A symbol of Late Roman authority revisited: a socio-historical understanding of the crossbow brooch

Vince Van Thienen

The crossbow brooch is one of the most iconographic Late Roman objects. The golden and silver specimens of this brooch type are highly valued for their splendour and their often outstanding decorative techniques. Their inclusion in depictions of important historical figures and on monuments from Late Antiquity only adds to their reputation as elite Roman symbols. The full story of the crossbow brooch is much more complex, however. What started out as a simple copper-alloy-based functional object became one of the most compelling symbols of Roman power. These objects were found in every province throughout the Roman empire between the 3rd and 6th centuries AD. Despite its prominent place in iconography, there are no known antique textual sources that discuss the significance of this artefact, its owners or the reason for its importance. This paper seeks to contribute to the debate on the social and historical contexts of the crossbow brooch by applying a cultural biographical approach to an object-based material culture study. The purpose is to track the changing series of meanings attributed to this artefact type by incorporating archaeological, historical and art historical evidence into anthropologically attested models that consider how complex social structures are reflected in objects.

Social Dynamics in the Northwest Frontiers of the Late Roman Empire                               ,                                      A symbol of Late Roman authority revisited: a sociohistorical understanding of the crossbow brooch Vince Van Thienen 1 Introduction 2 Previous research on the crossbow brooch 2.1 General studies and models 2.2 The study of production and manufacture 2.3 Social and historical interpretation 3 A cultural biographical approach to material culture 4 The cultural biography of the crossbow brooch 4.1 Iconographic evidence 4.2 Historical references 4.3 Textual features on brooches 4.4 Archaeological contexts from the Low Countries 4.5 Discussion on the social and historical context of the crossbow brooch 5 Conclusion References   The crossbow brooch is one of the most iconographic Late Roman objects. The golden and silver specimens of this brooch type are highly valued for their splendour and their often outstanding decorative techniques. Their inclusion in depictions of important historical figures and on monuments from Late Antiquity only adds to their reputation as elite Roman symbols. The full story of the crossbow brooch is much more complex, however. What started out as a simple copper-alloy-based functional object became one of the most compelling symbols of Roman power. These objects were found in every province throughout the Roman empire between the 3rd and 6th centuries AD. Despite its prominent place in iconography, there are no known antique textual sources that discuss the significance of this artefact, its owners or the reason for its importance. This paper seeks to contribute to the debate on the social and historical contexts of the crossbow brooch by applying a cultural biographical approach to an object-based material culture study. The purpose is to track the changing series of meanings attributed to this artefact type by incorporating archaeological, historical and art historical evidence into anthropologically attested models that consider how complex social structures are reflected in objects. 1 This study is part of the research programme Decline and Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) and the fall? Social dynamics in the Low Countries in the Late Roman Research Foundation Flanders (FWO). I wish to thank period, a cooperation between Ghent University and the the project members Nico Roymans,Wim De Clercq and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, funded by the Netherlands Stijn Heeren for their input and critical reading. 1 Fig. 1. Selection of figures from the Great Hunt Mosaic from the Roman villa del Casala at the Piazza Armerina (Sicily). Top right: a Roman soldier or officer on horseback at a tiger hunt. Left and bottom right: presumed owners of the villa with ‘Pannonian hats’. After Pensabene/Gallocchio 2011, 32.                              .     Crossbow brooches first appeared in archaeological studies in the first half of the 20th century.2 Early scholars began to discover the dating capacities of brooches and created general brooch typologies and extended catalogues, such as Almgren’s extensive work on brooches found in northern Europe.3 In those early works, the main discussion centred around the nature and origin of brooches, in keeping with the ethnic interpretation discourse of that time.4 In the second half of the 20th century, research on the crossbow brooch developed as the number of finds increased, mainly from excavations in the northern and western provinces of the Roman empire. Most studies were regional studies5 or artefact catalogues from particular sites or excavations.6 Many of 2 Behrens 1919; Almgren 1923; Kovrig 1937;Van Buchem 5 1941; Von Patek 1942; Heurgon 1958. 3 Almgren 1923. 4 For an overview, see Van Buchem 1966, 61 and 99 note 18. 2 Van Buchem 1941; Keller 1971; Ettlinger 1973; Böhme 1974; Feugère 1985; Hull/Hawkes 1987. 6 Van Buchem 1966; Böhme 1972; Böhme 1974; Jobst 1975; Clarke 1979; Riha 1979. them were carried out in different countries at about the same time, creating many typologies,7 which led to some degree of methodological and descriptive variation. While most of these early scholars were already treating the crossbow brooch as a specific type within their brooch classifications,8 the first detailed typology was not created until Van Buchem identified five different groups, based on style and shape.9 Although Van Buchem presented additional information on related iconographical sources and brooches with inscriptions, the international reach of his model was fairly limited. The most influential work was produced in 1971 by Keller,10 whose typology consists of six successive types, based on well-dated burial finds from Pannonia. Many scholars preferred to use Keller’s model rather than create independent typologies.11 Despite the model’s success, some scholars made regional and chronological adaptations to compensate for Keller’s lack of regional variation.12 The main adjustments were made by Pröttel,13 who refined the chronology and merged two separate – often indistinguishable – subtypes into one.14 Swift revised Pröttel’s adjustments and refined the subdivisions, based on a larger, interregional comparison.15 In addition to an elaborate study of regional variations across many western Roman provinces, Swift also introduced a non-linear evolution model for the lifespan of the crossbow brooch, illustrating the existence of chronological overlap. These models still contain some blind spots, however. Firstly, they tend to focus mainly on the 4th century, rather neglecting both the initial development and the end phase of the crossbow brooch. Secondly, these typological models are mainly based on stylistic differences, resulting in assumptions about provenance and production based on little solid evidence. Thirdly, the object’s transformations are only considered from a typological point of view. This makes it difficult to track changes over time rather than between subtypes, despite the chronological evidence gathered from archaeological contexts. And lastly, the occasional uncritical use of references to historical and art historical evidence has created rather undifferentiated ideas about the use and social significance of the crossbow brooch, as will be discussed later on. To overcome these blind spots, more recent studies have gradually been adding information to these models on three major levels. The first level concerns the general distribution of the brooches, which has benefited from better knowledge of crossbow brooches from the northern and western provinces. Most new studies consist of case studies or collection catalogues from previously unstudied sites or regions. The inclusion of the eastern provinces in the Black Sea area has proven very valuable,16 but so too has the addition of some forgotten regions in the western provinces, such as sites in Spain, Italy, Germany and Belgium.17 More valuable studies have been undertaken in the Balkan area, such as the work of Petković, based on finds from Serbia, in which she assigns detailed chronologies to specific subtypes and links these to presumed workshops.18 The second level attempts to address previously neglected questions, such as the initial and final developments of the crossbow brooch. A recent study on the finds from Augsburg focused on 3rd-century developments,19 while another study from the Metropolitan Museum applied an art historical approach to consider the final stages in the transition between Late Roman and early Byzantine times.20 The third level focuses on technological issues of production and composition by gathering ‘solid data’ from scientific analyses.21 Although this method holds considerable promise for our ability to come 7 8 Van Buchem 1966; Keller 1971; Böhme 1972; Ettlinger 15 Swift 2000, 13-88. 1973; Jobst 1975; Riha 1979; Feugère 1985; Hull/Haw- 16 Soupault 2003; Chiriac/Nuţu 2012; Lafli/Buora 2012. kes 1987; Pröttel 1988. 17 Buora 1997; Aurrecoechea 2012; Van Thienen/Vanhout- Böhme 1972; Ettlinger 1973; Jobst 1975. te 2012; Buora 2013; Pauli 2013. Van Buchem 1941; Van Buchem 1966. 18 Petković 2010. Keller 1971. 19 Pauli 2013. 11 A summary is given in Swift 2000, 13. 20 Deppert-Lippitz 2000. 12 Riha 1979; Feugère 1985. 21 Bayley/Butcher 2004; Giumlia-Mair/De Cecco/Vitri 13 Pröttel 1988. 14 Type 3 and type 4 becomes type 3/4. 9 10 2007. 3 up with new answers, it has not yet been widely applied to the crossbow brooch. Compositional analyses can result in technological groups that modify existing technological and production models based on stylistic and typological analyses. However, unless we excavate specific workshops or study direct manufacturing evidence, it will be difficult to make further significant progress in locating production centres. .                               