Graphic Signs of Identity, Faith, and Power in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages CURSOR MUNDI Cursor Mundi is produced under the auspices of the Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies, University of California, Los Angeles. Executive Editor Blair Sullivan, University of California, Los Angeles Editorial Board Michael D. Bailey, Iowa State University Christopher Baswell, Columbia University and Barnard College Florin Curta, University of Florida Elizabeth Freeman, University of Tasmania Yitzhak Hen, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Lauren Kassell, Pembroke College, Cambridge David Lines, University of Warwick Cary Nederman, Texas A&M University Teofilo Ruiz, University of California, Los Angeles Previously published volumes in this series are listed at the back of the book. Volume 27 © BREPOLS PUBLISHERS THIS DOCUMENT MAY BE PRINTED FOR PRIVATE USE ONLY. IT MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE PUBLISHER. Graphic Signs of Identity, Faith, and Power in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages Edited by Ildar Garipzanov, Caroline Goodson, and Henry Maguire British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. © 2017, Brepols Publishers n.v., Turnhout, Belgium All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher. D/2017/0095/59 ISBN 978-2-503-56724-2 Printed on acid-free paper © BREPOLS PUBLISHERS THIS DOCUMENT MAY BE PRINTED FOR PRIVATE USE ONLY. IT MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE PUBLISHER. Contents List of Illustrations vii Introduction: Late Antique and Early Medieval Graphic Signs of Identity, Faith, and Power ILDAR GARIPzANOV 1 Part I. Graphic Signs in Manuscript Culture Earliest Christian Graphic Symbols: Examples and References from the Second/Third Centuries LARRY W. HURTADO 25 Machina sacra: Optatian and the Lettered Art of the Christogram MICHAEL SqUIRE and CHRISTOPHER WHITTON 45 Notitia dignitatum BEAT BRENK 109 Early Medieval Display Scripts and the Problems of How We See Them DAVID GANz 125 Contents vi Part II. Graphic Signs in Public Spaces and Everyday Material Culture Blessing or Security? Understanding the Christian Symbols of a Monumental Aqueduct Bridge in the Hinterland of Late Antique Constantinople JAMES CROW 147 Cross Graffiti as Physical Means to Christianize the Classical City: An Exploration of their Function, Meaning, Topographical, and Socio-Historical Contexts 175 INE JACOBS How Did Early Byzantine Ornament Work? 223 HENRY MAGUIRE Christograms on North African Lamps: Considering Context 255 CAROLINE GOODSON Part III. Graphic Signs on Material Objects of Status and Authority Between Amuletic Ornament and Sign of Authority: Christian Symbols on Mediterranean Dress Accessories of the Fourth to Sixth Centuries 281 CHRISTOPH EGER Monograms as Graphic Signs of Authority on Early Medieval Coins (from the Mid-Fifth to Seventh Centuries) 325 ILDAR GARIPzANOV Memory and Meaning: Graphic Sign and Abstract Symbol in Byzantine Silk Weaving (from the Sixth to Tenth/Eleventh Centuries) 351 ANNA MUTHESIUS Index 383 © BREPOLS PUBLISHERS THIS DOCUMENT MAY BE PRINTED FOR PRIVATE USE ONLY. IT MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE PUBLISHER. Between Amuletic Ornament and Sign of Authority: Christian Symbols on Mediterranean Dress Accessories of the Fourth to Sixth Centuries Christoph Eger Introduction Immediately west of the Basilica of Maxentius, within the walls of the Forum pacis, the church of Santi Cosma e Damiano in Rome was built between 526 to 530. Its apsidal mosaic depicts St Theodore to the right of the main saints.1 Although, according to legend, Theodore was no more than an ordinary soldier when he suffered martyrdom in the early fourth century,2 he is shown wearing the official attire of a high military dignitary: the paludamentum, a short tunic, and tight-fitting trousers.3 The richly adorned paludamentum, in whose pleats 1 On the church of Santi Cosma e Damiano, see most recently Brandenburg, Die frühchristlichen Kirchen in Rom, pp. 242–51. On the apsidal mosaic, see also Budriesi, ‘I mosaici della chiesa dei Santi Cosma e Damiano a Roma’. 2 For the early fourth century, two different saints by the name of Theodore or two variants of the person and martyrdom of St Theodore are known: Theodore Tyron (‘Theodore the Recruit’), an ordinary soldier martyred in 306, is honoured; and Theodore Stratelates (‘Theodore the General’), a martyr reportedly sentenced to death by Licinius in 319, whose legend, however, was not known before the middle Byzantine period. 3 The assumption that we are dealing with military and not civilian courtly dress is supported, in my opinion, by the fact that the saint is wearing tight-fitting trousers and a Christoph Eger (chr_eger@yahoo.de) is Privatdozent (Associate Professor) at the Institut für Prähistorische Archäologie, Freie Universität Berlin. Graphic Signs of Identity, Faith, and Power in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, ed. by Ildar Garipzanov, Caroline Goodson, and Henry Maguire, CURSOR 27 pp. 281–324 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2017) BREPOLS PUBLISHERS 282 Christoph Eger Figure 9.1. ‘Detail of the apsidal mosaic with St Theodore’, Rome, Santi Cosma e Damiano. 526–30. From H. Brandenburg, Le prime chiese di Roma, p. 250, fig. 174. Reproduced with permission of H. Brandenburg and Jaca Book, Milan. the saint holds his martyr crown, is fastened on the right shoulder by a fibula with a cross on its protruding foot (fig. 9.1). The mosaicist made this cross particularly distinguishable by using dark tesserae that stand out from the golden ground of the brooch.4 Such decoration on a fibula is not artistic imagination alone and did not only serve to underline the Christian faith and martyrdom of the saint. A small number of contemporary brooches of the later fifth to early sixth centuries, all shorter tunic, here covered by the paludamentum, instead of the usual one of ankle-length. Thus, his garment may be compared to the one of the commander on the so-called ‘Diptych of Stilicho’ (Volbach, Elfenbeinarbeiten der Spätantike, pp. 55–56, no. 63 and pl. 35). 4 Detailed images in Brenk, Spätantike und frühes Christentum, pp. 132–33 and pls 37–38; Würth and Planck, Die Schraube zwischen Macht und Pracht, pp. 102–03. © BREPOLS PUBLISHERS THIS DOCUMENT MAY BE PRINTED FOR PRIVATE USE ONLY. IT MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE PUBLISHER. Between Amuletic Ornament and Sign of Authority 283 Figure 9.2. of a comparable shape and ‘Golden crossbow brooch’, bearing a cross ornament, Rome, Palatine Hill. attest to the accuracy of the Second half of fifth– mosaicist’s representation. early sixth centuries. One of these archaeologiDrawing: A. Darwich-Eger after Würth and Planck, Die cal fibulae comes from the Schraube zwischen Macht Palatine Hill, only a few hunund Pracht, p. 81, fig. 53. dred metres from the church of Santi Cosma e Damiano (fig. 9.2).5 This golden fibula is 7.6 cm long and has a boxshaped foot decorated with a finely executed inhabited vine scroll in opus interrasile on its visible side. The scroll surrounds a centrally placed Latin cross extending over the entire length of the foot. Thus, we encounter surprising agreement between the real object and its representation, which hardly leaves any doubt that the mosaicist had an identical or a similar brooch in mind when creating the image of the saint in the dress of a high Byzantine official. Some twenty years later, St Vitalis of Milan was represented quite similarly to St Theodore in the apsidal mosaic in the church dedicated to him in Ravenna in 547 (fig. 9.3).6 He is standing to the left of Jesus Christ, who is enthroned on the globe and flanked by angels. One of them, acting as silentiarius, escorts the saint to the Lord. Vitalis, of whom little more is known than his martyrdom, which was probably in the first century, is wearing the official attire of a highranking Byzantine dignitary too. With bent arms he is suppliantly holding the 5 Gatti, ‘Roma’, p. 360; Heurgon, Le trésor de Ténès, pp. 3–5, pl. 14; Würth and Planck, Die Schraube zwischen Macht und Pracht, pp. 80–81, fig. 53, and p. 152, B3. 6 On San Vitale in Ravenna and its building history, see most recently Jäggi, Ravenna, pp. 238–43 and 249–50, with a concise description and pictures of the apsidal mosaic. See additionally Deichmann, Frühchristliche Bauten und Mosaiken von Ravenna, pls 352 and 356. For colour images, see Malafarina, Die Basilika San Vitale, pp. 94–96, figs 75–76. 284 Christoph Eger Figure 9.3. ‘Detail of the apsidal mosaic with St Vitalis’, Ravenna, San Vitale. 540–47. Photo by C. Eger. © BREPOLS PUBLISHERS THIS DOCUMENT MAY BE PRINTED FOR PRIVATE USE ONLY. IT MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE PUBLISHER. Between Amuletic Ornament and Sign of Authority 285 Figure 9.4. ‘Detail of the belt of St Vitalis’, Ravenna, San Vitale. 540–47. Photo by C. Eger. paludamentum in front of his body in order to receive his martyr crown. On his right shoulder, a slender fibula with three knobs fastens the cloak. This time, its foot shows no cross (though the foot is only exactly one tessera wide). Yet plenty of cross ornaments can be found on the costume of the saint: not only the tablion but also the shoes and the belt, part of which are visible, are decorated with cross symbols. On the golden belt ribbon, black and white zones alternate with two small Greek crosses each and fields with differently coloured ornaments (fig. 9.4).7 In the second quarter of the sixth century — the time of both our mosaics — belt fittings and buckles with cross ornaments were worn in the Mediterranean basin, as archaeological examples attest. Amongst the earlier types, already going out of fashion after the first quarter of the sixth century, there are belt 7 Whether the decoration of the leather belt signified painted or metallic fittings cannot be decided by means of the picture. We have insufficient information regarding the exact appearance of the belts of highest ranking imperial officials. In pictures they are usually hidden by the chlamys or paludamentum. What is remarkable is the description of the belt of the praefectus praetorio in John the Lydian’s De magistratibus 2. 13. For an English translation, see Ioannes Lydus: On Powers or the Magistracies of the Roman State, ed. and trans. by Bandy, p. 173. 286 Christoph Eger Figure 9.5. ‘Belt buckle with ovoid plate and crossshaped inlay decoration from Kerč, Crimea’, London, British Museum. Second half of the fifth–early sixth centuries. Reproduced with permission of the British Museum. buckles with cross-shaped inlay decoration (fig. 9.5), whose compartments are filled with coloured glass or precious stone inlays.8 An upright rectangular plate of this type from Sadovec, Bulgaria indicates that, apart from plain belts with no other metal fitting than the buckle, there were also bipartite or perhaps even multiple sets with cross ornaments.9 From the second quarter or the second third of the sixth century onwards, that is, during the reign of Emperor Justinian I (527–65), early Byzantine dress fashion underwent a radical change from buckles and plates to massively cast belt fittings. At the same time a new type of belt, the so-called multipartite belt with one major and several minor strap-ends, appeared beside the current belts with one or few plate(s).10 Amongst these new types of belt fittings, there are specimens with a cross ornament, such as buckles and plates with a cross-shaped openwork decoration must be mentioned (figs 9.6a–b). They are far more numerous than the earlier types and are concentrated in the northern Balkans.11 From the late sixth century onwards, belt buckles and 8 Schulze-Dörrlamm, Byzantinische Gürtelschnallen, i, 95–97 (type C5 with an oval plate) and 115–19 (type C13 with an upright rectangular plate); Andrási, The BerthierDelagarde Collection, ed. by Kidd and Ager, p. 59, pl. 40, and p. 78. 9 Uenze, Die spätantiken Befestigungen von Sadovec (Bulgarien), p. 182 and pl. 10.8; Schulze-Dörrlamm, Byzantinische Gürtelschnallen, i, 116, no. 95. Generally on multipart belt fittings in the second half of the fifth and early sixth centuries, see quast, ‘Garnitures de ceintures méditerranéennes’. 10 On the change of Byzantine belt fashion from the fifth to ninth/tenth centuries, see Schulze-Dörrlamm, Byzantinische Gürtelschnallen, ii, 286–93. 