2024-03-28T20:23:34+00:00https://finds.org.uk/database/search/results/format/jsonhttps://finds.org.uk/database/search/results/format/xmlhttps://finds.org.uk/database/search/results/format/rsshttps://finds.org.uk/database/search/results/format/atomhttps://finds.org.uk/database/search/results/format/kmlhttps://finds.org.uk/database/search/results/format/geojsonhttps://finds.org.uk/database/search/results/format/qrcodehttps://finds.org.uk/database/search/results7967320finds-10645311064531BM-A8E72DBROOCHIRON AGEDescription: A gilded silver one-piece brooch dating to the Late Iron Age or Roman Conquest period. The brooch is slightly bent and is missing its spring and pin. The catch plate is bent over, is 17mm long and has a single simple perforation. The strip shaped bow is divided into three zones running lengthwise; both outer zones are gilded, leaving the silver from which the brooch is made exposed in the centre zone. The wings of the brooch over the missing spring are also divided into zones, with the innermost zones both gilded.
Dimensions: Overall it measures 37mm in length and is 13mm wide at the head.
Discussion and Date: The brooch appears to be a hybrid, with features closely related to both Colchester one-piece brooches and Langton Down brooches. The flat bow divided lengthwise into decorative zones is characteristic of many Langton Down brooches, as is the division of the protecting wings over the spring into different decorative zones. This feature is known from some Colchester one-piece brooches, although such brooches usually have a narrower bow. The hook projecting from the front of the head of the brooch, out in front of the where the spring chord would be attached, is a characteristic feature of Colchester one-piece brooches.
These features would suggest that this brooch was made some time from c. 20 to 10 BC up to c. 40 to 70 AD. While silver La Tène III brooches of the first century BC are known from southern Britain, silver Colchester one-piece and Langton Down brooches of the early/middle first century AD appear to be very unusual, although silver and gold versions of Birdlip-type brooches are known from this date.
This brooch was found while metal-detecting in an area already well known for its finds of late Iron Age and early Roman material. The area appears to have been an important centre in the early to middle first century AD, was probably the location for a Roman military presence in the 40s and 50s AD, and continued as an important centre into the late first century AD. Given the other finds showing the importance of this area, a find such as this is, perhaps, not unexpected.In terms of age and as the brooch contains a minimum of 10% silver it qualifies as Treasure under the stipulations of the Treasure Act 1996.
Dr JD Hill, Department of Prehistory and Early Europe, British Museum162131-207012004T16713BM2004-04-01T00:00:00Z404222006,0202.1British Museum2022-05-10T17:10:26Z2023-05-16T10:47:38ZPAS627A8E72001DF91337122541141425723869116917NorfolkBrecklandSaham ToneyBM-A8F055Silver11728GildedCompleteIRON AGEx13992LateEarlyROMANx41218x13992Metal detectorAcquired by museum after being declared Treasure00017019_001.JPG1182005images/mrainbow/EasternCertain12023-05-16T09:47:38.673Zfinds-10645301064530BM-A8B3BFINGOTIRON AGETwo objects found while metal detecting in the area near Snettisham and Sedgeford, an area well known for discoveries of Iron Age gold and silver torcs, coins, other objects and metalworking debris.
Fragment cut from a sub-triangular ingot or bar (section 16mm x 10 mm; weight 11.42g). Scientific analysis of the surface indicates a metal content of 95% silver.
Irregular plano-convex ‘bun-shaped’ ingot (Diam. 24 mm, height 11 mm; weight 27.03g). Scientific analysis of the surface indicates a metal content of leaded bronze.
Object 1 is similar to several fragments from bar ingots from hoards at Ken Hill, Snettisham that are of an Iron Age date. There is no direct parallel for the bun shaped copper alloy ingot, but an Iron Age or Roman date is likely.Object 1 is potential Treasure as it is made of silver and is probably more than 300 years old. The second object is not made of silver or gold. It might be considered an object as ‘associated with Treasure’ if it came from a disturbed hoard or cluster of metal fragments that also contained the silver fragment.
JD Hill, British Museum1616-800-4212004T2483BM2004-06-01T00:00:00Z2004-06-30T00:00:00Z372172022-05-10T16:56:43Z2022-11-01T12:58:48ZPAS627A8B3B001F6D2227164141425723871997016NorfolkKing's Lynn and West NorfolkHeachamTF693752.903862190.511361088BM-A8BF9BSilver11728Copper alloy10627CompleteIRON AGEx13992IRON AGEx13992x13992Metal detectorReturned to finder after being declared not Treasure00017455_001.JPG1182003images/mrainbow/EasternCertain12022-11-01T12:58:48.392Zfinds-10645011064501BM-A7BA94HOARDIRON AGE1. Platform Decorated Terret
Large, complete platform-decorated terret (rein ring). The terret comprises an inset rectangular-sectioned attachment bar, which is flanked on either side with vertical collars. The ring itself, which is in remarkable condition, is decorated with three circular disc-like platforms, one on each side and one at the top. Each platform is decorated with a simple, geometric flower design consisting of four petals situated around a central circle. The petal-shaped cells on the platforms located on either side of the ring are filled with blue enamel. The colour used on the petals on the decorated disc at the top is less clear. Each of the central circular cells of the flower design have been filled with yellow enamel, and the area around the flower has been filled with red enamel. There are five rectangular cells on the outer edge of the ring connecting the side platforms with the top. These cells have also been filled with blue, yellow and red enamel – the blue rectangular is in the middle, it is flanked on either side with red cells and then the outer two are filled with yellow enamel. The blue and yellow enamels have survived in much better condition than the red.
2. Lipped Terret
Another example of a complete terret was discovered in close proximity to the above terret. This example is smaller; it also has an inset rectangular-sectioned attachment bar flanked on either side by vertical discs. It has three decorative projections or mouldings around the ring, one on each side and one on top. In terms of category, it could be described as a three-lipped terret. There are no other examples that have previously been found and recorded in Norfolk that have mouldings the same as this one (see illustration).
3. Harness Mount
In addition to the two terrets, a fragment of a harness mount or harness plaque was also recovered. The fragment suggests that this particular example was of a type similar to those found in the Polden Hills hoard (Brailsford 1975). Other examples of these harness plaques are known from Norfolk, including examples from the Santon hoard, Snettisham and Holme Hale (Hutcheson 2004, 65, 69, 70, 72). This example has lobed decoration, which is outlined with a faint incised line. The lobed decoration is also picked out with cells filled with red enamel.
Hoards of the metal parts, similar to these, that come from the horse harness from chariots or horse-drawn vehicles are well known from Norfolk and other parts of Britain. They may comprise of the rein rings or terrets, horse bits, strap unions, linch pins and decorative plaques. Similar hoards from Norfolk have been found at Saham Toney and form parts of larger hoards from Santon and Westhall (north Suffolk).
Metal Analysis: Non-destructive X-ray fluorescence analysis of the surface of the two terrets and a fragment of horse harness identified the alloys of all three as leaded bronze. Traces of less than 1% zinc were detected. This means all three objects are made from bronze and not from brass.
Discussion: These types of terrets and harness mounts are typical objects from the Pre-Roman Iron Age. D-shaped terrets, often decorated with enamel, are found in some Iron Age burials and other archaeological sites. However, new research is demonstrating that Iron Age types of horse harness continued to be used, and in some cases were made, after the Roman Conquest in AD 43. This is particularly the case in Norfolk; here, elaborate decorated terrets appear to be a particular feature of the first century AD. They became important before the Roman Conquest in AD 43, but continued to be used, made, lost and deliberately buried in hoards after this date and, potentially for some time after the Boudican revolt of AD 60-61.
The red enamel and style of La Tene (early ‘Celtic’) decoration on the both the lipped terret and harness mount certainly are typical of horse gear made before the Roman Conquest. The elaborate multicoloured enamel and the geometric style of decoration on the platform decorated terret are characteristics that might have only started around the time of the Roman Conquest. Although this is uncertain, and requires considerably more research to establish, it is possible that some polychrome enamelling and geometric designs may have been made before AD 43.
That all three objects are made from bronze and not brass may also point to an earlier date for their manufacture. Brass was the common copper alloy used in the Roman period. As more brass objects were made, circulated and re-cycled after AD43, so this alloy began to be commonly used by metalworkers throughout Britain. Many objects decorated with late La Tene style decoration are made from brass, suggesting they were probably made after AD 43. That all three of these objects are made of leaded bronze and not brass may point to an earlier date.
