7 Daim Opt Sec

8/4/2019 7 Daim Opt Sec

1/11Intelligible Beauty | 61

Introduction

In many different cultures, regions and periods from the

Bronze Age to the present day the belt is an important dressaccessory.1 It holds trousers and coats together, is valuable

jewellery, but can also carry meaning on a number of different

levels. Above all, it is a symbol of social position, rank andwealth.2 This is true, in particular, for Early Byzantium. The

East Roman belt fashion of the late 6th to 8th centuries

developed from Late Roman military belts, 3 but was also

influenced by stimuli from the Sasanian East, whereas

influences from the steppe cultures did not play as great a roleas had been previously assumed.4 As with other types of

jewellery earrings, necklaces, bracelets Byzantine beltswere highly attractive for many neighbouring peoples.

Therefore, Byzantine belts have been found among the

Lombards in Italy, as well as among the Avars, Bulgarians and

Moravians. At the same time a diverse local production,sometimes very different from the Byzantine models,

developed in these regions.

Multi-part belt sets may be studied on a number of differentlevels. As belt decoration changes relatively quickly, the belt,

like brooches, constitutes one of the bases of chronological

systems. Also, strap-ends and fittings are often decorated withmotifs, which, like large-scale reliefs, mosaics and wallpaintings, may be analysed from an iconographical point of

view. However, the production techniques used to manufacture

belt ornaments are also interesting. With the help oftechnological studies, we can not only obtain information

regarding workshop traditions and the technical abilities of the

smiths and metal casters, but also about the systems of socialvalues. It is not only the raw materials used which make a piece

of jewellery precious; the techniques used and their

combination may also have played an important role. Another

important question concerns the social function of these belts.

Who wore them and on what occasions? Were there, as in EarlyMedieval China and Japan, precise rules for their use? If we

have no written sources on this topic for Byzantium, canarchaeological contexts provide answers? Belts and belt sets

are an ideal topic for historical research and cultural studies.

With the help of a trans-disciplinary approach, belts can reveal

something about social reality in the Early Middle Ages, as wellas about the transfer of cultural elements and technologies

over territorial borders.This paper will attempt to demonstrate

the connections between Byzantine and Avar belts, focusing onthe opportunities which the relatively reliable Avar chronology

offers for dating Byzantine types. Avar imitations have

frequently permitted us to identify and date their Byzantinemodels.

It is nevertheless not possible in every case to determine

with certainty whether a particular object is a Byzantine

original or a barbarian imitation. If we consider the problem

from a general point of view, then we can distinguish between

four main types of product, ranging from Byzantine to of

Byzantine type:1. Products made on Byzantine territory, traded and used

within the Empire.

2. Products made on Byzantine territory, but brought andused outside the Empire. Here we should mention, for

example, diplomatic gifts made especially for this purpose.

3. Products made by Byzantine craftsmen outside the Empire:

3a. according to local tastes,

3b. according to Byzantine tastes.4. Products made by barbarian craftsmen using Byzantine

technology:4a. according to local tastes (shape and/or motifs), or

4b. according to Byzantine tastes.

Possible criteria for the identification of Byzantine objects are:1. Shapes and motifs which, according to maps showing their

distribution, were popular or accepted only within the

Byzantine Empire, but rarely outside its borders.2. Production techniques which, in Byzantium, were thought

to enhance an objects value.

3. Evidence for the existence of workshops on Byzantineterritory, such as casting moulds, half-finished products,and so on.

4. The use of raw materials, alloys etc., which may serve as

evidence for the location of workshops on Byzantineterritory.

The idea that all valuable objects are Byzantine and all objects

of lower quality are barbarian (for example, Avar), is

definitely incorrect. Of course, even within the Roman Empire,cheaper and less elaborate objects were manufactured and

perhaps this could complicate things there may have been a

special production of low-quality objects for the markets

outside of Byzantine territory.It is obvious that in each individual case, all available data,

both antiquarian and scientific, must be evaluated and only if

all observations point in the same direction can we expect toobtain more or less reliable results. However, the effort is

certainly worth it. The detailed analysis of archaeological finds

and their contexts gives us small insights into the interactionsof Avar and medieval-Roman culture, indicating what was

accepted, adopted, rejected or altered. We can also discern a

number of different phases in the spectrum of Avar-Byzantine

cultural contacts.

SourcesThe written sources from the 6th to the 10th centuries mentionbelts on several occasions. The Latin panegyricIn laudem

Iustini, written by Corippus to celebrate the occasion of

Emperor Justin IIs ascent to the throne, is particularly

Byzantine Belt Ornaments of the 7th and 8thCenturies in Avar Contexts

Falko Daim


2/1162 | Intelligible Beauty

Daim

impressive. In this poem, the author describes the careful stage

management of an audience which Justin granted to an Avardelegation, only seven days after the beginning of his reign.

The splendidly decorated throne was f lanked on either side by

two goddesses of victory, which held laurel wreaths over theemperors head. The emperor was dressed in splendid, pure

white and purple clothing, with a gold coat, a gold belt and

purple shoes made of Parthian leather.

