06 Tsivikis Libre

Byzantine Small FindS in archaeological contextS

oFFPrint / ayriBaSim

deUtScheS archaologiScheS inStitUtaBteilUng iStanBUl

ByzaS 15Veröffentlichungen des deutschen archäologischen instituts istanbul

Byzantine Small FindS in archaeological contextS

editors

Beate Böhlendorf-arslan alessandra ricci

gedruckt mit Fördermitteln der gerda henkel Stiftung

Byzantine Small Finds in archaeological contexts

editors


ByzaS 15

Veröffentlichungen des deutschen archäologischen instituts istanbul

herausgegeben von

Felix Pirson und martin Bachmann

© 2012 ege yay›nlar›

iSBn 978-605-5607-82-1

certificate no. 14641

Umschlaggestaltung

(Kreuz aus raum 2 des gehöft 4 von Boğazköy. Foto: Boğazköy-archiv).Jürgen Seeher

redaktion

Beate Böhlendorf-arslan

druckmaS matbaacılık a.Ş.

hamidiye mah. Soğuksu cad. no. 3 Kağıthane - İstanbul / türkiye

tel: +90 (212) 294 10 00 Fax: +90 (212) 294 90 [email protected].: 12055

Produktion und Vertriebzero Prod. ltd.

abdullah Sokak. no: 17 taksim 34433 istanbul-turkeytel: +90 (212) 244 75 21 Fax: +90 (212) 244 32 09

[email protected]/eng/

contents / İçindekiler

Vorwort (F. Pirson / m. Bachmann) ...................................................................................................................................................... ix

Preface (S. redford) ................................................................................................................................................................................................. xi

Preface / Önsöz (z. S. Kızıltan) .............................................................................................................................................................. xiii

editor’s Preface (B. Böhlendorf-arslan / a. ricci) .......................................................................................................... xVii

rome-Byzantium affinity and difference in the Production of luxury goodsmarco ricci ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 1

mapping Byzantine trade and culture: an introduction to the artefacts from Salento, Southern italy

Paul arthur ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 17

the Working and Use of metals in the Salento Peninsula (apulia, italy) from Byzantine to angevin times. Preliminary results

luciano Piepoli .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 27

zur materiellen Kultur des byzantinischen SizilienSusanne metaxas .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 39

early Byzantine glass from athens (5th–8th centuries)e. marianne Stern ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 49

considerations on Some Bronze Buckles from Byzantine messenenikos tsivikis ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 61

holy Bread Stamps from early Byzantine delphiPlaton Petridis ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 81

early Byzantine iron helmets from novae (the diocese of thrace)andrzej B. Biernacki .................................................................................................................................................................................... 91

zur identifizierung «byzantinischer» Feinschmiedearbeiten mithilfe herstellungstechnischer Studien unter besonderer Berücksichtigung von Funden aus dem awarischen Siedlungsgebiet

Birgit Bühler ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 105

middle and late Byzantine Jewellery from thessaloniki and its regionanastassios c. antonaras ...................................................................................................................................................................... 117

Contents / İçindekilerVI

Kleinfunde aus der Basilikagrabung am Kalekapı in marmara ereğlisi (herakleia Perinthos)

Stephan Westphalen .................................................................................................................................................................................. 127

yenikapı Kazısı ahşap Buluntularım. metin gökçay ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 137

left Behind: Small Sized objects from the middle Byzantine monastic complex of Satyros (Küçükyali, istanbul)

alessandra ricci .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 147

Ören (adramytteion antik Kenti) Kazılarında ele geçen Bizans Küçük Buluntulartülin Çoruhlu ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 163

Byzantinischer Schmuck und trachtbestandteile aus Pergamonandrea Pirson ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 173

grave goods from the necropolis in the agora of iasosFede Berti .............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 187

Byzantinische Kleinfunde und trachtbestandteile aus ephesosandrea m. Pülz ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 213

Kuşadası, Kadıkalesi/anaia Kazısı: Bizans döneminden Birkaç Küçük Buluntuzeynep mercangöz ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 223

Byzantine lead Seals from the Kadıkalesi/anaia excavationsVera Bulgurlu .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 233

a Byzantine lead amulet from Samosevangelia dafi ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 241

Placing ‹contexts› in a context: minor objects from medieval androsnikos d. Kontogiannis / Smaragdi i. arvaniti ............................................................................................................. 249

Small Finds from the early christian Settlement of Kefalos in cos, dodecaneseevangelia militsi .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 263

«the Building with mosaics» in olympos: a comparative evaluation of Finds and Building construction

muradiye Öztaşkın / gökçen Kurtuluş Öztaşkın ...................................................................................................... 277

Byzantine Small Finds from elaiussa Sebasteadele Federica Ferrazzoli .................................................................................................................................................................... 289

medieval Small Finds from the yumuktepe excavations 1993-2008gülgün Köroğlu .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 309

Small Finds from the early 9th century destruction at amoriumoğuz Koçyiğit .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 319

Small Finds for the dating of a tomb at amoriumhüseyin yaman ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 331

middle Byzantine textile Finds from amoriumPetra linscheid ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 343

das bewegliche inventar eines mittelbyzantinischen dorfes: Kleinfunde aus Boğazköy Beate Böhlendorf-arslan ...................................................................................................................................................................... 351

Contents / İçindekiler VII

der gegenstand im Bild. zur Kontextualisierung von realien in der byzantinischen Wandmalerei Kappadokiens

rainer Warland ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 369

a twelfth Century iron Workshop at Kinet, turkeyScott redford .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 385

Small Finds from zeytinli Bahçe - Birecik (Urfa)Francesca dell‘era ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 393

early Byzantine military Fibulas with returned Foot from South-Western Crimeaalexander aibabin ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 407

early medieval Crosses from the South-Western Crimeaelzara a. Khairedinova ........................................................................................................................................................................... 417

Byzantine Bone Wares from Chersonesos in taurica: interpretation and Chronologyelena Klenina .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 441

metal Small Finds from Sinai. Preliminary remarksdionysios mourelatos ............................................................................................................................................................................... 457

ein hochzeitsring aus der Bucht von abuqir (Ägypten)yvonne Petrina ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 463

Context, Stratigraphy, residuality. Problems of establishing a Chronology of early Byzantine glass in Southern egypt

daniel Keller ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 477

Contributors to the volume / Sempozyum Kitabının yazarları ............................................................................. 489

Vorwort

im Juni 2008 fand in istanbul mit großzügiger Unterstützung der gerda henkel Stiftung der internationale Workshop zu «Byzantinischen Kleinfunden im Kontext» statt, der gemeinsam vom research Center for anatolian Civilizations der Koç Universität, dem archäologischen museum istanbul und der abteilung istanbul des deutschen archäologischen instituts ausgerichtet worden war.

die so genannten Kleinfunde byzantinischer zeit sind lange durch das netz eta-blierter Fächerkulturen gefallen. in vielen Fällen ist es erst der interdisziplinären zusammenarbeit von Byzantinischer archäologie und Frühgeschichte zu verdanken, daß die häufig unscheinbaren und in der regel kunsthistorisch unbedeutenden objekte end-lich eine erhöhte aufmerksamkeit erfahren. Wie groß der Bedarf an einem wissenschaft-lichen austausch zu dem thema ist, zeigte die sehr positive resonanz auf die einladung zu dem istanbuler Workshop, der 46 Kolleginnen und Kollegen aus deutschland, Österreich, italien, griechenland, Polen, der türkei, Ukraine, USa, den niederlande und israel gefolgt sind. Während der tagung entwickelten sich zahlreiche fruchtbare diskussionen und es wurden Kontakte geknüpft, auf deren Basis der diskurs bis heute weitergeführt wird.

dementsprechend groß war der Wunsch der teilnehmer, die Beiträge der tagung zu publizieren. der vorliegende Band umfasst 38 Beiträge und kann damit als aktuelles Kompendium zu den byzantinischen Kleinfunden und ihrem auftreten in archäologi-schen Kontexten gelten.

in diesem zusammenhang gilt unser besonderer dank wiederum der gerda henkel Stiftung, die den druck des tagungsbandes in der reihe ByzaS mit einer substantiel-len Förderung ermöglicht hat. danken möchten wir auch unseren istanbuler Partnern, d. h. dem research Center for anatolian Civilizations der Koç Universität und dem archäologischen museum istanbul, für die wie immer ausgezeichnete zusammenarbeit. hier hat sich mittlerweile eine schlagkräftige troika etabliert, die 2011 gemeinsam mit weiteren institutionen die internationale tagung «häfen und hafenstädte im östlichen mittelmeerraum von der antike bis in byzantinische zeit» ausgerichtet hat, die gleich-falls in der reihe ByzaS publiziert wird. Schließlich danken wir den organisatorinnen

VorwortX

der tagung und zugleich herausgeberinnen dieses Bandes Beate Böhlendorf-arslan und alessandra ricci für ihre initiative und ihren unermüdlichen einsatz, ohne die das Projekt «Kleinfunde» nicht hätte realisiert werden können.

Felix Pirson und martin Bachmann

istanbul, mai 2012

Preface

on June 2-4, 2008, the research Center for anatolian Civilizations of Koç University was pleased to play co-host, along with the german archaeological institute (dai) in istanbul to a symposium entitled «Byzantine Small Finds in archaeological Context», and supported by the gerda henkel Stiftung. this symposium was organized by Beate Böhlendorf-arslan, then of the dai, and alessandra ricci of Koç University. the rCaC is indebted to drs. Böhlendorf-arslan and ricci for organizing and running this highly successful symposium, and, in addition, for editing the papers present in this volume. it is hoped that the contex-tualization of small finds will shed new light on objects displayed in museum collections that have no such context, and give us clues as to their use in Byzantine societies.