11 Schulze-Dörrlamm, Byzantinische Gürtelschnallen, i, 146–51 (type D1/Sucidava) and p. 150, fig. 54: distribution map. © BREPOLS PUBLISHERS THIS DOCUMENT MAY BE PRINTED FOR PRIVATE USE ONLY. IT MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE PUBLISHER. Between Amuletic Ornament and Sign of Authority (a) 287 (b) Figure 9.6. (a) ‘Belt buckle with cross- and moon-shaped openwork from Sadovec, Bulgaria’; (b) ‘Counter plate with similar openwork decoration from an unknown site, Asia Minor’, Mainz, Römisch-Germanisches zentralmuseum. Second half of the fifth–early sixth centuries. From Schulze-Dörrlamm, Byzantinische Gürtelschnallen, i, 147, no. 110, and 148, no. 113, respectively. Reproduced with permission of M. Schulze-Dörrlamm and Römisch-Germanisches zentralmuseum Mainz. small buckles with cross-shaped fitting were produced for the first time and thus displayed the cross in a particularly striking way.12 It is possible that these non-ferrous metal dress accessories refer to golden prototypes of which, however, only a single specimen is known — namely, the pompous cross-shaped belt buckle from an unknown site, now in the British Museum (fig. 9.7).13 Figure 9.7. ‘Golden belt buckle with cross shaped plate from unknown site’, London, British Museum. Seventh century. Photo by C. Eger, reproduced with permission of the British Museum. The mosaic images and the archaeological correlates are eloquent examples of what we might consider the Christianization of dress that had already started some time before the first half of the sixth century. I will here examine the appearance of Christian signs and symbols, alongside figural representations on garments and their mostly metallic fittings such as fibulae and buckles. Dress 12 Types with an immobile plate: Schulze-Dörrlamm, Byzantinische Gürtelschnallen, i, 193–207 (types D22–26); types with a hinged plate: pp. 9–19 (types E1–5). 13 Schulze-Dörrlamm, Byzantinische Gürtelschnallen, i, 13, fig. 3; Entwistle, ‘Notes on Selected Recent Acquisitions’, p. 20, no. 2. 288 Christoph Eger accessories formed only one facet of a much more comprehensive process initiated after Constantine I’s victory at the Milvian Bridge (312) and the Edict of Milan, a Christianization which eventually spread throughout the entire material culture of Late Antiquity.14 From the first quarter of the fourth century, Christian signs, whether figural or emblematic, appeared in all genres of monumental and small artefacts, including everyday items, dress elements, and weaponry. (Defensive) weapons may even have been amongst the earliest groups of objects on which the new symbolic repertory after the imperial model was spread. Thus, the famous silver medallion from Ticinum of c. 315 represents the emperor with a helmet on whose crest a decorative fitting with a chi-rho is fixed (see above, fig. 2.13). Meanwhile, quite a number of such plates of the later fourth century have been found, which indicates that the chi-rho had been taken over into the decorative canon of regular helmets (of officers).15 Objectives of this Paper In the past, research concerning the significance of such Christian signs and symbols on items and how they were understood by the circle of people using them has long been focused on three aspects. First, Christian symbols on small finds were generally considered important proof for the expansion of Christianity with special attention to the earliest specimens in each region or locality. Second, it was (and still is) a matter of debate whether the use of Christian symbols such as cross or christogram on an archaeological object implies the religious faith of its owner or user. And third, a sacral or liturgical function has been considered for certain types of objects with such signs. However, Josef Engemann explained some time ago that the habit of equipping everyday items such as jewellery, dishes, or tools with a cross or christogram was wide-spread and that handling such symbols and Christian representations with relative nonchalance in everyday life was one of the characteristics of late antique (and early medieval) people.16 This becomes particularly clear through 14 Heid, ‘Kreuz’, particularly cols 1123–26. Demandt and Engemann, Imperator Caesar Flavius Constantinus, p. 235, fig. 5; Overbeck, Das Silbermedaillon aus der Münzstätte Ticinum. On the archaeological evidence for crests with a chi-rho, see Schmauder, ‘Die Bewaffnung des spätantiken Heeres’, pp. 150 and 154, with catalogue nos I.13.121, and pp. 123–24. See additionally Mackensen, ‘Vergoldete Bronzebeschläge mit Christogramm’. However, early examples of the first half of the fourth century are missing. 16 Engemann, ‘Anmerkungen zu spätantiken Geräten’, pp. 156–57. 15 © BREPOLS PUBLISHERS THIS DOCUMENT MAY BE PRINTED FOR PRIVATE USE ONLY. IT MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE PUBLISHER. Between Amuletic Ornament and Sign of Authority 289 elements of military equipment for which an explanation as sacred implements may be excluded a priori. Turning to the presence of cross symbols and christograms on dress accessories, this means that we should eschew hasty interpretations of cross-decorated belt buckles, for example, belt fittings of clergymen, as has sometimes been done in the past.17 Equally we should avoid simplistic statements about the Christian faith of the wearer or user of objects with Christian signs or representations: ‘It is only by a synopsis of several factors and in the context of the archaeological feature in particular that it becomes possible to decide for an individual case whether a Christian object was equally used and appreciated as “Christian.”’18 Individual objects must be considered within their context. One important consideration in the discussion on the use of Christian symbols is whether cross signs and Christian monograms on items that were bestowed upon the bearer as a badge of rank or official insignia invoked or created any authority. Amongst these are both certain types of fibulae, with which the military cloak of lower ranks — the sagum — or the long cloak of higher ranks — the paludamentum or chlamys — were fastened on the right side, and the belt (cingulum militiae) that was worn over the tunic by soldiers and civil servants of all ranks.19 The pictorial representation of the saints Theodore and Vitalis in the dress of high Byzantine dignitaries makes quite clear that both types of official dress accessories could be decorated with Christian symbols in an ostentatious manner and were meant to make an impression on the observer. It seems obvious that it was not intended to flaunt the personal religious denomination. Apart from the fact that both saints confront us as dignitaries of the Byzantine state and not as ‘private citizens’ or heavenly figures, it seems very likely anyway that the decoration and iconographic programme of the precious equipment bestowed by the emperor were most probably designed in public fabricae entrusted with the production of high rank insignias and not 17 On this, cf. Ristow, ‘Christliches im archäologischen Befund’, pp. 23–24. Ristow, ‘Christliches im archäologischen Befund’, p. 22. On the general problem of understanding early medieval religion and its modes of expression, see Geary, ‘The Uses of Archaeological Sources’, and Caroline Goodson’s essay in this volume. 19 On late antique official attires of the armed forces and the imperial administration as well as on the significance of cloak fibulae and cingulum, see Delbrueck, Consulardiptychen und verwandte Denkmäler, p. 39; Speyer, ‘Gürtel’; Sommer, Die Gürtel und Gürtelbeschläge, pp. 83–118; Kalamara, Le système vestimentaire à Byzance, i, 94–120; Schmauder, Oberschichtgräber und Verwahrfunde, i, 77–79; Smith, ‘The Statue Monument of Oecumenius’; von Rummel, Habitus barbarus, pp. 206–13. 18 290 Christoph Eger derived from the personal predilection of the wearer. 20 Yet did Christian symbols on dress accessories used for official attire serve as sovereign signs of the Christian late Roman state? In order to pursue this problem, it is not only necessary to check since when and to what degree the cross and Christian monograms (such as the chi-rho and staurogram21) appeared on dress accessories but also to explore certain formal aspects as to the mounting of such signs: were they already part of the cast, embossed, or chased object, or were they engraved in a secondary step of production or maybe even later yet? Were they visible or invisible when worn? Are they fully integrated into the decorative systems used on such brooches and belt buckles/fittings, or do they appear more ‘autonomously’? And finally, what role did graphic signs on dress accessories play for the costume as a whole? The material for my study is late antique dress accessories, in which I restrict myself mostly to fibulae of the fourth to sixth centuries which were probably used on (official) garments (though not proven beyond doubt).22 Only a minority of the now very numerous dress accessories of this period are decorated with one or more of the aforementioned graphic signs.23 Yet the exact number is difficult to estimate since a systematic analysis of brooches and belt buckles (like 20 On the bestowal of insignias to high ranking officials by the Byzantine emperor in the fifth to sixth centuries, see Schmauder, Oberschichtgräber und Verwahrfunde, i, 69–73. On the production of dress accessories in the imperial fabricae cf. Schmauder, Oberschichtgräber und Verwahrfunde, i, 80, with additional literature. However, the analysis of finds of military equipment made quite clear that the significance of public fabricae for the supply of arming and accessories must not be overestimated. At least plainer accessories of non-ferrous metal for the army were probably still produced locally in workshops of Roman forts or their surrounding vici and cannabae in the fourth/fifth centuries, as is well attested for the Middle Imperial period; cf. Fischer, ‘zur römischen Offiziersausrüstung’, pp. 188–89, with n. 70; for Late Antiquity, see Sommer, Die Gürtel und Gürtelbeschläge, p. 102; cf. also Swift, Regionality in Dress Accessories, pp. 208 and 230–33, who does not explicitly deal with the localization of workshops but also lists a number of regional ones. 21 In this essay, I describe both the chi-rho and staurogram with the term ‘Christian monograms’ instead of the term ‘christogram’. The latter traditionally denotes the monograms of Christ’s names, which the staurogram is not. For more details, see Larry Hurtado’s contribution in this volume. 22 Late antique dress accessories which definitely and exclusively were worn by women and dress accessories typical of the Germanic regna in the western Mediterranean area have not been considered. 23 Amongst them is a clear dominance of belt buckles and belt fittings, especially in the period between the sixth and the eighth centuries. With regard to fibulae used for official vestments, there was a marked drop after the mid-fifth century. © BREPOLS PUBLISHERS THIS DOCUMENT MAY BE PRINTED FOR PRIVATE USE ONLY. IT MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE PUBLISHER. Between Amuletic Ornament and Sign of Authority 291 most other types of small finds) with cross signs and Christian monograms in the late antique Mediterranean is lacking.24 Christian Symbols on Crossbow Brooches of the Late Fourth to Early Fifth Centuries Despite the quick and comprehensive spread of imperial Christianity after Constantine I, the cross and Christian monograms found their way onto dress accessories only reluctantly and to a quantitatively limited degree. This is particularly true for the item that is considered the insignia of imperial officeholders par excellence according to iconographic and archaeological evidence: the onion-headed crossbow brooch, which was the most numerous and most widely distributed type of fibula in the Roman Empire in the late third and fourth centuries.25 No crossbow brooches decorated with a cross or Christian monogram are known in the first half of the fourth century. Not even the group of golden specimens, called ‘imperial fibulae’ due to their inscriptions on the bow and which were probably designed as honorary gifts for loyal and merited officers in times of continuous power struggle until the establishment of Constantine’s sole reign in 324, bear crosses or Christian monograms.26 It is only in the second half of the fourth century that Christian symbols appear on crossbow fibulae and, indeed, almost exclusively on type 5 (following Keller and Pröttel).27 The pieces are six to ten centimetres long, made of 24 Henri Leclercq was the first to compile quite a number of late antique Mediterranean and Merovingian finds with graphical signs and Christian representations — although with no claim to exhaustiveness: Leclercq, ‘Fibule’. For recent discussions of crossbow brooches with Christian signs, see Kaufmann-Heinimann, ‘Decennalienplatte des Constans’, and Popović, ‘Gilt Fibula with Christogram’. 25 On the use and circle of wearers, see Heurgon, Le trésor de Ténès, pp. 23–24; Schmauder, Oberschichtgraber und Verwahrfunde, i, 77–79; and Eger, Spätantikes Kleidungszubehör aus Nordafrika, pp. 150–59. 26 Deppert-Lippitz, ‘A Late Antique Crossbow Fibula’, pp. 51 and 52; KaufmannHeinimann, ‘Decennalienplatte des Constans’, pp. 130 and 155; Demandt and Engemann, Imperator Caesar Flavius Constantinus, no. I.7.23. 