The Origins and Development of the Penannular Brooch in Europe

Elizabeth Fowler

doi:10.1017/S0079497X00016285

The Origins and Development of the Penannular Brooch in Europe

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 May 2014

Elizabeth Fowler

Article contents

Extract
References

Get access

Rights & Permissions

Extract

This paper is in a sense a by-product of a detailed study of ‘Dark Age’ metalwork and grew out of the realization that any interpretation of post-Roman history depends on an understanding of the archaeology of Roman and Iron Age Britain. For too long, the post-Roman world has been regarded as separate from the preceding periods, and has been seen mainly through aesthetic spectacles. Recent studies of the pottery of the period have to some extent corrected the perspective hitherto largely based on subjective and even nationalistic examinations of the better known art and metalwork. To make a new and comparable survey of the metalwork seemed worthwhile, and in doing this attention was focused on the ordinary, and common, pieces of metalwork which have been overshadowed by the more magnificent and highly decorated pieces. It became evident that in many ways the Roman occupation was not all important but was merely a minor factor in the development of material culture, and that this was particularly true of the Military Province of Britain. The specialist nature of so much of Romano-British archaeology has tended to obscure the continuity of Iron Age culture. It was felt that the selection of one or more pieces of metalwork might illustrate this as well as providing a background for the achievements in metalwork and design in the ‘Dark Ages’.

The penannular brooch was chosen as the ‘type-fossil’ for this study because it was the typical and characteristic dress ornament of the Celtic post-Roman world, was equally common in Romano-British contexts and seemed to be native to these islands. A complete run through from Iron Age to Early Christian times has thus been obtained, and it is hoped that deductions drawn from a study of the penannular brooches may be paralleled and applied to other metalwork of the period and so allow general conclusions to be drawn. A more personal reason for selecting the penannular brooch was a desire to investigate the reasons for such a bewildering variety of contradictory opinions on the origin and development of the type.

Type: Research Article
Information: Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society , Volume 26 , December 1960 , pp. 149 - 177

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0079497X00016285 [Opens in a new window]
Copyright: Copyright © The Prehistoric Society 1960

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

^{page 149 note 1} E.g. Myers, J. N. L., ‘Romano-Saxon Pottery’, Dark Age Britain, 16–39Google Scholar. Charles Thomas in Journal of Mediaeval Archaeology, III, forthcoming.

^{page 149 note 2} Among British publications Gray, St. George commented in the Glastonbury Report, 204Google Scholar; Coffey, George in Celtic Antiquities of the Christian Period, 20Google Scholar; Mahr, Adolf in Christian Art in Ancient Ireland, 11, 19–23Google Scholar; Munro, Robert in Archaeology and False Antiquities, 218Google Scholar; Watson, William, AJ, XXVII (1947), 178–82Google Scholar; Savory, H. N., Dark Age Britain, 48Google Scholar, footnote 42. Among European writers Mestorf mentioned ‘penannulars’ in Urnenfriedhöfe in Schleswig-Holstein, 1886; Berta Stjernquist developed Mestorf's arguments in Meddelanden fran Lunds Universitetets Historiska Museum (1947), 195 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 150 note 1} This work was done as part of a B. Litt. thesis in the University of Oxford. My grateful thanks are due to the Carnegie Trust for the Universities of Scotland and to Professor Stuart Piggott and Professor Christopher Hawkes for all their help and encouragement. Although it is impossible to name individually the numerous museum authorities and friends who have helped with the compilation of the corpus and in other ways, I should like to express my gratitude to them all.

^{page 152 note 1} Watson, W., AJ, XXVII (1947), 182Google Scholar. Kilbride-Jones, H. E., PRIA, XLIII C (1935–1937), 392Google Scholar.

^{page 152 note 2} PSAS, LXX (1935–1936), 125Google Scholar.

^{page 155 note 1} See Appendix p. 171 for details and references.

^{page 155 note 2} Hawkes, C. F. C., Ant., XXXIII (1959), 179–81Google Scholar.

^{page 155 note 3} C. F. C. Hawkes, op. cit., 179 and 184.

