DRAFT

Brian Castriota Institute of Fine Arts New York University Spring 2012 Garnets, Gold and Power in Late Antiquity: Contextualizing the Tournai and Apahida Treasures The earliest direct antecedents of the kind of garnet cloisonn common in Late Antiquity and the Migration Period appear in high-status grave assemblages that date to the late third and early fourth centuries. These graves are concentrated around the northern and eastern coasts of the Black Sea, and garnet cloisonn finds appear frequently alongside Roman and Sassanian grave goods. By the fifth century garnet inlaid fittings had become a common feature of high-status burials along the Danube, and occur in grave assemblages stretching from Southern Russia to Northern France, a region inhabited by various Germanic tribes under the control of the Huns until their Empire collapsed in 453. By the late fifth century, a technically sophisticated and refined phase of garnet cloisonn emerged, represented by the finds from Apahida in modern day Romania and the grave of Frankish leader Childeric at Tournai, France. Historical sources establish a terminus ante quem of 481 CE for the garnet cloisonn finds discovered at Tournai, and the material from Apahida is considered to be contemporaneous on the basis of technical and stylistic similarities between these objects and other associated grave goods. Early twentieth century scholars categorized garnet cloisonn finds as Germanic and Hunnic primarily on the basis of their geographic distribution and burial contexts. However, technical analyses on these objects over the last thirty years necessitate a revision of these assumptions and a reconsideration of where these objects were made and their meaning and function in Late Antiquity. Increasingly, the Apahida and Tournai finds have been understood as Imperial commissions, manufactured in Constantinopolitan workshops or dispersed satellite workshops connected to them. At Apahida and Tournai these objects are found alongside late fifth-century gold opus interrasile crossbow fibulae, which are considered Eastern Mediterranean in origin and are thought to have been worn by high-ranking civil servants and Roman military allies. While no textual sources describe the distribution of these fibulae among Barbarian allies, we know that practices of gift-giving and investiture were 1

DRAFT
a common part of the construction of militaristic and political alliances between Barbarian leaders and the Late Roman Empire. Like the gold fibulae, the garnet cloisonn finds from Apahida and Tournai may also be understood as Imperial gifts presented to allies of the late Roman Empire. This paper contextualizes these finds by first examining primary accounts of fifth century sartorial culture and investiture practices within and beyond the borders of the Roman Empire. The history of garnet cloisonn production in Late Antiquity is outlined, and the shared technical and stylistic features of the Apahida and Tournai finds are identified. This paper then considers the historical circumstances in which they might have been produced, as well as their role in constructing or maintaining military alliances and political control. Finally, the symbolic qualities of these objects and their implications are considered by examining how they may have conferred and indexed the recipient and wearers position in both Roman and non-Roman cultural spheres. Dress, Diplomacy and the Historical Sources One of the earliest indications of barbarian taste for luxury items is preserved in the New History of Zosimus, written around 500 CE. In Book V, Zosimus relies heavily if not exclusively on the accounts of Olympiadorus of Thebes. The account vividly describes the Visigothic siege on Rome led by Alaric in 410 CE, and the payment extracted from the citizens of Rome as tribute: After long discussions on both sides, it was at length agreed that the city should give five thousand pounds of gold, and thirty thousand of silver, four thousand silk robes, three thousand scarlet fleeces/skins, and three thousand pounds of pepper. As the city possessed no public stock, it was necessary for the senators who had property, to undertake the collection by an assessment.1 Zosimuss account details the items of highest material value to the Visigoths in the early fifth century: gold and silver, which would have partly been in the form of Roman jewelry and plate, dyed red leather, silk robes or tunics, and pepper, ostensibly from India. These were all items of luxury, composed of materials from distant lands, which dazzled both the visual and gustatory senses. We imagine that some of these items,
1

Zosimus, Historia Nova, Book V.41.4.

