IMPORTANT! This work must be read with the figures given in the original work.

Unfortunately I am unable to insert the images directly into this document at this time because it crashes my word processor. Here is a link to a folder containing the necessary figures.

The Old Germanic AnimalOrnamentation

A typologic study about Germanic Metallurgy from the IV. to IX. centuries, and also a study on Irish Ornamentation by Bernhard Salin Translated from the Swedish Manuscript by J. Mestorf Stockholm K. L. Bechmans Buchdruckerei 1904 In commission for A. Asher and C:o, Berlin

The illustrations with a few exceptions by O. Srling, illustrator from the Royal Academy of Shining Sciences, History and Archaeology. The woodcuts mostly xylographed by W. Meijer and E. Hansen. The chemigrams and halftones by Justus Cederqvist's Institute. All Rights reserved.

Foreword. As I now commit this very work to the public, I would like to emphasize that in the study of ornamental phenomena, in this day and age, we must not let ourselves get caught up in aesthetic matters, as one seems prone to find on many sides. A phase of culture, which is suitable for the flourishing of animal ornamentation, is not so far gone in its development that one can place its handcrafted products on a purely aesthetic scale. We can probably bewonder the amazing sureness in chiseling, the imaginative versatility in the composition, however the failure of the ancient Germanics to separate the essential from the trivial, to subordinate the details to the whole, complicates the perception of their ornamental works and leads to these becoming mistaken for the next sort in the same generation of stationary peoples. Hence I will emphasize in advance that in studies of Germanic animal ornamentation, we must place the greatest importance in scrutiny of detail. We certainly maintain this to be more or less tiring, but since any truly rigorous study and only such can lead to helpful results, we must ground ourselves in the study of details. The descriptions in this work may thus seem rather dry to some of my readers, but scientific research is surely in principle no entertaining lecture. I have scooped the underlying material of this essay partly from literary sources, in part directly from prehistoric collections. One will find the literary sources mainly in notes under the text or given in the index of illustrations. More important than the literary studies were for me the visits and the research in museums and here it appears the evaluation of my work is of significance to me, to show how extensive the knowledge of the material is, on which the observations presented here are supported. Thus I give here a list of museums which I have visited in the years 1891, 1892, 1895, 1896, 1898. These travels encompass altogether more than two years. I have incidentally incorporated several museums in the list in which I encountered no material from the Migration Period; they are still of importance as they suggest the extent of my studies.
Belgium. Bruxelles Lige Namur Muses royaux des arts dcoratifs et industriels. Muse archologique. Muse archologique. Denmark. Kbenhavn Nationalmuseum. Germany. Ansbach Sammlungen des historischen Vereins.

Augsburg Berlin " " Bonn Breslau Bromberg Cln Danzig Darmstadt Dresden " Elbing Frankfurt a. M. Frankfurt a. d. O. Greifswald Halle Hamburg " Hannover Hanau Heidelberg Homburg v. d. Hhe Ingolstadt Karlstruhe Kassel Kiel Knigsberg " Konstanz Landshut Leipsig Lubeck Mainz Mnchen " " Neu-Brandenburg Neu-Strelitz Nrnberg " Osnabrck Posen Regensburg Schwerin Sigmaringen Speyer Stettin Stralsund Stuttgart Thorn Traunstein Ulm Wiesbaden Worms

Maximilians Museum. Museum fr Vlkerkunde. Mrkisches Museum. Knigl. Antiquarium. Museum schlesischer Alterthmer. Provinzial Museum. Sammlung des historischen Vereins fr den Netzedistrikt. Wallraf-Richartz-Museum. Westpreussisches Provinzial Museum. Grossherzogliches Museum. Knigliche Prhistorische Sammlung. Alterthums Museum. Sammlung der Alterthumsgesellschaft. Stdtisches Historisches Museum. Sammlung des historischen Vereins zu Frankfurt a. d. O. Sammlung vaterlndischer Alterthmer der Universitt. Provinzial Museum heimathlicher Geschichte und Alterthumskunde. Sammlung vorgeschichtlicher Alterthumer im naturhistorischen Museum. Museum fr Kunst und Gewerbe. Provinzial Museum. Sammlung des Bezirkvereins fr hessiche Geschicts- und Landeskunde. Stdtische Kunst- und Altherthmer-Sammlung. Saalburg Museum. Sammlung des historischen Vereins. Grossherzogliche Staats-Alterthmer-Sammlung. Museum Fridericianum. Schleswig-Holsteinisches Museum vaterlndischer Alterthmer. Museum der Alterthums-Gescellschaft Prussia. Provinzial Museum der Physikalisch konomischen Gesellschaft. Rosgarten Museum. Sammlung des historischen Vereins von Nieder-Baiern. Die Sammlung der deutschen Gesellschaft. Museum Lbeckischer Kunst- und Kulturgeschichte. Museum des Vereins zur Erforschung Rheinischer Geschichte und Alterthmer; Rmisch-germanisches Central-Museum. Baierisches National Museum. Universitts Museum. Museum des historischen Vereins von Oberbaiern. Sammlung des Museums Vereins. Grossherzogliche Alterthums-Sammlung. Germanisches National-Museum. Museum der naturwissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft Sammlung des Museums Vereins. Sammlung der polnischen Gesellschaft der Freunde der Wissenschaften. Sammlung des historischen Vereins fr Wissenschaft und Kunst. Grossherzogliches Museum. Frstl. Hohenzollernsches Museum fr Wissenschaft und Kunst. Historisches Museum der Pfalz. Alterthums-Museum. Provinzial Museum fr Neu-Vorpommern und Rgen. Staats-Sammlung vaterlndischer Kunst- und Alterthums-Denkmler. Stdtisches Museum. Stdtsiches Museum. Sammlung des Vereins fr Kunst und Alterthum. Museum fr Nassauische Alterthmer. Paulus Museum. France.

Amiens Muse de Picardie. Angers Muse d'antiquits. Bayeux Muse scientifique et archologique. Besanon Muse archologique. Blois Muse scientifique et archologique. Caen Muse de la socit des antiquares de Normandie. Chambry Muse scientifique et archologique. Dijon Muse archologique. Lille Muse d'archologie et Jules de Vicq. Lyon Muses (au Palais des Arts.) Nantes Muse d'archologie. Orleans Musehistorique de l'Orlanais. Paris Muse du Louvre. " Muse des Thermes et de l'Hotel de Cluny. " Bibliothque nationale. Rennes Muse archologique. Rouen Muse dpartemental d'antiquits. S:t Germain-en-Laye Muse des antiquits nationales. Tours Muse de la socit archologique de Touraine. Vannes Muse archologique. Great Britain. Belfast Cambridge " " Dublin " " Edinburh " Glasgow Liverpool London " " " " Oxford " York Museum. University Museum. University Library. Corpus Christi college. Museum of Science & Arts. Trinity college. Royal irish academy. Nationalmuseum of antquities. Museum of Science & Arts. Kelvingrove Museum. Free public Museums. British Museum. Guildhall Museum. South Kensington Museum. Lambeth Library. British Museums Library. Ashmolan Museum. Bodleian Library. Museum. Holland. Leiden Utrecht Rijks Museum van Oudheden. Museum van Oudheden. Italy. Belluno Bergamo Bologna Brescia Chiusi Cividale Como Este Firenze " Imola Museo civico. Biblioteca. Museo civico. Museo civico. Museo civico. Museo di Cividale. Museo archeologico. Museo-Euganeo-preistorico. Museo nazionale. Museo archeologico. Museo civico di storia nazionale.

Lucca Milano Modena Monza Napoly Orvieto Padua Palermo Parma Pesaro Ravenna " Reggio niell' Emilia Rimini Roma " " " " " Siracusa Torino Treviso Udine Venezia Verona

Pinacoteca. Museo archeologico. Museo civico. Die Schatzkammer in der Domkirche. Museo nazionale. Museo civico. Museo civico. Museo nazionale. Museo d'antichit. Ateneo pesarese. Museo di Classe. Museo nazionale. Museo Chierici. Museo civico. Museo preistorico etnografico e Kircheriano. Museo capitolino. Museo nazionale romano. Museo vaticano. Museo lateranense. Sammlung Castellani. Museo archeologico nazionale. Museo d'antiquit. Museo Trevisano. Biblioteca. Museo civico. Museo civico. Norway.

Bergen Kristiania Trondhjem

Bergens Museum. Universitetets Samling af nordiske Oldsager. Videnskabsselskabets Oldsamling. Austria-Hungary and Bosnia.