^{page 155 note 4} Childe, V. G., Prehistoric Communities of the British Isles (1952), 203Google Scholar.

^{page 156 note 1} Hawkes, C. F. C., AJ, XX (1940), 115–21, 276–9Google Scholar and XXVI (1946), 187 ff, and Fox, C., Pattern and Purpose (1958)Google Scholar, chap. 2.

^{page 156 note 2} C. Fox, op. cit., 8, 13.

^{page 156 note 3} Dunning, G. C., Arch. J., XCI (1934), 278Google Scholar.

^{page 156 note 4} Fox, C., Arch. Camb., LXXXII (1927), 67Google Scholar.

^{page 156 note 5} G. C. Dunning, op. cit., fig. 4/10.

^{page 156 note 6} Gross, , La Tène, un Oppidum Helvète, 38, pl. x/10Google Scholar. Vouga, , La Tène (1923), 48, pl. viii/34Google Scholar.

^{page 156 note 7} E.g. Keiller, , The Lake Dwellings of Europe (1878)Google Scholar, pl. XCIV/9, pl. XCV/8.

^{page 156 note 8} Piggott, S., PPS, XVI (1950), 8Google Scholar.

^{page 156 note 9} Fox, C., Pattern and Purpose (1958), 19Google Scholar.

^{page 156 note 10} Cf. Elgee, Early Man in Yorkshire.

^{page 156 note 11} Childe, V. G., Prehistoric Communities of the British Isles (1952), 257–8Google Scholar.

^{page 157 note 1} Dunning, G. C., Arch. J., XCI (1934), fig. 4Google Scholar.

^{page 157 note 2} Jacobstal, P. and Hawkes, C. F. C., AJ, XXV (1945), 121Google Scholar.

^{page 157 note 3} Hawkes, C. F. C., Ant., XXXII (1959), 180Google Scholar.

^{page 157 note 4} Piggott, S., PPS, XVI (1950), 2Google Scholar.

^{page 157 note 5} See Ant., XXXIII (1959), 181–3 and fig. 3. Also p. 186.Google Scholar

^{page 158 note 1} Schulten, , Numantia, II, 244, taf 50 /4–9Google Scholar. I owe the information about the penannular brooches from the ‘castros’ such as Citánia de Briterios, Castro de Sabroso, etc., to the kindness of Professor Hawkes.

^{page 158 note 2} Dr Ilid Anthony has informed me that the lack of stratification in the ‘castros’ is due to the fact that the bed-rock is near the surface and that the inhabitants seem to have swept out their debris. This means that few ‘castros’ have been found to have ‘archaeological’ levels.

^{page 158 note 3} Cuevillas, F. López, La Civilization Celtica en Galicia (1953), 339Google Scholar.

^{page 158 note 4} A. Mahr, op. cit., note 2.

^{page 158 note 5} Cuadrado, E., Zephyrus, VIII (1957), 24–3Google Scholar.

^{page 159 note 1} Fox, C., Pattern and Purpose (1958), XXIV–XXV, pl. 2fGoogle Scholar. and 31.

^{page 159 note 2} E.g. Hill, Bredon, Hencken, T. C., Arch., XCV (1938), 1 ff.Google Scholar Sutton Walls, K. M. Kenyon. ibid., CX (1948)1 ff.

^{page 159 note 3} Radford, C. A. R., PPS, XX (1954), 17Google Scholar, following Leeds, E. T., Arch., LXXVI (1927), 230Google Scholar.

^{page 159 note 4} Nicholas Thomas, M.A., F.S.A., has kindly allowed me to see the small penannular brooch found at Danes' Camp with ‘duck-pottery’, and this is not a Type B.

^{page 159 note 5} There is a La Tène II brooch from Citánia de Briteiros so like the one from the Bridlington find as to suggest it was a direct British export, but one brooch does not constitute a trade. I owe this information to Professor Hawkes.

^{paeg 159 note 6} Hinsch, Eric, Finska Fornminnesföreningens Tidsskrift, LII, Helsingfors (1951), 62–4Google Scholar. I owe this reference and the drawings of the brooches to the kindness of Fru. Charlotte Blindheim, Universitetets Oldsaksamling, Oslo.

