¹ Antiq. Journ. liv (1974), 183–99.Google Scholar

² Antiq. Journ. lv (1975), 408–9.Google Scholar

³ Fired clay is more sandy and less well levigated than potting clay and frequently laminates on breaking. Although organic traces such as burnt out grass or straw, and grits up to pebble size, are common, there seems to be no deliberate tempering with, e.g., flint grit as with pottery. Clay objects usually have a black reduced core changing to oxidized orange near and on the surfaces which is quite different from the sandwich effect of ill-fired pottery.

⁴ Antiq. Journ. lv (1975), 408.Google Scholar

⁵ Antiq. Journ. xlviii (1968), 214.Google Scholar

⁶ Reader, F. W., ‘Report of the Red Hills Exploration Committee 1906–7’, Proc. Soc. Ant. 2nd s., xxii (1908), 164, fig. 24.Google Scholar

⁷ Matthias, W., ‘Die Salzproduktion—ein bedeutender Faktor in der Wirtschaft der frühbronzezeitlichen Bevölkerung an der mittleren Saale’, Jschr. mitteld. Vorgesch. 60 (1976)Google Scholar; Gouletquer, P. L., ‘The development of salt making in prehistoric Europe’, Essex Journ. viii (1974), fig. 3Google Scholar.

⁸ Brisay, K. W. de and Evans, K. A. (eds.), Salt, the study of an ancient industry, 1975.Google Scholar

⁹ Riehm, K., ‘Prehistoric Salt Boiling’, Antiquity, xxv (1961), 181–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁰ Reader, , op. cit.Google Scholar

¹¹ Reported to Thurrock Museum by Colin Barnard.

¹² Kleinman, D., ‘The Salt Springs of the Saale valley’, Salt… (1975), p. 45.Google Scholar

¹³ v. especially ‘Prehistoric and Roman Salt-works in Dorset’,Farrar, R. A. H., in Salt… (1975), p. 15Google Scholar.

¹⁴ Gouletquer, , op. cit., pp. 7–9.Google Scholar

¹⁵ The linked utilization of coastal with adjacent inland environments is to be expected and is implicit in the parish boundaries of Thames-side Thurrock. The seasonal nature of salt-extracting from sea water would fit into an agricultural economy, and is indeed well attested in the Middle Ages, v. ‘Medieval Salting and the coastline in Cambridgeshire and North-East Norfolk’, Owen, A. E. B., in Salt… (1975), p. 42Google Scholar.

¹⁶ Judged visually, there seem to be two sources of clay used at Mucking: one apparently from the brickearths which lie on the slopes of the gravel terrace; the other possibly a river alluvium.

¹⁷ Kondo, Y., ‘The Salt Industry in Ancient Japan’, Salt… (1975), p. 61.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Gouletquer, , op. cit., p. 13.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Jodlowski, A., ‘Salt production in Poland in prehistoric times’, Salt… pp. 85–6.Google Scholar

²⁰ P.P.S. xxvi, 1960.Google Scholar

²¹ Riehm, , op. cit.Google Scholar I am indebted to R. Coleman for translation.

²² Peterborough, Fengate, in Burgess, C. and Miket, R. (eds.), Settlement and Economy in the Thirdand Second Millennia B.C., B.A.R. 33 (1976), 34Google Scholar and fig. 3.4, and Billingborough, Lincolnshire, , Daily Telegraph 3rd February 1977, p. 13Google Scholar.

²³ We should like to thank Mr. Swaine for bringing these objects to ou r attention. For the site cf. Kingscote Archaeological Association, The Chessalls, Kingscote. Excavations 1975–76 Season (1977, interim report), pp. 17 f.Google Scholar

²⁴ I am grateful to Mr. Mark Redknap for the photographs and to Professor Jocelyn Toynbee and Dr. Martin Henig for their useful comments on the significance of the reverse type.

²⁵ Num. Chron. first ser. iii (1841), 158(London)Google Scholar; Walters and Webb Collections; Sale Catalogue (1932), No. 1047, pl. 11 (York)Google Scholar.

²⁶ Gnecchi, F., I Medaglioni Romani, ii, part i (1912), pl. 57, 8.Google Scholar

²⁷ Poole, R. S., Catalogue of the Coins of Alexandria and the Names (British Museum, 1892), p. 128Google Scholar, Nos. 1166–7 and pl. xxi, and Toynbee, J. M. C., The Hadrianic School (1934), pl. xvi, No. 6Google Scholar.

²⁸ Note the photograph of the papyrus plant (Cyperus papyrus) in Calderini, A., Papyri I. Guida allo studio della papirologia grecae romana (1962), pl. opposite p. 16Google Scholar.

