^{page 63 note 1} Objects from this cemetery have been published in Ant. Journ. xliv (1964), 242–5Google Scholar; Evison 1965 (see Abbreviations, p. 102), pp. 27, 35, 42, fig. 12, d–i; Antiquity, xxxii (1965), 214–17Google Scholar.

^{page 63 note 2} List of finds, pp. 85–6. The drawings are by Mrs. E. M. Fry-Stone.

^{page 63 note 3} The main studies are included in the list on p. 102.

^{page 63 note 4} Davidson 1962, pp. 74 ff.

^{page 64 note 1} Werner, J., Beiträge zur Archäologie des Attila-Reiches, (1956), pp. 26–37Google Scholar, Karte 11.

^{page 64 note 2} Werner, J., Das alamannische Fürstengrab von Wittislingen (1950), pp. 38 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 64 note 3} Werner, J., Das alamannische Gräberfeld von Bülach (1953)Google Scholar 1 Abb. 12.

^{page 65 note 1} Raddatz, K., ‘Zu den “magischen” Schwertanhängern des Thorsberger Moorfundes’, Offa, xvi (1957/8), 81–84Google Scholar.

^{page 65 note 2} Evison 1965, 38, figs. 18 and 19.

^{page 65 note 3} p. 81.

^{page 65 note 4} Evison 1965, pp. 31–32, fig. 11.

^{page 65 note 5} IPEK xii (1938), 126 ff.Google Scholar, Behmer 1939, p. 151, Taf. x, a.

^{page 65 note 6} Behmer 1939, p. 151, Taf. XL, 4, 5, 6 b, Taf. XLI, 1–4; one has no perforation, but an imitation in filigree, Taf. XL, 3. For a back view of two gold scabbard mounts see Oxenstierna, E. C. G. Graf, ‘Die Prachtfibel aus Grobin’, Mannus, xxxii (1940), 219–52Google Scholar, Abb. 13 and 14.

^{page 65 note 7} p. 84.

^{page 65 note 8} Salin, B., ‘Fynd från Finjasjöns strand, Skåne’, Kongl. Vitterhets Historisk och Antiqvitets Akadamiens Månadsblad (1893), pp. 84–106Google Scholar, fig. 55.

^{page 66 note 1} The Selmeston cemetery was excavated by Mr. David Thomson, who generously allows me to mention here some of the finds.

^{page 66 note 2} Selling, D., ‘Hovdingasvärdet från Högom’, Arkeologiska Forskningar och Fynd (1952), ed. B. Thordeman, pp. 354–9Google Scholar.

^{page 66 note 3} Behmer 1939, Taf. xxxvi, 5, a, b; Taf. xxxvii, 2.

^{page 66 note 4} An erroneous impression is given by Davidson 1958, p. 211: ‘The ring is … held by rivets which secure it to the pommel bar.’

^{page 67 note 1} A fifth stage, suggested by Hackman 1928, p. 48, is very doubtful, see p. 96 n., below.

^{page 67 note 2} Brown, G. Baldwin, The Arts in Early England, iii (1915), 221Google Scholar.

^{page 67 note 3} Böhner 1949, p. 165; Davidson 1958, p. 211.

^{page 67 note 4} Behmer 1939, p. 128, Taf. xxxix, 3.

^{page 67 note 5} See figs. 4, b and 6, b.

^{page 68 note 1} Some doubt has been cast on this dating—English Historical Review, lxxxi, 343—but as no evidence to the contrary has been produced it is not possible to make any further comment except to restate the basis for dating, It appears from the reasoning above that the pommel of the sword is probably contemporary with the scabbard mount already established as belonging to the second half of the fifth century. The buckle, in cloisonne technique derived from eastern sources before the death of Childeric, shows a pattern similar to an example from S. Russia, and also the projecting cylindrical rivet lugs to be found on early fifth-century jewellery like the buckle from Wolfs-heim (Werner, J., Beiträge zur Archäologie des Attila-Reiches (1956), p. 88Google Scholar, Taf. 4, 1). The axe type was already in use in the fourth century, although it continued into the early sixth century (Breuer, J. et Roosens, H., ‘Le Cimetière franc de Haillot’, Archaeologia Belgica, xxxiv (1957), 261Google Scholar). Two graves at Haillot containing this type of axe (XIII and XVII) were there dated to the end of the fifth century. The rest of the grave-goods are not distinctive enough to be used for dating, but are not out of place in a fifth-century grave.

^{page 68 note 2} Smith, C. R., Collectanea Antiqua, vi (1868), pl. xxii, 1Google Scholar.

