^{page 86 note 1} Bidder, H. F. and Morris, J., ‘The Anglo-Saxon Cemetery at Mitcham’, Surrey Arch. Coll. lvi (1959), 50–131.Google Scholar I would like to thank Mrs. S. C. Hawkes and Mr. P. D. C. Brown who read the manuscript and commented on it.

^{page 86 note 2} Wheeler, R. E. M., London and the Saxons (1935), pp. 119–21.Google Scholar

^{page 86 note 3} Bidder, H. F. and Morris, J., op. cit. 73.Google Scholar

^{page 87 note 1} Ibid. 73 and 114.

^{page 87 note 2} Ibid.

^{page 87 note 3} Ibid. 86–8 and 114.

^{page 87 note 4} I would like to express my thanks to Mr. B. Spencer, London Museum, for permission to quote the catalogue entry and for his assessment of Mr. Lawrence's work forthe Museum.

^{page 87 note 5} Bidder, H. F. and Morris, J., op. cit. 73.Google Scholar

^{page 87 note 6} A Myres, J. N. L., Anglo-Saxon Pottery and the Settlement of England (1969), p. 78 and n. 2.Google Scholar

^{page 87 note 7} Tester, P. J., ‘Excavations at Fordcroft, Orpington’, Arch. Cant. lxxxiv (1969), 44, 46, and figs. 2 and 4.Google Scholar

^{page 88 note 1} See the note by the writer on the disc brooch from the well at Portchester Castle to appear in B. Cunliffe, Excavations at Portchester Castle, ii: Saxon (forthcoming).

^{page 88 note 2} I wish to thank Dr. Genrich and his staff at the Niedersachsisches Landesmuseum in Hanover for their helpfulness during my visit there in August 1972. This grave has not yet been fully published but the only grave finds not mentioned above are a small number of beads.

^{page 88 note 3} Genrich, A., ‘Der gemischt-belegte Friedhof bei Liebenau, Kr. Nienburg (Weser)’, Nachrichten aus Niedersachsens Urgeschichte, xxxviii (1969), 19, Abb. 5, 2.Google Scholar

^{page 88 note 4} A Guide to the Antiquities of Roman Britain (British Museum, 1922), p. 74, fig. 96.Google Scholar

^{page 88 note 5} Ørsnes, M., ‘The Weapon Find in Ejsbøl Mose at Haderslev. Preliminary Report’, Acta Archaeologica, xxxiv (1963), 245, pl. 18.Google Scholar

^{page 88 note 6} Evison, V. I., The Fifth-Century Invasions Southof the Thames (1965), pl. xiiic.Google Scholar

^{page 88 note 7} Waller, K., Der Galgenierg bei Cuxhaven (1938), p. 28, Abb. 7.Google Scholar

^{page 88 note 8} Werner, J., ‘Kriegergräber aus der ersten Hälfte des 5. Jahrhunderts zwischen Schelde und Weser’, Bonner Jahrbücher, clviii (1958), 376–9.Google Scholar

^{page 89 note 1} Waller, K., op. cit., p. 67, Taf. 43, 7–9.Google Scholar

^{page 89note 2} Ibid., p. 67, Taf. 44, 1–7, and 9.

^{page 89 note 3} The chronological range of manufacture of equal-armed brooches is not easy to fix, as extremely few brooches on the Continent have been found in datable closed finds. The most recent discussion is A. Genrich, ‘Über einige funde der Völkerwanderungszeit aus Brandgräbern des gemischt belegten Friedhofes bei Liebenau, Nienburg/Weser, Landkreis’ Nachrichten aus NiedersacAsens Urgeschichte, xxxiii (1964), 24–51.Google Scholar The latest brooch stylistically is from Perlberg with a border of animal ornament executed in Salin's Style I. Professor HaselofF now envisages the emergence of Style I ornament in Jutland c. A.D. 475 and it is thus possible that the last equal-armed brooches were being manufactured in North Germany in the final quarter of the fifth century. The Galgenberg brooch is matched in England by a rather crude copy discovered in Grave 90 at Mucking (Essex), This is illustrated, with two associated button brooches, in Alcock, L., Arthur's Britain (1971), pl. 18.Google Scholar The earliest date that can be claimed for this grave is the end of the fifth century, but equalarmed brooches were clearly rare and treasured imports and this piece is obviously an heirloom.

^{page 89 note 4} A Munich doctoral thesis discussing metalwork of this period was published after this article had been submitted (H. W. Böhme, Germanische Grabfunde des 4. bis 5. Jahrhunderts zwischen unterer Elbe und Loire. 1974). Dr. Böhme places applied brooches with a David's Star design, his Rhenen type, in his Zeitstufe III (first half of the fifth century) on the basis of the associations in Galgenberg (Sahlenburg) Grave 18, Rhenen (Netherlands) Grave 356, and Nymwegen-Nieuw-straat (Netherlands). His Westerwanna type, the floriate cross applied brooches are dated to Zeitstufe II (A.D. 380–420) on the basis of Galgenberg (Sahlenburg) Grave 19 (ibid., pp. 24–8, 157). Dr. Böhme does not notice the floriate cross design on the fragmentary brooch from Liebenau Grave II/196 and therefore the association of the two designs (ibid., p. 241). There is an overlap between the two chronological phases and it is clear that while these brooch designs were being buried on the Continent in the first quarter of the fifth, they are not fourth-century types and have a chronological range on the Continent covering the first half of the fifth century.

^{page 89 note 5} See pl. xx.

^{page 90 note 1} High Down (Worthing Museum Catalogue 3410, 3411–12); Horton Kirby (Kent) Grave 2; Croydon (Surrey); Abingdon (Berkshire) Grave 118; Long Wittenham (Berkshire) Grave 186; Sutton Courtenay (Berkshire). Five of these are illustrated in Leeds, E. T., ‘The Early Saxon Penetration of the Upper Thames Area’, Antiq. Journ. xiii (1933), pls. xxva; xxxvif and, g; xxxviia and bGoogle Scholar.

^{page 90 note 2} Pirling, R., Das römisch-fränkische Gräberfeld von Krefeld-Gellep (1966), p. 39, Taf. 22, 25.Google Scholar

^{page 90 note 3} Zimmer-Linnfeld, K., Gummel, H., and Waller, K., Westerwanna I (1960), Taf. 65.Google Scholar This brooch is associated with a decorated globular pot.

^{page 90 note 4} See pl. xx, no. 2.

^{page 91 note 1} Eck, T., Les deux cimètieres gallo-romains de Vermand et de Saint-Quentin (1891), pp. 25–6, 229–31, pl. xx, nos. 36 and 37.Google ScholarPilloy, J., Études sur d'anciens lieux de sépultures dans l'Aisne, ii (1895), 276–7,Google Scholar pl. 19, nos. 36 and 37. Evison, V. I.,The Fifth-Century Invasions South of the Thames, (1965), pp. 12, 101–2, fig. 1, g–mGoogle Scholar.

^{page 91 note 2} See pl. xx, no. 6. This brooch is to be publishcd by Miss V. I. Evison. The coin evidence points to occupation of the associated house after A.D. 395 and an east Mediterranean amphora found under the ashes of the hypocaust boiler-house of the east wing of the house has been dated by Dr. J. Hayes to A.D. 450 at the earliest. As the bath-house roof was vaulted with voussoir tiles set in cement, it would presumably have survived intactlonger than the ordinary tiled roof of the east wing. If the dating for the amphora is accepted, the earliest the brooch can have been lost is sometime in the second half of the fifth century. J.R.S. lix (1969), 224Google Scholar; Britannia, i (1970), 292Google Scholar; Antiq. Journ. xlix (1969), 395.Google Scholar Information by letter from Mr. R. Merrifield, Guildhall Museum.

^{page 91 note 3} See pi. xx, nos. 3 and 4. Lowther, A. W. G., ‘The Saxon Cemetery at Guildown, Guildford, Surrey’, Surrey Arch. Coll. xxxix (1931), 18–19, 39, pl. xii, 2Google Scholar.

^{page 91 note 4} See pl. xx, no. 5. Worthing Museum Catalogue 3400. The context ofthis brooch is unknown and only fragments of the decorated plate now survive.

^{page 92 note 1} Harden, D. B., ‘Glass vessels in Britain and Ireland, A.D. 400–1000’, in (ed.) Harden, D. B., Dark Age Britain (1956), pp. 140 and 159.Google Scholar

^{page 92 note 2} Evison, V. I., ‘Glass Cone Beakers of the “Kempston” Type’, “Journal of Glass Studies, xiv (1972), 48–66.Google Scholar

^{page 92 note 3} Pirling, R., op. cit., p. 173, Abb. 18, 3, Taf. 16, 6.Google Scholar

^{page 92 note 4} See pl. xx, no. 8. No context.

^{page 92 note 5} See pl. xx, no. 7. Worthing Museum Catalogue 3403–4. No context.

^{page 92 note 6} See pl. xx, no. 9.Akerman, J. Y., ‘Report on researches in an Anglo-Saxon cemetery at Long Wittenham, Berkshire, in 1859’, Archaeologia, xxxviii (1860), 346 and 352, pl. xix, 7Google Scholar.

^{page 92 note 7} Leeds, E. T., ‘An Anglo-Saxon Cemetery at Wallingford, Berkshire’, Berk. Arch. Journ. xlii (1938), 98–9, pl. VII.Google Scholar

^{page 93 note 1} See e.g. Waller, K., Der Galgenberg bei Cuxhaven (1938), pp. 27–33, pls. 6–10.Google Scholar

^{page 93 note 2} van Es, W. A., Wijster (1967), pp. 195–200 and 296–300.Google Scholar

^{page 93 note 3} Op. cit., fig. 101.

^{page 93 note 4} Op. cit., p. 298.

^{page 94 note 1} There are a number of these fifth-century examples of the final phase of Type ID in England: they occur e.g. at North Elmham, Norfolk, and Thurmaston, Leics. They are quite unlike Mitcham 205 in form, and must be considered later.

^{page 94 note 2} Op. cit., p. 300.

^{page 94 note 3} Plettke, A., Ursprung und Ausbreitung der Angeln und Sachsen (1920), p. 42 and pl. 27, 8.Google Scholar

^{page 94 note 4} Waller, K., Die Gräberfelder von Hemmoor, QuelkAorn, Gudendorf, und Duhnen-Wehrberg (1959), pl. 35, 32.Google Scholar

^{page 94 note 5} The pottery from Feddersen Wierde is not yet fully published, but a wide range of drawings kindly supplied to me by Dr. P. Schmid to illustrate the forms in use in this phase includes no pedestal urns of this type, but plenty of small Schalenurne bowls.

^{page 96 note 6} Grohne, E., Mahndorf (1953), pp. 23–30Google Scholar, discusses the chronological relationship between the Standfussschalen and the Fussloss Schalen on that site, concluding that the latter, unlike the former, continued into the fifth century.

^{page 96 note 7} They occur e.g. at High Down and Alfriston, Sussex; Lyminge, Kent; Winchester and Portchester, Hants; Abingdon and East Shefford, Berks.; Mucking, Essex; Sandy, Beds.; Barrington, Haslingfield and Little Wilbraham, Cambs.; North Luffenham, Rutland; Fairford, Gloucs.; Snettisham, Norfolk, and elsewhere.

^{page 96 note 8} I owe knowledge of this vessel, now at Guildford, to the kindness of Prof. S. S. Frere.

^{page 96 note 9} Myres, J. N. L. in Antiq. Journ. xlviii (1968), 222–8.Google Scholar It is worth noting that the first fragments of this type found at the Mucking (Linford) site were confidently placed in the fourth century by Dr. A. Genrich: Trans. Essex Arch. Soc., 3rd series, i, 34 and pl. v. 2.