Byzantine Jewellery Of The Hungarian Conquest Period: A .
Byzantine Jewellery of the Hungarian ConquestPeriod: a View from the Balkans1Ádám BollókIt seems appropriate to begin with a clarification of thechronological period in question. The Hungarian Conquestperiod, a generally accepted label in Central Europeanarchaeological studies, has not gained currency in the Englishspeaking world. In a strict historical sense, the period spans thearrival and settlement of the ancient Hungarian tribal alliancein the Carpathian Basin between 895 and 902. Such a briefperiod, however, can hardly be studied or interpretedarchaeologically. The term ‘Hungarian Conquest period’ istherefore used to denote a 70 to 150 year time-span, in partowing to the above consideration, and in part to the nature ofthe archaeological evidence.2 In this paper, I shall focus on theByzantine jewellery3 of this period, i.e. the 10th century. Thefirst problem is the determination of what should be regardedas ‘Byzantine’ since it is sometimes difficult to distinguishbetween genuine Byzantine pieces and copies of Byzantineproducts made in the workshops of various fringe cultures.While the same difficulties are encountered in the Late Antiqueto Early Byzantine period as well, scholars studying 6th–7thcentury Byzantine jewellery and the archaeological heritage ofthe Avars settling in the Carpathian Basin are in a slightlybetter situation because, in addition to finely crafted piecesfrom the empire, there are also several series of more simple,mass-produced types.4 The 6th–7th century extent of theByzantine empire too offers important clues because anornament type known from North Africa, Syria, Asia Minor,and the Balkans can be more confidently identified as‘Byzantine’ than the 9th–11th century jewellery types knownsolely from the Balkans and the fringes of the empire. Addingto the uncertainties of identification is a peculiar feature of the9th–11th centuries, in contrast to Late Antiquity,5 in that thereare few textiles, frescoes, icons or illuminated manuscriptswhere items of jewellery are illustrated. The few portrayals ofjewellery are usually restricted to crescentic earrings, such asthe ones on the two female figures appearing on the shroud ofBishop Günther,6 the pieces seen on the fresco portraying StBarbara in St Maria della Croce of Casaranello in southernItaly,7 and on the great silk hangings of Brixen and Auxerre.8This is one of the main reasons that very few 9th–11thcentury Byzantine jewellery types appear in major studies andexhibition catalogues.9 Another can be sought in the 20thcentury history of central and south-eastern Europe, wherehistorical studies were imbued with ethnocentrism, andhistorical and archaeological research often served to bolsternational identities and national narratives. Allow me toillustrate the distorting influence of this ethnocentric viewthrough a few examples. For many decades, the possibility thatearly medieval burials and their finds could be anything butSlavic was not even considered in the Slavic states of theBalkans. This axiom was made obvious by the very titles of thepublished articles, such as ‘New Finds from the SlavicNecropolis at Matičane near Priština’10 or ‘Report on the OldSlavic Findspots in Macedonia’.11 At the same time, southernSlavic research was fully aware of the fact that many of thejewellery types labelled Slavic could be derived from Byzantineprototypes. Those medieval wall paintings that survived thestormy centuries of Balkan history, most of which portraymembers of the aristocracy, show ladies wearing finely craftedByzantine earrings. Suffice it here to mention the late type ofcrescentic earrings worn by the Lady Desislava on a fresco ofthe Bojana Monastery.12 It is not mere chance that I spoke of an‘awareness’ of Byzantine prototypes: scholars of early medievalBalkan archaeology constructed a rather peculiar model ofinterpretation, according to which they discussed Slavicjewellery and their Byzantine models without presenting theactual Byzantine prototypes.13 This can in part be explained bythe then rather poor extent to which excavation reports werepublished, making the search for good parallels from theheartland of the Byzantine Empire fairly difficult. It must alsobe borne in mind that scholars of the period accepted thetraditional view that exceptionally well-crafted pieces shouldbe interpreted as genuine Byzantine products, while simplerbronze variants were their local copies. This approachcontributed to the identification of simpler Byzantine jewellerytypes worn as part of everyday costume, whose overwhelmingmajority was brought to light in the Balkans and theCarpathian Basin, as Slavic