Scott redford

director, rCaCKoç University

Preface / Önsöz

held 2-4 June 2008, in collaboration with the german archaeological institute istanbul, Koç University’s research Center for anatolian Civilizations, and the istanbul archaeological museums, the «Byzantine Small Finds in archaeological Contexts» Workshop provided us with an analysis of the Byzantine art and craftsmanship that developed within the econo-mic, social, cultural and religious systems of the Byzantine empire, which spanned eleven centuries; and also shed light on the daily life and systems of thought of the period through various remains from the quotidian sphere.

Comprised of both fairly simple and artistically significant artefacts, this collection of objects was crafted to serve a variety of purposes, including to impress, display social status, adorn, protect from evil, or plead for god’s grace; and all of the objects were a reflection of the skilful craftsmanship of the period that is available to us through items made of ivory, silver (although rare), gold, bronze and other metals, glass, various precious stones, terra-cotta, wood, and wool and silk.

the ostentatious court life of the Byzantine empire; the customary gifts of emperors; the rich material culture created by wealthy families; the feasting habits, personal care and adornment practices of individuals, as well as their daily life and religious practices – all of these factors contributed to the rich diversity of production by Byzantine artists and craftsmen.

the importance of the symposium is emphasized by the range of topics discussed by experts in the field: the scarcity of the number of surviving small finds; the re-use of gold and silver artefacts by means of smelting; the long periods of time during which glass and terracotta materials remained unearthed; the conservation of wood and textiles in geographical regions with suitable conditions; and the loss of the majority of rich liturgical resources that we know of from written texts and the scarcity of materials.

Participants to the symposium were presented with an important set of data with regard to cultural relationships and their location through the consideration of specific materials, including bronze, affordable and extensively used in daily life and liturgical contexts to manufacture small objects; gold, popular both during the medieval period and the Byzantine empire as well as in the West, especially in liturgical contexts; silver, necessary for the production of civil and liturgical artefacts; ivory, an expensive material

Preface / ÖnsözXIV

used to produce objects for eminent members of society; and glass, to make necklaces and amulets. also discussed were bronze, silver and gold coins and medallions that are significant sources of our understanding of their respective period; and ampullae that blessed and protected their owners.

Furthermore, reports presented at the symposium allowed us to trace representations of Byzantine culture and art outside Constantinople: burial gifts found in the iasos agora; weapons and jewellery in elaiussa Sebaste; ceramic, glass, metal and other artefacts used in jewellery production found in the harbour city of Kadıkalesi; objects found in Bergama, important for our understanding of Byzantine handicrafts; primarily bronze and iron but also silver, gold and bone objects from the rich collection of ephesus; textiles unearthed in amorium; the pilgrim flask and other small finds from the yumuktepe medieval mound; and small finds and crosses from Boğazköy and the zeytin Bahçe mound.

Similarly, the lifestyles, arts, religious practices and technology of areas outside the Byzantine capital were explored through numerous types of objects, including regional bronze and glass jewellery from the middle Byzantine period excavations carried out in thessalonica, greece; Byzantine objects from terra d’otranto, italy; military helmets from thracia novae, Bulgaria; traditional glass objects from the late antique period of sou-thern egypt; objects from crimea that are representations of personal faith; bone tools from chersoneses, taurica; objects from Sicilia and liturgical objects found in the early christian settlements of Kos; medieval metal objects from Salento; and glass objects from Byzantine athens.

the collection of papers presented in the «Byzantine Small Finds in archaeological contexts» Workshop, will represent a significant resource for those who pursue research in the field. i would cordially like to thank each participating institution and individual for their efforts during the preparation of this book.

zeynep S. Kızıltan

director, istanbul archaeological museums

Preface / Önsöz XV

İstanbul alman arkeoloji enstitüsü, Koç Üniversitesi anadolu medeniyetleri araştırma merkezi ve İstanbul arkeoloji müzeleri işbirliğinde, 2-4.06.2008 tarihleri arasında, gerçekleştirilen «arkeolojik Kazılarda ele geçen Bizans Küçük Buluntuları» konulu sem-pozyum, 11 yüzyıl boyunca varlığını sürdürmüş, Bizans İmparatorluğunun ekonomik, sos-yal, kültürel ve dini sistemleri içinde gelişen, sanat ve zanaatı ile birlikte, günlük hayatta kullandıkları çeşitli nesneler, dönemin yaşam tarzını ve düşünce sistemlerinin incelenme-sini sağladı.

Bu nesnelerin etki yaratma, sahiplerinin toplumsal statüsünü gösterme, süslenme, kötülük-lerden korunma veya tanrıya sığınma, onun inayetini çekme gibi çeşitli amaçlarla yapılan ve sempozyum bildirilerinde yer alan fildişi, gümüş, azda olsa altın, tunç ve diğer metal-ler, cam, çeşitli değerli taşlar, pişmiş toprak ve ahşap, yün veya ipek kumaştan yapılmış, bir kısmı oldukça sade, kimi sanatsal açıdan değerli eserler dönemlerinin usta işçiliklerini günümüze yansıttı.

Bizans İmparatorluğu’nun gösterişli saray hayatı, imparatorların hediye dağıtma geleneği, varlıklı ailelerin yarattığı zengin maddi kültür, halkın yeme içme, kişisel bakım ve süslenme gibi günlük yaşantıları ile ibadet biçimleri Bizans’daki sanat ve zanaat üretiminde zengin çeşitliliğe yol açmıştır.

Küçük buluntulardan günümüze ulaşan eser sayısının azlığı, gümüş ve altından yapılmış nesnelerin daha sonra eritilerek kullanılması, cam ve pişmiş toprağın yüzyıllarca toprağın altında kalması, ahşap ve dokuma ürünlerinin ise iklim koşullarının uygun olduğu coğrafyalarda korunması, yazılı kaynaklarda belirtilen zengin kilise malzemelerinin çoğunun kaybolmuş olması ve az sayıdaki örneğin konunun uzmanlarınca tartışılması, bu sempozyumun önemini vurgulamaktadır.

Ucuz maliyetli olması nedeniyle, her dönemde, sivil ve dini alanda küçük nesne yapımında kullanılan tunç, orta Çağ’da hem Bizans İmparatorluğu hem de Batı’da özellikle liturjik eşyaların yapımında kullanılan altın, sivil ve dini eselerin yapımında kullanılan gümüş, toplumun ileri gelenleri için yapılan nesnelerde kullanılan ve pahalı bir malzeme olan fildişi, kolye ve amulet yapımında kullanılan cam, her dönemin tarihsel gelişimini açıklamada önemli bir kaynak olan ve başta tunç olmak üzere gümüş ve altın kullanılarak yapılan sikkeler ile zafer ya da diğer özel nedenlerle kıymetli madenden yapılan kabartmalı madalyonlar, kutsayan, kötülüklerden koruyan, ampullalar buluntu yerleri kültürel ilişkiler açısından sempozyum katılımcılarına önemli bilgiler sundu.

ayrıca sempozyumda sunulan bildirilerden, iasos agora’sındaki mezar hediyeleri, elaiussa Sebaste’deki takılar, silahlar, Kadıkalesi liman kentindeki seramik, cam, maden ve kuyum-culuk üretimine ait eserler, Bizans el sanatları açısından özel bir önem taşıyan Bergama buluntuları, genelde bronz ve demirin yanı sıra gümüş, altın ve kemikten yapılmış zengin efes buluntuları, amorium’da gün ışığına çıkartılan tekstil parçaları, yumuktepe orta Çağ höyüğün’deki hacı matarası ve küçük buluntular, Boğazköy ve zeytin Bahçe höyük’teki küçük buluntu ve haçlar Bizans Kültür ve Sanatının Konstantinopolis dışındaki izlerini takip etmemizi sağladı.

Preface / ÖnsözXVI

yine anadolu dışında Selanik’te yürütülen orta Bizans dönemi kazılarında bulunan cam ve bronzdan yapılan yerel takılar, İtalya terra d’otranto’daki Bizans dönemi’ne ait eserler, Bulgaristan – trakya novae deki askeri miğferler, güney mısır’daki geç antik Çağ gelenek-sel camlar, kişisel inancın sembolleri olan Kırım buluntuları, Kersonesos, taurıca kemik aletleri, Sicilya buluntuları ile Kos adasında, erken hristiyanlık yerleşmelerinde ele geçen dini amaçlı buluntular, Salento, orta Çağ metalleri, atina Bizans cam buluntuları, bizlere Bizans başkenti dışında, diğer coğrafyalardaki, yaşam tarzı, sanatı, inanç sistemi ve teknolo-jileri ile ilgili ayrıntılı bilgiler verdi.

