¹ The notes on the context of the Wroxeter figurine are by G.W. and on the two bronzes by M.H.; the photographs are by R.W.

² Height (including base) 65 mm.; length of base 29 mm.; width of base 8 mm.; thickness of base 1–5 mm.

³ Petersen, E., ‘Dioskuren in Tarent’,Röm. Mitt. xv (1900), 3–61Google Scholar; Albert, M. in Daremberg, C. and Saglio, E., Dictionnaire des antiqués grecques et romaines, II (Paris, 1892), 249–65Google Scholar; Hermary, A., ‘Dioskouroi’, Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae, iii (1986), 567–93Google Scholar; R. Daniel de Puma, ‘Dioskouroi/Tinas Cliniar’, ibid., 597–608; F. Gury, ‘Dioskouroi/Castores’, ibid., 608–35.

⁴ Hermary, op. cit. (note 3), 575 no. 92; Langlotz, E. and Hirmer, M., The Art ofMagna Graecia (London, 1965), 293–4Google Scholar and pis. 138, 139, commenting on the Lysippan influence. Comstock, M. and Vermeule, C., Greek, Etruscan and Roman Bronzes in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston (Boston 1970, 69–70 no. 71Google Scholar.

⁵ Theocritus, Idyll, xxii. 27–134; Apollonius Rhodius, Argonautica, ii. 1–97. cf. Williams, P. L., ‘Amykos and the Dioskouroi’, Amer. J. Arch, xlix (1945). 330–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar esp. 339, 351; Beckel, G., ‘Amykos’, Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae, 1 (1981), 738–42Google Scholar; Dohrn, T., Die Ficoronische Ciste in der Villa Giulia in Rom, Monumenta Artis Romanae, xi (Berlin, 1972), pi. 10Google Scholar.

⁶ For the curious rendering of the chest, see the Archaic ‘Apollo’ dated c. 500 B.C. in Boston; it was purchased in Naples and is ascribed to Campania: Comstock and Vermeule, op. cit. (note 4), 156–7 no. 178.

⁷ Height 62 mm. (64 mm. including lug); width of base 5 mm.

⁸ Petersen, op. cit. (note 3), 19 no. 28, Abb. VII, 2

⁹ Albert, op. cit. (note 3), 252, fig. 2432.

¹⁰ They are much more sophisticated than the normal run of low-grade Italic bronzes which came north of the Alps in the pre-Roman period; cf. Boucher, S., Recherches sur les bronzes figurés de Gaule pré-romaine et romaine, École Française de Rome (Rome, 1976), 13–34Google Scholar, with Hercules preponderating.

¹¹ Babelon, E. and Blanchet, J. A., Catalogue des bronzes antiques de la Bibliothèque Nationale (Paris, 1895), 299 no. 687 (fig.)Google Scholar.

¹² They had aided the Romans as early as the battle of Lake Regillus in 496 B.C. and frequently appear on Roman Republican coins. For the heroic ethos of soldiers, see Henig, M., ‘The veneration of heroes in the Roman army. The evidence of engraved gemstones’, Britannia, i (1970), 249–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹³ Henig, M. and Webster, G., ‘A Ptolemaic portrait on an intaglio from Wroxeter’, Antiq. J. lxiii (1983), 369–71Google Scholar.

¹⁴ Rolland, H., Bronzes antiques de Haute Provence, XVII^e suppl. to Gallia (Paris, 1965), 71Google Scholar no. 107; Exhibition Catalogue, Augustusstadt der Treverer (Rheinisches Landsmuseum Trier, Mainz, 1984), 240 no. 93, a reference brought to my attention by Pan Garrard.

¹⁵ Unpublished catalogue by Jules M. Samson.

¹⁶ Ibid.

¹⁷ It is possible that there are further rings of this type in Prague: see Volavkova, Hana, The Jewish Museum of Prague (Prague, 1948), 12Google Scholar, ‘The Museum possesses only very primitive examples of these rings, decorated either by inscriptions alone … ’

¹⁸ This number includes B.M. Dalton no. 1350, there described as ‘gilt, metal’ (analysis of this and the following examples by Andrew Oddy).

¹⁹ Dalton nos. 1348, 1347.

²⁰ Musée de Cluny, no. 20.658, c. 1348–9; Munich, Schatzkammer der Residenz, no. 52, before 1598; formerly Kassel, Hessisches Landesmuseum, see Hallo, R., Jüdische Kunst aus Hessen und Nassau (Berlin, 1933)Google Scholar, no. 55, before 1780.