DRAFT
particularly gold in the form of jewelry, as well as the skins and tunics, could have been worn immediately by the Visigoths as a conspicuous appropriation of Roman dress celebrating the power they were able to exert over the citizens of Rome. We might also consider the Visigothic taste for silks, dyed leather and pepper as participation in a wider culture which valued and appreciated exotic and colorful goods that communicated the wearers ability to command such resources. Priscuss account of his experience as an envoy to the court of Attila the Hun in 448/449 CE contains the most detailed descriptions of Roman diplomatic gift-giving and Barbarian tastes for luxury goods in the fifth century. Sent with an envoy by Emperor Theodosius the Younger to the court of Attila the Hun, Priscus provides us with a window into Eastern Roman diplomatic practice in the mid-fifth century while the Huns were at the height of their power. It also gives us a context in which we might consider late fifth century garnet cloisonn accessories like those from Apahida and Tournai, which which also belong to roughly the same period. In Priscus, gift-giving can be understood in part as a mode of commerce between the Roman envoy and the Huns. Gifts are presented as bribes, as an expression of apology or gratitude, as well as a currency to be redistributed among the Huns and other subjugated Germanic tribes. While Roman expectations of reciprocity are not explicit, it is nevertheless implied, and the Huns are well aware. The gifts are rarely described in any detail, further underscoring the rote nature of Imperial gift-giving, but a few times the reader is provided with some specifics. After insulting the Hunnic diplomats, Maximinus wins over Edeco and Orestes with gifts of silk garments and pearls.2 On more than one occasion it is clear that the gifts and gold are explicitly sent from the Emperor in a failed attempt to persuade Onegesius to betray Attila and side with the Romans.3 The Barbarians had realized that the threat of war could produce far more in the form of tribute than any spoils they could acquire by an act of war, and so it seems the Huns too recognized that playing politics could be more lucrative than any concrete actions. It is unlikely that Onegesius would have ever seriously entertained the notion of switching sides, but he understood the material wealth that could be acquired and used to project his
2

Priscus, Exc. De Leg. Rom. 3, in Blockley, R. C. The Fragmentary Classicising Historians of the Later Roman Empire: Eunapius, Olympiodorus, Priscus, and Malchus. Liverpool, Great Britain: F. Cairns, 1981, pp. 247. 3 Priscus, in Blockley, pp. 275.

DRAFT
own status and power by playing along.4 Attilas daughter-in-law, the wife of Bleda, is also thanked by the Roman envoy for her hospitality during a storm with three silver bowls, red skins, Indian pepper, dates and other dried fruits which the barbarians value because they are not native to their own country.5 As in Zosimuss account, we find evidence of both red-dyed leather and pepper explicitly mentioned as coming from India as luxury items. Priscuss explanation of why dried fruit would be grouped together with the other luxury items suggests that the silver bowls, red leather, and Indian pepper would have been understood as prestige goods by both Romans and Barbarians. Apart from gift-giving, Priscuss description of Attila is perhaps the most revealing anecdote regarding Barbarian fashions and tastes. Attilas servant entered first bearing a plate full of meat, and after him those who were serving us placed bread and cooked foods on the tables. While for the other barbarians and for us there were lavishly prepared dishes served on silver platters, for Attila there was only meat on a wooden plate. He showed himself temperate in other ways also. For golden and silver goblets were handed to the men at the feast, whereas his cup was of wood. His clothing was plain and differed not at all from that of the rest, except that it was clean. Neither the sword that hung from his side nor the fastenings of his barbarian boots nor his horses bridle was adorned, like those of the other Scythians, with gold or precious stones or anything else of value.6 Priscuss description of the other Scythians immediately recalls the dress accessories associated with mid- to late-fifth century grave assemblages found up and down the Danube, such as the garnet cloisonn boot fasteners from Blucina (figs. 50 - 56) as well as many of the horse fittings and other accessories from Apahdia and Tournai. Although Priscus purposefully draws a stark contrast between Attilas conspicuously austere dress and those of the other Scythians, we might also imagine the sartorial contrast that would have occurred between Attila and the other Roman dignitaries. We know from Ammianus Marcellinus that the Late Roman army participated in the same sort of
4

For a discussion of honorific robing in Barbarian contexts, see Gordon, Stewart. A World of Investiture. Ed. Stewart Gordon. Robes and Honor: The Medieval World of Investiture. New York: Palgrave, 2001, pp. 1-19. 5 Priscus, in Blockley, pp. 263. 6 Priscus, in Blockley, pp. 285.

