Novum Inventorium Sepulcharle
Kentish Anglo-Saxon Graves and Grave Goods


19th-century Inventorium

The Preface to the Inventorium Sepulchrale (Faussett 1856, i-viii) by the volume's editor, Charles Roach Smith, describes the history of the Faussett Collection, starting with Faussett's excavations and concluding with their publication nearly 100 years later. In the Introduction to the monograph (Faussett 1856, ix-lvi), Roach Smith gave an overview of the mid-19th century state of research on Anglo-Saxon cemeteries and discussed regional characteristics of East Kentish material as they were perceived at the time. The Preface and parts of the Introduction are reproduced below (see Rhodes 1990).


Bryan Faussett
Bryan Faussett's portrait held at National Museums Liverpool. © National Museums Liverpool

THE Rev. Bryan Faussett wrote the first part of his Journal of Excavations, or Inventorium Sepulchrale, as he terms it, in the year 1757; and terminated it in the year 1773, a little more than two years before his death, which happened early in 1776. Upwards of three-quarters of a century have passed away since he finished the Excavations and the Journal; and nearly a century has elapsed from the period when he commenced them.

Last year, the manuscripts and the antiquities of which they are the history, passed into the hands of Mr. Joseph Mayer of Liverpool, by purchase from the executors of the Rev. Dr. Godfrey Faussett, the grandson of Bryan Faussett. Mr. Mayer lost no time in arranging and throwing open to the public his important acquisitions; and he at once resolved on printing and illustrating the manuscripts with as little delay as possible. He felt that such a course was due both to himself and to the memory of Bryan Faussett: due to himself, because he wished to shew that it was with no restrictive or selfish feeling he had purchased antiquities, which the public voice and the opinion of our most eminent antiquaries had declared to be of national importance; and due to the memory of the long-departed discoverer, because his Journal proves him to have been a pains-taking and truth-loving investigator, and a conscientious steward of the treasures he had brought to light. No one who reads his plain, clear, narrative of facts, daily recorded with cautious attention to the most minute circumstances, can doubt but that, had his life been spared, he would himself have published the result of his successful and praiseworthy labours. In default of this provision for his own fame, the manuscript account of his discoveries is a fortunate legacy for us, who, by Mr. Mayer's liberality, inherit its advantages: at the same time it enables us to give Mr. Faussett credit and honour, and to place his name and deeds properly before the world. But the vicissitudes to which even valuable writings are exposed, after the death of the author, are exemplified in the present instance, and shew that the ready services of the printing-press, the vates sacer of the man who has earned a reputation, cannot be dispensed with, without injury to the memory of the departed.

[Brief biographical sketch of Bryan Faussett follows. See Hawkes 1990a for detailed information.]

The letters of Douglas, selected from a considerable number in the possession of Mr. Mayer, are introduced as bearing on the history of Mr. Faussett's antiquities after his death. [Also see Mayer Collections for more information on Faussett's antiquities.] It does not appear who the individual was that wished to purchase them, though Douglas. In one of the unprinted letters it is said that the negotiator was not Sir Ashton Lever, with whom Douglas was acquainted, and who, about the time he first made the proposal, projected a visit to Heppington in company with him. What would have been the ultimate destiny of the collection had Mr. H.G. Faussett parted with it, it is impossible to say; but it is probable that, in the course of a short time, it would have been subjected to the common fate of such gatherings, as described by Douglas [...].

Letter from the Rev. James Douglas to Mr. Henry Godfrey Faussett, 4 May 1782 (Faussett 1856, 216)

DEAR SIR – I should have no manner of objection of treating with you concerning your collection of things in barrows, etc., if the value you set on them is compatible with reason, and the scarcity of money in general; indeed I should say, with the poverty of the times. Permit me now to tell you, I am empowered to negotiate with you for the purchase; but also not to exceed a certain price: the person is not a very monied man; yet if you conclude on disposing of them, he will remit you their value on the immediate conclusion of the bargain. Whatever transpires with me, I give you my onour, shall remain a secret; but indeed, I see no reason why you should have the least reluctance to make your intention public of disposing of them, since it happens every day that the first families in the kingdom are selling their collections of pictures, gems, antiquities, horses, etc. I believe I could enumerate many families that do this, not through distress; but merely owing to their fancy changing, or other matters. I find Dr. Jacob has sold his collection of medals, etc., which he has been very much disappointed in; they fetched a mere trifle indeed.

I apprehend you have no objection to permit your manuscripts, that is, your father's, to go with the things. You know it would be extremely awkward to have the collection without them.

In expectation of your letter signifying your price, and which I hope you will not be unreasonable in,

I have the honour of remaining with much sincerity, dear Sir,

Your faithful obedient servant,

It was never very clear to what extent the author of the Nenia Britannica was enabled to make use of the materials in the collection at Heppington. He selected, it seems, what he considered more immediately necessary for his work; and either he himself made the drawings, or he was supplied with them by Mr. H.G. Faussett; but the manuscripts were not accessible to him. It is not improbable that Mr. H.G. Faussett had some notion of publishing them [see letter below]; particularly as there are, among the papers in Mr. Mayer's possession, outline sketches of most of the antiquities, grouped, apparently, with a view of arranging them for engraving. [In a letter of 1794, Douglas] had not abandoned the idea of relieving the collection, in some way, from its obscurity at Heppington.

Letter from the Rev. James Douglas to Mr. Henry Godfrey Faussett, 19 February 1791 (Faussett 1856, 219-20)

DEAR FAUSSETT, – I hope your great affliction has, from this interval, been somewhat lessened, and that your health is not materially injured by your heavy loss. I have had you often in my mind, as you may naturally suppose, from the nature of my engagements; and when this has been the case, I may venture to say, with the greatest sincerity, that both Mrs. D. and myself have felt a sumpathy on the melancholy occasion.

Have you had any time or spirits to persue my last number of the Nenia, which I hope has reached you? My plates are finished for the succeeding one, the eighth, and are now forwarded to the press. They contain the coins, urns, or rather, funeral vessels, plans of the groups of barrows, and some few miscellaneous relics. This number will detail more elaborate matter on the history of the barrows; some corrections of past errors, or rather, hasty stringing together of remarks from my common-place book; and I rather flatter myself I shall be, on the whole, persuasive in making you a complete convert as to their real history. I have said complete, to raise your expectations; and also with a view, by speaking boldly and decidedly, to be called to order for any human falibility, which, if in your power, I hope you will, without any ceremony, not fail to do. When I say in your power, I mean if you are in possession of any facts which controvert my assertions, or, more modestly speaking, conjectures, I beg you will not scruple to let me hear from you.

From the trouble, time, and expense, with little or no profit, attendant on these kind of publications, I think I may venture to foretel, that you will not sit down to arrange your collection for the public: as such, I trust you will permit me to ask, whether you have any desire to introduce any of your remarks? If so, I will very readily accept them, and faithfully assign them to the writer. I have made this suggestion at this time, because in the ensuing number to this, I mean to dismiss the matter which relates to the small barrows in clusters; and proceed to the Roman and British, for the completion of which I have some very rich materials.

