page 91 note a On this subject the following note, addressed to A. W. Franks, Esq., Director S.A., and read before the Society in the last Session, 29 April, 1858, may not be inappropriate here.
My Dear SiR,—It will be in the recollection of yourself and others who take an interest in our Anglo-Saxon Antiquities, that in the Session 1854 I communicated to the Society an account of my researches in an ancient cemetery at Wingham, Kent. (Archseologia, Vol. XXXVI. p. 176.)
Among the few relics then discovered was the object afterwards figured in my “Eemains of Pagan Saxondom.” (Plate xxxvi. fig. 5.)
This object I have in that work erroneously described as a vorticellum or spindle-whirl. It was discovered lying near the left arm of a female skeleton, an iron rod lying within it, and imparting a ferruginous tinge to the portion on which it rested. The slight form of this rod led me into the error, which it is the purpose of this note to correct; and I am still at a loss to account for its being formed of iron instead of wood, for it is plainly a portion of the distaff itself, and not any part of the spindle, as I had supposed.
The object to which I have now to direct your attention will be readily recognised by comparison with the distaff now exhibited, used at this day in Italy, for which I am indebted to the kindness of Mr. Arthur Ashpitel
From this it will at once be seen that the ring found at Wingham forms the bridge that supports the cradle. An object in all respects identical was found at Little Wilbraham; and is figured in “Saxon Obsequies.” (Plate xxiii. fig. 102.) The inner diameter of the latter ring, however, is apparently formed to receive a staff of wood and not of iron, the aperture being too wide to receive a staff of that metal.
It will be remembered, that at Ozingel in Kent, and in the Isle of “Wight, there were discovered in the graves of women objects apparently originally sword-blades, but with the tops at some inches from the point hammered into a round form, as if intended to be inserted into some object which had perished. Could these have been the handles of distaves? Their flat form would fit them for insertion in the girdle, but in other respects they must have been ponderous and inconvenient. In the present state of our knowledge this must be a matter of conjecture; but the fact that the Anglo-Saxon woman was buried with her distaff is established beyond dispute, and the placing of it on record may serve as a guide to those who may be engaged in similar researches, and help to interpret the use of objects which are recovered in a fragmentary state. I am, &c.
J- Y. Akerman.
