Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-rkxrd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-18T07:49:57.407Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some British and Iberian Penannular Brooches and Other Early Types in the Rhineland and the ‘Decumates Agri’

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 November 2011

Grace Simpson ,
C. F. C. Hawkes  and
M. R. Hull
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

A re-examination of Fowler Aa, B, and C penannulars leads to a reassessment of omega brooches at Numantia. The inception of particular types of penannulars could be before 75 B.C., certainly before 27, and they continue through Augustan–Claudian times with Aucissa and ‘Hod Hill’-type brooches. The distributions of certain types in pre-Roman Britain, based on Mr. Hull's researches, and of two groups of factory-made brooches and others only found in the area of early Roman conquest in Britain, are contemporary with early omega brooches here. There is no evidence for taking any of these forms into the Flavian period, and the supposed basis for dating some of them into the second century is found wanting. Instead of associating old finds of all these early types with certain forts on the Limes, from A.D. 90, or later, it is suggested that there is evidence for Germani or Celts at these places long before the Province of Upper Germany was formed and the ‘decumates agri’ were taken into it.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Antiquaries Journal , Volume 59 , Issue 2 , September 1979 , pp. 319 - 342
Copyright
Copyright © The Society of Antiquaries of London 1979

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Hawkes, C. F. C., in Duval, P.-M. and Hawkes, C. F. C. (eds.), Celtic Art in Ancient Europe: Five Protohistoric Centuries (1976), p. 19, n. 21.Google Scholar

2 Lobjois, G., Celticum, xviii, 1967 (1969), 71–2, 177, pl. 86, fig. 127.Google Scholar

3 Rowlett, R. M., Antiquity, xl (1966), 133–6. See n. 51 below.Google Scholar

4 Childe, V. G., Prehistoric Communities of the British Isles (1940), p. 203.Google Scholar

5 Fowler, Elizabeth, ‘The origins and development of the penannular brooch in Europe’, Proc. Prehist. Soc. xxvi (1960), 149–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6 The Hunsbury terminals are now in contact, and presumably after the pin was lost the penannular was made into a ring. Mrs. Fowler's drawing, her fig. 3, shows an aperture. For a photograph, see Fell, Clare, Arch. Journ. xciii (1936), pl. xii, 1.Google Scholar

7 Dent, John, Current Archaeology, lxi (1978), 49.Google Scholar

8 Hawkes, C. F. C., Revista de Guimarães, lxix (1959), 521–4.Google Scholar

9 M. Cardozo, Citânia e Sabroso, 6 editions (1930–50), pp. 72–5, and 77, fig. 66.

10 The museum at Guimarães holds some 60 fibulae, fragments apart, not less than 26 of them being penannulars (fívelas in Portuguese). Selected examples illustrated by Cardozo, see n. 9 above, pp. 61–2, and 52, fig. 46, include a Fowler Aa (like Trugny), and two of Fowler Type B with spiral terminals, compare pl. LVII, 13–16 here.

11 Schulten, A., Geschichte von Numantia (1933), pp. 141, 153–5.Google Scholar

12 Schulten, A., Numantia, iv (1929), Die Lager bei Renieblas, p. 213 and Taf. 31, 6 and 12: no proper location is given on pp. 184, 203–33. Both are identifiable on Taf. 52.Google Scholar

13 Ibid., p. 227 states that these Tafeln ‘bieten eine Zusammenstellung der in den scipionischen Lagern und denen von Renieblas gefunden’.