²¹ e.g. Jewish Museum London no. 461; Musée de Cluny no. 12.268; lately Hackenbroch, Yvonne, Renaissance Jewellery (London, 1979), 50Google Scholar (though trading through Venice of the ‘filigree roof type is not implausible, see this author's ‘Jewish Marriage Rings’, Jewellery Stud, i (1985), 42)Google Scholar.

²² Thus the most ancient of the three historic rings, Cluny no. 20.658, stems from the Colmar hoard, and there are grounds for linking the Munich ring with a rabbi from Rosenheim, Alsace; see also below, note 23.

²³ Strauss's rings were not family heirlooms; they were collected by him, with many other Jewish artefacts, from unknown sources, most probably in Alsace. Of the only two literary sources which mention ‘special’ rings used in Jewish marriage ceremonies, one relates to a wedding in Alsace (Stauben, Daniel, Scènes de la vie juive en Alsace (Paris, 1860), 63Google Scholar), the other to Frankfurt (Schudt, J. J., Jüdische Merckwürdigkeilen (Frankfurt and Leipzig, 1714)Google Scholar, bk. vi, chap. 25, para. 5): both may refer to a ‘lettered band’ ring, as the striking bezels of the edicular rings are not mentioned, as noted by Samson, op. cit. (note 15), with reference to Schudt.

²⁴ Catalogue of Rings in the Collection of the Hon. Richard Comwallis Neville (s.l., s.n., n.d.). According to D.N.B., borne out by the form of his name on the title-page, it was published in 1856; though one entry refers to a purchase made in 1858.

²⁵ All four entered the British Museum from the Braybrooke collection and were catalogued by Dalton among the Jewish marriage rings, nos. 1338 (Braybrooke's ‘beautiful example’, destroyed, with others, in an air attack in 1941), 1341, 1342 and 1356.

²⁶ Arch. J. xvii (1860), 173Google Scholar.

²⁷ Freeman, R. J., Travels and Life in Ashanti and Jaman (London, 1898), 406CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²⁸ Bosnian, W., A New and Accurate Description of the Coast of Guinea (London, 1705), 128Google Scholar; Atkins, J., A Voyage to Guinea, Brazil and the West Indies (2nd edn., London, 1737), 100Google Scholar; Barbot, J., A Description of the Coasts of North and South Guinea (London, 1746), 157Google Scholar. I am grateful to M. D. McLeod for drawing my attention to the references in notes 27–8.

²⁹ Samson, op. cit. (note 15), considers the profile of the ‘six-boss filigree’ Jewish marriage ring to reflect the six-pointed star emblem.

³⁰ Jewish Museum Prague no. 3940; see Volavkova, Hana, A Story of the Jewish Museum in Prague (Prague, 1968)Google Scholar, pls. 92–4; Jewish Museum London no. 473.

³¹ Encyclopaedia Judaica, vii (Jerusalem, 1972), col. 742; Mayer, L. A., L'Artjuifsn terre de l'Islam (Geneva, 1959)Google Scholar.

³² Schudt, op. cit. (note 23).

³³ Analysis by University of Oxford Research Laboratory for Archaeology and History of Art.

³⁴ Welch, M. G., Early Anglo-Saxon Sussex, Brit. Arch. Rep. 112 (Oxford, 1983), 437–8Google Scholar, 508, figs. 78, 131.

³⁵ Böhme, H. W., Germanische Grabfunde des 4. bis 5. Jahrhunderts zwischen unterer Elbe und Loire (München, 1974), 14–19Google Scholar, 346–8 findlist 5, map 5; Evison, V. I., ‘Supporting-arm brooches and equalarm brooches in England’, Studien zur Sachsenforschung, i (1977), 130–6Google Scholar, 138–41, figs. 2–5, 6.

³⁶ Böhme, op. cit. (note 35), 13–14, 346 findlist 4, map 4; Evison, op. cit. (note 35), 127–30,136–8, figs. 1,6.

³⁷ Böhme, op. cit. (note 35), 346 findlist 4; Evison, op. cit. (note 35), 128,129,137 no.7, fig. ig.

³⁸ Böhme, op. cit. (note 35), 14–19, fig. 5, 346 and 348 findlist 5, map 5; Schuldt, E., ‘Die mecklenburgischen gleicharmigen Fibeln von den Friedhöfen Pritzier und Perdöhl’, Hammaburg, i (1948–9), 108–16Google Scholar.

³⁹ In a recent discussion in March 1987, H. W. Böhme indicated to the present author that he now favours a significantly later dating for his three Stufen or phases, with Stufe II placed in the first third and Stufe III in the middle third of the fifth century.