«arkeolojik Kazılarda ele geçen Bizans Küçük Buluntuları» konulu sempozyumda sunulan bildirilere ait bu kitap, bu alanda çalışan araştırmacılar için önemli bir kaynak olacaktır. Sempozyum ve kitabın hazırlanmasında emek harcayan ve katkı veren tüm kurum ve kişilere yürekten teşekkür ederim.

zeynep S. Kızıltan

İstanbul arkeoloji müzeler müdürü

editor’s Preface

the concept of the «Byzantine Small Finds in archaeological Contexts» Workshop (istanbul 2-4 June, 2008) grew out of the conveners’ active engagement in fieldwork center ing on the late antique and Byzantine periods. regardless of the geographical location of fieldwork, the nature of specific sites and areas, and the implications of investigations carried out, a recurring archaeological condition seems to emerge: moveable finds, particularly those not fitting within the known categories of typologies, still lack a reliable documentary and comparative base grounded in archaeological contextualization – in spite of the fact that archaeological investigations comprising materials from the late antique and Byzantine periods have traditionally yielded and continue to produce conspicuous percentages of small-sized objects. these encompass a highly diversified spectrum of objects and mediums, including jewellery and dress ornaments; portable objects of worship; amulets and items that shaped the world of magic in Byzantine society; lead seals; bread stamps; small containers; luxury goods; and much more. these objects also represent a broad range of contexts and functions, spanning across the borders of consumption and utilitarian goods: from domestic to funerary, from rural to urban, and from institutional and ritual spaces to civic and more intimate ones, to name but a few. overall, these small-sized objects reveal shared sociological habits, social groupings, rituals and practices while also providing subtle insights into individual inclinations and social status as well as more personal interactions. they also contribute to the identification of various forms of diversity otherwise difficult to detect.

more importantly, small-sized objects can support a clearer retrieval of patterns of move-ment and exchange. the network of movement associated with commerce, trade, military undertakings and pilgrimage as well as migration and dispossession can, through the study of contextualized small-sized objects, contribute toward the definition of a fuller picture of the worlds that made late antiquity and Byzantium. at the same time, accurate analysis of small finds may also represent a welcome addition to the rapidly growing study of social networks broadly conceived in terms of the spaces, times and interpreters with which they intersected. in more general terms, networks are also to be understood as complex sys-tems of dialogue and exchange that Byzantium established with worlds at close or more remote distances. From the re-orientation of mediterranean societies in late antiquity to the expanding crossroad territories of the Byzantine period, the circulation of small-sized objects in spaces beyond its limits offers the opportunity for further reflections on the notions of neighboring cultures and their interactions.

editor’s PrefaceXVIII

the accurate retrieval and study of small finds from archaeological contexts broadens the spectrum of mediums that may fall under this grouping, which include not only metal, wood and bones but also textiles, glass, shells and lead. at the same time, there appears to be a growing effort on the part of late antique and Byzantine archaeologists to enhance on-site retrieval and conservation techniques through projects that include the creation of on-site conservation laboratories employing specialists. this new and very welcome development allows for a larger percentage of small finds to be retrieved and undergo initial on-site conservation and study, a step crucial to their survival. more-accurate analysis and observations will follow in the post-excavation phases, with ever more promising perspectives on the deciphering of technologies and their transformation in Byzantine times.

the workshop was therefore designed to serve as a forum aimed at bringing together col-leagues whose work in the field yielded small finds from archaeological contexts and whose study and analysis, combined with archaeology, brought new insights. Papers presented previously unpublished materials ranging from the 5th to the 13th centuries. Whereas simi-lar workshops centering on other contextualized finds – with ceramics being the most nota-ble example – have led to substantial progress in research, small finds seem to have lagged behind. Consequently, as excavations progress, advances are made in the archaeological sciences, and more finds are documented, processed and published – thus comprising a growing range of finds – the «unimpressive» or hard-to-pin-down small-sized object, when retrieved, continues to be at risk of languishing in excavations or museum deposits for longer than deserved. the workshop attempted to begin filling this gap by encouraging contributions on small finds as defined broadly, in addition to wide-ranging discussion of archaeological contexts and methods.

the papers in the volume reflect the contributors’ diverse approaches to their fieldwork and research along with the wide variety of finds discussed. one goal of the workshop was to observe whether studies of small finds from archaeological contexts may help to establish accurate chronologies, that is, whether small finds may contribute toward the definition of chronological frameworks, as other finds do. moreover, the results of the workshop may help to answer the question of how, in the absence of other finds, small finds may guide the archaeologist in the periodization of context and action. the editors and organizers of the workshop hope that the publication of this volume represents a contribution to the growth of studies of small finds in connection with archaeology, and that it will be seen as a comprehensive collection of information not only for those working in the field but also for those at a distance from the sites and archaeology.

the transition from the idea of the workshop to its actual accomplishment was possible thanks to the help and support of a number of individuals, colleagues and institutions. We are pleased that the directors of the german archaeological institute in istanbul (dai), Koç University’s research Center for anatolian Civilizations (rCaC) and the istanbul archaeological museums offered support.

We would like to extend our special thanks to the director of the dai, Prof. dr. Felix Pirson, who, together with the workshop’s organizers, put forth a request for financial

editor’s Preface XIX

support from the gerda henkel Foundation. to the gerda henkel Foundation goes our unconditional gratitude for having provided the means for the gathering to take place as well for this publication. the dai and the rCaC kindly made available their facilities both for the preparation of the workshop and for its sessions. in particular, our thanks go to the two assistants, oya demirci at the dai and esra erol at the rCaC, who helped to coordi-nate innumerable practicalities. one of the workshop’s sessions was generously hosted by the istanbul archaeological museums, and to its director, zeynep S. Kızıltan, we would like to extend sincere thanks on our behalf as well as on behalf of all the participants. We also would like to thank gülbahar Baran-Çelik for organizing the display of small finds from the museums’ collections, including objects that have rarely been shown. the flyer and poster for the Workshop were designed by hüseyin yaman and oğuz Koçyiğit and generously printed by ahmet Boratav, ege yayınları.

Finally, thanks are due to the directors of the dai, Prof. dr. Felix Pirson and dr. martin Bachmann, for having encouraged publication of the workshop’s papers in the ByzaS series, where we believe they have found an ideal home. We thank the gerda henkel Foundation for the generous publication grant. also, we would like to extend our warm thanks to hülya tokmak of zero publishing house who worked on the volume's layout and to ahmet Borotav. mary cason and Johanna Witte helped with the editing of some of the english papers. the editors were responsible for the editing of the papers and organization of the volume, while each author took responsibility for the scientific content of his or her own research. Preparation of this book benefited from the turkish translations and editing generously undertaken by nilden ergün and Prof. dr. nurettin arslan, whom we thank with gratitude.


römisch-germanisches zentralmuseum department of archaeology &Forschungszentrum für archäologie history of art mainz Koç University, istanbul

* i would like to thank Prof. Petros themelis, director of ancient messene Project, for granting me permission to study this material. attempting to set the messenian material against the greater picture of the Byzantine empire and europe in the age of migrations would be impossible without the help of many colleagues all across europe and the United States, i have to thank: Kleanthis Sidiropoulos (messene), anastasia yangaki (athens), gergely Csiky (Budapest), Florin Curta (Florida), Chris lightfoot (new york), antje Bosselmann-ruickbie (Bonn) and yorgos Brokalakis (rome).

B. Böhlendorf-Arslan – A. Ricci (eds.), Byzantine Small Finds in Archaeological Contexts, BYZAS 15 (2012) 61-80

Considerations on Some Bronze Buckles from Byzantine messene*

nikos tSiViKiS

abstract

messene is situated in the southwest part of the Peloponnese, lies on the north slope of mount ithomi and has been the object of systematic excavations for many years. during the so called «dark ages» (7th–9th centuries) messene takes part in the interesting process of transition that occurs largely in the Peloponnese with the collapse of Byzantine rule and the dismantling of the pre-existing late roman social fabric, coinciding with the settlement of «barbaric» people from the north, mainly Slavs. about this period of transformation messene provides a range of archaeologi-cal data, small finds and pottery, as well as architectural remains. through material of the first category, and mainly bronze buckles, we will try to focus on some of the historical issues concerning the evolution of the settlement, filling the gap created by the almost complete lack of historical sources for this period.

Keywords: messene, Peloponnese, Bronze Buckles, Fibula

Özet

Peleponnessos Yarımadası’nın güneybatı kısmında Ithomi Dağı’nın kuzey yamacında bulunan Messene’da uzun yıllardır sistematik kazılarla araştırılmaktadır. Mesense, Karanlık Çağ boyunca (7.yy–9.yy) çok ilginç bir geçiş süreci yaşamaktadır. Bu süreçte bölgeye kuzeyden gelerek iskân eden Slav kültürü ile bölge var olan yerel Geç Roma ve çökmekte olan Bizans gelenekleri bir arada yaşamıştır. Bu geçiş döne-miyle ilgili olarak Messene’de seramikler, küçük buluntular ve mimari kalıntılar olmak üzere çok zengin arkeolojik veri elde edilmiştir. İlk materyal kategorisi ve daha çok bronz kemer tokaları dikkate alınarak, tarihi olaylara, yerleşimin gelişimi ve karanlık noktaların aydınlatılması için tarihi kaynaklara burada irdelenecektir.

Anahtar Sözcükler: Messene, Peloponesos, Bronz Kemer Tokası, Fibula

Nikos Tsivikis62

Messene is situated in the south-west part of the Peloponnese, lies on the north slope of Mount Ithomi and has been the object of systematic excavations for many years. The establishment of the city goes back to the Hellenistic times. In the following centuries Messene became a thriving civic center of southern Greece, and continued to flourish under Roman rule up to at least the 4th century AD. The second half of this century seems to represent the turning point of Ancient Messene, since many of the buildings of the ancient city are marked by destruction layers dating to AD 360–370 predating the AD 395 Gothic invasion of the Peloponnese1.

Little is known from sources about the early Byzantine city (4th–6th centuries)2. Messene is included in the Synecdemus of Hierocles among the 79 cities of the prefecture of Hellas (Achaia) and in the early 5th century its bishop is mentioned as one of the seven bishops from the Peloponnese present at the Ecumenical Councils of Ephesus and of Chalcedon3. Archaeology adds to the picture as part of the 6th century settlement has been excavated, featuring houses, manufacturing installations, as well as an extended intra muros cemetery, all of these built with re-used ancient material4. Numismatic evidences attests to a lively economy following the general trends of the early Byzantine Peloponnese5.

During the «Dark Ages» (7th–9th centuries) Messene takes part in the interesting process of transition that occurs largely in the Peloponnese with the collapse of Byzantine rule and the dismantling of the pre-existing late Roman social fabric, coinciding with the set-tlement of «barbaric» people from the north, mainly Slavs6. About this period of trans-formation Messene provides a range of archaeological data, small finds and pottery7, as well as architectural remains8. Through material of the first category, and mainly bronze buckles9, we’ll try to focus on some of the historical issues concerning the evolution of the settlement, filling the gap created by the almost complete lack of historical sources for this period.

1. The Messene Type Purse BuckleOver the Temenos of Asclepius, situated in the center of the ancient city, excavation above the Roman and Hellenistic layers has revealed part of a Byzantine cemetery with more than 50 inhumations. These tombs stand in close relation with the early Byzantine settlement that covered the main Hellenistic road running East of the Temenos10 (fig. 1).

1 Avramea 1997, 55-59. 63 f.

2 An initial historical and archaeological presentation of Early Byzantine Messene in: Themelis 2002, for the Christian inscriptions see: Bardani 2002.

3 All Early Byzantine sources on Messene in: Avramea 1997, 191.

4 Themelis 2002, 20-58.

5 Sidiropoulos 2002, 99-124.

6 Haldon 1997, 47 f.; Avramea 1997.

7 Anagnostakis – Poulou-Papadimitriou 1997, 229-319; vida – völling 2000, 32-40.

8 Penna – Lampropoulou – Anagnostakis 2008, 375-392.

9 Two of them published in: Poulou-Papadimitriou 2002, and one unpublished.10 Themelis 2002, 34-38.

Considerations on Some Bronze Buckles from Byzantine Messene 63

During the exploration of the temple of Demeter north-west of the main Asclepius tem-ple, a group of Byzantine tombs covered with roof tiles was excavated. In one of them, tomb no. 31B, belonging to a later phase of the cemetery, as it was sitting on top of other early Byzantine tombs, two interesting finds were made (fig. 2): at the height of the thighs of the poorly preserved skeletal remains a small bronze buckle was found and between the feet a hand-made ceramic pot.

The bronze buckle (inv. no. 4409) (fig. 3) has been published and since then has become the focus of a large debate11. It is a small buckle (Ø=0,04 m.) used to tie leather purse straps or something similar. The general layout of the buckle is circular, with a long nar-row plate in the center, two pairs of animal heads project on both sides at the top and the bottom. The animal heads turn inward to face each other and from their open jaws their tongues come out uniting in the middle, a scene that could be also interpreted as

11 Poulou-Papadimitriou 2002, 128 f.

Fig. 1 Layout of the Temenos of Asclepius (blue) and the early Byzantine quarters (green).

Nikos Tsivikis64

Fig. 2 Tomb 31B with its content.

Fig. 3 Messene purse buckle from tomb 31B (inv. no. 4409).

Fig. 4: Bronze purse buckle from Agora (inv. no. B523).

Fig. 5 Messene Type Buckles 1) Messene, 2) Delos, 3)Agora.

Fig. 6 RGZM D37 Type Buckles 1) Greece, 2) Kruje, 3) unknown, 4) Eleutherna (reconstruction).

1

1 2 3 4

23


monstrous animals pulling pieces of their prey. They have fine incised characteristics and prominent hollow eyes.

This type of buckle is a rare one and we know only of one close parallel from Delos12 (fig. 5, 2). Uenze, who studied first this kind of buckle, placed it among the Emling type noting one more example from the Agora excavations in Athens13 (fig. 4. 5, 3), and re-lated it with buckles from the northern Balkans and Central Europe14. Poulou tried to show that the two Emling buckles, from Messene and Delos, are of Byzantine manufacture and were used predominantly in the areas controlled by the Byzantine Empire15. To these she added another small buckle using the same animal head motif from the Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum (RGZM), Germany that according to Uenze’s classification belonged to the Gátér type16 (fig. 6).

vida and völling were the first to dissociate the Messene buckle from Uenze’s Emling type and talk about a completely new buckle type found so far only in Greece, thus naming it the Messene type17. In more recent literature, Schulze-Dörrlamm recognized in the Messene type a variant of the main type D37 (oval buckles with four animal heads), a type that in her catalogue of the RGZM. Byzantine buckles comprises of all the Southern Balkan examples that Uenze attributed to the Gátér type18. The examples of this type originate: one from the general location of Greece, attested as bought in Athens, and three more were excavated at cemeteries in Albania, two at Bukel and one at Kruja19. Buckles of the D37 type are dated by comparison to other artifacts to the first half of the 7th century20.

At the same time Garam studying the Byzantine material from the Avar cemeteries of the 6th and the 7th centuries following Uenze’s classification includes to the Gátér type, purse buckles also with two animal heads turning back to the buckle hole21. While from another Avar cemetery that of Gyód comes also an interesting example of the RGZM type D37 with four animal heads looking down22.

To the known examples from Greece we can add another unpublished piece of a RGZM type D37 buckle from the Byzantine settlement of Eleutherna at the island of Crete23.

12 Deonna 1938, 296 no. 5977 pl. 88, 763; Chatzidakis 2003, 411 pl. 244.13 Setton 1950, pl. 1.14 Uenze 1966, 156.15 Poulou-Papadimitriou 2002, 128 f., largely based on the observations that Pallas had first done examining

buckles from Corinth back in the ‘50s, Pallas 1954, 295-297.16 Uenze 1966, 152-154.17 vida – völling 2000, 36-40.18 Schulze-Dörrlamm 2002, 226-228, following her classification I will be naming the type RGZM type D37.19 All of them sited at: Schulze-Dörrlamm 2002, 227.20 Schulze-Dörrlamm 2002, 228.21 Garam 2001, 110 f. pl. 77 also Gavrituchin 2008, 66-67 accepts the Gátér classification providing more dating

material for a 7th century attribution.22 Garam 2001, pl. 79, 2.23 This fragment is not included in the published catalogues of buckles from Eleutherna: Poulou-Papadimitriou

2002; Poulou-Papadimitriou 2004 and Poulou-Papadimitriou 2005.

Nikos Tsivikis66

This small fragment bearing one of these animal heads, here more feline24, could possibly be reconstructed as a full buckle of the RGZM D37 type (fig. 6, 4). Furthermore, it should be dated to the first half of the 7th century as it was found at one of the main roads of the city center in a layer dated by coins in the mid–7th century.

The main characteristics of the RGZM D37 type buckles and its Messene type variant are the animal busts projecting from the buckle’s body on a long neck. The core of the buckle consisted of a central elongated plate ending on top with the hole and at the bottom with a vertical projecting rectangu-lar loop for the insertion of the leather strap, is nothing else than the simple Salona-Histria type25. Based on this simple form we have a family of variations, with additions of project-ing animal busts or even whole animal or birds26. The stylis-tic principle is the same for the whole family, beginning with the simpler (fig. 8, 1) in design Pápá type buckles (RGZM D36)27. On the narrow plate there can be projecting animal

heads in three different ways: a) one pair on the two sides of the oval hole (Pápá) (fig. 8, 2), b) two parallel pairs facing down or up (RGZM D37) (fig. 8, 3), and c) two parallel pairs facing inwards (Messene) (fig. 8, 4).

Animal busts are very usual in «barbaric» buckles and other metalwork, and the initial inspiration might as well have been from similar «barbaric» artifacts, probably some of the Bajuvarian buckle types presented by Uenze28. But the bronze purse buckles with animal heads found in Byzantine surroundings are executed in a very different manner. While the Bajuvarian examples are treated mainly in a two dimensional way creating a surface where the animal busts are formed by cuts and incisions, like we can see in an example from the Bajuvarian cemetery at Bad Reichenhall in Upper Bavaria, Germany (fig. 7)29. On the other hand the Byzantine ones tend to render their subject in a three dimensional and more plastic way. This disposition is evident in the buckle from RGZM (fig. 6, 1) or the fragment from Eleutherna (fig. 6, 4) where the animal heads are almost fully shaped on both sides. Halfway in this evolution stand examples like the one from the Athenian Agora (fig. 4). Lately the Bajuvarian buckles tend to be dated in the second half of the 7th century30, reversing thus the relationship between Byzantine and barbaric specimens.

24 Feline characteristics in animal heads projecting from the buckle can be traced also in a Pápá type example from Asia Minor currently at the RGZM, Schulze-Dörrlamm 2002, 225. See also other examples of this 7th century buckle type from Asia Minor erroneously attributed to the Seldjuks, Köroğlu 2009, 401 fig. 6.

25 The more recent discussion on the whole family of buckles based on Salona-Histria type in: Riemer 2005, 273.26 Garam 2001, 108.27 Uenze 1966, 142-146; Schulze-Dörrlamm 2002, 224-226.28 Uenze 1966, 156-164.29 Bertram 1995, 104 fig. 90.30 Bertram 1995, 104.

Fig. 7 Bronze purse buckle from Bad Reichenhall.


Fig. 8 Bronze purse buckles of the Salona-Histria family (Schnallen mit Riemenschlaufe), 1) Salona-Histria type, 2) Pápá type, 3) RGZM D37, 4) Messene type.

1 2 3 4

Fig. 9 1) Golden chain clasp from Krategos, 2) Fragment of a lyriform buckle from Eleutherna.

