- Email: [email protected]
New Belt of the “Byzantine Circle” from the Medieval Bayanovsky Burial Ground in the Perm Territory1
ARCHAEOLOGY, ETHNOLOGY & ANTHROPOLOGY OF EURASIA Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 42/3 (2014) 87–94 E-mail: [email protected] THE METAL AGES AND MEDIEVAL PERIOD
87
A.V. Danich1 and N.B. Krylasova2 Perm State Humanities and Pedagogical University, Sibirskaya 24, Perm, 614990, Russia E-mail: [email protected] 2 Department of History, Archaeology, and Ethnography, Perm Scienti¿c Center, Ural Branch, Russian Academy of Sciences, Lenina 13a, Perm, 614990, Russia E-mail: [email protected] 1
NEW BELT OF THE “BYZANTINE CIRCLE” FROM THE MEDIEVAL BAYANOVSKY BURIAL GROUND IN THE PERM TERRITORY*
A precious belt of the “Byzantine circle,” belonging to a representative of the local social elite was discovered in a burial of the 10th century at the Bayanovsky burial ground (Perm Territory). The belt is dated to the mid-8th century. Individual elements of similar belts have been found relatively often over large areas, including the Perm Territory, however, complete belt sets are rare. The belt shows extensive parallels with Avar and Khazar antiquities, but is distinguished by its unique decor, including the themes of the “royal” feast and lovemaking. The length of time between the production of the belt and its placement in the burial poses some questions. Keywords: Belt, “Byzantine circle,” Avars, Khazar Khanate, Middle Ages, Lomovatov culture, Perm, Bayanovsky burial ground.
Introduction The field season of 2012 was marked for the Kama Archaeological and Ethnographic Expedition of the Perm State Humanities and Pedagogical University by an unusual discovery. A rich belt set, clearly not of local origin, was found in burial No. 268 of the Bayanovsky burial ground (Dobryansky Region of the Perm Territory; in 1951 and 1953 excavated by V.A. Oborin; since 2005 studied by A.V. Danich). It is a unique ¿nd, since complete *This study was supported by the Russian Foundation for the Humanities (Project No. 13-11-59007, “The Problem of the ‘Urheimat’ of the Ugric Magyars and the Ugric Component in Archaeological Medieval Cultures of the Cis-Urals.”
sets of belts belonging to that circle are relatively rare, the subject used in its decoration occurs for the ¿rst time, and the context for the discovery was unusual. Description of the belt The base of the belt is a relatively well-preserved leather band 3.2–4.3 cm wide and up to 3 mm thick, to which the buckle, the tip, and onlays of three types were attached (Fig. 1, 2). It is notable that the onlays were located not on the exterior side of the leather, as is usual, but on the interior side. Before being placed in the grave, the belt was neatly cut or torn with a slight incision into 14 parts which also have traces of un¿nished incisions. Obviously,
Copyright © 2014, Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.aeae.2015.04.010
88
A.V. Danich and N.B. Krylasova / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 42/3 (2014) 87–94
0
3 cm
Fig. 1. The belt of the “Byzantine circle” from burial No. 268 of the Bayanovsky burial ground: arrangement of the parts of the belt set.
2
3
4
5
0
3 cm
1
Fig. 2. Drawing of the elements of the belt set. 1 – tip; 2 – buckle; 3–5 – onlays.
someone intended to cut out all the onlays, but for some reason the intention was not brought to completion. The fragments of the belt were laid in the grave in the order of how it was worn. All these features indicate to a deliberate “killing” of the object, which was a relatively common tradition. Thus, the Siberian peoples placed most objects into graves in a damaged state; the most common interpretation of this custom is related to the symbolism of the secondary birth (Semenova, 2008: 108). All major parts of the belt set were molded of silver. Traces of gilding are present on the bases of large onlays with pendants, the shield of the buckle, and the belt tip. Metal parts were fastened to the belt with silver pins; mounting plates of bronze on the back side of the belt were cut out to repeat the forms of the onlays and ensured reliable fastening. In the process of repairs several holes for silver pins were punched on some of the onlays which had lost their pins. X-ray fluorescence analysis made it possible to determine the metal composition of the elements of the set. The bases of the oval onlays, the buckle shield, and the front plate of the tip were cast of silver (62–78 %) with the addition of copper (5.8–16.0 %) and a small admixture of lead (up to 0.83 %), zinc (up to 0.3 %), and arsenic (to 0.12 %). The alloy of the tip also includes a relatively high percentage of tungsten (9.31 %). Rhenium (1.06–6.22 %) is present in the alloy of the tip and the shield of the buckle. Since these parts of the belt set were covered with gold, the samples showed a signi¿cant gold content (11.5–20.2 %). Pendants of bipartite onlays, horseshoe-shaped and semioval onlays, as well as the frame of the buckle were made of silver (84.3–91.7 %) with the addition of copper (6.5– 13.2 %), lead (up to 1.16 %), zinc (up to 0.42 %), arsenic (0.2 %), and gold (0.7 %). The alloy of mounting plates is based on copper (73 %) and contains lead (12.6 %), zinc (4.78 %), chromium (4.41 %), and tin (3.43 %). The tongue of the buckle and the plate used for its repair were made of
A.V. Danich and N.B. Krylasova / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 42/3 (2014) 87–94
almost pure copper with a small admixture of lead (3.44 %), arsenic (1.87 %), zinc (0.64 %), and iron (0.3 %). The belt underwent the process of conservation (by I.S. Grebenyuk, Sverdlovsk Regional Museum of Local Studies); in the process some important details related to the design of the elements of the belt set and speci¿c features of ornamental compositions were identi¿ed. The buckle (Fig. 2, 2; 3) has an oval plate-like frame measuring 4.5 × 2.2 cm, a slightly extended frontal part, and cast eyelets on the back side for a hinge joint with a shield. In the place where the tongue is located, the frame has a rectangular recess, flanked by a floral pattern of curls. The shield is semioval, 3 × 3 cm. The tongue is bent out of a rectangular copper plate 0.5 cm wide and 2.7 cm long, sharpened at the end; near the tip of the bending it is decorated with a dotted pattern. Obviously, the buckle was supplied with the tongue in the process of repairs which had to be made due to the breakage of the hinge. While repairing, a rectangular copper plate with carved jagged strips in the frontal part was placed on the back side of the belt underneath the shield. The strips were then bent to the frontal side of the buckle, replacing the broken hinge, and were secured by pins, passing through holes which were punched in the corners of the shield. Two naked persons (a male to the left of the viewer and a female to the right) are represented face forward in the lotus position on the slotted shield (Fig. 3, b). The ¿gures show gender characteristics. The woman is hugging the man, putting her right hand on his shoulder, and resting with her left hand on her side. The right hand of the man is also resting on his side, while his left hand rests on the breast of the woman. Facial features in both ¿gures show Mongoloid signs, such as a broad nose and prominent cheekbones. The man has a long mustache, sloping down to his chin. The parts of the costume – a headdress in the form of a small rounded hat and a belt – can be seen on his ¿gure. A smooth convex border runs along the edge of the shield. The tip (Fig. 2, 1; 4) consists of three parts: an openwork silver faceplate 20 × 3 cm, the edges of which are bent downward forming a “box” 4 mm high; a thin copper plate, placed into this “box;” and a base also made of copper. From the side of the belt the edge of the tip is straight with a pair of semicircular loops for pins in the corners. The pins fasten the end of the belt which extend inward from the tip by 1 cm and connect the face plate with a copper base, soldered to its edge along the side. The front plate is broken. For repairing, its pieces were attached to the new base by means of pins pulled through punched holes along the edges of the fragments. A scalloped border runs along the contour of the face plate of the tip, framing three ornamental zones, separated by scalloped and smooth horizontal strips. The same image as the one on the shield of the buckle was represented on the top level. The lower level represents a male and a female in pro¿le, sitting on their knees in
1 cm
0 3 cm
0
89
B
Ⱥ
Fig. 3. Buckle. A – general view; B – representation on the shield.