Agram Buda-Pest Graz Laibach Linz Pilsen Prag Salzburg Sarajewo Spalato Triest " Wien "

Kroatisches National-Museum. National Museum. Johanneum. Rudolphinum. Museum Francisco Carolinum. Stdtisches Museum. National Museum. Museum Carolino-Augusteum. Das bosnische Landesmuseum. K. k. archologisches Museum. Naturhistorisches Museum. Museo d'antiquit. Naturhist. Hof-Museum. Kunsthist. Hof-Museum. Russia with Finland.

Helsingfors Moskwa Petersburg " Abo

Statens historiska Museum. Kais. Russisches Historisches National Museum Alexanders III. Ermitage. Die Ausstellung der archaeologischen Commission fr 1896. Historiska museet. Sweden.

Karlstad

Karlstads lroverks museum.

Lindkping Lund Stockholm Uppsala Ystad rebro

stergtlands museum. Lunds universitets historiska museum. Statens historiska museum. Uppsala universitets museum fr nordiska fornsaker. Ystads lroverks museum. rebro lns museum. Switzerland.

Basel Bern Freiburg Genf Lausanne S:t Gallen " Zrich

Historisches Museum. Historisches Museum. Historishes und Kunsthistorisches Museum. Muse Gosse. Museum fr Alterthmer. Stifts-Bibliotek. Naturhistorisches Museum. Schweizerisches Landesmuseum.

That this work appears in the German language, I owe Frulein Professor Mestorf, museum director in Kiel, who had always devoted keen interest to my studies. She responded to an inquiry on my part if I shall have my work published in the German or English language with the offer to undertake the German translation of the manuscript, which I naturally accepted thankfully. It is not the first friendly turn of this kind, which has delighted the Scandinavian archaeologists on the part of Frulein Professor Mestorf. The often long intermediary pauses in the development of the manuscript and particularly even the printing in Stockholm caused many troubles, which is why there is a need for me to award here my warm and deep profound thanks for that great sacrifice of effort and time. It is a dear duty to me to speak out my thanks to my brother Professor Mauritz Salin, who had financed the cost for this work. Furthermore I am indebted to the Royal Academy of Shining Sciences, History and Archaeology and their Secretary of Imperial Antiquary Herr Dr Hans Hildebrand for the kind permission for me to use necessary woodblocks and clichs from the inventories of the Academy for my work. Since this present work is my first great archaeological paper, I feel reminded to pay Herr Professor O. Montelius my thanks for everything, I was taught in the archaeological science by him. He was him who pulled me across from art historical studies to archaeology, and with constant goodwill he guided my steps and opened my eyes to the wide field of human culture which to conquer is the burden of prehistoric research. Stockholm, Easter 1904.

The Author.

TABLE OF CONTENTS. First Book. Development, propogation, and relative chronology of some forms from the Germanic Old Saxons in the Migration Period. Chapter I. Introduction. The South Germanic Fibulae. -- Method of study 3. -Developmental history of a type of South Germanic fibula 3. -- Emergence of the fibula with beaten-around foot 5. -- The creators of the fibula with beaten-around foot were likely Germanic peoples living in Southern Russia 8. -- Following development of the fibula with beaten-around foot 9. -- Emergence of the semicircular head 10. -- Emergence of buttons on the head 10. -- Two cultural trends come from Southern Russia, one pours over South and West Europe, the other passes northwest up to Scandinavia 12. -- Description of group of fibulae of thin sheet metal with semicircular heads, that developed from the fibula with beaten-around foot 12. -- Geographical extension of these types and their closest relatives (mainly the Crimean territory, Poland, Funen) 14. -- Similar forms of fibulae with two other multiple spiral rolls, that are related to each other; geographical propagation of the same. (Crimea, Hungary, Germany, France) 16. -- The cast three-knobbed and five-knobbed fibulae with heads of older form and their geographical propagation (the three-knobbed fibula in Russia as far as Caucasus, Transylvania, Hercegovina, Croatia, Italy, Germany, France, Belgium, England) 26. -- Variants of this group 28. -- The fibula with semicircular headpiece and long rectangular foot, a hybrid form with Germanic and Roman elements 32. -Propagation (Germany, France, England, Belgium, Switzerland, Italy) 35. -- Three other forms of fibula from South Germanic territories 36. Chapter II. The North Germanic forms of Fibulae. -- The northwesterly cultural variety 41. -- Description of a North Germanic group of fibulae which developed from the fibula with beaten-around foot (the foot is at its broadest at the bottom and cut off exactly there, the clamp adorned with a plate) 43. -- The technique with pressed silver or bronze sheets--in imitation of filligree adornment 45. -- Development of fibula with rectangular headpiece 45. -- The cast three-knobbed fibula 48. -- The five-knobbed fibula in East Prussia and their variants 52. -- The Nordic fibula with rectangular head and its subdivisions 57: A. The fibula with rooflike broken footpiece (Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, rarely in England, France, Italy) 58; B. The fibula with flat footpiece (Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, Germany, France, England, Italy) 59. -- Fibulae with rectangular headpiece, round decorative disc and downward-pointing bird-heads 65. -- A Gotlandic variety 66. -- A related fibula from outside the Continent 68. -- The crossbow fibulae 68. -- Spread of the crossbow fibulae (the oldest form in Holstein, Denmark and Norway, an example in Southern Sweden and one in England; the younger form in Norway and England, few in Holstein, Denmark, Sweden and Hanover) 71. -- A fibula with usually square headpiece formed from naturallyjoined knobs (Holstein, Hanover, England) 73. -- The equal-armed fibula 74. -- Review of the course of development 76. -- Eastern form of the crossbow fibula 78. Chapter III. Other objects as bow-fibulae. -- The S-form fibulae 82. -- The round fibula 84. -- Geographic spread of the same 87. -- Local development of the round fibula 88. -The weapons 90. -- The shield-boss 92. -- The swords 96. -- The Germanic-Roman sword 96. -- The Germanic sword 98. -- Development of the sword pommel rings 101. -- The sword pommel with a protruding recess in the middle part 102. -- Equipment of the sword scabbards

102. -- The occurance of Germanic-Roman and Germanic swords 104. -- The buckles: in the South 111, -- in the North 115. -- The strap-ends 117. Chapter IV. Relative Chronology. The propagation of Runes. -- A strange ornamental form: that with animal-heads furnised with long necks 123. -- The crouched animal figure at the side of the fibula 127. -- Relative chronology of these two ornamental forms 129. -- The connections to the North and South Germanic culture over Hanover 131. -Range of fibula with semicircular and with rectangular headplates 132. -- Summary: relative chronolgy of fibulae 134. -- The swords 135. -- The northwest Germanic cultural strain 136. -The repression from out of Crimea towards the end of northwest Germanic cultural strains and the advancement of the Slavs 137. -- The original home of the Slavs 138. -- The south Germanic cultural strain 139. -- Various kinds of folk migrations 139. -- The exodus of the Germanics from north Germany 142. -- The immigration into Scandinavia 143. -- The migration towards England from various places 144. -- The Old Germanic Runic inscriptions 146. -- The runic script comes with the northwesterly cultural strain towards the North and will spread widely out of central Europe 147. -- Importance of the northwest cultural strains and other regions 148. -- The Hungarian Keszthely group 149. Second Book. The Germanic ornamentation of metal objects. The Irish ornamentation. Absolute chronology. Chapter I. Swaged and nielloed ornaments. -- 153-174. The laws of ornamental development 153. -- The order in appearance of several ornaments 155. -- The embossed and engraved ornaments 155. -- The several forms of punches 156. -- The simplest components of these ornamentations 156. -- The triangle with a circle on the top 157. -- The nielloed decoration 160. -- The relief ornamentation 161. -- The emergence of negative ornaments 162. -- The plant ornament 162. -- Local spread of the here treated ornaments (the engraved or embossed 165, the nielloed 168, the knit motifs 168, the plant ornament 170) 165. Chapter II. Ornamental animal heads from north and south Germanic regions. The older views on the Germanic animal ornamentation (Hildebrand, S. Mller, Sderberg, Woermann, Sesselberg, Naue) 175. -- Roman models of Germanic animal ornamentation 177. -- The armring with animal head end 180. -- The quadruped head seen from above 182. -- The head seen from the side 195. -- The south Germanic bird head of a rounder form with enclosed beak, and eye in the middle of the head 195. -- One with related Hungarian fibula group from land and Gotland 199. -- The solidus finds from the islands land and Gotland 200. -- The animal head with the eye bowlike encompassing bands, chin and curved beak 203. -- various south Germanic animal heads 204. Chapter III. The ornamental animal pattern from Nordic regions. The various animal motifs 206. -- The humanoid shape 208. -- Greater wealth of motifs in the older era than in the younger 211. -- The three phases of development of north Germanic animal ornamentation; Style I 214-245. -- the crouching quadruped animal shape; the forward looking animal 214. -- The history of the embossed contour lines and the bracteate imagery 216. The various forms of important details of Style I. 223. -- The surrounding animals of the fibulae 224. -- The surface animals of the fibulae 229. -- Animal imagery from other objects 234. -- The backwards facing animal 237. -- The last degenerative forms of the animals of