DRAFT
barbarizing, ostentatious dress in the mid-fourth century. During Constantius imperial entrance into Rome, Marcellinus describes Constantius seated on a golden car in the resplendent blaze of shimmering precious stones, whose mingled glitter seemed to form a sort of shifting light. And behind the manifold others that preceded him, many other dragons surrounded him, woven out of purple thread, bound to the gold and jeweled tops of the spears.7 Marcellinus also describes Julians horse, Babylonius falling to the ground, scattered about its ornaments, which were adorned with gold and precious stones.8 As Canepa points out, hostile Roman sources claim that bejeweled red and purple footwear made from expensive dyed silk and leather was one of Diocletians many additions to the Imperial costume.9 We can also look to the scabbards depicted on the porphyry statues the Four Tetrarchs now in Venice (figs. 57 - 58.) as well as the sword depicted on the Stilicho diptych (figs. 59 - 60) for evidence of Roman tastes for bejeweled military accessories. By the end of the sixth century red bejeweled shoes became cross-cultural insignias of Roman and Sassanian power and kingship. It is more than likely that at the time of Priscus such boots already carried similar connotations of authority and signified inclusion within an aristocratic class that may have outweighed specific cultural connotations. Priscus description of Attilas dress and behavior should therefore be understood not as a comment on the differences between Roman and Barbarian sartorial culture, but rather as a testament to Attila interest in elevating his status to that of a god-like figure through austere dress and behavior. Garnet Cloisonn and its Antecedents The earliest direct antecedents of the Apahida and Tournai treasures are found in grave assemblages dating to the late third and early fourth centuries around the North and Eastern coasts of the Black Sea along the Crimean peninsula, and in Iberia, modern day Georgia. These objects are characterized by their use of flat, garnet plates, cut on their

Ammianus Marcellinus, XVI.10, 6-7, trans. John C. Rolfe, Loeb Classical Library, Vol. 1, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1956, pp. 245. 8 Ammianus Marcellinus, XXIII.3, 6 in Rolfe, pp. 323. 9 Canepa, Matthew P. The Two Eyes of the Earth: Art and Ritual of Kingship between Rome and Sasanian Iran. Berkeley: University of California, 2009, pp. 201.

DRAFT
edges into rectilinear shapes and set into bronze, gilt silver and gold bezels. They are usually backed by gold or silver foils with a waffle-like texture to reflect the light on top of a bedding material, and are held in place by burnishing the top edges of the metal cell walls over the edges of the garnet plates. Gem closionn was employed by the Egyptians, so this was not any sort of novel development, but the particular use of garnet-and-gold cloisonn occasionally accented by green glass, bone or pearls does not begin until this period. The geographic distribution of this material is overwhelmingly weighted to regions and cultures that practiced inhumation and buried their dead with grave furnishings. This of course leads to a preferential distribution of garnet cloisonn artifacts to third and early fourth century Alano-Sarmatian, and Hunnic and Germanic graves in the later fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries. This Pontic material was tradionally dated to the period after 370 CE when the Huns crossed the Volga because, more often than not, the objects were found in association with explicitly Hunnic or Central Asian burial contexts that included bows and other nomadic weapons. The geographic distribution of fifth century garnet cloisonn finds, limited to the Carpathian Basin and along the Danube, was generally thought to be linked with the movement of the Huns during this period. Riegl, however, identified a Late Antique kunstwollen in the style of garnets inlaid in gold, and lamented the nationalistic biases of German scholars who characterized the material as Germanic.10 More recently it has become clear how this distribution pattern of these objects speaks less to the dissemination of garnet cloisonn style by the Huns to Germanic tribes, and more to the problems raised by assigning ethnically defined or culturally-loaded nomenclature to the garnet cloisonn style. Accessories decorated with garnet cloisonn appear in Iberian tombs dated to just after 260 at a point when the region became incorporated into the Sassanian Empire. In a tomb near Phasis, on the eastern shore of Black Sea in Georgia, a number of garnet cloisonn accessories have been found with a terminus post quem of 275 276 CE on the

10

Riegl, Alois. Late Roman Art Industry. Trans. Rolf Winkes. Roma: G. Bretschneider, 1985. Print. Originally published Die sptrmische Kunstindustrie nach den Funden in sterreich-Ungarn (Vienna, 1901), pp. 192.

DRAFT
basis of a coin of Tacitus found in the assemblage (fig. 61).11 A grave assemblage from the Aragvispiri Necropolis near Tbilsi, Georgia also contained garnet cloisonn alongside Roman and Sasanian silver plates, including one that depicts Shapur I who ruled from 240-270 CE (fig. 62).12 In the early fourth century Armenia and Iberia were partitioned west and east between the Roman Empire and Sassanian Persia respectively.13 Adams argues that the fashion for garnet cloisonn accessories in Iberia and Lazica reflected those kingdoms economic and political ties to Western Asia where it seems garnet cloisonn was practiced well into the fifth century, but is preserved in only limited quantities.14 Pliny describes ancient garnet sources in India, Carthage and Alabanda in Asia Minor (Historia Naturalis, Book XXXVII), and while in many cases local sources for garnets may have been exploited, Adams and Roth argue strongly in favor of a Kushan source for garnets.15 Understood as an exotic commodity like Indian spices and silks, carried from the East along the various trade routes, we can begin to imagine how garnet-inlaid jewelry would have functioned alongside other luxury items as an index of power in regions where the Sassanian and Roman Empires both exerted enormous political influence. Archaeoethnographic work by Ustinova revealed that at Tanais, in the second to third centuries, half the names of the occupants were Greek and about a third of the total population were of Iranian origin.16 By the third century Greek and Roman names decrease, and Iranian names increase. Ustinova emphasizes that the culture of the late Bosphorus should be understood not as a symbiosis of Greeks and Iranians, but as a synthesis of Greek and Iranian strands.17 Archaeological finds from the area around the Crimean peninsula, suggest that garnet cloisonn accessories were popular among male,
11

