^{page 1 note 1} Arch. Cant, vi (1866), 173Google Scholar with fig. Maidstone Museum.

^{page 1 note 2} The evidence for this provenience needs examination. The finds from Gilton, one of the largest and richest of the Kentish cemeteries, are only imperfectly recorded. We know for certain that the runic pommel did not come from any of the 106 graves excavated by Bryan Faussett between 1760 and 1763 (Inventorium Sepulchrale, ed. C. Roach Smith, 1856). But further graves were being destroyed by sand-digging throughout the later eighteenth and earlier nineteenth centuries, and a great many finds from them were salvaged by antiquaries such as James Douglas (Nenia Britannica (1793), pp. 26–27, 35–36, 48–52), whose collection passed to the Ashmolean Museum at Oxford, and, more interesting in the present context, by William Boys and his grandson William Rolfe of Sandwich. Boys’s collection was broken up among his descendants, and part is now in Canterbury Museum, part in the British Museum, while the rest was acquired by Rolfe. Rolfe's collection was in its turn acquired, together with the Faussett collection, by Joseph Mayer of Liverpool who subsequently donated it to that city's museum. The runic pommel is now at Liverpool (Mayer Coll. 6402), where it is recorded as coming from Gilton via the Rolfe Collection. Its early history is obscure. It is not mentioned in Boys, W., Collections for a History of Sandwich (1792), ii, 868–9Google Scholar, so obviously it did not come to Rolfe from his grandfather. But it is curious that it was not included in the exhibition of Rolfe's most important finds from Gilton, shown to the Society of Antiquaries in 1842, and described in a letter by Roach Smith in Archaeologia, xxx (1844), 132 ffGoogle Scholar. The first published references to the piece are in Wright, T., The Archaeological Album (1845), p. 204Google Scholar, and Akerman, J. Y., Remains of Pagan Saxondom (1855), p. 49Google Scholar, which say only that it was found in the parish of Ash. It is not until Haigh, D. H., The Conquest of Britain by the Saxons (1861), pp. 51–52Google Scholar, that there is specific mention of the Gilton cemetery. Yet though Rolfe did possess Anglo-Saxon material from other sites in the vicinity of Ash, there is no evidence to suggest that the runic pommel came from anywhere but Gilton, which is by far the most likely provenience for it. Its omission from the 1842 exhibition can be explained in a number of ways: Rolfe may have lent only a selection of his finds, or the pommel may not have been acquired by him till afterwards.

^{page 1 note 3} Hillier, G., History and Antiquities of the Isle of Wight (1855), pp. 35 ff.Google Scholar; Museum, British, Guide to Anglo-Saxon Antiquities (1923), p. 66Google Scholar, fig.74; Elliott, R. W. V., Runes (1959), pp. 79 ff.Google Scholar, pl. iv, 10.

^{page 2 note 1} Runes are transliterated according to the system given in Dickins, B., ‘A System of Transliteration for Old English Runic Inscriptions’, Leeds Studies in English, i (1932), 15–19Google Scholar.

^{page 3 note 1} In favour of ‘êa’ is the argument that this, the first rune of its side, repeats the last character of the opposite side, as, for example, in the doubled ‘d’ of ‘id | dan’ on the Charnay brooch.

^{page 3 note 2} This was not the only grave in the Sarre cemetery where an old sword-pommel was buried detached from its sword. Another, this time uninscribed, was found in grave 104. Arch. Cant, vi (1866), 173Google Scholar, note 1, and 175.

^{page 3 note 3} The known sword and scabbard inscriptions are collected in Ellis Davidson, H. R., The Sword in Anglo-Saxon England (1962), pp. 42 ff.Google Scholar, 77 ff., and 96 ff.; cf. also Beowulf, 1695–7, our only OE source describing a rune-inscribed hilt, on which was purh runstafas rihte gemearcod, geseted ond gesæd, hwam pæt sweord geworht, irena cyst, ærest wære. …