Date: Taken all together, a date in the first century AD (1-70 AD) seems likely.The Treasure (Designation) Order 2002 added to the definition of treasure prehistoric base-metal assemblages. These are groups (defined as one of at least two) of base-metal objects, other than coins of prehistoric date i.e. up to and including the Iron Age, from the same find.
This assemblage is problematic because it dates to the end of the Iron Age or the first decades of the Roman period. It contains exclusively objects that are of recognized Iron Age Prehistoric British types and are in no way typical of Roman horse harness. However, it is possible that the hoard was buried sometime in the first four to five decades after the Roman Conquest, a period when traditional Iron Age British objects and lifestyles were still kept up by some Britons, while others increasingly adopted new Roman types of objects and lifestyles. Because this is a group of three base-metal objects that are clearly of well known Prehistoric types, and it contains no objects that are distinctively Roman or later in date, this group should be considered as Treasure.
Natasha Hutcheson, University of East Anglia; and JD Hill, British Museum.
Update: Two additional copper alloy objects from this dispersed hoard were found a few years later (Treasure case 2008T98. recorded at NMS-EE8B03).16213117012004T3013BM2004-07-01T00:00:00Z2004-07-01T00:00:00Z394342006.349Norfolk Museums2022-05-10T15:50:17Z2023-05-16T11:05:16ZPAS627A7BA900146737542141425723871406917NorfolkBrecklandAttleboroughBM-A7BCE4Copper alloy10627Inlaid with enamelCompleteIRON AGEx13992LateEarlyROMANx41218x13992Metal detectorAcquired by museum after being declared Treasure00065573_001.jpg1181981images/mrainbow/EasternCertain12023-05-16T10:05:16.255Zfinds-10644351064435BM-A530B3HOARDBRONZE AGETwo objects from a Late Bronze Age hoard; according to TAR 2004, p. 40, no. 28, these are additional to a hoard first discovered in 2001.
Catalogue
1. Bronze Age copper alloy spear head. Leaf shaped blade with bevelled edges, rounded socket continuing smoothly as rounded central rib to the tip. Brown patina with patches of thick, orange ?iron deposit along the join between the mid rib and blade and inside the socket. Side holes on socket 6mm diameter. Slight damage on the edge of the blade. Part of the socket is squashed. External diameter of socket 26mm. Length of blade90mm, total length 117mm. Probably Late Bronze Age. Similar example from the Reach Fen hoard, Cambridgeshire in Inventaria Archaeologica, G.B. 17 3 (2) no. 5.
2. Bronze Age fragment of copper alloy sword. Broken at both ends and bent. Brown patina with patches of green and very small patches of orange ?iron deposit. About half the original surface is roughened / missing. Bevelled edges. Length 73mm (unbent), width 29 - 35mm, thickness (at max.) 9mm. Surface and edge of blades damaged. 131333-1000-80012004T4413BM2004-10-01T00:00:00Z2004-10-31T00:00:00Z360812022-05-10T12:56:59Z2022-11-01T12:57:56ZPAS627A530B00139F27102141425723869306917NorfolkBrecklandNorth TuddenhamTG051252.666929881.030240418BM-A551E2Copper alloy10627IncompleteBRONZE AGEx13712LateLateBRONZE AGEx13712x13712Metal detectorReturned to finder after being disclaimed as Treasure00064564_001.jpg1181888images/mrainbow/EasternCertain12022-11-01T12:57:56.688Zfinds-10636611063661BM-297D6CHOARDBRONZE AGECircumstances of discovery: Four Bronze Age bronze implements were found during a metal-detecting rally. Three have been reported as potential Treasure; the fourth, made by a different finder, should also be submitted for consideration. The three submitted were located at depths between 1 and 4 inches (2.5 – 10 cm) on cultivated land. They were found in an approximate line at intervals of about 25 feet (8 m) – hence 50 feet overall. The alignment was noted to be that of the direction of ploughing.
Descriptions: Condition of the palstaves (nos 1 & 2) is good, the socketed axe, less so. Deep green to blackish patinas are largely intact, but there is scattered pock-scarring.
1. Looped palstave: Patina intact over part of butt and much of flange crests; cutting edge and blade tips totally corrosion chipped. Flanges triangular; stop projects beyond a little and has convex-profiled underside. Stout trident-rib motif – the outer ribs slightly bowed and point of convergence low on blade; stem below is diffuse. Strong edge bevel with slight blade tip hollows. Hammer-dimpling on faces and sides.
Extant length 154 mm ; extant width cutting edge 51.7 mm; breadth at stop 36.8 mm; width butt 24.5 mm; thickness septum base 12 mm; thickness edge bevel 12 mm; depth edge bevel 18 mm; weight 485.5 g
2. Looped palstave: Butt corner intact – adjacent notch may be due to poor casting. Two flanges intact, two corrosion damaged. Stretch of cutting edge retains patina, but is rounded rather than sharp. Flanges convex-triangular in shape; stop projects beyond a little and has convex-profiled underside. Stout trident-rib motif – the outer ribs slightly bowed. Strong edge bevel, hammering having caused blade tip hollows; however, tips have then been neatly squared off in finishing. Some hammer rippling, especially on edge bevel.
Extant length 149.5 mm; width cutting edge 47.8 mm; width butt 24.5 mm; breadth at stop 32 mm; thickness septum base 11.5 mm; thickness edge bevel 12.8 mm; depth edge bevel 11 mm; weight 418.8 g
3. Socketed axe: Half of one face and of one side missing - ?eaten away by corrosion. Cutting edge and blade tips totally corrosion chipped. Flat deep mouth-moulding. Corroded lump on one side of moulding, 4 mm across, likely to be stump of a loop. Both faces and sides have convex profile, but they still meet at well defined body angles. Intact side shows light linear features parallel to fine central casting flash remnant. Inner edge of mouth top also carries thin casting flash. Diffuse edge bevel. Socket tapers steadily and asymmetrically to wedge-like end.
Extant length 111 mm; extant width cutting edge 37.6 mm; extant width mouth 33.8 mm; breadth mouth 29.5 mm; depth socket 79 mm; weight 217.9 g.
Discussion: Of the three submitted objects, the two palstaves are of the Transitional type typical of the Penard metalworking assemblage, circa 1275 – 1150 BC. The socketed axe is an early flat-collar form; it does not have the gracile proportions of the Taunton-Hademarschen axes and instead is entirely in keeping with Penard socketed axe styles. A good parallel may be found, for example, in the Wallington hoard, Northumberland (Burgess 1968, 13 fig. 9.14), now datable to the Penard phase.
The three reported bronzes can therefore be attributed to the same phase of the Bronze Age and could well have been deposited at the same time. Although well separated, their linear alignment admits the possibility that they were plough dispersed from close proximity to one another.It is likely that the objects form a single find of Middle Bronze Age date, which qualifies the group as Treasure under the stipulations of the Treasure Act 1996 (Designation Order 2002).131322-1275-1150112004T4013BM2004-09-01T00:00:00Z2004-09-30T00:00:00Z410912006.477Norfolk Museums2022-05-04T16:12:22Z2022-11-02T08:30:18Z1122.2PAS627297D6001C6237542141425723871887016NorfolkKing's Lynn and West NorfolkThornhamTF734352.956472020.573967228BM-29A5C4Copper alloy10627CompleteGoodBRONZE AGEx13712MiddleMiddleBRONZE AGEx13712x13712Metal detectorAcquired by museum after being declared Treasure00064445_001.jpg1181232images/mrainbow/EasternCertain12022-11-02T08:30:18.712ZMiddleGloucestershireCountyBRONZE AGE1MiddleControlled archaeological investigation00371759_001.JPG20616200475202061106272004T416BA
Metal composition
Surface analysis conducted at the British Museum indicated gold contents for the 54 precious metal objects of between 76 and 85 per cent.
Identification and discussion
Including intertwined fragments (nos 10a-b & 20a-c), the near Cirencester find has yielded 57 objects of gold and five of bronze. Total weight of the gold is 261.3 g and of the bronze 139.7 g. Because most of the material is fragmentary, there is the possibility that some might be from the same object. Two joins have been recognised and taking into account also possibly belonging fragments, having similar features and dimensions, a minimum of 38 different gold objects and five bronze implements can be suggested. They break down as follows.
Sub-type
Object nos
No. pieces
Minimum no.