Style I. 242. The array of ornaments and the influence of classic flavor 244. -- Style II 245270. The renaissance of animal ornamentation 245. -- The various forms of important details of Style II 245. -- The animal imagery of style II 247. -- the wattling of the contour line 248. -The appearance of ribbon ornamentation during the period of Style II 250. -- The setting of bog finds 252. -- The animal heads as end ornament. 254. -- The wattling and resolution of the animal shapes 255. Origin of ribbon ornaments 259. -- Some transitions to Style III. 261. A variant of Style II 264. -- The compositional manner of style III 261. -- The bird as ornament 269. -- Ornamental pleasantries 269. -- The development of the head from the Gotlandic round buckles 270. -- Style III 270-290. -- A climax of animal ornamentation 270. -- The various forms of important details of Style III 271. -- The animal shape of Style III 274. The decay of animal ornamentation of Style III 279. -- The degeneration of animal shapes and of the tin-formed Gotlandic buckles 280. -- The consolidation of animal shapes 281. -- Some examples of the younger forms of Style III 283. -- The development of the forms runs parallel with those of the ornaments; Examples given of the bowfibulae and the Gotlandic round buckles 286. -- Some items from the findings from Vendel 287. -- Review 289. Chapter IV. The ornamental animal shapes from south Germanic regions -- The older examples of ornamental animal shapes and south Germanic items (Szilgy-Somly) 291. -- Nordic animal ornamentation from south Germanic region; animal shapes of Style I 293. -Style II 303. -- The dissolution of animal ornamentation and the silver-inlayed items 315. -The bird as ornamental motif 320. The dearth of Style III 320. -- Survival of classical traditions in the animal ornamentation on Italian soil 321. Chapter V. The Anglo-Saxon and Irish animal ornamentation. -- Motivation for the special treatment of animal ornamentation in the British Isles 322. -- The oldest animal shapes of Germanic objects in England came from the equal-armed fibula from Hanoverian type before 322. -- The occurrance of Style I 323 -- Item with ornamental motives, that is associated with Style II 326. -- The renaissanceo of Style II. 328. -- The development of Irish ring-buckles and their ornamentation 330. -- The Irish manuscripts and their ornamental design 330. -- The various motif groups of Irish ornamentation ("Scrolls" 336 linear or geometric elements 338, Animal ornamentation 338, ribbon ornamentation 340) 336. -- "The book of Durrow" 341. -- The Gospels of S. S. Luke and John" 342. -- "The book of Lindisfarne" 343. -- "The book of Kells" 344. -- The Irish scribal hand in the Continent 347. -- The relationship of Irish ornamentation to Style III in the North 349. Chapter VI. The Absolute Chronology. Final remarks. -- The purpose of the relative chronologies, their methods and difficulties 350. -- The same style belonging to items is nearly contemporaneous 351. -- Summary of previous investigations 353. -- Chronological parallelization of the two cultural strains and their regions 354. -- The absolute chronology of the south Germanic regions 355. -- The applicability of coins for the period identification of archaeological finds 356. -- Final remarks with compilation of preceding remarks on the relationship of the Germanic world to England 358.

First Book. Development, propogation, and relative chronology of some forms from the Germanic Old Saxons in the Migration Period.

Chapter I. Introduction. The South Germanic Fibulae*. This present work is in principle a study of the Germanic ornamentation and especially the animal-ornamentation, how we encounter it in the Migration Period and in the next centuries hereafter, and will be the very foundation of the matter of the first appearance of the Germanics, and their previous fates will not be taken into consideration. For our purposes it suffices to first get to know the spread of the Germanic tribes and their artwork during the Migration Period and the next following age, where they intrinsically gathered impressions which did not until later carry fruit. Thus it is important to abide by handcrafts like those which belong to daily practice, and in consequence are plentifully available. Great, costly and rare items qualify less for a study which thereafter goes off to seek out the national sense of style, and indeed on the one hand, since these are too few so chance easily intervenes, on the other hand, since it is not always certain that such treasures were made by native artists. On the other hand the objects of daily practice, which we now know in hundreds, provide a good material for the study of national character, that maybe becomes manifest nowhere so characteristically as in the ornamentation. In the following pages we shall thus occupy ourselves only briefly with the great treasure troves and devote ourselves to artifacts instead of just the rich treasures, that are now brought to light from scattered Germanic cemeteries all over Europe, in order to cast light on the handcrafted evolution of the Germanic people. The best method for this study, that is, when one places oneself on a purely archaeological standpoint, which in this case is only proper, exists after my conviction therein, that starting namely from indisputably Germanic ornaments, preferably those with ornamentation, one pursues the history of these forms backwards, that is, investigates their typological origin, and, when this is found, traces their development and their geographical dispersion of the several forms in greater detail. By application of these methods we will be able to study when ornaments first come to appear and what kinds of ornaments emerge from them first. We begin thus by finding some indisputably Germanic objects furnished with ornaments. Now there are to be found on the continent extensive cemeteries, that are Germanic after the unanimous judgment of all researchers. There rank, for example, Selzen in Rheinhessen,
* In the field of linguistics only three groups of Germanic cultural groups are known: North Germanics, West Germanics and East Germanics. Salin appears to use South Germanic to refer to East Germanic cultural groups which migrated early on from the Germanic urheimat (Southern Sweden and Denmark) deep into South Europe.

Nordendorf in Baiern, Cividale in Italy and so on. These burial places have supplied very multiple adjuncts, but first we will devote our attention only to the fibulae*, as they are the wealthiest in form and are therefore the most suitable group of artifacts for our studies, and thus we choose two examples illustrated here in Fig. 84 and 85. These are, as the images show, bow-fibulae*, with semicircular heads that are furnished with crowns of knobs, and with oval footpieces that end in animal heads.1 Both are furnished with animal ornamentation. In an overview of the European forms of fibulae it is soon revealed that the two examples mentioned above must share undeniably close kinship with fibulae such as Fig. 46-50 and 5559, which have semicircular headpieces each with 5 knobs and foot-ends with almost slight branching edges, which end in animal heads. And these are in turn related to the type pictured in Fig. 18, which will originate further into the past, and last stand close to fibulae such as Fig. 17. Almgren2 has already implied on his part that these have developed out of fibulae with beaten-around feet* like Fig 13 a, 10 and 9, as this series has already been treated before, at least partially, by other researchers (Hildebrand, Montelius, Grempler, Almgren, and others). If the series of development very briefly suggested above is correct, then we must seek the origin of the Germanic fibulae here in the fibula with the beaten-around foot, and hence it is in our interest to pursue the history of the fibula with the beaten-around foot. This type of fibula undeniably has something mysterious in its appearance. We find it in its original form in Crimea*. Almgren, in the place cited, is inclined to deduce it directly from the La Tne* fibulae and there are indeed many who speak for such an opinion. But then again there are also many who do not let themselves ally with such an opinion. First of all we know no actual La Tne finds in Southern Russia, regardless of any kind, which is why even
* A fibula is a brooch designed for the fastening of clothing. The fibulae discussed in this chapter were used for the fastening of a cloak to the shoulder. - Anne Beeche. * Bow is translated from Bgel for its bow-shape. I am unfamiliar with the English terminology for this kind of fibula. - Anne Beeche. 1 With the phrase 'head' or 'head-end' we will here denote the part of the fibula where the needle is fixed, and with 'foot' or 'footpiece' the part where the needle-halter is mounted. Now the fibulae were indeed worn in such a way that the spit of the needle was pointed upwards, but this has been anything but solely the case, and since this term has already found entrance into the literature and virtually in agreement with the organic construction of the fibula, I have thus forgone to introduce a new terminology. 2 O. Almgren, Nordeuropische Fibelformen. Stockholm 1897 s. 85 ff. * Fibula with beaten-around foot is translated from Fibel mit umgeschlagenem Fuss. - Anne Beeche. * Crimea is a peninsula of Southern Ukraine. In the 1st, 2nd and 3rd centuries Crimea was a part of the Roman empire and was occupied by the Goths in the 3rd century before being overrun by the Huns in the late 4th century. - Anne Beeche. * La Tne is a Celtic Iron Age culture which flourished in Western Europe from 450 BCE to the 1st century. They are variously identified as Keltoi and Galli by the Greek and Roman authors. - Anne Beeche.