As well as creating typological models, scholars have sought to resolve technological questions about the production and manufacturing processes for crossbow brooches. Early scholars made their first insights by examining how Roman brooches were made and used.22 They quickly understood the brooch mechanism, as well as the manufacture and assemblage process, but the exact nature of production and composition was less obvious. Initially, the majority of crossbow brooches were recognised as bronzes, although there was more interest in the gold and silver examples, along with the various decorative techniques.23 Since very little metal-working evidence specific to the crossbow brooch has been found, scholars have relied mainly on stylistic evidence to address questions of production and distribution.24 Based on their largely similar shape and supposed official nature, scholars soon suggested that the brooches must have been made at a major state-run central production site.25 The large number of finds and the references to the fabricae in the Notitia Dignitatum support the claim concerning a central production site in Pannonia, although some authors have argued for regional variations, thus suggesting there may have been regional production centres.26 Swift’s interregional study compared styles and distributions of the different types across multiple provinces. This introduced a more complex narrative that combines both regional and central production models.27 She concluded that while a general mainstream trend can be observed across all types, there are at the same time smaller distinct subgroups with a limited distribution. Her research suggests productions in the northwestern and Danubian provinces, with regional variations, and points to a dominant production in Pannonia for the better part of the 4th century.28 The copper alloy nature of these Roman brooch types has only been clarified more recently by compositional studies, revealing the complexity of the different manufacturing techniques required to handle the particular metals in these alloys. Bayley and Butcher undertook such an analytical study on the compositional characteristics of the Richborough Collection.29 Unfortunately, it was not their aim to identify production centres specific to the crossbow brooch. Although Swift applied the analysis performed by Bayley in her research, she was only able to distinguish between a possible British or Continental origin, due to the lack of comparative analyses.30 Another analytical study31 suggested a small local production site in Socchieve (northeast Italy) in a short case study on a number of crossbow brooches and a possible imitation type.32 Apart from these few studies, there is not much analytical evidence available as yet to aid the interpretation and localisation of production centres. To improve production models for the crossbow brooch, more analytical studies are needed that will enable the comparison and identification of compositional groups. This is something future studies need to consider.33 22 For example Riha 1979, 12-18. 29 Bayley/Butcher 2004. 23 Bayley/Butcher 2004, 12-25, 106-120. 30 Bayley 1992; Swift 2000, 81-88. 24 A short summary is given in Swift 2000, 3. 31 Giumlia-Mair/De Cecco/Vitri 2007. 25 Riha 1979, 171. 32 Called the Hrušica brooch 26 Jobst 1975; Clarke 1979. 33 An additional part of this study included the chemical 27 Only a brief summary will be given here. For a complete analysis (by handheld XRF) on 185 crossbow brooches and detailed typological spatial analysis and discussion, from different sites in the Low Countries. The results of see Swift 2000, 29-81. these analyses will be published elsewhere. 28 4 This mainly concerns type 3/4. .                                Just as important as matters of technology are questions on how to understand the crossbow brooch in its social and historical context. The first scholars to study the crossbow brooch believed it to symbolise the growing ‘Germanic’ presence or influence in the Late Roman army and empire.34 This view was dismissed once it became evident that it was a genuine Roman item, part of the chlamys costume.35 The association with the army remained, since most brooches were found in or near military contexts and burials. Most scholars quickly associated crossbow brooches with elite status, due to a combination of the art historical evidence of high-ranking officers36 wearing such brooches on their shoulders and historical references linking them to the imperial sphere.37 This discussion about interpretation developed into a debate about their being restricted and available to various social positions, and possible exclusively the military, as well as their economic and symbolic value.38 While many scholars added a range of views to this general debate, certain ideas were readily accepted based on the combined archaeological and art historical evidence.These observations led scholars to conclude that the crossbow brooch was intended to be worn only by men, fastened at the right shoulder39 of the cloak and with the foot40 pointing upwards. It later emerged that the brooch had not been available to all members of society but was most likely the preserve of the military and administrative elite. By the end of the 20th century, it was agreed that crossbow brooches should be regarded as military objects that had influenced civilian official dress as a result of the political and social ascendancy of high-ranking soldiers and the growing role of the military in the administration. It should therefore be interpreted as a signifier of Roman authority, a claim to membership of the Roman army or administration.41 In view of a three-century lifespan for the crossbow brooch as an active artefact, albeit subject to many regional and chronological variations and changes, the general interpretation as stated above fails to fully capture the full complexity of the brooch’s evolution. Some more recent studies have attempted to tackle this issue. Deppert-Lippitz, for instance, has made some valid reassessments from an art historical perspective, based on a specific selection of golden brooches and the iconographic evidence.42 Although the few examples she discusses originate from across the empire, and range from the early 3rd century to the 6th century, her selection is clearly biased towards the more exceptional brooches. With this in mind, her interpretation should not be understood as a typological model in an archaeological sense and should therefore not be extrapolated to the entire range of crossbow brooches. Recently, Petković associated certain subtypes with different groups of owners, as implied by their manufacturing quality and archaeological context (in Gamzigrad, Serbia).43 It is claimed that specific subtypes belonged to members of the imperial army and administration, while others with a seemingly undefined official character most likely belonged to the military units stationed at the discovery site. Apart from these attempts, most researchers still use an undifferentiated interpretation of Roman (military) authority, with little regard for chronology, regional differentiation or context. 34 35 Almgren 1923; Kovrig 1937; Von Patek 1942; Heurgon 39 shows the crossbow brooch fastened at the left shoulder, For a comprehensive explanation about the chlamys cos- which can be explained by considering that it needed to tume, see Parani 2007, 500-505. 36 The Monza diptych featuring Stilicho and his family be fastened on the sword arm side. Swift 2000, 4. 40 is one of the most well-known and often used antique 37 38 Although archaeological evidence from certain burials 1958; Van Buchem 1966; Böhme 1972; Böhme 1974. The foot of the brooch is the part in which the needle is set when the brooch is closed. depictions of the crossbow brooch. 41 Swift 2000, 232; Parani 2007, 501-503. Heurgon 1958, 23. 42 Deppert-Lippitz 2000, 42-62. Keller 1971, 27; Jobst 1975, 93; Clarke 1979; Swift 2000, 43 Petković 2010, 121-124. 3-4. 5 Some general remarks can be made to caution against the unquestioned acceptance of art historical and historical references. In many cases, art historical examples are simply cited to illustrate a specific point, with little consideration of their wider context or related evidence from artefacts, monuments and architectural decoration, each with their own contemporary value and function in society. Similarly, most of the historical references cited consist of inscriptions or texts mentioning brooches or the cloaks associated with crossbow brooches.44 None of these references discuss crossbow brooches directly, but mainly focus on the value of dress attributes and the regulations surrounding military and official dress, as will be discussed further on. When studying an artefact type with a significant social and cultural impact, it is important to pay equal attention to the full contextual information. This will be attempted in this study and will be achieved by combining archaeological, art historical and textual evidence. The aim is to enable an appreciation of the evolving meaning of crossbow brooches.                                           In order to expand our interpretation of the social and historical context of the crossbow brooch, we should consider alternative approaches to these matters in material culture. To this end, the present study applies the concepts of cultural biography as formulated by Kopytoff in The cultural biography of things.45 In Kopytoff ’s view, a biography of things explores the origin of an object, its life and ending; it looks at who made it and at its perceived ideal life. It also investigates possible cultural markers present in the object and attempts to recognise phases in the thing’s life and how usage changes with age. What makes the biography of the object cultural is the perspective from which it is studied. A culturally-informed biography considers an object as an entity, made and defined by a culture and assigned to a certain class or group created by that culture.46 The cultural biographical approach can be used for a single artefact, but also an entire object class or type. In material culture studies, artefacts can be considered as a palimpsest, in the sense that they have evolving meanings over time.47 The same is true for entire artefact types.The related approach of life-cycle assessment is useful for our purposes. Dannehl suggests the combined use of life-cycle mapping, which tracks an object’s life from beginning to end, and object life stories, which study the transformation of an object through varying contexts.48 In this way, a narrative can be created by stringing multiple biographical moments together to present a generalised biography covering the entire lifespan of the complete artefact type. Relevant questions based on the object biography could include: When did the crossbow brooch first become recognisable with a specific function and meaning, and when did it stop fulfilling its purpose and fall out of use? How did it change, or vary, and what did these changes or variations signify? How is its transformation related to the varying contexts and why did these transformations occur? The cultural biography of the crossbow brooch presented below considers the full extent of the changing symbolic and social values of this artefact type. The main indicator for change employed is the variation in the different kinds of contexts throughout its life cycle.This includes shifts in the archaeological and iconographic contexts in which the crossbow brooches are found, as well as the changing topics and associated people mentioned in inscriptions and illustrations. The Latin keywords are fibula and chlamys. 47 Caple 2006, 7. 45 Kopytoff 1986. 48 Dannehl 2009. 46 Kopytoff 1986, 66-68. 