The Evidence for Jewellery Production in Constantinople in the Early Byzantine Period

Yvonne Stolz
Introduction In the jewellery catalogue of the Benaki Museum in Athens, Bertha Segall stated: Die Mode scheint damals international gewesen zu sein.1 With this statement, Segall puts into plain words what others had only hinted at before, that techniques, shapes, motifs, and styles were popular all over the Byzantine Empire and beyond its borders.2 As the term international is ambiguous in this context, this phenomenon would better be called interregional. Among interregional types is, for instance, the crescent-shaped pierced-work earring, which was one of the most popular forms found in Early Byzantine jewellery. Such earrings have been found, for example, in Mersin in Cilicia, Polis in Cyprus, Syria, Keszthely-Fenkpuszta in Hungary, and at Menouthis in Abuqir Bay, Egypt.3 As explanation for the wide geographical distribution of crescentshaped pierced-work earrings and other pieces of jewellery, it has been suggested by many scholars that all jewellery with interregional features was made exclusively in the capital of the Byzantine Empire, Constantinople, probably in a state workshop, and distributed from there.4 However, this seems unlikely, since some of the pieces of jewellery found in the recent excavations in Abuqir Bay in Egypt show that provincial centres also were able to produce jewellery of a high quality in the interregional fashion (Pls 1and 4).5 Thus, not everything that is of a high quality, or follows the interregional style, seems to come from the capital. The interregional fashion may, therefore, rather be due to the influence of one leading workshop, whose techniques, shapes, motifs, and styles were copied elsewhere. The workshop in question could indeed have been situated in Constantinople. Constantinople became the imperial capital after Rome under Constantine the Great, and it may likewise have taken over the former capitals role as a jewellery trendsetter.6 But what is Constantinopolitan and what is not? In order to answer this question it is first necessary to examine and discuss the previous scholarly research. The state of research A large number of pieces of Early Byzantine jewellery have alleged Constantinopolitan provenances, most of which are probably based on the statements of dealers and are, therefore, not wholly reliable. Some pieces of Early Byzantine gold jewellery may indeed have been scientifically excavated or found in the capital, but, to my knowledge and in contrast to base metal jewellery,7 none has been published yet. However, various attempts have been made to attribute jewellery to Constantinople. One approach, accepted by various scholars, is to attribute jewellery to Constantinople on the grounds of its high quality.8 Attributing jewellery by its quality may succeed in some cases, but fail in others, since, as stated, provincial workshops were able to produce jewellery of the same high quality as one might perhaps expect from Constantinople.

Plate 1 Gold marriage ring from Abuqir Bay, Egypt

In addition, several pieces of jewellery that are decorated with imperial motifs or inscriptions have been attributed to Constantinople, among them a pendant with two embossed gold discs that resemble an imperial medallion, recently published by Rosenbaum-Alfldi.9 As I have argued in a recent publication,10 Rosenbaum-Alfldis localisation of the pendant to Constantinople cannot be justified as she has misunderstood its inscription, and the pendant may well have been made elsewhere, possibly in Egypt where it was allegedly found. It must also be noted that jewellery with medallions or coins does not necessarily originate from Constantinople. Although medallions and coins were bestowed on high officials and army members by the imperial family as known from literary sources, not all were struck in Constantinople,11 and, as Boyd has convincingly pointed out, it often remains unclear whether medallions and coins were set into the jewellery directly after being struck or some decades later, possibly at another place.12 This is, for example, the case for a medallion of Theodosius (37995) from the Assit hoard, which was reused in the late 6th or early 7th century when it was inserted into a pendant that was made to be suspended from a torc with late 6th-century coins.13 Furthermore, many pieces of jewellery with inserted medallions and coins have alleged Egyptian findspots, and certain motifs in their decoration seem to point to Egyptian workmanship, as is the case, for example, of the coin-set jewellery from the Assit hoard and for a pair of bracelets allegedly from the Fayoum or Behnesa.14 Moreover, and in contrast to medallions in general, because jewellery was set with coins this does not necessarily imply that coin-set jewellery was made in Constantinople or that its owner was a member of the imperial family as coins were also considered to have had amuletic powers;15 coins may appear on jewellery for this reason alone. Furthermore, as observed by DeppertIntelligible Beauty | 33

Stolz Lippitz, even pieces of jewellery with imperial inscriptions that name certain emperors, such as a number of inscribed crossbow fibulae in various materials, may have been made in provincial centres.16 Another attempt to localise jewellery production to Constantinople has been made by Arrhenius, who argues that jewellery with cement cloisonn, by which she means garnet inlays that were embedded by adhesive materials with a high gypsum content, was made in the capital.17 It may indeed be possible to attribute certain pieces of jewellery to the same workshop with the help of scientific methods, but, as has been convincingly argued by Foltz in a review of Arrhenius study, adhesive materials can change their composition when buried in the earth.18 In addition, most pieces of jewellery with cement cloisonn listed by Arrhenius were found outside the Byzantine Empire.19 Based on a study of the imperial mosaics in San Vitale in Ravenna, Brown has assigned some extant pieces of jewellery to Constantinople, for example a necklace with wire links and beads from the Lambousa hoard.20 This necklace, though, was probably made in Cyprus, as indicated by the depiction of single birds on its pierced-work closure discs a feature found on many necklaces from or allegedly from Cyprus.21 Other pieces similar to those on the Ravenna mosaics may well come from Constantinople, but this would require further research. As most previous attempts to attribute specific pieces of jewellery to Constantinople have failed, this matter has to be approached anew by a more systematic study of the literary sources, contemporary representations, and extant pieces of gold jewellery. As will be shown below, jewellery production in Constantinople can be divided into the production of insignia for the military and for officials in state workshops, the production of insignia and jewellery for the imperial family in a court workshop, and, finally, the production of jewellery for the general public in independent workshops. The subsequent sections follow this division. First the literary sources will be discussed alone, then the images and the extant pieces of jewellery side by side. Literary sources In the Early Byzantine period, three independent departments (comites) were responsible to the emperor, and each had its own treasury: the praetorian prefect, the sacrae largitiones, and the res privatae. The sacrae largitiones had existed from the 3rd century and were in charge of tax collection, the payment of troops, of the imperial mints, mines, and, most importantly, the state factories in precious metals.22 It was divided into scrinia (sub-departments), two of which were concerned with gold: the scrinium aureae massae (the recipient of the tested gold bars),23 and the scrinium auri ad responsum, which perhaps dealt with returns of gold stocks in the diocesan depots. 24 A law of 384, which found its way into the Codex Iustinianus,25 lists the technical staff working for the comes sacrarum largitionem: there are, among others, aurifices solidorum (minters of solidi), aurifices specierum (goldsmiths), sculptores et ceteri artifices (engravers and other craftsmen), argentarii comitatenses (silversmiths), and barbaricarii (craftsmen for parade arms and armour). As suggested by Kent, the latter may also have been responsible for the production of fibulae.26 The main office of the comes sacrarum largitionem
34 | Intelligible Beauty

was situated in Constantinople, but according to Jones it may also have had a large number of staff and material depots (thesauri) in the provinces.27 This is corroborated by numismatists, who, though they maintain that the aurifices solidorum were mainly active in the imperial mint in Constantinople, have suggested that there is also evidence for the minting of gold coins elsewhere at specific times.28 In addition, some silver vessels bear imperial control stamps with portraits of the Byzantine Emperors Justinian (from 541) and Phokas (60210), which can possibly be attributed to imperial mints in Carthage and Antioch-on-the-Orontes.29 These silver vessels may thus have been produced in the regional scrinia argenti. Furthermore, workshops of the barbaricarii are known to have operated not only in 4th-century Constantinople but also in Antioch.30 The production of state-controlled precious metal goods was thus not limited to the capital. However, it has been suggested by Grierson that gold coins were only struck when and where the emperor was in residence.31 Until Heraklios (61041), emperors rarely left Constantinople after the reign of Arkadios (395408), so most gold coins were probably minted there.32 The same could hold true for the production of other state-controlled gold goods. The literary sources provide no satisfactory evidence about the range of products manufactured by the aurifices specierum. It is known, however, that the comites provided insignia for high officials and the military elite, among them most prominently buckles, fibulae and torcs, but probably also rings bearing the emperors image and bracelets.33 As mentioned above, the barbaricarii may have been responsible for the production of fibulae, and it is thus tempting to assume that they were also responsible for the production of other military insignia. If this was the case, the aurifices specierum could only have been in charge of insignia and jewellery for the imperial family. As indicated by Codex Iustinianus 11:12, which was first formulated during the reign of Leo I (45774), imperial insignia had to be made by palatinis artificibus or palace workmen. The aurifices specierum probably belonged to the palatinis artificibus and thus to the court workshop. It is also possible that they and not the barbaricarii produced military insignia other than fibulae. In addition to the information that can be gained from the literary sources on the state workshops, Codex Iustinianus 11:12 also provides some information on imperial jewellery: it regulates the combined use of emeralds, hyacinths (probably sapphires),34 and pearls.35 These materials may, therefore, have been an imperial prerogative. This is corroborated by a poem written by Claudianus, who describes the garments of the Emperor Honorius (395423) as bedecked with emeralds, amethysts, and hyacinths, and by images that show imperial garments with stones in these colours.36 According to the Codex Iustinianus (11:12), these materials had to be removed from bridles, saddles, and belts while other stones and decorative techniques remained officially approved. In addition, no one was allowed to wear and decorate fibulae and curcumii37 with any stones. Violating these laws resulted in a fine of 50 pounds of gold. Furthermore, no person was authorised to produce jewellery that was reserved for the imperial robe and cult, with the exception of finger-rings for both sexes and womens jewellery;38 it was also forbidden to produce jewellery in order to present it to the imperial family. Violation of this decree

The Evidence for Jewellery Production in Constantinople in the Early Byzantine Period resulted in a fine of 100 pounds of gold and the death penalty.39 Finally, as previously mentioned, Codex Iustinianus 11:12 legislates that jewellery for the imperial family had to be produced by palatinis artificibus or palace workmen, and not in private houses or other workshops. Constantinople, as the capital of the Byzantine Empire, probably boasted a large quantity of smaller, independent gold workshops and perhaps a goldsmiths guild such as that known to have been operating in Alexandria. However, there is no evidence for privately run gold workshops in Constantinople in the literary sources, and a Constantinopolitan goldsmiths guild is only mentioned later by the early 10th-century Book of the Prefect.40 Codex Iustinianus 11:12 indicates that goldsmiths also worked in private houses. This could also have been the case for Early Byzantine Constantinople, as the Book of the Prefect later prohibits Constantinopolitan goldsmiths from working in private houses; they became bound to workshops on the Mese, Constantinoples main street.41 Thus, and since private copper-, silver-, and blacksmiths had workshops on or close to the Mese in the Early Byzantine period,42 one could draw the conclusion that privately run gold workshops were located, although maybe not exclusively, in the same area in the Early Byzantine period. Contemporary images and extant pieces of jewellery Insignia for high officials or the military, as produced by the barbaricarii and/or the aurifices specierum, are depicted in several images: for instance, belt buckles and crossbow fibulae are shown among other insignia in the miniatures of the Notitia Dignitatum.43 Crossbow fibulae are also shown on the mosaic panels in San Vitale in Ravenna. As mentioned above, the jewellery on these panels was attributed to the state workshop by Brown.44 In Ravenna, crossbow fibulae are worn by some of the officials that accompany the Emperor Justinian (52765) and his wife Theodora. Justinians bodyguards on the same mosaic also wear torcs which have relatively large centerpieces, possibly with stone inlays. A torc, probably decorated with coins, worn by a military saint on a bowl from the Lambousa hoard is comparable.45 Other depictions of torcs, for example on medallions and ivory panels, have been discussed by Dalton and Delbrck.46 Although these images show general shapes, details are usually not discernible, and a further interpretation of this group of Constantinopolitan costume accessories and jewellery thus seems impossible. As stated, insignia for high officials or the military were produced by the barbaricarii and/or the aurifices specierum, thus probably predominantly in Constantinople. However, none of the numerous extant belt buckles and bracelets can be securely identified as insignia. As mentioned, crossbow fibulae are likely candidates for an attribution to Constantinople, since they are depicted as insignia in contemporary representations of jewellery. Some crossbow fibulae have imperial inscriptions, but Deppert-Lippitz has convincingly argued that these were individually commissioned according to [the owners] tastes and ideas and possibly made in minor local centres.47 Two gold crossbow fibulae, although without imperial inscriptions, are the likeliest candidates for being made by the barbaricarii and/or the aurifices specierum and thus possibly in Constantinople, as they have some details in common with other pieces of jewellery that follow the interregional fashion. The pierced work of a fibula from Apahida in Romania, as discussed by Deppert-Lippitz,48 finds parallels in numerous other pieces of 5th-century jewellery from various findspots within the Byzantine Empire. This fibula may, therefore, have been made in Constantinople. The second fibula was found in a grave in Tournai in France in 1653, together with other pieces of jewellery, among them a finger-ring with the inscription Childeric Regis, which allows an identification of the grave as that of the Merovingian King Childeric (d. 481/2).49 Childerics fibula and his finger-ring are now lost, but engravings and reproductions provide evidence of the jewellery. The fibula was decorated with a pierced-work plaque with relatively small holes, a technical characteristic of pierced-work jewellery of the 4th and 5th centuries, and a rhombic decoration. A close parallel for the pierced-work decoration of Childerics fibula has survived on a diadem from Varna in Bulgaria.50 The latter is also decorated with a claw-setting and alternate square and circular settings features of the interregional fashion. Two gold torcs with pendants from the Assit hoard have recently been attributed by myself to an Egyptian workshop on the grounds of their techniques, shapes, and motifs.51 In addition, one of these torcs was worn by a woman as specified by an inscription. Thus, it seems impossible to link these torcs with the production of insignia in Constantinople. A third gold torc in the British Museum is said to come from the eastern Mediterranean, but its find context is unknown.52 To this torc probably once belonged a pendant similar to those that accompany the two Egyptian torcs. If this torc of unknown provenance was an insignia for a high civil or military official, it may have been made in Constantinople. As stated, jewellery for the imperial family seems to have been made by the aurifices specierum. Images that show imperial insignia or jewellery should, therefore, reflect their work. Most information is provided by the above mentioned mosaics in San Vitale in Ravenna: Justinian, for example, wears a diadem that is decorated with stones in the imperial colours and with a fibula that terminates in white, tear-drop shaped beads. His fibula consists of a circular setting with a red inlay framed by a row of pearls and, above, a semi-circular green ornament, possibly a setting as well, with three protruding, tear-drop shaped blue stones. Three pendants, similar to those on his crown, are suspended from his fibula. Theodoras fibula resembles Justinians, but her crown is more elaborate than that of her husband: it is decorated with rows of pearls, alternate rectangular and oval settings with green and red inlays, respectively, and tear-drop shaped blue stones; long pearl pendilia are suspended from her crown (Pl. 2). Her earrings consist of simple gold hoops from which are suspended a square setting with a green inlay and a wire pendant with a pearl and a tear-drop shaped green or blue bead. Similar earrings are also worn by most of the women in her retinue. In addition, Theodora wears a jewelled collar decorated with pearls. It has a rectangular claw-setting with a green inlay in its centre, framed by two ovoid claw-settings with red inlays. Several pendants of equal length with white, tear-drop shaped beads are suspended from the collar. Woman 3 is shown with a similar, but less elaborate collar with green tear-drop shaped pendants (Pl. 3). Such collars are frequently depicted on other imperial images, for example on ivories with the Empress Ariadne in Florence and Vienna.53 Analagous to
Intelligible Beauty | 35