ukin, Mark, and Igor Baan. "L'origine Du Style Cloisone De L'poque Des Grandes Migrations." La Noblesse Romaine Et Les Chefs Barbares Du IIIe Au VII Siecle. By Francoise Vallet and Michel Kazanski. Rouen (France): Association Francaise D'archeologie Merovingienne, 1995, pp. 65. 12 Ibid. 13 Adams, (Debra) Nol. "Late Antique, Migration Period and Early Byzantine Garnet Cloisonn Ornaments: Origins, Styles and Workshop Production." Dis. University College London, 1991, pp. 93. 14 Adams, pp. 94; 288. See also the two cloisonn medalions from Taxila at the Victoria and Albert Museum and Cleveland Museum of Art (Cat. No 173; Pl. 21.2,3). 15 See Roth, Helmut. Kunst Der Vlkerwanderungszeit. Frankfurt am Main: Propylen Verlag, 1979, pp. 318-323. 16 Ustinova, Yulia. "The Bosporan Kingdom in Late Antiquity: Ethnic and Religious Transformations." Ethnicity and Culture in Late Antiquity. By Stephen Mitchell and Geoffrey Greatrex. London: Duckworth and the Classical of Wales, 2000. 154. 17 Ustinova, pp. 155.

DRAFT
warrior elites early as the late-third century, prior to the arrival of the Huns (figs. 63 64).18 These prestige objects seem to speak to a taste defined less by specific cultural or tribal affiliations but rather represented and communicated inclusion within an aristocratic sartorial culture operating within both Greco-Roman and Sasanian cultural spheres. By the early fifth century, after the Huns had moved into Central Europe, garnet cloisonn accessories become a common feature of Germanic burials from Southern Russia, to Northern France. The Wolfsheim Treasure discovered in 1870 speaks to the difficulty of dating and ascribing ethnic identity to these kinds of burials (figs. 65 66). The assemblage includes a plaque inscribed with the name Ardashir in Pahlavi script a Sassanian ruler from the third century as well as a gold solidus of Valens and buckle with stepped garnet plates, a fifth century development. The meaning behind this juxtaposition of Sassanian, Roman, and Germanic material is elusive. Does this speak to a direct Germanic/Hunnic connection to Imperial Sassanian costume, or rather Roman import and investiture? Are the two mutually exclusive or might they be suggestive of sartorial practices that existed within an autonomous, aristocratic military culture? The Finds From Apahida and Tournai Though geographically separated by over a thousand miles, the garnet cloisonn finds from the Apahida and Tournai burials both speak to the technical sophistication and refinement of the garnet cloisonn style in the late fifth century. Because of their stylistic and typological similarities, the finds from Tournai and Apahida are considered as part of a singular class of high-status, military dress accessories. The Apahida and Tournai garnet-inlaid material fall within two overlapping garnet cloisonn style categories characterized by Adams as notched plate style and carpet style.19 The Notched Plate style refers specifically to cloisonn in which flat, garnet plates of various shapes have been notched with bow-driven grinding wheels along one or more edges at regular

18

ukin, Mark et al., pp. 63 64. The finds from the Armazishevi tombs, at the mouth of the river Don are also dated to the mid-late 3rd century based on numismatic evidence, as is the tomb at Nedvigovka, near Tanais, based on similarities between grave furnishings. Unfortunately this tomb has no absolute date, but ukin and other scholars argue that the finds from this Alano-Sarmation tomb are comparable to similar pre-Hunnic burials. 19 Adams, pp. 47.