44 6 Phase/Style Iconographic evidence Description Date Location Tetrarchy Constantinian dynasty Funeral monument Tilva roš Part of a funeral scene 280-320 Bor, Serbia Frieze of Constantine The campaign against Maxentius 312-315 Rome, Italy Lateran Sarcophagus Scenes from the Old and New Testament 315-325 Rome, Italy Dogmatic Sarcophagus Scenes from the Old and New Testament 320-330 Rome, Italy Sarcophagus of Marcus Claudianus Early Christian scenes 330-335 Rome, Italy The Great Hunt mosaic The hunt, capture and transport of animals 310-340 Piazza Armerina, Sicily Silistra Tomb fresco Servants carrying clothes to the heads of the family 350-380 Silistra, Bulgaria Projecta Casket Woman and man appearing in a wreath 350-380 London, England Brescia Casket Pontius Pilate washes his hands of Jesus 380-400 Brescia, Italy Missorium of Theodosius Theodosius with Valentinian II and Arcadius ± 380 Madrid, Spain Theodosius obelisk pedestal Theodosius offers laurels of victory (relief 1) ± 390 Constantinople, Turkey Theodosius obelisk pedestal Barbarians bringing gifts to Theodosius (relief 2) ± 390 Constantinople, Turkey Carrand Diptych Adam in paradise and scenes from the life of St Paul ± 380-400 Florence, Italy Consular Diptych of Stilicho Consular diptych of General Stilicho and his family 395-408 Milan, Italy San Gennaro fresco Theotecnus with wife Ilaritas and child Nonnosa 400-600 Naples, Italy Consular Diptych of Rufius Probianus Vicarius Probianus with two secretaries/officials ± 400 Berlin, Germany Halberstadt Diptych Consul with two secretaries ± 417 Halberstadt, Germany Diptych of a Patrician Prominent figure dressed in the chlamys ± 425 Ravenna, Italy Felix Diptych Patrician holding codicil ± 428 Paris, France Astyrius Diptych Official consul position ± 449 Darmstadt, Germany Consul with two secretaries; scenes of the games ± 506 Zürich, Switzerland Santi Cosma e Damiano mosaic Saint Theodore ± 530 Rome, Italy Barberini Diptych Triumphant emperor ± 540 Paris, France San Vitale mosaic Justinian and Theodora 547 Ravenna, Italy Maximian Chair? Joseph scenes 545-553 Ravenna, Italy St Apollinare Nuovo mosaic Christ stands before Pilate 561 Ravenna, Italy Virgin and Child with angels and saints ± 600 Mount Sinai, Egypt David plates (1) David before Saul 628-630 Karavas, Cyprus David plates (2) Marriage of David to Michal 628-630 Karavas, Cyprus ± 650 Thessaloniki, Greece Hagios Demetrios mosaic (2) Companion saint of Demetrius, protecting two children ± 650 Thessaloniki, Greece Hagios Demetrios mosaic (3) Companion saint of Demetrius with dignitary Thessaloniki, Greece Theodosian dynasty Leonid - Justinian Consular Diptych of Areaodynasty bindus Heraclian dynasty Virgin and Child icon Hagios Demetrios mosaic (1) Saint Demetrius with two dignitaries ± 650 Table 1. Art-historical evidence with depictions of crossbow brooches, arranged chronologically and divided into phases linked to the corresponding style and imperial dynasty. 7                                .   We can start this cultural biography by reviewing the available art historical evidence in chronological order (table 1). The dating of the artworks, sculptures and monuments discussed below is determined through art historical research, independently of the crossbow brooches depicted on them and unrelated to the archaeologically attested types and dates. From the 4th century onwards, crossbow brooches featured in a wide range of artworks, such as sculptures, mosaics and frescoes. One of the earliest known examples is the ‘Great Hunt’ mosaic from one of the corridors of the Villa del Casala at the Piazza Amerina (Sicily).49 This mosaic contains several illustrations of crossbow brooches (fig. 1). The clearest example can be found on a Roman soldier or officer, on horseback amid a tiger hunting scene. Less clear are two other examples: one on a man with a ‘Pannonian hat’, who is associated with the ownership of the villa; another on the shoulder of the presumed conductor of the hunt, a bearded man, again displaying a ‘Pannonian hat’.50 These three illustrations have been found by examining pictures and drawings of the mosaic, although it is possible that there are more present in this extensive scene. The mosaic’s construction is dated to the Constantinian period (c. AD 310-340) and the villa owners are believed to have belonged to the senatorial class.51 The combined appearance of the crossbow brooch with the ‘Pannonian hat’ is an interesting, recurring aspect. It also occurs on the Arch of Constantine, for example, where the scene of Constantine’s advance from Milan, on the left of the west side relief (profectio), shows at least two men in the supply train with both a brooch and hat.52 The surrounding, similar figures are too weathered to confirm the presence of brooches on their shoulders. This specific relief is attributed to 4th-century workshops, placing it around AD 315.53 An additional example is the funeral sculpture from Tilva roš (Serbia).54 This relief of two men and their assumed wives is dated to the transition from the 3rd to the 4th century. Both style and date point to the same art style as the previous examples. The number of examples increased in the first half of the 4th century with the introduction of early Christian sarcophagi, more specifically, the frequent representation of the ‘Arrest of St Peter’. This scene often includes two soldiers with the brooch-hat combination. Well-known examples are the Lateran55 and Dogmatic56 sarcophagi, respectively dated to AD 315-325 and AD 320-330, which are believed to have been made in the workshop that produced the Constantinian friezes.57 Similar examples are the sarcophagus of Marcus Claudianus (fig. 2), the Husband and Wife sarcophagus and sarcophagus Vat 31578.58 Although many more sarcophagi depict the Arrest of St. Peter, they rarely feature the brooch as part of military dress and may therefore be attributed to different workshops than the ones mentioned above. In addition to funerary sculptures, tomb frescoes can also be worth investigating. The Silistra tomb fresco in Durostorum (Bulgaria), for instance, shows two crossbow brooches. The first is worn on the shoulder of the master in the centre of the scene, while the second is fastened onto a cloak held by a servant (fig. 3). The master in the scene is thought to have been a Roman patrician belonging to the high military aristocracy. This is evident from the nature of his dress, the red colour of his cloak and the presence of a codicil. The paintings in the tomb are dated to AD 350-380.59 An additional example is the family portrait of Theotecnus, located in the catacombs of San Gennaro in Naples (Italy). Despite the uncertainty surrounding Theotecnus’ social position and the date of the tomb, his wealthy attire and the location of the family tomb suggest that he was a member of the patrician or senatorial class.60 Although 49 Kitzinger 1977, 9; Pensabene/Gallocchio 2011, 31-33. 53 Weitzmann 1979, 399. 50 Kitzinger 1977, fig. 6. 54 Petković 2010, 131 (fig. 126). 51 Pensabene/Gallocchio 2011, 35. 55 Sometimes referred to as Sabinus sarcophagus. 52 Elsner 2000, 165-172; Clarke 2003, 60-62. 56 Kitzinger 1977, 24; Weitzmann 1979, 398-399. 8 Fig. 2. Detail of the sarcophagus of Marcus Claudianus showing the ‘Arrest of Peter’. This scene often shows both men at Peter’s side wearing the crossbow brooch/‘Pannonian hat’ combination. Origin and permission: Art in the Christian Tradition, a project of the Vanderbilt Divinity Library, http://diglib.library.vanderbilt. edu/act-imagelink.pl?RC=54026. the tomb itself cannot be dated more accurately than within the 5th and 6th centuries, a date at the beginning of the 5th century might be proposed, based on style and dress properties. Before moving on to the 5th century, we should consider a new medium for crossbow brooch illustrations. Indeed, by the second half of the 4th century the brooches no longer appeared solely on architectural decoration or monuments; they also began to emerge on portable objects. The earliest known example is the image of a couple encircled by a marriage wreath on the lid of the Projecta Casket. The husband (Secundus) wears a very clear illustration of the brooch (fig. 4). Despite the couple’s uncertain identity, a general date of AD 350 to 380 is accepted for this toiletry item.61 A comparable object is the Brescia Casket, although it served a different purpose. The lid depicts a New Testament scene, in which Christ is 57 58 Kitzinger 1977, 22; Weitzmann 1979, 399; Evans 1993. 59 These examples were found by consulting the Divi- 60 Lioce 2013, 34-38. nity Library from the Vanderbilt University, consulted 61 Van Buchem 1966, 53; Cameron 1985, 135-145; Shelton in February 2015 by the author: http://diglib.library. Atanasov 2007, 449-454. 1985, 147-148. vanderbilt.edu/. 9 Fig. 3. Part of the Silistra tomb fresco. A servant brings a cloak to his master with a crossbow brooch already attached. After Atanastov 2007, 465. brought before Pilate for judgement. Pilate and six Roman officials are each shown with brooches. The style of the casket, which was presumably produced in Milan, places it around AD 380 to 400.62 Around the same time, the Missorium of Theodosius was made to commemorate the decennalia of Theodosius in AD 388 (fig. 5). The image on this silver dish shows the emperor Theodosius with Valentinian II and Arcadius at his side.63 The brooch in the scene is worn by an unidentifiable Roman officer receiving a diptych from Theodosius. Closely related to the Missorium are the reliefs on the base of the obelisk of Theodosius at the Hippodrome of Constantinople (erected around AD 390). Two of the reliefs include figures wearing crossbow brooches. On one side, Theodosius is depicted with his family in the imperial box and his retinue alongside, with two chlamys-wearing high members of court positioned in front of the soldiers on the left-hand side. On the other relief, the emperor is looking out of the imperial box, surrounded by the court and his bodyguard. Here, the younger looking figure on Theodosius’ right is the one sporting a crossbow brooch.64 The transition to the 5th century marks the rise of consular diptychs as a popular attribute among the Late Roman political class. Many crossbow brooch illustrations can be found on these diptychs, due to 62 Van Buchem 1966, 98; Weitzmann 1979, 597-598; Watson 1981, 292-293. 63 Kitzinger 1977, 31-34; Weitzmann 1979, 74-76; Kiilerich 2000, 278. 