Abstract
The main goal of this paper is to study a specific element of women's depicted costumes. Pictures on stone monuments present local, so-called native women wearing complex attire of cloth, headwear, brooches, jewels, and other dress accessories. Thirteen stone monuments from Hungary depict local women with headwear-related accessories. The main questions are: what kind of accessories are they, and how can we evaluate their presence on depicted attires? I collected analogous depictions from other Provinces and studied archaeological material. Finally, I concluded that these headwear-related accessories connect to new cultural effects and the complex phenomenon of acculturation.
Introduction
Numerous scientific works have been dedicated to Roman-period attires, and this paper improves our knowledge about the topic. The study of costumes requires multiple sources, namely written texts, depicted attires, and archaeological finds. These sources should be combined and used for complex analyses.
Pre-Roman costume habits definitely continued during the Principate. Depictions on Roman-style stone monuments are available sources for analysing the dressing habits of local inhabitants. These examinations mainly concentrate on female attire because these preserve their unique character longer. On the other hand, men's costumes had to adjust to new requirements and changed earlier. The number of stone monuments makes Northeastern Pannonia one of the most researchable areas. Besides, find materials from burials also contributes to the investigation.
The basis of my current topic is a handful of Roman-style stone monuments. The so-called native female attire has several parts; headwear is one of its most characteristic elements. Moreover, the variously carved headwear is occasionally decorated with round or flower-shaped patterns. My research concentrates on these small details.
This paper has several sections. Firstly, I present stone monuments from Hungary and describe them in a short catalogue. After this, I collected analogue depictions and surveyed relevant find materials. After that, I studied burials from Northeastern Pannonia. Ultimately, I tried to summarise all the information and conclude my opinion.
Headwear of native women in Northeastern Pannonia
Headwear is a well-known dress element of the depicted native attire; scholars always emphasise its importance.1 The headwear was a combination of hat and veil, or hat and veil were worn alone.2 In her significant study about the clothing in the Middle Danube provinces, U. Rothe described various hats of the native women, summarised the previous knowledge about these attire elements and supplemented it with her own opinion about the distribution areas, tribal connections, chronological frames, and wearers.3 My PhD thesis contains a related part as well. Based on the tombstones from Hungary, I subdivided U. Rothe's types and tried to add further information about the previously mentioned topics.4 Only the Rothe H1, H5 and H9 types are not presented on tombstones from Hungary.
The possible material of the depicted hats has also been investigated, but the theories are mainly hypothetical and lack exact evidence. The speculation about the material of H5 is relatively corresponding. Based on the signs on Lupa Nr. 45's surface fur is a probable option.5 The girl's depicted H7/5 headwear on a tombstone from Tác probably represents fur as well.6 Scholars suppose that H8 modius hats were supposedly made of an inflexible material, leather, fur or felt. However, U. Rothe doubted it because no exact evidence proves that theory.7 Large-sized bonnets (H3) are probably hat-like headwear made of felt,8 while other bonnets were most likely sewed and/or folded.9 The layers of the headwear could be observed in several cases, so the narrow cloth was occasionally rolled on the head to form a bonnet.10 Kerchiefs or headbands could also be part of the headwear.11
Stone monuments from Northeastern Pannonia
Catalogue of the stone monuments
Headwear-related elements are depicted on several tombstones from Komárom-Esztergom County12 and Pest County (Northeastern Pannonia). The topic of this paper requires the analysis of thirteen stone monuments from Budapest-Budafok, Budapest-Nagytétény, Dunaújváros, Környe, Lábatlan, Martonvásár-Tordaspuszta, Soponya, Szentendre, Szomód, Szomor-Pusztasomodor and Szőny (Figs 1 and 2):13
Budapest-Budafok. Coll.: AM, Inv.no.: 66.11.2. Dating: 100–150 AD (Lupa). Ref.: Sáró (2020) Kat. A1; Lupa, Nr. 5126.
Budapest-Nagytétény. Coll.: HNM, Inv.no.: 257.1873.3. Dating: 101–150 AD (HD071828), 100–120 AD (Lupa). Inscription: Quartio Miletum/ari f(ilio) an(norum) LX Derva con/iux viva sibi et co/niug(i) et RAIIDVIN / ICVRAMIINT (TitAq II; Lupa). Ref.: CIL III 3404, 3405; TitAq II, 356–357, Nr. 1012; Gáspár (2016) 276, Nr. 183, T. CCXXXIX; Sáró (2020) Kat. A63; Lupa, Nr. 2779.
Dunaújváros. Coll.: HNM, Inv.no.: 16.1906.3-4. Dating: 150–200 AD (Gáspár, 2016). Ref.: Gáspár (2016) 681, Nr. 807, T. CMXXXVIII–CMXXXIX; Sáró (2020) Kat. A27; Lupa, Nr. 3952.
Dunaújváros. Coll.: HNM, Inv.no.: 22.1905.32. Dating: 150–200 AD (Rothe, 2012a, 207, footnote Nr. 541). Ref.: Gáspár (2016) 691, Nr. 827, T. CMXIV, T. CMLXIX; Sáró (2020) Kat. A82; Lupa, Nr. 734.
Környe. Coll.: HNM, Inv.no.: – Dating: 180–200 AD (Gáspár, 2016). Ref.: Gáspár (2016) 342, Nr. 266, T. CCCLXIII; Sáró (2020) Kat. A2; Lupa, Nr. 787.
Lábatlan. Coll.: BBM, Inv.no.: 67.3.1. Dating: 70–150 AD (Lupa). Ref.: Sáró (2018) 271, Cat. 7, Fig. 8. 7; Sáró (2020) Kat. A32; Lupa, Nr. 4454.
Martonvásár-Tordaspuszta. Coll.: HNM, Inv.no.: – Dating: 100–150 AD (Gáspár, 2016). Ref.: Gáspár (2016) 462, Nr. 415, T. DLXXXIV; Sáró (2020) Kat. A103; Lupa, Nr. 2977.
Soponya.14 Coll.: GAP, Inv.no.: – Dating: 100–120 AD (Lupa). Ref.: Gáspár (2016) 422–423, Nr. 370, T. DI; Sáró (2020) Kat. A59; Lupa, Nr. 4041.
Szentendre. Coll.: FMC, Inv.no.: 58.33.1. Dating: 100–150 AD (Lupa). Inscription: Verodubena / Cesonis f(ilia) an(norum) / XXX t(itulum) p(osuit) Maius / Cuci (Lupa). Ref.: RIU 3, 270–271, Nr. 928; TitAq IV, 76, Nr. 1637; Gáspár (2016) 390–391, Nr. 328, T. CDXLIII–CDXLV; Sáró (2020) Kat. A10; Lupa, Nr. 704.
Szentendre. Coll.: FMC, Inv.no.: 58.24.1. Dating: 130–190 AD (Lupa). Inscription: Mira Crescen/tis f(ilia) an(norum) XXX t(itulum) p(osuit) / M(arcus) At(t)ius Rufus / vet(eranus) leg(ionis) II ad(iutricis) sibi / et con(iugi) b(ene) m(erenti) pos(uit) (Lupa). Ref.: RIU 3, 258–259, Nr. 913, Abb. CCXIX; TitAq IV, 63, Nr. 1621; Gáspár (2016) 388–389, Nr. 326, T. CDXL–CDXLI; Sáró (2020) Kat. A101; Lupa, Nr. 760.
Szomód. Coll.: DRM, Inv.no.: II 2804. Dating: 70–120 AD (Lupa). Ref.: Gáspár (2016) 466, Nr. 421, T. DXCIII; Sáró (2018) 269, Cat. 1, Fig. 7. 1; Sáró (2020) Kat. A11; Lupa, Nr. 830.
Szomor-Pusztasomodor. Coll.: HNM, Inv.no.: 64.1894.5. Dating: 70–150 AD (Lupa). Ref.: Gáspár (2016) 467, Nr. 422, T. DXCIV; Sáró (2018) 269, Cat. 2, Fig. 7. 2; Sáró (2020) Kat. A18; Lupa, Nr. 800.
Szőny. Coll.: HNM, Inv.no.: 100.1885.13. Dating: 100–150 AD (Lupa). Inscription: ---] sia Asa/nuti (filia) h(ic) e(st) s(ita) [---(?) or …]IA SAVI F(?) [… / …] V III A(?) (Lupa). Ref.: Gáspár (2016) 467, Nr. 423, T. DXCV; Sáró (2018) 271, Cat. 6, Fig. 7. 6; Sáró (2020) Kat. A24; Lupa, Nr. 801.15
Tombstones (Nr. 1–10, 12–13: photos by Cs. Sáró, Nr. 11: Harl and Lőrincz, 2002, Kat. 1)
Citation: Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 75, 1; 10.1556/072.2024.00008
Female attires on the stone monuments (drawing by Cs. Sáró)
Citation: Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 75, 1; 10.1556/072.2024.00008
Depictions
On the main field of the tombstones and grave monuments, 13 women's headwear could be analysed. Circa half of the women were depicted alone,16 while others were shown together with other family members.17 Only two monuments present two women together, but only one wears a hat with headwear-related ornaments on each picture (Nr. 4, Nr. 6).
Only two forms of headwear-related elements were depicted. These are round and flower-shaped pieces. The number and shape of the ornaments are various, but they are always identical on the same picture (Fig. 3, Table 1).
Headwear-related elements (drawing by Cs. Sáró)
Citation: Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 75, 1; 10.1556/072.2024.00008
Forms of headwear-related accessories
| Code | Form | 1 piece | 2 pieces |
| H-related accessory/1.1 | big, round | Nr. 6, Nr. 11. | |
| H-related accessory/1.2 | small, round | Nr. 12. | Nr. 3–5, Nr. 7, Nr. 9–10, Nr. 13. |
| H-related accessory/2 | flower-shaped | Nr. 1, Nr. 8. | Nr. 2. |
All ornamental elements are low or high-relief, and no traces of paint can be observed with the naked eye. The surface of big and small round pieces is plain and unsegmented. However, the flower-shaped pieces are well elaborated; they have a round middle element and four roundish (Nr. 1, Nr. 8) or broader (Nr. 2) petals.
In all cases, these elements belong to the headwear instead of directly connected to the hair. Only one piece appears on the veil (Nr. 12), while the others join the differently shaped hats. According to my classification, H3 and H7 hat variants are the most frequent, and only one H2 and H6 are known yet (Table 2). However, most depicted hats on stone monuments from Hungary are undecorated. Women wear various forms of H2, H3, H6 and H7 hats, but out of the 101 women, only 12 have headwear-related accessories. Moreover, no decoration was observed on H4, H8 and H10 (Table 3).18 As was mentioned above, the whole surface of H7/5 was also elaborated but these carved lines hint at the material of the hat.
Hat types on studied stone monuments
| Hats | H2/3. | H3/1. | H3/2. | H6/1. | H7/1. | H7/2. | H7/3. |
| Stone monument | Nr. 7. | Nr. 6, Nr. 11, Nr. 13. | Nr. 3. | Nr. 5. | Nr. 1, Nr. 4, Nr. 9–10. | Nr. 8. | Nr. 2. |
| Amount | 1 person | 3 persons | 1 person | 1 person | 4 persons | 1 person | 1 person |
| Total | 1 | 4 | 1 | 6 | |||
Proportions of depicted hats with and without accessories on stone monuments from Hungary
| Hats | With accessories | Without accessories | Sum |
| H2 | 1 | 8 | 9 |
| H3 | 4 | 20 | 24 |
| H4 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| H6 | 1 | 8 | 9 |
| H7 | 6 | 53 | 59 |
| H8 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
| H10 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Sum | 12 | 95 | 107 |
Brief epigraphic analysis
Most stone monuments are fragmented, and only four Latin inscriptions are preserved. Unfortunately, one of them is very short and illegible (Nr. 13). The other three stone monuments were erected by a wife (coniux) (Nr. 2), a husband (Nr. 10), and another male person with an uncertain connection to the deceased (Nr. 9).
Derva (Nr. 2), Mira (Nr. 10), and Verodubena (Nr. 9) are female names, while Artio/Artius/Quartius (Nr. 2), Ceso (Nr. 9), Crescens (Nr. 10), Cucus (Nr. 9), Maius (Nr. 9), Marcus Attius Rufus (Nr. 10), and Miletumarus (Nr. 2) are male ones. Artio/Artius/Quartius lived 60 years, while Mira and Verodubena lived only 30.