1 cm
0
B 3 cm
0
Ⱥ
Fig. 4. Tip of the belt. A – general view; B – representation on the upper part.
front of each other and indulging in love play (Fig. 4, b). Floral ornamental decoration of a vine with large leaves appears in the lowest level, which occupies more than half the length of the tip. A copper plate underneath the front plate served as a background for the openwork decoration, creating a polychromatic effect. Oval onlays 3 × 4 cm (6 pieces) have pendants in the form of trefoil openwork attached with hinges (Fig. 2, 3; 5, 1). A smooth convex border along the contour frames
90
A.V. Danich and N.B. Krylasova / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 42/3 (2014) 87–94
the composition of three human ¿gures. The same frontal representation of a naked man sitting in a lotus position with sexual characteristics, mustache, and headgear on the head is in the center (Fig. 5, 1, b). His arms are bent at the elbows and are lifted up. Solar symbols – the sun and the crescent moon – are depicted at his left shoulder. An unclear representation appears at his right shoulder, possibly depicting a sitting bird or an axe which the man holds in his hand. Two other characters of the composition are shown in pro¿le; they sit on their knees in front of each other on both sides of the central ¿gure (servants, slaves?). One ¿gure (on the left of the viewer) is holding a large jug, the other one (on the right) is an unidenti¿ed object in the form of a ring with “rays” (a royal diadem?). Horseshoe-shaped onlays 3.0 × 2.5 cm (5 pieces) are decorated by palmettes with expanded curly leaves. The decor is framed by a smooth convex border (Fig. 2, 4; 5, 2). The onlays of elongated semi-oval shape (6 pieces) have the dimensions of 2.5 × 1.3 cm. Their decor is stylistically reminiscent of a “bound palmette,” but represents a trefoil. It is also framed by a smooth convex border. There is a rectangular loop below (Fig. 2, 5; 5, 3). Location of the onlays on belt fragments and their sequence in the burial make it possible to reconstruct the order of elements in the belt set (Fig. 1). A part of the belt was covered with onlays of horseshoe shape, arranged
3 cm
0
1 cm
0
ɚ
b
1
2
0
3 cm
Fig. 5. Onlays. 3 cm
0
3
1 – oval onlay: a – general view, b – representation on the shield; 2 – horseshoe-shaped onlays; 3 – semioval onlays.
one behind the other at a distance of about 1.5 cm. As O. Pelevina explained in a personal conversation, usually they were placed on the belt in such a way that the tongue of the buckle would “enter” the recess of the last “horseshoe.” The pairs of large oval onlays with pendants, spaced about 1 cm apart, alternated with small semioval onlays, spaced 0.3–0.5 cm apart on the rest of the belt. The remains of a silver loop 2 cm wide in the form of a plate, bent in the shape of an oval, also survived from the belt. The loop was attached to the belt with four copper pins. The purpose of the loop is not entirely clear; possibly it served for hanging a sheath to the belt. It is not clear where the tip was located. The end of the belt, which was fastened on the buckle, was cut unevenly. In width, this part of the belt corresponded to the fragment at the tip, but their edges did not coincide. Presumably, some part of the belt was cut and has not survived. In the burial, the tip was lying separately along the left thigh of the buried person. Parallels and dating of the belt In general, the belt shows broad parallels with belts of the “Byzantine circle,” common for the late Avar and early Saltov assemblages occurring over a wide area, which, as A.V. Komar noted, were a part of the Khazar Khanate or were in its sphere of inÀuence (Komar, 2001: 103; Komar, Strelnik 2011: 160). The Kama region, where many large buckles, onlays, and tips with ornamental decoration of palmettes and vine tendrils have been found, was one of such territories. These objects occur in the assemblages attributable to the second half of the 7th–¿rst half of the 8th centuries (Gening, 1979: 102), for example, at the Agafonovsky, Demenkovsky, Visimsky burial grounds of the Lomovatov culture (Goldina, 1985: Pl. XIII, 39–42), or the Nevolinsky, Verkh-Sainsky, Brodovsky, Gorbunyatsky, Ust-Irginsky burial grounds of the Nevolinsky culture (Goldina, Vodolago, 1990: Pl. XXVI, 19, 29–32; XXX, 15, 29, 30; XXXI, 15, 16; XXXIV, 23–41; XXXV, 18–22). With the exception of the human figures, we can ¿nd parallels to individual elements of decoration of the Bayanovsky belt. Thus, “bound palmettes” reproduced on horseshoe-shaped and small semioval overlays are typical for the belts belonging to the “Mikeldorf–Skalistoe” type and dating to the late 7th–¿rst half of the 8th century. Having analyzed the locations where the elements of those belts were discovered, B. Totev and O. Pelevina came to the conclusion that such belts were common in the border zones of the European steppe region – in the Kama region, Urals, Middle Volga region, Tambov Province, Northern Caucasus, Crimea, northeastern Bulgaria, and the Middle Danube. In their view, it is dif¿cult to explain this fact only by cultural inÀuences; most likely it depended on the population, which was the direct carrier of speci¿c fashion. Totev and Pelevina suggested that the emergence
A.V. Danich and N.B. Krylasova / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 42/3 (2014) 87–94
of belts with a “bound palmette” in these areas in the late 7th–early 8th century was the result of settlement of various groups from Great Bulgaria under the pressure of the Khazar invasion (Totev, Pelevina, 2005: 89). The decoration of the tip in the form of an incurved offshoot with leaves can be related to the “Vrap–Erseke” type of belt sets, the elements of which are found in the same areas and sometimes in the same assemblages as the elements of the “Mikeldorf–Skalistoe” belt type (Ibid.: 90). A tip with similar decoration was found in the Kama region in burial No. 107 at the Agafonovsky burial ground (Goldina, 1985: Pl. XIII, 40). A scalloped border, as with the Bayanovsky belt tip, was also typical mostly for the “Vrap–Erseke” type of belt sets (Totev, Pelevina, 2005: 86, Fig. 2, 3, 7–9; 7, 2, 3; 9, 6, 8). The parallels to the ¿gurate pendants on twopartite onlays were found in the Fotovizh treasure (Komar, Strelnik, 2011: Fig. 3, 1–8), in burial No. 134 of Netailovka (Kryganov, 2001: Fig. 3, 5), burial No. 960 of Tankeyevka (Kazakov, 1992: Fig. 60, 120), burials Nos. 22 and 24 of Polomsky-I (Ivanov, 1998: Fig. 49, 5, 6, 8), and burial No. 7 of the Vazhgortsky burial ground (Belavin, 2000: Fig. 90, 8). Yet the greatest number of parallels has been found among the late Avar materials (Komar, Strelnik 2011: 149). Several similar decorative elements can be seen on a belt set from a burial ground of the 8th century near the village of Tiszavárkony (Sokrovischa avarov, 1985: 11): the decoration of the late Avar tip is the closest to the Bayanovsky belt; there are similarities in the decoration of horseshoe-shaped onlays; ¿gurate pendants of two-partite plaques also look similar. Thus, the belt was clearly made not later than the mid8th century and at the same time it ended up in the Kama region, where the elements of such belt sets from the period are not uncommon ¿nds. However, the burial where the belt comes from, was made at a much later time. Description of the burial Grave No. 268 had an oval shape, with dimensions of 2.71 × 0.72 m, a depth of 0.82 m from the surface, a Àat bottom, and vertical walls. The burial was oriented along the north-east–south-west line. The fragments of wooden planking up to 0.5 cm thick were discovered on top of all the objects, and the remains of fur were found beneath them. Wooden planking with the remains of leather was also found on the inner surface at the bottom of the burial pit. The burial preserved some fragments of the skeleton, arranged according to anatomical order. The remains of the skull, scapula, and clavicle were found in the northeastern part of the burial pit. A silver funerary mask under a large fragment of silk survived, and a set of temporal ornaments made of silver was discovered nearby; a small iron axe was found to the southwest of the
mask. Fragments of pelvis and sacrum with the pieces of cut belt lying on top of them were cleared in the center of the burial pit. The remains of silk were found on the belt, and the remains of fur were on its back side. A fragment of left femur was found southwest of the pelvis. A knife, located along the conventional axis of the burial, as well as a Àintstone and ¿re striker were located to the left of the left femur fragment. The tip of the belt lay slightly below the knife in a straight line with it. A spear head was found to the right of the pelvic bones, placed with its tip towards the head of the deceased; the spear apparently did not ¿t the grave pit and was broken in half. The bones of the forearm and a phalanx of the right hand were found alongside the spear. A silver ring was found near the right phalanx, and a second identical ring was found to the left of the femur. Foot bones, preserved underneath a copper cauldron, were discovered in the southwestern part of the burial pit. Inside the cauldron, there were the remains of two wooden vessels and a pottery fragment. Iron bits were placed on the left underneath the cauldron and an iron girth buckle to the right of the cauldron. The remains belong to a person older than 30 years of age (the de¿nition of the anthropologist N.G. Bryukhova). It is impossible to identify the sex on the basis of the surviving bones, but the composition of the grave goods leaves no doubt that this was the burial of a male, most certainly a representative of the local military elite, which is indicated by the presence of a variety of high-status objects, such as precious decoration of the clothing, weaponry and horse equipment, a copper cauldron, and funerary face cover. The buried person was richly dressed. Judging by the arrangement of clothing fragments, he was wearing a fur coat made of European beaver fur (identi¿cation by A.V. Kaluzhnikova, the taxidermist from the Sverdlovsk Museum of Local History), girded with the belt, and wearing on top of the coat a gown of silk and a cloak of thick twill fabric, the remains of which were preserved in iron oxides on the axe and the spear head. Description of grave goods and dating of the assemblage The assemblage contains no narrowly diagnostic artifacts. The temporal ornaments with a grapelike pendant (Fig. 6, 2) belong to a very late version with a hollow bipyramidal pendant attached to a hollow ball, beaded on a ring-shackle. According to Y.A. Podosyonova, such a design was typical for the second half of the 9th–early 10th century. In general, temporal ornaments with grapelike pendants were common before the 11th century (Podosyonova, 2009: 66). The second wiry ring (Fig. 6, 3) is pear-shaped which is a form mostly typical for the Perm Urals, where such ornaments were used from the early 10th until the 12th century (Ibid.: 80).