5

A gold belt is also mentioned in a murder mystery told by

Theophylaktos Simokattes. A member of the imperial

bodyguard goes hunting with a Gepid. The mans beautiful

gleaming dress, his gold belt and the horses gold reins stirthe Gepids greed. He killed his hunting partner and fled with

his loot, but was later caught and executed. The moral

conclusion drawn by Theophylaktos regarding this event isquite revealing. The bodyguards downfall was his gold

jewellery, because the ornaments were permanently

accompanied by envy and persecution.6 This appeal for

modesty corresponds notably with the fact that Byzantine

jewellery is characterised more by refined productiontechniques than by weight and monumentality.

A miracle story of St Artemios, written in the late 7thcentury, also demonstrates the meaning of the belt in Early

Byzantine society. This story relates the theft of festive clothes

and a belt, as well as of the recovery of the stolen objects with

the help of the saint.7 The Vita of Theodore of Sykeon, writtenbefore 650, also contains a great deal of information about life

in the provinces. For example, it reports that the saint was

equipped with expensive clothes and a gold belt when he wasonly six years old and sent by his mother to Constantinople,

hoping that he would be accepted into the emperors service.8

Belts are mentioned in the Tractates and in DeAdministrando Imperii by Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus

(91359). They belong among the gif ts of different value which

should be taken along on diplomatic missions: various purple

and false-purple belts valued at 1 nomisma 4 miliarsia each;and others in false-purple at 1 nomisma, and others at 8

miliarsia.9 If a delegation is sent to the Pechenegs, gifts such

as purple clothes, silk fabrics, pepper and authentic Parthianleather, as well as belts, should be taken along and distributed

among the foreigners according to strict rules.10

Men with multi-part belts are depicted on a number of

mosaics, wall paintings and bronze figures, which have been

commented on in several publications recently.11

However,strictly speaking, the only information obtained from studying

these sources is that belts with additional straps were worn inthe Early Byzantine period in the eastern part of the Empire.

The depiction of the family of the rich Roman, Theodotus, in

the so-called chapel of Zachary (which he sponsored) in Sta

Maria Antiqua in Rome (built between 741 and 752) is anexceptional case in several respects.12 Theodotus was twice

consul and duxof Rome that is, he was supreme commander

of the troops. Theodotus and his wife stand on either side of theVirgin Mary with, to their right, a little girl and, to their left, a

boy, both of whom are marked as being alive by means of a

rectangular halo. The boy, presumably Theodotus stepson, iswearing a kaftan closed with a multi-part belt. He later becamePope Hadrian, but when the donators picture was painted, he

would have expected to follow in his fathers footsteps.

Therefore, he is presumably depicted wearing the uniform of a

dux, but certainly the dress appropriate for the social status ofhis family.

The main sources for our topic, however, are archaeological

finds, even if most of them were not discovered on former

Byzantine territory, but outside the borders of the ByzantineEmpire, from Lombard Italy, the Bavarian and Alamannic

territories in the foothills of the northern Alps and in particular

from the Avar Empire, in present-day Hungary and adjacentregions. Although it is likely that a number of Early Byzantine

belt ornaments still remain to be identified in the storerooms of

museums in Turkey, Greece and Italy, this presumably will not

alter the general picture completely, because in the ByzantineEmpire, jewellery was only rarely placed in graves, while

burials outside the Byzantine borders were well furnished,

both with dress ornaments and with grave goods in the realsense (for example: food), up to the middle of the 7th century

(Lombards), the end of the 7th century (Alamans,

Baiuwarians) and even to the end of the 8th century among the

Avars. Therefore, we are faced with the strange situation of

having to reconstruct important elements of Byzantine culturewith the help of find complexes from adjacent regions on the

one hand by means of original products, which reachedneighbouring regions in various ways, on the other hand with

the help of imitations, which reveal the models of

Mediterranean origin, although they were produced locally.

The close connections between Byzantine and Avarculture, although these contacts usually moved only in one

direction, can also be used to date the Byzantine originals, as

well as certain production techniques and motifs. Thechronological system of Avar culture is not equally reliable in

all periods so it is useful, indeed even necessary, to reflect on

this topic briefly.

The Avars and Byzantium

Due to their steppe-nomadic way of life only slightly modified

to suit the entirely different environment in the CarpathianBasin the Avars were always regarded as a non-European

exception. Like the Scythians and the Huns before them, they

guarded their herds, hunted and fought on horseback.

Permanent buildings, settlements and towns had noimportance for them, while mobility was crucial.

Only very recently have we learned to see the Avars with

different eyes. Already more than a 100 years ago their

material remains were classif ied as Late Roman, because theyincluded so many antique shapes and motifs. As a result of

international historical research in the past 30 years, we havemanaged to overcome the much too rigid, traditional concepts

of tribes and peoples. This has also facilitated a new

understanding of the foundation of the Avar Empire and of its

diverse contacts with Byzantium. If it were not for Byzantium,the Avar Empire would never have been founded, because large

annual payments from Constantinople and rich loot from raids

on the Balkans stabilised the khagans power. Avarrepresentational culture was only created in the Carpathian

Basin and in many ways reflects its Byzantine counterpart, or

whatever the Avars perceived that to be. The Avars did notadopt techniques, shapes and motifs uncritically, of course.Sometimes, Byzantine models were rejected and for a short

period of time in the middle of the 7th century, it seems that a

consciously anti-Byzantine orientation prevailed. This seems to



Byzantine Belt Ornaments of the 7th and 8th Centuries in Avar Contexts

be true for the so-called pseudo-buckle belt sets.13 In any case,

the material remains of Avar culture are extremely relevant for

Byzantine archaeology. Over a period of about 200 years, wecan observe in which ways Byzantine culture influenced a

neighbouring territory.