DRAFT
intervals to create a scalloped edge along each garnet plate. Separated by an undulating cell wall, the notched plates interlock to create a dazzling, stepped effect. The Carpet Style is defined by the covering of all visible surfaces of objects with complex, interconnecting designs. Rectilinear plate shapes are replaced by S- an -shaped plates. Other common features include trefoil-shaped, quatrefoil-shaped, hexagonal, and drilled circular plates, narrow rectangular and carved bar cabochons, and pin-head cabochons.20 In both styles, cell walls are soldered to the side walls, and may or may not come into contact with or be soldered to the backing plate. In keeping with earlier phases of garnet cloisonn, plates are secured in a gypsum or calcite bedding paste, and are backed by a sheet of patterned gold foil. For the sake of brevity, these technical characteristics will hereafter be referred to as the Apahida-Tournai style. Other mid- to late-fifth century finds like those from Blucina in southwest Germany, and Pouan on the Seine in Northern France also fall within this category; as such, the naming is arbitrary, but the plate shapes, types and ornamental motifs created by the cloisonn are not. The first Apahida grave was discovered in 1889 near Cluj, Romania, and though partially despoiled, it retained enough material to identify the occupant as nobleman named Omharus through the presence of two gold name rings in Latin and Greek (figs. 8 - 9). Other dress items included a large garnet cloisonn belt buckle (fig. 1, 81), an opus interrasile crossbow fibula (fig. 11), and a gold arm ring with flared terminals (fig. 5). A second grave was discovered in 1968, 500 meters from the first and, though also partially despoiled, preserved an unprecedented amount of garnet cloisonn dress accessories, which like the items from Apahida I are executed in a technically sophisticated style of cloisonn (figs. 12 - 39). The buckles, horse fittings, and purse lid all make use of interlocking notched garnet plates separated by undulating cell walls, interlocking Sshape and -shape plates, ribbed bar cabochons plates, as well as pinpoint cabochons used as a framing device on the buckles and purse lids. A third buckle found nearby in 1979 (figs. 77 - 78) is very similar to the previous two and may or may not belong to the same assemblages as the previous two graves. Regardless, the stylistic commonalities among the constituent parts as compared with other Late Antique garnet cloisonn accessories establishes the basis of the argument that the objects constitute a singular
20

Adams, pp. 48.

DRAFT
ensemble and potentially a singular moment and place of manufacture. The grave assemblage found at Tournai is associated with Childeric, leader of the Salian Franks, on the basis of a signet ring inscribed with the name CHILDIRICI REGIS and a portrait of Childeric himself (fig. 47). The assemblage also included a gold crossbow fibula with opus interrasile decoration, a gold arm ring, and a number of garnet cloisonn dress accessories including buckles, sword fittings and bridle ornaments. The burial was discovered in 1653, and in 1831 the treasure of Childeric was among 80 kilos of treasure stolen from the Biblioteque National in Paris and melted down. A few pieces, including the sword fittings, were retrieved from where they had been hidden in the Seine, however the lost items are now only preserved in the detailed engravings made by Chiflet in 1655, and in the case of the fibula and signet ring, the replicas and impressions that were made of them. Like the Apahida buckles and purse lid, the garnet cloisonn fittings from Childerics spatha guards and seax scabbard are decorated with repeated, interlocking, notched garnet plates, rows of S- and -shape plates, as well as pin-head cabochons (figs. 40 - 43). According to Chiflets illustrations, Chidleric was also buried with a number of buckles, each with variations on the kind of garnet cloisonn kidney-bean motif found at Apahida. The largest buckle possibly a cingulum contains a kidney-bean shaped tongue-plaque, encircled by pinpoint cabochons, and decorated around its sides by bar cabochons, not at all dissimilar to the tongue plaques of the Apahida I and Apahida III buckles (figs. 67 - 68); Kiss argues that a similar buckle tongue found in Instanbul (fig. 69) suggests that this style of decoration and buckle construction was derived from or reflected in Late Antique Constantinopolitan buckle fashions.21 The double-eagle-head fittings possibly seax pommels and or sword chapes are also decorated by interlocking S-shaped plates and framed by pinpoint cabochons, and in the case of the Apahida fitting, ribbed bar cabachons (figs. 28, 71 - 72).22 A row of -shape plates runs the length of the nose on one end of Childerics zoomorphic spatha pommel (fig. 41).

21

Kiss, Attila. "Die "barbarischen" Knige Des 4-7. Jahrhunderts Un Karpatenbecken, Als Verbndeten Des Rmischen Bzw. Byzantinischen Reiches." La Noblesse Romaine Et Les Chefs Barbares Du IIIe Au VII Siecle. By Francoise Vallet and Michel Kazanski. Rouen (France): Association Francaise D'archeologie Merovingienne, 1995, pp. 183. 22 The double eagle head fittings are argued by Arrhenius to be seax pommels but they may also have been sword chapes. See Arrhenius, pp. 108; Kazanski, pp. 18.