14 Sallust, Historiae, ii, frag. 94.

15 Sallust, Historiae, iii, frag. 43, 44; see Schulten, , Fontes Hisp. Antiquae, iv (1937), 233 and 136 for the river.Google Scholar

16 Cf. Strabo, Geographica, iii, 176.

17 Gavelle, R., Ogam, xiv (1962), 201–36, fig. 17, 3: although the terminals are missing, note the square-sectioned ring and the cast pin.Google Scholar

18 Mitt. Alt. Westfalen, iv (1905), 88, Taf. xix, 4; vi (1912), 106, Taf. xviii, 9 in silver.Google Scholar

19 G. Fingerlin, Bericht R. G. K. 51–2 (1970–1), Abb. 9, 4.

20 Bechert, T., Römische Fibeln des 1 und 2 Jahrhunderts n. Chr.: Funde aus Asciburgium, Heft 1 (1973), Taf. 10, 99.Google Scholar

21 Schönberger, H. and Simon, H.-G., Limesforschungen, xv (1976), 54, Taf. 6, 54.Google Scholar

22 Ulbert, G., Germania, xxxv (1957), 327, Abb. 3, 2.Google Scholar

11 Lehner, H., Bonner Jahrbuch, 111–12 (1904), pp. 391–2, Taf. xxiv, figs. 26, 29, 31.Google Scholar

24 Müller, G., Die römischen Gräberfelder: Novaesium, vii (1977), 23–6.Google Scholar

25 Ritterling, E., Hofheim, Annalen des Vereins f. Nassauische Altertumskunde, xxxiv (1904), 45. Not altered in the 1912 Report.Google Scholar

26 Hawkes, and Hull, , Camulodunum (1947), p. 323, type XVIII.Google Scholar

27 Radford, C. A. R., in Richborough, iii (1932), pp. 76–7.Google Scholar

28 Böhme, Astrid, ‘Die Fibeln der Kastelle Saalburg und Zugmantel’, Saalburg Jahrbuch, xxix (1972), 12, nn. 34 and 35.Google Scholar

29 Lerat, L., Les fibules, Besançon (1956), pp. 24–34, especially 34.Google Scholar

30 Collingwood, R. G., The Archaeology of Roman Britain (1930), p. 249; 2nd edn., p. 293.Google Scholar

31 M. R. Hull, Brooches from Pre-Roman and Roman Britain (in preparation).

32 Hull, , in Cunliffe (ed.), Richborough, v (1968), p. 76.Google Scholar

33 Brailsford, J. W., Hod Hill, i (1962), p. 9, fig. 11, E7.Google Scholar

34 Schüle, W., Die Meseta-Kulturen der Iberischen Halbinsel, Madrider Forschungen, iii (1969), Taf. 163, 25.Google Scholar

35 da Ponte, Salete, Conimbriga, xii (1973), 191, pl. xii, 63.Google Scholar

36 Freire, O., Algumas fívelas de bronze do Museu Antrofológico da Universidade do Porto (1965), p. 12, fig. 3.Google Scholar

37 Bohme, n. 28 above, pp. 46, 112, Taf. 31, 1219.

38 Revellio, P., ‘Kastell Hüfingen’, O.R.L. 62a (1927), 38–9, Taf. x, 32.Google Scholar

39 Lehner, n. 23, Taf. xxx, 75.

40 Schönberger, H., Journ. Roman Studies, lix (1969), 152–3, nn. 56–8Google Scholar; Rieckhoff, Sabine, Saalburg Jahrbuck, xxxii (1975), Taf.Google Scholar 13, 8 for Hofheim. Ending Hofheim as Trajanic or Hadrianic, D. Baatz, ibid. xxiv (1967), 53, and refs. In Schönberger, op. cit., p. 165, n. 157.

41 Planck, D., Arae Flaviae (1975), Taf. 71, 7.Google Scholar

42 Schönberger, n. 40 above, p. 162, n. 140, referring to W. Barthel's views: Drexel, F., O.R.L. 35, 66c (1911), Taf. viii, 1 and 8.Google Scholar

