the velestino hoard: casting light on the byzantine 'dark ages

The Velestino HoardCasting Light on the Byzantine ‘Dark Ages’

Florin CurtaBartłomiej Szymon Szmoniewski

NEW APPROACHES TO BYZANTINE HISTORY AND CULTURE

Series EditorsFlorin Curta

University of Florida FL, USA

Leonora Neville University of Wisconsin Madison

WI, USA

Shaun Tougher Cardiff University

Cardiff, UK

New Approaches to Byzantine History and Culture

New Approaches to Byzantine History and Culture publishes high-quality scholarship on all aspects of Byzantine culture and society from the fourth to the fifteenth centuries, presenting fresh approaches to key aspects of Byzantine civilization and new studies of unexplored topics to a broad aca-demic audience. The series is a venue for both methodologically innova-tive work and ground-breaking studies on new topics, seeking to engage medievalists beyond the narrow confines of Byzantine studies. The core of the series is original scholarly monographs on various aspects of Byzantine culture or society, with a particular focus on books that foster the inter-disciplinarity and methodological sophistication of Byzantine studies. The series editors are interested in works that combine textual and material sources, that make exemplary use of advanced methods for the analysis of those sources, and that bring theoretical practices of other fields, such as gender theory, subaltern studies, religious studies theory, anthropology, etc. to the study of Byzantine culture and society.

More information about this series at http://www.palgrave.com/gp/series/14755

http://www.palgrave.com/gp/series/14755

http://www.palgrave.com/gp/series/14755

Florin Curta Bartłomiej Szymon Szmoniewski

The Velestino HoardCasting Light on the Byzantine ‘Dark Ages’

Florin CurtaDepartment of HistoryUniversity of FloridaGainesville, FL, USA

Bartłomiej Szymon SzmoniewskiInstitute of Archaeology and EthnologyPolish Academy of SciencesKraków, Poland

New Approaches to Byzantine History and CultureISBN 978-3-030-04845-7 ISBN 978-3-030-04846-4 (eBook)https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04846-4

Library of Congress Control Number: 2018962358

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG, part of Springer Nature 2019This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Cover credit: © craft images/Alamy Stock Photo

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04846-4

v

Acknowledgements

This book has been long in the making—far longer than in the writing. As such, it is the result of many years of research on the early medieval metalwork of Eastern Europe. While both authors were heavily involved in that research, one of them ended up defending a dissertation on the topic. The other author is greatly indebted to J. Michael Padgett who has first introduced him to the pieces from the Velestino hoard now in the collection of the Princeton University Art Museum. It was that visit to the museum, in February 2007, that sparked the interest for this assemblage and initiated the research leading to this book. The support of a membership at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton has made possible both the visit to the museum and the first phase of the research project.

Many have contributed ideas, suggestions, corrections, additional pieces of evidence and bibliographical references to the book project. We owe sincere and deep gratitude to Ante Milošević, the director of the Museum of Croatian Archaeological Monuments in Split for the pho-tograph of the Biskupije (Pliskovo) hoard. Stergios Laitsos (Institute of History, Vienna), a native of southern Thessaly, has provided inval-uable information on the topography of Velestino and its environs, as well as a number of photographs. We extend gratitude to Danijel Dzino (Macquarie University, Sydney) for his suggestions, which have greatly improved the text and brought it closer to the audience.

vii

contents

1 Introduction 1

2 Forgery or Genuine? 15

3 Humans or Human-Like Figures 39

4 Real and Fantastic Animals 97

5 Ornaments 135

6 Style and Chronology 149

7 Production 161

8 Function: Dies or Models? 183

9 Historical Context 197

10 Conclusion 211

Catalogue 217

viii CoNTENTS

Appendix 1 229

Appendix 2 231

Index 233

ix

list of figures

Fig. 2.1 Velestino (Thessaly), early twentieth century (Photo: Kostas Stournaras) 16

Fig. 2.2 Kara-Dagh (Chalkodonion) (Photo: Stergios Laitsos) 16Fig. 2.3 The Mavrolithari peak near Velestino with Kara-Dagh

in the background (Photo: Stergios Laitsos) 17Fig. 2.4 The acropolis of Pherai, near Velestino (Photo: Stergios

Laitsos) 18Fig. 2.5 Frank Jewett Mather (Photo: Princeton University Art

Museum) 20Fig. 2.6 Lead plaques (Cat. 5, 9, 12, 15, 20 and 29) purchased by

Frank Jewett Mather in Athens in 1924 (Photo: Princeton University Art Museum) 21

Fig. 2.7 Lead plaques (Cat. 5, 9, 12, 15, 20 and 29) purchased by Frank Jewett Mather from Athens in 1924. Princeton University Museum of Art. Museum purchase, Caroline G. Mather Fund, 1924 (Photo: Princeton University Art Museum) 22

Fig. 2.8 Bronze and lead plaques (Cat. 2, 25, 32, 74, 76 and 78) purchased by Frank Jewett Mather in Athens in 1924. Princeton University Museum of Art. Museum purchase, Caroline G. Mather Fund, 1924 (Photo: Princeton University Art Museum) 23

x LIST oF FIGUrES

Fig. 2.9 Lead plaques (Cat. 43, 45, 48, 54, 66, 68, 69 and 71) purchased by Frank Jewett Mather in Athens in 1924. Princeton University Museum of Art. Museum purchase, Caroline G. Mather Fund, 1924 (Photo: Princeton University Art Museum) 24

Fig. 2.10 Bronze plaques (Cat. 2, 25, 32 and 78) purchased by Frank Jewett Mather in Athens in 1924. Princeton University Museum of Art. Museum purchase, Caroline G. Mather Fund, 1924 (Photo: Princeton University Art Museum) 25

Fig. 2.11 The main sites in Eastern Europe that are mentioned in the text: 1—Arapaj; 2—Biala; 3—Bijaći; 4—Biskupija; 5—Čarevci; 6—Caričin Grad; 7—Čitluk; 8—Corinth; 9—Dikovača-Zmijavci; 10—Durrës; 11—Eski Kermen; 12—Felnac; 13—Gaponovo; 14—Gardun; 15—Glavice; 16—Gornji Bitelić; 17—Gyapa; 18—Hansca; 19—Igumnovo; 20—Jurgaičiai; 21—Kamenica; 22—Kamenovo; 23—Khorol; 24—Knin; 25—Kugulta; 26—Kurilovka; 27—Kuzebaevo; 28—Lamboussa; 29—Lučani; 30—Luchistoe; 31—Martynivka; 32—Mikhalkovo; 33—Moshchenka; 34—Nea Anchialos; 35—Nikadzimava; 36—Nova odessa; 37—Novigrad; 38—Novo Turbasly; 39—osh-Pando-Ner’; 40—Pervomaiskoe; 41—Pregradnaia; 42—Pridraga; 43—rákóczifalva; 44—roztoky; 45—Smyrna (İzmir); 46—Sardis; 47—Shtish-Tufinë; 48—Sveti Erazmo; 49—Tiszafüred; 50—Trebujeni; 51—Trubchevsk; 52—Urzall; 53—Velyki Budky; 54—Věrovany; 55—Vinica; 56—Vladimirskoe; 57—Vrap; 58—Vrlika; 59—Vrrin/Shënavlash; 60—Volos; 61—Zamárdi; 62—Žrnovnica. The star marks the location of Velestino 28

Fig. 2.12 The main sites in Eastern Europe that are mentioned in the text. Numbers refer to place names listed for Fig. 2.11. The rectangle bottom left marks the upper right corner of Fig. 2.11 30

Fig. 3.1 Lead plaque (Cat. 15), one of a triplet (Photo: Florin Curta) 40Fig. 3.2 Details of Cat. 15: head of the animal with child, and hind

legs (Photo: Florin Curta) 41Fig. 3.3 Lead plaque (Cat. 43), one of a pair (Photo: Florin Curta) 43Fig. 3.4 Details of Cat. 43: head, child, back of the plaque

(right foot), and psaltery (Photo: Florin Curta) 44Fig. 3.5 Lead plaque (Cat. 45), one of a pair (Photo: Florin Curta) 45

LIST oF FIGUrES xi

Fig. 3.6 Details of Cat. 45: head, breast, reverse of the plaque (right wing) (Photo: Florin Curta) 46

Fig. 3.7 Lead plaque (Cat. 48), one of a pair (Photo: Florin Curta) 48Fig. 3.8 Details of Cat. 48: head, right hand with tambourine,

garment decoration, and right hand with crotales (Photo: Florin Curta) 49

Fig. 3.9 Details of Cat. 54, one of a triplet: head and feet (Photo: Florin Curta) 51

Fig. 3.10 Lead plaque (Cat. 66), one of a pair (Photo: Florin Curta) 55Fig. 3.11 Details of Cat. 66: heads, bodies, and feet (Photo: Florin

Curta) 56Fig. 3.12 Lead plaque (Cat. 68), one of a pair (Photo: Florin Curta) 58Fig. 3.13 Details of Cat. 68: dog head and child (Photo: Florin Curta) 59Fig. 3.14 Details of Cat. 69, one of a pair: the breast of the woman

and the head of the child (Photo: Florin Curta) 61Fig. 3.15 Detail of Cat. 71 (Photo: Florin Curta) 63Fig. 3.16 The Biskupija hoard (Photo: Antun Zoran Alajbeg.

Courtesy of the Museum of Croatian Archaeological Monuments in Split) 64

Fig. 3.17 The distribution of early medieval anthropomorphic mounts, figurines, and pendants in Eastern Europe: 1—Eski Kermen; 2—Gyapa; 3—Igumnovo; 4—Kamenica; 5—Kamenovo; 6—Kugulta; 7—Luchistoe; 8—Martynivka; 9—Moshchenka; 10—Novo Turbasly; 11—osh-Pando-Ner’; 12—Pervomaiskoe; 13—Pregradnaia; 14—rákóczifalva; 15—Sveti Erazmo; 16—Tiszafüred; 17—Trebujeni; 18—Urzall; 19—Zamárdi. The star marks the location of Velestino 65

Fig. 3.18 The distribution of early medieval anthropomorphic mounts, figurines, and pendants in Eastern Europe. Numbers refer to place names listed for Fig. 3.17. The rectangle bottom left marks the upper right corner of Fig. 3.17 66

Fig. 3.19 Sixth- to eighth-century human or human-like mounts, pendants, and dies: 1, 2—Martynivka; 3—“Platar” hoard; 4—Kamenica; 5—Luchistoe; 6—Urzall; 7—Sv. Erazmo; 8—Igumnovo; 9—Pregradnaia; 10—Trebujeni; 11—Eski Kermen; 12—Gyapa; 13—Moshchenka; 14—rákoczifalva; 15—osh-Pando-Ner’; 16—Kamenovo; 17—unknown location in Hungary; 18—Zámardi. From Korzukhina, “Klady”, 602, pl. 12/1, 4; Shcheglova, “Taina ‘pliashushchikh chelovechkov”, pls. 3 and 4/2; Velkov,

xii LIST oF FIGUrES

“Edna starinna cărkva”, 385; Fig. 389; Aibabin and Khairedinova, Mogil’nik, 382, pl. 234/6; Kurti, “Gjurmë të cultures”, pl. IV/1; Malenko, “ranosrednovekovnata materijalna kultura”, pl. IX/1; Minaeva, “Nakhodka”, 133; Fig. 52/1; Smirnov and rafalovich, “ranneslavianskoe nakhodki’”, 75; Fig. 1; Aibabin, “Antropomorfna bliashka”, 89; Fig. 1; rácz, “Emberalakos kistárgyak”, 410; Fig. 1/1–3; Gavritukhin, “Srednedneprovskie ingumacii”, 218; Fig. 3/2 and 10; Pisarova, “Nova nakhodka”, 294; Fig. 1/1; Bárdos, “Az avarkori öntött bronz korongok”, pl. XIII/1 68

Fig. 4.1 Bronze plaque (Cat. 2), one of a mirror-image pair (Photo: Florin Curta) 98

Fig. 4.2 Details of Cat. 2: front paw (a), hind paw (b), and head of the animal (c) (Photo: Florin Curta) 99

Fig. 4.3 Lead plaque (Cat. 5), one of a pair (Photo: Florin Curta) 100Fig. 4.4 Details of Cat. 5: head and body of the animal

(Photo: Florin Curta) 101Fig. 4.5 Lead plaque (Cat. 9), one of a pair (Photo: Florin Curta) 102Fig. 4.6 Details of Cat. 9: head with front paws and back with hind

paws (Photo: Florin Curta) 103Fig. 4.7 Lead plaque (Cat. 12), one of a triplet, with broken

and reattached part (Photo: Florin Curta) 104Fig. 4.8 Details of Cat. 12: head and tail of the animal

(Photo: Florin Curta) 105Fig. 4.9 Lead plaque (Cat. 20), one of a triplet (Photo: Florin Curta) 106Fig. 4.10 Details of Cat. 20: head and tail of the animal (Photo: Florin

Curta) 107Fig. 4.11 Bronze plaque (Cat. 25), one of a triplet (with two mirror

images) (Photo: Florin Curta) 108Fig. 4.12 Detail of Cat. 25 (Photo: Florin Curta) 110Fig. 4.13 Lead plaque (Cat. 29), one of a triplet (Photo: Florin Curta) 111Fig. 4.14 Details of Cat. 29: head with little animal, and body

(Photo: Florin Curta) 112Fig. 4.15 Bronze plaque (Cat. 32), one of a mirror-image pair

(Photo: Florin Curta) 113Fig. 4.16 Details of Cat. 32: head and hindquarters of the animal

(Photo: Florin Curta) 114Fig. 4.17 The distribution of early medieval animal figurines

and mounts in Eastern Europe: 1—Biskupija; 2—Caričin Grad; 3—Čitluk; 4—Corinth; 5—Felnac; 6—Hansca; 7—Igumnovo; 8—Kamunta; 9—Martynivka; 10—Pregradnaia; 11—Trubchevsk. The star marks the location of Velestino 117

LIST oF FIGUrES xiii

Fig. 4.18 The distribution of early medieval animal figurines and mounts in Eastern Europe. Numbers refer to place names listed for Fig. 4.17. The rectangle bottom left marks the upper right corner of Fig. 4.17 118

Fig. 4.19 Sixth- to seventh-century animal-like mounts: 1—Čitluk; 2, 3—Martynivka; 4—“Platar” hoard; 5—Igumnovo; 6—Pregradnaia; 7—Trubchevsk. From Župić, “Srednjovjekovni predmeti”, p. 320; Fig. 1; Korzukhina, “Klady”, p. 602, pl. 12/6, 7; Shcheglova, “Taina ‘pliashushchikh chelovechkov’”, pls. 3 and 4/2; Minaeva, “Nakhodka”, p. 133; Fig. 52/2; Prykhodniuk, Padin, and Tikhonov, “Trubchevskii klad”, p. 87; Fig. 8/1 120

Fig. 5.1 Lead plaque (Cat. 76), one of a pair (Photo: Florin Curta) 136Fig. 5.2 Detail of Cat. 76 (Photo: Florin Curta) 137Fig. 5.3 Fragment of a bronze plaque (Cat. 78), one of a triplet

(Photo: Florin Curta) 138Fig. 5.4 Bronze plaque (Cat. 73), one of a pair (Photo: Florin Curta) 139Fig. 5.5 Details of Cat. 73 and 74: fingers, rings, and handcuffs

(Photo: Florin Curta) 141Fig. 5.6 Detail of Cat. 73: animals on the hand (Photo: Florin Curta.

Numbers correspond to those indicated in the text) 142Fig. 7.1 Biskupija hoard, hexagonal and pentagonal pieces with

traces of woven textile fabric on the back (Photo: Antun Zoran Alajbeg. Courtesy of the Museum of Croatian Archaeological Monuments in Split) 162

1

In spite of a great number of recent finds, some from archaeological excavations, others as the result of metal detector activity, metalworking in the Byzantine Empire is still poorly known. The number of workshops excavated systematically remains too small, and the quantity of tools and implements (such as moulds, crucibles and dies) is still not suffi-cient for comparative approaches to metalworking in any period of the Byzantine history.1 Moreover, without any information about the archae-ological context, numerous finds of artefacts pertaining to metalwork-ing are of little, if any use in that respect.2 Finds of Byzantine metalwork from outside territories that were part of the Empire at any moment in its history are of considerable importance, but it is often difficult, if not impossible to establish the manufacturing place of their origin.3 Given the current state of research, the most vexing question is how to distinguish between authentically Byzantine artefacts in the so-called koiné style from imitations, reproductions and copies, several of which have been found in both Western and Eastern Europe.4 Within the vast territory of the Empire, different metalworking traditions may be observed, all drawing inspiration from Antiquity.5 While the main work-shops that produced “inter-regional” types of jewellery were located in Constantinople, provincial centres, especially during the early Byzantine period, played an important role in the production and distribution not only of “pan-Byzantine” fashions, but also of strongly marked, specific local traditions.6 To be sure, goldsmithing has been better studied for

CHAPTEr 1

Introduction

© The Author(s) 2019 F. Curta and B. S. Szmoniewski, The Velestino Hoard, New Approaches to Byzantine History and Culture, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04846-4_1

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04846-4_1

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/978-3-030-04846-4_1&domain=pdf

2 F. CUrTA AND B. S. SZMoNIEWSKI

the early Byzantine period, especially for the sixth and seventh centuries, most likely because of a better definition of jewellery types and traces of manufacture (workshops).7 Such techniques of the koiné style as opus interrasile (also known as diatreton) have been defined through studies of the characteristics of golden jewellery, especially of crescent-shaped earrings.8 Equally important has been the study of dress accessories most typical for the Early Byzantine koiné style, particularly belt buckles and fittings, made of gold, silver, bronze and brass.9 Such studies have identi-fied local variations with regional characteristics related to production.10 Moreover, recent finds of moulds, dies and crucibles confirm the idea of a local metalwork production in provincial workshops. Perhaps the most interesting line of current research in that direction has been the study of the Early Byzantine technological developments related to casting using a special channel system in moulds, into which an iron wire was later inserted. That allowed the casting of artefacts with holes and hol low spaces, without the need for later drilling into a cast product. A good, early example of that technique is the set of unfinished cast fibulas with bent stem found in Drobeta-Turnu Severin, in which such iron pins have been found.11 The study of the Early Byzantine metalworking has also revealed the use of a great variety of metals and alloys, from gold and silver to copper alloys, particularly brass and lead and tin alloys.12 The significant role of metalworking in copper and its alloys in the Early and Middle Byzantine industry has only recently become clear.13 Analyses of dozens of metal objects dated to the roman and Byzantine periods reveal a pattern, namely the “steady replacement of bronze by brass as the usual copper alloy through the first half of the first millennium AD, throughout the western part of the old World, such that by the time of the Byzantine Empire and the Caliphates brass was universally prev-alent”.14 This is in sharp contrast to the impoverished picture of metal-working during the “Dark Ages” (seventh to ninth centuries).15 Scholars usually point to the lack of finds from various parts of the Empire.16 However, it is quite clear that until the ninth century, mainly copper alloys were used for the production of casts, with very rare examples of gold or silver items.17 Unlike the Early Byzantine metalworking, fewer sophisticated types of jewellery are known from the Middle Byzantine period, and much simpler techniques were in use.18 Finds of moulds point to casting as the principal production technique in the Byzantine Empire. In that context, the Velestino assemblage is of an exceptional importance, as nothing comparable is known for the entire Middle

1 INTroDUCTIoN 3

Byzantine period. Such a remarkable diversity of iconographic themes, technological solutions and alloys offers a unique opportunity to study the Middle Byzantine fine metalworking.

The assemblage, however, was rarely, if ever regarded as a source for the study of Byzantine metalworking. Instead, it became a key argument in debates surrounding early medieval, pre-Christian religious beliefs, particularly the mythology of the early Slavs. Joachim Werner first linked Velestino to Slavic pagan, even shamanistic practices,19 an interpretation that had a strong influence on contemporary and later discussions of the Slavic presence in Greece.20 More recently, Nikos Chausidis systemat-ically developed the interpretation of the Velestino plaques and placed them squarely at the centre of any discussion of the religion and myth-ological system of the Southern Slavs. To prove his point, Chausidis employed an “autonomous research method” based on the analysis of the “material culture [of the Southern Slavs] from [their] arrival to [the] 20th century”.21 That ultimately led him to far-reaching conclusions, that were based not on contemporaneous archaeological sources, but on the chronologically (and geographically) much more distant mate-rials.22 For example, Chausidis supported his interpretation of one of the Velestino plaques as an image of the Slavic God Perun by means of linking the image to the mention of a thunder god in the “Slavic excur-sus” of Procopius of Caesarea’s Wars.23 There is no concern for the dubious character of the earliest references to the origin and character of the (pagan) Slavic religion, and repeated references to Polabian Slavs, Western Pomeranians or even medieval rus’ do not inspire much confi-dence. Chausidis seems oblivious to the now widely acknowledged fact that, in the West Slavic lands, structured forms of cult (temples, cult images/idols and the prominent roles of priests) appeared only in the late tenth century (and no earlier) as a reaction to Christianity.24 In rela-tion to Velestino, several other scholars have referred to the so-called Zbruch idol (a three-headed stone statue found in the nineteenth cen-tury in what is now Western Ukraine), which is dated to the ninth or tenth century. Leaving aside the fact that the Zbruch idol has been associated only with the Eastern Slavs, never with the Belegezites, or any other Slavs from the Balkans, the idea has been recently put for-ward that the statue is in fact a nineteenth-century forgery.25 The lack of any solid evidence of early Slavic religious organization or mythology makes it very hard to accept the interpretation of the Velestino plaques as directly associated with the early Slavs.26 A critical approach to previous


interpretations of the Velestino plaques, however, is no substitute for plausible answers to the question of what exactly those plaques represent after all, and what, if any, is the ideology behind such representations. As the following chapters will amply demonstrate, the unmistakable Christian symbolism of many representations and symbols, and the mul-tiple parallels with Byzantine iconography show that the interpretation of the Velestino plaques has until now been on a wrong path. In selecting analogies, the authors of this book paid special attention to the context, and to stylistic parallels. The alternative interpretation of the historical circumstances of the hoard is therefore derived from the chronology and cultural links resulting from the archaeological and art historical analysis of the hoard’s components. restoring Velestino to its late seventh- or early eighth-century context also means to open an until now unknown page of Middle Byzantine culture.

notes

1. Perhaps the most notable exception is the work of the Greek archaeolo-gist, who has published extensively on remains of workshops in, and finds from Thessaloniki. See A: Anastassios Ch. Antonaras, Arts, Crafts and Trades in Ancient and Byzantine Thessaloniki: Archaeological, Literary and Epigraphic Evidence (Mainz: Verlag des römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums, 2016), 25–29, 49–53, 72–75 and 151–67; Anastassios Ch. Antonaras, “Artisanal production in Byzantine Thessaloniki (4th–15th century),” in Hinter den Mauern und auf dem offenen Land: Leben im Byzantinischen Reich. Byzanz zwischen Orient und Okzident 3, ed. Falko Daim and Jörg Drauschke (Mainz: Verlag des römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums, 2016), 115, 120–22 and 126–27.

2. This is true even for finds from systematically excavated sites (such as Corinth or Sardis), which have been published without any reference to the archaeological context.

3. This is particularly true for the many finds of Byzantine metalwork from the area of the Avar qaganate. For those finds, see Éva Garam, Funde byz-antinischer Herkunft in der Awarenzeit vom Ende des 6. bis zum Ende des 7. Jahrhunderts (Budapest: Magyar Nemzeti Muzeum, 2001).

4. The koiné style is “an interregional style, which may have spread from a workshop or workshop group in the Byzantine capital Constantinople”. See Yvonne Stolz, “The evidence for jewellery production. Constantinople in the early Byzantine period,” in “Intelligible Beauty:” Recent Research on Byzantine Jewellery, ed. Chris Entwistle and Noël Adams (London: British Museum, 2010), 33. For the application of the concept to the metalwork

1 INTroDUCTIoN 5

from Egypt, see Yvonne Petrina, “Jewellery from late Antique Egypt,” British Museum Studies in Ancient Egypt and Sudan 21 (2014), 32. For the problem of distinguishing between Byzantine and “Byzantine-like” metalwork, see Falko Daim, “Byzantine belt ornaments of the 7th and 8th centuries in Avar contexts,” in “Intelligible Beauty:” Recent Research on Byzantine Jewellery, ed. Chris Entwistle and Noël Adams (London: British Museum, 2010), 61; Christoph Eger, “Byzantine dress acces-sories in North Africa: koiné and regionality,” in “Intelligible Beauty:” Recent Research on Byzantine Jewellery, ed. Chris Entwistle and Noël Adams (London: British Museum, 2010), 133. Perhaps the best exam-ple of a successful research agenda in that respect is the study of late fifth- and sixth-century rings. See Jeffrey Spier, “Some unconventional early Byzantine rings,” in “Intelligible Beauty:” Recent Research on Byzantine Jewellery, ed. Chris Entwistle and Noël Adams (London: British Museum, 2010), 15 and 16; Barry Ager, “Byzantine influences on Visigothic jew-elry,” in “Intelligible Beauty:” Recent Research on Byzantine Jewellery, ed. Chris Entwistle and Noël Adams (London: British Museum, 2010), 72–82; Bartłomiej Sz. Szmoniewski, “Byzantium and the Slavs in the light of goldsmiths,” in “Intelligible Beauty:” Recent Research on Byzantine Jewellery, ed. Chris Entwistle and Noël Adams (London: British Museum, 2010), 161–72; Dagmara Król, “Wpływy bizantyńskie w biżuterii słowiańskiej od IX do XI wieku na podstawie wybranych przykładów,” Vade Nobiscum 18 (2017), 129–34; and Antje Bosselmann-ruickbie, “Contact between Byzantium and the West from the 9th to the 15th cen-tury: reflections in goldsmiths’ works and enamels,” in Bilder, Sprache, Dinge. Wege der Kommunikation zwischen Byzanz und dem Westen 1: Bilder und Dinge, ed. Falko Daim, Dominik Heher, and Claudia rapp (Mainz: Verlag des römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums, 2018), 73–104.

5. Aimilia Yeroulanou, “Important bracelets in early Christian and Byzantine art,” in “Intelligible Beauty:” Recent Research on Byzantine Jewellery, ed. Chris Entwistle and Noël Adams (London: British Museum, 2010), 40–48.

6. See Stolz, “The evidence,” 33; Eger, “Byzantine dress,” 133; Neil Christie, “Byzantines, Goths and Lombards in Italy: Jewellery, dress and cultural interactions,” in “Intelligible Beauty:” Recent Research on Byzantine Jewellery, ed. Chris Entwistle and Noël Adams (London: British Museum, 2010), 113–22; and Ager, “Byzantine influences,” 72–82.

7. The study of the early Byzantine dress accessories has by now distin-guished regional types for Northern Africa, Syria, Asia Minor, the Balkans and Italy. For early Byzantine workshops known archaeologically, see Jane C. Waldbaum, Metalwork fromSardis: The Finds Through 1974 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1983); Alexandr I. Aibabin, Etnicheskaia istoriia rannevizantiiskogo Kryma (Simferopol’: DAr, 1999),


168; Fig. 73/1–4, 5; Antonaras, Arts, 25–29, 49–53, and 151–67; and Vujadin Ivanišević, “Metal workshops of Caričin Grad (Justiniana Prima),” in Lebenswelten zwischen Archäologie und Geschichte: Festschrift für Falko Daim zu seinem 65. Geburtstag, ed. Jörg Drauschke, et al. (Mainz: Verlag des römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums, 2018), 711–23, here 712–20. For the Balkans, see Boian Dumanov, “The late antique work-shops of jewellry south of the Lower Danube. Direct and indirect evidence of local production,” in The Lower Danube Roman Limes (1st–6th c. AD), ed. Liudmil Vagalinski, Nikolai Sharankov, and Sergei Torbatov (Sofia: National Archaeological Institute and Museum, 2012), 405–28, here 405–12 with Figs. 1–8; Bartłomiej Sz. Szmoniewski, “Un moule d’orfèvre de la période romano-byzantine découvert à la cité de Tropaeum Traiani (Adamclisi, dép. Constanța),” Pontica 50 (2017), 279–305.

8. Jack M. ogen and Simon Schmidt, “Late antique jewellery: Pierced work and hollow beaded wire,” Jewellery Studies 4 (1990), 5–12; Aimilia Yeroulanou, Diatrita. Pierced-Work Gold Jewellery from the 3rd to the 7th Century (Athens: Benaki Museum, 1999), 13–27.

9. Eger, “Byzantine dress,” 133–138; Daim, “Byzantine belt ornaments,” 61–71.

10. For example, in the case of the Sicilian-Byzantine buckles, for which see Chris Entwistle, “Notes on selected recent acquisitions of Byzantine jew-ellery at the British Museum,” in “Intelligible Beauty:” Recent Research on Byzantine Jewellery, ed. Chris Entwistle and Noël Adams (London: British Museum, 2010), 24–26 and pls. 22–34.

11. The finds have been first published by Adrian Bejan, “Un atelier meta-lurgic de la Drobeta-Turnu Severin,” Acta Musei Napocensis 13 (1976), 257–58 with Figs. 1a-d and 2a-c and e; pls. Ia-b and IIa-b and d. For the finds, see also Florin Curta and Andrei Gândilă, “Too much typology, too little history: A critical approach to the classification and interpreta-tion of cast fibulae with bent stem,” Archaeologia Bulgarica 15.3 (2011), 64–66. For the technological aspects, see Bartłomiej Sz. Szmoniewski, “Wytwórczość przedmiotów z metali nieżelaznych na Słowiańszczyźnie od V do VII wieku,” Ph.D. dissertation, Institute of Archaeology (Cracow, 2010), 118.

12. The results of more recent analyses showed the use of the so-called qua-ternary alloys of copper, zinc, lead and tin, which has been interpreted as an indication that recycled metal was the raw material for alloys. See Waldbaum, Metalwork, 175–76; Anastasia Drandaki, “Copper alloy jew-ellery at the Benaki Museum, 4th to 7th century,” Antiquité tardive 13 (2005), 72; and Anastasia Drandaki, “From centre to periphery and beyond: The diffusion of models in late antique metalware,” in Wonderful Things: Byzantium Through Its Art: Papers from the Forty-Second Spring

1 INTroDUCTIoN 7

Symposium of Byzantine Studies, London, 20–22 March 2009, ed. Liz James and Antony Eastmond (London: Gower, 2013), 170.

13. This is primarily the result of detailed studies of liturgical vessels and lamps. over 300 ewers and basins produced between the fifth and the seventh century have been found outside the territory of the Empire. Household washing vessels and kitchenware—flasks, jugs, cauldrons and samovars—manufactured with specific techniques, such as the crenellated seam, were often recycled, which explains the relatively small number of surviving specimens. A third group of metalworking products were imi-tations of much more expensive silverware items. Such sixth-century vessels often have dotted inscriptions in Greek and appear to have been distributed within the Empire by the military. Finally, ninth- to elev-enth-century Byzantine metalwork includes hammered tinned copper items. The use of a wipe tinning technique, in which the heated copper alloy object was rubbed with the stick of tin, was meant as an imitation of silver. See Marlia Mundell Mango, “Beyond the amphora: Non-ceramic evidence for late antique trade,” in Economy and Exchange in the East Mediterranean During Late Antiquity, ed. Sean Kingsley and Michael Decker (oxford: oxbow Books, 2001), 89–91 with Figs. 5.2 and 5.6; Marlia Mundell Mango, “Tracking Byzantine silver and copper metal-ware, 6th–12th centuries,” in Byzantine Trade, 4th–12th Centuries: The Archaeology of Local, Regional and International Exchange, ed. Marlia Mundell Mango (Farnham: Ashgate, 2009), 230–33.

14. Paul Craddock, et al., “Change and stasis: The technology of Dark Age metalwork from the Carpathian Basin,” The British Museum Technical Research Bulletin 4 (2010), 155–65, here 161.

15. Anastassios Ch. Antonaras, “Middle and late Byzantine jewellery from Thessaloniki and its region,” in Byzantine Small Finds in Archaeological Contexts, ed. Beate Böhlendorf-Arslan and Alessandra ricci (Istanbul: Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, 2012), 117; Antje Bosselmann-ruickbie, “Das Verhältnis der ‘Schedula diversarum artium’ des Theophilus Presbyter zu byzantinischen Goldschmiedearbeiten - Grenzüberschreitende Wissensverbreitung im Mittelalter?” Miscellanea Mediaevalia 37 (2014), 335.

16. E.g., Antonaras, “Middle and late Byzantine jewellery,” 125. 17. For casting moulds from Corinth, see Gladys r. Davidson, The Minor

Objects (Princeton: The American School of Classical Studies in Athens, 1952), 251–55 and 307–10.

18. For surveys of Middle Byzantine jewelry, see Valeri Grigorov, Metalni nak-iti ot srednovekovna Bălgariia (Sofia: Nacionalen Arkheologicheski Institut i Muzei BAN, 2007); Vesna Bikić, Vizantskij nakit u Srbiji. Modeli i naslede (Belgrade: Arheološki Institut, 2010); Antje Bosselmann-ruickbie,


Byzantinischer Schmuck des 9. bis 13. Jahrhunderts. Untersuchungen zum metallenen dekorativen Körperschmuck der mittelbyzantinischen Zeit anhand datierter Funde (Wiesbaden: reichert Verlag, 2011); Károly Mesterházy, “Bizánci és balkáni eredetű tárgyak a 10–11. századi magyar sirleletekben II”, Folia Archaeologica 42 (1991), 145–77; and Natal’ia V. Zhilina and Tat’iana I. Makarova, Drevnerusskii dragocennyi ubor - splav vliianii i tradicii IX–XIII vekov. Khudozhestvennyye stili i remeslennye shkoly (Moscow: Institut Arkheologii rossiiskoi Akademii Nauk, 2008).

19. Joachim Werner, Slawische Bronzefiguren aus Nordgriechenland (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1953). The most recent example of that kind of rea-soning is the work of Dmitrii M. Dudko, who interpreted the Velestino plaques as Slavic magical amulets, while underlining their links to Iranian religious beliefs, themselves the result of supposed Slavo-Iranian contacts. See Dmitrii M. Dudko, “ranneslavianskie kul’tovye figurki iz Fessalii i ikh mifologicheskaia semantika,” Khar’kovskii arkheologicheskii sbornik 3 (2008), 76–91; Dmitrii M. Dudko, Zaratustra. Uchenye ognia. Gaty i molitvy (Moscow: Eksmo, 2010), 351 and 411–12.

20. Josip Korošec, “Arheološki sledovi slovanske naselitve na Balkanu,” Zgodovinski časopis 8 (1954), 7–26, here 17–20; Valentin V. Sedov, Slaviane v rannem srednevekov’e (Moscow: NPBo “Fond arkheologii”, 1995), 159 with Figs. 51 and 52; Ivan Mikulčić, Srednovekovni gradovi i tvrdini vo Makedonija (Skopje: Makedonska akademija na naukite i umet-nostite, 1996), 27 with Figs. 2 and 3; and S. V. Alekseev, Slavianskaia Evropa V–VIII vekov (Moscow: Veche, 2009), 209.

21. Nikos Chausidis, Mitskite sliki na juzhnite Sloveni (Skopje: Mislam 1994); Nikos Chausidis, “Slovenskite panteoni vo likovniot medium: Svarog,” Studia Mythologica Slavica 1 (1998), 75–92; Nikos Chausidis, “Mythical pictures of the South Slavs,” Studia Mythologica Slavica 2 (1999), 275–96; Nikos Chausidis, “Dazhbog vo khronikata na Malala i negovite relacii so drugi srednovekovni i folklorni izvori,” Studia Mythologica Slavica 3 (2000), 23–42; Nikos Chausidis, “Poganska religija Slavena u svjetlu ranosrednjovјekovnih materijalnih nalaza sa područja Balkana,” Histria Antiqua 13 (2005), 437–56; Nikos Chausidis, “Predilkata so zoo-antro-pomorfni i demonski obeležja vo slovenskite mitski tradicii,” Studia Mythologica Slavica 15 (2012), 91–115; and Nikos Chausidis, “Kol’co iz Shtrob’yenena - ikonograficheskii i semioticheskii analiz,” in Lesnaia i lesostepnaia zony Vostochnoy Evropy v epokhi rimskikh vliianii i Velikogo pereseleniia narodov, ed. A. M. Voroncov and Igor o. Gavritukhin (Tula: Gosudarstvennyi muzei-zapovednik “Kulikovo Pole”, 2012), 527–51.

22. For example, Chausidis links the Velestino hoard to the Slavic tribe of the Belegezites, mentioned in the late seventh-century Book II of the Miracles of St. Demetrius. Nonetheless, his semantic and iconographic

1 INTroDUCTIoN 9

interpretation of the Velestino plaques is based on the description of a sacred place in Szczecin (the so-called kącina) in Helmold of Bosau’s twelfth-century Chronicle of the Slavs (Chausidis, “Kol’co iz Shtrob’yenena,” 538).

23. Chausidis, Mitskite sliki, 402–4; Chausidis, “Mythical pictures,” 294. It is now generally accepted that, far from being a genuine description of Slavic religion, Procopius’ account is in fact an attempt to present Slavic paganism as comparable, if not similar to Greek pagan mythol-ogy. The reference to the god of thunder is therefore to Zeus, not to Perun, who was unknown to both Procopius and the sixth-century Sclavenes he described in his Wars. See Aleksandar Loma, “Procopius about the supreme god of the Slavs (Bella VII 14, 23): Two critical remarks,” Zbornik radova Vizantološkog Instituta 41 (2004), 67–70. To Jerzy Strzelczyk, Mity, podania i wierzenia dawnych Słowian (Poznań: rebis 1998), 71, Perun was unknown to the Slavs before the tenth cen-tury, when Thor of the Norse mythology was introduced by Varangians to rus’. For a critique of attempts to “read” into Procopius much later sources pertaining to the religion of the Slavs, see Judith Kalik and Alexander Uchitel, Slavic Gods and Heroes (New York: routledge, 2018).

24. The argument was first put forward by Henryk Łowmiański, Pierwotna religia Słowian i jej upadek (Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1979), 99–236. See also Jerzy Strzelczyk, “The Church and Christianity about the year 1000 (the missionary aspect),” in Europe Around the Year 1000, ed. Przemysław Urbańczyk (Warsaw: DiG, 2001), 63; Przemysław Urbańczyk, Mieszko pierwszy nieznany (Toruń: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu im. Mikołaja Kopernika, 2012), 195.

25. Wojciech Szymański, “Posąg ze Zbrucza i jego otoczenie. Lata badań, lata wątpliwości,” Przegląd Archeologiczny 44 (1996), 109; Zdzisław Skrok, Słowiańska moc czyli o niezwykłym wkroczeniu naszych przodków na europejską arenę (Warsaw: “Iskry”, 2006), 132. For the Zbruch idol as a forgery, see oleksyi V. Komar, Natal’ia Khamayko, “Zbruchskii idol: pamiatnik epokhi romantizma,” Ruthenica 10 (2011), 166–217.

26. For a brief characterization of the amorphous character of religious beliefs in the Slavic world before the adoption of Christianity, see Urbańczyk, Mieszko, 192–96 and 198.

references

Ager, Barry. “Byzantine influences on Visigothic jewelry.” In “Intelligible Beauty:” Recent Research on Byzantine Jewellery, edited by Chris Entwistle and Noël Adams, 72–82. London: British Museum, 2010.


Aibabin, Alexandr I. Etnicheskaia istoriia rannevizantiiskogo Kryma. Simferopol’: DAr, 1999.

Alekseev, S. V. Slavianskaia Evropa V–VIII vekov. Moscow: Veche, 2009.Antonaras, Anastassios Ch. “Middle and late Byzantine jewellery from

Thessaloniki and its region.” In Byzantine Small Finds in Archaeological Contexts, edited by Beate Böhlendorf-Arslan and Alessandra ricci, 117–26. Istanbul: Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, 2012.

———. “Artisanal production in Byzantine Thessaloniki (4th–15th century).” In Hinter den Mauern und auf dem offenen Land: Leben im Byzantinischen Reich. Byzanz zwischen Orient und Okzident 3, edited by Falko Daim and Jörg Drauschke, 113–40. Mainz: Verlag des römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums, 2016a.

———. Arts, Crafts and Trades in Ancient and Byzantine Thessaloniki: Archaeological, Literary and Epigraphic Evidence. Mainz: Verlag des römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums, 2016b.

Bejan, Adrian. “Un atelier metalurgic de la Drobeta-Turnu Severin.” Acta Musei Napocensis 13 (1976), 257–68.

Bikić, Vesna. Vizantskij nakit u Srbiji. Modeli i naslede. Belgrade: Arheološki Institut, 2010.

Bosselmann-ruickbie, Antje. Byzantinischer Schmuck des 9. bis 13. Jahrhunderts. Untersuchungen zum metallenen dekorativen Körperschmuck der mittelbyzanti-nischen Zeit anhand datierter Funde. Wiesbaden: reichert Verlag, 2011.

———. “Das Verhältnis der ‘Schedula diversarum artium’ des Theophilus Presbyter zu byzantinischen Goldschmiedearbeiten - Grenzüberschreitende Wissensverbreitung im Mittelalter?” Miscellanea Mediaevalia 37 (2014), 333–68.

———. “Contact between Byzantium and the West from the 9th to the 15th century: reflections in goldsmiths’ works and enamels.” In Bilder, Sprache, Dinge. Wege der Kommunikation zwischen Byzanz und dem Westen 1: Bilder und Dinge, edited by Falko Daim, Dominik Heher, and Claudia rapp, 73–104. Mainz: Verlag des römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums, 2018.

Chausidis, Nikos. Mitskite sliki na Iuzhnite Sloveni. Skopje: Misla, 1994.———. “Mythical pictures of the South Slavs.” Studia mythologica Slavica 2

(1999), 275–96.———. “Dazhbog vo khronikata na Malala i negovite relacii so drugi srednovek-

ovni i folklorni izvori.” Studia Mythologica Slavica 3 (2000), 23–42.———. “Poganska religija Slavena u svjetlu ranosrednjovjekovnih materialnih

nalaza s područja Balkana.” Histria Antiqua 15 (2005), 437–56.———. “Predilkata so zoo-antropomorfni i demonski obeležja vo slovenskite

mitski tradicii.” Studia Mythologica Slavica 15 (2012), 91–115.———. “Kol’co iz Shtrob’yenena - ikonograficheskii i semioticheskii analiz.”

In Lesnaia i lesostepnaia zony Vostochnoy Evropy v epokhi rimskikh vliianii i Velikogo

1 INTroDUCTIoN 11

pereseleniia narodov, edited by A. M. Voroncov and Igor o. Gavritukhin, 527–55. Tula: Gosudarstvennyi muzei-zapovednik “Kulikovo Pole”, 2012.

Christie, Neil. “Byzantines, Goths and Lombards in Italy: Jewellery, dress and cultural interactions.” In “Intelligible Beauty:” Recent Research on Byzantine Jewellery, edited by Chris Entwistle and Noël Adams, 113–22. London: British Museum, 2010.

Craddock, Paul, Michael Cowell, Duncan Hook, Michael Hughes, Susan La Niece, and Nigel Meeks. “Change and stasis: The technology of Dark Age metalwork from the Carpathian Basin.” The British Museum Technical Research Bulletin 4 (2010), 155–65.

Curta, Florin and Andrei Gândilă. “Too much typology, too little history: A crit-ical approach to the classification and interpretation of cast fibulae with bent stem.” Archaeologia Bulgarica 15 (2011), no. 3, 51–81.

Daim, Falko. “Byzantine belt ornaments of the 7th and 8th centuries in Avar con-texts.” In “Intelligible Beauty:” Recent Research on Byzantine Jewellery, edited by Chris Entwistle and Noël Adams, 61–71. London: British Museum, 2010.

Davidson, Gladys r. The Minor Objects (Corinth, 12). Princeton: American School of Classical Studies in Athens, 1952.

Drandaki, Anastasia. “Copper alloy jewellery at the Benaki Museum, 4th to 7th century.” Antiquité tardive 13 (2005), 65–76.

———. “From centre to periphery and beyond: The diffusion of models in late antique metalware.” In Wonderful Things: Byzantium Through Its Art: Papers from the Forty-Second Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, London, 20–22 March 2009, edited by Liz James and Antony Eastmond, 163–84. London: Gower, 2013.

Dudko, Dmitrii M. “ranneslavianskie kul’tovye figurki iz Fessalii i ikh mifolog-icheskaia semantika.” Khar’kovskii arkheologicheskii sbornik 3 (2008), 76–91.

———. Zaratustra. Uchenye ognia. Gaty i molitvy. Moscow: Eksmo, 2010.Dumanov, Boian. “The late antique workshops of jewellry south of the Lower

Danube. Direct and indirect evidence of local production.” In The Lower Danube Roman Limes (1st–6th c. AD), edited by Liudmil Vagalinski, Nikolai Sharankov, and Sergei Torbatov, 405–28. Sofia: National Archaeological Institute and Museum, 2012.

Eger, Christoph. “Byzantine dress accessories in North Africa: koiné and region-ality.” In “Intelligible Beauty:” Recent Research on Byzantine Jewellery, edited by Chris Entwistle and Noël Adams, 133–45. London: British Museum, 2010.

Entwistle, Chris. “Notes on selected recent acquisitions of Byzantine jewellery at the British Museum.” In “Intelligible Beauty:” Recent Research on Byzantine Jewellery, edited by Chris Entwistle and Noël Adams, 20–32. London: British Museum, 2010.

Garam, Éva. Funde byzantinischer Herkunft in der Awarenzeit vom Ende des 6. bis zum Ende des 7. Jahrhunderts (Monumenta Avarorum Archaeologica, 5). Budapest: Magyar Nemzéti Múzeum, 2001.


Grigorov, Valeri. Metalni nakiti ot srednovekovna Bălgariia. Sofia: Nacionalen Arkheologicheski Institut i Muzei BAN, 2007.

Ivanišević, Vujadin. “Metal workshops of Caričin Grad (Justiniana Prima).” In Lebenswelten zwischen Archäologie und Geschichte. Festschrift für Falko Daim zu seinem 65. Geburtstag, edited by Jörg Drauschke, Ewald Kislinger, Karin Kühtreiber, Gabriele Scharrer-Liška, and Tivadar Vida, 711–24 (Monographien des römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums, 150). Mainz: Verlag des römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums, 2018.

Kalik, Judith, and Alexander Uchitel. Slavic Gods and Heroes. New York: routledge, 2018.

Komar, oleksyi V., and Natal’ia Khamayko. “Zbruchskii idol: pamiatnik epokhi romantizma.” Ruthenica 10 (2011), 166–217.

Korošec, Josip. “Arheološki sledovi slovanske naselitve na Balkanu.” Zgodovinski časopis 8 (1954), 7–26.

Król, Dagmara. “Wpływy bizantyńskie w biżuterii słowiańskiej od IX do XI wieku na podstawie wybranych przykładów.” Vade Nobiscum 18 (2017), 129–34.

Loma, Aleksandar. “Procopius about the supreme god of the Slavs (Bella VII 14, 23): Two critical remarks.” Zbornik radova Vizantološkog Instituta 41 (2004), 67–70.

Łowmiański, Henryk. Pierwotna religia Słowian i jej upadek. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1979.

Mango, Marlia Mundell. “Beyond the amphora: Non-ceramic evidence for late antique trade.” In Economy and Exchange in the East Mediterranean During Late Antiquity, edited by Sean Kingsley and Michael Decker, 87–106. oxford: oxbow Books, 2001.

———. “Tracking Byzantine silver and copper metalware, 6th–12th centuries.” In Byzantine Trade, 4th–12th Centuries: The Archaeology of Local, Regional and International Exchange, edited by Marlia Mundell Mango, 221–36. Farnham: Ashgate, 2009.

Mesterházy, Károly. “Bizánci és balkáni eredetű tárgyak a 10–11. századi magyar sirleletekben II.” Folia Archaeologica 42 (1991), 145–77.

Mikulčić, Ivan. Srednovekovni gradovi i tvrdini vo Makedonija. Skopje: Makedonska akademija na naukite i umetnostite, 1996.

ogen, Jack M., and Simon Schmidt, “Late antique jewellery: Pierced work and hollow beaded wire.” Jewellery Studies 4 (1990), 5–12.

Petrina, Yvonne. “Jewellery from late Antique Egypt.” British Museum Studies in Ancient Egypt and Sudan 21 (2014), 31–43.

Sedov, Valentin V. Slaviane v rannem srednevekov’e. Moscow: NPBo “Fond ark-heologii,” 1995.

Skrok, Zdzisław. Słowiańska moc czyli o niezwykłym wkroczeniu naszych przodków na europejską arenę. Warsaw: “Iskry,” 2006.

1 INTroDUCTIoN 13

Spier, Jeffrey. “Some unconventional early Byzantine rings.” In “Intelligible Beauty:” Recent Research on Byzantine Jewellery, edited by Chris Entwistle and Noël Adams, 13–19. London: British Museum, 2010.

Stolz, Yvonne. “The evidence for jewellery production. Constantinople in the early Byzantine period.” In “Intelligible Beauty:” Recent Research on Byzantine Jewellery, edited by Chris Entwistle and Noël Adams, 33–39. London: British Museum, 2010.

Strzelczyk, Jerzy. Mity, podania i wierzenia dawnych Słowian. Poznań: rebis 1998.

———. “The Church and Christianity about the year 1000 (the missionary aspect).” In Europe Around the Year 1000, edited by Przemysław Urbańczyk, 41–67. Warsaw: DiG, 2001.

Szmoniewski, Bartłomiej Sz. “Byzantium and the Slavs in the light of gold-smiths.” In “Intelligible Beauty:” Recent Research on Byzantine Jewellery, edited by Chris Entwistle and Noël Adams, 161–72. London: British Museum, 2010.

———. “Wytwórczość przedmiotów z metali nieżelaznych na Słowiańszczyźnie od V do VII wieku.” Ph.D. dissertation, Institute of Archaeology. Cracow, 2010.

———. “Un moule d’orfèvre de la période romano-byzantine découvert à la cité de Tropaeum Traiani (dép. de Constanța).” Pontica 50 (2017), 279–306.

Szymański, Wojciech. “Posąg ze Zbrucza i jego otoczenie. Lata badań, lata wąt-pliwości.” Przegląd Archeologiczny 44 (1996), 75–116.

Urbańczyk, Przemysław. Mieszko pierwszy nieznany. Toruń: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu im. Mikołaja Kopernika, 2012.

Waldbaum, Jane C. Metalwork from Sardis: The Finds Through 1974 (Monographs of the Archaeological Exploration of Sardis, 8). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1983.

Werner, Joachim. Slawische Bronzefiguren aus Nordgriechenland. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1953.

Yeroulanou, Aimilia. Diatrita. Pierced-Work Gold Jewellery from the 3rd to the 7th Century. Athens: Benaki Museum, 1999.

———. “Important bracelets in early Christian and Byzantine art.” In “Intelligible Beauty:” Recent Research on Byzantine Jewellery, edited by Chris Entwistle and Noël Adams, 40–48. London: British Museum, 2010.

Zhilina Natal’ia V., and Tat’iana I. Makarova. Drevnerusskii dragocennyi ubor - splav vliianii i tradicii IX–XIII vekov. Khudozhestvennyye stili i remeslennye shkoly. Moscow: Institut Arkheologii rossiiskoi Akademii Nauk, 2008.

15

The earliest information available about the discovery in Velestino of a number of objects comes from a letter the Italian archaeologist Carlo Cecchèlli (1893–1960) received from roberto Paribeni (1876–1956) on 27 August 1924. Paribeni, at that time the director of the National roman Museum, but still deeply involved in the organization of the Italian archaeological missions to the Levant (Crete, rhodes and Albania), signalled to Cecchèlli the existence on the antique market in Athens of a collection of objects made of bronze and lead, which had been found in Velestino (Thessaly) (Fig. 2.1). Half-jokingly, he men-tioned that the objects in question (to which he referred as “horrible puppets”) had been found after long and difficult efforts of excavating, with galleries and mines, through mountains of waste paper.1 The joke was probably on the conditions in which the artefacts had been kept (wrapped in “wastepaper”) by antiquarians, but many took the refer-ence to galleries and mines literally. Cecchèlli, on the basis of informa-tion known only to him, located the place of discovery (Velestino) “in a ravine of Mount Kara-Dagh, or Mavro-Vouni”.2 Kara-Dagh is the old name for the 724-m high hills (“mountain”) to the west from Velestino, which are now known as Chalkodonion (Figs. 2.2 and 2.3).3 Dafydd Kidd, however, truly believed that “the hoard was found in a ravine during mining in the Kara-Dagh or Mavro-Vouni mountains (emphasis added)”.4 However, there were no active mines in Mavrovouni in the 1920s, and no mine is located in a “ravine”. Paribeni’s joke seems to

CHAPTEr 2

Forgery or Genuine?


https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04846-4_2



Fig. 2.1 Velestino (Thessaly), early twentieth century (Photo: Kostas Stournaras)

Fig. 2.2 Kara-Dagh (Chalkodonion) (Photo: Stergios Laitsos)

2 ForGErY or GENUINE? 17

Fig. 2.3 The Mavrolithari peak near Velestino with Kara-Dagh in the back-ground (Photo: Stergios Laitsos)


have been lost on more than one scholar. In the early 1920s, Velestino had already seen some archaeological activity, primarily related to the ancient city of Pherai, over which the modern city has been partially built. Ever since 1919, the Greek archaeologist A. S. Arvanitopoulos (1874–1942), the ephor appointed by the Archaeological Society of Athens for the antiquities of Thessaly, has been at work in Pherai (Fig. 2.4).5 Beginning with 1925, he also received assistance from Yves Béquignon (1899–1990) and Paul Collart (1902–1981) from the French School in Athens. The results of those excavations were annu-ally published in the Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique, the French School’s main periodical. However, there is absolutely no mention of the Velestino find in the pages of that periodical.

Whether or not the “Thessalian antiquities”, as the objects signalled by Paribeni to Cecchèlli came to be known, were found in Pherai/Velestino or in the environs of Mount Chalkodonion, the existence of those objects on the local antique market in Athens is confirmed by other sources.

Fig. 2.4 The acropolis of Pherai, near Velestino (Photo: Stergios Laitsos)


In a letter written from Hôtel d’Angleterre (now Hotel Grand Bretagne in the Syntagma Square) in Athens and preserved in the archives of the Princeton University Art Museum, Frank Jewett Mather (1868–1953; Fig. 2.5), at that time the newly appointed director of the museum, announced that he had the “extraordinary luck to find 19 big Thessalian amulets, 16 lead, 3 bronze” (Figs. 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9 and 2.10). He believed them to be of “Scythian type, perhaps Slavic” and declared that he had “never seen such large and fine pieces”.6 The letter mentions Volo(s) as the place of discovery, but in another letter written five years later to the editor of the journal Aréthuse, Mather wrote that “the ven-dor was a learned and responsible antiquary of Athens, who assured me that the amulets were excavated in Velestino in Thessaly”. He also added that that “statement was confirmed by excellent circumstantial evidence”, without, however, elaborating on the nature of that evidence.7

The correction and assurance were undoubtedly caused by what had in the meantime turned the “Thessalian antiquities” into an object of controversy. A few months after Paribeni’s letter had reached Cecchèlli, the Swiss poet Charles Vignier (1863–1964), who was also a famous collector of Asian art, published an article in Aréthuse about his recent acquisition of 36 “Thessalian antiquities”, which, like Mather, he believed to be Scythian.8 Like Mather’s, his collection contained both bronze and lead objects, but out of 36 pieces, he only published the photographs of 21 artefacts, all of bronze.9 A little later, Michael rostovtzeff (1870–1952), at that time a refugee from Bolshevik russia, and a professor at the University of Wisconsin in Madison about to become Sterling Professor of Ancient History and Classical Archaeology at Yale, published a scathing critique of Vignier’s attribution. He went as far as to declare the “Thessalian antiquities” to be forgeries.10 The cri-tique came in the form of a letter sent to the editor of Aréthuse from Princeton (where rostovtzeff was apparently on a visit) on 23 August 1925—almost a year after Paribeni’s letter to Cecchèli. rostovtzeff has just established his reputation as specialist in the ancient art of south-ern russia with his Iranians and Greeks in South Russia, while his Scythia and Bosporus was just about to be published in the Soviet Union.11 In his letter, rostovtzeff compared two of the objects published by Vignier—the leopard pouncing to the right (Cat. 30) and the stag (Cat. 22)—to objects found in Mikhalkovo on the Middle Dniester, which he believed to be Scythian. He also thought the figurine of a man with an elaborate hat (Cat. 44–45) to be “a pretty stupid alteration” of a typically Scythian


Fig. 2.5 Frank Jewett Mather (Photo: Princeton University Art Museum)


type of decoration found in southern russia, much like the other figu-rine with an angel with raised hands (Cat. 52–54).12 But he spared no punches when calling the figurines showing humans or human-like crea-tures “la création de la fantaisie maladroite du faussaire”. The forgerer in question must have been from russia, one of those working in odessa or Nikolaev (now Mykolaiv, in Ukraine), who migrated to Athens after the Bolshevik revolution.13 Such forgerers, according to rostovtzeff, always had a certain predilection for lead. rostovtzeff had seen in a museum in North America objects of the same series, “with some additions and omissions”, as those published by Vignier. He hoped that, following the publication of his letter, the museum in question would withdraw the artefacts from display and send them to the “museum of bad taste”.14 In his letter of 1929, Mather confirms that in the summer of 1925 he had indeed shown the objects to rostovtzeff, but also added that he had “offered to take them from the vitrine for his closer inspection.