91
92
A.V. Danich and N.B. Krylasova / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 42/3 (2014) 87–94
Finger rings (Fig. 6, 4, 5) with an embossed silver hemisphere decorated with triangles of granulation, bands of ¿ligree, and an insert of glass or carnelian in the place of the bezel, are quite commonly found at the sites of the Perm Urals going back to the 10th–11th centuries (Belavin, Krylasova 2012: 127–128). The hemisphere was soldered to the copper base and was ¿xed to a solid or split hoop of silver or copper. The oval funerary mask (Fig. 6, 1) of silver with holes imitating eyes and mouth, convex nose with slotted nostrils, decorated on the external edge of the plate and around the holes with rows of semipeas, with gilding above the “eyes” and around the “mouth,” belongs to the latest type of specialized funeral face coverings – solid masks, common from the late 9th to the early 11th century (Belavin, Krylasova, 2008: 48). The greatest number of such masks was found at the Bayanovsky burial ground. Similar masks are known from the Rozhdestvensky, Ogurdinsky, Redikarsky, and Plesinsky burial grounds of the Perm Urals. Beyond that region, such masks were
1
3 2
4
5
0
Fig. 6. Grave goods from burial No. 268. 1 – mask; 2, 3 – temporal ornaments; 4, 5 – rings.
3 cm
often found at the early Bulgar Tankeyevsky burial ground (Kazakov, 2007: 23); a mask accompanied a single Ugric burial of the 10th century in the village of Manvelovka of the Dnepropetrovsk Province (Churilova, 1986). According to the classi¿cation of K.A. Rudenko, the cauldron (Fig. 7, 1) belongs to the type M-1 with a rim formed by a copper band 3.5 cm wide and 1 mm thick which was ¿xed on the outside with an upper folded edge of the sides (3–5 mm) and bronze rivets. The vessels of this type date to the 9th/10th century–early 11th century (Rudenko, 2000: 28, ¿g. 2). The height of the cauldron is 14 cm; its diameter is 26 cm; the thickness of the wall is 0.5 mm. The seams were carefully forged and are not visible. The ears have not survived; only their traces and a couple of rivets remain in their places. Burials containing cauldrons at the burial grounds of the Perm Urals usually comprises a rich set of grave goods, including “high status” objects. Such burials probably belonged to the representatives of tribal nobility. The cauldron from the burial No. 268 is a perfect example of special attention paid to these very valuable objects. In the process of use the cauldron cracked at the bottom and was repaired by four copper overlaid patches, attached with small rivets, and on the outside it was sheathed with criss-cross birch bark strips 22–25 mm wide. The cauldron used to contain some liquid product, whose oxidation left small copper crust and traces on the interior surface of the walls 60–85 mm from the bottom (the cauldron stood on a slight slope). The cauldron contained the fragments of two wooden vessels. The ¿rst one was a bowl 5 cm in diameter at the rim and 6 cm along its body, 3.7 cm high, with an everted rim 0.9 cm high (Fig. 7, 2). The second vessel was a cup 8 cm in diameter with a slightly everted rim; 0.8 cm below the rim, a part of the handle 1.8 × 4.2 cm in size and 0.2– 0.4 cm in thickness survived (Fig. 7, 3). Wooden vessels are extremely rare ¿nds in the graves of the Perm Urals. Yet, judging by the numerous metal encasings of rims in the assemblages of the 10th–¿rst half of the 11th century, there was a custom of accompanying the deceased with wooden vessels along with pottery. A pottery fragment, also located in the cauldron was a part of an undecorated vessel wall. An iron pick axe-chekan (Fig. 8, 10) has a butt in the form of a hammer circular in cross-section with a mushroom-shaped end. According to the typology of A.N. Kirpichnikov, it is of type 1, which dates to the 10th– 11th centuries (Kirpichnikov, 1966: 33–35, ¿g. 6). In the Perm Urals, such axes are known from the burial grounds of Bayanovsky, Zaposelie, and Pyshtain, as well as from the Vakinskoe settlement. An iron spear head (Fig. 8, 1) is diamond-shaped in cross-section, and has a funnel-like sleeve, which is shorter than the blade. This was a pike – the most common type of spear head in the 8th–12th centuries. In the Perm Urals, this type of weaponry is represented by
A.V. Danich and N.B. Krylasova / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 42/3 (2014) 87–94
93
4 7 2
6 5
8
3 0
3 cm
1
Fig. 7. Copper cauldron (1) and fragments of the wooden vessels (2, 3) from burial No. 268.
¿nds from the burial grounds of Plyosinsky, Bayanovsky, Redikorsky, Telyachy Brod, and Bolshevisimsky, as well as the Maltsevsky settlement (Danich, 2010: 24). The knife (Fig. 8, 3) is of a common all-function type. The remains of a wooden handle are preserved. Parts of a fire striker were found in a compact cluster (apparently they were in a pouch or belt purse) and contained a ¿re striker and four Àintstones (Fig. 8, 4–8). The ¿re striker (Fig. 8, 4) is a rectangular block with a small appendage at one end, bent into a loop. L.A. Golubeva dated plate-like ¿re strikers of this type to the period from the 8th to the 11th–12th centuries (1965: Fig. 1, 5). In the Perm Urals, they were found at the Rodanov and Rozhdestvensky forti¿ed settlements (Belavin, Krylasova, 2008: Fig. 174, 7), and at the settlement of Telyachy Brod. The dates of these sites and similar materials found in the Ladoga and Onega areas make it possible to date such ¿re strikers to the 10th–early 12th century (Krylasova, 2007: Fig. 84). Horse bits (Fig. 8, 2) consist of a pair of moving elements of the bridle bit and two rein rings which simultaneously served as cheek-pieces. The bars of the bridle bit are square in cross-section; the rings are large and flat. Such bits were common throughout Eastern Europe in the pre-Mongolian period. In the Middle Volga region and the Urals, they appeared in the 1st millennium AD, and became prevalent since the turn of the 1st and 2nd millennia AD. The lyrate girth buckle (Fig. 8, 9) belongs to the type dated to the 10th–12th centuries (Kultura Bilyara, 1985: 202). The correlation of dates of the findings under discussion allows us to date the burial No. 268 to the early 10th–early 11th century. This chronological period is consistent with the dates of 11 coins found in ¿ve graves, located in close proximity to the burial with the belt – the coins were minted in the period from 902/903 to 922 AD. Before ending up in the burial, the coins might have been used for a long time.