27 On typolog y, see Keller, Die spätrömischen Grabfunde in Südbayern, pp. 41–52; Pröttel, ‘zur Chronologie der zwiebelknopffibeln’, pp. 364–69. Cf. also Swift, Regionality in Dress Accessories, pp. 15 and 23–25 (the classical type 5 is identical with Swift type 5i). The chronological focus of type 5 lies in the last third of the fourth century and persisted until the early fifth century. Cf. Keller, Die spätrömischen Grabfunde in Südbayern, pp. 41–52: 370 to 400. However, it is a matter of debate whether type 5 emerged as early as the mid-fourth 292 Christoph Eger Figure 9.8. ‘Fragment of a crossbow brooch of type 5 with reconstructed crossbow from Sirmium, Serbia’. Second half of the fourth–early fifth centuries. Drawing by A. Darwich-Eger after Popović, ‘Gilt Fibula with Christogram’, p. 103, fig. 2. gilt sheet bronze, and characterized by large hollow knobs, a strongly curved bulky bow, and a relatively short foot with lateral pelta ornament.28 On the bow ridge and the foot, an ornamental band with niello or silver-inlay is frequent.29 Unlike types 1 to 3/4 that are known in great numbers, type 5 is much rarer, found mainly in the northern provinces of the empire, in Britain and along the Rhine and Danube with a certain regional emphasis in Pannonia.30 The small number of such brooches in the eastern and southern Mediterranean area is striking; it is — at least partly — connected to the poor state of cemetery excavation along the limites of these regions in the present day, and perhaps also to different ancient customs of burial and grave goods. Among Christian symbols, the chi-rho dominates crossbow brooches of type 5 almost exclusively, while plain crosses of a clearly Christian nature are century: Pröttel, ‘zur Chronologie der zwiebelknopffibeln’, pp. 364–69. The discrepancy is due to the different typological classification of some early types. 28 As an exception, three particularly elaborate specimens of unknown provenance in the Ferrell Collection were made of sheet gold: Spier, Treasures of the Ferrell Collection, pp. 106–12, nos 87–89. 29 For example, the piece from Prahovo, Serbia: Popović, ‘Gilt Fibula with Christogram’, p. 105, fig. 4. 30 See find list in Schmauder, ‘Der Verwahrfund von Lengerich’, p. 99, fig. 6; Swift, Regionality in Dress Accessories, pp. 286–87. For additional pieces from the eastern Mediterranean, cf. Eger, Spätantikes Kleidungszubehör aus Nordafrika, pp. 99–100 with notes 663–64 and a supplemental find list. © BREPOLS PUBLISHERS THIS DOCUMENT MAY BE PRINTED FOR PRIVATE USE ONLY. IT MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE PUBLISHER. Between Amuletic Ornament and Sign of Authority 293 Figure 9.9. ‘Crossbow brooch of type 5 with two christograms on the bow from Osijek, Croatia’. Second half of the fourth–early fifth centuries. Drawing by A. DarwichEger after Vinski, ‘Kasnoantički starosjedioci’, pl. 2. never found,31 though a fibula fragment from Sirmium, Serbia displays the staurogram (fig. 9.8).32 The interpretation of six-armed signs inside a medallion on some fibulae remains a matter of debate: they have been interpreted as a monogram of I and X (for Jesus Christ) by some authors, although they are probably nothing more than decorative geometric elements.33 Of about 150 31 Very small equal-armed crosses are repeatedly included into the ornamental bands on the bow or foot which, however, one will hardly credit with a Christian character, but rather with a merely decorative function as in the case of a brooch from Stara zagora, Bulgaria: Kaufmann-Heinimann, ‘Fundliste der zwiebelknopffibeln’, p. 319, fig. 297. 32 Popović, ‘Gilt Fibula with Christogram’, pp. 102–03, figs 1–2. A staurogram is also found on the brooch from Ságvár grave 42, Hungary, but its typological classification as type 5 or 6 in the literature poses problems and is resolved here in favour of the younger type. See below. 33 Generally, on this type of monogram of Christ, see Leclercq, ‘Chrisme’, particularly cols 1486 and 1493; Wessel, ‘Christusmonogramm’, particularly cols 1048 and 1049, no. 3. 294 Christoph Eger (a) Figure 9.10. (a) ‘Crossbow brooch of type 5 from burial 379, Basel-Aeschenvorstadt, Switzerland’; (b) ‘The other objects of the grave inventory’, Basel, Historical Museum of Basel. Late fourth– early fifth centuries. From Fellmann Brogli, Das römisch-frühmittelalterliche Graberfeld, pl. 31–32. Reproduced with permission of R. Fellmann Brogli and Historical Museum of Basel. (b) © BREPOLS PUBLISHERS THIS DOCUMENT MAY BE PRINTED FOR PRIVATE USE ONLY. IT MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE PUBLISHER. Between Amuletic Ornament and Sign of Authority 295 known pieces of type 5, only some twenty specimens — that is, 13 per cent — show Christian monograms.34 However, many brooches of type 5 remain unrestored and/or have been published with images of such poor quality that any number of unidentified signs could fit. It seems that Christian monograms appear only on a minority of crossbow brooches. Apart from two exceptions, each fibula bears only a single Christian monogram which has been — like the rest of the decoration — engraved into the sheet metal and filled with niello or a silver foil. Only a fibula from Osijek, Croatia, and another one of unknown provenance in a private collection in Munich feature two chi-rhos (fig. 9.9).35 Christian monograms can be placed at three different parts of the fibulae: at the front side of the bow or the foot, at the ending of the foot, or at the pin rest. On the bow or foot, small chi-rhos measuring five millemetres at most are placed like medallions inside a circle or square and inserted into the ornamental band across the entire bow ridge or foot (fig. 9.10). Often, these graphic signs are combined with one or several small medallion-shaped heads or busts that are admittedly far more numerous on crossbow fibulae of type 5 without an additional chi-rho medallion.36 Measuring up to one centimetre, chi-rhos on the ends of pin rests are much larger (fig. 9.11). They, too, are engravings filled with niello and designed as circular medallions that can be accompanied by marginal tendrils. Occasionally the lateral corners of the X were filled with an alpha and omega (e.g., on fibulae in the grave at Jakobstraße in Bonn, Germany, and from Györ, Hungary) or with degenerated forms of these apocalyptic letters, as on the brooch from BataszekKövesd, Hungary.37 Christian monograms on crossbow brooches have repeatedly been called a symbol of the late antique Christian state.38 This might mean that they underA special case is the assessment of the six-armed star on the crossbow brooch from grave 20 at Ságvár, Hungary, as a christogram by Tóth, ‘Későrómai sír Tihanyból’, p. 148, fig. 13. On sixarmed ornaments, see Maguire’s essay in this volume. 34 For evidence, consult the appendix to this essay. 35 Vinski, ‘Kasnoantički starosjedioci’, pl. 2.1a–c; Kaufmann-Heinimann, ‘Fundliste der zwiebelknopffibeln’, p. 321, fig. 307. 36 Compilation in Kaufmann-Heinimann, ‘Decennalienplatte des Constans’, p. 157, tab. 2. Of forty-six brooches with heads or busts known to her, only nine specimens also display Christian monograms. 37 Cf. Pohl, ‘zwiebelknopffibel’, p. 191, fig. 131; Szönyi, ‘Altchristliche Funde’, especially p. 49, figs 2 and 3. 38 Cf., for example, Pohl, ‘zwiebelknopffibel’, p. 192; Holcomb, ‘Crossbow Brooch’, p. 31: 296 Christoph Eger Figure 9.11. ‘Crossbow brooch of type 5 from Bonn-Jakobstraße, Germany’. Bonn, LVRLandesmuseum. Late fourth century–c. 400. From Ristow, Frühes Christentum im Rheinland, pl. 47a–b. Photo by A. Thünker, reproduced with permission of S. Ristow and LVR-Landesmuseum Bonn. lined the official character of the fibula as an insignia and were to communicate the new imperial ideology at the same time. Thus, the wearer of the brooch might be bestowed some additional legitimation. But this assumption is rather unlikely in view of the small size of the chi-rhos. This is particularly true for Christian monograms on bow and foot that are only few millimetres wide and inserted into a delicate ornamental band where they are set apart from the rest of the ornament neither by colour nor by disposition. Only in singular cases such as, for example, the fibula from Prahovo, Serbia, where the chi-rho is so distinctively visible due to its positioning at the ending of the foot and its square framing set-off from the ornamental band that it could have been seen even from a distance.39 Christian monograms found on the end of the pin rest are indeed bigger, but they are situated at a point where they were totally invisible when the fibula was worn, as the foot was upwards. Why some brooches of type 5 were nevertheless decorated at this ‘[...] an allusion to the empire’s power based on its faith’. Deppert-Lippitz, ‘A Late Antique Crossbow Fibula’, p. 54: ‘[...] one of the first public statements of Christian convictions on a personal adornment’. Demandt and Engemann, Imperator Caesar Flavius Constantinus, no. I.13.106; Ristow, ‘Christliches im archäologischen Befund’, pp. 22–23, fig. 5. 39 Popović, ‘Gilt Fibula with Christogram’, p. 105, fig. 4; Demandt and Engemann, Imperator Caesar Flavius Constantinus, no. I.13.107. © BREPOLS PUBLISHERS THIS DOCUMENT MAY BE PRINTED FOR PRIVATE USE ONLY. IT MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE PUBLISHER. Between Amuletic Ornament and Sign of Authority 297 spot — beside the chi-rho a medallion with a head or bust is sometimes also found — is unclear, though they cannot indicate a desire to distinguish the wearer by official insignias of the state. For an interpretation of Christian monograms, one must compare their appearance and significance with that of the medallion busts and heads applied at the same places and in equal sizes, the interpretation of which has long been debated: some researchers have and do consider them portrait busts of members of the Constantinian dynasty, like those on other official objects such as silver dishes. These interpretations have been rejected, most recently by Annemarie Kaufmann-Heinimann and Ivana Popović.40 Although it is true that the medallion image of the juvenile beardless ruler was used in the early fourth and dominant until the early fifth century, there is no iconographic evidence whatsoever for any tangible reference to members of the ruling imperial family.41 Additionally, the number of these heads on fibulae varies from one to ten and provides no basis for a connection with Constantine’s sons, not to mention the contemporary emperors on considerably later, post-Constantinian type 5 brooches. Therefore, we are dealing with anonymous portraits, the meaning of which must lie not in the political-ideological sphere but in the allegorical realm.42 Popović stresses the embedding of both busts and chi-rhos into the ornamental band on the bow and foot of the brooches, indicating those busts and signs cannot be understood in isolation.43 She also believes that we are rather dealing with decorative schemes absolutely typical for the fourth century and using both motifs to some extent as auspicious (and protective) backfill. Therefore, the varying ornamental bands of crossbow brooches of type 5 are not underlain by any profound ideological statement about the state, but they reflect the ornamental repertory of the public workshops which made the brooches. These resorted to and occasionally combined symbols from totally different traditions, both pagan and Christian, according to the predilections of the fourth century. When reviewing the find list of known fibulae with a chi-rho, one has 40 See the historiography of this interpretation and its rebuttal in Kaufmann-Heinimann, ‘Decennalienplatte des Constans’; Popović, ‘Gilt Fibula with Christogram’. 41 Kaufmann-Heinimann, ‘Decennalienplatte des Constans’, pp. 149 and 159: a bust with a nimbus and diadem is known only from a single fibula, a chlamys fastened with a fibula on the right shoulder is indicated on few other busts. 42 Kaufmann-Heinimann, ‘Decennalienplatte des Constans’, p. 163; similarly, Popović, ‘Gilt Fibula with Christogram’, p. 108. 43 Kaufmann-Heinimann, ‘Decennalienplatte des Constans’, p. 163; Popović, ‘Gilt Fibula with Christogram’, p. 108. 298 Christoph Eger the impression that one of these workshops was situated in Pannonia and preferred placing Christian monograms on the ending of the pin rest. Amongst the typologically latest pieces with a Christian symbol in this zone is the fibula from grave 42 in the cemetery at Ságvár, Hungary. 