Fig. 2.6 Lead plaques (Cat. 5, 9, 12, 15, 20 and 29) purchased by Frank Jewett Mather in Athens in 1924 (Photo: Princeton University Art Museum)


He said it was unnecessary, for they were evidently false”.15 According to Mather, rostovtzeff had never actually held the objects in this hand or examined them under the lens. Despite rostovtzeff’s friendly advice, therefore, Mather refused to take the “Thessalian antiquities” off dis-play.16 In a reply published in Aréthuse in 1925, Vignier also pointed out that rostovtzeff’s claim that the objects were forgeries rested on the existence in Princeton of duplicates of artefacts in his own collection. Indeed, Mather also observed in his letter to the editor of Aréthuse that “it would be a singularly stupid impostor who would bury some fifty objects, including many duplicates, thereby reducing the value of the find”.17 A little later, Cecchèlli, who had also entertained doubts about the authenticity of the find, concluded that even if the lead artefacts were

Fig. 2.7 Lead plaques (Cat. 5, 9, 12, 15, 20 and 29) purchased by Frank Jewett Mather from Athens in 1924. Princeton University Museum of Art. Museum purchase, Caroline G. Mather Fund, 1924 (Photo: Princeton University Art Museum)


modern forgeries, they were nonetheless important, for they most likely reproduced genuine artefacts (of bronze) that did not otherwise sur-vive. In other words, he sorted out the “Thessalian antiquities” into two groups—one of bronze (authentic) and the other of lead (forgeries).18

There are clear indications that the objects purchased by Vignier under unknown circumstances and those acquired by Mather in the Spring of 1924 belonged to one and the same “lot”, perhaps to a sin-gle, hoard-like find. According to Cecchèlli, Paribeni had also sent pho-tographs together with his letter of August 1924, but unfortunately nothing is known about those pictures and whether or not they are of any of the objects purchased by Vignier or by Mather.19 It is nonetheless

Fig. 2.8 Bronze and lead plaques (Cat. 2, 25, 32, 74, 76 and 78) purchased by Frank Jewett Mather in Athens in 1924. Princeton University Museum of Art. Museum purchase, Caroline G. Mather Fund, 1924 (Photo: Princeton University Art Museum)


certain that at the time of the controversy surrounding their authentic-ity, the “Thessalian antiquities” had begun to disperse even further. In his response to rostovtzeff, Vignier made it clear that at least one of the pieces from the collection of the Swedish art historian osvald Sirén (1879–1966), who was also interested in Asian art, had been purchased from him.20 Nothing is known about what happened to those objects after Vignier’s death in 1934. Nor is anything known about the where-abouts of the other objects, which began to (re-)surface on the antique market in the 1990s and, again, in 2005. To be sure, the seeds of doubt planted by Michael rostovtzeff took a very firm root. The “Thessalian antiquities” were dubbed forgeries by Slade Professor of Fine Arts at

Fig. 2.9 Lead plaques (Cat. 43, 45, 48, 54, 66, 68, 69 and 71) purchased by Frank Jewett Mather in Athens in 1924. Princeton University Museum of Art. Museum purchase, Caroline G. Mather Fund, 1924 (Photo: Princeton University Art Museum)


oxford, otto Kurz (1908–1975). Like rostovtzeff, he believed that the forgerer(s) had worked “in a rather childlishly primitive style” featuring stylized animals and thus “pandering to the predilection for the Scythian Animal Style which became fashionable among art collectors in the early 1920s”.21 Like rostovtzeff, Kurz never held the objects in his own hand and did not see any of them but in pictures. Shortly after the publication of his book, the “Thessalian antiquities” stopped being regarded as poor forgeries of Scythian art. In the tense atmosphere of the Cold War, and with the new fascination with the early history of the Slavs, they now turned into objects related to Slavic pagan, or even shamanistic prac-tices.22 They have now become the main topic of discussion in studies dedicated to the religion of the early Slavs, even though their authentic-ity remains in doubt, at least in some circles.23

While in Europe rostovtzeff’s verdict continued to linger, even though their Slavic attribution was firmly established, in America the

Fig. 2.10 Bronze plaques (Cat. 2, 25, 32 and 78) purchased by Frank Jewett Mather in Athens in 1924. Princeton University Museum of Art. Museum purchase, Caroline G. Mather Fund, 1924 (Photo: Princeton University Art Museum)


“Thessalian antiquities” became the object of worthwhile efforts to cut through the fog of controversy and to gauge their authenticity. The archive of the Princeton University Art Museum contains a relatively significant body of correspondence between Princeton museum cura-tors and various specialists who were contacted to express their opinions about the “Thessalian antiquities”. In 1979, the Cleveland Museum of Art acquired from the antique market two figurines, a “sea monster” (Cat. 10) and a “wolf attacking a man” (Cat. 13), both said to have been discovered in “Bulgaria”.24 In a letter to the curator of ancient art in Cleveland, Arielle P. Kozloff, the curator of collections at Princeton, Frances Follin Jones (1912–1999) expressed interest in learning more about how the addressee of her letter felt that the objects her museum had acquired “might be related” to the Princeton group. Echoing Cecchèlli’s qualms (but without mentioning him), she felt “inclined to feel comfortable about our bronze examples, but undecided about the lead ones”.25 She noted that two of the lead pieces in Princeton were duplicates of the Cleveland bronze pieces. A month later, prompted by Kozloff’s response to her discovery, Jones found in her own museum’s archives the report on the metallographic analysis carried out some time between 1939 and 1943 on two artefacts in the Princeton collection.26 Earle r. Caley, who performed the analysis, noted that the percentages of tin and lead in the alloy used for the manufacture of the bronze piece were very similar to those that have been found in the few Byzantine coins that had until then been analysed. He believed that “clear evidence that this bronze is not a modern product” was given “by the presence of three impurities, namely arsenic, gold and silver”, as such impurities would have been removed from modern copper by the refining process. Similarly, he believed that the presence on the lead piece of a hard adher-ent of lead oxide underlying lead carbonate “is a characteristic of old lead that cannot be easily imitated by artificial treatment”. The metallographic analysis thus showed that both objects were not of recent origin.27

In April 1980, Arielle Kozloff announced Jones that the two Cleveland pieces and four of the Princeton pieces (which had in the meantime been sent to Cleveland) had been shipped to Winterthur for spectrographic analysis. Not only were the Cleveland and the two of the Princeton pieces quite close in composition, but the results of the spectrographic analysis confirmed those of the earlier metallographic analysis. Two other pieces from Princeton were “somewhat farther away”, but Kozloff assured Jones that “our conservators and the Winterthur scientists did not feel that they


are so far away as to cause alarm”. In any case, she concluded that the results “neither confirm nor dispute the authenticity of the bronzes”.28 Both Jones and Kozloff were seriously thinking about publishing the Princeton and Cleveland pieces, and Jones even hoped that such a publi-cation might flush the other pieces in the Vignier collection, which “may well have been dispersed”.29 Jones then contacted Prudence oliver Harper at the Metropolitan Museum of Art and Karl Jettmar at the University of Heidelberg to ask about the whereabouts of the Vignier collection.30 Neither Harper nor Jettmar knew anything about that, but Harper attached to her reply photocopies of two of the mounts (a dancing man and a lion) from the Martynivka hoard found in Ukraine, which she believed to be close analogies for the Velestino pieces.31

A bronze votive hand sold at Sotheby in New York in 1989 opened the next phase in the Velestino research saga.32 Because of the presence in the Princeton collection of the lead pair of that object, the votive hand auctioned at Sotheby’s was lent to the university museum by its private owner and was still there in 2007 (when one of the authors of this book took pictures of the artefact, Fig. 48). The same object prompted Dafydd Kidd, the curator of Continental medieval antiqui-ties at the British Museum, to write a short note in which he traced the hand to Cecchèlli’s 1953 publication, thus establishing that it had not originated either from the Vignier or from the Mather acquisitions.33 one year later, Noël Adams, special assistant for medieval antiquities at British Museum, wrote to Michael Padgett, the curator of ancient art at Princeton. In her letter, she asked about one of the “Thessalian antiq-uities” previously in the Vignier collection, which was at that time in a private collection in London. Adams had discovered that the bronze piece in question had a textile impression cast on the reverse. She had been working for a while with a bronze foundry to replicate early medi-eval modelling and casting techniques using textile supports. She there-fore wanted to know whether any of the Princeton pieces, especially the lead ones, had such an impression, and inquired about any metallurgi-cal analysis on the lead pieces.34 In his reply, Padgett acknowledged that, upon examination, he had indeed found that some of the lead pieces in Princeton had distinct impressions of a tightly woven textile, most visible on the piece showing a woman holding a baby and a harp.35 The bronze pair of that same piece was published six years later in the catalogue of the Ebnöther collection in the Museum zu Allerheiligen in Schaffhausen, Switzerland.36


The history of research on the “Thessalian antiquities” indicates that rostovtzeff’s off-the-cuff remarks derailed for a while any seri-ous studies of those objects. The distrust that those remarks inspired is largely responsible for the lack of any publication in the last century or so on some of the most important objects in the collection, despite a number of significant efforts, particularly in the USA, to put the study of the Velestino find on the right track by means of scientific analyses. one of the most energetic in such pursuits was Frances Follin Jones. Jones attempted to recruit Gladys Weinberg Davidson (1909–2002), an American archaeologist working on the early Middle Ages in Greece, to undertake the difficult task of piecing together the disparate elements of the Velestino puzzle.37 In the early 1960s, Weinberg Davidson was convinced that “this is the point (in fact, past the point) where some-thing should be done about the Princeton plaques”.38 But she declined Jones’s invitation to take up the project, and instead offered to help in any way she could, including sharing the materials she had accumulated over the years as analogies for the Princeton pieces. She sent her hand-written notes to Jones, and a copy made in 1980 reveals that she had already begun to approach the question in a systematic fashion. Weinberg Davidson noted that the plaques were “homogeneous in technique”, although heterogeneous in style, “ranging from the most naturalistic expression to a highly stylized formula”. She is the first to have noted that the pair of “saints” represented on one of the Princeton lead pieces

Fig. 2.11 The main sites in Eastern Europe that are mentioned in the text: 1—Arapaj; 2—Biala; 3—Bijaći; 4—Biskupija; 5—Čarevci; 6—Caričin Grad; 7—Čitluk; 8—Corinth; 9—Dikovača-Zmijavci; 10—Durrës; 11—Eski Kermen; 12—Felnac; 13—Gaponovo; 14—Gardun; 15—Glavice; 16—Gornji Bitelić; 17—Gyapa; 18—Hansca; 19—Igumnovo; 20—Jurgaičiai; 21—Kamenica; 22—Kamenovo; 23—Khorol; 24—Knin; 25—Kugulta; 26—Kurilovka; 27—Kuzebaevo; 28—Lamboussa; 29—Lučani; 30—Luchistoe; 31—Martynivka; 32—Mikhalkovo; 33—Moshchenka; 34—Nea Anchialos; 35—Nikadzimava; 36—Nova odessa; 37—Novigrad; 38—Novo Turbasly; 39—osh-Pando-Ner’; 40—Pervomaiskoe; 41—Pregradnaia; 42—Pridraga; 43—rákóczifalva; 44—roztoky; 45—Smyrna (İzmir); 46—Sardis; 47—Shtish-Tufinë; 48—Sveti Erazmo; 49—Tiszafüred; 50—Trebujeni; 51—Trubchevsk; 52—Urzall; 53—Velyki Budky; 54—Věrovany; 55—Vinica; 56—Vladimirskoe; 57—Vrap; 58—Vrlika; 59—Vrrin/Shënavlash; 60—Volos; 61—Zamárdi; 62—Žrnovnica. The star marks the location of Velestino

◀


implies a Christian meaning, which directly contradicts Werner’s interpre-tation of the “Thessalian antiquities” as objects of Slavic pagan cult. At any rate, she believed the piece with the pair of “saints” to be “the essen-tial clue to the terminus post quem of the collection”. If authentic, then the “Thessalian antiquities” are not of the Scythian, but of an early medi-eval date.39 Weinberg Davidson’s approach was two-pronged: on the one hand, she wanted to collect all the information available on the Velestino find and reconstruct as much as possible the original size and com-position of the assemblage. on the other hand, she had begun to look for parallels in an attempt to build an archaeological and cultural con-text within which the interpretation of the assemblage may be possible. Thirty-seven years later, our way to approach the problem remains the same. After reassembling the entire collection, based on the information available, stylistical questions should be addressed first. We will therefore turn now to the connections of the Velestino hoard to early medieval metalwork in Eastern Europe (Figs. 2.11 and 2.12).

notes

1. Carlo Cecchèlli, “Arte paleoslava,” Memorie storiche forogiuliesi 40 (1953), 189 (“Ecco gli orribili pupazzi di Velestino ritrovati dopo ardui lavori di scavo con gallerie e mine sotto montagne di cartaccia”). Paribeni had travelled through Thessaly 13 years before his letter to Cecchèlli and wrote about his trip. He mentioned Larissa, Trikala and the monastery of Meteora near Kalabaka, but neither Volos, nor Velestino. See roberto Paribeni, “Un escursione in Tessaglia (1901),” Bollettino d’arte 139 (2007), 9–16. Nor did Giorgios A. Sotiriou know anything about the dis-covery in Velestino or its environs, despite him carrying out excavations in 1924 at Nea Anchialos, some 17 miles to the southeast from Velestino. See Giorgios A. Sotiriou, “Ai christianikai Thebai tes Thessalias,” Archaiologike ephemeris: ekdidomene tes archaiologikes hetaireias 75 (1929), 1. on the other hand, Cecchèlli had already heard from Paribeni about the Velestino objects, one or two years prior to him receiving the 1924 letter. This strongly suggests that the discovery was made in the early 1920s.

Fig. 2.12 The main sites in Eastern Europe that are mentioned in the text. Numbers refer to place names listed for Fig. 2.11. The rectangle bottom left marks the upper right corner of Fig. 2.11

◀


2. Cecchèlli, “Arte paleoslava,” 190 (“esso sta in un burrone del monte Kara-Dagh, o Mavro-Vouni”). To be sure, there is a certain ambiguity in the Italian text, as “esso” may refer both to “il luogo di ritrovamento” (pre-sumably the specific spot in which the objects have been found) and to Velestino. It is also possible that by “luogo di ritrovamento,” Cecchèlli meant the town in (or next to) which the objects had been found and not the specific spot of discovery. In that case, his reference to a “ravine of Mount Kara-Dagh” may simply be a metaphorical way to say that Velestino is located immediately to the southeast (or “down the slope”) from that mountain. on the other hand, there is an old mine shaft on Mavrolithari (see below, note 4), one of the hills of the Chalkodonion. Mavrovouni is in fact the name of another hill to the northeast from Lake Karla. A Byzantine settlement was signalled by field survey in the area between Mavrolithra and Chalkodonion, at a place called Kranovo (Palaiochori).

3. Immediately next to those hills, the famous battle of Cynoscephalae took place in 197 B.C., during which Philip V of Macedonia (221–179 B.C.) was defeated by the roman army led by the consul Titus Quinctius Flamininius (ca. 229–ca. 174 B.C).

4. Dafydd Kidd, “The Velestínon (Thessaly) hoard—a footnote,” in Awarenforschungen, ed. Falko Daim (Vienna: Institut für Ur- und Frühgeschichte der Universität Wien, 1992), 510. To be sure, copper ores exist in the area (hence the name of the hills) and were mined in ancient times. one ancient mine is located on Mavrolithra, at a place now known as Mademi. We owe a great deal of gratitude to Stergios Laitsos (a native of the area), who has greatly improved our understanding of the ancient and modern geography of the environs of Velestino.

5. In 1919 or 1920, Arvanitopoulos brought to the museum in Volos a number of “small votive bronzes” from Velestino, which were believed to be of prehistoric (Geometric) date. See “Chronique des fouilles et découvertes archéologiques dans l’orient hellénique (novembre 1919– novembre 1920),” Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 44 (1920), 396. More “ex votos de bronze (figurines d’animaux, d’oiseaux)” are men-tioned as having been found during Arvanitopolous’s excavation of the temple he attributed to Zeus Thaulios: “Chronique des fouilles et décou-vertes archéologiques dans l’orient hellénique (novembre 1920–novem-bre 1921),” Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 45 (1921), 529.

6. Princeton University Art Museum, loans file (letter of April 13, 1924). on file is also the receipt Mather gave for the purchase of the artefacts on 11 April 1924. He paid to the antiquary in Athens $140 for 3 pieces of bronze and 15 of lead. There is a slight discrepancy between the number of pieces mentioned in the letter of April 13 and the actual number in the Princeton collection (19), and the number of pieces indicated on the receipt (18).


7. Princeton University Art Museum, loans file (letter of January 31, 1929). 8. Charles Vignier, “L’aventureux art scythe,” Aréthuse 2 (1925), no. 4,

56–62. 9. Vignier, “L’aventureux art scythe,” 60. 10. “Correspondance,” Aréthuse 2 (1925), no. 9, 142–46. 11. Michael rostovtzeff, Iranians and Greeks in South Russia (oxford:

Clarendon Press, 1922); Skifiia i Bospor, Kriticheskie obozrenie pamiat-nikov literaturnykh, arkheologicheskikh (Leningrad: rossiiskaia Akademiia Istorii Material’noi Kul’tury, 1925).

12. “Correspondance,” 144; see also Vignier, “L’aventureux art scythe,” pls. XII/1, 2 and XIV/2, 7.

13. “Correspondance,” 144. rostovtzeff seems to allude here to the work of the brothers S. and L. Hochman, who were active in odessa dur-ing the decade before World War I. The Hochman brothers have been linked to the (in)famous “Sarmatian group” of odessa forgeries, speci-mens of which had been sold to the Louvre (the “Tiara of Saitaphernes,” withdrawn from display only in 1903) and ended up in English private collections as late as the early 1920s. The Hochman brothers worked on patterns drawn up from the illustrations of such books as Nikodim P. Kondakov, Ivan I. Tolstoi, and Salomon reinach, Antiquités de la Russie méridionale (Paris: E. Leroux, 1891). See roger Moorey, “The Sarmatian group of odessa forgeries,” in Fake? The Art of Deception, ed. Mark Jones (Berkeley/Los Angeles, 1990), 166–67. However, the Hochman brothers worked only in gold or silver, never in bronze or lead. They also moved to Berlin, and not to Athens after the Bolshevik revolu-tion of 1917.

14. “Correspondance,” 144. 15. Princeton University Art Museum, loans file (letter of January 31, 1929). 16. As a matter of fact, they were published in the museum’s periodical: Earl

Baldwin Smith, “Mediaeval Art: minor plastic collections,” Art and Archaeology 20 (1925), 130–31.

17. Princeton University Art Museum, loans file (letter of January 31, 1929). Completely unaware of this argument, Dafydd Kidd believes that “there is no corresponding pair for the lion figure, nor for any other models in the find” of Velestino (Kidd, “The Velestínon (Thessaly) hoard,” 511).

18. Cecchèlli, “Arte paleoslava,” 203. 19. In his 1953 article, Cecchèlli published a number of objects that do not

appear either among those published by Vignier in 1925 or among those in the Princeton collection. For example, the figurine with a woman with a harp—the second piece on the left, top row in Cecchèlli, “Arte pale-oslava,” plate I—is neither that in Vignier, “L’aventureux art scythe,” pl. XIV/1, nor the corresponding lead pair in Princeton, as the hole


between the right arm and the body is round, not D-shaped, while the angle between the knee and the harp is slightly wider. The masked man on Cecchèlli, “Arte paleoslava,” plate II (first on the right, top row) with description on pages 191–92 does not appear in any other publication or collection. This suggests that Cecchèlli published in 1953 the pho-tographs he had received from Paribeni in 1924. In that case, it looks like Paribeni had taken pictures of objects other than those that ended up in the Vignier or Princeton collections. It remains unknown under what specific circumstances were the photographs taken, which Paribeni then sent to Cecchèlli. Was Paribeni in Athens in 1924? Could he have been approached by the same antiquary in Athens, who sold the lot of 19 pieces to Mather? Where are now the objects that Paribeni (or some-one on his behalf) photographed in 1924 or shortly before that? only research in the Paribeni personal archives in rome may elucidate this problem.

20. “Correspondance,” 146; Kidd, “The Velestínon (Thessaly) hoard,” 510 with n. 5. According to Henri rivière (ed.), Documents d’art chinois de la collection Osvald Sirén (Paris/Brussels: G. van oest, 1925), 84, Sirén acquired 3 pieces from Vignier, but knew of another 25 original objects, most likely those he had seen in the collection of the Swiss poet.

21. otto Kurz, Fakes: A Handbook for Collectors and Students (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1948; 2nd edition, 1967), 313. Unlike rostovtzeff, Kurz believed that the vast majority of the figures were “pure products of fantasy, combining the primitive with the abstruse, as do all forgeries”.

22. Joachim Werner, Slawische Bronzefiguren aus Nordgriechenland (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1953). Werner had already attributed to the (migration of the) Slavs a group of bow fibulae ever since then known as “Slavic”. See Joachim Werner, “Slawische Bügelfibeln des 7. Jahrhunderts,” in Reinecke Festschrift zum 75. Geburtstag von Paul Reinecke am 25. September 1947, ed. G. Behrens (Mainz: E. Schneider, 1950), 150–72. For the Cold War-era fascination with the early Slavs, see Samuel Hazzard Cross, Slavic Civilization Through the Ages (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1948); Karl Treimer, Ethnogenese der Slawen (Vienna: Gerold, 1954); Francis Dvornik, The Slavs, Their Early History and Civilization (Boston: American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 1956); and Ernst Schwarz, “Das Vordringen der Slawen nach Westen,” Südost-Forschungen 15 (1956), 86–108. Werner’s interpretation of the “Thessalian antiquities” was quickly endorsed by Josip Korošec, “Arheološki sledovi slovanske naselitve na Balkanu,” Zgodovinski časopis 8 (1954), 17–20.

23. ol’ga A. Shcheglova, “Taina ‘pliashushchikh chelovechkov’ i ‘sledy nevi-dannykh zverei’. Antropo- i zoomorfnye izobrazheniia v ranneslavianskoi metalloplastike,” in Slaviano-russkoe iuvelirnoe delo i ego istoki. Materialy


Mezhdunarodnoi nauchnoi konferencii posviashchennoi 100-letiiu so dnia rozhdeniia Gali Fedorovny Korzukhinoi. Sankt-Peterburg, 10–16 apre-lia 2006 g., ed. Anna A. Peskova, ol’ga A. Shcheglova, and Aleksandr E. Musin (St. Petersburg: Nestor-Istoriia, 2010), 156–57. For the “Thessalian antiquities” and the religion of the early Slavs, see Nikos Chausidis, Mitskite sliki na Iuzhnite Sloveni (Skopje: Misla, 1994); “Mythical pictures of the South Slavs,” Studia mythologica Slavica 2 (1999), 275–96; “ranosrednovekovnata bronzena raka od romanija i nejzinite relacii so slovenskite paganski tradicii,” Studia mythologica Slavica 6 (2005), 37–106.

24. Sherman E. Lee, “The year in review for 1979,” The Bulletin of the Cleveland Museum of Art 67 (1980), no. 3, 58–99, here 95 and 63 Fig. 3.

25. Princeton University Art Museum, loans file (letter of February 29, 1980).

26. Princeton University Art Museum, loans file (letter of March 26, 1980). Earle r. Caley, the author of the report, had been professor in the Department of Chemistry at Princeton between 1939 and 1943.

27. Earle r. Caley, “Notes on the chemical evidence for the genuineness of two questioned Byzantine metal objects,” report in the Princeton University Art Museum, loans file. For a transcript of the report, see Appendix 1.

28. Princeton University Art Museum, loans file (letter of April 8, 1980). In another letter of 1 May 1980, Kozloff expressed her and her col-leagues’ feeling that “at least the bronzes are indeed ancient”. The anal-ysis was performed in the Scientific research and Analysis Laboratory of the Winterthur Museum (Delaware). For the spectrographic analysis report, see Appendix 2.

29. Princeton University Art Museum, loans file (letter of April 14, 1980). 30. Princeton University Art Museum, loans file (letters of April 30, 1980 and

May 1, 1980, respectively). 31. Princeton University Art Museum, loans file (letters of August 5, 1980

and November 27, 1980, respectively). 32. Sotheby’s. Antiquities and Islamic Art, Friday, June 23, 1989,

no. 173. The starting price for the hand (said to be from “romania”) was $8000–12,000, in sharp contrast (even when accounting for infla-tion) to the $140 that Mather had paid in 1924 for 19 pieces in Athens. For the votive hand auctioned in 1989 at Sotheby’s, see also Kidd, “The Velestínon (Thessaly) hoard,” 509–10.

33. Kidd, “The Velestínon (Thessaly) hoard”. Like Prudence Harper, Kidd compared the pieces showing human figures in the Velestino find to those from the Martynivka hoard. He was already working at that time on some of the artefacts from the latter assemblage that are now in the British


Museum, and later co-authored the monograph of the hoard. See Liudmila V. Pekars’ka and Dafydd Kidd, “Neue Untersuchungen am frühmit-telalterlichen Silberfund von Martynovka,” in Gold der Steppe: Archäologie der Ukraine, ed. renate rolle, Michael Müller-Wille, and Kurt Schietzel (Neumünster: Karl Wachholtz, 1991), 243–47; Liudmila V. Pekars’ka and Dafydd Kidd, Der Silberschatz von Martynovka (Ukraine) aus dem 6. und 7. Jahrhundert (Innsbruck: Universitätsverlag Wagner, 1994).

34. Princeton University Art Museum, loans file (letter of February 25, 1993). The bronze piece in question may well be the bronze leopard (Cat. 30) that was eventually acquired by the British Museum.

35. Princeton University Art Museum, loans file (letter of March 9, 1993). Padgett wrote that, to his knowledge, “none of the pieces has ever been subjected to metallurgical (sic) analysis”. He apparently did not know about Caley’s report.

36. Marcel Ebnöther and Elisabeth Ebnöther, Vom Toten Meer zum Stillen Ozean. Sammlung Ebnöther. Museum zu Allerheiligen (ostfildern-ruit: Gerd Hatje, 1999), 229 (said to be from “Southeastern Europe”). This may very well be a piece from the Vignier collection (Vignier, “L’aventureux art scythe,” pl. XIV/1).

37. Princeton University Art Museum, loans file (letter of March 27, 1980). Jones kept Weinberg Davidson informed about her communication with Arielle Kozloff.

38. Princeton University Art Museum, loans file (letter of January 26, 1964). According to her letter of 2 April 1980, Gladys Weinberg first met Mather in Athens in 1937, when she was introduced to him by Charles Morgan as an authority on Slavic matters. Mather later brought her to Princeton.

39. Gladys r. Davidson, “Lead and bronze plaques, acc. No. 98,” Princeton University Art Museum, loans file (typed copy made in 1980).

references

Archival Sources

Princeton University Art Museum, loans file.

Secondary Literature

Cecchèlli, Carlo. “Arte paleoslava.” Memorie Storiche Forogiuliesi 40 (1953), 189–204.

Chausidis, Nikos. Mitskite sliki na Iuzhnite Sloveni. Skopje: Misla, 1994.


———. “Mythical pictures of the South Slavs.” Studia mythologica Slavica 2 (1999), 275–96.

———. “ranosrednovekovnata bronzena raka od romanija i nejzinite relacii so slovenskite paganski tradicii.” Studia mythologica Slavica 6 (2005), 37–106.

Cross, Samuel Hazzard. Slavic Civilization Through the Ages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1948.

Dvornik, Francis. The Slavs, Their Early History and Civilization. Boston: American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 1956.

Ebnöther, Marcel, and Elisabeth Ebnöther. Vom Toten Meer zum Stillen Ozean. Sammlung Ebnöther. Museum zu Allerheiligen. ostfildern-ruit: Gerd Hatje, 1999.

Kidd, Dafydd. “The Velestínon (Thessaly) hoard—a footnote.” In Awarenforschungen, edited by Falko Daim, 509–15. Vienna: Institut für Ur- und Frühgeschichte der Universität Wien, 1992.


Kurz, otto. Fakes: A Handbook for Collectors and Students. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1948; 2nd edition, 1967.

Lee, Sherman E. “The year in review for 1979.” The Bulletin of the Cleveland Museum of Art 67.3 (1980), 58–99.

Moorey, roger. “The Sarmatian group of odessa forgeries.” In Fake? The Art of Deception, edited by Mark Jones, 166–67. Berkeley/Los Angeles, 1990.

(no author). “Chronique des fouilles et découvertes archéologiques dans l’orient hellénique (novembre 1919–novembre 1920).” Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 44 (1920), 367–415.

———. “Chronique des fouilles et découvertes archéologiques dans l’orient hellénique (novembre 1920–novembre 1921).” Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 45 (1921), 487–568.

Paribeni, roberto. “Un escursione in Tessaglia (1901).” Bollettino d’arte 139 (2007), 9–16.

Pekars’ka, Liudmila V., and Dafydd Kidd. “Neue Untersuchungen am frühmit-telalterlichen Silberfund von Martynovka.” In Gold der Steppe. Archäologie der Ukraine, edited by renate rolle, Michael Müller-Wille, and Kurt Schietzel, 243–47. Neumünster: Karl Wachholtz, 1991.

———. Der Silberschatz von Martynovka (Ukraine) aus dem 6. und 7. Jahrhundert (Monographien zur Frühgeschichte und Mittelalterarchäologie, 1). Innsbruck: Universitätsverlag Wagner, 1994.

rivière, Henri (ed.). Documents d’art chinois de la collection Osvald Sirén. Paris/Brussels: G. van oest, 1925.

rostovtzeff, Michael. Iranians and Greeks in South Russia. oxford: Clarendon Press, 1922.

———. “Correspondance.” Aréthuse 2 (1925a), no. 9, 142–46.


———. Skifiia i Bospor, Kriticheskie obozrenie pamiatnikov literaturnykh, arkhe-ologicheskikh. Leningrad: rossiiskaia Akademiia Istorii Material’noi Kul’tury, 1925b.

Schwarz, Ernst. “Das Vordringen der Slawen nach Westen.” Südost-Forschungen 15 (1956), 86–108.

Shcheglova, ol’ga A. “Taina ‘pliashushchikh chelovechkov’ i ‘sledy nevidannykh zverei’. Antropo- i zoomorfnye izobrazheniia v ranneslavianskoi metalloplas-tike.” In Slaviano-russkoe iuvelirnoe delo i ego istoki. Materialy Mezhdunarodnoi nauchnoi konferencii posviashchennoi 100-letiiu so dnia rozhdeniia Gali Fedorovny Korzukhinoi. Sankt-Peterburg, 10–16 aprelia 2006 g., edited by Anna A. Peskova, ol’ga A. Shcheglova, and Aleksandr E. Musin, 146–71 and 593–94. St. Petersburg: Nestor-Istoriia, 2010.

Smith, Earl Baldwin. “Mediaeval art: Minor plastic collections.” Art and Archaeology 20 (1925), 130–31.

Sotiriou, Giorgios A. “Ai christianikai Thebai tes Thessalias.” Archaiologike ephemeris: ekdidomene tes archaiologikes hetaireias 75 (1929), 1–158.

Tolstoi, Ivan I., and Nikodim P. Kondakov. Russkie drevnosti v pamiatnikakh isk-usstva, 3. St. Petersburg, 1890.

Treimer, Karl. Ethnogenese der Slawen. Vienna: Gerold, 1954.Vignier, Charles. “L’aventureux art scythe.” Aréthuse 2.4 (1925), 56–62.Werner, Joachim. “Slawische Bügelfibeln des 7. Jahrhunderts.” In Reinecke

Festschrift zum 75. Geburtstag von Paul Reinecke am 25. September 1947, edited by G. Behrens, 150–72. Mainz: E. Schneider, 1950.

———. Slawische Bronzefiguren aus Nordgriechenland. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1953.

39

Thirty-two out of 88 pieces (36.4%) in the collection of “Thessalian antiquities” found in Velestino are, or contain, representations of humans. Thirteen of those pieces (40%) are bronze duplicates of lead pieces, which sometimes appear in pairs (Cat. 13 and 14, 46 and 47, 52 and 53). Duplicates are typically of lead and bronze, with the exception of Cat. 63 and 64, both of bronze. The close examination of those pieces reveals not only a relative stylistic homogeneity, but also important dif-ferences in details pertaining to the production process.

Ten pieces of the Velestino collection contain images of children. In three of them, the child is shown together with an animal, probably a wolf (Cat. 13–15). The animal is shown standing to the right, with a large head with two small ears, a prominent eye and open mouth expos-ing the teeth (Fig. 3.1). The latter is probably meant to indicate the ani-mal snarling. All along the upper part of the body, from the head to the short tail, a narrow band decorated with short parallel lines represents the animal’s hair. The hindquarters are covered with two intersecting bands of parallel, short lines, one of which turns onto itself (Fig. 3.2).1 Five other, slightly curved bands of short, parallel lines cover the neck. The decoration on the neck is separated from that on the hindquarters by two parallel lines running across the piece, almost in its middle. All four legs of the animal are also decorated with hatching, and three of them show paws with prominent claws. The body of the child is shown between the front legs, covering almost entirely the left leg. The small,

CHAPTEr 3

Humans or Human-Like Figures


https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04846-4_3



bent legs of the child are rendered in relief on a flat, blank surface, prob-ably in an attempt to show that the child, possibly an infant, is lying on the ground. The child’s head has barely distinct eyes and mouth, with a semicircular “crown” of short, parallel lines to represent the hair. The head is separated from the body by a collar of similarly parallel, short lines. only the left arm is shown, bent from the elbow and pointing with an exaggerated hand to the left. The fingers of the child’s hand are very similar to the claws on the animal’s paws (Fig. 3.2). Despite the snarling pose of the animal, the scene does not seem to represent the imminent devouring of the child by a hungry wolf. Instead, the position of the helpless child between the front legs of the wolf suggests a different sce-nario. The left-hand gesture of the child seems to imply speech, perhaps in a dialogue with the animal. The meaning of the scene may be related to a fable, perhaps one of Aesop’s fables, “The Wolf and the Boy”. In that fable, a wolf, having caught sight of a boy lying flat on the ground and desperately trying to hide from him, offers to his victim the chance to save his life. In exchange, he asks the boy to utter three things, the truth of which could not be disputed. The boy replies: “First, it is a pity

Fig. 3.1 Lead plaque (Cat. 15), one of a triplet (Photo: Florin Curta)

3 HUMANS or HUMAN-LIKE FIGUrES 41

Fig. 3.2 Details of Cat. 15: head of the animal with child, and hind legs (Photo: Florin Curta)


that you saw me; secondly, I was a fool to let myself be seen; and thirdly, we all hate wolves because they are always making unprovoked attacks upon our flocks”. recognizing the truth of all three statements, at least from the boy’s point of view, the wolf let him go.

Two other children appear on Cat. 42 and 43. This is the image of a human leaping to the right (Fig. 3.3). The head has a prominent nose, eyes and mouth, but no apparent hair, as it seems to be covered by a hood-like headdress, most likely a veil (Fig. 3.4). A “collar” made of short, parallel lines, similar to that separating the child’s head from its body on Cat. 13–15, may represent either a necklace or the neck opening of the dress. However, no dress is shown by any details of dec-oration. That the human in question is a woman results from the two breasts shown under the shoulder as a pair of concentric circles, as well as for the clearly marked vagina, with a number of radially arranged lines to represent the pubic hair. The feet are clearly visible, with four fingers shown for each. Both arms are bent from the elbows. The left hand rests on the left knee holding a musical instrument with five sides, a board decorated with a bird, and 8 strings (Fig. 3.4). This is most likely not a harp, but a psaltery, i.e. a soundboard with pre-tuned strings to be plucked.2 The woman’s right hand rests on the waist, four fingers over the back of a child shown in a seating position, with flexed legs, in the middle of her body. The child’s head is turned towards the viewer and has very large eyes. His right hand is bent from the elbow and raised in the direction of the woman’s left breast (Fig. 3.4). Because of the unu-sual position of the child in relation to the woman’s body, the position of her feet, as well as the absence of the thumb in the image of the right hand of the woman, it is unlikely that this is an image of a woman with an infant on her lap.3 Instead, the child is most likely shown as still being in the womb. The association of the child in the womb with the psal-tery in the left hand is probably to be explained in biblical terms. The instrument is mentioned several times in the Psalms: “Let them praise His name with dance/With tambourine and harp (ψαλτηρίω) let them sing”.4 If so, the scene may be an illustration of the encounter between Mary and Elizabeth, who told the former, “For indeed, as soon as the voice of your greeting sounded in my ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy” (Luke 1:44). In that case, the child in the womb is St. John the Baptist.

The prominent eyes of the child on Cat. 42–43 are very similar to those on the face of the human figure represented on two other pieces,


Fig. 3.3 Lead plaque (Cat. 43), one of a pair (Photo: Florin Curta)


Fig. 3.4 Details of Cat. 43: head, child, back of the plaque (right foot), and psaltery (Photo: Florin Curta)


one of bronze, the other of lead (Cat. 44–45; Fig. 3.5). The figure’s head has short hair in the form of a “crown” of parallel lines. Just like with the woman in Cat. 42–43, there is a “collar” around the neck, but in this case, it is likely the neck opening a long dress, reaching below the knees (Fig. 3.6). The lower part of this dress is decorated with a double motif—a row of semicircles, and below them oblique, parallel lines. The arms are bent from the elbows and raised to the level of the shoulders,



Fig. 3.6 Details of Cat. 45: head, breast, reverse of the plaque (right wing) (Photo: Florin Curta)


with hands facing the viewer, in a position reminding one of the surrender hand gesture. The hands are disproportionate, and the thumb is recognizable only on the right hand of Cat. 44. In the middle of the chest, two circles are meant to represent the breasts, but without nipples (Fig. 3.6). Hanging from the arms are two wings, the tips of which reach to the level of the knees. The feet are turned to opposite ways, with no toes, probably wearing some kind of shoes. The posture of the body and the gesture of hands suggest that Cat. 44–45 are the representation of an archangel, possibly Gabriel in the Annunciation scene: “But when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and considered what manner of greeting this was. Then the angel said to her: ‘Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God’” (Luke 1:29).

A different kind of human appears on three pieces, two of bronze and one of lead (Cat. 47–48; Fig. 3.7). This is a man with a bowl-cut hair-style, with bangs at the front, and a beard (Fig. 3.8). The body position is half frontal, half profile. The left hand, with the arm bent at the elbow, holds an object straight up. The object looks like an axe, but its blade is turned towards the man’s head, which it even overlaps a bit, as if shown in perspective (Fig. 3.8). However, this may be not a weapon or a tool, but a percussion instrument, known as crotales.5 This interpretation is supported by the analysis of the object in the right hand, the arm of which is bent from the elbow to the right. Joachim Werner believed the circular object to be a small shield, but the rendition of the hand with spread-out fingers contradicts that interpretation.6 Moreover, the circular object is decorated with oblique, short and parallel lines around the cir-cumference (Fig. 3.8). This ornamental detail suggests that the object in question is a tambourine, with the parallel lines representing the zils. Moreover, the man’s body position with legs slightly flexed from the knees and shown sideways suggests a dancing movement. The body is decorated on the chest with a semicircular, checkerboard ornament, which continues as a tongue-shaped band to the groin area (Fig. 3.8). This is in fact the only indication that the man wears some kind of garment.7 It is important to note that the space between the man’s head, his arm and the object he holds in his left hand is not cut out, but solid and flat, much like the space between the hand and the hip of the female shown by Cat. 42–43 (Fig. 3.8). In both cases, such a “bridge” was most likely meant to increase the resistance of marginal components, which could have easily been broken if supported only by thin areas of contact to the main piece. This concern with the fragility of peripheral details was not associated with lead specimens alone, but with their bronze replicas as well.


Fig. 3.8 Details of Cat. 48: head, right hand with tambourine, garment deco-ration, and right hand with crotales (Photo: Florin Curta)


Like the dancer with crotales and tambourine, another bearded human figure is represented in three pieces, two of bronze and one of lead. (Cat. 52–54) The head of this figure has an elaborate headdress, a thin, handlebar moustache, and two large, flopping ears (Fig. 3.9). The body, however, has no arms. Instead, two pairs of lobes on either side are decorated with concentric circles. The body is further decorated with a central disc on the chest and two wing-like ornaments on either side. Two legs stretch out of this composition, with feet turned to opposite sides, much like those of the archangel on Cat. 44–45 (Fig. 3.9). The circular motifs on the lobes and in the middle of the body are most likely meant to represent eyes, in which case the image is that of a seraph: “The four living creatures, each having six wings, were full of eyes around and within”.8 That interpretation is substantiated by the wing-like motifs on the body.

The human figure on Cat. 55–56 is different from all others discussed so far. Its head is shown in profile, with a bowl-cut hairstyle.9 The left hand holds a bladed weapon (most likely, a sword) with the tip turned upwards, slightly towards the head. The right hand holds a circular shield decorated with small semicircles on the margins, not unlike those in the ornament of the lower part of the garment in Cat. 44–45. There is a cross in the middle of the shield, with a small circle at the end of each one of the cross’s ends. The human figure rides a horse, with no indica-tion of saddle. The left leg hangs on the side of the horse’s body, with the foot rendered schematically, perhaps wearing some kind of shoes. only the left legs of the horse are shown, with that in the front stretched out, as if making a sudden stop, an impression accentuated by the arched haunch. The hind leg is larger than the front leg, with a cross-like motif on the haunch, clearly visible on the specimen that surfaced on the art market in 2005. The horse has a short tail and trumpet-like hooves. Its head has the mouth slightly sketched, with a small ear on top. A number of concentric circles decorate the horse’s head on the specimen that sur-faced on the art market in 2005; one of those circles is meant to indicate the eye. It is important to note a few details distinguishing that specimen from the one published by Charles Vignier, Joachim Werner and Carlo Cecchèlli. on the latter, the space between the human’s neck, arm and shield is not cut out, like on that surfaced on the art market in 2005. Moreover, on the latter, there is a support in the form of a short rod between the shield and the horse’s head, which does not appear on the specimen first published by Vignier. Both details betray the same concern


Fig. 3.9 Details of Cat. 54, one of a triplet: head and feet (Photo: Florin Curta)


with the fragility of peripheral details (the shield, in this case) that is apparent on Cat. 47–48. It is also worth noting that Cat. 55–56 are the only human representations in the collection for which there is no corre-sponding piece cast in lead. What is the meaning of this representation? Ante Milošević sees a great similarity between the Velestino warrior on horseback and a bas-relief with the “horseman in hunting scene” from Žrnovnica near Split (Croatia). on the basis of the interlacing-ribbon patterns surrounding the scene, he dated the bas-relief to the seventh or eighth century and interpreted it as the image of the Slavic God Perun.10 Whether one accepts his interpretation or not, that certainly cannot apply to the Velestino warrior, because of the cross on the horse’s back, which is visible on Cat. 56.11

A second horseman in the collection has no duplicate (Cat. 57) and is in many respects different from Cat. 55–56. The head of the horseman is small, with a bowl-cut hairstyle, but no facial features. The rider, in this case, moves to the right, so only the right leg of the human is shown, with a large boot on the foot, hanging on the side of the horse’s body. That this is a warrior on horseback results from the spear that the man holds in his right hand. The triangular head of the spear points to the ground. The right hand seems to hold the reins, which are clearly indi-cated across the neck of the horse, but do not reach to its mouth. The human sits in a saddle, only the back part of which is visible. As with Cat. 55–56, only two of the horse’s legs are shown, this time the right ones. Unlike Cat. 55–56, their position suggests the movement of the animal. The small tail of the horse has the form of a bun. The haunch is covered with round motifs. There is a clear indication of the breast-plate and halters, all straps covered with circles, perhaps indicating deco-rative mounts. The horse’s head has an open mouth, nostrils, ears and an eye, with the mane represented by three prominences, each with two or three parallel lines, perhaps indicating button or knob braids. This may well be the image of a military saint. As early as the sixth century, both St. George and St. Theodore appear as mounted warriors. The fragmen-tary, terracotta plaque from Vinica (Macedonia) even has St. Theodore holding a draco military standard in the right hand, with its lower end pointing to the ground, very much like in the image on Cat. 57.12

Equally unique (i.e. without any duplicate) are 5 bronze items that surfaced on the art market in 2005 (Cat. 58–62). The head of one of them (Cat. 58) is broken, but the remaining fragment clearly shows the long hair falling on the shoulders (rendered as parallel, short lines),


as well the sketched facial features (eyes, eyebrows, nose and mouth). The two breasts rendered as small concentric circles suggest that this is the image of a woman. Her long dress reaching almost to the ankles is decorated in the lower part with an ornament made of parallel, oblique lines, much like that of the archangel on Cat. 44–45. The woman’s arms are bent from the elbows, with hands placed on the waist. Three lines in the region of each wrist may indicate bracelets. Both feet are schemati-cally rendered, as those of the archangel on Cat. 44–45 or the seraph on Cat. 52–54. Unlike those, however, they are both turned to the right, as if the body is shown in a spinning movement, since its upper part, including the head, is shown frontally. The hands on the waist and the turning body position suggest a dancing movement.

The head of another unique specimen (Cat. 59) is broken, like that of Cat. 58. The head in this case has short hair, moustache and beard, thus suggesting a man. The man, shown frontally, wears a long robe reaching almost to the ankles, very much like that of Cat. 58. His arms are bent from the elbows with hands resting one on top of the other on the groin. The feet are also rendered schematically, and like those of the archangel in Cat. 44–45 or the seraph in Cat. 52–54, they are turned to opposite sides. A long object stretches from the man’s lower back to the right: this is most likely a scabbard or a quiver.

The human on the bronze piece at Cat. 60 is riding on the back of a dog-headed animal, to the left. The human’s head, turned to the viewer, has short hair; his left hand is raised in front of the head. only the left leg is shown above the front, left leg of the animal. The animal’s head is large, with an open mouth and visible fangs, a large, teardrop-shaped eye and a small ear. The two front legs are shown parallel to each other, each paw with claws represented by parallel lines. An undulating orna-ment of parallel lines on the neck may represent a mane. The rest of the body is cut off, but whether that is intentional or the result of damage cannot be established on the basis of the photograph in the loans file at the Princeton University Art Museum. However, it is quite clear that Cat. 60 is similar to Cat. 56, in that the human’s raised hand and the animal’s head are connected with a rod, no doubt meant to increase the resistance of the hand. Similarly, a circular cell was placed between the paws of the animal’s front legs to prevent breakage.

The head of the human represented standing on Cat. 61 is covered by a hood-like headdress, most likely a veil, similar to that of the woman in Cat. 42–43. The legs are crossed, but there is no indication either


of a dress or of nudity. The left arm is bent from the elbow with the hand supporting the left side of the head, while the right hand, the arm of which is also bent from the elbow, rests on the left elbow. The body posture is definitely pensive, with an expressive attitude, the meaning of which, however, is difficult to establish.13

Equally difficult is the interpretation of another unique, bronze piece (Cat. 62) showing two humans embracing each other. The two heads are turned towards the viewer, one with short, the other with long hair (per-haps even a hairband), indicating a man and a woman. Their bodies are stippled, which may suggest nakedness. The woman’s left hand rests on the man’s right shoulder, his right hand on her waist. The man appears to sit on something, with parallel legs and feet turned to the right. The woman is sitting on his lap, with her left leg over his right leg. The close-ness of their bodies suggests sexual intercourse, but the exact meaning of the scene may be related to the representation of the two heads turning towards the viewer, as if the two were shocked of being caught in the act. The two naked humans, possibly Adam and Eve, look frightened, perhaps at the sight of God.

The human shown on two pieces cast in bronze (Cat. 63–64) has a head with short hair, but indistinct facial features. Judging by the breasts rendered as two small circles, this may be a woman. Her long dress reaches below the knees and is decorated with a semicircular line across the chest, as well as two sets of three lines, one at the waist, the other at the bottom. The feet are very much like those of the humans represented on Cat. 44–45, 52–54 and 59—turned to opposite directions. Both arms are bent at the elbows, with raised hands and palms turned upwards, in a praying position.

The feet turned to opposite directions characterize also the two pieces, one of bronze, the other of lead, showing two standing humans, one next to the other (Cat. 65–66; Fig. 3.10). Their faces are sur-rounded by an elaborate decoration, the upper part of which shows radi-ally arranged, parallel lines (Fig. 3.11). Given that each one of them has a headband over the radially arranged lines, those lines may indicate not the hair, but a halo. Such an interpretation is substantiated by the exam-ination of the other details of the representation. Each one of the two humans has the right arm bent at the elbow, with the hand up, possibly in a blessing gesture. In both case, the left hand, barely visible, holds a box-like object with the cross of St. Andrew on it. This may well be a book, quite possibly the Gospels. The long robe reaches down to the


Fig. 3.11 Details of Cat. 66: heads, bodies, and feet (Photo: Florin Curta)


ankles. Its folds on the arms and the shoulders are rendered as a number of parallel lines (Fig. 3.11). The lower part of the robe is decorated with an ornament of oblique, parallel lines similar to that on Cat. 44–45 and 58. Across the body, a V-shaped ornament, like a long string of beads reaching down to the ornament of oblique, parallel lines, is most likely meant to represent the decorated margins of the garment with a middle cut.14 If our interpretation of the headdress is correct, then the two human figures will have to be regarded as saints. If, on the con-trary, that headdress is a monastic hood (cowl), then the two figures will appear as monks. However, both the blessing gesture and the presence of the Gospels suggest that they are saints, most likely teachers, such as the Church Fathers.15

Feet turned to opposite directions combined with a long robe reach-ing almost to the ankles also appear on two pieces, one of bronze, the other of lead showing a human body with a dog head (Cat. 67–68; Fig. 3.12). The dog head is turned to the right and has a very large mouth with visible fangs, a large eye and two ears. The hair on the back of the head is rendered by parallel lines stretching out from the eye (Fig. 3.13). The upper part of the human body dressed in a long tunic is decorated on the chest with a checkerboard ornament, similar to that on Cat. 47–48. The motif continues on the arms. The lower part of the robe is decorated with three parallel lines like the garments on Cat. 63–64. The left hand holds a club or an axe with the blade down-wards, while the right hand supports the back of a child (Fig. 3.13). Like the child on Cat. 42–43, this is also shown in profile to the right, with bent knees, and the left hand bent at the elbow and raised towards the upper part of the human body. Unlike that on Cat. 42–43, the child has here a larger head with more distinct eyes, nose and mouth, as well as clear hair (Fig. 3.13). It is therefore not a foetus. The meaning of the scene is clarified by the combination of the human body and the dog head. This is in fact St. Christopher, as represented on one of the sixth-century, ter-racotta plaques from Vinica.16 St. Christopher’s dog head was a reminder that he hailed from among people living on the edges of the world, the Cynocephali. Born reprebus (“the Wicked”), he is said to have been a fer-ryman at one point in his life. He used to carry people across the river. When a little child asked him to be carried, reprebus began the cross-ing, but the child became heavier and heavier as he approached the mid-dle of the water. He could not go any further, at which point the child revealed that He was Christ. Having learned his lesson, reprebus


Fig. 3.13 Details of Cat. 68: dog head and child (Photo: Florin Curta)


humbly devoted his life to Christian service. His new name, Christopher, actually means “Christ-bearer”. Although the dog-headed saint also appears on seventh-century stelae in Armenia, the Velestino piece is the first representation of St. Christopher known so far, in which he appears both with a dog head and in the company of the child.17 It is tempting to see another piece, as related to Cat. 67–68. The piece (Cat. 72) is probably of lead and shows a standing human with short hair, a long robe almost to the ankles, and feet turned to opposite sides (as with Cat. 44–45, 52–54, 59, 63–64 and 69–70). The human holds a child in the right hand, and some kind of tool (perhaps an axe) in the left hand.18 Unfortunately, the photograph published by Cecchèlli is of poor quality and cannot allow a detailed analysis of the piece. Nonetheless, the parallel to Cat. 67–68 is remarkable. on all three pieces, the main character (St. Christopher) holds a child in the right hand and an axe in the left hand. Without a detailed image of Cat. 72, however, it is not possible to offer an interpretation of that parallel.

A child with distinct facial features appears also on two other pieces, one of bronze, the other of lead (Cat. 69–70), showing a woman giving birth. The head of the woman has short hair, with a hair band across the front. Much like the archangel on Cat. 44–45, there is a “collar” of short, parallel lines around her neck. The right hand is placed on the pel-vis, the left on the breasts indicated by two small circles (Fig. 3.14). The legs are bent from the knees and spread out, with the feet pointing to opposite directions (like Cat. 44–45, 52–54, 59 and 63–64). Between the legs is the head of the child, upside down, with a “crown” of parallel, radially placed lines (Fig. 3.14). It is unlikely that this is meant to indi-cate the hair. It may rather be a conventional way to represent a halo, not unlike that around the heads of the two saints at Cat. 65–66. Given that there is no indication of a dress on the woman’s body, it is tempting to associate this image with the leaping female figure at Cat. 42–43. In this case, the child to be born is, again, St. John the Baptist. This interpreta-tion could in turn be substantiated by the male character of the portrait, with its short hair, perhaps a way to suggest Elizabeth’s old age.19

Three more pieces with human representations are also unique and have no duplicates (Cat. 71, 72 and 80). one of them (Cat. 71) is made of lead and shows a standing individual, whose head has short hair and two prominent, flopping ears. He is dressed in a short tunic reaching to the waist, decorated with vertical lines, pants and boots (marked by three lines on each foot). The left hand is up, the right hand down, holding


Fig. 3.14 Details of Cat. 69, one of a pair: the breast of the woman and the head of the child (Photo: Florin Curta)


next to the mouth a long, curved, trumpet-like instrument (perhaps a boukinon) (Fig. 3.15).20 The last piece with a human representation is a disc, probably made of bronze, showing a human face with distinct eyes and eyebrows, nose, a handlebar moustache and a goatee under the mouth (Cat. 80). Eight straight lines above the eyes represent the hair, with two pointed ears underneath. The latter leave the impression that the face is that of a feline, an impression strengthened by three parallel lines above the moustache, which may represent whiskers. But the eyes and the mouth are those of a human. Disc-shaped mounts with human faces are known from a late fifth- or early sixth-century burial assem-blage excavated in Vladimirskoe, in the Samara region of the Middle Volga valley.21 But the details of the human face are very different on the Velestino disc. The combination of moustache and goatee reminds one rather of the image on the mount from Čarevci, near Slankamen (Vojvodina, Serbia), a stray find from the territory of a destroyed Avar-age cemetery.22 An even closer parallel is one of the round dies in the hoard discovered in 1909 in Pliskovo, not far from Biskupija, near Knin (Croatia).23 Like the piece from Velestino, the Biskupija die is decorated with a human face with large, almond-shaped eyes, nose and a small mouth. Two bands of small, parallel lines underneath the eyes are meant to represent the moustache, while the corresponding pair of bands above the eyes represent the eyebrows (Fig. 3.16, upper left corner).

Except the disc with the human face, no direct analogies are known for any of the human representations on the “Thessalian antiquities” from the Velestino hoard. However, as already indicated, there are sev-eral iconographic parallels with the terracotta plaques found in Vinica (Macedonia) and dated to the sixth century. Moreover, comparable human representations are known from several finds, both dies and mounts from early medieval assemblages in East-Central and Eastern Europe, as well as in the Caucasus region (Figs. 3.17 and 3.18). Eight such groups of finds stand out as more appropriate for comparison.

The first group consists of anthropomorphic mounts from the Martynivka hoard, which some have dated to the first, and others to the second half of the seventh century (Fig. 3.19/1, 2).24 Another similar mount is known from the so-called Platar hoard, an assemblage from an unidentified site in the Cherkasy region of Ukraine (Fig. 3.19/3).25 Since Martynivka is also located in the Cherkasy region of the Middle Dnieper valley, the two assemblages may very well be of the same date. The Martynivka hoard was found in 1909 in a village located less than


Fig. 3.15 Detail of Cat. 71 (Photo: Florin Curta)


ten miles from the valley of the river Dnieper, to the south-west from the modern town of Kaniv. This was a very rich collection of artefacts, the exact nature of which is still a matter of debate. Some believe that it was a double burial (male and female), others that it was a hoard of a suppos-edly nomadic kind.26 The collection includes 4 human- and 5 animal- shaped mounts, but Boris A. rybakov believed the original assemblage to have originally contained 12 mounts—4 in the shape of humans and 8 in the shape of animals.27

Fig. 3.16 The Biskupija hoard (Photo: Antun Zoran Alajbeg. Courtesy of the Museum of Croatian Archaeological Monuments in Split)


Fig. 3.17 The distribution of early medieval anthropomorphic mounts, figurines, and pendants in Eastern Europe: 1—Eski Kermen; 2—Gyapa; 3—Igumnovo; 4—Kamenica; 5—Kamenovo; 6—Kugulta; 7—Luchistoe; 8—Martynivka; 9—Moshchenka; 10—Novo Turbasly; 11—osh-Pando-Ner’; 12—Pervomaiskoe; 13—Pregradnaia; 14—rákóczifalva; 15—Sveti Erazmo; 16—Tiszafüred; 17—Trebujeni; 18—Urzall; 19—Zamárdi. The star marks the location of Velestino


The Martynivka figurines were cast in silver, and there are clear remains of gilding on each one of them. It is possible that they were entirely covered with gold.28 The human bodies, apparently of men, are rendered realistically, as opposed to the highly stylized and dispropor-tionate representation of their heads—each in the form of a reversed U, with barely sketched nose and mouth, eye sockets and brows only sug-gested. Two of the four mounts have a plain flat, gilded rim, which on the other two is grooved, most likely in order to represent the hair. The legs are bent from the knees and spread outwards, with slightly pointed shoes on each foot. The hands are placed on the thighs, elbows widely apart. The thickened engravings at the wrists may represent bracelets. Along the chest, down to the waist, there is a rectangular, checkerboard ornament. Each mount has two holes on the elbows, most likely for attachment.

Unlike the Martynivka mounts, that from the Platar hoard was cast in bronze, although traces of gold plating are still visible. This is the closest and, so far, the only known analogy to the Martynivka mounts. However, it displays an even greater degree of stylization. The head is rounder, with a grooved rim probably representing the hair. The eyes are replaced by two holes with eyebrows marked above them.29 The upper limbs are also bent at the elbows, almost at a right angle, and the hands are placed on the thighs or the knees (the highly stylized rendition of the legs makes it difficult to decide). The arms are decorated with short, parallel lines. The same decoration appears in a tongue-shaped rectangle in the middle of the body. The feet are small, with two holes on each leg, in the region of the ankles. Like the holes in the face, those most likely served for the attachment of the mount.

There are several parallels between the “Thessalian antiquities” and the mounts from the Martynivka and the Platar hoards. To be sure, no human representation in the former replicates the body posture of the human figures in the Martynivka and Platar hoards, particularly the hands resting on the hips or on the knees. However, that position is somewhat reminiscent of the hands at the waist on Cat. 58. Like the

Fig. 3.18 The distribution of early medieval anthropomorphic mounts, figu-rines, and pendants in Eastern Europe. Numbers refer to place names listed for Fig. 3.17. The rectangle bottom left marks the upper right corner of Fig. 3.17

◀


woman represented in that piece, the humans on the mounts found in the Martynivka and the Platar hoards may well be dancers.30 Like several “Thessalonian antiquities”, their hair is sometimes rendered as a “crown” of parallel, short lines. The spread-out, bent legs with feet in oppo-site directions are also the body posture of the woman giving birth on Cat. 69–70. The checkerboard motif in the middle of the body of each one of the four human-shaped mounts from Martynivka reminds one of the similar motif on Cat. 47–48 and 67–68. That tongue-shaped ornament also appears in the middle of the body of the bronze statue (initially part of a candle holder) found in Khorol (Poltava region, Ukraine), as well as on its parallels from Smyrna and the collection of the Schnütgen Museum in Cologne.31 To judge by those parallels, the motif in question represents the decoration of a shawl-like cowl, typically spreading on the shoulders, the upper arms and even on the upper back. The individual on the statue from Khorol wears a belt with multiple straps, an indication that he may be an attendant, possibly at the imperial court.32 In other words, the cowl may well be part of a “uniform”, in which case the men represented on the mounts from the Martynivka and the Platar hoards are to be imagined as imperial attendants. However, despite those common representation details, the dancers from the Martynivka and Platar are conceptually different from the human figures in the Velestino collection. In the latter, all dancers are represented in a twisting movement (with a part of body turned, the other en face), not frontally, and none of them has the hands on the hips.

Fig. 3.19 Sixth- to eighth-century human or human-like mounts, pendants, and dies: 1, 2—Martynivka; 3—“Platar” hoard; 4—Kamenica; 5—Luchistoe; 6—Urzall; 7—Sv. Erazmo; 8—Igumnovo; 9—Pregradnaia; 10—Trebujeni; 11—Eski Kermen; 12—Gyapa; 13—Moshchenka; 14—rákoczifalva; 15—osh-Pando-Ner’; 16—Kamenovo; 17—unknown location in Hungary; 18—Zámardi. From Korzukhina, “Klady”, 602, pl. 12/1, 4; Shcheglova, “Taina ‘pliashush-chikh chelovechkov”, pls. 3 and 4/2; Velkov, “Edna starinna cărkva”, 385; Fig. 389; Aibabin and Khairedinova, Mogil’nik, 382, pl. 234/6; Kurti, “Gjurmë të cultures”, pl. IV/1; Malenko, “ranosrednovekovnata materijalna kultura”, pl. IX/1; Minaeva, “Nakhodka”, 133; Fig. 52/1; Smirnov and rafalovich, “ranneslavianskoe nakhodki’”, 75; Fig. 1; Aibabin, “Antropomorfna bliashka”, 89; Fig. 1; rácz, “Emberalakos kistárgyak”, 410; Fig. 1/1–3; Gavritukhin, “Srednedneprovskie ingumacii”, 218; Fig. 3/2 and 10; Pisarova, “Nova nak-hodka”, 294; Fig. 1/1; Bárdos, “Az avarkori öntött bronz korongok”, pl. XIII/1

◀


There are greater similarities between the praying woman on Cat. 63–64 and another mount from an assemblage found accidentally in 2008 in Igumnovo, in the Moscow region of russia.33 The item is cast in what appears to be copper-based alloy and represents a schematic male figure with big round head, round eye sockets and a horizontal line for the mouth (Fig. 3.19/8). The shape of the face is highlighted by a rim with parallel, short lines that is meant to indicate the hair. The arms are bent at the elbows, with hands raised above the shoulders. Each hand is represented by a knob decorated with parallel, short lines. The body is shaped like an hourglass with a dividing line at the waist. In the middle of the upper part of the body, there is a triangular cut. The legs are pro-portionate, and the feet might have some kind of shoes. There are two holes, one on the neck, the other in the groin area that served for attach-ment. The meaning of this human representation is no doubt different from that of the mounts found in the Martynivka and the Platar hoards. The Igumnovo mount represents an individual praying, as clearly indi-cated by the position of the arms, which is similar to that of the praying woman on Cat. 63–64. Like her, the individual shown praying on the Igumnovo mount has short hair and wears a long robe reaching below the knees. However, all other details are different, particularly the many perforations on the Igumnovo mount. Another bronze figurine discov-ered in an unknown location in north-eastern Bulgaria has a very similar body posture.34 The legs are bent from the knees (half of the right leg is missing), while the arms are bent at the elbows, with barely sketched hands raised up. The feet are shod with tall boots, rendered as a series of parallel grooves. There seems to be some sort of headdress on the indi-vidual’s head, perhaps a veil, and the facial features are barely sketched. Instead of eye sockets, there are two holes. A double V-shaped motif at the neck marks a collar, while a rectangular motif on the chest may well be an indication of the shawl-like cowl that appears on the Martynivka and Platar mounts. one of the most interesting details on the figurine from north-eastern Bulgaria is the presence between elbows and knees, on both sides, of “bridges” in the form of partly damaged rods. This is remarkably similar to the supporting “bridges” on Cat. 56 and 60. In all three cases, the concern seems to have been to make the piece sturdier and to avoid breakage of the more fragile, marginal details.

