1 of 17 - Harvard Art Museums

1 of 17
2 of 17
3 of 17
Identification and Creation
Object Number
1987.135.52
Title
Serpentine Fibula
Other Titles
Former Title: Half Moon Fibula
Classification
Jewelry
Work Type
fibula, pin
Date
4 of 17
mid 8th century BCE
Places
Creation Place: Ancient & Byzantine World, Europe
Period
Iron Age
Culture
Italic
Physical Descriptions
Medium
Copper alloy
Technique
Hammered
Dimensions
8.7 x 4.1 x 0.3 cm (3 7/16 x 1 5/8 x 1/8 in.)
Technical Details
Technical Observations: The serpentine fibulae were
fabricated using a combination of wire-making
techniques. Most of the wires were cast into rods and
cold worked with a hammer to lengthen them. The wire
was hammered to shape two springs and a catchplate.
The shape of the wire among the fibulae was formed
either round, square, or hexagonal in cross-section. The
variation in the shape of a single length of wire resulted
from the metal being hammered to create different
elements. This can be seen in a spring detail of
5 of 17
1987.135.35, where a square-shaped wire becomes
round at the springs. Also visible on 1987.135.35 are
square hammer marks adjacent to the spring that give
more evidence of hand shaping. The diameter of the
serpentine wires has an even taper that gradually
becomes thinner towards the tip of the pin.
Three of the serpentine fibulae were tested for alloy
composition using EMP analysis (1). The results for all
three fibulae (1987.135.40, 1987.135.48.A-B, and
1987.135.50.A-B) revealed a composition of low-tin
bronze, with the tin concentration ranging from 4 to 9%
(2). All of the samples contained traces of antimony
and arsenic, which is a common combination found in
tetrahedrite-type copper ores. Two different beam
sizes were used for monitoring inclusions in the metal.
All of the samples, when monitored with the larger
beam raster, showed a consistent increase in the lead
and sulfur content, which is a result of copper sulfide or
lead globule inclusions.
All nineteen serpentine fibulae were x-radiographed,
and the exposures showed a dark line running along
the center axis of the wire on at least ten of them. The
line can be seen in a detail of the x-radiograph of
1987.135.47. The center of the wire is the thickest
section and should be the most radio-opaque (white in
the x-radiograph); therefore the dark line could
indicate one of three possible situations: that the fibula
has a hollow center, that there is a small groove along
the outside surface of the wire, or that a shrinkage
occurred during casting, which is called coring. There
is a visible groove in the wire adjacent to the
catchplate of 1987.135.37. However, other fibulae
6 of 17
showing a line in the x-radiograph do not have visible
grooves in the surface of the wire. This raises the
question of whether the wire could have also been
fabricated using a strip-folding technique. This
technique was common for gold wire making in
antiquity; it involves folding a flat ribbon of metal into a
C-shape and joining the sides to create a wire that has
a seam down one side (3).
In order to gain more information about the wire and its
fabrication method, a transverse and a longitudinal
section of wire were sampled from the pin break of
1987.135.48.A-B. These samples were polished for
metallographic analysis (4). The transverse section of
wire showed a fissure across the center of the wire.
Under polarized light, the fissure is black in coloration,
and SEM-EDX analysis showed that it contains copper
and tin. Large pits of corrosion have disrupted the
circumference of the wire, making the morphology of
the fissure difficult to read. It is not possible to
determine from this sample if the fissure extends out
to one edge, which would indicate a strip-folding
technique of manufacture (5). The fissure in this case is
most likely coring, which could also be an explanation
for a dark line seen in the x-radiographs.
The longitudinally mounted cross-section section of
1987.135.48.A-B shows elongated inclusions that run
parallel to the axis of the wire. The drawn-out inclusions
resulted from cold working the metal to lengthen the
wire. The inclusions turn black under crossed polars,
and analysis using SEM-EDX indicates that they are
sulfide inclusions, since they contain only sulfur and
copper (no tin).
