Author: Alberto Pearson

Metal Detecting Roman Brooches

History No Comments

Roman Brooches

Brooches weren’t just for decoration – they were worn by both men and women to secure clothing and they were similar in their securing technique to modern safety pins.. They were normally made of bronze and were commonly decorated with coloured enamels.

Brooches were already being worn by the native “British” before the Roman invasion, so a number brooches of the Roman period show a mixture of both British and continental styles.

Most were mass produced – but they are rarely found intact by detectorists, usually at least the pin is missing. Most date to the 1st and 2nd century AD when brooches were fashionable – after the 2nd century the range and number reduce greatly – the only brooch of note to remain is the crossbow, which is seen as a marker of high status. The majority of brooches are of copper-alloy – Silver and gold are rare.

The forms can be split into three main types: safety pin/bow , plate or disc and pennannular.

Safety Pin/Bow-shapedTypes

There are two techniques of tensioning the pin – sprung and hinged. The Sprung Pin – This doesnt need to be as strongly built as the hinged pin as the sprung pin spreads the tension. These are the most common in Britain. The Hinged Pin – The pin swings on an axis and is restarined by a stop on its head.

Dolphin form
common in 1st and 2nd Centuries AD

Named this because it looks like a leaping dolphin. These are simple bow brooches although there are some later hinged examples. Both sprung and hinged forms are found in south and midland England , petering out in the north. They have a transverse head with short wings protecting the spring. In some cases the wings can be long and decorated. The bow which may have a beaded design along the back can be square, D-shaped or V-shaped. The catch plate is small

Aucissa type
 Circa AD 50-65

These were imported by the Romans from the continent and are an early example of a hinged pin, sometimes on an iron axis. This brooch type was first made in Gaul during the first half of the 1st century AD, and appeared in Britain, c.AD 50.

There is sometimes the word avcissa or atgivios on the head of the brooch which is assumed to be the maker’s name. This type is well known on military sites throughout Britain but seems to have been replaced by British made brooches.

Crossbow form
Circa early 3rd-4th century AD

This is the most complex of the Roman brooches. In the early verions the terminals were more bulbous and part of the bow and wing. In the fourth century the knobs became very large with some being screwed on. A hinged pin ran through the top of the bow holding the top knob in place.

The bow and catchplate could be elaborately decorated with incised patterns – ring and dot, lines, chevrons and spirals. They ahve been found made from most materials from bronze to gold, or gilded bronze. Crossbow brooches were common on the continent, but tended to be hollow, unlike the solid Romano-British types.

Fantail form
Circa 1st to mid 2nd century AD

This is named for its triangular foot. The most famous examples of these come from Greatchesters on Hadrians Wall an also ffrom Tre’r Ceiri, Caernarfonshire.

Trumpet form
Circa AD 45- 2nd century

This is named after the shape of its head which looks like a trumpet and is one of the best known brooch forms of the Romano-British period with the peak of production in the early 2nd century AD. The finest of these brooches were made of silver, sometimes gilt and they were normally worn in pairs. Surprisingly they are rarely found outside of Britain.

The earlier versions have simple waist-knobs with later versions having a waist-knob set between opposing acanthus leaves. These brooches were common in military areas especially in the north in the first half of the 2nd century.

Plate / Disc types

Plate/Disc types
2nd century to end of Roman Period

These were most popular during the 2nd century and there is a huge range of these brooches.

They are usually flat, but may have a domed centre.

They are often decorated with enamel, glass, silverwork or semi-prescious stones with colours that are normally red, blue, orange, green and yellow

Dragonesque
1st -3rd century

In the 1st century these consisted of a plain plate with two arms, one at the top for the hinge and another at the base to serve as the catchplate. They were usually enamelled, very colourful and the patterns were derived from “Celtic” art.

They are mainly found in Northern Britain but were exported as far away as Hungary, France and Germany.

Plate skeuomorphic
2nd-3rd century

These brooches imitate an object – most popular are daggers, axes, soles of shoes, phalluses, swastikas, cornucopiae, wheels and chatelaines. They probably served as amulets or lucky charms

Plate zoomorphic
2nd-3rd century

These were made in a number of designs such as dogs, hares, cockerels, dolphins, flies, birds, fish and horses. Animal brooches in particular are found on religious sites. Many horse and rider brooches have been found at temple sites indicating a cult significance.

Pennanular types

Pennanular
Iron age onwards – so difficult to date

A very common type – used for over 1000 years. They consist of a broken hoop with a pin folded over the rim that can swivel around. Terminals are sometimes folded over or pinched in with simple designs, or are highly decorated, sometimes fashioned into animal heads. Terminals with elaborate zoomorphic designs began in the last 2nd century becoming most popular in the 4th century.