Another group of finds is related to the figurines from Igumnovo and an unknown location in north-eastern Bulgaria. The body posture is the same—spread-out legs with feet pointing to opposite directions


and arms bent at the elbows with hands up—but the human figurine is placed inside a ring with an attachment loop. Unlike the figurines from Igumnovo and an unknown location in north-eastern Bulgaria, those are therefore pendants. Such pendants are known from Avar-age assemblages, particularly from the large cemetery in Tiszafüred, from the Middle Dnieper region of Ukraine, from Left-Bank Ukraine farther to the east, the Crimean Peninsula, and the Caucasus region.35 Some of those pendants are cast in the lost-wax technique, and the feet, the hands and the top of the head touch the ring. Unlike the figurines from Igumnovo and the unknown location in north-eastern Bulgaria, the hair-style of each one of the human figures on the pendants from this group includes two ponytails on the sides. Moreover, on the pendant discov-ered in the burial chamber 65 in Luchistoe (Crimea; Fig. 3.19/5), the ponytails are connected to the respective shoulders by means of two dia-mond-shaped “bridges”, which may indicate jewellery or otherwise be meant as reinforcements for the fragile details on the margins.36 It is also worth noting that on the chest of the humans represented on other pendants there is a triangular opening, a detail reminding one of the Igumnovo mount. Two other specimens have been recently published on the Internet.37 one of them was found near Kharkiv and is very sim-ilar to the specimen from Cherkasy published by Galina Korzukhina. The Kharkiv specimen shows two pairs of eyes, as if the artisan pressed the punch twice on the wax model. on the chest of the human figure, there is a trapeze-shaped ornament with checkerboard decoration, a detail reminiscent of the shawl-like cowl on the chest of the Martynivka mounts and several “Thessalian antiquities”. There is no hanging loop attached to the ring. By contrast, the hanging loop of the other spec-imen published on the Internet was cast together with the ring. This specimen is described as “of the Pen’kivka culture”, which suggests that it was found somewhere in the southern or south-eastern part of pres-ent-day Ukraine, the area commonly believed to have been covered by the sixth- to seventh-century Pen’kivka culture.38 The human figure had the same trapeze-shaped ornament on the chest. Similar pendants with human figurines in the middle have been found in the Balkans. Two specimens dated to the seventh century are known from the early medi-eval cemetery excavated in the ruins of the early Byzantine basilica in Sv. Erazmo, near ochrid (Macedonia; Fig. 3.19/7), and in a burial acciden-tally found in Urzall, in north-central Albania (Fig. 3.19/6).39 on both of them, the legs are not bent from the knees, but straight and spread


out, with feet pointing to the left, which suggests a walking movement. More importantly, there are two small circles on the chest (instead of the cowl), which indicate breasts. This further suggests that those figurine represent (praying) women, a direct parallel to Cat. 63–64.40

Another very important point of comparison for the human rep-resentations on the “Thessalian antiquities” is the silver votive plaque found in the south-eastern corner of the sixth-century basilica excavated in 1911 in Kamenica, near Pirdop (Bulgaria) (Fig. 3.19/4).41 This is a relatively small figure of an individual with distinct facial features (eye-brows, eyes, nose and a “crown” of parallel, short lines to represent the hair). There are holes on top of the head and in the ears for the sus-pension of the plaque. In fact, those in the ears still have the suspension loops. Judging by two small circles in the upper part of the body, which are meant to represent the breasts, the individual may be a woman. Her body is covered in a long and large robe decorated with an elaborate motif of stamped horizontal short cuts, forming a vertical line dividing the robe into two symmetrical parts. The decoration of both the left and the right parts consists of diagonal sections of alternating cuts and semicircular motifs. The hands of the thin, stylized arms are placed next to each other on the chest. Between the hands and the neck, but also between the breasts, there are three round knobs arranged vertically most likely to represent the robe’s buttons. In the central part of the robe, where the top sections meet, there are two symmetrical triangles, the bases of which touch the central band. The triangular sections are each filled with three almond-shaped knobs, pointing towards the outer edge. The feet point to opposite directions. There are several parallels to the “Thessalian antiquities” from Velestino: the representation of the head, particularly the use of the “crown” of short parallel lines for the hair; the long robe reaching down to the ankles (not unlike that of Cat. 65–66); the feet pointing to opposite directions. However, neither the body posture nor the decoration of the robe on the votive plaque from Kamenica has any analogies in the Velestino collection. More impor-tantly, no piece in that collection is perforated for suspension, like the Kamenica plaque.

Five other finds offer another point of comparison. Two of them come from sites in the Caucasus region—Pregradnaia in western Karachay-Cherkessia, and Kugulta near Stavropol’.42 The specimen from Pregradnaia was part of an assemblage that contained also an ani-mal-shaped mount of the Felnac-Kamunta group (Fig. 3.19/9).43


The Pregradnaia specimen is embossed in thin metal foil, while that of Kugulta is cut in metal foil. They both represent men with large heads, with moustache, a tunic reaching down to the knees, hands on the waist and spread-out legs, with feet pointing to opposite directions. They are, therefore, quite similar to the mounts from the Martynivka hoard, but much more stylized. Like the specimen from the Platar hoard, that from Pregradnaia has holes instead of the eye sockets.44 The wide shawl collar of the garment on the Kugulta specimen has three verti-cal cuts on each side. A third piece was found in an unknown location in the Middle Dnieper region of Ukraine.45 This is very similar to the Pregradnaia specimen: a disproportionately large head, with the hairdo rendered by a series of short, parallel lines, sketched eyes, hands on the waist, legs bent at the knees and spread out. However, the specimen from the Middle Dnieper region has no perforation, as the figurine is solid, much like the “Thessalian antiquities”. The fourth piece was found inside the early medieval stronghold at Trebujeni, near orhei (republic of Moldova; Fig. 3.19/10).46 This is perhaps the most stylized specimen of the group. It resembles the others in general lines—hands on the hips, legs bent at the knees and spread out—but the head is smaller, attached to a suspension loop. The Trebujeni piece was evidently a pendant. By contrast, a fifth piece found during the 2006 excavations inside the early Byzantine stronghold in Eski Kermen, near Bakhchesarai, in the Crimean Peninsula, was meant to be attached like the Martynivka mounts, by means of multiple holes.47 The Eski Kermen mount has a highly stylized head, with eyes, and a hole instead of the mouth (Fig. 3.19/11). The hands are placed on the hips of the spread-out legs. one additional hole is on the right leg (and another may have existed on the missing left leg), in the region of the ankles, a detail reminiscent of the mount from the Platar hoard.

A different body posture is characteristic for another group of finds, two bronze dies and two figurines. one of the two dies was found in Gyapa, near Paks (in the Tolna county, Hungary; Fig. 3.19/12), the other at Moshchenka (Chernihiv region, Ukraine; Fig. 3.19/13).48 The other two finds are a gold plaque from rákóczifalva (Fig. 3.19/17) and a silver mount from an unknown location in Hungary (Fig. 3.19/14).49 The Moshchenka die shows an individual with round head, slightly marked facial features and a thick rim decorated with radially arranged grooves, probably meant to represent the hair. While the legs are bent at the knees and spread out, the arms are also spread out, with the hands


pointing down. The Gyapa die is cast in bronze and has an equally large head with a detailed representation of the face—eyes, nose, cheeks, lips and moustache. A rim of short grooves around the head to represent the hair is tapered towards the neck. As in Moshchenka, the arms, ending with schematic hands, are spread out. A similar die may have been used to produce the gold plaque from rákóczifalva. It consists of two sol-dered plates that form together an anthropomorphic figure. The lower plate is flat, whereas the upper one is slightly raised as a result of press-ing. The spaces between arms and body, as well as between the legs, are filled with 10 and 16 golden granules, respectively. The head of the fig-urine from rákóczifalva has barely sketched eyes, nose, moustache and mouth. However, there is no rim imitating the hair, as on the Gyapa die. The edges of the figurine are decorated with 98 granules (the total number must have been 106, with the missing ones destroyed by solder-ing). The golden tab on the back indicates that the figurine was meant to be attached. The figurine from an unknown location in Hungary is very similar to the other three. Its head is more schematic than on the die from Gyapa, but all the facial features are distinctly marked—eyes, cheeks, moustache and mouth. The upper part of the head is flat and has a set of radially arranged grooves to render the hair. There are vertical cuts on the elbows perhaps to represent folded sleeves. Double diagonal grooves can also be seen on the chest, beneath the chin. There are two attachment rivets on the back.

The body posture of the human figures on the Gyapa and Moshchenka dies as well as on the mounts from rákóczifalva and an unknown location from Hungary reminds one of two other bronze fig-urines found in Eastern Europe. one of them was found inside the early medieval stronghold at osh-Pando-Ner’ in the Samara bend (Middle Volga region, russia; Fig. 3.19/15).50 The other was found much far-ther to the north-east, in a burial underneath a barrow excavated in Novo Turbasly, near Ufa (Bashkortostan, russia).51 The same body pos-ture (arms spread out with hands down) appears on another, quite large group of finds scattered on a vast area between the Balkans to the west and the Aral Sea to the east. No less than 39 specimens of this group are known from assemblages dated between the fifth and the eighth cen-tury.52 This is in fact a remarkably homogenous group—all figurines are relatively small (no more than 5 cm long), and each shows the silhou-ette of an individual with spread-out arms bent at the elbows and hands down, as well as spread-out legs bent at the knees. Two such specimens


are known from a seventh- or eighth-century hoard found in 1995 in Kamenovo, near razgrad (north-eastern Bulgaria; Fig. 3.19/16).53 on a few figurines from other finds, the hands are linked to the knees, a pos-ture reminiscent of the “dancing men” on the Martynivka mounts. on others, the hands do not touch the ring, while the head is represented outside, and not inside the ring.54 only some of those figurines have any facial features, often barely sketched. others have a distinct tab between the feet, no doubt the indication of the penis.55 Most figurines have an eyelet on the back, which suggests that they were worn as pendants.56

Although no direct parallels to Cat. 55–57 are known so far, several figurines of horsemen are known from Eastern Europe. The most com-mon group includes specimens found as far west as the Balkans, as well as figurines from assemblages in southern russia and in the Caucasus region.57 All of them show the silhouette of a human riding a horse to the right (on the specimens from the Caucasus region) or to the left (on the specimens from the Balkans). The high degree of stylization makes it impossible to draw any comparisons with Cat. 55–57. Moreover, the human silhouette has one hand on the head of the horse (presumably an indication of the reins) and the other on the back of the horse (pre-sumably holding the whip). In the Balkans, another group of finds is known, members of which have a human head placed on the horseback, instead of the human.58 In the case of a few finds from the Caucasus region and from Hungary, the horseman is placed inside a ring. one such pendant is known from an Avar-age female grave excavated in Zamárdi (western Hungary; Fig. 3.19/18).59 The rider’s right hand is on the horse’s head, while the left touches the ring. Another pendant was found in Pervomaiskoe, in the Caucasus region.60 Unlike the spec-imen from Zamárdi, this is a two-sided cast, on which one head of the rider is on the horse’s head, the other on its back. The ring is decorated with a number of knobs and has a suspension loop. None of those pen-dants bears any direct resemblance with Cat. 55–57.

notes

1. The space between those bands and the upper margin of the hindquarters is also decorated with parallel, short lines on the bronze pieces (Cat. 13 and 14), but not on the lead piece (Cat. 15).

2. For string instruments in Byzantium, including the image of a psal-tery in a twelfth-century manuscript, see Nikolaos Maliaras, “Mousika


organa sto Byzantio. Problemata kai prota apotelesmata mias ereunas,” Polyphonia 1 (2002), 15. David plays a psaltery in an illumination of an eleventh-century manuscript from the library of the Greek Patriarchate in Jerusalem: Joachim Braun, “Musical instruments in Byzantine illu-minated manuscripts,” Early Music 8.3 (1980), 319 with Fig. 3b. A psaltery was not unlike a gusli or a kantele known from archaeologi-cal excavations in Novgorod (russia) and opole (Poland). See Boris A. Kolchin, “Gusli drevnego Novgoroda,” in Drevniaia Rus’ i slaviane, ed. Tat’iana V. Nikolaeva (Moscow: Nauka, 1978), 358–66; Tadeusz Malinowski, “Uzupełniające uwagi dotyczące wczesnośredniowiec-znych gęśli z opola,” Przegląd Archeologiczny 45 (1997), 129–30; and Vladimir I. Povetkin, “S gusliami k pervonasel’nikam Novgoroda,” in Veliki Novgorod v istorii srednevekovoi Evropy. K 70-letiiu Valentian Lavrent’evicha Ianina, ed. A. A. Guppius, Evgenii N. Nosov, and Aleksandr S. Khoroshev (Moscow: russkie Slovari, 1999), 85–94.

3. As implied by Joachim Werner, Slawische Bronzefiguren aus Nordgriechenland (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1953), 3.

4. Psalms 149:3. See also Psalms 33:2, 91:4, 143:9; 150:3. The instrument is sometimes mentioned as having 10 strings.

5. For the interpretation of the object as an axe, see Werner, Slawische Bronzefiguren, 4. The crotales were made of a pair of small cymbals mounted on a flexible handle. For a good analogy, see the copper alloy statuette of a woman playing crotales in Mina Moraitou, “Women,” in Byzantium and Islam: Age of Transition, 7th–9th Century, ed. Helen C. Evans and Brandie ratliff (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2012), 195, no. 137.

6. Werner, Slawische Bronzefiguren, 4 (“einen kleinen rundschild”). 7. Werner, Slawische Bronzefiguren, 4 regarded the ornament in question as

suggesting that the man had a shirt above his pants. 8. revelation 4:8. The elaborate headdress, in that case, is in fact the image

of a head with many faces, only one of which looks to the viewer. The flopping ears may therefore be the stylized, profile images of the other two faces.

9. Which Werner, Slawische Bronzefiguren, 4 interpreted as a helmet (“Helmkappe”).

10. Ante Milošević, “Slika ‘božanskog boja’ - likovni i ikonografski pogled na konjanički reljef iz Žrnovnice u Dalmaciji,” in Perunovo koplje, ed. Andrej Pleterski and Tomo Vinšćak (Ljubljana: Inštitut za arheologijo ZrC SAZU, 2011), 33 with Fig. 18/1. The bas-relief is now embedded into the façade of the Church of the Holy Virgin Mary in Žrnovnica as a spolium. The circular shield of the horseman reminds one of those on two other bas-reliefs from Croatia, both from the pluteus in the Church


of St. Martin in Pridraga. See Ivan Josipović, “Predromanički reljef s pri-kazom konjanika-kopljonoše iz Novigrada,” in Novigrad nekad i sad, ed. Slobodan Kaštela (Zadar: Sveučilište, 2016), 295 and Fig. 4.

11. There is a strong resemblance between the horseman’s body position on Cat. 55–56 and that of the horseman represented on a casting mould of fine calcarenite found in 1993 on the Cercadilla site in Córdoba. The mould has been dated on stylistic grounds to the second half of the sixth and the seventh century. Like the Velestino pieces, the Cercadilla horse-man has a shield in the right, and the sword in the left hand. He is also represented with long hair, which has been interpreted, much like in the case of the Velestino horseman, as “an original helmet”. Unlike the Velestino horseman, however, that from Cercadilla wears armor, and a belt is clearly visible at the waist. Because the calcarenite plaque is broken, not much can be said about the horse, only the mane of which is still visi-ble. See rafael Hidalgo Prieto, “Casting mould relief of armed horseman from Córdoba,” Gladius 32 (2012), 71; Fig. 1, 72; Fig. 2, 73.

12. To be sure, the image of a horseman holding in his right hand a spear, the head of which points to the ground, is believed to be a generic rep-resentation of the Holy rider, a common motif in ancient funerary reliefs, which continued into the Christian era. See Antigoni Tzitzibassi, “Panel with apotropaic imagery,” in Transition to Christianity: Art of Late Antiquity, 3rd–7th Century AD, ed. Anastasia Lazaridou (New York/Athens: Alexander S. onassis Public Benefit Foundation/Byzantine & Christian Museum, 2012), 121. For St. Theodore on the terracotta plaque from Vinica, see Elizabeta Dimitrova, Vinichkata misterija. Keramichkata riznica od docnoantichkoto kale (Vinica: Muzej “Terakota”, 2012), 221–29, 223; Fig., 224; Fig., 227. For St. George, see Georgi Atanasov, “Sviatoi Georgi - peshii voiin-zmeeborcev: vozniknovenie ikonografii, pamiatniki, semantika i rasprostranenie,” in Slaviano- russkoe iuvelirnoe delo i ego istoki. Materialy Mezhdunarodnoi nauchnoi konferencii posviashchennoi 100-letiiu so dnia rozhdeniia Gali Fedorovny Korzukhinoi. Sankt-Peterburg, 10–16 aprelia 2006 g., ed. Anna A. Peskova, ol’ga A. Shcheglova, and Aleksandr E. Musin (St. Petersburg: Nestor-Istoriia, 2010), 331 and 332; Fig. 1/2. The horsemen on the Žrnovnice and Novigrad bas-reliefs are also shown holding the reins with the left hand. See Ante Milošević, “Il bassorilievo altomedievale del cava-liere di Žrnovnica in Dalmazia,” Godišnjak. Centar za balkanološka ispiti-vanja 37 (2008), 183 and 184; Fig. 2; Josipović, “Predromanički reljef,” 296–97 and 294; Fig. 1.

13. Its similarity to the body posture of the ancient representation of Attis in a pensive attitude is remarkable. See Antonio García y Bellido, Les religions orientales dans l’Espagne romaine (Leiden: Brill, 1967), 56–59. As Nenad


Cambi, “Attis or someone else on funerary monuments in Dalmatia?” in Romanisation und Resistenz in Plastik, Architektur und Inschriften der Provinzen des Imperium Romanum: neue Funde und Forschungen. Akten des VII. Internationalen Colloquiums über Probleme der provinzialrömis-chen Kunstschaffens, Köln, 2. bis 6. Mai 2001, ed. Peter Noelke, Friederike Naumann-Steckner, and Beate Schneider (Mainz: Philip von Zabern, 2003), 520, has shown, the pensive man with crossed legs may well be an image borrowed from the bucolic repertoire, in direct reference to the sad shepherd. As such, the image is supposed to convey the sense of mourning.

14. The two figures on Cat. 65–66 may therefore be compared with the three figures on one of several bone dies found in 1960 in Costeşti (romania), which have been dated to the seventh and eighth century. The three fig-ures are believed to this day to represent the three Holy Hierarchs—St. Basil the Great, St. Gregory the Theologian and St. John Chrysostom. See Dan Gh. Teodor, “Unele probleme privind evoluţia culturii materiale din Moldova în sec. VI–X,” Carpica 2 (1969), 272; Figs. 10–12; Dan Gh. Teodor, Creştinismul la est de Carpaţi de la origini şi până în veacul al XIV-lea (Iaşi: Junimea, 1991), 88, 126; Fig. 8/2 and 162; Bartłomiej Szymon Szmoniewski, “Production of early medieval ornaments made of non-ferrous metals: Dies from archaeological finds in north-east romania,” Acta Archaeologica Carpathica 37 (2002), 113, 115, and 118; Figs. 2–3; and Bartłomiej Szymon Szmoniewski, “Byzantium and the Slavs in the light of goldsmiths’ production,” in “Intelligible Beauty”: Recent Research on Byzantine Jewellery, ed. Christopher Entwistle and Noël Adams (London: British Museum, 2010), 164 has suggested that the Costeşti die(s) may have been used to produce decorative mounts for a reliquary, or plates for buckles. The triple V-shaped motif on the chest of each one of the three human figures on the Costeşti may in fact be a representation of the omophorion—the stole worn by bishops as a symbol of their ecclesiastical authority. However, the same does not apply to the V-shaped ornament on the Cat. 65–66, which suggests rather an anteri (cassock). Moreover, even if the three figures on the Costeşti die were bishops, nothing indicates that those are the Holy Hierarchs. Nor is it entirely clear that there were only three figures on the die, one part of which is broken. At any rate, there is no further resemblance between the Costeşti die and the Velestino plaques.

15. Earl Baldwin Smith, “Mediaeval art: Minor plastic collections,” Art and Archaeology 20 (1925), 131 believed the two figures to be saints, namely Sts. Cyril and Methodius.

16. Kosta Balabanov, Vinichko kale. Mitologija, religija i istorija pishu-vani so glina (Skopje: Matica 20 godini, 2011), 164, 165; Fig. 15,


230–31; Fig. 32. The dog-headed saint is identified by the inscription XPoForUS running vertically down the left side of the plaque. To be sure, images of humans with wolf heads are relatively common in the sixth and seventh century in Northern Europe and may hark back to the symbolism of the wolf in relation to warriors. See Karen Høilund Nielsen, “The wolf-warrior: animal symbolism on weaponry of the 6th and 7th centuries,” in Archäologisches Zellwerk. Beiträge zur Kulturgeschichte in Europa und Asien. Festschrift für Helmut Roth zum 60. Geburtstag, ed. Ernest Pohl, Udo Becker, and Claudia Theune (rahden: Marie Leidorf, 2001), 476 and 477; Fig. 6a–c; Alice Choyke, “The bone is the beast: Animal amulets and ornaments in power and magic,” in Anthropological Approaches to Zooarchaeology: Colonialism, Complexity, and Animal Transformations, ed. Douglas V. Campana (oxford: oxbow Books, 2010), 198. For wolf warriors in Greek, Etruscan, Celtic, Anatolian, Iranian and Norse mythology, see also Bruce Lincoln, Death, War, and Sacrifice: Studies in Ideology and Practice (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991), 134; Michael P. Speidel, Ancient Germanic Warriors: Warrior Styles from Trajan’s Column to Icelandic Sagas (London: routledge, 2004), 12; and Fabiola Yvonne Hualpa Chávez, “La leyenda del Lupu mannaro (Hombre lobo) y del Ursu panaru (Hombre oso) en los Apeninos Centrales (Leonessa, Italia),” Dimensión Antropológica 38 (2006), 179–93. However, none of those myths or representations refers to a wolf(-headed) man with a child in his arms.

17. For St. Christopher in the carved decoration of seventh-century prov-ince of Shirak, in Armenia, see Zarukhi A. Akopian, “obraz sviatogo Khristofora v rannesrednevekevkoi skul’pture Armenii VII vek,” in Vizantiia v kontekste mirovoi kul’tury. Materialy konferencii posviashchen-noi pamiati A. V. Bank (1906–1984), ed. Vera N. Zalesskaia and Elena V. Stepanova (St. Petersburg: Izdatel’stvo Gosudarstvennogo Ermitazha, 2015), 120–23. According to Hans-Friedrich rosenfeld, Der Hl. Christophorus. Seine Verehrung und seine Legende. Eine Untersuchung zur Kultgeographie und Legendenbildung des Mittelalters (Acta Academiae Aboensis Humaniora 10.3) (Åbo: Akademi, 1937), 387–88, the first representations of the saint with a dog head are of a fifteenth-century date, while images with St. Christopher carrying the child Jesus are no earlier than the twelfth century. Veselina Vachkova, “Sviatost XXXL: Sv. Khristofor mezhdu intuitivnoto balogovenie i racionalnoto,” in Mirabilia: chudesa i chudovishta, ed. Vania B. Lozanova-Stancheva (Sofia: Institut za balkanistika/Centăr po trakologiia—BAN, 2016), 156–57 suggests that the cult of St. Christopher was already established by the eighth century, which may indicate that it did not come from the East, but was a European, possibly Balkan creation.


18. Carlo Cecchèlli, “Arte paleoslava,” Memorie storiche forogiuliesi 40 (1953), 191 believes the human to be a woman, and the object in the left hand—an axe.

19. Explicit scenes of birth-giving are rare in the early medieval art. However, an illumination in an eleventh-century manuscript now in the Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana (ms. gr. 747, fol. 46v) shows rebecca giving birth to Jacob in a manner remarkably similar to that of the woman on Cat. 69–70: the same squatting/seated position, with legs apart, the child’s head shown between the legs, the left hand bent from the elbow and placed on the (right) breast. See Kurt Weitzmann and Massimo Bernabò, The Byzantine Octateuchs (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999), 94 and pl. 356; Ioli Kalavrezou, “Images of women in Byzantium,” in Everyday Life in Byzantium, ed. Demetra Papanikola-Bakirtzi (Athens: Hellenic Ministry of Culture, 2002), 245 and 246; Fig. 9.

20. Alfred Büchler, “Horns and trumpets in Byzantium: Images and texts,” Historical Brass Society Journal 12 (2000), no. 1, 23–59, here 28.

21. V. A. Skarbovenko, “Pogrebenie rannesrednevekovogo vremeni v Kuibyshevskom Zavolzh’e,” in Drevniaia istoriia Povolzh’ia. Nauchnye Trudy, ed. S. G. Basin, N. Ia Merpert, A. D. Priakhin et al. (Kuibyshev: Kuibyshevskii gosudarstvennyi pedagogicheskii institut, 1979), 165–68 and 166; Fig. 2/1–3. The exact function of those mounts remains unclear. round mounts with human faces (or masks) are known from the nomadic milieu of the fifth century associated with the Huns. In all known cases, however, the human face has a fan-shaped beard. See otto J. Maenchen-Helfen, The World of the Huns: Studies in Their History and Culture (Berkeley/Los Angeles/London: University of California Press, 1973), 280–86 with Figs. 12 and 14; Anatolii K. Ambroz, Khronologiia drevnostei severnogo Kavkaza V–VII vv (Moscow: Nauka, 1989), 62, 69–70, 72 and 77; Fig. 30/1, 2, 5, 11, 14; Fig. 32; rasho rashev, “Za choveshkata obraz v Severnoto Prichernomorie prez rannoto srednove-kovie,” in Bălgarite v Severnoto Prichernomorie. Izsledvaniia i materiali, ed. Petar Todorov, vol. 7 (Veliko Tărnovo: Universitetsko izdatelstvo “Sv. sv. Kiril i Metodii”, 2000), 25 and 37–42; Claus von Carnap-Bornheim and Anke Bodo, “Gesichtsdarstellungen im reiternomadischen Milieu,” in Attila und die Hunnen. Begleitbuch zur Ausstellung “Attila und die Hunnen”. Herausgegeben vom Historischen Museum der Pfalz Speyer, ed. Bodo Anke and Heike Externbrink (Stuttgart: Historisches Museum der Pfalz, 2007), 264–65; Galina G. Korol’, Iskusstvo srednovekovykh kochevnikov Evrazii. Ocherki (Moscow/Kemerovo: Kuzbassvuzizdat, 2008), 98–108; Fig. 22/19–20, 22–24; pl. 12/1–3; and Zsófia rácz, “Emberalakos kistárgyak az avar korból,” in Thesaurus avaro-rum. Régészeti tanulmányok Garam Éva tiszteletére, ed. Tivadar Vida (Budapest: Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum, 2012), 422; Fig. 9.


22. radmilo Petrović, “Kefalija i polikefalija,” Zbornik narodnog muzeja 14 (1992), 439 and pl. III/1.

23. Josip Korošec, “ostava brončanih matrica za otiskivanje u Biskupiji kod Knina,” Starohrvatska prosvjeta 6 (1958), 29–44, here 29–33 and pls. I/2 and Ia/2. The hoard is known in the archaeological literature as from Biskupija (and will be referred as such in this book, for the sake of convenience), although it was in fact found less than 2 miles to the north-east-north. For the history of hoard, after its discovery, see Lujo Marun, Starinarski dnevnici (Split: Muzej hrvatskih arheoloskih spomenika, 1998), 190. Korošec denied any relation, chronological or ethnic, between Velestino and Biskupija (Korošec, “ostava brončanih matrica,” 39). Quite similar to the Biskupija die is a circular golden stud with a human mask found in one of the graves of the sixth- to sev-enth-century cemetery in Castel Trosino (Italy). See Lidia Paroli, “The Langobardic finds and the archaeology of Central Asia,” in From Attila to Charlemagne: Arts of the Early Medieval Period in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, ed. Katharine reynolds Brown, Dafydd Kidd, and Charles T. Little (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2000), 148 and 149; Fig. 13.3; Ante Milošević, Tragovi starih vjerovanja u kršćanstvu ranoga srednjeg vijeka (Dubrovnik: omega Engineering, 2013), 128–30, draws further parallels with the Merovingian metalwork.

24. Liudmila V. Pekars’ka and Dafydd Kidd. Der Silberschatz von Martynovka (Ukraine) aus dem 6. und 7. Jahrhundert (Innsbruck: Universitätsverlag Wagner, 1994). For a date within the first half of the seventh century, see Florin Curta, “The archaeology of identities in old russia (ca. 500–ca. 650),” Russian History 34 (2007), 39–40. For a date within the second half of the seventh century, see ol’ga A. Shcheglova, “o dvukh gruppakh ‘drevnostei antov’ v srednem Podneprov’e,” Materialy i issledovaniia po arkheologii Dneprovskogo Levoberezh’ia (1990), 179; ol’ga A. Shcheglova, “Taina ‘pliashushchikh chelovechkov’ i ‘sledy nevidannykh zverei’. Antropo- i zoomorfnye izobrazheniia v ranneslavianskoi metalloplastike,” in Slaviano-russkoe iuvelirnoe delo i ego istoki. Materialy Mezhdunarodnoi nauchnoi konferencii posviashchennoi 100-letiiu so dnia rozhdeniia Gali Fedorovny Korzukhinoi. Sankt-Peterburg, 10–16 aprelia 2006 g., ed. Anna A. Peskova, ol’ga A. Shcheglova, and Aleksandr E. Musin (St. Petersburg: Nestor-Istoriia, 2010), 159.

25. M. E. Levada, “Pizniy ryms’kyy – ranniy vizantiyskyy chasy,” in Platar, Kolektsiia predmetiv starovyny rodyn Platonovykh i Tarut. Katalog, ed. Elizaveta I. Arkhipova and V. I. Klochko (Kiev: ToV Ukrpolihrafmedia, 2004), 215, no. 45; Shcheglova, “Taina ‘pliashushchikh chelovechkov’,” 165 and pl. 4/2.


26. Pekars’ka and Kidd Der Silberschatz von Martynovka, 27. The careful examination of the published evidence, however, indicates that that was indeed a hoard, placed on a silver platter that was broken into pieces by its finders. See Wojciech Szymański, review of “Der Silberschatz von Martynovka (Ukraine) aus dem 6. und 7. Jahrhundert,” by L. V. Pekarskaja and D. Kidd (Innsbruck, 1994), Archeologia Polski 41.1–2 (1996), 196–97.

27. Boris A. rybakov, “Drevnie rusi. K voprosu ob obrazovanii iadra drevnerusskoi narodnosti v svete trudov I. V. Stalina,” Sovetskaia Arkheologiia 17 (1953), 88. There is no evidence to support rybakov’s claim.

28. See the specimen illustrated in Gold aus Kiew: 170 Meisterwerke aus der Schatzkammer aus Ukraine: eine Ausstellung des Kunsthistorisches Museums Wien, ed. Wilfried Spiel (Vienna: Das Museum, 1993), 264.

29. The idea of replacing the eye sockets with holes appears also on the ani-mal-shaped mount found in the filling of house 3 in Skybyntsi, in the Vinnytsia region of Ukraine. See P. I. Khavliuk, “ranneslavianskie pose-leniia v basseine Iuzhnogo Buga,” in Rannesrednevekovye vostochnoslavi-anskie drevnosti, ed. Petr N. Tret’iakov (Leningrad: Nauka, 1974), 189; Fig. 5/7 and 190.

30. Hands on the waist and spread-out legs are also characteristics of the body posture represented on a sixth-century candle holder from Diadovo (Bulgaria). See Boris Borisov, “Bronzova statuetka ot rannovizantiiskata krepost do s. Diadovo, Novopazarsko,” Problemi na prabălgarskata istoriia i kultura 4.2 (2007), 331–32 and 331; Fig. 1.

31. Galina F. Korzukhina, “Klady i sluchainye nakhodki veshchei kruga ‘drevnostei antov’ v srednem Podneprov’e. Katalog pamiatnikov,” Materialy po arkheologii, istorii i etnografii Tavrii 5 (1996), 394 and 685 pl. 95; M. V. Panchenko, “Kochevnicheskoe oblachenie v khudozhest-vennom lit’e srednevekov’ia,” Vostochnoevropeiskii arkheologicheskii zhur-nal 6 (2000), no. 7, at http://archaeology.kiev.ua/journal/061100/panchenko.htm (visit of May 8, 2018); Figs. 3 and 6. For two other, similar statues—one from Egypt (now in the National Museum in Copenhagen), the other from Asia Minor—see Michael Schmauder, “Vielteilige Gürtelgarnituren des 6.-7. Jahrhunderts: Herkunft, Aufkommen und Trägerkreis,” in Die Awaren am Rand der byzantinis-chen Welt. Studien zu Diplomatie, Handel und Technologietransfer im Frühmittelalter, ed. Falko Daim (Innsbruck: Wagner, 2000), 27; Fig. 8 and 32; Fig. 13.

32. In the sixth century, the bowl-cut hairstyle like that on the Khorol statue but also on some of the “Thessalian antiquities” seems to have been reserved for imperial bodyguards, such as that depicted on the Barberini

http://archaeology.kiev.ua/journal/061100/panchenko.htm



ivory. See Florin Curta, “Shedding light on a murky matter: remarks on 6th to early 7th century clay lamps in the Balkans,” Archaeologia Bulgarica 20.3 (2016), 96.

33. Shcheglova, “Taina ‘pliashushchikh chelovechkov’,” 154 and 165; pl. 4/3. 34. Valeri Iotov, “Bronzova figura ot Iuzhna Dobrudzha,” Vekove

20.1–2 (1991), 71; Fig. 1; V. I. Vasilev, “Bronzovaia nakladka v vide chelovecheskoi figury iz Iuzhnoi Dobrudzhy,” Sovetskaia Arkheologiia 3 (1991), 273 and 274; Fig. 1.

35. Éva Garam, Das awarenzeitliche Gräberfeld von Tiszafüred (Budapest: Akadémiai kiadó, 1995), 26, 39 and 328 with Figs. 71/5 and 78/6; Korzukhina, “Klady i sluchainye nakhodki,” 374 and 683; Fig. 93/2; Aleksandr I. Aibabin and Elzara A. Khairedinova, Mogil’nik u sela Luchistoe. Raskopki 1984, 1986, 1991, 1993–1995 godov (Simferopol’/Kerch’: Centr arkheologicheskikh issledovanii Blagotvoritel’nogo fonda “Demetra”, 2014), 99 and 282, pl. 134/3 (the Luchistoe specimen is not a pendant, but a mount); Vera B. Kovalevskaia, “Antropomorfnye amulety VI–IX vv. na Severnom Kavkaze,” Kratkie soobshcheniia Instituta Arkheologii SSSR 176 (1983), 46; Fig. 1/10–16, 18–19; and Evelina Iu. Shestopalova, “Amulety Arkhonskogo katakombnogo mogil’nika,” APRIORI 1 (2016), 10; Fig. 1/6, available at http://www.apriori-jour-nal.ru/journal-gumanitarnie-nauki/id/989 (visit of April 15, 2018).

36. Aibabin and Khairedinova, Mogil’nik, 282, pl. 134/3 and 382, pl. 234/6. 37. See http://swordmaster.org/forum/cat-Predmetybyitaiukrasheniya/top-

ic-230-page-2.html#post3800 (visit of May 8, 2018). 38. oleg M. Prykhodniuk, “o edinstve i razlichiiakh v Pen’kovskoi kul’ture,”

Materialy po arkheologii, istorii i etnografii Tavrii 6 (1997), 499–522; M. V. Liubichev, “Pen’kivs’ka kul’tura: shche raz pro terytoriiu ta etnichnu prynalezhnist’,” in Etnokul’turni protsesy v Pivdenno-Skhidniy Evropi v I tysiacholitti n.e. Zbirnyk naukovykh prats’, ed. rostislav V. Terpylovs’kyi, N. S. Abashina, L. E. Skyba, and V. I. Ivanovs’kyi (Kiev/L’viv: Instytut arkheologii NAN Ukrainy, 1999), 123–31.

39. Vlado Malenko, “ranosrednovekovnata materijalna kultura vo okhrid i okhridsko,” in Okhrid i Okhridsko niz istorijata, ed. Mihailo Apostolski, vol. 1 (Skopje: Sobranie na opshtina okhrid, 1985), 288–89 with pl. IX/1; Dilaver Kurti, “Gjurmë të kulturës së hershme Shqiptare ne Mat,” Iliria 1 (1971), 270 and pl. IV/1. Unlike other specimens of this group, the Sv. Erazmo and Urzall pendants each have two additional suspension loops underneath the ring.

40. Nikos Chausidis, “Nakit ‘Komani’-kulture, njegova ikonografija, sim-bolika i obredni karakter,” Glasnik odjeljenja umjetnosti 11 (1992), 54, believes the woman to be a female deity.

http://www.apriori-journal.ru/journal-gumanitarnie-nauki/id/989


http://swordmaster.org/forum/cat-Predmetybyitaiukrasheniya/topic-230-page-2.html#post3800

http://swordmaster.org/forum/cat-Predmetybyitaiukrasheniya/topic-230-page-2.html#post3800


41. Ivan Velkov, “Edna starinna cărkva i drugi arkheologicheski pametnici pri s. Kamenica,” Izvestiia na Arkheologicheskiia Institut 18 (1952), 384–85 and 385; Fig. 389.

42. T. M. Minaeva, “Nakhodka bliz stanicy Pregradnoi na r. Urupe,” Kratkie soobshcheniia Instituta Istorii Material’noi Kul’tury 68 (1957), 133; Fig. 52/1; Ambroz, Khronologiia, 109; Fig. 23/24 and 123; Fig. 37/10; Shcheglova, “Taina ‘pliashushchikh chelovechkov’,” 164 and 166.

43. Bartłomiej Szymon Szmoniewski, “Cultural contacts in Central and Eastern Europe: What do metal beast images speak about?” in Ethnic Contacts and Cultural Exchanges North and West of the Black Sea from the Greek Colonization to the Ottoman Conquest, ed. Victor Cojocaru (Iaşi: Trinitas, 2005), 429.

44. The specimen from Kugulta is fragmentary, with no head. 45. oleg M. Prykhodniuk, Pen’kovskaia kul’tura: kul’turno-khronologicheskii

aspekt issledovaniia (Voronezh: Voronezhskii universitet, 1998), 143; Fig. 75/8.

46. Georgii D. Smirnov and I. A. rafalovich, “ranneslavianskoe nakhodki VI–VII vv. iz Starogo orkheia,” Izvestiia Moldavskogo filiala AN SSSR, ser. obshchestvennykh nauk 12 (1965), 75; Fig. 1. A similar pendant is known from the early medieval stronghold in Garamikha (Perm’ region, russia), for which see rimma D. Goldina, Lomovatovskaia kul’tura v Verkhnem Prikam’e (Irkutsk: Izdatel’stvo Irkutskogo universiteta, 1985), 76; Fig. 13/13.

47. Aleksandr I. Aibabin, “Antropomorfna bliashka z rozkopok u fortetsi Eski-Kermen,” Arkheolohiia 4 (2011), 89 and; Fig. 1.

48. rácz, “Emberalakos kistárgyak,” 409–10; 410; Fig. 1/2; 411; Fig. 2/2; Igor o. Gavritukhin, “Srednedneprovskie ingumacii vtoroi poloviny V–VI v,” in Kul’turnye transformacii i vzaimovliianiia v Dneprovskom regione na iskhode rimskogo vremeni i v rannem Srednevekov’e. Doklady nauchnoi konferencii, posviashchennoi 60-letiiu so dnia rozhdeniia E.A. Goriunova (Sankt-Peterburg, 14–17 noiabria 2000 g.), ed. Valentina M. Goriunova and ol’ga A. Shcheglova (St. Petersburg: Peterburgskoe vostokovedenie, 2004), 210 and 218; Fig. 3/2.

49. Attila Kiss, “Archäologische Angaben zur Geschichte der Sättel des Frühmittelalters,” Alba Regia 21 (1984), 199; Fig. 20; rácz, “Emberalakos kistárgyak,” 409, 410, and 412, 410; Fig. 1/1, 3, 411; Fig. 2/1, 3.

50. Gavritukhin, “Srednedneprovskie ingumacii,” 210 and 218; Fig. 3/10. 51. Niiaz A. Mazhitov, “Kurgannyi mogil’nik v derevne Novo-Turbasly,” in

Bashkirskii arkheologicheskii sbornik, ed. Aleksandr P. Smirnov and r. G. Kuzeev (Ufa: Institut istorii, iazyka i literatury AN SSSr, 1959), 130 and 131; Fig. 4.


52. L. V. Subbotin and I. T. Cherniakov, “Bronzovye amulety saltovo-mai-ackoi kul’tury iz levoberezh’ia Nizhnego Dunaia,” in Pamiatniki rimskogo i srednevekogo vremeni v Severo-Zapadnom Prichernomor’e. Sbornik nauch-nykh trudov, ed. A. V. Gudkova (Kiev: Naukova dumka, 1982), 163–64 and 161; Fig. 1/10–14; Kovalevskaia, “Antropomorfnye amulety,” 44–46 and Figs. 1–7 and 9; L. M. Levina, Etnokul’turnaia istoriia Vostochnogo Priaral’ia (I tysiacheletiia do n. e.-I tysiacheletiia n. e.) (Moscow: Vostochnaia literatura, 1996), 246–47; Fig. 169/4, 6, 10; and Iaroslav V. Volodarets’-Urbanovych, “Antropomorfna figurka iz Zasullia-Mgaru,” Arkheolohiia 1 (2016), 79–82 and Figs. 1–4.

53. Vesela Pisarova, “Nova nakhodka nakiti i kultovi predmeti ot VII v. ot raiona na Kubrat,” Problemi na prabălgarskata istoriia i kultura 3 (1997), 283–89 and 294; Fig. 1/1, 2. There are other human figurines in the collection, only one of which vaguely resembles the group under discussion.

54. A. P. runich, “Dva bogatykh rannesrednevekovykh pogrebeniia iz Kizlovodskoi kotlovini,” Sovetskaia Arkheologiia 1 (1977), 251; Fig. 3/3.

55. Vera B. Kovalevskaia, “Khronologiia drevnosti severokavkazskikh alan,” in Alany: istoriia i kul’tura, ed. F. Kh. Gutnov, r. G. Dzattiaty, L. B. Dzugaev, V. A. Kuznecov, A. G. Kuchiev, and V. Kh. Tmenov (Vladikavkaz: Severo-osetinskii Institut Gumanitarnykh Issledovanii/Maket, 1995), 141.

56. Kovalevskaia, “Khronologiia drevnosti,” 141–44 believes that they were amulets associated with the cult of a warrior deity.

57. Gennadii E. Afanas’ev, “Bronzovye figurki vsadnikov iz alanskikh pogrebenii Severnogo Kavkaza,” Trudy Gosudarstvennogo Ordena Lenina Ermitazha 36 (1973), 36–38; Veselin Beshevliev, “Părvobălgarski amu-let,” Izvestiia na Narodniia muzei Varna 9 (1973), 53–64 and 301–4; Spas Mashov, “Amulety-koncheta văv Vrachanskii muzei,” Muzei i pametnici na kulturata 14.2–3 (1974), 65–67; Vera B. Kovalevskaia, “Izobrazhenie konia i vsadnika na srednevekovykh amuletakh sever-nogo Kavkaza,” in Voprosy drevnei i srednevekovoi arkheologii Vostochnoi Evropy, ed. V. I. Kozenkova, Iurii A. Krasnov, and Irina G. rozenfel’dt (Moscow: Nauka, 1978), 111–20; Zhivko Aladzhov, “Prabălgarski tip amuleti ot Makedoniia i Sărbiia,” Starini 1 (1999), 97–100; Valentina E. Flerova, Obrazy i siuzhety mifologii Khazarii (Moscow/Jerusalem: Mosty kul’tury/Gesharim, 2001), 72–82; V. K. Grib, “Mesto i rol’ amu-letov VIII–XII vv. s izobrazheniem konia ili vsadnika v ideologii narodov Vostochnoi Evropy,” Istorychni i politologichni doslidzhennia 3–4 (2006), 91–97; Vladimir Ia. Petrukhin, “Bolgarskie amulety v vide konnikov: evraziiskii kontekst,” Problemi na izkustvoto 40.3 (2007), 3–6 and 62; rumen Spasov, “rannosrednovekoven amulet ot iugozapadna Bălgariia,”


in Stephanos archaeologicos in honorem Professoris Stephcae Angelova, ed. Liudmil Getov (Sofia: Universitetsko izdatelstvo “Sv. Kliment okhridski”, 2010), 557–65; Stoicho Bonev, “Amulet ‘pechenezhski’ tip - za părvi păt v Preslav,” Prinosi kăm bălgarskata arkheologiia 5 (2009), 179–81; Zarina H. Albegova and Vera B. Kovalevskaia, “Amulety v vide konei i vsadnikov pamiatnikakh severnogo Kavkaza i srednego Dona,” in Voprosy drevnei i srednevekovoi arkheologii Kavkaza, ed. Khamid M. Mamaev (Moscow/Groznyi: Institut Arkheologii rAN, 2011), 277–93; Gheorghe Postică and Ion Tentiuc, “Amulete-călăreți de bronz din perioada medievală timpurie în spațiul carpato-nistrean,” Tyragetia 8.1 (2014), 45–72; and Ioto Valeriev, “Srednovekovni bronzovi amuleti kon-nici na Dolniia Dunav (XI–XII v.),” Dobrudzha 30 (2015), 375–400. For the religious significance of those pendants, see Dimităr ovcharov, “Za smisăla i znachenieto na edin vid rannosrednovekovni amulet,” in Sbornik v pamet na prof. Stancho Vaklinov, ed. Vasil Giuzelev (Sofia: Izdatelstvo na Bălgarskata Akademiia na Naukite, 1984), 136–39; Kovalevskaia, “Khronologiia drevnosti,” 143.

58. Ljubinka Dzhidrova, “Tolkuvanje na eden specifichen tip na amuleti od sredniot vek na Balkanot,” Macedoniae Acta Archaeologica 10 (1985–1986), 247–57; Katia Melamed, “Amuleti-kone, iazdeni ot măzhka glava,” Problemi na prabălgarskata istoriia i kultura 2 (1991), 219–31; Stanislav Stanilov, “Starobălgarskite amuleti-koncheta,” Pliska-Preslav 5 (1992), 239–45; Krasimira Luka, “Horse-shaped amulets ridden by a human head: problems of interpretation,” Archaeologia iuventa 1 (2004), 86–95; Kamen Stanev, “Amuletite ot tipa kon iazden ot choveshka glava i organizaciia na bălgarskata voiska prez VIII-nachaloto na IX v.,” Minalo 13.3 (2006), 13–24; and Ioto Valeriev and Iordan Boiadzhiev, “Za taka narechenite ‘amuleti konnici s măzhka glava,” Izvestiia na săiuza na uchenite. Seriia Tekhnicheski nauki (2013), 131–34. Such pendants have been found in Hungary, Macedonia and Ukraine. The chronology of those pendants has been a matter of much debate. Some scholars believe that the pendants date back to the fifth century to seventh century, oth-ers have dated them to the eighth and ninth century. More recently, Ioto Valeriev, “Belezhki vărkhu taka narechenite ‘amuleti-koncheta s măzhka glava’,” Pliska-Preslav 11 (2015), 435–40 has disputed both proposals and has argued that some specimens may be of a much later date, as late as the nineteenth century. Valeriev’s main argument is that the high percentage of zinc (over 20%) in the alloy employed for those pendants indicated a technology that became available only in the Late Middle Ages. However, brass with high percentage of zinc (26–28%) was produced in India and the early roman Empire. See J. S. Kharakwal and L. K. Gurjar, “Zinc and brass in archaeological perspective,” Ancient Asia 1 (2006), 152;


Alina Tomaszewska-Szewczyk, “Mosiądz w starożytności i średniowieczu. Przyczynek do dziejów kultury materialnej,” AUNC Zabytkoznawstwo i Konserwatorstwo 47 (2016), 22. A relatively high percentage of zinc may also be observed in alloys produced in Eastern Europe and the Caucasus region during the Early Middle Ages by means of the cupellation pro-cess, for which see Bartlomiej Sz. Szmoniewski, “Cementacja mosiądzu w starożytności i w średniowieczu - zarys zagadnienia,” in Gospodarka nad Przemszą i Brynicą. Od pradziejow do początkow XX wieku. W świ-etle badań interdyscyplinarnych, ed. Dariusz rozmus and Slawomir Witkowski (Dąbrowa Gornicza/olkusz/Sosnowiec: Muzeum Miejskie “Sztygarka”, 2009), 118–21. The cupellation employed in early medie-val Eastern Europe was different from that known in the roman world. See Thilo rehren, “The same… but different’: a juxtaposition of roman and medieval brass making in Central Europe,” in Metals in Antiquity, ed. Suzanne M. M. Young (London: Archaeopress, 1999), 252; Bartlomiej Szymon Szmoniewski, “Wytwórczość przedmiotów z metali nieżelaznych na Słowiańszczyźnie od V do VII wieku,” Ph.D. dissertation, Institute of Archaeology (Cracow, 2010), 45–47.

59. Edit Bárdos, “Az avarkori öntött bronz korongok viseleti szokásához a zamárdi avar temető alapján,” Somogyi Múzeumok Közleményei 12 (1996), 51; Fig. 4 and pl. XIII/1. According to Csanád Bálint, “Avar gold smith work from the perspective of cultural history,” in “Intelligible Beauty”: Recent Research on Byzantine Jewellery, ed. Christopher Entwistle and Noël Adams (London: British Museum, 2010), 149 with pl. 14, the Zamárdi piece is a “primitive mould.”

60. Albegova and Kovalevskaia, “Amulety v vide konei,” 279; Fig. 1/20.

references

Afanas’ev, Gennadii E. “Bronzovye figurki vsadnikov iz alanskikh pogrebenii Severnogo Kavkaza.” Trudy Gosudarstvennogo Ordena Lenina Ermitazha 36 (1973), 36–38.

Aibabin, Aleksandr I. “Antropomorfna bliashka z rozkopok u fortetsi Eski-Kermen.” Arkheolohiia (2011), no. 4, 89–90.

Aibabin, Aleksandr I., and Elzara A. Khairedinova. Mogil’nik u sela Luchistoe. Raskopki 1984, 1986, 1991, 1993–1995 godov. Simferopol’/Kerch’: Centr ark-heologicheskikh issledovanii Blagotvoritel’nogo fonda “Demetra”, 2014.

Akopian, Zarukhi A. “obraz sviatogo Khristofora v rannesrednevekevkoi skul’pture Armenii VII vek.” In Vizantiia v kontekste mirovoi kul’tury. Materialy konferencii posviashchennoi pamiati A. V. Bank (1906–1984), edited by Vera N. Zalesskaia and Elena V. Stepanova, 119–32. St. Petersburg: Izdatel’stvo Gosudarstvennogo Ermitazha, 2015.


Aladzhov, Zhivko. “Prabălgarski tip amuleti ot Makedoniia i Sărbiia.” Starini 1 (1999), 97–100.

Albegova, Zarina H., and Vera B. Kovalevskaia. “Amulety v vide konei i vsad-nikov pamiatnikakh severnogo Kavkaza i srednego Dona.” In Voprosy drevnei i srednevekovoi arkheologii Kavkaza, edited by Khamid M. Mamaev, 227–93. Moscow/Groznyi: Institut Arkheologii rAN, 2011.

Ambroz, Anatolii K. Khronologiia drevnostei severnogo Kavkaza V–VII vv. Moscow: Nauka, 1989.

Atanasov, Georgi. “Sviatoi Georgi - peshii voiin-zmeeborcev: vozniknovenie ikonografii, pamiatniki, semantika i rasprostranenie.” In Slaviano-russkoe iuvelirnoe delo i ego istoki. Materialy Mezhdunarodnoi nauchnoi konferencii posviashchennoi 100-letiiu so dnia rozhdeniia Gali Fedorovny Korzukhinoi. Sankt-Peterburg, 10–16 aprelia 2006 g., edited by Anna A. Peskova, ol’ga A. Shcheglova, and Aleksandr E. Musin, 330–43 and 606. St. Petersburg: Nestor-Istoriia, 2010.

Balabanov, Kosta. Vinichko kale. Mitologija, religija i istorija pishuvani so glina. Skopje: Matica 20 godini, 2011.

Bálint, Csanád. “Avar goldsmith work from the perspective of cultural history.” In “Intelligible Beauty”: Recent Research on Byzantine Jewellery, edited by Christopher Entwistle and Noël Adams, 146–60 (research Publications, 178). London: British Museum, 2010.

Bárdos, Edit. “Az avarkori öntött bronz korongok viseleti szokásához a zamárdi avar temető alapján.” Somogyi Múzeumok Közleményei 12 (1996), 47–106.

Beshevliev, Veselin. “Părvobălgarski amulet.” Izvestiia na Narodniia muzei Varna 9 (1973), 53–64 and 301–4.

Bonev, Stoicho. “Amulet ‘pechenezhski’ tip - za părvi păt v Preslav.” Prinosi kăm bălgarskata arkheologiia 5 (2009), 179–81.

Borisov, Boris. “Bronzova statuetka ot rannovizantiiskata krepost do s. Diadovo, Novopazarsko.” Problemi na prabălgarskata istoriia i kultura 4 (2007), no. 2, 331–38.

Braun, Joachim. “Musical instruments in Byzantine illuminated manuscripts.” Early Music 8 (1980), no. 3, 312–28.

Büchler, Alfred. “Horns and trumpets in Byzantium: Images and texts.” Historical Brass Society Journal 12.1 (2000), 23–59.

Cambi, Nenad. “Attis or someone else on funerary monuments in Dalmatia?” In Romanisation und Resistenz in Plastik, Architektur und Inschriften der Provinzen des Imperium Romanum: neue Funde und Forschungen. Akten des VII. Internationalen Colloquiums über Probleme der provinzialrömischen Kunstschaffens, Köln, 2. bis 6. Mai 2001, edited by Peter Noelke, Friederike Naumann-Steckner, and Beate Schneider, 511–20. Mainz: Philip von Zabern, 2003.

Carnap-Bornheim, Claus von, and Anke Bodo. “Gesichtsdarstellungen im reiter-nomadischen Milieu.” In Attila und die Hunnen. Begleitbuch zur Ausstellung “Attila und die Hunnen”. Herausgegeben vom Historischen Museum der Pfalz


Speyer, edited by Bodo Anke and Heike Externbrink, 263–67. Stuttgart: Historisches Museum der Pfalz, 2007.

Cecchèlli, Carlo. “Arte paleoslava.” Memorie storiche forogiuliesi 40 (1953), 189–204.

Chausidis, Nikos. “Nakit ‘Komani’-kulture, njegova ikonografija, simbolika i obredni karakter.” Glasnik odjeljenja umjetnosti 11 (1992), 41–105.

Choyke, Alice. “The bone is the beast: Animal amulets and ornaments in power and magic.” In Anthropological Approaches to Zooarchaeology: Colonialism, Complexity, and Animal Transformations, edited by Douglas V. Campana, 197–209. oxford: oxbow Books, 2010.

Curta, Florin. “The archaeology of identities in old russia (ca. 500 to ca. 650).” Russian History 34 (2007), 31–62.

———. “Shedding light on a murky matter: remarks on 6th to early 7th century clay lamps in the Balkans.” Archaeologia Bulgarica 20 (2016), no. 3, 51–116.

Dimitrova, Elizabeta. Vinichkata misterija. Keramichkata riznica od docnoantich-koto kale. Vinica: Muzej “Terakota”, 2012.

Dzhidrova, Ljubinka. “Tolkuvanje na eden specifichen tip na amuleti od sredniot vek na Balkanot.” Macedoniae Acta Archaeologica 10 (1985–1986), 247–57.

Garam, Éva. Das awarenzeitliche Gräberfeld von Tiszafüred (Cemeteries of the Avar Period (567–829) in Hungary, 3). Budapest: Akadémiai kiadó, 1995.

García y Bellido, Antonio. Les religions orientales dans l’Espagne romaine (Etudes préliminaires aux religions orientales dans l’Empire romain, 5). Leiden: Brill, 1967.

Gavritukhin, Igor o. “Srednedneprovskie ingumacii vtoroi poloviny V–VI v.” In Kul’turnye transformacii i vzaimovliianiia v Dneprovskom regione na isk-hode rimskogo vremeni i v rannem Srednevekov’e. Doklady nauchnoi konferencii, posviashchennoi 60-letiiu so dnia rozhdeniia E.A. Goriunova (Sankt-Peterburg, 14–17 noiabria 2000 g.), edited by Valentina M. Goriunova and ol’ga A. Shcheglova, 208–20. St. Petersburg: Peterburgskoe vostokovedenie, 2004.

Goldina, rimma D. Lomovatovskaia kul’tura v Verkhnem Prikam’e. Irkutsk: Izdatel’stvo Irkutskogo universiteta, 1985.

Grib, V. K. “Mesto i rol’ amuletov VIII–XII vv. s izobrazheniem konia ili vsad-nika v ideologii narodov Vostochnoi Evropy.” Istorychni i politologichni dos-lidzhennia 3–4 (2006), 91–97.

Hualpa Chávez, Fabiola Yvonne. “La leyenda del Lupu mannaro (Hombre lobo) y del Ursu panaru (Hombre oso) en los Apeninos Centrales (Leonessa, Italia).” Dimensión Antropológica 38 (2006), 179–93.

Iotov, Valeri. “Bronzova figura ot Iuzhna Dobrudzha.” Vekove 20 (1991), nos. 1–2, 70–73.

Josipović, Ivan. “Predromanički reljef s prikazom konjanika-kopljonoše iz Novigrada.” In Novigrad nekad i sad, edited by Slobodan Kaštela, 292–301. Zadar: Sveučilište, 2016.


Kalavrezou, Ioli. “Images of women in Byzantium.” In Everyday Life in Byzantium, edited by Demetra Papanikola-Bakirtzi, 245–46. Athens: Hellenic Ministry of Culture, 2002.

Kharakwal, J. S., and Gurjar, L. K. “Zinc and brass in archaeological perspec-tive.” Ancient Asia 1 (2006), 139–59.

Khavliuk, P. I. “ranneslavianskie poseleniia v basseine Iuzhnogo Buga.” In Rannesrednevekovye vostochnoslavianskie drevnosti, edited by Petr N. Tret’iakov, 181–215. Leningrad: Nauka, 1974.

Kiss, Attila. “Archäologische Angaben zur Geschichte der Sättel des Frühmittelalters.” Alba Regia 21 (1984), 189–207.

Kolchin, Boris A. “Gusli drevnego Novgoroda.” In Drevniaia Rus’ i slaviane, edited by Tat’iana V. Nikolaeva, 358–66. Moscow: Nauka, 1978.

Korol’, Galina G. Iskusstvo srednovekovykh kochevnikov Evrazii. Ocherki. Moscow/Kemerovo: Kuzbassvuzizdat, 2008.


———. “ostava brončanih matrica za otiskivanje u Biskupiji kod Knina.” Starohrvatska prosvjeta 6 (1958), 29–44.

Korzukhina, Galina F. “Klady i sluchainye nakhodki veshchei kruga ‘drevnostei antov’ v srednem Podneprov’e. Katalog pamiatnikov.” Materialy po arkhe-ologii, istorii i etnografii Tavrii 5 (1996), 352–435 and 586–705.

Kovalevskaia, Vera B. “Izobrazhenie konia i vsadnika na srednevekovykh amu-letakh severnogo Kavkaza.” In Voprosy drevnei i srednevekovoi arkheologii Vostochnoi Evropy, edited by V. I. Kozenkova, Iurii A. Krasnov, and Irina G. rozenfel’dt, 111–20. Moscow: Nauka, 1978.