products. In other words, simple,trinket-type Byzantine jewellery was, in this sense,appropriated by Slavic research and defined as a Slavic ethnicmarker.It seems instructive to briefly discuss the weakness of thisapproach. While there is no apparent rationale for notidentifying the jewellery items recovered from Slavic burials as‘Slavic’, one of the main problems in this respect is that verylittle is known about the region’s ethnic make-up during theperiod in question. (To which we may add that the same holdstrue for several other regions too.)14 Slavic research holds thatthe collapse of the Byzantine limes in the Lower Danube regionin the late 6th and early 7th centuries and the settlement ofvarious Slavic groups in the Balkans meant that the regionsover which Byzantium lost her former control automaticallyand immediately became Slavic, and thus the possible presenceof other groups in these regions was not even considered, eventhough the descendants of the Late Antique populationobviously remained in their homeland in most places.15 Due tothe lack of reliable research in this field, very little is knownabout the rate of admixture between the newly arriving Slavicgroups and the Late Antique population, or its extent by the9th–10th centuries in various Balkan regions. The lack ofcremation burials in the Balkans, regarded as a distinctively‘Slavic’ element, is very striking (one of the most typicallySlavic Balkan cemeteries is known from Olympia in Greece,16“Intelligible Beauty” 179
Bollókand another, later, burial ground has been excavated atKašić17); at the same time, the 9th–11th century cemeteriesacross the Balkans interpreted as Slavic share numeroussimilarities with the inhumation burials characterised by‘reduzierte Beigabensitte’ typical of the descendants of the LateAntique population from the 5th century onwards in otherregions. The exclusive interpretation of the post-7th centurymaterial as Slavic in the Slavic states of the northern Balkans,designed to integrate the archaeological material into thenational past, is problematic because this approach not onlyobscures the colourful tapestry of the period, but also creates avirtually insurmountable obstacle to the better understandingof the broader cultural context. The issue of how the jewellerylabelled ‘Slavic’ relates to simple Byzantine jewellery has neverbeen explored;18 instead, the problem has been written off byspeaking of the local bronze copies of Byzantine adornments ingold and silver, which in effect obscures the obvious fact thatthe greater part of the Byzantine Empire’s population wasmade up of poor people, who wore simple bronze jewellery aspart of their everyday costume.19The excavations in Corinth begun in the 1890s, yielding thecast variants of 9th–11th century north Balkan jewellery types,brought an important caveat regarding the weaknesses of thisapproach.20 It became painfully clear that the search for theeveryday variants of Byzantine jewellery did not call for thediscovery of hitherto unknown prototypes of so-called Slavicjewellery because they could be found among the ‘Slavic’jewellery from south-east Europe and the Carpathian Basin.Admittedly, the publication of the finds and findings of theexcavations in Corinth in the 1950s was an exception, ratherthan the rule. This is still one of the main obstacles faced bycurrent research. The publication of 9th–11th century burialsand settlements lying in the heartland of Byzantium lags farbehind that of the sites in the Carpathian Basin and theBalkans.21 It is therefore hardly surprising that archaeologistsworking in the Balkan states sought analogies to their findswhere they had the best chances of finding them, namely inCentral Europe – and the Carpathian Basin in particular –where systematic archaeological exploration had begun in thelast third of the 19th century. By the late 19th century,Hungarian archaeologists had classified the enormousquantities of artefacts recovered from burials and cemeteries,and had distinguished two archaeological cultures or, betterput, two archaeological horizons for the period in question:one typified by what were regarded as ‘typical ancientHungarian graves’ characterised by weapons, costumeaccessories of precious metal, and horse burials, the other byhumble commoners’ burials, erroneously labelled the BjeloBrdo culture.22 The interpretative framework constructed atthe time had a lasting impact on the research of the Conquestperiod.A lively debate emerged on the ethnic background of theBjelo Brdo culture at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries,with most of the period’s leading scholars agreeing that theculture represented the archaeological