43 Ulbert, G., ‘Aislingen und Burghöfe’, Limesforschungen, i (1959), 67, Abb. 13, 5; 69, Taf. 60, 18.Google Scholar

44 Ulbert, G., ‘Das frührömische Kastell Rheingonheim’, Limesforschungen, xi (1969), Taf. 25, 21.Google Scholar

45 Ettlinger, Elisabeth, Die römischen Fibeln in der Schweiz (Bern, 1973), Taf. 15, 12.Google Scholar

46 Henkel, F., Die römischen Fingerringe des Rheinlandes (1913), Taf. 1, 20, 20a; and 16, 318.Google Scholar

47 Paris, R., Rev. Arch, de l'Est et du Centre-Est, xi (1960), 172, fig. 62.Google Scholar

48 Lambot, B., Cahiers Archéologiques de Picardie ii (1975), 28, fig. ix, 98.Google Scholar

49 E. Fowler, n. 5 above, pp. 155–7, with her fig. 4.

50 E. Fowler, n. 5 above, pp. 159–61, with her fig. 6.

51 Alexander, J., Proc. Prehist. Soc. xx (1964), 429–30. See n. 3 above.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

52 Ashmore, Fionna (née Campbell-Stewart), Antiquity, xlvi (1972), 216–18, illustrates examples of Aa, and has many more drawn (unpublished). She follows Hawkes except where she took a Yugoslavian origin.Google Scholar

53 Dunning, G. C., in Harding, D. W. (ed.), Hillforts: Later Prehistoric Earthworks in Britain and Ireland (1976), p. III, fig. 25, 1–2; pp. 85–6 for their stratification.Google Scholar

54 Cunnington, M. E., All Cannings Cross, Wiltshire (1923), p. 116, pl. 18, 1 for Type B; pl. 19, 1 for type Aa.Google Scholar

55 Giot, P. R., Briard, J., and l'Helgouach, J., Annales de Bretagne, lxv (1958), 15–26; with Aquitania they seem less slight, but hardly after 400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

56 Mackreth, D. F., in Stanford, S. C., Croft Ambrey (1974), p. 146, fig. 67, 6, notes that Cunliffe, Fishbourne (1971), fig. 52, no. 174, is like the large spiral of this variety: Mr. Hull's dating of this, and nos. 1–21, is not given in the report.Google Scholar

57 Wanner, M., Röm. u. Alam. Altertk. v. Schleitheim (1866–1868), p. 16, Taf. viii, 26Google Scholar; and without its pin in Guyan, W. U., Das alamannische Gräberfeld von Schleitheim-Hebsack (1965), Taf. xx (c). Placed in her type 51 (omega) by E. Ettlinger, n. 45, p. 131 (b).Google Scholar

58 Krämer, W., Germania, xxx (1952), 331–2, Abb. 1, 5.Google Scholar

59 Wheeler, R. E. M., Maiden Castle (1943), pp. 76, 127, 135, and plan on pl. xx.Google Scholar

60 Downey, R., King, A., and Soffe, G., The Roman Temple on Hayling Island, Interim Reports (1977, 1978); Current Archaeology, lxii (1978), 83–7.Google Scholar

61 Radimský, W., Wissenschaft. Mitt, aus Bosnien und der Herzegovina, iv (1896), 33–5.Google Scholar Radimský, ibid. i (1893), 172, fig. 5, is an omega: the form of the terminals is not clear in the illustration. Ibid. iii (1895), 173, fig. 551, is a Fowler B type.

62 Galliou, P., Archéologie en Bretagne, xiii (1977), 26, 29–34.Google Scholar

63 A. Böhme, n. 28 above, p. 46, n. 365, referring to Whimster, D. C., The Archaeology of Surrey (1931), p. 153, fig. 28.Google Scholar The terminals are large round balls, the very thin iron wire is in excellent condition, likewise the head of the pin, drilled for the wire. The chamfered top is more ornamental than modern pins, which are formed from a round ball, with pin and a flat projection soldered on. I am grateful to Mr. Felix Holling for research about Titsey Roman Villa: the original report by Leveson-Gower, G., Surrey Arch. Coll. iv (1869), 214–38 does not mention the brooch. I also wish to thank Professor E. Ettlinger, and the Curator of Costume in Zürich Museum, for information.Google Scholar