———. “Antropomorfnye amulety VI–IX vv. na Severnom Kavkaze.” Kratkie soobshcheniia Instituta Arkheologii SSSR 176 (1983), 43–50.

———. “Khronologiia drevnosti severokavkazskikh alan.” In Alany: istoriia i kul’tura, edited by F. Kh. Gutnov, r. G. Dzattiaty, L. B. Dzugaev, V. A. Kuznecov, A. G. Kuchiev, and V. Kh. Tmenov, 123–83. Vladikavkaz: Severo-osetinskii Institut Gumanitarnykh Issledovanii/Maket, 1995.

Kurti, Dilaver. “Gjurmë të kulturës së hershme Shqiptare ne Mat.” Iliria 1 (1971), 269–74.

Levada, M. E. “Pizniy ryms’kyy – ranniy vizantiyskyy chasy.” In Platar, Kolektsiia predmetiv starovyny rodyn Platonovykh i Tarut. Katalog, edited by Elizaveta I. Arkhipova and V. I. Klochko, 190–215. Kiev: ToV Ukrpolihrafmedia, 2004.

Levina, L. M. Etnokul’turnaia istoriia Vostochnogo Priaral’ia (I tysiacheletiia do n. e.-I tysiacheletiia n. e.). Moscow: Vostochnaia literatura, 1996.

Lincoln, Bruce. Death, War, and Sacrifice: Studies in Ideology and Practice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991.


Liubichev, M. V. “Pen’kivs’ka kul’tura: shche raz pro terytoriiu ta etnichnu pry-nalezhnist’.” In Etnokul’turni protsesy v Pivdenno-Skhidniy Evropi v I tysiacho-litti n.e. Zbirnyk naukovykh prats’, edited by rostislav V. Terpylovs’kyi, N. S. Abashina, L. E. Skyba, and V. I. Ivanovs’kyi, 123–31. Kiev/L’viv: Instytut arkheologii NAN Ukrainy, 1999.

Luka, Krasimira. “Horse-shaped amulets ridden by a human head: Problems of interpretation.” Archaeologia iuventa 1 (2004), 86–95.

Maenchen-Helfen, otto J. The World of the Huns: Studies in Their History and Culture. Berkeley/Los Angeles/London: University of California Press, 1973.

Malenko, Vlado. “ranosrednovekovnata materijalna kultura vo okhrid i okhridsko.” In Okhrid i Okhridsko niz istorijata, edited by Mihailo Apostolski, vol. 1, 269–315. Skopje: Sobranie na opshtina okhrid, 1985.

Maliaras, Nikolaos. “Mousika organa sto Byzantio. Problemata kai prota apote-lesmata mias ereunas.” Polyphonia 1 (2002), 5–28.

Malinowski, Tadeusz. “Uzupełniające uwagi dotyczące wczesnośredniowiec-znych gęśli z opola.” Przegląd Archeologiczny 45 (1997), 129–30.

Marun, Lujo. Starinarski dnevnici. Split: Muzej hrvatskih arheoloskih spomenika, 1998.

Mashov, Spas. “Amulety-koncheta văv Vrachanskii muzei.” Muzei i pametnici na kulturata 14 (1974), nos. 2–3, 65–67.

Mazhitov, Niiaz A. “Kurgannyi mogil’nik v derevne Novo-Turbasly.” In Bashkirskii arkheologicheskii sbornik, edited by Aleksandr P. Smirnov and r. G. Kuzeev, 114–42. Ufa: Institut istorii, iazyka i literatury AN SSSr, 1959.

Melamed, Katia. “Amuleti-kone, iazdeni ot măzhka glava.” Problemi na prabăl-garskata istoriia i kultura 2 (1991), 219–31.

Milošević, Ante. “Il bassorilievo altomedievale del cavaliere di Žrnovnica in Dalmazia.” Godišnjak. Centar za balkanološka ispitivanja 37 (2008), 181–218.

———. “Slika ‘božanskog boja’ - likovni i ikonografski pogled na konjanički rel-jef iz Žrnovnice u Dalmaciji.” In Perunovo koplje, edited by Andrej Pleterski and Tomo Vinšćak, 17–72. Ljubljana: Inštitut za arheologijo ZrC SAZU, 2011.

———. Tragovi starih vjerovanja u kršćanstvu ranoga srednjeg vijeka. Dubrovnik: omega Engineering, 2013.

Minaeva, T. M. “Nakhodka bliz stanicy Pregradnoi na r. Urupe.” Kratkie soobsh-cheniia Instituta Istorii Material’noi Kul’tury 68 (1957), 133–36.

Moraitou, Mina. “Women.” In Byzantium and Islam: Age of Transition, 7th–9th Century, edited by Helen C. Evans and Brandie ratliff, 195. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2012.


Nielsen, Karen Høilund. “The wolf-warrior: Animal symbolism on weap-onry of the 6th and 7th centuries.” In Archäologisches Zellwerk. Beiträge zur Kulturgeschichte in Europa und Asien. Festschrift für Helmut Roth zum 60. Geburtstag, edited by Ernest Pohl, Udo Becker, and Claudia Theune, 471–81. rahden: Marie Leidorf, 2001.

ovcharov, Dimităr. “Za smisăla i znachenieto na edin vid rannosrednovek-ovni amulet.” In Sbornik v pamet na prof. Stancho Vaklinov, edited by Vasil Giuzelev, 136–39. Sofia: Izdatelstvo na Bălgarskata Akademiia na Naukite, 1984.

Panchenko, M. V. “Kochevnicheskoe oblachenie v khudozhestvennom lit’e sred-nevekov’ia.” Vostochnoevropeiskii arkheologicheskii zhurnal 6 (2000), no. 7, available at http://archaeology.kiev.ua/journal/061100/panchenko.htm (visit of May 8, 2018).

Paroli, Lidia. “The Langobardic finds and the archaeology of Central Asia.” In From Attila to Charlemagne: Arts of the Early Medieval Period in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, edited by Katharine reynolds Brown, Dafydd Kidd, and Charles T. Little, 140–63. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2000.

Pekars’ka, Liudmila V., and Dafydd Kidd. Der Silberschatz von Martynovka (Ukraine) aus dem 6. und 7. Jahrhundert (Monographien zur Frühgeschichte und Mittelalterarchäologie, 1). Innsbruck: Universitätsverlag Wagner, 1994.

Petrović, radmilo. “Kefalija i polikefalija.” Zbornik narodnog muzeja 14 (1992), 439–47.

Petrukhin, Vladimir Ia. “Bolgarskie amulety v vide konnikov: evraziiskii kon-tekst.” Problemi na izkustvoto 40.3 (2007), 3–6 and 62.

Pisarova, Vesela. “Nova nakhodka nakiti i kultovi predmeti ot VII v. ot raiona na Kubrat.” Problemi na prabălgarskata istoriia i kultura 3 (1997), 283–95.

Postică, Gheorghe, and Tentiuc, Ion. “Amulete-călăreți de bronz din perioada medievală timpurie în spațiul carpato-nistrean.” Tyragetia 8 (2014), no. 1, 45–72.

Povetkin, Vladimir I. “S gusliami k pervonasel’nikam Novgoroda.” In Veliki Novgorod v istorii srednevekovoi Evropy. K 70-letiiu Valentian Lavrent’evicha Ianina, edited by Aleksei A. Gippius, Evgenii N. Nosov, and Aleksandr S. Khoroshev, 85–94. Moscow: russkie slovari, 1999.

Prieto, rafael Hidalgo. “Casting mould relief of armed horseman from Córdoba.” Gladius 32 (2012), 69–86.

Prykhodniuk, oleg M. “o edinstve i razlichiiakh v Pen’kovskoi kul’ture.” Materialy po arkheologii, istorii i etnografii Tavrii 6 (1997), 499–522.

rácz, Zsófia. “Emberalakos kistárgyak az avar korból.” In Thesaurus avaro-rum. Régészeti tanulmányok Garam Éva tiszteletére, edited by Tivadar Vida, 409–36. Budapest: Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum, 2012.



rashev, rasho. “Za choveshkata obraz v Severnoto Prichernomorie prez ran-noto srednovekovie.” In Bălgarite v Severnoto Prichernomorie. Izsledvaniia i materiali, edited by Petar Todorov, vol. 7, 25 and 37–42. Veliko Tărnovo: Universitetsko izdatelstvo “Sv. sv. Kiril i Metodii”, 2000.

rehren, Thilo. “The same… but different’: A juxtaposition of roman and medi-eval brass making in Central Europe.” In Metals in Antiquity, edited by Suzanne M. M. Young, 252–57 (BAr International Series, 792). London: Archaeopress, 1999.

rosenfeld, Hans-Friedrich. Der Hl. Christophorus. Seine Verehrung und seine Legende. Eine Untersuchung zur Kultgeographie und Legendenbildung des Mittelalters (Acta Academiae Aboensis Humaniora 10.3). Åbo: Akademi, 1937.

runich, A. P. “Dva bogatykh rannesrednevekovykh pogrebeniia iz Kizlovodskoi kotlovini.” Sovetskaia Arkheologiia (1977), no. 1, 248–57.

rybakov, Boris A. “Drevnie rusi. K voprosu ob obrazovanii iadra drevnerusskoi narodnosti v svete trudov I. V. Stalina.” Sovetskaia Arkheologiia 17 (1953), 23–104.

Schmauder, Michael. “Vielteilige Gürtelgarnituren des 6.-7. Jahrhunderts: Herkunft, Aufkommen und Trägerkreis.” In Die Awaren am Rand der byz-antinischen Welt. Studien zu Dipcecheltie, Handel und Technologietransfer im Frühmittelalter, edited by Falko Daim, 15–45. Innsbruck: Wagner, 2000.

Shcheglova, ol’ga A. “o dvukh gruppakh ‘drevnostei antov’ v srednem Podneprov’e.” Materialy i issledovaniia po arkheologii Dneprovskogo Levoberezh’ia (1990), 162–204.

———. “Taina ‘pliashushchikh chelovechkov’ i ‘sledy nevidannykh zverei’. Antropo- i zoomorfnye izobrazheniia v ranneslavianskoi metalloplastike.” In Slaviano-russkoe iuvelirnoe delo i ego istoki. Materialy Mezhdunarodnoi nauch-noi konferencii posviashchennoi 100-letiiu so dnia rozhdeniia Gali Fedorovny Korzukhinoi. Sankt-Peterburg, 10–16 aprelia 2006 g., edited by Anna A. Peskova, ol’ga A. Shcheglova, and Aleksandr E. Musin, 146–71 and 593–94. St. Petersburg: Nestor-Istoriia, 2010.

Shestopalova, Evelina Iu. “Amulety Arkhonskogo katakombnogo mogil’nika.” APRIORI 1 (2016), 1–21, available at http://www.apriori-journal.ru/jour-nal-gumanitarnie-nauki/id/989 (visit of May 8, 2018).

Skarbovenko, V. A. “Pogrebenie rannesrednevekovogo vremeni v Kuibyshevskom Zavolzh’e.” In Drevniaia istoriia Povolzh’ia. Nauchnye trudy, edited by S. G. Basin, N. Ia. Merpert, A. D. Priakhin et al., 164–174. Kuibyshev: Kuibyshevskii gosudarstvennyi pedagogicheskii institut, 1979.

Smirnov, Georgii D., and rafalovich, I. A. “ranneslavianskoe nakhodki VI–VII vv. iz Starogo orkheia.” Izvestiia Moldavskogo filiala AN SSSR, ser. obshchest-vennykh nauk 12 (1965), 74–76.




Smith, Earl Baldwin. “Mediaeval art: Minor plastic collections.” Art and Archaeology 20 (1925), 130–31.

Stanilov, Stanislav. “Starobălgarskite amuleti-koncheta.” Pliska-Preslav 5 (1992), 239–45.

Spasov, rumen. “rannosrednovekoven amulet ot iugozapadna Bălgariia.” In Stephanos archaeologicos in honorem Professoris Stephcae Angelova, edited by Liudmil Getov, 557–65. Sofia: Universitetsko izdatelstvo “Sv. Kliment okhridski”, 2010.

Speidel, Michael P. Ancient Germanic Warriors: Warrior Styles from Trajan’s Column to Icelandic Sagas. London: routledge, 2004.

Spiel, Wilfried, ed. Gold aus Kiew: 170 Meisterwerke aus der Schatzkammer aus Ukraine: eine Ausstellung des Kunsthistorisches Museums Wien. Vienna: Das Museum, 1993.

Stanev, Kamen. “Amuletite ot tipa kon iazden ot choveshka glava i organizaciia na bălgarskata voiska prez VIII-nachaloto na IX v.” Minalo 13 (2006), no. 3, 13–24.

Subbotin, L. V., and Cherniakov, I. T. “Bronzovye amulety saltovo-maiackoi kul’tury iz levoberezh’ia Nizhnego Dunaia.” In Pamiatniki rimskogo i sred-nevekogo vremeni v Severo-Zapadnom Prichernomor’e. Sbornik nauchnykh tru-dov, edited by A. V. Gudkova, 160–68. Kiev: Naukova dumka, 1982.

Szmoniewski, Bartłomiej Szymon. “Production of early medieval ornaments made of non-ferrous metals: Dies from archaeological finds in north-east romania.” Acta Archaeologica Carpathica 37 (2002), 111–35.

———. “Cultural contacts in Central and Eastern Europe: What do metal beast images speak about?” In Ethnic Contacts and Cultural Exchanges North and West of the Black Sea from the Greek Colonization to the Ottoman Conquest, edited by Victor Cojocaru, 425–42. Iaşi: Trinitas, 2005.

———. “Cementacja mosiądzu w starożytności i w średniowieczu - zarys zagad-nienia.” In Gospodarka nad Przemszą i Brynicą. Od pradziejow do początkow XX wieku. W świetle badań interdyscyplinarnych, edited by Dariusz rozmus and Slawomir Witkowski, 118–21. Dąbrowa Gornicza/olkusz/Sosnowiec: Muzeum Miejskie “Sztygarka”, 2009.

———. “Byzantium and the Slavs in the light of goldsmiths’ production.” In “Intelligible Beauty”: Recent Research on Byzantine Jewellery, edited by Christopher Entwistle and Noël Adams, 161–72 (research Publications, 178). London: British Museum, 2010.

———. “Wytwórczość przedmiotów z metali nieżelaznych na Słowiańszczyźnie od V do VII wieku.” Ph.D. dissertation, Institute of Archaeology. Cracow, 2010.

Szymański, Wojciech. review of “Der Silberschatz von Martynovka (Ukraine) aus dem 6. und 7. Jahrhundert.” By L. V. Pekarskaja and D. Kidd (Innsbruck, 1994), Archeologia Polski 41 (1996), nos. 1–2, 194–205.


Teodor, Dan Gh. “Unele probleme privind evoluţia culturii materiale din Moldova în sec. VI–X.” Carpica 2 (1969), 253–307.

———. Creştinismul la est de Carpaţi de la origini şi până în veacul al XIV-lea. Iaşi: Junimea, 1991.

Tomaszewska-Szewczyk, Alina. “Mosiądz w starożytności i średniowieczu. Przyczynek do dziejów kultury materialnej.” AUNC Zabytkoznawstwo i Konserwatorstwo 47 (2016), 7–41.

Tzitzibassi, Antigoni. “Panel with apotropaic imagery.” In Transition to Christianity: Art of Late Antiquity, 3rd–7th Century AD, edited by Anastasia Lazaridou, 121. New York/Athens: Alexander S. onassis Public Benefit Foundation/Byzantine & Christian Museum, 2012.

Vachkova, Veselina. “Sviatost XXXL: Sv. Khristofor mezhdu intuitivnoto balogovenie i racionalnoto.” In Mirabilia: chudesa i chudovishta, edited by Vania B. Lozanova-Stancheva, 155–71. Sofia: Institut za balkanistika/Centăr po trakologiia—BAN, 2016.

Valeriev, Ioto. “Belezhki vărkhu taka narechenite ‘amuleti-koncheta s măzhka glava’.” Pliska-Preslav 11 (2015), 435–40.

———. “Srednovekovni bronzovi amuleti konnici na Dolniia Dunav (XI–XII v.).” Dobrudzha 30 (2015), 375–400.

Valeriev, Ioto, and Iordan Boiadzhiev. “Za taka narechenite ‘amuleti konnici s măzhka glava’.” Izvestiia na săiuza na uchenite. Seriia Tekhnicheski nauki (2013), 131–34.

Vasilev, V. I. “Bronzovaia nakladka v vide chelovecheskoi figury iz Iuzhnoi Dobrudzhy.” Sovetskaia Arkheologiia (1991), no. 3, 273–75.

Velkov, Ivan. “Edna starinna cărkva i drugi arkheologicheski pametnici pri s. Kamenica.” Izvestiia na Arkheologicheskiia Institut 18 (1952), 384–86.

Volodarets’-Urbanovych, Iaroslav V. “Antropomorfna figurka iz Zasullia-Mgaru.” Arkheolohiia (2016), no. 1, 79–88.

Weitzmann, Kurt, and Massimo Bernabò. The Byzantine Octateuchs. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999.


97

The largest number of “Thessalian antiquities” in the Velestino collection represents animals, 47 out of a total of 88 items (53.4%). of those, 20 represent fantastic animals. one of them is represented in pro-file on three pieces, all of bronze (Cat. 1–3; Fig. 4.1). The animal has an almost rectangular head, with a small eye, flaring lips and a visible tongue in the middle. The tulip-like muzzle with opened mouth and the tongue sticking out is separated from the head by a thickened band decorated with short, parallel lines. Both lips and head are stippled, with the head separated from the rest of the body by a contour line slightly indented on the upper part, as if to render the hair on the animal’s back (Fig. 4.2). The forequarters are represented as a shield-shaped, curved ornamen-tal panel, the interior of which is decorated with a double beaded line, framed by a band of raised triangles, itself surrounded by another beaded line (Fig. 4.2). The arched haunch separated from the forequarters by a raised line is also surrounded by a beaded line, while its interior is stip-pled on Cat. 1, but without any decoration on Cat. 2. The small, raised tail of the latter is stippled, but decorated with parallel lines on Cat. 1. The legs are stretched forwards, with paws visible for both front, but only for one of the hind legs, each paw with three claws (Fig. 4.2). It is very difficult to identify the animal. Charles Vignier regarded it as feline, ol’ga Shcheglova as a horse-lion, while Andrii Skyba compared it to the “hippopotamuses” in the Martynivka and Trubchevsk hoards. only Joachim Werner recognized it as a fabulous creature (“unbestimmbares

CHAPTEr 4

real and Fantastic Animals


https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04846-4_4



Fabelwesen”) and refrained from defining it any further.1 It is important to note that out of the three pieces, two have the animal in profile to the left (Cat. 2–3), and one to the right (Cat. 1). In addition to minute dif-ferences between the decoration of Cat. 1 and that of Cat. 2, the varying profiles suggest that both pieces were meant to be placed symmetrically, facing another element between them. The existence of a pair of profiles to the left further suggests that there were multiple pieces on either side of that central element or that fantastic animals like that represented in Cat. 1–3 flanked more than one central element.

Both Cat. 4 (bronze) and Cat. 5 (lead) represent the same animal in profile to the right. Its head with a round eye is turned backwards, as if looking for an enemy behind (Fig. 4.3). The flaring lips of the muz-zle reveal the tongue in the middle. A large, circular eye is placed in the middle of the head, above which there is a large ear (or horn) curved forwards. The head and the lips are stippled (Fig. 4.4). The S-shaped body has a short, raised tail. As in the case of Cat. 1–3, the four legs are shown stretched with paws forwards, each with three claws. The body is decorated with double triangles, each pair with a beaded line in the middle, while hatching was used for the neck and the hindquarters (Fig. 4.4). Much like for Cat. 1–3, it is impossible to identify the animal, which may well be classified as “fantastic”.

Fig. 4.1 Bronze plaque (Cat. 2), one of a mirror-image pair (Photo: Florin Curta)

4 rEAL AND FANTASTIC ANIMALS 99

Fig. 4.2 Details of Cat. 2: front paw (a), hind paw (b), and head of the animal (c) (Photo: Florin Curta)


By contrast, the bird on Cat. 6–7 is most evidently a rooster, shown in profile to the right. The head with rounded beak and circular eye with a beaded border has a large comb and a small wattle, both stippled. The ornament on the head and the body consists of five hatching patterns, perhaps meant to imitate patches of colour in the plumage. The wing is made of concentric, slightly curved and beaded lines. The legs are also decorated by hatching, have clear spurs and three toes each. Finally, the rounded tail shows five plumes. In early Christian art, the symbolism of the rooster was frequently associated with the sun, for the crowing rooster chased away the darkness.2 However, the rooster was also sym-bolically linked to the episode of Saint Peter denying Christ.3 Equally popular in the Middle Ages, in both Eastern and Western Christianity, was the miracle story of apocryphal origin known as the “Cock Miracle”, in which Jesus resurrects a roasted cock to spy on Judas, who is about to betray Him.4 Although it is not possible to establish the exact meaning



Fig. 4.4 Details of Cat. 5: head and body of the animal (Photo: Florin Curta)


of the Velestino pieces, it is likely that the symbolism of the rooster on Cat. 6–7 is also Christian.

The body of the animal on Cat. 8–9 is shown in profile to the left, but the head is turned towards the viewer (Fig. 4.5). The round head has a mouth marked by a band of short, parallel lines, a snout-like nose, elliptical eyes and nostrils, above which there are two round ears. Six hatched bands stretch over the top of the head, perhaps meant to indi-cate the hair. The head is separated from the body by two nicked lines and, behind it, five rectangles with rounded ends and hatched ornament (Fig. 4.6). The middle part of the body has eight undulating, parallel lines, while the haunch is without any decoration, except for a cross four-chy on Cat. 9 (probably a cross potent on Cat. 8). The long tail is rolled forwards on the animal’s back (Fig. 4.6). All four legs are shown frontally, with large paws, each with four claws. Between the front and the hind legs, as well as between the hind legs, there are two connecting cells, the role of which was probably to avoid the breakage of such fragile compo-nents of the piece. Inspired by Charles Vignier, Joachim Werner believed the animal to be a lion with a human face, but this seems to be based



purely on the interpretation of the five rectangles with rounded ends as a mane.5 However, the manes of two lions in the Velestino collection are represented very differently, while the animal on Cat. 8–9 is most likely a tiger. The undulating lines in the middle of the body may well indi-cate the vertical stripes on that animal’s fur. At any rate, the animal is to be interpreted symbolically, as indicated by the cross on the haunch, the same motif that appears on the back of the horse on Cat. 56. The “Christianization” of the feline (lion or tiger) on Cat. 8–9 may refer to the taming of the beast, a symbol of destruction for the early Christians.

The animal represented on another three pieces (Cat. 10–12) is defi-nitely fantastic (Fig. 4.7). Its head has a prominent, almond-shaped eye, represented frontally, with a nicked eyebrow. The round muzzle is deco-rated with four parallel lines. The opened mouth is rendered as a circle, another similar circle behind the eye stands for the animal’s ear. The back of the head and part of the forequarters are decorated with nine differ-ent hatching patterns, behind which is a scale-like ornament of overlap-ping semicircles, each with a circle in the middle (Fig. 4.8). Two legs are

Fig. 4.6 Details of Cat. 9: head with front paws and back with hind paws (Photo: Florin Curta)


shown in the front, one with four parallel indentations just underneath the scale-like ornament, have paws marked off by two parallel lines, each paw with three claws. Behind the scale-like ornament, and separated from it by a nicked line across the body, is a tulip-shaped motif stretch-ing to the back. Its decoration consists of a beaded border in the mid-dle and hatched decoration on the sides (two rows on the lower petal, separated by another beaded line). Behind the tulip-shaped motif there are more indentations, seven on the back and four on the belly of the animal (Fig. 4.8). Like the head, the remaining part of the body, which is shown in an undulating movement, is stippled. The tail ends in a rounded fin, decorated with radially arranged lines. Because of the stip-pled decoration, but also because of the different hatching patterns on the neck (which may indicate different colours), the forequarters are of a panther, while the hindquarters are definitely of a fish.6 The fantastic ani-mal is most likely a sea-panther or a fishtailed leopard (pardalokampos), in which case, the tulip-shaped motif in the middle may be interpreted as wings.7

Fig. 4.7 Lead plaque (Cat. 12), one of a triplet, with broken and reattached part (Photo: Florin Curta)


Fig. 4.8 Details of Cat. 12: head and tail of the animal (Photo: Florin Curta)


There are no wings on the bird represented on Cat. 16–17. The stip-pled head has a prominent round eye (made of concentric circles) and a long, curved beak. The head is separated from the neck by four par-allel lines, followed by a hatched area, itself separated from the rest of the body by a nicked line. The body is decorated with a central motif of overlapping, oval, fern-like patterns (perhaps imitating feathers), and a hatched ornament, all surrounded by two nicked lines, with overlapping circles between them. The animal has very small, stippled legs ending with paws. The tail is a larger version of the feather motif on the body. What kind of bird is this? Cecchèlli thought it was a goose, Werner a bird of prey. In reality, the short feet, the curved beak and the round tail sug-gest a partridge, which appears in several Aesopic fables.8

A precise Aesopic reference is difficult to establish for the horned ani-mal represented in profile, to the left, on three pieces, two of bronze and one of lead (Cat. 18–20). The body is in semi-profile, while the head is seen from above (Fig. 4.9). The head has two nostrils and two circu-lar eyes, in addition to a crescent-like pair of horns (Fig. 4.10). Is this a cow or an ox? Be as it may, the neck is decorated with two parallel



Fig. 4.10 Details of Cat. 20: head and tail of the animal (Photo: Florin Curta)


rows of semicircles, while the body is partly stippled, partly covered with C-shaped motifs. The animal has a small, raised tail, decorated with a herringbone motif (on the bronze specimens) (Fig. 4.10). All four legs are visible, each ending in a two-toe hoof. Another ox or cow appears on a single bronze piece (Cat. 21). The animal’s head is turned towards the viewer and has round eyes and nostrils, as well as a crescent-like pair of horns, very much like Cat. 18–20. The body is stippled, the front legs with paw-like hooves are bent backwards, which suggest that the animal is shown sitting.9

An easier identification is possible for Cat. 22–23. Between the ears on the animal’s head with sketched mouth and round eye, there is a pair of long antlers, each with three points. The neck and the body of the stag are decorated with curved hatching, enclosed by a nicked con-tour line. There is a small, raised tail, and all four legs are shown, with small hooves, not unlike those of Cat. 18–20. The stag may certainly have Aesopic associations, but it was also an animal with a profoundly

Fig. 4.11 Bronze plaque (Cat. 25), one of a triplet (with two mirror images) (Photo: Florin Curta)


Christian symbolism. As an enemy of the snake, which it could draw out of a hole with its breath and then trample it to death, the stag was asso-ciated with Christ, Who tramples and destroys the devil. Because of the first two lines of Psalm 41 (“As the deer longs for the springs of water,/So my soul longs for you, o God”), the image of the deer was typi-cally associated with early Christian baptisteries in northern Africa, Asia Minor, as well as the Balkans.10 Because stags were believed to renew and shed their antlers after drinking from springs, the animal became a symbol for one’s spiritual renewal after shedding one’s sins.11

Another fantastic animal is represented on Cat. 24–25.12 The long, dog-like head has flaring lips, visible fangs and tongue, and two pointed ears (Fig. 4.11).13 The hatching patterns decorating the head are arranged radially around the raised eye (Fig. 4.12). The head is sepa-rated from the body by a nicked line, behind which the back of the head is nicked as well, no doubt to represent the hair. The forequarters are decorated with punched ovals, perhaps meant to indicate the mane. The rest of the body is not decorated, except a cross on the haunch, the exact same position in which the cross is placed on Cat. 8, 9 and 56 (Fig. 4.12). The small, curly tail is raised. only two legs are shown, the front one parallel to the head, which suggests a sitting position. It is important to note that Cat. 24 is a profile to the right, while Cat. 25 is to the left. Much like Cat. 1–3, Cat. 24–25 were therefore meant to flank another element towards which they would each be directed. A somewhat modified version of the same animal image is Cat. 26,14 which is a profile image to the left. The head is shorter, with no flaring lips, and the eye is made of three concentric circles, with no nicked line separating the head from the body. Instead, there are four nicked lines along the neck. The body is covered in a scale-like ornament made of overlapping semicircles, each with the circle in the centre. The haunch is smaller, decorated with C-shaped motifs, while the long tail is curved on the back. Much like in the case of Cat. 1–3, the existence of a second piece in profile to the left implies that there were two or more pairs of identical, fantastic animals flanking the central element, or that pairs of such animals flanked more than one central element.

Aesop immediately comes to mind when examining the animals in Cat. 27–29.15 The wolf-like creature has a head with an open mouth showing the fangs, holding a smaller animal, the head and body of which are stippled (Fig. 4.13). The wolf’s head is also stippled, while the neck, separated from the head and the body by two pairs of lines, is hatched


(Fig. 4.14). Three different hatching patterns also decorate the forequar-ters of the animal, while the hindquarters are covered in a scale ornament (overlapping semicircles) (Fig. 4.14). A grooved rim on the back of the animal is supposed to represent the hair. The long, raised tail is decorated with the herringbone motif. The front legs are decorated with three cir-cles each, and each paw has four claws. The paws of the hind legs are slightly larger and have more claws.

Charles Vignier believed that the animal in Cat. 30–31 and 88 was a tiger.16 The animal’s round head, turned towards the viewer, has round eyes, a crescent-like mouth that makes it look like a smile, and two nos-trils. In many respects, the face reminds one of that of the animal on Cat. 8–9. The head and the forequarters on both Cat. 30 and 31 are stippled,17 while on the back of the neck two different hatching patterns are meant to indicate the hair. The hindquarters are undecorated, and the long tail is curled across the haunch all the way to the back of the animal. The hind legs are shown overlapping; the front legs are apart as if the animal is prepared to reach (pouncing movement). The paws have five claws each. The similarities with, and differences from Cat. 8–9, as well as the marked differences from Cat. 38–39 and 51 make it likely that the animal represented on Cat. 30–31 is neither a tiger, nor a lion, but a leopard.



Fig. 4.14 Details of Cat. 29: head with little animal, and body (Photo: Florin Curta)


There can be little doubt about the identification of the animal shown on Cat. 32–33 as a dog (Fig. 4.15).18 Its head with barely sketched mouth and eye has two pointed ears. Two lines separate the head from the neck, but both the head and the forequarters are stippled (Fig. 4.16). The hindquarters have no decoration. The animal’s long tail is raised, while the legs are spread out, suggesting a running movement: the ani-mal in Cat. 32 runs to the right, that in Cat. 33 to the left (Fig. 4.16). Again, this is an indication of a symmetrical display, with some central element between the two animals facing each other. Could those two dogs be the hound and the house dog, as in Aesop’s fable “The Two Dogs”?19

Another fantastic animal appears in a single piece that has surfaced on the art market in 2005 (Cat. 34). The elongated head, with open mouth and flaring jaws, each decorated with a beaded line, has a round eye, and two ears turned forwards. A beaded line between two other lines dec-orates the beginning of the neck. The rest of the body is stippled. The head covers the front legs, with the body in a curled, resting position. A grooved rim around the long, curled neck is meant to indicate a mane. The tail is raised, with a trilobate end. The hind legs are moved towards the head (in fact the animal appears to bite its own hind left leg).

Fig. 4.15 Bronze plaque (Cat. 32), one of a mirror-image pair (Photo: Florin Curta)


Three other pieces of bronze that have surfaced on the art market in 2005 are also representations of a fantastic animal—a griffin. The head has flar-ing lips (on Cat. 36) or only the upper lip flaring (on Cat. 35 and 37), a ear turned backwards, and a round eye. A hatched band between the head and the neck is followed by parallel lines on the neck. In a manner similar to that on Cat. 1–2, the forequarters are shown as a shield-shaped orna-ment filled with a fern-like decoration made of two hatching patterns. The wing behind this shield-like ornament looks like a plant with five leaves.

Fig. 4.16 Details of Cat. 32: head and hindquarters of the animal (Photo: Florin Curta)


Behind the shield, the middle part of the body is stippled, while the hind-quarters bear no decoration, except a cross on the haunch (on Cat. 35), much like in Cat. 8, 9, 24, 25 and 56. The thick tail is raised and ends in a trilobe. only three legs are visible, with paws marked by thickened lines, each with five claws. It is important to note that Cat. 35–36 are profile images to the right, and Cat. 37 to the left, which suggests that griffins came in pairs meant to flank some central element of decoration.

Two bronze pieces that surfaced on the art market in 2005 (Cat. 38–39) represent lions. The animal has a round head, with barely sketched mouth, round eyes and round ears. The mane is shown as an oval-shaped “crown” of hatching patterns radially arranged around the head, with beaded lines between them, to the left, to the right and under the head. The body has no decoration, but the tail curled on the back is also hatched. Two parallel lines mark the articulation of the hind leg. only three legs are visible, each with a round paw, inside which there are three indentations for the claws. The front paws are apart, ready to reach, as if the lion is pouncing. one of the two pieces (Cat. 38) shows the animal pouncing to the left, the other (Cat. 39) to the right, an indication that the two pieces were supposed to flank some central ele-ment between them. Another lion appears on Cat. 51.20 Its head turned towards the viewer has a round face, with large, circular eyes, and a barely sketched mouth. The mane is a “crown” of slightly curved lines arranged radially, in different directions. only the right legs are shown, stippled like the rest of the body. The hind leg is under the body, its paw with five claws. The front leg holds in its three-claw paw a psaltery with 7 strings, and some indistinct decoration—a rosette—on the board.21 The instrument is very similar to that shown on Cat. 42–43.

Two other bronze pieces that have surfaced on the art market in 2005 were also a pair flanking some central element (Cat. 40–41). They repre-sent a fantastic animal, with a small head with flaring jaws and a curved tongue between them. A straight line separates the head from the mane rendered as a series of slightly curved, vertical and parallel lines on the back of the head and on the neck. overlapping the mane is a round ear, behind which is a beaded line between two other lines. The head and the frontquarters are covered with the scale ornament (semicircles, each with a circle in the middle). The front legs are shown parallel to each other, each with a two-toe hoof. A double beaded line separates the frontquar-ters from the rest of the body. A triangular pattern behind the double beaded line is made up of beaded lines separated by simple horizontal


lines. The end of the body is rounded, as in a curly, fishtail. This is most likely a hippocamp.

Another fantastic animal appears on Cat. 49–50. It has two lateral, animal heads with flaring lips and visible tongue, large, circular eyes (each made of a dot surrounded by a beaded line), and crescent-like pairs of horns on the head (like those on Cat. 18–21), each decorated by hatching. Their necks are decorated with two parallel beaded lines (to the left) and a zigzag pattern (to the right). The head of a snake in the middle has round eyes. A beaded line links the snakehead to a mask (or human head) above. The mask has barely sketched eyes, nose and mouth, with a crescent-shaped form on top of the head, perhaps the hair. The identification of this creature is most difficult. Charles Vignier regarded it as a monster with four heads, while Joachim Werner thought it to be a purely artificial combination of “heraldic heads and a human head”.22 If one accepts Vignier’s interpretation, the creature may be Hydra. Another, somewhat similarly shaped, fantastic animal appears on Cat. 86. Its triangular body has indented margins and a short, rectangu-lar tail. Inside the triangle, framed by a double beaded line with a zig-zag pattern inside, there is an ornament of overlapping oval shapes made of concentric ovals, each with the outside oval marked by a beaded line. raising to the left and to the right are two snakeheads with prominent, circular eyes, a sketched, closed mouth and one ear turned backwards. The head is stippled, while the neck is covered by a pattern of slightly curved, parallel, beaded lines, in a beaded, contour line. Above the point where the necks meet is a human face with eyes, nose, and mouth, and a “crown” of parallel short lines for the hair.

The grazing hog on Cat. 83 has an elongated head with barely sketched snout and two pointed ears. There is no decoration either on the body or on the four legs ending in barely sketched hooves. A grooved rim is meant to represent the hair on the animal’s back, which ends with a short, raised tail. The bird to the right on Cat. 87 has a small head with prominent eyes, but no visible beak. A thickened, horizontal line separates the head from the body. The right wing, which consists of long, parallel lines, covers the body, with only a small part of the left wing visible. The tail hanging below the wing is rendered by four parallel lines. What kind of bird is this? Vignier thought it was a parrot, while Cecchèlli believed it was a bird of prey (hawk).23 The absence of the beak makes Cecchèlli’s interpretation difficult to accept, while the promi-nent eyes are the main obstacle against accepting Vignier’s.


Fig. 4.17 The distribution of early medieval animal figurines and mounts in Eastern Europe: 1—Biskupija; 2—Caričin Grad; 3—Čitluk; 4—Corinth; 5—Felnac; 6—Hansca; 7—Igumnovo; 8—Kamunta; 9—Martynivka; 10—Pregradnaia; 11—Trubchevsk. The star marks the location of Velestino


There are no direct analogies for any of the real or fantastic animals represented in the Velestino collection, except the griffin on Cat. 35–37 (Figs. 4.17 and 4.18). That exception was brought to Gladys Weinberg Davidson’s attention by the Croatian archaeologist Zdenko Vinski (1913–1996), who had found it in the collection of the Archaeological Museum in Zagreb (Fig. 4.19/1).24 When publishing the piece, Vinski was not sure about its origin, and because of its striking similarity to the Velestino pieces, he thought that it may have been discovered in Greece.25 However, recent research in the archives of the Museum of Croatian Archaeological Monuments in Split has demonstrated that the piece that Vinski brought to Weinberg Davidson’s attention had been discovered in Čitluk, near Sinj (in the hinterland of Split, Croatia) almost half-a-century before the first mention of the Velestino hoard in Paribeni’s letter to Carlo Cecchèlli.26 The importance of the Čitluk piece is twofold. First, its remarkable similarity to the Velestino griffins raises the likely possibility of all four being produced with the same mould. This is indirectly a very strong argument in favour of the genuine char-acter of the Velestino finds, and against rostovtzeff’s accusations of for-gery. Second, the Velestino and the Čitluk pieces are different, in that the shield-like ornament on the forequarters of the former does not appear on the latter. Instead, the Čitluk griffin has a grooved decoration on the neck, with a loop on the chest. This suggests that while the gen-eral contour of the piece was cast in the same mould as to those used for the three griffins in the Velestino collection, the decoration is slightly different. However, the latter is clearly cast together with the entire piece, not incised at a later time. In other words, the variation must have affected the wax model, which suggests that in order to obtain casts so similar to each other in general lines, one needed to use prototypes of some sort, with which to create the wax model. This observation has a great significance for the interpretation of the lead specimens in the Velestino collection, an interpretation to which we will return later.27

The idea that lead models served for creating prototypes is also based on the recent discovery of one such specimen in a metalworking

Fig. 4.18 The distribution of early medieval animal figurines and mounts in Eastern Europe. Numbers refer to place names listed for Fig. 4.17. The rectangle bottom left marks the upper right corner of Fig. 4.17

◀


workshop from the Lower Town at Caričin Grad.28 The sixth-century piece represents a fantastic animal with a fishtail not unlike that of the pardalokampos on Cat. 10–12. Unlike that, however, the animal on the Caričin Grad lead model has small wings and devours a snake, which it holds between his forelimbs. Much more general, if not vague, are the analogies with the animal figurines in early medieval hoards of bronze and silver known from Eastern Europe. By far the richest collection in that respect is the Igumnovo hoard.29 It includes six figurines of animals in profile, three to the left, and another three to the right (Fig. 4.19/5). All six were cast, most likely in the same mould, but are different in min-ute details.30 The most important detail in terms of comparison with the Velestino collection is the shield-like ornament on the forequarters, very similar to that on Cat. 1–3, although in the case of the Igumnovo fig-urines the shield is decorated with a cross-hatched pattern in the mid-dle.31 A similar shield-shaped ornament appears on one of the three animal figurines in the Trubchevsk hoard, but its decoration is different from that of the Velestino pieces (Fig. 4.19/7).32 Even greater is the difference between Cat. 1–3 and a group of animal figurines that one of the authors of this book has called the “Felnac-Kamunta variety”.33 The shield is much reduced on the figurine from the Felnac assemblage, and only barely sketched on the mounts from Pregradnaia (Fig. 4.19/6) and Kamunta.34 By contrast, the shield-like ornament on three of the five animal figurines from the Martynivka hoard is much closer to the arrangement on Cat. 1–3 (Fig. 4.19/2, 3).35 In each case, the orna-ment’s frame consists of small parallel lines, no doubt reminiscent of the zigzag pattern on Cat. 1. Moreover, the four grooves in the mid-dle remind one of the double beaded lines on the Velestino piece.36 The decoration of the shield-like ornament on the three of the Martynivka figurines may in turn have served as source of inspiration for the same ornament on the two figurines in the Platar hoard (Fig. 4.19/4).37 Furthermore, two of the Martynivka figurines have a rod between the

Fig. 4.19 Sixth- to seventh-century animal-like mounts: 1—Čitluk; 2, 3—Martynivka; 4—“Platar” hoard; 5—Igumnovo; 6—Pregradnaia; 7—Trubchevsk. From Župić, “Srednjovjekovni predmeti”, p. 320; Fig. 1; Korzukhina, “Klady”, p. 602, pl. 12/6, 7; Shcheglova, “Taina ‘pliashushchikh chelovechkov’”, pls. 3 and 4/2; Minaeva, “Nakhodka”, p. 133; Fig. 52/2; Prykhodniuk, Padin, and Tikhonov, “Trubchevskii klad”, p. 87; Fig. 8/1

◀


front right and the hind left leg. The ends of the tails of the two animals on the Platar figurines are also connected by means of rods to the hind right legs. In both cases, the rods are meant to prevent breakage of such fragile details as the legs or the tails—a detail that reminds one of several pieces in the Velestino collection.

Each one of the Igumnovo figurines has the front leg stretched for-wards, and the haunch is arched, a body posture strikingly reminiscent of the fantastic animal on the three pieces in the Velestino collection (Cat. 1–3).38 By contrast, the Martynivka and Platar figurines are sub-stantially different from the body posture of the animal on Cat. 1–4. The front right leg of three Martynivka figurines, as well as of both Platar fig-urines, is bent backwards, as in a trotting movement. The opened mouth of the animal on one of the Martynivka figurines shows prominent teeth on the upper jaw, and a curved tongue on one of the figurines, unlike any animal representation in the Velestino collection.39 The posi-tion of the legs on Cat. 32–33, suggesting a running movement, is that of an animal figurine from Corinth.40 Similarly, the body posture, and especially the position of the legs of the sitting cow (or ox) in Cat. 21, reminds one of the animal (horse?) on one of the dies in the Biskupija hoard.41 Finally, a trilobate tail end, such as visible on Cat. 34–37, is a rare detail, with no immediate parallels in the early medieval metalwork of Eastern Europe, except an animal figurine from Hanscas (republic of Moldova).42

The existence in the Igumnovo hoard of three pairs of almost iden-tical figurines in opposing positions reminds one of several examples of such pairs in the Velestino collection. Like Cat. 1–2, four figurines from Martynivka are mirror images of each other, two in profile to the left, the others to the right. None of the Velestino figurines has any perforation. By contrast, all six figurines from the Igumnovo hoard are perforated, four with three holes each, the rest with only two. The holes are all in the same place—one on the head (instead of the eye), one on the haunch and a third on the front paw. Particularly interesting is the preservation in four cases of rivets going through those holes, an indication that such figurines were meant to be securely attached (and not sewn) on a rela-tively thick support, perhaps made of wood. All five figurines from the Martynivka hoard are perforated, three with three, and the others with two holes. As with the Igumnovo figurines, the holes are always placed in the same location—on the upper and lower corners of the shield-like ornament, and on the haunch (or right behind the tail).


From a purely decorative point of view, some of the “Thessalian antiquities” in Velestino are related to the ornamental repertoire of the pre-romanesque sculpture in Dalmatia. For example, the scale ornament (semicircles, each with a circle in the middle) decorating the body of the pardalokampos (Cat. 10–12) and of two other fantastic animals (Cat. 24–25 and 40–41) appears on the forequarters of an animal in the scene on the pluteus from the Church of St. Martin in Pridraga, near Novigrad, in the hinterland of Zadar (northern Croatia).43 Stippling is used for the same purpose in the scene depicted on the fragmentary pluteus from Dikovača-Zmijavci near Imotski in the Dalmatian hinterland, which also shows several examples of the idea of combining hatching patterns of different directions, as on Cat. 6–7 or 10–12.44 Finally, the decora-tive pattern of short, oblique and parallel lines on the forequarters of the Velestino griffins (Cat. 35–37) appears on the tail of the birds depicted on fragments of ciboria from the Church of St. Martha in Bijaći, near Trogir, as well as from the Church of St. Pelagius in Novigrad (Istria).45

notes

1. Charles Vignier, “L’aventureux art scythe,” Aréthuse 2.4 (1925), 60; ol’ga A. Shcheglova, “Taina ‘pliashushchikh chelovechkov’ i ‘sledy nevi-dannykh zverei.’ Antropo- i zoomorfnye izobrazheniia v ranneslavianskoi metalloplastike,” in Slaviano-russkoe iuvelirnoe delo i ego istoki. Materialy Mezhdunarodnoi nauchnoi konferencii posviashchennoi 100-letiiu so dnia rozhdeniia Gali Fedorovny Korzukhinoi. Sankt-Peterburg, 10–16 apre-lia 2006 g., ed. Anna A. Peskova, ol’ga A. Shcheglova, and Aleksandr E. Musin (Petersburg: Nestor-Istoriia, 2010), 156; Andrii V. Skyba, “Zoomorfni motyvy slov’ians’koi metaloplastyky VII stolittia,” Studii mystetstvoznavchi 4 (2012), 71; and Joachim Werner, Joachim, Slawische Bronzefiguren aus Nordgriechenland (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1953), 3, Werner’s interpretation is identical to that of Carlo Cecchèlli, “Arte pale-oslava,” Memorie storiche forogiuliesi 40 (1953), 192.

2. S. A. Callisen, “The iconography of the cock on the Column,” Art Bulletin 22.2 (1939), 160–178; Mieczyslaw Celestyn Paczkowski, “Czujny zwias-tun brzasku i zmartwychwstania. Kogut w symbolice starochrześcijańsk-iej,” Biblica et Patristica Thoruniensia 7.4 (2014), 77–96. As such, the rooster was a symbol of resurrection, hope and awakening in eternity.

3. Matthew 26:29–75; Mark 14:53–72; Luke 22:54–71; John 18:12–27. See also Callisen, “The iconography,” 160; Paczkowski, “Czujny zwiastun,” 77.


4. Ilona Nagy, “The roasted cock crows: Apocryphal writings (Acts of Peter, the Ethiopic Book of the Cock, Coptic fragments, the Gospel of Nicodemus) and folklore texts,” Folklore 36 (2007), 7–40; Magdalena Zowczak, Biblia Ludowa: Interpretacje watków biblijnych w kulturze ludowej (Toruń: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu Mikołaja Kopernika, 2013), 367–68. The story may be responsible for the popularity of the symbol in both Egypt and Ethiopia between the fourth and the sixth centuries. See roger W. Cowley, “The so-called ‘Ethiopic Book of the Cock’: Part of an apocryphal Passion Gospel, The Homily and Teaching of our Fathers the Holy Apostles,” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland 117.1 (1985), 16–22; Nagy, “The roasted cock crows,” 16; and Brandie ratliff, “Fragment of wall hanging,” in Recent Acquisitions: A Selection 2010–2012, The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin Fall 2012 (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin, 2012), 14.

5. Vignier, “L’aventureux art scythe,” 61; Werner, Slawische Bronzefiguren, 3. Cecchèlli, “Arte paleoslava,” 192 saw this as a “stylized lion,” the head of which “has a human appearance.”

6. The hindquarters in the form of a fishtail are similar to those of the crea-ture represented on a silver, pressed mount found in the cemetery of Castel Trosino and dated to the late sixth century or seventh century. See rainero Mengarelli, “La necropolis barbarica di Castel Trosino presso Ascoli Piceno,” Monumenti antichi publicati per cura della Reala Accademia dei Lincei 12 (1902), 150; Fig. 2.

7. A Nereid rides a sea-panther with a similar fishtail in the scene from a sil-ver plate from northern Africa, which bears a stamp from the reign of Justinian dated to 541, and is now in the Galleria Sabauda of Turin. See Erica Cruikshank Dodd, Byzantine Silver Stamps (Washington: Dumbarton oaks research Library and Collection, 1961), 19 and 256, no. 93.

8. Aesopica, ed. Ben Edwin Perry (Urbana/Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1952), 330–31, 405, 423–24, and 470.

9. Pace Cecchèlli, “Arte paleoslava,” 192, who believes this to be a “bull in lively motion.”

10. robin Margaret Jensen, Baptismal Imagery in Early Christianity: Ritual, Visual, and Theological Dimensions (Grand rapids: Baker Academic, 2012), 187–88 with Fig. 5/3; Marija Buzov, “Prikaz jelena na ranokrščanskim mozaicima prema srednjovjekovnoj umjetnosti,” Starohrvatska prosvjeta 21 (1991), 55–86.

11. A deer drinking from a spring appears on western lunette in the fifth- century Mausoleum of Galla Placidia in ravenna. See Cetty Muscolino, “The observation and conservation of mosaics in ravenna in the 5th and 6th centuries,” in New Light on Old Glass: Recent Research on Byzantine


Mosaics and Glass, ed. Chris Entwistle and Liz James (London: British Museum Press, 2013), 51 with pl. 36.

12. Vignier, “L’aventureux art scythe,” 60: “bête chimérique”; Cecchèlli, “Arte paleoslava,” 193: “fiera immaginaria.” only Werner, Slawische Bronzefiguren, 3 saw a crouching cat with a bird head.

13. Cat. 25 has a little wattle under the lower jaw, a detail absent on Cat. 24. This strongly suggests two different moulds.

14. In many respects, the head of the creature on Cat. 26 is similar to that of St. Christopher on Cat. 67–68: a relatively long muzzle, with slightly opened mouth (and a bit of a tongue sticking out on Cat. 26), showing the teeth (an indication of snarling), and a prominent, circular eye.

15. The identification of the two animals—the wolf and the lamb—is based on Cecchèlli, “Arte paleoslava,” 193. Werner, Slawische Bronzefiguren, 3 saw a horse carrying a small animal in its mouth. The fable to which both figurines may well allude is “The Wolf and the Lamb,” in which a wolf tries to find a pretext for eating a lamb. He accuses the lamb of having insulted him in the past, of eating his grass and of drinking his water. However, the lamb confesses of not having been born at the time when the wolf claims to have been insulted. He also says that he has not yet been weaned, so that he is unable to eat grass and to drink water. But the wolf decides to push aside all those excuses and still eats the lamb. Moral of the fable: “When some people decide upon doing harm, the fairest defence has no effect whatsoever.” See Aesopica, 381; The Complete Fables of Aesop, trans. olivia and robert Temple (New York: Penguin Books, 1998), 166.

16. Vignier, “L’aventureux art scythe,” 61. Vignier’s interpretation was endorsed by Werner, Slawische Bronzefiguren, 3, but Cecchèlli, “Arte paleoslava,” 192 saw a she-lion ready to attack.

17. on Cat. 88, the stippling is replaced by C-shaped motifs. There are other small details that are different: a beaded line above the mouth (presuma-bly for the whiskers), visibly round ears separated by hatching (presuma-bly the hair on top of the head) and somewhat different hatching patterns on the back of the neck.

18. Cecchèlli, “Arte paleoslava,” 191. 19. A hound berated a house dog for getting a larger share of the kill on

the return of the master. In his reply, the house dog pointed out that it was not at all his fault; the hound should take the issue with the master. Moral of the fable: “Lazy children are not to blame when their parents have brought them up to be idle.” See Aesopica, 357; Aesop, 129.

20. Lion for Vignier, “L’aventureux art scythe,” 61; woman for Werner, Slawische Bronzefiguren, 3; and gnome for Cecchèlli, “Arte paleoslava,” 192.


21. The rosette may be a soundhole, but as a decoration, it appears on images of the instrument produced in Byzantium, Georgia, as well as the Baltic region and Scandinavia. See Joachim Braun, “Musical instruments in Byzantine illuminated manuscripts,” Early Music 8.3 (1980), 320.

22. Vignier, “L’aventureux art scythe,” 61; Werner, Slawische Bronzefiguren, 3. For a similar point of view, see Cecchèlli, “Arte paleoslava,” 192.

23. Vignier, “L’aventureux art scythe,” 61; Cecchèlli, “Arte paleoslava,” 192. If Vignier was right, the bird in question must be a rose-ringed para-keet, a bird known in the Greco-roman world as exotic because of its association with India. The exotic character made ownership of such a bird a symbol of high status. See Grant Parker, The Making of Roman India: Greek Culture in the Roman World (Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 161. The rose-ringed parakeet appears frequently in the literature and the art of Antiquity. See William Geoffrey-Arnott, Birds in the Ancient World from A to Z (London/New York: routledge, 2007), 202; Bruce Thomas Boehrer, Parrot Culture: Our 2500-Year-Long Fascination with the World’s Most Talkative Bird (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2010), 1–22.

24. Princeton University Art Museum, loans file (Weinberg Davidson’s let-ter to Frances Follin Jones of 17 April 1980). Together with the letter, Gladys Weinberg Davidson has sent the piece’s photograph “given me by Vinski in Zagreb.”

25. Zdenko Vinski, “Nalaz iz Velike Kladuše i problem naušnica tipa okren-ute piramide,” Glasnik Zemaljskog Muzeja Bosne i Hercegovine u Sarajevu 11 (1956), 80 and pl. VII/46. None of the three Velestino griffins had been published, so Vinski could not have known how similar the piece in Zagreb was to all of them. It is a testimony of his remarkable intuition that he linked the Zagreb griffin to the Velestino collection.

26. Ante Milošević, “Mjesto nalaza i porijeklo ranosrednovjekovne brončane matrice iz Arheološkog Muzeja u Zagrebu,” Vjesnik za arheologiju i his-toriju Dalmatinsku 83 (1990), 117–18, 118, and 120; Fig. 1; Branimir Župić, “Srednjovjekovni predmeti,” in Arheološka zbirka Franjevačkog samostana u Sinju, ed. Miroslava Topić (Sinj: Franjevački samostan Čudotvorne Gospe Sinjske/Matica Hrvatska, ogranak, 2008), 319 and 320; Fig. 1. The Čitluk griffin found ca. 1878 was initially in the museum collection of the Franciscan priory in Sinj, and from there moved to the Archaeological Museum in Split in 1912 or 1913, before ending in the collection of the Archaeological Museum in Zagreb in 1955. Vinski’s publication was therefore timely, but he does not seem to have been aware of the circumstances in which the griffin had been discovered.

27. A casting mould with two cavities in the shape of animals has been found in room 31 of the so-called Quartier Magon in Carthage (Tunisia)—most


likely a metalworking workshop, judging from the fragments of cop-per-alloy waste with which the mould was associated. The assemblage has been dated to the first half of the sixth century. The first cavity of the mould in question represents a fantastic animal, namely a griffin with a stylized body, lion legs, ears and mane, but with the head and wings of an eagle. The casting mould is decorated with rows of diagonal cut lines and diamond-shaped patterns on the wings. The second cavity represents a leopard with round circular decorative motifs on the body. See Christoph Eger, “Byzantine dress accessories in North Africa: koiné and regional-ity,” in Intelligible Beauty. Recent Research on Byzantine Jewellery, ed. Christ Entwistle and Noël Adams (London: British Museum, 2010), 138 with n. 48 and pl. 13.

28. Vujadin Ivanišević, “Metal workshops of Caričin Grad (Justiniana Prima),” in Lebenswelten zwischen Archäologie und Geschichte: Festschrift für Falko Daim zu seinem 65. Geburtstag, ed. Jörg Drauschke, Ewald Kislinger, Karin Kühtreiber, Gabriele Scharrer-Liška, and Tivadar Vida (Mainz: Verlag des römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums, 2018), 716–17 and 717; Fig. 7.1. Ivanišević believes the animal to be the sea monster of Greek mythology, Cetus.

29. Shcheglova, “Taina ‘pliashushchikh chelovechkov’,” 154 and pl. 3. 30. For example, the articulation of the hind leg on one of the pieces in pro-

file to the right is rendered differently from all others. The same is true for one of the pieces in profile to the left, the open mouth of which is filled, i.e. with no opening between the point where the jaws meet and the teeth. There are more striations on one of the pieces in profile to the left (Shcheglova, “Taina ‘pliashushchikh chelovechkov’,” pl. 3/5) than on one of those in profile to the right (Shcheglova, “Taina ‘pliashush-chikh chelovechkov’,” pl. 3/1). Two pieces in profile to the right have no holes on the back.

31. Shcheglova, “Taina ‘pliashushchikh chelovechkov’,” pl. 3/6 is simply, not cross-hatched. The cross-hatched pattern appears also on another figurine recently discovered by metal detector somewhere in the Cherkasy region of Ukraine. Zsófia rácz, “Ein frühmittelalterlicher Pressmodelfund aus dem mittleren Dnjepr-Gebiet,” in Zwischen Byzanz und der Steppe: Archäologische und historische Studien für Csanád Bálint zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. Ádám Bollók, Gergely Csiky and Tivadar Vida (Budapest: Institute of Archaeology, 2016), 178 and 176; Fig. 1/6 (rácz draws a direct comparison between the Cherkasy piece and Cat. 1). The simply hatched pattern like that on one of the Igumnovo figurines appears also on the similar plaque found in Sardis. See Jane C. Waldbaum, Metalwork from Sardis: The Finds Through 1974 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1983), 117 and pl. 43/688.


32. oleg M. Prykhodniuk, V. A. Padin and N. G. Tikhonov, “Trubchevskii klad antskogo vremeni,” in Materialy I tys. n. e. po arkheologii i istorii Ukrainy i Vengrii, ed. István Erdélyi, oleg M. Prykhodniuk, A. V. Simonenko and Eugénia Szimonova (Kiev: Naukova dumka, 1996), 86; Fig. 7/1 and 87; Fig. 8/1. The Trubchevsk piece is, however, very sim-ilar to another bronze figurine found during the 2009 trial excavations on the southern side of the stronghold in Plisnes’k (near Brody, in the region of L’viv Ukraine). See Mykhailo Fylypchuk, “Poperedni rezul’taty doslidzhennia kul’tovogo mistsia slov’ians’kogo chasu na terytorii Plisnes’kogo arkheologichnogo kompleksku 2009 r.,” Visnyk Instytuty arkheologii 5 (2010), 144 and 166, pl. 9/1.

33. Bartłomiej Szymon Szmoniewski, “Cultural contacts in Central and Eastern Europe: What do metal beast images speak about?” in Ethnic Contacts and Cultural Exchanges North and West of the Black Sea from the Greek Colonization to the Ottoman Conquest, ed. Victor Cojocaru (Iaşi: Trinitas, 2005), 429. The figurines from Felnac and Kamunta are dies, the Pregradnaia specimen is a mount, which, like the Martynivka and Igumnovo figurines, has three holes for attachment.

34. Zsófia rácz, Die Goldschmiedegräber der Awarenzeit (Mainz: Verlag des römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums, 2014), 156 and pl. 14/1; T. M. Minaeva, “Nakhodka bliz stanicy Pregradnoi na r. Urupe,” Kratkie soobshcheniia Instituta Istorii Material’noi Kul’tury 68 (1957), 133; Fig. 52/2; Anatolii K. Ambroz, Khronologiia drevnostei severnogo Kavkaza V-VII vv. (Moscow: Nauka, 1989), 80; Fig. 24/14. The shield is also barely sketched on the die from Koban, for which see Ivan I. Tolstoi and Nikodim P. Kondakov, Russkie drevnosti v pamiatnikakh isk-usstva, 3 (St. Petersburg, 1890), 121; Fig. 137 (where the die is said to be from Kamunta; on the basis of archival research, Shcheglova, “Taina ‘pliashushchikh chelovechkov’,” 166 has nonetheless demonstrated that it was found in Koban, near Vladikavkaz).

35. Liudmila V. Pekars’ka and Dafydd Kidd, Der Silberschatz von Martynovka (Ukraine) aus dem 6. und 7. Jahrhundert (Innsbruck: Universitätsverlag Wagner, 1994), pls. 27/1–2 and 28/1; Galina F. Korzukhina, “Klady i sluchainye nakhodki veshchei kruga “drevnostei antov” v srednem Podneprov’e. Katalog pamiatnikov,” Materialy po arkheologii, istorii i etnografii Tavrii 5 (1996), 603; Fig. 13/1.

