224 On a Sepulchral Vessel found near Marlborough. 



but notwithstanding the utmost care and tenderness it would not bear the smallest 

 jar or shake, and it fell to pieces. Every bit of it which I could preserve is in 

 the box I have the pleasure of sending to you ; and what is in the box, not be- 

 longing to the vessel, was found with several skeletons (human), a Roman 

 tile, and the piece of pottery (the small cup), in the same field with the 

 vessel, and only a few yards from it. Several coins, mostly Gallienus, or Valens 

 or Constantine, were brought to me from the same spot. 

 " I remain, Sir, 



" Your very obedient and humble Servant, 

 " Chas. Feancis. 

 P.S.— The person who took the drawing is Mr. Tuck of Marlbro'." 



Some extracts from a note-book kept by Sir R. C. Hoare, and 

 printed in vol. xxii. of this Magazine, confirm the above state- 

 ments, and show that he was personally acquainted with the spot. 

 " Walked with Rev. Mr. Francis, of Mildenhall, to a spot on the 

 left of the road from Marlboro' to London, where several remarkable 

 Roman antiquities have been found. It is a pasture land, and has 

 produced many skeletons, and Roman coins are daily found by the 

 labourers employed in digging and sifting gravel. A most singular 

 vessel was found there about the year 1807, and the mutilated 

 fragments are still preserved by Mr. Francis. It contained some 

 burnt human bones, which seem to prove its having been formerly 

 appropriated to sepulchral uses." 1 



Amongst the packages of antiquities received from Stourhead in 

 1878 was a box of broken urns and various fragments. A piece of 

 old bronze awakened a memory, and further examination showed 

 that here were the remains of the funereal vessel found in St. 

 Margaret's mead, near Cunetio. On comparing these fragments 

 with the original drawing, it is satisfactory to find that nearly all 



m 1 The notice of this vessel in Wright's " Celt, Roman, and Saxon," p. 433, ig 

 singularly unfortunate. It is not correct as to the date or as to the circumstances 

 of the finding, nor is the character of the ornament accurately described ; more- 

 over, a small engraving of it is given, side by side with an Anglo-Saxon bucket, 

 " only 7£ inches high," so that the reader is left to infer that the originals are 

 both of the same dimensions, no mention being made of the greater size of the 

 Marlborough specimen. This has been very misleading to the readers of that 

 otherwise very accurate work. Mr. Wright may, however, be fairly excused, a s 

 at the time his book was written, the bucket was in ruins, in a box of broken 

 pottery at Stourhead. 