7 of 17
NOTES:
1. See the ancient bronze online resource or one of the
three object records for details on the EMP analysis.
2. Other alloy references of Iron Age fibulae include a
brooch from Tarquinia having Sn, 12.5%; Pb, 0.3%; Cu,
86.6%; see U. Anemüller, E. Formigli, and W. R. Teegen,
“Technologische und experimentelle Studien und
einem früheisenzeitlichen Fibelfragment aus
Tarquinia,” Gedenkschrift für Jürgen Driehaus (Mainz,
1990) 31-47, esp. 40. For Italian and Sardinian bronzes
that are tin-bronze and have similar alloys and
impurities as the Harvard fibulae (Sn, 4.2%-10%; As,
0.005-0.4%; Sb, 0.03-0.35%; Co, 0.003-0.05%; Ag,
0.4-0.6%; Fe, 0.04-0.4%; Ni, 0.1-0.3%), see P.
Craddock, “The Metallurgy of Italic and Sardinian
Bronzes,” in Italian Iron Age Artefacts in the British
Museum, ed. J. Swaddling (London, 1986) 143-52. For
Sicilian bronzes with sulfur and iron inclusions,
indicating sulfide ores, see C. Giardino, Il Mediterraneo
Occidentale fra XIV ed VIII secolo a.C.: Cerchie
minerarie e metallurgiche = The West Mediterranean
between the 14th and 8th centuries B.C.: Mining and
Metallurgical Spheres, BAR Int. Ser. 612 (Oxford, 1995)
320.
3. For gold wire making techniques, see A. Oddy, “The
Production of Gold Wire in Antiquity: Hand-Making
Methods Before the Introduction of the Draw-Plate,”
Gold Bulletin 10.3 (1977): 79-87; and id., “Does StripDrawn Wire Exist from Antiquity?” MASCA Journal 4.4
(1987): 175-77. For a study of strip-drawn wire from
8 of 17
Narce that has a groove running parallel to the axis of
the wire, see G. Warden, “Strip Drawn Wire from Iron
Age Narce,” Studi Etruschi 46 (1978): 265-67. See also
E. Formigli, “Modi di fabbricazione di filo metallico
nell’oreficeria etrusca,” Studi Etruschi 47 (1979) 281-92,
who makes the point that a variety of techniques could
have been used in wire making. Formigli also claims
that it is possible wire drawing could have been done
during the Iron Age using drawing tools that have not
been recognized as such.
4. See the ancient bronze online resource or
1987.135.48.A-B for details on the metallographic
analysis.
5. See photomicrographs of transverse cross sections
taken from folded wire in H. Hoffmann and A. E.
Raubitschek, Early Cretan Armorers (Mainz, 1972) fig. 2;
and Oddy 1987 (supra 3) pl. 3.a. A transverse crosssection of folded wire shows a hollow center with a
visible seam on one side where the ribbon edges have
joined.
Julie Wolfe
Acquisition and Rights
Credit Line
Harvard Art Museums/Arthur M. Sackler Museum, Gift
of Dr. and Mrs. Jerry Nagler
Accession Year
1987
9 of 17
Object Number
1987.135.52
Division
Asian and Mediterranean Art
Contact
[email protected]
Descriptions
Published Catalogue Text: Ancient Mediterranean and
Near Eastern Bronzes at the Harvard Art Museums
The wire is round in section except at the bow, where it
is square. The pin is broken and repaired 4 cm from the
tip. The break is covered with soil and adhesive. The
surface has green corrosion and thick burial accretions
overall.
The serpentine fibula has an elegant form that consists
of a single length of wire formed into a crescentshaped fastener for clothing. One end of the wire has
been sharpened into a point to puncture the cloth,
while the opposite end has been shaped into a
catchplate to hold the tip of the pin. Two single springs
incorporated into the wire apply tension between the
catchplate and pin. The section between the springs,
called the bow, curves in harmony with the arch of the
pin. There are nineteen serpentine fibulae in the
Harvard Art Museums’ collection, and these fibulae
have minor stylistic variations in form and decoration.