Almgren also behaves somewhat skeptically towards his own assumption. And when one takes into consideration that the concentration of the proper La Tne culture, as far as we know them today, lies in Western Europe, it is hardly credible that they ranged so far into the East as far as past Crimea, especially this region at least, during the golden age of the La Tne culture, after they stood the testimony of history under a strong Greek influence. We want to try to explain how this form of fibula first originated, it seems to me the only correct method to pursue is to first examine in which environment it appeared. Fortunate finds have today lifted a number of various forms of fibulae from Crimea. Many of these are indisputably Roman work, while others can only be explained as originating under Roman influence. We find them among other enamel fibulae with bow curved needles,3 which we must undoubtedly put in the second century, fig. 1. It is of importance to us that he undeniably states their appearance, thus in these areas a Roman influence has already been established at this time. We therefore find fibulae in Crimea, which we know to be closely related to others in West Europe, from this find we even know that they are contemporary with the above-mentioned enamel fibulae, thus it is safe to assume that the fibulae of Crimea are also contemporaries of the enamel fibulae, and originated under Western influence. One compares for example the fibulae depicted here in Fig. 2 and 3, there is no denying that they are closely related to each other, and Fig. 2 depicts one found in Belgium, Fig. 3 a fibula from Crimea. The latter lack indeed needle and coil, all in the rest, particularly in the ornamentation of the bows, they show so great a resemblance to the similar fibulae from the West that a correlation must exist anyway. Fig. 2 shows a construction of the coil which undoubtedly descends from the La Tne fibulae. Fibulae from Southern Russia show the same construction as Fig. 4, 5, 8, nevertheless distinguished with them in the way the bowstring lies not under the bow, but rather freely above it. This change in the location of the bowstring is occasionally observed without one finding evidence for the explanation so far. We also know fibulae from the West, to which these are very similar. I have noted ones from Italy, Austria, and Bosnia, Fig. 7. Fibulae in the Figures 4-8 which one is in the custom of labeling as late La Tne, a quite eligible designation considered namely from a typological standpoint, although we must not forget and this is very important for the issue that here occups us, that these fibulae rise out of the 1st century with Roman ones (for example in Belgium and in Bosnia4)
3 4 S. z. B. Mnadsbladet 1894 Beilage s. 19. Fig 48 und 51. Z. B. aus dem Grabfeld bei Jezerine. WIssenschaftliche Mittheilungen aus Bosnien und Hercegovina. Herausgegeben vom Bosnisch- Hercegovinischen Landes-Museum in Sarajevo. Band III, s 77 Grab 50.

From this it goes to show that the appearance of these fibulae likewise might probably depend on a Roman impact, as on the presence of the La Tne culture. We find thus in Crimea nothing else besides these fibulae that is reminiscent of La Tne, on the other hand many things which hint at Roman culture, hence we must also accept a dependence on Roman influence there for the fibulae in question. We turn now to those fibulae with beaten-around feet found in Crimea, out of various kinds which we notice, only the simplest and most basic are without contradiction, which were shaped out of a wire that is only somewhat flattened on the needle-halter for its purpose, Fig 9. This fibula is so simple and so basic that at first sight one tries to treat them as an entire recreation, the construction of the coil is so very identical to that of the above mentioned semi-Roman fibulae, Fig. 4-8, that one does not let oneself think that it emerged independently from others, especially since these are also contemporary, because the form of the about 200 fibulae with beaten-around feet occurring in Eastern Germany developed from the type shown in Fig. 9, which must thus be older, and we must thus put this into the 2nd century or even earlier, in the same period which we have stated above for the semi-Roman fibulae like in Fig. 2-8. Everything thus seems to indicate to me that we have to find the origin of the fibula with beaten-around foot among the semi-Roman fibulae from Crimea. Certainly there is none found among them that immediately in the eye correlates with the form in question, but since it probably is at any rate paramount that among them exist the paragons of the fibula with beaten-around foot, we must examine the matter a little closer. The fibula, Fig. 8, has an external contour that when seen from the side has the greatest resemblance to a fibula with beaten-around foot, and moreover they are both one-part and show the same construction of the coil. However the technical procedure in the manufacture of the fibula with beaten-around foot seems to have been much simpler. For the fibulae shown in Fig. 7 and 8 the needle is round, the bow thin and broad, the needlehalter standing vertical to the broad bow and all this seemingly hammered out from a single piece, a task which requires a very high skill in metallurgy. The fibula with beaten-around foot is made in its simplest form, as in Fig. 9 manufactured out of a single wire which is hammered only for the needle-halter, and in my opinion it is those manufacturing methods necessitating simple, less technical skills which evoked the form, because, when one will make out of a single simple bronze wire a fibula similar to the semi-Roman ones from Crimea, it will result directly in the form with the beaten-around foot. One follows with the eye the outer contour for example in Figure 8, beginning from the needle-spit, up about the coil and further around, here one sees easily that

through an attempt to build a fibula like figure 8 out of a simple wire, the form with beatenaround foot results virtually by itself. The aperture between the needle-halter and the bow and the winding of the latter thus originate not in a prior development, but rather are a necessary consequence of the manufacturing method. One asks now, what may underly this simplification, as the answer that suggests itself is that a people, who are situated in a lower phase of culture*, strove to recreate a higher standard of industrial credentials and that the fibula with beaten-around foot plays an essential role in the Germanic world, that the lesser stationary people were in this case Germanic peoples. They were indeed anything but inexperienced in handcraft at that time, which witness among others the fibulae which the residing peoples in North Germany and Scandinavia understood how to manufacture, fibulae of dissimilar higher achievements, like the above mentioned semi-Roman style. It must not however be overlooked that they were formerly cast products, which it seems was not the case with the fibulae from Crimea. There it was the inexperience of the Germanics in the strange technique which conducted them to find a simplification of the fabrication and out of this attempt arose the fibula with the beatenaround foot. I cannot bring direct evidence for the validity of my opinion and thus I will firmly emphasize that they are grounded merely on an impression which was solidified during my studies. After we presented that the fibula with the beaten-around foot is possibly of Germanic origin, and on general lines have implied that they might underlie a massive, widespread group of fibulae, we want in following this development to pursue something more in detail. This is primarily to make the point that the fibula with beaten-around foot, which was initially made out of round wire, changed in such a way that the wire was beaten broad between the bottom edge of the needle-halter and the coil lying on part of the bow, that is, the footpiece, Fig. 10. Thereon one began to create them two-part, Fig 11, the tapered foot-end was placed parallel against the needle-halter and soon the wire was also flatter on the bow, Fig. 12, and likewise the coil extended. Eventually the footpiece parallel to the needle-halter was very broad. We place ourselves ahead now, that such a fibula was furnished with a semicircular headpiece, so that we have reached a form like Fig. 13a. A somewhat younger
* Salin evidently believes in lower and higher phases of culture. I for one disagree and believe that the Germanics could have had other reasons for imitating the Romans besides believing that they were culturally superior. I believe that the Germanics in this region found themselves economically and politically disadvantaged in comparison to the Romans and thus imitated the culture that was dominating them in order to thrive. - Anne Beeche.

stage of development is shown in Fig. 14, where the whole length of the needle-halter is fixed next to the broad footpiece. But how do we explain the emergence of the semicircular headpiece? It is not a development of some detail that already existed on some previous fibula with a beaten-around foot, but rather it has to do with the form which must have developed elsewhere, and was brought all the way here through the dominating taste. We look amongst the Roman fibulae from the 3rd century, here we find a great number of semicircular headplates, Fig. 13b, although these are smaller than Fig. 13a. These are likely the forms from which the relevant fibulae with beaten-around feet have received the idea of the semicircular head. Certainly there are known to me no such Roman fibulae found in Crimea so far, but since the various forms of these often appear accompanied by enamel fibulae in the west, which are also found in this way in Kerch,it is indeed not a too bold assumption that the formerly mentioned fibulae had also been there in practice, although it is by coincidence that they have not yet come to the present day. The whole of Crimea is indeed as of yet very incompletely studied. That contemporary forms interact so that they are to be mechanically conveyed out of their original environment onto others, is a phenomenon which we will later have opportunity to discuss. Incidentally nothing is more natural, in particular, when a lower culture comes in contact with a higher. One would rather have reason to be surprised, when at least in similar cases, such a thing would not be verifiable. At various times and in various locations the study of fibulae provides the observation that the needlecoil shows a certain tendency to extend itself on both sides, and that these are made long to give support to a highly impractical construction of the coil. Even the fibula with the beaten-around foot became subject to this transformation once it became two-part, that is, the bow and the needlecoil out of two different pieces. Now to give the coil some support, one pushed a wire through it, or more properly, one rolled the coil around a wire, which was often furnished on the end with a knob. This happened on a fibula of the kind shown in Fig. 13a and 14, in which the coil received the breadth of the headpiece and the knob was fixed sideways from it. At the same time the side of the needlecoil, or what is here the same as the continuation of the bow underneath the headpiece, was extended up to its top edge and there furnished with a knob. Through these changes arose a form like Fig. 15. Occasionally the needle-halter is very long for fibulae of this kind, so that it occupies the entire length of the footpiece, reminiscent of the phase of the