They were made by casting or from a bent rod. The pins were made separately and are either humped or concave.

A roman pin is shorter than the saxon version

(To fasten a penannular push the pin through the fabric to be held, then flip the ring down so that the pin comes up through the gap, and then rotate the ring so as to hold the cloth on the pin.)

The Vigornia website by Dean Crawford has a large number of high quality images of different Roman Brooches and can be accessed here

Metal Detecting

History No Comments

Theres obviously little point in digging things up if you don’t take the time and effort to find out what they are!

Your local finds liaison officer will help you to identify your finds.

This knowledge enhances the enjoyment to be had from detecting. The ability to identify finds is something that will come with practise. Some things are obvious, others not so.

Books are essential and museums will usually offer an identification service

A visit to one of the many detecting forums may also help you – there are usually a number of “resident” knowledgable people in their midst who are often extremely helpful in their expert field.

The following discussions will give you and insight into the type of help they provide:

       


 

Identifying your finds – weights

History No Comments
 

Weights
 from UK DETECTOR NET

Guest- Posted: Sun Dec 05, 2004

I am attaching a weight that I have had a long time. I have over the years found many of them and I have made the effort to research them and learn. There’s one thing about this hobby and that it is if you are really interested in your finds you will learn more in this hobby that you ever learned at school.

I have misplaced most of my notes on my finds, and as time catches up with me the memory retention is not as it should be, but I am placing this onto the site as a kind of learning curve for some that may be grateful for the info: I know that there are some knowledgable persons on here who could help everyone to understand a little more about what they are finding.

The W & M are probably self explanatory. the A is something to do with when we separated the Troy system and switched to Imperial. The Dagger is maybe a guild marking, The Ewer (or coffe pot) has lots of meanings and I believe the position of the spout in relation to a clock face is only one of them, the two G’s in the boxes I have forgotten, as with the centre punch mark. Bring on the Big Boys.

732 – reign of Ethelbert II (king of Kent)
The ‘acre’ is in common use.

~960 – reign of Edgar the peaceful
It was decreed that all measures must agree with standards kept in London and Winchester

1215 – reign of King John (lackland)
An agreement to have a national standard of weights and measures was incorporated into the magna carta.

1266 – reign of Henry III
An act of this date established that a penny (money) should weigh the same as 32 grains of wheat, twenty pennies to make one ounce, and twelve ounces to the pound. Eight pounds was to be the weight of a gallon of wine. You will notice the link between money and weight, and that 240 pennies equals one pound.

1304 – reign of Edward I
This is where things got complicated. A statute declared that for medicines a pound would be of 20 shillings, or 12 ounces. All other things would be weighed with a pound containing 15 ounces – in all cases an ounce being 20 pennies.

1352 – reign of Edward III
A statute of this year established the stone as 14lb – a value it has kept ever since.

1532 – reign of Henry VIII
An act of this year laid down that butchers should sell meat by haver du pois weight – from where we get avoirdupois.

1707 – reign of Queen Anne
The wine gallon, which was fixed at 231 cubic inches. This is the basis of the liquid measures still in use in the US of A. It must be said that this gallon is actually of Edward the first’s time, the 1707 act really only clarifying its size.

1824 – reign of George IV
The famous ‘weights and measures act (5 Geo IV c 74) established the ‘Imperial’ system of weights and measures. The act comes in to force in 1826.

1878 – reign of Queen Victoria
The troy pound was declared illegal. For avoirdupois weights, commercial weights could only be the following: 56lb, 28lb, 14lb, 7lb, 4lb, 2lb, 1lb, 8oz, 4oz, 2oz, 1oz, 1/2oz, 1/4oz, 2dr, 1dr. Until this date, it was common to see other denominations in trade use, especially 8lb.

1969 – reign of Elizabeth II
The apothecaries system was outlawed for dispensing medicines, in favour of the metric system.

1971 – reign of Elizabeth II
The ‘L.s.d.’ system of money was replaced with the ‘decimal’ system.

1972 – reign of Elizabeth II
The passing of the European Communities act hands over ‘competance’ for weights and measures legislation (and everything come to think of it) to Brussels.

ceejay – PostPosted: Mon Dec 06, 2004

You probably know most of this but as you say useful information for others:-

Crowned ‘WM’ = the royal cypher for William & Mary Sword of St Paul = London Guildhall mark A = Averdepois (avoirdupois)

Ewer = London Founders Company mark

These marks tell us this is a trade weight verified during the reign of William & Mary (1688-1694) and it is was tested and marked by the London Founders Company for use under the Averdepois system – hence the ‘A’. The Averdepois system used for normal trade goods was based on a pound (standardised in 1588) which was divided into 16 ounces and weighed 7,000 grains. Other weights in use from 1588 were based on the Troy system used for precious metals etc. which had a pound divided into 12 ounces totalling 5,760 grains.

