Two Roman Mirrors from Corbridge

Author(s): G. Lloyd-Morgan
Source: Britannia, Vol. 8 (1977), pp. 335-338
Published by: Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/525907
Accessed: 20/10/2009 19:59
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sprs.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Britannia.
http://www.jstor.org
Two Roman Mirrors from
Corbridge
By
G. LLOYD-MORGAN
AMONG
the finds in the site museum at
Corbridge
are two related silvered
bronze mirrors. Although there are no details about the precise find
spot, they
can be
paralleled by
a number of mirrors found
mainly
in the
region
of the Lower
Rhine,
and
by
several undecorated
examples
from excava-
tions in
England.*
The first
piece
is a
large fragment
of an almost
plain
disc
(PL.
XVIII
A), slightly
convex on its
reflecting
side and with a narrow
slightly
convex border on the under
side,
marked off from the
body
of the mirror
by
a
single engraved
line 0o8 cm from the
edge.
The
fragment
measures
7.6 by
6.o
cm;
the
original
diameter would have been about
9.8
cm.
The second
piece
differs from the first
only
on the underside
(PL.
XVIII
B).
Here three lines mark off the narrow border. There is a further series of three
concentric circles at a distance
roughly 3
radius from the centre. A
compass-
drawn
design
between these two bands is made
up
of four double semicircles
taken from four
points
on the inner series of
circles,
each
touching
at a
point
on this
ring,
so as to
produce
the effect of a
four-petalled
flower. Between
each,
a
ray
has been drawn to a
point
on the outer series of
circles;
these are
obliquely
hatched. On either side of each is a decorative dot-and-circle
pattern.
There is a
further dot-and-circle
placed
at random inside the
'petal'. Unfortunately
this
mirror is not
complete
and the
design
has been reconstructed from the
eight
surviving fragments.
The
original
diameter would have been about 10 cm.
Although
there is no trace on either of the
Corbridge pieces,
some
parallel
pieces
have a
strap
handle across the back.1
*
I would like to thank the Directors and staff of all museums who
gave
me
permission
to
study
and refer to their mirrors. Without their
help
and
co-operation
the initial research for
this
paper
could not have been
completed.
Final research for this note was carried out whilst
holding
a
scholarship
from the Netherlands
Ministry
of Education and Science
(International
Relations
Department).
The first draft was read
by
Dr D. J.
Smith, Keeper
of the Museum of
Antiquities, Newcastle-upon-Tyne,
and Curator of the Corbridge site museum. It was also read
by
the late Miss M. H. P. den Boesterd of
Rijksmuseum
G.M.
Kam,
and Dr P. Stuart of the
Rijksmuseum
van Oudheden te
Leiden,
who offered
many
useful
suggestions
and criticisms.
Any opinions
or errors are mine alone. I would like to thank both Dr Stuart and Dr A. V. M.
Hubrecht,
Director of
Rijksmuseum Kam,
for their
unfailing encouragement
and
hospitality
during frequent
and extended visits to their museums.
Finally,
thanks are due to
my
tutors in
the
University
of
Birmingham
for
help
and
guidance
over
many years.
The reconstruction-
drawings
were
prepared
with the
help
of Mr Peter Alebon of the Grosvenor
Musum,
Chester.
1A related
group W,
with handles across the
back,
includes the
Simpelveld
mirror from the
335
Only
the first mirror is
paralleled
from excavations
in this
country.
One
piece
excavated
by
Newstead from the
mainly
Antonine
cemetery
at
Infirmary
Field, Chester,
is
fragmentary
but would
originally
have been about
90o
cm in
diameter.2 Another similar
example, complete
with
handle,
was found
during
more recent excavations at St
Albans,
associated with a cremation burial. The
pottery
has been
provisionally
dated to the second or third
century.3
There are no
parallels
for the
design
on the decorated
Corbridge
mirror,
but
a few
pieces
from the continent come
fairly
close. One
fragment
from a
grave
find at
Cuijk
is almost
identical,
but lacks the dot-and-circle decoration.4
Another
piece
from a
private
collection in
Regensburg
has three double semi-
circles
touching
the inner
circle,
and three
angular
hatched
rays (FIG.
I
A).5
FIG.
I. Design
on bronze mirror from Kastell
Pforring (left)
and from Udine
(right)
().