⁴⁰ Directed by Mr K. Camidge, for the Trust for Lincolnshire Archaeology.

⁴¹ Directed by Mr P. Rollin.

⁴² The church itself was not located.

⁴³ Hawkes, C. F. C. and Hull, M. R., Camulodunum, Soc. Antiq. London Res. Rep. 14 Oxford, 1947)Google Scholar.

⁴⁴ Darling, M. J., ‘Early red-slipped ware from Lincoln’, in Anderson, A. C. and Anderson, A. S. eds.), Roman Pottery Research in Britain and North- West Europe, Brit. Arch. Rep. Internat. ser. 123 Oxford, 1981), 397–415Google Scholar.

⁴⁵ Cunliffe, B., Excavations at Fishbourne 1961–1969, ii: The Finds, Soc. Antiq. London Res. Rep. 27 (Leeds, 1971), fig. 67, 11Google Scholar.

⁴⁶ Crummy, N., The Roman Small Finds from Excavations in Colchester 1971–9, Colchester Arch. Rep. 2 (Colchester, 1983), fig. 164, 4258–9Google Scholar.

⁴⁷ S. Greep, in Crummy, op. cit. (note 46), 139–40.

⁴⁸ Part of another amulet, almost certainly of this type, was found during excavations at Flaxengate, Lincoln (SK 977774), in 1975, but in a tenth-century context.

⁴⁹ Directed by A. M. Snell, for the Trust for Lincolnshire Archaeology.

⁵⁰ Henig, M., A Corpus of Roman Engraved Gemstones from British Sites, Brit. Arch. Rep. 8 (2nd edn., Oxford, 1978), 38–9Google Scholar and fig. 1, ring type VIII; id., ‘Continuity and change in the design of Roman jewellery’, in A. King and M. Henig, The Roman West in the Third Century, Brit. Arch. Rep. Internat. ser. 109 (Oxford, 1981), 129, 132.

⁵¹ Royal Comm. Hist. Monuments (England), The City of York, i: Eburacum, Roman York H.M.S.O., 1962), pi. 65, 141.

⁵² Marshall, F. H., Catalogue of the Finger Rings the Departments of Antiquities, British Museum (London, 1907), 185Google Scholar, no. 1169, and fig. 141.

⁵³ These include one from Tetford, Horncastle, now in the City and County Museum Lincoln (LM 80.82). Another has recently been reported from Vememetum, Notts, (pers. comm. P. Liddle).

⁵⁴ e.g. the following silver rings: F. Henkel, Die Romischen Fingerringe der Rheinlande (Berlin, 1913), nos. 374 (Mainz), 383 (Rosenauberg bei Augsberg) and 394 (Bregenz), all MER for Mer(curio); also nos. 373 (Rheinzabern), MIN(ervae) and 391 (Cologne), HER(acli).

⁵⁵ Attested on a silver plate from Barkway, Herts. R.I.B. 219), and on a graffito from Kelvedon, Essex (Britannia, ix (1978), 478, no. 41); both Toutatis.

⁵⁶ A version of the god's name Totatis is implied by the Celtic personal name Totatigenus (C.I.L. vi, 2407, col. 1, line 3). We are grateful to Mark Hassall for bringing this to our attention.

⁵⁷ Rigold, S. E., ‘The two primary series of sceattas’, Brit. Numis. J. xxx (1962), 14Google Scholar, type P IB and pi. II, P IB, 1 and P IB, 4.

⁵⁸ Small Find SW83 761.1 am grateful to Jenny Mann for allowing me to comment on this buckle plate, to Dr Margaret Gibson, F.S.A., for advice and drawing my attention to the Wirral example, to the late Miss E. Owles, F.S.A., for assistance with the Bury St Edmunds examples, and to Michael Locke for information on the Rockbourne villa example.

⁵⁹ Moyses Hall Museum, Bury St Edmunds, 1979–196 (see Proc. Suffolk Inst. Arch, xxxiv (4) (1980), 290Google Scholar) and 1982–48E. The buckle plate found at Burton or Ness is now deposited in the Williamson Art Gallery and Museum, Birkenhead (BIKGM 7534). For the Rockbourne Roman villa, see A. T.Morley Hewitt, Roman Villa at West Park Rockbourne (n.d.), 21, pi. XXVIIB. T h e buckle plate from Blyth was found at SK 6240 8649 and is now in Bassetlaw Museum (67.1984).