36. The shield-like ornament on the other two figurines from Martynivka has a different decoration, with an S-shaped motif in the middle. See Pekars’ka and Kidd, Der Silberschatz von Martynovka, pl. 29/1–2. The round paw of the hind legs of those figurines is nonetheless similar to that of the lions on Cat. 38–39. The same paw form appears on the so-called eagle mount found in an unknown location in Hungary, and on its analogy purchased


in rome. See Nándor Fettich, Az avarkori műipár Magyarországon: Fogazási ornamentika és ötvöseszközleletek (Budapest: Királyi Magyar Egyetemi Nyomda, 1926), pl. I/2; Péter Straub, “Bemerkungen zur Bestimmung des Jankovich-Goldes,” Communicationes Archaeologicae Hungariae (1999), 99, 100, 101; Fig. 5/2.

37. M. E. Levada, “Pizniy ryms’kyy – ranniy vizantiyskyy chasy,” in Platar, Kolektsiia predmetiv starovyny rodyn Platonovykh i Tarut. Katalog, ed. Elizaveta I. Arkhipova and V. I. Klochko (Kiev: ToV Ukrpolihrafmedia, 2004), 215, no. 44. The idea of representing the frontquarters by means of a shield-shaped ornament may also be noted on two of the bronze figurines in the hoard discovered in Podcherye near Vuktyl, in the Komi republic (northern russia). See V. A. Gorodcov, “Podcheremskii klad,” Sovetskaia Arkheologiia (1937), 2, 123, 124 and 125, pl. I/6, 7.

38. A very similar body posture is evident on the figurine found in a sev-enth-century burial underneath a barrow in Novobikkino, in east-ern Bashkortostan. See Evgeni V. Kruglov, “Slozhnosostavnye luki Vostochnoi Evropy rannego srednevekov’ia,” in Stepi Evropy v epokhu srednevekov’ia. Khazarskoe vremia, ed. A. V. Evgelevskii, vol. 4 (Donetsk: Izdatel’stvo Donetskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, 2005), 109; Fig. 10/17. For the body position, see Andrii V. Skyba, “Figurativnye zoomorfnye nakladki v slavianskikh drevnostiakh: khudozhestven-no-stilisticheskie osobennosti,” in Slaviane vostochnoi Evropy nakanune obrazovaniia drevnerusskogo gosudarstva. Materialy mezhdunarodnoi kon-ferencii, posviashchennoi 110-letiiu so dnia rozhdeniia Ivana Ivanovicha Liapushkina (1902–1968), 3–5 dekabria 2012 g., Sankt-Peterburg, ed. ol’ga A. Shcheglova and Valentina M. Goriunova (St. Petersburg: SoLo, 2012), 276.

39. Pekars’ka and Kidd, Der Silberschatz von Martynovka, pl. 27/1. 40. Gladys r. Davidson, The Minor Objects (Princeton: American School of

Classical Studies in Athens, 1952), pl. 68/935. 41. Korošec, “ostava brončanih matrica,” pls. I/3 and Ia/3. 42. Ion Hâncu, “raskopki srednevekovogo selishcha Khanska,” in

Arkheologicheskie otkrytiia 1975 goda, ed. Boris A. rybakov (Moscow: Nauka, 1976), 477 and Fig. 1. A somewhat similar tail, with only one lobe, appears on a figurine from Corinth: Davidson, Minor Objects, pl. 68/934.

43. Milošević, “Slika ‘božanskog boja’,” 63, pl. 48/1. 44. Milošević, “Slika ‘božanskog boja’,” 32, pl. 16/2. Stippling was also

commonly used for the decoration of animal bodies on metal ves-sels produced in the sixth century in the Eastern Mediterranean. See Marlia Mundell Mango, Cyril Mango, Angela Care Evans and Michael Hughes, “A sixth-century Mediterranean bucket from Bromeswell


Parish, Suffolk,” Antiquity 63.239 (1989), 297 and 301; Figs. 1–2; reinhold Scholl, “Eine beschriftete Bronzekanne aus dem 6. Jh. n. Chr.,” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 103 (1994), 232–33 and pl. XIX/1a and b.

45. Nikola Jakšić and Ivan Josipović, “Majstor koljanskog pluteja u kontekstu predromaničkih reljefa s lokaliteta Stombrate u Bijaćima,” Starohrvatska prosvjeta 42 (2015), 153 and Fig. 9; Milošević, “Il bassorilievo altome-dievale,” 206, pl. 2/4. The ciborium in Bijaći has been dated to the first half of the ninth century. For the ciborium in Novigrad, see also Nikola Jakšić, Klesarstvo u službi evangelizacije: Studije iz predromaničke skulp-ture na Jadranu (Split: Književni krug, 2015), 71; Fig. 16.

references

Archival Sources


Primary Sources

AesopTemple, olivia, and Temple, robert, trans., The Complete Fables of Aesop. New

York: Penguin Books, 1998.AesopicaPerry, Ben Edwin, ed., Aesopica. Urbana/Chicago: University of Illinois Press,

1952.


Ambroz, Anatolii K. Khronologiia drevnostei severnogo Kavkaza V-VII vv. Moscow: Nauka, 1989.

Boehrer, Bruce Thomas. Parrot Culture: Our 2500-Year-Long Fascination with the World’s Most Talkative Bird. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2010.

Braun, Joachim. “Musical instruments in Byzantine illuminated manuscripts.” Early Music 8 (1980), no. 3, 312–28.

Callisen, S. A. “The iconography of the cock on the Column.” Art Bulletin 22 (1939), no. 2, 160–78.


Cowley, roger W. “The so-called ‘Ethiopic Book of the Cock’: Part of an apoc-ryphal Passion Gospel, The Homily and Teaching of Our Fathers the Holy


Apostles.” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland 117 (1985), no. 1, 16–22.

Cruikshank Dodd, Erica. Byzantine Silver Stamps (Dumbarton oaks Studies, 7). Washington: Dumbarton oaks research Library and Collection, 1961.

Davidson, Gladys r. The Minor Objects (Corinth, 12). Princeton: American School of Classical Studies in Athens, 1952.

Eger, Christoph. “Byzantine dress accessories in North Africa: koiné and region-ality.” In Intelligible Beauty: Recent Research on Byzantine Jewellery, edited by Christ Entwistle and Noël Adams, 133–45. London: British Museum, 2010.

Fettich, Nándor. Az avarkori műipár Magyarországon: Fogazási ornamentika és ötvöseszközleletek. Budapest: Királyi Magyar Egyetemi Nyomda, 1926.

Fylypchuk, Mykhailo. “Poperedni rezul’taty doslidzhennia kul’tovogo mistsia slov’ians’kogo chasu na terytorii Plisnes’kogo arkheologichnogo kompleksku 2009 r.” Visnyk Instytuty arkheologii 5 (2010), 135–69.

Geoffrey-Arnott, William. Birds in the Ancient World from A to Z. London/New York: routledge, 2007.

Gorodcov, V. A. “Podcheremskii klad,” Sovetskaia Arkheologiia (1937), no. 2, 113–50.

Hâncu, Ion. “raskopki srednevekovogo selishcha Khanska.” In Arkheologicheskie otkrytiia 1975 goda, edited by Boris A. rybakov, 477–78. Moscow: Nauka, 1976.

Ivanišević, Vujadin. “Metal workshops of Caričin Grad (Justiniana Prima).” In Lebenswelten zwischen Archäologie und Geschichte: Festschrift für Falko Daim zu seinem 65. Geburtstag, edited by Jörg Drauschke, Ewald Kislinger, Karin Kühtreiber, Gabriele Scharrer-Liška, and Tivadar Vida, 711–24 (Monographien des römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums, 150). Mainz: Verlag des römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums, 2018.

Jakšić, Nikola. Klesarstvo u službi evangelizacije: Studije iz predromaničke skulp-ture na Jadranu. Split: Književni krug, 2015.

Jakšić, Nikola, and Ivan Josipović. “Majstor koljanskog pluteja u kontekstu pre-dromaničkih reljefa s lokaliteta Stombrate u Bijaćima.” Starohrvatska prosvjeta 42 (2015), 145–64.

Jensen, robin Margaret. Baptismal Imagery in Early Christianity: Ritual, Visual, and Theological Dimensions. Grand rapids: Baker Academic, 2012.

Korošec, Josip. “ostava brončanih matrica za otiskivanje u Biskupiji kod Knina.” Starohrvatska prosvjeta 6 (1958), 29–44.

Korzukhina, Galina F. “Klady i sluchainye nakhodki veshchei kruga “drevnostei antov” v srednem Podneprov’e. Katalog pamiatnikov.” Materialy po arkhe-ologii, istorii i etnografii Tavrii 5 (1996), 352–435 and 586–705.

Kruglov, Evgeni V. “Slozhnosostavnye luki Vostochnoi Evropy rannego srednevekov’ia.” In Stepi Evropy v epokhu srednevekov’ia. Khazarskoe vremia, edited by A. V. Evgelevskii, vol. 4, 73–142. Donetsk: Izdatel’stvo Donetskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, 2005.


Levada, M. E. “Pizniy ryms’kyy – ranniy vizantiyskyy chasy.” In Platar, Kolektsiia predmetiv starovyny rodyn Platonovykh i Tarut. Katalog, edited by Elizaveta I. Arkhipova and V. I. Klochko, 190–215. Kiev: ToV Ukrpolihrafmedia, 2004.

Mango, Marlia Mundell, Mango, Cyril, Evans, Angela Care, and Hughes, Michael. “A 6th-century Mediterranean bucket from Bromeswell Parish, Suffolk.” Antiquity 63.239 (1989), 295–311.

Mengarelli, rainero. “La necropolis barbarica di Castel Trosino presso Ascoli Piceno.” Monumenti antichi publicati per cura della Reala Accademia dei Lincei 12 (1902), 146–379.

Milošević, Ante. “Mjesto nalaza i porijeklo ranosrednovjekovne brončane matrice iz Arheološkog Muzeja u Zagrebu.” Vjesnik za arheologiju i historiju Dalmatinsku 83 (1990), 117–24.

———. “Il bassorilievo altomedievale del cavaliere di Žrnovnica in Dalmazia.” Godišnjak. Centar za balkanološka ispitivanja 37 (2008), 181–218.


Minaeva, T. M. “Nakhodka bliz stanicy Pregradnoi na r. Urupe.” Kratkie soobsh-cheniia Instituta Istorii Material’noi Kul’tury 68 (1957), 133–36.

Muscolino, Cetty. “The observation and conservation of mosaics in ravenna in the 5th and 6th centuries.” In New Light on Old Glass: Recent Research on Byzantine Mosaics and Glass, edited by Chris Entwistle and Liz James, 42–52 (research Publications, 179). London: British Museum Press, 2013.

Nagy, Ilona. “The roasted cock crows: Apocryphal writings (Acts of Peter, the Ethiopic Book of the Cock, Coptic fragments, the Gospel of Nicodemus) and folklore texts.” Folklore 36 (2007), 7–40.

Paczkowski, Mieczyslaw Celestyn. “Czujny zwiastun brzasku i zmartwych-wstania. Kogut w symbolice starochrześcijańskiej.” Biblica et Patristica Thoruniensia 7 (2014), no. 4, 77–96.

Parker, Grant. The Making of Roman India: Greek Culture in the Roman World. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008.


Prykhodniuk, oleg M., Padin, V. A., and Tikhonov, N. G. “Trubchevskii klad antskogo vremeni.” In Materialy I tys. n. e. po arkheologii i istorii Ukrainy i Vengrii, edited by István Erdélyi, oleg M. Prykhodniuk, A. V. Simonenko and Eugénia Szimonova, 79–102. Kiev: Naukova dumka, 1996.

rácz, Zsófia. Die Goldschmiedegräber der Awarenzeit. Mainz: Verlag des römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums, 2014.


———. “Ein frühmittelalterlicher Pressmodelfund aus dem mittleren Dnjepr-Gebiet.” In Zwischen Byzanz und der Steppe: Archäologische und historische Studien für Csanád Bálint zum 70. Geburtstag, edited by Ádám Bollók, Gergely Csiky and Tivadar Vida, 175–82. Budapest: Institute of Archaeology, 2016.

ratliff, Brandie. “Fragment of wall hanging.” In Recent Acquisitions: A Selection 2010–2012, The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin Fall 2012, 14. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin, 2012.

Scholl, reinhold. “Eine beschriftete Bronzekanne aus dem 6. Jh. n. Chr.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 103 (1994), 231–40.

Shcheglova, ol’ga A. “Taina ‘pliashushchikh chelovechkov’ i ‘sledy nevidan-nykh zverei’. Antropo- i zoomorfnye izobrazheniia v ranneslavianskoi metalloplastike.” In Slaviano-russkoe iuvelirnoe delo i ego istoki. Materialy Mezhdunarodnoi nauchnoi konferencii posviashchennoi 100-letiiu so dnia rozh-deniia Gali Fedorovny Korzukhinoi. Sankt-Peterburg, 10–16 aprelia 2006 g., edited by Anna A. Peskova, ol’ga A. Shcheglova, and Aleksandr E. Musin, 146–71 and 593–94. St. Petersburg: Nestor-Istoriia, 2010.

Skyba, Andrii V. “Figurativnye zoomorfnye nakladki v slavianskikh drevnostiakh: khudozhestvenno-stilisticheskie osobennosti.” In Slaviane vostochnoi Evropy nakanune obrazovaniia drevnerusskogo gosudarstva. Materialy mezhdunarod-noi konferencii, posviashchennoi 110-letiiu so dnia rozhdeniia Ivana Ivanovicha Liapushkina (1902–1968), 3–5 dekabria 2012 g., Sankt-Peterburg, edited by ol’ga A. Shcheglova and Valentina M. Goriunova, 276–80. St. Petersburg: SoLo, 2012.

———. “Zoomorfni motyvy slov’ians’koi metaloplastyky VII stolittia.” Studii mystetstvoznavchi 4 (2012), 58–77.

Straub, Péter. “Bemerkungen zur Bestimmung des Jankovich-Goldes.” Communicationes Archaeologicae Hungariae (1999), 93–105.

Szmoniewski, Bartłomiej Szymon. “Cultural contacts in Central and Eastern Europe: What do metal beast images speak about?” In Ethnic Contacts and Cultural Exchanges North and West of the Black Sea from the Greek Colonization to the Ottoman Conquest, edited by Victor Cojocaru, 425–42. Iaşi: Trinitas, 2005.

Tolstoi, Ivan I., and Kondakov, Nikodim P. Russkie drevnosti v pamiatnikakh isk-usstva, vol. 3. St. Petersburg, 1890.

Vignier, Charles. “L’aventureux art scythe.” Aréthuse 2 (1925), no. 4, 56–62.Vinski, Zdenko. “Nalaz iz Velike Kladuše i problem naušnica tipa okrenute pir-

amide.” Glasnik Zemaljskog Muzeja Bosne i Hercegovine u Sarajevu 11 (1956), 63–84.




Zowczak, Magdalena. Biblia Ludowa. Interpretacje watków biblijnych w kulturze ludowej. Toruń: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu Mikołaja Kopernika, 2013.

Župić, Branimir. “Srednjovjekovni predmeti.” In Arheološka zbirka Franjevačkog samostana u Sinju, edited by Miroslava Topić, 319–36. Sinj: Franjevački samostan Čudotvorne Gospe Sinjske/Matica Hrvatska, ogranak, 2008.

135

The collection of “Thessalian antiquities” from Velestino includes a number of elements of non-figurative character. Two of them (Cat. 75–76) are a bronze and lead version, respectively, of a cres-cent-like object, with a central point (Fig. 5.1). The object has an orna-ment in the middle framed by a zigzag pattern between two lines, in addition to three other parallel lines. In the middle of the ornament, there is a Maltese cross flanked by two rampant animals with big, cir-cular eyes and stippled bodies (Fig. 5.2). Two of other three decorative pieces (Cat. 77–78) are fragments (Fig. 5.3). only on the basis of the lead piece (Cat. 79) can it be established that this was a curved strip with a four-loop interlaced ornament, which consists of six strands, each being a beaded line.1 There are four triangles in the corners, and a rim of par-allel, short lines surrounds the strip. The purpose of those five pieces (Cat. 75–79) remains unknown, but it is worth noting that they are all curved, which suggests that they were ornaments on a round surface. Two other pieces (Cat. 80 and 81) are themselves round. The main ornament on Cat. 81 is a floral motif, with concentric circles in the mid-dle (the outside circle made of a beaded line), surrounded by 7 petals made of concentric ovals. A rim made of parallel, short lines surrounds the ornament. In this respect, Cat. 81 is very similar to one of the pieces from the Biskupija hoard: the same concentric circles in the middle (but with a raised centre) with eight petals (but of a trapeze, rather than oval shape) and a nicked border.2

CHAPTEr 5

ornaments


https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04846-4_5



There is an analogy in Biskupija for the other disc-shaped piece in the Velestino assemblage. Cat. 82 has an indistinct (perhaps floral) orna-ment in the middle, around which there is a crown of semicircles—the whole surrounded, again, by a rim of parallel, short lines. The corre-sponding piece in the Biskupija hoard has an eight-petal flower in the middle, surrounded by a crown of tulip-like motifs with cup-like stems opening to the outside (Fig. 3.16, second row, second from right).3 Two trapeze-shaped plates are also of an exclusively decorative character (Cat. 84–85). Cat. 84 has two snakes with stippled bodies in an undula-tory movement, slightly sketched heads and doubly rolled tails. Between them, there is a diamond-shaped motif. The ornament is surrounded by a frame of triangles, each snake being also surrounded by a band of rec-tangular cells.4 There is no direct analogy for any of those nine pieces, but the Biskupija hoard also contains strips of rectangular shape, some with straight, and others with angular short sides.5 None of them, how-ever, bears any resemblance to the Velestino pieces.

By far the most spectacular and intriguing of all “Thessalian antiqui-ties” in the Velestino collection is the so-called votive hand (Cat. 73–74). Its complicated decoration and iconography have already been analysed in detail by Nikos Chausidis, who first identified the animals repre-sented on the hand.6 However, because he ignored the lead specimen in the collection of the Princeton University Art Museum, and because of his interpretation was based only on the bronze specimen (Cat. 73;


5 orNAMENTS 137

Fig. 5.4), which has four fingers sawn off, Chausidis’s interpretation must be treated with great caution. Particularly opened to criticism is his suggestion that the “votive hand” is related to the cult of the Thracian god Sabazios, to whom a number of votive hands are known to have been dedicated.7 None of those hands, however, has all fingers straight and most have no decoration whatsoever on the back of the hand. The same is true for a number of bronze hands, each holding an orb with a cross. The nails of those hands are clearly marked, like those of the



Velestino specimen (Cat. 73).8 But the bronze hands are always cupped to hold the orb, and some even have two fingers folded against the palm. on the contrary, the only purpose of the Velestino piece was to high-light the back of the hand, with four fingers shown frontally, with visible, small and oval nails, and the thumb in profile, with a curved indenture for the nail.9 Three fingers (the middle, the ring and the pinky) have

Fig. 5.3 Fragment of a bronze plaque (Cat. 78), one of a triplet (Photo: Florin Curta)

5 orNAMENTS 139

Fig. 5.4 Bronze plaque (Cat. 73), one of a pair (Photo: Florin Curta)


finger-rings. Those on Cat. 73 have shield-shaped bezels, but no bez-els are visible on the finger-rings on Cat. 74 (Fig. 5.5). The bezels of the finger-rings on the pinky and the ring finger are decorated with a cross-like ornament with a circle in the middle and four semicircles at the ends of each cross (Fig. 5.5). The ornament on the hand is framed by a thick, beaded line. Inside it, there are thirteen animals with inter-twined bodies and heads, as well as six teardrop-shaped motifs, each one with a circle in the middle (Fig. 4.19).10 Underneath the joint between the pinky and the ring finger is a crouched animal (Fig. 5.6/1), in pro-file to the right, with stippled body, long snout with opened mouth and legs made of beaded lines. Below and to its left is a large animal in profile to the right (Fig. 5.6/2), with the body covered in C-shaped motifs. Its head separated from the body by a beaded line is, however, covered in diamond-shaped motifs and has a large ear turned forwards, a large circular eye and a long snout made of two beaded lines. The front leg is stretched, the hind leg is bent, and the tail, made of a beaded line, is curled on the back. To the right of this animal is the silhouette of another (Fig. 5.6/3), with head turned backwards (to the right). Its body and hind leg are stippled, and the front legs are made of two beaded lines. The head of the animal has a prominent, circular eye and a barely sketched muzzle. Just below the large animal with the body cov-ered in C-shaped motifs is an animal running to the right (Fig. 5.6/4), with opened mouth (jaws made of two lines). Its body is decorated with diamond-shaped motifs. The head has a prominent eye and two pointed ears (or horns). There is a teardrop-shaped motif in front of its head. right above the body of the animal, there is a small bird with the head turned to the left (Fig. 5.6/5). The head consists of a large eye and a barely sketched beak, and the body is covered with C-shaped motifs.

Below the animal with the body decorated with diamond-shaped motifs and a teardrop-shaped motif in front of its head is another bird shown in profile to the left (Fig. 5.6/6). Its head, separated from the rest of the body by a beaded line, has a large, circular eye and a sketched beak. The body is covered with C-shaped motifs, but has no legs. The entire composition is separated from the rest by a beaded line.11 To its right is a small animal running to the right (Fig. 5.6/7). Its head with flaring lips, a prominent eye and two pointed ears (or horns) is separated from the body by a beaded line. Underneath the stippled body and between the legs, there is a curved beaded line. A teardrop-shaped motif is placed above the animal’s body. Between the animal’s head and its front legs is a

5 orNAMENTS 141

Fig. 5.5 Details of Cat. 73 and 74: fingers, rings, and handcuffs (Photo: Florin Curta)


Fig. 5.6 Detail of Cat. 73: animals on the hand (Photo: Florin Curta. Numbers correspond to those indicated in the text)

5 orNAMENTS 143

small bird with the head turned to the right (Fig. 5.6/8). only the eye is visible, and the body is indicated by five diamond-shaped motifs.

Underneath the thumb, there is a snake (Fig. 5.6/9), with a body in undulatory movement, covered with diamond-shaped motifs. Its head is separated from the body by a small line of three beads and has two small, sketched eyes. There is a convex, beaded line above the tail of the snake, and above that, an animal running to the right (Fig. 5.6/10). Its head has a large, circular eye and jaws made of beaded lines (which also suggest the existence of fangs). The jaws appear to swallow the head of another animal shown between them (Fig. 5.6/11). The only parts of that animal that may be seen are the head (with a large, circular eye), the snout (rendered by two short beaded lines) and the neck (covered with C-shaped motifs). The head of the attacking animal is separated from the body by two beaded lines. The body and the legs are covered with dia-mond-shaped motifs. There is a teardrop-shaped motif between the head and the front leg. Above the animal’s head, there is a fantastic creature shown in profile to the right (Fig. 5.6/12). Its head has a long, open snout (with jaws rendered by means of two lines of beads), a small and circular eye and a ear turned forwards. The head is separated from the body by two lines of beads. The body is covered with diamond-shaped motifs and ends in a bifurcated fishtail. A teardrop-shaped motif is placed underneath the animal’s lower jaw, and there is a convex beaded line underneath the body, with a V-shaped line inside. Finally, below the fantastic creature, in the middle of the hand, there is a bird with a promi-nent, circular eye and a body without legs, covered with C-shaped motifs (Fig. 5.6/13).

Around the hand’s wrist is a bracelet with round section and 7 beaded lines across its middle section. The lines continue into a convex motif between the legs of the small animal at the bottom of the hand orna-ment. The cuff, shaped as a trapeze, with the longest side slightly bent inwards, has an ornamental panel surrounded by a rim of short, paral-lel lines. The panel is divided into two unequal parts by a beaded line. Above that line, in the upper section, there are three rows of scales (semicircles), one underneath the other. They are very similar to the semicircle decorating the lower part of the robe of the archangel on Cat. 44–45. The first two rows have the scales pointing downwards, the last one with scales pointing upwards. The lower section of the panel has a sun-like motif in the middle—two concentric circles, the outside one made of short parallel lines—which is an exact replica of the motif in


the centre of the disc at Cat. 81. on Cat. 73–74, that motif is flanked by two animals running in opposite directions, away from the “sun”. Their heads have opened mouths and prominent, circular eyes, while their bodies and front legs are covered in diamond-shaped motifs. In the lower left and right corners of the ornamental patterns, there are two human heads, each with long hair (rendered by means of a beaded line), eyes, nose, moustache, mouth and beard (rendered by means of a few lines arranged radially from the mouth). Four short, parallel and curved lines are placed just below the sun-like motif and between the heads. Underneath that there are two teardrop-shaped motifs.12

Nikos Chausidis correctly noted the different ornamental patterns on the bodies of the animals shown on the hand. He even divided the animals into four groups and believed that bodies covered in dia-mond-shaped motifs were of animals associated with the Earth, while stippled bodies were of animals associated with the Sun.13 There is abso-lutely no basis for such an interpretation. Moreover, Chausidis neglected (or conveniently ignored) the presence among the twelve animals shown on the hand of four bodies covered with C-shaped motifs. In other words, there are three, not two, stylistical options for the decoration of animal bodies. It is important to note the alternation of those dec-orative options, no doubt an indication that the bodies were meant to be recognized by their different ornaments.14 Nonetheless, the inter-pretation of the decoration of the “votive hand” is very difficult. That the most important decoration covered the back of the hand and con-sists of animal bodies in motion may have been a (visual) play on bulg-ing veins. Judging by the gracility of the fingers and the existence of three finger-rings, as well as of a bracelet, this may well be the left hand of a woman. That the artefact was a votive hand, as Nikos Chausidis believed, is unlikely, because the lower side of the cuff is bent inwards: the plaque could not have been placed vertically and must have been conceived to be laid horizontally on a flat surface. There is, in fact, no reason to believe that the function of the hand was any different from that of the other “Thessalian antiquities,” an observation strengthened by the existence of a lead duplicate, much like in the case of other com-ponents of the collection. Whatever the meaning of the hand, it was meant to be part of that collection. A number of stylistic features shared by several members of that collection, including the hand, support that interpretation.

5 orNAMENTS 145

notes

1. The piece is strikingly similar to a die said to be from Suffolk and dated to the seventh century: Torsten Capelle and Hayo Vierck, “Modeln der Merowinger- und Wikingerzeit,” Frühmittelalterliche Studien 5 (1971), 78 and 79; Fig. 14/1.

2. Josip Korošec, “ostava brončanih matrica za otiskivanje u Biskupiji kod Knina,” Starohrvatska prosvjeta 6 (1958), pls. II/4 and IIa/4. The floral motif on the Cat. 81 is also similar to the decoration on the hindquar-ters of the griffin on the plaque found in odžaci (Serbia), for which see Zsófia rácz, Die Goldschmiedegräber der Awarenzeit (Mainz: Verlag des römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums, 2014), 200 and pl. 82/1.

3. Korošec, “ostava brončanih matrica,” pls. II/1 and IIa/1. According to Béla Kürti and Erika Wicker, “Bemerkungen zur Agraffenfrage der Awarenzeit,” Zalai Múzeum 3 (1991), 20 and 24; Fig. 2/1, the Biskupija piece was a die for the manufacture of pressed brooches of type II, such as that of Dunaszekcső, its closes analogy. None of the brooches of type II could be dated before the last third of the seventh century.

4. The frame of triangles is very similar to the decoration on the mane of the fantastic animal depicted on a plaque found in 1901 in Degtiarevka (Ukraine). See Korzukhina, “Klady i sluchainye nakhodki,” 408 and 682, pl. 92/6.

5. Korošec, “ostava brončanih matrica,” pls. III/4, 6, 8 and IIIa/4, 6, 8. 6. Chausidis, “ranosrednovekovnata bronzena raka,” 45–65. Although he

drew frequently from the ornamental repertoire of the “Thessalian antiq-uities” from Velestino, Chausidis took at face value Sotheby’s (wrong) information about the hand originating in romania.

7. Chausidis may have been inspired by Marvin C. ross, “Byzantine bronze hands holding crosses,” Archaeology 17.2 (1964), 102–3.

8. Some even have finger-rings with oval or round bezels. The bronze hands with orb and cross have been dated to the sixth or seventh cen-tury and are believed to have been made in Palestine and Syria. See ross, “Byzantine bronze hands,” 103; Margaret English Frazer, “Chandelier and hand holding cross,” in Age of Spirituality: Late Antique and Early Christian Art, Third to Seventh Century, ed. Kurt Weitzmann (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1979), 621–22.

9. The way in which the nails are rendered reminds one of the copper-alloy curtain hook found in Philippi and dated to the second half of the sixth century. See Eutychia Korkoutidou-Nikolaidou, “Copper-alloy curtain hook,” in Everyday Life in Byzantium, ed. Demetra Papanikola-Bakirtzi (Athens: Hellenic Ministry of Culture, 2002), 280, no. 293.


10. Because those motifs are very similar in their execution to the animals’ eyes, they may well have been “eye motifs”. The description in the text follows the numbering in Fig. 4.19.

11. This is in fact the only compositional element of the hand ornament to be separated by such a contour line.

12. This part of the decoration is clear on Cat. 73, but barely visible on Cat. 74. The heads on the latter have no eyes and no hair, while the two ani-mals flanking the “sun” are indistinct.

13. Chausidis, “ranosrednovekovnata bronzena raka,” 54–56. Chausidis’s interpretation is based on the assumption that the diamond is a chtho-nian symbol, while the circle represents the Sun. In addition, Chausidis believed that the three rows of scales on the cuff were “water and earth signs,” and that the two animals flanking the sun-like motif were the Simargl (Chausidis, “ranosrednovekovnata bronzena raka,” 51). Taking the beaded lines representing the hair of the two human heads to be stylized arms and legs of a body supposedly having the sun-like motif as the head, he interpreted the whole as a personified Sun (Chausidis, “ranosrednovekovnata bronzena raka,” 48 and 50–51).

14. By contrast, the bodies of both animals flanking the sun-like motif on the cuff are stippled.

references

Capelle, Torsten, and Hayo Vierck. “Modeln der Merowinger- und Wikingerzeit.” Frühmittelalterliche Studien 5 (1971), 41–100.

Chausidis, Nikos. “ranosrednovekovnata bronzena raka od romanija i nejzinite relacii so slovenskite paganski tradicii.” Studia mythologica Slavica 6 (2005), 37–106.

Frazer, Margaret English. “Chandelier and hand holding cross.” In Age of Spirituality: Late Antique and Early Christian Art, Third to Seventh Century, edited by Kurt Weitzmann, 621–22. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1979.


Korkoutidou-Nikolaidou, Eutychia. “Copper-alloy curtain hook.” In Everyday Life in Byzantium, edited by Demetra Papanikola-Bakirtzi, 280. Athens: Hellenic Ministry of Culture, 2002.


5 orNAMENTS 147

Kürti, Béla, and Erika Wicker. “Bemerkungen zur Agraffenfrage der Awarenzeit.” Zalai Múzeum 3 (1991), 19–35.


ross, Marvin C. “Byzantine bronze hands holding crosses.” Archaeology 17 (1964), no. 2, 101–3.

149

Despite Gladys Weinberg Davidson’s claims to the contrary, there is a remarkably unity of style within the large collection of “Thessalian antiq-uities” from Velestino. Most pieces representing humans have a “collar” made of a single, beaded line (Cat. 13–15, 42, 44, 66, 68, 69, 70). A few ornamental options are common to humans and animals. For exam-ple, the band of concentric triangles decorating the body of the four- legged, fantastic animal on Cat. 4 and 5 is also used to decorate the robe of the archangel on Cat. 44. The zigzag band decorating the shield-like frontquarters of the fantastic animal on Cat. 2 and 3 also appears inside the decoration of the crescent on Cat. 75. Most pieces represent-ing “real” or fantastic animals, the hand, as well as some ornaments have a beaded contour line.1 A double, beaded line separates the head from the body on several pieces representing animals (Cat. 8–11, 13–17, 29 and 40), as well on the hand (Cat. 73, 74).2 Stippling is by far the most common of all decorative solutions, and it is frequently employed for the body of both animals and humans (Cat. 10, 11, 21, 27, 30–32, 34, 51, 57, 62, 67, 68, 73 and 74), as well as for animal heads (Cat. 1–4, 10, 11, 16, 17, 22, 23, 27 and 32).3 Less frequent is the scale ornament (sem-icircles, each with a circle in the middle), which is applied for the deco-ration of the body of fantastic animals, such as that on Cat. 10–11, 26 and 40.4 Similarly, only fantastic animals have shield-shaped frontquar-ters—the four-legged animal on Cat. 1–3 and the griffin on Cat. 35–37. Two of the pieces representing a griffin, however, have the cross on

CHAPTEr 6

Style and Chronology


https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04846-4_6



the haunch, much like the horse of the warrior with sword and shield on Cat. 56, and the fantastic animal on Cat. 24–25. C-shaped motifs such as employed for bodies of animals in the decoration of the hand (Cat. 73–74) also appear on the body of the leopard pouncing to the left (Cat. 88). The herringbone motif on tails is employed for both birds (Cat. 16, 17) and griffins (Cat. 35, 36). Similarly, the crescent-shaped horns are an attribute of both cattle and fantastic animals (Cat. 18, 21, 49 and 50), while the mosaic of hatching patterns appears on both rooster and pardalokampos (Cat. 6, 7, 10 and 11).

The many ornamental features shared by various pieces in the collec-tion strongly suggest that they are in fact products of the same artisan(s) working with the same set of decorative patterns, if not also tools. only a few pieces are without any kind of ornamental parallels within the whole group of “Thessalian antiquities”: the human in pensive (mourning?) attitude (Cat. 61), the grazing hog (Cat. 83) and the trapeze-shaped plaque with snakes in the middle (Cat. 84). Whether or not they truly belonged to the Velestino collection, there were most likely more “Thessalian antiquities” than those known so far. Sets of three pieces, of which two are shown in profile in one direction, and another in the opposite direction, suggest that some representations of animals, at least, may have come in multiple pairs.5 At least, four pieces may therefore be missing, and the collection may have included between 90 and 100 pieces. This is, in other words, a very large collection of artefacts. The stylistic homogeneity revealed by the many parallels discussed above, as well as the existence of pairs of symmetrical pieces, strongly suggests that the collection was not the result of accumulation over a long period of time. Instead, the “Thessalian antiquities” may have all been produced at the same time, or within a relatively short time span. They are most likely of the same age. But how old are they, after all?

Gladys Weinberg Davidson was certainly right, when, almost half a century ago, she noted that the “saints” on Cat. 65–66 provided “the essential clue to the terminus post quem of the collection”.6 The “Thessalian antiquities” are clearly not of a prehistoric date. Are they then late antique or early medieval? The two pieces with St. Christopher may be used to obtain another terminus post quem, given that the earli-est evidence for the saint’s cult cannot be dated before the fifth century, and the earliest image with a dog head is the terracotta plaque from Vinica (Macedonia), which has initially been dated to the sixth cen-tury on purely stylistic grounds.7 The cross-hatching pattern on the

6 STYLE AND CHroNoLoGY 151

bodies of St. Christopher and of the man with crotales and tambourine (Cat. 46–48) most likely indicates the cowl on the shoulder, chest and back of imperial attendants, such as depicted on bronze statues that were once parts of candle holders, such as those of Khorol, Smyrna, and the collection of the Schnütgen Museum in Cologne, all of which have also been dated to the sixth century on equally stylistic grounds. The long, tongue-like band with cross-hatched in the middle of the body of the man with crotales and tambourine is very similar to the central ornament on the tunics of two men—one on foot, the other on horse back—in the Kissufim mosaic dated by the accompanying inscription to 4 August 578.8 Similarly, the cross on the haunch of several animals in the Velestino collection appears on the back of a horse in a late sixth- century mosaic found in 1857 in Bordj Djedid, near Carthage, in Tunisia.9

To a later date after 600 (the first three-quarters of the seventh cen-tury) point the parallels between the animal-shaped mounts from the Martynivka hoard and the pieces in the Velestino collection representing animals with shield-shaped forequarters, particularly that on Cat. 1–4. To be sure, the hoard includes a silver bowl with five quality stamps on the back, four of which have the portrait and the monogram of Emperor Justin II (565–578). But a number of other artefacts—the strap distrib-utors with trefoil decoration in the middle, the P-shaped mount for the suspension of the sword scabbard, the “Slavic” bow fibula and the pseu-do-buckle—have very good analogies in Early and Middle Avar assem-blages in Hungary, which could be dated to the first three quarters of the seventh century.10 Since those are, in fact, the artefacts for which the latest possible date could be securely established, the Martynivka hoard could indirectly support a seventh-century date for Cat. 1–4, if not possi-bly for all “Thessalian antiquities.”

A date within the seventh century is supported by other parallels as well. For example, the closest analogies for the two human heads on the cuff of the hand (Cat. 73–74) are the human face on a belt buckle dis-covered in an unknown location in Istria (Croatia).11 While the image is a variation on the theme of the “human head with two animals”, the buckle belongs to the Boly-Želovce class, so called because it is typical for Middle Avar (ca. 630–ca. 680) sites in Hungary and Slovakia.12 The scale ornament on the bodies of the animals depicted on Cat. 10–11, 26 and 40 also appears on the body of the griffin inside the bowl of the 25 spoons in the so-called First Cyprus Treasure found in Lambousa and dated to before 653/4.13 The pardalokampos on Cat. 10–12 is a sea


creature that became particularly popular in Byzantine, Merovingian and early Carolingian metalwork in the late seventh and eighth centuries, as symbol of the paradisiacal locus amoenus. The particular image on the Velestino pieces reminds one of that on a number of belt buckles with rounded, rectangular plates that have been dated to the second half of the seventh century and to the eighth century (Schulze-Dörrlamm’s class F6).14

Many more parallels may be established for some of the pieces in the hoard of dies found in the early twentieth century in Biskupija (Croatia). All three disc-shaped pieces in the Velestino collection (Cat. 80–82) have direct analogies in Biskupija. The body position of the sitting cow (ox) in Cat. 21 is similar to that of the sitting horse in Biskupije. Moreover, the fantastic, two-headed animal with a human head in the middle (Cat. 49–50) resembles a piece in the Biskupije hoard with two animal heads with long necks.15 one other piece from Biskupije is decorated with the zigzag band that also appears on Cat. 2, 3 and 75.16 Most com-ponents of the Biskupija hoard have the same beaded, contour line that appears on most pieces from Velestino. A date within the seventh century for the Biskupija assemblage has traditionally been advanced on the basis of the circular piece with grape-like clusters on the sides, which is believed to be a die for earrings with star-shaped pendants.17 However, the piece has clusters on four sides, which makes it unlikely that the resulting pen-dant could have been attached to the earring’s loop. By contrast, several pieces with geometric decoration suggest a date shortly before or after AD 700. For example, as Margit Nagy has pointed out, the grid pattern decorating the hexagonal and a pentagonal piece also appears on Middle Avar, square belt mounts (Zábojník’s class 207) dated between ca. 655 and ca. 680.18 The decoration with rows of short, curved lines on a rec-tangular and pentagonal piece appears on cast strap ends of the early Late Avar phase (ca. 680–ca. 720), such as found in grave 28 in Andocs.19 It is therefore possible to place the Biskupija assemblage chronologically within 20 years or so on either side of the year 700. If the striking paral-lels between Velestino and Biskupija are to be trusted at all in this respect, then the conclusion reached for the Biskupija hoard will also have impli-cations for the dating of the “Thessalian antiquities” to the late seventh or early eighth century. This may in turn explain a few parallels that could be established between ornamental patterns in the Velestino collection and examples of pre-romanesque sculpture in Croatia and Bosnia that have been recently dated to the seventh and eighth centuries.20


notes

1. Cat. 1–3, 13–17, 22, 28, 29, 52, 53, 73, 74, 77–79, 81 and 86. 2. open jaws indicated by means of beaded lines a detail quite common for

the decoration of the hand (Cat. 73–74) also appear on the image of the fantastic animal biting its left leg (Cat. 34).

3. occasionally, it is also used for the neck (Cat. 34), the legs (Cat. 16) or even the tail (Cat. 1).

4. Similarly, the trilobate tail end appears only with fantastic animals (Cat. 34, 36 and 37). The same is true for the tulip-shaped muzzle (Cat. 1–3, 24, 25, 49 and 50).

5. Such as the fantastic, four-legged animal on Cat. 1–3, the dog-headed ani-mal on Cat. 24–26 or the griffin on Cat. 35–37. The same may be true even for sets of three pieces, all shown in profile to the same direction, like the leopard on Cat. 30–31 and 88.

6. To that, one can now add the cross on the haunch of several animals, such as those represented on Cat. 8, 9, 24, 25, 35 and 56.

7. Elizabeta Dimitrova, “The terracotta relief plaques from Vinica,” Starinar 43–44 (1992), 69–70; Dragiša Zdravkovski, “Datiranje na keramich-kite ikoni ot Vinica Makedonska,” in Starokhristijanskata arkheologija vo Makedonija. Prilozi od nauchen sobir, ed. Blaga Aleksova, Krum Tomovski and Cvetan Grozdanov (Skopje: Makedonska Akademija na Naukite i Umetnostite, 2003), 253, has recently redated the ter-racotta plaques to the ninth century, on the basis of formal analogies between some of them and artworks firmly dated to the Carolingian age. However, Zdravkovski is wrong when assuming that the first literary mention of St. Christopher with a dog head cannot be dated before the seventh century. As Felix racine, “Geography, identity and the legend of Saint Christopher,” in Religious Identity in Late Antiquity, ed. robert M. Frakes and DePalma Digeser (Toronto: Edgar Kent, 2006), 115, has put it, “the late romans made him [Christopher] a dog-headed man”.

8. rudolf Cohen, “Bnia ve recafot psifas bizantiot liad Kissufim,” Qadmoniot 12.1 (1979), 21; rudolph Cohen, “A Byzantine church and its mosaic floors at Kissufim,” in Ancient Churches Revealed, ed. Yoram Tsafrir (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1993), 279.

9. r. P. Hinks, Catalogue of the Greek, Etruscan, and Roman Paintings and Mosaics in the British Museum (London: British Museum, 1933), 144–145; 144, Fig. 161; and pl. 3. For a good colour photo of the mosaic, see http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details/collection_image_gallery.aspx?asset-Id=743016001&objectId=58712&partId=1 (visit of 16 April 2018). For the date of the mosaic, see Csanád Bálint, “Byzantinisches zur

http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details/collection_image_gallery.aspx%3fassetId%3d743016001%26objectId%3d58712%26partId%3d1




Herkunftsfrage des vielteiligen Gürtels,” in Kontakte zwischen Iran, Byzanz und der Steppe im 6.-7. Jahrhundert, ed. Csanád Bálint (Budapest: Institut für Archäologie der Ungarischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2000), 135. The motif also appears on late sixth-century animal rep-resentations on artefacts from northern Italy, Sardinia and south-western France. See Hans Klumbach, “Pferde mit Brandmarken,” in Festschrift des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums in Mainz zur Feier seines hundertjährigen Bestehens 1952, vol. 3 (Mainz: Verlag des römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums, 1953), 11–12; 10, Fig. 13/5; 11, Fig. 14/3; Paolo Benito Serra, “Suppellettili tardoromane e altomedi-evali da Sulci-Sant’Antioco (CA),” Theologica & Historica 25 (2016), 516 and 534, Fig. 17; and Sophie Lerenter, “L’art animalier des plaque- boucles mérovingiens en bronze de type aquitaine,” in Actes des Xe Journées Internationales d’Archéologie Mérovingienne (Metz, 20–23 octobre 1988) (Sarreguemines: Editions Pierron, 1989), 57 and 61, Fig. 15.

10. Galina F. Korzukhina, “Klady i sluchainye nakhodki veshchei kruga ‘drevnostei antov’ v srednem Podneprov’e. Katalog pamiatnikov,” Materialy po arkheologii, istorii i etnografii Tavrii 5 (1996), 598, pl. 8/1, 2 (for the bowl); Liudmila V. Pekars’ka and Dafydd Kidd, Der Silberschatz von Martynovka (Ukraine) aus dem 6. und 7. Jahrhundert (Innsbruck: Universitätsverlag Wagner, 1994), pls. 21/2 (for the P-shaped suspension mount), 36/1 (for the strap distributors) and 38/3 (for the pseudo-buckle). For the bowl, see Marlia Mundell Mango, “Silver plate among the romans and among the barbarians,” in La noblesse romaine et les chefs barbares du IIIe au VIIe siècle, ed. Françoise Vallet and Michel Kazanski (Saint-Germain-en-Laye: Association Française d’Archéologie Mérovingienne-Musée des Antiquités Nationales, 1995), 79–80. For the strap distributors, see Mirosław rudnicki, “Ażurowa tarczka z Kielar. Przyczynek do badań nad daleko-siężnymi powiązaniami grupy olsztyńskiej,” Światowit 8 (2009–2010), 119–20. For the “Slavic” bow fibula, see Florin Curta, “Neither Gothic, nor Slavic: bow fibulae of Werner’s class II B,” Archaeologia Austriaca 93 (2009), 58. For the pseudo-buckles, see Igor Gavritukhin, “Evoluciia vostochnoevropeiskikh psevdopriazhek,” in Kul’tury evraziiskikh ste-pei vtoroi poloviny I tysiacheletiia n.e. (iz istorii kostiuma), ed. Dmitrii A. Stashenkov, Anna F. Kochkina, and Anna M. Kuznecova (Samara: Samarskii oblastnei istoriko-kraevedcheskii muzei im. P.V. Alabina, 2001), 36–37. For the P-shaped suspension mount, see Gergely Csiky, Avar-age Polearms and Edged Weapons: Classification, Typology, Chronology, and Technology (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2015), 274–76.

11. Branko Marušić, “Staroslovenske in neke zgodnjesrednjeveške najdbe v Istri,” Arheološki vestnik 6 (1955), 111 and 115, pl. IV/7. A large, colour


picture of the same buckle appears on the cover of Branko Marušić, Istra i sjevernojadranski prostor u ranom srednjem vijeku (materijalna kultura od 7. do 11. stoljeća) (Pula: Arheološki muzej Istre, 1995).

12. Ursula Ibler, “Pannonische Gürtelschnallen des späten 6. und 7. Jahrhunderts,” Arheološki vestnik 43 (1992), 138 and 140; Éva Garam, Funde byzantinischer Herkunft in der Awarenzeit vom Ende des 6. bis zum Ende des 7. Jahrhunderts (Budapest: Magyar Nemzéti Múzeum, 2001), 101. For the theme of the “human head with two animals”, see Margit Nagy, “Synkretische Elemente in der frühawarenzeitlichen ornamentik. Zur Frage der awarenzeitlichen Variante des Motivs ‘Maske bzw. Menschengesicht zwischen zwei Tieren’,” Zalai Múzeum 11 (2002), 155.

13. Chris Entwistle, “Three silver spoons,” in Everyday Life in Byzantium, ed. Demetra Papanikola-Bakirtzi (Athens: Hellenic Ministry of Culture, 2002), 338, no. 380b.

14. Mechthild Schulze-Dörrlamm, Byzantinische Gürtelschnallen und Gürtelbeschläge im Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseum. Teil 2: Die Schnallen mit Scharnierbeschläg und die Schnallen mit angegossenem Riemendurchzug des 7. bis 10. Jahrhunderts (Mainz: Verlag des römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums/rudolf Habelt, 2009), 155–60; 156, Figs. 347–348; 157, Fig. 349. In all three examples, the pardalokampos is shown in profile to the left. Similar creatures appear on the sarcophagus on Theodota (the wife of the Lombard king Cunipert), dated ca. 730. See Egon Wamers, “Locus amoenus. ‘Becher 19’ im Kontext der kontinentalen Kunst des 8. und 9. Jahrhunderts,” in Der Goldschatz von Sânnicolau Mare (Ungarisch: Nagyszentmiklós). Veranstaltet vom Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseum Mainz in Kooperation mit der Antikensammlung des Kunsthistorischen Museums, Wien 7.-9. Oktober 2010, ed. Falko Daim, Kurt Gschwantler, Georg Plattner, and Peter Stadler (Mainz: Verlag des römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums, 2015), 102 and 104; 101, Fig. 22/4.

15. Korošec, “ostava brončanih matrica,” pls. I/5 and Ia/5. It is important to note that the necks of the two animals are decorated with a beaded line, an ornamental pattern frequently employed on the Velestino pieces as well. See Werner, Slawische Bronzefiguren, 4.

16. Korošec, “ostava brončanih matrica,” pls. III/1 and IIIa/1. 17. Korošec, “ostava brončanih matrica,” 31. For earrings with star-shaped

pendant, see Dan Gh. Teodor, “Cercei cu pandantiv stelat din secolele VI-VIII d. Hr. în spaţiul carpato-dunăreano-pontic,” Arheologia Moldovei 18 (1995), 191–93. The date of this particular type of earrings is based on the association of two fragmentary specimens with 31 hexagrams struck for Emperor Constantine IV (668–685) in the Priseaca hoard, for which see Bucur Mitrea, “Date noi cu privire la secolul VII. Tezaurul de hexagrame bizantine de la Priseaca (jud. olt),” Studii şi cercetări de numismatică 6 (1975), 113–25.


18. Korošec, “ostava brončanih matrica,” pl. III/7, 8 and IIIa/7, 8; Margit Nagy, “ornamenta Avarica I. Az avarkori ornamentika geometrikus ele-mei,” Móra Ferenc Múzeum Evkönyve. Studia Archaeologica 4 (1998), 381 and 421, Fig. 18/1–5. For the Middle Avar belt mounts with grid pattern ornament, see Jozef Zábojník, “Seriation von Gürtelbeschlaggarnituren aus dem Gebiet der Slowakei und Österreichs,” in K problematike osídle-nia stredodunajskej oblasti vo včasnom stredoveku, ed. Zlata Čilinská (Nitra: Archeologický ustav Slovenskej akadémie vied, 1991), 235. For the cali-brated dates of the Avar age, see Peter Stadler, “Avar chronology revisited, and the question of ethnicity in the Avar qaganate,” in The Other Europe in the Middle Ages: Avars, Bulgars, Khazars, and Cumans, ed. Florin Curta (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2008), 59, Table 1.

19. Korošec, “ostava brončanih matrica,” pls. III/4, 5 and IIIa/4, 5. For the strap end from Andocs, see Éva Garam, “Avar temetők Andocson,” Folia Archaeologica 23 (1972), 138 and 144, Fig. 10/32. The strap end is asso-ciated with other belt fittings typical for the first phase of the Late Avar age, such as mounts with a propeller-like ornament of Zábojník’s class 197, for which see Zábojník, “Seriation von Gürtelbeschlaggarnituren,” 236. To be sure, the decoration of two rows of short, curved lines also appears on strap ends dated to the third (and latest) phase of the Late Avar age (ca. 760–ca. 820). See, for example, Katalin K. Végh, “A Nyékládházi avar temető,” A Hermán Ottó Múzeum Évkönyve 5 (1964), 177 and 179 and pl. I/12. Nagy, “ornamenta Avarica I,” 381, 423, Fig. 19, and 454, Fig. 40/22, believes this decoration to be a variant of the herringbone ornament.

20. Ante Milošević, “Slika ‘božanskog boja’ - likovni i ikonografski pogled na konjanički reljef iz Žrnovnice u Dalmaciji,” in Perunovo koplje, ed. Andrej Pleterski and Tomo Vinšćak (Ljubljana: Inštitut za arheologijo ZrC SAZU, 2011), 32. See also Ante Milošević, “Scultura ornamentale del VII e VIII secolo nei Balcani occidentali,” Hortus Artium Medievalium 9 (2003), 357–82. The interlaced ornament on Cat. 77–79 is very similar to that decorating the eighth-century episcopal chair in the Euphrasius basilica in Poreč (Istria, Croatia), for which see Nikola Jakšić, Klesarstvo u službi evangelizacije. Studije iz predromaničke skulpture na Jadranu (Split: Književni krug, 2015), 75, Fig. 24.

references

Bálint, Csanád. “Byzantinisches zur Herkunftsfrage des vielteiligen Gürtels.” In Kontakte zwischen Iran, Byzanz und der Steppe im 6.-7. Jahrhundert, edited by Csanád Bálint, 99–162 (Varia Archaeologica, 10). Budapest: Institut für Archäologie der Ungarischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2000.

Cohen, rudolf. “Bnia ve recafot psifas bizantiot liad Kissufim.” Qadmoniot 12.1 (1979), 19–24.


———. “A Byzantine church and its mosaic floors at Kissufim.” In Ancient Churches Revealed, edited by Yoram Tsafrir, 277–82. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1993.

Csiky, Gergely. Avar-age Polearms and Edged Weapons: Classification, Typology, Chronology, and Technology (East Central and Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 32). Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2015.

Curta, Florin. “Neither Gothic, nor Slavic: Bow fibulae of Werner’s class II B.” Archaeologia Austriaca 93 (2009), 45–77.

Dimitrova, Elizabeta. “The terracotta relief plaques from Vinica.” Starinar 43–44 (1992), 53–70.

Entwistle, Chris. “Three silver spoons.” In Everyday Life in Byzantium, edited by Demetra Papanikola-Bakirtzi, 338. Athens: Hellenic Ministry of Culture, 2002.

Garam, Éva. “Avar temetők Andocson.” Folia Archaeologica 23 (1972), 129–82.Gavritukhin, Igor o. “Evoluciia vostochnoevropeiskikh psevdopriazhek.”

In Kul’tury evraziiskikh stepei vtoroi poloviny I tysiacheletiia n.e. (iz istorii kos-tiuma), edited by Dmitrii A. Stashenkov, Anna F. Kochkina, and Anna M. Kuznecova, 31–86. Samara: Samarskii oblastnei istoriko-kraevedcheskii muzei im. P.V. Alabina, 2001.

Hinks, r. P. Catalogue of the Greek, Etruscan, and Roman Paintings and Mosaics in the British Museum. London: British Museum, 1933.

Ibler, Ursula. “Pannonische Gürtelschnallen des späten 6. und 7. Jahrhunderts.” Arheološki vestnik 43 (1992), 135–48.

Jakšić, Nikola. Klesarstvo u službi evangelizacije. Studije iz predromaničke skulp-ture na Jadranu. Split: Književni krug, 2015.

Klumbach, Hans. “Pferde mit Brandmarken.” In Festschrift des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums in Mainz zur Feier seines hundertjährigen Bestehens 1952, vol. 3, 1–12. Mainz: Verlag des römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums, 1953.



Lerenter, Sophie. “L’art animalier des plaque-boucles mérovingiens en bronze de type Aquitaine.” In Actes des Xe Journées Internationales d’Archéologie Mérovingienne (Metz, 20–23 octobre 1988), 55–61. Sarreguemines: Editions Pierron, 1989.

Mango, Marlia Mundell. “Silver plate among the romans and among the bar-barians.” In La noblesse romaine et les chefs barbares du IIIe au VIIe siècle, edited by Françoise Vallet and Michel Kazanski, 77–88 (Mémoires de l’As-sociation Française d’Archéologie Mérovingienne, 9). Saint-Germain-en-Laye: Association Française d’Archéologie Mérovingienne-Musée des Antiquités Nationales, 1995.


Marušić, Branko. “Staroslovenske in neke zgodnjesrednjeveške najdbe v Istri.” Arheološki vestnik 6 (1955), 97–133.

———. Istra i sjevernojadranski prostor u ranom srednjem vijeku (materijalna kultura od 7. do 11. stoljeća). Pula: Arheološki muzej Istre, 1995.

Milošević, Ante. “Scultura ornamentale del VII e VIII secolo nei Balcani occi-dental.” Hortus Artium Medievalium 9 (2003), 357–82.


Mitrea, Bucur. “Date noi cu privire la secolul VII. Tezaurul de hexagrame bizan-tine de la Priseaca (jud. olt).” Studii şi cercetări de numismatică 6 (1975), 113–25.

Nagy, Margit. “ornamenta Avarica I. Az avarkori ornamentika geometrikus elemei.” Móra Ferenc Múzeum Evkönyve. Studia Archaeologica 4 (1998), 377–459.

———. “Synkretische Elemente in der frühawarenzeitlichen ornamentik. Zur Frage der awarenzeitlichen Variante des Motivs ‘Maske bzw. Menschengesicht zwischen zwei Tieren’.” Zalai Múzeum 11 (2002), 153–78.


racine, Felix. “Geography, identity and the legend of Saint Christopher.” In Religious Identity in Late Antiquity, edited by robert M. Frakes and DePalma Digeser, 106–25. Toronto: Edgar Kent, 2006.

rudnicki, Mirosław. “Ażurowa tarczka z Kielar. Przyczynek do badań nad dal-ekosiężnymi powiązaniami grupy olsztyńskiej.” Światowit 8 (2009–2010), 119–32.

Schulze-Dörrlamm, Mechthild. Byzantinische Gürtelschnallen und Gürtelbeschläge im Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseum. Teil 2: Die Schnallen mit Scharnierbeschläg und die Schnallen mit angegossenem Riemendurchzug des 7. bis 10. Jahrhunderts (Kataloge vor- und frühgeschichtlicher Altertümer, 30.2). Mainz: Verlag des römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums/ rudolf Habelt, 2009.

Serra, Paolo Benito. “Suppellettili tardoromane e altomedievali da Sulci-Sant’Antioco (CA).” Theologica & Historica 25 (2016), 501–34.

Stadler, Peter. “Avar chronology revisited, and the question of ethnicity in the Avar qaganate.” In The Other Europe in the Middle Ages: Avars, Bulgars, Khazars, and Cumans, edited by Florin Curta, 47–82 (East Central and Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 2). Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2008.

Teodor, Dan Gh. “Cercei cu pandantiv stelat din secolele VI-VIII d. Hr. în spaţiul carpato-dunăreano-pontic.” Arheologia Moldovei 18 (1995), 187–206.


Végh, Katalin K. “A Nyékládházi avar temető.” A Hermán Ottó Múzeum Évkönyve 5 (1964), 177–211.

Wamers, Egon. “Locus amoenus. ‘Becher 19’ im Kontext der kontinentalen Kunst des 8. und 9. Jahrhunderts.” In Der Goldschatz von Sânnicolau Mare (Ungarisch: Nagyszentmiklós). Veranstaltet vom Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseum Mainz in Kooperation mit der Antikensammlung des Kunsthistorischen Museums, Wien 7.-9. Oktober 2010, edited by Falko Daim, Kurt Gschwantler, Georg Plattner, and Peter Stadler, 71–120 (römisch-Germanisches Zentramuseum-Tagungen, 25). Mainz: Verlag des römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums, 2015.

Zábojník, Jozef. “Seriation von Gürtelbeschlaggarnituren aus dem Gebiet der Slowakei und Österreichs.” In K problematike osídlenia stredoduna-jskej oblasti vo včasnom stredoveku, edited by Zlata Čilinská, 219–321. Nitra: Archeologický ustav Slovenskej akadémie vied, 1991.

Zdravkovski, Dragiša. “Datiranje na keramichkite ikoni ot Vinica Makedonska.” In Starokhristijanskata arkheologija vo Makedonija. Prilozi od nauchen sobir, edited by Blaga Aleksova, Krum Tomovski, and Cvetan Grozdanov, 239–54. Skopje: Makedonska Akademija na Naukite i Umetnostite, 2003.