Nonetheless, animal busts appear also as typical motifs in Byzantine metal works of the 7th century. The clasp hook, for example, of a fine golden chain from the Krategos Treasure from Mytilene securely dated to the first quarter of the 7th century shaped into an animal head31 (fig. 9, 1) or the lyriform belt buckle type also dated to the first half of the 7th century forming in some examples an ending of two animal heads turning out-wards with their mouths open32 (fig. 9, 2), both demonstrate the use of animal head mo-tifs in evident Byzantine (more Constantinopolitan) surroundings.

Moving away from the analysis of style and following Russel’s old but evergreen call for understanding of Byzantine small finds and their function33, it’s imperative to make a spe-cial note on the use of these artifacts. This family of small bronze buckles (Salona-Histria, Pápá, RGZM D37, Messene) found in a wide area from the Danube to southern Greece and Italy, and from Chersonesos to the southern shores of Asia Minor has been long interpreted as part of the securing of leather purses34. Additionally, wherever we have context data most of these buckles come from male graves35. Leather purses seem, in fact,

31 Touratsoglou – Chalkia 2008, 112 f.32 Poulou-Papadimitriou 2005, 695 f., this lyre shaped buckle type with animal heads belongs to the type that

Davidson recognized initially as Avaric (Davidson 1952, 267 no. 2188), an argument that Pallas first rejected on the basis of comparison with other Byzantine artworks, Pallas 1954, 371-376.

33 Russel 1982, 133-136.34 Uenze 1966, 173-178.35 Garam 2001, 108-113; Khaïrédinova 2007, 14 f.

Nikos Tsivikis68

a frequent addition to the 6th and 7th centuries warrior’s belts as they shaped under the influence of «barbaric» people that came from the Steppe36. In particular, during the first half of the 7th century the predominant way for securing or hanging these leather purses was by using variations of the Salona-Histria buckle type37. The leather purses contained various precious for the bearer items, from coins, small tools and flint stones to good luck charms and knucklebones38. If we take into account that the animal busts are a really unique characteristic not shared by almost any other type of Byzantine belt buckles of the 7th century, we may suggest that the initial introduction of monstrous animal heads to the buckles of these containers could be associated with an apotropaic meaning as guardians of the purse’s contents.

The Messenian bronze purse buckle and the handmade pot found with it39, both firmly dated to the first half of the 7th century, form a unique combination of grave finds. Both artifacts have been considered at times to attest the presence of Slavic populations, and both discussions have been challenged40. Instead of trying to determine the ethnic identi-ty of the person who was buried in Messene tomb 31B, accompanied by these two artifacts, it seems more important to examine the data it provides us for the site in general and the buried individual itself. The only known parallel from this period of an inhumation in Greece containing a bronze buckle and a handmade pot is the so called «Wandering Soldier’s Grave» in Corinth dated to the 7th century AD as well41. If we insist on the rela-tion of leather purses with small bronze buckles as part of a male outfit we can assume that the Messene inhumation contained a male individual as well42, again like the Corinth one. Additionally, tomb 31B is the only one so far from the Messene «Dark Age» cemetery fea-turing a bronze buckle, pointing to the special position of its occupant among a relatively poor and egalitarian community. A community that was cut off from the main networks of state power in the 7th century, as suggested, among other evidence, by the complete lack of any of the common type of bronze buckles.

2. The Werner’s Class I D fibula from MesseneThe second artifact we’ll examine is a stray find retrieved from the general Temenos of Asclepius area with inv. no. 3674, (l: 0,04 m, w: 0,04 m) first published by Poulou and identified as Slavic or Antean43 (fig. 10). It is a fragment of a rather small bow fibula sur-viving only as the headplate with its five knobs and belongs probably to Werner’s «Slavic»

36 Bálint 2000, 99-111.37 Miklós Szöke 2008, 202 f.; Khaïrédinova 2007, 15.38 Khaïrédinova 2007, 15.39 The Messene handmade pot is dated in the first half of the 7th century by comparison to the classification of the

Slavic handmade pottery from Olympia: vida – völling 2000, 49. For a discussion on handmade pottery from Greece see: Anagnostakis – Poulou-Papadimitriou 1997 and Anagnostakis 1997; for a more general discussion on the whole Southern Balkan Peninsula see: Curta 2001.

40 Anagnostakis – Poulou-Papadimitriou 1997, 242-251.41 Davidson 1974, 514 f.42 Unfortunately the skeletal remains are too fragmentary to help us in the identification: Bourbou 2004, 105.43 Poulou-Papadimitriou 2002, 126-128.


fibulae class I D, since this kind of headplate ornament is attested in this group only44. The headplate is semicircular with parallel incised lines. At the outer rim of the semicircle five globular knobs protrude. Following Curta’s detailed study of this type of bow fibulae the Messene headplate can be securely classified to class 1J of headplate ornaments, which appears on fibulae found in the region of Mazuria (Northeastern Poland), Romania, and the middle Dnieper region in Ukraine45. The closest similarity is with a fibula from Mirosloveşti near Iaşi in Romania46 (fig. 11, 2). The Messene fibula is not the only speci-men of Werner’s class I D fibulae known from Greece. A pair of identical fibulae found inside a grave excavated in Edessa belongs to the same group, though they don’t have the same headplate ornament as the example from Messene47 (fig. 11, 3).

For many years these fibulae have been thought as artifacts that prove the installation of Slavic populations in the southern Balkan region48. The earlier efforts to say that some of Werner’s «Slavic» fibulae could be attributed to the main body of Byzantine metalwork production and that, especially those found in Greece, are Byzantine products did not provide enough evidence to be convincing49. Lately the discussion has moved towards new ideas. Curta believes that these «Slavic» fibulae were in fact more than just dress acces-sories and may have been used for negotiating social power in the unstable surroundings that were created by the disappearance of Byzantine authority in many areas of the south-ern Balkans in the 7th century50.

44 Werner 1950, 153-154; Curta 2006.45 Curta 2006, 424, 463-465.46 Curta 2006, 464 no. 39.47 Gounaris 1984, 52-56; Curta 2006, 464 nos. 21-22.48 More «Slavic» bow fibulae all of them of Werner’s Type I B have been found in Sparta, in Demetrias, in Dion

and in Nea Anchialos (Curta 2005, 134-137). For a summary of older views see: Katsougiannopoulou 1999 and vida – völling 2000, 26-32.

49 Pallas 1955, 97-102.50 Curta 2005, 124-133; Curta 2006, 426.

Fig. 10 «Slavic» fibula fragment from Messene

(inv. no. 3674).

Fig. 11«Slavic» fibulae 1) Messene, 2) Mirosloveşti, 3) Edessa.

1

2

3

Nikos Tsivikis70

Messene in the 7th century, known to us only through archaeology, does not represent an exception but follows a wide-spread pattern seen in other sites in Greece and southern Balkans51. On the one hand the complete lack of coins, lead seals, inscriptions or evidence of major constructions demonstrate a withdrawal of traditional Byzantine authorities, state and church52. On the other hand there is enough evidence of an active population that still occupies the site, produces its pottery, buries its deceased and uses accessories like buckles and fibulae to signal social differentiation within the community53. The fact that they choose to use forms that resemble or are Slavic is connected with the new power net-works that evolved in the absence of the previous state authority.

3. Trapezoid buckle plate with a scene of a human and two harnessed horses The next phase of Messene’s Byzantine period is represented by another very interesting chance find, a fragment of a bronze buckle plate (inv. no. 15570, l:0,04 m, w: 0,03 m) (fig. 12). Only the trapezoidal plate of the buckle is preserved, buckle frame and tongue are missing, and is broken at the right end, where the hinge for the buckle frame used to be. The plate is decorated with a cast relief depiction of a human accompanied by a horse’s head framed by a zigzag border. The human form stands frontally and wears a long dress forming a triangle decorated with parallel incisions; its head is surrounded with what seems to be either a halo or a stylized helmet or a crown. The horse’s head is looking to the right and is harnessed, underneath it an incomprehensible curling shape.

On the back a linear incised depiction of some kind of animal or bird is visible inside a rough fishbone pattern frame. It is not rare for this type of buckles to have decorations on their back as we can see in an example from a tomb in Drymos at vonitsa, Greece with a fine incised eagle on the reverse54, and a second one from Chersonesos in Crimea with

51 Haldon 1997, 114-124. 459-461.52 For the lack of coins, but also for some ideas on Messene in 7th century, see: Sidiropoulos 2002, 120-124.53 We are familiar with local communities acting in this manner also in other places near the limits of the Byzantine

state during this period, e.g. the people of the Komani culture in Albania: Nallbani 2007, 54-61.54 Mastrokostas 1971, 186-188 figs. 4-5.

Fig. 12 Trapezoid bronze buckle plate from Messene (inv. no. 15570).


four birds arranged in a grid55. It is not clear what would be the use of a decorated back, since the buckle would be seen frontally, it should be noted, though, that all three exam-ples mentioned above host a depiction of birds on the reverse a theme unknown to the main decoration. Buckle plates are not the only 10th century artifact to bear decorations on the «invisible» reverse side; the most splendid example is the AD 927 golden necklace from the Preslav treasure with two sided enamels56.

That these buckles had decoration on both sides is also an indication that they were cast in two-piece moulds, a technology that is more consistent with the evidence of centralized large production of the 6th and 7th centuries as the Crypta Balbi in Rome57 than with the lost-wax technique of the «Dark Age» buckles and fibulae we examined58.

This kind of Byzantine buckles, generally called griffin/lion or trapezoid type59, since the most usual iconographic theme appearing on the plates are lions or griffins, is generally dated to the 9th to 10th centuries60. The depiction of a human form in the middle flanked by a pair of horses, identified usually as a charioteer in a scene from the circus61, is a rare variation of this type. In a recent catalogue of buckles with decorated trapezoid plates out of the 97 known examples, taking into account the Messene buckle as well, only eight show this iconography, of which the ones with known provenance are: one from Crete, one from Samos, three from Constantinople and one more from the general area of Asia Minor62.

The buckle plate from Crete (fig. 13, 1) could more likely be associated with a charioteer and his chariot63. The buckle from Samos (fig. 13, 2) reinterprets the same theme in a synoptic way, since both the human and the animal form have lost their bodies and only the hands of the human and the forelegs of the horses are visible suggesting the horse’s gallop. While the buckle plate from Constantinople (fig. 13, 3), with its astonishing simi-larity to the Messene plate (fig. 13, 4)64, seems to be the most abstract and remote from the initial theme. In both these examples, the human form has become a mere hooded face with signs of a body vestment and the horse’s head floating in the air with no real articulation. One has also to note the curious looking curling shape underneath the left

55 vinski 1974, 62 pl. 1, 10a-10b; to these we can add several examples from the RGZM collection, Schulze-Dörrlamm 2009, 215. 218. 220. 224.

56 Bosselmann 2001, 485-488.57 Arena 2001, 331-334.58 Curta 2006, 450-460.59 vinski 1974, 58, makes a distinction between rectangular and trapezoidal plates, that we not follow here.60 Schulze-Dörrlamm 2009, 204-253, in the publication of the RGZM byzantine buckles categorizes them in the

RGZM G2 type, and idientifies 34 different iconographic themes; Pletnyov 2005, 75-86; Langó – Türk 2004; Csallany 1954, 346-347.

61 Csallany 1954, 335 f. 346; Werner 1955, 42.62 All listed in: Langó – Türk 2004, 421-428.63 vinski 1974, 63 f.; Werner 1955, 42.64 The buckle plates from Messene and Constantinople look very similar, suggesting the possibility of a relation

between the two moulds, though still further examination is needed especially of the Istanbul Museum specimen.

Nikos Tsivikis72

1 2

3 4

Fig. 13 1) Crete, 2) Samos, 3) Constantinople, 4) Messene.

Fig. 14Trapezoid bronze

buckle plate in Bavarian State

Archaeological Collection

(inv. no. 1973, 370).

Fig. 15 Epona marble relief from Thessaloniki (inv. no. 3056).


horse’s head that makes no real sense, yet it is the remnant of the bended foreleg with the hoof that we can see clearly on the Samos buckle.

These iconographic interpretations of the same theme represent stages in a process leading from an analytical to a more synoptic composition. It is hard to establish whether this process corresponds also to a chronological evolution, something that may provide us with chronological information. In terms of chronology we can assume that since the island of Crete was under Arab rule between 825 and 961, the Cretan example with its fully developed iconography cannot be dated before the second half of the 10th century65.Though the Messene plate is far remote from this initial iconography, as seen in the Cretan example, that does not mean a later date. It rather suggests the dispersion of the theme and the demand for it by people in different though similar social strata, able to acquire and understand better or worst reproductions of the same iconography.

Werner had already stated some objection to the charioteer identification proposing as al-ternative an angel leading a pair of heavenly beings or some other allegory66. In some re-cently published examples though, like the buckle from Munich State Museum (fig. 14), it is clear that a frontal chariot, with a charioteer and two horses is depicted67.

The iconographic tradition of the victorious Charioteer has a long history in Roman art and found its way through various media in Byzantine art as well68. Some of the most fa-mous depictions are the two Porphyrius bases in Constantinople dated around AD 50069, the 7th–8th centuries Byzantine silk textile from Aachen70, but the closest example to our buckle plates are the charioteers depicted in the 11th century frescoes at the staircase of the church of S. Sophia at Kiev71. It is evident that the tradition of portraying chariots and charioteers remains almost unbreakable all through the early and middle Byzantine periods.

Re-examining additionally depictions on the buckle plates with no evident chariot, we may also find some reminiscence of the iconography of late Roman goddess Epona, known until the early 4th century AD72. Epona, a Gallo-Roman goddess of horses, was worshiped throughout the late Roman Empire amongst different populations, especially by the members of the Roman cavalry. One of the most interesting and presumably the latest surviving iconographic Roman example is a large marble relief of a seated imperial-type Epona from the Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki, Inv. no. 3056 (fig. 15)73. It was found in the horse guard barracks, near the imperial palace in Thessaloniki where

65 Tsoungarakis 1988, 30-41.66 Werner 1955, 42.67 Wamser – Zahlhaas 1998, 232-234 no. 361.68 Dunbabin 1982, 78.69 Cameron 1973, 12-28.70 Muthesius 1997, cat. no. M322.71 Grabar 1935, 103-117.72 I have to thank Prof. Petros Themelis for pointing out to this possible connection.73 Stefanidou-Tiveriou 1997, 194-197; vocotopoulou 1996, 71.

Nikos Tsivikis74

Galerius dwelt from 299 until his death in 31174. Reference to Epona is also known from Christian writers of the 5th and 6th centuries AD75. No depiction or evidence of cult of Epona survives from the early Byzantine period, though elsewhere there is some iconographic evidence of survival in early medieval and Romanic German art76. So it would be better to speak of a generic symbolic, in an apotropaic or monstrous way, iconography, related in a fragile way to the above mentioned thematic as part of larger repertoire of fantastic medieval depictions77.

We may suggest that in the 10th century Constantinopolitan cultural surroundings of re-discovering Ancient or Late Antique mythical scenes, echoes of the cult of Epona with her horses and that it could also be a fitting insignium for military clothing78, especial-ly for members of the Byzantine cavalry, as it initially did for the late Roman cavalry. Undoubtedly, depictions of the Charioteer (or/and Epona) re-emerge as an interesting iconographic motif on an everyday use item, like belt buckles.

The 10th century Messene trapezoid buckle, and its parallels, could be possibly attributed to members of the local military elite. The only buckle with this iconography that comes from a sealed archaeological context is the one from Samos in the eastern Aegean Sea, which was found in a tomb on the northern aisle of the Tigani basilica with another deco-rated trapezoid buckle, the second one with a lion battling a sea monster79. The location of the Samos tomb in the church as well as the presence of bronze decorated buckles in-side it suggests that the tomb belonged to a member of the upper classes80.

Many examples of trapezoid buckles of the usual lion-griffin iconography found in promi-nent burials of the 10th century do also suggest usage of these artifacts by the elite81. Some interesting examples are a trapezoid buckle found in Laurio in a tomb close to a church containing also a gold coin of Ioannis Tzimiskes (969–976)82, another from a fine built 10th century vaulted grave in Thebes that among other interesting luxurious finds in it a delicate bronze trapezoid buckle depicting a lion on its plate83, while in a recently exca-vated burial chamber in Kiev a wealthy warrior with all his armament (sword, bow, quiver

74 Speidel 1994, 72-74, 141 pl. 19.75 Epona is mentioned by the Christian writer Prudentius from northern Spain in the early 5th century (Apotheosis,

197) and by Fulgentius from North Africa around AD 500 (Expositio Sermonum Antiquorum, 390).76 Schmidt 1989, 421 f.77 The identification of Schulze-Dörrlamm (2009, 238-241) to these examples of a Potnia Theron (Lady of the

Beasts) iconography is also another interpretation. 78 Trapezoid buckles should be generally considered part of military outfit with their heroic iconography, lions,

griffins, pegasi, warriors. The decorated trapezoid buckle on the swordbelt of a warrior in a 10th century inhumation in Kiev points as a lively example: Movchan 2007, 222. Additionally pegasi and griffins, being celestial mounts, can imply even further the connection with mounted military.

79 Tölle-Kostenbein 1974, 104 f. fig. 165.80 For the evidence of social stratification and choosing of burial places in middle Byzantine churches one of the

best studied examples is the Lower City Church of Amorium in: Ivison 2006.81 For the importance and price of belts and their buckles in middle Byzantine times we are informed by a series of

sources: Oikonomides 1990, 210 no. 42.82 Csallany 1954, 346.83 Koilakou 1999, 116 f. fig. 20 pl. 48.


with arrows) and coins dating from 869 to 920 had a bronze trapezoid buckle with a grif-fin attached to his swordbelt84.

We could attribute the Messene fragment to the military elite that in the middle Byzantine period was one of the strongest arms of the Byzantine state in its effort to re-establish its presence in lands that for long had been left, if not outside its rule, at least on its margins. Their find spots in general show an interesting pattern of central (Constantinople – Asia Minor) and newly «Byzantinized» lands. And if for Crete historical sources are clear about the straightforward military victory of Nicephorus Phocas over the Arabs85, for Messene and many other parts of the Peloponnese the process of bringing these regions back un-der Byzantine rule (military, fiscal, religious) was slower and more copious. Information from the Life of Saint Nikon written in the 11th century, in which the author describes the tense and difficult relations of the Byzantine population of neighboring Sparta to the different Slavic tribes that were still living in the surrounding areas and actively disputed Byzantine rule, helps us understand the Peloponnesian realities of the period86. Further-more, the fact that the Messene buckle is almost identical with one found in Constantino-ple, suggests that members of the local upper social classes, that would wear such apparel in this remote area of the empire, were in direct connection with the capital, or even originated from there.

