Livingston Jewelers

Important notes

On November 1st and 2nd, 2022 I had the opportunity to spend several hours in the "Department of Britain, Europe and Prehistory Study Room". I took several pictures and made a lot of notes of the items I studied. I purposely chose items to examine that were listed as possible and/or were uncertain of their classification as lace-tags. About half of the items I looked at I determined were NOT lace-tags.
This page will have those results. More will be added as I learn more and refine the data. I am including an Excel sheet that I downloaded from the British Museum website with highlights of the items I looked at or made referred to.

I will be listing items using the British Museum number followed by my system of accession numbers.
As a bit of review, in libraries, art galleries, museums, and archives, an accession number is a unique identifier assigned to, and achieving initial control of, each acquisition. Assignment of accession numbers typically occurs at the point of accessioning or cataloging.
I have found that the accession numbers used by the British Museum do not always play well with organization within a database so I am using a system that is hopefully a bit more clear. Some numbers may well end up with an additional data type added (I am not sure if this may count as an additional qualifier of the data.) so I am treating these numbers as text even though most will be numbers. I believe that most should be easily recognizable.

This is how I will be labeling items with Artifact Accession Numbers. Example: "1927 1011 0007".
Each object in the artifact collection is assigned a unique accession number that is separated into three parts by a single space:
The first part is a four-digit number that designates the year the object was acquired.
The second part is a two-digit number assigned sequentially throughout the year for each object or group of objects from a single source. The month and the day.
The third part is a unique four-digit number assigned sequentially to each object within a given year and group of objects from a single source.
Separate parts of a single object are assigned alphabetic suffixes. Examples: "1927 1011 0007 A & 1927 1011 0007 B".
I then create a record for each accession number in my artifact database.

I am including just below a link to the presentation that I presented at the Medieval Dress and Textile Society (MEDATS) Study Day: Learning Through Reconstruction, on the 29th of October 2022.

Presentation: Learning Through Reconstruction. Clarifying and extending the typology of aiglets, through a practical application of craft and experimental archeology.

Description: While substantial progress has been achieved in the research of clothing, textiles, and associated items over the last century, it is still the case that the body of research on the manufacturing and use of aiglets remains rather impoverished. Even less has been preserved about the manufacturing processes for aiglets. This information has been lost. It is my opinion that knowing how an item is manufactured may lead to a better understanding of its use and how it affects material culture. This lack of knowledge about the manufacturing processes used to make aiglets prevents us from determining their role in society. The goal of this presentation is to perform an overview of archaeological evidence, as well as to clarify and extend the typology of aiglets through an examination using experimental archeology.

Presented at the Medieval Dress and Textile Society (MEDATS) Study Day: Learning Through Reconstruction, Date: 29 October, 2022

Please use the link to the ResearchGate website below to download this presentation.
DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20220.62084

How this data is presented on this page

• The British Museum Acquisition Number.
• My Acquisition Number.
• Title (This may or may not match what is listed in the Excel sheet from the British Museum linked above.)
• Culture.
• Production date (if known).
• My Notes about these items. These are not the notes from the British Museum unless they have some bearing on my analysis of the item. These are my thoughts and opinions as a researcher. These should be considered my opinion.

Each item will have the images that I took in thumbnails after the notes. Click on each one to view each image. Some will have one or two images, some will have quite a few.

As always, if you have thoughts, opinions, or comments please contact me and I will be happy to speak with you about my research.

All images open in a new window.

No: 1867,0204.15

Link to the record on the British Museum website
1867 0204 0015
Lace tag, type 1
Culture Early Anglo-Saxon
Production date 5thC-6thC
Livings type 1. 23mm X 4mm. 5 bands applied with may have been a small chisel. The lines do not go all the way to the edge. One corner is broken on the bottom edge. 1 small crack. Close to 0.40mm thick metal so this is very thick.