⁶⁰ This buckle on loan to the Bury St Edmunds Museum (1982–337A) is of uncertain origin, but may have been found in the Thames.

⁶¹ Fingerlin, I., Giirtel des hohen und spdten Mittelalters (Berlin, 1971), 36–58Google Scholar.

⁶² For ‘exultet’ rolls, see Dodwell, C. R., Painting in Europe, 800–1200 (London, 1971), 127–9Google Scholar; for Christ enthroned between two angels (British Library Add. MS 30337), see ibid., pi. 145.

⁶³ Wright, R. P., Britannia, xv (1984), 259–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar, refs.

⁶⁴ G. C. Boon, Isca (1972), 124 note 53.

⁶⁵ Watkin, W. Thompson, Roman Cheshire (Liverpool, 1886), 164Google Scholar; C.I.L. vii, 1268.

⁶⁶ Körber, M. K., Neue Inschriften des Mainzer Museums (1900), 60–1Google Scholar, no. 85; C.I.L. xiii, 6935. Our fig. 5 is based on Körber's.

⁶⁷ Exhibition Catalogue, Pompeii A.D. 79 (Royal Academy of Arts, London, 1977)Google Scholar, no. 250 (illus. upside-down).

⁶⁸ Grimes, W. F., Holt(Y Cymmr. xli (1930)), 130Google Scholar no. 7,131 no. 9, figs. 557 and 60–5; cf. Eph. Epigr. ix, 1391 a – b, and c.

⁶⁹ V. E., and Nash-Williams, A. H., Catalogue of the Roman Inscribed and Sculptured Stones found at Caerleon, Monmouthshire (Cardiff, 1935), 43–4Google Scholar.

⁷⁰ Sic; Mr Wright errs in assigning it to the northwest rampart-building.

⁷¹ Ɔ CAECILI.V(ictoro?) in each case, followed by (a) SABINEI; (b) MVSENTII ADIVT(oris), presumably a cognomen, cf. Kajanto, Cognomina (1965), 360, there being no need to indicate his position; (c) METONI.

⁷² Digest 50, 6.7 ending hi omnes inter immunes habentur, suggesting incompleteness of listing.

⁷³ On recent re-inspection, there is no triangular stop as proposed in J. Roman Stud, lvi (1966), 225 c)Google Scholar: the marking is merely a casting-blemish.

⁷⁴ Grimes, op. cit. (note 68), 130.

⁷⁵ Mentioned toe. cit. (note 67).

⁷⁶ My Isca: the Roman Legionary Fortress at Caerleon, Monmouthshire (Cardiff, 1972), 24Google Scholar, fig. 51 facing 85; my Legionary Fortress of Caerleon—Isca Caerleon, 1987), 46Google Scholar, fig.

⁷⁷ The panis militaris is known to have been wholemeal; cf. Pliny,Hist. Nat. xviii. 67. Cf. Davies, R. W., Britannia, ii (1971), 126Google Scholar; Knights, B. A. et al. , J. Arch. Sci. x (1983), 139–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. 143. Bread in Roman times was normally salted and leavened, cf. André, J., L'Alimentation et la cuisine a Rome Paris, 1961), 67–73Google Scholar, pointing out that Italian bread lacked the lightness imparted by brewer's yeast, as used in Gaul (and Britain).

⁷⁸ Davies, op. cit. (note 77), 124.

⁷⁹ Lloris, M. Beltrán, Las anforas romanas en España (Zaragoza, 1970), 103Google Scholar, fig. 42 and note 141,‘we have not encountered any amphora stamp identifiable with the present die’ which reads (probably boustrophedon) ELASV/NI M(anu). There is a little loop-handle at the back.

⁸⁰ F. Benoit, L'Épave du grand Congloué à Marseille, XIV^e suppl. to Gallia (Paris, 1961), 52–6, figs. 53–5; Beltran, op. cit. (note 79), 73, fig. 25.

⁸¹ Secondary uses of amphorae, cf. Callender, M. H., Roman Amphorae, with Index of Stamps London, 1965), 37–41Google Scholar. For centurial querns, see e.g. Grimes, op. cit. (note 68), 132 no. 5 (illus. Nash-Williams, V. E., The Roman Frontier in Wales (Cardiff, 1954)Google Scholar, pi. viii, 3) and Haverfield, F., Catalogue of the Roman Inscribed and Sculptured stones in the Grosvenor Museum, Chester (Chester, 1900), 89Google Scholar, no. 204, further refs. Another, Korber, op. cit. (note 66), no. 84.