10

DRAFT
Notched plates and ribbed bar cabochons are also found on the scabbard fittings from a spatha discovered in a tomb in Pouan, France in 1849 (fig. 74). Childerics grave is dated to ca. 481 CE on the basis of Gregory of Tours statement that Childerics son Clovis died in 511 CE after reigning for thirty years (Decem Libri Historiarum, II.31). Our knowledge of Childeric as a historical figure is drawn predominantly from Gregory of Tours and Fredegar, who wrote in the sixth and eighth centuries respectively. The Franks formed a large contingent of Aetiuss army during the Battle of the Catalaunian Fields against the Huns in 451 CE. Guy Halsall has suggested that Aetius may have left Childeric in charge of the Roman troops following the defeat of the Huns.23 At the Battle of Orleans against the Visigoths in 463, Childeric also served under the general Aegidius a Gallo-Roman appointed magister militum by Aetius in 450 CE. Childeric consequently took the title king of the Franks (Gregory of Tours, Hist., II.18), confirmed by the signet ring. Jordaness account is often used to establish the Gepidic identity of the deceased and a date for the Apahida graves.24 We know from Jordanes that following the death of Atilla, the Gepidic leader Ardaric led a successful revolt against the Huns at the Battle of Nedao in 454, and assumed military and political control over the Carpathian Basin: The Geipdae by their own might won for themselves the territory of the Huns and ruled as victors over the extent of all of Dacia, demanding of the Roman Empire nothing more than peace and an annual gift as a pledge of their friendly alliance. This the Emperor freely granted at the time, and to this day that race receives its customary gifts from the Roman Emperor.25 The Gepid-led revolt effectively ended Hunnic dominance over the subject Germanic tribes of Central and Eastern Europe, and the Gepids appear to have become close allies of the Eastern Roman Empire throughout the remainder of the fifth century. The presence of Latin and Greek signet rings and the gold fibulae in the graves of
23

Halsall, Guy. "Childeric's Grave, Clovis' Succession, and the Origins of the Merovingian Kingdom." Society and Culture in Late Antique Gaul: Revisiting the Sources. By Ralph W. Mathisen and Danuta Shanzer. Aldershot, Hants: Ashgate, 2001, pp. 181. 24 See Werner, Joachim. Namensring und Siegelring aus dem Gepidischen Grabfund von Apahida (Siebenbrgen). Klner Jahrbuch fr Vor- und Frhgeschichte 9 (1967 - 1968): pp. 120-123; Bna, Istvn. "From Dacia to Transylvania: The Period of the Great Migrations (271-895)." History of Transylvania. By Gbor Barta and Bla Kopeczi. Budapest: Akadmiai Kiad, 1994. 25 Jordanes, Getica, L.262 in Mierow, Christopher. The Gothic History of Jordanes: In English Version. Cambridge: Speculum Historiale, 1966.

11

DRAFT
Childeric and Omharus suggest that these men maintained some degree of Romanauthorized administrative and/or military control over the populations in the areas in which they operated, something well attested to by the historical sources.26 The gold crossbow fibulae in the graves of Childeric and Omharus are of a type known from other assemblages to date to the later part of the fifth century and are attributed to Imperial workshops.27 As Imperial commissions, they would have been presented to members of the court or civil servants of high rank. Swift argues that they were used to index the relationship between Roman authorities on the one hand, and military and civilian officials on the other.28 In light of more recent studies on the garnet cloisonn accessories from Tournai and Apahida, it seems prudent to consider the totality of these assemblages in a similar context. Birgit Arrenhiuss technical analyses of the bedding paste compositions of the garnet cloisonn from Apahida and Tournai revealed that they both used a cement paste composed primarily of gypsum and calcite. Aside from their stylistic similarities, Arrhenius argued that these items could only have been produced in well-equipped, urban workshops, hypothesizing a central workshop in Constantinople, and as well as other satellite workshops.29 Recent technical analysis by Oanta-Marghitu et. al on the third Apahida belt buckle discovered in 1989 lends further support to Arrheniuss hypothesis (figs. 77 - 78).30 They determined that the proportions of the buckle fit with remarkable precision into the Roman measurement system (fig. 79). The cloisonn decoration of the belt plate is built around a quatrefoil cell with a length of 12.3 mm, corresponding to a half uncia.31 Similarly the width of the plate was found to measure 37 mm or 2 digiti. The round prominences corresponding to the ribbed bar cabochons, are evenly distributed at 18 intervals from a central axis.32 When compared to other Late Roman belt types it is clear how the so-called kidney
26 27

MacMullen, Ramsay. "The Emperor's Largesses." Latomus 21 (1962): pp. 162. See the fibula from the Reggio Emilia treasure discussed in Deppert-Lippitz, Barbara. "A Late Antique Crossbow Fibula in the Metropolitan Museum of Art." Metropolitan Museum Journal 35 (2000): pp. 56. 28 Swift, Ellen. Style and Function in Roman Decoration: Living with Objects and Interiors. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2009, pp. 162. 29 Arrhenius, pp. 100-124. 30 Oanta-Narghitu, Rodica, Gheorghe Niculescu, Doina Seclman, Roxana Bugoi, and Migdonia Georgescu. "The Gold Belt Buckle from Apahida III (Romania), 5th Century AD." ArcheoSciences 33 (2009): pp. 231. 31 Ibid. 32 Ibid.