A few months back, I opened an uncommon curious paved barrow of the first rate kind [1]: the contents, an urn, skeleton, and some fragments of undefined brass relics, too much corroded even for conjecture. The barrow was curious from its apparent high antiquity and its situation.

I think you once told me that you found urns with ashes in the campaniform clusters of barrows where the bodies were also interred; but you did not say whether this was evident in any on Barham Down or Sibertswold Down. Chartham contained some, as by Dr. Mortimer's manuscript; but he does not say positively that ashes were found in them. This circumstance is very material as to the dating of their exact era; and if this occurs to your memory, or in your notes, I shall esteem it a favour if you will acquaint me with the fact.

I shall be extremely happy to hear that you preserve your health; and that the anxieties of life have not turned your thoughts entirely from the rust of old times.

I beg, when you see Sir William and Mrs. Fagg, you will not fail to present my best remembrance.

I am, with great regard, sincere friend and servant,

[1]At Gorstead, in the parish of Chidingfold, Surrey. See Nenia Britannica, p. 162. – C.R.S.

A lapse of nearly half a century now occurs. In this long space of time I have noticed no printed mention of the collection; and I believe its very existence was little known beyond the family circle and immediate friends. Indeed, I was given to understand by the late Rev. Dr. Faussett when I first examined it, that he suspected I was the first person who, for a period of nearly forty years, had inspected it critically, or with a purely antiquarian object. My acquaintance with it commenced suddenly, and in a very informal manner.

Some twelve years ago, or upwards, I had commenced a walk from Canterbury along the Roman road, called Stone Street; to Lymne, my first visit to that district. My path lay by Heppington, which I knew only as the residence of the Rev. Dr. Faussett, the inheritor of a valuable collection of local antiquities, excavated by his ancestor, Bryan Faussett. I had not premeditated making a call: I had no introduction; and, moreover, had understood that the antiquities were not very accessible. With these reflections I had passed the turning that led to the house; but, unwilling to be in the immediate neighbourhood without ascertaining something satisfactory respecting the collection, I retraced my steps, called at the house, and introduced myself and the object of my visit to the owner. I was received with every civility; and, as circumstances were not, at that moment, convenient for an inspection of the treasure-chamber, it was agreed upon, that, in the year following, I should pay Heppington a special visit, to see and examine what I was anxious to look upon. The engagement was faithfully kept on both sides; and then, and on all subsequent visits, I received from Dr. Faussett and the family a courteous and friendly reception. It was at my request, and under a regulation suggested by me, that the British Archaeological Association, at its first public meeting, was received at Heppington and permitted access to antiquarian riches, which many of the neighbouring friends of the owner had probably never before seen; and it is also probable, had never before heard of. It is not, however, to be at all inferred, that Dr. Faussett was insensible to the peculiar importance of the Saxon antiquities. On the contrary, he was justly proud of his collection, and prized it highly; though his professional duties afforded him little opportunity of developing the antiquarian taste which he inherited from his father and grandfather [...]; and when, at last, he foresaw that family considerations would render the sale of the collection desirable, Dr. Faussett, in saving it from public auction (the common grave of antiquarian gatherings), could have evinced in no better way his regard for the labours and the memory of his grandfather.

This visit was productive of something more than the rational but fleeting pleasure that usually attends such superficial and cursory examinations of antiquities: it served to bring several students of archaeology into connection with a mass of materials of a peculiar class hitherto but little known or studied; and as attention was then being seriously directed to Anglo-Saxon antiquities, particularly from the researches in this neighbourhood by Lord Albert Conyngham (now Lord Londesborough), numerous objects for comparison were timely afforded, to those capable of appreciating their affinity, by this agreeable excursion to Heppington. A vote of thanks was publicly accorded to Dr. Faussett [see below] for his reception of the visitors, and for offering to aid in publishing his grandfather's manuscripts, should the Association feel disposed to undertake the task.

Vote of Thanks to the Rev. Godfrey Faussett, D.D., by the British Archaeological Association (Faussett 1856, 221-2; Durkin 1844)

C.Roach Smith, Esq., F.S.A., in moving the vote of 'thanks to the Rev. Godfrey Faussett, D.D., Margaret Professor of Divinity, Oxford, for his great courtesy and kindness, in receiving the members of the British Archaeological Association to inspect his most interesting collection of antiquities', said, that the visit to Heppington had been one of the most important and interesting achievements of the meeting. By the kindness and liberality of Dr. Faussett, they had been permitted free access to a museum of local antiquities, which he (Mr. S.) considered was unrivalled in the value of the objects themselves, as works of ancient art of a particular epoch, and in the admirable manner in which they were arranged, classified, and illustrated by the doctor's ancestor, the Rev. Bryan Faussett. Not only had Dr. Faussett, at considerable trouble and inconvenience, made arragements to ensure to all who attended an examination of the antiquities, but he also procured for their inspection, and arranged in his museum, the collection of Sir John Fagg. And furthermore, Dr. Faussett had intimated that if, at any future time, the Association should feel disposed to publish the manuscripts of his grandfather, illustrative of the collection, every facility should be afforded towards effecting this object, which he (Mr. S.) considered most desirable.

I conclude from our private correspondence, not very long anterior to his death, that Dr. Faussett had considered it was his duty to make some arrangement for the disposal of the collection, consistent with the preservation of its integrity, and the interests of his family; and to these ends our correspondence tended. After his decease, I was consulted on the same subject by his acting executor; and this brings us to the crisis in the fate of the collection, which ended in, the removing of it from Heppington to Liverpool.

Although I could not be ignorant of the indifference with which our national antiquities have been and are regarded by the Government, I thought it possible that what could not be looked for from good taste, or from patriotism, might be conceded to dictation or to interest; and I advised that the collection should be offered to the Nation, through the Trustees of the British Museum. This was done; and an extremely moderate sum was asked. To any private individual the price proposed would have been moderate; so much so, that no less than three persons were willing to purchase in the event of the Trustees declining, – a contingency not calculated on. The Trustees, however, did refuse the offer. The leading metropolitan antiquarian societies now came forward, to back the recommendation of the officers of the department of antiquities in the British Museum: Mr. Wylie offered to present to the Nation, free of any cost, the valuable Saxon antiquities discovered by him at Fairford, in Gloucestershire, provided the Faussett collection were secured in the British Museum; and Dr. Faussett's executors extended the time afforded for the consideration and decision of the Trustees over several months. But it was said, 'the Trustees were not to be persuaded'; 'the Trustees were not to be compelled'; and 'the Trustees were not to be dictated to'; and the Nation, consequently, was not to possess a most extraordinary collection of the rarest monuments, which is in every point of view truly valuable, and which, as purely national remains of historical importance may be considered priceless. Mr. Wylie's antiquities were, as a matter of course, also lost to the Nation. The particulars of this exposure of the lamentable construction of the Board of Trustees are sufficiently public; but the responsibility must rest with the Government; and be reckoned among the numerous inconsistencies and deficiencies which it has manifested, and for which it will have to answer to all who desire to see our country respected and honoured. When our Government shall be composed of statesmen instead of placemen; of men who look to the credit, the prosperity, and the glory of the country, more than to the maintenance of themselves in power, and their connexions in places and in pensions; then, and then only, may it be expected that our national antiquities will be cared for and protected; and that, at the same time, the ancient national literature will be appreciated and its students encouraged.