A handful of names are certainly or presumably Celtic.19 Based on the work of W. Meid, the origin and the meaning of Ceso, Cucus, Verodubena (Nr. 9), Derva, and Miletumarus (Nr. 2) names can be presented. These are names with Celtic or possible Celtic connections. According to W. Meid, Miletumarus means ‘great in destruction’,20 Verodubena is supposedly someone who ‘belongs to the upper world’ or ‘whose world is upper’,21 while the reading of Derva connects to oak and possibly means ‘hard, firm, steadfast’.22 Although Ceso is more problematic, the daughter's Celtic name (Verodubena) helps with its identification.23 Cucus supposedly corresponds to the Celtic Coucus, but their meaning is uncertain.24 The fragmented name of Derva's husband is also problematic (Nr. 9). If it was Artio/Artius, maybe it has a Celtic origin.25 Still, it could also be Quartius, derived from the Latin number.26
Other Ceso, Miletumarus, and Verodubena cannot be mentioned from Pannonia.27 However, three further Artius are named on stone monuments from Aquincum, Arrabona, and Brigetio.28 Moreover, Derva and Cucus are recorded not just from Pannonia but also from Noricum.29 Further versions of Derva, Verodubena, Ceso and Cucus are also known from Pannonia. Dervonia is mentioned on a tombstone from Gyermely,30 Verodumna was carved on a tombstone from Csepel,31 Cesomarius32 and Coucus are recorded from Intercisa,33 plus Couco appears on a tombstone from Solva.34
Maius and Maia are frequent on Celtic territory, but it is supposedly Latin.35 The Roman tria nomina is exceptional; only Marcus Attius Rufus, a veteran of the legio II Adiutix, has three names (Nr. 10). After Marcus Attius Rufus was discharged, he and his wife must have settled at Ulcisia.36 Not just his name and his profession, but his toga also reflects his Roman citizenship.37
W. Meid did not cite Mira (Cat. 10) among Celtic names, but others supposed it was Celtic.38 The name is not entirely unknown, and another Mira was mentioned on a tombstone from Penk in east-southern Austria (Noricum). The stone monument was erected by Romanius Iuvenis and his wife (coniux) Aquilina to their daughter Iunilla, to her grandfather Secundinius, and Iucundianus and Mira.39 The tombstone was not dated precisely, but the 2nd–3rd century AD was suggested.40
Analogies of the depicted elements on the hats
Recognising and defining the decorative element on the hat is quite problematic. As far as I know, only six of these elements were mentioned by scholars,41 while most have not been described at all. Not just the material of these accessories but their type and exact function are also uncertain. Only a handful of observations have been made about these items. F. Harl and B. Lőrincz tried to define the material, and they suggested that these are metal ornaments. Another question is what type of objects they could be. More than once, flower-shaped pieces were described as ornamental pins.42 According to M. Láng and U. Rothe, these decorative elements could not just fix but also decorate the headwear.43
Depictions on stone monuments
Based on my collecting work, depictions of native women's hats with headwear-related elements are known from the Danube bend but missing from other territories of Hungary.44 These small carved details are difficult to recognise on stone monuments, and only two were described in Lupa.45 According to my research, further pieces from other territories were not mentioned in this database. My investigation required additional data, so I tried to identify similar ornamental elements on published tombstones and portraits from the Roman Empire. Not just their distribution but their dating is also informative.
A handful of representations from the Rhineland should be mentioned. A female stone head fragment from Cologne originally belonged to an almost life-sized sculpture (Fig. 4.1).46 The woman wears a Rothe/B702 bonnet47 with a headwear-related element. It has a round surface in relief with two hanging chains or strings. The stone head was dated to the middle of the 1st century AD by U. Rothe.48 Another important representation is the well-known small bronze head of a woman who wears a little bonnet with a net-like surface (Fig. 4.2). A small accessory with a segmented surface appears next to her right ear.49 Scholars have interpreted this interesting and problematic element of her headdress differently. Contrary to earlier ideas, J. P. Wild and U. Rothe dated the bronze head to the 2nd century AD.50 Fortunately, the representation of the elongated accessory on the stone monuments of the Rhineland is not unique. According to foreign scholars, similar elements of the female headwear can also be seen on the so-called ‘Matrona’ reliefs.51
Depicted headwear-related elements. 1. Cologne (Wild, 1968b, 2), 2. Rhineland (Wild, 1968, 1a), 3. Aquincum, Civil Town (Szirmai, 1999, 56, Nr. 36), 4. Zenica (Lupa Nr. 23346, Foto: O. Harl, 2019), 5. Stratonikeia/Eskihisar (Schade, 2003, Taf. 58. 3)
Citation: Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 75, 1; 10.1556/072.2024.00008
The interpretation of this accessory is also questionable, just like the headwear-related element on the Pannonian reliefs. Initially, J. P. Wild interpreted this accessory as the tube for the drawstring of the bonnet.52 Later, he conceded M. Gebühr's observations,53 revised his previous idea and defined the object as a pin.54 U. Rothe also described the accessory of the stone head from Cologne as a pin.55
Two fragmented tombstones from Budapest (Hungary) should also be mentioned. One of these was found at the amphitheatre of the Aquincum Civil Town (Fig. 4.3).56 Unfortunately, almost all parts of the female body are missing, and only the head and the neck can be analysed. This fragmented relief dates to the first half of the 3rd century AD.57
Despite the few relevant details, the woman does not seem to wear any typical native or so-called pre-Roman costume accessory. She has a necklace of square-shaped pieces and possibly a hairnet on her parted hair. The two big round and further small elements at her ears are the most important details for our topic. These elements were interpreted in two ways:58 according to the first option, they are earrings consisting of two parts,59 which were popular types in the 3rd century AD,60 or the big-sized round elements probably fix the hairnet, and they are some jewels.61
Several authors presented another tombstone from the Március 15 Square/Budapest. According to previous observations, this woman wears a veil on her head.62 Moreover, D. Gáspár supposes a pin fixes the veil on her right temple.63 Her simple dress is a tunica. This tombstone was dated to the beginning of the 3rd century AD.64
Based on the published photographs and the description of E. Lozić, I suggest that ornamental elements can be seen on a tombstone from Zenica-Bilimišće (Bosnia-Herzegovina) (Fig. 4.4).65 Almost entire body portraits of one woman and three men stand between two columns. The woman wears a tight hat with ‘a decoration in the shape of two circles that are filled with a series of carved lines’.66 The woman has several jewels, namely two finger rings, a necklace with a round pendant, a pair of earrings and a round brooch on her chest, but she does not have any shoulder brooch. All three men wear onion-knobbed brooches on their right shoulder and a swastika symbol on their tunica. Onion-knobbed brooches were fashionable in Late Roman times, so their production period adds information to the dating of this tombstone. According to scientific literature, this stone monument was made at the end of the 3rd century AD or the beginning of the 4th century.67
A further portrait bust from Stratonikeia/Eskihisar (Republic of Türiyke) should also be mentioned (Fig. 4.5). The mature woman's hair is covered. She probably wears a scarf or hat, and only a few locks of hair and a short row of curls can be seen at her temple and the nape of her neck.68 The headwear is decorated with two flower-shaped ornamental elements on its front side. Although B. Kiilerich did not mention them, other scholars described the flower-shaped elements, and A. R. Facsády defined them as hairpins.69 Based on stylistic analyses, B. Kiilerich dated the portrait bust to the first half of the 5th century AD.70 Although covering the hair was also a conventional custom, this habit was less prevalent in the Late Roman Period than fashionable hairdos.71 According to K. Schade, it was a dressing habit of married women.72
The previously presented depictions are pretty colourful. Headwear-related elements can be observed in women's attire from different periods and broad territories. Bonnets of native clothing, hairnets and other headwear from the Late Roman Period were also decorated with these small items. Not just round but flower-shaped pieces were also presented. In the next section, their connection with the archaeological find material should be investigated.
Archaeological finds
Not just depictions but archaeological finds also prove that hairpins, hairnets, and other jewels were used to ornate women's hairdos in the Roman Period. Unfortunately, hairnets are rare and can only be preserved under fortunate circumstances. A handful of published assemblages of hairnets and accessories contribute to reconstructing ornated headwear. Hairnets could be worn in several ways, i.e. hairnets could be cap-like, but they could be worn at the back of the neck as well.73 Hairnets could also be ornated with a decorative chain and fixed with hairpins. The ca. 40-year-old woman's dress accessories in the Rommerskirchen burial (North Rhine-Westphalia) prove this well.74 Hairnets were standard accessories of the ‘Italic’ Roman fashion. The primary role of the normal hairnet was to protect and shape the hair, so they were mostly functional rather than decorative elements of the attire. However, the ornamented hairnet belonged to the upper classes and reflected the wearer's status.75
How did this habit connect to the dressing of the native inhabitants of the provinces? Did it affect the local women's clothing and refine it through a slow process?
As I presented earlier, the headwear was a significant element of the so-called native female attire. Unfortunately, no clear information about the wearers' status and/or origin can be concluded. Although several authors supposed that different types of headwear, veils and hats could be related to certain pre-Roman tribes/inhabitants of a limited geographical area or they reflect religious, married, or another status,76 these hypotheses could not certainly be proven in most cases.
The complexity and diversity of the so-called native female attire are evident. Here, I focus on the attire of the pre-Roman inhabitants of Pannonia. Several questions require answers, as the lack of information makes it more difficult to relate and originate the various attire elements from the local Late Iron Age culture. J. Pásztókai Szeőke emphasised that the depictions of the Eraviscus territory could reflect the creative reinterpretation of the local Late Iron Age attire in the Roman Period.77 This phenomenon is not unique, in line with the previous statement U. Rothe concluded about the so-called Gallic Ensemble, the Treveran women's dress.78 The detailed examination of tombstones from Hungary gave the possibility of analysing jewellery ensembles and letting the mixture of these accessories be seen.79 The evaluation of headwear-related accessories should not neglect the previous information. Accessories and costume habits of various origins were possibly combined and transformed through the centuries.
Depicted headwear-related ornaments were mainly carved in high relief or cut into the stone's surface in one known case. These elements differ from the cloth material and have characteristic shapes. Based on that, I agree with other scholars and suppose they are jewels or dress accessories instead of a pattern on the fabric. These ornamental elements could be identified with three types of dress accessories: studs/rivets, pins, or brooches. In the following, I am going to examine all categories.
1. Studs/rivets
Unlike pins and brooches, clothing buttons, studs and rivets were fixed to the fabric by sewing or riveting. As I presented earlier, the material of the depicted hats is uncertain, but the twisted fabric of H6/1 was supposedly made of a narrow, stripe-like cloth. The fixing method of the headwear-related accessories suggests they are not buttons, studs, or rivets. The position of the decorative elements is well-composed and symmetrical on the reliefs, so the accessories were possibly joined to the headwear after it was put on. On the contrary, studs and rivets were fixed to the fabric during the manufacturing of various dress accessories.
2. Pins
Secondly, the depicted headwear-related accessories might be pins.80 Roman hairpins are very varied, not just in their material but also in their remarkably diverse style and design. Hairpins with big decorative heads should be interpreted as close analogies of the depicted jewels on tombstones Nr. 1–13. According to this theory, the big head of the hairpins was shown from above.
Unfortunately, only a handful of relevant objects were published from Northeastern Pannonia. Firstly, three bone hairpins with golden heads should be mentioned from Brigetio, which were found in 1998 during a rescue excavation in the territory of the canabae (Fig. 5.1). Two hairpins were found in the sarcophagus Nr. 2, next to the woman's scull (2/a), while the third one came from the same sarcophagus but next to the child's head (2/b).81 All pinhead settings were made of thin gold foil with ribbed decoration on their edge. Two pins have an oval head with an amethyst gem, while the third is rectangular with green glass82 (Bartus Type 5).83 It should be mentioned that gold threads of some fabric were also found in the mud of this sarcophagus.84 The sarcophagus Nr. 2 dates to the early 4th century AD.85
Hairpins (1–2, 4–5. without scale). 1. Hairpins with golden heads from Brigetio (sizes: length: 1.8 + 2 cm, 2.7 + 2 cm, 1.5 + 2.4 cm, head: 1.3 × 1.6 cm, 1.6 × 2 cm, 1.3 × 1.6 cm) (photo by the Komáromi Klapka György Múzeum), 2. Hairpins with golden heads from Aquincum (sizes: length: 5.9 cm, 7.9 cm) (R. Facsády, 2009, 127, Kat. 339–340), 3. Hairpins with silver heads from Somogyszil–Csárdavölgyi-dűlő (Németh, 2018, 6. ábra), 4. Hairpins with jet heads from York (?) (sizes: length: 9.5 cm, 8.7 cm, 5.2 cm, 6.3 cm, 3.5 cm, head: 1.2 cm, 0.9 cm, 1.1 cm, 1.2 cm, 1.1 cm) (Allason-Jones, 1996, 45, Nos. 275–279), 5. A Kempten-type bead from Carnuntum (sizes: diameter: 2.4 cm) (Beutler et al., 2017, 372–373, Nr. 818), 6. A hairpin with a big, disk-shaped, and perforated head from St-Albans (Artefacts, EPG-4129, original picture: Frere, S. 1972: Verulamium Excavations I. Oxford, Fig. 55. 201)
Citation: Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 75, 1; 10.1556/072.2024.00008
The quality of the two hairpins from Aquincum is similar to the previous pieces (Fig. 5.2). They came from a sarcophagus (grave No. 27) in the territory of the so-called ‘Bécsi Road cemetery’, the graveyard of the canabae.86 Both pinheads are gold, the openwork technique imitates flower petals, and sapphire and pearl were inserted into each of their middles.87 It should also be mentioned that the remains of a hairnet with gold threads were found in this sarcophagus.88 The grave was dated to the 3rd century AD.89
A further grave can be mentioned from Somogyszil–Csárdavölgyi-dűlő, south of Lake Balaton (Somogy County).90 Two individuals, an adult woman and a girl, were found in a brick-built burial. Among several other jewels, five hairpins belonged to the child's attire; they were found in the region of the skull. All hairpins are silver, and three pieces have an oval head with a ribbed edge and green glass decoration (Fig. 5.3).91 The grave was dated to the end of the 4th century AD.92
All hairpins are unique, well-elaborated, high-quality pieces. Unfortunately, other objects from another province have not been mentioned in the relevant literature. On top of all that, the previously described pieces were dated to the Late Roman Period, so their close connection with the objects on tombstones from the 1st to 2nd century AD is quite questionable.
The previous artefacts also exemplify that the head of hairpins can be made of different materials. The following two pin types join this category.
The jet heads of a handful of hairpins are global or cylindrical, and their shafts are made of bone (Fig. 5.4).93 These hairpins with cylindrical jet heads match well with the depicted items on the previously listed tombstones. Unfortunately, the known examples only came from Britannia,94 and the dating of these pieces is uncertain, but the Late Roman Period should be proposed.95
Another accessory can also be mentioned here, namely the Kempten-type glass beads. These big, roundish glass beads with a slightly convex upper side and a spiral decoration (Tempelmann-Maczyńska XIX = Riha 11.24)96 were interpreted in several ways. Firstly, these objects were defined as spindle whorls, but some scholars rejected this idea. T. E. Haevernick described finds from Kempten/Cambodunum and supposed that these objects were decorative elements of hairpins,97 but her definition was questioned later. According to E. Riha and M. Feugère, most of these beads were part of necklaces.98 Necessarily, the interpretation of T. E. Haevernick should not be rejected entirely because the possible usage of an object could be diverse.99
The dating of these beads is also essential for our topic. Their production was probably started in the 1st century AD, but they were used for a long time.100 The dating of these objects matches the possible production period of the listed tombstones (Nr. 1–13). Based on that, the depicted headwear-related accessories might be interpreted as pins with Kempten-type beads.