heritage of the Slavs.23This interpretation was rooted in the widespread romanticisingand ethnocentric thought of the 19th century. Even the bestminds in Hungarian archaeology were unable to conceptualisethe humble grave goods of the Bjelo Brdo culture as thearchaeological heritage of the ancient Hungarians. As Ferenc180 “Intelligible Beauty”Pulszky24 declared in 1891, ‘the ancient Hungarians wereconquerors and not craftsmen, and thus their jewellery wasmade by their servants and prisoners-of-wars, and the localpopulation found here, in a period when art was on thedecline.’25 This line of thought excluded even the possibilitythat the commoners of the Conquest period could ever beidentified. In order to better understand the background to theethnic interpretation of the Bjelo Brdo culture, we must reachback to the works of Sophus Müller, a Danish archaeologist,who had argued for the Slavic origins of S-terminalled lockrings, one of the most common finds of the Bjelo Brdo culture.26His arguments for regarding this jewellery item as an ethnicmarker of the Slavs were accepted by most European scholarsat the time. József Hampel’s monumental synthesis on thearchaeology of the Conquest period,27 a variant of which wasalso published also in German,28 blended Pulszky’s nationalromanticism and Müller’s ethnocentric views. He attributedthe Reihengräberfelder of the Bjelo Brdo culture to the Slavs ofthe Carpathian Basin. The identification of the S-terminalledlock-rings with the Slavs coincided with the basicinterpretational framework of emerging Slavic archaeology: inan article appearing in 1894, Professor Lubor Niederle ofPrague, regarded as the founding father of Slavicarchaeology,29 too argued that these lock-rings should be seenas ethnic markers of the Slavs.30 Niederle’s views were widelyaccepted among the archaeologists and historians of the Slavicspeaking lands.31Another frequent approach, even in the Balkans, was theanalysis of archaeological assemblages from the perspective ofmodern nation-states, involving the projection of the modernstate’s territory and the much-desired homogeneous nationback into the past, leading to the interpretation of thearchaeological material as the heritage of an early nationstate.32 This approach disregarded the well-known multiethnicity of eastern and south-eastern Europe, and the shiftingboundaries of early medieval state formations. Since one of thepriorities of archaeological research was the identification ofthe ancestors of modern peoples, archaeologists were reluctantto distinguish Byzantine elements. It therefore came as agenuine shock when the excavations on Late Antique sites, suchas Corinth, brought to light artefact types, which hadpreviously been categorised as Slavic or Avar.33 The ongoingdebate over the Avar or ‘barbarian’ belt buckles between the1930s and the 1950s is very instructive in this respect.34 Weshould at this point recall that in her book published in 1952,Gladys Davidson listed many analogous finds to the trapezoidalByzantine belt buckles, noting that she had receivedinformation on some of the unpublished pieces quoted by herfrom Professor Gyula László back in 1937 – the implicationbeing that the buckles in question could be found both in theCarpathian Basin and in Istanbul, Samos, and Laurion.35Davidson thus explored all possible options in her search forparallels in order to identify Byzantine types since the materialculture of Byzantine daily life represented by these minorobjects was virtually unknown.A few years later, the interpretation of these bucklesappeared to be resolved. Two articles published simultaneouslyin 1955, one by Dezső Csallány,36 the other by Joachim Werner,37both came to the conclusion, albeit through a slightly differingapproach, that these articles were Byzantine products. The two
Byzantine Jewellery of the Hungarian Conquest Period: a View from the BalkansPlate1 Jewellery of the so-called Bjelo Brdo typeapproaches applied by these two scholars are suitable fordescribing the two analytical procedures by which theByzantine nature of most Byzantine finds has beendetermined: the first, through the publication of the finds fromthe empire’s heartland; the second, through the comparativeanalysis of artefacts with a wide distribution in regions on theempire’s fringes.38 Still, neither approach resulted inimmediately turning the research of Byzantine materialculture onto the right track. Half a decade later, Werner againopted for an ethnic approach and defined certain brooch typesas Slavic.39 The untenability of his views was noted by DimitriosPallas,40 and later research too confirmed that these artefactscould hardly be regarded as ethnic