1. Bronze implements
Awls/punches/tracers
1*/ 2*/ 37*
3
3
Tanged knife
59*
1
1
Spearhead
36
1
1
2. Torcs: flange-twisted hoops of medium to large thickness, with trumpet terminals
Terminal, plus four-flanged hoop frags
3, 5, 6, 32 (flattened)
4
1
Thinner four-flanged hoop frag.
4
1
1
3. Thin twisted-rod ornaments
Terminal, plus frags of trilobate- section hoop
7, 8, 13, 38
4
1
Terminal with trilobate-section hoop frag.
19
1
1
Trilobate-section hoop fragment
9
1
1
Quadrilobate-section hoop frags
10a, 10b/ 11/ 12, 39
5
3
4. Finger rings: plain rod, bar or wire
Doubled-strand coiled
14*/ 15
2
2
Coiled rod
16=40*/ 17/ 41?
4
3
Coiled wire
18*
1
1
Rectangular-section bar
31=52* unfinished
2
1
5. Other plain-rod ornaments: medium thick to thick rods/bars
Terminal and hoop fragments
46, 28, 30?
3
1
Round section hoop fragments
27, 29, 48/ 47, 49, 50, 51
7
2
Rectangular-section hoop fragments
53/ 54
2
2
6. Penannular rings: rod or wire of round section
Double-rod rings
21*/ 22*
2
2
Single-rod rings
23*/ 24*/ 25*/43*/ 44* unfinished/ 45* unfinished
6
6
Small fragment
26
1
1
Wire ring
42
1
1
7. Sheet gold-work
Sheet fragment, ?button/bead cover
58
1
1
8. Miscellaneous
Modified bar fragments
35, 56
2
(2)
Ribbon/ flat fragments
33/ 34/ 55/ 57
4
4
Wire pieces
20a, 20b, 20c
3
1
Total
62
43
Key:
= join
, division between fragments potentially belonging to one object;
/ division between separate objects (as reconstructed where necessary)
The very fragmentary nature of many of the objects also imposes limitations on full identification. Similar gauges of rod or bar can be used for finger rings and bracelets, or for bracelets and neck ornaments, and even terminal forms may not be unique to one ornament category. Identifications therefore rely on finding good parallels in more complete form.
Flange-twisted torcs with classic ‘trumpet’ terminals (group 2) are certainly represented in the near Cirencester find. It is not impossible that other fragments belonged to neck ornaments. Some of the medium-thick rods (group 5, especially nos 47, 49-51) could perhaps have been neck-rings strung with beads; fragments of such seem to have been present in the now-lost Beerhackett hoard, Dorset (Anon 1850, fig. D) and the sheet-gold cover from Cirencester (no 58) may represent one of the biconical attachments illustrated there.
The thickest round rods present at Cirencester, averaging 5 mm thick and including that with a flat barely expanded terminal (nos 27-30, 46, 48) are more likely to come from simple penannular bracelets such as are known in a number of hoards of the Middle Bronze Age. Unfortunately their short extant lengths and distortion associated with fragmentation does not allow any useful assessment of curvature.
The plain rod fragments of finer dimensions, down to wire proportions, seem consistently to belong to coiled finger rings, but these break down into three types in detail (group 4). Simple coiled rings of rod or wire are known in bronze in a few Middle Bronze Age contexts, but are not readily paralleled in gold in secure contexts. Likewise, the doubled-strand form is unusual, but the Beerhackett hoard contained similar ornaments both in plain rod and twisted rod (Anon 1850, figs B & C). They are described as being armlets, but were generally too small in diameter; it is perhaps more likely that they were coiled to form finger rings, as now seen clearly at Cirencester. A single find from Llanwrthwl, Brecknockshire (Savory 1980, no 304, 195 fig. 47; Taylor 1980, pl. 34c), is again made of doubled-strand thin rod, but as a finger ring it only forms a single circuit with a gap (penannular). The Beerhackett hoard also thus presents a possible identity for some (but not all) of the twisted rod fragments in this hoard (group 3); their rod diameters are similar to the illustrated one from Beerhackett.
The final object likely to be from a finger ring is that chopped in two (nos 31 & 52). Although in unfinished state, its full length is only about 68 mm, so it would form a penannular ring of around 25 mm diameter unless significantly stretched in the final stages of manufacture.
At least one of the thin twisted rods (group 3 no 7) cannot have come from the doubled-strand type of ornament, nor from a finger ring. Although of delicate proportions, its intact terminal follows the ‘trumpet’ pattern normally encountered on torcs. If this was from a torc, it was extremely fine; the alternative is perhaps a bracelet or armlet in matching style and secured by linking the two recurved terminals together in a similar (but uncertain) fashion. Twisted rods or wires can also evidently be used in multiples to form ornaments; this has come to light with the fine bracelet in the Burton hoard, Wrexham, in which six twisted wires have been fused together and clamped with folded strips at either end (Treasure case 2004/T2 Wales)
The main gold type remaining for discussion is the familiar penannular ring of the later Bronze Age. Although the function of these is much debated, they are very distinct in form from finger rings, not least in their small internal diameters. As many as ten examples are present in the near Cirencester assemblage, eight of them being complete. Other than in having a round or near-round section and simple flattened terminals, they are not uniform. Six are single plain rods of modest thickness sometimes tapering towards the ends (nos 23, 24, 25, 43, 44, 45), two are similar but of double rod (nos 21-22), one is a much thicker single rod fragment (no 26) and the last is from a delicate wire example (no 42).
There are a number of factors which could link the deposit to gold-working. Most obvious is the high proportion of the objects which have been chopped, cut or torn into fragments. Normally this would be interpreted as evidence of preparation for recycling. Certainly, it would be advantageous to break up the larger ornaments in order to fit the metal pieces in a crucible. However, fragmentation is not confined to those and the fact that similar treatment was received by objects that could easily have gone into a crucible intact or crushed suggests that the process of fragmentation also had a symbolic role. Similarly, the crushing flat of a small flange-twisted torc fragment (no 32) would again be totally unnecessary simply for the purpose of melting it down.
Notwithstanding this qualification of the background to fragmentation, there is other evidence relating to metalworking in the form of unfinished pieces: two single-rod penannular rings (nos 44, 45) and a bar probably destined for a finger ring (no 31/52). Other penannular rings, notably nos 23 and 25, may be essentially finished, but have not acquired any obvious use-wear and may therefore be newly manufactured at the time of deposition.
The five bronze implements from the find could be of importance in this context. Three can be described variously as awls, punches or tracers, any of which could have performed some role in applying dot and line decoration to gold. However, a conundrum is presented by the fact that these forms of decoration are not a feature of gold of the phase represented. The unusually large tanged knife would, on the other hand, be a very suitable implement for cutting up many of the gold artefacts. The spearhead tip cannot obviously be functionally related, but spearheads do occasionally occur in ornament-dominated hoards of the Middle Bronze Age.
Most closely datable in the near Cirencester find is the flange-twisted torc, a type seemingly in use only during the Penard phase, circa 1300 – 1150 BC. Given the fragmentary nature of the torcs, the possibility must be born in mind that deposition was later, but associations for the other types all allow a Penard date. What is recorded from the Beerhackett hoard sits comfortably at this horizon, and coiled finger rings in bronze are if anything typical of slightly earlier, Taunton phase metalwork (14th century BC). All but one of the bronzes could be of Penard date but are not specific to this phase. The exception is no 1, which has a high lead content not found before the succeeding Wilburton phase. In fact, this object need not be Bronze Age at all; it is not a classic Bronze Age awl form and heavily leaded bronze compositions are also known in the Roman period. Fieldwork on the site yielded a number of Roman pottery finds.
The dating of the varied penannular rings (group 6) does require some further elucidation. The type is conventionally dated to the Late Bronze Age, circa 1150 – 800/750 BC, but occurs in only a few associations of that date. Those examples have base-metal cores covered in gold sheet and can be punch-decorated. Gold-covered and other more intricate varieties (especially striped ones) probably are of full Late Bronze Age date, but it is possible that the simple plain solid rod versions seen at Cirencester began earlier. Single, double and triple penannular rings with flat to hollow backs are associated with Penard phase hoards at Stretham, Cambridgeshire, and Boyton, Suffolk (Eogan 1994, 56-7 figs. 21 & 22), while the rings associated with a twisted torc from Haxey, Lincolnshire, include two quadruple-rod penannulars and a coiled rod all with oval rod sections (Taylor 1980, pl. 39c). The Blinkbonny, Northumberland, group of interlocked rings includes three triple-rod penannulars and a single coil of rod – these are all round in section (ibid, pl. 34a)
A final association of particular relevance is the assemblage of forty-two gold pieces from Fitzleroi Farm, West Sussex (British Museum accession 1996 9-2 1-42). Not only does this have two complete penannular rings of solid rod (one single, one double), it also shares with Cirencester a number of other features: flange-twisted hoop fragments, a plain-rod coiled finger ring, and a high frequency of chopped up segments of rod and bar; many round section rods of differing thicknesses, octagonal section bars and flat/ribbon fragments; terminals are consistently flat-ended and unexpanded. The Fitzleroi hoard also includes two complete (and therefore certain) plain penannular bracelets and a fragment of an ingot.