^{page 3 note 4} The rune-inscribed silver disc from a late fourth- or early fifth-century grave at Liebenau, Niedersachsen (N. Germany), may also have been a sword-scabbard or sword-belt ornament. Bohnsack, D. and Schöttler, W., ‘Reiches Kriegergrab mit Runenscheibe …’, Studien aus Alteuropa, ii (1965), 233 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 3 note 5} Elliott, R. W. V., ‘Two Neglected English Runic Inscriptions: Gilton and Overchurch’, Mélanges de linguistique et de philologie. Fernand Mossé in memoriam (1959), pp. 141–4.Google Scholar

^{page 4 note 1} This suggestion is an old one: see, for example, Dickins, B., ‘The Sandwich Inscription Ræhæbul’, Beiträge zur Runenkunde und nordischen Sprach-wissenschaft (ed. Schlottig, K. H., 1938), p. 83.Google Scholar

^{page 4 note 2} Haigh (1861), pp. 51–52; see also Arch. Cant, viii (1872), 259–60Google Scholar.

^{page 4 note 3} Stephens, G., The Old-Northern Runic Monuments (1866–1901), iii, 163–4Google Scholar.

^{page 4 note 4} Krause, W., Runeninschriften im älteren Futhark (1937), pp. 19 ff.Google Scholar; Arntz, H. and Zeiss, H., Die einheimischen Runendenkmäler des Festlandes (1939), pp. 1–41Google Scholar, pls. 1–11; Davidson (1962), p. 102.

^{page 4 note 5} This semantic point requires investigation. NED gives examples of the sense ‘physical pain or suffering’ only from the fourteenth century (s.v. sorrow). Clark Hall glosses sorh ‘sorrow, pain, grief, trouble, care, distress, anxiety’, where ‘pain’ is presumably not ‘physical pain’.

^{page 4 note 6} Davidson (1962), p. 110.

^{page 6 note 1} Falk, H., Altnordische Waffenkunde (Viden-skapsselskapets Skrifter ii. Hist. Filos. Klasse, 1914, no. 6), pp. 47 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 6 note 2} Campbell, A., ‘An Old English Will’, Journal of English and Germanic Philology, xxxvii (1938), 149Google Scholar.

^{page 6 note 3} But see Page, R. I., ‘The Use of Double Runes in Old English Inscriptions’, Journal of English and Germanic Philology, lxi (1962), 897 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 6 note 4} Redin, M., Studies on Uncompounded Personal Names in Old English (1919), pp. xxx ff.Google Scholar

^{page 6 note 5} Förstemann, E., Altdeutsches Namenbuch, i, Personennamen, 2nd ed. (1900), col. 47Google Scholar.

^{page 7 note 1} Davidson (1962), pp. 196 ff.

^{page 7 note 2} British Museum, reg. no. 954: ‘70.

^{page 7 note 3} Liverpool Museum, reg. no. 6.8.75.2.

^{page 7 note 4} Jacobsen, L. and Moltke, E., Danmarks Runeindskrifter. Text (1942), cols. 937, 947, 962, 967, 977.Google Scholar

^{page 7 note 5} Arntz and Zeiss (1939), p. 195.

^{page 7 note 6} The forms do not show up well on illustrations, but see Kermode, P. M. C., Manx Crosses (1907), pl. x, lxviGoogle Scholar; and Peers, C. R., ‘The Inscribed and Sculptured Stones of Lindisfarne’, Archaeologia, lxxiv (1923–1924), pl. xlixGoogle Scholar.

^{page 7 note 7} Krause (1937), pp. 211, 137.

^{page 9 note 1} Krause (1937), p. 9.

^{page 9 note 2} Krause, W., ‘Die Runen als Begriffzeichen’ in Schlottig (1938), pp. 35–53.Google Scholar

^{page 9 note 3} Verse 6, Edda (ed. G. Neckel, 3rd. ed. by H. Kuhn, 1962). See also R. G. Finch, The Saga of the Volsungs (1965), p. 36.

^{page 9 note 4} Evison, V. I., ‘An Anglo-Saxon Cemetery at Holborough, Kent’, Arch. Cant, lxx (1956), 97–100Google Scholar, pl. iii; Krause (1937), pp. 9–10, 55; Nerman, B., ‘Runpartiet i Sigrdrífomál’, Arkiv för nordisk filologi, lxxvi (1961), 62 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 9 note 5} Elliott (1959), pp. 52 ff.

