Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T11:02:27.135Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Greco-Roman Anchor-Stock from North Wales

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 November 2011

George C. Boon
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

A leaden anchor-stock found off Porth Felen at the tip of the Llŷn peninsula in 1974 is described. So far unique in British waters, the stock is of a Mediterranean pattern obsolete by the time of the Roman conquest of Wales. From its decoration it may be assigned to the late second century B.C., or possibly a little later. The typology of ancient anchors is considered, and the reasons which may have brought a small Mediterranean craft to that spot are reviewed. The stock is now in the National Museum of Wales.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Antiquaries Journal , Volume 57 , Issue 1 , March 1977 , pp. 10 - 30
Copyright
Copyright © The Society of Antiquaries of London 1977

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

NOTES

1 It was mentioned at the conclusion of an address on ‘Maritime aspects of Roman Wales’ by my colleague Mr. Donald Moore, F.S.A., to the 10th Limeskongress in Mainz, September 1974. Cf.Journ. Naut. Arch. iv (1975), 388Google Scholar.

2 Antiquities from the sea are at present treated as ownerless salvage under Part IX of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894.

3 Perhaps shank-bindings or sheaths for the tips of the arms, more usually of iron; cf.Owen, D., Archaeology, xxiv (1971), 127Google Scholar.

4 Cf.Whittick, G. C., Journ. Roman Studies, li (1961), 105–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 Good studies (cited below by surname only) include:Casson, L., Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World (1971), pp. 252–8Google Scholar; Frost, Honor, Mariner's Mirror, xlix (1963), 1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kapitän, G. in Marine Archaeology (ed. Blackman, D. J., 1973), pp. 383–94Google Scholar(a one-armed type); Carrazé, F., Archéologia—Trésors des ages, no. 61 (August 1973), 13–19Google Scholar; and Palláres, F., Atti del III Congresso internaz. di Archeologia Sottomarina, 1961 (1971), pp. 384–93Google Scholar. The extensive series in Palermo Museum is published by Tusa, V. in Marine Archaeology (cit.), pp. 411–37Google Scholar(and in Atti (cit.), pp. 272–89).

6 Benoît, F., Riv. studi liguri, XXV (1955), 119–22Google Scholar.

7 Joncheray, J.-P. et al., Cah. d'archéologie subaquatique (hereafter Cahiers) i (1972), 121–3Google Scholar; id., L'Èpave ‘C’ de la Chrétienne (Ier Suppl. aux Cahiers, 1975), pp. 102–8Google Scholar, figs.–hereafter Joncheray.

8 G. Ucelli, Le navi di Nemi (1950 edn., hereafter, Ucelli), figs. 268, 275, 278; p. 427. Lost in the war; the weight of the stock was never given. Fig. 118 may just suggest Class c (2).

9 See nn. 20 and 21.

10 Four stocks and associated sleeves (castings with holes for the shank and arms) were found in the Punta Scaletta wreck of the mid-second century B.C, cf. Lamboglia, N., Riv. studi liguri, XXX (1964), 252–7Google Scholar, tav. 2 for plan. There are many other instances, some associated with stocks, but they are nevertheless few beside the isolated finds of stocks.

11 Cousteau, J.-Y., Dumas, F., The Silent World (1953), P. 77Google Scholar; cf. Frost, PP. 16–17.

12 Cf.Gargallo, P., Archaeology, xiv (1961), 32Google Scholar, and Carrazé, p. 19, for extremes; Rochier, R., Cahiers, IV (1975), 149–50Google Scholar, considers a stock of c. 1,300 kg. from an anchor probably 6 m. long and 2 m. across the arms.

13 Palláres, pp. 386–9, figs.; date of wreck, Etruscan, Albore, C., Riv. studi liguri, xxxvi (1967), 325Google Scholar. The three anchors of the Chrétienne c wreck, above n. 7, were of this type.

14 Numbers, e.g. Throckmorton, P., Shipwrecks and Archaeology (1970), pp. 212–14Google Scholar; study, Cap Gros anchorage, Fiori, P., Cahiers, iii (1974), 82–4Google Scholar.

15 Cosma, V., Journ. Naut. Arch, ii (1973), 235–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar; id., iv (1975), 21–6; Scorpân, G., Studii si cercetări de istorie veche, XXI (1970), 639–47Google Scholar.

