Germanic Equal Arm Brooches of the Migration Period: A study of their style chronology and distribution including a full catalogue of finds and their contexts 9781841714912, 9781407325118

Table of contents :
Front Cover
Title Page
Copyright
Table of Contents
List of Figures
List of Tables
Acknowledgements
Chapter 1: An Approach to the Study of Equal Arm Brooch Style
Chapter 2: The Motifs
Chapter 3: Distribution and Chronology
Chapter 4: Equal Arm Brooch Style - Its Predecessors and Contemporaries
Chapter 5: Socio-Cultural Implications of Equal Arm Brooch Style
Chapter 6: Conclusion and Outlook
Bibliography
Tables
Figures

Citation preview

BAR S1113 2003 BRUNS GERMANIC EQUAL ARM BROOCHES OF THE MIGRATION PERIOD

B A R

Germanic Equal Arm Brooches of the Migration Period A study of style, chronology and distribution including a full catalogue of finds and contexts

Dorothee Bruns

BAR International Series 1113 2003

ISBN 9781841714912 paperback ISBN 9781407325118 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781841714912 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

BAR

PUBLISHING

Table of Contents List of text figures

ii

Catalogue figures and maps

iii

Acknowledgments

v

Chapter I: An Approach to the Study of Equal Arm Brooch Style 1.1 Introduction 1.2 Data 1.3 Compositional Elements and Socio-Cultural Considerations

1 4 8

Chapter II: The Motifs 2.1 Introduction 2.2 Preform Seraing 2.3 Dösemoor 2.4 Nesse 2.5 Hannover 2.6 Sahlenburg 2.7 Wehden 2.8 Daudieck 2.9 Nesse 2 2.10 Mucking 2.11 Berinsfield 2.12 Mecklenburg 2.13 Miscellaneous

10 15 16 18 19 19 20 21 21 22 23 23 24

Chapter III: Distribution and Chronology 3.1 Introduction 3.2 Distribution 3.3 Chronology

25 25 28

Chapter IV: Equal Arm Brooch Style: Its Predecessors and Contemporaries 4.1 Introduction 4.2 Roman Influences of the 2nd and 3rd Centuries and the “Late Roman Military Style” 4.3 The Sösdala Style 4.4 The Quoit Brooch Style 4.5 The Nydam Style

33 33 38 39 40

Chapter V: Socio-Cultural Implications of Equal Arm Brooch Style 5.1 Introduction 5.2 Social Identity 5.3 Religion and Cult

42 43 44

Chapter VI: Conclusion and Outlook 6.1 Crouching Dogs, Hidden Deer

48

Bibliography

50

Figures

61

i

List of figures Text figures 1: 2: 3: 4: 5: 6: 7: 8: 9: 10: 11: 12: 13: 14: 15: 16: 17: 18: 19: 20: 21:

Böhme 1974:Taf.17. Dösemoor. D. Bruns Roeder 1930:111, Textabb. 67. Hammoor (Kr.Stormarn, Hol-stein) Böhme 1974:11, Abb.2. Supporting arm brooches with trapezoid footplate. Böhme 1998:440, Abb.4. Costume reconstruction of Issendorf Inh. 3532. Roeder 1930:87, Textabb. 54. Westerwanna (Kr. Hadeln). Böhme 1974:Taf. 36. Sahlenburg, Inh. 1. Böhme 1974:Taf. 22.12. Hemmoor – Warstade, Gr. 60. Böhme 1974:Taf. 101.19. Seraing. Böhme 1974:Taf. 17. Dösemoor. Böhme 1974:Taf. 29.3. Nesse, Gr. 3. Roeder 1930:118, Abb. 76. Unprovenanced find, Provinz Hannover. Roeder 1930:Taf. XV. Sahlenburg, Inh. 19. Roeder 1930:Textabb.68. Kempston (Bedfordshire). Böhme 1974:17,6. Daudieck. Böhme 1986:Abb.61.3. Collingbourne Ducis, Gr.6) Evison 1977:Abb.2. Mucking 637. Böhme 1986:Abb.60.6. Berinsfield, Gr. 8. Willers 1901:154, Abb.60. Frieze with fighting animals. Gebers 1977:14, Abb.5.2. Pelta-shaped pendant. Bosau, Kr. Holstein. Gebers 1977:14, Abb.5.3. Scutiform pendants, Bosau, Kr. Holstein.

Catalogue figures and maps Map 1 Map 2 Map 3 Map 4 Map 5 Map 6 Map 7 Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 Figure 9 Figure 10 Figure 11 Figure 12 Figure 13 Figure 14 Figure 15 Figure 16

D. Bruns Böhme 1974, Karte 12 Schach-Dörges 1970, Karte 9 Tischler 1954, Abb. 33 D. Bruns Eggers 1951, Karte 23 Böhme 1974, Karte 17 1-4: Tournai, Grab D (Rue de Spars), Böhme 1974, Tafel 109. 5: Furfooz, Grab 3, Bullinger 1969, Taf. LIV. 6: Mahndorf, Single Find, Grohne 1953:136, Abb.46. 7-8: Chécy, Böhme 1974, Taf. 116, 16-18. 9: Nesse, Genrich 1952:183, Abb. 2.16. 10: Rouvroy, Bullinger 1969, Taf. XXXVI, 4. Rhenen, Gr. 846, Böhme 1974, Taf. 68, 1-7. 1-19: Samson, Single finds, Böhme 1974, Taf.100. 20-23: Abbeville/Somme, Böhme 1974, Taf. 114. 1: Westgarth Gardens, Gr. 55: West 1988:34, Fig. 48. 2: Mucking, Gr. 90: Jones 1978:420, Abb 6. 3: Collingbourne Ducis, gr. 6: Gingell 1975/76:68. 4: Berinsfield, Gr.8: Boyle et al. 1995, fig. 37. 1: Issendorf 3536: Böhme 1998:448, Abb. 11. 2: Sahlenburg, Gr. 19: Waller 1938, Abb.15. 3-5: Böhme 1998:439, Abb2. 6: Schön 1999, Abb4. 1+2: Zweeloo, Gr. 87: Vierck 1978a:237, Abb.3. 3: D. Bruns Ottendorf Gr. 10, Schön 1999, Abb. 28 1-7: Vierck 1978b, Abb. 9 “Aufanische Matronen”, Bonn, Rheinischen Landesmuseum. Schoppa 1957: Nummer 82. comp. Fig. 9, Nummer 83. 1: Roth 1979, Abb. 124. 2: Mucking, Gr. 637, Evison 1977, Fig. 2. Bullinger 1969, Abb. 46. 1-3: Westerwanna, Gr. 110: Böhme 1974, Taf. 46, 1-3. 4: Westerwanna, Gr. 1481: Roeder 1930, Textabb. 35. 5-8: Westerwanna, Gr. 1761: Böhme 1974, Taf. 53, 3-6. 9-12: Westerwanna, gr. 1190: Böhme 1974, Taf. 50, 12-16. 13-14: Tournai, Single finds: Böhme 1974, Taf. 108, 16+17. Liebenau, Inh. 1/1957, Böhme 1974, Taf. 28. 7 – 15: Sahlenburg, Inh. 29, Böhme 1974, Taf. 39. 16: Anderlingen: Genrich 1952:181, , Abb. 1. 1: no 1, Westerwanna, Inv. Nr. 650:3 or 73:06, Roeder 1930:109-110, Abb. 65. 2: no 12, Westerwanna 611.2, Roeder 1930:119-120, Abb. 79. 3: no 24, Seraing, Roeder 1930, Taf. VIII,5. 4: Seraing: Böhme

ii

Figure 17 Figure 18 Figure 19 Figure 20 Figure 21 Figure 22 Figure 23 Figure 24 Figure 25 Figure 26 Figure 27 Figure 28 Figure 29 Figure 30 Figure 31 Figure 32 Figure 33 Figure 34 Figure 35 Figure 36 Figure 37 Figure 38 Figure 39 Figure 40 Figure 41 Figure 42 Figure 43 Figure 44 Figure 45a Figure 45b Figure 45c Figure 46 Figure 47 Figure 48 Figure 49 Figure 50

1974, Taf. 101. 5+6: no 21, Westerwanna 1988b (Gr.1575), Roeder 1930:105, Taf. 13.1 and Böhme 1974, Taf. 53, 1-2. 7: no 22, Westerwanna, single find: Böhme 1986:527-529, Abb. 50.3. 1-8: no 51, Wijster, Nl, Böhme 1974, Taf. 73. 9: no 59, Otterndorf, Gr. 10: SChön 1999, Abb. 29. 1: no 25, Sutton Courtenay, Böhme 1986, Abb. 60. 2: no 18, Haslingfield, Plettke 1921, Taf. IX, 2. 3: no 23, Empingham, Evison 1977, fig. 4b. Drawings of the animals from Evison 1977, fig. 3. 1: no 26, Little Wilbraham, Evison 1977, Abb. 4a. 2-4: no 42, Dösemoor, Roeder 1933, Taf. XXVII. 1: no 8a+b, Westerwanna 1912/45 (3 fragments!): Roeder 1930, Abb. 72+73. 3: no 15a+b Granstedt 1700 (1, single find) and 1793 (2, grave), 4 frgms!: Roeder 1930, Taf. XV, 1-2. 4: no 15, Granstedt reconstruction, Roeder 1930, Abb. 82. 1: no 16, Anderlingen: Roeder 1930:123, Abb. 83. 2: no 47, Perlberg 64/1949: Genrich 1952:183, Abb. 2.17. 3: no 17, Quelkhorn: Roeder 1930:124, Abb. 84. 4: no 52, Quelkhorn: Böhme 1974, Taf. 33.19. no 36, Issendorf 3536, Häßler 1994a, Abb. 14. no 36, grave goods, Issendorf 3536, Häßler 1994a, Abb. 15. no 63, Issendorf 3532, Häßler 1994a:41, Farbtafel 4. no 66, Liebenau, II/57d: Genrich 1964:39, Abb. 7. no 64, Spong Hill Crem. 2376: Hills et al. 1987:171, Fig. 91. 1: no 64, Spong Hill, Crem. 2376: Hills et al. 1987, Fig. 21. 2: no 65, Mahlstedt- Ochsenbergsheide: Wegner 1981:59, Fig. 21. no 50, Zweeloo, Gr. 87: van Es/Ypey 1977:112, Abb.6. 1-3: no 45, Nesse, Gr. 3: Roeder 1933, Taf. XXVIII. 4: no 14, Issendorf, single find: Roeder 1930:121, Textabb.81. 1: no 60, Liebenau II/8: Böhme 1974, Taf. 29. 2: no 39, Mahndorf, Gr. 396: Böhme 1974, Taf. 13. 3: no 44, Liebenau II/32: Böhme 1974, Taf. 26. 1: no 19, Riensförde: Roeder 1930:127, Textabb.36. 2. no 27, Hasketon 009: pers. comm. H. Hamerow and West 1998:43 (no47.20). no 37, Liebenau II/218: Böhme 1974, Taf. 29, 1+2 and Häßler 1994b:61. 1: no 10, “Provinz Hannover”: Roeder 1930:117, Textabb.76. 2: no 9, Loxstedt: Roeder 1930:117, Textabb. 75. 3: no 11, Wehden: Roeder 1930:118, Textabb. 78. 4: no 43, Liebenau II/57a: Genrich 1964:31, Abb. 3. 5: no 61, Altenwalde, Gr.33: Roder 1930:118, Textabb.77. 1: no 48, Sahlenburg, Gr. 19: Böhme 1986, Abb.50 and Roeder 1933, Taf.XV. 2: no 20, Westerwanna, single find: Böhme 1986, Abb.50. 3: no 32, Mucking, Gr. 90: Evison 1977, Fig. 2. 1: no 49, Aalden, NL: Böhme 1974, Taf. 58. 2: no 38, Liebenau VIII/65: Häßler 1994b:61 and Bohme 1974, Taf. 29. 1: no 7, Bremen-Blumenthal: Roeder 1930, Textabb.71. 2: no 5, Wehden 11055: Roeder 1930, Textabb.69. 3: no 6, Wehden 11056: Roeder 1930, Textabb. 70. 4: no 4, Kempston: Roeder 1930, Textabb. 68. 5: no 41, Daudieck: Roeder 1933, Taf. XXVI, 2. 1: no 46, Oberhausen: Roeder 1933, Taf. XXIX. 2: no 30, Westgarth Gardens, Gr.55: Evison 1977, Fig. 4c. no 30, Westgarth Gardens, Gr. 55: West 1988, Fig. 78. no 33, Collingbourne Ducis, Gr. 6: Evison 1977, Taf. 5a. no 33, Collingbourne Ducis, Gr. 6: Gingell 1975/76:77, Fig. 15. 2: no 34, Abingdon, Crem. 26. 1: no 31, Mucking, Gr. 637: Jones 1978:421, Abb7. 2: no 29, Mucking 938: ibid. 3: no 35, Berinsfield, gr. 8: Boyle et al. 1998:82, Fig. 16. 1: no 56, Premslin, Gr. 17: Schach-Dörges 1970, Taf. 99. 2: no 53, Perdöhl, gr. 95: Schuldt 1948/49:112, Abb. 9. 1: no 54, Perdöhl, gr. 278: Schuldt1948/49:113, Abb. 10.. 2: no 55, Perdöhl, gr. 279: Schuldt 1948/49:113, Abb. 11. 3: no 58, Pritzier 400: Schuldt 1948/49:109, Abb. 3. 1: no 57, Kaarßen: Schach-Dörges 1970, Taf. 27.16. 2: no 2, Hammoor 10983a: Roeder 1930:111/112, Abb. 67. 3: no 3, Hammoor 10983b: Roeder 1930:110, Abb. 66. no 40, Mahndorf, single finds: Grohne 1953, Abb. 39. 1: no 13, Bliedersdorf, Kr. Stade: Roeder 1930:119, Textabb. 80. 2: no 28, Mucking unass.: Evison 1977, fig.2. 3: no 62, Oldendorf-W.: Roeder 1933, Taf. XXVI. 4: no No, Sahlenburg, Crem. 63/1895: Böhme 1974, Taf. 35. 1: Newnham (Cambs) a: Roeder 1930, Taf. IX; b: Plettke 1921, Taf. VII. 2: Mildenhall (Suffolk): Roeder 1930, Taf. IX. 3: Tveitane (Vestfold) a: Roeder, Taf. IX; b: Plettke 1921, Taf. VII. 1: no 48, Sahlenburg, Gr. 19: Waller 1938, Taf. 44. 2: no 45, Nesse, Gr. 3: Böhme 1974, Taf. 31. 1: Liebenau, single find in quadrant II/18: Genrich 1964:29, Abb. 2. 2-8: no 44, Liebenau, II/32: ibid. 9a+b:no 43, Liebenau II/57a: Böhme 1974, Taf. 26. 10-14: no 15a+b, Granstedt, reconstruction: Böhme 1974, Taf. 18. 1: no 50, Zweeloo: Ypey/van Es 1977:114, Abb. 7. 2: no 31, Mucking 637: Ager 1985:56, Fig.26.16.g+h. no 35, Berinsfield, gr. 8: Boyle et al. 1995:169, fig. 54. no 59, Otterndorf, Gr. 10: Schön 1999, Abb. 29. iii

Figure 51 Figure 52 Figure 53 Figure 54 Figure 55 Figure 56 Figure 57 Figure 58 Figure 59 Figure 60 Figure 61 Figure 62 Figure 63 Figure 64 Figure 65

Figure 66 Figure 67 Figure 68 Figure 69 Figure 70 Figure 71 Figure 72

1: no 16, Anderlingen: Böhme 1974, Taf.2, 15-17. 2: no 16, Anderlingen (scale 1:1): Gerich 1967:110, Taf. 1. 3: no 54, Perdöhl: Schuldt 1976, Taf. 23. Hemmoor. Dannenberg und Schulze 1995, Abb.13 Thorsberg, Disc I: Werner 1941:Taf. A. 1: Thorsberg, Disc II: Werner 1941, Taf. 2. 2: Thorsberg, Disc II, reconstruction: Werner 1941:6, Abb.2. Thorsberg, Disc I: Werner 1941, Taf. 4. Thorsberg, Disc I: Werner 1941, Taf. 3. Buckets from Hemmoor and Himlingöie: Werner 1941, Taf. 23. Frieze. Hemmoor: Willers 1901: Taf. 3 Frieze. Glass Vessels: Werner 1941:58, Abb. 10. 1: Frieze. Himlingöie: Werner 1941:53, Abb. 9. 2: Animals from the Thorsberg Disc I (1:1): Werner 1941, Taf. 7. Himlingöie silver chalices: Werner 1941, Taf. 22. Hunting friezes from the Himlingöie chalices: 1: Werner 1941:61, Abb. 12. 2: Werner 1941:46, Abb. 6. 1: Athen, Akropolis, Erechtheion: Gruben 1966: 192/193, Abb. 152 + 153. 2: Tegea, Athena Alea Temple: Gruben 1966:126, Abb. 112+113. 1: Epidaurus, Asklepios sanctuary: Gruben 1966:135, Abb. 122. 2: Issendorf 3532, compare Colour Plate A. 3: Sahlenburg, Inh. 19: Böhme 1974, Taf. 36. 1: Kvarmløse brooch: Smith 1923 (1993):29, fig. 20. 2: Tongrinne, Prov. Namur, B: Böhme 1974, Taf. 108. 3: Bremen-Mahndorf: Böhme 1974, Taf. 6. 4: Loxstedt, single find: Böhme 1974, Taf. 30. 5: Head of Kvarmløse brooch: Lund-Hansen 1969, Fig. 8. 6: Monceau-le-neuf, Gr. 1, Dép. Aisne, F: Böhme 1974, Taf. 129. 1: Hicks 1993:17, Fig. 1.3. 2: Hicks 1993:18, Fig. 1.4. 1: Mucking: Evison 1968, Pl. LIII. 2: Orpington and Bright-hampton: Böhme 1986:525, Abb. 46. Scutiform pendants: Vierck 1978d:273, Abb. 18. 1: Bad Pyrmont sanctuary: Jacon-Friesen 1974:579, Abb. 706-709. 2: Swine-shaped vessel from Liebenau: Genrich 1981, Abb. 57. Genrich 1981, Abb. 58. Genrich 1981, Abb. 60, (7th century). 1: “Germanic Gorgoneions”, Vierck 1978b:249, Abb. 8. 2: Tangendorf, Kr. Harburg: Busch 1987:41.

List of Tables Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4

All find contexts of equal arm brooches discussed in the text. The first column (Cat. No.) is the individual number used in other tables and on maps 1 and 5. Contexts sorted according to datable associated finds, i.e. brooches other than equal arm brooches. Catalogue and figure concordance, material used and dimensions of equal arm brooches. Equal arm brooches sorted according to their size.

iv

Acknowledgements

The University of Oxford accepted this study as M.Phil. dissertation in June 2001 and I am much indebted to my supervisors Dr. Helena Hamerow and Prof. Barry Cunliffe for their academic advice and support throughout. Also, I owe much to my former supervisor at the Freie Universität Berlin, Dr. Carola Metzner-Nebelsick, without whose encouragement I would have never found my way to Oxford. This study shall be dedicated to Dr. Albert Genrich, who, in the 1950s, saw the importance of equal arm brooches for Early Anglo-Saxon Archaeology, and whose articles and fundamental studies on Equal Arm Brooch pointed me in the right direction. I would like to think that had enjoyed this thesis. And, finally, as always, I am deeply grateful to my parents and my best friend Tülin, whose encouragement, moral support and love have been unfailing through my years at Oxford University. This is for you, too.

Beltane 2002

v

vi

Chapter 1 An Approach to the Study of Equal Arm Brooch Style

Style rests on the deepest foundation of cognition, on the Inner essence of things, in so far as this is given Us to comprehend invisible and tangible forms. (Goethe)

1.1 Introduction This work is a study of a much neglected brooch type: the equal arm brooch. The emergence of these brooches spans only the 5th century AD and while in the beginning they were limited to the region between the rivers Elbe and Weser in north western Germany, later we also see them spread throughout many areas of England (map 1). The equal arm brooches, as well as other items of Germanic origin, were Text fig. 1: Dösemoor clearly introduced to England by a splinter group of the migrating Angles and Saxons. In this case, we are probably dealing with a group of migrants from the region between the mouths of the Elbe and Weser.

Text fig. 2

There are only a limited number of English equal arm brooches (15 of 66 brooches in total) and some of them bear little resemblance to their Continental predecessors. Looking at the English equal arm brooches we see a decline in stylistic complexity and a change in motifs that was anticipated by changes in design already apparent on the Continent. The Continental brooches, however, mostly seem to have kept the original appearance for some time while several of the English examples strike one as being confused in style and motifs. Finally, soon after the equal arm brooches’ arrival in England we can observe the general abundance of this brooch type – in England probably a little later than on the Continent. Few researchers have dealt with the equal arm brooches in detail. Significant studies are those of the German archaeologists Alfred Plettke (1921), Fritz Roeder (1930 and 1933), E. Schuldt (1949, 1955 and 1976) and Horst Wolfgang Böhme (1974) and, of course, the addition of the English brooches by Vera Evison (1977). The most important pieces of research, however, were published by Albert Genrich (e.g. 1964, 1967, 1972 and 1977-78),

Equal arm brooches are defined like any other bow brooch. They consist of a head plate that covers the spring and a footplate, which is also called the “catch-plate”, because it carries the catch for the pin. The pin itself runs from the spring under the bow and may be fixed in the catch. Both head and catch-plate are of trapezoid shape and very similar in size. Hence the name “Equal Arm Brooch”. Text figure 2 presents a schematic drawing of an equal arm brooch that offers a brief account of its different compositional elements. It should be noted here that some of the decoration is optional (i.e. friezes in 3a-b and 4a-d).

1

2

3

adorned with it, in north-west Germany an entirely new medium for this antique style was found: brooches, such as saucer, supporting-arm (e.g. the find from Riensförde, Niedersachsen) and, of course, equal arm brooches. Haseloff argues that this distinctive style was executed more carefully and interpreted more vividly in Northern Germany than it had been by the Roman military craftsmen (Haseloff 1978: 154). It is also reasonable to argue that the nature of the antique stylistic elements was transformed when they crossed the Limes and were incorporated into the styles of Northern Germany.

although none of them were designed to give a meticulous description of equal arm brooches. In these articles Genrich merely updated the corpus, developed ideas and discussed his notions about fabrication and distribution. The question I want to pursue in this study is why equal arm brooches and their unique style emerged, developed so quickly and then came to an abrupt decline. I believe that the answers are connected to their producers’ ability and craftsmanship and most of all, their wearers’ understanding of the depicted motifs.

The equal arm brooch style is characterised by a variety of floral and geometrical ornaments executed in chip carving and decorative border animal friezes that together dominated the Roman art styles. Holmqvist describes the equal arm brooches as being on the threshold between Late Roman art and the independent Germanic styles of the Migration period, such as the Nydam Style and Salin’s Animal Style I (Holmqvist 1955:16-17). The main ornaments of the chip-carved bronzes are running spirals and scrollwork, palmettes and marginal animal friezes.2

This introduction shall serve as a brief overview of my study of the decorative style of the equal arm brooches, which will be discussed in detail in the following chapters. In the introductory chapter I shall briefly outline a general survey of the form and decoration of equal arm brooches, my methodological approach and the data I shall be dealing with in the following chapters. In these I would like to address two major topics. First, I shall present an up-to-date catalogue of the finds and suggest a revised typology of the equal arm brooches. Secondly, I shall give a description of their main elements of decoration, attempt to define the characteristics of the equal arm brooch style and define how its motifs are characterised. I shall consider whether the motifs on equal arm brooches had a specific meaning to their wearers and where they might have originated.

1.2 The Data In total, I shall discuss here 63 (66)3 examples of equal arm brooches from Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium and England (map 1). The catalogue cannot be exhaustive but is intended to be as up-to-date and representative as possible. It is largely based on the aforementioned sources.4 This thesis, however, presents the compilation of English, Belgian, Dutch and German brooches and is therefore the largest corpus of equal arm brooches collected so far.

The term “Equal Arm Brooch Style” refers to a particular execution of ornamental style that is only found on the equal arm brooches of north-western Germany. Suzuki introduced the term “Saxon Style” (Suzuki 2000), but before that, the decoration was referred to as “equal arm brooch style” or “Stil der gleicharmigen Kerbschnittfibeln” (Böhme 1986) in both the Continental and English literature and I shall use this term rather than Suzuki’s. Suzuki’s term “Saxon Style” is biased because it connects this particular style and the brooches too strongly to one Germanic tribe that we believe may have dwelt only in the Elbe-Weser region in the Migration period (4th – 5th century AD). Applying this term to the equal arm brooch style would not be accurate in view of the fact that to date a connection between equal arm brooches and the Saxons lacks conclusive evidence.

In 1974, Böhme listed 41 brooches from north-west and north-east German contexts, including some insignificant fragments, and in 1977 Evison added 13 finds from England. I shall briefly discuss their archaeological context, as this may be an important factor in the following discussion about equal arm brooch chronology and style, and its meaning to both its wearers and makers. Most of the equal arm brooches in my catalogue were found in northwest Germany and England, but just three come from the

The generally accepted view on the emergence of the equal arm brooch style is that the people dwelling between the Elbe and Weser developed it after the style of Roman military art. This art style of the late 4th century occurred predominantly on Roman military belt equipment, which was widely spread across the northern part of the Limes (map 2).1 The term “Equal Arm Brooch Style” is an appropriate term to describe this style because it takes into account the fact that the people living between Elbe and Weser not only incorporated an antique style into their own metalwork but also developed it further. While in the Roman army mainly belt fittings were 1

2 I have to emphasise at this stage that unfortunately I was not able to work with the finds themselves. Therefore I had to rely on pictures and drawings. 3 The equal arm brooch fragments from Spong Hill, crem. 2376 (no. 64), Mahlstedt (single find in a settlement, no. 65), and Liebenau, crem. 57 d (no. 66) were found too late to be incorporated into chapter 2. However, they are presented on figs. 25-27, on the maps and on table 1. 4 I have gathered a great amount of this thesis’ collection of equal arm brooches from earlier collective publications, such as Roeder (1930 and 1933), Böhme (1974 and 1986), Evison (1977) and Schuldt (1949, 1955 and 1976). I have also added new finds such as the equal arm brooch from Issendorf 3532, 3536 and Otterndorf, Gr. 10. I am most grateful to Dr. H. Hamerow for leaving S. Chadwick-Hawkes’ notes of the Hasketon 009 fragment to me to incorporate it.

e.g., Plettke 1921, Böhme 1974, Genrich 1954, Ager 1985

4

Netherlands and one example originated in Belgium. In addition to these finds we have a further group of equal arm brooches requiring special treatment. These were adorned with punched instead of chip carved decoration and mainly originated in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, the most north-easterly Bundesland of Germany (map 3). This group has been much neglected in earlier West German studies and has only been recognised as a separate group in East German and more recent works.5 These studies also show that this group was not restricted to Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, but also spread across northeast Schleswig-Holstein. I shall nevertheless refer to them as the “Mecklenburg type”, because MecklenburgVorpommern remains the place with the greatest number of finds. The analysis of this important group and its special decoration and motifs shall be presented in chapter 2 and that of their point of origin in chapter 3.

Text fig. 4: Supporting arm brooches with trapezoid foot

arm brooches developed from the supporting arm brooches with trapezoid footplate (text fig. 4). These forerunners of the equal arm brooches were also used to fasten a cloak around the wearer’s shoulders. Böhme argues that the function of the equal arm brooches as a single cloak-fastener was also taken over from the supporting arm brooches (Böhme 1998:441). Plettke and Roeder (see above) suggest that the craftsmen’s intention was both to cover the axis bar and spring and create a broader head plate so that they could apply decoration to it more easily. This decoration quickly changed from early punched6 to chip-carved style decoration, adopting motifs from the Roman world. This typical Roman-style decoration includes floral scrollwork and palmettes on the head and footplates and occasionally the bow. It is also represented by friezes of animals (quadrupeds and sea-animals) crouching along the borders and chasing each other around the edges of both plates. The common assumption is that, while earlier types of brooches only display these friezes along the inner edges, the later examples also include friezes/animal depiction along the outer rims.7 These animals, however, are of a different kind and are depicted as a whole or as pars pro toto (e.g. only a head or a head and the front paws), looking backwards or forwards. In contrast, on the friezes we often find a procession of quadrupeds or sea-creatures, all of them looking in the same direction on either side of the brooch’s horizontal axis. These friezes are a main characteristic of certain types of equal arm brooches (e.g. Nesse and Nesse 2). The earliest type, however, the “Vorform” (“pre-form”) Seraing and the later Hannover brooches do not show any animals at all, neither as friezes nor in the main fields of decoration. The Sahlenburg type which is said to represent an early stage in the development of equal arm brooches between the “pre-form” and the later brooches with animal friezes, only shows little animal heads stretching out from the two inner corners of each plate.8

A detailed typology of all equal arm brooches shall also follow in Chapter 2, but it may help at the outset to give a brief overview of the motifs that distinguish the various types of equal arm brooches from each another.

Text fig. 3: Hamoor, Holstein

Only the aforementioned Mecklenburg type of equal arm brooches consists of punched decoration (text fig. 3), while the great majority of equal arm brooches are decorated using the chip carving technique (text fig. 1). According to Plettke and Roeder (in Böhme 1974), the equal

5 In 1921, Plettke offered a typology of eight series that was meant to present a chronological development of the equal arm brooches. This development, Plettke suggested, was led by the intention of the Germanic craftsmen to create a brooch with a head- and footplate of equal length. Plettke also argued that equal arm brooches with punched decoration (series 3-5) were predecessors to their chip-carved relatives (series 6-8) (Plettke 1921: 21). In 1974, Böhme refuted this in his “Germanische Grabfunde des 4. bis 5. Jahrhunderts zwischen unterer Elbe und Loire; he argues that the equal arm brooches with punched decoration were a development of the regions north and north east of the Elbe (Böhme 1974 and 1986). He presents three examples from Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and one from Schleswig-Holstein and suggests that the equal arm brooches produced in the area north east of the Elbe were influenced by the Scandinavian Sösdala Style rather than Roman metalwork. E.Schuldt (1949, 1955 and 1976), however, recognised these brooches as a separate, but nevertheless closely related group to the north-west German equal arm brooches. (One of these brooches has been lost in WWII; E. Schuldt included this brooch, from ProgreßDreilützow, in his corpus, however (1948-49:114)

6 These brooches with punch mark decoration are not to be confused with the Mecklenburg type. 7 e.g. Böhme 1974; this “common assumption”, however, needs some more detailed explanation, which has to follow in chapter 3 8 I am using the passive here because I do not agree with the general chronology. However, this debate is part of the discussion and would be beyond the scope of the introductory chapter. It will be discussed and furthered in chapter 3.

5

6

7

which they were executed in the period after the Roman Empire collapsed.

Dösemoor type brooches, which do not have animal friezes at the outer edges, display a different Roman motif, also taken from the decoration of belt equipment: the egg-and-tongue or egg-and-reel motif. On parts of Roman belt equipment, this motif is found as either a separate tubular fitting or just as a decorative final band of the main buckle plate.

1.3 Compositional Elements and socio-cultural Considerations

The derivation of these specifically antique style elements (egg-and-reel and egg-and-tongue motifs, animal friezes, tendrils and scrollwork) shall be discussed in chapter 2. Tendrils and scrollwork represent the main motif on the equal arm brooches’ head and footplate and the connecting bow. On the latter they appear singly, indicating a vine tendril, or if more stylised smaller scrolls may be connected to each other in order to create heart-shaped palmettes and pelta forms.

Here, in the final part of my introduction I would like to briefly introduce the various compositional elements that make up the equal arm brooches’ decoration. I shall do this with the aid of the schematic frame presented in text fig. 2. This frame clarifies the description and presentation of the decoration of the equal arm brooches. It will lead to less confusion when talking about the way the decoration was applied to different parts of the brooches’ surface and edges.

As we have seen, the elements of decoration vary little, but the variety of their composition (that I shall present in chapter 2) makes it clear that all the brooches are different and we cannot find two the same.9 I shall consider both the individual motifs (such as the types of animals used in the friezes) and the final composition of these.

This schematic framework is intended as an aid to my discussion of the social implications and meanings of decoration. In my view, a discussion of the motifs and style without a schematic framework may lead to confusion rather than understanding due to the complexity of the various motifs on the equal arm brooches. We need to comprehend the motifs and their chronological order before we can attempt to assess their social significance.11

I shall use the first part of chapter 2 to introduce in more detail the compositional elements that will help to analyse the style of the equal arm brooches. It will serve as the basis for the discussion which follows and will help to explain this particular style’s separation from other Roman and Germanic styles. It will also clarify the debate about the chronology and distribution as well as the social and cultural importance of the brooches. This debate shall be developed further in Chapter 3 and is of particular interest because this brooch type “immigrated” with its makers and owners to England in the 5th century and in its latest stages developed some peculiarities that were not influenced by continental art styles. This has not previously been discussed comprehensively.

This kind of schematic framework has not yet been assembled for equal arm brooches. One reason for this may be that the brooches’ decoration appears to be relatively straightforward at first glance. This, however, is a superficial judgement that shows little understanding of the brooches’ motifs: A closer look at the brooches will reveal that the metal is completely overloaded with motifs of various kinds: floral décor, small crouching animals and also geometrical patterns. The schematic framework I propose will enable a better understanding of the motifs and the significance of the stylistic and decorative compositions.

A very significant part of the discussion will investigate, in general terms, the degree to which Roman military art influenced the development of equal arm brooches. The connection between the Late Roman art style and its successors in the Northern Germanic world10 of the Early Medieval Ages will be considered in more detail in chapter 4. In this chapter the question of how the style was transmitted and possible reasons for that transmission shall be developed further. I shall discuss whether it was more likely that Roman craftsmen travelled beyond the Limes and developed the style of the Saxon equal arm brooches or if it was skilled Germanic craftsmen who took over the Roman style so proficiently whilst still adding a Germanic twist. Chapter 4 will also deal with the transition of motifs and the technique of chip carving in

The table for the equal arm brooches consists of 9 fields of decoration, numbered from 1a to 4d according to their place on the brooch. 1a and 1b present the decoration depicted in the two main fields on the head and footplate, while no. 2 stands for the longish narrow area on the bow. 3a and 3b cover the various friezes along the outer edges and nos. 4a to 4d the crouching animals at the inner edges of the two plates. This framework should be sufficient for the description of the chip-carved equal arm brooches but it will need some adjustments for its application to the Mecklenburger examples with punched decoration and some of the English brooches.

9

11

Exceptional here are two brooches: the specimens from Dösemoor and Little Wilbraham; these two brooches may have come from the same casting form, because of their close similarity. 10 These are Nydam, Sjörup and Sösdala Styles.

J. Hines also used a very schematic frame, which proved to be very helpful when he discussed the various elements of the decoration of Great Square-Headed Brooches. (A New Corpus of Anglo-Saxon Great Square-Headed Brooches, Suffolk 1997:4 and fig. 1)

8

I shall then extensively discuss the decoration and motifs of the equal arm brooches, both the chip-carved and punch mark ones, the origins of their motifs and their place in their makers’ and wearers’ social and material culture. Before the results are represented in chapter 5, some significant questions on the meaning of style and the connection of the style to the Late Roman world shall be considered in Chapter 4. Several archaeologists and anthropologists have already attempted to find an approach to the meaning of style in general (e.g. Hodder 1991, Speake 1980, Conkey and Hastorf 1990, Suzuki 2000). Of special importance for the discussion of the style of equal arm brooches, however, is the meaning of the motifs depicted on Late Roman belt equipment and the equal arm brooches (e.g. Böhme 1974 and 1986, Roth 1979).12 These approaches agree that style was not without meaning: it is able to tell us something about its wearer, maker and the world in which it was made. This is especially true for items made in the Migration period. Suzuki argues that: “… It has been observed that times of social stress and instability- such as the periods under consideration – may give rise to heightened self-awareness of cultural identity and a correspondingly emphatic appropriation of material culture for its expression.” (Suzuki 2000: 19) Suzuki’s approach was adapted to the style and decoration of the quoit brooches of late Romano-British/early Anglo-Saxon England. His view on style and its meaning, however, is a general one and shall, along with other views, be applied in my study of the motifs and decorative style of the equal arm brooches. I shall look at their animal designs while also including the geometric and floral ornament. The decoration and ornament must always, however, be situated in the temporal and spatial contexts of their moment of production. Finally, in discussing and analysing a specific style we first need to consider the material it was applied to – in this case, the equal arm brooches.

12 We should not forget that in terms of the equal arm brooches we should be dealing with two spheres of Late Antiquity and early medieval “thinking” and perception. It was a Roman style that was copied here, but its wearers, and probably also makers, were of Germanic origin.

9

Chapter 2 The Motifs

“And it is this; that if you desire the Super-induce, any Vertue or Disposition, upon a person, you should take the Living Creature, in which that Vertue is most Eminent, and in Perfection: of that Creature you must take the Parts, wherein that Vertue chiefly is Collocate: Againe, you must take those Parts, in the Time and Act, when that Vertue is most in Exercise; And then you must apply it to that Part of Man, wherein that Vertue chiefly Consisteth. As if you would Super-induce Courage and Fortitude, take a Lion, or a Cocke; And take the Heart, Tooth or Paw of the Lion; or the Heart, or the Spurre of the Cocke: Take those parts immediately after the Lion, or the Cocke have been in a Fight; and let them be worne, upon a Man’s Heart, or Wrest.” (Bacon,F. Sylva Sylvarum or A natural history in ten Centuries, London 1627) why we do not find two identical equal arm brooches (Böhme 1974:92).13 There are also no identical pieces of chip-carved Roman belt equipment, which suggests that the making of both brooches and belt plates involved lost wax method.

2.1 Introduction In this chapter I shall concentrate on the external appearance of equal arm brooches. I shall deal with their manufacture, where and how they were worn and finally I shall give a detailed description of the motifs with which the brooches are adorned. I shall argue that the way in which equal arm brooches were worn and the archaeological context in which they were found play a significant role in understanding their social role.

Chip carving was probably first introduced to the Germanic people through the late Roman military belt fittings that were extensively decorated in that particular technique. There is no reason to believe that this technology originated in the Germanic area; it had long been established in the Roman world before the Germanic tribes adopted it. However, in addition to the technique of chip carving specific motifs and designs were also adopted by native people outside the Roman Empire and used to adorn Germanic dress fasteners and jewellery (Holmqvist 1955:14).

It is important to briefly discuss the manufacture of the brooches. This will introduce the technique in which the brooches were worked and explain why it was specially chosen for the motifs displayed. Equal Arm Brooch Style was executed in the Late Roman technique of chip carving (“Kerbschnitt”). This metalworking technique involves the craftsman having specialised knowledge of the material. The melted bronze was first cast into a precarved form and then reworked with chisel and awl in order to give the edges the intended width and height. Böhme suggests that Roman belt equipment was mainly produced in the “lost wax technique” (“Wachsausschmelzverfahren”). A characteristic of the lost wax technique was that each mould was destroyed during the manufacturing process as it had to be smashed in order to access the cooled item. This would explain

While the Roman belt equipment was mainly made of bronze, the Germanic craftsmen also used silver for this technique and its style. Some of the equal arm brooches were even mercury-gilt (“feuer-vergoldet”) and then pol13 This is not quite right. There are two brooches (the finds from Dösemoor and Little Wilbraham) which are astonishingly similar. In this case it has been suggested that one mould could have produced two or more brooches (e.g. Roth 1979:54). Unfortunately no final result of this problem can be presented here, because I did not have the opportunity to directly analyse both brooches.

10

have considered this as a very significant period in his lifetime.

ished in order to make them more reflective (compare colour plate A). The final result is brooches that seem to sparkle because of highly polished, multifaceted surfaces. It may be that the particular aesthetic properties of the uneven surfaces produced by chip carving technique were part of the reason why this style of ornament became so popular in some regions outside the Roman Empire. A. Riegl describes the chip-carved bronzes in 1923 (translated and revised by R. Winkes in 1985) and finds them hardly attractive due to their confusing range of different patterns. He says that their main characteristic is a lack of any horizontal plane:

If we compare the decoration of the equal arm brooches (i.e. brooches of the types Dösemoor and Nesse (text fig. 1 + fig. 1.9) to the style used to decorate late Roman military belt equipment (e.g. belt fittings of the Type Chécy and special types from Rhenen, grave 846 (fig. 2) and Abbeville/Somme (fig. 3.20-23)) we find astonishing similarities between the two. This seems to show clearly that the equal arm brooch style, which occurred on brooches that were part of the female dress costume, was transferred to this position from military belt equipment worn by men. Considering the positions in which this style was displayed we can see that this also changed: while the military belt and decorated belt buckle and hooks were worn around the hips, it seems very likely that the equal arm brooches were worn in the middle of the women’s chest. In that place they probably fastened a cloak or cape that was worn over the dress.

“… There are just lines without width, which form the highest reliefs as well as the deepest engraving. Besides the outer frame in the form of pearls, which separates the ornamental fields from one another, the entire plane appears, so to say, to be made out of notch-like ridges and depressions, whereby the tops of the ridges as well as the bottom of the depression are reduced to the ideal width of the line. One may perceive this technique rightfully or not as positive (relief) or negative (engraving).“ (Riegl 1923: 164, translated by R. Winkes 1985)

It is worth discussing this in more detail. Only 14 of the 63 equal arm brooches in this study were found in inhumation graves15:

Riegl argued that the background and actual motif are difficult to distinguish. Both are forced upon the observer and the lack of clarity about which is the pattern and which is its background was intended (ibid.:165). Riegl’s view appears to be correct: The chip-carving technique as a decoration is intended to play with light and shade, because most of the time one of the two slanted sides will be in the light and the other will remain in the shade. This creates a never-ending change of reflection for the eyes of the observer and it may be suggested that this ambiguity of style and motifs represented an attraction to the Germanic people outside the Roman borders. I have already indicated that it was not only the equal arm brooches that were adorned in chip carving, though they may be the most elaborate examples. Saucer brooches were decorated with scrollwork executed in chip carving technique and there is also a very nicely developed example of a supporting arm brooch from Riensförde that was likewise adorned. It should be pointed out here that these brooches were part of the female costume and probably not worn by men. The significance of this point lies in the fact that in the Roman world chip carving mainly adorned military belt equipment worn by men. This is also the reason why especially this kind of ornament and metalworking technique came into contact with the Germanic people between the Elbe and Weser. Many of these late Roman military belt fittings were found in Germanic graves beyond the Limes. This is because Germanic men often served in the Roman army and brought their equipment home afterwards (Böhme 1974: 188). That we find this in their graves as grave goods14 may lead to the assumption that a Germanic man who had served in the Roman army (and also his family/tribe in his Germanic homeland), may

26. Little Wilbraham (uncertain)16 29. Mucking, Gr. 983 (not published) 30. Westgarth Gardens, Gr. 55 (⋈, fig. 4.1) 31. Mucking, Gr. 673 (not published) 32. Mucking, Gr. 90 (X (arms facing up- and downwards, fig. 4.2) 33. Collingbourne Ducis, Gr. 6 (⋈, on the upper right arm, fig. 4.3) 35. Berinsfield, Gr.8 (uncertain, fig. 4.4)17 36. Issendorf, Inhumation 3536 (⋈, fig. 5.1) 45. Nesse, Gr. 3 (not published) 48. Sahlenburg, Inhumation 19 (⋈, fig. 5.2+3)18 15 The brackets after the graves represent the direction, in which the arms of the equal arm brooch were facing at the time of burial. 16 The brooch was first published in 1852 by Neville (Saxones Obsequies), but without any plans of the graves. 17 The woman in grave 8 at Berinsfield seems to have used the equal arm brooch as the second shoulder brooch to fasten her dress. The equal arm brooch was found on the left shoulder, while for the right shoulder a very simple, plain disc brooch was used (fig. 4.4). However, the equal arm brooch was found in a diagonal position; it is not entirely clear how it was worn (Boyle et al. 1995:152, grave 8). 18 K. Waller published the graves from Sahlenburg in 1938. However, in his study he does not mention the exact position in which the equal arm brooch was found (fig. 5.2). His grave plans indicate that it lay in

14 The term “grave-goods” in this case includes the possibility that the dead man had actually worn the belt equipment and was given his weapons when he was buried or cremated.

11

63. Issendorf, Inhumation 3523 (uncertain, the reconstruction shows the brooch being worn diagonally, text fig. 5) The other equal arm brooches were found in cremations, unprovenanced or as a hoard or depot in a bog or house. They are, of course, of no help in determining how and in which position on the body equal arm brooches were worn. Only inhumations can be of any help here and then only if the body was laid down stretched out on its back in the grave and not crouched.21 Of the 14 abovelisted inhumations only 9 grave plans were actually published and another one is only accessible in a reconstruction (Issendorf 3532, text fig.5). On the basis of this reconstruction and the plans of the graves, we must assume that in general equal arm brooches were worn singly in the central part of the woman’s chest.22 Grave 8 at Berinsfield, however, shows the equal arm brooch in the position of a shoulder brooch. The other exception is the brooch from Issendorf, Inhumation 3536. This brooch shared its place on the woman’s chest with two smaller bow brooches. While in almost all other cases the equal arm brooch was worn on the upper part of the body, this one probably fastened a dress-item at navel-height. Böhme argued that Inhumation 3536 was the grave of a woman, who still had an “old-fashioned” brooch – the equal arm brooch-, but used it to fasten the new fashionable “Frankish cloak” (Böhme 1998:449 and Abb.11, here fig. 5.1). In my list above I also showed the direction in which the arms of the brooch were facing (⋈/X). It seems that they were mainly worn with their arms facing left and right, instead of up and one down. Therefore, in former publications the brooches were probably viewed from the “wrong” angle. We need to turn them 90 degrees in order to see what the early medieval people saw when looking at them. However, I agree that the discussion of their motifs may be easier when published in the old-fashioned way, because this matches our modern “understanding of symmetry”. Recently, however, archaeologists have tended to change the presentation of dress ornaments and publish them according to how they were worn, instead of showing them in the way we want to look at them or in a manner that pleases our modern eye. I support this trend as in order to understand the motifs and the way they were seen, the brooches need to be illustrated and exhibited in the way the medie-

Text fig. 5: Issendorf 3532 reconstruction

49. Aalden (not published) 50. Zweeloo, Gr. 87, (⋈, fig. 5.4 and fig. 6.2+3)19 59. Otterndorf, Gr. 10 (uncertain, fig. 5.6 and fig. 7)20 the centre of the dead woman’s chest, but unfortunately it does not show the direction in which it was facing Waller 1938: 60, Abb. 15). Böhme (1998:Abb.2), however, believed that the brooch was worn as shown in fig. 5.3). 19 van Es and Ypey only reconstructed the undergarment and jewellery (fig. 6.1). Fig. 6.3 represents how a cloak may have been fastened with an equal arm brooch. 20 The woman was buried in a crouched position, laying on her right side. The original position of the equal arm brooch may have changed, when the body was lowered down into the grave. (Schön 1999:Abb.28).

21

see footnote 16 I have to emphasise, however, that the data is very poor. It is very difficult to come to an overall result when so little data is available. Therefore, my results can be considered as preliminary and must remain speculative until further studies of equal arm brooches find a more efficient way to deal with the above-mentioned difficulties. 22

12

val eye looked at them.23 Therefore, I shall present them in a new, or rather, “the old, medieval” way.24

I shall argue that the shape as well as the decoration of an equal arm brooch was of great importance to its wearer. Equal arm brooches were clearly displayed and no doubt very eye catching due to the constant play of light and shade on their surfaces. However, Riegl argues that the motifs on equal arm brooches were confusing due to their execution in chip carving and that they were not easily visible at all (comp. page 10), but he was discussing their interior design and not their outline and overall impression. My argument is that the motifs themselves were not meant to prompt the most significant visual impact in the first place. The brooches’ main visual characteristics were their reflection of sun or firelight and, of course, the contrast of their outline against the matt fabric upon which they were pinned. The specific shape or background of an object catches the eye first and is what is recognised, even from a greater distance. Therefore, the brooches’ were easily placed into a context by their outline rather than by their smaller motifs, which were not as easily recognisable. Suzuki argues that,

Böhme argues that equal arm brooches, like other brooches, belong to a certain early medieval “Fibeltracht” (Böhme 1998:435-441). In general, “Fibeltracht” describes the way in which brooches were worn traditionally and in combination with others. Equal arm brooches seemed to be part of a “großem Dreiersatz” (Vierck 1978:245). This means that the woman wore two smaller brooches on her shoulders (e.g. disc or tutulus brooches) to fasten a “peplos-dress”, and may have covered this with a cloak that was held in place with a bigger brooch (e.g. fig. 8.2-5+7). I should add that, again, the evidence is rather poor, especially because 22 equal arm brooches came from cremations, where smaller brooches may have been melted in the pyre. 13 finds were of an uncertain kind and 7 were single finds. This makes it very difficult to determine a “general way” in which equal arm brooches were worn. A “großer Dreiersatz”, however, seems most likely and certainly was eminent at Zweeloo, Gr. 87; Mucking, Gr. 90 and Issendorf, Inhumation 3532, but in other cases, such as Collingbourne Ducis, Gr. 6, the equal arm brooch seems to have been the only brooch.

“Shape is, after all, one of the most salient attributes in perceptual terms, ranking highest in the visibility hierarchy. The adoption of a particular shape has greater potential than nearly any other feature for signalling one’s identity and position in society. It may therefore be reasonable to extrapolate that the people reacted to the resources available to them at the time in a similar fashion.” (Suzuki 2000:84)

It is important to point out that the equal arm brooch, as it was the fastener of a cloak or cape, was probably not covered by any other dress-item. That means, while any other possible jewellery, even brooches that fastened the undergarment, may not have been visible, equal arm brooches were clearly displayed.

In this particular case Suzuki is discussing quoit brooches, but I believe that what he says here is valid not only for quoit brooches but may be generally applied to most areas of the visual arts. This is certainly of relevance to equal arm brooches as a brooch type displaying art. Suzuki argues that shape is an important factor in visual arts and that shape is the first peculiarity that people would notice. Therefore, I will argue below that the shape of equal arm brooches evolved (in part) from the native brooch shapes of the supporting arm brooches, which represented a link in the tradition of Germanic brooch making. The evidence for this lies in the type “Seraing” brooches, which were of equal arm shape, but adorned with the notch decoration of supporting arm brooches (text figs. 6, 7 and 8).

Two specimens of the Nesse and Nesse 2 types were significantly bigger than any other brooch the deceased was wearing (compare table 4)25. As some of the specimens had drilled holes (i.e. Sutton Courtenay and Quelkhorn, no 52) and others were executed in openwork technique, Roeder suggested that they might have been fastened with extra beaded strings in order to balance their great weight (Roeder 1930:117, footnote 75).

23 It does seem most likely, though, that equal arm brooches were worn with their arms facing to the left and to the right. There is not much evidence that can prove either way, but logically after wrapping the cloak around one’s shoulders, it would be much easier to push the pin of the brooch through the material on one’s right, if right-handed, first, and then through the material on the left. This would automatically leave the two arms of the brooch on either side. Wanting the arms of the equal arm brooch facing up and down would indicate that both edges of the cloak would have to be superimposed over the chest first, before the brooch could fasten the material. I bought an equal arm brooch replica in order to find out how it worked and tried to fasten a “cloak” both ways – the result was that the “cloak” was much looser when fastened from right to left. A pleasant fit could be only achieved if the brooch was used in the way that I described first. It would also have been easier to change the fit according to the circumstances (the three matrones on the altar of the Matrones Aufaniae, AD 164, also wore their cloak in this fashion, figs. 9 + 10). 24 I am most grateful to Dr. Carola Metzner-Nebelsick, who supported my idea of how to present the brooches with helpful comments and much advice. 25 Collingbourne Ducis, Gr. 6 (13.4 x 8.8); Westgarth Gardens, Gr. 55 (10 x 6.3 cm).

Later types, however, especially Dösemoor, seemed to have incorporated the somewhat sharper edges of Roman military belt equipment. To avoid misunderstanding I need to emphasise here that the shape of the equal arm brooches was not deliberately chosen to match the shape of Roman belt equipment. However, the outer shape of equal arm brooches does resemble some propeller shaped attachments that were part of the belt equipment in, for example, Vermand, Vert-la-Gravelle, Tongeren or Rhenen and Abbeville. The latter two even displayed little creatures crouching around the edges of their various

13

“… meiner Ansicht nach die Beachtung folgenden Erfahrungsgesetztes: Die Grundform einer Fibel bleibt unangetastet; die Änderungen betreffen nur die Details. Die erste Aufgabe eines Fibelforschers, möchte ich sagen, besteht darin, die einer Gattung immanente Konstruktionsidee aufzuspüren.” (Roeder 1930:44)29

Text fig. 6: Westerwanna Kr. Hadeln

Therefore, I would like to suggest that early equal arm brooches (“Pre-form Seraing” brooches) were deliberately chosen to display Roman motifs, instead of being especially developed for this purpose. The following enlargement of the brooches and complete coverage of the spring, however, was probably connected to the adoption of Roman motifs. A more generous surface was required that was extensive enough to carry a number of motifs in a particular scheme, which hardly needed adjustment when people transferred them to equal arm brooches.

decorative plates (see fig. 2 and 3.20-23).26 The equal arm brooch from Mucking, grave 637, which shows only reduced motifs and does not seem to resemble the original equal arm brooches of the Continent, finds its Roman counterpart in the belt equipment from Walberla (Ehrenbürg, figs. 11+12).27 The similar shape of the belt plates and the equal arm brooches would have struck the observer immediately; even seen from a distance their shape would obviously relate them to Roman belt equipment and this impression would grow stronger on closer inspection.

This scheme is standardised on most belt equipment and even more stereotyped on equal arm brooches (figs 1+2). The central motif is always a decoration composed of different scrollwork patterns and the edges are either decorated with tubular fittings (real or fake ones)30, eggand-reel or egg-and-tongue motifs and/or crouching and hunting animals. Now, after introducing the shape of equal arm brooches I want to give a detailed description of the motifs indicated above. I shall not, however, explain or interpret them now, as this is part of the later discussion and will be undertaken in chapters 4 and 5. Instead I shall present the brooches in a suitable chronological order. This chronology does not coincide with the chronology suggested in recent studies (e.g. Böhme 1974). The chronology that I shall present in detail in chapter 3 is based almost entirely on the rules of the development of style and typology. At this stage I wish only to describe the material I am working with.