Stolz
2 3 4 5 6 7

Plate 3 Theodoras entourage from the mosaic in San Vitale, Ravenna

Plate 2 Detail of the Empress Theodora from the mosaic in San Vitale, Ravenna

the crown with pendants and the fibula with pendants, these collars seem to have been reserved for female members of the imperial family from the 6th century through to the medieval period.54 Furthermore, Theodora and woman 2 on the Ravenna mosaics wear necklaces with wire links and tear-drop shaped green beads. Woman 5 of Theodoras entourage is shown wearing a gold bracelet with a circular closure link, and woman 2 wears a simple finger-ring (Pl. 3). Apart from the insignia, all the general jewellery types depicted on the Ravenna mosaics can be paralleled with womens jewellery from all over the Byzantine world and beyond. The same holds true for individual shapes like clawsettings, square settings with green inlays, the alternation of differently shaped settings, pendants with tear-drop shaped stones, and rows of pearls strung on wires. This indicates that interregional techniques, shapes, motifs, and styles were known in imperial jewellery. Two images seem to confirm the predominant role of emeralds, hyacinths, and pearls in imperial jewellery as indicated by Codex Iustinianus 11:12: the daughter of the Pharaoh in the 5th-century mosaics of Sta Maria Maggiore in Rome, and Agnes in the 7th-century apse mosaic of Sant Agnese in Rome are both depicted in the robes of the Byzantine empress.55 Their jewellery and garments are embellished with stones and beads in the colours of emeralds, hyacinths, and pearls: green, blue, and white. A late 6th-century jewelled collar with pendants from the Assit hoard, housed in Berlin,56 probably belonged to a female member of the imperial family: such collars are frequently depicted on other imperial images, for example on the above mentioned Ravenna mosaics and on the Ariadne ivories (see note 53). Also, the Berlin collar uses materials that one would expect on imperial insignia emeralds, sapphires, amethysts, and pearls and its ornamental details resemble those
36 | Intelligible Beauty

interregional features that are shown on the jewellery on the San Vitale mosaics (Pls 23). The technical and decorative details of a pair of bracelets and a necklace from the same hoard resemble those of the collar so closely that all these pieces were probably made as a set in the same workshop.57 Their details confirm what has been proposed as Constantinopolitan on the grounds of contemporary representations of jewellery: the bracelets, for example, are of the same type as those worn by woman 5 of Theodoras entourage in the Ravenna mosaic panels (Pl. 3). In addition, all these possibly Constantinopolitan pieces from the Assit hoard are decorated with claw-settings, square settings with green inlays, the alternation of differently shaped settings, and rows of pearls strung on wires. The high settings and alternate square and circular settings of a jewelled cross in the Treasury of St Peters, Vatican City, Rome, tally with those details that are shown on images of imperial jewellery and with those that appear on the Constantinopolitan group of jewellery from the Assit hoard. The cross in St Peters can be identified as an imperial dedication by its inscription, and has been attributed to Justin II (56578) by Belting-Ihm.58 It could, therefore, have been produced by the aurifices specierum and/or the palatinis artificibus in the capital. According to a legendary medieval account, five crosses decorated with various costly stones, possibly similar to the cross in St Peters, were dedicated together with other liturgical objects to the church of Hagia Sophia in Constantinople by Justinian (52765).59 No image from the private realm seems to have survived that would provide information about private jewellery production in Constantinople: no ordinary woman is depicted wearing jewellery, for example, on the numerous figural sculptures from, or allegedly from, Constantinople in the Istanbul Archaeological Museum. In addition, the early

