Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T06:52:20.399Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Early Anglo-Saxon Applied Disc Brooches. Part I: On the Continent1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 November 2011

Vera I. Evison
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Fragments of an applied brooch found among the tiles of the collapsed roof of the Roman bath building in Lower Thames Street, London, were exhibited to the Society in March 1969, and they again raised the question of the date of this type of brooch. The applied saucer brooch in Anglo-Saxon England has often been discussed in connection with the cast saucer brooch, and as the two types are very similar in appearance, it would be as well at the outset to remind ourselves of their several distinguishing features. The Anglo-Saxon applied brooch consists of a disc or back plate of metal, usually bronze and concave, but sometimes flat; the spring lug and pin catch at the back are often separate pieces of metal fixed through slots in the disc, and the pin is of iron or occasionally bronze. On top of the back plate is fastened, by means of some adhesive material, a disc of thin, gilt, bronze sheet, decorated with a repoussé design. There was sometimes an intervening packing of perishable material no longer traceable. A circular band of bronze is fastened on the edge at an angle to the disc to form a rim. When found, the rim and decorative plate have usually become detached, and have often been lost altogether. It is not surprising, therefore, that an alternative method was adopted to make a more durable construction in one piece; the base plate with spring lug and pin catch, together with the decorative surface and rim, were all cast in one piece, so forming the saucer brooch. This was a development of the applied brooch, but the two types continued in use at the same time, and as one design often occurs on both types, they are usually considered together. As there are very few saucer brooches on the Continent, however, possibly contemporary specimens are mainly excluded from the present review, nor will any attention be paid to the larger applied brooches found almost exclusively in this country, many of which are ornamented with animals in Style I and belong mainly to the sixth century.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Antiquaries Journal , Volume 58 , Issue 1 , March 1978 , pp. 88 - 102
Copyright
Copyright © The Society of Antiquaries of London 1978

Access options

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

References

NOTES

1 ‘Early Anglo-Saxon applied disc brooches, Part II: in England’, will appear in Antiq. Journ. Iviii, part II. Acknowledgements will appear in Part II.

2 Antiq. Journ. xlix (1969), 395.Google ScholarA fragment of eastern Mediterranean amphora from the same site was also exhibited, ibid., 396. Merrifield, R., The Archaeology of London (1975), fig. 41aGoogle Scholar.

3 Böhme, H. W., Germanische Grabfunde des 4. bis 5. Jahrhunderts (1974).Google Scholar

4 Welch, M. G., ‘Mitcham Grave 205 and the chronology of applied bropches with floriate cross decoration’, Antiq. Journ. lv (1975), 86–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Note on item 45 in Cunliffe, B., Excavations at Portchester Castle, II, Saxon (1976), 206–11Google Scholar.

5 Thomas, S., ‘Zur Verbreitung der römischen und germanischen Scheibenfibeln im Freien Germanien wahrend der römischen Kaiserzeit’, Praehist. Zeitschr. xli (1963), 213Google Scholar; ‘Die provinzialromischen Scheibenfibeln der römischen Kaiserzeit im freien Germanien’, Berliner Jahrbuch für Vor- und Frühgeschichte, vi (1966), 119–78Google Scholar; ‘Die germanischen Scheibenfibeln der römischen Kaiserzeit’, Berliner Jahrbuch für Vor- und Frühgeschichte, vii (1967), 1–187Google Scholar.

6 Oxon. xvii/xviii (1952/1953), 57.Google Scholar

7 Schach-Dorges, H., Die Bodenfunde des 3. bis 6. Jahrhunderts nach Chr. zwischen unterer Elbe und Oder, Of a Bücher, Bd. 23 (1970), Taf. 91.Google Scholar

8 Roeder, F. ‘Die sächsische Schalenfibel der Völkerwanderungszeit’, Göttinger Beiträge zur deutschen Kulturgeschichte, (1927), pp. 15–52.Google Scholar

9 BonnerJahrbücher, lxxxvi(1888), 209Google Scholar, grave 1.

10 Steeger, A., Germanische Funde der Völkertaanderungszeit aus Krefeld (1937), pl. 19.Google Scholar

11 H-G, Staffend, ‘Eine Scheibenfibel aus Immer, Gemeinde Ganderkesee’, Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt, ii (1972), 211–12.Google Scholar

12 Thomas, op. cit., 1967, pl. v, 1.

13 Grohne, E., Mahndorf (1953), pp. 182–3,Google Scholar Abb. 65; Böhme, op. cit., 1974, Taf. 10, 5–6.

14 Evison, V. I., The Fifth-century Invasions South of the Thames (1965), p. 69Google Scholar, fig. 1, g, h; the grave contents reconstructed by Böhme, op. cit., 1974, Taf. 138, 5.