161

The “Thessalian antiquities” are similar in yet another respect to at least some of the pieces in the Biskupija hoard. on the back of the hexag-onal and pentagonal pieces from Biskupija, which are decorated with the grid pattern, there are visible traces of a tightly woven textile fabric (Fig. 7.1).1 The same is true for some of the lead pieces in the Velestino collection, such as the woman leaping to the right (Cat. 43; Fig. 3.2) and the archangel (Cat. 45; Fig. 3.4).2 Both bronze and lead pieces from Biskupija and Velestino, respectively, that show traces of textile therefore indicate the technological process of production, as they point to a spe-cific casting procedure.3

An impression of a coarsely woven textile suggests that the procedure in question was the lost wax technique. The technique consists of creat-ing a ceroplastic model, which is to be decorated in the manner of the desired, final cast. Casting funnels and venting tubes are then attached to the wax model, which is embedded into a bar made of a mixture of clay, sand, hay, hair and manure.4 The bar is first dried and then fired to melt the wax and to produce the “negative” of the desired cast. Molten metal is then poured into the hollow clay bar. once the metal cools off, the bar is broken in order to retrieve the cast. The chaîne opératoire involved in the lost wax technique has been verified experimentally sev-eral times to cast “Byzantine” belt buckles, Avar-age belt mounts and “Slavic” bow fibulae.5 A variation on this method (otherwise known as “lost wax and lost textile” technique) implies attaching to the wax model

CHAPTEr 7

Production


https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04846-4_7



a strip of fabric, which is meant to keep the cast at a uniform thickness and to make it easier to remove the cast out of the “negative”. When the molten metal is poured into the clay mould, instead of the wax, on the reverse of the resulting cast one can see a reproduction of the wax model’s reinforcing fabric, which has been burned out by the hot metal.6 Moreover, the fabric strengthens the model, making the engraving of further ornamentation easier.7

The “lost wax and lost textile” technique originated in north-west-ern China and Inner Mongolia during the late fourth and the third cen-tury BC.8 During the Qin State (221–206 BC), Chinese goldsmiths employed that technique for the production of artefacts meant to be shipped to the nomads. Through the intermediary of the nomads, the technique spread westwards.9 In Europe, the use of textiles in cast-ing was not known in Antiquity, and its presence in the early Middle Ages has rightly been associated with the traditions of the steppe.10 The earliest examples were until now believed to be the Biskupija casts, followed chronologically by eighth-century bronze casts from

Fig. 7.1 Biskupija hoard, hexagonal and pentagonal pieces with traces of woven textile fabric on the back (Photo: Antun Zoran Alajbeg. Courtesy of the Museum of Croatian Archaeological Monuments in Split)

7 ProDUCTIoN 163

Bulgaria, Hungary and Austria and finally by Viking-age artefacts from Scandinavia.11

The two pieces from Velestino (Cat. 43–45) may now be added to the list, but they are definitely different from all other artefacts known so far. Unlike the dies in the Biskupija hoard, as well as the Late Avar-age belt mounts and straps from Bulgaria, Hungary and Austria, the Velestino pieces are made of lead, not copper alloy. This strongly suggests that the technology employed for the production of the bronze casts was also applied to the casting of leaden objects. In this respect, the only parallel to the Velestino pieces, and, so far, the earliest evidence of positive fabric imprints on metal artefacts linked to the lost wax and lost textile tech-nique is the fragment of a lead ingot found in a large hoard accidentally discovered in 1994 in Gaponovo, near Kursk (russia).12 on the back, the ingot presents the positive imprint of a tightly woven fabric, which Andrei oblomskii believed to be from the textile bag or cover in which the hoard components were wrapped before being buried.13 It is more likely, however, that the imprint is the result of the casting process. The Gaponovo hoard has been dated to the second half of the seventh cen-tury, largely on the basis of historical arguments.14 However, the corre-spondence analysis of the artefact types in 18 hoards of bronze and silver found in Ukraine and russia and dated to the sixth and seventh centuries suggests a terminus post quem for the Gaponovo assemblage in the early decades of the seventh century, because of the bow fibulae of Werner’s classes IIC and IID, as well as the so-called Martynivka belt mounts with open-work decoration.15

To be sure, there are substantial differences between the Velestino and the Gaponovo hoards. There are no beads, no rings and no pendants in the former, while the latter contains no plaques. While about 36% of all artefacts in the Gaponovo hoard are made of silver alloy, the vast majority of the Velestino pieces (69 out of 88, almost 80%) are of copper alloy.16 In 16 cases, the copper alloy plaques have exact leaden replicas, but there are also plaques that exist only in copper alloy or only in lead.

Six copper alloy plaques (four of them with leaden replicas) have been the subject of a spectrographic analysis performed in 1980 at the Scientific research and Analysis Laboratory of the Winterthur Museum in order to detect the main compositional elements of the alloys and their respective significance (see Appendix B).17 The results show that all analysed specimens have been made of leaded bronze, that is a copper alloy in which lead and tin were the most representative elements. Such


alloys were not uncommon in East Central and Eastern Europe during the seventh and eighth centuries.18 That much results, for example, from the examination of one of the two ladles found in the Kuzebaevo hoard (Udmurt republic, russia). The ladle was made of a copper alloy with tin and lead and still contained in its bowl a small quantity of brass with no less than 20.64% lead.19 The optical spectroscopic analysis of 34 objects from a hoard discovered in 2007 in Kurilovka, in the Sudzha district of the Kursk region (russia), not far from Gaponovo, showed a considerable quantity of lead and tin in the alloy, sometimes exceed-ing any other element. For example, three of the analysed objects (belt mounts) were made of a lead–tin alloy with over 20% lead, another with 23% tin.20 The same is true for some of the analysed, copper alloy objects from the hoard discovered farther to the west, in the valley of the Sula river, at Velyki Budky, in the district of Nedryhailiv of the Sumy region (Ukraine).21 The optical spectroscopic analysis of 17 objects found in the early medieval stronghold excavated in Nikadzimava, in the district of Horki of the Magileu region (Belarus) also revealed the predominant character of the lead–tin alloys.22 Along with leaded gunmetal (alloy of copper with tin, zinc and lead), leaded bronze was employed for the pro-duction of horse harness mounts in sixth- to seventh-century Prussia.23 Lead–tin alloys have also been identified along with brass objects dated between the seventh and the ninth centuries and retrieved from a bar-row excavated in Jurgaičiai, in the district of Šiauliai, in Lithuania.24 The detailed analysis of a seventh-century ladle from Věrovany (near olomouc, Czech republic) showed that it had been used for casting a number of non-ferrous metals, including tin, lead and copper. The anal-ysis of a foundry ladle from feature 1034 of the large seventh-century settlement excavated in roztoky, west of Prague, also revealed tin with admixture of lead. Another ladle from feature 1075 of that same settle-ment showed tin and lead in similar quantities.25 The examination of the alloys employed for over 100 objects from several sites in central and eastern Austria that have been dated between the eighth and the elev-enth centuries has demonstrated the high incidence of lead–tin alloys. In fact, the later the date of the site, the greater the proportion of lead in the alloy.26

Unfortunately, there are no similar studies for any of the bronze casts found in the Balkans and dated between the seventh and the ninth centuries.27 Studies of alloys employed for the production of bronze casts in Byzantium during those centuries are also rare. In Late

7 ProDUCTIoN 165

Antiquity, roman metallurgists made alloys by mixing scrap bronze with brass that had been newly produced by the cementation process. The new brass typically had a high percentage of zinc in its composi-tion.28 The spectral analysis of several parts of a standing bronze lamp found in Biala (Bulgaria), but most likely produced in the sixth century in Constantinople have confirmed those conclusions: the alloys contain a great amount of zinc, and comparatively less lead or tin.29 out of 29 analysed objects from early Byzantine Sardis, 17 were made of so-called quaternary alloys of copper, zinc, lead and tin.30 The use of quaternary alloys has also been confirmed for copper alloy objects from the collec-tion of the Benaki Museum in Athens.31 The predominant character of the “quaternary alloys” is most likely the result of recycling. No similar studies exist for the otherwise abundant production of bronze casts in Constantinople or elsewhere in the Empire during the seventh and the eighth centuries. The spectral analysis of three “Byzantine”, seventh- century belt buckles (one of the Syracuse type, another with strap direc-tor and a bronze model for the production of buckles of the Trebizond class) in the Germanisches Museum in Nuremberg revealed that all three were made of a predominantly lead–tin alloy.32

It appears therefore that, far from unique, the technology employed for the production of (some of) the Velestino plaques was widely known, shortly before and after AD 700, in Eastern and East Central Europe, as well as, probably, Byzantium. There is no reason to believe that the lost wax method, with or without the use of strip of fabric, was borrowed from the world of the steppe, as artefacts made in that way in the late seventh or early eighth century are known from several places in the Balkans. But why was leaded bronze preferred? Most appropriate for casting, in fact, are alloys rich in lead, because the addition of at least 14% of that metal brings down the melting point and allows for better casting.33 Copper alloys with over 3% lead made possible the casting of thin and delicately ornamented artefacts, which did not need much elab-oration after that.34 In other words, adding lead to the alloy may speed up the production process and eliminate the use of gravers or scorpers, files or punches. However, the presence of zinc, tin and lead in the alloy may also be the result of mixing brass with pewter, primarily because the latter was cheaper and easier to obtain.

In his brief description of the Velestino plaque representing a pounc-ing leopard (Cat. 30), Dafydd Kidd claims that the “decoration such as the dotting on mane and body was added by chasing and punching”.35


However, a brief examination of pairs (or triplets) of plaques in the Velestino hoard strongly suggests that the decoration in question was cast and not the result of surface treatment.36 In each case, the same dec-oration is visible on both the bronze and lead pieces. For example, the details of the decoration visible on Cat. 10 and 11 showing the pard-alokampos (stippling on the tail, scale-like ornament on the forequarters) could not have possibly been the result of chasing or punching, since they also appear on the lead piece (Figs. 3.7–3.11). The ornament was clearly cast, not chased or punched. As such, it must have been applied to the wax model, which served for the casting of the bronze pieces, as well as of their leaden replica. The same is also true for such triplets with one piece made of lead as Cat. 27–29 (showing a wolf with a lamb in its mouth, see Figs. 4.8–4.10) and Cat. 77–79 (the curved strip with a quadruple loop), as well as for pairs (with one lead piece each) such as Cat. 4–5 (a fantastic animal, see Figs. 2.8–2.10) or Cat. 75–76 (the crescent, see Figs. 5.1–5.2). At a closer examination, however, the pieces in some triplets are not exactly identical. For example, the two bronze pieces showing an animal carrying off a child (Cat. 13–14) are slightly different—again, in minute details—from the corresponding leaden replica (Cat. 15). The hindquarters of the animal are covered with two intersecting bands of parallel, short lines. on the bronze pieces, the space between those bands and the upper margin of the hindquarters is also decorated with parallel, short lines. The latter do not appear on the lead piece, which suggests that they were not drawn on the wax model. Their presence on the bronze pieces may be the result of surface treat-ment after casting, but it is equally possible that the wax model in their case received more ornamentation than in the case of the leaden piece.37 only microscopic analysis of each (bronze) piece may elucidate this problem. If surface treatment was indeed applied, then it must have been minimal, since in many other, small details, the bronze pieces are exactly like their replicas in lead.38

But how was a replica obtained in the first place? How was it possible to obtain two pieces of bronze and another of lead that were similar, if not identical, in minute details? After every casting operation, the wax model was destroyed, so its shape and decoration could not be repro-duced exactly for another casting sequence. However, using a mother- mould in which a wax model of a plaque to be cast was formed, it was possible to produce identical plaque designs.39 In order to obtain the mother-mould, one needed a casting (or forming) model made of

7 ProDUCTIoN 167

durable material to obtain an accurate imprint in the mother-mould. Few casting models have survived, and even fewer have so far been pub-lished.40 Could the Velestino plaques have served a similar purpose?

notes

1. Josip Korošec, “ostava brončanih matrica za otiskivanje u Biskupiji kod Knina,” Starohrvatska prosvjeta 6 (1958), pls. III/1, IIIa/1 and IV/1–2.

2. In a letter dated 25 February 1993 and preserved in the loans file at the Princeton University Art Museum, Noël Adams claims that she had identified a textile imprint on a non-identified bronze from Velestino, which was at that time in a private collection in London. This may well be the plaque representing a leopard (Cat. 30), which was purchased in 1989 by British Museum. If so, there is no mention of the imprint in Dafydd Kidd, “The Velestínon (Thessaly) hoard—A footnote,” in Awarenforschungen, ed. Falko Daim (Vienna: Institut für Ur- und Frühgeschichte der Universität Wien, 1992), 509, where the back of the piece is described as having “irregularities” that had been “filed flat.”

3. The traces of textile indicate two different, simple linen tabbies woven in a single yarn. The tabby on the Velestino pieces is denser, and the yarn is thinner than on the tabby imprints from Biskupija. Simple tabbies have been identified from traces of textiles in Avar-age burials from Austria, Hungary and Croatia. See Karina Grömer and Silvia Müller, “Textiles from the Avar graveyard Zwölfaxing II, Austria,” Archaeological Textiles Newsletter 46 (2008), 17 and 18; Fig. 1; Karina Grömer and Anita rapan Papeša, “Jednostavne tkanine I žigošana koža organski nalazi s avarodob-nog groblja u Nuštru (istočna Hrvatska),” Vjesnik Arheološkog Muzeja u Zagrebu 48 (2015), 65–67. Those tabbies are very different from those known from contemporaneous assemblages in southern Germany, but sim-ilar to those from roman-age assemblages in Austria. See Karina Grömer, “Cloth qualities from 800 BC–800 AD in Central Europe: Context, devel-opment, handcraft,” Archaeological Textiles Newsletter 51 (2010), 18. We would like to thank Professor Jerzy Maik (Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology, Warsaw) for his assistance in the analysis of the imprints.

4. The technique is described in detail in Birgit Bühler, “Ausgewählte Feinschmiedetechniken des 7. Jahrhunderts und ihre Merkmale am Beispiel von Gold schmuck aus Glodosy und Kelegeja (Goldkammer, Kiev, Ukraine),” in Novi tekhnologii v arkheologii. Zbirnyk naukovykh prats’, ed. Denis N. Kozak (Kiev/L’viv: Institut arkheologii NAN Ukrainy/Institut ark-heologii LNU im. I. Franka, 2002), 118–19; Szmoniewski, “Production,” 121–22; orsolya Heinrich-Tamáska, “Tier- und Zahnschnittornamentik


im awarenzeitlichen Karpatenbecken,” Bericht der römisch-germanischen Kommission 87 (2006), 545–46; and orsolya Heinrich-Tamáska, “Avar-age metalworking technologies in the Carpathian Basin (sixth to eighth cen-tury),” in The Other Europe in the Middle Ages: Avars, Bulgars, Khazars, and Cumans, ed. Florin Curta (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2008), 243.

5. “Byzantine” belt buckles: Brigitte Haas and roland Schewe, “Byzantinische Gürtelbeschläge im Germanischen Nationalmuseum,” Anzeiger des Germanischen Nationalmuseums und Berichte aus dem Forschungsinstitut für Realienkunde 6 (1993), 268. (Late) Avar-age belt mounts: Csaba Bíró and Gergely Szenthe, “Öntéstechnikai vizsgála-tok késő avar kori bronztárgyakon,” in Corolla museologica Tibor Kovács dedicata, ed. Endre Tóth (Budapest: Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum, 2011), 155–74; Gergely Szenthe, “Meister und ihre Kunden. Herstellung und Verbreitung gegossener Bronzegegenstände im spätawarenzeitlichen Karpatenbecken,” Archaeologiai Értesitő 137 (2012), 57–62; and Gergely Szenthe, “Technological history, experimental archaeology and bronze casting: research findings and research perspectives in early medieval studies,” Hungarian Archaeology (2013), 1–6. For “Slavic” bow fib-ulae, see Ekaterina A. Shablavina, “Pal’chataia fibula iz kollekcii E. A. Goriunova,” in Kul’turnye transformacii i vzaimovliianiia v Dneprovskom regione na iskhode rimskogo vremeni i v rannem Srednevekov’e. Doklady nauchnoi konferencii, posviashchennoi 60-letiiu so dnia rozhdeniia E.A. Goriunova (Sankt-Peterburg, 14–17 noiabria 2000 g.), ed. Valentina M. Goriunova and ol’ga A. Shcheglova (St. Petersburg: Peterburgskoe vostokovedenie, 2004), 246 and Figs. 9–11.

6. Emma C. Bunker, “Lost wax and lost textile: An unusual ancient technique for casting gold belt plaques,” in The Beginning of the Use of Metals and Alloys: Papers from the Second International Conference on the Beginning of the Use of Metals and Alloys, Zhengzhou, China, 21–26 October 1986, ed. robert Maddin (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1988), 222–27; Emma C. Bunker, Nomadic Art of the Eastern Eurasian Steppes: The Eugene V. Thaw and Other New York Collections (New York/New Haven: Metropolitan Museum of Art/Yale University Press, 2003), 28–30 and 30; Fig. 43; and Csaba Bíró and Gergely Szenthe, “Műhelyhagyományok és technoló-giatranszfer. Elmélkedés az avar kor fémműveseinek kilétéről,” in Hadak útján. Népvándorlás kor fiatal kutatóinak XXIII. Konferenciákötete, ed. Ágota S. Perémi (Veszprém: Laczkó Dezső Múzeum, 2016), 199–201, 208; Fig. 3, 210; Fig. 6, 211; Fig. 7.

7. Bíró and Szenthe, “Öntéstechnikai vizsgálatok,” 163. 8. Bunker, “Lost wax,” 222 and Bunker, Nomadic Art, 28. See also

Katheryn M. Linduff, “Production of signature artifacts for the nomad market in the state of Qin during the Warring States period in China

7 ProDUCTIoN 169

(4th–3rd century BCE),” in Metallurgy and Civilisation: Eurasia and Beyond: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on the Beginnings of the Use of Metals and Alloys (BUMA VI), ed. Jianjun Mei and Thilo rehren (London: Archetype, 2009), 90 and 93–94.

9. Linduff, “Production of signature artifacts,” 93–94 and Fig. 5; Jane Hickman, “Bactrian gold: Jewelry workshop traditions at Tillya Tepe,” in Afghanistan: Forging Civilizations Along the Silk Road, ed. Joan Aruz and Elizabetta Valtz Fino (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2012), 84. Imprints of textiles appear on the back of Scythian-age ingots found in southern Siberia (Heinrich-Tamáska, “Avar-age metalworking technologies,” 242).

10. Gergely Szenthe, “Contributions to the connections of the Vrap-Velino horizon and the Late Avar material,” in Avars, Bulgars, and Magyars on the Middle and Lower Danube, ed. Liudmila Doncheva-Petkova, Csilla Balogh, and Attila Türk (Sofia/Pilicsaba: Archaeolingua, 2014), 66.

11. Mariela Inkova, “rannosrednovekovni nakiti ot NIM,” in Izsledvaniia po bălgarska srednovekovna arkheologiia. Sbornik v chest na prof. Rasho Rashev, ed. Pavel Georgiev (Sofia: Faber, 2007), 238; Nándor Fettich, Bronzeguss und Nomadenkunst aufgrund der ungarländischen Denkmäler (Prague: Seminarium Kondakovianum, 1929), pl. XVI/3a; Hans-Jürgen Hundt, “Textilreste aus awarischen Gräbern von Leobersdorf und ein Exkurs über gegessene Textilstrukturen an der rückseite bronzener riemenzungen,” in Das awarische Gräberfeld von Leobersdorf, NÖ, ed. Falko Daim (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1987), 10 and 14 with Fig. 1/4, 6, 8 and Fig. 2/2, 5–8; and Szenthe, “Contributions,” 65. For Viking-age examples of tex-tile imprints, see Birgit Arrhenius, “Casting,” in Golden Age and Viking Art in Sweden, ed. Wilhelm Holmqvist (Stockholm: Historiska Museet, 1965), 14. While commenting on the textile imprint on the back of a Viking-age box brooch in the collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Katherine reynolds Brown, “Box brooch and pair of boar’s head brooches,” in Mirror of the Medieval World, ed. William D. Wixom and Barbara Drake Boehm (New York: Metropolitan Art Museum, 1999), 50, claimed that a cruciform harness mount in that same collection (under the inventory number 51.125.5) was the earliest artefact with pos-itive textile imprint found in Europe, as the artefact in question “may be ostrogothic or Frankish”. Dated to the first half of the sixth century, the artefact in question was published one year later as a Frankish, “cloisonné strap mount,” in From Attila to Charlemagne: Arts of the Early Medieval Period in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, ed. Katharine reynolds Brown, Dafydd Kidd, and Charles T. Little (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2000), 223–24, 223; Fig. 19/14 and 357. It was also


published on the museum’s website, at http://metmuseum.org/exhibi-tions/view?exhibitionId=%7B60853040-AE7E-4162-8FA7-525505D6B633%7D&oid=468366 (visit of May 8, 2018). As the artefact’s provenance is unknown, the sixth-century date was established solely on the basis of one analogy—the similar mount discovered “in a rich grave at Krefeld-Gellep.” The base plate of the mount is indeed made of copper alloy, but there is absolutely no mention of a textile imprint on the back, either in the book, or on the website.

12. Igor o. Gavritukhin and Andrei M. oblomskii, Gaponovskii klad i ego kul’turno-istoricheskii kontekst (Moscow: Institut Arkheologii rAN, 1996), 16 and 206; Fig. 31/14. The diameter of the circular ingot was estimated at 7 or 7.2 cm. This was not the only artefact made out of lead in the collection: in addition to another, 8.5 cm-long ingot, the hoard also includes 166 beads, each in the shape of a truncated cone, three cir-cular pendants, two rings and the fragment of a circular appliqué with open-work decoration.

13. Igor o. Gavritukhin and Andrei M. oblomskii, “Gaponovskii klad (predvaritel’naia publikaciia),” Rossiiskaia Arkheologiia 4 (1995), 143; Fig. 7/10; Gavritukhin and oblomskii, Gaponovskii klad, 7. Leaving aside the fact that no other artefacts in the hoard present textile imprints (especially not large ones, such as the fibulae, or the diadems), it remains unclear under what soil conditions could the fabric have been impressed so uniformly onto the lead ingot.

14. Gavritukhin and oblomskii, Gaponovskii klad, 139; Igor o. Gavritukhin and Andrei M. oblomskii, “Gaponovskii klad i maloizvestnye sobytiia rannesrednevekovoi istorii Podneprov’ia,” in Arkheologicheskie otkrytiia 1991–2004 g., ed. Nikolai A. Makarov (Moscow: Institut Arkheologii rAN, 2009), 319. To be sure, that is the presumed date at which the hoard was supposedly buried, under the assumption that that hap-pened because of the eastward migration of the Slavs from right-Bank Ukraine.

15. Florin Curta, “The archaeology of identities in old russia (ca. 500 to ca. 650),” Russian History 34 (2007), 39–40. For the dating of bow fibulae of Werner’s classes IIC and IID, see now Florin Curta, “‘Slavic’ bow fibulae: Twenty years of research,” Bericht der römisch-germanis-chen Kommission 93 (2012), 270–71. Gaponovo has many features in common with the Trubchevsk hoard, which is also of an early seventh- century date. See Prykhodniuk, Padin and Tikhonov, “Trubchevskii klad,” 79–102; ol’ga A. Shcheglova, “Klad iuvelira v Trubchevske i ‘mas-ter Gaponovskogo klada’,” in Arkheologicheskoe izuchenie Central’noi Rossii, ed. A. N. Bessudnov (Lipeck: Izdatel’stvo Lipeckogo gosudarst-vennogo pedagogicheskogo universiteta, 2006), 272–73.

http://metmuseum.org/exhibitions/view%3fexhibitionId%3d%257B60853040-AE7E-4162-8FA7-525505D6B633%257D%26amp%3boid%3d468366



7 ProDUCTIoN 171

16. In the Gaponovo hoard, artefacts made of lead alloy represent only 9.5% of the total number (13 out of 137 analysed objects), but most of them are of small size.

17. Some 40 years earlier, one of them (Cat. 78) has been the subject of a chemical analysis performed by Earle Caley in the lab of the Department of Chemistry at Princeton University. The piece representing a pounc-ing leopard (Cat. 30) was analysed in the British Museum research Laboratory in the early 1990s. According to Kidd, “The Velestínon (Thessaly) hoard,” 509, the piece was made of a copper alloy with only 3.7% tin and 0.5% lead. Those small values suggest a zinc-copper alloy (brass), but no value is actually given for zinc.

18. To be sure, the dominant alloy is brass. The amount of zinc in the brass, however, varies considerably. The highest proportion of zinc (30–32%) appears in Aleksandr N. Egor’kov and ol’ga A. Shcheglova, “Sostav svin-covo-oloviannykh splavov ranneslavianskikh kladov ‘drevnostei antov’,” Myslennoe drevo (2000), accessible at http://www.myslenedrevo.com.ua/ru/Sci/Archeology/Archeometry/Applied/GaponovkaPewters.html (visit of 8 May 2018). For lower proportions (20–28%), see Justine Bayley, “The production of brass in Antiquity with particular refer-ence to Britain,” British Museum Occasional Papers 50 (1998), 7 and 9; M. J. Ponting, “roman military copper-alloy artefacts from Israel: Questions of organization and ethnicity,” Archaeometry 44 (2002), 59; Peter T. Craddock and K. Eckstein, “Production of brass in Antiquity by direct reduction,” in Mining and Metal Production Through the Ages, ed. Peter T. Craddock and J. Lang (London: British Museum, 2003), 224. The presence of between 10 and 30% zinc in the alloy signals the cemen-tation process. By contrast, gunmetal (an alloy of copper with tin and zinc) appears only occasionally. out of all artefacts from the Kurilovka hoard, only a strap end is made of gunmetal. See Aleksandr N. Egor’kov and Vlasta E. rodinkova, “Sostav metalla izdelii iz Kurilovskogo klada rannesrednevekovogo vremeni (po rezul’tatam optiko-emissionnoi spek-trografii),” Kratkie soobshcheniia Instituta Arkheologii AN Rossii 233 (2014), 171, Fig. 2/15; 173 and 175.

19. Taisiia I. ostanina, o. M. Kanunnikova, V. P. Stepanov, and A. B. Nikitin, Kuzebaevskii klad iuvelira VII v. kak istoricheskii istochnik (Izhevsk: Izdatel’stvo “Udmurtiia”, 2011), 14, 60, and 125. The copper alloy of which the ladle is made has 16.23% lead and 5.46% tin. The collection also includes eight ingots made of a copper alloy with 29.14% lead and 13.69% tin.

20. Egor’kov and rodinkova, “Sostav metalla,” 174–75. Four pieces of tin–lead alloy (with no less than 30% lead) and another of lead–tin alloy (with 44% tin) have been found in a large hoard recently discovered in

http://www.myslenedrevo.com.ua/ru/Sci/Archeology/Archeometry/Applied/GaponovkaPewters.html




Sudzha-Zamost’ (Vlasta rodinkova and Aleksandr N. Egor’kov, “Klad rannesrednevekovogo vremeni iz Sudzhi-Zamost’ia i sostav metalla ego artefaktov,” in Problemyi istoryi ta arkheologyi Ukrainy. Materialy VIII mizhnarodnyi naukovyi konferentsyi (9–10 lystopada 2012 roku) [Kharkiv: ToV “NTMT”, 2012], 71).

21. Valentina M. Goriunova and Vlasta E. rodinkova, “ranneslavianskoe pose-lenie Velikie Budki (Khutor),” Stratum+ 4 (1999), 217–18. In 19 out of 20 cases, the content of tin exceeds that of lead. Copper alloys rich in lead are also present in the collection of bronze casts of the hoard found in 1929 in Podcherye, in the far north of European russia (district of Vuktyl, Komi republic). See V. A. Gorodcov, “Podcheremskii klad,” Sovetskaia Arkheologiia (1937), no. 2, 145. By contrast, in most other contemporary hoards, such as those discovered in Koziivka, Nova odessa, Trubchevsk and Tsypliaevo, copper alloys have been identified, in which the predominant element is zinc, not tin or lead. See Aleksandr N. Egor’kov and ol’ga A. Shcheglova, “Metal iz Kozievki/Novoi odessy,” in Slaviano-russkoe iuve-lirnoe delo i ego istoki. Mezhdunarodnaia nauchnaia konferenciia, posviash-chennaia 100-letiiu so dnia rozhdeniia Gali Fedorovny Korzukhinoi. Tezisy dokladov, ed. Anna A. Peskova and ol’ga A. Shcheglova (St. Petersburg: “Nestor-Istoriia”, 2006), 21–24; Aleksandr N. Egor’kov and ol’ga A. Shcheglova, “Metall ‘antskikh’ kladov po rezul’tatam emissionno-spek-tral’nogo analiza,” in Drevnie remeslenniki Priural’ia. Materialy Vserossiiskoi nauchnoi konferencii (Izhevsk, 21–23 noiabria 2000 g.), ed. Vladimir I. Zav’ialov (Izhevsk: Udmurtskii institut istorii, iazyka i literatury Ural’skogo otdeleniia rAN, 2001), 287, 304 and 306; and A. G. D’iachenko, “Tekhnologiia izgotovleniia predmetov na Cepliaevskogo klada ranneslavi-anskogo vremeni,” in Ispol’zovanie metodov estestvennyi nauk v arkheologii, ed. Vladimir F. Gening (Kiev: Naukova dumka, 1978), 27–35. This fur-ther suggests that, far from being chronologically or ethnically (or even culturally) specific, the use of the lead–tin alloy was one of many strategies employed by early medieval metallurgists, one that was best suited for cer-tain categories of artefacts or for their particular contexts of use.

22. ol’ga A. Shcheglova and Anatolii A. Sedin, “Izdeliia iz svincovo-olovi-annykh splavov s gorodishcha Nikodimovo,” in Slavianskii mir Poles’ia v drevnosti i srednevekov’e. Materialy mezhdunarodnoi nauchnoi konfer-encii, 19–20 oktiabria 2004 g., Gomel’, ed. o. A. Makushnikov (Homel’: Gomel’skii gosudarstvennyi universitet imeni Francisca Skoriny, 2004), 190–93. Most analysed objects are from a hoard discovered inside the stronghold.

23. Zdzisław Hensel, “Elementy rzędów końskich z cmentarzyska w Tumianach, woj. olsztyńskie w świetle badań składu chemicznego,” Archeologia Polski 41 (1996), 131–32.

7 ProDUCTIoN 173

24. Algimantas Merkevičius, “Jurgaičių kapinyno II–IX amžių žalvario dirbinių metalo sudėtis,” Lietuvos TSR mokslų Akademijos darbai. Serija A 1 (1973), 75. Leaded bronze was employed for the production of sec-ond- to eighth-century metal artefacts in Estonia (Evgenii N. Chernykh, D. B. Khoferte, and T. B. Barceva, “Metallurgicheskie gruppy cvetnogo metalla I tysiacheletiia n. e. iz Pribaltiki,” Kratkie soobshcheniia Institutua Arkheologii AN SSSR 119 (1969), 109–13 with Fig. 55).

25. Dagmar Jelinková, Vladimír Šrein, and Martin Šťastný, “Doklady slévačství neželezných kovů v kultuře s keramikou pražského typu na Moravě,” in Mezi raným a vrcholným středověkem. Pavlu Kouřilovi k šedesátým narozen-inám přátelé, kolegové a žáci, ed. Jiří Doležel and Martin Wihoda (Brno: Archeologický ústav Akademie věd České republiky, Brno, v.v.i., 2012), 84. For roztoky, see Martin Kuna and Naďa Profantová, Počátky raného středověku v Čechách. Archeologický výzkum sídelní aglomerace kultury pražského typu v Roztokách (Prague: Archeologický Ústav AV Čr, 2005).

26. Stefan Eichert and Mathias Mehofer, “recycelte römer oder slawis-che Metallurgen? Interdisziplinäre Studien zum frühmittelalterlichen Buntmetallindustrie im ostalpenraum,” Archäologie Österreichs 24.2 (2013), 49. Beginning with the ninth century, there is a greater uni-formity in copper alloy recipes, which are now primarily, if not exclusively based on zinc and lead (with tin disappearing from the picture). This con-clusion, which strongly suggests a specialized production, confirms the earlier conclusions reached on the basis of material from Moravia by Naďa Profantová, “Kontakty předvelkomoravských Mikulčic ve světle rentgen-fluorescenčních analýz bronzových kování,” in Kulturne historické štyky jižní Moravy. XX. Mikulovské sympozium 24. a 25. ríjna 1990, ed. Emil Kordiovský (Mikulov/Brno: okresní archiv v Břeclav/Muzejní a vlas-tivedná společnost, 1991), 195–207. For even earlier studies on Late Avar bronze casts pointing to the predominant character of lead–tin alloys, as well as the gradual disappearance of tin shortly before AD 800, see László Költő and Varga Miklós Kis, “röntgenemissziós analízis kés avar kori bronztárgyakon,” in Iparrégészeti kutatások magyarországon. Égetokemencék régészeti és interdisziplínáris kutatása. Sopron 1980, VII, 28–30, ed. János Gömöri (Veszprém: Veszprémi Akadémiai Bizottságának, 1981), 165–79; and László Költő, “Avar kori bronztárgyak röntgen-missziós analízise,” Somogyi Múzeumok Közleményei 5 (1982), 5–68; László Költő, “régészeti következtetések avarkori bronzok elemzési ada-tainak vizsgálata,” Múzeumi műtárgyvédelem 12 (1983), 267–78.

27. The only exception is the chemical analysis of a cast belt mount with open-work decoration, found near Preslav (Bulgaria), and very similar to Late Avar (early eighth-century) specimens from Hungary. In this par-ticular case, the predominant element in the alloy is zinc, but without


more results for comparison, no conclusion may be drawn. The lack of archaeological context for the find also makes the interpretation diffi-cult. See Mariela Inkova, “Bronzova aplikaciia s izobrazhenie na grifon ot Nacionalniia istoricheski muzei,” Problemi na prabălgarskata istoriia i kultura 3 (1997), 256.

28. H. K. Cooper, “Analysis of Late roman-Byzantine copper-alloy artifacts from northern Jordan,” M. A. thesis, University of Arkansas (Fayetteville, 2000), 44. The maximum zinc content of brass produced by the cemen-tation process at a temperature of 1000 centigrades is 28%. Even when brass containing 40% zinc is used instead of copper during the cemen-tation process, the result is still brass with no more than 28% zinc in its composition. See also ostanina et al., Kuzebaevskii klad, 55–56.

29. Aleksandăr Minchev, “Kăsnoantichni bronzovi lampi s podstavki ot Bălgariia,” Dobrudzha 30 (2015), 267. To be sure, pewter and leaded bronze were used in the sixth and seventh centuries for the produc-tion of pilgrim flasks (ampullae). See Josef Engemann, “Palästinensische Pilgerampullen im F. J. Dölger-Institut in Bonn,” Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum 16 (1973), 5–13 and 17; John Elsner, “replicating Palestine and reversing the reformation: Pilgrimage and collecting at Bobbio, Monza and Walsingham,” Journal of the History of Collections 9.1 (1997), 118–23 and 129, n. 25; Deniz Sever, “A pilgrim’s self- identification: Sixth- and seventh-century lead pilgrim flasks from the Holy Land,” Diogenes 4 (2016), 38–40 and 47–48; and Alžběta Filipová, “The memory of Monza’s Holy Land ampullae: From reliquary to relic, or there and back again,” in Objects of Memory, Memory of Objects: The Artworks as a Vehicle of the Past in the Middle Ages, ed. Alžběta Filipová, Zuzana Frantová, and Francesco Lovino (Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2014), 11, 14–15, 17, and 20.

30. Jane C. Waldbaum, Metalwork from Sardis: The Finds Through 1974 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1983), 175–76. The use of zinc in copper alloys is a clear indication of continuity from Late roman to early Byzantine technologies.

31. Anastasia Drandaki, “Copper alloy jewellery at the Benaki Museum, 4th to 7th century,” Antiquité tardive 13 (2005), 72; Anastasia Drandaki, “From centre to periphery and beyond: The diffusion of models in late antique metalware,” in Wonderful Things: Byzantium Through Its Art: Papers from the Forty-Second Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, London, 20–22 March 2009, ed. Liz james and Antony Eastmond (London: Gower, 2013), 170.

32. Haas and Schewe, “Byzantinische Gürtelbeschläge,” 265–66. 33. Aleksandr N. Egor’kov, “Svoistva i rol’ svincovo-oloviannykh splavov v

proizvodstve iuvelirnykh izdelii rannimi slavianami Vostochnoi Evropy,”

7 ProDUCTIoN 175

Zapiski Instituta istorii material’noi kul’tury 8 (2013), 160. The inclu-sion of over 13% tin also brings down the melting point.

34. M. Picon, J. Condamin, and S. Boucher, “recherches techniques sur des bronzes de Gaule romaine I,” Gallia 24 (1966), 192; Andrzej Niewęgłowski, “Problemy i metody metaloznawczych badań starożyt-nych wyrobów z miedzi i jej stopów,” Kwartalnik Historii Kultury Materialnej 34 (1986), 313; Költő, “Avar kori bronztárgyak,” 24 with n. 61; Heinrich-Tamáska, “Avar-age metalworking technologies,” 247–48; and ostanina et al., Kuzebaevskii klad, 57. As Költő pointed out, the higher the concentration of lead, the smaller the chance that the cast would shrink while cooling off.

35. Kidd, “The Velestínon (Thessaly) hoard,” 509. 36. Pairs: Cat. 4–5, 8–9, 42–43, 44–45, 65–66, 67–68, 69–70, 73–74 and

75–76. Triplets: Cat. 10–12, 13–15, 18–20, 27–29, 46–48 and 52–54. 37. Similarly, the three bronze pieces showing a griffin (Cat. 35–37) are iden-

tical to each other, but different from the fourth piece from Čitluk. While the former show the animal’s forequarters as a shield-like ornament, the Čitluk piece has a grooved decoration on the neck, with a loop on the chest of the animal. Two bronze plaques with the same image of a fantas-tic animal (Cat. 1–2) are different in minute details. The arched haunch of the animal is marked by a contour, beaded line, which is indistinct on Cat. 2 (Figs. 2.3 and 2.6). This, however, may be the result of miscast-ing. The same may be true for the differences in the decoration of the handcuff on the votive hand plaques made of bronze and lead, respec-tively. The human heads have clear eyes on Cat. 73, but not on Cat. 74, while the two animals flanking the “sun” on Cat. 73 are indistinct on Cat. 74.

38. For the microscopic identification of different methods of surface treat-ment after casting, as well as of the traces of the corresponding tools, see Birgit Bühler, “Zur Identifizierung ‘byzantinischer’ Feinschmiedearbeiten mithilfe herstellungstechnischer Studien unter besonderer Berück sich-tigung von Funden aus dem awarischen Siedlungsgebiet,” in Byzantine Small Finds in Archaeological Contexts, ed. Beate Böhlendorf-Arslan and Alessandra ricci (Istanbul: Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, 2012), 105–16.

39. Bunker, Nomadic Art, 29–30 and 138. 40. Ekaterina A. Shablavina and Bartłomiej Szymon Szmoniewski, “The

forming model of the Kertch type finger-shaped fibula,” Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 58 (2006), 519–26; Haas and Schewe, “Byzantinische Gürtelbeschläge,” 263–64.


references

Archival Sources



Arrhenius, Birgit. “Casting.” In Golden Age and Viking Art in Sweden, edited by Wilhelm Holmqvist, 13–15. Stockholm: Historiska Museet, 1965.

Bayley, Justine. “The production of brass in Antiquity with particular reference to Britain.” British Museum Occasional Papers 50 (1998), 7–26.

Bíró, Csaba, and Gergely Szenthe. “Öntéstechnikai vizsgálatok késő avar kori bronztárgyakon.” In Corolla museologica Tibor Kovács dedicata, edited by Endre Tóth, 155–74. Budapest: Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum, 2011.

———. “Műhelyhagyományok és technológiatranszfer. Elmélkedés az avar kor fémműveseinek kilétéről.” In Hadak útján. Népvándorlás kor fiatal kutatóinak XXIII. Konferenciákötete, edited by Ágota S. Perémi, 197–211. Veszprém: Laczkó Dezső Múzeum, 2016.

Bühler, Birgit. “Ausgewählte Feinschmiedetechniken des 7. Jahrhunderts und ihre Merkmale am Beispiel von Goldschmuck aus Glodosy und Kelegeja (Goldkammer, Kiev, Ukraine).” In Novi tekhnologii v arkheologii. Zbirnyk naukovykh prats’, edited by Denis N. Kozak, 117–36. Kiev/L’viv: Institut ark-heologii NAN Ukrainy/Institut arkheologii LNU im. I. Franka, 2002.

———. “Zur Identifizierung ‘byzantinischer’ Feinschmiedearbeiten mithilfe herstellungstechnischer Studien unter besonderer Berücksichtigung von Funden aus dem awarischen Siedlungsgebiet.” In Byzantine Small Finds in Archaeological Contexts, edited by Beate Böhlendorf-Arslan and Alessandra ricci, 105–16. Istanbul: Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, 2012.

Bunker, Emma C. “Lost wax and lost textile: An unusual ancient technique for casting gold belt plaques.” In The Beginning of the Use of Metals and Alloys: Papers from the Second International Conference on the Beginning of the Use of Metals and Alloys, Zhengzhou, China, 21–26 october 1986, edited by robert Maddin, 222–27. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1988.

———. Nomadic Art of the Eastern Eurasian Steppes: The Eugene V. Thaw and Other New York Collections. New York/New Haven: Metropolitan Museum of Art/Yale University Press, 2003.

Chernykh, Evgenii N., D. B. Khoferte, and T. B. Barceva. “Metallurgicheskie gruppy cvetnogo metalla I tysiacheletiia n. e. iz Pribaltiki.” Kratkie soobshche-niia Institutua Arkheologii AN SSSR 119 (1969), 109–19.

Cooper, H. K. “Analysis of Late roman-Byzantine copper-alloy artifacts from northern Jordan.” M.A. thesis, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, 2000.

7 ProDUCTIoN 177

Craddock, Peter T., and K. Eckstein. “Production of brass in Antiquity by direct reduction.” In Mining and Metal Production Through the Ages, edited by Peter T. Craddock and J. Lang, 216–21. London: British Museum, 2003.

Curta, Florin. “The archaeology of identities in old russia (ca. 500 to ca. 650).” Russian History 34 (2007), 31–62.

———. “‘Slavic’ bow fibulae: Twenty years of research.” Bericht der römisch-ger-manischen Kommission 93 (2012), 235–342.

D’iachenko, A. G. “Tekhnologiia izgotovleniia predmetov na Cepliaevskogo klada ranneslavianskogo vremeni.” In Ispol’zovanie metodov estestvennyi nauk v arkheologii, edited by Vladimir F. Gening, 27–35. Kiev: Naukova dumka, 1978.

Drandaki, Anastasia. “Copper alloy jewellery at the Benaki Museum, 4th to 7th century.” Antiquité tardive 13 (2005), 65–76.

———. “From centre to periphery and beyond: The diffusion of models in late antique metalware.” In Wonderful Things: Byzantium Through Its Art: Papers from the Forty-Second Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, London, 20–22 March 2009, edited by Liz James and Antony Eastmond, 163–84. London: Gower, 2013.

Egor’kov, Aleksandr N. “Svoistva i rol’ svincovo-oloviannykh splavov v proiz-vodstve iuvelirnykh izdelii rannimi slavianami Vostochnoi Evropy.” Zapiski Instituta istorii material’noi kul’tury 8 (2013), 160–67.

Egor’kov, Aleksandr N., and Vlasta E. rodinkova. “Sostav metalla izdelii iz Kurilovskogo klada rannesrednevekovogo vremeni (po rezul’tatam optiko-emis-sionnoi spektrografii).” Kratkie soobshcheniia Instituta Arkheologii AN Rossii 233 (2014), 168–77.

Egor’kov, Aleksandr N., and ol’ga A. Shcheglova. “Sostav svincovo-olovian-nykh splavov ranneslavianskikh kladov ‘drevnostei antov’.” Myslennoe drevo (2000), available at http://www.myslenedrevo.com.ua/ru/Sci/Archeology/Archeometry/Applied/GaponovkaPewters.html (visit of May 8, 2018).

———. “Metall ‘antskikh’ kladov po rezul’tatam emissionno-spektral’nogo analiza.” In Drevnie remeslenniki Priural’ia. Materialy Vserossiiskoi nauchnoi konferencii (Izhevsk, 21–23 noiabria 2000 g.), edited by Vladimir I. Zav’ialov, 280–307. Izhevsk: Udmurtskii institut istorii, iazyka i literatury Ural’skogo otdeleniia rAN, 2001.

———. “Metal iz Kozievki/Novoi odessy.” In Slaviano-russkoe iuvelirnoe delo i ego istoki. Mezhdunarodnaia nauchnaia konferenciia, posviashchennaia 100-letiiu so dnia rozhdeniia Gali Fedorovny Korzukhinoi. Tezisy dokladov, edited by Anna A. Peskova and ol’ga A. Shcheglova, 21–24. St. Petersburg: “Nestor-Istoriia”, 2006.

Eichert, Stefan, and Mathias Mehofer. “recycelte römer oder slawis-che Metallurgen? Interdisziplinäre Studien zum frühmittelalterlichen Buntmetallindustrie im ostalpenraum.” Archäologie Österreichs 24 (2013), no. 2, 46–54.




Elsner, John. “replicating Palestine and reversing the reformation: Pilgrimage and collecting at Bobbio, Monza and Walsingham.” Journal of the History of Collections 9 (1997), no. 1, 117–30.

Engemann, Josef. “Palästinensische Pilgerampullen im F. J. Dölger-Institut in Bonn.” Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum 16 (1973), 5–27.

Fettich, Nándor. Bronzeguss und Nomadenkunst aufgrund der ungarländischen Denkmäler. Prague: Seminarium Kondakovianum, 1929.

Filipová, Alžběta. “The memory of Monza’s Holy Land ampullae: From rel-iquary to relic, or there and back again.” In Objects of Memory, Memory of Objects: The Artworks as a Vehicle of the Past in the Middle Ages, edited by Alžběta Filipová, Zuzana Frantová, and Francesco Lovino, 10–25. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2014.

Gavritukhin, Igor o., and Andrei M. oblomskii. “Gaponovskii klad (predvari-tel’naia publikaciia).” Rossiiskaia Arkheologiia 4 (1995), 136–49.

———. Gaponovskii klad i ego kul’turno-istoricheskii kontekst (ranneslavianskii mir, 3). Moscow: Institut Arkheologii rAN, 1996.

———. “Gaponovskii klad i maloizvestnye sobytiia rannesrednevekovoi istorii Podneprov’ia.” In Arkheologicheskie otkrytiia 1991–2004 g., edited by Nikolai A. Makarov, 309–20. Moscow: Institut Arkheologii rAN, 2009.

Goriunova, Valentina M., and Vlasta E. rodinkova. “ranneslavianskoe poselenie Velikie Budki (Khutor).” Stratum+ (1999), no. 4, 167–219.

Gorodcov, V. A. “Podcheremskii klad.” Sovetskaia Arkheologiia (1937), no. 2, 113–50.

Grömer, Karina. “Cloth qualities from 800 BC–800 AD in Central Europe: Context, development, handcraft.” Archaeological Textiles Newsletter 51 (2010), 14–22.

Grömer, Karina, and Silvia Müller. “Textiles from the Avar graveyard Zwölfaxing II, Austria.” Archaeological Textiles Newsletter 46 (2008), 17–21.

Grömer, Karina, and Anita rapan Papeša. “Jednostavne tkanine i žigošana koža organski nalazi s avarodobnog groblja u Nuštru (istočna Hrvatska).” Vjesnik Arheološkog Muzeja u Zagrebu 48 (2015), 51–83.

Haas, Brigitte, and roland Schewe. “Byzantinische Gürtelbeschläge im Germanischen Nationalmuseum.” Anzeiger des Germanischen Nationalmuseums und Berichte aus dem Forschungsinstitut für Realienkunde 6 (1993), 255–73.

Heinrich-Tamáska, orsolya. “Tier- und Zahnschnittornamentik im awarenzeitli-chen Karpatenbecken.” Bericht der römisch-germanischen Kommission 87 (2006), 506–627.

———. “Avar-age metalworking technologies in the Carpathian Basin (sixth to eighth century).” In The Other Europe in the Middle Ages: Avars, Bulgars, Khazars, and Cumans, edited by Florin Curta, 237–61 (East Central and Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 2). Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2008.

7 ProDUCTIoN 179

Hensel, Zdzisław. “Elementy rzędów końskich z cmentarzyska w Tumianach, woj. olsztyńskie w świetle badań składu chemicznego.” Archeologia Polski 41 (1996), 131–38.

Hickman, Jane. “Bactrian gold: Jewelry workshop traditions at Tillya Tepe.” In Afghanistan: Forging Civilizations Along the Silk Road, edited by Joan Aruz and Elizabetta Valtz Fino, 78–87. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2012.

Hundt, Hans-Jürgen. “Textilreste aus awarischen Gräbern von Leobersdorf und ein Exkurs über gegessene Textilstrukturen an der rückseite bronzener riemenzungen.” In Das awarische Gräberfeld von Leobersdorf, NÖ, edited by Falko Daim, 9–17. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1987.

Inkova, Mariela. “Bronzova aplikaciia s izobrazhenie na grifon ot Nacionalniia istoricheski muzei.” Problemi na prabălgarskata istoriia i kultura 3 (1997), 256–64.

———. “rannosrednovekovni nakiti ot NIM.” In Izsledvaniia po bălgarska sred-novekovna arkheologiia. Sbornik v chest na prof. Rasho Rashev, edited by Pavel Georgiev, 224–39. Sofia: Faber, 2007.

Jelinková, Dagmar, Vladimír Šrein, and Martin Šťastný. “Doklady slévačství neželezných kovů v kultuře s keramikou pražského typu na Moravě.” In Mezi raným a vrcholným středověkem. Pavlu Kouřilovi k šedesátým narozeninám přátelé, kolegové a žáci, edited by Jiří Doležel and Martin Wihoda, 69–90. Brno: Archeologický ústav Akademie věd České republiky, Brno, v.v.i., 2012.

Kidd, Dafydd. “The Velestínon (Thessaly) hoard—A footnote.” In Awarenfor-schungen, edited by Falko Daim, 509–15. Vienna: Institut für Ur- und Frühgeschichte der Universität Wien, 1992.

Költő, László. “Avar kori bronztárgyak röntgenmissziós analízise.” Somogyi Múzeumok Közleményei 5 (1982), 5–68.

———. “régészeti következtetések avarkori bronzok elemzési adatainak vizs-gálata.” Múzeumi műtárgyvédelem 12 (1983), 267–278.

Költő, László, and Varga Miklós Kis. “röntgenemissziós analízis kés avar kori bronztárgyakon.” In Iparrégészeti kutatások magyarországon. Égetokemencék régészeti és interdisziplínáris kutatása. Sopron 1980, VII, 28–30, edited by János Gömöri, 165–79. Veszprém: Veszprémi Akadémiai Bizottságának, 1981.


Kuna, Martin, and Naďa Profantová. Počátky raného středověku v Čechách. Archeologický výzkum sídelní aglomerace kultury pražského typu v Roztokách. Prague: Archeologický Ústav AV Čr, 2005.

Linduff, Katheryn M. “Production of signature artifacts for the nomad market in the state of Qin during the Warring States period in China (4th–3rd cen-tury BCE).” In Metallurgy and Civilisation: Eurasia and Beyond: Proceedings


of the 6th International Conference on the Beginnings of the Use of Metals and Alloys (BUMA VI), edited by Jianjun Mei and Thilo rehren, 90–96. London: Archetype, 2009.

Merkevičius, Algimantas. “Jurgaičių kapinyno II–IX amžių žalvario dirbinių metalo sudėtis.” Lietuvos TSR mokslų Akademijos darbai. Serija A 1 (1973), 67–77.

Minchev, Aleksandăr. “Kăsnoantichni bronzovi lampi s podstavki ot Bălgariia.” Dobrudzha 30 (2015), 247–74.

Niewęgłowski, Andrzej. “Problemy i metody metaloznawczych badań starożyt-nych wyrobów z miedzi i jej stopów.” Kwartalnik Historii Kultury Materialnej 34 (1986), 289–329.

ostanina, Taisiia I., o. M. Kanunnikova, V. P. Stepanov, and A. B. Nikitin. Kuzebaevskii klad iuvelira VII v. kak istoricheskii istochnik. Izhevsk: Izdatel’stvo “Udmurtiia,” 2011.

Picon, M., Condamin, J., and Boucher, S. “recherches techniques sur des bronzes de Gaule romaine I.” Gallia 24 (1966), 189–215.

Ponting, M. J. “roman military copper-alloy artefacts from Israel: Questions of organization and ethnicity.” Archaeometry 44 (2002), no. 4, 55–71.

Profantová, Naďa. “Kontakty předvelkomoravských Mikulčic ve světle rentgen-fluorescenčních analýz bronzových kování.” In Kulturne historické štyky jižní Moravy. XX. Mikulovské sympozium 24. a 25. ríjna 1990, edited by Emil Kordiovský, 195–207. Mikulov/Brno: okresní archiv v Břeclav/Muzejní a vlastivedná společnost, 1991.

Prykhodniuk, oleg M., V. A. Padin, and N. G. Tikhonov. “Trubchevskii klad antskogo vremeni.” In Materialy I tys. n. e. po arkheologii i istorii Ukrainy i Vengrii, edited by István Erdélyi, oleg M. Prykhodniuk, A. V. Simonenko, and Eugénia Szimonova, 79–102. Kiev: Naukova dumka, 1996.

reynolds Brown, Katherine. “Box brooch and pair of boar’s head brooches.” In Mirror of the Medieval World, edited by William D. Wixom and Barbara Drake Boehm, 49–50. New York: Metropolitan Art Museum, 1999.

reynolds Brown, Katherine, Dafydd Kidd, and Charles T. Little, eds. From Attila to Charlemagne: Arts of the Early Medieval Period in the Metropolitan Museum of Art. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2000.

rodinkova, Vlasta and Aleksandr N. Egor’kov. “Klad rannesrednevekovogo vre-meni iz Sudzhi-Zamost’ia i sostav metalla ego artefaktov.” In Problemyi isto-ryi ta arkheologyi Ukrainy. Materialy VIII mizhnarodnyi naukovyi konferentsyi (9–10 lystopada 2012 roku), 71–72. Kharkiv: ToV “NTMT”, 2012.

Sever, Deniz. “A pilgrim’s self-identification: Sixth- and seventh-century lead pilgrim flasks from the Holy Land.” Diogenes 4 (2016), 35–48.

Shablavina, Ekaterina A. “Pal’chataia fibula iz kollekcii E. A. Goriunova.” In Kul’turnye transformacii i vzaimovliianiia v Dneprovskom regione na isk-hode rimskogo vremeni i v rannem Srednevekov’e. Doklady nauchnoi konferencii,

7 ProDUCTIoN 181

posviashchennoi 60-letiiu so dnia rozhdeniia E.A. Goriunova (Sankt-Peterburg, 14–17 noiabria 2000 g.), edited by Valentina M. Goriunova and ol’ga A. Shcheglova, 244–53. St. Petersburg: Peterburgskoe vostokovedenie, 2004.

Shablavina, Ekaterina A., and Szmoniewski, Bartłomiej Szymon. “The forming model of the Kertch type finger-shaped fibula.” Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 58 (2006), 519–26.

Shcheglova, ol’ga A. “Klad iuvelira v Trubchevske i ‘master Gaponovskogo klada’.” In Arkheologicheskoe izuchenie Central’noi Rossii, edited by A. N. Bessudnov, 272–73. Lipeck: Izdatel’stvo Lipeckogo gosudarstvennogo peda-gogicheskogo universiteta, 2006.

Shcheglova, ol’ga A., and Anatolii A. Sedin. “Izdeliia iz svincovo-oloviannykh splavov s gorodishcha Nikodimovo.” In Slavianskii mir Poles’ia v drevnosti i srednevekov’e. Materialy mezhdunarodnoi nauchnoi konferencii, 19–20 oktiabria 2004 g., Gomel’, edited by o. A. Makushnikov, 190–93. Homel’: Gomel’skii gosudarstvennyi universitet imeni Francisca Skoriny, 2004.

Szenthe, Gergely. “Technological history, experimental archaeology and bronze casting: research findings and research perspectives in early medieval studies.” Hungarian Archaeology (2013), 1–6.

———. “Contributions to the connections of the Vrap-Velino horizon and the Late Avar material.” In Avars, Bulgars, and Magyars on the Middle and Lower Danube, edited by Liudmila Doncheva-Petkova, Csilla Balogh, and Attila Türk, 61–76. Sofia/Pilicsaba: Archaeolingua, 2014.


183

The question of the function of the Velestino plaques is one of the most vexing. Citing Paribeni’s humorous remark, Carlo Cecchèlli referred to them as “horrible puppets”, but shied away from calling them what they were.1 Charles Vignier called them “strange” (étranges plaques), but also “appliqués”.2 But the lack of any attachment loops or fasteners makes it unlikely that the plaques could have been attached to anything. Perhaps they were dies for the production of repoussé sheet appliqués.3 Such appliqués are known to have adorned shields, saddles or similar accessories. For example, appliqués in the form of horsemen, animals or geometric ornaments decorated the shields from Lucca and Stabio, both dated to the seventh century.4 To be sure, several bronze dies (both negative and positive) are known from the Balkans, which were employed for the production of belt mounts stylistically dated to the seventh century.5 Their function as dies was primarily established on the basis of comparison with matching artefacts manufactured in the pressing technique. No such artefacts are known to match any of the Velestino plaques. Joachim Werner rejected the idea that those plaques were dies, because he believed that appliqués resulting from the use of such pieces as Cat. 69–70 (with a woman giving birth) would have been inappro-priate for the decoration either of belts or of saddles. Mesmerized by his far-fetched comparison with bronze plaques decorated in the so-called Perm animal style, Werner proposed therefore that the Velestino plaques were instruments for shamanistic practices.6 He also attributed them to

CHAPTEr 8

Function: Dies or Models?


https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04846-4_8



the Slavs, although no information exists in the sources about Slavic sha-manism.7 Nor is there any evidence that the plaques found in Velestino were used for any religious purpose. To be sure, some of them have clear religious themes, but those are Christian, and as such, it would be very difficult to imagine the plaques as anything like instruments of Christian practice.

To Werner, the Velestino plaques could not have served as dies, because the collection, according to him, included no (mirror-image) pairs, with which appliqués could be produced for the decoration of saddles or shields.8 In reality, no less than 19 pairs and 10 triplets are so far known. Two of the former (Cat. 38–39 and 40–41) are mirror- image pairs. Among triplets, there are three mirror-image pairs (Cat. 1–3, 24–26 and 35–37). All those mirror images of animals are bronze plaques, which could in theory pass for dies. However, a much greater number of pairs (Cat. 4–5, 8–9, 42–43, 44–45, 65–66, 67–68, 69–70, 73–74 and 75–60) and triplets (Cat. 10–12, 13–15, 18–20, 27–29, 46–48, 52–54 and 77–79), representing both animals and humans, include lead replicas. The latter could of course not have been used as dies, since on the Mohs hardness scale, lead is ranked the lowest of all metals.

If not dies, what then was the purpose of those leaden plaques? In the late seventh and eighth centuries, lead was employed for the production of appliqués,9 belt sets,10 crosses11 and beads.12 None of those objects is remotely comparable to the Velestino plaques. There is, however, a relatively large number of artefacts made of lead, which, although dif-ferent in size and ornamentation from the “Thessalian antiquities”, are nonetheless similar in one, important respect: they all have a flat back-side. As such, those artefacts have been interpreted as models for cast-ing.13 Several sixth- and seventh-century lead models are known for belt buckles14 and mounts,15 as well as fibulae.16 This suggests that the technology employed was not new, but may have been known in Late Antiquity. A lead model was necessary for obtaining the mother-mould, which was created when the model was pressed into a piece of soft, damp clay. When the clay dried, the open section of the mother-mould was filled with molten wax. once hardened, the wax model was taken out of the mother-mould, packed in clay, and baked at a high temperature. The result was a clay mould, into which the molten metal was poured to burn out the wax and to produce the final cast.17 The final cast was thus a duplicate of the original lead model. At least some of the leaden

8 FUNCTIoN: DIES or MoDELS? 185

plaques found in Velestino must have been produced by such means, as the imprint of textile fabric on the back is a clear indication of the lost-wax technique.

The leaden plaques were used to obtain their corresponding cop-per alloy duplicates and not the other way around. This results, among other things, from the slight difference in decoration between the lead and the bronze specimens. The wax model obtained with the lead plaque received additional ornamentation in order to produce a bronze plaque. But were the bronze plaques also casting models or did they serve some other purpose? To be sure, seventh-century bronze mod-els were employed for the production of belt mounts,18 appliqués or pendants,19 as well as fibulae.20 In the Nova odessa hoard, one such model was in fact associated with the fibula made with it.21 Could the Velestino plaques have been dies employed in the production of appliqués? The careful examination of a pair of bronze plaques show-ing a horseman (Cat. 55–56) strongly suggests that the Velestino pieces made of copper alloy were used for casting, not pressing. on both plaques, the horseman holds the weapon in the left, and the shield in the right hand.22 If the two plaques were dies, then the resulting appliqué would also have the horseman carrying the weapons in the “wrong” hands. only casting could produce a mirror image of the model, in which the horseman would have the sword in the right, and the shield in the left hand.23 The model was impressed into the soft clay, which produced a mirror image. The mother-mould was then employed for the production of the wax model, on which the image was again reversed. But the resulting, final cast, was a mirror image of the wax model, and thus had the weapons in the “right” hands.24 There are, however, mirror-image pairs of identical plaques, which suggests that the intention was to cast artefacts that would themselves be mir-ror images of each other, most likely for a symmetrical display, flanking some central element. None of the plaques in the Velestino collection, however, was such an artefact. The collection is definitely one of the models, not of the final casts.

