Byzantine Belt Ornaments of the 7th and 8th Centuries in Avar Contexts (original) (raw)

Abstract

sparkles

AI

This study explores the significance of Byzantine belt ornaments in the context of Avar cultures during the 7th and 8th centuries. It examines the evolution of belt fashion as a reflection of social status and cultural exchange, detailing how Byzantine styles influenced Avar imitations. Utilizing archaeological evidence and technological insights, the paper investigates the manufacturing techniques and social functions of these belt ornaments, contributing to a better understanding of the social dynamics and artistic interactions between Byzantium and the Avars.

Key takeaways

sparkles

AI

  1. Byzantine belt ornaments symbolize social status and wealth, impacting various cultures from 6th to 8th centuries.
  2. Avar culture heavily influenced by Byzantine techniques and motifs, evident in archaeological findings.
  3. Chronological dating of Byzantine objects relies on Avar finds, particularly through grave assemblages.
  4. Diverse production techniques reveal social values and workshop traditions in both Byzantine and Avar contexts.
  5. Belt sets served as diplomatic gifts, reflecting cultural exchanges between Byzantium and the Avar Empire.

Figures (1)

Plate 12 Belt fitting from Szeged-Kiskundorozsma. Scale 1:1 Plate 11 Fragment of a strap end from Mikul¢ice. Scale 1:1

Plate 12 Belt fitting from Szeged-Kiskundorozsma. Scale 1:1 Plate 11 Fragment of a strap end from Mikul¢ice. Scale 1:1

Loading...

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

References (35)