They have no known provenience; however, serpentine
fibulae were common during the Iron Age, and they are
found distributed throughout Italy, Sicily, Sardinia, and
France (1).
10 of 17
The serpentine type of fibula is considered to have
descended from the Late Bronze Age violin-bow type,
which has a straight pin and a single spring. Replacing
the violin-bow, the serpentine fibulae came into
general use during the Early Iron Age, and the type
continued to be used throughout the next half century.
During this time, communities created their own types
of fibulae, and discrete variations in the form
developed. Trade in Italy during the eighth century BCE
contributed to the spread of provincial styles; as a
result, the traceability of their origins has been
complicated. Serpentine fibulae were common in Sicily
during Greek colonization, hence the type has also
been termed “Sicilian” (2). Changes in the form have
been used to date serpentine fibulae, the earliest of
which have a flattened spiral catchplate. As the Iron
Age progressed, the catchplate developed into a
simple, folded channel, which became longer over time
(3). 1987.135.53 and 1987.135.40 have the longest
catchplates in the collection and probably date to the
Late Iron Age, while the remaining fibulae with shorter
catchplates are most likely from the Early Iron Age.
Some of the fibulae in the Harvard collection have
incised decorations, including 1987.135.38, which
bears a herringbone pattern partially obscured by
corrosion (4). Inscribed, consecutive parallel line
patterns, similar to the ones on 1987.135.51, have been
found on serpentine fibulae in central Italy (5).
NOTES:
1. Compare serpentine fibulae in J. Sundwall, Die
älteren italischen Fibeln (Berlin, 1943) DII-ßb (Apulia,
11 of 17
Bologna, and Tarquinia); C. Giardino, Il Mediterraneo
Occidentale fra XIV ed VIII secolo a.C.: Cerchie
minerarie e metallurgiche = The West Mediterranean
between the 14th and 8th centuries B.C.: Mining and
Metallurgical Spheres, BAR Int. Ser. 612 (Oxford, 1995)
243, 247, 291, and 330 (Sicily, Sardinia, and France); J.
de la Genière, “Torano Castello (Cosenza): Scavi nella
necropoli (1965) e saggi in contrada Cozzo la Torre
(1967),” Notizie degli scavi di antichità 31 (1977): 389422, esp. 391, 393, 400, 405, 408, 412, and 414 (Torano
Castello); O. C. Colburn, “Torre del Mordillo (Cosenza):
Scavi negli anni 1963, 1966 e 1967,” Notizie degli scavi
di antichità 31 (1977): 423-526, esp. 519 (Torre del
Mordillo); R. M. A. Procelli, “Calascibetta (Enna): La
necropoli di Cozzo S. Giuseppe in Contrada Realmese,”
Notizie degli scavi di antichità 36 (1982): 425-632, esp.
486, 539, and 553 (Calascibetta, Sicily); G. C.
Pescatori, “Cairano (Avellino): Tombe dell’età del
Ferro,” Notizie degli scavi di antichità 25 (1971): 481537, esp. 485, fig. 4 (Cairano); P. Righetti, “Veio (Isola
Farnese): Ricerche sul terreno prima degli scavi della
necropoli in località ‘Quattro Fontanili,’” Notizie degli
scavi di antichità 30 (1976): 185-220, esp. 198, fig. 5
(Veio); and F. Lo Shiavo, “Francavilla Marittima,
Necropoli di Macchiabate: Le fibule di bronzo,” Atti e
memorie della Società Magna Grecia, 2.18-20 (197779): 93-109, esp. 95, no. 5, fig. 37 (Francavilla
Marittima).
2. This type of fibula is also termed “bent-bow” by R. R.
Holloway, The Archaeology of Early Rome and Latium
(London, 1994) 39, fig. 3.4.
