Very interesting and I intend to read your book. However as a layman I am confused. I assume you regard the Annales' version of the "shoulders" passage as earlier than that of the Historia Brittonum? That would address the apparent issue that the earlier reference mentions the Virgin Mary, not "the Cross of our Lord Jesus Christ". But these brooches were worn singly, not in pairs, so the plural "shoulders" seems odd. These brooches were clearly somewhat popular among those with the means - why is anyone assuming that this passage refers to a brooch in the first place? Whatever cross was upon his shoulders was presumably something noteworthy, not routine, and "shoulders" implies across his shoulders as per Christ in the Bible. Which would of course have to be metaphorical or perhaps mythological, but even if I'm off base there, lots of things are cross-shaped. You note that some crossbow brooches have crosses further marked upon them - OK, but a cross could have been marked on literally anything else that he might have worn on his "shoulders". Again, why assume a brooch?
The linguistic evidence indicates that the Annales Cambriae entry is from the early sixth century and hence that it must be older than the passage in the Historia Brittonum. A cross borne on Arthur's shoulders was associated with a brooch by Ken Dark, although he was not the first to make the connection. There is no other evidence for crosses on shoulders that has survived archaeologically from the period -- and no evidence of life-sized crosses being carried into battle either. Nor is there any model for the passage being allegorical or anything like that. That's just an unparalleled guess. And shoulders (plural) does not have to imply anything. The Annales Cambriae are full of non-standard employments of Latin, some of which presumably reflect copyist errors, others peculiarities of how Latin was spoken in Britain at the time.
Many thanks for the speedy reply Bernard. I take your points and I can see why this is perhaps the most compelling interpretation but it still seems speculative. I suppose that's inevitable at this era and this might be the least worst option for an identification based on such slim evidence. I'm still trying to second-guess though why they would bother to comment on a common item of dress as though it was some grand religious gesture. An added rho cross of the sort you depict above would hardly be sufficiently visible to any observers. We may not have any archaeological evidence of cross-shaped things on shoulders but if said cross was an embroidered or otherwise decorative cross on the cloak itself that would seem to make more sense - it would be unusual enough to be noteworthy and large enough to be seen, and would not survive archaeologically.
Looking forward to reading the book in any case. I was interested to learn of the Uley site as well as my grandmother lived there for many years.
I think that the emphasis on the cross is understandable for the period. The Anglo-Saxons were still pagans at the time and there was presumably a very real fear among clerics that British Christianity would be wiped out if the Britons were unable to fight back. Churches (as at Uley) were abandoned right across Britain at the time, and Arthur wearing a sign of Christ into battle was presumably seen as providential.
Unless there is a second brooch, the chi tho brooch in the BM is from Sussex rather than Suffolk. I've looked into the BM files here and they are not helpful regarding any further data. Given the evidence for Romano- British continuity in Selsey ( Shapland 2024) , in a late 5th century hall north west of Chichester and in Highdown Hill (Harrington et al , forthcoming) , West Sussex is quite possible as a find spot . A fascinating and unique brooch.
I'd describe it as a really interesting 5th century fusion of Romano- British and Early Medieval, Christianity and anthropomorphic decoration. The brooch was bought by the BM in 1954 from a collector named KJ Hewett. No SAC ( Sussex Archaeological Collections) write up unfortunately. Bruce-Mitford ( of Sutton Hoo fame) investigated and it was purchased originally by a "lesser dealer" GF Williams who "turned out to be entirely vague and unreliable, and while there is no reason to doubt his integrity, he gave the impression of being hopelessly muddled" Bruce Mitford 1954). His view was that it came from either Sussex or Surrey- possibly Guildford - and had bought it from a Sussex doctor " there was a piece of paper with it to the effect that it had been found in Sussex".
Thanks a lot for all the information. The Sussex brooch is included in a typological study by Mechthild Schulze-Dörrlamm, 'Germanische Spiralplattenfibeln oder romanische Bügelfibeln?', Archäologische Korrespondenzblatt 30 (2002), 599-613 where it is compared with finds from Mainz, Windisch, Alkofen, Óbuda, Schützen, Rimini and Tác-Gorsicum. They all have the same locking mechanism apparently, but are quite variable in shape otherwise. They are not cross-bow brooches according to the usual German classificatory system, although none of the continental examples feature boar decoration. There is also a comparable brooch in a private collection with a rho-cross on it cited in Christoff Eger, ‘Between Amuletic Ornament and Sign of Authority: Christian Symbols on Mediterranean Dress Accessories of the Fourth to Sixth Centuries’, in Graphic Signs of Identity, Faith, and Power in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, ed. Ildar Garipzanov, et al. (Turnholt, 2017).
Thank you- I was unaware of those references and will look them up. A European parallel would be very interesting given the strong Frankish artefact record at Highdown Hill in West Sussex- not to mention a glass inscribed flask from the Eastern Mediterranean, now all in the Worthing Museum.
I don't think that it is fair to criticise Dark for his work on Nazareth, however. If you put 100 historians in a room, 99 would declare Jesus historical, but only a minority would contend that Arthur was.
The brooches are relatively rare -- they were only first studied in 2017. The chi-rho was called the monogramma Christi in late antiquity (a treatise attributed to St Jerome on it has survived) and chi-rho monograms had also largely been replaced by crosses by the late fifth century.