The ‘GG’ marks are interesting but I do not know there significance. They can only be a maker’s mark or a later mark put on for regional use. I have a list of the latter and it does not conform to any of those.

petethedig – Posted: Mon Dec 06, 2004

So what can you deduce from this one Ceejay? I’d appreciate some help with the detail please! There’s a C with a crown above it, a sword and a ewer at the 7pm spot. Interesting post this!

ceejay -Posted: Mon Dec 06, 2004

Pretty much the same applies Pete. The crowned ‘C’ though for Charles I or II. There is a way to differentiate between the crowned ‘G’ of the three Georges but not as far as I am aware between the two Charles. So your weight was marked some time between 1625-49 or 1660-85. The ‘A’ is often missing from the smaller weights of one ounce or below so that might explain the absence on yours.
The basic unit of weight in the British system is the grain – originally based on the weight of a grain of barley (but note that money was based on the grain of wheat – and that three grains of barley weigh the same as four of wheat). This grain is the troy grain – there is no other weight of the same name.

The weight of one grain is constant throughout the many different systems of British weights. As you will see below, the ounce and pound are anything but contstant, but have altered to meet circumstances over a period of over a thousand years.

The avoirdupois pound is the pound in general use today. As its name implies, it was intended to be used for weighing heavy goods. This pound is of 7000 grains, and is split into 16 ounces (each, therefore of 437.5 grains). Each ounce is divided into 16 drams (which my calculator makes of 27.34375 grains each – much more fun than metric isn’t it?).

avoirdupois weights 16 drams = 1 ounce 16 ounces = 1 pound 7 pounds = 1 clove 14 pounds = 1 stone 28 pounds = 1 tod 112 pounds = 1 hundredweight 364 pounds = 1 sack 2240 pounds = 1 ton 2 stones = 1 quarter 4 quarters = 1 hundredweight 20 hundredweight = 1 ton

NB: The sack is not in common use. There was a ‘Butchers stone’ of 8lb until the end of 1939.

The Troy pound was of 5760 grains, and was divided into 12 ounces, so a troy pound is lighter than an avoirdupois pound, but a troy ounce (at 480 grains) weighs more than an avoirdupois ounce. The troy pound was declared illegal in 1878, but the troy ounce continues in use today for weighing gold. The troy ounce is split into 480 grains, and you will see 1/2 ounce weights marked both ‘240 grains’ and ‘0.5oz’. However, the apothecaries system also has an ounce weighing 480 grains, being divided into 8 drams (sometimes spelled drachms) of 60 grains, each dram being split into 3 scruples, of 20 grains. To make things more fun, a 2 dram weight would be marked ‘3ij’ – I think that ‘3’ means ‘scruples’ (there being 3 to the dram), and the ‘ij’ being an old-fashioned way of quoting the Roman numeral ‘ii’. It doesn’t end there – there are 20 penny-weights to the troy ounce, so the 1/2 ounce weight mentioned above could also be marked as ‘3iv’ or ’10dwt’.

Troy & apothecaries weights 1 ounce = 480 grains 1 ounce = 24 scruples 1 ounce = 20 pennyweights