beaten-around foot. As such, to understand namely a reminiscence of the wrapping of the bow, is the mostly laterally ribbed metal wire which encompasses the bottom end of the bow. The symmetry is also because at the top, where the bow is set under the headpiece, a ribbed wire of exactly the same kind is fixed. Soon one settled not just for one spiral roll, one brought on two and even three, although naturally the latter could not function. The fibulae with semicircular heads also experienced this improvement. They give strength to this spiral construction, the spiral roll was joined on the end with metal wire, Fig. 17, or by suspended small discs that were also occasionally furnished with knobs., Fig. 16. We have so far stayed exclusively in Southern Russia and although the land is not less than systematically examined, there is still some material found which extensively illustrates the course of development. For the continuation of our studies we must meanwhile turn our attention to yet other places, and thus will we find that two cultural strains poured out from out of Crimea and the surrounding region, from which the one gushed over South and West Europe, the other penetrated in a northwestern direction up into Scandinavia*. We focus our attention first on the fibula that was found in the administrative district of Kiev and is here depicted in Fig. 18. To understand it in all its detail, we must first learn about another type of fibula which will be best illustrated by a fibula from Sanderumgaard in Funen, Fig. 17. It is very near to the South Russian fibulae of the type shown in Fig. 15, although it is equipped with double needlecoils. We should call attention to this interesting connection, how the metal wire, Fig. 15 and 16, on the upper and under attachments of the bow, Fig. 17, had developed into a broad band, which is built out of multiple wires lying beside each other; (occasionally this band is replaced with pressed gilded rolled silver). This kind of decoration of the bow is very prevalent in the region, which we will come to know through investigation of cultural strains directed from Southern Russia towards the Northwest. We now turn back to the fibula from Kiev, Fig. 18, on which we behold an extremely extravagant decoration here in
* Salin seems to be arguing that the urheimat of the Germanics was in Roman-era Crimea, and that the two cultural strains representing the East and the West and North Germanics flowed from there into their respective regions. Modern linguistic evidence provides a completely different pattern: that the urheimat of the Germanics was in Bronze Age Southern Scandinavia and Denmark, and that the East Germanic cultural strain first migrated down into Europe as far as Crimea (the Huns later scattering them into Western Europe and eventually as far as Africa), while the West and North Germanic groups expanded from the urheimat. This does not explain the form of the bow-fibula arising from Crimea, however. My guess for the bow-fibula is that the form first arose in that region and then became so popular that it diffused across the Germanic groups through cultural exchange and not necessarily through migration of the groups that created the fibula. - Anne Beeche.

the sites where first lay the metal wire and later the broad band, which already announces for itself that we have here in later examples the type of fibula in question. The knobs, however, demand the greatest interest, which are now attached to the round disc. Only two of them are fastened lowest on the crossbar, around which the coil is rolled. The others are fixed on the edge of the headpiece and have no other purpose but to serve as decoration. Maybe it is only coincidence that the one middle knob occupies a position that would sit it on a crossbar, that is, like in the older type (for example, Fig. 15), while the other connects completely to the edge of the headpiece, that is, like in the younger type, Fig. 38, however even in this case it gives us a hint in the matter of the course of development. It must here be noticed that for the Fibulae with semicircular or more rounded headpieces which are already treated by us, the bottom end is stretched in the Southern Russian ones, whereas for the ones that are closer connected to the Nordic group, it is shorter and broader. For these features we will find corresponding appearances in the following development. All fibulae belonging to this group are reckoned to be of the type exemplified by Fg. 13a, and made from often very thin sheets of metal, be it from bronze, silver or gold, and in principle without any ornamentation engraved or pressed in the metal. It does commonly occur on the other hand, that the upper as well as the lower part of the fibulae is decorated with garnets, Fig 20, 28 and 30, or besides still or only solely with soldered on gold kernels or the like, Fig. 17 and Fig 18. Before we again record the narrative of the further development, we must seek to explore the geographic dispersion of the group in question. Since now the material is also scattered over the whole of Europe, and the archaeological literature is hardly to overlook in the publications of many small antiquity associations, I thus raised absolutely no claim to bring an entire directory of this group of fibulae, likewise the below following directories raise no claim to completion. The basic form Fig. 13a I know so far just in one example. It is found in Crimea, from whence the closely related fibula Fig. 14 also originated. Both lie now in the Museum for Ethnology in Berlin. The next type with three knobs, Fig 15, is common in Crimea and perhaps any of them must be classified the same with the fibula found in the administrative district of Jekaterinoslaw5. A quantity of fibulae found in Caucasus, which by briefer inspection seem to belong to this type, are probably only very degenerate forms of manufactured fibulae due to
5 Katalog der A. J. Polz'chen-Sammlung in Jekaterinoslaw. Kiew 1893. Taf. X, Fig. 285.

casting, from what will later be the discourse. From the West I only know of one find, with two examples, from Italy (Mus. civ. in Verona), one of which is depicted in Fig. 19. Thus we must reckon that even this type is distinct mainly in the Crimean region. The closest related type with two spiral rolls which are either not joined at all or are only connected with a wire-wrapping, is a transitory form and thus less prevalent. It seems to have turned mainly towards the North. Starting at Kerch, we hit a fibula of this type first by Nejine in the administrative district of Chernigov. It is of gold filled with composed stones and depicted here in Fig. 20. Then by Kalisz in Poland, Fig. 21, and eventually by Sanderumgaard in Funen, Fig. 17. From Central and Southern Europe I know not a single example. A great deal more numerous are the fibulae with two or more spiral rolls which are joined by two discs with knobs or without them. Even these are very frequent in Crimea and seem, in contradiction to the former, to spread more in a western direction across Hungary over Germany and France; indeed even in England I have seen an example6, however I am not certain if it really was found there. These will be taken into consideration with the related Nordic fibulae in the next chapter. We consider this series more in detail, here we find that the original form with two spiral rolls and semicircular headpiece, Fig. 16 & 21, is found in more examples in Crimea. Beyond Russia and in the region of the southern cultural strain it is, the circumstances by now familiar to me, only found once thus far and indeed so far towards the West as in Normandy. But both of the discs holding spiral rolls closed tight onto the semicircular headpiece and brought about their losing their original form, Fig. 22, whereby the spiral rolls were usually transformed into bars. These fibulae are more common than those first described. We find them for example in Crimea and in Hungary, Fig. 23 and 24, in Slavonia, Fig. 25, in Germany, Fig. 26, and in France, Fig. 27. We see these fibulae closer by, as it derived immediately so that some maintain the ribbed wire on the handle, but likewise one has still in another way decoratively accentuated the connection of the bow to the head and footpiece. Thereupon it is to consider that on the original for Fig. 24 yet another formed knob protrudes between the knobs on the spiral bars. Another instance offers Fig. 28, which depicts on the reverse the same construction as in Fig. 27. Another Hungarian fibula of this kind (Fig. 24 at the most similar) is found by Bakod Puszta not far from Colovza7. This type is also
6 7 In the University museum (Pitt-Rivers collection) in Oxford. Mittheilungen der K. K. Central-Comission et. Bd. V. S. 105.