²⁹ Toynbee, , op. cit., pl. xxii, No. 2.Google Scholar

³⁰ I would like to thank Dr. N. J. Seeley for writing a note on the composition of the metal and our fellow Mr. Robert Wilkins for the photographs. I have also greatly benefited from discussion with our fellows Mr. John Goodall and Mr. Richard Wright, as well as with Mr. Peter Hayden and Dr. John Matthews.

³¹ Dr. N. J. Seeley writes: ‘Qualitative analysis was carried out using a Cambridge Stereoscan scanning electron microscope with EDAX energy dispersive X-ray analysis. An edge of the cube was selected on which metal was exposed with a minimum amount of overlying cuprite, but as no attempt was made to prepare a freshly exposed surface the analysis can only give a general indication of the composition. The major elements found to be present were copper, tin, and lead, and the metal appears to be a fairly heavily leaded tin bronze.’

³² RIC Victorinus, No. 96; pl. xiv, 10.

³³ Halsberghe, G. H., The Cult of Sol Invictus (1972), p. 162Google Scholar. For other busts of Sol, cf. Henig, M., A Corpus of Roman Engraved Gemstones from British Site (BAR 8, 1974), part ii, pp. 11 f.Google Scholar, Nos. 27 and 28, also the impression of an intaglio from Side in Asia Minor illustrated here (pl. LVII h), and a cold-struck lead token found in Athens: Crosby, M. in The Athenian Agora X. Weights, Measures and Tokens (1964), p. 119Google Scholar, No. L 313.

A bloodstone portraying a standing figure of Sol was found elsewhere at Kingscote, Henig, , op. cit., p. 113Google Scholar, No. App. 47.

³⁴ RIC Aurelian, No. 395; pl. vii, 108. Dr. John Matthews has pointed out to me that Aurelian's portrait normally faces to the right on coins. It is possible that the designer of our cube was basing the device on an Aurelianic coin with the result that, in impression, the bust now faces left.

³⁵ RIC Probus, No. 101; pl. 1, 13; on a lead token, Crosby, , loc. cit. No. L 312 AGoogle Scholar.

³⁶ De reditu suo, l. 48.

³⁶ RIC Probus, No. 893; pl. v, 6. Vermeule, C. C., The Goddess Roma in the Art of the Roman Empire (1959), pp. 31Google Scholar ff. pl. 1. Henig, M. in A.MacGregor, Finds from a Roman Sewer System and an Adjacent Building in Church Street, York (1976), p. 8Google Scholar, No. 10 (also note p. 9, No. 13 for a gem showing a crescent and six stars, signifying Aeternitas).

³⁸ e.g. RIC Aurelian, No. 341; pl. VII, 102. On a gem, Henig in MacGregor, , op. cit., p. 6Google Scholar, No. 8.

³⁹ Maaskant-Kleibrink, M., Classification of Ancient Engraved Gems (1975), p. 228Google Scholar, No. 346. This gem is probably of third-century date.

⁴⁰ RIC Gallienus-joint reign, No. 252; pl. III, 49; RIC Carausius, No. 28. On rings, Henig, , op. cit. (note 33), pp. 100Google Scholar f., Nos 775–8. Note the beaded borders.

⁴¹ Toynbee, J. M. C., Art in Britain under the Romans (1964), pp. 410–12Google Scholar; pl. xciii. For the gem, Henig, , op. cit., pp. 72 f., No. 507Google Scholar.

⁴² Boon, G. C., ‘Counterfeit Coins in Roman Britain’, in Casey, J. and Reece, R., Coins and the Archaeologist (BAR 4, 1974), pp. 95–171Google Scholar especially, p. 97 and pl. 11 (clay moulds); p. 100 and pl. 1, 21 (false die).

⁴³ Smith, C. Roach, Collectanea Antiqua, vi (1868), 117–20Google Scholar. Grenier, A., ‘Les Plombs de Commerce’, Manuel d'Archéologie Gallo-Romaine, ii (1934), 643–63Google Scholar, especially pp. 648–52, for sealings connected with Imperial administration: pp. 662 f. (fig. 231), No. 248 for a sealing with the head of Mercury and the legend MERC, which invites comparison with the inscription assigned to Sol.

⁴⁴ For these sealings cf. Wright, R. P., ‘A new leaden sealing from York, and further examples from Brough under Stainmore’, Trans. C.W. Arch. Soc. N.S. liv (1954), 102–4, fig. iGoogle Scholar.