No: 1881,0802.60

Link to the record on the British Museum website
1881 0802 0060
lace tag from jack
Culture
Production date 1580 (circa)
lace tag from jack
Additional information and pictures have been requested.

armour No: 1881,0802.60
Jack of plate in the form of a fabric doublet, quilted with iron plates. The doublet has a pronounced peas cod at the front, a standing collar, short caps over the shoulders, and a short skirt divided at the rear, at the waist. The doublet is composed of numerous layers of canvas with a layer of plates each of them about 38mm square, with a central hole and clipped corners. The plates are secured by a hexagonal lattice formed of crossbow twine. At either side of the front opening is a series of eyelet holes by which the jack is held closed by a modern cord. Several of the plates appear to have smaller holes suggesting they might be re-used plates from a Brigandine. The outside layer of fabric is considerably damaged where the plates have corroded, causing it to rot. Mounted on a frame of copper rods covered in soft wadding and fabric.

Made in: England
canvas; iron
quilted Height: 61 centimetres; Width: 44 centimetres
"See Eaves, Ian, On the Remains of a Jack of Plate Excavated from Beeston Castle in Cheshire.The Journal of the Arms and Armour Society, Vol XIII No.2 Sept. 1989 pp81-154. This is probably one of the jacks made for the Navy in the mid-1580s. Compare Royal Armouries numbers III.1884-5, originally from Woollaston Hall, and another jack in the same collection from Roxborough. Comment and object description by T.Richardson, Royal Armouries (June 2008)"
Not on display
Bequeathed by: William Burges
1881
Britain, Europe, and Prehistory
18,810,802.60 Miscellaneous number: AL116/164 (Royal Armouries)

No: 1883,0401.100

Link to the record on the British Museum website
1883 0401 0100
Lace tag, type 3
Culture Early Anglo-Saxon
Production date 6thC
Livings type 3. 10.5mm X 3.5mm (X 3mm at the smaller end). Broken off short and the top has several cracks as well. There is a very large hole at the top. It is not possible to determine if it was purposely made.

No: 1883,0401.297

Link to the record on the British Museum website
1883 0401 0297
Not a lace tag
Culture Anglo-Saxon
Production date5thC-6thC
Not a lace tag.
Not a lace tag. This has some wood attached to it with what looks like a solid metal rivet. It may be a fragment of a strap fitting. Compare this to item No: 1964,0702.298.

No: 1891,0624.166

Link to the record on the British Museum website
1891 0624 0166
Lace tag
Culture Early Anglo-Saxon
Production date 5thC-7thC
Lace tag, Most likely Livings type 1. The seam is open and shows some corrosion that could explain why the seam is open. The length is intact. 3 lines on top and 2 sets of 2 lines further down. Tapered 23.5mm X 3.5mm X 2.5mm.

No: 1891,0624.170

Link to the record on the British Museum website
1891 0624 0170
Lace tag, type 3
Culture Early Anglo-Saxon
Production date 5thC-7thC
Lace tag, Livings type 3. Broken short. 29.5mm X 8mm. 1 set of 3 lines chiseled into the metal at the top end. 2 solid lines with a slashed/dotted line in the center. There is another solid line near the broken part with what could be a dotted line on the break. It is reasonable to assume the same decoration was used in the middle of the aiglet as well. This could suggest the entire length of the aiglet was approximately 45 to 50 mm long.

No: 1891,0624.171

Link to the record on the British Museum website
1891 0624 0171
Chape or Ferrule
Culture Early Anglo-Saxon
Production date 5thC-7thC
This is very large for a lace tag. I suspect it is maybe a chape from a scabbard or a decorative element of some sort. Could be a large ferrule. Tapered 33mm X 11mm X 8mm.

No: 1891,0624.172

Link to the record on the British Museum website
1891 0624 0172
Ferrule
Culture Early Anglo-Saxon
Production date 5thC-7thC
I am relatively confident this is a ferrule due to the size. This has four (possibly 5) incised lines on the surface.

No: 1891,0624.173

Link to the record on the British Museum website
1891 0624 0173
Ring?
Culture Early Anglo-Saxon
Production date 5thC-7thC
Not a lace tag. Approximately 7mm wide and 0.7 to 0.8mm thick. Consider that this might be the remnants of a ring. Find out where in the grave it was found and what was nearby.