I have already mentioned that the development of supporting arm brooches, the forerunners of the equal arm brooches, only took place in the region between the Elbe and Weser (e.g. Genrich 1951-52:185). Here an extra arm was attached to the heavy grown spring in order to strengthen it, and as this construction was apparently not considered presentable, the head of the brooch was enlarged in order to cover the spring and its newly developed supporting arm (some examples are given on fig. 13).28 In addition, a new style became fashionable: Roman motifs executed in chip carving technique. This decoration suited the recently developed brooches: it was certainly useful that equal arm brooches already had a shape that resembled parts of the Roman belt plates and did not need much adjustment other than in size. It made them suitable to carry Roman motifs, but they also remained in harmony with the general development of supporting arm brooches. Roeder, who determined a typology for equal arm brooches emphasised the most important rule in the development of shape, construction and style:

29 “… In my opinion we should always pay attention to the following rule: The basic appearance of a fibula never changes; the changes only apply to details. The first task of a “brooch research scientist” [translator’s brackets] should be to determine the brooches’ basic construction idea.” Translated by the author. 30 “Real” tubular fittings were not cast in one part with the belt plates, but extra pieces that were attached to the sharp inner edges of the adjoining belt plates (figs. 14.1-2 and 15.11-12). “Fake” fittings were not extra parts, but instead cast in one piece with the belt plate (or brooch – e.g. Anderlingen, fig. 15.16).

26 Compare Bullinger 1969, Abb.13.1 (Vermand), 15.2 (Vert-laGravelle), Tafel XVIII, 2. (Tongeren) and Abb. 34.2 (Rhenen) and Böhme 1974, Taf. 114, Abb. 1-4 (Abbeville). 27 Walberla (Ehrenbürg) b. Kirchehrenbach, Oberfranken, Germany (Bullinger 1969:Abb.46.2 and p.93, Nr.179) 28 Böhme describes the development of the supporting arm brooches extensively in his Germanische Grabfunde des 4. und 5. Jahrhunderts zwischen unterer Elbe und Loire, 1974.

14

2.2 “Pre-form Seraing” (figs. 16 +17)31

fairly long and its decoration is typical of supporting arm brooches, though it has a shorter, wider bow. The equal arm brooch from Seraing seems to be more thickset, although it bears the same incised horizontal lines and punch marks on its foot, as do its forerunners with supporting arm and the brooch from Westerwanna, Inv. No. 73:06. The peculiarity of equal arm brooches is that they do not have the long narrow bow of the supporting arm brooches, but rather a short and sturdy one. This was necessary, because both foot and head plate were much heavier and in need of a short bow that would not break with their weight. For this reason we may only assume that the two fragments from Westerwanna (1988b and 611:2)36 were once equal arm brooches. Only the piece from grave 1988b probably bore the above-mentioned decoration. Both the horizontal lines on the footplate and vertical lines on the bow are very much like the ones on the brooch from Seraing and it seems to have had the same sturdy bow. This is not so clear on the other fragment, because it bears a decoration which is unique and distinguishes it from other equal arm and supporting arm brooches: horizontal lines on the bow.37

Text fig. 7: Seraing

There are seven brooches in this specific group: the brooch from Seraing (Belgium) itself (fig. 16.3+4), one from Wijster (Netherlands, fig. 17.2), four fragments from Westerwanna (fig. 16.1,2,5,7)32 and one specimen from Otterndorf, gr. 10 (fig. 17.9). It is particularly unfortunate that we do not have more brooches of this pre-form from North West Germany, as one of the two better preserved ones comes from Belgium. These two are nevertheless very fine examples. They are hardly damaged and we can clearly see that both their two arms are of equal length. The decoration of the Seraing brooch is almost symmetrical and strongly resembles the decoration of supporting arm brooches. Considering the footplate of brooches such as the example from Westerwanna, grave 1761 (Böhme 1974, Tafel 53.3) we can see that the decoration on both is very similar. The typical decoration of supporting arm brooches’ footplates mainly consists of small notches along the side edges of the foot trapeze. These notches may be small and trapezoid-shaped or longer and narrow. Usually both are combined. This ornament does not change in the evolution of the supporting arm brooches (compare text figs. 6-9). We find it on the longish brooches without the trapezoid footplate33, on brooches with a small trapezoid footplate34 and brooches with wider footplates, as the above-mentioned brooch from Westerwanna, grave 1761. As these brooches represent an evolutionary line that goes together with the extension of the supporting arm, we may assume that the Seraing brooch is only the last stage in that development. A slightly earlier stage may be represented by the brooch from Westerwanna, Inv. No. 73:0635. This brooch is still fairly long and its decoration

The shape of the almost complete strayfind from Westerwanna38 looks very much like the brooch from Seraing. Its bow’s section is trapezoid, but this is not unusual for supporting arm brooches. The trapezoid bow may be also found on the finds from Ketzendorf (Böhme 1974, Taf. 24,3) or Wehden (ibid.:Taf. 42,9). The latter example even has a similar groove decoration. The Seraing brooch and the third stray find from Westerwanna, are reasonable examples for a genuine intermediate stage in the development of the equal arm brooches. The brooch from Otterndorf-Westerwörden, grave 10, is not very well preserved, but its remains tell us nevertheless that it must have been an exquisite piece of metalwork. The excavation revealed that it was made of silver but covered with a very thin gold foil. It also bore a symmetrical punched decoration (Schön 1999:142-43). Schön argued that this equal arm brooch, although it has been preserved in such poor condition, could be related to the “Vorform Seraing” brooches rather than to the Mecklen-

catalogue because, after comparing it to supporting arm brooches that have a similarly shaped foot plate (e.g. Böhme 1974: Tafel 19, 8 and 9) it seems that these have a long, narrow bow and not the shorter version of the Westerwanna brooch. We can surmise its original length, because a distinct curve remains where the bow went over to a head plate. This proves that the bow was shorter and wider than supporting brooches’ bows. Therefore it is fairly likely that this brooch was also a prototype equal arm brooch. 36 Compare fig. 16. 37 Roeder (1930, p. 119 and 120, Textabbildung 79) argues that this fragment probably was part of a equal arm brooch and despite its unique decoration I see no reason to question this. The bow seems to be fairly short and rather broad, which is a peculiarity of the equal arm brooches’ bow. 38 This stray find is not included in Aust’s publication of the Westerwanna cemetery. It is a recent find that was first presented by Böhme 1986, p.528. The find does not seem to have a number.

31 All brooches in my catalogue were assigned an individual number, e.g. “Bliedersdorf, no 13”, which should help to avoid confusion of the 66 equal arm brooches. The numbers may be found on tables, maps and catalogue. In the catalogue the number may be found in the lower left corner of each frame. 32 Roeder 1930, Tafel XIII.1 and Textabbildung 79; Böhme 1986:p.528, Abbildung 50.3 33 Compare brooch from the Westerwanna and Wiepenkathen single finds, Böhme 1974, Tafel 57.2 and 16. 34 Böhme 1974, Tafel 46.1 35 Roeder (1930:109-110) considers this fragment an equal arm brooch, but as part of the head plate is missing it is difficult to tell whether the head was actually the same shape as the foot plate. I included it in my

15

types of equal arm brooches were developed.41 The map he presents makes his argument appear plausible and another suggestion can be added here in its support. Generally, equal arm brooches did not exist for a very long time and if all the different types that we know of were diverse stages of one line of development, the single types would have been extremely short-lived. Therefore, it seems reasonable to support the argument that some of them may have been regional varieties coexisting with others side by side. The equal arm brooches of the Mecklenburg type were clearly a regional variety and so may have been Dösemoor, Nesse and the smaller brooches.

burg type, because it was probably cast and a little bigger than its eastern relatives (ibid.:143).

2.3 Dösemoor

I have already mentioned that the Dösemoor brooches were distinguished from the Nesse type by the geometrical border along the horizontal outer edges of head and footplate (zones 3a and 3b). I was able to locate thirteen brooches of this type. Four of these come from England (Haslingfield, Sutton Courtenay, Empingham (fig. 18.1-3) and Little Wilbraham (fig. 19.1) and the remaining nine from Northern Germany (Westerwanna 1912:4542, Granstedt43, Anderlingen, Issendorf 3536 and 3532 (colour plate A and fig. 24), Perlberg, 64/1949, Quelkhorn (nos. 17 and 52) and, of course, the Dösemoor brooch itself, fig. 19.2-4).

Text fig. 8: Dösemoor

The main motif in the centre of both plates and on top of the bow was very vividly expressed in scrollwork that was executed in chip carving. The centres of the head and footplate often carried two big tendrils, symmetrical to each other and with smaller leaf-like offshoots that seemed to grow out of the bigger scrolls.44 It has often been mentioned that in the Elbe-Weser region Roman motifs were executed more vividly and naturally. Haseloff, who discussed the Roman elements in Germanic jewellery, argues that

The Dösemoor Type is the first of the two fully developed types. The other is the Nesse type and will be discussed in the following section. Essentially both brooch types are adorned with similar style elements. The only difference is the decoration of the horizontal edges (marked 3a and 3b in text fig.2). While the Dösemoor brooches are somewhat smaller and adorned with egg-and-tongue motifs, tubular fittings or its derivations, the Nesse type brooches display a parade or procession of crouching animals. Both types, however, have animals crouching along the inner edges of the head and footplate (4a – 4d). Plettke, Roeder and Böhme believe that Dösemoor and Nesse brooches were two different stages in the development of equal arm brooches, in which Dösemoor would precede Nesse.39 Genrich40, however, gives a different explanation for the occurrence of the two types. Instead of a chronological development he suggested a spatial divergence for these two types and the smaller varieties (e.g. types Wehden or Sahlenburg). He argues that these types were contemporary but while the smaller brooches were concentrated in the region between Weser and Oste, the Nesse and Dösemoor types seemed to be a Western variety with a focus on the southern banks of the Elbe. In the centre between the two rivers, a region called “Teufelsmoor” is located. This area had always created a natural barrier in the countryside. It was too infertile to be valuable for dwellings and also difficult to cross. Therefore two niches developed both east and west of it and Genrich believed that in each niche different regional

“… In spätantiker Zeit […] die Spiralranke so erstarrt [ist], dass der vegetabile Ursprung mehr oder weniger verlorengegangen ist. An ihre Stelle ist eine geometrische Spiralornamentik getreten. Die Qualität der Spiralranken auf den gleicharmigen Fibeln ist wesentlich besser als auf provinzialrömischen Arbeiten. Die Spiralen wirken sehr 41 Compare map. 4, taken from Tischler 1956:98 (after Genrich 1951/52:189, Abb.5). 42 There were three fragments of either one or two brooches. 43 It has been argued that this brooch, which is made up of four different pieces, was actually two brooches (Roeder 1930:123+124, Abbildung 82 and Tafel XV, 1-2.) In footnote 81 Roeder explains that all four pieces came from different parts of the Granstedt cemetery, as two unassociated finds and two from a grave, but as their ornamentation and size is identical he believes that they were cast from the same form. In my opinion it cannot be said for certain that they were cast from the same form, because all but two of the remaining parts are not from the same area of the brooch. The two pieces from the footplate prove though that there must have been at least two brooches (fig. 20.3). Despite the fact that the parts probably belonged to two or more (it may even have been four) identical brooches, Roeder reconstructed a finalised version (compare fig. 20.4). Böhme, however, took this reconstruction for granted and displayed it as the brooch that was found cremation A (Böhme 1974:Tafel 8). 44 This may be seen most clearly on the Dösemoor brooch itself and on the examples from Anderlingen and Quelkhorn (figs. 19.2-4, 21.1+3)

39 Böhme 1974:18+19; Roeder 1930:112 (Typen 5 and 6) and Plettke 1921:24ff (Serie 8). 40 Genrich 1951/52:187+188.

16

fragment, however, because the pattern seemed to be fairly standardised.

rankenartig. Der pflanzliche Charakter kommt stark zum Ausdruck. Dies ist ein besonderes Charakteristikum der gleicharmigen Fibeln.”45

On the head plate, which was slightly bigger than the footplate, two animals found space on either side of the bow. One usually looked backwards, while its body was directed towards the bow and the other animal was facing downwards with a wide open mouth, as if it was biting the aforementioned animal head depicted in the corner of the brooch. This is seen best on the brooches from Dösemoor and Issendorf, grave 3536. Although mainly quadrupeds were depicted we also find sea-animals, i.e. animals that only had two front paws and a fish tail or even all four feet and a tail that ended in a fin. The backward looking animals on both these brooches are sea-animals with a fishtail instead of hind legs. The brooches from Little Wilbraham and Sutton Courtenay are also adorned with small fishtailed sea-creatures. The footplate was adorned with a variety of different animals, though it was mainly only one animal on each piece was depicted due to the size of the plate. The example from Sutton Courtenay presents on its footplate a pair of the sea-animals with four legs and a tail that ends in a fin (fig. 18.1). The most frequently depicted creatures are a backward looking animal that resembles a fleeing deer48 (e.g. Issendorf 3536, fig. 22.1) and forward crouching animals with long tongues (Quelkhorn, no 17, fig. 21.3).

A thin-spiralled cord, which separates the main tendril motif from the animals and egg-and-tongue motif depicting the edges usually frames the head as well as footplate and sometimes also the bow. This may be seen on the brooches from Anderlingen and Granstedt (fig. 21.1 and 20.3+4). The horizontal edges (3a and 3b) were mainly decorated with a band of the egg-and-tongue motif, as we can see on the brooches from Little Wilbraham (fig. 19.1) or Granstedt (fig. 20.3+4). Little animal heads in the corners finish off the egg-and-tongue edging. These heads are reduced to wide open muzzles, but on the Dösemoor brooch we can see that once they were fully developed animal heads with mouths, eyes and ears (fig. 19.2-4). These heads certainly are pars pro toto, meaning that they stood for whole animals that were not fully depicted due to the spatial arrangement of the brooches. Usually the egg-and-tongue motif is executed very meticulously, but on brooches from Quelkhorn and Haslingfield we can see that this was not the case all the time (figs 21.3 and 18.2). In terms of its manufacture, the example from Quelkhorn, no 17, seems to be a fairly crude piece. The scrolls are very big and the animals barely visible due to their inexact rendering. The egg-and-reel motif is reduced to a simple and uneven zigzag line. On the brooch from Haslingfield the antique motif was replaced by a sequence of parallelograms which were simply cut out of a narrow bulge (fig.18.2).

The brooches are conspicuously decorated with scrollwork and animal motifs and it seems to be quite difficult to distinguish one brooch from another. However, after comparing the brooches I want to point out here that their bows are never decorated in the same way. If we look at the bows of the Dösemoor brooches we can easily recognise that the scrollwork is different. There is only one pair that shows an identical pattern and these are the brooches from Dösemoor itself and Little Wilbraham in Cambridgeshire, England.49 Genrich suggests that both brooches were cast in the same form, but, in contrast, Böhme argues that the brooches proved to bear insignificant differences. Their size varies slightly and so does the animal decoration.50 This suggestion would support the argument that every brooch is a unique piece, because it was probably cast in “verlorener Form”. However, the fact that we have two brooches that look almost identical is even more astonishing because one is a continental and the other one an English find. It may be possible that the wearer of the English brooch knew its continental counterpart and may have been in contact with its wearer.

However, a special finish was given to the brooch from Anderlingen. This piece is the only one that had an attached tubular fitting.46 This was clearly derived from Roman military belt fittings.47 The most interesting segments of the decoration on Dösemoor brooches are without doubt the little animals that are crouching along the trapezoid edges of head and footplate. Today, the animals are often difficult to recognise on equal arm brooches found in cremations because they were usually the first parts of the equal arm brooches that melted in the pyre. We can usually judge from the 45 “… In late antiquity the scrollwork appears to be very much frozen and more or less disconnected from its floral origins. It was replaced by a geometrical pattern. The quality of the scrollwork on equal arm brooches is much more elaborate than that on provincial Roman works. The scrollwork strongly resembles a tendril and the floral character is expressed very enthusiastically. This is a special peculiarity of equal arm brooches.” (Haseloff 1978:154) Translation by the author. 46 There is another brooch (from Quelkhorn, no 17, fig. 21.4) that seems to bear a tubular fitting. It is much smaller, though and does not resemble the Roman fittings at all. The technique however must have been adopted from the Roman military belt equipment. The brooch from Quelkhorn is a rather crude example and lacks the animals on the inner edges and the scrollwork on the bow (Roeder 1930:117, Abbildung 74). 47 This tubular fitting may be seen on the piece from Namur (Böhme 1974:Taf. 93.13), the single finds from Samson (ibid.: Taf. 100,11-19 and 101,1-5) and Abbeville (ibid.: Taf. 114:1). The last example is especially interesting, because it also bears scrollwork executed in the same manner as on equal arm brooches.

48 There is an open snout stretching out either side of the bow. This is also a pair of pars pro toto animals; only the head is depicted, but probably the whole animal is symbolised. In this case it may have been an animal that was chasing the backward looking one, maybe a hunting dog. 49 It is most unfortunate that I have only a drawing of the Dösemoor find and only pictures of the brooch from Little Wilbraham. The similarities may be seen in any case, but the details, which would be of greater importance here, because they would show the differences, cannot be distinguished. The picture and the drawing look different but as the drawing is also probably interpreting many of the depicted motifs we could not be certain about the result of a comparison. 50 Genrich 1964:38 and Böhme 1974:17,footnote 26.

17

chasing each other along the inner edges of the head and footplate. However, the animals on the Nesse brooches are less crouching but rather stand upright and are depicted in a more threatening way (e.g. Nesse, text fig.11).

2.4 Nesse

There are five brooches (from Riensförde, Spong Hill, Hasketon, Nesse and probably Issendorf52) which seem to belong to a group that presented a procession of fairly compact crouching animals on the horizontal edges of head and footplate. They seem to duck and crawl rather than run after each other. There are usually two pairs of animals crawling in opposite directions and apparently they are the same on head and footplate. On the brooches from Riensförde, Spong Hill and Nesse the heads and bodies of the animals are hardly curved and the whole procession looks very much like a frieze. The other three brooches (Liebenau II/32, Zweeloo and Mahndorf) are adorned with animal processions that were not “stuck to the brooch” but consisted of fully developed creatures with curved backs and heads. The animals on the brooch from Liebenau II/32 are of a very slender, sleek species. They strongly resemble hunting dogs chasing their prey. The creatures on Mahndorf 396 and Zweeloo were executed in even clearer openwork and are now very similar to the animals on the inner edges. The animals on the brooch from Zweeloo especially developed this peculiarity and matched the style of the crouching animals on the inside perfectly (fig. 28). These animals certainly abandoned their frieze-like appearance as a marginal decoration and became of equal importance with the scrollwork in the centres of the plates. The procession on the Mahndorf brooch was probably meant to consist of more animals, as may be seen on the brooch from Zweeloo. In the centre of the procession on this brooch, we observe little body-less animal heads sticking out (fig. 30.2). These, too, were pars pro toto creatures, depicting a whole animal and probably meaning that there were more animals to follow.53 This was also the case in the animal procession on the brooch from Mahndorf. Although this example has been worked rather crudely (the scrollwork was misunderstood and the bow was decorated asymmetrically) and much of the animal decoration was probably destroyed in the pyre, we can see the little heads coming out of the centre of the procession.

Text fig. 9: Nesse

There are eight Nesse Type equal arm brooches that I would like to discuss here and these will demonstrate that there is clearly a relation between the Nesse and Dösemoor brooches. These examples come from Nesse (no 45, fig. 29.1-3), Riensförde (no 19, fig. 31.1), Issendorf (no 14, fig. 29.4), Mahndorf, Gr. 396 (fig 30.2) and Liebenau (pieces, nos. 44 and 60 fig. 30.1+3) in Niedersachsen, Germany. One fragment was found in Hasketon (Suffolk), England (no 27, fig. 31.2), and the eighth brooch was found in the grave of the “princess” of Zweeloo, Prov. Drenthe, in the Netherlands (fig. 28). On the Nesse brooches, the scrollwork is also the central motif on the head and footplate and it was mainly executed as symmetrically as we find it on the Dösemoor brooches. However, there are two exceptions to that general observation that need to be mentioned here. The brooch from Riensförde, although fragmented, enables us to compare both head and footplate51. While the footplate is depicted with tendrils in a symmetrical order, the headplate is depicted with five scrolls, one being opposite to the bow (compare Roeder’s reconstruction, fig. 31.1). This is also the case on the footplate of the brooch from Spong Hill (fig. 26), which is very similar to the piece from Riensförde. It may be argued that the combination of the brooches’ overall symmetrical character and a symmetrical order of the scrollwork on the two plates may not have been too significant.

The equal arm brooch from Liebenau II/218 (which represents an intermediate stage between Nesse and Nesse 2 and is listed under Nesse 2, fig. 32.1) is preserved in two fragments. There are still small parts of the animal processions on the head and footplate visible. While the 52 I shall only assume this because, unfortunately, about this brooch nothing else is known other than the rather crude drawing. 53 Although the label “equal arm” brooch implies that both arms of the brooches were of equal length, it should be pointed out here that this is not the case. The headplate is usually slightly bigger than the footplate. This is partly because equal arm brooches are a derivation of supporting arm brooches. The headplate needed to be larger in any case because it was part of the supporting construction that carried the heavy spring. Therefore we may find more tendrils in the centre of the headplate and bigger or more numerous animals decorating its edges.

Nesse brooches are especially related to the examples of the Dösemoor type because there are similar animals 51 Compare Roeder 1930:126-127, Abbildung 86. Böhme 1974:Tafel 34 accepted Roeder’s reconstruction.

18

Briefly summarised, we can see that original brooches of the Dösemoor and Nesse type were adorned with more or less well-executed scrollwork and moreover a rich variety of animals. There are quadrupeds, such as hares, deer, lions, horses and sea-animals (often half quadruped, half fish) of many kinds. These animals perform mainly hunting scenes and processions, which may have represented a pack of hunting dogs. Those scenes with animals and their derivation are of special interest in this study and a detailed discussion of them shall take place in chapter 4.

bear very fine, natural-looking scrollwork that is executed in shallow chip carving. The brooch from the “Provinz Hannover” is a somewhat sturdier example. Its arms were not as long and compared to them the bow appears fairly broad. The scrollwork that adorns the bow is not depicted in an extra field but touches the tendril on the head plate. It seems as if the maker conceived of the bow and plate as a single field of decoration, as the spiralled cord frames all the tendrils together and not each field singly as we have seen before. The example from Loxstedt shows less developed scrollwork on its head and footplate and the bow is decorated with little humps and half-oval tongues. These motifs were divided by incised horizontal lines. The most interesting feature though, is the thick-spiralled cord that created the finish of the horizontal edges. It clearly resembles Roman belt equipment, but in contrast to the Anderlingen and Quelkhorn brooches (figs. 21.1+4) this tube was not made separately and attached to the edges but cast with the brooch.

2.5 Hannover

2.6 Sahlenburg

remaining bits on the footplate seem to have depicted fairly natural looking animals, the fragments of the procession on the head plate are not recognisably natural anymore. I am convinced that this open-work was meant to be a similar animal procession, but it is hardly visible any more and was therefore reconstructed by Böhme as a simple open-work grid-pattern (Böhme 1974:Tafel 29, 12).

Text fig. 10: Hannover

This type has not been distinguished before and I shall suggest the name “Hannover” in the absence of another term. I have derived this name from one of the brooches, which is an unprovenanced find, but came from the “Provinz Hannover” (no 10, fig. 33.1).54 The other four examples were found in Loxstedt (no 9, fig. 33.2), Liebenau grave II/57a (no 43, fig. 33.4), Altenwalde (no 61, fig. 33.5) and Wehden (no 11, fig. 33.3). The peculiarity of these brooches is that the only motif decorating them is the scrollwork on their plates and bow. They did not appear to bear any animal motifs on the edges of their plates. The brooches from Wehden and Liebenau are very similar (even the bows bear almost identical scrollwork), although the motifs on the piece from Wehden seem to have been framed by a distinguishable spiralled cord, which the Liebenau brooch did not have. Both examples 54

Text fig. 11: Sahlenburg

There are five brooches that belong to this type. They were found in Westerwanna (no. 20, fig. 34.2), Liebenau (VIII/65, no. 38, fig. 35.2+3) and Sahlenburg, Germany (no 48, fig.34.1), Aalden in the Netherlands (no 49, fig.35.1) and Mucking, England (no 32, fig. 34.3). Comparing the pieces from Germany (from Westerwanna and Sahlenburg) and England provides us with interesting questions, due to their high degree of similarity. Whoever wore these brooches must have been in contact with one another or at least knew the motifs on the other brooches very well in order to have made an almost identical copy. Alternatively, the wearers may also have obtained the

Roeder 1930:118, Abbildung 76

19

other three in terms of decoration. This brooch seems to have a similar shape, but it was not decorated and is therefore rather hard to place anywhere inside this group.

brooches from the same producer without knowing about the other brooches. Of the three, the brooch from Sahlenburg is the “most complete” one in terms of Roman motifs. Its shape and the egg-and-reel motifs that finish off its plates’ horizontal edges clearly resemble the Dösemoor brooches, but the animal heads, which prominently stick out of the head and footplate are a characteristic of the Nesse type. The scrollwork in the centre of the plates was executed in an inexact chip carving and the tendrils resemble waves rather than the meticulously worked scrollwork on the above types. The scrolls on the bow were replaced by a simple vertical and horizontal tongue motif. The creatures are not fully depicted animals anymore and in this case it is hardly possible that the small animal heads were used pars pro toto. It is apparent that the Sahlenburg brooch has lost many of the aforementioned motifs, but the other two brooches of this type, although very similar to the Sahlenburg brooch, have been reduced yet further. While the brooch from Sahlenburg still shows an egg-and-reel band and a spiralled cord framing the scrollwork, the strayfind from Westerwanna seems to have lost at least the egg-and-reel motif (fig. 34.2). The animal heads are also reduced to simpler shapes. This may be seen even more clearly on the brooch from Mucking (fig. 34.3). This piece was clearly derived from brooches such as the other two, but it looks somewhat rounder and softer. It appears less edgy, a feature which is supported by the shallow chip carving. The tendrils, however, are symmetrical and more elaborate than those on the continental finds. This implies that the maker of the Mucking brooch knew how the scrollwork pattern should appear, while the producer of the Sahlenburg brooch did not seem aware of this. The edges on the Mucking brooch were not finished off with an egg-and-reel motif either and the spiral band is hardly recognisable.

2.7 Wehden

Text fig. 12: Type Wehden

The Wehden Type is another type that produced interesting results when pieces were viewed together as a group. There are two fragments from Wehden (11055 and 11056 (nos. 5 and 6, fig. 36, 2+3) and one fragment from Bremen-Blumenthal in Germany (no 7, fig. 36.1) and a fourth, fully preserved brooch from Kempston in Bedfordshire, England (no 4, fig. 36.4). The Wehden type equal arm brooches have a shape that is similar to that of the Sahlenburg brooches. They are somewhat smaller and look much sturdier than the great equal arm brooches of the Dösemoor and especially the Nesse type. This impression is supported by the fact that they had a simple, geometrical equal arm shape. No animals were used as decoration for the edges. They were not overloaded with decoration in a way that might have confused the observer. The basic pattern may be seen most clearly on the brooch from Kempston, but for stylistic reasons it is more sensible to start the description with the fragment from Bremen-Blumenthal.

The degree of similarity is nonetheless astonishing and cannot be emphasised strongly enough. I will discuss this point again in chapter 4, as part of the discussion of the motifs’ apparent stylistic reduction and its socio-cultural implications. The brooch from Liebenau was included here, because its general shape looks very much like that of the others. It is a fairly simply made brooch, with two little animal heads sticking out of the inner edges of the plates. These are adorned with a rough scrollwork pattern.55 Along the outer edges we find openwork, but it clearly has nothing in common with the animal processions that can be observed on the Nesse and Nesse 2 (s. below.) brooches.

The small fragment represents the upper right corner of the catch plate. Although there is not much left of the brooch we can see how carefully it was worked. There was certainly no scrollwork in the centre of the plate but a similar geometrical motif like the one we find on the Kempston brooch. That implies that the two hollow ovals were followed by another oval framed by a zigzag line. It may be suggested that the two ovals derived from the spiralled tendrils. Furthermore, the small triangle in the fragment’s centre may depict a reduced leaf, which was the ideal motif to fill these acute angles.56 A very finely spiralled cord frames the central motif on this brooch and the inner edge is also adorned with a filigreed zigzag line.