10 64 Kitzinger 1977, 32-34; Elsner 1998, 75-78. Fig. 4. The lid of the Projecta Casket, depicting Secundus with a crossbow brooch on his shoulder. Courtesy of British Museum, number 1866, 1229.1 AN493408001. the stylistic choice to portray figures in contemporary attire and with contemporary dress attributes. A famous example is the Monza diptych of Stilicho and his family, dated to AD 395-408.65 Diptychs were usually commissioned by private citizens and were used as political instruments, often sent out as gifts. Although the diptychs showed consuls in their official capacity, the primary focus was the functions performed during their consulship, rather than the person performing them.66 The themes and attributes on these diptychs thus have an official character, as is also evident from the Probianus diptych (c. AD 400),67 Halberstadt diptych (c. AD 417),68 Patrician diptych (c. AD 425),69 Felix diptych (c. AD 425)70 and Astyrius diptych (c. AD 449).71 They all display one or multiple brooch illustrations. The Carrand diptych (AD 380-400) appears to be an exception as it portrays scenes from the life of St Paul. However, the figure wearing the crossbow brooch is believed to be Publius, a princeps of Malta.72 Thus, the brooch has to be seen as indicating the official nature of Publius’ office, rather than being part of the religious theme of the scene. Although crossbow brooch illustrations seem to have disappeared altogether from diptychs in the second half of the 5th century, a few examples are still known from the 6th century. The diptych of Areaobindus, dated to AD 506, shows two men with crossbow brooches flanking the consul.73 The Barberini Van Buchem 1966, 78. 69 Kitzinger 1977, 47; Weitzmann 1979, 56-58. 66 Olovsdotter 2003, 212-218; Eastmond 2010, 745. 70 Olovsdotter 2003, 22-23. 67 Kitzinger 1977, 35; Weitzmann 1979, 55-56; Deppert- 71 Olovsdotter 2003, 23-25. Lippitz 2000, 61; Parani 2007, 503. 72 Van Buchem 1966, 55; Gosserez 2005, 109-126. Van Buchem 1966, 54; Olovsdotter 2003, 19-22. 73 Olovsdotter 2003, 37-44; Eastmond 2010, 743-745. 65 68 11 Fig. 5. Detail of the Missorium of Theodosius. On the left side of the fracture is a Roman official being handed a document by Theodosius. The unidentifiable official is illustrated with a crossbow brooch on the right shoulder. Origin and permission: catalogue of the Museo Nacional de Arte Romano, Inventario CE37652, property of the Ministerio de Cultura, http://ceres.mcu.es/pages/Main. diptych (fig. 6) is dated even later, to around AD 540.74 The difference in date and style of these last two might be attributed to a change from western to eastern Roman workshops.75 The art historical evidence from the 5th century is dominated by diptychs, while the 6th century again saw an increase in crossbow brooch illustrations in architectural decoration – more specifically, in apse mosaics in churches. The mosaic in the San Vitale in Ravenna (Italy) depicts Justinian and Theodora with their respective courts and the Archbishop (fig. 7) and is dated to AD 547. A total of five members of court are wearing a brooch on their chlamys.76 A second example of an apse decoration can be found in the Santi Cosma e Damiano in Rome (Italy), showing a number of saints and dated around AD 530. The brooch is illustrated on the (military) Saint Theodore, who had supposedly lived or served under the reign of Diocletian.77 A third example is found in the St Appolinare Nuovo in Ravenna (Italy), which portrays the familiar scene of Christ being led before Pilate. The mosaic is dated to AD 561. Pilate is adorned with a crossbow brooch and possibly the figure behind him as well, although that is rather unclear.78 The crossbow brooch appears to have disappeared from artwork for the remainder of the 6th century. However, there are still some 7th-century examples. The David Plates, for instance, can be dated to the first half of the 7th century.79 This collection of silver plates displays scenes from the life of David, with the biblical figure of Saul present in two scenes: ‘David before Saul’ and ‘the Marriage of David’ (fig. 8). 74 Kitzinger 1977, 96-97. 75 Olovsdotter 2003, 7-8. 76 12 77 Kitzinger 1977, 92; Deppert-Lippitz 2000, 61-62; Cochran 2013. Kitzinger 1977, 87; Weitzmann 1979, 76-78; Barber 78 Deliyannis 2010, 153-158. 1990; Bassett 2008. 79 Lazaridou 2011, 162-163. Fig. 6. Detail of the Barberini Diptych from the left part of the panel. Origin and permission: Department of Decorative Arts: Early Middle Ages, Louvre, http://www.louvre.fr/en/oeuvrenotices/leaf-diptych-emperor-triumphant. In both scenes, a shape resembling the long foot of the crossbow brooch can be distinguished on his chlamys.80 The brooches have almost become unrecognisable, as is also the case with some (military) saint icons. Examples are the mosaics of St Demetrius and the wooden Virgin and Child icon.81 This suggests that only the idea of the crossbow brooch remained. After reviewing the art historical evidence in chronological order, we can distinguish several phases. These phases are more likely the result of the different art styles involved, often associated with movements away from or towards the more traditional styles. Developments in early Christian art and the transformation from Roman to Byzantine art play a major role here with regard to the choice of themes and figures.These phases also reflect the rather more dominant imperial reigns and reforms in Late Antiquity, such as the first Tetrarchy, the Constantinian dynasty and the reigns of Theodosius and Justinian. The gaps between these phases are not necessarily gaps in the biography of the crossbow brooch or periods without change on a social or historical level. We need information from other sources in order to see whether these gaps signify more than art historical intervals. .   As mentioned earlier, some caution is advised when referring to textual sources in the debate on crossbow brooches. This study found no texts with a direct indication or description of this type of brooch. Only four references to the word ‘fibula(e)’ were found in contemporary sources (table 2). The earliest of these occurs on the base of the statue of Sennius Sollemnis –the ‘marble of Thorigny’82 – and is dated to AD 80 Alexander 1977; Kitzinger 1977, 110; Weitzmann 1979, 81 Kitzinger 1977, 105-106. 478, 483; Leader 2000. 82 Pflaum 1948; Vipard 2008. 13 Fig. 7. Detail of the apse decoration from the San Vitale (Ravenna, Italy), showing Justinian with the imperial court. Three men alongside the Emperor are wearing a crossbow brooch. Origin and permission: Artstor library, Emperor Justinian and his Attendants, ID Number 30-01-10/12, http://library.artstor.org/library. Source Date (AD) Part Le marbre de Thorigny 219-220 Face 3 Contents Letter from Claudius Paulinus (propraetor of Britannia) to Sennius Sollemnis (tribune of 6th legion) Ammianus Marcellinus 350-380 XVI.5.11 About the virtues of caesar Julian 350-380 XVI.13.13 About the behaviour of the courtiers in the camp of Constan- 350-380 XXII.9.11 About Julian residing at court and speaking justice tius at Aquitania Codex Theodosianus 438 (401) I.15.16 Rules for vicarii 438 (396) VII.6.4 Rules about military clothing 438 (382) XIV.10.1 Rules for life inside the city walls Corpus Juris Civilis: Codex Justinianus 534 CJ.XI.12.1 Prohibitions on precious dress items 534 CJ.XII.39.3 Rules about military clothing Corpus Juris Civilis: Digesta Justinianus 534 DJ.XXXIV.2.23.2 Rules for exclusive jewellery and official dress 534 DJ.XXXIV.2.25.2 Rules for exclusive jewellery and official dress Procopius of Caesarea 545-551 (531) I.XVII.24-30 King Cabadas stripping gold ornaments from a patrician upon 545-551 (544) II.XXIII.19-4 The effect of the plague on Byzantium 420 In partibus On official insignia for magistrates returning to Persia after defeat Notitia Dignitatum occidentis.IX 390 In partibus On official insignia for magistrates orientis.XI Table 2. Antique references to brooches and clothing. References searched for mention of both fibulae and chlamys. 219-220. On one side, there is a copy of a letter to Sennius from the proprietor of Britannia, listing the proprietor’s gifts to Sennius to mark his appointment to the post of tribune of the 6th Legion. Among many luxurious goods is a gold brooch with gems. Considering the early date and the mention of gems, it seems unlikely that this brooch was of the crossbow type. A second mention of a gold brooch is found in the Codex Justinianus, in a section on the restrictions on the use of gems on precious dress items outside the imperial circle. The fibulae could only be ‘valuable for their gold and artistic value’.83 Another gold brooch is mentioned by Procopius of Caesarea in his history of the Justinian wars. He recounts the story of a patrician who was stripped of his gold decorations by the Persian King Cabades after being defeated in battle (c. AD 531).84 83 Codex Justinianus 11.12.1. the Project Gutenberg: http://www.gutenberg.org/ 84 Procopius of Caesarea, History of the Wars, 1.17.24- files/16764/16764-h/16764-h.htm. 30, translation by H.B. Dewing made available by 14 Fig. 8. Detail of the David Plate ‘The Marriage of David’. The central figure is Saul, performing the ceremony, with something resembling a crossbow brooch on his chlamys. After Lazaridou 2011, 162. These references could include a crossbow brooch, but do not exclude other types of brooches either. The last reference to a brooch, also from the Codex Justinianus, does not specify the kind of brooch.85 It is therefore not clear from the references whether crossbow brooches were considered a separate brooch type or an object that was only available to a restricted class. Other textual evidence cited from past studies concerns references to the word chlamys (table 2). It is used to refer to either a single cloak or an entire costume. The first often appears in a military context, as demonstrated by an example from both the Codex Theodosianus and the Codex Justinianus, which states that one solidus should be given for each military cloak.86 Ammianus Marcellinus uses chlamys three times in anecdotes, hinting at a cloak that was part of imperial dress.87 The second meaning is illustrated in a passage from the Codex Theodosianus, which stipulates that proper official dress should be worn at official events.88 Procopius of Caesarea uses it in a similar manner when describing the effects of the plague in Byzantium. He states that no one could be seen wearing a chlamys in the streets because all men wore clothes fit for private use and remained at home.89 Although these texts contain a good deal of information on the restrictions or obligations of official and military dress and the correlation between these dress items and social identities, they cannot be used to comment directly on the use, significance or perception of the crossbow brooch as they contain no explicit mention or indication of this brooch type. Furthermore, very few crossbow brooches found in archaeological contexts are in fact made of solid gold, and this study has not encountered any use of gems, thus reducing still more the relevance of these texts. .                        In contrast to historical texts, some direct textual evidence can be obtained from textual decoration present on brooches from the 3rd- to 4th-century transition. These decorations and inscriptions often 85 Codex Justinianus, Digesta 34.2.25.2. 87 Amm. Marc. 16.5.11; 16.13.13; 12.9.11. 86 Codex Theodosianus 7.6.4; Codex Justinianus 12.39.3. 88 Codex Theodosianus 1.15.16. Another military reference can be found in Codex Theo- 89 Procopius of Caesarea, History of the Wars, 2.13.19-4. dosianus 14.10.1. 