Byzantine Jewellery of The Hungarian Con

Byzantine Jewellery of the Hungarian Conquest
Period: a View from the Balkans 1
Ádám Bollók
It seems appropriate to begin with a clarification of the Necropolis at Matičane near Priština’10 or ‘Report on the Old
chronological period in question. The Hungarian Conquest Slavic Findspots in Macedonia’.11 At the same time, southern
period, a generally accepted label in Central European Slavic research was fully aware of the fact that many of the
archaeological studies, has not gained currency in the English- jewellery types labelled Slavic could be derived from Byzantine
speaking world. In a strict historical sense, the period spans the prototypes. Those medieval wall paintings that survived the
arrival and settlement of the ancient Hungarian tribal alliance stormy centuries of Balkan history, most of which portray
in the Carpathian Basin between 895 and 902. Such a brief members of the aristocracy, show ladies wearing finely crafted
period, however, can hardly be studied or interpreted Byzantine earrings. Suffice it here to mention the late type of
archaeologically. The term ‘Hungarian Conquest period’ is crescentic earrings worn by the Lady Desislava on a fresco of
therefore used to denote a 70 to 150 year time-span, in part the Bojana Monastery.12 It is not mere chance that I spoke of an
owing to the above consideration, and in part to the nature of ‘awareness’ of Byzantine prototypes: scholars of early medieval
the archaeological evidence.2 In this paper, I shall focus on the Balkan archaeology constructed a rather peculiar model of
Byzantine jewellery3 of this period, i.e. the 10th century. The interpretation, according to which they discussed Slavic
first problem is the determination of what should be regarded jewellery and their Byzantine models without presenting the
as ‘Byzantine’ since it is sometimes difficult to distinguish actual Byzantine prototypes.13 This can in part be explained by
between genuine Byzantine pieces and copies of Byzantine the then rather poor extent to which excavation reports were
products made in the workshops of various fringe cultures. published, making the search for good parallels from the
While the same difficulties are encountered in the Late Antique heartland of the Byzantine Empire fairly difficult. It must also
to Early Byzantine period as well, scholars studying 6th–7th be borne in mind that scholars of the period accepted the
century Byzantine jewellery and the archaeological heritage of traditional view that exceptionally well-crafted pieces should
the Avars settling in the Carpathian Basin are in a slightly be interpreted as genuine Byzantine products, while simpler
better situation because, in addition to finely crafted pieces bronze variants were their local copies. This approach
from the empire, there are also several series of more simple, contributed to the identification of simpler Byzantine jewellery
mass-produced types.4 The 6th–7th century extent of the types worn as part of everyday costume, whose overwhelming
Byzantine empire too offers important clues because an majority was brought to light in the Balkans and the
ornament type known from North Africa, Syria, Asia Minor, Carpathian Basin, as Slavic products. In other words, simple,
and the Balkans can be more confidently identified as trinket-type Byzantine jewellery was, in this sense,
‘Byzantine’ than the 9th–11th century jewellery types known appropriated by Slavic research and defined as a Slavic ethnic
solely from the Balkans and the fringes of the empire. Adding marker.
to the uncertainties of identification is a peculiar feature of the It seems instructive to briefly discuss the weakness of this
9th–11th centuries, in contrast to Late Antiquity,5 in that there approach. While there is no apparent rationale for not
are few textiles, frescoes, icons or illuminated manuscripts identifying the jewellery items recovered from Slavic burials as
where items of jewellery are illustrated. The few portrayals of ‘Slavic’, one of the main problems in this respect is that very
jewellery are usually restricted to crescentic earrings, such as little is known about the region’s ethnic make-up during the
the ones on the two female figures appearing on the shroud of period in question. (To which we may add that the same holds
Bishop Günther,6 the pieces seen on the fresco portraying St true for several other regions too.)14 Slavic research holds that
Barbara in St Maria della Croce of Casaranello in southern the collapse of the Byzantine limes in the Lower Danube region
Italy,7 and on the great silk hangings of Brixen and Auxerre.8 in the late 6th and early 7th centuries and the settlement of
This is one of the main reasons that very few 9th–11th various Slavic groups in the Balkans meant that the regions
century Byzantine jewellery types appear in major studies and over which Byzantium lost her former control automatically
exhibition catalogues.9 Another can be sought in the 20th and immediately became Slavic, and thus the possible presence
century history of central and south-eastern Europe, where of other groups in these regions was not even considered, even
historical studies were imbued with ethnocentrism, and though the descendants of the Late Antique population
historical and archaeological research often served to bolster obviously remained in their homeland in most places.15 Due to
national identities and national narratives. Allow me to the lack of reliable research in this field, very little is known
illustrate the distorting influence of this ethnocentric view about the rate of admixture between the newly arriving Slavic
through a few examples. For many decades, the possibility that groups and the Late Antique population, or its extent by the
early medieval burials and their finds could be anything but 9th–10th centuries in various Balkan regions. The lack of
Slavic was not even considered in the Slavic states of the cremation burials in the Balkans, regarded as a distinctively
Balkans. This axiom was made obvious by the very titles of the ‘Slavic’ element, is very striking (one of the most typically
published articles, such as ‘New Finds from the Slavic Slavic Balkan cemeteries is known from Olympia in Greece,16
“Intelligible Beauty” | 179

Bollók
and another, later, burial ground has been excavated at Pulszky24 declared in 1891, ‘the ancient Hungarians were
Kašić17); at the same time, the 9th–11th century cemeteries conquerors and not craftsmen, and thus their jewellery was
across the Balkans interpreted as Slavic share numerous made by their servants and prisoners-of-wars, and the local
similarities with the inhumation burials characterised by population found here, in a period when art was on the
‘reduzierte Beigabensitte’ typical of the descendants of the Late decline.’25 This line of thought excluded even the possibility
Antique population from the 5th century onwards in other that the commoners of the Conquest period could ever be
regions. The exclusive interpretation of the post-7th century identified. In order to better understand the background to the
material as Slavic in the Slavic states of the northern Balkans, ethnic interpretation of the Bjelo Brdo culture, we must reach
designed to integrate the archaeological material into the back to the works of Sophus Müller, a Danish archaeologist,
national past, is problematic because this approach not only who had argued for the Slavic origins of S-terminalled lock-
obscures the colourful tapestry of the period, but also creates a rings, one of the most common finds of the Bjelo Brdo culture.26
virtually insurmountable obstacle to the better understanding His arguments for regarding this jewellery item as an ethnic
of the broader cultural context. The issue of how the jewellery marker of the Slavs were accepted by most European scholars
labelled ‘Slavic’ relates to simple Byzantine jewellery has never at the time. József Hampel’s monumental synthesis on the
been explored;18 instead, the problem has been written off by archaeology of the Conquest period,27 a variant of which was
speaking of the local bronze copies of Byzantine adornments in also published also in German,28 blended Pulszky’s national
gold and silver, which in effect obscures the obvious fact that romanticism and Müller’s ethnocentric views. He attributed
the greater part of the Byzantine Empire’s population was the Reihengräberfelder of the Bjelo Brdo culture to the Slavs of
made up of poor people, who wore simple bronze jewellery as the Carpathian Basin. The identification of the S-terminalled
part of their everyday costume.19 lock-rings with the Slavs coincided with the basic
The excavations in Corinth begun in the 1890s, yielding the interpretational framework of emerging Slavic archaeology: in
cast variants of 9th–11th century north Balkan jewellery types, an article appearing in 1894, Professor Lubor Niederle of
brought an important caveat regarding the weaknesses of this Prague, regarded as the founding father of Slavic
approach.20 It became painfully clear that the search for the archaeology,29 too argued that these lock-rings should be seen
everyday variants of Byzantine jewellery did not call for the as ethnic markers of the Slavs.30 Niederle’s views were widely
discovery of hitherto unknown prototypes of so-called Slavic accepted among the archaeologists and historians of the Slavic-
jewellery because they could be found among the ‘Slavic’ speaking lands.31
jewellery from south-east Europe and the Carpathian Basin. Another frequent approach, even in the Balkans, was the
Admittedly, the publication of the finds and findings of the analysis of archaeological assemblages from the perspective of
excavations in Corinth in the 1950s was an exception, rather modern nation-states, involving the projection of the modern
than the rule. This is still one of the main obstacles faced by state’s territory and the much-desired homogeneous nation
current research. The publication of 9th–11th century burials back into the past, leading to the interpretation of the
and settlements lying in the heartland of Byzantium lags far archaeological material as the heritage of an early nation-
behind that of the sites in the Carpathian Basin and the state.32 This approach disregarded the well-known multi-
Balkans.21 It is therefore hardly surprising that archaeologists ethnicity of eastern and south-eastern Europe, and the shifting
working in the Balkan states sought analogies to their finds boundaries of early medieval state formations. Since one of the
where they had the best chances of finding them, namely in priorities of archaeological research was the identification of
Central Europe – and the Carpathian Basin in particular – the ancestors of modern peoples, archaeologists were reluctant
where systematic archaeological exploration had begun in the to distinguish Byzantine elements. It therefore came as a
last third of the 19th century. By the late 19th century, genuine shock when the excavations on Late Antique sites, such
Hungarian archaeologists had classified the enormous as Corinth, brought to light artefact types, which had
quantities of artefacts recovered from burials and cemeteries, previously been categorised as Slavic or Avar.33 The ongoing
and had distinguished two archaeological cultures or, better debate over the Avar or ‘barbarian’ belt buckles between the
put, two archaeological horizons for the period in question: 1930s and the 1950s is very instructive in this respect.34 We
one typified by what were regarded as ‘typical ancient should at this point recall that in her book published in 1952,
Hungarian graves’ characterised by weapons, costume Gladys Davidson listed many analogous finds to the trapezoidal
accessories of precious metal, and horse burials, the other by Byzantine belt buckles, noting that she had received
humble commoners’ burials, erroneously labelled the Bjelo information on some of the unpublished pieces quoted by her
Brdo culture.22 The interpretative framework constructed at from Professor Gyula László back in 1937 – the implication
the time had a lasting impact on the research of the Conquest being that the buckles in question could be found both in the
period. Carpathian Basin and in Istanbul, Samos, and Laurion.35
A lively debate emerged on the ethnic background of the Davidson thus explored all possible options in her search for
Bjelo Brdo culture at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, parallels in order to identify Byzantine types since the material
with most of the period’s leading scholars agreeing that the culture of Byzantine daily life represented by these minor
culture represented the archaeological heritage of the Slavs.23 objects was virtually unknown.
This interpretation was rooted in the widespread romanticising A few years later, the interpretation of these buckles
and ethnocentric thought of the 19th century. Even the best appeared to be resolved. Two articles published simultaneously
minds in Hungarian archaeology were unable to conceptualise in 1955, one by Dezső Csallány,36 the other by Joachim Werner,37
the humble grave goods of the Bjelo Brdo culture as the both came to the conclusion, albeit through a slightly differing
archaeological heritage of the ancient Hungarians. As Ferenc approach, that these articles were Byzantine products. The two
180 | “Intelligible Beauty”