The Evidence for Jewellery Production in Constantinople in the Early Byzantine Period
(see A. Pierides, Jewellery in the Cyprus Museum, Nicosia, 1971, 56, pl. XXXVIII:9 for the alleged findspot): Yeroulanou, ibid., 283, no. 502; Paris, Louvre, Inv. no. Bj 2282: eadem, 282, no. 499; Budapest, Hungarian National Museum: L. Barkczi, Das Grberfeld von Keszthely-Fenkpuszta aus dem 6. Jahrhundert und die frhmittelalterlichen Bevlkerungsverhltnisse am Plattensee, JbRGZM 18 (1971), 17991, at 183, pls 75:3f.; Alexandria, Bibliotheca Alexandrina Archaeological Museum, Inv. SCA 102: F. Goddio and M. Clauss (eds), gyptens versunkene Schtze, Munich/New York, 2007, 361, no. 38, fig. on 248; Y. Stolz, Early Byzantine Jewellery and Related Finds from the Underwater Excavations in Abuqir Bay in Egypt: their Classification, Production, and Function (Oxford Center for Maritime Archaeology. Monographs), forthcoming, Diss., Oxford, 2007, 52f. See n. 2. Stolz (n. 3), 1304. See B. Pfeiler, Rmischer Goldschmuck des ersten und zweiten Jahrhunderts n. Chr. nach datierten Funden, Mainz, 1970, 3, and B. Deppert-Lippitz, Rmischer Goldschmuck. Stand der Forschung, Aufstieg und Niedergang der rmischen Welt II:12:3, Berlin, 1985, 11726, at 121. Based on mummy portraits, which almost always show jewellery of an interregional fashion, she has observed that Rom selbst [has played] die fhrende Rolle, und vermutlich gingen die meisten Impulse von hier aus. Before, Athens may have been a leading jewellery centre: see M. Pfrommer, Unprovenanced Greek Jewellery: the Question of Distribution, in D. Williams (ed.), The Art of the Greek Goldsmith, London, 1998, 7984, at 80: in the Hellenistic period there definitely was a common style, a koine, but . regional variations and preferences can also be detected. Various examples from the excavations of St Polyeuktos in Sarahane (see, for example, the buttons in R.M. Harrison, Excavations at Sarahane in Istanbul I. The Excavations, Structures, Architectural Decoration, Small Finds, Coins, Bones, and Molluscs, Princeton, 1986, 263f., nos 5469) and in skdar (as yet unpublished except for a medieval cross pendant); for these and other recent excavations in Istanbul refer to B. ztuncay (ed.), Gn Inda. stanbulun 8000 yl. Marmaray, Metro, Sultanahmet kazlar, Istanbul, 2007. Almost all published pieces of jewellery have been attributed to Constantinople, and it is thus impossible to list them all. Munich, Private Collection CS, Inv. no. 378: A. Iacobini, Dextrarum iunctio. Appunti su un medaglione aureo protobizantino, Notizie da Palazzo Albani. Rivista di storia e teoria delle arti. Universit degli studi di Urbino 20, 1991, 4966; L. Wamser (ed.), Die Welt von Byzanz. Europas stliches Erbe. Glanz, Krisen und Fortleben einer tausendjhrigen Kultur (Schriftenreihe der Archologischen Staatssammlung, 4), Stuttgart, 2004, 306f., no. 505; M.R. Rosenbaum-Alfldi, Ein rechtglubiger Christ, ein Rmer, einer mit allen herrscherlichen Tugenden soll gewhlt werden, in G. Seitz (ed.), Im Dienste Roms. Festschrift fr HansUlrich Nuber, Remshalden, 2006, 2733. Y. Stolz, Kaiserlich oder brgerlich? Ein Anhnger in Mnchen, frhbyzantinische Diademe und anderer Hochzeitsschmuck Mitteilungen zur Sptantiken Archologie und Byzantinischen Kunstgeschichte 6 (2008), 11536. J.-A. Bruhn, Coins and Costume in Late Antiquity (Dumbarton Oaks Byzantine Collection Publications), Washington DC, 1993; see also S.A. Boyd in: M.C. Ross, Catalogue of the Byzantine and Early Mediaeval Antiquities in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection, vol. II. Jewelry, Enamels and Art of the Migration Period. With an addendum by S. Boyd and St.R. Zwirn, Washington DC, 1965/repr. 2005, 142, fn. 9 with further references. Boyd (n. 11), 142f. Pendant: Washington, Freer Gallery of Art, Inv. no. 09.67: W. Dennison, A Gold Treasure of the Late Roman Period (Studies in East Christian and Roman Art II), New York/London, 1918, 11721, no. 2, pls I, X, XI; T. Lawton, The Gold Treasure, Apollo 258 (1983), 1802, at 182, fig. 4; torc: New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, Inv. no. 17.190.1664: Dennison, ibid., 10817, 1217, no. 1, pls I, VIf.; Wamser (n. 9), 290f., no. 485. On the Assit material, see Y. Stolz Eine kaiserliche Insignie? Der Juwelenkragen aus dem sog. Schatzfund von Assit, JbRGZM 53 (2006), 521603, at 55562; for the bracelets in Washington DC, Dumbarton Oaks Collection, Inv. no. 38.64, 38.65: Ross (n. 11), 446, no. 46, pls XXXVI, XXXVII; I. Baldini Lippolis, Loreficeria