15 Name Text Interpretation Date (AD) Provenance Laci fibula SEPTIMI VIV Praise for Septimius (unappointed) 284-305 Laci, Albania Arezzo brooch HERCULI AUGUSTE // SEMPER VIN- Praise for a western emperor, most 286-309 Arezzo, Italy CAS likely Maximianus (Herculius) 293-305 Taraneš, Mace- Taraneš fibula IOVI AUG VINCAS // IOVI CAES VIVAS Praise for an eastern augustus and caesar, possibly Diocletian and donia Galerius “Diocletian” brooch IOVI[O] AUG[USTO] // VOT[IS] XX 20th anniversary of Diocletian’s 303 reign, celebrated at November 20, Erickstanebrae, Scotland 303 Untersiebenbrunn fibel CONSTANTINE VIVAS Celebrating Constantinius 293-305 Untersiebenbrunn, Austria Turin brooch CONSTANTINE CAES VINCAS // HER- Celebrating Constantinius 306-307 Unknown Celebrating Maxentius and his son 308-309 Aquilea, Italy or CULI CAES VINCAS Caput Adriae fibula MAXENTI VINCAS // ROMULE VICAS Romulus Louvre fibule Niederemmel fibel D N CONSTANINI AUG // VOT X MUL- 10th anniversary of Contantine’s TIS XX reign, celebrated on July 25, 315 VOTIS X D N CONSTANTINI AUG // 10th anniversary of Constantine’s VOTIS X D N LICINI AUG (July 25, 315) and Licinius’ reign IULIANE VIVAS Praise for Julianus (unappointed, Centur, Slovenia 315 315-317 Unknown Niederemmel, Germany (November 11, 317) Julianus Brooch ?335-350 Unknown possibly Julian II) Table 3. Crossbow brooches with inscriptions and textual decoration. praise specific emperors (augustus and caesar) or celebrate imperial events, thus allowing the attribution of accurate dates to these brooches (table 3). For example, the ‘Arezzo brooch’ praises Maximianus and is therefore dated between AD 286 and 309. Another example is the ‘Taraneš brooch’. Its reference to both Diocletian and Galerius places it between AD 293 and 305.The commemorations of specific events also provide us with very precise dates. Examples are the reference on the ‘Diocletian brooch’ to the 20th anniversary of Diocletian’s reign (celebrated on 20 November, AD 303), or the mention on the ‘Louvre brooch’ of Constantine’s decennalia (held on 25 July, AD 315).90 The brooches with imperial inscriptions appear to be confined to the first and second Tetrarchy, roughly between AD 280 and 320. Although these textual decorations make accurate dating possible, there is still a need for caution. A specific reference does not convey an exact fabrication date, nor does it necessarily imply a presence in the immediate surroundings of the emperor mentioned. Instead, these kinds of decorated brooches should be understood as part of the imperial cult – possibly integrated into the commemorative elite gift-giving system – and are more correctly used as a post quem indication. .                                 In addition to the iconographic and textual evidence, archaeological contexts can also add valuable information to the sociohistorical debate, despite a frequent lack of accurate dates. The assessment of archaeologi90 More examples can be found in Deppert-Lippitz 2000, 46-51 and Van Buchem 1966, 67-69. 16 AD < 280 280-320 320-380 380-425 Total (n) Total (%) Table 4. Number of crossbow Fort 9 4 30 6 49 27.4% brooches per chronological phase Urban 8 14 38 4 64 35.8% for the different types of sites 1 2 3 1.7% and general contexts of the Low 15 40 63 35.2% Countries. This table presents the Rural Unknown 5 3 179 brooches selected for this Burial 2 2 42 6 52 29.1% study. Above: brooches ordered by site type. Below: brooches ordered Non-burial 15 7 15 2 39 21.8% Unknown 5 25 53 5 88 49.2% by context. cal contexts in this study is based on crossbow brooches from Late Roman sites in the Low Countries and is evaluated in chronological order to facilitate integration into the cultural biographical approach. Although this study focuses mainly on changes in context, it is also necessary to include the more significant changes in the general properties of crossbow brooches from the Low Countries. The total number of brooches (Belgium and the Netherlands combined) comes to approximately 300 finds (fig. 9),91 179 of which were selected for detailed observation in this study (table 4). Unfortunately, nearly half proved to be stray finds or older finds for which the nature of the context has been lost. Despite their limited use in a context-based study, these finds have helped to reinforce observations of the changes in brooch properties over time. In view of the dating difficulties of the archaeological contexts, the emergence of the crossbow brooch can be placed in the 3rd century.92 The finds from the earliest contexts show us that the initial form can be seen as little more than the general form of a bow brooch, similar to other types, with a hinge mechanism, which was not uncommon in the 3rd century.93 The general shape of these earliest forms displays little variation across different sites in the Low Countries and shows only sparse decoration. The first change in the general properties of these brooches can be noticed around the transition from the 3rd to the 4th century, with the finds displaying an increasing variety in the form of the different components and decoration techniques. While the bulk of the composition remained a copper alloy, gold and silver coatings were encountered on multiple examples.94 This greater variation in brooch appearance indicates some freedom of choice in the manufacturing process. Nevertheless, their general shape shows many continuities. Most likely, all brooches from this phase belonged to the same class of objects in the minds of observers. The contexts in which these early crossbow brooches are found add little new information to our understanding of the emergence of this brooch type. The 3rd-century finds occur predominantly on military sites, as well as in smaller numbers on urbanised sites (Nijmegen and Tongeren), where a military presence can be expected (fig. 10b). No fixed or specific depositional context pattern emerges from the archaeological record of the Low Countries. In general, only a scattered distribution can be observed, mainly in non-burial contexts (fig. 10c), such as the excavation at the fort of Oudenburg. This excavation revealed a number of early crossbow brooches spread over a myriad of locations across the site, ranging from multiple pits to a 91 I also included the inventory of Stijn Heeren, for which chosen as an ante quem date for the initial archaeological I am grateful. 92 The earliest finds from the Low Countries were mainly phase, until more precise evidence can be found. 93 dated on a typological basis, for which parallels from other 1973, 137-138; Riha 1979, 162-177; Feugère 1985, 18; regions were used. This makes it difficult to pinpoint an exact start date for the crossbow brooch in the Low Coun- Van Buchem 1941, 120, plaat 118 fig. 121-129; Ettlinger Bayley/Butcher 2004, 179-185. 94 Detected by means of XRF analysis. tries. Since, the first major changes in brooch properties can be traced to approximately AD 280, this moment was 17 Fig. 9. Sites and locations with crossbow brooches throughout the Low Countries and surrounding areas. 18 Fig. 10. a. Number of crossbow brooches per chronological phase of the 179 brooches presented in this study. The date ranges correspond to the dates of the subtypes based on archaeological contexts. b. Percentage of brooches based on the different site types. The main function per site has been categorised as ‘fort’, ‘urban’ or ‘rural’. The ‘unknown’ category contains stray finds and contexts without an identifiable site or structure. c. Percentage of brooches based on the main character of the depositional context (‘burial’ or ‘nonburial’). construction layer for a well and a housing unit.95 This random distribution best corresponds to accidental loss, indicating that the brooches were worn while their wearers performed everyday tasks. These general observations correspond to evidence from comparable sites such as Augsburg,96 Augst97 and Richborough.98 The increased variety in the 3rd- to 4thcentury transition is related to a proliferation in the number of brooches in circulation (figs 10a and 11). This is not merely a representation of the archaeological record, for the nature of the depositional context has not altered. The majority of finds are still encountered in non-burial contexts on sites with a military presence or association (figs 10b/c). However, this process changed over the course of the 4th century, when the introduction of inhumation and the role of the crossbow brooch as part of the burial costume caused the burials to become the main depositional context.This shift is noticeable at other sites as well, for example in Augst,99 where the finds no longer appear to be randomly distributed across the site, but are clustered in the burials. The sharp rise in the number of finds (fig. 10a) in this period also corresponds to the larger pattern from other provinces.100 Even though this picture is potentially influenced by post-depositional processes and greater care in the excavations of burials, the main difference between brooches from burial and non-burial contexts suggests an actual shift. By the end of the 4th century and the first decades of the 5th century, the number of finds from Late Roman Low Countries sites diminishes considerably (fig. 10a). As a result, most brooches for this final phase originate from burials in Nijmegen, Tongeren and Oudenburg, i.e. the major military and administrative centres (fig. 10b/c). The shift to burials as the intended depositional contexts for 95 Van Thienen/Vanhoutte 2012, 145-149. 97 Riha 1979, 51. 96 The total distribution of the crossbow brooches of the 98 Bayley/Butcher 2004, 106-115. earliest phase is less well known. For the most recent 99 Riha 1979, 51. distribution map, see Pauli 2013, 403-408. 100 Swift 2000, 31. 19 Fig. 11. Changes in the number of crossbow brooches in the Low Countries per phase, based on the 179 brooches included in this study. The four phases correspond to the changes observed in the archaeological record and finds from the Low Countries. 20 the crossbow brooch seems to have remained unaltered up to the end of the life of the crossbow brooch as an object type, although the small number of finds renders a definitive statement impossible. Despite the increased use and number over the course of the 4th century, the object variations appear to decrease at the same time: less differentiation in component shapes was observed, as well as a reduction in the range of decoration to combinations of a fixed set of motifs. Additionally, no gold or silver coating was detected on any of the Low Countries brooches. This evidence indicates a reduced freedom of choice in the manufacturing process, suggesting the possible involvement of a control system or some measure of standardisation. At the end of the 4th century and the beginning of the 5th century, the final phase for the Low Countries, this apparent standardisation of the brooch shape disappeared once more. New shapes and diversifications from its predecessors appeared, as well as new decoration techniques and motifs. And once again, multiple objects contained traces of gold in their coating. The first half of the 5th century marks the end of the archaeological evidence for the crossbow brooch in the Low Countries, corresponding to the withdrawal of Roman military forces and the abandonment of the administrative centres in the region.101 The only exception is Childeric’s brooch. Found in Childeric’s burial site at Tournai, it is dated to AD 464-482102 and is therefore the only known crossbow brooch from the northern parts of former Gaul dating from the second half of the 5th century. It resembles the few others that have been found in and outside the borders of the later 5th-century Roman empire.103 In general, the overall evidence for these late finds is poor and the context information usually unknown. Furthermore, the sharp drop in numbers appears to apply to the entire empire. Although this archaeological study has focused on finds and contexts in the Low Countries, no reliably dated finds or contexts for the 6th century were encountered for either the Western or Eastern Roman empire. .                   