Conclusion
Although some very unusual elements are present in the near Cirencester find, there is no reason to doubt that originally it was either a single deposit or a series of related deposits made over a short period. It would appear that material of very similar character, and even two joining pieces, may have been spread over a fairly large area. Plough-dispersal is certainly plausible to account for this, particularly since all of the well-recorded pieces came from the modern ploughsoil. The date of deposition would have been within the Penard phase or shortly after, circa 1300 – 1100 BC.
Dr S.P. Needham
Department of Prehistory & Europe
British Museum
DistrictCertain4BM20224-1100Restricted Accessx13712Cotswold108922022-05-24T16:00:59ZAcquired by museum after being declared Treasure2South WestCirca
Circumstances of discovery
The large group of gold and bronze artefacts described here were found between September 2004 and December 2005, initially by metal detecting, later by a combination of excavation and metal-detector survey. Most finds were made within a zone 25 x 10 metres in extent with just a few further away, up to 40 m. The finds circumstances are fully dealt with in Gloucestershire County Council’s preliminary report (Barrett & Vallender 2005); in summary they can be broken down into six groups:
Thirty-five objects were initially found before any archaeological involvement (nos 1-35); the finds were between 1 and 50 cm deep. Finder marked the positions of twenty-one findspots with pegs – these were later surveyed in by GCC archaeologists.
Fifteen relevant objects were among those recovered during archaeological excavation of a 10 x 3 m trench in December 2004 (nos 39, 41-42, 44-47, 50-55, 57-58). One gold fragment (no 52) was later found to belong to one of the initial discoveries (no 31).
Following the excavation, but before the associated survey, Finder recovered a further two objects (nos 37, 43); no positions were marked, but they were reported to come from the area of the main scatter.
The archaeologically monitored gridded metal-detector survey, covering a zone 70 x 30 m roughly centred on the excavated trench, recovered a mixed assemblage of finds including three relevant to the Bronze Age deposit (nos 40, 48-49). Find no 40, furthest away from the main concentration proves to join no 16; however, it is not known whether the latter is one of the plotted initial finds.
Three more objects were submitted to the Corinium Museum by metal detectorists on 22 February 2005. These were reported to have come from an area about 40 m to the south of the main concentration, adjacent to a ploughed out field boundary on a NE-SW axis (nos 36, 38, 56).
Finally, object no 59 was later submitted by Finder, said to have been found in the same area, but the location has not been reported.
Descriptions
[Objects are gold unless otherwise stated]
Bronze awl or punch. Complete stout double-ended tool, both ends tapering to rather bullet-like tips. The shank section is round close to the ends, but mainly square with body angles locally faceted. Length: 40.1 mm; width: 4.9 x 4.5 mm; weight: 5.0 g
Bronze awl or tracer. Complete; slender rod mainly of square section, but becoming more round at pointed end. Maximum width lies closer to presumed butt end, which was likely wedge-shaped before patina loss locally. Length: 45.4 mm; width 3.1 x 2.9 mm; weight: 1.6 g
Torc trumpet terminal fragment. Gradually expanding torc terminal of round section, the flattish end having a slightly dished centre. Other end bifacially cut then torn; associated bend is probably part of the original tight turn to the hoop. Length: 50.0 mm; diameter 7.4 x 7.7 mm; weight: 14.5 g
Bar-twisted ornament fragment – torc or bracelet. Medium-thick bar of trilobate section, evenly twisted except close to one break where plain round section and bend suggest beginning of recurved terminal. Both ends torn. Length: 40 mm; unfurled length: c.110 mm; diameter: 3.8 mm; weight: 11.2 g
Flange-twisted torc fragment. Piece of hoop of cruciform (‘four-flanged’) section. Roughly coiled (secondary), the tighter bends distorting otherwise neat twisting. Flange crests neatly flattened up to 0.7 mm wide. Both ends bifacially chopped. Coil diameter: 31 mm; unfurled length c. 120 mm; bar diameter: 6 mm; weight: 17.7 g
Flange-twisted torc fragment. Piece of hoop of cruciform (‘four-flanged’) section. Flange crests flattened up to 0.7 mm wide. Fairly evenly twisted except where compressed at the two bifacially chopped ends. Length: 29.1 mm; bar diameter: 7.2 mm; weight: 6.1 g
Twisted-rod fragment with trumpet terminal. Irregular, secondary coil of fairly thin rod of trilobate section, twisted tightly and neatly. Becomes plain round-sectioned for last 32 mm, expanding very gradually to near flat end – ie a trumpet terminal. Stress fractures suggest terminal originally recurved relative to hoop. Broken end torn. Coil diameter: 34.5 mm; unfurled length c. 250 mm; terminal diameter: 2.3 mm; hoop diameter: 1.7 mm; weight: 7.8 g
Twisted-rod fragment. Irregular, secondary coil of fairly thin rod of trilobate section, twisted tightly and neatly. Fine cracks along furrows. Both ends torn. Coil diameter: 20.0 mm; unfurled length: c. 115 mm; rod diameter 2.0 mm; weight: 4.2 g
Twisted-rod fragment. Irregular, loose coil (secondary) of thin rod of trilobate section, twisted tightly and neatly. Hairline cracks intermittently along furrows. Both ends twisted-and-torn. Maximum dimension: 29.7 mm; unfurled length: c. 65 mm; rod diameter: 2.5 mm; weight: 3.7 g
Two twisted-rod fragments. Two roughly coiled and intertwined thin rod fragments of quadrilobate section with tight, neat twisting. All four breaks are torn. Coil diameter: 28.5 mm; unfurled lengths: c. 95 & 120 mm; rod diameters: 1.8 & 1.9 mm; weight: 7.0 g
Twisted-rod fragment. Roughly coiled as if to form a penannular ring, but both ends unifacially cut. Medium thick rod of quadrilobate section with very neat, tight twisting. Coil diameter: 22.5 mm; unfurled length: c. 55 mm; rod diameter 2.7 mm; weight: 4.2 g
Twisted-rod fragment. Bent rod fragment of quadrilobate section; twisting not as tight as associated fragments. One end bifacially cut, the other unifacially. Length: 30.2 mm; unfurled length: c. 33 mm; rod diameter: 2.2 mm; weight: 1.4 g
Twisted-rod fragment. Loose (secondary) coil of thin rod of trilobate section, tightly twisted. Both ends twisted-and-torn. Coil diameter: 27.5 mm; unfurled length: c. 110 mm; rod diameter: 1.8 mm; weight: 3.5 g
Doubled-strand coiled rod finger ring. Complete and neatly coiled ring with one-and-a-half circuits of doubled, plain rod of round section. The doubled-strand was formed by squashing flat a single unbroken ring, the tight bends at either end then serving as the terminals of the coil. Well finished, just tiny facelts in places. Ring diameter: 25.0 mm; uncoiled length: c. 115 mm; rod diameter: 2.0 mm; weight: 11.5 g
Doubled-strand rod fragment. Rod of round section tightly doubled back to form terminal very similar to those on ring no 14. Facets present around terminal. One rod end torn, the other unifacially cut. Length: 20.5 mm; unfurled length: 22 mm; rod diameter 2.0 mm; weight: 2.1 g
Coiled rod ring fragment. Joins object no 40 to make complete ring. Medium-thick rod of round section having a simple but neat terminal with side facets leading up to a flat sub-pentagonal end; other end torn. Fairly neatly coiled into slightly oval shape. Small lap-flaws in surface. Diameter: 25.5 mm; unfurled length: c. 105 mm; rod diameter: 2.9 mm; weight: 10.6 g
Rod ring fragment. Single extant coil of medium-thick rod of round section. The curve is fairly even and likely close to original. Both ends unifacially cut, then torn. Diameter: 22.7 mm; unfurled length: c. 55 mm; rod diameter: 2.9 mm; weight: 5.9 g
Coiled wire ring. Complete ring of round-section wire neatly coiled three-and-a-half times; each coil slightly offset to the next. Minimal tapering of rod with associated faceting close to either simple terminal. Diameter: 23.3 mm; unfurled length: c. 235 mm; rod diameter: 1.5 mm; weight: 7.1 g