⁸² I am most grateful to the finder, Mr F. Mathews of Grimsby (who retains possession), and to Kevin Leahy for the loan of the cameo and to our Fellow, Robert Wilkins, for his splendid photograph.

⁸³ Loughlin, N. and Miller, K., A Survey of Archaeological Sites in Humberside, Humberside Joint Arch. Comm. (Hull, 1979), 164–71Google Scholar.

⁸⁴ Henig, M., Antiq. J. 1 (1970), 338–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar, still illustrates this scarcity. Only a few cameos have turned up since.

⁸⁵ Bieber, M., The History of the Greek and Roman Theater (Princeton, 1961), 249Google Scholar and fig. 826 (now at Hildersheim); Faider-Feytmans, G., Recueil des bronzes de Bavai, VIII^e suppl. to Gallia (Paris, 1957), 68Google Scholar no. 98 and pi. xxiii; Mitten, D. G. and Doeringer, S. F., Master Bronzes from the Classical World (Greenwich, Connecticut, 1967), 122Google Scholar no. 121; Beare, W., The Roman Stage (3rd edn., London, 1964), 150Google Scholar.

⁸⁶ Ibid., 154.

⁸⁷ For a mime actor (?), carved as a bone knifehandle, see Henig, M. in Millett, M. and Graham, D., Excavations on the Romano-British Small Town at Neatham, Hampshire 1969–1979, Hampshire Fid. Club & Arch. Soc. Monograph ser. 3 (1986), 127–8Google Scholar no. 440, fig. 87; on amber cf. Strong, D. E., Catalogue of the Carved Amber in the Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities, British Museum (London, 1966), 91–2Google Scholar and pi. xl nos. 109–12; for heads of mimes in cameo cf. Babelon, E., Catalogue des camées antiques et modemes de la Bibliothèque Nationale (Paris, 1897), 175Google Scholar and pi. xxxviii no. 320; Berry, B. Y., Ancient Gems from the Collection of Burton Y. Berry (Indiana, 1969), 126Google Scholar no. 231; Gramatopol, M., Les Pierres gravées du cabinet numismatique de l'Académie Roumaine, Coll. Latomus 138 (Brussels, 1974), 89Google Scholar and pi. xxxi no. 671; Henig, M., A Corpus of Roman Engraved Gemstones from British Sites, Brit. Arch. Rep. 8 (2nd edn., Oxford, 1978), 274Google Scholar and pi. liii no. 741 (=id., op. cit. (note 84), no. 13, from Lincoln).

⁸⁸ For cameos of masked actors, see Eichler, F. and Kris, E., Die Kameen im Kunsthistorischen Museum, Wien (Vienna, 1927), 76Google Scholar and pi. 12 no. 63; Walters, H. B., Catalogue of the Engraved Gems and Cameos, Greek, Etruscan and Roman in the British Museum (London, 1926), 343Google Scholar no. 3630 (pi. xlii) and no. 3631. References to drama on intaglios from Roman Britain are discussed by Henig, M. and Wilkins, R., Antiq. J. lxii (1982), 382–3Google Scholar.

⁸⁹ Bushe-Fox, J. P., Fourth Report on the Excavations of the Roman Fort at Richborough, Kent, Soc. Antiq. London Res. Rep. 16 (1949), 150Google Scholar and pi. lv no. 262 (=Henig 1978, op. cit. (note 87), 252, no. 522, pi. xvi); Richter, G. M. A., Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. Catalogue of Engraved Gems, Greek, Etruscan and Roman (Rome, 1956), 128–9Google Scholar no. 639, pi. lxxii.

⁹⁰ In addition to Lincoln and Brough, Caistor is only a few miles away. For the Brough inscription, cf. R.I.B. 707 and Wacher, J., The Towns of Roman Britain (London, 1975), 393–7Google Scholar and pi. 77.

⁹¹ Bath Archaeological Trust, Acton Court (Bath, 1986).

⁹² White, G. S. J., ‘An early Renaissance stone polyhedral sundial’, Antiq. Horology, xvi (1986), 139–44Google Scholar.

⁹³ North, J. D., ‘Nicholas Kratzer—the King's Astronomer’, Studia Copemica, xvi (1978)Google Scholar.

⁹⁴ Strong, R., The Renaissance Garden in England London, 1979), 38Google Scholar.

⁹⁵ The author is grateful to F. R. Maddison for this information and other help in identifying the Acton dial.

⁹⁶ Dr A. R. Somerville, F.S.A.Scot., has calculated a latitude of 5166 degrees±(mean of 18 measurements ± standard error) with 95 per cent confidence limits of 5043 degrees-52–90 degrees.