Proceeding towards a cultural biography of the crossbow brooch, we need to consider all the available evidence in its totality. The first question in an object biography is often the hardest to answer: how did this object come about? There is little doubt that the origin of the crossbow brooch can be placed within the wider developments of the class of bow brooches during the 3rd century. However, it is a challenge to pinpoint an exact point in time or an event in society that triggered the start of the crossbow brooch as a distinct type with a clearly intended and recognised message, for there are no known depictions before the end of the 3rd century. A partial explanation lies in the dominant art style from the 3rd century. The longstanding tradition of Classicism portrayed figures mainly in a divine or heroic setting in the classic Graeco-Roman tradition, i.e. not dressed as contemporary people.104 When military figures are depicted in a more contemporary manner, for example on the Arch of Septimius Severus, they appear to be wearing disc brooches rather than bow brooches. This suggests that disc brooches were the preferred choice for members of the military class until the early 3rd century. Early crossbow brooches were not only invisible in the art historical evidence, but there is also a lack of textual references (see 4.2 above). Archaeological finds offer the most information about the initial developments, even though the evidence is scarce and the dating inaccurate. Reliable contexts containing these initial brooches can at best 101 The Roman withdrawal from the Low Countries is likely is taken as the latest archaeological evidence of the Low to be placed around the beginning of the 5 century (see Countries, although slightly later dates are possible. th contributions Roymans and Heeren, this volume) but 102 Van Buchem 1966, 89-90; Deppert-Lippitz 2000, 59. there are some brooches that are stylistically dated to the 103 Deppert-Lippitz 2000, 56-61. first half of the 5th century.Therefore is a date of c. AD 425 104 Kitzinger 1977, 7-18. 21 be placed between AD 250 and 280, although the brooches may have occurred earlier on. The existence of the early crossbow brooch can be confirmed with certainty in the second half of the 3rd century.105 This still leaves unanswered the question of the owners’ identity. Because of their simplicity and uniformity, it can be argued that these ‘simple’ brooches belonged to common soldiers. However, if the brooches were available to multiple ranks of soldiers, we would expect a larger number of finds.106 The practice of recycling can partially account for the possible lack of finds, as well as the absence of these brooches in burials. So should this phenomenon be understood as a transition to the hinge-based brooch, did they coexist, or were they intended for different ranks or social backgrounds? Without further reliable contextual data or new evidence from iconographic or textual sources, the brooch continues to be associated with an unspecified type of military dress. It is not until the 3rd- to 4th-century transition that interpretations can be based on more evidence. From an archaeological point of view, their everyday use and application remains almost as elusive as before. Despite the increase in the number of finds from the end of the 3rd century, the archaeological record fails to shed light on the circumstances surrounding when and for whom it was appropriate or permissible to wear this type of brooch. Additional information is found in the first illustrations of crossbow brooches (fig. 12). In this phase, most examples feature individuals wearing ‘Pannonian hats’, such as the landowners of the Villa del Casala and the figures on sarcophagi. It is no coincidence that these first illustrations correspond chronologically to the first Tetrarchy and the Constantinian dynasty. Together with the larger military and administrative reforms, the art styles and themes changed as well. The move away from traditional Classicism and the introduction of Christian art created an interesting paganChristian mix. The 4th-century sculptures on the Arch of Constantine illustrate this new style, although it can be seen in the well-known porphyry group of the Tetrarchs as well, which is slighly older.107 Despite the ‘Pannonian hats’ on the Tetrarchs, no crossbow brooches are present on the sculpture. This confirms that the emperors themselves did not wear them at this time. It was in this phase (c. AD 280-320) that crossbow brooches with textual features made their appearance. Most inscriptions or textual decorations on the brooches praise the members of the Tetrarchies, often commemorating a specific celebration or event, such as the decennalia. This has to be seen in the context of the revival of the imperial cult after the turmoils of the 3rd century. These specific brooches could have been intended as gifts, possibly to be worn at the official event described in the text, or to commemorate an occasion coinciding with these events. Although the art style remained undifferentiated throughout the first half of the 4th century, the archaeological evidence changed after c. AD 315-320. A first observation is that textual features gradually disappeared from brooches lauding imperial events. A second and more significant change was the shift to burials as the depositional context. This can mainly be attributed to the growing practice of inhumation burials. This general shift from the world of the living to the world of the dead is striking. Although the brooches were still worn during a person’s lifetime, it appears that the intended end of the brooch’s life was its deposition in the grave, rather than being recycled or passed on to another owner. This suggests a close connection between the brooch and its owner. In addition, the illustrations occur most often on sarcophagi and in tombs. A final observation is that, despite a significant rise in the number of brooches at the end of this phase (fig. 10a), there was no equivalent increase in the iconographical evidence. If we combine all this information, we observe a distinct difference in the symbolic value between this phase and the initial developments earlier in the 3rd century. The social message conveyed by the brooches 105 Riha argues a start near the end of the 2nd century (Riha number published from single sites, containing more 1979, 167. although the recent study from Pauli (Pauli than 100 specimens from both forts for a period of 2013) and the evidence gathered from the Low Countries show primarily later contexts. 106 22 The forts of Saalburg and Zugmantel provide the largest approximately 70 years, see Böhme 1972, her type 27. 107 Kitzinger 1977, 9 (fig. 5). Fig. 12. Chronological distribution of the iconographic sources used in this study. The boxes indicate the accepted or suggested date range of the source. The whiskers indicate the possible margins of the date range. had become important enough to be depicted, suggesting that they carried a comprehensible message that was recognised by any spectator. Furthermore, this increased significance is reflected in their place in the burial dress and in the references on the brooches to the imperial cult. Based on the iconographic sources, the message appears to be twofold. On the one hand, the brooches are worn by anonymous members of the military, as can be derived from their complete garb, including the brooch-hat combination. Examples include the figures on the Arch of Constantine reliefs or the soldiers seizing Peter on sarcophagi. On the other hand, the brooches occur on more personal illustrations of individuals who were intended to be recognised, such as the villa owners on the mosaic of the Great Hunt, the master of the Silistra tomb and possibly the two figures on the funeral monument from Tilva roš. This indicates that at that time (c. AD 280 - 335/350) the brooches were most likely worn by individuals with a military and wealthy background, i.e. military officers. It is not yet clear if these individuals also had active administrative or political roles. It is also possible that foederati – foreigners fighting in the name of Rome – were furnished with weapons by the Roman fabricae and that their warband leaders also wore crossbow brooches.108 In the next phase, illustrations no longer occurred exclusively on monuments and tombs, but started to appear on portable objects as well (fig. 12). The earliest examples are the Projecta and Brescia caskets, both adorned with images that contain Christian themes. In addition, the Missiorum of Theodosius is in the same style as the caskets, despite the non-Christian nature of the theme. This style was not restricted to portable objects, as is evident from similarities to the reliefs of the obelisk pedestal in Constantinople. In general, there was a change in art style under Theodosius, sometimes referred to as the ‘Theodosian 108 Böhme 1974. See the example of Tiel-Passewaaij, for a combination of a crossbow brooch with Hacksilber and deratus and his family (contribution Heeren, this volume). 