Byzantine Jewellery of the Hungarian Conquest Period: a View from the Balkans
while their more biased colleagues simply dismissed Szőke’s

findings and conclusions as some ‘great Hungarian dream’.48
Interestingly enough, from this perspective Szőke’s study had
little impact on Hungarian archaeological research since, even
after the 1960s, early medieval archaeological research was
dominated by a research perspective focusing almost
exclusively on eastern European finds and assemblages,49
without any apparent interest in the south-eastern European
elements of the commoners’ culture. The few scholars studying
these artefacts generally opted for the Slavic interpretation.50
The breakthrough in this respect came in the 1990s, when
Károly Mesterházy devoted two lengthy studies to two major
groups of finds with south-east European connections,51
namely trapezoidal buckles and certain jewellery types, such
Plate1 Jewellery of the so-called Bjelo Brdo type
as various types of earrings with four large and several smaller
approaches applied by these two scholars are suitable for globular pendants, lock-rings, bracelets decorated with small
describing the two analytical procedures by which the loops of wire, crescentic earrings, and filigree decorated finger-
Byzantine nature of most Byzantine finds has been rings (Pls 2–3).52 The title of his study is very telling:
determined: the first, through the publication of the finds from ‘Byzantine and Balkan finds from 10th–11th century Hungarian
the empire’s heartland; the second, through the comparative burials’. Mesterházy was apparently reluctant to determine
analysis of artefacts with a wide distribution in regions on the which pieces could be regarded as genuine Byzantine products
empire’s fringes.38 Still, neither approach resulted in and which as local, Balkan copies. A careful reading of his
immediately turning the research of Byzantine material study reveals the dilemma he was grappling with. Discussing a
culture onto the right track. Half a decade later, Werner again variant of cast crescentic earrings, he noted that ‘it is merely a
opted for an ethnic approach and defined certain brooch types question of time until variants made from precious metal are
as Slavic.39 The untenability of his views was noted by Dimitrios found in the more southerly regions of the Balkans’.53
Pallas,40 and later research too confirmed that these artefacts Elsewhere, he remarked that ‘the Byzantine origins of this type
could hardly be regarded as ethnic markers and that some of can hardly be rejected on the grounds that similar pieces have
the brooches in question can be regarded as Byzantine not been found in Byzantium’.54 Seeing that the bulk of the
products.41 south-eastern European earrings known from the Carpathian
Slavic archaeological research remained virtually Basin are represented by silver pieces and their cast bronze
unaffected by these new findings. The 1940s were marked by a copies, Mesterházy interpreted them as Balkan imports,
particularisation of research, rather than by the broadening of although he did suggest that some types were ‘either imports
the interpretative framework. Large-scale excavations were among both the local and the Hungarian population, or pieces
begun at Staré Mešto in Moravia,42 bringing to light an worn by the immigrant Slavic population’.55 It would appear
assemblage of finds speaking of a strong cultural impact from a that Mesterházy was unable to entirely break free of the Slav-
broadly interpreted Byzantine Kulturkreis. While centred interpretation of these artefacts. A few years later, he
acknowledging the undeniably Byzantine traits,43 local devoted a lengthy study to the 10th–11th century trade network
scholars persistently emphasised the Great Moravian, i.e. of the Carpathian Basin, based in part on south-east European
Slavic nature of the finds.44 Similar tendencies could be noted find types, affirming again that the pieces in this category
in Yugoslavian research. The first typologies and typo- should be regarded as imports, and specifically as the imports
chronological syntheses were conceived in the tradition of the of Balkan goods inspired by Byzantine products.56 He
Slavic ethnocentric perspective. Suffice it here to quote but a supported this view by demonstrating that many pieces from
single eloquent example. The Bjelo Brdo type jewellery (Pl. 1) the Carpathian Basin often share closer similarities with their
in the Serbian title of Mirjana Ćorović-Ljubinković’s study counterparts from the Balkans than with each other.57
became Slavic jewellery in the French summary.45 Countless A look at the finds from the Carpathian Basin from the
similar examples can be cited. Lurking in the background again perspective of the Balkans might contribute new hues to the
were the general political events of the period: in the later overall picture painted by earlier research. In addition to
1940s, the Soviet Union adopted and proclaimed Niederle’s searching for Balkan and Anatolian analogies to the finds, the
Slavic archaeology as the official research policy, which was identification of find types which lack a parallel might be
expected to be followed in the satellite countries too.46 The useful too. Valeri Grigorov’s excellent study on 7th–11th
jewellery items, which were earlier described as ornaments century metal jewellery from Bulgaria provides a good starting
found in Slavic graves, produced in workshops under point for this exercise.58 A closer look at his distribution maps
Byzantine influence, were now axiomatically categorised as indicates that there are hardly any 10th–11th century jewellery
jewellery reflecting Byzantine influence and therefore Slavic types which do not have their counterparts among the find
pieces. The fact that the Hungarian Béla Szőke had assemblages from the Carpathian Basin. Even though
convincingly demonstrated the Hungarian components and Grigorov’s data for the Carpathian Basin are rather patchy,59 it
poly-ethnic nature of the Bjelo Brdo culture in 1962 had little is quite obvious that the various jewellery types have smaller
effect.47 Even the more open-minded Slavic scholars continued concentrations in the Carpathian Basin than in the Balkans.
to regard the culture as a predominantly Slavic phenomenon, Disregarding the various wire ornaments in the later 10th and

Bollók
11th century find assemblages from the commoners’ alien elements in the archaeological heritage of the Conquest
cemeteries, the remaining jewellery articles are predominantly period. In order to place these finds into their proper context,
types which have strong affinities with south-east Europe.60 the issue of to what extent these finds can be regarded as
Knowing that an archaeological culture is not an entity per se, culturally Byzantine must be examined.
but a scholarly construct, its boundaries shift according to Two striking points emerge clearly from a closer look at the
which artefacts or burial customs are – more or less justifiably artefacts traditionally regarded as Byzantine products: very
or, conversely, arbitrarily – defined as its principal attributes few finely crafted items of precious metal with Mediterranean
and which are regarded as marginal phenomena. Current affinities are known from the Carpathian Basin, even though
Hungarian research tends to relegate pieces with Byzantine these are the types which are principally regarded as genuine
and/or Balkan connections to the category of irrelevant Byzantine wares. At the same time, there are several Byzantine
attributes.61 Viewed from the Balkans, the Carpathian Basin is jewellery types of which not one single piece has come to light
the northernmost extension of the south-east European in this region.
cultural koiné, even if the finds from that region are mixed Altogether 13 crescentic earrings, a jewellery type
with types rare in the Balkans, which in a certain sense traditionally identified as a Byzantine product, are known
dominate the region’s material culture.62 The relative frequency from eight sites in the Carpathian Basin to date (Pl. 5).67 The
of finds with south-east European affinities is especially first pair of these earrings to be found played an important role
striking if compared to the distribution of the typical artefacts in determining the type as a Byzantine import:68 the pair from
of the neighbouring regions in the Carpathian Basin. The finds Grave 1 at Kecel was made from gold and thus fitted the
of the so-called Hacksilberfunde horizon63 and of the Köttlach simplified criteria distilled from the axiom which equated good
culture,64 as well as the majority of the commodities obtained quality pieces with genuine Byzantine products. The silver
during the ancient Hungarians’ military campaigns,65 occur far bracelets from Tiszaeszlár (Pl. 6)69 and Szarvas (Pl. 7)70 were
less frequently in the material from the Carpathian Basin than identified as Byzantine goods on the same grounds. Both are
certain Balkan finger-ring types (Pl. 4).66 It is my belief that hinged bracelets: the birds on the piece from Tiszaeszlár and
these south-east European find types should not be regarded as the griffins on the one from Szarvas are alien to the decorative
Plate 2 Byzantine and Balkanic finds

from 10th–11th century Hungarian
burials according to K. Mesterházy’s
classification

Plate 3 Byzantine and Balkanic finds from 10th–11th century Hungarian burials according to K. Mesterházy’s Plate 4 Byzantine-type finger-ring
classification with widening bezel from Grave 255
at Ibrány-Esbóhalom
Plate 5 Silver earring of the crescent type Plate 6 Byzantine-type hinged bracelet from Grave 12, Cemetery II at
Tiszaeszlár–Bashalom

