Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-xtvcr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-20T14:18:08.334Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

THE GOLD AND GARNET CHAIN FROM ISENBÜTTEL, GERMANY: A POSSIBLE PIN SUITE WITH ANGLO-SAXON PARALLELS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 August 2016

Alexandra Hilgner*
Affiliation:
Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum, Leibniz-Forschungsinstitut für Archäologie, Ernst-Ludwig Platz 2, 55116 Mainz, Germany. Email: hilgner@rgzm.de
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The ‘Isenbüttel gold necklace’, now in the Lower Saxony State Museum in Hanover, was found almost a century ago in Lower Saxony, an area with no history of early medieval gold finds or richly furnished burials. As no parallels are known for the object, scholars have long debated the dating, provenance and function of this unique loop-in-loop chain, with its animal-head terminals and garnet cloisonné. Recent excavations of Anglo-Saxon cemeteries dating to the seventh century have, however, added new finds to the small corpus of objects known as ‘pin suites’, consisting of comparatively short pins perhaps designed to fix a veil or a light shawl in the collar area, with ornate pinheads, linked by chains. This paper focuses on Anglo-Saxon pin suites from high-status burials of the second half of the seventh century and seeks to set the finds group in its wider social and historical context, revealing the far-reaching relationships that existed between early medieval elites.

Type
Papers
Copyright
© The Society of Antiquaries of London 2016 

In the summer of 1922 a gold chain was found by a labourer while digging out tree stumps in the rural area south of Isenbüttel, in the Gifhorn district of Lower Saxony, Germany. At first its significance was not recognised and the finder gave the chain to his child. Several weeks later, a physician noted the object and arranged a meeting with a local museum director, but the object was then sold to a private collector. Happily, it ended up in the collection of the Lower Saxony State Museum in Hanover some forty years later. The object – a loop-in-loop chain made of gold with animal-head terminals with garnet inlays (fig 1) – is an exceptional discovery for which no parallels are yet known. Excavations at the findspot in the spring of 1928 revealed no further evidence, leading to the assumption that the Isenbüttel necklace was a single find.Footnote 1 Recently, the object was re-examined at the Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum (RGZM) in Mainz, Germany, as part of the interdisciplinary International Framework (Weltweites Zellwerk) project, which looked at a large number of garnet-decorated objects from sites in Europe, dating mainly to the seventh century.Footnote 2

Fig 1 The gold and garnet chain from Isenbüttel: present condition. Photograph: U Bohnhorst; © Landesmuseum Hannover

The 420mm-long chain is made of gold wire in a double, or probably threefold, loop-in-loop technique.Footnote 3 The preserved length, including the chain and the two terminals, is c 490mm. The intact terminal represents an animal head with a long neck and open mouth, while only the neck survives from the damaged counterpart. Both heads were constructed identically and are decorated with garnet inlays and filigree designs in Salin’s Animal Style II.Footnote 4 The lack of diagnostic features makes it difficult to identify whether the animal is a snake or a mythical creature. A strong gold rod is soldered into the open mouth; two small rings (now missing)Footnote 5 that were attached to it probably functioned as a fastener. The terminals are strikingly decorated with red garnet inlays in a cloisonné row on top of the head and neck and in round form to serve as eyes and on top of the nose (fig 2). Gold waffle foil is visible underneath the garnets, which were fitted into the cells as precisely as possible; closer examination shows that the edges are not cut and polished but are simply chipped. The garnet slabs appear brittle and have surface scratches; this is typical for garnet cloisonné of the seventh century and probably led to earlier misinterpretations of the material as glass.Footnote 6

Fig 2 Top and side view of the Isenbüttel chain’s well-preserved animal-head terminal. Photographs: S Steidl, Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum, Mainz

In 2015, µ-XRF analyses at the Römisch-Germanisches ZentralmuseumFootnote 7 confirmed that the garnets are of a type known as Bohemian pyrope, which is often characterised by its very small size and dark colour, as can be seen on this object.Footnote 8 Indian almandine is more typically used for garnet cloisonné in Europe until the end of the sixth century,Footnote 9 being replaced by coloured glass or by Bohemian pyrope at the turn of the seventh century,Footnote 10 when the cloisonné style vanished from the Continent and was replaced by filigree designs and single set stones. This shift in raw material sources from India and Sri Lanka to Bohemia in the seventh century has now been confirmed in a multitude of studies,Footnote 11 and it supports a seventh-century dating for the Isenbüttel chain. One often cited explanation for this phenomenon is that trade routes were disrupted by the Sassanian conquest of the Arabian peninsula in the later sixth century,Footnote 12 or by Islamic expansion in the early seventh century.Footnote 13 The truth is probably more complex and connected to growing regionalisation of the economy in the western Mediterranean followed by a general decline in Mediterranean trade.Footnote 14 Remarkably, the cloisonné style continued to be employed in seventh-century Vendel-period Sweden and in Anglo-Saxon England, but the very limited number of chemical analyses carried out on garnet jewellery from these areas means that the raw material sources for these garnets remain largely unknown.Footnote 15

Comparative Material And The Development Of The Pin Suite

Before looking at the parallels for the find from Isenbüttel, it is necessary to take a closer look at the development of loop-in-loop chains, with a focus on double or threefold chains with animal-head terminals. In their simplest form (single loop-in-loop or figure-of-eight loop) these chains already appear in prehistoric contexts: one of the earliest examples comes from Asia Minor (Troy III; c 2250–c 2200 bc).Footnote 16 These chains first reached central Europe during the Hallstatt period (eighth to sixth centuries bc), probably in the form of Etruscan imports.Footnote 17 More massive (double or threefold) loop-in-loop chains with animal-head terminals seem to have become popular for the first time in classical Greece. They spread with the expansion of Greek colonies in the Mediterranean and the Black Sea region, as illustrated by examples from Chersonesos (Crimea), Santa Eufemia (Calabria) and Capua (Campania).Footnote 18 They were usually worn in the form of a pectoral-necklace together with an amulet or pendant. But there are also examples used to link pairs of brooches. One example, now in the British Museum, consists of a 540mm-long silver loop-in-loop chain with snake-head terminals from Elis (Peloponnese), dating to c 420–400bc. Footnote 19 Two unusually massive examples of loop-in-loop gold necklaces in ‘torc-style’ formed part of the Winchester Hoard (Owslebury, Hampshire) and are associated with two pairs of gold brooches, one pair being linked with a smaller loop-in-loop chain. They were most probably made in a Roman workshop during the first century bc.Footnote 20 Loop-in-loop chains stayed in vogue throughout antiquity, and animal heads – especially the heads of lions – were a popular terminal design.

For late antiquity and the Migration Period, Joan Pinar et al showed that the associated workshops for a special group of these chains were located in the western Mediterranean, for example, in Rome, Ravenna or Carthage.Footnote 21 North of the Alps double or threefold loop-in-loop chains with animal-head terminals are more numerous in late Roman contexts. Examples dating from the fourth and fifth centuries have been found in hoards from Thetford (Norfolk)Footnote 22 and Hoxne (Suffolk)Footnote 23 (fig 3). Besides lion-head terminals, dolphin- and snake-heads have become well-established by this time, often with glass inlays as eyes. Roman loop-in-loop chains were usually worn as necklaces with hook and eye closure.