The brooch from Aalden has hardly been mentioned here (fig. 35.1). This is because it is not as important as the 55 The catchplate of the brooch is not fully preserved. The reconstruction of the brooch in Studien zur Sachsenforschung 5 (Häßler (editor) 1994:61, here fig. 35.2) does not suggest scrollwork in the centre of the catchplate but due to the overall symmetric at appearance I shall assume that there were also tendrils depicted on it.

56 These leaves may be seen in full on the brooches from Dösemoor, Sutton Courtenay and Granstedt (figs 18.1, 19.2-4 and 20.4).

20

which motifs the other plate carried, but as symmetry was an important factor in the decoration of equal arm brooches it is likely that it was a similar animal motif. The motif of the remaining plate consists of two creatures, facing each other, whose heads, bodies, paws and tails are clearly depicted. Ears, muzzle and eyes are also visible and incised lines and dots indicated the creatures’ pelt. It is not clear whether they are showing off a gesture of threat, but as animal scenes on equal arm brooches mainly represent a hunt or fight, it seems likely that the scene on the Daudieck brooch also displays an aggressive interaction.

All in all, this brooch seems to be executed very well. This may be seen even clearer when comparing it to the bigger fragment from Wehden. This brooch still has its footplate and it is apparent that this example was worked a little more crudely and is somewhat rounder than the one from Bremen-Blumenthal. Its edges are less sharp and there is no zigzag line adorning the inner edges. The triangular shape in the corner of the catch plate has become bigger and it is not recognisable this was based on a leaf offshoot growing out of the tendrils. Moreover, both examples from Wehden also present the motifs that decorated the remaining parts of this brooch type. The only real scrollwork may be seen on the bow, which was depicted with a simple two-way curved tendril. The scrollwork on the two plates is reduced to not much more than slanting wavy lines, executed in shallow chip carving. These brooches had no exact motifs decorating them and only with the knowledge of the Dösemoor and Nesse brooches the observer was able to understand the pattern.

2.9 Nesse 2 This type is clearly a development of the original Nesse brooches. Hence the name Nesse 2. There are four57 brooches of this type: three English finds (Collingbourne Ducis, Gr. 6 (no 33, fig. 39 and 40.1), Westgarth Gardens, Gr. 55 (no 30, fig. 37.2 + 38) and Abingdon, cremation 26 (no. 34, fig. 40.2) and one from Germany: Oberhausen (no 46, fig.37.1). The fact that more developed examples have been found in England may indicate that the development from Nesse to Nesse 2 was furthered in England although it began on the Continent. The openwork procession in field 3a and b (compare text fig. 2) on the brooch from Oberhausen still resemble type Nesse. While the brooch itself (the bow, the two plates and even the animals on the inner edges) looks quite solid, the animal processions consist of very fine, almost filigreed animals with thin bodies and legs. In addition, a little mask or human head seemed to be attached to the brooch in the centre of the procession on the footplate.58

The last brooch comes from Kempston and yet again we find a brooch from England that looks remarkably similar to the continental pieces. While the motifs on its continental counterparts from Wehden were still executed in inexact chip carving, which did not apply any surface to the objects, the brooch from Kempston appears to have developed a surface, in which the motifs were projected. This is because the motifs were not expressed in proper chip carving with its V- and Λ-shaped edges, but executed rather flatly with the result that a smooth surface developed.

2.8 Daudieck Original Nesse brooches still appear fairly compact. The brooches of the Nesse 2 type, however, present a net or grid-pattern that makes them look less solid. The piece from Collingbourne Ducis is about 134 mm x 88 mm, which means that this brooch is the biggest of all. It was certainly very heavy, but because of the grid-like openwork it appears more lightweight and less compact to the observer. It seems as though the head and footplate that used to carry the central decoration were no longer important. The tendrils were not executed very carefully and create a confusing pattern. In contrast to the heavy bow they look narrow and insignificant. The main motif is now the openwork that adorns the edges of the brooch. Four little

Text fig. 13: Daudieck

This equal arm brooch is a single find and lacks close similarity with the other types (no 41, fig. 36.5). It does have some scrollwork on the bow and its horizontal and bow-edges are decorated with an egg-and-dart band. However, this and the decoration on the plates were not executed in chip carving but were composed of incised lines and punch marks. There are no animal processions and creatures on the inner edges. Instead, animals appear in the centre of the preserved plate. It is impossible to say

57 It would be five if we included the brooch from Liebenau II/218, which I have discussed on p.27 in the paragraph about type Nesse. Due to its appearance as an intermediate stage between Nesse and Nesse 2, however, it is depicted on both fig. 32 after type Nesse and before Nesse 2. 58 The photography is not good enough to determine what exactly this is. A human mask would be reasonable though. This stylistic element, however, shall be discussed in chapter 3 and 4.

21

creatures with diminished bodies, but fully developed heads still remain on the inner edges of the plates, but they do not interact anymore. There are still the processions of animals, but they no longer adorn the outer edge but seem to form a middle frieze. Now, the outer border decoration is a strictly executed openwork finish with three loops on either side. That makes the brooch look bigger and brings it back into balance with the sturdy bow. The bow has almost lost its scrollwork decoration and its only task seems to be supporting the brooches’ heavy arms. There are two arcs on either side of it and it is likely that they not only served the purpose of decoration but also supported the head and footplate.

2.10 Mucking The two equal arm brooches from Mucking, graves 637 (no 31, fig. 41.1) and 938 (no 29, fig. 41.2), are late, if not (together with the brooch from Berinsfield) the latest equal arm brooches of all. Both brooches maintain the equal arm shape, but instead of chip carving they have been decorated with punch marks. The brooch from grave 938 bears a punched decoration made of concentric circles that may have replaced the scrollwork. There are no animals adorning the wavy edges, but little holes instead, which could indicate animals’ heads and eyes. On the brooch from grave 637, however, we can detect four animals. The head and catch plate of the brooch seem to be the body for two of the four backwards curving necks and heads. Their snouts are indicated by the same half-moon shaped punch mark, which is also used on the rest of the brooch. In these other areas it may depict the animals’ manes or fur.

This decline of animal decoration may be also observed on the brooch from Westgarth Gardens (fig. 37.2 and 38). Its layout is not as symmetrical as the one from Collingbourne Ducis, but the grid-like openwork and decrease of scrollwork is also visible. The sturdiness of the bow is comparable to the aforementioned example. It is fairly compact and made for balancing the brooch rather than for providing a space to which to apply decoration. The tendrils are reduced to wavy lines and a very systematic, unnatural scroll. Both head and footplate appear to be misshapen and finish off in an acute angle. While the footplate bears crude scrollwork, the head plate was adorned with an inexact swastika pattern. The swastikas are hardly recognisable though, because, perhaps, the motif was also misunderstood and therefore carried out in a confusing mixture of vertical and horizontal lines. The little creatures on the head plate, however, were fully depicted.59 Their bodies face the bow, but their heads are turned backwards and they have lolling tongues curving up and downwards.

These two brooches are clearly very different from the original chip carved brooches, but on the other hand, we do have some belt equipment that connects especially the brooch from grave 637 to the Late Roman horizon.61 If we take a look at belt buckles and plates such as the one from Walberla62 (fig. 11) we find astonishing similarities. There pairs of animals have their necks curved backwards and while their upper jaws touch their opposite’s upper jaws’ snout, the lower jaws are curving downwards to touch the base. This strongly suggests that the brooches from Mucking were still connected to the horizon of Late Roman Art.

Nothing much can be said about the brooch from Abingdon (fig. 40.2). We only have three fragments of it and these prove that is was an openwork Nesse 2 brooch that looked very much like the brooch from Collingbourne Ducis.60

59 It is hard to tell what kind of animal was depicted. It was already difficult to tell on the previous brooches, but because we knew the scenes depicted on them, we could at least distinguish which was the hunting dog and which its prey. On Nesse 2 brooches the animals seem to have completely lost the connection to each other and although we know where the motifs are derived from it is nevertheless uncertain whether its makers were still aware of this. Evidence for this uncertainty are the animals depicted on the foot of the brooch from Westgarth Gardens, Bury St Edmunds. It should be a long-necked backwards looking creature, but its “head” looks more like an openwork pattern and its body appears as a squatting bird with circular body, feathery tail and a head with eye and beak that touches the bow. 60 The brooch was reconstructed by Böhme (1986:Abbildung 61.2), but not correctly. After comparing the brooch from Abingdon to its closest counterpart (Collingbourne Ducis) I shall suggest a slightly different reconstruction (fig. 40.2).

61 However, there are also similarities between the equal arm brooch from Mucking, grave 938, and Roman belt equipment: e.g. the belt from Herapel b. Folklingen (Grave 134), Moselle, France (Bullinger 1969:p.88 (Nr.64) and Abb.48.6a+b) 62 See note 13

22

2.11 Berinsfield63

2.12 Mecklenburg These equal arm brooches have been found not only in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (the north-easternmost Bundesland of Germany), but also in Schleswig-Holstein. Apparently these brooches were an eastern variety of the equal arm brooches that developed in the region east of the Elbe. Genrich suggests that this type was contemporary with the Dösemoor and Nesse types, which indicates that they were a regional variety and not a stage in the development of the equal arm brooches.65 The catalogue includes 8 (9) brooches from Premslin Gr. 17 (two brooches, no 56, fig. 42.1), Perdöhl (Gr. 95: no 53, fig. 42.2; Gr. 278: no 54, fig. 43.1; Gr. 279: no 55, fig. 43.2) and Pritzier (Gr. 400: no 58, fig. 43.3) in MecklenburgVorpommern and also from Kaarßen (no 57, fig. 44.1) and Hammoor B (10983a: no 3, fig. 44.2; 10938b: no 4, fig. 44.3) in Schleswig-Holstein. The brooch from Progreß-Dreilützow in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (mentioned by Schuldt (1948-49:114) has not been included because there is neither a detailed description nor a picture of it. Schuldt comments on this artefact that it has been lost in WW II. However, Schach-Dörges’ added this brooch to her distribution map of north eastern equal arm brooches (1970, here Map 3).

Text fig. 14: Berinsfield

There is only a single brooch of this type – the brooch from Berinsfield, Oxfordshire, grave 8, itself (no 35, fig. 41.3). This brooch bears little resemblance to the above examples. It is more likely to derive from the Dösemoor type brooches, as this would explain why there is no animal border along the outer horizontal edges. It has lost its scrollwork decoration on bow and plates and the touching animals in the central area were reduced to a simple oval that frames the bow. Both this oval and the bow are decorated with little punch marks, while there are incised lines adorning the bow. Evison calls this decoration “… attractive because of its simplicity of line achieved by ingenuity of design.”64, but in my view the decoration on this brooch is one of the reasons why this brooch type was abandoned after a century. On the original equal arm brooches of the Continent, the style and composition of decoration matched the overall shape of the pieces. The equal arm shape without its scrollwork and animal decoration would not have been recognised as an equal arm brooch. As long as the style was maintained and recognisable the brooches were wanted and worn. The brooch from Berinsfield, however, clearly represents the last stage of the equal arm brooch development, due to its apparent stylistic decline.

The Mecklenburg brooches are all made from sheet metal and not decorated in chip carving, but rather punch mark technique. They usually do not have acute angles, but a round and rather soft shape. The decoration is simple and symmetrical, as we may see from fully preserved examples such as Perdöhl, grave 95 and grave 279. Mainly we find decoration composed of small punched circlets and incised lines along the horizontal edges. This is not the main group that I will discuss in the following chapters, but two features ought to be mentioned nevertheless. The Mecklenburg Type visibly shows equal arm shape, but is not a development of the MecklenburgVorpommern region. It has often been argued that the supporting arm construction, which was the requirement for the evolution of equal arm brooches, only developed between the Elbe and Weser.66 Supporting arm brooch forerunners with punch mark decoration did not exist in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and Schleswig-Holstein. Consequently, the eastern equal arm brooches must derive from elsewhere. As the brooches that have been discussed so far are the only equal arm brooches, it is reasonable to argue that the Mecklenburg Type originally emerged due to Western influences.67 Apparently, however, only the

65

Genrich 1964:26 e.g. ibid:27 67 This argument is supported by the decoration of the brooches from Perdöhl, graves 95 and 279, and Pritzier, grave 400. Both the brooches from Pritzier carry incised lines on their bows that were derived from the supporting arm brooches of the Elbe-Weser region (compare Böhme 1974:Tafel 53.3 and Tafel 57.2, here fig….). Furthermore, the brooch from Pritzier bears a decoration that marks the side edges of the trapezoid footplate, which were sometimes genuine notches, but mainly

63

66

This type was first named by V. Evison (Studien z. Sachsenforschung, 1977:140). Evison decided that both the brooches from Berinsfield and Mucking, grave 637, should be grouped together. However, I believe that, although the brooches from Berinsfield and Mucking, grave 637, have the same predecessors, the example from Mucking shows additional influences and therefore went through a different development. 64 Evison 1977:134

23

shape was transferred over the Elbe, but not the chip carved motifs. It is remarkable, Genrich argues, “… dass die gleicharmigen Fibeln östlich der Elbe, im westlichen Mecklenburg, durch eine Punzverzierung geschmückt werden, die anscheinend ihre Anregungen aus dem spätrömischen Kunstgewerbe des Donaugebietes bezog und die man dem nach einem schwedischen Fundort genannten Sösdalastil zurechnen muss.”68 The Sösdala Style is one of those Late Roman art styles that will be discussed in chapter 4, when I shall mark off the Equal Arm Brooch Style from contemporary art styles. It is interesting to note here that in one case two brooches come from the same grave (Premslin, grave 15; here, fig. 42.1). I have mentioned before that equal arm brooches were worn singly and not in pairs like disc or saucer brooches that fastened an undergarment on the shoulders. In Premslin, cremation 15, however, two equal arm brooches were found, one of which was preserved very well while the other one was half destroyed, probably in the pyre. They were nevertheless recognisable equal arm brooches. They have the same size and, judging from their poor preservation, also the same shape and decoration. This case seems to be merely an exception to the rule, because the other brooches of the Mecklenburg type were either found singly in a grave or as unprovenanced finds.

2.13 Miscellaneous Finally, there are some fragments which could not be assigned to any of the above types: Bliedersdorf, Kr. Stade (no 13, fig.45b.1), Mucking, Essex (no. 28, fig.45b.2), Oldendorf-Weißenmoor (no 62, fig. 45b.30) and the 16 single finds from Bremen-Mahndorf (no 40, fig. 45a.116). An additional fragment, which may have been part of an equal arm brooch, is presented in fig. 45b.4; it is not part of my corpus, however (Sahlenburg, Crem. 63/1895). Both the fragments from Bliedersdorf and Oldendorf could have been part of the Dösemoor brooches, while the piece from Mucking cannot be assigned to any brooch type. Fig. 45a presents the single finds from Mahndorf and also suggests to which equal arm brooch type they could have belonged. I have indicated parallels to the brooches already discussed to clarify the similarities. décor [???] on supporting arm brooches and decoration on the Pre-form Seraing. (Compare p.14). 68 ibid:36, “… that equal arm brooches from east of the Elbe, from Mecklenburg, were decorated with punch marks. Apparently, this decoration was stimulated by the late Roman artwork of the Danube region and is called “Sösdala Style” after a well-known Swedish find.” Translated by the author.

24

Chapter 3 Distribution and Chronology

So they went on their way. The ship rode the water, broad-beamed, bound by its hawser and anchored fast. Boar-shapes flashed above their cheek-guards, the brightly forged work of goldsmiths, watching over those stern-faced men. (Beowulf, 301-306) brooches and the sheet metal brooches, which originated in north eastern Germany (Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and Schleswig-Holstein). The majority of the Lower Saxon brooches were found between Weser and Elbe, but there is a small cluster in the southern region of the Weser, which represents the finds from Liebenau. Another cluster closer to the North Sea coast may be found in Westerwanna.

3.1 Introduction In this chapter I shall briefly discuss the distribution and chronology of the equal arm brooches. Unfortunately, current knowledge of the exact dates of the equal arm brooches makes it impossible to present a definite chronology at this stage. It is neither the main focus of this approach nor is it in the scope of this chapter to add an extensive discussion of the equal arm brooch chronology. Thus, this chapter summarises the ongoing discussion of the distribution and chronology of equal arm brooches and suggests some significant features that may or may not stand in the connection with the decline of design and spread and motifs.

In total we may observe three distinct regions, of which one is enclosed by the river Weser in the west and the river Oste and the Teufelsmoor (map 4) in the east, a second one between the rivers Oste and Elbe and the third one lies to the east of the river Elbe. In 1952 Genrich argued that these three regions produced three different, but contemporary kinds of equal arm brooches, which therefore followed three different lines of development Genrich 1952:188f). The first distinct regional type is, of course, the Mecklenburger type and the other two are those with crouching animals (e.g. Dösemoor and Nesse) and those without (e.g. Hannover and Wehden) and brooches. Plettke and Roeder thought them to be different stages of the equal arm brooch development. Genrich’s map, however, presented two areas of distribution: the area around the mouth of the Weser, which he considers to be the market for the smaller types and the region south of the Elbe, which was the market for the Nesse and Dösemoor brooches (map 4). My map 5, layers 1-4, supports Genrich’s notion: Type Hannover and Type Wehden as well as Type Sahlenburg show a distinct Western distribution. This is emphasised by two finds from Zweeloo (Type Nesse, no 50, fig. 28) and Aalden (Type Sahlenburg, no 49, fig. 35.1) which may indicate a close relationship between north-eastern Gaul and the Weser region. The three Type Wehden brooches were also found in places close to the Weser.

3.2 Distribution Only four finds did not come from the equal arm brooches’ main focal regions, northern Germany and central England (map 1). One brooch was found in Belgium (Seraing, no. 24) and three others in the Netherlands, close to the Dutch-German border (Aalden, no. 49; Zweeloo, no. 50 and Wijster, no 51). Wijster is in the parish of Beilen, which is west of the parish of Zweeloo, where both Aalden and Zweeloo are situated. The three Dutch locations are only a few kilometres away from each other. All other 59 brooches were found in either England or Northern Germany. The German brooches may be divided into two main groups, divided by the River Elbe: the cast north western German (from Lower Saxony) 25

26

27

The first collection and attempted chronology of equal arm brooches was presented by Alfred Plettke in 1921.71 Plettke considered supporting arm brooches already as first stages (his series 1-4) of equal arm brooches. In addition, his fifth series contained three brooches from Norway and Cambridgeshire, England, which were no equal arm brooches, but “fibule anseés”72 (Grifffibeln or “handle brooches”) that are members of a different group of brooches and derive from elsewhere.73 Brooches of his series 6, he argued, had no decoration on the bow (such as the brooch from Quelkhorn, fig. 21.4 (no 52)). Series 7 he considered to incorporate brooches with only little decoration and no crouching animals at the edges (Kempston, no 4, a piece from Wehden74 and the unprovenanced find from “Provinz Hannover” (no 10, fig. 33.1)). Consequently, series 8 consisted of our type Dösemoor and Nesse brooches, which he assumed to present the latest stage in the development. He argued that equal arm brooches made from sheet metal (series 1-4) were worn in the 4th century, while series 5-8, bearing chip carved ornaments, were typical for the 5th century metalwork.75

I addition to Genrich’s argument I want to suggest that Nesse and Dösemoor were also differently distributed. While Dösemoor equal arm brooches seem to have been largely limited to the area between Elbe and Weser (most of them even being east of the Oste, map 5, layer 2), Nesse brooches were more widely scattered to the west and south. We find them in Liebenau and west of the Weser in Oberhausen (no 46) and in the Netherlands (Zweeloo, no 50). The English equal arm brooches do not show such a distinct distribution pattern. All but one were found north of the river Thames (no 33, Collingbourne Ducis) and we find two clusters in Oxfordshire (Berinsfield, Abingdon and Sutton Courtenay) and Essex (Mucking); the other brooches are scattered between East Anglia, Leicestershire (Empingham, no 23) and the Thames valley.

3.3 Chronology Roeder, who discussed Plettke’s approach in 1930, argued that supporting arm brooches and the Kempston brooch from Plettke’s series 2 and 7, as well as the “fibule anseés” (fig. 45c), should not be included in the typology, because they seem “… in der ganzen Umgebung fremdartig und fallen aus der Gesamtreihe heraus.”76 Roeder then created a separate series for supporting arm brooches with trapezoid footplate, his Typus 2. These brooches showed the typical pattern of vertical lines on the bow and notches on both sides of the foot as I have described above (compare fig. 13).77 Roeder’s Typus 3 consisted of supporting arm brooches with hybrid head plates and his Typus 4 included brooches, which, according to Roeder, were decorated in “old style”. “Old style”-decorated brooches are cut of bronze sheets and decorated with punch marks, notches and incised lines that were also found on supporting arm brooches. Roeder considered Typus 4 to have evolved c AD 425, mainly including those brooches from beyond the Elbe that I call “Type Mecklenburg” here.

In contrast to their distribution, the equal arm brooches’ chronology is less clear. Several attempts have been made in the past 80 years, but most of them relied entirely, or at least heavily, on typology and the degeneration of style, which created much confusion for the following decades. Difficulties with the absolute chronology arose from early stages and are still not resolved, because equal arm brooches have never been found in coin-dated graves.69 Most contexts do not provide any information: today, we know of 43 brooches (25 of which are either a single find or a depot), which did not have any accompanying finds other than a pot or an urn. That leaves 21 brooches, which could be of use for a relative chronology. Fortunately, most of these were discovered recently and have been recorded very well. The whole issue of dating equal arm brooches is nevertheless very difficult, because at the moment the only chances of dating we have are typology and cross-dating. Typology has been favoured by in all major assessments, while cross-dating was hardly ever used at all.70 These typology-based studies, however, must be introduced before I can present my own approach. At first, I shall therefore take a critical look at major contributions to the question of equal arm brooch chronology and development, and then, subsequently, present the results of my own research.

In Roeder’s Typus 5, series a, which includes brooches with geometric decoration executed in chip carving, we find Kempston and Wehden brooches as well as the fragment from Bremen-Blumenthal. Series b mainly equals Type Hannover. Roeder’s date for this type is AD 450 +/25, while AD 475 +/- 25 was the date for Typus 6, which 71

Plettke 1921:21ff Roeder 1930:44, These fibulae are not to be confused with the equal arm brooches. The fibule anseés are copies of handles (e.g. of a shield) and are typically Northern Germanic. They emerged in the mid-4th century and went on until the Viking period. 73 Compare ibid.: 44ff and Brown 1915:271ff. 74 From his approach it is not clear whether it is the bigger of smaller fragment (nos. 5 or 6). 75 Plettke 1921:22 76 “… They seem to be alien in the whole environment [of equal arm brooches] and therefore appear conspicuously in the typology.” Roeder 1930:44 77 ibid:84 72

69 Unlike equal arm brooches, their forerunners, the supporting arm brooches, were found in coin-dated graves dated to the last third of the 4th century. This, of course, is helpful in getting an idea of when the development of equal arm brooches may have begun. These graves shall be also discussed in the subsequent chapters. 70 Typology, however, is a rather dangerous method and less clear than we may hope. We shall see that it does not necessarily lead to acceptable results. We have to bear in mind that equal arm brooches probably only existed for approx. 100 years. Nevertheless, there are 11 different types, which were in most approaches squeezed into a chronological order that would not extend beyond these 100 years.

28

lenburger brooches must be older as these brooches were made of bronze sheet metal and decorated with punch marks and incised lines.

is marked by brooches with chip carved style decoration and scrollwork as well as rather flat animals crouching along the inner edges of the brooches. This is clearly a description of Type Dösemoor. According to Roeder, the following brooches belonged to this group: e.g. the Anderlingen brooch, the find from Sutton Courtenay and the fragments from Granstedt. Roeder’s Typus 7, however, included brooches with more or less upright animals in that place, e.g. the brooches from Riensförde, Haslingfield and Little Wilbraham. In my approach the latter two are also listed under Type Dösemoor, because they miss out the crouching animal procession along the horizontal outer edges. Roeder nevertheless considered these brooches altogether very late and dated them AD 500 +/25 years.

Furthermore, in his study, Schuldt did not only consider brooches, but also the motifs on the accompanying urns. He argued that the Mecklenburger brooches were very different to north-western German types yet did not go so far as to call them a regional type at this stage.81 This notion was first suggested as late as 1952, when A. Genrich published a study on equal arm brooches of the Elbe region.82 He re-evaluated Roeder’s and Schuldt’s approaches and argued that Roeder’s comprehension of the development of equal arm brooches was correct in terms of them having derived from supporting arm brooches. Genrich also concurred with Roeder on their emergence.

It must be emphasised that although Roeder presented approximate absolute dates, he had coin-dated graves for only some of the supporting arm brooches. These graves are Vermand (Valentian I, AD 364-375) and Villers-sousErquery (Gratian, AD 367-383), but they only prove the existence of supporting arm brooches with trapezoid footplate in north-eastern Gaul in the last third of the 4th century.78 All other dates were estimations based upon what Roeder thought was a typological development of motifs on equal arm brooches.

Genrich re-considered the coin-dated graves from northeastern Gaul, which contained supporting arm brooches, the forerunners of the equal arm brooches, as terminus ante quem. The coins circulated from AD 364-38383, which indicates that craftsmen probably produced supporting arm brooches in north-eastern Gaul as well as the Elbe-Weser region at that time. Genrich suggested that Mecklenburg brooches were influenced by brooches from the Elbe-Weser region, because no genuine forerunners of equal arm brooches – the supporting arm brooches - existed in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. Consequently, the equal arm shape had to have originated elsewhere: in the region between Elbe and Weser.

Three years later, in his 1933-publication of recent finds of equal arm brooches, Roeder emphasised his typological approach again. He pointed out that early equal arm brooches were small, made of bronze and less elaborately decorated. Then, they grew bigger and adopted chip carved motifs such as scrollwork and animals processions to decorate the edges. Roeder was dealing with new finds and was able to assort them to his typology from 1930 without hesitation, although he recognised that there was another visible development after his youngest Typus 7. He indicated that brooches like the one from Nesse, with ducking animals lining the horizontal edges, were probably older than brooches with more or less running animals and executed in openwork in the same place, as on the brooch from Oberhausen.79

Genrich was also the first archaeologist, who suggested that equal arm brooches with decoration executed in chip carving (types Dösemoor and Nesse) were one of the first stages in equal arm brooch development. He argued that they emerged immediately after the pre-form, which included examples from Westerwanna (here Type “Vorform Seraing”).84 Genrich’s point of view was that in the beginning of the 5th century, craftsmen made the effort to copy the decoration of Roman belt equipment, but this notion and maybe also the skill, diminished in the following decades. Style and motifs had degenerated as we could observe on brooches of, e.g. Types Wehden and Sahlenburg, which emerges later. This development was still emphasised in Genrich’s studies of 1964 and 1967.85 In all three studies, however, Genrich had to base his chronology entirely on typology, because no more coindated graves other than the ones used for dating supporting arm brooches, were discovered.