64 Balsan, L., Rev. Arch, du Centre, i (1962), 128–33, pl. 1, 1 and 2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

65 J. Allain et al., ibid. v (1966), 10, fig. 4.

66 D. Piron, ibid. ix (1970), 118, pl. v, no. 018.

67 Engels, H. J., Veröffent. der pfälz. Gesellschaft … in Speyer, lv (1967), grave 5, Taf. 42, B, 6.Google Scholar

68 Excavaciones Arqueologicas en España, lxxii (1971), pl. 86, grave 250.Google Scholar

69 G. Ulbert, n. 43 above, pp. 64–5; also von Uslar, R., Germania, xx (1936), 36–9; A. Böhme, n. 28 above, p. 11.Google Scholar

70 Nierhaus, R., Das swebische Gräberfeld von Diersheim (1966), p. 103, Taf. 15G, grave 63Google Scholar. See also pp. 104–5, Taf. 4, 16, where his dating of a ‘trumpet’ brooch accords with Hull's final views which begin the series from c. A.D. 30 to 50. Grave 63 contained one eye-brooch and two rosettethistle brooches.

71 Atkinson, D., Lowbury Hill, Berkshire (1916), pp. 31–4, pls. vii–ix.Google Scholar

72 One from Newstead is unstratified; the other was in the lowest level of the principia. Two from Dumfriesshire, otherwise unlocated, are in the National Museum of Antiquities of Scotland.

73 Lerat, n. 29 above (1956), pl. 1, 35–6 ter; (1957), pl. 1, 19–20. Da Ponte, pl. 4, 15, and p. 178, dated after Böhme; Van Buchem did not date them to the third century, these were brooches (mainly Almgren 16) dated by Faider-Feytmans, G., La Nécropole de Thuin (1965).Google Scholar

74 Agostinetti, Paola Piana, Ornavasso (1972), pp. 213, 279, Tav. vii, 7Google Scholar; Graue, J., Ornavasso (1974), see Abb. 54 for chronology, and Abb. 55, where the two bronze Almgren 1 5 are in Phase 3, Taf. 35, 4, and 46, 6.Google Scholar

75 Böhme, n. 28 above, p. 14, nn. 53, 57.

76 G. Faider-Feytmans, n. 73 above, p. 39 for grave 23. Grave 15 at Thuin is dated by a Central Gaulish Dr. 27. Graves 1–3, with nine brooches, are stated to have been mixed by workmen; grave 47b has three burials, and no others have true Nauheim derivative brooches.

77 These three early brooches are illustrated by Bormans, Stanislas, Bulletin de l'Institut Liègeois, ix (1868), 135–56, 43I–50Google Scholar; x (1870), 51–77; see his pls. v, viii, and ix, in his second report. He was not the excavator, but received fifty-three letters from which he compiled his reports! Almgren does not refer to Bormans, only to Hildebrand, ‘Studier i jämforande fornforskning’ (1872–80), pp. 146, and fig. 112. Hildebrand reproduces from Bormans what later became Almgren 15, but he only states that it is a Roman provincial type (meaning that it is not found in northern Europe). Almgren copied not only the drawing but the phrase ‘Roman provincial type’, and thus he differs from Tischler who called it late La Tène, see n. 83 below

78 Almgren, p. 26 and n. 3 where he discounts dating by early coins in graves, pp. 106–7, at Flavion, as he spells it; pp. 107 and 235 on Pyrmont where votive deposits of brooches were made during several centuries.