Fig 3 Late Roman gold necklace with snake- or dolphin-head terminals from Thetford, Norfolk. Drawing: © Trustees of the British Museum

A golden loop-in-loop chain with animal-head terminals and garnet inlays was found in association with a Migration Period treasure from Cluj-Someşeni, Romania, next to the famous Apahida findspot (fig 4).Footnote 24 This assemblage dates to the fifth century and probably originates from a Byzantine workshop.Footnote 25 Technological features, as well as the garnet cloisonné in the form of a row, are reminiscent of the find from Isenbüttel, but its function was different as it originally held a large pendant. An analogy can be seen in a similar necklace from Olbia.Footnote 26 It can be assumed that loop-in-loop chains appearing in ‘barbarian’ graves, since at least late antiquity, were not only inspired by Roman models, but most probably originated from within the Roman Empire.Footnote 27

Fig 4 Fragmentary preserved loop-in-loop chain with animal-head terminals and garnet inlays from the Cluj-Someşeni Migration Period treasure. Photograph: after Harhoiu Reference Harhoiu2001, 162; reproduced courtesy of G Dumitriu, National Museum of Romanian History, Bucharest

In the early medieval period, double or threefold loop-in-loop chains are mainly documented from the Byzantine Empire, predominantly in the form of gold necklaces with pectoral crosses or encolpia.Footnote 28 In central Europe they have mostly been found in richly furnished female burials, such as the one dating to the last quarter of the sixth century from below Cologne Cathedral, which apparently functioned as a chain linking a pair of brooches.Footnote 29 A fragment of a loop-in-loop gold chain with a pendant in the form of a hand was found in a rich female burial from Wittislingen (in the Dillingen district of Germany), dating to the middle of the seventh century.Footnote 30 The hand pendant was probably already an antique by that time, as the best comparisons are from the Roman period. A gold filigree disc brooch with garnet cloisonné was found in the same grave. The cloisonné cells are arranged in rows forming the snake-like bodies of eight animals, with heads turned to face one another (fig 5). Stylistically and technologically this disc brooch is an important clue to the dating of the find from Isenbüttel.

Fig 5 Gold filigree disc brooch from Wittislingen with garnet cloisonné decoration arranged in rows. Photograph: M Eberlein; © Archäologische Staatssammlung, Munich

In general, then, we can conclude that loop-in-loop gold chains only occur in very rich burials in the early medieval period, but that animal-head terminals seem no longer to have been popular, at least in Continental Europe.Footnote 31 The exception is the one group of chains with animal-head terminals that has not yet been considered: namely the Anglo-Saxon linked pin suite. This type of jewellery often appears in sets comprising simple copper-alloy pins linked by a single loop-in-loop chain, but more elaborate pieces are also found, made of precious-metal and garnet-decorated pins. Some of the latter have chains merging into animal-head terminals.

Linked pins probably originated in late antiquity, as demonstrated by finds from Olympia. In a stone slab grave within the area of the temple of Zeus, a pair of copper-alloy pins with polyhedral heads was linked with a simple chain. Comparative finds date this pin-type mainly to the third and fourth centuries ad.Footnote 32 But the same type, this time with a copper-alloy cross in the middle of the chain (fig 6), was found in another grave (no. 21) at that site, which was part of a Christian cemetery dating from the fifth century.Footnote 33 In the second quarter of the fifth century these linked pins with polyhedral heads are distributed mainly in the East Germanic area and seem to replace the traditional dress styles with brooches.Footnote 34 While these pins are usually made of copper-alloy, more elaborate finds are also known, such as a set of gold pins from Hippo Regius (modern Annaba, in Algeria) with loops for a chain.Footnote 35 Another golden set comes from Beiral, in Portugal, with a sumptuous linking chain made of gold and decorated with pin-shaped pendants. This object group probably had its origin in the western Mediterranean, just like the loop-in-loop chains with animal-head terminals already described.Footnote 36

Fig 6 Pins with polyhedral head and linking chain from Olympia, grave 21. Drawing: after Völling Reference Völling2001, 319, fig 4

The Piazza della Consolazione treasure from Rome also dates to the first half of the fifth century. It consists of different pieces of jewellery, among them at least four gold necklaces with gemstones.Footnote 37 One is a double or threefold loop-in-loop chain with pearls, sapphires and emeralds;Footnote 38 another is a figure-of-eight loop chain with lion-head terminals.Footnote 39 An associated set of linked pins is made of gold and copper-alloy with inlaid pearls and garnet cabochons. The linking chain is decorated with emerald beads and has a hook latch for closure in the middle (fig 7).Footnote 40 Among the other items of jewellery from this assemblage are types that are depicted in the portraits of the Empress Theodora and her attendants in the Ravenna mosaics.Footnote 41 Not only does this illustrate that the massive loop-in-loop chains have a strong connection to the fashion of the Byzantine Empire, but also that the linked pin suite as a type of jewellery continues a tradition going back to antiquity. A variation is the set of linked pins with garnet cloisonné-heads from the treasure of Domagnano (San Marino) dating to the late fifth or early sixth century, which probably formed part of a head-dress.Footnote 42

Fig 7 Pin suite made of gold with garnet cabochons, pearls and emeralds from the Piazza della Consolazione treasure. The tips of the pins were made of a copper-alloy and are now corroded. Photograph: © Dumbarton Oaks, Byzantine Collection, Washington, DC

While it appears that the fashion of wearing linked pin suites was abandoned on the Continent during the early medieval period, it had become a popular part of female dress jewellery in Anglo-Saxon England by the seventh century. Here the comparatively short pins were probably used to fix a veil or a light shawl in the collar area.Footnote 43 Often just single pins with looped heads and fragmentary chains survive;Footnote 44 it can be assumed that these represent a former set of linked pins already broken before burial.Footnote 45 Complete sets are mostly connected with loop-in-loop chains and can be made of copper-alloy, but also of silver or gold.Footnote 46 More elaborate sets are made of precious metal with garnet decoration on the pin head, as in the finds from Cow LoweFootnote 47 and Wigber LowFootnote 48 (both Derbyshire), from graves 39 and 55 at Chamberlains Barn (Leighton Buzzard, Bedfordshire) (fig 8),Footnote 49 from grave 138 at Butler’s Field (Lechlade, Gloucestershire)Footnote 50 and on a new find from the Trumpington bed burial (Cambridgeshire).Footnote 51 A site in Appleby (North Lincolnshire) produced two silver-gilded stray finds, obviously belonging together, forming a set of disc-headed pins with attachment loops and red glass cabochons.Footnote 52 A special form of triple-linked pin suite made of gold with garnet inlays is known from Little Hampton (Worcestershire).Footnote 53 If pin suites are found in situ on the body, they are normally in the area between neck and chest, like the set from grave 39 at Chamberlains Barn, where a pin suite made of silver with garnet inlays was found in the upper chest area, underneath the chin: the pins pierced two layers of a fine textile and were covered by a third, rougher, piece of cloth.Footnote 54

Fig 8 Silver pin suite from grave 39, Chamberlains Barn, Leighton Buzzard, Bedfordshire, with flat garnets set on each side of the pin heads. Drawing: after Hyslop Reference Hyslop1963, 182, fig 13

A gold set from Roundway Down, a barrow burial in Wiltshire,Footnote 55 not only has garnet inlays on the pin heads, but is also linked with a single figure-of-eight loop-in-loop chain with animal-head terminals (fig 9). The animal heads, probably depicting boars, are of cylindrical form, connected with the chain via loops. In the middle of the chain a round glass pendant with a cross-motif is set in a gold collar. The glass possibly originates from Ireland.Footnote 56 This kind of chain and the central cross pendant stand in a Mediterranean late antique tradition and are reminiscent of the above-mentioned contexts from Olympia. The rich female burial from Roundway Down was inserted into a Bronze Age barrow and was probably also a bed burial on the evidence of the associated finds of wood and iron.Footnote 57 Besides the linked pins, a necklace with biconical gold beads and garnet- and glass-cabochon pendants was found, dating the burial to the second half of the seventh century.

