Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-gq7q9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-19T11:12:53.510Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

II. FINDS REPORTED UNDER THE PORTABLE ANTIQUITIES SCHEME

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 November 2023

John Pearce
Affiliation:
Department of Classics, King's College London  john.pearce@kcl.ac.uk
Sally Worrell
Affiliation:
Portable Antiquities Scheme, Institute of Archaeology, University College London  s.worrell@ucl.ac.uk
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Type
Roman Britain in 2022
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

The Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS) was established in 1997 as an initiative to record archaeological objects found by members of the general public. Following a pilot phase, it was extended to all of England and Wales from 2003 onwards.Footnote 1 From 2004 surveys of Roman-period finds documented by the PAS have been published in Britannia. This twentieth annual report briefly summarises the general character of Roman finds reported in 2022 and publishes significant individual artefact discoveries recorded by Finds Liaison Officers (FLOs).Footnote 2

OVERVIEW

In 2022 18,466 objects of Roman date were documented by the PAS. Since a single record may sometimes document more than one item, above all in cases of coin hoards as well as in assemblages of ceramics or building materials, the total number of objects as usual exceeds the number of records made in the year (13,658). These quantities resemble those for 2021. These totals continue to be lower than those recorded in the years preceding the COVID-19 related lockdowns which began in March 2020.Footnote 3 The results for 2022 likely indicate continuing impact of the pandemic both on the discovery of objects, on their reporting and on the work of FLOs in documenting them. The spatial distribution of the finds reported in 2022 across England and Wales closely resembles the distributions attested in previous years. The highest numbers of objects were reported from counties in eastern and central southern England.Footnote 4 In Wales, northern and western England, the numbers of artefacts documented and of records made are smaller: most of the unitary authorities where ten or fewer Roman-period objects were recorded in 2022 are located in these areas. The most important factors responsible for this distribution of reported artefacts remain as follows: the circulation and deposition of metal objects in the past; historic and current land-use, including agricultural practice, and the distribution of heavily urbanised areas (with the partial exception of London); constraints on metal-detecting linked to land-use and its consequent uneven intensity.Footnote 5

Discoveries of coins and brooches as ever significantly outnumber those of other Roman artefacts. 12,881 coins were recorded in 9,608 records (of ‘coins’ and ‘coin hoards’), a somewhat smaller percentage (c. 70 per cent) of individual objects than most years. With the addition of the those recorded in 2022, approximately 430,000 Roman coins have now been recorded, as documented in these annual summaries. This number continues to reflect both the numerical preponderance of coins among objects discovered and the emphasis of the PAS on recording assemblages of Roman coins in toto.Footnote 6 36,900 brooches have been documented by the Scheme since 2003, including the 1,812 further examples recorded in 2022. This total comprises brooches with date spans across the late Iron Age–Roman transition as well as those dated within the Roman period proper.Footnote 7 The distribution of brooch finds continues to follow well-established patterns, larger numbers being documented in eastern and in (some) southern counties than in northern and western England and Wales.Footnote 8 As in previous years, this disparity is complemented by significant regional variability in the ratio of coin to brooch finds. In particular, in much of Wales and adjacent English counties, especially in the north-west Midlands, the ratio of brooches to coins continues to be significantly higher than the average.Footnote 9

ARTEFACT DESCRIPTIONS

The following entries publish highlights among the past year's finds recorded by members of the PAS and Treasure Department at the British Museum.Footnote 10 The objects are selected for their contribution to the study of the material and visual culture of Roman Britain, in particular where new discoveries extend understanding of object form, typological and decorative variability and/or distribution. They are arranged in approximate geographical sequence, from northern to south-western England. The reference number associated with each record is the unique identifier which can be used to consult individual object records on the PAS website: www.finds.org.uk. Some entries report objects also treated as Treasure cases and are therefore also designated with their Treasure number in the format of year (20XX) and reference number (TXX).Footnote 11

The 23 copper-alloy, silver and gold artefacts included in this report were made between the late first millennium b.c. and late Antiquity, and belong to various functional categories, including figurines representing divine beings and animals, vessel mounts, furniture fittings and a likely staff terminal, horse harness pieces and items for adorning the human body, including rings, brooches including likely imported examples, sometimes with a military connection, and a hair pin, and tools for modifying personal appearance, including a nail cleaner and small knife handle as well as a possible oil container in anthropomorphic form. These discoveries illustrate the diversity of style and motif documented in portable metal objects from Roman Britain.

NORTH YORKSHIRE

(1) Conistone with Kilnsey (SWYOR-A187CC) (fig. 1)Footnote 12 A copper-alloy Trompetenmuster brooch 34 mm long, 21.6 mm wide and weighing 7.2 g. The openwork brooch is well preserved with an uneven light green patina and some traces of white metal on the upper surface. It has a roughly drop-shaped overall form, combining three trumpet motifs forming two loops. One loop is formed by two trumpets joined at their wider flaring mouths; their other terminals connect to the third trumpet which curves back on itself, swelling into a wide mouth, to close the second loop. The pin, mostly preserved, extends along the long axis of the brooch, its hinge being housed in a double lug beneath the conjoining trumpet mouths. The catch plate, partly preserved, is located beneath the wide mouth of the third trumpet.

FIG. 1. Conistone with Kilnsey, brooch (No. 1). Scale 1:1 (photo: I. Whitehead). (© West Yorkshire Archaeology Advisory Service)

This brooch finds parallels with others formed by two or more conjoined trumpet motifs. One such was also documented in 2022 from Long Bennington (LIN-6267B8), Lincs, somewhat bigger (39 mm long) and formed by two trumpet motifs set back-to-back, curving onto themselves as the loops of a figure-of-eight. This brooch type has a strong connection with the Roman army. Most with known provenance are documented on or in the hinterland of German and Danubian frontier sites, the largest group being from Zugmantel.Footnote 13 An exceptional variant, configuring multiple trumpets as a swimming duck, was excavated from a ditch fill of Severan date at Vindolanda.Footnote 14 The brooch form strongly echoes the much more numerous Trompetenmuster harness mounts of mid-second- to early-third-century date, also associated with the Roman army in the same regions, again especially well attested at Zugmantel, as well as similar belt fittings.Footnote 15 The Long Bennington brooch specifically resembles a particular mount from the Netherlands also based on double-ended trumpets.Footnote 16

(2) Clapham cum Newby (SWYOR-8F0CFF) (fig. 2).Footnote 17 A copper-alloy and white metal repoussé disc plate brooch, of mid-imperial date, 36.5 mm in diameter and weighing 10.2 g. The brooch comprises a flat circular plate, the surface of which carries fragments of an applied repoussé white metal disc, possibly silver. This disc carries some surviving traces of stamped decoration. At its centre is a triskele motif, comprising a central circle and satellite smaller roundels, all holding dot-formed rosettes. Concentric mouldings, both simple and beaded, surround the triskele and extend to the brooch edge. Beneath, one lug survives of the pair which housed the hinge of the now lost pin. The rivet which attached it is visible on the brooch's upper surface, as is that on the opposite side for the catchplate, the latter curled to hold the pin. Adjacent is a hole, perhaps once occupied by an earlier fastening. In the centre of the brooch back is a further copper-alloy rivet, flattened flush with the surface, likely attaching the applied decoration. A second brooch was found in close association (SWYOR-8EF89F), very similar in form and dimensions (36.3 mm diameter) and with traces of the curvilinear decoration on the applied disc. The lugs are better preserved and the flattened rivet near the centre of the reverse is more evident.

FIG. 2. Clapham cum Newby, brooch (No. 2). Scale 1:1 (photo: I. Whitehead). (© West Yorkshire Archaeology Advisory Service)

The discovery in close proximity of a pair of near-identical brooches may indicate their derivation from a burial, though paired brooches are not often documented in funerary settings, especially in northern England where grave furnishing is typically limited. The plate brooch with repoussé triskele decoration is a widely documented form, dated by Mackreth to between a.d. 150 and 250.Footnote 18 Similar brooches (eight) from the possible votive deposit at Piercebridge also carry elaborate triskeles, though these cover more of the surface, lack the rosettes and are edged by a single border.Footnote 19 A few closer comparanda have been documented. In particular the notably better preserved brooch from distant Allithwaite by Grange over Sands, Cumbria (with silver appliqué) (LANCUM-D19609) reveals the full detail of the decoration, the rosettes being framed within a scroll which extends the brooch's surface, ending in trumpet terminals.Footnote 20 A brooch from nearby Ingleborough (LANCUM-58DE68) may be of similar type, but too little is preserved to state this with confidence. Mackreth and others propose a military association for brooches of this general type, in particular with reference to Severan refurbishment of northern garrisons.Footnote 21 There is no nearby known fort in this case, though the findspot is not far from the hypothesised but unproven route from Skipton running west across the Pennines towards Settle and beyond.

WEST CHESHIRE

(3) Kingsley (LVPL-C7C9F6) (fig. 3).Footnote 22 An incomplete copper-alloy figurine of a youthful satyr with strong affinities with the image of Bacchus, 115 mm high and weighing 154.1 g. The right arm and leg as well as left foot are missing but the figurine is otherwise well preserved, if worn, with its patina a smooth green, save at the break point on the right hip.

FIG. 3. Kingsley, figurine (No. 3). Scale 1:2 (photo: H. Beeton). (© National Museums Liverpool)

The figure is naturalistically rendered though wear has blurred surface detail. The head tilts to the left, encircled by a wreath tied at the nape of the neck, with clumps of fruit beneath the leaves which cover the ears, likely of ivy, the more common plant for garlands in Bacchic images. Clumps of hair frame the face, drawn up into a top knot above the temple, with shallow curving lines representing strands which radiate from the crown. The figure is naked except for a nebris (conventionally the skin of a deer or fawn) in the form of a quite thin band which wraps the body from right shoulder to left hip; at the latter point the hide's surface detail is better preserved, especially the fur rendered as short parallel incisions. The torso is well modelled, as is the musculature of the rounded buttocks and surviving leg. A small tail loops upwards from the base of the spine. The left arm extends to the figure's left from the shoulder, its hand now empty.

This figurine is similar in all but one respect to others identified as Bacchus, a god not often represented in this form in Britain or neighbouring provinces.Footnote 23 Its specific form and pose, of a smooth-cheeked youth standing naked save for a nebris with one arm lowered, the other extended, is paralleled in two groups of statuettes, one of an adult Bacchus, the other younger. Examples from Germany of the second group are especially similar, though they hold a drinking horn in the left hand while the Kingsley figure's hand once more likely held a thyrsus (staff).Footnote 24 A better preserved statuette from Ashby cum Oby, Norfolk (NMS-038224), shows a similar figure in a dancing pose, as does another figurine from Haynford.Footnote 25 Both may represent the god, especially the former, but they have previously been identified as satyrs. In the case of the Kingsley figurine the tail points more strongly towards identification as a satyr. The latter, often not dissimilar in form to the god himself, are attested in multiple roles within the Bacchic retinue, as dancers, flute players, wine carriers or pourers, sometimes propping up the drunken Bacchus, sometimes intoxicated themselves.Footnote 26 Although statuettes are uncommon, the proliferation of Bacchic motifs across Roman objects is widely attested by the PAS; satyrs join other hybrid creatures and party animals as single decorative motifs on mounts for furniture, vessels, and vehicles.Footnote 27

DENBIGHSHIRE

(4) Llandegla (LVPL-D780C9) (figs 4a and 4b).Footnote 28 A copper-alloy trumpet brooch dating to c. a.d. 75–175, near complete (lacking its pin) with a smooth dark-green patina. The brooch is 101.6 mm long and weighs 53.2 g. The long bow is D-shaped in section. It is divided in two parts by a large semi-circular waist moulding, itself framed on either side by three smaller fluted mouldings. Above this waist the bow widens into the trumpet head from which a wide circular head-plate extends (diameter 31.8 mm), ending in a small suspension loop. Set off-centre on the head-plate, near the loop, is a rosette, standing proud with a rising stem at its middle. To either side are eight stamped circles. On the reverse is the hinge for the missing pin. Below the waist the bow (with three longitudinal ribs) tapers to a rounded foot knob, separated by further fluted mouldings. The long triangular catchplate survives complete.

FIG. 4a. Llandegla, trumpet brooch (No. 4). Scale 1:2 (photo: H. Beeton). (© National Museums Liverpool)

FIG. 4b. Distribution of trumpet brooches (published examples) documented by the PAS (map by Edwin Wood, base map from Ordnance Survey Open Data).

More than 3,000 trumpet brooches are now documented by the PAS, distributed across Wales and England. The findspot of this example lies on the western margin of the type's main concentration in Midland and north-eastern England and East Anglia, not far from one of the rare documented brooch production sites at Prestatyn.Footnote 29 This brooch, the largest (by length) documented among these 3,000+ examples, and larger than almost all documented by Mackreth, has affinities with sub-types mainly found in the western part of this area. Its general form recalls Bayley and Butcher's group C and Mackreth's group 1.x.2, though the head-plate is larger than in other examples of this type and is responsible for the brooch's exceptional size.Footnote 30 The rosette on the Llandegla brooch's head-plate is also paralleled in a cluster of similar trumpet brooches, albeit sometimes simplified into a more wheel-like motif. These too are usually larger than average. They include brooches from nearby Gwernafield (WREX-302324, 85.2 mm) and Gresford (LVPL-68B8B4, 81 mm), as well as two from the Little Orme's Head hoard near Llandudno, respectively 90 mm and 99 mm long, one missing its rosette. More distant examples are documented to the west from Pentir, Gwynedd (GAT-BE46B4) and from Segontium fort on the Menai strait, the latter with the same stamped circle decoration around the margin of the headplate, and to the east from Ilam, Staffs (LVP-3056D6).Footnote 31 The Gwernafield and Ilam brooches share a larger suspension loop. This represents a further sub-group within the noted regional variability of the trumpet type.Footnote 32

The rosette motif on the head plate or loop is shared with other trumpet brooches which stand out through their form or decoration. A part-preserved silver example from Ulgham, Northumberland (NCL-609BF6) carries a rosette motif on the bow adjacent to a square head plate characteristic of brooches labelled by Mackreth as ‘very large with extraordinary features’, including the ‘giants’ from Great Chesters and Perth, both over 170 mm long.Footnote 33 Another member of the latter category, found at Auldearn, Highland, also carries stylised rosette-like motifs on the head plate.Footnote 34 The diameter (10.1 mm) of a detached silver rosette recently documented at Chilcomb, Hants (BERK-B79E76) suggests that it too once belonged a very large trumpet brooch.Footnote 35

EAST YORKSHIRE

(5) Ellerker (LVPL-080ED2 / 2022T261) (fig. 5).Footnote 36 A complete sheet-gold oval ring setting depicting Leda and the swan in repoussé. It is 13.4 mm long and weighs 0.5 g. A raised border runs around the setting, within which Leda is seated, facing left, her left leg before her right, with Jupiter in swan form perched on her left leg. He faces Leda, his wings folded behind the body, neck arched and head extended forwards, almost touching Leda's. Beneath the pair is a partial stamped beaded border.

FIG. 5. Ellerker, ring setting (No. 5). Scale 2:1 (photo: H. Beeton). (© National Museums Liverpool)

Among precious metal ring settings the same subject also features on examples from Elms Farm, Essex (silver-gilt) and Great Walsingham (silver).Footnote 37 This is a further instance of the ‘immense succès’ of this mythological coupling across multiple Roman media, also rendered in other ring settings, for example glass and jasper intaglios from Pentney, Norfolk (NMS-49D8E7/ 2006T305) and Springhead.Footnote 38 The general use of precious metal settings to embellish finger rings is also documented in numerous similar-sized examples recorded by the PAS. Mythological subjects include Mercury, Vulcan, Ganymede and Jupiter, and Pan.Footnote 39 Dextrarum iunctiones (shaking hands motif) are also a widely documented motif in this medium from southern Britain and beyond.Footnote 40

WAKEFIELD

(6) Hemsworth (LIN-49BDD1/2022T537) (fig. 6).Footnote 41 An incomplete silver-gilt bow brooch with affinities with the Polden Hill type, carrying extensive curvilinear decoration, 37.9 mm long, 32.7 mm wide and weighing 27.7 g. The brooch is decorated on the front and sides; the plain reverse is bordered by straight mouldings. At the head the brooch's wings are cylindrical, with the casing partly broken away on the reverse, revealing fragments of spring and axis bar. A hole allowing the axis bar to pivot survives on one wing cap. From the back of each cap, edged with mouldings, extends a small hook, one better preserved than the other. From the head the bow curves and then tapers with a ridged spine towards a now missing foot. The pin too is lost and a worn remnant of the catchplate survives beneath the bow.

FIG. 6. Hemsworth, brooch (No. 6). Scale 1:1 (photo: L. Brundle). (© Portable Antiquities Scheme)

The wing caps are decorated with leaf-framed fans, centred on the hole for the axis bar. From the caps extends curvilinear decoration which develops along the front and sides of the brooch, symmetrically arranged around its central axis. The sinuous motifs are created through mouldings which comprise a central ridge running between two channels. These sometimes run in tandem to shape larger forms along the front of the brooch. These larger forms flare and swell in higher relief as they converge at the centre of the bow and then taper and contract as they fall away at the sides, culminating in two opposed high relief S-scrolls before the bow's broken end. The decoration on the sides of the brooch stands in counterpoint to the front. Mouldings are shallower and narrower, with curves sometimes echoing the larger forms, but sometimes undercut to form cusps, punctuating the momentum of the decoration as it scrolls along the brooch.

In form this brooch's closest parallels lie with Polden Hill types, although it is difficult to assign to a particular category.Footnote 42 It thus likely dates from the later first to later second century a.d. Examples in silver are uncommon, accounting for only five of c. 2,800 Polden Hill brooches recorded by the PAS, some of which echo the Hemsworth brooch's form.Footnote 43 Its decoration recalls that on other brooches with extensive curvilinear motifs, for example Aesica types, as exemplified in the eponymous brooch from Great Chesters and those from Backworth.Footnote 44

LINCOLNSHIRE

(7) Near Bassingham (LIN-AED713/ 2022T877) (fig. 7).Footnote 45 A gold finger ring, near complete, with a bezel set with a dark red intaglio. The external diameter of the small ring is 18.8 mm, with a bezel 11.6 mm long. The ring weighs 3.4 g. The hoop comprises three strands, separating to form openwork shoulders which carry opposed S-shaped filigree decoration with a gold pellet at both ends of each scroll. The bezel takes the form of an oval box-setting with a rope-work flange, likely soldered to a backplate formed by the hoop where it widened. The oval intaglio, perhaps re-used from an earlier ring, is set flush with the bezel and is incised with a Capricorn facing left, its details (bifurcated tail, horns) quite schematically rendered but clearly visible.Footnote 46

FIG. 7. Near Bassingham, finger ring (No. 7). Scale 3:2 (photo: L. Brundle). (© Portable Antiquities Scheme)

The form of the ring with its flaring shoulders, box bezel with rope-work collar and decoration with filigree and pellets suggests a late Roman date. The rings in the Thetford hoard, dated to the final decades of the fourth century or early fifth provide parallels for this example, as do other likely fourth-century gold rings in the British Museum collection, for instance from Richborough and from Odiham, Hampshire.Footnote 47 A cluster of examples from North Yorkshire show general similarities with this ring.Footnote 48 Other rings distributed over a wider area parallel its individual details, including filigree, pellets and elaborate openwork shoulders.Footnote 49 Collectively the substantial number of late Roman gold rings now documented by the PAS expands the repertoire of forms of this bright, often polychrome and highly textured personal ornament.

(8) Long Bennington (LIN-2B92B3) (fig. 8).Footnote 50 A near-complete and well-preserved if worn copper-alloy hairpin. The shaft and terminal combined measure 106.3 mm. The pin weighs 18.9 g. The terminal takes the form of a double-handled vessel or cantharus, closed at the top, short handles between its neck and shoulders and a foot formed by one of two circular mouldings which separate terminal from shaft. The shaft's sides are slightly faceted, the parts closer to the terminal carrying repeated close-set diagonal lines. The shaft tapers to a point, slightly broken. With its terminal in object form this hairpin joins a group represented by a limited number of other examples (Group 18C, ‘object-headed pins’) in Cool's classification of hairpins from Roman Britain.Footnote 51 More widely in the empire pins with a cantharus terminal are documented in other materials, bone, gold, and jet, although not commonly in copper alloy.Footnote 52 In Britain the form is best documented in jet hairpins from burials in late Roman York, especially from the Railway Station cemetery where one pair was found fixed in a well-preserved head of hair in a plaster burial.Footnote 53 While the cantharus motif lends itself to adaptation as a terminal, like the frequent conical and knobbed types, it may have Bacchic associations, given its origins in the double-handed drinking cup linked to the symposium and Dionysus. Such symbolism was more consciously activated, perhaps, in funerary contexts like those from York.Footnote 54

FIG. 8. Long Bennington, hairpin (No. 8). Scale 2:3 (photo: L. Brundle). (© Portable Antiquities Scheme)

(9) Empingham (LIN-86E933) (fig. 9).Footnote 55 A small copper-alloy knife handle with a bird's head terminal, quite well-preserved, with a dark-brown patina and some patches of active corrosion. The handle is 33.7 mm long and weighs 15 g. It is approximately rectangular in form and cross-section. The stylised bird's head is represented by a short curved beak, eye and tripartite crest. On each side the eye is formed by a large circular recess, perhaps originally inlaid with glass or enamel. The eye is framed by an incised line which scrolls outwards to extend across the handle, separating two curvilinear zones, one decorated with basket-weave hatching (one side more systematically than the other), the other plain. Corroded remnants of the iron blade/tang are visible on both the narrow sides of the handle. Traces of a likely rivet can also be seen on both sides.

FIG. 9. Empingham, knife handle (No. 9). Scale 1:1 (photo: L. Brundle). (© Portable Antiquities Scheme)

The stylised animal form, incised curvilinear decoration and cross-hatching place the handle in the decorative tradition of the late Iron Age, finding parallels in mirror decoration, for example.Footnote 56 As a decorated knife handle the object is hard to parallel among documented late Iron Age artefacts, and belongs broadly to the much larger corpus of Roman-period small knives of fixed- and folding-blade form. No specific parallel to the decoration of the Empingham handle is known among these but small knife handles with stylised avian and canine terminals are documented in both excavated and PAS examples.Footnote 57

NORTHAMPTONSHIRE

(10) Whilton (ESS-2E252D) (fig. 10).Footnote 58 A copper-alloy sub-rectangular mount, cast in the form of a bearded and horned male face, its details quite finely modelled, largely intact if worn and disfigured by extensive corrosion. The mount is 47 mm wide, 50.3 mm high and weighs 85.8 g. The beard is rendered as thick clumps and the hair as sinuous locks which rise from the forehead, mirroring the spiralling ridged horns on either side of the face. The latter is mask-like, with a prominent brow ridge, worn nose and round eyes with carefully rendered lids and pupils. The mouth is a narrow slot obscured like other adjacent detail by corrosion. The reverse of the mount is concave, with the cavity to the rear containing a projection (rivet?) set within whiter metal (lead?) and a mass of iron corrosion.