⁴⁵ Roach Smith, , op. cit. 120Google Scholar and fig. Such borders are a feature of other sealings including the personal one from Kirmington shown here (pl. LVII j), cf. Henig, M., ‘A Roman lead sealing from Kirmington, Lincolnshire’, Britannia, vi (1975), 208 fCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴⁶ On the use of signet-rings Henig, , op. cit. (note 33) part i, pp. 32 fGoogle Scholar; part ii, pp. 104 f., Nos. 807–22. Frost, H., The Mortar Wreck in Mellieha Bay (Gollcher Foundation—National Museum of Malta 1969), pp. 22–4.Google Scholar

Metal stamps would certainly have been employed for the inscribed ‘lead’ tags, such as those from Brough. Richmond, I. A., ‘Roman Leaden Sealings from Brough-under-Stainmore’, Trans. C.W. Arch. Soc. N.S. xxxvi (1936), 104–25.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ J. A. Smythe, ibid., pp. 122 f. One sealing contained lead 72–90 percent and tin 27–10 percent; the other lead, 69–97 percent and tin 29–83 per cent.

Honor Frost, , op. cit., p. 23 notes: ‘minute, bubble-like convexities appear on the reverse [of the sealing] as though the lead had not cooled before the corrugated surface was removed’, and states that the Mellieha sealings were notably unstable probably through the presence of some additive.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Carson, R. A. G., ‘The Mints and Coinage of Carausius and Allectus’, JBAA 3rd. ser., xxii (1959) 33–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar. pl. xiii, 1, 2, 3, 15, 16. Shiel, N., ‘The BRI coins of Carausius’, Num. Chron. cxxxvi (1976), 223–6, pl. 35 b.Google Scholar

Mr. John Casey in a paper delivered to a conference in honour of Jocelyn Toynbee, held in Oxford in 1976, suggested that Carausius may have recruited gemmarii to serve in his mints.

⁴⁹ Boon, , op. cit. (note 20), pp. 115–26.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Zacos, G. and Veglery, A., Byzantine Lead Seals, i (1972), part i, pp. ix–xiiGoogle Scholar; plates 1–4 (eleventh century A.D.)

⁵¹ Antiq. Journ. liv (1974), 183–99.Google Scholar

⁵² Jones, M. U., ‘Saxon pottery from a hut at Mucking, Essex’, Berichten van de Rijksdienst voor het Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek (1969), p. 147.Google Scholar

⁵³ Jones, M. U. and Jones, W. T., An early Saxon landscape at Mucking, Essex (B.A.R. 6, 1974), p. 29.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ In the British Numismatic Journal (forthcoming).

⁵⁵ Brit. Num. J. xxx (1960), 6–53.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ I understand that our fellow Mr. C. E. Blunt has discovered the Kentish source of this eighteenth-century find (of about 300) and will publish it.

⁵⁷ One in the British Museum, without date of acquisition; two formerly in the collection of R. C. Lockett, of which one now in that of Mrs. E. M. Norweb; one in the National Museum, Copenhagen; the doubtful case from a French find.

⁵⁸ Mini-probe of two Mucking coins by Ancient Monuments Laboratory (runs 546; 547, per Miss J. Bayley, 7. ii. 1977).

⁵⁹ Op. cit. in note 5, 27–9.

⁶⁰ Roman Antiquities in Britain (British Museum Guide, 1951), p. 27, fig. 14, 1–2.Google Scholar

⁶¹ References are given in Werner, J., ‘Hercules-Keule und Donar-Amulett’, Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseums Mainz, xi (1964, published 1966), 176–97Google Scholar.

⁶² I am indebted to Mr. Jack Ogden for this.

⁶³ Marshall, F. H., Catalogue of Jewellery, Greek, Etruscan and Roman in the Department of Antiquities, British Museum (1911), 2412–18.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Ibid., no. 2416.

⁶⁵ Minns, E. H., Scythians and Greeks (1913), p. 396Google Scholar, fig. 290, 21.

⁶⁶ BJ 160 (1960), 285 f. Haberey, W., ‘Römische Brandgräber-grupper an der Ecke Adolfstrasse in Kausfeld zu Bonn’Google Scholar.

⁶⁷ BJ 131 (1926), 290 ff. Fremesdorf, F., ‘Weitere Ausgrabungen unter dem Kreuzgang’Google Scholar.

⁶⁸ Werner, J.op. cit. in note 61 (from St. Severin).Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Rosenthal, R., Jewellery in Ancient Times (1973), pp. 80, 84, 85.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ P.R.O., Anc. deeds, L.S. 270; illustrated in Jenkinson, Hilary, ‘The Study of English Seals’, J.B.A.A., 3rd ser., i (1937), 93 ff., pl. 11Google Scholar.