represented in the West. I have for example noted such a fibula in the find from Envermen in Normandy8. A curious variant, in which the knobs are cut out in the plate, our Fig. 29 depicts after a fibula supposedly from Krlich. To this group likewise belong some fibulae which I for the moment can not attribute to any of the other cited variants because I know them only from depictions which are not explained in such detail that one can classify them with certainty. Therein belong for example the fibula depicted here in Fig. 30 from the find in Szilgy-Somly in Hungary and two from Herpes in France, Fig. 32 and 339. The fibula from Somly depicted here likely belong to the same type as Fig. 25, since such a disc like this, which achieve the connection of both spiral rolls, depicted here in Fig. 31, exists in the find and probably belongs even to this fibula. In Caucasus10 are found many fibulae that in all likelihood also belong here, although the most marked are degenerate, Fig. 34, 35, 36. This overview comes to the result that the future typological stages in the fibula type are represented stronger in Central and Western Europe than the previous types, and that the forms degenerate and deteriorate east of Crimea. Then one gave up manufacturing the fibulae out of thin sheet metal and began to prefer the production of casting, whereby the embellishment in the metal itself became suitable. One considers that the North Germanic fibulae were generally although not exclusively cast in the 1st and 2nd centuries, that leastwise in the north one fabricated the La Tne fibulae by casting, that in the Nordic region the art of metal-casting was virtually the only dominating technique taught, that the renewal of the technique means that the Germanic began to emerge independent from their first masters. As up to now Crimea has been the origin for our studies, we also want to first contemplate closer some South Russian cast fibulae. We look at Fig. 37, there we see that it with its three knobs affiliates closest with the type in Fig. 15; however except for the adornment of the surfaces, it differs from its other examples as well by the degenerate form of the knobs and by the termination of the footpiece. Fig. 38 shows a fibula with five knobs, whose number and position teaches us to understand the fibula from Kiev, Fig. 18. The knobs are flattened and degenerate, but quite directly close to the older form11. The bottom section brings a novelty in the round protrusions decorated with garnets. A third
8 9 It is located in the Museum von Ronen. Furthermore all fibulae from the find in Szlgy-Somly belong here with exception for what is depicted in Hampels Katalog on Taf. XXIV-XXVI and likewise one (only preserved in a fragment) fibula from Russia, Gouv. Jekaterinoslaw. (S. den Polz'schen Katalog Taf. X Fig. 286.) 10 In the museum in Petersburg and Moscow I have noted more from Donifars, sissi, Galliat, Tschegem, Lisgur, Kambulta and finally one from the region of Koban. Via the previously mentioned chiefly the messages of the archaeological society in Moscow voldume II Taf. XI Fig. 11. 11 The knobs of the older form compare Fig. 19-27 the younger form s. S. 26.

variant is shown in Fig. 39, in which one is to consider the deviant form of the knobs and the richer profiling of the bow, which appears here for the first time, and finally the degenerate animal head which forms the end of the fibula. Thereupon we must still pay brief attention to one type, which is represented in multiple examples among the finds of Crimea and in particular resembles the figures 62, 64 and 65. The knobs have the younger form with the heaviest boss towards the bottom. The bow is richly profiled and sideways in the proximity of the degenerate animal head stand two animals in much plumper image and lacking all treatment of the detail. We now throw a glimpse at the geographic dispersion of these fibula types. The threeknobbed ones are entirely rare, both those made of metal plates as well as the casted ones, yet one finds individual examples scattered over the whole great region, particularly small and stunted ones in West Europe. Fig. 37 gives one example from the Russian ones. Beyond Russia we find on the way to the West first in Hungary a couple of small examples from Puszta Bakod by Kolovza, Fig 40, with knobs of older form. The fibula Fig. 41, found in Croatia, is very thoroughly changed, also designated by the knobs. In addition a three-knobbed fibula is found by Sissek in Croatia.12 Still more the varied development strikes the eye, when one considers a fibula like Fig. 42 from Uherec in Bohemia, its knobs are remodeled entirely on a Roman model. Another Bohemian fibula from Podbaba13 has retained the older form of knobs, however it lacks otherwise the details which might have interest for us. Further towards the west we find in France a couple of three-knobbed fibulae, of which one, Fig. 43, is found in the southern part of the land in the department of Tarn, the other in the center, in the department of Sane et Loire. Seemingly some examples from England, Fig. 44 and 45, also belong here, however as one sees in the depictions they are heavily degenerate, so that it is doubtful if they even should be assigned to the three-knobbed fibulae. The fibulae occurring in the North Germanic region of the type taken into consideration here we will handle in the following chapter. Nearly more numerous are the fibulae with five knobs. We will turn ourselves first to one form, which underlies the knobs of the type which we have mentioned to be the older form. From Kerch lie more examples ahead, Fig. 38 and 39. They go still further towards the East. We know for example many, although quite degenerate examples from the Caucasus14.
12 Information from Dr. Almgren. 13 Pamtky 1892 Bd. XV Taf. XLVI, Fig 4. 14 I noted 2 examples from Kambulta, 1 from Kamunta and 1 from Tschmie.

Further north we hit first one fibula in Gouv. Jekaterinoslaw, which Fig. 47 depicts, and the rest of which is quite similar with regard to the ornamentation15. Some are found further away in Gouv. Charkov by the site of fibulae Fig. 46 and 4716 and further north in Gouv. Voronezh several in a cemetery, which are very similar to each other and from those one of them is portrayed in Fig. 48. Finally one in highly degenerate form is found by Rjsan in Gouv. gl. Namens, from this it is hard to decide if the type exemplified in Fig. 60 is to be attributed to this one or another. We turn now towards the West, as we first hit one fibula in Siebenbrg17, the lower part of which resembles Fig. 125, afterwards in Hungary18, then in Austria Fig. 4919 and in South Tirol Fig. 50, which is reminiscent of the fibulae of central Russia in a surprising way. In the vicinity of Genf (Museum in Genf) is found one fibula, which also betrays a great resemblance to the Russian ones, and finally there is to mention yet one from Southern20 and one from central France21. Eventually here are still other examples to remember, which are so degenerate that it remains undecided which group they belong with; one from Rheinhessen22, one from England, Fig. 51, and still a third also from England23. In connection hereby are some fibulae to mention that are depicted here in Fig. 52 and 53, the former from Italy north of Brescia found, the other from South Tirol, also from the same alpine region. It seems that they represent a local development, especially as I found a third example in the Museum in Traunstein, while I have noted in no other place a fibula of this kind. They show very degenerate form. More numerous than the variants considered so far are the fibulae equipped with knobs of younger form, there it might be indicated to first discuss the origin of this form. Occasionally there are knobs on the Roman ring-buckles. Such a one is depicted here in Fig. 54. It shows that it is constructed in the same way as the knobs of younger form described above, that is, a boss on one foot and across a knob, that namely appears on several fibulae with older form of
15 16 17 18 19 Polz. Taf., X Fig. 283. Aarbger f. nord. Oldk. 1872 S. 411. Found by Sarmizgetusa, now in the Mus. in Dva. Discussed by Dr. O. Almgren. Hampel, Catalog Fig. On the S. 104. Additionally one from Stassdorf by Tulln, Nieder Oesterreich; K. k. kunsthist. Hofmuseum in Wien. The Fig. 46 very similar. 20 By Estagel, Dp. Pyrnes-Orientales; S. Barrire- Flavy, Etude sur les spultures barbares do midi et de l'ouest de la France, pl. III, Fig 1. 21 By Oyes, Dp. Marne; de Baye, Industrie Langobarde, Pl. V, Fig. 6. 22 By Abenheim, Museum in Mainz. 23 By Faversham, Kent: S. de Baye, Industrie anglos. Taf. III, Fig. 4.

knobs (see Fig. 56 and 63). It might thus qualify for the assumption that this younger form underlies a strong Roman influence, especially since its geographical dispersion corresponds to one of the Roman provinces. In South Russia we find these knobs in not their best form. We here confine ourselves not to the fibulae with five knobs, but rather toward such four others which are equipped with a greater number, when they incidentally affiliate themselves with this variety which here so much means that they have a more or less rhomboid footpiece. In Crimea we find more examples, the best from Kerch24. Toward the West we meet them in Hercegovina25 and in Siebenbrg26. From the latter mentioned country stems the original for Fig. 55. From Hungary we know more. Fig. 56 shows one of these. The knobs have a distinct Roman form. Another characteristic fibula of this variant from Hungary is depicted here in Fig. 57. From Croatia27 I have noted likewise one similar fibula. Also in Italy more are found and indeed until after Chiusi down and in the province of Ascoli on the east coast, the last with no fewer than eleven knobs, the ones show a fibula found likely by Imola, Fig. 58. It is a quite late example, which follows partly the kind with garnet-settings, partly the one with large quantity of knobs. Also in Germany we here meet some of the variants28 in question. Among them noted by me seems only one counted among older ones, the others are, as shown in Fig. 59, heavily altered. This is maybe in still higher degree the case for those found in France29. Also from Belgium30 and England31 we know fibulae of this type. The latter seem to be very near to the Hungarian fibula Fig. 56. The Spanish finds are known in few. The only fibula that I have seen from there belongs to this group, although it is very degenerate and itself more with the type of fibulae joined from metal plate, rather than the one mentioned here. On a variant of this type of fibulae one sees instead of one or more knobs a bird head of simple form. Such a fibula is exemplified in Fig. 60. I have noted this type: from Russia more