Fig 9 Gold pin suite with garnet-decorated pin heads and linking chain with animal-head terminals from a barrow burial at Roundway Down. Drawing: after Akerman Reference Akerman1885, pl 1.1

In the Anglo-Saxon cemetery at Butler’s Field in Lechlade (Gloucestershire) a silver parallel to the Roundway Down pin suite was found in grave 14, the richly furnished burial of a female teenager interred at the end of the seventh century.Footnote 58 The silver pin suite, which lay in the chest area, also has garnet-decorated pin heads and a figure-of-eight loop chain with animal-head terminals (fig 10). While pins and chain are closely paralleled at Roundway Down, the animal-head terminals are designed less vividly and seem to be constructed simply of two bent silver sheets. They are also linked via loops. A small cylindrical container was associated with the burial; often associated with linked pins,Footnote 59 in many cases such containers include fragments of textile and thread and are thus described as sewing boxes in some reports, but they are frequently decorated with a cross-motif and are more likely to be reliquary containers (see ‘Interpretation’, below).Footnote 60

Fig 10 Silver pin suite with animal-head terminals from the Butler’s Field cemetery, Lechlade, Glos. The pin heads are also decorated with garnet inlays. Drawing: after Boyle et al Reference Boyle, Jennings, Miles and Palmer1998, fig 5.39; © Oxford Archaeology

A broken silver pin suite (fig 11) was found within one of these containers in grave 18 of the Harford Farm cemetery (Caistor St Edmund, Norfolk) along with fragments of textile and two dress hooks.Footnote 61 Why the broken pin suite was put into the container is unclear,Footnote 62 but it is conceivable that it was an heirloom or a relic associated with a revered individual. This richly furnished grave also contained a gold filigree pendant with cruciform garnet inlays, placed within a wooden box.Footnote 63 This is typical for the second half of the seventh century, where most of the grave goods were placed within boxes or bags rather than being placed on the body in the position in which they would have been worn.Footnote 64 The burial is also associated with two coins dated to the end of the seventh century.Footnote 65 This pin suite is probably the best parallel to the Isenbüttel find. The simple silver pins with looped heads were connected via wire rings to loops that extended from the open mouths of the animal heads of the chain. The animal heads were made of two pieces of bent silver sheet, like those from Butler’s Field, but of a more vivid design: the upper part forms the top of the head, with eyes, nose and upper jaw, while the lower part forms the lower jaw and neck. The animal heads from the Isenbüttel chain were constructed in a comparable way. The animals on the Harford Farm chain have small inlaid eyes of blue glass; a semicircular notch on the tip of the nose might be stylistic or it might relate to the attachment of the loops. The remaining animal head on the chain from Isenbüttel has a small round garnet inlaid in the same position. Directly underneath is the strong gold rod to which the two above-mentioned small rings were attached. Based on the comparisons mentioned so far, it can be assumed that these rings were the linking parts between the chain and two pins or (in a Continental context) two brooches. The fragmentary silver loop-in-loop chain from Harford Farm seems to have been made in a technologically comparable way to the chain from Isenbüttel. It is only the size that differentiates the Isenbüttel example and Anglo-Saxon linking chains: while the latter are quite delicate and, at about 200mm, rather short,Footnote 66 the Isenbüttel chain is distinguished by its total length of c 500mm.

Fig 11 This silver pin suite from the Harford Farm cemetery, Norfolk, is probably the best parallel to the find from Isenbüttel. It was already broken when it was buried inside a relic box in a rich grave between c ad 690 and 710. Drawing: after Penn Reference Penn2000, fig 88

Derivation Of The Motif And Socio-Historical Context

In Anglo-Saxon England linked pin suites are usually found in burials that do not contain brooches, thus apparently representing a fashion in which the garment was closed in another way. It is possible to imagine a combination of tunic-style dress and veil, as was fashionable among the aristocratic women of the Byzantine Empire. These influences might have come to England via the Frankish Empire, where women adopted Byzantine imperial dress styles from the early sixth century.Footnote 67 In the late sixth and early seventh centuries, southern England was influenced by Merovingian Francia through trade and personal mobility, religion, law and marriage.Footnote 68 Even so, linked pin suites seem to be an English idiosyncrasy, dating from the middle of the seventh century to the end of the practice of furnished burial.Footnote 69 The find from Isenbüttel seems to represent the one Continental exception.

Seventh-century linked pin suites have both Germanic and classical features. During the Anglo-Saxon Conversion period they belong to a series of objects with a strong reference to antiquity, which may represent a new kind of romanitas or, under the influence of the Church and the Merovingian Empire, the assimilation of a Romano-Byzantine fashion.Footnote 70 Although the double-headed snake-motif has its origin in antiquity, it becomes especially popular north of the Alps in the sixth and seventh centuries, periods that are otherwise comparatively poor in figurative art.Footnote 71 From the seventh century onwards even a connection to the ‘weapon dancer’ motif is possible.Footnote 72

This combination of classical and Germanic motifs can be seen on several other objects from the North Sea area at that time; for example, in the two silver arm-rings with animal-head terminals excavated in Cathedral Square, Utrecht.Footnote 73 One of the arm-rings has cylindrical animal heads ending in a boar-like snout, similar to the pin suite from Roundway Down (see above). Zigzag notches between the eyes and snout are reminiscent of the cloisonné row on the Isenbüttel animal heads.Footnote 74 The other Utrecht arm-ring is gilded and has terminals in the form of oval snake-heads. A small garnet was preserved in one of the eye sockets. The heads correspond to those from the late antique hoards from Thetford and Hoxne. Both arm-rings date to the late seventh century and illustrate how antique forms and features were quoted and interpreted at this time. Gold arm-rings with animal-head terminals and garnet inlays are also known from Migration Period burials from Untersiebenbrunn (Austria) where they represent a synthesis of Germanic arm-rings with truncated terminals (Kolbenarmringe) and late antique influences.Footnote 75

Interpretation

If the chain from Isenbüttel had been found in a burial context, the grave would surely have belonged to a member of the social elite in Eastphalia.Footnote 76 As a single find, the circumstances of its deposition will probably never be clarified. In general, there are rather few objects in the Continental Saxon area that are decorated with Animal Style II motifs,Footnote 77 especially by contrast with the Anglo-Saxon, Scandinavian or Frisian regions. There is also little evidence for high-status burials in the Saxon area,Footnote 78 such evidence as there is being found within the Frankish Empire contact zones.Footnote 79

During the sixth and seventh centuries, burial rites show great diversity in the Eastphalia area, even from one cemetery to another, with differently orientated inhumations and cremation burials being practised in some cases even in the seventh century. Christoph Grünewald interprets this as evidence for the lack of regulation of burial rite and a sign of changing authority in the region,Footnote 80 while Gabriele Wand sees the mobility of the population and their openness to the influence of neighbouring peoples as the determining factor.Footnote 81

Furnished burials are known from almost all the region’s cemeteries, and these show strong Frankish (and later northern) influences in the choice of grave goods, but richly furnished burials are rare. This lack of richly furnished burials cannot be attributed to the lack of an elite, as the large number of hoards and stray finds from the Continental Saxon area, including the gold chain from Isenbüttel, are evidence for the continuing presence of wealthy individuals.Footnote 82 Some elite burials appear around the turn of the seventh century, often with western-influenced grave goods, such as the warrior burials from Beckum, Fürstenberg and Warburg-Ossendorf, or the rich female burial from Soest. Another example of early medieval elite burial in Eastphalia is Klein-Vahlberg, located just 35km south east of Isenbüttel, in the Wolfenbüttel district. Here, a partly robbed but richly furnished female grave, dating from the beginning of the seventh century, was found in a barrow.Footnote 83 With the advance of the century the short phase of elite burials ends in this region, while furnished burial as a whole ends here by the late seventh century.Footnote 84

It is notable that all these places were located within the catchment area of the Hellweg, a major early medieval road network connecting important trading places between the Rhine and the Elbe rivers (fig 12). It can be assumed that local elites settled in this vicinity to benefit from this trading network.Footnote 85 Although it cannot be said for sure if it was the people who travelled or the objects, the western (and later northern) character of the grave goods is probably a result of the nearby Hellweg trading network and a sign of the same mobility of the people living in the area that is reflected in the diversity of burial customs.Footnote 86

Fig 12 Places mentioned in the text (red) and other places along the Hellweg

Even though its function as a simple necklace cannot be excluded for the Isenbüttel chain, the best parallels are found in Anglo-Saxon linked pin suites. Linked pins decorated with garnets or with a linking chain with animal-head terminals are only found in England in exceptionally rich female burials dating to the seventh century. Helen Geake’s sample of thirteen graves with linked pins (including copper-alloy examples) showed a concentration in the Upper Thames region and East Anglia.Footnote 87 No clear pattern is apparent for the distribution of pin suites with garnet decoration due to the small number of objects. The same is true of animal-headed terminal pin suites. But looking at all precious-metal pin suites, including both garnet-decorated types and examples with animal-head terminals, a general pattern emerges showing a concentration in the southern half of England (fig 13). The sample of fourteen graves from eleven sites with linked pins (including copper-alloy examples) from the recent study of some 600 Anglo-Saxon graves carried out by a team around John Hines and Alex Bayliss revealed a corresponding pattern,Footnote 88 which is also reminiscent of the distribution of some other types of imported materials known from Anglo-Saxon cemeteries in the later sixth and seventh centuries, especially amber, crystal and amethyst beads, ivory rings and gold coinage.Footnote 89