  1. A warm thank you to all the colleagues who gave me advice and help while preparing this article and especially to Birgit Bühler for the translation.
  2. Most recent research on this topic: C. Schopphoff, Der Gürtel. Funktion und Symbolik eines Kleidungsstücks in Antike und Mittelalter (Pictura und Poesis. Interdisziplinäre Studien zum Verhältnis von Literatur und Kunst 27), Cologne, 2009, which, however, excludes Byzantium almost completely.
  3. C. Wickham, Framing the Early Middle Ages. Europe and the Mediterranean, 400-800, Oxford, 2006, 175.
  4. J. Werner, ‛Nomadische Gürtel bei Persern, Byzantinern und Langobarden', in Atti del convegno internazionale sul tema: La civiltà dei Longobardi in Europa (Roma, 24-26 maggio, 1971) (Cividale del Friuli, 27-28 maggio 1971), (Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei 371), Rome, 1974, 109-56.
  5. A. Cameron (ed.), Flavius Cresconius Corippus. In laudem Iustini Augusti minoris libri IV, London, 1976, II. 115; W. Pohl, Die Awaren. Ein Steppenvolk in Mitteleuropa 576-822 n. Chr., Munich, 1988, 48-9.
  6. C. de Boor (ed.), Theophylacti Simocattae historiae, Leipzig, 1887 (repr. Stuttgart, 1972), VI, 2, 1-9;
  7. M. and M. Whitby, The History of Theophylact Simocatta. An English Translation with Introduction and Notes, Oxford, 1986, 159ff; P. Schreiner, Theophylaktos Simokates. Geschichte, Stuttgart, 1985, 163ff.
  8. Recently mentioned in: S. Efthymiades, 'A Day and Ten Months in the Life of a Lonely Bachelor: The Other Byzantium in Miracula S. Artemii 18 and 22', DOP 58 (2004), 1-26. I would like to thank Cyril Mango for drawing my attention to this source. V.S. Crisafulli and J.W. Nesbitt, The Miracles of St Artemios. A Collection of Miracle Stories by an Anonymous Author of Seventh-Century Byzantium, Leiden/New York/Cologne, 1997, mir. 18, 114-20.
  9. A. Cameron, The Byzantines, Oxford, 2006, 117; A.-J. Festugière (ed.), Vie de Théodore de Sykeôn, Brussels, 1970, no. 5, cf. no. 12.
  10. J.F. Haldon, Constantine Porphyrogenitus. Three Treatises on Imperial Military Expeditions (Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae XXVIII), Vienna, 1990, 110-11.
  11. R.J.H. Jenkins and Gy. Moravcsik, Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De Administrando Imperio (Corpus fontium historiae Byzantinae I), Washington DC, 1985, ch. 6, 52. Cf. K. Belke and P. Soustal, Die Byzantiner und ihre Nachbarn, Die De Administrando Imperio genannte Lehrschrift des Kaisers Konstantinos Porphyrogennetos für seinen Sohn Romanos, Vienna, 1995, 75. Cf. R.J.H. Jenkins (ed.), De Administratio Imperio, Vol. II. Commentary, London, 1962, esp. 14-15.
  12. M. Schmauder, ‛Vielteilige Gürtelgarnituren des 6.-7. Jahrhunderts', in F. Daim (ed.), Die Awaren am Rand der byzantinischen Welt. Studien zu Diplomatie, Handel und Technologietransfer im Frühmittelalter (The Avars on the Border of the Byzantine World. Diplomacy, Trade and the Transfer of Technology in the Early Middle Ages) (Monographien zur Frühgeschichte und Mittelalterarchäologie 7), Innsbruck, 2000, 15-44; Cs. Bálint, ‛Byzantinisches zur Herkunftsfrage des vielteiligen Gürtels', in idem (ed.), Kontakte zwischen Iran, Byzanz und der Steppe im 6.-7. Jahrhundert (Varia Archaeologia Hungarica), Budapest, 2000, 99-162.
  13. A. Rettner, ‛Zu einem vielteiligen Gürtel des 8. Jahrhunderts in Santa Maria Antiqua (Rom)', in Daim (n. 11), 267-82; H. Belting, 'Eine Privatkapelle im frühmittelalterlichen Rom', DOP 41 (1987), 55-69.
  14. E.H. Tóth and A. Horváth, Kunbábony. Das Grab eines Awarenkhagans, Kecskemét, 1992.
  15. M. Menke, ‛Zu den Fibeln der Awarenzeit aus Keszthely', A Wosinsky Mór Múzeum Évkönyve XV (1990), 187-214. For two examples of rich women's graves with a Germanic background of the late 6th or early 7th century, see: A. Kiss, Das awarenzeitliche Gräberfeld in Kölked-Feketekapu B (Monumenta Avarorum Archaeologica 6), Budapest, 2001, Taf. 29-31 and 34-9.
  16. É. Garam, ‛Gürtelverzierungen byzantinischen Typs im Karpatenbecken des 6.-7. Jahrhunderts', Acta Archaeologica Hungarica LI (1999/2000), 379-91; eadem, Funde byzantinischer Herkunft in der Awarenzeit vom Ende des 6. bis zum Ende des 7. Jahrhunderts (Monumenta Avarorum Archaeologica 5), Budapest, 2001.
  17. Cs. Bálint, ‛Kontakte zwischen Iran, Byzanz und der Steppe. Das Grab von Üč Tepe (Sowj. Azerbajdžan) und der beschlagverzierte Gürtel im 6. und 7. Jahrhundert', in F. Daim (ed.), Awarenforschungen I (Archaeologia Austriaca -Monographien 1), Vienna, 1992, 309-496, in particular Taf. 29-56.
  18. T. Horváth, Die avarischen Gräberfelder von Üllő und Kiskőrös (Archaeologia Hungarica XIX), Budapest, 1935, Taf. XXIV.
  19. O. von Hessen, Primo contributo alla archeologia longobarda in Toscana: Le necropoli (Accademia Toscana di Scienze e Lettere "La Colombaria", Studi XVIII), Firenze, 1972, Tav. 3 and 4; C. Rupp, Das langobardische Gräberfeld von Nocera Umbra: 1. Katalog und Tafeln (Ricerche di Archeologia Altomedievale e Medievale 31), Firenze, 2005, Taf. 26, 32, 62, 96, 99-101.
  20. L.V. Pekarskaja and D. Kidd, Der Silberschatz von Martynovka (Ukraine) aus dem 6. und 7. Jahrhundert (Monographien zur Frühgeschichte und Mittelalterarchäologie 1), Innsbruck, 1994, Taf. 31-3.
  21. Garam 2001 (n. 15), Taf. 81-4.
  22. D. Csallány, A kunszentmártoni avarkori ötvössír (Goldschmiedegrab aus der Awarenzeit von Kunszentmárton), Szentes, 1933; F. Daim, ‛Avars and Avar Archaeology. An Introduction', in W. Goetz, J. Jarnut and W. Pohl (eds), Regna and Gentes. The Relationship between Late Antique and Early Medieval Plate 14 Coat clasp from Dunapataj. Scale 2:3 Peoples and Kingdoms in the Transformation of the Roman World (Transformation of the Roman World 13), Leiden/Boston, 2003, 478-9, pl. 6; B. Tobias, Frühmittelalterliche Gräber mit Schmiede- werkzeugen (RGZM Monographien). In preparation.
  23. I. O. Gavrituchin, Ėvoljucija vostočkq noevropejskich pcevdoprjažek (Kultury Evrazijckich Stepej Btoroj Poloviny i Tycjačeletija n. ė. (iz Istorii Kostjuma) 2, Samara, 2001, 31-86.
  24. F. Daim and Z. Rácz, ‛Kunágota', Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde 17 (2000), 486-90; É. Garam, Katalog der awarenzeitlichen Goldgegenstände und der Fundstücke aus den Fürstengräbern im Ungarischen Nationamuseum (Catalogi Musei Nationalis Hungarici. Seria Archeologica I), Budapest, 1993, no. 106; eadem 2001 (n. 15), Taf. 87.
  25. B. Bühler, Der Nachweis der Treibziseliertechnik an goldenem Gürtelschmuck der Früh-, Mittel-und Spätawarenzeit (Medium Aevum Quotidianum 45), Krems, 2002, 151-2.
  26. P. Prohászka, ‛Ozora-Tótipuszta', in F. Daim and J. Drauschke (eds), Das Römereich im Mittelalter. Studien zum Leben in Byzanz / The Roman Empire in the Middle Ages. Studies on Life in Byzantium (RGZM Monographien 2010). In preparation.
  27. 26 Technical study (optical microscope) by Birgit Bühler in 2001.
  28. Werner (n. 4), 109-56.
  29. J. Dekan, ‛Herkunft und Ethnizität der gegossenen Bronzeindustrie des VIII. Jahrhunderts', Slovenská Archeológia 20-2 (1972), 317-452.
  30. F. Daim, ‛Byzantinische' Gürtelgarnituren des 8. Jahrhunderts (‛Byzantine' Belt Sets of the 8th Century)', in idem (n. 11), 77-204, esp. 136ff. 30 See also n. 12.
  31. Daim (n. 29), 110ff. 32 Ibid., 122ff.
  32. P. Mészáros, T. Paluch and C. Szalontai, Avar kori temetők Kiskundorozsma határában. Előzetes beszámoló az M5 autópályán feltárt lelőhelyekről (Múzeumi Kutatások Csongrád Megyében 2004), Szeged, 2005, 144-62; idem, 'Avarkori temetők Kiskundorozsma határában (Előzetes beszámoló az M5-ös autópályán feltárt lelőhelyekről)', Tatabányai Múzeum Tudományos Füzetek 8 (2006), 97-108; F. Daim, ‛Kaiser mit Palmzweigen. Ein byzantinischer Gürtelbeschlag aus Südungarn', JbRGZM 54 (2007), III, 77-9; F Daim et al., ‛Kaiser, Vögel. Rankenwerk. Byzantinischer Gürteldekor des 8. Jahrhunderts und ein Neufund aus Südungarn', in Daim and Drauschke (n. 25), in preparation.
  33. F. Daim, Das awarische Gräberfeld von Leobersdorf, Niederösterreich (Denkschriften der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, phil.-hist. Klasse 194), Vienna, 1987, Taf. 63; idem (n. 33), 77-9, particularly 78.
  34. Ibid., 78.
  35. É. Garam, ‛Über das awarenzeitliche goldene Agraffenpaar von Dunapataj', Folia Archaeologia XL (1989), 137-53; F. Daim and B. Bühler, Awaren oder Byzanz? Interpretationsprobleme am Beispiel der goldenen Mantelschließe von Dunapataj ', in T. Vida (ed.), Thesaurus Avarorum. Régészeti tanulmányok Garam Éva tiszteletére (Archaeological Studies in Honour of Eva Garam), Budapest, 2009 (in print).