24 Examples are to be found in Stockholm (Mnadsbladet 1894 Beilage s. 17 Fig. 38, 41) in Berlin (Museum f. Vlkerkunde) in Petersburg (Eremitage) and in Museum in Moscow. 25 Found in a Roman sarcophagus by Han Potoci. S. Wissenschaftliche Mittheil out of Bosnia and Hercegovina. Band I S. 303 ff. Fig. 6. 26 By Kessel bei Mediasch. S. Ant. Tidskrift for Sverige. Band IV s. 223. A depiction I owe Dr. Almgren. By Klein Schelken, with 7 knobs (K. k kunsthist. Hofmuseum, Wien). 27 By Sissek. Museum in Agram. 28 By Friedburg in Hessen, S. Lindenschmit, Handbuch d. deutschen Alterthumskunde. Taf. XVII Fig. 5: Freilauberscheim, Rheinhessen (Fig. 59 hier oben) Zahlbach by Mains, S. Lindenschmit, Alterthmer unserer heidnisch. Vorzeit I,3 Taf. 8 Fig. 5. 29 By Toulouse and Souyri, Dp. Averyon, S. Barrire-Flavy a. a. O. Pl. III Fig 2 and 3. Sainte Sabine, Dp. Cte d'or: Brochon, Dp Cte d'or, S. Blaudot, Spultures des barbares en Bourgogne, Pl. XXVII Fig. 5 and Fl. XXVI Fig. 13. An example in Muse des antiquits in Lyon. 30 By Harmignie, Hennegau (Museum in Brssel, Discussed by O. Almgren). 31 By Chatham. Kent. S. de Baye, Industrie anglosax. Pl. III. Fig. 1.

examples from Kerch32 and one from the Gouv. Jekaterinoslaw33; in addition from Hungary34, from Switzerland35, from Germany36 and France37, where the beautiful original for Fig. 61 is found. Still stranger is one variant, by the bottom immediately above the animal head on the footpiece at both sides a small detached animal figure is mounted. This small animal figure, which consistently lacks treatment of detail, is directed towards the bottom. This form is also widely dispersed. From Kerch I have noted more examples; in addition from Bosnia, Fig. 62; a particularly pretty example from Hungary, Fig. 63, with birds instead of the quadruped animal; from Italy38, Fig. 64, Germany39, France40, and Belgium41, Fig 65. All these fibulae are very similar to each other, more than it is the case with the examples from other types. We should not let it go unmentioned that it gives a whole quantity which indeed distinguish themselves in this or that regard by the casting which we have here treated above, but still this group must be spoken for. As in the example depicted in Fig. 66, adapted from an original found in France, Dp Hrault. Also from the Northern region comes the five-knobbed fibula, although previously in only the one area, East Prussia, to which we will return in the next chapter. The group of cast fibulae is very large, there have been shown to be no less than 80 examples. When one compares it with the first mentioned group of fibulae produced from wrought metal plate, it turns out unambiguously that while the most basic form of the latter was found in South Russia, the focus of the former has shifted itself further towards the West. The Russian fibulae manufactured through casting are generally poorly wrought like the western ones. The beautiful ones one meets in Hungary and Austria; in France and England they are again poor and degenerate; in Germany and Italy one meets good ones and fewer good examples. It appears to be that the Germanic ethnic groups settled in Siebenbrg and Donauthal would have stood at the pinnacle of the Germanic development at that time.
32 33 34 35 36 Two examples are depicted in the Revue archologique 1888. Sworyetsky, S. Polz. Taf. X, Fig. 284. S. Hampels Catalog, Taf. LXXV, Fig. 8. Except for Fig. 60 I know still one example in Museum Gosse in Genf. By Sausenheim by Ludwigshafen (Mus. In Speier), Eichlock (Museum in Mainz: discussed by O. Almgren) 3 examples in Museum des Alterth. Vereins in Strassburg. 37 By Saint Sabine, Dp. Cte d'or, S. Baudot a. a. O. Pl. XXVII, Fig. 4. Herpes, Dp. Charente S. de Baye, Le cimetire wisigothique d'Herpes Pl. VII Fig. 28. 38 By Pavia S. Ant. Tidskr. f. Sverige XI: 5 S. 93. 39 By Bingen S. Lindenschmit, Handbuch etc. (Taf. XVIII Fig. 2) By Kreuznach, Museum in Worms. This example also with two bird heads on the semicircular headpiece. 40 Lindenschmit, Alterthmer I: 10, Taf. 8, Fig. 2. 41 By Pry. S. Annales de la Socit archologique de Namur. Band XXI.

We turn ourselves now to another fibula form, given a depiction by Fig. 74a. To be able to explain its development, we must take a brief glimpse at the developmental history of the Roman fibula. It is the so-called cross-form fibula, which I here target. How it originated is not so important here; for us it is enough to state that fibulae of the form Fig. 67 have been prevalent in the entire Roman Empire. Over the course of time it indeed underwent certain change. The bow becomes shorter and higher, the knobs are moved closer to each other, as we see it on the gorgeous fibula in Fig. 68; occasionally the footpiece will also lengthen like for example on the fibula from the grave of Childerich, Fig. 69, and like the one furnished with an inscription Fig. 70. Furthermore we know these fibulae from the sculptures of the time, Fig. 71 shows for example such a fibula from a consular diptych, which according to the inscription was customized for Flavius Astyrius, who was Consul in about 449. The fibula is vague on the diptych, but it must beyond all question be attributed to the Roman type handled here; likewise Fig. 72 and the figure 440 depicted in Lindenschmit: Handbuch. Furthermore the fibulae must here be reckoned, which one notices on the mosaic image in the church San Vitale in Ravenna on the vestments of the emperor Justinian. Such a fibula is depicted here in Fig. 73. Montelius sets the fibulae like the one exemplified in our Fig. 67 in the second half of the 4th century42. The Astyrius relief and the Fibula from the grave of Childerich show that they were also in the 5th century still in usage. The fibula from Salona, Fig. 70, and the mosaic image from San Vitale prove that they were still popular in the 6th century. We now find the Germanics universally in the population in the Roman provinces by their wider advancement of the types considered here, since it is obvious through the manufacture that their own fibulae were under the same influence. Thereby arose a hybrid form, compare Fig. 74a. The foot-end was patterned on the Roman fibulae, Fig. 67-70, while the bow, the semicircular headpiece and the construction of the needle were fashioned in complete accordance with the local Germanic pattern, that is, the cast knobbed fibulae. This type of fibula is generally dispersed over the whole of Germany43: Fig. 74a exemplifies the ordinary type and Fig. 74b a degenerate example; Fig. 75 a fibula with a hint of the animal head on the foot-end, Fig. 76 such a one with unusual form of the knobs and better accomplished animal head. For the majority of this fibula type the animal head is absent. One

42 O. Montelius: Om den nordiske jernalderns kronologi, in der Svenska Fornminnesfreningens tidskrift IX s. 222. Note 4. 43 All sources may here not be called. I have noted fibulae, like the ones in question from Baiern, Wrtemberg, Baden, the Pfalz, Rheinhessen, Rheinland and Westphalen.