⁷¹ They were concerned in the endowment of West Dereham abbey and Wereham priory; Norfolk. Arch, v (1859), 298 and pl. opp. 311.Google Scholar

⁷² For many of these parallels I am indebted to the Diploma thesis (1973) of Mrs. Ruth Taylor of Birmingham City Museum.

⁷³ Tonnochy, A. B., Catalogue of Brit. Seal Dies in the British Museum (1952), p. 152Google Scholar, no. 748. This work, of course, is the most accessible source of parallels for both species: Species I, nos. 551 ff.; for Species II it gives an adumbration of the typology of the terminals, e.g. nos. 653, 654.

⁷⁴ Proc. Camb. Ant. Soc. xxx (1927), 28.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Med. Arch, xviii (1974), 90–145, esp. 142–3.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Sussex Notes & Queries, xv (1962), 306 and pl. opp. 289.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Op. cit. in note 74, 21.

⁷⁸ Pokrovsky, N. V.: 1809–1909 Tserkovno-arkhologichesky Musei, S.-Peterburgskoi Dukovnoi Akademii 1879–1909, 1909, pl. 60.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Pinina, N. P., ‘Tekhnologiya proizvodstva Novgorodskikh yovelirov X-XV vv.’, Materiali i isledovaniya po arkheologii CCCP, 117 (1963), pp. 214–18Google Scholar, ris. 8·7; 10.2, 3; and ris. 11.

⁸⁰ Rybakov, B. A., Russian applied art of tenth-thirteenth centuries (1971), p. 31.Google Scholar

⁸¹ Arch. xl (1866), 411.Google Scholar

⁸² The detailed conservation of the chest was undertaken by Miss M. Robson and the specialist examination of the replaced wood by Mrs. C. Keepax who first recognized the dovetailed construction, the detailed evidence for which she will be publishing elsewhere. The reconstruction of the chest has been drawn by Mr. J. Thorn.

⁸³ Interim accounts of the recent excavations are published in the West Midland Archaeological News-sheets 14(1971), 17–19; 15 (1972), 17–18; 16 (1973), 12–13; 17 (1974), 49–50; 18(1975), 48; 19 (1976), 42–4; Britannia, vii (1976), 330–1.

⁸⁴ Bushe-Fox, J. P., Fourth Report on the Excavations of the Roman Fort at Richborough, Kent (1949), p. 152Google Scholar and pl. LVII; Cunliffe, B. W. (ed.), Fifth Report on the Excavations of the Roman Fort at Richborough, Kent (1968), p. 106 and pls. LXI, LXIIGoogle Scholar.

⁸⁵ Cunliffe, Barry, Excavations at Portchester Castle, i (1975), p. 224 and fig. 119, no. 121.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ Frere, Sheppard, Verulamium Excavations, i (1972), p. 150 and fig. 54, no. 194.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ Osborne, P. G., ‘An insect fauna from the Roman site at Alcester, Warwickshire’, Britannia, ii (1971), 156–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁸⁸ I am also indebted to Mr. Bishop for the information on his excavation which is incorporated in this note. The reconstruction was drawn by Mrs. Heaser.

⁸⁹ The conservation has been undertaken by Mrs. M. Hutchinson.

⁹⁰ The analyses have been carried out by Miss J. Bayley using an X-ray fluorescence spectrometer.

⁹¹ Apotropaic signs in workshops are attested on Greek figured pottery ( Burford, Alison, Craftsmen in Greek and Roman Society (1972), p. 121).Google Scholar

⁹² Bronze-casting techniques: Tylecote, R. F., Metallurgy in Archaeology (1962), pp. 107–28Google Scholar; Hodges, Henry, Artifacts (1964), p. 72Google Scholar; Strong, D. and Brown, D. (eds.), Roman Crafts (1976), p. 27Google Scholar.

⁹³ I am also grateful to Mr. Andrew Oddy for his comments on the object.

⁹⁴ For phallic objects, see Green, M. J., The Religions of Civilian Roman Britain (1976).Google Scholar

⁹⁵ As illustrated by the scattered casting pits found on the Agora at Athens, Strong, and Brown, , op. cit., p. 30Google Scholar.

⁹⁶ Air photograph kindly supplied by Professor J. K. St. Joseph, University of Cambridge Committee for Aerial Photography. The site has produced a considerable scatter of building debris and pottery of late Roman date.

⁹⁷ Strong, and Brown, , op. cit., p. 33.Google Scholar

⁹⁸ I am grateful to Dr. Martin Henig for this information.