Fig 13 Distribution map of Anglo-Saxon pin suites made of gold or silver. 1: Harford Farm; 2: grave 14, Butler’s Field; 3: Roundway Down; 4: Trumpington; 5: Cow Lowe; 6: Wigber Low; 7: grave 39, Chamberlains Barn; 8: grave 55, Chamberlains Barn; 9: Little Hampton; 10: grave 138, Butler’s Field; 11: Winnall; 12: Bloodmoor Hill; 13: Chartham Downs; 14: Southampton; 15: Appleby; 16: Westfield Farm

The women that were buried with elaborate pin suites obviously belonged to a social elite. This can be assumed on the one hand from the burial in richly furnished graves in a time that is otherwise poor in grave goods, and on the other from the types of burial: these include barrow burials (Roundway Down, Chartham Down) and bed burials (Trumpington, Roundway Down), or burials that show close parallels to these types. The numerous occurrences of objects with cross-motifs in these burials can surely be interpreted as Christian imagery during the Anglo-Saxon Conversion period. In the Trumpington bed burial, for example, a golden garnet cloisonné pectoral cross was found next to the pin suite.Footnote 90 This change in spiritual, as well as material, life styles came, most probably, from the Continent, more specifically from Frankish Gaul, where the daughters of Anglo-Saxon aristocratic families were sent to monasteries, as is mentioned in historical sources.Footnote 91 The rich female burials that appear in Anglo-Saxon England from the 630s onwards also have to be considered in the context of a significant change in the role of females in the Church. This change ultimately led to the rise of a number of abbesses during the last four decades of the seventh century, including St Hilda of Whitby and St Æthelthryth of Ely.Footnote 92

In summary it can be said of women wearing linked pin suites that they belonged to the aristocracy, were buried in a Christian context and were probably wearing a special kind of ‘veil-fashion’. Besides being simply a fashionable accessory following Romano-Byzantine ideals, pin suites could also represent an early form of monastic habit. Since antiquity, the veil has been a symbol of married and aristocratic women and later also of Christian nuns (as brides of Christ).Footnote 93 St Aldhelm, in condemning the luxurious costumes of aristocratic members of the monastic community, mentions long and colourful veils reaching down to the feet of women.Footnote 94 A very small, recently excavated cemetery at Westfield Farm, Ely (Cambridgeshire), dating to the late seventh century, could have been associated with the first monastery in Ely, founded by Æthelthryth in 673. It is interesting that the central, richly furnished grave is that of a girl and contained a silver pin suite besides other jewellery.Footnote 95

If pin suites represented bridal gifts, we would expect much higher numbers to have been found. A potential religious connotation is indicated by the finds from grave 1 at Westfield Farm and grave 18 at Harford Farm.Footnote 96 While the former can be linked to an early monastery, the latter burial contained a pin suite that was found in a so-called relic box together with textile fragments. Bearing in mind that these small containers are a phenomenon of the Conversion period, the pieces of cloth included in the container could represent relics (possibly not first- or second-class relics, connected directly with Christ or a saint as something they had worn or touched, but more possibly third-class relics that had touched a first-class relic). Relic boxes have parallels in Continental Europe where such containers have also been popular, often in the form of so-called bullae, spherical amulet capsules. Besides pieces of cloth, they sometimes include herbs and aromatics. One of the largest examples comes from a female burial from Cologne Cathedral, which also included a long loop-in-loop chain connecting two brooches.Footnote 97

Whether the chain from Isenbüttel falls into the same category as the Anglo-Saxon pin suites is difficult to decide because of the lack of a context for the find. Chronologically, it probably stands at the beginning of the evolution from the long and massive sixth-century Cologne Cathedral-style loop-in-loop chain functioning as a ‘brooch chain’ to the delicate and smaller pin suites of the second half of the seventh century. Stylistic parallels for the garnet cloisonné, as seen on the brooch from Wittislingen, point to a possible date around the middle or the beginning of the second half of the seventh century for the chain from Isenbüttel, which probably represents the only Continental addition to the small corpus of early medieval pin suites with animal-head terminals. It stands out as a unique find in the Eastphalian area, where the general absence of rich grave finds makes the local elite an elusive one from an archaeological point of view. At this point it is impossible to say why the leading wealthy families did not invest in furnished burials in this region, but the strong links between Anglo-Saxon pin suites and the Isenbüttel find – all of them examples of high-quality goldsmith’s work – are an evocative, if enigmatic, testament to close contacts between the Anglo-Saxon and the Eastphalian elites of the seventh century.

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to the Lower Saxony State Museum (the Niedersächsisches Landesmuseum) in Hanover (in particular Babette Ludowici of the Department of Archaeology) for allowing the chain from Isenbüttel to be studied in the labs of the Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum (RGZM). The study has been made possible by generous funding from the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF). All analyses have been carried out in the labs of the RGZM. The maps were created by Michael Ober. I am thankful to Sonngard Hartmann and Michael Rychlicki for XRF analyses and Christiane Stempel for technological analyses. I would also like to thank Dieter Quast for our interesting discussions and for encouraging me to write this article, as well as Martin Schönfelder and Holger Baitinger for supplying literature on prehistoric finds and the finds from Olympia (all RGZM). Thanks are also due to Jörn Schuster (AsF) for draft proofreading and to the three anonymous referees of the Antiquaries Journal and the journal’s editors, Kate Owen and Christopher Catling, for their constructive comments on the paper.

Footnotes

1 Potratz Reference Potratz1943, 78–80.

2 The project has been funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research for a period of three years, from 1 Jan 2014 to 31 Dec 2016.

3 For different loop-in-loop techniques see Ogden Reference Ogden1992, 47–9, and Brepohl Reference Brepohl2008, 253–4.

4 Salin Reference Salin1904, 245–70.

5 Potratz Reference Potratz1943, 78.

6 For example, ibid, 80.

7 Scientific analysis of the component materials was carried out by Sonngard Hartmann and Michael Rychlick; for details see Hilgner forthcoming Reference Hilgnera.

8 The garnet slabs are 2–3mm in diameter.

9 For an overview see Gilg et al Reference Gilg, Kile, Liebetrau, Modreski, Neumeier and Staebler2008; Hilgner Reference Hilgner2010, 69–74; Hilgner forthcoming Reference Hilgnerb.

10 First confirmed by Quast and Schüssler Reference Quast and Schüssler2000; for an overview see Adams Reference Adams2011.

12 Freeden Reference Freeden2000.

13 Pirenne Reference Pirenne1922.

14 An overview for the 6th century can be found in Hodges and Bowden Reference Hodges and Bowden1998, summarised in Wickham Reference Wickham1998; see also Hodges Reference Hodges2012. For the 7th–9th centuries, see Gelichi and Hodges Reference Gelichi and Hodges2012.

15 First results point to India as the main source for these garnets: Hilgner forthcoming Reference Hilgnerc.

16 For the prehistoric development of loop-in-loop chains, see Schönfelder Reference Schönfelder1998, esp 79–84.

17 Ibid, 82–3.

18 Williams and Ogden Reference Williams and Ogden1994, 197, 207, 216.

19 Ibid, 52.

20 La Niece and Hill Reference La Niece and Hill2004.

21 Pinar et al Reference Pinar, Padró and Juárez2006, 582–3.

22 Johns and Potter Reference Johns and Potter1983, 101 and fig 20 on p 102.

23 Johns Reference Johns2010, 23–31, esp fig 3.12 on p 31.

24 Horedt and Protase Reference Horedt and Protase1970, 86–7 and pl 22; Harhoiu Reference Harhoiu2001, 162.

25 Quast Reference Quast2011, 127; for a different view, see Schmauder Reference Schmauder2002, 129–31.

26 Ross Reference Ross1965, pl 79; Horedt and Protase Reference Horedt and Protase1970, 95–6 and fig 5.

28 For example, from Constantinople and the eastern Mediterranean: Ross Reference Ross1965, 33 and pls 15, 17, 29; Spier Reference Spier2012, 91–4, 108–11.