1 ounce = 8 drams
Throughout this history of this land, laws have been made relating to weights and measures. At first, these were necessary both to protect the consumer and to facilitate free trade. Since joining the EU/EEC/Common Market the emphasis has changed – trade is protected from foreign (that is: non-EU) competition, and to suit big business it is necessary to restrict choice by the consumer to essentially EU goods. This has the happy (for the EU that is) consequence of enabling the EU to have more control over what is bought and sold. Roman times A lot of the Imperial/Customary measures trace their origins back to Roman times (which explains the similarity of most pre-metric European measures), and no doubt laws were enacted in those times relating to weights and measures. At the moment, I know little about these laws. Saxons to Stuarts Written copies of many laws still exist (or are referred to in later documents) which relate in some ways to weights and measures. The domesday book, being in effect an asset register for the Norman kings uses the contemporary measures. The most important document in this time period is Magna Carta (i.e King John’s Magna Carta of 1215 – there were quite a few others), which famously sets out the requirement for there being just one sytem of weights and measures in use throughout the land. Strictly speaking Magna Carta is not a law, but more like a contract between the King and his subjects (in this case the Barons), and cannot be overruled by a mere act of Parliament. Orange, Hanoverians, Saxe-Coburg etc. As we get more modern, it becomes easier to find, read, and understand the laws of weights and measures. Weights and Measures acts per se were passed in 1824, 1834, 1835, 1861, 1878, 1889, 1892, 1893 and 1904. Currently, the major topic is the ‘outlawing’ of most of the Imperial system, which was meant to have come into power on 1st Jan. 2000. This isn’t a ‘law’ in the way one would normally understand the term, merely an instruction from our leaders in Brussels. Contrast this to the way things were done in the past – the Assize of Bread and Ale, a law passed in 1266 (51 Hen. 3, stat.1), which among other things says ‘… by the consent of the whole realm of England, the the measure of our Lord the King was made, that is to say, an English penny, called a sterling, round and without any clipping, shall weigh 32 wheat corns …’. It would seem that 750 years ago medieval kings of England had a better notion of democracy than than Brussels ever will. In practice, many places seem to continue pricing and selling goods in units that the consumer wants (i.e. Imperial), rather than the ‘metric’ units that Brussels and its departments (especially the BBC) wants us to use. A recent court case has agreed with Brussels, and decided that the weights and measures act 1985, which allows trading in Imperial units is overruled by the 1972 European Communities act – an act which in effect says that whatever Brussels wants Brussels gets. Where it leaves us is trying to decide whose country it is. The people like to think it belongs to them. The Government and the courts thinks it belongs to the unelected and unelectable elite in Brussels. At the moment, evil bannana sellers are being perscuted, drugs are being legalised, ‘double jeapordy’ is being brought in so that people can be tried for crimes they’ve already been found not guilty of committing… Time for a quote:

… the only sure bulwark of continuing liberty is a government strong enough to protect the interests of the people, and a people strong enough and well enough informed to maintain its sovereign control over its government.

ceejay Posted: Mon Dec 06, 2004

[25] One measure of Wine shall be through our Realm, and one measure of Ale, and one measure of Corn, that is to say, the Quarter of London; and one breadth of dyed Cloth, Russets, and Haberjects, that is to say, two Yards within the lists. And it shall be of Weights as it is of Measures.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibit_hall/featured_documents/magna_carta/translation.html

petethedig -Posted: Mon Dec 06, 2004

Thanks Ceejay, your right it fits the Charles II just right for this site! Its also under the ounce in weight! Brilliant as usual!

rufus -Posted: Mon Dec 06, 2004

I’d like to know how to differentiate one crowned ‘G’ from another..they are Georges, but which one? When did the circular bronze official weights make an appearance..the earliest I have seen in the flesh has a crowned ‘H’ presumably for Henry VII or VIII.

Guest – Mon Dec 06, 2004

How are you coming on Rufuus??.

Because as you can now see the coin was a precious commodity (Silver) and directly related to its weight. this then leads to the clipping of them, and obviously then the need for coin weights.

ceejay – Mon Dec 06, 2004

rufus wrote:
I’d like to know how to differentiate one crowned ‘G’ from another..they are Georges, but which one? When did the circular bronze official weights make an appearance..the earliest I have seen in the flesh has a crowned ‘H’ presumably for Henry VII or VIII.

I’m getting my info from a useful little book ‘English Weights – An Illustrated Survey’ by Norman Biggs. Well worth getting if you are interested in weights – it’s a small book and I don’t think it is too expensive.

Earliest round brass weights have a crown stamped incuse and date from the late-14th to 15thC.
Earliest stamped with a royal cypher (crown over ‘h’) are indeed Henry VII/VIII.

George I – – crowned G at 11 o’clock- sword at 12 o’clock – A at 1 o’clock – ewer at 6 o’clock.

George II — crowned G at 9 o’clock – sword at 12 o’clock – A at 3 o’clock – ewer at 6 o’clock.

George III – crowned G at 3 o’clock – sword at 12 o’clock – A at 9 o’clock – ewer at 6 o’clock.

The latter also for George IV up to 1826.

rufus – Posted: Tue Dec 07, 2004

Thanks for the info CJ…I’ll have to get the book.

Here’s my most interesting weight ~

Official 4OZ lead trade weight with various marks. a. Royal cipher ‘G’ under crown b. Sword of St Paul (dagger – City of London Guildhall) c. Circular Libra mark of the Worshipful Company of Plumbers.

George I too…crowned ‘G’ at 11 and sword at 12 o’clock.