At the same time, only a few Kempten-type glass beads were listed from Pannonia. Most of these beads have no exact find context, and we lack information about their possible pin shafts.101 In the near past, further glass beads were published from Carnuntum (sector of the auxiliary castellum) (Fig. 5.5)102 and the Civil Town of Aquincum,103 but neither of their pin shafts were found. Another piece without a pin shaft is also known from the early period of the Civil Town in Aquincum.104 An unpublished fragmented bead can be mentioned from Grave No. O19/S19 from Páty–Malomi-dűlő 3,105 but the context proves that this bead was undoubtedly part of a necklace. An amber bead from the retentura of the legionary fortress in Brigetio (Szőny-MOLAJ) has a similar shape as the Riha 11.24. beads. Unfortunately, the pin shaft is missing again.106 A further bead from the excavation at Gyulafirátót-Pogánytelek (MRT 2, 20/6)107 should also be mentioned here. Based on the published photograph and the description, it is possibly a Kempten-type bead without a pin-shaft.108
Not only hairpins of mixed material but hairpins made solely of bone can be presented here. The Artefacts, EPG-4129 hairpins have a big, disk-shaped and perforated head attached to a bone pin shaft (Fig. 5.6). According to the database, this type is known not just from Britannia but Gaul as well and they were dated to a pretty long period (150–400 AD).109 However, I have found no evidence of this type in Northeastern Pannonia, their form and usage period connect to the depicted headwear-related accessories.
3. Brooches
The third interpretation is discussed in the following part of the article. The shape of the depicted accessories matches a handful of disc and plate brooches.
Disc brooches could be decorated with various techniques. Their surface is ornamented with pointing,110 niello,111 enamel,112 glass elements,113 openwork motives,114 rivets,115 and metal coating.116 Moreover, the previously mentioned techniques could also be combined.117 These disc brooches are known from Pannonia, but their frequency is diverse. The top-view image of tutulus brooches lets us discuss them here. Their surface is frequently undecorated118 or enamelled.119
K. Berecz accurately studied Pannonian enamelled brooches. Out of disc-shaped pieces of her typology (IIA/1a–15),120 only brooches with an unsegmented outer edge (IIA/1–5a, 10a, 12a, 15a–e)121 and tutulus brooches (IIA/9)122 correspond to the depicted items on tombstones. IIA/1a, IIA/2a, IIA/4a, IIA/5a and IIA/15b enamelled brooches have already been published from Northeastern Pannonia (Fig. 6).123 The IIA/1a subtype was used during an extended period, from the 1st to the 3rd century AD, the IIA/2a, 4a can be dated to the 2nd century AD, while the IIa/5a and the IIA/15b from the second half of the 2nd century to the beginning of the 3rd century AD.124
Enamelled disc-shaped and tutulus brooch types based on K. Berecz's type tables (drawing by Cs. Sáró)
Citation: Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 75, 1; 10.1556/072.2024.00008
Further disc brooches with various decorations are also known from Northeastern Pannonia. Several types have small projections along their edges, while others have unsegmented borders. Riha 7.7,125 Gaspar 39b,126 Riha 7.6,127 Feugère/Philippe 24a,128 Feugère/Philippe 25a,129 Riha 3.14,130 Riha 3.14 variant,131 and Cociş 25132 brooches have already been found in Northeastern Pannonia (Fig. 7).
Decorated disc brooches from Northeastern Pannonia. 1. Aquincum-Víziváros (Riha 7.7), 2–3. Aquincum-Corvin tér/Grave No. 46 (Gaspar 39b), 4. Perbál (Riha 7.6), 5. Aquincum-Víziváros (Feugère/Philippe 24a), 6. Brigetio (Feugère/Philippe 24a), 7. Tarján (Feugère/Philippe 24a), 8. Aquincum (Feugère/Philippe 25a), 9. Brigetio (Riha 3.14), 10–11. Budaörs (Riha 3.14), 12. Páty (Riha 3.14), 13. Komárom-Esztergom County (Riha 3.14), 14. Brigetio, Civil Town (Riha 3.14 variant), 15. Brigetio (Cociş 25), 16. Intercisa/Grave No. 455 17. Brigetio (Cociş 25), 18. Brigetio (Cociş 25) (drawing by Cs. Sáró, Figs. 7/4., 8., 10–11., 15. and 18. are based on Merczi, 2017, 1. tábla 1; Patek, 1942, T. XVII. 12; Merczi, 2012, 7. kép 9 and 12; Patek, 1942, 225, T. XVIII. 13; Sellye, 1940, 237, T. XXIX. 2)
Citation: Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 75, 1; 10.1556/072.2024.00008
Most previous types can be dated to the 1st century and the beginning of the 2nd century AD. The Riha 7.7 brooches were typical in the Claudius–Nero Age, but occasionally, they were used until the end of the 1st century and the beginning of the 2nd century AD.133 The usage of Gaspar 39b was coinstantaneous, and they can be dated from the Tiberius/Claudius Age to the Flavian Age/beginning of the 2nd century AD.134 The Riha 7.6 brooches also fit into the picture because they were used from the Tiberius/Claudius Age to the Flavian Age.135 However, the brooch from Perbál was found in a layer dated to the end of the 1st century to the beginning of the 2nd century AD, so the type was used slightly longer in Pannonia.136 The dating of the Feugère/Philippe 24a is the same, and this type was used from the early Claudius Age to the second half of the 1st century AD.137 Tutulus brooches (Feugère/Philippe 25) were used from the reign of Tiberius to the 2nd century AD,138 specifically Feugère/Philippe 25a brooches between 70/80 and 150 AD.139
The Riha 3.14 brooches were decorated with Pressblechauflage. Although their production probably began in the middle of the 1st century AD, they became popular in the second half of the 2nd century and the first half of the 3rd century AD.140 The close analogies of the brooch with applied metal foil and black glass applications from the Civil Town of Brigetio were dated to the middle and the second half of the 2nd century and the 3rd century.141 Samian wares of the layer SU142 047 in Brigetio were dated from the second half of the 1st century to the middle of the 3rd century AD.143 In addition, two coins came from this filling layer, a denarius subaeratus of Geta (200–203 AD) and Severus Alexander (222–228 AD).144 The use of the disc and plate brooches with openwork decoration (Cociş 25) was coinstantaneous, and they can be dated from the end of the 2nd century to the beginning of the 3rd century AD.145
Brooches of Riha 7.7, Gaspar 39b, Feugère 24c, and Philippe 24a types are not local Pannonian products. They came to Northeastern Pannonia from their main distribution area, Britannia, Gaul and the Rhineland.146 The Riha 3.14 brooches with Pressblechauflage were also common in the Western Provinces. Namely, they occurred mainly in Germania and Raetia.147
Only a handful of decorative disc brooches with applied metal foil and glass applications are known yet. Some of the published close analogies came from the territory of Roman provinces (Antigny, Le Gué-de-Sciaux–France; Ehingen, Eining, Zugmantel–Germany; Hollern–Austria, Sárvár–Hungary).148 However, others were found in the Sarmatian Barbaricum (Nyíregyháza-Felsősima/Gyebrás-tanya (highway M3, site No. 161)/Grave No. 195–skeleton grave of a woman (?), Grave No. 297–skeleton grave; Rákóczifalva-Bagi-földek 8A, Grave No. 641/766–skeleton grave of a 30–40-year-old woman; Üllő (highway M0, site No. 5)/supposed Grave cut by object No. 6894).149 Zs. Masek propounded their possible production in the Barbaricum,150 and E. Istvánovits and V. Kulcsár assumed it in the Sarmatian area.151
The disc brooch with openwork decoration represents the last type. This type was common in the Rhineland, the Danube area and the northern part of Dacia.152 E. Patek suggested that brooches with openwork decoration came from the Western Provinces to Pannonia, and the local production of the type started later.153 According to published pieces, various plate brooches with openwork decoration were produced in Pannonia, Noricum, and Raetia.154 Not only disc brooches with openwork ornaments but also other dress accessories and small finds were manufactured in the Danube area.155 The openwork decoration technique became popular in the 2nd century and was continuously used in the 3rd–4th century AD.156
Flower-shaped brooches are not as diverse and numerous as disc brooches (Fig. 8). The close analogies of the depicted items are limited, and only two forms can be presented.
Flower-shaped brooches from Pannonia and Gaul. 1. Siscia, 2. Biatorbágy, 3. Bliesbruck (drawing by Cs. Sáró, Figs. 8/1., 3. are based on Košćević, 1991, Taf. XX. 285; Weisse, 2014, Pl. 52, 616)
Citation: Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 75, 1; 10.1556/072.2024.00008
The bow of the most well-known variant is composed of several petals and a round middle element (Riha 7.2.1 = Ortisi 21e = Gaspar 39b).157 Unfortunately, the decoration of this round element most often perished.158 However, scholars supposed it was ornamented with a glass element or an enamelled rivet.159 This type is uncommon in Pannonia;160 only a handful of flower-shaped brooches have been published. The decoration of a stray find from Biatorbágy has not remained,161 while the middle of the brooch from Siscia is decorated with a sculpturesque masque-shaped element.162 The most popular period of the Riha 7.2.1 brooches was the Claudius–Flavius Age,163 but occasionally it could maintain longer.164
Another less-known variant of the flower-shaped brooches was decorated with enamel. The form is similar to the previously described variant, but the petals are decorated with enamel, and the middle of the bow is ornated with a knob. A relevant piece from Bliesbruck-QTH was dated 150–200 AD.165
Here, I should connect find material with depicted brooches. Women wear disc brooches on several stone monuments, and I can mention nineteen women depicted on stone monuments from Hungary. Their brooches' surfaces are plain and undecorated or segmented.166
Moreover, numerous men are represented with a disc brooch. S. Hoss collected depictions from the whole territory of the Roman Empire. Based on funerary reliefs, imperial and private portraits, and historical reliefs, she studied men's brooches, including disc brooches.167 Unfortunately, the different media in which a person is depicted determines the elaboration of the dress accessories. Cameos and coins, for example, are less helpful because of their small size. However, various disc brooches were presented in S. Hoss' paper.168 Ultimately, the author concluded that two general forms of disc brooches were depicted. ‘The first is a flat round or oval ‘domed’ brooch with a central gemstone or cameo/intaglio. (…) The second type is a rosette brooch, represented in the better executed and preserved examples as either a full-blown flower or a domed fibula with an inscribed rosette, topped by a bead.’169 I suppose depicted disc brooches reflect various decoration techniques. Besides high-quality decorations,170 cheaper techniques were also used. The possible decoration techniques are worth an entire study but are less important for our present topic. I should emphasise the analogy of forms: men's depicted brooches are round or flower-shaped, as well as women's depicted headwear-related accessories.
Archaeological finds in grave contexts of Northeastern Pannonia
Brooches and pins from grave contexts in Northeastern Pannonia are significant for our topic. The position of the jewels in burial contexts gives us relevant information about the attire of the deceased persons. Connected with depictions, the usage of headwear-related accessories might be proved by a single ornamental pin/brooch or a pair of these accessories next to the temple. The popular burial rite of the native inhabitants in this area was inhumation, but later, the habit changed to cremation.171 Naturally, cremation graves are less informative, and only possessing a dress accessory is provable, but the way of wearing remains uncertain.
Brooches were also common attire accessories for men, women, and children in the Roman Period. However, differences can be specified: men and boys wore only one brooch, while women and girls usually had one to three brooches. Still, costume habits have changed over the centuries; women and girls have started to leave shoulder brooches and prefer breast brooches or even other jewels.172 Based on the depicted attires on tombstones, headwear-related accessories appeared together with shoulder brooches, so I also tried to focus on this habit. During my research, I studied Northeastern Pannonian graves with brooches.173
Unfortunately, only a handful of female graves contained disc brooches. I list burials from Aquincum and Intercisa.
Grave No. 46/Aquincum-Corvin Square is a scattered ashes cremation grave of a ca. 1-year-old child.174 A pair of Gaspar 39b disc brooches and a Riha 12.15 (?)175 bronze hairpin176 also belonged to the burial. Unfortunately, their position cannot be analysed through the type of burial rite.177 A Berecz IIA/4a enamelled disc brooch178 was found in Grave No. 429/Aquincum-Graphisoft Park (Civil Town Cemetery). The coffin burial of a 25–59-year-old woman did not contain further dress accessories, and the brooch was not found in its original position.179 Two graves from Intercisa should also be mentioned. A Berecz IIA/15b enamelled disc brooch with a life scene180 was found in the brick-built burial of a girl (grave No. 165).181 Although the pearl necklace with a bronze bulla182 was found on her chest, the brooch was placed near the heel of the right foot, so it was probably not part of the attire but a gift or a keepsake. The scattered ashes cremation grave No. 455 could be mentioned in the end. Unfortunately, the gender of the deceased and the original position of the Cociş 25a4 disc brooch with openwork technique are unknown.183
A handful of graves contained brooches and hairpins as well. I could study burials from Aquincum, Brigetio and Intercisa.
Grave No. 46/Aquincum-Corvin Square was mentioned in the text above, so the findings are not presented here again. A pair of Garbsch A238c Norico-Pannonian winged shoulder brooch,184 one Redžić 2010/Var. 3. Pontus type strongly profiled brooch185 and probably a bone hairpin with conical head186 belonged to the inhumation grave of a maturus/senilis aged woman (grave No. 1) at 67 Aranypatak Street, Budapest. Unfortunately, this grave was disturbed, and the head was removed from its original position, so the exact spot of the bone hairpin is uncertain. Grave ‘A’ (SU 3586–3587)/Aquincum-62/80 Bécsi Road is a scattered ashes cremation burial of an adult woman and another individual. Numerous finds187 were buried with these persons, and some dress accessories probably belonged to the woman. The bone hairpin with a segmented, fluted, and conical ending188 and the small, silver Pannonian trumpet brooch (Merczi, 2012/12.1)189 supposedly belonged to the woman's attire.
Cemeteries of Brigetio lay along the Limes Road and the road leading to Tata. L. Barkóczi called the graveyards situated west of the civil town No. 2 and No. 3 civil town cemeteries. Scholars agree these two parts should be regarded as part of the same graveyard and called the ‘western cemetery of the civil town’.190 Unfortunately, numerous graves were disturbed in the first half of the 20th century. Still, the find material was carefully collected by the former greffier of Szőny and kept in the local museum at Tata. Among other burials, a cremation grave was found at the territory of the No. 2 cemetery south of the Limes Road. This grave allegedly contained a strongly profiled brooch (Almgren191 70/73c = Gugl 6c) and a bone hairpin (Riha 12.16).192 These objects seem unburnt, so it is uncertain that they were cremated.193 Besides, they probably belonged to the deceased during a lifetime.
Grave No. 1344/Intercisa-Great Cemetery (Nagytemető) should be mentioned at the end. Several pieces of jewels and a brooch were found in the inhumation grave of an adult woman.194 Unfortunately, the Jobst 4E strongly profiled brooch195 and the bronze hairpin196 with a bowl-shaped ending were found on the left sidebone and the right of the thorax.197 Their original position or function is undefinable.
Finally, I summarise the previous information: 1. Disc brooches from the previously listed graves were supposedly used to fix and/or decorate cloth and not headwear. 2. Men and women wore disc brooches as well. Besides, only one attire with a pair of disc brooches should be connected to local women's costume habits (Grave No. 46/Aquincum-Corvin Square). 3. Various types of Norico-Pannonian-made brooches, namely Norico-Pannonian winged brooches, strongly profiled brooches, and Pannonian trumpet brooches, were supposedly worn together with hairpins. Each grave contained only one hairpin; all have a small and/or simple head.
Summary
Numerous Roman-style stone monuments depict the deceased alone or with their family members. These pictures present these persons wearing a costume that reflects their ethnicity, profession, status, and wealth. The role of these pictorial messages is to transmit conscious and subconscious messages about the deceased.
Here, I studied the local women's costumes. Pictures on stone monuments present women from Northeastern Pannonia wearing complex attire of cloth, headwear, brooches, jewels, and other dress accessories. Women wear various headwear, and a handful are decorated with headwear-related accessories. Stonemasons depicted most of these accessories in high relief. The main question is, what kind of accessories are they? Answering this question, I investigated other depictions and archaeological finds. I presented two options based on their form, chronology, geographical connection and fixing method. These are decorative pins or disc brooches.
Local women possibly used pins to fix certain types of headwear. Several authors mentioned a distant analogy: burials from the Oder and Elbe area. Grave contexts from this territory prove that pins were used to fix headwear. On the other hand, brooches also pinned and decorated cloth. Hypothetically, both accessories were suitable for this purpose.
However, decorative pins and disc brooches probably appeared because of new cultural effects. Disc brooches primarily developed outside of Pannonia and came here through foreign connections. Likewise, hairpins connect to the fashion of ‘Italic’ Roman hairdos.
Grave contexts are suitable sources for reconstructing an attire, so I investigated burials from Northeastern Pannonia. Unfortunately, neither brooches nor decorative pins prove the previously hypothesised usage. Thus, the question remains: were these accessories truly part of the costume, or were they only representative elements of the depicted attire?
Finally, I should also evaluate ethnic connections. Not just Celts (Eravisci) but Illyrians (Azali) were also local inhabitants of Northeastern Pannonia. My catalogue presents stone monuments from the territory of both tribes. Unfortunately, only a handful of Latin inscriptions remained on stone monuments and mentioned Celtic women (Derva, Verodubena). W. Meid did not cite Mira among Celtic names, but others supposed it was also Celtic. Still, the distribution of stone monuments on both tribes' territory suggests that headwear-related accessories did not belong specifically to one ethnic group.
Eventually, I conclude that depicted headwear-related accessories present new cultural effects. Unlike archaic torques, they do not emphasise local cultural heritage but connect to the transformation that appeared with the Romans.
Acknowledgement
This paper was supported by two grants, the János Bolyai Research Scholarship of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences and the ÚNKP-23-5 New National Excellence Program of the Ministry for Culture and Innovation from the source of the National Research, Development and Innovation Fund.
References
Allason-Jones, L. (1996). Roman jet in the Yorkshire Museum. York.
Almgren, O. (1923). Studien über Nordeuropäische Fibelformen der ersten nachchristlichen Jahrhunderte mit Berücksichtigung der provinzialrömischen und südrussischen Formen. Leipzig.
Anđelković Grašar, J. and Tapavički-Ilić, M. (2015). Mural painting of a Roman lady from Viminacium: from Roman matron to the modern icon. EXARC Journal, 2015(2). https://exarc.net/ark:/88735/10191.
Artefacts, https://artefacts.mom.fr/en/home.php.
Barkóczi, L. (1951). Brigetio, Dissertationes Pannonicae ex Instituto Numismatico et Archaeologico Universitatis de Petro Pázmány nominatae Budapestinensis provenientes, II.22. Budapest.
Bartus, D. (2003). Bone hairpins from Brigetio. In: Novotná, M., Dufková, M., Kuzmová, K., and Hnila, P. (Eds.), Schmuck und Tracht der Antike im laufe der Zeit (Seit der Bronzezeit bis zu Spätantik). Ancient jewellery and costume in course of time (From the Bronze Age to the Late Antiquity). Modra-Harmónia, 19.–22.11.2003. ANODOS. Studies of the Ancient World, 3. Trnava, pp. 23–32.
Bartus, D. (2006). Aranyfejű csont hajtűk a római korban (Beinerne Haarnadeln mit Goldkopf in der Römerzeit). Archaeologiai Értesítő, 131: 193–203.
Bartus, D. (2007). A római kori csontfaragás és a kisművészetek összefüggései [Roman bone carving and the minor arts]. PhD thesis. Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest.
Bartus, D. (2010). Roman bone hairpins with golden head. In: Novotná, M., Jobst, W., Dufková, M., and Kuzmová, K. (Eds.), In honour of Werner Jobst. ANODOS. Studies of the Ancient World, 8. Trnava, pp. 35–43.
Bartus, D., Borhy, L., Delbó, G., Dévai, K., Hajdu, B., Juhász, L., Kis, Z., Nagy, A., Sáró, Cs., Sey, N., and Számadó, E. (2016). Jelentés a Komárom-Szőny, Vásártéren 2014-ben folytatott régészeti feltárások eredményeiről (Bericht über die Ergebnisse der im Jahre 2014 im Munizipium von Brigetio [FO: Komárom-Szőny, Vásártér] geführten archäologischen Grabungen). Kuny Domokos Múzeum Közleményei, 22: 113–168.
Bartus, D., Borhy, L., Dévai, K., Dobosi, L., Sáró, Cs., Sey, N., and Számadó, E. (2022). Twenty-five years of excavations in Brigetio at the site Komárom/Szőny-Vásártér. Dissertationes Archaeologicae, Ser. III, 10: 193–246.
B. Bónis, É. (1986). Das Militärhandwerk der Legio I Adiutrix in Brigetio. In: Unz, C. (Ed.), Studien zu den Militärgrenzen Roms, III.13: Internationaler Limeskongreß Aalen 1983. Vorträge. Stuttgart, pp. 301–307.
B. Bónis, É. and Sellye, I. (1988). Római kori emailmunkák [Roman-period enamelworks]. Évezredek, évszázadok kincsei, 5. Budapest.
Berecz, K. (2008). Aucissa és emailos fibulák Pannoniában és a szomszédos Barbaricumban (Aucissa and enamelled brooches in Pannonia and neighbouring Barbaricum). PhD thesis. Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest.
Beutler, F., Farka, C., Gugl, C., Humer, F., Kremer, G., and Pollhammer, E. (2017). Katalog. In: Beutler, F., Farka, C., Gugl, C., Humer, F., Kremer, G., and Pollhammer, E. (Eds.), Der Adler Roms – Carnuntum und die Armee der Caesaren. Ausstellung im Archäologischen Museum Carnuntinum, Bad Deutsch-Altenburg, März 2017 – November 2020. Bad Vöslau.
T. Bíró, M. (2003). A római szépségápolás [The Roman cosmetology]. Ókor, II/4: 38–44.
Boelicke, U. (2002). Die Fibeln aus dem Areal der Colonia Ulpia Traiana. Xantener Berichte, 10. Mainz.
Borhy, L. (1999). Az 1. sz. szarkofág felirata [The inscription of the 1st sarcophagus]. In: Borhy, L., and Számadó, E. (Eds.), Brigetio kincsei. Komárom, pp. 17–18.
Borhy, L. and Számadó, E. (1999). A Komárom/Szőny-MOLAJ „A” út lelőhelyen feltárt római szarkofágok [Roman-period sarcophaguses from the Road „A” at Komárom/Szőny-MOLAJ]. In: Borhy, L., and Számadó, E. (Eds.), Brigetio kincsei. Komárom, pp. 3–16.
Borhy, L., Dévai, K., Bózsa, A., and Számadó, E. (2018). The western cemetery of the civil town of Brigetio. In: Borhy, L., Dévai, K., and Tankó, K. (Eds.), Celto – Gallo – Roman. Studies of the MTA-ELTE Research Group for Interdisciplinary Archaeology. Paris, pp. 97–185.
Böhme, A. (1972). Die Fibeln der Kastelle Saalburg und Zugmantel. Saalburg Jahrbuch, 29: 5–112.
Böhme, A. (1978). Frauenschmuck der römischen Kaiserzeit. Antike Welt, 9(3): 3–16.
Cambi, N., Ljamić-Valović, N., Meier-Arendt, W., Popović, I., B. Popović, L., and Srejović, D. (Eds.), (1988). Antike Porträts aus Jugoslawien. Eine Ausstellung veranstaltet vom Dezernat Kultur und Freizeit Museum für Vor- und Frühgeschichte der Stadt Frankfurt am Main vom 9. September bis 27. November 1988. Frankfurt am Main.
Carroll, M. (2015). Commemorating military and civilian families on the Danube limes. In: Vagalinski, L., and Sharankov, N. (Eds.), Limes XXII. Proceedings of the 22nd International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies, Ruse, Bulgaria, September 2012. Izvestija na Nacionalnija Archeologičeski Institut, 42. Sofia, pp. 501–509.
Cociş, S. (2004). Fibulele din Dacia Romană – the brooches from Roman Dacia. Cluj-Napoca.
Cociş, S. (2019). The brooch workshops from Dacia and other Danubian provinces of the Roman Empire (1st c. BC–3rd c. AD). Patrimonium archaeologicum Transylvanicum, 16. Cluj-Napoca.
Csirke, O. and K. Palágyi, S. (2005). Római kori ékszerek és viseleti tárgyak a veszprémi Lackó Dezső Múzeum gyűjteményéből (Römerzeitliche Schmuck- und Trachtgegenstände des Museums „Laczkó Dezső“ von Veszprém). Veszprém.
Edgar, M. (2012). Beyond typology: Late Iron Age and Early Roman brooches in Northern France. PhD thesis. University of Leicester. Leicester.
Éri, I., Kelemen, M., Németh, P., and Torma, I. (1969). Veszprém megye régészeti topográfiája, 1: A Veszprémi járás [Archaeological sites of Veszprém County, 1: The Veszprém district]. Magyarország régészeti topográfiája, 2. Budapest.
Éry, K. (1999). A csontvázleletek embertani vizsgálata [The anthropological examination of the skeletons]. In: Borhy, L., and Számadó, E. (Eds.), Brigetio kincsei. Komárom, pp. 24–28.
Eterović Borzić, A. and Štefanac, B. (2021). Antičko staklo: Katalog stalnog postava Muzeja antičkog stakla u Zadru – Ancient glass. Catalogue of the permanent exhibition of the Museum of Ancient Glass in Zadar. Zadar.
Ettlinger, E. (1973). Die römischen Fibeln in der Schweiz. Bern.
R. Facsády, A. (1997). Représentations de parures sur les stèles funéraires du Musée d'Aquincum. In: Djurić, B., and Lazar, I. (Eds.), Akten des IV. Internationalen Kolloquiums über Probleme des provinzialrömischen Kunstschaffens. Akti IV. mednarodnega kolokvija o problemih rimske provincialne umetnosti, Celje 8.–12. Mai/Maj 1995. Situla: Razprave Narodnega muzeja Slovenije – Dissertationes Musei nationalis Sloveniae, 36. Ljubljana, pp. 103–106.
R. Facsády, A. (2006). Aquincumi fülbevalók (Earrings from Aquincum). Budapest Régiségei, 40: 51–70.
R. Facsády, A. (2007). A nők ábrázolásának ikonográfiája az aquincumi sírköveken (The iconography of female depictions). Budapest Régiségei, 41: 21–43.
R. Facsády, A. (2008). Earrings on stone monuments from Pannonia. In: Franek, C., Lamm, S., Neuhauser, T., Porod, B., and Zöhrer, K. (Eds.), Thiasos. Festschrift für Erwin Pochmarski zum 65. Geburtstag. Wien, pp. 229–242.
R. Facsády, A. (2009). Aquincumi ékszerek – Jewellery in Aquincum. Budapest.
R. Facsády, A. (2013). ,Forma bonum fragile est…’. Szépítkezés a római korban [„Forma bonum fragile est…”. Cosmetology in the Roman Age]. Budapest.
Feugère, M. (1985). Les fibules en Gaule Méridionale de la conquête à la fin du Ve s. ap. J.-C. Revue Archéologique de Narbonnaise, Supplément, 12. Paris.
Feugère, M. (1992). Les perles de type Kempten en Gaule Méridionale. Archéologie en Languedoc, 16: 146–149.
Feugère, M. (2009). Militaria et objets en os et en métal. In: Goudineau, C., and Brentchaloff, D. (Eds.), Le camp de la flotte d'Agrippa à Fréjus: les fouilles du quartier de Villeneuve (1979–1981). Paris, pp. 107–177.
Fitz, J. (1957). Az eraviszkusz női viselet (Die Tracht der Eraviskerinnen). Archaeologiai Értesítő, 84: 133–154.
Frere, S. (1972). Verulamium excavations, I. Reports of the Research Committee of the Society of Antiquaries of London, 28. Oxford.
Gabler, D. (1991). Römische Strassenstation in der Gemarkung von Sárvár. Communicationes Archaeologicae Hungariae, 1991: 39–84.
Gagetti, E. (2020). Le vie del lusso. Un raro diadema con zaffiri da Colonna (Roma). LANX, 28: 38–113.
Garbsch, J. (1965). Die norisch-pannonische Frauentracht im 1. und 2. Jahrhundert. Münchner Beiträge zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte, 11. München.
Garbsch, J. (1985). Die norisch-pannonische Tracht. In: Temporini, H. and Haase, W. (Eds.), Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt. Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung, II: Principat, 12.3: Künste (Forts.). Berlin, pp. 546–577.
Gaspar, N. (2007). Die keltischen und gallo-römischen Fibeln vom Titelberg. Les fibules gauloises et gallo-romaines du Titelberg. Dossiers d'Archeologie du Musée National d'Histoire et d'Art, 11. Luxembourg.
Gáspár, D. (2016). Pannoniai síremlékek. Római kori halottkultusz a mai Magyarország területén (Grave monuments in Pannonia. Ancient Roman cult of the dead on the territory of present-day Hungary). BIVIO – Az Evangélikus Országos Könyvtár műhelyéből, 4/1. Budapest.
Gátfalvi-Delbó, G. (2019). Brigetio településrendszerének kerámiaművessége [Pottery production of the settlement complex of Brigetio]. PhD thesis. Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest.
Gebühr, M. (1976). Der Trachtschmuck der älteren römischen Kaiserzeit im Gebiet zwischen unterer Elbe und Oder und auf den westlichen dänischen Inseln. Göttinger Schriften zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte, 18. Neumünster.
Gleba, M. (2008). Auratae vestes: gold textiles in the ancient Mediterranean. In: Alfaro, C., and Karali, L. (Eds.), Purpuerae vestes, II: Symposium Internacional sobre Textiles y Tintes del Mediterraneo en el mundo antiguo. Publicacions de la Universitat de València. Athens, pp. 61–77.
Gugl, C. (1995). Die römischen Fibeln aus Virunum. Klagenfurt.
Haevernick, E. (1972). Nadelköpfe vom Typ Kempten. Germania, 50: 136–148.
Hampel, J. (1910). Figurális domborművek pannoniai síremlékeken [Figural reliefs on Pannonian grave monuments]. Archaeologiai Értesítő, 30: 311–344.
Harl, F. and Lőrincz, B. (2002). Római kőtár. VI. bástya. Komárom [Roman-period lapidary. Sixth bastion, Komárom]. Komárno and Wien.
Heinrichs, J. (2006). Ein Vicus der frühen und mittleren römischen Kaiserzeit bei Düren-Mariaweiler (Marcodurum): Topographie, Siedlungsgeschichtlich relevante Lesefunde (Münzen und Fibeln), Orts- und Regionalgeschichte. Kölner Jahrbuch, 39: 7–110.
Hoss, S. (2016). Of brooches and men. In: Hoss, S., and Whitmore, A. (Eds.), Small finds and ancient social practices in the north-west provinces of the Roman Empire. Oxford and Philadelphia, pp. 35–53.
Istvánovits, E. and Kulcsár, V. (2022). Egy újabb fibulavariáns az alföldi szarmatáknál (A new brooch variant in the material of the Sarmatians of the Great Hungarian Plain). In: Takács, M., Masek, Zs., Samu, L., and Vida, T. (Eds.), Artificia mirabilla: Tanulmányok Vaday Andrea tiszteletére – Studies in honour of Andrea Vaday. Budapest, pp. 215–237.
Ivleva, T. (2017). ‘Active brooches’: theorizing brooches of the Roman north-west (first to third centuries AD). In: Martin, T.F., and Weetch, R. (Eds.), Dress and society: Contributions from archaeology. Oxford, pp. 69–94.
Járó, M. (1999). A 2. sz. szarkofágban talált fémfonal-töredékek természettudományos vizsgálata [Scientific investigation of gold thread fragments from the 2nd sarcophagus]. In: Borhy, L., and Számadó, E. (Eds.), Brigetio kincsei. Komárom, pp. 29–30.
Jenkins, I. and Williams, D. (1987). A bronze portrait head and its hair net. Record of the Art Museum, Princeton University, 46/2: 8–15.
Jobst, W. (1975). Die römischen Fibeln aus Lauriacum. Forschungen in Lauriacum, 10. Linz.
Kartali, Zs. (2020). A brigetioi legiotábor (Szőny – Molaj lelőhely) retenturájában folytatott régészeti kutatások feldolgozása [The analysis of the archaeological investigations at the retentura of the legionary fortress in Brigetio (Szőny-Molaj)]. MA thesis. Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest.
Kelemen, Zs. (2020). Aquincum polgárvárosának északkeleti városnegyedének római kori üvegleleteinek komplett elemzése [Complete analysis of the Roman-period glass finds from the Northeastern region of the civil town in Aquincum]. MA thesis. Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest.
Kiilerich, B. (2011). Private portraits in late antiquity: observing the subject. In: DˈAndria, F., and Romeo, I. (Eds.), Roman sculpture in Asia Minor. Proceedings of the International Conference to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Italian excavations at Hierapolis in Phrygia, held on May 24–26, 2007, in Cavallino (Lecce). Journal of Roman Archaeology, Supplementary series, 80. Portsmouth, RI, pp. 359–370.
Korać, M. (1991). Late Roman tomb with frescoes from Viminacium. Starinar, 42: 107–122.
Košćević, R. (1991). Antička bronca iz Siska. Umjetničko-obrtna metalna produkcija iz razdoblja rimskog carstva [Ancient bronzes from Sisak. Artistically crafted metal productions from the period of the Roman Empire]. Zagreb.
Kostromichyov, D. (2016). Openwork buckles with pelta-form loop and opposite extension. In: Pauli Jensen, X., and Grane, T. (Eds.), Imitation and inspiration. Proceedings of the 18th international Roman military equipment conference held in Copenhagen, Denmark 9th–14th June 2013. Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies, 17. Pewsey, pp. 141–155.
Kuzsinszky, B. (1923). Aquincumi sírlelet [A grave find from Aquincum]. Budapest Régiségei, 10: 56–73.
Láng, M. (1919). Die pannonische Frauentracht. Jahreshefte des Österreichische Archäologischen Instituts in Wien, Beiblatt, 19–20: 207–259.
Lányi, V. and Mócsy, A. (1990). Temetkezés és halottkultusz [Burial customs and the cult of the dead]. In: Mócsy, A., and Fitz, J. (Eds.), Pannonia régészeti kézikönyve. Budapest, pp. 243–253.
Lozić, E. (2021). Funerary monuments in the interior of the Roman province of Dalmatia. E-Monographiae Instituti Archaeologici Sloveniae, 11. Ljubljana.
Lupa. Egger, J., Harl, F. and Harl, O. (Dir.), Ubi Erat Lupa. Bilddatenbank zu antiken Steindenkmälern, http://lupa.at/.
Mackreth, D. F. (2011). Brooches in Late Iron Age and Roman Britain. Oxford.
Madarassy, O., Oka, I., and Szu, A. (2002a). A kőemlékek katalógusa (Catalogue of stone monuments). In: Szu, A. (Ed.), Kelta asszonyok – római hölgyek. Celtic women – Roman ladies. Időszaki kiállítás a BTM Aquincumi Múzeumában 2000. május – 2001. október. Budapest, pp. 40–76.
Madarassy, O., Oka, I., and Szu, A. (2002b). A kelta női viselet (The costume of Celtic women). In: Szu, A. (Ed.), Kelta asszonyok – római hölgyek. Celtic women – Roman ladies. Időszaki kiállítás a BTM Aquincumi Múzeumában 2000. május – 2001. október. Budapest, pp. 26–31.
Manniez, Y. (2019). Jouer dans l'au-delà? Le mobilier ludique des sépultures de Gaule méridionale et de Corse (Ve siècle av. J.-C. – Ve siècle apr. J.-C.). Archimède: archéologie et histoire ancienne, 6: 186–198.
Márton, A. (2002). Roman burial with a weapon from the Bécsi Road cemetery (Aquincum–Budapest). Communicationes Archaeologicae Hungariae, 2002: 117–152.
Masek, Zs. (2014). Cikádafibulás szarmata sír Rákóczifalváról (Sarmatisches Grab mit Zikadenfibel in Rákóczifalva). Communicationes Archaeologicae Hungariae, 2014: 101–122.
Mazur, A. (1998). Les fibules romaines d'Avenches, I. Bulletin de lˈAssociation pro Aventico, 40: 5–104.
Mazur, A. (2010). Les fibules romaines d'Avenches, II. Bulletin de l'Association pro Aventico, 52: 27–108.
Meid, W. (2005). Keltische Personennamen in Pannonia. Archaeolingua, Series minor, 20. Budapest.
Merczi, M. (2009). Kora római korongfibulák Komárom-Esztergom megyéből (Frührömische Scheibenfibeln mit Backenscharnier aus Komitat Komárom-Esztergom). In: Szabó, Á. (Ed.), ʻRipam omnem quaesivit’. Ünnepi tanulmányok Prof. Visy Zsolt 2. születésnapjára tanítványaitól. Specimia Nova. Dissertationum ex Instituto Antiquae et Archaeologiae Universitas Quinqueecclesiensis, Supplementum, 8. Paksi múzeumi füzetek, 6. Pécs and Paks, pp. 227–264.
Merczi, M. (2012). A Budaörs-Kamaraerdei-dűlőben feltárt római vicus fibulái (Die Fibeln des römischen Vicus in Budaörs–Kamaraerdei-dűlő). In: Ottományi, K. (Ed.), Római vicus Budaörsön. Régészeti tanulmányok. Budapest, pp. 455–528.
Merczi, M. (2017). Római kori fibulák Perbálról és Zsámbékról (Roman fibulae from Perbál and Zsámbék). Studia Comitatensia, 35: 71–119.
Németh, P.G. (2018). Somogy megye római kori temetői [Roman-period cemeteries in Somogy County]. A Kaposvári Rippl-Rónai Múzeum Közleményei, 5: 95–126.
Nickel, C. (2011). Die Fibeln vom Martberg. Altfunde, Privatsammlungen, Feldfunde, Grabungen. In: Haffner, A., von Kaenel, H.-M., and Wegner, H.-H. (Eds.), Martberg. Heiligtum und Oppidum der Treverer, II. Berichte zur Archäologie an Mittelrhein und Mosel, 18. Koblenz.
Nowak, H. (1990). Fundberichte. Römische Kaiserzeit. Hollern. Fundberichte aus Österreich, 29: 240.
Ortisi, S. (2002). Die früh- und mittelkaiserzeitlichen Fibeln, 2: Römische Kleinfunde aus Burghöfe. Rahden, pp. 9–58.
Ottományi, K. (2016). A budaörsi római vicus temetője (The cemetery of the Roman vicus at Budaörs). In: Ottományi, K. (Ed.), A budaörsi római vicus temetője. Régészeti tanulmányok. Budapest, pp. 9–372.
Ottományi, K. (2017). Késő kelta–kora római településrészletek Perbálon (Late Celtic–Early Roman settlement fragments from Perbál). Studia Comitatensia, 35: 11–67.
Ottományi, K. (2019). A pátyi temető római sírjai (Malom-dűlő) (Die römische Bestattungen im Gräberfeld von Páty). Szentendre.
Pásztókai Szeőke, J. (2014). A római toga viselése Pannoniában – egy mítosz és a valóság (Roman toga in Pannonia – Myth and reality). Korall, 55: 5–21, 211–212.
Pásztókai Szeőke, J. (2020). Mit ér a nő, ha provinciális? Római imperializmus és társadalmi nemek a Római Birodalom határvidékén [What did it mean to be a provincial woman? Roman imperialism and gender in the borderland of the Roman Empire]. In: Székely, M., and Dávid, N. (Eds.), „Nehéz is asszonynak újszerű dicséreteket szerezni” (Laudatio Murdiae) női szerepek az ó- és középkorban. Acta Antiqua et Archaeologica, Supplementum, 25. Szeged, pp. 71–85.
Patek, E. (1942). A pannoniai fibulatípusok elterjedése és eredete (Verbreitung und Herkunft der römischen Fibeltypen in Pannonien). Dissertationes Pannonicae ex Instituto Numismatico et Archaeologico Universitatis de Petro Pázmány nominatae Budapestinensis provenientes, II.19. Budapest.
Philippe, J. (1999). Les fibules de Seine-et-Marne du 1er siècle av. J.-C. au 5e siècle ap. J.-C. Mémoire archéologiques de Seine-et-Marne, 1. Nemours.
Pietruk, F. (2005). Les fibules romaines des Musées de Metz. Metz.
Radicke, J. (2023). Roman women’s dress. Literary sources, terminology, and historical development. Berlin and Boston.
Raeder, J. (2023). The archaeological evidence. In: Raedicke, J. (Ed.), Roman women’s dress. Literary sources, terminology, and historical development. Berlin and Boston, pp. 673–699.
Rausch, A. (1993). Fundchronik. Römische Kaiserzeit. Purgstall. Fundberichte aus Österreich, 32: 756–757.
Riha, E. (1979). Die römischen Fibeln aus Augst und Kaiseraugst. Forschungen in Augst, 3. Augst.
Riha, E. (1990). Der römische Schmuck aus Augst und Kaiseraugst. Forschungen in Augst, 10. Augst.
Riha, E. (1994). Die römischen Fibeln aus Augst und Kaiseraugst. Die Neufunde seit 1975. Forschungen in Augst, 18. Augst.
RIU 3 Barkóczi, L., Soproni, S. (1981). Die römischen Inschriften Ungarns, 3: Brigetio (Fortsetzung) und die Limesstrecke am Donauknie. Budapest.
Rothe, U. (2009). Dress and cultural identity in the Rhine-Moselle region of the Roman Empire. British archaeological reports, International series, 2038. Oxford.
Rothe, U. (2012a). Clothing in the Middle Danube provinces. The garments, their origins and their distribution. Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Instituts, 81: 137–231.
Rothe, U. (2012b). The “third way”: Treveran woman’s dress and the “Gallic ensemble”. American Journal of Archaeology, 116: 235–252.
Ruprechtsberger, E. M. (1978). Die römischen Bein- und Bronzenadeln aus den Museen Enns und Linz. Linz.
Sáró, Cs. (2014). Kora császárkori fibulák a Wosinsky Mór MegyeiMúzeum gyűjteményéből (Fibeln von der Frühkaiserzeit aus der Sammlung des Komitatsmuseums Mór Wosinsky). A Wosinsky Mór Múzeum Évkönyve, 36: 159–221.
Sáró, Cs. (2018). A thistle brooch/Distelfibel from Brigetio. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, 69: 299–310. https://doi.org/10.1556/072.2018.69.2.4.
Sáró, Cs. (2020). Hagyományőrzés és romanizáció az eraviscus viselet tükrében [Tradition and Romanization by the attire of the Eraviscus tribe]. PhD thesis. Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest. https://doi.org/10.15476/ELTE.2020.209.
Sáró, Cs. (2021). Tradition and Romanization by the attire of the Eraviscus tribe. Dissertationes Archaeologicae, Ser. III, 9: 337–357. https://doi.org/10.17204/dissarch.2021.337.
Sáró, Cs. (2022a). Római kori fibulák az Aquincum/Budapest-Graphisoft Park területén végzett feltárások anyagából (Roman fibulae from the cemetery of the civil town in Aquincum/Budapest-Graphisoft Park). Archaeologiai Értesítő, 147: 155–186. https://doi.org/10.1556/0208.2022.00033.
Sáró, Cs. (2022b). Norico-Pannonian belt accessories from North-Eastern Pannonia. In: Budai Balogh, T., Láng, O., and Vámos, P. (Eds.), Aquincum aeternum. Studia in honorem Paula Zsidi. Aquincum Nostrum, II.9. Budapest, pp. 289–309.
Schade, K. (2003). Frauen in der Spätantike – Status und Repräsentation. Eine Untersuchung zur römischen und frühbyzantinischen Bildniskunst. Mainz am Rhein.
Schmid, S. (2010). Die römischen Fibeln aus Wien. Monografien der Stadtarchäologie Wien, 6. Wien.
Sedlmayer, H. (2009). Die Fibeln vom Magdalensberg. Funde der Grabungsjahre 1948–2002 und Altfunde des 19. Jahrhunderts. Kärntner Museumsschriften, 79. Archäologische Forschungen zu den Grabungen auf dem Magdalensberg, 16. Klagenfurt am Wörthersee.
Sellye, I. (1939). Császárkori emailmunkák Pannoniából – Les bronzes émaillés de la Pannonie romaine. Dissertationes Pannonicae ex Instituto Numismatico et Archaeologico Universitatis de Petro Pázmány nominatae Budapestinensis provenientes, II.8. Budapest.
Sellye, I. (1940). A pannoniai áttört fémmunkák áttekintése (Übersicht der römischen durchbrochenen Metallarbeiten aus Pannonien). Archaeologiai Értesítő, 1: 236–245.
Sellye, I. (1941). A pannoniai áttört fémmunkák áttekintése, II. (Vue d'ensemble des objets de bronze ajourés de Pannonie, II). Archaeologiai Értesítő, 2: 62–97.
Sellye, I. (1969). Recueil des bronzes ajourés de Pannonie faits par les maîtres celtiques à l'époque de l'Empire Romain. In: Bibauw, J. (Ed.), Hommages à Marcel Renard, III. Latomus. Revue d'Études Latines, 103. Bruxelles, pp. 518–541.
Sellye, I. (1970). Adatok az arrabonai fémművességhez (Data to the metallurgy of Arrabona – Beiträge zu der Geschichte des Metallgewerbes in Arrabona). Arrabona, 12: 69–82.
Sey, N. (2010). Brigetiói áttört bronzveretek a Sellye-hagyatékból (Durchbrochene Bronzebeschläge aus Brigetio im Sellye-Nachlass). Komárom-Esztergom Megyei Múzeumok Közleményei, 16: 7–12.
Sey, N. (2013). A pannoniai római kori bronzművesség műhelykérdései [Issues of the bronze working workshops in the Roman Age in Pannonia]. PhD thesis. Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest. url: hdl.handle.net/10831/40182.
Szabó, M. (1964). A pannóniai kelta személynévanyag vizsgálata (Recherches sur l'anthroponymie celtique de Pannonia). Archaeologiai Értesítő, 91: 165–175.
Szabó, M. and Borhy, L. (2015). Magyarország története az ókorban: Kelták és rómaiak [The history of Hungary in the antiquity: Celts and Romans]. Budapest.
Szirmai, K. (1973). Portrék és szoborfejek az Aquincumi Múzeumban (Porträts und Skulpturenköpfe im Museum von Aquincum). Archaeologiai Értesítő, 100: 224–231.
Szirmai, K. (1999). Kaiserzeitliche Porträts in Aquincum. Katalog der Ausstellung. Budapest.
Tempelmann-Maczyńska, M., von. (1985). Die Perlen der römischen Kaiserzeit und der frühen Phase der Völkerwanderungszeit im mitteleuropäischen Barbaricum. Römisch-Germanische Forschungen, 43. Mainz am Rhein.
TitAq II. (2010). Kovács, P., and Szabó, Á. (Eds.), Tituli Aquincenses, II: Tituli sepulcrales et alii Budapestini reperti. Budapest.
TitAq IV. (2020). Alföldy, G., Kovács, P., Szabó, Á., and Fehér, B. (Eds.), Tituli Aquincenses, IV: Pars septentrionalis agri Aquincensis. Budapest.
B. Vágó, E. and Bóna, I. (1976). Die Gräberfelder von Intercisa. Der spätrömische Südostfriedhof. Budapest.
Weisse, T. (2014). Les fibules de l'agglomération secondaire gallo-romaine de Bliesbruck (Moselle). Fouilles 1978–2004. Blesa, 7. Bliesbruck.
Wild, J.P. (1968a). Clothing in the north-west provinces of the Roman Empire. Bonner Jahrbücher des Rheinischen Landesmuseums in Bonn, 168: 166–240.
Wild, J.P. (1968b). Die Frauentracht der Ubier. Germania. Anzeiger der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, 46: 67–73.
Wild, J.P. (1985). The clothing of Britannia, Gallia belgica and Germania inferior. In: Temporini, H., and Haase, W. (Eds.), Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt (ANRW). Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung, II: Principat, 12.3: Künste (Forts.). Berlin, pp. 362–422.
Hampel (1910) 340–341; Fitz (1957) 137–139, 142–145; Garbsch (1965) 13–23, 121–127; Garbsch (1985) 559–562, Abb. 3; Wild (1985) 392, 394–395, 401–402; Rothe (2009) 37–39, 73–75; Rothe (2012a) 193–211; Rothe (2012b) 116, 241–242.
Rothe (2012a) 195; Sáró (2020) I, 72.
About hats: Rothe (2012a) 198–211. She discussed the veiling as well: Rothe (2012a) 195–198.
Sáró (2020) I, 74–101, 17–29. ábra; Sáró (2021) 345, Fig. 7.
Láng (1919) 245; Fitz (1957) 137; Garbsch (1965) 18; Garbsch (1985) 559; Rothe (2012a) 208.
Sáró (2020) I, 96; Sáró (2020) II, 225, Kat. A33. = Lupa, Nr. 3586.
Láng (1919) 245; Garbsch (1965) 17; Garbsch (1985) 559; Rothe (2012a) 211.
Madarassy et al. (2002a) 29, 44–45, Kat. 6. = Sáró (2020) II, Kat. A89.
H1(Norische Haube): Garbsch (1965) 13; Rothe (2012a) 198. H2/1: Madarassy et al. (2002b) 29, Kat. 5. = Sáró (2020) II, Kat. A39.
H2, H4, H6, H8/2 (Sáró, 2020, I, 77, 88–90, 92, 17–18. ábra, 25–28. ábra; Sáró, 2021, 345, Fig. 7).
H2/4, H3/3, H4, H6/3–4, H7/2 (Sáró, 2020, I, 77, 79, 83, 89–90, 18. ábra, 20. ábra, 23. ábra, 26–27. ábra; Sáró, 2021, Fig. 7).
Tombstones with depictions of ‘native’ women were discussed in my article published in 2018 (Sáró, 2018). The description of some tombstones was reviewed and supplemented for my PhD thesis and the current article.
The abbreviations in the catalogue are the following: Coll.: collection, Inv.no.: inventory number, Ref.: references, AM: Aquincum Museum (Budapest), BBM: Balassa Bálint Museum (Esztergom), DRM: Danube Region Museum in Komárno (Komarno), FMC: Ferenczy Museum Centrum (Szentendre), GAP: Gorsium Archaeological Park (Tác), HNM: Hungarian National Museum (Budapest). The abbreviations of Fig. 2. connect to my PhD thesis. All dress accessories were classified and analysed in detail. A summary with a list of abbreviations was published in 2021 (Sáró, 2021). In the present article, the main categories are B: bracelet, E: earring, Fi: fibula, brooch (FiA: bow fibula/brooch, FiB: plate fibula/brooch), Fi+: jewels joined to fibulae/brooches, H-a: headwear-related accessory, N: necklace, /: the stone monument is fragmented, and the dress accessory cannot be studied.
According to J. Fitz, this tombstone came from Tác (Fitz, 1957, 135), and I accepted his opinion (Sáró, 2020, II, 244, Kat. A59). Based on D. Gáspár's research, the actual finding spot was Soponya (Gáspár, 2016, 423).
All tombstones were previously published. A detailed list of references, descriptions, chronological information and further data can be found in Catalogue A of my PhD thesis (Sáró, 2020, II) and on the Lupa.
Nr. 1 = Lupa, Nr. 5126, Nr. 3 = Lupa, Nr. 3952, Nr. 5 = Lupa, Nr. 787, Nr. 9 = Lupa, Nr. 704, Nr. 11 = Lupa, Nr. 830, Nr. 12 = Lupa, Nr. 800, Nr. 13 = Lupa, Nr. 801.
A woman and a man: Nr. 2 = Lupa, Nr. 2779, Nr. 8 = Lupa, Nr. 4041. Two women: Nr. 6 = Lupa, Nr. 4454. Two women and a man: Nr. 4 = Lupa, Nr. 734. A woman together with a man and a child: Nr. 7 = Lupa, Nr. 2977, Nr. 10 = Lupa, Nr. 760.
Table 3 follows the database of my PhD thesis (Sáró, 2020, I, 77–95, 18–29. ábra).
I should mention M. Szabó’s complex study about Celtic personal names (Szabó, 1964). He commented on a handful of relevant syllables and terms, for example, ‘artos’ and ‘-marus’ (Szabó, 1964, 169). Later, W. Meid made a detailed analysis and published his comprehensive work in 2005 (Meid, 2005).
Meid (2005) 111.
Meid (2005) 143–144.
Meid (2005) 193–194.
Meid (2005) 263.
Meid (2005) 265–266.
Szabó (1964) 171; TitAq II, 357, Nr. 1012. Although the linguistic basis could be ‘artos’ (bear), W. Meid was sceptic about the name's Celtic origin (Meid, 2005, 252).
Meid (2005) 111.
Meid (2005) 252; Lupa, Nr. 13665, Nr. 3463, Nr. 3372.
Derva: Intercisa, Offenegg (Pannonia) (Meid, 2005, 193; Lupa, Nr. 747, Nr. 20006), Geistthal (Noricum) (Lupa, Nr. 1615). Cucus: Sankt Stefan (Noricum) (Lupa, Nr. 2480).
Meid (2005) 193; Lupa, Nr. 3271.
Meid (2005) 143; Lupa, Nr. 2700.
Meid (2005) 263; Lupa, Nr. 3512.
Meid (2005) 265; Lupa, Nr. 3214.
Carroll (2015) 503–504.
U. Rothe summarised the depictions of men in toga from the Danube area (Rothe, 2012a, 155–157). In a comprehensive study, J. Pásztókai-Szeőke presented the textile workshop of Savaria/Szombathely, summarised the costume habits of the toga, and collected relevant evidence of its actual use in Pannonia. During their life, most Pannonian citizens probably didn't wear or own a toga, and only their tombstone pictures depicted them in this attire (Pásztókai Szeőke, 2014, 16–17).
D(is) M(anibus) [et] / perpetu{t}(ae) Sec(u)rita(ti) / Romanius Iuvenis et / c{e}oniu(n)x Aquilina / feceru(nt) filea(e!) / Iunil(l)ae an(norum) XVII Sec(un)/din(iu)s avi Iunil(la)e Iucundi/anus et Mira (Lupa, Nr. 2434).
Nr. 1 (R. Facsády, 1997, 105; Madarassy et al., 2002a, 59, Nr. 54; R. Facsády, 2007, 36), Nr. 4 (Láng, 1919, 213), Nr. 6 (Rothe, 2012a, 207, footnote Nr. 539; Lupa, Nr. 4454), Nr. 10 (Rothe, 2012a, 207, footnote Nr. 539), Nr. 11 (Harl and Lőrincz, 2002, 9, Kat. 1; Rothe, 2012a, 207, footnote Nr. 539; Gáspár, 2016, 466, Nr. 421; Lupa, Nr. 830), Nr. 13 (Gáspár, 2016, 467, Nr. 423).
R. Facsády (1997) 105; Madarassy et al. (2002a) 59, Nr. 54; R. Facsády (2007) 23, 36.
Láng (1919) 213; Rothe (2012a) 207.
The database of my PhD thesis contains stone monuments and tombstones from the territory of modern-day Hungary (Sáró, 2021, 338, Fig. 1). For more precise descriptions, these stones were examined personally. Unfortunately, I have not had the opportunity yet to do a complete collecting work and analyse tombstones with native women depictions from the whole territory of Pannonia.
Lupa, Nr. 4454: ʻHaube mit zwei runden Schmuckscheiben’, Lupa, Nr. 830: ʻHaube mit runden Schmuckscheiben’.
Gebühr (1976) 52; Rothe (2009) 161, U6.
Rothe (2009) 46.
Rothe (2009) 161, U6.
Wild (1968a) 211–212, Fig. 29; Wild (1968b) 69–70, Taf. 17. 1a; Wild (1985) Pl. XII. 43; Rothe (2009) 38, footnote Nr. 431.
Wild (1968a) 211; Wild (1968b) 69; Wild (1985) 401; Rothe (2009) 46.
Wild (1968a) 212; Wild (1968b) 70; Wild (1985) 402. For example, the tube is visible in the published pictures of Vettius' Altar (Wild, 1968b, Taf. 16. 1; Wild, 1985, Pl. XII. 42; Rothe, 2009, Fig. 5; Lupa, Nr. 20523).
Wild (1968a) 212; Wild (1968b) 70.
Gebühr (1976) 52.
Wild (1985) 402.
Rothe (2009) 161, U6.
Szirmai (1973) 226, Nr. 3, 2. kép 2; Szirmai (1999) 56, Nr. 36; R. Facsády (2006) 57; R. Facsády (2008) 235, Fig. 10; Lupa, Nr. 8289.
Szirmai (1973) 226, Nr. 3; Szirmai (1999) 56, Nr. 36.
R. Facsády (2007) 27, 14. kép
Szirmai (1973) 226, Nr. 3; Szirmai (1999) 56, Nr. 36; R. Facsády (2006) 57; R. Facsády (2008) 235.
R. Facsády (2006) 57; R. Facsády (2008) 235. For example, A. R. Facsády's type IX can be mentioned. A pair of gold earrings with an S-shaped hanging part, a rectangular setting with a green glass insert and pearl hangings were published from the Aquincum Museum Collection (R. Facsády, 2008, 232; R. Facsády, 2009, 76, 83, 122, Cat. 238).
R. Facsády (2008) 235.
Madarassy et al. (2002a) 61, Nr. 65; Gáspár (2016) 270–271, Nr. 176, T. CCXXVIII; Lupa, Nr. 2758. A. R. Facsády described the hair but did not mention the veil (R. Facsády, 2007, 26).
Gáspár (2016) 270, Nr. 176.
200–230 AD (Gáspár, 2016, 271, Nr. 176), 200–220 AD (Lupa, Nr. 2758).
Cambi et al. (1988) 195–196, Nr. 228; Lozić (2021) 173–174, Nr. 157; Lupa, Nr. 23346.
Lozić (2021) 176, Nr. 157.
Lozić (2021) 177, Nr. 157; Lupa, Nr. 23346.
Schade (2003) 212–213, I. 52, Taf. 58. 3, Taf. 59. 1–3; Kiilerich (2011) 360–361, Fig. 24. 3, Fig. 24. 12. The portrait bust was supposedly made in a local Carian workshop (Kiilerich, 2011, 363).
Schade (2003) 212, I. 52; R. Facsády (2013) 51.
Kiilerich (2011) 359, 362.
Schade (2003) 199–200, 208–210, 244–245, Taf. 49. 1, 2, Taf. 56, Taf. 14. 1, Taf. 15. 2, Taf. 16. 3, 5; Kiilerich (2011) 361.
Schade (2003) 106–107, 200, 210.
Raeder (2023) 690. Some examples should be mentioned here. A cap-like hairnet was published from Aquileia (T. Bíró, 2003, 42, 13. kép). The attire of a 24–31-year-old woman from a burial in Milano was reconstructed, and it suggests that the hairnet was also worn on the back of the neck (Gagetti, 2020, 69–70, Fig. 8). Depicted hairnets are also known, without being exhaustive a few examples can be mentioned. Numerous frescos from Pompeii and Herculaneum portray women with hairnets as well (Raeder, 2023, 690; Museo Archaeologico di Napoli, Catalogue inventory, Nr. 9024, Nr. 9084). The female bronze head from the early 2nd century AD in Princeton University Art Museum shows a well-elaborated reticulum that covers the entire coiffure (Jenkins and Williams, 1987, 8, Figs 1–4). In the Late Roman Age fresco from Viminacium (Serbia), the depicted woman also wears a fine, cap-like hairnet over her chin-length brown hair (Korać, 1991, 118, Fig. 12; Anđelković Grašar and Tapavički-Ilić, 2015, 2).
Gagetti (2020) 70–71, Fig. 9.
Radicke (2023) 457.
About veils and veiled headwear: Fitz (1957) 137–138, 2. kép; Garbsch (1965) 126; Rothe (2012a) 195. Different types of headwear: Wild (1968a) 211; Wild (1985) 401; Rothe (2009) 38–39; Rothe (2012a) 203–204, 207–208, 211, Map 5–7; Sáró (2020) I, 79. Summarised information: Hampel (1910) 340–341; Fitz (1957) 137–139; Garbsch (1965) 13–22, 121–127; Garbsch (1985) 559–562, Abb. 3, Tabelle 3; Sáró (2021) 345.
Rothe (2012b) 235–252.
Sáró (2020) I, 93–104. ábra
This possible definition was already proposed (Láng, 1919, 213; R. Facsády, 1997, 105; Madarassy et al., 2002a, 59, Nr. 54; R. Facsády, 2007, 23, 36; Rothe, 2012a, 207; R. Facsády, 2013, 51).
Borhy and Számadó (1999) 7, 14–15, Kat. II. 17–19, 25–27. kép. K. Éry made anthropological investigations. The skeleton 2/a was a 16–20-year-old woman, and the 2/b was an 11–14-year-old child (Éry, 1999, 24–25).
Bartus (2003) 29, Fig. 2.5–7, Fig. 5; Bartus (2006) 195–196, 2. kép; Bartus (2010) 37, Fig. 1. Type 5; Szabó and Borhy (2015) 188.a. kép.
Bartus (2006) 195–196; Bartus (2010) 37.
Járó (1999) 29–30; Gleba (2008) 64.
Borhy (1999) 18; Borhy and Számadó (1999) 7–15; Bartus (2003) 29; Bartus (2010) 37.
Kuzsinszky (1923) 64, Nr. 7–8, 2. kép 9–10; R. Facsády (2009) 127, Kat. 339–340.
R. Facsády (2009) 87, 89, 127, Kat. 339–340.
Kuzsinszky (1923) 59, 1. kép; Gleba (2008) 64.
R. Facsády (2009) 87, 127.
Németh (2018) 109, XII. tábla.
Németh (2018) 109, Nr. 1, 6. ábra, XI. tábla 1.
Németh (2018) 110.
Bartus (2007) 165, 86. ábra, 17. táblázat.
Allason-Jones (1996) 44–45, No. 275–279; Bartus (2006) 196; Bartus (2007) 165, 355–356, 17. táblázat.
The globular jet head of a hairpin from York was dated to the late 3rd or 4th century AD (Allason-Jones, 1996, 44–45, No. 280; Bartus, 2007, 165, 356, 17. táblázat).
Haevernick (1972) 136, Abb. 1–2; Tempelmann-Maczyńska (1985) 45–47, Taf. 3. 186–187, 193–194; Riha (1990) 90, Pl. 39. 1338–1340; Artefacts, PRL-4002.
Haevernick (1972) 136–138.
Riha (1990) 90; Feugère (1992) 146–147.
Her definition is based on hairpins with big heads (Haevernick, 1972, 137), but unfortunately, the heads were made of jet instead of glass (Riha, 1990, 90). According to Y. Manniez, certain beads could also be used for Roman games as gaming pieces (Manniez, 2019, 191–192).
Tempelmann-Maczyńska (1985) 47; Riha (1990) 90; Feugère (1992) 148.
Haevernick (1972) 143. Listed items from different territories of the Roman Empire can be found on the website Artefacts (Artefacts, PRL-4002). A. Eterović Borzić and B. Štefanac published several pieces from Nin, Zadar and the area of Zadar (Eterović Borzić and Štefanac (2021) 310–314, Cat. 994–1014).
Beutler et al. (2017) 372–373, Nr. 818. Another object from the military town could also be a Kempten-type bead. Based on the published picture and the description, the definition is uncertain (Beutler et al., 2017, 255, Nr. 298).
Kelemen (2020) 67, 116, 35. ábra, Kat. 61.64. (Coll.: BHM–Aquincum Museum (Budapest), Inv.no.: 63.3.1491).
Coll.: BHM–Aquincum Museum (Budapest), Inv.no.: 98.33.5673. I am very grateful to Zsófia Kelemen, archaeologist of the BHM–Aquincum Museum (Budapest), for this information.
The excavation was carried out by the Ferenczy Múzeumi Centrum (Gödöllő). The Roman graves are going to be evaluated by the author of this article soon.
Kartali (2020) 44, 122, Kat. 174, X. tábla 1, XXXVI. tábla 4. Unfortunately, the find circumstances are unknown.
Éri et al. (1969) 96–97.
Éri et al. (1969) 97, 17. tábla 10. = Csirke and K. Palágyi (2005) 54, Kat. 21. 3.
Feugère (2009) 158, No. 654; Artefacts, EPG-4129.
For example: Riha (1979) 184, Taf. 59. 1564 (Type: Riha 7.7); Feugère (1985) 336, Pl. 148. 1828 (Type: Feugère 24a).
For example: Riha (1979) 181, Taf. 57. 1519–1526 (Type: Riha 7.3).
For example: Ettlinger (1973) 122, Taf. 14. 13 (Type: Ettlinger 45.1); Riha (1979) 87, 188–189, 191, Taf. 13. 307, Taf. 61. 1606–1607, 1609, 1611, 1616, Taf. 62. 1623–1624 (Types: Riha 3.15.2; 7.13; 7.14.1; 7.14.4); Feugère (1985) 368–369, Pl. 153. 1918, 1920, 1925 (Types: Feugère 27b1–2); Cociş (2004) 122–123, Pl. CV. 1485, 1487, Pl. CVI. 1501, 1503 (Types: Cociş 24a3; 24a7).
For example: Riha (1979) 185, Taf. 59. 1571, 1574 (Type: Riha 7.8).
For example: Ettlinger (1973) 129, Taf. 15. 5, Taf. 28. 14 (Type: Ettlinger 49); Riha (1979) 87, Taf. 13. 312 (Type: Riha 3.19); Cociş (2004) 126, 128–129, Pl. CIX. 1526–1533, 1535–1539, Pl. CX. 1563–1564 (Types: Cociş 25a1a–b; 25a3; 26a).
For example: Riha (1994) 152, Taf. 39. 2752, 2756–2757 (Type: Riha 7.2.1).
For example: Riha (1979) 87, Taf. 13. 303, 305 (Type: Riha 3.14).
Engraving and rivet: Riha (1994) 151–153, Taf. 39. 2769 (Type: Riha 7.2.2). Openwork technique and rivet: Ettlinger (1973) 112, Taf. 12. 15 (Type: Ettlinger 40); Riha (1979) 184, Taf. 59. 1554–1557 (Type: Riha 7.6). Openwork technique and enamel: Ettlinger (1973) 112, 123, Taf. 12. 16, Taf. 14. 16 (Types: Ettlinger 40; 45.4); Feugère (1985) 369, 373, Pl. 154. 1931–1932, Pl. 156. 1957–1959 (Types: Feugère 27c; 28a); Cociş (2004) 120, 123, Pl. CIV. 1469–1470, Pl. CVI. 1496 (Type: Cociş 23e; 24a5b). Enamel and glass: Riha (1979) 87, Taf. 13. 308 (Type: Riha 3.16).
For example: Riha (1979) 187, Taf. 60. 1584 (Type: Riha 7.11.1); Feugère (1985) 351, Pl. 148. 1866–1867 (Type: Feugère 25a); Cociş (2004) 121, Pl. CIV. 1473–1474 (Type: Cociş 24a1a).
For example: Riha (1979) 187, Taf. 60. 1595 (Type: Riha 7.11.3).
Berecz (2008) 116–135, type-tables Nr. 4, Nr. 8.
Berecz (2008) 117–118, 120–124, 126, 131–132, 134–135, type-tables Nr. 4, Nr. 8.
Berecz (2008) 130–131, type-table Nr. 4.
IIA/1a: Intercisa (Berecz, 2008, Kat. C133–134), Hant (Sáró, 2014, Kat. 106, 12. tábla 7), Ulcisia/Grave No. 4 (adult man) (Sáró, 2020, II, Kat. B189, 87. tábla 1), Ulcisia, castellum (Sáró, 2020, I, 173, footnote Nr. 1125), Brigetio, canabae (Bónis and Sellye, 1988, 78, 32. kép 3). IIA/2a: Ulcisia, castellum (Sáró, 2020, I, 173, footnote Nr. 1126). IIA/4a: Aquincum, Civil Town Cemetery (Graphisoft Park)/Grave No. 429 (25–59-year-old woman) (Sáró, 2022a, 166–168, 170, 172–173, 178, Kat. 22, 5. kép 22). IIA/5a: Bicske (Berecz, 2008, Kat. C117, 15. tábla 1, 28. tábla 7), Brigetio, stray find (Sellye, 1939, 21, 51, T. III. 19a-b). IIA/15b: Intercisa/Grave No. 165 (child, girl) (Sáró, 2020, II, Kat. B191, 33. tábla 1).
Berecz (2008) 117–118, 121, 124, 127, 164.
Aquincum-Víziváros (Budapest, II., 13-25 Kacsa Street, excavation of T. Hable, SU 0000) (Sáró, 2020, I, 175, 55. ábra 1).
Two brooches from Aquincum-Corvin Square/Grave No. 46 (Budapest, II. Corvin Square, excavation of T. Hable, SU 4294–4295, scattered ashes cremation grave of a ca. 1-year-old child) (Sáró, 2020, I, 175, 55. ábra 2–3; Sáró, 2020, II, 10, Kat. B169–170, 2. tábla 2–3).
Perbál (14/9., excavation of K. Ottományi, object No. 70) (Merczi, 2017, 103, Kat. 1, 1. tábla 1. = Sáró, 2020, I, 176, 55. ábra 4).
Aquincum-Víziváros (Budapest, II., 13–25 Medve Street, excavation of T. Hable, SU 3503) (Sáró, 2020, I, 176, 55. ábra 5); Brigetio (Szőny, stray find) (Merczi, 2009, 229–230, Kat. 2, 1. kép 2. = Sáró, 2020, I, 176, 55. ábra 7); Tarján (stray find) (Sáró, 2020, I, 176, 55. ábra 6).
Aquincum (Óbuda, stray find) (Patek, 1942, 216, T. XVII. 12./Nr. 1, T. XVII. 12).
Brigetio (Szőny, stray find) (Sáró, 2020, I, 176, 55. ábra 11); two brooches from Budaörs, settlement (site No. 2, excavation of K. Ottományi, from the object No. L/486 and a stray find) (Merczi, 2012, 497, Kat. 89–90, 7. kép 9, 7. kép 12. = Sáró, 2020, I, 175, 55. ábra 8–9); Páty (stray find) (Sáró, 2020, I, 176, 55. ábra 10); Komárom-Esztergom County (stray find), according to its size, this fibula could also be a Riha 3.14 variant (with applied metal foil and glass applications) (Sáró, 2020, I, 176, 55. ábra 12).
Brigetio, Civil Town (Szőny-Vásártér, excavation of L. Borhy and E. Számadó, 2014/O18-19/SU 047 = filling layer of the 3rd cellar) (Bartus et al., 2016, 160, 18. tábla 5; Bartus et al., 2022, 233).
Three brooches from Brigetio (Szőny, stray find) (Sellye, 1940, 237, T. XXIX. 2; Patek, 1942, 225, T. XVIII. 13; and an unpublished brooch: Coll.: HNM, Inv.no.: 52.34.1); Intercisa (Dunaújváros, excavation of E. B. Vágó, Grave No. 455, scattered ashes cremation) (Sáró, 2020, I, 176, 55. ábra 13; Sáró, 2020, II, Kat. B194, 34. tábla 1).
Riha (1979) 184; Riha (1994) 157; Boelicke (2002) 123; Ortisi (2002) 40; Mazur (2010) 67.
Ortisi (2002) 39; Gaspar (2007) 47; Merczi (2009) 235, footnote Nr. 40; Sáró (2020) II, 177–178, footnote Nr. 327.
Riha (1979) 183; Feugère (1985) 344; Mazur (1998) 54; Philippe (1999) 139; Boelicke (2002) 123; Gaspar (2007) 47. One piece of the type was found in a late Augustus–Tiberius Age layer in Augst (Riha, 1994, 156, Nr. 2796).
Merczi (2017) 72; Ottományi (2017) 18, 25, 45, 48, 4. tábla 2, 19. tábla 1, 2. táblázat.
Riha (1979) 181; Riha (1994) 154; Philippe (1999) 133, Taf. 61, 420; Ortisi (2002) 38; Sedlmayer (2009) 48, 290, Taf. 29. 618.
Gaspar (2007) 48.
Feugère (1985) 351; Philippe (1999) 143.
Böhme (1972) 42, 53; Boelicke (2002) 82; Heinrichs (2006) 98; Schmid (2010) 123; Mackreth (2011) 155; Merczi (2012) 497.
Böhme (1972) 42–43, 53; Gabler (1991) 67, 75, Abb. 50. 4, Abb. 51; Masek (2014) 103, 112–113, 117–118, 3. kép 5; Istvánovits and Kulcsár (2022) 216 –225, 232–234, 1. kép, 3. kép, 7–9. kép.
SU = stratigraphic unit.
Samian wares were defined by Barbara Hajdu (BHM–Aquincum Museum, Budapest). I am grateful for her work.
Bartus et al. (2016) 162–163, Kat. 13, Kat. 21, 19. tábla 13, 20. tábla 7.
Cociş (2004) 128.
Riha (1979) 180; Feugère (1985) 337, 344–345, Fig. 48; Mazur (1998) 54; Boelicke (2002) 120; Pietruk (2005) 105; Gaspar (2007) 47; Sedlmayer (2009) 44; Mazur (2010) 66; Sáró (2020) II, 177. To the analogies of brooches Riha 7.7, Gaspar 39b, Feugère 24c: Merczi (2017) 72, 103, footnote Nr. 14, Kat. 1, 1. tábla 1; Sáró (2020) I, 175, footnote Nr. 1145, footnote Nr. 1148, footnote Nr. 1156–1157.
Böhme (1972) 42, 68, Fundliste 41; Merczi (2012) 497.
Antigny, Le Gué-de-Sciaux, Ehingen, Eining: Artefacts, FIB-4700, FIB-4701; Zugmantel: Böhme (1972) 42, Taf. 29. 1123. = Istvánovits and Kulcsár (2022) 9. kép 3; Hollern: Nowak (1990) 240, Abb. 1019; Sárvár: Gabler (1991) Abb. 50. 4, Abb. 51 = Istvánovits and Kulcsár (2022) 9. kép 2.
Nyíregyháza-Felsősima/Gyebrás-tanya (highway M3, site No. 161)/Grave No. 195: Istvánovits and Kulcsár (2022) 216, 222, 1. kép 2, 3. kép 1; Grave No. 297: Istvánovits and Kulcsár (2022) 222, 1. kép 1, 7. kép 1. Rákóczifalva-Bagi-földek 8A, Grave No. 641/766: Masek (2014) 3. kép 5. = Istvánovits and Kulcsár (2022) 9. kép 1. Üllő (highway M0, site No. 5)/supposed Grave: Istvánovits and Kulcsár (2022) 224, 1. kép 3–4, 8. kép 5–6.
Masek (2014) 118.
Istvánovits and Kulcsár (2022) 225, 229–234.
Jobst (1975) 116; Cociş (2004) 128.
Patek (1942) 54.
Noricum: Cociş (2019) 58–59, 62, Pl. 130. 66, Pl. 131. 78, Pl. 132. 82, Pl. 144. 128–129. Raetia: Cociş (2019) 67, Pl. 150. 162–163. Pannonia: Cociş (2019) 52, Pl. 122. 24–25, 29.
For example: Sellye (1940) 236, 238, XXXI. 3; Sellye (1941) 63; Sellye (1969) 518, 528–530, Pl. CLXXXVIII, Pl. CLXXXIX. 1–5, Pl. CXC, Pl. CXCI. 1–2, Pl. CXCII. 7; Sellye (1970) 69–80, 1–3. ábra; Bónis (1986) 301, 304, Abb. 2. 1–6; Sey (2010) 7; Sey (2013) 7, 43, 48, 50, 59–62, 64, 66, 69, 79, 94, 96, 131, Kat. 17–19, Kat. 36, Kat. 61–66, Kat. 85, Kat. 87, Kat. 89, Kat. 94, Kat. 97–98, Kat. 117, Kat. 195–196, Kat. 209, Kat. 417; Kostromichyov (2016) 144.
Sellye (1970) 75, 80; Böhme (1978) 5; R. Facsády (2009) 12, 23; R. Facsády (2013) 104. Brooches: Riha (1979) 88; Cociş (2004) 128.
Riha (1979) 180; Riha (1994) 151–153; Ortisi (2002) 38–39; Gaspar (2007) 35, 47.
Augst/Kaiseraugst: Riha (1979) 180–181, Taf. 57. 1516; Riha (1994) 153, Taf. 39. 2768. Avenches: Artefacts, FIB-4832. Besançon: Košćević (1991) 57–58, Nr. 350. Burghöfe: Ortisi (2002) 39, Taf. 20. 346. Martberg: Nickel (2011) 106, Nr. 3.A. 30.1, Nr. 1.17.9.1, Abb. 26. 27–28. Purgstall: Rausch (1993) 756, Abb. 789. Titelberg: Gaspar (2007) 202, Taf. 86. 1905.
Riha (1979) 180; Riha (1994) 151; Ortisi (2002) 38.
The main distribution area of the Riha 7.2.1 = Ortisi 21e = Gaspar 39b variant was Britannia, Gallia and the Rhineland (Riha, 1979, 180; Riha, 1994, 151; Ortisi, 2002, 39; Gaspar, 2007, 35, 47).
Sáró (2020) I, 212, 70. ábra 3.
Košćević (1991) 132, T. XX. 285. = Sáró (2020) I, 212, 70. ábra 2.
Riha (1994) 152; Ortisi (2002) 39.
According to N. Gaspar, they were used until the beginning of the 2nd century AD (Gaspar, 2007, 35, 47).
Weisse (2014) 232, Pl. 52, 616.
Sáró (2020) I, 170–171, 53. ábra; Sáró (2020) II, Kat. A14, A27, A33–34, A58, A62, A79–80, A82–83, A85, A97, A101, A103, A107.
Hoss (2016) 38–46, Fig. 5.3–5.8.
Hoss (2016) 46–47, 51–53, Appendix, Table 5.3–5.6.
S. Hoss mentioned brooches with high-quality decoration (Hoss, 2016, 47, Fig. 5.9–5.12).
Lányi and Mócsy (1990) 244–245; Ottományi (2016) 138–139, 162, 164–167, 172–173; Ottományi (2019) 38, 42, 70, 76, 78.
Wild (1985) 395; R. Facsády (1997) 103–105; R. Facsády (2007) 22–24, 26–28; R. Facsády (2009) 686–690; Rothe (2012a) 215–217; Sáró (2020) I, 263–269, 278–284, 93–104. ábra.
Firstly, I investigated Northeastern Pannonian burials during my PhD research. Out of the 151 graves, 148 contained brooches (Sáró, 2020, II, 116–117, 121–122; Sáró, 2022b, 294, 303, Cat. 18–20). My current research project focuses on Brigetio (Roman-period brooches from Brigetio, supported by the János Bolyai Research Scholarship of the Hungarian Academy of Science).
The gender of the young deceased cannot be analyzed, but the wearing of two brooches was a typical female habit in the Principate (Sáró, 2020, I, 130–132, 134–135, 137–139, 141, 143, 146–147, 153, 157, 197–199, 63. ábra).
Riha (1990) 103, Taf. 47. 1488.
The pin was not found during my research. According to the description, it had a twisted or fluted pin shaft and a spherical head.
Sáró (2020) II, 10, Kat. B169–170, 2. tábla 2–4.
Berecz (2008) 123–124, type-table Nr. 4.
Sáró (2020) II, 38–39, Kat. B190, 18. tábla 3; Sáró (2022a) 178, Kat. 22, 5. kép 22.
Berecz (2008) 134, type-table 8.
B. Vágó and Bóna (1976) 40, Abb. 34, Taf. 9/Grab 165/2; Sáró (2020) II, 64, Kat. B191, 33. tábla 1.
B. Vágó and Bóna (1976) 40, Abb. 34, Taf. 9/Grab 165/1; Sáró (2020) II, 64, 33. tábla 2.
Sáró (2020) II, 64, 34. tábla.
Sáró (2020) II, 50, 309–310, Kat. B6–7, 24. tábla 1–2.
Sáró (2020) II, 50, 348, Kat. B136, 24. tábla 3.
Sáró (2020) II, 50, 24. tábla 4. The hairpin was not found in the storage room, so its type is uncertain.
Márton (2002) 118–129, Figs 5–14.
Márton (2002) 124, Nr. 41, Fig. 11.1. = Sáró (2020) II, 26, 10. tábla 4. A. Márton found an analogous piece from Lauriacum made of bronze (Ruprechtsberger, 1978, 43, 67, 148, Nr. 377; Márton, 2002, 124). Further pins from the grave 35 of the Civil Town Cemetery and the ‘Schottergrube Spatt’ in Lauriacum also have similar segmentations (Ruprechtsberger, 1978, 43, 70–71, 147–148, Nr. 374, 376).
Márton (2002) 118, Nr. 2, Fig. 5.3. = Sáró (2020) II, 26, 349, Kat. B140, 10. tábla 1.
Barkóczi (1951) 6; Gátfalvi-Delbó (2019) 15–16; Borhy et al. (2018) 100.
Collection: Kuny Domokos Museum (Tata/HU). Inventory numbers: K/489a, 489c. Typology: Riha (1990) 104–106; Gugl (1995) 15–16.
According to various experiments, ‘copper-alloy brooches can only be partially damaged in funeral pyres rather than completely burned, since the melting point of copper-alloy is over 1000 °C and open-air cremations fires burn at much lower heat.’ (Edgar, 2012, 108; Ivleva, 2017, 74).
B. Vágó and Bóna (1976) 116, Abb. 145, Taf. 29/Grab 1344.
Sáró (2020) II, 65, 345, Kat. B126, 35. tábla 1.
Sáró (2020) II, 65, 36. tábla 4.
Moreover, hairpins rarely remain in their original position in grave contexts. Janet Stephens studied this tendency. According to her theory, complex hairdo was made by sewing. The previous conclusions were summarized and reviewed by A. R. Facsády in Hungarian (R. Facsády, 2013, 51, 53).
