Germanic art, artefacts and runes, BC-AD; news & discussion

[Rodoorn]

[Rodoorn]

Golden Sword Knop Ezinge, Groningen, early seventh century, assumed relationship with Wijnaldum (^^^) and Sutton Hoo.



By the way my last name is derived from a line from nearby Ezinge: 
https://www.oostum.nl/

[Orentil]

While screening through some artefacts from the Thuringian empire (ca. 480-531) I stumbled over an tremissis coin (imitate?) found in Boilstädt, Thuringia, Germany displaying Victoria. The way her wing is drawn caught my eye. I compared it with a gold bracteate found in Vindelev some years ago. In a discussion between JonikW and me we both agreed that the small side figure on the left side must have used Victoria as a template based on the globe-like ball in her one hand and a laurel wreath in the other hand. In addition there is a garbled palm frond next to her feet.
What we did not discuss, if I remember right, was the strange body shape, described by Morten Axboe as fish-like. But a comparison with the Boilstädt tremissis makes it very probable that simply the wing of Victoria was merged with her body (on purpose or by accident?). Compare also the position of the feet still pointing to a seated Victoria.
Of course there is the possibility that this is not only a garbled version of Victoria but that the meaning changed, as we discussed.

A very specific observation, but I thought I share it here :-)

[JonikW]

While screening through some artefacts from the Thuringian empire (ca. 480-531) I stumbled over an tremissis coin (imitate?) found in Boilstädt, Thuringia, Germany displaying Victoria. The way her wing is drawn caught my eye. I compared it with a gold bracteate found in Vindelev some years ago. In a discussion between JonikW and me we both agreed that the small side figure on the left side must have used Victoria as a template based on the globe-like ball in her one hand and a laurel wreath in the other hand. In addition there is a garbled palm frond next to her feet.
What we did not discuss, if I remember right, was the strange body shape, described by Morten Axboe as fish-like. But a comparison with the Boilstädt tremissis makes it very probable that simply the wing of Victoria was merged with her body (on purpose or by accident?). Compare also the position of the feet still pointing to a seated Victoria.
Of course there is the possibility that this is not only a garbled version of Victoria but that the meaning changed, as we discussed.

A very specific observation, but I thought I share it here :-)

That's an amazing discovery Orentil. I think you're right that Victoria's wings on the tremissis look like they inspired the Vindelev figure's body shape. It seems you've identified an important missing link between official issuance like the example below (which you posted during our earlier AG discussion) and the bracteate imagery.



I'm confident that tremissis from Boilstädt is an imitate, as you suggest, a “pseudo-imperial” Frankish coin based on a Roman/Byzantine model. What this seems to me to mean is that the Vindelev bracteate maker had seen both finely made official issuance featuring Victoria and the labarum imperial standard in my image above (he places the latter under his figure's feet, as we discussed earlier) and imitates exactly like that tremissis.

I think we touched very briefly on the body earlier when I recall suggesting the possibility that the bracteate figure was wearing a tasseled cloak of the kind common in Germanic lands (and surviving in Danish examples from bogs). I'm by no means saying that idea was correct, but I can see how the wings on the tremissis Victoria could actually be construed as a cloak. It's interesting that the Victoria on the official coin above is so small that it isn't necessarily clear that she's winged either unless you're familiar with Roman iconography. She might instead have been viewed by the bracteate maker as wearing a cloak, as is the emperor clasping her in his hand.

Of course an official tremissis would show clear wings but I assume the bracteate maker only had access to a limited number of coins. Anyway, just an additional idea, but your own observation on the link between the imitate tremissis and the bracteate strikes me as important and disproves the fish-like body theory which always appeared misguided to start with.

[Orentil]

As you say, the artist must have had access to different coins/motifs and combined them.

For the tremissis, a template could have looked similar to the one below.

[Rodoorn]

While screening through some artefacts from the Thuringian empire (ca. 480-531) I stumbled over an tremissis coin (imitate?) found in Boilstädt, Thuringia, Germany displaying Victoria. The way her wing is drawn caught my eye. I compared it with a gold bracteate found in Vindelev some years ago. In a discussion between JonikW and me we both agreed that the small side figure on the left side must have used Victoria as a template based on the globe-like ball in her one hand and a laurel wreath in the other hand. In addition there is a garbled palm frond next to her feet.
What we did not discuss, if I remember right, was the strange body shape, described by Morten Axboe as fish-like. But a comparison with the Boilstädt tremissis makes it very probable that simply the wing of Victoria was merged with her body (on purpose or by accident?). Compare also the position of the feet still pointing to a seated Victoria.
Of course there is the possibility that this is not only a garbled version of Victoria but that the meaning changed, as we discussed.

A very specific observation, but I thought I share it here :-)

That's an amazing discovery Orentil. I think you're right that Victoria's wings on the tremissis look like they inspired the Vindelev figure's body shape. It seems you've identified an important missing link between official issuance like the example below (which you posted during our earlier AG discussion) and the bracteate imagery.



