MOUNT

Description:  An ornate base silver mount dating to the 19^th century or later.

The mount is sub-rectangular in plan with very rounded narrow edges. At the base of the mount on one long edge is an expanded foot, bevelled in section having a flat back and sloping front. At the top of the mount, in the centre of the long edge, is a trefoil-shaped projection.

Within the centre of the mount is elaborate moulded decoration consisting of a central trefoil flower bud above a long pelleted stem. The flower bud has scrolled and pelleted decoration within each petal. Protruding from the base of the flower stem are four scrolling tendrils, two on each side. Each side has one curving and scrolling upwards and another downwards. Thinner tendrils can be seen emitting from the parent scrolls, all of which are interspersed with small silver pellets.

 Above the central flower petal is a large circular silver dome headed rivet, which is broken and no longer continues through to the reverse of the mount. This rivet forms the junction between the main panel of the mount and the trefoil terminal at the top. The trefoil is delineated by raised lines, each section having a silver pellet within. The entire design is bounded by a rope-effect border, much of which is rubbed and worn. The reverse of the mount is flat, plain and undecorated. There are scratches and some patches of corrosion and a small circular recessed hollow where the rivet would have continued.

Dimensions: The artefact is 30.9mm wide, 28 high, 2.8mm thick and weighs 8.7 grams.

Discussion: The mount takes the form of a bulbous poppy head and the trefoil flower closely resembles a tulip, popular in western Europe (having been imported from the Ottoman Empire) from the 17^th century onwards. The symmetrically scrolling leaves suggest an ‘Eastern’ influence and particularly the elongation of the leaves to create a symmetrical frame for the tulip’s head is something seen in Ottoman iznik tiles. The mount would presumably have been paralleled by another identical example allowing the motifs to be mirrored.

Conclusion: The object is a minimum of 10% precious metal but is not over 300 years old. Consequently, it does not qualify as Treasure under the stipulations of the Treasure Act 1996 in terms of both age and precious metal content.

Anni Byard and Dr Edward Caswell

Finds Liaison Officer for Oxfordshire

January 2020