FIG. 10. Whilton, Jupiter Ammon mount (No. 10). Scale 2:3 (photo: L. Brundle). (© Portable Antiquities Scheme)

The face is recognisable as that of Jupiter Ammon, from its distinctive combination of Jupiter's bearded features with Ammon's ram horns. This is the first documented example from Britain of a mount of mid-imperial date (c. a.d. 100–300) noted across the Roman world, including a large group of 12 near-identical mounts from Banasa, Morocco, probably from a chest.Footnote 59 The Banasa mounts are a little larger, with a face set in higher relief on a disc 7.4 cm in diameter, but the mask itself has the same diameter as the Whilton face. However, the face is modelled with greater restraint in the Banasa mounts and most other examples, in contrast to the fuller hair and larger horns of the Whilton piece. Given the size and form of the Whilton mount, it too is likely to be a furniture decoration. The motif has an imperial pedigree, being adopted into Augustan imagery from Hellenistic ruler portraiture, most famously in the marble clipei from the Forum of Augustus in Rome and related monuments.Footnote 60 It was copied in images linked to imperial authority, by client kings like Cunobelinus on their coins or on military dona.Footnote 61 It then proliferated onto diverse media, including other portable objects, for example, lamps, rings, intaglios and button-and-loop fasteners, becoming a general decorative and possibly apotropaic motif.Footnote 62

(11) Titchmarsh (NARC-E3BCDD) (fig. 11).Footnote 63 A complete copper-alloy strap mount, well preserved with a smooth green-brown patina and traces of enamel. It is 71.8 mm long and weighs 46.1 g. It comprises an openwork loop and a rectangular plate, connected by a right-angled collar.

FIG. 11. Titchmarsh, strap mount (No. 11). Scale 2:3 (photo: E. Cox). (© Northamptonshire County Council)

The loop frames a face-like configuration of two roundels and an openwork mouth-like pelta. The strip forming the loop itself widens with distance from the collar and on its expanded zone carries enamel inlay. This starts on each side with a triangular motif, followed by five rectangular cells, inlaid with yellow enamel. These frame three roundels, similarly inlaid. The roundels within the loop are similar but larger, their channels being inlaid with red enamel, their inner recesses with yellow. The collar expands where it joins the plate, being thickened on the front with a strip-like moulding with a rectangular strap slide projecting from the back. Below a further row of three similar roundels, also inlaid with red and yellow enamel, is framed by two incised lines.

The mount has strong affinities with lyre-shaped strap mounts dated from the later first century b.c. to first century a.d., most being documented in the East Midlands and East Anglia.Footnote 64 An association with horse harness is likely. The prongs which project from other examples have suggested their use as cheek pieces to discourage horses in harness from turning their heads and thus to ensure greater control of vehicle direction, a possibility supported by the discovery of a mirror-image pair in the Wood Dalling hoard, Norfolk.Footnote 65 In several respects, however, the Titchmarsh example stands out among these mounts, expanding their formal and decorative repertoire. It lacks the studs or prongs characteristic of most, its openwork loop is circular rather than ‘lyre-form’ and it places the decorated roundels within the loop, creating the distinctive face-like appearance noted above.

NORFOLK

(12) Wood Dalling (NMS-AE7F1C) (fig. 12).Footnote 66 A copper-alloy figurine of Mars, c. 74 mm high, worn with a mid-green patina, the left hand partly and the right hand wholly lost to damage. Both legs are bent, the left placed forward, giving the appearance of a figure in motion. The left arm is held downwards and closer to the body, with the hand likely once resting on a now lost object. The right arm extends outwards, once perhaps holding a spear. On the slightly outsize head the eyes are large, with recessed pupils; the nose and mouth are almost lost to wear. The figure is clean-shaven and the hair is hidden by a very worn crested helmet. The stocky figure is clad in armour, most readily identifiable by the pteryx formed by a single row of fabric strips beneath a belt rendered as a narrow moulding with diagonal incisions. Grooves on the upper arm represent the tunic edge beneath what must be a cuirassed torso. There is limited modelling of the leg musculature and no visible detail indicating greaves or footwear.

FIG. 12. Wood Dalling, figurine (No. 12). Scale 2:3 (photo: A. Marsden). (© Norfolk County Council)

The armour allows the figure to be identified as Mars, one of 18 examples of figurines of this god in standing form now recorded by the PAS, alongside 24 documented from other sources.Footnote 67 The armoured version of Mars is best known as the Mars Ultor type, frequent among PAS examples.Footnote 68 The Wood Dalling figurine exemplifies one plain variant of this type, with an undecorated cuirass, a single row of lappets (strips) in the pteryx and clean-shaven features in place of the full beard.Footnote 69 The stance of the god is a little distinctive, seemingly almost moving rather than in the characteristic contrapposto pose and he lacks the greaves seen on most examples. With a similar example from London it nonetheless illustrates the presence of this widely documented variant in Britain.Footnote 70

ESSEX

(13) Near Southend (ESS-3DB994) (fig. 13).Footnote 71 A near complete copper-alloy vessel 8.5 cm high in the form of the bust of a youthful bearded man emerging from a waisted calyx. Two integrally cast suspension loops rise from the top of the head on either side of an aperture. The handle once secured by these is lost. A lug survives from the now lost hinged lid.Footnote 72 The bust lacks visible detail, but the head is carefully modelled with sub-Saharan African features. The hair's curls are formed from parallel strips incised with transverse lines, arranged in opposed pairs. One set of strips radiates from the aperture at the top of the head, extending halfway down it on back and sides and to the temples in front. The strips’ angled ends interlock with those of a lower row of similar strips, bringing the hair to the neck. The facial hair is rendered by clumps of curling hair on the lower jaw, a short moustache and a beard (not well preserved) forming opposed corkscrew curls on the chin. The worn face is sensitively modelled, smooth-cheeked, with a broad nose and quite deepset eyes with heavy lids.

FIG. 13. Near Southend, anthropomorphic vessel (No. 13). Scale 2:3 (photo: C. Rangel de Lima). (© Portable Antiquities Scheme)

Anthropomorphic vessels of this form are conventionally designated as balsamaria, hypothesised to have contained either aromatic resins, perfumes or perfumed oil, incenses, or even spices, etc. In the absence of a watertight stopper their storage of a dry substance may be more likely than that of a liquid, although the recurrent funerary association with strigils may support the possibility that they contained oils.Footnote 73 Almost 300 were identified in a survey completed almost 30 years ago. This type in the form of a black youth is one of the commonest, documented in more than 100 examples, some as in this case with stylised facial hair, others without.Footnote 74 Whatever the finesse of the modelling, this individual's features show somatic stereotypes widely used in figural art on Roman artefacts to identify individuals as an ‘Aethiopian’ or Aethiops, i.e. an inhabitant of sub-Saharan Africa, especially regions towards the Red Sea, as well as of regions beyond it to the Indian Ocean.Footnote 75 Such images are thus ‘figures of appropriation’, their range of reference conditioned by the setting of the image or its context of use. In this case, therefore, they might signify the distant origins of the vessel's contents, or perhaps served as proxy images for the enslaved individuals whose labour and looks were likely exploited in the grooming routines in which those contents were used.Footnote 76 The clustering of findspots of this and other copper-alloy balsamaria (in anthropomorphic form or with relief decoration) on the Thames estuary points to the imported status of these vessels, thought to be made in an as yet unidentified western provincial setting.Footnote 77

HERTFORDSHIRE

(14) Puckeridge (BH-747C63) (fig. 14).Footnote 78 A fragmentary copper-alloy object in the form of a horned human head, 33.8 mm long, 19.6 mm wide and weighing 11.2 g. Its curvature suggests that this may be a finger-ring bezel, with part of the shoulder preserved, although the break points are set slightly asymmetrically in relation to the face. Patination of these suggests breakage in antiquity. Large eyes dominate the broad face, delineated by a thicker moulding. Wear has removed most of the nose and mouth. The slightly curved horns project forwards over the face, tapering towards their tip, turning inwards, perhaps part of a headdress. Short diagonal incisions on the moulding framing the face may indicate hair, fur or fabric.

FIG. 14. Puckeridge, ring fragment (No. 14). Scale 1:1 (photo: M. Fittock). (© Portable Antiquities Scheme)

It is not clear if this is a hybrid creature or human. Representations of possibly horned human figures are uncommon in late Iron Age and early Roman art and lack a close resemblance to this object. For instance, the pelta-form crests which spring from the centre of the forehead on bucket mounts, for example from burials at Baldock or Welwyn, are very different.Footnote 79 The anthropomorphic vessel fitting from Boughton Aluph, Kent, and rein ring fitting from Aldborough have horn-like projections sprouting from either side of the head, as does a distinctive bucket mount from the Wallingford area (BERK-783763), but the resemblance is otherwise very limited.Footnote 80 Similarly there is little more than a passing echo of other horned figures, such as the famous antlered beings on the Gundestrup cauldron or in stone relief form on the Pilier des Nautes.Footnote 81

WEST BERKSHIRE

(15) Streatley (SUR-C884C4) (fig. 15).Footnote 82 A copper-alloy component of a strap fastener for horse harness, 34.3 mm long and 15.5 mm wide. This comprises a loop with a frame of keyhole-shape, with lobes from top and sides, the former in trefoil form, the latter curling back on themselves. This is attached to a collar which carries a strip of silver inlay, flanked by moulded ridges. On the other side of the collar projects a small loop which was part of a hinged connection to the main body of the fastener, now lost, which would have been fixed to the strap by studs. The keyhole aperture forms the ‘female’ part of a ‘bar-and-keyhole’ strap fastener used on horse harness. A T-shaped projection on an opposing strap terminal would have fitted through the keyhole slot.Footnote 83

FIG. 15. Streatley, strap fastener (No. 15). Scale 1:1 (photo: S. Maslin). (© Portable Antiquities Scheme)

The survival of many strap fittings of this type from military sites allows it to be dated to the first century a.d., with examples surviving from contexts early in the century onwards.Footnote 84 For instance, a complete fastener survived among the famous silvered harness fittings from Xanten.Footnote 85 The presence of inlay is quite widely documented. Further military-associated examples are also known from Camerton and Caerleon.Footnote 86 Several others have been recorded by the PAS from central and southern England, usually also of the keyhole element. As in this case these have sometimes become detached at the hinge from the main body of the fastener. These extend the range of findspots beyond known garrison contexts, one (Farnborough, W. Berks) lying only c. 10 km to the west of the Streatley fastener.Footnote 87 Among these the strap fastener from Owslebury deserves particular mention for its preservation and context. It preserved the bar which connected to the strap as well as the keyhole-shaped fitting and traces of foliate decoration on a silvered surface. Its findspot lies within a landscape with a large body of metal-detected finds of late Iron Age and very early Roman date but so far lacking any evidence for a garrison site.Footnote 88

KENT

(16) Chilham (KENT-E3CD00) (fig. 16).Footnote 89 Part of the left side of a Jupiter figurine, modelled with a high degree of naturalism with a pale-green patina. The object is 84 mm long and weighs 71.3 g. The fragment includes the clothing draped over the left shoulder of the figure and hanging down its side as well as the left arm, visible from the elbow. The upper arm is held close to the side while the forearm turns forward and outward, the wrist turned towards the body and the hand closed on a now lost object. The clothing is draped over the left shoulder and forearm, its falling folds being exceptionally well modelled, dropping at their furthest down the side to at least the calf. At the side the curves are longer and gentler; at front and back, where the cloak is hitched higher, the folds end in shorter zig-zags.