Like the
Cuijk fragment
it has no dot-and-circle decoration. Other
examples
differ in that
they
have a
slightly
more elaborate and closer
packed design
be-
tween the two limited series of concentric circles. Where the
Corbridge design
relies on
only
four bold semi-circles
touching
the inner
ring,
these other
pieces
have a
larger
number that intersect.
Examples
from
Aquileia
and Rome have
ten such semicircles
running
round this
ring.6
Where these touch the inner
ring
celebrated
sarcophagus,
now in the
Rijksmuseum
van Oudheden te Leiden
(No.
e
I930/12.8),
and
more
distantly,
the Wroxeter mirror in
subgroup Wa,
now in Clive House Museum, Shrewsbury
(D. Atkinson, Report
on Excavations at Wroxeter
1923-27 (Oxford I942, reprinted I970),
I96-8, pl. 46).
2
R.
Newstead, Liverpool
Annals
of Archaeology
and
Anthropology 8,
no. 2
(I92I), 50-5I,
grave 30,
diam.
9.o cm,
silvered bronze;
now in the Grosvenor Museum,
Chester.
3
67 0277.
From St Albans,
area SUAD Burial
4,
Dr Ian Stead's excavations, at
present
in
the
Department
of the Environment.
4Noordbrabantsmuseum,
's
Hertogenbosch
No.
494 I,
2.6 by 3.6 cm,
diameter
originally
c.
9-3 cm,
silvered bronze.
"Said to have come from a cremation
grave
in the
cemetery
of Kastell Pf6rring.
6
I59II,
diam. I2.8 cm,
silvered
bronze; I5913,
diam.
9.6 cm,
silvered bronze; both in the
Museo
Archeologico, Aquileia: Antiquarium, Capitoline
Museums, Rome, No. 16231, diam.
I0-4 cm,
described as 'bronze and
antimony'.
336
G. LLOYD-MORGAN
TWO ROMAN MIRRORS FROM CORBRIDGE
a
compass-drawn
leaf or
ray
has been added
linking
this
ring
with the outer
one,
which is also
grazed by
semicircles. These
rays,
like the
angular
ones in
the
Corbridge piece,
are hatched. There is a dot-and-circle
pattern
at the
point
where the semicircles
cut,
and another lies
directly
beneath. Another
piece
from Siscia but with
only eight
semicircles still has the
spatulate
ends of the
handle soldered in
position.7
A variant
example
now in Udine
(FIG.
I
B), has,
instead of the normal
diagonal hatchings,
lines drawn
parallel
to the main axis
at the
tip
of each
ray, joined by
a central cross.8 An
incomplete example
from
the
legionary
fortress at Mainz has the usual
pattern
of ten
intersecting
semi-
circles.9
But,
like the
Cuijk fragment,
it lacks the dot-and-circle ornament. The
rays
are
angular
and hatched in the same fashion as the
Corbridge piece.
A
related
piece, probably
from
Heddernheim, again
differs
slightly.l0
It has a
pattern
of six
intersecting
semicircles and
only
one dot-and-circle between the
hatched,
rounded
rays.
It also lacks the third series of concentric circles around
the centre which are found in the Rome and
Aquileia examples.
Another
piece
which
may
be related to the
Corbridge
mirror is in the Vatican
Museum.1l
Unfortunately only part
of the
design,
an
angular
hatched
ray coming
out from
an inner series of concentric circles and
touching
the outer
one,
can be distin-
guished. Finally,
there are two small
fragments
from the Netherlands. One
from
dredging
the Rhine bottom at
Maurik,
has the same
angular ray
and a
dot-and-circle
pattern.'2
A
slightly larger piece
in the
Rijksmuseum
G.M.
Kam,
Nijmegen,
has an
angular
hatched
ray
with a dot-and-circle
pattern.13
These
pieces
form
part
of a much
larger group, typified by
the low convex
moulded border
separated
from the
body
of the mirror
by
one or more concen-
tric circles. Some of these mirrors
may
have
originally
had a handle similar
to the one
suviving
on the St Albans
example,
but
many
mirror discs are too
fragmentary
for the solder
points,
if
any,
to be identified. Like the
Corbridge
pieces, they
can either be
totally plain
or decorated with
compass-drawn, geo-
metric or dot-and-circle
patterns.