109 Kitzinger 1977, 38-44. Germanic jewellery, interpreted as the settlement of a foe- 23 Renaissance’.109 The hierarchical order is decidedly present in this new style, although the figures portrayed still wear contemporary dress. Although many differences in the art historical evidence can be attributed to this new style, this appears to be confined to the choice of iconographic representation, rather than interfering with the general topics and themes. However, a possible significant change is the absence of ‘Pannonian hats’ on individuals with crossbow brooches. At the end of the 4th century and continuing into the 5th century, there appears to be a change in the identity of the figures portrayed with crossbow brooches. Observations show that the number of anonymous individuals fell in relation to the number of recognisable figures. This transformation is noticeable under the reign of Theodosius. The Brescia casket is possibly the last known example of completely unknown officials or officers being depicted alongside Pilate. Although the sources showing Theodosius himself still contain some anonymous officials, it can be argued that their identity may have been known to others, as they were probably connected with the imperial entourage. The large increase in the number of recognisable individuals illustrated with crossbow brooches was mainly due to the emergence of consular diptychs (fig. 12). Although some individuals, including Stilicho for instance, had a clear military history, it appears that the primary focus was their official position as consuls. Much like the textual decoration on brooches during the Tetrarchy, the diptychs are closely associated with the imperial cult and the practice of commemorating events through gifts reflecting their official nature. Not only the diptychs, but also the tombs display recognisable figures. The Silistra tomb can be used to illustrate our point, as can the depiction of Theotecnus. As well as shifts in art historical sources, we can observe changes in the archaeological evidence. A first observation is the considerable decline in the number of finds (fig. 10a) despite their continued deposition in burials. A second observation relates to their limited distribution. By the end of the 4th century the brooches occurred only in the largest administrative and military centres of the Low Countries, probably due to the withdrawal of military forces from the region. This makes it impossible to derive a social association from the archaeological record. Moreover, by this time, military dress had clearly influenced the official civilian dress, which makes it very hard to distinguish a military or civilian identity based on burial goods or other contextual information. While historical sources do not provide us with direct information on the crossbow brooch, they can improve our understanding of the social codes regarding the dress that incorporated this brooch type and the people who were permitted to wear it. The Codex Theodosianus is relevant for this phase. Although the work was not completed until AD 438, it was compiled from older laws and can inform us about the 4th to 5th century transition. Two laws refer to the chlamys as a military cloak: one almost equates soldiers with their cloak,110 while another mentions the rules governing a senator’s military garb.111 It seems that a senator was only allowed to wear military dress inside the city walls when chairing an official meeting or fulfilling his duties at a public trial.This implies a far-reaching amalgamation of military and official affairs in the higher ranks of the imperial government. A third section stresses the obligation for vicarii to wear their official dress at official events, using the word chlamys in the same manner as other references.112 In addition to the codex, Ammianus Marcellinus also comments on this period, referring to the chlamys cloak on three occasions. Two passages refer to imperial dress, implying that the emperor also had a chlamys cloak.113 Another passage recounts the improper behaviour of certain agens, who accepted gifts from the emperor.114 None of these passages imply that the chlamys cloak was part of military garb. This indicates that by the end of the 4th century there was already a shift away from the close military association of earlier periods towards the more administrative and political circles. This moment in the biography of the crossbow brooch demonstrates its advance in social rank. Fig110 Codex Theodosianus 7.6.4. 113 Amm. Marc. 16.13.13 and 22.9.11. 111 Codex Theodosianus 14.10.1. 114 Amm. Marc. 16.5.11. 112 Codex Theodosianus 1.15.16. 24 ures shown wearing crossbow brooches were expected to be recognised, often by virtue of their political or administrative positions. The general iconographic trend and the use of the word chlamys in the codex and in Ammianus’ writings imply that they were worn in wealthy and politically influential circles that were linked to the military establishment.The objects themselves had become more highly decorated and greater skill was required to create them. It seems likely that at this time the owners of crossbow brooches were consuls and members of the senatorial class itself. It is difficult to assign a start and end date to this phase. Most changes that characterise the 5th century appear to have originated at the end of the 4th century during the reign of Theodosius (c. AD 380). Due to the lack of art historical evidence between AD 335 and 380, determining the social position of crossbowbrooch owners immediately before this phase presents a challenge. Perhaps these developments had already occurred earlier in the 4th century. Pinpointing the end is equally challenging, as there is another gap in the art historical evidence starting from c. AD 425-430 (fig. 12). Unfortunately, this also coincides with the end of the archaeological evidence from the Low Countries, making it difficult to ascertain whether this phase could be extended further into the 5th century. Only the Astyrius diptych (c. AD 450) can be placed in this chronological gap. Until more evidence is available, this phase can be regarded as roughly corresponding to the Theodosian and Valentinian dynasties, c. AD 380-430. Apart from Childeric’s grave, there is no more archaeological evidence available from the Low Countries from the second half of the 5th century. Moreover, archaeological contexts containing crossbow brooches are scarce across the Roman empire. Many finds are old or stray finds, more often valued for their splendour than for their contextual information. Some of these brooches have been found beyond the recognised borders of the empire and could have belonged to local leaders with strong imperial ties, such as the Childeric brooch (c. AD 464-482) and the Apahida brooch (c. AD 454-473). The latter supposedly belonged to a ‘Germanic’ leader called Omharus.115 The art historical sources provide us with information again from the start of the 6th century. Some diptychs still contained illustrations of crossbow brooches, although more often than not they are absent. A new medium were church mosaics, depicting themes linked to the imperial sphere, such as the San Vitale and the St Apollinare Nuovo in Ravenna and the Santi Cosma e Damiano in Rome. This resurgence of iconographic sources reflects Justinian policies and the emergence of Byzantine art styles. More historical texts are available for this period, although still without direct reference to the crossbow brooch. In the Codex Justinianus, the chlamys is used in both military and official contexts. However, the most explicit military association is a direct copy from the Codex Theodosianus.116 This suggests that the duality of meaning was derived from recycling old law texts, rather than reflecting an actual dual significance. In spite of little available evidence for over half a century, it appears that crossbow brooches became very exclusive objects during the Leonid and Justinian dynasties. The distribution of the archaeological and iconographical sources appears to be mainly confined to the Western political centres of Late Antiquity, such as Ravenna and Rome. The few examples found outside the official borders of the Roman empire can be ascribed to ‘Germanic’ leaders, possibly connected to, or in service of, the emperor. By way of a general conclusion, they can be understood to represent a very elitist sphere, confirmed by their value in gold and the level of decoration. They may have been gifts from the emperor, or were only permissible for, or available to, the highest imperial ranks. After another gap of half a century, the final illustrations of the crossbow brooch are found on portable Byzantine art from the 7th century (fig. 12), such as the David Plates and certain votive icons. The brooch illustrations feature on popular Late Antique figures from Christian history, e.g. some military saints and the biblical figure of Saul. The brooches are hard to recognise – only the foot pointing upwards from the shoulder alerts us to their presence. In addition, there is no available archaeological or textual evidence. This suggests that crossbow brooches had ceased circulating, from which we can only conclude that they 115 Deppert-Lippitz 2000, 57. 116 Codex Justinianus 12.39.3. 25 were no longer in use by this time. Perhaps they were still recognised as indicating important historical figures. The disappearance of the crossbow brooch is unlikely to have been sudden. What is more plausible is that their exclusiveness from the later 5th century led to their gradual disappearance. Although some continued to exist during the reign of Justinian in the first half of the 6th century, we lack properly dated archaeological finds to support this. It can be suggested that after Justinian’s efforts to restore the former Roman empire, crossbow brooches had already ceased to exist and their significance was only remembered through illustrations in works of art. The few 7th-century examples demonstrate that their appearance was no longer familiar, nor their proper context of use.   The combination of archaeological, art historical and historical evidence has enabled a more differentiated view of the changes that crossbow brooches underwent in a sociohistorical context. By using a generalised cultural biographical approach, this study has covered all phases of the brooch’s life span: its origin, the changes and developments over time, and its ending. As well as providing a chronological overview of the available information, the different phases in the crossbow brooch’s life have been considered in their sociocultural context and evaluated for their own contribution to the sociohistorical narrative. The changing contexts in which the brooches are found, illustrated or mentioned demonstrate the considerable transformations in perception and significance. The rise of the military ranks in the Roman empire’s administrative and political establishment meant that crossbow brooches also rose in the social ranks. The crossbow brooch originated from the heterogeneous class of bow brooches in the 3rd century AD. Although the precise circumstances of its initial evolution are still unclear, from the second half of the 3rd century onwards, the crossbow brooch was certainly perceived as a separate brooch type with a specific message intended to be understood by others. During this initial phase, the brooch exhibited a military association in the archaeological evidence. Without further reliable information from other sources, the crossbow brooch can merely be described as an attribute to military dress, possibly owned by common soldiers or low-ranking military officers. More information is available from art historical and textual evidence in the 3rd- to 4th-century transition, coinciding with the reign of Diocletian and the first Tetrarchy. The most characteristic feature on the sculptures is the crossbow brooch/Pannonian hat combination. The figures dressed in this manner suggest a kind of military authority, as is also reflected in their roles in the scenes. Although these figures appear to fulfil an important function in many of the scenes, their features are alike and the individuals are anonymous. This slowly changed during the course of the 4th century, when the depicted figures become recognisable by virtue of their role, their personal attributes and even their physical features. These people were associated with the large military and administrative body that supported the Late Roman empire. At the end of the 4th century, corresponding to Theodosius’ rule, anonymity disappeared from the wearers of crossbow brooches. The main characteristic medium became the diptych, portraying Roman officials who wielded political and administrative power. From Theodosius into the first half of the 5th century, the crossbow brooch became an attribute worn by consuls and members of the senatorial class, and as such it symbolised Roman power. By the second half of the 5th century, this symbol extended beyond the borders of the empire, with brooches found in the burials of ‘Germanic’ leaders along with other objects associated with Roman power. Some connection appears to have remained between these leaders and the imperial court, since illustrations of similar brooches can be found in 6th-century apse mosaics in churches linked to Justinian’s rule. By the first half of the 6th century, the crossbow brooch was the preserve of the high elite, of people closely related to the imperial court. 