29 Doppelfeld Reference Doppelfeld1960, esp 95 and pl 15; Ristow Reference Ristow2012, esp 83–4 and fig 47.

30 Werner Reference Werner1950, 60; Riemer Reference Riemer1997, fig 516.

31 They came back into fashion again in the Viking Age, but were then made of silver in a technologically different method. Potratz Reference Potratz1943, pls 45–51, shows several examples; see also Graham-Campbell Reference Graham-Campbell2011, esp 121–4; Whitfield Reference Whitfield2006, 30.

32 Philipp Reference Philipp1981, 106 and pls 6, 39.

33 Völling Reference Völling2001, 303–10, esp p 308, fig 4 on p 319.

34 Quast Reference Quast2005, 264–70, 306–7.

35 Ibid, 263 and fig 18; Eger Reference Eger2012, 199–200 and pls 13, 20.

36 Pinar Reference Pinar Gil2007, esp 177–8; Quast Reference Quast2005, 269–70.

37 Parts of the hoard are lost; cf Ross Reference Ross1991, 252 n 201.

38 Ross Reference Ross1965, 1 and pl 2.

39 Ogden Reference Ogden1996, 87.

40 Ross Reference Ross1965, 1 and pl 5.

41 Yeroulanou Reference Yeroulanou2010, 347.

43 Owen-Crocker Reference Owen-Crocker2004, 148. For a discussion on Anglo-Saxon veils, see Walton Rogers Reference Walton Rogers2007, 157–68.

44 For example, grave no. 1, Harford Farm cemetery, Caistor St Edmund, Norfolk: Penn Reference Penn2000, 53–4.

45 Meaney and Hawkes Reference Meaney and Hawkes1970, 36–7. A compilation can be found in Ross Reference Ross1991, 252–67.

46 Precious-metal pin suites are known from: Barrow A, Chartham Downs (NIS Chartham Down 2007); grave 8, Winnall (Meaney and Hawkes Reference Meaney and Hawkes1970, 36–7, fig 9); grave 22, Bloodmoor Hill (Scull Reference Scull2009, 398–9, fig 7.18); trench 4, Cook Street, Southampton (Gaimster et al Reference Gaimster, Margeson and Barry1989, 191); grave 1, Westfield Farm (Lucy et al Reference Lucy, Newman, Dodwell, Hills, Dekker, O’Connel, Riddler and Walton Rogers2009, 88–91, fig 3b).

47 Ozanne Reference Ozanne1962, 28.

48 Collis Reference Collis1983, 73–6 and fig 40.

49 Hyslop Reference Hyslop1963, 181, 185 and figs 13, 16.

50 Boyle et al Reference Boyle, Jennings, Miles and Palmer1998, 111–12 and fig 5.85 on p 238.

53 Ross Reference Ross1991, 249–51 and fig 5.28.

54 Hyslop Reference Hyslop1963, 181; Owen-Crocker Reference Owen-Crocker2004, 148 n 93.

55 Akerman Reference Akerman1885, 1–2 and pl 1.

56 Speake Reference Speake1989, 110.

57 Akerman Reference Akerman1885, 1.

59 Hills Reference Hills2015, 53.

60 A summary of the discussion can be found in Meaney Reference Meaney1981, 181–9; cf Hills Reference Hills2011; Hills Reference Hills2015.

61 Penn Reference Penn2000, 19, 62.

63 Penn Reference Penn2000, fig 86 on p 111. For new research on the pendant, see Hilgner forthcoming Reference Hilgnerc.

64 Welch Reference Welch2011, 267, with further reading.

65 Penn Reference Penn2000, 18–19; Blackburn Reference Blackburn2000, 75.

66 The original length of the Harford Farm pin suite is unknown, as it was already broken when buried.

67 Schulze Reference Schulze1976; Marzinzik Reference Marzinzik2003, 85.

68 Marzinzik Reference Marzinzik2003, 81–4; Wood Reference Wood1992, esp 239.

69 Geake Reference Geake1997, 36.

70 Geake Reference Geake1999, 212.

71 Helmbrecht Reference Helmbrecht2007; Aufleger Reference Aufleger1997, 180–2 and pls 108, 112.

72 This is a recurring motif of Scandinavian origin, depicting a man with ‘horned’ headgear. The horns consist of two snakes or long-necked birds facing each other. Stylistic comparison with depictions on bracteates and other objects suggests that the double-headed snake was also used as an abridged motif for the ‘weapon dancer’ and functioned as a pictorial cypher: see Hilgner Reference Hilgner2015, 407–11 and fig 13.

73 Nicolay Reference Nicolay2014, 108.

74 A boar’s head terminal in the round, with garnet inlays, was found in Nornay, Nottinghamshire (Evans Reference Evans2000). Continental parallels suggest it was part of a helmet or sword pommel rather than belonging to female jewellery (Périn Reference Périn2009).

75 Koch Reference Koch2001, 110 and figs 2.4, 3.8.

76 Cf Høilund Nielsen Reference Høilund Nielsen2003, 224.

77 Ibid, 216–20.

78 For possible robbed burials, see Steuer Reference Steuer1978, 477.

79 Ibid, 472–4.

80 Grünewald Reference Grünewald2004, 77–9.

81 Wand Reference Wand1982, 266–78.

82 Steuer Reference Steuer1978, 478.

83 Ludowici Reference Ludowici1999, 140–52; Ludowici Reference Ludowici2005, 90–5 and pls 94–96.

84 Grünewald Reference Grünewald2004, 73–80.

85 Ludowici Reference Ludowici2010, 335–9, esp 338–9 and fig 1.

86 On burial customs in Westphalia, see Wand Reference Wand1982.

87 Geake Reference Geake1997, map 6 on p 208.

88 Hines and Bayliss Reference Hines and Bayliss2013; 10 of their samples correspond to 10 of the 16 samples used for the distribution map in the current study (see fig 13). See also the online database underlying the Hines and Bayliss study: Hines Reference Hines2013.