FIG. 16. Chilham, figurine fragment (No. 16). Scale 2:3 (photo: L. Rogerson). (© Portable Antiquities Scheme)

Despite the absence of the rest of the statuette, the figure to which this draped limb belongs can be identified with some confidence. At first glance the most likely candidates are Jupiter and Mercury, both of whom are sometimes represented in standing pose with a cloak suspended from their left shoulder and arm. In both cases the cloaks can be either more voluminous or more exiguous, suspended either from the arm from shoulder to elbow, or only from the shoulder.Footnote 90 In general, however, the arrangement of the folds corresponds very closely to the widely distributed statuette type showing Jupiter with thunderbolt in his right hand and sceptre in left.Footnote 91 The pose of the Chilham fragment also helps to associate it with the same Jupiter type, in which the god's left arm is often raised to allow the hand to grasp a spear or sceptre high up its shaft; for statuettes of Mercury, cloaked or uncloaked, the left arm and hand are never raised in this way.Footnote 92 The separate casting of this element of arm and cloak is not uncommon, being documented in other very similar fragments of statuettes as well as complete examples, the latter being especially well illustrated in figurines from Zollfeld (Kärnten), Auvernier (Neuchâtel) and Brigetio (Szőny).Footnote 93 The most striking characteristic of the Chilham fragment is the sophistication of hanging drapery, expressed in the layering and folding of the cloth. Comparison with a fragment of drapery from St Albans, also from the left side, well realised but without the same complexity, serves to highlight its quality, rarely seen in bronzes from Britain.Footnote 94 This elegance, also characteristic of many part-statuettes of this type noted above, would conventionally prompt its identification as a likely import.Footnote 95

SURREY

(17) Limpsfield (SUR-5770C2) (fig. 17).Footnote 96 A copper-alloy bracelet segment, with some traces of gilding, heavily worn and broken at the edges, probably from a hinged-bezel type bracelet. The fragment is 28.8 mm long and weighs 5.9 g. On both sides are double-lugged hinges with perforations for an axis bar, serving to connect this segment to the bracelet proper. Both hinges are decorated with oblique incision. The slightly convex disc which forms most of the fragment carries worn concentric decoration, the circular mouldings being separated by narrow channels. Some mouldings are thinner and plainer, others are thicker with ropework decoration formed by incision set in alternate directions. At the centre is a circular insert in a different material framing a central recess for a now lost setting.

FIG. 17. Limpsfield, bracelet fragment (No. 17). Scale 3:2 (photo: S. Maslin). (© Surrey County Council)

No exact parallels have been found but surviving whole and part bracelets with hinged medallions or central segments hint at the original form of bracelets of this type. A silver armlet identified as an armilla from the Boudican-period Fenwick hoard at Colchester has a hinged medallion as its focus, while a round medallion set with an intaglio figuring Jupiter is the focal element of a mid-imperial silver bracelet from the Dalton area, Cumbria.Footnote 97 Various examples of whole and part preserved thin bracelets with enamelled decoration from Gaul exemplify more modest examples in copper alloy.Footnote 98 Gold and silvered examples are documented elsewhere.Footnote 99

HAMPSHIRE

(18) Mortimer (BERK-AE0EAD / 2021T458) (fig. 18).Footnote 100 A sheet-gold disc 22.2 mm in diameter, 0.7 mm thick and weighing 0.7 g, carrying a repoussé portrait image tightly framed within a beaded border, with a second circle of larger beading (damaged) forming the outer border. The male portrait head faces right, with a laurel wreath with ribbons at the nape of the neck. The hairstyle and facial features resemble those of Julio-Claudian emperors.

FIG. 18. Mortimer (No. 18). Scale 1:1 (photo: P. Smither). (© Portable Antiquities Scheme)

The object is difficult to identify confidently both in terms of medium and subject. A small number of metal sheet images made as impressions from Roman imperial coinage are documented for Britain.Footnote 101 However, size and detailing in this case indicate that it was not made from a coin rubbing, although it is likely inspired by a coin image. It has some affinities with other small-scale imperial portraits associated with portable objects. One such group, showing specifically the Julio-Claudian house and found entirely in the north-west provinces, comprises the decorative discs used as belt and scabbard fittings which emphasise the emperor's martial qualities by including attributes like the laurel wreath, armour, etc., also often drawing on coin types for their inspiration.Footnote 102 The other is a more miscellaneous group of imperial figures, distributed over a longer period, which show the emperor's profile image on pendants, rings and so on.Footnote 103 Examples from Britain include a ring from Clifton Down, Bristol, with a portrait of Nero as the device on the bezelFootnote 104 and a very low relief portrait of Faustina Maior set in a possible belt fitting from Colchester.Footnote 105 As for the subject, the portrait most closely resembles Augustus and Tiberius but is hard to identify with confidence. Whatever its specific character, the disc provides a further example of small-scale representations of the Julio-Claudian emperors circulating in Britain.Footnote 106

WILTSHIRE

(19) Tisbury (OXON-DA8EA4) (fig. 19).Footnote 107 A complete decorated nail cleaner made from copper-alloy sheet, well preserved with a brown-green patina. It is 58.5 mm long, and weighs 1.9 g. From the suspension loop the nail cleaner narrows before swelling towards the centre, then narrowing again towards the forked terminal, cut by a short triangular slot. The nail cleaner carries incised decoration on all sides from top to tip. On one of the wider surfaces this includes alternating cross-hatching and sets of parallel transverse incised lines, on the other transverse incised lines only. The narrow sides also have approximately matching similar alternation of motifs.

FIG. 19. Tisbury, nail cleaner (No. 19). Scale 1:1 (photo: E. Caswell). (© Portable Antiquities Scheme)

The Tisbury nail cleaner is not easily assigned to one specific group. Its closest affinities are with the nail cleaners from nearby Wanborough characterised by Eckardt and Crummy as the ‘long exuberantly decorated’ group. It also the echoes the decoration on the ‘Late Roman tubular nail cleaner’ group, a widely distributed group with stratified examples from late fourth- and fifth-century a.d. contexts.Footnote 108 Along with further new finds from 2022, for example a very well preserved nail cleaner of the ‘early Roman Bone Disc’ type from South Marston, nr Swindon (HAMP-5112A2), it adds to the typological and decorative diversity of the more than 600 examples documented by the PAS.Footnote 109 The identification of these objects of later Iron Age and Roman date as nail cleaners is conventional, rather than definitively established, but they are a key part of the repertoire of instruments created in this period for bodily modification and/or possible medical purposes.

GLOUCESTERSHIRE

(20) Dursley (GLO-7A3DE9) (fig. 20).Footnote 110 A copper-alloy convex circular mount bearing the head of Medusa, generally well preserved with a dark green patina but with some patches of active corrosion, modelled in detail. The mount is 73 mm in diameter and weighs 162 g. The gorgon's staring face stands in high relief. The well-shaped eyes are framed by mouldings for eyelids; sheet silver is applied to the eyes, with a central perforation exposing the copper alloy beneath as the pupil. Corrosion has removed much of the nose and mouth. Thick rope-like locks, modelled in high relief, sweep back from the face at the top and surround it at the sides. In places these serpentine locks turn in across the face where they are sometimes broken off. Over the temples corrosion and damage make the arrangement harder to unravel, but there appears to be a central parting, though it is hard to identify traces of wings. Around the edge of the mount are five small holes for attachment. The reverse is concave and plain but carries concentric lines and a small central hollow from its making on a lathe.

FIG. 20. Dursley, Medusa mount (No. 20). Scale 2:3 (photo: K. Adams). (© Bristol City Council)

As an apotropaic and general decorative motif the Medusa face is widely attested on portable objects, including those documented by the PAS.Footnote 111 The closest comparanda are other mounts which in principle can be distinguished by size and method of attachment, phalerae being wider and lighter and generally attached to their backing by pinning or stitching, harness mounts by their studs or loops for attachment and furniture mounts with evidence for rivets or solder.Footnote 112 Large roundels also occur on other objects, for example as medallions in handled pans.Footnote 113 In practice, size is the main attribute for differentiation, with phalerae in particular being distinctly larger than others.Footnote 114

The size of the other 16 examples documented by the PAS suggests that they too belong to the mount category, their largest dimensions typically lying between 30 and 45 mm; they are also flatter, though few have evidence for fixing. There is lead packing within the cavity of the mount from South Ferriby, North Lincs (NLM-C8D017) and traces of rivets from Stockbury, Kent (KENT-036B4C), Acton, Cheshire East (LVPL-3A0412) and Naburn, York (NLM-E131A5). A single attachment hole is pierced on the edge of the mount from Halton, Merseyside (LVPL-1DBDD5). Embellishment as here usually involves the application of other metals though a rare example from Cynwyl Gaeo, Carmarthenshire (SUR-1354F7) frames the gorgon's face with enamelled decoration. Only the furniture mount from Beeston with Bittering, Norfolk (NMS-650F10), approaches the size of the Dursley piece, 50 mm in diameter, also in high relief and with traces of turning.Footnote 115

(21) Cotswolds (GLO-452F33) (fig. 21).Footnote 116 A copper-alloy terminal in owl form, 68 mm tall in its entirety, quite worn but with some surface detail surviving. The owl stands on a hollow waisted pedestal that expands into a broader flange (41 mm in diameter). The bird stands upright, its body tilted a little towards its left. A pronounced grooved bill and above all the large eyes dominate the face – inlay has been lost from the eye cavity which perforates the head. Above the eyes some traces of feathering, rendered as vertical grooves, survive on the pronounced eyebrows. On the stocky body slight traces of feathering are also visible as repeated semi-circles below the neck. The wings are folded on the bird's back with the tail projecting to the rear; traces of feathering are just visible but detail is mainly lost to wear. A circular hollow above the right leg may be an artefact of the casting process. The cross-hatching which renders feathering is much better preserved on the stout legs. Both feet are visibly divided into the three forward claws.

FIG. 21. Cotswolds, owl terminal (No. 21). Scale 2:3 (photo: K. Adams). (© Bristol City Council)

As an attribute of Minerva, owls are sporadically documented in small-scale form, for example as plate brooches, occasionally as pin heads as well as mounts and figurines.Footnote 117 The closest parallel in this case lies with the owl from Willingham Fen, argued from the association with copper-alloy binding and terminals to have been a possible mount for a sceptre.Footnote 118 Examples from Oedenburg (Bas Rhin) and Chester convey an impression of the original appearance of such figurines when the inlay (respectively glass and enamel) survives in situ in the eye cavity.Footnote 119

(22) Wickwar (GLO-0ED7EB) (fig. 22).Footnote 120 A copper-alloy figurine in the form of a standing boar, 50 mm long. The animal's feet are attached to a disc with a hole in the centre, perhaps allowing for its attachment. The body is oval in cross-section with limited modelling of anatomy or surface detail. The most prominent feature is the crest-like mane which runs the length of the back from ears to tail. The limited modelling of the head includes raised ears, large eyes with channels framing cavities once likely inlaid, a short snout with two recesses for nostrils and a hint of a slot mouth with short worn tusks to either side. The face is quite short compared to boar figurines, more characteristic of a domesticated pig.Footnote 121 Apart from the short tail and testicles hanging between the back legs there is limited modelling of limbs and torso.

