Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-wp2c8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-22T08:27:16.301Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Fragments of a lorica segmentata in the hoard from Santon, Norfolk

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 November 2011

Mansel Spratling
Mansel Spratling
Affiliation:
Department of Prehistoric and Romano-British Antiquities, British Museum
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Notes
Information
Britannia , Volume 6 , November 1975 , pp. 206 - 207
Copyright
Copyright © Mansel Spratling 1975. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Despite the fact that R. R. Clarke pointed out forty years ago (Norfolk Arch, xxv (1933–1935), 206)Google Scholar that the hoard was found in Santon parish, Norfolk, between the east end of the former Half-Moon Plantation and the site of St. Helen's Oratory, at approximately TL 837873, it is still frequently referred to as the Santon Downham, Suffolk, hoard, as a result of the incorrect information given to Baron Hügel, A. von (Proc. Cambridge Antiq. Soc. ix (1894–1898), 430–1)Google Scholar, later followed by R. A. Smith in his study of the hoard (Proc. Cambridge Antiq. Soc. xiii (1908–1909), 146–63)Google Scholar. The Santon Downham attribution ought to be dropped if only to distinguish the present hoard from that of Icenian coins which was found in Santon Downham parish (for which see Allen, D. F.. Britannia i (1970), 19, 21).Google Scholar

2 Op. cit. (note 1). A full publication of the hoard is being prepared by the writer.

3 E.g. the steelyard and its travelling weight: Smith, op. cit. (note I), pl. xvi, No. 3.

4 E.g. the dolphin brooches, for which see below.

5 Cambridge University Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Reg. No. 1897.227. I am very grateful to the former Curator, Dr. G. H. S. Bushnell, and to Miss M. D. Cra'ster, for allowing me to publish the hoard, and to examine its contents on many occasions. The fragments have been previously illustrated by Smith, op. cit. (note 1), pl. xvi, No. 2; and by Liversidge, J., Furniture in Roman Britain (London, 1955), fig. 67 (upper right).Google Scholar

6 Cf. Robinson, H. R., The Armour of Imperial Rome (London, 1975), 174Google Scholar ff., pls. 489–93. figs. 178–88. Goodburn, R., Britannia v (1974), 46 ff., figs. 25–6, Nos. 16–21.Google Scholar

7 Robinson, loc. cit. (note 6); Goodburn, op. cit. (note 6), Nos. 16, 22–30.

8 Robinson, loc. cit. (note 6); Goodburn, op. cit. (note 6), Nos. 16, 22.

9 Cambridge University Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Reg. Nos. 1897. 224A-E and G-K. Only six of the brooches have been illustrated: Smith, op. cit. (note 1), 159–60, figs. 9–10; Fox, C., The Archaeology of the Cambridge Region (Cambridge, 1923), pl. XVIII, 5–8.Google Scholar

10 Cf. Hawkes, C. F. C. and Hull, M. R., Camulodunum (Oxford, 1947), 308 ff.Google Scholar

11 Webster, G. A., Britannia i (1970), 193, with references cited.Google Scholar

12 Ibid.

13 Manning, W. H.Britannia iii (1972), 232) was incorrect in claiming that ‘A date of c. A.D. 60 is generally accepted for its deposition, largely on the supposition that the group was concealed at the time of the Boudiccan revolt’; this has never before been argued in print.Google Scholar

14 As indicated by the distribution of Icenian coin-hoards: Allen, op. cit. (note 1), figs. 1–2.