89 Huggett Reference Huggett1988, figs 1–4; Naylor Reference Naylor2012, fig 2.

93 Ortenberg Reference Ortenberg2001, 60.

94 Aldhelm, De Virginitate, lviii (Crowfoot and Hawkes Reference Crowfoot and Hawkes1967, 63–4).

96 Hills Reference Hills2015, 57.

97 Ristow Reference Ristow2012, 84; Doppelfeld Reference Doppelfeld1960, 101.

References

Adams, N 2011. ‘The garnet millennium: the role of seal stones in garnet studies’, in C Entwistle and N Adams (eds), Gems of Heaven: recent research on engraved gemstones in late antiquity, AD 200–600, 1024, Brit Mus Res Publ 179, London Google Scholar
Akerman, J Y 1885. Remains of Pagan Saxondom, John Russel Smith, London Google Scholar
Aufleger, M 1997. Tierdarstellungen in der Kleinkunst der Merowingerzeit im westlichen Frankenreich, Arch Schriften Inst Vor- und Frühgesch, Mainz 6, Mainz Google Scholar
Blackburn, M 2000. ‘The two sceattas of Series B from Grave 18 (objects 1a and b)’, in Penn 2000, 7576 Google Scholar
Boyle, A, Jennings, D, Miles, D and Palmer, S 1998. The Anglo-Saxon Cemetery at Butler’s Field, Lechlade, Gloucestershire. Vol 1: Prehistoric and Roman Activity and Anglo-Saxon Grave Catalogue, Oxford Archaeology, Oxford Google Scholar
Boyle, A, Jennings, D, Miles, D and Palmer, S 2011. The Anglo-Saxon Cemetery at Butler’s Field, Lechlade, Gloucestershire. Vol 2: The Anglo-Saxon Grave Goods, Specialist Reports, Phasing and Discussion, Oxford Archaeology, Oxford Google Scholar
Brepohl, E 2008. Theorie und Praxis des Goldschmieds, 16th edn, Fachbuchverlag Leipzig im Hanser-Verlag, Munich Google Scholar
Calligaro, T, Colinart, S, Poirot, J-P and Sudres, C 2002. ‘Combined external-beam PIXE and µ-Raman characterization of garnets used in Merovingian jewellery’, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics, 189 (Research B), 320327 Google Scholar
Calligaro, T, Périn, P, Vallet, F and Poirot, J-P 2007. ‘Contribution à l’étude des grenats mérovigiens’, Antiquités Nationales, 38 (2006–7), 111144 Google Scholar
Collis, J 1983. Wigber Low, Derbyshire: a Bronze Age and Anglian burial site in the White Peak, University of Sheffield, Sheffield Google Scholar
Crowfoot, E and Hawkes, S C 1967. ‘Early Anglo-Saxon gold braids’, Medieval Archaeol, 11, 4286 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doppelfeld, O 1960. ‘Das Fränkische Frauengrab unter dem Chor des Kölner Domes’, Germania, 38, 89113 Google Scholar
Downes, A 2008. ‘SWYOR-72ABC5: an early medieval pin’, Portable Antiquities Scheme, <https://finds.org.uk/database/artefacts/record/id/225323> (accessed 2 June 2016)+(accessed+2+June+2016)>Google Scholar
Eger, C 2012. Spätantikes Kleidungszubehör aus Nordafrika I. Trägerkreis, Mobilität und Ethnos im Spiegel der Funde der späten römischen Kaiserzeit und der vandalischen Zeit, Reichert Verlag Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden Google Scholar
Evans, A C 2000. ‘No. 75, Nornay, Nottinghamshire: early Anglo-Saxon gold and cloisonné garnet boar’s head terminal’, Treasure Annual Report 2000, 5354 Google Scholar
Fowler, H 2013. ‘CAM-A04EF7: an early medieval assemblage’, Portable Antiquities Scheme, <https://finds.org.uk/database/artefacts/record/id/586813> (accessed 2 June 2016)+(accessed+2+June+2016)>Google Scholar
Freeden, U von 2000. ‘Das Ende engzelligen Cloisonnés und die Eroberung Südarabiens durch die Sasaniden’, Germania, 78, 97124 Google Scholar
Gaimster, D, Margeson, S and Barry, T 1989. ‘Medieval Britain and Ireland in 1988 (sites and finds)’, Medieval Archaeol, 33, 161241 Google Scholar
Geake, H 1997. The Use of Grave-Goods in Conversion-Period England, c 600–c 850, BAR Brit Ser 261, BAR Ltd, Oxford Google Scholar
Geake, H 1999. ‘Invisible kingdoms: the use of grave-goods in seventh-century England’, in T Dickinson and D Griffiths (eds), The Making of Kingdoms, Anglo-Saxon Stud Archaeol Hist 10, 203215, Oxbow, Oxford Google Scholar
Gelichi, S and Hodges, R (eds) 2012. From One Sea to Another: trading places in the European and Mediterranean Early Middle Ages, Brepols, Turnhout CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilg, H A, Kile, D, Liebetrau, S, Modreski, P, Neumeier, G and Staebler, G (eds) 2008. Garnet. Great Balls of Fire, extraLapis Engl 11, Lithography, East Hampton, CT Google Scholar
Graham-Campbell, J 2011. The Cuerdale Hoard and Related Viking-Age Silver and Gold from Britain and Ireland in the British Museum, British Museum Press, London Google Scholar
Greiff, S 1998. ‘Naturwissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zur Frage der Rohsteinquellen für frühmittelalterlichen Almandingranatschmuck rheinfränkischer Provenienz’, Jahrbuch RGZM, 45, 599647 Google Scholar
Grünewald, C 2004. ‘Archäologie des frühen Mittelalters vom 5. bis zum 9. Jahrhundert in Westfalen – ein Überblick’, in K Günther (ed), Archäologie in Ostwestfalen, 9, 7186, Verlag für Regionalgeschichte, Bielefeld Google Scholar
Hamerow, H, Byard, A, Cameron, E, Düring, A, Levick, P, Marquez-Grant, N and Shortland, A 2015. ‘A high-status seventh-century female burial from West Hanney, Oxfordshire’, Antiq J, 95, 128 Google Scholar
Harhoiu, R 2001. ‘Schatzfund von Cluj-Someşeni, Siebenbürgen / Transsylvanien, Rumänien’, in Wieczorek and Périn 2001, 162165 Google Scholar
Helmbrecht, M 2007. ‘Figures with horned headgear. A case study of context analyses and social significance of pictures in Vendel and Viking-Age Scandinavia’, Lund Archaeol Rev, 1314 (2007–8), 3153 Google Scholar
Hilgner, A 2010. ‘Das Prunkgrab von Planig. Neubearbeitung eines Altfundes’, Mainzer Zeitschrift, 105, 4186 Google Scholar
Hilgner, A 2015. ‘Eine kommunikative Bilderwelt? Anmerkungen zu einer angelsächsischen Gürtelschnalle aus Burwell (Cambridgeshire / GB)’, Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt, 45 (3), 403415 Google Scholar
Hilgner, A forthcoming a. ‘Neue Untersuchungen zur Goldkette von Isenbüttel’, Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt, 46 (3)Google Scholar
Hilgner, A forthcoming b. ‘A short history of garnet: the development and chronology of the cloisonné style’, in I Baldini (ed), Oreficeria tardoantica e altomedievale, Ornamenta 6, Ante Quem, Bologna Google Scholar
Hilgner, A forthcoming c. ‘Garnet in Anglo-Saxon England: the meaning, provenance and distribution of garnet-decorated objects from the late 5th to the early 8th century’, PhD thesis in preparation, University of MainzGoogle Scholar
Hills, C 2011. ‘Work boxes or reliquaries? Small copper-alloy containers in seventh-century Anglo-Saxon graves’, in S Brookes, S Harrington and A Reynolds (eds), Studies in Early Anglo-Saxon Art and Archaeology: papers in honour of Martin G Welch, BAR Brit Ser 527, 1419, Archaeopress, Oxford Google Scholar
Hills, C 2015. ‘Work boxes or reliquaries? Small copper-alloy containers in seventh-century Anglo-Saxon graves’, in C Ruhmann and V Brieske (eds), Dying Gods: religious beliefs in northern and eastern Europe in the time of Christianisation, Neue Studien zur Sachsenforschung 5, 5161, Theiss, Hanover Google Scholar
Hines, J 2013. ‘Anglo-Saxon graves and grave goods of the 6th and 7th centuries AD: a chronological framework’ [data-set]. York: Archaeology Data Service [distributor], <doi:10.5284/1018290> (accessed 25 June 2016)+(accessed+25+June+2016)>Google Scholar
Hines, J and Bayliss, A 2013. Anglo-Saxon Graves and Grave Goods of the 6th and 7th Centuries AD: a chronological framework, Soc Medieval Archaeol Monogr Ser 33, London Google Scholar
Hodges, R 2012. Dark Age Economics: a new audit, Bloomsbury, London and New York Google Scholar
Hodges, R and Bowden, W (eds) 1998. The Sixth Century: production, distribution and demand, The Transformation of the Roman World 3, Brill, Leiden Google Scholar
Høilund Nielsen, K 2003. ‘Saxon art between interpretation and imitation: the influence of Roman, Scandinavian, Frankish and Christian art on the material culture of the Continental Saxons AD 400–1000’, in D Green and F Siegmund (eds), The Continental Saxons. From Migration Period to the Tenth Century: an ethnographic perspective, Stud Hist Archaeoethnology 6, 193233, Boydell Press, Woodbridge Google Scholar
Horedt, K and Protase, D 1970. ‘Ein völkerwanderungszeitlicher Schatzfund aus Cluj-Someşeni (Siebenbürgen)’, Germania, 48, 8598 Google Scholar
Huggett, J W 1988. ‘Imported grave goods and the early Anglo-Saxon economy’, Medieval Archaeol, 32, 6396 Google Scholar
Hyslop, M 1963. ‘Two Anglo-Saxon cemeteries at Chamberlains Barn, Leighton Buzzard, Bedfordshire’, Archaeol J, 120, 161200 (now available via the Archaeology Data Service: Royal Archaeological Institute (2013) The Archaeological Journal [data-set]. York: Archaeology Data Service [distributor], <doi:10.5284/1018054> (accessed 10 June 2016))Google Scholar
Johns, C 2010. The Hoxne Late Roman Treasure: gold jewellery and silver plate, British Museum Press, London Google Scholar
Johns, C and Potter, T 1983. The Thetford Treasure: Roman jewellery and silver , British Museum Press, London Google Scholar
Kidd, D 1995. ‘Il tesoro di Domagnano’, in I Goti a San Marino. Il tesoro di Domagnano, 194202, Electa, Milan Google Scholar
King, J E 1930. Baedae Opera Historica: historiae ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum, Loeb Classical Library, Heinemann, London Google Scholar
Koch, U 2001. ‘Katalog’, in Wieczorek and Périn 2001, 88172 Google Scholar
La Niece, S and Hill, J D 2004. ‘A unique 1st-century BC hoard of gold from southern Britain: an interface between the Celtic and Classical worlds’, in A Perea, I Montero and Ó García-Vuelta (eds), Tecnología del oro antiguo: Europa y América (Ancient Gold Technology: America and Europe), Anejos de Archivo Español de Arqueología 32, 265274, CSIC, Madrid Google Scholar
Lucy, S, Newman, R, Dodwell, N, Hills, C, Dekker, M, O’Connel, T, Riddler, I and Walton Rogers, P 2009. ‘The burial of a princess? The later seventh century at Westfield Farm, Ely’, Antiq J, 89, 81141 Google Scholar