ConclusionsBy examining three bronze buckles found at the excavation of the byzantine settlement of Messene we attempted to combine our understanding of the artifacts with the general trends of social change and evolution during the «Dark Ages» and the centuries immediately after. Buckles and fibulae produced more or less, according to barbaric taste constitute some of the scarce archaeological evidence left behind by the Messenians of the 7th century. These artifacts connect the settlement with new networks, other than the traditional Byzantine centers of the Peloponnese. Close parallels to the Messenian «Slavic» fibula comes from Iaşi in Romania87, while the other known site in which both a «Slavic» fibula of a similar type as in Messene and a purse buckle of the RGZM D37 type were found, is Kruja in northern Albania88. Originality and uniqueness are typical of these artifacts constructed locally with the lost-wax technique corresponding to the focalized needs of the community89.

The 10th century buckle plate demonstrates quite a different condition. Messene by now is back on the main track of Byzantine rule. There is renewed building activity90, lead seals

84 Movchan 2007, 222.85 Tsougarakis 1988, 41.86 Oikonomides 2004, 30-33.87 Curta 2006, 464 no. 39.88 Anamali 1979-1980, 61 f.89 Curta 2006, 450-460.90 Penna – Lampropoulou – Anagnostakis 2008, 375-392; Orlandos 1969, 87-110.

Nikos Tsivikis76

appear, coins circulate91 and the city is mentioned by its ancient name in sources of the period92. Likewise the buckle plate follows a type found widely in lands controlled by the Byzantine Empire, from Sicily to Asia Minor and from Bulgaria to Crete, pointing out to the centralized character of the middle Byzantine state93.

Credits: Fig. 1-3. 5, 1. 10. 11, 1. 12. 14, 4: Society of Messenian Archaeological Studies/Petros Themelis. Fig. 4: American Classical School of Athens. Fig. 5: 2. Deonna 1938, 296 fig. 88; 3. American Classical School of Athens. Fig. 6: 1. and 3 Schulze-Dörrlamm 2002, 227; 2. Kiss 1998, pl. 8, 13; 4. Eleutherna Excavations, University of Crete. Fig. 7: Bertram 1995, 104 fig. 90. Fig. 9: 1. Touratsoglou – Chalkia 2008, 113; Eleutherna Excavations, University of Crete. Fig. 11: 2. Curta 2006, 464 no. 39; 3. Curta 2006, 464 no. 21-22. Fig. 13: 1-3. vinski 1974, pl. 2, 13. 3.1-2. Fig. 14: Archäologische Staatssammlung München. Fig. 15: Archaeological Museum Thessaloniki.

91 Penna – Lampropoulou – Anagnostakis 2008, 381 f.92 Themelis 2002, 35 no. 57.93 For Sicily, Maurici 2002, 539-542; for Asia Minor indicative is Amorium, Lightfoot 2003, 81-103; for Bulgaria,

Pletnyov 2005, 75-86; and for Crete, Werner 1955, 42.


Bibliography

Primary Sources

Prudentius H. J. Thompson (ed.), Prudentius 1. LOEB Classical Library (Harvard 1949).

Fulgentius F. D. Gerlach – C.L. Roth, Nonii Marcelli De compendiosa doctrina per literas ad filium et Fabii Planciadis Fulgentii. Expositio Sermonum Antiquorum (Basel 1842) 386-398.

Secondary Literature

Anagnostakis 1997 Η. Αναγνωστάκης, Η χειροποίητη κεραμική ανάμεσα στην Ιστορία και στην Αρχαιολογία, Βυζαντιακά 17, 1997, 287-330.

Anagnostakis – Poulou-Papadimitriou 1997 Η. Αναγνωστάκης – Ν. Πούλου-Παπαδημητρίου, Η Πρωτοβυζαντινή Μεσσήνη

(5ος-7ος αιώνας) και Προβλήματα της Χειροποίητης Κεραμικής στη Πελοπόννησο, Σύμμεικτα 11, 1997, 229-319.

Anamali 1979-1980 S. Anamali, varreza arberore e Krujes, Iliria 9-10, 1979-80, 47-103.

Arena 2001 M. S. Arena et alii, Roma, dall'Antichita' al medioevo. Archeologia e storia, nel Museo Nazionale Romano, Crypta Balbi (Milan 2001).

Avramea 1997 A. Avramea, Le Péloponnèse du Ive au vIIIe siècle. Changements et persistances (Paris 1997).

Bardani 2002 Β. Μπαρδάνη, Παλαιοχριστιανικές επιγραφές Μεσσήνης, in: Π.Θέμελης – Β.Κοντή (eds.) Πρωτοβυζαντινή Μεσσήνη και Ολυμπία: Αστικός και αγροτικός χώρος στη Δυτική Πελοπόννησο (Athens 2002) 82-98.

Bálint 2000 Cs. Bálint, Byzantinisches zur Herkunftsfrage des vielteiligen Gürtels, in: Cs. Bálint (ed.), Kontakte zwischen Iran, Byzanz und der Steppe in 6.-7. Jh., varia Archaeologica Hungarica 9 (Budapest 2000) 99-162.

Bertram 1995 M. Bertram (ed.), Merowingerzeit. Die Altertümer im Museum für vor- und Frühgeschichte, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin – Preussischer Kulturbesitz (Mainz 1995).

Bosselmann 2001 A. Bosselmann, Der Schatz von Preslav, in: M. Puhle (ed.), Otto der Große, Magdenburg und Europa (Mainz 2001) 485-496.

Bourbou 2004 Chr. Bourbou, The People of Early Byzantine Eleutherna and Messene (6th–7th centuries AD) (Athens 2004).

Cameron 1973 A. Cameron, Porphyrius the Charioteer (Oxford 1973).

Chatzidakis 2003 Π. Χατζηδάκης, Δήλος (Athens 2003).

Csallány 1954 D. Csallány, Les monuments de l’industrie byzantine des métaux 1, Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 2, 1954, 311-348.

Curta 2001 F. Curta, Pots, Slavs and «Imagined Communities»: Slavic archaeologies and the history of early Slavs, European Journal of Archaeology 4, 2001, 367-384.

Curta 2004 F. Curta, Barbarians in Dark-Age Greece: Slavs or Avars?, in: T. Stepanov – v. vachkova (eds.), Civitas Divino-Humana. In honorem annorum LX Georgii Bakalov (Sofia 2004) 513-550.

Curta 2005 F. Curta, Female Dress and «Slavic» Bow Fibulae in Greece, Hesperia 74, 2005, 101-146.

Curta 2006 F. Curta, Slavic Bow Fibulae? Werner’s Class I D Revisited, ActaArchHung 57, 2006, 486-535.

Davidson 1952 G. Davidson Weinberg, The Minor Objects, Corinth 12 (Princeton 1952).

Davidson 1974 G. Davidson Weinberg, A Wandering Soldier’s Grave in Corinth, Hesperia 43, 1974, 512-521.

Deonna 1938 W. Deonna, Le mobilier Délien, Exploration archéologiques de Délos (Paris 1938).

Nikos Tsivikis78

Dunbabin 1982 K. Dunbabin, The victorious Charioteer on Mosaics and Related Monuments, AJA 86, 1982, 65-89.

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

Gavrituchin 2008 I. Gavrituchin, Antiquities of the Avar Khaganat and the Southern Part of Eastern Europe. Periodization, Dating and Synchronization, Antaeus 29-30, 2008, 48-72.

Grabar 1935 A. Grabar, Les fresques des escaliers à Sainte-Sophie de Kiev et l’iconographie imperial byzantine, Seminarium Kondakovianum 7, 1935, 103-117.

Gounaris 1984 Γ. Γούναρης, Χάλκινες πόρπες από το Οκτάγωνο των Φιλίππων και την Κεντρική Μακεδονία, Βυζαντιακά 4, 1984, 49-59.

Haldon 1997 J. Haldon, Byzantium in the Seventh Century 2(Cambridge 1997).

Ivison 2006 E. Ivison, Burials of Provincial Elites in Asia Minor: The Evidence from Amorium, Proceedings of the 21st International Congress of Byzantine Studies, London, 21-26 August 2006, Abstracts of Panel Papers 2 (Ashgate 2006) 65.

Katsougiannopoulou 1999 C. Katsougiannopoulou, Studien zu ost- und südosteuropäischen Bügelfibeln. Unpubl. Diss. Univ. of Bonn) (Bonn 1999).

Kiss 1998 G. Kiss, Késő avar kor állatfejes övforgók és akasztóveretek, Studia Archaeologica 4, 1998, 461-495.

Khaïrédinova 2007 E. Khaïrédinova, Le costume des barbares aux confins septentrionaux de Byzance, in: A. Aibabin – H. Ivakin (eds.), Kiev – Cherson – Constantinople. Ukrainian papers at the 20th International Congress of Byzantine Studies (Kiev/Simferopol/Paris 2007) 20-44.

Köroğlu 2009 G. Köroğlu, A Group of Belt Buckles from the Halûk Perk Museum possibly be-longing to the Anatolian Seljuks, in: G. Dávid – I. Gerelyes (eds.), Thirteenth International Congress of Turkish Art. Proccedings (Budapest 2009) 393-407.

Koilakou 1994 Χ. Κοιλάκου, 1η Εφορεία Βυζαντινών Αρχαιοτήτων - Θήβα, ΑΔ 49, 1994, 115-117.

Langó – Türk 2004 P. Langó – A. Türk, Honfoglalás kori sírok Mindszent-Koszorús-Dülön (Landnahmezeitliche Gräber in Mindszent-Koszorús-Dülö), Studia Archaeologica 10, 2004, 365-451.