Bollók
Plate 7 Byzantine-type
hinged bracelet from Szarvas
motifs of the Conquest period. Curiously enough, no attempt Balkans.81 The activity of local workshops is reflected even
was made to search for similar pieces from the Mediterranean, more spectacularly by the presence of more variable types,
even though an overview of this type would have proved most especially in cases when social circumstances were conducive
instructive, seeing that comparable pieces from Byzantium, to the growth of workshop centres.82
whence they originated, are generally dated to the 11th–12th There are a few jewellery types, especially among the most
centuries71 – the pieces from Hungary thus furnish evidence lavish assemblages, which have not yet been found in the
that the type had already appeared in the 10th century. At the Carpathian Basin. These include earrings and finger-rings
same time, the silver and predominantly bronze trinkets found decorated with cloisonné enamel, whose absence from this
in addition to the finely crafted pieces could not be fitted into region is all the more striking because pieces from the 10th
the concept equating good quality jewellery articles with century are known from the Balkans: suffice it here to mention
Byzantine products. Neither should it be forgotten that the the crescentic earrings of the Preslav Treasure.83 The dating of
treatment of Byzantine types as Slavic, discussed above, the finger-ring type from the Kastro Tigani cemetery to the
remained unchallenged for a long time. The shortcomings and Middle Byzantine period seems somewhat controversial
the pitfalls of both viewpoints are apparent if the cemeteries because earlier publications assigned the entire burial ground
containing the burials of the Byzantine population are to the 6th–7th century.84 It might be more reasonable to
examined. The grave goods from the oft-analysed burial conclude that the cemetery has a Middle Byzantine phase.85 An
ground at Kastro Tigani72 included pieces made from the most earring from one of the burials is an 8th–11th century type,86
common non-precious metal types, indicating that jewellery while the finger-ring can most definitely be assigned to the
crafted from precious and non-precious metals were both Middle Byzantine period. David Buckton has convincingly
commonly used in Byzantium,73 and that their possession argued that cloisonné enamel was not used before the 9th
depended mostly on an individual’s wealth. The examination century in Byzantium.87 The bird depiction on the finger-ring is
of the jewellery types from larger Byzantine cemeteries proved best paralleled by finds from the 9th and 10th centuries, such
this point even more forcefully. The 233 burials of the Azoros as a bracelet from Thessalonica,88 the necklace and earrings of
cemetery in southern Thessaly yielded a rich assortment of the Preslav Treasure,89 and a pair of earrings in the British
Middle Byzantine jewellery.74 The finds included earring, Museum.90 The finger-ring from the Šestovici cemetery in the
finger-ring, and bracelet types known from the northern Ukraine (Pl. 8), the counterpart of the piece from Kastro
Balkans and the Carpathian Basin. Similarly, somewhat Tigani, can likewise be dated to the 10th–11th century.91 While
simpler jewellery types are known from the Greek mainland it might be argued that jewellery articles decorated with
and the Greek islands too.75 While it may be argued that these cloisonné enamel did not reach the Carpathian Basin owing to
were not Byzantine, but Balkan products, there has been a their cost, we admittedly know very little about the original
steady increase in comparable finds from the empire’s value of these pieces. A grave assemblage from Naupaktos must
Anatolian regions as shown by the few publications in this be cited in this respect. One burial in the partially excavated
field. The finds include finger-rings with a shield-shaped and published cemetery yielded a broken crescentic earring
bezel,76 hinged bracelets of sheet metal,77 twisted wire decorated with cloisonné enamel, suggesting that earrings of
bracelets,78 and earrings decorated with wire loops.79 There is this type were in some cases part of everyday costume. There is
no apparent reason to doubt that most of the comparable pieces nothing to indicate that the graves of the Naupaktos cemetery
from the Carpathian Basin were indeed simple jewellery
articles used also in Byzantium.
The issue of smaller workshops supplying a particular area
or region cannot be side-stepped, even though very little is
actually known about these workshops. While it is quite
obvious that some jewellery items represent the local variant of
a particular type, it is also clear that the basic form was
distributed over a fairly extensive area. What is uncertain is
whether a particular variant can be equated with the activity of
a workshop. To take but one example: finger-rings with a
widening bezel decorated with a heraldically posed eagle, or a
bird holding a leafy branch in its beak shown in profile, are
known from both the Balkans and Anatolia.80 The few
published Anatolian pieces also include types, such as the ones
bearing a human head, which are virtually lacking from the Plate 8 Byzantine finger-ring from Šestovci

uncovered to date contained the burials of high-ranking, attribution of the various types, subtypes, and variants
wealthy individuals.92 distinguished through a meticulous classification and
Basket earrings (Pl. 9) represent another jewellery type typological study of the finds will remain a problematic issue.
lacking from the archaeological record of the Carpathian The construction of categories, types and typological
Basin. In contrast to earlier views,93 which dated the use of the sequences is obviously an attempt to bring some order into the
type to the 6th–12th centuries,94 we may now rightly assume world around us. However, this approach is just one of the
that it represents a Middle Byzantine type.95 It would appear many techniques for studying the past. The creation of well-
that the 10th–11th century earrings of this type were mostly defined clusters, while undeniably useful, is not the single
distributed in the empire’s Anatolian region. To the best of my means of understanding the peoples of the past, whose world
knowledge, none are currently known from the Balkans. One was much more open in some respects, and considerably more
possible explanation for their absence from the Carpathian closed in others than we are apt to conceptualise today. We
Basin is that this earring type was solely distributed in the must make every effort not to become ensnared by our
eastern Mediterranean, but not in the Balkans. The same analytical approaches. Ancient peoples hardly thought in the
cannot be said of the glass bracelets appearing in the 10th–11th categories we employ today and a more fruitful approach in
centuries,96 which were popular in both the Balkans97 and this respect is to try to understand them on their own terms.
Anatolia,98 while no more than a few pieces are known from the Obviously, I am not against the modern analytical
Carpathian Basin.99 In sum, we may say that while exquisitely procedures used by our discipline. I merely wish to draw
crafted Byzantine pieces do appear in the archaeological attention to the fact that when speaking of Byzantine jewellery
record, as shown by the earring from Dunapentele (Pl. 10),100 and Byzantine cultural impacts, we tend to think in different
as do less elaborate jewellery items for daily wear,101 the categories than the people who actually wore these ornaments
distribution of 11th century types is much scantier than that of as part of their costume. This is quite natural since we can
10th century types. hardly place ourselves in the life and mindset of peoples who
Two major tasks must be resolved in order to gain a better lived a thousand years ago. However, if our aim is to
understanding of Byzantine jewellery of the 9th–11th contextualise our observations concerning a particular artefact
centuries. Firstly, there is a need for the publication of the find type – and this is, after all, one of our goals in cultivating
assemblages and their contexts from excavations conducted in archaeology – we can hardly ignore the people who used them.
the heartland of the Byzantine empire, because without this In other words, the main problem as I see it, is that many of the
corpus of data, it is virtually impossible to distinguish genuine artefacts we label Byzantine goods were hardly regarded as
Byzantine pieces from their local copies.102 Secondly, it is such by their contemporary users living several hundreds of
necessary to deconstruct existing interpretations of the kilometres away from Byzantium. This label had no political or
period’s so-called southern Slavic jewellery and to discard the cultural relevance for them. Depending on the actual situation,
former narrative on the ethnic interpretation of archaeological an artefact of this type represented a prestige item from a
finds.103 distant land (or a curious, alien artefact), a copy of the prestige
The latter seems to be the easier of the two since in this age items used by the élite of a smaller or larger community, or,
of post-modernism, the intellectual climate favours the conversely, the routine use of an item used by most people
construction of meta-histories and the rejection of former around them. This primarily depended on the extent to which
archaeological and historical narratives. Still, the separation of what we call Byzantine cultural impacts (whether genuine
genuine Byzantine articles and their copies from the Balkans pieces or copies) actually affected a particular community. The
and the Carpathian Basin will remain problematic even if contextual interpretation of the given artefact type in the
earlier assemblages and newly excavated ones are published recipient cultural environment obviously depended on the
according to modern standards. The precise cultural profoundness of the impact: the wider the distribution of an
artefact type and the more it was copied, the more it tells us
about the recipient culture, while the more traditional it
Plate 9 Byzantine gold earring of basket type, Athens, Benaki Museum Plate 10 Byzantine-type earring from Dunapentelei

Bollók
remained, the more it adhered to the original model, the more byzantinischer Herkunft in der Awarenzeit vom Ende des 6. bis zum
it reveals about the donor culture. Ende des 7. Jahrhundert, Budapest, 2001) have pointed out that
distinguishing those genuine Byzantine products reaching the
The bottom line of the above survey is that the lack of
Avars as ‘imports’ in the form of gifts, booty, subsidy, or trade from
certain artefact types seems to be most striking. The almost their local copies is still problematic: see, E. Riemer in Trierer
complete absence of elaborately crafted, outstanding Zeitschrift 65 (2002), 383–6; J. Drauschke in Zeitschrift für
Byzantine jewellery pieces suggests that the acculturation Archäologie des Mittelalters 34 (2006), 316–20.
5 One possible reason for the frequent depiction of jewellery in the
undergone by the ancient Hungarians after their settlement in Late Antique period has been discussed by B. Kiilerich, ‘The
the Carpathian Basin – whose archaeological imprints have Abundance of Nature – the Wealth of Man: Reflections on an Early
been discussed here – was a profound process. It would appear Byzantine Seasons Mosaic from Syria’, in E. Piltz and P. Åström
(eds), Kairos: Studies in Art History and Literature in Honour of
that instead of the superficial adoption or imitation of luxury
Professor Gunilla Åkerström-Hougen, Jonsered, 1998, 27–31. I would
items for prestige purposes, this was a process affecting like to thank László Török for calling my attention to this paper.
everyday life in this culture. To employ a slightly bold parallel: 6 For an excellent photo of the figures with earrings (in particular the
in the same way as Byzantium politically exploited and better preserved figure on the left) see, B. Borkopp and M. Restle,
‘Guntertuch’, in R. Baumstark (ed.), Rom und Byzanz, Schatz-
culturally moulded into her own likeness the states of the kammerstücke aus bayerischen Sammlungen, Munich, 1998, cat. no.
region which Dimitry Obolensky succinctly termed the 64, 209. The debate over the date of the shroud has flared up again:
Byzantine Commonwealth,103 there emerged a commonwealth the date in the early 11th century suggested by A. Grabar (‘La soie
byzantine de l’èvêque Gunther à la cathédrale de Bamberg’,
of material culture which to a smaller or greater extent
Münchener Jahrbuch der Bildenden Kunst 7 (1956), 7–26) and his
reflected Byzantium, whose members exploited this cultural followers (e.g. A. Geijer, ‘Bishop Gunther’s Shroud in Bamberg
heritage on their own terms. The ethnocentric, nationalistic Cathedral: Some Marginal Notes’, in M. Flury-Lemberg and K.
political narratives of the 19th and 20th centuries transformed Stolleis (eds), Documenta Textilia, Munich, 1981, 156–62) was
challenged in the early 1990s by G. Prinzing (‘Das Bamberger
this commonwealth into a Moravian, Serbian or Hungarian Guntertuch in neuer Sicht’, Byzantinoslavica 54 (1993), 218–31),
narrative. One major task of 21st century research will be to who linked the making of the shroud to the Bulgarian victory of the
identify the shared elements and the cultural dynamics of this emperor John I Tzimiskes in 971. In contrast, T. Papamastorakis
commonwealth in order to better understand its nature and (‘The Bamberg Hanging Reconsidered’, Deltion tēs Christianikēs
Archaiologikēs Etaireias 24 (2003), 375–92) believed that the shroud
how it actually functioned. could be linked to Nikephoros II Phokas’ triumphal procession of
965. M. Restle (‘Das Guntertuch im Domschatz von Bamberg’, in K.
Notes Belke, E. Kislinger, A. Külzer and M. A. Stassinopoulou (eds),
1 This study is a slightly expanded version of a paper read at the Byzantina Mediterranea, Vienna, 2007, 547–68) refuted
conference “Intelligible Beauty”: Recent Research on Byzantine Papamastorakis’ arguments and seconded Prinzing’s view, who
Jewellery’. In view of the complexity of the subject and its prolific maintained his earlier standpoint (G. Prinzing, ‘Nochmals zur
literature, I have only quoted the most recent literature and, as far historischen Deutung des Bamberger Guntertuches auf Johannes
as this was possible, those works published in a western European Tzimiskes’, in M. Kaimakova, M. Solomon and M. Smorąg Różycka
language. For a comprehensive survey of the literature on 9th–11th (eds), Byzantium, New Peoples, New Powers: The Byzantino-Slav
century Byzantine jewellery, see V. Grigorov, Metalni nakiti ot Contact Zone, from the Ninth to the Fifteenth Century (Byzantina et
srednevekovna Bălgarija (VII–XI v.), Sofia, 2007; A. Bosselmann- Slavica Cracoviensia 5), Cracow, 2007, 123–32). Despite the ongoing
Ruickbie’s PhD study (in print); and P. Langó’s PhD study (currently debate, a date in the later 10th century is now generally accepted. In
in preparation). For an excellent overview of the archaeology of the spite of the excellent conservation work on the shroud, its poor state
Slavic-speaking countries in the Balkans, see M. Takács, A középkor of preservation does not allow the reconstruction of minute details,
régészete az észak-balkáni régióban - párhuzamos és összehasonlító such as whether the female figure is shown wearing an earring or a
vizsgálat [The archaeology of the Middle Ages in the North Balkan temple pendant as suggested by Natalija Ristovska in her paper read
region. A parallel and comparative analysis] (in press). I am at the conference. For the shroud’s restoration see, S. Müller-
grateful to Miklós Takács for his wide-ranging lectures, which drew Christiansen, ‛Beobachtungen zum Bamberger Guntertuch’,
my attention to many issues of north Balkan archaeology and for Münchener Jahrbuch der Bildenden Kunst 17 (1966), 9–16, and
kindly allowing me to read his unpublished manuscript. This study eadem., Das Guntertuch im Bamberger Domschatz, Bamberg, 1966
was kindly supported by an OTKA grant (OTKA 72636). (the latter study was unavailable to me).
2 For a brief overview, see P. Langó, ‘Archaeological research on the 7 L. Safran, ‘Redating some South Italian Frescoes: The First Layer at
conquering Hungarians: A review’, in B.G. Mende (ed.), Research on S. Pietro, Otranto, and the Earliest Paintings at S. Maria Della
the prehistory of the Hungarians: A review, Budapest, 2005, 177–80. Croce, Casaranello’, Byzantion 60 (1990), 330, fig. 9.
3 It seems useful to clarify the term ‘jewellery’ as used in this paper. 8 For these silks, see A. Muthesius, Byzantine Silk Weaving AD 400 to
There is no general consensus as to what artefact groups should be AD 1200, Vienna, 1997, 47–50, figs 14A–B, 74A, 85B with earlier
included in this category. In some cases, adornments applied to the literature. For another perspective see, A. Cutler, ‘Imagination and
belt or the costume are also included. In the case of material Documentation: Eagle Silks in Byzantium, the Latin West and
cultures, whose remains predominantly originate from ´Abbasid Baghdad’, BZ 96 (2003), 67–72.
archaeological contexts (most often from cemetery excavations), a 9 While there has been a welcome proliferation of exhibition
distinction is often drawn between costume ornaments and catalogues presenting various collections, this has not resulted in
jewellery in order to better circumscribe the circumstances (and the identification of Middle Byzantine jewellery types intended for
ultimate aim) of deposition in the burial. The former generally daily use, even though some of these superb catalogues were
include various costume adornments – usually made from some organised around the theme of ‘Alltag/Everyday life’, at least in
non-perishable material, most often metal – while the latter their title, and a few indeed included pieces worn as part of
comprise articles used for decorating the body. Beads make up a everyday costume. Most of the latter, however, dated from the Late
special group of jewellery, which will not be discussed in this paper Antique period: see ‛Profane Welt und Alltag’, in C. Stiegemann
because their analysis has grown into an independent discipline (ed.), Byzanz: Das Licht aus dem Osten. Kult und Alltag im
with its own research techniques, among which various analytical Byzantinischen Reich vom 4. bis 15. Jahrhundert, Mainz, 2001, 231–
procedures occupy a prominent place to the extent that any 364; ‛Alltag und Luxus’, in L. Wamers (ed.), Die Welt von Byzanz –
advances in bead studies are practically unimaginable without Europas östliches Erbe, Munich, 2004, 213–367. An exceptionally
them. large number of pieces of Middle Byzantine jewellery can be seen in
4 Suffice it to quote here a single example for illustrating these the exhibition catalogue Kathēmerinē zōē sto Byzantino, Athens,
difficulties. Several reviewers of a recent monograph on Byzantine 2002.
objects in the material culture of the Avar period (É. Garam, Funde 10 V. Jovanović, L. Vuksanović and N. Berić, ‘New Finds from the