Ludowici, B 1999. ‘Der Tumulus von Klein-Vahlberg. Eine Separatnekropole des 6./7. Jahrhunderts aus Ostfalen’, in U von Freeden, U Koch and A Wieczorek (eds), Völker an Nord- und Ostsee und die Franken, Kolloquien zur Vor- und Frügeschichte 3, Mannheimer Geschichstblätter Beiheft Neue Folge 2, 139152, Habelt, Bonn Google Scholar
Ludowici, B 2005. Frühgeschichtliche Grabfunde zwischen Harz und Aller. Die Entwicklung der Bestattungssitten im südöstlichen Niedersachsen von der jüngeren römischen Kaiserzeit bis zur Karolingerzeit, Leidorf, Rahden/Westfalen Google Scholar
Ludowici, B 2010. ‘Overland routes as markers for central places: the Hellweg between Rhine and Elbe’, in B Ludowici, H Jöns, S Kleingärtner, J Scheschkewitz and M Hardt (eds), Trade and Communication Networks of the First Millennium AD in the Northern Part of Central Europe: central places, beach markets, landing places and trading centres, Neue Studien zur Sachsenforschung 1, 335340, Konrad Theiss Verlag, Stuttgart Google Scholar
Marzinzik, S 2003. Early Anglo-Saxon Belt Buckles (Late 5th to Early 8th Centuries AD): their classification and context, BAR Brit Ser 357, Archaeopress, Oxford Google Scholar
Meaney, A L 1981. Anglo-Saxon Amulets and Curing Stones, BAR Brit Ser 96, BAR Ltd, Oxford Google Scholar
Meaney, A L and Hawkes, S C 1970. Two Anglo-Saxon Cemeteries at Winnall, Winchester, Hampshire, Soc Medieval Archaeol Monogr Ser 4, London Google Scholar
Naylor, J 2012. ‘Coinage, trade and the origins of the English Emporia, c AD 650–750’, in Gelichi and Hodges 2012, 237266 Google Scholar
Nicolay, J 2014. The Splendour of Power. Early Medieval Kingship and the Use of Gold and Silver in the Southern North Sea Area (5th to 7th Century AD), Groningen Archaeol Stud 28, Barkhuis Publishing, Groningen Google Scholar
NIS Chartham Down 2007. ‘Chartham Down Barrow A: 6. Gold pin with chain’, Novum Inventorium Sepulchrale: Kentish Anglo-Saxon Graves and Grave Goods in the Sonia Hawkes Archive, July 2007, 1st edn, <http://inventorium.arch.ox.ac.uk/gravegood.php> (accessed 3 June 2016)+(accessed+3+June+2016)>Google Scholar
Ogden, J 1992. Ancient Jewellery, University of California Press, Berkeley Google Scholar
Ogden, J 1996. ‘Lost and found’, Jewellery Stud, 7, 8788 Google Scholar
Ortenberg, V 2001. ‘Virgin queens: abbesses and power in early Anglo-Saxon England’, in R Gameson and H Leyser (eds), Belief and Culture in the Middle Ages: studies presented to Henry Mayr-Harting, 5968, Oxford University Press, Oxford CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owen-Crocker, G R 2004. Dress in Anglo-Saxon England, revised and enlarged edn, Boydell Press, Woodbridge Google Scholar
Ozanne, A 1962. ‘The Peak dwellers’, Medieval Archaeol, 6/7 (1962–3), 1552 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Penn, K 2000. Excavations on the Norwich Southern Bypass, 1989–91. Part II: The Anglo-Saxon Cemetery at Harford Farm, Caistor St Edmund, Norfolk, E Anglian Archaeol Rep 92, Norwich Google Scholar
Périn, P 2009. ‘Une exceptionelle “applique” merovingienne a têtes de sangliers de Francheville (France, Marne)’, Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hung, 60, 407421 Google Scholar
Philipp, H 1981. Bronzeschmuck aus Olympia, DAI Olympische Forschungen 13, de Gruyter, Berlin Google Scholar
Pinar, J, Padró, E and Juárez, T 2006. ‘New data on the role of Mediterranean metalwork workshops in barbarian aristocratic culture: concerning two ancient, scarcely known finds from 5th-century Hispania’, in E Droberjar and O Chvojka (eds), Archeologie barbarů 2006: přiìspěvky z II. protohistorickeì konference, Českeì Budějovice, 21.–24.11.2006, 581588, Ústav archeologické památkové péče středních Čech, Prague Google Scholar
Pinar Gil, J 2007. ‘Some remarks on early fifth-century gold necklaces with pin-shaped pendants: with regard to an ancient find from La Valleta del Valero (Soses, Lleida, Spain)’, Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientarum Hungaricae, 58, 165185 Google Scholar
Pirenne, H 1922. ‘Mahomed et Charlemagne’, Revue belge de philologie et d’histoire, 1, 7786 Google Scholar
Potratz, H 1943. ‘Die goldene Halskette von Isenbüttel Kreis Gifhorn (Provinz Hannover)’, IPEK, 17 (1943–8), 77103 Google Scholar
Quast, D 2005. ‘Völkerwanderungszeitliche Frauengräber aus Hippo Regius (Annaba/Bône) in Algerien’, Jahrbuch RGZM, 52, 237315 Google Scholar
Quast, D 2011. ‘Der Schatz der Königin? Völkerwanderungszeitliche Schatzfunde und weibliche Eliten’, in D Quast (ed), Weibliche Eliten in der Frühgeschichte (Female Elites in Protohistoric Europe), RGZM-Tagungen 10, 121141, Verlag des RGZM, Mainz Google Scholar
Quast, D and Schüssler, U 2000. ‘Mineralogische Untersuchungen zur Herkunft der Granate merowingerzeitlicher Cloisonnéarbeiten’, Germania, 78, 7596 Google Scholar
Riemer, E 1997. ‘Im Zeichen des Kreuzes. Goldblattkreuze und andere Funde mit christlichem Symbolgehalt’, in Die Alamannen (museum catalogue, Archäologischen Landesmuseum Baden-Württemberg), 447454, Konrad Theiss Verlag, Stuttgart Google Scholar
Ristow, S 2012. ‘Prunkgräber des 6. Jahrhunderts in einem Vorgängerbau des Kölner Domes’, in E Wamers and P Périn (eds), Königinnen der Merowinger. Adelsgräber aus den Kirchen von Köln, Saint-Denis, Chelles und Frankfurt am Main, 7998, Schnell & Steiner, Regensburg Google Scholar
Ross, M C 1965. Catalogue of the Byzantine and Early Mediaeval Antiquities in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection. Vol II: Jewellery, Enamels, and Art of the Migration Period, Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, Washington, DC Google Scholar
Ross, S 1991. ‘Dress pins from Anglo-Saxon England: their production and typo-chronological development’, DPhil thesis, University of Oxford, <http://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:3976b772-fccd-41fe-b8c7-f4ae08ac0295> (accessed 3 June 2016).+(accessed+3+June+2016).>Google Scholar
Salin, B 1904. Die altgermanische Thierornamentik. Typologische Studie über germanische Metallgegenstände aus dem IV. bis IX. Jahrhundert, nebst einer Studie über irische Ornamentik, Asher, Berlin and Stockholm Google Scholar
Schmauder, M 2002. Oberschichtsgräber und Verwahrfunde in Südosteuropa im 4. und 5. Jahrhundert. Zum Verhältnis zwischen dem spätantiken Reich und der barbarischen Oberschicht aufgrund der archäologischen Quellen. I: Text, Archaeologia Romanica III, Editura Academiei Române, Bucharest Google Scholar
Schönfelder, M 1998. ‘Zu Fuchsschwanzketten in der Latènezeit’, Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt, 28 (1), 7993 Google Scholar
Schulze, M 1976. ‘Einflüsse byzantinischer Prunkgewänder auf die fränkische Frauentracht’, Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt, 6, 149161 Google Scholar
Scull, C 2009. ‘The human burials’, in S Lucy, J Tipper and A Dickens (eds), The Anglo-Saxon Settlement and Cemetery at Bloodmoor Hill, Carlton Colville, Suffolk, E Anglian Archaeol Rep 131, 385426, Norwich Google Scholar
Speake, G 1989. A Saxon Bed Burial on Swallowcliff Down, Engl Heritage Archaeol Rep 10, London Google Scholar
Spier, J 2012. Byzantium and the West: jewelry in the first millennium, Les Enluminures, New York Google Scholar
Staves, L 2006. ‘NLM-BE6EF2: an early medieval pin’, Portable Antiquities Scheme, <https://finds.org.uk/database/artefacts/record/id/117939> (accessed 10 June 2016)+(accessed+10+June+2016)>Google Scholar
Steuer, H 1978. ‘Adelsgräber der Sachsen’, in C Ahrens (ed), Sachsen und Angelsachsen, Veröffentlichungen des Helms-Museums 32, Helms Museum, Hamburg Google Scholar
Völling, T 2001. ‘The last Christian Greeks and the first pagan Slavs in Olympia’, in E Kountoura-Galake (ed), The Dark Centuries of Byzantium (7th–9th Centuries), National Hellenic Research Foundation, Institute of Byzantine Research, International Symposium 9, 303323, National Hellenic Research Foundation, Athens Google Scholar
Walton Rogers, P 2007. Cloth and Clothing in Early Anglo-Saxon England, AD 450–700, CBA Res Rep 145, York Google Scholar
Wand, G 1982. ‘Beobachtungen zu Bestattungssitten auf frühgeschichtlichen Gräberfeldern Westfalens’, in H-J Häßler (ed), Studien zur Sachsenforschung, 3, 249314, Verlag August Lax Hildesheim, Hildesheim Google Scholar
Welch, M 2011. ‘The Mid Saxon “final phase”’, in H Hamerow, D A Hinton and S Crawfoot (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Anglo-Saxon Archaeology, 266287, Oxford University Press, Oxford Google Scholar
Werner, J 1950. Das alamannische Fürstengrab von Wittislingen, Münchner Beitr, Vor- und Frühgeschichte 2, Beck, Munich Google Scholar
Whitfield, N 2006. ‘Dress and accessories in the early Irish tale “The Wooing of Becfhola”’, Medieval Clothing and Textiles, 2, 135 Google Scholar
Wickham, C 1998. ‘Overview: production, distribution and demand’, in Hodges and Bowden 1998, 279292 Google Scholar
Wieczorek, A and Périn, P (eds) 2001. Das Gold der Barbarenfürsten. Schätze aus Prunkgräbern des 5. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. zwischen Kaukasus und Gallien, Konrad Theiss Verlag, Stuttgart Google Scholar
Williams, D and Ogden, J 1994. Greek Gold. Jewellery of the Classical World, British Museum Press, London Google Scholar
Wood, I 1992. ‘Frankish hegemony in England’, in M Carver (ed), The Age of Sutton Hoo: the seventh century in north-western Europe, 235241, The Boydell Press, Woodbridge Google Scholar
Yeroulanou, A 2010. ‘Common elements in “treasures” of the early Christian period’, in F Daim and J Drauschke (eds), Byzanz – das Römerreich im Mittelalter / Byzantium – the Roman Empire in the Middle Ages / Byzance – l’Empire Romain au Moyen Age, Monographien des RGZM 84 (1), 337361, Verlag des RGZM, Mainz Google Scholar
Figure 0