Very interesting and I intend to read your book. However as a layman I am confused. I assume you regard the Annales' version of the "shoulders" passage as earlier than that of the Historia Brittonum? That would address the apparent issue that the earlier reference mentions the Virgin Mary, not "the Cross of our Lord Jesus Christ". But these brooches were worn singly, not in pairs, so the plural "shoulders" seems odd. These brooches were clearly somewhat popular among those with the means - why is anyone assuming that this passage refers to a brooch in the first place? Whatever cross was upon his shoulders was presumably something noteworthy, not routine, and "shoulders" implies across his shoulders as per Christ in the Bible. Which would of course have to be metaphorical or perhaps mythological, but even if I'm off base there, lots of things are cross-shaped. You note that some crossbow brooches have crosses further marked upon them - OK, but a cross could have been marked on literally anything else that he might have worn on his "shoulders". Again, why assume a brooch?
The linguistic evidence indicates that the Annales Cambriae entry is from the early sixth century and hence that it must be older than the passage in the Historia Brittonum. A cross borne on Arthur's shoulders was associated with a brooch by Ken Dark, although he was not the first to make the connection. There is no other evidence for crosses on shoulders that has survived archaeologically from the period -- and no evidence of life-sized crosses being carried into battle either. Nor is there any model for the passage being allegorical or anything like that. That's just an unparalleled guess. And shoulders (plural) does not have to imply anything. The Annales Cambriae are full of non-standard employments of Latin, some of which presumably reflect copyist errors, others peculiarities of how Latin was spoken in Britain at the time.
Many thanks for the speedy reply Bernard. I take your points and I can see why this is perhaps the most compelling interpretation but it still seems speculative. I suppose that's inevitable at this era and this might be the least worst option for an identification based on such slim evidence. I'm still trying to second-guess though why they would bother to comment on a common item of dress as though it was some grand religious gesture. An added rho cross of the sort you depict above would hardly be sufficiently visible to any observers. We may not have any archaeological evidence of cross-shaped things on shoulders but if said cross was an embroidered or otherwise decorative cross on the cloak itself that would seem to make more sense - it would be unusual enough to be noteworthy and large enough to be seen, and would not survive archaeologically.
Looking forward to reading the book in any case. I was interested to learn of the Uley site as well as my grandmother lived there for many years.
I think that the emphasis on the cross is understandable for the period. The Anglo-Saxons were still pagans at the time and there was presumably a very real fear among clerics that British Christianity would be wiped out if the Britons were unable to fight back. Churches (as at Uley) were abandoned right across Britain at the time, and Arthur wearing a sign of Christ into battle was presumably seen as providential.
Unless there is a second brooch, the chi tho brooch in the BM is from Sussex rather than Suffolk. I've looked into the BM files here and they are not helpful regarding any further data. Given the evidence for Romano- British continuity in Selsey ( Shapland 2024) , in a late 5th century hall north west of Chichester and in Highdown Hill (Harrington et al , forthcoming) , West Sussex is quite possible as a find spot . A fascinating and unique brooch.
I'd describe it as a really interesting 5th century fusion of Romano- British and Early Medieval, Christianity and anthropomorphic decoration. The brooch was bought by the BM in 1954 from a collector named KJ Hewett. No SAC ( Sussex Archaeological Collections) write up unfortunately. Bruce-Mitford ( of Sutton Hoo fame) investigated and it was purchased originally by a "lesser dealer" GF Williams who "turned out to be entirely vague and unreliable, and while there is no reason to doubt his integrity, he gave the impression of being hopelessly muddled" Bruce Mitford 1954). His view was that it came from either Sussex or Surrey- possibly Guildford - and had bought it from a Sussex doctor " there was a piece of paper with it to the effect that it had been found in Sussex".
Thanks a lot for all the information. The Sussex brooch is included in a typological study by Mechthild Schulze-Dörrlamm, 'Germanische Spiralplattenfibeln oder romanische Bügelfibeln?', Archäologische Korrespondenzblatt 30 (2002), 599-613 where it is compared with finds from Mainz, Windisch, Alkofen, Óbuda, Schützen, Rimini and Tác-Gorsicum. They all have the same locking mechanism apparently, but are quite variable in shape otherwise. They are not cross-bow brooches according to the usual German classificatory system, although none of the continental examples feature boar decoration. There is also a comparable brooch in a private collection with a rho-cross on it cited in Christoff Eger, ‘Between Amuletic Ornament and Sign of Authority: Christian Symbols on Mediterranean Dress Accessories of the Fourth to Sixth Centuries’, in Graphic Signs of Identity, Faith, and Power in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, ed. Ildar Garipzanov, et al. (Turnholt, 2017).
Thank you- I was unaware of those references and will look them up. A European parallel would be very interesting given the strong Frankish artefact record at Highdown Hill in West Sussex- not to mention a glass inscribed flask from the Eastern Mediterranean, now all in the Worthing Museum.
Yes, I wonder if the find was mentioned in the local press or the Sussex Archaeological Society at the time.
I don't think that it is fair to criticise Dark for his work on Nazareth, however. If you put 100 historians in a room, 99 would declare Jesus historical, but only a minority would contend that Arthur was.
The brooches are relatively rare -- they were only first studied in 2017. The chi-rho was called the monogramma Christi in late antiquity (a treatise attributed to St Jerome on it has survived) and chi-rho monograms had also largely been replaced by crosses by the late fifth century.