44 The peltae are already clearly pronounced and slightly protruding from the long sides of the foot, which draws the piece near to type 6. Following Keller and Pröttel, we are dealing with a transitional form between types 5 and 6, an observation also matched by the niello decoration on the bow, foot, and end of the pin rest, which still follows the earlier fashion.45 With the next generation of crossbow brooches, not only the construction and outer appearance of these fibulae changed, but the delicate ornamental band on bow and foot disappeared on most specimens too. The disappearance of the medallion heads and Christian monograms strengthens the suggestion that they had no more than a general allegorical significance and characterization of the common decorative schemes of type 5 as a temporary fashion. In contrast to type 5, crossbow brooches of type 6 are characterized by a more slender and more delicate shape with a long foot in top view.46 The knobs are usually pyramidal and facetted; the bow is relatively high and almost horseshoe-shaped. What is particularly characteristic is the peltae worked à jour or free-standing and soldered onto the bevelled long sides of the foot, which also makes the type easily recognizable in its contemporary depiction. The particular fastening system of the pin with a screw thread was an additional sign of distinction. Apart from specimens in gilt bronze, there are now also a larger number of examples made of gold. Corresponding to the more precious material and the more elaborate craftsmanship, type 6 is rarer than type 5; at present there are nearly eighty pieces with a provenance and a dozen of specimens of unknown provenance.47 Their distribution spans the entire Mediterranean 44 Burger, ‘The Late Roman Cemetery at Ságvár’, p. 143, pl. 91.42.2. There is a typologically associated piece of unknown provenance in a private collection in Munich that has a sturdy christogram on its pin rest: Kaufmann-Heinimann, ‘Fundliste der zwiebelknopffibeln’, p. 322, fig. 308; Demandt and Engemann, Imperator Caesar Flavius Constantinus, no. I.13.108 (Ch. Schmidt). 46 Heurgon, Le trésor de Ténès, pp. 26 and 27; Keller, Die spätrömischen Grabfunde in Südbayern, p. 52; Pröttel, ‘zur Chronologie der zwiebelknopffibeln’, p. 369; Swift, Regionality in Dress Accessories, pp. 25–26 (type 6i). For a finer subdivision into three variants A to C by the shape of the foot, see Buora, ‘“zwiebelknopffibeln” del tipo Keller 6 da Aquileia’, pp. 249–54. 47 See the find list and distribution map in Eger, Spätantikes Kleidungszubehör aus Nordafrika, p. 102, fig. 24, and pp. 104–06. 45 © BREPOLS PUBLISHERS THIS DOCUMENT MAY BE PRINTED FOR PRIVATE USE ONLY. IT MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE PUBLISHER. Between Amuletic Ornament and Sign of Authority 299 area with the striking exception of the eastern and southern part, similar to the one noted for type 5. The origin of type 6 reaches back to the penultimate decade of the fourth century which is, for example, attested by the representation of such fibulae on the base of the Obelisk of Theodosius in Constantinople.48 However, its main period of use are the years around 400 and the first half of the fifth century, while an even later dating remains uncertain.49 These brooches were tightly restricted to higher dignitaries of the Byzantine Empire, upon whom such fibulae were bestowed together with a paludamentum or chlamys. The choice of material (gilt bronze or gold) probably reflects differences of ranks. The specimen of gilt bronze from the late Roman fortress at Abusina (near Eining, Germany) was cautiously connected by M. Gschwind to the commander in the rank of tribunus of the cohors III Britt(an)orum garrisoned there.50 Representations of such brooches in the Diptych of Stilicho at Monza and on the Obelisk of Theodosius show that this type was also worn by the leaders of the army and the civil administration, then certainly in a golden version.51 When viewed from the top, type 6 is generally characterized by a steeply roof-shaped bow and by an often very slim foot, which leaves little space for the characteristic extended decoration of the type 5 of crossbow brooches. At best, delicate niello bands with geometric or small botanical elements were applied to the very narrow bow ridge and the central bar of the foot.52 There are very unusual niello bands with small circles on the roof-shaped bow flanks of a fibula in the Ferrell Collection.53 On most pieces, however, these zones have free engraving or niello decoration.54 The end of the pin rest is undecorated too, 48 Most recently illustrated in Eger, Spätantikes Kleidungszubehör aus Nordafrika, p. 154, fig. 37. 49 Heurgon, Le trésor de Ténès, p. 27 on the treasure of Poitou that is important for the beginning of the type; Pröttel, ‘zur Chronologie der zwiebelknopffibeln’, pp. 369 and 370; Schmauder, Oberschichtgräber und Verwahrfunde, i, 76; Eger, Spätantikes Kleidungszubehör aus Nordafrika, p. 104. 50 Gschwind, Abusina, p. 198. 51 Diptych of Stilicho: Volbach, Elfenbeinarbeiten der Spätantike, pp. 55–56, no. 63, pl. 35; Warland, ‘Status und Formular’. Obelisk of Theodosius: Kiilerich, The Obelisk Base in Constantinople. 52 For example, the fibula from Ságvár, Hungary, grave 42: Burger, ‘The Late Roman Cemetery at Ságvár’, p. 143, pl. 91.42.2; Tóth, ‘Későrómai sír Tihanyból’, p. 156, fig. 18a. 53 Spier, Treasures of the Ferrell Collection, p. 113, no. 90. 54 Here, too, a certain unknown number of fibulae with an ornament hidden by corrosion may be assumed. Of course, this is only true for brooches of gilt non-ferrous metal and not for purely golden specimens. 300 Christoph Eger Figure 9.12. ‘Crossbow brooch of type 6 from Cartennae/Ténès’, Algeria, Musée National d’Alger. First half of the fifth century. From Eger, Spätantikes Kleidungszubehör aus Nordafrika, pl. 8.1b. Photo by Service de l’Antiquité de l’Algérie. apart from one exception, although there would be enough room, at least on brooches of variants A and B (following Buora).55 In contrast, the golden specimen of type 6 in the treasure from Cartennae (now Ténès) in western Algeria is the only one of the classical type 6 that features a chi-rho, picked out in niello inserted into a double circle at this spot (fig. 9.12).56 This is all the more remarkable since this object belongs to variant A (following Buora) and has a foot that is extremely narrow in cross section — merely seven millimetres in width without the laterally attached peltae. If we consider the graphic sign more closely, its careless execution is conspicuous and forms a striking contrast with the almost-perfect craftsmanship of the rest of the fibula: the two circles are not exactly circular; the internal line escapes to the top and has not been closed; and the bow of the letter rho has been engraved across the internal circle line. Therefore, it is very likely that the chi-rho was not made during the fabrication of the brooch but has been applied later, perhaps by order of its wearer. This would then be one of the rare cases in which the 55 Buora, ‘“zwiebelknopffibeln” del tipo Keller 6 da Aquileia’, pp. 250–54. In contrast, the foot of fibulae of variant A consists of a narrow hexagonal bar. 56 Heurgon, Le trésor de Ténès, pl. 10.5; Eger, Spätantikes Kleidungszubehör aus Nordafrika, pl. 8.1b. © BREPOLS PUBLISHERS THIS DOCUMENT MAY BE PRINTED FOR PRIVATE USE ONLY. IT MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE PUBLISHER. Between Amuletic Ornament and Sign of Authority 301 Figure 9.13. ‘Romanische bow fibula from Sussex (?), England’, London, British Museum. First half of the fifth century. Reproduced with permission of the British Museum. Christian symbol on a dress accessory might be considered direct proof for the religious denomination of the wearer or owner of the brooch. Its rather concealed position on the end of the foot might express the desire for a personal token of salvation or protection. The date of the modification is only approximate: sometime between the production of the fibula (not before 380–90) and the burying of the treasure, a date determined by the assemblage. The brooch was interred together with several other gold male and female dress accessories of around 420–30 or a little later.57 What remains inscrutable is the identity of the high-ranking owner and the wearer of the two crossbow brooches (the treasure also contained a typologically slightly later fibula of the transitional type 6/7) in Mauretania Caesarensis on the eve of the Vandal invasion.58 The fibula of type 6 from Ténès is the earliest crossbow fibula decorated with a Christian monogram. On subsequent types of this kind of brooch the cross becomes more important. Two silver bow brooches with a staurogram of the first half of the fifth century deserve special mention. They stand in the line of tradition of late Roman Mediterranean craftwork and belong to the small and very heterogeneous group of romanische bow fibulae.59 These are generally considered accessories of male dress and were probably used for fastening the military cloak, as had been the case with crossbow brooches. One of the specimens is said to come 57 Eger, Spätantikes Kleidungszubehör aus Nordafrika, p. 104. On this, cf. Eger, Spätantikes Kleidungszubehör aus Nordafrika, pp. 158–59. 59 Romaniche is a term mainly used in German-speaking archaeology to denominate the indigenous, Romanized population of the provinces after the end of the Western Roman Empire. On such bow fibulae, see Martin, ‘Fibel und Fibeltracht’, pp. 577–79; SchulzeDörrlamm, ‘Germanische Spiralplattenfibeln’. 58 302 Christoph Eger Figure 9.14. ‘Romanische bow fibula from an unknown site in private collection’, Munich, Collection Christian Schmidt. Second–third quarters of the fifth century. Reproduced with permission of Christian Schmidt. from Sussex and has a rounded head plate with a dotted staurogram, the arms of which extend over the entire head plate (fig. 9.13). Catherine Johns considers the fibula a product of a local Romano-British workshop of the early fifth century.60 The piece is remarkable for its knob attached to the head plate and the two knob-like protrusions of the spring that are — not accidentally — reminiscent of crossbow brooches, to which the piece said to be from Sussex is also approximated with regard to its size of 6.7 cm. In a private collection in Munich there is a bow fibula of unknown provenance, probably from continental Europe, also decorated with a staurogram on its head plate, engraved with niello (length 5.6 cm). Despite some eye-catching differences, this piece closely resembles the design of the one said to be from Sussex (fig. 9.14).61 Such brooches were thus produced in small numbers or by individual order in the border provinces of the Western Roman Empire, as a kind of substitute for imperial Roman fibulae (that were no longer available?). They combine Roman, native, and probably also Germanic influences, given the shape of the bow fibula and (from a Roman point of view) the unusual method of fastening the pin with a spring construction. For a more detailed assessment of the brooch and its staurogram, we are unfortunately lacking the find context. It seems likely that both workshops — perhaps by order of the wearers — equipped the pieces 60 Johns, The Jewellery of Roman Britain, pp. 169–70, fig. 7.13. Munich, Collection Christian Schmidt, no. 2640, unpublished. I am very grateful to Dr Schmidt for giving me notice of this piece. 61 © BREPOLS PUBLISHERS THIS DOCUMENT MAY BE PRINTED FOR PRIVATE USE ONLY. IT MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE PUBLISHER. Between Amuletic Ornament and Sign of Authority 303 with a potent symbol of the personal faith of the wearer. In view of its striking and visible position, the Christian sign might have been exploited by its wearer in yet another way: this is particularly true for the fibula said to be from Sussex (an insular origin seems certain). The situation in Britannia in the early fifth century was dramatic, caused by the withdrawal of the Roman army, the decline of the civil administration of the Western Roman Empire, and the simultaneous start of Germanic raids from the north.62 Romano-British society nevertheless tried to keep up administration and power structures on a regional and local level. Thus, the brooch said to be from Sussex might also be interpreted as an insignia of dignity for a native man of position who, in a period of the decline of governmental power, used the staurogram as a well-established and recognized symbol of divine and public authority in order to additionally legitimize his position. Brooches Worn as Insignia of Office and Badges of Rank in the Second Half of the Fifth and the Early Sixth Centuries In the second and third quarter of the fifth century, we encounter a new type of golden crossbow fibula in which the proportion of bow and foot has been shifted in favour of a longer foot section.63 The free-standing peltae on the long sides of the foot have been replaced by nine closely set S-shaped ornaments so that the foot gains weight. The beginning of the bow and the end of the foot pass into decorative ledges with a duck head turned backwards. Christian symbols are absent from the only two specimens of this type from the hoards of Ténès, Algeria, and Desana, Italy.64 Its rarity suggests that this type is transitional. Probably around or shortly after the mid-fifth century, this type inspired a yet more sumptuous type of crossbow brooch, made of gold and distinguished from the seemingly delicate type 6 and the transitional type Ténès-Desana by 62 For a critical review of the historical and archaeological situation, see Dark, Britain and the End of the Roman Empire, pp. 27–57. With a different accentuation: Wickham, Framing the Early Middle Ages, pp. 47–50 and 306–26. 