Twisted-rod fragment with trumpet terminal. Wire fragment roughly bent double, one half being of round section and expanding very gradually to flat-ended terminal. Becomes trilobate in section, loosely twisted and contorted towards other end, which is torn. Tiny longitudinal groove in side of terminal derives from manufacture, not fully polished out. Maximum dimension: 17.0 mm; unfurled length: 30 mm; rod diameter: 1.0 mm; terminal diameter: 1.9 mm; weight: 0.9 g
Three wire pieces. Roughly coiled and loosely intertwined, three wires of approximately round section with a little faceting. Fairly even in thickness, but each tapers slightly to one end. Two possible torn ends, others original. Slight longitudinal grooves could be from drawing process. Coil diameter: 18.9 mm; unfurled lengths: c. 32, 42, 65 mm; wire diameters: 0.7 – 1.0 mm; weight: 2.0 g
Double penannular ring. Complete ring comprising two rods side by side, presumably soldered together. Rods round in section with partial flattening on inner faces. Well finished, but tiny transverse nicks close to one terminal may be flaws of manufacture. Terminal ends are marginally convex from finishing. Diameter: 14.3 x 13.4 mm; total breadth: 6.0 mm; rod thickness: 2.9 mm; weight: 7.1 g
Double penannular ring. Complete ring comprising two rods side by side, presumably soldered together. Rods round in section except mostly flattened on inner faces. Terminal ends slightly convex and two of four bear residual clefts. Diameter: 14.5 x 13.5 mm; total breadth: 6.0 mm; rod thickness: 3.1 mm; weight: 7.4 g
Single penannular ring. Complete ring of near-round section with slight faceting all round associated with relatively coarse grinding striations. Latter also present on flattish terminal ends, while small folds and lipping have not been erased. Piece is probably essentially finished, but lacks the finer polish acquired during use. Diameter: 13.0 x 13.9 mm; breadth: 3.1 mm; thickness: 2.9 mm; weight: 3.2 g
Single penannular ring. Complete ring of round section rod tapering a little towards terminals. Latter roughly flattened at their ends with some faceting around a central cleft and external lipping. Rod also covered in diffuse facets and light striations. Diameter: 14.5 x 13.5 mm; breadth: 3.0 mm; thickness: 2.9 mm; weight: 3.4 g
Single penannular ring. Complete ring of thick rod of slightly oval section tapering a little towards the terminals. Ends of latter roughly flattened with facets extant; slight lipping at the edges has in part been folded back and burnished into the sides. Diffuse hammermarks run back from terminals on generally smoothed outer face. Diameter: 13.5 x 12.0 mm; breadth: 3.4 – 4.0 mm; thickness: 3.0 – 3.7 mm; weight: 5.0 g
Penannular ring fragment. Very thick rod of near round section and tightly curved without sign of distortion; almost certainly therefore from a ring of about 22 mm external diameter. Both ends chopped – one unifacially, the other bifacially. Another deep cut notch just inside latter. Length: 5.2 mm; breadth: 6.4 mm; thickness: 6.6 mm; weight: 6.7 g
Rod fragment. Thick rod fragment of round section. Original surface with diffuse longitudinal facets. One end cut and torn, the other dented and torn. Length: 25.1 mm; rod diameter: 5.0 mm; weight: 7.3 g
Rod fragment. Thick rod fragment of round section. Two unusual patches of blackened surface with silvery outline (analysis shows them to be silver splashes). Both ends with unifacial chop and opposing shallow facet, the remaining tongue torn. Length: 24.8 mm; rod diameter: 4.6 mm; weight: 6.6 g
Rod fragment. Thick rod fragment of round section with slight S curve in profile – presumably not original. Most of intact surface with very diffuse dimpling. One end dented and torn, the other, bifacially chopped and torn. Length: 31.8 mm; rod diameter: 5.2 mm; weight: 9.8 g
Rod fragment. Tiny segment of round or oval section rod. Both ends unifacially chopped then torn. Length: 3.3 mm; breadth: 4.8 mm; thickness 4.3 mm; weight: 0.5 g
Bar fragment – unfinished bar ornament?. Joins no 52 to make complete bar. Thickish fragment of near rectangular section, tapering slightly to one end, which is a probable terminal. Narrow facet along one body angle and part of another. Faces covered with hammer-rippling, while two longitudinal grooves are residual from working. Terminal has asymmetric convex end, roughly faceted and with residual cleft not worked out. Break with unifacial chop. Length: 34.2 mm; width: 4.4 mm; breadth: 3.5 mm; weight: 6.9 g
Flattened flange-twisted torc fragment. Well flattened fragment unifacially cut through at both ends. Four laps of metal run systematically from the sides diagonally in towards the middle and betray original helically coiled four-flanged section. Both surfaces rippled with hammer facets. Length: 14.7 mm; width: 10.7 mm; thickness: 2.1 mm; weight: 2.6 g
Ribbon/flat fragment. Small trapezoidal piece of ribbon. Longer sides unbroken and slightly bowed, converging towards one end. Shorter edges bifacially cut then torn. Length: 11.5 mm; width: 5.8 mm; thickness: 1.3 mm; weight: 0.8g
Ribbon/flat fragment. Contorted flattish piece, the two longer sides mutilated by hammer damage, but not cut or torn. Both ends unifacially cut. Length: 12.0 mm; width: 8.9 mm; thickness: 1.5 mm; weight: 1.8 g
Modified rod/bar fragment. Small fragment of bar, triangular in plan and sub-triangular in section, probably having been distorted. Unifacial chops at both ends converge and almost meet at one side. Length: 8.0 mm; width: 6.7 mm; thickness: 5.4 mm; weight: 1.3 g
Bronze spearhead fragment. Tip of a spearhead with lozenge section midrib, the socket end not being present. Cutting edges chipped in places; intact parts thin, but with rather rounded bevelling. Length: 34.8 mm; width: 17.2 mm; thickness: 7.5 mm; weight: 6.8 g
Bronze punch. Complete tool with shaft largely of crisp square section, one end tapering in profile to bluntish wedge-like end, probably to be sunk into handle. From midway, body angles gradually flattened by tapered facets, eventually converting working end into round section; this tapers to rather blunt point. Light furrow along one face residual from forging of the shaft. Length: 75.0 mm; width butt: 6.4 mm; diameter working end: 2.0 mm; breadth: 4.3 mm; weight: 7.4 g
Twisted-rod fragment. Loose, irregular coil of trilobate section rod, neatly and tightly twisted. Flange crests smoothed from polish or wear. Torn at both ends. Coil diameter: 26.0 mm; unfurled length: c. 88 mm; rod diameter: 1.8 mm; weight: 2.7 g
Twisted-rod fragment. Slightly bent piece of rod of quadrilobate section. Well smoothed crests and gooves. Either end is torn with a punchmark alongside. Length: 17.8 mm; rod diameter: 2.2 mm; weight: 0.9 g
Coiled rod ring fragment. Joins object no 16 to make complete ring. Medium-thick rod of round to oval section having a simple but neat flat-ended terminal with a tapered facet running back on one side; other end torn and bent relative to no 16. Almost full circuit of a coil of slightly oval shape. Diameter: 24.2 x 22.5 mm; unfurled length: c. 60 mm; rod diameter: 3.0 mm; weight: 6.0 g
Plain rod fragment. Irregular coil (one-and-a-half turns) of round section rod with slight longitudical faceting. One end torn, the other with unifacial cut. Coil diameter: 24.5 mm; unfurled length: c. 75 mm; rod diameter: 1.9 mm; weight: 3.1 g
Wire penannular ring fragment. Tightly and evenly curved stretch of round section wire, probably near original curvature (estimated diameter c. 12 mm). Slight longitudinal faceting. One end a flat-ended terminal with tiny cleft in middle; other end dented then torn. Length: 9.7 mm; Rod diameter 1.6 mm; weight: 0.4 g
Single penannular ring. Complete. Round section rod, well polished with diffuse longitudinal faceting. Terminals a little out of alignment – one bent inwards. Terminal ends both ground flat around a sizable central depression. Diameter: 14.7 x 13.9 mm; breadth 3.5 mm; thickness 3.5 mm; weight: 4.8 g
Single penannular ring. Complete, unfinished. Round section rod with obvious longitudinal faceting and striations, apparently not having received final surface finish. Terminal ends neatly flattened, one though still retaining slight depression. Diameter: 14.3 x 13.7 mm; breadth: 3.2 mm; thickness: 3.2 mm; weight: 3.5 g
Single penannular ring. Complete, unfinished? Round to oval section rod, tapering towards the terminals. Some strong longitudinal facets, others largely polished out. Terminal ends not neatly finished, slightly convex with residual cleft and traces of outer-edge lipping. Diameter: 12.9 x 11.9 mm; breadth: 2.1 – 2.6 mm; thickness: 1.6 – 2.5 mm; weight: 2.1 g
Rod fragment with terminal. Round section rod with flat-ended terminal expanded around half its circuit to give slightly oval shape. Most smoothed, but with remnant hammer facets and fine grinding marks. Two unusual pits in surface about 3 mm long and associated with patches of blackening (analysis shows to be splashed with silver). Broken end bifacially chopped then torn. Length: 28.4 mm; terminal diameter: 5.3 x 6.0 mm; rod diameter: 4.8 mm; weight: 7.9 g
Rod fragment. Medium-thick round section rod tightly turned through 180º - curvature neat, but minute pitting here suggests stress from bending. Smoothed with traces of facets. Both ends bifacially pinched with one steep chop, one shallow facet and centre torn. Length: 12.0 mm; unfurled length: 25 mm; width: 11.7 mm; rod diameter: 3.6 mm; weight: 4.0 g
Rod fragment. Slightly bent round section rod. Traces of facets and fine fissuring in otherwise well polished surface. Both ends bifacially pinched with one rounded dent and opposing shallow facet, the middle parts then torn. Length: 36.2 mm; rod diameter: 5.3 mm; weight: 11.0 g
Rod fragment. Round section rod, well smoothed though leaving traces of longitudinal facets. Both ends bifacially hammered into acute-profile, ragged edges, also resulting in lateral expansion. Length: 24.3 mm; rod diameter: 3.8 mm; weight: 3.3 g
Rod fragment. Highly smoothed round section rod. One end with steep cut and tear, other with steep cut and opposing shallow facet. Length: 23.1 mm; rod diameter: 3.8 mm; weight: 3.7 g
Rod fragment. Well smoothed round section rod. One end cut right through with single steep cut, the other similar but with final tongue torn. Length: 6.5 mm; rod diameter: 3.8 mm; weight: 0.9 g
Bar fragment – unfinished bar ornament? Joins no 31 to make complete bar. Thickish rod of sub-rectangular section with narrow faceting of the body angles. Fairly neat shaping, but still covered with hammer ripples. One end crudely shaped by hammering to create convex ‘terminal’, but two large clefts not worked out. Other end bifacially chopped. Length: 33.6 mm; width: 4.5 mm; breadth: 3.6 mm; weight: 7.2 g
Bar fragment. Thin bar of sub-rectangular section – flat faces and bowed sides with longitudinal faceting. One end bifacially chopped, other unifacially then torn; both have a transverse ‘marking’ groove immediately inside cuts. Length: 15.5 mm; width: 4.8 mm; breadth: 2.3 mm; weight: 2.4 g
Bar fragment. Sub-rectangular bar with narrow facets along body angles. Hammer rippling of faces. Both ends chopped through almost completely with unifacial cut, remaining tongue torn; possible ‘marking’ groove alongside one. Length: 8.7 mm; width: 4.4 mm; breadth 3.2 mm; weight: 1.5 g
Ribbon fragment. Narrow strip of crisp rectangular section. Surfaces well smoothed. Both ends torn with slight bending. Length: 10.2 mm; width: 3.2 mm; thickness: 1.3 mm; weight: 0.6 g
Modified bar/ribbon fragment. Both ends thinned by oblique bifacial hammer facets which meet at the middle, hence possibly modifying section even here; bowed section of sides possibly original though. Thin tongues at ends torn. Length 11.1 mm; Width at centre: 3.7 mm; breadth centre: 2.7 mm; weight: 1.1 g
Ribbon fragment. Strip of near constant thickness with slightly wavy sides, perhaps caused by hammering of one face. Other face flat and smooth. Both ends cut unifacially and steeply, one a straight cut, the other convex in plan. Length: 7.2 mm; width: 6.6 mm; thickness: 1.0 – 1.3 mm; weight: 1.9 g
Sheet fragment - ?conical cover. Tightly folded and crumpled fragment of sheet. Several stretches of neat convex edge are visible, probably all linking as single edge. Likely part of conical or spherical sheet cover for bead or button. Maximum dimension: 12.1 mm; width: 3.8 mm; breadth: 2.7 mm; thickness of sheet: c. 0.1 mm; weight: 0.3 g
Bronze knife. Near rectangular tang with flattened sides and flat faces; no flanging except erratically on sloped shoulders. Rivet hole appears drilled. Below obtuse shoulders blade swells marginally before very gradual taper to tongue-shaped tip. Flattened midrib defined all round by bevel, the broad blade edges outside lightly hollowed and carrying diffuse hammer ripples and poorly aligned longitudinal striations. Much of cutting edge damaged by corrosion chipping. Length 205 mm; width blade: 28.5 mm; thickness: 5.0 mm; weight: 118.9 g
2007/18Miranda Rainbow123Near Cirencester2BM-2945D410636511BRONZE AGEHOARDfinds-106365117BM-28B710Complete-1300x13712images/mrainbow/11181221PAS62728B7100103232022-05-04T15:19:29ZCertainx137122004-08-31T23:00:00Z132005-02-01T00:00:00ZBRONZE AGEGold41427BA62Circa13http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/BRONZE AGECorinium Museum, CirencesterCertainCopper alloyCivil Parish2022-07-14T07:16:37.401ZRestricted Accessfinds-10636431063643BM-284683PENANNULAR RINGBRONZE AGESmall penannular gold ring with decorative narrow banding in yellow and paler gold. The external surfaces are very worn. Visual inspection suggested that the piece consists of a gold covering over a base metal core; this was confirmed by scientific analysis.
This is a well known Late Bronze Age type, decorative in character, dating to circa 1150-750 BC.131333-1150-75012004T3213BM2004-04-01T00:00:00Z2004-04-30T00:00:00Z340252006.147Norfolk Museums2022-05-04T14:49:28Z2022-11-01T12:54:08Z3.24PAS6272846800132A154123542741425723864826392NorfolkGreat YarmouthOrmesby St. Margaret with ScratbyTG501552.67498161.696632988BM-284A34Gold10892CompleteGoodBRONZE AGEx13712LateLateBRONZE AGEx13712x13712Controlled archaeological investigationAcquired by museum after being declared Treasure00054219_001.JPG1181206images/mrainbow/EasternCertain12022-11-01T12:54:08.605ZLateLancashire100CountyBRONZE AGE3LateMetal detector00055089_001.JPG5156200410472212004T317BA
Both may be compared with Late Bronze Age styles of bracelet, but of very different types. No 2 is the more regular type and is widely distributed in Britain. Bracelet no 1 is much more unusual; its closest British parallel is a new find from Donhead St Mary, Hampshire, which is a reworked bracelet slightly thickened at the terminals rather than out-turned (Treasure case 2005T1). A group of three C-section bracelets in a hoard from Matignon in Brittany are similar (Eluère 1982, 181 fig.169). The Tisbury hoard, Wiltshire, includes two bracelets again with broad C-section bands, but these have large tongue-shaped terminals very different from the vestigial ones at Gisburn (Eogan 1994, pl.11 nos 4&5).
In addition to having an unusual form, bracelet no 1 has an unparalleled composition. Taking account of the specific gravity of the piece and the preferential loss of copper at the surface due to corrosion, the scientific work makes it clear that this object had either an extremely low gold content throughout, or a thickish coating of gold around a base-metal core. Neither of these compositions has been encountered in Bronze Age goldwork before.
These two bracelets broadly conform to types known in the Late Bronze Age of Britain and north-west Europe, one (D-section) being more common than the other. Certain typological details and the composition of bracelet no 1, however, cannot as yet be matched among Bronze Age metalwork. Without cutting a section for full metallographic analysis, it is not possible to be more specific about its internal composition, but even the surface composition is highly unusual.