16 Estudos arqueológicos (Museu Arqueológico de Sesimbra), i (1974), 247 and note—a ref. for which I thank H. N. Savory.

17 Benoît, F., L'Èpave du Grand Congloué à Marseille (14e Suppl. á Gallia, 1961), pp. 170–4Google Scholar; Joncheray, p. 111 for date.

18 Brit. Mus. Cat. of Greek Coins: Seleucid Kings of Syria, pl. 2, no. 1. The curious sleeve on the shank reappears on other representations of anchors, e.g. on a coin of Herod the Great, seeBrindley, H., Mariner's Mirror, XIII (1927), 9Google Scholar, fig. 4. It is presumably a kind of binding to prevent the chafing of the wood.

19 Seleucus' anchor and its significance,Wirgin, W., Spink's Num. Circular (1961), 34–5Google Scholar.

20 Piepers, W., Bonner Jahrbücher, 174 (1974), 561–6Google Scholar(1·36 m., c. 150 kg.); the legion, Ritterling, E. in Pauly's Realencyclopädie, n.B. xii (1924), cols. 1567–9Google Scholar.

21 Körber, K., Mainzer Zeitschrift, X (1915), 115Google Scholar(c. 1.20 m., 72 kg., lost); the legion, Ritterling, , loc. tit., cols. 1761–2Google Scholar.

22 Tusa, pp. 422–3, figs. 25–6: his suggestion would be Κλαυ(σίῳ) βίο(ς).

23 Ibid., pp. 426–7, figs. 37–8; cf.Bailey, D. M., Cat. Lamps in the Brit. Mus. i (1975). 297Google Scholar, pl. 122, no. Q677, first century B.C., very close.

24 Gargallo, P., Archaeology, xiv (1961), 33Google Scholar, fig. 7; cf. Livy, xli, 1.

25 The Lake Nemi anchor (n. 8) may well be the latest, chosen perhaps for its great massivity (it was 5.5 m. long), suitable for a vessel which was practically immobile.

26 Acts of the Apostles, 27: 29–30. For the ship and her route, see Casson, pp. 172, n. 25, and 297–9.

27 Carrazé, , Journ. Naut. Arch, iii (1974), 153–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

28 Laubenheimer, F., Recherches sur les lingots de cuivre et de plomb … (3e Suppl. à la Rev. archéologique de Narbonnaise, 1973), p. 135Google Scholar, no. 121. Joncheray, , Journ. Naut. Arch, V (1976), 259Google Scholar, notes from Dramont c a small iron anchor with a grooved stone stock still in place.

29 Tusa, pp. 419–21;Carrazé, , Journ. Naut. Arch, iii (1974), 326Google Scholar.

30 Kapitän, p. 389, fig. 6 (86 and 70 cm.); Tusa, pp. 433–4. fig. 52 (97 cm.).

31 Frost, H., Journ. Naut. Arch. i (1972), 114–16Google Scholar, figs.; W. Culican, ibid, iii (1974), 43 for date.

32 Polybius, i, 20. Cf. Crawford, M., Roman Republican Coinage (1975), ii, 718Google Scholar, pl. B, no. 10/1.

33 Amy, R. et al., L'Arc d'Orange (15e Suppl. á Gallia, 1962), pls. 50Google Scholar, 84a-b; date, p. 157; Crous, J. W., Roemische Mitteilungen, xlviii (1933). Taf. 1, 6, 9, 11Google Scholar; date, p. 10.

34 Journ. Naut. Arch, iv (1975), 21, 27Google Scholar.

35 See n. 10.

36 Four wooden, eight iron. Text and trans., Casson, pp. 193, 198.

37 Torr, C., Ancient Ships (1894), p. 71Google Scholar, n. 157.

38 e.g.Benoît, F., Gallia, xvi (1958), 25Google Scholar, fig. 29.

39 Ucelli, figs. 268–70, with stock marked ΘCCLXXV (librae, 417 kg.), giving the full weight of the anchor, 3·65 m. long. It was presumably a kedge. J.-P. Joncheray has published three with stocks from the Dramont D wreck, first half of the first century A.D., seeCahiers, iv (1975), 13–16, figsGoogle Scholar.