It is fortunate for the country at large, that the Faussett collection did not share the fate of other antiquities rejected by the Trustees of the British Museum, and become lost to us, either by transportation to a foreign country, or by dispersion by public auction. And it is still more fortunate that it has passed into the hands of a gentleman who appreciates its historical and national importance. To him the Nation is deeply indebted for his liberality and patriotic feeling; first, for doing what the Government failed to do; and, secondly, for ordering the manuscripts to be printed, and illustrated in such a manner, that the antiquarian world may enjoy the fruits of his liberality. Had the Government been induced to accept the offer made by Dr. Faussett's executors, the manuscripts would probably have remained a sealed book to the public; and thus the praise awarded to a private individual, for the prompt and full performance of a spontaneous act of great public utility, conveys at the same time a further censure to the Government.

In preparing the manuscripts for the press, I have judged it best to print them precisely as they stood; preserving the general arrangement and even the orthography as much as possible. As the great value of the Inventorium Sepulchrale depends wholly upon the numerous facts which it contains, it is right those facts should be set before the reader just as they have descended to us. It may be considered by some, that there is frequently an unnecessary attention to details of no interest, and of no archaeological weight; and that portions might have been abridged. Had Mr, Faussett himself published his researches, it is probable, he would have condensed some parts of his minute descriptions. But I felt, that in order to preserve the complete impress of their authenticity and fidelity, it would have been wrong either to have omitted any portion of the text, or to have deprived the work of any of its original features. While, however, I have expunged nothing from the text, I have used my own judgment with respect to the notes and references. Wherever I found that they were based on mistaken views; that what was meant to illustrate had an opposite tendency; or that no light was throw upon the subject matter by annotations, I considered it a duty to omit them. In order to give every prominence to the Anglo-Saxon antiquities, which constitute the bulk of the volume and the chief value of the work, I have transposed the Crundale division, which relates mainly to Roman remains, from its chronological precedence, and placed it last.

The arrangement of the Index [see Collection Notes under individual sites] I hope will be found of use to the antiquary. By giving it in divisions, a tolerably correct view may be obtained of the general contents of the graves, and of the relative proportion of the various objects found in them. But it must be understood that, in some respects, this cannot be very correct. Many of the remains in iron have totally perished; and it is only when the measure is stated, that we sometimes know what the spears and some other weapons really were. It must be understood, also, that when Mr. Faussett uses the word pila, he means darts; and not the heavy long spears which the word properly implies. Under the term hastae, he includes all spears of the larger kinds. The archaeologist will, however, be able to judge for himself; and for exact purposes he will never use the Index without comparing it with the text and the notes at the foot of the pages. When women's and children's graves are indexed, it must be considered, that only those are signified which were palpably to be recognised as such; and that the remaining larger number are not to be considered wholly as those of men.


5, Liverpool Street, City
December 29th, 1855.


THE real value of antiquities should be determined by the extent to which they are capable of being applied towards illustrating history. The farther they are removed from the probability of throwing some faint light on the state of man in past ages, the more they become depreciated for all useful purposes; but in proportion as they serve to supply greater evidence on the manners or on the arts of the ancients, so must they rise in the estimation of all whose education has directed them to engage in a comprehensive examination of the past. It is no longer necessary to make an apology for the study of antiquities when undertaken in such a spirit; defence or excuse is to be made by those who deny its utility, or who undervalue it; for every man is now expected to be educated; and he who is ignorant of his antecedents, whatever may be his worldly condition, cannot be called properly educated. The English archaeologist can select no worthier course of study than that which directs him to the history of those from whom he inherits not only his material existence and the language he speaks, but also many of the civil and political institutions under which he lives in freedom, and surrounded with advantages and privileges unknown to many nations and countries. Nothing that relates to the knowledge of the human race, can, indeed, be unworthy the consideration of man; and the antiquities of all parts of the globe claim, more or less, to be understood and brought to bear upon historical evidence in every possible way. But those of our own land appeal first to our regard and challenge our sympathy, because they once belonged to those from whom we spring; and because they teach us something, at least, of the habits, customs, and arts of our forefathers. The colossal wonders and hieroglyphic literature of Egypt; the monuments of Nineveh and Babylon; the architecture and sculpture of Greece and Rome, and all the various artistic productions of classical antiquity, are not to be the less appreciated, because we look to our native country first, and contemplate the remains of those who bequeathed to us our island home, and with it, laws and institutions which have founded or regulated our manners and our national character.

It need never be apprehended, that where, as in this country, refinement of taste and a sound system of education prevail, classical antiquities will ever be neglected, or be in danger of being superseded; it would be as unreasonable to dread such a result as to fear a decadence of esteem for the noble literature of Greece and Rome. Yet not only does the Government begin with gathering the monuments, ancient and modern, of all foreign countries, but it ends there also. Our national antiquities are not even made subservient and placed in the lowest grade; they are altogether unrecognized and ignored; and that, too, with an English metropolitan museum, surrounded by an English population, and paid for, with no stinted liberality, by English money. When those who are not ashamed of their parentage; whose patriotism is not ostentatious but deep; who do not reverence their country less because they know it more:– when those persons expostulate, and protest against this repudiation of National Antiquities, they are answered by some dogma about 'fine art', and by unphilosophical axioms of mere dilettanteism. The same spirit, applied to literature, would exclude Beowulf and Bede, because they are not the Iliad and Tacitus. But in spite of an unfostering and undiscerning Government, England has produced scholars worthy of her ancient literature and students devoted to her antiquities.

If there be an epoch in the early history of our country which, above all, excites the curiosity and rouses the interest, it will probably be acknowledged by all historical inquirers to be that period which intervenes between the withdrawal of the lights supplied by the Roman writers and the evidence afforded by the Saxon historians. The great events (for great they must have been, though we cannot picture, but in the imagination, even the outlines of their forms), accompanying the relaxation of the grasp of imperial Rome, which, for centuries, held Britain in subjugation, would have furnished stirring themes to a Tacitus and a Marcellinus; or even to the most feeble pen of the lowest writers whose names are written on the roll of fame; had not inexorable fate decreed otherwise, and deprived those times of a chronicler. For that epoch of transitions, the steady torch of history burns no longer; and the glimmerings which, here and there, supply its place, are like the flashes of lightning to the benighted and road-lost wanderer, which reveal more sensibly the gloom around him, without directing his footsteps.