⁹⁷ The author is most grateful to Paul Drury, F. S. A., for inviting him to comment on the sundial, which with Acton Court itself is now the property of English Heritage (H.B.M.C.E.). The illustrations were kindly provided by English Heritage, fig. 5 being drawn by Margaret Mahoney.

⁹⁸ I am grateful to Canon Peter Hawker, Mgr Francis Bartlett, Father Fred Turner and Mr Robert Charleston for their useful comments and advice.

⁹⁹ Sotheby's, Sale Catalogue of Highly Important English and Foreign Silver (London, 17 June 1971), lot no. 166Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁰ Oman, Charles, English Church Plate 597–1830 (Oxford, 1957), 45–6Google Scholar (Oman group IX covering the period 1507–40).

¹⁰¹ Jackson, C. J., English Goldsmiths and their Marks (London, 1905), 99Google Scholar.

¹⁰² Rademacher, F., Die DeutschenGldser des Mittelalters (Berlin, 1933)Google Scholar, pi. lg, and communication from Robert Charleston.

¹⁰³ Oman, op. cit. (note 100), 44.

¹⁰⁴ Ibid, 215. Before the Reformation the sick laity would not, of course, have received communion in both kinds.

¹⁰⁵ Antiq. J. lxiv (1984), 413–14Google Scholar, 423–4. pl LVIII.

¹⁰⁶ Yee, Ip, Chung-kuoyii tiao. Chinese Jade Carving (Hong Kong, 1983), n. 4Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁷ Li Chi, chap. ‘P'ing-i’ transl. by Hansford, S. Howard in his Jade Essence of Hills and Streams. The von Oertzen Collection of Chinese and Indian Jades (Cape Town, 1969)Google Scholar, epigraph.

¹⁰⁸ Mathieu, Rémi, Etude sur la mythologie et I’ethnologie de la Chine ancienne. Traduction annotée du Shanhai jing, Mémoires de l'lnstitut des Hautes Études Chinoises 22 (Paris, 1983)Google Scholar, 1, 14, 28, 64 et passim.

¹⁰⁹ Hansford, op. cit. (note 107), A 34–5; Loehr, Max, Ancient Chinese Jades from the Grenville L. Winthrop Collection in the Fogg Art Museum (Harvard, 1975)Google Scholar, Neolithic? no. 4, Western Chou nos. 203–9, Eastern Chou nos. 340–1, 345; Lefebevre-d'Argencé, R.Y., Treasures from the Shanghai Museum: 6,000 Years of Chinese Art (San Francisco, 1984)Google Scholar, no. 10; Tokyo National Museum, Nankin Hakabutsu Inten. Art treasures from the Nanjing Museum Collection (Tokyo, 1981), no. 4Google Scholar.

¹¹⁰ Hansford, op. cit. (note 107), A 48–52; Ip Yee, op. cit. (note 106), nos. 6, 8, 9.

¹¹¹ Thanks are due to Mr and Mrs S. D. Rendell for permitting the sherd to be exhibited and published in advance of their own report; to Jane Evans of Woodspring Museum, Weston-super-Mare, for arranging the temporary loan and for other facilities; and to our Fellow, Professor Howard Comfort, for his advice on the piece.

¹¹² cf. Somerset Arch. & Nat. Hist. Soc, Steep Holm, a Survey (1981), esp. figs. 1 and 3 for the location of the priory; the Arretine sherd is not distinguished at p. 11.

¹¹³ Brown, A. C., Catalogue of Italian Terra-Sigillata in the Ashmolean Museum (Oxford, 1968), pl. xii no. 46Google Scholar.

¹¹⁴ Alexander, C., Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum, the Metropolitan Museum, U.S.A. fasc. 9 (i) (New York, 1943), pi. 41–1Google Scholar.

¹¹⁵ Oxé, A., Corpus Vasorum Arretinorum, edited by Comfort, H. (Bonn, 1968), xxxiGoogle Scholar.

¹¹⁶ Rodwell, W. in Cunliffe, B. and Rowley, T. (eds.), Oppida in Barbarian Europe, Brit. Arch. Rep. Suppl. ser. 11 (Oxford 1976), 303–9Google Scholar, map fig. 44. The Alchester piece (Ashmolean Catalogue, no. 25) is unexceptionally Italian but is not individually noticed by Rodwell. Hull, M. R. in Clifford, E. M., Bagendon: a Belgic Oppidum (Cambridge, 1961), 202–11Google Scholar, claimed to recognize a few scraps of genuine Arretine in a mostly south Gaulish series, but all was far too comminuted for certainty. Note that a few rather fine decorated fragments in Bristol City Museum, catalogued next to material from the Neronian station of Sea Mills, have no ascertainable provenance. The Rodborough (Glos.) piece seems unlikely to be Italian and again is undecorated.