^{page 70 note 1} The sword has recently been cleaned by Mr. Bell in the British Museum Research Laboratory. I am grateful to Saffron Walden Museum for permission to publish it.

^{page 70 note 2} Jessup, R., Anglo-Saxon Jewellery (1950), p. 140Google Scholar.

^{page 71 note 1} Montelius 1917–24, p. 18.

^{page 71 note 2} Davidson 1958, p. 213.

^{page 71 note 3} Bruce-Mitford, R. L. S., The Sutton Hoo Ship Burial (1947), p. 28Google Scholar.

^{page 72 note 1} Behmer 1939, p. 128, Taf. xxxix, 3, 4, and 5, Taf. XL, I, 2.

^{page 72 note 2} Werner 1950, pl. vi, 2c and 3c.

^{page 73 note 1} Åberg, N., The Anglo-Saxons in England (1926), pp. 142–3Google Scholar.

^{page 73 note 2} Böhner 1949, p. 165.

^{page 73 note 3} Evison 1965, frontispiece, pl. 9, c.

^{page 73 note 4} Pilloy, J., Études sur d';anciens lieux de sépulture dans I';Aisne, ii (1895), pl. 15, 12Google Scholar.

^{page 73 note 5} Faussett, B., Inventorium Sepulchrale (1856, pp. 20–21Google Scholar).

^{page 73 note 6} Evison, V. I., ‘Sugar-loaf Shield Bosses’, Antiq. Journ. xliii (1963), 62Google Scholar.

^{page 73 note 7} Werner, J., Die Langobarden in Pannonien (1962), p. 32Google Scholar, map Taf. 68, 1; see especially Gilton, grave 23, B. Faussett, op. cit., p. 11.

^{page 74 note 1} Ørsnes-Christensen 1956, pp. 133, 135.

^{page 74 note 2} Behmer 1939, Taf. LVI, 5 and 6.

^{page 74 note 3} Ibid., Taf. xxxm, 8a (Type VI).

^{page 74 note 4} Ibid., Taf. xxv, 14 (Type V).

^{page 74 note 5} Ibid., Taf. xxv, 13.

^{page 74 note 6} Ibid., Taf. xxv, 9–12.

^{page 74 note 7} Sussex Archaeological Collections, lvii, pl. xxvn, 1, la.

^{page 74 note 8} Hougen, B., Snartemo (1935), fig. 9 on p. 35Google Scholar (upside down).

^{page 74 note 9} Bakka, E., ‘On the Beginning of Salin's Style I in England’, Universitetet i Bergen Arbok, 1958Google Scholar, Historiskantikvarisk rekke Nr. 3, figs. 8–12.

^{page 75 note 1} Hougen, B., The Migration Style in Norway (1936)Google Scholar, pls. 59a, 60a and b, 63a.

^{page 75 note 2} Ibid., pls. 58a, 62, 64.

^{page 75 note 3} Ibid., pl. 61.

^{page 75 note 4} J. Werner, Die Langobarden in Pannonien (1962), p. 100.

^{page 75 note 5} Behmer 1939, Taf. xvii, 56; Taf. xx, 3; Taf. xxiv, 7.

^{page 75 note 6} J. Werner, Beiträge zur Archdälogie des Attila-Reiches (1–56), Taf. 40, 2 and Taf. 56, 6.

^{page 75 note 7} Unpublished, see pp. 66, 84.

^{page 75 note 8} Behmer 1939, Taf. xxxvi, 3b.

^{page 75 note 9} Ibid., Taf. xxxvii, 2.

^{page 76 note 1} B. Salin, op. cit., fig. 74 and figs. 46, 56, and 57.

^{page 76 note 2} Conflicting reports of the contents of this grave have appeared, and an attempt to disentangle them is made on p. 90.

^{page 76 note 3} B. Faussett, op. cit., pl. xvi, 1, 2, and 3.

^{page 77 note 1} C. Müller, ‘Das fränkische Reihengräberfeld von Lommersum, Kr. Euskirchen’, Bonner Jahrb. cxl, 219. A date in the last third of the seventh century is, however, allocated to grave 3, Thaining, Landsberg am Lech, Oberbayern, which also contains a palm cup; Germania, xl (1962), 411–15.

^{page 77 note 2} Böhner, K., Das Grab eines fränkischen Herren aus Morken im Rheinland (1959)Google Scholar, Abb. 13, 2.

^{page 77 note 3} Pirling 1964, Taf. 59, 2.

