Bow| Fibulae|

Bow fibulae are one of the three classes of fibulae; the other two classes are penannular fibulae| (class A) and plate fibulae| (class C). Bow fibulae have a body set apart from the pin, usually in some form of an arc, giving the appearance of a bow, with the pin as the string (hence, the name). The body of the bow is generally long and narrow. While bow fibulae can be only decorative the gap between bow and pin means that many types can be used to fasten together a bulk of fabric.



A sample of bow fibulae types from Riha, E. Die römischen Fibeln aus Augst und Kaiseraugst. (1979). PDF


Bow Fibula Groups (B1 - B6)

Their are dozens of types, sub-types and varieties of bow fibulae, but all are included in one of six bow fibula groups. The groups are based on one-piece construction (entirely made from) one piece of bronze, or more than one-piece construction, the type of pin: spring or hinge, and the pin connection.

One Piece Construction, Spring Pin

Group B1: One-piece construction, spring with four turns, tendon (wire connecting two ends of the spring) below the spring.

Early bow fibula were made from one piece of bronze. The entire fibula from the catch, to the bow, to the spring, to the tip of the pin was created by shaping and bending a single piece of bronze with great expertise and skill. The pin extends from the end of a spring consisting of one or more loops. The tension of the spring helps keep the pin in place. The wire foot (a-b below) is the most common pin catch/holder. The solid foot is a late development.



Spring with four turns and tendon below (1), wire foot (a-b), a sample of bow group B1 fibula (Riha group 1) from Riha, E. Die römischen Fibeln aus Augst und Kaiseraugst. (1979). PDF

Group B2: One-piece construction, tendon (wire connecting two ends of the spring) above the spring, held by spring hook.

Again, the entire fibula from the catch, to the bow, to the hook and plate, to the spring, to the tip of the pin was created by shaping and bending a single piece of bronze with great expertise and skill. The pin extends from the end of a spring. The tension of the spring helps keep the pin in place. The hook holding the spring was an invention of the Augustan period, which did not go beyond the 1st century. Predominantly group 2 fibulae are open/framed foot, or perforated foot, but occasionally also solid foot.



Spring with four turns and tendon below (2), a sample of bow group B2 fibula (Riha group 2) from Riha, E. Die römischen Fibeln aus Augst und Kaiseraugst. (1979). PDF
Two-Piece Construction, Spring Pin

Group B3: Two-piece construction with a pin holding the spring.

One-piece construction was rapidly replaced by the much easier to manufacture two-piece construction in the middle of the 1st century A.D. The pin spring holder remained in use until late in the Roman period, primarily in free Germania and the adjacent areas of the Roman provinces. For group 3, the needle holders are not of uniform shape. The needle catches tend to be higher than other groups, some are tubular.



Fibula spring with axis pin (3.1 - 3.21), a sample of bow group B3 fibula (Riha group 3) from Riha, E. Die römischen Fibeln aus Augst und Kaiseraugst. (1979). PDF

Group B4: Two-piece construction with spring sleeve.

This group is characteristic of the Gallic regions (Gaul to the Rhine, otherwise rare). Predominantly open/framed foot, or perforated foot, but occasionally also solid foot.



Fibula pin spring and spring sleeve (4.1 - 4.11), a sample of bow group B4 fibula (Riha group 4) from Riha, E. Die römischen Fibeln aus Augst und Kaiseraugst. (1979). PDF
Hinge Pin

Group B5: Bow Fibula with an Sleeve Hing, Early Imperial - Beginning of 2nd Century.

This type probably originated in Italy. It became the most popular form of closure for Roman provincial fibulae, and is characteristic of the bow brooches from the early imperial times to the beginning of the 2nd century. Outside the Roman Empire and after that time, this type of hing was seldom used. The sleeve hinge consists of a small sleeve at the top of the head which is forged from a square sheet metal plate and then rolled up. In a center-cut slot, the spiked needle is inserted and held by a shaft (usually iron) passing through the whole sleeve. At the ends of each of the Aucissa fibulae and their early successors were buttons holding the hinge axis; later, the hinge axis was clamped in the sleeve and needed no buttons. The needle always carries a thorn-like projection on its perforated oval plate, which beats against the head of the fibula and, by virtue of this resistance, causes the suspension to spring forth. The sleeve hinge is used exclusively in bow fibulae. The needle is primarily rectilinear, but bends hand in hand with the flattening of the bow to the outside to continue to leave enough space between the bracket and needle. For group 5, triangular to quadrangular (i-m below) solid plate needle holders are characteristic, but now and then they also have a simple perforation. The sleeve hinge is considered a typical Roman construction. The sleeve hinge fibulae are by far the largest group of Roman fibulae in terms of numbers.