Was this weight used exclusively by plumbers? It was found on a site with evidence of lead working everywhere….and why is it perforated?

wildmantel – Posted: Tue Dec 07, 2004

I thought that you may be interested in knowing what some of your weight were used for….
I did not think you needed to weigh bras – this must have been an early cross your heart complete with two birds

Roman bras weight Pic 0018 6 Unciae Semis “r s” 157,7 gram

sign with a cross and two birds.

http://www.scales-and-weights.com/index.htm

ceejay – Posted: Tue Dec 07, 2004

rufus wrote:
Thanks for the info CJ…I’ll have to get the book.

Here’s my most interesting weight ~
Official 4OZ lead trade weight with various marks. a. Royal cipher ‘G’ under crown b. Sword of St Paul (dagger – City of London Guildhall) c. Circular Libra mark of the Worshipful Company of Plumbers.

George I too…crowned ‘G’ at 11 and sword at 12 o’clock.

Was this weight used exclusively by plumbers? It was found on a site with evidence of lead working everywhere….and why is it perforated?

The mark is St Michael with scales and is that of the Plumbers Company who were given the right to check and stamp all lead weights in the City of London from c.1588. Interestingly the grant of their official crest in 1588 mentions “an Archangel holding a Sword and Balance” – no sign of a sword in the mark on any of the lead weights that I have seen?? Not sure what the hole is all about but earlier shield-shape weights often seem to have this feature too. I haven’t noticed this on any other round lead weights though. The link below has a lot more info and will explain what the plumbers were responsible for:-

http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/LONDON-COMPANYS/2000-09/0968758186

And a few more quotes gleaned:-
From earliest times the Church of the Plumbers Company was St. Michael’s, Crooked Lane and for this reason the Patron Saint of the Company is St. Michael (the mark on lead weights).

The former Hall stood in Chequer Yard, Bush Lane from 1532. After destruction in The Great Fire of 1666 it was rebuilt but was demolished in 1863 to make way for Cannon Street Station.

Today the Company is no longer a trade association instead existing as a charitable institution.

petethedig – Posted: Tue Dec 07

Just to pick up on a small point you made Ceejay? On my Charles weight I too have a small hole that looks deliberate any ideas? Do you think some small amount of weight might be removed this way to make them precise?

ceejay – Posted: Tue Dec 07, 2004

Some of the brass weights have file marks on the bottom which I would imagine is the way that most would have been adjusted. Your weight appears to be holed near the outer rim – is that what you mean?? It may have become damaged or it may be a casting flaw that has come apart at a later stage but it certainly would not have been verified in that condition.

petethedig – Posted: Tue Dec 07

Well the lights not good now I’m looking at it, but it may be a casting fault as you say! Thanks

rider -Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2004

Here are more Weights to get your teeth into, the square one with four dots and crown has the same on the back the one next has a letter or figure but i dont know what it is, the two small lead ones at the top are blank on the back these two are the oldest i think, will post more later when i sort them out.

Guest -Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2004

Can anyone kindly sort out the markings on this for me please

rufus – Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2004

Rider, I too have one of those square weights that looks like a domino, in your picture. Mine is exactly the same as yours but with five dots, not four. Also has the same punched mark both sides, but I cannot decipher it. I thought it might be a game piece if it was not a weight.

Rod_Blunt- Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2004

rufus wrote:
Rider, I too have one of those square weights that looks like a domino, in your picture. Mine is exactly the same as yours but with five dots, not four. Also has the same punched mark both sides, but I cannot decipher it. I thought it might be a game piece if it was not a weight.

These are bullion weights, Rufus. Each annulet (or dot) represents a pennyweight, so yours will be five, and Rider’s four pennyweights. Some, like Rider’s, have a lion or other countermark.

rufus – Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2004

What date are they Rod? Mine was found in an area where the finds are mostly 12th – 13th Century, but this weight looks later to me.

Rod_Blunt – Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2004

rufus wrote:
What date are they Rod? Mine was found in an area where the finds are mostly 12th – 13th Century, but this weight looks later to me.

The date range given by Norman Biggs in Bullion Weights is c1600-1850, Rufus.

rufus – Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2004

That’s interesting though…a penny weight of silver bullion? Given that the price of bullion is unstable and subject to market forces, how can a weight like this function properly? A five penny weight might be equal to four penny’s worth in a few years! Or am I getting the wrong end of the stick?

rufus – Posted: Fri Dec 10, 2004

If bullion weights is what they are and they are tied to the arbitrary value of a penny, a unit that fluctuates in value all the time, then that makes these weights very unusual doesn’t it? All other weights are measures of definable quantities, even coin weights which are stamped with the denomination.