FAQs

sparkles

AI

What explains the connection between Byzantine and Avar belt ornamentation?add

The research identifies that Avar belt styles were influenced by Byzantine motifs and production techniques, consequently developing a unique synthesis. For instance, significant finds from Avar graves, like those at Kunágota, demonstrate Byzantine styles with localized adaptations.

How do Avar belt ornaments inform our understanding of their chronology?add

Avar belt ornaments contribute to dating Byzantine originals through chronological systems established from burial contexts. Large cemeteries and grave assemblages from the Middle and Late Avar periods provide absolute dating, aiding the study of Byzantine cultural influence.

What role did belts serve in Byzantine society during the 7th and 8th centuries?add

Belts were not only fashion items but symbols of rank and wealth, as indicated by grave goods and literary references from sources like Corippus and Theophylaktos. For example, belts adorned with gold were notable gifts and reflected social status at diplomatic events.

When did Avar burial practices begin to reflect Byzantine influences?add

Avar burial customs exhibited Byzantine influences notably during the late 6th and early 7th centuries, with grave assemblages containing numerous Byzantine objects. The introduction of Byzantine belt styles and fittings into Avar graves is a key indicator of cultural exchange in this period.

What insights can be gained from the analysis of Avar belt production techniques?add

Technological studies reveal diverse manufacturing methods, such as casting and repoussé, indicating high artistic standards in Avar belt ornaments. The 'smith's grave' from Kunszentmárton exemplifies this complexity, showcasing individual craftsmanship alongside Byzantine influences.