The next archaeologist dealing with equal arm brooches was E. Schuldt, who in 1948-49 published finds from the cremation cemeteries Perdöhl, Pritzier and ProgreßDreilützow in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, north-eastern Germany.80 In this study, Schuldt discussed 21 brooches, some being preserved only in fragments and some clearly being a stylistic pre-form of “Type Mecklenburg” equal arm brooches. Schuldt was still using Roeder’s typology and considered the genuine equal arm brooches from Mecklenburg to be Roeder’s Typus 4. The remaining brooches, he argued, may be assigned to Roeder’s earlier Types 1-3. Schuldt’s reason for this was that there were no cast silver or bronze brooches with chip carved decoration in Mecklenburg. Therefore, he argued, the Meck-

81

ibid:116 Genrich 1952:181ff, This study and two articles written in the following decades, from 1964 and 1967 (Nachrichten aus Niedersachsens Urgeschichte 33 and 36) are the three most reasonable approaches for the study of equal arm brooches. Details about chronology and distribution that cannot be discussed here, because it is not in the scope of this study, may be viewed there. 83 ibid:182 (confer the dates above-mentioned by Roeder) 84 ibid:187 85 See footnote 63 82

78

Roeder 1930:106. Roeder 1933:39-40 80 E. Schuldt 1948-49:108ff 79

29

unangetastet; die Änderungen betreffen nur die Details…” (Roeder 1930:44).89 Basing a chronology on such a short-lived type like equal arm brooches proved to be dangerous, as Böhme’s approach clearly demonstrated. However, chronological ‘degeneration’ is, although somewhat crude, a sensible approach to start with, if there is no other way. Yet, due to the dangers I have pointed out above, a typological approach must be done very carefully and with a much more convincing argumentation. It would be ideal, if typological development and degeneration were used for cross-checking the more reliable dating methods, i.e. cross-dating or use of coin-dated graves. These are reasons, however, why it may be unwise to consider Böhme’s chronology of equal arm brooches in great detail and for further research.

The most recent chronology and complete catalogue was published in 1974 by Böhme.86 His study was also mainly based on development and degeneration of style and whether brooches were cast or made from sheet metal. For example, he argued that, because Mecklenburg equal arm brooches were made of sheet metal, they might be earlier than cast brooches and therefore originated in the late 4th and early 5th century. According to Böhme, they clearly reflected an older stage in early north eastern German equal arm brooch development.87 Generally, Böhme’s study is difficult to comprehend, because, although he seemed to have known Genrich’s and Roeder’s studies, he does not mention the conflict of whether Dösemoor and Nesse brooches presented the earliest or latest stage of equal arm brooch development. On the contrary, in this respect he did not even refer to Genrich, who suggested that both Dösemoor and Nesse brooches were early stages and probably contemporary. Instead, Böhme argued that Sahlenburg, Kempston and Wehden type brooches were immediate forerunners of the bigger Nesse and Dösemoor brooches. This and the chronology that Böhme derived from it, stood in opposition to Genrich’s studies and were apparently not based on thorough research.88 For example, although all of the abovementioned chronologies were based upon typology, Genrich was at least able to derive the chip carved ornament of Dösemoor and Nesse brooches from Roman belt equipment, which bore the same scrollwork and animal decoration (e.g. Rhenen, Gr. 846, Samson or Chécy, figs 1-3). Böhme, however, argued that types Wehden and Sahlenburg were successors of “Vorform Seraing” brooches, although there are no predecessors to the motifs, with which they were adorned. Böhme’s argumentation would indicate that all of a sudden, little animals’ heads, misshapen chip carved scrollwork and geometric motifs appeared on the Seraing brooches, which have none of typological forerunners anywhere, neither on supporting arm brooches, nor in the corpus of Roman or Germanic metal work.

Finally, I shall turn to V. Evison’s study, which is the last approach I shall discuss.90 It is apparent that Evison also considered Nesse and Dösemoor brooches to be later types, but this may be because she used Böhme’s study for her comparison of English and German equal arm brooches. Her addition to Genrich’s and Böhme’s typology was a detailed description of the English finds. She emphasised that the typological development of equal arm brooches did not stop, but was carried on after the Angles’ and Saxon’s migration to England. English brooches such as those of Type Nesse 2, Mucking, and Berinsfield prove this.91 The final section of this chapter shall introduce my own research to the chronology of equal arm brooches. This chapter is not the focus of my study to the style of equal arm brooches, but it seemed necessary not only to include a brief synopsis of research that has been done so far, but also an attempt at a relative chronology, which is not based on typology alone. As I have indicated above, a typology can only be a result of or an addition to a chronology, which is based on datable graves and crossdating. As there are no datable graves yet available, I needed to approach the relative chronology via crossdating.92 There are 17 contexts that provided other brooches that may be of help:93

This should demonstrate why a typological approach involves much danger in itself: Roeder said, “…Die Grundform jeder Altsache, besonders einer Fibel, bleibt 86

Böhme 1974:14-19 ibid.: 15+16. Böhme argued that Mecklenburg equal arm brooches must have followed immediately after their predecessor type, the “Armbrustfibeln” with trapezoid footplate, because they shared comparable decoration. In footnote 22, Böhme suggested that apparently the Mecklenburg equal arm brooches were the typological successors of the “Armbrustfibeln”, and on page 16 he indicated that this was because the development of supporting arm brooches only took place west of the Elbe. He did not, however, suggest that the form of the equal arm ElbeWeser brooches may have been taken over by the people who were dwelling in Mecklenburg. 88 Böhme probably believed that his study was based on facts, but some major problems occurred, as we can now see, because he cannot have used original excavation reports. For example, he stated that the find from Anderlingen supported his argument that Dösemoor brooches represented the final stage of the development of equal arm brooches. However, Müller-Brauel, who was Böhme’s reference, stated that it was not clear whether the two bird brooches and the equal arm brooch were found in one context as there were several secondary burials in a Bronze Age tumulus (Müller-Brauel 1913:224, esp. 225). 87

89

See footnote 27. Evison 1977:127-147 91 ibid:134-136 92 Recent publications have made much use of Böhme’s chronology of equal arm brooches to date objects that had been found together with them. This is because Böhme’s Grabfunde zwischen unterer Elbe und Loire is still a basic approach to the relative chronology of the grave finds from that region. For my own approach I have, of course, tried to find publications that were less influenced by Böhme, although I have used his chronology of disc brooches, as far as these were not dated with equal arm brooch types. 93 The brackets indicate the type of equal arm brooch that was found in this context. Again, I have to emphasise that this discussion cannot be exhaustive. Therefore, many of the sources will only be mentioned in footnotes and not discussed any further. This study is not an approach to equal arm brooch chronology, but after rethinking and reflecting those rather confusing and contradicting papers, I found it necessary to make my own approach. 90

30

“Dreilappenfibel”? (fig. 47.2), late 5th – early 6th century101

1. Westgarth Gardens, Gr. 55 (Equal Arm Brooch: Type Nesse 2), Cruciform Brooches (fig. 38, B+C), late 5th century94

9. Liebenau II/218 (Equal Arm Brooch: Type Nesse Nesse 2), “Reiterfibel” (fig. 32.1.2), 6th century102

2. Sahlenburg, Gr. 19 (Equal Arm Brooch: Type Sahlenburg), Applied Disc Brooch (fig. 46.1), c AD 400, probably later95

10. Fragment of equal arm brooch (Liebenau, Grave 57d (Equal Arm Brooch: Type Dösemoor?)), “Dreirundelfibel” (fig. 25.7), late 5th – early 6th century103

3. Issendorf, Inhumation 3536 (Equal Arm Brooch: Type Dösemoor), “Nordalbingische Bügelfibeln” (fig. 22.2), c AD 450, but not earlier96

11. Nesse, Gr. 3 (Equal Arm Brooch: Type Nesse), Applied Saucer Brooch (fig. 46.2.2), late 4th century – c AD 450104

4. Issendorf, Inhumation 3532 (Equal Arm Brooch: Type Dösemoor), Applied Saucer Brooches (colour plate A), late 4th century – c AD 45097

12. Mucking, Gr. 637 (Equal Arm Brooch: Type Mucking), Quoit Brooch (fig. 48.2.1), c AD 450 - 525105

5. Wijster (Equal Arm Brooch: Type Seraing?), peg from Tutulus Brooch (fig. 17.3), c AD 370-40098

13. Zweeloo, Gr. 87 (Equal Arm Brooch: Type Nesse), Applied Saucer Brooch (fig. 48.1.B), c AD 450106

6. Granstedt 1793 (Equal Arm Brooch: Type Dösemoor), fragment of a late Cruciform Brooch? (fig. 47.14)99

14. Berinsfield, Gr. 8 (Equal Arm Brooch: Type Berinsfield), Disc Brooch (fig. 49.1), no date

7. Liebenau II/57a (Equal Arm Brooch: Type Dösemoor), fragment of bow brooch (fig. 47.9a)100

15. Otterndorf, Gr. 10 (Equal Arm Brooch: Type Vorform Seraing?), Cruciform Brooch (fig. 50.d.1-5), c AD 425 - 475107

8. Liebenau II/32 (Equal Arm Brooch: Nesse), fragment of bow brooch with semi-circular head and foot of a

16. Anderlingen (Equal Arm Brooch: Type Dösemoor), Bird Brooches (fig. 51.1.2; fig.51.2 shows the bird brooches in scale 1:1), late 5th century108

94 One of the cruciform brooches resembles Reichstein’s Type Corbridge (D3), represented by for example the brooch from North Ruffenham, Rutland. Other similar finds came from Sleaford, Lincolnshire and Holywell Row. Type Corbridge, Reichstein argued, may be dated to the late 5th century. Reichstein 1975:94-95, Tafeln 85 and 103. 95 This applied disc brooch is probably a Type Westerwanna, which Böhme dated a little later than AD 400. Again, he used style as an indicator of when the object was made; he argued that the motifs on Type Westerwanna brooches were very much like the geometric motifs on Roman belt equipment, where they derived from (anchor- and heartshaped scrollwork). However, due to their frequent occurrence in Anglo-Saxon graves in England, Böhme postulated that they were probably later than AD 400 (Böhme 1974:24-28). 96 The equal arm brooch in Grave 3536, Issendorf, was worn with a pair of “Nordalbingische Bügelfibeln”. The three brooches were found in places which indicate that the woman was using them to fasten a Frankish coat costume, which succeeded the Germanic woman’s traditional costume in mid-5th century. Böhme argued that this particular woman probably used the “old-fashioned” equal arm brooch to fasten the then fashionable Frankish coat (Böhme in Wesse 1998:449ff). 97 This pair of saucer brooches looks very much like Böhme’s “Type Lippspringe”, which he considered to be a very long-lived type as it was found with early tutulus brooches (Liebenau II/230), then in England (Abingdon and Dorchester) and finally in Krefeld-Gellep, Grave 902, which probably also included a pair of small bow brooches and a glass bowl (Böhme 1974:24-28). 98 The equal arm brooch from Wijster has been discovered in a very poor condition – as well as the tutulus brooch found with it. I need to point out that it is, although likely, only an assumption that Wijster provides a type Seraing equal arm brooch. The left over peg has probably been part of a later tutulus brooch (e.g. Type Cortrat or Oudenburg). Böhme argued that these tutulus brooches may be accompanied by supporting arm brooch (“Niedersächsicher Typ B”, e.g. Sahlenburg, Gr. 1 and Westerwanna 1011). This combination may be also found in Vermand, Gr. 24 and Villers-sous-Erquery, which produced coins from Valentian I (AD 364-75) and Gratian (367-83) (Böhme 1974:21-24). 99 Reichstein (1975:147) argued that the cruciform brooch from Granstedt could not be defined. 100 Not defined, ibid.:147

17. Perdöhl, Gr. 278 (Equal arm Brooch: Type Mecklenburg, poor preservation), “Fibel mit gelappter Kopfplatte” (fig. 51.3.a), after c AD 450 – 475 (?)109 101

Genrich (1967:75ff) suggested that the head fragment was probably part of a “Fünfknopffibel” with rhomboid foot (ibid.:Abb.1). These brooches are known from Thuringia, Bohemia, Roman Pannonia, Northern Italy, Rhine and Elsaß. Reichstein (1975:89) dates these brooches with semi-circular head to the late 5th and early 6th century. 102 The Rhinish/Frankish “Reiterfibel”, which accompanied the equal arm brooch has been subject of much discussion, because J. Werner dated it to the 6th century, while the equal arm brooch was considered to be early 5th century (Gerich 1967:82). However, as this section is supposed to be an attempt to date equal arm brooches, I shall neglect the date for this brooch and only concentrate on the 6th-century“Reiterfibel”. 103 According to Genrich’s reconstruction this small fragment was probably part of an equal arm brooch similar to Quelkhorn, no 17 (Genrich 1964:39f). The “Dreirundelfibel” is a late 5th – early 6th century brooch. 104 The applied saucer brooch is probably a Type Liebenau brooch, comp. Footnote 94 (Böhme 1974:27-28). 105 This Quoit Brooch is a D1 brooch, dated to c AD 450 – 525 (Ager 1985:figs.3 and 16). 106 Van Es and Ypey dated this applied saucer brooch with the equal arm brooch and with the pot, which were in the grave of the “princess of Zweeloo” (van Es/Ypey 1977:122). 107 This cruciform brooch is probably a Type Siemß brooch (D2), dated c AD 425 – 475 according to Reichstein (1975:56). 108 Genrich dated this bird brooch to the late 5th century (Genrich 1967:113). Müller-Brauel (1913:225) argues that the three brooches did probably not belong to one context. However, with 6. Granstedt 1793 and 11. Liebenau 57d we may have already cross-dating reference for such a late date for Dösemoor brooches and the find from Anderlingen will therefore not confuse the dates.

31

Migration and a date in the later 5th century seems possible. If we now have another look at the various typologies discussed above and reconsider, we can see that Böhme’s results are even less credible. Instead, my results support Genrich, who suggested that both types Dösemoor and type Nesse developed fairly early, their motifs being heavily based on late 4th century Roman military belt equipment. He also argued that both types probably coexisted with smaller regional varieties, such as types Wehden or Sahlenburg. It is unfortunate that some types could not be given a cross-dated reference at all, i.e. types Hannover, Wehden, Daudieck and Berinsfield.

It is important to emphasise that none of the above dates is confirmed by coins. They should only give us an idea about approximately when which type of equal arm brooches was worn. This chronology is not based on typology, but entirely on cross-dating. In a diagram the results would look as below (arrows indicate that types probably existed longer). This diagram does not indicate that equal arm brooches were worn one type at a time. It looks as if both Dösemoor and Nesse brooches may have developed fairly early, but probably after “Vorform Seraing”. Both seem to have lasted until the beginning of the 6th century. Type Sahlenburg, being a little younger than Nesse, may have been a smaller variety of the bigger brooches, but not as long-lived as these. Type Mecklenburg equal arm brooches are possible derivatives of Nesse and Dösemoor brooches, while Nesse 2 seems to be a truly young type, probably deriving from Nesse brooches. It is very likely that type Mucking did not exist before the Anglo-Saxon’s

350 -- 375

My diagram, however, demonstrates that it is very likely that some types were actually contemporary and may have followed various lines of development instead of only one.110 It is apparent, however, that more work on the relative and absolute chronology needs to be done, but this is only possible with more finds from datable complexes (“geschlossene Funde”).

-- 400 -- 425 -- 450 -- 475 -- 500 -- 525 -- 550

I----Seraing--I I---------------------------------Dösemoor--------------------------------I I---------------Nesse---------------I - - - - - I------Nesse—I I-Sahlenburg
I—--Nesse 2-------I
I---Mecklenburg-
I----------------Mucking--------------I

110 It is probably difficult to decide whether we are dealing with poor craftsmanship or real stylistic degeneration when we compare, e.g. the Sahlenburg or Wehden brooches (figs…). It is interesting, however, that in both types the “most degenerated” examples (Kempston, no 4, and Mucking Gr. 90, No 32) were found in England and not on the Continent.

109

This case is also problematic as both brooches were in a poor condition. However, Reichstein argued that the “Fibeln mit gelappter Kopfplatte” succeeded the Type Siemß cruciform brooches. Therefore, a date after c AD 450 – 475 may be suggested (Reichstein 1975:85-86).

32

Chapter 4 Equal Arm Brooch Style Its Predecessors and Contemporaries

“Wealhtheow came in, Hrothgar’s queen, observing the courtesies. Adorned in her gold, she graciously saluted the men in the hall, then handed the cup first to Hrothgar, their homeland’s guardian, […] So the Helming woman went on her rounds, queenly and dignified, decked out in rings, offering the goblet to all ranks, treating the household and the assembled troop until it was Beowulf’s turn to take it from her hand. (Beowulf, 612-16; 620-24) 4.2 Roman influences of the 2nd and 3rd centuries and the “Late Roman Military Style”

4.1 Introduction

Speake argues that “works of art in the ‘style’ of one time could not have been produced in another, although […he…] recognised that style elements may survive or be paralleled…” (Speake 1980:6). This survival may be observed in the transition from Late Roman Empire to Early Medieval Ages. Certainly the most important influence and main source of inspiration for the Germanic art of the Migration period in general, was the ornamentation on late Roman artefacts. Salin suggested that in the first four centuries AD northern European art was clearly dominated by Roman motifs and techniques (in ibid.:13). Salin’s argumentation was based upon the fact that Roman military expeditions may have encountered the Germanic people of the north first, but that the import of Roman artefacts in the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD had been of greater influence, “[because it] brought Roman civilisation far beyond the limits of the provinces.” (ibid.:13). Most of all, this distribution of Roman artefacts in Germania Libera took place by extensive use of river trade routes between Pannonia and the Baltic and North Sea, i.e. the Rhine, Lippe, Neckar, Weser, Elbe, Oder and Vistula (ibid.:14).

In the following chapter I would like to discuss some major stylistic currents of the Migration Period, which either influenced ‘Equal Arm Brooch Style’ or were contemporary with it and nourished by the same influences. It is significant to discuss peculiarities that separated Equal Arm Brooch Style from styles contemporary with it, because it will help us to understand what made it unique. It is also important to present Roman influences from as early as the 2nd and 3rd centuries, because this will prove that the motifs on late 4th century belt equipment and 5th century equal arm brooches were not novel innovation. Instead, the motifs depicted on them had followed a long tradition of Roman ornamentation that only found a new way of expression in these Germanic art styles. However, this chapter will only treat the styles themselves, their influences and distinct execution by Germanic craftsmen, and not the reasons why they were transmitted. This is part of the discussion in chapter 5.

A discussion of the whole corpus of Roman imports found in Germany and Scandinavia is not within the

33

scope of this study.111 However, I have to mention two groups of artefacts, which are significant for the discussion of Equal Arm Brooch Style. They will demonstrate that Germanic craftsmen were influenced by the Romans’ use of animal motifs as a central part of their ornamentation and that these motifs were well known before equal arm brooches came into fashion. The two groups that I would like to discuss in brief are the buckets from “Hemmoor” and the ornamented discs from “Thorsberg” (figs. 52-56).112 The “Hemmoor” buckets originated in the Roman provinces and were clearly imports in the regions beyond the Limes (map 6). In the Germanic world, however, both groups were expected to fulfil a certain purpose and therefore they needed to be adjusted to satisfy Germanic taste. The Hemmoor buckets, which were part of the Roman drinking and feasting equipment, were used as urns and a Germanic craftsman added small animals, executed in Germanic fashion, to one of the Thorsberg discs and Roman Hemmoor buckets were used as cremation vessels at Germanic funerals.

sea creatures, such as hippocamps, sea-lions and sea-deer (ibid.:18, 51, 144). Willers argued that in the Late Roman Empire, Roman craftsmen re-used old-fashioned ornaments like animal and floral decoration rather than inventing new motifs (ibid.:144). Willers also observed that the Hemmoor buckets presented a combination of animals that one would never find in nature, e.g. dogs hunting a lion or a panther attacking a stag (ibid.: 148).114 He argued further that in antiquity no other place than the arena (the amphitheatre) was more frequented for the observation of animal fights (‘venatio’) and staged hunts. He suggested that this was the place where actual animals were studied by craftsmen: sometimes the arena were even furnished with bushes, shrubs and trees in order to make the surroundings of hunts and fights look more natural. These stylised trees and rocks were also depicted on Hemmoor buckets. In addition, Willers discovered that on the bucket from Himlingöie, animals were displayed with a crossed belt around the neck and body. This, he argued, may be evidence that animal studies were indeed carried out in the arena: these belts were needed to tie ropes or bars to the animals, so that they could be dragged into the arena without being a danger to those who led them (ibid.:154-155, here fig. 60.1). Although one may suspect that the intention of Roman craftsmen was to present ornaments as natural as possible, the maker of the Himlingöie bucket did not seem to have this in mind.

More than 22 of these bronze buckets assigned “Type Hemmoor” were discovered in 1892 and 1893 in an area that was very close to the already known urn cemetery at Hemmoor (Willers 1901:16ff.). In this newly discovered part of the cemetery, however, Roman bronze buckets were used in place of Germanic cremation urns. It might be suggested that the people who were buried in this part were wealthier or had more intensive contact with the Roman provinces.113 Other “Type Hemmoor” buckets were discovered at Altenwalde, Wehden and Quelkhorn, which are places already familiar to us as locations in which 5th-century-equal arm brooches were also found. These buckets and their grave goods, however, were dated to the 3rd century AD (ibid.:95), which may simply prove that people who dwelt in the above-mentioned places already had contacts in Roman provinces and received imports from there before equal arm brooches came into fashion. There is yet a further connection between the Hemmoor buckets and equal arm brooches, which may be evidence that the people between Elbe and Weser were already acquainted with specific Roman motifs before chip carved belt equipment was worn and Germanic craftsmen began to produce equal arm brooches.

The Hemmoor buckets were clearly Roman imports. They were made by Roman craftsmen and in the Roman world the buckets were probably part of feasting and drinking equipment. Their Germanic owners, however, used them as urns, in which to bury their dead. It is apparent that we are facing a shift of perception, which occurred when the buckets transferred from Roman to Germanic hands. We shall bear this result in mind for the next chapter when I shall be discussing the social implications of style. The other important finds are the so-called ‘Thorsberg Discs’. The two bronze discs were found in the Thorsberg bog near Süderbrarup (Angeln, Schleswig-Holstein) and appear to have been a ‘gift to the Gods’, though this is not confirmed (figs. 53-56). Werner suggested that the Thorsberg bog was a place where people deposited offerings from the 1st-4th century; the discs were deposited in the 3rd century (Werner 1941:1). One disc was covered in a chain mail and although not having been found together, the discs probably belonged to the same deposition event because of their close similarities in style and manufacture. They certainly originated in the same workshop. Werner argued that the deposition of the discs was probably a military action that we cannot specify in more detail (ibid.:21). He explained that discs like these were worn over armour and resembled parade discs of the

The rim zones of some “Hemmoor” buckets were decorated with friezes displaying hunting scenes and animal fights (figs. 52, 57 and 58). The range of animal species exhibited is comparable to the variety of little creatures that were crouching along the edges of late 4th century belt equipment and 5th century equal arm brooches. These animals are hunting dogs, boars, wild donkeys, deer, lions, panthers, gazelles (?) or antelopes (?) and fantastical 111

A standard approach to the Roman import in “Free Germany” was published by H.-J. Eggers in 1951: Der römische Import im Freien Germanien. 112 H. Willers, 1901:Die römischen Bronzeeimer von Hemmoor and J. Werner, 1941: Die beiden Zierscheiben vom Thorsberger Moorfund. 113 Italian craftsmen did not produce the buckets from Hemmoor; they probably came from a provincial workshop (Willers 1901:144).

114

I should mention that the Hemmoor buckets were not the only series of artefacts that presented the owner with animals hunts and fights: some Roman glass vessels, which were also imported to the regions beyond the Limes, did bear them too (Willers 1901:174ff, here fig. 59).

34

35

It is indeed interesting to note that, while in the first centuries AD there were hardly any figural ornamentation in the Germanic art, there was a rapid development of this in the 3rd and 4th centuries. Werner argues that the Roman art industry may have triggered manufacture of animaldecorated items, but the style in which these were executed is clearly Germanic (ibid.:45, compare fig. 62.1). He lists a number of chalices that were found on the Danish island of Seeland: Vallöby (Amt Praestö), Nordup (Amt Sorö) and Himlingöie (Amt Praestö). These chalices bore ornaments that can hardly be separated from the animals attached to Disc I from Thorsberg (fig. 61). Werner interprets the friezes on these chalices as hunting scenes incorporating sea-horses, horses, goats, birds and small human figures holding daggers (ibid.:46ff). The structure and ornamentation of these zones are clearly very much like the decoration on the Hemmoor buckets discussed above. After having discussed the chalices’ figurative ornamentation, Werner concludes that their manufacturers must have been strongly influenced by Roman imports. The chalices were found in cemeteries that also had a distinct number of Roman imports, such as type Hemmoor buckets (such as the bucket from Himlingöie), glass vessels and pottery.

Early Empire. Then, soldiers were sometimes awarded a distinction in form of a metal disc that could be attached to their chain mail for everybody to see (ibid.:21). The added Germanic motifs and style of decoration of these discs are significant in view of my approach. At the outset, however, they were manufactured in the Romanprovinces and this decoration needs to be presented first. The ornamental band of Disc I was separated by smaller discs into four fields of equal size. Each of them was decorated with a seated figure, which was surrounded by little animals. These Roman animals were sea horses, hippocamps, dolphins and geese. Geese were generally associated with the Roman God of war, Mars, and this is probably who was represented in the seated figure (ibid.:7ff). Before being deposited, however, the disc had been adorned with 8 additional animals, which were clearly manufactured in a Germanic workshop and then riveted onto the disc. These 8 animals were pairs of geese, fish, quadrupeds and horned sea animals. They were made from sheet metal and bore punched decoration (fig. 60.2). The animal-decorated outer frieze of Disc II is not fully preserved. Only one third is still attached to the disc, but because the first and the last animal on the frieze looked the same, Werner was able to reconstruct the original looks of the frieze (fig. 54.2). The ornamental frieze of this disc was separated into three parts with three animals in each section: two horned animals and a goat with a fishtail. The last horned animal in each section was looking backwards and a lolling tongue stretched out of its mouth. The tongue split up in two and both tips touched the outer circle of punched crosses. These lolling tongues were clearly intended to divide the disc’s space into three equal parts and in each part a short ‘hunting scene’ was displayed, although they do not look as vigorous and serious as hunting friezes on the Hemmoor buckets. Werner suggested that the discs were probably made in the first decades of the 3rd century (ibid.:44) and that especially Disc II is important for the later development of animal art in the northern Germanic hemisphere. Werner argued that in the first two centuries AD there were hardly any animals or humans present in Germanic art. Therefore, he added,

It was of great significance to present these Romaninfluenced predecessors of Germanic art116 in order to demonstrate that the people beyond the Limes had been very receptive towards the Roman styles seen on Roman imports from the provinces as early as the 2nd and 3rd centuries. It was important to point out that both Germanic animal ornament and style of the migration period were heavily influenced by the friezes of items such as the Hemmoor buckets and parade discs like the ones found in the Thorsberg bog and other objects, such as glass vessels and pottery. In chapter 5 I shall consider in more detail these socio-cultural implications of Roman imports and matters arising from contacts with the Roman Empire. It would be interesting, for example, to ask the question why it was animals that were copied so enthusiastically and not mythological scenes or certain geometrical patterns that were also depicted on Roman objects.

“…ist anzunehmen, dass das germanische Kunstgewerbe der älteren Kaiserzeit figürliche Darstellungen ablehnte und, wie besonders die Keramik zeigt, bei der lineargeometrischen Ornamentik älterer Perioden verharrte. Da andererseits die germanische Kunst der Völker-wanderungszeit in hervorragendem Maße durch die Tierornamentik bestimmt wird, ist es von Wichtigkeit festzustellen, wann und wo im freien Germanien der Grundsatz der Bildlosigkeit in der Verzierung durchbrochen wurde und auf welche Einflüsse die Aufgabe dieses Grundsatzes zugunsten einer figürlichen Verzierung zurückzuführen ist.” (Werner 1941:44)115

tional linear ornament, as may be seen on their pottery. However, as the Germanic art of the Migration Period is characterised by its animals ornament in the first place, it is important to find out when and why the rule of avoiding pictures was given up in favour of figural ornamentation.” Translated by the author. 116 This refers to the animals on the Thorsberg disc and the Seeland chalices.