15 The star motif disc referred to by Welch in grave 88 at Oudenburg(Welch, op. cit., 1976, p. 208, note 1; Mertens, J. and Impe, L. van, ‘Het Laat-Romeins Grafveld van Oudenburg’ Archaeologica Belgica, cxxxv (1971), pl. xxviiGoogle Scholar, 6) is not a disc brooch as stated by him. Mr. Welch noted that this was decorated in the style used on tutulus brooches, and it was, indeed, no doubt part of a tutulus brooch–there were two in the grave. Another fragment in the grave, however, of a repoussé disc with zigzag border, may well have been part of a disc brooch, perhaps attached to a back plate with a border which although not nearby was in the same grave (Mertens/van Impe, op. cit., 1971, pl. XXVIII, 7 and 4, a, b). It is interesting to note that three of the applied brooch patterns, the star, floriate cross, and five spiral, appear on the discs of the tutulus brooches, a type limited to the fourth century.

16 Böhme, op. cit., 1974, 332.

17 Waller, K., Der Galgenberg bei Cuxhaven (1938), Taf. 43Google Scholar, 7, 8, and 9;Genrich, A., ‘Uber Schmuckgegenstände der Völkerwanderungszeit im nordöstlichen Niedersachsen’, Neues Archiv für Niedersachsen, xxiii (1951), 261–2Google Scholar; Böhme, op. cit., 1974, Taf. 36, 10–11.

18 Genrich, A., ‘Der gemischtbelegte Friedhof bei Liebenau, Kr. Nienburg (Weser)’, Nachrichten aus Niedersachsens Urgeschichte, xxxviii (1969), 3–24Google Scholar, Abb. 5, 2, and 3; Böhme, op. cit., Taf. 29, 14.

19 Ibid., Taf. 85, 3.

20 Ibid., Taf. 60, 1–5.

21 Pirling, R., Das römische-fränkische Gräberfeld von Krefeld-Gellep (1966), Taf. 105Google Scholar; Böhme, op. cit., 1974, Taf. 80, 20–1.

22 Åberg, N., Den historiska relationen mellan senromersk tid och nordisk folkvandringstid (1956), fig. 80.Google Scholar

23 Genrich, op. cit., 1969, Abb. 5, 3.

24 Plettke, A., Die Urnenfriedhofe in Niedersachsen (1921), 29Google Scholar, Taf. 10, 11;Waller, K., Das Graberfeld von Altenzaalde, Kreis Land Hadeln (1957), p. 127Google Scholar, Taf. 15; Böhme, op. cit., 1974, Taf. 2, 12.

25 K. Waller, op. cit., 1938, Taf. 44, 1–7, 9; Genrich op. cit., 1951, 271; Böhme, op. cit., 1974, Taf. 36, 14–15.

26 Zimmer-Linfeld, K., Gummel, H., and Waller, K., Westerwanna I (1960), Taf. 65Google Scholar; Böhme, op. cit., 1974, Taf. 36, 14–15.

27 Information from Dr. A. Genrich.

28 Böhme, op. cit., 1974, Taf. 62, 19, 20.

29 Es, W. A. van and Ypey, J., ‘Das Grab der “Prinzessin” von Zweeloo und seine Bedeutung in Rahmen des Gräberfeldes’, Studien zur Sachsenforschung (1977), ed. Hassler, H.-J.,; , Böhme, op. cit., 1974, Taf. 73Google Scholar, 13, 14.

30 Pirling, op. cit., 1966, Taf. 22; Böhme, op. cit., 1974, Taf. 76, 12.

31 Lange, W. R., ‘Zwei Körpergräber der frühen Völkerwanderungszeit aus Bad Lippspringe, Kr.Paderborn’, Germania, xxxvii (1959), 298–302Google Scholar; Böhme, op. cit., 1974, Taf. 4, 5–6.

32 Boeles, P. C. J. A., Friesland tot de elfde eeuta (1951), pl. xxxvGoogle Scholar, 9; Böhme, op. cit., 1974, Taf. 58, 15.