^{page 9 note 6} Krause (1937), pp. 26 ff.; Jacobsen, L. and Moltke, E., Danmarks Runeindskrifter. Atlas (1941), 414, br. 16.Google Scholar

^{page 9 note 7} Arch. Cant, x (1876), 312Google Scholar and fig. opposite; Behmer, Elis, Das zweischneidige Schwert der germanischen Völkerwanderungszeit (1939), pl. xxxviii, 1 and 4Google Scholar; Faussett, B., Inventorium Sepulchrale (ed. Roach Smith, C., 1856), p. 20.Google Scholar

^{page 9 note 8} de Vries, J., Altgermanische Religionsgeschichte, i (1956), 140Google Scholar, and ii (1957), 127; Ellis Davidson, H. R., Gods and Myths of Northern Europe (1964), p. 83, and ‘Thor's Hammer’, Folklore, lxxvi (1965), 13Google Scholar.

^{page 10 note 1} Behmer (1939), pp. 156 ff.

^{page 10 note 2} In addition to the Faversham sword discussed above, hilts or pommels with the movable or ‘loose-ring’ attachment are preserved from Bifrons graves 39 and 62 (Maidstone Museum); Buckland, Dover, grave C (British Museum); Faversham (British Museum no. 951: ‘70); and from Gilton (Liver-pool Museum, M. 6650: Akerman (1855), pl. xxiv, 2). The immovable ring-mechanism occurs only on a sword from Sarre grave 88 (Maid-stone Museum; Arch. Cant. vi (1866), 172Google Scholar) and there was another, now lost, on the sword from Coombe, Woodnesborough (Saffron Walden Museum: Smith, C. Roach, Collect. Antiq. ii (1852), pl. xxxviiiGoogle Scholar). Pommels with indications of rings now lost include that from Gilton grave 56, with the ‘lightning’ symbol, and another from Faversham (British Museum no. 952: ‘70).

^{page 10 note 3} Behmer (1939), 164; Böhner, K., ‘Die fränkischen Gräber von Orsoy’, Bonner Jahrbücher, cxlix (1949), 165, etcGoogle Scholar.

^{page 10 note 4} Of especial importance has been the discovery of a richly decorated ring-sword in a chieftain's grave of the first half of the sixth century in the Rhineland. See Pirling, Renate, ‘Ein fränkisches Fürstengrab aus Krefeld-Gellep’, Germania, xlii (1964), 188 ffGoogle Scholar., fig. 4, I, pls. 47, 3, and 51, 1. It is unfortunate that most of the Kentish ring-swords are without known associations, but that from Bifrons grave 39, with its matching belt-plates, shoe-shaped tags, and buckle with shield-on-tongue, should be of the mid-sixth century: the Coombe sword with its simple interlaced ornament, associated bowl, and broken square-headed brooch (republication forthcoming in Med. Arch, xi (1967)Google Scholar) and the sword from Sarre grave 88, found with a similar bowl, ought both to belong to the later sixth century.

^{page 11 note 1} Elliott (1959), p. 80.

^{page 11 note 2} Arne, T. J., Das Bootgräberfeld von Tuna in Alsike, Uppland (1934), pp. 47 ff.Google Scholar, 74, pl. xxi; Behmer (1939), pp. 175 ff., pl. lvi, 5–6.

^{page 12 note 1} Though the feature does persist on seventh- century pommels of Behmer's type VII, pls. lvii–lx, an example of which has been found in Kent, Antiq, Journ. xxxviii (1958), 243, fig. 3Google Scholar.

^{page 12 note 2} Behmer (1939), pls. xxv, 14 and xxxiii, 8a.

^{page 12 note 3} Salin, B., Die altgermanische Thierornamentik (1904), fig. 273Google Scholar; Brown, G. Baldwin, The Arts in Early England, iii (1915), p. 217, pl. xxv, 9Google Scholar; Museum, BritishGuide (1923), pp. 92 f.Google Scholar, pl. vii; Åberg, N., The Anglo-Saxons in England (1926), pp. 144 f.Google Scholar, fig. 276; Behmer (1939), p. 36, pl. 11, 3.