No: 1963,1108.559

Link to the record on the British Museum website
1963 1108 0559
Unknown object
Culture Early Anglo-Saxon
Production date 7thC (late)
4 metal fragments. It is not possible to determine what these are fragments of exactly. The large fragment seems to be solid. Possible nail or tack.
On the envelope: Dover B Grave 113 “477a” within a triangle, Lren (Lrai?) “D within a circle”, 2340 at fort.
Part of the Dover Buckland Anglo-Saxon cemetery.

No: 1963,1108.592

Link to the record on the British Museum website
1963 1108 0592
Lace tag, type 1v Culture Early Anglo-Saxon
Production date 7thC (late)
Livings type 1. Tapered with the rivet still intact. The top edge of the seam is flared out. The end is slightly pointed. It appears the blank this was formed from was not cut properly. There is one incised line at the top. The rivet is also copper alloy. the wire is possibly 1.5 mm in gauge so very large. the rivet is well formed and you can tell it was rounded on the ends to not catch the eyelets it was pulled through. Part of the Dover Buckland Anglo-Saxon cemetery.

No: 1963,1108.666

Link to the record on the British Museum website
1963 1108 0666
Lace tag
Culture Early Anglo-Saxon
Production date 7thC (late)
Lace tag, type not determined. Crumbling pieces only.

No: 1963,1108.688

Link to the record on the British Museum website
1963 1108 0688
Lace tag, type 1
Culture Early Anglo-Saxon
Production date 7thC (late)v Livings type 1. tapered 22mm long with a small bit of the bottom end missing. Approximately 3.5 mm at the top. The rivet is intact and you can see where it was peened over in such a way that it is flush with the surface of the aiglet. The rivet is also copper alloy.
Part of the Dover Buckland Anglo-Saxon cemetery.

No: 1963,1108.726

Link to the record on the British Museum website
1963 1108 0726
Not a lace tag
Culture Early Anglo-Saxon
Production date 7thC (late)
not a lace tag. A triangular section of metal. Determining what this was is not possible from such a small section.
Part of the Dover Buckland Anglo-Saxon cemetery.

No: 1964,0702.298

Link to the record on the British Museum website
1964 0702 0298
Not a lace tag
Culture Early Anglo-Saxon
Production date 6thC
Not a lace tag. Compare this to item No: 1883,0401.297 which has some wood attached to it with what looks like a solid metal rivet. It may be a fragment of a strap fitting. I will double-check but it looks like this is the book I need. “An Anglo-Saxon cemetery at Great Chesterford, Essex”

No: 1964,0702.360

Link to the record on the British Museum website
1964 0702 0360
Nail fragment?
Culture Early Anglo-Saxon
Production date 6thC
Very heavy so I am confident it is solid. So a nail or fragment of something else. Not a lace tag.
I will double-check but it looks like this is the book I need. “An Anglo-Saxon cemetery at Great Chesterford, Essex”

No: 1985,1101.955

Link to the record on the British Museum website
1985 1101 955
Lace tag, type 4
Culture Medieval
Production date 1280-1356 (circa)
I did not examine this in person but the drawing and description are enough to classify it as a type 4 copper alloy lace-tag, made from wire folded in the middle to form an eye and with ends twisted tightly together.
Bibliographic references: Fairbrother 1990 / Faccombe Netherton. Excavations of Saxon and Medieval Manorial Complex. (Fig.9.14.94)

No: 1985,1101.956

Link to the record on the British Museum website
1985 1101 0956
Lace tag, type 4
Culture Medieval
Production date 1280-1356 (circa)

I did not examine this in person but the drawing and description are enough to classify it as a type 4 lace-tag of copper alloy. It is made from wire folded in the middle to form an eye and with ends twisted tightly together.
Bibliographic references: Fairbrother 1990 / Faccombe Netherton. Excavations of Saxon and Medieval Manorial Complex. (Fig.9.14.95)

No: 2010,8021.1

Link to the record on the British Museum website
2010 8021 0001
Lace tag, type 4
(I am unsure if this acquisition number follows the correct date format. It looks like it should be 2010,0821.1.)
Culture
Production date 16thC-17thC