I wonder if they could be a Civil War effort to define and standardise the currency, which at that time was in a state of flux? Troops were being paid with hastily struck irregular coins made from recycled church plate, and no doubt also they were paid in hunks of silver in the absence of a regular coin supply. A ‘penny’s worth’ would make sense only in such a situation, don’t you I think?

Rod_Blunt -Posted: Fri Dec 10, 2004

The pennyweight is a constant unit of weight, equivalent to 24 grains (approx. 1.56 grams), or one-twentieth of a troy ounce. Although originally based on the weight of the silver penny, it was later standardised.

The English troy standard is first mentioned in documents of the late 14th century.

rider – Posted: Fri Dec 10, 2004

Rufus
The punch mark is a crown but as you say a game counter could be on the cards as they say, will see what comes up on the net.

digger john – Posted: Fri Dec 10, 2004

heres a weight , that I think I posted some time ago, been reading this thread, and also find it a fascinating subject

rufus – Posted: Sat Dec 11, 2004

Thanks Rod, I had a feeling it would be based on the medieval penny somehow.

Ill chuck my Civil War theory out of the window!

IB1 – Posted: Sat Dec 11, 2004

Have a look at this site if your interested in coin weights.

http://www.galata.co.uk/

rider – Posted: Sat Dec 11, 2004

Thanks also Rod at least that is one lot sorted

ceejay – Posted: Sat Dec 11, 2004

If you look on this page you will see what the 5(Pwt) * 8 (Gr) one is all about:-

http://www.netmarshall.co.uk/Coinweight2.htm

 

Designed by Corinne Mills 2005
email [email protected]

Metal Detecting -Identifying your finds

History No Comments

First of all we had better show the artefacts we are discussing – these are my own finds from just one field over a number of years – varying approx. between 20 and 30mm in size and being slightly flat in profile.

Gordon Bailey in ‘Finds Identified’ identifies the purpose of these crudely made bronze rings as personal adornment and in particular for suspending items from the waist belt. He illustrates the simplest means of attachment by leather thongs and more substantially by metal attachments (below). This evidence is from Germany and I must say I have never found one of these rings with anything attached so I would be particularly interested to hear from anyone who has.

The evidence of suspension by leather straps is backed up in a painting by Pieter Bruegel the Elder (The Peasant Dance c1568) in which rings can be seen suspended from a pouch on the belt of the male figure – second from the right in the foreground. You will have to click on the link below for this picture – it is too big to put on here. These rings may be functional (they do seem too low but note the key and pouch suspended from the lady’s waist on the extreme right) or they may be purely decorative. Another purpose might be (much as bells and spurs in other times) as ‘jinglers’ to make a noise when moving.


Click on the image for a larger version

That evidence seems fairly compelling but doubts remain – why are they so crudely made. Part of the reason for this may be that they were simply cast in multiple moulds, often on a local basis, and only received a rudimentary clean up with a file to remove the roughest edges. Here we must be careful to define the type – observant readers will have noted that there is an interloper in my first picture – the ring in the top row, third from left is a different type – more rounded in profile and much smoother in finish. This one may have had an entirely different purpose and does in fact appear to be more like the ones in the painting.

Other uses may be as links in leather harness and as suspension rings for curtains and hanging fabrics. Both of these suggestions are feasible possibilities and in the case of harness I think distinctly so. You might also consider that rings sewn into the top hem of a hanging fabric for suspension by hooks would not need to be particularly well finished off. As to dating we have the evidence of manufacture by hand suggesting a pre-industrial age and of course paintings. Other evidence comes from our own hobby and indeed from this forum. This picture was posted by MARTYN and as soon as I saw it I thought of the close dating of the group as all the artefacts in it appear to be of the 16th-17thC. Does this give us an approximate date for the rings?

These leather bound buckles were sold on Ebay –it would have been interesting to have bought those and cracked open that ring second from left on the bottom row!!

Another theory that is taking hold on the internet is that they are a form of money – Celtic Ring Money. Evidence is scant for this but whilst there is money to be made people will exploit it. I have put a link to one such site below and to discussions taking place on another forum. The reply by Alan Van Arsdale in the second forum link looks good to me. Buyer beware!!

http://www.ancientcoins.ca/ringmoneyf3.html

http://www.forumancientcoins.com/board/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=12521

http://www.forumancientcoins.com/board/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=10704