3
2
10 1
9
0
3 cm
Fig. 8. Grave goods from burial No. 268. 1 – spear head with imprints of fabric; 2 – horse bits; 3 – knife with wooden handle; 4 – ¿re striker; 5–8 – Àintstones; 9 – buckle; 10 – axe with imprints of fabric. 1–4, 9, 10 – iron; 5–8 – Àint.
Conclusions Thus, the age of the belt at the time when it became a part of the burial ranged from 150 to 250 years. The question is what the reason for such a long period of its existence was. On the one hand, history knows many facts of long preservation of family relics. We may assume that in the case of careful handling and putting the belt on only on particularly important occasions, it could have been preserved over this time period. Numerous traces of repair, half-worn gilding, and the deformation of some parts testify to its prolonged use. On the other hand, no matter how implausible it may seem, the belt could have easily been discovered in the burial of an earlier time and reused after repairs. The evidence for such a practice is a chalcedony disc in the burial of the same time at the Demenkovsky burial ground (excavations by A.F. Melnychuk), and later also at the Bayanovsky burial ground (excavations by A.V. Danichev). In the Kama region, such discs are most widely found at the Azelinsky and Mazuninsky burial sites of the 4th–5th centuries AD. According to I.Y. Pastushenko, the arrival of chalcedony to the region occurred in a narrow chronological interval or on the whole it might have been a single occasion
94
A.V. Danich and N.B. Krylasova / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 42/3 (2014) 87–94
(Pastushenko, Bernts, 2008: 16–17). The occurrence of such discs in the burials of the 10th century can be explained only by their extraction from the earlier graves. The shape of the buckle tongue is evidence that the belt was repaired in the 10th century. Usually this type of buckle was supplied with massive cast tongues (variant 7 according to V.B. Kovalevskaya) (1979: 11, 21–22). The tongue of a copper plate, used for repairing, is typical for the buckles of the 10th century. As it is known, the production of honorary military belts in Byzantium was strictly regulated. Golden belts were made for the use of the Byzantines, and silver belts were made for the “Barbarians.” The presence of silver belt sets in the burials of the Bayanovsky burial ground indicates a long-term preservation of ancient military traditions in the medieval society of the Perm Urals. References Belavin A.M. 2000 Kamskii torgovyi put: Srednevekovoe Preduralie v ego ekonomicheskikh i etnokulturnykh svyazyakh. Perm: Perm. Gos. Ped. Univ. Belavin A.M., Krylasova N.B. 2008 Pogrebalnye litsevye pokrytiya kak ugorskii marker. In Rossiya mezhdu proshlym i budushchim: Istoricheskii opyt natsionalnogo razvitiya: Materialy Vserossiiskoi nauchnoi konferentsii, posvyashchennoi 20-letiyu IIA UrO RAN. Yekaterinburg: pp. 47–51. Belavin A.M., Krylasova N.B. 2012 Ogurdinskii mogilnik. Perm: Perm. Gos. Ped. Univ. Churilova L.N. 1986 Pogrebeniye s serebryanoi maskoi u s. Manvelovki na Dnepropetrovshchine. Sovetskaya arkheologiya, No. 4: 261–266. Danich A.V. 2010 Nakonechniki kopii na territorii Permskogo Priuraliya. Vestnik Muzeya arkheologii i etnogra¿i Permskogo Preduraliya, No. 3: 20–43. Gening V.F. 1979 Khronologiya poyasnoi garnitury I tysyacheletiya nashei ery (po materialam mogilnikov Prikamiya). KSIA, No. 158: 56–106. Goldina R.D. 1985 Lomovatovskaya kultura v Verkhnem Prikamiye. Irkutsk: Izd. Irkutsk. Gos. Univ. Goldina R.D., Vodolago N.V. 1990 Mogilniki nevolinskoi kultury v Priuraliye. Irkutsk: Izd. Irkutsk. Gos. Univ. Golubeva L.A. 1965 K istorii plastinchatykh ogniv Vostochnoi Evropy. In Novoye v sovetskoi arkheologii: Pamyati Sergeya Vladimirovicha Kiseleva. K 60-letiyu so dnya rozhdeniya. Moscow: Nauka, pp. 257–260. (MIA; No. 130). Ivanov A.G. 1998 Etnokulturnye i ekonomicheskie svyazi naseleniya basseina r. Cheptsy v epokhu srednevekoviya. Izhevsk: UdmIIYL UrO RAN.
Kazakov E.P. 1992 Kultura rannei Volzhskoi Bulgarii (etapy etnokulturnoi istorii). Moscow: Nauka. Kazakov E.P. 2007 Volzhskiye bolgary, ugry i ¿nny v IX–XIV vv.: Problemy vzaimodeistviya. Kazan: Inst. istorii AN Resp. Tatarstan. Kirpichnikov A.N. 1966 Drevnerusskoye oruzhie. Iss. 2: Kopiya, sulitsy, boevye topory, bulavy, kisteni IX–XIII vv. Moscow, Leningrad: Nauka. (Svod arkheologicheskikh istochnikov; E1–36). Komar A.V. 2001 Proiskhozhdeniye poyasnykh naborov rannesaltovskogo tipa. In Kultury evraziiskikh stepei vtoroi poloviny I tysyacheletiya nashei ery (iz istorii kostyuma), vol. 2. Samara: Samar. Obl. istoriko-kraevedcheskii muzei, pp. 103–117. Komar A.V., Strelnik M.A. 2011 “Repressirovannyi” klad: Kompleks yuvelirnykh izdelii VIII v. iz nakhodki u s. Fotovizh. Stratum Plus, No. 5: 143–164. Kovalevskaya V.B. 1979 Poyasnye nabory Evrazii (IV–IX vv.): Pryazhki. Moscow: Nauka. (Svod arkheologicheskikh istochnikov; E1–2). Kryganov A.V. 2001 Verkhnesaltovskii i Netailovskii arkheologicheskiye pamyatniki saltovskoi kultury – ostatki drevnego khazarskogo goroda. In Stepi Evropy v epokhu srednevekoviya. Vol. 2: Khazarskoe vremya. Donetsk: Donetsk. Nats. Univ., pp. 347–358. Krylasova N.B. 2007 Arkheologiya povsednevnosti: materialnaya kultura srednevekovogo Preduraliya. Perm: Perm. Gos. Ped. Univ. Kultura Bilyara: Bulgarskie orudiya truda i oruzhie X–XIII vv. 1985 Moscow: Nauka. Pastushenko I.Y., Bernts V. 2008 Khaltsedonovye diski v kulture naseleniya Prikamiya. Finno-Ugrica, No. 11: 12–23. Podosyonova Y.A. 2009 Visochnye ukrasheniya naseleniya Permskogo Preduraliya v epokhu srednevekoviya. Cand. Sc. (History) Dissertation. Perm: Perm. Gos. Ped. Univ. Rudenko K.A. 2000 Metallicheskaya posuda Povolzhiya i Prikamiya v VIII– XIV vv. Kazan: Gos. Obiyed. muzei Respubliki Tatarstan. Semenova V.I. 2008 Mifologika mira mertvykh (po mifologicheskim i arkheologicheskim istochnikam Zapadnoi Sibiri). Tyumen: IPOS SO RAN RAN. Sokrovischa avarov: Katalog vystavki. 1985 Moscow: [Tip. Min. kultury SSSR]. Totev B., Pelevina O. 2005 Novye dannye o rannesrednevekovykh poyasakh dunaiskikh bolgar. Antichnaya drevnost i srednie veka, No. 36: 85–103.