When the light of history dawns again upon the mysterious drama, it is fitful and uncertain; but when the curtain, or shroud rather, is raised, we see upon the stage a mighty change. A new people has occupied the land; and the inauguration of new governments, soon to merge into one great and lasting kingdom, has commenced. These new possessors of Roman Britain were not, in earlier days, unknown to history. They had, long before, explored the coasts of Gaul and Britain:– per tractum Belgicae et Armoricae pacandum mare accepisset, (Carausius) quod Franci et Saxones infestabant, says Eutropius, lib. ix, cap. xxi; and Ammianus Marcellinus describes, more circumstantially, their growing power in the reign of Valentinian and Valens, which caused greater apprehension to the declining empire than the hostile incursions of any other enemy: prae caeteris hostibus Saxones timentur. They are represented to us as pirates by sea and invaders by land; yielding up their young warriors, when conquered, to serve as auxiliaries in the Roman armies; and we find a long line of maritime district, both in Gaul and in Britain, actually taking its appellation from their descents and invasions as enemies, or, as some suppose, from their visits as friends or as traffickers; and once, at least, we find a body of them located in Britain, and siding with the provincial against the imperial army. These were the people whom we now recognize seated in security upon the shores of Britain: in one view, we see them, as warlike adventurers, breaking in upon the Roman provinces in all directions; in another, as conquerors, with laws of their own and all the elements of civilization. But of the precise time when the great advent commenced, how continued, and when completed, the traditions, which under the name of history have descended to us, leave us in doubt.

The date assigned by this history to the first coming of the Saxons, after the final departure of the Romans, is the middle of the fifth century. They landed on the Isle of Thanet; and, shortly after, established themselves in Kent and became a kingdom. Within thirty years, another body of Saxons settled upon the south coast of Britain, taking possession of the tract now called Sussex, or the South Saxons. At the beginning of the sixth century, a third detachment from the same Germanic family landed further westward, and founded the kingdom of the West Saxons, in which was included the Isle of Wight. From the same source which supplies the brief notices of these events we learn, that towards the middle of the sixth century were formed the states of the East and Middle Saxons in the districts which, in consequence, took the names of Essex and Middlesex. We also gather that the Angles who settled in the east and north-east of Britain, and in the interior parts, probably made their first descents towards the middle of the sixth century; so that the kingdoms known as those of the East Angles (Norfolk, Suffolk, and Cambridgeshire), the Midland Angles, the Northumbrians (from the Humber northwards), and Mercia (on the borders of Wales), appear not to have been definitely settled until at least a century after the landing of the Saxons in Kent, in A.D. 449. Vague and unsatisfactory as are most of the details of Saxon history, the gradual subjugation of Britain by successive immigrations of Teutonic tribes, may, at least, be accepted as the most reconcilable with reason; and there seems nothing very repugnant to the more rigid rules of criticism to regard these tribes under their historic designation of Jutes, Saxons, and Angles; and, further, to believe that at least a century was required to transform Britain, after the Romans, into a heptarchy of Teutonic kingdoms.

Testing our Saxon antiquities with reference to the usually received chronology of the advent and settlement in Britain of the Teutonic tribes, it will be no unimportant result should they be in accordance with accepted historical facts. They will be invested with novel and higher interest, if they should be found to carry in their form and character certain peculiarities which suggest earlier and later dates, and a diversity of parentage: for instance, if in the remains of the Kentish Saxons, such as are described in this volume, and in those of the Isle of Wight, we may recognize, from close resemblance to each other, the weapons, the ornaments, and the domestic implements of the Jutes: if in the cemeteries of Cambridgeshire, Suffolk, and Norfolk, we may, in like manner, identify the funeral usages of the Angles; and in remains found in the midland and western districts, see still different peculiarities, but which point to a kindred origin. It is not improbable that discoveries may enable us to resuscitate, as it were, our remote predecessors; to restore to those of the various Saxon kingdoms the very objects which accompanied them when living; to the men their weapons; to the women their peculiar jewellery, and those more humble and homely objects, which we may look upon as emblems of their domestic virtues. It is not a slight analogy in some instances only that will establish this theory; it must spring from the remains themselves, and be palpable and convincing, or it must be rejected.

Bearing in mind this chronological order of the settlement of the Saxons in Britain, and the modifications which a century, or even a half-century, would make in fashion and customs; considering also, that though called by the general term Saxons, and belonging to one and the same family, the settlers in Britain were of different nations or tribes whose habits and usages would be generally alike; but at the same time varying in some points, in the same manner as, at the present day, a Yorkshireman differs from a native of Hampshire, or a Kentish peasant from a Lancashire labourer:– bearing these facts in mind, it is not surprising that we notice also in the remains from various districts general features of identity, combined with certain dissimilitudes, so marked, as to warrant our classifying such remains as characteristic of distinct peoples and of distinct localities. If the materials which are already here collected shall not be considered too scanty for the foundation of a theory (and it must be owned we are but scantily supplied with authenticated facts from many parts of England), they certainly do afford indications which coincide, as I have hinted, with historical testimony. Thus, in Kent, one of the most conspicuous features in the Saxon sepulchral remains is the richly ornamented circular fibulae. These are sparingly found beyond the district occupied by the earliest Saxon settlers. When they do occur, here and there, they are exceptions; but throughout the county of Kent, it would be a rare occurrence to discover a Saxon funereal deposit without an example of this elegant and peculiar ornament. In Suffolk, in Norfolk, in Cambridgeshire, in Northamptonshire, in Leicestershire, and further north, these circular fibulae do but casually appear; but others of a totally distinct character abound. I was struck, many years since, with this remarkable fact, in examining the museums in Suffolk, after having inspected those of Kent. In Berkshire, Oxfordshire, and Gloucestershire, are found saucer-shaped fibulae unlike either of these two classes, and forming a third variety. In Suffolk, in Cambridgeshire, in Leicestershire, and in other parts, have been repeatedly found metal implements or ornaments, which I have designated by the modern name of chatelaine, to give some notion of their form and use, in the absence of engravings. These remarkable objects in no instance, as far as I am aware, have been found in Kent; but others of a very different fashion, and of more elegant workmanship, from the Kentish graves, will, for the first time, be exhibited in this volume. In a grave on Barham Downs, some of the earliest Saxon coins (sceats) have been found. On the site of a Saxon cemetery at Southampton, similar coins have been picked up; but I am aware of no such discovery in any other Saxon burial place. No work of art is more significant of civilization than coins; and although the sceats would shock the connoisseur who sees only through the medium of what is called 'high art', yet historical inquirers see in them the establishment of a monetary system founded upon the Roman; and do not reject this evidence because the dies were rudely executed. The contents of the Chessell Down cemetery, in the Isle of Wight, have some very striking points of resemblance to those of the Saxon graves in Kent; while, on the contrary, they have only a general resemblance to the remains found in Cambridgeshire, in Suffolk, and in the northern and midland counties.