FIG. 22. Wickwar, boar figurine (No. 22). Scale 2:3 (photo: K. Adams). (© Bristol City Council)

Finds documented by the PAS have contributed 15 further examples to the corpus of boar figurines of Iron Age and Roman date.Footnote 122 In the absence of stratigraphic evidence the precise date of individual examples is hard to establish.Footnote 123 These representations are almost all highly schematised, emphasising the mane which characterises the adult male wild boar, long snout and raised ears, as well as short legs, exemplified in a figurine from Great Sturton, Lincs; occasionally hatching indicates the coat, for instance on figurines from Colchester and East Herts.Footnote 124 Boars in protome form emphasise the same features, especially the height of the mane.Footnote 125 While the Wickwar boar has clear affinities with this wider group it also has unusual details. The sex of the boar is otherwise only occasionally indicated by modelling of the genitals, as in this case. With one exception, from Birch, Essex (ESS-C5CB81), it is the only boar figurine with evident signs of inlay in the eyes. It is also difficult to parallel the attachment on the base, unless this is a casting artefact.Footnote 126 The naturalism of the Lexden tumulus figurine, persuasively identified by Foster as an import, remains exceptional in this corpus.Footnote 127

DEVON

(23) Sparkwell (DEV-6D331A) (fig. 23).Footnote 128 An enamelled copper-alloy brooch of probable second-century a.d. date, largely complete save for its pin, of hybrid form. It measures 68 mm long and weighs 47.3 g. Broad wings house the casing for the hinge. Traces of the latter are visible within the casing in the form of iron corrosion product. The pin is also visible at the end of the wing. The wings carry three recesses on either side of the bow, their inlay mostly lost but likely enamel. Some traces of ropework mouldings are visible around the cavities. The triangular head-plate carries a crescent recess with enamelling in alternating colours (red and blue, the blue having mostly decayed), above which is a circular setting. On both sides there is a loop at the junction between head plate and wings and crescent projections closer to the headplate's tip. The bow has a marked L-profile, flaring trumpet-like where it meets the headplate. Ropework moulding is visible at the junction of bow and wings. The main part of the bow expands to carry tripartite plate-like decoration. In the centre of the bow is a large disc with concentrically arranged channels separated by reserved metal and set with enamelled squares in alternating colours, yellow and red in one, red and blue in another. At the centre is a poorly preserved setting seemingly with further white and blue enamel. Between this disc and the head is a smaller disc, with a channel framing a central enamelled setting and crescent projections on either side. At the foot, separated by a broad waist, is a further, larger, disc, also flanked by crescent projections and again with a channel framing a central enamelled setting. On the reverse a medial ridge expands to form a deep catchplate.

FIG. 23. Sparkwell, plate brooch (No. 23). Scale 1:1 (photo: R. Webley). (© Somerset County Council)

This brooch is hard to classify or parallel and appears experimental in form, combining elements of two brooch types. In its general form it can partly be described as a developed T-shaped brooch (in Butcher and Bayley's classification), with a T-form lent by the wide wings complemented with enamelled decoration, a type documented more commonly in south-west England.Footnote 129 However the expansion of the bow decoration is much more exuberant than is typical for brooches of this type. Instead its spirit is strongly paralleled in enamelled plate brooches of continental type, especially the tripartite type with central disc decorated with coloured squares set in a circular arrangement and smaller elements at head and foot, formed by double crescents. The focus of the 100+ examples known lies in eastern and northern France, Switzerland and the Rhineland.Footnote 130 Continental plate brooches of this and other types are very rare in the south-west peninsula, with the major exception of the votive assemblage at Nor'nour, Scilly, among which is one of these.Footnote 131 Another bow brooch from Nor'nour also offers a partial parallel, with its echo of the same decorative scheme, with a central disc with an enamelled rosette and smaller studs placed at the head and foot of the bow.Footnote 132 Wherever it was made, the Sparkwell brooch fits a wider preference for brooches with polychrome decoration in coastal zones in south-west England.Footnote 133

References

1 S. Worrell, ‘Roman Britain in 2006 II. Finds reported under the Portable Antiquities Scheme’, Britannia 38 (2007), 303.

2 Following the practice initiated in 2019 we no longer present artefact numbers by county, since consistent and recurring regional differences in artefact frequencies have been established in previous Britannia reports on PAS finds up to 2018.

3 2021, 20,634 objects, 9548 records; 2020, 21,432 objects, 10,767 records; 2019, 29,571 objects, 18,088 records.

4 For example the highest numbers of records were recorded in the following counties: Lincolnshire (1,388); Norfolk (1,094); Oxfordshire (1,062); Suffolk (982); Hampshire (778).

5 K. Robbins, ‘Balancing the scales: exploring the variable effects of collection bias on data collected by the Portable Antiquities Scheme’, Landscapes 14 (2013), 54–72; K. Robbins (ed.), Portable Antiquities Scheme: A Guide for Researchers (2014), http://finds.org.uk/documents/guideforresearchers.pdf; R. Bland et al., ‘The Treasure Act and Portable Antiquities Scheme in England and Wales’, in G. Moshenska (ed.), Key Concepts in Public Archaeology (2017), 107–21.

6 S. Moorhead and P. Walton, ‘Coins recorded with the Portable Antiquities Scheme: a summary’, Britannia 42 (2011), 432–7; J. Pearce and S. Worrell, ‘Roman Britain in 2021 II. Finds reported under the Portable Antiquities Scheme’, Britannia 53 (2022), 473. Hoards and important individual coin discoveries are noted annually in the British Numismatic Journal's Coin Register. PAS hoard data continue to be used for the ‘Oxford Coin Hoards of the Roman Empire’ project: http://chre.ashmus.ox.ac.uk/content/about.

7 Pearce and Worrell, ibid., 474.

8 The following unitary authority totals illustrate this diversity: Lincolnshire 186; Suffolk 145; Wiltshire 84; Devon 13; Powys 8; Cumbria 3.

9 For example: Wales 50 brooch records, 81 coin records; Cheshire 10 brooches, 29 coins; Staffordshire 76 brooches, 50 coins; Shropshire 44 brooches, 30 coins; Worcestershire 83 brooches, 132 coins; Herefordshire 12 brooches, 15 coins. Cf. Pearce and Worrell, op. cit. (n. 6, 2022), 473–4.

10 The entries draw on but substantially revise and extend the information documented in the PAS database, adding discussion of the form, significance and context of individual discoveries, For additional detail and further images readers are referred to the online entry. Where objects are referred to with the prefix ‘Artefacts’, plus an alphanumeric identifier, we refer to Artefacts: Online Collaborative Encyclopaedia of Archaeological Small Finds http://artefacts.mom.fr/.

11 As ever we thank Martin Henig for his typical generosity in discussing many artefacts published here. We are also indebted to Dario Calomino, Glynn Davis, Hella Eckardt, Michel Feugère, Adam Gwilt, Francesca Lam-March, Sam Moorhead, Eleanor Ghey, Edwin Wood, and the editor, Will Bowden, for comments and references, and to Edwin Wood for Figure 4b. Any errors are of course our own responsibility.

12 Found by P. Law. Recorded by J. Tozer. J. Tozer (2022) SWYOR-A187CC: A Roman brooch https://finds.org.uk/database/artefacts/record/id/1076398 [accessed 31 May 2023].

13 Rhine and Danube: Artefacts FIB-4794; J. Oldenstein, ‘Zur Ausrüstung römischer Auxiliareinheiten. Studien zu Beschlägen und Zierat an der Ausrüstung der römischen Auxiliareinheiten des obergermanisch-raetischen Limesgebietes aus dem zweiten und dritten Jahrhundert n. Chr.’, Berichte der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission 57 (1976), 272–3. Danube, S. Petković, Rimske fibule u Srbiji od I do V veka n. e. (2010), 176–7, T.XXXII; lower Rhine, S. Heeren and L. van der Feijst, Prehistorische, Romeinse en Middeleeuwse fibulae uit de Lage Landen (2017), 160–2, type 59a, pl. 58.

14 ‘Our curator's collection’, https://www.vindolanda.com/blogs/blog/our-curators-collection [accessed 8 April 2023].

15 Oldenstein op. cit. (n. 13), 203–7, Taf. 69–70; J. Nicolay, Armed Batavians. Use and Significance of Weaponry and Horse Gear from Non-military Contexts in the Rhine Delta (2007), 53, 63, pl. 78 (decorative horse gear fittings). For Trompetenmuster belt mounts recorded by the PAS, Pearce and Worrell, op. cit. (n. 6, 2022), 481–2, no. 7, Wetwang, E. Yorks (NLM-214DFB, with references, and P. Walton, ‘Military equipment and militaria’, in H. Eckardt and P. Walton, Bridge over Troubled Water: The Roman Finds from the River Tees at Piercebridge in Context (2021), 90–2, fig. 6.7C. A re-evaluation of finds from Britain in this style is in progress by Edwin Wood for his doctoral thesis, King's College London.

16 Artefacts APH-4022; E. Droberjar, ‘Objekt 63 auf der römischen Höhenbefestigung Mušov-Burgstall (Tschechische Republik)’, Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 24 (1994), 74–6; Nicolay ibid., 389, pl. 78, B15 195.12.

17 Found by E. Burrows. Identified by A. Downes and recorded by J. Scriven. J. Scriven (2022), SWYOR-8F0CFF: A Roman Brooch https://finds.org.uk/database/artefacts/record/id/1085703 [accessed 1 June 2023].

18 D. Mackreth, Brooches in Late Iron Age and Roman Britain (2001), Plate brooches Type 1f, 155, pls 104–5.

19 P. Walton, ‘Objects of personal adornment’, in H. Eckardt and P. Walton, Bridge over Troubled Water: the Roman Finds from the River Tees at Piercebridge in Context (2021), 56–7, NCL-5D6262 (fig. 4.2A) best shows the decoration.

20 A further brooch with rosettes, though not identical, is illustrated by Mackreth, op. cit. (n. 18), pl. 104, no. 12585.

21 Mackreth, op. cit. (n. 18), 155; Walton, op. cit. (n. 19), 118.

22 Found by G. Warburton. Identified and recorded by H. Beeton, thanked for discussion. H. Beeton LVPL-C7C9F6: A Roman Figurine (2022) https://finds.org.uk/database/artefacts/record/id/1069683 [accessed 5 February 2023]. The figurine has been donated to Chester Museum.

23 E. Durham, ‘Depicting the gods: metal figurines in Roman Britain’, Internet Archaeology 31 (2012) https://doi.org/10.11141/ia.31.2, 3.5; C.W.A. Veen, ‘Bacchus and Jupiter-Ammon, two bronze sculptures from Roman Nijmegen, the Netherlands’, BABESCH 89 (2014), 131–5.

24 Groups, I. Manfrini-Aragno Bacchus dans les bronzes hellénistiques et romains. Les artisans et leur repertoire, Lausanne (1987), ‘imberbe (A1a)’, 58–62, ‘enfant sous-groupe II (A1a)’, 124–5. Oberöfflingen (Rheinland-Pfalz), S. Faust, ‘Ein Streifzug durch die griechisch-römische Mythologie im Rheinischen Landesmuseum Trier Teil I: Zeus/Jupiter und seine Nachkommen’, Funde und Ausgrabungen im Bezirk Trier 52 (2020), 26, no. 20; Mainz, Manfrini-Aragno, ibid. 125, fig. 244.