¹¹⁷ Boon, G. C., Antiq. J. lvii (1977), 10–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On the shipment of Arretine to northern regions by sea ‘as articles of trade or as ship's furniture, or both,’ see Oxé, ed. Comfort, op. cit. (note 115), xxx.

¹¹⁸ I am grateful to Peter J. Woodward and the Trust for Wessex Archaeology for information and permission to publish ahead of the final report on the site, and to our Fellow, Robert Wilkins, for the photograph. For an interim publication of the site, see Woodward, P. J., Davies, S. M. and Graham, A. H., ‘Excavations on the Greyhound Yard Car Park, Dorchester, 1984’, Proc. Dorset Nat. Hist. & Arch. Soc. cvi (1984), 99–106Google Scholar.

¹¹⁹ Ibid., 103 (Building 5); the context has been provisionally dated to the late third century or the fourth century A.D.

¹²⁰ Allason-Jones, L., ‘A lead shrine from Wallsend’, Britannia, xv (1984), 231–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar, see pi. XII.

¹²¹ Ibid., pi. xi.

¹²² Frere, S. S., ‘Roman Britain in 1984’, Britannia, xvi (1985), 285–6Google Scholar, fig. 19.

¹²³ Marien, M. E., Belgica Antiqua. L’Empreinte de Rome (Antwerp, 1980), 206 illus., 124Google Scholar.

¹²⁴ Acts 19.23–39.

¹²⁵ Allason-Jones, op. cit. (note 120), 232 cites a door from a shrine in a fourth-century context in the Vindolanda vicus. Other such fragments elsewhere may certainly have been overlooked.

¹²⁶ Gordon, R. L., ‘The real and the imaginary. Production and religion in the Graeco-Roman world’, Art Hist, ii (1979), 5–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fox, R. Lane, Pagans and Christians (Harmondsworth, 1986)Google Scholar, chap. 4 esp. 133–5,158–62.

¹²⁷ Marinos, Proclus 30. This was a dream-experience but none the less real for that.

¹²⁸ Bánki, Z., La Collection du Musée Roi Saint Étienne (Székesfehérvái, 1972), 42Google Scholar no. 29 (also 43 no. 30 depicting Venus); de Ridder, A., Les Bronzes antiques du Louvre, ii: Les Instruments (Paris, 1915), 197Google Scholar and pi. 122 no. 3766 acquired at Smyrna. Allason-Jones, op. cit. (note 120), cites the Gorsium figures.

¹²⁹ Toynbee, J., ‘A Londinium votive leaf or feather and its fellows’, in Bird, J., Chapman, H. and Clark, J., Collectanea Londiniensia, Studies Presented to Ralph Merrifield, London & Middlesex Arch. Soc. Spec. Pap. 2 (1978), 128–47Google Scholar.

¹³⁰ Ibid., 138 no. 22; cf. Wheeler, R. E. M., Maiden Castle, Dorset, Soc. Antiq. London Res. Rep. 12 (Oxford, 1943), 131Google Scholar and pi. xxxix.

¹³¹ Boon, G. C., ‘Some Romano-British domestic shrines and their inhabitants’, in Hartley, B. and Wacher, J., Rome and her Northern Provinces (Gloucester, 1983), 33–55Google Scholar. Fellows may recall the silver ring with aedicula which I exhibited at a ballot in 1985 and which I discussed with reference both to Demetrius the silversmith and to the Wallsend and Wroxeter shrines as a manifestation of personal piety: Henig, M. and Chapman, H., ‘A Roman silver ring from London’, Antiq. J. lxv (1985), 455–7Google Scholar.

¹³² Pevsner, N., Herefordshire (Harmondsworth 1963). 139.Google Scholar

¹³³ British Museum MLA 1987,1–3,1.

¹³⁴ Doubleday, ‘Catalogue of English personal seals’ (unpubl. MS), letter 5, p. 4, no. 95.

¹³⁵ Warlop, E., Flemish Nobility before 1300 Kortrijk, 1975), 1041Google Scholar.

¹³⁶ D'Arcq, M. Douet, Archives de l'Empire: inventaires et documents: collection des sceaux, (Paris, 1863), no. 741Google Scholar.