40 Ucelli, p. 239, fig. 272.

41 Mainzer Zeitschrift, lxix (1974), 241Google Scholar; Abb. 20, bottom right.

42 Cunnington, E., Archaeologia, xlviii (1884), 115–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar, with mention of large iron nails, which also coincide with Caesar's account of Venetic ships,see n. 52 below; Cunliffe, B. W., Antiq. Journ. lii (1972), 300–2Google Scholar, fig. 5, pl. 54a.

43 Cf. Casson, p. 253, n. 116. A small bronze model with flukes is in the Ashmolean Museum from Woodeaton, and according to Mr. David Brown is in a similar condition to other bronzes from the site: Kirk, J. R., Oxoniensia, xiv (1949), 40Google Scholar, no. 5, fig. 8. Some other objects figured, notably the top of a tap, are however post-medieval.

44 Bass, G. F. in Underwater Archaeology (UNESCO, 1972), p. 46Google Scholar, fig. 13a; Casson, pp. 253, n. 114, 256, n. 130, quoting F. van Doorninck's unpublished thesis on the vessel. On the Dramont F wreck, mid to late fourth century A.D., there were three of this kind, and one of ‘pickaxe’ type, in a pile: again, no stocks. The holes in the shanks were round, unlike the rectangular slots in the Dramont D anchors (n. 39). See Joncheray, J.-P., Cahiers, iv (1975), 118–20, figsGoogle Scholar.

45 Cf.Kapitän, G., Archaeology, xxi (1968), 63Google Scholar; Casson, pl. 186 (bent double).

46 When found, the Lake Nemi anchor had a fair length of cable attached, while three other ropes were attached to the crown (Ucelli, fig. 268). The iron anchor had one rope attached to its crown {ibid.). One or two of the ropes were no doubt used to trip the anchor; it was also usual to employ an anchor-buoy (ancoralis tragula).Crous, , loc. cit. n. 33Google Scholar, Taf. 1, shows an anchor with chain attached to the crown: in actuality it would doubtless have been spliced to a cable to trip the anchor.

47 C. Cichorius, Die Reliefs der Trajanssaule (1896–1900), scene lxxxvii; Casson, pl. 150.

48 Op. cit. n. 33, pls. 25–6.

49 Jones, H. Stuart, Cat. Ancient Sculptures… of the Mus. Cap. (1912), pls. 61–2Google Scholar.

50 Collingwood-Wright, , Roman Inscriptions of Britain, i (1965), no. 1320Google Scholar.

51 Cited by Casson, p. 253, n. 115.

52 Caesar, , De Bello Gallico, iii, 13Google Scholar.

53 Joncheray says (loc. cit., n. 44) that if chains had been attached to the Dramont F anchors, traces would have been found.

54 Brindley, H., Palestine Expl. Fund Quarterly Statement 1919, pp. 76–8Google Scholar, from Beit Jibrīn; id., Mariner's Mirror, xiii (1927), 11, fig. 21. The apparent ‘poop’ is probably a balustrade, cf. Casson, pls. 143, 149, 156. Merchant galley, pl. 146Google Scholar.

55 E. Espérandieu, Recueil général …, i, nos 678, 683, 686, and 690.

56 Casson, pl. 156.

57 Bandinelli, R. Bianchi, Rome: the Centre of Power, Roman Art to A.D. 200 (1970), pl. 284Google Scholar.

58 Moll, F., Archäologischer Anzeiger, 1929, 268Google Scholar; Jáuregui, J. and Beltrán, A., Crónica del II Congresso Arqueológico del Sudeste Español, 1946 (1947), p. 339Google Scholar. Nomen, perhaps cf. Dessau, nos. 197 and 6196. Possibly cold-stamped on another stock, c. AG (ilii?) ASI(ati)CI, Benoît, , Gallia, xvi (1958), 36, fig. 47Google Scholar.

59 Tusa, p. 431, fig. 48; Moll, , loc. cit., n. 58Google ScholarTorr, , op. cit., pl. 8, 46–7Google Scholar; Carrazé, p. 14, with a lion on another face (the same, Rochier, , loc. cit., n. 12)Google Scholar. For Zeus Kasios ho Sōzōn (‘Zeus Casius the Saviour’) in Moll, cf. Tusa, p. 432, fig. 49, Casius.