Fibula pin hinge with a hinge pin sleeve (5), a sample of bow fibula group B5 (Riha group 5) from Riha, E. Die römischen Fibeln aus Augst und Kaiseraugst. (1979). PDF

Group| B6|: Bow| Fibula| with a |Tubular Hinge|, c. |End 2nd Century - Late |Roman |Period.

Around the end of the second century, perhaps in connection with a change in the production of fibulae, the tube hinge was introduced. It was the primary hing form in the Middle and Late Roman period. Like the hinge in general, this construction is limited to the Roman provinces. The hinge system itself functions like that of group 5. The hinge arms, however, are cast or well soldered and always larger than those of the sleeve hinge and lengthen and thicken over time: at the end are the massive or hollow cross arms of the onion button brooches. The pin is not held in place by lateral buttons, but is clamped. The needle has the same shape as in group 5. Sometimes, however, it has no thorn-like projection to push the needle outward so security measures to keep the needle in the catch-plate were necessary. The fibulae of group 6 are, with a few exceptions, showing high needle holders (n-p below) with disc or foot-shaped feet. This construction is characteristic of the late Roman period.


Tubular fibula pin hinge (6), a sample of bow fibula group B6 (Riha group 6) from Riha, E. Die römischen Fibeln aus Augst und Kaiseraugst. (1979). PDF



Bow Fibula Types - Page Links in Alphabetical Order

Alesia
Aucissa
Augen
Bent-foot fibula
Crossbow fibula
Eingliederige Fibula
Enamelled bow
Group B3 Fibula
Hod hill
Knee Fibula|
Knick Fibula|
Kraftig profilierte
La Tène Fibula
Roman Bow Fibula
Round Head-Plate Knee Fibulae
Tall-catch crossbow fibula
Two-plate bow fibula
Tubular hinge
Wing Fibula


References

Almgren, O. Studien über nordeuropäische Fibelformen. (Liepzig, 1923). PDF
Bohme, A. "Die Fibeln der Kastelle Saalburg und Zugmantel" in Saalburg Jahrbuch, XXIX. (1973). 
Bojovic, D. Rimske Fibule Singidunuma. Muzej Grada Bograda Serija - Zbirke i Legati Katalog XII. (Belgrade|, 1983).
Busuladzic, A. "The Fibulae| Collection from Mogorjelo" in Opusc Archaeol 32, 2008. PDF
Curta, F. Not 'Slavic' after all: Bow Fibulae of Werner’s Class IIA. (Bucharest, 2010).
Curta, F. "Werner’s Class 1H of “Slavic” Bow Fibulae Revisited" in Archaeologica Bulgarica VIII, 2004.
Dandridge, Pete. "Idiomatic and Mainstream: The Technical Vocabulary of a Late Roman Crossbow Fibula" in Metropolitan Museum Journal 35, 2010.
Ettlinger, E. Die römischen Fibeln in der Schweiz. (Bern, 1973).
Exner, K. "Die provinzialrömischen Emailfibeln der Rheinlande" in Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission, 1941.
Feugere, M. Les fibules en Gaule meridionale de la conquite a la fin du Ve sicle apres J.-C. (Paris, 1985).
Garbsch, J. "Die norisch-pannonische Frauentracht im 1. und 2. Jahrhundert" in MBV 11 (Munich, 1965).
Genceva, E. Les Fibules Romaines de Bulgarie de la fin du 1er s. av. J.-C. à la fin du VIe s. ap. J.-C. (Veliko Trnovo, 2004). PDF
Hull, M. "The Brooches at Bagendon" in E. Clifford, Bagendon, a Belgic Oppidum (1961). pp. 167 ff.
Jobst, W. Die römischen Fibeln aus Lauriacum. (Wimmer, Linz, 1975).
Koscevic, R. Antičke fi bule s područja Siska. (Zagreb, 1980). PDF
Kovrig, I. Die Haupttypen der kaiserzeitlichen Fibeln in Pannonien. (Budapest, 1937). PDF
Lokosek, I. "Lučne fibule na samir's devine igle iz Arčeološkog muzeja u Splitu" in Vjesnik za arheologiju i historiju dalmatinsku (VAHD), issue 81, 1988.
Milavec, T. "Crossbow fibulae of the 5th and 6th centuries in the southeastern Alps" in Arheološki Vestnik 60, 2009.
Riha, E. Die römischen Fibeln aus Augst und Kaiseraugst. (1979). PDF
Ritterling, E. Das Frührömische Lager bei Hofheim im Taunus. (Wiesbaden, 1913).
Separovic, T. "Aucissa fibule S natpisom iz zbirke Muzeja hrvatskih arheoloških spomenika" in SHP III/125 (1998). PDF
Tivaclarne, V. & K. Berecz. Aucissa and Enamelled Brooches in Pannonia and the neighbouring Barbaricum. (Budapest, 2008).
Van Buchem, H. De Fibulae Van Nijmegen. (Nijmegen, 1941). PDF