Charles Ede Ltd (London), Catalogue 176 (2005) no. 72.

2006.02

Silver Fibula

Purchased. Length ca 11cm; max. width 8.3cm.

The cross-arm comprises wire wound round in a tight spiral which breaks at the centre to run into the pin and into the arm. The arm or bow has four sets of bi-conical beading interspersed with three sets of flattened circular beading backed by a relatively thin plate that runs into the catch-plate and round into the bow.

There is some slight corrosion to pin and catch-plate; the condition is otherwise good.

The type is sometimes known as a crossbow fibula (in German ‘Zwiebelknopffibel’). It quite likely began in the third century AD, was popular in the fourth, mostly in the northern provinces, and continued into the fifth. A total of over 1500 are known. As one can see in a number of illustrations, it was used to hold a cloak or short mantle at the front of the right shoulder, and this is the commonest position in which it has been found in graves (see E. Keller, Die spätrömischen Grabfunde in Südbayern [Münchner Beiträge zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte, 14, Munich 1971] 53). Our example cannot have held a heavy fabric and one may wonder if it was not manufactured simply for use in the grave.

Most surviving examples are of bronze, often made by casting, but there are also many important gold examples. Silver is comparatively rare although one may note an example from Bulgaria published in Germania 22, 1938, 105, pl. 24, fig. 1.1 (I. Welkow); it is of a more standard type than ours.

There is a convenient overview of this kind of fibula in R. Hattatt, Iron Age and Roman Brooches: A Second Selection of Brooches from the Author's Collection (Oxford 1985) 128 -135 and 194-197. For an attempt at sorting out the chronology of the various versions of the type, see P.M. Pröttel, “Zur Chronologie der Zwiebelknopffibeln”, Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz 35, 1988, 347-372. For examples and further bibliography, see E. Ettlinger, Die römischen Fibeln in der Schweiz (Berne 1973); W. Jobst, Die römischen Fibeln aus Lauriacum (Forschungen in Lauriacum, 10, Linz 1975); H. Donder, Katalog der Sammlung antiker Kleinkunst des Archäologischen Instituts der Universität Heidelberg iii.2. Die Fibeln (Mainz 1994) 136-140, nos 70-74, pll. 14-15; of her five examples, two are from Hungary. Indeed a good proportion of the total seems to come from eastern Austria and Hungary, especially around the Danube basin (indeed some see a link to the Baltic amber route). One can, however, find examples in the Near East: H.-P. Kuhnen, “Zwiebelknopffibeln aus Palaestina und Arabia. Überlegungen zur Interpretation einer spätrömischen Fibelform”, Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 104, 1988, 92-124, Egypt and North Africa (where there is a cluster at a military site). There is a good publication of some 228 examples by T. Schierl, “Le ‘Zwiebelknopffibeln’”, in: M. Buora and S. Seidel (eds), Fibule antiche del Friuli (Cataloghi e Monografie Archeologiche dei Musei Civici di Udine 9, Castello, Udine – Rome 2008) 62-72. The collection was formed largely from local sources. There are also some helpful remarks on their distribution in M. Buora, “Osservazioni statistiche sulle Zwiebelknopffibeln con particolare riferimento ad Aquileia e a Spalato”, Quaderni friuliani de archeologia 12, 2002, 139-146. Another good recent study is M. Paul, Fiberln und Gürtelzubehör der späten römischen Kaiserzeit aus Augusta Vindelicum/Augsburg (Münchner Beiträge zur provinzialrömischen Archäologie, 3, Wiesbaden 2011) 34-59 and pll. 1-5. They are very rare in Spain. Note too the interesting article by V. Van Thienen and S. Lycke, “From Commodity to Singularity: The production of crossbow brooches and the rise of the Late Roman military elite”, Journal of Archaeological Science 82, 2017, 50-61. A fine gold example, found in Paris, is well published in P. Velay, “Au musée Carnavalet, la fibule cruciforme en or - insigne de haut dignitaire romain - trouvée à Paris”, Revue du Louvre 2, 2003, 27-34.