Remarks on the chronology of the Avar archaeological

material (hard and soft facts)

For many Byzantine objects in the larger museums andcollections no reliable information regarding provenance and

find circumstances is available. Therefore, objects found

during proper excavations, particularly grave assemblageswith their combinations of object types, which may be

evaluated using statistics, are of considerable importance for

the chronology of the various types of finds and for recordingareas of distribution. Avar graves contain a large number ofByzantine object types and therefore Avar typochronology may

be able to assist Byzantine studies in a number of ways. But

how reliable is Avar chronology at present?For the Early Avar period (568 to 650/670) the situation is

still rather disadvantageous. Although we do have a number of

(absolute) dates derived from coins, these are onlyterminus

post quem dates for the burials themselves. The time span

between the moment when the (youngest) coin in the grave

was minted and the time of burial may be considerable. The

princely grave from Kungota, which is probably from the first

quarter of the 7th century, but contains asolidus of Justinian I,minted after 542, is a good example. In this case, the coin is not

really helpful. Modern interpretations of larger cemeteriesfrom the Early Avar period, such as Zamrdi, using statistical

methods and the internal chronology of the cemetery itself,

will soon improve the state of research.

The situation is much better for the Middle and Late Avarperiods (about 650/670 to about 800). Due to the large number

of Avar grave assemblages and the sometimes huge necropoleis

consisting of several thousand inhumation graves, thechronological system for the Avar finds from the Middle and

Late Avar periods is quite detailed. Absolute dates for

characteristic types of objects can be assigned with the help ofa number of 7th century coins and, ultimately with the detailedwritten sources on the fall of the Avar Empire caused by the

armies of Charlemagne just before the year 800. The only

question is: how long did it take for the production of decorated

belts within the Avar Empire to stop, once the khagans power

had collapsed? The ideas of the scientific community regarding

this question differ considerably.

Byzantine diversity in the archaeological material of the

Early Avar period

The archaeological material of the Early Avar period (568 to

about 650) is very heterogeneous. Iron pieces of equipment

(such as stirrups) and the bow in particular demonstrate close

links to Eastern steppe culture. At the same time, there is also alocal, Late Roman cultural component as well as a strong

Germanic element, presumably due to groups which

participated in raids on the Byzantine Balkans. At the end ofthe 6th and in the early 7th century, brooches from the North

Sea and Baltic region are found in the Carpathian Basin and a

number of richly equipped womens graves demonstrate that itwas possible for people of Germanic origin to gain considerablewealth within the Avar Empire.14

A few years ago, Garam compiled archaeological material

from Avar contexts of the Early and Middle Avar periods, forwhich she assumed an origin from within the Byzantine

Empire, or at least a close connection with Byzantine culture.15

Whether these are in fact Byzantine products, objects made byByzantine craftsmen working for Avar customers, or local

imitations, must be examined in each individual case. One

should also consider that few types of Byzantine jewellery or

equipment were distributed over the entire terr itory of the

Byzantine Empire. Rather, it seems that local customs alsomanifest themselves increasingly in the use of dress

accessories. Well known examples are the Sicilian-Byzantinebuckles with animal motifs; these represent a unique, local

type, and only the shape of the fittings remains the same on a

supra-regional level (see Entwistle, this volume, Pls 2224,

27).Among the oldest Byzantine belt-fittings are the mask

fittings, of which only very few examples were found on Avar

territory. The more valuable examples of this type are silvercastings (Pl. 1). Mask fittings seem to have been most common

in the final quarter of the 6th century. Belts elaborately

decorated with mask fittings have been found in the northernCaucasus and Sasanian Persia16 and later variations of this typewere also found in Lombard Italy. When the phase of large

cemeteries in the Avar Empire began, the era of mask fittings

appears to have already been over.

Plate 1 Mask fittings. 1, 2 Tolnnemedi; 3 Leobersdorf; 4, 5 Hajduszoboszl.Scale 2:3

Plate 2 Belt set from Kiskrs, burial 9, selected objects. Scale 2:3



Daim

Sheet metal strap-ends with highly stylised linear

decoration and scroll ornament are loosely related to the maskfittings. A belt set consisting of sheet metal strap-ends of this

type and of cast belt fittings, was found in Grave 9 in Kiskrs

(Pl. 2).17 As the combination of sheet metal strap-ends and castfittings of different shape occurs several times in Lombard

Italy, for example in Arcisa Grave 2 as well as in Nocera Umbra

Graves 16, 18, 42, 79, 84 and 85,

18

it is likely that the beltornaments from Kiskrs came to the Carpathian Basin from

Italy. Such sheet metal strap-ends with linear and scroll

ornament are frequently referred to as Martynovka type, after

the treasure found in 1907 in present-day Ukraine.19 In the late6th and early 7th century, they seem to have been distributed

widely, from Italy to the Black Sea. The dot and comma

ornament, which was later so popular in Byzantium, may havedeveloped from the linear and scroll ornament of the sheet

metal strap-ends. According to Garam20 amongst the oldest

types of Byzantine belt ornaments is the Fnlak type, which

was frequently decorated with dot and comma ornament and

of which several complete sets were found in Avar contexts (Pl.3).