60 Tusa, pp. 427–8, figs. 39–41. Casson, p. 360, mentions a ship called Jupiter et Juno; and p. 346, n. 10, quotes F. von Duhn to the effect that neither male deities' names, nor those of higher deities, were used for ships' names before the Hellenistic era. The ascription of inscribed C (2) stocks to the fifth-fourth centuries by Owen, D. I., Archaeology, xxiv (1971), 120, 127Google Scholar; idem, Expedition, xiii. 1 (1970), 27Google Scholar, is unsatisfactory, for they may have come from a later wreck in the same vicinity, being mere loot.

61 Lucian, , Fugitivi, 13Google Scholar is the clearest reference: ‘the heaviest anchor, which seafarers call sacred’ —τὴν ὑστάτην ἄγκυραν, ἥν ἱερὰν οἱ ναυτιλλόμενοι φασιν.

62 Dolphins, e.g.Martin, G. and Saludes, J., Archivo prehist. levantina, xi (1966), 157Google Scholar, fig.2; with hammer, Benoit, F., Ogam, xii (1960), 178Google Scholar, fig. 1; with astragali, Carrazé, , Journ. Naut. Arch. iii (1974), 153CrossRefGoogle Scholar, fig. 1 [our fig. 4, no. 3]; Soriano, Berges, loc. cit. below, p. 7Google Scholar, no. 11,fig.5. Shell, Fiori, Cahiers, iii (1974), 95Google Scholar, no. 5, pl. 4, with astragali on another face, Astragali, see also Magon, L., Rev. archiologique, 1894. 2, 221Google Scholar; Kapitän; Tusa, pp. 433–4, fig. 52; and see n. 68 below, Caduceus, Tusa, p. 432, fig. 50. Circles, Bravo, J., Riv. studi liguri, xxx (1964), 309–11Google Scholar [our fig. 4, no. 4]; Soriano, Berges, loc. cit. below, p. 7Google Scholar, no. 6, fig. 3. Lion, Carrazé, p. 14 [has not properly come out of the mould], Columns, Benoit, Ogam, xii, fig. 2, and Oliva, M., Atti del II Congresso Intemaz. di Archeologia Sottomarina, 1958 (1961), p. 227Google Scholar, fig. 6. Lamps, Tusa, p. 427, fig. 38, see n. 23 above, Key, Palláres, p. 389, with lamp and dolphin, Medusa, Benoit, Rev. archiologique, 1951. 1, 223–8Google Scholar, fig. 9 [Espérandieu-Lantier, Recueil général …, no. 8622]. Tětes Coupees, Benoit, , Gallia, xviii (1960), 44–5Google Scholar, fig. 131; idem, Cahiers ligures, viii (1959), 143–6Google Scholar. Deity(?) person in attitude of an orante, M. Berges Soriano, Boletin arqueológico [Tarragona], lxix-lxx (1969–70), offprint p. 7, no. II, fig. 5. The apotropaic value of most of these objects is quite obvious.

63 Cf. e.g. the Pompeian painting found in 1952, showing this scene, with an amorino riding a dolphin, Franciscis, A. de, Pompei (1968), pl. 70Google Scholar. Dolphin entwined around an anchor, on a mosaic at Sousse, Cabrol-Lerclercq, Dictionnaire d'archéo-logie chrétienne … vi. 2, 2003, fig. 5553.

64 Lafaye, G., Daremberg-Saglio, , Dictionnaire des antiquités … v, 31Google Scholar.

65 It was by obtaining this throw that the king of the feast was appointed among the Romans—Smith's Classical Dictionary: since a dinner could not be kept waiting unduly, the throw was clearly very much a matter of skill. We see it done for example in the celebrated monochrome painting on marble from Herculaneum, e.g. Maiuri, Bianca, Museo Nazionale, Napoli (1971), pl. 80Google Scholar.

66 e.g. by Carrazé, n. 5.

67 Ibid., p. 18.

68 Mainly fromCarrazé, , Journ. Naut. Arch, iii (1974), 153–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar; with additions from Fiori, Cahiers, iii (1974). 82–4; Tusa, pp. 423–4, fig. 29, and 429, fig. 43; Gargallo, , Archaeology, xiv (1961), 33Google Scholar, fig. 6; Soriano, Berges, loc. cit., note 62Google Scholar; Garbea, M. Almagro, Trabajos de prehistoria, xxvi (1969), 350Google Scholar; another to be published from near Tarragona by Walfrida Perez, to whom I am obliged for notice of it, and for a copy of M. Berges Soriano's paper, notified to me by Dr. A. J. Parker; plus our own example. Carraze again publishes the Grand-Ribaud A stock in Cahiers, iv (1975), 26, fig.6Google Scholar.

