Category Archives: Jewelry

What size were brooches in the Middle Ages – Part 5 – Fibulae, Dress Pins and Miscellaneous Brooches

Posted on by

So, the first thing I should probably do is describe a fibula (singular). Think safety pin without the safety. Fibulae (plural) appear on the scene by about 1,000 BC in Mesopotamia, and we still use their descendents today, in the form of kilt pins and safety pins. Pre-1600 fibulae can be made of bronze, iron, silver, or gold, They can generally not be made of lead or tin because these metals are too soft and will break when flexed repeatedly. Fibulae can be plain and functional, or large and ostentatious. This gold Etruscan Fibula shows just a hint of the type of complexity and beauty that was put into crafting some of the ancient fibulae. And this winged fibula from Panonia (an area that bordered the Danube) is an exquisite example of the jewelers art.

But on a practical level, most fibulae were relatively plain and functional. This picture shows a selection of fibulae and pins that I own. The left hand column is a 1500’s pin, a Celtic fibula (3rd to 2nd c BC), and a Celtic fibula (from Yugoslavia 1BC to 1 AD). The large dress pin on the left is a Roman silver hairpin pin (found in Yugoslavia 1st to 3rd c BC – and yes, that is a duck on top), and the large pin on the right is a silver reproduction Viking dress pin that I use for closing my shawl. The right hand column contains reproduction pieces from The Treasury. Three sets of two: dress pins – 1200’s to the Victorian Age. The top set are small brass pins, the middle are large brass pins, and the bottom are large nickel silver (looks like silver). The bottom of the column is two small fibulae, one in brass and one in nickel silver.

Fibulae and PinsAnd what about dress pins? I personally believe that dress pins are probably one of the oldest types of closures that were used by mankind. A large thorn, a sharpened stick, and eventually sharpened pieces of metal were used by almost every culture to close a cloak, hold hair in place, or close a more complex garment. The size and complexity of construction of dress pins varies dramatically depending on the available materials used, and the technology available to the maker. Earlier dress pins were generally (always a dangerous word!) larger, usually three to six inches long. Later period dress pins could be much smaller, often only 1 to 1 1/2 inches long, but larger specialty dress pins, in the form of hair pins and hat pins are still in use today.

And then there are the “miscellaneous brooches”. Different shapes, different sizes, different metal alloys, and we often find them out of context. What were they used for? Were they decorative? Were they functional? Were they both?

It is known that in Roman times there were specific large brooches awarded to certain men of rank. This bow brooch, which is a specialized form of fibula, is an excellent example of this sort of brooch.

And some of the huge ring brooches that we find in Scotland and Ireland, certainly fall into the “I am obviously important” display category. This brief article on the Tara Brooch has a couple of great pictures.

There are also tons of brooches shaped like animals, hearts, flowers, and geometric shapes, just to name a few. But going back to our possibly long forgotten original point – most don’t lay flat, and while they may work well on an outside layer of clothing, they don’t work well on an interior layer.

Next Time: Buckles!

What Size Were Brooches in the Middle Ages?

Posted on by

I could just as easily have asked this question about any sort of common item, and because of my training I often do. I realized a couple of years ago that many people have a total misconception of the size of a lot of things that people used. Despite years of education and extensive training I am NOT completely immune to this problem. I sometimes buy small metal detector finds, and have been caught in this trap.

A little while ago I purchased a very nice annular brooch (ring brooch). It was a good looking bronze piece which had a sort of twisted rope look. There were no dimensions given for the piece and I assumed that it was at least twice the size that it actually was. I was shocked when I saw how tiny the brooch actually was. This made me wonder how common an issue this really was. So, I looked at the given dimensions for many other items that were on sale. Then I went to a couple of the museum sites and looked at the actual sizes of the finds in the museum. And yes, there were a few really magnificent huge pieces, but in general the brooches and everyday pieces were rather small – at least by modern standards.

Researching the size of the people who wore these items in England shows that women during the Middle Ages were generally about 5 foot 2 inches tall and men about 5 foot 6 inches. The article that I read said that this meant that Medieval Women were only an inch taller than modern women. I am 5 foot 9 inches tall. My grandmother, who was born in about 1890, was 5 foot 2 inches, but most of my female friends are at least 5 foot six. Now I consider myself to be a little taller than average, but not dramatically so. Is it possible that these brooches were sized smaller because the people were smaller, or were they sized smaller because of the value of the metal?