One of the most important Avar burials is the smiths gravefrom Kunszentmrton.21 The grave assemblage points toward

Byzantium in several respects, particularly with regard to a

precision scale with several weights of different sizes, but also

due to numerous formers (positive models) for sheet-metalfittings (P. 4), including a complete set for the production of a

belt set of high artistic quality, which bears a certain

resemblance to the belt fittings from Kungota (Pl. 5).Characteristically, the central medallion of the former for the

main strap end contains an anchor-cross.

The gold belt sets of Bcsa-Kunbbony type with theso-called pseudo-buckle fittings were produced usingMediterranean techniques, from many individual components.

Their models, however, are found in the steppes of the

northern Caucasus and in the woodlands west of the Ural.Therefore, they cannot be considered Byzantine belt sets.22 The

gold belt set with pseudo-buckles from Sirmium could be a

Byzantine adaptation of this type (see Blint, this volume, Pl.

27). As it consists of heavy, cast components, finely worked only

from the front, this could be a Byzantine product made for a

potentate in the Carpathian Basin. The only gold belt set with

pseudo-buckles outside the Carpathian Basin was found in theprincely grave from Mala Pereepino (Ukraine), which may

be dated to the middle of the 7th century due to the gold coins

which are part of the jewellery. It is likely that those Avar

graves with gold pseudo-buckles belong to the same period.In the next section I would like to present two

archaeological assemblages with Byzantine belts from the 7th

century and several belt sets and individual finds from the 8thcentury.

Kungota (buried after 542, probably in the first half of the

7th century)

The princely grave from Kungota, found in 1857, was the first

rich Avar burial known to archaeologists.23 The deceased was

buried with two horses with decorated bridles. His clothingincluded various kinds of jewellery, such as eight finger-rings

and a belt with gold ornaments (Pl. 5). The sword was covered

in gold foil decorated with Dionysian scenes, which may

originally have belonged to some kind of casket (see Blint,

this volume, Pl. 24). The grave contained asolidus of JustinianI, from 54262.

For a long time, it was assumed that the components of thebelt set had been pressed using dies. However, technical

studies carried out by Bhler in 2001 have shown that each

component was produced individually, by chasing andrepouss.24 The set consists of a main strap end, four large andfour small fittings with long attachment loops, four small

strap-ends, a double bow-shaped fitting with attachment loops,

a strap loop with a ring attached and a husk-shapedornamental piece of sheet gold with a semi-circular concavity

on one side. The fine ornament on the sheet gold is

symmetrical and depicts stylised scrolls (according to Garam)or birds. The central sections are framed by rows of beads andby dot and comma ornament. The medallion in the centre of

the main strap end is not decorated with a monogram, but

instead with a fine whorl consisting of five rays. The strap loop

Plate 3 Belt set from Keszthely Fenkpuszta, Horreum, burial 15, selectedobjects. Scale 2:3

Plate 4 Bronze formers (positive models) from the goldsmiths grave fromKunszentmrton. Scale 2:3


5/11

Plate

5B

eltsetfromK

ungota,reconstructionofthemounted

beltornaments.

Scale2:3



Daim

Plate 6 Belt set from Ozora-Ttipuszta, selected objects. Scale 2:3

is decorated with a striking ankh-like cross, which is in fact the

only definite Christian cross on Byzantine belt sets from Avarcontexts, if we do not take into consideration the anchor-cross

from Kunszentmrton (see above) and the medallion from

Ozora-Ttipuszta (Pl. 6), which bears some resemblance to a

cross.

Ozora-Ttipuszta (buried after 669)

The graves from Ozora-Ttipuszta are among the mostimportant Avar burials with respect to Byzantine archaeology.

They were discovered by accident in 1871. Unfortunately, the

find circumstances are not completely clear, but recentlyProhszka has identified archive material which shows thisarchaeological assemblage in a different light.25 As a result, it is

now possible to reconstruct how the two graves were

discovered in some detail, although many questions stillremain.

The first grave was discovered accidentally in the course of

earthworks. The second was found two or three days laterduring an investigation in the vicinity of the first grave. In the

course of this investigation a skeleton lying face-down was

found together with sword fragments, a torc, buckles, a finger-

ring, small earrings and a chalice-shaped silver vessel. Several

pendants were found at the temples of the deceased, the torcwith a sheet gold pendant (bulla) was located at the neck. A

gold coin of Constantine IV (minted 66974) had been placedon the back of the deceased. Much later, a sword and a silver

drinking horn, as well as a glass jug with a copper handle and a

silver lid, were also found beside the skeleton. Reputedly, the

glass body of the jug was covered with silver on the outside andwith gold on the inside. Unfortunately, this object no longer

exists. At dawn on the next day, a second bracelet, two small

earrings, pieces of sheet gold (presumably the belt set), theattachment plates of the sword, a silver buckle and a piece of

sheet gold from the sword handle were found. According to

Prohszka, grave 2 could in fact have been a double burial notcompletely excavated in 1871. In this case the male skeletonwould still be in the ground. It is virtually impossible to clarify

whether this assumption is true or not. Alternatively, grave 2

could just have been a mans grave which, uncharacteristically,

also included a torc and bracelets, as well as a necklace.