In the urns and earthen vessels which usually accompany Saxon interments, we shall find a still more decided line of demarcation between the Kentish graves and those in other counties. The pottery of the ancients is of usual occurrence in sepulchral deposits, and so varying in relation to epochs and manufacture, that, next to coins, it is often the best guide of the practised archaeologist. In the various specimens engraved in this volume, there will be noticed such a striking uniformity in shape and in ornamentation, as to leave no doubt of their having been manufactured by one and the same people, and probably during a period of time of no very extended range. If we refer to the many engraved examples of the urns found near Derby, at Nottingham, in Bedfordshire, in Norfolk, in Cambridgeshire, and in Yorkshire, we cannot fail to perceive a strong general resemblance between all of them; and, at the same time, so great a discordance with those of Kent, that no one would imagine any connection between them. Of the mortuary urns of Sussex and Hampshire, I have only seen a few examples, which incline to the majority rather than to those of Kent. There is an individuality in the vessels from Kent which indicates an influence of a separate and distinct kind. And here we enter upon a subject which has already excited attention, and which will admit of further discussion. The pottery of the cemeteries in the various counties above-mentioned consists chiefly of urns containing burnt human bones, vestiges of the ancient pagan practice of burning the body after death. In some of the cemeteries where these urns are found, as in those at Derby, Newark, and Norfolk, no skeletons with weapons have been noticed; but in that of Little Wilbraham, in Cambridgeshire, skeletons with weapons, and urns with burnt bones, have been discovered in juxtaposition. In other Saxon burial places, as, for instance, that at Chessell, in the Isle of Wight, only a very few of such urns or even a solitary example, have been noticed. It is one of the chief points of interest in the Journal of the Rev. Bryan Faussett, that it gives us so many facts for comparison; and in relation to the practices of cremation and the burial of the body, as they would appear to have co-existed, the evidence it affords is very important. It appears, then, that the Kentish cemeteries investigated by Faussett do not present a single instance of an original deposit containing an urn with burnt bones in or about the graves. He, indeed, found a few instances of broken urns with bones; but these, he emphatically asserts, were the debris of interments of an anterior date. He states that the sherds were placed carefully one within the other; and his remarks on Dr. Mortimer's discoveries of bone-urns are to the same purpose. In other cemeteries in the county of Kent, which have been excavated in more recent times, I am not aware of any urns analogous to those of Derby, Newark, Little Wilbraham, and other places north of the Thames, having been discovered: at the same time we must recollect how few have been properly examined.

The question that now naturally arises is, are these mortuary urns really Saxon? If they are, why are they not found in Kent, where the Saxons are supposed to have established themselves long anterior to the settlement of the Angles in the east and midland parts of Britain? When, some few years since, I pronounced this class of urns to be Saxon, I did not do so without taking into consideration the important fact of their always containing the evidences of cremation, and the endurance of old customs and practices with one race, which with a kindred people in the same country might have become obsolete: many circumstances coincided to shew their distinct character from the Roman urns, and, at the same time, to suggest their appropriation to a period closely following the late Romano-British epoch. But a question may arise, as to whether these urns do not belong to the population which immediately intervened between the departure of the Romans and the coming of the Saxons, grounding the question upon historical data for the successive settlements of Teutonic races in Britain, and the lapse of considerable time between the conquest of Kent and that of the interior parts of the country. Under this view of the case, it is just a question if, after all, these urns might not be assigned to the latest Romano-British population. In the museum of Mr. Mayer, there is a cinerary urn (originally, I suspect, from Norfolk), which we should at once have called Saxon, did it not bear upon it, incised with a pointed instrument, a Roman funereal inscription. There appears no doubt of the antiquity of the inscription, which is written in the simplest and most common Roman formula; and it might be cited in favour of the hypothesis suggested above, were it advanced arbitrarily or after matured consideration.

The learned author of the Saxons in England, in a paper on burial and cremation, recently read before the Archaeological Institute [Kemble 1855], has contributed among much important information, which must receive the best attention of the archaeologist, some facts which bear especially on the practice of cremation among the Saxons. They are supplied, too, from the author's own researches in the very quarter from whence authenticated facts were needed and called for; namely, from districts in Germany, the cradle of our Saxon forefathers. Referring to the mortuary urns now usually considered as Saxon, Mr. Kemble states as follows: 'Urns of precisely similar form, and with exactly the same peculiarities, have been discovered in Jutland and parts of Friesland, on the borders of the Elbe, in Westphalia, in Thuringia, in parts of Saxony, in the duchies of Bremen and Verden, the county of Hoya, and other districts on the Weser: in short, in many parts of Germany east of the Rhine, west of the upper Elbe and Saale, and north of the Main. They have, therefore, been found in countries which were occupied by the forefathers of the Anglo-Saxons. In all these localities we find a great preponderance of cremation; in a few, both modes practised, but in a great majority of instances cremation only.' The remarkable fact that skeletons are so rare in those parts, Mr. Kemble explains by the prevalence of cremation originally among all the Teutonic races, and by the abandonment of the rite as Christianity gained ground. On the present occasion, I can do little more than direct attention to this elaborate and interesting paper, and record the author's conclusions, which are, that 'contemporaneous or not, on the same spot or not, the urn-burials are Pagan; the burials without cremation, in England, are Christian. If there be any equivocation in the matter, it lies the other way: a few half-converted Christians may for a while have clung to the rite of burning; but I do not believe any Pagan Saxons to have buried without it.'

The Franks, who stand in relation to France as the Saxons to England, and who, in the later days of the Roman empire, we often find in history associated with the Saxons, have been equally identified in their graves in Germany and in France; but, it may be remarked, not until within a very recent period. The relics of their sepulchral usages bear close affinity to those of the Saxons, particularly some of the weapons; while, at the same time, in the ornaments and other objects there are characteristics which serve to distinguish the Frankish from the Saxon. The pottery, perhaps, affords the most striking points of dissemblance, as the annexed type from a cemetery near Dieppe will exemplify. One or two analogies will be given further on; but little more on the present occasion can be done, than to refer to the best illustrated works, mentioned at the close of this Introduction; which, it must be borne in mind, is specifically addressed to the Kentish Saxon antiquities.

Before the time of Douglas, it does not appear that anybody had at all understood, or even suspected, the existence of our Saxon sepulchral antiquities. To be convinced of this, it will only be necessary to turn to the chief antiquarian publications of the last century. It was, unfortunately, too much the fashion to regard the remains of ancient art merely as rarities, to be collected as the costly or uncommon productions of nature were sought for; and thus nearly all the old museums were filled with what were termed 'wonders of art and nature'. These indiscriminate gatherings were often highly prized and valued; but it was their rarity which constituted their chief charms, not their adaptation to historical uses. The owners, it is true, were often men of learning and sense; and frequently endeavoured to turn their antiquities to scientific account; but wanting the knowledge to discriminate between objects of very different epochs and peoples, they formed, from the absence of this peculiar knowledge, most erroneous opinions and theories.