^{page 12 note 4} From the first deposit found in the Nydam bog in Schleswig, and from graves at Evebø, Sogn og Fjordane, and elsewhere in Norway. Engelhardt, C., Nydam Mosefund (1865), pl. vi, 4Google Scholar; G. Gustafson, Evebofunnet (1889); Fett, Per, ‘Arms in Norway’, Bergens Museums Årbok: Hist.-antik. rekke, 2/1 (1938–1939), pp. 60 ff.Google Scholar, fig. 74; Behmer (1939), pp. 27 ff., pl. 11, 1–2; Straume, Eldrid, Nordfjord i eldre Jernalder (Univ. i Bergen Årbok: Humanistisk ser., 4, 1961), pp. 13 ff., pl. 1.Google Scholar

^{page 12 note 5} The cloisonné mounting is very simple, and there is something similar on scabbard-mounts of the first half of the sixth century from Skjoldelev, Jutland, and Friedrichsthal, Pomerania. Behmer (1939), pls. xxxvii, 2 and xxxvi, 3 b.

^{page 12 note 6} The fine ring-work has parallels on such well-known northern jewels as the Möne gold collar (Salin (1904), figs. 501 and 502, b); the scabbard-mount from Skjoldelev; one of the square-headed brooches from Grönby, Skåne (Salin (1904), fig. 495; Brita Alenstam, ‘Zwei Reliefspangen aus Grönby, Skåne’, Meddel.från Lunds Universitetets Hist. Museum (1949), pp. 183 ff., fig. 1, 2; Strömberg, Märta, Untersuchungen zur jüngeren Eisenzeit in Schonen (1961), ii, pl. lviGoogle Scholar, 3 b.); and on some Danish A bracteates (Mackeprang, M., De nordiske Guldbrakteater (1952), pls. 3, 15 and 4, 8Google Scholar).

^{page 13 note 1} Bakka, Egil, On the beginning of Salin's Style I in England (Universitetet i Bergen Årbok: Hist.-antik. rekke, 3, 1958), pp. 43 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 13 note 2} Bakka (1958), pp. 20 ff.; Chadwick, Sonia (Hawkes), ‘The Anglo-Saxon Cemetery at Finglesham, Kent: a Reconsideration’, Med. Arch, ii (1958), 45 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 13 note 3} For the origin of this style see Kendrick, T. D., Anglo-Saxon Art to A.D. 900 (1938), p. 77Google Scholar; Holmqvist, W., ‘Dryckeshornen från Söderby-Karl’, Fornvännen (1951), pp. 33 ff.Google Scholar; ‘Den nordiska Sfinxen’, Fornvännen (1958), pp. 225 ffGoogle Scholar. Holmqvist's two papers give full lists of the known examples of the Head-and-Hand style and its pre-Style I prototypes in the north.

^{page 14 note 1} Kendrick, T. D., ‘Style in Early Anglo-Saxon Ornament’, IPEK, ix (1934), 69 ffGoogle Scholar., pls. xxv and xxvii; Kendrick (1938), pp. 75 ff., figs. 14–15, pl. xxxv; Leeds, E. T., Early Anglo-Saxon Art and Archaeology (1936), pp. 75 ff.Google Scholar, pl. xxi, a–b. For the whole find see Åberg (1926), pp. 10–11, figs. 1–9 and 189. The fact that these horns were buried in a grave of the late sixth or early seventh century has given rise to some misconception about their date of manufacture. But there need be no difficulty once it is admitted that Leeds was correct in supposing the flimsy repoussé plates, decorated with Style II ornament similar to that on a cup-mount from the same grave, to have been riveted on above the original terminals as secondary additions to a much earlier assemblage. The original silver mountings, which are substantial things decorated in chip-carving, niello, and gilding, show no Style II features in their ornament. Instead, ‘helmeted’ heads and human hands are combined with interlacing animal bodies and limbs which, though they have mistakenly been confused with work in the later style, are in fact a brilliant Anglo-Saxon rendering of a common form of Scandinavian Style I, which can be seen on the scabbard-mouthpiece of the Snartemo sword, for example, and on a number of Norwegian relief brooches and other objects (Hougen, B., The Migration Style in Norway (1936), figs. 22–23, 28, 33, 35, etc.Google Scholar). The amount of wear on the Taplow mounts is not excessive, but it is sufficient to justify the conclusion that the horns were made up in the first half of the sixth century, and were kept in ceremonial use for at least a half century before final burial.