63 Heurgon, Le trésor de Ténès, p. 26. 64 Ténès: Heurgon, Le trésor de Ténès, pls 12–13; Eger, Spätantikes Kleidungszubehör aus Nordafrika, pl. 8.2. Desana: Bierbrauer, Die ostgotischen Grab- und Schatzfunde in Italien, pl. 7.4; Würth and Planck, Die Schraube zwischen Macht und Pracht, p. 154, fig. g; Aimone, Il tesoro di Desana, pp. 61–63 and 118–23. 304 Christoph Eger (a) (b) Figure 9.15. (a) ‘Crossbow brooch of type 7 from an unknown site’; (b) ‘Detail of the foot’, New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art. Second half of the fifth century. From Deppert-Lippitz, ‘Late Roman and Early Byzantine Jewelry’, p. 69, fig. 7.12. Reproduced with permission of the Metropolitan Museum of Art. a much more voluminous and — in comparison to the bow — longer foot section (figs 9.2 and 9.15). These brooches of type 7 seem much larger and heavier than the types from the first half of the fifth century.65 This was probably intended, too, although the lengths did not change on the whole (between 4.9 and 11.9 cm) and the weights even fell below the ones of commensurate specimens of type 6, which means that less gold was spent for their production.66 The head section has 65 Originally called type 7 by Bierbrauer, Die ostgotischen Grab- und Schatzfunde in Italien, pp. 122–24. See additionally Pröttel, ‘zur Chronologie der zwiebelknopffibeln’, p. 370; Deppert-Lippitz, ‘A Late Antique Crossbow Fibula’; Deppert-Lippitz, ‘Late Roman and Early Byzantine Jewelry’, particularly pp. 66–70; Schmauder, Oberschichtgräber und Verwahrfunde, i, 76–77. 66 The largest fibula of type 7 is the specimen of unknown provenance in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. It measures 11.9 cm and weighs 78.4 g: Deppert-Lippitz, ‘A Late Antique Crossbow Fibula’, p. 39. The second largest brooch of type 7 comes from Apahida, Romania, grave I, measures 11.5 cm and weighs 54.02 g: Schmauder, Oberschichtgräber und © BREPOLS PUBLISHERS THIS DOCUMENT MAY BE PRINTED FOR PRIVATE USE ONLY. IT MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE PUBLISHER. Between Amuletic Ornament and Sign of Authority 305 been taken over from the earlier types 6 and 6/7 almost unmodified, with the bulb-shaped knobs, the steep and — in side view — almost horseshoe-shaped bow, and the particular fastening system of the pin with a screw closure. The exquisite nature of these fibulae reveals itself both in the small number of only nine surviving examples and in the sophisticated craftwork design of the foot section.67 The foot consists of a box, semi-circular or triangular in section, made of two or three elongated prefabricated gold plates. Special attention was paid to the decoration of the visible side which consists of fine continuous opus interrasile on nearly all pieces, an old technique that became increasingly popular among Roman goldsmiths since the fourth century.68 Only the smallest brooch of this group, the 4.9-cm-long specimen of unknown provenance in the Medelhavsmuseet (Stockholm, Sweden) has a plain cover plate on which broad gold strips with a concave profile had been applied.69 In addition, four fibulae have undersides with continuous opus interrasile, amongst them the only two brooches with a one-piece, semi-circular, vaulted lower plate from Tournai, Belgium and from an unknown find site in Asia Minor in the Collection of the University of Indiana, Bloomington.70 If we compare the execution of the openwork decoration, we observe differences of quality.71 Type 7 is distinguished from earlier crossbow brooches not only by its special kind of decoration but also by its altered iconographic programme. Pagan Verwahrfunde, i, 337, no. 5. The fibula of type 6 in the treasure of Ténès is 10.5 cm long and weighs 81.5 g: Heurgon, Le trésor de Ténès, p. 22, no. 2. Despite its delicate construction, the individual components of the Ténès-fibula must have been made of distinctly thicker sheet gold, which one would not have expected. On measurements and weights of brooches of type 7, see Deppert-Lippitz, ‘Überlegungen zur goldenen zwiebelknopffibel’, p. 41; and additionally Schmauder, Oberschichtgräber und Verwahrfunde, i, 336–37 (with an incorrect weight of the fibula type 6/7 from Ténès). 67 See find lists in Schmauder, Oberschichtgräber und Verwahrfunde, i, 336–37; DeppertLippitz, ‘Überlegungen zur goldenen zwiebelknopffibel’, p. 41. 68 A good overview despite some debatable datings is provided in Geroulanou, Diatrita. 69 Deppert-Lippitz, ‘A Late Antique Crossbow Fibula’, p. 57, fig. 18. 70 Tournai: Würth and Planck, Die Schraube zwischen Macht und Pracht, p. 97, fig. 69, and p. 149, B1; Deppert-Lippitz, ‘A Late Antique Crossbow Fibula’, p. 59, fig. 20; Wieczorek and Périn, Das Gold der Barbarenfürsten, pp. 63 and 172, no. 4.16.1.1. Unknown provenance, Asia Minor: Würth and Planck, Die Schraube zwischen Macht und Pracht, p. 115, fig. 77; DeppertLippitz, ‘A Late Antique Crossbow Fibula’, p. 60, fig. 23. 71 Deppert-Lippitz, ‘A Late Antique Crossbow Fibula’, pp. 57–58. Thus, Deppert-Lippitz claims that particularly the fibula from the grave of the Frankish king Childeric at Tournai is rather modest, not only with regard to its small size. 306 Christoph Eger Figure 9.16. ‘Crossbow brooch of type 7 from the burial of King Childeric, Tournai, Belgium’, now lost (copies in Kunsthistorisches Museum Vienna and RömischGermanisches zentralmuseum Mainz). Second half of the fifth century. Photo: V. Iserhardt. With permission of RömischGermanisches zentralmuseum Mainz. and profane images such as the busts on fibulae of type 5 are no longer found, nor are the ornament-like, scattered ligatures of Christ consisting of chi and rho. Instead, the Christian cross covers the centre of several specimens and is embedded into either a geometrical or vegetable openwork decoration of a carpet-like nature. Of eight fibulae with a surviving foot section — the head fragment from Degoj, Croatia, that probably belonged to the largest brooch of this type must be excluded here 72 — four have a Latin cross spanning the entire length of the foot and showing the narrow transverse arm in its uppermost quarter or fifth part so that the impression of a cross staff is given.73 The motif of the cross is found on another two fibulae, one in the treasure of Reggio Emilia, Italy, and one from an unknown find site in Asia Minor (now 72 Vinski, ‘Kasnoantički starosjedioci’, pl. 4.1; Die Schraube zwischen Macht und Pracht, ed. by Würth and Planck, p. 155, B5. 73 Rome, Palatine Hill; Apahida grave I; unknown provenance in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York; unknown provenance in Medelhavsmuseet, Stockholm. © BREPOLS PUBLISHERS THIS DOCUMENT MAY BE PRINTED FOR PRIVATE USE ONLY. IT MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE PUBLISHER. Between Amuletic Ornament and Sign of Authority 307 in Bloomington) but admittedly in a much smaller scale and on the upper part of the foot.74 Ornamental cross patterns in the shape of small Greek crosses are on the visible side of the foot of the Tournai fibula (fig. 9.16), although a more detailed assessment is difficult due to the object’s history.75 Maria R. Alföldi has been able to demonstrate that the cross and the cross staff were not included in the iconography of imperial gold coinage before the late fourth and the first third of the fifth century.76 For official dress accessories, this process obviously did not start before the mid-fifth century as can be seen from fibulae of type 7. The chi-rho no longer plays any role; yet, on the fibula of unknown provenance in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, the cross staff has been shaped as a crux monogrammatica with a double circle nimbus, with alpha and omega forming pendants from the transverse bar (figs 9.15a–b). With its framing tendril frieze and cross that emanate from two juxtaposed acanthus leaves, the brooch in New York displays the most complex picture programme of all fibulae of this sort. In her iconographic analysis, DeppertLippitz pointed out close relations to the cupola mosaic in the baptistery of San Giovanni in Fonte at Naples Cathedral of c. 400. In its centre, there is the nimbed staurogram surrounded by stars and crowned by God’s hand reaching down from above.77 Accordingly, she believes the crux monogrammatica on the fibula represents Christ victoriously overcoming death and — by its insertion into the tendrils of the tree of life, here meant in a paradisiac sense — at the same time the cross of Golgotha, since the cross grows out of the acanthus leaves on the floor.78 The images of the other brooches were seen by her as 74 Reggio Emilia: Vinski, ‘Kasnoantički starosjedioci’, pl. 7.1; Bierbrauer, Die ostgotischen Grab- und Schatzfunde in Italien, pl. 32.6; Würth and Planck, Die Schraube zwischen Macht und Pracht, p. 116, fig. 79; Deppert-Lippitz, ‘A Late Antique Crossbow Fibula’, p. 59, fig. 21. Unknown provenance, Asia Minor: Würth and Planck, Die Schraube zwischen Macht und Pracht, p. 115, fig. 77. 75 The original was stolen in Paris in 1831. Today, the object is known on the basis of an illustration published in the seventeenth century by Chifletius, Anastasis Childerici I Francorum regis, and a copy produced in 1664, now stored in Vienna: Heurgon, Le trésor de Ténès, pl. 16; Würth and Planck, Die Schraube zwischen Macht und Pracht; Wieczorek and Périn, Das Gold der Barbarenfürsten, pp. 63 and 149, B1. The carpet-like cross pattern does not seem to have been recognized by Deppert-Lippitz, ‘A Late Antique Crossbow Fibula’, p. 58. She calls the entire decoration of the brooch a monotonous ‘diamond pattern’. 76 Alföldi, Bild und Bildersprache der römischen Kaiser, pp. 197–99. 77 Most recently on the cupola mosaic, see Ferri, I mosaici del battistero di San Giovanni in Fonte a Napoli. 78 Deppert-Lippitz, ‘A Late Antique Crossbow Fibula’, pp. 64–65. 308 Christoph Eger more or less reduced repetitions of the more multifaceted iconographic programme of the New York fibula. However, this might be an exaggeration of the Christian symbolism. For instance, even the fibula in New York shows essential contractions and differences in comparison to the cupola mosaic in Naples.79 Additionally, caution is advised when the tendril decoration on the foot of the Apahida brooch is interpreted in connection to the cross on its front side and therefore considered a symbol of paradise as in the case of the New York fibula. This connection is far-fetched, since the cross on the front side is integrated into a geometrical openwork decoration.80 Apart from the fibula in New York that displays an outstanding iconographic programme with its nimbed staurogram, the either geometrical or tendril-decorated openwork of the remaining brooches should rather be understood as decorative, not decisively Christian. How far this is also true for the relatively small crosses inserted into spiral tendrils on the fibulae from Reggio Emilia and Asia Minor remains to be seen. Like the Christian monograms on fibulae of type 5, they might simultaneously be a decoration and a magical sign of salvation or protection. Strikingly large crosses, such as the ones on the brooches in Stockholm, from the Palatine Hill in Rome, from Apahida, and, of course, the staurogram on the New York brooch, certainly had quite a different effect. For this group we may assume a deliberate insignia-like use of the cross that placed the fibula and its wearer under the protection of Christian imperial authority, as is probable for the brooch of St Theodore in the mosaic of the church of Santi Cosma e Damiano discussed above. Still, it is necessary even for these comparatively large-size crosses to stress, in a restrictive way, the ornamental mode of representation which foregrounds and visualizes the cross symbol to a much lesser degree than does the aforementioned mosaic image. Production and Wearers of the Brooches of Type 7 A significant question is who wore these fibulae, how they were obtained, and where and by whose order they were produced. Type 7 brooches are unanimously considered badges of rank exclusively reserved for the highest dignitaries of the late Roman or early Byzantine Empires and for selected gentile kings allied with them. John the Lydian describes a golden brooch as an insig79 The fibula lacks the bestowal of a wreath from God’s hand and the embedding of the crux into stars that are replaced by tendrils. 