The Rev. Bryan Faussett could not well avoid detecting the unsound deductions of Dr. Mortimer, who considered the remains found in the graves upon Chartham Down as those of Romans under Julius Caesar, He had worked too carefully and reasoned too acutely to be seduced into any wild conclusions. He had amended his earlier opinions, as fresh, evidence appeared; and he approached very closely to a correct comprehension of the character and epoch of the remains he discovered. But, although he evidently had imbibed an early taste for antiquarian researches, yet he never had opportunities of investigating much beyond certain districts in Kent, which afforded him materials of one class of antiquities only. Had he been previously acquainted with the characteristics of Roman and Romano-British remains, he would probably have at once surmised that the weapons, the implements, and the ornaments, unaccompanied by indications of contemporary cremation, must have belonged to a time subsequent to that to which he referred them. The coins of Justinian (Gilton, No. 41) [M 6060], and those of the Merovingian period (Sibertswold. No. 172) [M 6530 & M 6531], might have guided him further and to sounder conclusions, had he thought of exercising upon them the patient inquiry he bestowed so freely on matters of less consequence. The importance of coins, the inscriptions or characters upon which are the best chronological indicators, was felt and appreciated by Douglas, who followed Faussett in the same field of research. They were to him a key to unlock the difficulty; and he applied it judiciously and with success.

Douglas explored a considerable number of barrows upon Chatham Down, a group in Greenwich Park, and a few at Ash and at St. Margaret's on the Cliff, near Dover. He also had the advantage of seeing the collection made by Bryan Faussett, and of obtaining particulars relating to the discovery of portions of it. Moreover, he extended his investigations to other parts of England, and even to the Continent. No one could see more clearly than Douglas the mistakes made by his predecessors and contemporaries; and though his work, the Nenia Britannica [Douglas 1793], is not free from errors, it is, in the main, written in a sound logical spirit, and with a clear perception of the points of dissemblance between the different classes of antiquities on which he treats. He has correctly appropriated the Saxon remains to their right owners; but his opinions on the magical uses of many of the objects that were placed in the graves, and on the general Christian character of the sepultures, are open, at least, to question.

The more recent researches made in the county of Kent are mostly referred to in the notes appended to the Inventorium [...]. The chief localities are Bourne Park, Kingston Down, Breach Downs, Wingham, Sittingbourne, Stowting, and Osengal. Casual discoveries have also been made at Wodensborough, Coombe, Gilton, Copstreet near Goldstone (opposite Richborough, to the west), Minster, Mersham, Hythe, Ashford, and other places.

It is not requisite, on the present occasion, to give the details which these discoveries have furnished, especially as the more important are recorded in accessible publications [see list of References below]. But it is necessary to remark that they are of much archaeological value in affording facts for comparison, the great ground-work for all sound theories. They are all, more or less, confirmatory of the opinions which may be formed from the numerous facts now before us. The practices and usages observed in the sepultures are so identical, the remains themselves so similar, that their common parentage and close approximation in point of date, are obvious. We may daily look for additional evidence; and hope that it may be given by the hand and pen of careful discriminators; for the spade and pick-axe in undiscerning hands confound the fragile relics of the grave, and annihilate what time may have spared, it may have been, for some more tender hand and practised eye to restore in the alembic of science. In the words of Douglas, 'confusion lies under the stroke; and little correct information can be selected by the antiquary when the ignorant labourer is made the voucher for the veracity of past ages.'

It is to be feared that most of the antiquities, obtained from the casual discoveries alluded to above, are either utterly lost, or scattered about in inaccessible places, separated, probably, from the evidence that once served to identify and authenticate them: there is no doubt that some of them, after serving as 'nine-days wonders', have been destroyed. The collection of Douglas has passed – not wholly, unfortunately – into the Ashmolean Museum, at Oxford. Mr. Rolfe has inherited part of that which belonged to his grandfather, Boys, the historian of Sandwich: this is preserved at Sandwich, with the remains found at Osengal, and elsewhere in the neighbourhood. The Saxon antiquities from Breach Downs, Bourne Park, and Wingham, have found a safe asylum in the museum of Lord Londesborough. We proceed now to the Faussett collection.

[Description of artefact classes in the Faussett Collection follows. See Typology: Antiquarian Artefact Classes.]


We derive but little, if any, information bearing upon our researches in the names or in the records of the localities in which the Anglo-Saxon cemeteries are situated. They only shew that certain districts were more or less populated, and that the inhabitants were more or less wealthy. The Gilton and Kingston cemeteries bear indisputable evidence of the superior condition in life of many of the now nameless denizens of the graves; and we may infer that in these districts were located some of the most powerful of the earliest settlers. As we often find the cemeteries are contiguous to or surrounded by Roman or Romano-British burial places, we seem to discern, in this contiguity of the dead, the result of an amicable relationship. In many places, where opportunity has been afforded of watching the exhumation of Roman burial-places, it has not been unfrequently noticed, when the Roman interments have been exhausted, that Saxon graves follow in close proximity. This fact has been, perhaps, more strikingly observed in the vicinity of towns, as at Strood and Colchester. The Roman cemetery at Crundale affords a remarkable instance; and in this point of view its chief interest consists. Unfortunately a vast number of both Roman and Saxon burial-places have been dug up ignorantly, or ransacked with no antiquarian object, and many opportunities for extending our knowledge on this important inquiry have been irrevocably lost. Still, no doubt, much is yet left for the patient and careful explorer: and we may hope that the publication of the great mass of facts contained in this volume will influence the discoverers of Saxon cemeteries to follow the example of Bryan Faussett in noting particulars, and that of Mr. Mayer in making those particulars public property.

A classification of Anglo-Saxon antiquities, obtained from various parts of the kingdom, is of the first importance. My friend Mr. Wright has attempted to aid in this classification by a map which he has contributed to our volume. In explanation of the principles on which this map is drawn up, I here give some notes which he has communicated to me:–

My principal object in the accompanying map was to shew the position of the Saxon cemeteries hitherto discovered in our island, with regard not only to one another, but to the great roads and principal towns which were in existence at the period to which the cemeteries are ascribed. I think it would be hardly safe yet to venture on drawing any conclusions from the comparisons which this map leads us to; but it is, perhaps, right to state the authority, or grounds, upon which the map itself is made.

I need not tell you of the almost imperishable character of the Roman roads, which not only remained as the public roads of this island during the Anglo-Saxon and Norman periods, but were the foundation of most of the principal high-roads of modern times. I had, therefore, no more to do in this respect than to take the principal known roads of the Roman period. Four of these great roads are especially spoken of by our medieval chroniclers; but as the oldest writer in whom the description and names of them occur, Henry of Huntingdon, belongs to the middle of the twelfth century, it leaves room for some discussion as to their real Anglo-Saxon names. The words of Henry of Huntingdon are as follows:– 'Tantae autem gratiae inhabitantibus fuit Brittannia, quod quatuor in ea calles a fine in finem construerent regia sublimatos authoritate, ne aliquis in eis inimicum invadere auderet. Primus est ab oriente in occidentem, et vocatur Ichenild; secundus est ab austro in aquilonem, et vocatur Erningestrate; tertius est ex transverse a Dorobernia in Cestriam, scilicet ab Euro-Austro in Zephyrum-Septentrionalem, et vocatur Watlingestrate; quartus, major caeteris, incipit in Catenes et desinet in Totenes, scilicet a principio Cornugalliae in finem Scottiae; et hic callis vadit ex transverso a Zephiro-Australi in Eurum-Septentrionalem, et vocatur Fossa, tenditque per Lincolniam. Hi sunt quatuor principales calles Angliae, multum quidem spatiosi, sed nec minus speciosi, sanciti edictis regum, scriptisque verendis legum.