115 “It may be suggested that the Germanic art of the Early Empire was reluctant to accept figural motifs and mainly remained with the tradi-

36

(Böhme 1974:92ff, maps 11 and 12). Most of these types were found in northern Gaul and very many also in the Elbe-Weser region. However, these objects are not considered imports, but belt plates that Germanic men from north western Germany may have worn while they were serving in the Roman army. After completing their service, they were then allowed to take their belt equipment home. However, although Roman Military Style developed in different versions, I would like to concentrate on the above-mentioned types, because they probably were models for equal arm brooches. It should be mentioned here that in general less belt plates were decorated with crouching animals than a study of equal arm brooches might suggest. This specific edge decoration became more frequent only when applied to the edges of equal arm brooches. Though there may have been few forerunners, the little animals were nevertheless copied from Roman military belt plates and it may be suggested that animal decoration (and also scrollwork) was the most significant motif of the equal arm brooches.

Text fig. 15: Amphitheatre

In the preceding paragraph of this section I have also tried to demonstrate where Roman workmen may have found their inspiration for the motifs I am discussing (animals, hunting scenes and animal fights). Germanic workmen, who copied hunts and animal fights, had probably never experienced venatio in amphitheatres. Nevertheless, animal decoration meant something to them and in chapter 5 I shall consider what this may have been, because what Germanic eyes saw in these motifs was certainly different from what a Roman may have felt when looking at those hunting scenes. Werner argues that, “…keinesfalls war sie [die germanische Darstellung einer Jagdszene] rein dekorativ und kaum gleichbedeutend mit den provinzialrömischen Jagdbildern, denen bei den Germanen bereits ein anderer Sinn unterlegt sein konnte.” (ibid.:61-62)117

It is difficult to pinpoint the influences that triggered the development of this kind of military art style. A. Riegl argued that a certain late-antique “Kunstwollen” (=the intention to produce art in a certain way) was expressed by using chip carving as method of applying decoration. He said that width-less lines, which were both the ornaments’ highest edges and deepest gaps, divided the objects’ surfaces and thus created a continuing contrast between light and shade and these relief ornaments clearly corresponded to the late antique taste in style. After the first centuries AD the balance of decorated and undecorated surfaces had been abandoned in favour of a decoration that covered the entire surface (Haseloff 1978:153) and this style was carried through the Migration Period into the Early Medieval Ages by the successor states of the Roman Empire.

The hunting scenes and animal fights on the abovementioned Roman artefacts probably also influenced the development of styles in other regions of the Roman Empire: in the late 4th century we can discover the tendency to decorate Roman military belt equipment with chip carved geometrical motifs. Certain varieties were also adorned with little crouching animals along their edges. This occurred especially in northern Gaul, Belgium, along the Rhine and to a lesser extent also along the Danube. In 1974 Böhme discussed Roman belt equipment in detail (Germanische Grabfunde zwischen Elbe und Loire) and concluded that, although this general development of applying art to military belt equipment included almost all parts of the Roman provinces, certain varieties of decoration were restricted to certain areas of the Empire.118 The types that carried most prominently chip carved decoration and little animals adorning their edges are Böhme’s A types Vieuxville, Chécy, Herbergen and Misery

It may be argued that in general people feel attached to art and art expressions that are able to express their own emotions. People feel not only close to a decoration that matches their taste but also to art forms that may voice their happiness, confusion or fear. Therefore it may be that the late antique and early medieval peoples’ taste probably favoured an art expression that reflected their era’s uncertainty and confusion.119 The people of this time may have found this expression in chip carved motifs and ornaments, which created a distance between wearer and observer rather than closeness. The observer would have needed time and different angles to deal with the reflection of light, in order to completely comprehend the pattern. Each of the wearer’s moves would have suddenly changed the last moment’s impression: light became shade and shade became light (Riegl, cited by Roth 1979:51). As the angle at which light reflected from the

117 “… on no account were they [the Germanic presentation of a hunting scenes] only decoration and they could have had hardly the same implication as the provincial Roman hunting scenes, which could have meant something different to the Germanic people.” Translated by the author. 118 It seems difficult to place actual workshops on the map; Böhme suggested that the varieties of belt plates clearly showed the products of certain workshops areas, but as none of them was found and excavated yet, we cannot say for certain where exactly the actual workshops where situated (ibid.:93ff).

119 It is hardly surprising that the Fall of the Roman Empire and the Migration Period would be in general considered as a restless and worrying era for people who lived so close to its focal areas.

37

Roth argues that the animals that were represented on belt equipment (quadrupeds, sea animals and a mixture of both) were mainly taken from antique mythology (Roth 1979:52). On the belt plates they were displayed in a heraldic manner, which certainly underlines their importance in the Military Style.

brooch changed, so changed the angle of view the motifs: at first, the geometric and floral motifs may be heartshaped, but in the next moment they dissolved in palmettes and scrollwork. Chip carving as an expression of art was clearly not designed to be straightforward; its aim was not to show exactly outlined ornaments, but to evoke and intensify uncertainty and confusion and hide intentions rather than display them.120 In this respect it was well fitted for the uncertain times in which it was created in (the beginning of the Migration period) and it may explain why this form of art became so popular in military circles.121

This section was designed to emphasise the importance of the Roman Military Style for its successor styles beyond the limits of the Roman Empire. It is important to understand its development, execution and achievement as well as the deep impression that it left in the Germanic Arts of the Migration Period and Early Medieval Ages. It is justified to argue that, without the Roman Military Style, not only the Equal Arm Brooch Style would have been unthinkable, but also most of the other early medieval art styles. It was important to give an explanation of how and in which surroundings and from which traditions the Roman Military Style evolved and which social implications were connected to it, before an intensive discussion of the social implications of Equal Arm Brooch Style could take place. I hope that it has become clear that Equal Arm Brooch Style was not only connected, but also heavily dependent on this Late Antique Military Style and the external circumstances that may have contributed to its evolution.

Roth argues that the motifs122 of Military Style were borrowed from antique ornamentation, which had then only found a new and suitable way of expression in Late Roman Military Style (ibid.:52). If we want to understand the implication of style we need to understand the Military and Equal Arm Brooch Style did not stand out in terms of the motifs they displayed. Both styles may be considered intermediate parts of a great number of styles, which had already carried these very motifs through 1000-900 years of history.123 It seems to be a surprising connection, but the motifs of the Roman belt equipment probably originated in Greek architecture. However, the similarities are clear when we compare the motifs to a roof of a Greek temple we will be able to find the main motifs that adorned both Roman belt plates and Germanic equal arm brooches (fig. 63+64). ‘Scrollwork’ was displayed on Ionian columns (volutes) as well as the eggand-reel and egg-and-tongue motifs (astragales, Lesbian and Ionic Kyma), which either adorned the upper part of the columns (abakus – volutes – echinus) or were part of the friezes in the timberwork.124

In the final sections I would like to briefly outline what other main styles of northern Europe were heavily influenced by late Roman art and ornamentation. This should give us a brief insight into the contemporary styles that were flourishing in the vicinity of the Equal Arm Brooch Style and emphasise its uniqueness among them.

120

Again, I have to emphasise that this does not contradict the argument of display and visibility that I mentioned in the first chapter. The belt equipment and brooches were meant to be seen, but not because of their pattern. A confusing ornament does not suggest that the object may as well be worn underneath a cloak or cape. The knowledge about the motifs was in the wearer’s mind and it was his or her power to spread what the ornament meant to them. That the decoration led to confusion may also have been intentional and there is no reason why these objects could not have been worn on display! 121 In his lectures about Celtic warfare, B. Cunliffe suggested that animal ornaments played an important role in the wars between the Roman Empire and the Celts. The Witham Shield (fig…) , for example, bore a thinly incised boar in its centre, which could only be seen under a certain incidence of light, and when moving the shield, some of the geometric ornament seemed to change into a monster’s stare. Surely, the ornament was applied to the shield to frighten the opponent and to take advantage of his confusion. On a smaller scale we may face the same intentions when discussing the often-confusing ornaments of the Roman military belt equipment – and the equal arm brooches. 122 These motifs are scrollwork, egg-and-reel- and egg-and-tongue friezes and animals crouching along the rather sharp edges: the motifs that we, of course, also find represented on equal arm brooches. 123 It is neither in the scope of this paper nor its aim to add an exhaustive discussion of the development of the stylistic motifs of the Equal Arm Brooch Style. However, it is important to understand where the motifs originated and comprehend that already in the early Medieval Ages, they could not possibly be considered a recent development. The motifs were already “antique” when they came into fashion in the 4th and 5th centuries. 124 For an extensive discussion of the development of Greek Architecture, comp. , e.g., Die Tempel der Griechen by G. Gruben, München

4.3 The Sösdala125 Style

Text fig. 16: Sösdala Style

While both Equal Arm Brooch and Quoit Brooch Style were art forms that reinterpreted Roman animal and floral 1966. 125 J. Forssander used the term “Sösdala Style” first in 1937. (Roth 1979:56)

38

influences that created the Sösdala Style may be found in Eastern Europe: Austria, Romania (Coşoveni) and Poland.

motifs, the Sösdala-Coşoveni Style mainly took over Roman stamped ornamentation (Roth 1979:55). Its most outstanding characteristic was the use of certain corpus of stamps, which essentially consisted of lines, dots, circles, triangles and squares that were used to create various standardised patterns, such as stars, ornamented friezes and flowers with petals (fig.65). Its other distinct peculiarities were the occasional use of shallow chip carving and animal decoration (horses’ heads, seen in profile) on a small scale (fig.65.1). It seems to be another distinct feature of the Sösdala Style decorated items that some of them were partially mercury-gilt, so that some of their punch-marked zones were silver or bronze and others golden (Gebers 1977:28ff).

The important connection between this style and the focus of this paper is, of course, the use of the Sösdala Style on type Mecklenburg equal arm brooches: this use is clearly eminent and has been mentioned before (Genrich 195152:182; Böhme 1986:534). It is obvious that although the symmetrical form of the equal arm brooches was derived from the region between Elbe and Weser, the Mecklenburg brooches’ decoration remained in the tradition of the Sösdala style (compare figs.43.2+3 and esp. 42.2 with fig.65.3,8+9 ).

4.2 The Quoit Brooch Style The style that E. Bakka called “Quoit Brooch Style” is a development of the first half of the 5th century (Roth 1979:54). In 2000, Suzuki summarised the quoit brooch style as a “…decorative style consisting of zoomorphic and geometric motifs. The zoomorphic elements consist of quadrupeds, sea-creatures and human masks...[while the corpus of]… geometric [motifs may be summarised as containing] palmettes, tendril scrolls, S-scrolls, triangles, circles, semi-circles and dots.” (Suzuki 2000:1) Suzuki also argued that the animals were semi-naturalistic and organised in friezes (fig.66.1); they were outlined in double-lines and their fur was indicated with punch marks (ibid.:1), in contrast to animals on equal arm brooches, which were cast together with the brooch and eventually filed and more exactly modelled with an awl. In general, quoit brooch style motifs resemble equal arm brooch style motifs, but unlike equal arm brooch style, the quoit brooch style motifs were mainly executed with punch marks and incised lines. If chip carving was used, it was more shallow than the chip carving used for decorating equal arm brooches (fig. 67.1). The objects that were adorned with quoit brooch style decoration were clearly not industrially manufactured. The regional workshops, which produced quoit brooch style ornamented items, may be found exclusively in England, which was also the principal area of their distribution (ibid.:2). Although the resemblance to their Roman models was not quite as striking as that of the equal arm brooches, the English Quoit Brooch Style was also a successor of the Late Roman Military Style. Ager suggested that the predecessors of the quoit brooch style’s motifs might have originated in Northern Gaulish workshops in the later 4th and early 5th century (Ager 1985:9). He argued that quoit brooch style motifs originated elsewhere but came to England via Northern Germany and Scandinavia, instead of taking the more direct route over the Channel (ibid.:9). The longer way via Germania is supported by the fact that quoit

Text fig. 17: Sösdala Style

This style derived its name from the “Sösdala hoard”, which consisted of more than 200 fragments of horse gear that were found in a bog near Sösdala (Skåne, Sweden). The hoard was probably an offering made in a context comparable to the parade discs’ disposal in the Thorsberg bog. Analyses have shown that it is likely that the fragments were destroyed intentionally and then disposed of (Roth 1979:56). In 1969, Lund-Hansen argued that the finds from Sösdala were of great importance, because although its decoration may be compared to decoration on contemporary Scandinavian metal vessels and bracteates, it also bore unique motifs that were visibly influenced by western, eastern and central European styles of the second half of the 4th century AD (Lund-Hansen 1969:80). Roth argued that the most likely models for the Sösdala Style could be found in the Danube region, where horse gear and Roman belt plates with similar decoration were found (Roth 1979:56). However, the Sösdala Style is not the only style that may have originated in Central Europe. Results of the same

39

carving were flattened at the top and then embellished with a thin line of black niello. Sometimes the slanting edges were mercury-gilt, while the flat tips remained silver, and then, finally, a black niello-line was added. This technique resulted in a more colourful reflection of light than the shine of the basic silver or gold (ibid.:9). Punch marked decoration, which was the characteristic of the Nydam Style’s predecessor Sösdala Style, was rarely used on Nydam Style ornamented objects. However, they were used in the decoration of masks and animals; punch marks were used, for example, to indicate eyes, hair or feathers (ibid.:10). Animals and masks were, like the animals on equal arm brooches, not executed in chip carving, but in semi-plastic relief.

brooch style seems to be closely related to the Sösdala Style (they shared many punch marks). In general, however, Suzuki argued that it was hard to place the origins of the quoit brooch style, because only 39 quoit brooch style artefacts (buckles and brooches) have been discovered to date.126 He concludes that “…the origins of this style are hotly debated, but there is little doubt that it has been derived from Roman-Continental art...” (Suzuki 2000:4).

4.3 The Nydam Style The final art style that I have to discuss in this section is the successor of the Sösdala Style, the Nydam Style. This style is of great importance, because it was not as shortlived as the equal arm brooch style, but, although being rooted in the Roman Military Style, finally presented a fruitful basis for a purely Germanic Style (Haseloff 1981:8). The Nydam Style derives its name from the second Nydam find that contained 100 items, which probably were offered together and therefore present a comparable context to the Thorsberg and Sösdala finds. The Nydam find mainly contained silver sword fittings adorned with Nydam Style decoration, but the Nydam Style is also present on brooches and buckles (ibid.:8). The Nydam Style decoration is, like the Equal Arm Brooch Style decoration, executed in a very deep chip carving. Both heights and depths of the chip carved ridges are very sharp and emphasise the well-defined geometric ornaments (ibid.:9). While in equal arm brooch style the tendrils of the scrollwork were very natural with little offsprings and leaves, the scrollwork of the Nydam Style is even more geometric than the tendrils on the Roman belt equipment. Most of the geometric motifs, however, were loaned from the Roman Military Style, as we have seen before (ibid.:9).

A very much favoured motif in Nydam Style was the “mask between two animals” (ibid.:11), a motif that we often find on Roman strap ends, where the animals were usually crouching up the sharp angles in order to reach a mask that adorned the tip. This is a motif that we do not find on equal arm brooches, although we have four sharp angles on every brooch. The animal corpus of the Nydam Style is very much the same as on both Roman belt plates and equal arm brooches: Quadrupeds and mixed sea creatures, mainly hippocamps (ibid.:13). Greater surfaces were mainly decorated with scrollwork, a feature that we should also recognise from Roman Military and Equal Arm Brooch Style. However, this rule of Late Roman Style was finally abandoned by the northern Germanic workmen: In the later Nydam Style, animals were also incorporated in the central fields and here they were, like geometrical ornaments, executed in chip carving (ibid.:15). The Nydam Style’s development began in the first decades of the 5th century and led northern Germanic art style until it was taken over by Style I in the last quarter of the 5th century (ibid.:17).

A speciality of the Nydam Style was the combination of chip carving with niello127. The sharp ridges of the chip 126 An exhaustive discussion of the derivation of quoit brooch style would not be in the scope of this paper and may be found in Ager 1985, Evison 1968 and Suzuki 2000. Evison argued that English workshops were producing quoit brooch style artefacts and suggested that there were some visible Northern Gaulish patterns in them, like heart-shaped motifs and palmettes (Evison 1968:238). In contrast to this, Ager suggested that the decoration techniques that were used to adorn quoit brooch style artefacts could not be found in Britain before the emergence of the Quoit Brooch Style itself. Furthermore, neither silver-inbronze inlay nor the great corpus of different stamps was common in Britain before the beginning of the 5th century. In this respect quoit brooch style shares more similarities with the Sösdala Style than with any preceding Romano-British Styles, which would suggest strong influences from the Roman-modified Germanic art. However, this is cannot be fully discussed here. It was my intention only to introduce the quoit brooch style as another art style that, although being quite distinct from equal arm brooch style, shared the same source of inspiration: the Late Roman art industry, whether it may be imported into England via northern Gaul, northern Germany or Scandinavia. 127 Niello, lat. nigellum, Old German Blachmal: Niello is sulphurblackened enamel, which was, when heated, filled into deep-cut metal chinks (on brooches, vessels, sword hilts, etc.) in order to produce black patterns that stood out from the silver or gold metal surface. The filling (enamel) may be mixed from 4 parts silver, some sulphur, two parts

copper and one part lead (Theophilus, Schedula diversarum artium, c AD 1100). J. Filip, Enzyklopädisches Handbuch der Ur- und Frühgeschichte, Band II (L-Z), Prag 1969, p.911.

40

41

Chapter 5 Socio-Cultural Implications of Equal Arm Brooch Style

“Es ist ein bedeutsamer zug unseres heidenthums, dass zu diesem amt [dem Sakralen] frauen und nicht männer auserlesen werden. […] Nach deutscher ansicht scheinen aussprüche des schicksals im munde der frauen größere heiligkeit zu erlangen, weissagung und zauber in gutem wie im bösen sinn sind vorzugsweise gabe der frauen […]. Wenn es in der natur des menschen überhaupt gelegen ist, dem weiblichen geschlecht eine höhere scheu und ehrfurcht zu beweisen, so war die den deutschen völkern von je her besonders eingeprägt. (J. Grimm)128 denly and perfectly transferred from an object of the male-orientated military world to adorn brooches exclusively worn by women? There seem to have been two regions, in which the bigger Dösemoor and Nesse brooches were manufactured. If the motifs on them were significant to the wearers, why did the smaller varieties cease to display Roman motifs and used somewhat degenerated geometric decoration? This question cannot be sufficiently answered at this stage. It seems unlikely that the smaller brooches were only another regional variety and I have presented evidence above that they were not younger stages in the equal arm brooch development. It may be justified to argue, therefore, that they could have been less expensive varieties of the bigger brooches instead. The smaller brooches required less metal, bore only infrequently crouching animals and scrollwork at the same time and were rarely mercury-gilt. On the other hand, some of them do not seem to be made by less skilled craftsmen, who did not understand how to use Roman techniques and motifs. The smaller brooch types also included very fine examples, e.g. Sahlenburg, Gr. 19 (Type Sahlenburg), Wehden (strayfind, here no. 11, Type Hannover) or the fragment from Bremen-Blumenthal (Type Wehden). Therefore, it seems justified to argue

5.1 Introduction In the preceding chapters I have introduced chronology, distribution and the motifs of equal arm brooches. I have also discussed the environment, in which the style flourished, where it derived its looks from and what other styles were nourished from the same influences. This background information may now serve as a basis for this final chapter. So far, I have remained on more or less solid ground by giving a description of Equal Arm Brooch Style motifs and discussing features such as equal arm brooch chronology or contemporary styles. This last chapter, however, will take us some way into speculation about why in the final decades of the 4th century, simple “Seraing” equal arm brooches were adorned with decoration that before was exclusively used on Roman military belt equipment. Many interesting questions may be asked about equal arm brooches, e.g., why was a décor so sud128

“It is an important facet of the German Paganism that their “executors” are mainly women and not men. The German mind seems to find that words of fate spoken by women were more likely to incorporate holiness; to make predictions and practise both good and bad magic were a woman’s gift. If it really lies the nature of men to show more awe and respect for women, then this is a distinct feature of the German people.” (translated by the author) (J. Grimm, Deutsche Mythologie 1964 (4th edition)):329

42

mentation in order to make them look as natural as possible.

that, if equal arm brooches carried a message other than the display of wealth, others may have understood the message even without seeing the “full context”, i.e. a brooch that incorporated all motifs (scrollwork, crouching animals, egg-and-reel- or egg-and-tongue frieze). For example, a Type Sahlenburg and a Type Dösemoor brooch, manufactured approximately at the same time may have carried the same message without looking exactly the same, i.e. Type Sahlenburg presumably being a pars pro toto variety of the “complete” Dösemoor brooch. This leaves us with the consequence that, if motifs on equal arm brooches were of significance, not all of the brooches needed to display all of them. It may be argued that the size of the brooch and the amount of decoration were dependent on regional manufacture possibilities or people’s taste or wealth.

This issue leads us to the discussion of why people decorated objects and why they did it in a certain style. This discussion is not easy, because it cannot lead to final results. There can hardly be a wrong or right. We cannot ask early medieval people, why they decorated their jewellery, belt plates or sword hilts and why they used a certain style for doing so. It may be argued that people decorated objects because decoration made them “look more pleasant”. It could be taken further, however, and added that for people “pleasantness” connected a specific emotion or experience with a style or an object. Then why not use style to express an emotion or mark a position? Discussions of style are always unsatisfactory in the respect that we probably look at early medieval styles with different feelings and knowledge and interpret it much differently from what a medieval eye would have seen and a medieval mind would have thought. However, we will have to think about style and motifs, because they may have been an implication or carried a message that its wearer cannot explain to us anymore. Conkey and Hastorf argue that “…style, like ideology remains elusive, implicit, and ambiguous. Style is unavoidable in all archaeological interpretation…style is also ideas, intentions and perceptions…” (ibid.:2).

I should emphasise here that the above is only speculation based on the results of this study. Early medieval contexts should not be considered more easily accessible than any other prehistoric period. We cannot know, what happened between the manufacturing process of the equal arm brooch and its “burial” with the person that we want to believe owned it in her lifetime. The next question is why equal arm brooches were almost exceptionally found in the Elbe-Weser region. Böhme’s distribution maps (2+7) confirm that in the area between Elbe and Weser were discovered indeed many parts of Roman belt equipment, which provided style and motifs for the development of Equal Arm Brooch Style. Therefore, it may be argued that the Elbe-Weser region sent out considerably more men to serve in the Roman army than other regions; maybe the connection to the Roman Military and Empire was particularly strong in this part of Germania. We may speculate that this was the case and people from the Elbe-Weser region may have been more receptive towards Roman style on Roman objects.

We may be able to reconstruct how and were jewellery was worn and what its practical use was, but we cannot determine why people wore it the way they did. Decorated brooches, although being dress fasteners were also adornment and embellishment of one’s appearance, especially when they were worn in a central position like equal arm brooches. The meaning of this could simply have been, e.g. display of wealth, but there may have been much more complicated reasons, subtle differences, which were obvious for medieval wearer and observer, but for us impossible to reconstruct.

The next issues concerns the choice of motifs that were displayed by Equal Arm Brooch Style. Why were the brooches decorated in this particular style on a seemingly higher level of execution? The ornamentation on Roman belt equipment appeared to be simple and very stylised. The same motifs that we find made rather unblended on belt equipment seemed to be executed more vividly and naturally on equal arm brooches. The scrollwork, bearing little offshoots and leaves looked much more floral and flowing. That probably means that the manufacturers in Germania129 put more effort into the making of the orna-

Therefore I need to emphasise that some of this chapter’s discussion, although based on other studies and research, will remain speculative and should be taken as an approach to the understanding of equal arm brooch style and its motifs, and not as definitive last word.

5.2. Social Identity Medieval people were probably not consciously aware of the “art” which decorated the objects that they used in everyday life. That is to say, the decoration styles I have discussed in this paper should not be considered as “art for art’s sake”. Also,

129

There is an ongoing discussion about whether the manufacturers of equal arm brooches were Romans working in Germania or Germans who learned the craft in Roman provinces and came back to produce Roman style decorated objects. A. Genrich argues that the distribution of Roman belt equipment was slightly different from the general distribution of Roman style decorated objects. Therefore, it seems more likely that craftsmen learned how to decorate objects with chip carving and adjusted it in order to be able to execute it according to the Germanic people’s taste (Genrich 1977/78:105-106, where also a more detailed discussion may be found).

“… We must immediately dissociate ourselves from modern conception that jewellery was almost purely ornamental and that the way it was worn is a matter of personal

43

stituted a major part of the Roman army and so must have experienced great stress in fighting along the Limes at Rhine and Danube. Chip carved belt equipment, manufactured in Northern Gaul for the Roman army, was found all along the Limes and also in the homelands of those soldiers, who returned: in this case, of course, the Elbe-Weser region. Surely these men also brought with them stories about their life in the Roman army, their experiences and news from wherever they had been. Therefore, it seems highly probable that “social stress” was a commonplace feature amongst the people in the Elbe-Weser region.

choice. In the Dark Ages, jewellery, although decorated, was primarily functional; brooches were also fasteners…” (Owen-Crocker 1986:25) It seems logical that brooches must be considered as dress-fasteners in the first place. Older equal arm brooches (“Vorform Seraing”) were undecorated and unprepossessing and it does not seem likely that they fulfilled a task other than pinning a cloak. By considering the first stages of the above-discussed chronology, however, we may find that the first change of equal arm brooch decoration (from Seraing to Dösemoor/Nesse) emerged too suddenly to have been coincidental. The ornamentation that suddenly appeared on the brooches did not improve their practical function; it did not pin the cloak more efficiently or more easily than before. Therefore, we should consider the possibility that adding animal- and scrollwork decoration, executed in chip carving, enhanced a different “function”. It seems highly probable that the “function” of developing Equal Arm Brooch Style was connected to its personal and social meaning rather than to any practical issues.

Brooches that were so obviously decorated with Roman Military Style motifs may have indicated that the women who wore them not only supported the idea of wearing Roman-style ornaments on their native brooches, but also befriended the Roman army itself. This may be because male relatives were serving somewhere along the Limes. It may be argued that women who were related to men who were serving in the Roman army could have been wealthier due to their male relative’s income. Even if they did not use the money, the metal, however, may have been melted down to serve as raw material for craftsmen to produce new metalwork. An equal arm brooch could have served to show off wealth or a higher status in a community as well as the wearer’s support for Roman styles, skills and maybe notions.