markers and that some ofthe brooches in question can be regarded as Byzantineproducts.41Slavic archaeological research remained virtuallyunaffected by these new findings. The 1940s were marked by aparticularisation of research, rather than by the broadening ofthe interpretative framework. Large-scale excavations werebegun at Staré Mešto in Moravia,42 bringing to light anassemblage of finds speaking of a strong cultural impact from abroadly interpreted Byzantine Kulturkreis. Whileacknowledging the undeniably Byzantine traits,43 localscholars persistently emphasised the Great Moravian, i.e.Slavic nature of the finds.44 Similar tendencies could be notedin Yugoslavian research. The first typologies and typochronological syntheses were conceived in the tradition of theSlavic ethnocentric perspective. Suffice it here to quote but asingle eloquent example. The Bjelo Brdo type jewellery (Pl. 1)in the Serbian title of Mirjana Ćorović-Ljubinković’s studybecame Slavic jewellery in the French summary.45 Countlesssimilar examples can be cited. Lurking in the background againwere the general political events of the period: in the later1940s, the Soviet Union adopted and proclaimed Niederle’sSlavic archaeology as the official research policy, which wasexpected to be followed in the satellite countries too.46 Thejewellery items, which were earlier described as ornamentsfound in Slavic graves, produced in workshops underByzantine influence, were now axiomatically categorised asjewellery reflecting Byzantine influence and therefore Slavicpieces. The fact that the Hungarian Béla Szőke hadconvincingly demonstrated the Hungarian components andpoly-ethnic nature of the Bjelo Brdo culture in 1962 had littleeffect.47 Even the more open-minded Slavic scholars continuedto regard the culture as a predominantly Slavic phenomenon,while their more biased colleagues simply dismissed Szőke’sfindings and conclusions as some ‘great Hungarian dream’.48Interestingly enough, from this perspective Szőke’s study hadlittle impact on Hungarian archaeological research since, evenafter the 1960s, early medieval archaeological research wasdominated by a research perspective focusing almostexclusively on eastern European finds and assemblages,49without any apparent interest in the south-eastern Europeanelements of the commoners’ culture. The few scholars studyingthese artefacts generally opted for the Slavic interpretation.50The breakthrough in this respect came in the 1990s, whenKároly Mesterházy devoted two lengthy studies to two majorgroups of finds with south-east European connections,51namely trapezoidal buckles and certain jewellery types, suchas various types of earrings with four large and several smallerglobular pendants, lock-rings, bracelets decorated with smallloops of wire, crescentic earrings, and filigree decorated fingerrings (Pls 2–3).52 The title of his study is very telling:‘Byzantine and Balkan finds from 10th–11th century Hungarianburials’. Mesterházy was apparently reluctant to determinewhich pieces could be regarded as genuine Byzantine productsand which as local, Balkan copies. A careful reading of hisstudy reveals the dilemma he was grappling with. Discussing avariant of cast crescentic earrings, he noted that ‘it is merely aquestion of time until variants made from precious metal arefound in the more southerly regions of the Balkans’.53Elsewhere, he remarked that ‘the Byzantine origins of this typecan hardly be rejected on the grounds that similar pieces havenot been found in Byzantium’.54 Seeing that the bulk of thesouth-eastern European earrings known from the CarpathianBasin are represented by silver pieces and their cast bronzecopies, Mesterházy interpreted them as Balkan imports,although he did suggest that some types were ‘either importsamong both the local and the Hungarian population, or piecesworn by the immigrant Slavic population’.55 It would appearthat Mesterházy was unable to entirely break free of the Slavcentred interpretation of these artefacts. A few years later, hedevoted a lengthy study to the 10th–11th century trade networkof the Carpathian Basin, based in part on south-east Europeanfind types, affirming again that the pieces in this categoryshould be regarded as imports, and specifically as the importsof Balkan goods inspired by Byzantine products.56 Hesupported this view by demonstrating that many pieces fromthe Carpathian Basin often share closer similarities with theircounterparts from the Balkans than with each other.57A look at the finds from the Carpathian Basin from theperspective of the Balkans might contribute new hues to theoverall picture painted by earlier research. In addition tosearching for Balkan and