Of these four roads, one only, the Waetlinga-straet, is mentioned in purely Anglo-Saxon writings, and on the name of that there can be no doubt, or of its mythic character. The name of another is equally mythic, which is written in the printed text Erningestrete, and has been corrupted in more modern times into Erming-street: from a consideration of the various reading in the manuscripts of Henry of Huntingdon, Ermingestrete, of the similarity of that form with Watlingestrete (in Henry's orthography), and of its analogy with Waetlinga-straet, I am inclined to think that the real Anglo-Saxon name of this road was Eormeninga-straet—that it was the road of the Eormenings as that was of the Watlings—and I have ventured to adopt this name in the map. The name of a third of these, the Ichenilde-straet, or Ikenild-straet, though somewhat doubtful in its form, represents, I have no doubt, the old Anglo-Saxon name of the road. I cannot say the same thing of the name of the fourth road, for the word Fosse, unless we can suppose it to be a corruption of some older name which is unknown, is undoubtedly Anglo-Norman, and as such I have rejected it.

With regard to the names of towns, I have inserted such only as are known, or believed by strong presumption, to have existed as towns under the Anglo-Saxons, before their conversion to Christianity. As in Gaul, and in the other provinces of the Roman empire, there can be no doubt that many, if not most, of the principal towns, especially when fortified, outlived the invasions of the barbarians, and wherever we find a town, which had been Roman, still existing as a town in the early Christian period of the Anglo-Saxons (or, indeed, at any time of the Saxon period), we are justified in assuming that it had so existed continuously through the period of Anglo-Saxon paganism. I have acted upon this assumption in inserting in the map the chief Roman towns in England which are mentioned as Saxon towns by the early Anglo-Saxon historians, and will only add that a large number of these are mentioned by those historians as having been towns of the Saxons before their conversion. Other primitive Anglo-Saxon towns, of which we have no evidence of a Roman origin, are given on the authority of the same historians, such as Sandwic in Kent, Wihtgara-byrig in the Isle of Wight, Posentes-byrig in Shropshire; and I have added one or two others, on a strong presumption of their early existence, although we have no direct mention of them. Thus, I am inclined strongly to the belief, that the two border towns of Shrewsbury and Hereford were founded by the remains of the population of the ruined Roman towns of Uriconium and Magna, and that they were very early towns of the Mercians. A few other towns, such, for instance, as Glaestinga-byrig and Maerle-beorg (Glastonbury and Marlsbury) are mentioned in the earliest Christian period as being then places of so much importance, that that importance must have been bequeathed to them from the previous age. I will only remark further on this part of the subject, that I have ventured to follow the ecclesiastical tradition, which appears to he as old, at all events, as the thirteenth century, in identifying Maserfeld, mentioned by Bede (Eccl. Hist. lib. iii, c. 9), as the place where Oswald king of the Northumbrians was slain in battle against the pagan Mercians, with Oswaldes-treo, or, as the name has been in modern times corrupted, Oswestry, in Shropshire. At all events, Oswestry appears to have been a very early Mercian town, and probably arose from the ruins of a Roman town in the immediate neighbourhood at what is now called Old Oswestry.

I have thought it especially important, with regard to the cemeteries, to mark, as nearly as we can ascertain them, the limits of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms of the pagan period. The Anglo-Saxon historians have left us a very straight-forward account of the great ethnological divisions of their race, and as far as we have yet gone in this line of research, the variations in the articles found in the Anglo-Saxon cemeteries in different parts of the island correspond with it; but the exact geographical limits are not so easily fixed, and, in fact, they no doubt varied at different periods. The limits of the Kentish Jutes are clearly defined, and the same may be said of the South Saxons and of the East Saxons, and, to some degree, of the Northumbrian Angles. It would not, however, be so easy to fix the exact boundary line inland of the East Angles, or of the Middle Angles of Lincolnshire; and the boundary of the Mercians was continually varying. It must be understood that I am speaking of the Mercians of the age previous to their conversion, of the history of which we are absolutely ignorant. We learn from the Saxon Chronicle, that in the year 571 the West Saxons, under Cuthwulf, took from the Britons the towns of Bedcan-ford (Bedford), Lygean-byrg (Lenbury), Ægeles-byrg (Aylesbury), Baenesing-tun (Benson), and Egones-ham (Eynesham); that in 577, under Cuthwine and Ceawlin, they defeated the Britons at Deorham, and obtained possession of Bath, Cirencester, and Gloucester; and that in 584, they defeated the Britons at Fethan-lea (Frethorne, on the Severn), and took 'many towns'; and we know that they subsequently extended their conquests to the Wye. It is not till 628 that we find the Mercians invading the frontiers of the West Saxons, and fighting a battle with them at Cirencester. I think, therefore, that in treating of the pagan period, we may consider the kingdom of Wessex as including the modern counties of Bedford, Buckingham, Oxford, and Gloucester, and, perhaps, also part of Worcestershire and Herefordshire, and that the population of those districts are really Saxon, and not Angle. This is a consideration which must not be lost sight of, in our classification of the early Anglo-Saxon remains; and it is upon it that I have given the limit between the West Saxons and the Mercians in the map. The Mercians appear to have pushed forward from Lincolnshire in a western and south-western direction, and so to have reached the border of Wales at a very early period, after which they began to extend their conquests towards the south.

I have entered in the map all the Anglo-Saxon cemeteries in this island which have been either fully or partially explored, or which, as far as I have yet ascertained, have been indicated by accidental discoveries. I have no doubt that this list, numerous as it may appear, is very imperfect, and I shall be glad to obtain any information which may render it more complete. The importance of such information will be sufficiently shewn by the valuable work which you are now giving to the world.

J. Basire, S.C.
[Red numbers were added above the original labels corresponding to the list of sites (see below).
Not all sites were numbered on the map.]

It is only necessary to add to these remarks the following table of references to explain the localities indicated by the numbers in the map.