I'm confident that tremissis from Boilstädt is an imitate, as you suggest, a “pseudo-imperial” Frankish coin based on a Roman/Byzantine model. What this seems to me to mean is that the Vindelev bracteate maker had seen both finely made official issuance featuring Victoria and the labarum imperial standard in my image above (he places the latter under his figure's feet, as we discussed earlier) and imitates exactly like that tremissis.

I think we touched very briefly on the body earlier when I recall suggesting the possibility that the bracteate figure was wearing a tasseled cloak of the kind common in Germanic lands (and surviving in Danish examples from bogs). I'm by no means saying that idea was correct, but I can see how the wings on the tremissis Victoria could actually be construed as a cloak. It's interesting that the Victoria on the official coin above is so small that it isn't necessarily clear that she's winged either unless you're familiar with Roman iconography. She might instead have been viewed by the bracteate maker as wearing a cloak, as is the emperor clasping her in his hand.

Of course an official tremissis would show clear wings but I assume the bracteate maker only had access to a limited number of coins. Anyway, just an additional idea, but your own observation on the link between the imitate tremissis and the bracteate strikes me as important and disproves the fish-like body theory which always appeared misguided to start with.

I guess this is going to be blasphemy for the right honorable gentlemen JonikW and Orentil, but  these bracteate and the following works of Stefan Burmeister about Germanic warlords came into my mind when I saw a documentary about a Haitian warlord.....'old habits never die'  



https://www.researchgate.net/publication...09_392-402

https://www.academia.edu/104396935/Germa...rds_Räuber

[Orentil]

Diamonds are a girls best friend - and gold attracts boys as well…

[Orentil]

As we are currently discussing in another thread the Langobardian cemetery of Mödling-Leinerinnen (i.e. Vienna, Austria) where we are now getting  genetic data, I'd like to take the opportunity to compare some bow brooches found there (4, 5 in black and white; 1 and 2 are from Montale, Cividale, Northern Italy) with a bow brooch I just saw recently on display in an exhibition in Friedberg, near Augsburg, Bavaria. Please note how similar the motive on the footplate is with the two intertwined animal bodies - all of them a very much related and somewhere on the way between style I and style II, around 550 AD, the Friedberg one maybe a bit later. On the other side we see different solutions for the headplate, small square headed versus different versions of semi-circular and typical Langobardian style. Even I argued before that Augsburg might have been a very important place for producing and designing brooches, I would rather assume that the original design was from somewhere in Pannonia or Lower Austria then the other way round.

[JonikW]

As we are currently discussing in another thread the Langobardian cemetery of Mödling-Leinerinnen (i.e. Vienna, Austria) where we are now getting  genetic data, I'd like to take the opportunity to compare some bow brooches found there (4, 5 in black and white; 1 and 2 are from Montale, Cividale, Northern Italy) with a bow brooch I just saw recently on display in an exhibition in Friedberg, near Augsburg, Bavaria. Please note how similar the motive on the footplate is with the two intertwined animal bodies - all of them a very much related and somewhere on the way between style I and style II, around 550 AD, the Friedberg one maybe a bit later. On the other side we see different solutions for the headplate, small square headed versus different versions of semi-circular and typical Langobardian style. Even I argued before that Augsburg might have been a very important place for producing and designing brooches, I would rather assume that the original design was from somewhere in Pannonia or Lower Austria then the other way round.

Amazing brooches Orentil. I love the design of No 2 in particular. Seeing these images reminded me that I bought a tiny bow brooch back in my collecting days. It was only a few pounds and I assumed it was a fake when I paid for it and I planned to turn it into a keyring.

The more I looked at it though, including the patina in the areas that hadn't been harshly cleaned, the more I started to think it was a legitimate artefact. Hence I never ended up turning it into that keyring I planned.

If it's genuine I'm surprised by its tiny size although I do have a Roman trumpet brooch of the same scale that I assume once fastened a child's garments. I'd be interested in any views. It's very obviously a Continental design but I can't remember where the seller was based. I failed to keep my usual record because of my initial assumption.





PS: thanks for your post Rodoorn. Completely agree and there's no trace of blasphemy there of course. ;-)

[Orentil]

As we are currently discussing in another thread the Langobardian cemetery of Mödling-Leinerinnen (i.e. Vienna, Austria) where we are now getting  genetic data, I'd like to take the opportunity to compare some bow brooches found there (4, 5 in black and white; 1 and 2 are from Montale, Cividale, Northern Italy) with a bow brooch I just saw recently on display in an exhibition in Friedberg, near Augsburg, Bavaria. Please note how similar the motive on the footplate is with the two intertwined animal bodies - all of them a very much related and somewhere on the way between style I and style II, around 550 AD, the Friedberg one maybe a bit later. On the other side we see different solutions for the headplate, small square headed versus different versions of semi-circular and typical Langobardian style. Even I argued before that Augsburg might have been a very important place for producing and designing brooches, I would rather assume that the original design was from somewhere in Pannonia or Lower Austria then the other way round.

Amazing brooches Orentil. I love the design of No 2 in particular. Seeing these images reminded me that I bought a tiny bow brooch back in my collecting days. It was only a few pounds and I assumed it was a fake when I paid for it and I planned to turn it into a keyring.