Anatolian analogies to the finds, theidentification of find types which lack a parallel might beuseful too. Valeri Grigorov’s excellent study on 7th–11thcentury metal jewellery from Bulgaria provides a good startingpoint for this exercise.58 A closer look at his distribution mapsindicates that there are hardly any 10th–11th century jewellerytypes which do not have their counterparts among the findassemblages from the Carpathian Basin. Even thoughGrigorov’s data for the Carpathian Basin are rather patchy,59 itis quite obvious that the various jewellery types have smallerconcentrations in the Carpathian Basin than in the Balkans.Disregarding the various wire ornaments in the later 10th and“Intelligible Beauty” 181
Bollók11th century find assemblages from the commoners’cemeteries, the remaining jewellery articles are predominantlytypes which have strong affinities with south-east Europe.60Knowing that an archaeological culture is not an entity per se,but a scholarly construct, its boundaries shift according towhich artefacts or burial customs are – more or less justifiablyor, conversely, arbitrarily – defined as its principal attributesand which are regarded as marginal phenomena. CurrentHungarian research tends to relegate pieces with Byzantineand/or Balkan connections to the category of irrelevantattributes.61 Viewed from the Balkans, the Carpathian Basin isthe northernmost extension of the south-east Europeancultural koiné, even if the finds from that region are mixedwith types rare in the Balkans, which in a certain sensedominate the region’s material culture.62 The relative frequencyof finds with south-east European affinities is especiallystriking if compared to the distribution of the typical artefactsof the neighbouring regions in the Carpathian Basin. The findsof the so-called Hacksilberfunde horizon63 and of the Köttlachculture,64 as well as the majority of the commodities obtainedduring the ancient Hungarians’ military campaigns,65 occur farless frequently in the material from the Carpathian Basin thancertain Balkan finger-ring types (Pl. 4).66 It is my belief thatthese south-east European find types should not be regarded asalien elements in the archaeological heritage of the Conquestperiod. In order to place these finds into their proper context,the issue of to what extent these finds can be regarded asculturally Byzantine must be examined.Two striking points emerge clearly from a closer look at theartefacts traditionally regarded as Byzantine products: veryfew finely crafted items of precious metal with Mediterraneanaffinities are known from the Carpathian Basin, even thoughthese are the types which are principally regarded as genuineByzantine wares. At the same time, there are several Byzantinejewellery types of which not one single piece has come to lightin this region.Altogether 13 crescentic earrings, a jewellery typetraditionally identified as a Byzantine product, are knownfrom eight sites in the Carpathian Basin to date (Pl. 5).67 Thefirst pair of these earrings to be found played an important rolein determining the type as a Byzantine import:68 the pair fromGrave 1 at Kecel was made from gold and thus fitted thesimplified criteria distilled from the axiom which equated goodquality pieces with genuine Byzantine products. The silverbracelets from Tiszaeszlár (Pl. 6)69 and Szarvas (Pl. 7)70 wereidentified as Byzantine goods on the same grounds. Both arehinged bracelets: the birds on the piece from Tiszaeszlár andthe griffins on the one from Szarvas are alien to the decorativePlate 2 Byzantine and Balkanic findsfrom 10th–11th century Hungarianburials according to K. Mesterházy’sclassification182 “Intelligible Beauty”
Byzantine Jewellery of the Hungarian Conquest Period: a View from the BalkansPlate 3 Byzantine and Balkanic finds from 10th–11th century Hungarian burials according to K. Mesterházy’sclassificationPlate 5 Silver earring of the crescent typePlate 4 Byzantine-type finger-ringwith widening bezel from Grave 255at Ibrány-EsbóhalomPlate 6 Byzantine-type hinged bracelet from Grave 12, Cemetery II atTiszaeszlár–Bashalom“Intelligible Beauty” 183
