No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
MANUFACTURE OF THE WELL-KNOWN CENTRAL AND NORTHEASTERN EUROPEAN EYE FIBULAE: PREVIOUSLY UNKNOWN TRICKS OF THE TRADE
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 August 2021
Abstract
The emergence and widespread distribution of eye fibulae as adornment objects, from the northern provinces of the Roman Empire to northeastern Europe and Scandinavia, as well as their typology have been widely explored. Currently in Lithuania, a total of 209 eye fibulae dating to the 1st and 2nd centuries are known. The geographical distribution, typology and chronology of these Early Roman Period jewelry artifacts do not present any problem. However, the technology of manufacture of these fibulae has been much less studied. The present article analyzes the technology of manufacture of Prussian series eye fibulae, including the previously unknown specific manufacturing techniques, such as the use of wooden axes to modify the construction of the fibula and make it more durable and long lasting. Radiocarbon (14C) dating has unambiguously confirmed that the wooden axes are contemporaneous with the time of the use of the fibulae, while observation under the scanning electron microscope has identified wood species used for making the wooden axes. The X-ray fluorescence spectrometry (XRF) analysis was used to determine the copper alloys, of which eye fibulae were made. The manufacturing technologies of eye fibulae (forging and casting) are discussed in the context of analytical and experimental studies.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press for the Arizona Board of Regents on behalf of the University of Arizona
References
REFERENCES
Almgren, O. 1923. Studien über Nordeuropäische Fibelformen der ersten nachchristlichen Jahrhunderte, mit Berücksichtigung der provinzialrömischen und südrussischen Formen. Leipzig: Curt Kabitzsch. In German.Google Scholar
Andrzejowski, J. 1998. Nadkole 2. A cemetery of the Przeworsk Culture in Eastern Poland (Monumenta Archaeologica Barbarica V). Kraków: Secesja.Google Scholar
Andrzejowski, J, Cieśliński, A. 2007. Germanie i Bałtowie u schyłku starożytności. Przyjazne związki czy wrogie sąsiedztwo? (Ancient Germans and Balts in late antiquity. Friendly relations or hostile neighbours?). In: Bitner-Wróblewska A, editor. Kultura bogaczewska w 20 lat później. Materiały z konferencji, Warszawa, 26–27 marca 2003 (Seminarium Bałtyjskie I). Warszawa: Państwowe Muzeum Archeologiczne w Warszawie, Stowarzyszenie Naukowe Archeologów Polskich, Oddział w Warszawie. p. 279–319. In Polish.Google Scholar
Bayley, J, Butcher, S. 2004. Roman brooches in Britain: a technological and typological study based on the Richborough collection. London: The Society of Antiquaries of London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bliujienė, A. 2015. Metalų dirbiniai Lietuvos archeologinėje medžiagoje (Metal artefacts in archaeological material of Lithuania). In: Senvaitienė J, Luchtanas A, Vedrickienė LJ, Lukšėnienė V, editors. Muziejinių eksponatų priežiūra IV(2). Archeologinių radinių konservavimas: nuo lauko darbų iki saugojimo muziejuose. Vilnius: Lietuvos dailės muziejus, Lietuvos muziejų asociacija. p. 685–740. In Lithuanian.Google Scholar
Bliujienė, A, Petrauskas, G, Bagdzevičienė, J, Suzdalev, S, Babenskas, E. 2020. Early Roman Iron Age jewellery in the northern Barbaricum: between stylistic and technological simplicity and luxury. In: Ramírez Galán M, Sandifer Bard R, editors. Studies in archaeometry. Proceedings of the Archaeometry Symposium at NORM 2019, June 16–19, Portland, Oregon, Portland State University. Dedicated to the Rev. H. Richard Rutherford, C.S.C., Ph.D (Access Archaeology). Oxford: Archaeopress Publishing Ltd. p. 175–217.Google Scholar