79 Haalebos, J. K.et al., Westerheem jrg. xxv (1976), 84–9, grave 2.Google Scholar

80 Barthel, W., ‘Das Kastell Zugmantel’, O.R.L. B, II, 1, no. 8 (1909), p. 69, no. 1, and Taf. ix, no. 8.Google Scholar

81 Ulbert, n. 43 above, p. 64, n. 12.

82 Böhme, n. 28 above, p. 52, for nos. 4–27, but where were they stored meanwhile for some 60–80 years?

83 Tischler, O., in Meyer, A. B., Gurina (1885), p. 27 (14) and Taf. vi, 7Google Scholar. See also n. 77 above, for Almgren's difficulties over the conflicting classifications of Tischler and Hildebrand.

84 Fundnr. AN 3138: Chantraine, H., Novaesium, iii (1968), p. 44, Kat. no. 496Google Scholar; G. T. Mary, i (1967), p. 153 and Taf. 27, 16; H. Schönberger and H. G. Simon, ii (1966), p. 19, Kat. no. 49.

85 Hachmann, R., Kossack, G., and Kuhn, H., Völker zwischen Germanen und Kelten (1962), Map 5.Google Scholar

86 Saalburg Jahrbuch, iii (1912), 18, Taf. 3, 2Google Scholar; vi (1927), 54, Taf. 4, 12; xxvii (1970), 9 and n. 15; xxix (1972), 71, 2; 14 and nn. 49–50; 72–9.

87 Baatz, D., Bonner Jahrbuch, clxxi (1971), 377–9.Google Scholar

88 Ritterling, n. 25 above, 382–95, and figs. 101–10.

89 Schleiermacher, W., Bericht R. G. K. xxxiii (1943–1950). 143–9.Google Scholar

90 Schoppa, H., Die Funde aus dent Vicus des Steinkastells Hofheim, i (1961), pp. 62–6.Google Scholar

91 von Uslar, R., Saalburg Jahrbuch, viii (1943), 61–96; Westgermanische Bodenfunde (1938).Google Scholar

92 See n. 85 above, Maps 1–16; von Uslar, R., Germania, xlii (1964), 52, Abb, 7.Google Scholar

93 Schmidt, E., O.R.L. 30 (1912), 7Google Scholar, Taf. 2, 10, and 8 is also rather early.

94 Tacitus, , De Origine et Situ Germanorum, xxix. Edited by Anderson, J. G. C., Oxford (1938, 1961), pp. 148–50.Google Scholar

95 Winkelmann, F., O.R.L. 73 (1901), 19 for coin list.Google Scholar

96 Syme, R., Cambridge Ancient History, x (1934), p. 787. Tacitus, Annals, Bk. I, xxvii. These tribes were respectively centred at Worms and Speyer.Google Scholar

97 Schönberger, H., Saalburg Jahrbuch, xi (1952), 130 and map, Taf. 35.Google Scholar

98 Glüsing, P., Offa, xxi–xxii (1964–1965), 7–20Google Scholar. Caesar, De Bello Gallico, vi, p. 28.

99 Decker, K. V., Jahrb. f. Geschichte und Kunst des Mittelrheins, i (1968), 40–8.Google Scholar

100 Wells, C. M., The German Policy of Augustus (1972), ch. 2.Google Scholar

101 Syme, R., Tacitus (1958), p. 128, n. 6. Cited by Anderson, n. 94 above, p. 151.Google Scholar

102 Discussions are summarized by Much, R., Die Germania des Tacitus, 3rd edn. (1967), pp. 370–8.Google ScholarPflaum, H.-G., Bonner Jahrbuch, clxiii (1963), 231.Google Scholar

103 R. G. Collingwood, n. 30, dated to the end of the first century the kind with a footknob, and this is based, as he says, on Continental evidence: we have seen that this is inadequate. Richmond's revised edition starts that variety ‘under Nero’ and takes it to the middle of the second century, without explanation for the change, see pp. 294 (Group B), 295, 302. Collingwood's classification was a fine achievement for its time, and its upsetting by Richmond is deplorable.

104 Manning, W. H., Current Archaeology, lxii (1978), 76–7. Only brooch no. 1 has a square sectioned bronze wire for its spring.Google Scholar