BollókPlate 7 Byzantine-typehinged bracelet from Szarvasmotifs of the Conquest period. Curiously enough, no attemptwas made to search for similar pieces from the Mediterranean,even though an overview of this type would have proved mostinstructive, seeing that comparable pieces from Byzantium,whence they originated, are generally dated to the 11th–12thcenturies71 – the pieces from Hungary thus furnish evidencethat the type had already appeared in the 10th century. At thesame time, the silver and predominantly bronze trinkets foundin addition to the finely crafted pieces could not be fitted intothe concept equating good quality jewellery articles withByzantine products. Neither should it be forgotten that thetreatment of Byzantine types as Slavic, discussed above,remained unchallenged for a long time. The shortcomings andthe pitfalls of both viewpoints are apparent if the cemeteriescontaining the burials of the Byzantine population areexamined. The grave goods from the oft-analysed burialground at Kastro Tigani72 included pieces made from the mostcommon non-precious metal types, indicating that jewellerycrafted from precious and non-precious metals were bothcommonly used in Byzantium,73 and that their possessiondepended mostly on an individual’s wealth. The examinationof the jewellery types from larger Byzantine cemeteries provedthis point even more forcefully. The 233 burials of the Azoroscemetery in southern Thessaly yielded a rich assortment ofMiddle Byzantine jewellery.74 The finds included earring,finger-ring, and bracelet types known from the northernBalkans and the Carpathian Basin. Similarly, somewhatsimpler jewellery types are known from the Greek mainlandand the Greek islands too.75 While it may be argued that thesewere not Byzantine, but Balkan products, there has been asteady increase in comparable finds from the empire’sAnatolian regions as shown by the few publications in thisfield. The finds include finger-rings with a shield-shapedbezel,76 hinged bracelets of sheet metal,77 twisted wirebracelets,78 and earrings decorated with wire loops.79 There isno apparent reason to doubt that most of the comparable piecesfrom the Carpathian Basin were indeed simple jewelleryarticles used also in Byzantium.The issue of smaller workshops supplying a particular areaor region cannot be side-stepped, even though very little isactually known about these workshops. While it is quiteobvious that some jewellery items represent the local variant ofa particular type, it is also clear that the basic form wasdistributed over a fairly extensive area. What is uncertain iswhether a particular variant can be equated with the activity ofa workshop. To take but one example: finger-rings with awidening bezel decorated with a heraldically posed eagle, or abird holding a leafy branch in its beak shown in profile, areknown from both the Balkans and Anatolia.80 The fewpublished Anatolian pieces also include types, such as the onesbearing a human head, which are virtually lacking from the184 “Intelligible Beauty”Balkans.81 The activity of local workshops is reflected evenmore spectacularly by the presence of more variable types,especially in cases when social circumstances were conduciveto the growth of workshop centres.82There are a few jewellery types, especially among the mostlavish assemblages, which have not yet been found in theCarpathian Basin. These include earrings and finger-ringsdecorated with cloisonné enamel, whose absence from thisregion is all the more striking because pieces from the 10thcentury are known from the Balkans: suffice it here to mentionthe crescentic earrings of the Preslav Treasure.83 The dating ofthe finger-ring type from the Kastro Tigani cemetery to theMiddle Byzantine period seems somewhat controversialbecause earlier publications assigned the entire burial groundto the 6th–7th century.84 It might be more reasonable toconclude that the cemetery has a Middle Byzantine phase.85 Anearring from one of the burials is an 8th–11th century type,86while the finger-ring can most definitely be assigned to theMiddle Byzantine period. David Buckton has convincinglyargued that cloisonné enamel was not used before the 9thcentury in Byzantium.87 The bird depiction on the finger-ring isbest paralleled by finds from the 9th and 10th centuries, suchas a bracelet from Thessalonica,88 the necklace and earrings ofthe Preslav Treasure,89 and a pair of earrings in the BritishMuseum.90 The finger-ring from the Šestovici cemetery in theUkraine (Pl. 8), the counterpart of the piece from KastroTigani, can likewise be dated to the 10th–11th century.91 Whileit might be argued that jewellery articles decorated withcloisonné enamel did not reach the Carpathian Basin owing totheir cost, we admittedly know very little about the originalvalue of these pieces. A grave assemblage from Naupaktos mustbe cited in this respect. One burial in the partially excavatedand published cemetery yielded a broken crescentic earringdecorated with cloisonné enamel, suggesting that earrings ofthis type were in some cases part of everyday costume. There isnothing to indicate that the graves of the Naupaktos cemeteryPlate 8 Byzantine finger-ring from Šestovci