^{page 14 note 2} Hougen, B., Snartemofunnene (1935), pl. 11Google Scholar; Hougen (1936), fig. 27. Details in Holmqvist (1958), fig. 7, and Bakka (1958), p. 19, fig. 10.

^{page 14 note 3} Hougen (1935), pl. x, 3; Holmqvist (1958), fig. 9.

^{page 14 note 4} Holmqvist (1951), figs. 3–5, and (1958), fig. 11.

^{page 14 note 5} Hougen (1936), figs. 58–64; Behmer (1939), pls. xxxix–xli; Holmqvist, W., Germanic Art during the First Millenium A.D. (1955), pls. x–xi, etc.Google Scholar

^{page 15 note 1} Hougen (1935), pl. ix, 3, and (1936), p. 29, fig. 61; Holmqvist (1958), fig. 8.

^{page 15 note 2} Bakka (1958), pp. 16 ff., figs. 7, 10–12.

^{page 15 note 3} Ibid., p. 9, fig. 2.

^{page 15 note 4} The cruciform brooches need further study, but they resemble fifth-century examples from Jutland and the Danish islands more nearly than those from other parts of the north. See Åberg (1926), figs. 32–33, 35–38.

^{page 15 note 5} Leeds, E. T., ‘Denmark and Early England’, Antiq. Journ. xxvi (1946), 22 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar, pl. viii; Warhurst, A., ‘The Jutish Cemetery at Lyminge’, Arch. Cant, lxix (1955), 15Google Scholar, pl. vii, a, I.

^{page 15 note 6} Historia Ecclesiastica, i, 15; iv, 14.

^{page 15 note 7} Though the horns are so surpassingly fine that it is difficult to find convincing parallels for them, yet it is probable that they were made by a Kentish craftsman. The decorated rim of a drinking-horn or cup from Faversham shows the same trick of finishing the rim clips at the front with cast human faces. See British Museum, Guide (1923), fig. 43.

^{page 16 note 1} Holmqvist (1958), fig. 10.

^{page 16 note 2} Bakka (1958), figs. 14 and 24; Chadwick (Hawkes) (1958), pl. 11, figs. 9, b and 18, d.

^{page 16 note 3} That such an early date is possible for the matching silver-reinforced guards is shown by the similar hilt construction of the early ring-swords from Chaouilley, Mainz-Kastell, and Krefeld-Gellep. See Pirling (1964), p. 210, and refs.

^{page 17 note 1} Chadwick (Hawkes) (1958), p. 56.

^{page 18 note 1} Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, s.a. 661; cf. Historia Ecclesiastics, iv, 13, and Antiquity, xxxix (1965), 32, n. 62Google Scholar.

^{page 18 note 2} Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, s.a. 686; Historia Ecclesiastica, iv, 14. Ceadwalla had some control over Kent as well as Wessex, but the H.E. speaks of him as king of the Gewissi, using suae provinciae homines to repopulate the Isle of Wight. On the question of residual Kentish characteristics in the mainly West Saxon dialect of the island, see H. Kökeritz, The Place-Names of the Isle of Wight (1940), p. cii.

^{page 18 note 3} Evison, Vera I., ‘The Dover Rune Brooch’, Antiq. Journ. xliv (1964), 242 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

^{page 19 note 1} V.C.H. Kent, i, 340; Jessup, R. F., Anglo-Saxon ‘Jewellery (1950), p. iii, pl. xix, 6.Google Scholar

^{page 19 note 2} It is worth stressing how slight is the evidence for a Kentish provenience. The manuscript and interleaved catalogues of Bateman's collection in the Sheffield City Museum do not mention these brooches. The Bateman sale catalogue described them cautiously as ‘said to have been found in Kent’, and this caution has commonly been adopted by subsequent scholars. Stephens (1866–1901), iv, 56, says, ‘Most likely, to judge from the type, they may have been found in Kent’. A search through Bateman's ledger of purchases, also at Sheffield, might reveal more information, but it would be a laborious process.