The
design
on the mirrors in this
group
is
quite
different from the usual decoration found on mirrors within
Italy
and the
Western
Provinces,
which
rely
for effect
mainly
on turned concentric circles or
a moulded or
patterned edging.l4
The use of extra incised decoration occurs on
7
Arheoloski
Muzej, Zagreb,
No.
4514,
diam. Io02 cm. Another
fragment
in the same
museum,
No.
4516
also from Siscia still has discernible traces of one hatched
ray
and a dot-and-circle
pattern
over
intersecting
semicircles.
8
Museo Civico e Gallerie d'Arte
Antica, Udine,
No.
1139, incomplete,
diam.
II-4
cm.
9
diam. c.
9 cm,
not located. G.
Behrens, Mainzer
Zeitschrift, 12/13 (I917-I8), 30,
Abb.
11.14,
No.
4I.
10 From the old
City Library Collection,
now in the Stadtisches Museum fur Vor- und Friih-
geschichte,
Frankfurt
a.M.,
No. zu x
3535
a. u.
b.,
diam.
9.8 cm,
silvered bronze.
1
Bronze Room
III,
Vatican
Museum,
No.
I2283.
2
Institute of
Archaeology, University
of
Nijmegen, unnumbered, 1-76 by I-7 cm, probably
silvered bronze.
13
XXI.f/Xc.6,
2.2
by 3.8 cm,
silvered bronze.
14 A. Heron de
Villefosse,
'Le Tr6sor de Boscoreale',
Mon. Plot.
5 (I899),
No.
21, 88-90, pl.
xIx, fig. 20, 47;
No.
22, 90-92, pl. xx;
No.
98,
128
,fig. 45;
A.
Maiuri,
La Casa del Menandro
(Rome I932),
No.
I5, 15, 350, fig. I35-6, pl. XLVII-XLIII;
No.
I6, 353, pl. LXI;
No.
4709, 452.
337
338
G. LLOYD-MORGAN
very
few
pieces
outside the
group
under discussion here.l5
The
greatest
concentration of these
mirrors,
some
45 per
cent of the
total,
have been found in the
province
of Lower
Germany,
with nearly
30 per
cent of
the total
coming
from
Nijmegen
alone. Several of these
Nijmegen
mirrors are
first-century
in
date,'6 though
others
may
be later.l7 It is
probable
that
they
were made in the
Nijmegen
area
during
this
period
and traded into
neighbour-
ing provinces including
Britain.
Although
the
Corbridge
mirrors
may
not be as
early
as the first
century,
a date within the second
century,
on
analogy
with the
St Albans and Chester
pieces,
would
probably
be more reasonable.
Grosvenor
Museum,
Chester
"
For
example,
Musee
Arch6ologique,
Nimes,
No.
908.51.6I.I
and 2
unprovenanced;
Musee
de la Civilisation
gallo
romaine, Lyons,
No. L
I37,
from Vaison la Romaine.
16
Rijksmuseum
G.M. Kam No. B. E. II.
9
and
I6,
both
formerly
in the
Municipal
collection.
The former comes from the
Hunerberg,
the latter from excavations behind the Catholic church
on Koolemans Beinenstraat, Nijmegen, 1905.
Further evidence for a first-century origin for
the
group
is
given by
the recent
discovery
of another mirror in Grave
390
at Cambodunum/Kemp-
ten. It has been described as
Vespasianic
in date. I am most
grateful
to Mr Michael Mackensen,
Munich,
for this information (Jan. I976).
17For
example,
H.
Brunsting,
'Het Grafveld onder Hees
bij Nijmegen',
Allard
Pierson
Stichting Archaeologische-Historische
Bijdragen 4 (I937), 28,
I9I,
Grave 42
No. 4, pl.
I2,
inv.
no. B. E. II. 29; Rijksmuseum
van Oudheden te Leiden No. e
I906/5.I88
also from Hees,
Nijmegen.
PLATE XVIII
(Photo: G.
Lloyd-Morgan)
A. Bronze mirror from
Corbridge,
Northumberland
(p. 335).
Scale I: .
(Photo:
G. Lloyd-Morgan)
B. Bronze mirror from
Corbridge (p. 335).
Scale I:I.