¹³⁷ Demay, G., Inventaire des sceaux de la Flandre, 1 (Paris, 1873), no. 303Google Scholar.

¹³⁸ Adelaide's seal is ibid., no. 238 and Alix's seal is Douet d’Arcq, op. cit. (note 136), no. 614.

¹³⁹ The seals are ibid., nos. 713, 724.

¹⁴⁰ de Gray Birch, W., Catalogue of Seals in the Department of Manuscripts in the British Museum, (London, 1892)Google Scholar, no. 6719. See also Exhibition Catalogue, Age of Chivalry: Art in Plantagenet England 1200–1400 (Royal Academy of Art, 1987), no. 142.

¹⁴¹ British Museum ML A 1986,6–4,1 (Sotheby's 22 April 1986, lot 183).

¹⁴² I am grateful to Dr Brian Spencer, F.S.A., for his help with the history of the find, and to Nicholas Griffiths for permission to reproduce his drawing.

¹⁴³ It is often extremely difficult to distinguish between different organic materials where small surface-abraded finds are concerned. The knight was examined microscopically and analysed by X-ray diffraction in the British Museum Laboratory by Dr Richard Burleigh, F.S. A., with the help of Dr Juliet Clutton-Brock, F.S.A., of the Zoology Department of the British Museum (Natural History). Their opinion is that the carving is probably of antler, since Haversian canals are absent, i.e. it is not of skeletal bone, and the pitted appearance of parts of the back is not characteristic of ivory.

¹⁴⁴ See Exhibition Catalogue, The Golden Age of Anglo-Saxon Art 966–1066 (British Museum, 1984), no. 119; Exhibition Catalogue, English Romanesque Art 1066–1200 (Arts Council of Great Britain, 1984), nos. 180, 210, 220–21.

¹⁴⁵ Copenhagen, Nationalmuseet, Inv. 5075–5077. See most recently Liebgott, N.K., Elfenben—fra Danmarks Middelalder (Copenhagen, 1985), 42–5Google Scholar, pis. 36–8. For my attribution of the Copenhagen reliefs to an English sculptor, see the Royal Academy of Art's Exhibition Catalogue, Age of Chivalry, op. cit. (note 140), nos. 307–9.

¹⁴⁶ For the Paris group, see most recently D. Gaborit-Chopin in Exhibition Catalogue, Les Fastes du Gothique. Le Siècle de Charles V (Paris, Galeries nationales du Grand Palais, 1981–2), nos. 134–8Google Scholar.

¹⁴⁷ e.g., ibid., no. 18.

¹⁴⁸ Cambridge University Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, 1913.362 (given by Sir Arthur Evans): width (max.) 80 mm., perhaps from Cambridge. My thanks to Mary Cra'ster for this information and for providing the photograph (pl. xlb).

¹⁴⁹ See Cheetham, F., English Medieval Alabasters (Oxford, 1984), 20–7Google Scholar, for a discussion of the alabaster ensembles and their polychromy. For polychromy on Gothic ivories, see most recently Gaborit-Chopin, D., Ivoires du moyen age (Fribourg, 1978), 15–16Google Scholar, 153 (pi. 230), 208 (nos. 229–30); Randall, R. H. Jr, Masterpieces of Ivory from the Walters Art Gallery (Baltimore/New York, 1985), 186–7Google Scholar.

¹⁵⁰ For a discussion of Gothic ivories and England, see my introduction to the Catalogue for the Royal Academy of Art's English Gothic Exhibition, op. cit. (note 140). I see no reason to accept as ‘English’ an appliqué group of the Deposition in the Victoria and Albert Museum (A 38–1940); it has been attributed to England on stylistic grounds, see Porter, D. A., Ivory Carving in Later Medieval England, 1200–1400 (Ph.D. thesis, State University of New York at Binghamton, 1974Google Scholar, publ. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan), 111–12, no. 44.

¹⁵¹ The mail is represented by the so-called ‘banded mail’ technique, in which horizontal rows of vertical curved lines are separated by narrow bands. This is now generally accepted as being no more than a conventional representation of the standard interlinked ring construction.

¹⁵² For a discussion of armour of this type with particular reference to its representation on English effigies, see Norman, A. V. B., ‘Two early fourteenth century military effigies’, Church Monuments. J. Church Monuments Soc. i (1) (1985), 10–19Google Scholar.

¹⁵³ See Coales, J. (ed.), The Earliest English Brasses, Monumental Brass Soc. (London, 1987), 96–7Google Scholar.

¹⁵⁴ Norman, op. cit. (note 152), 13–15.