Time Team Programme – Lost centuries of St Osyth (27 February) St Osyth, Essex

History No Comments
– home page
– home
– pre roman cantiaci
– background in Gaul
– caesar 55bc
– caesar 54bc
– between the invasions
– cassius dio
– 43ad invasion
– 43ad the legions
– 43ad landing site
– claudius arrives
– conclusion
– bibliography – Dig Diary
– introduction
– Icon
– Hillfigures – Netley Abbey
– pyrford church
– compton church
– farleigh church
– wisley church
– hoylte
– Sound Mirrors
– Warden’s Bay
– Surrey regiments
– Cinque Ports
– Images of Essex
– Maiden Castle
– Sixpenny Handley – Minchington
– A Neolithic cathedral?
– St Osyth
– Olivers Farm
– Pickett Farm
– Grace Dieu – Roman Circus
– Roman Circus finds
– Roman Circus images
– Colchester images
– Flodden

Last updated May 31, 2005

Time Team Programme – Lost centuries of St Osyth (27 February 2005) St Osyth, Essex

 

Kent Surrey and Sussex Regiments

History No Comments

Kent Surrey and Sussex Regiments

These are the local army regiments which are linked geographically to the counties of Surrey, Kent and Sussex. They are all the product of several amalgamations and re-namings, though all have seen a varied and valliant history.

The Queen’s Royal Surrey Regiment

The Queen’s Royal Regiment (West Surrey) : First raised in 1661 as the Old Tangier Regiment, they became, after the Restoration, the Queen’s Foot, in 1684. The numerical designation came in 1751 when they were awarded the position of second in the line, thereby becoming the 2nd Regiment of Foot, The Queen’s Royal Regiment.

The East Surrey Regiment

This Regiment was first raised in 1702 as a battalion of Marines know after it’s colonel – Villiers. It gained it’s numerical designation in the army reforms of 1751, and became the 31st Foot Regiment. A second battalion was formed in 1754, and shortly after in 1758 it became the 70th Regiment of Foot.

The two regiments amalgamated in 1881 to form the 1st and 2nd Battalions of the East Surrey Regiment.

In 1959 both the Surrey regiments ( East and West) were amalgamated to form the The Queen’s Royal Surrey Regiment.

The Queen’s Own Buffs, The Royal Kent Regiment

The Buffs (Royal East Kent Regiment) were raised in 1665 as the Holland Regiment. In 1751 they acquired the numerical designation of 3rd Regiment of Foot.

The Queen’s Own Royal West Kent Regiment were first raised in 1756 as the 52nd Regiment of Foot. They were re-designated in 1758 as the 50th Regiment. A 2nd battalion, the 97th was raised in 1824. In 1881, they were amalgamated as the 1st and 2nd battalions The Queen’s Own, Royal West Kent Regiment.

The East and West Kents amalgamated in 1961 to form the The Queen’s Own Buffs, The Royal Kent Regiment.

The above text has prompted an email from a former member of the Buffs – this is what he tells us:

There is an error on your piece about The Buffs (Royal East Kent Regiment). They were raised in 1572 at a review of the trained bands by Queen Elizabeth I at Greenwich, to aid the Dutch in their fight the against the Spanish in the Low Countries. 1572 was confirmed as the date of the raising of The Buffs by: 

a.  King Charles II who, to mark The Buffs  first centenary in 1672,  gave the Regiment the ‘Privilege’, in perpetuity, of marching through the City of London to recruit. 

b.  Queen Anne, who in 1702, awarded the Regiment to wear the TUDOR Dragon, a Royal Beast, as their badge. 

c.  Fortesque and other great military historians who have accepted 1572 as the date of the raising of The Buffs. The Regiment was titled the Holland Regiment in 1665 on their return to England, one of many titles this ancient regiment had during its long history.

For verification of my last e-mail, please refer to the Historical Records of The Buffs.     

Volume I (1572-1704) by H.R.Knight covers the origins of the regiment in 1572 on page 7 et seq.    Part II (1814-1914) by C.R.B.Knight  gives, at Appendix C page 678, the reason why the Tudor Dragon badge was awarded  in 1707 to recognise that the regiment’s first muster was in the presence and reign of Queen Elizabeth I (the Dragon having been a supporter of her Royal arms, where the Unicorn is now ).    

Part II (1814-1914) at Appendix E, pages 713-714, deals with the warrant granted by King Charles II in 1672, the regiment’s first centenary year, giving it, in perpetuity, the Privilege of marching through the City of London, subject only to due notice being given to the Lord Mayor . This Privilege was initially shared only by The Buffs  (at this time called the Holland Regiment), the Grenadier Guards and the Royal Marines. 

There are many other references that you could find for verification of these matters, but please see especially  History of the British Army by Sir John William Fortescue, the greatest of all military historians. Unfortunately I do not have a copy immediately available and so cannot give you page numbers. 