Slavic Necropolis at Matičane near Priština’, Balcanoslavica 1 d’orfèvrerie, soit en filigrane, soit en granulation ou combin, le plus
(1972), 107–11. souvent en or ou en argent. Tous ces exemplaires étaient considérés
11 B. Babić, ‘Report on the Old Slavic Findspots in Macedonia’, comme importation byzantine […] En Yougoslavie, sans doute, les
Balcanoslavica 4 (1975), 127–38. découvertes de Trilje et de Golubić, auraient représentés
12 For a good photograph, see J.D. Alchermes, ‘The Bulgarians’, in H. l’importation byzantine direct [...] Si nous opposons aux boucles
C. Evans and W. D. Wixom (eds), The Glory of Byzantium. Art and d’oreilles du dépôt de Boljetin les analogies mentionnées, autant de
Culture of the Middle Byzantine Era, A.D. 843–1261, New York, 1997, la Yougoslavie qu’au delà de ses frontières, visuellement et à la
320. See also the paper by Albani in this volume, pl. 2. première vue il n’y aurait pas de grandes différences dans la
13 For a recent example, see Ž. Tomičić’s study (‘O nekim vezama manière d’exécution de ces boucles d’oreilles et des boucles
ranosrednjovjekovne Slavonije i Dalmacije na primjeru d’oreilles ornées, ce qui permettrait de les considérer comme
polumjesecolikih naušnica s privjeskom’, Starahrvatska prosvetjeta Byzantines. Cependant la metal dont elles étaient faites, le cuivre et
30 (2003), 155–6) on a group of earrings with grape bunch pendants le bronze avec l’enduit mince d’étain, ne parle nullement en faveur
(Giesler’s Class 15c). For Giesler’s classification, see J. Giesler, de l’hypotèse de l’importation Byzantine quand il s’agit de ce dépôt
‛Untersuchungen zur Chronologie der Bijelo Brdo-Kultur. Ein de Boljetin’.
Beitrag zur Archäologie des 10. und 11. Jahrhunderts im 19 For social conditions in the rural areas of Byzantium during the
Karpatenbecken’, Prähistorische Zeitschrift 56 (1981), 3–168. 10th century, based chiefly on data from the southern Balkans, see
14 An exhaustive list of references would greatly exceed the scope of N. Oikonomidés, ‘The Social Structure of the Byzantine
this study and I will therefore merely refer to the ongoing debate in Countryside in the First Half of the Xth Century’, Symmeikta 10
this field: S. Brather, Ethnische Interpretationen in der (1996), 105–25. It is instructive to quote the data published by J.-C.
frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie (Reallexikon der Germanischen Cheynet and C. Morrisson on the income and subsistence
Altertumskunde – Ergänzungsbände 42), Berlin and New York, conditions of the different social groups in Byzantium: ‘three levels
2004; V. Bierbrauer, ‘Zur ethnische Interpretationen in der of income can be distinguished: (1) unqualified workers who were
frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie’, in W. Pohl (ed.), Die Suche nach able, over a long period, to earn at most 1 nomisma per month, when
den Ursprüngen, Vienna, 2004, 45–84; for the occasionally over- not unemployed; (2) qualified workers, professional soldiers, and
critical Anglo-Saxon attitude towards the continental craftsmen, who enjoyed a wide margin of income, three to ten times
(predominantly German) research tradition, see A. Gillett (ed.), On more than that of unqualified workers; and (3) important officials,
Barbarian Identity: Critical Approaches to Ethnicity in the Early judges or strategoi, as well as the wealthiest merchants and
Middle Ages (Studies in the Early Middle Ages 4), Turnhout, 2002. bankers, whose incomes differed from the first category by a factor
For a recent addition to the debate, see F. Curta, ‘Some remarks on of 150 or more’: C. Morrisson and J.-C. Cheynet, ‘Prices and Wages
ethnicity in medieval archaeology’, Early Medieval Europe 15 (2007), in the Byzantine World’, in A.E. Laiou (ed.), The Economic History of
159–85. Byzantium. From the Seventh through the Fifteenth Century,
15 It might rightly be argued that there was a marked population Washington DC, 2002, 872. Thus, if we know that one nomisma
decline in the Byzantine Empire during the 6th century which covered the monthly expenses of a poor family, a jewellery article
played a major role in the transformation of the earlier settlement equivalent to a pair of earrings weighing several nomismata should
structure. This obviously contributed to the dominance of Slav be treated according to its value in Byzantine society (cf. the pair of
groups in some regions, but it could hardly have led to the overall earrings from Kecel discussed below).
disappearance of the Romanised population. To quote but one 20 See G.R. Davidson, Corinth: results of excavations conducted by the
example: in the 12th–13th centuries, a major portion of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Vol. 12: The Minor
population of Asenid Bulgaria was made up of pastoralist groups Objects, Athens and Princeton N.J., 1952.
speaking a Neo-Latin tongue, who were slowly migrating 21 This holds true for the archaeology of Byzantine cemeteries too. It
northward from the more southerly regions of the Balkans: see, G. should be recalled that the overview of Byzantine cemetery
Ostrogorsky, History of the Byzantine State, Oxford, 1968 (2nd ed.), archaeology written by A. Rettner for the Byzantium exhibition
403–4, esp. 404, n. 1. For a general overview of the Balkans in the held in Munich in 2004 took up no more than a single page, and
6th century, see F. Curta, ‘Peasants as ‘Makeshift Soldiers for the included a mention of all the major burial grounds of the Early,
Occasion’: Sixth-Century Settlement Patterns in the Balkans’, in Middle and Late Byzantine period (cf. A. Rettner, ‘Grabbeigaben’, in
T.S. Burns and J.W. Eadie (eds), Urban Centers and Rural Contexts in Wamers [n. 9], 380). The record is rather patchy even if the number
Late Antiquity, East Lansing, 2001a, 199–217 (http://www.clas.ufl. of cemeteries mentioned by Rettner could be increased by a full list
edu/users/fcurta/ PEAS.pdf); and idem., The Making of the Slavs. of these cemeteries. The extent to which these burials have been
History and Archaeology of the Lower Danube Region, c. 500–700, destroyed is reflected by the comparison of the overall number of
Cambridge, 2001b, 121–50. For another perspective, see A. Dunn, 5th–7th century Byzantine buckles with the pieces known from
‘Continuity and Change in the Macedonian Countryside from burials, settlements and hoards (for a list of finds with a secure
Gallienus to Justinian’, in W. Bowden, L. Lavan and C. Machado context, see M. Schulze-Dörrlamm, Byzantinische Gürtelschnallen
(eds), Recent Research on the Late Antique Countryside (Late Antique und Gürtelbeschläge im Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum I,
Archaeology 2), Leiden and Boston, 2004, 535–86; and idem., ‘Rural Die Schnallen ohne Beschläg, mit Laschenbeschläg und mit Festem
Producers and Markets: Aspects of the Archaeological and Beschläg des 5. bis 7. Jahrhunderts, (Kataloge vor- und
Historical Problem’, in M. Grünbart, E. Kislinger, A. Muthesius and frühgeschichtlicher Altertümer Band 30), Mainz, 2002, 1–2).
D. Ch. Stathakopoulos (eds), Material Culture and Well-Being in 22 For an overview of this period in the history of research in English,
Byzantium (400–1453) (Veröffentlichungen zur Byzanzforschung see Langó (n. 2), 203–05; see also I. Bóna, ‘Die Archäologie in
11), Vienna, 2007, 101–9. The difficulties in this field of research are Ungarn und die ungarische Landnahme’, ActaArchHung 49 (1997),
reviewed by A. Dunn, ‘The transformation from polis to kastron in 347–9. J. Hampel did not use the label ‘Bjelo Brdo’: in his scheme,
the Balkans (III–VII cc.): general and regional perspectives’, this horizon appeared as Group B and was for a long time termed
Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 18 (1994), 60–80. ‘Hampel B’ in Hungarian research. The label ‘Bjelo Brdo culture’
16 T. Vida and T. Völling, Das slawische Brandgräberfeld von Olympia, appears to be ineradicable from the archaeological literature in
Rahden, 2000. spite of its multiple connotations. The choice of designation in the
17 J. Belošević, ‛Die ersten slawischen Urnengräber auf dem Gebiete early 20th century was motivated by the conviction of Slavic
Jugoslawiens aus dem Dorf Kašić bei Zadar’, Balcanoslavica 1 researchers that these Reihengräberfelder with poor grave goods
(1972), 73–86. represented the archaeological heritage of the Slavs. Even though
18 One good illustration of the approach equating quality with the the culture’s then known distribution predominantly coincided
place of manufacture, and of how even the very possibility of the with the Hungarian-speaking regions of the Carpathian Basin
existence of simple Byzantine jewellery has been rejected out of (meaning that the names of the sites where the culture’s finds had
hand, is provided by the discussion of the bronze earrings found at come to light were predominantly Hungarian), they consciously
Boljetin by: S. Ercegović-Pavlović, ‘Le dépôt des boucles d’oreilles strove to choose a type site which would, by its very name, reflect
de la fortification romano-byzantine à Boljetin sur le Danube’, the material’s cultural attribution to the Slavs, finally settling on
Archaeologica Iugoslavica 8 (1967), 93: ‘Tous ces exemplaires des the Bjelo Brdo site, even though it lay on the fringes of the culture’s
boucles d’oreilles mentionnés [Starě Méšto, etc.], y compris la paire distribution. (The selection of the type site can be linked to Lubor
de Mačvanska Mitrovica, ont été executés dans un haute technique Niederle, the founder of Slavic archaeology: see Cs. Bálint,