Suzuki suggested that brooches might have been social and cultural markers: identity symbols, which signified its wearer’s place in society (Suzuki 2000: 85). Hodder has argued that style “…certainly does transmit information, including group membership, and it allows self-evaluation in relation to groups, but it cannot be reduced to these social functions…” (Hodder 1990:44). Both Suzuki and Hodder emphasise that motifs worn on display were a medium of communication: markers that may have clarified to which group the wearer belonged and what his/her status was. Suzuki also suggested that “…the arguably central status of brooches as identity and prestige symbols seems to be characteristic of emerging Germanic societies in the Migration Period.” (ibid.:92). Something that Suzuki had stated earlier supports his argument:

5.3 Religion and Cult Brooches as “personal markers in times of social stress”, however, are only one facet of the whole issue. Social stress may not only have triggered the demarcation of people, but also a stronger belief in whatever religion people followed. The force of the migrating eastern tribes was too great for even armies to halt. The failures of the Roman army must have petrified those who were relying on its protection. The tribes, who were dwelling east of the Limes, like the people between Elbe and Weser, were also indirectly threatened by migrating eastern tribes, probably more immediately so than the people west of the Limes. Homes were even more vulnerable if men were away serving in the Roman army and unable to defend their property and family. With their men far away, the women would have had to face any danger alone as best as they could. They could not fight, so instead may have turned to the supernatural. They may have used amulets to protect themselves against the evil. In 1964, A.Meaney published her dissertation about Anglo-Saxon Amulets and Curing Stones, which dealt with the nature of amulets, their appearance and use. She argues that “… among adults, warriors and pregnant women were regarded as especially vulnerable…” (Meaney 1964:28). However, though warriors and pregnant women may have believed more readily in any kind of supernatural power, they were probably not the only adults wearing amulets. A greater

“… It has been observed that times of social stress and instability […] may give rise to heightened self-awareness of cultural identity and a correspondingly emphatic appropriation of material culture for its expression.” (ibid.:19) In other words, certain periods in a peoples/person’s life were more likely to make them “mark” themselves as part of a group or point out their place in society. This, of course, would have happened in the period of question. The Migration Period was a time in which people were very likely to experience instability. The Roman army still existed, but Roman power was already in a state of decline. Eastern tribes, like the Huns in AD 375, were pushing the Central European population further West and presented a real threat to the still existing Roman Empire. This Empire, however, was falling apart. In the beginning of the 5th century, Roman authorities needed to withdraw more and more military units from outposts such as Britain in order to fight the invading tribes in the East. In AD 406 the Vandales, Alamanni and Suebi crossed the Rhine and Alarich sacked Rome in AD 410. Germanic men con-

44

to the body as possible made the connection to the protecting power even more secure. Gladigow argued that it was an essential characteristic of protective pictures (amulets)130 to be worn close to the body: as necklace, bracelet or ring. Mainly, protection -“asylum”- was where the Gods were worshipped: the temple, a statue of the God or Goddess, a holy place (Gladigow 1992:14). People felt closer to the Gods when they actually touched the statue of the God or a relict of the God or Goddess. Touching holy artefacts meant “being in touch” with the Gods: in temples, prayers were more likely to be heard and protection was given to fugitives. Wearing an amulet, however, was the same action, only that the relations of mobile and immobile were reverse: instead of going to a temple and touching a statue, a protective charm was worn and carried everywhere (ibid.:16). This charm or amulet was in some way connected to the God or Goddess and because it could be touched any time, the wearer felt more protected.131 Gladikow suggested that amulets were likely to become a firm part of a dress code:

number of items have been found in graves that Meaney considered being amulets: crystals, amethysts, amber, girdle-hangers and also metal pendants such as scutiform pendants (comp. Vierck 1978:271ff, esp. p.273) and bracteates. Usually the item itself is thought to have healing or protective powers, but considering metal artefacts, we may consider that “decoration” also played an important role. In 1978, Vierck demonstrated this in his essay on scutiform pendants. He actually argues that “in the archaic tribal communities of the early medieval ages, church and magic, social position and ethnic identity…” were very much interchangeable (Vierck 1978:271). He further argued that some items from the early medieval period may be considered as amulets, such as bracteates or so-called “scutiform pendants”, which were miniature shields that were worn as pendants on a necklace (fig. 68). These Anglian finds found their counterparts in western Scandinavia: little pendant shields decorated in Sösdala Style, complete with small handle and shield boss (ibid.:271). Vierck was able to show that real shields carried by men into a battle, displayed similar decoration. Therefore, he argues, we may consider that the scutiform pendants were a symbol of security for the women who wore them.

“[…] die Kleidung wiederum, die Geschmückte und mit Symbolen unterschiedlicher kultureller Codes versehener “künstliche” Körperoberfläche ist in mehrfacher Weise Schnittstelle zwischen der Einzelperson und der Gesellschaft. Die Kleidung und ihr “Schmuck”, ihre Applikationen, sind Medium für Information und für Rollendefinitionen.” (ibid.:21)132

The search for “security” seems to be the key that may help us with the answer for the initial question about the connection between style and religion and cult. Security for men at war and women who had to stay at home were two completely different issues. Men at war had to rely largely on their defence weapons, while women “lived in the luxury” of only having to wear a pendant that may have put them under divine protection. Apparently women were more prone to believe in supernatural powers. In 1627, Bacon made clear which people he thought were most likely to trust their imagination and believe in supernatural powers:

So far, all of the above may be considered relevant for equal arm brooches. According to Glasikow’s explanation, it seems likely that amulets were worn as close to the body as possible. However, a central place on the body does not only seem to suit the wearer, but also the observer, because he or she may have realised that the wearer was under the protection of a God or Goddess, symbolised by the displayed amulet. Equal arm brooches were certainly worn so that other people could see them. There was no reason to own such an exceptional object and not display it. Equal Arm Brooch Style was a successor of Roman Military Style, but for a short period of time, at the beginning of the 5th century, both must have coexisted. Provided that people mentally connected equal arm brooches with its look-alike Roman military belt

“So much more in Impressions from Minde to Minde, or from Spirit to Spirit, the Impression taketh, but is Encountred, and overcome, by the Minde and Spirit, which is Passive, before it worke any manifest Effect. And therefore, they worke most on weake Minds, and Spirits: As those of Women; Sicke Persons; Superstitious, and Fearfull Persons; Children and Young Creatures; […] As for the Weaknesse of the Power of them, upon Kings and Magistrates; It may be ascribed […] to the Weaknesse of the Imagination of the Imaginant.” (Bacon 1627:242-43)

130 Lat. ligatura or alligatura, meaning the “bound”, “fastened” or “tied”. 131 Wearing religious symbols is something that, of course, still occurs today: Christian people may wear crucifixes, Pagans a pentacle. These “amulets” symbolise their believe and the wearers may feel more protected as well as “demarcated” as belonging to a certain religion. Similar emotions may be felt with talismans. Talismans do not even have to be connected to a God or Goddess; maybe they are very old or they were a present from a special person, maybe they are something found in a special place. However, they are dear to their owner and may be his “personal lucky charm”, which would not be of use or even valuable for another person, because the owner feels about the object in a special way that others may not be able to interpret. 132 “The costume stands for the surface of the body; instead of the body, the costume is ornamented and depicted with symbols implying different cultural codes. The costume presents in more than just one way the connection between the individual and the community. The costume and its ornaments,- its applications-, are a medium for information and definition of roles.” Translated by the author.

Here, the people in question are those most likely to have stayed at home while the healthy adult men went to war: the people considered “passive” are the women, the children and the sick. Amulets stand in close connection to the belief in supernatural powers, and it may be that the women, children and sick people were more liable to wear amulets. It was their way to protect themselves or call healing powers. They could not leave home and fight against their enemies. Amulets helped them to feel protected by a supernatural power and wearing them as close

45

animals seem to be deer, maybe wild donkeys (some them have really long ears), but certainly sea-creatures, dogs, hares and even horses (on the brooch from Riensförde, no. 19).

equipment, they may have also realised its wearer’s connection with the Empire. We may consider that people still believed in the strength and protection provided by the Roman soldiers and as military belt plates may have symbolised the Roman Military and its protection, so may have equal arm brooches - because of the Military Style they displayed. Like scutiform pendants, which displayed small shields as a symbol of bigger ones, equal arm brooches displayed the same motifs that we can find on military belt equipment. In both cases an object from the man’s warrior or soldier world was transferred to the female world.133

Even if it is may be argued that animals played a great part in Germanic belief systems it seems impossible to determine what part it could have been. Explicit evidence for an Anglo-Saxon belief in animal’s supernatural power seems to be limited to the amulets A. Meaney discussed in her study on Anglo-Saxon amulets and curing stones (Meaney 1981). As we have no written evidence about Germanic belief in general and especially Anglo-Saxon belief from that time, it is difficult to comprehend what their belief incorporated and how it was practised. However, grave goods such as the items that we call “amulets” may be of help to get an idea of Germanic belief.135 According to these Germanic people may have cherished parts of animals or pictures of those in order to share the animal’s special gifts, such as ferocity, strength or fertility, according to what powers an animal was assigned to136. Meaney argued that parts of animals (teeth or horns) were frequently found in Anglo-Saxon graves. These teeth, claws or bones came from horses, oxen, pigs, dogs/wolfs, foxes or beavers, a group of animals that largely overlaps with the group Mildenberger argued was taken over from Roman art (ibid:99). This supports his argument that Germanic people did not just blindly take over Roman motifs, but did it by choice.

However, these beliefs were probably not directly connected to cult and religion, though they are certainly part of it. To go deeper into the area of religion and cult is difficult because we do not know what exactly the medieval Germanic people “believed”. At that stage (early 5th century) they were certainly not yet christianised, but it is impossible to say how they were practising their pagan belief. From their burials we may take it that they probably believed in an afterlife, because the dead were equipped with their clothes, weapons (the men) and jewellery, keys (or girdle-hangers) and knives (women). Furthermore, they were given vessels with foodstuffs, which leads to the assumption that at some stage in their afterlife they would need clothes, food, weapons and jewellery. Some jewellery and pottery indicates that people may have believed that animals had supernatural power or may have been companions of certain gods or goddesses.134 Mildenberger argued that fertility gods might have been connected to swine/boars, which were later considered to be attribute animals of Freyja as well as symbols of protection (ibid.: 92). He also suggested that the transition of motifs from the Roman into the Germanic world did not happen without a selection process that the motifs had to go through. Mildenberger argued that predominantly animals like dogs, horses, rams, wolves, pigs and some fantastical creatures were taken over, but rarely lions, tigers and peacocks (ibid.:99). Therefore, it could be argued that the animals, which were crouching along equal arm brooches may be interpreted as dogs, wolves or deer rather than lions and tigers. Some of them certainly were sea-creatures, as they were equipped with fishtails instead of two hind legs. It is unfortunate that the animals at the equal arm brooches’ edges were rather small and delicately made, so that they were prone to melt or break in the pyre. However, if still recognisable, the main depicted

However, equal arm brooches were not parts of animals. They incorporated pictures of animals in their decoration. Meaney argued that there was another group of amulets, which had amulet character because of their shape, not their substance (Meaney 1981:148). However, she argued that we needed to be careful in the decision of what was an amulet and what was not: “… It is difficult to draw a line here: when a lady’s weaving batten, or a merchant’s scales and weights (or even a warrior’s weapon) were buried with them, should they be considered as possible amulets because they symbolise skill and status? How far might the categories of ‘status symbol’ and ‘amulet’ overlap?” (ibid.:148) This is almost as far as I want to go in the discussion of whether equal arm brooches were amulets or not. A extensive discussion of the Germanic people’s beliefs and religion cannot be a major part of this study and limiting it to one chapter would take away most of the credibility of such an argument. Therefore, I have attempted to present some general ideas, to what extent equal arm brooch motifs may have been connected to cult, beliefs and social status. However, we have to bear in mind Meaney’s warn-

133 Actually, male and female world may not have been as far apart this section might suggest. The soldiers may have also believed in the protective power of pictures, may they have represented animals, plants or deities: Tacitus (Germania 7) told us that the fighting Germanic people took insignia and emblems from their holy grooves and carried them into battle as if to make their deities fighting with them and protecting them (Green 1998:81). 134 Brooches displaying boars are known (fig. 69.1) and also a swineshaped vessel from Liebenau, Kr. Nienburg (fig. 69.2). Boar’s tusks worn as pendants were considered to be amulets (Mildenberger 1972:92) as well as little metal boar figures that were worn on the crests of helmets (compare Beowulf, 303-306, 1288 and fig. 71).

135

Though, again we need to be careful, as we cannot know whether grave goods were actually part of the living world. However, grave goods such as spindle-whorls, knives or weaving battens may indicate that grave goods may refer back to the world of the living as well as having an implication in afterlife. 136 Meaney forth chapter dealt with animal amulets of all kinds (1981:106ff, esp.131ff, and Mildenberger 1972:89ff). She argued that

46

ing137: It is hardly possible to decide how far we can go in deciding which item was an object that indicated social status and what was an amulet for e.g. protection.

because it was an antique Roman motif that was changed to suit the Germanic taste and belief. This disc brooch may be also considered as a gorgoneion and it seems likely that equal arm brooches symbolised something similar for their own connection to danger, battles and war. They were so obviously connected to the Roman Military Art that everybody, who looked at them, would know that the wearer was somehow connected to Roman military. Häßler (1994) argued that Germanic men, who returned home from their service in the Roman army, brought not only his salary home, but also knowledge and battle experience. This knowledge is not limited to war practices, but also includes economics, architecture and technology, which he may have seen, if he got to fight in other parts of the Empire. They were organised soldiers, who returned with much more useful knowledge about social organisation. Häßler even suggested that these men took over the lead in their Germanic homelands (ibid.:66-67). I do not want to go that far, but a distinct amount of power was certainly connected to these exsoldiers and their female relatives. We do not know, whether the wearers of equal arm brooches were in a way related to a Roman soldier. It seems likely, however, and the equal arm brooch decorated in this distinct Roman Military Style may have given the female wearers some protection, showing off that maybe a powerful fighter would revenge any harm that was done to her.

Yet, I want to briefly discuss one final notion, which may support that equal arm brooches represented amulets at least to a certain extent. Vierck argues that some Germanic brooches may have been worn as a “Germanic Gorgoneion” (Vierck 1978:271), especially those bigger brooches, which were worn in the central place in the middle of the chest. Vierck argued that according to the heads on some great square headed brooches we could determine how they were worn (fig.72.1). He suggested that the beast’s or human’s head in the centre of the brooches were a symbol of protection, because the “gorgoneion”138 used to protect its wearer by turning any opponent, who looked at it, into stone. This protective charm, worn in the centre of the chest, either as a pendant, or, in this case, maybe as a brooch, was highly valued and much favoured since antiquity (ibid:248). As further evidence for this sort of protective charm we may consider bracteates and similar pendants of the Migration Period, as well as a 3rd century disc brooch that may be at least motif-related to equal arm brooches. This brooch was found in Tangendorf, Kr. Harburg (Hamburg, Germany, here fig. 72.2). It consists of two silver discs surrounded by a horn ring; the visible surface was mercury-gilt. The motif in the centre of the disc is a quadruped, which is looking backwards, tongue lolling (Busch 1987). Busch argues that this quadruped was the Germanic copy of dogs represented on Roman metalwork. The dog is a motif that had a long tradition in antiquity, e.g. on the above-mentioned hunting scenes on glass vessels and “Hemmoor” buckets, where it is hunting hares, deer and boars. (ibid.:40). Busch also argues that on this Germanic disc brooch, the dog motif was probably reinterpreted and now showing a ferocious wolf, which may have been the attribute of a native deity (ibid.:40). Therefore, this brooch seemed to be somewhat related to the later equal arm brooches, not only, because it required a similar manufacturing process, but more immediately,

I want to close this chapter with a quote by A. Futrell, which summarises the above-discussed sections: “… Religion helps one to feel better (to alleviate cognitive discomfort by offering a symbolic framework through which to categorise) about his or her place in society and the cosmos by offering some sort of pattern for understanding that appeals to the heart and to the mind.” (Futrell 1997:77)

137 We are also warned by Vierck, who argued, that “…inwieweit der in der in die Kleidung gewebte und am Zubehör mitgegossene Tierdekor heidnische Überlieferung darstellt oder bloß ornamental- sinnentleerter Schmuckwert hatte, hängt weitgehend von der Grundstazfrage ab, ob man im Sinne des 19. Jahrhunderts zwischen Darstellung und Ornament schon für das Frühmittelalter entscheiden darf…Dagegen spricht schon, dass die Übergänge zwischen eher skenisch bewegten und eher ornamental gefassten Bildern fließend bleiben.” (Vierck 1978:271), Translation: “It remains the argument of whether dress ornaments depicting animals were pagan tradition or only some kind of decoration. This, however, is dependent on the 19th century question, whether we can divide depiction and ornament in the early medieval ages, as has been done in the 19th century…We can hold against that that the transition between scenic and ornamental pictures remained flowing.” 138 The gorgoneion was one of the attributes of the Greek war and craft goddess Athena, who wore the head of the gorgon Medusa that Theseus had killed, in the centre of her chest (Theseus had used his shield as a mirror to avoid the gorgon’s deadly stare). The gorgon’s stare was supposed to turn everybody who looked at into stone and therefore it used to a useful symbol for protection.

47

Chapter 6 Conclusion and Outlook …For clothing all wear a cloak, fastened with a clasp, or, in its absence, a thorn: they spend whole days on the hearth round the fire with no other covering. The richest men are distinguished by the wearing of under-clothes; not loose, like those of Parthians and Sarmatians, but drawn tight, throwing each limb into relief. Tacitus, Germania 17. animals and other friezes, I would like to argue that the smaller variants were neither older nor younger, but contemporary with the bigger Dösemoor and Nesse types. They were most likely regional varieties. For map 5 I have used one layer for one or two types and it can be seen that while Seraing brooches had a distinct north western distribution, Dösemoor brooches clearly dominated the region between Elbe and Oste. Nesse brooches were scattered more widely to the west and the smaller variants, such as Wehden, Hannover and Sahlenburg were distributed at the mouth of the Weser. My contribution to equal arm brooch chronology clearly supports this notion. Dösemoor and Nesse probably coexisted with Sahlenburg and later, Mecklenburg type equal arm brooches. If we still want to believe in the “degeneration of style” as an indicator for typology then it could be argued that brooches, such as Kempston and Mucking, Gr. 90, bore somewhat degenerated decoration. As they were found England, we might want to think about the possibility that they were copied after Continental models, such as Sahlenburg or Wehden in the second half of the 5th century.

6.1 Crouching Dogs, Hidden Deer In this final part of my study I would like to summarise the results I have achieved in the preceding chapters. I have introduced equal arm brooches with basic thoughts about their origin, appearance and place in the traditional female costume of the 5th century AD. Equal arm brooches are particularly interesting objects because they emerged as part of the female dress costume in the ElbWeser region, while being heavily dependent on male military belt equipment. Their decoration is not Germanic, but clearly Roman and derived from the Roman military belt plates of Northern Gaul. The Equal Arm Brooch Style and its execution in chip carving were transferred from “one world” into another: from the male into the female - and from the Roman into the Germanic world. However, equal arm brooches did not become a “simple” dress-fastener. According to the contexts discussed in the first chapter we can see that in most cases equal arm brooches were probably used to fasten a cloak in the central part of the chest. I have also argued that the way in which equal arm brooches have been presented in the past should be changed as it seems that they were worn with one arm on either side instead of one facing up and the other facing down.

In conclusion I have to emphasise that equal arm brooches are not a very useful indicator for chronology. If the types were regional contemporaries we might want to think about this rather as an opportunity to trace Germanic settlers in England back to their home region in Northern Germany. Unfortunately there are not as many English equal arm brooches as northern German ones making it hard to see a clear distribution on the map. Map 1, however, seems to reveal that Dösemoor brooches were found in more central regions (e.g. Little Wilbraham or

As these brooches were worn above all other dress items we can assume that they were probably put on display. People were meant to see the brooch. However, there are several types of equal arm brooches and while some are bigger, offering more space for scrollwork, crouching 48

and decoration as well as discussed their origin and possible social implication. I also argued that equal arm brooches should not be used to date other finds, for this has already led to confusion and incomprehensible results in the past.

Sutton Courtenay), while type Nesse and Nesse 2 occurred on the periphery instead (e.g. Spong Hill, Hasketon or Collingbourne Ducis). Equal Arm Brooch Style is one of the derivatives of Late Roman Military Style and probably in style and execution its closest successor. The chip carved scrollwork and animal friezes can easily be traced back to the decoration of Roman military belt equipment, such as Rhenen, Gr. 846. It was important to set Equal Arm Brooch Style in the context of early Germanic Art and into its place next to Sösdala Style, Nydam Style and Quoit Brooch Style. The main reason, of course, is the clear interaction of those art styles, e.g. Mecklenburg equal arm brooches that were decorated in Sösdala Style. Equal Arm Brooch Style is yet another indicator of the powerful impact of Roman art and craft on the Germanic world. I have shown that this Roman influence was not a sudden change but a development that had already been evident in the Germanic areas beyond the Limes for some time in the 4th and 5th centuries. Many different types of import, such as “Hemmoor” buckets, Samian ware, glass vessels and other Roman objects prove that the contact with the Roman world was intense and that this contact probably triggered and supported the development of various styles of art in the Germanic world.

However, it will be useful for the future to have a framework as well as clearly distinguished types. Equal arm brooches may be added to this corpus more easily and perhaps one day there will be a sufficient number from both England and Germany that can help us to intensify our knowledge about regional craftsmanship and their distribution on the Continent and in England.

It is possible that the Germanic population in the ElbWeser region felt a very strong connection to the Romans. Their interpretations of the motifs on the equal arm brooches would differ from those of a Roman soldier looking at the decoration of his belt, but there was a connection nevertheless. It may be that the Germanic craftsmen chose to take from the Roman decoration only those elements that they felt close to: motifs, which “meant” something to them, e.g. animals such as deer, dogs or boars, or very naturally depicted scrollwork. I have supported Suzuki’s argument that the Migration Period, as a time of upheaval, provided the ideal ground for stating one’s social status and place in a family or tribal group as well as creating and wearing “protective amulets”. Social unrest triggers the demarcation of people and also the notion of wearing protective charms close to the body, in order to be “in touch with divine and protective powers”. The motifs on the amulets are for the observer, maybe to tell him that the wearer was under the protection of a God or Goddess. In particular women, who did not fight, were liable to wear protective amulets such as the scutiform pendants discussed by Vierck (1978). I support the idea that these pendants and also equal arm and other central-worn brooches were probably a kind of “Germanic Gorgoneion”, a protective charm that safeguarded the wearer. This study of the equal arm brooches was supposed to present this brooch type in a more focused and comprehensive way. I have pointed out differences and similarities between the various types and presented the motifs

49

Fox 1923 Fox, C., 1923: The archaeology of the Cambridge region. Cambridge. Futrell 1997 Futrell, A., 1997: Blood in the Arena. The Spectacle of Roman Power. Texas. Gebers and Hinz 1977 Gebers, W., and Hinz, H., 1977: Ein Körpergrab der Völkerwanderungszeit aus Bosau, Kr. Ostholstein, OFFA 34, pp. 5 – 40. Genrich 1952 Genrich, A., 1952: Die gleicharmigen Fibeln der Völkerwanderungszeit im Gebiet der unteren Elbe. Hammaburg VIII, pp. 181-190. Genrich 1954 Genrich, A., 1954: Formenkreise und Stammesgruppen in Schleswig-Holstein. OFFA – Bücher 10. Neumünster. Genrich 1964 Genrich, A., 1964: Über einige Funde der Völkerwanderungszeit aus Brandgräbern des Friedhofes Liebenau. Nachrichten aus Niedersachsens Urgeschichte 33, pp. 24-51. Genrich 1967a Genrich, A., 1967: Einheimische und importierte Schmuckstücke des gemischtbelegten Friedhofes von Liebenau, Kr. Nienburg. Nachrichten aus Niedersachsens Urgeschichte 36, pp. 75 – 98. Genrich 1967b Genrich, A., 1967: Zwei neue Vogelfibeln aus einer Brandbestattunge des gemischtbelegten Friedhofes bei Liebenau, Kreis Nienburg (Weser). Die Kunde N.F. 18, pp. 110 – 113. Genrich and Falk 1972 Genrich, A., and Falk, 1972: Liebenau. Ein sächsisches Gräberfeld. Hildesheim. Genrich 1977/78 Genrich, A., 1977/78: Zur Herstellungstechnik kerbschnittverzierter Schmuckstücke der Völkerwanderungszeit aus Niedersachsen. Die Kunde 28/29, pp. 105-110. Genrich 1981 Genrich, A., 1981: Die Altsachsen. Veröffentlichungen der urgeschichtlichen Sammlungen des Landesmuseums zu Hannover. Begleitschriften zu Ausstellungen 25. Hildesheim. Gingell 1976 Gingell, C.J., 1976: The excavation of an early Anglo-Saxon cemetery at Collingbourne Ducis. The Wiltshire Archaeological Magazine Vol. 1970/71 for 1975/76. Gladigow 1992 Gladigow, B., 1992: Schutz durch Bilder, Bildmotive und Verwendungsweisen antiker Amulette. In: K. Hauck (editor), Der historische Horizont der Götterbildamulette aus der Übergangsepoche von der Spätantike zum Frühmittelalter. Berichte über das Colloquium vom 28.11. – 1.12. 1988 in der Werner-Reims-Stiftung, Bad Homburg. Göttingen. Grohne 1953 Grohne, E., 1953: Mahndorf. Frühgeschichte des bremischen Raumes. Bremen. Haseloff 1977 Haseloff, G., 1977: Zum Ursprung der germanischen Thierornamentik. Frühmittelalter – Studien 7, pp. 406 – 442. Haseloff 1978 Haseloff, G., 1978: Römische Elemente

Bibliography Ager 1985 Ager, B.M., 1985: The smaller variant of the Anglo-Saxon Quoit Brooch. Studies in Archaeology and History 4, pp. 4 – 58. Böhme 1974 Böhme, H.W., 1974: Germanische Grabfunde des 4. und 5. Jahrhunderts zwischen Unterer Elbe und Loire. München Böhme 1986 Böhme, H.-W., 1986: Das Ende der Römerherrschaft in Britannien und die angelsächsische Besiedlung im 5.Jhr. Jahrbuch RGZM 33, Teil II, pp. 469 – 574. Böhme 1998 Böhme, H.-W., 1998: Beobachtungen zur germanischen Frauentracht zwischen Niederelbe und Loire. In: Wesse, A. (editor), Studien zur Archäologie des Ostseeraumesvon der Eisenzeit bis zum Mittelalter. Festschrift für Müller-Wille, pp. 435 – 451. Neumünster. Boyle et al. 1995 Boyle, A., Dodd, A., Miles, D. and Mudd, A., 1995: Two Oxfordshire Anglo-Saxon cemeteries: Berinsfield and Didcot. Thames Valley Landscapes Monograph No. 10. Oxford. Brown 1915 Brown, G.B., 1915: The early arts in England. Saxon art and industry in the pagan period. Part IV. London. Bruder 1974 Bruder, R. 1974: Die germanische Frau im Lichte der Runeninschriften und der antiken Historiographien. Berlin/New York. Bullinger 1969 Bullinger, H.B., 1969: Spätantike Gürtelbeschläge. Diss. Arch. Gandensis XII. Busch 1987 Busch, R. (editor), 1987: Von den Sachsen zur Hammaburg. Neumünster. Conkey and Hastorf 1990 Conkey, M.W., and Hastorf, C.A. 1990: The use of style in Archaeology. Cambridge. Dannenberg and Schulze 1995 Dannenberg, H.-E., and Schulze, H.-J., 1995: Geschichte des Landes zwischen Elbe und Weser. Band 1: Vor- und Frühgeschichte. Stade. Eggers 1951 Eggers, H.-J., 1951: Der römische Import im freien Germanien. Hamburg. v. Es 1967 v. Es, W.A., 1967: Wijster Cemetery. Palaeohistoria 11. Groningen. v. Es and Ypey 1977 v. Es, W.A., and Ypey, J., 1977: Das Grab der “Prinzessin” von Zweeloo und seine Bedeutung im Rahmen des Gräberfeldes. Studien zur Sachsenforschung 1, pp. 97 – 126. Evison 1968 Evison, V.I., 1968: Quoit Brooch Style Buckles. Ant. Journal 48, pp. 231 – 249. Evison and Jones 1968 Evison, V.I., and Jones, M., 1968: Cropmark Sites at Mucking, Essex. Ant. Journal 68, pp. 210 – 230. Evison 1977 Evison, V.I., 1977: Supporting arm and equal arm brooches in England. Studien zur Sachsenforschung 1, 127 – 147. Filip 1969 Filip, J., 1969: Enzyklopädisches Handbuch zur Ur- und Frühgeschichte Europas. Band II. Prag. 50