Thank you again for your interest. 

John  (late THE BUFFS)

The Royal Sussex Regiment

was first raised in Belfast in 1701, they were given royal permission to wear orange as their facing colour by William III. In the 18th century they acquired the numerical designation of the 35th Regiment of Foot. In 1782 the 35th became the county regiment for Dorset. By 1804 this regiment had its local allegiances changed once more, becoming the 35th Regiment of Foot, and the county title of Sussex from the 25th who later became the King’s Own Scottish Borderers. In 1832, William IV granted the regiment the right to use the ‘Royal’ prefix. In 1881, the 2nd battalion, the 107th, was amalgamated with the 1st to form The Royal Sussex Regiment.

The following email was recently received from one of our website ‘readers’ and I thought it appropriate that, with Rob Vine’s permission that this be included on this page :

I thought you might be interested to know that on the 11.11.01 Royal Legion crosses were laid by myself and my son, who is an ex member of the Royal Horse Artillery, at the graves of four members of the Sussex Regiment and one member of the Royal Artillery at the war grave plot at Gyselbrechenham in Belgium. You will notice that the national flag of Belgium has been planted at the graves by the villagers. All five soldiers died on the same day in May 1940.

I have a particular interest in this village as my Grandfather’s battery was dug in and around the village on the 11.11.18 and he celebrated the end of the First World War here.

I am an ex member of the Gloucestershire Regiment and live near Brussels.

Rob Vine

 

English History and Archaeology

History No Comments

This is a section of the London-Lewes Roman road which Ivan Margery excavated in 1939 at Hoylte, close to the East Sussex/Kent/Surrey borders. He bought the land involved and the footpath which leads to it and presented them to the Sussex AS. The excavated surface has now been covered up to protect it from the weather, so you can’t actually see anything, but it does seem to have been sprayed with weedkiller to prevent it being damaged by roots, etc.

Cantiaci Hillfigures

History No Comments

Cantiaci Hillfigures The Folkestone Horse

To start with the youngest… Kent, despite its equine symbol, never actually had a White Horse of its own. This strange omission has now been rectified, thanks to an idea first mooted in 1998 as a Millenium project. Designed by the artist Charles Newington, the Horse galloped into trouble from the start. The hillside upon which it stands is a Site of Special Scientifc Interest, so English Nature objected to the idea immediately. Even the EU vetoed the construction. However, the Government firmly stated that no laws were being broken and so, after a few years of legal wrangling, construction finally began in 2003.

The Horse was built by Gurkas stationed in the area. Trenches were dug, and slabs of chalk and limestone pinned into the trenches to create an outline which will endure. Building work took about two weeks. The figure is 100 yards long, and can best be seen from the Tesco car park off the M20 Junction 12.

Groundwell Ridge Dig Diary by Chris Walker

History No Comments
Thursday 15th July – Week 6 Day 2 [Day 27] Last week of digging

Well it’s the National Archaeology Days this Saturday and Sunday, and Friday there are some VIPs and massed ranks of the press (so that’ll be the Swindon Evening Advertiser and the free paper, that comes through the door with all those glossy pizza, burger, kebab, double glazing, hairdressing and nail bar, lose weight, golf sale, pine warehouse leaflets, then) and we are cleaning up the site – not that it needs it. Pete has even borrowed my strimmer and got poor old Geoff (site management) , cutting back all that nasty grass

I couldn’t believe the tool store when I saw it at lunchtime :eek , it was sparkling, Liz, one of the archaeologists, had performed a miracle and tidied it – with little labels telling you where to line up the mattocks, shovels, spades, buckets etc., in fact it was so different that I spent 10 minutes looking around for the old tool store. Well done Liz

So in “deep room” we are still peeling back the soil to expose our two or three layers of plaster for the big wigs to admire. I can only keep my fingers crossed that we impress so much that next year funding is available to open up the site again.

West wall of “Deep Room”
showing 2 layers of plaster and plastered chamfered edge of door or niche with infill

Pilae and masonry
floor supports (the pilae have a tegula for a base!!)

Same
Hot air channel is visable behind stacks, to the left.

Another room
being cleaned

Post hole
and post pad and flue and everything!!!

So on the off chance of someone high up in English Heritage is reading this, here is an example of some letters that some 9 year old school children sent me about their “Archaeologist for a Day” experience last week.

Spelling mistakes theirs, explanatory parentheses mine.

Dear Chris (that’s me), Thankyou for teaching us to do the uppy downy game (earthwork surveying) that was one of my favourite things. I am going to ask my mum If we can go

there agian.

MENU

Navigation