3. Holloway 1994 (supra 2) 40; Giardino 1995 (supra 1);
12 of 17
N. Hartmann, “Society and Technology in the Villanovan
Iron Industry,” in The Bronze Age-Iron Age Transition in
Europe 1, eds. M. L. Stig Sorensen and R. Thomas, BAR
Int. Ser. 483 (Oxford, 1989) 93-99.
4. Compare 1987.135.38 with fibulae in H. MüllerKarpe, Beiträge zu italienischen und griechischen
Bronzefunden, Prähistorische Bronzefunde 20.1
(Munich, 1974) pl. 10.A.6 (Torre Galli, grave 149); with
alternating ribbed and herringbone patterns in H.
Henken, Tarquinia, Villanovans and Early Etruscans
(Cambridge, MA, 1968) fig. 24.b (Selciatello cemetery
at Tarquinia); Giardino 1995 (supra 1) 243 (Pantilica,
Sicily); de la Genière 1977 (supra 1) 391 (Torano
Castello, Calabria); and Sundwall 1943 (supra 1) 150,
DII-ßb (Sicily, Cuma, Torre Galli, Torre Mordillo, and
Vetulonia).
5. Compare 1987.135.36.A-B and 1987.135.51 with
fibulae at Quattro Fontanili published in Italy Before the
Romans: The Iron Age, Orientalizing and Etruscan
Periods, eds. D. Ridgeway and F. R. Ridgeway (London,
1979) fig. 2; Hartmann 1989 (supra 3) fig. 11.e; and A.
Guidi, La necropoli veiente dei Quattro Fontanili nel
quadro della fase recente della prima età del ferro
italiana, Biblioteca di “Studi etruschi” 26 (Florence,
1993) fig. 20.5. See also A. Pasqui, “Scavi della
necropoli di Torre Mordillo nel comune di Spezzano
Albanese,” Notizie degli scavi di antichità (1888): 46280, esp. 465, fig. 3, pl. 19; and A. M. Bietti Sestieri, The
Iron Age Community of Osteria dell’Osa (Cambridge,
1992) 97.
13 of 17
Julie Wolfe
Publication History
Julie Wolfe, "Analysis of Iron Age Bronze Fibulae from
Southern Italy in the Collection of the Harvard
University Art Museums" (thesis (certificate in
conservation), Straus Center for Conservation and
Technical Studies, June 1998), Unpublished, p. 1-14
passim.
Subjects and Contexts
Ancient Bronzes
Related Works
1987.135.37
1987.135.38
Serpentine Fibula
Serpentine Fibula
Jewelry
Jewelry
1987.135.39
1987.135.40
Serpentine Fibula
Serpentine Fibula
Jewelry
Jewelry
14 of 17
1987.135.41
1987.135.42
Serpentine Fibula
Serpentine Fibula
Jewelry
Jewelry
1987.135.43
Serpentine Fibula
Jewelry
1987.135.35
Serpentine Fibula
Jewelry
1987.135.44
Serpentine Fibula
Jewelry
1987.135.36.A-B
Serpentine Fibula
Jewelry
1987.135.45
15 of 17
Serpentine Fibula
1987.135.50.A-B
Jewelry
Serpentine Fibula
Jewelry
1987.135.51
1987.135.48.A-B
Serpentine Fibula
Serpentine Fibula
Jewelry
Jewelry
1987.135.53
1987.135.54
Serpentine Fibula
Serpentine Fibula
Jewelry
Jewelry
1987.135.46
1987.135.47
Serpentine Fibula
Serpentine Fibula
Jewelry
Jewelry
16 of 17
This record has been reviewed by the curatorial staff
but may be incomplete. Our records are frequently
revised and enhanced. For more information please
contact the Division of Asian and Mediterranean Art at
[email protected]
Generated on September 29, 2016 at 04:37pm
17 of 17