At any rate, both graves contained a number of Byzantineobjects, so that if it had been customary for Byzantine citizens

to be buried with grave goods one could have mistaken them

for burials of Byzantine citizens. The burial customs are Avar

and probably the sword, but even this is still open to discussion.Although the belt set is made of sheet gold (Pl. 6), it is not

as elaborate from a technological point of view as the one from

Kungota. It was produced using formers (positive models),which is why the relief does not have such precise contours on

the front. In addition there appears to have been no re-working

of details on the decorated pieces of sheet gold before addingthe other components of each belt fitting.26 The set consists of a

main strap end, one large and three small fittings and six small

strap-ends, plus a fitting of double-bow shape and a gilded

silver buckle. The individual components are somewhat largerthan those from Kungota and the decoration is coarser,

although not unattractive. The strap-ends and fittings repeat

the motif shown on the main strap end a small tree with largeleaves which are attached to the trunk at an oblique angle. In

the centre of the main strap end, there is a medallion with a

somewhat cross-shaped ornament, which also seems to imitate

decoration with precious stones. In this case, the Christian

symbol of prosperity and victory (if in fact it is intended assuch) is so ambiguous that it could also be interpreted as a

geometric ornament. The other objects from the two graves orthe double grave are also relevant for Byzantine archaeology,

but this is not the place to discuss them.

Because the time at which the finds from Ozora-Ttipuszta

were buried can be determined with some precision (after669), one may be permitted to draw some historical

conclusions. In fact this case is an excellent example of how

archaeological finds may assist the interpretation of isolatedhistorical sources.

For, in the absence of the archaeological record, how could

we interpret the completely isolated story of an Avar delegationbeing sent to Constantinople in 678/9 in order to congratulatethe emperor on the victory of the Byzantine fleet against the

Arabs in the vicinity of the capital? The historian would have

many ways to interpret this event. However, only the




Plate 7 Belt set from Hohenberg. Scale 2:3

archaeological sources demonstrate that this diplomatic

activity occurred in a period during which Byzantine coins andluxury goods entered Avar territory, and the Avar elite almost

exclusively followed Byzantine fashions. Because this

delegation fits well into a clear archaeological picture, it can beinterpreted more precisely from the historians point of view.

The process during which the Avar Empire had gradually

re-gained its strength had now been more or less completed

and, immediately before the foundation of the Bulgarian

Empire in 680, Byzantium was looking for allies on its northernborder.

Belt fittings from Hohenberg to Szeged (8th century)

The main classes of multi-part belt sets from the late 6th and

the 7th century, whose origins lay within Byzantine culture,

were identified and described some time ago. This was due inpart to self-evident find circumstances, for instance the

treasures from Akalan, Mersin and the finds from the

Byzantine stronghold at Sadovec (Bulgaria),27 but also to someof the motifs used, such as monograms and Christian symbols

of salvation and victory. For the 8th century, the situation is not

quite as clear. Although it seems likely that decorated beltswere also used in Byzantium in the 8th century, no actualexamples of these were known until recently. The key to

solving this problem lay within the archaeological material of

the Avar Empire, where it was still customary to bury the dead

with clothing, jewellery and grave goods even in the 8th

century. In fact we have more than 50,000 Avar graveassemblages from the 8th century and approximately one in

ten mens graves contained a cast belt set, most of which were

decorated with obviously Mediterranean motifs: circus scenes,

griffins, marine spirits riding on dolphins, imperial portraits,vine scrolls and many more. 28 The enormous quantity of

material, but also the many failed castings and half-finished

products from Avar settlements demonstrate that there was an

active production of belts within the Avar Empire. But whereare the models, and how did an Avar bronze caster become

acquainted with the many different motifs?Recently, a splendid belt set from Hohenberg in the

Austrian Alps has been identified as an Italian-Byzantine

product (Pl. 7).29 Apart from the decorated belt, the grave also

contained a Carolingian sword of excellent quality. The beltsmethod of production differs from that of the vast majority of

Avar parallels. It is made of brass instead of bronze and the

main strap end as well as the small strap-ends are complexconstructions, consisting of up to 70 individual components

(Pl. 8). The historical interpretation of this belt set was assisted

by two good parallels which were found recently in Bolzano(South Tyrol, Italy), in an already plundered grave in thechurch of S. Vigilius, and most notably, by the fresco in the

north-western side-chapel of the church Sta Maria Antiqua in

Rome (middle of the 8th century), which presumably depicts



Daim

suspect that this is valid also for the 8th and 9th centuries. On

the whole, decorated belts appear to have played an importantrole, both in the representation of high-ranking civilian

officials and military officers, as well as in diplomatic relations,

and certainly also in trade. It therefore seems reasonable toassume that the high-quality belt set from Hohenberg was

brought from Italy to a local potentate by a Byzantine

delegation.The example of a small gold strap end now in the

Dumbarton Oaks collection, said to have been found at Aleppo,

illustrates how the Avars treated Byzantine models (Pl. 10

left).31 Several years ago, the Institute for Pre- and Protohistoryat the University of Vienna acquired a small private collection

of Early Medieval objects which had previously been bought

from antique and even flea markets. The collection included aLate Avar belt set with a main strap end which is strikingly

similar, in terms of its construction, to the object from Aleppo

(Pl. 10 right). However, the Byzantine bird-motifs have been

replaced by quadrupeds. The same observation was also made

when studying the decoration of other suspected Avarimitations.

The fragment of a beautiful strap end from Mikulice(southern Moravia, Czech Republic) may well be another

Byzantine original, because, apart from the birds, which peck

at grapes on the vine scrolls, it includes several decorative

elements which do not occur on Avar finds (Pl. 11)32 such ashalf-palmettes and punched dot and comma ornament.

Provided this assumption is correct, the fragment proves that

high quality strap-ends consisting of two parts which were puttogether back-to-back were also produced in Byzantium.

One of the most expressive Byzantine belt fittings was

discovered only very recently, in 2004, during excavations atSzeged-Kiskundorozsma, Kettshatr II, in an Avar grave

which had already been robbed in antiquity. The fitting was

published by the excavators very soon after its discovery.33 In

20072008, the object was examined in detail at the RGZM in

the stepson of the donator Theodotus, wearing a short kaftanand a multi-part belt set of this or similar type (Pl. 9). As noted

above, as Theodotus was supreme commander of the imperial

troops in Rome, the boy is perhaps shown wearing the officialdress of the dux (magister militum).30 The chapel, and with it

also the fresco, was built between 741 and 752, which fits in

quite well with the date established by means of archaeologicalcriteria for the belt sets of Hohenberg type: the third quarter

of the 8th century.

Written sources from the early 10th century refer repeatedly to

precious belts as diplomatic gifts. There are good reasons to

Plate 8 The construction of the main strap end from Hohenberg

Plate 9 Wall paintingfrom Sta Maria Antiqua,Rome




Plate 12 Belt fitting from Szeged-Kiskundorozsma. Scale 1:1

Plate 13 Belt fitting from Szeged-Kiskundorozsma. Scale 1:1

Mainz (Pls 1213). The belt fitting is a little more than 40mmhigh and weighs about 17g. It consists of numerous silver

components, which were soldered together, resulting in a

stable construction which was then mercury gilded on the

front. The side strip consists of two beaded wires, separated bytriangles consisting of nine granules each. The outer edge of

the side-strip is decorated all around with a beaded border,

worked in repouss, using a frame-shaped piece of sheet silver.Each individual bead was also decorated with triangles and

dots, using punches.

In the central decorative section of the fitting, the

Byzantine emperor is depicted in profile wearing a diadem, as

well as a round brooch on his left (!) shoulder and some kind ofbreast ornament. He is holding a bundle of laurel in front of his

body, with another twig or branch placed behind his head. Thefigural ornament is surrounded by an arcaded frame. The

contours of the relief ornament on the central sheet are just asprecise on the front as on the reverse. This can best be seen on

the beads of the diadem. As the contours of the beads on the

front and the reverse correspond so remarkably well, it seems

likely that a two-part bronze die was used that is a (negative)die for shaping the front and a (positive) former for shaping the

reverse. After the sheets had been pressed in the two-part die,

the recesses of the openwork were cut out and some detailsre-worked using various types of punches. The centrepiece

with figural decoration was then soldered onto the sheet silver

frame from the front. Using such a two-part die would have

facilitated the production of several pieces of sheet silver with

identical decoration. This in fact would have been necessary inour case, as belt sets of this type usually included six identical

fittings. Three attachment loops, consisting of narrow strips ofsheet silver, were soldered onto the reverse of the belt fitting as

a means of attachment to the belt. The next step was to

mercury-gild the fitting. We do not know what its hinged

pendant looked like, presumably it was semi-circular orpentagonal, like the fitting itself.

The belt fitting from Szeged-Kiskundorozsma fits in

perfectly with the group of Byzantine belt sets, strap-ends andfittings from the 8th century known at present. In our case,

there is more than one Avar adaptation of the type Emperor

with a bundle of laurel. A good example is the mercury-gildedbuckle from the Avar cemetery of Leobersdorf (grave 69),which may be placed in the middle of the 8th century.34

The Byzantine emperor, as depicted on this 8th-century

fitting, does not conform with his image on contemporary

Plate 10 Strap end from Aleppo (lef t) and Avar strap end (right). Scale 1:1 Plate 11 Fragment of a strap end from Mikulice.Scale 1:1



Daim

coins, but rather with his image on 4th-century solidi. The

same is true for the bundle of laurel as part of the triumphal

ceremony. The only comparable 8th-century example is to befound on the finely worked lid of a small silver box now in the

Museo Arqueolgico Nactional in Madrid.35 It seems that themotif has not been understood by the Avars, who copied

Byzantine fittings in many cases.

Conclusion

As the archaeological record shows, a large amount of

Byzantine goods reached Avar territory in the late 6th and 7th

centuries. Different items of male and female jewellery, vesselsof gold, silver, bronze and glass, but also food and drink, as the

amphorae show. In the 8th century, however, we find only belt

ornaments in graves. It is likely that they served as diplomaticgifts. One exception is the high-quality, gold clasp (= coat-fastener) from Dunapataj.36 It was made from sheet gold by

chasing and repoussand depicts heads en face and in profile

(Pl. 14). A cross, held by the figure on the left, is depictedbetween the heads in profile. Presumably, this clasp was

brought to the Carpathian Basin in the second half of the 8th

century, together with a valuable coat. Further research willshow whether this is in fact, apart from the small number of

belt ornaments identified so far, the only Byzantine object from

the 8th century in the Carpathian Basin.

Notes1 A warm thank you to all the colleagues who gave me advice and

help while preparing this article and especially to Birgit Bhler forthe translation.