Lightfoot 2003 M. Lightfoot, Belt Buckles from Amorium and in the Afyon Archaeological Museum, in: Chr. Lightfoot (ed.), Research Papers and Technical Studies, Amorium Reports 2 (Oxford 2003) 81-103.

Mastrokostas 1971 Ε. Μαστροκώστας, Παλαιοχριστιανικαί Βασιλικαί Δρυμού Βονίτσης, ΑΑΑ 4, 1971, 185-195.

Miklós Szöke 2008 B. Miklós Szöke, veränderungen in der Struktur des awarischen Gürtels, Antaeus 29-30, 2008, 175-214.

Muthesius 1997 A. Muthesius, Byzantine Silk Weaving, AD 400 to AD 1200 (vienna 1997).

Maurici 2002 F. Maurici, Ancora sulle fibbie da cintura di età Bizantina in Sicilia, in: R. M. Carra Bonacasa (ed.), Atti del I Congresso Internazionale di Archeologia della Sicilia Bizantina, Byzantino-Sicula 4 (Palermo 2002) 513-557.

Movchan 2007 I. Movchan, A 10th century Warrior’s Grave from Kiev, in: A. Aibabin – H. Ivakin (eds.), Kiev – Cherson – Constantinople. Ukrainian papers at the 20th International Congress of Byzantine Studies (Kiev/Simferopol/Paris 2007) 221-223.

Nallbani 2007 E. Nallbani, Urban and Rural Funerary Practices in Early Medieval Illyricum: Some General Considerations, in: A. Cutler – A. Papaconstantinou (eds.), The Material and the Ideal. Essays in Medieval Art and Archaeology in Honour of Jean-Michel Spieser (Leiden 2007) 47-62.

Oikonomides 1990 N. Oikonomides, The Contents of the Byzantine House from the 11th to the 15th century, DOP 44, 1990, 205-214.

Oikonomides 2004 Ν. Οικονομίδης, Όψιμη Ιεραποστολή στη Λακωνία, in: Β. Κόντη (ed.), Ο Μοναχισμός στην Πελοπόννησο (Athens 2004) 29-35.

Orlandos 1969 Α. Ορλάνδος, Εκ της χριστιανικής Μεσσήνης, Ἀρχεῖον τῶν Βυζαντινῶν Μνημείων τῆς Ἑλλάδος 11, 1969, 87-147.


Pallas 1954 Δ. Πάλλας, Αι «βαρβαρικαί» πόρπαι της Κορίνθου, in: Πεπραγμένα Θ’ Διεθνούς Βυζαντινολογικού Συνεδρίου 1, Θεσσαλονίκη 1953 (Athens 1954) 340-396.

Pallas 1955 Δ. Πάλλας, Tα αρχαιολογικά τεκμήρια της καθόδου των βαρβάρων εις την Ελλάδα, Ελληνικά 14, 1955, 87-105.

Penna – Lampropoulou – Anagnostakis 2008 Β. Πέννα – Α. Λαμπροπούλου – Η. Αναγνωστάκης, Γλυπτά μεταβατικών

χρόνων από τη Βασιλική του Θεάτρου της Αρχαίας Μεσσήνης, in: Ch. Pennas – C. vanderheyde (eds.), La sculpture byzantine, vIIe-XIIe siécles. BCH Suppl. 49 (Athens 2008) 375-392.

Pletnyov 2005 v. Pletnyov, Buckles with Animal Images from North-East Bulgaria (9th-10th cent. AD), Archaeologia Bulgarica 9, 2005, 75-86.

Poulou-Papadimitriou 2002 Ν. Πούλου-Παπαδημητρίου, Βυζαντινές Πόρπες. Η περίπτωση της Μεσσήνης και της Ελεύθερνας, in: Π. Θέμελης – Β. Κόντη (eds.), Πρωτοβυζαντινή Μεσσήνη και Ολυμπία (Athens 2002) 125-136.

Poulou-Papadimitriou 2004 Ν. Πούλου-Παπαδημητρίου, Οι χάλκινες πόρπες, in: Π. Θέμελης (ed.), Πρωτο βυζαντινή Ελεύθερνα. Τομέας Ι, 1 (Athens 2004) 231-256.

Poulou-Papadimitriou 2005 N. Poulou-Papadimitriou, Les plaques-boucles Byzantines de l’île de Crète (fin Ive-IXe siècle), in: F. Baratte (ed.), Mélanges Jean-Pierre Sodini, Travaux et Mémoires 15 (Paris 2005) 687-704.

Riemer 2005 E. Riemer, Byzantinische Schnallen des 6. und 7. Jahrhunderts. Ein Forschungs-überblick, in: B. Päffgen – M. Schmauder – E. Pohl (eds.), Cum Grano Salis. Beiträge zur europäischen vor- und Frühgeschichte. Festschrift für volker Bierbrauer zum 65. Geburtstag (Friedberg 2005) 269-281.

Russel 1982 J. Russel, Byzantine Instrumenta Domestica from Anemurium: The Significance of Context, in: R. Hohlfelder, City, Town and Countryside in the Early Byzantine Era (New York 1982) 133-164.

Schmidt 1989 K. H.Schmidt, Epona, in: Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde 7 (Berlin 1989) 418-423.

Schulze-Dörrlamm 2002 M. Schulze-Dörrlamm, Byzantinische Gürtelschnallen und Gürtelbeschläge im Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseum 1 (Bonn 2002).

Schulze-Dörrlamm 2009 M. Schulze-Dörrlamm, Byzantinische Gürtelschnallen und Gürtelbeschläge im Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseum 2 (Bonn 2009).

Setton 1950 K. Setton, The Bulgars in the Balkans and the Occupation of Corinth in the Seventh Century, Speculum 25, 1950, 502-543.

Sidiropoulos 2002 Κλ. Σιδηρόπουλος, Η νομισματική κυκλοφορία στην υστερορωμαϊκή και πρωτοβυζαντινή Μεσσήνη. Τυπικό παράδειγμα ή ιστορική εξαίρεση; in: Π.Θέμελης – Β.Κοντή (eds.) Πρωτοβυζαντινή Μεσσήνη και Ολυμπία: Αστικός και αγροτικός χώρος στη Δυτική Πελοπόννησο (Athens 2002) 99-124.

Speidel 1994 M. P. Speidel, Riding for Caesar. The Roman Emperors’ Horse Guards (Cambridge Mass. 1994).

Stefanidou-Tiveriou 1997 G. Despinis – Th. Stefanidou-Tiveriou – E. voutiras, Catalogue of Sculpture in the Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki 1 (Thessaloniki 1997).

Themelis 2002 Π. Θέμελης, Υστερορωμαϊκή και Πρωτοβυζαντινή Μεσσήνη, in: Π.Θέμελης – Β.Κοντή (eds.), Πρωτοβυζαντινή Μεσσήνη και Ολυμπία: Αστικός και αγροτικός χώρος στη Δυτική Πελοπόννησο (Athens 2002) 20-58.

Themelis 2004 Π. Θέμελης, Πρωτοβυζαντινή Ελεύθερνα. Τομέας Ι, 1 (Athens 2004).

Touratsoglou – Chalkia 2008 Ι. Τουράτσογλου – Ε. Χαλκιά, Ο Θησαυρός της Κρατήγου Μυτιλήνης: Νομίσματα και τιμαλφή αντικείμενα του 7ου αι. μ.Χ. (Athens 2008).

Tölle-Kostenbein 1974 R. Tölle-Kostenbein, Das Kastro-Tigani. Die Bauten und Funde griechischer, römischer und byzantinischer Zeit, Samos 14 (Bonn 1974).

Tsougarakis 1988 D. Tsougarakis, Byzantine Crete. From the 5th Century to the venetian Conquest (Athens 1988).

Uenze 1966 S. Uenze, Die Schnallen mit Riemenschlaufe aus dem 6. und 7. Jahrhundert, Bayerische vorgeschichtsblätter 31, 1966, 142-181.

Nikos Tsivikis80

vida – völling 2000 T. vida – T. völling, Das slawische Brandgräberfeld von Olympia (Raden 2000).

vinski 1974 Z. vinski, O Kasnim Bizantskim Kopčama i o Pitanju Njihova Odnosa s Avarskim Ukrasnim Tvorevinama / Zu späten byzantinischen Schnallen und die Frage ihrer Beziehung zu awarischen Siegerbilden), vjesnik Arheološkog Muzeja u Zagrebu 8, 1974, 57-81.

vocotopoulou 1997 Ι. Βοκοτοπούλου, Αρχαιολογικό Μουσείο Θεσσαλονίκης (Athens 1996).

völling 2001 T. völling, The Last Christian Greeks and the First Pagan Slavs in Olympia, in: Ε. Κουντουρά-Γαλάκη (ed.), Οι σκοτεινοί αιώνες του Βυζαντίου (7ος-9ος αι.) (Athens 2001) 303-323.

Wamser – Zahlhaas 1998 L. Wamser – G. Zahlhaas (eds.), Rom und Byzanz. Archäologische Kostbarkeiten aus Bayern (Munich 1998).

Werner 1950 J. Werner, Slawische Bügelfibeln des 7. Jahrhunderts, in: G. Behrens (ed.), Reinecke-Festschrift zum 75. Geburtstag von Paul Reinecke am 25. September 1947 (Mainz 1950) 150-172.

Werner 1955 J. Werner, Byzantinische Gürtelschnallen des 6. und 7. Jahrhunderts aus der Sammlung Diergart, Kölner Jahrbuch für vor- und Frühgeschichte 1, 1955, 36-48.

Documents

06 Tsivikis Libre