Bowman, S. 1990. Radiocarbon dating (Interpreting the Past Series). Berkeley: University of California Press/British Museum.Google Scholar
Bronk Ramsey, C. 2020. OxCal 4.4. URL: <https://c14.arch.ox.ac.uk/oxcal/OxCal.html>..>Google Scholar
Chilińska-Früboes, A. 2017. Zapinki oczkowate serii Prusskiej z terenu kultury Dollkeim-Kovrovo (Eye brooches of the Prussian series from the territory of the Dollkeim-Kovrovo culture). Wiadomości Archeologiczne LXVIII:45–106. In Polish.Google Scholar
Craddock, PT, Eckstein, K. 2003. Production of brass in antiquity by direct reduction. In: Lang J, Craddock PT, editors. Mining and metal production through the ages. London: British Museum. p. 216–230.Google Scholar
Dungworth, DB. 1997. Roman copper alloys: analysis of artefacts from northern Britain. Journal of Archaeological Science 24:901–910. doi: 10.1006/jasc.1996.0169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ežerinskis, Ž, Šapolaitė, J, Pabedinskas, A, Juodis, L, Garbaras, A, Maceika, E, Druteikienė, R, Lukauskas, D, Remeikis, V. 2018. Annual variations of 14C concentration in the tree rings in the vicinity of Ignalina nuclear power plant. Radiocarbon 60(4):1227–1236. doi: 10.1017/RDC.2018.44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gan, P. 2015. Charakterystyka chemiczna zabytków z cmentarzyska w Czarnówku—analizy wprowadzające (Chemical characteristics of the finds from Czarnówka cemetery—preliminary analyses). In: Andrzejowski J, editor. Czarnówko, stan. 5. Cmentarzyska z późnej starożytności na Pomorzu 1 (Monumenta Archaeologica Barbarica. Series Gemina V). Lębork-Warszawa: Muzeum w Lęborku, Fundacja Monumenta Archaeologica Barbarica. p. 175–214. In Polish.Google Scholar
Gillard, RD, Hardman, SM, Thomas, RG, Watkinson, DE. 1994. The mineralization of fibres in burial environments. Studies in Conservation 39(2):132–140. doi: 10.2307/1506562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heginbotham, A, Bassett, J, Bourgarit, D, Eveleigh, C, Glinsman, L, Hook, D, Smith, D, Speakman, RJ, Shugar, A, Van Langh, R. 2015. The copper CHARM set: a new set of certified reference materials for the standardization of quantitative X-ray fluorescence analysis of heritage copper alloys. Archaeometry 57(5):856–868. doi: 10.1111/arcm.12117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jouttijärvi, A. 2009. Roman metal votives from Denmark. Materials and Manufacturing Processes 24(9):1007–14. doi: 10.1080/10426910902987465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jouttijärvi, A. 2017. Roman alloying practice. Materials and Manufacturing Processes 32(7–8):813–826. doi: 10.1080/10426914.2017.1279325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luchtanas, A, Podėnas, V, Babenskas, E. 2019. Spool-headed pin from the Roman Period: from archaeological find to reconstruction. In: Luchtanienė D, editor. Experimental archaeology. reconstruction of material heritage of Lithuania III. Vilnius: Akademikai. p. 9–43.Google Scholar
Lutz, J, Pernicka, E. 1996. Energy dispersive X-ray fluorescence analysis of ancient copper alloys: empirical values for precision and accuracy. Archaeometry 38(2):313–23. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-4754.1996.tb00779.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michelbertas, M. 1986. Senasis geležies amžius Lietuvoje. I–IV amžius (The older Iron Age in Lithuania. 1–4th centuries). Vilnius: Mokslas. In Lithuanian.Google Scholar