Bollók
Südungarn im 10. Jahrhundert (Studia Archaeologica 11), Budapest, Schmuckes. Doch wenn es sich um Funde solcher Ohrringe auf
1991, 161.) The anachronism of projecting an ethnic interpretation Lokalitäten, die weit entfernt von dem Karpatenbecken sind, dem
of this kind onto the 10th–11th centuries was disregarded, as was Mutterland der Bijelo Brdo-Kultur, handelt, wie z.B. die Funde aus
the simple fact that the name Bjelo Brdo does not appear in Nordalbanien und besonders Korinth, dann könnte man in solcher
medieval sources (unlike the two Hungarian settlements, Hagymás Fällen diese Erscheinung aber nicht mit dem Bijelo Brdo-Enfluss
and Szarvas, lying at a distance of 8.5km from each other, between erklären, sondern mit der Erzeugung einheimischer Werkstätten,
which the village of Bjelo Brdo lay): see A. Kiss, ‘Zur Frage der Bjelo die für einen weiten Verbraucherkreis einfacher Schmuck nach den
Brdo Kultur’, ActaArchHung 25 (1973), 334. The unbiased line of Vorbildern des prunkvollen byzantinischen Schmuckes erzeugten’.
archaeological research regards this culture as a poly-ethnic (V. Jovanović, ‛Über den frühmittelalterlichen Schmuck von Čečen
complex incorporating the burials of a political formation: first, the auf Kosovo', Balcanoslavica 5 [1976], 136.) Similar remarks were the
burials of the Hungarian Princedom and, after 1000, the exception rather than the rule, seeing that Jovanović raised the
commoners’ graves of the medieval Hungarian Kingdom, possibility of Byzantine prototypes only in the case of this
irrespective of ethnic groups. particular category of the finds from Čečen, and did not even
23 Langó (n. 2), 200–07. consider a similar option for the other articles in the find
24 For Pulszky and his influence on Hungarian archaeological assemblage despite the fact that their distribution showed a similar
thought, cf. Langó (n. 2), 200–02. pattern. It must here be noted that the label ‘Bjelo Brdo culture’ was
25 F. Pulszky, A magyar pogány sírleletek [Pagan Hungarian Graves] for a long time used in the broad sense owing to the many
(Értekezések a történeti tudományok köréből 14,3), Budapest, 1891, similarities between the finds from the Carpathian Basin and the
3. northern Balkans, as well as the assumed common ethnic
26 S. Müller, ‛Ueber slawische Schläfenringe’, Schlesiens Vorzeit in Bild background: the label denoted not only the 10th–12th century
und Schrift, Breslau, 1877, 189–97. The distribution of this artefact archaeological assemblages from the Carpathian Basin and the
type in the Carpathian Basin was mapped in 1956, based on the then neighbouring areas since the finds from the greater part of the
known corpus of finds: A. Kralovánszky, ‘Adatok az ún. S-végű northern Balkans were most often also lumped together here. The
hajkarikák etnikumjelző szerepéhez (Données sur les anneaux à latter usage, however, is misleading owing to the many differences
nattes dits à extrémités en s’ en leur qualité d’indiquer l’ethnie)’, between the two regions.
Archaeologiai Értesítő 83 (1956), 206–12. The next overview of the 34 For a history of earlier research and the relevant literature, see J.H.
well-datable specimens was published by K. Mesterházy, ‘Az S végű Rosser, ‘A Research Strategy for Byzantine Archaeology’, Byzantine
hajkarika elterjedése a Kárpát-medencében’, A Debreceni Déri Studies/Études byzantines 6 (1979), 153–4; E.A. Ivison, ‘Burial and
Múzeum Évkönyve 1 (1973), 95–111. The most remarkable grave Urbanism at Late Antique and Early Byzantine Corinth (c. AD 400–
assemblage of the past few decades was recovered from Grave 357 700)’, in N. Christie and S.T. Loseby (eds), Towns in Transition.
of the Csekej cemetery (Čakajovce, Slovakia), which yielded an Urban Evolution in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages,
S-terminalled lock-ring and a coin of Rudolph of Burgundy (923– London, 1996, 114–20, for a broader perspective; cf. E. Riemer,
36) (M. Rejholcová, Pohrebisko v Čakajovciach (9.–12. storočie). ‘Byzantinische Schnallen des 6. und 7. Jahrhunderts – Ein
Katalog, Nitra, 1995, 38, Tab. LVII), calling for a reassessment of the Forschungsüberblick’, in B. Päffgen, E. Pohl and M. Schmauder
artefact’s dating, whose use had earlier been assigned to the last (eds), Cum grano salis. Beiträge zur europäischen Vor- und
third of the 10th century onwards. Studies on the lock-ring’s Frühgeschichte. Festschrift für Volker Bierbrauer zum 65. Geburtstag,
regional distribution in Transylvania and County Heves suggest Friedberg, 2005, 269–82.
that the use of these lock-rings in those regions can be dated to a 35 ‘The information concerning these unpublished buckles was given
later period: see E. Gáll, ‘S-végű hajkarikák megjelenésének ideje me in 1937 by Prof. Gyula László’, Davidson (n. 20), 268, n. 38.
az Erdélyi-medencében (About the Beginning of the Spread of the 36 D. Čallany [Csallány], ‘Pamâtniki vizantijskogo
S-Shaped Lock Ring in the Transylvanian Basin)’, Acta Sicula metalloobrabatyvaûščego iskusstva I (Les monuments de
(2007), 239–51. l’industrie byzantine des métaux I)’, Acta Antiqua Academiae
27 J. Hampel, Újabb tanulmányok a honfoglalási kor emlékeiről (New Scientiarum Hungaricae 2 (1954), 311–48; idem., ‘Pamâtniki
studies on the antiquities of the Conquest period), Budapest, 1907. vizantijskogo metalloobrabatyvaûščego iskusstva II (Les
28 J. Hampel, Alterthümer des frühen Mittelalters in Ungarn I–III, monuments de l’industrie byzantine des métaux II)’, ibid., 4 (1956),
Braunschweig, 1905. The change in Hampel’s perspective 261–91.
compared to his previous synthesis published in 1900 can be felt in 37 J. Werner, ‛Byzantinische Gürtelschnallen des 6. und 7.
this monumental work, parts of which were also published in Jahrhunderts aus der Sammlung Diergardt’, Kölner Jahrbuch für
Hungarian two years later (cf. n. 27). Writing about the 10th–12th Vor- und Frühgeschichte 1 (1955), 36–48.
century Reihengräberfelder, Hampel (ibid., 32 ) noted that ‛Aller 38 Dezső Csallány offered an evaluation of the buckle collection
Warhscheinlichkeit nach haben wir viele von diesen bescheidenden purchased by Gyula Mészáros in Istanbul, which he brought with
Grabeinlagen slawischen Bewohnern des Ungarlandes him when he returned to Hungary, while Joachim Werner
zuzuerkennen’. discussed the buckles in the Diergardt Collection of the Römisch-
29 For Niederle and his scholarly oeuvre, see W. Antoniwiecz, Hołd Germanisches Museum in Cologne. They both provided an
wielkości Lubora Niederlego (Hommage à la grandeur de Lubor overview of the then known parallels to these buckles.
Niederle), Warsaw, 1948; B. Zástěrová, ‛Lubor Niederle historic (Der 39 J. Werner, ‛Slawische Bügelfibeln des 7. Jahrhunderts’, in G.
Historiker Lubor Niederle)’, Archeologické Rozhledy 19 (1967), 153– Behrens and J. Werner (eds), Reinecke-Festschrift zum 75.
65. Geburtstag von Paul Reinecke, Mainz, 1950, 150–72 (although he
30 L. Niederle, ‛Bemerkungen zu einige Charakteristiken der identified the ‛Martynovka’ type mounts as Byzantine products in
altschlawischen Gräber’, Mitteilungen der Anthropologischen this study: ibid., 169); idem., ‛Neues zur Frage der slawischen
Gesellschaft in Wien 24 (1894), 39–55. Bügelfibeln aus südosteuropäischen Ländern’, Germania 38 (1960),
31 Bálint (n. 22), 161. 114–20. For Werner’s ethnocentric approach and interpretation, see
32 See M. Takács’s monograph (n. 1). The main theses of the work have H. Fehr, ‛Hans Zeiss, Joachim Werner und die archäologischen
been summarised in another study: M. Takács, ‘A nemzetépítés Forschungen zur Merowingerzeit’, in H. Steuer (ed.), Eine
jegyében megfogalmazott elvárások. Kutatási célok az észak- hervorragend nationale Wissenschaft. Deutsche Prähistoriker
balkáni államok középkori régészetében (Expectations of nation zwischen 1900 und 1995 (Ergänzungsbände zum Reallexikon der
building. Research objectives in the medieval archaeology of the Germanischen Altertumskunde 29), Berlin and New York, 2001,
states of the Northern-Balkans)’, Korall 7 (2006), 163–202, 302. 311–415; idem., ‛Volkstum as Paradigm: Germanic People and
33 The impact of the finds from Corinth on Slavic archaeology is most Gallo-Romans in Early Medieval Archaeology since the 1930s’, in
instructive. It seems worthwhile to quote Voislav Jovanović in Gillett (n. 14), 177–200.
extenso, especially his remarks on the earrings from Čečen: 40 D. Pallas, ‘Données nouvelles sur quelques boucles et fibules
‛Solche Ohrringe werden sporadisch auf dem weiten Territorium considérées comme Avares et Slaves et sur Corinthe entre le VIe et
von der Slowakei bis Korinth und vom dalmatischen Kroatien bis le IXe siècles’, Byzantinobulgarica 7 (1981), 306–16.
Dobrudscha angetraten. Die grösste Zahl wurde auf jene Gebieten 41 C. Katsougiannopoulou, Studien zu ost- und südosteuropäischen
evidentiert, wo [...] die Bijelo Brdo-Kultur verbreitet war, und so Bügelfibeln, Bonn, 1997, 28, 78–9; Vida and Völling (n. 16), 26–32; F.
gehören solche Ohrringe in den Rahmen des Bijelo Brdo- Curta, ‘Female Dress and ‘Slavic’ Bow Fibulae in Greece’, Hesperia