Plate 4 Gold finger-ring with bezel in the form of a lamp from Abuqir Bay, Egypt

Byzantine bronze costume accessories from the recent palace excavations in Istanbul have not been published yet, and no piece of Early Byzantine gold jewellery from a scientific excavation in the same city seems to be known. It is thus difficult to attribute jewellery to privately run workshops in the capital. It is, however, quite likely that these workshops copied the works of the aurifices specierum or palatinis artificibus, which were operating in the same city. Conclusion The wide geographical distribution of techniques, shapes, motifs, and styles in Early Byzantine jewellery can only be explained by the influence of one important, trend-setting workshop or workshop group. This workshop or workshop group was probably situated in Constantinople, where jewellery production can be divided into three sectors: the production of insignia for high officials and the military elite by the barbaricarii and/or the aurifices specierum; the production of imperial insignia and jewellery by the aurifices specierum and the production of ordinary mens and womens jewellery by privately run workshops. It seems impossible to tell, which of these three sectors was (most) responsible for the interregional fashion, though the imperial jewellery produced by the aurifices specierum clearly shows interregional features. Imperial jewellery is, therefore, the most likely trendsetter. There are a number of feasible possibilities as to how the interregional fashion may have spread, for example through models, pattern books, or travelling craftsmen. However, as indicated by some of the jewellery from Abuqir Bay and other pieces, it can be excluded that all high-quality jewellery with interregional techniques, shapes, motifs, and styles was made in Constantinople (Pls 1 and 4). Notes

4 5 6

8 9

10

11

B. Segall, Katalog der Goldschmiede-arbeiten. Museum Benaki Athen, Athens, 1938, 143, no. 224. Examples include: O.M. Dalton, Byzantine Art and Archaeology, Oxford, 1911, 543, who refers to Smirnoff, in: Zapiski de la Socit Imprial Archologique Russe. Section classique, byzantine et dEurope occident XII, 50610; M. Chatzidakis, Un anneau byzantin du Muse Benaki, Byzantinisch-neugriechische Jahrbcher 17 (1944), 174206, at 189; M.C. Ross in: K. Weitzmann (ed.), Age of Spirituality. Late Antique and Early Christian Art, Third to Seventh Century. Catalogue of the Exhibition at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, November 19,1977, through February 12, 1978, New York, 1979, 298: the explanation for the widely scattered find-sites is that such objects were bestowed as imperial gifts on loyal retainers; and K. R. Brown in Weitzmann ibid., 316, no. 291. St Petersburg, Hermitage, Inv. 96: A. Yeroulanou, Diatrita, Gold Pierced-Work Jewellery from the 3rd to the 7th Century, Athens, 1999, 285, no. 520; Nicosia, Archaeological Museum, Inv. no. J 500