25 Haynford, identified as Cupid in the British Museum catalogue (1853,0502.11) but convincingly claimed as a Bacchic figure, V. Hutchinson, Bacchus in Roman Britain. The Evidence for his Cult (1986), 207 (Me-16), see also Durham, op. cit. (n. 23), no. 422. Another possible satyr figurine, from Langford, Notts, in a different pose, with quiver (DENO-B2BE10).

26 E. Simon, ‘Silenoi’, LIMC Supplementum VIII (1997), 1108–33; E. Durham, ibid., 3.5; V. Hutchinson, ibid., 127.

27 e.g. furniture mounts, Llangristiolus (WREX-C91A0B), J. Pearce and S. Worrell, ‘Roman Britain in 2019 II. Finds reported under the Portable Antiquities Scheme’, Britannia 51 (2020), 447–8, no. 5; vehicle fittings, Framlingham, Suffolk (ESS-9049F3), Pearce and Worrell, ibid, 456–7, no. 15; other mounts, North Clifton, Notts (SUR-2DFE62), Pearce and Worrell op. cit. (n. 6, 2022), 486–7, no. 12; Little Witchingham, Norfolk (NMS-F35D92), J. Pearce and S. Worrell, ‘Roman Britain in 2016 II. Finds reported under the Portable Antiquities Scheme’ Britannia 48 (2017), 448, no. 17, also A. Marsden, ‘Satyrs, leopards, riders and ravens. Anthropomorphic and zoomorphic objects from Roman Norfolk; a safari through the county's religious landscape’, in S. Ashley and A. Marsden (eds), Landscapes and Artefacts. Studies in East Anglian Archaeology presented to Andrew Rogerson (2014), 59–61; knife handles, Akeley (BUC-6FDA52), S. Worrell and J. Pearce ‘Roman Britain in 2013 II. Finds reported under the Portable Antiquities Scheme’, Britannia 45 (2014), 418, no. 19.

28 Found by K. Stamper. Recorded by H. Beeton. H. Beeton (2022) LVPL-D780C9: A Roman brooch https://finds.org.uk/database/artefacts/record/id/1071249 [accessed 15 March 2023].

29 Prestatyn, J. Bayley and S. Butcher, Roman Brooches in Britain: A Technological and Typological Study based on the Richborough Collection (2004), passim. For the trumpet brooch distribution, and the impact of data collection methods on the distribution of brooch types, H.E.M. Cool and M.J. Baxter, ‘Brooches and Britannia’, Britannia 47 (2016), 90–2.

30 J. Bayley and S. Butcher ibid., 93; Mackreth, op. cit. (n. 18), 123, pl. 83, no. 5242, noting that this however is a sprung example.

31 Little Orme's Head hoard, two brooches, rosette lost (NMGW acc. nos 86.24H/9 and 10), R.J. Brewer, ‘Entry 45. The Little Orme Hoard’, in M. Redknap (ed.), Discovered in Time; Treasures from Early Wales (2011), 104–5, with thanks to A. Gwilt for the reference; Segontium, R.E.M. Wheeler, Segontium and the Roman Occupation of Wales, Y Cymmrodor 33 (1923), 137, fig 58.3; Pentir (GAT-BE46B4), 96 mm (from image).

32 Cool and Baxter op. cit. (n. 29), 90–2.

33 Mackreth op. cit. (n. 18), 128, nos 5297 and 5279; Perth, J.G. Callander ‘Notice of a harp-shaped fibula found on the Estate of Polmaise, Stirlingshire, and of another in the Perth Museum’, Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 52 (1917), 26–31; Great Chesters, R.G. Collingwood, ‘Romano-Celtic Art in Northumbria’, Archaeologia 80 (1930), 51, ‘ A very large and very ugly example ’.

34 F. Hunter, ‘Roman Britain in 2014. I. Scotland’. Britannia 46 (2015), 286–8.

35 J. Bayley and S. Butcher, op. cit. (n. 29), 93, group D; Mackreth op. cit. (n. 18), 120–21, type 1.2c, pl. 81.

36 Recorded by H. Beeton. H. Beeton (2022) LVPL-080ED2: A Roman intaglio https://finds.org.uk/database/artefacts/record/id/105875 [accessed 15 April 2023].

37 H. Major, ‘Objects of personal adornment and dress’, in M. Atkinson and S.J. Preston, ‘Heybridge: A Late Iron Age and Roman settlement, excavations at Elms Farm 1993–5’, Internet Archaeology 40 (2015), 3.7, no. 478; J. Bagnall Smith, ‘Votive objects and objects of votive significance from Great Walsingham’, Britannia 30 (1999), 36, no. 32.

38 P. Linant de Bellefonds, ‘Leda. Epoque romaine et antiquité tardive’, LIMC VI Kentauroi et Kentaurides – Oiax (1992), 245; M. Henig, A Corpus of Roman Engraved Gemstones from British Sites (3rd edn), Oxford (2007), 35, no. 478.

39 Mercury, two from Wenhaston, Suffolk (2015T834/SF-8C5765; 2015T835/SF-8C48A2); near identical forms of Vulcan, Caistor area, Lincs (LIN-22EEF2) and Newark, Notts (DENO-C7EA54); Ganymede and Jupiter, Pulham Market, Norfolk, (2009T455/NMS-E3D804); Pan and a female figure (Coningsby, Lincs (2007T58/LIN-336194).

40 C. Johns, The Jewellery of Roman Britain (1996), 63, with references. Thetford, C. Johns and T. Potter, The Thetford Treasure (1983), 86–8, no. 10; Bradford Abbas, Dorset (2012T691/DOR-29D957), S. Worrell and J. Pearce, ‘Roman Britain in 2012 II. Finds reported under the Portable Antiquities Scheme’ Britannia 44 (2013), 375–6, no 30; Rowlands Castle, Hants (HAMP-FE167A); Bowerchalke, Wilts (WILT-DEB017). Dextrarum iunctio as motif, M. Meyr and C. Flügel. ‘Rezeption imperialer Bilderwelten am Limes – Römische Staats- und Siegesideologie im öffentlichen und privaten Kontext’, Saalburg Jahrbuch 61 (2022), 30–6.

41 Found by M. Kniaz and recorded by L. Brundle. L. Brundle (2022) LIN-49BDD1: A Roman Brooch https://finds.org.uk/database/artefacts/record/id/1067387 [accessed 5 May 2023].

42 e.g. Mackreth op. cit. (n. 18), type 4k, Vol. 1, 74, Vol. 2, pl. 48, nos. 2051–2; type X hybrid 1, Vol. 1, 81–2, Vol. 2 pl. 54, no. 13424.

43 Hunterson, Cheshire (2017 T524/LVPL-80B2F2) and Near Bungay, Suffolk (2004 T177/BM-BA087F).

44 Aesica brooch, Great North Museum NEWMA 1956.150.20.1; Backworth brooches, BM 1850,0601.15 and 16.

45 Found by P. Grice. Recorded by L. Brundle. L. Brundle (2022) LIN-AED713: A Roman Finger Ring https://finds.org.uk/database/artefacts/record/id/1079038 [accessed 8 March 2023].

46 For other examples of intaglios showing Capricorn from Britain, M. Henig, op. cit. (n. 38), 173, nos 663–6, 212, App., 202.

47 Thetford, Johns and Potter op. cit. (n. 40), 72, 86–8, nos 10–12; Richborough, BM 1936,0204.1; Odiham, BM 1865,1019.1.

48 Sedgeford, Norfolk (2022T425/ NMS-90F486); Carthorpe, N. Yorks (2022T772/YORYM-B6A9F2); Thirkleby High and Low with Osgodby, N. Yorks (YORYM-A9FC5D); South Kilvington, N. Yorks (SWYOR-146194).

49 Examples include rings from Tangley, Hants (HAMP-EC91E2/ 2014T12) with filigree, S. Worrell and J. Pearce, ‘Roman Britain in 2014. II. Finds reported under the Portable Antiquities Scheme’, Britannia 46 (2015), 378–9, no. 20; Bowes area (2019T20/DUR-885FC8), with pellets, J. Pearce and S. Worrell, ‘Roman Britain in 2020. II. Finds reported under the Portable Antiquities Scheme’, Britannia 52 (2021), 437–8, no. 1; Little Weighton area, E. Yorks, Pearce and Worrell, ibid., 443–4, no. 5 (2020T331/YORYM-98A607); Rolleston areas, S. Worrell and J. Pearce, ‘Roman Britain in 2011. II. Finds reported under the Portable Antiquities Scheme’, Britannia 43 (2012), 368, no. 11 (2011T804/ DENO-BC9E66) with elaborate openwork shoulders.

50 Found by J. Price. Recorded by L. Brundle. L. Brundle (2020), LIN-2B92B3: A Roman Hairpin https://finds.org.uk/database/artefacts/record/id/1015095 [accessed 8 March 2023].

51 H.E.M. Cool, ‘Roman metal hair pins from southern Britain’, Archaeological Journal 147 (1990), 168; for another example of a more common type, with a terminal in axe-like form, possibly made specifically as a votive, South Ferriby, N. Lincs (NLM-F24088).

52 D. Bartus A római kori csontfaragás és a kisművészetek összefüggései (Roman bone carving and the minor arts), PhD thesis, Eötvös Loránd University (2007), 137–43; for gold pins, including several examples from Pompeii, Artefacts EPG-4534.

53 L. Allason-Jones, Roman Jet in the Yorkshire Museum (1996), 39–40; RCHME, Eburacum Roman York (1962), 143.

54 Allason Jones, ibid., 16; Johns, op. cit. (n. 40), 142.

55 Found by G. Emms. Identified by L. Brundle. L. Brundle (2021), LIN-86E933: A Iron Age knife https://finds.org.uk/database/artefacts/record/id/1047569 [accessed 10 April 2023].

56 I. Leins and J. Farley, ‘A changing world, c.150 BC–AD 50’, in J. Farley and F. Hunter (eds), Celts, Art and Identity (2015), 124–7. For another example of mirror decoration on other artefacts, tweezers found with a decorated mirror from central Beds (BH-72C17B), Pearce and Worrell, op. cit. (n. 49, 2021), 447–9, no. 9.

57 Avian, Pearce and Worrell, op. cit. (n. 27, 2020), 455–6, no. 14, Cotton, Suffolk (SF-B59FE4), with references; canine, J. Pearce and S. Worrell, ‘Roman Britain in 2016 II. Finds reported under the Portable Antiquities Scheme’, Britannia 48 (2017), 452–3, no. 22, East Knoyle, Wiltshire (DOR-CA6972), with references. N. Hurt, ‘Toward a typology of hare and hound folding knife handles’, Lucerna 61 (2021) 7–11.

58 Recorded by C. Rangel de Lima. Identified by J. Pearce.

59 Artefacts APM-4059, C. Boube-Picot, Les bronzes antiques du Maroc, II. Le mobilier (1975), 309–13, with references, pl. 248–54; APM-4089, a larger example, more closely modelled on the type documented at Banasa, M. Feugère, ‘Militaria de Gaule méridionale, 19. Le mobilier militaire romain dans le département de l'Hérault (F)’, Gladius 22 (2002), 104–5, no. 114, fig. 15; N. Franken, ‘Die antiken Bronzen im Römisch-Germanischen Museum Köln. Teil 3. Fragmente von Statuen. Figürlicher Schmuck von architektonischen Monumenten und Inschriften. Hausausstattung, Möbel, Kultgeräte, Votive und verschiedene Geräte’, Kölner Jahrbuch 29 (1996), 163–4, no. 216, with many further examples.