Commonly quoted illustrations of such fibulae in use include two excellent examples on the Stilicho diptych of the cathedral treasure at Monza (ca ad 400): e.g. A. Grabar, The Beginnings of Christian Art, 200-395 (London 1967) 16 fig. 12; R. Bianchi Bandinelli, Rome. The Late Empire (London 1971) 35 fig. 31; B. Kiilerich and H. Torp, “Hic est: hic Stilicho. The Date and Interpretation of a Notable Diptych”, Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 104, 1989, 319-371. The last is an excellent and wide-ranging discussion, including a good overview of these fibulae, and it argues for a date of ad 398 for the diptych’s manufacture. Note earlier W.F. Volbach, Elfenbeinarbeiten der Spätantike und des frühen Mittelalters (3^rd ed., Mainz 1976), pl. 35, 63 for the Monza piece: passim for other examples of representations of such fibulae.

A somewhat more elaborate version is found on the silver missorium of Theodosius I (AD 388) in Madrid: e.g. Bianchi Bandinelli, Rome. The Late Empire 35 fig. 31; Ramage and Ramage, The Cambridge Illustrated History of Roman Art (Cambridge 1991) 287 fig. 31; Kiilerich and Torp, op.cit., 345 fig. 11.

Rather later (ca AD 545-548) are the probable depictions worn by the companions of Justinian and of Theodora in the mosaics on the north and south walls of the apse in the Basilica of San Vitale at Ravenna (e.g. P. Cesaretti [ed.], Ravenna: gli splendori di un impero [Villanova di Castelnaso 2005] 114-115, 119, 122 [excellent photographs]; S. Ensoli and E. La Rocca [eds], Aurea Roma. Dalla città pagana all città cristiana [Rome 2000] 35 fig. 48; P. Angiolini Martinelli [ed.], La Basilica di San Vitale a Ravenna [Modena 1997] 220-223 and 230-233 [also with excellent photographs]; G. Bovini, Die Mosaiken von Ravenna [4^th ed., Milan 1956] pl. 28 and pll. 33-34; J. Lowden, Early Christian and Byzantine Art [London 1997] 132-133 and a detail 102).

This type of fibula is also represented on coins such as the Trier issue of Valentinian I and Valens, e.g. Bianchi Bandinelli, Rome. The Late Empire 33 fig. 29.

These fibulae were often indicators of men in the service of the state. H. Zabehlicky, “Zwiebelknopffibeln als Kennzeichen von Soldaten auf spätrömischen Denkmälern”, in: W.S. Hanson and L.J.F. Keppie (eds), Roman Frontier Studies 1979: Papers presented to the 12^th International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies (Oxford 1980) 1099-1111, has argued that in the late third century and the earlier half of the fourth, they belonged to senior military officers but that in the later fourth to sixth centuries, they also came to be used by civil officials and officers of the court. As the illustrations of them in use indicate, they usually seem to have been senior figures, implying that these objects accompanied a distinctive costume. The material of which they were made must also have been significant. It is interesting that another silver example, one of mainstream type, was included in a man’s grave even though it was already damaged: S. Neu, “Eine silberne Zwiebelknopffibel von der Richard-Wagner-Strasse in Köln”, in: A. Rieche, H.-J. Schalles and M. Zelle (eds), Grabung-Forschung-Präsentation: Festschrift Gundolf Precht (Cologne 2002) 55-59. It is probably to be dated to the later part of the third century ad. There is also a good discussion from a socio-historical perspective by P. Velay, “Au Musée Carnavalet, la fibule cruciforme en or, insigne de haut dignitaire romain, trouvée à Paris”, Revue du Louvre 53:2, 2003, 27-34. Late Antiquity was of course very status conscious and it is interesting that the use of these brooches, after extending to the upper reaches of the civilian population, seems thereafter to have remained fairly restricted, although there was evidently a certain amount of leakage down the scale. Occasional examples come to be found in the graves of women and children. See also the discussions in M. Buora, M. Lavarone and S. Seidel, Habitus. Identità e integrazione nel mondo antico attraverso lo studio delle fibule (Castello, Udine, 2007) and V. van Thienen, “A Symbol for Late Roman Authority Revisited. A Socio-Historical Understanding of the Crossbow Brooch”, in: N. Roymans, S. Heeren and W. De Clercq (eds), Social Dynamics in the Northwest Frontiers of the Late Roman Empire. Beyond Decline or Transformation (Amsterdam 2017) 97ff.

On their use, see now R. Tybulewicz, “Iconography of ‘Zwiebelknopffibeln’ in the Art of the Late Roman Empire”, Études et Travaux 27, 2014, 441-458.

Charles Ede Ltd (London), Catalogue 176 (2005) no. 72.