I did not examine this in person but the drawing and description are enough to classify it as a type 4 lace-tag made from silver. It is a flattened pin tapering to a blunt point, pierced with a round hole at the larger end. "A lace-tag of the kind worn to secure leather or other cord/or ties on clothing or hats from the 16th to the late 17th century, or to secure armour. Copper alloy examples are more common but these were fashionable items and must also have been made in silver.
Bibliographic references: TAR 2008 / Portable Antiquities and Treasure Annual Report 2008 (p. 170, no. 404)

No: ML.1410

Link to the record on the British Museum website

1898 0000 0001
Cast bronze rod with a ring at one end and a knob at the other. This may be a type 4 lace-tag. The location by the foot in the grave in my mind makes this more likely but with only one instance, I would like to see several other examples before I can say with certainty.
Culture Iron Age
Production date

Found/Acquired: Somme-Bionne
copper alloy
cast
Length: 36 millimetres
"Stead and Rigby 1999
The pair of ML.1411.
Context: Other Bronze Artefacts; Pendants, wheels and discs.
Bibliography: Morel, L., 1898, ‘La Champagne souterraine’ Reims, 80, pl. 13, figs 3 and 4; Joffroy, R., 1960, ‘L’oppidum de Vix et la civilisation hallstattienne finale dans l’est de la France’ (Publications de l’université de Dijon, 20), pl. 16, fig. 15, with several comparable examples, pp. 70-71, pl. 16, figs 3-17.
Google translate: (Bibliography: Morel, L., 1898, ‘Underground Champagne’ Reims, 80, pl. 13, Figs 3 and 4; Joffroy, R., 1960, ‘The oppidum of Vix and the final Hallstattian civilization in eastern France’ (Publications de l’université de Dijon, 20), pl. 16, fig. 15, with several comparable examples, pp. 70-71, pl. 16, Figs 3-17.)
In Quilly grave 8 a similar but slightly longer (53 mm) piece was found by the left foot of a male skeleton, where it might have been the tag of a shoe-lace. But at Bussy-le-Château two similar pieces were suspended from a pendant (see ML.1645)." Stead & Rigby 1999 / The Morel Collection. Iron Age Antiquities from Champagne in the British Museum.
Bibliographic references: Stead & Rigby 1999 / The Morel Collection. Iron Age Antiquities from Champagne in the British Museum (p.137)
Not on display
Purchased from: Léon Morel
Britain, Europe and Prehistory

No: ML.1411

Link to the record on the British Museum website
1898 0000 0002
Cast bronze rod with a ring at one end and a knob at the other. This may be a type 4 lace-tag. I would like to see several other examples before I can say with certainty.

Culture Iron Age
Production date
Found/Acquired: Somme-Bionne
copper alloy
cast
Length: 36 millimetres
"Stead and Rigby 1999
The pair of ML.1410.
Context: Other Bronze Artefacts; Pendants, wheels and discs.
Bibliography: Morel, L., 1898, ‘La Champagne souterraine’ Reims, 80, pl. 13, figs 3 and 4; Joffroy, R., 1960, ‘L’oppidum de Vix et la civilisation hallstattienne finale dans l’est de la France’ (Publications de l’université de Dijon, 20), pl. 16, fig. 15, with several comparable examples, pp. 70-71, pl. 16, figs 3-17. In Quilly grave 8 a similar but slightly longer (53 mm) piece was found by the left foot of a male skeleton, where it might have been the tag of a shoe-lace. But at Bussy-le-Château two similar pieces were suspended from a pendant (see ML.1645).
Bibliographic references: Stead & Rigby 1999 / The Morel Collection. Iron Age Antiquities from Champagne in the British Museum (p.137)
Not on display
Purchased from: Léon Morel
Britain, Europe and Prehistory
Link to the record for ML.1645 on the British Museum Website. This is not a lace tag but is part of a pendant. In my opinion as a professional jeweler, I can see the similarities of design elements with items ML.1410 & ML.1411 that someone might cause them to group these. I see ML.1645 as a pendant that may or may not have had additional parts hanging from it. I can envision items ML.1410 & ML.1411 being complimentary items that could be related in some way. Or not. Without seeing these as they were used it is impossible to say for sure and we can only conjecture their specific use and meaning.