60 E. Cousins, ‘An imperial image: the Bath Gorgon in context’, Britannia 47 (2016), 107–14.

61 F. Morris, ‘Cunobelinus’ bronze coinage’, Britannia 44 (2013), 27–83. Phalerae, Artefacts PHA-4021. S.F. Pfahl, ‘Das Silbermedaillon mit Satyrkopf aus Offenburg-Zunsweier’, Fundberichte aus Baden-Württemberg 33 (2013), 482–3.

62 e.g. button and loop fastener, Artefacts BTA-4001; lamps, Artefacts LMP-4716; rings, Artefacts BAG-4244; intaglios, Henig op. cit. (n. 38), 134, 352–3. General, Veen op. cit. (n. 23), 139–40.

63 Found by M. Day. Recorded by E. Cox. E. Cox (2022), NARC-E3BCDD: A Iron Age Strap Fitting https://finds.org.uk/database/artefacts/record/id/1054269 [accessed 15 April 2023].

64 Pearce and Worrell, op. cit. (n. 6, 2022), 475–6, no. 1.

65 Dr Pauline Norris, pers. comm., noted in H. Geake (2020), NMS-3E5C7E: A Iron Age Hoard https://finds.org.uk/database/artefacts/record/id/100283 [accessed 15 April 2023].

66 Found by P. Buckley. Recorded by A. Marsden. A. Marsden (2022), NMS-AE7F1C: A Roman Figurine https://finds.org.uk/database/artefacts/record/id/1079985 [accessed 15 April 2023].

67 Durham, op. cit. (n. 23), 3.14. The PAS total comprises figurines so far confidently identified as representing the god (standing), as well as 12 examples of the rider version, omitting several possible examples of both.

68 E. Simon and G. Bauchhenss, ‘Ares-Mars’, LIMC II Aphrodisias – Athena (1984), 516–17, for the Mars Ultor type (U), e.g. Beighton, S. Yorks (NMS-1CFD67), S. Worrell, ‘Roman Britain in 2008 II. Finds reported under the Portable Antiquities Scheme’, Britannia 40 (2009), 304–5, no. 20.

69 Simon and Bauchhenss, ibid., 519 for this ‘Mischtypus’. For further examples, H. Menzel, Die römischen Bronzen aus Deutschland III. Bonn (1986), 7, no. 13, Taf. 6 (Köln), 9, no. 16, Taf. 7 (Jülich), with references.

70 Durham, op. cit. (n. 23), no. 24 (London), 527 (Stow on the Wold, with a more complex pteryx).

71 Found by M. Smith. Recorded by C. Rangel de Lima. C. Rangel de Lima (2022), ESS-3DB994: A Roman Vessel https://finds.org.uk/database/artefacts/record/id/1082068 [accessed 2 June 2023].

72 A balsamarium from Aisey-le-Duc (Côte d'Or) offers a rare surviving example of the lid; L. Pressouyre, ‘A propos d'un “balsamaire” trouvé à Lamaurelle (L.-et-G.)’, Revue archéologique 2 (1962), 180.

73 V. Marti, ‘De l'usage des balsamaires anthropomorphes en bronze’, MEFRA 108 (1996), 985–91; H. Eckardt, Objects and Identities: Roman Britain and the North-Western Provinces (2014), 81–2. D. Agre, D. Dichev and G. Agre, ‘Roman balsamarium shaped as a male head in feline-skin cap from the territory of southeast Bulgaria’, American Journal of Archaeology 123.4 (2019), 693, for the association with strigils.

74 Marti, ibid, 991–2; Artefacts (BLS-4022) bearded; further examples with similar tufted beards are published by Pressouyre, op. cit. (n. 72), 166–8; Artefacts BLS-4023, without facial hair.

75 S. Bell, ‘Africans in Roman art and social practice’, in L.K. Cline and N.T. Elkins (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Roman Imagery and Iconography, Oxford (2022), 425–63.

76 Bell, ibid., 429; Eckardt, op. cit. (n. 73), 88–9.

77 London, D. Sankey, ‘Roman, medieval and later development at 7 Bishopsgate, London EC2: from a first-century cellared building to the 17th-century properties of the Merchant Taylors’ Company’, TLAMAS 53 (2002), 12–13, fig. 10); Petham, Kent, Bacchic thiasos (KENT-7D72A7), Worrell and Pearce, op. cit. (n. 40, 2013), 376–9, no. 32; Eckardt, op. cit. (n. 73), 87, fig. 3.8.

78 Identified and recorded by M. Fittock and R. Ellis-Haken. M. Fittock (2022), BH-747C63: A Iron Age Finger Ring https://finds.org.uk/database/artefacts/record/id/1077692 [accessed: 10 April 2023].

79 E.M. Jope, Early Celtic Art in the British Isles (2000), 93–4, pls. 135, 138, 140–1 (Aylesford), 144 (Baldock).

80 Jope, ibid., 100–1, pls 152b (Boughton), 156a–b (Aldborough).

81 Gundestrup cauldron, F. Hunter, M. Goldberg, J. Farley and I. Leins, ‘Celtic Arts in the long term: continuity, change and connections’, in J. Farley and F. Hunter (eds), Celts. Art and Identity (2015), 267–9; Pilier des Nautes, Ubi erat lupa Cernunnos-Block des Pfeilers der Nautae Parisiaci, http://lupa.at/19508.

82 Found by M. Washington. Recorded by S. Maslin. S. Maslin (2022), SUR-C884C4: A Roman Strap Fitting https://finds.org.uk/database/artefacts/record/id/1059380 [accessed 15 April 2023].

83 Nicolay, op. cit. (n. 15), 48, pl. 53.

84 M.C. Bishop. ‘Cavalry equipment of the Roman army in the first century A.D.,’ in J.C. Coulston (ed.), Military Equipment and the Identity of Roman Soldiers (1988), 103, 167–9, figs. 54–5.

85 Xanten, I. Jenkins, ‘A group of silvered horse-trappings from Xanten (Castra Vetera)’, Britannia 16 (1985), 149–50, fig. 14, three examples, two hinged.

86 Caerleon, E.M. Chapman, A Catalogue of Roman Military Equipment in the National Museum of Wales (2005), 136, Te04, cast as one piece; Camerton, R. Jackson, Camerton: A Catalogue of the Late Iron Age and Early Roman Metalwork (1990), 36, no. 67.

87 Farnborough, West Berks (SUR-0129CA); Twyford and Thorpe, Leics (LEIC-0017E1), with keyhole element and main body preserved, including the pin surviving in the hinge and its protecting bosses at either end; Idmiston, Wilts (SUR-9701DC); Swindon, South Staffs (WMID5664); Owslebury, Hants (HAMP-F92224), Worrell and Pearce, op. cit. (n. 40, 2013), 373–4, no. 27.

88 J.D. Hill, S. Worrell and S. La Niece, ‘The Winchester Hoard: a find of unique Iron Age gold jewellery from southern England’, Antiquaries Journal 84 (2004), 1–22.

89 Found by D. Villanueva. Identified and recorded by J. Ahmet, L. Rogerson and M. Henig. L. Rogerson (2022), KENT-E3CD00: A Roman Figurine https://finds.org.uk/database/artefacts/record/id/1065059 [accessed 15 April 2023].

90 British examples, Durham, op. cit. (n. 23), Mercury, shorter cloak, Llys Awel (no. 1175), longer cloak, Colchester (no. 1112), Southwark (no. 1030); Jupiter, shorter cloak, Colchester (no. 15), near Cockermouth (LANCUM-E9D7C4), Pearce and Worrell op. cit., (n. 27, 2020) 443, no. 1, longer cloak, BM 1873,0820.27.

91 F. Canciani. ‘Iuppiter’, LIMC VIII Supplementum (1997), 428–31.

92 A. Kaufmann-Heinimann, Götter und Lararien aus Augusta Raurica, Forschungen in Augst 26 (1998), 47–50, Abb 20–23, for statuettes of Mercury, cloaked or uncloaked, which never show the left arm in such a pose. An identification as a genius of the paterfamilias, a togate figure with folds drawn over the head, can be excluded since the toga's folds would fall in parallel gentle curves to the feet, I. Romeo, ‘Genius’, LIMC VIII Supplementum (1997), 601, for the genius familiaris, Durham, op. cit. (n. 23), 3.9 for an example from Britain.

93 Fragments: Brigetio (H), D. Bartus, Bronzistenek. Római kori figurális bronzplasztika Brigetióban (Bronze gods. Roman figural bronzes from Brigetio) (2015), 33–4, no. 5, with many references. Gurina, Kärnten (A), R. Fleischer, Die römischen Bronzen aus Österreich (1967), 191, no. 277, Taf. 130; Avenches, A. Leibundgut, Die römischen Bronzen der Schweiz II Avenches (1976), 25, no. 12, Taf. 6.; Augst, A. Kaufmann-Heinimann, Die römischen Bronzen der Schweiz I Augst (1977), 96, no. 120, Taf. 99; Great St Bernard Pass, A. Leibundgut, Die römischen Bronzen der Schweiz III Westschweiz, Bern und Wallis (1980), 80–1, no. 78, Taf. 107. Complete statuettes, Zollfeld, Kärnten, Fleischer ibid., 25, no. 1, Taf. 1–2; Auvernier, Leibundgut, Westschweiz, 9, no. 1, pl. 1–2.

94 Durham, op. cit. (n. 23), no. 1137.

95 Durham, op. cit. (n. 23), 1.3; M. Henig, ‘Statuettes and figurines in Roman Britain’, Bulletin of the Association for Roman Archaeology 18 (2007), 11–17.

96 Found by S. Cruickshank. Recorded by S. Maslin. S. Maslin (2022), SUR-5770C2: A Roman Bracelet https://finds.org.uk/database/artefacts/record/id/1072070 [accessed 15 April 2023].

97 Fenwick hoard, N. Crummy, ‘A hoard of military awards, jewellery and coins from Colchester’, Britannia 47 (2016), 9–11, no. 9; Dalton area, PAS-A7DC11, Worrell and Pearce, op. cit. (n. 27, 2014), 401–2, no. 1 (Artefacts BRC-4232).

98 Artefacts BRC-4067 for thin bracelets with enamelled discs as settings; Artefacts BRC-4074 for more substantial settings hinged with wider bracelets.

99 F.H. Marshall, Catalogue of the Jewellery, Greek, Etruscan and Roman, in the Departments of Antiquities, British Museum (1911), 329–30, nos. 2813–15, albeit with deeper settings; K. Sas and H. Thoen (eds), Schone Schijn/Brillance et Prestige: Romeinse juweelkunst in West-Europa/La joaillerie romaine en Europe occidentale (2002), a silvered bronze variant form, 195, no. 136.

100 Found by P. Baron. Recorded by P. Smither. P. Smither (2021), BERK-AE0EAD: A Roman Mount https://finds.org.uk/database/artefacts/record/id/1030912 [accessed 15 April 2023].

101 e.g. Woodeaton, Oxon, impression of gold stater of Cunobelin, J. Bagnall Smith, ‘More votive finds from Woodeaton, Oxfordshire’, Oxoniensia 63 (1998), 177–8, no. 17.1m, fig. 11; also third- and fourth-century coins, J.R. Kirk, ‘Bronzes from Woodeaton, Oxon.’, Oxoniensia 14 (1949), 44, nos 21–3, fig. 9, 5–6.

102 K. Dahmen, Untersuchungen zu Form und Funktion kleinformatiger Porträts der römischen Kaiserzeit (2001), 129–30; also D. Boschung, ‘Invasive Bilder. Zur Funktion von Miniaturporträts im militärischen Bereich’, in D. Boschung and F. Queyrel (eds), Porträt und Soziale Distinktion/Portrait et Distinction Sociale (2020), 148–9.