^{page 160 note 1} C. J. Becker, op. cit., note 36, 29–50.

^{page 160 note 2} B. Sternquist, op. cit., note 2.

^{page 160 note 3} Mestorf, , Vorgeschichtliche Altertümer aiis Schleswig-Holstein (1885), taf. xxxviii/24Google Scholar.

^{page 160 note 4} Nytén, Erik, in Valhagar I, 465–7Google Scholar.

^{paeg 161 note 1} Piggott, S., The Problem of the Picts (1955), 58, 61–2Google Scholar, summarises the evidence.

^{page 161 note 2} Cotton, M. A., Arch. J., CXI (1954), 63Google Scholar.

^{page 161 note 3} S. Piggott, op. cit., 56–7 and references.

^{page 161 note 4} Hawkes, C. F. C., Ant. XXXIII (1959), 181–2Google Scholar and footnotes 45 and 46.

^{page 161 note 5} PSA Lond, XXIX (1916–1917), 55, fig. 6Google Scholar.

^{page 161 note 6} Allen, D. F. quoted in Ant., XXXIII (1959), 186–7Google Scholar.

^{page 163 note 1} Law, Castle, PSAS, XXXIII (1898–1890), 22, fig. 17Google Scholar. Rahoy, ibid., LXXII (1937–8), 40, fig. 10.

^{page 163 note 2} Greenwell, and Rolleston, , British Barrows (1877), 209, fig. 11Google Scholar.

^{page 163 note 3} R. E. M. Wheeler, Maiden Castle, fig. 81/5.

^{page 163 note 4} Fox, C., Pattern and Purpose (1958), 16, fig. 13 fGoogle Scholar.

^{page 163 note 5} Stevenson, R. B. K., PPS, XXI (1955). 288Google Scholar.

^{page 163 note 6} M. A. Cotton, op. cit., and sites like Manching, Lehnensburg, and Wittnauer Horn.

^{page 163 note 7} Staple Howe, Yorks., is at present still unpublished.

^{page 163 note 8} PSAS, LXXXIX (1955–1956), 249Google Scholar.

^{page 163 note 9} PSAS, LXXXIII (1948–1949), 60Google Scholar and RCAM, Roxburghshire, 15–22.

^{page 165 note 1} S. Piggott, op. cit., 59–60 and footnote 1.

^{page 166 note 1} See Appendix p. 175.

^{page 166 note 2} Smith, R. A., Arch., LXV (1913–1914), 223Google Scholar. The cemetery was published in Mittheil. de prähist. Comm. de Kais. Acad. d. Wissenschaften, 1, 5 (1901), 291 ff.Google Scholar The brooches are figs. 99, 125 and 155.

^{page 166 note 3} Le Hradischt de Stradonitz en Bohème, Pić (1906), 58Google Scholar, footnote 90, pl. XXCIII/3 and pl. xvi/4. Moberg, , Acta. Arch., XXI (1950), 83–131Google Scholar and ibid., XXIII (1952), 1 ff.

^{page 167 note 1} CIL, XVI, 43, 48, 51. Cheesman, The Auxilia of the Roman Imperial Army. Appendix II.

^{paeg 167 note 2} CIL, VII, 52.

^{page 167 note 3} Chenet, G., Revue des Musées et Collection Archéologiques, no. 7 (1926), 236–40Google Scholar.

^{page 167 note 4} PSAS, LXX (1935–1936), 125Google Scholar.

^{page 169 note 1} PSAS, LXXXIX (1955–1956), 164, fig. 2 /86Google Scholar.

^{page 169 note 2} Savory, H. M., in Dark Age Britain, 47, fig. 2Google Scholar.

^{page 169 note 3} PSAS, LXXXIX (1955–1956), 137–8, 169. fig. 3 /102 and 108Google Scholar.

^{page 169 note 4} de Paor, M. and de Paor, L., Early Christian Ireland, 35Google Scholar.

Article contents

The Origins and Development of the Penannular Brooch in Europe

Extract

Access options

References

Save article to Kindle

Save article to Dropbox

Save article to Google Drive

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests