^{page 70 note 1} Ellis, S. E., ‘The petrography and provenance of Anglo-Saxon and medieval English honestones with notes on some other hones’, Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History), Mineralogy, vol. 2, no. 3 (1969), 135–87.Google Scholar I am grateful to Mr. Ellis and the Editor of the Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History) for permission to publish the synopsis here.

^{page 71 note 1} By the author on behalf of the Inspectorate of Ancient Monuments, unpublished.

^{page 71 note 2} Leeds, E. T., ‘A Saxon village near Sutton Courtenay, Berkshire’, Arch. Ixxiii (1922-1923), 157–8, pl. XXVI, fig. 1, h, i.Google Scholar

^{page 74 note 1} Morey, J. E. and Dunham, K. C., ‘A petrographical study of mediaeval hones from Yorkshire’, Proc. Yorks. Geol. Soc. xxix, part 2, no. 8 (1953), 141–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 74 note 2} Barton, K. J., ‘Settlements of the Iron Age and pagan Saxon periods at Linford, Essex’, Trans. Essex Arch. Soc., 3rd ser., i (1961–1965), fig. 18.Google Scholar

^{page 74 note 3} Jones, M. U., Evison, V. I., and Myres, J. N. L., ‘Crop-mark sites at Mucking, Essex’, Antiq. Journ. xlviii (1968), 210–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Med. Arch. XV (1971), 124–5Google Scholar.

^{page 74 note 4} The third stone RB I (3) included under type IIIB (6) is an unused pebble.

^{page 75 note 1} The provenances Sarre 510B and Sarre 520B given byMr. Ellis are not correct. Payne, G., K.A.S. Catalogue (1892), no. 520, 33Google Scholar.

^{page 75 note 2} Camb. Ant. Soc. Proc. xxxiii (1931-1932), 152–63. See below, p. 85.Google Scholar

^{page 75 note 3} Evison, V. I., ‘An Anglo-Saxon Cemetery at Holborough, Kent’, Arch. Cant. lxx (1956), 105–7, 125–6Google Scholar, fig. 20, 2.

^{page 77 note 1} P.S.A., 2nd ser., XV (1895), 334.Google Scholar

^{page 77 note 2} Böhner, K., Die fränkischen Altertümer des trierer Landes (1958), pp. 167 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 77 note 3} Meaney, A., A Gazetteer of Early Anglo-Saxon Burial Sites (1964), p. 155.Google Scholar

^{page 77 note 4} The cemetery is listed as Horton Kirby I by Meaney, A., op. cit. (1964).Google Scholar I am very grateful to Mr. D. B. Kelly, Maidstone Museum, who informed me: ‘The K.A.S. Catalogue does assign this to Horton Kirby in a note after 512: “Nos. 504–512 were found in graves discovered at Horton Kirby by the late Rev. R. P. Coates…” This is almost certainly the hone mentioned in Arch. Journ. xxiv (1867), 281–2Google Scholar, as the finder and the site are the same in both cases.’

^{page 77 note 5} Lines. A.A.S. Reps, & Papers vii (1957), 17–19Google Scholar, pl. 11, fig. 4.

^{page 77 note 6} Lowther, A. W. G., ‘The Saxon Cemetery at Guildown, Guildford, Surrey’, Surrey Arch. Coll. xxxix (1931), 26.Google Scholar This has been confused with the pierced whetstone in grave 183 at Guildown (ibid. fig. 11) which was found in a grave probably belonging to the eleventh century in Myres, J. N. L. and Green, B., The Anglo-Saxon Cemeteries of Caistor-by-Norwich and Markshall, Norfolk (1973), p. 216Google Scholar.

^{page 77 note 7} Eagles, B. N. and Evison, V. I., ‘Excavations at Harrold, Bedfordshire’, Beds. Arch. Journ. V (1970), 39–46Google Scholar, fig. 12 c.

^{page 77 note 8} Antiq. Journ. XXXV (1955), 41, pl. IIIg.Google Scholar

^{page 77 note 9} Myres, J. N. L. and Green, B., op. cit. (1973), pp. 215–16, 222Google Scholar, fig. 61.

^{page 77 note 10} P.S.A., 2nd ser., xxiv (1912), 150.Google Scholar

^{page 78 note 1} Excavation by the writer on behalf of the Inspectorate of Ancient Monuments, report in preparation.

^{page 78 note 2} Eagles, B. N. and Evison, V. I., op. cit. (1970), 43–4.Google Scholar

^{page 79 note 1} Bruce-Mitford, R. L. S., ‘The Sutton Hoo Ship Burial’, Proc. Suffolk Inst. Arch, XXV (1949), 9Google Scholar; idem, The Sutton Hoo Ship Burial (1972), fig. 5.

^{page 79 note 2} Idem, op. cit. (1949), 25, pl. va and vid; and Dumfries Burgh Museum, unpublished.

^{page 79 note 3} Since the above was written Dr. R. L. S. Bruce-Mitford informs me that the red material on this whetstone, and some traces on the other Uncleby whetstone have been examined by Dr. A. E. Werner and Miss M. Bimson, British Museum Research Laboratory, who found a mixture of pigments which would not occur before the nineteenth century, and therefore it is reasonable to assume that this deposit is a modern accretion.

^{page 81 note 1} It was gratifying to hear that Mr. Bruce-Mitford had come to a similar conclusion regarding the method of displaying the Sutton Hoo whetstone, for at that time he was unaware of the tell-tale characteristics of the Uncleby stone.

^{page 81 note 2} P.S.A. xxiv (1912), 142–58.Google Scholar

^{page 82 note 1} This conclusion is different from that arrived at by Meaney, A., op. cit. (1964), p. 303Google Scholar: ‘A honestone 18 ½ in. long was found standing upright in the chalk 6 in. deep, not associated with a grave, but close to many.’

^{page 83 note 1} Baldwin Brown mentions a dozen whetstones from this site (Brown, G. Baldwin, The Arts of Early England, iv (1915), pp. 414Google Scholar and 805), but there appears to be no record anywhere else of more than two, and only two are mentioned by Smith in his original commentary, p. 148. See below, p. 84.

^{page 83 note 2} Evison, V. I., ‘The Dover, Breach Downs and Birka men’, Antiquity, xxxix (1965), 214–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar, fig. 1.