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.
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.