69 See the Addendum, p. 25.

70 Casson, pp. 171, cf. 183–4, 189–90.

71 Joncheray, pp. 69–77, for a remarkable attempt at a reconstruction of the hull.

72 Casson, p. 187 (length of keel x beam x half beam, in feet, divided by 94). Measures of tons burden are of course extremely vague, and hardly worth giving except as a rough guide.

73 Joncheray, pp. 104–6.

74 Abr.Rees, , The Cyclopaedia; or Universal Dictionary … (1819), iiGoogle Scholar, s.v. ‘anchor’, where Aubin's table will be found.

75 Merlin, A., Milanges Cagnat (1912), pp. 391Google Scholar, 393, n. 2; Comptes rendus de I'Acad. des Inscriptions (1948), 381–2Google Scholar; Frondeville, G. de in Marine Archaeology (ed. Taylor, J. du Plat, 1965), pp. 39–55Google Scholar(without mention of th e immense fifth stock, 4.5 to 5 m. long, to which Merlin referred). The others were of 600–700 (two) and 695 kg (one).

76 e.g.Dawson, J. W ., Commerce & Customs: a Hist, of the Ports of Newport & Caerleon (1932), pp. 5–9Google Scholarpassim, 16th–17th century.

77 The seas between Brittany, Cornwall, Wales, and Ireland, aptly named by H. J. Mackinder in 1902, with the Irish Sea as the ‘British Mediterranean’: see Bowen, E. G . in The Irish Sea Province (ed. Moore, D., 1970), pp. 13–28Google Scholar.

78 The fragments are assembled by Mette, H. J., Pytheas von Massalia (1952)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. SeeDuval's, P.-M.appraisal of most relevant commentaries, La Gaule jusju'au milieu du Ve siécle (1971), i, 198–202Google Scholar. Bunbury's, E. H. account in A Hist, of Ancient Geography (1879, 1883, repr. 1959), i, 586–601Google Scholar, is a judicious basic study of a subject which has called forth some highly fanciful suggestions, none more so than Stichtenoth's, D., Pytheas von Marseille. Über das Weltmeer, die Fragmente ubersetzt und erläutert (1959)Google Scholar.

79 Solinus, , Collectanea Rerum Memorabilium (ed. Mommsen, , 1864), 22. 1Google Scholar: ‘in quo recessu Ulixe m Calidoniae adpulsum manifesta t ara Graecis lit-teris scripta.’ Altars and pillars marking limits of penetration, cf. Strabo, iii, 5. 5–6; Odysseus in Atlantic, cf. iii, 4.4. Perhaps privately noted by one of Agricola's nava l officers in 84? There seems to have been a lost work treating of British and other wonders, second century, cf. Clement of Alexandria, , Stromata, vi, 3Google Scholar [Wookey Hole noises], as well as other things in Solinus and not Pomponius or Pliny, 22. 7 [Scifiy], 22. 10 [Bath], 22. 11 [jet], and likewise 22. 3–4 [Ireland, no snakes, and other details].

80 Dion, R., Rev. de philologie, xl (1966), 191–216Google Scholar; cf. Broche, G.-E., Pythias le Massaliote (1935), pp. 107–8Google Scholar, who makes him come down the west side, and misses the point to b e made by Dion.

81 Carpenter, Rhys, Beyond the Pillars of Hercules (1966), ch. 6Google Scholar: I cannot see how Strabo, ii, 4. 2, tortuous though the Greek may be, can so be interpreted.

82 Bousquet, J., Ann. de Bretagne, Ixviii (1961), 25–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar, figs. [enlarged]; but also see Beaulieu, J. B. Colbert de and Giot, P. R., Bull. Soc. prihist. franç. lviii (1961), 324–31Google Scholar, with list of Greek coins found in Gaul (few): ‘ces quelques grammes d'or jalonnent la voie atlantique de l'étain.’