I don’t think that we can give a definitive answer to this question, but I would love to hear people’s opinions on this topic. Metal really was a valuable commodity.

Inexpensive metals like tin and lead were commonly used to make lower end pilgrim’s badges and decorative pieces. These metals both have a very low melting temperature, which means that they can be cast using a simple hearth. Pilgrim’s badges give us other important clues as well. Some tears ago I had the good fortune to meet with the curator of medieval artifacts for the Museum of London. Besides the sheer exhilaration of spending time with John in the bowels of the Museum storage looking at pilgrim’s badges, I also noticed the casual finishing of these ubiquitous items. Many of the badges had flashing left over from the manufacturing process. Modernly, we would expect those “manufacturing defects” to be removed. Casting and finishing of tin and lead are easy, so the condition of the pilgrim’s badges indicates the acceptance of a rough finish for some pieces.

Next time: Bronze brooches and other tiny things

One of my pewter brooches, a dime, and the tiny brooch that I bought.

One of my pewter brooches, a dime, and the tiny brooch that I bought.

 

Wire Weaving – Not as Simple as it Seems: Part 6 – Significance

Posted on by

Last time I asked the question: But is any of this significant?

I think it is. The two forms of wire weaving are distinctly different in form. The Nahlbinding form uses a distinctive looping pattern, known in fiber circles as the Coptic stitch. In addition, the Nahlbinding form, like Nahlbinding that is done with yarn, uses relatively short pieces of wire, usually 12 to 18 inches long, that are joined together to form a woven chain or some other form. The knit form uses the same pattern as the knit stitch in Knitting. The knit form also uses a continuous piece of wire. The length of this wire is limited only by the ability of the maker to create it.

So now we have a problem. The original form of Trichinopoly, is the knit form. But historically it has not been sorted correctly from the Nahlbinding form. The teacher in my Gulf War class chose to call the Nahlbinding form “Baltic Wire Weaving”. The problem with that is that it certainly did not originate there. Several years ago I found a piece of it in the touring exhibit of the female pharaoh, Hapshetsut, which puts the date back to 1508–1458 BC, and Egypt is no where near the Baltic.

I don’t really have a solution for the naming problem, but I do have another VERY important point to make. When I began in the SCA many years ago I was told that knitting was not done pre-1600. Then latter I was told it was brought to Spain by the Arabs and was used there by about 1200. Then I ran across the fact that during the reign of Henry VIII a law was enacted requiring all men to wear a knit cap on Sunday, and another stating that women must wear white knit caps unless their husband was of considerable social standing, and only the nobility could wear knit goods that were produced outside of the realm. And then about four or five years ago the Museum of London digitized, and made available, an extensive collection of knit coifs, flat caps and other items that are pre-1600.

But what does that have to do with Trichinopoly. Simple. The original identified form of this wire weaving, the Trewhiddle Hoard, is believed to have deposited about 868 AD in the Cornwall area of England. And there appear to be other pieces in Scotland and Ireland. That puts the structure of knitting in the British Isles before 868 AD, considerably older that the 1500’s.

Now we have the opportunity for more research. In Scandinavia we find Nahlbinding used for both fiber and wire. In Egypt we see both knitting and Nahlbinding techniques used in fiber. The Victoria and Albert has a Nahlbinding pair of socks, and I have personally seen the same technique used in jewelry. Can we locate the knit structure in Egypt in wire jewelry? And in the British Isles we find the knit structure at least as early as 868 AD in metal. Can we push it back farther in metal? And can we find it in fiber? Fiber is much more easily destroyed by time and the environment than most metal, but bogs can preserve animal fibers, like wool. The time has come to actively revisit old finds, in both metal and fiber, with a thorough understanding of knit and Nahlbinding structures. The time has come to make sure that researchers are well versed in the nuances of wire weaving structures.

Dated approximately 872-5, based on coins in t...

Dated approximately 872-5, based on coins in the hoard. Found at Trewhiddle, Cornwall, England 10: Curved ornamental mounts, function unknown 11: Scourge (whip) made of tube-knitted wire, with plaits and knots, with a glass bead attachment 13: Decorated pin with hollow head 15: Flattened ornamental strip of unknown function 16: Decorated strap end 17: Bronze buckle, with the tongue missing 18: Plain cast strap ends and belt slides 19: Coins and coin fragments (Photo credit: Wikipedia)