^{page 19 note 3} Miss Evison quotes some Alamannic parallels for the bird-head terminals on the foot, but the closest parallel seems to be a brooch, with very similarly shaped and decorated foot, from Mülhausen in Thuringia. See Schmidt, B., Die späte Völkerwanderungszeit in Mitteldeutschland (1961), p. 121Google Scholar, pl. xxxi, k.

^{page 20 note 1} Sutherland, C. H. V., Anglo-Saxon Gold Coin-age in the light of the Crondall Hoard (1948), pp. 31–32Google Scholar, 74, pl. 1, 2 and 1 respectively.

^{page 20 note 2} Grierson, P., ‘The Canterbury (St. Martin's) Hoard of Frankish and Anglo-Saxon Coin-ornaments’, Brit. Numis. Journ. xxvii (1952–4), 41–42Google Scholar.

^{page 20 note 3} The exact date of this royal marriage is not known. It had certainly taken place by 588, and there is every likelihood that it occurred much earlier, probably during the early 560s, before Æthelberht succeeded his father, and during the lifetime of Bertha's father Charibert I, king of Paris from 561 to 567; cf. Gregory of Tours, Historia Francorum, iv, 6 and ix, 26; Bede, Historia Ecclesiastica, i, 25.

^{page 21 note 1} Marstrander, C. J. S., ‘De nordiske runeinnskrifter i eldre Alfabet’, Viking, xvi (1953), 72–98, 109–14, figs. 84–104, 108–18Google Scholar.

^{page 21 note 2} Jacobsen, and Moltke, , Atlas (1941), p. 220Google Scholar, nos. 562–3; Marstrander (1953), pp. 165–7, figs. 149–50.

^{page 21 note 3} Bugge, S. and Olsen, M., Norges Indskrifter med de ældre Runer (1891–1924), i, 50 ff.Google Scholar, ii, 718 ff. For the rune-brooch from Eikeland, Time, see Frá haug ok heiðni, 1965, no. 3, 137 ff., and 1965, no. 4, 155 ff.

^{page 21 note 4} The bulk of them are listed in Arntz and Zeiss (1939), but others have been found since. See, for example, Krause, W. and Niquet, F., ‘Die Runenfibel von Beuchte, Kr. Goslar’, Nachr. d. Akad. d. Wiss. Göttingen, Phil.-Hist. Kl. v (1956), 81 ff.Google Scholar; Niquet, F., ‘Grab mit Runenfibel von Beuchte …’, Germania, xxxvi (1958), 216 ff.Google Scholar, articles by Jänichen, H. and Arntz, H., ‘Neue Runeninschriften aus Württemberg’, Fundberichte aus Schwaben, xiv (1957), 117 ffGoogle Scholar., xvi (1962), 155 ff., and Jänichen, H., ‘Eine neue Runeninschrift von Schretzheim bei Dillingen’, Germania, xxix (1951), 226–30Google Scholar.

^{page 21 note 5} East Midland Archaeological Bulletin, vi (1963), 12Google Scholar. Mentioned here by courtesy of the excavator Mr. G. Taylor.

^{page 22 note 1} Norwich Castle Museum. For knowledge of this we are indebted to H. Vierck, who brought it to our attention, and to Miss Barbara Green for allowing us to examine and photograph it.

^{page 22 note 2} Lethbridge, T. C., A Cemetery at Lackford, Suffolk (Cambridge Antiq. Soc. 4 to publs. new ser., vi, 1951), p. 20Google Scholar and fig. 27, no. 49, 36. A fuller investigation is needed into the marks, some of them perhaps runic, on various other Anglo-Saxon funerary urns.

^{page 22 note 3} Clarke, R. Rainbird, East Anglia (1960), p. 137Google Scholar, pl. xliii; Wrenn, C. L., ‘Magic in an Anglo-Saxon Cemetery’, English and Medieval Studies: Essays presented to J. R. R. Tolkien (ed. Davis, N. and Wrenn, C. L., 1962), pp. 306–20Google Scholar; ‘Some Earliest Anglo-Saxon Cult Symbols’, Franciplegius: Medieval and Linguistic Studies in Honor of F. P. Magoun (ed. Bessinger, J. B. and Creed, R. P., 1965), pp. 41–55Google Scholar; Page, R. I., ‘Anglo-Saxon Runes and Magic’, J.B.A.A. 3 ser., xxvii (1964), 29Google Scholar.