12

DRAFT
bean-shaped motif as it is often described on garnet cloisonn buckles is a stylized version of the pelta or enclosed C-scroll motif, classical in origin, and a common stylistic feature of Roman belt buckles dating back to the first century (fig. 80). While there is not sufficient evidence to argue that the buckles from Apahida (figs. 81 - 82), Tournai and Blucina are Roman military cinguli, a sixth century law preserved in the Codex Justinianus (Cod. Just. XI.XI.I) suggests that at the very least these buckles would have carried associations with the power connected to holding Imperial office. The law forbade the use of jewels on buckles, providing that buckles valuable only for the gold of which they are composed, and their workmanship, shall be used on military cloaks.33 The existence of such a law implies that by the sixth century buckles ornamented with gems were rampant enough within the Empire. It is impossible to say whether the buckle tongue from Constantinople indicates that buckles like the Apahida and Tournai finds were worn within the Empire by East Romans, however these belt buckles would have certainly carried similar associations and would have competed visually with other Roman cinguli. Stylistic comparisons may also be drawn between the Apahida-Tournai style and contemporaneous Sassanian material. Similarities between the sword fittings in the Childeric treasure and sixth century Sasanian seaxes were noted earlier. Nothing however has been said about the relationship between the notched plate shapes and Sassanian ornamental motifs. The interlocking -shaped cells that appear on the Apahida buckles, purse lid, horse fittings, as well as the zoomorphic pommel from Childerics spatha can be compared to the stylized vegetal roundels on Sassanian silver plates and jugs dating from the fifth to seventh centuries (figs. 83 - 85). These are items to which an Imperial Roman workshop would have had easy access. Their decorative motifs could have been easily adapted to the garnet cloisonn style that favors repeated, interlocking cell shapes. Similar comparisons may be drawn between the pinpoint cabochons used as framing devices on Childeric scabbard fittings and the Apahida buckles, and the pearl roundel, a framing device common to sixth century Sassanian textiles. Harhoiu argues that the occasional presence of garnet cloisonn ornaments deep in
33

Adams, pp. 326.

13

DRAFT
barbarian territory like at Apahida can be explained by diplomatic relations between the imperial court and the barbarian elite.34 Jordaness account of annual gift-giving and tribute paid to the Gepids allows us to consider the Apahida finds as gifts and tribute paid to Gepidic chieftains by Marcian (450 - 457 CE) or Leo I (457 - 474 CE) following the Battle of Nedao. Similarly, Remigus of Reims states that Clovis parentes ruled Belgica Secunda. As such, we might consider the finds at Tournai also as imperial gifts sent with a diplomatic envoy not unlike that described by Priscus, in an effort confer gratitude upon Childeric for his services to the Empire and exert or maintain nominal political influence over northern Gaul. Kazanski hypothesized that the signet ring and fibula were honorific insignia gifted by Emperor Majorian (457-461 CE), or possibly, as Werner has suggested, by Aegidius.35 These items could also have been gifted to Childeric after Anthemius became Emperor in the West (467 - 472 CE); he was supported by Leo I and may have sought out the support of Childeric and the Franks in his campaign against the Visigoths.36 Either way these dress accessories symbolized the legitimacy of Childerics rule over Franks and Gallo-Romans alike in Belgica Secunda. Meaning and Function in Late Antiquity If we agree that these objects were produced in Roman workshops and are part of the late fifth-century milieu of gifts presented by Roman Imperial court to Germanic elites like the silks, red skins, and pepper described in Priscus are these objects reflective of Barbarian aristocratic predilections for Roman luxuries, or Roman overtures catering to Barbarian aesthetics? Arguably, both views are valid; it would seem that like the other gifts, these objects belong to a wider Late Antique aesthetic that above all valued sensory splendor. Procopius considered the four color groupings that brought the most delight to be white, green, crimson (or purple) and gold.37 As Liz James stated, the place of color in the aesthetics of late antiquity and Byzantium is closely allied to that of light and color. Light and color combine into a stress on brilliance, glitter, reflectance,
34

Harhoiu, R. Die frhe Vlkerwanderungszeit in Rumnien. Archaeologia Romanica I. Bucharest: Editura Enciclopedica, 1998, pp. 155. 35 Kazanski, Michel and Patrick Perin. Le mobilier funraire de la tombe de Childric Ier. Etat de la question et perspectives. Revue Archologique de Picardie 3/4 (1988): pp. 21. 36 For a dsicussion of the relatonship between Leo I, Anthemius and the Barbarians see MacGeorge, Penny. Late Roman Warlords. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2002, pp. 215-261. 37 Adams, pp. 81.