Fig 1 The gold and garnet chain from Isenbüttel: present condition. Photograph: U Bohnhorst; © Landesmuseum Hannover

Figure 1

Fig 2 Top and side view of the Isenbüttel chain’s well-preserved animal-head terminal. Photographs: S Steidl, Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum, Mainz

Figure 2

Fig 3 Late Roman gold necklace with snake- or dolphin-head terminals from Thetford, Norfolk. Drawing: © Trustees of the British Museum

Figure 3

Fig 4 Fragmentary preserved loop-in-loop chain with animal-head terminals and garnet inlays from the Cluj-Someşeni Migration Period treasure. Photograph: after Harhoiu 2001, 162; reproduced courtesy of G Dumitriu, National Museum of Romanian History, Bucharest

Figure 4

Fig 5 Gold filigree disc brooch from Wittislingen with garnet cloisonné decoration arranged in rows. Photograph: M Eberlein; © Archäologische Staatssammlung, Munich

Figure 5

Fig 6 Pins with polyhedral head and linking chain from Olympia, grave 21. Drawing: after Völling 2001, 319, fig 4

Figure 6

Fig 7 Pin suite made of gold with garnet cabochons, pearls and emeralds from the Piazza della Consolazione treasure. The tips of the pins were made of a copper-alloy and are now corroded. Photograph: © Dumbarton Oaks, Byzantine Collection, Washington, DC

Figure 7

Fig 8 Silver pin suite from grave 39, Chamberlains Barn, Leighton Buzzard, Bedfordshire, with flat garnets set on each side of the pin heads. Drawing: after Hyslop 1963, 182, fig 13

Figure 8

Fig 9 Gold pin suite with garnet-decorated pin heads and linking chain with animal-head terminals from a barrow burial at Roundway Down. Drawing: after Akerman 1885, pl 1.1

Figure 9

Fig 10 Silver pin suite with animal-head terminals from the Butler’s Field cemetery, Lechlade, Glos. The pin heads are also decorated with garnet inlays. Drawing: after Boyle et al1998, fig 5.39; © Oxford Archaeology

Figure 10

Fig 11 This silver pin suite from the Harford Farm cemetery, Norfolk, is probably the best parallel to the find from Isenbüttel. It was already broken when it was buried inside a relic box in a rich grave between cad 690 and 710. Drawing: after Penn 2000, fig 88

Figure 11

Fig 12 Places mentioned in the text (red) and other places along the Hellweg

Figure 12

Fig 13 Distribution map of Anglo-Saxon pin suites made of gold or silver. 1: Harford Farm; 2: grave 14, Butler’s Field; 3: Roundway Down; 4: Trumpington; 5: Cow Lowe; 6: Wigber Low; 7: grave 39, Chamberlains Barn; 8: grave 55, Chamberlains Barn; 9: Little Hampton; 10: grave 138, Butler’s Field; 11: Winnall; 12: Bloodmoor Hill; 13: Chartham Downs; 14: Southampton; 15: Appleby; 16: Westfield Farm