What could have been the purpose of those final casts, after all? In other words, what was actually produced with the Velestino models? The resulting cast may well have been attached to some support by means of tabs or fasteners that were cast separately and then attached to the plaque, when the metal was still hot. However, with no actual casts known, it is very difficult to establish what could have possibly been


the object(s) to which appliqués cast with the Velestino models may have been attached. The size of the models is comparable to that of the appliqués decorating the shields from Lucca and Stabio. Like some of those appliqués, some of the Velestino models come in mirror-image pairs, which most likely produced appliqués to be displayed symmetri-cally, on both sides of some central element. However, the Lucca and Stabio appliqués were attached to the shield by means of holes. This is also true for the human- and animal-shaped mounts from Igumnovo, Martynivka and Platar, all of which were also cast. Casting implies that the appliqués produced with the Velestino models looked exactly like them, i.e. they had no holes. If they were attached to some support, that must have been done by means of tabs that were cast separately.25

The Christian symbolism is evident for some of the Velestino mod-els with human representations (the saint on horseback, St. Christopher, the pair of bishops or saints), as well as for those with animal images bearing cross markings. However, the absence of any images of Jesus Christ or the Holy Mother of God (Theotokos) is conspicuous. None of the two images supposedly representing Elizabeth pregnant with or giving birth to St. John the Baptist would fit into a strictly liturgical context of use. The appliqués produced with the Velestino models could have hardly been appropriate for the interior decoration of a church. Aesopic references further suggest a non-liturgical or even domes-tic context of use.26 The same is true for the pieces involving danc-ing, musical instruments and even for the votive hand. The product of what Zsófia rácz has correctly identified as “provincial Byzantine art”, the Velestino models may have well been used to produce appliqués for furniture (such as chests, armoires or beds).27 Despite the remark-able uniformity of style, there is no indication that the Velestino collec-tion represents a composition. In other words, there is no overarching theme for the entire collection. No apparent relation exists between all surviving pieces, although some of them may indeed be related to each other (e.g. the two images of St. Elizabeth pregnant with, and then giving birth to St. John the Baptist). It is therefore possible, that the models were used for casting decorations for different contexts—for example, some for shields and others for furniture. Who in late seventh- or eighth-century Thessaly may have needed shields or furniture deco-rated with bronze appliqués?


notes

1. Carlo Cecchèlli, “Arte paleoslava,” Memorie Storiche Forogiuliesi 40 (1953), 189 (“che mi pareva molto strana”).

2. Charles Vignier, “L’aventureux art scythe,” Aréthuse 2.4 (1925), 61. 3. Dafydd Kidd, “The Velestínon (Thessaly) hoard—a footnote,” in

Awarenforschungen, ed. Falko Daim (Vienna: Institut für Ur- und Frühgeschichte der Universität Wien, 1992), 509; Bartłomiej Szymon Szmoniewski, “Cultural contacts in Central and Eastern Europe: What do metal beast images speak about?” in Ethnic Contacts and Cultural Exchanges North and West of the Black Sea from the Greek Colonization to the Ottoman Conquest, ed. Victor Cojocaru (Iaşi: Trinitas, 2005), 427; Bartłomiej Szymon Szmoniewski, “Two worlds, one hoard: What do metal finds from the forest-steppe belt speak about?” in The Other Europe in the Middle Ages: Avars, Bulgars, Khazars, and Cumans, ed. Florin Curta (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2008), 269–70 and 281; ol’ga A. Shcheglova, “Taina ‘pliashushchikh chelovechkov’ i ‘sledy nevidannykh zverei’. Antropo- i zoomorfnye izobrazheniia v ranneslavianskoi met-alloplastike,” in Slaviano-russkoe iuvelirnoe delo i ego istoki. Materialy Mezhdunarodnoi nauchnoi konferencii posviashchennoi 100-letiiu so dnia rozhdeniia Gali Fedorovny Korzukhinoi. Sankt-Peterburg, 10–16 apre-lia 2006 g., ed. Anna A. Peskova, ol’ga A. Shcheglova, and Aleksandr E. Musin (St. Petersburg: Nestor-Istoriia, 2010), 156; Florin Curta, The Edinburgh History of the Greeks, c. 500 to 1050: The Early Middle Ages (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2011), 438 with n. 114; and Florin Curta, “The beginning of the Middle Ages in the Balkans,” Millennium 10 (2013), 155. According to such views, the Velestino plaques are stamping blocks with raised contours and patterns. A piece of metal sheet would be pressed against the die and covered with a soft, shock-absorbing lead plate. The latter would be struck repeatedly with a hammer, an operation resulting in a deep impression of the die into the piece of metal sheet. For pressing with dies as a relatively common metalworking technology of early Middle Ages in East Central Europe, see orsolya Heinrich-Tamáska, “Avar-age metalworking technologies in the Carpathian Basin (sixth to eighth century),” in The Other Europe in the Middle Ages: Avars, Bulgars, Khazars, and Cumans, ed. Florin Curta (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2008), 245–46.

4. Caterina Giostra, “Gli scudi da parata da Lucca (Italia) e Stabio (Svizzera),” in Roma e i barbari. La nascita di un nuovo mondo, ed. Jean-Jacques Aillagon (Milan: Skira, 2008), 394–97. According to Irene Barbiera, Changing Lands in Changing Memories: Migration and Identity During the Lombard Invasions (Florence: All’Insegna del Giglio,


2005), 37 with n. 46, the shields in question were for parades, not for real combat. Be as it may, the 11 mounts decorating the shield found in 1859 during the excavations in the Church of San romano in Lucca are between 5.9 and 10.4 cm long, while those from Stabio are 4.6, 9.1 and 10 cm long, respectively (Roma e i barbari, 671 and 687). In that respect, the shield mounts are definitely comparable to the Velestino plaques, which are between 5.8 and 15.6 cm long. The longest Velestino piece is the hand (Cat. 74)—20 cm.

5. Branko Marušić, “ranosrednjovjekovna nekropola na Vrhu kod Brkača,” Histria Archaeologica 10.2 (1979), 128 and pl. IV/11; Stoian Vitlianov, “Bronzovi modeli-matrici za kolanni ukrasi ot Preslav,” Preslav. Sbornik 4 (1993), 166–73; Valentin Pletn’ov, “Matrica za kolanni aplikacii ot Severoiztochna Bălgariia,” Epokhi 3–4 (1995), 133–36; Valeri Iotov, “Bronzova matrica za aplikacii ot kăsnoantichnata krepost do s. onogur, Dobrichko,” Arkheologiia 39 (1998), 72–74; Metodi Daskalov and Dimităr I. Dimitrov, “Za proizvodstvoto na nakiti prez VI–VII v. v băl-garskite zemi,” Arkheologiia 42.3–4 (2001), 69 and 70; Fig. 1/2; and Dušan rašković, “rimsko naselje Praesidium Pompei-rimljani u Aleksinačkoj kotlini,” in Nish i Vizantija, V. Simpozijum, Nish 3–5. iuni 2006. Zbornik radova, ed. Miša rakocija (Niš: NKC, 2007), 223–24 and 224; Fig. 18/1. It may not be an accident that most dies for belt mounts have been found in the northeastern region of the Balkans.

6. Joachim Werner, Slawische Bronzefiguren aus Nordgriechenland (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1953), 8. For the Perm’ animal style, see Hjalmar otto Appelgren-Kivalo, “osnovnyia cherty skitho-permskago ornamen-tal’nago stilia,” in Trudy XV arkheologicheskago săezda v Novgorod, 1911, ed. Praskov’ia S. Uvarova (Moscow: Tipografiia G. Lissener i D. Sobko, 1914), 481–92; M. G. Khudiakov, “K voprosu o permskom zverinom stile,” Sbornik gosudarstvennoi Akademii Istorii Material’noi Kul’tury 8 (1931), 15–7; Vladimir A. oborin, Drevnee iskusstvo narodov Prikam’ia. Permskii zverinyi stil’ (Perm: Permskoe knizhnoe izdatel’stvo, 1976); and oksana Ignat’eva, “Termin ‘Permskii zverinyi stil’ v istoriograficheskom aspekte,” Finno-Ugrica 10 (2007), 99–113.

7. For the religious beliefs of the early Slavs, see Václav Polák, “Slovanské náboženství,” Vznik a počátky Slovanů 1 (1956), 119–32; Erich Donnert, “Das Heidentum der Slawen in der schriftlichen Überlieferung der fränk-ischen Frühzeit im 7. und 8. Jh.,” Slavica Gandensia 7–8 (1980–1981), 31–40; Zdeněk Váňa, Svět slovanských bohů a démonů (Prague: Panorama, 1990); Nikita I. Tolstoi, “Iazychestvo drevnikh slavian,” in Ocherki istorii kul’tury slavian, ed. V. K. Volkov, Vladimir Ia. Petrukhin, Aleksandr I. rogov, S. M. Tolstaia, and Boris N. Flor’ia (Moscow: Indrik, 1996), 145–60; Enrique Santos Marinas, “reassessment, unification, and


enlargement of the sources of Slavic pre-Christian religion,” Russian History 40.1 (2013), 27–40; and Michal Téra, “Archaic Slavic religion,” in Great Moravia and the Beginnings of Christianity, ed. Pavel Kouřil (Brno: Institute of Archaeology of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech republic, 2015), 42–48. Werner’s ideas inspired Nikos Chausidis’s equally far-fetched specu-lations about the religious interpretation of the Velestino plaques. See Nikos Chausidis, “Poganska religija Slavena u svjetlu ranosrednjovjekovnih material-nih nalaza s područja Balkana,” Histria Antiqua 15 (2005), 437–56; Nikos Chausidis, “ranosrednovekovnata bronzena raka od romanija i nejzinite relacii so slovenskite paganski tradicii,” Studia mythologica Slavica 6 (2005), 37–106; and Nikos Chausidis, “Zooantropomorfnye mifologicheskii per-sonazh s rukami v viden zhivotnykh,” in Gibridnye formy v slavianskikh kul’turakh. Sbornik statei, ed. N. V. Eldyneva (Moscow: Institut slavianovede-niia rAN, 2015), 75–93. Following Chausidis, Sergei A. Kozlov, “‘rosskie’ ekskursy L’va Diakona i tradicii voinskikh soobshchestv v slavianskom mire,” Vizantiiskii Vremennik 74 (2015), 114 now regards Cat. 15 as an allegory of Slavic lycanthropy.

8. Werner, Slawische Bronzefiguren, 6. Because of their relatively large size, Werner also excluded the possibility that the resulting appliqués could have been sewn onto clothes.

9. V. A. Gorodcov, “Arkheologicheskiia izsledovaniia v okrestnostiakh g. Muroma v 1910 godu,” Drevnosti Trudy Moskavskogo Arkheologicheskago Obshchestva 24 (1914), 98.

10. Ilona Kovrig, Das awarenzeitliche Gräberfeld von Alattyán (Archaeologia Hungarica, 40) (Budapest: Akadémiai kiadó, 1963), 48; pl. XXXV/44–58, 60–63; pl. LXI/1–17. Another belt set made entirely of lead was found in grave 54 of the eighth-century cemetery excavated in Andocs, see Éva Garam, “Avar temetők Andocson,” Folia Archaeologica 23 (1972), 146; 150; Fig. 14/34–37. None of those belt sets was of course functional; both were most likely manufactured for the specific occasion of the burial. A belt mount probably dated to the eighth century is also known from Bulgaria. See Anna Kharalambieva, “Production of dress ornaments in the fortresses and small settlements in north Bulgaria dur-ing the period from the 5th till the 7th century AD,” in The Roman and Late Roman City: The International Conference (Veliko Turnovo 26–30 July 2000), ed. Liudmila ruseva-Slokoska, rumen Teofil Ivanov, and Vencislav Dinchev (Sofia: Akademichno izdatelstvo “Prof. Marin Drinov,” 2002), 395 and pl. II/7.

11. L. Iu. Nidzel’nickaia, and S. M. Il’iashenko, “rannesrednevekovye posele-nie na territorii Tanaisa,” in Srednevekovye drevnosti Dona. Sbornik statei, ed. Iurii K. Guguev (Moscow/Jerusalem: Mosty kul’tury/Gesharim, 2007), 193 and 209; Fig. 6/12.


12. V. N. Shitov, “raboty Shokshinskoi ekspedicii v 1991–1992 gg.,” in Arkheologicheskie otkrytiia Urala i Povolzh’ia. Sbornik statei, ed. V. V. Nikitin (Ioshkar-ola: Mariiskii gosudarstvennyi universitet, 1994), 162–63; Július Vavák, “Včasnostredoveké osídlenie v Pezinku,” Zborník Slovenského Národného Múzea 104 (2010), 99 and 107; Fig. 8/11, 12; and Joseph L. rife, The Roman and Byzantine Graves and Human Remains (Princeton: American School of Classical Studies at Athens, 2012), 66, 101 and 108.

13. Most models for casting known from the roman and early Byzantine period are made either of lead or of potin (an alloy of copper, tin and lead). See Egon Wamers, “Neu erworbene Bleimodelle im Frankfurter Museum für Vor- und Frühgeschichte,” Hammaburg 12 (1998), 89–101; Kharalambieva, “Production,” 394 with pls. I/3 and II/3; Daniela Tănase, Prelucrarea metalelor în lumea barbară la Dunărea mij-locie și inferioară în secolele VI–VII (Timișoara: Excelsior Art, 2010), 69, 86, 120–21, 237–38, and 247; pl. IX/22; and Boian Dumanov, “The late antique workshops of jewellry south of the Lower Danube. Direct and indirect evidence of local production,” in The Lower Danube Roman Limes (1st–6th c. AD), ed. Liudmil Vagalinski, Nikolai Sharankov, and Sergei Torbatov (Sofia: National Archaeological Institute and Museum, 2012), 412–16; 412; Fig. 9; 415; Figs. 12–13; 416; Fig. 15.

14. Daskalov and Dimitrov, “Za proizvodstvoto na nakiti,” 70 and 69; Fig. 1/3; Metodi Daskalov, Kolani i kolanni ukrasi ot VI–VII vek (ot dneshna Bălgariia i săsednite zemi) (Sofia: Craft House, 2012), 117–18; 226; Fig. 56/11; 257; Fig. 87/9; and 258; Fig. 88/1.

15. Frane Buškariol, “Jos o rovašenim fibulama ostrogota i tirinžana pov-odom rijetkog tirinškog nalaza u Saloni,” Vjesnik za arheologiju i historiju Dalmatinsku 81 (1988), 51–3 and 52; Fig. 3.

16. Kharalambieva, “Production,” 394 and pl. II/2, 3; Polona Bitenc and Timotej Knific, Od Rimljanov do Slovanov. Predmeti (Ljubljana: Narodni Muzej Slovenije, 2001), 73–74.

17. The presence of models made of a lead–tin alloy in the large hoard dis-covered in Kuzebaevo has been interpreted as indicating that casting may have not employed (lost) wax at all. Instead, the model was used to obtain another made of some perishable material—wood, for example. The wooden model was then impressed into the soft clay, to create the neg-ative into which the molten metal was then poured. See ostanina, et al., Kuzebaevskii klad, 77. However, as Heinrich-Tamáska, “Avar-age met-alworking technologies,” 246 has pointed out, the existence of wooden models is an unwarranted assumption. For models made of antler, see Hanna Kóčka-Krenz, Złotnictwo skandynawskie IX–XI wieku (Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu im. Adama Mickiewicza, 1983), 55.


18. Aleksandr I. Aibabin, “o proizvodstve poiasnykh naborov v rannesred-nevekovom Khersone,” Sovetskaia Arkheologiia 3 (1982), 190 and 191; Fig. 1/1–3.

19. Zsófia rácz, “Emberalakos kistárgyak az avar korból,” in Thesaurus avarorum. Régészeti tanulmányok Garam Éva tiszteletére, ed. Tivadar Vida (Budapest: Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum, 2012), 410 and 412; 410; Fig. 1/1; 411; Fig. 2/1.

20. Ekaterina A. Shablavina and Bartłomiej Szymon Szmoniewski, “The forming model of the Kertch type finger-shaped fibula,” Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 58 (2006), 519–20 and 521; 520; Fig. 1; 522; Figs. 2–3; 523; Fig. 4. Two forming models for bow fibulae of Werner’s class II C are known from the Koziivka and Nova odessa hoards, and another from an unknown location in the Middle Dnieper region. See Galina F. Korzukhina, “Klady i sluchainye nakhodki veshchei kruga ‘drevnostei antov’ v srednem Podneprov’e. Katalog pamiatnikov,” Materialy po arkhe-ologii, istorii i etnografii Tavrii 5 (1996), 634; Fig. 44/1, 4; Ekaterina A. Shablavina, “Pal’chataia fibula iz kollekcii E. A. Goriunova,” in Kul’turnye transformacii i vzaimovliianiia v Dneprovskom regione na iskhode rimskogo vremeni i v rannem Srednevekov’e. Doklady nauchnoi konferencii, posviash-chennoi 60-letiiu so dnia rozhdeniia E.A. Goriunova (Sankt-Peterburg, 14–17 noiabria 2000 g.), ed. Valentina M. Goriunova and ol’ga A. Shcheglova (St. Petersburg: Peterburgskoe vostokovedenie, 2004), 244–45 and 251; Fig. 8. It has been noted that the forming models from Koziivka and Nova odessa hoards are made of alloys different from those employed for the manufacture of most other items in those two collections; see Aleksandr N. Egor’kov, and ol’ga A. Shcheglova, “Metal iz Kozievki/Novoi odessy,” in Slaviano-russkoe iuvelirnoe delo i ego istoki. Mezhdunarodnaia nauchnaia konferenciia, posviashchennaia 100-letiiu so dnia rozhdeniia Gali Fedorovny Korzukhinoi. Tezisy dokladov, ed. Anna A. Peskova and ol’ga A. Shcheglova (St. Petersburg: “Nestor-Istoriia,” 2006), 24.

21. Korzukhina, “Klady i sluchainye nakhodki,” 634; Fig. 44/2. 22. According to Werner, Slawische Bronzefiguren, 7, this was the only seri-

ous argument in favour of the idea that the “Thessalian antiquities” were forgeries.

23. rafael Hidalgo Prieto, “Casting mould relief of armed horseman from Córdoba,” Gladius 32 (2012), 75; ol’ga A. Shcheglova, “Eshche raz o funkciiakh ‘martynovskikh figurok,” in Kraeugol’nyi kamen’. Arkheologiia, istoriia, iskusstvo, kul’tura Rossii i sopredel’nykh stran. 80-letiiu so dnia rozh-deniia Anatoliia Nikolaevicha Kirpichnikova posviashchaetsia, ed. Evgenii N. Nosov and Sergei V. Beleckii, vol. 2 (Moscow: Lomonosov, 2010), 525, incorrectly assumes that since the weapons are in the “wrong” hands, the plaques must have been produced not with the lost-wax technique, but by casting in a separate mould.


24. The initial models must have been obtained by means of a wax model with the weapons in the “right” hands.

25. The reason for such a fastening solution may have nothing to do with the nature of the material onto which the appliqués were supposed to be attached. Instead, the choice of tabs may have been aesthetically moti-vated, as rivets or rivet heads were not supposed to be seen on the surface decorated by those appliqués.

26. Aesop’s tale of the man bitten by the ungrateful snake; that of the wolf mocked by the lamb; and the fable about the eagle pierced by an arrow flighted with another eagle’s feather are all painted on the eastern wall of a room in the Eski Gümüş courtyard complex (once believed to be a monastery), in Cappadocia. See Michael Gough, “The monastery of Eski Gümüş—second preliminary report,” Anatolian Studies 15 (1965), 162 and 164; 163; Fig. 1.

27. rácz, Die Goldschmiedegräber, 12. No pieces of furniture have survived from the Middle Byzantine period. For later chests decorated with metal fittings, see Maria Parani, “Medieval Byzantine furniture,” in Discipuli dona ferentes. Glimpses of Byzantium in Honor of Marlia Mundell Mango, ed. Tassos Papacostas and Maria Parani (Turnhout: Brepols, 2017), 212. For a much later example of a chest decorated with cast, copper-alloy appliques, see L’apogée, 1190–215 (Corpus des émaux méridionaux, 2), ed. Marie-Madeleine Gauthier, Elisabeth Antoine, and Danielle Gaborit-Chopin (Paris: Editions du Louvre, 2011), 270–71 (specimen now in the Glencairn Museum in Bryn Athyn, USA).

references

Aibabin, Aleksandr I. “o proizvodstve poiasnykh naborov v rannesredneveko-vom Khersone.” Sovetskaia Arkheologiia (1982), no. 3, 190–98.

Appelgren-Kivalo, Hjalmar otto. “osnovnyia cherty skitho-permskago orna-mental’nago stilia.” In Trudy XV arkheologicheskago săezda v Novgorod, 1911, edited by Praskov’ia S. Uvarova, 481–92. Moscow: Tipografiia G. Lissener i D. Sobko, 1914.

Barbiera, Irene. Changing Lands in Changing Memories: Migration and Identity During the Lombard Invasions. Florence: All’Insegna del Giglio, 2005.

Bitenc, Polona, and Knific, Timotej. Od Rimljanov do Slovanov. Predmeti. Ljubljana: Narodni Muzej Slovenije, 2001.

Buškariol, Frane. “Jos o rovašenim fibulama ostrogota i tirinžana povodom rijet-kog tirinškog nalaza u Saloni.” Vjesnik za arheologiju i historiju Dalmatinsku 81 (1988), 47–64.



Chausidis, Nikos. “Poganska religija Slavena u svjetlu ranosrednjovjekovnih materialnih nalaza s područja Balkana.” Histria Antiqua 15 (2005a), 437–56.

———. “ranosrednovekovnata bronzena raka od romanija i nejzinite relacii so slovenskite paganski tradicii.” Studia mythologica Slavica 6 (2005b), 37–106.

———. “Zooantropomorfnye mifologicheskii personazh s rukami v viden zhi-votnykh.” In Gibridnye formy v slavianskikh kul’turakh. Sbornik statei, edited N. V. Eldyneva, 75–93. Moscow: Institut slavianovedeniia rAN, 2015.

Curta, Florin. The Edinburgh History of the Greeks, c. 500 to 1050: The Early Middle Ages. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2011.

———. “The beginning of the Middle Ages in the Balkans.” Millennium 10 (2013), 145–214.

Daskalov, Metodi. Kolani i kolanni ukrasi ot VI–VII vek (ot dneshna Bălgariia i săsednite zemi). Sofia: Craft House, 2012.

Daskalov, Metodi, and Dimitrov, Dimităr I. “Za proizvodstvoto na nakiti prez VI–VII v. v bălgarskite zemi.” Arkheologiia 42 (2001), nos. 3–4, 69–74.

Donnert, Erich. “Das Heidentum der Slawen in der schriftlichen Überlieferung der fränkischen Frühzeit im 7. und 8. Jh.” Slavica Gandensia 7–8 (1980–1981), 31–40.

Dumanov, Boian. “The late antique workshops of jewellry south of the Lower Danube. Direct and indirect evidence of local production.” In The Lower Danube Roman Limes (1st–6th c. AD), edited by Liudmil Vagalinski, Nikolai Sharankov, and Sergei Torbatov, 405–28. Sofia: National Archaeological Institute and Museum, 2012.

Egor’kov, Aleksandr N., and Shcheglova, ol’ga A. “Metal iz Kozievki/Novoi odessy.” In Slaviano-russkoe iuvelirnoe delo i ego istoki. Mezhdunarodnaia nauchnaia konferenciia, posviashchennaia 100-letiiu so dnia rozhdeniia Gali Fedorovny Korzukhinoi. Tezisy dokladov, edited by Anna A. Peskova and ol’ga A. Shcheglova, 21–4. St. Petersburg: “Nestor-Istoriia,” 2006.

Garam, Éva. “Avar temetők Andocson.” Folia Archaeologica 23 (1972), 129–82.Gauthier, Marie-Madeleine, Elisabeth Antoine, and Danielle Gaborit-Chopin,

eds. L’apogée, 1190–1215 (Corpus des émaux méridionaux, 2). Paris: Editions du Louvre, 2011.

Giostra, Caterina. “Gli scudi da parata da Lucca (Italia) e Stabio (Svizzera).” In Roma e i barbari. La nascita di un nuovo mondo, edited by Jean-Jacques Aillagon, 394–97. Milan: Skira, 2008.

Gorodcov, V. A. “Arkheologicheskiia izsledovaniia v okrestnostiakh g. Muroma v 1910 godu.” Drevnosti Trudy Moskavskogo Arkheologicheskago Obshchestva 24 (1914), 40–216.

Gough, Michael. “The monastery of Eski Gümüş—second preliminary report.” Anatolian Studies 15 (1965), 157–64.

Heinrich-Tamáska, orsolya. “Avar-age metalworking technologies in the Carpathian Basin (sixth to eighth century).” In The Other Europe in the Middle Ages: Avars,


Bulgars, Khazars, and Cumans, edited by Florin Curta, 237–61 (East Central and Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 2). Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2008.

Hidalgo Prieto, rafael. “Casting mould relief of armed horseman from Córdoba.” Gladius 32 (2012), 69–86.

Ignat’eva, oksana. “Termin ‘Permskii zverinyi stil’’ v istoriograficheskom aspekte.” Finno-Ugrica 10 (2007), 99–113.

Iotov, Valeri. “Bronzova matrica za aplikacii ot kăsnoantichnata krepost do s. onogur, Dobrichko.” Arkheologiia 39 (1998), 72–4.

Kharalambieva, Anna. “Production of dress ornaments in the fortresses and small settlements in north Bulgaria during the period from the 5th till the 7th cen-tury AD.” In The Roman and Late Roman City: The International Conference (Veliko Turnovo 26–30 July 2000), edited by Liudmila ruseva-Slokoska, rumen Teofil Ivanov, and Vencislav Dinchev, 393–97. Sofia: Akademichno izdatelstvo “Prof. Marin Drinov,” 2002.

Khudiakov, M. G. “K voprosu o permskom zverinom stile.” Sbornik gosudarst-vennoi Akademii Istorii Material’noi Kul’tury 8 (1931), 15–17.

Kidd, Dafydd. “The Velestínon (Thessaly) hoard—a footnote.” In Awarenforschungen, edited by Falko Daim, 509–15. Vienna: Institut für Ur- und Frühgeschichte der Universität Wien, 1992.

Kóčka-Krenz, Hanna. Złotnictwo skandynawskie IX–XI wieku. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu im. Adama Mickiewicza, 1983.


Kovrig, Ilona. Das awarenzeitliche Gräberfeld von Alattyán (Archaeologia Hungarica, 40). Budapest: Akadémiai kiadó, 1963.

Kozlov, Sergei A. “‘rosskie’ ekskursy L’va Diakona i tradicii voinskikh soobsh-chestv v slavianskom mire.” Vizantiiskii Vremennik 74 (2015), 102–16.

Marinas, Enrique Santos. “reassessment, unification, and enlargement of the sources of Slavic pre-Christian religion.” Russian History 40 (2013), no. 1, 27–40.

Marušić, Branko. “ranosrednjovjekovna nekropola na Vrhu kod Brkača.” Histria Archaeologica 10 (1979), no. 2, 111–49.

Nidzel’nickaia, L. Iu., and Il’iashenko, S. M. “rannesrednevekovye poselenie na territorii Tanaisa.” In Srednevekovye drevnosti Dona. Sbornik statei, edited by Iurii K. Guguev, 193–214 (Materialy i issledovaniia po arkheologii Dona, 2). Moscow/Jerusalem: Mosty kul’tury/Gesharim, 2007.

oborin, Vladimir A. Drevnee iskusstvo narodov Prikam’ia. Permskii zverinyi stil’. Perm: Permskoe knizhnoe izdatel’stvo, 1976.

Parani, Maria. “Medieval Byzantine furniture.” In Discipuli dona ferentes: Glimpses of Byzantium in Honor of Marlia Mundell Mango, edited by Tassos Papacostas and Maria Parani, 181–221 (Byzantios, 11). Turnhout: Brepols, 2017.

Pletn’ov, Valentin. “Matrica za kolanni aplikacii ot Severoiztochna Bălgariia.” Epokhi 3–4 (1995), 133–36.


Polák, Václav. “Slovanské náboženství.” Vznik a počátky Slovanů 1 (1956), 119–32.

rácz, Zsófia. “Emberalakos kistárgyak az avar korból.” In Thesaurus avarorum. Régészeti tanulmányok Garam Éva tiszteletére, edited by Tivadar Vida, 409–36. Budapest: Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum, 2012.

———. Die Goldschmiedegräber der Awarenzeit. Mainz: Verlag des römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums, 2014.

rašković, Dušan. “rimsko naselje Praesidium Pompei-rimljani u Aleksinačkoj kotlini.” In Nish i Vizantija, V. Simpozijum, Nish 3–5. iuni 2006. Zbornik radova, edited by Miša rakocija, 205–26. Niš: NKC, 2007.

rife, Joseph L. The Roman and Byzantine Graves and Human Remains (Isthmia, 9). Princeton: American School of Classical Studies at Athens, 2012.

Shablavina, Ekaterina A. “Pal’chataia fibula iz kollekcii E. A. Goriunova.” In Kul’turnye transformacii i vzaimovliianiia v Dneprovskom regione na iskhode rimskogo vremeni i v rannem Srednevekov’e. Doklady nauchnoi konferencii, pos-viashchennoi 60-letiiu so dnia rozhdeniia E.A. Goriunova (Sankt-Peterburg, 14–17 noiabria 2000 g.), edited by Valentina M. Goriunova and ol’ga A. Shcheglova, 244–53. St. Petersburg: Peterburgskoe vostokovedenie, 2004.

Shablavina, Ekaterina A., and Szmoniewski, Bartłomiej Szymon. “The forming model of the Kertch type finger-shaped fibula.” Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 58 (2006), 519–26.

Shcheglova, ol’ga A. “Taina ‘pliashushchikh chelovechkov’ i ‘sledy nevidan-nykh zverei’. Antropo- i zoomorfnye izobrazheniia v ranneslavianskoi metalloplastike.” In Slaviano-russkoe iuvelirnoe delo i ego istoki. Materialy Mezhdunarodnoi nauchnoi konferencii posviashchennoi 100-letiiu so dnia rozh-deniia Gali Fedorovny Korzukhinoi. Sankt-Peterburg, 10–16 aprelia 2006 g., edited by Anna A. Peskova, ol’ga A. Shcheglova, and Aleksandr E. Musin, 146–71 and 593–94. St. Petersburg: Nestor-Istoriia, 2010a.

———. “Eshche raz o funkciiakh ‘martynovskikh figurok.” In Kraeugol’nyi kamen’. Arkheologiia, istoriia, iskusstvo, kul’tura Rossii i sopredel’nykh stran. 80-letiiu so dnia rozhdeniia Anatoliia Nikolaevicha Kirpichnikova posviash-chaetsia, edited by Evgenii N. Nosov and Sergei V. Beleckii, vol. 2, 520–39. Moscow: Lomonosov, 2010b.

Shitov, V. N. “raboty Shokshinskoi ekspedicii v 1991–1992 gg.” In Arkheologicheskie otkrytiia Urala i Povolzh’ia. Sbornik statei, edited by V. V. Nikitin, 162–64. Ioshkar-ola: Mariiskii gosudarstvennyi universitet, 1994.

Szmoniewski, Bartłomiej Szymon. “Cultural contacts in Central and Eastern Europe: What do metal beast images speak about?” In Ethnic Contacts and Cultural Exchanges North and West of the Black Sea from the Greek Colonization to the Ottoman Conquest, edited by Victor Cojocaru, 425–42. Iaşi: Trinitas, 2005.

———. “Two worlds, one hoard: What do metal finds from the forest-steppe belt speak about?” In The Other Europe in the Middle Ages: Avars, Bulgars,


Khazars, and Cumans, edited by Florin Curta, 263–96 (East Central and Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 2). Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2008.

Tănase, Daniela. Prelucrarea metalelor în lumea barbară la Dunărea mijlocie și inferioară în secolele VI–VII. Timișoara: Excelsior Art, 2010.

Téra, Michal. “Archaic Slavic religion.” In Great Moravia and the Beginnings of Christianity, edited by Pavel Kouřil, 42–8. Brno: Institute of Archaeology of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech republic, 2015.

Tolstoi, Nikita I. “Iazychestvo drevnikh slavian.” In Ocherki istorii kul’tury sla-vian, edited by V. K. Volkov, Vladimir Ia. Petrukhin, Aleksandr I. rogov, S. M. Tolstaia, and Boris N. Flor’ia, 145–60. Moscow: Indrik, 1996.

Váňa, Zdeněk. Svět slovanských bohů a démonů. Prague: Panorama, 1990.Vavák, Július. “Včasnostredoveké osídlenie v Pezinku.” Zborník Slovenského

Národného Múzea 104 (2010), 99–112.Vignier, Charles. “L’aventureux art scythe.” Aréthuse 2 (1925), no. 4, 56–62.Vitlianov, Stoian. “Bronzovi modeli-matrici za kolanni ukrasi ot Preslav.” Preslav.

Sbornik 4 (1993), 166–73.Wamers, Egon. “Neu erworbene Bleimodelle im Frankfurter Museum für Vor-

und Frühgeschichte.” Hammaburg 12 (1998), 89–101.Werner, Joachim. Slawische Bronzefiguren aus Nordgriechenland. Berlin:

Akademie Verlag, 1953.

197

The closest parallel to Velestino is the Biskupija hoard. Both are collections of casting models.1 In that respect, they are unique. No other similar, contemporary assemblages are known to include casting models exclusively.2 However, there is a third assemblage in the late seventh- century or early eighth-century Balkans most evidently associated with casting. Like Biskupija and Velestino, the Vrap hoard is unique: there are no known parallels either to the drinking and washing silver vessels, some with Greek inscriptions, or to the gold belt fittings in its compo-sition.3 Unlike Biskupija and Velestino, however, the Vrap collection includes both half-finished pieces and ingots—two certain references to the casting process.4 Two belt mounts have edges framed by thin welds and the sprues still attached. The welds suggest that the mounts were cast in two-piece moulds, while the porous surface and triangular section of the sprues indicate the moulds to have been made of sand.5 Like the “lost wax and lost textile” technique, the sand casting procedure has no late antique traditions, and by 700, it must have been a recent innova-tion. In other words, the Vrap hoard is a display not only of a consid-erable amount of wealth but also of the technologically most innovative know-how at that time.6 The unusual combination of materials and tech-niques has prompted one historian to describe the Vrap hoard as the “assertive crafting—at times to the point of coarseness—of the showiest of materials.”7 Who may have been in a position to display all that wealth and skill?

CHAPTEr 9

Historical Context


https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04846-4_9



Vrap is located a little more than 20 miles to the southwest from Durrës, ancient Dyrrachium. During the seventh and the eighth cen-tury, the city was still under Byzantine control, as suggested by the pres-ence of the local metropolitan among the participants in the Quinisext Ecumenical Council in 692.8 By 700, the old roman forum was already abandoned as a central place and turned into a burial ground.9 A cem-etery found in the downtown area of Durrës, within the rinia Park, occupied the ruins of a Hellenistic building abandoned in the third or second century BC. The salvage excavations carried out by Fatos Tartari revealed 29 burials, 27 of which were in tile cists. There were also two burial chambers—one with 10 and the other with 30 skeletons. The for-mer produced 12 buckles of the Boly-Želovce, Balgota and Corinth classes, as well as a specimen with U-shaped plate—all dated to the sev-enth century. The assemblage also included an amphora and glass beads, some of them Melonenkernperlen most typical for the second half of the seventh and the eighth century. The other burial chamber contained 30 skeletons and 73 artefacts, including a coin struck for Emperor Constans II in 654/5. There were also belt buckles of the Corinth, Balgota, Trebizond and Boly-Želovce classes, a strap end, two belt mounts, an ear-ring with star-shaped pendant and another with pear-shaped pendant.10 A Byzantine presence in seventh-century Dyrrachion and its hinterland is also betrayed by finds from the excavations carried out between 1980 and 1985 in the basilica of Arapaj, some 4 miles to the east from Durrës.11 Such finds as the gold earring with croissant-shaped pendant from Shtish-Tufinë (15 miles to the north from Vrap) and the fibula with bent stem from Vrrin (Shenavlash, 19 miles to the south-east from Vrap) suggest that the Vrap hoard must be interpreted in the context of the seventh- and eighth-century developments in Byzantine Dyrrachion.12 But who could have been the person commissioning, if not owning the gold casts in the Vrap hoard? In the early eighth century, the local elites in Dyrrachion seem to have retained a very strong sense of identity linked to the old, Late roman institutions. That much results from the analysis and interpretation of a lead seal dated between 720 and 760.13 The Vrap hoard may there-fore be associated with a member of the local elite, perhaps with the local archon. He must have been the person for whom some, at least, of the belt fittings in the Vrap collections were cast.

The same is true for the Biskupija hoard. Although commonly regarded as a collection of dies, not models, Biskupija is a conspicuous display of casting abilities, and one of the earliest pieces of evidence for

9 HISTorICAL CoNTEXT 199

the “lost wax and lost textile” technique.14 The Biskupija pieces are not the only casts in the region. About 27 miles to the south-east, at Čitluk, a bronze model was found that is very similar to the griffin on the Velestino plaques Cat. 35–37. Biskupija is located only 35 miles (as the crow flies) to the north-west from Diocletian’s palace in Split. No evidence on the par of that pertaining to Durrës exists so far for Split. However, the area outside Diocletian’s Palace was most likely occupied on a more or less permanent basis, as suggested by such typ-ically seventh-century finds as a buckle of the Syracuse class, several animal-shaped fibulae and a buckle with triangular plate.15 Separated from Split by mountains, but linked to the seacoast through the Krka river, Biskupija is also adjacent to the Cetina river, and thus connected to Čitluk. A number of cemeteries discovered along the Cetina river point to a broader archaeological and historical context for the finds of bronze models from Croatia.16 only 11 miles to the south-east from Biskupija, two graves accidentally found in Vrlika have been dated to the (late) seventh and eighth centuries, primarily on the basis of the associ-ated handmade pots.17 A cist inhumation found in Gornji Bitelić, at a distance of less than 5 miles to the north from Čitluk, may be roughly dated between the seventh and the ninth century, on the basis of the associated pottery thrown on a tournette.18 A cemetery with 25 graves, all cist inhumations, has been discovered in Lučani, only 3 miles to the south-west from Čitluk.19 The excavator has advanced a date in the mid-dle of the seventh century, but others believe that none of the graves in Lučani could be dated before the middle of ninth century.20 Finally, less than 1.5 miles south of Čitluk, another cemetery was excavated in Glavice. A double grave in the eastern part of the cemetery has an ori-entation different from that of the other graves, and produced a mix of jewellery finds which prompted the excavator to suggest a date between the late seventh and the eighth century.21 Even if the exact dating of those burial assemblages remains tentative, a few stray finds of casts from the same region—the earring with star-shaped pendant from Knin and belt buckle from Gardun (near Trilj)—are clearly of a seventh- or eighth-century date.22 This brief survey of the archaeological situation in the Cetina valley pertaining to the second half of the seventh and the eighth century is meant to suggest that the cluster of archaeological sites delineates a micro-region in the western Balkans that was neither depop-ulated, nor insulated behind the Mosor and Biokovo mountain ranges. To judge from the most extraordinary finds—those from Biskupija and


Čitluk—this region was also well connected with the outside world, particularly with the technologies and decorative styles in fashion in con-temporary Byzantium. Whether or not the valley of the Cetina river may be regarded as a “big-man” polity of the early Middle Ages, someone in that region was powerful enough to have at his disposal craftsmen capa-ble of casting mounts for belts and appliqués for shields or furniture.23 That person was not as well-to-do as the archon or notable to whom the Vrap hoard may have belonged, but was definitely in a position to con-trol the production of artefacts carrying a symbolism that was not differ-ent from that of the Velestino models.

Could the Velestino hoard be interpreted in similar terms and within a similar context? To be sure, Pherai, the city over which modern Velestino has been built, is mentioned in sixth-century sources. Although no indication exists that the site was still occupied at that time, the end of Pherai is generally believed to have taken place around 600. The name Velestino (which is of Slavic origin) does not appear in the sources before the year 1200.24 In Nea Anchialos, the site of ancient Thebes located only 8 miles to the south-east, there are no finds that could be securely dated to the second half of the seventh century.25 The latest coin in the hoard found during the 1929 excavations was struck in Constantinople in 615/6.26 The burial chamber on the southern side of basilica Δ must be dated to the first half of the seventh century, because of the bow fib-ula of Werner’s class I B, which was found next to one of the skeletons, together with a copper alloy, double-sided buckle.27 The same date may be accepted for another bow fibula found during the excavations inside the Damokratia basilica in Volos (ancient Demetrias), some 10 miles to the east from Velestino.28 The handmade pottery and the pottery thrown on a tournette discovered within the ruins of the basilica may however be of a mid-seventh-century date.29 An early eighth-century date has been advanced for the seal of Tichomiros, an archon of the Belegezites, who are otherwise known from literary sources as living in the region of Thebes and Demetrias.30 Tichomiros was an imperial spatharios, much like his contemporaries, who were eparchs of Thessalonike or strategoi of Thrace and Kephalenia.31 In other words, his rank was as lofty as that of the most important men in the early eighth-century Byzantine posses-sions in the Balkans. He was most likely an imperial client, and there is no reason to treat him as in any way different from prominent members of the local aristocracy. Moreover, Tichomiros was a Christian, or, at the very least, he was familiar with the Christian symbolism of the cruciform


invocative monogram (Θεοτόκε βοήθει, “Mother of God, help [me]”) on the obverse of his seal.32

If, as it is highly probable, Tichomiros ruled over an area covering southern Thessaly, then he may well have been the person who com-missioned one or more metalworkers to cast appliqués using the models from the Velestino hoard. Whether those appliqués decorated his fur-niture or his shield, Tichomiros—if he can truly be associated with the Velestino hoard—may have thus aspired to the lifestyle of prominent aristocrats, particularly that of other imperial spatharioi. At any rate, the collection in that hoard implies the understanding of and partaking in a complex of sophisticated cultural references ranging from the Bible and saints’ lives to Aesopic fables. Someone like Tichomiros must have regarded the Velestino plaques in the same way the aristocrats of Late Antiquity regarded mosaics—both images and cultural symbols.33

notes

1. The models in Velestino are considerably larger than those from the Biskupija hoard. The latter were most likely used for casting belt fittings.

2. The recently discovered Kuzebaevo hoard, which also includes a larger number of casting models, is nonetheless different in terms of both chro-nology (Kuzebaevo is slightly earlier) and composition (neither Velestino, nor Biskupija include either jeweler’s tools or scrap metal).

3. Joachim Werner, Der Schatzfund von Vrap in Albanien. Beiträge zur Archäologie der Awarenzeit im mittleren Donauraum (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1986); Éva Garam, “The Vrap treasure,” in From Attila to Charlemagne. Arts of the Early Medieval Period in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, ed. Katharine reynolds Brown, Dafydd Kidd, and Charles T. Little (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art/Yale University Press, 2000), 170–79; oksana Minaeva, “on some peculiarities of the shape and decoration of the vessels from the Vrap treasure, Albania,” Problemi na izkustvoto 1 (2001), 13–22; and Dora Piguet-Panayotova, “The gold and silver vessels from the Albanian treas-ure in a new light,” Mitteilungen zur spätantiken Archäologie und byzan-tinischen Kunstgeschichte 3 (2002), 37–74. While the belt fittings have good parallels in silver and bronze, none of those parallels was cast in gold like the pieces in the hoard. See Uwe Fiedler, “Die spätawarenzeitli-chen Gürtelbestandteile von Typ Vrap-Erseke aus Velino (Bez. Varna, Bulgarien),” Germania 74 (1996), 248–64; Szenthe, “Contributions,” 61–76; and Stanislav Stanilov, “Belezhki kăm identifikaciiata na săkrov-ishteto ot Vrap,” Prinosi kăm bălgarskata arkheologiia 7 (2013), 7–14.


4. Josef Strzygowski, Altai-Iran und Völkerwanderung. Ziergeschichtliche Untersuchungen über den Eintritt der Wander- und Nordvölker in die Treibhäuser geistigen Lebens, anknüpfend an einen Schatzfund in Albanien (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrich, 1917), 15, Fig. 13/23 and 46; 26, Fig. 26/23 and 46; Garam, “The Vrap treasure,” 174 and 176, Figs. 15.10–15.12; Stanilov, “Belezhki,” 9–10 and 9, Fig. 1. There were initially 8 ingots in the collection, but only one is preserved. Seven strap ends have no signs of wear and must also be regarded as half-finished products, for they lack rivet holes for fastening to the strap.

5. Szenthe, “Contributions,” 65. With the lost-wax technique, the sprues would have either circular or oval section.

6. The belt fittings of the Vrap hoard alone have a total weight of 694 grams. That is the equivalent of a little over 154 Byzantine gold coins, a considerable amount of money for that time. The value of the belt fit-tings in the Vrap hoard is in fact three times larger than that of the larg-est collection of gold coins known from the eighth-century Balkans, the so-called Attic hoard, for which see Speros Vryonis, “An Attic hoard of Byzantine gold coins (688–741) from the Thomas Whittemore collec-tion and the numismatic evidence for the urban history of Byzantium,” Zbornik radova Vizantološkog Instituta 8 (1963), 293.

7. Melanie Holcomb, “‘Ugly but… important’: The Albanian Hoard and the making of the archaeological treasure in the early twentieth century,” Early Medieval Europe 16.1 (2008), 17. A second hoard was supposedly found in Ersekë (southeastern Albania), but its authenticity is disputed. See Peter Stadler, “Argumente für die Echtheit des ‘Avar Treasure’,” Mitteilungen der anthropologischen Gesellschaft in Wien 118–19 (1988–1989), 193–217; Piguet-Panayotova, “The gold and silver ves-sels,” 53 with no. 31.

8. Heinz ohme, Das Concilium Quinisextum und seine Bischofsliste. Studien zum Konstantinopoler Konzil von 692 (Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1990), 146. For the local bishops during the Middle Byzantine period, see Jarosław Dudek, “Biskupi Dyrrachionu w strukturach patriar-chatu Konstantynopola (VII–XI wiek),” Vox patrum 32 (2012), 211–36.

9. Entela Daci, “The Byzantine round forum of Dyrrachium,” in Nish i Vizantija, XI. Simpozijum, Nish, 3.-5. jun 2012, ed. Miša rakocija (Niš: NKC, 2013), 95–96.

10. Fatos Tartari, “Një varrezë e mesjetës së hershme në Durrës,” Iliria 14.1 (1984), 227, 230–31 and 141; 228, Fig. 1; pls. II/28, IV, V, and VI/2. See also Curta, “The beginning of the Middle Ages,” 185–86.

11. Sali Hidri, “Materiale arkeologijke nga bazilika e Arapajt,” Iliria 21.1–2 (1991), 203–18.


12. Skënder Anamali, “Die Albaner, Nachkommen der Illyrer,” in Albanien. Schätze aus dem Land der Skipetaren, ed. Arne Eggebrecht (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1988), 458, Fig. 375; Halil Myrto, “Një varrezë antike në fshatin Vrrin,” Iliria 14.1 (1984), 221 and pl. II/1.

13. Vivien Prigent, “Notes sur l’évolution de l’administration byzantine en Adriatique (VIIIe-IXe siècle),” Mélanges de l’Ecole Française de Rome. Moyen Age 120.2 (2008), 402–8. See also Ewald Kislinger, “Dyrrachion und die Küsten von Epirus und Dalmatien im frühen Mittelalter—Beobachtungen zur Entwicklung der byzantinischen oberhoheit,” Millennium 8 (2011), 333.

14. For the Biskupija pieces as dies, see Dušan Jelovina, “Glavne znača-jke starohrvatske materijalne kulture od 7. do 12. stoljeća na području između rijeka Zrmanje i Cetine,” Starohrvatska prosvjeta 16 (1986), 27; Florin Curta, “The beginning of the Middle Ages in the Balkans,” Millennium 10 (2013), 155; and Zsófia rácz, Die Goldschmiedegräber der Awarenzeit (Mainz: Verlag des römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums, 2014), 8 and 9, Fig. 2. No belt mount has so far been found that could have been produced with, or that at least matches any of the supposed dies from Biskupija.

15. Zdenko Vinski, “Kasnoantički starosjedioci u Salonitanskoj regiji prema arheološkoj ostavštini predslavenskog supstrata,” Vjesnik za arheolog-iju i historiju Dalmatinsku 69 (1967), 16–21, 25 and 27; pls. IX/1; X-1/-5 and 14; XI/3, 6, 7, 10–14; XII/7; XVI/5; XIX/4. For Split in the seventh century, see also Ivan Basić, “Sjeverna i srednja Dalmacija u ranom srednjem vijeku,” in Nova zraka u europskom svjetlu. Hrvatske zemlje u ranome srednjem vijeku (oko 500 - oko 1150), ed. Zrinka Nikolić Jakus (Zagreb: Matica hrvatska, 2015), 431–32 and 435. For the pal-ace of Diocletian as the core around which the (early) medieval city of Split emerged, see Vedrana Jović Gazić, “Urban development from Late Antiquity to the Middle Ages: Dubrovnik, Split, Trogir, Zadar. The state of research,” Archaeologia Adriatica 5 (2011), 173. For the early medi-eval archaeology of Diocletian’s Palace, see Sheila McNally, “Split in the Byzantine Empire: The archaeological evidence,” in Acts. XVIIIth International Congress of Byzantine Studies. Selected Papers: Moscow 1991, ed. Ihor Ševčenko, Gennadii G. Litavrin, and Walter K. Hanak, vol. 2 (Shepherdstown, WV: Byzantine Studies Press, 1996), 250–64. For a direct parallel to Dyrrachion/Durrës, see Francesco Borri, “La Dalmazia altomedievale tra discontinuità e racconto storico (secc. VII–VIII),” Studi Veneziani 58 (2009), 37.

16. The first to point to the cemeteries along the Cetina valley as evidence of an early medieval agglomeration was Ante Milošević, “Novi ranosred-njovjekovni grobni nalazi iz Cetinske Krajine,” in Cetinska Krajina od


prethistorije do dolaska Turaka. Znanstveni skup, Sinj 3–5 VI 1980, ed. Željko rapanić (Split: Hrvatsko arheološko društvo, 1984), 181–220. Milošević also proposed that the region of the middle course of the river, particularly the area around Sinj, constituted an advanced Byzantine out-post in the sixth century. See Ante Milošević, “Die spätantike territoriale und kulturelle Kontinuität in der frühmittelalterlichen Cetinagegend,” Hortus Artium Medievalium 1 (1995), 173.

17. Dušan Jelovina, “ranosrednjovjekovno groblje na lokalitetu ‘Brig’ kod izvora Zduša nedaleko Vrlike,” Starohrvatska prosvjeta 13 (1983), 106 and 108; 109, Figs. 3 and 5–6; pl. I/2, 5; II/1, 2.

18. Ante Milošević, “ranosrednjovekovni grobovi iz Bitelića,” Starohrvatska prosvjeta 15 (1985), 227–28. The cist in question is made of stones with no mortar (drystone cist), a type of burial for which see Vladimir Sokol, Medieval Jewelry and Burial Assemblages in Croatia: A Study of Graves and Grave Goods, ca. 800 to ca. 1450 (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2016), 115.

19. Ante Milošević, “Srednjovjekovna nekropola u ‘Barama’ u Lučanima kod Sinja,” Starohrvatska prosvjeta 14 (1984), 285–304.

20. Milošević, “Srednjovjekovna nekropola,” 303; Sokol, Medieval Jewelry, 127–28.

21. Ante Milošević, “ranosrednjovjekovno groblje kod Gluvinih kućâ u Glavicama kod Sinja,” Starohrvatska prosvjeta 24 (1997), 121. See also Danijel Dzino, Becoming Slav, Becoming Croat: Identity Transformation in Post-Roman and Early Medieval Dalmatia (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2010), 123–24. For the Glavice cemetery and the chronological gap between grave 1 and the other graves, see also Sokol, Medieval Jewelry, 47. Maja Petrinec claims that the cremation burials found nearby may also be dated within the second half of the seventh century. See Maja Petrinec, “Dosadašnji rezultati istraživanja ranosrednjovjekovnog gro-blja u Glavicama kraj Sinja kao prilog razrješavanju problema kronologije starohrvatskih grobalja,” Opuscula Archaeologica 26 (2002), 223; Maja Petrinec, Gräberfelder aus dem 8. bis 11. Jahrhundert im Gebiet des früh-mittelalterlichen kroatischen Staates (Split: Museum der kroatischen archäologischen Denkmäler, 2009), 15. However, it is not certain either that those were cremation burials (only cremated animal bones have been found in them, no human remains), or that the features could be dated to the early Middle Ages (no material culture remains have been found, and no radiocarbon dates for the charred remains are available).

22. Stjepan Gunjača, “Postojanje jednog centra za izrađivanje starohrvatskog nakita,” Vjesnik za arheologiju i historiju Dalmatinsku 56–59.1 (1954–1957), 235 with Fig. 2 and pl. XXVI/2–3; Vinski, “Kasnoantički sta-rosjedioci,” 133 and pl. XXV/2. For the date of the Gardun buckle, see


Paola Korošec, “‘Aplika’ s človeškim licem iz groba št. 2 z nekropole v Spodnji Hajdini pri Ptuju,” Starohrvatska prosvjeta 30 (2003), 100.

23. It is, however, important to note that, much like in contemporary Albania, no artefacts related to casting have so far been found in Croatia, that could be dated to the seventh or eighth centuries. For “big-man” polities in early medieval Dalmatia, see Danijel Dzino, “The rise and fall of the Dalmatian ‘big-men’: social structures in late antique, post- roman and early medieval Dalmatia (ca. 500–850),” in The Empire and Barbarian in South-Eastern Europe in Late Antiquity and Early Middle Ages, ed. Stoian Vitlianov and Ivo Topalilov (Shumen: University of Shumen Press, 2014), 127–52.

24. Johannes Koder and Friedrich Hild, Tabula Imperii Byzantinii 1: Hellas und Thessalia (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1976), 133. No archaeological excavations and no sur-veys have been carried out in the environs of ancient Pherai, despite the existence of ruins of medieval monuments, such as an observation tower near the city on the Spartia Hill, and a church in Pherai. See Anna Avramea, He byzantine Thessalia mechri tou 1204. Symbole eis ten his-toriken geographian (Athens: Ethnikon kai Kapodistrikon Panepistemion Athenon, Philosophike Schole, 1974), 111–12.

25. For Thebes and Demetrias in Late Antiquity, see olga Karagiorgou, “Demetrias and Thebes: the fortunes and misfortunes of two Thessalian port cities,” in Recent Research in Late-Antique Urbanism, ed. Luke Lavan (Portsmouth: Journal of roman Archaeology, 2001), 182–215.

26. Mina Galani-Krikou, Giorka Nikolaou, Manto oikonomidou, Giannis Touratsoglou and Ios Tsourti, Syntagma byzantinon “thesauron” tou Nomismatikou Mouseion (SBTh) (Athens: Hypourgeio Politismo, Nomismatiko Mouseio, 2002), 68–69.

27. Giorgios A. Sotiriou, “Anaskaphai Neas Anchialou,” Praktika tes en Athenais Archaiologikes Hetaireias 93 (1935), 62–63, 61, Fig. 11, and 63 Figs. 12–13; Florin Curta, “Female dress and ‘Slavic’ bow fibulae in Greece,” Hesperia 74.1 (2005), 117.

28. Josef Eiwanger, Keramik und Kleinfunde aus der Damokratia-Basilika in Demetrias (Bonn: rudolf Habelt, 1981), 13 and pl. I; Curta, “Female dress,” 117.

29. Tivadar Vida and Thomas Völling, Das slawische Brandgräberfeld von Olympia (rahden: Marie Leidorf, 2000), 15.

30. Werner Seibt, “Siegel als Quelle für Slawenarchonten in Griechenland,” Studies in Byzantine Sigillography 6 (1999), 28. Tichomiros is a Slavic name (Tihomir is still a relatively common name for males in Serbia, Macedonia, and Bulgaria). The Belegezites are mentioned several times in Book II of the Miracles of St. Demetrius: II 1.179, p. 175; II 4.254,


p. 214 (where they are specifically said to live in the region of Thebes and Demetrias); II 4.259, p. 216; and II 4.268, p. 218. They are said to have supplied the city of Thessalonica with grain during the siege of 677 (Miracles of St. Demetrius II 4.254, p. 214; II 4.268, p. 218). See o. V. Ivanova, “Chudesa Sv. Dimitriia Solunskogo,” in Svod drevnei-shikh pis’mennykh izvestii o slavianakh, ed. Sergei A. Ivanov, Gennadii G. Litavrin, and Vladimir K. ronin, vol. 2 (Moscow: “Vostochnaia liter-atura” rAN, 1995), 154 and 202.

31. Nikola A. Mushmov, “Vizantiiski olovni pechati ot sbiraka na Narodniia Muzei,” Izvestiia na Bălgarskiia arkheologicheski institut 8 (1934), 342; G. Zacos and A. Veglery, Byzantine Lead Seals (Basel: J. J. Augustin, 1972), 628–29, 647 and 998; and Florin Curta, “L’administration byz-antine dans les Balkans pendant la ‘grande brèche’: le témoignage des sceaux,” Bizantinistica. Rivista di studi bizantini e slavi 6 (2004), 184.

32. Seibt, “Siegel als Quelle,” 28. This is a cruciform invocative monogram of Laurent’s type V, which is typical for the early eighth century.

33. For Late roman mosaics and aristocrats, see rebecca J. Sweetman, The Mosaics of Crete: Art, Archaeology, and Social Change (Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 2013).

references

Primary Sources

Miracles of St. DemetriusLemerle, Paul, ed. and trans., Les plus anciens recueils des Miracles de Saint

Démétrius et la pénétration des Slaves dans les Balkans. Paris: Editions du Centre National de la recherche Scientifique, 1979.


Anamali, Skënder. “Die Albaner, Nachkommen der Illyrer.” In Albanien. Schätze aus dem Land der Skipetaren, edited by Arne Eggebrecht, 148–55. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1988.

Avramea, Anna. He byzantine Thessalia mechri tou 1204. Symbole eis ten historiken geographian. Athens: Ethnikon kai Kapodistrikon Panepistemion Athenon, Philosophike Schole, 1974.

Basić, Ivan. “Sjeverna i srednja Dalmacija u ranom srednjem vijeku.” In Nova zraka u europskom svjetlu. Hrvatske zemlje u ranome srednjem vijeku (oko 500 - oko 1150), edited by Zrinka Nikolić Jakus, 411–46. Zagreb: Matica hrvatska, 2015.


Borri, Francesco. “La Dalmazia altomedievale tra discontinuità e racconto storico (secc. VII–VIII).” Studi Veneziani 58 (2009), 15–51.

Curta, Florin. “L’administration byzantine dans les Balkans pendant la ‘grande brèche’: le témoignage des sceaux,” Bizantinistica. Rivista di studi bizantini e slavi 6 (2004), 155–90.

———. “Female dress and ‘Slavic’ bow fibulae in Greece.” Hesperia 74 (2005), no. 1, 101–46.

———. “The beginning of the Middle Ages in the Balkans.” Millennium 10 (2013), 145–214.

Daci, Entela. “The Byzantine round forum of Dyrrachium.” In Nish i Vizantija, XI. Simpozijum, Nish, 3.-5. jun 2012, edited by Miša rakocija, 91–99. Niš: NKC, 2013.

Dudek, Jarosław. “Biskupi Dyrrachionu w strukturach patriarchatu Konstantynopola (VII–XI wiek).” Vox patrum 32 (2012), 211–36.

Dzino, Danijel. Becoming Slav, Becoming Croat: Identity Transformation in Post-Roman and Early Medieval Dalmatia (East Central and Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 12). Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2010.

———. “The rise and fall of the Dalmatian ‘big-men’: Social structures in late antique, post-roman and early medieval Dalmatia (ca. 500–850),” in The Empire and Barbarian in South-Eastern Europe in Late Antiquity and Early Middle Ages, edited by Stoian Vitlianov and Ivo Topalilov, 127–52. Shumen: University of Shumen Press, 2014.