83 Cary, M., Journ. Hellenic Studies, xliv (1924), 171Google Scholar. Crassus, P. Licinius, cf.Schulten, A., Fontes Hispaniae Antiquae, iv: Lasguerras de 134–72 a. de J.C. (1937), 152–3Google Scholar.

84 Strabo, iii, 5. 11.

85 Surely plain from Diodorus, v, 38. 4, Strabo iii, 2. 9, and Ptolemy, ii, 6. 76 (Nobbe).

86 Strabo, iii, 5. 11.

87 Ihm inPauly-Wissowa, , Realencyclopadie n. B. iv. 1 (1901), col. 1218Google Scholar.

88 Diodorus Siculus, v, 22 and 38. 5; Strabo, iii, 2. 9.

89 Strabo, iv, 5. 2.

90 Ibid.

91 Caesar, , De Bella Gallico, v, 12Google Scholar.

91 Strabo, iii, 2. 4–5. 9;Pliny, , Historia Naturalis, xxxiv, 16Google Scholar; Davies, O., Roman Mines in Europe (1935), pp. 103–5Google Scholar. The earliest known ingots are Claudian, from a wreck off Port-Vendres, see Colls, D., Laubenheimer, F. et al., Gallia, xxxiii (1975), 61–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Earlier, the metal may have been produced in granulated form, cf. Bouscaro, A., Riv. studi liguri, xxx (1964), 270–3Google Scholar, figs.; but the wreck is undated.

93 I take the view that Caesar's remark (loc. cit., note 91), ‘aere utuntur importato’, refers to the importation into southern Britain, probably by sea and so perhaps coming to continental notice, of Welsh copper. See my article, Apulum, ix (1971), 454Google Scholar.

94 Strabo, iv, 5. 1.

95 Ibid, iv, 6. 4; Pomponius Mela (ed. Gronovius, 1722), iii, 6. 61–2; cf. Caesar, v, 13.

96 Pomponius Mela, iii, 6. 64–7, of the dangers of allowing cattle to browse without restriction upon the very lush pastures. I cannot find that the bloating of cattle is mentioned by an y of the ancient agricultural writers.

97 Strabo, i, 4. 3.

98 Ibid, ii, 5. 8.

99 Cf. Strabo, iv, 2. 1 and also Polybius, iii, 57. 2–3, as well as Caesar, iv, 20.

100 Allen, D. F., Num. Chron. ser. 7, i (1961), 91–106Google Scholar.

101 There were apparently twenty-five much worn (true?) Massaliot drachmae in the Jersey hoard buried not before c. 30 B.C. (seeBlanchet, A., Rev. beige de Num.), 1913, 322Google Scholar, not mentioned in other refs. Such coins could have remained in circulation locally, after arrival by sea perhaps a century beforehand.

102 Peacock, D. P. S. in The Iron Age and its Hill-forts (ed. Jesson, M. and Hill, D., 1971), pp. 161–88Google Scholar. One or two have been discovered off the coast of Brittany. For a map, see Nash, Daphne, in Oppida in Barbarian Europe (ed. Cunliffe, B. and Rowley, T., 1976), p. 116, fig. 8Google Scholar.

103 Journ. Roman Studies, xxiv (1934), 220–1Google Scholar, pl. 25 (National Museum of Wales). Despite the linguistic mésalliance, c PISCI/FAGI must surely be rendered ‘Gaius the Fish-eater’. The animal form was identified by my colleague Mr. J. A. Bateman, Keeper of Zoology, who calls attention to the form of the head, the suppleness indicated in the back, and the shape of the tail. The handwriting suggests a first- or second-century date. The jar is not Romano-British. The vessel was perhaps blown off” course to or from the west coast of Ireland, where Ptolemy marks a notable settlement Nagnata (Sligo?), ii, 2. 3.

104 Savory, H. N., Bull. Board of Celtic Studies, xxii (1968), 101–2Google Scholar.

105 Apulum, ix (1971), 454Google Scholar.

106 The West Coast of England Pilot (1910 edn.), p. 309Google Scholar; my italics.

107 Thus Cymer Abbey, which had property fronting on Porth Neigwl, possessed, by the charter (1209) of Llywelyn the Great, right of wreck over cargoes of its own goods, cf. Williams-Jones, K., Journ. Merioneth Hist. Soc. iii. 1 (1957), 56, 58Google Scholar.