12 13

14

Intelligible Beauty | 37

Stolz
nellimpero di Costantinopoli tra IV e VII secolo, Bari, 1999, 183, no. 2.VI.1.c.34. H. Maguire, Magic and Money in the Early Middle Ages, Speculum 72/4 (1997), 103743. B. Deppert-Lippitz, A Late Antique Crossbow Fibula in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Metropolitan Museum Journal 35 (2000), 3970, at 63. B. Arrhenius, Merovingian Garnet Jewellery. Emergence and Social Implications. With Diffraction Analysis by Diego Carlstrm, Stockholm, 1985, 10026; see also B. Arrhenius, Granatschmuck und Gemmen aus nordischen Funden des frhen Mittelalters, Stockholm, 1971, 11527. See also E. Foltz, Review, Offa 43 (1986), 37981, and K. Vielitz, Die Granatscheibenfibeln der Merowingerzeit (Europe Mdivale 3), Montagnac, 2003, 246. See Arrhenius 1985 (n. 17), 119, map I for the distribution of findspots. K.R. Brown, The Mosaics of San Vitale: Evidence for the Attribution of some Early Byzantine Jewelry to Court Workshops, Gesta 18/1 (1979), 5762; on the necklace in New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, Inv. no. 17.190.153: Yeroulanou (n. 3), 215, no. 61. Stolz (n. 3), 29. On the comes sacrarum largitionum in general: J.P.C. Kent, in: E. Cruikshank Dodd, Byzantine Silver Stamps. With an excursus on the Comes Sacrarum Largitionum by J.P.C. Kent (Dumbarton Oaks Studies VII), Washington DC, 1961, 3545; R. MacMullen, The Emperors Largesses, Latomus 21 (1962), 15966; A.H.M. Jones, The Later Roman Empire 284602. A Social Economic and Administrative Survey, Norman, 1973, 42737; P.C. Berger, The Insignia of the Notitia Dignitatum. A Contribution to the Study of Late Antique Illustrated Manuscripts, New York, 1981, 6775; T. Hackens and R. Winkes (eds), Gold Jewelry. Craft, Style and Meaning from Mycenae to Constantinopolis, Louvain-la-Neuve, 1983, 142; R. Delmaire, Largesses sacres et res privata: laerarium imprial et son administration du IVe au VI sicle (Collections de lcole franaises de Rome 121), Rome, 1989; primary sources include: Not. Dig. Or. XIII and Not. Dig. Occ. XI (C. Neira Faleiro, La Notitia Dignitatum. Nueva edicin crtica y comentario histrico [Nueva Roma 25], Madrid, 2005, 20103, 3639); CTH 6:30; CIC 12:23:7 (P. Krueger [ed.], Corpus Iuris Civilis II. Codex Iustinianus, Berlin, 1954, 464); CIC 11:8:13 (ibid., 431; both from 7 March 426); see also CTH 10:20 (from 21 July 317) on the social status of imperial workers. Kent (n. 22), 44. Jones (n. 22), 428. Other scrinia, as listed in the Notitia Dignitatum, include the scrinium vestiarii sacri, the scrinium argenti, the scrinium miliarensibus (for silver bullion and silver coins), and the scrinium a pecuniis (for copper currency). CIC 12:22:7 (Krueger [n. 22], 464). On the use of gold and silver by the barbicarii see: CTH 10:22:1 (from 11 March 374) and Kent (n. 22), 44; see also W.G. Sinnigen, Barbaricarii, Barbari, and the Notitia Dignitatum, Latomus 22 (1963), 80615 on the barbaricarii and R. MacMullen, Inscriptions on Armor and the Supply of Arms in the Roman Army, American Journal of Archaeology 64/1 (1960), 2340 on the decoration of armour. Jones (n. 22), 428. In Alexandria under Justin II (56578), during the Heraklios revolt (60810) and under Heraklios perhaps in 617, in Carthage from 540, in Chersonesus under Heraklios and Constans II (61068), in Cyprus in 608/610 and possibly later until 629, in Mediolanum in the 5th century, in Naples possibly from Constantine IV (66885) or Justinian II (68595) until Leo III (71741), in Ravenna in the 5th century and from 539/540 until 751, in Rome between 540 and 546 and later under Tiberius II (57882) until around 780, in Sardinia from 680 until Leo III (71741), in Sicily from Tiberius I (57882) to 878, and in Thessaloniki from 474/475 to 630; see, for example, W. Hahn, Moneta Imperii Byzantini von Heraclius bis Leo III./ Alleinregierung (610720). Rekonstruktion des Prgeaufbaues aus synoptisch-tabellarischer Grundlage III (sterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Verffentlichungen der numismatischen Kommission, 10), Vienna, 1981, 28991; P. Grierson, Byzantine Coinage, Washington DC, 1999, 5; C. Morrisson, Byzantine Money. Its Production and Circulation, in A. Laiou (ed.), The Economic History of Byzantium: from the Seventh through the Fifteenth Century (Dumbarton Oaks Studies, 39), Washington DC, 2002, 90966, at 911f. with table 1. M. Mundell Mango, The Origin of the Syrian Ecclesiastical Silver Treasures of the Sixth-Seventh Centuries, in N. Duval and F. Baratte (eds), Argenterie romaine et byzantine. Actes de la table ronde. Paris 1113 octobre 1983, Paris, 1988, 16384, at 169. CTH 10:22:1 (from 11 March 374). ODB 2, 1991, s.v. Mints, 1377. Ibid. Zosimos, New History, 4.40.8 (W. Green and T. Chaplin, The History of Count Zosimos, sometime Advocate and Chancellor of the Roman Empire, London, 1814); SHA Claudius 14:2; SHA Probus 4:5, 5:1; see also MacMullen (n. 22), 15961: the most frequent recipient of imperial largesses of all sorts was no doubt the army (ibid., 164); for illustrations of gold insignia (belt buckles and fibulae) in the Notitia Dignitatum refer to Neira Faleiro (n. 22), 201, 205, 363, 370. See also Deppert-Lippitz (n. 16) for fibulae with imperial inscriptions. The term appears already, for example, in the Greek bible (Exod. 25:4) and later in Pliny, Nat. Hist. 37,9,41:125f. By context and for etymological reasons, it becomes clear that the term describes a stone in the colour of the Hyacinthus blossom, which can be blue or purple. In addition, Claudianus refers in his Paneg. De IIII. Consulatu Honorii, 585ff. to the blue fire of the stone: temperat arcanis hyacinthi caerula flammis (see n. 36). Yi, therefore, seem to be amethysts or sapphires. On the hyacinth, see also Drauschke, this volume. CIC 11:12 (Krueger [n. 22], 433). Claudianus, Paneg. de IV. Consulatu Honorii Augusti, 5858 (W. Barr, Claudians Panegyric on the Fourth Consulate of Honorius. Introduction, Text, Translation and Commentary [Liverpool Latin Texts. Classical and Medieval, 2], Liverpool, 1981, 62, transl., 63): Asperat Indus/velamenta lapis pretiosaque fila smaragdis/ducta virent; amethystus inest et fulgor Hiberus/temperat arcanis hyacinthi caerula flammis (Indian stones bead the robe and the costly fine-spun stuff is green with emeralds; amethysts are worked in and the brightness of Spanish gold tempers the blue of the hyacinth with its hidden fires). For the images see n. 55. In C.E. Otto, B. Schilling and C.F.F. Sintenis (eds), Das Corpus Juris Civilis VI, Leipzig, 1832, 548, curcumii is translated with Gebisse, bits, or sets of teeth. There seems to be no other known occurrence of this word. On womens jewellery see also: Dig. 34:2.25:10 (P. Krueger [ed.], Corpus Iuris Civilis I. Institutiones. Digesta, Berlin, 1954, 525): Ulpianus 44 ad sab. Ornamenta muliebria sunt, quibus mulier ornatur, veluti inaures armillae viriolae anuli praeter signatorios et omnia, quae ad aliam rem nullam parantur, nisi corporis ornandi causa: quo ex numero etiam haec sunt: aurum gemmae lapilli, quia aliam nullam in se utilitatem habent. Given that the prefect of Africa earned 100 pounds of gold per year, the proconsul of Cappadocia and the augustalis of Alexandria only 20 and 40 pounds respectively, and all lower officials less, as indicated by the same Codex, this is an unpayable fine; C. Morrisson and J.-C. Cheynet, Prices and Wages in the Byzantine World, in Laiou (n. 28), 81578, at 85961, table 16. Book of the Prefect 2:11 (J. Koder [ed.], Das Eparchenbuch Leons des Weisen. Einfhrung, Edition, bersetzung und Indices [Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae, 33], Vienna, 1991, 88f.). Ibid., 2:10 (Koder, 88f.). M. Mundell Mango, The Commercial Map of Constantinople, DOP 54 (2000), 189207, at 197 and fig. 20; see also H. J. Magoulias, Trades and Crafts in the Sixth and Seventh Centuries as Viewed in the Lives of the Saints, Byzantinoslavica 37 (1976), 1135, at 22f. for a discussion of an account in the Miracula S. Artemii 25, in which it is mentioned that a smithy was located in the porticoes of Domninos. Neira Faleiro (n. 22), 201, 205, 363, 370. Brown (n. 20). London, British Museum, Inv. no. PE 99.425,2; Weitzmann (n. 2), no. 493. O.M. Dalton, A Byzantine Silver Treasure from the District of Kerynia, Cyprus, Now Preserved in the British Museum, Archaeologia 57/1 (1900), 15975, at 15963; R. Delbrck, Die Consulardiptychen und verwandte Denkmler (Studien zur sptantiken Kunstgeschichte im Auftrage des Deutschen Archologischen Instituts 2), Berlin, 1929, 70, with fig. 25 on 69.