103 Dahmen, ibid., 131–7. Meyr und Flügel, op. cit. (n. 40), 27–30; Sas and Thoen, op. cit. (n. 99), 195, no. 136.

104 V. Hutchinson Pennanen and M. Henig, ‘A finger-ring from Clifton Down’, Britannia 26 (1995), 308–9.

105 Johns, op. cit. (n. 40), 113–14, fig.5.27 (BM 1870,0402.23). There also some affinities with the gold discs of very similar dimensions from tombs in Olbia, Ukraine, with a variety of royal and mythological portrait subjects, including a double image of Nero and Agrippina, Marshall, op. cit. (n. 99), 367–8, nos 3072–85, pls LXIX–LXX.

106 Caligula or Nero bust, Colchester and Essex Museums COLEM:PC.1492; for other small-scale possibly imperial images reported to the PAS, see M. Russell, ‘A first-century Roman copper-alloy portrait bust from Tarrant Rushton’, PDNHAS 137 (2016), 167–72.

107 Found by S. Engelstaedter. Recorded by E. Caswell. E. Caswell (2022) OXON-DA8EA4: A Roman Nail Cleaner https://finds.org.uk/database/artefacts/record/id/1060790 [accessed 23 April 2023].

108 H. Eckardt and N. Crummy, Styling the Body in Late Iron Age and Roman Britain: A Contextual Approach to Toilet Instruments (2008), 133, fig. 76 (‘long exuberantly decorated’), 134, fig. 77 (‘late Roman tubular’).

109 S. Worrell and J. Pearce, ‘Romans at your fingertips? A new study of nail-cleaners from Britannia recorded by the Portable Antiquities Scheme’, in D. Boughton and K. Hawkins (eds), Back in the Bag. Papers in Memory of David Williams (2021), 51–62. Coombes, W. Sussex, (SUSS-EBC181), Pearce and Worrell, op. cit. (n. 6, 2022), 494–5, no. 19; bone disc type, Eckardt and Crummy, ibid., 130–1.

110 Found by E. Llewellyn and recorded by K. Adams. K. Adams (2022), GLO-7A3DE9: A Roman Mount https://finds.org.uk/database/artefacts/record/id/1066175 [accessed 14 April 2023].

111 A. Parker, ‘Medusa at the edge of Empire’, (2021) https://www.joshobrouwers.com/articles/medusa-edge-empire/ (accessed 17 May 2023); F. Gall, ‘Ein römisches Gorgoneion aus Belleben-Haus Zeitz (Salzlandkreis)’, Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 45 (2015), 126–7. Cameos, near Swaffham, Norfolk (NMS-1396BC), Pearce and Worrell, op. cit. (n. 49, 2021),451–2, no. 12.

112 Phalerae, Artefacts PHA-4005 (copper alloy), PHA-4014 (silver), PHA-3009, PHA-4020; harness mounts, APH-4103; smaller mounts and appliqués, Artefacts APM-4009, APM-4065. Nicolay, op. cit. (n. 15), 41–3.

113 e.g. a pan from Faversham (BM 1882,0405,1), diameter 240 mm. See also Artefacts PAT-4028.

114 The figural phalerae from Lauersfort, including two gorgoneia among the nine gilded silver examples, are 10.5–11 cm in diameter, Pfahl, op. cit. (n. 61), 481–4.

115 S. Worrell, ‘Roman Britain in 2005. II. Finds Reported under the Portable Antiquities Scheme’, Britannia 37 (2006), 448–9, no. 17.

116 Found by P. Twinn and recorded by K. Adams. K. Adams (2022), GLO-452F33: A Roman Figurine https://finds.org.uk/database/artefacts/record/id/1061355 [Accessed 27 April 2023].

117 Hair pin terminal, Artefacts EPG-4631; plate brooches, Artefacts FIB-4312, including examples from Wetwang, E. Yorks (NLM-D1FC6B) and possibly Gedgrave, Suffolk (SF-01ED16; statuettes and mounts, Durham, op. cit. (n. 23), 3.35.16; Little Hallingbury, Essex (ESS-820B43), Pearce and Worrell, op. cit. (n. 27, 2017), 449–50, no. 19, with references to further examples in Britain and beyond, noting a further PAS example from Shotley, Suffolk (SF-888AF5).

118 A. Alfoldi, ‘The bronze mace from Willingham Fen, Cambridgeshire’ Journal of Roman Studies 39 (1949). 19–22; P. Salway, The Oxford Illustrated History of Roman Britain (1993) 488, with image.

119 Artefacts STE-4027, No. 1; Chester, M.J. Green, Corpus of Small Cult Objects From The Military Areas of Roman Britain (1978), 52 no. 4, pl. 65, with references to further examples.

120 Found by M. Lovell. Identified and recorded by K. Adams and R. Ellis-Haken. K. Adams (2021), GLO-0ED7EB: A Iron Age Figurine https://finds.org.uk/database/artefacts/record/id/1023137 [accessed 27 April 2023].

121 See for example the images collected by Jope, op. cit. (n. 79), pl. 160–1.

122 An increase from eight examples among the twenty-five from Britain noted over a decade ago, Durham, op. cit. (n. 23), 3.35.1; L. Brundle et al. ‘The Leasingham horse and other animals: three zoomorphic objects reported to the Portable Antiquities Scheme in 2020’, Lucerna 61 (2021), 12–13, for some further comments.

123 J. Foster, Bronze Boar Figurines in Iron Age and Roman Britain. British Archaeological Reports British Series 39 (1977), 26–8.

124 Great Sturton (LIN-CEB738); Birch, Essex (ESS-C5CB81); Colchester (ESS-A60B25), Worrell op. cit. (n. 68, 2009), 309; East Herts (CAM-6D9662). Standon boar, see also Worrell op. cit. (n. 115, 2006), 444–6, no. 13.

125 e.g. Sodbury, Glos (GLO-FD3948), Pearce and Worrell, op. cit. (n. 49, 2021), 462–3, no. 22.

126 Also noted on the example from East Herts (CAM-6D9662).

127 Foster, op. cit. (n. 123), 7–10.

128 Found by B. Whiteman. Recorded by R. Webley. R. Webley (2022) DEV-6D331A: A Roman Brooch https://finds.org.uk/database/artefacts/record/id/1072290 [accessed 17 May 2023].

129 Bayley and Butcher op. cit. (n. 29), 167–8.

130 Artefacts FIB-4124; Mackreth op. cit. (n. 18), Vol. I. 172, Vol. II. 118, pl. 115, nos 11660, 11669; for other examples M. Tache, Fibules antiques celtiques, romaines, mérovingiennes (2015), nos 780–4; Heeren and van der Feist op. cit. (n. 13), Fig. 4.113b, type g13; M. Callewaert, Les fibules émaillées en Gaule Belgique et Germanie Inférieure, doctoral thesis, Université Libre de Bruxelles (2016), 215–17, ‘fibules “à double croissant émaillé”’.

131 D. Dudley, ‘Excavations on Nor'nour in the Isles of Scilly, 1962–6’, Archaeological Journal 124 (1967), 1–64; S. Butcher, ‘Roman Nornour, Isles of Scilly: a reconsideration’, Cornish Archaeology 39/40 (2001), 27–8, no. 321. S. Thomas, ‘From treasured items to trash? The use of brooches in Roman Cornwall in the creation of identity and social memory’, Theoretical Roman Archaeology Journal 2015 (2016), 111–24. https://doi.org/10.16995/TRAC2015_111_124.

132 Butcher ibid. 24–5, no. 313.

133 Thomas op. cit. (n. 131), 116–7.

Figure 0

FIG. 1. Conistone with Kilnsey, brooch (No. 1). Scale 1:1 (photo: I. Whitehead). (© West Yorkshire Archaeology Advisory Service)

Figure 1

FIG. 2. Clapham cum Newby, brooch (No. 2). Scale 1:1 (photo: I. Whitehead). (© West Yorkshire Archaeology Advisory Service)

Figure 2

FIG. 3. Kingsley, figurine (No. 3). Scale 1:2 (photo: H. Beeton). (© National Museums Liverpool)

Figure 3

FIG. 4a. Llandegla, trumpet brooch (No. 4). Scale 1:2 (photo: H. Beeton). (© National Museums Liverpool)

Figure 4

FIG. 4b. Distribution of trumpet brooches (published examples) documented by the PAS (map by Edwin Wood, base map from Ordnance Survey Open Data).

Figure 5

FIG. 5. Ellerker, ring setting (No. 5). Scale 2:1 (photo: H. Beeton). (© National Museums Liverpool)

Figure 6

FIG. 6. Hemsworth, brooch (No. 6). Scale 1:1 (photo: L. Brundle). (© Portable Antiquities Scheme)

Figure 7

FIG. 7. Near Bassingham, finger ring (No. 7). Scale 3:2 (photo: L. Brundle). (© Portable Antiquities Scheme)

Figure 8

FIG. 8. Long Bennington, hairpin (No. 8). Scale 2:3 (photo: L. Brundle). (© Portable Antiquities Scheme)

Figure 9

FIG. 9. Empingham, knife handle (No. 9). Scale 1:1 (photo: L. Brundle). (© Portable Antiquities Scheme)

Figure 10

FIG. 10. Whilton, Jupiter Ammon mount (No. 10). Scale 2:3 (photo: L. Brundle). (© Portable Antiquities Scheme)

Figure 11

FIG. 11. Titchmarsh, strap mount (No. 11). Scale 2:3 (photo: E. Cox). (© Northamptonshire County Council)

Figure 12

FIG. 12. Wood Dalling, figurine (No. 12). Scale 2:3 (photo: A. Marsden). (© Norfolk County Council)

Figure 13

FIG. 13. Near Southend, anthropomorphic vessel (No. 13). Scale 2:3 (photo: C. Rangel de Lima). (© Portable Antiquities Scheme)

Figure 14

FIG. 14. Puckeridge, ring fragment (No. 14). Scale 1:1 (photo: M. Fittock). (© Portable Antiquities Scheme)

Figure 15

FIG. 15. Streatley, strap fastener (No. 15). Scale 1:1 (photo: S. Maslin). (© Portable Antiquities Scheme)

Figure 16

FIG. 16. Chilham, figurine fragment (No. 16). Scale 2:3 (photo: L. Rogerson). (© Portable Antiquities Scheme)

Figure 17

FIG. 17. Limpsfield, bracelet fragment (No. 17). Scale 3:2 (photo: S. Maslin). (© Surrey County Council)

Figure 18

FIG. 18. Mortimer (No. 18). Scale 1:1 (photo: P. Smither). (© Portable Antiquities Scheme)

Figure 19

FIG. 19. Tisbury, nail cleaner (No. 19). Scale 1:1 (photo: E. Caswell). (© Portable Antiquities Scheme)

Figure 20

FIG. 20. Dursley, Medusa mount (No. 20). Scale 2:3 (photo: K. Adams). (© Bristol City Council)

Figure 21

FIG. 21. Cotswolds, owl terminal (No. 21). Scale 2:3 (photo: K. Adams). (© Bristol City Council)

Figure 22

FIG. 22. Wickwar, boar figurine (No. 22). Scale 2:3 (photo: K. Adams). (© Bristol City Council)

Figure 23

FIG. 23. Sparkwell, plate brooch (No. 23). Scale 1:1 (photo: R. Webley). (© Somerset County Council)