The more I looked at it though, including the patina in the areas that hadn't been harshly cleaned, the more I started to think it was a legitimate artefact. Hence I never ended up turning it into that keyring I planned.

If it's genuine I'm surprised by its tiny size although I do have a Roman trumpet brooch of the same scale that I assume once fastened a child's garments. I'd be interested in any views. It's very obviously a Continental design but I can't remember where the seller was based. I failed to keep my usual record because of my initial assumption.





PS: thanks for your post Rodoorn. Completely agree and there's no trace of blasphemy there of course. ;-)

You should start collecting again, JonikW :-) For me it looks genuine. Some of the brooches are very small, see e.g. the picture below. Even there is no scale I would say that the BFMiniat in the left upper corner will have the same size, actually it looks very similar besides the 3 instead of the 5 knobs.

[Orentil]

As we are currently discussing in another thread the Langobardian cemetery of Mödling-Leinerinnen (i.e. Vienna, Austria) where we are now getting  genetic data, I'd like to take the opportunity to compare some bow brooches found there (4, 5 in black and white; 1 and 2 are from Montale, Cividale, Northern Italy) with a bow brooch I just saw recently on display in an exhibition in Friedberg, near Augsburg, Bavaria. Please note how similar the motive on the footplate is with the two intertwined animal bodies - all of them a very much related and somewhere on the way between style I and style II, around 550 AD, the Friedberg one maybe a bit later. On the other side we see different solutions for the headplate, small square headed versus different versions of semi-circular and typical Langobardian style. Even I argued before that Augsburg might have been a very important place for producing and designing brooches, I would rather assume that the original design was from somewhere in Pannonia or Lower Austria then the other way round.

Amazing brooches Orentil. I love the design of No 2 in particular. Seeing these images reminded me that I bought a tiny bow brooch back in my collecting days. It was only a few pounds and I assumed it was a fake when I paid for it and I planned to turn it into a keyring.

The more I looked at it though, including the patina in the areas that hadn't been harshly cleaned, the more I started to think it was a legitimate artefact. Hence I never ended up turning it into that keyring I planned.

If it's genuine I'm surprised by its tiny size although I do have a Roman trumpet brooch of the same scale that I assume once fastened a child's garments. I'd be interested in any views. It's very obviously a Continental design but I can't remember where the seller was based. I failed to keep my usual record because of my initial assumption.





PS: thanks for your post Rodoorn. Completely agree and there's no trace of blasphemy there of course. ;-)

You should start collecting again, JonikW :-) For me it looks genuine. Some of the brooches are very small, see e.g. the picture below. Even there is no scale I would say that the BFMiniat in the left upper corner will have the same size, actually it looks very similar besides the 3 instead of the 5 knobs.

I didn't comment on the size. It seems to be of similar size as the bird brooches. Maybe it was worn similar to them? Still not sure if I like the idea of a keyring or not, but at least it would bring it to a new life and it would be more visible then in a drawer. This would also be a way of showing respect to it.

[JonikW]

Amazing brooches Orentil. I love the design of No 2 in particular. Seeing these images reminded me that I bought a tiny bow brooch back in my collecting days. It was only a few pounds and I assumed it was a fake when I paid for it and I planned to turn it into a keyring.

The more I looked at it though, including the patina in the areas that hadn't been harshly cleaned, the more I started to think it was a legitimate artefact. Hence I never ended up turning it into that keyring I planned.

If it's genuine I'm surprised by its tiny size although I do have a Roman trumpet brooch of the same scale that I assume once fastened a child's garments. I'd be interested in any views. It's very obviously a Continental design but I can't remember where the seller was based. I failed to keep my usual record because of my initial assumption.





PS: thanks for your post Rodoorn. Completely agree and there's no trace of blasphemy there of course. ;-)

You should start collecting again, JonikW :-) For me it looks genuine. Some of the brooches are very small, see e.g. the picture below. Even there is no scale I would say that the BFMiniat in the left upper corner will have the same size, actually it looks very similar besides the 3 instead of the 5 knobs.

I didn't comment on the size. It seems to be of similar size as the bird brooches. Maybe it was worn similar to them? Still not sure if I like the idea of a keyring or not, but at least it would bring it to a new life and it would be more visible then in a drawer. This would also be a way of showing respect to it.

Thanks Orentil. The Roman brooch that I mentioned is miniscule but undoubtedly real so I figured it might be possible for some of the later continental radiate-headed brooches to be of a similar size.

I do feel a bit guilty these days about owning these artefacts but at least they're in safe hands and I've conserved every one of them very carefully using Renaissance Wax. The other idea I had for this brooch if it had been fake was to use it as a zip tag on my rucksack. But given that I now think it's a genuine artefact I'll keep it safely in my collection.

I mentioned before that I've documented everything carefully (apart from this brooch because I assumed it was fake when I bought it). I've also sketched every item when adding it to the catalogue. However poor your drawing skills might be, I've found sketching to be really useful for getting the eye in with the differences between the Germanic art styles in particular. Drawing something forces you to concentrate on the shapes and proportions in a way we don't normally do when we just observe artefacts.