74 (2005), 129–32. 49 Csanád Bálint described this research perspective as an ‘Orient-

42 V. Hrubý, Staré Město. Velkomoravské pohřebiště “Na Valách”, preference’: see Cs. Bálint, ‘On “Orient-preference” in
Prague, 1955. archaeological research on the Avars, proto-Bulgarians and
43 The various types and their chronology have been recently conquering Hungarians’, in J. Henning (ed.), Post-Roman Towns,
discussed by H. Chorvátová, ‘Horizonty byzantsko-orientálneho Trade and Settlement in Europe and Byzantium I, Berlin and New
šperku na tzv. vel’komoravských pohrebiskách (Horizonte des York, 2007, 545–62.
byzantinisch-orientalischen Schmucks auf den sogennanten 50 It is hardly surprising that Jochen Giesler proved to be the exception
großmährischen Gräberfeldern)’, in J. Bartik (ed.), Byzantská to this rule. Due to his German schooling, he remained unaffected
kultúra a Slovensko, Zborník štúkií, Bratislava, 2007, 83–101, and Š. by the research preferences of Hungarian scholarship. He
Ungerman, ‘Ženský šperk staršího velkomoravského horizontu convincingly demonstrated the Balkan connections of several
(Frauenschmuck des älteren großmährischen Horizonts)’, artefact types known from the Carpathian Basin: Giesler (n. 13),
Archeologické rozhledy 57 (2005), 707–49. For an attempt at a more 95–7. Hungarian reviews of Giesler’s study simply ignored these
realistic chronological framework, see B.M. Szőke, ‛Pannonien in issues.
der Karolingerzeit: Bemerkungen zur Chronologie des 51 In the introduction to his study, Mesterházy clearly stated that he
frühmittelalterlichen Fundmaterials in Westungarn’, Schild von would not discuss certain jewellery types, such as rings with
Steier, Beihefte, 2008/4, 46–9. widening bezels, necklace pendants, pendants and crosses, which
44 Although it must be mentioned in all fairness that Hrubý did also had south-eastern European affinities (the function of these
suggest that some might have been Byzantine imports: see Hrubý crosses in the Carpathian Basin is still debated because it is usually
(n. 42), 244. Allow me to illustrate the difficulties of research impossible to determine whether they were worn as religious relics
conducted from a national perspective by quoting Bořivoj Dostál’s or ‘jewellery’). These omissions have in part been remedied; see T.
definition of ‛Great Moravian’ jewellery: B. Dostál, ‛Zur Keszi, ‘10. századi zárt lemezgyűrűk pajzs alakúan kiszélesedő
Datierungsfrage des grossmährischen Schmucks’, Zalai Múzeum 3 fejjel, pentagramma és madár ábrázolással (Geschlossene
(1991), 81, 83, 84: ‛Als grossmährisch wird jener Schmuck Plattenringe aus dem X. Jahrhundert mit schildförmig
bezeichnet, den man auf dem ursprünglichen Territorium ausgebreitetem Kopf, mit Darstellung von Pentagramma und
Grossmährens [...] und auf einigen kurzfristig, angegliederten Vogel)’, in Á. Perémi (ed.), A népvándorláskor fiatal kutatói 8.
Regionen [...] in Flach- oder Hügelskelettgräbern mit den találkozójának előadásai, Veszprém, 1999, 1333–48; P. Langó and A.
Kennzeichen des heidnischen Begräbnisritus finden [...]’. We have Türk, ‘Honfoglalás kori sírok Mindszent–Koszorús-dűlőn. Adatok a
here an emphatically historical interpretation, which, obviously, szíjbefűzős bizánci csatok és a délkelet-európai kapcsolatú egyszerű
cannot be rejected out of hand, if the necessary critical filters are mellkeresztek tipológiájához (Landnahmezeitliche Gräber in
rigorously applied. What do we know about the chronology of these Mindszent–Koszorús-dűlő. Angaben zur Typologie der
jewellery articles? He continues: ‘Ich wiedmete mich ausfürlicher trapezförmigen byzantinischen Schnallen und einfachen
der donauländischen Komponente des grossmährischen Schmuck Brustkreuze mit südosteuropäischen Beziehungen)’, Móra Ferenc
und seiner Chronologie, um zu zeigen, dass sein Anfang schon in Múzeum Évkönyve – Studia Archaeologica 10 (2004), 386–403; P.
der vorgrossmährischen Zeit [...] und sein Ende in nachgross- Langó, ‘A kora Árpád-kori temetők kutatása [Research on the
mährischen Zeit [...] steckt[...]’. In other words, the distinctive cemeteries of the Early Árpádian Age]’, in E. Benkő and Gy. Kovács
jewellery of the state known from the historical records precedes (eds), A magyar középkorkutatás legújabb eredményei, in press
and survives the state, after which it had been named. Moreover, (included in the study is a list of the 62 reliquary pectoral crosses
‛Ohne gemeinsame Vorkommen mit typischen grossmährischen known to the author).
Waffen, Reiterausrüstung und Keramik und ohne Berück- 52 K. Mesterházy, ‛Bizánci és balkáni eredetű tárgyak a 10–11. századi
sichtigung schriftlicher Quellen wäre es nicht möglich, ihn als magyar sírleletekben I (Gegenstände byzantinischen und
grossmährisch zu unterscheiden’. Regarding the other component balkanischen Ursprunges in den ungarischen Gräberfeldern des
of ‛Great Moravian’ jewellery, namely the pieces bespeaking the 10.–11. Jhs. I)’, Folia Archaeologica 41 (1990), 87–115; idem., ‛Bizánci
cultural influence of Byzantium, Dostál notes that ‛Der Schmuck és balkáni eredetű tárgyak a 10–11. századi magyar sírleletekben II
der grossmährischen Oberschicht, der unter byzantinischen (Gegenstände byzantinischen und balkanischen Ursprunges in den
Einflüssen entstand, kommt überwiegend (ausser traubenartigen ungarischen Gräberfeldern des 10.–11. Jhs. II)’, Folia Archaeologica
Ohrringen) nur in den politischen Zentren vor, und im eigentlichen 42 (1991), 145–77.
Mähren ist er auf das 9. Jahrhundert beschränkt’. The principle is 53 Mesterházy 1991 (n. 52), 145.
not immediately apparent: a piece of jewellery is ‛Great Moravian’ 55 Ibid., 1990 (n. 52), 99.
if it came to light in an area mentioned in the written sources and 55 Ibid., 1991 (n. 52), 152.
identified archaeologically. However, the pieces or types in 56 K. Mesterházy, ‛Régészeti adatok Magyarország 10–11. századi
question cannot be linked exclusively to the Moravians either kereskedelméhez [Archaeological notes on 10th–11th century trade
chronologically, spatially, or culturally since they cannot be in Hungary]’, Századok 127 (1993), 450–68.
distinguished from similar finds in neighbouring regions. In other 57 Mesterházy 1991 (n. 52), 150, 168–70.
words, what we have here is an inter-regional koiné coloured by 58 Grigorov (n. 1).
local tastes. The jewellery items in question are ‛Great Moravian’ 59 One particular variant of the rings with a widening bezel,
only in the sense that they had been worn by Moravians. At the distributed in the Carpathian Basin, is entirely lacking from his
same time, claims concerning the ‛impact of Great Moravian maps (Grigorov’s Type III.6; for their distribution in the Carpathian
jewellery on neighbouring areas’ are culturally senseless. The oft- Basin, see Keszi [n. 51], 134), as is one type of crescentic earring
quoted textbook example of this outworn approach is a study by B. (Grigorov’s Type V.9; for their distribution in the Carpathian Basin,
Dostál, ‘Das Vordringen der grossmährischen materiellen Kultur in cf. n. 67): only five of the eight find spots in the Carpathian Basin
die Nachbarländer’, in Magna Moravia, Sborník k 1100. výročí appear on the map, Grigorov (n. 1), Obr. 84, 55.
příchodu byzantské mise na Moravu, Prague, 1965, 361–416. 60 Disregarding the ‘classical’ artefact types of the Conquest period.
45 M. Ćorović-Ljubinković, ‘Metalni nakiti belobrdskog tipa. 61 This point is best illustrated by the fact that these artefacts were
Grozdolike minđuše. – La parure en metal chez les slaves du sud aux virtually omitted in their entirety from the catalogue
IX–XIéme siècles. Boucles d’oreilles à appendice en forme de accompanying the superb exhibition organised on the 1100th
grappe’, Starinar 2 (1951), 21–56. anniversary of the Hungarian Conquest in the Hungarian National
46 Takács (n. 32), 168; Curta 2001b (n. 15), 10, 27. Museum in 1996: see I. Fodor, L. Révész and M. Wolf (eds), The
47 B. Szőke, ‘A bjelobrdoi kultúráról – Sur la civilisation Bjelobrdo’, Ancient Hungarians. Exhibition Catalogue, Budapest, Magyar
Archaeologiai Értesítő 86 (1959), 32–47; idem., A honfoglaló és kora Nemzeti Múzeum, 1996.
Árpád-kori magyarság régészeti emlékei [The Archaeological 62 Such as various wire ornaments and the S-terminalled lock-rings
Heritage of the Conquest period and the Early Árpádian Age] discussed in the above, which occur sporadically in the Balkans: see
(Régészeti Tanulmányok 1), Budapest, 1962. Grigorov (n. 1), Obr. 1, 41; Babić (n. 11), fig. 4.
48 E.g. Z. Vinski, ‛O postojanju radionica nakita starohrvatskog doba u 63 The finds of this horizon were discussed by K. Mesterházy,
Sisku (Zur Frage des Bestehens von Schmuckwerkstätten aus der ‘Hacksilberfunde im Karpatenbecken’, in G. Fusek (ed.), Zborník na
altkroatischen Zeit in Sisak)’, Vjesnik Arheološkog muzeja u Zagrebu počesť Bariny Bialekovej, Nitra, 2004, 235–50.
4 (1970), 86. 64 There is no recent study on Köttlach type artefacts in the 10th–11th