^{page 77 note 4} Doppelfeld, O., ‘Das Frauengrab unter dem Chor des Kölner Domes’, Germania, xxxviii (1960), Taf. 24, 31Google Scholar.

^{page 77 note 5} Harden, D. B., ‘Glass Vessels in Britain and Ireland’, Dark Age Britain (1956)Google Scholar, ed. D. B. Harden, 159, 164.

^{page 77 note 6} Behmer 1939, Taf. XLV, 1a, b.

^{page 77 note 7} Arwidsson, G., Valsgärde 8 (1954), 140Google Scholar.

^{page 78 note 1} Böhner, K., ‘Das Langschwert des Frankenkönigs Childerich’, Bonner Jahrbücher, cxlviii (1948), 234Google Scholar, Abb. 3.

^{page 78 note 2} Werner, J., ‘Zu fränkischen Schwertern des 5. Jahrhunderts’, Germania, xxxi (1953), 39Google Scholar, Abb. 1.

^{page 78 note 3} Werner 1950, p. 56.

^{page 79 note 1} Werner 1950, p. 57.

^{page 79 note 2} Pirling 1964, p. 210.

^{page 79 note 3} B. Hougen, Snartemo (1935), pl. vii, 1 and 2.

^{page 79 note 4} Arch. Cant., vi, 173.

^{page 79 note 5} Arch., xvii (1816), 340, pl. xxv, 7; C. Fox, Archaeology of the Cambridge Region (1923), p. 259; V.C.H. Combs. i, 316.

^{page 80 note 1} Montelius 1917–24, fig. 57; Holmqvist, W., Germanic Art (1955)Google Scholar, pl. XXXIII, 81.

^{page 80 note 2} Montelius 1917–24, fig. 58, possibly also fig. 59, although here the ring may belong to the ring-mail in the background rather than to the sword.

^{page 80 note 3} von Jenny, W. A., Die Kunst der Germanen im frühen Mittelalter (1943)Google Scholar, pl. 100.

^{page 81 note 1} In Smith, C. R., Collectanea Antiqua, vi (1868)Google Scholar, pl. XXII, 2, two roundels are drawn beside a sword with an iron pommel from Faversham. The top one appears to be a stud surrounded by filigree, but the lower one may be intended to represent a disc bead.

^{page 82 note 1} At the end of the book is a sketch of this grave opened on 7th March, which shows that the sword was along the left side of the body, a large bead was by the right hip, and what looks like a second bead by the right knee. The bead was therefore not very near the sword and may not have been attached to it.

^{page 88 note 1} One is shown in Behmer 1939, Taf. xxxvni, 2b, but two in Behmer 1939, Taf. xxxvni, 2a, and Davidson 1958, pl. LXII, A. There was only one when I examined it 1965.

^{page 88 note 2} Jessup, R., Anglo-Saxon Jewellery (1950), p. 140Google Scholar.

^{page 88 note 3} The pommel is a gold colour but has a pitted surface, and it seems this is more likely to have been caused by chemical cleaning than by gilding as suggested by Behmer 1939, p. 176.

^{page 89 note 1} Medium Aevum, xxx (1961), pp. 41–42Google Scholar.

^{page 89 note 2} Fornvännen, 1951, p. 38, fig. 5.

^{page 91 note 1} When seen in 1964 a filigree-decorated gold plate (Voinot, op. cit., pl. 11, 12) was fastened by wires to the exlower guard of the sword, and had been published in this position by Behmer 1939, pl. xxxix, 1 and Davidson 1962, fig. 56a. As pointed out by Arbman 1950, p. 154, and Werner 1950, p. 57, this belongs to the seax sheath and not to the sword. Behmer gave the provenance as Haroue. Davidson 1962, p. 73, retained the Haroué label and exlower changed the label on the illustration with the Mainz Kastel sword; in fact Davidson 1962, fig. 56a, is a sketch of the Chaouilly sword and fig. 56b is Mainz Kastel.

^{page 92 note 1} Dr. G. Raschke kindly informs me that this pommel was lost in the upheavals of 1945.

^{page 96 note 1} A fragment of a guard and an extension which is possibly part of a ring from Pukkila, Isokyro, was regarded by Hackman as a fifth stage of ring-sword where pommel, ring and guard were in one piece (Hackman 1928, p. 48, Abb. 11 and 12). This was rejected by Salmo 1938, p. 91, Abb. 27, but was included by Kivikoski 1947, Taf. 55, 477, as a ring-sword.97 1 Cf. late burials at Lowbury Hill, Farthingdown, Surrey side of the Thames and Tissington, Antiq. Journ. xliii, 38 ff, figs. 28, 30, 31, and 32.