finds this fibula generally widespread even in France44. Fig. 77 and 78 show some examples from there. Fig. 77 is especially interesting as a result, since the bow is confined at the top and the bottom by means of an apportioned band. Also from England45 this type is now known in many examples, consider Fig. 79, and recently it has now come into Belgium46 today, Fig. 80. From Russia I know not a single example, just as little from the North Germanic region. Out of all these fibulae which I had an opportunity to examine not a single of them had knobs of older form, an appearance which indeed is notable. On the other hand there is no lack of examples in which bird heads step in its place, Fig. 81. On such a fibula the side knobs are often transferred onto the footpiece of the five-knobbed fibula and are indeed in the shape of bird heads, Fig. 82. Where this fibula form, Fig. 74-82, first occurred, is seriously decidable. This much is obvious, that it occurred in central or western europe, and that hence around that time the center of the Germanic world had shifted itself farther towards the West. As yet three other forms were common during this time in the South Germanic world. One of them is closely related to the five-knobbed fibula, by which it is distinguished as a result that the footpiece is of oval form and shows a distinct type of knob arrangement in accordance with the kind shown in Fig. 83, which stands very close to the older form of the knobs. Others have more elongated knobs, Fig 83 b. These knobs with the fibula are frequently cast altogether in one piece, Fig. 84. Occasionally these knobs have the forms of animal heads, Fig. 85. The geographical dispersion of this fibula is limited. The easternmost site is Pressburg, also in the West Hungary not far from Grenze47. On Austrian soil there are some found by Aquileja and environments, and in Bohemia (at least in 2 examples) by Podbaba. Italy48 and Germany49 have more sites to show, from France and England I know as of yet not a single example.
44 In order to show how consistently they were distributed across France, I will note that they are found in the south in the region of Dp. Aveyron and Gers from Toulouse, in the West in Dp. Charente and in the Vende, in Central France and towards the East in the Dp. Rhne, Sane et Loire and Cte d'or, in the North in Dp. Aisne, Somme and Pas de Calais. 45 I have noted such from Kent, Suffolk, Cambridgeshire and even so far north as Lincolnshire. 46 By Harmignie in Hennegau are found six examples, discussed by Dr. O. Almgren. 47 Hampel. Katalog. Taf. 157. The original for Fig. 83 b is found maybe farther east. 48 By Cividale, Prov. Udine, more examples (Mus. Civico in Cividale) by Darfo, Prov. Brescia (Mus. Civico in Brescia); Asty, Prov. Alessandria (S. de Baye, Industrie langobarde Pl. IV, Fig. 8); Testona, Prov. Turin (Calandra, DI una necropoli barbarica scoperta a Testona); environments by Mailand; Imola, Prov. Bologna (Mus. Civico di storia naturale in Imola): Castel Trosino, Prov. Ascoli (discussed by Prof. Montelius) and more. Three examples for example in the Sammlung Castellani in Rome. 49 Baiern by Reichenhall (ChlingenbergBerg, Das Grabfeld v. Reichenhall); by Thalmssing;by Nordendorf more examples: Siegmaringen by Langenenslingen (Lindenschmit. Die vaterlndischen Alterth. Der Frstlich Hohanzollerischen Sammlung etc. Taf. I.); Rheinhessen by Oberholm; Rheinland, by Eichloch; in addition in East Prussia by Daumen (S. Prissia XIX, Taf. 2, Fig. 1).

These are closely related to another type, by which the bow and foot resemble the previous type, whereas a rectangular shape has taken the place of the semicircular headpiece. The typological development of the rectangular headpiece we will discuss in the next chapter. The local region of this type is less narrowly confined than that of the previous type. It is attested not only in Italy, Hungary and Germany, but also in France and England. Fig. 86-88 give depictions of such fibulae. The form of the knob depicted, which one sees, is of the other type. On the top edge of the rectangular plate, indicated by Fig. 86, are small plates between the vertically and horizontally standing knobs, which are by Fig. 87 so greatly grown that they connects the knobs to each other. This is a fairly often occurring appearance, as well as these already mentioned that as Fig. 88 shows, the knobs and the fibulae are cast in one piece. We now want to turn our attention to a type which, as we will show in the next chapter, developed in the Nordic region and from there went towards the South. Characteristic for this type, Fig 91, are a rectangular headpiece and a rhomboid foot; the latter often with inward curved sides and two animal heads, normally with long neck, which on both sides bend towards the outside and downward. Since the several variants of this fibula will be handled most properly in context with their developmental history, and since it seems to me most right to examine the geographical spread of this whole group at once, I have thus limited myself to thereon mention here that they also occurred in the South Germanic region: in Bohemia, Italy, Fig. 89, Germany, Fig. 90, France, Fig 91, and England, Fig. 92. For the sake of integrity, I will here remark that except for the here handled types of the South Germanic region one finds still other bow-fibulae which are more or less closely related to the former, since while they are not represented in high number, and are without importance for the illumination of the main point in the developmental history, I have thus overlooked them here, though later I will raise them, which to this end lend themselves to facilitate the appreciation of this or that phenomenon.

Chapter II. The North Germanic forms of fibulae. We follow now the cultural strain which emerged from Southern Russia and pursued a more northwestern direction with which we were concerned in the last chapter, since we soon notice that we are up against a whole other form of fibula. The fibulae with the beaten around feet (roughly in the stage illustrated by Fig. 12) emerge namely in North Germany in great numbers, whereas the oldest forms of this type are absolutely absent. The same applies to the fibulae from the Type Fig. 13 and 14. Even so we find here not one fibula which corresponds directly to the type Fig. 15. The first following fibulae in the series of development, namely those with double or multiple double spiral rolls, are on the other hand represented in the North Germanic region. The major relatives of the South Russian ones feature among these undeniably the fibulae form the last chapter from Kalisch, Poland, Fig. 21, and from Sanderumgaard, Fnen, Fig. 17, as well as several fibulae from the find by Sackrau, Schlesien, Fig. 93 and 94, and a likely wrought fibula50 with triple spirals from the coast of southwestern Norway (Jderen). The fibulae fashioned out of precious material (gold, silver, garnets), like for example Fig. 20 and 30, stand closest by North Germanic fibulae such as Fig. 95. As of yet this type is only represented in the find by Himlingie on Zealand. Characteristic for the latter is that the double spiral rolls are absent and that it presents a needle construction like Fig. 97. Examples of such fibulae we see in the figures 96-98. In Fig. 96 the edge of the headplate is reminiscent of the cast stunted knobs like for example in Fig. 84; it might however have nothing to do with the knobs usually occurring on the head-end of the fibula. The original for Fig. 9751 has had a coating of silver plate apparently similar to the others and the position of the headpins consistent on all three examples speaks for one and the same place of fabrication. Characteristic are furthermore the metal plates allocated on the both ends of the bow and the metal wires, whereby they through the series of types Fig. 16, 17, 18, 93 and 94 stand in close connection with the fibulae with beaten-around feet. The stated similar one is furthermore a fibula from Lundby on Zealand52, which shows on the head-end three cut out knobs however.
50 Found by Kvassei. I owe Dr. G. Gustafson in Bergen for this information. 51 Another entirely similar fibula but in still more ruined condition is found on land, Sweden. From Norway we know more examples: one from Tvetene, Jarlsberg and Laurviks Amt (Aarsberetning 1880 S. 199 N:o 117 b) one from Hundstad Buskeruds Amt 9a. a. O. 892 S. 70); one somewhat deviant from Romsdals Amt and the northmost is yet known from Aafjord, S. Trondhjems Amt. (a. a. O. 1869 35. 1). 52 Nationalmuseum in Kopenhagen.

In regard to the form they differ from the South Germanic ones, partly in this way that the foot is at its broadest towards the bottom end and there cut off, though most noticeably by the round or oval disc which is fixed as decoration on the bow. Also Fig. 95 has probably had such a one. These discs are particularly characteristic for North Germanic fibulae. Some such organic connection with the fibula did not have this decoration, it is thus to presume that it owes its origin to merely the appeal to splendor and glory. Here were perhaps to recall the four fragments of several fibula found by Voigtshagen, Pommern, which are depicted sub Fig. 99. The semicircular headpiece was in all likelihood part of the below standing bow, which places behind a round disc on the footpiece and therein definitely deviated from the Nordic fibulae of this kind. Also a second decorative disc seems to have been fixed on the bow. Presumably a hybrid form lay here. The gilded silver or bronze plates used for the embellishment of the fibulae obviously imitate filigree flourishing. The aforesaid technique has experienced at various times a wide dispersion. Peculiar for this era appears to me the usage of the technique for the setting of stones or more correctly perhaps of colored glass. Where this technique first arose, we cannot discuss more closely here, however everything speaks to that the Germanics had learned this craft in Southern Russia, where it seems, at least in the 3rd and 4th centuries, to be far from rarely adept. I have noted more examples both from Crimea and from Caucasus. Fig. 100 and 101 show us this technique on two items found in Crimea, a fibula and a fragment of a fibula. Curiously enough, it seems this technique was not followed by the South Germanic cultural strain, leastwise not in appreciable degree (one observes it in some fibulae on the upper and under edge of the bows53) and by one kind of round fibulae54; on the other hand it seems to be drawn principally towards the North. In addition, the South Germanic series, Fig. 22-27, has in the North Germanic region its side-piece on fibulae of silver plate with entirely straight rectangular headplates. We have seen in the previous chapter that on the South Germanic fibulae of metal plate, particularly in an earlier stage, the form of the headplate switched, and even in some late examples approximates the rectangular form, see page 15 Fig. 23, but the crucial step in this trend would yet be first made in the North and just as in the South Germanic region it becomes the support plates of the spiral rolls, which laid the basis of this transformation, we find, which
53 See for example information of the K. K. Central-Commission etc. Band V. S. 105. where the Puszta-BakodFibel is shown. 54 See for example Fig. 196.

also is the same essential cause of the development of the rectangular plate. Look we to the fibulae of the Sacrau* type,

* German Sakrau/Sacrau and Polish Zakrzw are names for many villages which are today a part of Poland and used to be a part of Germany before 1945. Original German Sackrau - Anne Beeche.