Received January 10, 2014. Received in revised form March 20, 2014.
87
A.V. Danich1 and N.B. Krylasova2 Perm State Humanities and Pedagogical University, Sibirskaya 24, Perm, 614990, Russia E-mail: [email protected] 2 Department of History, Archaeology, and Ethnography, Perm Scienti¿c Center, Ural Branch, Russian Academy of Sciences, Lenina 13a, Perm, 614990, Russia E-mail: [email protected] 1
NEW BELT OF THE “BYZANTINE CIRCLE” FROM THE MEDIEVAL BAYANOVSKY BURIAL GROUND IN THE PERM TERRITORY*
A precious belt of the “Byzantine circle,” belonging to a representative of the local social elite was discovered in a burial of the 10th century at the Bayanovsky burial ground (Perm Territory). The belt is dated to the mid-8th century. Individual elements of similar belts have been found relatively often over large areas, including the Perm Territory, however, complete belt sets are rare. The belt shows extensive parallels with Avar and Khazar antiquities, but is distinguished by its unique decor, including the themes of the “royal” feast and lovemaking. The length of time between the production of the belt and its placement in the burial poses some questions. Keywords: Belt, “Byzantine circle,” Avars, Khazar Khanate, Middle Ages, Lomovatov culture, Perm, Bayanovsky burial ground.
Introduction The field season of 2012 was marked for the Kama Archaeological and Ethnographic Expedition of the Perm State Humanities and Pedagogical University by an unusual discovery. A rich belt set, clearly not of local origin, was found in burial No. 268 of the Bayanovsky burial ground (Dobryansky Region of the Perm Territory; in 1951 and 1953 excavated by V.A. Oborin; since 2005 studied by A.V. Danich). It is a unique ¿nd, since complete *This study was supported by the Russian Foundation for the Humanities (Project No. 13-11-59007, “The Problem of the ‘Urheimat’ of the Ugric Magyars and the Ugric Component in Archaeological Medieval Cultures of the Cis-Urals.”
sets of belts belonging to that circle are relatively rare, the subject used in its decoration occurs for the ¿rst time, and the context for the discovery was unusual. Description of the belt The base of the belt is a relatively well-preserved leather band 3.2–4.3 cm wide and up to 3 mm thick, to which the buckle, the tip, and onlays of three types were attached (Fig. 1, 2). It is notable that the onlays were located not on the exterior side of the leather, as is usual, but on the interior side. Before being placed in the grave, the belt was neatly cut or torn with a slight incision into 14 parts which also have traces of un¿nished incisions. Obviously,
Copyright © 2014, Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.aeae.2015.04.010
88
A.V. Danich and N.B. Krylasova / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 42/3 (2014) 87–94
0
3 cm
Fig. 1. The belt of the “Byzantine circle” from burial No. 268 of the Bayanovsky burial ground: arrangement of the parts of the belt set.
2
3
4
5
0
3 cm
1
Fig. 2. Drawing of the elements of the belt set. 1 – tip; 2 – buckle; 3–5 – onlays.
someone intended to cut out all the onlays, but for some reason the intention was not brought to completion. The fragments of the belt were laid in the grave in the order of how it was worn. All these features indicate to a deliberate “killing” of the object, which was a relatively common tradition. Thus, the Siberian peoples placed most objects into graves in a damaged state; the most common interpretation of this custom is related to the symbolism of the secondary birth (Semenova, 2008: 108). All major parts of the belt set were molded of silver. Traces of gilding are present on the bases of large onlays with pendants, the shield of the buckle, and the belt tip. Metal parts were fastened to the belt with silver pins; mounting plates of bronze on the back side of the belt were cut out to repeat the forms of the onlays and ensured reliable fastening. In the process of repairs several holes for silver pins were punched on some of the onlays which had lost their pins. X-ray fluorescence analysis made it possible to determine the metal composition of the elements of the set. The bases of the oval onlays, the buckle shield, and the front plate of the tip were cast of silver (62–78 %) with the addition of copper (5.8–16.0 %) and a small admixture of lead (up to 0.83 %), zinc (up to 0.3 %), and arsenic (to 0.12 %). The alloy of the tip also includes a relatively high percentage of tungsten (9.31 %). Rhenium (1.06–6.22 %) is present in the alloy of the tip and the shield of the buckle. Since these parts of the belt set were covered with gold, the samples showed a signi¿cant gold content (11.5–20.2 %). Pendants of bipartite onlays, horseshoe-shaped and semioval onlays, as well as the frame of the buckle were made of silver (84.3–91.7 %) with the addition of copper (6.5– 13.2 %), lead (up to 1.16 %), zinc (up to 0.42 %), arsenic (0.2 %), and gold (0.7 %). The alloy of mounting plates is based on copper (73 %) and contains lead (12.6 %), zinc (4.78 %), chromium (4.41 %), and tin (3.43 %). The tongue of the buckle and the plate used for its repair were made of
A.V. Danich and N.B. Krylasova / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 42/3 (2014) 87–94
almost pure copper with a small admixture of lead (3.44 %), arsenic (1.87 %), zinc (0.64 %), and iron (0.3 %). The belt underwent the process of conservation (by I.S. Grebenyuk, Sverdlovsk Regional Museum of Local Studies); in the process some important details related to the design of the elements of the belt set and speci¿c features of ornamental compositions were identi¿ed. The buckle (Fig. 2, 2; 3) has an oval plate-like frame measuring 4.5 × 2.2 cm, a slightly extended frontal part, and cast eyelets on the back side for a hinge joint with a shield. In the place where the tongue is located, the frame has a rectangular recess, flanked by a floral pattern of curls. The shield is semioval, 3 × 3 cm. The tongue is bent out of a rectangular copper plate 0.5 cm wide and 2.7 cm long, sharpened at the end; near the tip of the bending it is decorated with a dotted pattern. Obviously, the buckle was supplied with the tongue in the process of repairs which had to be made due to the breakage of the hinge. While repairing, a rectangular copper plate with carved jagged strips in the frontal part was placed on the back side of the belt underneath the shield. The strips were then bent to the frontal side of the buckle, replacing the broken hinge, and were secured by pins, passing through holes which were punched in the corners of the shield. Two naked persons (a male to the left of the viewer and a female to the right) are represented face forward in the lotus position on the slotted shield (Fig. 3, b). The ¿gures show gender characteristics. The woman is hugging the man, putting her right hand on his shoulder, and resting with her left hand on her side. The right hand of the man is also resting on his side, while his left hand rests on the breast of the woman. Facial features in both ¿gures show Mongoloid signs, such as a broad nose and prominent cheekbones. The man has a long mustache, sloping down to his chin. The parts of the costume – a headdress in the form of a small rounded hat and a belt – can be seen on his ¿gure. A smooth convex border runs along the edge of the shield. The tip (Fig. 2, 1; 4) consists of three parts: an openwork silver faceplate 20 × 3 cm, the edges of which are bent downward forming a “box” 4 mm high; a thin copper plate, placed into this “box;” and a base also made of copper. From the side of the belt the edge of the tip is straight with a pair of semicircular loops for pins in the corners. The pins fasten the end of the belt which extend inward from the tip by 1 cm and connect the face plate with a copper base, soldered to its edge along the side. The front plate is broken. For repairing, its pieces were attached to the new base by means of pins pulled through punched holes along the edges of the fragments. A scalloped border runs along the contour of the face plate of the tip, framing three ornamental zones, separated by scalloped and smooth horizontal strips. The same image as the one on the shield of the buckle was represented on the top level. The lower level represents a male and a female in pro¿le, sitting on their knees in
1 cm
0 3 cm
0
89
B
Ⱥ
Fig. 3. Buckle. A – general view; B – representation on the shield.
1 cm
0
B 3 cm
0
Ⱥ
Fig. 4. Tip of the belt. A – general view; B – representation on the upper part.
front of each other and indulging in love play (Fig. 4, b). Floral ornamental decoration of a vine with large leaves appears in the lowest level, which occupies more than half the length of the tip. A copper plate underneath the front plate served as a background for the openwork decoration, creating a polychromatic effect. Oval onlays 3 × 4 cm (6 pieces) have pendants in the form of trefoil openwork attached with hinges (Fig. 2, 3; 5, 1). A smooth convex border along the contour frames
90
A.V. Danich and N.B. Krylasova / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 42/3 (2014) 87–94
the composition of three human ¿gures. The same frontal representation of a naked man sitting in a lotus position with sexual characteristics, mustache, and headgear on the head is in the center (Fig. 5, 1, b). His arms are bent at the elbows and are lifted up. Solar symbols – the sun and the crescent moon – are depicted at his left shoulder. An unclear representation appears at his right shoulder, possibly depicting a sitting bird or an axe which the man holds in his hand. Two other characters of the composition are shown in pro¿le; they sit on their knees in front of each other on both sides of the central ¿gure (servants, slaves?). One ¿gure (on the left of the viewer) is holding a large jug, the other one (on the right) is an unidenti¿ed object in the form of a ring with “rays” (a royal diadem?). Horseshoe-shaped onlays 3.0 × 2.5 cm (5 pieces) are decorated by palmettes with expanded curly leaves. The decor is framed by a smooth convex border (Fig. 2, 4; 5, 2). The onlays of elongated semi-oval shape (6 pieces) have the dimensions of 2.5 × 1.3 cm. Their decor is stylistically reminiscent of a “bound palmette,” but represents a trefoil. It is also framed by a smooth convex border. There is a rectangular loop below (Fig. 2, 5; 5, 3). Location of the onlays on belt fragments and their sequence in the burial make it possible to reconstruct the order of elements in the belt set (Fig. 1). A part of the belt was covered with onlays of horseshoe shape, arranged
3 cm
0
1 cm
0
ɚ
b
1
2
0
3 cm
Fig. 5. Onlays. 3 cm
0
3
1 – oval onlay: a – general view, b – representation on the shield; 2 – horseshoe-shaped onlays; 3 – semioval onlays.
one behind the other at a distance of about 1.5 cm. As O. Pelevina explained in a personal conversation, usually they were placed on the belt in such a way that the tongue of the buckle would “enter” the recess of the last “horseshoe.” The pairs of large oval onlays with pendants, spaced about 1 cm apart, alternated with small semioval onlays, spaced 0.3–0.5 cm apart on the rest of the belt. The remains of a silver loop 2 cm wide in the form of a plate, bent in the shape of an oval, also survived from the belt. The loop was attached to the belt with four copper pins. The purpose of the loop is not entirely clear; possibly it served for hanging a sheath to the belt. It is not clear where the tip was located. The end of the belt, which was fastened on the buckle, was cut unevenly. In width, this part of the belt corresponded to the fragment at the tip, but their edges did not coincide. Presumably, some part of the belt was cut and has not survived. In the burial, the tip was lying separately along the left thigh of the buried person. Parallels and dating of the belt In general, the belt shows broad parallels with belts of the “Byzantine circle,” common for the late Avar and early Saltov assemblages occurring over a wide area, which, as A.V. Komar noted, were a part of the Khazar Khanate or were in its sphere of inÀuence (Komar, 2001: 103; Komar, Strelnik 2011: 160). The Kama region, where many large buckles, onlays, and tips with ornamental decoration of palmettes and vine tendrils have been found, was one of such territories. These objects occur in the assemblages attributable to the second half of the 7th–¿rst half of the 8th centuries (Gening, 1979: 102), for example, at the Agafonovsky, Demenkovsky, Visimsky burial grounds of the Lomovatov culture (Goldina, 1985: Pl. XIII, 39–42), or the Nevolinsky, Verkh-Sainsky, Brodovsky, Gorbunyatsky, Ust-Irginsky burial grounds of the Nevolinsky culture (Goldina, Vodolago, 1990: Pl. XXVI, 19, 29–32; XXX, 15, 29, 30; XXXI, 15, 16; XXXIV, 23–41; XXXV, 18–22). With the exception of the human figures, we can ¿nd parallels to individual elements of decoration of the Bayanovsky belt. Thus, “bound palmettes” reproduced on horseshoe-shaped and small semioval overlays are typical for the belts belonging to the “Mikeldorf–Skalistoe” type and dating to the late 7th–¿rst half of the 8th century. Having analyzed the locations where the elements of those belts were discovered, B. Totev and O. Pelevina came to the conclusion that such belts were common in the border zones of the European steppe region – in the Kama region, Urals, Middle Volga region, Tambov Province, Northern Caucasus, Crimea, northeastern Bulgaria, and the Middle Danube. In their view, it is dif¿cult to explain this fact only by cultural inÀuences; most likely it depended on the population, which was the direct carrier of speci¿c fashion. Totev and Pelevina suggested that the emergence
A.V. Danich and N.B. Krylasova / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 42/3 (2014) 87–94
of belts with a “bound palmette” in these areas in the late 7th–early 8th century was the result of settlement of various groups from Great Bulgaria under the pressure of the Khazar invasion (Totev, Pelevina, 2005: 89). The decoration of the tip in the form of an incurved offshoot with leaves can be related to the “Vrap–Erseke” type of belt sets, the elements of which are found in the same areas and sometimes in the same assemblages as the elements of the “Mikeldorf–Skalistoe” belt type (Ibid.: 90). A tip with similar decoration was found in the Kama region in burial No. 107 at the Agafonovsky burial ground (Goldina, 1985: Pl. XIII, 40). A scalloped border, as with the Bayanovsky belt tip, was also typical mostly for the “Vrap–Erseke” type of belt sets (Totev, Pelevina, 2005: 86, Fig. 2, 3, 7–9; 7, 2, 3; 9, 6, 8). The parallels to the ¿gurate pendants on twopartite onlays were found in the Fotovizh treasure (Komar, Strelnik, 2011: Fig. 3, 1–8), in burial No. 134 of Netailovka (Kryganov, 2001: Fig. 3, 5), burial No. 960 of Tankeyevka (Kazakov, 1992: Fig. 60, 120), burials Nos. 22 and 24 of Polomsky-I (Ivanov, 1998: Fig. 49, 5, 6, 8), and burial No. 7 of the Vazhgortsky burial ground (Belavin, 2000: Fig. 90, 8). Yet the greatest number of parallels has been found among the late Avar materials (Komar, Strelnik 2011: 149). Several similar decorative elements can be seen on a belt set from a burial ground of the 8th century near the village of Tiszavárkony (Sokrovischa avarov, 1985: 11): the decoration of the late Avar tip is the closest to the Bayanovsky belt; there are similarities in the decoration of horseshoe-shaped onlays; ¿gurate pendants of two-partite plaques also look similar. Thus, the belt was clearly made not later than the mid8th century and at the same time it ended up in the Kama region, where the elements of such belt sets from the period are not uncommon ¿nds. However, the burial where the belt comes from, was made at a much later time. Description of the burial Grave No. 268 had an oval shape, with dimensions of 2.71 × 0.72 m, a depth of 0.82 m from the surface, a Àat bottom, and vertical walls. The burial was oriented along the north-east–south-west line. The fragments of wooden planking up to 0.5 cm thick were discovered on top of all the objects, and the remains of fur were found beneath them. Wooden planking with the remains of leather was also found on the inner surface at the bottom of the burial pit. The burial preserved some fragments of the skeleton, arranged according to anatomical order. The remains of the skull, scapula, and clavicle were found in the northeastern part of the burial pit. A silver funerary mask under a large fragment of silk survived, and a set of temporal ornaments made of silver was discovered nearby; a small iron axe was found to the southwest of the
mask. Fragments of pelvis and sacrum with the pieces of cut belt lying on top of them were cleared in the center of the burial pit. The remains of silk were found on the belt, and the remains of fur were on its back side. A fragment of left femur was found southwest of the pelvis. A knife, located along the conventional axis of the burial, as well as a Àintstone and ¿re striker were located to the left of the left femur fragment. The tip of the belt lay slightly below the knife in a straight line with it. A spear head was found to the right of the pelvic bones, placed with its tip towards the head of the deceased; the spear apparently did not ¿t the grave pit and was broken in half. The bones of the forearm and a phalanx of the right hand were found alongside the spear. A silver ring was found near the right phalanx, and a second identical ring was found to the left of the femur. Foot bones, preserved underneath a copper cauldron, were discovered in the southwestern part of the burial pit. Inside the cauldron, there were the remains of two wooden vessels and a pottery fragment. Iron bits were placed on the left underneath the cauldron and an iron girth buckle to the right of the cauldron. The remains belong to a person older than 30 years of age (the de¿nition of the anthropologist N.G. Bryukhova). It is impossible to identify the sex on the basis of the surviving bones, but the composition of the grave goods leaves no doubt that this was the burial of a male, most certainly a representative of the local military elite, which is indicated by the presence of a variety of high-status objects, such as precious decoration of the clothing, weaponry and horse equipment, a copper cauldron, and funerary face cover. The buried person was richly dressed. Judging by the arrangement of clothing fragments, he was wearing a fur coat made of European beaver fur (identi¿cation by A.V. Kaluzhnikova, the taxidermist from the Sverdlovsk Museum of Local History), girded with the belt, and wearing on top of the coat a gown of silk and a cloak of thick twill fabric, the remains of which were preserved in iron oxides on the axe and the spear head. Description of grave goods and dating of the assemblage The assemblage contains no narrowly diagnostic artifacts. The temporal ornaments with a grapelike pendant (Fig. 6, 2) belong to a very late version with a hollow bipyramidal pendant attached to a hollow ball, beaded on a ring-shackle. According to Y.A. Podosyonova, such a design was typical for the second half of the 9th–early 10th century. In general, temporal ornaments with grapelike pendants were common before the 11th century (Podosyonova, 2009: 66). The second wiry ring (Fig. 6, 3) is pear-shaped which is a form mostly typical for the Perm Urals, where such ornaments were used from the early 10th until the 12th century (Ibid.: 80).
91
92
A.V. Danich and N.B. Krylasova / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 42/3 (2014) 87–94
Finger rings (Fig. 6, 4, 5) with an embossed silver hemisphere decorated with triangles of granulation, bands of ¿ligree, and an insert of glass or carnelian in the place of the bezel, are quite commonly found at the sites of the Perm Urals going back to the 10th–11th centuries (Belavin, Krylasova 2012: 127–128). The hemisphere was soldered to the copper base and was ¿xed to a solid or split hoop of silver or copper. The oval funerary mask (Fig. 6, 1) of silver with holes imitating eyes and mouth, convex nose with slotted nostrils, decorated on the external edge of the plate and around the holes with rows of semipeas, with gilding above the “eyes” and around the “mouth,” belongs to the latest type of specialized funeral face coverings – solid masks, common from the late 9th to the early 11th century (Belavin, Krylasova, 2008: 48). The greatest number of such masks was found at the Bayanovsky burial ground. Similar masks are known from the Rozhdestvensky, Ogurdinsky, Redikarsky, and Plesinsky burial grounds of the Perm Urals. Beyond that region, such masks were
1
3 2
4
5
0
Fig. 6. Grave goods from burial No. 268. 1 – mask; 2, 3 – temporal ornaments; 4, 5 – rings.
3 cm
often found at the early Bulgar Tankeyevsky burial ground (Kazakov, 2007: 23); a mask accompanied a single Ugric burial of the 10th century in the village of Manvelovka of the Dnepropetrovsk Province (Churilova, 1986). According to the classi¿cation of K.A. Rudenko, the cauldron (Fig. 7, 1) belongs to the type M-1 with a rim formed by a copper band 3.5 cm wide and 1 mm thick which was ¿xed on the outside with an upper folded edge of the sides (3–5 mm) and bronze rivets. The vessels of this type date to the 9th/10th century–early 11th century (Rudenko, 2000: 28, ¿g. 2). The height of the cauldron is 14 cm; its diameter is 26 cm; the thickness of the wall is 0.5 mm. The seams were carefully forged and are not visible. The ears have not survived; only their traces and a couple of rivets remain in their places. Burials containing cauldrons at the burial grounds of the Perm Urals usually comprises a rich set of grave goods, including “high status” objects. Such burials probably belonged to the representatives of tribal nobility. The cauldron from the burial No. 268 is a perfect example of special attention paid to these very valuable objects. In the process of use the cauldron cracked at the bottom and was repaired by four copper overlaid patches, attached with small rivets, and on the outside it was sheathed with criss-cross birch bark strips 22–25 mm wide. The cauldron used to contain some liquid product, whose oxidation left small copper crust and traces on the interior surface of the walls 60–85 mm from the bottom (the cauldron stood on a slight slope). The cauldron contained the fragments of two wooden vessels. The ¿rst one was a bowl 5 cm in diameter at the rim and 6 cm along its body, 3.7 cm high, with an everted rim 0.9 cm high (Fig. 7, 2). The second vessel was a cup 8 cm in diameter with a slightly everted rim; 0.8 cm below the rim, a part of the handle 1.8 × 4.2 cm in size and 0.2– 0.4 cm in thickness survived (Fig. 7, 3). Wooden vessels are extremely rare ¿nds in the graves of the Perm Urals. Yet, judging by the numerous metal encasings of rims in the assemblages of the 10th–¿rst half of the 11th century, there was a custom of accompanying the deceased with wooden vessels along with pottery. A pottery fragment, also located in the cauldron was a part of an undecorated vessel wall. An iron pick axe-chekan (Fig. 8, 10) has a butt in the form of a hammer circular in cross-section with a mushroom-shaped end. According to the typology of A.N. Kirpichnikov, it is of type 1, which dates to the 10th– 11th centuries (Kirpichnikov, 1966: 33–35, ¿g. 6). In the Perm Urals, such axes are known from the burial grounds of Bayanovsky, Zaposelie, and Pyshtain, as well as from the Vakinskoe settlement. An iron spear head (Fig. 8, 1) is diamond-shaped in cross-section, and has a funnel-like sleeve, which is shorter than the blade. This was a pike – the most common type of spear head in the 8th–12th centuries. In the Perm Urals, this type of weaponry is represented by
A.V. Danich and N.B. Krylasova / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 42/3 (2014) 87–94
93
4 7 2
6 5
8
3 0
3 cm
1
Fig. 7. Copper cauldron (1) and fragments of the wooden vessels (2, 3) from burial No. 268.
¿nds from the burial grounds of Plyosinsky, Bayanovsky, Redikorsky, Telyachy Brod, and Bolshevisimsky, as well as the Maltsevsky settlement (Danich, 2010: 24). The knife (Fig. 8, 3) is of a common all-function type. The remains of a wooden handle are preserved. Parts of a fire striker were found in a compact cluster (apparently they were in a pouch or belt purse) and contained a ¿re striker and four Àintstones (Fig. 8, 4–8). The ¿re striker (Fig. 8, 4) is a rectangular block with a small appendage at one end, bent into a loop. L.A. Golubeva dated plate-like ¿re strikers of this type to the period from the 8th to the 11th–12th centuries (1965: Fig. 1, 5). In the Perm Urals, they were found at the Rodanov and Rozhdestvensky forti¿ed settlements (Belavin, Krylasova, 2008: Fig. 174, 7), and at the settlement of Telyachy Brod. The dates of these sites and similar materials found in the Ladoga and Onega areas make it possible to date such ¿re strikers to the 10th–early 12th century (Krylasova, 2007: Fig. 84). Horse bits (Fig. 8, 2) consist of a pair of moving elements of the bridle bit and two rein rings which simultaneously served as cheek-pieces. The bars of the bridle bit are square in cross-section; the rings are large and flat. Such bits were common throughout Eastern Europe in the pre-Mongolian period. In the Middle Volga region and the Urals, they appeared in the 1st millennium AD, and became prevalent since the turn of the 1st and 2nd millennia AD. The lyrate girth buckle (Fig. 8, 9) belongs to the type dated to the 10th–12th centuries (Kultura Bilyara, 1985: 202). The correlation of dates of the findings under discussion allows us to date the burial No. 268 to the early 10th–early 11th century. This chronological period is consistent with the dates of 11 coins found in ¿ve graves, located in close proximity to the burial with the belt – the coins were minted in the period from 902/903 to 922 AD. Before ending up in the burial, the coins might have been used for a long time.
3
2
10 1
9
0
3 cm
Fig. 8. Grave goods from burial No. 268. 1 – spear head with imprints of fabric; 2 – horse bits; 3 – knife with wooden handle; 4 – ¿re striker; 5–8 – Àintstones; 9 – buckle; 10 – axe with imprints of fabric. 1–4, 9, 10 – iron; 5–8 – Àint.
Conclusions Thus, the age of the belt at the time when it became a part of the burial ranged from 150 to 250 years. The question is what the reason for such a long period of its existence was. On the one hand, history knows many facts of long preservation of family relics. We may assume that in the case of careful handling and putting the belt on only on particularly important occasions, it could have been preserved over this time period. Numerous traces of repair, half-worn gilding, and the deformation of some parts testify to its prolonged use. On the other hand, no matter how implausible it may seem, the belt could have easily been discovered in the burial of an earlier time and reused after repairs. The evidence for such a practice is a chalcedony disc in the burial of the same time at the Demenkovsky burial ground (excavations by A.F. Melnychuk), and later also at the Bayanovsky burial ground (excavations by A.V. Danichev). In the Kama region, such discs are most widely found at the Azelinsky and Mazuninsky burial sites of the 4th–5th centuries AD. According to I.Y. Pastushenko, the arrival of chalcedony to the region occurred in a narrow chronological interval or on the whole it might have been a single occasion
94
A.V. Danich and N.B. Krylasova / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 42/3 (2014) 87–94
(Pastushenko, Bernts, 2008: 16–17). The occurrence of such discs in the burials of the 10th century can be explained only by their extraction from the earlier graves. The shape of the buckle tongue is evidence that the belt was repaired in the 10th century. Usually this type of buckle was supplied with massive cast tongues (variant 7 according to V.B. Kovalevskaya) (1979: 11, 21–22). The tongue of a copper plate, used for repairing, is typical for the buckles of the 10th century. As it is known, the production of honorary military belts in Byzantium was strictly regulated. Golden belts were made for the use of the Byzantines, and silver belts were made for the “Barbarians.” The presence of silver belt sets in the burials of the Bayanovsky burial ground indicates a long-term preservation of ancient military traditions in the medieval society of the Perm Urals. References Belavin A.M. 2000 Kamskii torgovyi put: Srednevekovoe Preduralie v ego ekonomicheskikh i etnokulturnykh svyazyakh. Perm: Perm. Gos. Ped. Univ. Belavin A.M., Krylasova N.B. 2008 Pogrebalnye litsevye pokrytiya kak ugorskii marker. In Rossiya mezhdu proshlym i budushchim: Istoricheskii opyt natsionalnogo razvitiya: Materialy Vserossiiskoi nauchnoi konferentsii, posvyashchennoi 20-letiyu IIA UrO RAN. Yekaterinburg: pp. 47–51. Belavin A.M., Krylasova N.B. 2012 Ogurdinskii mogilnik. Perm: Perm. Gos. Ped. Univ. Churilova L.N. 1986 Pogrebeniye s serebryanoi maskoi u s. Manvelovki na Dnepropetrovshchine. Sovetskaya arkheologiya, No. 4: 261–266. Danich A.V. 2010 Nakonechniki kopii na territorii Permskogo Priuraliya. Vestnik Muzeya arkheologii i etnogra¿i Permskogo Preduraliya, No. 3: 20–43. Gening V.F. 1979 Khronologiya poyasnoi garnitury I tysyacheletiya nashei ery (po materialam mogilnikov Prikamiya). KSIA, No. 158: 56–106. Goldina R.D. 1985 Lomovatovskaya kultura v Verkhnem Prikamiye. Irkutsk: Izd. Irkutsk. Gos. Univ. Goldina R.D., Vodolago N.V. 1990 Mogilniki nevolinskoi kultury v Priuraliye. Irkutsk: Izd. Irkutsk. Gos. Univ. Golubeva L.A. 1965 K istorii plastinchatykh ogniv Vostochnoi Evropy. In Novoye v sovetskoi arkheologii: Pamyati Sergeya Vladimirovicha Kiseleva. K 60-letiyu so dnya rozhdeniya. Moscow: Nauka, pp. 257–260. (MIA; No. 130). Ivanov A.G. 1998 Etnokulturnye i ekonomicheskie svyazi naseleniya basseina r. Cheptsy v epokhu srednevekoviya. Izhevsk: UdmIIYL UrO RAN.
Kazakov E.P. 1992 Kultura rannei Volzhskoi Bulgarii (etapy etnokulturnoi istorii). Moscow: Nauka. Kazakov E.P. 2007 Volzhskiye bolgary, ugry i ¿nny v IX–XIV vv.: Problemy vzaimodeistviya. Kazan: Inst. istorii AN Resp. Tatarstan. Kirpichnikov A.N. 1966 Drevnerusskoye oruzhie. Iss. 2: Kopiya, sulitsy, boevye topory, bulavy, kisteni IX–XIII vv. Moscow, Leningrad: Nauka. (Svod arkheologicheskikh istochnikov; E1–36). Komar A.V. 2001 Proiskhozhdeniye poyasnykh naborov rannesaltovskogo tipa. In Kultury evraziiskikh stepei vtoroi poloviny I tysyacheletiya nashei ery (iz istorii kostyuma), vol. 2. Samara: Samar. Obl. istoriko-kraevedcheskii muzei, pp. 103–117. Komar A.V., Strelnik M.A. 2011 “Repressirovannyi” klad: Kompleks yuvelirnykh izdelii VIII v. iz nakhodki u s. Fotovizh. Stratum Plus, No. 5: 143–164. Kovalevskaya V.B. 1979 Poyasnye nabory Evrazii (IV–IX vv.): Pryazhki. Moscow: Nauka. (Svod arkheologicheskikh istochnikov; E1–2). Kryganov A.V. 2001 Verkhnesaltovskii i Netailovskii arkheologicheskiye pamyatniki saltovskoi kultury – ostatki drevnego khazarskogo goroda. In Stepi Evropy v epokhu srednevekoviya. Vol. 2: Khazarskoe vremya. Donetsk: Donetsk. Nats. Univ., pp. 347–358. Krylasova N.B. 2007 Arkheologiya povsednevnosti: materialnaya kultura srednevekovogo Preduraliya. Perm: Perm. Gos. Ped. Univ. Kultura Bilyara: Bulgarskie orudiya truda i oruzhie X–XIII vv. 1985 Moscow: Nauka. Pastushenko I.Y., Bernts V. 2008 Khaltsedonovye diski v kulture naseleniya Prikamiya. Finno-Ugrica, No. 11: 12–23. Podosyonova Y.A. 2009 Visochnye ukrasheniya naseleniya Permskogo Preduraliya v epokhu srednevekoviya. Cand. Sc. (History) Dissertation. Perm: Perm. Gos. Ped. Univ. Rudenko K.A. 2000 Metallicheskaya posuda Povolzhiya i Prikamiya v VIII– XIV vv. Kazan: Gos. Obiyed. muzei Respubliki Tatarstan. Semenova V.I. 2008 Mifologika mira mertvykh (po mifologicheskim i arkheologicheskim istochnikam Zapadnoi Sibiri). Tyumen: IPOS SO RAN RAN. Sokrovischa avarov: Katalog vystavki. 1985 Moscow: [Tip. Min. kultury SSSR]. Totev B., Pelevina O. 2005 Novye dannye o rannesrednevekovykh poyasakh dunaiskikh bolgar. Antichnaya drevnost i srednie veka, No. 36: 85–103.
Received January 10, 2014. Received in revised form March 20, 2014.