^{page 98 note 1} Elliott, R. W., Runes (1959), p. 81Google Scholar, figs. 26, 27; Antiq. Journ. xl, 243–4.

^{page 98 note 2} Antiq. Journ. xliv, 242–5.

^{page 98 note 3} See below.

^{page 99 note 1} Elliott, R. W. V., ‘Two Neglected English Runic Inscriptions’, Mélanges de Linguistique et de Philologie, Fernand Mossé in Memoriam (1959), pp. 140 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 99 note 2} R. W. V. Elliott, Runes (1959), pp. 103 ff., fig. 46.

^{page 99 note 3} Ibid., p. 77, fig. 11.

^{page 99 note 4} For this symbol see R. W. V. Elliott, op. cit. (note 1), p. 146; Antiq. Journ. xliv, 244–5.

^{page 99 note 5} Arntz, H. and Zeiss, H., Die einheitnischen Runendenkmäler des Festlandes (1939), p. 342Google Scholar.

^{page 99 note 6} Werner, J., Das alamannische Fürstengrab von Wittislingen (1950), p. 44, Karte 4Google Scholar.

^{page 99 note 7} Daniel H. Haigh, The Conquest of Britain by the Saxons, 1861, p. 51.

^{page 99 note 8} Haigh, , ‘Notes in Illustration of the Runic Monuments of Kent’, Arch. Cant., viii (1872), 259Google Scholar.

^{page 99 note 9} Reported by George Stephens, The Old Northern Runic Monuments, 1866–1901, iii, 16.

^{page 99 note 10} Stephens, op. cit. iii. 165.

^{page 99 note 11} R. W. V. Elliott, op. cit. (note 1), pp. 77–79.

^{page 99 note 12} Stephens and Bugge based their readings on copies provided by Haigh, cf. Stephens, op. cit. iii. 163–4.

^{page 100 note 1} Conquest, op. cit., p. 51.

^{page 100 note 2} Cf. A. Campbell, Old English Grammar, 1959, §§ 200 and 735. Early Kentish varies between -e and -o.

^{page 100 note 3} See further below, section ii.

^{page 100 note 4} Cf. W. Braune, Althochdeutsche Grammatik, revised W. Mitzka, Tübingen, 1953, § 39.

^{page 100 note 5} Cf. Holthausen, F., Altsächsische Grammatik, Halle, 1921, § 94Google Scholar.

^{page 100 note 6} Cf. Campbell, op. cit., § 369.

^{page 100 note 7} Cf. Campbell, op. cit., §§ 300–1.

^{page 100 note 8} Campbell, op. cit., § 290, points out that earlier Kentish documents may have been influenced by Mercian spelling tradition, in which case the Kentish modification of y may have taken place at any time after i-mutation caused this sound to arise.

^{page 100 note 9} Cf. Campbell, op. cit., § 117.

^{page 101 note 1} Cf. ibid., § 66.

^{page 101 note 2} Cf. Campbell, op. cit., § 64 and p. 27, note 1.

^{page 101 note 3} Cf. Campbell, op cit., § 269.

^{page 101 note 4} Cf. Campbell, op. cit., § 266.

^{page 101 note 5} E. Sievers, Altenglische Grammatik, revised K. Brunner, Halle, 1942, § 94, note.

^{page 101 note 6} Campbell, op. cit., p. 18, note 1.

^{page 101 note 7} Cf. Sievers–Brunner, op. cit., §257, note 3, and Dahl, Ivar, Substantival Inflections in Early Old English, Lund, 1938, p. 149Google Scholar. Campbell, op. cit., § 590, however, makes no reference to an endingless accusative.

^{page 101 note 8} Cf. Campbell, op. cit., §§ 193d, and 369. For the relative chronology of the Kentish raising of æ to e cf. Campbell, op. cit., §§ 169 and 288–90.

^{page 101 note 9} See above, p. 98. That Old English uses the Germanic a-rune for æ need not be an insuperable difficulty here, especially if the rune-master was a Frank.

^{page 101 note 10} Cf. Campbell, op. cit., § 128.

^{page 101 note 11} Cf. Sievers—Brunner, op. cit., §94, note, and Campbell, § 42.

^{page 101 note 12} For the one possible exception cf. Antiq. Journ. xliv (1964), 242–5Google Scholar.

^{page 102 note 1} i.e. that the first and last two runes form an integral part of the inscription and that runes 16 to 20 can be transliterated icwis and 21 either a, i, or æ.