Eiwanger, Josef. Keramik und Kleinfunde aus der Damokratia-Basilika in Demetrias (Demetrias, 4). Bonn: rudolf Habelt, 1981.

Fiedler, Uwe. “Die spätawarenzeitlichen Gürtelbestandteile von Typ Vrap-Erseke aus Velino (Bez. Varna, Bulgarien).” Germania 74 (1996), 248–64.

Galani-Krikou, Mina, Giorka Nikolaou, Manto oikonomidou, Manto Touratsoglou, and Ios Tsourti. Syntagma byzantinon “thesauron” tou Nomismatikou Mouseion (SBTh). Athens: Hypourgeio Politismo, Nomismatiko Mouseio, 2002.

Garam, Éva. “The Vrap treasure,” in From Attila to Charlemagne: Arts of the Early Medieval Period in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, edited by Katharine reynolds Brown, Dafydd Kidd, and Charles T. Little, 170–79. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art/Yale University Press, 2000.

Gazić, Vedranam Jović. “Urban development from late Antiquity to the Middle Ages: Dubrovnik, Split, Trogir, Zadar. The state of research.” Archaeologia Adriatica 5 (2011), 151–96.

Gunjača, Stjepan. “Postojanje jednog centra za izrađivanje starohrvatskog nak-ita.” Vjesnik za arheologiju i historiju Dalmatinsku 56–59 (1954–1957), no. 1, 231–37.

Hidri, Sali. “Materiale arkeologijke nga bazilika e Arapajt.” Iliria 21 (1991), nos. 1–2, 203–18.


Holcomb, Melanie. “‘Ugly but… important’: The Albanian Hoard and the making of the archaeological treasure in the early twentieth century.” Early Medieval Europe 16 (2008), no. 1, 3–22.

Ivanova, o. V. “Chudesa Sv. Dimitriia Solunskogo.” In Svod drevneishikh pis’mennykh izvestii o slavianakh, edited by Sergei A. Ivanov, Gennadii G. Litavrin, and Vladimir K. ronin, vol. 2, 91–211. Moscow: “Vostochnaia liter-atura” rAN, 1995.

Jelovina, Dušan. “ranosrednjovjekovno groblje na lokalitetu ‘Brig’ kod izvora Zduša nedaleko Vrlike.” Starohrvatska prosvjeta 13 (1983), 105–15.

———. “Glavne značajke starohrvatske materijalne kulture od 7. do 12. stol-jeća na području između rijeka Zrmanje i Cetine.” Starohrvatska prosvjeta 16 (1986), 25–50.

Karagiorgou, olga. “Demetrias and Thebes: The fortunes and misfor-tunes of two Thessalian port cities.” In Recent Research in Late-Antique Urbanism, edited by Luke Lavan, 182–215 (Journal of roman Archaeology, Supplementary Series, 42). Portsmouth: Journal of roman Archaeology, 2001.

Kislinger, Ewald. “Dyrrachion und die Küsten von Epirus und Dalmatien im frühen Mittelalter–Beobachtungen zur Entwicklung der byzantinischen oberhoheit.” Millennium 8 (2011), 313–52.

Koder, Johannes and Hild, Friedrich. Tabula Imperii Byzantinii 1: Hellas und Thessalia. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1976.

Korošec, Paola. “‘Aplika’ s človeškim licem iz groba št. 2 z nekropole v Spodnji Hajdini pri Ptuju.” Starohrvatska prosvjeta 30 (2003), 99–102.

McNally, Sheila. “Split in the Byzantine Empire: The archaeological evidence.” In Acts. XVIIIth International Congress of Byzantine Studies: Selected Papers: Moscow 1991, edited by Ihor Ševčenko, Gennadii G. Litavrin, and Walter K. Hanak, vol. 2, 250–64. Shepherdstown, WV: Byzantine Studies Press, 1996.

Milošević, Ante. “Novi ranosrednjovjekovni grobni nalazi iz Cetinske Krajine.” In Cetinska Krajina od prethistorije do dolaska Turaka. Znanstveni skup, Sinj 3–5 VI 1980, edited by Željko rapanić, 181–220. Split: Hrvatsko arheološko društvo, 1984.

———. “Srednjovjekovna nekropola u ‘Barama’ u Lučanima kod Sinja.” Starohrvatska prosvjeta 14 (1984), 285–304.

———. “ranosrednjovekovni grobovi iz Bitelića.” Starohrvatska prosvjeta 15 (1985), 227–36.

———. “Die spätantike territoriale und kulturelle Kontinuität in der frühmit-telalterlichen Cetinagegend.” Hortus Artium Medievalium 1 (1995), 165–75.

———. “ranosrednjovjekovno groblje kod Gluvinih kućâ u Glavicama kod Sinja.” Starohrvatska prosvjeta 24 (1997), 111–26.


Minaeva, oksana. “on some peculiarities of the shape and decoration of the ves-sels from the Vrap treasure, Albania.” Problemi na izkustvoto 1 (2001), 13–22.

Mushmov, Nikola A. “Vizantiiski olovni pechati ot sbiraka na Narodniia Muzei.” Izvestiia na Bălgarskiia arkheologicheski institut 8 (1934), 331–49.

Myrto, Halil. “Një varrezë antike në fshatin Vrrin.” Iliria 14 (1984), no. 1, 215–25.

ohme, Heinz. Das Concilium Quinisextum und seine Bischofsliste. Studien zum Konstantinopoler Konzil von 692 (Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte, 56). Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1990.

Petrinec, Maja. “Dosadašnji rezultati istraživanja ranosrednjovjekovnog groblja u Glavicama kraj Sinja kao prilog razrješavanju problema kronologije starohrvat-skih grobalja.” Opuscula Archaeologica 26 (2002), 205–46.

———. Gräberfelder aus dem 8. bis 11. Jahrhundert im Gebiet des frühmit-telalterlichen kroatischen Staates (Monumenta Medii Aevi Croatiae, 3). Split: Museum der kroatischen archäologischen Denkmäler, 2009.

Piguet-Panayotova, Dora. “The gold and silver vessels from the Albanian treas-ure in a new light.” Mitteilungen zur spätantiken Archäologie und byzantinis-chen Kunstgeschichte 3 (2002), 37–74.

Prigent, Vivien. “Notes sur l’évolution de l’administration byzantine en Adriatique (VIIIe-IXe siècle).” Mélanges de l’Ecole Française de Rome. Moyen Age 120 (2008), no. 2, 393–417.


Seibt, Werner. “Siegel als Quelle für Slawenarchonten in Griechenland.” Studies in Byzantine Sigillography 6 (1999), 27–36.

Sokol, Vladimir. Medieval Jewelry and Burial Assemblages in Croatia: A Study of Graves and Grave Goods, ca. 800 to ca. 1450 (East Central and Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 36). Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2016.

Sotiriou, Giorgios A. “Anaskaphai Neas Anchialou.” Praktika tes en Athenais Archaiologikes Hetaireias 93 (1935), 52–72.

Stadler, Peter “Argumente für die Echtheit des ‘Avar Treasure’.” Mitteilungen der anthropologischen Gesellschaft in Wien 118–19 (1988–1989), 193–217.

Stanilov, Stanislav. “Belezhki kăm identifikaciiata na săkrovishteto ot Vrap.” Prinosi kăm bălgarskata arkheologiia 7 (2013), 7–14.

Strzygowski, Josef. Altai-Iran und Völkerwanderung. Ziergeschichtliche Untersuchungen über den Eintritt der Wander- und Nordvölker in die Treibhäuser geistigen Lebens, anknüpfend an einen Schatzfund in Albanien. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrich, 1917.

Sweetman, rebecca J. The Mosaics of Crete: Art, Archaeology, and Social Change. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 2013.

Tartari, Fatos. “Një varrezë e mesjetës së hershme në Durrës.” Iliria 14 (1984), no. 1, 227–50.


Vida, Tivadar and Völling, Thomas. Das slawische Brandgräberfeld von Olympia. rahden: Marie Leidorf, 2000.

Vinski, Zdenko. “Kasnoantički starosjedioci u Salonitanskoj regiji prema arhe-ološkoj ostavštini predslavenskog supstrata.” Vjesnik za arheologiju i historiju Dalmatinsku 69 (1967), 5–98.

Vryonis, Speros. “An Attic hoard of Byzantine gold coins (688–741) from the Thomas Whittemore collection and the numismatic evidence for the urban history of Byzantium.” Zbornik radova Vizantološkog Instituta 8 (1963), 291–300.

Werner, Joachim. Der Schatzfund von Vrap in Albanien. Beiträge zur Archäologie der Awarenzeit im mittleren Donauraum (Studien zur Archäologie der Awaren, 2). Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1986.

Zacos, G. and Veglery, A. Byzantine Lead Seals. Basel: J. J. Augustin, 1972.

211

roberto Paribeni’s “horrible puppets” turned out to be one of the most important assemblages in the archaeology of the Middle Byzantine period, not just for the Balkans, but also for the entire Empire. The detailed analysis of known components of the collection has put to rest Michael rostovtzeff’s claim that the “Thessalian antiquities” were forgeries. Their authenticity rests not only on the stylistic unity of the assemblage, but also on the results of the spectrographic analysis and, most importantly, on the plaque discovered in Čitluk, which, while very similar to Cat. 35–37, was actually found almost 50 years before the publication of any news about the Velestino collection. The stylistic anal-ysis of the hoard has revealed a number of themes and subject matters that are related either to the cult of the saints (e.g. St. Christopher) or to Aesopic tales. The many fantastic animals may also be related to the themes of Physiologus. Whether or not the hand—the largest piece in the collection—is in some way associated with contemporary cheiromancy remains unclear. At any rate, there is no overarching principle of organi-zation in this rather heterogeneous collection of plaques. The decorative style of the “Thessalian antiquities”, while remarkably homogeneous, points to a number of key parallels with artefacts and assemblages dated to the seventh or early eighth century. This suggests a date around the year 700 for the collection and, possibly, for its burial.

The reconstruction of that collection on the basis of those pieces now in the Princeton University Art Museum, of those published

CHAPTEr 10

Conclusion


https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04846-4_10



several times since the 1920s, and of those surfacing and resurfacing on the international antique market indicates that the hoard had about 100 pieces, some of bronze, the others of lead. Nothing suggests an artisan’s hoard, for there are no tools and no by-products of casting. In that respect, Velestino is remarkably similar to two other, contempo-rary assemblages, one of gold, the other of bronze artefacts. There are no tools and no by-products of casting in the Biskupija hoard, but there were initially eight ingots of gold in the Vrap hoard. That collection also includes a number of half-finished belt fittings, the examination of which indicates that they were produced by means of sand casting—a major technological innovation at that time. By contrast, the technique employed for the casts from Biskupija and Velestino was the lost wax. Some of the pieces in both hoards, however, have the imprint of a tex-tile on the back, which points to a variation of the lost wax technique most likely borrowed from the technological traditions of the steppe lands north of the Black and Caspian Seas. In other words, the Biskupija and Velestino collections reflect another innovation, but of a lower tech-nological level and with cheaper materials (bronze and lead, instead of gold). To judge from the existing evidence, the emphasis in all three collections was on the know-how and the ability to produce artefacts with exquisite decoration.1 one is almost reminded at this point of the meaning behind the Avar-age male burials with artisan tools. Several of them contain also half-finished products, wasters and even slag—a col-lection meant to convey a message through the burial ritual that empha-sized the activity and the ability of the artisan to master a number of awe-inspiring techniques.2 However, harnessing the power of fire and molten metal may not have been only to the artisan’s benefit. Scholars believe that the goldsmith responsible for the casting of the belt fittings in the Vrap hoard was working for a local potentate, probably for the archon of Dyrrachion.3 Next to nothing is known about the political sit-uation in that city during the second half of the seventh and much of the eighth century. The same is true for the region of central Dalmatia in the hinterland of Split. In Split, a few churches were still in use in the seventh century, and some—such as the Church of St. Andrew de Fenestris—may have come into being during that period.4 Just who was supporting the church organization in Split remains unclear, and noth-ing is known about who exercised power in the hinterland of the city, as far to the north as Biskupija or as far to the north-west as Čitluk. The valley of the Cetina river was definitely inhabited around 700,

10 CoNCLUSIoN 213

as indicated by several isolated graves and cemeteries excavated in the region, but the political organization of that population remains com-pletely unknown.

The information about the situation in the southern Balkans, espe-cially in Greece is comparatively better. The seal of Tichomiros implies the existence of an imperial client, not unlike a certain Peter, who appears on a late seventh- or early eighth-century seal as archon of Hellas.5 At that time archontes seem to have been local officials with various degrees of autonomy, but both Tichomiros and Peter may well have been local chieftains upon whom lofty titles were bestowed. While Tichomiros ruled over the Slavic tribe of the Belezegites, it is much more difficult to interpret Peter’s title.6 Nonetheless, he was definitely associated in one way or another with the theme of Hellas. That theme was already in place by 695, when Leontius, a former general of the Anatolian theme (Anatolikon) was appointed strategos.7 The evidence of seals shows that the theme was an administrative unit and not just an army. Nonetheless, the creation of the theme does not seem to have been the launchpad for, or even to have led to a gradual expansion of the imperial authority inland from the outposts on the coast. At least initially, Hellas was little more than a naval base, and it is unlikely that before the mid-eighth century, the administrative unit extended as far to the north as Thessaly.8 The clients on the northern border of the theme of Hellas, such as Tichomiros, most likely operated in a “buffer zone” against possible Avar and Bulgar attacks from the north. The Belegezites were still within the orbit of Hellas by the end of the century. In 799, prompted by conspirators from the theme of Hellas, Akamiros, the archon of the Belegezites, attempted to release the sons of Constantine V from their exile in Athens and to proclaim one of them as emperor.9 The rebels were defeated and blinded and nothing else is known about the Slavic archon. The Belegezites disappear from the radar of the written sources after ca. 800, when their polity was most likely incorporated into the theme of Hellas. Neither Tichomiros, the imperial spatharios, nor Akamiros, the astute politician of the theme of Hellas could be described as barbarian chieftains, but rather as client rulers with knowledge of, and influence in, local Byzantine politics.

It is most likely against this background that the Velestino hoard must be understood in historical terms. The “Thessalian antiquities” are nei-ther “Slavic” (in the sense of barbarian), nor instruments of shamanistic practices. Instead, they appear as a unique testimony of the local elite’s


adaptation to the Byzantine culture during one of the most obscure peri-ods of its history. The “horrible puppets” thus shed an unexpected light on the Dark Ages of Byzantium.

notes

1. A fourth hoard accidentally found in 1995 in Kamenovo (north-eastern Bulgaria) may be an even “cheaper” version of this show of technologi-cal innovation. Among the 15 pieces in the hoard, there are bow fibulae, bronze figurines and appliqué, as well as a silver strap end—all obtained by means of casting. The hoard has been dated to the early eighth century. See Vesela Pisarova, “Nova nakhodka nakiti i kultovi predmeti ot VII v. ot raiona na Kubrat,” Problemi na prabălgarskata istoriia i kultura 3 (1997), 283–89; 194, Fig. 1; 195, Fig. 2.

2. Zsófia rácz, “Sind Goldschmiede in den ‘Goldschmiedegräbern’ der Awarenzeit bestattet?” in Macht des Goldes, Gold der Macht. Herrschafts- und Jenseitsrepräsentation zwischen Antike und Frühmittelalter im mittleren Donauraum. Akten des 23. internationalen Symposiums der Grundprobleme der frühgeschichtlichen Entwicklung im mittleren Donauraum, Tengelic, 16.-19. 11. 2011, ed. Matthias Hardt and orsolya Heinrich-Tamáska (Weinstadt: Bernhard Albert Greiner, 2013), 377. All Avar-age graves with artisan tools have been dated to the seventh century.

3. Joachim Werner’s idea that Vrap was the hoard of an Avar khagan has now been refuted. See Joachim Werner, “Der Schatz eines awarischen Kagans des 7. Jahrhunderts aus Vrap (Albanien),” Problemi na prabălgarskata istoriia i kultura 1 (1989), 19–31; Éva Garam, “Über den Schatzfund von Vrap (Albanien),” Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 49 (1997), 32; and Garam, “The Vrap treasure,” 176–78.

4. radoslav Bužančić, “Quelques chantiers de constructions du VIIe siè-cle aux environs de Salone, après la chute de la ville,” Hortus Artium Medievalium 9 (2003), 198–200 and 202, Fig. 15.

5. Panagioti G. Papadimitriou, “Thesmiske skheseis kai stadia ensomatoses ton Slabikon plethousmon ste byzantine autokratoria kata to deutero miso tou 7ou aiona,” Byzantina 24 (2004), 214–16.

6. Nicholas oikonomides, “L’archonte slave de l’Hellade au VIII-e siècle,” Vizantiiskii Vremennik 55.2 (1994), 114, has proposed that Peter was the archon of the Slavs living in the immediate vicinity of, or even within the theme of, Hellas, perhaps in the valley of the river Spercheios.

7. Theophanes Confessor, Chronographia, 368; George ostrogorski, “Postanak tema Khelada i Peloponez,” Zbornik radova Vizantološkog Instituta 1 (1952), 65.

10 CoNCLUSIoN 215

8. The church organization overlapped the administrative unit of Hellas, and the bishops of Corinth were most likely its metropolitans, at least until the mid-eighth century, the earliest date at which both Larissa (in Thessaly) and Athens are believed to have received metropolitan status. See Panagiotis A. Yannopoulos, “Métropoles du Péloponnèse mésobyzantin: un souvenir des invasions avaro-slaves,” Byzantion 63 (1993), 395.

9. Theophanes Confessor, Chronographia, 473–74; Speros Vryonis, “Byzantium, its Slavic elements and their culture (sixth to ninth centu-ries),” Symmeikta 28 (2003), 79; and Mircea rusu, “Le trésor de Vrap a-t-il appartenu au prince slave Acamir de Belzitia?” in Zbornik posveten na Boshko Babich. Mélange Boško Babić 1924–1984, ed. Mihailo Apostolski (Prilep: Institut des recherches scientifiques de la culture des anciens Slaves—Prilep, 1986), 187–94, has even attributed the Vrap hoard to Akamiros, without realizing that the collection is at least 50 years older than the events mentioned by Theophanes Confessor in relation to the archon of the Belegezites.

references

Primary Sources

de Boor, Carl, ed. Theophanis Chronographia. Vol. 2. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1885.

Theophanes Confessor, Chronographia.


Bužančić, radoslav. “Quelques chantiers de constructions du VIIe siècle aux environs de Salone, après la chute de la ville.” Hortus Artium Medievalium 9 (2003), 195–204.

Garam, Éva. “Über den Schatzfund von Vrap (Albanien).” Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 49 (1997), 23–33.

oikonomides, Nicholas. “L’archonte slave de l’Hellade au VIII-e siècle.” Vizantiiskii Vremennik 55 (1994), no. 2, 111–18.

ostrogorski, George. “Postanak tema Khelada i Peloponez.” Zbornik radova Vizantološkog Instituta 1 (1952), 64–77.

Papadimitriou, Panagioti G. “Thesmiske skheseis kai stadia ensomatoses ton Slabikon plethousmon ste byzantine autokratoria kata to deutero miso tou 7ou aiona.” Byzantina 24 (2004), 167–218.

Pisarova, Vesela. “Nova nakhodka nakiti i kultovi predmeti ot VII v. ot raiona na Kubrat.” Problemi na prabălgarskata istoriia i kultura 3 (1997), 283–95.


rácz, Zsófia. “Sind Goldschmiede in den ‘Goldschmiedegräbern’ der Awarenzeit bestattet?” in Macht des Goldes, Gold der Macht. Herrschafts- und Jenseitsrepräsentation zwischen Antike und Frühmittelalter im mittleren Donauraum. Akten des 23. internationalen Symposiums der Grundprobleme der frühgeschichtlichen Entwicklung im mittleren Donauraum, Tengelic, 16.–19. 11. 2011, edited by Matthias Hardt and orsolya Heinrich-Tamáska, 361–80 (Forschungen zu Spätantike unde Mittelalter, 2). Weinstadt: Bernhard Albert Greiner, 2013.

rusu, Mircea. “Le trésor de Vrap a-t-il appartenu au prince slave Acamir de Belzitia?” In Zbornik posveten na Boshko Babich. Mélange Boško Babić 1924–1984, edited by Mihailo Apostolski, 187–94. Prilep: Institut des recherches scientifiques de la culture des anciens Slaves - Prilep, 1986.

Vryonis, Speros. “Byzantium, its Slavic elements and their culture (sixth to ninth centuries).” Symmeikta 28 (2003), 63–85.

Werner, Joachim. “Der Schatz eines awarischen Kagans des 7. Jahrhunderts aus Vrap (Albanien).” Problemi na prabălgarskata istoriia i kultura 1 (1989), 19–31.

Yannopoulos, Panagiotis A. “Métropoles du Péloponnèse mésobyzantin: un sou-venir des invasions avaro-slaves.” Byzantion 63 (1993), 388–400.

217© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG, part of Springer Nature 2019 F. Curta and B. S. Szmoniewski, The Velestino Hoard, New Approaches to Byzantine History and Culture, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04846-4

cAtAlogue

1. Four-legged, fantastic animal, in profile to the left. Bronze. Flaring lips and prominent tongue, stylized mane, curved body. Charles Vignier, “L’aventureux art scythe”, Aréthuse 2 (1925), no. 4, pl. XII/1; Joachim Werner, Slawische Bronzefiguren aus Nordgriechenland (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1953), p. 3; pl. 1/1; Carlo Cecchèlli, “Arte paleoslava”, Memorie storiche forogiuliesi 40 (1953), plate III, first from the left, bottom row.

2. Four-legged, fantastic animal, in profile to the right. Bronze (intact, but mended after being cast). Length = 11.2 cm, height = 6 cm. Flaring lips and prominent tongue, stylized mane (decorated with a frame of raised triangles), curved body. Princeton University Art Museum, acc. no. y98s (Figs. 4.1 and 4.2).

3. Four-legged, fantastic animal, in profile to the left. Bronze. Fragment (head, mane, and front legs). Surfaced on the art market in 2005.

4. Four-legged, fantastic animal, in profile to the right. Bronze. Head turned to the left, over the body, body decorated with a styl-ized zig-zag pattern in low relief. Charles Vignier, “L’aventureux art scythe”, Aréthuse 2 (1925), no. 4, pl. XII/2; Documents d’art chinois de la collection Osvald Sirén, edited by Henri rivière (Ars Asiatica, 7) (Paris/Brussels: G. van oest, 1925),

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04846-4

218 CATALoGUE

p. 84; pl. LX/755; Joachim Werner, Slawische Bronzefiguren aus Nordgriechenland (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1953), p. 3; pl. 1/2.

5. Four-legged, fantastic animal, in profile to the right. Lead. Length = 6.9 cm, height = 6 cm. Head turned to the left, over the body, body decorated with a stylized zig-zag pattern in low relief. Princeton University Art Museum, acc. no. y98n (Figs. 4.3 and 4.4). Earl Baldwin Smith, “Medieval art: minor plastic collections”, Art and Archaeology 20 (1925), 131.

6. rooster, in profile to the right. Bronze. Charles Vignier, “L’aventureux art scythe”, Aréthuse 2 (1925), no. 4, pl. XII/3; Joachim Werner, Slawische Bronzefiguren aus Nordgriechenland (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1953), p. 3; pl. 1/3.

7. rooster, in profile to the right. Bronze. Surfaced on the art mar-ket in 2005; Carlo Cecchèlli, “Arte paleoslava”, Memorie storiche forogiuliesi 40 (1953), plate III, second from the left, top row.

8. Tiger in profile, to the left. Bronze. Human face, with beard and moustache, stylized mane. Charles Vignier, “L’aventureux art scythe”, Aréthuse 2 (1925), no. 4, pl. XII/4; Joachim Werner, Slawische Bronzefiguren aus Nordgriechenland (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1953), p. 3; pl. 1/4; Carlo Cecchèlli, “Arte paleoslava”, Memorie storiche forogiuliesi 40 (1953), plate III, first from the right, top row.

9. Tiger in profile, to the left. Lead. Human face, with beard and moustache, stylized mane. Princeton University Art Museum, acc. no. y98k (Figs. 4.5–4.6).

10. Sea lion-like, fantastic animal, in profile to the right. Bronze. Front pays, body divided into the front part of a lion and the body and tail of a fish. Surfaced on the art market in 1988. Charles Vignier, “L’aventureux art scythe”, Aréthuse 2 (1925), no. 4, pl. XII/5; Joachim Werner, Slawische Bronzefiguren aus Nordgriechenland (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1953), p. 3; pl. 1/5; Carlo Cecchèlli, “Arte paleoslava”, Memorie storiche forogiuliesi 40 (1953), plate IV, first to the left, bottom row; Dafydd Kidd, “The Velestínon (Thessaly) hoard—a footnote”, in Awarenforschungen, edited by Falko Daim (Vienna: Institut für Ur- und Frühgeschichte der Universität Wien, 1992), p. 509, n. 4.

11. Sea lion-like, fantastic animal, in profile to the right. Bronze, fragment (missing fish tail). Length = 12.5 cm. Cleveland Museum of Art acc. no. 79.87. Sherman E. Lee, “The year in review for 1979”, Bulletin of the Cleveland Museum of Art 67 (1980), no. 3, 95; 63, fig. 3.

CATALoGUE 219

12. Sea lion-like, fantastic animal, in profile to the right. Lead (tail broken away and reattached). Length = 15.6 cm, height = 6 cm. Princeton University Art Museum, acc. y98m (Figs. 4.7 and 4.8).

13. Animal (wolf) carrying off a child, in profile, to the right. Bronze. Body of the child over the left front leg, with left hand stretched out. Surfaced on the art market in 1988. Charles Vignier, “L’aventureux art scythe”, Aréthuse 2 (1925), no. 4, pl. XIII/1; Joachim Werner, Slawische Bronzefiguren aus Nordgriechenland (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1953), p. 3; pl. 2/1; Dafydd Kidd, “The Velestínon (Thessaly) hoard—a footnote”, in Awarenforschungen, edited by Falko Daim (Vienna: Institut für Ur- und Frühgeschichte der Universität Wien, 1992), p. 509, n. 4.

14. Animal (wolf) carrying off a child, in profile, to the right. Bronze, fragment (child’s head broken off). Cleveland Museum of Art acc. no. 79.88; Carlo Cecchèlli, “Arte paleoslava”, Memorie storiche forogiuliesi 40 (1953), pl. IV, first from the left, top row.

15. Animal (wolf) carrying off a child, in profile, to the right. Lead (intact, hind leg cracked). Length = 6.4 cm, height = 9.7 cm (Figs. 3.1 and 3.2). Princeton University Art Museum, acc. no. y98i. Earl Baldwin Smith, “Medieval art: Minor plastic collec-tions”, Art and Archaeology 20 (1925), 130.

16. Long-beak bird, in profile to the left. Bronze. Charles Vignier, “L’aventureux art scythe”, Aréthuse 2 (1925), no. 4, pl. XIII/2; Joachim Werner, Slawische Bronzefiguren aus Nordgriechenland (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1953), p. 3; pl. 2/2.

17. Long-beak bird, in profile to the left. Bronze. Surfaced on the art market in 2005; Carlo Cecchèlli, “Arte paleoslava”, Memorie storiche forogiuliesi 40 (1953), plate III, first from the right, mid-dle row.

18. Horned animal in profile, to the left. Bronze. Head twisted into full view and bulging eyes; Charles Vignier, “L’aventureux art scythe”, Aréthuse 2 (1925), no. 4, pl. XIII/3; Joachim Werner, Slawische Bronzefiguren aus Nordgriechenland (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1953), p. 3; pl. 2/3.

19. Horned animal in profile, to the left. Bronze. Head twisted into full view and bulging eyes. Surfaced on the art market in 2005; Carlo Cecchèlli, “Arte paleoslava”, Memorie storiche forogiuliesi 40 (1953), plate II, second from the left, middle row.

220 CATALoGUE

20. Horned animal in profile, to the left. Lead (part of horns broken off, legs cracked). Length = 6.5 cm, height = 4.7 cm. Head twisted into full view and bulging eyes. Princeton University Art Museum, acc. no. y98j (Figs. 4.9 and 4.10). Earl Baldwin Smith, “Medieval art: minor plastic collections”, Art and Archaeology 20 (1925), 130.

21. Sitting cow (or ox). Bronze. Charles Vignier, “L’aventureux art scythe”, Aréthuse 2 (1925), no. 4, pl. XIII/4; Joachim Werner, Slawische Bronzefiguren aus Nordgriechenland (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1953), p. 3; pl. 2/4; Carlo Cecchèlli, “Arte paleoslava”, Memorie storiche forogiuliesi 40 (1953), pl. II, first from the right, middle row.

22. Stag with long antlers advancing, in profile to the left. Bronze. Charles Vignier, “L’aventureux art scythe”, Aréthuse 2 (1925), no. 4, pl. XIII/5; Joachim Werner, Slawische Bronzefiguren aus Nordgriechenland (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1953), p. 3; pl. 2/5.

23. Stag with long antlers advancing, in profile to the left. Bronze, broken (the head with the antlers separated from the body). Surfaced on the art market in 2005; Carlo Cecchèlli, “Arte pale-oslava”, Memorie storiche forogiuliesi 40 (1953), 191; plate 1, sec-ond from the right, bottom row.

24. Fantastic animal, pouncing, in profile to the right. Bronze. Head oval, with exaggerated jaw, prominent teeth and tongue. Charles Vignier, “L’aventureux art scythe”, Aréthuse 2 (1925), no. 4, pl. XIII/6; Joachim Werner, Slawische Bronzefiguren aus Nordgriechenland (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1953), p. 3; pl. 2/6; Carlo Cecchèlli, “Arte paleoslava”, Memorie storiche forogiuliesi 40 (1953), plate IV, first to the right, bottom row.

25. Fantastic animal, pouncing, in profile to the left. Bronze. Length = 4.9 cm, height = 7 cm. Head oval, with exaggerated jaw, prom-inent teeth and tongue. Cross incised on the haunch. Princeton University Art Museum acc. no. y98r (Figs. 4.11 and 4.12).

26. Fantastic animal, pouncing, in profile to the left. Bronze. Head oval, with exaggerated jaw, prominent teeth and tongue. Surfaced on the art market in 2005.

27. Animal (wolf) with another animal (lamb?) in mouth, in profile to the right. Bronze. Charles Vignier, “L’aventureux art scythe”, Aréthuse 2 (1925), no. 4, pl. XIII/7; Joachim Werner, Slawische Bronzefiguren aus Nordgriechenland (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1953), p. 3; pl. 2/7.

CATALoGUE 221

28. Animal (wolf) with another animal (lamb?) in mouth, in profile to the right. Bronze. Surfaced on the art market in 2005; Carlo Cecchèlli, “Arte paleoslava”, Memorie storiche forogiuliesi 40 (1953), plate IV, centre of the middle row.

29. Animal (wolf) with another animal (lamb?) in mouth, in pro-file to the right. Lead intact, but a few cracks). Length = 5 cm, height = 10.5 cm. Princeton University Art Museum acc. no. y98l (Figs. 4.13 and 4.14).

30. Leopard pouncing, in profile to the left. Bronze. Head turned to the viewer, tail curled over the left haunch. British Museum acc. No. M&LA 1989, 1–10, 1. Charles Vignier, “L’aventureux art scythe”, Aréthuse 2 (1925), no. 4, pl. XIII/8; Joachim Werner, Slawische Bronzefiguren aus Nordgriechenland (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1953), p. 3; pl. 2/8; Dafydd Kidd, “The Velestínon (Thessaly) hoard—a footnote”, in Awarenforschungen, edited by Falko Daim (Vienna: Institut für Ur- und Frühgeschichte der Universität Wien, 1992), p. 509 with fig. 1.

31. Leopard pouncing, in profile to the left. Bronze. Head turned to the viewer, tail curled over the left haunch. Carlo Cecchèlli, “Arte paleoslava”, Memorie storiche forogiuliesi 40 (1953), plate III, first from the right, bottom row.

32. Dog running, in profile to the right. Bronze. Length = 5.8 cm, height = 3.9 cm. Collar indicated by a double incision around the neck. Princeton University Art Museum acc. y98q (Figs. 4.15 and 4.16).

33. Dog running, in profile to the left. Bronze. Surfaced on the art market in 2005; Carlo Cecchèlli, “Arte paleoslava”, Memorie storiche forogiuliesi 40 (1953), 191; plate 1, first on the left, mid-dle row.

34. Fantastic animal, in profile to the left, biting its left hind leg. Bronze. Surfaced on the art market in 2005.

35. Three-legged griffin, in profile to the right. Bronze (intact, only broken tail). Stylized mane and wing. Cross incised on the haunch. Surfaced on the art market in 2005.

36. Three-legged griffin, in profile to the right. Bronze (fragmentary, with broken leg and wing). Stylized mane. Surfaced on the art market in 2005.

37. Three-legged griffin, in profile to the left. Bronze. Surfaced on the art market in 2005.

222 CATALoGUE

38. Three-legged lion, in profile to the left. Bronze. Head turned to the left. Surfaced on the art market in 2005.

39. Three-legged lion, in profile to the right. Bronze. Head turned to the left. Surfaced on the art market in 2005.

40. Two-legged, fantastic animal, in profile to the right. Bronze. Stylized mane. Surfaced on the art market in 2005.

41. Two-legged, fantastic animal, in profile to the left. Bronze. Stylized mane. Surfaced on the art market in 2005.

42. Woman leaping to the right, with a harp in the left hand and a baby in her womb. Bronze. Height = 9 cm. Charles Vignier, “L’aventureux art scythe”, Aréthuse 2 (1925), no. 4, pl. XIV/1; Joachim Werner, Slawische Bronzefiguren aus Nordgriechenland (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1953), p. 3; pl. 3/1; Vom Toten Meer zum Stillen Ozean. Sammlung Ebnöther, Museum zu Allerheiligen, Schaffhausen (ostfildern-ruit: Verlag Gerd Hatje, 1999), p. 229.

43. Woman leaping to the right, with a harp in the left hand and a baby in her womb. Lead. Height = 8.9 cm, width = 4.8 cm. on the back, woven fabric imprint. Princeton University Art Museum acc. no. y98b (Figs. 3.3 and 3.4). Earl Baldwin Smith, “Medieval art: Minor plastic collections”, Art and Archaeology 20 (1925), 131.

44. Angel, with spread wings. Bronze. Exaggerated hands, breasts marked on the upper part of the body, feet spread to the sides, tunic stretching below the knees with decorated lower part. Charles Vignier, “L’aventureux art scythe”, Aréthuse 2 (1925), no. 4, pl. XIV/2; Joachim Werner, Slawische Bronzefiguren aus Nordgriechenland (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1953), p. 3; pl. 3/2.

45. Angel, with spread wings. Lead, fragment (left hand and foot missing). Height = 6.4 cm, width = 5.8 cm. Exaggerated hands, breasts marked on the upper part of the body, feet spread to the sides, tunic stretching below the knees with decorated lower part. on the back, woven fabric imprint. Princeton University Art Museum acc. no. y98c (Figs. 3.5 and 3.6).

46. Man with crotales and tambourine. Bronze. Frontal view of the upper body, hips slightly turned forward from the left, krotola raised in the left hand, bearded head, small tambourine in the right hand. Charles Vignier, “L’aventureux art scythe”, Aréthuse 2 (1925), no. 4, pl. XIV/3; Joachim Werner, Slawische Bronzefiguren aus Nordgriechenland (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1953), p. 4; pl. 3/3.

CATALoGUE 223

47. Man with crotales and tambourine. Bronze, fragment (miss-ing head and left hand). Frontal view of the upper body, hips slightly turned forward from the left, krotola raised in the left hand, bearded head, small tambourine in the right hand. Surfaced on the art market in 2005; Carlo Cecchèlli, “Arte paleoslava”, Memorie storiche forogiuliesi 40 (1953), 191; plate 1, second on the left, bottom row.

48. Man with crotales and tambourine. Lead. Height = 8.5 cm, width = 4.8 cm. Frontal view of the upper body, hips slightly turned forward from the left, krotola raised in the left hand, bearded head, small tambourine in the right hand. Princeton University Art Museum acc. no. y98e (Figs. 3.7 and 3.8).

49. Fantastic, two-headed animal with a human head in the mid-dle. Bronze. Charles Vignier, “L’aventureux art scythe”, Aréthuse 2 (1925), no. 4, pl. XIV/4; Joachim Werner, Slawische Bronzefiguren aus Nordgriechenland (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1953), p. 4; pl. 3/4.

50. Fantastic, two-headed animal with a human head in the middle. Bronze. Surfaced on the art market in 2005; Carlo Cecchèlli, “Arte paleoslava”, Memorie storiche forogiuliesi 40 (1953), pl. II, second from the left, bottom row.

51. Lion in profile to the right, holding a harp. Bronze. Charles Vignier, “L’aventureux art scythe”, Aréthuse 2 (1925), no. 4, pl. XIV/6; Joachim Werner, Slawische Bronzefiguren aus Nordgriechenland (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1953), p. 4; pl. 3/6; Carlo Cecchèlli, “Arte paleoslava”, Memorie storiche forogiuliesi 40 (1953), pl. III, first on the left, top row.

52. Seraph (?), in frontal view. Bronze. Bearded head, elaborate headdress, projecting feet turned to the sides. Charles Vignier, “L’aventureux art scythe”, Aréthuse 2 (1925), no. 4, pl. XIV/7; Joachim Werner, Slawische Bronzefiguren aus Nordgriechenland (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1953), p. 4; pl. 3/7; Carlo Cecchèlli, “Arte paleoslava”, Memorie storiche forogiuliesi 40 (1953), plate II, first on the right, bottom row.

53. Seraph (?), in frontal view. Bronze. Surfaced on the job market in 2005; Carlo Cecchèlli, “Arte paleoslava”, Memorie storiche forogi-uliesi 40 (1953), 191; plate II, first on the left, middle row.

54. Seraph (?), in frontal view. Lead (intact, but lower part cracked). Height = 10.2 cm, width = 5.8 cm. Bearded head,

224 CATALoGUE

elaborate headdress, projecting feet turned to the sides. Princeton University Art Museum acc. no. y98a (Fig. 3.9).

55. Horseman riding to the left. Bronze. The man holds a sword in the left and a shield in the right hand. Charles Vignier, “L’aventureux art scythe”, Aréthuse 2 (1925), no. 4, pl. XIV/8; Joachim Werner, Slawische Bronzefiguren aus Nordgriechenland (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1953), p. 4; pl. 3/8; Carlo Cecchèlli, “Arte paleoslava”, Memorie storiche forogiuliesi 40 (1953), plate IV, first from the left, middle row.

56. Horseman riding to the left. Bronze. The man holds a sword in the left and a shield in the right hand. Support for the shield on top of the horse’s head. Crosses incised on the haunch and in the middle of the shield. Surfaced on the art market in 2005.

57. Horseman riding to the right. Bronze. The man holds a lance in his right hand, pointing to the ground; horse gear straps dec-orated. Surfaced on the art market in 2005; Documents d’art chinois de la collection Osvald Sirén, edited by Henri rivière (Ars Asiatica, 7) (Paris/Brussels: G. van oest, 1925), p. 84; pl. LX/756; Carlo Cecchèlli, “Arte paleoslava”, Memorie storiche forogiuliesi 40 (1953), 191; plate 1, first on the left in the top row.

58. Human walking to the right. Bronze, fragmentary (head broken). Bearded head, long caftan (below the knees), with decorated lower part, hands on the waist, both legs turned to the right. Surfaced on the art market in 2005.

59. Human standing, with arms crossed on the pelvic zone. Bronze, fragmentary (head broken). Bearded head, long caftan (below the knees), a quiver (or sword scabbard?) on the right side), feet turned to the sides. Surfaced on the art market in 2005.

60. Human riding a fantastic animal to the left. Bronze. The head of the animal with exaggerated jaw, prominent teeth and tongue, human siting as if in the saddle, with raised hand(s) and the face turned to the left. Surfaced on the art market in 2005.

61. Human (woman?) standing in a pensive position, head resting on the left hand, and the right hand supporting the elbow of the left hand, crossed legs. Bronze. Surfaced on the art market in 2005.

62. Couple embracing each other, with faces turned to the left. Bronze. Surfaced on the art market in 2005.

63. Human with raised hands, in praying position. Bronze. Frontal view, the human wears a caftan (below the knees), feet spread

CATALoGUE 225

to the sides. Carlo Cecchèlli, “Arte paleoslava”, Memorie storiche forogiuliesi 40 (1953), plate IV, first to the right, middle row.

64. Human with raised hands, in praying position. Bronze, frag-mentary (head broken); Frontal view, the human wears a caftan (below the knees), feet spread to the sides. Surfaced on the art market in 2005.

65. Two humans (men?) standing next to each other. Bronze, frag-ment (only the individual on the left is preserved). Elaborate headdress, long robes (to the ankles), right hands raised to the chest, feet turned outwards. Surfaced on the art market in 2005.

66. Two humans (men?) standing next to each other. Lead (one head broken off and mended). Height = 8.7 cm, width = 4.7 cm. Elaborate headdresses, long robes (to the ankles), right hands raised to the chest, boxes in the left hands with St. Andrew’s crosses on them, feet turned outwards. Princeton University Art Museum acc. no. y98b (Figs. 3.10 and 3.11). Earl Baldwin Smith, “Medieval art: minor plastic collections”, Art and Archaeology 20 (1925), 131.

67. Dog-headed human with a child in the right and an axe in the left hand (pointing to the ground). Bronze, fragmentary (head broken). Long caftan (below the knees), feet spread to the sides. Surfaced on the art market in 2005.

68. Dog-headed human with a child in the right and an axe in the left hand (pointing to the ground). Lead. Height = 6.3 cm, width = 2.8 cm. Exaggerated jaw with prominent teeth, collar around the neck, long caftan (below the knees), feet spread to the sides. Princeton University Art Museum acc. no. y98h (Figs. 3.12 and 3.13). Earl Baldwin Smith, “Medieval art: minor plastic collec-tions”, Art and Archaeology 20 (1925), 130.

69. Woman in childbirth. Lead, fragmentary (feet broken off). Height = 5.9 cm, width = 2.2 cm. Exaggerated facial features, collar around the neck, tiny breasts, bent legs, between which is the head of the child, upside down. right hand rests on the pel-vic area, left hand touches left breast. Princeton University Art Museum acc. no. y98g (Fig. 3.14).

70. Woman in childbirth. Bronze. Exaggerated facial features, collar around the neck, tiny breasts, bent legs, between which is the head of the child, upside down. right hand rests on the pelvic area, left hand touches left breast. Surfaced on the art market in 2005.

226 CATALoGUE

71. Man with musical instrument. Lead. Height = 8.8 cm, width = 4.5 cm. Standing man with indistinct facial features, long trousers, short tunic with long sleeves, bare feet, holds a long, curved horn at his mouth, ready to blow. Princeton University Art Museum acc. no. y98f (Fig. 3.15); Carlo Cecchèlli, “Arte paleoslava”, Memorie storiche forogiuliesi 40 (1953), plate III, sec-ond from the left, bottom row.

72. Human holding a child in the right hand, and an axe-like object (book?) in the left hand. Lead (?). Long caftan (to the ankles), left hand on the waist, feet in opposite directions; Carlo Cecchèlli, “Arte paleoslava”, Memorie storiche forogiuliesi 40 (1953), 191; plate I, second from the right in the top row.

73. Votive hand. Bronze, fragmentary (4 broken fingers). Length = 17.1 cm. rings on 3 fingers, bracelet with ribbed centre on the wrist, upper hand covered with animals, birds, a serpent, cuff decorated with bearded human heads beneath animals and wave motifs. Auctioned at the Messrs Sotheby’s Antiquities Sale, New York, June 23, 1989, lot 173; on loan in 2007 in the Princeton University Art Museum (Figs. 5.4–5.6). Dafydd Kidd, “The Velestínon (Thessaly) hoard—a footnote”, in Awarenforschungen, edited by Falko Daim (Vienna: Institut für Ur- und Frühgeschichte der Universität Wien, 1992), pp. 511 and 515, fig. 4; Nikos Chausidis, “ranosrednovekovnata bronzena raka od romanija i nejzinite relacii so slovenskite paganski tradicii”, Studia mythologica Slavica 6 (2005), 37–106.

74. Votive hand. Lead; Length = 20 cm, width = 8 cm. rings on 3 fingers, bracelet with ribbed centre on the wrist, upper hand covered with animals, birds, a serpent, cuff decorated with bearded human heads beneath animals and wave motifs. Princeton University Art Museum acc. no. y98o (Fig. 5.5); Carlo Cecchèlli, “Arte paleoslava”, Memorie storiche forogiuliesi 40 (1953), 191; plate II, first on the left, top row.

75. Crescent. Bronze. Probably bronze. A Maltese cross in the middle, with two fantastic animals on each side. Surfaced on the art market in 2005. Carlo Cecchèlli, “Arte paleoslava”, Memorie storiche foro-giuliesi 40 (1953), plate II, first from the left, bottom row.

76. Crescent. Lead. Length = 13 cm, height = 4.4 cm. A Maltese cross in the middle, with two fantastic animals on each side. Princeton University Art Museum acc. no. y98p (Figs. 5.1 and 5.2).

CATALoGUE 227

77. Curved strip with a quadruple loop composed of six strands, enclosed in a striated border. Bronze, fragment. Carlo Cecchèlli, “Arte paleoslava”, Memorie storiche forogiuliesi 40 (1953), pl. IV, first from the left, top row.

78. Curved strip with a quadruple loop composed of six strands, enclosed in a striated border. Bronze, fragment. Princeton University Art Museum acc. no. y98t (Fig. 4.15).

79. Curved strip with a quadruple loop composed of six strands, enclosed in a striated border. Lead. Documents d’art chinois de la collection Osvad Sirén, edited by Henri rivière (Ars Asiatica, 7) (Paris/Brussels: G. van oest, 1925), p. 84; pl. LX/757.

80. Disc with a human mask. Bronze or lead; Carlo Cecchèlli, “Arte paleoslava”, Memorie storiche forogiuliesi 40 (1953), 191; plate 1, first on the right, top row.

81. Disc with floral motif. Probably bronze; 7-petal flower; Carlo Cecchèlli, “Arte paleoslava”, Memorie storiche forogiuliesi 40 (1953), 191; plate 1, first on the left, bottom row.

82. Disc with floral motif. Probably bronze; Carlo Cecchèlli, “Arte paleoslava”, Memorie storiche forogiuliesi 40 (1953), 191; plate 1, first on the right, bottom row.

83. Hog grazing, in profile to the right. Bronze. Elongated head turned to the ground. Surfaced on the art market in 2005.

84. Trapeze-shaped plaque with two snakes in the middle. Bronze. Surfaced on the art market in 2005.

85. Trapeze-shaped plaque. Bronze. Surfaced on the art market in 2005.

86. Fantastic creature with two animal heads and a human head between them (fragmentary, one of the animal heads broken). Bronze. Surfaced on the art market in 2005.

87. Bird to the right. Bronze. Charles Vignier, “L’aventureux art scythe”, Aréthuse 2 (1925), no. 4, pl. XIV/5; Carlo Cecchèlli, “Arte paleoslava”, Memorie storiche forogiuliesi 40 (1953), 191; plate III, second on the right, bottom row; Joachim Werner, Slawische Bronzefiguren aus Nordgriechenland (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1953), pl. 3/5.

88. Leopard pouncing, in profile to the left. Bronze. Head turned to the viewer, tail curled over the left haunch. Surfaced on the art market in 2005.


Appendix 1

Notes on the Chemical Evidence for the Genuineness of Two Questioned Byzantine Metal Objects

A. The bronze fragment1

A small sample detached from this fragment was subjected to a complete quantitative analysis. The following results were obtained:

Copper 88.79Tin 5.84Lead 5.18Iron 0.02Nickel 0.06Zinc 0.02Silver 0.01Gold traceArsenic 0.04Total 99.96%

The percentages of tin and lead contained in this bronze are of lit-tle value as indications of genuineness because of the lack of analyses of

1This is most likely Cat. 78, which has a sawed-off corner.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04846-4

230 APPENDIX 1

Byzantine bronze objects with which to make comparison. Apparently no other kind of a Byzantine bronze object other than a coin has ever been analyzed before, and very few coins have been analyzed. It is per-haps significant that the percentages of tin and lead in the bronze of this fragment are very similar to those that have been found in the few Byzantine coins that have been analyzed. Clear evidence that this bronze is not a modern product is given, however, by the presence of three impurities, namely arsenic, gold and silver. The presence of any one of these impurities in a copper or bronze object is a fairly certain indication that the object is not of recent manufacture because such impurities are removed from modern copper by the refining process. The presence of all three together provides certain evidence of antiquity.

The absence of heavy patination might certainly be taken as an indication that his bronze fragment was not of ancient origin. However, light patination is sometimes found on bronze of similar low tin content from dry locations. Moreover, during the preparation of the sample for analysis clear indications of internal corrosion were apparent in the metal, and this is always more cer-tain evidence of antiquity than the degree of external corrosion.

The chemical findings clearly show, therefore, that this bronze frag-ment is not of recent origin.

B. The lead amulet2

Because a proper sample could not be detached without spoiling the object, a quantitative analysis was not attempted, nor was one neces-sary since a qualitative examination of minute samples from the exterior yielded convincing evidence of the antiquity of the object. The corro-sion products on the exterior were found to consist of a superficial layer of lead oxide adhering to the metal. Basic lead carbonate is commonly found on all old lead objects, but its presence is not a reliable indication of antiquity because thick layers of this substance can be easily produced on lead by chemical treatment. on the other hand, the presence of a hard adherent layer of lead oxide underlying lead carbonate is a charac-teristic of old lead that cannot be easily imitated by artificial treatment.

The chemical findings clearly show that this object also was not of recent origin.

Earle r. Caley

2Without any description, it is very hard to decide which one of the Velestino pieces made of lead was analyzed. The use of the word “amulet” suggests that the piece in ques-tion was rather small, perhaps Cat. 5, 20, Cat. 45, Cat. 68, or Cat. 69.


Appendix 2

Spectrographic analysis of 6 pieces from the Velestino hoard Winterthur Museum, Analytical Laboratory, February 19803

Element Cat. 11 Cat. 14 Cat. 2?a Cat. 4?b Cat. 32?c Cat. 78

Antimony 0.12408 0.15504 0.07517 0.06959 0.04847 0.05297Arsenic 0 0 0 0 0 0Bismuth 0.00232 0.00160 0.00292 0.00284 0.00626 0.00139Cadmium 0.2687 0.02332 0.04191 0.02695 0.02074 0.02376Cobalt 0 0.00772 0 0 0 0Copper 79.95258 75.90021 78.20535 79.32896 66.71904 88.347Gold 0 0 0 0.02983 0 0.04884Iron 0.20162 0.14709 0.35484 0.20984 0.31255 0.07694Lead 11.52574 14.06787 12.02011 14.16423 27.60104 6.08361Manganese 0 0 0 0 0 0Mercury 0 0 0 0 0 0Nickel 0.356 0 0 0 0 0Silver 0.27816 0.30954 0 0.00715 0.04239 0.01918Tin 6.66375 7.31657 9.29969 5.91789 5.24951 5.32677Zinc 0.86889 2.06602 0 0.22772 0 0.01955

aDescribed as “Princeton bronze design”bDescribed as “Princeton bronze beast”cDescribed as “Princeton bronze dog”

3Element weight in percentage.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04846-4


index

AAdam, 4–6, 27, 54, 78, 87, 127, 167Aesop, 40, 109, 113, 125, 192Alloys

brass, 2, 86, 87, 164, 165bronze, 2, 163–165, 172, 173copper, 2, 6, 163–165, 172–174,

185, 200lead, 2, 6, 163–165, 172, 173lead-tin, 164, 165, 172, 173, 190pewter, 165

Andocs, 152, 156, 189animals

cow, 106, 108, 122deer, 109dog, 53, 79, 109, 113, 153fantastic, 97, 98, 103, 104, 109,

113–116, 119, 121–123, 127, 143, 145, 149, 150, 152, 153, 175, 211, 217–224, 226, 227

horse, 52, 122, 125, 150–152lamb, 125, 220, 221leopard, 104, 111, 150, 153

lion, 102, 103, 111, 115, 127, 218ox, 106, 108rooster, 102, 150sea lion, 218, 219snake, 109, 116, 121, 143tiger, 103, 111wolf, 39, 40, 79, 109, 125, 219–221

animal styles, 25, 183, 188Perm, 183, 188Scythian, 25

Archangels, 47, 50, 53, 60, 143, 149, 161

Armenia, 60, 79Asia Minor, 5, 82, 109Avar period, 213

BBakhchesarai, 73Balgota, 198Balkans, 3, 5, 6, 71, 74, 75, 83, 109,

164, 165, 183, 187, 188, 197, 199, 200, 202, 203, 206, 211

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04846-4

234 INDEX

Baltic region, 126Belegezites, 3, 8, 200, 205, 213, 215Biala, 165Bijaći, 123Biskupija, 62, 64, 81, 117, 122, 135,

136, 145, 152, 161–163, 167, 197–199, 201, 203, 212

Bordj Djedid, 151buckles, 2, 6, 78, 152, 161, 165, 168,

184, 198. See also pseudo-buckles

CČarevci, 62Caričin Grad, 6, 117, 121, 127Carthage, 151casting, 2, 7, 27, 77, 126, 127,

161–169, 175, 184–186, 190, 191, 197, 198, 200, 201, 205, 212, 214

lost textile technique, 163lost wax technique, 161, 212

Cetina, river, 199, 200, 212Chalkodonion, Mount, 15, 18, 32Cherkasy, 62, 71, 127children, 39, 42, 125Christian, 3–5, 31, 60, 77, 100, 102,

103, 109, 145, 184, 186, 189, 200

Christianity, 3, 9, 77, 100, 124, 189Church fathers, 57Čitluk, 117, 119, 121, 126, 175, 199,

211, 212Córdoba, 77, 191Corinth, 4, 7, 117, 122, 129, 198, 215Costeşti, 78cross, 34, 50, 52, 54, 57, 78, 102,

103, 109, 115, 135, 137, 140, 145, 149–151, 153, 186, 220, 221, 224–226

crucible, 1, 2Cynocephali, 57

DDegtiarevka, 145Demetrias. See VolosDiadovo, 82dies, 1, 2, 62, 69, 73, 74, 78, 122,

128, 152, 163, 183–185, 187, 188, 198, 203

Dikovača-Zmijavci, 123Dnieper, river, 64Drobeta-Turnu Severin, 2, 6Durrës, 198, 199, 202,

203Dyrrachium. See Durrës

EEski Kermen, 65, 69, 73Eve, 54eyes, 40, 42, 50, 53, 57, 62, 67,

71–74, 102, 106, 146, 175

FFelnac, 72, 117, 121, 128Fibulae, 6, 34, 154, 161, 163, 168,

170, 184, 185, 191, 199, 205, 214

forgery, 3, 9, 119forming models, 175, 191

GGaponovo, 163, 164, 170,

171Gardun, 199, 204Glavice, 199, 204Gornji Bitelić, 199griffins, 114, 115, 119, 123, 126,

127, 145, 149–151, 153, 175, 199, 221

Gyapa, 65, 69, 73, 74

INDEX 235

Hhands, votive, 27, 35, 136, 137, 144,

175, 186, 226Hansca, 117, 122Horki, 164horsemen, 75, 77, 183

IIgumnovo, 65, 69–71, 117, 121, 122,

127, 128, 186Imotski, 123

JJurgaičiai, 164

KKamenica, 65, 69, 72, 84Kamenovo, 65, 69, 75, 214Kamunta, 72, 117, 121, 128Kaniv, 64Kara Dagh. See Mavro Vouni, MountKharkiv, 71, 172Khorol, 69, 82, 151Kissufim, 151, 153Knin, 62, 81, 145, 167, 199Kugulta, 65, 72, 84Kurilovka, 164, 171Kursk, 163, 164Kuzebaevo, 164, 190, 201

Lladle, 164, 171Lambousa, 151Lučani, 199Lucca, 183, 186, 187Luchistoe, 65, 69, 71, 83L’viv, 128

MMartynivka, 27, 35, 62, 67, 69–71,

73, 75, 97, 121, 122, 128, 151, 163, 186

hoard, 27, 35, 62, 64, 67, 69, 73, 75, 97, 122, 151, 163

mounts, 27, 62, 64, 67, 69–71, 73, 75, 121, 151, 163, 186

Mavrolithari, 32Mavro Vouni, Mount, 15metals

copper, 2, 7, 26, 163, 171, 174, 230

gold, 2, 26, 81, 87, 167–169, 201lead, 26, 29, 119, 163–165, 171–

174, 184, 187, 190, 230silver, 2, 7, 230tin, 2, 6, 7, 26, 164, 171, 172, 175,

190, 230zinc, 6, 164, 171, 172, 174

Mikhalkovo, 19Moscow, 8, 70, 76, 86, 129, 170, 188,

189, 191, 203, 206Moshchenka, 65, 69, 73, 74mould, 77, 87, 119, 121, 126, 162,

166, 167, 184, 185, 191musical instruments

crotales, 47, 49, 50, 151, 222, 223cymbals, 76gusli, 76harp (ψαλτηρίω), 42kantele, 76tambourine, 42trumpet (boukinon), 62

Mykolaiv, 21

NNea Anchialos, 31, 200Nikadzimava, 164Nikolaev. See Mykolaiv

236 INDEX

Nova odessa, 172, 185, 191Novigrad, 77, 123, 130Novobikkino, 129Novo Turbasly, 65, 74

Oochrid, 71odessa, 21, 33odžaci, 145olomouc, 164orhei, 73ornamental motif

C-shaped, 108, 109, 125, 140, 143, 144, 150

floral, 135, 145, 227P-shaped, 151scale, 111, 123, 143, 146S-shaped, 98, 128V-shaped, 70, 78, 143wave, 226

osh-Pando-Ner’, 65, 69, 74

Ppaganism, 9Paks, 73Pen’kivka, archaeological culture, 71Perun, 3, 9, 52Pervomaiskoe, 65, 75Pherai, 18, 200, 205Pirdop, 72Platar, hoard, 62, 67, 69, 70, 73, 121Pliskovo, 62Plisnes’k, 128Poltava, 69Pregradnaia, 65, 69, 72, 73, 117, 121,

128Preslav, 86, 173, 188pressing, technique, 183Pridraga, 77, 123Procopius of Caesarea, 3pseudo-buckles, 151, 154

Rrákóczifalva, 65, 73, 74razgrad, 75roztoky, 164, 173

SSabazios, 137saints

Andrew, 54Basil the Great, 78Christopher, 60, 78, 79, 150, 153,

186, 211Elizabeth, 60, 186George, 52Gregory the Theologian, 78John Chrysostom, 78John the Baptist, 42, 60, 186Theodore, 52

Samara, 62, 74, 154Sardis, 4, 5, 127, 165, 174Shamanism, 184Shirak, 79Shtish-Tufinë, 198Simargl, 146Slankamen, 62Smyrna, 69, 151Split, 52, 64, 81, 119, 126, 130, 156,

199, 203, 204, 212Stabio, 183, 186–188Stavropol, 72Sudzha, 164, 171Sudzha-Zamost’, 172Sula, river, 164Sumy, 164Sun, motif, 143, 144, 146Syracuse, 165, 199Szczecin, 9

TThebes, 200, 205, 206Thessaloniki, 4, 7

INDEX 237

Thor, 9Tichomiros, 200, 201, 205, 213Tiszafüred, 65, 71, 83Trebizond, 165, 198Trebujeni, 65, 69, 73Trubchevsk, 97, 117, 121, 128, 170,

172

UUfa, 74, 84Urzall, 65, 69, 71, 83

VVelyki Budky, 164Věrovany, 164Vienna, 32, 34, 82, 167, 169, 187,

201, 205, 218, 219, 221, 226Vinica, 52, 57, 62, 77, 150, 153Vladimirskoe, 62Volos, 31, 32, 200

Vrap, 169, 197, 198, 200–202, 212, 214, 215

Vrlika, 199Vrrin Shenavlash, 198

Wwarriors, 52, 79weapons

axe, 47lance, 224shield, 47, 50, 185, 186sword, 50, 185

ZZadar, 77, 123, 203Zagreb, 119, 126, 167, 203Zamárdi, 65, 75, 87Zbruch, 3, 9Žrnovnica, 52, 76, 77