33 Roeder, op. cit., 1927, 46; Namurcum, iv (1927), 41–3Google Scholar (gilt bronze with scalloped border, diam. 4–9 cm.); Böhme, op. cit., 1974, Taf. 92, 12.

34 Pirling, op. cit., 1966, Taf. 79; Böhme, op. cit., 1974, Taf. 79, 11.

35 Pirling, R., Das römische-fränkische Graberfeld von Krefeld-Gellep 1960–1963 (1974), Taf. 25.Google Scholar

36 Genrich, A. and Falk, A., Liebenau, Ein sächsisches Graberfeld (1972), Abb. 12Google Scholar, 2.

37 Janssen, W., Issendorf, Ein Urnenfriedhof der späten Kaiserzeit und der Völkenoanderungszeit (1972), Taf. 23Google Scholar, f, Taf. 65, f.

38 Oxon. xvii/xviii (1952/1953), pl. ivGoogle Scholar, c.

39 Waller, op. cit., 1938, 69, Taf. 47, 2.

40 Roeder, op. cit., 1927, 22–3, Taf. 3, 2; Böhme, op. cit., 1974, Taf. 32, 8; A pair of ‘Perlberg’ type brooches have just been noted in grave 86 (unpublished) at Zweeloo, H.-J. Hassler, op. cit., 1977, 103.

41 Grohne, op. cit., 1953, Abb. 66, 67B–these grave numbers are now altered to 249 and 68 respectively, see Böhme, op. cit., 1974, 224–6, Taf. 11, 4–7 and Taf. 7, 7–14.

42 Leeds, E. T., ‘The distribution of the Anglo-Saxon saucer brooch in relation to the Battle of Bedford, A.D. 571’, Arch. lxiii (1912), 159–202,Google Scholarfig. 12.

43 Roeder, op. cit., 1927, Taf. 3, 3a and b.

44 Evison, op. cit., 1965, 70, pl. 17, c.

45 Coutil, L., ‘Département de l'Eure, Archéologie Gauloise, Gallo-Romaine, Franque et Carolingienne II Arrondissement de Louviers’, Bulletins de la Société d'Etudes Diverses de Louviers (1898–1921), 44Google Scholar, plate between pp. 40 and 41, fig. 2; Böhme, op. cit., 1974, Taf. 127, 15, one brooch only illustrated.

46 Information from Mr. J. Ypey.

47 Decaens, J., ‘Un nouveau cimetière du haut moyen âge en Normandie, Hérouvillette (Calvados)’, Arch. Med. i (1971), fig. 26.Google Scholar

48 Pirling, op. cit., 1966, Taf. 16; Böhme, op. cit., 1974, Taf. 76, 11.

49 Trierer Zeitschrift, xxxvi (1973), 266Google Scholar, Abb. D. 14.

50 Waller, op. cit., 1938, Taf. 48, 5–10; Grohne, op. cit., 1953, Abb. 67a, 68b, 69c; Roeder, op. cit., 1927, 21, 47, Abb. 6.

51 Zimmer-Linfeld, et al., op. cit., 1960, graves 124, 241, 301, 826, 862, 1009, 1167, 1238, 1370, 1372, 1421; Waller, op. cit., 1957, 26, Taf. 4, 8022, 73, Taf. 10, 8154.

52 Böhme, op. cit., 1974, Taf. 61, 2; 61, 9; 64,18.

53 Pirling, op. cit., 1966, Taf. 85, 9–12.

54 Roeder, F. ‘Neue Funde auf kontinentalsachsischen Friedhofen der Völkerwanderungszeit’, Anglia, lvii (1933), 321–60, 333Google Scholar; Werner, J., ‘Die frühgeschichtlichen Grabfunde vom Spielberg bei Erlbach, Ldkr. Nördlingen, und von Fürst, Ldkr. Laufena.d. Salzach’, Bayerische Vorgeschichtsblätter, XXV (1960), 164Google Scholar; Bonner Jahrbücher, lxxxvi (1888), 209Google Scholar.

55 Roeder, op. cit., 1933, Taf. xxiv, xxv.

56 Genrich, op. cit., 1951, Abb. 30.

57 Brown, G. Baldwin, The Arts in Early England, iv (1915), pl. CXLIXGoogle Scholar, 1.