had been damaged by the plough, but, being an engineer, I put that right afterwards. I thought the stuff was pewter, put it carefully away in a cupboard in the parlour, and there it remained for four years.

He went on to say ‘I took the greatest care of all the pieces, even cleaned them up a bit …’, which is something of an understatement (see p. 241). A claim has also been made that Ford used wooden formers to reshape various items.45 Another question which has arisen is how closely Dahl’s account of the discovery corresponds with the truth. One means by which this might be established would be if Dahl’s original notes from his interview with Butcher were available. Therefore Gadd asked Dahl about this and unfortunately Dahl replied simply ‘I have no notes. Nothing.’46 As is known, Ford persistently claimed that he thought the pieces to be pewter, which was why he believed he need not declare the discovery. Many have doubted that Ford, as a collector of antiquities and an agricultural engineer, could possibly not have known the difference between a lead alloy and silver. This would appear to be confirmed by an interview Gadd conducted with the wife of Sergeant Cole, to whom Ford reported the discovery on 21 June. Gadd made the following notes from an interview with Cole’s wife in April 1977: Owen Cole [i.e. her husband] had a soft spot for Ford and... he was so loyal (kind) to his friends despite his official job. Eventually she said ‘I know it all, and I don’t know whether I should tell you, but yes I will after all these years.’ She heard Ford say that he knew it was silver, of tremendous value, and he desperately wanted to keep it, but was terrified of what would happen to him now that others knew he had it for so long. ‘The wonderful thing about Owen’ she said ‘was that I heard him

Date

Location and other details

Source

20 July 1946

The treasure goes on display in the Edward VII gallery (on the north side of the building, now known as the Joseph E. Hotung Gallery).

Brailsford 1955, 5

August 1951

‘A temporary exhibition is prepared under a corrugated iron roof in the Roman Britain Room’ – this undoubtedly included the treasure. This is probably Room 14 (now Room 40), the ‘Medieval Room’ and subsequently the ‘Roman Britain Room’.

Brailsford 1955, 5; Francis 1971, 264; Wilson 2002, 378; Painter pers. comm.

1957

The treasure is displayed behind the buffet during the Queen’s visit to the museum when she presents the Royal Music library.

Caygill pers. comm. (David Wilson, e-mail, 15 February 2013)

1959

By this date, the treasure is likely to have been on display in Room 9 on the upper floor (now Room 69, the Greek and Roman life room), known as the ‘Prehistory and Roman Britain’ room and later as the ‘Roman Room’.

British Museum Guide 1959

1964

The treasure is redisplayed in what was Room 21, the ‘Renaissance Corridor’, now part of Room 46 (Europe 1400–1800), which led into the ‘Early Christian room’ (then Room 20) (see plan on p. 378 of Wilson 2002). This display was known as the ‘Masterpieces of Prehistoric Europe and Roman Britain'.

British Museum Quarterly, News Supplement, xxvii, 3–4, 1964 (Oct.) (Sieveking 1963); Francis 1971, 264

1 April 1968

A set of redeveloped galleries at the top of the main stairs is opened to the public; the treasure is in Room 14 (case 4C), now Room 40 (Medieval Europe). At the same time, a new department of Prehistoric and Romano-British Antiquities is created.

British Museum Triennial Report 1966, 1966–9; Francis 1971, 264; Blue Guide: London 1973, 194

1977 (1 April–1 October)

Mildenhall is included in the temporary exhibition ‘Wealth of the Roman World. Gold and Silver ad 300–700’, which is staged on the upper floor in Rooms 49 to 50 (then the Special Exhibitions Gallery).

British Museum Central Archives job 670

25 October 1983

A new Roman Britain display opens in Room 40; as part of the refurbishment, Mildenhall is moved from a wall case to a central free-standing case just behind the main information panel (possibly case 12).

British Museum Central Archives job 263

1990

The Bacchic platter (cat. 1) is lent to the exhibition ‘Civilisation: Ancient Treasures from the British Museum’ at two venues in Australia (National Gallery of Australia, Canberra, 24 March to 10 June; Museum of Victoria, Melbourne, 28 June to 23 September).

1996–7

The treasure is possibly included in a temporary display in the Central Saloon (Room 36), while Room 49 is being prepared.

1997–present

Mildenhall is placed on display in Room 49 (The Weston Gallery of Roman Britain), in case 22, where it remains.

2003–6

The whole treasure is included in the ‘Buried Treasure’ touring exhibition (British Museum; National Museum of Wales, Cardiff; Manchester Museum; Hancock Museum, Newcastle; Norwich Castle Museum).

2007

The Weston Gallery of Roman Britain is refreshed, with some changes made to the manner in which the Mildenhall treasure is displayed.

2012

The Bacchic platter (cat. 1) is displayed in Ipswich at Christchurch Mansion as part of the British Museum’s Spotlight loans programme (25 July–28 October).

2013

One of the Bacchic plates (cat. 2) is included in an exhibition on the art of East Anglia in the Sainsbury Centre for Visual Arts.

2013

The Bacchic platter (cat. 1) is displayed in Room 3 at the British Museum in the exhibition ‘Silver Service: Fine Dining in Roman Britain’ (23 May–4 August).

Geoff Pickup pers. comm., 11 February 2013

Hobbs 2003

Table 1 Permanent display and temporary exhibition history of the Mildenhall treasure

Introduction | 9

Plate 13 Parts of the Mildenhall treasure (cats 1–4) as first displayed in the Edward VII gallery at the British Museum in 1946

telling Syd that he was to stick to his story that he thought it was pewter at all costs, and that he wouldn’t let on what Ford had confessed, and would write it down as such’.47

These new documents add colour to what was previously known about the treasure’s finding, but do not fundamentally alter the overall picture. The characters involved and the era during which the discovery took place continue to fascinate, and no doubt will do so for many years to come. Display and publication Display

Since acquisition, the treasure has been on almost continuous display at the British Museum, only leaving Bloomsbury in whole or in part on a few occasions. Its display and exhibition history is summarized in Table 1. As the table shows, in 1946 it was initially displayed in the Edward VII gallery (Pl. 13) (now known as the Joseph E. Hotung Gallery), where it probably remained until at least the mid-1950s (see below).48 During the late 1950s and 1960s, the treasure was moved between various galleries, most of which were on the Museum’s upper floor; in 1968, for example, it was displayed in a set of redeveloped galleries in what now includes Room 40 (Medieval Europe), which coincided with the creation of a separate department of Prehistoric and Romano-British Antiquities.49 In 1977, the

10 | The Mildenhall Treasure

Plate 14 The treasure as temporarily displayed in the ‘Wealth of the Roman World’ exhibition, 1977

treasure was an integral part of a major temporary exhibition ‘Wealth of the Roman World’ (Pl. 14), which brought together an impressive number of late Roman treasures, including the Kaiseraugst treasure from Switzerland, in what are now permanent galleries Rooms 49 and 50 (Room 49 being, coincidentally, where the treasure is now displayed), at the time one of the Museum’s temporary exhibition spaces. After the ‘Wealth’ exhibition, the Mildenhall treasure returned to Room 40, being moved to a wall case when the gallery was refurbished in 1983 (Pl. 15). In 1990, the Bacchic platter (cat. 1) left the UK for the first time, loaned to a major exhibition in Australia (Pl. 16); and when the generous support of the Garfield Weston Foundation facilitated the opening of a new gallery of Roman Britain in 1997, Mildenhall was moved once again, to the case in Room 49 where it has remained on display to this day (Pl. 17). The new millennium saw the whole treasure embark on a tour of four provincial museums as part of the ‘Buried Treasure’ exhibition (Pl. 18).50 In a departure from the usual manner in which the treasure is presented, fake food was placed on top of some of the vessels, to stimulate debate on the uses of silver plate for display and practical dining (see Chapter 16). Most recently, the Bacchic platter was lent to Ipswich Museums as part of the British Museum’s Spotlight loans programme (2012) and in 2013 one of the Bacchic plates (cat. 2) was displayed in the Sainsbury Centre for Visual Arts as part of a celebration of the art of East Anglia. The Bacchic platter was also displayed in Room 3 at the British

Plate 15 The treasure on display in Room 40 at the British Museum, 1983

Plate 16 The Bacchic platter on temporary display in the ‘Civilisation’ exhibition, National Gallery of Australia, Canberra, 1990

Museum, the star of its own show ‘Silver Service: Fine Dining in Roman Britain’ (May to August 2013) (Pl. 19).51 It was also chosen by the Turner Prize-winning artist Grayson Perry as one of the objects replicated and hung from the mast of his tomb of the unknown craftsman, an ‘iron ship sailing into the afterlife’ (Pl. 20).52

period when a number of ‘conspiracy theories’, most notably about its spurious North African origins, began to circulate.54 One paper also questioned the authenticity of the key components, suggesting that the ‘Neptune Dish’ (cat. 1) and accompanying plates (cats 2–3) were actually modern forgeries.55 As soon as the treasure had been accepted as both genuine and of British provenance, attention turned to the place of the treasure’s decoration and subject matter within the artistic milieu, as well as wider questions concerned with the treasure’s origins and possible owners. The first major publication, in 1947, was a provisional handbook of the treasure, undertaken by J.W. Brailsford of the (then) department of British and Medieval Antiquities. He provided brief descriptions of each item, accompanied by

Research and publication

As outlined in a review of the large volume of correspondence and press coverage that followed the reporting of the treasure and its consequent declaration as Treasure Trove in July 1946,53 much of the early curiosity about the treasure focused on the circumstances surrounding its discovery. As discussed elsewhere, this is the

Plate 17 The current display of the Mildenhall treasure in the Weston Gallery of Roman Britain (Room 49) at the British Museum in 2016

Introduction | 11

Plate 18 The treasure temporarily displayed with fake food as part of the ‘Buried Treasure’ exhibition, Room 35, British Museum, November 2003–April 2004

Plate 19 The Bacchic platter on temporary display in the exhibition ‘Silver Service: Fine Dining in Roman Britain’, Room 3, British Museum, May–August 2013

a limited number of photographs and line drawings, and some speculation on the wider context – a revised edition was published some years later.56 H. Maryon, in the Museum’s Research Laboratory, published short papers which addressed the manufacture of the Bacchic platter and plates (cats 1–3) and the large flanged bowls (cats 5–8) to determine if the decoration had been cast, or as he correctly established, fully worked from the front. He also suggested, again correctly, the use of a die to create the beaded rims.57 Discussions of the place of the Mildenhall treasure’s decoration in the world of Classical art soon followed. The first major art-historical study was published by the German scholar T. Dohrn in 1949.58 Dohrn produced an impressively in-depth description of the figural and geometric decoration and discussed these in relation to comparanda in a range of artistic media. J. Toynbee then added to the debate with a short festschrift paper,59 partly as a riposte to Heichelheim’s forgery claims.60 Toynbee, who rather puzzlingly makes no reference to Dohrn’s work, focuses only on the Bacchic platter, which she sets in the context of late Roman art, and the fluted dish, primarily to discuss its six-pointed star motif and dismiss claims of Jewish symbolism (see pp. 188–9). In the 1960s, Toynbee followed up this work with a discussion of the entire treasure but with an emphasis on the figural decoration, as part of her wider studies on Romano-British art.61 It was here that Toynbee offered the first interpretation of what the decoration on the Bacchic platter represents. She

suggested a link with pagan funerary reliefs, which regularly depict the Bacchic thiasos (see also p. 48), arguing that this, in combination with the head of Oceanus, must have an ‘inner, symbolic meaning’. For further discussion, see pp. 54 and 285.62 The main scholar to work on Mildenhall in the 1970s was K. Painter. Two works appeared during this time: the first full catalogue listing subsequent to that of Brailsford’s handbook,63 much of which was reproduced in a new handbook published soon after64 (both publications employed a different set of catalogue numbers from Brailsford’s). Brailsford’s handbook was long out of print and the Museum required a new introduction to satisfy the public appetite. Painter explored the possible links between historical sources and the name ‘Eutherios’ on both Bacchic plates (cats 2–3), which although now largely discredited (see p. 234) set in train a number of debates about the ownership and status of the silver in the Roman world, particularly by Cameron and Johns (see below). Painter also sought to disentangle the apparent clash of ideologies and beliefs raised by the treasure’s pagan decoration and Christian inscriptions (see also pp. 284–5). Painter’s publication, as well as his brief handbook of the Water Newton treasure, can also be set against the backdrop of the first major British Museum exhibition on late Roman gold and silver, ‘Wealth of the Roman World’. The accompanying catalogue was an important work, not least because it highlighted links not

12 | The Mildenhall Treasure

Plate 20 An iron replica of the Bacchic platter as part of Grayson’s Perry’s The Tomb of the Unknown Craftsman (detail), 2011, cast iron, oil paint, glass, rope, wood, flint hand axe, 305 x 204 x 79cm, edition of 3 plus 1 AP

only between different types of precious materials in late antiquity, but also between the late Roman Empire and its neighbouring states, such as Persia and successor cultures.65 At the same time (and entirely coincidentally) Roald Dahl’s fictionalized account of the treasure’s discovery, revised from the author’s 1947 version, was republished in a book of short stories for children.66 During the 1980s and 1990s less emphasis was placed on the art-historical and symbolic aspects of the treasure’s decoration (with the notable exceptions of Hutchinson67 and the paper on ‘picture plates’ by Toynbee and Painter)68 and more on the wider topics of ownership, status and the burial of the treasure and other similar deposits. There were a series of published debates between scholars concerned with these issues, notably Cameron and Painter’s dispute concerning the role and importance of silver plate in late Roman society.69 It had also become clear that the treasure was not anomalous in Britain, as had been perceived by archaeologists in the immediate post-War period, largely because of the discovery of comparable ‘high status’ hoards in the east of Britain in and around the Mildenhall area, particularly two hoards from Water Newton,70 the Thetford treasure71 and most spectacularly of all, the Hoxne treasure.72 Other hoards of late Roman silver also continued to come to light. The murky circumstances surrounding the discovery of the ‘Seuso’ treasure stimulated debate on the ethics of the antiquities trade and related issues such as restitution and the legal status of unprovenanced

discoveries.73 The emergence of new pieces of silver plate belonging to the Kaiseraugst treasure led to a substantial new publication and reassessment of the entire Kaiseraugst treasure in all its aspects.74 In 2012, a large hoard of silver plate was discovered at Vinkovci (Roman Cibalae) in eastern Croatia, which is currently undergoing conservation treatment; this demonstrates how, despite the rarity of treasures of Roman silver plate, it remains likely that more such assemblages may still lie undiscovered. With the acquisition by the British Museum of new archival material relating to the treasure’s discovery (particularly the correspondence of Tom Lethbridge), the study of the treasure in more recent times has been largely concerned once again with the circumstances surrounding its discovery.75 A new introduction to the treasure was also published,76 although this time without a formal catalogue listing, since this was part of a wider research project of which this volume is the main output. The following chapters detail each item in the Mildenhall treasure, beginning with the treasure’s centrepiece, the Bacchic platter. Notes

1 Hobbs 2008. The extensive archive of correspondence and other assorted Mildenhall paraphernalia is held in the Department of Britain, Europe and Prehistory at the British Museum and in the Central Archives. The material is coded ‘MA doc. 001-’. 2 January 1943 is believed to be the more likely date. At the inquest, Ford said January 1942; but in a statement to the police made before the inquest, 6 January 1943; Butcher said January 1942 at

Introduction | 13

the inquest, but after ‘Christmas 1942’ in his police statement, which would correlate with the January 1943 claim made by Ford. 3 The figure of 34 pieces is regularly cited. For a discussion, see p. 15. 4 Hobbs 2008, 406. 5 Ibid. 6 Ibid., 407. 7 Gadd’s notes paraphrase Thompson’s comments concerning Toby Butcher’s claim thus: ‘That afternoon was bitterly cold, really a horrible day, and no child would want to spend even a moment in such an exposed and awkward position on a tractor, or be allowed to, it being so difficult to cling on to the tractor mudguards of that time in a freezing wind and sleet coming on.’ MA doc. 094a. 8 Hobbs 2008, 410. 9 Fawcett’s collection was bequeathed after his death in 1982 to Bristol Museum and Art Gallery. It comprised a total of 7,514 items, including about 3,500 lithics, the rest bronze and a single silver object (Gail Boyle, pers. comm.). 10 According to Robert Organ, a conservator who examined one of the bowls (cat. 8) in 1955: ‘In an effort to discover evidence in favour of the bowl having been shaped by spinning, a further sample of the metal was mounted in Transoptic with the inner surface of the bowl exposed. The fragment was a piece sent in by the finder of the bowl in advance of the main find’ (unpublished research report). 11 I am grateful to John Ford, the grandson of Sydney Ford, for donating to the British Museum in January 2014 papers from his grandfather which include the original receipt Fawcett gave to Ford for these three items. 12 The original receipt given to Ford by Cole (discussed on p. 7) is also included in the papers kindly donated by John Ford (see note 11). 13 MA doc. 12. 14 According to a local newspaper report at the time, it was ‘lain not too gracefully on a wooden bed in one of the cells … under the care of Superintendent Hammond’.’ Unfortunately the article (in the set of papers acquired from John Gadd) is not annotated so it is uncertain which local newspaper it appeared in. 15 Hobbs 2008, 396–7. 16 Dahl 1947; Hobbs 2008, 398. 17 Ibid. 380. 18 Ibid. 383–7. 19 Ibid., 400–2. 20 It has been suggested that ‘Black Jack’ Seaber was the inspiration for a character in Sabine Baring Gould’s novel Cheap Jack Zita (Hobbs 2008, n. 124). This conclusion was also reached by Colin Dring, one of the trustees of Mildenhall Museum, in a letter he sent to Gadd in 1979 (MA doc. 085b). 21 Hobbs 2008, 404–5. 22 Hobbs 2006, 55–8. 23 Landesman 2006; Hajdú 2012. 24 I would like to thank Francesca Hillier for her assistance and archival research. 25 I am grateful for the generous support of the British Museum Friends in acquiring Gadd’s material. For more information about John Gadd see Hobbs 2008, 406–7. 26 See note 12. 27 Hobbs 2008, 405–8. 28 MA doc. 011c. 29 Hobbs 2008, 408; MA doc. 085. 30 MA doc. 12a. 31 Hobbs 2008, 390; MA doc. 030. 32 Hobbs 2008, n. 62. 33 Ibid., 385. 34 Ibid., 405. 35 Ibid., 406. 36 MA doc. 022a. 37 MA doc. 17. 38 Although it appears that Butcher may not have had a good memory of where he was ploughing that day, for in another document, possibly written by Fowler (MA doc. 063f) it states: ‘Butcher told

14 | The Mildenhall Treasure

his father that the place was in Ford’s field on the other or east side of the main road.’ As is known, the treasure was almost certainly found on Rolfe’s land, not that of Ford. 39 Hobbs 2008, 396. 40 MA doc. 063h. 41 This is a photocopy of a magazine article which came to the Museum as part of the John Gadd archive. Unfortunately it is not annotated with the source. 42 It would seem that a photocopy of the letter was sent to Ford on 29 June 1967. 43 Dahl claimed that after he interviewed Butcher, he attempted to speak to Ford, but ‘Ford wouldn’t talk to me and closed the door in my face’ (Dahl 1977, 52). According to Jack Thompson, however, Dahl had mistakenly called at Milton House on the day in question, and it was Syd’s older brother Ted who had declined to speak to him – Syd was living at Grove Villa at the time (interview with Thompson conducted by John Gadd, July 2001: MA doc. 094a). 44 MA doc. 074a. 45 MA doc. 094a. ‘Syd. made wooden forms or moulds to help him hammer and push some objects into shape, as well as cleaning them. The experts said he made a proper job of it. I know it took him years of work. A lot of people saw the cleaned up stuff in the house – he never tried to hide any of it.’ Interview with Jack Thompson by John Gadd, 3 July 2001. 46 MA doc. 080e. 47 MA doc. 080i. 48 Brailsford 1947. 49 Also in the 1960s a set of replicas was made for Ipswich Museums of eight of the vessels, cats 1, 2–3, 9–12 and 15 (Ipswich Museums reg. nos R. 1964-35.1, R. 1964-35.5A, R. 1964-35.5B, R. 1964-35.2, R.1966-16.2, R.1966-16.3, R.1964-35.3.). 50 Hobbs 2003. 51 The display attracted 84,365 visitors. 52 Perry 2011, 185. 53 Hobbs 2008. 54 Ibid., 400. 55 Heichelheim 1949 and 1950. 56 Brailsford 1947 and 1955. Where references are made to Brailsford in the catalogue section of this book, these are to the 1955 edition. 57 Maryon 1948a and 1948b. 58 Dohrn 1949. 59 Toynbee 1953. 60 See note 55. 61 Toynbee 1962 and 1964. 62 Toynbee 1953, 46–7. 63 Painter 1973. 64 Painter 1977a. Brailsford’s earlier (1955) text was reproduced verbatim for the section ‘Its date and origin’ (pp. 12 ff.). Unfortunately, due to the haste with which the book needed to be published, Brailsford was not properly acknowledged much to Painter’s regret (Painter pers. comm.). 65 Kent and Painter 1977. 66 Dahl 1977. Dahl’s story was published for a third time, on this occasion as a stand-alone book with illustrations by Ralph Steadman (Dahl 1999). 67 Hutchinson 1986. 68 Toynbee and Painter 1986. 69 Cameron 1992; Painter 1988; Painter 1993. See also Johns 1990. 70 Painter 1977b. 71 Johns and Potter 1983. 72 Guest 2005; Johns 2010. 73 Mango and Bennett 1994. On the subject of the legalities of the case, see for example Merryman 2008. 74 Guggisberg and Kaufmann-Heinimann 2003. 75 Hobbs 1997 and 2008. 76 Hobbs 2012.

Catalogue

Arrangement of the catalogue Catalogue numbers and keys for decoration

In previous publications of the Mildenhall treasure that include a catalogue,1 the items are arranged in a variety of ways, although the broad groupings are generally the same. For this publication it was decided to assign new catalogue numbers, some of which correspond to those used previously, some of which do not. A slight complication has always been the manner in which the pieces of silver in the treasure were registered when the treasure entered the British Museum: at the time, 34 individual registration numbers were allocated, as each item was numbered irrespective of whether it was a complete object in its own right or a component of a composite object. In this catalogue, 28 catalogue numbers have been assigned: the exact number of pieces, composite or otherwise, known in the treasure. The aim of these new catalogue numbers is to arrange the material in a more logical manner, grouping objects together broadly by function within the context of a dining service, but also taking into account object size, probable production groupings (see Chapter 15) and estimated production dates. Vessels come first, followed by utensils. Thus the Bacchic platter and the accompanying plates are cats 1–3; the niello platter is cat. 4; the large flanged bowls cats 5–8 and the small flanged bowls cats 9–10; flanged bowl with upstand and cover cats 11–12 (since the cover was not made at the same time as the bowl, it seems sensible to assign it a different number), the fluted dish cat. 13 and the pedestalled plates cats 14–15. The utensils follow, with the deep-bowled spoons first (cats 16–20) followed by the long-handled spoons (cats 21–8). Each entry begins with the catalogue number and object type, with the museum registration numbers and previous catalogue numbers provided in brackets: a summary of the new catalogue numbers and those employed previously is provided in Table 2. This is followed by information relating to dimensions in terms of size, weight2 and capacity as appropriate, and where required the dimensions of the beads on rims.3 This is then succeeded by a description of the vessel form, the means by which any decoration was applied and any additional features (for instance inscriptions). The condition of the vessel is also assessed. Figural or geometric decoration is described, beginning with any decoration in the centre of the vessel in question, followed by decoration around the central medallion and finally the rim. Each figural, geometric or foliate scene has been numbered, e.g. ‘scene 2’, and a key to the numbering is supplied visually in the decorative plans for each vessel (e.g. Pl. 21). Normally, the order of these scenes runs anti-clockwise for the figural scenes (cats 1, 4–8, 12), since the decoration faces outwards, and clockwise for the geometric scenes (cats 4, 9–10). All sections are written by the main author of this publication, except where indicated. Tables within each chapter which include dates are usually arranged chronologically from latest at the top to earliest at the bottom (with the exception of Tables 1 and 28). Where relevant, descriptions are provided of individual scenes (either figural, foliate or geometric) and individual elements or characters are numbered in sequence. Keys to these numbers are provided in the relevant plates (for

Catalogue | 15

example Pl. 21). In the catalogue, scenes have usually been abbreviated to ‘S’ and individual figures to ‘F’. Vessel forms

In addition to new catalogue numbers (see above), the vessel types (cats 1–15 inclusive) have been standardized in accordance with terminology normally applied to coarseware pottery.4 In previous publications the assigning of vessel forms appears to have been rather arbitrary, with the most obvious examples of this being the ‘Great Dish’ (cat. 1), which is more accurately described in this catalogue as a platter, and the ‘Bacchic platters’ (cats 2–3), which are here correctly termed plates.5 Former commonly used names for different vessels are made clear in the catalogue entries and also given in Table 2. The standardization of forms in pottery – equally applicable to metal vessels – is calculated by dividing the height of the vessel by the diameter of the rim (if necessary excluding the flange, to distinguish between bowls and dishes, because – theoretically – flanged rims can be any width without compromising the essence of the vessel form). The following value ranges define the different vessel types: = or 0.14 but 0.3 but 0.5 but 1.0: jugs, ewers and other tall vessels. There are no vessels with scores greater than 1.0 in this assemblage. These values are also used in the discussion of comparable vessel forms (see for example pp. 32, 71–4, 125–9 and Pls 47, 107, 127, 204). Parallels and discussion

The final section of each catalogue entry is a more general discussion of the vessel, or vessel group, in the wider context of silver plate in the late Roman period. It can be divided broadly into two sections. First comes a study of the form and dimensions of such vessels and the distribution and dating of the vessel type. Where other treasures or single items are cited as comparanda, bibliographic details are provided in Table 32 at the back of the book (pp. 299–303) in order to avoid repeating these details in the endnotes. Standard catalogue references are given by find name and catalogue number (for example, Kaiseraugst cat. 1), whilst references to commonly cited exhibition catalogues and

16 | The Mildenhall Treasure

other studies are given by citation and then number (for example, Baratte and Painter 1989, no. 103). Second, decoration is discussed where appropriate. Clearly it would be impossible – and in any case achieve very little – to mention every comparable artistic representation for what appears on the specific vessels in the Mildenhall treasure on which figurative or other decoration is present, not least because the themes (particularly Bacchic thiasoi and hunting scenes) are ubiquitous in the ancient world. Thus all discussion of comparanda is by necessity restricted to the media most relevant, particularly silver plate (primarily of the late Roman period), and other material appropriate to the context, for example mosaics in secular spaces such as dining rooms where such silver services may have been in use. Therefore parallels cited take into account the material context, chronological considerations, the aims of the craftsman/men and thus the probable commissioner(s) of the pieces (in the sense of what they sought to convey), the dining backdrop in which the treasure was employed and where appropriate the local context of Roman Britain. Thus, in most instances, pieces of funerary architecture, such as sculpted sarcophagi, are considered irrelevant, as is monumental sculpture; even if in the past other commentators have drawn such comparisons. For instance, Dohrn drew a parallel between the Silenus bowing before Bacchus on the Bacchic platter (cat. 1) and the stooping supplicants on the base of the obelisk of Theodosius in Istanbul.7 Although this is a valid comparison in compositional terms, the contexts in which these two representations were viewed bear little relation to each other, beyond broad contemporaneity. This is not an exact science – any such analyses are by nature subjective – but the purpose of restricting the comparanda in this way is in order to address the following questions: • Where does the Mildenhall treasure fit within the arthistorical context of decorated late Roman silver? Where relevant, can the iconography provide a likely date for the manufacture of individual pieces or groups of objects? • In the context of a dining assemblage, from the point of view of the province and the empire, how does the iconography compare and how typical or otherwise is it? • What messages were the images employed seeking to convey, given that the range of imagery is rather restricted? Knowledge of how precisely the craftsman/men working on the decoration of the Mildenhall vessels were inspired is – obviously – lost to us. There seems little doubt that stock imagery must have circulated widely, in the form of patternbooks, of which the Artemidorus papyrus, with its anthropomorphic and zoomorphic sketches, is the bestknown example.8 That similar artistic models inspired representations in different media, such as silver plate and mosaics, is also evident. Compare, for instance, the outdoor dining scenes in the central medallions of the ‘Seuso’ hunting platter and the platter from Cesena with mosaics from the Room of the Small Hunt at Piazza Armerina and the villa at Caddeddi (see Pls 413–14).9 Naturally these are not exact facsimiles, but they are of a type and are part of the same milieu – hunting and dining being regular

Object

Other names

Cat. no.

BM reg. no.

Brailsford 1947/1955 cat. no.

Painter 1973 cat. no.

Painter 1977a cat. no.

Bacchic platter

Great Dish; the Neptune or Oceanus dish

1

1946,1007.1

1

1

1

Bacchic plates

Bacchic dishes or platters

2–3

1946,1007.2–3

2–3

2–3

2–3

Niello platter

niello dish

4

1946,1007.4

4

10

4

Large flanged bowl

flanged bowl

5

1946,1007.5

7

6

5

Large flanged bowl

flanged bowl

6

1946,1007.7

10

9

7

Large flanged bowl

flanged bowl

7

1946,1007.8

9

8

8

Large flanged bowl

flanged bowl

8

1946,1007.6

8

7

6

Small flanged bowl

flanged bowl

9

1946,1007.9

11

11

9

Small flanged bowl

flanged bowl

10

1946,1007.10

12

12

10

Flanged bowl with upstand

–

11

1946,1007.11

5

4

11

Cover

cover, lid

12

1946,1007.12

6

5

12

Fluted dish

fluted bowl, scalloped bowl

13

1946,1007.15–17

13–15

13

15–17

Pedestalled plates

goblets, small plates

14–15

1946,1007.13–14

16–17

14–15

13–14

Deep-bowled spoon

ladle

16

1946,1007.18 and 25

18, 25

16, 24

18, 25

Deep-bowled spoon

ladle

17

1946,1007.19 and 24

19, 24

17, 23

19, 24

Deep-bowled spoon

ladle

18

1946,1007.22–23

22–3

20–1

22–3

Deep-bowled spoon

ladle

19

1946,1007.21 and 26

21 and 26

19 and 24

21 and 26

Deep-bowled spoon (bowl only)

ladle

20

1946,1007.20

20

18

20

Long-handled spoon

spoon

21

1946,1007.32

34

32

32

Long-handled spoon

spoon

22

1946,1007.33

33

31

33

Long-handled spoon

spoon

23

1946,1007.34

32

30

34

Long-handled spoon

spoon

24

1946,1007.29

30

28

29

Long-handled spoon

spoon

25

1946,1007.31

29

27

31

Long-handled spoon

spoon

26

1946,1007.30

31

29

30

Long-handled spoon

spoon

27

1946,1007.27

28

26

27

Long-handled spoon

spoon

28

1946,1007.28

27

25

28

Table 2 Summary of Mildenhall object types, catalogue numbers in this volume, museum registration numbers and numbers assigned in previous catalogue publications

preoccupations of those who could afford such luxurious use of their time. Thus from the perspective of the commissioner and craftsman, we can imagine that similar models would be requested and employed, irrespective of whether the dining scene was intended for the floor of a dining room or the platters on which food was to be served. Within these models, a certain degree of artistic licence was no doubt employed: compare, for instance, the dancing figure of a satyr in cat. 1, S8 (Pl. 36) and that of the syrinx-playing satyr on a vessel from Tăuteni (Pl. 76). Although both are satyrs, in terms of anatomical accuracy the figures are some way apart, and this clearly implies that different hands were involved in their execution. It becomes trickier to make such judgements when very similar models are identified across different artistic media: see for example Hercules on the Bacchic platter (cat. 1) (Pl. 35) and the sarcophagus from Boston (Pl. 71), closely comparable stylistically, but produced for very different reasons. Such comparanda are thus usually avoided in the discussions which follow, because the objects on which they appear were intended for entirely different purposes.

The final part of each entry is a discussion of the manufacture and technical aspects of the object(s) in question. These sections have been written by Janet Lang. Notes

1 Brailsford 1947; Painter 1973, Painter 1977a. 2 The weight of each vessel or utensil is given in grams and the Roman equivalent (libra), following the convention of 1 Roman pound = 327.45g. For weight inscriptions, this means that the semis is 163.72g, the uncia (ounce) 27.29g (1/12th of a pound) and the scripula (scruple) 1.14g (1/24th of an ounce). For an indepth discussion of the Roman pound, see Martin 1988. 3 Bead dimensions were calculated using two different methods. The first was to measure every tenth bead or fifth bead as appropriate to the vessel in question; the results of this are listed followed by the mean in brackets. The second was to take an impression of random samples of the rim and measure every bead from the resulting cast. The mean of this calculation follows in brackets in italics. The two means are then aggregated. Capacity is given in millilitres (ml) and Roman sextarii (a sextarius was the equivalent of 546ml). 4 Webster 1976. 5 Hobbs 2010. 6 Ibid., 326. 7 Dohrn 1949, 84. 8 Gallazzi and Settis 2006; d’Alessio 2009. 9 Parrish 1999, 734; Wilson 2016.

Catalogue | 17

Chapter 2 The Bacchic Platter (cat. 1)

Cat. 1 The Bacchic platter1 (Pls 21–2)

(British Museum 1946,1007.1; Brailsford 1947/1955, cat. 1; Painter 1973, cat. 1; Painter 1977a, cat. 1). Dimensions

Diameter: 605mm Height: 61mm Diameter of foot-ring: 210mm Height of foot-ring: 21mm Weight: 8,256g (25.2 librae) Number of beads: 135 Bead dimensions (mm): 1 – 11.09; 10 – 11.87; 20 – 12.55; 30 – 12.62; 40 – 12.65; 50 – 12.05; 60 – 11.65; 70 – 12.16; 80 – 11.09; 90 – 12.04; 100 – 12.46; 110 – 12.66; 120 – 12.61; 130 – 12.52 Mean: 12.14mm (12.15mm). Aggregate mean: 12.14mm Form and decorative scheme

A large concave platter, shallowly dished in profile with a rim of 135 spherical beads and a circular vertical foot-ring positioned exactly one-third in from the rim (Pls 21–2). Whether or not this is deliberate, it should be noted that the height of the vessel is exactly one-tenth of the diameter, and the height of the foot-ring is also one-tenth of its own diameter. The decoration is divided into two concentric friezes around a central medallion, all inside a kymation border just inside the beaded rim. The decoration has been raised from the front by chasing the upper surface using the lateral displacement technique (see p. 59) to form the relief decoration. The plain background has been scraped and is further decorated with incisions and punches, which provide background detail and finer details of the raised figures and objects. Inscriptions

Although there are a number of scratches on the reverse of the vessel, there does not appear to be any graffiti, unlike other vessels in the Mildenhall treasure (for example cats 2–3 and 5). Decorative order (Richard Hobbs and Janet Lang)

It seems likely that the beads enclosing the medallion, the circle of scallop shells (where there was a small problem with spacing, resolved by the use of a narrow shell just above the maenad in S10) and the outer kymation border were completed first, as there is nothing to indicate that these were added after the figurative work had been completed. It seems likely that the whole design was marked out with pigment followed by a series of punched ovoid dots (see also p. 59), some of which were retained as ‘background’ detail, i.e. not raised from the surface, in order to provide added perspective. A good example of this is the thyrsus being held by the maenad in S10. The order in which the decoration of the main outer frieze was sketched out is difficult to ascertain; however, there seems to be a strong possibility that the craftsman working on the outer frieze may have begun with the Bacchus scene (S6), and proceeded in a clockwise direction, because there is very little space between the back of Silenus and the satyr in S7, and the maenad (same scene) and Hercules in S8, suggesting that the spacing between each of the preceding figural groups had been slightly misjudged. It should also be added that unlike the geometric

18 | The Mildenhall Treasure

The Bacchic Platter | 19

11

S6

12

13

2

0

S2

3

S1

F1

14

S7

15

10

16

S3

4

18

5

S8

17

20

incised ring

inner bead ring

Plate 21 The Bacchic platter (cat. 1), profile and key to scenes (S1–S11) and figures (F1–F24)

Bacchic platter: cat. 1

19

30

8

20

S4

S9

7

6

40

21

S10

22

S5

9

50cm

10

23

S11

24

Plate 22 The Bacchic platter (cat. 1), obverse, reverse and profile (not to scale)

20 | The Mildenhall Treasure

Plate 23 Head of Oceanus in the centre of the Bacchic platter (cat. 1, scene 1, figure 1)

niello platter (cat. 4), where it is possible to divide the vessel into equal sections by drawing imaginary lines between the rosette motifs which begin each decorative scene, there does not appear to be any similar approach taken with the marking out of the design (i.e. it is rather more ‘free style’) – this may provide an explanation for the slight misjudgement of available space. Overview description of the figural decoration

The Bacchic platter is divided into two narrative cycles. The first is a marine thiasos that consists of the head of Oceanus in the central medallion surrounded by the inner frieze consisting of four scenes of interacting marine creatures (S1– S5, F1–F10). The outer frieze is a Bacchic thiasos composed of six scenes (S6–S11) and a total of 14 interacting figures (F11– F24). A detailed description of the iconography of the Bacchic platter is given below. Where there is concordance with or discrepancies from previous published descriptions, these are noted. Although this section is primarily concerned with iconography, indications are also given as to how the decoration has been achieved, for example relief decoration raised from the surface (see p. 59) or flat decoration punched or chased (see Lang, below). Central medallion and inner frieze

Both these regions of the overall decorative scheme represent the oceans.

Scene 1 (Pl. 23)

In the centre of the platter is a facing head of Oceanus (F1),2 inside a border of 91 pellets, which echo the larger beads on the outer vessel rim. These pellets form a regular geometric circle; there is an irregularity at the top (i.e. above the god’s head) where a pellet is ‘pushed’ inwards slightly, suggesting this may be the final pellet punched; i.e. the craftsman began with the one to the left of this and proceeded in an anti-clockwise direction. The face has been raised, and a punch used to indicate his eyes and nostrils; his left nostril is lower than his right. His eyes are heavily lidded, his eyebrows marked with finely punched dots; the pupils are unevenly aligned, making him appear rather cross-eyed. His lips are downturned. The sea god’s beard is formed of a series of overlapping leaves of seaweed. The left-side leaf is composed of two trilobate terminals and the right, to which it is joined below his lips, one. Between these are three single trilobate leaves, the uppermost overlying the lower pair. The edges of the leaves are notched with finely chased parallel lines, and the centre of each leaf is decorated with lines of dots. He has a drooping, handlebar moustache, composed of a series of conjoined dots (Pl. 46d). His hair has been executed in the same manner, forming a series of curling tresses, sweeping back from his forehead as if being displaced by an ocean current. These extend out of his puffed cheeks and narrow brow. Four dolphins3 emerge from his hair and beard: two swim upwards from his hair above his ears, two outwards from his moustache. A large point has

The Bacchic Platter | 21

Plate 24 Nereid and triton (cat. 1, scene 2, figures 2–3)

been used to mark the position of each visible dolphin eye and a finer punch to form lines of dots for their blubber (Pl. 46c), and a further extremely fine punch has been used to add detail above each eye. Each eye is recessed into a polygonal arcuated device with approximately six points. Almost all the detailing has been executed on the raised part, but there is a small amount of work on the plain background. Inner frieze

An entirely marine scene, indeed a marine thiasos, composed of four separate decorative elements (S2–5). It is enclosed by a border of 54 scallop shells which alternate front and back. As mentioned above (p. 18), these were probably executed by beginning above the maenad’s head of S10 and preceding in a clockwise direction, accounting for the need to squeeze in a shell immediately above the nose of the maenad (F21) (Pl. 39). Although there is no clear narrative, the scenes often interact; for example, the triton in S2 holds the reins of the hippocamp in S5. In a number of places, the sea is indicated by chased wavy lines and punched dots, and this also helps to unify the various elements of the frieze. The effect might be to suggest that the various figures are riding on the Plate 25 Detail of casket (cat. 1, scene 2)

22 | The Mildenhall Treasure

surface of the ocean, rather than below, as the ocean is only ever indicated below the figures, never above. The four figural scenes (S2–5) are discussed below. Scene 2 (Pl. 24)

Composed of a nereid reclining on the tail of a triton, the tripartite end of which overlaps with the tail of the half-stag/ half-sea creature in S3. The triton grips the reins of the hippocamp in S5. The nereid (F3) is naked except for a piece of cloth 4 draped over her right leg, which passes between her legs and covers the inner calf of her right leg. Her right foot emerges from below. Her left foot is turned so that the upper side is facing the viewer, the toes indicated by four chased parallel lines. Her jewellery comprises bangles on her wrists and upper arms, each indicated by two parallel chased lines; a beaded collarbone necklace is indicated by a line of punched dots. Her hair, lines of conjoined dots in horizontal and vertical waves (Pl. 46a), is plaited and pinned tightly to her crown in a bun (although the pins are not visible). She reclines with her legs outstretched and slightly bent either side of the triton5 on whom she is riding, her head turned towards him and her upper body twisted into a position which is anatomically challenging, with her right shoulder dropped very low; her right forefinger is extended, her other fingers loosely clenched. Both her arms are resting on what appears to be a rectangular casket, decorated with 11 stretched ‘S’-shaped parallel lines, the top and bottom with short parallel notches (Pl. 25).6 The empty spaces are infilled with further punched dots. Her left arm is bent at the elbow and brought back rather clumsily into an oversized fist to support the back of her head. Her triton mount (F2) has hair similar to his companion nereid, although it extends down the back of his neck, as opposed to being tied up in a bun. A line of hair running from his chest and navel is indicated by the use of short double parallel lined crescents, his nipples by a ring punch unevenly applied to form crescents. His body is that of a seaserpent with three bulbous coils and a tail which has a

Plate 26 Nereid with half-stag/half-sea creature (cat. 1, scene 3, figures 4–5)

tripartite terminal, almost leaf-like in appearance; this has notching on the edges similar to that of the sea god’s beard (F1). The scales are formed of rows of conjoined dot crescents (Pl. 46q). The triple-jointed crab claw7 that extends from his pelvis is decorated with a series of short notches, as are the inner edges of the pincers. The triton leans back slightly, his torso muscular and turned towards the viewer; in his rather truncated right arm he holds the rein of the hippocamp in S5. His other arm is bent and brought back into a cupped hand beside his navel. Scene 3 (Pl. 26)

Composed of a nereid seated on the back of a half-stag/halfsea creature, the tail of which overlaps with the tail of the triton in S2. The nereid (F4) is naked apart from a piece of cloth draped over her right thigh; she holds the end of the cloth in her left hand. She has the same jewellery as her companion nereids in S2 and S5 but no visible necklace, although her neck, unlike the previous nereid (S2), is shown from the back, so maybe it was overlooked. Her hair is in the same style as her equivalent in S2 but the bun is more obvious due to the different perspective. The toes of her left foot are turned slightly outwards towards the viewer. Unlike the three other nereids, she is seated upright with her thighs together but her lower legs in an open-scissor arrangement. She sits on top of a half-stag, half-sea creature (F5); her right arm is extended to the neck of the stag, her palm open and extended, not gripping but rather tickling or caressing the neck. The stag has double antlers, the foreground one (with a tripartite terminal) raised from the vessel’s surface, the background antler executed with chased lines. Its left foreleg is rendered with a chased line, its right raised from the vessel surface. The fur is indicated by a horizontal and vertical dashed stippling (Pl. 46f). The division between the stag and its piscine lower body is delineated by a frill of raised ‘leaves’.8 The fish body comprises a plump belly with a coil below the back of the nereid, on which she rests her clenched left fist. The tail, which overlaps with that of S2, has a

similarly tripartite terminal. However, the piscine half is not decorated with curved overlapping lines to indicate scales, but with the same technique of punched dot stippling used for the furry upper part of the creature. The fish-tail extends vertically upwards at an angle which is awkward, such that it is not obviously joined to the rest of his tail. Scene 4 (Pl. 27)

The most complex figurative group of the marine thiasos, comprising three figures, a nereid on the back of a ketos and a triton in front with whom she also interacts. The nereid (F8), unlike those in scenes 2 and 3, lacks drapery, but has a necklace of beads and bangles on her wrists and upper arms like the others. Her hair is styled in the same manner as her companions in S2 and S3, but has been given character with deep elliptical indents (Pl. 46b). She half sits, half reclines, with her thighs together, her left leg bent downwards and meeting the border of shells and her right leg extended outwards with the foot outstretched. In her left hand she grips a long piece of cloth,9 decorated with a pattern of punched dot triangles (Pl. 46k), which arcs around her head and partially ‘disappears’ behind the pellet border of the central medallion. She turns her head towards the triton (F6) before her and reaches out to him; he cups her right elbow in his right hand.10 He is shown from the back. He differs from his companion in S2 because he has a pair of horns (one raised, one chased into the background) and possibly a short pointed beard. His upper body, like the sea-stag in S3, terminates in a leaf-like set of curved lines before his serpentine lower body begins; this is detailed with overlapping rows of conjoined dot crescents (Pl. 46q). Instead of a claw extending from his pelvis, he has a wing (with six feathers), decorated with chevrons inside crescents of short dashes, that sits on his left hip. The nereid is seated on the back of a ketos (F7), the head of which is turned back to face in her direction.11 It has a circular ring for its eye inside an ellipse, a large square jaw and an elongated snout ending in a pointed tusk; the mouth

The Bacchic Platter | 23

Plate 27 Nereid riding a ketos with triton (cat. 1, scene 4, figures 6–8)

Plate 28 Nereid and hippocamp (cat. 1, scene 5, figures 9–10)

24 | The Mildenhall Treasure

Plate 29 Bacchus, Silenus and maenad (cat. 1, scene 6, figures 11–13)

is open and there is another pointed tusk extending from its forehead and an elongated ear. Its twisted neck runs directly into its lower body; this is plump with two coils and then a tail, which is tripartite like those in the accompanying scenes. The body and head are detailed with vertical and horizontal shallow dashed stippling (Pl. 46f). Scene 5 (Pl. 28)

Composed of a nereid and a hippocamp, the reins of which are being held by the triton in S2. Unlike all other scenes in the marine thiasos the nereid is not riding on the back of the sea creature but rather floats or swims alongside him. The naked nereid (F9) lies on her left side, her left leg straight and her right bent back slightly at the knee. Her arms are outstretched roughly at right angles to her body. Her hair is in a style that includes a small bun, as with her companions; it has deep indents similar to those seen in S4. The right nipple is rendered with a shallow ring punch and she has a recessed navel. She wears a pair of bracelets on her forearms and armlets on her upper arms, rendered with shallow chased lines, and a bead necklace on her collarbone picked out with a punch. She holds a piece of cloth decorated with triangles of dots in her right hand (matching that in S4), which arcs over her head, curves behind the sea horse’s snout and then loops back around the elbow of her left arm. The hippocamp’s12 piscine lower body consists of three coils (the foremost of which curls back under itself); the scales are rendered as on the other creatures, with rows of conjoined dot crescents (Pl. 46q). However, unlike all the other sea beasts, it does not have any terminal to its tail; maybe it was considered that there was insufficient space in the field, either between the nereid’s feet or between her left heel and cloth, or it was excluded erroneously. The hippocamp looks back at its companion, is bridled, and has a tuft of hair on its forehead. The left (background) foreleg is

made using lines of punched dots. The reins are rendered by using conjoined dashes (Pl. 46d), the bridle by punched dots, which run along the jaw, over the snout and behind the eye and ear. The background (left) hoof is punched into the background silver, the foreground (right) hoof raised. Outer frieze (scenes 6–11)

As previously stated (p. 21) the outer frieze, which occupies the bulk of the upper surface, depicts a Bacchic thiasos in full swing. The narrative can be divided into six figural scenes, two with three figures (S6 and S8) and four with two figures (S7, S9–S11). Scene 6 (Pl. 29)

This is the principal scene of the outer frieze, since its main figure is Bacchus; as noted by Dohrn,13 the god is the only figure who is static, in contrast to the figures in various states of delirium who surround him. In this sense, he is the fixed point around which the thiasos revolves. Bacchus (F12) is the central figure in a group of three: he stands facing outwards, and his hair is in a feminine style (lines of conjoined dots in undulating waves: Pl. 46a) almost identical to that of the maenad to his right; his locks run down onto his shoulders, picked out in curving incised lines of punched dots; there is a kiss-curl on his cheek. He wears a diadem of fruits14 or an ivy crown,15 which terminates in a significant point at the front, although this may be a tuft of hair that has been pushed upwards by the diadem. His body is hairless apart from traces of pubic hair and his nipples are ring-punched. A cloak is wrapped around the elbow of his bent left arm and falls over his inner left thigh; its trailing end is decorated with a border of parallel punched dots with rings in between. In the crook of his left arm he holds his thyrsus, notched and tipped with a pine cone; there is a textile tie around the neck of the staff. The thyrsus appears to be slightly bent, but this is

The Bacchic Platter | 25

Plate 30 Detail of Silenus’ bowl (cat. 1, scene 6)

because the craftsman has failed to continue the upper section exactly in line with the lower. In his raised right hand, with extended forefinger and the arm bent at the elbow, he dangles a bunch of grapes, formed of a raised heart-shaped motif, the grapes indicated by punched dots and edged with further punched dots. His feet sport buskins16 (leather, open-work boots), with criss-cross straps the entire length of the shin. His right leg and foot is straight, the toes facing out towards the viewer; his left bent and opened out, resting on the back of his panther. The creature is lying docilely, with head turned back and looking upwards towards its master, mouth open, ears flat, front paws crossed, tail curling out behind Bacchus’ right foot. (The tail emerges slightly higher than it should.) The panther’s fur is detailed using lightly dashed stippling (Pl. 46f ) which also runs out radially across its flanks, on top of which rosettes have been added with a ring punch (which sometimes appear as crescents when uneven pressure has been applied (Pl. 46m)). Plate 32 Satyr and maenad (cat. 1, scene 7, figures 14–15)

26 | The Mildenhall Treasure

Plate 31 Detail of krater (cat. 1, scene 6)

To Bacchus’ left stands Silenus (F13), in profile, his back turned towards the viewer. He has a high hairline, his hair (made up of conjoined dots in undulating waves: Pl. 46a) flows down his neck, his pointed left ear can be seen; his visible (left) eye is rendered with a point, his eyebrow is a line of fine points (like the sea god in S1); a small punch has been used for his nostrils. He wears a loin cloth17 around his waist, tied at the front, one visible end of which hangs down between his legs and is edged with large and small punched dots. On his feet are closed-toe leather boots of distinctive style, presumably representing soft leather such as kid-skin. In his left hand he holds a round-bottomed bowl that he proffers towards Bacchus, the rim of which is decorated with two lines of points with punched rings in between (Pl. 30). In his right hand he holds a handled object bent at right angles, perhaps a type of percussion instrument known as a roptron,18 although equally it may be something more mundane such as a walking stick.19

The maenad (F11) to Bacchus’ right is shown from behind, her body bent backwards at the waist as she dances on her planted left foot, her right on its toes. Her hair is arranged in the same style as that of Bacchus; she has a few strands of hair on her neck and a kiss-curl on her cheek. She wears a full-length dress edged with a pattern of parallel dots with chevrons in between; she holds a long shawl or mantle20 in both her hands; one end is draped across her left shoulder and upper left arm, and then across her nonvisible front side, turning back down by her right hip and up into her left hand.21 The other end is draped across her slightly bent right arm and held in the fingertips of her right hand. Between the maenad and Bacchus is a round-bodied fluted krater22 with conical base and bulbous stem (Pl. 31). A circular punch has been used to decorate the rim (forming crescents). The krater is waisted and sharply carinated; above the carination it is decorated with two parallel lines of punched dots with dashes in between. Scene 7 (Pl. 32)

This is the scene probably executed last when the vessel was decorated (see p. 18). It consists of two figures: to the right a dancing maenad bringing together a pair of cymbals and to the left a satyr charging towards her. The maenad (F15) is shown front-on, her legs crossed, as she skips on her toes.23 Her head is turned to her right, her hair tied in a bun, with a single strand on her neck and a kiss-curl on her cheek. As with other figures, her hair is composed of lines of conjoined dots (Pl. 46a). She has a single punched dot for her visible left eye. She wears a sleeveless full-length tunic of standard neo-Attic type,24 pulled up and belted so the upper portion forms an overfall, attire that differs from all the other maenads depicted on this vessel. The flared upper part appears to have a strap over her left shoulder, and comes around over her right arm where it joins a ring, presumably of metal. Thus, effectively, the right strap has fallen off her shoulder, in a manner which can probably be considered flirtatious. The garment has a train that ends in a knot; this and the frill of the overfall are decorated with punched dots and rings, no doubt to mimic embroidery. She holds cymbals between the forefinger and thumb of each hand, which she is

clashing together; these are decorated with lines of widely spaced dots25 (Pl. 33). To the maenad’s right, a naked satyr (F14) is shown fronton racing towards her; his hips are twisted, his left foot on the ground on his toes, his right leg raised and bent at the knee. He has wavy hair of conjoined dots in a series of tresses, including a comma-shaped forelock, and an exaggerated goat-like ear. A nebris is draped around his upper left arm, which runs around his back and is twisted around his right forearm; his right arm is bent and points directly outwards, his palm open towards the viewer. The fur is detailed using shallow dashed vertical stippling (Pl. 46f). His left arm is held above his head and he brandishes a pedum. His nipples are depicted by chased rings with clockwise spirals; he has a double-armed, anti-clockwise five-pointed spiral on his right shoulder (as sported by other satyrs; see comments on the satyr in S8, below). A line of hairs runs down the centre of his torso, formed of further punched dots in crescent shapes which alternately reverse direction. Between his feet is a syrinx with ten pipes and a double binding, decorated with pellet-in-ring motifs (unlike Pan’s, which has dot-and-dash motifs – see S11) (Pl. 34). Scene 8 (Pl. 35)

This scene depicts the drunkenness of Hercules, and therefore provides the counterpoint to S6. The central figure is the demi-god (F17). He has a pellet for his visible right eye, closely cropped hair and a heavy beard in tight clockwise and anti-clockwise spirals (Pl. 46t). Hercules is the only figure with this hair-style, which has been rendered using short dash punch marks and a larger punched pellet in the centre of each curl. There are three elliptical punch marks between his brow and the line of his hair. A line of hair runs down his midriff to his pubic hair. His nipples have been detailed using a ring punch, his left visibly with two strikes of the punch. He stands on his toes, leaning forwards. The back of his neck and shoulder have been rendered as a continuous block, presumably in an attempt to show the neck’s muscle-bound nature; this makes it appear as if his right shoulder has become dislocated upwards. In his right hand he holds a piece of textile,26 its edge decorated in a similar manner to the clothing of the maenad to his left; it is decorated with single

Plate 33 (left) Detail of cymbals (cat. 1, scene 7) Plate 34 (right) Detail of syrinx (cat. 1, scene 7)

The Bacchic Platter | 27

Plate 35 Drunk Hercules supported by two satyrs (cat. 1, scene 8, figures 16–18)

pellets (for a further discussion, see p. 49). The elbow of his right arm is bent outwards and downwards. Hercules’ right hand touches the fingertips of the maenad behind him (S7), which is probably not deliberate, but rather related to the order in which the design was executed (see p. 18). A muscular satyr (F16) with tresses of conjoined dots (Pl. 46a), including a curled forelock, supports the hero with a tight embrace around Hercules’ ribs, clasping his left hand around his right wrist. No attempt has been made to show the rest of the satyr’s body; maybe the craftsman thought this would overcrowd the composition, if a similar approach to the omission of a tail on the hippocamp can be inferred (S5).27 On the satyr’s right shoulder, he sports a device in the form of a six-armed double clockwise spiral, similar to the satyr in S7; whether this is body hair or some kind of body art, such as a tattoo, is unclear.28 Hercules leans for support on another muscular satyr (F18) on his left: the fingers of his left hand, depicted with points for nails, dig heavily into the satyr’s left shoulder. This satyr has a curled forelock similar to that of his partner, but is wearing a cloak or a nebris29 around his neck which billows out behind him; like other furs, this is detailed with vertical and horizontal shallow dashed stippling (Pl. 46f ). His right leg is straight and tensed, his left bent at the knee, with the foot raised slightly off the ground; he uses his left hand to take the weight of Hercules by pressing the palm down on his knee, which appears rather awkward, as if his hand could easily slip under the weight; his other arm is not visible to the viewer. On the ground between the figures is the skin of the Nemean lion, open-mouthed and bent double, eye closed, tail curving out behind, with a heavy collar decorated with a cross-hatched rectangle, presumably a buckle; there also

28 | The Mildenhall Treasure

appears to be an eyelet for a buckle tongue close to the mane. The mane is depicted using lines of conjoined dots in undulating waves (Pl. 46a), the fur (around his muzzle and hindquarters) with shallow dashed stippling (Pl. 46f). To the left of the lion skin is the blunt end of Hercules’ club; five knots of wood are shown by tiny punched dots within ‘U’shaped punched lines. Scene 9 (Pl. 36)

The right-hand figure is a satyr (F20) shown full frontal and naked; he dances on the toes of his left foot, his right leg bent and thrust out behind him. He turns his head over his left shoulder, his left arm downwards, slightly bent, his lower arm and hand twisted inside a nebris which billows out behind him. His right arm is raised, bent at the elbow and turned back over his head, his hand open and his fingers together, his thumb at right angles. His left nipple is a punched ring with a clockwise spiral of ten arms; his right nipple has five visible anti-clockwise arms. Lines of punched crescents depict the hair running down the centre of his navel to his pubic hair, composed of a series of dashes. The maenad (F19) with whom he cavorts is shown side on but slightly from behind. Her left foot is flat, her right up on her toes. She wears an ankle-length pleated dress30 similar to that worn by the maenad in S6, except that the hem is decorated with two parallel lines of tiny parallel punched dots with dog-tooth-shaped motifs between. Her long hair has been released from its bun and falls down behind her to the bottom of her shoulder-blades in a loose pony-tail, although the main part of her hair on the crown is presumably still held in place by pins (not depicted); like the other maenads, this is formed of conjoined dots arranged in undulating waves (Pl. 46a). She wears a bracelet and an

Plate 36 Maenad and satyr (cat. 1, scene 9, figures 19–20)

upper armlet on her right arm, and pinches the train of her dress between the thumb and finger of her right hand; the line of the train is faintly depicted running back towards her body (pecked out of the background silver). She holds a large ovoid object (although the oval shape might be due to perspective, i.e. it may be circular) in her left hand; it is pressed to her chest and is similar to the object on the ground between S11 and S6. It appears to have a central medallion with a ring-and-dot; the edge of the object has a frieze consisting of parallel lines of punched dots with a continuous line of ring-and-dot motifs. The field is decorated with radiating crescents of dashed lines (Pl. 46r). Although it is uncertain what the object represents, it is almost certainly a percussion instrument, perhaps a large tympanum or tambourine comprising a cured animal skin stretched over a frame, edged with small cymbals.31

Between the two figures is a krater (Pl. 37), similar to that in S5, but below the rim on the waisted part of the body there is a more complex spiral decoration of punched dots with triangles between the spirals. Below the raised lower right leg of the satyr is a pedum (Pl. 38), similar to that in S7, but with a bulbous knot near the curved part of the shaft. Scene 10 (Pl. 39)

A satyr (F22) is shown from the back; he is naked, hairless and has a short tail in the small of his back. He stands on the ball of his right foot with his left foot crossing over the top of the right. His hair is curly and has a tufted forelock; like his companion in S9, it has two deep elliptical indents (Pl. 46b). He has a pointed ear and a line of fine punched dots for his visible eyebrow and a significant ovoid indent beside his eye. A nebris is thrown over his left arm (as in other scenes, the fur

Plate 37 (left) Detail of krater (cat. 1, scene 9) Plate 38 (right) Detail of pedum (cat. 1, scene 9)

The Bacchic Platter | 29

Plate 39 Maenad, satyr and panther (cat. 1, scene 10, figures 21–2)

is depicted by vertical shallow dashed stippling), and he holds a double aulos to his lips. Both hands are posed in a distinctive manner: his middle bent fingers grip each pipe, the forefinger and little finger of each hand extended. The pipe keys are depicted as triangles, three on each pipe; it seems likely that the middle finger of each hand is thus pressing one of the keys. His right forearm has not been raised from the surface but left as chased lines cut into the background. A maenad (F21) dances ecstatically before him to the music; she is shown in three-quarter view from the back, her body twisted, her bosom thrown forwards and her head back. She wears an ankle-length pleated dress, almost identical to the one behind her in S9 – although a circular ring or clasp is shown at the shoulder attachment; a separate piece of cloth, although it could also be the train of the dress,32 is draped over the middle of her left arm (similar to S6). There are two lines of dots decorating the pleat across her shoulder-blades, and the hem of the dress is decorated with an upper line of dots and a lower line of dashes. The textile on her arm is edged with a border of tiny dots and Plate 40 Detail of cymbals (cat. 1, scene 10)

dashes with larger punched dots more widely spaced in between. Her hair is identical to that of the maenad in S9. In her right hand she grips a thyrsus, topped and tailed with a pine cone like that of Bacchus, except there is no tie around the neck; the half below her hand is raised from the surface, the upper part depicted as chased lines to suggest it is in the background; it disappears then re-emerges behind the hands and aulos of her companion satyr. Between the two figures, a panther leaps left; it stands on its hind legs, its forelegs outstretched, the far right paw composed of a few chased punched dots. Its head is turned backwards, its ears flat, its mouth half-open. Its fur is depicted by vertical and horizontal shallow dashed stippling (Pl. 46f), but no additional punches have been used as on Bacchus’ panther (S6), so it does not have rosettes; it also seems to be more slender. There is a tuft of hair on its chest. Below the animal is a rock raised from the surface, which has been depicted as a double mound. Below the maenad’s dress lies a pair of cymbals (Pl. 40), joined by a curved punched line,33 which she appears to have discarded.34 Each is formed of a central raised umbo with a central point, followed by raised rings decorated with a continuous line of punched dots. Scene 11 (Pl. 41)

An ithyphallic Pan (F24) is shown full frontal, both his cloven feet off the ground, as he springs away from the maenad to his left, his head turned towards her, his right arm outstretched. He has a single punched dot for his eye, a long beard and hooked nose, curly hair in tresses composed of conjoined dots (Pl. 46a), and two short horns (one raised from the surface, the other flat as it is chased into the background). His nipples are ring punch marks and the

30 | The Mildenhall Treasure

Plate 41 Pan and maenad (cat. 1, scene 11, figures 23–4)

hairs around them six- to eight-armed clockwise spirals. Like the satyrs in S7 and S8, he has a five-armed anticlockwise spiral on his right upper arm and a clockwise one on his left.35 Hair is shown running down the line of his torso by a line of back-to-back crescents to his pubic hair. A nebris is draped over the crook of each arm, which runs behind his back; it is detailed with vertical shallow dashed stippling (Pl. 46f). Long strands of fur cover his thighs (some hairs are added to the background), in lines of conjoined dots in waves (Pl. 46a); his lower legs are covered by horizontal shallow dashed stippling (Pl. 46f). In his left hand he grips a syrinx of eight pipes, held together with two bindings (decorated with a double line of punched dots with dashes in between – thus different from the syrinx in S7). The openings at the pipe ends are indicated by punched pellets. Beneath his legs is a goatskin bag with tied hooves, bursting with grapes36 (Pl. 42). The fur is detailed using the usual dashed stippling technique, the grapes as raised overlapping circular bumps with punched pellets. Below his syrinx on the ground there is an ovoid object, probably a large tympanum or tambourine (Pl. 43) as it is identical to that in S9, except that the rim

decoration is formed of simple spaced dots as opposed to ring-and-dot.37 To Pan’s right is a dancing maenad (F23). She is shown facing, with her head turned to her left and her eyes downcast. She balances on the toes of her left foot, her right knee bent, her right lower leg stretched out behind her. She wears an ankle-length, pleated dress split on the left side (her left hip and inner right thigh are exposed); it has a band beneath the breasts and straps that tie around the back of the neck. Her dress is trimmed with parallel lines of punched dots of differing size and spacing. The train of her dress runs across the crook of her left arm and billows out behind her;

Plate 42 Detail of skin and grapes (cat. 1, scene 11)

Plate 43 Detail of probable tympanum (cat. 1, scene 11)

The Bacchic Platter | 31

Plate 44 (left) Detail of theatrical mask of Silenus (cat. 1, scene 11) Plate 45 (right) Detail of pedum (cat. 1, scene 11)

unlike the dress hem it is decorated with a single line of punched dots. Her hair differs from the other maenads on cat. 1, because instead of a bun there is a plait which runs from the back of her head and terminates on the front of her crown where there is a punched hole, presumably to indicate a pin; this hair-style is known as the Scheitelzopfrissur, and is also seen on other female busts in the treasure, most clearly on cat. 5, S3 (see p. 140 and Pl. 157).38 She holds a musical instrument, a tympanum or tambourine, in both hands;39 it is detailed with a small punched pattern which forms a cross of four spirals, with triangles in between the arms and an edge consisting of a simple line of continuous dots and larger more widely spaced dots. To her right at her feet is a theatrical mask of Silenus staring up at her (Pl. 44), very similar in style to the head of Silenus (S6); the nose is upturned, the forehead etched with chased lines. It sits on a pedestal decorated with triangles and a spiral pattern of punched dots. There is a pedum, similar to that in S7, but with two knots of wood along the shaft (Pl. 45), which infills the area between Pan and the maenad. Discussion and parallels Form (Pl. 47; Table 3)

The form of the Bacchic platter is not paralleled precisely by any other platter dated to the third or fourth centuries.40 It falls into a category of platter with foot-rings positioned either one-third or in some cases two-fifths in from the rimedge, almost all of which are dished to varying degrees: these are termed platters with inner foot-rings. (It will be noted also that the foot-ring diameter to overall vessel diameter ratio does not vary greatly, with foot-rings normally equating to around a quarter to one-third of the overall diameter, with some outliers such as the platter from Parabiago; see Table 3). The only exception is the Almendralejo platter, which is the only completely flat platter (i.e. flat all the way from the centre to the rim) encountered with such an inner foot-ring.41 The vessel form is broadly paralleled in African Red Slip (Hayes form 89), although the foot-ring is much higher; Hayes dates the ceramic form from the early fifth to the early sixth century.42

32 | The Mildenhall Treasure

Because of the variety of styles of these platters, they are not readily arranged simply by profile type. What is instructive, however, from a typological and chronological viewpoint is to arrange them by the height of their foot-ring in comparison to their overall height (Table 3). For the Bacchic platter, this produces a ratio of 0.34; and as is seen from the table, this puts it slightly above the median in the list of comparable platters. In fact its closest parallels using this criteria are two vessels from Kaiseraugst (cats 84–5),43 one of which has a beaded rim, the other a turned-over rim, but both with a similarly gently dished profile and no inner step to the rim. This means that from the point of view of typology, one platter from Kaiseraugst (cat. 84), although rather shallower, is the closest parallel to the Bacchic platter, which has a bearing on its date of manufacture and possible place of production (see pp. 268–9). Vessels in which the ratio between foot-ring height and overall height are of higher values than cat. 1 include Parabiago, two vessels from the ‘Seuso’ treasure, the Almendralejo platter and (of rather later date) the platters from Artén and Sutton Hoo. Only the vessel from Parabiago is comparably dished, with all the other examples having rather shallower profiles. It will also be noted (Pl. 47) how the vessels from the ‘Seuso’ treasure have different rims from cat. 1, with a distinct step which then forms a flange that slopes downwards to the beaded edge (‘Seuso’ cats 2–3).44 As discussed below, there is a clear correlation between foot-ring height, subtle differences in vessel form and the likely date of manufacture of these platters. Distribution (Pl. 48)

There is a noticeable bias in the distribution of these platters to the Rhine/Danube frontier, with Mildenhall and Sutton Hoo effectively a continuation of this pattern across the English Channel. The platters of third-century date, all from France, concentrate in the north-east of the country, with no platters present in the deposits of silver plate discovered in the French interior. Further into the heart of Europe, Kaiseraugst and the ‘Seuso’ treasure (if the latter is accepted as being buried in Pannonia)45 provide examples of clusters of platters on the upper Rhine and Danube. As will

a) (left) Lines of conjoined dots (vertical undulating waves) (e.g. cat. 5, scene 2, figure 4); (right) lines of conjoined dots (horizontal undulating waves) (e.g. cat. 5, scene 3, figure 7)

b) Lines of conjoined dots with deep elliptical indents (cat. 1, scene 4, figure 8)

e) Lines of conjoined dashes in slight waves (cat. 6, scene 3, figure 5)

c) Lines of dots (e.g. cat. 1, scene 1, dolphins)

d) Lines of conjoined dots or dashes (e.g. cat. 5, scene 4, figure 12)

f) (left) Vertical shallow dashed stippling (cat. 5, scene 3, figure 8); (right) horizontal shallow dashed stippling (e.g. cat. 5, scene 5, figure 18)

Plate 46a–f Different types of detailing used on cats 1, 5–8

The Bacchic Platter | 33

g) (left) Horizontal widely spaced ovals (e.g. cat. 5, scene 4, figure 14) h) (right) Vertical trailed ovals (e.g. cat. 6, scene 4, figure 12)

i) Teardrop chevrons (cat. 5, scene 3, figure 8)

k) Punched dot triangles (e.g. cat. 1, scene 7, figure 15)

j) Double teardrops (e.g. cat. 7, scene 2, figure 3)

l) Heavy elliptical stippling (e.g. cat. 8, scene 3, figure 9)

Plate 46g–m Different types of detailing used on cats 1, 5–8

34 | The Mildenhall Treasure

m) Light dashed stippling with widely spaced punched crescents/rings (e.g. cat. 7, scene 3, figure 6)

n) Heavy elliptical stippling with widely spaced punched crescents/ rings (e.g. cat. 8, scene 3, figure 9)

o) Punched rings (e.g. cat. 7, scene 3, figure 8)

q) Rows of conjoined dot crescents (e.g. cat. 1, scene 2, figure 2)

p) Triplets of crescents in alternate directions (e.g. cat. 5, scene 2, figure 6)

r) Crescents of dashed lines (e.g. cat. 1, scene 9, tympanum (?))

s) (left) Clockwise and anticlockwise spirals (e.g. cat. 5, scene 2, figure 5) t) (right) Tight clockwise and anti-clockwise spirals (cat. 1, scene 8, figure 17) Plate 46n–t Different types of detailing used on cats 1, 5–8

The Bacchic Platter | 35

Plate 47 Dished silver platters with inner foot-rings of the third to sixth centuries arranged by foot-ring height to overall height ratio, largest to smallest. Figures on the right of each profile are overall height to diameter, with ratio in brackets; figures on the left are foot-ring height to overall height, with ratio in brackets (see also discussion of vessel forms on p. 16 of this book)

36 | The Mildenhall Treasure

Overall height (mm)

Ratio (%)

Diameter of footring (mm)

Diameter (mm)

Ratio (%)

Weight (g)

Roman lb

Vessel

Height of foot-ring (mm)

Estimated date

Arcione†

29

39

0.74

?

421

?

c. 1,864

5.7

434

Sutton Hoo, Anastasius Dish

64

98

0.65

?

720

?

5,640

17.2

491–518

Ballana†

?

50

?

?

388

?

?

?

c. 420–50

Almendralejo

22

34

0.65

260

740

0.35

15,350

47.4

c. 388

Artén

35

62*

0.56

?

500

?

3,030

9.3

c. 530

†

‘Seuso’ cat. 3

31

59

0.53

203

720

0.28

11,786

36.0

c. 375–425

‘Seuso’ cat. 2†

23

45

0.51

217

654

0.33

8,606

26.3

c. 375–425

Parabiago

26

54

0.48

158

390

0.41

3,555

10.8

c. 375–425

Kaiseraugst cat. 84

10

23

0.43

117

471

0.25

2,538

7.7

c. 325–350

†

Mildenhall cat. 1

21

61

0.34

210

605

0.35

8,256

25.2

c. 350–375

Kaiseraugst cat. 85

6

18

0.33

153

545

0.28

3,614

11.0

c. 300–325

Taraneš

8*

29*

0.28

142*

455

0.31

1,702

5.2

c. 300–325

Kaiseraugst cat. 60

10

38

0.26

105

427

0.25

1,600

4.9

c. 325–350

Kaiseraugst cat. 57

7.5

32

0.23

124

471

0.26

1,565

4.8

c. 300–325

Chaourse (Baratte and Painter 1989, cat. 80)

6

27

0.22

84*

335

0.25

919

2.8

c. 200–270

Kaiseraugst cat. 59

9

42

0.21

127

558

0.23

3,077

9.4#

342/43

‘Seuso’ cat. 4

8

45

0.18

166

642

0.26

7,150

21.8

c. 325–375

Graincourt-lès-Havrincourt (Baratte and Painter 1989, cat. 87)

4

28

0.14

104

350

0.30

1,275

3.9

200–300

Rethel cat. 5

6

45

0.13

113

400

0.28

1,435

4.4

c. 200–250

Chaourse (Baratte and Painter 1989, cat. 79)

4

30

0.13

117

358

0.33

1,061

3.2

c. 230–260

Thil (Baratte and Painter 1989, cat. 199)

5

44

0.11

130

483

0.27

2,627

8.0

c. 200-300

Rethel cat. 8

5

48

0.10

126

476

0.26

2,829

8.6

c. 200–250

Béziers, ‘Bon pasteur’ platter

4

51

0.08

167

595

0.28

c. 3,700

11.3

c. 200–300

†

not illustrated in Pl. 47

* estimated from published drawing #

probably originally 10lb, as the vessel is rather damaged

Table 3 Silver platters with inner foot-ring of the third to sixth centuries arranged by foot-ring height to overall height, largest to smallest

be observed, only three platters with an interior foot-ring have been discovered in the inner provinces: one from Iberia, another from northern Italy and a final example from Macedonia. This pattern cannot be equated directly with consumption and use, but rather reflects the wider pattern of where precious metal objects tended to be concentrated as a consequence of the late Roman system of patronage and donatives. A not dissimilar pattern can be observed for platters with outer foot-rings (see Chapter 4 and Pl. 128) but these, too, largely reflect the find-spots of sizeable hoards of silver plate. Where the Bacchic platter may have been produced is discussed in Chapter 15. Foot-ring heights and the typology of late Roman silver platters

The height of foot-rings in relation to overall vessel height clearly varies widely, and importantly, it is possible to relate

this to the likely date of vessel manufacture. It has been argued elsewhere that the diameter of silver platters increases over time46 and it would appear that the height of foot-rings follows a similar upward trajectory.47 Thus it can be seen in Plate 47 and Table 3 that those vessels which can be dated to the third century on the basis of typological, stylistic and sometimes archaeological considerations, have extremely low foot-rings, normally less than 10mm in height, which in turn make up only a small proportion of the overall vessel height, invariably less than 20% (the vessel from the ‘Seuso’ treasure cat. 4, is unusual in this regard, as it probably dates to the middle of the fourth century). From the fourth century onwards, the height of foot-rings increases to 10mm or greater, culminating in the truly exceptional 64mm height of the Anastasius Dish from Sutton Hoo. But what is also of interest in this regard is the fact that a handful of the vessels under discussion here can be accurately dated,

The Bacchic Platter | 37

Plate 48 Distribution map of silver platters with inner foot-ring of the third to sixth centuries

which in turn allows us to infer the likely date when the Bacchic platter was produced. The earliest well-dated vessel comes from Taraneš in Macedonia. This platter was part of a stone-lined grave discovered in 1980, and clearly the burial place of a military dignitary, as adjudged from the grave goods. Most importantly, the grave contained a gold crossbow ‘emperor’ brooch, bearing the inscription ‘iovi avg vincas/iovi caes vivas’, which links it either to Diocletian and Galerius (ad 293–305) or, more plausibly, to the two Licinii (ad 308–24). Either way, it is clear that the brooch must have been produced in the first quarter of the fourth century, and thus by association the platter, which bears a series of small busts, typical of other silver vessels of this period, must also date to this time. In any case, the Taraneš vessel is very close in terms of both form and style to the next well-dated vessel, the Constans decennalia platter from Kaiseraugst (cat. 59), which is known to date to ad 342/3. Both these platters, it will be noted, have relatively low foot-rings (Taraneš around 8mm in height, and the Kaiseraugst platter 9mm) and footring to vessel height ratios of approximately 25%. Therefore it is clear that the low foot-ring so characteristic of thirdcentury vessels continued to be favoured into the early part of the fourth century.

38 | The Mildenhall Treasure

The last four well-dated vessels come from the end of the fourth, fifth and early sixth centuries respectively. The Almendralejo platter, commonly known as the Madrid missorium, was discovered in 1847. It depicts an imperial scene of an enthroned emperor, flanked by two other nimbate figures who are also clearly members of the imperial family. In the lower register is a reclining figure of Tellos. The missorium bears an inscription just inside the rolled-over rim, which reads: ‘dn theodosivs perpet avg ob diem felicissimvm x’. Thus it unequivocally commemorates Theodosius I’s decennalia in ad 388. As outlined by Arce,48 the majority of scholars concur that the figures can be identified as Theodosius I himself (centre), Valentinian II to the left of Theodosius (as viewed) and Arcadius on the right;49 the deferential figure before the emperor is a highranking official receiving the liber mandatorum or a codicil.50 As can be seen, its foot-ring is around double the height of those of the early fourth century discussed above, and makes up about two-thirds, or 65%, of the total vessel height. Another important fixed point in the chronology is the missorium of Ardapur Aspar, made to commemorate the latter’s consulship in ad 434. Its foot-ring constitutes threequarters of the overall vessel height, even though it is relatively low at 29mm.51 Reference can also be made to the

Anastasius Dish from Sutton Hoo, with control stamps allowing attribution to his reign (ad 491–518), which triples the height of the foot-ring once more to a massive 64mm – although the proportion of the overall height is identical to that of Almendralejo. Finally, there is the platter from Artén, Italy, that refers specifically to the Vandal king Gelimer, thus dating it to around ad 530; it too has an exceptionally high foot-ring. Where does this leave the Bacchic platter? The height of its foot-ring is 21mm, which in itself suggests it is extremely unlikely to have been produced in the third century (disregarding any stylistic considerations) and somewhat unlikely, as we have seen, to date from the early part of the fourth century. It appears more comfortable in the company of vessels produced in the second half of the fourth century. To refine the date further, its beaded rim also suggests a late fourth-century date; it is noteworthy that the Kaiseraugst deposit, buried c. ad 352, has only two platters with beaded rims (cats 58 and 84), suggesting that beading was introduced towards the middle of the fourth century. A date of the second quarter of the fourth century is proposed for the plain vessels with beaded rims from Kaiseraugst (cats 54, 58 and 84),52 a date also suggested for the Euticius platter.53 In turn, it is further proposed that the plain vessels of similar form, but without beaded rims, can be ascribed to the first quarter of the fourth century.54 The developed forms of platter from the ‘Seuso’ treasure would appear to be rather later, namely the late fourth to early fifth centuries.55 So the Bacchic platter was perhaps produced around the third quarter of the fourth century, taking all typological considerations into account. Other vessels not illustrated in Plate 47 (but partly tabulated in Table 3) are also worthy of brief comment. Two vessels from Ballana, Nubia, probably of early to midfifth century date, have similarly rolled-over rims to the vessels from Parabiago and Almendralejo, are dished, and also sit on very high foot-rings.56 One is plain, the other decorated across its whole upper surface.57 A fragment of platter from the Traprain Law deposit may derive from a vessel of similar form to cat. 1; it also has a beaded rim, even if the beads are of unparalleled diameter, 5mm larger than cat. 1.58 Dimensions and weight (Table 3)

In terms of its overall size, the Bacchic platter joins a select group of platters59 with a diameter greater than 600mm. Only 11 vessels dating to the third to sixth centuries, from a total of 54 recorded, are in a similar size range.60 Its closest parallels in terms of diameter are a plain vessel from Kaiseraugst,61 of exactly the same size, the Cesena platter (630mm) and the ‘Seuso’ geometric platter (642mm). It should be noted, however, that none of these parallels is a fully decorated ‘Type 3’ platter. Rather they are plain ‘Type 1’ platters,62 decorated only on the rim or the central medallion, or both, but not over the whole upper surface.63 As for weight, silver platters of the third to early fourth centuries regularly weigh less than 10 Roman pounds; this is another reason to attribute the Bacchic platter to the mid- or late fourth century (see discussion above).64 The enormous platter from Almendralejo demonstrates how large and

heavy platters could be in the late fourth century: it is a gigantic 740mm in diameter, and weighs almost 50 Roman pounds (so almost double the weight of the Bacchic platter). Only the ‘Seuso’ Achilles Plate,65 at 36 Roman pounds, comes close. The platter from Avignon is also exceptionally large and heavy at 700mm in diameter and approximately 32 Roman pounds – but its foot-ring is positioned towards the outer edge of the vessel (in a similar manner to cat. 4; see Chapter 4) so it is of a different form. The closest parallel in terms of weight for the Bacchic platter is the Meleager platter from the ‘Seuso’ treasure.66 Design composition: general comments and parallels

The arrangement of the decoration on the Bacchic platter in two friezes that encircle a central medallion is, in the strictest terms, unparalleled. An unknown quantity in this regard is the lost Trier hoard; it certainly contained a number of platters (mainly circular, but also including square and rectangular vessels),67 of which two are candidates for vessels of platter ‘Type 3’, i.e. decorated across the whole of the upper surface,68 but it will never be known for certain if this was the case. For ‘Type 3’ platters that still survive (and for smaller plates, similarly decorated) the standard approach was to depict a single scene. This is the case with vessels designed specifically to commemorate imperial anniversaries, such as the Almendralejo platter, almost certainly manufactured in or about ad 388 (see above), and the Avignon platter,69 also of the fourth century. (As the latter vessel has an outer foot-ring its form is included in the discussion of parallels for cat. 4; see Chapter 4, Pl. 127 and Table 8). The platter from Ballana is not commemorative but is another example of a single-scene vessel. The fragmentary vessel from Cuxhaven-Altenwalde is also decorated with a single scene on its upper surface and may be of similar form to the Bacchic platter.70 Excluded from this discussion are the large number of plates, usually around 28cm in diameter, which also feature single scenes; Kerch, for instance, with a portrait of Constantius II.71 It hardly needs stating that all these plates and platters had a rigid means of orientation for them to be ‘read’; the Bacchic platter, in contrast, has no such specific point of reference. If the central motif of Oceanus is orientated correctly, this means that Bacchus, rationally the most important figure in the entire composition, is upside down, and Hercules, of secondary importance, viewable sideways on. But clearly the maker(s) of the vessel was not envisaging a specific orientation; indeed the lack of such in many ways was defining, as the narrative was designed to be eternal and perpetual, a Bacchic thiasos with no fixed beginning or end. Despite the lack of parallels with silver plate vessels, it is possible to find parallels for the composition a step or so removed. Most notable is a gold bowl from Rennes in the Bibliothèque nationale de France (Pl. 49).72 This vessel has a decorative scheme broadly similar to cat. 1: a central medallion, a narrower surrounding continuous frieze and an outer decorative band inset with 16 aurei of Antoninus Pius, Hadrian and Geta, which provides a terminus post quem of ad 211. What is even more remarkable is the fact that the subject is broadly the same as the Bacchic platter, though narrated in a rather different manner. The principal, central scene

The Bacchic Platter | 39

Plate 49 Detail of gold vessel from Rennes, early third century, showing the drinking contest between Bacchus and Hercules. Drunk Hercules is supported by satyrs in the encircling frieze. Bibliothèque nationale de France, Paris, inv. no. 56.94

depicts the drinking contest between Bacchus and Hercules in progress, which as described above is an integral part of the Bacchic platter’s thiasos. Bacchus, his panther at his feet, and Hercules sit on either side of a small table, Hercules raising a cup to drink, while Bacchus’ cup is inverted in his raised hand, to make the point that his cup has already been emptied; the field is populated by satyrs and maenads, one satyr playing an aulos, and Pan behind blowing into a syrinx. In the surrounding circular frieze, time has moved forwards: now we have the thiasos in full swing, with Bacchus on a carriage drawn by a pair of panthers. Most importantly in this context, Hercules is portrayed in a similar manner to cat. 1, i.e. collapsing forwards drunk (though rather more upright) and having to be supported by a pair of satyrs, one of whom holds his club. The rest of the composition is, as with cat. 1, made up of dancing maenads, instrument-playing satyrs and, in this case, cupids with baskets of grapes.

Another related vessel (Pl. 50), which is also a gold bowl, comes from Pietroasa, Romania. Although very different in style, it has a similar decorative arrangement; instead of a central medallion, it has a statuette of Cybele holding a cup; around her, running in an anti-clockwise direction, is a small hunt frieze, but the majority of the decoration, as with cat. 1, is a wide circular and continuous frieze of densely packed figures in high relief. The Pietroasa vessel has a narrow additional frieze, a vine scroll, inside the nonbeaded rim. In contrast to cat. 1, the friezes face inwards. There is another similar bowl, albeit in silver-gilt, in the recently discovered Vinkovci hoard, this time with a statuette in the base of a figure seated on a rock (examined by the author in 2012).73 Once again, this would appear to show a continuous encircling frieze, in this instance, from what could be gathered prior to conservation, marine in nature. The profile of these bowls makes them naturally sympathetic to such a decorative arrangement. The fact that cat. 1 shares its decorative scheme with that of these deep hemispherical bowls might rather suggest that the craftsman responsible took his inspiration from this vessel form, rather than comparable platters; it is almost as if cat. 1 is akin to a deep bowl that has been ‘opened out’ until it is almost entirely flat. Whether other platters existed with decoration of this type is unknown, but it would seem unlikely that the Bacchic platter is the only example ever produced. A fragment of Hacksilber 74 from Traprain Law does not bear comparable decoration (what survives mainly shows gilded acanthus leaves) but nevertheless may have had a similar decorative scheme, as the surviving decoration begins just inside the line of beads on the rim and appears to continue into the vessel’s interior (Pl. 51). The beads are of the largest diameter recorded (c. 17.5mm) in the course of research for this volume, suggesting that the original vessel was very substantial in size. What survives of the fragment also suggests that it may derive from a platter of similar form to cat. 1.75 It is also possible to find parallels between the arrangement of the composition of cat. 1 and that of the

Plate 50 Gold dish from Pietroasa, Romania, fourth century. National Museum of Romania, Bucharest

40 | The Mildenhall Treasure

Plate 51 Hacksilber from Traprain Law (cat. 43), fourth century. National Museums, Scotland

decoration on other, entirely different, vessel forms. For example, the amphora in the ‘Seuso’ treasure76 bears a series of different friezes arranged in registers that encircle the body of the vessel: a hunt scene around the flat shoulders (which echo the rims of the large flanged bowls, cats 5–8), a main central Bacchic thiasos, a marine scene in the lower register (marine creatures only), and finally a pattern of overlapping oak leaves just above the foot. The same can be said of a fragmentary handle-less ewer from Tăuteni, Romania; this has a main central register depicting a Bacchic thiasos77 (Bacchus himself is only partially preserved), a lower register with nereids, some riding sea monsters, and an upper register depicting rural life and hunting scenes. An unprovenanced ewer in Cleveland is similarly decorated, with a lower marine register, a central Bacchic thiasos and a hunting scene above (Pl. 52). The fragmentary silver platter from Bizerta, which is probably of late second century date,78 provides an interesting parallel with cat. 1 for a number of reasons, even if it is of different form (although also circular, it has two flat crescentic handles attached to opposite sides of the vessel body). First, its decoration also forms a narrative, in this case not Bacchus and Hercules but Apollo and Marsyas, the latter personage often associated with Bacchus; in Classical mythology Marsyas challenged Apollo to a music contest, a clear parallel for Bacchus’ and Hercules’ drinking contest. Silenus appears in the central medallion, though in very different form to how he appears on cat. 1;79 but more pertinently, Bacchus appears on each of the handles of the vessel, on one in his youthful guise,80 on the other as his elderly, statuesque bearded self.81 On the latter handle, Silenus appears in a similar manner to cat. 1, S6, although he stands and plays a double aulos towards the god, rather than proffering a bowl. Both handles have circular medallions on each side of the main scene that contain masks of satyrs;82 these gaze up at the scene, rather like the mask on the pedestal in cat. 1, S11.83 The final object to mention with a comparable composition is a situla from Revel-Tourdan with a main frieze of the four seasons and a smaller frieze with marine creatures. Specific parallels for the decorative elements

What follows is a discussion of parallels for specific aspects of the iconography of cat. 1 in silver and, where appropriate,

Plate 52 Silver-gilt ewer with Bacchic thiasos, marine and hunt scenes, Syria?, late fourth century. Cleveland Museum of Art, Purchase from the J. H. Wade Fund with the addition of a gift from Mrs Edward B. Greene 1957.497

other media (for a discussion of the approach taken to artistic parallels, see pp. 16–17). These provide a clear demonstration that the Mildenhall Bacchic platter was designed within a vast milieu of representations of the different iconographic elements, allowing the craftsman to draw upon inspiration not just from other metal vessels, but also other media including sculpture and mosaics. The marine thiasos: central medallion and inner frieze

The combination of a facing head of Oceanus surrounded by groups of nereids riding sea creatures is not directly paralleled on silver plate: in fact the composition is more readily found on mosaics, for instance two late Roman panels from Algeria.84 The types of silver objects that bear such imagery also tend to be of different form (i.e. not platters) and thus not so readily identified with dining use. The exception, which provides the best parallel from the perspective of decoration and functionality, is the silver amphora from Conceşti. Here in the vessel’s lower frieze three nereids ride sea creatures:85 a nereid sits on the back of

The Bacchic Platter | 41

Plate 53 Lower register of silver amphora, Conceşti, fourth century. The State Hermitage Museum, St Petersburg, inv. no. 2160-1

an elongated half-fish/half-stag creature, similar to S3, although its antlers are long and curving, and it has a strap across its shoulders; its coat, as with the lower body, is stippled in the same manner as the beast in S3 (Pl. 53). The other rides side-saddle on a hippocamp, similarly bridled but with an exuberant mane, which S5 lacks. The final scene is different, as the nereid rides a sea-panther, a creature not present on cat. 1. In all three scenes, the nereids are rather more demurely attired, all with drapery around their thighs, but the manner in which their hair is depicted is identical to cat. 1. It can also be noted that on the Conceşti amphora, the marine component is one frieze in a total of three decorative zones, which again makes it broadly comparable. Marine creatures also appear in the lower register of a ewer in the Cleveland Museum (see Pl. 52).86 As alluded to above, other pieces of silver plate on which marine imagery appear are more readily associated with the toilet or bedroom than dining.87 The Projecta casket in the Rome (Esquiline) treasure, intended to contain items for bathing, has the most in common stylistically: on one panel on the lid (Pl. 54) the nereid rides a ketos, inviting comparison

with S4. However, there are a number of differences, since the nereid faces fully out from the vessel, rather than turning her head to the side, and the ketos is more developed, its front forelegs having short fins – both missing on S4 – although it too has a heavy, twisted tail that terminates in three prongs. A similar parallel can be drawn between the hippocamp in S5 and that on the other short side panel (Pl. 55), even if on the Projecta casket the nereid sits rather stiffly side-saddle with her ankles crossed, her right hand grasping the reins, while in S5 she barely rides the hippocamp at all. Although the central scene finds no parallel with any scene on the Bacchic platter, it is interesting to note that a circle of oyster shells encloses both the marine thiasos and Venus on the Rome (Esquiline) patera.88 The direct association with water provides a context for the imagery on two other fourth-century items. The nereid riding a half-panther/half-sea creature in the central medallion of a fluted dish (such vessels were invariably used as water containers – see p. 187) from Traprain Law (Pl. 56)89 provides similarities most notably with S4 (although on the Traprain Law vessel the nereid sits more upright).

Plate 54 Detail of a nereid riding a ketos, silver Projecta casket, Rome (Esquiline) (cat. 1), fourth century. British Museum, 1866,1229.1

42 | The Mildenhall Treasure

Plate 55 Detail of a nereid riding a hippocamp, silver Projecta casket, Rome (Esquiline) (cat. 1), fourth century. British Museum, 1866,1229.1

Another important parallel, this time in the round, are the nereids riding tritons on the top of the two surviving legs of the Polgárdi quadruped (Pls 57a–b), probably used as a supporting stand for a water basin.90 Aside from these three items only a handful of other pieces require mention. A silver-gilt plate from Baku in Azerbaijan (Pl. 58), also probably of the fourth century, depicts a nereid riding a hippocamp, the reins of which are being held by a half-man/half-fish (although his lower half is simply a short, tripartite fish-tail); her pose, seated forwards towards the head, is reminiscent of S3. An unprovenanced silver flask in the Hermitage Museum, with control stamps dating it to Constans II (ad 641–51), shows the continuing popularity of the iconography, this time with the nereid seated with her back to the viewer riding a panther-headed sea monster on one side and on the other a nereid riding a

ketos, stylistically very similar to cat. 1, S4.91 Silver plate vessels of the third century or earlier also bear marine scenes; these include objects from Allan, Chaourse, Vienne and Everbeek.92 It may also be worth noting that the marine thiasos is also sometimes found on other items of metalwork in Britain. Johns draws attention to the parallels that can be drawn between S5 and the highly stylized nereid riding what is probably a hippocamp on one of the bracelets in the Hoxne treasure.93 A fragment of a pewter vessel, perhaps a patera or bowl, from Little Chester, Derbyshire, depicts a nereid in the round reclining on the back of a hippocamp, which may be a half-equine, half-serpentine creature; the vessel is probably of third- or fourth-century date.94 Oceanus accompanied by sea creatures also appears occasionally on Romano-British mosaics.95

Plate 56 Nereid riding a half-panther/halfsea creature, silver fluted dish, Traprain Law (cat. 30), fourth century. National Museums, Scotland

The Bacchic Platter | 43

Plate 57a–b Nereid and triton, silver quadruped, Polgárdi, fourth century. Hungarian National Museum, inv. no. MNM RR 54/1878. Left (a) shows leg ‘A’; right (b) shows leg ‘B’

In summary, what is interesting about the marine thiasos on the Bacchic platter is that it seems to be the only late Roman silver platter decorated with such a scene. Normally, as shown by the comparanda, marine imagery can be related to a functional use of the vessel on which it appears: either the vessels contain water or they are items related to bathing and toilet rituals (for example a fluted dish from Traprain Law and the Projecta casket from Rome (Esquiline)). This only serves to remind us that the marine thiasos is one element of a larger composition, intended to Plate 58 Silver gilt plate from Baku, fourth century, with nereid and hippocamp. The State Hermitage Museum, St Petersburg. inv. no. KZ-5308

convey the importance of the realm and bounty of the seas as much as that of the land as portrayed in the outer frieze. These ideas are explored further below (pp. 54–5). Outer frieze

Below is a discussion of the principal characters in the thiasos and their parallels, primarily in silver plate but with other media where appropriate. The Bacchic platter is not the only late Roman silver vessel on which such a scene appears, but is the only one on which it features exclusively. Versions of the thiasos are found elsewhere; as discussed above, the inner frieze of the gold bowl from Rennes provides an example (see Pl. 49). But the latter scene is quite contained, and the figures small. The same can be said for the Achilles Plate from the ‘Seuso’ treasure,96 the frieze of which incorporates Bacchic processions but as an element of wider mythological narratives such as Bacchus’ discovery of Ariadne. A Bacchic procession is also found on an unprovenanced bowl in the Dumbarton Oaks collection, discussed more fully below since it provides a direct parallel for the collapsing Hercules (pp. 47–8). Once again the figures are rather small in comparison to the vessels on which they appear. To find comparably large figures, which dominate the vessels that they decorate, one must look elsewhere. When doing so, it quickly becomes evident that the thiasos is more often seen on vessels used to contain liquids, probably wine, which given the god’s vineal associations is hardly surprising. This includes two vessels from the ‘Seuso’ treasure, a ewer from Tăuteni and a fragment of a ‘flagon’ from Traprain Law. These vessels are discussed below in the analysis of the principal characters. Bacchus

It hardly requires stating that images of Bacchus are so ubiquitous in the ancient world that it would be impossible to

44 | The Mildenhall Treasure

Vessel

Date

Bacchus

Hercules

Kuczurmare

610–41

–

full figure

Tăuteni, ewer

c. 375–425

full figure (partially preserved)

–

‘Seuso’ cats 8–9 (Hippolytus situlae)

c. 375–425

busts in the round?

–

‘Seuso’ cat. 6 (Dionysiac ewer)

c. 375–425

full figure

–

‘Seuso’ cat. 5 (amphora)

c. 375–425

full figure; also as ‘pais’

–

‘Seuso’ cat. 3 (Achilles Plate)

c. 375–425

full figure; mask on pedestal

full figure

Mildenhall cat. 1

c. 350–75

full figure (S6)

full figure, collapsing (S8)

Mildenhall cat. 12

c. 325–75

mask (S6)

–

Unprovenanced (Constantinople?)

300–400?

full figure, on chariot

full figure, collapsing

Traprain Law cat. 36

300–400

mask

bust in central medallion

Traprain Law cat. 65

300–400

full figure? bearded head

–

Šabac, flanged bowl (Baratte et al. 2002, fig. 17)

300–400

–

mask (youthful)

Kaiseraugst cat. 61

300–50

full figure

–

Vienne cat. 5

200–300

full figure, reclining

–

Rennes

200–300

full figure seated at table; full figure on chariot

full figure, seated; full figure, collapsing

Bizerta, platter

c. 150–75

full figure; Bacchus as a herm

–

Table 4 Examples of depictions of Bacchus and Hercules on gold and silver plate of the second to seventh centuries, arranged by estimated date of production, latest to earliest

summarize effectively the evidence here, so this section is restricted specifically to comparable depictions on late Roman gold and silver plate. Further discussion of evidence for Bacchic devotion in Roman Britain and the implications this has for possible ownership of the assemblage is discussed in Chapter 16 (p. 285). The primary examples of Bacchus on late Roman precious metal vessels are summarized in Table 4. The key point of note is that depictions of Bacchus are uncommon on silver plate of late Roman date before the fourth century; there are two examples of Bacchus on the fragmentary platter from Bizerta (first century) and he is represented twice on the gold bowl from Rennes which is dated to the early third century. But notably, despite the large number of pieces of silver plate known to be of third-century date, only one vessel bears a depiction as far as can be ascertained: this is a reclining Bacchus on a small plate in the Vienne hoard (Pl. 59). This is in spite of the fact that third-century silver plate is often Bacchic themed; for example, theatrical masks of Pan and Silenus appear quite frequently (Table 5 and p. 49). In the fourth century, Bacchus starts to appear with more regularity, although his iconography is in actuality known from a relatively restricted number of pieces (four treasures and four isolated discoveries). In all cases comparable vessels that bear images of Bacchus can be placed in the context of dining, unlike, as discussed above, those vessels associated with marine imagery, the latter tend to be identified more with toilet or bathing use. And yet the picture is more nuanced still, because there is normally a more direct association with wine, which the Bacchic platter clearly does not possess in functional terms. In particular, the strongest parallel for the Bacchus figure on the Bacchic platter is on the ‘Seuso’ Dionysiac ewer, which

must have been used to serve wine (Pl. 60). Here Bacchus too stands facing, with his head turned to the side (in this case to his right), and his thyrsus in the crook of his left arm; in comparison to the Bacchic platter figure he appears rather more languid and self-satisfied. His right arm is raised and bent back over his head; instead of grapes he holds a rhyton from which he pours wine for the refreshment of his panther. Bacchus rests his left elbow on a column, and his lower legs – sporting buskins virtually identical to those of Bacchus in S5 (see Pl. 29) and rather more drapery – are crossed, rather than one resting on the panther’s back. The panther on the ‘Seuso’ ewer is of very similar appearance to that in S6, although it stands, and the tail which curves out behind its master’s legs seems far too long realistically to be attached to its body. Also of appropriate vineal function is Plate 59 Detail of reclining Bacchus on a small silver plate, Vienne (cat. 5), third century. Musées de Vienne

The Bacchic Platter | 45

Plate 60 Detail of Bacchus on silver ‘Seuso’ Dionysiac ewer (cat. 6), fourth century. Hungarian National Museum, inv. no. MNM RR 2014.1.3

Plate 61 Detail of Bacchic thiasos on silver vessel from Tăuteni, fourth century. Muzeul Ţării Crişurilor, inv. no. 6763

the ‘Seuso’ amphora, on which Bacchus stands semi-robed with grapes hanging from a headband.97 He is rather less youthful in appearance, as he leans on a curved thyrsus pouring wine into the mouth of his panther. Another winepouring vessel, only partially preserved, comes from Tăuteni, Romania, where his panther is shown lying in a similar pose to S6 but with head turned backwards and resting on its body, while Bacchus himself only survives as a head with upper left shoulder. Unusually, his head is inclined downwards at such an extreme angle it is virtually horizontal (Pl. 61).98

The pose of Bacchus in the central scene on the rectangular nielloed Ariadne and Bacchus platter from Kaiseraugst (Pl. 62) is similar to S6, particularly the manner in which his robe is wrapped around his arm and the thyrsus is held in the crook of his arm. As in S6, the recumbent panther turns its head back to look up at its master. Heads of Bacchus appear on two pieces of silver from Traprain Law: one, possibly part of a platter, shows a theatrical mask (Pl. 63); the other is not so easily characterized, although the head is certainly part of a full figure (Pl. 64), on a shallow bowl with a high foot-ring. Because of the vine leaves on his head, it was suggested by Curle that this is a mature bearded Bacchus being crowned with a wreath by Victory, a view with which Hutchinson concurs,99 but there remains the possibility that it is not youthful Bacchus, but instead Hercules, as despite the break, the face appears to be bearded. In summary, on gold and silver vessels Bacchus appears to be more regularly represented in full-figure in the fourth century, although the number of comparanda is rather restricted. There are no exact parallels for Mildenhall’s Bacchus, with the closest found on the ‘Seuso’ Dionysiac ewer (see Pl. 60). This also conforms to another pattern, namely that he more commonly appears on vessels used for potable liquids, as one would expect.

Plate 62 Detail of Bacchus on silver platter from Kaiseraugst (cat. 61), fourth century. Museum Augusta Raurica, Augst

Hercules

Depictions of Hercules on gold and silver plate are also summarized in Table 4. On the basis of the survey of material there is also – in a similar manner to Bacchus –

46 | The Mildenhall Treasure

Plate 63 Detail of Bacchus, Traprain Law Hacksilber (cat. 36), fourth century. National Museums, Scotland

only one instance of his figure on a third-century vessel, once again the gold bowl from Rennes, discussed in more detail above (see pp. 39–40 and 45). As on the Bacchic platter, Hercules is shown drunk and in need of support. On other items he is normally an incidental character, with the exception of a profile portrait on the base of a high-sided vessel from Traprain Law (Pl. 65). The depiction is very similar in appearance to S8, down to the manner in which the curls on the beard and crown are depicted; on the Traprain Law vessel Hercules has a hair-tie behind his ear, and his club (behind the head) has the same style of pearshaped motifs to represent the knots in the wood. A rather more sober Hercules stands holding his lion skin over his left forearm and balancing his club on a low pedestal with his right hand in the Achilles birth scene on the Achilles Plate in the ‘Seuso’ treasure. That the iconography remained popular well into the very late Roman period is demonstrated by a standing figure of Hercules on the situla from Kuczurmare bearing stamps of Heraclius (Pl. 66).100 He rarely appears as a theatrical mask, with only one instance of this noted; this is also the only instance (on silver plate) in which he appears clean-shaven (Pl. 67). Hercules’ drunken pose, having to be supported by a pair of satyrs, is one of the most striking elements of the

Plate 65 Head of Hercules, Traprain Law Hacksilber (cat. 36), fourth century. National Museums, Scotland

Plate 64 Bacchus(?) being crowned by Victory, Traprain Law Hacksilber (cat. 65), fourth century. National Museums, Scotland

Bacchic thiasos, the counterpoint to Bacchus’ ‘triumph’ in a drinking contest. We can imagine that to the participants in the dinner party, it served as a reminder of the dangers of excessive drinking: even a demi-god such as Hercules could succumb to the effects of alcohol. Hercules is often shown in this manner, usually supported by satyrs, across a variety of artistic media.101 The contest is not explicitly described in ancient literature, although there are passing references, such as one found in the Anthologia Graeca: ‘This conqueror of monsters and men [i.e. Hercules], whose labours and matchless strength mortals have celebrated, today borne down with wine, can no longer hold up his staggering body: he has been conquered by the effeminate Bacchus’.102 On silver plate, in addition to the gold bowl from Rennes (discussed above, pp. 39–40) only one other strong parallel for drunken Hercules is known.103 A deep-sided silver bowl in the Dumbarton Oaks collection (unprovenanced, Constantinople?), depicts a Bacchic procession (Pl. 68). In one scene Hercules, with a thick garland around his neck, is shown being supported in a similar manner to cat. 1, S8; Hercules is more upright, and the satyr behind uses a single arm to support him around the midriff; another satyr standing before him is depicted in an almost identical

Plate 66 Detail of Hercules on silver situla, Kuczurmare, fourth century. Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna, inv. no. ANSA VII A 95

Plate 67 Detail of Hercules on silver flanged bowl, Šabac, fourth century. Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna, inv. no. ANSA VII A 5

The Bacchic Platter | 47

Plate 68 Deep-sided silver bowl showing a Bacchic procession, unprovenanced, fourth century? Byzantine collection, Dumbarton Oaks, inv. no. BZ.1947.13

manner to the satyr in S8, although his supporting role is not quite so clear, as Hercules is not obviously interacting with him. Another significant difference between the scenes is that Hercules holds his club in the crook of his right arm, the narrow terminal gripped by his fist. Aside from these details, the scenes are similar and clearly suggest a common source of inspiration, although here the parallels end, since the rest of the scene is a Bacchic procession with the god himself shown in a chariot. The dating of the vessel in Dumbarton Oaks is disputed. Ross suggests a date of the fifth to sixth centuries on the basis of stylistic comparisons with Byzantine material; more recently, a fourth-century date has been proposed.104 The form of the bowl appears to compare favourably with a vessel from Traprain Law,105 discussed on p. 47, which lacks the handles of the Dumbarton Oaks vessel but is nonetheless of similar shape and dimensions (it has a diameter of 254mm, the Dumbarton Oaks vessel 305mm). On the basis of the iconography and the parallel with the Traprain Law vessel, a fourth-century date would seem more likely, although the vessel form is not common. It is unfortunate that the vessel lacks a precise provenance, because given the parallels of both form and iconography, these vessels constitute an interesting group that would warrant further investigation. Plate 69 Detail of drunk Hercules on bronze vessel, Pecs, early third century. Hungarian National Museum

48 | The Mildenhall Treasure

Bronze vessels also provide parallels for the collapsing Hercules. A variation on the theme is provided by a bronze flagon from Pecs, dated to the early third century, which depicts a thiasos in which Hercules is collapsing onto a single supporting satyr, his club held in his right hand, an empty kantharos at his feet (Pl. 69).106 This is in line with most other depictions, in which Hercules has an empty wine vessel below his feet; on cat. 1, as we have seen, it is his lion skin wrapped around his club. This might also be the case with a bronze vessel in the British Museum of the first century bc, although the moulding is now somewhat difficult to decipher (Pl. 70).107 Aside from these depictions on metal vessels, drunken Hercules imagery is actually more readily found on funerary reliefs, particularly sarcophagi.108 A remarkably close parallel for the Mildenhall depiction is provided by an unprovenanced sarcophagus in the Boston Museum of Fine Arts (Pl. 71).109 The angle at which Hercules leans is less acute than on the Bacchic platter, but other aspects provide a very close parallel. Hercules’ hair and beard are almost Plate 70 Detail of drunk Hercules on a bronze vessel, unprovenanced, first century BC. British Museum, 1873,0820.119

identical, as is the huge neck muscle; the satyr on the sarcophagus also lacks a lower body (although the scene on the sarcophagus is more cramped, so this is less noticeable); but perhaps most strikingly, on the sarcophagus Hercules’ left hand holds the end of the drapery of a maenad, and this is very similar to the detached piece of cloth being held in the left hand of Hercules in S8, which has always been somewhat puzzling but would now appear to have been resolved (see also p. 27). (Confirmation that Hercules is certainly holding a piece of textile comes from cat. 1, S6, where the maenad to the left of Bacchus herself holds an almost identical end of drapery in her right hand.) In summary, the manner in which Hercules is depicted on the Mildenhall Bacchic platter can be paralleled quite closely on two items of late Roman precious metal, the gold bowl from Rennes and an unprovenanced silver bowl in the Dumbarton Oaks collection. The models for such depictions are more commonly found on late Roman sarcophagi, of which there are numerous examples. All three vessels focus on Hercules’ role as the drunken guest at the dinner party, but unlike vessels that depict Bacchus, they are not readily associated with containers for liquid, or indeed drinking vessels. Pan and Silenus

The characters of Pan and Silenus are as important in the thiasos as Bacchus and Hercules, so how they appear on gold and silver plate is summarized in Table 5, which includes all examples encountered on vessels of the late second to sixth centuries.110 The first point of note is that, chronologically, full-figure depictions of both Pan and Silenus are rare in the second and third centuries. Normally only theatrical masks are shown, and Silenus is more commonly depicted than Pan, for instance on platters from Rethel, Thil and Vienne (the latter has both). In fact, it is rare for masks of Silenus not to appear on vessels that display some Bacchic imagery. The gold bowl from Rennes is exceptional, for it is only on this vessel (see pp. 39–40) that both Silenus and Pan are shown fully: Pan three times (because the decoration on the vessel is arranged in a series of narrative episodes from the beginning of the drinking contest until the end), and Silenus twice (once in the central medallion and once in the surrounding frieze) (see Pl. 49). For Pan, the main comparison on the Bacchic platter is within the Mildenhall treasure itself, namely his figure on cat. 2. The figures are surprisingly different, despite the fact that the plates (cats 2–3) must have been intended as companion vessels to the Bacchic platter and are surely contemporaneous (see Chapter 3). Pan is more characterful on cat. 2 (Chapter 3, Pls 90–1) than on cat. 1; his horns are more three-dimensional, achieved with the use of relatively wide chased lines, as opposed to the shallow, more sketchily executed lines on cat. 1. He also looks older, more gnarled, with a beard that is longer and more unruly. Although the musculature of their torsos is similar, the detailing is not; on cat. 2 his nipples are not depicted, nor the line of hairs running down his midriff. He also lacks the peculiar spiral devices on his shoulders (see p. 31). The fur on his thighs is also rendered very differently: first, it covers the entirety of

Plate 71 Detail of drunk Hercules, sarcophagus, unprovenanced, third century? Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, inv. no. 1972.650

his thighs on cat. 1, right up to his hips, but is only on the lower part on cat. 2; and second, on cat. 1 it is realized using vertical lines of conjoined dots (Pl. 46a), as if the fur is very fine, while it has been heavily chased on cat. 2, as if the fur is in matted clumps. Finally, the nebris on cat. 1 is rather sketchily realized, not tied around his neck as it is on cat. 2, with none of the detailing that is seen on the latter. All in all, there are sufficient points of departure to conclude that even if the vessels were made around the same time and probably in the same workshop, different hands were responsible (discussed further on p. 36). The only other post-ad 300 instances of a full-figure Pan are on vessels in the ‘Seuso’ treasure. On a panel on the ‘Seuso’ Dionysiac ewer, the manner in which Pan is depicted (Pl. 72) is very similar to that of S11, with some slight variations in detail; for example on the ‘Seuso’ vessel, the centre of Pan’s torso is rendered with a chased groove, rather than the alternating crescents; the hairs around the nipples are different; he is also less tumescent. He has hung on to his pedum, which in S11 has been dropped; in this case, instead it is his set of pipes that have been discarded (a syrinx of seven pipes as opposed to eight on cat. 1, and with one binding instead of two). On the Achilles Plate (‘Seuso’ cat. 3) he is at his most ithyphallic, and the fur on his thighs is thick and bushy.111 On the amphora Pan is shown rather differently from any of the other depictions, as here he is taking a more active role, leading a goat with one hand and carrying a large wineskin over his shoulder with the other.112 The direct link between Pan and his vineal interest is thus made quite explicit.113 As observed above, Silenus is more commonly depicted on late Roman precious metal vessels, particularly as masks, with full figures becoming more common from the fourth century onwards. As we have seen, on cat. 1 he is shown holding his wine bowl out to Bacchus (S6; p. 26). In other instances he is depicted in very different poses. On the ‘Seuso’ amphora (cat. 5) his clothing is broadly comparable

The Bacchic Platter | 49

Vessel

Date

Pan

Silenus

Kalganovka

613–30

–

full figure

Tăuteni

c. 375–425

–

full figure, supported by satyr

‘Seuso’ cat. 14 (casket)

c. 375–425

mask

–

‘Seuso’ cat. 6 (Dionysiac ewer)

c. 375–425

full figure

–

‘Seuso’ cat. 5 (amphora)

c. 375–425

full figure

full figure

‘Seuso’ cat. 3 (Achilles Plate)

c. 375–425

full figure; mask on pedestal

–

Mildenhall cat. 7

c. 350–400

–

mask (S3)

Cuxhaven-Altenwalde

350–400

–

full figure

Mildenhall cat. 1

c. 350–75

full figure (S11)

full figure (S6); mask (S11)

Mildenhall cat. 2

c. 350–75

full figure

–

Carthage cat. 1

c. 325–75

–

mask only (two instances)

Mildenhall cat. 12

c. 325–75

mask (S2)

mask (S7)

Bavay (Nord) (Baratte and Painter 1989, cat. 103)

200–300

–

masks

Vienne cat. 6

200–300

full figure

–

Thil (Baratte and Painter 1989, cat. 197)

200–300

–

mask

Vienne cat. 2

100–300

mask

mask

Thil (Baratte and Painter 1989, cat. 202)

100–300

–

mask

Saulzoir (Baratte and Painter 1989, cat. 105)

200–300

–

?mask (or aged satyr?)

Rethel (Baratte 1988a, cat. 2)

200–300

–

mask

Rennes

200–300

full figure (3 instances)

full figure (two instances, one standing, one on back of animal)

Graincourt-lès-Havrincourt (Baratte and Painter 1989, cat. 88)

200–300

mask

mask

Dura Europas

200–300

mask

mask

Berthouville (Baratte and Painter 1989, cat. 24)

200–300

–

mask

Bizerta, platter

c. 150–75

–

full figure

Lillebonne (Baratte and Painter 1989, cat. 38)

c. 100–80

mask

–

Table 5 Examples of depictions of Pan and Silenus on gold and silver plate vessels of the second to seventh centuries, arranged by estimated date of production, latest to earliest

to the Mildenhall example, but he has the additional attire of ‘woolly leggings’114 and dances with a tambourine over a pair of discarded cymbals. Different again is a figure of Silenus on the silver ewer from Tăuteni; here he is shown more heavily robed, with a wine cup in one hand and his other arm around a satyr (Pl. 73). The satyr is clearly preventing him from collapsing drunk, providing obvious echoes of Mildenhall’s collapsing Hercules and related comparanda (see p. 47). Satyrs and maenads

The final characters requiring discussion are those of satyrs and maenads (Table 6). Not surprisingly, satyrs and maenads feature more frequently on silver plate with Bacchic themes than the main players (Bacchus, Pan etc.) since they comprise Bacchus’ entourage. And yet in a similar manner to the main characters, satyrs and maenads usually only appear as masks on vessels dated to the third century or slightly earlier, with full figures only appearing on vessels from Bizerta, Thil, Rennes (the gold bowl) and a repoussé vessel fragment from Notre-Dame d’Allençon (a satyr with head thrown back and pedum) (Pl. 74). In the fourth century,

50 | The Mildenhall Treasure

full figures appear with more regularity, although theatrical masks are still common. The closest stylistic parallels for the Mildenhall figures are found on the ‘Seuso’ Achilles Plate (‘Seuso’ cat. 3): the running satyr in segment IV is virtually identical to the one in S7 (the only differences being the end of his pedum facing upwards and the bell he holds in his other hand), while the maenad in the same scene is virtually identical to the maenad in S9 (her back is more arched and the drapery in her right hand is more flamboyant).115 These similarities, although striking, cannot necessarily be taken to suggest a common workshop or hand, as stylistically the two vessels are too distant, although a common source of inspiration would appear likely. When examining the remainder of the full-figure representations of satyrs and maenads that appear on silver plate, the figures on the Mildenhall Bacchic platter and the accompanying plates (cats 2–3; see Chapter 3) actually appear rather conservative, since their roles are restricted to dancing or playing musical instruments; on other pieces of silver plate, they are engaged in a wider range of activities. On the Bizerta lanx, for instance, a satyr supports not Hercules but Bacchus, and on the handle

Plate 72 Detail of Pan on ‘Seuso’ silver Dionysiac ewer (cat. 6), fourth century. Hungarian National Museum, inv. no. MNM RR 2014.1.3

Plate 73 Detail of Silenus on silver ewer from Tăuteni, fourth century. Muzeul Ţării Crişurilor, inv. no. 6763

opposite the unusually bearded satyr has a lagabolon over his shoulder and carries a dead goat in his other hand. The satyr on the Kaiseraugst rectangular platter carries a large skin bulging with wine,116 thus connecting him closely to the wine-imbibing aspect of the thiasos, as does the satyr on the unprovenanced vessel in Dumbarton Oaks, where he holds out a large bunch of grapes (Pl. 75). A satyr holds a syrinx in a scene on the Tăuteni ewer, of greatly exaggerated size, giving it a comical air (Pl. 76). A fragment of a pouring vessel from Traprain Law117 depicts a satyr; he can be compared with the satyr in S7 since he wears a nebris and holds a pedum, but he is not nearly as animated as Mildenhall’s example (see Pl. 32). As for maenads, these too enact a wider variety of roles than we see on the Mildenhall vessels (cats 1–3): on the ‘Seuso’ Dionysiac ewer, the maenad carries flaming torches, a reminder of the nocturnal aspects of the Bacchic rituals (Pl. 77). On the ‘Seuso’ Achilles Plate, a maenad releases a snake from a box,118 while on the amphora one transports a severed ram’s head.119 The vessel from Tăuteni has the only example of a maenad playing a lyre observed on late Roman silver (Pl. 78).

Plate 74 Fragment of silver repoussé vessel showing satyr, NotreDame d’Allençon (cat. 29), third century. Musée du Louvre, Paris, inv. no. BJ 2070

Summary: form, dimensions and style

As has been seen, the Bacchic platter is an outlier in a number of respects when compared to late Roman silver

The Bacchic Platter | 51

Vessel

Date

Satyrs

Maenads

Kalganovka

613–30

–

full figure

Tăuteni

c. 375–425

full figures

full figures

‘Seuso’ cat. 3 (Achilles Plate)

c. 375–425

full figures

full figures; mask on pedestal

‘Seuso’ cat. 5 (amphora)

c. 375–425

full figure

full figures

‘Seuso’ cat. 6 (Dionysiac ewer)

c. 375–425

full figures

full figures

Parabiago

c. 375–425

–

full figure (on side of Cybele’s chariot)

Mildenhall cat. 5

c. 350–400

masks, youthful and elderly (S3, S5)

masks (S3, S5)

Mildenhall cat. 6

c. 350–400

masks (S3, S5)

masks (S3, S5)

Mildenhall cat. 7

c. 350–400

-

mask (S3?)

Mildenhall cat. 1

c. 350–75

full figures (S7–10)

full figures (S6–7, 9–11)

Mildenhall cat. 2

c. 350–75

–

full figure

Mildenhall cat. 3

c. 350–75

full figure

full figure

Mildenhall cat. 12

c. 325–75

mask (S4)

masks (S4, S6)

Carthage cat. 1

c. 325–75

–

masks

Carthage cat. 2

c. 325–75

masks

masks

Kostolac (Popović 1994, cat. 338)

300–400

masks

masks

Traprain Law cat. 7

300–400

full figures

–

Traprain Law cat. 36

300–400

–

mask

Unprovenanced (Constantinople?)

300–400?

full figure

full figures

Kaiseraugst cat. 61

300–350

full figure

–

Berthouville (Baratte and Painter 1989, cat. 24)

200–300

masks (youthful and elderly)

masks

Dura Europas

200–300

masks

–

Graincourt-lès-Havrincourt (Baratte and Painter 1989, cat. 88)

200–300

masks

masks

Rennes

200–300

full figures

full figures

Rethel ((Baratte 1988a, cat. 2)

200–300

mask

mask

Saulzoir (Baratte and Painter 1989, cat. 105)

200–300

–

mask

Thil (Baratte and Painter 1989, cat. 197)

200–300

masks

masks

Thil (Baratte and Painter 1989, cat. 201)

200–300

masks (youthful and elderly)

–

Bavay (Nord) (Baratte and Painter 1989, cat. 103)

200–300

–

masks

Vaise cat. 3

200–300

masks (youthful and elderly)

mask

Karnak

200–300

masks

masks

Mérouville

200–300

masks

masks

Notre-Dame d’Allençon (Baratte 1981, cat. 29)

200–300

full figure (head, torso and pedum)

–

Unprovenanced (Turin)

200–300

masks

–

Thil (Baratte and Painter 1989, cat. 202)

100–300

full figures and masks

mask

Vienne cat. 2

100–300

masks (youthful and elderly)

masks

Lillebonne (Baratte and Painter 1989, cat. 38)

c. 100–80

mask

mask

Bizerta, platter

c. 150–75

masks; possibly full figures

masks and full figures

Table 6 Examples of depictions of satyrs and maenads on gold and silver plate vessels of the second to seventh centuries arranged by estimated date of production, latest to earliest

plate of similar form. Geographically it is the most northerly platter of its type yet discovered; fragments of probably similar platters have been found further north, particular at Traprain Law and also in Ireland and Scandinavia,120 but these are representative of a period when silver vessels of this type ceased to be in regular use, invariably transformed into

52 | The Mildenhall Treasure

pieces of bullion, commonly termed Hacksilber.121 Typologically, although it sits comfortably within the overall body of complete platters with an interior foot-ring, once again it has no exact equivalent with which it can be paired. The Bacchic platter is towards the upper end of the typological sequence with regard to its size and in this

Plate 75 Detail of satyr from deep-sided bowl, unprovenanced, fourth century. Byzantine Collection, Dumbarton Oaks, inv. no. BZ.1947.13

respect it can also be considered as exceptional – any vessel for which such a large quantity of silver was reserved must be considered as such. (This exceptionality only increases if the platters with outer foot-rings – see p. 87 and Table 8 – are also included in the body of comparanda.) And if the high level of craft invested in its embellishment is also taken into account, this makes it all the more unusual still. Stylistically too, it is broadly comparable to other late Roman silver platters but has a number of unique elements. As we have seen, the decorative scheme, namely two friezes encircling a central medallion, is, at the time of writing, unparalleled in silver plate. The only other instances of such a decorative arrangement are found in smaller gold and giltsilver bowls. The density of the decoration is also unusual, and it is only on other types of vessel, such as the Conceşti amphora (see pp. 41–2), that a similar attempt to fill most of the available space was made. The representation of a Bacchic thiasos is also, strictly speaking, unparalleled, although elements of it are seen on other vessels, particularly vessels in the ‘Seuso’ treasure. Some elements of the thiasos can be paralleled in other precious metal vessels, and as has been seen (pp. 46–9) the ‘drunken Hercules’ is drawn from an extensive canon of similar representations, particularly on sarcophagi. As for the decorative style, the figures ‘throb with movement’ and have been created in a ‘vigorous, free and naturalistic style’, fully in step with the Classical tradition.122 Dohrn emphasizes the curvilinear nature of the figures, which mirrors the shape of the platter, and is echoed further by the rim of spherical beads.123 That is not to say that all is

Plate 76 Detail of satyr with syrinx on silver ewer from Tăuteni, fourth century. Muzeul Ţării Crişurilor, inv. no. 6763

perfect: this would have required all figures to have been completed, which they are not (see pp. 25 and 28); and there are sections of the design where it appears that a lack of planning of the space led to compromises being made (see p. 18). The roles played out by the characters, particularly in the Bacchic thiasos, could be considered rather conservative, or at least not as varied as some comparanda. But there is no doubt that the Bacchic platter demands attention, drawing the viewer into the narrative, which undoubtedly makes it a successful piece of late Roman art, albeit from a modern perspective in which its typicality is unknowable. As for its place of production, it is only within the Mildenhall treasure itself that we might be able to suggest a similar craftsman or workshop, and that is by comparison with the pair of Bacchic plates (cats 2–3), discussed further in Chapter 3. No other vessels in silver plate have enough points of stylistic overlap with cat. 1 to suggest a common hand, although the poses of some figures on both the ‘Seuso’ Achilles Plate and Dionysiac ewer may at least suggest a common prototype (see p. 50). Thus we are no closer to identifying the geographical location of the workshop in which the Bacchic platter was produced – only that its broad parallels with its continental counterparts is suggestive of continental production, probably in one of the centres in which the imperial court took up occupancy during the late antique period (discussed further in Chapter 15). Two final questions arise. The first is why was the Bacchic platter made? The second, which relates to the first, is how should its decoration be interpreted? The first question is easier to answer than the second. The platter was clearly

The Bacchic Platter | 53

Plate 77 Detail of maenad on the ‘Seuso’ Dionysiac ewer (cat. 6), fourth century. Hungarian National Museum, inv. no. MNM RR 2014.1.3

Plate 78 Detail of maenad on silver ewer from Tăuteni, fourth century. Muzeul Ţării Crişurilor, inv. no. 6763

intended to be the centrepiece of the dining service; even if the service is incomplete, it would be hard to conceive of another vessel taking the pre-eminent position in the hierarchy of dining accoutrements. It is the heaviest vessel, the vessel with the largest diameter and the vessel on whose decoration the most effort was expended. How it came into the possession of the owner(s), who that owner might have been and whether the platter was intended primarily for display, or was in active use during dinner parties, are questions which are best addressed in relation to the service as a whole (see Chapter 16). As regards the second question, since discovery a number of interpretations of the overall decorative scheme have been offered. As alluded to in Chapter 1 (p. 12), Toynbee sought an allegorical meaning for the decoration, with the marine thiasos representing the Islands of the Blessed and the thiasos the bliss enjoyed by souls in paradise.124 Painter tried to reconcile Toynbee’s ideas with the Christian elements of the treasure,125 the line also broadly taken by Hutchinson.126 All three scholars chose this interpretation because they considered the platter to be a religious object in use by either devotees of Bacchus, or Christians who had absorbed Bacchus into their beliefs. In recent years, the debate has moved away from allegorical meanings for the decoration towards the platter’s Bacchic associations in the context of elite dining and the desire to express paideia and tradition among the Roman higher classes.127 The overriding message of the decoration,

if one must be sought, is the bounty of the earth and the sea; Schneider has perhaps put this most succinctly, in stating that the platter represents in its friezes the gifts of water and earth.128 Raeck takes this further, arguing that the decoration represents a series of complex relationships between water and land, myth and everyday reality, and also male and female (so, for instance, the nereids and Oceanus in the centre, Bacchus, Pan, satyrs juxtaposed with maenads).129 Raeck also emphasizes the constant repetition of these themes across artistic media, in order to repeatedly reinforce the messages which these themes carry: that of the Roman system, the ordering of mythology, society and nature, which the Roman elite were at pains to emphasize was the natural order. This order placed Romans at the pinnacle of the social hierarchy, and had been divinely sanctioned by the gods and ancestors, and – by the time that the vessel was in use – Christ, if that was one’s preferred world view. The humorous, playful and theatrical nature of the decoration should also not be forgotten, especially the depiction of Hercules drunk;130 in this regard, it has also been suggested that the image of the drunken Hercules was a way of contrasting the toned body of the hero on the one hand, the embodiment of masculinity, with the total surrender to the ecstatic enjoyment of life on the other.131 So in summary, the platter ought to be set against the backdrop of a dinner party, and not interpreted in isolation from this context (discussed more fully in Chapter 16). During a dinner party, the produce of both land and sea

54 | The Mildenhall Treasure

(and indeed air) would have been served up, as ably demonstrated in numerous contemporary illustrations (see pp. 274–7).132 The platter’s role, then, was to encapsulate the idea of plenty, reflecting favourably back on its owner (the host) and his ability to provide, to impress, to reinforce his position within his peer group. Sourcing high-quality foodstuffs for the table required investment in the same way that the platter itself required investment, and thus one mirrors the other. It can be expected that alongside the staples of fruit, vegetables and grain, the meal featured not only the products of the hunt, but also more exotic imports such as pepper and (less so) garum (fish sauce). The pepperpots from nearby Hoxne attest to the ability of the wealthy in Roman Britain to source exotic condiments from afar. The Bacchic platter is, therefore, a celebration of earthly delights, and its central marine frieze and bust surrounded by a land-based depiction of the Bacchic thiasos could be interpreted as a simplified representation of the entire Roman world, i.e. the Mediterranean Sea at the heart surrounded by the provinces.133 As will be seen in the following chapters, many of these themes are shared in the decoration found on its companion vessels, reinforcing them still further.

Plate 79 Concentric lathe turning lines on the back surface, corrosion and cracks with ‘lips’ resulting from heating

A combination of XRF (X-ray fluorescence) and AAS (atomic absorption spectrometry) indicate that the Bacchic platter is composed of 97% silver, while the copper content varies between 2.5 and 3.0%. Other elements, such as lead and gold, are present only as traces. For a fuller discussion on the analytical results, see Chapter 13.

to a temperature above 780º C, so that the grain boundaries, which usually contain lower-melting-point components, had begun to soften. The specimen taken from the back of the platter showed oxidized copper and also had an appearance typical of fire-stained silver produced by this process (Pl. 80). Oxidation occurs when the metal is heated in an open furnace or with a naked flame or torch in an unrestricted atmosphere for too long. It is avoided as far as possible by silversmiths, because the appearance of the silver is spoiled and the affected layer of metal must be physically removed to restore the colour, which means loss of metal, patient work and repolishing. On the platter, liquation was superimposed on the scrape marks, showing that over-enthusiastic heating had taken place after scraping. It is possible that these surface effects are the result of cleaning the back surface of the platter with a torch, a process which is known to have been used to remove corrosion from silver before conservation techniques became established.

Surface finish, wear and damage

Construction of the Bacchic platter

Technical aspects of the production of the Bacchic platter (Janet Lang) Metal composition: summary

It is difficult, with excavated objects, to be certain what the original surface finish might have been. The figures on the Bacchic platter are now highly polished, although some scraping has been carried out on the front surface between the figures. The foot-ring and the back surface of the platter have been scraped or turned on a lathe. Generally the Bacchic platter does not show many signs of wear. The foot-ring edge is not noticeably rounded and its horizontal surface was not completely smooth or turned. There are a number of scratches on the back surface of the platter with unworn well-defined edges, suggesting that they were made after excavation. The foot-ring has been distorted by a heavy, lateral blow: the damaged metal is fresh and shiny and the impact was probably sustained either during excavation, or more probably when the hoard was struck by Butcher’s plough (see p. 3). Some areas of the back surface are somewhat dull to the naked eye and have a curious appearance when magnified, suggesting that the surface had virtually reached the melting temperature. Low magnification showed some ‘lips’ close to the rim (Pl. 79) suggesting that this ‘liquation’ effect had been quite extensive. Thickening (possibly liquation) was also observed at the grain boundaries of the mounted specimens, which confirms that the platter had been heated

There are two main methods by which a platter such as the Bacchic platter could have been made. The first method is to cast it, close to its final form, with or without the decorative design in the mould. The second method is to raise it, from a cast blank, using either scrap or ingots to provide a suitable volume of metal, and then working it to the desired shape by hammering and annealing (raising). The evidence suggests that the latter method was used; this appears to have been the most favoured method for large late Roman silver vessels.134 It was almost certainly cast in a mould of some sort but it is not possible to determine from a surface examination if a closed mould was used or if the platter was cast vertically or horizontally. To determine the fabrication processes that had been carried out, three small samples of metal from the Bacchic platter were obtained and their microstructures examined. The precise location of the samples (F) and (B) is now unclear, but they were taken from the edge of a hole in the main part of the platter (F), from folded-in metal on the back surface (B) and from the edge of the rim (R), which is visible on inspection. The samples were mounted in resin, polished and examined, both before and after etching. All three showed worked and annealed structures. Grain growth had taken place, and there were some changes at the grain

The Bacchic Platter | 55

boundaries, particularly in (F) and (B). The latter two samples also showed signs of melting at the surface (see Pl. 80) and, within the metal, some oxidation of copper to cuprite, which appears red in polarized light. Intercrystalline corrosion was visible below the surface layer in some areas (Pl. 80). The sample taken from the rim (R) (Pl. 81) showed very severe working at the surfaces, although the interior of this fragment was less distorted. This suggests that the metal may have been annealed very thoroughly before the work on the rim was completed. However, examination of the platter, particularly the back surfaces, showed some casting fins (Pl. 82) that had been hammered into the surface of the metal. These were probably not visible originally, although they may have been revealed by corrosion during burial. The platter had evidently been cast to a suitable disc shape and then raised to its final form. The centre of the front of the platter is marked by a pip that the silversmith used both in designing the platter and as a starting point in the raising process. The pip is made by rotating the point of a tool at the centre with pressure: these marks can be seen on many raised vessels, including, for example, the flanged bowls (cats 5–10). Marks left by dividers, however, which can be seen at the centre of the Anastasius Dish from Sutton Hoo, were not seen on this platter.135

Raising was usually carried out by hammering outwards in a spiral towards the rim. Often the centre of a vessel was scarcely deformed during raising, and so a raising pip might remain undisturbed throughout the process. However, near the centre of the underside of the platter there is an irregular shallow cavity. Its rough edges suggest that this was produced during casting rather than intended as a raising pip. It may be the remains of a riser or a feeder (or a vent, whereby gases trapped during solidification could escape) used in the original casting process, which left a small cavity. Small roughened areas that can be seen on the front and back surfaces appear, under low magnification, to be traces of a dendritic structure, probably revealed by the action of corrosion during burial. Dendrites are branched tree-like structures and are the natural mode of solidification for most cast metals, depending on their composition. Normally these structures, only visible under a microscope, disappear when the metal has been worked and annealed. Sometimes, however, dendritic macrostructures, which are visible to the naked eye or at magnifications of up to ten times, are retained, even when the microstructure itself shows that considerable working has taken place, accompanied by heat treatment.136 The thickness of the metal varies: it is relatively thick at the centre of the platter and thins considerably towards the rim. This is also characteristic of raising. The casting fins and cavity at the centre suggest that the platter was initially cast and the microstructures confirm that the metal had been worked and annealed. Lines observed on the rim, foot-ring and back surface suggest the use of a lathe, probably as part of the finishing process. The lines are even, shallow, between 1 and 100 microns in width and 0.05 to 50 microns in depth and are parallel over considerable lengths (Pl. 83). Lathes were in use at this period in the Roman world, both for cutting metal away (turning),137 and also, mainly, for scraping the surface to remove any obvious bumps or asperities produced during raising.138 At the centre of the back of the platter is an unscraped circle bounded by a scribed line. The surface within the line is undulating. This may partially be a relic of casting139 but traces of the laterally raised design on the front are also clearly distinguishable on the surface within the circle. The

Plate 81 Microsection (etched) from the rim shows a heavily worked structure

Plate 82 Hammered down casting fin on back of platter

Plate 80 Microsection shows intercrystalline cracks (left) and surface oxidation (right)

56 | The Mildenhall Treasure

presence of this circular area suggests that the centre was covered with a block (probably of wood), used to secure it while the metal outside it was turned down on a lathe. Judging by the regularity of the grooves and their distance apart, a lathe could have been used for scraping the rim, foot-ring and, possibly, the whole of the back surface of the Bacchic platter. A number of the bowls in the Water Newton treasure were also clearly scraped in this way.140 However, the platter is large, heavy and unwieldy, so it might be suggested that some of the scraping on the back surface could have been carried out while the vessel was resting horizontally on a turntable, rather like a potter’s wheel, rather than standing vertically as would be the case on a lathe. Such a turntable could have been made of wood and the platter secured with pitch, to ensure that the design was not damaged when the pitch was removed. Pitch melts below 180º C. The rim was scraped after the patches (see below) were soldered on.

Plate 83 Lathe-turned line within foot-ring, traces of original cast structure revealed by corrosion

The foot-ring

The foot-ring was carefully examined to determine the means of attachment. It could have been soldered on with hard (silver-copper) solder, attached by the granulation technique, cast on, or have been part of the original casting.141 Youngs has proposed that the Anastasius Dish from Sutton Hoo was also cast in a mould with a thicker ring on the base which was raised to make a foot-ring.142 There are no visible signs of solder (such as bubbles or cavities) and no change in colour is detectable in the joining area. Analysis was carried out on the foot-ring and the join, but the results do not show any significant composition differences between the foot-ring, the joining area and the main platter. Radiography shows the metal of the foot-ring and join to be very sound with no discontinuities, pin holes, cavities or flaws. Etches for silver and copper, which have revealed soldered patches on other Roman silver artefacts, including some of the Water Newton vessels, did not show any areas of different composition at the foot-ring join on the Bacchic platter. It is possible that reaction soldering could have been used. This technique had been known and mastered for gold granulation for some time, although it was used much less frequently for silver.143 A mixture of a copper salt (such as malachite) and glue was used to stick fine metal granules or powder onto the substrate. Heating transformed the copper salt to copper-oxide, and the glue to carbon, which reduced the copper-oxide to finely divided copper which was then available to make a joint. While this technique is suitable for fine granulation work, it might be difficult to achieve sufficient penetration of oxygen to make the substantial join required to attach the foot-ring to the platter. The physical appearance of the join, the radiography results and the analyses therefore all point in the same direction: although a soldered join might have been expected, there is little evidence for it and it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the foot-ring was part of the original casting. A fragment from the foot-ring and bowl of a vessel from the Vinkovci treasure (provisional cat. 3; see p. 13) shows clearly that the bowl and foot-ring were integral, with no visual indication of a join between the two.144 This

provides further evidence that the foot-rings of late Roman silver vessels were usually part of the original casting, as opposed to being soldered on. The rim

The rim is much thicker than the disc itself, especially at the edge (Pl. 84). This would be required not only to maintain the integrity of the platter, but also to allow it to be decorated with beads. Bennett145 has suggested that a greater thickness of metal was initially incorporated into areas where the design required a greater thickness to sustain high relief. It is possible that the thickness of the original casting was increased at the edge of the disc, as well as at the foot-ring. However, it is probable that thickening was achieved by tapping the periphery of the platter edge-on with a hammer during raising. This process (caulking) is commonly carried out when making vessels. It evens up the edge, strengthening it and preventing it from becoming too thin and fragile. There is some visual evidence to suggest that the metal had also been folded over in places, presumably to even up the edge. The edge of the ‘Seuso’ basin146 has been folded to thicken it, according to Bennett.147There is no micrographic or radiographic evidence to suggest that the rim of the Bacchic platter was cast or soldered on. A chased line can be seen running around part of the circumference, on the inside of the rim, which was probably used to mark out where excess metal had to be trimmed from the edge. The top of some of the beads were cut by lines which might have been intended originally to indicate where the edge was to be bent to make the rim, preparatory to beading. The production of beading has been described by Maryon148 and satisfactorily reproduced by Holmes.149 It was found that the experimental beads which most closely match beads on the Mildenhall silver vessels were made by first bending the rim downwards through a right angle, and then making the beads using a ball-ended punch in the angle (on the underside) and a profiled die on the upper surface (Pl. 85). The replica die was made from a square-sectioned steel rod with a hemispherical cavity in one end. ‘V’-shapes were cut out from two of the die edges on either side of the cavity,

The Bacchic Platter | 57

Plate 84 Thinned metal and undulations produced on the back by raising the design on the front. Transverse cracks on the rim

so that it fitted neatly over the outside of the bent rim. Sometimes more than one strike was required to define the beads sufficiently, traces of which can be seen on the rim. It appears that beading was worked in both directions, mainly from left to right but also from right to left. The rim shows two more or less equidistant patches, apparently soldered to cover joins, and a third possible join. Because it is so thick, it may have been necessary to cut the rim in order to fold it down more easily to prepare for making the beads. The joins appear to have been soldered, but neither spectrographic nor quantitative XRF analyses showed any significant differences in their composition. Traces of lead were found, but in similar quantities to the amounts found elsewhere in the body of the platter. Nor was there an increased copper content to indicate that hard soldering had been employed. It is possible that an attempt had been made to close the gaps by casting on a small quantity of molten silver, but this would be a difficult operation because of the size of the platter, which would rapidly cool the molten metal, probably before it had adequately wet the surfaces, and the residual stresses left in the rim of the platter would probably be sufficient to break the joint. It is more likely that a high silver, low copper-alloy solder was used and the copper content at the surface was reduced preferentially during burial and possibly postexcavation treatment, resulting in surface enrichment. The edge of the beading die cuts into one of the rim patches, confirming that the repair was made before beading was carried out (near the maenad in S9; see pp. 28–9). A similar short length of thickened rim can be seen close by, which could be another patch, but if this is the case, it was carried out almost perfectly. Alternatively, this may simply be a Plate 86 Chased outline not completely filled by the raised feature decorated with small punched dots. Fingers (bottom right) outlined by a large chasing punch (cat. 1, scene 11, figure 23)

Plate 85 Experiment replicating bead making

58 | The Mildenhall Treasure

variation in the thickness in this section of the rim. The second obvious repair (near the maenad in S6; see p. 27) was carried out after beading. Execution of the design

The relief design on the Bacchic platter could have been produced by: (i) casting as part of the original mould; (ii) appliqué (applying suitably shaped pieces of metal, their edges slotted into grooves cut into the front surface and fixed in position by burnishing over the edges of the join or by soldering); (iii) carving the front surface, leaving the figures in relief; (iv) raising the relief parts of the figures from the back (repoussé), finishing with chasing and a little punching on the front; (v) working entirely from the front, either by punching down the background around the figures while the metal was mounted on a resilient material such as pitch or, alternatively, by displacing the metal laterally by punching down the background while the piece was held on an anvil or hard surface. As already discussed, the platter was not cast to shape, so suggestion (i) can be dismissed. No joins at the edges of the figures, lead fillings or added metal (often used in Sasanian silver plate,150 but also noted on one of the Carthage flanged bowls151 and the ‘Seuso’ Meleager plate)152 were identified by physical examination or radiography, so the appliqué technique (ii) can also be discounted. Surface hollows can be seen under the figures on the back, ruling out carving (iii), which leaves no trace on the back. The hollows are shallow, so it is clear that repoussé (iv) was not used either, as it is characterized by very visible hollows on the reverse and, in any case, is suitable only for thinner metal. The edges of some figures show a series of ‘layers’ but this appears to be a result of the application of a variety of punches and chasing tools (Pl. 86) rather than carving. It seems, therefore, that the figures were raised from the front, by lateral displacement of the metal (v) and were finished by chasing Plate 87 Diagram showing relief introduced by lateral displacement of metal

and punching. Maryon153 demonstrated that if the metal was held on an anvil or hard surface, the design would show partly on the back, the underside of the relief on the front would be slightly hollow on the back, and an imprint of the surface on which it was worked would also be visible. A worked sampler demonstrates these effects. Figures resembling those on the Bacchic platter were worked by punching around the design on a sheet of silver and then chasing the details on the front surface while the metal rested on an anvil (Pls 87–8). The sampler showed quite clearly the characteristics described by Maryon: the area under the feature was slightly hollowed, the back surface was somewhat bruised and its texture was roughened. These features (hollowing, bruising and texture) on the sampler closely resembled those on the central medallion on the Bacchic platter, within the foot-ring. It seems clear, therefore, that Maryon’s lateral displacement technique was the method used to raise the figures, with the platter held on an anvil or hard surface, rather than being mounted on pitch. Scraping the back surface removed much of the evidence, except within the foot-ring, which was not scraped. The outlines of the kraters (in S6 and S9) have been so heavily chased on the front that their outlines can be seen on the back as small cracks. As mentioned above (p. 18), the design was probably drawn in with paint (as described by Pliny154), then outlined with a line of oval dots, before the relief and details were worked. It has also been suggested that dot-punching with a stencil could have been used to outline the designs on the ‘Seuso’ Hippolytus situlae,155 which is another possibility. The tools used included a variety of punches, with differently shaped tips, some of which were held at different angles to increase the variety of marks which could be made. Two different-sized hollow-tipped ring punches were used. Some punches were round-tipped, and others had oval tips; one had a cigar-shaped end, while another punch had a

Plate 88 Sampler with relief design worked by lateral displacement, showing hollowed area on the back

The Bacchic Platter | 59

14 15 16 17 18

Plate 89 Metal has been scraped away to increase definition below the chin (cat. 1, scene 11, figure 23)

narrow chisel-shaped tip. A sharp-edged chisel was used, possibly to remove some metal from the surface to enhance the relief, below the chin of the maenad in S11 (Pl. 89). It is probable that most of the tools would have been made from steel and the edges or tips hardened by quenching.156 Notes

1 Originally referred to erroneously as ‘the Neptune Dish’ (Brailsford 1947, 6), or the ‘Great Oceanus Dish’ (Toynbee 1962, 170), in most publications it is referred to as the ‘Great dish’. 2 The suggested characterization of the mask as being that of Neptune, or the suggestion that there is ambiguity regarding the identification (Oceanus or Neptune) can now be discounted. Brailsford (1947, 7) was the first to suggest Neptune, while both options are given in Painter (1977a, 26) and also more recently by Hutchinson (1986, 283). The identification of the mask as that of Oceanus is confirmed by LIMC (VIII, 1, Supplement, Oceanus no. 102). The mask cannot be Neptune, among other reasons, because Neptune is always shown with a trident. See also Wilson (2006) and his discussion of Oceanus mosaics from Roman Britain. 3 Certainly dolphins, by virtue of their long beaks, as opposed to porpoises, which have short, almost blunt beaks. This is also the description given in LIMC (Suppl., 914, no. 102). 4 Toynbee and Painter (1986, 23) describe it as a ‘cloth’; Hutchinson (1986, 283) a mantle, but this seems dubious, as it does not appear to be substantial enough. 5 Toynbee and Painter (1986, 23) prefer: ‘a monster which is part man … and part sea-creature’. 6 This is the description given by Dohrn (1947, 76). Hutchinson prefers a ‘musical sounding-box (or stylized lyre?)’ (1986, 283); Toynbee and Painter (1986, 23) suggest ‘perhaps a tray or a mirror’. 7 This articulation is typical of a crab, as opposed to, say, a lobster; in this sense Toynbee and Painter (1986, 23) are incorrect to describe it as a ‘lobster-claw’. 8 ‘a lobed girdle (of seaweed?)’ (Brailsford 1955, 6). 9 See note 4. 10 Brailsford (1947, 7) offers the rather charming interpretation that he ‘appears to be persuading [the] nereid to leave the grotesque horned monster on which she is seated’. 11 ‘Sea-dragon’ (Toynbee and Painter 1986, 22); incorrectly described as a ‘goat (?)-headed creature’ by Hutchinson (1986, 284). 12 Toynbee and Painter (1986, 23) prefer ‘horse-fronted sea-monster’. 13 Dohrn 1947, 72.

60 | The Mildenhall Treasure

Toynbee and Painter 1986, 23. Hutchinson 1986, 285. Toynbee and Painter (1986, 23) opt for boots. A robe (Toynbee and Painter 1986, 23). A convincing case for this object being a roptron is presented by Garezou (1993). A roptron was a kind of striker or clapper, so falls within the repertoire of percussion instruments which are associated with the orgiastic rites of Bacchus. A similarly curved object is held by the maenad on the silver plate from the Kalganovka hoard in the Hermitage, dating to the sixth century (Pl. 109); in her other hand she holds a bell, so in this case the intention seems clear. Garezou argues that in the case of the Mildenhall Bacchic platter, the roptron is appropriate for Silenus, as it was also used as a child’s toy, in the context of awakening Dionysus. Thus: ‘C’est justement ce qu’est en train de faire le Silène de Mildenhall dans le contexte orgiastique du cortège dionysiaque. Le fait qu’il tient une phiale à libations de sa main gauche renforce le caractère rituel de son acte’ (Garezou 1993, 118). The bell and roptron combination is also suggested for the objects held by maenads on two fourth-century oinophoroi from Sagalassos (Poblone 1998). 19 Wootton pers. comm. Others have suggested a flail: Brailsford (1955, 5) and Toynbee and Painter (1986, 23), the latter with a qualifying ‘perhaps’. A pedum has also been proposed (Dohrn 1947, 73). 20 Hutchinson 1986, 285. 21 Toynbee and Painter (1986, 23) summarize her dress as ‘flowing draperies’. 22 Described incorrectly as a vase by Toynbee and Painter (1986, 23). 23 Hutchinson suggests she is reversing her step away from the advancing satyr (1986, 285). 24 See Matz 1968, vol. 1, 31–3. 25 Hutchinson incorrectly interprets these as ‘(a) covered dish…. steadying its lid with her “free” hand she is holding its precious contents as far out of the Satyr’s reach as possible’ (1986, 285). 26 This is also the description given by Toynbee and Painter (1986, 23): ‘a piece of cloth with embroidered hem’. 27 Toynbee’s view is that the craftsman may have decided that the lower body ‘would have confused and overweighted the design’ (1964, 309). Toynbee (1962, 172) also draws a (in my opinion, rather tenuous) parallel with the unfinished column behind the back of seated Leto on the Corbridge lanx. Toynbee in turn seems to have taken this idea (unattributed) from Brailsford’s original description of the ‘Great Dish’ (1947, 6). 28 Toynbee and Painter (1986, 23) suggest it is body hair, presumably because it mimics the spiral of hairs often depicted encircling male nipples. This seems unlikely in my view, as the upper arm is not a place where body hair is visibly thicker. 29 ‘Double-ended drapery’ (Toynbee and Painter 1986, 23). 30 Toynbee and Painter (1986, 23): ‘flowing draperies’. 31 Toynbee and Painter (1986, 23) suggest it is a ‘large metal dish … with a decorated rim, probably beaded’. Hutchinson (1986, 285.) concurs with the interpretation offered here. 32 Toynbee and Painter (1986, 24) believe this to be the case. 33 Possibly to represent music? 34 Toynbee and Painter 1986, 24. 35 Toynbee and Painter 1986, 24: ‘body hair’. See also p. 28. 36 Fruit, according to Toynbee and Painter (1986, 24). 37 Again Toynbee and Painter (1986, 24) prefer to interpret this as a ‘metal dish’ (see note 31). 38 Ziegler 2000, 96ff. 39 ‘Tympanum with the appearance of a circular shield’ (translation) (Dohrn 1947, 73 ); ‘tambourine, or perhaps a dish’ (Toynbee and Painter 1986, 24). 40 The following platters are also of ‘dished’ form but have not been published with either profile drawings or profile images, so have not been included in the discussion: Karnak (von Prittwitz und Gaffron and Mielsch 1997, 46–8, figs 10–11), which is probably similar to those vessels which also have a flat rim, e.g. Kaiseraugst cat. 57; Harbiye (Mango 1986, cat. 95); Conceşti (Effenberger et al. 1978, cat. 5); Naissus, which has a flanged and beaded rim (Popović 1994, no. 270). 41 This is an odd arrangement, since it means that most of the platter is unsupported.

42 Hayes 1972, 139. 43 For references to published catalogues of comparable sets of material, the reader is referred to Table 32 on pp. 299–303. 44 The platter from Taraneš is of similar form to ‘Seuso’ cat. 3 (see Pl. 47). 45 Visy 2012. 46 Hobbs 2010. 47 Also noted by Zelazowski and Zukowski 2005, 113. 48 Arce 2000. 49 Less popular suggestions are instead Arcadius and Honorius but later in the same paper her arguments demonstrate that this is not her favoured option (Canto 2000, 298). 50 Arce 2000, 281. It should be noted that few scholars agree with the view promoted by Mieschner that the vessel in fact belonged to Theodosius II (Mieschner 2000). 51 A profile drawing has not been published to date. I thank Dr Mario Iozzo at the Museo Archeologico Nazionale, Firenze, for providing me with the dimensions. 52 Guggisberg and Kaufmann-Heinimann 2003, 110. 53 Kaiseraugst cat. 60; Cahn and Kaufmann-Heinimann 1984, 192. 54 Kaiseraugst cat. 85: Guggisberg and Kaufmann-Heinimann 2003, 115. A similar date can be ascribed to Kaiseraugst cat. 57, being of similar form. 55 Visy 2012. 56 The tomb has been dated to c. ad 450–60. 57 The decoration includes a lion skin hanging from a tree, poorly rendered in comparison to cat. 1, S 8. 58 A mean of 17.86mm (measurement taken by author). See Traprain Law cat. 43. 59 As discussed elsewhere (p. 16), defined as vessels with a diameter greater than 300mm (Hobbs 2010). 60 Ibid. 61 Kaiseraugst cat. 56. 62 For definitions, see Hobbs 2010. 63 Ibid. 64 In this respect it is interesting to note that in the inventory of silver vessels listed in a papyrus in Berlin there is a lancula (small lanx) weighing 21 pounds, which shows that even in the first century ad, to when the papyrus is dated, larger and heavier vessels were known (Oliver and Shelton 1979, 28). 65 ‘Seuso’ cat. 3. 66 ‘Seuso’ cat. 2. 67 One of the rectangular vessels is described as being decorated with hunt scenes: Trier cat. 1. 68 Trier cats 8–9. 69 Interestingly, although the rim is not beaded, the encircling kymation frieze that encloses the main scene is almost identical to that which encircles cat. 1. 70 Although a profile image or drawing has not been published. Its diameter is estimated at 490mm. 71 Kerch cat. 1. 72 Bibliothèque nationale de France, inv. 56.94, ht: 40mm; diam.: 250mm; wt: 1,315g (4 Roman pounds). It was found in 1774 during the demolition of the chapterhouse in Rennes, 6 feet (1.8m) below the surface, with coins of Nero to Aurelian, a gold chain, 4 coins of Postumus set into mounts with suspension loops, a gold brooch and human bones. This suggests that it was a grave deposit (information sheet provided by the Bibliothèque nationale). 73 Currently unpublished. A blog concerning the discovery was posted on the British Museum website soon after the treasure came to light: http://blog.britishmuseum.org/2012/04/11/new-treasure/ (accessed: 2/2/2016). 74 Curle suggested that this derived from a bowl, but from the dimensions this seems unlikely (Curle 1923, 49). 75 The recent discovery (2014) from Echt in the Netherlands (see Table 32) of a small Hacksilber hoard contains a piece of folded plate or platter with a beaded rim and gilded decoration of horse and rider partially preserved; again, this may have belonged to a vessel of similar form and possibly similar decorative scheme, although the decoration itself is engraved not raised. 76 ‘Seuso’ cat. 5. 77 A number of features of the decoration are very stylized; for instance, a satyr plays an oversized syrinx, with 20 pipes and 4

crossbands (Pl. 76); a maenad before him holds a large and grotesque theatrical mask of Silenus (Dumitraşcu 1973, pl. LXI). 78 von Prittwitz und Gaffron 1997, 191. 79 Ibid., fig. 5. 80 Ibid. fig. 15. 81 Ibid., fig. 18. 82 Ibid., figs 19–20. 83 The author makes an interesting point about these masks, suggesting that in a similar manner to the satyr who stands with his hand raised to his mouth, perhaps in awe, they are ‘witnesses’ to the punishment of Marsyas (ibid., 187). It can also be noted that the fragmentary silver platter from Cuxhaven-Altenwalde also shows Apollo and Marsyas, surrounded by various other gods including Silenus. 84 LIMC VI, 248; LIMC VI, 110. 85 It seems likely that four pairs were originally intended; a revision to the design was made when the craftsman calculated there was insufficient space to complete the composition. 86 Baratte 1975, 1121–2 and fig. 13. 87 On the subject of the relationship between imagery on silver plate and intended use, see Swift 2007. 88 Rome (Esquiline) cat. 3. 89 Traprain Law no. 30. 90 Mráv 2012, 95–6. 91 For details see Table 32, unprovenanced (Hermitage). 92 Chaourse cat. 75. Vienne cat. 6. What might be described as a portrait of coastal life appears on both the central medallion and flat rim of a vessel from Graincourt-lès-Havrincourt (cat. 87), with fish, crustaceans, amphorae, sea-birds stealing fish from baskets and so on. 93 Hoxne cat. 12. 94 Brassington 1967, 61–2; Hutchinson 1986, 309, Me-104. 95 Neal and Cosh 2002–10, vol. II, 17; vol. III, 23; IV, 13. On RomanoBritish mosaics, Oceanus is regularly confused or conflated with Neptune (see Wilson 2006). 96 ‘Seuso’ cat. 3. 97 ‘Seuso’ cat. 5; Mango and Bennett 1994, 220, fig. 5-30. 98 Dumitraşcu 1973, pl. LVI. 99 Hutchinson 1986, 295: ‘There is only one possible identification for this scene, namely, the Indian Bacchus being crowned by personified Victory.’ 100 Baratte argues that it is Hercules being depicted in the base of a silver phiale from a hoard found in central Asia dated to the Parthian era, even if he looks more like Silenus as he is holding a lyre. Bacchanalian women tear apart Pentheus on a medallion from the centre of a phiale in the same hoard (Baratte 2002, 19–21). 101 LIMC V, 160. 102 Anthologia Graeca, 3.210; quoted in Leader-Newby 2014b, 161. 103 T he interior of a silver dish from the Rogozen, Bulgaria, hoard of the fourth century bc bears a depiction of Hercules and Auge; he is reclining drunk after the rape of Auge (Shefton 1989, 82). Thus images of drunken Hercules on silver plate had a very long history. 104 I bid.; Boardman 2014, 36. 105 Traprain Law cat. 36; new images of this vessel can be found in Hunter and Painter 2013, 250, fig. 15.9. 106 Discussed in Herrmann 2002, with references. 107 British Museum 1873,0820.119; LIMC 3267. 108 Toynbee 1953, 46–7. 109 A lthough it is unprovenanced, it is probably from Rome (Susan Walker pers. comm.). 110 There may be others, but the table is based on a thorough survey of all the major well-published hoards and individual items across this period, so any exclusions are unintentional. 111 Mango and Bennett 1994, 170, fig. 3-18. 112 ‘Seuso’ cat. 5; Mango and Bennett 1993, 222. 113 LIMC Suppl., 941. 114 See note 112. 115 Mango and Bennett 1994, 176, fig. 3-26. 116 Cahn and Kaufmann-Heinimann 1984, 198, fig. 110. 117 Traprain Law cat. 7. 118 Mango and Bennett 1994, 178, fig. 3-28. 119 Mango and Bennett 1994, 223, fig. 5-33. 120 For example, Balinrees (see Table 32), and a large number of

The Bacchic Platter | 61

hoards from Scandinavia. See, for instance, Feveille 2011 (which includes a useful summary of Danish Hacksilber hoards); DyhrfjeldJohnsen 2013; Vob 2013. 121 Johns 1996. 122 Toynbee 1964, 309. 123 Dohrn 1949, 71. 124 ‘Oceanus recalls the situation, according to one version of GraecoRoman other-world topography, of the Islands of the Blessed; the Nereids riding over the waves on sea beasts could represent here, as on sarcophagi, the journey of the souls of the departed across the Ocean to the afterlife; and the Bacchic revel-rout could, again as on sarcophagi, be an allegory of souls in bliss in paradise – worked out here in the terms of the well-known story of the drinkingcontest between Hercules and Bacchus.’ Toynbee 1962, 170; also 1964, 309–10. 125 ‘The scenes on the Mildenhall dish … must be seen as specific examples of [the] absorption of the Dionysiac cult by Christianity, with the marine symbolism of Oceanus in the centre … implying, as on the Dionysiac sarcophagi, the notion of the soul’s journey across the ocean to a blissful further shore.’ Painter 1971, 162. 126 Hutchinson 1986, 286–7. 127 Leader-Newby 2004, 158. 128 Schneider 1983, 150. 129 R aeck 1992, 150–7. 130 Wölfel 1996, 82. 131 Muth 1998, 226. 132 Dunbabin 2003, 159–60. 133Hobbs 2012, 21.

62 | The Mildenhall Treasure

134 Mango and Bennett 1994, 28. 135 Youngs 1983, 167. 136 L ang et al. 1986. 137 Muntz 1972. 138 Craddock and Lang 1983. 139 Mango and Bennett 1994, 28. 140 Barker et al. 1977, 25. 141 See Lang et. al. 1977. 142 Youngs 1983, 169–70. 143 Wolters 1981. 144 Confirmed using the scanning electron microscope elemental mapping facility in the Department of Scientific Research, British Museum in May 2015, courtesy of Damir DoraČiČ, National Museum, Zagreb, and examined at first hand by the author in October 2012. 145 Mango and Bennett 1994, 30. 146 ‘Seuso’ cat. 13. 147Mango and Bennett 1994, 427. 148 Maryon 1948b. 149 L ang and Holmes 1983. 150 Meyers 1981, 149. 151 Baratte et al. 2002, fig. 109. 152 Mango and Bennett 1994, 31. 153 Maryon 1948b, 39. 154 Pliny, Natural History 34.139. 155Mango and Bennett 1994, 31. 156 Epprecht and Schaller 1981.

Chapter 3 The Bacchic Plates (cats 2–3)

1

Cat. 2 Bacchic plate (Pls 90–1)

(British Museum 1946,1007.2; Brailsford 1947/1955, cat. 2; Painter 1973, cat. 2; Painter 1977a, cat. 2). Dimensions

Diameter: 188mm Height: 25.5mm Diameter of foot-ring: 62mm Height of foot-ring: 10mm Weight: 539g (1.6 librae) Number of beads: 65 Bead dimensions (mm): 1 – 5.68; 10 – 5.76; 20 – 5.49; 30 – 5.88; 40 – 5.65; 50 – 5.43; 60 – 5.44. Mean: 5.62mm (5.99mm) Aggregate mean: 5.81mm Form and decorative scheme

A small concave plate, shallowly dished in profile with a downturned rim with 65 ovoid beads and a slightly flared foot-ring. The upper surface is decorated with a figural scene raised from the surface, with details of the figures and landscape chased. Inscriptions

There is a scratched graffito (Pls 92, 395) on the reverse of the vessel inside the foot-ring that reads ‘ευθηριου’ (‘Eutherios’). This might be either the owner’s name or the maker’s,2 and any connection with Eutherius I, high chamberlain of the emperor Julian, is likely to be specious.3 For a fuller discussion, see Chapter 12. Figural decoration

The plate’s upper surface is decorated with four figures, two in the centre and one above and below. In the left field is Pan, who stands facing outwards, but with his head turned to the left; his cloven-hoofed left leg is placed in front of the right as if he is advancing ‘out’ of the vessel; beneath him, the ground surface is indicated with a wavy line. Pan has well-defined muscles on his torso and arms; a punched ring with a raised umbo has been used to create his belly button. Unlike the figure of Pan in cat. 1, S11 (pp. 31–2), he is not in a state of arousal. His head, turned in the direction of his companion, has curly hair and a long beard and moustache, and a pair of upright horns on his forehead detailed with a series of parallel notches. His eyes consist of raised rings with punched central pellets. With his left hand he holds a syrinx (Pl. 93), the longer portion of which hangs down over his forearm; the instrument has 14 pipes and three cross-bindings, all undecorated. In his right hand he holds a pedum between his thumb and fingers, which rests against his wrist; the knots in the wood are detailed using a circular punch. On the curved end of the pedum hangs a hemispherical bell with a suspension loop.4 The double-loop bow, which ties the bell to the pedum, is depicted using a series of punched dots. Pan’s nebris is tied around his neck, the forelegs knotted together. In the background field the rest of the skin is depicted; the hind legs and tail float out below Pan’s left arm, and the head of the animal (only sketchily drawn) appears between the torso and his right arm. In the right-hand field is a figure of a maenad. She stands on tiptoe facing Pan; in a similar manner to her companion,

The Bacchic Plates | 63

64 | The Mildenhall Treasure

0

10

Plate 90 Theplate: Bacchiccat. plate2(cat. 2) with Pan and maenad, decoration and profile Bacchic

a

20cm

b

Plate 91 The Bacchic plate (cat. 2), obverse, reverse and profile (not to scale)

The Bacchic Plates | 65

Plate 92 Detail of scratched graffito on reverse of cat. 2

Plate 93 Detail of Pan’s syrinx (cat. 2)

her left leg is positioned in front of her right. Below her is a ground surface made up of a dashed wavy line, less substantial than that below Pan.5 The maenad’s hair is formed of loose wavy plaits above the ear that terminate in a double-loop bun; loose tresses cover her crown. She is robed in an ankle-length peplos, the folds of which are deeply chased into the vessel’s surface. The hem is decorated with a double border of tiny punched dots with a line of punched rings between, although this has not been done consistently; in some places the rings have not been added. There is also a series of repeated decorative dots on the part of the dress around the pelvis: two parallel lines of punched dots with a wavy pattern of dots between. This pattern continues between her breasts, unifying the upper and lower parts of the dress. The upper part of the garment has straps that run over her shoulders, attached by rings at the shoulder. The hem of the top is decorated in an identical manner to the hem of the skirt. A band below the bosom consists of double lines of punched dots with punched rings in between.6 The maenad has a long pleated piece of cloth or mantle that runs around her left upper arm, then loops in a wide arc behind her, disappears behind her head and then reappears by her right hip. The hem of the mantle is decorated with a line of punched dots that is mostly raised but partially chased on the background surface. The maenad holds a double aulos in both hands (Pl. 94). The fingers of her left hand are wrapped around the lower pipe, the left forefinger raised and slightly bent. The right

thumb supports the bottom side of the right pipe, the right little finger and forefinger straight, the middle two fingers pressed down on one of the keys. Both pipes have three visible keys made using a ring punch to form a penannular ring, with divergent lines chased. In the field at the top of the vessel, above both Pan and the maenad, is a reclining water nymph (Pl. 95). She faces the viewer, reclining against a rock; she is naked from the waist up, her breasts poorly defined and rather unfeminine (they are barely different from Pan’s); her belly button is a punched ellipse. She arches her right arm over her head and grips her hair with her fingers. Her hair is probably tied in a bun, and she may have a hair band, represented by a line of punched dots on her crown. Some loose locks fall down the sides of her head. Her eyes are punched dots, her lips a single chased line, her mouth slightly downturned. A drape runs from her right side over her pelvis and curves around her left side. The nymph leans languidly with her left forearm on a handle-less vessel, shown in plan view, which rests on the rock on which she reclines. Water pours from the vessel’s neck and pools below her, the water depicted with a series of shallowly chased lines. In the crook of her left arm is a curving plant of uncertain variety; it has a long stem and ends in an ovoid bud, and has six (chased) leaves at the stem in three pairs.7 The nymph’s lower legs are poorly defined, consisting of a few chased bumps on the plate’s surface, but it appears that her left leg is outstretched and bent slightly at the knee, her right leg bent at 45 degrees. It would not be unreasonable to

Plate 94 Detail of maenad’s aulos (cat. 2)

Plate 95 Detail of reclining water nymph (cat. 2)

66 | The Mildenhall Treasure

Plate 96 Detail of fawn and snake (cat. 2)

Plate 97 Detail of probable tambourine (cat. 2)

suggest that, for reasons unknown, this part of the design was never fully realized by the vessel’s creator (discussed further below, pp. 76 and 78). By the maenad’s feet is a fawn (Pl. 96) which stands with its head bent forwards. The visible left eye is rendered exactly as with Pan; its mouth is slightly open and it has a single punched dot to represent its visible nostril. Its short tail is notched on one side along the length. Very fine stippling has been used to detail the animal’s fur. The fawn inclines its head towards a snake curved into an omega shape; the serpent has two punched eyes but is otherwise plain. In the field between the drape of the maenad’s mantle and Pan’s right hoof is an ovoid object (Pl. 97), highly likely to be a tambourine.8 Although it appears to be plain, on close inspection its surface is lightly stippled (perhaps to suggest an animal skin). Around the rim are semi-circles formed using a tiny ring punch that left comma-shaped impressions, suggestive perhaps of metal jingles. To Pan’s right is a covered bowl on a beaded, fluted and conical base, which stands on a square pedestal (Pl. 98). The bowl is a shallow hemispherical vessel decorated with a wavy line of punched dots inside a very faintly chased band. The fluted base is beaded both at the point where it meets the bowl and at the foot. The lid, which appears to sit inside

the lip of the bowl, is decorated on its upper part with a similar band of wavy dots inside a faintly chased border. It too has a beaded lower rim. It is surmounted by a teardropshaped handle, topped with what may have been intended as a suspension loop, rendered as a series of punched dots on the background surface. The pedestal is a simple rectangular block standing on a flat piece of ground; it is garlanded with a central rosette made with a ring punch and double lines of parallel dashes. Further strands of garland hang from the right-hand side of the pedestal. The left side is truncated by the line of beads on the plate’s rim. The field is decorated in various places with plants that resemble grasses or flowers; three below the hind legs and feet of the fawn and maenad respectively, and three further above the snake; two just inside the rim above the pedestalled bowl; six in front of the legs of the water nymph, and four behind. The stems are formed with a dot punch, the flowers (where they appear) a tiny ring punch. These details help anchor the scene and its characters firmly in a pastoral idyll.

Cat. 3 Bacchic plate (Pls 99–100)

(British Museum 1946,1007. 3; Brailsford 1947/1955, cat. 3; Painter 1973, cat. 3; Painter 1977a, cat. 3).

Plate 98 Detail of covered bowl (cat. 2)

Dimensions

Diameter: 185mm Height: 25.5mm Diameter of foot-ring: 64mm Height of foot-ring: 10mm Weight: 613g (1.9 librae) Number of beads: 64 Bead dimensions (mm): 1 – 6.76; 10 – 6.45; 20 – 6.49; 30 – 6.54; 40 – 6.75; 50 – 6.79; 60 – 6.86. Mean: 6.66mm (6.25mm) Aggregate mean: 6.46mm Form and decorative scheme

The form of the vessel is identical to cat. 2. However, there are some subtle differences: the rim has one fewer bead, and the vessel is slightly smaller in diameter and height, despite the fact that it has a mass almost 75g greater than cat. 2. For further discussion concerning the significance of these differences, see pp. 75–6.

The Bacchic Plates | 67

68 | The Mildenhall Treasure

Bacchic plate: cat. 3 (cat. 3) with satyr and maenad, decoration and profile Plate 99 The Bacchic plate

a

0

a

10

b

20cm

b

Plate 100 The Bacchic plate (cat. 3), obverse, reverse and profile (not to scale)

The Bacchic Plates | 69

Plate 101 Detail of graffito on the reverse of cat. 3

Inscription

The same name ‘Eutherios’ in Greek is scratched on the reverse of the vessel inside the foot-ring (Pls 101, 396). For further discussion see Chapter 12 and pp. 268–9. Figural decoration

Two figures decorate the upper surface of the plate. In the left field is a dancing naked satyr advancing left. He stands on the toes of his left foot and on the ball of his right, which is stretched out behind him. His head is turned to his left, so that he can observe his companion; he has a laurel wreath9 tied at the back over his curly hair, formed by a series of deeply chased commas. He has a heavy brow and a deep-set eye, which affords him a rather demonic appearance. His body is hairless apart from his pubic hair, rendered using a partially applied ring punch; a similar half-ring is used to depict his right nipple (the left is not clearly defined). His left arm is raised above his head and slightly bent; the wrist is bent back slightly, the palm open, his little finger overlapping the third. His right arm is down by his side and bent slightly at the elbow, the wrist bent back and the palm open as if to improve his balance.10 A short bushy tail extends from the small of his back. The satyr has a nebris knotted around his neck; the ends of the skin are arranged in loops, which represent the hooves (but not as clearly as on the companion plate, cat. 2). The rest of the skin billows out behind him in two swathes; the fur is depicted using irregular stipples of short punched dashes. A slender dancing maenad occupies the right field. She is skipping towards the right of the vessel, and rests her weight Plate 103 Detail of cymbals (cat. 3)

70 | The Mildenhall Treasure

Plate 102 Detail of tympanum or tambourine (cat. 3)

on the ball of her left foot; her right leg is slightly bent out behind her such that her right foot hangs in the air. Her whole body is twisted slightly at the hips, her head turned back towards the satyr, her eyes downcast. Her hair is loosely plaited, and tied in a bun of two bunches; she wears a wreath consisting of a five-petalled flower and four ivy leaves.11 Some loose strands of her hair hang behind her neck and over her right shoulder. The maenad wears a similar peplos to her companion on cat. 2; the skirt part is ankle-length and pleated, the hem decorated with a simple line of punched dots. Running down the line of each leg the skirt is decorated with a wavy and continuous line of punched dots, with pennanular rings or crescents in the line’s curves. This pattern continues on the upper part of the dress, which is once again pleated. This has two shoulder straps, but the right-hand strap has slipped off her shoulder, exposing her right breast. She also has a long mantle, knotted at both ends, which loops around her left elbow and then arcs around her head and back over her right elbow before billowing out behind her. The borders of the mantle are decorated in a different manner to the mantle on cat. 2; in this instance the decoration consists of double lines of pellets with rings in between (usually crescents, where the ring punch has been only partially applied). In her left hand she holds a musical instrument, a tympanum or tambourine (Pl. 102). The instrument is roughly circular and is decorated with a seven-petalled rosette in its centre, created using a ring punch; the ‘jingles’ (or possibly ribbons)12 are depicted as a series of loops around the edge of the skin, created using a dot punch. In her right hand she holds a thyrsus lightly in her fingers. It rests on her wrist and is topped and tailed with a pine-cone, with trilobite florets below, and the upper cone is also tipped with a knob. The thyrsus is notched along one side. Just below the top of the staff is a double-loop strand or string, picked out with a dot punch, a simpler version of the tie on Bacchus’ staff in cat. 1, S6 (p. 25). A pair of bowl-shaped cymbals lies between the feet of the dancing figures (Pl. 103). Each consists of a plain outer ring that forms a raised lip; just inside is a concentric ring of punched pellets. There is an incline down to a punched central ring around a raised pellet. Around the perimeter of

each cymbal is a chased ring (clearer on the right-hand one below the maenad’s foot). The cymbals are connected by a wavy line of punched rings (usually crescents only) to represent a joining chain; ties rendered in a similar manner extend from each cymbal, which also have two sets of three semi-circular loops around the outer perimeter, four rendered using a ring punch, the final two with short dashes. In the field below the outstretched right hand of the satyr is a syrinx (Pl. 104), as if it has just been discarded. It has seven pipes, four long and three short, and two bindings, each decorated with punched spaced rings (most clearly visible on the uppermost). Both the top and bottom of the pipes are depicted as open, which would clearly be impossible to depict visually (unless the two sets of holes had been cut at an opposing angle). There are also punched dots in the field just above the upper pipe holes. Some type of string or curved handle with a loop at each end is depicted connecting the bindings; this has also been rendered using a ring punch. In the lower field is a goat-skin bag tied up with a pair of hooves; a pedum to carry the bag has been pushed through beneath the knot (Pl. 105). Both fur and hooves are indicated by stippling of short chased dashes. The pedum, which bulges along its length, has a series of lollipop-shaped motifs chased along its shaft. Emerging from the left side of the skin are six pieces of fruit, each with a recessed pellet at the top, thus resembling plums or apples; three more such fruits are depicted on the right but with a bunch of grapes below, again with recessed pellets. In the upper field above the figures is a covered pedestal bowl on a garlanded pedestal (Pl. 106): this is very similar to that on the companion vessel (cat. 2), though it is slightly smaller.13 It is fluted on all parts, but not beaded like the vessel in cat. 2. Its handle is identical to cat. 2, a teardrop surmounted by a circular knob formed using a ring punch. Only the top of the pedestal on which it sits is shown (i.e. the sides and base are missing); but it has a similar garland formed of an eight-petal rosette and double-leaves which flow out in wavy lines at the sides, rendered with punched dots and short dashes. There are fewer plants in the field than on cat. 2. All appear to be tufts of grass, none having ears of corn or flowers as on cat. 2. There are three to the right of and below the left foot of the maenad; seven further in various Plate 105 Detail of skin of fruit (cat. 3)

Plate 104 Detail of syrinx (cat. 3)

places between and around the satyr and his pipes. There are also five short crescents of dashes below the skin full of fruit. Discussion and parallels Form

The Bacchic plates can be broadly paralleled with surviving silver vessels dating to the third and fourth centuries, arranged by foot-ring height to overall height ratio, in a similar manner to cat. 1 (Table 7; Pl. 107). All comparable vessels fall into two basic forms. The first, which includes the two vessels under discussion here, has a gently dished profile and a low to high foot-ring, and a variety of rims from plain turned-down rims, to rims with bead-and-reel or spherical beads (for instance Reims and the three plates from Chaourse). The other form has a similar variety of foot-ring and rim types, but instead of the profile gently curving to the rim these vessels have a distinctive step inside the rim perimeter, thus creating a flange (for example Kaiseraugst cats 70–5 inclusive, Graincourt-lès-Havrincourt). Unlike platters, which can have either interior or exterior foot-rings, all such plates have interior foot-rings. Interestingly, these normally account for a greater proportion of the overall Plate 106 Detail of covered bowl (cat. 3)

The Bacchic Plates | 71

Plate 107 Silver plates of similar type to cats 2–3 of the third to fourth centuries, arranged by height of foot-ring to overall height ratio, largest to smallest (figures on the left of each profile). Figures on the right are height of foot-ring/diameter (ratio)

vessel diameter for vessels dated to the third century (Table 7, column 7) – usually around 40%. For vessels dated to the fourth century or later, including the Mildenhall plates, the ratio is usually around one-third (33%) of the overall diameter. The best parallel for cats 2–3 is an unprovenanced vessel in Berlin (Pl. 108a–c) (discussed further below). This plate is not only decorated across its upper surface with a single scene but also has an almost identical profile, and as can be seen from Table 7, very similar characteristics in terms of its foot-ring height to overall height ratio and its diameter (it is only a few millimetres smaller), with exactly the same number of beads on its rim as cat. 2 (65), although these are spherical not ovoid.14

72 | The Mildenhall Treasure

It is also worth drawing attention to two plates found in Toulouse in 1852, thought lost but preserved in Warsaw. Both vessels are of similar dimensions to the Bacchic plates and the Berlin vessel, between 180 and 188mm in diameter. However, they both sit on very high foot-rings, which make up a considerable proportion of their overall height (Table 7). More importantly, one of the vessels is set with a gold solidus of Theodosius II struck in ad 430, thus dating the vessel to around the middle of the fifth century. The other vessel is a picture plate, with a depiction of a boar facing left with a tree behind; this is enclosed by a floral border, not dissimilar to the Berlin vessel. On stylistic grounds it has been dated to the second half of the fifth century. They thus provide a possible indication of how the form developed,

Vessel

Height of foot-ring (mm)

Total height (mm)

Ratio

Foot-ring diameter (mm)

Diameter (mm)

Ratio

Weight (g)

Roman lb

Probable date

Toulouse, boar plate†

25.0

38.0

0.66

78

180

0.43

505.8

1.5

c. 450–500

Kaiseraugst cat. 75*

8.0

16.0

0.50

52

163

0.32

329.6

1.0

c. 325–50

Toulouse, Theodosius solidus plate†

10.0

20.0

0.50

69

185

0.37

543.7

1.7

c. 430–50

Kaiseraugst cat. 71*

5.6

12.0

0.47

41

149

0.28

215.5

0.7

c. 325–50

Kaiseraugst cat. 72*

5.6

13.0

0.43

42

152

0.28

204.4

0.6

c. 325–50

Mildenhall cat. 2

10.0

25.5

0.39

62

188

0.33

539

1.6

c. 350–75

Mildenhall cat. 3

10.0

25.5

0.39

64

185

0.35

613

1.9

c. 350–75

Kaiseraugst cat. 74*

7.6

21.0

0.36

51

161

0.32

321.7

1.0

c. 325–50

Kaiseraugst cat. 73*

5.0

14.0

0.36

40

150

0.27

219.4

0.7

c. 325–50

Unprovenanced (Berlin)

7.5

22.0

0.34

65

182

0.36

486.7

1.5

c. 350–75?

Kaiseraugst cat. 70*

4.0

12.0

0.33

40

149.5

0.27

211

0.6

c. 325–50

Chaourse (Baratte and Painter 1989, cat. 63)

3.1

12.0

0.26

48

125

0.38

134

0.4

c. 200–300

Reims (Baratte and Painter 1989, cat. 99)*

2.4

9.6

0.25

55

121

0.45

172.3

0.5

c. 200–300

Reims (Baratte and Painter 1989, cat. 98)*

2.4

9.6

0.25

52

121

0.43

188.7

0.6

c. 200–300

Chaourse (Baratte and Painter 1989, cat. 64)*

2.7

11.0

0.25

46

125

0.37

126

0.4

c. 200–300

Chaourse (Baratte and Painter 1989, cat. 62)*

2.5

10.4

0.24

46

118

0.39

145

0.4

c. 200–300

Graincourt-lès-Havrincourt (Baratte and Painter 1989, cat. 90)

2.4

10.0

0.24

57

138

0.41

267

0.8

c. 200–300

Hagenbach*

2.4

10.0

0.23

44

118

0.37

136.1

0.415

c. 200–300

* some or all measurements estimated from drawings † not illustrated in Pl. 107

Table 7 Silver plates of similar form and dimensions to cats 2–3 of the third to fifth centuries, arranged by foot-ring height to overall height, largest to smallest

a

b Plate 108a–c Silver plate depicting mounted Diana, unprovenanced (Berlin), fourth century. Antikensammlung Berlin, inv. no. 7883

c

The Bacchic Plates | 73

with the boar plate in particular having a very high footring; a similar pattern is seen in the development of the platter form (see pp. 37 and 87). As with cat. 1 (see p. 37), the ratio between foot-ring height and overall height correlates with the broad chronology of the vessels (Table 7; Pl. 107). Irrespective of the slightly different forms as described (in essence nonflanged and flanged), vessels from assemblages dated to the third century have very low foot-rings (usually 3mm or less) that constitute roughly one-quarter of the overall vessel height. Over time, the height of the foot-ring increases, so that fourth-century vessels have foot-ring heights of 5mm or more, with cats 2–3 having the highest foot-rings recorded to date (10mm), the only exception being one of the Toulouse vessels, which is in any case of much later date (25mm). Foot-rings constitute from around one-third up to half (in the case of Kaiseraugst cat. 75) of the overall vessel height. Dimensions and weight

As Table 7 shows, plates of this form have a diameter of between 118 and 188mm, with cats 2–3 the broadest overall. In terms of weight, it will be observed that although cat. 2 falls short of the mark, both cats 2–3 were probably intended to have a weight equating to 2 Roman pounds. This makes cats 2–3 again unusual, in that they are the heaviest of this type of vessel, apart from the two vessels from Toulouse, which are of similar weights but later in date; interestingly, this is also the case with the flanged bowls (cats 5–10 inclusive), which also seem anomalous when compared to other bowls of similar form (see discussion pp. 128–9). As Table 7 shows, the majority of the comparanda were produced from half a Roman pound of silver. There are exceptions: two Kaiseraugst plates (cats 74–5) equate to 1 pound, while the unprovenanced Berlin vessel (which, as we have seen, compares closely with cats 2–3 in form, decoration and rim finish) appears to have been produced from a pound and a half of silver. Other larger single-scene vessels

Of the 18 vessels listed in Table 7, only cats 2–3 and the unprovenanced vessel in Berlin are ‘picture plates’: the remainder of the vessels are plain or have only minimal decoration. However, it is worth noting that there are other single-scene ‘picture plates’ which bear comparison with cats 2–3, but are not directly comparable because they are all approximately 50 to 60mm larger in diameter. These include a plate from the ‘eastern Mediterranean’ in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, perhaps of fifth-century date, which has as its subject matter a tigress sinking her teeth into the flanks of a captured ibex. A plate from Baku (see Pl. 58), is probably of similar form to cats 2–3 (a profile image has not been published), but has a diameter of 240mm and a weight of approximately 3 Roman pounds. The principal figures in the scene are a nereid riding on the back of a hippocamp being led by a half-man, half-fish (see also p. 25, cat. 1). The form of a plate found in a grave at Kerch in the Crimea16 is also likely to be similar in form to cats 2–3, even if it no longer has its foot-ring; the weight of the vessel is also comparable (599g), although it has a

74 | The Mildenhall Treasure

greater diameter (249mm). However, the subject matter is entirely different, as it depicts the triumphant entrance of an emperor, argued (on the basis of comparisons with coin portraits) to be most probably Constantius II, suggesting manufacture in the middle of the fourth century. The plate from Castelvint is probably also of comparable form, although again larger in size (diameter 230mm).17 Its central figurative scene shows Athena and Tiresias and there are additional iconographic elements that occupy the upper and lower parts of the field, although there are far fewer undecorated areas than on cats 2–3. It can be noted that the mountainous scene associated with Tiresias in the vessel’s upper field is not dissimilar to the rocks on which the water nymph reclines on cat. 2.18 Decorative composition

Both Bacchic plates represent what might be described as a single cell from the overall narrative ‘cartoon’ of the thiasos in the outer frieze of cat. 1. Thus the scene of cat. 2 closely parallels that of cat. 1, S11; the figures occupy different positions (Pan is on the left as opposed to the right) and the maenad plays a double aulos as opposed to a tympanum, but in essence they are very similar. Cat. 3 is rendered in a comparable manner; the figure of the satyr is rather akin to that of cat. 1, S9, in the manner in which he is throwing his arm in the air; the maenad has no exact parallel on cat. 1, but is certainly not far removed from her companion in cat. 1, S11 in terms of the manner in which she is dancing. Despite the parallels which can be drawn between cats 1–3, one would concur with the opinion of Toynbee that ‘The artist of these platters [sic] far surpassed the designer of the great dish [cat. 1] in his mastery both of drapery and of human forms’,19 although the assumption that a single craftsman decorated both plates can now be challenged (see ‘Manufacture and dating’, below). There is also a higher level of attention to detail, for example the tie on the edge of the syrinx in cat. 3 and the decoration of the cross-bindings, which is not present, for instance, on the syrinx in cat. 1, S7 (p. 27, Pl. 34). Although 100mm larger in diameter, and more complex in terms of the number of figures depicted, the overall composition of the silver relief figures on a plate from Aquileia, thought to date to the first century, demonstrates how the idea of a central scene across a vessel, with smaller iconographic motifs above and below (in this case a halffigure of Jupiter looks down on the main scene of a figure of perhaps Triptolemus or Mark Antony surrounded by personifications of the four seasons) had a long history. As discussed above, the best parallel for the form, weight and beading of cats 2–3 is an unprovenanced plate in Berlin (Pl. 108a–c), but the style of the decoration is entirely different, even if this is also a single-scene type vessel. Artemis is shown on the back of a stag, seated somewhat awkwardly and oddly proportioned, with a bulky, rather masculine right arm. The mantle that arcs around her head does not billow and flow as it does on cat. 3.20 The iconography is much more complex on a platter from Parabiago, but the principle underlying the composition is the same; a central scene with further action occurring above and below. In the lower right a water nymph reclines

Plate 109 Silver plate with Silenus and a maenad, Kalganovka, AD 613–629/30. The State Hermitage Museum, St Petersburg, inv. no. W-282

in a not dissimilar manner to the nymph shown in the upper register of cat. 2. Iconographic parallels on other object types

The clear parallels between the pairs or triplets of attendees of the Bacchic thiasos on cat. 1 has already been noted (see p. 25). This rivalry construct of a satyr and maenad, as if attempting to outdo each other in their state of Bacchanalian frenzy, can, not surprisingly, be traced back a considerable distance in time. Reliefs on bronze mirror cases21 in Berlin and Paris respectively are clearly good antecedents, although these are very much earlier, as both are dated to the fourth century bc. The Berlin example in particular, with Pan seated on rocks and facing a maenad, is echoed strongly by the scene on cat. 2, not least because on the mirror relief above the principal figures an additional head of Pan watches a naked woman crouching to bathe in a fountain. And such pairings also endured: there are strong parallels with a plate from Kalganovka, now in the State Hermitage Museum, St Petersburg (Pl. 109), made at least 200 years later.22 The Kalganovka plate pairs a maenad with bell or cymbal and roptron (see discussion in cat. 1, S6, p. 26 and note 18) and a dancing Silenus. The bunch of grapes below the maenad’s feet has obvious parallels with the skin of fruits on cat. 3. Other parallels for individual figures on pieces of silver are worth noting. A similar naked satyr to cat. 3 with nebris appears in the central panel of the Bacchus and Ariadne platter in the Kaiseraugst treasure.23 A maenad playing a double aulos is found on the far right of one of the preserved sections of frieze on the silver platter from Bizerta, though in a slightly different pose with her head thrown back and the

instrument raised upwards. Another maenad playing an aulos without visible keys, but with a similarly flowing peplos, appears in the central frieze of the ‘Seuso’ amphora.24 As for motifs in the field, a nymph on the fragmentary frieze on the aforementioned vessel from Bizerta is reclining in quite a similar pose to the nymph in cat. 2; another can be found on the Pyramus and Thisbe scene on the Meleager plate in the ‘Seuso’ treasure.25 A skin tied up with a pedum (this time upside-down), similar to that which occupies the lower field of cat. 3, appears on the rim of a vessel in the Vienne hoard.26 Manufacture and dating

Although there is little doubt that the Bacchic plates form a pair and must have been produced at a similar time and probably in the same workshop, there are a number of slight but significant differences between the vessels to indicate that they were almost certainly produced by different individuals. As Lang’s discussion indicates (see below), there are a number of aspects of the production of these vessels that argue for this. First, the manner in which the foot-rings were finished and the use of different-sized lathes shows that they were not fashioned using exactly the same tools and related workshop items; the foot-ring of cat. 3 is also much more neatly finished. This is also the case with the beaded rims: one surprising result of the measurement of the bead dimensions was the difference in the number of beads on each vessel but more importantly their sizes, which are sufficiently divergent to imply the use of different sets of beading tools.27 The beads themselves are also unusual: they are not spherical, as is common on vessels of this date, but ovoid in form, which appears to be unparalleled for the

The Bacchic Plates | 75

fourth century. As Lang also points out, the range of tools used to decorate cat. 3 seems more extensive than on cat. 2 (p. 79). Second, there are stylistic differences that, though subtle, are sufficiently at variance to support the idea of two hands. Cat. 3 is more accomplished, the figures better balanced in relation to the circular field that the figures occupy (for instance, the manner in which the body forms broadly follow the curve of the rim), and the paraphernalia (the syrinx and so on) is more neatly arranged and positioned. In contrast, cat. 2 is less well balanced, the figures not fitting entirely comfortably with the amount of space available; for example, note the manner in which the hem of the maenad’s dress almost encroaches on the rim. As discussed above (p. 66), the legs of the nymph at the top of the main scene are oddly unfinished, and virtually overlap with Pan’s horns. The additional items and supporting characters in the scene do not seem as neatly placed as those on cat. 3. It would probably be pushing the evidence too far to suggest that what we are dealing with here is a master and an apprentice, and although cat. 2 is the less accomplished of the two vessels, it is not sufficiently different to suggest a major differential in the skill sets of the hands at work. Of course this also adds intrigue to the fact that both vessels are signed with the same name, ‘Eutherios’; even more so because these inscriptions may have been executed by different hands, adding further support to the idea that more than one craftsman was involved in their manufacture and decoration (see p. 233). So who, therefore, was Eutherios, if he was not the owner but involved in their manufacture? Perhaps he was someone who oversaw the production of the two vessels but did not personally make and decorate them, meaning that the signature indicates that they came from his workshop. Or he worked on one (most likely cat. 3 as it is the more accomplished of the two), and a less experienced colleague worked on the other, but nevertheless marked it as a product of Eutherios. But this brings us back to the problem of interpreting the inscription: as Tomlin concludes, the name is more likely to be that of the owner than of someone associated with the plates’ production (see Chapter 13). There is also the issue of the relationship between these two plates and the Bacchic platter (cat. 1). It is unfortunate that the Bacchic platter has no graffiti on the reverse, since this may have made the connection between the three vessels unequivocal. There are insufficient stylistic similarities to argue that one of the two (probable) makers of the plates was also responsible for the Bacchic platter, and as Toynbee asserted, the figurative work on the Bacchic plates is far more accomplished than on cat. 1. Despite this, the broad similarities of form and overall composition indicate that the pieces must surely have been made in the same workshop and at a similar time, with the Bacchic plates intended as companion vessels to their larger counterpart. In this sense their decoration can be interpreted in the same manner as that of the Bacchic platter, reinforcing the same message of the bounty of the land (and indeed water, given the depiction of a water nymph) and in turn the Classical traditions with which their owner wished to be associated (see p. 285). The fact that they were probably used both for display and as part of a functioning dining service is

76 | The Mildenhall Treasure

encapsulated by both their decoration and form (for further discussion, see Chapter 16). As for when the plates were produced, a date in the second half of the fourth century seems likely, in line with other vessels in the treasure, particularly the Bacchic platter. As shown with the discussion of cats 1 and 4 (pp. 37 and 94), there was a tendency for silver vessels to increase in size and weight between the third and early fifth centuries (and indeed later) with foot-rings also increasing in height and as a proportion of the overall vessel heights. As discussed, cats 2–3 are the largest extant vessels of this type known and have the highest foot-rings, only matched or bettered by the pair of vessels from Toulouse, which in any case are only broadly similar in type and entirely different stylistically. These factors, alongside the use of a beaded rim, makes these likely typologically to follow the comparable vessels from Kaiseraugst, which are widely accepted to have been buried in the middle of the fourth century; two plain ‘one pound’ plates have been suggested to have a date of the second quarter of the fourth century.28 The Mildenhall plates are likely to be broadly contemporary with the unprovenanced vessel in Berlin (which, given the close similarities of form and dimensions, might be the product of a common workshop). In contrast, the plates known to be of earlier date are much smaller and plainer objects and sit on much lower foot-rings. Thus the third quarter of the fourth century would appear to be the most likely date for their production. Where this production might have taken place is discussed further in Chapter 15 (p. 269). Technical aspects of the production of the Bacchic plates (Janet Lang) Cat. 2 Metal composition: summary

Analysis indicated that the plate has a silver content of 97%. For further discussion see Chapter 13. Surface finish, wear and damage

The front surface is in good condition, although it has been subject to light attack by corrosion. At low magnification, this has revealed a distorted dendritic structure in some areas. There are also many fine scratches, most of which appear to be ancient. The back surface is also relatively smooth in the main area outside the foot-ring: the condition is similar to the front. The surface within the foot-ring was not turned and has been subjected to corrosion attack, leaving shallow irregular pits where the surface has spalled off. The centre mark is also visible on the back. Apart from the decoration of the covered bowl on the left of the design, which appears to be worn, the plate shows no obvious signs of wear. There are few indications of post-burial damage. Although there are cracks between a number of the beads, these are unlikely to have occurred post-excavation. The rim has several cracks which do not appear to be recent. One seems to have been repaired (Pl. 110), as the surface shows small circular cavities, characteristic of metal which has been molten. It is difficult to be certain when this work was

Plate 110 Soldered repair to a crack on the rim of cat. 2. Continuity of lines scraped across the repair suggests it is ancient

Plate 111 A hole at the centre of cat. 2 is repaired by a small plug

carried out but it is probably an ancient repair. On the back, the central pip may have been filled with a minute plug (Pl. 111) in antiquity.

these may have been introduced during the preparation of the surface for beading, or during the finishing work, after the beading was completed. The outside surface of one of the beads has been flattened and is highly polished; there is no obvious explanation for this. The cat. 2 foot-ring is thicker than the foot-ring of cat. 3; the internal diameter at the join is very similar, but the edge is less everted. The diameter of the unturned centre is, however, greater (cat. 2: 31.7mm; cat. 3: 29.6mm). A considerable amount of work can be seen around the footring, where the metal was shaped with punches, with many depressions, spalling and half-hammered-in fins (Pl. 112). Little attempt seems to have been made to remove the signs of working which are even more obvious than those within the foot-ring of cat. 3.

Construction of cat. 2

Distorted dendrites, revealed by surface corrosion, confirm that the plate was initially cast and subsequently worked to shape. The casting was probably disc-shaped, possibly with a thicker band on one surface which was subsequently raised to form the foot-ring. A lathe was used to remove surface asperities within the foot-ring on the underside. Rim and foot-ring

The rim is thinner and less well finished than that of cat. 3. The edge is slightly rounded, has been attacked by corrosion and shows signs of heavy working. It was probably consolidated by folding. A somewhat irregular line has been inscribed below the beads, but is not complete. Two splits have occurred, and one appears to have been repaired in the same manner as the splits on cat. 1 (see p. 58). A line was also scribed on the underside, close to the beading, which may have acted as a guide. Beading was made by the same method as the other single-beaded rims in the Mildenhall treasure, using a square rod with a hemispherical hollow in the end, as a die, and a ball-ended punch to make the beads (see pp. 57–8). Outside the beading, the rim was turned down so that the hollow underside of the bead band is almost closed. The beads have become somewhat ovoid in the process and there are many cracks between them. The metal of the plate was carved away at the edge of the beaded borders. Hammering down the edge damaged the outside surfaces of some of the beads and distorted dendrites can be seen on many. The areas between the beads show that a great deal of work was carried out in order to increase the relief of the beads, including punching, which resulted in some splits. The surface is very rough, with marks probably left by the die, punches and chisels, but there is no evidence for the use of a matting punch. Some concentric crack-like discontinuities can be seen on the plate and bead surfaces:

Execution of the design

There is little indication of the means by which the design was marked out, although there are a few marks around the Plate 112 The foot-ring area of cat. 2 is poorly finished, with partly hammered down fins and lathe turning

The Bacchic Plates | 77

Plate 113 Definition of the beads on the rim of cat. 3 is increased by hammering between them

foot of the nymph and the hem of her skirt which are perhaps roughing-out lines. The relief of the figures is low and was achieved by punching and chasing from the front. As the plate is relatively thick (in comparison to the figures) there are few hollows or depressions visible beneath the figures on the underside (the pan pipes and the arm of one the adjacent figures being the exceptions). As pointed out above (p. 66), the reclining water nymph has a curiously illdefined lower body and draperies, as the details have not been chased in. The figure is rather close to the figure of Pan and this may have caused difficulties in completing the work, although the possibility remains that the indistinct effect may have been intentional. The range of tools employed was not extensive. A knife or bladed tool was used to increase the definition of the beads (see above) and chasing punches were used to outline the Plate 114 Small punch marks were used to mark out the thyrsus (cat. 3)

78 | The Mildenhall Treasure

figures. Pointed tools made the small dots decorating the edge of garments and the covered bowl and its pedestal on the left (see Pl. 98), and also, by being punched at an angle, the marks represented the holes in the reeds of the pan pipes (see Pl. 93). Ring punches were also used to decorate garments and a very small ring punch decorated the covered bowl (see Pl. 98). Vegetation was indicated by a tool with a curved tip (it might have been a ring punch held at an angle) while a similar, but slightly thicker, tool was also used around the probable tambourine (see Pl. 97). Cat. 3 Metallic composition: summary

Analysis indicated that the plate has a silver content of 97%, identical to cat. 2. For a fuller discussion see Chapter 13.

Plate 115 Ring punch marks at the centre of the tympanum. The punch had a rough edge and was held at an angle (cat. 3)

Surface finish, wear and damage

The surface finish is similar to cat. 2, except in the central area, within the foot-ring, which does not exhibit a pitted surface. The surfaces of the raised figures are mainly smooth and highly polished. The plate shows few signs of heavy wear. The foot-ring and some of the delicate detailed punching are slightly worn, but otherwise prominent features, such as the rim, are not. There is a particularly heavy scour or scratch mark on the under surface. This may have occurred at any time, including during discovery or afterwards. There are other slightly less prominent scratches and the surface is covered with a network of further fine, barely visible scratches, which may be the result of post-excavation cleaning. Construction of cat. 3

The construction is similar to cat. 2, but a rough-edged cavity at the centre, on the underside, suggests that a casting sprue may have been removed by twisting it off while the metal was still hot, and subsequently flattened. Rim and foot-ring

The rim was constructed in the same way as cat. 2, although it is thicker and more smoothly finished. The beads were made in a similar fashion to cat. 2, except that a matting punch was used in preparing the surface in some places, and punches were used between the beads (Pl. 113). A considerable amount of working was carried out on the foot-ring, with extensive radial hammering used to shape it from the original casting, unlike cat. 2. It is much more everted and thinner than cat. 2, although both are the same height. The inward limit of the turned area is outlined with a turned line. The analyses show negligible differences in composition. Execution of the design

A row of small dots was used to outline the design on both sides of the thyrsus (Pl. 114), but otherwise outlines appear to have been chased. The design execution is similar on both cats 2–3, but a wider range of tools was used to execute the design on the latter than on the former (see above). Chasing punches and punches with rounded, oval and curved tips were used to make the design. The appearance of some of the decorative punch marks is somewhat rough edged. The eight tiny ring marks at the centre of the tympanum or tambourine are very irregular, although similar (Pl. 115). Close examination suggests that they were made with the same tool, but its edge was ragged and the centre does not appear to have been evenly hollowed out. The edges also seem to overhang the indentations slightly, suggesting that the surface had been rather heavily finished after punching. A tool with a crescent-shaped tip was used to indicate jingles (see below) around the instrument and also on the upper part of the plant next to the pan pipes, the ribbon around the pipes themselves (see Pl. 104) and also around the cymbals, which consist of chased concentric rings with dotting (see Pl. 103). Different crescent-shaped punches appear to have been used to indicate the ties around the cymbals. The circles in the middle of the cymbals have been chased. The ribbons around the thyrsus, although similar, seem to have been made

with a different crescent-shaped tool which is slightly more straight backed (see Pl. 114, top left). Some of these tools may have been ring punches, held at an angle. Another ring punch, with a crisp edge, appears to have been used to decorate the covered bowl and the garland on the pedestal (see Pl. 106). Broad chased lines and half-ring marks were used to indicate fluting on the base and lid of the covered bowl. The chased lines are very shallow and appear either worn or heavily polished. The flat surface of the tambourine also shows very faint scrape or chasing marks across the surface, almost removed by polishing: it is just possible that they were intended to suggest the surface texture. There is a scatter of rather random punched dots in the lower part of the maenad’s garment. The irregularity of the oval-shaped punch marks on the nebris, which flares out behind the figure of the satyr, is difficult to account for. Their outlines are not very consistent, as might be expected with the use of an oval-tipped punch; it is possible that the surface was worked in some way after the punch marks were made, or that the surface has been attacked by corrosion and then repolished (presumably post-excavation). Sharp-edged tools seem to have been used to increase the relief around the beads on the rim and to scrape around the rim. Discussion: cats 2 and 3

The two plates differ in weight, height and diameter, as well as in the dimensions of the beads and the rim and the diameter of the foot-ring. Different-sized lathe centres were used to support the vessels during turning. The finish on the underside, especially within the foot-ring, differs as well. Slightly more tools (or ways of using them) have been employed on cat. 3, although the type of tool marks used to depict various elements of the design are within the normal repertoire. The decoration includes herbage which is simply indicated in the same way, but the treatment of similar objects, such as the covered bowls (see Pls 98, 106) and the pan-pipes (see Pls 93, 104) is slightly different. It seems beyond dispute that the two plates were intended to be a pair, but were not made by the same craftsman, and possibly not even at the same time, although they could have been made in the same workshop. Notes

1 Brailsford termed both vessels ‘platter’ (1947, 7), which was repeated by Painter (1977a, 26) and again by Toynbee and Painter (1986, 29). As discussed by the author (Hobbs 2010, 325) ‘platter’, even with a qualifying ‘small’, seems to be an inappropriate term for these vessels. 2 Cameron 1992, 183. 3 RIB II, vol. 2, no. 2414.5: ‘The Greek script is probably fourthcentury, and thus contemporary with the New Roman Cursive graffito on RIB 2414.7, which was found with it. The (Greek) name Eutherius is rare, especially in the West, and was current in the fourth century…. There is just a possibility, therefore, that “Eutherius” should be identified with (PLRE) Eutherius I, chief chamberlain to the Caesar Julian, who was in Gaul during 355–61 … How the service reached Britain is unknown. It seems unlikely (pace Painter, op. cit. [1977], 22–3) that it was taken to Britain by Julian’s commander-in-chief (PLRE) Lupicinus 6, and left there for safe-keeping: Lupicinus returned from Britain without knowing that he was in any danger (Amm. Marc. 20.9.9).’ For arguments against any such link, see Tomlin (this book, p. 234) and Cameron 1992, 182.

The Bacchic Plates | 79

4 Toynbee and Painter (1986, 29) are more cautious: ‘… what may have been a bell’. 5 Hutchinson (1986, 290) remarks: ‘There is an interesting (perhaps deliberate?) contrast between the two figures: on the one hand the semi bestial figure of Pan – hoary, bearded and dishevelled – and on the other hand, the beautifully idealised young woman – calm neat and modest’. 6 Hutchinson (1986, 290) suggests this is a ‘high, decorated belt’. 7 ‘… a plant with pairs of leaves and a long stem’ (Toynbee and Painter 1986, 29); ‘a branch’ (Hutchinson 1986, 290). 8 ‘A beribboned tambourine’ (Toynbee and Painter 1986, 29). 9 ‘A fillet’ (Hutchinson 1986, 288). 10 ‘Fanning the air’, according to Hutchinson (ibid.). 11 ‘A fruited ivy-wreath’ (Hutchinson 1986, 288); ‘a garland of flowers and leaves’ (Toynbee and Painter 1986, 29). 12 Toynbee and Painter 1986, 29. 13 Maximum diameter c. 16.6mm, as opposed to 18.5mm for the one on cat. 2. 14 The bead diameter is 7.5mm, so larger than both cats 2–3. I am grateful to Dr Barbara Niemeyer for providing me with this information. 15 Dimensions data courtesy of Dr Richard Petrovszky (Historisches Museum der Pfalz Speyer), pers. comm. 16 Effenberger et al. 1978, 80. 17 It has surprisingly small beads for a vessel of its size: 162 in total, which means that each bead is roughly 4.46mm in diameter

80 | The Mildenhall Treasure

(estimated by dividing the circumference by the number of beads). In this respect it is similar to the oval fish-plate in the Kaiseraugst treasure (Kaiseraugst cat. 54). 18 There are also platters which are decorated with single scenes: for instance the fragmentary platter from Cuxhaven-Altenwalde, c. 490mm in diameter, which shows Apollo and Marsyas (see also p. 39, discussion of cat. 1). 19 Toynbee 1964, 310. 20 The rather curious egg-and-dart-style border inside the beaded rim must surely have been added later, as it cuts through Artemis’ scarf and almost truncates the top of her bow. Why this was added at all is rather unclear. 21 LIMC VIII, 1, Supplementum, Pan 181 and 182. 22 Dated by control stamps of Heraclius to ad 613–29/30. 23 Kaiseraugst cat. 61. 24 ‘Seuso’ cat. 5. Mango and Bennett 1994, 227, fig. 5-37. 25 ‘Seuso’ cat. 2. Mango and Bennett 1994, 136, fig. 2-56. 26 Vienne cat. 2. 27 As shown, the bead dimension of cat. 2 never exceeds 6mm (an aggregate mean 5.81mm) but that of cat. 3 is always well in excess of 6mm (mean 6.46mm). 28 Guggisberg and Kaufmann-Heinimann 2003, 49 (in the discussion of cats 74–5).

Chapter 4 The Niello Platter (cat. 4)

Cat 4 The niello platter (Pls 116–17)

(British Museum 1946,1007.4; Brailsford 1947/1955, cat. 4; Painter 1973, cat. 10; Painter 1977a, cat. 4). Dimensions

Overall diameter: 556mm Height: 34mm Diameter of central decorative medallion (S1): 104mm (to third inscribed circle is 118.3mm) Distance from third inner ring to edge of rim: 166mm Width of decorative frieze on flat rim: 37mm (including plain bands on either side) Diameter of foot-ring: c. 371mm Height of foot-ring: 13mm Weight: 5,023g (15.3 librae) Number of beads: 128 Bead dimensions (mm): 1 – 10.94; 10 – 11.60; 20 – 10.96; 30 – 10.90; 40 – 11.75; 50 – 12.17; 60 – 11.98; 70 – 12.62; 80 – 12.30; 90 – 11.25; 100 – 12.02; 110 – 11.68; 120 – 11.69. Mean: 11.68mm (11.57mm). Aggregate mean: 11.63mm Form and decorative scheme

A large flat platter on a high and wide vertical foot-ring. The central part of the vessel is slightly convex in profile, then steps up to a flat rim flange; the rim itself is beaded with 128 spherical beads and turned down. The platter is mostly plain except for the central medallion and the flat ‘inner’ rim. This is defined by alternating eightand four-petal rosettes respectively, carefully marked out and put in place before the rest of the design was completed. If straight lines are drawn between these opposing rosettes through the central lathe point, it is clear that these were executed first and the geometric scenes between them added afterwards. The ‘length’ of each geometric scene (between the centre of each rosette) is remarkably similar; there is a difference of only 4mm between the shortest (255mm – S6 and 7) and the longest (259mm – S2 and 5).1 There are three broadly similar geometric scenes on the flat rim flange, which mirror each other (i.e. they are repeated on opposing sides of the frieze’s circumference). All the decoration has been executed using sharp tools (see below), and originally all the resulting lines were filled with niello; this has survived to varying degrees. None of the decoration is raised from the surface; this is a common characteristic of platters of this type, even when figural decoration is employed (see below). However, unlike comparable vessels (pp. 91–6) there is no evidence that gilding was also applied. Inscriptions

There are no inscriptions or graffiti on the reverse of the vessel despite careful examination (see Chapter 12). Geometric scenes Central medallion Scene 1 (Pl. 118)

The decorated part is inside an inscribed circle, made using a pair of dividers with the central lathe mark used as a

The Niello Platter | 81

82 | The Mildenhall Treasure

Niello platter: cat. 4

S7

S6

S5

S4

S3

S2

0

S1

25cm

S6

Plate 116 The niello platter (cat. 4), plan, profile and key to decorative scenes (S1–S7)

0

S5

S7

S1

S4

S2

50cm

S3

Plate 117 The niello platter (cat. 4), obverse, reverse and profile (not to scale)

The Niello Platter | 83

Plate 118 Central medallion (cat. 4, scene 1)

fulcrum. Two further inscribed circles have been traced outside this (the first c. 6mm further out); these form a double-ring. On close inspection, it will be noted that these inscribed circles have not been executed exactly, as at one point they almost meet, but at another place are c. 3mm apart. The decoration is entirely geometric. There is an outer ring of anti-clockwise wave pattern. Some of the niello inlay is still in place in the wave but the majority is absent. The geometric design inside the encircling wave proceeds thus. In the centre is a quatrefoil motif, composed of an equal-armed double-line cross; the lathe mark in the centre forms the centre of the cross. The petals that form the quadrants have an indent in the centre of their outer edge. This motif sits inside a circle. Around this is a ring motif composed of six squares, the corners of which meet at a 45-degree angle; the spaces in between each pair of squares is infilled with a triangle. Each square is further infilled with a saltire, the ends of which terminate in loops; in four instances, further rings have been added to the

central point of the saltire. The spaces between the arms of the saltire are infilled with small curvilinear motifs that vaguely resemble horned helmets, but are undoubtedly decorative; in one or two places these have been simplified further into curved lines and short dashes. The triangles are also infilled with rings (or crescents) and triplets of short lines (or sometimes chevrons) at right angles to the triangles’ sides that point towards the central punched ring. The central rosette with its surrounding ring of squares and infill triangles is repeated around the outside with a group of six further quatrefoil rosettes that form a larger ring around the central one. Each share their squares and infill triangles with the central ring and each other; the squares and triangles are infilled just as before. The beginnings of six new rosettes, as if the pattern will repeat ad infinitum, are partially depicted in the spaces between the edges of these six motifs and the encircling wave border. (If these had been executed in full, rather than being truncated by the wave pattern, they would be much larger rosettes).

Plate 119 (left) Detail of rosette (cat. 4, scene 2) Plate 120 (right) Detail of floral motif (cat. 4, scene 2)

84 | The Mildenhall Treasure

Plate 121 (left) Detail of diamond motif (cat. 4, scene 2) Plate 122 (right) Detail of linear fills (cat. 4, scene 2)

Flat rim flange

The geometric patterning continues on the flat rim flange. This can be divided into six further decorative elements, each of which begins with a rosette, providing a stylistic link with the ring of six rosettes in the central medallion. Scene 2 (Pl. 116)

The scene begins with an eight-petal rosette (Pl. 119), although it can also be read as a saltire overlying an equalarmed cross, the ends of each arm of which terminate in a bulb, thus creating the eight petals in the spaces between. The whole rosette is enclosed in a double-line outer circle, rather roughly executed. Before the next rosette (the start of S3) there are five identical and equally spaced floral motifs (Pl. 120). Each is enclosed in a double-line lozenge, and consists of four almond-shaped double-line petals around a central punched ring. The spaces between the petals are connected with single curves. Infilling the spaces between these diamond-enclosed floral motifs are further diaper patterns (Pls 121–2). There are different ways to interpret these: they can either be perceived as double-arm saltires with a horizontal cross bar, five in total; or a series of lozenges, one side of which is shared with the sides of those enclosing the floral motifs, the other with parts of the doubleline perimeter which encloses the entirety of the outer frieze. If these are read as lozenges, there is one on each side of the diamond enclosing the rosettes, and each is infilled with a motif which is formed of five parallel lines, the length of each determined by the shape of the lozenge (i.e. longer in the centre and progressively shorter towards the lozenge sides), the terminals of which scroll back on themselves (the centre line with a double-diverging scroll instead). In each, a further double line has been placed running at right angles across the five lines, and also ending in diverging scroll returns.2

The spaces between these lozenges are similarly infilled with parallel lines which terminate in scrolls, but these are slightly more elaborate, often having double or sometimes triple scrolls, depending on the space to fill. These infills run at right angles to the line of the platter, and are ‘truncated’ by the inner edge of the decorative frieze, thus forming triangular infills. In this section of the frieze, only a small proportion of the original niello inlay survives. Scene 3 (Pl. 116)

The scene begins with a rosette motif (Pl. 123)3 that is a simplified version of the one which initiates section S2. It is formed of a single-line equal-armed cross with a central punched ring. The spaces between the arms are connected with arcuated lines which create ‘petals’. The whole motif is encircled by a roughly chased double line. The frieze between this and the beginning of S4 is infilled with a geometric design that is similar to, though subtly different from, that in S2. In this instance, there are nine four-petalled rosettes inside double-line lozenges (the first of these is slightly truncated by the initial rosette) but these are much smaller than those in S2, and much simpler, being composed of a punched central ring and four almondshaped petals, each connected by a curved line. Between these diamonds are pairs of irregular hexagons (Pl. 124) (with longer upper and lower sides) which share sides with the lozenges, and when viewed in combination with the lozenges can be read as forming further larger, more-or-less equal-sided (though rather flattened) hexagons. Each of these hexagons is infilled with similar motifs to the lozenges in S2; in this case seven parallel lines ending in scrolls (some of which have small spurs which curve back in the opposite direction), and again there is a pair of lines

Plate 123 (left) Detail of rosette (cat. 4, scene 3) Plate 124 (right) Detail of hexagon (cat. 4, scene 3)

The Niello Platter | 85

Plate 125 (left) Detail of floral motif (cat. 4, scene 4) Plate 126 (right) Detail of linear motif (cat. 4, scene 4)

which transect the centre of each set of seven. In between these larger hexagons are triangular spaces infilled with further scrolls (although these can be read as continuations of the diamonds with rosettes, truncated by the edges of the frieze). Unlike section S2, most of the niello in S3 remains in place. Scene 4 (Pl. 116)

The scene begins with a rosette motif, similar to that which initiates section S2 (although it is slightly smaller).4 The geometric design changes once more. Here there are eight floral motifs inside double-line almond-shaped borders (Pl. 125), set vertically to the curve of the frieze. (There is actually a ninth, but it is truncated by the rosette at the beginning of S5.) The first four and the last three consist of a four-petal flower motif around a punched central ring; the petals are teardrop-shaped and the spaces between them are infilled with fishbone-style motifs which create small almond-shaped ‘leaves’ (although these are not connected to the central flower). Number five is an exception (Pl. 126); although it too is an almond-shaped motif, inside is not a four-petalled flower but a seven-line linear motif with scrolled ends and a double-line scrolled cross bar. It is likely that this motif is an error on the part of the engraver, as it is not repeated on S7 opposite (see below). These seven-line motifs are also used to infill the spaces between the almond-shaped flower motifs (thus there are also nine of these motifs); as in other parts of the frieze, they terminate at both ends in scrolls, but these are often extended into between two and four extra turns (sometimes ending in spurs) which alternate in direction. Approximately 60% of the niello is still intact in this section of the frieze. Scene 5 (Pl. 116)

The scene begins with a four-petal rosette (similar to that which initiates S3 (see Pl. 119), but slightly larger).5 Inside the ring in the centre is a small cross on a raised ‘button’. The pattern inside this part of the rim is the same as S2, which is mirrored opposite; however, instead of five floral motifs inside lozenges, this section has four (although the overall ‘balance’ of this section is more aesthetically

86 | The Mildenhall Treasure

pleasing, as instead of the pattern starting directly next to the first rosette these four key elements are more evenly spaced). This means that there are five saltire-on-equalarmed-cross motifs in the spaces between the lozenges. Again, these are made up of a series of lozenges which share sides with the standard infill of parallel lines with scrolled terminals. Most of the niello (about 80%) is intact in this section. Scene 6 (Pl. 116)

The scene begins with an eight-petal rosette, thus continuing the pattern of alternating rosettes.6 It is identical to the rosette that initiates sections S2 and S4. The geometric pattern between this and the start of S7 is identical to S7, which is physically opposite; it only differs in that it has only eight rosettes and eight larger hexagons, and as these appear to be larger in size than in S3, and thus take up more space, there was not room to include a final lozenge at the end of this section of the frieze. Scene 7 (Pl. 116)

The scene begins with one of the simpler four-petal rosettes.7 Between it and S2 the geometric pattern is identical to that in S4 opposite: eight floral motifs inside almond-shaped borders. However, unlike S2, all have flowers, which further supports the notion that the ‘missing’ flower in S2 was executed in error. The infills are made up of groups of nine parallel lines with scrolled terminals as before. The majority (about 70%) of the niello in this section is missing. Discussion and parallels Form and distribution

The vessel, which is the only other platter in the assemblage aside from cat. 1, is of the platter type with a foot-ring placed approximately one-sixth (or in some cases one-fifth) in from the edge of the rim. These types of vessel are termed platters with outer foot-rings (Table 8 and Pl. 127). This type of foot-ring arrangement would be inappropriate for a dished vessel, such as cat. 1, as being flat they would lack the necessary support. Dished vessels in contrast almost

Vessel

Height of foot-ring (mm)

Overall height (mm)

Ratio

Diameter of footring

Diameter (mm)

Ratio

Weight (g)

Roman lb

Date

‘Asia Minor’ cat. 1†

21.0

27

0.77

355

520

0.68

?

?

c. 400?

‘Asia Minor’ cat. 2†

?

?

?

?

c. 500

?

?

?

c. 400?

Cesena, ‘flying Cupid’ platter*

30.0

46

0.65

423*

620

0.68

6,600

20.1

c. 300–400

Avignon

20.0

41

0.48

?

700

?

10,300

31.5

c. 300–400

Kaiseraugst cat. 58

8.0

20

0.40

332

485

0.68

2,944

9.0

c. 340–508

Mildenhall cat. 4

13.0

34

0.38

371

556

0.67

5,023

15.3

c. 325–75

Béziers

5.0

14

0.36

310

490

0.63

?

?

c. 200–300

Kaiseraugst cat. 83*

9.0

28

0.32

395

667

0.59

7,100

21.7

c. 325–509

Rethel cat. 4

4.0

13

0.31

271

405

0.67

1,923

5.9

c. 200–300

Rethel cat. 6

4.0

13.5

0.30

244

365

0.67

1,314

4.0

c. 200–300

Šabac (Popović 1994, no. 359)

7.5

26

0.29

?

520

?

?

?

c. 300–400

Kaiseraugst cat. 56*

8.0

28

0.29

404

606

0.67

4,592

14.0

c. 325–350

‘Seuso’ cat. 1

8.0

30

0.27

510

705

0.72

8,873

27.1

c. 365–425?

Rethel cat. 7

4.0*

15

0.26

330

475

0.69

2,711

8.3

c. 200–300

Thil (Baratte and Painter 1989, cat. 198)

3.2

12.8

0.25

306

456

0.67

2,779

8.5

c. 200–300

Graincourt-lèsHavrincourt (Baratte and Painter 1989, cat. 89)

2.4

9.6

0.25

267

430

0.62

2,225

6.8

c. 200–300

Berthouville (Baratte and Painter 1989, cat. 24)

3.0

12

0.25

220

350

0.63

1,027

3.1

c. 200–300

Graincourt-lèsHavrincourt (Baratte and Painter 1989, cat. 88)

2.0

12

0.16

210

329

0.64

979

3.0

c. 200–300

Chatuzange (Baratte and Painter 1989, cat. 190)

2.0*

12

0.16

252*

383

0.66

1,885

5.8

c. 200–300

Chaourse (Baratte and Painter 1989, cat. 78)

1.2*

9

0.13

204

328

0.62

932

2.8

c. 200–30010

*Dimension approximated from published illustrations † not illustrated in Pl. 127

Table 8 Silver platters with outer foot-ring of the third to fourth centuries arranged by foot-ring height to overall height, largest to smallest

invariably have an inner foot-ring (p. 32).11 The upper surface of outer foot-ring platters is entirely flat, although they sometimes bulge upwards slightly in the centre (cat. 4) or quite markedly (‘Seuso’ cat. 1), or slope downwards slightly towards the centre of the base (for example the vessels from Berthouville or Graincourt-lès-Havrincourt) – but they are never in any sense ‘dished’. Rims can be beaded (e.g. this vessel, Kaiseraugst cat. 58, ‘Seuso’ cat. 1), bead-andreel (e.g. Thil) or just plain and turned down or moulded (e.g. Kaiseraugst cat. 56, Rethel cat. 7). The rim and rim flange can also vary, with the profile sometimes kinking upwards to a flat horizontal flange (e.g. cat. 4, Kaiseraugst cat. 58); sometimes there is no rim flange, with the base simply stepping up to the edge (e.g. Rethel cats 4 and 6). There are a variety of profiles in between these two extremes, with the platter from the ‘Seuso’ treasure (‘Seuso’ cat. 1) the most complex manifestation of the form, as it has two rim flanges, both of which are decorated.

If the comparable vessels are arranged by foot-ring height to overall vessel height (Pl. 127), a similar pattern emerges to the results when a similar comparison was made for cats 1–3 (pp. 37–9 and 74). As was the case with cat. 1, there appears to be a broad typological correlation between this calculation and the known and estimated dates of these platters. For platters of this type dated to the third century, the foot-rings are normally vestigial, at 4mm or less, and will almost invariably constitute a quarter or less of the overall vessel height, with the exception of two vessels from Rethel (cats 4 and 6), although these too have only token foot-rings. For fourth-century and later vessels, it can be expected that foot-rings will be 8mm or greater in height; the examples from Avignon, Cesena (‘flying cupid’ platter) and ‘Asia Minor’ are clearly exceptional. As well as being high, footrings on vessels of the fourth century or later also constitute a quarter or more of the vessel height. This, it can be noted, is also the case with cat. 1, and to a lesser extent with

The Niello Platter | 87

Plate 127 Silver platters with outer foot-rings of the third to fourth centuries arranged by foot-ring height to overall height ratio, largest to smallest (figures on the left of each profile). Figures on the right are height of foot-ring/diameter (ratio)

comparanda for cats 2–3. Clearly the vessel from Cesena, and a poorly published vessel from ‘Asia Minor’ (Table 8; not illustrated in Pl. 127), are again exceptional. In both cases, the height of the foot-ring is well over half the overall vessel height; in the case of ‘Asia Minor’, the foot-ring accounts for over three-quarters of the vessel’s overall height (Table 8). It can be noted that the increase in foot-ring heights occurs despite the fact that the horizontal

88 | The Mildenhall Treasure

positioning of the foot-ring varies little (Table 8, column 7). As the distribution map shows (Pl. 128) platters of this type have been found across the western provinces. Mildenhall is the only complete example from Britain (Hacksilber fragments, almost certainly derived from vessels of this form, are known from Traprain Law: see below). All the examples in assemblages of third-century date come

Plate 128 Distribution map of silver platters with outer foot-rings of the third to fourth centuries

from Gaul, while for the fourth century, Avignon is the only Gallic example.12 The other fourth-century examples come from northern Italy, the Rhine frontier (Kaiseraugst) and the Danube frontier, namely the recent discovery at Vinkovci and the ‘Seuso’ treasure, if it indeed comes from Pannonia.13 It can be noted that a similar distribution pattern can be observed for vessels with inner foot-rings (see Pl. 48), although this largely reflects the fact that late Roman treasures normally contain platters of both types. It is worth drawing attention to five other platters, rather inadequately published but all with relevance to this discussion because of either their form or decoration (the first two and the vessel from Šabac are listed in Table 8 but not illustrated in Pl. 127). The aforementioned platter from ‘Asia Minor’ is one of two in a private collection, described briefly by Feugère.14 The first is a platter of similar diameter (520mm) and profile to cat. 4, although as discussed (above) it has an exceptionally high foot-ring. The rim is unbeaded and the upper surface is entirely unadorned. The second ‘Asia Minor’ platter is decorated with a central geometric medallion, but there is no more detailed information published about the exact nature of this. A platter from Červenbreg, Bulgaria is also not well published, but has a flat undecorated rim flange, a rosette in

the basal centre and probably an outer foot-ring.15 It is rather smaller in diameter at 400mm. Also likely to sit on an outer foot-ring (the profile has not been published, only a plan view), and with a bead-and-reel rim, is a platter from Šabac, Serbia. Its flange is undecorated but there is a geometric medallion in the centre consisting of a square with scrolled corners inside a circular border, with a central circle and further circles superimposed in the centre of each of the square’s sides.16 Of entirely different form but with almost identical dimensions (diameter 560mm), and an inner foot-ring,17 is a platter from Pietroasa. This vessel is particularly notable because it is the only surviving example of a platter manufactured in gold. It too has a central geometric medallion and a geometric pattern on the flat beaded rim, a running triangular motif with linear and pellet infills (Pl. 129). Decorative scheme and geometric patterns

Platters with no decoration, a central decorative medallion, or the latter in combination with decoration on a flat rim flange are much more common than vessels with decoration across their whole upper surface: in a survey of 53 platters of the third to sixth centuries, about 80% are of the largely

The Niello Platter | 89

Plate 129 Detail of rim of gold platter from Pietroasa, fourth century. National Museum of Romanian History, Bucharest

undecorated type, or ‘Type 1’ platters.18 This decorative scheme is also seen on platters of rectilinear form, as exemplified by the square platter found at Mileham, Norfolk, which also has a central geometric medallion and different types of foliate motifs on the flat rim flange (discussed further on p. 189), the area between the two left similarly plain and unadorned. Elsewhere it has been argued19 that it was these platters that were primarily used for dining, because their flat unembellished surfaces were much more suitable for serving food, which itself provided the decoration (see Chapter 16). It is also the case that the type and complexity of decoration changes between the third and fourth centuries, paralleling the changes to the form discussed above, such as a tendency for the foot-ring to become more substantial over time. Thus those comparable third-century vessels (see Pl. 127) are either entirely undecorated (e.g. Thil)20 or have decoration only in the centre of the base. At its most basic this may comprise a swastika (vessels from Chaourse and Chatuzange)21 or a more complex geometric motif, such as the platter from Graincourt-lès-Havrincourt,22 with a nielloed, geometric motif, similar to cat. 4, enclosed by a wave-scroll border. Interestingly, the only third-century vessels decorated in their basal centre and on their rims have figurative decoration (vessels from Graincourt-lèsHavrincourt23 and Berthouville): there are no examples of platters with geometric rim decoration of this particular form.24

For vessels broadly contemporaneous with the niello platter the amount of decoration actually decreases or is of a very different nature. Thus three platters with exterior footrings from Kaiseraugst25 are entirely unembellished. Cesena has a small amount of figurative decoration in its basal centre, the platter from Avignon is decorated across its entire surface, leaving only the hunting platter from the ‘Seuso’ treasure, which provides the only real comparison to cat. 4 because it has some geometric decoration on the rim flange (discussed further below). Thus for direct parallels for the decoration on the Mildenhall niello platter, its close form comparanda provide little of note. Instead, other vessels need to be brought into consideration; the closest parallel for the central medallion, for instance, is found on the geometric plate in the ‘Seuso’ treasure, the form of which is closer to cat. 1 (Pl. 130; its form is discussed on p. 32).26 Its device is also contained within a wave border, this time running in a clockwise direction; rather than overlapping infilled circles, it has overlapping octagons. The whole device is encircled by a recessed groove, as on cat. 4, although in this instance the groove is gilded. The ‘Seuso’ device is far more

Plate 131 Detail of Traprain Law Hacksilber (cat. 4), fourth century. National Museums, Scotland

Plate 132 Detail of Traprain Law Hacksilber (cat. 4), fourth century. National Museums, Scotland

90 | The Mildenhall Treasure

Plate 130 Central medallion of the ‘Seuso’ silver geometric platter (cat. 4), fourth century. Hungarian National Museum

Plate 133a–b Detail of Traprain Law Hacksilber (cat. 63), fourth century. National Museums, Scotland

accomplished and the central lathe point has been removed, but the visual effect is broadly similar. The ‘Seuso’ treasure also provides parallels for individual motifs: for instance, a similar motif to the four-petal rosette in S2 can be found on the neck of the animal ewer.27 The Hacksilber from Traprain Law also provides parallels. Similar five-sided polygons appear on one of the fragments of jug or flagon, too fragmentary to be reconstructed;28 on close inspection, these are very crudely executed, and the infills are not nearly as neat as on the rim of cat. 4 (Pls 131–2). They also appear on the upper band of geometric decoration on the same piece, but these are split through the centre by a line of chevrons. Two fragments of a beaded rim-platter (probably with a wide foot-ring) have a frieze with portrait busts inside wreath borders and geometric motifs of almond shapes and diamonds with four-petal rosette infills, like cat. 4, S2 (Pls 133a–b).29 The frieze is both gilded and nielloed.30 There are also similarities between the decoration on one fragment of platter with bead-and-reel rim that is decorated with octagons and squares with four-petal rosette infills, and cat. 4, S3 (Pl. 134a–b).31 The niello platter in comparison with a group of seven other platters (Table 9)

Despite the difficulties in finding parallels matching both the form of cat. 4 and the geometric motifs employed

(Table 8; Pl. 127) there are nonetheless seven late Roman silver platters that are of such relatively similar form (although two or perhaps three have inner foot-rings) and decoration that they constitute an interesting comparison group for discussion (Table 9). Although the form of the Kaiseraugst Constans platter (cat. 59) (Pl. 135) is closer to cat. 1, in many other respects the vessel is closely comparable to cat. 4, particularly with regard to its decoration and decorative scheme.32 Both vessels are almost identical in diameter33 and both have a central nielloed medallion inside a wave-scroll border (although it runs clockwise on Kaiseraugst cat. 59). The pattern is arguably less sophisticated on the Kaiseraugst platter, with seriated rows of eight-petalled rosettes, with smaller four-petalled rosettes infilling the gaps. But they are again of very similar dimensions; excluding the encircling inscription (an obvious point of departure): Kaiseraugst cat. 59 is 110mm, cat. 4 is 104mm. As for the rim decoration (Pl. 136a–b), on the Kaiseraugst vessel it is divided into ten sections by medallions containing busts of young men,34 distinguishing it from the two types of simple rosettes on cat. 4, of which there are six. As has been noted (p. 81), the decorative motifs between the rosettes mirror the motifs directly opposite, so that there are in effect three repeated patterns. The Constans platter differs from this because there are only two alternating patterns between the busts, and as a result this means that the division into ten sections precludes them

Plate 134a–b Detail of Traprain Law Hacksilber (cat. 68), fourth century. National Museums, Scotland

The Niello Platter | 91

Vessel

Diameter

Foot-ring

Weight (Roman lbs)

Rim sections

Rim type

Niello

Gilding

Date

‘Seuso’ cat. 1

705

O

c. 27

6 and 12

B

Y

Y

c. 375–425?

Vinkovci prov. cat. 3

c. 700

O

c. 19

?

B

Y

Y

c. 375?

Cesena

630

O

c. 18.5

8

P

Y

Y

c. 325–75?

Kaiseraugst cat. 62

590

O

c. 15

8

P

Y

Y

c. 340

Kaiseraugst cat. 59

558

I

10

10

P

Y

Y

342/3

Mildenhall cat. 4

556

O

15.3

6

B

Y

N

c. 325–75

Conceşti (Matzulevitsch 1929, no. 13)

553

probably I

?

6

double B and R

Y

Y

c. 325–50?

Taraneš

455

I

5.3

8

B and R

Y

?

c. 300–25?

Table 9 A comparanda group of vessels with cat. 4, arranged by diameter, largest to smallest. Abbreviations – Rims: B = beaded; B and R = bead-and-reel; P = plain. Foot-rings: I = inner (i.e. close to centre of base); O = outer (i.e. close to rim)

Plate 135 The Constans silver platter, Kaiseraugst (cat. 59), c. AD 342/3. Museum Augusta Raurica, Augst

92 | The Mildenhall Treasure

Plate 136a–b a) Detail of Kaiseraugst silver platter (cat. 59), c. AD 342/3, vesica piscis (see note 35) enclosing diamond; b) overlapping circles with infills. Museum Augusta Raurica, Augst

mirroring each other across the vessel. In terms of the geometric motifs used, overall there is a sense of similitude, but no specific repetition between the vessels. One of the patterns on the Constans platter is quite similar to S2 and S5; instead of a double-line six-sided motif enclosing a central diamond with infills (see Pl. 124), on the Constans platter there are three almond-shaped motifs35 enclosing diamonds (see Pls 136a, 135). The other run of geometric frieze on the Constans platter consists of overlapping circles with infills in the blank spaces (Pl. 136b); this has some similarities with cat. 4, S4 and S7. The infills throughout are comparable, but whereas on cat. 4 they tend to be quite elaborate, often with extra returns to an initial scroll, on the Constans platter they are usually fairly straightforward single curls. Nevertheless there is much more similarity between the decoration on these vessels than instances of substantial divergence. Although the niello platter from Conceşti probably also has an inner foot-ring (the profile is unpublished), like the Kaiseraugst Constans platter, there are strong parallels with the decoration on both the rim and basal medallion. The medallion is nielloed and enclosed by a wave-scroll border running anti-clockwise, just as on cat. 4.36 Inside this the geometric decoration, although different in stylistic detail, is comparably dense and intricate; overlapping squares form an eight-pointed star surrounded by circular motifs that contain various geometric, foliate or

anthropomorphic motifs. The rim is also similar to cat. 4; although it has hunting scenes, these also number six, and the frieze is divided by circular medallions that contain busts, like the Kaiseraugst Constans platter discussed above; but in a similar manner to cat. 4, scenes are repeated on opposite sides of the vessel. It too is remarkably similar in diameter to both cat. 4 and the Kaiseraugst platter. A similar design is also seen in the medallion of the platter from Taraneš. Instead of a wave, this is contained within a border of conjoined peltae. The rim flange decoration is divided by a series of eight busts, between which is a mixture of geometric and vine scroll nielloed designs.37 The vessel has an inner foot-ring and a bead-andreel outer border, and is rather smaller in both diameter and weight. Aside from these three vessels, the rest of the comparison group starts to differ rather more markedly from cat. 4. Another vessel from Kaiseraugst, the ‘city on sea’ platter,38 is broadly comparable to cat. 4 but the form is entirely different, notwithstanding that this is the case with all but one (Cesena) of the other vessels in the comparison group.39 Its rim flange decoration is divided into eight sections, with alternate geometric and figurative (hunting) friezes. Unlike most other vessels, the rim is not divided by busts or rosettes. Little comparison can be made with the geometric patterns either; and furthermore, there is no repetition, with each

a

b Plate 137a–c Details of ‘city on sea’ silver platter, Kaiseraugst (cat. 62), fourth century, various geometric motifs. Museum Augusta Raurica, Augst

c

The Niello Platter | 93

Plate 139 Busts on the flat inner rim of silver platter, Vinkovci Plate 138 Central medallion of silver platter with bucolic scene, Vinkovci (provisional cat. 3), fourth century. Vinkovci Museum, Croatia (provisional cat. 3), fourth century. Vinkovci Museum, Croatia

section of geometric frieze different. The pattern is also accentuated by gilding as well as niello (Pls 137a–c). The poorly preserved vessel from Cesena, found at the same time as another platter with an exceptionally high footring, has a form very similar to the ‘city on sea’ platter from Kaiseraugst. Its decoration is very far removed from cat. 4, even if the positioning is comparable. The key difference is that all the decoration is figural, aside from a set of elongated ovals that encircle the central scene. It has a complex figural scene in the central medallion, including a group of diners seated on an outdoor stibadium. On its rim flange are hunting scenes. The only parallel with cat. 4 is the use of circular medallions to divide these hunt scenes into eight friezes, although these contain busts. A fragmentary vessel in the Vinkovci treasure appears to be of comparable form to cat. 4, and has the same decorative arrangement, but in virtually every other respect is entirely different (see also p. 95). Like all other vessels in the comparison group, its designs are made from engraved lines further embellished with niello inlay and gilding. There is a bucolic scene in the central medallion, with a shepherd and sheep and a building with a pitched roof (Pl. 138). Around the flat rim flange are at least 50 busts contained within circular medallions, comparable to those seen on other vessels in this comparison group, but here they are simply repeated rather than bookending zones of geometric or figurative decoration (Pl. 139). Finally, the geometric frieze that runs inside the hunting frieze on the hunting platter in the ‘Seuso’ treasure40 is similarly divided into six geometric sections that are repeated such that they mirror each other; in this instance, however, the craftsman has not used medallions to separate the sections, rather simply running them together (Pls 140a–c). There are some similarities between the motifs used here and cat. 4, but in general terms the ‘Seuso’ vessel is rather simpler in its execution and all the patterns relate to circles or half-circles with infills, rather than polygons. One cannot help but conclude that more time was invested in the figurative scenes that occupy the central medallion and the upper rim flange. Summary and dating

With the comparison group of vessels it is possible to identify degrees of sophistication, which can sometimes be related

94 | The Mildenhall Treasure

back to typology and likely date of production. It has been argued elsewhere that there is a tendency for silver platters to increase in diameter and weight throughout the fourth and into the fifth and later centuries.41 To this can now be added the link between foot-ring height and overall height (see p. 87). If we are purely to examine the closest comparanda to cat. 4 in terms of style, the eight vessels listed in Table 9, some further observations can be made. Considering only size and weight, the vessel from Taraneš is the smallest and lightest, while four vessels cluster around the 550+ mm mark, and a weight of approximately 10 to 15 Roman pounds. The two outliers are considerable larger, namely the ‘Seuso’ hunting platter, and the more recently discovered, and as yet unpublished, platter with bucolic scene from Vinkovci (see above). These vessels are discussed in more detail below. It is known that the Taraneš vessel dates to the early fourth century because of the objects with which it was discovered (see p. 38). In addition to its smaller size and lesser weight, it has a relatively simple profile – perhaps significantly, an inner foot-ring – and a bead-and-reel rim, quite regularly seen on vessels of the third century. The iconography, too, is relatively simple, with four pairs of geometric patterns mirroring each other, separated by anonymous youthful busts. It is no surprise therefore that Kaufmann-Heinimann 42 discusses it in some detail in relation to the Kaiseraugst Constans platter, for the similarities between the vessels are very clear; and significantly, the Constans platter can be accurately dated to ad 342/3 (see p. 38). The vessel from Conceşti 43 is rather inadequately published, but has enough features aside from its size and weight to suggest it also belongs with the early to mid-fourth century group, despite the fact that the grave in which it was found has been dated to the early fifth century.44 It has six rim sections, separated by busts, which again provide a stylistic link with both the Kaiseraugst Constans platter and Taraneš; but in contrast to these, the friezes in between are not geometric but hunt scenes, which arguably makes it more sophisticated, although its geometric central medallion, and its double bead-and-reel rim, suggests it might be roughly contemporary with, or a little later than, the Constans platter. Both the Vinkovci and ‘Seuso’ platters are substantial vessels at around 700mm in diameter and with weights of

a

b Plate 140a–c Details of rim of ‘Seuso’ silver hunting plate (cat. 1), fourth century. Hungarian National Museum

c

between 19 and 27 Roman pounds. This in itself suggests they are the latest in the sequence; and other aspects of these two vessels also suggest that this is the case. As discussed above (p. 87), the ‘Seuso’ platter has the most complex profile, with a distinctly convex base, and a double-stepped rim flange before the outer circumference of beads. In terms of decoration, it is also highly sophisticated, with a complex figurative scene in the centre, both gilded and nielloed, and with the famous inscription. The inscription additionally includes a quite specific reference to Christ, another reason to suggest the platter is late in the sequence. Its two bands of decoration on the inner rim are also unique: three pairs of geometric patterns mirrored across the vessel, as is common on vessels of this type, but then an additional hunting frieze which can be divided into twelve separate groups.45 Nagy has argued that this platter was made as a wedding gift to ‘Seuso’ (possibly one Severus) and points to the similarity in the style of the inscription to the poetry of Ausonius, a member of the court of Valentinian I. If this argument is accepted, it would date the platter to around ad 368–75 (although a broader dating is given in Table 9).46 Of similar dimensions is a newly discovered platter with a bucolic scene from Vinkovci (see above). Prior to conservation, it is difficult to be clear on all the characteristics of this vessel. Nevertheless, some features are already known, and once again these place it typologically late in the sequence. Like the ‘Seuso’ vessel it has a beaded rim and a high outer foot-ring,47 although other features of its form are currently difficult to assess. Also like the ‘Seuso’ vessel, a sophisticated figurative scene occupies the central medallion, although how the scene ought to be interpreted is currently unclear. One intriguing aspect of this vessel is the large number of busts which occupy the rim flange; when the vessel was examined in October 2012, it was estimated that there were around 50 of these. Like other vessels that display busts, these show youthful males. So it is argued that both these vessels were probably produced in the latter half of the fourth century and possibly as late as the beginning of the fifth century, given their size, developed forms (in the case of ‘Seuso’ at least) and the arrangement of their decoration. Where does this place the Mildenhall niello platter in the sequence? Its relatively high weight, its beaded rim and its outer foot-ring seem to preclude it from being early, in other words late third or early fourth century. But its relatively unsophisticated geometric design, divided into only six sections, and its lack of figural decoration and any Christian iconography seems equally unlikely to make it particularly

late – it certainly cannot be grouped with the vessels from ‘Seuso’ and Vinkovci. So the impression given is that it was manufactured in the middle of the fourth century, or possibly in the third quarter. For these reasons, a reasonable date bracket in which to place it seems to be c. 325–75. An interesting connection with one of the large flanged bowls (cat. 5) should also be noted and may have a further influence on the dating (discussed further in Chapter 15, p. 268). The niello platter: conclusions

The niello platter continues a tradition of the production of flat silver platters with outer foot-rings that appear in assemblages of third-century silver plate and continue on into the fourth century and beyond. Its form is broadly comparable with other platters, although there is to date only one very close parallel (Kaiseraugst cat. 58; see Pl. 127). As has also been shown, its decoration, relatively modest in comparison with the size of the vessel (restricted as it is to a central medallion and its flat inner rim), can be associated with a tradition of engraved geometric patterns, sometimes associated with floral motifs, which appears on silver in the fourth century. Although no exact parallels can be found for the decorative friezes, parallels for individual elements can be identified. Some aspects of the niello platter set it apart from other vessels of this type. First, it appears to be the only vessel that was not gilded in addition to the use of niello (see Lang, below).48 This cannot be a result of the gilding having been cleaned away, as even the most vigorous cleaning would leave some traces visible under magnification. Why it was not gilded as well as nielloed is unclear, but perhaps the same question can be asked of other platters that received no decoration at all, despite being of similar form: the vessel from Kaiseraugst (cat. 58) being a case in point. Second, cat. 4 appears to be the only example of a platter with an engraved inner rim on which the circular medallions bear floral motifs and not busts. Again, it is unclear why this is the case. That the vessels with busts are either unambiguously items of largitio (p. 271)– for example, the Kaiseraugst Constans platter – or probable examples – for instance, the vessel from Taraneš – would rather suggest that the Mildenhall niello platter is not. Might these medallions have once contained busts, only for these to be erased and replaced at a later date? There is no evidence to suggest that this is the case, despite detailed inspection.49 Finally, the manner in which the vessel was used is certainly of interest. It has been argued elsewhere50 that

The Niello Platter | 95

Plate 141 (left) Intergranular cracking, hammered-in fins and hammer marks on the back surface Plate 142 (right) Lathe-turned metal (right) and hammered-in fins within the foot-ring area

platters on which decoration is modest, with most of the upper surface left plain, cannot be considered display vessels or ‘picture plates’ in the same manner as vessels such as the Bacchic platter (cat. 1). Indeed, there are sufficient numbers of contemporary illustrations across a range of artistic media (mosaics, wall paintings and stone sculpture) to make it abundantly clear that such vessels were used for serving food at dinner parties. Thus the relative plainness of the vessel, making it easier to clean (deep scratches may also be related; see below) means that the niello platter was almost certainly employed as a serving vessel for the communal sharing of food. For further discussion, see Chapter 16. Technical aspects of the production of the niello platter (Janet Lang) Metal composition: summary

Semi-quantitative analysis of the body, foot-ring, rim and beaded rim indicated a slight variation in silver content of between 96 and 97%. The differences in the analytical Plate 143 Lathe-turned decorative lines (left) and groups of scratches

96 | The Mildenhall Treasure

results probably reflect the surface condition, rather than indicating that the components came from different sources. Analysis of the niello showed that it consisted of silver sulphide, much of which has partially transformed to silver.51 For a fuller discussion, see Chapter 13. Surface finish, wear and damage

The front surface of the platter is generally in good condition. It is relatively smooth and polished, but shows an area with an uneven surface texture, which is probably the result of corrosion attack. There are many fine scratches which appear to be the result of rather zealous cleaning. In the main, the scratched lines have crisp edges and do not appear to have been attacked by corrosion. They are probably of recent origin. A few lines have edges blurred by corrosion attack: these may be the result of usage in antiquity. A shallow dent is visible in the wide plain silver band and the surface shows some very slight radial undulations. The reverse surface is uneven with hammeredin fins and many hammer and punch marks (Pl. 141). It has not been polished or turned, except around the foot-ring (Pl. 142). The platter does not show many signs of wear. The edge of the rim is quite rough but this is a result of poor finishing and corrosion attack. The edge of the foot-ring is crisp and little worn. The top surfaces of the beads are slightly worn, presumably from cleaning and handling. Concentric cracks approximately 245mm and 130mm in length can be seen at the change in profile between the decorated inner rim and the outer plain band on the upper surface of the vessel. This appears to be a result of stress and corrosion. The edges of the crack have a granular appearance. There are many fine scratches on the polished upper surface, which may have been introduced at any time, before or after excavation. A group of deeper irregular scratches could have been inflicted by grit when the platter was cleaned or, possibly, polished with a cloth; unfortunately it is impossible to judge if this is ancient or more recent (Pl. 143). As the silver content is high (c. 96%), the metal is soft and the surface easily damaged. A few of the beads have

indentations inflicted by blows, but it is impossible to determine when this happened. Much of the niello is missing: this probably occurred during burial and excavation. A very irregular scratch appears to have resulted from an object striking the chased lines between the two plain ring bands and then being dragged across the outer ring: this may have happened before burial. Construction of the platter

The platter was probably cast as a disc, like the other vessels, perhaps with a rudimentary foot-ring in situ. The under surface has a hammered finish, with many hammer marks and hammered-in fins. The edge of the rim shows laminations, cracking and spalling, suggesting that the metal might contain impurities which were not removed by working and annealing. The front surface was ground and polished, and although there are turned bands just around the foot-ring, there is no evidence to suggest that turning was otherwise used to finish either surface. A granular texture is visible at the cracks and on the edge of the rim, suggesting that extensive working was not used to shape the vessel. The surface of the metal at the change of profile on the back surface shows small cracks and intergranular corrosion attack (see Pl. 141). The pips at the centre of the front and back surfaces were punched and there is no indication that they were associated with the casting process (i.e. for the attachment of risers). The pips would have been used as centres for marking out the design. The underside surface shows tool marks. The foot-ring

The foot-ring appears to have been part of the original casting. There are no indications of a soldered or brazed join with the platter. Discontinuities, cavities, changes in colour or preferential corrosion are absent at the join. The metal has been scraped on both surfaces and punched down, both inside and out, to reduce its thickness. There is a vertical split in the foot-ring. This follows an irregular path and is unlikely to have been a join. The edge is granular, rather poorly finished and has been attacked by corrosion. The rim

The rim was made in the same way as the large bead rims on cat. 1 and the other Mildenhall vessels. The bridge between the beads seems relatively high, suggesting that slightly less metal had been cut from one set of opposing sides of the die (to allow it to fit over the bent rim) than was the case with other beading dies of the period. Punches were used to increase definition between the beads, including (rarely) a matting punch (Pl. 144). A few small flaps or fins have been introduced by this process. The flow of the metal can be seen on the underside, between the beads, where it was forced into the die, probably made more visible by surface corrosion. More than one strike was required to make the beads. The top surfaces of the beads show small scrape lines, running across the surface, from bead to bead, giving a slightly facetted appearance at low magnification. Some also appear pitted, which may be a result of corrosion attack, handling or usage. The area at the base of the beads, facing the centre of the platter, has been cut by a sharp bladed tool,

Plate 144 Bead definition has been increased by punching

such as a chisel, or a gouge, rather crudely, in a lattice pattern between each bead. The same feature can be seen on other bowls with large beads in the Mildenhall assemblage (for example, Pls 234, 244). The outside of the rim has been scraped. Execution of the design

No marking-out lines were observed, but the pips at the centre on both the back and front surfaces would have been used as centres for the turned bands which divide the flat part of the vessel into two plain broad bands around the decorated central motif. Towards the rim the platter changes profile, with a third ring of turned bands, and rises to make the broad, decorated flange, terminating in the beaded rim. Within the turned bands, some of the concentric lines vary in width or are incomplete (Pl. 145). The lines were completed before the niello decoration was added. The recesses for the niello were cut and gouged with sharp tools, sometimes using a series of short ‘slip stick’ movements which results in a serrated appearance (Pl. 146). The details are difficult to see because, where the niello is missing, the majority of the recesses are coated with a soft, dark grey powdery material, obscuring the details. The niello inlay is silvery in appearance rather than the more typical iridescent black. In a previous examination, a tiny sample was taken from the inlay on the flat rim and another from the central motif (their exact locations were not recorded) to elucidate the composition and structure. The inlay sample from the rim was not homogeneous. It consisted of a core of silver sulphide in which few particles of sulphur were present (showing that the reaction from silver to silver sulphide was complete and the mixture of silver and sulphur were correctly proportioned) and a series of outer layers which consisted of particulate silver, a very porous silver–gold alloy containing 53% silver and 47% gold and a very small quantity of residual silver sulphide (acanthite).

The Niello Platter | 97

Plate 145 Irregular or incomplete turned decorative lines. Punched or gouged channels were filled with niello (partly missing)

Plate 146 Slip-stick tool movement of the tools gives the inlay channels serrated edges. Niello has reverted to somewhat granular silver

The second sample, taken from the central motif, also showed a silver sulphide core with porous layers on the surface. However, in this case the surface layers mainly consisted of silver sulphide with a few particles of silver at grain boundaries, and some silver–gold particles distributed in the outer layers. At the surface, much of the niello has reconverted rather irregularly to silver. The presence of gold may reflect the composition of some of the scrap metal used to make the niello.52 Gold-rich inclusions were also found in the niello inlay of the ‘Seuso’ hunting platter.53 Other platters of a similar type have gilded decoration, on the bands for example, but visual examination and surface analysis provide no evidence to suggest that cat. 4 has ever been gilded.

17 A profile drawing can be found in Odobesco 1976, 628, fig. 32 and Schmauder 2002a, vol. 2, pl. 97. The form has more in common with ‘Seuso’ cat. 2. 18 Hobbs 2010, 331. 19 Hobbs 2010. 20 Baratte and Painter 1989, cat. 198. 21 Ibid., cats 78 and 190. 22 Baratte and Painter 1989, no. 89. 23 Ibid., cat. 88. 24 The object most heavily decorated with geometric motifs of the third century comes from Soissons: a complex geometric pattern of infilled diamonds and squares, which creates an optical illusion of a complex polyhedral shape, covers the entire flat base of a highsided vessel. 25 Kaiseraugst cats 56, 58 and 83. 26 ‘Seuso’ cat. 4. 27 ‘Seuso’ cat. 7. 28 Traprain Law cat. 4; Curle 1923, pl. IX, lower. 29 Traprain Law cat. 63. 30 Ibid. Incidentally, the mean bead size is comparable with both cat. 1 and cat. 4 (between 12.21 and 12.48mm). 31 Traprain Law cat. 68. 32 In addition it is well dated to ad 342/3 (Guggisberg and Kaufmann-Heinimann 2003, 117–25). Another vessel in the Kaiseraugst treasure (cat. 85) has a simpler decorative motif of overlapping ellipses which form a series of six-petalled rosettes, but the style is entirely different to cat. 4. 33 Although in terms of weight, Mildenhall cat. 4 is almost one-third heavier than Kaiseraugst cat. 59. 34 Guggisberg and Kaufmann-Heinimann (2003, 123–5) describes how each of these busts depicts a youth, but they are sufficiently and deliberately diverse enough to suggest that they are supposed to represent different individuals. Nevertheless it would seem more than a coincidence that on a platter to commemorate Constans’ decennalia in 342 or 343 (for a discussion of the date, see Leib and Spiedel in Guggisberg and Kaufmann-Heinimann 2003, 178) there are shown ten youthful busts – perhaps they are supposed to represent each of one of his ten years as Caesar/Augustus, so the differences are there to suggest that he is ageing. The weight, which has quite deliberately been set at 10 Roman pounds (and is recorded in a pointillé weight inscription on the base), does not seem coincidental either. For further discussion of the anonymous busts that appear on items of silver plate in the early fourth century and related objects (particularly brooches), see Guggisberg and Kaufmann-Heinimann 2003, 142–64 (with references). 35 Also sometimes termed a vesica piscis, or the shape of a fish bladder (see http://www.jainmathemagics.com/newsletter_lookup_ embed.asp?newsletter_id=38 [Accessed: 3/2/2016]). 36 Wave pattern also encloses the decorative nielloed frieze of rosettes and diamonds on the Kaiseraugst Bacchus and Ariadne platter (Kaiseraugst cat. 61).

Notes

1 Scenes 3 and 4 are 257mm in length. The lengths were calculated using a length of thread in order to follow the curve of the inner rim. 2 Mango terms similar motifs on the ‘Seuso’ hunting platter ‘linear “palmettes”’ (Mango and Bennett 1994, 78). 3 Approximately 22mm in diameter. 4 Approximately 22.5mm in diameter. 5 Approximately 24.5mm in diameter. 6 Approximately 22.3mm in diameter. 7 Approximately 23.2mm in diameter. 8 This is the date proposed for this vessel and other beaded vessels of very simple form by Martin-Kilcher; see Guggisberg and Kaufmann-Heinimann 2003, 110. 9 ‘Was die Datierung der grossen unverzierten Platten 56 und 83 – und mit ihnen des übrigen unverzierten Geschirrs im Schatz – anbelangt, spricht nichts gegen das von Stefanie Martin-Kilcher vorgeschlagene zweite Viertel des 4 Jahrhunderts’ (Guggisberg and Kaufmann-Heinimann 2003, 100). 10 Included coins up to Postumus, therefore a terminus post quem of c. ad 270 (Baratte and Painter 1989, 110–37). 11 The platter from Almendralejo is the exception that proves the rule (p. 32). 12 Discussed further in Hobbs 2006, 85–91. The platter has recently been restored and re-examined (Leader-Newby 2014a). 13 Visy 2012. 14 The platter is also illustrated in Guggisberg and KaufmannHeinimann 2003, 99, fig. 76. 15 Suggested by the illustration of a graffito on the reverse of the vessel: Kadar 1960, 135, fig. 35. 16 Popović 1994, no. 359. The vessel is also illustrated in Guggisberg and Kaufmann-Heinimann 2003, 273, fig. 254.

98 | The Mildenhall Treasure

37 Dumitrascu 1973, pl. IV; Guggisberg and Kaufmann-Heinimann 2003, fig. 121. 38 Kaiseraugst cat. 62. Alföldi-Rosembaum suggests a date for manufacture of c. ad 340 (Cahn and Kaufmann-Heinimann 1984, 224). 39 And yet the two vessels are very comparable in terms of size and weight: cat. 4 with a diameter of 556mm, cat. 62 in Kaiseraugst 590mm; cat. 4 weight 15.5 Roman lbs, cat. 62 in Kaiseraugst 14.7 lbs. 40 ‘Seuso’ cat. 1. 41 Hobbs 2010. 42 Guggisberg and Kaufmann-Heiniann 2003, 129–30. 43 Matzulevitsch 1929, 135. 44 Toynbee and Painter 1986, 42.

45 Mango and Bennett 1994, 81. 46 Nagy 2014 and 2015. 47 The height of the foot-ring is 8mm, thus in line with other vessels of this date. 48 A ewer from Trier, which may be the only survival of the 1628 treasure, is also both gilded and nielloed, to very striking effect (Kaufmann-Heinimann and Martin 2007). 49 Janet Lang pers. comm. 50 Hobbs 2010. 51 La Niece 1983, 290. 52 Ibid. 53 Mango and Bennett 1994, 67–71.

The Niello Platter | 99

Chapter 5 The Large Flanged Bowls (cats 5–8)

Form and decorative scheme

All are bowls, each with a flat inner base curving to vertical walls that turn out sharply to form a flat flanged rim, which is finished with spherical beading. Each sits on a high foot-ring, which is flared and slightly curved. How the form compares with other bowls of this type is discussed on pp. 125–9. Despite being of variable size, all these bowls share this common profile and matching decorative elements, which comprise a central medallion in the interior of the base of the bowl (S1) and four figural scenes on the flanges divided by busts (S2 to S5). The decorative elements always comprise scenes of animals (real and imaginary) at rest or grazing, which alternate with animals during an aspect of a hunt, either a chase, a capture or a kill/feasting. In all cases, the busts (probably theatrical masks) face towards aspects of the hunt (always S3 and S5) and away from the tranquil animals at rest or grazing scenes (always S2 and S4).

Cat. 5 Large flanged bowl (Pls 147–9)

(British Museum 1946,1007.5; Brailsford 1947/1955, cat. 7; Painter 1973, cat. 6; Painter 1977a, cat. 5). Dimensions

Diameter: 297mm Width of rim: 54mm Diameter of bowl: 189mm Total height: 92mm; height of bowl section: 68mm Diameter of foot-ring: 101mm Height of foot-ring: 20mm Weight: 1,718g (5.2 librae) Estimated capacity: 1,497ml (2.7 sextarii) Number of beads: 63 Bead dimensions (mm): 1 – 11.10; 10 – 11.15; 20 – 11.74; 30 – 10.91; 40 – 11.60; 50 – 11.42; 60 – 11.16. Mean: 11.30mm (11.37mm). Aggregate mean: 11.33mm Form and decorative scheme

See above.

Inscriptions (Pl. 150 and 397)

There are two inscriptions on the reverse of the vessel, on the underside of the flanged part of the rim: (a) under the flange in punched dots: P and an illegible note of weight (for further discussion see Chapter 12); (b) under the flange, incised in fourth-century cursive letters partly over (1) but in the reverse direction: pon(do) XX redit lib(ra) una uncias V simis By weight 20 (pounds). One pound returns ... 5 ounces (and) a half 1

For a full discussion, see Tomlin (pp. 234–5). Since this cannot refer to this vessel alone, it could instead relate to a set of four vessels of this weight. As it is probable that this vessel was added at a later date to complement the other three (cats 6–8) (see pp. 136–8), the weight inscription cannot therefore refer to the current set as the others are clearly intended to weigh 4 Roman pounds. This anomaly further strengthens the case for this particular vessel being a later addition and not an original component of this set of bowls. Further discussion can be found in Chapter 15.

100 | The Mildenhall Treasure

The Large Flanged Bowls | 101

S1

1

2

3

4

S2

2

S1

1

2 3

S2

S2

large flanged bowl: cat 8

S1

1

large flanged bowl: cat 7

S1

2

large flanged bowl: cat 6

1

large flanged bowl: cat 5

3

S2

4 5

3

4

4

5

6

5

6

5

7

7

6

8

6

8

S3

S3

7

8

S3

9

S3

7

9

8

10

10

9

11

11

9

10

Plate 147 Large flanged bowls (cats 5–8), key to decorative scenes (S1–S5) and figures (F1 onwards)

S4

10 11

11

12

S4

12 13

S4

13

12

12 13

S4

13

14

14 15

14

14

15

15

16

16

15

S5

16

17

S5

16

S5

17

17

17

18

18

S5

18

18

19

20

flanged bowl : cat. 5

estimated capacity 1,497ml

flanged bowl: cat. 6

estimated capacity 1,229ml

flanged bowl: cat. 7

estimated capacity 1,069ml

flanged bowl: cat. 8

estimated capacity 1,095ml

0

10

Plate 148 Large flanged bowls (cats 5–8), profiles and estimated capacities

102 | The Mildenhall Treasure

20

30cm

Plate 149 Large flanged bowl (cat. 5), obverse, reverse and profile (not to scale)

The Large Flanged Bowls | 103

Plate 150 Weight graffiti on reverse of flange (cat. 5)

Figural decoration Scene 1 (Pl. 151)

The central medallion is enclosed by an irregular circle of 93 square-sided beads. In the left field stands a hunter (F1) facing with his head turned to his left; he has short cropped hair and a slightly oversized ear; his gaze is slightly downcast. He wears a short, elbow-length tunic with the hint of a belt indicated by a lightly chased line. The tunic has a V-neck and hangs in a series of widely spaced folds, formed by a series of conjoined punched dashes. His lower legs are bare and he appears to be wearing open-toed boots, although these are so sketchily indicated it is difficult to ascertain exactly what the craftsman intended. They do not appear to be puttees, a kind of knee-high sock used to protect the lower leg and often shown worn by hunters.2 Instead the footwear has more in common with that worn by Bacchus on the Bacchic platter (cat. 1, S6), which are described as buskins (p. 26). He stands on the ball of his right foot, with his left leg bent at the knee and the foot placed flat on a rock. Plate 151 Hunter and bear (cat. 5, scene 1, figures 1–2)

The hunter grips the shaft of a spear across his body, detailed with evenly spaced diagonal notches. He runs the spear into the chest of a bear (F2) in the right of the field; the bear appears to be falling backwards from the blow, its front paws outstretched, its hind legs open and extended.3 The bear’s mouth is open, presumably in a death-throes roar. The background (right) ear is chased into the metal surface. Two types of detailing have been used for the bear’s fur: the majority of its coat has vertical undulating waves (see Pl. 46a), but shallow dashed stippling (see Pl. 46f) has been employed for its snout, left ear, right (background) hind leg and the lower half of its forelegs (effectively the outside of the bear’s left and the inside of its right leg). On each foot it has three claws. Between the hunter and the bear is the trunk of a tree. It starts directly behind the left foot of the hunter and continues up, curving in a backwards ‘S’, before dividing into two branches which terminate in tripartite foliate leaves, perhaps representing two elements of the leaf canopy, rather than individual leaves (a similar tree type appears commonly on the rims of the flanged bowls). It may be a stylized umbrella pine (see Discussion, p. 136). The trunk of the tree continues below the feet of the hunter, curving round in a chased line of conjoined dashes, broadly following the line of the hunter’s bent left leg. The bear’s right hind leg just overlaps the base of the trunk. The tree appears to be growing out of the rock on which the hunter’s left foot rests; below this is another piece of foliage, perhaps a fern, composed of two diverging ears, detailed with punched dashes and parallel notches on the background edges. A simple grass tuft with five stems has been chased into the background to the right of the fern by using short dashes. In the field in various places are a number of crescents, each composed of parallel dashes, for example one to the hunter’s left and one below the bear’s hind legs. Perhaps these are intended to represent insects, or bees, or further pieces of foliage, such as tufts of grass. The deep sub-circular indent of the lathe point has been left untouched in the centre of the medallion. Scene 2 (Pl. 152)

Consists of two pairs of animals divided by a central tree. The first pair are goats (F3–4) (Pl. 153), probably wild

104 | The Mildenhall Treasure

Plate 152 Goats and boars (cat. 5, scene 2, figures 3–6)

Plate 153 Detail of goats (cat. 5, scene 2, figures 3–4)

Plate 154 Detail of boars (cat. 5, scene 2, figures 5–6)

varieties,4 therefore either ibex (Capra ibex), or wild goats (Capra aegagrus), ‘the ancestor of the domestic variety’.5 Both are highly likely to be male judging from the beards. The hindquarters overlap as they face in opposite directions. The left goat (F3) stands with his head inclined towards the ground as if in the act of grazing. His coat is detailed with vertical undulating waves (see Pl. 46a), the fur on his head by shallow dashed stippling (see Pl. 46f). He has long curving horns, the right chased into the background silver; both are detailed with widely spaced parallel notches. He has a short upturned tail and lacks hind legs, as they are hidden by the other goat. The companion (F4) stands facing right: he is almost identical to his partner, although his beard is slightly longer and the punched pellet of his visible eye is rather better defined. Rather than inclining his head, he is advancing: the left (background) foreleg is chased. A further pair of animals (F5–6) (Pl. 154), this time wild boars, are shown in the right field; they overlap in a similar manner to the first pair and also face in opposite directions, although in this instance the foreground animal faces left and the background animal right. The first boar (F5) is seated on its haunches with forelegs outstretched. Its fur is detailed using three different techniques: clockwise and anticlockwise spirals for its torso (see Pl. 46s) (the only instance of the use of such detailing on all four large flanged bowls), and shallow dashed stippling for its head, long tail and legs (see Pl. 46f). The other boar (F6) appears to be more slender and is detailed differently, which may suggest that it is supposed to

represent the female of the pair or a younger animal.6 This boar stands facing away from its companion; the head is inclined downwards, as if it is grazing or advancing right. Again three different techniques have been used to detail the coat: triplets of crescents alternating in direction (see Pl. 46p) for much of the coat, while the same two techniques as the other beast have been employed for the head and legs (see above). The tail ends in three strands and is detailed using shallow dashed stippling. Between the pairs of animals stands a tree of similar style to that in S1 (Pl. 155), although its curving trunk flares more widely at the base, its bark is indicated with a series of shallow grooves and the canopy is more complex. The stumps of two broken (or cut) branches have been added to the trunk. Between the tree and right-hand standing goat sits an object that is best interpreted as a basket. Its sides narrow to

Plate 155 Detail of tree (cat. 5, scene 2)

The Large Flanged Bowls | 105

Plate 156 Griffins and horse (cat 5, scene 3, figures 8–10)

a flat base; the body has two cross hoops, detailed with parallel notches, the direction of the upper and lower alternating; the spaces in between are decorated with a grid of cross-hatching, presumably to represent a basket weave. It may have a domed lid decorated with rings (sometimes complete, sometimes penannular) although equally this may be the basket’s contents; if so, it is unclear what was intended. Four grass tufts are shown in the field beneath the goats, formed of diverging stems of punched dashes. The rightmost is simplest with just three stems; the far leftmost has six. Like the central medallion (S1) there are crescentic motifs and parallel dashes at various places in the field, six in total, the significance of which are open to debate (see p. 104). Above each pair of animals is a rectangular motif, probably representing a distant rocky outcrop.7 Each has three pairs of parallel dashes chased below, probably to represent the ground surface or conceivably water, perhaps a lake or river. Scene 3 (Pl. 156)

The scene is framed by busts that face inwards (F7, F11). The left-hand bust (F7) is female (Pl. 157). Her nose is rather pointed, and she has a strong square jaw and rather pronounced chin. Her hair is formed of a large number of loose strands in undulating waves (see Pl. 46a); at least two of what appear to be plaits run up the back to the crown.

(Although no attempt has been made to depict pins, these would certainly have been needed.) This hairstyle, known as the Scheitelzopffrisur, is discussed further on p. 134. A small lock emerges from the area of the ear, a single strand on her left temple and two further loose strands at the back. The beginnings of a garment are indicated at the base of the neck by a line of long dashes, from which radiate further lines onto her shoulders in a crow’s feet pattern. It is uncertain whom the bust represents – she is probably a maenad, given her similarities with the bust in S5 (see p. 108), but this is not certain. The other bust (F11) that brackets the right of the scene is male (Pl. 158). The eye is rendered in the same manner as that of the female, except that the socket is deeper and the iris more clearly defined; he has a heavy, Roman nose, a prominent brow ridge, full lips and a handlebar moustache coupled with a neatly trimmed beard made up of undulating waves. His hair is nape-length and wavy, and he has a starshaped tuft of hair on his brow. Like his female counterpart he has a semblance of a garment at the base of the neck. He can perhaps be identified as an elderly satyr, 8 but this is not certain. The central scene depicts a stallion (F9) facing left being brought to ground by a pair of griffins, one of which attacks from the front, the other from behind. The horse is shown collapsing onto his forelegs, with the left foreleg bent, such

Plate 157 (left) Detail of female bust (cat. 5, scene 3, figure 7) Plate 158 (right) Detail of male bust (cat. 5, scene 3, figure 11)

106 | The Mildenhall Treasure

Plate 159 Oxen and sheep (cat. 5, scene 4, figures 12–15)

that he is resting on his cannon and hoof. The right foreleg is outstretched, not visible, bar the hoof which emerges beneath his head. The hind legs are stretched out to the back, his left hind leg thrust out behind him, the right bent (slightly raised from the silver surface). Although moulded to give three-dimensionality, the coat is otherwise undetailed; the flowing tail is partially raised from the surface, and detailed with shallow dashed stippling (see Pl. 46f). The mane is visible below his pricked right ear and consists of dashed lines chased into the background. The final part of the mane is visible on his withers. To the left of the horse is the griffin (F8) attacking him from the front. He sits on his haunches, his tufted tail curling out behind him. His visible right foreleg rests on the neck of the horse. The fur is detailed using vertical shallow dashed stippling (see Pl. 46f ), his leonine mane by deeper chased dashes. The feathers on his wings (the left background wing chased) are detailed with teardrop chevrons (see Pl. 46i). The companion griffin (F10), to the right of the horse, advances into the scene. He is identical to his partner, differing only in minor details; for example his mane is formed of lighter dashes. His hind legs are fully extended, the right thrust out behind him, and his tail is raised; his left foreleg and hind leg are both in an advanced position, the right foreleg standing and chased in the background silver. His head overlaps the left hind leg of the horse, as if he is biting it (although the beak appears to be only slightly open).

There are further tufts of grass in the field, crescentic motifs and another rectangular ‘rock’. Scene 4 (Pl. 159)

Directly opposite the other tranquil scene (S2), this view also consists of two pairs of animals. Occupying the left field is a pair of cattle or oxen (Pl. 160). The foreground beast (F12) is lying on the ground facing left; his head, with a pair of short curving horns, turned back into the scene. His hind legs (only the left is visible) are outstretched along the ground; his left foreleg is tucked under his torso and the right bent out in front of him, the hoof resting on a rock. He has a long tufted tail, the end of which is detailed with lines of conjoined dashes (see Pl. 46e). His coat is indicated with vertical shallow dashed stippling in gentle curves to give him form; this is also used on his legs, tail and head, although deeper, more widely spaced dashes pepper the top of his head. His companion (F13) is to all intents and purposes identical. He stands facing in the opposite direction, his legs hidden by the foreground creature. His head is turned slightly outwards from the vessel, with both ears shown (the left chased, not raised); his dewlap is more pronounced and only one horn is shown due to the perspective. His coat and other details are rendered in an identical manner to his companion. In the right field stands a pair of domesticated sheep, both ewes. Both face into the scene. The foreground animal (F15) stands with her head bowed as if cropping the grass; her left

Plate 160 (left) Detail of oxen (cat. 5, scene 4, figures 12–13) Plate 161 (right) Detail of tree (cat. 5, scene 4)

The Large Flanged Bowls | 107

Plate 162 Leopards and bull (cat. 5, scene 5, figures 17–19)

foreleg is stretched slightly forwards, as is the right hind leg (raised a little from the surface); the right foreleg has been chased. The tail is long and flat to the rump and ends in a large bulb. The coat is detailed with horizontal widely spaced ovals (see Pl. 46g) in gentle parallel curves. The deep punched dashes on the top of the head are the same as the other beast to the left, as is the way in which the eye has been rendered. The ears are pricked. The background ewe (F14) stands in an identical pose to her companion. Her hind legs are not depicted, although they ought to be visible beneath the belly of the other; the right foreleg is chased into the background. The detailing of the fleece matches her companion. Between the pairs of animals stands a tree (Pl. 161); it is almost identical to that shown in S2. Spaces are again filled with tufts of grass, dashed crescentic motifs and two rectangular ‘rocks’ in the upper field. Scene 5 (Pl. 162)

The scene is flanked on the left by a female bust, probably of a maenad (F16) (Pl. 163). She is almost identical to the female bust in S3, although her chin is slightly less pointed and the upper bridge of her nose is marginally more pronounced. Her hairstyle is also similar, but instead of the plaits at the back it is tied in a loose bun, from which four strands of hair have escaped, chased in the background silver.

The male bust which brackets the right of the scene (F20) (Pl. 164) is evidently a young satyr by virtue of his long pointed ear. He is quite full faced, with a fleshy jowl; his hair is arranged in a number of diverging tufts, formed of vertical and horizontal undulating waves (see Pl. 46a). This scene mirrors in its broad subject matter that of S3 opposite, notwithstanding that all the animals shown are real. In the centre is a bovine creature, male, probably a bull (F18) (Pl. 165); he stands in a very similar pose to the horse in S3; his left hind leg is fully extended out behind him, his right hind leg thrust forwards; both forelegs are fully extended in front of his head, which is bowed, the mouth slightly open. The left (foreground) horn is depicted. His tufted tail extends from his rump over his left flank and curves up above his back. His coat and the top of his head are detailed in exactly the same manner as the similar animals in S4, i.e. with vertical and horizontal dashed stippling (Pl. 46f). The bull is being felled from the front by a big cat (F17) (Pl. 166), probably a leopard judging by the coat, and most likely female. She stands on her splayed hind legs, her visible right foreleg resting on the neck of the bull; she sinks her teeth into his withers. The tail curves out upwards behind her. Her coat is detailed with light dashed stippling (slightly coarser than the captured bull) and widely spaced punched rings to represent the rosettes (see Pl. 46m). These are

Plate 163 Detail of female bust (cat. 5, scene 5, figure 16) Plate 164 Detail of male bust (cat. 5, scene 5, figure 20)

108 | The Mildenhall Treasure

sometimes complete, sometimes penannular, depending on the pressure applied by the punch. A similar-sized companion leopardess (F19) (Pl. 167) attacks the bull from the rear. Her pose and how she is detailed is entirely identical to her companion; she rests her left foreleg on the upper hind leg of the bull and sinks her teeth into his rump. In the field are tufts of grass and further dashed crescents, as in other scenes. There is another rectangular ‘rock’ motif above the back of the right-hand leopard, while above the hindquarters of the leftmost feline are two overlapping conical motifs, probably intended to represent a pair of distant hills or mountains.

Plate 165 Detail of bull (cat. 5, scene 5, figure 18)

Ninety-two square beads form an irregular circle, which encloses the central decorative element. Outside this is an

additional border, formed using a matting punch (see p. 138). Inside the ring is a youthful male helmeted bust (F1) facing forwards with the head turned to his right. The identity of the bust is discussed below (pp. 130–2). The pupil of the visible (left) eye is composed of a small punched dot off-centre from the iris. His eyebrow starts from the inner corner of his eye and proceeds in a gentle curve of spaced dashes across his brow ridge. His hair of thick flowing locks emerges from the back of his helmet; there are a few loose strands on his face and neck. The helmet is pseudo-Corinthian in style; it has a plume rendered using parallel chased lines which follow the line of the helmet to the front and back, where the lines shorten and change direction, thus forming a ‘V’ shape at the interchange; at the back this culminates in a short wavy tuft. At the front the plume terminates in a forward-curving quiff. The rim of the helmet is formed of a raised flange decorated with a line of punched dots and terminates at the back with an upwards scroll. Along the line of the jaw is an chased cheek-piece or possibly chin-strap. The top of the upper body garment is depicted as a curving line across the neck and further lines which radiate downwards (as on other busts); all bar one of these are made from conjoined punched dashes, the other overlapping dashes. Behind his face is an elliptical motif chased into the background silver, almost certainly a shield, given the military nature of the bust. It begins in the middle of the neck and ends on his forehead. Its outer line is mostly formed of conjoined continuous dashes, which change to spaced

Plate 166 Detail of leopard (cat. 5, scene 5, figure 17)

Plate 167 Detail of leopard (cat. 5, scene 5, figure 19)

Cat. 6 Large flanged bowl (Pls 148–9, 168) (British Museum 1946,1007.7; Brailsford 1947/1955, cat. 10; Painter 1973, cat. 9; Painter 1977a, cat. 7). Dimensions

Diameter: 266mm Width of rim: 48.5mm Diameter of bowl: 168mm Total height: 90mm; height of bowl section: 64mm Diameter of foot-ring: 88mm Height of foot-ring: 20mm Weight: 1,301g (4.0 librae) Estimated capacity: 1,229ml (2.2 sextarii) Number of beads: 66 Bead dimensions (mm): 1 – 10.24; 10 – 10.00; 20 – 9.93; 30 – 9.97; 40 – 9.44; 50 – 10.18; 60 – 9.92. Mean: 9.95mm (9.95mm). Aggregate mean: 9.95mm Form and decorative scheme

See p. 100. The central lathe mark, although visible, is not as easily distinguished as on other flanged bowls (e.g. cat. 5). Inscriptions

There are no inscriptions on the underside. Figural scenes Scene 1 (Pl. 169)

The Large Flanged Bowls | 109

Plate 168 Large flanged bowl (cat. 6), obverse, reverse and profile (not to scale)

110 | The Mildenhall Treasure

dashes in the area around the chin. The inner part of the shield is detailed with a series of crescents of dashed lines (see Pl. 46r). Larger versions of these pepper the field. Similar motifs appear on the rim of this and the other flanged bowls, and in the central medallion of cat. 7 (see p. 115). For further discussion of the shield, see p. 130. Scene 2 (Pl. 170)

Composed of one animal to the left of a central tree and two to the right. In the left field is a bearded goat (F2), presumably male, by virtue of the horns. He stands with his head inclined forwards, as if cropping the grass. His forelegs are fully extended and planted parallel to each other in front of him, while his left hind leg is straight and the right thrust forwards. His long horns (the right chased) curve up and backwards and then recurve again before their pointed terminals. They are detailed along their length with widely spaced chased notches. The short tail is at right angles to its body. The coat is detailed with vertical undulating waves (see Pl. 46a) and vertical shallow dashed stippling for the head and legs (see Pl. 46f). To the right of the central tree is a pair of sheep. The first is a recumbent ram (F3) facing left with his head inclined and turned back towards his companion. His left foreleg is tucked under his body, the right (chased) bent out before him with the hoof tipped forwards but not touching the ground. The tail is stretched out behind him and flat to the ground. His horns curve around in an anti-clockwise spiral and are decorated with spaced notches, in a similar manner to the horns of the goat to the left of the tree. His fleece is detailed using shallow dashed stippling (see Pl. 46f), usually vertical, but horizontal in places (e.g. his hindquarters). His head and legs are detailed instead with lines of narrower punched dashes. His companion, a ewe (F4), stands in the opposite direction and leans forwards on her outstretched forelegs. Her fleece is detailed with shallow dashed stippling, but unlike her companion it is normally horizontal or angled slightly upwards to the right; on her head and ears it is vertical. Her long tail is flat to her body. The tree that divides the scene (Pl. 171) is very similar to the one in S2 of cat. 7 the right-hand canopy joins its branch, but the other floats in the air above the back of the goat. No additional details of the foliage or stumps of branches have been added. Like other trees on the flanged bowls, it is probably a stylized umbrella pine (p. 136). As in Plate 170 Goat and sheep (cat. 6, scene 2, figures 2–4)

Plate 169 Helmeted male bust (cat. 6, scene 1, figure 1)

other scenes, there are various plant and grass-tuft motifs in the field and a chased ‘rock’ above the back of the ewe. Scene 3 (Pl. 172)

The overall scene depicts a chase in progress and is flanked by busts. The left bust facing into the scene is female (F5) (Pl. 173), with a largish, straight nose. Her hairstyle, commonly known as the Melonenfrisur, is unique to the Mildenhall treasure: it is composed of a series of plaits that are drawn up from the nape of the neck, temple and forehead to the crown where they terminate in a double-loop bun.9 The plaits are detailed by chased conjoined dashes, slightly wavy, which alternate in direction between plaits (see Pl. 46e). In addition a further separate narrow plait of hair, or possibly some kind of cord, runs transverse to the vertical plaits, no doubt helping to keep the coiffure together. Loose strands of hair form a kiss-curl on her cheek, and a further strand runs down from her temple, two more down her neck and one from the bun. The top of her garment is detailed, as with other busts, with a series of chased dashed lines. Behind her face is an ovoid object, perhaps a tambourine, made up of conjoined punched dashes in a continuous curve; just inside this line the object is detailed with evenly spaced punched ovals (perhaps representing the jingles). If it is indeed a Plate 171 Detail of tree (cat. 6, scene 2)

The Large Flanged Bowls | 111

Plate 172 Bear and deer (cat. 6, scene 3, figures 6–8)

tambourine, then this attribute may identify the woman as a maenad.10 The other bust (F9) (Pl. 174) on the right, facing left into the scene, is male and of uncertain identity.11 He also appears to be different in style to other male busts depicted in the treasure. He has a large, rather pug nose, and a deep triangular socket for the eye; the lid is heavy, and there is a punched dot for the pupil, and two chased lines next to this (rather giving the impression that the eye is bloodshot). He has a drooping, handlebar moustache detailed with lines of conjoined dashes (see Pl. 46d); the beard is thick, though shaved around the cheeks and neck; it is detailed with randomly spaced punched ovals. His hair is brushed forwards from the back across the crown, as if covering baldness; it terminates in a jagged fringe with a short parting in the centre of the forehead. It is detailed with concentric lines of punched dashes, which are smaller and finer on the fringe. A separate tuft of hair flows out from the part of his neck behind his ear, rendered by using a similar technique to the moustache. His garments are indicated in the same manner as other busts. The animal chase depicts a bear chasing a stag and a hind, probably roe deer.12 The bear (F6) occupies most of the left-hand field. It is shown leaping, with its hind legs planted on the ground and forelegs outstretched. Its mouth is open and the visible eye is elliptical. Its fur is detailed with vertical undulating waves (see Pl. 46a) and there is a small bump on

the top of the shoulders. The long tail (which hangs flat to the body), the head and legs are detailed instead with vertical and horizontal dashed stippling (see Pl. 46f). The stag (F8), to the far right of the scene, is running full pelt with his head turned upwards; his hind legs are fully extended, the hind hooves on the ground as if thrusting away. Both forelegs are in mid-air, the right fully extended, the left (chased) slightly bent at the knee. The stag has a pair of antlers, each with a tine in the centre and a flaring butt terminal. The coat is detailed with shallow dashed vertical stippling in most parts, and radiating horizontal stippling on the hindquarters and head; coarser stippling has been used to detail the legs, snout and crown of the head. With the exception of the antlers, the accompanying hind (F7) is identical to her companion. The only differences are that the chased left hind leg is slightly further forwards than the stag’s, whose hind legs are in parallel; her head faces forwards and her ears are more pricked than the male’s. A chased fern-like tree, perhaps a date palm (see p. 136), is shown behind the hindquarters of the hind. The trunk is formed of punched lines of dashes which converge upwards and emerge into two ovoid ferns detailed with punched dashes on their interiors and around their edges. Below the stag is an ovoid motif, not readily identifiable, decorated with double spiral motifs made up of conjoined punched dots, which become single spirals where the motif narrows and the space is restricted. Larger punched dots

Plate 173 (left) Detail of female bust (cat. 6, scene 3, figure 5) Plate 174 (right) Detail of male bust (cat. 6, scene 3, figure 9)

112 | The Mildenhall Treasure

Plate 175 Goats and sheep (cat. 6, scene 4, figures 10–13)

infill the spaces around the object’s edge. Below the bear is a rectangular rock from which sprout tufts of grass; further tufts of grass fill other spaces in the field. Scene 4 (Pl. 175)

Mirrors S2 opposite, but includes four animals instead of three. In the left-hand field is a pair of male goats (although the second is not obviously male). The first (F10) lies on the ground with his head turned back across his body and inclined downwards; he has a beard and a pair of long curving horns. The turns of the horns are detailed with widely spaced chased lines. His left hind leg is bent at 45 degrees to his body, the left foreleg tucked underneath, the right (background) chased and bent out in front of him, such that the tip of the hoof is resting on the ground, in this case a ‘rock’ made up of a series of parallel teardrop-shaped notches. His short tail, barely shown, is flat to the ground. His coat is detailed with vertical undulating waves (see Pl. 46a); his legs and face with vertical or horizontal dashed stippling. The crown of his head is detailed with five parallel crescents. His companion (F11) appears slighter, with smaller horns but a seemingly longer beard (although the end of the other’s beard might be hidden in his coat) and a short raised tail. He stands facing his companion, his left foreleg planted in front of the chased right, his right hind leg also in an advanced

position (also chased). The detailing of the coat, head and legs is identical to that of the companion; the horns, however, are not detailed with notches. To the right of the central tree is another pair of animals, a ram and a ewe, facing right. Both animals stand with their bodies bent forwards, their heads downwards, as if grazing. The ram (F12) has a curving horn and a long tail flat to his body, which terminates in a fat scroll-like bulb.13 Much of his fleece, his right (foreground) leg and the upper part of his tail are detailed with vertical trailed ovals (see Pl. 46h), the only use of this decorative technique anywhere on the treasure. His head, the lower part of his tail and his left leg (chased) are detailed with shallow dashed stippling (see Pl. 46f). The ewe (F13) stands behind the ram, mirroring his stance. No attempt has been made to show her legs, although ‘in reality’ they would have been partially visible below her companion. She lacks horns, but has pricked ears, the left chased. Her fleece is detailed using horizontal shallow dashed stippling, her head with vertical ovoid stippling, which is wider and deeper on the crown of her head. The tree between the two pairs of animals is similar to others represented on other flanged vessels (discussed further on p. 136), but this is the only instance where it is used as a scene divider as opposed to being ‘behind’ one of the depicted animals. For this reason it is the best-represented example of the type; as previously stated, it is perhaps a

Plate 176 Bear and goats (cat. 6, scene 5, figures 15–17)

The Large Flanged Bowls | 113

Plate 177 (left) Detail of female bust (cat. 6, scene 5, figure 14) Plate 178 (right) Detail of male bust (cat. 6, scene 5, figure 18)

Plate 179 Detail of goat (cat. 6, scene 5, figure 15)

Plate 180 Detail of bear (cat. 6, scene 5, figure 16)

stylized date palm (p. 136). The trunk splays slightly at the bottom and has an inverted ‘V’-shaped notch in the base; there are two fern-like branches at the top which diverge and are detailed with punched teardrops, with finer dashed lines chased around their outer edges. To the right and left of the tree are triple-stemmed grass tufts; further tufts populate the field.

As with S3, the scene is framed by busts that face inwards; on the left is a female bust (F14), perhaps identifiable as a maenad because of her companion (Pl. 177). Although opposite the other female bust in S3, she is different in style. She has a straight nose and loose swathes of hair, brushed back across the sides of the head and culminating in a double bun. The hair on the crown is brushed at right angles to these swathes. There is a kiss-curl on her cheek, and single strands hang below her ear and another from the inside of the bun. Her garments are shown in an identical manner to other busts on this and companion vessels. The other bust (F18) is male (Pl. 178) and clearly represents a satyr, by virtue of his pointed ear, teardropshaped with a central recess. His position on the rim mirrors that of the bust opposite (S3). He has a well-detailed eye, a rather pug nose, downturned lips and a slightly protruding chin. His hair is in thick waves, with a quiff at the front and a separate tuft running out from behind his ear; this is similar to the older male opposite (p. 112). His garments are depicted in the usual manner. The principal component of the scene between the female bust and the tree shows a bear at the point of capturing a stylized goat (F15) (Pl. 179). The beast has been brought down onto its haunches, its forelegs flailing in mid-air, the right (chased) bent at the knee. The horns are long and tapering and bend slightly before their terminus. Its coat and tail (flat to the ground), is detailed with vertical undulating waves (see Pl. 46a), its head and legs with dashed stippling (see Pl. 46f); slightly larger stippling details the crown.

Scene 5 (Pl. 176)

To some extent this mirrors S3 opposite, except here time has moved on in the hunt and we see the moment of capture, although the creature being captured is not identical to either of those being chased in S3. Nevertheless, this is the only instance on all four large flanged bowls where such a direct link can be made on the same vessel between the hunt scenes.

Plate 181 Detail of tree (cat. 6, scene 5)

114 | The Mildenhall Treasure

The bear (F16) (Pl. 180) – like other bears depicted, its head is more like that of a hyena14 – stands on its hind legs. The left hind leg is thrust backwards, the right forwards, and its left paw rests on the left hindquarters of the goat, its teeth sunk into the lower back. There is no visible tail (unlike the bear in S3), but this may be because the hindquarters appear to be turned back, slightly away from the viewer. Its coat is detailed in an identical manner to that of the caprine creature it has caught, and its head and legs with vertical dashed stippling (see Pl. 46f). On the other side of the tree, a second animal (F17) – probably a ewe – is springing away in the opposite direction, running towards the right, thus ‘out’ of the scene. She springs from her extended hind legs, planted on the ground, the left (chased) slightly forward of the right; the pose in fact is identical to the stag in S3. The coat is detailed with vertical dashed stippling for the most part, but horizontal on the head and legs. Between the two elements of the scene stands a tree (Pl. 181); it is almost identical to that in S2, except that the branches more or less join the two foliate elements of the canopy, and there is the stump of a cut branch about threequarters of the way up the trunk on its right side. Below the ewe is a club, at an acute angle to the ground, upon which its tip rests; it is detailed with widely spaced ovals (see Pl. 46g) and in the field are various tufts of grass.

Cat. 7 Large flanged bowl (Pls 147–8, 182) (British Museum 1946,1007.8; Brailsford 1947/1955, cat. 9; Painter 1973, cat. 8; Painter 1977a, cat. 8). Dimensions

Diameter: 266mm Width of rim: 47mm Diameter of bowl: 171mm Total height: 87mm; height of bowl section: 62mm Diameter of foot-ring: 89mm Height of foot-ring: 22mm Weight: 1,320g (4.0 librae) Estimated capacity: 1,069ml (1.9 sextarii) Number of beads: 66 Bead dimensions (mm): 1 – 10.57; 10 – 10.22; 20 – 9.94; 30 – 10.55; 40 – 10.04; 50 – 10.18; 60 – 10.20. Mean: 10.24mm (10.21mm). Aggregate mean: 10.23mm Form and decorative scheme

See p. 100.

Inscriptions

There are no discernible inscriptions on the underside. Figural scenes Scene 1 (Pl. 183)

The central medallion is contained in a circular border of 78 square beads. Outside this is a further circular border, formed using a matting punch, as also seen on cat. 6 (see p. 109). Inside is a female bust (F1) facing right, her head covered by a veil – her possible identity is discussed below (p.

131). She has a long straight nose, quite flat to the face, prolonging the line of her forehead. The visible hair undulates across her forehead, the hair combed in the opposite direction at the top of the crown. There is a kisscurl on her cheek. The veil, which covers her ear and the back of her head, is formed of a series of parallel folds, shallowly raised, which run vertically down to her shoulders. The fold nearest her face is detailed with two parallel zigzag lines of dots, which undulate slightly as they follow the line of the textile. As with other busts on the flanged vessels, indications of her upper garments are provided by a few dashed lines. In the field are crescentic motifs of dashed lines. The lathe mark is visible beside the kiss-curl. Scene 2 (Pl. 184)

Comprises one animal to the left of a central tree and a pair of creatures to the right. The animal to the left is probably a young boar, as there is no visible tusk, but the presence of fur suggests that it cannot be a domesticated variety of pig.15 The boar (F2) stands facing left, with its head bowed to the ground, as if feeding, its left hind leg and its right foreleg straight, its left foreleg and right hind leg advanced forwards. Its short tufted tail extends out behind it at right angles to the body, the end drooped. The animal’s coat is detailed using a range of different styles: on its torso, triplets of crescents in alternate directions (see Pl. 46p); the upper part of its back by a series of deep horizontal teardrops; its head and legs with shallow dashed stippling (see Pl. 46f). To the right of the tree is a similar pair of boars facing away from their companion. The foreground boar (F3) is seated on its haunches with its right hind leg flat to the ground, its forelegs straight so that the animal props itself up on its front hooves. Its short tufted tail is flat out behind it. Its coat is detailed with horizontal double teardrops (see Pl. 46j), which become single dashes on the upper part of the back; its head with dashed stippling (and its left, chased foreleg); its ear (flat) with parallel lines of dashes. The companion animal (F4), mostly hidden by its partner, is in a similar stance; it is not clear if it is standing or sitting, for much of its hindquarters is obscured. Its features and the details of its coat are rendered like those of its companion, although the dashes are not invariably in distinct pairs. Between the animals stands a tree, similar to those on other vessels, in other words it has a trunk which flares at the base and two main branches, one which curves to the viewer’s left, the other that curves out to the right then upwards. These branches do not quite meet the two trilobate elements of the tree’s canopy. Unlike other trees, however, more detail (in the form of additional leaves) has been chased between the lobes, one on the left and two on the right. Again, an umbrella pine is the best match for what the craftsman probably had in mind (see p. 134). As in further scenes on this and the other flanged bowls, rocks and items of foliage populate the field. Scene 3 (Pl. 185)

This scene is bounded by a pair of busts that face inwards. The left (F5) is female (Pl. 186). She has a heavy, slightly hooked nose, which runs rather unflatteringly straight on into her forehead, like the bust in S1; the mouth is

The Large Flanged Bowls | 115

Plate 182 Large flanged bowl (cat. 7), obverse, reverse and profile (not to scale)

116 | The Mildenhall Treasure

downturned. Her hair consists of two swathes of loose curls that run vertical to her face and terminate in a double bun at the back. The rest of the hair is tightly combed flat to the crown. There is a three-strand kiss-curl just below the hidden ear and a couple of loose strands of hair on her neck. The top of the upper garments are depicted in the same manner as on the other busts. Behind her face an ovoid object has been chased, probably a percussion instrument; but as this has been left undecorated, it is difficult to be certain. If this is correct it would identify her as a maenad. The other bust (F9) (Pl. 187) is a youthful male facing left. He has a strong nose and chin, downturned lips and a large ear. His hair is brushed forwards, detailed as horizontal shallow dashed stippling (see Pl. 46f), which culminates in a jagged fringe of parallel lines that run onto his forehead, repeated at the back. In this respect, he appears to be a younger version of the male bust in cat. 6 S2 (p. 112). The main part of the scene depicts a capture in progress. The prey (F7), an ox or perhaps an aurochs,16 appears to be quite a young animal, when compared with the big cats in the scene (although this might just be an error of scale and perspective). It stands facing left with its head slightly bowed. Its forelegs are parallel and extended (the right chased), the left hind leg forwards, the right hind leg extended back out behind the beast; its tail, which seems overly long, curls back over the left hindquarters and ends above the lower back. It has short curved horns, the right chased. Its coat is detailed by lines of mainly vertical dashed

Plate 183 Veiled female bust (cat. 7, scene 1, figure 1)

stippling (horizontal on its rear, ‘behind’ the tail); deeper and widely spaced dashes detail the crown. The bovine creature has been caught by a big cat (F8), which judging from its coat is a leopardess, but might conceivably be a spotted lioness.17 She stands on her hind legs with the left hind leg outstretched and planted behind her, the right (unusually, not chased but raised) in the forward

Plate 184 Boars (cat. 7, scene 2, figures 2–4)

Plate 185 Leopards and ox (cat. 7, scene 3, figures 6–8)

The Large Flanged Bowls | 117

Plate 186 (left) Detail of female bust (cat. 7, scene 3, figure 5) Plate 187 (right) Detail of male bust (cat. 7, scene 3, figure 9)

position. Her visible left foreleg is fully extended and grips the left flank of the ox/aurochs. The tail curls up behind and back on itself. Her coat is detailed with punched rings (see Pl. 46O), the only example of such decoration on all the big cats shown on the various vessels in the treasure. In the left field is another big cat (F6), of similar shape to the other but with different detailing – again, it is probably a leopardess but equally could be a spotted lioness.18 She sits on her haunches with her right foreleg outstretched, the paw at a slight angle to the ground; her left forepaw (chased), is raised as if about to swat the head of the ox/aurochs. The paw has a curious shadow, as if the craftsman changed his mind about the exact position in which the paw should be depicted, but having shifted it neglected to remove the traces of the first attempt. Her mouth is open, and her ears are flat to the head. The tail curls out behind flat to the ground, then upwards and back on itself. The coat is detailed with light vertical dashed stippling, the rosettes with widely spaced punched rings (see Pl. 46m). One of the fern-like trees has been depicted ‘behind’ the ox; the trunk is barely shown, just a few dashes behind the left front hoof, the two leaf elements emerging just above the shoulder, also chased. As on other vessels, chased plant motifs and rocks are shown in various places in the field. Scene 4 (Pl. 188)

This view mirrors S2; it is a tranquil pastoral scene, in this case two pairs of horses either side of a central tree. In the Plate 188 Horses (cat. 7, scene 4, figures 10–13)

118 | The Mildenhall Treasure

left field a pair of horses stand side by side in identical stances, a stallion in front, a mare behind; both incline their heads as if cropping the grass. The stallion (F11) stands with a straight left hind leg and right foreleg (chased), but the left foreleg and right hind leg (chased) are outstretched forwards. The tail extends out and then hangs behind. His coat is not detailed, with only gentle undulations in the raised metal to indicate the folds of the flesh; chased lines have been used to depict the mane on his head and shoulder, and the central section is detailed by a line of dashes. His companion (F10) stands in an identical pose; although her head is equally well detailed, the body is only slightly raised from the vessel’s surface, and her neck and forelegs (or foreleg) are little more than rather hastily chased lines. No attempt has been made to depict her hind legs, which ought to be partially visible behind her companion. To the right of the tree is another pair of horses, again probably male and female. The standing horse (F13) is certainly a stallion; he has his head raised and facing forwards, his left fore- and hind legs are straight, the right foreleg (chased) set back slightly (though straight), the left hind leg (also chased) in a forward position. He is detailed in an identical manner to the additional pair of horses on the oppposite side of the tree. The other horse (F12) lies on the ground, facing her companion; she nuzzles her head against the stallion’s neck, while he rests his chin on her mane. Her visible right hind leg is stretched out along the ground, while the right foreleg is tucked underneath her body and the left

Plate 189 Bears and horse (cat. 7, scene 5, figures 15–17)

foreleg (chased) is stretched out in front of her and bent at the knee. The central tree is another example of the type with a trilobate double leaf canopy, probably a stylized umbrella pine (see p. 136); the branches almost meet the leaves. One of the fern-like trees is shown emerging (chased) from behind the rump of the standing horse in the right field; no attempt has been made to depict the trunk, even though it may have been partially ‘visible’ behind the hind legs of the horse. Again, there are various plant/grass tufts in the field. Scene 5 (Pl. 189)

The view mirrors the hunting scene in S3 opposite, in the sense that it depicts a post-kill feast but with different animals. In fact it has more in common with S5 on cat. 6, with which it compares well, particularly with regard to the predators. The scene is flanked by busts, neither of which can be easily identified. The left bust (F14) (Pl. 190) is a woman with a slightly ‘ski-slope’ nose and hair arranged in loose waves which undulate from her forehead across the side of her head and culminate in a double bun; the hair on the crown is brushed in the opposite direction and flat to the head. There is a three-strand kiss-curl on her cheek, and loose strands on her neck and behind her neck. Her garments, like those of the other busts, are detailed with simple punched dashes. The right-side bust (F18) is a youthful male (Pl. 191). His nose is large and heavy, and he has a very thin line of a mouth and poorly defined lips. He has long, flowing locks,

which cascade down to his shoulders; he has a rather flat quiff, and there are a few loose strands at the back (chased). His garments are depicted not quite as other busts, for these consist of three dotted lines only, one across the line of his neck and two more which radiate from this line forwards from the rear. The fallen beast in the centre (F16) of the scene is probably a stallion, judging from its similarities to the horses in scene 4. He is dead, or in his death-throes. He lies on his back with his left hind leg fully stretched out behind him, the right hind leg (chased) directly up in the air; the left foreleg is held out above him but bent at the knee back towards the body, the right (chased) upwards and less bent. His coat (like the horses in S4) is detailed only by the undulations in the metal, which cleverly suggest the lines of the rib-cage. A further nice detail is the right paw of the predator behind resting on the horse’s tail. The predators are stylized bears, their most distinguishing feature being the hump on the upper part of the back. The bear in the left field is sitting on its haunches with its front legs extended and planted on the ground. Its coat is detailed as vertical undulating waves (see Pl. 46a), with dashed stippling used for the head and paws. The bear is sinking its teeth into the top of the horse’s left hind leg. His companion is in a similar pose but facing to the left. Unlike the first bear, on the second creature a semblance of a tail is shown by an indent in the metal, as if it is tucked under its body or flat to it. It is sinking its teeth into the neck of the horse. Grass tufts, but no trees in this instance, are chased in various places in the field.

Plate 190 (left) Detail of female bust (cat. 7, scene 5, figure 14) Plate 191 (right) Detail of male bust (cat. 7, scene 5, figure 18)

The Large Flanged Bowls | 119

Plate 192 Large flanged bowl (cat. 8), obverse, reverse and profile (not to scale)

120 | The Mildenhall Treasure

Cat. 8 Large flanged bowl (Pls 147–8, 192) (British Museum 1946,1007.6; Brailsford 1947/1955, cat. 8; Painter 1973, cat. 7; Painter 1977a, cat. 6). Dimensions

Diameter: 269mm Width of rim: 46mm Diameter of bowl: 173mm Total height: 87mm; height of bowl section: 60mm Diameter of foot-ring: 90mm Height of foot-ring: 20mm Weight: 1,271g (3.9 librae) Estimated capacity: 1,095ml (2.0 sextarii) Number of beads: 67 Bead dimensions (mm): 1 – 10.22; 10 – 9.66; 20 – 10.11; 30 – 9.99; 40 – 9.43; 50 – 10.33; 60 – 10.36. Mean: 10.01mm (10.01mm). Aggregate mean: 10.01mm Form and decorative scheme

See p. 100. The central lathe mark has been retained in the centre of the base. Inscriptions (Pls 193 and 398)

There is a pointillé inscription on the underside of the flange, probably a weight inscription (see pp. 235–6). The inscription has been read by Tomlin as: P XXΛII – symbol II – symbol ΛII p(ondo) XXVII (scripula) II (unciae) VII By weight, 27 (pounds), 2 scruples, 7 ounces.

If this is the case, then the total weight suggested by the graffito approximates to 9,0.34.5g.19 This weight cannot apply exclusively to cat. 8 (which was also the case with the graffito on cat. 5; see p. 100) and does not make for a neat calculation either if each of the surviving bowls, excluding cat. 5 (which is either from a different set, or added later to make up the set because one of the original four was lost; see pp. 136–8) was produced from around 4 Roman pounds of silver.20 Rather, this weight would equate to a set of seven 4-pound bowls. So given that the other two bowls in this set (cats 6–7) lack weight graffiti, implying that they are certainly part of the same set, does this mean that there were originally four additional bowls? Seven is, however, a rather unusual number, even if this number of diners is sometimes depicted reclining on the late Roman stibadium, the curved dining couch common to late antique dining. Archaeological evidence, such as the villa of the Falconer at Argos, with a mosaic marked out for seven diners, and contemporary illustrations, such as tomb paintings from the Rome catacombs, attest to this.21 However, seven vessels does not correspond with what is known of vessel sets in other dining services from either the early or late Roman period, where pairs, or sets of four or six items of common type, seem to be the norm.22

Plate 193 Weight graffito on reverse of flange (cat. 8)

to the right (F1). She has a slightly hooked nose, a full chin and slightly fleshy neck, giving her a matriarchal appearance. Her eye looks curiously unfinished; a pupil has not been added, which is the only instance of this in the entire assemblage. Her hair is represented as undulating waves that run from her forehead to the back where she has a two-part bun, below which fall a pair of loose strands chased in the background. Two further strands run down the nape of her neck, and beside her ear (not visible) she has a three-strand kiss-curl, with another pair of loose strands and a single loose strand just below her ear. The hair on her crown is flat to her skull at right angles to the bulk of her hair. The garment that starts below her neck is indicated by a simple series of chased lines, one which runs across the base of the neck, and two pairs of further lines which radiate downwards from this. In the field are five sets of crescentic dashed-line motifs, as seen on other vessels (e.g. cat. 5) – as in other places, the significance of these is unclear. The identity of the bust is also unclear (see Discussion below). Scene 2 (Pl. 195)

Composed of two pairs of animals left and right of a central tree. The first pair in the left-hand field are bulls or oxen; they stand side by side, facing left, both with their heads bowed as if cropping the grass (there is no sense that they are Plate 194 Female bust (cat. 8, scene 1, figure 1)

Decorative elements Scene 1 (Pl. 194)

Ninety-three square-sided beads form the circular frame of the central medallion, which depicts a female head facing

The Large Flanged Bowls | 121

Plate 195 Bulls or oxen (cat. 8, scene 2, figures 2–5)

Plate 196 Detail of tree (cat. 8, scene 2)

poised to charge). The foremost beast (F3) is certainly male, his companion presumably also male to judge from the horns. The nearer horn overlaps the body of the second animal and the other horn has been chased into the coat of the other beast before its hide was detailed. The hide is detailed using parallel undulating or radiating lines of shallow dashed vertical and horizontal stippling (see Pl. 46f). Larger, more widely spaced horizontal dashed stippling has been used to detail the top of the head. Only the right hind leg, the hoof of the right foreleg (and the right horn) have been chased in the background silver. His long tufted tail hangs down almost to his hooves. The background bull (F2) is detailed in an identical manner to his companion; the only difference is that both of his forelegs and his right horn are chased. His hind legs, which ought to be visible below the belly of the foreground beast, have not been depicted, in a similar manner to the background ewe in cat. 5, S4 (p. 108). The second pair of animals, which occupy the right-hand field, are similar to the first pair but appear to be bulkier – perhaps they are more mature. Their pose is identical to that of the left-hand pair in S4 of cat. 5; the only difference is that the head of the foreground beast (F4) is not turned. But he lies in an identical fashion, with his tail curving out behind him, his left hind leg stretched forwards, the left foreleg tucked under his body, and his right foreleg bent such that the hoof is flat to the ground. His right foreleg and his right horn are chased. His hide is detailed with vertical shallow dashed stippling (see Pl. 46f), the crown of his head with deeper, more widely spaced horizontal dashed stippling.

122 | The Mildenhall Treasure

The other animal (F5), as in cat. 5, S4, stands behind, facing in the opposite direction. The background (left) horn and his tail are chased. The visible tuft of the tail hangs down below the nose of his companion. Between the sets of animals stands a tree (Pl. 196). As in cat. 5, S2, it has a wide flaring trunk base and two main branches that terminate in tripartite foliate devices, probably representing parts of the leaf canopy. However these rather ‘float’, for the branches do not quite meet them; this is particularly the case with the left-hand branch, which stops very short of the foliate motif. In the field are various decorative motifs including a two-tiered rectangular motif above the beasts with a series of short dashes below, indicating a river or ground surface. Scene 3 (Pl. 197)

This scene is flanked by busts. The first is of a youthful male (F6) (Pl. 198), very similar in appearance to the hunter in S1 of cat. 5; he is shown in profile facing right into the scene. Like the woman in the centre (F1) he has a slightly hooked nose and his ear appears a little oversized, but not satyr-like. He has short hair brushed forwards, detailed as undulating waves (see Pl. 46a); hair also covers the nape of his neck. Extending out of his forehead is an arrow or spear23 that has been chased using short conjoined dashes (see Pl. 46d); the significance of this is unclear. It perhaps represents an attribute intended to identify the bust, but if so the identity of the mythological figure is uncertain. The female bust on the right side facing inwards (F10) (Pl. 199) is very similar to the bust in S1. The hair is identical to the bust in the centre, including the kiss-curl and loose strands at the back, on her temple and below the ear. It is unclear whom the bust is intended to represent.24 The central scene (Pl. 197) shows two animals with a big cat in hot pursuit. The prey are a pair of male goats running at full pelt to the left, ‘out’ of the scene; the foreground goat (F7) has a long dangling beard and a pair of curving horns, the right chased using a series of conjoined punched dashes. His coat is detailed with vertical undulating waves (see Pl. 46a), and shallow dashed horizontal stippling for the legs and head (see Pl. 46f). The right foreleg is chased (mostly represented by the stippling), although the hoof is slightly raised; the right hind leg is also chased, but is almost entirely obscured by the left, with which it is parallel.

Plate 197 Leopard and goats (cat. 8, scene 3, figures 7–9)

The second animal (F8) is identical to his companion. His chest is obscured and his left foreleg (chased with short dashes) is only partially visible below the other animal’s belly. His coat and head is detailed just as the other, although a slight error has occurred, because the part of the coat below the foreground animal’s tail ought to be detailed as undulating lines (if it is to match that of the other), but instead is rendered as horizontal stippling; clearly this is because it was thought that this was the top of the animal’s left foreleg, when in fact this is obscured by the rump of the other. Its tail is also different as it is chased with a short line of conjoined punched dots. The pair of goats is close to capture by the big cat, whose left forepaw is touching the left hind leg of the second goat. The animal (F9) is a leopardess,25 who springs forwards from her hind legs which rest on the ground, with the rest of her body in mid-air. Her forelegs are outstretched and her mouth open in readiness for the kill. The tail curls out and back towards the body. The main coat is detailed with heavy elliptical stippling (which is arranged in radiating lines on the hindquarters) and rings have been punched across all parts of the cat’s body to indicate the rosettes (see Pl. 46n). Around the animal’s jaw deeper and longer dashes have been added. Behind the leopard stands a tree or large fern; the trunk, which flares slightly at the bottom and has an inverted ‘V’shaped notch in its base, is chased using a series of

conjoined dashed lines. The tree then has two teardropshaped pieces of foliage that emerge above the leopard’s back; the left is chased, the right raised from the surface. These are detailed with light dashed stippling, with further dashes around their respective perimeters. As in other places, it might be identified as a stylized date palm (see p. 136). Below the leopard’s torso on the right side of the trunk is a raised rectangular motif, presumably a rock, and as in other places there are various other details such as grass tufts in the field. Below the torso of the foreground goat is an ovoid object raised from the surface, detailed with randomly spaced crosses. It is unclear what this motif is supposed to represent; it does not have enough in common with other ovoid objects in the treasure that can be identified as drums or tambourines to be classified with them. There are further tufts of grass in the field and in various places crescentic dashed motifs. Scene 4 (Pl. 200)

Like S2 opposite, this is another tranquil, pastoral scene. To the left of a dividing tree is a ram (F11), very likely to be domestic, given the way the horns are depicted.26 He stands with his head bowed as if cropping the grass. His long visible horn spirals from his forehead and around in a clockwise direction, thinning as it goes, and terminates beside the eye. His long tail lies flat to his body and terminates in a generous

Plate 198 (left) Detail of male bust (cat. 8, scene 3, figure 6) Plate 199 (right) Detail of female bust (cat. 8, scene 3, figure 10)

The Large Flanged Bowls | 123

Plate 200 Sheep and goats (cat. 8, scene 4, figures 11–13)

bulb that curls upwards.27 His fleece is detailed with a series of curving lines of horizontal widely spaced ovals (see Pl. 46g), his head and chased background legs with vertical dashed stippling (see Pl. 46f). To the right of the dividing tree is a pair of goats, similar to those being pursued in S3, but perhaps intended as older animals as they appear to be bulkier and their horns heavier. The first goat (F12) is lying down and faces right; his right hind leg is bent, the foreleg resting on the ground, while the right foreleg is bent back under him and the left foreleg (chased) outstretched in front but bent at the knee. His horns curve out behind him, both detailed with chased parallel notches spaced out along their length. The coat is detailed with vertical undulating waves, exactly as in S3 (see Pl. 46a); the head and legs with dashed stippling. The other goat (F13) stands facing his companion (i.e. into the scene); his head is bent downwards and his visible (left) ear is pricked. The right foreleg and hind legs are chased, as is the right (background) horn. His coat and other details are rendered in the same manner as his companion. Between the ram in the left field and the left-hand goat stands a tree, the trunk of which curves around to follow the line of the back of the recumbent goat. It is very similar in style to the tree in S2 (see Pl. 196), except that the longer of its two main branches curves out to the right instead of the left and two further stumps of branches have been chased. Another ‘date palm’ (see p. 136) is shown with its trunk in the background between the hind legs of the standing goat, almost identical to a similar tree in S3. Plate 201 Bears and boar (cat. 8, scene 5, figures 15–17)

124 | The Mildenhall Treasure

Before the inclined head of the standing goat is an uncertain object, perhaps a kind of basket, not dissimilar to the one in cat. 5, S2 (see pp. 105–6). It consists of an inverted truncated cone with an ovoid lid, although it is possible that this is not a lid but the inside of the vessel; the ‘lid’ has the appearance of having a rim or a lip and is decorated with punched dashes. The body is detailed with a series of chased chevrons and stands on what might be intended as a rock, composed of a few chased lines. As with cat. 5, S2, if these are the basket’s contents it is not clear what was intended; perhaps it contains animal feed. As in the other scenes, there are various tufts of grass depicted, and another rectangular ‘rock’ motif above the neck of the ram. Scene 5 (Pl. 201)

This is similar to S3 directly opposite, in that the scene concerns an aspect of the hunt, in this instance, the beginning of the feast after a successful kill (but not the same kill that is in progress in S3). It too is flanked by busts which face into the scene. The first bust is male (F14) (Pl. 202); in this sense he is the companion of the one directly opposite in S3. He has long flowing locks which cascade down as far as the nape of his neck; the appearance is of loose tresses with a few strands chased on the outer edges. Like other busts, the top of his clothing is shown by a series of chased lines. The female bust (F18) on the right side of the scene (Pl. 203) is identical to the one directly opposite in S3. The only difference is that the base of her neck is flatter to the rim; and also that there is a little more hair shown, with four curls of

Plate 202 (left) Detail of male bust (cat. 8, scene 5, figure 14) Plate 203 (right) Detail of female bust (cat. 8, scene 5, figure 18)

hair running down the back of her neck. Neither bust can be readily identified with particular characters. In the main part of the scene three animals are depicted. The central one is a boar (F16) lying on its back, either dead or close to death; its legs are outstretched into the air above it, all straight apart from the right foreleg, which is bent at the knee. Its mouth is open, its right tusk visible. Its coat is detailed with a double teardrop pattern which generally follows the line of the body (see Pl. 46j); shallow dashed stippling is used instead to detail the fur on the head and legs. It has a short tail. Chased notches indicate the raised fur on its shoulders and hindquarters. A pair of bears, each with a distinctive hump on its shoulder,28 are starting to feast on the fallen boar or sink their teeth in as they wait for it to die. The left-hand bear (F15) crouches on its hind legs, its outstretched right foreleg planted for balance, the left (chased) foreleg resting on the boar’s jaw. Its coat is detailed with vertical undulating waves (see Pl. 46a); its legs and head are instead indicated with shallow dashed stippling (see Pl. 46f). Its companion bear (F17) is in a similar crouched pose, but both its forelegs rest on the flanks of the boar (only the left is visible); it is sinking its teeth into the boar’s belly. Its coat is detailed in the same manner as its companion’s. Unlike all the other scenes on this vessel, each background motif is chased. This includes an elliptical fern or fern-like tree that extends from the back of the left bear, like those in S3 and S4. A ‘rock’ in the shape of a parallelogram is shown above the back of the right-hand bear (made up of punched dashes). Further tufts of grass and dashed-crescent motifs populate the field. Discussion: form, dimensions and distribution Form and dimensions (Pl. 204; Table 10)

Bowls with a wide and flat ‘flanged’ rim are one of the commonest types of silver vessel of the fourth and early fifth centuries.29 The form does not appear to be known earlier.30 The form is partially paralleled in African Red Slipware (Hayes form 74), which Hayes dates to the third quarter of the fifth century.31 It is also known in pewter, both in Britain (e.g. a vessel in the Appleshaw, Hampshire hoard),32 and on the continent (e.g. the hoard from Alise-Sainte-Reine, France).33

Forty-seven silver examples, incorporating Mildenhall cats 5–10 inclusive (for the full catalogue entries for cats 9–10, see the next chapter), are tabulated in Table 10, with selected examples illustrated in Plate 204. Although a number of these are individual pieces, some are present in hoards of tableware believed to be reasonably complete services, which may give some indication of how many such bowls made up a set. Thus the Mildenhall treasure has six, as does Izvoarele, and Kaiseraugst five. (The Hoxne treasure has four such bowls, but as the hoard contains only selected elements of a tableware service it is not entirely relevant to this discussion.) The more recent hoard from Vinkovci has the largest number of bowls of this type, a total of nine, although at present it is unclear how these may or may not be arranged in sets, as the treasure is still being conserved; and a similarly odd number of seven is implied by the weight graffiti on cat. 6 (see above). So it might seem reasonable to suggest that flanged bowls came in sets of between four and six, but dining services could contain greater numbers, perhaps even odd numbers at times. Irrespective of how such bowls can be formed into sets, they clearly had a different use at the table from larger vessels such as cats 1 and 4; their functionality is discussed further in Chapter 16 (p. 282). The form of these vessels is quite standardized. All have a flat floor or base, which then curves sharply to a steep, near vertical wall, which then turns sharply again in a horizontal direction to form a flange which is then either turned down or turned down and further moulded. The foot-ring can be quite low (e.g. cat. 9) or quite high (e.g. cat. 5, Izvoarele, 33.712), with the foot-ring to height ratio varying between 0.08 (Vinkovci, provisional cat. 22) and 0.26 (Mildenhall (cat. 8) and the height to diameter of bowl ratio between 0.36 (e.g. Izvoarele 33.712) and 0.50 (Traprain Law cat. 25)). Rims are often beaded (23 of 47 examples, thus approximately half); there are two examples from the recent Vinkovci treasure which have bead-and-reel rims, the only examples encountered during the course of this research (not illustrated in Pl. 204). How the form continued to develop is perhaps exemplified by a fragmentary flanged bowl on an exceptionally high foot-ring found at Kriimani in Estonia, probably of fifth-century date.34 In fact, it is interesting to note that the heights of foot-rings of these vessels fall broadly into two groups, irrespective of weight. The first group of

The Large Flanged Bowls | 125

126 | The Mildenhall Treasure

Plate 204 Examples of silver flanged bowls of the fourth century including cats 5–10, arranged by weight. Figures on the right of each profile are bowl height/bowl diameter (ratio), i.e. excluding foot-ring and flange

SILVER BOWLS WITH FLANGED RIMS* ‘Half-pound’ bowls (84–96mm; 117–145mm total) Name

Height/ diameter (ratio)

‘Three to five pound’ bowls (168–89mm; 196–297mm total)

‘One pound’ bowls (92-152mm; 152–215mm total)

Foot-ring/ Weight (g) Name height (Roman lb) (mm)

Height/ diameter (ratio)

Foot-ring/ Weight (g) Name height (Roman lb) (mm)

Constantinopleb † 60/145 (0.41)

11/60 (0.18)

?

Izvoarele 33.711

64/152 (0.42)

?

Izvoarele 33.712b

35/96 (0.36)

16/57 (0.28)

c. 100 (0.3) Carthage cat. 2bd

49/127 (0.39)

Vinkovci provisional cat. 48BR †

48/144 (0.33)

7/48 (0.15) 191 (0.6)

Šabacbd †

Traprain Law cat. 22b

38/96 (0.39)

11/51 (0.21)

Traprain Law cat. 26b

42/96 (0.44)

Kostolac (Popović 1994, no. 276)b?d †

Height/ Foot-ring/ Weight diameter height (Roman lb) (mm)

c. 500 (1.5) Mildenhall cat. 5bd

68/189 (0.36)

20/92 (0.22)

1,718 (5.2)

7/54 (0.13) 331.9 (1.0)

Mildenhall cat. 6bd

64/168 (0.38)

20/90 (0.23)

1,301 (4.0)

61/182 (0.34)

?

484.0 (1.5)

Mildenhall cat. 7bd

62/171 (0.36)

22/87 (0.23)

1,320 (4.0)

Carthage cat. 1bd

44/105 (0.42)

8/57 (0.14) 388.2 (1.2)

Mildenhall cat. 8bd

60/173 (0.35)

20/87 (0.26)

1,271 (3.9)

8/57 (0.14) 148.7 (0.5)

‘Syria’b †

73/165 (0.44)

9/73 (0.12) 489 (1.5)

Kaiseraugst 78/185 cat. 51 (0.42)

12/91 (0.13) 919.8 (2.8)

46/136 (0.34)

?

169 (0.5)

Izvoarele 33.707

51/109 (0.47)

16/73 (0.22)

343.5 (1.0)

Vinkovci provisional cat. 15†

6/78 (0.08) 850 (2.6)

Kerch (Effenberger et al. 1978, cat. 3)b †

39/136 (0.29)

?

149.0 (0.5)

Izvoarele 33.708

51/109 (0.47)

16/73 (0.22)

321.1 (1.0)

Kerch (Effenberger et al. 1978, 134)b †

48/135 (0.36)

?

?

Izvoarele 33.709

51/109 (0.47)

16/73 (0.22)

324.6 (1.0)

Hoxne cat. 37

39/91 (0.43)

8/50 (0.16) 149.4 (0.5)

Izvoarele 33.710

51/109 (0.47)

16/73 (0.22)

c. 350 (1.1) Mildenhall cat. 9bd

45/107 (0.42)

8.5/58 (0.15)

615 (1.9)

Hoxne cat. 38

39/91 (0.43)

8/50 (0.16) 156.8 (0.5)

Traprain Law 50/109 cat. 23b (0.46)

12/66 (0.18)

294.3 (0.9)

Mildenhall cat. 10bd

45/107 (0.42)

8.5/58 (0.15)

627 (1.9)

Hoxne cat. 39

39/91 (0.43)

10/49 (0.20)

Kostolac 72/160 (Popović (0.45) 1994, no. 338)

?

?

149.9 (0.5)

166.9 (0.5)

73/196 (0.31)

‘Two pound’ bowls (107mm; 168mm total)

d†

Hoxne cat. 40

39/91 (0.43)

10/50 (0.20)

150.6 (0.5)

72/160 Kostolac (0.45) (Popović 1994, 358) d †

?

?

Traprain Law cat. 25b

42/84 (0.50)

10/51 (0.20)

123.8 (0.4)

Vinkovci provisional cat. 17†

50/160 (0.31)

c. 8.5

290.0 (0.9)

Vinkovci provisional cat. 21†

? 1/133

?

139 (0.4)

Vinkovci provisional cat. 18†

48/160 (0.30)

c. 8.5

258 (0.8)

Vinkovci provisional cat. 23BR †

?1/132

?

149.0 (0.5)

Vinkovci provisional cat. 19†

48/160 (0.30)

c. 8.5

259 (0.8)

Vinkovci provisional cat. 22b †

36/117 (0.31)

3/36 (0.08) 107 (0.3)

Vinkovci provisional cat. 20

c. 45/ c. 160 (c. 0.28)

4/c. 45 (0.09)

255 (0.8)

Total

47

256.9 (0.8)

Beaded

23

Traprain Law 46/97 (0.47) 12/64 cat. 24b (0.19) Kaiseraugst cat. 49

50/108 (0.46)

8/60 (0.13) 310.8 (0.9)

Bead and reel

2

Kaiseraugst cat. 47

50/108 (0.46)

7/59 (0.12) 296.1 (0.9)

Decorated

11 (or 12)

Kaiseraugst cat. 48

52/106 (0.49)

7/61 (0.11) 280.7 (0.9)

Kaiseraugst cat. 50

52/106 (0.49)

9/60 (0.15) 292.8 (0.9)

Traprain Law 48/92 (0.52) 14/66 cat. 27b (0.21)

328.5 (1.0)

Sulinb †

?

?/?

?

Table 10 Cats 5 to 10 in comparison with other flanged bowls of the fourth century (b = beaded; d = decorated with figurative or geometric decoration; br = bead and reel rim; 1 = not measured as the vessel is too fragmentary; † = measurements estimated from published photographs or drawings; * = also one from Latakia, Syria, in Cleveland Museum of Art (see Mango 1997, 89, fig. 3b; no dimensions given). Dimensions in non-italics are bowl height/bowl diameter; in italics total bowl height (including foot-ring)/total rim diameter (including flange)

The Large Flanged Bowls | 127

Plate 205 Distribution map of silver flanged bowls of the fourth century by weight

vessels has a foot-ring height of approximately 10mm or less (for example, vessels from Hoxne, Kaiseraugst and Carthage), and the second group between 16 and 20mm approximately (for example Mildenhall and Izvoarele). This may have a bearing on the dating of the form (see pp. 269–70). Bowls themselves are sometimes decorated on the flat rim and in the centre of the inner base (11 examples), but are more often plain. This means that there are four stages of complexity for flanged bowls: a completely plain bowl, like those from, for instance, Hoxne and Kaiseraugst; examples with beading or bead-and-reel decoration added to the rims, but otherwise plain, such as bowls from Vinkovci and Traprain Law; some examples with simple decoration on the inner base only; and a few instances in which raised decoration has been added to the rim, representing the most sophisticated or embellished form. At present, the only instances of this fourth level of complexity come from Mildenhall, Carthage, Šabac and Kostolac, but that many more vessels with decorated rims originally circulated is implied by pieces of Hacksilber, such as those from Traprain Law and Balline. It should also be emphasized that prior to the production of a flanged bowl, a decision had to be made as to whether or not decoration was intended, because the rim needed to be thicker to accommodate chasing; Johns

128 | The Mildenhall Treasure

makes this point in her discussion of the bowls from Hoxne, the flanges on which are not deep enough for chasing to have been possible later.35 Thus it would appear that the plain bowls were always intended to remain unembellished, although they could conceivably have had chased decoration added to their rims or other areas.36 Not included in Table 10, but relevant to this discussion, are three bowls in the unprovenanced ‘Munich’ treasure,37 which are of slightly different form as their flanged rims are convex rather than horizontal and also much narrower in relation to their bowls, the walls of which curve less severely than on all other examples. As these vessels can be closely dated to about ad 324, it might be suggested that their form serves as a precursor to the type under discussion here. There are also examples of bowls with flanged rims and an umbo in the base, such as one from the recent Vinkovci treasure (provisionally catalogued no. 16).38 In addition to the variations in foot-ring height and complexity of embellishment, there are also some reasonably clear divisions of weight (Pl. 204; Table 10).39 There is a group of small bowls, all undecorated,40 but sometimes with beaded or bead-and-reel rims, that were created from approximately half a Roman pound of silver and have a total rim diameter of approximately 126mm; on record are 16 examples. There is a larger, medium-sized group (normally

with a total rim diameter of around 184mm), which usually conform to the weight of a single Roman pound (two from Traprain Law, cats 23–4, and four vessels from Vinkovci weigh less than a pound, but all have sustained some damage which probably account for their being underweight); or are slightly heavier, such as vessels from Šabac and ‘Syria’ weighing 1.5 Roman pounds, as possibly does a vessel from Izvoarele.41 Finally there is a group of ‘large’ flanged bowls that weigh between 2.5 and 5 Roman pounds, and have a total rim diameter of between approximately 200 and 300mm. It is into this category that the Mildenhall large flanged bowls (cats 5–8) can be placed, as well as two plain vessels from Kaiseraugst and Vinkovci respectively; but note that these latter vessels are also the lightest vessels in this group. The interesting exceptions are Mildenhall cats 9–10 (see Chapter 6), which each weigh around 2 Roman pounds (it can be noted that this makes them about half the weight of the large flanged bowls in Mildenhall). Why all Mildenhall’s flanged bowls fall into the heaviest weight categories of flanged bowls is unclear, but is in keeping with other vessels in the treasure, whose weights also fall within the upper end of the scale for their comparanda vessel types (see for example p. 39). It is also worth noting some further complete and fragmentary flanged bowls that could not be fully considered here. The lost Trier hoard may have contained flanged bowls, but the description is too vague to be certain.42 A large section of flanged bowl from Traprain Law may have originally belonged to a vessel larger in terms of diameter than cat. 5,43 but its form is rather different; it has a circular foot-ring and an undecorated beaded flange, but the body of the vessel curves gently from the base to the rim, rather than having the steep side characteristic of the type. There is also a fragment of plain flanged and beaded rim in the Balline assemblage of ingots and Hacksilber: judging from an estimation of the dimensions in the published photograph, this probably originally belonged with a vessel in the middle ‘one pound’ category.44 A fragment of Hacksilber from Balinrees,45 preserving only the centre of the base and its flattened foot-ring, probably derives from a vessel of the ‘half-pound’ category, on the basis of its small foot-ring of c. 50mm diameter. Distribution (Pl. 205)

Flanged bowls have been discovered in both eastern and western parts of the empire and outside the frontiers, with the furthest-eastern example coming from Sulin on the Don River and the most north-westerly the vessels from Traprain Law. Within the empire itself there is clearly a strong bias towards the European frontier provinces, although this is largely a reflection of a wider pattern of silver plate distribution and patterns of hoarding (see Chapter 14). As Pl. 205 shows, there is no particular bias towards vessel size, with ‘half-pound’ and ‘one pound’ vessels relatively evenly spread. Vessels greater in weight are mainly concentrated in the west, with the exception in the furthest east of a single vessel in the recently discovered Vinkovci treasure, but there seems no reason to consider this a pattern of any significance. This is also the case in terms of the rim types and decoration; beaded rims are a feature of discoveries in

Plate 206 Detail of mosaic from El Hinojal villa, Mérida, with hunter and boar, fourth century. Museo Nacional de Arte Romano Mérida, inv. no. CE27922

both west and east, as are plain rims (for instance, Hoxne in the west and Izvoarele in the east), and vessels with figurative decoration again show no particular geographical pattern. So, in essence, the distribution pattern rather seems to reflect the fact that these vessels were a common vessel type certainly deposited, and by inference in use, throughout the empire and beyond the frontiers. Discussion: figural decoration Layout

Flat decorated rims, in which scenes are separated by busts or other devices (e.g. approximations of buildings, such as on the ‘city on sea’ platter in the Kaiseraugst treasure),46 and a central decorated medallion, have a relatively long history in the medium of silver plate. There are a number of examples of silver vessels of the first to third centuries on which broadly similar compositions and iconography can be found: for instance on the rims of platters from Graincourt-lèsHavrincourt and Vienne.47 But the flanged bowl was a fourth-century or later form (see p. 125), and therefore the discussion that follows is restricted primarily to distinctive points of comparison between cats 5–8 and contemporary vessels. This begins with a discussion of the imagery in the central medallions and proceeds to a discussion of the figural decoration on the flat vessel rims. Plate 207 Detail of hunter and bear on silver vessel, unprovenanced, fourth century. Musée du Louvre, inv. no. MNE 610

The Large Flanged Bowls | 129

0

10

20cm

Plate 208 Silver plate from Gazipaşa, fourth century

The medallions in the inner bases of cats 5–8 Cat. 5: the hunter and bear

As discussed below (pp. 132–6) there is a consistency to the decoration on the flanged rims of cats 5–8, even if there are subtle differences between them. The same cannot be said, however, for the medallions in the central bases of each of these vessels (cats 5–8, S1). Cat. 5 has a scene of a hunter spearing a bear, which is consistent with the animal-hunting scenes on the flanged rims of all the bowls (although it is the only scene with human agency), but marks it out as distinct from the other three bowls, which is consistent with the fact that it was almost certainly not part of the original set (see pp. 136–8). That this image is based on stock imagery is suggested by a very similar composition on a mosaic panel from a triclinium of the villa of El Hinojal, near Mérida in Spain, albeit with a boar rather than a bear (Pl. 206).48 The only reasonably close parallel for this scene on silver plate comes from an unprovenanced handled pouring vessel dated to the fourth century in the Louvre (Pl. 207). The scene in question is in the lower register, and since it does not have the space restrictions imposed by a circular border it is stylistically much looser. The figures are even less naturalistic than on cat. 5, S1: the bear is a very odd-looking creature, and the hunter, naked bar a cloak around his neck, is extremely poorly proportioned, with an elongated torso and short stocky legs. There is a central tree of different type to that of cat. 5, and the bear is suffering the additional indignity of being attacked by a dog. Despite these differences, both scenes are clearly inspired by similar models. Cats 6 to 8: Alexander the Great and Olympias?

The three other vessels all portray busts in their bases, which link them with the busts that separate the animal scenes on the rims, although close comparison is only possible in one case (cat. 8). As was the case with most of the rim busts (the exceptions being the heads of satyrs), these busts too are not

130 | The Mildenhall Treasure

Plate 209 Detail of veiled female in centre of silver plate from Rülzheim, third century? Direktion Landesarchäologie, RheinlandPfalz, Speyer

identifiable with absolute certainty, but we are perhaps on safer ground because of their distinctive nature. The two busts that have received the most attention are those of the youthful helmeted male in the basal centre of cat. 6 and the veiled female in cat. 7. The former has most regularly been identified as Alexander the Great. This identification was first suggested by Brailsford and endorsed by both Toynbee and Painter in subsequent publications. In turn, the suggestion was made that the veiled woman is by inference Alexander’s mother, Olympias, thus providing a direct iconographic link between the two bowls.49 However, these publications failed to cite parallels and other interpretations have also been offered. Dohrn suggested that the male bust is in fact female and a representation of Gloria; this was inferred by comparison with coin iconography, particularly the ‘gloria romanorum’ issues of Constans and Magnentius.50 The reverse of these coins shows a helmeted figure facing left, i.e. Dohrn’s ‘Gloria’. However, it appears that Dohrn based his interpretation on the assumption that the object behind the bust in cat. 6 is one of the figure’s wings, which he found paralleled on the coins; this is clearly incorrect, since it undoubtedly represents not a wing but a shield. On the latter point, it is interesting to note that a parallel can be made with the shield shown in the diptych of Stilicho in Monza Cathedral:51 on the latter the texturing (which looks like overlapping scales) is very clear, while on the Mildenhall example the texture is only suggested by a series of dashed crescents (see pp. 109–10). The same can be said for Dohrn’s suggestion that the veiled female in cat. 8 represents Ceres (although Dohrn expresses caution in this interpretation): Ceres is often shown veiled, but she more often than not has an ear of corn in her hair, which this bust lacks.52 More recently, it has been argued that since busts of Alexander are virtually unknown in late antiquity, Mars is a more likely candidate, by comparison with a similar bust on a fragment of marble table dated to the sixth century from Zagrade (Serbia); but the latter bust is rather different in

appearance, not least because he has his gaze firmly fixed on the heavens, so is not considered a good parallel.53 At first sight, too, a helmeted bust on a silver vessel from Gazipaşa, Turkey, appears to provide a good comparison, but this is unambiguously a depiction of Minerva, as her attributes are clear (Pl. 208). As for the veiled woman, it is worth mentioning that a recent discovery of hacked silver plate from Rülzheim, Rhineland-Palatine, has a similar veiled female bust in the centre (Pl. 209).54 Since other suggested interpretations are unconvincing, there seems little reason to dispute that the youthful bust in cat. 6 does indeed represent Alexander the Great and by inference the veiled bust in cat. 7 his mother Olympias. Regardless, it is not the case that portraits of Alexander are rare in late antiquity; as Stewart observes, Alexander actually had a renaissance during this time. Indeed, there was what could be described as a ‘late-antique obsession’, demonstrated with ‘numerous cameos, gems, pendants, glass vessels, statuettes and even Coptic textiles’.55 Thus this portrait, even if the medium is more unusual, is in good company. One such parallel is a bust on an intaglio in the Farnese collection, which also has long flowing locks of hair emerging from the base of the helmet (Pl. 210), as does another bust in the same collection.56 This interest in Alexander is also expressed in literature, which is of particular relevance in this context since it refers quite specifically to the display of busts of Alexander the Great on silver plate. The quotation comes from the Triginta Tyranni of Trebellius Pollio in the Historia Augusta, and dates from around the time of Diocletian in the early fourth century:57 ….a peculiar custom (of the Macriani family) which they have always observed. For an embossed head of Alexander the Great of Macedonia was always used by the men on their rings and their silver plate….

Later in the same passage there is a description of the use of a vessel that bears a close resemblance to cat. 6: We, ourselves, recently saw Cornelius Macer, a man of that same family, while giving a dinner in the Temple of Hercules, drink the health of a pontiff from a bowl made of electrum, which had in the centre the face of Alexander and contained on the circumference his whole history in small and minute figures, and this he caused to be passed around to all the most ardent admirers of that great hero.

Plate 210 Alexander on a topaz intaglio, late Roman. Farnese collection, National Archaeological Museum, Naples, inv. no. 26226

Thus Alexander the Great in the base of cat. 6 allows his mother Olympias to be inferred as the veiled bust in the base of cat. 7. Although it is not possible to cite another instance where the two busts appear side by side in quite the same manner, a contorniate type of the fourth to fifth centuries (another example of the late Roman interest in Alexander) has a figure of the king seated on a cuirass on the obverse and a bust of a veiled Olympias on the reverse (Pl. 211).58 Less easy to interpret is the other female bust, this time not veiled, in the base of cat. 8. There is no obvious familial relationship between this bust and the other two discussed, but there hardly needs to be, given that a ‘mix and match’ approach has been adopted for much of the figural decoration on these four bowls (see discussion of the animal scenes below). Given that she bears a close resemblance to the other female busts on the rim of the same vessel, the obvious conclusion to reach is that she was added to the base out of convenience, another female head who may or may not be intended as a maenad. But the busts in cats 6–7 remain notable, for the simple reason that they are different from all other figures depicted on the treasure, which are

Plate 211 Copper-alloy contorniate showing Olympias (obverse) and Alexander (reverse), late fourth to fifth century. British Museum, 1921,0509.1

The Large Flanged Bowls | 131

Provenance of silver plate

Date

Vessel form

Frieze dividers

Medallion or frieze elements

Characterization

Mildenhall cat. 5

350–400

flanged bowl

busts

Hunter spearing bear; goats, boars, cattle and sheep at rest; griffins attacking horse, leopards attacking bull

L, K

Mildenhall cat. 6

350–400

flanged bowl

busts

Goats and sheep at rest; bear pursuing deer; bear capturing goat

L, C, K

Mildenhall cat. 7

350–400

flanged bowl

busts

Boar and horses at rest; leopards capturing ox; bears feasting on horse

L, K, F

Mildenhall cat. 8

350–400

flanged bowl

busts

Bulls, goats and sheep at rest; leopard chasing goat; bears feasting on boar

L, C, F

Šabac (Biroli Stefanelli 1991, cat. 223)

300–400

flanged bowl

4 busts of deities (Hercules, Apollo, Diana, ?Cybele)

Sheep, horses, goats and cattle at rest

L

Kostolac (Popović 1994, 358)

300–400

2 flanged bowls

busts

Bestial hunts, e.g. lion chasing a stag

C

Traprain Law cat. 36

300–400

steep-sided dish

Bacchic masks

Beasts hunting, e.g. hound pursuing a ram and doe; leopard capturing a deer; bear hunting a stag while fawn flees below

C, K

Traprain Law cat. 88

300–400

Hacksilber

n/a

Pair of running deer, one looking back; hind legs of a third

C

Traprain Law cat. 37

300–400

Hacksilber (two fragments)

n/a

Running stag and another fleeing ungulate

C

Traprain Law cat. 38

300–400

Hacksilber

female bust, head and shoulders

Grazing horse; hounds ?feasting on unknown prey

L, ?F

Carthage cat. 1

300–350?

flanged bowl

busts

Shepherd with dog and sheep in central medallion; shepherds reclining with dog and sheep or standing and tending sheep

L

Carthage cat. 2

300–350?

flanged bowl

busts

Shepherd with pan-pipes and cattle; shepherd with dog and sheep; tiger chasing a deer; lion chasing a deer

L, C

Table 11 The large flanged bowls (cats 5–8) and closely comparable objects in silver plate decorated with hunting scenes, arranged by approximate production date, latest to earliest. Characterization abbreviations (for fuller description, see p. 133): L = at leisure; C =chase; K = capture/kill; F = feasting

either obviously Bacchic or, where there is ambiguity, can still be interpreted as being Bacchic in nature. A reference to Alexander would extend the range of Classical themes with which the proprietor of the treasure wished to demonstrate familiarity; it provides further evidence for the owner’s desire to express their paideia, i.e. their Classical education and knowledge of Graeco-Roman tradition, of which Alexander and his achievements were naturally part of the wider canon. His inclusion is not in any case a major departure from the overall theme, since ‘analogies between Alexander, Achilles and Dionysus … were often suggested in the various accounts of Alexander’s life’.59 Before discussing the decoration on the rims of these vessels, the final point concerning Alexander is the infrequency with which he appears as the subject of artistic representation in Roman Britain. In fact, this cat. 6 depiction is one of only a few instances known in Britain: he appears only on four intaglios.60 Other representations are different personalities in the guise of Alexander, such as the figure of Nero from Barking Hall.61 Even more surprisingly, perhaps, Romano-British mosaics, despite their wide range of Classical imagery, have never produced a depiction.62 This makes the Mildenhall bowl in which he appears all the

132 | The Mildenhall Treasure

more exceptional, although there is no suggestion that this bowl or any of its companion vessels was produced in Britain (see pp. 269–70). The rim decoration: parallels and discussion Overall composition

The underlying theme of the depictions on the rims of the large flanged bowls is the animal hunt. That hunt scenes were a popular subject in late antiquity hardly needs stating – the repertoire is vast and covers many different media from mosaics and sculpture to small items of jewellery. This reflects the clear emphasis placed on the hunt and hunting prowess in the late Roman Empire, particularly amongst the elite,63 and the evidence of silver plate certainly appears to reflect this trend. As Parrish states: ‘The hunt had a variety of associations, for it not only signified the privileged status of the wealthy villa owners of latifundia, but also it demonstrated individual prowess or virtus’.64 There is only one instance in the Mildenhall treasure in which a human hunter is shown (cat. 5, S1 discussed above). Otherwise, the scenes involve animals only, both domestic and wild and in one case mythological (cat. 5, S3

Plate 212 Detail of Traprain Law Hacksilber (cat. 37a), fourth century. National Museums, Scotland

and S5). This lack of human agency is also charactertistic of all other flanged bowls that warrant comparison, with the only exception being the bowls from Carthage, but even here the human figures are shepherds, as opposed to hunters. But it has to be borne in mind that this rather restricted and conservative choice of imagery may be a consequence of the relatively small number of flanged bowls known that feature figural decoration. Only 12 vessels, including the four from Mildenhall, are tabulated in Table 11. Although it is a rather blunt analysis, there is some value in examining the overall nature of the animal scenes that appear between the dividing busts. These can be characterized as follows (and are summarized in column 6 of the table): 1. At leisure (L): animals are depicted at rest, or grazing, and sometimes with human agents, for instance resting shepherds. 2. Chase (C): these are scenes of beast hunts involving either real or imaginary participants. 3. Capture and kill (K): these scenes show the point of engagement when either the animal predator has caught his or her prey, or the hunter has speared his kill. 4. Feasting (F): these scenes show animals feasting on their kill. What becomes clear from this exercise is that the four vessels in the Mildenhall treasure differ from other vessels with comparable rim decoration in the sense that they all (with the exception of cat. 5) have three different types of animal scene, while all other examples feature only one or two. This is one indication that the Mildenhall bowls are distinct from all other vessels; they are unique not only in terms of their dimensions (see p. 129) but also with regard to how they are decorated. This would suggest that they were made in a different workshop, or to put it another way, it is difficult to find close enough parallels amongst the small number of complete decorated vessels to suggest that a common workshop was also responsible. Iconographic parallels

The four large flanged bowls from Mildenhall belong to a group of nine flanged bowls with decorated rims that survive in their entirety which are listed in Table 11. They do not represent close comparanda, as discussed below. However, two pieces of Hacksilber from Traprain Law provide close parallels, which may indicate a common origin (Pls 212– 13). These pieces derive from a single flanged bowl with beaded rim, which by tracing the arc of the rim of the largest surviving piece undoubtedly belonged to a vessel with a rim diameter of approximately 280mm,65 which brings it in line

Plate 213 Detail of Traprain Law Hacksilber (cat. 37b), fourth century. National Museums, Scotland

with cats 5–8. In addition, the bead size (9.04mm) is comparable to cats 6–8 (but not to cat. 5, which is much larger) and the decoration faces outwards (as discussed below, this is not always the case). The surviving iconography shows a running stag on the smaller fragment (Traprain Law cat. 37b) and another fleeing ungulate on the larger (Traprain Law cat. 37a), insufficient of which survives to identify it more fully. Both have coats detailed with horizontal and vertical shallow dashed stippling (see Pl. 46f). Unfortunately both pieces of Hacksilber are by their very nature rather damaged, so it is not straightforward to identify other elements of the design: there is a series of clumsily gouged grooves behind the animal on the larger piece, and what appears to be a small bird in the lower field.66 The style of the animals appears rather poorly executed, especially on the smaller of the two fragments, where the back of the animal is very flat and the head seemingly too close to the body; the styling is certainly less accomplished than on cats 5–8. Nevertheless, the possibility that these fragments derive from a flanged bowl produced in the same workshop and around the same time as cats 6–8 would appear to be compelling, given the overlap between their form and dimensions, and the overall composition and imagery. Two further examples in Hacksilber from Traprain Law provide parallels for some individual elements of cats 5–8. A fragment of a beaded and flanged rim bowl (Pl. 214)67 has an unusual female bust (unusual because it shows not just the head but also the neck and shoulders), a grazing horse and probably two hunting dogs (one complete, the other only surviving as the head) leaning in to feast on something that can no longer be identified because of the break. The closest parallel for this is not cats 5–8, but rather one of the Carthage bowls (cat. 2). Interestingly, the bead size is also quite comparable (5.26mm for Traprain Law, 6.09mm for Carthage) and like Carthage the scene faces inwards. A pair of deer, one looking back, and the hind legs of a third, are shown on a fragment of beaded rim square or rectangular vessel (Pl. 215).68 The closest parallel for this is cat. 6, S3.

The Large Flanged Bowls | 133

Plate 214 Detail of Traprain Law Hacksilber (cat. 38), fourth century. National Museums, Scotland

Plate 215 Detail of Traprain Law Hacksilber (cat. 88), fourth century. National Museums, Scotland

The coats of the animals are detailed with the same shallow vertical dashed stippling (see Pl. 46f), however the plant below the torso of the foreground animal does not have a parallel with any of the flora on cats 5–8. As for complete vessels, the first to discuss are those from the Carthage treasure. At first sight, two flanged bowls in the Carthage treasure appear broadly comparable with cats 5–8, but when studied more closely they have some quite significant differences. First, although their forms are broadly similar, and both have beaded rims, they fall into the ‘one pound’ category of bowl (see pp. 128–9), so are considerably lighter than the Mildenhall examples. The bead size also does not compare.69 Second, whereas the decoration on one of the Carthage bowls faces outwards from the vessel,70 as is the case with the Mildenhall pieces, the other71 faces inwards, and has an additional line of beads underlying the frieze on the inner side of the rim. And lastly, there are some quite significant differences in iconography. In fact, there are a number of elements to the iconography which are better paralleled at an earlier date: the Bacchic masks, for instance, float, which is characteristic of the manner in which masks are depicted on earlier silver vessels.72 As Table 11 shows, one of the flanged bowls (Carthage cat. 1) has peaceful pastoral scenes only, which is a particular characteristic of other types of vessel of thirdcentury date. The other vessel too is largely peaceful (Carthage cat. 2), with two at-leisure scenes and beast hunts in progress in the other two sections of frieze, but no capture

or kill; three of the Mildenhall large flanged bowls (cats 6–8) instead show three aspects of the hunt. With regards to the specifics of what is depicted, there are once again more points of divergence than convergence. The style of the busts on the Carthage vessels is less varied than on cats 5–8, with the male and female heads essentially forming identical pairs. Although the figurative scene (shepherd, dog and ram) in the centre of Carthage cat. 1 is loosely comparable to that of cat. 5 (hunter and bear), there are few other points of comparison. On Carthage cat. 1, the types of animal are restricted to dogs and domesticated goats and sheep.73 Landscape features on Carthage cat. 2, such as rocks with associated vegetation, are sometimes shown ‘upside down’, perhaps as an unintended consequence of designing the scenes to face inwards. Despite these points of divergence, there are a small number of stylistic parallels worthy of note. Both female busts on Carthage cat. 1 (Pl. 216) have a similar style of hair, with a thick tress running up from the nape of the neck, as seen on cat. 5, S3 (and on cat. 12, S6, see p. 171). This is undoubtedly an evocation of the late Roman hairstyle known as the Scheitelzopffrisur, best represented by the ‘empress’ pepperpot in the Hoxne treasure: the means of achieving such a style is described in some detail by Johns.74 It is interesting to note that the ‘narrow rope of twisted hair’,75 a feature of the hairstyle, is visible on the Carthage busts, but not on cat. 5, S3.76 There are also strong

Plate 216 Detail of female bust, Carthage, fourth century. British Museum, AF.3275

Plate 217 Detail of leopard, Carthage, fourth century. British Museum, AF.3276

134 | The Mildenhall Treasure

Plate 218 Detail of grazing animals, Carthage, fourth century. British Museum, AF.3276

Plate 219 Detail of recumbent ox, Carthage, fourth century. British Museum, AF.3276

similarities between the big cat, probably a leopard, pursuing a deer on Carthage cat. 2 (Pl. 217), and on cat. 8, S3, where a probable leopard pursues a pair of wild goats. Both felines are shown with a similar tree in the background. The composition of the three animals shown grazing and at rest in one scene on Carthage cat. 2 (Pl. 218) is similar to that shown in cat. 6, S2. The pose of the recumbent ox on Carthage cat. 2 (Pl. 219) bears comparison with the foremost of the pair on cat. 5, S4. The plain ovoid object, probably a tympanum, before the female bust on cat. 5, S5 might be paralleled by the decorated ovoid object before one of the female busts in Carthage cat. 2 (Pl. 220). There are also a number of parallels with the trees depicted. Baratte suggests that the fern-like trees are poplars,77 but as discussed (see below), if they are to be characterized at all they are probably more likely to be datepalms. A tree with two trilobate leaves, with groups of three pellets between each of the leaf parts (Pl. 221), is very similar to that depicted on (for instance) cat. 8, S2 (see p. 122). To conclude, although it seems unlikely that the bowls from Carthage were produced in the same workshop as those from Mildenhall, there are a number of features of the figural decoration that suggests the use of similar models. The three other flanged bowls with decorated rims all come from eastern Europe. The first is believed to have been discovered at Šabac, Serbia (located in ancient Dalmatia) (Pl. 222). It is closely comparable to the two vessels from Carthage in terms of size and style, and particularly

Carthage cat. 2, since its frieze faces inwards and it too has a line of beads encircling the inner rim. However, the busts (which again float) are a departure from the norm, as they almost certainly represent deities rather than satyrs and maenads: a bust of a youthful Hercules, with a club behind his head; Diana with a quiver; Apollo with a lyre; and what is perhaps a veiled Cybele with tympanum.78 The pairs of animals, each separated by a central tree, are all ‘at leisure’. As on the Carthage bowls, it is possible to find parallels with Mildenhall for some of the animals: the recumbent ox is similar to that in cat. 8, S2, and the sheep coats are detailed in the same manner as on cat. 6, S2. But stylistically there are too few points of comparison to suggest production in the same workshop: as indicated, this vessel has far more in common with the pair from Carthage. The second and third are a pair of flanged bowls with identical decoration found at Kostolac, Serbia (located in ancient Moesia), unfortunately lost during the First World War, so known only from surviving images. Like the vessels from Šabac, these have more in common with the examples from Carthage in terms of their weight and dimensions. They are the only decorated flanged bowls that lack a beaded rim. The female bust in the centre of each vessel allows for an obvious comparison with cat. 8, except that she faces to the left. The rim busts float, which, as discussed above, is the commonest manner in which these are depicted; and all four of the animal scenes represent a chase; these are the only decorated flanged bowls in which this is the case. There is only one tree shown and exceptionally this

Plate 220 Detail of female bust, Carthage, fourth century. British Museum, AF.3276

Plate 221 Detail of tree, Carthage, fourth century. British Museum, AF.3275

The Large Flanged Bowls | 135

Plate 223 Detail of female bust on Traprain Law Hacksilber (cat. 36), fourth century. National Museums, Scotland

Plate 222 Silver flanged bowl from Šabac, fourth century. Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna, inv. no. ANSA VII A 5

is placed between one mask and an animal. Once again it would be difficult to argue for these vessels having a strong production link with the Mildenhall comparanda, although both bowls conform with the general type. The only vessel listed in Table 11 that is not a flanged bowl is a steep-sided dish on a high-foot-ring in the Traprain Law deposit, approximately half of which survives. It has similar masks and depictions of animal pursuits on its outer wall.79 The broad parallels between the surviving frieze and cats 5–8 is clear, even if, on close inspection, the style is different. For instance, the depiction of a maenad head (Pl. 223) has the same hairstyle as cat. 6, S3, but her nose is disproportionately long for her face and she lacks a neck and shoulders. The other mask is of Bacchus himself, as his thyrsus is shown behind his head (see Pl. 63). The depictions of animals are more clumsily rendered, particularly a hunting dog bringing down a ram, depicted with rather crude angular lines (Pl. 224).80 Nevertheless, some attractive detailing has been used: the coat of a fleeing ram is depicted using punched ovals and crescents of pellets, which creates a pleasing effect. Behind this ram is the only tree depicted (Pl. 225). Trees

In the discussion of the decoration of cats 5–8, it will have been noted that two different types of tree are regularly shown.81 Although these are not necessarily intended to be accurate representations of particular tree species, this possibility at least needs consideration, since others have suggested arboreal species when discussing both the flanged bowls from Mildenhall or other items (silver plate and jewellery) that feature trees as an element of hunt scenes.82 The first, commonly used as a separator between animals, has a knarled and twisted trunk and terminates in a canopy invariably represented by two trilobate ‘leaves’ (see cat. 5, S1, S2 and S4; cat. 6, S2. S5; cat. 7, S2 and S4; cat. 8, S2 and S4). The second, which commonly appears in the background behind animals (but sometimes as a separator, e.g. cat. 6, S4)

136 | The Mildenhall Treasure

has a simple straight trunk with a flared base and a pair of divergent fern-like, almond-shaped sections of foliage at the top, although there are some instances where only one is shown (see cat. 6, S3; cat. 7, S3; cat. 8, S3, S4 and S5).83 Highly stylized versions of both of these trees appear on bracelets in the Hoxne treasure, so have also been discussed recently.84 Interestingly, the Corbridge lanx appears to provide the most realized versions of both of these trees. The former, with the trilobate leaves, appears in the top left corner of the lanx. Johns suggests that such depictions are intended to represent the umbrella pine (Pinus pinea), ‘nearly always shown with a gnarled, branching form, and with leaves in small clusters at the very tops of the branches’.85 One would concur with Johns’ view, but if umbrella pines are intended then those depicted on the Mildenhall bowls are highly stylized.86 We are perhaps on safer ground with the other tree, if we are to seek a type: Johns suggests that (at least for the version on the Hoxne bracelets) this is a ‘simplified rendering of the date palm (Phoenix dactylifera)’.87 As noted in the discussion of the vessels from Carthage, the poplar is also a possibility (p. 135). But all things considered, the degree of stylization is such that we should probably not assume that any particular genus of tree was necessarily intended, not least because the animals also often lack naturalism; rather both types of tree may have simply been chosen as stock images to divide the field or add appropriate scenery to the bucolic setting, in the same manner that rocks and grass tufts were also included. All this rather reinforces the notion that the imagery on the bowls is drawn from a vast Classical repertoire, meaning that by the time that these bowls were produced any close resemblance to natural models had long since ceased to be intentional or of any symbolic significance. The large flanged bowls (cats 5 to 8): summary and conclusions A set of four bowls?

Clearly the four flanged bowls do form a set, either complete or as a portion of a larger group (which also includes cats 9–10), and as part of a dining service must have performed a particular function (discussed further in Chapter 16). Figuratively and stylistically, it is clear that links can be made between the vessels; but there are also discrepancies.

Plate 224 Detail of dog and ram on Traprain Law Hacksilber (cat. 36), fourth century. National Museums, Scotland

Plate 225 Detail of ram and ewe on Traprain Law Hacksilber (cat. 36), fourth century. National Museums, Scotland

Considering all aspects of these vessels in terms of their forms and decorative elements, it is apparent that cats 6–8 form a coherent group but cat. 5 is different, even though in the broadest sense it clearly sits comfortably with the other three vessels, and would not have seemed out of place when in use. There are a number of reasons why cat. 5 is different. First, it is at least 1 pound heavier than the others; second, the beads on its rim are larger than its companions, so were created with a different set of tools (see also Lang’s comments, pp. 140–1); third, its weight graffiti do not make sense in relation to the other vessels; and fourth, it has stylistic differences, exhibiting only two hunt themes, as opposed to the three seen on all other vessels, and including a mythological beast, the griffin, whereas cats 6–8 exclusively feature animals from the natural world. In addition, the central medallion of a hunter spearing a bear is incongruous with the probable Alexandrian theme of the other vessels. So there seems little doubt that this vessel was added to the other three in order to make up the set, presumably because the original fourth vessel was damaged beyond repair, stolen or lost. Being larger and heavier (and of higher capacity, the implications of which are discussed further on pp. 279–80), this vessel is perhaps the latest of the four, but it seems unlikely that it was made chronologically or geographically much distant from the other three. Despite these differences between cat. 5 and cats 6–8, the large flanged bowls in the Mildenhall treasure are clearly exceptional when compared with other flanged bowls, for a number of reasons. First, although their form is consistent with other bowls of this type (Table 10), their weights of approximately 4 Roman pounds (cats 6–8) and 5 pounds (cat. 5) appear to be unparalleled, with the caveat that other such heavy bowls probably existed, given the presence of two pieces of Hacksilber from the Traprain Law treasure that may derive from vessels of comparable size (discussed on p. 133). Their bulk was clearly designed to impress: if they were presented as gifts, the statement made by their weight (alongside their heavy level of embellishment) cannot have been lost on the recipient(s) (see also comments regarding Symmachus and ‘two pound bowls’ in Chapter 15, p. 269). Equally, when they were employed at the table, the diners in turn would surely have been impressed with the ostentation (or, depending on the guests’ point of view, the vulgarity) of their hosts.

Second, cats 5–8 are exceptional because of their high level of embellishment, four of only nine complete bowls with figurative decoration on their flanged rims,88 which in turn represent fewer than 20% of the total number of complete flanged bowls recorded (Table 10). Of this subgroup, the decoration of the Mildenhall vessels is the most complex and accomplished. It also has a number of aspects that are hard to parallel: the busts in particular are unusual, as they are the only examples of full busts, most other instances (with the exception of one fragment of Hacksilber from Traprain Law) featuring busts that lack necks and shoulders. The range of animals depicted is, however, relatively restricted; there are no animals that can be considered unusual, with the possible exception of the griffins on cat. 5. Do these similarities to and differences from comparable vessels bring us closer to deciding where and when these vessels were produced? Cats 6–8 were certainly produced in the same workshop, and cat. 5 probably also at the same location but at a different (later?) date; but narrowing this down to a particular province or wide geographical area, beyond one of the late Roman imperial centres, is probably beyond our reach. A clue, however, may lie in the links that can be made with the two pieces of Hacksilber from Traprain Law (see p. 133), which at least hint at greater numbers of such bowls being present in Britain at the time – although this assumes that the hacking itself took place in Britain.89 The broad parallels with the Carthage vessels, which are not sufficiently strong enough to suggest manufacture in the same location, may nonetheless support an argument that a western workshop is more likely than one in the east – not least because the other decorated flanged bowls, from Kostolac and Šabac, are sufficiently different to imply that their production was more likely to have been in the Balkans or further east (although connecting findspots and places of production presents difficulties, see p. 263). As for dating, the bulkiness of the vessels and the style of the figurative work, which clearly has more in common with fourth-century silver than with earlier vessels, suggest manufacture in the second half of the fourth century, perhaps even as late as the last quarter in the case of cat. 5, though admittedly this is rather conjectural. Further discussion can be found in Chapter 15 (pp. 268–70). Finally, the figural decoration. Hunting was clearly dear to the hearts of aristocrats in the late Roman Empire, and

The Large Flanged Bowls | 137

the visualization of the hunt was the natural manifestation of this. As Esmonde Cleary observes: ‘[Hunting was] an aristocratic pastime which allowed the demonstration of manly prowess (virtus) as well as allowing a dominus to entertain guests, friends and associates in a suitably lavish manner.’90 Yet these bowls show human agency in only one instance, the central medallion of cat. 5, with the remainder of the scenes depicting animals only. They are, therefore, scenes from the natural world, with animals chasing animals (a familiar trope in Roman art) and, like the Bacchic platter, they therefore, in the broadest sense, simply represent the bounty and order of nature. If they were placed before individual diners, as their form would suggest (see Chapter 16), they thus reinforced the notion of the service’s owner’s ability to provide, since their visual reference to the natural world could be mirrored by the bowls’ edible contents. The rim busts are less easy to interpret, as it is not always clear whom they represent; yet if they are intended as Bacchic masks, in a similar manner to the mask of Silenus shown on a pedestal on the Bacchic platter (see p. 32), they help unify the bowls with the wider themes of the service. As discussed, the reference to Alexander the Great provided by one or two of the bowls is another example of the owner’s desire to demonstrate his knowledge of the Classical past. Technical aspects of the production of the large flanged bowls (Janet Lang) Metal composition: summary

Details of the compositions of the bowls can be found in Table 17, Chapter 13. The analysis results are similar, although not identical. The variation in the copper content is less than 1%. The construction and decoration of the flanged bowls

The large flanged bowls were examined in detail: this section includes general observations which apply to all the bowls. Individual entries for each bowl describing the surface condition, wear and damage and any notable details of construction and decoration follow this section. All the bowls were initially cast, probably as discs, and worked to their final shape. A simple disc-shaped mould, incorporating a ring to make the foot-ring, may have been Plate 226 Punch marks on the outer edge show a textured surface

138 | The Mildenhall Treasure

used (see cat. 1, p. 57). The macrostructure provides evidence of the initial casting, and is revealed by surface corrosion, at broken edges and on the underside of the bowls, beneath the central medallions. Methods of marking out the basic layout have already been discussed in relation to cat. 1. Apart from the pips at the centre of each bowl and possible lines on the beads, no marking-out lines were observed. The shape of the flanged bowls suggests that the central medallions were probably worked before the sides were fully raised, because chasing the design in the restricted space within the completed bowl would have been difficult. The surface was prepared for the central medallions using a matting punch. Typical tiny discshaped marks (in relief) made by the matting punch are visible at the beaded band outlining the medallion design on cat. 5, for example. The designs were punched from the front and are visible as undulations on the underside. The bruised surface texture also shows that the metal was held on a hard surface while punching took place. The ring of small beads was made with a die and a variety of punches. The beads are variable in shape and the execution is generally erratic. More details are included in the individual entries. Some rather rough circumferential scraping was carried out, both before and after the beads were made. The execution of the designs within the medallions was more skilful, however, and the surfaces are generally smooth and well finished. The bowls were raised by working, initially on the inside. The metal would be held against a smooth tool or stake, or it could have been worked into a wooden block of a suitable shape, capable of accommodating the foot-ring. Plate 227 Punch marks outline the bull’s jaw. Heavy punch marks define the eye area. Oval punch marks suggest the fur (cat. 7, scene 3, figure 7)

Plate 228 To increase relief, metal was cut away with a bladed tool (cat. 5, scene 5, figure 18)

This was considered as a possible method for the manufacture of the Anastasius dish from Sutton Hoo.91 The raising process was completed by working from the outside, with the vessel held against a smooth curved tool or stake on the inside. It would have been necessary to heat the metal to anneal it when it became hard and difficult to work, in order to continue shaping. There is little sign of planishing (systematically hammering the surface with many light blows with a smooth, rounded lightweight hammer) which is frequently used to produce a smooth surface before polishing. This may be because a lathe seems to have been used extensively to reduce surface asperities and unevenness. Variations in radiographic density indicate small variations in the wall thickness, which is characteristic of raising. It is interesting to note that although a lathe was used, the concentric variations in thickness, observed on radiographs of the Meleager plate in the ‘Seuso’ treasure,92 are not a feature seen on radiographs of the large flanged bowls. The wide flange would have been formed by hammering the metal against an anvil or a similar flat surface. This might have been achieved with a suitably shaped block positioned inside a bowl to retain its shape while the flange was raised. The flange thicknesses vary in between the figures. As on cat. 1, the flange rims would have been strengthened and thickened by caulking (hammering the metal on the edge, at right angles, to consolidate them). The interior of the beads decorating the rim of cat. 5 shows signs of layering, suggesting that parts of the edge may have been

Plate 229 Three different types of punch mark used to differentiate pelt textures (cat. 5, scene 2, figures 5–6)

folded and forged to even up the thickness. Traces of matting punching can be seen on the flange, especially associated with the beads, presumably used to prepare the surface before making the beads (Pl. 226). The figures on the flange and the central medallion were outlined with tiny dots. Occasionally, some punch marks used to outline the design on the flange can be seen (e.g. around the muzzle of the bull on cat. 7, S3 (Pl. 227)). The technique of lateral raising, used on cat. 1, was employed to give the figures low relief. The designs were chased and punched, using both slip-stick (closely linked punch-marks) and smooth chasing (Pl. 227) shows the use of slip-stick around the short curve of the bull’s ear and a smoother chased line around his head. Slip-stick is achieved using a chasing punch applied with varying pressure, making it easier to outline a curve, so that the tool appears to have slipped and then stuck. Very rarely, small pieces of metal were removed by carving or cutting with a blade to enhance relief (beneath the belly of one of the horses on cat. 7, S4, with another example on cat. 5 (Pl. 228)). There seem to be some conventions used in the treatment of different animals. The slightly longer, curly hair on the bulls’ heads, between the horns, is indicated by using a larger punch than for the rest of the pelt, where the hair is shorter. A series of curving slip-stick lines was employed to show the

Plate 230 (left) A rough surfaced punch is used for the ram’s horn (cat. 8, scene 4, figure 11) Plate 231 (right) Ring punch marks indicate the leopard’s rosettes (cat. 8, scene 3, figure 9)

The Large Flanged Bowls | 139

Plate 232 Curving slip-stick lines suggest the goat’s shaggy coat (right) and oval punch marks the short hair on the muzzle (cat. 8, scene 4, figure 13)

Plate 233 A deep punch makes the eye socket with another mark beside it, possibly used to mark the position of the eye (cat. 8, scene 5, figure 15)

longer shaggy coats of boars, while an ingenious variety of punch marks indicated bristles and spines (see Pl. 154). The punch shapes varied in shape from chisel-sharp, lens or grain-shaped to oval and rounded (Pl. 229; Pl. 172). It is difficult to estimate their size because the dimensions of the indentations vary with the angle and weight of blow. Most tips appear to have been a couple of millimetres or less in length or diameter and are likely to have been made of steel. Some punches seem to have had rough surfaces, as indicated by the depressed areas around the eyes of the bulls and the rams’ horns (Pl. 230). Small ring punches were used on cats 5–7 to indicate rosettes: all were about 1mm (outside diameter) (Pl. 231) and were applied after any other punching, indicating the animal’s fur. Generally, the treatment of features, such as the animals’ eyes, is consistent within a bowl but differs slightly between bowls. The pupil is a small round dot in a small area of relief on cat. 5, while the surface around the eyeball is heavily punched down (see Pl. 153), although some of the animals do have eyelids indicated. Eyelids are shown on cats 7–8 and the eyes are triangular with dots at the broader end, making the animal appear to be looking forwards (Pl. 232). The eyes on one bear in cat. 8 are also accompanied by rough punched areas, which are not obviously related to the shape of the eye Plate 234 Matting punching on the rim. The square edges of the die show clearly

140 | The Mildenhall Treasure

(Pl. 233). These marks might have been used to locate the eye position or simply for emphasis. The animal eyes on cat. 7 somewhat resemble those on cat. 5, but include eyebrows and eyelids. The finish on the flange of bowl cat. 7 seems to be poorer than on the other bowls, and some of the figures, for example, the smooth-coated horses, show scraped lines on their surfaces, giving an almost facetted effect (cat. 7, S4, F12 and F13; Pl. 188). The beaded rims

The beaded rims were constructed in a similar manner to the rim of the Bacchic platter (cat. 1) (Pl. 234). There is evidence of the use of matting punching to prepare the surface on cats 5–7. Extremely crude cross-hatching with a narrow, sharp blade was irregularly employed on the flange surface between the beads (see Pl. 244). This was carried out after beading but the reason for it is not obvious. The use of a number of strikes to make the beads was indicated by multiple outlines around the beads. Examination of the interior of the beads showed closely similar marks on the inner surfaces of beads on cats 6–8 (Pls 235–8). These were caused by an imperfection on the surface of the roundended punch used to form the beads. The same punch was used on all three bowls, which suggests that they were made at more or less the same time and in the same workshop. Cat. 5, however, does not show the same marks and its place within the set is discussed elsewhere (pp. 136–7). It may have been made in the same workshop, but not at the same time. Also, a very small defect at the right-hand corner of the die applied to the outside of the edge of the bowls can be seen as a tiny rounded protuberance on the die imprint around some of the beads on cats 6–8 (Pl. 240). This suggests the same die was used as well, and that these three bowls were made in the same workshop, probably at the same time. This defect was not observed on cat. 5. The metal between the beads was sometimes so thin that holes occurred. The spacing was not always even, resulting in small fins and thicker flanges appearing between the beads (see also Pl. 240). The edge of each bowl, outside the beading, was hammered inwards, until it was vertical and the gap

Plate 235 (left) Typical interior of bead on cat. 5 shows scratches but no die imprint Plate 236 (right) Typical interior of bead on cat. 6 shows imprint of damaged die surface

Plate 237 (left) Typical interior of bead on cat. 7 shows similar imprint of damaged die surface to cat. 6 Plate 238 (right) Typical interior of bead on cat. 8 shows similar imprint of damaged die surface to cats 6–7

Plate 239 The gap under the beading is virtually closed (under the rim of cat. 5)

Plate 240 A tiny defect in the die shows as a minute bead in the corner of the die imprints (cat. 8)

between the underside of the rim and the flange was virtually closed beneath the beads (Pl. 239). During this process, the outer surfaces of the beads were sometimes damaged by the hammer (Pl. 240). The plain vertical surfaces of the rims were scraped or turned on a lathe to remove the hammer marks.

suggest that they were originally separate and attached by brazing (high-temperature soldering). A thin slit was observed at the base of the foot-ring of cat. 7, but no solder was visible and it was probably part of the folds which were introduced when the thickness of the foot-rings was reduced. It is difficult to determine at what point in the process they were shaped, but examination shows that in the final stages of forging, they were worked downwards, at a fairly acute angle, towards the bowl, to reduce the thickness: this resulted in the formation of some small folds at the join with the bowl.

The foot-rings

The foot-rings may have been cast in the form of a low ring as part of the original castings. This has been discussed in relation to cat. 1 (p. 57). There is no clear evidence to

The Large Flanged Bowls | 141

turned and had probably been covered by a wooden block which was used to hold the bowl firmly in position while the back surface and the foot-ring were turned on a lathe. The areas have not been finished, as they retain a slightly bruised appearance resulting from being held on a hard surface while being chased and punched from the front, but the surfaces adjacent to the foot-rings, both inside and outside the rings, and the rings themselves, have been turned. The undersides of the flanges have very crudely scraped and turned surfaces. The upper surfaces of the bowls would have been polished, although the finish on bowl cat. 8 is not particularly smooth, at least partly as a result of surface corrosion. Cat. 5 Surface finish, wear and damage

The bowls were finished by scraping and turning, which partially removed the traces of the design on the back surface, leaving an undulating surface where the cutting tool has removed the surface asperities, but not the depressions. Tool chatter can be seen around the foot-rings and elsewhere, confirming that a lathe was used. A facetted effect on the surfaces of some of the beads and on the surface of the flanges suggests that the surfaces had also been scraped with a small knife blade. The areas under the centres of the medallions, within the foot-rings, were not

Both the figures and to a lesser extent, the surface of the flanged rim are generally highly polished. The side of the bowl and the underside especially have been heavily scraped (see cat. 1, p. 57). On the more polished inside surface of the bowl, the effect of corrosion is clearly visible, allowing the original macrostructure to be seen at low magnification. The metal of the bowl is thin and has been damaged. The broken surface has a granular appearance (Pl. 241) and may have suffered embrittling intergranular corrosion during burial. It was probably in a fragile state when discovered and might have been cracked, possibly by ploughing, even before it was removed from the soil. No indications of post-excavation heating were observed. The underside shows many concentric lines and signs of tool chatter made when a lathe was used to finish the surface, both around the foot-ring and under the flanged rim. The lathe centre seems to have moved, as some lines within the foot-ring area are not concentric. The design was worked on the front, resulting in an uneven surface on the

Plate 242 An attempt was made scrape away a casting defect still visible after the surface had been turned (cat. 5)

Plate 243 Surface corrosion reveals the original cast dendritic structure, enlarged by hammering (cat. 5)

Plate 241 The granular appearance of a broken edge on cat. 5 is a relic of the original cast structure

142 | The Mildenhall Treasure

underside. Scraping and turning on a lathe did not succeed in removing the unevenness. Tool chatter is very obvious, especially within the foot-ring. A few discontinuities, possibly casting faults, have not been completely flattened on the under surface. Construction of the bowl

The macrostructure, revealed by corrosion, confirms that the bowl was cast and subsequently worked to shape. Small casting cavities (Pl. 242) can be seen on the inside surface of the bowl and the original cast dendritic structure is visible (Pl. 243): it has been expanded and distorted by the raising process, in a similar manner to the Bacchic platter. At least one defect on the under surface appears to have been filed. The small hole or ‘pip’, which can be seen at the centre of the central medallion would have been used to mark out the various features. No indications of soldering or brazing on the foot-ring can be seen. It is difficult to know at what stage it was worked to shape. It has been turned on a lathe and this has largely obscured signs of earlier working, although some small creases can be seen at the join with the bowl. The thickness of the flange, between the raised figures, is variable. This may be due, in part, to irregularly scraping away some of the surface between the figures. The edge was probably thickened and neatened before the design was punched and chased with a variety of tools. Cut or incised lines, seen on some beads, are similar to those seen on the Bacchic platter: they might have been used to mark out where the rim was to be bent downwards. The imprint of a punch with a fairly rough surface, used to prepare the surface for beading, is visible in some places, on which the outer edges of the beads are superimposed. The rectangular corners of the die can be seen impressed into the surface around the beads. Some beads show several impressions where the die moved slightly between strikes. The channels between the beads were punched or chased in order to enhance their definition, but in one or two places the metal is so thin that it has fractured, leaving a hole. Small flanges between the beads occur where the punching was not accurate and a larger ridge was formed when the silversmith miscalculated the distance between the beads and was left with insufficient space to make a complete bead. After beading was complete, the gap between the rim and Plate 245 Small beads around central medallion (cat. 5). Fine casting porosity is visible above the beads

Plate 244 Angled cuts with a chisel between the beads on the rim of cat. 5

the flange was almost closed by hammering down the rim. Several angled cuts, using a sharp, narrow-edged tool, were made between the beads on the flange surface (Pl. 244). The purpose of these marks is obscure: presumably they were intended as decoration, but they are very crudely executed. Faintly scraped narrow bands can be seen, worked over the beads, from channel to channel, giving the surface a slightly facetted effect. This seems to have been introduced after the beads were formed rather than before, or from the die. The outside of the rim was scraped, presumably to remove signs of hammering. Execution of the design

The small beads around the central medallion are rather poorly executed and very irregular in shape (Pl. 245). It is difficult to determine a consistent sequence of working, but it appears that after the surface was levelled somewhat with a matting punch, a band was rather crudely scraped with a bladed tool such as a knife. A rectangular die with a hollow centre was used to make the bead shapes, which have been punched generally at an angle, so that only the top left corner (viewed from the middle of the bowl) made a recognizable imprint. A mis-hit outline, on the smooth surface within the medallion, suggests that the die was made from a rectangular bar with slightly rounded edges. The metal surrounding the beads was punched and cut to increase their relief and a larger punch with a somewhat oval-shaped profile was used to separate each bead. The inner edge of the beaded band is deep and well defined and it seems that the surface of the medallion itself was scraped and worked so that a smooth, polished surface was produced after the beads were made. The details of the figures, especially the hair and the animal coats, were skilfully indicated with a variety of

The Large Flanged Bowls | 143

Plate 246 A punch or gouge with a curved profile emphasized the gap between the small beads around the central medallion (cat. 6, scene 1)

indentations using coarse and fine tipped punches. The latter were held at different angles and punched to make a single indentation, or sometimes as part of a small group. They could also be moved across the metal surface in a slipstick motion. This made a series of linked punch marks, a technique frequently used to indicate human hair. Many effects were achieved by this method including smooth lines, slightly saw-toothed lines, curved lines and broken lines. A great deal of ingenuity was employed to represent the different types of animal coats, including the use of a small hollow-tipped ring punch. These are best illustrated by the hunter and the bear in S1. Cat. 6 Surface finish, wear and damage

Although there is a tear and a number of dents in the wall, the vessel is complete. The plain surface inside the bowl seems to have been very slightly more attacked by corrosion than the other bowls although the figures on the flange are smooth and shiny. Construction of the bowl and execution of the design

Plate 247 A matting punch was used to prepare the surface for making the small beads around the central medallion (cat. 6, scene 1)

beads encircling the central medallion (see Pl. 169). Part of the circle was scraped after matting punching, before heavy punch marks in a radial direction were used to mark the spaces between the beads, extending beyond the ring of beads. In other parts of the ring, scraping took place after the beads had been made, removing part of the beads (Pls 246–7). Their surfaces were slightly facetted, suggesting that they had been scraped across the top, from channel to channel. The surface of the flange shows both polished and scraped areas. Cat. 7 Surface finish, wear and damage

There is a tear and a small sub-rectangular hole in the curved wall; otherwise the condition of the bowl is excellent.

The construction is similar to cat. 5 (as is also the case with cats 7–8 below) with minor differences. A slightly variable sequence seems to have been employed in making the small

Construction of the bowl and execution of the design

Plate 248 A small slit-like overlap of metal at the base of the foot-ring of cat. 7

Plate 249 Matting punching, scraping and punching with various tools on the small beads around the central medallion (cat. 7, scene 1)

144 | The Mildenhall Treasure

A small slit was observed at the base of the foot-ring: this was about 10mm in length and 0.1mm or less in width (Pl. 248).

Plate 250 (left) Crudely finished beads on the rim of cat. 7, with fins and matting punching Plate 251 (right) Scraping over the beads on the rim of cat. 8 produced a ‘facetted’ appearance

Plate 252 (right) Crudely executed small beads around the central medallion (cat. 8, scene 1)

It is probably part of a hammered-down fold, of which there are a number at the joins between the foot-rings and the bowls, but it is possible that it is an incomplete join between the foot-ring and the bowl. There is no other evidence to suggest that the foot-ring was soldered on, however. The decorated surfaces show more signs of scraping between the figures than the other bowls. The execution and finish of the bowl appears to be more hurried than the other bowls, as shown by the small beads around the central medallion and the larger ones on the beaded rim (Pls 249–50). Cat. 8 Surface finish, wear and damage

Almost half the wall section of the vessel is missing; otherwise the condition is excellent. Construction of the bowl and execution of the design

The surface retains scrape marks which have not been removed by polishing or planishing and have resulted in a ‘facetted’ effect (Pl. 251). The small beads around the central medallion are variable in execution. In one short length, the beads have not been individually defined and completed (Pl. 252). Defects on the surface of the ball-headed bead punch and the die were reproduced on the underside surfaces of a number of beads. Similar marks can be identified on the large beads on bowls cats 6–7, indicating that the same tools had been used and that the bowls were probably made together (see pp. 140–1). The figures on the flange were raised by lateral punching and chasing. The outline chasing is less obtrusive and heavily worked than on the other bowls. A variety of tools were used for emphasis and detail.

Notes

1 Brailsford (1947, 11) was incorrect in his interpretation of the inscription as ‘a proverbial phrase’. 2 See Croom 2000, 56, and pl. 4, from Piazza Armerina, for instance. 3 Johns suggests that the type of ‘bear seen in Roman art is likely to be some variety of the very widely distributed brown bear, Ursus arctos’ (2010, 41). Anatomy: the torso, especially the ‘hump’, its claws and fur are suitable for a bear (although the body appears to lack bulk), but the head is too feline in appearance, most closely resembling that of a hyena: the ears are too pronounced (Mark Carnall pers. comm.). 4 Carnall pers. comm. 5 Johns 2010, 89. 6 Carnall pers. comm. 7 This seems far more plausible than the altar suggested by Dohrn (1947, 98). 8 Baratte et al. 2002, 24. 9 Ziegler 2000, 45–58, figs 7–10. 10 Baratte suggests that this and the other female bust are maenads and the male busts (in S3 and S5) are satyrs (Baratte et al. 2002, 25). 11 Dohrn (1949, 96) suggested that this might represent a farmer and the other bust his wife. Baratte, despite suggesting that this is a satyr, qualifies his assessment of this particular bust by stating that it is difficult to interpret (Baratte et al. 2002, 25). 12 Carnall pers. comm. 13 See note 31. 14 Carnall pers. comm. 15 Ibid. 16 Ibid. 17 Ibid. 18 Ibid. 19 Calculated as follows:27 x 327.45 + 2 x 1.14 + 7 x 27.29 = 9,034.5g. 20 It should also be added that the weight inscription does not equate to the total weight of all six flanged bowls if cats 9–10 are added to cats 5–8. 21 Dunbabin 2003, figs 100, 102–3. 22 For a discussion see Martin-Kilcher 1984 and Painter 2001, 18–25. It can also be noted that one of the flanged bowls in the Carthage treasure has a pointillé weight inscription that is interpreted as six pounds, one ounce and 14 scripula (2007.9g) (Baratte et al. 2002, 14). Since the bowl itself weighs rather more than one pound, this would result in a set of five, once again an odd number. 23 Baratte’s interpretation (Baratte et al. 2002, 23). 24 Baratte agrees, stating that the interpretation of this bust and others on the vessel is uncertain (Baratte et al. 2002, 23).

The Large Flanged Bowls | 145

25 That a leopard would hunt goats is highly improbable (Carnall pers. comm.). 26 Carnall pers. comm. 27 Some breeds of sheep have long tails of this nature (Carnall pers. comm.). 28 Characteristic of a bear (Carnall pers. comm.). 29 Dodd suggests the stamps on a vessel ‘from Constantinople’ date it to the fourth or fifth centuries (Dodd 1961, no. 85). 30 Fragments of what appear to be sections of flanges with bead-andreel rims and nielloed and gilt hunt scenes have been found at Magura Hill, East Serbia. These may represent pieces of Hacksilber derived from some of the earliest examples of this vessel type (Popović 2013, 79). 31 Hayes 1972, 124; Johns 2010, 93–4. 32 Smith 2011, no. 17; British Museum 1897,1218.21. 33 Guggisberg and Kaufmann-Heinimann 2003, fig. 233. 34 Quast and Tamla 2010. The vessel has a diameter of 155mm, height c. 90mm, foot-ring 35mm and weight of 251.8g (but restored). 35 Johns 2010, 94. 36 The only example of incised decoration on a flanged rim noted during the course of this research appears on a Hacksilber fragment from near Gamzigrad, east Serbia (Popović 2013). 37 Unprovenanced (‘Munich’) cats 7–9. 38 The umbo was almost certainly included to accommodate a pouring vessel such as a ewer with hemispherical base, which, when the flanged bowl was not in use, could be set on top. 39 Baratte conducted a similar analysis but with a smaller sample of bowls (discussing only those from Mildenhall, Carthage, Šabac, Kostolac and a Traprain Law fragment), in which he suggested that there were two modules of bowl, one between 16 and 19cm in diameter (all the above non-Mildenhall) and 27 to 30cm (the Mildenhall vessels). In Baratte’s division, the smaller-sized bowls have a mass of between 1 and 2 Roman pounds, the larger between 4 and 5. Baratte did not include any of the smaller bowls in his discussion (Baratte et al. 2002, 20). 40 The possible exception is the bowl from Kostolac, which is described in the publication as undecorated, but might be shown with a central rosette; but the published image may relate to another bowl (Popović 1994, no. 276). 41 An accurate weight of the latter vessel could not be obtained. 42 Binsfeld 1979, nos 15–22. Martin’s recent reassessment of the treasure is accompanied by an illustration that suggests that he concluded the bowls lacked flanged rims, but this is largely because the original Latin description is too vague to be certain (Martin 2013). 43 Traprain Law cat. 21. 44 O’Riordain 1947, 48, pl. I, 3. 45 Walters 1921, cat. 219 (British Museum 1855,0815.219). 46 Kaiseraugst cat. 62. 47 Baratte and Painter 1989, no. 88; Vienne cat. 2. 48 Parrish 1999, 733. Cutler (2005, 18) remarks on the interesting parallel that can also be drawn with the lion killer depicted on a silver Sasanian ewer of the sixth to seventh century now in St Petersburg, although he concedes that ‘Most likely there is no direct connection between the two pieces’. 49 Brailsford 1955, 11; Toynbee 1964, 311; Painter 1977a, 27. Henig is more certain: ‘… the paired emblemata in two bowls showing Alexander the Great and his mother Olympias’ (Henig 1995, 163). 50 Dohrn 1949, 96. 51 For an illustration see Webster and Brown 1997, 36, fig. 16. 52 Dohrn 1949, 97. 53 Dresken-Weiland 1991, 238. 54 http://www.welt.de/kultur/article126430434/Barbarenschatzgefunden-und-alle-Spuren-zerstoert.html [Accessed: 5/2/2016]. 55 Stewart 2003, 65. 56 Museo Archaeologico Nazionale,Naples, inv. no. 26239. 57 Scriptores Historiae Augustae, Tyranni Triginta by Trebellius Pollio (Loeb Classical Library 263).

146 | The Mildenhall Treasure

58 British Museum, dept. of Coins and Medals, 1921,0509.1. 59 Leader-Newby 2004, 133. 60 Henig 2007, cats 466–9. One other possible representation on an intaglio found at Curdworth, Warwickshire, has been recorded on the Portable Antiquities Scheme database (WMID-716870). 61 CSIR I, 8, no. 25 (British Museum 1813,0213.1). 62 Neal and Cosh 2002–10. 63 Anderson 1985. 64 Parrish 1999, 733. 65 This conforms with the estimate of size made by Curle of 8 to 10 inches (Curle 1923, 44). 66 Suggested by Curle to be a ‘minute quail or, possibly, a young chicken’ (Curle 1923, 44). 67 Traprain Law cat. 38. 68 Traprain Law cat. 88. 69 The average bead diameter on Carthage cat. 1 (British Museum AF.3275) is 5.67mm, on cat. 2 (British Museum AF.3276) 6.09mm. 70 Carthage cat. 1. 71 Carthage cat. 2. 72 See, for example, the vessels from Berthouville (Baratte and Painter 1989, no. 24) and Bavay (Nord) (ibid., no. 103), both of third century date. 73 It can also be noted that domesticated sheep and goats are the principal animals shown in small vignettes on the Bacchus and Ariadne platter in Kaiseraugst (cat. 61). 74 Johns 2010, 79–80, 84–5. For a discussion of how the complex Roman hairstyles were created see Stephens 2008. 75 Johns 2010, 79. 76 The hairstyle is also sported by the mask of a maenad on a pedestal that flanks the Achilles birth scene on the Achilles Plate in the ‘Seuso’ treasure (cat. 3). 77 Baratte et al. 2002, 22. 78 Ibid., 27. 79 Traprain Law cat. 36. Between the mask of Bacchus and that of a maenad, a dog with hare cowering beneath, pursues a ram and doe left; another dog brings down a ram on the right. To the right of the maenad head a leopard sinks his teeth into the neck of a captured deer; to the right of her, a stag runs away, towards another waiting leopard (which rather has the appearance of a male lion). Two further beasts engage behind, but here the vessel is broken. On the other side of the head of Bacchus, a bear springs from a rock towards what is probably a stag (the vessel is again broken); beneath flees a fawn. 80 Curle 1923, 42. Curle suggested it was a ‘striped hyena’. 81 Other types of tree are less commonly depicted on silver plate. For instance, the prominent tree in the bear-hunt scene on the ‘city on sea’ platter in Kaiseraugst is certainly a different species to that shown in cats 5–8 (and comparanda): Alfoldi-Rosenbaum suggests a sycamore, maple or oak, all species found in the Mediterranean region (Cahn and Kaufmann-Heinimann 1984, 218). Maple has distinctive trilobate leaves, so in my view appears the most likely. 82 For example Dohrn (1949) makes frequent references to sycamores. As discussed in the text (p. 135), Baratte has suggested some of the trees on the Carthage bowls might be identified as poplars. 83 Dohrn suggest ‘cactus’ for these plants (1949, 98). 84 Johns 2010, 40. 85 Johns 2010, 40. 86 Another ‘umbrella pine’ appears in the Leda and Swan scene on the ‘Seuso’ Meleager plate ( ‘Seuso’ cat. 2). 87 Johns 2010, 40. 88 Ten if cats 9–10 are also included: see Chapter 6. 89 An issue discussed briefly by Kaufmann-Heinimann (2013, 257). 90 Esmonde Cleary 2013a, 242. 91 Youngs 1983, 173. 92 Bennett 1983, 106, fig. 2.6.

Chapter 6 The Small Flanged Bowls (cats 9–10)

Form and decorative scheme

These bowls, though smaller and lighter than cats 5–8 (see Chapter 5), are of the same form; a flat base, curving to vertical walls which turn out sharply to a flat flanged and beaded rim. A fuller discussion is provided on p. 129, but it is certainly of significance that these bowls appear to be the only examples known of flanged bowls each of which was made from approximately 2 Roman pounds of silver. Also notable is the fact that, although very different in style to the Bacchic platter and the large flanged bowls (cats 5–8), the decoration is Bacchic in nature. In a similar manner to cats 5–8, both bowls have a central medallion and decoration covering the entire upper surface of the flanged rim that can be divided into four sections. The decoration is different, however, since the central basal design is entirely geometric, not figurative; and the rim of each bowl, though featuring some zoomorphic elements, is based upon a vine scroll pattern. The separating busts of cats 5–8 are here represented by rosettes within borders of pellets. That the design on both vessels was marked out before being executed seems likely, since it is possible to draw a line between the centres of the dividing rosettes and the central basal lathe mark.

Cat. 9 Small flanged bowl (Pls 253, 255) (British Museum 1946,1007.9; Brailsford 1947/1955, cat. 11; Painter 1973, cat. 11; Painter 1977a, cat. 9). Dimensions

Diameter: 169mm Width of rim (outer edge of bead to inner rim): 29.7mm Diameter of bowl: 107mm Total height: 57mm; height of bowl section: 45mm Diameter of foot-ring: 63.6mm Height of foot-ring: 8.5mm Weight: 615g (1.9 librae) Estimated capacity: 300ml (0.5 sextarii) Number of beads: 77 Bead dimensions (mm): 1 – 5.94; 10 – 5.99; 20 – 6.09; 30 – 6.24; 40 – 6.05; 50 – 5.85; 60 – 6.03; 70 – 6.04. Mean: 6.03mm (5.89mm). Aggregate mean: 5.96mm Form and decorative scheme

See above.

Inscription (Pls 254 and 399)

There is a scratched graffito inside the foot-ring on the base (see Chapter 12): I P IIS II symbol I p(ondo) II s(emis) II (unciae) One (item), by weight 2 (pounds and) a half, 2 (ounces).

It is indeed the case that the actual weight of the vessel is rather less than the graffito would imply, if the interpretation is accepted. Two and a half pounds, two ounces would equate to 873.2g. Given the accuracy of the graffito on cat. 10 in relation to its weight (see p. 151) there seems no easy

The Small Flanged Bowls | 147

small flanged bowl: cat. 9

S2

S3

S4

S5 S1

estimated capacity 307ml

0

10

5

15cm

Plate 253 Small flanged bowl (cat. 9), key to decorative scenes (S1–S5), profile and estimated capacity

way to explain this. It also bears no relation to the weight graffiti on cats 5 and 8, which as discussed (pp. 100, 121) are likely to relate to whole sets of bowls. For further discussion, see pp. 234–5. Decorative scenes Central medallion Scene 1 (Pl. 253) Plate 254 Weight graffito on base (cat. 9)

148 | The Mildenhall Treasure

Comprises a decorative motif in the centre of the inner base inside a double encircling border of square-sided pellets. The motif consists of a 16-petal floral device, composed of

Plate 255 Small flanged bowl (cat. 9), obverse, reverse and profile (not to scale)

The Small Flanged Bowls | 149

Plate 256 Detail of rosette (cat. 9, scene 2)

Plate 257 Detail of grapes (cat. 9, scene 2)

teardrop-shaped petals that converge at their pointed ends. Although they are of broadly similar size, there is slight variation, with some petals slightly narrower and more bunched in places. Outside the pellet border is a shallow recess that divides S1 from the side of the bowl. The inner side is decorated with elongated ‘S’ flutings, chased into the metal surface using a punch (see Lang’s discussion, p. 157).

a border of pellets that are truncated by the pellet borders of the decorative friezes as described above. From the rosette extends a vine scroll of variable thickness which creates cells in its waves for the inclusion of various decorative motifs, 12 in total (the last being a halfcell). The first two, clockwise from the rosette, are groups of raised pellets representing bunches of grapes. The third is a six-petal flower; the fourth consists of a side spur to the scroll; the fifth, a crescent-shaped motif, detailed with small chased striations; a similar motif occupies cell six but is sub-circular; then a tripartite vine-leaf motif, again with striations. The next is another bunch of grapes (Pl. 257), and in cell nine a bird that resembles a raven, with a large eye and a slightly curved beak, perched with its wings flat to the body, followed by another six-petal flower, then in cell 11 another tripartite vine-leaf motif (but less clearly defined than the previous example), and finally, in the half-cell, a ring of punched pellets with a single pellet in the centre (too fine to be illustrated in Pl. 253). In addition, blank spaces in the cells have been infilled with closely packed punched dots.

Flanged rim

The flat rim is decorated with a continuous frieze of an undulating vine scroll, forming cells that are infilled with floral, vineal and zoomorphic motifs. On the inner edge of the rim, and the outer edge inside the spherical beads, are identical friezes, consisting of a tightly braided guilloche pattern, often found on mosaics.1 Both of the friezes are orientated in a clockwise direction (note how this differs from cat. 10). The space between the two continuous friezes (the central decorative zone of the flange) is decorated with a more complex pattern. Although at first sight it appears quite random, on close inspection it divides into four decorative scenes (S2 to S5) each of which begins with a rosette inside a border of pellets. Between each of these rosettes is a vine-leaf scroll, to which are connected bunches of grapes, leaves or other motifs in the cells created by the waves of the scroll, all of which can be associated with the vine or the vineyard.

Scene 3 (Pl. 253)

The scene begins with a rosette of eight petals (Pl. 256) and a central pellet to represent the bud; this is contained within

The scene begins with another eight-petal flower; this time the scroll creates 11 cells (the last a half-cell, infilled with punched dots). The first three cells are filled with bunches of grapes; the fourth, a six-petal flower, rather crudely executed; the fifth, a crouching hare (Pl. 258) with illdefined features and vertical dashed stippling (see Pl. 46f) to represent the fur; the sixth, another tripartite vine-leaf motif (Pl. 259); the seventh, a six-petal flower; the eighth, a striated-crescentic motif; the ninth, another bunch of grapes; and the tenth, a further tripartite vine leaf.

Plate 258 Detail of hare (cat. 9, scene 3)

Plate 259 Detail of vine-leaf motif (cat. 9, scene 3)

Scene 2 (Pl. 253)

150 | The Mildenhall Treasure

Plate 260 Detail of flower (cat. 9, scene 4)

Plate 261 Detail of striated crescent (cat. 9, scene 4)

Scene 4

This is indeed the case, as 1 pound, 11 ounces is the equivalent of 627.6g. This is the only instance in the Mildenhall treasure (assuming that the interpretation of the graffito is correct) where the weight inscription corresponds closely with the actual weight of the vessel itself. Interestingly, given the fact that some silver must have been lost from the vessel as a result of working, it implies that the vessel was weighed and graffitoed after completion. However, it does not elucidate why the graffito on its companion vessel cat. 9 should give an entirely different weight (see p. 147). In addition, there may be a scratched ‘III’ (‘3’), the significance of which is discussed below (p. 155).

The scroll here creates nine full cells, before which is a halfcell, infilled with punched dots, and the last is a quarter cell, which is empty. Cell one contains a striated-crescent motif; cell two has an eight-petal flower (Pl. 260); three and four, a tripartite vine leaf in each; five, a striated-crescent (Pl. 261); six, a bunch of grapes; seven, a six-petal flower; eight, a tripartite vine leaf; and nine, a bunch of grapes. Scene 5

This is the simplest of all the decorative elements. The scroll in this section creates 15 cells, the first a half-cell with a halfleaf, the last also a half-cell, infilled with dots. Each full cell is filled with a striated-crescent motif, but in this instance these are more obviously part of the scroll, as each is a side spur of the main scroll and curls back under the wave.

Cat. 10 Small flanged bowl (Pls 262, 264) (British Museum 1946,1007.10; Brailsford 1947/1955, cat. 12; Painter 1973, cat. 12; Painter 1977a, cat. 10). Dimensions

Diameter: 170.5mm Width of rim (outer edge of bead to inner rim): 30.8mm Diameter of bowl: 107mm Total height: 57mm; height of bowl section: 45mm Diameter of foot-ring: 64.8mm Height of foot-ring: 8.5mm Weight: 627g (1.9 librae) Estimated capacity: 309.6ml (0.6 sextarii) Number of beads: 77 Bead dimensions (mm): 1 – 6.21; 10 – 6.23; 20 – 6.12; 30 – 6.62; 40 – 6.36; 50 – 6.11; 60 – 6.08; 70 – 5.98. Mean: 6.21mm (6.19) Aggregate mean: 6.20mm Form and decorative scheme

See above (p. 147).

Inscription (Pls 263 and 400)

There is a scratched graffito on the underside of the foot-ring (see Chapter 12): I L X I symbol I l(ibra) XI (unciae) 1 pound, 11 (ounces) This would correspond with the actual weight.

Decorative scenes Central medallion Scene 1 (Pl. 262)

As with cat. 9, this comprises a 16-petal flower inside a double pellet border. The outer pellet ring appears to be more worn in some sections than on cat. 9. There is the same recessed ring around the outside, and the same volute elongated ‘S’ fluting on the inner bowl wall executed by chasing. Flanged rim

The manner in which the flat rim is decorated is similar to cat. 9; the differences are the range of decorative motifs inside the vine scroll (and the manner in which these are rendered, for instance the bunches of grapes in S5, and the lack of infilling in many of the spaces in the fields of the cells). In addition, the direction of the guilloche on either side of the vine scroll is different; here the inner frieze of guilloche rotates anti-clockwise, the outer clockwise. Scene 2

The four-petal flower (Pl. 265) which initiates this section is inside a more distinctive ring of pellets than on cat. 9: the section of the ring nearest the inner part of the enclosing pellet frieze is not shared but abuts it, and at the top it overlaps the pellet frieze. The scroll creates nine cells (the first and last half-cells). The first features a small bud (a spur of the scroll), accompanied by a pair of spirals of punched dots, one clockwise and one anti-clockwise; the next is a bunch of grapes, this time with a semblance of an attachment stem to the scroll; the third, a tripartite vine-leaf motif, but this bears a closer resemblance to a tripartite flower than those depicted on cat. 9, S4; the fourth is a four-

The Small Flanged Bowls | 151

small flanged bowl: cat. 10

S2

S3

S4

S5 S1

estimated capacity 309ml

0

5

10

15cm

Plate 262 Small flanged bowl (cat. 10), key to decorative scenes (S1–S5), profile and estimated capacity

petal flower; the fifth, a bunch of grapes, a comma-shaped spur to the scroll and two spirals in the field; the sixth, a crouching hare (Pl. 266), with features more detailed than the one in cat. 9, S3, but with the same conjoined dashed stippling for the fur; then a ten-arm clockwise spiral around a central pellet (Pl. 267), with a punched anti-clockwise spiral in the field; followed by a quadripartite vine leaf. It should be noted that neither of these latter two motifs appear on cat. 9. The final half-cell has a spur and three punched spiral or ring motifs. Infilling gaps are discrete groups of punched dots, but these are not as dense as those in cat. 9. Plate 263 Weight graffito on base (cat. 10)

152 | The Mildenhall Treasure

Plate 264 Small flanged bowl (cat. 10), obverse, reverse and profile (not to scale)

The Small Flanged Bowls | 153

Plate 265 Detail of rosette (cat. 10, scene 2)

Plate 266 Detail of hare (cat. 10, scene 2)

Plate 267 Detail of spiral motif (cat. 10, scene 2)

Plate 268 Detail of hare (cat. 10, scene 3)

Scene 3

grapes, is detailed differently from all those that have gone before, as it is formed of lines of punched crescents in a teardrop shape; in the field is a ring of punched dots. The third has another bunch of grapes, as before; the fourth, the same, but with an overlapping spur which extends from the vine scroll; the fifth, a further bunch of grapes (Pl. 273); the sixth, a ten-armed clockwise spiral motif, the seventh, another bunch of grapes, but with the tail of the bird in cell eight overlapping it; cell eight has a standing bird (Pl. 274) with slightly curved beak and a long double tail. There is a ring of punched dots in the field below the bird’s head. The ninth has a bunch of grapes, though this is more bulbous than the others, and a ring of punched dots in the field; the tenth is a bunch of grapes with a ring of punched dots in the field, and the eleventh half-cell is empty.

The scene begins with an eight-petal flower, again inside a pellet border kept distinct from the pellet friezes to either side. The vine scroll has 11 cells, the first and last half-cells. The first cell contains a spur and a spiral; the second, a fivepart vine leaf; the third, a four-petal flower; the fourth, half a vine leaf; the fifth, a small crouching hare (Pl. 268), much less bold than that depicted in S2, cell 6; the sixth, a bunch of grapes with a clear stem joining the bunch to the scroll; the seventh, a bird (Pl. 269); then another grape bunch (Pl. 270) and a tripartite vine leaf; a half-leaf with two lobes, with a small punched ring below; followed by in the final half-cell a punched anti-clockwise spiral. Scene 4

The scene begins with an eight-petal flower. The vine scroll has 11 cells (the first and last being half-cells); the first contains a comma-shaped spur to the vine; the second, a very circular bunch of grapes with no joining stem, and two rings of punched dots in the field; the third, a tripartite vine leaf; the fourth, grapes with no stem; the fifth, a ten-arm clockwise spiral; the sixth, a tripartite vine-leaf motif; the seventh, another bunch of grapes; the eighth, a bird (Pl. 271) seated on the vine scroll with its tail hanging down over it; the ninth, an eight-petal flower (Pl. 272), with one distinct anti-clockwise spiral in the field, and another vague; then a bunch of grapes with two dotted crescents in the field; finally an anti-clockwise spiral in the last half-cell. Scene 5

The vine scroll has 11 cells, the first and last half-cells. The first is empty; the second, although shaped like a bunch of

154 | The Mildenhall Treasure

Discussion and parallels

There are enough common features to suggest these bowls were produced as a pair, although intriguingly, the possible number ‘III’ (3) scratched on the reverse of cat. 10 may imply that they were part of a larger set (see p. 151). They are virtually identical in terms of form, dimensions and weight, and have the same number of beads on each rim. Given that the aggregate mean of these beads differs only by approximately 0.2 millimetres, it can safely be assumed that the same set of dies was used to produce them (see p. 157). Nevertheless, there are differences of style in the decoration of the flanged rims; the various motifs used, and how these differ between the bowls, are summarized in Table 12. For example, the manner in which bunches of grapes have been depicted varies quite considerably, but not between bowls, in the sense that both bowls display

Plate 269 Detail of bird (cat. 10, scene 3)

Plate 270 Detail of grapes (cat. 10, scene 3)

Plate 271 Detail of bird (cat. 10, scene 4)

Plate 272 Detail of flower (cat. 10, scene 4)

Plate 273 Detail of grapes (cat. 10, scene 5)

Plate 274 Detail of bird (cat. 10, scene 5)

convincing and unconvincing bunches. In addition, the vine scroll is looser on cat. 10, forming between 9 and 11 cells, rather than the 10 to 15 of cat. 9 (Table 12). As the table also demonstrates, there are some odd distinctions in the distribution of motifs. Cat. 9, S5 is almost entirely made up of striated crescents; the seven grape bunches in cat. 10, S5 are also exceptional. Cat. 10 has five hares or birds, cat. 9 only two. Overall, cat. 10 appears neater and more accomplished, and the fact that the guilloche that encloses the vine scroll rotates in both a clockwise and anti-clockwise direction adds to this impression. But whether cat. 10 was completed by a more skilled hand is difficult to judge; perhaps different aspects of both bowls were worked on by different hands. This variation of style, suggesting more than one hand at work – perhaps a master and an apprentice

– is a pattern that has been seen elsewhere in the assemblage, particularly the Bacchic plates (cats 2–3) (see p. 76). Form parallels

The form and the comparanda are discussed in conjunction with cats 5–8 (see pp. 125–9). As was noted, these bowls are the only examples of silver flanged bowls with a weight equating to 2 Roman pounds. Decoration

No direct parallels in silver plate or other materials can be cited for these particular vessels. The only vessels that bear reasonable comparison with cats 9–10 are a pair of bowls in the Carthage treasure, which also have tight fluting on their inner walls, but there the parallels end (Pl. 275).2

The Small Flanged Bowls | 155

Grapes

Vine leaf

Crescents/scroll

Spiral/flower

Bird/hare

Other

Total

cat. 9, S2

3

2

1

2

1

3

12

cat. 9, S3

4

2

1

2

1

1

11

cat. 9, S4

2

3

2

2

–

1

10

cat. 9, S5

–

–

13

–

–

2

15

cat. 10, S2

2

2

–

2

1

2

9

cat. 10, S3

2

4

–

2

2

1

11

cat. 10, S4

4

2

–

3

1

1

11

cat. 10, S5

7

–

–

1

1

–

9

Total

24

15

17

14

7

11

88

Table 12 Distribution of the occurrence of different motifs in the vine-scrolls (cats 9–10)

Henceforth the discussion is restricted to examples of parallels for individual motifs. Basal rosette

Rosettes commonly appear on the bases of silver vessels of the third and fourth centuries. Examples include a plate in the third-century Vienne hoard, which has a central 19-petal rosette and vine scroll decoration on the flat rim, in a similar manner to cats 9–10, also inside a border of pellets.3 A 13-petal rosette appears in the centre of an otherwise plain platter from Šabac.4 A 15-petal rosette, inside a single pellet border, is found on the handle of a trulla from Saint-GenisPouilly of the second to third centuries.5 A platter from Červenbreg bears a rosette; it is also the central motif on a flat-bottomed plate from the unprovenanced ‘Munich’ treasure.6 A 12-petal rosette appears inside the central motif

on a platter from Harbiye. Therefore, there is nothing particularly distinctive or unusual about the use of this device in the base of each small flanged bowl. Rim decoration

Not surprisingly, there are many examples of vine scroll decoration on other items of silver plate of the late Roman period. A simple, sketchily executed vine scroll frames the lower panels of the Projecta casket in the Rome (Esquiline) treasure (which demonstrates how items of silver plate not directly related to dining can also feature Bacchic themes); vine leaves and grapes also appear on the Muse casket.7 An unpopulated vine scroll encircles the principal geometric motif on a plate from Augst, which also has a 22-petalled rosette in its centre. A rather prosaic vine scroll with vine leaves that alternate with bunches of grapes appears on the

Plate 275 Silver bowl with fluting, Carthage, fourth century. British Museum, AF.3277

156 | The Mildenhall Treasure

flat rim of the Corbridge lanx between two rows of pellets. That the vine scroll continued to decorate silver into the Christian era is ably demonstrated by an example on the Paternus paten of the early sixth century8 and the inhabited vine scroll on the flat rim of a paten from Malaia Pereshchepina, dated to the mid-seventh century, with a large central Chi Rho flanked by alpha and omega.9 Parallels can also be found for individual motifs. The rosettes in the vine scroll on the flange of the bowl from Graincourt-lès-Havrincourt10 are more neatly executed. Larger rosettes and spiralled rosettes also feature in a flatbottomed plate with vertical fluted sides from Mâcon.11 A similar bird (with head turned back) to cat. 9, S2 and cat. 10, S4 appears on the frieze of the flange of a deep bowl from Chaourse.12 Thus even if there are no direct parallels with other decorated flanged bowls, the use of an inhabited vine scroll on the rims of cats 9–10 is entirely consistent with the decoration of silver plate from the third century onwards.

Third, there are strong indications that although they were made as a pair, they may have been produced by different hands. Although the vine-scrolls at first sight appear to be the same, on close examination there are a number of differences between them, including the number and diversity of motifs employed and the neatness of their execution. Such differences have also been observed on other vessel pairs in the assemblage (for example, cats 2–3; see p. 76). Finally, they are unique in terms of production and dating. As discussed in the section on the forms of flanged bowls (pp. 125–9) these vessels are a fourth-century type and their high level of sophistication probably dates them later rather than earlier, perhaps to the second half of the fourth century. It is not possible to know where they were made, but interestingly, because of similarities of bead sizes, they may have been produced in the same workshop as the pedestalled plates (cats 14–15). For further discussion of production and dating, see Chapter 15.

The small flanged bowls: summary, production and dating

Technical aspects of the production of the small flanged bowls (Janet Lang)

In a similar manner to the four large flanged bowls (cats 5–8) this pair of bowls is unique in the surviving repertoire of late Roman silver plate for a number of reasons. First, in terms of size and weight they are unparalleled; although their height to diameter ratio (0.42) is hardly exceptional, their weight of approximately 2 Roman pounds is (Table 10, Chapter 5). As discussed previously (p.129), taken in conjunction with the four large flanged bowls, these form a group that sits apart from their counterparts in other hoards of late Roman silver. The fact that their weights conform almost exactly to 2 Roman pounds, which also correlates with the weight graffito on the underside of cat. 10 (if not cat. 9), must indicate that this was intentional. But as discussed in the last chapter (p. 128) the number of flanged bowls known featuring decoration on both the rims and bases is limited, so it is almost impossible to judge the degree to which they should be set apart from other vessels. All that can sensibly be said is that although it is possible to identify the apparent use of weight standards – as discussed, halfpound and one-pound bowls appear to be more common – these bowls testify to the fact that there was a wide range of variation within the production of silver plate. In fact, the end products would have depended upon the wishes of those commissioning the vessels and the quantity of raw material made available for their production. Alongside the large flanged bowls, which as has been seen are also exceptionally large and heavy, these bowls were clearly designed to impress. Their functional use as part of the dining service is discussed further in Chapter 16 (pp. 280–2). Second, with regard to their iconography, like much of the rest of the Mildenhall assemblage, the Bacchic theme is clear: in this case vine scrolls inhabited by vineal motifs and creatures one would expect to inhabit vineyards. However, unlike the large flanged bowls, where the layout of the rim decoration and the motifs used can be easily paralleled, the relatively complex and fine detailing on the rims of this pair of vessels does not find such ready comparison, except for individual motifs (see above).

Metal composition: summary

Analysis indicated the silver content of cat. 9 was between 95 and 97%. Cat. 10 was not analysed. For a fuller discussion see Chapter 13. Surface finish, wear and damage

The bowls are in excellent condition, with no discernible damage to the bodies or rims. Construction and execution of the design

The bowls were cast, worked and subsequently a lathe was used to improve the surface. The original cast surface is shown by circular areas around the marking-out pips (diameter 40–5mm) where casting porosity and hammering can be seen. Both circles are bounded by a heavily turned line, beyond which the metal has been turned. The bowl (cat. 10) evidently slipped while the line was being turned around the centre, as an irregular score and scratch left on the surface indicates. The foot-rings on both bowls have discontinuities and splits in the areas where they join onto the bowls, and the lips of some of the splits show signs of liquation. It is possible that the foot-rings were soldered on, but the evidence is inconclusive. The insides of the bowls were well polished, which removed much of the evidence of working, while the outsides were scraped around the foot-ring and under the flange. Punch marks from the decorative pattern show through on the underside. The flutes on the inside of each bowl were chased with a straight-edged punch. This operation left two impressions at the bottom of several of the flutes, thus indicating that each flute was chased twice. A number of punches as well as chasing were used in the decoration on the insides of the bases and the flanged rims. Small polished circles in relief were produced using a hollowed-out square-faced die; a similar die made a fanshaped relief pattern, and repeated dots made decorative bands. The more complex tightly braded guilloche pattern

The Small Flanged Bowls | 157

was formed by making an elongated ‘S’ shape with a scorper13 which curved around an ‘eye’ made by a ring punch with a dot in the middle. The ‘S’ shape is outlined by chasing. A ring of spherical beads outlines the rim of the bowl: the impression of the bead die is very heavy, particularly on the outside. The same bead die has been used on each bowl. An impression of a rough-surfaced punch can be seen on the outside of the rim. Notes

1 Balmelle et al. 1985, 121, a. 2 Carthage cats 3 and 4. 3 Vienne cat. 3. The Vienne hoard also includes a small dish with a 24-petal rosette in its base (cat. 7).

158 | The Mildenhall Treasure

4 Popović suggests a fourth-century date, but the bead-and-reel rim suggests it is probably third century (Popović 1994, 368). 5 Baratte and Painter 1989, no. 153. 6 Unprovenanced (‘Munich’) cat. 6. 7 Rome (Esquiline) cats 1–2. 8 Kiilerich 1993, 167, n. 553. 9 The symbolism of the vine to Christians relates to phrases from the New Testament such as ‘I am the vine, Ye are the branches’ ( John 15.5). See Thomas 1981, 92. 10 Baratte and Painter 1989, no. 94. 11 Ibid., no. 133. 12 Ibid., no. 76. 13 A sharp-edged tool usually used with a rocking motion (side to side) producing a zig-zag line to remove metal or to roughen the surface.

Chapter 7 The Flanged Bowl with Upstand and Cover (cats 11–12)

Cat. 11 The flanged bowl with upstand (Pls 276–7)

(British Museum 1946,1007.11; Brailsford 1947/1955, cat. 5; Painter 1973, cat. 4; Painter 1977a, cat. 11). Dimensions

Diameter: c. 228mm Height: 93.2mm Width of flange: 21.6mm Diameter of foot-ring: 60.0mm Height of foot-ring: 12.5mm Weight: 838.1g (2.6 librae) Estimated capacity: 1,674ml (3.1 sextarii) Form and decorative scheme

The form of the vessel is a hemispherical bowl with an integrated flared foot-ring; below the upstand (the vertical upper part of the vessel onto which the cover sits) there is a wide hooked flange. The vessel has a decorative motif in its base and on the flange. Inscriptions

Possible graffited θ inside the foot-ring, perhaps an owner’s initial. For further discussion see Chapter 12 (p. 237). Decorative elements

In the centre of the base of the hemispherical bowl is a foliate motif inside a wave-crest border (Pl. 278). The wave-crest forms an irregular circle and has 16 crests, irregularly spaced and of differing dimensions, which rotate in a clockwise direction, apart from one that (inexplicably) has been incised anti-clockwise (and has an additional spur which again seems to have been executed erroneously). The wave-crest encircles an eight-leafed foliate motif, the leaves of which are ovoid in shape and have serrated edges; these are unevenly sized and spaced. They too are detailed rather haphazardly and inconsistently: each leaf has an incised central spine, but this is not always clearly defined. The serrated leaf edges are executed in different ways, sometimes simply with spaced out punched dashes, sometimes with spaced out dashes but with an additional continuous line to form the shape of the leaf. The inner rim is decorated with evenly spaced incised vertical lines (sometimes inverted ‘T’s) which straddle both the inner and outer edges of the rim. Although these create the effect of fine beading, the significance of this detail is not clear. The flange is edged with a bead-and-reel moulding on its lower edge consisting of ovoid beads alternating with single, double or triple reels (depending on whether the reel has been notched once or twice or not at all; see also below, p. 174) (see Pl. 304). On the upper surface of the flange there is a continuous geometric vine-leaf scroll (Pl. 279). This is enclosed by two lines of wave that alternate in direction, the inner one scrolling clockwise, the outer anti-clockwise. The scroll comprises one continuous central wavy line that at each upturn and downturn of the wave has a side branch which forms lobes containing repeated motifs, all of which are identical (or are intended to be identical). Each of the motifs that terminates the side branches of the scroll consists of a six-petal foliate motif, each leaf ending in a slight bulb.

The Flanged Bowl with Upstand and Cover | 159

160 | The Mildenhall Treasure

3

S2

4

5

10

6

S3

7

8

11

12

9

S4

20cm

10

11

estimated capacity 1674ml

estimated capacity 1127ml

12

S5

12

13

11

14

15

S6

16

not to scale

not to scale

Plate 276 Flanged bowl with upstand and cover (cats 11–12). Profile, estimated capacities, example decoration and key to decorative scenes (S1–S7) and figures (F1–F19)

2

0

S1

1

Flanged bowl & cover: cat. 11 & 12

17

18

S7

19

Plate 277 Flanged bowl with upstand (cat. 11), obverse, reverse and profile (not to scale)

The Flanged Bowl with Upstand and Cover | 161

Plate 279 Detail of bead-and-reel rim and vine scroll on flange (cat. 11) Plate 278 Detail of basal motif (cat. 11)

Although these are all executed slightly differently, almost all have six leaves.1 There are additional double or sometimes single scrolls, which infill the spaces between the foliate motifs and the edges of the wave.

Havrincourt. It is by far the largest vessel, with a rim diameter of 270mm, and the second heaviest. The form is also known in other metals (e.g. a bronze vessel found at Ijzendoorn near Nijmegen in the Netherlands),6 and it is also a well-known form in terra sigillata (Curle 11).7 Decorative parallels

Discussion: parallels and dating

Basal decoration

Form (Table 13; Pl. 280)

Hooked-flange bowls with upstands are a well-known form in silver plate, although only a small number of vessels survive. There are, however, a number of reasons why the presence of this vessel in the Mildenhall treasure is rather unusual. Mildenhall seems to be the only assemblage that includes such a bowl in combination with vessels dating to the fourth century; other flanged bowls of this form are exclusively part of third-century deposits, and the form undoubtedly dates to this period.2 Direct parallels are provided by five other vessels, all from Gaul – another reason why the Mildenhall bowl is unusual – and all of broadly similar form and dimensions. As can be seen (Table 13), three (including cat. 11) have a weight corresponding to approximately 2½ Roman pounds; the vessel from Graincourt-lès-Havrincourt (Pl. 280) is approximately 1 pound heavier. Although of greater weight, this latter vessel is almost identical to cat. 11 in terms of its other dimensions (although it has a wider footring), and has a form only differing from cat. 11 in that its rim turns slightly outwards rather than inwards. Two further vessels from the Chaourse treasure are also very similar, one slightly smaller than cat. 11,3 and one slightly larger,4 and both with straight-sided flaring foot-rings and vertical upstands. Another flanged bowl from Chaourse is rather smaller5 and has a flange not integral to the form, but is nonetheless of very similar style. Finally a vessel from Mérouville is close in form to the vessel from Graincourt-lès-

No exact parallels for the foliate motif on cat. 11 have been found, although similar motifs are relatively well known on silver plate vessels of the third century, all of which have been discovered in Gaul. The Mildenhall vessel is also unusual because these similar motifs appear only on vessels of other forms: in other words, none of the comparable flanged bowls feature basal decoration. The most common device found is a more complex motif which has six serrated-edged leaves, narrower than those on cat. 11, but intersected by additional stems with cordate terminals. Examples of this can be found on a plate from Chaourse (Pl. 281)8 and also vessels from Rethel.9 The latter (Rethel cat. 6) is enclosed by a clockwise wave-scroll border, and is paralleled by a vessel from the Montbellet deposit,10 although the latter has a wave-scroll running anti-clockwise. The most complex motif, again within a wave-scroll border (clockwise) is found in the centre of a platter from Graincourt-lès-Havrincourt (Pl. 282);11 this is paralleled by a foliate motif from Vienne.12 A less complex device, though of broadly similar type, occurs on another vessel at Chaourse, where niello has been used to create negative leaves (Pl. 283).13 Flange decoration

Like the decoration in the base of the bowl, the decoration on the flange cannot be paralleled exactly, but the presence of a vine scroll on bowls of this type is common: of the six silver bowls of this form known, four have vine scroll decoration

Table 13 Flanged bowl with upstand (cat. 11) and comparanda vessels, third century, arranged by rim diameter, largest to smallest FLANGED BOWLS WITH UPSTANDS Provenance

Height (mm)

Total diameter (ratio)

Foot-ring height

Foot-ring diameter

Weight (g/Roman lbs)

Mérouville

104

270 (0.39)

13

78

1,115 (3.4)

Chaourse (Baratte and Painter 1989, no. 74)

93

235 (0.40)

15

69

845 (2.6)

Graincourt-lès-Havrincourt (Baratte and Painter 1989, no. 94)

92

230 (0.40)

15

79

1,198 (3.7)

Mildenhall cat. 11

93

228 (0.41)

12.5

60

838 (2.6)

Chaourse (Baratte and Painter 1989, no. 76)

88

220 (0.40)

10.5*

75

983 (3.0)

Chaourse (Baratte and Painter 1989, no. 75)

87

205 (0.42)

7.5*

81*

854 (2.6)

* Estimated from published profile drawing

162 | The Mildenhall Treasure

Plate 280 Profile of cat. 11 and comparanda vessels, third century, arranged by rim diameter from largest to smallest. Figures on the left of each profile are height of foot-ring/height (ratio), figures on the right are height/diameter (ratio)

The Flanged Bowl with Upstand and Cover | 163

Plate 281 Detail of basal motif, silver plate, Chaourse, third century (Baratte and Painter 1989, cat. 78). British Museum, 1889,1019.18

Plate 282 Detail of basal motif, silver plate, Graincourt-lès-Havrincourt, third century (Baratte and Painter 1989, cat. 89). Musée du Louvre, inv. no. BJ2215

Plate 283 Detail of basal motif, small silver plate, Chaourse, third century (Baratte and Painter 1989, cat. 62). British Museum, 1889,1019.13

while the other two have hunting scenes or scenes with Bacchic masks. Thus all these flanged bowls are firmly Bacchic in their repertoire of themes and motifs. The use of cat. 11 (and vessel of related form) in the context of dining is discussed further in Chapter 16 (p. 279). Cat. 11 displays the least sophisticated vine scroll of its comparison group of flanged bowls. This may be a consequence of opting to enclose the vine in two lines of wave-scroll, limiting the complexity of the scroll itself. It should also be noted that it is the only scroll which is incised and then decorated with niello; all the other examples found on flanges are raised rather than chased. Thus it has none of the complexity of the vine scroll on the flanged bowl from Graincourt-lès-Havrincourt,14 an inhabited scroll executed with a high degree of elegance and expertise.15 It is also not as elaborate as that present on one of the flanged bowls from Chaourse (Pl. 284),16 which sits inside a border of kymationstyle running frieze and square-sided pellets. The vine scroll on the flange of another bowl from Chaourse is much looser in style and includes standing birds (Pl. 285). Although there are no direct parallels for the scroll on other flanged bowls, there is a strong parallel with a small nielloed plate from Kaiseraugst (Pl. 286a–b).17 The inner scroll on the plate is very close in style to the vine scroll of cat. 11, and is executed in the same manner, being incised and nielloed. This vessel has been dated to the first half of the fourth century, and therefore post-dates the Mildenhall vessel.18 Other vine scrolls worth noting (although they are once again rather more sophisticated than that displayed on cat. 11) can be found on the situla from Conceşti, which has

an elaborate vine scroll occupying the upper and lower registers of the decoration; and a scroll on the flat rim of a third-century plate from Graincourt-lès-Havrincourt.19 All these examples simply serve to demonstrate how commonly such vine scrolls are found on late Roman silver plate, particularly for vessels used at the dining table.

Plate 284 Example of vine scroll on flange of bowl, Chaourse, third century (Baratte and Painter 1989, cat. 74). British Museum, 1890,0923.3

Plate 285 Example of vine scroll on flange of bowl, Chaourse, third century (Baratte and Painter 1989, cat. 76). British Museum, 1890,0923.2

164 | The Mildenhall Treasure

Production and dating

That the flanged bowl with upstand was produced in the third century seems indisputable, given the fact that it is such a well-known form in Gallic hoards of this date. It has been argued on stylistic grounds to be late in the sequence, of the late third century.20 Most importantly, the bowl is the earliest object in the Mildenhall treasure and had thus been in use or circulating for at least a century before burial. For further discussion, see Chapter 15.

Cat. 12 Hemispherical cover (Pls 276, 287)

(British Museum 1946,1007.12; Brailsford 1947/1955, cat. 6; Painter 1973, cat. 5; Painter 1977a, cat. 12). Dimensions

Diameter: 197mm Height (without handle): 80mm Height (with handle): 107mm Height of triton handle: 33.3mm Weight: 391g (1.2 librae) Estimated capacity: 1127ml (2.1 sextarii)

Plate 286a–b (left) Small niello silver plate, Kaiseraugst (cat. 55), first half of fourth century; (above) detail of inner scroll. Museum Augusta Raurica, Augst

Form and decorative scheme

A hemispherical cover produced to fit on top of the flanged bowl (cat. 11), almost certainly as a later addition (see pp. 172–3). The cover has a circular upstanding ring on top, which forms a recess into which has been attached a solid silver figure in the form of a triton. The cover has foliate decoration covering approximately two-thirds of its body and a lower figurative frieze with Bacchic masks and individual scenes of centaurs battling wild beasts. Inscriptions

None.

Decorative elements Triton handle Scene 1 (Pl. 288a–d)

Comprises a solid-cast gilt figure of a seated triton that forms the handle of the cover and sits within a raised ring on the cover’s top. He sits with his legs open and his feet together, the sole of his right foot pressed against the inner side of the left. There is an incised line below his left knee, perhaps suggesting the strap of footwear, but otherwise he is naked. His head is crudely formed,21 the features poorly rendered; deep punched sockets form the pupils of his eyes, perhaps originally set with glass. He has a reasonably well-modelled aquiline nose and an irregular mouth with a chin which kinks out to the left. The hair on the crown of his head is detailed by punched commas, implying curls; he sports a wreath formed of a line of irregular beads which completely encircles his head. The beads are slightly larger on his forehead. His torso is detailed with punched dots for the nipples, a shallow indent for the divide of his ribcage and an off-centre punched dot for the navel. The back is mostly smooth, with a very light indent to delineate his spine between his shoulder blades and another for his buttocks.

His poorly modelled left arm is fully extended, and his hand cups the end of a large conch shell with three turns along its shaft; all four fingers are depicted on the cupped hand, as if the thumb is hidden. The shell narrows and terminates just below his chin, and it is unclear if the original intention was that it should join his head at the mouth; under close inspection, it appears that there might be a break, but the shell is too firmly fixed to his arm to suggest that this was originally attached and has now broken away. His right arm, also poorly modelled, is down at his side with the hand resting on his right knee; in his hand, again with all four fingers shown (and the semblance of a thumb), he holds a globular object covered in indents (only truly visible under magnification) – it is not clear what this item is supposed to represent.22 Frieze

A decorative frieze runs around the lower part of the lid, and is enclosed in a border of tiny raised beads at the top directly below which is a repeated ovolo pattern (as commonly seen on terra sigillata forms Dragendorff 30 and 37). This is raised from the metal surface. The lower border consists of another line of raised beads but below this, instead of ovolo, is a continuous line of open-ended circle motifs, some of which terminate on the lower edge with double forked crows’ feet. The height of the lower border is very variable; at its highest 8.3mm (below the second bust of S4) at its lowest 6.8mm (for example below the first bust of S4). In between these borders is a figurative frieze comprising six scenes separated by busts, 18 figures in total. Scene 2 (Pl. 289)

This section is flanked by busts that are opposed. The lefthand bust (Pl. 290) depicts an irate-looking Silenus (F2). His eye is formed of a raised ring into which has been punched the pupil; there is a small raised line to indicate the lower lid, while the upper lid is much oversized, extending from the corner of the eye back towards the ear. Above this the eyebrow is shown with a line of evenly spaced short punched dashes. The mouth is downturned, the lips thin; the snub nose is small and rather squashed. Silenus is mostly bald, his forehead narrow and ridged, accentuating his bellicosity. The hair at the back of the head is brushed inwards towards his face, with a curl just above the neck which extends out behind him. The beard is long, full and wavy, merging with his drooping moustache. The beginning of his shoulder is depicted, but – unlike the busts on the large flanged bowls

The Flanged Bowl with Upstand and Cover | 165

Plate 287 Cover of flanged bowl with upstand (cat. 12), obverse, reverse and profile (not to scale)

166 | The Mildenhall Treasure

a

b

c

d

Plate 288a–d Four views of seated triton (cat. 12, scene 1, figure 1)

(cats 5–8), for instance – no attempt has been made to indicate garments. The other bust (F5) facing inwards (left) depicts Pan (Pl. 291),23 who has also been given a somewhat heated expression. His eye is rendered in an identical manner to that of Silenus. His downturned mouth and full lips are also very similar, but the nose in contrast is heavily hooked and rather poorly defined; a chased line indicates his jaw, but is rather weak and unconvincing. Pan has long wavy hair, including a quiff at the front; between this and the crown of

his head is a conical horn with four incised twists. At the base of his crown, emerging from his hair (which curls down and out behind him in loose waves), is a cloven hoof, the fur indicated by dot stippling; this can be presumed to be part of a nebris tied around the neck, the remainder of which is not depicted. His moustache is long and drooping, and he has a long beard of three large curls on his chin only, his visible cheek bare. The beginning of his shoulder can be glimpsed. Between the busts is a male lion chasing a centaur from left to right (Pl. 289). The centaur (F4) springs forwards

Plate 289 Lion and centaur flanked by busts (cat. 12, scene 2, figures 2–5)

The Flanged Bowl with Upstand and Cover | 167

Plate 290 (left) Bust of Silenus (cat. 12, scene 2, figure 2) Plate 291 (right) Bust of Pan (cat. 12, scene 2, figure 5)

from its outstretched hind legs, the hooves planted on the ground (the left hind leg chased); the forelegs are stretched out in front (the left chased and higher than the right). The centaur is turning his head back towards the lion. The centaur’s face is somewhat crudely detailed, with punched dots for the pupils and flared nostrils, and chased lines for the eyelids; a chased inverted ‘U’ forms the mouth. Punched dots have been used to indicate curly hair. The centaur’s right arm is held out before him and is bent at the elbow; the hand, with all four fingers visible, grips a club, chased into the metal surface. The club is detailed with two punched dots on its butt end. His tail flares out behind him. The horse’s coat is left plain and undecorated. The male lion (F3) (the mane is the only indication of the gender – no genitalia are shown) is depicted in a similar pose to the centaur, its hind legs planted on the ground as it springs forwards (its left hind leg and both forelegs are chased, as with the centaur). On close inspection, the head seems crudely modelled, with a series of raised elements and punched dots and fine stippling, but this nonetheless gives quite a convincing appearance of a roaring beast. The lion has a beard, a pricked ear and a punched dot for the pupil. The mane is quite short and runs along his shoulder and down beside his jaw. Five chased lines in front of his head would appear to be an attempt to visualize his roar. His tail is raised above his back and terminates in a tuft; his fur is indicated by fine punched dot stippling (including on the engraved left and right legs); the back of his upper right leg has chased lines to show the extension of his fur. In the background behind the lion is a chased tree. It has a wide trunk that flares at the base and has an inverted ‘V’ in its centre. The trunk rises to four branches, the left-hand one Plate 292 Centaur and boar (cat. 12, scene 3, figures 6–7)

168 | The Mildenhall Treasure

forming a cut stump, the next terminating in a tripartite leaf (edged with short dashes), then another stump, followed by a long branch (with a short pointed twig roughly halfway along its length) terminating in another tripartite leaf edged with punched dashes. Below the centaur is a grass tuft composed of 11 chased lines of varying length (short at the sides and long in the middle), three of which end in ‘flowers’ of punched dots that form triangles. Parallel dashed lines, and a longer and kinked chased line, indicate the ground surface from which the grass grows. Scene 3 (Pl. 292)

This view depicts a confrontation between a centaur and a boar: it is the only scene in which the centaur is on the left and the beast on the right. The centaur is shown with his back turned away from the viewer, but the lower half is springing forwards to the right. The horse part is almost identical to that in S2, except that in this instance the right foreleg is higher than the left (chased) which points towards the ground. The tail brushes the hair of Pan’s bust behind. As the centaur (F6) has his back turned away from the viewer, only the back of the head is seen. It is shown with straight hair with a central parting and a fringe of hair on the neck. His right arm is raised alongside his head, then bent back at the elbow across the face, as if either protecting himself from an attack or in the process of striking, perhaps with a club (which, if so, is not visible to the viewer, and would presumably be hidden by the head and torso). The left arm is out to the side, and there is a nebris wrapped around the lower arm, which flails out behind him; the majority of the skin is chased and detailed with rows of punched dots.

Plate 293 Boar and centaur flanked by busts (cat. 12, scene 4, figures 8–11)

The boar (F7) springs forwards from its hind legs, his forelegs fully extended and off the ground (the right chased). The eye is formed of an ovoid recess which forms the socket, within which is a raised ring with a punched dot for the pupil. The overlapping tusk and nose (which has a slight indent) is skilfully rendered, as is the left ear (raised, the right being chased). The bushy tail is lifted vertically from the body. The fur is depicted as vertical undulating waves (see Pl. 46a), the head and legs with shallow dashed stippling (see Pl. 46f); the fur forms a high comb between the ears and down the upper back, and there is an additional line of punched dots on the rump to indicate raised fur. A chased tree, similar to that in S2, is depicted in the background behind the body of the boar. It has a slightly flared trunk base, which diverges into three branches. The left-hand one (which has two side twigs which peter out to nothing) dissolves into a pine-cone-like motif, with a dotted perimeter; the central branch, which turns towards the right, into something similar, while the final right-hand branch terminates in nothing. There is an eight-stemmed grass tuft chased below the centaur, and a seven-stemmed, slightly larger tuft between the boar and the first bust of S4. Scene 4 (Pl. 293)

Like S2, this scene is bracketed by busts that face inwards. The first bust (F8) depicts a maenad (Pl. 294). She has a slightly staring countenance, largely due to the rather bulbous eye, formed by a raised ring with a punched dot for the pupil, a curving line for the upper lid and very fine punched dots to indicate the eyebrow. She has been given a rather weak chin and fleshy jaw, a straight but slightly snub nose and thick lips that form a downturned mouth. The hair

runs in loose swathes which are brushed back from the forehead then upwards from the back to form a bun at the top of the crown; the hair on the crown itself is brushed in the opposite direction and tight to the head. Her earlobe emerges from beneath her hair. Her neck flares slightly at the base to indicate her collar bone, but no attempt has been made to show garments. The opposing bust (F11) is of a satyr (Pl. 295). He sports a slightly irate look, but milder than the Silenus and Pan of S2. His eye, nose and mouth are very similar to that of the maenad, but he has a heavier brow ridge and stronger chin, a long pointed caprine ear detailed with punched pellets and the distinctive line of neck sinew is shown as a ridge. His thick hair is arranged in long loose curls, including a quiff, and a lock of hair which curls out at the back. The central scene is similar to that in S2, but is a little more detailed and rather more dramatic. A centaur (F10) springs away from a boar; the horse part is almost identical to that of S2 (the left chased foreleg is slightly straighter). Although the head is turned back to face the viewer, as in S2, so is the torso, and therefore seen from the front; the muscles are well defined. The face is similarly expressive, although this time a beard is very clearly defined and the hair is upstanding, all giving a stronger sense of expression. Around his left arm is draped a nebris, in an echo of the centaur in S3; the hand that emerges from beneath forms a fist, but is too large for the body. In the other hand the centaur raises a crudely defined club, more like a hunk of unshaped wood with a forked end, which rather resembles a cloven hoof. His elbow is bent, the tip pointing directly at the boar behind. Although facing in the opposite direction, the boar (F9) is larger but otherwise almost identical to that shown in S3.

Plate 294 (left) Bust of maenad (cat. 12, scene 4, figure 8) Plate 295 (right) Bust of satyr (cat. 12, scene 4, figure 11)

The Flanged Bowl with Upstand and Cover | 169

Plate 296 Leopard and centaur (cat. 12, scene 5, figures 12–13)

More has been packed into the background detail than in the previous two scenes. A tree similar to the ones in S2 and S3 is depicted in the background ‘behind’ the tail of the centaur; only three branches are shown but two pine-conelike leaf motifs tip the ends of the outer ones. The trunk base is clearly defined, a single line that kinks and bulges out towards the boar. A different type of tree is shown in the background behind the boar; it has a moderately flared trunk base, which then branches into two diverging ovoid and fern-like leaf motifs, made up of dotted stippling and dashed feathering around the outer edges. As for cats 5–8, the best fit for a species, if one is intended, is a date palm (see p. 136). In addition there are six-stemmed grass tufts below the boar and below the centaur. Scene 5 (Pl. 296)

This scene, the shortest of all in length, depicts a confrontation between a leopard and a centaur. The centaur (F13) that occupies the right of the field, stands on his bent hind legs (the right chased), his tail flailing behind him. His forelegs are in the reared position. Like the head of the centaur in S4, he looks outwards from the vessel, and his appearance is very similar, with all his facial features rendered in an extremely comparable manner; however, his hair is detailed with punched dots as opposed to short waves (like the centaur in S2). The centaur has a well-modelled torso and biceps, and his arms are raised above his head. In his hands he holds a large rock, which fills the gap between his head and the lower line of the ovolo border. The rock is detailed with three pairs of short punched dashes.

Occupying the left field is a leopard (F12) (gender indeterminate), which stands on its hind legs, the left planted out behind it, the right advanced, and the forelegs stretched out in front but raised off the ground (the left is chased). The leopard’s back is arched, the tail, which ends in a bulbous tuft, raised; its head is also elevated, the eyes pointing directly at the centaur, the mouth open. The eye is an ovoid socket, within which is a small raised oval bump with a chased line for the pupil (but this is only clearly visible under magnification). The ear is pricked. The head has a ruff on the jaw, with similar tufts of hair at the back of the hind legs. Five chased lines before the head suggest the leopard’s roar. The coat is detailed with dot stippling, over the top of which the rosettes are indicated using a ring punch. In the background behind the body of the leopard is a chased tree; the trunk flares very slightly at the base and leads to two fern-like diverging leaves detailed with dot stippling and edged with dashes. A similar tree is shown in the background behind the tail of the centaur; the base of the trunk is slightly more flared, and the fern part is a single oval brush, again detailed with dotted stippling and feathering of dashes around the edge. Both are probably intended to represent date palms (see p. 136). The only other decoration is a chased grass tuft between the two beasts; a 12-stemmed tuft, two longer stems of which end in triangles of punched dots. Scene 6 (Pl. 297)

This scene is flanked by busts facing inwards. The left-hand bust (F14) (Pl. 298) of a maenad closely resembles that of S4

Plate 297 Lioness (?) and centaur flanked by busts (cat. 12, scene 6, figures 14–17)

170 | The Mildenhall Treasure

Plate 298 (left) Bust of maenad (cat. 12, scene 6, figure 14) Plate 299 (right) Bust of Bacchus (cat. 12, scene 6, figure 17)

opposite – her features are virtually identical, with a relatively weak chin, the same means of rendering her eye, the same nose and downturned mouth. The hair-style, however, is rather different (and is unique to this vessel but not the hoard, because it is also seen on cat. 5, S3): a series of seven cornrow-style plaits which run back in parallel from the forehead across the crown; then at the back, formed from the hair on the back of the head, and starting from the nape of the neck, a loose plait which extends upwards (and presumably if copying a model’s actual coiffure was fixed in place with a large number of pins). This is the Scheitelzopffrisur hair-style, seen on cat. 5, S3, and discussed on p. 134. The other divergence from the bust opposite is that the upper parts of her garments are visible: it looks as if she has some kind of shawl or scarf around her collarbone, or it might be the top of a tunic. On the right is another bust (F17), and despite the rather feminine appearance, it probably represents Bacchus24 (Pl. 299). He has a stronger chin and jaw than his companion, but the eye is more or less identical (the line of his upper lid is a little finer); although his mouth is also downturned, the lips are very full. His left ear is fully visible and the hair-style is quite complex: swathes of hair run out of his forehead back towards a bun; the hair is still wavy but flatter on the crown, and there is a double tuft of hair on the forehead. Between this and the hair on his crown a hairband is indicated, detailed with two lines of punched dots. This is adjacent to three large pellets that form the points of a triangle, probably the terminal to the hairband. The central scene depicts a lioness(?) and a centaur. The centaur (F16), who occupies the right-hand part of the field, is almost identical to that in S4; he too is springing forwards from his outstretched hind legs (the left chased); the difference from the forelegs is that they are parallel to each other (the left is chased). His face is almost identical to that in S4, and rendered in the same way; his hair, however, is not in waves but punched dots as if to suggest tight curls. (In this sense he has a very similar appearance to that of the centaur in S5). His torso is equally well defined. Like the centaur in S4, he has a nebris wrapped around his left arm, the tail of which flails out behind him, although in this instance it is billowing away from him, whereas in S4 it curves back towards the centaur. In his raised right hand, he holds a large (chased) hunk of wood, but in this case it is clearly a club; the hand is also more precisely detailed, with the

thumb shown overlapping the fingers as the fist is wrapped around the club’s grip. The lioness (assuming this is the correct identification) (F15) springs forwards from her outstretched hind legs (the left chased) just as in S2. Her forelegs are outstretched (the left chased) and parallel as in S4; the eye is a roughly ovoid recess in which there is a ring-and-dot; the mouth is open in a roar, shown by six chased lines. The only difference from the lion in S7 (aside from the lack of mane) is that the tail is flat to the body so that the tuft (which looks too large) brushes the ground. The coat, like that of the lion in S7, is detailed with vertical rows of dots (see Pl. 46c). The chased tree in the background behind the body of the lioness is also very similar to one in S4. It has a flared trunk base with a ‘U’-shaped central notch; four branches, the first (left-hand) bare, the second ending in a tripartite bud, as does the fourth branch; but unlike those shown in S4, these are raised from the vessel’s surface, apart from the dashed lines around their outer edges. The tree also has two pairs of dots at the junction of the trunk and the branches, and a grass tuft of three stems emerges from the right side of the trunk base. Below the torso of the centaur is a tenstemmed chased grass tuft; three stems of which end in three-pointed three-dot flowers. Scene 7 (Pl. 300)

Depicts a confrontation between a lion and a centaur. The centaur (F19) is closest in pose to the centaur in S5, but is also the ‘front view’ of his companion in S3. He is leaping forwards from his outstretched hind legs (the right chased); his forelegs are bent and in mid-air, the right chased. Unlike all the other centaurs, his face is depicted in profile so that only his left eye is visible; this is formed of a punched dot with a shallow dashed incision behind, and two lines between nose and cheek; these can only clearly be seen under magnification. Unusually, he is not bearded, and his wavy hair ends in a loose pony-tail. The face, overall, is very crudely defined, almost grotesque in appearance. Wrapped around his left arm is a nebris, which flares out behind him; much of it is chased, then detailed with punched dots in looser lines. In the other hand, and held above his head, is a club; the fingers on his hand are shown by a series of shallow, parallel indents. Unlike the clubs depicted in other scenes, this one has been raised from the vessel’s surface.

The Flanged Bowl with Upstand and Cover | 171

Plate 300 Lion and centaur (cat. 12, scene 7, figures 18–19)

The lion on the left of the scene (F18) is very similar to that in the adjacent S2. He too springs from his outstretched hind legs (the left chased), although his elevation is flatter, with his outstretched forelegs (the left chased) almost parallel to the ground. The mane is also more clearly defined, with the line of fur running down across his chest; his mouth too is open, the eye the same, and again there are five chased lines to represent the roar. His tufted tail is raised and curls back, but more acutely than that of S2. In the background behind the lion is a chased tree with a slightly flared trunk base; it has a single, fern-like leaf similar to the one in S5. It has a grass tuft of three stems on each side of the trunk’s base. Area above frieze

The area between the raised lip which contains the triton and the lower frieze of centaurs and wild beasts is occupied by a foliate design, entirely chased into the metal surface (Pl. 301). The decoration consists of seven leaves each in the shape of a truncated teardrop; the central spines of these are detailed as undulating lines which narrow as they reach the leaf’s tip. These are decorated on their insides with chased shallow and radiating lines. In the space between these spines and the perimeter of the leaf, radiating curved lines have been gouged out of the metal to form shallow hollows; these narrow as they reach the leaf edge. Just above the ovolo border, the spaces between the leaves have been infilled with further leaves with wavy lines forming their outer edge; these have again been infilled with shallow grooves which Plate 301 Foliate design on the hemispherical cover (cat. 12)

172 | The Mildenhall Treasure

fan out towards the leaf edges, but have chased parallel lines forming their central spine. Discussion: parallels and dating Form and dimensions

No other examples of flanged bowls with upstands have been found with covers, so this bowl is, strictly speaking, unparalleled. In form the cover bears a broad resemblance to the series of approximately hemispherical bowls that were produced as imperial largitio in the first half of the fourth century.25 This was considered when assessing the cover, since it was noticed that aside from the similar dating, there is a strong metrological link with these hemispherical bowls regularly made from a pound of Roman silver.26 Although the cover weighs in excess of a pound, this is due to the additions of the ring and handle, so it too was manufactured from a similar quantity of metal. But the forms do not share enough common features, since the cover is much deeper than these bowls, which are always quite shallow, which means that the cover is apparently not an adaptation of one of these vessels. Therefore, the only conclusion to reach is that the cover was a bespoke product made to fit on top of the flanged bowl with upstand (cat. 11) – but not particularly successfully, since it is a poor fit. In addition, the piece is poorly finished (see Lang’s comments, below) and the original handle has been replaced by the triton figure. Figural decoration

As regards the figural decoration, there are clear similarities with other hunting scenes separated by busts which can be found on the rims of the large flanged bowls (Chapter 5) and on the flat rims of other types of vessel, as discussed previously (pp. 132–6). The style of the frieze on the bowl cover is, however, very different from the flanged bowls, for instance in the use of lines intended, presumably, to imitate the roars of the wild cats. The busts that bracket each scene are also of very different character to those on the flanged bowls, not least because they are far easier to characterize as Bacchic. It is possible to find parallels between individual figures and figures that appear on vessels in other treasures of late Roman silver, which not only suggests the use of similar models but also roots the date of the cover firmly in the fourth century. The hair-style of the maenad in S6 is similar to that

seen on one of the bowls in the Carthage treasure,27 and it is also possible to parallel the lion chasing the centaur in S2 and the male lion chasing the deer on its companion vessel.28 The suggestion that the male head in S6 may represent Bacchus (put forward in a study of the Carthage treasure)29 is given more credibility because a similar mask with a rosette in the hair appears on the Achilles Plate in the ‘Seuso’ treasure; that the latter mask certainly represents Bacchus is in turn confirmed by comparison with the figure of Bacchus in the main frieze of the same scene.30 Centaurs appear in two of the hunting scenes on the platter from Conceşti, and in the lower register of the Hippolytus ewer in the ‘Seuso’ treasure, where their appearance is rather more benign.31 To draw another parallel with the ‘Seuso’ treasure, the stance of a leopard on the outer frieze on the hunting plate is very similar to that of S5.32 Foliate decoration

In a similar manner to the figural frieze, the foliate decoration that occupies much of the surface of the cover can also be paralleled on silver plate of the fourth century. The use of such decoration on silver plate remained popular, as exemplified by a platter from Sludka, dated by control stamps to the sixth century. Similar foliate decoration can also be found on a silver amphora from Boroczyce and a fragment of Hacksilber from a rectangular or square vessel from Balline. The latter piece is closely comparable, with the preserved central part of the vessel decorated with similar shallow grooves and chased wavy lines (Pl. 302). As rectangular vessels appear to have become common only in the fourth century, this parallel adds further support to the argument that the cover was produced at that time. The radiating acanthus leaf decoration on the Meleager platter in the ‘Seuso’ treasure provides another comparative both stylistically and chronologically.33 Summary

The flanged bowl with upstand and its accompanying cover are highly interesting items in the Mildenhall treasure for a number of reasons. First, the flanged bowl is the earliest object in the treasure, demonstrating how some silver vessels could remain in circulation for many years after production. Second, the flanged bowl is the only example of a vessel of this type to possess a cover. Why it was felt necessary to create such a cover is unclear, although some perceived functional necessity is obviously implied (discussed further in Chapter 16, p. 279). One also wonders if the designs that feature on the cover represent a deliberate attempt to echo decorative features of other vessels in the dining service; it is the only item aside from the Bacchic platter that combines both marine (the triton handle) with Bacchic (the frieze, particularly the Bacchic masks) imagery, and one cannot help but think this may have been deliberate, not least because the triton figurine replaced an earlier handle. The foliate design on the lid also invites comparison with both the fluted dish (cat. 13, Chapter 8) and three of the longhandled spoons (Chapter 11). The technical aspects of these vessels, also indicative of separate dates of production, are discussed below.

Plate 302 Hacksilber from Balline, fourth century. National Museum of Ireland

Technical aspects of the production of the flanged bowl and cover (Janet Lang) Cat. 11 Flanged bowl Metal analysis: summary

Analysis was carried out on the bowl, flange, upstand and foot-ring, as it was considered possible that more than one piece of metal had been used to construct the bowl. The silver content ranges from 96 to 97%. The copper content of the foot-ring is very slightly lower (0.5%) than the values found in other parts of the bowl, but the differences among the various components are within the normal variations found on items of Roman silver plate that have been cleaned, and are therefore not significant. For a fuller discussion, see Chapter 13. Surface finish, wear and damage

Both surfaces appear smooth and well finished, but low magnification shows many small scratches and cavities. A casting cavity is visible close to the central motif on the inside. The outside surface has been attacked by corrosion in places. The fine beading on the edge of the upstand has been worn away in places. The two dents in the side of the bowl and two long gashes, visible underneath the flange, do not appear to be recent. Construction and execution of the decoration

The bowl was originally cast: fine casting pores can be seen at low magnification, particularly on the underside of the base, which has been left unpolished in the central area within the foot-ring (Pl. 303). A marking-out pip lies at the centre of the underside, and surface porosity indicates that much of the original cast structure has been retained, although hammer marks show that some working has taken place. Inside, the central part of the bowl (about one-third of the diameter) is relatively flat. Beyond this area, the metal is slightly depressed (viewed from the inside) and hammer marks can be seen on both surfaces, as the gradient of the bowl profile increases and curves upwards more sharply. The steep sides, which make up the final, third part of the bowl itself, terminate in the flange and upstand and are relatively smooth, although there are faint

The Flanged Bowl with Upstand and Cover | 173

Plate 303 Chased lines and rectangular punch marks make channels for the niello (cat. 11, flange)

traces of turning lines. The overall appearance suggests that the initial casting may have been as a shallow bowl that was worked mainly from the inside (sinking) to increase the depth. The analytical results (see Chapter 13) do not provide any indication of whether the upper part of the bowl (flange and upstand) was constructed from different pieces of metal. Visual examination shows discontinuities (in the form of an almost continuous series of slits and cracks) between the upstand and the bowl on the inside and to a lesser extent, between the collar and the bowl on the outside. Unfortunately it is not always easy to determine if splits or discontinuities actually indicate an incomplete join or are the result of poor finishing of metal displaced at an abrupt change of profile. Examination suggests, however, that the flange may be part of the original bowl, while the upstand was added, but it is impossible to be certain. There is a chased line and a series of small hammer marks around the top of the interior of the bowl, adjacent to the join with the upstand. The hammer marks were made after the line was chased. It could be suggested that the line marked the inner edge of the flange, used as a guide when it was being formed at the top of the bowl. The small hammer marks could have

been made as part of the operation to fit a separate flange. However, it is also possible that the top of the bowl contained sufficient material to allow the fabrication of both the flange and the upstand without the need for additional material. In any case, the composition of the bowl, upstand and flange is very close, so it is likely that these components were made from the same metal batch. Without sectioning, which is clearly impossible, only advanced radiographic techniques are likely to determine with any certainty how the upper part of the bowl was completed. The foot-ring has a very slightly lower copper content than the other components and was probably soldered on using a solder with a high silver content. Deep cavities and discontinuities can be seen in the join within the ring. A few minute spots of green corrosion product were seen but were too small to remove for mineralogical identification. However, their presence suggests an increased copper content that is consistent with the use of solder. The flange is decorated by two bands of waves on either side of a wider band of curving vine scroll. All three bands were executed with chasing tools and punches. A wedgeshaped punch and a straight-edged square-sectioned punch were probably used to make the wave pattern (see Pl. 303). The flange rim is edged with a bead-and-reel border. The positions of the beads and reels at the edge of the rim were defined using a chisel-shaped punch, with a sharp blade about 4mm long. Two cut marks were punched onto the rim at an angle of 45° to the longitudinal axis of the edge, making a cross. The reels were positioned on the cross with the beads on either side. A series of small horizontal lines can be seen on the outside of some of the reels which suggests the repeated application of the reel die with slight displacements (Pl. 304). The reels consist of one, two or three segments, made with a single die used once, twice or three times. Usually reel dies seem to consist of two or three grooves, so the use of a die with a single groove here is uncommon. Hammer or anvil marks were made on the underside of the rim of the flange at an oblique angle that appear to be directly beneath the reels. The imprint of the bead die showed that it was probably made from a bar with a rectangular cross section into which a rounded sausageshaped punch had been hammered, so that its long axis was in line with the longer edges of the cross section. Further defining punching was also carried out on some of the beads: some impressions left by the fine sharp blade remain visible, and are a particular feature of this beaded rim as they do not appear on similar rims on other objects. There is also evidence that a matting punch had been used on the rim between the beads in places. Cat. 12 Hemispherical cover Metal composition: summary

Plate 304 Matting punching prepared the rim for the bead and reel dies (cat. 11, rim of flange)

174 | The Mildenhall Treasure

Analyses indicated that the silver content of the cover was 97% and of the triton figure 94%. This suggests that the triton figure was not cast from the same melt. The inside and outside surfaces of the cover are similar in composition except that a little more gold was found on the outer surface; this is probably a result of surface enrichment. For a fuller discussion see Chapter 13.

Surface finish, wear and damage

The surface finish inside is poor: it has been heavily hammered and scraped. There are a number of hammeredin fins. The surface has spalled off in places. The outside surface is polished but not smooth, with many scratches and small cavities. Both the triton and the ring in which it sits are rough and unfinished. Details of the low relief in the upper register of the design on the cover appear slightly indistinct: this may be partly due to wear and also, perhaps, to corrosion and post-excavation cleaning. The high-relief design in the lower register is also slightly worn (Pl. 305), as is the triton. There are a number of dents on the surface and a small break has been repaired inside with solder. This may be an ancient soft soldered repair. The surface has spalled off in places, but it is not clear if this occurred before or after discovery. Interlamellar corrosion could have occurred during burial. Construction of the cover

The cover was cast, probably as a shallow bowl, and then worked to shape. Inside, the area immediately under the upstanding ring is not polished. It has a slightly porous rough texture, typical of casting, and a casting fin has been partially hammered in. There are also hammer or anvil marks on the inside of the cover. The imprint of a tool used in raising, measuring 5×8mm, is also visible. It is overlaid by very irregular turning and scraping lines, which start about 35mm from the centre point. Under the figurative design, a series of much larger, heavy punch marks of up to 15mm in length and 3mm in width were made with a very rough-surfaced tool held at an oblique angle to the rim and at a distance of about 15mm from it. These marks were evidently intended to increase the relief of the raised band of figurative decoration on the front. A sharp tool with a triangular pointed end was also used as a punch (Pl. 306). Although the inner surface of the lid had been turned or scraped, leaving an uneven, grooved surface, the heavy hammer marks under the relief are still visible (Pl. 307). Part of the surface has cracked off the underside of the cover (Pl. 308) as a result of corrosion and possibly overheating. The upper part of the outside is decorated with a foliate design. A chasing punch (c. 2mm) produced both transverse grooves (caused by the tool slipping and sticking slightly) and longitudinal grooves (the result of the tool not being completely smooth). Material was not removed, so it is clear that cutting tools (gouges or engravers) were not used. Thin defining lines were also chased. The bands of small beads that divide the registers were made with a die or punch, working from right to left and weighted more heavily towards the lower edge, as the die marks are not complete on the upper side. This accompanies a raised ovolo pattern, which was executed first, possibly using a die; the details are rather indistinct. The figures on the frieze have been chased and raised from the front in a similar manner to the designs on the large flanged bowls (cats 5–8). A ring punch was used to make the leopard’s rosettes and a small oval punch was also used to suggest the fur (S5, F12). Hair on the busts was indicated mainly by chasing, but the maenad in S6 (F14) has

Plate 305 The eyebrow shows signs of wear (cat. 12, figure 11)

an elaborate waved style, consisting of several series of chased crescents, in seriated rows, linked by a series of oval punch marks (see Pl. 298). All the eyes of the busts were constructed in a similar fashion with tiny oval dots punched at an angle to indicate the eyebrows. The animal coats generally are suggested in a simpler fashion than on the large flanged bowls (cats 5–8). The triton is attached in the middle of the ring on top of the lid with a rivet. This can be seen on the inside of the lid, together with a raised area, resulting from a depression within the ring on the top, made to accommodate the figure’s feet. The triton figure appears to have been cast and some details were carved in. A hole was drilled between the arm and the body underneath the armpit to remove some of the cast metal. Traces of gold and mercury found in the recesses of the figure suggest that it may have been fire gilded. The upstanding ring which encircles the triton may have been part of the original casting, as the uneven surface within the ring could have resulted from shaping the ring and leaving it unfinished (Pl. 309). The relationship between the flanged bowl and cover

Aside from the obvious stylistic and practical difficulties of associating the flanged bowl with the cover (see above, p. 172), many parts of the bowl and cover have sufficiently different compositions to indicate that they were almost certainly made on separate occasions. The triton handle was cast and finished rather crudely. It is unlikely that it was made for the cover, and it is instead a later addition, probably replacing a knob or finial that covered the area within the ring. The metal within the ring is completely

The Flanged Bowl with Upstand and Cover | 175

Plate 306 Sharp edged marks punched on the turned side of the cover (cat. 12) to increase the relief of the design on the outside

Plate 307 A rough surfaced punch was used on the turned inside of the cover (cat. 12) to increase the relief of the design on the outside

Plate 308 Hammered down flaps of metal on the unfinished surface within the ring around the triton (cat. 12, scene 1)

Plate 309 The metal has delaminated and has cracked off in an damaged area (ring around triton, cat. 12, scene 1)

unfinished and its laminated structure shows the poor state of the metal, despite the high silver content. The foot-ring of the bowl is almost certainly soldered onto the base. The flange, bowl and probably the foot-ring are likely to have been made from the same batch of silver, but macro-examination suggests that the upstand could have been added as a separate piece, perhaps created from a strip or offcut from the original batch of metal. The decoration of the bowl and flange has a bead-andreel border and simple punched and chased designs while the cover employs a variety of tools with differently shaped tips (including ring, dot, wedge and curved punches), to decorate a relief design worked from the front. The finish is smooth and polished on both the outside and inside of the bowl, while the inside of the cover is extremely crude. The surface of the bowl does not appear to be as worn as the cover. It seems unlikely, therefore, that they were intended to be matched (or if they were, then this has been done crudely),

and it is highly unlikely that they were made at the same time. This mismatch may also be borne out by differences in the metal compositions of the bowl and the cover (see Chapter 13).

176 | The Mildenhall Treasure

Notes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

On close examination, one was found to have only five leaves. Baratte 1993, 64. Baratte and Painter 1989, cat. 76. Ibid., cat. 74. Ibid., cat. 75. Baratte 1982, 230. Webster 1996, 50. Baratte and Painter 1989, cat. 79. Rethel cats 4–6. Baratte and Painter 1989, no. 130. Ibid., no. 89. Vienne cat. 4. Baratte and Painter 1989, cat. 62. Ibid. 1989, no. 94.