Michelbertas, M. 1997. Paragaudžio pilkapynas (Paragaudis barrow cemetery). Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla. In Lithuanian.Google Scholar
Molnár, M, Janovics, R, Major, I, Orsovszki, J, Gönczi, R, Veres, M, Leonard, AG, Castle, SM, Lange, TE, Wacker, L, Hajdas, I, Jull, AJT. 2013. Status report of the new AMS 14C sample preparation lab of the Hertelendi Laboratory of Environmental Studies (Debrecen, Hungary). Radiocarbon 55(2–3):665–76. doi: 10.2458/azu_js_rc.55.16394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Němec, M, Wacker, L, Hajdas, I, Gäggeler, H. 2010. Alternative methods for cellulose preparation for AMS measurement. Radiocarbon 52(3):1358–70. doi: 10.1017/S0033822200046440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pauli, M. 2019. Die sog. preußischen Augenfibeln aus Augsburg—Zeugnisse germanischer Fibelschmiede n der raetischen Provinzhauptstadt? Colloquium Biricianis 2019. Kernprovinz—Grenzraum—Vorland. Kontakte und Strukturen vom 1. Jh. v. bis zum 6. Jh. n. Chr. im. Bereich von Raetien, Noricum und benachbarten Gebieten. Weißenburg in Bayern. In German.Google Scholar
Pernicka, E. 1998. Whither metal analysis in archaeology? In: Mordant C, Pernot M, Rychner V, editors. L’atelier du bronzier en Europe du Xxe au VIIIe siècle avant notre ère. Actes du Colloque International, “Bronze ‘96”, Neuchâtel et Dijon, 4–9 mars 1996. Paris: Comité des Traveaux Historiques et Scientifiques. p. 259–267.Google Scholar
Pernicka, E. 1999. Trace element fingerprinting of ancient copper: a guide to technology or provenance? In: Young SMM, Pollard AM, Bud P, Ixer RA, editors. Metals in antiquity (BAR International Series 792). Oxford: Archaeopress. p. 163–171.Google Scholar
Pfeiffer-Frohnert, U. 1998. „Mit Augen am Fuß und mit Wulst statt Scheibe“. Verbreitung und Zeitstellung der preußischen Nebenserie A 57–61 und ihrer Varianten. In: Kunow J, editor. 100 Jahre Fibelformen nach Oscar Almgren. Internationale Arbeitstagung 25.–28. Mai 1997 in Kleinmachnow, Land Brandenburg (Forschungen zur Archäologie im Land Brandenburg 5). Wünsdorf-Potsdam: Brandenburgisches Landesmuseum für Ur- und Frühgeschichte, Archäologische Gesellschaft in Berlin und Brandenburg e.V. p. 125–134. In German.Google Scholar
Pietrzak, M. 1997. Pruszcz Gdański. Fundstelle 10. Ein Gräberfeld der Oksywie- und Wielbark-Kultur in Ostpommern (Monumenta Archaeologica Barbarica IV). Kraków: Secesja. In German.Google Scholar
Podėnas, V, Babenskas, E. 2017. Experimental investigation of color metallurgy according to crucibles discovered in Narkūnai. In: Luchtanienė D, editor. Experimental archaeology. Reconstruction of material heritage of Lithuania II. Vilnius: Akademinė leidyba. p. 95–120.Google Scholar
Pollard, AM, Bray, P, Cuénod, A, Hommel, P, Hsu, Y.-K, Liu, R, Perucchetti, L, Pouncett, J, Saunders, M. 2018. Beyond provenance. New approaches to interpreting the chemistry of archaeological copper alloys (Studies in Archaeological Sciences 6). Leuven: Leuven University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollard, AM, Bray, P, Gosden, C, Wilson, A, Hamerow, H. 2015. Characterising copper-based metals in Britain in the first millennium AD: a preliminary quantification of metal flow and recycling. Antiquity 89(345):697–713. doi: 10.15184/aqy.2015.20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reimer, PJ, Austin, WEN, Bard, E, Bayliss, A, Blackwell, PG, Bronk