Dr S.P. Needham
Department of Prehistory & Europe
British Museum
DistrictPossibly4BM4713Rimingtonx13712Ribble Valley108922022-05-25T16:03:38ZReturned to finder after being disclaimed as Treasure3North WestCirca
Bracelet 1
A complete and well crafted penannular bracelet with a band of thin, ‘C’ section. The section is, however, thickest at the centre, thinner, rounded and highly polished along the edges. The band tapers gently towards the squared off terminals, which are defined by a narrow beading created by turning the metal outward slightly.
The bracelet has many dents and scratches visible under magnification. Slight compression of the band around the middle has caused limited distortion and misalignment of the terminals. One of the latter is damaged by a small nick.
Diameter 78 x 67 mm; width band at terminals 15.5 mm; maximum width band (undistorted) 18.5 mm; thickness edges c. 0.7 mm; weight 47.3 g
Bracelet 2
A complete and highly polished penannular bracelet with band of near ‘D’ section, but the inner face is marginally hollowed. The band tapers gently towards either end then expands into oval, buffer-like terminals with flat ends; the expansion is slightly asymmetric, bulging externally. There are many tiny dents and scratches visible under magnification.
Diameter 68.5 x 54 mm; width band 7.0 – 5.5 mm; thickness band 4.3 – 3.2 mm; terminals 8.5 x 6 mm, 8 x 6 mm; weight 53.1 g
Miranda Rainbow1233-2.26026562BM-28078610636351BRONZE AGEBRACELETSD8346finds-1063635116BM-27DFCCCompletex13712images/mrainbow/31181193PAS62727DFC001CF332022-05-04T14:22:04ZPossiblyx137122004-07-31T23:00:00Z1353.90987165BRONZE AGEGold41431BA2Circa13http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/BRONZE AGECertainCivil Parish2022-07-14T07:16:37.312ZLateHampshire100CountyBRONZE AGE1LateMetal detector00065570_001.jpg177652004261729312004T295BA
The object is a well-known Bronze Age type, decorative in character, dating to circa 1150-750BC.
4DistrictCertain4BM1729714.5-750Emsworthx137125.6Havant108922022-05-25T15:58:23ZDeclared Treasure but returned to Finder as Museum unable to acquire3South EastCirca
Small penannular ring comprising a plain round to oval-sectioned hoop with flat terminals. The interior of the hoop and the flat terminal surfaces have not been polished.
Gold content approximately 82%. The specific gravity at 16 is not low enough to indicate that the ring has a base metal core.
Miranda Rainbow1233-0.95001104BM-276ACF10636251BRONZE AGEPENANNULAR RINGSU7407finds-1063625116BM-275770Complete-1150x13712images/mrainbow/11181174PAS6272757700107032022-05-04T13:45:43ZCertainx137122004-07-31T23:00:00Z1350.85778748BRONZE AGEGold41421BA1Circa13http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/BRONZE AGECertainDistrict Ward2022-07-14T07:16:37.301Zfinds-10636041063604BM-261FA2RINGBRONZE AGEThe find comprises a loop of thick gold wire of roughly circular cross-section, the ends overlapping. Onto this are threaded nine rings, seven of which are of the type known as composite; two are simple rings. One of the latter (i) is a loop of gold wire with overlapping ends; the wire tapers from one end to the other. The other (ii) is a penannular ring of round-sectioned wire, the terminals close together. Of the composites:
(iii) is a triple ring of three lightly C-sectioned strips probably soldered together. The terminals of one meet; the other two display a narrow gap.
(iv) is a double ring consisting of two C-sectioned strips The ring is penannular, i.e. the terminals do not meet.
(v) is a double ring similar to the above.
(vi) is a double ring similar to the above.
(vii) is a slender double ring otherwise similar to the above.
(viii)is a double ring of marked C-section otherwise similar to the above.
(ix) is a triple ring similar to (iii) except that the gap is the same in all cases.
The main loop has one thicker terminal which has a finished look. The wire tapers slightly towards the other end, which appears to have been broken off a longer length of wire in antiquity. It is possible that this is a re-used fragment of a bracelet.
There is wear on the ridged insides of the composite rings, probably where these have rubbed against the main loop. There are two modern scrapes on the main loop.
Composite rings have been found singly and associated with other gold personal ornaments. They may also be found linked together. In Britain they may be dated by association to the Middle Bronze Age, c.1300-1100BC. In common with some other Bronze Age ornament types they are found also in Ireland and France, though they appear to be rarer in Ireland. At Stretham, Cambridgeshire, six composite rings were found threaded onto a penannular bracelet; a twisted neck ornament and a bronze rapier were found in association.composite131322-1300-110012004T813BM2004-01-01T00:00:00Z2004-01-31T00:00:00Z431332005.517Norfolk Museums2022-05-04T12:22:34Z2022-11-02T09:55:39Z48.9PAS627261FA00121934.512354441425723870757024NorfolkNorth NorfolkRestricted AccessNorth East NorfolkRestricted Access8BM-2629BAGold10892CompleteBRONZE AGEx13712MiddleMiddleBRONZE AGEx13712x13712Other chance findAcquired by museum after being declared Treasure00016874_001.JPG1181147images/mrainbow/EasternCertain12022-11-02T09:55:39.999ZMiddleNorth Lincolnshire10Unitary AuthorityBRONZE AGE3MiddleMetal detector00054815_001.JPG2562320045430012004T490BA
In its fragmentary state it is difficult to definitively identify the Risby-cum-Roxby object. Twisting is a regular feature of Middle Bronze Age gold bar ornaments in Britain and Ireland, and in general this may offer the best context. Although most commonly of square section, such ornaments can occasionally have a triangular section (Eogan 1994, 53-7). Also unusual is the intermittent nature of the twisting, but very occasional parallels can be found. It is possible that intermittent twisting may in some cases indicate that an ornament had not been finished. The hoard from Cappeen, Co Cork, is particularly relevant to the Risby-cum-Roxby fragment in containing these two unusual features, albeit on separate objects: a fully twisted neckring of triangular section and an intermittently twisted bracelet, or rod, of square-section (Eogan 1994, 63 fig. 27A).
This can be accepted as a probable fragment from a Bronze Age ornament, although not necessarily from a finished piece. Consequently, in terms of age and as the item contains a minimum of 10% gold it qualifies as Treasure under the stipulations of the Treasure Act 1996.
Dr S.P. Needham
Department of Prehistory & Europe
British Museum
3.1Unitary AuthorityPossibly1BM25623-1100Roxby cum Risbyx1371214.4North Lincolnshire108922022-05-25T16:06:29ZAcquired by museum after being declared Treasure2Yorkshire and the HumberCirca
A contorted fragment of rod of triangular section; the faces are concave and the flanges formed at their junctions are therefore acute. A moderate double twist at a point where the rod is bent appears to be a deliberate feature, but elsewhere very slight twists are likely to be due to distortion. There are no cut-marks, nor any crushing at the breaks.
Maximum dimension (in contorted state) 55 mm; approximate extended length 200 mm; thickness 2.5 – 3.1 mm; weight 14.4 g
Miranda Rainbow1200232-0.57964636BM-25F50D10635981BRONZE AGERODSE9417finds-1063598118BM-25EFE8Fragment-1300x13712images/mrainbow/31181143PAS62725EFE00188232022-05-04T12:09:50ZPossiblyx137122004-08-31T23:00:00Z1353.64108035BRONZE AGEGold41430BA1Circa13http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/BRONZE AGENorth Lincolnshire MuseumCertainCivil Parish2022-07-14T07:16:37.254ZWarwickshire100CountyUNKNOWN1Metal detector00066515_001.JPG10049200216998612004T76UNDistrictCertain1BM9943Stratford-upon-Avon1.32Stratford-on-Avon108922022-05-25T14:53:32ZReturned to finder after being declared not TreasureWest MidlandsCirca
A small fragment of gold sheet was discovered. The fragment clearly is part of a larger object, but unfortunately close examination has proved unable to establish from what object the fragment came. It is impossible to establish the date of the object from which the fragment came. Analysis of the metal content of the fragment was also unable to provide further help in dating the piece. The fragment was found to contain 91% gold.