15 The vine scroll on the flange of cat. 11 also lacks the complexity of that on a situla from Chaourse (Baratte and Painter 1989, no. 48). 16 Ibid. 17 Kaiseraugst cat. 55. 18 Baratte in Cahn and Kaufmann-Heinimann 1984, 179. 19 Baratte and Painter 1989, no. 90. 20 Baratte 1982, 235. 21 Toynbee also notes the poor modelling of the figure (1962, 170). 22 No parallels were found in LIMC. 23 LIMC Suppl., no. 214. 24 Suggested by Baratte et al. 2002, 22. 25 For a discussion of examples in the Kaiseraugst treasure and

comparanda, see Guggisberg and Kaufmann-Heinimann 2003, 51–85. 26 Kaiseraugst cats 76–80 and most of the comparanda listed in Guggisberg and Kaufmann-Heinmann 2003, table 1, p. 69. 27 Carthage cat. 1. 28 Carthage cat. 2. 29 Baratte et al. 2002, 27. 30 ‘Seuso’ cat. 3 (Mango and Bennett 1994, figs 3-18 and 3-20). 31 ‘Seuso’ cat. 10 (Ibid., figs. 10-47 and 10-48). 32 ‘Seuso’ cat. 1 (Ibid., fig. 1-41). 33 ‘Seuso’ cat. 2 (Ibid., figs 2–17).

The Flanged Bowl with Upstand and Cover | 177

Chapter 8 The Fluted Dish (cat. 13)

Cat. 13 The fluted dish with drophandles (Pls 310–11)

(British Museum 1946,1007.15–17; Brailsford 1947/1955, cats 13–15; Painter 1973, cat. 13; Painter 1977a, cats 15–17). Dimensions

Maximum diameter: 408mm Height: 111mm Diameter of foot-ring: 128mm Height of foot-ring: 10mm Total length of each handle escutcheon: 73.8mm, 73.6mm, 75.8mm, 71.2mm Width of each handle escutcheon: 29.9mm, 30.6mm, 31.1mm, 31.3mm Length of handles: 108.8mm, 103.5mm Approximate width of handles: 57–8mm Weight: 2,093g (total) (6.4 Roman librae) Estimated capacity: 6,394ml (11.7 sextarii) Form and decorative scheme

A hemispherical fluted dish with a circular flared foot-ring. The dish has a flat base and 14 concave flutes that are curved at the rim. These alternate with 14 flat panels that are straight at the rim. The base and the flat panels are embellished with chased decoration, with the flutes left undecorated. The dish has a pair of drop-handles that allowed the vessel to be transported. These have looped zoomorphic terminals which engage with the looped head of teardrop-shaped escutcheons soldered to the vessel body. When discovered, the solder that attached the escutcheons of the drop-handles to the side of the vessel had failed. One consequence of this was that when the dish was registered it was assigned three separate registration numbers (1946,1007.15 to 17), but it is catalogued here as a single object with three components. Inscriptions

There are no inscriptions on the underside of the vessel. Decorative elements Dish

Inside the circular recessed border (diameter 104mm) of the base is a six-pointed star (Pl. 312) composed of two interlocking equilateral triangles, each formed of a shallowrecessed wide central groove and a shallow groove chased out around their inner and outer edges. The apices of each triangle meet with the enclosing circular border, and in four places are slightly truncated by it, which would appear to suggest that it was added after the star was completed. In the centre of the star is a six-petalled floral motif, thus corresponding appropriately to the number of points on the star; at its centre is a circular recessed pellet, perhaps the remains of the pip from when the vessel was turned on a lathe (see Lang, below). This is not in the centre of the base, giving the motif a rather lopsided appearance. The floral motif is composed of six almond-shaped petals of various gauges; these are formed of chased-out perimeter lines and larger central recessed lines to give them threedimensionality. Between are smaller, teardrop-shaped

178 | The Mildenhall Treasure

The Fluted Dish | 179

Fluted dish: cat. 13

0

not to scale

5

Plate 310 Profile, estimated capacity and decoration on the fluted dish with drop-handles (cat. 13)

10

15

20cm

6,394ml.

estimated capacity

Plate 311 Fluted dish with drop-handles (cat. 13), obverse, reverse and profile (not to scale)

180 | The Mildenhall Treasure

Plate 312 Detail of star in base (cat. 13)

Plate 313 Detail of foliate decoration (cat. 13)

Plate 314 Detail of undulating foliate design (cat. 13)

Plate 315 One of the zoomorphic drop-handles (cat. 13)

petals. The spaces between the tips of the petals are infilled with six further petals, again teardrop-shaped, and set at right angles to the main petals. The spaces in the apices of each point of the star (a cell created by the interlocking arms of the two triangles) are infilled with triplets of almond-shaped petals, the bulbous ends of which point inwards. In the spaces between the points of the star and the enclosing circle are further sets of almond-shaped petals, six in each, which radiate outwards from the outer central point where the interlocking triangles overlap. Infilling the spaces between the tips of these leaves are punched rings of dots (sometimes these are just random dots, haphazardly arranged), a few of which also include a central punched pellet. Punched dots also appear at other spaces in the field, for instance between the petals of the central floral motif. The dish has 14 flutes that radiate and expand out from the flat central base and alternate with 14 flat panels. These are decorated in two different ways, which also alternate – thus seven of each – both with a foliate design. One design has a straight central stem which extends all the way from the rim (where it is widest) and narrows gradually to the edge of the basal medallion, terminating in a spear-shaped bud (Pl. 313). On either side of this central stem is a series of almond-shaped petals or leaves, exactly like those in the central medallion. The numbers vary; one has 16 leaves on one side and 14 on the other; the others have 13 and 16, 17 and 14, 16 and 14, 15 and 15, 16 and 16, and 16 and 16 respectively. The other set of flat panels have a slightly different foliate design; this time there is a central stem (a

long single chased line) which undulates from the edge of the rim (Pl. 314). The stem starts at the side instead of the middle, and then undulates in a wide then shallow wave before a final short wave at the basal end. The spaces created by this wavy stem are infilled with more leaf motifs; each extends out from the central stem and arcs around to the edge of the flat panel. The number of leaves varies: 31, 27, 23, 26, 24, 25, 29. The rim is plain and square sectioned. The width of the flat panels and the flutes varies. The inner surfaces of the flutes are plain and undecorated. Either on the inside of the flute or the flat panels is a punched dot on either side. It would appear that the purpose of these was to mark out the positions of where the flutes needed to be made, and these were not subsequently obliterated but left in place (see p. 192). Handles (Pl. 315)

The escutcheons, which are bulbous and teardrop shaped, each have a spur of square-sectioned rod that extends upwards then folds back on itself and is modelled as a swan’s head. These form loops through which the drop-handles pass. The handles themselves are gently curved on the grip, then turn sharply inwards on each side to form reverse curves in relation to the grip, before turning back sharply on themselves to form the zoomorphic terminals. The handles are of circular section, expanded in the sections which would have formed the grips, and terminate at each end in a swan’s head. Each head has a V-shaped eye and a slightly open beak.1

The Fluted Dish | 181

Vessel

Height of foot-ring (mm)

Height (mm)

Ratio (footring/ height)

Diameter of footring (mm)

Diameter (mm)

Ratio (height/ diameter)

Weight (g)

Roman lb

Date

Rim type

Number of flutes

Sutton Hoo cat. 77

64

150

0.43

185

410

0.37

2,246

6.9

550–625

H

52

Šabac (Popović 1994, no. 357)†

7

31

0.23

?

415

0.07

?

?

300–400

H

14

Rome (Esquiline) cat. 4

19

105

0.18

182

562

0.19

2,704

8.3

300–400

P

12+12

Mildenhall cat. 13

10

111

0.09

128

408

0.27

2,093

6.4

325–75

P

14+14

Traprain Law cat. 30

6

64

0.09

115

305

0.21

951

2.9

300–400

P

12+12

Traprain Law cat. 31†

16

?

?

83

c. 300

?

311f

0.9f

300–400

P

12+12

‘Seuso’ cat. 13

9

125

0.07

149

468

0.27

2,118

6.5

350–400

H

71

Weiden-bei-Köln†

3

50

0.06

64

200

0.25

276

0.8

300–400

P

12+12

Kaiseraugst cat. 52

7

104

0.07

111

428

0.24

1613

4.9

300–350

H

n/a

Kaiseraugst cat. 41

3

88

0.03

116

364

0.24

943

2.9

300–350

A

29

Vinkovci provisional cat. 6†

?

c. 120

?

?

508

?

2,500

7.6

350–400?

H

36

Chaourse (Baratte and Painter 1989), cat. 85*

3

60

0.05

?

240

0.25

493

1.5

200–300

P

12

Chaourse (Baratte and Painter 1989, cat. 82)*

1.6

40

0.04

46

156

0.26

173

0.5

200–300

P

29

Petronell†

?

115

?

?

450

0.25

?

?

200–300

P

c. 102§

Rethel cat. 10*

5

130

0.04

98

340

0.38

1,205

3.7

200–300

P

21

Chatuzange (Baratte and Painter 1989, cat. 191)*

3.6

106

0.03

106

350

0.30

1,332

4.1

200–60

A

24

Thil (Baratte and Painter 1989, cat. 203)**

1.5

91

0.02

40

265

0.34

900

2.7

250–300

P

33

Chatuzange (Baratte and Painter 1989, cat. 195)

0

47

0.00

0

197

0.24

193

0.6

200–300

P

25

2

Table 14 Comparable fluted dishes of the third to sixth centuries, arranged by date, latest to earliest. Key: * = foot-ring height calculated from published illustrations; ** = weight estimated, parts of vessel missing; § = estimated from photograph (Guggisberg and Kaufmann-Heinimann 2003, fig. 22); f = fragmentary; rim types: P = plain; A = angled; H = horizontal; † = not illustrated in Plates 316–17

Discussion: parallels and dating Form and decorative scheme (Pls 316–17; Table 14)

Fluted dishes are a common component of late Roman silver treasures from the third to the sixth century, with the assemblage from Sutton Hoo providing a late example. The form mimics the ridged appearance of mollusc shells, particularly oysters and giant clams, and earlier examples from the Vesuvian eruption sites bear close resemblance to the natural form, which include two vessels from the Casa degli Epigrammi at Pompeii.3 Equivalents of such vessels in copper alloy are, unsurprisingly, very common.4 The arrangement of the flutes and the forms of these vessels vary quite markedly, with the range of forms considerably more diverse than for other vessel types of late Roman silver plate. This may reflect the fact that the type was in use for a longer period than other vessel types (for example flanged bowls; see p. 125), meaning that there was more opportunity to experiment with variations on the form.5 However, as noted by Mango, there are essentially three main types of fluted dishes in the late Roman period: those with straight flutes; those with alternating fluted and

182 | The Mildenhall Treasure

flat segments, such as the Mildenhall example; and those with S-shaped flutes.6 Bearing these three types in mind, Table 14 and Plates 316–17 provide examples of 17 vessels comparable with cat. 13 and dating from the third to sixth century.7 Some observations can be made with regard to dimensions, form and decoration. First, the size and weight of fluted dishes increases over time, in a similar manner to other vessel types (see pp. 39 and 94). The diameter of third-century fluted dishes ranges from c. 200 to 350mm, while later vessels are between c. 300 and c. 560mm. The median weight of thirdcentury vessels is 2.2 Roman pounds, of the fourth century and later, 5.6 pounds. Foot-rings also increase in height over the centuries (as observed for other vessel types; see for example pp. 37–9); on third-century vessels, foot-rings are either very low or vestigial, never exceeding 5% of the overall vessel height; for fourth-century and later vessels, the height is always greater than 5% of the total height, and in some cases considerably more (Table 14, column 4). However, even fourth-century vessels may have low footrings, as demonstrated by the fluted dish from Vinkovci

Plate 316 Fluted dishes of the fourth to sixth centuries, arranged by foot-ring height to overall height ratio, largest to smallest (figures on the left of each profile). Figures on the right are height of foot-ring/diameter (ratio)

The Fluted Dish | 183

Plate 317 Fluted bowls of the third century, arranged by foot-ring height to overall height, largest to smallest (figures on the left of each profile). Figures on the right are height of foot-ring/diameter (ratio)

(provisional cat. 6). This may be a reflection of aspects of their practical use (see p. 187). As regards to form, fluted dishes of the third century have plain rims and lack handles; later vessels may have drophandles (Sutton Hoo, Rome (Esquiline), Mildenhall and Traprain Law) or angled or horizontal rims. The dish from Chatuzange8 with convex flutes is exceptional for the third century because it has an angled rim. The style of the flutes also varies from the third century onwards, but it appears that the combination of flat panels alternating with flutes is a fourth-century innovation (Mildenhall, Traprain Law, Weiden-bei-Köln and Rome (Esquiline)). The curved backwards S-shaped fluting seen on the ‘Seuso’ example is not, however, a fourth-century development, as such fluting

184 | The Mildenhall Treasure

is also found on the third-century vessel from Thil.9 Tight flutes are a feature of one of the dishes from Kaiseraugst10 and the vessel from Petronell. The median number of flutes for the third century is 24; for the fourth century and later, it increases to 35, although it should be noted that the vessels from the ‘Seuso’ treasure and Sutton Hoo have exceptionally high numbers, which rather skew the calculation.11 Finally, decoration. With the exception of the vessel from Chatuzange, which in any case is the only vessel with convex flutes, fluting is always undecorated; vessels comparable to cat. 13 have decorated flat panels between the flutes with the exception of the vessel from Weiden-bei-Köln. Basal designs, on the other hand, are not easily categorized; plain,

Plate 318 Silver fluted dish from Traprain Law (cat. 30), fourth century: plan, profile and example of flute decoration. National Museums, Scotland

The Fluted Dish | 185

Plate 319 Plan view of silver fluted dish from Rome (Esquiline), fourth century. British Museum, 1866,1229.3

geometric or figurative designs are present from the third until the sixth century (the example from Sutton Hoo is decorated with a female bust). Dating

By taking into account its weight, dimensions, form and decoration, cat. 13 is one of the latest vessels known. The particular form of cat. 13, with flutes alternating with flat panels, is paralleled by four other vessels: there are two virtually identical, though smaller, examples from Traprain Law,12 and two other shallower, but nonetheless very similar, fluted dishes, one from the Rome (Esquiline) treasure13 and the other from Weiden-bei-Köln, both of which have 24 alternating flutes and flat panels. The heights of the footrings of these vessels varies, from very low (Weiden-beiKöln) to very high (Rome (Esquiline)), with the Mildenhall example falling in the middle of the range. These vessels also lack a projecting rim, but instead have drop-handles for transportation purposes (flanged-rim vessels had no need of handles as their rims fulfilled this function). The form of one of the only complete vessels in the Traprain Law14 deposit is so similar to cat. 13 that there must be an argument for these dishes being the products of the same workshop; it too has drop-handles with similarly shaped escutcheons to those of cat. 13 (Pl. 318). This vessel is approximately threequarters the size of cat. 13,15 and as a result has a reduced number of flutes and alternating panels (12 of each). The panels are decorated with geometric patterns, of four different types, as opposed to just two on cat. 13. Only one

186 | The Mildenhall Treasure

of these patterns, repeated four times, is similar to the central stem with diverging leaves design observed on cat. 13 (Pl. 314). The other difference is the basal decorative motif, not geometric but rather a marine scene (discussed previously on p. 42, Pl. 56). Another fluted dish in the same deposit survives in fragmentary form, but with enough of the vessel present to be confident this was also of the same form as cat. 13. Six flutes survive, but it too probably originally had 12; its flat panels are again decorated with a foliate pattern which alternates with other designs, including fourpetal rosettes.16 Its basal decoration is uncertain.17 Although the fluted dish from the Rome (Esquiline) treasure (Pl. 319) is larger and shallower than cat. 13, the two similar vessels from Traprain Law and the vessel from Weiden-bei-Köln all might arguably be the product of the same workshop, or at least the same silver-working tradition.18 Although this brings us no closer to knowing where this workshop might have been located, a hint is perhaps provided by the provenance of these vessels. All are from the British Isles, Germany or Italy, implying possible production in one of the western provinces rather than the central or eastern parts of the empire, if it can be assumed that they had not travelled far from their production source. A British workshop itself also cannot be discounted, not least because of the parallels between the decoration used here and also on three of the long-handled spoons (cats 21–3) (see also p. 268).19 In this respect it should be noted that a further example of a silver fluted dish (crushed and folded), handles of comparable form to the handles of cat. 13 and

Plate 320 Fluted dish on silver situla from Conceşti, fourth century. The State Hermitage Museum, St Petersburg, inv. no. 2160-2

handle escutcheons from more than one vessel were found at Blunsdon Ridge. This perhaps offers further support for British production, since the assemblage increases the number of vessels and vessel components still further. Function

That fluted dishes were used as water basins is demonstrated by both contemporary illustrations and the literary sources. On pieces of silver plate, fluted vessels are depicted in both the Achilles birth scene on the rim of the Achilles plate in the ‘Seuso’ treasure20 and the depiction of Hylas and the nymphs on the situla from Conceşti (Pl. 320), in both cases being filled with water from pouring vessels. A fluted dish is shown on the celebrated mosaic of a wealthy lady’s toilet from the baths in the villa at Sidi Ghrib, Tunisia, dated to the early fifth century.21 The longevity of use of such vessels as water containers is ably demonstrated by a filled fluted dish in the garden scene from the House of the Golden Bracelet at Pompeii.22 As regards the literature, the letters of Sidonius Apollinaris provide a specific reference to a type of silver vessel with 12 S-shaped flutes: ‘…. you asked me to send you a little poem, limited to twelve lines, suitable for inscribing on a capacious shell-shaped basin, in which the side where each handle is placed is traversed by six fluted grooves, winding from the round base to the end of their sinuous course’. The vessel was to be presented to the wife of a Visigothic king and the function as a water container is clearly spelt out: ‘Happy the water which, enclosed in the radiant metal, refreshes the still more radiant countenance of its mistress! For when the Queen deigns to moisten her face from this basin a gleam is shed upon the silver from her visage.’23 The way in which such fluted dishes were employed in

practice must have varied, according to whether the dish was to be used at the table or for more general ablutions – although of course such vessels may have been employed in both contexts, depending on circumstance. A vessel as small as that from Weiden-bei-Köln could easily have been passed between diners for the washing of fingers, while larger vessels must have sat on tables or on bespoke stands, since when filled with water they would have been too heavy to carry with ease. One such stand is the quadruped discovered at Polgárdi in Hungary. The Polgárdi stand, decorated appropriately with marine figures in the round, is a rare surviving example in silver of such a stand and would have been suitable for the type of fluted dish with a projecting rim (for example, Kaiseraugst cat. 41, or ‘Seuso’ cat. 13) since a vessel with a horizontal rim could have been placed on top of the finger-shaped supports.24 The use of fluted dishes of this type in the context of dining or toilet sets is discussed further on p. 282. Specific parallels for decorative elements Central medallion (Pl. 312)

Six-pointed stars are not a particularly common device on silver plate, although eight-pointed stars, and other geometric devices, are relatively well known (see also the discussion of the central medallion of cat. 4, pp. 90–1). The best parallel for the six-pointed star is with a similar device in the base of one of the fluted dishes from Kaiseraugst (Pl. 321).25 The two motifs are extremely similar, both formed of interlocking triangles, and both with leaf-petal infills in the areas between the points of the star and the encircling groove. The infill in the centre of the Kaiseraugst star is undoubtedly more accomplished, forming as it does a three-

The Fluted Dish | 187

Plate 321 Star in base of Kaiseraugst (cat. 52), fourth century. Museum Augusta Raurica, Augst

Plate 322 Star in base of silver fluted dish from Weiden-bei-Köln, fourth century. Staatlich Museen zu Berlin

dimensional cube as if viewed from above, the sides of which link up with the centres of the petal motifs in the other infills. The faces of the cube are infilled with further leaf motifs. The use of cross-hatching to infill the points of the star is also a point of divergence with cat. 13. It is also interesting to note that the vessel from Weiden-bei-Köln, which as noted above is of similar form, has an eight-pointed star in its base combined with a similar floral motif to that of the Mildenhall example, though with 12 petals instead of six. The overall design, however, is very different in feel, constructed as it is of rigidly straight lines, giving it a rather static appearance (Pl. 322). All other examples of six-pointed stars appear on different vessel forms or entirely different silver object types. A slightly lopsided six-pointed star occupies the central medallion of a platter found at Niš; the device has a central four-petalled rosette and cordate-scroll motifs between the points of the star.26 The six-pointed star is one of the motifs that occur on the body of both geometric ewers in the ‘Seuso’ treasure,27 the centres infilled with four-petalled rosettes (rather more successfully than the six-petal floral motif on cat. 13). The device is also known from a fragment of buckle-plate found in the Hacksilber deposit at Balinrees (Pl. 323), and also the plaque of a lance-shaft in the Vermand treasure, dated to the second half of the fourth century.28 The device continued to be used into the seventh

century, as exemplified by a vessel from Rahovitsa, bearing stamps of Constans II and Constantine IV (659–68), and an unprovenanced piece in Geneva;29 it also appears on one of the shallow dishes from Sutton Hoo (Pl. 324). The iconographic history of the six-pointed star is discussed by Baratte, who draws attention to the use of the device as an architectural motif in the Jupiter and Bacchus temple in Baalbeck, the Levant (which also provides an example of a collapsing Hercules: see pp. 46–9), of the first century. Mosaic pavements of similar date also feature the device, for instance Brescello, Reggio Emilia,30 and Pompeii, a close parallel for cat. 13, since it features both a sixpointed star and a six-petal floral motif, all contained within an encircling frieze.31 However, as also noted by Baratte, the most interesting parallel with a mosaic comes from Hippo Regius in Algeria, with the device again in combination with a flower with six pointed ovoid leaves. But of particular interest is the fact that the six-pointed star is juxtaposed with depictions of fluted dishes, as part of a large pavement, dated to the third century, which also features marine themes including busts of Oceanus and Nereids riding sea monsters, thus giving it even wider synergies with the Mildenhall treasure, or more specifically the Bacchic platter (Pl. 325).32 Thus it is undoubtedly the case that the combination of the six-pointed star and a floral motif with six corresponding petals is a device that had a long history of use before cat. 13 was manufactured, and the mosaic from Hippo Regius would appear to reinforce the correlation between fluted vessels, aquatic subjects and geometric devices. It is, however, impossible to ascertain if the six-pointed star had any particular cosmic, magical or religious significance in Roman and related cultures, or if it was purely decorative. In the case of cat. 13, it cannot be directly linked with Bacchus either, unlike the majority of the other Mildenhall vessels, most of which have Bacchic associations (although of course this does not rule out another symbolic meaning). It is also not obviously Christian, so it cannot be linked with the spoons that bear Christian inscriptions (cats 24–6). Naturally, its similarity with the Star (or Shield) of David, the device most commonly associated with Judaism, has often been noted, but this can also be rejected if one wishes to seek a symbolic link: the motif was only adopted very late in the history of Judaism,

Plate 323 Fragment of silver buckle-plate from Balinrees, fourth to fifth centuries. British Museum, 1855,0815.12

188 | The Mildenhall Treasure

Plate 324 Star in centre of silver dish from Sutton Hoo, sixth to early seventh century. British Museum, 1939,1010.83

Plate 325 Detail of mosaic from Hippo Regius, Algeria, showing fluted dishes and part of a six-pointed star, third century

and was not commonly in use until the nineteenth century (see also p. 12).33 Perhaps in any case it is better to concern ourselves not with embedded meanings but context, since as demonstrated the device can be closely paralleled on mosaic pavements. This raises the possibility that it was deliberately designed to echo a geometric panel on a floor in the room in which it was to be used, as an example of bespoke interior design, in a similar manner to the flanged bowls with hunting scenes paralleling similar hunt scenes on mosaic floors.34 Unfortunately, however, although it is possible to find similar six-pointed stars in other provinces of the empire, they have not been found in Britain on mosaics, although eight-pointed stars formed of interlocking squares are relatively common.35 These allow comparison with similar devices on other silver vessels, which are worth noting here, and more complex geometric devices. The eight-pointed star on the fluted dish from Weiden-bei-Köln has already been mentioned, and others are known on other items of silver plate; the most sophisticated embellishes the Euticius platter from Kaiseraugst.36 Such geometric motifs can sometimes dominate the decoration of silver vessels, such as two eight-pointed stars, one inside the other, both formed of overlapping squares, on the base of a thirdcentury silver vessel from Augst. Another eight-pointed star formed of two interlocking arcuated squares appears in the central medallion on the fourth-century platter from Harbiye. The star also appears in the central geometric medallion on the platter from Conceşti (discussed on p. 93), and the bodies of both geometric ewers in the ‘Seuso’ treasure, alongside other motifs made up of overlapping polygonal shapes.37 More complex geometric devices are also encountered, such as on the fluted dish from Šabac,38 a perspective view of a cube with different geometric devices decorating each visible side.39 Thus both six- and eightpointed stars, or more complex geometric devices, are a feature of the decoration of both silver plate and floor

mosaics of the late Roman period, and so are clearly facets of a similar artistic tradition. Decorated flat panels

It has already been noted that vessel flutes are never decorated (p. 184), with the exception of the flutes on the vessel from Chatuzange,40 although the latter are exceptional as they are the only examples of convex flutes (see Pl. 317). Thus decoration other than that on a central basal medallion is entirely restricted to the sub-set of vessels, including cat. 13, which have flat panels alternating with the flutes. The straight stem with diverging leaves on cat. 13 (see Pl. 313) is paralleled closely on two adjacent flat panels on the fluted dish from the Rome (Esquiline) treasure, which, as has been discussed, is of virtually identical form (see Pl. 319). Despite its also being of identical form, none of the decoration on the flat panels of the vessel from Traprain Law41 is quite the same as cat. 13, with only four panels featuring something similar to the design under discussion but more stylized: a simple chased line for a central stem and tightly packed radiating lines for the leaves (see Pl. 318). The wavy line with petal infills, which occupies the other flat section between flutes, is not mirrored by the patterns on any of the comparable examples. It does, however, appear on two sides of the rim of the square platter from Mileham (Pl. 326a), as indeed does the divergent leaf pattern, but without a central stem (Pl. 326b). In fact, the decoration is so similar that the possibility must be raised that the Mileham platter was the product of the same workshop that produced cat. 13 and the other related vessels. This accentuates the western focus to these vessel forms and foliate motifs, and thus again hints at a western location for production. Finally, as mentioned above in the context of dating (p. 186), the foliate patterns are also found on the bowls of three of the Mildenhall long-handled spoons (cats 21–3; see Chapter 11).

The Fluted Dish | 189

Plate 326a–b Detail of rim decoration on silver platter from Mileham, fourth century. British Museum, 1840,1111.1

Summary: production and dating

A number of observations can be made about the fluted dish from Mildenhall. First, chronology. Cat. 13 occupies the position of a developed form of fluted dishes in silver plate that begins in the third century with smaller, lighter vessels that have plain flutes and occasionally decorated inner bases. By the fourth century the form has developed to include more complex rim types, angled and flat, and more dense fluting (for example, the dishes in the ‘Seuso’ treasure and from Petronell), but in the case of Mildenhall a particular form of vessel with flutes alternating with flat panels which allowed space for additional decoration, beyond that offered by the restricted area of the basal medallion. The addition of drophandles is another feature of these vessels; but this meant that they could not be used in combination with a stand supporting their rims, such as that from Polgárdi, or at least not the forms of stand that have survived (see p. 187). It seems likely that this group of vessels was produced in the mid- to late fourth century, on the basis of their size and weight, their developed form and their presence in deposits, all of which are accepted as being buried in the late fourth or early fifth century. It can be posited that the vessels from ‘Seuso’ and Sutton Hoo are also developed forms, though not comparable with cat. 13 (apart from the drop-handles on Sutton Hoo), and that these are of later date still. Second, function and practicalities of use. It is clear that these vessels were intended to contain water for the washing of hands, in the context of dining or for more general Plate 327 Silver fluted dish from Vinkovci (provisional cat. 6), fourth century. Vinkovci Museum

190 | The Mildenhall Treasure

ablutions in a toilet context (see also pp. 280–1). The group to which cat. 13 belonged must have sat on a high pedestal, a table or perhaps simply the ground (for example in an outdoor dining context – see Chapter 16), which explains their substantial foot-rings. Although they could have been transported by cupping hands under their bodies, their plain rims made this more difficult, so they had drop-handles soldered to their exteriors to render them more portable. With an estimated capacity of approximately 6 litres, a vessel such as the one from Mildenhall would have been very heavy when full. This means they can be contrasted with the other main form of fourth-century or later vessel, with either an angled or more normally a horizontal rim (Pl. 316). This rim could be used to allow the vessel both to be easily transported without the need for handles (although it will be noted that the vessel from Sutton Hoo has both) and to be placed on a supporting stand, such as the one found at Polgárdi. The recent discovery of a fluted bowl from Vinkovci (Pl. 327) is particularly interesting in this regard because it has a narrow flanged rim and crucially only a vestigial foot-ring, which may provide confirmation that the foot-ring need not be substantial because such vessels were intended to be used with a supporting stand. This may also explain why fluted dishes, unlike other types of late Roman silver vessels, do not necessarily have higher foot-rings than earlier examples. Third, place of production. Where these different vessel forms were produced in the fourth century is unclear, but it may not be coincidence that the vessels with horizontal or angled rims come from sites on the Rhine–Danube frontier (if the ‘Seuso’ treasure is accepted as coming from Pannonia),42 while the small number of vessels with flat panels alternating with flutes come from the British Isles, Italy and Germany (Pl. 328). Relevant too is the fact that one of the dishes in the Kaiseraugst treasure (cat. 52), which, as discussed (pp. 187–8), also has a six-pointed star in its base, is so similar in style to a platter in the same assemblage (cat. 60), with an eight-pointed star in its centre and similar tightly curved ‘flutes’ (these are decorative rather than part of the form) that these were surely the product of the same workshop. More crucially, Kaiseraugst cat. 60 is known to have been made in Naissus (modern Niš in Serbia) because of the presence of a graffito naming Naissus as the place of production and Euticius as the maker. Thus Naissus can

Plate 328 Distribution map of fluted dishes of the third to sixth centuries

legitimately be argued as the centre for production of both these vessels, perhaps the fluted dishes from Šabac and – probably more tentatively – also the fluted dish from the ‘Seuso’ treasure. And yet in this instance, despite the similarities between the basal designs, both employing sixpointed stars, the form of cat. 13 (and its comparanda) is so different from this ‘Naissus group’ that it must have been produced elsewhere. As has also been suggested, the style of the decoration on the flat panels might allow us to entertain the possibility that other types of vessel, such as the square platter from Mileham, might also have originated in the same workshop, which as noted above may have been located in the western provinces, perhaps even Britain itself. Yet we are currently dealing with too small a sample to allow such ideas to be any more than speculative, and must await future discoveries to shed more light. For further discussion of the fluted vessel in the context of the assemblage, see Chapter 16. Technical aspects of the production of the fluted dish (Janet Lang) Metal composition: summary

Analysis of the foot-ring, drop-handles and vessel body indicate a silver content of 95%. As the composition of the

dish and its components are so similar, this suggests that silver from the same melt was used for all the components. For a fuller discussion, see Chapter 13. Surface finish, wear and damage

The upper surface of the bowl is highly polished, while the under surface scarcely appears to have been polished at all. It is blistered (Pl. 329), covered with hammer marks and the surface is layered on the outside, below the rim. Traces of soft solder have caused discolouration around the handles (which have been re-attached with resin during modern conservation) on the underside. There is a small amount of wear on the foot-ring but little elsewhere. Several intergranular cracks run circumferentially across the decorated flat panels and radially between the panels. These may have occurred during burial or post-discovery. The drop-shaped handle fixings have cracks and defects which probably occurred during manufacture. Construction of the fluted dish

The dish was probably raised from a cast disc. The texture on the underside, at the centre of the base, is rough with a porous texture, which is typical of a casting. An irregular cavity can be seen at the centre, left by the shrinkage of the

The Fluted Dish | 191

Plate 329 Blistering and pitting on the under surface (cat. 13)

Plate 331 Metal folded and hammered down metal to make the rim (cat. 13)

cooling metal (Pl. 330). Hammer marks are superimposed on the under surface, showing that it was subsequently extensively worked. The rim was thickened considerably by hammering and folding on the edge. Many welded-in or partially welded-in flaps of metal are visible on the outside of the vessel just below the rim. These are orientated downwards, away from the rim, and were probably made when the thinned material edge, resulting from raising, was turned over and hammer welded down to neaten and strengthen the rim (Pl. 331). The rim of the ‘Seuso’ basin was also folded down as a reinforcement.43 There is no clear indication of how the foot-ring was produced. It was heavily scraped, and a considerable amount of heavy hammering has taken place around it; there is a turned or scraped band on the surface of the dish within the ring. Its composition is close to that of the dish itself. No trace of any solder was detected and it is probable that the foot-ring was formed as part of the original casting, but it is impossible to be certain of this.

192 | The Mildenhall Treasure

Plate 330 Cavity left by casting at the centre of the fluted dish (cat. 13), probably revealed by chasing the circle around it for marking out. Casting flaws (above) and decorative chasing with different sized punches

The flutes were marked out on the front surface by punched dots made below the rim. The punch has a slight defect which is reproduced in each indentation. The marks indicate the point at which the profile changes from a flat panel to a rounded flute, the two components alternating. A small amount of ribbing or corrugation at the top where the profile curves out to make the flutes shows that the rim was already finished at this stage. The joins between the flutes and the flat panels are heavily worked on the outside with many marks, made by a variety of tools. The flat panels were hammered inwards. No attempt was made to clean up the back surface, but the inside was cleaned and polished. There are only a few vertical striations visible, and very slight horizontal undulations resulting from the original raising can be seen. Turning marks show on the inner surface of the dish, near the centre. At the very centre there is a small recessed ring with a slightly domed centre, the surface of which has partially broken away (see Pl. 330). There are two small depressions within this area: one may have been used in laying out the design, although both seem rather small. The ring may be part of the arrangements for securing the bowl for lathe turning. The motif at the centre was outlined by plain lathe-turned lines which show traces of tool chatter. The decoration on the flat panels and at the centre was chased, using round-ended punches. The tools had slightly rough surfaces, which produced a striated effect in the grooves. The panels were outlined with smaller chasing punches, sometimes rather crudely (Pl. 332). A series of rather random dots has been punched into some of the spaces between the chased lines in the central medallion (Pl. 333). There are also dots at the centre itself but they are irregular in outline and they may be relict casting porosity rather than punch marks. The handle escutcheons are partially hollow, and were hammered and filed into their stylized bird-head shapes.

Plate 332 Chased line defining the end of a flute and turned lines around the centre of the dish (cat. 13)

Plate 333 Turned lines with tool chatter, punched dots and small casting flaws (cat. 13)

The handles themselves show facets from hammering, and were nearly completed before attachment to the dish. Corrugations at the points of maximum bending of the handle were not removed by subsequent working. The escutcheons were soldered onto the dish and there are greyish deposits around them on the outside of the dish, where some of the solder spread. The composition ratio of tin and lead is one to four and thus it is in the range of plumbers’ solder, which is used today and gives a long pasty range (74ºC) enabling a joint to be ‘wiped’ or manoeuvred before solidification is completed.44

18 As Shelton observes: ‘The resemblance of the two [vessels, i.e. Rome (Esquiline) and Mildenhall cat. 13] in design and decoration is striking and might be explained by the modelling of one or the other or by the dependence of both on a common model. The differences in execution [may] simply indicate the work of two distinct hands’ (Shelton 1981, 59). 19 Brailsford 1955, 23, was the first to suggest this possibility. 20 Mango and Bennett 1994, 168, fig. 3-14. Mango describes the vessel as a ‘fluted basin’ but it is perhaps better characterized as a fluted dish on a high pedestalled foot. See also Cahn and KaufmannHeinimann 1984, pl. 162, 2.3. 21 Illustrated in Rottloff 2007, 51, fig. 24. 22 Roberts 2013, figs 202 and 205. 23 Sidonius Apollinaris, Epistulae IV, 8, 4–5. As noted by Baratte (2013, 61). The comments made by the early Christian writer Clement of Alexandria, who is disparaging about the use of silver vessels by women at the baths, are also of interest (Maguire 2001, 241). See also n. 46 on p. 286 of this volume. 24 Parts of a silver stand have also been found in the Magura Hill deposit, East Serbia (Popović 2013, 83–4). 25 Kaiseraugst cat. 52. The other fluted dish in Kaiseraugst (cat. 41) also has a geometric device in its base, consisting of two interlocking ellipses that sit on top of a saltire. The spaces are infilled with foliate devices, very similar to cat. 13, and again in a similar manner the whole device is encircled by a plain groove. 26 Popović 1994, cat. 270; Cahn and Kaufmann-Heinimann 1984, pl. 69. 27 ‘Seuso’ cats 11 and 12. 28 Schorsch 1986. 29 Baratte 1984, 163. 30 Baratte in Cahn and Kaufmann-Heinimann 1984, 162–4; Blake 1930, pl. 41, 1. 31 Blake 1930, pl. 39, 3 (from Regio VII, vii, 5). 32 Baratte in Cahn and Kaufmann-Heinimann 1984, 162; Marec 1958. The mosaic comes from a villa that is referred to as either the waterfront villa or the Casa di Isguntus. The villa produced a series of floors, with the marine pavement dated to the first phase, ad 210–60 (Novello 2007, 235–6). 33 The Encyclopedia Britannica has this to say on the subject: ‘The Jewish community of Prague was the first to use the Star of David as its official symbol, and from the 17th century on the six-pointed star became the official seal of many Jewish communities and a general sign of Judaism, though it has no biblical or Talmudic authority. The star was almost universally adopted by Jews in the 19th century as a striking and simple emblem of Judaism in imitation of the cross of Christianity.’ (http://www.britannica. com/EBchecked/topic/152589/Star-of-David (Accessed: 15 June 2014)). 34 Ideas explored further by Swift 2007, 399–405. 35 Neal and Cosh 2002–10. 36 Kaiseraugst cat. 60. The vessel is known to have been produced at Naissus (Niš), which might suggest that this device is characteristic of the Naissus workshop.

Notes

1 A parallel can be drawn between the swan’s head terminals and those on a fourth-century situla in Naples (Dresken-Weiland 1994, 43). 2 Zsolt Mráv, pers. comm. 3 Guzzo 2006, 128. 4 Baratte in Cahn and Kaufmann-Heinimann 1984, 161. 5 The wide variety of possible forms is demonstrated by a fluted dish, of which only three fragments survive, in the Traprain Law deposit (cat. 19), which has backwards ‘S’ flutes, a flat beaded rim with an inscription in circular medallions, and a rather odd repoussé base of repeated hemispheres. 6 Mango and Bennett 1994, 437. 7 The vessel from Šabac is published without a profile drawing so does not appear in Pl. 316. The folded fluted dish in the Blunsdon Ridge deposit had 38 ribs: bibliographic details provided in Table 32. It has not been possible to obtain a profile image of the vessel from the Vinkovci treasure, but it appears to be of similar form to the dish from Kaiseraugst (cat. 41) but with a horizontal rim; see Pl. 327. 8 Baratte and Painter 1989, cat. 191. 9 Baratte and Painter 1989, cat. 203. 10 Kaiseraugst cat. 52. 11 The flat panels between the flutes on cat. 14 and comparable vessels were included in the calculation. 12 Traprain Law cats 30–1. 13 Rome (Esquiline) cat. 4. 14 Traprain Law cat. 30. 15 If the respective diameters are measured; in terms of weight, the Traprain example employed about half the amount of silver used to make cat. 13. 16 Traprain Law cat. 31. 17 Another fragment of fluted dish from Traprain Law (cat. 32) shows that originally it had continuous narrow flutes, without alternating flat panels, and a geometric design in the flat base consisting of a square infilled with a series of four-petal rosettes, and tongue-like leaves infilling the areas between the square and encircling doubleline frieze, thus providing another parallel for the geometric decoration in the base of cat. 13.

The Fluted Dish | 193

37 ‘Seuso’ cats 11–12. 38 Only published with a plan image, so not included in Pl. 316, but the vessel has 14 flutes and a horizontal rim. 39 Popović 1994, no. 357. 40 Baratte and Painter 1989, cat. 191. 41 Traprain Law cat. 30. 42 The March 2014 acquisition of seven pieces of the ‘Seuso’ treasure and the bronze cauldron by the Hungarian government is the

194 | The Mildenhall Treasure

culmination of years of legal wrangling over the true origins of the silver, with most of the evidence for its provenance appearing to point to a Pannonian origin. See also http://www. theartnewspaper.com/articles/Hungary-keen-to-acquire-LordNorthamptons-half-of-Sevso-silver/32437 (accessed 18 June 2014). 43 Mango and Bennett 1994, 427, fig. 13.10. 44 See Lang and Hughes 1977.

Chapter 9 The Pedestalled Plates (cats 14–15)

Cat. 14 Pedestalled plate (Pls 334–5)

(British Museum 1946,1007.13; Brailsford 1947/1955, cat. 16; Painter 1973, cat. 14; Painter 1977a, cat. 13). Dimensions

Diameter of plate: 114mm Height of plate: 11mm Diameter of foot-ring of plate: 51.7mm Diameter of base: 98mm Height of base: 33mm Total height: 114.4mm Weight: 391g (1.2 librae) Estimated capacity (hemispherical base): 158ml (0.3 sextarii) Number of beads on plate: 54 Bead dimensions (mm): 1 – 6.47; 10 – 6.25; 20 – 6.36; 30 – 6.48; 40 – 6.32; 50 – 6.31. Mean: 6.37mm (6.35mm) Aggregate mean: 6.36mm Number of beads on base: 78 Bead dimensions: 1 – 3.48; 10 – 3.63; 20 – 3.52; 30 – 3.51; 40 – 3.45; 50 – 3.66; 60 – 3.67; 70 – 3.46. Mean: 3.55mm Form and decorative scheme

A composite item consisting of four elements: an upper flat small plate with a beaded rim and a ‘foot-ring’, a hemispherical beaded base, a central stem with four baluster mouldings, riveted to the plate and the base, and a freely turning spindle inside the central stem. Inscriptions

There are no inscriptions or graffiti on this vessel. Decorative elements The plate

This has a flat, decorated rim inside the outer rim of beads that steps down at a shallow angle to a plain central section marked out with seven circular grooves, three in pairs and an outer groove just beneath the step. The central pair of grooves encircles an eight-petal-rosette-headed rivet in the centre, outside which are a pair of grooves equidistant from the edge of the inner section. The base of the plate has a plain ring (probably part of the original casting). If the plate were separated from the rest of the object, this would be sufficiently proud of the rim to form a foot-ring on which the plate could have stood. The flat rim inside the beaded rim is decorated with a chased design of two rows of semi-circles (Pl. 336). On the inner part of the flange, these consist of 23 semi-circles, each approximately 10mm in diameter; each is decorated with six grooves, each triplet of which radiates slightly outwards away from each other. In the space created between the inner two grooves are lines of punched dots; the number of dots varies between the semi-circles. Around the outside of these inner semi-circles is a further set of 23 larger semi-circles, which begin and end at the central point of the lower semi-circles. These too are infilled with six grooves in triplets which radiate outwards; as the semi-circles are larger, these radiate much more acutely, giving the impression of ‘leaves’. These are executed in quite

The Pedestalled Plates | 195

Pedestalled plate: cat. 14

estimated capacity 158ml

0

5

10

15cm

Plate 334 Profile, estimated capacity of base and sample plate decoration (cat. 14)

a haphazard manner, often overlapping slightly to form ‘T’s. In addition, the edges of the semi-circles often run into the beads, so are sometimes truncated. Again, punched pellets have been used to highlight the inner leaves; these form chevrons. In the spaces between the outer semi-circles, there are further lines of punched pellets forming chevrons; and finally between these are triangles of punched dots. The base

This is a plain hemispherical bowl, with a central rivet in the form of a crude rosette and a beaded rim (Pl. 337). On the inside of the bowl there is a double-line circle approximately 15mm from the centre of the base and a further double line, this time of conjoined dots, approximately 6mm below the rim. On the outside, just above the beaded rim, is another

196 | The Mildenhall Treasure

incised line which encircles the bowl. The bowl also has a raised flange which runs around the top of the bowl, which would act as a foot-ring if the base were separated from the rest of the object and inverted. The diameter of this flange is 43.2mm. The beads total 78, including one erroneous half-bead. The stem

The base’s flange provides a recess for the central stem, the most complex and heavily decorated element of the whole object. It consists of four square-section balusters, their three visible outer edges (the inner is plain) decorated with chased lines which follow the curve of each pillar; the angled edges themselves are decorated with notches, which give the appearance of beads. Both ends of the balusters terminate in

Plate 335 Plan view of pedestalled plate, base and profile (cat. 14) (not to scale)

The Pedestalled Plates | 197

Plate 336 Detail of design on top plate (cat. 14)

square blocks with double-bevelled sides which create a sharp central carination, the lower and upper edges (but not the central angle) of which are decorated with further notching. Beyond these are further mouldings in the form of acanthus leaves, which splay in the opposite direction to the central balusters. Each leaf is decorated with three pairs of grooved notches; in addition, small circular pellets have been punched at the base of the points where each ‘leaf’ meets. There are also larger punched pellets between each pair of larger leaves. The shaft of the column, on visual inspection left unfinished in its cast state (presumably because it was known it would be largely hidden from view) forms the shaft to which the base and the plate are riveted. Enclosed by the balusters is a solid silver spindle. It is circular in cross-section, and is equal ended, with pointed conical terminals. The mouldings in the centre of the shaft consist of a bead with a reel on either side, each with a concave centre. The spindle is independent of the columns which enclose it, though held into position by them, enabling it to be turned. The function of this spindle is unclear.

Cat. 15 Pedestalled plate (Pls 339–40)

(British Museum 1946,1007.14; Brailsford 1947/1955, cat. 17; Painter 1973, cat. 15; Painter 1977a, cat. 14). Dimensions

Diameter of plate: 114mm Height of plate: 11mm Diameter of foot-ring of plate: 56.2mm Diameter of base: 96.6mm Height of base: 33mm Total height: 113.5mm Weight: 383g (1.2 librae) Estimated capacity (hemispherical base): 154ml (0.3 sextarii) Number of beads on plate: 54 Bead dimensions (mm): 1 – 6.46; 10 – 6.51; 20 – 6.28; 30 – 6.18; 40 – 5.99; 50 – 6.30. Mean: 6.29mm (6.19mm) Aggregate mean: 6.24mm Number of beads on base: 83 Bead dimensions: 1 – 3.63; 10 – 3.58; 20 – 3.53; 30 – 3.35; 40 – 3.56; 50 – 3.55; 60 – 3.50; 70 – 3.51; 80 – 3.52. Mean: 3.53mm

198 | The Mildenhall Treasure

Plate 337 Rosette rivet in base (cat. 14)

Form and decorative scheme

This is broadly the same as cat. 14 but with some subtle differences, which may have implications for how the two vessels were produced (see Lang, below). First, the surface of the plate appears rough and unfinished; unlike cat. 14, it appears not to have been polished. Second, the number of semi-circular motifs in two rows decorating the flat rim is 22 as opposed to 23; this is not obvious from cursory inspection, particularly as the size of the semi-circles is the same as cat. 14, each approximately 10mm in diameter. The semi-circles are, however, infilled in a similar manner to those on cat. 14 (Pl. 338). The ‘foot-ring’ is also more or less the same size (56.2mm). One of the beads is a disc-shaped ‘half-bead’, probably the result of a miscalculation with the bead spacing. The other oddity is that despite being marginally smaller in diameter than cat. 14, the hemispherical base has five more beads (83 instead of 78). As they are almost exactly the same size on average, they must have been created using the same set of punches, so the only explanation can be that they are more tightly packed. The beads also have another curious difference: small punched dots on their ‘upper’ surface (if the vessel is placed on its base) and the sides of the beads have also been visibly filed flat. (The beads on the base of cat. 14 also appear to have been filed flat, but there are no punched pellets.) If these punched dots are deliberate, it might suggest that the beads were intended to represent Plate 338 Detail of design on top plate (cat. 15)

Pedestalled plate: cat. 15

crack crack

solder?

estimated capacity 154ml

0

5

10

15cm

Plate 339 Profile, estimated capacity of base and sample plate decoration (cat. 15)

The Pedestalled Plates | 199

Plate 340 Plan view of pedestalled plate, base and profile (cat. 15) (not to scale)

200 | The Mildenhall Treasure

Plate 341a–b Silver pedestalled plate from Traprain Law (cat. 13), fourth century: a) (left) plan view; b) (right) profile view. National Museums, Scotland

fruit, and given the context, grapes would seem the most likely. The central stem is identical to cat. 14, although there are visible stress fractures in the columns, and a large lump of rather ugly solder, on one of the lower sides, was used as a repair, possibly evidence of a poor casting (see Lang, below). The curve of the balusters is also greater than on cat. 14 – that is, they are more opened out; this makes them appear less elegant. The central spindle is also rather crude in appearance; the mouldings are much more uneven. It is possible that the second piece was created to match the first, but less successfully, thus accounting for its inferior quality. Inscriptions

There are no inscriptions or graffiti on this vessel. Discussion and parallels Form

The pedestalled plates are the most unusual objects in the Mildenhall treasure and the most problematic to characterize in terms of function. The only other late Roman silver treasure to date that has provided comparable objects, at least in silver, is the hoard from Traprain Law. One is complete (Pl. 341a–b),1 another virtually complete (only lacking its upper plate)2 and there are fragments of others – a hemispherical base,3 a fragment of stem of different style to cat. 15 and hemispherical base,4 and two sections of stem.5 All of the Traprain Law examples are more straightforward in both design and construction than those under discussion here: their hemispherical bases have plain rims, and their flat plates are simple undecorated circular discs. Their stems consist of a repeated pattern of disc and bead mouldings, and they are not nearly as complex as the Mildenhall examples, with their baluster mouldings and central spindle. They are, however, reversible in the same way, so it is equally difficult to judge how they should be oriented ‘correctly’.

In terms of size, the most complete example from Traprain Law is between approximately 10 to 15% smaller in size than the pair from Mildenhall. Comparing it to cat. 14, its flat plate is 105mm in diameter, as opposed to 114mm; its height is 101mm, as opposed to 114.4mm; and the diameter of its hemispherical base is 86mm, as opposed to 98mm. It was created from 262.3g of silver instead of 391g, roughly three-quarters of a pound of Roman silver. The function of the pedestalled plates

As already stated, the pair of pedestalled plates in the Mildenhall treasure are the most difficult items in the assemblage to ascribe to a particular use. In the case of Mildenhall, and indeed the related objects in the Traprain Law treasure, those originally tasked with cataloguing these items (Brailsford for Mildenhall, Curle for Traprain Law) chose to describe them as goblets, assuming that the hemispherical bases were bowls to contain liquid.6 Both scholars may have had in mind Christian chalices, although Curle was cautious in making such associations, instead suggesting secular use in the ‘ordinary service’ of the Roman household (that is, intimating that those from Traprain Law were used for serving drink at the dining table).7 Although the complete and fragmentary examples from Traprain Law could function relatively easily as goblets, albeit rather shallow ones, in the case of the Mildenhall treasure this is not quite such a straightforward interpretation. As Brailsford immediately recognized, the problem with the goblet idea is that the bases, i.e. the beaded and decorated plates, would have been hidden when set down, which seems nonsensical. Therefore Brailsford suggested that: ‘Possibly these goblets were designed so that, when turned upside down, the underside of the base would serve as a small plate’.8 This reversibility is clearly an important aspect of these objects, and was also emphasized subsequently by other researchers.9 Outside the medium of silver plate, the form is also known in pewter, with a single example in the Appleshaw

The Pedestalled Plates | 201

Plate 342 Pewter pedestalled plate from Appleshaw, fourth century. British Museum, 1897,1218.12

hoard (Pl. 342).10 There is also a comparable type of object known in African Red slipware. This ceramic form has also been assumed to be a drinking vessel, dated to the late fifth to early sixth century, thus constituting ‘a successor of the Traprain Law and Mildenhall silver goblets [sic]’.11 However, when reversed it can be clearly seen as broadly comparable with cats 14–15 and the vessels from Traprain Law, so in this sense it too could be considered reversible. Returning to Brailsford’s caveat, it indeed makes little sense for the ‘underside’ of such vessels to be so heavily decorated. There are no other forms of silver plate with beaded rims which are not designed to be viewed from above. It is also impractical for a goblet, if used as such, to have a beaded rim like those present around the hemispherical bases of these vessels – although admittedly the examples in Traprain Law lack this feature. The heavily decorated stems, although aesthetically pleasing when not in use, do not seem particularly appropriate to form a grip for the hand; and the inclusion of a central spindle, which also has no obvious practical function, is puzzling if the stem was intended simply as a grip. The most recent discussion of the pedestalled plates is in the context of the study of a set of lidded vessels in the Carthage treasure.12 In this research, the important observation is made that the stem of cats 14–15 is symmetrical, suggesting this was a deliberate means of indicating the object’s inherent reversibility.13 In turn, the idea was put forward that the Mildenhall vessels and the Traprain Law examples were essentially reversible drinking cups so that when empty they could be inverted in order to display their decorated sides, at least in the case of the Mildenhall objects.14 All these interpretations lead us no closer to understanding precisely how these objects were used in a functional sense. It is clear that the drinking vessel idea might have some validity, but only if the objects also served as small plates, in order to address the problem of the heavily

202 | The Mildenhall Treasure

decorated ‘bases’, if drinking was their primary intention. However, as mentioned above, one important aspect of the Mildenhall vessels – although this does not apply to the comparable examples from Traprain Law, or the examples in other materials (see above) – is that the hemispherical cups have beaded rims. This would appear to count against their use for containing liquid, since the rims of drinking vessels tend to be plain, for obvious reasons; although of course such use cannot be precluded entirely. A further problem, however, and one which unfortunately cannot be tested, is that it is unclear whether the use of a rivet to connect the cup to the pedestal would have been watertight. Clearly that would be essential if these objects were to be used for drinking. But perhaps the strongest argument against a use for potable liquids is that cats 14–15 bear little relation to the form of known drinking vessels dating to the late Roman period, found occasionally in metal, but more usually in glass. Examples in silver are known from Kaiseraugst and Vinkovci, which in turn copy the forms of their glass equivalents.15 Such vessels can be characterized as beakers, and are also clearly depicted being used to consume wine in contemporary illustrations in, for example, the Virgilius Romanus and the Room of the Small Hunt at Piazza Armerina.16 For further discussion, see Chapter 16, pp. 282–3. Therefore, it is the view of this study that the decorated plate side of these vessels was the usual way in which these objects were employed, meaning that the hemispherical cup served as a base; although this does not discount the reversible nature of these objects. This orientation makes the most important part of cats 14–15 the small plate, which, as described above, provided a mostly plain undecorated surface. How these surfaces were employed remains uncertain, but as was the case with the niello platter (cat. 4), their very plainness may suggest that they were intended to support particular items: perhaps food, maybe in the form of small delicacies, although there is no way of knowing what such titbits might have been (see also p. 281). On the subject of small quantities of food, it is perhaps worth adding that from the insula of the Menander silver treasure at Pompeii, there are four curious objects normally described as egg cups. These are not too distant in form from those at Traprain Law, although some are far removed from the Mildenhall examples, and they are considerably smaller than both; these ‘egg cups’ have very small hemispherical cups at one end and wide flat bases at the other (hence the interpretation).17 If they were used for food, then perhaps the hemispherical bases could have been available for condiments (including perhaps garum) and spices if the vessels were reversed. Another suggestion is that these objects functioned as low stands, not for food but for something else. If so, is there a possibility that they acted as stands for lamps? After all, lighting would have been needed at the dining table, especially if the meal was being conducted indoors after sunset. Lighting paraphernalia in silver plate is known from other hoards of silver; the most elaborate example of fourthcentury date comes from Kaiseraugst,18 a silver-gilt stand on a triple foot with a pricket for the wax candle and a double part drip-tray to collect the molten wax (Pl. 343). In fact, there is a notable resemblance between the ‘Untersatz’ (‘saucer’) of the Kaiseraugst candelabra and the upper plates

Plate 343 Untersatz (saucer) of silver candlestick from Kaiseraugst (cat. 42), fourth century. Museum Augusta Raurica, Augst

of cats 14–15 (Pl. 343). The saucer has a similar stepped decorated rim and a plain centre, although the rim is not beaded but turned over and pierced. But there the similarities end, because the Mildenhall examples obviously lack the other elements which one would expect to find on a lampstand, particularly a pricket for a candle. Thus the only possibility, if use for lighting is to be invoked, would be the placement of a metal or ceramic lamp on the plate part of cats 14–15. In that sense, broad parallels can be drawn with low lampstands of the early Roman period, normally in copper-alloy, which also consist of a flat recessed plate (Pl. 344).19 Once again there are problems with such an interpretation as these objects are very different in form, not least because they were not reversible, and are clearly of much earlier date. So any similarities are rather limited and should not be overemphasized. The reversibility of the pedestalled plates would also need accounting for if this interpretation is workable; the hemispherical cups could perhaps have contained oil, but only for a floating wick, which is not particularly practical. Thus to conclude, although the idea that the pedestalled plates served as stands, perhaps for lighting purposes, is an attractive one, at present there is insufficient supporting evidence for this to be presented as a definitive resolution to the functional use of these objects. As pointed out in the discussion, their reversibility seems to be key to understanding how they were used, but does not elucidate precisely what this dual use might have been. And there remain oddities about them, not least the presence of the spindle in the centre of the stem, which serves no obvious practical purpose. And although broad parallels with the examples from Traprain Law, and indeed in other materials, are of interest, the relative complexity of the Mildenhall pieces only serves to make them more puzzling. Why are they so elaborate, while other comparable objects are relatively simple? Their suggested use in the context of lighting is only offered to show that there is still much to be

Plate 344 Copper-alloy lampstand from Oplontis, late first century BC to early first century. British Museum, 1856,1226.860

understood about dining paraphernalia, particularly when objects are not categorically related to food or liquid. It can only be hoped that future discoveries might shed more light on these somewhat enigmatic objects. Production and dating

Because of the lack of a significant number of parallels, establishing where the pedestalled plates might have been produced is difficult. Perhaps the links with the examples from Traprain Law hint at production in the west rather than the east, and this raises the possibility of British production, as does the fact that the only known copy in pewter is also from Britain (see above), but there are too few examples to draw any firm conclusions. Interestingly, there is a notable link with the pair of small flanged bowls (cats 9–10). The bead diameters of the beads on the upper plates of the pedestalled plates and cats 9–10 are an extremely close match, raising the strong possibility that they were all produced employing the same set of punches. The density of the decoration on the raised flanges of all four of these vessels is also notable. Thus it is far from inconceivable that these four objects were all made in the same workshop and acquired by the owners of the assemblage as a group. Since the small flanged bowls were probably made in the second half of the fourth century, this also seems the likeliest production date for the pedestalled plates. Further discussion of this grouping can be found in Chapter 15 (p. 270). Technical aspects of the production of the pedestalled plates (Janet Lang) Cat. 14 Metal composition: summary

The silver content of the plate is 95%, while the hemispherical base was made from slightly finer silver (98%).

The Pedestalled Plates | 203

Plate 345 The bead die imprint shows more than one strike (cat. 14, plate)

Plate 346 Scraping the rim has cut into the beads. Irregular bead outlines indicate several strikes (cat. 14, plate)

The silver content of the spindle is 95% and the rivet in the plate 95%. For further discussion, see Chapter 13.

The base is damaged and two breaks have been repaired. Intercrystalline cracks radiate away from the damaged areas. A sharp pointed object caused a dent and skidded across the outside surface to make a second, less severe indentation. The ends of the cast stem, decorated with carved and punched leaves, have a number of casting faults.

Surface finish, wear and damage

The condition of the upper surface of the plate is good, although one or two small casting defects can be seen and some areas have been mildly attacked by corrosion. Decorative turned concentric lines show tool chatter. At low magnification, the surface of some of these lines also reveals traces of the original cast dendritic structure, with slight smearing, as the chasing tool cut through the dendrites. Tool chatter can also be seen faintly at the change of profile and on the undecorated angled section. The outline of the design shows on the underside, with many turning lines. These are also present on the raised ring in the underside and within the ring itself, although not at the centre, which would have been covered by the chuck during turning. The interior of the hemispherical base shows some small areas of damage or discontinuities (possibly the remains of casting faults) which seem to have occurred before the surface was polished. Fine lines, due to polishing, are visible over the whole surface and there is much tool chatter under the rim. Plate 347 Turning produced tool chatter and has removed part of the beads. Uneven die placement resulted in small flanges (cat. 14, plate)

204 | The Mildenhall Treasure

Construction of cat. 14

The plate was probably cast to an appropriate shape, such as a disc, and finished by working. The underside shows extensive tool chatter, suggesting that a number of operations using a lathe were employed. No X-radiographic evidence was found to suggest that the ring on the underside had been attached by solder or brazing. After the decoration on the plate was completed, the beads were made on the rim of the plate, by the punch and die method. The same technique was employed to make the beads on the Bacchic platter (cat. 1).20 The use of this method accounts for the superimposed impressions of the die corners visible around the beading on the plates. Between two and three strikes can be observed (Pl. 345). Chasing increased the definition of the beads and afterwards the outer edge was

Plate 348 The bead surface shows a hammered-in fin (cat. 14, plate)

Plate 349 Decorated bands below the rim of the base (cat. 14)

Plate 350 Curved lines on the beads on the base suggest the die was mis-hit. Holding the die at an angle resulted in small flanges (cat. 14, base)

scraped (Pl. 346). The finish around the beads is not smooth and some irregular pieces of metal stand up between the depressions made by the die strikes (Pl. 347). Some beads show irregularities, which suggest that the edge was not completely smooth before beading, and also that the metal was not always punched into the dome-shaped die sufficiently to fill it completely. Below the rim, the beads were hammered and scraped. Parts of the beads were removed during this process. A hammered-in fin can also be seen (Pl. 348) which may be an overspill from the adjoining bead. As for the hemispherical base, it is probable that the metal was cast to a suitable shape, such as a disc, and then raised to make the cup-like shape. The bowl is relatively thin and has sustained damage. A decorated rivet at the centre of the base was used to connect the base with the stem. Around the rivet are two concentric turned grooves and an associated series of lines, not all of which are concentric or complete. The joining area around the foot-ring was scraped rather crudely and X-radiographs did not show any evidence to suggest that the ring had originally been separate. There are a few discontinuities and a little spreading of material around the join of the ring and hemispherical base. The rim on the base was formed by caulking (see p. 57) to thicken it to a width of about 5mm to receive the beaded decoration. Two small ridges can be seen on the inside, close together, below the rim. These are decorated with rather irregular oblique punched lines. Between these ridges and the rim are irregular diagonal marks and lines, which are not at the same angle as the lines on the ridges, and may be associated with the bead-making operation. Below the ridges, a series of faint, fairly regular diagonal marks are visible, which may have been made at the same time as the punch marks on the lower of the two ridges, as they are at the same angle (Pl. 349). The beads on the base rim are smaller than those on the plate. They were worked entirely from the front, however, using a square-faced, hollow-tipped die or punch. They are set slightly to the side of the rim, facing outwards from the edge of the base, in a near vertical position. More than one strike was used to make a bead and the dies appear to have been rotated from side to side, across the rim. Initially a

ridge may have been made around the rim, which provided the material to fill the die. The beads on the cup-shaped base are not perfectly spaced and a flange was left where there was not enough room for another bead. Marks on some bead surfaces suggest that the die had been mis-hit, resulting in curved indentations on the surfaces of several beads (Pl. 350). A number of small flanges were also a result of holding the die at an angle and striking heavily to increase the definition of the beads. The die was not always perfectly filled. Tool chatter showed that a lathe was used to neaten the edge and in the process, also removed the surfaces of some of the beads, revealing a hollow inside in some cases. The regular, shallow vertical indentations adjacent to the scraped area next to the beads may have been introduced when the cup shape was being prepared for beading by reducing the spread of the diameter slightly. Both the stem and the enclosed spindle appear to have been initially cast separately as rods. The ends of the column are almost hidden by the decorative leaves, but rough, porous cast surfaces can be seen (Pl. 351). They have been cut or filed to remove excess metal. A cavity in one of the leaves shows dendrites. The cast spindle was carved and scraped to shape, but not turned. The middle section of the stem, between the pediments, was split into four segments with a chisel and then bowed outwards, probably using compressive pressure on the ends. The outside edges of the segments were cut or Plate 351 Casting porosity on the stem (cat. 14)

The Pedestalled Plates | 205

Plate 352 The edge of the horizontal plinth has been cut by the drill bit used to make the irregularly shaped cavity below it (cat. 14, stem)

Plate 353 Cat 14: dots were punched before chasing. Slightly rough surfaced chasing tools made longitudinal striations. Changes in pressure on the tool caused transverse striations in the broader lines (slip-stick) (cat. 14, stem)

filed to produce a lightly serrated effect. The inside edges show file marks and have not been finished. The spindle was inserted so that its ends fitted into depressions hollowed out between the segments where they merge at the plinth. A noticeable split can be seen between two segments at the base end. The opposite join is sound, but the ones on either side have small splits. The stem segments were probably compressed laterally to secure the spindle. The ends of the stem have been carved into four splayed leaves, which are decorated with punching and chasing with a broad gouge-shaped tool, leaving a similar slip-stick pattern to the design on the plate. Some details of the design were drilled: irregularly shaped triangular holes with concentric striations suggest that a worn or unevenly shaped spade bit was used, not always with care. The decoration on the plinth has been cut by this tool (Pl. 352). The plate and base was pierced and the components riveted together. The ends of the rivets (possibly the ends of the stem itself) were slightly domed and decorated by chasing and punching to make a floral shape. Tool marks

can be seen around the rivet where the tools slipped. No attempt was made to clean up the marks.

Plate 354 Corrosion reveals a distorted cast dendritic structure

206 | The Mildenhall Treasure

Execution of the design

The design on the plate was executed using punched dots, chased lines and gouging or scraping with a broad-bladed tool, such as a gouge or a scorper (see p. 158, n. 13), which showed a slip-stick progress in producing wide, shallow leaflike hollows on the surface. Apart from the slip-stick marks, where the progress of the tool was jerky, the surface of the hollows is far from smooth, with some evidence of the original cast structure visible. Traces left by chasing and scraping can be seen (Pl. 353). The surface also shows scratches which post-date the execution of the design. Cat. 15 Metal composition

The silver content is finer than the plate of cat. 14 (97%), while the composition of the base is the same (98%). The Plate 355 Plates of cat. 14 (left) and cat. 15 compared. The decoration is similar but not identical. Cat. 15 is cruder and has been more attacked by corrosion

Plate 356 (left) Casting porosity and slip-stick chasing on the stem of cat. 15 (cat. 15, plate) Plate 357 (below left) Tin-lead used to solder the base of cat. 15 to the stem Plate 358 (below right) Tin-lead solder used to repair the stem of cat. 15. There was an attempt to replicate the chipped edge pattern (top edge)

composition of the spindle is 94% silver. For further discussion, see Chapter 13.

Less tool chatter can be observed on the surface than on cat. 14. The surfaces have become etched by corrosion during burial, revealing traces of the original cast dendritic structure which had been distorted by working so that the dendrites were enlarged and distorted, thus confirming that the metal had been first cast and then raised. This is more clearly seen on cat. 15 than on cat. 14 (Pls 354–5). The area round the rivet, although polished, is uneven and

slightly raised. It was probably covered by a block to secure it while the surface was turned on a lathe. The plain side of the plate had been fairly extensively scraped before the design was executed on the other side. The design shows through, clearly, on the underside. Two of the segments of the stem have broken away from the plinth and were repaired with tin-lead solder (60% tin, 40% lead). The leaves on the inner rim show casting porosity and cavities (Pl. 356). There is an irregular crack on the side of the hemispherical base, about 6mm from the chased lines below the beaded rim. In addition, some partially detached fragments appear to have been secured with resin during conservation.

Plate 359 Removing the outer surface of the rim surface reveals the spread of metal around the beads, leaving some cavities (cat. 15, plate)

Plate 360 A flange occurs when the spacing of the beads is incorrect (cat. 15, plate)

Surface finish, wear and damage

The Pedestalled Plates | 207

what is observed. Some material was displaced so that it flowed over the edge of the semi-circular impression left on the lower side by the first strike. Several strikes were made, as the imprints of the dies show. There is a small cylindrical spacer (see Pl. 360), where there was insufficient metal left to make a complete bead. The stem was fabricated in the same way as cat. 14. Conclusion: the production of the pedestalled plates, cats 14 and 15 Plate 361 The crescent-shaped hollow is caused by insufficient metal to fill the die (cat. 15, base)

As a result of the compression used to secure the spindle, splits have occurred on one of the segments at the point of maximum curvature, extending inwards horizontally from the outside edges (Pl. 339). Another split extends downwards, at the point where the columns separate from the plinth. Tin-lead solder was used to attach the base to its stem (tin 60%, lead 40%) (Pls 357–8). It is difficult to determine when the solder was used to repair this object. There appear to have been some attempts to incorporate the surrounding design in the solder, but there is little corrosion on the surface of the solder and minimal or no damage or scratches are visible. This means that it is rather difficult to determine when precisely this intervention occurred, and recent repairs cannot be ruled out. Construction of cat. 15

Cat. 15 was constructed in the same manner as cat. 14, but there are some differences in the use of tools and the quality of the workmanship. In making the beads on the plate, a chisel-shaped tool appears to have been employed in addition to the punch and die (Pl. 359). The number of beads does not fit the rim completely and a small rib filled the gap (Pl. 360). The finish around the beads is not smooth and some irregular pieces of metal stand up between the depressions made by the die strikes. The edge was hammered after beading and shows tool chatter. The base is a poorer quality casting than cat. 14, with a porous texture. Two grooves encircle the solder at the centre of the bowl, both showing marked tool chatter. The metal outside them has a rough texture and a distorted dendritic structure can be seen. The number of discontinuities and the spread of material around the join between the ring and the base are more noticeable than on cat. 14. Inside the hemispherical base, under the rim, similar hammer marks and turned lines seen on cat. 14 are present, but are less marked. Many of the beads on the rim appear to be incomplete. They have nicks or hollows on the outer side. The hollows in these beads often show a flat base with a rounded outer edge (Pl. 361). It is suggested that this feature occurs when the die is applied first to the outer edge and then rotated. If the material in the ridge, previously formed using a lathe (as in cat. 14), did not fill the die or mould adequately, the result would be a partially hollow bead, apparently sitting on a disc (rather like a biscuit made with a pastry cutter), which is

208 | The Mildenhall Treasure

The two pedestalled plates are closely similar in design and construction. The surface texture of cat. 15 has been attacked more vigorously by corrosion than the surface of cat. 14 (see Pl. 355), but this probably reflects the localized burial conditions. The same illustration also shows that, although the design on the plates was similar, both were carried out in a rather ‘freehand’ and therefore non-identical manner. Some of the punches do not appear to have the same imprint, although they are used to produce similar features. Details of the foliate decoration at the end of the stem are very similar, but not identical. These observations suggest that as a variety of tools appear to have been employed, either different craftsmen were working to produce similar objects, possibly from a drawing or a model, or one was a copy of the other. The composition of the hemispherical bases were very similar, indicating that initially they may have been cast from the same smelt, but the compositions of the other components differ. It seems most probable that the pedestalled plates were made in the same workshop, at roughly the same time, but by different craftsmen, each using their own set of tools. Notes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Traprain Law cat. 13. Ibid., cat. 14. Ibid., cat. 15. Ibid., cat. 16. Ibid., cats 17–18. Brailsford 1955, 13; Curle 1923, 28–31. Curle 1923, 30. Brailsford 1955, 13. Dohrn 1949, 111; Martin-Kilcher 1984, 396. The same interpretation was offered in Painter’s handbook of the treasure (1977a, 29). 10 Smith 2011, cat. CXD5.1. 11 Hayes 1972, 192, form 170. 12 Baratte et al. 2002, 36–49. 13 Ibid., 48. 14 ‘Doit-on en conclure que ces coupes étaient systématiquement retournées dès qu’elles ne servaient plus à boire?’ (Ibid., 49). 15 Kaiseraugst cats 43–6; Vinkovci provisional cats 24–6. For examples in late Roman glass, see for instance the set of glass beakers from Burgh Castle, Norfolk (Harden 1983). 16 Dunbabin 2003, pl. XVI and fig. 86. 17 Painter 2001, 71, M110–13. 18 Kaiseraugst, cat. 42. Other examples come from the Beaurains hoard of the third century ad (Bastien and Metzger 1977, cat. 31), and more recently the hoard from Vinkovci (unpublished, seen by the author in October 2012, provisional catalogue no. 31). 19 Bailey 1996, Q 3913-16. 20 Lang and Holmes 1983, fig. 6.

Chapter 10 The Deep-bowled Spoons (cats 16–20)

The Mildenhall treasure contains a group of five deepbowled spoons, of which five bowls and four handles survive. When discovered, the solder that attached the handles to the spoon bowls had failed, so they were found as nine separate items, but it is possible to make reasonable estimates of which bowl belongs with which handle, so they are catalogued here as five objects (the last, cat. 20, being a bowl only).

Cat. 16 Deep-bowled spoon (Pl. 362)

(British Museum 1946,1007.18 and 25; Brailsford 1947/1955, cats 18 and 25; Painter 1973, cats 16 and 24; Painter 1977a, cats 18 and 25). Dimensions (bowl)

Diameter: 57.5mm Diameter of flat base: 29.5mm Height: 23.6mm Weight: 40.73g (1.49 unciae) Estimated capacity: 38ml (0.1 sextarii) Description

Small hemispherical bowl with a flat base, originally with attached handle soldered into position. The bowl has a slightly collared rim: at the bottom of the inside of the bowl, the central lathe mark is visible and also on the outside; around this are inscribed concentric lines, an inner pair and an outer pair just inside the point where the sides of the bowl begin. Inscription

On the underside is the scratched graffito ‘I’ (see Chapter 12, p. 237 and Pl. 401). Dimensions (handle)

Length: 99.7mm Width of handle attachment: 47.9mm Width of tail: 21.2mm Weight: 35.68g (1.31 unciae) The spoon handle is in the form of a dolphin, or possibly two dolphins overlapping. The attachment for the spoon bowl is crescentic and narrows at each end. To increase the attachment area, there is a hemispherical moulding or spur in the centre of the crescent attachment. Each crescentic terminal is in the form of a stylized bird’s head, with details picked out by chasing. The bird has a long hooked beak and oval eye with an off-centre punched pellet for the pupil and a chased line to represent the eyelid. There is a series of randomly spaced punched dots in the area behind the eye on the bird’s neck, which peter out towards the centre of the crescent. Above this the edge is in the form of a stepped and indented moulding with V-shaped notches. The rest of the handle undulates back to the terminal tail. Nearest to the crescentic attachment is the mouth of a dolphin, behind which are downward spurs, presumably to represent the beak. Then comes the main part of the head, with circular, heavily indented eye sockets, and a tripartite fin on top. There are punched dots around the head of each dolphin (assuming that the second dolphin is intentional),

The Deep-bowled Spoons | 209

210 | The Mildenhall Treasure

0

5cm

Plate 362 Bowl,spoon: handle and estimated Deep-bowled cat. 16 capacity of deep-bowled spoon (cat. 16)

estimated capacity 38ml

Deep-bowled spoon: cat.17

estimated capacity 44ml

0

5cm

Plate 363 Bowl, handle and estimated capacity of deep-bowled spoon (cat. 17)

and randomly spaced dots on the top lip of the principal dolphin. The shaft of the handle, thus the body of the dolphin, then bows slightly downwards and narrows; two further spurs suggest another pair of fins. The lower half of the dolphin’s body then runs into another ‘head’ with a deep eye socket on each side, this time topped with a single fin; but if this is intended to represent a second dolphin, then the mouth is not depicted. The shaft of the spoon then curves gently upwards, topped with a single triangular moulding to suggest another fin. Finally the handle ends in a tripartite moulding to represent the tail. Viewed from the side, the two dolphins can be orientated to be interpreted as stylized birds’ heads, both of which face to the left whichever way the handle is held. It is unclear if this is intentional or not. The eye sockets would originally

have been inset with glass or precious stones, but these are now lost. The bodies of the dolphins are detailed with groups of straight-line radiating narrow wedges, that is, dashes which narrow to a point. On the upper side of the main dolphin’s mouth, punched dots form an ‘M’ shape with lines of dots on either side (it seems highly unlikely that this was intended as a deliberate inscription). On each side of the principal dolphin’s head is a cordate-type motif, infilled with short dashed lines. Small punched pellets detail the upstanding fin and the beak. Each part of the tail is detailed with chevrons, consisting of converging lines of short, wedge-shaped dashes that follow the inner edge of each lobe. There is gilding in selected places on the handle: on each bird head; the fins, beak and cordate motifs on the head of the principal

The Deep-bowled Spoons | 211

dolphin; both fins of the ‘second’ dolphin; and the tail. The gilding is neatly done. The handle is solid, but there is a recess underneath the principal dolphin head, the purpose of which is unclear.