Ramsey, C, Butzin, M, Cheng, H, Edwards, RL, Friedrich, M, Grootes, P, Guilderson, TP, Hajdas, I, Heaton, TJ, Hogg, AG, Hughen, KA, Kromer, B, Manning, SW, Muscheler, R, Palmer, JG, Pearson, C, van der Plicht, J, Reimer, RW, Richards, DA, Scott, EM, Southon, JR, Turney, CSM, Wacker, L, Adolphi, F, Büntgen, U, Capano, M, Fahrni, SM, Fogtmann-Schulz, A, Friedrich, R, Köhler, P, Kudsk, S, Miyake, F, Olsen, J, Reinig, F, Sakamoto, M, Sookdeo, A, Talamo, S. 2020. The IntCal20 Northern Hemisphere radiocarbon age calibration curve (0–55 cal kBP). Radiocarbon 62(4):725–757. doi: 10.1017/RDC.2020.41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riha, E. 1979. Die römischen Fibeln aus Augst und Kaiseraugst (Forschungen in Augst 3). Augst: Amt für Museen und Archäologie des Kantons Basel-Landschaft. In German.Google Scholar
Roxburgh, M, Heeren, S, Huisman, H, Van Os, B. 2016. Early Roman copper-alloy brooch production: a compositional analysis of 400 brooches from Germania Inferior. Journal of Roman Archaeology 29:411–421. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1047759400072202
CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roxburgh, MA, Olli, M. 2018. Eyes to the North: a multi-element analysis of copper-alloy eye brooches in the eastern Baltic, produced during the Roman Iron Age. Germania 96:209–233. doi: 10.11588/ger.2018.66174.Google Scholar
Schoch, W, Heller, I, Schweingruber, FH, Kienast, F. 2004. Wood anatomy of central European species. URL: <http://www.woodanatomy.ch/>..>Google Scholar
Simniškytė, A. 2002. Roman period metal half-moon shaped pendants with knobs in eastern Baltic region. Archaeologia Baltica 5:95–122.Google Scholar
Steidl, B. 2013. Die Augenfibeln Almgren 45−46 in Raetien und den Nordwestprovinzen. Eine Sachform als Spiegel historischer Vorgänge? In: Grabherr G, Kainrath B, Schierl T, editors. Relations abroad. Brooches and other elements of dress as sources for reconstructing interregional movement and group boundaries from the Punic Wars to the decline of the Western Roman Empire. Proceedings of the International Conference from 27th−29th April 2011 in Innsbruck (Innsbrucker klassisch-archäologische Universitätsschriften 8). Innsbruck: Innsbruck University Press. p. 153–175. In German.Google Scholar
Stelzner, J, Million, S. 2015. X-ray computed tomography for the anatomical and dendrochronological analysis of archaeological wood. Journal of Archaeological Science 55:188–96. doi: 10.1016/j.jas.2014.12.015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voß, H-U. 2008. Fremd, nützlich, machbar. Römische Einflüsse im germanischen Feinschmiedehandwerk. In: Brather S, editor. Zwischen Spätantike und Frühmittelalter. Archäologie des 4. bis 7. Jahrhunderts im Westen (Ergänzungsbände zum Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde 57). Berlin-New York: Walter de Gruyter. p. 343–365. In German.Google Scholar
Voß, H-U. 2016. Material und Herstellungstechnik—Überlegungen zum germanischen Feinschmiedehandwerk in der Römischen Kaiserzeit. In: Armbruster B, Eilbracht H, Hahn O, Heinrich-Tamáska O, editors. Verborgenes Wissen: Innovation und Transformation feinschmiedetechnischer Entwicklungen im diachronen Vergleich (Berlin Studies of the Ancient World 35). Berlin: Edition Topoi. p. 139–161. In German. doi: http://edition-topoi.org/articles/details/1014.Google Scholar
Wheeler, EA. 2011. InsideWood—a Web resource for hardwood anatomy. IAWA Journal 32(2):199–211. doi: 10.1163/22941932-90000051.CrossRefGoogle Scholar