Sozial- und Kulturgeschichte der Germanen. Stuttgart. Mortimer 1990 Mortimer, C., 1990: Some aspects of Early Medieval copper alloy technology, as illustrated by a study of the Anglian cruciform brooch. Oxford D. Phil Thesis. Müller-Brauel 1926 Müller-Brauel, H., 1926: Sächsische Friedhöfe bei Stade. Praehistorische Zeitschrift XVII. Berlin. Neville 1852 Neville, R.C., 1852: Saxones Obsequies. London. Owen-Crocker 1986 Owen-Crocker, G.R., 1986: Dress in Anglo-Saxon England. Manchester. Plettke 1921 Plettke, A., 1921: Ursprung und Ausbreitung der Angeln und Sachsen. Dissertation Hildesheim. Pohl 1997: Pohl, W. (editor), 1997: Kingdoms of the early empire – the integration of barbarians in Late Antiquity. Leiden. Reichstein 1975 Reichstein, J., 1975: Die kreuzförmige Fibel. OFFA – Bücher 34, Neumüster. Riegl 1923 Riegl, A., 1923 (translated by Rolf Winkes 1985): The Late Roman Art Industry. Translation in Archaeologica 23. Roach-Smith 1852 Roach-Smith, C., 1852: Collectanea Antiqua. Vol. II. London. Roeder 1930 Roeder, F., 1930: Typologischchronologische Studien zu den Metallsachen der Völkerwanderungszeit. Jahrbuch des Prov. Museums Hannover 5. Roeder 1933 Roeder, F., 1933: Neue Funde auf kontinental-sächsischen Friefhöfen der Völkerwanderungszeit. Sonderdruck aus “Anglia”, Zeitschrift für englische Philologie 57. Halle. Roth 1979 Roth, H., 1979: Kunst der Völkerwanderungszeit. Propyläen Supplement Band IV. Oldenburg i.O. Saggau 1981 Saggau, H.E., 1981: Bordesholm. OFFA – Bücher 48, Neumünster. Salin 1894 Salin, B., 1894: Några tidigare former af germanska fornsaker i England. Kungl. Vitterhets Historie och Antiqvitets Akademiens Månadsblad, pp. 23-39. Schach-Dörges 1970 Schach-Dörges, H., 1970: Premslin. Die Bodenfunde des 3.-5. Jahrhunderts zwischen unterer Elbe und Oder. OFFA – Bücher 23. Neumünster. Schmid 1978 Schmid, P., 1978: Siedlungs- und Wirtschaftsstruktur auf dem Kontinent. In: Sachsen und Angelsachsen (s. above, Vierck 1978a), pp. 345 – 361. Schön 1999 Schön, M.D., 1999: Gräber und Siedlungen bei Otterndorf-Westerwörden, Ldkr. Cuxhaven. Probleme der Küstenforschung Bd. 26, pp. 123 – 209. Schoppa 1957 Schoppa, H. 1957: Die Kunst der Römerzeit in Gallien, Germanien und Britannien. München/Berlin. Schuldt 1949 Schuldt, E. 1949: Die

im Sächsischen Schmuck. In: Sachsen und Angelsachsen (s. above. Vierck 1978a), pp. 153 – 161. Haseloff 1981 Haseloff, G., 1981: Die germanische Tierornamentik der Völkerwande-rungszeit. Studien zu Salins Stil I. Band 1. Vorgeschichtliche Forschungen Bd. 17.1. Berlin. Häßler 1985 Häßler, H.-J., 1985: Liebenau. Studien zur Sachsenforschung 5. Häßler 1994a Häßler, H.-J., 1994: Neue Ausgrabungen in Issendorf, Ldkr. Stade, Niedersachsen. Ein Beitrag zur Erforschung der Kulturgeschichte des sächsischen Stammes auf dem Kontinent. Studien zur Sachsenforschung 9. Hannover. Häßler 1994b Häßler, H.-J. (editor), 1994: Der sächsische Friedhof bei Liebenau. Studien zur Sachsenforschung 5. Hattatt 1982 Hattatt, R., 1982: Ancient and RomanoBritish Brooches. Sherborne. Hicks 1993 Hicks, C., 1993: Animals in Early Medieval Art. Edinburgh. Hills et al. 1987 Hills, C., 1987: Spong Hill. Part IV. Catalogue of Cremations. East Anglian Archaeology 34. Hines 1997 Hines, J., 1997: A new Corpus of Anglo-Saxon Great Square-headed brooches. London. Hingst 1959 Hingst H., 1959: Vorgeschichte Stormarn. Neumünster. Holmqvist 1939 Holmqvist, H.W., 1939: Kunstprobleme der Merowingerzeit. Stockholm. Holmqvist 1955 Holmquvist, W., 1955: Germanic Art during the first millennium AD. In: Kungl. Vitterhets Historie och Antikvitets Akademiens Handlingar 1955. Jacob-Friesen 1974 Jacob-Friesen, G., 1974: Einführung in Niedersachsen’s Urgeschichte III. Eisenzeit. Hildenheim. Jessup 1950 Jessup, R., 1950: Anglo-Saxon Jewellery. London. Jones 1978 Jones, M., 1978: Die Siedlung Mucking in Essex. In: Sachsen und Angelsachsen (s. above, Vierck 1978a), pp. 413 – 422. Laux 1978 Laux, F., 1978: Sachsen und Römer. In: Sachsen und Angelsachsen (s. above, Vierck 1978a), pp. 51 – 57. Hamburg. Leeds 1923 Leeds, E.T., 1923: A Saxon village near Sutton Courtenay, Berkshire. Archaeologia 73, pp. 174-451. Leeds and Harden 1936 Leeds, E.T., and Harden, D.B., 1936: The Anglo-Saxon cemetery at Abingdon, Berkshire. Oxford. Lund-Hansen 1969 Lund-Hansen, U., 1969: Kvarmløsefundet: en analyse af Sösdalastilen. Aarbøger 1969, pp 63 – 102. Meaney 1981 Meaney, A., 1981: Anglo-Saxon amulets and curing stones. BAR British Series 96. Oxford. Mildenberger 1972 Mildenberger, G., 1972:

51

Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk, Anglo-Saxon cemetery. East Anglian Archaeology 38. West 1998 West, S.E., 1998: A corpus of AngloSaxon material from Suffolk. East Anglian Archaeology 48. Willers 1901 Willers, H., 1901: Die römischen Bronzeeimer vom Hemmoorer Typ. Hannover und Leipzig 1901.

mecklenburgischen gleicharmigen Fibeln. Hammaburg II, pp. 108 - 116. Schuldt 1955 Schuldt, E., 1955: Pritzier. Ein Urnenfriedhof der späten römischen Kaiserzeit in Mecklenburg. Berlin. Schuldt 1979 Schuldt, E., 1976: Perdöhl. Ein Urnenfriedhof der späten Kaiserzeit in Mecklenburg. Berlin. Smith 1993 Smith, R.A., 1993: Museum Guide to Anglo-Saxon Antiquities 72 (1923). New edition. Ipswich. Speake 1980 Speake, G., 1980: Anglo-Saxon Animal Art. Oxford. Suzuki 2000 Suzuki, S., 2000: Qouit Brooch Style and Anglo-Saxon settlement. Woodbridge. Tischler 1954 Tischler, F.T., 1954: Der Stand der Sachsenforschung, archäologisch gesehen. Ber. RGK 35 (1956), pp.21-215. Von Urslar 1938 von Urslar, R.V., 1938: Westgermanische Bodenfunde des 1.-3. Jahrhunderts nach Chr. Aus Mittel- und Westdeutschland. Berlin. Vierck 1978a Vierck, H., 1978: Trachtenkunde und Trachtengeschichte in der Sachsenforschung, ihre Quellen, Ziele und Methoden. In: Sachsen und Angelsachsen. Katalog zur Ausstellung im Helms-Museum, pp. 231-243. Hamburg. Vierck 1978b Vierck, H., 1978: Die anglische Frauentracht. In: Sachsen und Angelsachsen (s. above, Vierck 1978a), pp. 245 – 253. Vierck 1978c Vierck, H., 1978: Die angelsächsische Frauentracht. In: Sachsen und Angelsachsen (s. above, Vierck 1978a), pp. 255 – 261. Vierck 1978d Vierck, H., 1978: Religion, Rang und Herrschaft im Spiegel der Tracht. In: Sachsen und Angelsachsen (s. above, vierck 1978a), pp. 271 – 283. Voss 1954 Voss, O., 1954: The Høstentorp silver hoard and its period. Acta Archaeologica 25, pp. 171 – 219. De Vries 1956 De Vries, J., 1956: Altgermanische Religionsgeschichte. Berlin. Waller 1938 Waller, K.W., 1938: Der Galgenberg bei Cuxhaven. Leipzig. Waller 1961 Waller, K.W., 1961: Der Urnenfriedhof in Wehden. Hildenheim. Webster 1985 Webster, G., 1985: The Roman Imperial Army. Third edition. London. Wegner 1981 Wegner, G., 1981: Eine Siedlung der römischen Kaiserzeit und der Völkerwanderungszeit in Mahlstedt, Gemeinde Winkelsett, Ldkr. Oldenburg. Arch. Mitteilungen aus Nordwestdeutschland 4, pp. 43 – 63. Oldenburg. Welch 1983 Welch, M.G., 1983: Early Anglo-Saxon Sussex. BAR British Series 112. Oxford. Werner 1941 Werner, J., 1941: Die beiden Zierscheiben vom Thorsberger Moorfund. RGF 16. Berlin. West 1988 West, S.E., 1988: Westgarth Gardens,

52

53

Hannover

Single find

Cremation

Crem./Single f.?

13 Bliedersdorf

14 Issendorf, no No.

Inhumation

Inhumation

Inhumation

Cremation

32 Mucking, Gr. 90

33 Collingb. Ducis, Gr. 6

34 Abingdon, Crem. 26

Single find

28 Mucking

31 Mucking, Gr. 673

Single find

27 Hasketon 009

Inhumation

Inhumation

26 Little Wilbraham

Inhumation

Depot (?)

25 Sutton Courtenay

30 Westgarth G. 55

Single find

24 Seraing

29 Mucking, Gr. 938

Single find

Cremation

21 Westerwanna, 1988b

Inh./Crem.?

Single find

20 Westerwanna, no No.

23 Empingham, Gr. 4

Inhumation (?)

19 Riensförde

22 Westerwanna, no No.

Single find

Single find

Cremation (?)

18 Haslingfield

Anderlingen

17 Quelkhorn, no 207

16

Cremation

Cremation

12 Westerwanna, 611:12

15b Granstedt 1793

Single find

11 Wehden

Single finds

Single find

10 Prov. Hannover

9 Loxstedt

Dösemoor?

Cremation

8 Westerwanna, Gr. 45

Wehden

Nesse 2

Nesse 2

Sahlenburg

Mucking

Nesse 2

Mucking

?

Nesse ?

Dösemoor

Dösemoor

Seraing

Dösemoor

Seraing

Seraing

Sahlenburg

Nesse

Dösemoor

Dösemoor

Dösemoor

Dösemoor

Dösemoor

Nesse ?

?

Seraing

Hannover

Hannover

Wehden

Single find

Cremation

7 Br.-Blumenthal

Wehden

Wehden

Mecklenburg

Mecklenburg

Vorform

EABrooch type

6 Wehden, 11056

Single find

Single find

5 Wehden, 11055

3 Hammoor B, 10983a

4 Kempston

Single find

Single find

2 Hammoor B, 10983b

Cremation

grave / single find

1 Westerwanna, 650:3

Location

15a Granstedt 1700

Cat. No.

1 (applied)

2 (button)

1 (quoit)

2 (crucif.+ small-long)

3 (applied)

R!

1 (supporting arm) R!

2 (bird) R!

1 (late cruciform)

other brooch (type)

several (glass)

several (?)

several (?)

several

beads

pot

urn

urn

urn

urn

urn

urn

urn / pot

2

1

buckle 1 (iron)

1(?)

knife

ring

1

spindlewhorl

2 pair of keys

1

others

F

F42y

F

F?

F

F?

---

---

F?

---

---

---

---

F?

---

F?

---

---

---

F?

---

---

---

F?

---

---

---

F?

F?

---

---

---

---

---

F?

iron rectangular loop

Found inside a wall of a house. Double grave of m and w? Grave(s) disturbed each other.

small clay disc (broken), tweezers, frgms. of bronze belt plates

Supporting arm brooch is a chip carved piece, very elaborate.

broad brooch

2 frgms., probably no connection to 15b! belt rosette; 2 frgms. of equal arm brooch Uncertain, whether the 3 brooches belong to the same context!

1 bronze pin

3 frgms., not certain, whether there are 1 or 2 equal arm brooches

bronze spring, not from equal arm brooch

Remarks

Table 1: All find contexts of equal arm brooches discussed in the text. The first column (Cat. No.) is the individual number used in other tables and on maps 1 and 5. Gender / Age

54

Inumation

45 Nesse, Inh. 3

Inhumation

Cremation

Cremation

Cremation

Inhumation

Cremation

Single find

Cremation

60 Liebenau II/8

61 Altenwalde, Gr. 33

62 Oldendorf, Gr. 37

63 Issendorf, Inh. 3532

64 Spong Hill, Gr. 2376

65 Mahlstedt

66 Liebenau, II / 57d

Cremation

56 Premslin, Gr. 17

59 Otterndorf, Gr. 10

Cremation

55 Perdöhl, Gr. 279

Single find

Cremation

54 Perdöhl, Gr. 278

Cremation

Cremation

53 Perdöhl, Gr. 95

58 Pritzier, Gr. 400

Single find

52 Quelkhorn, no 206

57 Kaarssen

Cremation

51 Wijster, Crem. 19

Inhumation

Inhumation

Aalden

50 Zweeloo, Gr. 87

49

Inhumation

Pyre grave

44 Liebenau II/32

48 Sahlenburg, Inh.19

Cremation (?)

43 Liebenau II/57a

Depot (?)

Depot (?)

42 Dösemoor

Cremation

Single find

41 Daudieck

47 Perlberg, 64/1949

Single finds

40 Mahndorf

46 Oberhausen

Cremation

Cremation

Cremation (?)

37 Liebenau, II/218

39 Mahndorf, Gr. 396

Inhumation

36 Issendorf, Inh. 3536

38 Liebenau, VIII/65

Inhumation

35 Berinsfield, Gr. 8

Table 1 continued

Dösemoor

Dösemoor

Nesse

Dösemoor

Dösemoor

Hannover

Nesse ?

Vorform/Seraing (?)

Mecklenburg

Mecklenburg

Mecklenburg (pair)

Mecklenburg

Mecklenburg

Mecklenburg

Dösemoor

Seraing

Nesse

Sahlenburg

Sahlenburg

Dösemoor

Nesse - Nesse 2

Nesse

Nesse

Hannover

Dösemoor

Daudieck

?

Nesse

Sahlenburg

Nesse 2

Dösemoor

Berinsfield

"Dreirundfibel"

2 saucer brooches

2 (applied)

2 (cruciform)

1 (?)

1 (R!)

1 (frgm. tutulus)

2 (applied)

2 (applied)

1 (applied)

2 (fragments) R!

1 (fragment of bow)

1 "Reiterfibel"

2 (bow brooches) R!

1 (disc)

several (glass)

80 amber, 130 glass

several

several (glass)

21 (glass, amber)

urn

urn

?

pot

urn

urn

urn

pot (R!)

pot

urn

pot

2 urn

1

101 amber, 130 glass

several (glass)

urn

several (amber, glass) 54 (glass, 2 pots amber)

4

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

3

1?

1

1

1

R!

pair of keys

iron frgms.

pair of keys

bone comb

1 belt hook

frgm. Comb

1 pair of keys

2

1

1

1 amber lump

F?

---

F?

F

F?

F?

F?

F

F?

---

F?

?

Child

Adult

---

F?

F

---

F

F?

---

F?

F?

F18y

---

---

---

F?

F?

F?

F

F?

only equal arm brooch frgm, reconstr. based on Quelkhorn, no 17

spindle whorl, ivory frgms.

thin silver torque

iron frgm. - maybe knife?

Brooch with rhoboid foot und "dreilappiger Kopfplatte"

Roman tubular belt attachment; buckle with animal head terminals beaver tooth, silver toilet accessoires (?) Black Samian Ware (whole). Potsherds. misunderstood scrollwork and attached tubular fitting

Found in turf.

Radiate-headed brooch? / Small parts of belt (incl. tubular fitting). Cast central part of an applied saucer brooch.

Found in turf, wrapped in cloth.

2 bow brooches with semi-circular head Cast central part of an applied saucer brooch. 2 frgms. equal arm brooch

55

Cremation (?)

Cremation

43 Liebenau II/57a

51 Wijster, Crem. 19

Inhumation

Cremation (?)

Inhumation

Inhumation

Inhumation

Inhumation

Pyre grave

Cremation

Inhumation

Inhumation

Cremation

48 Sahlenburg, Inh.19

16 Anderlingen

36 Issendorf, Inh. 3536

32 Mucking, Gr. 90

30 Westgarth G. 55

59 Otterndorf, Gr. 10

44 Liebenau II/32

64 Spong Hill, Gr. 2376

29 Mucking, Gr. 938

26 Little Wilbraham

61 Altenwalde, Gr. 33

62 Oldendorf, Gr. 37

Cremation

Cremation

Cremation

Cremation

53 Perdöhl, Gr. 95

55 Perdöhl, Gr. 279

39 Mahndorf, Gr. 396

12 Westerwanna, 611:12

Cremation

Cremation

47 Perlberg, 64/1949

8 Westerwanna, Gr. 45

Cremation

Cremation

13 Bliedersdorf

Cremation

60 Liebenau II/8

Cremation

Dösemoor

Inhumation

50 Zweeloo, Gr. 87 63 Issendorf, Inh. 3532

1 Westerwanna, 650:3

Nesse

Inhumation (?)

Inhumation

19 Riensförde

Seraing

Nesse

Mecklenburg

Mecklenburg

Dösemoor ?

Dösemoor

Dösemoor

?

Nesse ?

Vorform

Hannover

Dösemoor

Mucking

Nesse

Nesse

Vorform/Seraing (?)

Nesse 2

Sahlenburg

Dösemoor

Dösemoor

Sahlenburg

Nesse

Mecklenburg

Cremation

54 Perdöhl, Gr. 278

Mucking

Inhumation

Dösemoor

Seraing

Hannover

Berinsfield

Nesse 2

Nesse

Mecklenburg

Nesse 2

Dösemoor

EABrooch type

31 Mucking, Gr. 673

Cremation

Inhumation

35 Berinsfield, Gr. 8

15b Granstedt 1793

Inumation

Cremation

34 Abingdon, Crem. 26

Cremation

58 Pritzier, Gr. 400

45 Nesse, Inh. 3

Cremation

Cremation (?)

37 Liebenau, II/218

grave / single find

66 Liebenau, II / 57d

Cat. No. Location

R!

3 (applied)

2 saucer brooches

2 (fragments) R!

2 (cruciform)

2 (crucif.+ small-long)

2 (button)

2 (bow brooches) R!

2 (bird) R!

2 (applied)

2 (applied)

2 (applied)

1 (supporting arm) R!

1 (R!)

1 (quoit)

1 (late cruciform)

1 (frgm. tutulus)

1 (fragment of bow)

1 (disc)

1 (applied)

1 (applied)

1 (?)

1 "Reiterfibel"

"Dreirundfibel"

other brooch (type)

several (glass)

several

several

several (?)

several (glass)

21 (glass, amber)

several (glass)

54 (glass, amber)

80 amber, 130 glass

101 amber, 130 glass

several (?)

several (amber, glass)

several (glass)

beads

1

urn

urn

urn

urn

urn

urn

urn

urn

urn

?

urn

pot

2 pots

pot

urn

pot (R!)

pot

pot

urn

2 urn

urn / pot

Table 2: Contexts sorted according to datable associated finds, i.e. brooches other than equal arm brooches.

4

1

ring 1

1

3

1

2

1

1

1?

buckle 1

1

1

1(?)

knife pair of keys

1

1

1

1

frgm. Comb

1 pair of keys

2

2 pair of keys

iron frgms.

1 amber lump

spindlewhorl

bone comb

1 belt hook

others

F?

F?

?

Adult

F?

F?

F?

---

F?

F?

F?

F?

F?

F?

F?

F

F

F

F

---

F

F

F

F?

Child

F?

F?

F?

F18y

F?

F

F?

F?

F?

F?

Gender / Age 1 bronze pin

3 frgms., not certain, whether there are 1 or 2 equal arm brooches

bronze spring, not from equal arm brooch

Double grave of m and w? Grave(s) disturbed each other.

spindle whorl, ivory frgms.

Radiate-headed brooch? / Small parts of belt (incl. tubular fitting).

2 bow brooches with semi-circular head

Uncertain, whether the 3 brooches belong to the same context!

thin silver torque

beaver tooth, silver toilet accessoires (?)

iron rectangular loop Brooch with rhoboid foot und "dreilappiger Kopfplatte" Supporting arm brooch is a chip carved piece, very elaborate.

belt rosette; 2 frgms. of equal arm brooch

Black Samian Ware (whole). Potsherds.

Cast central part of an applied saucer brooch.

Cast central part of an applied saucer brooch.

Remarks only equal arm brooch frgm, reconstr. based on Quelkhorn, no 17

56

Dösemoor

Single find

Single find

Single find

Single find

17 Quelkhorn, no 207

18 Haslingfield

52 Quelkhorn, no 206

Single find

6 Wehden, 11056

24 Seraing

Single find

Single find

Single find

22 Westerwanna, no No.

5 Wehden, 11055

Single find

20 Westerwanna, no No.

Single find

Inhumation

49 Aalden

4 Kempston

Single find

Cremation

14 Issendorf, no No.

38 Liebenau, VIII/65

Crem./Single f.?

46 Oberhausen

27 Hasketon 009

Single find

Depot (?)

57 Kaarssen

Wehden

Wehden

Wehden

Seraing

Seraing

Sahlenburg

Sahlenburg

Sahlenburg

Nesse ?

Nesse ?

Nesse - Nesse 2

Mecklenburg

Mecklenburg

Mecklenburg

Single find

Single find

3 Hammoor B, 10983a

Hannover

Hannover

Single find

Single find

Hannover

11 Wehden 2 Hammoor B, 10983b

Single find

Dösemoor

Dösemoor

Dösemoor

Dösemoor

Dösemoor

10 Prov. Hannover

9 Loxstedt

15a Granstedt 1700

Single finds

Inh./Crem.?

23 Empingham, Gr. 4

65 Mahlstedt

Dösemoor

Depot (?)

42 Dösemoor

Daudieck

Dösemoor

Single find

Depot (?)

25 Sutton Courtenay

?

?

Seraing

Nesse 2

Mecklenburg (pair)

Wehden

41 Daudieck

Single find

Cremation

21 Westerwanna, 1988b

Single finds

Inhumation

33 Collingb. Ducis, Gr. 6

40 Mahndorf

Cremation

28 Mucking

Cremation

7 Br.-Blumenthal

56 Premslin, Gr. 17

Table 2 continued urn

1

1 1 (iron)

R!

pair of keys

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

F?

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

F?

F42y

F?

F?

2 frgms. equal arm brooch Roman tubular belt attachment; buckle with animal head terminals

Found in turf.

2 frgms., probably no connection to 15b!

misunderstood scrollwork and attached tubular fitting

broad brooch

Found in turf, wrapped in cloth.

Found inside a wall of a house.

small clay disc (broken), tweezers, frgms. of bronze belt plates

iron frgm. - maybe knife?

Table 3: Catalogue and figure concordance, material used and dimensions of equal arm brooches.

No

location

1 Westerwanna 650:3

figure 16.1 D

country

brooch type Preform

material Br.

location Cremation

width in mm

length in mm

Frgm.

40

2 Hammoor B 10983b

44.3 D

Mecklenburg

Br.

Single find

40

35

3 Hammoor B 10983a

44.2 D

Mecklenburg

Br.

Single find

Frgm.

55

4 Kempston

36.4 GB

Wehden

Si.

Single find

40

58

5 Wehden, 11055

36.2 D

Wehden

Si.

Single find

60

36

6 Wehden, 11056

36.3 D

Wehden

Si.

Single find

Frgm.

31

36.1 D

Wehden

Br.

Cremation

Frgm.

31

Dösemoor (?)

Br.

Cremation

Frgm. 47-78 (!)

7 Bremen-Blumenthal 8 Westerwanna, Gr. 45 9 Loxstedt

20.1-2 D 33.2 D

Hannover

Si.

Single find

Frgm.

10 Prov. Hannover

33.1 D

Hannover

Br.

Single find

Frgm. 24 (?)

11 Wehden, 2 frgms.

33.3 D

Hannover

Si.

Single find

Frgm.

50

16.2 D

Seraing

Br.

Cremation

Frgm.

27

Dösemoor (?)

Si.

Cremation

Frgm.

26

12 Westerwanna 611:2 13 Bliedersdorf 14 Issendorf

45b.1 D

31

29.4 D

Nesse (?)

Br.

Crem./Single find (?)

20.3-4 D

Dösemoor

Br.

Crem./Single find

16 Anderlingen

21.1 D

Dösemoor

Br. Gilt (Si.?) Cremation

17 Quelkhorn, Nr. 207

21.4 D

Dösemoor

Br.

Single find

97

60

18 Haslingfield

18.2 GB

Dösemoor

Si. Gilt

Single find

94

49 70

15 Granstedt, 2 brooches?

--- --Frgm. 47 (?) 96

19 Riensförde

31.1 D

Nesse

Si.

Inhumation (?)

110

20 Westerwanna, no No.

34.2 D

Sahlenburg

---

Single find

--- ---

21 Westerwanna, 1988b

16.5-6 D

Seraing

Br.

Cremation

--- ---

22 Westerwanna, no No.

16.7 D

Seraing

---

Single find

--- ---

23 Empingham, Gr. 4

18.3 GB

Dösemoor

Si. Gilt

Inh./Crem.?

29 21/31

24 Seraing

Seraing

Br.

Single find

45

39

25 Sutton Courtenay

18.1 GB

Dösemoor

Si. Gilt

Depot (?)

80

44

26 Little Wilbraham

19.1 GB

Dösemoor

Br. Gilt

Inhumation

87

51

31.2 GB

Nesse (?)

Cu.-Alloy

Single find

Frgm.

36

?

Si. Gilt

Single find

Frgm.

21

27 Hasketon 009 28 Mucking unass. find 29 Mucking, Gr. 938 30 Westgarth Gardens 31 Mucking, Gr. 673 32 Mucking, Gr. 90

16.3-4 B

66

45b.2 GB 41.2 GB

Mucking

Br.

Inhumation

62

39

37.2 + 38 GB

Nesse 2

Br. Gilt

Inhumation

63

10

41.1 GB

Mucking

Br. Gilt

Inhumation

54

56

34.3 GB

Sahlenburg

Br. Gilt

Inhumation

58

32

39 + 40.1 GB

Nesse 2

Br. Gilt

Inhumation

134

88

34 Abingdon

40.2 GB

Nesse 2

Br. Gilt

Cremation

35 Berinsfield

41.3 GB

Berinsfield

Br.

Inhumation

32

52

Doesemoor

Si. Gilt

Inhumation

80

48

33 Collingbourne Ducis

36 Issendorf 3536 37 Liebenau II/218

22 + 23 D 32 D

Nesse 2

Br.

Cremation

66

60

Sahlenburg

Br.

Cremation

Frgm.

75

30.2 D

Nesse

Br.

Cremation

Frgm.

70

45a D

/

/

Single finds

Frgm.