Inscription

On the underside is the scratched graffito ‘I III’ (see Chapter 12, p. 237 and Pl. 401). Dimensions (handle)

Cat. 17 Deep-bowled spoon (Pl. 363)

(British Museum 1946,1007.19 and 24; Brailsford 1947/1955, cats 19 and 24; Painter 1973, cats 17 and 23; Painter 1977a, cats 19 and 24). Dimensions (bowl)

Diameter: 60.1mm Diameter of flat base: 31.9mm Height: 22.0mm Weight: 40.91g (1.50 unciae) Estimated capacity: 44ml (0.1 sextarii)

Length: 97.6mm Width of handle attachment: 45.4mm Width of tail: 19.5mm Weight: 36.44g (1.34 unciae) Description

As previous examples. Inscription

On the reverse of the handle on the offset are what appear to be three deliberate parallel incised lines, possibly forming the number ‘III’. For further discussion see Chapter 12.

Description

As previous example (cat. 16). The area where the handle was attached is less obvious than on the bowl of cat. 16. The lathe mark in the centre of the base is more pronounced, comprising a deep concave indent. Inscription

On the underside is the scratched graffito ‘II’ (see Chapter 12, p. 237 and Pl. 401). Dimensions (handle)

Length: 99.6mm Width of handle attachment: 47.1mm Width of tail: 19.5mm Weight: 38.01g (1.39 unciae) Essentially the same as cat. 16, but dots cover the whole of the area between the birds’ heads, and the dots on the upper mouth of the principal dolphin appear to be random. Also one of the cordates has no infill dots. The detailing of the dolphin’s body is different from cat. 18 (below); rather than chevrons there are semi-circles of short dashes, rather like those seen on a number of the large flanged bowls (e.g. cat. 8 S1, Pl. 194).

Cat. 18 Deep-bowled spoon (Pl. 364)

(British Museum 1946,1007.22 and 23; Brailsford 1947/1955, cats 22–3; Painter 1973, cats 20–1; Painter 1977, cats 22–3). Dimensions (bowl)

Diameter: 60.7mm Diameter of flat base: 31.0mm Height: 22.0mm Weight: 41.79g (1.59 unciae) Estimated capacity: 44ml (0.1 sextarii) Description

As previous examples. The handle appears to rightly belong with this bowl, given the placement of scratches in one area on the outside of the bowl and the matching scratched graffiti.

212 | The Mildenhall Treasure

Cat. 19 Deep-bowled spoon (Pl. 365)

(British Museum 1946,1007.21 and 26; Brailsford 1947/1955, cats 21 and 26; Painter 1973, cats 19 and 24; Painter 1977a, cats 21 and 26). Dimensions (bowl)

Diameter: 56.2mm Diameter of flat base: 29.1mm Height: 21.5mm Weight: 45.52g (1.67 unciae) Estimated capacity: 31ml (0.1 sextarii) Description

As previous examples, but there is some damage inside just below the rim. This is the heaviest of the bowls, but does not have the largest capacity. Inscription

On the underside is the scratched graffito ‘IIII’ (see Chapter 12, p. 237 and Pl. 401). Dimensions (handle)

Length (surviving): 71.8mm Width of handle attachment: 45.9mm Weight: 33.42g (1.22 unciae) As previous, but lower part of handle below the second dolphin head has broken away and is missing. Dots infill the whole area between the birds’ heads; dots on the top lip of the principal dolphin appear to be random. The hollow underneath the principal dolphin’s head here is much smaller than the others. Inscription

On the reverse of the handle on the offset are four deliberately incised parallel lines, the last offset from the other three, thus possibly forming the number ‘IIII’. For further discussion see Chapter 12.

Deep-bowled spoon: cat. 18

estimated capacity 44ml

0

5cm

Plate 364 Bowl, handle and estimated capacity of deep-bowled spoon (cat. 18)

Cat. 20 Deep-bowled spoon (bowl only) (Pl. 366)

(British Museum 1946,1007.20; Brailsford 1947/1955, cat. 20; Painter 1973, cat. 18; Painter 1977a, cat. 20). Dimensions (bowl)

Diameter: 57.6mm Diameter of flat base: 28.7mm Height: 21.3mm Weight: 34.36g (1.26 unciae) Estimated capacity: 35ml (0.1 sextarii) Description

As previous examples. The attachment place is not particularly clear but there is an area of heavy scratching in one area on the outside of the bowl. The handle of this bowl is missing.

Inscription

On the underside is the scratched graffito ‘V’ (see Chapter 12). Discussion of cats 16–20

Although this group of utensils can be considered part of the larger group of dining utensils in the Mildenhall treasure (which also includes the long-handled spoons, see Chapter 11), they have a number of features that set them apart from much of the rest of the treasure. First, they are the only group of objects in the assemblage that are gilded (the triton handle of the covered bowl may also have been, but traces of gold are no longer visible: see p. 175); as discussed, niello is used elsewhere (for example cat. 4), but not gold or other surface treatments. Second, their construction differs from the other spoons, as they are composite objects constructed using solder (although they are not the only items in the The Deep-bowled Spoons | 213

214 | The Mildenhall Treasure

0

Deep-bowled spoon: cat. 19

5cm

Plate 365 Bowl, handle and estimated capacity of deep-bowled spoon (cat. 19)

estimated capacity 31ml

Deep-bowled spoon: cat. 20 estimated capacity 35ml

0

5cm

Plate 366 Bowl and estimated capacity of deep-bowled spoon (cat. 20)

assemblage where solder was used, since the handle escutcheons on the fluted dish (cat. 13) were attached in this manner: see p. 193). Traces of solder have been found on one of the long-handled spoons (cat. 23) but this seems to be evidence of an ancient repair (see p. 229), and on one of the pedestalled plates (cat. 15), again a repair made at an uncertain date (see p. 208). Finally, the handles are the only examples in the Mildenhall treasure of the depiction of sea creatures in the round, with the exception of the triton on the lid of the flanged bowl with upstand (cat. 12; see p. 165). Table 15 summarizes the key dimensions of the spoons’ bowls and handles. The mean values show these spoons to be shorter in length than the long-handled spoons (Chapter 11, Table 16) but considerably heavier, which is hardly surprising given their solid-cast zoomorphic handles and heavy bowls. The mean weight suggests that approximately

four of this type of spoon were produced per pound of silver, or to put it another way, a set of 12 would have required 3 pounds of silver. Again, this was considerably more than what was needed for the long-handled spoons, which could be produced in sets of 12 or possibly 18 from a single pound of metal (see pp. 226–8). Deep-bowled spoons: comparanda

Deep-bowled spoons such as these from Mildenhall are a new type of utensil that appears in the fourth century (probably late in the fourth century, see below) and are known from a small number of treasures including this one. Traditionally they have been termed ‘ladles’,1 but this term is inappropriate, since the dictionary definition makes it clear that ladles are larger utensils used as ‘dippers’ for serving liquid and normally have handles set at an angle to the

Cat. no.

Diameter (bowl)

Height (bowl)

Length (handle)

Length (total)

Width (attachment)

Weight (g)

16

57.5

23.6

99.7

157.2

47.9

76.41

17

60.1

22.0

99.6

159.7

47.1

78.92

19

56.2

21.5

71.8*

n/a

45.9

78.94*

18

60.7

22.0

97.6

158.3

45.4

78.23

20

57.6

21.3

–

–

–

34.36+

* broken and therefore excluded from the mean calculations; + handle missing and therefore excluded from the mean calculations

Table 15 Dimensions of the Mildenhall deep-bowled spoons (cats 16–20). Mean total length: 158.4mm; mean total weight: 77.9g (2.86 unciae)

The Deep-bowled Spoons | 215

Plate 367 Two views of silver dolphin-handled spoon from Traprain Law (cat. 106), fourth century. National Museums, Scotland

bowl.2 They are thus more accurately characterized as deepbowled spoons, the description assigned to them by Johns and others.3 There are two recent discussions of this spoon type: the first by Johns and the second by Swift in a wider study of wear patterns on Roman spoons.4 All these spoons have some basic characteristics: a deep circular bowl, with either a flattened or hemispherical base; no offset between the bowl and the handle, unlike the late Roman cochlear, of which Mildenhall has eight examples (see Chapter 11); and a handle that is typically shorter than the handles of the cochlear-type spoons (again see Chapter 11) and regularly wider. The handles also have blunt terminals, so unlike cochlearia, these spoons do not have a dual purpose (see p. 226). The Mildenhall examples of deep-bowled spoons have no direct parallels but do share characteristics with spoons from a number of other late Roman hoards. The best parallel for these spoons is in the Traprain Law treasure: a dolphinhandled spoon, rather more simply modelled and probably cast as one with its bowl, which is hemispherical (Pl. 367). Though shorter in length, the Traprain Law example is slightly heavier.5 The deep-bowled spoons in the Hoxne treasure (Pl. 368) have similar bowls to the Mildenhall examples (although as Johns notes, some of the bases are not completely flat but have a slight omphalos),6 but have flat and broad handles parallel to the plane of the bowl lips, so are of rather different form.7 They are also considerably lighter, averaging about 46g for the gilded examples and 57g for those with a monogram cross, and their bowls are of smaller capacity.8 There are also some stylistic parallels because of the presence of dolphin motifs on the handle attachments. Other parallels are almost certainly later in date. This includes a group of ‘cuillers-louches’ in the Carthage

treasure,9 which have been suggested as dating to the late fifth or sixth century10 but share clear similarities with the Mildenhall pieces (Pl. 369); the bowls in particular are of a similar form, though hemispherical.11 In addition, the weights are comparable: a mean weight of 71.36g is suggested.12 Parallels in Pavia and the Desana treasure are also noted.13 Other parallels can be cited not with deep-bowled spoons but with related objects. Of particular note are two transverse strainer spoons in the Hoxne treasure14 (Pl. 370), which have similar dolphin handles modelled in the round, although the tails are set vertically rather than horizontally.15 Returning once again to the Carthage treasure, the handle of a silver patera16 is of similar dolphin form, though simpler in design: it has a similar flat tripartite tail (though crescent shaped); the body is more curved than on the Mildenhall examples. The dolphin-handled strainer found in the thirdcentury hoard from Vienne with a double-fin tail is also worth noting.17

Plate 368 Silver-gilt deep-bowled spoon from Hoxne (cat. 42), fourth century. British Museum, 1994,0408.42

Plate 369 Silver deep-bowled spoon from Carthage (cat. 11), late fifth to sixth century. British Museum, AF.3283

216 | The Mildenhall Treasure

Possible function

These types of utensil clearly had a specialized purpose within a dining context that is not easy to pinpoint. A recent study has pointed to a number of features that set these types of spoon apart from both the cochlear and cignus spoon types.18 They have the highest capacity bowls known, but regularly show little evidence for wear, which means that they seem less likely to have been dipped into vessels and scraped across the inside of bowls in the same manner that can be demonstrated with the other principal types of spoon in use in the fourth century (see pp. 225–7). This is also reinforced by the fact that the handles, despite the variations in form as described, tend to be horizontal to the plane of the bowl

rather than angled, another reason why ‘dipping’ of this utensil type seems less probable. Thus liquid may have been poured directly into them, or they may have been dipped only into very deep vessels, but again this would seem unlikely as it may have resulted in the handle also becoming submerged. Two suggestions that have been made are that they were used for measuring individual servings of wine or for the pouring of libations; in this regard, the parallels with paterae are noteworthy.19 Further discussion of their possible use is provided in Chapter 16, p. 283. The other curious aspect of the Mildenhall deep-bowled spoons is that they appear to have been numbered (see also Chapter 12, pp. 237–8). Why this was done is not entirely clear and other instances of this in comparable assemblages of late Roman silver are not known, although it should be noted that it is possible that one of the small flanged bowls (cat. 10) might also be numbered (see p. 236). Perhaps they needed to be audited for inventory purposes; but this would only make sense if they were part of a considerably larger set, because evidently losses from a set of 12 would have been easily spotted. The alternative is that the numbering relates in some way to production, although again it does not seem obvious why it would have been needed, unless it was a means of indicating, prior to the soldering process, which handle belonged with which bowl. At present, these graffitoed numbers are not easily explained. Production and dating

It is not clear where these spoons were made, although the fact that all the examples known at the present time have come from the western part of the empire may be significant. British production cannot be discounted, given the fact that the best parallels for these spoons have been found at Traprain Law and Hoxne (less so the deep-bowled spoons from Hoxne, but the pair of strainer spoons, which have a very ‘provincial’ appearance (Pl. 370)). As for dating, it is clear that the deep-bowled spoons are a fourth-century type, because they are not known in earlier assemblages. It can be argued that it is possible to go further and assign them to the second half of the fourth century, given the following facts: they have been discovered only in late Roman hoards such as Hoxne and Mildenhall; they continue to be found in developed forms in later hoards still (particularly Carthage and Desana); and they have not been found (to date) in earlier fourth-century deposits (particularly Kaiseraugst and the stratified material from Augst and Kaiseraugst). Johns also notes a link with the strainer in the Water Newton treasure, which provides another late Roman parallel.20 Technical aspects of the production of the deep-bowled spoons (cats 16–20) (Janet Lang) Metal composition

Only one of the bowls of the deep-bowled spoons (cat. 18) was analysed. It contained 97% silver. Traces of solder on the rim of cat. 18 were also analysed and found to contain 42% tin with only a small proportion of lead (2%). A tin-rich solder may have been used to attach the handles to the bowls. Non-quantitative XRF surface analyses also

Plate 370 Silver-gilt strainer spoon from Hoxne (cat. 63). British Museum, 1994,0408.63

confirmed that the dolphin-shaped handles of the deepbowled spoons had been fire (mercury) gilded (see Chapter 13). Surface finish, wear and damage

The under surfaces of the bases are unfinished, while the inner surfaces are highly polished with turned lines as decoration. Tool marks can be seen under the rims, which were only partially removed by the turning operation. Scratch marks are visible on the outside of some of the bowls at the rim, providing a key for the attachment of the handles. The handles are filed on the undersides and have some polished areas on the upper surfaces, which have also been filed. There are traces of gilding on various sections of all the handles (for further discussion, see Chapter 13). The examinations of the bowls and handles, which are now separate, are summarized in the following sections. Construction of the bowls

The small deep bowls were cast. They are similar in shape and dimensions but not identical; there is no evidence to suggest that the same mould was used in each case. They are hemispherical in shape, with flattened bases and slightly collared rims. Traces of the cast structure can be seen on the underside of the unpolished bases and casting was confirmed by a taper section (small polished area examined under a metallurgical microscope) on the base of cat. 18. The rim profiles were adjusted by hammering or punching. A lathe was used to finish the bowls and to scribe decorative lines on the inside. Marks at the centre of the bowl, both on the inside and the outside, probably show where they were secured while being turned on a lathe. Cat. 16

There is a small pip in a depression at the centre on the under surface and a number of scratches, but no indication of when these might have occurred. Inside, the bowl also has an irregular pip at the centre with a deeper depression in the middle: there are casting faults around it and some metal has split away (Pl. 371). The inside of the bowl is otherwise in good condition, showing little wear. The decorative turned lines are somewhat uneven and the cutting tool appears to have slipped at one place (Pl. 371).

The Deep-bowled Spoons | 217

Plate 371 The pip in of the bowl of spoon (cat. 16) was used as a centre for turning grooves. Casting defects show as surface irregularities

Plate 372 Turning on the outside of cat. 19 has not removed toolmarks

one of which is very small. The surface looks slightly worn and there are some scratches. On the inside, the casting pip at the middle has a raised lip and there are a number of casting defects. Turning has produced some tool chatter on the outside surface. Tool marks below the rim have not been eliminated by the final lathe turning operation on the outside (Pl. 372). Cat. 20

The base surface has a cast texture. A droplet of metal, produced during casting, has been hammered flat. On the inside, the texture around the centre is polished but a little casting porosity can be seen. It appears that the bowl was damaged by an object which made a triangular impression. Part of the surface has become detached (Pl. 373). The innermost turned lines also show some damage. Plate 373 Casting defects, irregular turned lines and damage on the inside of the bowl of cat. 20

Cat. 17

The base surface is uneven with a somewhat cast texture, and bears a dent inflicted by a rough-surfaced object. The pip at the centre is relatively shallow. Tool chatter from lathe turning is visible on the outside. The inside surface is polished, but seems slightly more worn. Cat. 18

The base surface has a pip at the centre, and has a cast texture which is far from smooth. Although the inside surface at the centre has been polished, it appears to retain some of the initial cast texture. The pip shows signs of turning (i.e. small even concentric lines) and the turned decorative lines were not all completed accurately, so that they do not start and finish in the same place. A taper section was carried out on the base of the bowl, which showed a cast silver structure, with no signs of heating or working. Cat. 19

The base is slightly smoother than cats 18 and 20 but still shows signs of casting. There are three cavities at the centre,

218 | The Mildenhall Treasure

Construction of the handles

The handles were cast roughly to shape, filed and decorated with punches. Slightly differently tipped tools were used to make the small straight punched marks (representing scales?), for example. These marks were arranged, as a tight fan, opening towards the tail (cats 18 and 16) or as a row (cat. 24). The tool marks were more heavily indented either towards the head (cat. 18), to both tail and the head (cat. 16) or evenly weighted (cat. 17). The eyes were roughly pierced or drilled and all have rough edges; the crests were decorated with chased vertical grooves accompanied by chased horizontal grooves (cats 17 and 19) (Pls 375, 377), or by vertical, irregularly dotted bands (cats 16 and 18) (Pls 374, 376). The tail of cat. 19 is missing, but the treatment of the three remaining tails is fairly similar. In conclusion, the design on each handle is similar but none are identical, so it seems unlikely that they were produced by a single craftsman at one and the same time. Notes

1 Brailsford 1955, 13; Painter 1977a, 30. 2 This issue is also discussed by Johns (2010, 104) when examining the round-bowled spoons from Hoxne. 3 Ibid., 104. Swift refers to them as ‘deep-bowled “ladle” type spoons’ (Swift 2014, 225).

Plate 374 Punched dots on the crest, small groups of radiating punched lines suggesting scales. The end of line from the eye bifurcates (cat. 16)

Plate 375 Vertical chased lines on the crest, curving bands of small horizontal punched lines imitating scales. The end of the line from the eye curves upwards (cat. 17)

Plate 376 Indistinct vertical punched lines on the crest, the scales are similar to cat 16 and there is a line of small diagonal punch marks above the line from the eye, the end of which curves upwards (cat. 18)

Plate 377 Small horizontal punched lines on the crest, groups of small punched lines similar to cat. 17. Line of small dots below the crest. The end of the line from the eye curves downwards (cat. 19)

Johns 2010, 104–6; Swift loc. cit. Traprain Law cat. 106. Length: c. 135mm, weight 89.5g. Johns 2010, 105. Hoxne cats 42–61; Johns 2010, 104–18. Johns 2010, 105–6; Swift 2014, Appendix 1. Four deep-bowled spoons in the Hoxne treasure had their capacities estimated, and three have a capacity of approximately 24ml (the other one, half this amount). 9 Carthage cats 11–19. 10 Baratte et al. 2002, 64. 11 The bowls of the deep-bowled spoons from Hoxne, in contrast, are directly comparable with Mildenhall, as they have flat bases: Johns 2010, 105.

12 Baratte et al. 2002, 62. 13 Peroni 1972; Desana cats 45–6. 14 Hoxne cats 62–3; Johns 2010, 109–11. 15 Dolphins are also integral to the handles of two implements in Hoxne (cats 147–8; Johns 2010, 137–8). It should also be noted that a further fragment of a toilet utensil with a dolphin and human hand was found subsequent to the main discovery (Hoxne cat. 401; Johns 2010, 257). 16 Carthage cat. 9. 17 Vienne cat. 19. 18 Swift 2014, 225–7, 232. 19 Ibid. 227. 20 Water Newton cat. 7.

4 5 6 7 8

The Deep-bowled Spoons | 219

Chapter 11 The Long-handled Spoons (cats 21–8)

The Mildenhall treasure contains nine long-handled spoons (cochlearia), which sit alongside the deep-bowled spoons (Chapter 10, cats 16–20) as the only utensils to survive in the assemblage. They are catalogued in three groups: the first group has a foliate design in their bowls (cats 21–3); the second has a short Christian inscription in Greek (cats 24–6); and the last group has a Latin inscription, which includes two personal names (cats 27–8). The catalogue order and numbering used here differs from what has been published previously, in order to reflect the likely date of production, based on stylistic considerations and use wear (also see Table 16).

Cat. 21 Long-handled spoon (Pl. 378)

(British Museum 1946,1007.32; Brailsford 1947/1955, cat. 34; Painter 1973, cat. 32; Painter 1977a, cat. 32). Dimensions

Total length: 168mm Length of handle: 114mm Length of bowl: 54.8mm Width of bowl: 28.2mm Weight: 19.39g (0.71 unciae) Description

Cochlear with pear-shaped bowl. The square-sectioned handle tapers to a blunt point; the sides are slightly chamfered. In profile, the handle slopes upwards from the plane of the bowl. The offset is a horizontal openwork comma (in contrast to vertical examples on cats 24–8), with a small stepped moulding on the end of the handle and a slight bump below this in the centre of the downward column. The bowl is pear shaped in plan and hemispherical in profile. It is decorated on its inner surface with a foliate design: a double line runs along its long axis; on either side is a wavy single ‘stem’ with groups of leaves filling the cells created by the wave. Each leaf is rendered in outline, and has a central shallow groove to give it character. The whole design is enclosed in a groove which follows the line of the edge of the bowl. There is considerable wear on one side of the edge of the bowl, suggestive of repeated use by a righthanded user (assuming that the spoon was being drawn towards the user). Inscription

The letter ‘E’ appears to have been graffitoed on the underside junction between the bowl and offset (see Chapter 12).

Cat. 22 Long-handled spoon (Pl. 379)

(British Museum 1946,1007.33; Brailsford 1947/1955, cat. 33; Painter 1973, cat. 31; Painter 1977a, cat. 33). Dimensions

Total length: 163mm Length of handle: 111mm Length of bowl: 52.7mm Width of bowl: 27.9mm Weight: 16.73g (0.61 unciae)

220 | The Mildenhall Treasure

Long-handled spoon: cat 21

0

5cm

Plate 378 Plans and profile of long-handled spoon and graffito (cat. 21)

Description

Essentially the same as cat. 21, except that the bulb of the offset looks as if it has broken away. The foliate decoration on the inside of the bowl is also different; the same double groove forms a central rib, but the decoration on either side is simpler, being a repeating pattern of leaves that face inwards towards the central stem. It has a similar encircling groove running around just below the rim of the bowl. Again the spoon is heavily worn around the bowl edge, consistent with a right-handed user. Inscription

Like cat. 22, this spoon has a letter ‘E’ graffitoed on the underside junction between the bowl and offset (see Chapter 12, p. 238).

Cat. 23 Long-handled spoon (Pl. 380)

Dimensions

Total length: 171mm Length of handle: 120mm Length of bowl: 51.9mm Width of bowl: 29.0mm Weight: 17.94g (0.65 unciae) Description

Essentially the same as cat. 22, but the offset is slightly different, with the comma-shaped opening set at an oblique angle to the line of the spoon, rather than horizontal or vertical. Once again there is wear on the front edge of the bowl suggestive of use by a right-handed user. Inscription

The bowl has the same letter ‘E’ incised on the underside junction between the bowl and offset as seen on cats 21–2 (see Chapter 12, p. 238).

(British Museum 1946,1007.34; Brailsford 1947/1955, cat. 32; Painter 1973, cat. 30; Painter 1977a, cat. 34). The Long-handled Spoons | 221

Long-handled spoon: cat 22

0

5cm

Plate 379 Plans and profile of long-handled spoon and graffito (cat. 22)

Cat. 24 Long-handled spoon (Pl. 381)

(British Museum 1946,1007.29; Brailsford 1947/1955, cat. 30; Painter 1973, cat. 28; Painter 1977a, cat. 29). Dimensions

Total length: 202mm Length of handle: 143mm Length of bowl: 60.7mm Width of bowl: 30.9mm Weight: 26.99g (0.98 unciae) Description

Cochlear with pear-shaped bowl. The handle is plain and tapers to a blunt pointed end; it is chamfered and octagonal in section. In profile, the handle slopes markedly upwards from the plane of the bowl. The offset is a vertical commashaped opening, while the bowl is pear shaped in plan and hemispherical in profile.

222 | The Mildenhall Treasure

Inscription

In the centre of the bowl is a punched Greek inscription A XP Ω. All the letters are serifed (see Chapter 12, p. 238).

̑

Cat. 25 Long-handled spoon (Pl. 382)

(British Museum 1946,1007.31; Brailsford 1947/1955, cat. 29; Painter 1973, cat. 27; Painter 1977a, cat. 31). Dimensions

Total length: 203mm Length of handle: 154mm Length of bowl: 60.6mm Width of bowl: 31.0mm Weight: 24.97g (0.91 unciae) Description

Cochlear with pear-shaped bowl. In form, the spoon is more

Long-handled spoon: cat 23

0

5cm

Plate 380 Plans and profile of long-handled spoon and graffito (cat. 23)

Long-handled spoon: cat 24

0

10cm

Plate 381 Plans and profile of long-handled spoon with Christian inscription (cat. 24)

The Long-handled Spoons | 223

Long-handled spoon: cat 26

0

Plate 382 Plans and profile of long-handled spoon with Christian inscription (cat. 25)

or less identical to cat. 24. There is noticeable wear in the front-right side of the bowl, suggesting right-handed use. Inscription

̑

The inscription reads A XP Ω (see Chapter 12, p. 238).

Cat. 26 Long-handled spoon (Pl. 383)

(British Museum 1946,1007.30; Brailsford 1947/1955, cat. 31; Painter 1973, cat. 29; Painter 1977a, cat. 30). Dimensions

Total length: 206mm Length of handle: 138.5mm Length of bowl: 65.7mm Width of bowl: 30.7mm Weight: 34.41g (1.26 unciae)

Cochlear with pear-shaped bowl. The handle is plain and tapers to a blunt pointed end; in profile, it slopes upwards slightly from the plane of the bowl, but this is noticeably less pronounced than the other spoons. Like cat. 24, its handle is chamfered and octagonal in section. The vertical comma-shaped open offset is similar to cat. 24, but the return of the comma is more bulbous (the whole offset in general is bulkier than cat. 24). The bowl is pear shaped but hemispherical in profile.

̑

In the centre of the bowl is the punched inscription A XP Ω; all the letters are serifed (see Chapter 12).

Cat. 27 Long-handled spoon (Pl. 384)

(British Museum 1946,1007.27; Brailsford 1947/1955, cat. 28; Painter 1973, cat. 26; Painter 1977a, cat. 27).

224 | The Mildenhall Treasure

Total length: 189mm Length of handle: 124mm Length of bowl: 63.9mm Width of bowl: 31.3mm Weight: 24.62g (0.90 unciae) Description

Cochlear with pear-shaped bowl. The handle, which slopes upwards slightly away from the plane of the bowl, is square in section and tapers to a plain pointed terminal. The offset is a comma-shaped opening with a stepped moulding between the end of the handle and the bowl; the handle at the bowl end is slightly bevelled. The bowl is pear shaped in plan and V shaped in section. Inscription

Description

Inscription

Dimensions

In the base of the bowl is an engraved and chased inscription (which is orientated to be legible if the spoon is held in the right hand), ‘pascentia vivas’ (the final V and A ligatured, all letters serifed). The inscription is very crudely rendered, with uneven letter heights and the occasional mistake (see Chapter 12, p. 239).

Cat. 28 Long-handled spoon (Pl. 385)

(British Museum 1946,1007.28; Brailsford 1947/1955, cat. 27; Painter 1973, cat. 25; Painter 1977a, cat. 28). Dimensions

Total length: 186mm Length of handle: 134mm Length of bowl: 53.3mm Width of bowl: 32.7mm Weight: 25.14g (0.92 unciae)

10cm

Long-handled spoon: cat 25

0

10cm

Plate 383 Plans and profile cat. of long-handled spoon with Christian inscription (cat. 26) Long-handled spoon: 28

0

10cm

Plate 384 Plans and profile of long-handled spoon with personal name (cat. 27)

Description

Cochlear with ovoid bowl. The handle is circular in section and tapers to a pointed and plain terminal; in profile, it slopes markedly upwards from the plane of the bowl. About two-thirds of the handle’s shaft is twisted (see Lang, below); at either end of this is a bead-and-ring moulding, one ring by the offset, then the bead, then a double ring on the other side of the twisted wire; the same in reverse (double ring then single). The offset is an openwork scroll with a slightly zoomorphic moulding connecting it with the back of the bowl; there is a small step before the handle begins. The bowl is ovoid in plan with a hemispherical profile. Inscription

In the base of the bowl is a neatly cut inscription (which is

orientated to be read if the spoon is held in the right hand), ‘papittedo vivas’, the final V and A ligatured, all letters serifed (see Chapter 12, p. 239). The inscription was originally filled with niello, some traces of which remain. The inscription is very neat and clearly executed by a different hand to that on cat. 27. Discussion and parallels to cats 21–8 Spoon typology

Spoons made of silver plate dating to the Roman period survive in large numbers, in comparison to silver vessels, and have thus been the subject of a number of typological studies. Martin’s detailed examination of silver spoons from the first to seventh centuries remains the benchmark study,

The Long-handled Spoons | 225

Long-handled spoon: cat 27

0

10cm

Plate 385 Plans and profile of long-handled spoon with personal name (cat. 28)

and new discoveries have not challenged any of his basic arguments on the range of types and their broad typological development.1 Stratigraphic work on finds from Augst and Kaiseraugst has also been pivotal to understanding chronology.2 More recently, Johns has provided the most comprehensive discussion of long-handled spoons, deepbowled spoons (see previous chapter) and strainers, and the complexities of spoon terminology.3 Despite the large corpus known, the spoons in the Mildenhall assemblage are modest in number and type in comparison to other late Roman tableware hoards; the Mildenhall treasure has a small number of deep-bowled spoons (see Chapter 10) and the eight long-handled spoons under discussion here, all of which can be characterized as cochlearia. But Mildenhall lacks other spoon types, particularly the cignus (spoons with pear-shaped bowls and short curving handles, usually in the shape of bird’s heads; it should be noted that Martin calls these ligulae), or strainers, which are present in the other British treasures, particularly Hoxne, Thetford and Canterbury. In the context of dining, it seems likely that the owners of the Mildenhall treasure possessed a greater number of spoons and probably other spoon types (as well as other utensils, such as strainers and cosmetic items), but for reasons that remain opaque they did not make their way into the set of material that has survived. Nevertheless, the versatility of these spoons is greater than may appear at first sight, since they are double-ended implements, designed to be held close to or at the offset in order to employ the bowl as required or reversible when the tapering handle was needed (discussed below). Martin’s study showed that, over time, spoons generally became longer and heavier (as discussed in other parts of this book, this is also the case with many silver vessel types, see for example p. 37). The forms underwent significant changes too: long-handled spoons (cochlearia) not only became larger and heavier but their tapering handles became more solid and blunt ended. The offsets (the part that joins the handle to the spoon) are significant for typology and dating. In the fourth century, three types of offset are known: open

226 | The Mildenhall Treasure

(Martin’s type C); openwork closed loops (Martin’s type B); and solid discs or buttons (not found in Kaiseraugst, but discussed by Johns).4 All the Mildenhall spoons fall into the central part of Martin’s scheme in that they all have the same essential characteristics: pear-shaped bowls (with the exception of cat. 28, the bowl of which is ovoid in plan), tapering handles and openwork closed offsets with a limited number of mouldings. This has implications for how Mildenhall’s long-handled spoons are dated (see below). Parallels and dating of the Mildenhall long-handled spoons (cochlearia)

Building on the work of Martin, Johns makes some important remarks on chronology and the development of the cochlear. She notes that in addition to the size increase to an overall length of around 22cm by the late fourth century, the bowl narrows in relation to its length and handles show a variety of styles. Offsets in particular are important in this context; as Johns observes, the stylized zoomorphic form ‘is absent at Kaiseraugst and Mildenhall but is represented in many of the British hoard finds … spoons that feature zoomorphic offsets do seem to have made their appearance later than those with simple volute offsets …’.5 The solid disc offset, seen for example on Hoxne cats 86–8,6 and very commonly in the later hoard from Desana,7 is also absent in the Mildenhall spoon group. The features that characterize Mildenhall’s long-handled spoons, therefore, are summarized in Table 16. Setting the Mildenhall spoons against the research of Martin and Johns, therefore, it is possible to propose a chronological sequence for the eight cochlearia and suggest some likely dates of production. This results in a reversal of the spoons from the sequence implied by their original catalogue numbers, although they retain their broad groupings: Cats 21–3, with foliate decoration

These are likely to be the earliest cochlearia for the following reasons. First, they are visibly the most worn, and one spoon

Cat. no.

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Oval bowl

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

n

Pear-shaped bowl

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

√

Engraved design

n

n

n

√

√

√

√

√

Bowl inscription

√

√

√

n

n

n

n

n

Scroll offset

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

√

‘Zoomorphic’ offset

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

n

Plain handle

n

n

n

√

√

√

√

√

Chamfered handle

√

√

√

n

n

n

n

√

Twisted handle

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

n

Total length (mm)

168.0

163.0

171.0

202.0

203.0

206.0

189.0

186.0

Bowl length (mm)

54.8

52.7

51.9

60.7

60.6

65.7

63.9

53.3

Handle length (mm)

114.0

111.0

120.0

143.0

154.0

138.5

124.0

134.0

Weight (g)

19.39

16.73

17.94

26.99

24.97

34.41

24.62

25.14

Spoon sets

Mean (cats 21–3): 18.02 (18 to lb?)

Mean (cats 24–6): 28.79 (12 to lb?)

Mean (cats 27–8): 24.88 (12 to lb?)

Table 16 Characteristics of the long-handled spoons (cats 21–8). Ticks indicate the presence of a feature, ‘n’ absence

(cat. 23) seems to have been repaired with solder, again suggesting longevity of use (see Lang below). Second, they are the smallest and lightest spoons in a typological sequence where it is known that spoons tend to get longer and heavier over time. Finally, they have the simplest design, with scroll offsets, pear-shaped bowls and plain handles. Therefore it is proposed that these three spoons were probably produced in the middle decades of the fourth century. Their links with the fluted dish (cat. 13) may suggest production at a similar time and perhaps in the same workshop (see p. 268). Unusually, their lighter weight would suggest that they may have belonged to a set of 18 rather than the normal 12.8 With regard to parallels, a spoon from Traprain Law provides the only close parallel for cats 22–3, but it should be noted that the leaves in the bowl run in a different direction.9 Two spoons in the Carthage treasure10 have geometric patterning in their bowls, with a similar central rib but simpler, stretched ‘S’ motifs at right angles to this. Unlike cats 21–3 (but similar to the Traprain Law example) they have a pattern on the reverse of their bowls. Their offsets do not, however, compare, being rather closer in style to cat. 26, and their handles are not square in section but octagonal. The Hoxne treasure also contains one spoon with geometric and foliate decoration, more complex than those in Mildenhall (Pl. 386).11 Thus Johns makes the cautious suggestion that the foliate spoons from Mildenhall, Hoxne and Traprain Law may have originated in the same workshop, which seems like a reasonable proposition.12

The remainder of the spoons (cats 24–8) probably date to the second half of the fourth century. All seem to post-date the material from the Kaiseraugst treasure, which is known to have been buried c. ad 350 but all of which lack Christian inscriptions.13 But they are not as late as the spoon types found in the British hoards from Thetford and Hoxne, which are more developed, particularly because of their zoomorphic offsets. Cats 24–6, with ‘Chi-Rho’ symbols

The spoons with the ‘Chi-Rho’ monograms are almost certainly later in date than the foliate spoons (cats 21–3) and probably contemporary with, or slightly earlier than, the spoons with ‘vivas’ inscriptions. A date of production in the second half of the fourth century seems likely for the following reasons. First, these spoons are less worn than cats 21–3, so had been less heavily used at the time of burial. Second, they are slightly more complex in form, in that they have chamfered handles and slightly more complex scroll offsets. Third, they have Christian inscriptions (see Chapter 12, p. 238) that tend to point to a later date in the fourth century. A number of parallels can be cited for these Chi-Rho spoons. Two of the spoons in the Aurelius Ursicinus set in the Hoxne treasure14 have a ‘Chi-Rho’ flanked by alpha and omega in their bowls, but these are executed using a dotted technique.15 The silver spoon from Biddulph is marginally shorter in length than cats 24–6 but is of similar weight (27.5g); the offset is wider, with a more pronounced ‘flick’ to

Plate 386 Silver spoon from Hoxne (cat. 126) with foliate decoration in bowl, fourth century. British Museum, 1994,0408.126

The Long-handled Spoons | 227

Plate 387 Inscribed silver spoon from Hoxne, fourth century. British Museum, 1994,0408.133

the scroll and there is additional decoration on the handle above the offset.16 The Chi-Rho flanked by alpha and omega is also executed in a different manner, entirely in outline. A spoon, missing part of its handle, with a Chi-Rho symbol in the bowl (not flanked by alpha and omega), and an offset identical to cat. 26, was found in the Traprain Law deposit.17 The reverse of this spoon is fluted. The Chi-Rho combined with an alpha and omega is also present in the bowls of two cignus-type spoons in the Hoxne treasure.18 As Tomlin remarks, ‘the inscription [in no. 118] resembles [Mildenhall cats 24–6] … but is not in the same hand’.19 Cats 27–8, with ‘vivas’ inscriptions

The last two spoons with the ‘vivas’ inscriptions may be the latest spoons in the Mildenhall assemblage, but are difficult to separate from the ‘Chi-Rho’ spoons; they too probably belong to the second half of the fourth century. ‘vivas’ inscriptions on spoons are commonly considered Christian, because they often appear with the additional words ‘in deo’ or in association with Christian symbols,20 although this interpretation is not universally accepted; for further discussion, see Chapters 12 (p. 239) and 16 (pp. 281–3). Cat. 28 in particular is of the most developed form, with an oval bowl, a vaguely ‘zoomorphic’ offset and a partially twisted handle; an interesting parallel for this spoon is provided by a broken and repaired example in the Hoxne treasure (Pl. 387), which is of almost identical form, having a twisted handle and an ovoid bowl, although the offset is zoomorphic.21 Its most unusual feature is a ‘left-handed’ and poorly executed inscription, along similar lines to cat. 28, probably ‘dataniae vivas’.22 They are also almost identical in size and weight, the Hoxne example being 183mm in length (cat. 28, 186mm) and weighing 24g (cat. 28, 25.14g). Zoomorphic offsets are a late development, and given that cat. 28 has an offset which has a slightly zoomorphic appearance, this supports the view that this is the latest spoon in the sequence. Function of the cochlear

It has long been recognized that the long-handled cochlear spoon served a dual function in the late Roman period: its bowl could be used to eat liquid foodstuffs, such as stews and soups, primarily by holding the spoon either on or close to the offset; and when reversed, its pointed end could be used for functions such as spiking olives, extracting shellfish and piercing eggshells.23 It is also not beyond the realms of possibility that the pointed end was used as a toothpick.24 A recent study of wear patterns on spoons has demonstrated that the late Roman cochlear regularly has a wear pattern that

228 | The Mildenhall Treasure

was likely to have been produced by abrasion against a curved surface: the large flanged bowls in the Mildenhall treasure (cats 5–8) would be the type of vessel which would cause such wear to develop.25 In contrast to the type of cochlear with a small round bowl, characteristic of the early Roman period, these spoons have a capacity which equates to about a mouthful of liquid, aside from their usefulness for more solid items.26 For further discussion of their use in the context of dining, see Chapter 16. Summary

The eight long-handled spoons in the Mildenhall treasure are likely to be a small sub-set of a larger number of spoons, and probably other types of related utensils, originally used in combination with the vessels with which they are associated. The foliate spoons (cats 21–3) are likely to be the earliest, probably dating to the middle of the fourth century, and appear to have been heavily used prior to burial. Some interesting parallels can be found with spoons from other British finds, particularly Hoxne and Traprain Law, which may suggest a common workshop origin. The remainder of the spoons (cats 24–8), are likely to date to the second half of the fourth century, perhaps even the last decades. Their primary interest is that they are either explicitly Christian in nature (cats 24–6) or arguably so (cats 27–8), and thus represent the only aspect of the Mildenhall treasure that is not stylistically rooted in the Classical world, and particularly the iconographic language of Bacchus. The implications of these Christian elements for the owners of the treasure and their beliefs is explored further in Chapter 16. Technical aspects of the production of the long-handled spoons (Janet Lang) Metal composition: summary

The bowls and handles of cats 21–3, 25 and 28 were analysed. The silver contents were between 95% and 97%, with copper contents of between 2% and 4% and up to 1% gold. XRF analysis of the area around a crack on the bowl of cat. 23 showed the presence of mercury and is discussed below (see also Chapter 13). Construction: summary

The spoons were cast close to their final form. The bowl shapes were refined by working and scraping. The handles (except for the twisted handle of cat. 28) showed little evidence of working. The offset between the bowls and the handles were finished by cutting with a chisel and filing. The inscriptions (cats 24–8 inclusive) were punched and

engraved. Originally all five inscriptions probably contained niello. The bowls of the rest of the spoons (cats 21–3) had foliate designs, chased with a variety of punches. Cat. 21 Surface finish, wear and damage

The condition of the spoon is good, although there are small casting defects on the offset. The surfaces of the bowl are worn. Construction

The basic construction was similar to cat. 27. The end of the bowl next to the handle was smoother and better finished than the inscribed bowls. The inside of the bowl was decorated with a chased design which is so worn that it is difficult to see details, but some slip-stick marks can be seen in the broad chased lines (Pl. 388). A taper section on the outside of the bowl showed clearly a worked and annealed structure, with elongated inclusions, aligned parallel to the surfaces, and some grains show slip and twinning. The bowl was scraped lengthways and the inside of the bowl is decorated with a chased design of foliage. Both sides of the offset were carved out; the bowl was punched at the join with the handle. Cat. 22 Surface finish, wear and damage

The surface finish is not as smooth as cat. 21, which is comparable in shape. Small cracks or discontinuities appear in similar positions to those on cat. 21, suggesting that these are weaknesses resulting from the design or manufacturing faults. There are some deep scratches near the handle and some damage on the outside of the bowl. Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) examinations in the joining area did not indicate any significant changes in composition, confirming that the bowl and handle of these long-handled spoons were cast in one piece and finished with chisels and other tools. The chased designs on cats 22–3 are similar: the foliate design is arranged on either side of two chased lines running from the handle to the end of the bowl. There is a split in one of the two chased lines which run down the long axis of the bowl of cat. 22. The surfaces of the bowl are worn.

Plate 388 Broad chased lines with some slip-stick marks (cat. 21)

Examination of the edge of the bowl and the handle showed that the bowl was more heavily worked than the handle. The metal of the bowl consisted of fine equiaxed grains with many annealing twins. There were a number of inclusions, which were orientated in a direction parallel to the surface of the spoon. The grains themselves also appeared to be slightly elongated in the working direction. No trace of any cast structure remained. The grain size of the metal on the top surface of the handle was much larger, but the presence of a few twins confirmed that some working had taken place. The inclusions also seemed to be orientated parallel to the surface. A stress crack runs down from the edge into the bowl (Pl. 389). Where the handle and the bowl join there is another crack which is about 2mm long and quite wide at the top. There is also a discontinuity, where it appears that a crack has been partially filled in, so that the edge of the spoon is smooth. However, rough-surfaced depressions remain just below the edge on both the inside and outside of the bowl. The inside surface has also been scraped in this area, and there are punch marks. X-radiography confirmed a crack or a repair on the bowl which was associated with a silvery appearance on the surface (Pl. 390). XRF analyses were carried out in this area and showed the presence of mercury, which may be the result of an attempted repair (see Chapter 13). Cat. 24 Condition, wear and damage

Cat. 23

The condition is good, though there are some scratches. A small flap of metal, possibly a casting fin, has been lost from the joining area between the bowl and handle, where there are tool marks. There is also a small casting cavity on the offset.

Surface finish, wear and damage

Construction

The surface condition is mainly good but rather worn. There are two cracks in the bowl, one of which is associated with a silvery appearance on the outside surface. This is discussed below.

Similar to cat. 27. The surface of the inscription is rather ‘soft’, as though the spoon had been heated after it was completed, or it might have been cast in. If the inscription was filled with niello originally, no traces of this remain.

Construction and metal analysis

Cat. 25

Construction

Similar to cat. 21.

Like cats 21–2, the spoon was initially cast and then worked to shape. The offset at the join of the bowl and handle was cut out with a chisel. The foliate design in the bowl was produced by chasing with broad chasing tools.

Condition, wear and damage

The condition is good with fewer scratches than most of the other spoons; there is a little wear around the offset.

The Long-handled Spoons | 229

Plate 389 A stress crack runs downwards from the upper edge (cat. 23)

Construction

A taper section on the edge of the bowl showed irregular rounded grains of variable size, generally very small with some grey inclusions which were elongated in a direction parallel to the surfaces. It was similar to cat. 28 and the grains themselves are slightly elongated in the working direction, indicating that a final full annealing process had not taken place. The bowl was scraped longitudinally and transversely, but polishing removed all but a slight variation in the thickness. The narrow end of the bowl was punched and there was scraping around the rat-tail on the back of the bowl which becomes part of the scroll. The inscription was punched in; undercutting can be seen on some letters. A number of punches were used. The P was punched before the X, while the alpha and omega both have mistakes, the latter being twice punched (Pl. 391). If the inscription was filled with niello originally, no traces of this remain. Cat. 26 Condition, wear and damage

The condition is good. There are some casting faults on the offset. Plate 391 Mistakes in chasing and punching the letters (cat. 25)

230 | The Mildenhall Treasure

Plate 390 Attempted crack repair using mercury, identified by XRF in the slightly lighter area to the right of the crack where the three incised lines meet (cat. 23)

Construction

Similar to cat. 27. The inscription was similar in appearance to cat. 28, but was touched up afterwards. If the inscription was filled with niello originally, no traces of this remain. Cat. 27 Surface finish, wear and damage

The surface finish is not entirely smooth; traces of casting porosity and some surface blistering can be seen. There are a number of coarse scratches on the surface. The area inside the bowl at the join with the handle is very roughly finished. There is little wear. Construction

The spoon was cast into a convenient shape as a blank, the bowl was raised, the handle shaped and then the spoon was decorated and polished. A taper section (a small polished area examined under a metallurgical microscope) showed elongated inclusions and dendrites which indicate that the bowl of the spoon had been worked (Pl. 392). The outside of the bowl shows some surface irregularities following the contours, suggesting that the metal of the bowl has laminated somewhat, possibly as a result of hammering out cold shuts or inhomogeneities introduced during casting, or as a result of corrosion during burial. A few areas retain the original cast surface in the region where the bowl and handle join. Within the bowl coarse scrape marks run downwards from the rim, which has a slight overhang. The inscription appears to have been partly engraved and partly chased. The serifs have sharp edges and in several places the tool made a slight cut in the surface where the craftsman hesitated with the blade touching the metal. Scrape marks also run along the bowl towards the handle, and across the bowl from side to side. These were introduced after the inscription was made; an undulation is visible at each letter, resulting from the scraper blade jumping on encountering the vertical strokes in the letters. Subsequent polishing removed the surface roughness, leaving the surface highly polished but undulating. Niello

traces were found in the final letters of the inscription near the handle; it is highly likely that the whole inscription had been filled with niello. The openwork offset at the join between the bowl and the handle was finished by filing the excess metal, working from each side (Pl. 393). There are file marks around the rat-tail which extends from the handle onto the bowl. Cat. 28 Condition, wear and damage

The condition is good, although there are some scratches. The surface has some hammered-in flaws and surface porosity. There was little wear, but there are some small dents in the bowl. Construction

The spoon was first cast, like the other spoons in this group, but the handle included a twisted section. This was made by filing or scraping the appropriate length of the handle to make a square cross section; file marks can be seen (Pl. 394). A groove was chased in each face, and the end of one of the grooves has a fragment of material displaced on top of the file marks. The corners of the square were probably smoothed or slightly rounded at this stage, since the next operation, twisting, usually has the effect of sharpening the edges, so that they are more easily damaged. The handle was then twisted; a defect can be seen which was also twisted, thus providing conclusive evidence that the handle was twisted and not carved or cast. The square terminals of the twisted section were filed to plinth-like shapes. Some work has been carried out under the slightly incurving rim of the spoon. Taper sections made on the outer edge of the bowl and the handle showed elongated inclusions resulting from working. There are no twinned and annealed grains present. It is suggested that a final, full annealing process did not take place. The outer surface of the bowl appears to be slightly layered, also as a result of working and corrosion attack during burial: this is reflected in a slight difference in the composition. Plate 393 The offset was finished with a file, working from both sides (cat. 27)

Plate 392 The edge of the spoon shows distorted dendritic microstucture. The spoon was cast and the bowl finished by working to shape (cat. 27)

It is difficult to ascertain if the inscription was part of the original casting or (more likely) was punched in later. Like cat. 27, the inscription was filled with niello, traces of which remain in the letter D. Notes

1 Martin 1984. 2 Riha and Stern 1982. 3 Johns 2010, 97–132. 4 Johns 2010, 100. 5 Ibid. 6 Ibid., 229. 7 Desana cats 32–45. 8 Martin 1984, 83. In their discussion of the hoard of silver-plate from Canterbury, Johns and Potter note that Mildenhall cats 21– 3, because of their lower weight, may ‘form a bridge’ between spoons in the hoard of even lower weight and the more common spoons in the hoard weighing 20g or more ( Johns and Potter 1985, 334).

Plate 394 Filing and a chased groove in the handle (cat. 28)

The Long-handled Spoons | 231

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Traprain Law cat. 100. Carthage cats 20–3. Hoxne cat. 126; Johns 2010, 113, 128, 236. Ibid., 128. Martin 1984, 56–96. Hoxne cats 89–90. Johns 2010, 120–1, 229–30. The Canterbury hoard contains four spoons with an openworkscroll offset; no. 10 (plain) is the closest in style to cats 24–6, though marginally longer at 222mm (though of similar weight, 27.6g); the same can be said (although not quite so strongly) for nos 13 and 14 ( Johns and Potter 1985, 322–6). 17 Traprain Law cat. 97. 18 Hoxne cats 118–19.

232 | The Mildenhall Treasure

19 Tomlin in Johns 2010, 172. A set of cochlearia with a monogram cross is also known from Hoxne (cats 91–100; Johns 2010, 230–1). 20 Watts 1991, 155. 
 21 Though lacking a twisted handle, and with a pear-shaped bowl rather than ovoid, the Canterbury treasure cat. 12 has an offset that is very similar to that of Mildenhall cat. 28 ( Johns and Potter 1985, 322). 22 Johns 2010, 127, 237. 23 Cool 2007, 102. 24 Johns 2010, 98. 25 Swift 2014, 218. Swift specifically noted this wear pattern on three of the Mildenhall spoons, cats 21–3 (ibid. n. 86). 26 Ibid. 223, table 7.

Chapter 12 The Graffiti and Inscriptions Roger Tomlin

Graffiti

Silver plate retained value as bullion, which is why the weight was often noted, in Roman pounds (327.45g), ounces (12 to the pound, 27.28g) and even scripula (24 ‘scruples’ to the ounce, 1.137g) (see also p. 17, note 2). The symbols are conveniently tabulated by Strong,1 but it may be added that unciae (‘ounces’) are often indicated by a symbol looking like an unfinished ‘8’, its upper loop incomplete, since in origin it was Greek ο ligatured to (and below) υ, as an abbreviation of ουγκιαι (‘ounces’). Scripula are often indicated by a hooked symbol consisting of two diagonals meeting at mid-height, pointing right. ‘Half’ (a pound or ounce) is abbreviated to S, for s(emis). Cat. 1 (The Bacchic platter)

There are many scratches on the underside, some of them quite deep, but they look too casual to be deliberate, especially since such an imposing piece would surely have deserved more explicit annotation. Cat. 2 (Bacchic plate)2

Scratched underneath, within the foot-ring (Pls 92, 395):

ευθηριου ‘(Property or Work) of Eutherios’ Cat. 3 (Bacchic plate)3

Scratched underneath, within the foot-ring (Pls 101, 396):

ευθηριου ‘(Property or Work) of Eutherios’ Both graffiti are in the same position, the hand is a fourth-century Greek cursive, and the name is the same. Clearly they both refer to the same man, but it is uncertain whether he is the maker or the owner, although the latter is perhaps more likely (however, note the comments on pp. 76, 268–9 and 284). The hands are similar, but not identical. In general, the graffito on cat. 3 is more assured and elegant than on cat. 2, and in particular the ε is of different form. On cat. 2 it is made with two hooked strokes, clumsily overlapped by υ which is not ligatured to it; on cat. 3 by a single hooked stroke and two separate horizontals, the second and lower of which is ligatured to υ. Succeeding letters on cat. 2 are made in much the same way as on cat. 3, but without the same amplitude, and ο is made with a single (incomplete) circle, whereas on cat. 3 it is a hooked stroke followed by a downstroke. Although variations of letter form, notably e in Latin texts, are often found in the same manuscript, and it is possible that cat. 2 was made by the same person as cat. 3, but writing hastily, on balance it seems that the two graffiti, although contemporary, are probably by different hands. This does not resolve the question of whether Eutherios is the owner or the maker. Despite the differences in workmanship, which might have been reflected in the ‘signatures’ of two different craftsmen, ‘Eutherios’ need only be the workmaster or owner of the workshop. Alternatively, a great man’s silver might have been annotated by different members of his household. But it has generally been assumed

The Graffiti and Inscriptions | 233

Plate 395 Graffito on reverse of Bacchic plate (cat. 2)

Plate 396 Graffito on reverse of Bacchic plate (cat. 3)

that these are ownership-inscriptions, and this is the simpler hypothesis. The name, as Wright 4 and Painter5 note, is uncommon, especially in the west. There is no instance in Mócsy’s Nomenclator,6 but there are four in PLRE I,7 all lateRoman high officials. They include Eutherius 1, the Caesar Julian’s high chamberlain (praepositus sacri cubiculi) in 356–60, when the court was in Gaul. Eutherius’ previous career was in the east and, although he was Armenian by birth, his first language would have been Greek. This led Painter8 to suggest that the plates were acquired by Julian’s commander-in-chief (magister equitum) Lupicinus, and taken by him with the rest of the Mildenhall treasure to Britain in 360 (Eutherius not being a member of this expedition), and left there for safekeeping when he was recalled after Julian’s proclamation as Augustus. The difficulty with this theory is that Lupicinus returned to Gaul without knowing that he was in any danger (Amm. Marc. 20.9.9). How the treasure reached Britain remains a mystery. Eutherius retired to Rome, where he seems to have lived many years, since he was known to Ammianus Marcellinus. It is quite possible that silver owned by him passed to other hands by sale or inheritance, but his ownership of the Mildenhall plates (cats 2–3) is no more than a possibility based on his unusual

234 | The Mildenhall Treasure

name, his wealth and status, and his western residence despite his Greek (albeit Armenian) origins. There is probably a second graffito (not drawn) on cat. 3, two lines meeting at right-angles, scratched on the underside of the plate outside the foot-ring. They seem to be deliberate, and might be taken as a clumsy V or an incomplete X, but from their position, they would have been more easily made as T. This would most likely be a mark of identification, whether in the workshop itself or in subsequent ownership. Cat. 4 (The niello platter)

There are many scratches on the underside, some of them quite deep; two of which run parallel, two meet at an acute angle and three meet in a ‘star’. But they look too casual to be deliberate. Cat. 5 (Large flanged bowl)9

There are two graffiti under the flange (Pl. 397; see also Pl. 150), which are successive since (a) is cut by (b). There is no sign that (a) was deliberately erased, and the two graffiti only overlap in part; (b) in fact ignores (a), although the same location was chosen for both. It appears that (a) was made by means of punched dots, and is inverted in respect of (b),

Plate 397 Graffiti on reverse of large flanged bowl (cat. 5)

which was written with a stylus facing outwards towards the rim. Its script is fourth-century New Roman Cursive.10 (a): P for p(ondo) (‘weight’), followed by a series of symbols and numerals. The first is a hooked symbol, like that for scripula reversed. Then ‘I’, the numeral ‘1’. This is followed by three figures of uncertain purpose, perhaps only fragmentary numerals. Next the symbol for unciae, inverted, since the unfinished loop of ‘8’ is at the bottom. This makes no sort of sense, but Wright suggested p(ondo) VII (uncia) I (scripula) V.11 This means taking both ‘V’s to be the same letter, which they clearly are not; the drawing in RIB is not quite accurate in this respect.12 It also means reading them both as if they were V turned at right-angles, which is also difficult to accept. Moreover it would treat the inverted unciae symbol as if it were that of scripula. RIB understandably notes the graffito as ‘illegible’, and it may well be incomplete. No emendation can make it accord with the actual weight of the bowl (1718g), which is equivalent to 5 pounds and 3 ounces. (b): pon(do) XX redit lib(ra) una uncias V simis ‘By weight 20 (pounds). One pound returns ... 5 ounces (and) a half’ This graffito is quite legible, but cannot really be translated. Grammatically the subject of redit is lib(ra) una (‘one pound returns’, in the sense of ‘comes back’), but as a verb of motion redit is intransitive; uncias V, although accusative, cannot then be the object. There are at least three possibilities. (1) uncias V, although explicitly accusative, should be taken as nominative; and redit (singular) as redeunt (plural). ‘One pound, 5 and a half ounces, return (or come back).’ (2) redit is an error for reddit (‘returns’, in the sense of ‘gives back’, ‘produces’). ‘One pound returns 5 and a half ounces.’ (3) redit is indeed an error for reddit, but the subject is not lib(ra) una, but ‘it’ understood; presumably the weight of 20 pounds just mentioned. The nominative lib(ra) una would be a solecism, the accusative lib(ram) una(m) being intended; or rather, the final -m, which was unsounded, being omitted. Although una unusually was spelled out, this would be a trivial ‘Vulgarism’. ‘It returns one pound, 5 and a half ounces.’ None of these solutions is attractive, since they each involve quite a violent emendation of a text which took the pains of spelling out the numeral una (nominative) and the

weight uncias (accusative), rather than writing the figure ‘I’ and the ‘ounces’ symbol. A minor complication is simis, which is probably a mistake for semis (‘half’); but this is not an easy ‘Vulgarism’, and surprising since the word was spelled out when the usual S for s(emis) would have been sufficient. The fundamental problem is the meaning of redit or red(d)it, which was evidently used in a specialized sense. On the whole, the third possibility above is the most acceptable. ‘20 (pounds)’ bears no relation to the weight of the bowl (already noted as equivalent to 5 pounds and 3 ounces), so it must be the weight of a group of vessels; or rather, the total weight of silver used to make them, from which 1 pound, five and a half ounces, were ‘left over’. The latter solution, although it does violence to the grammar, does make sense. It would imply that the group of vessels was made from 20 pounds of silver, and weighed in total 18 pounds, six and a half ounces, with a balance remaining of unused silver, or silver scrap, of just 1 pound, five and a half ounces.13 It might even follow that redit is a syncopation of redundat (‘is left over’). Cats 6–7 (Large flanged bowls)

There are no discernible inscriptions on either of these vessels. Cat. 8 (Large flanged bowl)14

Graffito in punched dots on the underside of the flange (Pl. 398; see also Pl. 193). These dots are not round or oval as usual, but wedge shaped, showing that the sharp punch was driven at an acute angle. It reads: P XXΛII – symbol II – symbol ΛII p(ondo) XXVII (scripula) II (unciae) VII ‘By weight, 27 (pounds), 2 scruples, 7 ounces’ For the sake of clarity, spacing has been added to this transcription. The two short horizontal strokes are dividers like medial points between the first two annotations. The two numerals V have been inverted. RIB misreads the scripula symbol as a reversed S, which on closer examination

The Graffiti and Inscriptions | 235

Plate 398 Graffito on reverse of flanged bowl (cat. 8)

it clearly is not. Ounces are usually noted before scripula, which prompted the misreading; this graffito is unusual in reversing the sequence. The transmitted weight, since it is far in excess of the bowl (1271g, equivalent to 3 pounds, 10 ounces and 14 scripula), must be that of a group of vessels. For further discussion, see p. 121.

Cat. 10 (Small flanged bowl)16

Cat. 9 (Small flanged bowl)15

‘1 pound, 11 (ounces)’

Graffito scratched underneath within the foot-ring, in elongated, rather clumsy figures (Pls 254, 399). It reads: I P IIS II symbol I p(ondo) II s(emis) II (unciae) ‘One (item), by weight 2 (pounds and) a half, 2 (ounces)’ The third stroke after P is twice the length of the first two preceding, and slightly sinuous, so it is interpreted as S for s(emis), rather than a third digit. The second of the two strokes before the unciae symbol is twice the length of the first, but quite straight; so, although another s(emis) is possible, it is interpreted as a second digit. Neither of these interpretations is certain, but they cannot be checked against the actual weight, which is 615g (equivalent to 1 pound, 10 ounces and 13 scripula). This discrepancy cannot either be explained or resolved by emendation.

(a) Graffito scratched underneath within the foot-ring, in elongated, rather clumsy figures (Pls 263, 400). It reads: I L X I symbol I l(ibra) XI (unciae)

This corresponds to the actual weight (627g). RIB, although it reads the same weight, does not take account of the elongated L, which must be deliberate: it consists of a long curving downstroke followed by a short horizontal stroke which continues as a scuffed trail downwards and across. The next figure must be read as X, not V, to correspond with the actual weight; but there is no sign that the second stroke was actually completed. (b) Just above this graffito, against the circumference of the foot-ring, there is what may be a second graffito, consisting of three short parallel strokes: III 3 If this is indeed deliberate, it may have numbered the bowl within a set. For further discussion, see p. 157.

Plate 399 Graffito on reverse of small flanged bowl (cat. 9)

236 | The Mildenhall Treasure

Plate 400 Graffito on reverse of small flanged bowl (cat. 10)

Cat. 11 (Flanged bowl with upstand)

Graffito (not drawn) underneath within the foot-ring, facing the circumference; repeated twice, but the letters are not quite opposite each other: θ This Greek letter is clumsily made, with two converging lines crossed by a third at mid-height, but not unlike that on cats 2–3. There are other marks which might be interpreted as λ and π, but they are probably casual. A mark of identification, perhaps the initial letter of the owner’s name.

stroke at right-angles, at the centering pip. The result is certainly not T or X, and does not look like V; but perhaps the second stroke served as a suprascript bar, to identify the long stroke as a numeral. To the left of the base of the latter is a cluster of lines resembling capital D, but they are much slighter in quality, and can be dismissed as casual. Cat. 17

Two straight strokes, the first twice the width of the second, running parallel from the centering pip almost to the circumference: II

Cats 12–15 (Cover of flanged bowl with upstand, fluted dish and pedestalled plates)

2

There are no discernible inscriptions on any of these vessels. Cats 16–20 (Deep-bowled spoons)

Scratched underneath each spoon bowl is a simple numerical graffito, the narrowing width of the strokes indicating their direction (Pl. 401). The reading of cats 16 and 18 is complicated by (unrelated?) lines, but nonetheless the five graffiti can be seen as indicating the spoon’s number in the set: ‘1’, ‘2’, ‘3’ ‘4’ and ‘5’ respectively. Two of the handles bear further, seemingly deliberate, scratches on the reverse of their respective offsets (see below, cats 18–19).17 These seem to be identifying marks, probably numerals, but it is doubtful if they are related to the graffiti on the reverses of the bowls. Cat. 16

A single straight stroke from the centering pip almost to the circumference: I

Cat. 18

Four straight strokes, running parallel from near the centering pip to the circumference. They quite resemble cat. 19, but the first stroke is longer than the others, and spaced somewhat apart: I III 13 This could easily be read as ‘4’ like cat. 19, but in view of the graffiti on the other four bowls, it may be taken as the expected ‘3’, preceded by a distinguishing mark of some kind, perhaps a false stroke or to indicate ‘one’ piece only. On the reverse of the handle’s offset there are three clearly defined parallel scratches and a short removed scratch at an angle which cuts the edge of the handle. These scratches might possibly represent the same ‘I III’ arrangement observed on the reverse side of the related bowl.

1 There are two other marks. A second, short stroke, straight and apparently deliberate, meets the top of the long

Cat. 19

Four straight strokes, running parallel from near the centering pip to the circumference:

The Graffiti and Inscriptions | 237

cat. 16

cat. 19

cat. 17

cat. 18

cat. 20

Plate 401 Graffiti on reverse of bowls of deep-bowled spoons (cats 16–20)

IIII 4 On the reverse side of the handle’s offset are three clearly defined parallel scratches, forming a numeral ‘III’, similar to those on the handle of cat. 18. Once again, it is doubtful if these are related to the scratches on the reverse of the related bowl. Cat. 20

Two straight strokes from the circumference towards the centering pip, intersecting at right-angles: V

To judge by their position, and especially by cat. 23, in which the two outer lines were incised twice, they were made while holding the bowl in the left hand, and were thus intended to be read as E, not as an ‘arrow-head’ symbol pointing right. Made in this way, they do not suggest professional work, and probably relate to the ownership and use of the spoon. E Certainly a mark of identification, and probably a letter (either Latin or Greek); quite likely the initial of the owner’s name. Cat. 2418

Incised within the bowl: 5 Cats 21–8 (Long-handled spoons)

Cats 24–8 have been chased within the bowls, to be read when the spoon was held in the right hand. This implies professional work, the end of the manufacturing process, as confirmed by the script, which is quite a stylish capital letter with added serifs; but although the three Christian monograms (cats 24–6) are evidently by the same hand, this cannot be said of cats 27–8. These both adopt the convention of ligaturing VA of VIVAS to make the inscription fit into the space available, but their letters are differently made. The most obvious differences are in the cross-bar of A and the serifs of S and T.

̑

A XP Ω Alpha Chi-Rho Omega The downstroke of Ρ is very slight, and has been made twice with the bottom serif repeated. The note in RIB of ‘traces of an earlier-cut omega below the omega’ should have been applied to RIB II.2, 2420.53 (cat. 26). Alpha here and in cats 25–6, which (as already noted) are by the same hand, is made with the V-shaped cross-bar typical of the Greek letter. It is very rare in Latin A. Cat. 25 19

Incised within the bowl: Cats 21–3

Three matching spoons with a foliate pattern incised in the bowl. On the underside of each spoon, at the junction of the bowl with the stem, three converging lines have been chased.

238 | The Mildenhall Treasure

̑

Α ΧΡ Ω Alpha Chi-Rho Omega

Cat. 26 20

Incised within the bowl:

̑

Α ΧΡ Ω Alpha Chi-Rho Omega Ρ and Ω were both cut twice. The first Ρ is largely obscured by the second, but the latter’s detached bottom serif is quite visible. The first Ω was more slight, and at a lower alignment. Cat. 27 21

Incised within the bowl:

̑

PASCENTIA VIVAS Pascentia vivas

‘Pascentia, long life to you’ This feminine personal name (like the masculine Pascentius) is a ‘late’ formation in -tius from a present participle, with obvious Christian overtones (‘nurturing’). Most attested examples are explicitly Christian, and the owner of this spoon was undoubtedly the daughter of fourthcentury Christian parents. Vivas (often explicitly in deo) is also distinctively Christian. Cat. 28 22

Incised within the bowl:

̑

PAPITTEDO VIVAS Papittedo vivas

‘Papittedo, long life to you’

This masculine personal name is apparently unique, but would seem to be developed from the Christian name Papitus (CIL xii 1504 = ILCV 2897) with the addition of the Celtic name-element -edo. Although Papius and Papinius are Latin nomina, these names are much more likely to be cognate with the popular Christian name Papias. Notes

1 Strong 1966, 22. 2 Wright 1948, 102, no. 11; RIB II.2, 2414.6. 3 Wright 1948, 102, no. 10; RIB II.2, 2414.5. 4 The inscriptions were first published and interpreted by Wright (1948). They were re-published and re-interpreted in Roman Inscriptions of Britain II.2 (abbreviated to RIB II.2 in other notes). 5 Painter 1977a, 22. 6 Mócsy 1983. 7 Jones 1971. 8 Painter 1977a, 22. 9 Wright 1948, 102, no. 13; RIB II.2, 2414.7. 10 According to Brailsford (1955, 10), graffito (b) ‘seems to be a proverbial phrase in which ]edit abundantia[ is clear, though it is not certain whether the noun is used in the nominative or ablative’. But his reading does violence to the letter forms: his first A is clearly two letters, LI, and is quite different from his second A (which is actually V) and his third A (which is indeed A). Likewise his first T is quite different from the second, which is clearly C. 11 See note 9. 12 RIB II.2, 33, top. 13 Although again, this causes some problems with regard to the actual weight of the vessel, since a total weight of 18 pounds, 6 and a half ounces, if used to produce a four-vessel set, would mean each weighed around 4.6 Roman pounds, while the vessel in question weighs 5.2 pounds (see also p. 100). 14 Wright 1948, 102, no. 12; RIB II.2, 2414.8. 15 Wright 1948, 103, no. 14; RIB II.2, 2414.9. 16 Wright 1948, 103, no. 15; RIB II.2, 2414.10. 17 Similar scratches have not been identified on the other handles (cats 16–17). 18 Wright 1948, 181, no. 11e; RIB II.2, 2420.55. 19 Wright 1948, 181, no. 11d; RIB II.2, 2420.54. 20 Wright 1948, 181, no. 11c; RIB II.2, 2420.53. 21 Wright 1948 181, no. 11b; RIB II.2, 2420.34. 22 Wright 1948, 181, no. 11a; RIB II.2, 2420.33.

The Graffiti and Inscriptions | 239

Chapter 13 The Mildenhall Treasure: Technical Aspects of Construction and Decoration Janet Lang and Michael J. Hughes

Introduction

The Mildenhall treasure is one of a number of hoards of late Roman silver plate which have been examined and analysed technically. The data relating to the composition and methods of construction and decoration of the various hoards can, therefore, be compared, making it possible to highlight similarities and differences in materials and techniques, supplementing the archaeological, historical and stylistic studies of the objects. In order to establish the composition and construction of the Mildenhall treasure, various examination and analytical techniques were employed, but curatorial restraints on sampling meant the repertoire of tests was usually limited to visual and surface analysis. The composition of the objects and their components was investigated using energy dispersive X-ray fluorescence (XRF) analysis. This technique only requires a very small area in an inconspicuous location to be polished in preparation for analysis, in order to reduce any effects of surface enrichment. The results and details are given in Table 17. The elements present in coatings such as gilding, inlays (niello) and solders were identified using XRF nonquantitatively (see Appendix at the end of this chapter). Most of the information about the construction and decoration was provided by X-radiography (see Appendix) and by visual examination at a relatively low magnification (less than 50×). X-radiography was used to detect joins and solder. Differences in thickness or materials are indicated by changes in the radiographic density; for example, the X-ray image of hammered metal often appears to be mottled, while cast metal has a more even appearance. Small holes indicating casting porosity can also be seen in cast metal. Turning, using a lathe, may also be distinguished on radiographs.1 The surface details of the construction and the decoration were examined by optical microscopy. Exceptionally, in order to study the microstructure, it was agreed that three minute samples could be removed inconspicuously from the rim and back surface of the Bacchic platter (cat. 1). These were mounted in cold setting resin and polished to provide a flat surface for metallographic examination at magnifications of up to 100×. Structures which are visible on the surface at low magnification (e.g. 5×–20×) are sometimes misleading, particularly when distinguishing cast and worked objects. Where permission to polish a tiny flat area on an edge or in an inconspicuous position was agreed, a polished taper section could be made and examined with a metallurgical microscope. Surface finish, wear and damage

The artefacts could not be examined in the ‘as found’ state and it is, therefore, not easy to distinguish any changes or damage which occurred before, during or after excavation. Impurities, including oxides, introduced during heating (or corrosion) tend to concentrate at grain boundaries, which may result in the penetration of intergranular corrosion. This weakens the structure, so that fragments become detached (for example on the inside of cat. 12) (see Pl. 309). Intergranular corrosion was observed in the microsections from cat. 1 (see Pl. 80).

240 | The Mildenhall Treasure

The upper surfaces of most of the objects are in good condition, although some areas show signs of corrosion having taken place and there are a few areas of damage, which are discussed in the individual catalogue entries. The copper content of the Mildenhall objects is c. 4% (see Table 17), which means that the metal is relatively soft (between 50 and 70 HV 0.05 microhardness values).2 It would have worn or been damaged more easily than sterling silver, which contains 7.5% copper, and is commonly used for silver plate today. Sterling silver has hardness values of c. 70 HV (annealed) and c. 120 HV (fully hardened). The limited available evidence, mainly from the microstructures of the spoons, suggests that a final, full anneal was not carried out, leaving a little residual hardness. The relief decoration on the upper surfaces of a number of the objects is highly polished (possibly in part due to early treatment after excavation). The surrounding areas and the front surfaces are generally well finished, but some surfaces appear dull as a result of corrosion attack. The back surfaces are generally poorly finished, with the manufacturing hammer and scraping marks clearly visible (see for example Pl. 112). Few signs of wear can be seen on the Mildenhall objects, apart from the Bacchic plates (cats 2–3), the cover of the flanged bowl with upstand (cat. 12) and some of the spoons (for example cats 21–3). This may be because most of the objects were made not long before burial or because they had not been used frequently. The profiles of most of the Mildenhall foot-rings are crisp, with hardly any rounding of their edges, the only exception being the Bacchic plates, which have slightly worn foot-rings and on which some fine details of the design on the upper surfaces also appear worn, although the rims remain crisp. One of the beads on cat. 2 has a flattened and highly polished facet which is difficult to explain, and does not appear to be of recent origin. The beads on cat. 4 are slightly worn on top. The edge of the upstand on cat. 11 is worn, so that the tiny beads can hardly be seen in places. The surfaces of most of the objects show scratches, some of which are very fine. It is difficult to distinguish any which might be recent (see Pl. 143). The Bacchic platter (cat. 1) sustained damage to the foot-ring which almost certainly occurred when it was found. There are a number of repairs, most of which appear to be ancient, including those on the pedestalled plates (cats 14–15). Splits on the rims of the Bacchic platter (cat. 1) and Bacchic plate (cat. 2) were also repaired (see Pls 110, 402). An attempt to repair a break at the join between the bowl and handle of a spoon (cat. 23) was made with an unusual alloy (mercury–silver).3 Examination and analysis suggests that all these repairs were ancient and could even have been carried out during or immediately after manufacture, as was also noted on the ‘Seuso’ ewers.4 Metal analysis considerations

The composition of the metal itself was investigated using XRF. The results are given in Table 17 (for parameters, see Appendix). The elements analysed include silver, copper, gold, lead, tin and zinc. The presence of mercury is noted but, as it is usually found in thin surface coatings, it is not fully quantified.

Plate 402 Repair to crack on rim of one of the Bacchic plates (cat. 2)

The effectiveness of the XRF technique is limited, as only the top few microns are analysed and consequently the results can be affected by the state of the surface. Difficulties arise when analysing small and possibly inhomogeneous areas such as solders, and problems may also be introduced by the geometry of the object.5 It was extremely difficult, if not impossible, to analyse the joining area between a footring and a bowl or platter, for example. Small differences in composition can also occur as a result of variations within the burial environment. Surface enrichment of buried objects is also a common phenomenon6 which can give misleading values that do not represent the core metal composition. This occurs because the more reactive elements (e.g. copper) are often leached preferentially from the surface during burial, which artificially exaggerates the silver (or gold) content at the expense of the copper. Surface enrichment may also be a result of post-excavation treatment or even during the initial casting process.7 As the XRF method analyses only the surface layers of an object, the analytical results from silver objects are affected by surface enrichment effects, as well as corrosion products, and general tarnishing,8 but these effects were reduced as far as possible by polishing a small area (3– 4mm diameter) before XRF analysis was carried out (see Appendix). Composition of the metal

The analysis results are shown in Table 17. (Note: cats 10, 16–17, 19–20, 24, 26–7, were not analysed.) The analyses show that the objects generally contain between 95% and 98% silver, which is well within the range of Roman silver plate from this period and later (see Table 18).9 The main alloying element is copper. Traces of lead and gold are also found in the Mildenhall artefacts (average values 0.7% for lead and 0.8% for gold) and are very similar to the average values of 0.5% for lead and 0.8% for gold in the objects from hoards of comparable date (Coleraine, Hoxne, Thetford, Traprain Law and ‘Seuso’; see Table 18). The use of solder is discussed in a separate section below, pp. 246–7. There are some very small differences in the analyses of different parts of objects, such as the rims and within the foot-rings of most of the bowls, plates and platters, but

The Mildenhall Treasure: Technical Aspects of Construction and Decoration | 241

Table 17 X-ray fluorescence analysis of Mildenhall silver objects (weight %) Cat. no.

Location

Silver

Copper

Gold

Lead

Tin

Zinc

Mercury

1

foot-ring (AAS)

97.2

2.5

0.9

0.4