^{page 22 note 4} It has now been presented as part of an Oxford B.Litt. thesis, under the title Some Leading Types of the Anglian Province of Culture, Fifth to Seventh Century A.D., with their Oversea Connections (1966), chap. 3, pp. 35–36.

^{page 22 note 5} Stephens (1866–1901), i, 301.

^{page 22 note 6} Illustrated London News, no. 6474, vol. ccxliii (31st Aug. 1963), 320–1; Page (1964), pp. 29 f.; Wrenn (1965), pp. 50 ff., figs. 2–4. The full report on this cemetery is not yet published, and we are indebted to the excavator Dr. K. R. Fennell for advance information and illustrations.

^{page 23 note 1} Jacobsen, and Moltke, , Atlas (1941), p. 174.Google Scholar

^{page 24 note 1} Arntz and Zeiss (1939), pp. 456, 461. The ‘a’ form of the Arum sword is a distinctive Frisian variant, somewhat different from the Anglo-Saxon rune.

^{page 24 note 2} Sutherland (1948), pp. 40, 79, pl. 11, 1; Elliott (1959), p. 77, pl. v, 11.

^{page 24 note 3} Crucial for the dating is the Crondall hoard which contained so many of these early Anglo-Saxon issues; see Sutherland (1948). The deposition of this hoard is now being dated by some scholars to c. 640, considerably earlier than was previously thought possible. See Lafaurie, J., ‘Le Trésor d’Escharen’, Revue Numismatique, 6 ser., ii (1960), 178Google Scholar, whose views have recently been endorsed by J. P. C. Kent, in a lecture read to the Royal Numismatic Society on 20th April 1966. Other numismatists still prefer a rather later date.

^{page 25 note 1} For a discussion of the early runic coinage of the Anglo-Saxons see Rigold, S. E., ‘The Two Primary Series of Sceattas’, Brit. Numis. Journ. xxx (1960), 6–53Google Scholar. Mr. Rigold has since revised his views about the dating of the Pada coinage and, in a letter dated 20th October 1963, has suggested a commencement in the 660s.

^{page 25 note 2} Elliott, R. W. V., ‘A Runic Fragment at Leek’, Med. Arch, viii (1964), 213–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar, pl. xviii.

^{page 25 note 3} Cramp, R., ‘A Name-stone from Monkwear-mouth’, Arch. Ael. 4 ser., xlii (1964), 294–8Google Scholar.

^{page 25 note 4} R. I. Page, ‘The Inscriptions’, Appendix A, in D. M. Wilson, Anglo-Saxon Ornamental Metalwork 700–1100, in the British Museum (1964), p. 70, note 5; H. M. and J. Taylor, Anglo-Saxon Architecture (1965), pp. 476–8.

^{page 25 note 5} This is unpublished. Peers (1923–4), p. 262, no. viii, records only the top half of the stone, but the lower half has been discovered, both pieces badly worn. The stone has an incised decorated cross, with perhaps remains of texts above the arms, and certainly remains below them. In one line to the right of the stem is apparently UINI. To the left of the stem are two fragmentary lines of characters, the first beginning with ‘w’ or less likely P, the second containing ‘n’ and certainly either ‘o’ or ‘a’.

^{page 25 note 6} Page/Wilson (1964), p. 70, note 8.

^{page 26 note 1} Since this article was written more south-eastern runes, those of the Selsey ?ring-fragments (Stephens (1866–1901), iii. 463), have emerged from obscurity. Two strips of gold in the British Museum (inv. no. 78, 3–15, 4) have now been identified as this find. They bear the letters (i) ‘b’, ?’r’, ?’n’, ‘rn’, (ii) ‘anmæ’, as far as can be seen on the pitted and marked surface of the material, Further work on these pieces is needed to establish their readings and their relevance to the present discussion. Piece (ii) evidences the Anglo-Frisian ‘a’, so that it is likely that the fragments are Anglo-Saxon, unlikely that they are imports from Frankish territory.