2 Most recent research on this topic: C. Schopphoff,Der Grtel.Funktion und Symbolik eines Kleidungsstcks in Antike undMittelalter(Pictura und Poesis. Interdisziplinre Studien zumVerhltnis von Literatur und Kunst 27), Cologne, 2009, which,however, excludes Byzantium almost completely.

3 C. Wickham,Framing the Early Middl e Ages. Europe and theMediterranean, 400 800 , Oxford, 2006, 175.

4 J. Werner, Nomadische Grtel bei Persern, Byzantinern undLangobarden, inAtti del convegno internazionale sul tema:Lacivilt dei Longobardi in Europa (Roma, 2426 magg io, 1971)(Cividale del Friuli, 2728 maggio 1971), (Accademia Nazionale dei

Lincei 371), Rome, 1974, 10956.5 A. Cameron (ed.),Flavius Cresconius Corippus. In laudem IustiniAugusti minoris libri IV, London, 1976, II. 115; W. Pohl,Die Awaren.Ein Steppenvolk in Mitteleuropa 576 822 n. Chr., Munich, 1988,489.

6 C. de Boor (ed.), Theophylacti Simocattae historiae, Leipzig, 1887

(repr. Stuttgart, 1972), VI, 2, 19; M. and M. Whitby, The History ofTheophylact Simocatta. An English Translation with Introductionand Notes, Oxford, 1986, 159ff; P. Schreiner, TheophylaktosSimokates. Geschichte, Stuttgart, 1985, 163ff.

7 Recently mentioned in: S. Efthymiades, A Day and Ten Months inthe Life of a Lonely Bachelor: The Other Byzantium in Miracula S.

Artemii 18 and 22,DOP 58 (2004), 126. I would like to thank Cyr ilMango for drawing my attention to this source. V.S. Crisafulli andJ.W. Nesbitt, The Miracles of St Artemios. A Collection of Miracle

Stories by an A nonymous Author of SeventhCentury Byzantium,Leiden/New York/Cologne, 1997, mir. 18, 11420.8 A. Cameron, The Byzantines, Oxford, 2006, 117; A.J. Festugire

(ed.), Vie de Thodore de Syken, Brussels, 1970, no. 5, cf. no. 12.9 J.F. Haldon, Constantine Porphyrogenitus. Three Treatises on

Imperial MilitaryExpeditions (Corpus Fontium HistoriaeByzantinae XX VIII), Vienna, 1990, 11011.

10 R.J.H. Jenkins and Gy. Moravcsik, Constantine Porphyrogenitus,De Administrando Imperio (Corpus fontium historiae Byzanti naeI), Washington DC, 1985, ch. 6, 52. Cf. K. Belke and P. Soustal,Die

Byzantiner und ihre Nachbarn, Die De Administrando Imperiogenannte Lehrschrift des Kaisers Konstantinos Porphyrogennetos frseinen Sohn Romanos, Vienna, 1995, 75. Cf. R.J.H. Jenkins (ed.),DeAdministratio Imperio, Vol. II. Commentary, London, 1962, esp.1415.

11 M. Schmauder,Vielteilige Grtelgarnituren des 6.7.Jahrhunderts, in F. Daim (ed.),Die Awaren am Rand derbyzantinischen Welt. Studien zu Diplomatie, Handel undTechnologietransfer im Frhmittelalter (The Avars on the Border ofthe Byzantine World. Diplomacy, Trade and the Transfer ofTechnology in the Early Middl e Ages)(Monographien zurFrhgeschichte und Mittelalterarchologie 7), Innsbruck, 2000,1544; Cs. Blint, Byzantinisches zur Herkunftsfrage des

vielteiligen Grtels, in idem (ed.),Kontakte zwischen Iran, Byzanzund der Steppe im 6.7. Jahrhundert (Varia ArchaeologiaHungarica), Budapest, 2000, 99162.

12 A. Rettner, Zu einem vielteiligen Grtel des 8. Jahrhunderts inSanta Maria Antiqua (Rom),in Daim (n. 11), 26782; H. Belting,Eine Privatkapelle im frhmittelalterlichen Rom,DOP 41 (1987),5569.

13 E.H. Tth and A. Horvth,Kunbbony. Das Grab eines

Awarenkhagans,Kecskemt, 1992.14 M. Menke, Zu den Fibeln der Awarenzeit aus Keszthely, A

Wosinsky Mr Mzeum vknyveXV (1990), 187214. For twoexamples of rich womens graves with a Germanic background ofthe late 6th or early 7th century, see: A. Kiss,Das awarenzeitlicheGrberfeld in Klked-Feketekapu B (Monumenta Avarorum

Archaeologica 6), Budapest, 2001, Taf. 2931 and 34 9.15 . Garam, Grtelverzierungen byzantinischen Typs im

Karpatenbecken des 6.7. Jahrhunderts, Acta ArchaeologicaHungarica LI (1999/2000), 37991; eadem,Funde byzantinischerHerkunft in der Awarenzeit vom Ende des 6. bis zum Ende des 7.Jahrhunderts(Monumenta Avarorum Archaeologica 5), Budapest,2001.

16 Cs. Blint, Kontakte zwischen Iran, Byzanz und der Steppe. DasGrab von Tepe (Sowj. Azerbajdan) und der beschlagverzierte

Grtel im 6. und 7. Jahrhundert , in F. Daim (ed.),Awarenforschungen I(Archaeologia Austr iaca - Monographien 1),Vienna, 1992, 309496, in particular Taf. 2956.