Bollók
century material from the Carpathian Basin. Leben. Grabbeigaben aus der byzantinischen und
65 L. Kovács, ‘Fegyverek és pénzek [Weapons and coins]’, in L. Kovács nachbyzantinischen Sammlung in Chania/Kreta’, in W. Hörander,
(ed.), Honfoglalás és régészet, Budapest, 1994, 181–94; idem., ‘Ami a J. Koder and M. A. Stassinopoulou (eds), Wiener Byzantinistik und
zsákmányból megmaradt [What remained of the booty]’, in L. Neogräzistik, Vienna, 2004, 53–60; see also, Albani’s study in the
Veszprémy (ed.), Honfoglaló őseink, Budapest, 1997, 109–27; idem., present volume.
‘A kalandozások hadművészete és zsákmányának régészeti emlékei 76 A. Ödekan, ‘The Remnants’, 12th and 13th centuries. Byzantine
(Die Kriegskunst der ungarischen Streifzüge und die objects in Turkey, Istanbul, 2007, 126–30.
archäologischen Denkmäler ihrer Beute)’, in L. Kredics (ed.), 77 Ibid., 269.
Válaszúton: pogányság-kereszténység, kelet-nyugat, Veszprém, 78 Found at Tille Höyük: J. Moore, Tille Höyük 1. The Medieval Period,
2000, 223–37. Ankara, 1983, fig. 55.3. (Unfortunately, an exact dating of the
66 E.g. the finger-rings with widening bezels, of which 73 pieces were bracelet within the Middle Byzantine period is impossible owing to
known from the Carpathian Basin in the mid-1990s: see Keszi (n. the lack of a stratigraphic context.)
51). 79 From Amorium: C. Lightfoot and M. Lightfoot, Amorium: an
67 Páty, Grave 41: S. Tettemanti, ‘A honfoglalás és államalapítás kora Archaeological Guide, Istanbul, 2007, 149.
[The Conquest period and the foundation of the medieval 80 Ödekan (n. 76), 126–7.
Hungarian state]’, in L. Simon (ed.), Kincseink, Szentendre, 2000/1, 81 Ibid., 129–30.
23, fig. 19; Vattina (Vatin), Grave 1: S. Borovszky, Temes vármegye 82 A historical situation of this type can be envisioned in the broader
[The royal county of Temes], Budapest, 1896, 236; Gyula-Téglagyár region of the Carpathian Basin during the 9th century. The smaller
grave 73 and a stray find: Mesterházy 1990 (n. 52), 94, Abb. 6.9 and centres emerging on the eastern fringes of the expanding
K. Bakay, Honfoglalás- és államalapítás kori temetők az Ipoly mentén Carolingian Empire in the Moravian Basin, Pannonia, and
(Gräberfelder an der Eipel aus der zeit der ungarischen Landnahme Dalmatia all had workshops catering to the needs of the local élite,
und Staatsgründung) (Studia Comitatensia 6), Szentendre, 1978, producing artefacts in a similar style adapted to local taste. These
179, Taf. LXIV.6; Kecel, Grave 1: N. Fettich, Die Metallkunst der workshops produced their own jewellery types during the Early
landnehmenden Ungarn (Archaeologica Hungarica 21), Budapest, Middle Ages, influenced in part by the repeated cultural impacts
1937, 259, Taf. CXVII.1–2; Sárrétudvari–Hízóföld, Grave 136: I. from the south: see B.M. Szőke, ‛Die Beziehungen zwischen dem
Nepper, Hajdú-Bihar megye 10–11. századi sírleletei II (The oberen Donautal und Westungarn in der ersten Hälfte des 9.
10th–11th century grave finds from County Hajdú-Bihar II), Jahrhunderts (Frauentrachtzubehör und Schmuck)’, in F. Daim
Budapest–Debrecen, 2002, 323, 192. kép, Szentes–Szentlászló, (ed.), Awarenforschungen I (Studien zur Archäologie der Awaren 4),
Grave 74: M. Széll, ‛XI. századi temetők Szentes környékén (11th Vienna, 1992, 862–3. For the changing views concerning the origins
century cemeteries in the Szentes area)’, Folia Archaeologica 3–4 of a particular jewellery type, see B.M. Szőke, ‘Karolinger-zeitliche
(1941), VI. t. 13; Tiszaeszlár–Bashalom, Grave I/3: I. Dienes, ‛Un Gräberfelder I–II von Garabonc–Ófalu’, Antaeus 21 (1992), 124–9
cimetière de hongrois conquérants à Bashalom’, ActaArchHung 7 and idem., ‘New findings of the excavations in Mosaburg/Zalavár
(1956), Pl. 57.8; Szeghalom–Korhány: unpublished. For the latter (Western Hungary)’, in Henning (n. 49), 412–3.
earring and a general discussion of this earring type, see P. Langó, 83 T. Totev, The Preslav Gold Treasure, Sofia, 1982, 52–7.
‘Crescent-shaped earrings with lower ornamental band’, (in press). 84 Cf. n. 72. An excellent colour photo of the ring has been published in
68 Fettich (n. 67), taf. CXVII. 1–2. Kypraiou (n. 71), cat. no. 197. One exception is a paper by L. Bouras,
69 The graves of this cemetery have still not been published in full. For ‘Four enamel rings in the Benaki Museum, Athens, and an enamel
a good photo of the bracelet, see Fodor et al. (n. 61), 190, figs 9–11. ring from the Mani’, in ‘The seventh British Museum enamel
For a general description of the cemetery and its finds, see ibid. colloquium, on materials and techniques of enamelling (1985),
70 J. Kovalovszki, ‛A szarvasi honfoglaláskori ezüst karperec (Das Résumés of papers’, Jewellery Studies 3 (1989), 87. I would like to
Silberarmband von Szarvas aus der Zeit der Landnahme)’, Folia thank David Buckton for calling my attention to the latter paper and
Archaeologica 12 (1960), 173–82. for sending me the above reference.
71 E.g. E. Kypraiou (ed.), Greek Jewellery, 6000 Years of Tradition, 85 It is difficult to fit the artefact types from the Tigani cemetery into a
Athens, 1997, 230–3, cat. nos 282–5; A. Gonosová and C. Kondoleon chronological scheme. Most of the buckles are 6th–7th century
(eds), Art of Late Rome and Byzantium in the Virginia Museum of examples of the ‘Corinth’ type. The buckle from Grave 52, which
Fine Arts, Richmond, Virginia Museum of Fine Arts, 1994, 74–7, cat. also contained the finger-ring, can be assigned to the buckle type
no. 18. with U-shaped buckle plate (no photo is available of this find),
72 The cemetery and its graves were first published by N. Drandakes whose 8th century date cannot be excluded. This would fit in with
and N. Gkioles, ‘Anaskafē sto Tigani tēs Manēs’, Praktika tēs en the early 8th century date of the crescentic earring (cf. n. 86). (It
Athenais Archaiologikēs Etaireias (hereafter PrakArchEt) (1980), must be noted here that the globules typical for earrings of the
247–58; N. Drandakes, N. Gkioles and K. Kōnstantinides, ‘Anaskafē Middle Byzantine period can be clearly made out on the earring’s
sto Tigani Manēs’, PrakArchEt (1981), 241–53, N. Drandakes and N. hoop, but the piece itself has a hoop and hook fastener. This type of
Gkioles, ‘Anaskafē sto Tigani tēs Manēs’, PrakArchEt (1983), 264–70. fastener, widespread during the Early Byzantine period, survived
A description of the burials and a few select finds was published in into the next period, although it was uncommon in the case of the
German by C. Katsougiannopoulou, ‘Einige Überlegungen zum crescentic type in question. It seems to me that this was a feature
byzantinischen Friedhof in Tigani auf dem Peloponnes’, in E. Pohl, probably characterising the early pieces of the type.) It is uncertain
U. Recker and C. Theune (eds), Archäologisches Zellwerk. Beiträge how the date of the cloisonné enamelled finger-ring can be
zur Kulturgeschichte in Europa und Asien. Festschrift für Helmut harmonised with the above: one possibility is that the U-shaped
Roth zum 60. Geburtstag (Internationale Archäologie, Studia buckles were late pieces surviving into the early 9th century,
honoraria 16), Rahden, 2001, 461–9. A selection of the more another is that the finger-ring represents one of the earliest
remarkable finds and their colour photos can be found in Kypraiou cloisonné enamelled jewellery pieces. Be that as it may, this issue
(n. 71), but unfortunately without an indication of the grave can only be resolved with the publication of other cemeteries. What
numbers. Seeing that most of the grave goods are known only from seems certain from the dominance of Early Byzantine artefacts and
their description, with photos available for a few only, the almost complete lack of classical Middle Byzantine pieces is that
Katsougiannopoulou’s assessment (ibid., 465) is hardly an Grave 52 can be assigned to the latest phase of the Tigani cemetery
exaggeration: ‛die Vorlage des Friedhofs in Tigani sehr summerisch and dated to the beginning of the Middle Byzantine period. David
geblieben ist. Leider ist dies kein Einzelfall, aus dem griechischen Buckton believes that cloisonné enamelled jewellery began to be
Gebiet in byzantinischer Zeit liegen zwar Zahlreiche Grabfunde manufactured from around 800: cf. n. 87. While a break in the use of
bzw. Friedhöfe vor, doch sind diese in der Regel nur sehr knapp the cemetery cannot be excluded, there is nothing to indicate such
publiziert worden’. an event.
73 Drauschke (n. 4), 317, noted this in connection with this cemetery. 86 For a photo of the earring, cf. Kypraiou (n. 71), 182, cat. no. 199 (with
74 L. Deriziōtēs and S. Kougioumtzoglou, ‘Ē perraibikē Tripolitis kata a dating to the 6th century, N.B. Drandakes). Antje Bosselmann-
tēn palaiochristianikē kai byzantinē periodo (topografia – istoria – Ruickbie suggested a 9th–11th century date for the earring: see A.
archaiologikēs anakalypseis)’, Thessaliko ēmerologio 48 (2005), Bosselmann-Ruickbie, ‛Mittelbyzantinische Ohrringe mit Filigran
140–1, eik. 9, 16–22. und Granulation’, in Wamers (n. 9), 324. In her comment on my
75 Cf. for example Chania: J. Albani, ‛In der Hoffnung auf ewiges paper read at the conference, Yvonne Stolz mentioned that a similar

earring, found in an 8th century context, will be published in her Borisov, Djadovo. Bulgarian, Dutch, Japanese Expedition I. Medieval
doctoral dissertation. I would like to thank her for this piece of Settlement and Necropolis (11th–12th Century), Tokyo, 1989, 292–3),
information. while the pieces from Macedonia are generally assigned to the 11th
87 D. Buckton, ‘Enamelling on Gold. A historical perspective’, Gold century (E. Taleska, ‘Prilog kon proučuvan’e na srednovekovni
Bulletin 15 (1982), 105; idem., ‛The Oppenheim or Fieschi-Morgan belezici od staklovina na teritorijata na SR Srbija, SR Makedonija i
Reliquary in New York, and the Antecedents of Middle Byzantine NR Bulgarija (Contribution to the investigation of the medieval
Enamel’, in 8th Annual Byzantine Studies Conference. Abstracts and glass bracelets on the territory of Serbia, Macedonia and Bulgaria)’,
Papers, 35–6, Chicago, 1982, 35–6; idem., ‘Byzantine Enamel and in M. Apostolski (ed.), Zbornik posvetenei na Boško Babić, Prilep,
the West’, Byzantinische Forschungen 13 (1988), 235–44. 1986, 215–21). A large number of well dated pieces have recently
88 For a photo and a description of the bracelet, see Evans and Wixom been published from Amorium: M.A.V. Gill, Amorium Reports,
(n. 12), 243–4, cat. no. 165A (S.T. Brooks), with the earlier literature. Finds I. The glass (1987–1997) (BAR International Series 1070),
89 Totev (n. 83), 40–3, 46–9, figs 6–7, 9, 11, 13 (necklace), 56–7, fig. 17 Oxford, 2002.
(earring). 97 For a brief overview of the earlier literature, see Borisov (n. 96),
90 D. Buckton (ed.), Byzantium: Treasures of Byzantine Art and Culture 290–3.
from British Collections, London, 1994, cat. no. 142 (D. Buckton). 98 Ödekan (n. 76), 263–5 and Gill (n. 96).
See also Albani this volume, pl. 5. 99 One such bracelet was found in Grave 2 at Ludányhalászi–Apáti
91 D. I. Blifeld, Davn’orusky pam’jatniki Šestovicy, Kiev, 1977, Tab. puszta: S. Pintér, ‘Nógrádvidéki régészeti kutatásokról
XXXII.1. [Archaeological investigations in the Nógrád region]’,
92 M. Petritakes in Archaiologikon Deltion, Chronica 42 (1987), 175, Archaeologiai Értesítő 7 (1887), 431. I would to thank Péter Langó
pin. 86; for the cemetery map, cf. ibid ., 174. and László Kovács for calling my attention to this piece.
93 For a good overview of the earlier proposals for the date of basket 100 I. Bóna, Dunapentele története a honfoglalástól a 19. század közepéig
earrings, Gonosová and Kondoleon (n. 71), 83, 95, cat. nos 22, 30 (C. a már eddig ismert, valamint újonnan bevont adatok alapján
Kondoleon). [History of Dunapentele from the Conquest period to the mid-19th
94 Some pieces were dated even earlier, to the 3rd century: cf. A. century], Dunapentele, 1997 (2nd ed.), 3 kép; Mesterházy (n. 63),
Yeroulanou, Diatrita. Pierced-work gold jewellery from the 3rd to the Abb. 4. 1–2.
7th century, Athens, Benaki Museum, 1999, 277–8, cat. nos 462–4. 101 Mesterházy 1991 (n. 52), 156, fig. 6.
Yeroulanou correctly noted that ‘it is difficult to include them 102 Byzantine archaeology as an independent field of research is
among pierced-work jewellery because the true pierced-work hardly a well–established discipline: while several other fields of
surfaces are minimal. Many of the holes in the surfaces are actually research overlap with it, none of them correlate precisely with
formed from wire, that is from small links soldered together, while what Byzantine archaeology should be about. Christian
others were formed by perforating the metal’ (ibid., 74). The archaeology, focusing predominantly on the archaeology of
technical differences between genuine Early Byzantine opus buildings, does not include several areas of interest, and seems
interrasile and Middle Byzantine openwork jewellery are hardly uncertain regarding its self-definition: see H.R. Seeliger,
surprising, given the many centuries between the two. ‛Christliche Archäologie oder spätantike Kunstgeschichte?
95 The pieces dated to the Early Byzantine period are without Aktuelle Grundlagenfragen aus der Sicht der Kirchengeschichte’,
exception stray finds, whose dating to the 3rd–7th centuries lacks Rivista di archeologia christiana 61 (1985), 167–87. Late Antique
convincing arguments. More recently found pieces with secure archaeology, the other advanced field of research, while definitely
contexts are all Middle Byzantine; as far as I know, earrings of this witnessing a thematic explosion (reflected by the series of
type have not been recovered from Early Byzantine burials in spite conferences and publications of more recent years), merely
of the latter’s higher number: see R.M. Harrison, Excavations at encompasses the study of the Early Byzantine period. One
Saraçane in Istanbul I, Princeton and Washington, 1986, cat. no. 597 welcome advance is the birth of a forum dedicated to the
(from a layer dated by a mid-10th-century coin); M. Jenkins- archaeology of the Middle Byzantine period (http://www.byzarch.
Madina, ‘Jewelry’, in G.F. Bass et alii, Serçe Limanı: An Eleventh- bham.ac.uk/intro.htm). Still, a number of issues raised in the 1970s
Century Shipwreck I, Texas A&M University Press, 2004, 289–90 and 1980s remain unresolved: see Rosser (n. 34); T.E. Gregory,
(from a ship dated by early 11th century coins); C. Lightfoot and E. ‛Intensive Archaeological Survey and its Place in Byzantine
Ivison, ‘Amorium 2006’, Anatolian Archaeology 12 (2006), 31. After Studies’, Byzantine Studies/Études Byzantines 13 (1986), 155–75;
finishing this manuscript, I came across Bossellmann-Ruickbie’s D.W. Rupp, ‘Problems in Byzantine Field Reconnaissance: A Non-
article, which came to a similar conclusion concerning the Middle Specialist’s View’, Byzantine Studies/Études Byzantines 13 (1986),
Byzantine date of the currently known basket earrings: see A. 177–88; M.L. Rautman, ‘Archaeology and Byzantine Studies’,
Bossellmann-Ruickbie, ‛Byzantinisch, Islamisch oder Byzantinische Forschungen 15 (1990), 137–65. The problems of
‛Internationaler Stil’? Email- und Körbchenohrringe aus dem ‘Byzantine archaeology’ are presented from an east central
östlichen Mittelmerraum’, in U. Koenen and M. Müller-Wiener European perspective with a focus on the artefacts of everyday life
(eds), Grenzgänge im östlichen Mittelmeerraum, Byzanz und die by M. Wołoszyn, ‘Byzantine Archaeology – selected problems’,
islamische Welt vom 9. bis 13. Jahrhundert, Wiesbaden, 2008, 85–96. Analecta Archaeologica Ressoviensia 1 (2006), 259–89.
96 The pieces from the Balkans and Anatolia are generally dated to the 103 For a brief analysis of Slavic archaeology employing also the
10th century and later. An earlier use is suggested by A. Antōnaras, criteria of Western research, see Curta 2001b (n. 15), 6–27; F.
‘Gyalina mesobyzantina brahiolai. Symbolēse themata diadosēs, Curta, ‘From Kossinna to Bromley: Ethnogenesis in Slavic
paragōgēs, typologias kai hrēsēs (Middle Byzantine Glass Bracelets. Archaeology’, in Gillett (n. 14), 201–18. For an overview of Slavic
Contribution to Issues of Distribution, Production, Typology and archaeology in the Balkans, see the studies of Miklós Takács
Use)’, Deltion tēs Christianikēs Archaiologikēs Etaireias 27 (2006), quoted in n. 32.
423–34. However, glass bracelets are rare finds in the Crimea before 104 D. Obolensky, The Byzantine Commonwealth. East Europe, 500–
the mid-10th century and their widespread use can only be 1453, London, 1974; for a broader perspective, see G. Fowden,
documented from the late 10th–early 11th century: V. V. Majko, Empire to commonwealth: consequences of monotheism in Late
Srednevekovye nekropoli Sudakskoj doliny, Kiev, 2007, 120. Antiquity, Princeton, 1993.
Bulgarian research too dates the type to the 10th century (B.D.

Byzantine Jewellery of The Hungarian Con

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Byzantine Jewellery of The Hungarian Con

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Byzantine Jewellery of The Hungarian Con

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Byzantine Jewellery of the Hungarian Conquest

Period: a View from the Balkans 1

“Intelligible Beauty” | 179

180 | “Intelligible Beauty”

while their more biased colleagues simply dismissed Szőke’s

“Intelligible Beauty” | 181

Plate 2 Byzantine and Balkanic finds

182 | “Intelligible Beauty”

“Intelligible Beauty” | 183

184 | “Intelligible Beauty”

“Intelligible Beauty” | 185

186 | “Intelligible Beauty”

“Intelligible Beauty” | 187

188 | “Intelligible Beauty”

74 (2005), 129–32. 49 Csanád Bálint described this research perspective as an ‘Orient-

“Intelligible Beauty” | 189

190 | “Intelligible Beauty”

“Intelligible Beauty” | 191

You might also like