1. Chartham Down
2. Kingston Down
3. Gilton, in the parish of Ash
4. Coombe, in the parish of Wodnesborough
5. Sibertswold
6. Barfriston Down
7. Wingham
8. Minster, in Thanet
9. . Osengell, in Thanet
10. . St. Margaret's near Dover
11. Between Folkestone and Dover
12. Folkestone
13. Barham
14. Bourne Park
15. Sittingbourne
16. Chatham Lines
17. Rochester
18. Strood
19. Northfleet
20. Greenwich
21. Reculver
22. Colchester
23. Linton Heath, Cambridgeshire
24. Great Wilbraham, Cambridgeshire
25. Little Wilbraham, Cambridgeshire
26. Stow Heath, Suffolk
27. Staunton, Suffolk
28. Aldborough, Suffolk
29. Tostock, near Ixworth, Suffolk
30. Eye, Suffolk
31. Near Bungay, Suffolk
32. Near Swaffham, Norfolk
33. Walsingham, Norfolk
34. Markeshall, near Norwich
35. Harnam, near Salisbury
36. Roundway Down, near Devizes, Wilts.
37. Fairford, Gloucestershire
38. –––, Gloucestershire
39. Near Abingdon, Berkshire
40. Long Wittenham, Berkshire
41. Blewbury, Berkshire
42. Cuddesden, Oxfordshire
43. Souldern, Oxfordshire
44. Mentmore, Buckinghamshire
45. Dinton, Buckinghamshire
46. Sandby, Bedfordshire
47. Shefford, Bedfordshire
48. Chessell Down
49. Arreton Down
50. Caenby, Lincolnshire
51. Castle Bythan, Lincolnshire
52. Near Newark, Lincolnshire
53. Searby, near Caistor, Lincolnshire
54. Syston Park, Lincolnshire
55. Near Cottgrave, Nottinghamshire
56. Kingston, near Derby
57. Winster, in the Peak
58. Middleton Moor, Peak
59. Haddon Field
60. Brassington, Peak
61. Standlow, near Dovedale
62. Cowlow, near Buxton
63. Ingarsby, Leicestershire
64. Great Wigston, Leicestershire
65. Queenborough Field, Leicestershire
66. Rothley Temple, Leicestershire
67. Billesdon Coplow, Leicestershire
68. Husband's Bosworth, Leicestershire
69. Parish of St. Nicholas. Warwick
70. Near Warwick
71. Cestersover, near Rugby, Warwickshire
72. Churchover, Warwickshire
73. Marston Hill, Northamptonshire
74. Badby, Northamptonshire
75. Hunsbury Hill, Northamptonshire
76. Barrow Furlong, Northamptonshire
77. Welford, Northamptonshire
78. South Cave, Yorkshire
79. Great Driffield, Yorkshire
80. Near Rudstone, Yorkshire
81. Castle Eden, Durham

To enable the student to comprehend more fully the subject of this volume with its collateral inquiries, a list of publications, almost indispensable to the study of Saxon antiquities, is appended. The list may be taken as indicating the chief publications bearing on this branch of our national archaeology. Comparison with these works will prove how much we are indebted for the accession of a great mass of facts to the enthusiasm of Bryan Faussett and the generosity of Joseph Mayer.


Relating especially to the Antiquities found in the Anglo-Saxon
Cemeteries, and in the Similar Interments
on the Continent.
Akerman 1847b J.Y. Akerman 'Archaeological intelligence', The Archaeological Journal 4: 145-164 and 252-264
Akerman 1852 J.Y. Akerman 'On some of the weapons of the Celtic and Teutonic races', Archaeologia 34: 171-89
Akerman 1855a J.Y. Akerman Remains of pagan Saxondom London
Bateman 1848 T. Bateman Vestiges of the Antiquities of Derbyshire, and the Sepulchral Usages of its Inhabitants from the most Remote Ages to the Reformation London
Boys 1792 W. Boys Collections for an history of Sandwich in Kent. With notices of the other Cinque Ports and members, and of Richborough Canterbury
Cochet 1855 M. l' Abbé Cochet La Normandie Souterraine, ou Notices sur les Cimetières Francs explorés en Normondie Paris
Douglas 1793 J. Douglas Nenia Britannica. A Sepulchral History of Great Britain from the Earliest Period to its General Conversion to Christianity London
Fairholt 1846 F.W. Fairholt Costume in England: a history of dress from the earliest period till the close of the eighteenth century London
Fairholt 1848 F.W. Fairholt 'Remarks on Irish fibulae', Transactions of the British Archaeological Association, 3rd Annual Congress, Gloucester August 1846:
Faussett 1856 B. Faussett (edited by C. Roach Smith) Inventorium Sepulchrale: an account of some antiquities in the county of Kent, from A.D. 1757 to A.D. 1773 London
Hiller 1856 G. Hiller The History and Antiquities of the Isle of Wight London
Kemble 1855 J.M. Kemble 'Burial and Cremation', The Archaeological Journal 48:
Kemble 1856 J.M. Kemble 'On Mortuary Urns, found at Stade-on-the-Elbe and other parts of North Germany, now in the Museum of the Historical Society of Hanover', Archaeologia 34:
Londesborough 1857 A.D. Londesborough Miscellanea graphica: representations of ancient, medieval, and renaissance remains in the possession of Lord Londesborough. London
Neville 1852 R.C. Neville Saxon obsequies illustrated by ornaments and weapons: discovered by the Hon. R. C. Neville, in a cemetery near Little Wilbraham, Cambridgeshire, during the autumn of 1851 London
Roach Smith 1844 C. Roach Smith 'Account of some antiquities found in the neighbourhood of Sandwich, in the county of Kent', Archaeologia 30: 132-6
Roach Smith 1845 C. Roach Smith 'Merovingian Coins etc. Discovered at St. Martin's, Canterbury. Proceedings of the Numismatic Society, Session 1845-6, Nov. 27', Proceedings of the Numismatic Society 1.7: 187-91
Roach Smith 1848 C. Roach Smith Collectanea antiqua: etchings and notices of ancient remains, illustrative of the habits, customs, and history of the past ages London (vol. I)
Roach Smith 1850a C. Roach Smith Antiquities of Richborough, Reculver and Lymne London
Roach Smith 1852 C. Roach Smith Collectanea antiqua: etchings and notices of ancient remains, illustrative of the habits, customs, and history of the past ages London (vol. II)
Roach Smith 1854 C. Roach Smith Collectanea antiqua: etchings and notices of ancient remains, illustrative of the habits, customs, and history of the past ages London (vol. III)
Wright 1845a T. Wright The Archaeological Album: or, museum of national antiquities London
Wright 1852 T. Wright The Celt, the Roman and the Saxon London
Wright 1855 T. Wright 'On Anglo-Saxon Antiquities, with a particular reference to the Faussett Collection.', Memoirs of the Historic Society of Lancashire and Cheshire 7:
Wylie 1852 W.M. Wylie Fairford Graves. A Record of Researches in the Anglo-Saxon Burial-place in Gloucestershire Oxford

[The text of the Inventorium Sites and graves, and the images of grave-goods can be found in the Site Index.]

How to cite this page: Novum Inventorium Sepulchrale: Kentish Anglo-Saxon Graves and Grave Goods in the Sonia Hawkes Archive, July 2007, 1st Edition,, Accessed: 16 January 2018

University of Oxford Novum Inventorium Sepulchrale
Kentish Anglo-Saxon Graves and Grave Goods
Sonia Hawkes Archive
Institute of Archaeology
University of Oxford