26 It was at this point in time that the life of the crossbow brooch as an active object came to an end. Its exclusiveness in its final phase may have resulted in the brooch becoming detached from its former values. The depictions from the 7th century illustrate the loss of knowledge about its true appearance and significance. Its final meaning can only be seen as one of the symbols associated with important figures from Roman history or perhaps even the Roman empire itself.  Classical sources Ammianus Marcellinus. The surviving books of the History, transl. J. C. Rolfe, Cambridge (Loeb Classical Library 300, 315, 331; 1963). Codex Theodosianus, ed. J. Godefroy/A. Marville/J.D. Ritter, Mantua 1740. Codex Justinianus, in Corpus Iuris Civilis, ed. Krueger, P./T. Mommsen (editio stereotypa quinta), Berolini 1889. Procopius. History of the Wars, Books 1-2 (The Persian War), transl. H.B. Dewing, Cambridge. (Loeb Classical Library 48, 1914). Notitia Dignitatum accedunt Notitia urbis Constantinopolitanae et Latercula prouinciarum, ed. O. Seeck, Berlin 1876 (Reimpression Frankfurt 1962). Modern works Alexander, S., 1977: Heraclius, Byzantine imperial ideology, and the David plates, Speculum 52/2, 217-237. Almgren, O., 1923: Studien über nordeuropäische Fibelformen der ersten nachchristlichen Jahrhunderte: mit Berücksichtigung der provinzialrömischen und südrussischen Formen, Leipzig. Atanasov, G., 2007: Late Antique tomb in Durostorum-Silistra and its master, Pontica 40, 447-468. Aurrecoechea, J., 2012: Las fíbulas cruciformes en Hispania, in In durii regione romanitas: estudios sobre la presencia romana en el valle del Duero en homenaje a Javier Cortes Alvarez de Miranda, Palencia-Santander 2012, Palencia, 373-380. Barber, C., 1990: The imperial panels at San Vitale. A reconsideration, Byzantine and modern Greek studies 14/1, 19-43. Bassett, S.E., 2008: Style and meaning in the imperial panels at San Vitale, Artibus et Historiae 29, 49-57. Bayley, J., 1992: Non-ferrous metalworking in England. Late Iron Age to early medieval, London (PhD-thesis University of London). Bayley, J./S. Butcher, 2004: Roman Brooches in Britain. A technological and typological study based on the Richborough collection, London. Behrens, G., 1919: Germanische Kriegergräber des 4. bis 7. Jahrhunderts im städtischen Altertumsmuseum zu Mainz, Mainzer Zeitschrift 14, 9-12. Böhme, A., 1972: Die Fibeln der Kastelle Saalburg und Zugmantel, Saalburg Jahrbuch 29, 5-112. Böhme, A., 1974: Die Fibeln des Kastells am Kleinen Feldberg, Saalburg Jahrbuch 31, 5-15. Böhme, H.W., 1974: Germanischen Grabfunde des 4 bis 5 Jahrhunderts, Zwischen unterer Elbe und Loire, München (Münchner Beiträge zur Vor-und Frühgeschichte 19). Buora, M., 1997: Zwiebelknopffibeln del tipo Keller 6 da Aquileia, Arheološki vestnik 48, 247-260. Buora, M., 2013: Zwiebelknopffibeld des Typs Keller 6: Zur Verbreitung und status quaestionis, in G. Grabherr/B. Kainratch/T. Schierl (eds), 427-446. Cameron, A., 1985: The date and the owners of the Esquiline treasure, American Journal of Archaeology 89, 135-145. Caple, C., 2006: Objects: reluctant witnesses to the past, London/New York. Chiriac, C./G. Nuţu, 2012: Late Roman brooches from Dobroudja, Istros 18, 199-212. Clarke, G., 1979: The Roman cemetery at Lankhills, Oxford (Winchester Studies 3). 27 Clarke, J., 2003: Art in the lives of ordinary Romans. Visual representation and non-elite viewers in Italy, 100 BC-AD 315, Los Angeles. Cochran, D., 2013: Projecting power in sixth-century Rome: The church of Santi Cosma e Damiano in the late antique Forum Romanum, Journal of History and Cultures 3, 1-32. Dannehl, K., 2009: Object biographies. From production to consumption, in K. Harvey (ed.), History and material culture. A student’s guide to approaching alternative sources, London, 123-138. Deliyannis, D., 2010: Ravenna in Late Antiquity, Cambridge. Deppert-Lippitz, B., 2000: A Late Antique crossbow fibula in The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Metropolitan Museum Journal 35, 39-70. Eastmond, A., 2010: Consular diptychs, rhetoric and the languages of art in sixth century Constantinople, Art History 33/5, 742-765. Elsner, J., 1998: Imperial Rome and Christian triumph. The art of the Roman empire AD 100-450, Oxford. Elsner, J., 2000: From the culture of spolia to the cult of relics. The arch of Constantine and the genesis of late antique forms, Papers of the British School at Rome 68, 149-184. Ettlinger, E., 1973: Die römischen Fibeln in der Schweiz, Bern. Evans, H., 1993: An early christian sarcophagus from Rome lost and found, Metropolitan Museum Journal, 77-84. Feugère, M., 1985: Les fibules en Gaule méridionale de la conquète à la fin de Ve siécle après J.C., Paris. Giumlia-Mair, A./C. De Cecco/S. Vitri, 2009: Fibulae production at Socchieve (Udine, Italy) in Late Antiquity, Proceedings of the 2nd archaeometallurgy in Europe conference, Aquileia 2007, Aquileia. Gosden, C./Y. Marshall, 1999: The cultural biography of objects, World archaeology 31/2, 169-178. Gosserez, L., 2005: Le diptyque Carrand: la conversion des païens et l’idéologie impériale du Ve siècle, Revue d’études augustiniennes et patristiques 51/1, 109-126. Grabherr, G./B. Kainratch/T. Schierl (eds), 2013: Verwandte in der Fremde. Fibeln und Bestandteile der Bekleidung als Mittel zur Rekonstruktion von interregionalem Austausch und zur Abgrenzung von Gruppen vom Ausgreifen Roms während des1. Punischen Krieges bis zum Ende des weströmischen Reiches, Proceedings of the international conference on fibulas in the Roman empire, Innsbruck 2011, Innsbruck. Hamilakis, Y., 1999: Stories from exile. Fragments from the cultural biography of the Parthenon (or ‘Elgin’) marbles, World archaeology 31/2, 303-320. Heurgon, J., 1958: Le trésor de Ténès, Paris. Hull, M.R./C.F.C. Hawkes, 1987: Corpus of ancient brooches in Britain. Pre-Roman bow brooches, Oxford (British Archaeological Reports 168). James, H./I. Henderson/S. Foster/S. Jones (eds), 2008: A Fragmented Masterpiece. Recovering the biography of the Hilton of Cadboll Pictish cross-slab, Edinburgh. Jobst, W., 1975: Die römischen Fibeln aus Lauriacum, Linz (Forschungen in Lauriacum 10). Keller, E., 1971: Die spätrömische Grabfunde in Südbayern, München. Kiilerich, B., 2000: Representing an emperor: style and meaning on the missorium of Theodosius I, in M. Almagro et al. (eds), El disco de Teodosio 2000, Madrid, 273-280. Kitzinger, E., 1977: Byzantine art in the making. Main lines of stylistic development in Mediterranean art, 3rd-7th century, Cambridge. Kopytoff, I., 1986:The cultural biography of things. Commodization as process, in A. Appadurai (ed.), The social life of things. Commodities in cultural perspective, Cambridge, 64-91. Kovrig, I., 1937: Die Haupttypen der kaiserzeitlichen Fibeln in Pannonien, Budapest. Lafli, E./M. Buora, 2012: Fibulae in the Museum of Ödemiş (Western Turkey), Oriental Archive 80, 1-18. Lazaridou, A. (ed.) 2011: Transition to Christianity. AArt of Late Antiquity, 3rd-7th century AD, New York. http://www.onassisusa.org/transition/ebook/ Leader, R.E., 2000: The David Plates revisited. Transforming the secular in early Byzantium, The Art Bulletin 82/3, 407-427. 28 Lioce, L., 2013: Ritratti tardoantichi nelle catacombe di San Gennaro a Napoli, Bari (unpbulished MA thesis Università degli Studi di Bari). Olovsdotter, C., 2003: The consular diptychs. An iconological study, Göteborg (PhD-thesis Göteborg University). Parani, M., 2007: Defining personal space. Dress and accessories in Late Antiquity, in L. Lavan/E. Swift/T. Putzeys (eds), Objects in context. Objects in use, Leiden (Late Antique Archaeology 5), 497-529. Pauli, M., 2013: Übergangsform Scharnierarm-/Zwiebelknopffibeln Typ Richborough und Gürtelschnallen Typ Intercisa-Trachtzubehör des späten 3. Jhs. aus Augusta Vindelicum/Augsburg, in G. Grabherr/B. Kainrath/T. Schierl (eds), 401-426. Pensabene, P./E. Gallocchio, 2011: The Villa del Casale of Piazza Armerina, Expedition, The magazine of the University of Pennsylvania 53, 29-37. Petković, S., 2010: Crossbow fibulae from Gamzigrad (Romuliana), Starinar 60, 111-136. Pflaum, H.G., 1948: Le marbre de Thorigny, Paris. Pröttel, P., 1988: Zur chronologie der Zwiebelknopffibeln, Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz 35 /1, 347-372. Riha, E., 1979: Die römischen Fibeln aus Augst und Kaiseraugst, Augst. Shelton, K.J., 1985: The Esquiline Treasure. The nature of the evidence, American Journal of Archaeology 21, 147-155. Soupault,V., 2003: Les éléments métalliques du costume masculin dans les provinces romaines de la mer Noire: IIIeVe s. ap. J.-C, Oxford (British Archaeological Reports International Series 1167). Swift, E., 2000: Regionality in dress accessories in the Late Roman West, Montagnac. Van Buchem, H., 1941: De fibulae van Nijmegen, Nijmegen. Van Buchem, H., 1966: De gouden speld van Julianus, Numaga 13, 50-104. Van Thienen, V./S. Vanhoutte, 2012: De studie van de fibulae van het Romeinse castellum van Oudenburg, Signa 1, 142-152. Vipard, P., 2008: Marmor tauriniacum, le marbre de Thorigny (Vieux, Calvados). La carrière d’un grand notable gaulois au début du troisième siècle ap. JC, Gallia Romana 8, Nancy. Von Patek, E., 1942: Verbreitung und Herkunft der römischen Fibeltypen in Pannonien, Budapest. Watson, C.J., 1981: The program of the Brescia casket, Gesta, 283-298. Weitzmann, K., 1979: Age of Spirituality. Late Antique and Early Christian art,tThird to seventh century, New York. 29

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS

Log In

A symbol of Late Roman authority revisited: a socio-historical understanding of the crossbow brooch

A symbol of Late Roman authority revisited: a socio-historical understanding of the crossbow brooch

Related Papers

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS