Roman Fibula Brooch by Kaiden Lee
Just a little background music to the theme: the temporary state of all we perceive to be essential.
The Roman fibula brooch held in the Orma J. Smith Museum of Natural history alongside its labelling card. The card reads "FIBULA (BROOCH PIN) BRONZE, ROMAN 2nd-3rd CENTURY A.D."
More: Watch the video for more on Roman Engineering; it is easy to see how Roman technology has persisted to the modern day.
When you look at this Roman brooch, you see erosion and evolution.
At first glance, this fibula is an unremarkable thing, oxidized copper, unadorned. Upon further investigation, however, it illustrates how the “essence” of things can change over time as well the tenacity with which things persevere. This brooch speaks the rise and fall of Rome, the ephemeral nature of an empire. Not only that, but in many ways, this brooch is a physical representation of the story of the Romans--not just their rise in power, but the perspective from which we now view them and their continued presence in our culture.
​
Brooches, fibulae in Latin, were produced in ancient Greece and Rome to replace the straight pin as the primary clothing fastener. The evolution of composition of this fibula and the development of fibula anatomy reflect the purification of metalworking in the transition from the Iron Age to the Early Roman period. The many types of brooches and their meanings are largely unknown to us, serving as an example of the massive amount of information about Rome and other cultures that has been lost to the ages. Brooches were often buried intentionally, and the ways in which they found their resting places can be used as symbolism for our attitudes on the past. Given their changing metal composition and various the personal meanings, brooches from the past and those prevalent today can represent cultural evolution.
A diagram from What Do Objects Want by Chris Gosden detailing the anatomy of fibulae from the early Iron Age to the Roman periods. (Click the image to enlarge.)
From: Gosden, Chris. “What Do Objects Want?” Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 12. 3 (Sept. 2005): 193-211.