15 16 17

29

30 31 32 33

18 19 20

34

21 22

35 36

37

38

23 24

25 26

39

40 41 42

27 28

43 44 45 46

38 | Intelligible Beauty

The Evidence for Jewellery Production in Constantinople in the Early Byzantine Period
47 48 49 50 51 52 Deppert-Lippitz (n. 16), 63. Bucharest, Muzeul National de Istorie a Romaniei. Deppert-Lippitz (n. 16), 579, with fig. 20. Varna, Archaeological Museum, Inv. no. III 557: Yeroulanou (n. 3), 216, no. 68; V. Pace (ed.), Treasures of Christian Art in Bulgaria, Sofia, 2001, 1325, no. 28:1. New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, Inv. no. 17.190.1664 and Berlin, Antikensammlung, Inv. no. 30219, 506: Stolz (n. 14), 556f. London, British Museum, Inv. no. PE 1984,5-2,1: probably A. Sambon, Collection de M. Guilhou. Objets antiques. Orfvrerie, cramique, bronzes, ivoires, etc., Paris, 1905, 12, no. 53, pl. III; M. Hockey, The Composition and Structure of a Byzantine Torc, Jewellery Studies 3 (1989), 339. For the fragment of another possibly Byzantine torc see, A. Roes, Some Gold Torques Found in Holland, Acta Archaeologica 18 (1947), 1835. For a coloured image of Theodora see, G. Bovini, Ravenna und seine Mosaiken, Munich, 1962, fig. 41; Ariadne in Florence, Bargello: W.F. Volbach, Elfenbeinarbeiten der Sptantike und des frhen Mittelalters, Mainz, 19763, 49f., no. 51, pl. 27; Ariadne in Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum: ibid., 50, no. 52, pl. 27. Stolz (n. 14), 521603. 55 Daughter of the Pharaoh: J. Wilpert and W. N. Schumacher, Die rmischen Mosaiken der kirchlichen Bauten vom IV.XIII. Jahrhundert, Freiburg im Breisgau/Basel/Vienna, 1976, pl. 37; Agnes: C. Bertelli (ed.), Die Mosaiken. Von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart, Augsburg, 1996, fig. on 88f.; M. Andaloro and S. Romano, Rmisches Mittelalter. Kunst und Kultur in Rom von der Sptantike bis Giotto, Regensburg, 2002, 62, fig. 63. 56 Berlin, Antikensammlung, Inv. no. 30219,505: Stolz (n. 14), 521 603; see also, R. Cormack and M. Vassilaki (eds), Byzantium 330 1453, London, 2008, 1689, no. 121. 57 New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, Inv. no. 17.190.1670, 17.190.1671: Stolz (n. 14), 538f., 543f.; see also Yeroulanou (n. 3), 245, no. 228; Berlin, Antikensammlung, Inv. no. 30219, 508b: Wamser (n. 9), 295, no. 490. 58 C. Belting-Ihm, Das Justinuskreuz in der Schatzkammer der Peterskirche zu Rom, JbRGZM 12 (1965), 14266. 59 Narratio de S. Sophia 24 (T. Preger, Scriptores originum Constantinopolitanarum, Leipzig, 1901, 74ff.); see also C. Mango, The Art of the Byzantine Empire 3121453. Sources and Documents (Sources and Documents in the History of Art Series), Englewood Cliffs, 1972, 100.

53

54

Intelligible Beauty | 39