Byzantine Jewellery of the Hungarian Conquest Period: a View from the Balkansuncovered to date contained the burials of high-ranking,wealthy individuals.92Basket earrings (Pl. 9) represent another jewellery typelacking from the archaeological record of the CarpathianBasin. In contrast to earlier views,93 which dated the use of thetype to the 6th–12th centuries,94 we may now rightly assumethat it represents a Middle Byzantine type.95 It would appearthat the 10th–11th century earrings of this type were mostlydistributed in the empire’s Anatolian region. To the best of myknowledge, none are currently known from the Balkans. Onepossible explanation for their absence from the CarpathianBasin is that this earring type was solely distributed in theeastern Mediterranean, but not in the Balkans. The samecannot be said of the glass bracelets appearing in the 10th–11thcenturies,96 which were popular in both the Balkans97 andAnatolia,98 while no more than a few pieces are known from theCarpathian Basin.99 In sum, we may say that while exquisitelycrafted Byzantine pieces do appear in the archaeologicalrecord, as shown by the earring from Dunapentele (Pl. 10),100as do less elaborate jewellery items for daily wear,101 thedistribution of 11th century types is much scantier than that of10th century types.Two major tasks must be resolved in order to gain a betterunderstanding of Byzantine jewellery of the 9th–11thcenturies. Firstly, there is a need for the publication of the findassemblages and their contexts from excavations conducted inthe heartland of the Byzantine empire, because without thiscorpus of data, it is virtually impossible to distinguish genuineByzantine pieces from their local copies.102 Secondly, it isnecessary to deconstruct existing interpretations of theperiod’s so-called southern Slavic jewellery and to discard theformer narrative
Byzantine jewellery 3 of this period, i.e. the 10th century. The first problem is the determination of what should be regarded as ‘Byzantine’ since it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between genuine Byzantine pieces an
May 02, 2018 · D. Program Evaluation ͟The organization has provided a description of the framework for how each program will be evaluated. The framework should include all the elements below: ͟The evaluation methods are cost-effective for the organization ͟Quantitative and qualitative data is being collected (at Basics tier, data collection must have begun)
Silat is a combative art of self-defense and survival rooted from Matay archipelago. It was traced at thé early of Langkasuka Kingdom (2nd century CE) till thé reign of Melaka (Malaysia) Sultanate era (13th century). Silat has now evolved to become part of social culture and tradition with thé appearance of a fine physical and spiritual .
On an exceptional basis, Member States may request UNESCO to provide thé candidates with access to thé platform so they can complète thé form by themselves. Thèse requests must be addressed to esd rize unesco. or by 15 A ril 2021 UNESCO will provide thé nomineewith accessto thé platform via their émail address.
̶The leading indicator of employee engagement is based on the quality of the relationship between employee and supervisor Empower your managers! ̶Help them understand the impact on the organization ̶Share important changes, plan options, tasks, and deadlines ̶Provide key messages and talking points ̶Prepare them to answer employee questions
Dr. Sunita Bharatwal** Dr. Pawan Garga*** Abstract Customer satisfaction is derived from thè functionalities and values, a product or Service can provide. The current study aims to segregate thè dimensions of ordine Service quality and gather insights on its impact on web shopping. The trends of purchases have
jewellery in India" investigated that the consumers buying behaviour also shows a shift from content to design in jewellery i.e. fashionable jewellery. 4. Berad, N. R. et al. (2015) in their study "A comparative study on the consumer's preference towards branded jewellery over non branded jewellery in Nasik city" identified the factors
On January 22 we published the ‘Etymological Dictionary of Hungarian (EDH)’ electronically written by Professor Alfréd Tóth. Present volume, entitled ‘Hungarian, Sumerian and Egyptian. — Hungarian, Sumerian and Hebrew. Two Addenda to Etymological Dictionary
Astrology takes us into the very heart of life – it is at once intuitive and intellectual, down-to-earth and deeply magical, a system of thought and a very pragmatic tool: a philosophy of an interconnected earth and sky which over the centuries has inspired both scientists and artists, and is capable of describing and illuminating every stratum of life on earth, from the workings of the .