80 Deppert-Lippitz, ‘A Late Antique Crossbow Fibula’, p. 64. © BREPOLS PUBLISHERS THIS DOCUMENT MAY BE PRINTED FOR PRIVATE USE ONLY. IT MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE PUBLISHER. Between Amuletic Ornament and Sign of Authority 309 nia (badge) in the dress of a patricius.81 Different picture representations on consular diptychs and mosaics of the later fifth and early sixth centuries feature relevant figures wearing a chlamys or paludamentum and crossbow brooch, although the specific type of fibula cannot generally be identified, apart from type 6 with its characteristic peltae. The only exception to this rule seems to be the cloak fibula of St Theodore that is thought to depict type 7 because of the cross ornament on its foot section.82 Finally, the real objects themselves and their contexts are of great importance. Thus we observe a change of official garments starting around 400 ad. The circle of people wearing a chlamys with a fibula on the right shoulder steadily decreased according to find numbers of crossbow brooches.83 At the same time, the circle of wearers became more and more exclusive, as is shown by the transition to purely golden crossbow brooches. After the early fifth century, there were no longer either plain crossbow fibulae of non-ferrous metal or any development of alternative forms to replace them on an empire-wide level.84 Thanks to three specimens from closedfind contexts, we have a great deal of information on the social rank of the wearers of crossbow brooches of type 7: the fibula from Reggio Emilia forms part of a treasure that, by its contents, reflects a married couple probably belonging to the ruling elite of the Ostrogothic period.85 The two brooches from Tournai and Apahida come from graves of Germanic kings. With its signet ring, the Tournai grave can undoubtedly be connected to the Frankish king Childeric who died in 482, and who — by Roman mandate — governed the province of Belgica secunda.86 The grave at Apahida contained an otherwise-unknown 81 John Lydus, De magistratibus 1. 17 (Ioannes Lydus, On Powers or the Magistracies, ed. and trans. by Bandy, p. 85); cf. Schmauder, Oberschichtgräber und Verwahrfunde, i, 78–79. 82 Schmauder, Oberschichtgräber und Verwahrfunde, i, 77. This view is not without doubt, however. We might equally well be dealing with a specimen of the next type of fibula. 83 Deppert-Lippitz, ‘A Late Antique Crossbow Fibula’, p. 61. Cf. the numbers of known fibulae of type 5 (at least 150), type 6 (some 90 to 100), and type 7 (nine pieces). 84 The few exceptions will briefly be dealt with below. This must be considered possible evidence for the abandonment of the sagum/paludamentum in favour of a fur cloak — fastened in whatever way — for the majority of soldiers, see von Rummel, Habitus barbarus, pp. 154–55 and 204–06. However, this leaves the question unanswered of which piece of garment or, if applicable, what type of cloak fastener was used by civil officers unless we would assume fur cloaks for them too. 85 Bierbrauer, Die ostgotischen Grab- und Schatzfunde in Italien, pp. 124 and 198–204. 86 For an overview and further references, see Kazanski and Périn, ‘Die Gräber des Heva von Pouan’; Wieczorek and Périn, Das Gold der Barbarenfürsten, pp. 172–73. 310 Christoph Eger Gepid ruler with a name ring and a monogram finger-ring, both bearing the name Omaharus.87 It seems that both rulers had been equipped with crossbow brooches — similar to imperial Roman dignitaries — in the context of some kind of investiture, probably their elevation to the rank of a patricius, by the emperor together with the corresponding paludamentum.88 We have several descriptions that the investiture of allied rulers involved the presentation of both cloak and fibula from the hands of imperial legations.89 Therefore it seems certain that the brooches were not commissioned by their wearers in provincial workshops but made by state order by special goldsmiths’ studios. Whether these studios were the fabricae subordinate to the comes sacrarum largitionum mentioned in the Notitia dignitatum (at the latest from 476 onwards only in the eastern Roman domain) or exclusively the court workshops at Ravenna and Constantinople cannot be decided. The qualitative and stylistic differences observed by Deppert-Lippitz might argue against an origin solely in the two court workshops.90 The iconographic programme of the fibulae designed in these fabricae bore witness to official, imperial art. The cross decoration reflects the transition to a now more Christian character of imperial art which might deliberately have exploited Christian symbols — at least in the case of pieces with outstanding large crosses — as imperial badges with which the future 87 On this, see Schmauder, Oberschichtgräber und Verwahrfunde, i, 131–45. On the inventory, see also Wieczorek and Périn, Das Gold der Barbarenfürsten, pp. 156–60. 88 Schmauder, Oberschichtgräber und Verwahrfunde, i, 78–80; Kazanski and Périn, ‘Die Gräber des Heva von Pouan’, p. 78. We are not dealing with diplomatic gifts as has sometimes been argued. The difference between such gifts and insignia bestowed in an investiture is emphatically stressed by Engemann, ‘Diplomatische “Geschenke”’, particularly pp. 51–55. There are some doubts raised in this context by Deppert-Lippitz, ‘A Late Antique Crossbow Fibula’, p. 63: ‘As long as we do not know if the right to wear such a fibula was always accompanied by the bestowal of an actual piece or if it was up to the appointee to have a fibula made according to his own tastes and ideas, then they could have been made even in minor local centers.’ However, these doubts can be refuted in view of the written sources. 89 For individual proof, see Schmauder, Oberschichtgräber und Verwahrfunde, i, 77–79. Furthermore, see Procopius, De bello Vandalico, 1. 25 (Prokop: Werke, ed. and trans. by Veh, iv (1971): Vandalenkriege, p. 163: North African princes asked Belisarius to have their insignias of rule sent from the emperor (e.g., a white cloak fastened — like a chlamys — by a golden clasp on the right shoulder). More middle Byzantine examples are known. Thus, an embassy of Emperor Leo IV bestowed the dignity of patricius upon the Lombard prince Arechis II and handed over the relevant insignias such as gold brocaded robes and a sword: Tinnefeld, ‘Mira varietas’, p. 123. 90 Deppert-Lippitz, ‘A Late Antique Crossbow Fibula’, p. 63. © BREPOLS PUBLISHERS THIS DOCUMENT MAY BE PRINTED FOR PRIVATE USE ONLY. IT MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE PUBLISHER. Between Amuletic Ornament and Sign of Authority 311 wearer was to be equipped.91 What remains unsolved, however, is why this was not the case with all pieces. Crossbow Brooches and Related Cloak Fasteners of the Late Fifth and Sixth Centuries As has been remarked above, a change in the official attire seems to have occurred in the course of the fifth century, recognizable from the steadily decreasing number of crossbow brooches and the restriction to golden specimens that were exclusively used by the highest dignitaries. For crossbow fibulae of non-ferrous metal numerously found until the early fifth century, no replacement was created, at least none of any quantity. Actually, we know a handful of brooches of partly gilt, partly silver inlaid non-ferrous metal that were probably made in the later fifth century and — according to their shape — might have served as cloak fasteners of the male official attire. Unfortunately, their find contexts are uncertain or unknown so that neither the dating nor the use of these pieces are sufficiently verified. It is remarkable, however, that elements of late crossbow brooches of type 7 such as the extended planar foot section and the strongly arched short bow have been fused with a type of fibula originally foreign to the Mediterranean area — namely, fibulae with an inverted foot (‘mit umgeschlagenem Fuß’), which are the fibulae of Almgren’s group VI.92 This is not the place to pursue the questions of how and where this brooch type emerged. The few known examples, compiled by Vinski in 1967,93 are restricted to the eastern Mediterranean from former Yugoslavia to Palestine and Iran. The material basis makes quite clear that these fibulae must have been made for men of lower rank than those who wore type 7, though it is uncertain who they were. The gilt brooch with a foot decorated with silver inlays from a grave near the so-called Tomb of the Prophets in Jerusalem (fig. 9.17a) implies that we are dealing with a social stratum of at least locally, or maybe even regionally, important office-holders.94 This piece is 9.7 cm long and replicates the type-7 decoration with a staffshaped Latin cross. On the one hand, a dating of the piece — in relation to 91 See Popović, ‘Gilt Fibula with Christogram’, p. 108. See generally Almgren, Studien über nordeuropäische Fibelformen. 93 Vinski, ‘Kasnoantički starosjedioci’, pl. 1. 94 Dalton, Catalogue of Early Christian Antiquities, p. 41, no. 257; Vinski, ‘Kasnoantički starosjedioci’, pl. 1.7. 92 312 Christoph Eger (a) Figure 9.17. (a) ‘Fibula “with inverted foot” from the Tombs of the Prophets, Jerusalem’, London, British Museum; (b) ‘Fibula of the same type from an unknown site’, former collection of the Grand Duke of Baden. Late fifth–early sixth centuries. From Dalton, Catalogue of Early Christian Antiquities, p. 41, no. 257, and Schumacher, Beschreibung der Sammlung antiker Bronzen, pl. 1.43. Reproduced with permission. (b) crossbow fibulae — into the second half/late fifth century to early sixth century seems thus possible. On the other hand, it becomes quite clear that the outstanding cross ornament on official insignias was no speciality of golden specimens or of singular (courtly?) workshops but belonged to contemporaneous stately art with a Christian imprint or under Christian influence and could or should equally adorn the public insignias of subordinate officials. There are two analogies to this piece: first, an old find from the Grand Ducal Collections at Karlsruhe, Germany (fig. 9.17b), which closely resembles the brooch from Jerusalem and also features the cross ornament.95 Unfortunately, the piece is of unknown provenance, but it was probably purchased in Italy or the Adriatic region like many other fibulae of the collection. Second, another specimen of the type was found in the cemetery at Sandygtepe, Azerbaijan, a few years ago, though its corrosion conceals any possible decoration on the foot.96 The context allows us to suppose that the brooch had been worn by a local leader (temporarily?) in Byzantine service. 95 Schumacher, Beschreibung der Sammlung antiker Bronzen, pl. 1.43. Khalilov, ‘Investigations of Sandytepe site V’, p. 238, fig. 2. The published graves generally can be dated to the sixth/seventh centuries. 96 © BREPOLS PUBLISHERS THIS DOCUMENT MAY BE PRINTED FOR PRIVATE USE ONLY. IT MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE PUBLISHER. Between Amuletic Ornament and Sign of Authority 313 Figure 9.18. ‘Golden crossbow brooch with a monogram (Πετρου) from Istanbul-Yenikapı’. Sixth century. Drawing by A. Darwich-Eger after Stories from the Hidden Harbor, ed. by Kızıltan and Baran Çelik, p. 127, no. 72. Until just a few years ago, the history of the crossbow brooches used as cloak fibulae of the official attire and the hybrid forms based on them would have ended here. But in 2011 the spectacular excavations in the Theodosian harbour of Constantinople (presentday Yenikapı, Istanbul) saw the discovery of another two wholly unusual crossbow brooches of pure gold, indicating a prolonged use of the species even in the later sixth century.97 Both belong to a hitherto almost unknown type characterized by a short, strongly arched bow with a faceted profile and an elongated closed foot. The fibulae show no Christian decoration whatsoever; the smaller piece is completely undecorated. The foot of the larger brooch (fig. 9.18) is 6.5 cm long and decorated with marginal wavy tendrils with niello, framing an upright rectangular field with leaf tendrils. Set off from this at the end of the foot, there is a wreath medallion with a niello cross monogram, decoration which suggests a date in the time of Justinian I at the earliest, indicating the development of a new design. 98 This is the first time that a monogram 97 Kızıltan and Çelik, Stories from the Hidden Harbor, pp. 127–28, nos. 72–73. On the appearance of cruciform monograms, see Dinkler and Dinkler-von Schubert, ‘Kreuz I’, cols 56–59. 98 314 Christoph Eger Figure 9.19. ‘Lancet-shaped belt fitting with staurogram from an unknown site in private collection’, Munich, Collection Christian Schmidt. Late fourth–early fifth centuries. Reproduced with permission of Christian Schmidt. is found on a Byzantine brooch serving as an insignia. This graphic device is paradigmatic for this period: the secular monogram — probably quoting the name of the dignitary — joins pari passu the Christian sign of the cross. 