Dr JD Hill
Department of Prehistory and Early Europe
The British Museum
London
Miranda Rainbow123-1.65039157BM-257ED710635881UNKNOWNUNIDENTIFIED OBJECTSP2454finds-1063588116BM-257960Fragmentimages/mrainbow/11181136PAS6272579600100332022-05-04T11:38:14ZCertain2002-08-31T23:00:00Z6452.18373097UNKNOWNGold41426UN1Circa64http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/UNKNOWNCertainCivil Parish2022-07-14T07:16:37.247Zfinds-10635811063581BM-2523A3FINGER RINGUNKNOWNA gold finger-ring, the hoop is rectangular in section and extends into a flat, oval bezel, the shoulders decorated with marginal notches and incised lines. due to a lack of recognised features, this object cannot be securely dated pre-1704.646412004T4353BM2004-10-01T00:00:00Z2022-05-04T11:15:22Z2022-12-14T16:48:28ZPAS6272523A0012F0123164214143025635449425635East Riding of YorkshireEast Riding of YorkshireBarmby MoorSE774853.92242345-0.828991156BM-252899Gold10892CompleteGoodUNKNOWNUNKNOWNMetal detectorReturned to finder after being declared not Treasure00055349_001.JPG1181124images/mrainbow/Yorkshire and the HumberCertain12022-12-14T16:48:28.316ZLancashire100CountyUNKNOWN1Metal detector00016763_001.JPG5156200316487612004T29UNDistrictCertain3BM4853BroughtonPreston117282022-05-25T14:52:26ZReturned to finder after being declared not TreasureNorth WestCirca
A fitting or mount, undecorated, and unlikely to be a finger-ring.
Miranda Rainbow122-2.73040498BM-24E94410635721UNKNOWNMOUNTSD5235finds-1063572116BM-24E232Uncertainimages/mrainbow/11181118PAS62724E230012A732022-05-04T10:57:55ZCertain2003-11-01T00:00:00Z6453.80906234UNKNOWNSilver41431UN1Circa64http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/UNKNOWNCertainCivil Parish2022-07-14T07:16:13.548ZBuckinghamshire100CountyUNKNOWN1Metal detector00017042_001.JPG1190112004161206812004T183UN
In the absence of any close comparisons in our collections, we are unable to confirm that it is more than 300 years old.
Judy Rudoe
Curator of Renaissance & Later Collections
Department of Prehistory & Europe
The British Museum
GildedDistrictCertain4BM11903HillesdenAylesbury Vale117282022-05-25T14:57:25ZReturned to finder after being declared not TreasureSouth EastCirca
This is a puzzling piece which has some similarity with 16th century dress fittings, but does not correspond precisely with examples so far recorded in that it is very thin and lightweight. It has a heart‑shaped stamp on the back which may possibly be a maker's mark, but is not one that we have been able to identify. It also has some affinity with traditional ornaments from Continental Europe.
Miranda Rainbow122-1.0120843BM-24D176106356911UNKNOWNDRESS FASTENER (DRESS)SP6828finds-1063569116BM-24C88ECompleteimages/mrainbow/11181110PAS62724C88001F2932022-05-04T10:51:04ZCertain2004-03-31T23:00:00Z6451.94635038UNKNOWNSilver41421UN1Circa64http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/UNKNOWNCertainCivil Parish2022-07-14T07:16:13.547Zfinds-10635471063547BM-23D9C9UNIDENTIFIED OBJECTIRON AGEThis molten droplet of heavy yellow metal was reported as possible Treasure, because it was found in the vicinity of other finds of molten gold/electrum which might be connected with the production of Iron Age gold torcs or other objects. It was sent to the British Museum for scientific analysis which demonstrated the droplet was made of copper alloy. 646412004T2803BM2004-07-01T00:00:00Z2004-07-31T00:00:00Z408712022-05-04T09:47:24Z2022-11-02T08:21:02ZPAS62723D9C0019A517161141425723872347016NorfolkKing's Lynn and West NorfolkSedgefordTF693652.894881510.510841668BM-23E22DCopper alloy10627FragmentUNKNOWNUNKNOWNx13992Metal detectorReturned to finder after being declared not Treasure00055011_001.JPG1181086images/mrainbow/EasternCertain12022-11-02T08:21:02.697ZLincolnshire10CountyROMAN2Metal detector00065326_001.jpg59421994222655531117282004T145RO
The finds come from an area which has produced much Iron Age and Roman material, including evidence for metalworking.
Dr JD Hill
Department of Prehistory and Early Europe
The British Museum
London
DistrictProbably1BM5542Osbournbyx41218North Kesteven108922022-05-25T14:55:01ZDeclared Treasure but returned to Finder as Museum unable to acquireEast MidlandsCirca
14 droplets and fragments of gold and silver
This interesting collection of material includes 9 molten droplets, 2 fragments that have been cut from ingots and 3 fragments of twisted wire. The objects in the collection are made from both gold (of different colours), silver and in one case lead with tin. One molten droplet clearly contains a partially melted piece of gold wire fused within it. Initially it was considered that these objects might have come from the manufacture of Iron Age gold and silver objects. Analysis of the metal content of the droplets and other pieces, however, suggests these objects are probably Roman or later in date, and may not necessarily all date from the same historical period. This is because of the presence of different trace elements and metals in many of the pieces that are unknown from metal alloys of an Iron Age date.
Miranda Rainbow123-0.42453833BM-23B7D810635441ROMANINGOTTF0638finds-1063544118BM-23B1B2Fragmentx41218images/mrainbow/21181079PAS62723B1B0011A432022-05-04T09:36:43ZProbablyx412181994-01-01T00:00:00Z211995-01-01T00:00:00Z52.92895342ROMANGold41423RO9Circa21http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/ROMANCertainSilverCivil Parish2022-07-14T07:16:37.216ZNorth Lincolnshire100Unitary AuthorityUNKNOWN1Metal detector00055399_001.jpg25623200410447612004T475UN
This piece is not absolutely diagnostic. Twisted gold ornaments are frequent in the Middle Bronze Age, but not exclusive to that period. The surface analysis does not help in assigning a date.
Unitary AuthorityCertain1BM256233.1Alkborough2.9North Lincolnshire108922022-05-25T15:30:35ZReturned to finder after being disclaimed as TreasureYorkshire and the HumberCirca
A fragment of square-sectioned rod which is fairly evenly twisted, but with tighter twisting towards the torn ends. The flange-crests are rather rounded and in places flattened due to damage.
Miranda Rainbow131.823-0.66895868BM-2399D110635431UNKNOWNUNIDENTIFIED OBJECTSE8822finds-1063543116BM-239133Fragmentimages/mrainbow/11181078PAS6272391300134032022-05-04T09:28:03ZCertain2004-08-31T23:00:00Z6453.68705096UNKNOWNGold41430UN1Circa64http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/UNKNOWNCertainCivil Parish2022-07-14T07:16:37.215ZHampshire100CountyUNKNOWN1Metal detector00054786_001.JPG177652003101782212004T462UN
There is no firm indicator of date and the ingot is effectively un-datable. A similar, though rather larger, disc ingot of silver was included in the 2nd century AD Roman jeweller’s hoard from Snettisham (C. Johns, The Snettisham Roman Jeweller’s Hoard, (London 1997), 117, no. 339.
2.5DistrictCertain4BM435118.8Penton Grafton2.4Test Valley108922022-05-25T15:26:06ZReturned to finder after being disclaimed as TreasureSouth EastCirca
A small gold sub-circular disc, of irregular shape and appearance, probably a small ingot.
Miranda Rainbow123-1.55757792BM-2381D910635422UNKNOWNINGOTSU3146finds-1063542116BM-237231Completeimages/mrainbow/11181076PAS6272372300117332022-05-04T09:19:47ZCertain2003-09-30T23:00:00Z6451.21236782UNKNOWNGold41421UN1Circa64http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/UNKNOWNProbablyCivil Parish2022-07-14T07:16:37.214ZHampshire100CountyUNKNOWN1Metal detector00055300_001.JPG177652001101777612004T406UN7.6DistrictCertain4BM43511Kings Somborne4.04Test Valley108922022-05-25T15:15:47ZReturned to finder after being disclaimed as TreasureSouth EastCirca
A crushed and distorted roll (apparently rolled six times) of very thin sheet-gold strip, narrow, and seemingly parallel-sided, the free (outer) end slightly damaged. No markings are visible.
Miranda Rainbow118.523-1.47322068BM-15B5DE10635291UNKNOWNUNIDENTIFIED OBJECTSU3731finds-10635291114.46BM-15AE47Completeimages/mrainbow/11181013PAS62715AE400179732022-05-03T17:40:04ZCertain2001-05-31T23:00:00Z6451.07713729UNKNOWNGold41421UN1Circa64http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/UNKNOWNCertainCivil Parish2022-07-14T07:16:37.205Z