17 T. Horvth,Die avarischen Grberfelder von llund Kiskrs(Archaeologia Hungarica XIX), Budapest, 1935, Taf. XXIV.

18 O. von Hessen,Primo contributo alla archeologia longobarda inToscana: Le necropoli (Accademia Toscana di Scienze e Lettere LaColombaria, Studi XVIII), Firenze, 1972, Tav. 3 and 4; C. Rupp,

Das langobardi sche Grberfeld von Nocera Umbra: 1. Katalog undTafeln (Ricerche di Archeologia Altomedievale e Medievale 31),Firenze, 2005, Taf. 26, 32, 62, 96, 99101.

19 L.V. Pekarskaja and D. Kidd,Der Silberschatz von Marty novka(Ukraine) aus dem 6. und 7. Jahrhundert (Monographien zurFrhgeschichte und Mittelalterarchologie 1), Innsbruck, 1994,Taf. 313.

20 Garam 2001 (n. 15), Taf. 814.21 D. Csallny,A kunszentmrtoni avarkori tvssr (Goldschmiedegrab aus der Awarenzeit von Kunszentmrton),Szentes, 1933; F. Daim, Avars and Avar Archaeology. AnIntroduction, in W. Goetz, J. Jarnut and W. Pohl (eds),Regna andGentes. The Relationship between Late Antique and Early Medieval

Plate 14 Coat clasp from Dunapataj. Scale 2:3


11/11


Peoples and Kingdoms in the Transformat ion of the Roman World(Transformation of the Roman World 13), Leiden/Boston, 2003,4789, pl. 6; B. Tobias,Frhmittelalterliche Grber mit Schmiede-werkzeugen(RGZM Monographien). In preparation.

22 I. O. Gavrituchin,voljucija vostokq noevropejskich pcevdoprjaek(Kultury Evrazijckich Stepej Btoroj Poloviny i Tycjaeletija n.. (izIstorii Kostjuma) 2, Samara, 2001, 3186.

23 F. Daim and Z. Rcz, Kungota,Reallexikon der GermanischenAltertumskunde17 (2000), 48690; . Garam,Katalog der

awarenzeitlichen Goldgegenstnde und der Fundstcke aus denFrstengrbern im Ungari schen Nationamuseum (Catalogi MuseiNationalis Hungarici. Ser ia Archeologica I), Budapest, 1993, no.106; eadem 2001 (n. 15), Taf. 87.

24 B. Bhler,Der Nachweis der Treibziseliertechnik an goldenemGrtelschmuck der Frh-, Mittel- und Sptawarenzeit (Medium

Aevum Quotidianum 45), Krems, 2002, 1512.25 P. Prohszka, Ozora-Ttipuszta, in F. Daim and J. Drauschke

(eds),Das Rmereich im Mittelalter. Studien zum Leben in Byzanz /The Roman Empire in the Middle Ages. Studies on Life in Byzantium (RGZM Monographien 2010). In preparation.

26 Technical study (optical microscope) by Birgit Bhler in 2001.27 Werner (n. 4), 10956.28 J. Dekan, Herkunft und Ethnizitt der gegossenen

Bronzeindustrie des VIII. Jahrhunderts, Slovensk Archeolgia202 (1972), 317452.

29 F. Daim, Byzantinische Grtelgarnituren des 8. Jahrhunderts(Byzantine Belt Sets of the 8th Century), in idem (n. 11), 77204,esp. 136ff.

30 See also n. 12.31 Daim (n. 29), 110ff.32 Ibid.,122ff.33 P. Mszros, T. Paluch and C. Szalontai,Avar kori temetk

Kiskundorozsma hatrban. El zetes beszmol az M5 autplynfeltrt lelhelyekrl (Mzeumi Kutatsok Csongrd Megyben2004), Szeged, 2005, 14462; idem, Avarkori temetkKiskundorozsma hatrban (Elzetes beszmol az M5-sautplyn feltrt lelhelyekrl), Tatabnyai Mzeum

Tudomnyos Fzetek 8 (2006), 97108; F. Daim,

Kaiser mitPalmzweigen. Ein byzantinischer Grtelbeschlag aus Sdungarn,JbRGZM54 (2007), III, 779; F Daim et al., Kaiser, Vgel.Rankenwerk. Byzantinischer Grteldekor des 8. Jahrhunderts undein Neufund aus Sdungarn, in Daim and Drauschke (n. 25), inpreparation.

34 F. Daim,Das awarische Grberfeld von Leobersdorf,Niedersterreich(Denkschriften der sterreichischen Akademieder Wissenschaften, phil.-hist. K lasse 194), Vienna, 1987, Taf. 63;idem (n. 33), 779, part icularly 78.

35 Ibid., 78.36 . Garam, ber das awarenzeitliche goldene Agraffenpaar von

Dunapataj,Folia ArchaeologiaXL (1989), 13753; F. Daim and B.Bhler,Awaren oder Byzanz? Interpretationsprobleme am Beispielder goldenen Mantelschli ee von Dunapataj , in T. Vida (ed.),Thesaurus Avarorum. Rgszeti tanulmnyok Garam vatiszteletre(Archaeological Studies in Honour of Eva Garam),Budapest, 2009 (in print).

Documents

7 Daim Opt Sec