99 How the relationship between both groups of graphical signs — secular and Christian ones — developed cannot be traced any more by the cloak fibula of the official attire. However, belt fittings provide a new source of evidence. A considerable number of belt fittings belong to the cingulum militia that are known in great numbers from the Mediterranean area and its periphery in the sixth and seventh centuries and are well published by now. On belt buckles and fittings, the monogram gains in importance over Christian symbols. The chi-rho and staurogram had never been prevalent on belt fittings in contrast to cloak fibulae. The evidence for specimens of the late fourth–early fifth centuries with these graphic signs is extremely scarce, amongst them a lancet-shaped strap-end in a German private collection (fig. 9.19), which bears an engraved staurogram, and a discoid strap-end in the collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art (fig. 9.20) decorated on its front side with a couple, the husband dressed in the clothing of a high dignitary.100 99 The only comparable example is a brooch in the collections of the British Museum the design of which presents a small cross with the invocation Th(eo)u charis. This old item from the collection of the British Museum has hitherto been largely ignored by researchers: Dalton, Catalogue of Early Christian Antiquities, pl. 4.264; Vinski, ‘Kasnoantički starosjedioci’, pl. 1.2 (provenance from Asia Minor noted by Vinski but not by Dalton). 100 Lancet-shaped strap-end: Imperator Caesar Flavius Constantinus, ed. by Demandt and Engemann, no. II.1.117. The Schmidt collection includes two other belt fittings from the fourth century with Christian monograms. Disc-shaped strap-end of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York: Accession no. 1993.166. © BREPOLS PUBLISHERS THIS DOCUMENT MAY BE PRINTED FOR PRIVATE USE ONLY. IT MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE PUBLISHER. Between Amuletic Ornament and Sign of Authority 315 Figure 9.20. ‘Gilded discoid belt fitting with a couple and a little christogram’, New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art. Late fourth–early fifth centuries. Reproduced with permission of the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Unfortunately, we lack information about the find site and context of both objects. Thereafter, the chirho and staurogram disappear completely from belt buckles. What is found more frequently and in different variants from the mid-fifth century onwards is cross ornaments. Conclusion The starting point for these reflections on the canon of Christian symbols used on late Roman and early Byzantine dress accessories were mosaics of St Theodore in the church of Santi Cosma e Damiano in Rome and of St Vitalis in the church dedicated to him at Ravenna which both feature the saints wearing the official attire of high Byzantine dignitaries. Important components of their dress accessories (and their garments too) are decorated with crosses. Amongst the surviving archaeological finds of dress accessories of this period there are also some with a cross or Christian monogram decoration. We focused on types which, based on some of their find contexts, may have been official badges of rank worn by members of the imperial administration and army. We examined what special statement might be connected to the Christian symbolism, how it might have changed over time, and how extensively it was employed. Our working hypothesis is that the signs were part of a new ideology of Christian empire. They might be regarded as general signs of divine and imperial authority. However, careful analysis of surviving finds suggests otherwise. First, Christian symbols do not occur on dress accessories before the second half of the fourth century, after which they remain largely restricted to one type of the crossbow brooches used as cloak fasteners. Brooches from type 5 (following Keller and Pröttel) occasionally — but definitely not in the majority of cases — have small Christian monograms applied to the bow, foot, or end of the pin rest. However, these were either so small that they could hardly be per- 316 Christoph Eger ceived by observers from a certain distance, or they were even placed in ‘concealed’ spots. Additionally, they were parts of an ornamental band and were sometimes combined with other pagan or profane motifs such as heads of a male youth. Therefore, we are dealing with ornamental elements typical for the period and used by the public fabricae in which the brooches were produced. Their significance appears to have been a general sign of salvation and protection, but not in the sphere of a deliberate communication of imperial ideology. This became all the more clear when we considered the subsequent generation of this type of crossbow brooch (type 6), which has no Christian decoration. The only exception was a Christian monogram which has been engraved sometime after the production of the fibula, an amuletic sign or sign of religious confession for the fibula’s wearer. The Christian monogram no longer played any role at all after this episode on brooches used for the official attire. From the mid-fifth century onwards, a kind of cloak fastener exclusively made of gold was reserved for the highest dignitaries of the empire and its allies, and on it the cross henceforth appeared in a striking manner. These are pieces for which a deliberate, outward communication of the cross (and in one case the staurogram) would be most plausible as a sign of divine and imperatorial authority under whose protection the dignitary places himself and performs his duties. In this period, most office-holders beneath the level of dignitaries (who were entitled to a type 7 fibula) no longer used brooches as cloak fasteners at all — at least we do not find them in the archaeological record. However, some rare exceptions seem to imply that here, too, the cross played a special role. For the sixth century, we can no longer observe a clear development, because the 250-year-old tradition of crossbow brooches broke off in the course of the sixth century. Yet, a recent find from Istanbul suggests that the Christian decoration lost its significance on fibulae used by the highest dignitaries in the second quarter or in the middle of the sixth century. On this specimen there is no cross but, for the first time, a monogram probably bearing the dignitary’s name. Thus, the monogram became a competitor with Christian symbols for the expression of the dignity and authority of the wearer. For the later sixth to the eighth centuries, we can follow this development through belt fittings instead of fibulae, but that remains the subject of another study.101 101 See the studies by Tobias, ‘Riemenzungen mediterraner Gürtelgarnituren mit Monogrammen’ (monograms on strap-ends) and the brief explanations by Schulze-Dörrlamm, Byzantinische Gürtelschnallen, ii, 393–94 (with a distribution map of belt fittings decorated with a monogram in the sixth to eighth centuries). © BREPOLS PUBLISHERS THIS DOCUMENT MAY BE PRINTED FOR PRIVATE USE ONLY. IT MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE PUBLISHER. Between Amuletic Ornament and Sign of Authority 317 Appendix: List of Crossbow Brooches with Christian Signs 1. Type 51 Abbreviations Bulgaria, Stražata near Pleven [B] B— F— N— St — Croatia, Osijek [2 × B] France, Marteville [F] Germany, Bonn-Jakobstraße [N] Bow Foot End of foot/needle box Staurogram Great Britain, London-Cheapside [B] Hungary, Bataszek-Kövesd [N] Tihany [N] Unknown site, Györ (?) [N] Serbia, Naissus/Niš [F] Prahovo [F] Sirmium [N-St] Slovenia, Neviodunum/Drnovo [N] Switzerland, Basel-Aeschenvorstadt, Burial 379 [B] Unknown site, Near East (?), British Museum London [F]2 Private collection Munich [B+F] Private collection Munich [B] Ferrell collection, 2 fibulas ( Interpretation uncertain/doubtful Hungary, Ságvár, Burial 20 [F]3 Serbia, Gamzigrad [B]4 1 After Kaufmann-Heinimann, ‘Decennalienplatte des Constans’, p. 155 n. 389; p. 157, pl. 2; Kaufmann-Heinimann, ‘Fundliste der zwiebelknopffibeln’; Popović, ‘Gilt Fibula with Christogram’, with additions. 2 Cf. Soupault, Les éléments métalliques, pl. 50, with provenance ‘Near East’. 3 Toth, ‘Későrómai sír Tihanyból’, p. 148, fig. 13. Two medallions with a star consisting of six lines. One of them has a thickened part, which is regarded as a rho by Toth. 4 Petković, ‘Crossbow Fibulae’, pp. 127–28, fig. 12. 318 Christoph Eger 2. Transitional type 5/6 Hungary, Ságvár, Burial 42 [N-St]5 Unknown site, Moesia/Thrace (?) Private collection Munich [N] Interpretation uncertain/doubtful Serbia, Viminacium, Pecine Burial 1033 [B, F] (?)6 3. Type 6 Algeria, Ténès [N] 4. Type 7 Italy, Reggio Emilia, hoard [small cross] Rome, Palatine [large Latin cross] Romania, Apahida, burial I [large Latin cross] Turkey/Asia Minor, Unknown site, Asia Minor [small cross] Unknown site, The Metropolitan Museum of Art [large Latin cross/St] Medelhavsmuseet [large Latin cross] 5. Late, hybrid types Israel, Jerusalem, tombs of the prophets [large Latin cross] Unknown site, former collection of the grand duke of Baden, Karlsruhe [large Latin cross] 5 Note different classifications of this brooch as type 5, type 6 or transitional respective hybrid form. 6 Popović, ‘Gilt Fibula with Christogram’, p. 107: ‘very reduced’ christograms in nine medallions. However, these signs are not present in the published drawing of the fibula: Redzić, Nalazi rimskih fibula, no. 419, pl. 48. © BREPOLS PUBLISHERS THIS DOCUMENT MAY BE PRINTED FOR PRIVATE USE ONLY. IT MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE PUBLISHER. Between Amuletic Ornament and Sign of Authority 319 Works Cited Primary Sources Chifletius, J. J., Anastasis Childerici I Francorum regis sive Thesaurus sepulchralis Tornaci Nerviorum effossus, et Comentario illustratus (Antwerp: Ex Officina Plantiniana, 1655) Ioannes Lydus: On Powers or the Magistracies of the Roman State (De magistratibus republicae romanae), ed. and trans. by A. C. Bandy (Lewiston: Mellen, 2013) Prokop: Werke: Griechisch-deutsch, ed. and trans. by Otto Veh, 5 vols (Munich: Heimeran, 1961–77) Secondary Studies Aimone, Marco, Il tesoro di Desana: una fonte per lo studio della società romano-ostrogota in Italia, BAR International Series, 2127 (Oxford: Archaeopress, 2010) Alföldi, Maria R., Bild und Bildersprache der römischen Kaiser: Beispiele und Analysen, Kulturgeschichte der antiken Welt, 81 (Mainz a.Rh.: zabern, 1999) Almgren, Oscar, Studien über nordeuropäische Fibelformen der ersten nachchristlichen Jahrhunderte mit Berücksichtung der provinzialrömischen und südrussischen Formen, Mannus-Bibliothek, 32, 2nd edn (Leipzig: Kabitzsch, 1923) Andrási, Júliá, The Berthier-Delagarde Collection of Crimean Jewellery in the British Museum and Related Material, ed. by D. Kidd and B. Ager (London: British Museum, 2008) Bierbrauer, Volker, ‘Fibeln als zeugnisse persönlichen Christentums südlich und nördlich der Alpen im 5. bis 9. Jahrhundert’, Acta Praehistorica et Archaeologica, 34 (2002), 209–24 —— , Die ostgotischen Grab- und Schatzfunde in Italien, Biblioteca degli Studi medievali, 7 (Spoleto: Centro italiano di studi sull’alto Medioevo, 1975) Brandenburg, Hugo, Die frühchristlichen Kirchen in Rom: Vom 4. bis zum 7. Jahrhundert (Regensburg: Schnell & Steiner, 2013) Brenk, Beat, Spätantike und frühes Christentum, Propyläen Kunstgeschichte, supp., 1 (Frankfurt am Main: Propyläen, 1977) Budriesi, Roberta, ‘I mosaici della chiesa dei Santi Cosma e Damiano a Roma’, Felix Ravenna, 93 (1966), 5–35 Buora, Maurizio, ‘“zwiebelknopffibeln” del tipo Keller 6 da Aquileia’, Arheologia Vestnik, 48 (1997), 247–60 Burger, Alice Sz., ‘The Late Roman Cemetery at Ságvár’, Acta archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, 18 (1966), 99–234 Dalton, Ormonde Maddock, Catalogue of Early Christian Antiquities and Objects from the Christian East in the Department of British and Mediaeval Antiquities and Ethnography of the British Museum (London: Trustees, 1901) Dark, Ken R., Britain and the End of the Roman Empire (Stroud: Tempus, 2000) Deichmann, Friedrich Wilhelm, Frühchristliche Bauten und Mosaiken von Ravenna (Baden-Baden: Grimm, 1958) 320 Christoph Eger Delbrueck, Richard, Die Consulardiptychen und verwandte Denkmäler, Studien zur spätantiken Kunstgeschichte, 2 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1929) Demandt, Alexander, and Josef Engemann, eds, Imperator Caesar Flavius Constantinus: Konstantin der Große: Ausstellungskatalog (Mainz a.Rh.: zabern, 2007) Deppert-Lippitz, Barbara, ‘A Late Antique Crossbow Fibula in the Metropolitan Museum of Art’, Metropolitan Museum Journal, 35 (2000), 39–70 —— , ‘Late Roman and Early Byzantine Jewelry’, in From Attila to Charlemagne: Arts of the Early Medieval Period in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, ed. by Katharine Reynolds Brown, Dafydd Kidd, and Charles T. Little, Metropolitan Museum of Art Symposia (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2000), pp. 58–77 —— , ‘Überlegungen zur goldenen zwiebelknopffibel aus dem gepidischen Fürstengrab Apahida I’, Annales Universitatis Apulensis, Series Historica, 11 (2007), 28–43 Dinkler, Erich, and Erika Dinkler-von Schubert, ‘Kreuz I’, in Reallexikon zur Byzantinischen Kunst 5, ed. by Klaus Wessel and Marcell Restle (Stuttgart: Hiersemann, 1995), cols 1–219 Eger, Christoph, Spätantikes Kleidungszubehör aus Nordafrika i: Trägerkreis, Mobilität und Ethnos im Spiegel der Funde der spätesten römischen Kaiserzeit und der vandalischen Zeit, Münchner Beiträge zur Provinzialrömischen Archäologie, 5 (Wiesbaden: Reichert, 2012) Engemann, Josef, ‘Anmerkungen zu spätantiken Geräten des Alltagslebens mit christlichen Bildern, Symbolen und Inschriften’, Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum, 15 (1972), 154–73 —— , ‘Diplomatische “Geschenke”: Objekte aus der Spätantike?’, Mitteilungen zur spätantiken Archäologie und byzantinischen Kunstgeschichte, 4 (2005), 39–64 Engemann, Josef, and Christoph Rüger, eds, Spätantike und frühes Mittelalter: Ausgewählte Denkmäler im Rheinischen Landesmuseum Bonn, Kunst und Altertum am Rhein, 134 (Cologne: Rheinland, 1991) Entwistle, Christopher, ‘Notes on Selected Recent Acquisitions of Byzantine Jewellery at the British Museum’, in Intelligible Beauty: Recent Research on Byzantine Jewellery, ed. by Christopher Entwistle and Noël Adams, British Museum Research Publication, 178 (London: British Museum, 2010), pp. 20–32 Fellmann Brogli, Regine, and others, Das römisch-frühmittelalterliche Graberfeld von Basel/ Aeschenvorstadt (Derendingen-Solothern: Habegger, 1992) Ferri, Giovanna, I mosaici del battistero di San Giovanni in Fonte a Napoli, Ricerche di archeologia e antichità cristiane, 5 (Todi: Tau, 2013) Fischer, Thomas, ‘zur römischen Offiziersausrüstung im 3. Jahrhundert n. Chr.’, Bayerische Vorgeschichtsblätter, 53 (1988), 167–90 Gatti, Giuseppe, ‘Roma: nuove scoperte nella città e nel suburbio’, Notizie degli Scavi di Antichità (1895), 359–61 Geary, Patrick, ‘The Uses of Archaeological Sources for Religious and Cultural History’, in Living with the Dead in the Middle Ages (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1996), pp. 30–45 Geroulanou, Aimilia, Diatrita: Gold Pierced-Work Jewellery from the Third to the Seventh Century (Athens: Benaki Museum, 1999) © BREPOLS PUBLISHERS THIS DOCUMENT MAY BE PRINTED FOR PRIVATE USE ONLY. IT MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE PUBLISHER. Between Amuletic Ornament and Sign of Authority 321 Gschwind, Markus, Abusina: Das römische Auxiliarkastell Eining an der Donau vom 1. bis 5. Jahrhundert n. Chr., Münchner Beiträge zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte, 53 (Munich: Beck, 2004) Heid, Stefan, ‘Kreuz’, in Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum 21, Kleidung II — Kreuzzeichen, ed. by Georg Schöllgen (Stuttgart: Hiersemann, 2006), cols 1099–1148 Heurgon, Jacques, Le trésor de Ténès (Paris: Arts et Métiers Graphiques, 1958) Holcomb, Melanie, ‘Crossbow Brooch’, in The Arts of Byzantium, ed. by Helen C. Evans, Melanie Holcomb, and Robert Hallman, Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin, 58 (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2001), p. 31 Jäggi, Carola, Ravenna: Kunst und Kultur einer spätantiken Residenzstadt: Die Bauten und Mosaiken des 5. und 6. Jahrhunderts (Regensburg: Schnell & Steiner, 2013) Johns, Catherine, The Jewellery of Roman Britain: Celtic and Classical Traditions (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1996) Kalamara, Paraskévé, Le système vestimentaire à Byzance du ive jusqu’à la fin du xie siècle, 2 vols (Villeneuve d’Ascq: Presses Universitaires du Septentrion, 2001) Kaufmann-Heinimann, Annemarie, ‘Decennalienplatte des Constans’, in Der spätrömische Silberschatz von Kaiseraugst: Die neuen Funde. Silber im Spannungsfeld von Geschichte, Politik und Gesellschaft der Spätantike, ed. by Martin A. Guggisberg, Forschungen in Augst, 34 (Augst: Römerstadt Augusta Raurica, 2003), pp. 117–70 —— , ‘Fundliste der zwiebelknopffibeln mit Köpfen oder Büsten (Keller/Pröttel Typ 5; Swift Typ 5i)’, in Der spätrömische Silberschatz von Kaiseraugst: Die neuen Funde. Silber im Spannungsfeld von Geschichte, Politik und Gesellschaft der Spätantike, ed. by Martin A. Guggisberg, Forschungen in Augst, 34 (Augst: Römerstadt Augusta Raurica, 2003), pp. 307–22 Kazanski, Michel, and Patrick Périn, ‘Die Gräber des Heva von Pouan und des Childerich von Tournai’, in Das Gold der Barbarenfürsten: Schätze aus Prunkgräbern des 5. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. zwischen Kaukasus und Gallien, ed. by Alfried Wieczorek and Patrick Périn, Publikationen des Reiss-Museums, 3 (Stuttgart: Theiss, 2001), pp. 75–80 Keller, Erwin, Die spätrömischen Grabfunde in Südbayern, Münchner Beiträge zur Vorund Frühgeschichte, 14 (Munich: Beck, 1971) Khalilov, M. J., ‘Investigations of Sandytepe Site V’, Azärbaycanda arxeoloji tädqiqatlar 2011/Archaeological Researches in Azerbaijan 2011 (2012), 235–39 Kiilerich, Bente, The Obelisk Base in Constantinople: Court Art and Imperial Ideology, Acta ad archaeologiam et artium historiam pertinentia, Series altera, 10 (Rome: Bretschneider, 1998) Kızıltan, zeynep, and Gülbahar Baran Çelik, eds, Stories from the Hidden Harbor: The Shipwrecks of Yenikapı (Istanbul: Istanbul Archaeological Museum Press, 2013) Leclercq, Henri, ‘Chrisme’, in Dictionnaire d’archéologie chrétienne et de liturgie, ed. by Fernand Cabrol and Henri Leclercq, 15 vols in 28 pts (Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1907–53), iii, pt I (1913), cols 1482–1534 —— , ‘Fibule’, in Dictionnaire d’archéologie chrétienne et de liturgie, ed. by Fernand Cabrol and Henri Leclercq, 15 vols in 28 pts (Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1903–53), v, pt II (1923), cols 1478–1586 322 Christoph Eger Mackensen, Michael, ‘Vergoldete Bronzebeschläge mit Christogramm von spätrömischen Kammhelmen aus dem mittleren und unteren Donauraum’, Bayerische Vorgeschichtsblätter, 72 (2007), 355–65 Malafarina, Gianfranco, Die Basilika San Vitale und das Mausoleum der Galla Placidia in Ravenna, Mirabilia Italiae, Guide, 6 (Modène: Panini, 2012) Martin, Max, ‘Fibel und Fibeltracht: Späte Völkerwanderungszeit und Merowingerzeit auf dem Kontinent’, in Reallexikon der germanischen Altertumskunde 8, Euhemerismus — Fichte, ed. by Johannes Hoops, Heinrich Beck, and Herbert Jankuhn, 2nd edn (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1994), pp. 541–82 Overbeck, Bernhard, Das Silbermedaillon aus der Münzstätte Ticinum: Ein erstes numismatisches Zeugnis zum Christentum Constantins I, Iconografica, 3 (Milano: Ennerre, 2000) Petković, Sofija, ‘Crossbow Fibulae from Gamzigrad (Romuliana)’, Starinar, 60 (2010), 111–36 Pohl, Ernst, ‘zwiebelknopffibel’, in Spätantike und frühes Mittelalter: Ausgewählte Denkmäler im Rheinischen Landesmuseum Bonn, ed. by Josef Engemann and Christoph Rüger, Kunst und Altertum am Rhein, 134 (Cologne: Rheinland, 1991), pp. 189–92 Popović, Ivana, ‘Gilt Fibula with Christogram from Imperial Palace in Sirmium’, Starinar, 57 (2007), 101–12 Pröttel, Philipp Marc, ‘zur Chronologie der zwiebelknopffibeln’, Jahrbuch des RömischGermanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz, 35 (1988), 347–72 quast, Dieter, ‘Garnitures de ceintures méditerranéennes à plaques cloisonnées des ve et début vie siècles’, Antiquités nationales, 31 (1999), 233–50 Redzić, Saša, Nalazi rimskih fibula na nekropolama Viminacijuma, Arheologija i prirodne nauke, 2 (Beograd: Arheološki institut, 2007) Ristow, Sebastian, ‘Christliches im archäologischen Befund: Terminologie, Erkennbarkeit, Diskussionswürdigkeit’, in Wechsel der Religionen — Religion des Wechsels: Tagungsbeiträge der Arbeitsgemeinschaft Spätantike und Frühmittelalter, ed. by Niklot Krohn and Sebastian Ristow, Schriftenreihe Studien zu Spätantike und Frühmittelalter, 4 (Hamburg: Kovač, 2012), pp. 1–26 —— , Frühes Christentum im Rheinland: die Zeugnisse der archäologischen und historischen Quellen an Rhein, Maas und Mosel (Köln: Aschendorff, 2007) Rummel, Phillip von, Habitus barbarus: Kleidung und Repräsentation spätantiker Eliten im 4. und 5. Jahrhundert, Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde, 55 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2007) Schmauder, Michael, ‘Die Bewaffnung des spätantiken Heeres’, in Imperator Caesar Flavius Constantinus: Konstantin der Große. Ausstellungskatalog, ed. by Alexander Demandt and Josef Engemann (Mainz a.Rh.: zabern, 2007), pp. 147–55 —— , Oberschichtgräber und Verwahrfunde in Südosteuropa im 4. und 5. Jahrhundert: zum Verhältnis zwischen dem spätantiken Reich und der barbarischen Oberschicht aufgrund der archäologischen Quellen, Archaeologica Romanica, 3 (Bucharest: Editura Academiei Romäne, 2002) © BREPOLS PUBLISHERS THIS DOCUMENT MAY BE PRINTED FOR PRIVATE USE ONLY. IT MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE PUBLISHER. Between Amuletic Ornament and Sign of Authority 323 —— , ‘Der Verwahrfund von Lengerich, Ldkr. Emsland: Spiegel innerrömischer Kämpfe?’, Die Kunde, 50 (1999), 91–118 Schulze-Dörrlamm, Mechthild, Byzantinische Gürtelschnallen und Gürtelbeschläge im Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseum, Kataloge vor- und frühgeschichtlicher Altertümer, 30, 2 vols (Mainz: Römisch-Germanisches zentralmuseum, 2002–09) —— , ‘Germanische Spiralplattenfibeln oder romanische Bügelfibeln? zu den Vorbildern elbgermanisch-fränkischer Bügelfibeln der protomerowingischen zeit’, Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt, 40 (2000), 599–613 Schumacher, Karl, Beschreibung der Sammlung antiker Bronzen: Großherzogliche vereinigte Sammlungen zu Karlsruhe (Karlsruhe: Bielefeld, 1890) Smith, R. R. R., ‘The Statue Monument of Oecumenius: A New Portrait of a Late Antique Governor from Aphrodisias’, Journal of Roman Studies, 92 (2002), 134–56 Sommer, Markus, Die Gürtel und Gürtelbeschläge des 4. und 5. Jahrhunderts im römischen Reich, Bonner Hefte zur Vorgeschichte, 22 (Bonn: Institut für Vor- und Frühgeschichte der Rheinischen Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität, 1984) Soupault, Vannesa, Les éléments métalliques du costume masculin dans les provinces romaines de la mer Noire: iiie–ve s. ap. J.-C. (Oxford: Archaeopress, 2003) Speyer, Wolfgang, ‘Gürtel’, in Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum 12, Gottesschau (Visio beatifica) — Gürtel, ed. by Theodor Klauser (Stuttgart: Hiersemann, 1983), cols 1232–66 Spier, Jeffrey, Treasures of the Ferrell Collection (Wiesbaden: Reichert, 2010) Swift, Ellen, Regionality in Dress Accessories in the Late Roman West, Monographies Instrumentum, 11 (Montagnac: Mergoil, 2000) Szönyi, Eszter T., ‘Altchristliche Funde im Xántus János Museum Györ (Ókeresztény leletek a györi Xántus János Müzeumban)’, in Christentum in Pannonien im ersten Jahrtausend: Internationale Tagung im Balaton Museum in Keszthely vom 6. bis 9. November 2000, ed. by Robert Müller, zalai múzeum, 11 (zalaegerszeg: Múzeumok Igazgatósága, 2002), pp. 43–50 Tinnefeld, Franz, ‘Mira varietas: Exquisite Geschenke byzantinischer Gesandtschaften in ihrem politischen Kontext (8.–12. Jh.)’, Mitteilungen zur spätantiken Archäologie und byzantinischen Kunstgeschichte, 4 (2005), 121–38 Tobias, Bendeguz, ‘Riemenzungen mediterraner Gürtelgarnituren mit Monogrammen: Studien zur Chronologie und Funktion’, Acta Praehistorica et Archaeologica, 43 (2011), 151–88. Tóth, Endre, ‘Későrómai sír Tihanyból: A lemezből készült hagymafejes fibulák tipológiájához’, Folia Archaeologica, 43 (1994), 127–66 Uenze, Syna, Die spätantiken Befestigungen von Sadovec (Bulgarien): Ergebnisse der deutschbulgarisch-österreichischen Ausgrabungen, 1934–1937, Münchener Beiträge zur Vorund Frühgeschichte, 43 (Munich: Beck, 1992) Vinski, zdenko, ‘Kasnoantički starosjedioci u salonitanskoj regiji prema arheološkojostavštini predslavenskog supstrata’, Vjesnik za Arheologiju i Historiju Dalmatinsku, 69 (1967), 5–86 —— , ‘Krstoliki nakit epohe seobe naroda u Jogoslavije’, Vjesnik Arheološkog Muzeja u Zagrebu, 3 (1968), 103–68 324 Christoph Eger Volbach, Wolfgang Fritz, Elfenbeinarbeiten der Spätantike und des frühen Mittelalters, Kataloge vor- und frühgeschichtlicher Altertümer, 7 (Mainz a.Rh.: zaubern, 1976) Warland, Rainer, ‘Status und Formular in der Repräsentation der spätantiken Führungsschicht’, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts: Römische Abteilung, 101 (1994), 175–202 Wessel, Klaus, ‘Christusmonogramm’, in Reallexikon zur Byzantinischen Kunst 1, ed. by Klaus Wessel and Marcell Restle (Stuttgart: Hiersemann, 1966), cols 1047–50 Wickham, Chris, Framing the Early Middle Ages: Europe and the Mediterranean 400–800 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005) Wieczorek, Alfried, and Patrick Périn, eds, Das Gold der Barbarenfürsten: Schätze aus Prunkgräbern des 5. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. zwischen Kaukasus und Gallien, Publikationen des Reiss-Museums, 3 (Stuttgart: Theiss, 2001) Würth, Reinhold, and Dieter Planck, eds, Die Schraube zwischen Macht und Pracht: Das Gewinde in der Antike: Ausstellungskatalog Künzelsau-Gaisbach 1995 (Sigmaringen: Thorbecke, 1995) © BREPOLS PUBLISHERS THIS DOCUMENT MAY BE PRINTED FOR PRIVATE USE ONLY. IT MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE PUBLISHER.