14

DRAFT
and polychromaticity.38 The very materiality of garnet cloisonn translucent crimson garnets backed by textured gold foils, framed and clasped by undulating cell walls produce this Late Antique aesthetic of light and color upon the surfaces of the objects they decorate, and by extension, the wearer. Canepa notes that the practice of appropriating the other cultures ornamental material, like the appropriation of its ritual and ideological material, helped define the sovereigns relational identities and situate each in a larger kosoms of power.39 In effect these objects were used to confer, communicate and legitimate power laterally between diverse social and political systems. These objects were another aspect of the global sartorial language of legitimacy which operated within and beyond Romano-Sassanian cultural spheres.40 The origins and original connotations of object types, like Swift has pointed out with the crossbow fibula, can become camouflaged and their meaning and cultural associations can evolve over time.41 The same may be true with objects decorated in garnet cloisonn; while they may have carried certain associations in the late third century, by the late fifth century they signaled membership within an aristocratic, multi-ethnic military class, which derived its own authority, power and legitimacy from Rome. The furnishings from Childerics grave and those depicted in his portrait on his signet ring (fig. 47) combine markers of Roman military power (cuirass, chlamys, and fibula) with Frankish attributes (long hair and spear).42 At some point in the fifth century it seems these kinds of high-status garnet cloisonn accessories began to signify a particular kind of Roman-sanctioned political authority and autonomy. As objects produced in Roman workshops and likely gifted by Imperial officials, the Apahida and Tournai objects represented the wearers ties to political centers of power. They like the signet rings and fibulae conferred Imperially-sanctioned authority and legitimacy upon the wearer, a commodity which could have been extracted through services to the Empire, political/militaristic pressures, or a combination of both. Often, the lines

38

James, Liz. Light and Colour in Byzantine Art. Oxford; New York: Clarendon; Oxford UP, 1996, pp. 224. 39 Canepa, pp. 209. 40 Canepa, pp. 188. 41 Swift, Style and Function in Roman Decoration, pp. 160. 42 Kazanski, pp. 21.

15

DRAFT
between the two were blurred, just as the line separating tribute and gift were noticeably fuzzy. Their material emphasis on light and color, with ties to a Late Antique aesthetic of splendor and Romano-Sassanian court fashions, also granted the wearer inclusion within Imperial court culture. Like the fibula and signet ring, these accessories would also have been displayed by the recipient as an index of his close relationship with the Emperor.43 At the same time, these objects also granted the wearer the ability to distinguish himself as a member of a distinct aristocratic, multi-ethnic military class, operating with a certain degree of sovereignty and autonomy from the Empire. In contrast to the romanitas explicitly connoted by the fibulae, the garnet cloisonn accessories address an explication of civilitas that transcended Roman and non-Roman ethnic and cultural distinctions. Applied primarily to weapons, horse trappings, belt and shoe buckles, and other kinds of military regalia, garnet cloisonn was used to signal military might and prestige. These objects would have allowed the wearer to maintain that status while also moving between both Roman and Barbarian cultural spheres. The Apahida and Tournai finds should therefore be understood as material agents used by the Roman court and non-Roman aristocrats to construct, affirm and index the recipient and wearers position in a political world where notions of Roman and non-Roman had become increasingly blurred.

43

Swift, Style and Function in Roman Decoration, pp. 167.

16

DRAFT
References: Adams, (Debra) Nol. "Late Antique, Migration Period and Early Byzantine Garnet Cloisonn Ornaments: Origins, Styles and Workshop Production." Diss. University College London, 1991. Adams, Nol. "The Development of Early Garnet Inlaid Ornaments." Kontakte Zwischen Iran, Byzanz Und Der Steppe Im 6.-7. Jahrhundert. By Csand Blint. Budapest: Publicationes Instituti Archaeologici Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, 2000. 14-70. Ammianus Marcellinus. Trans. John C. Rolfe, Loeb Classical Library, Vol. 1, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1956. Arrhenius, Birgit. Merovingian Garnet Jewellery: Emergence and Social Implications. Stockholm: Kungl. Vitterhets Historie Och Antikvitets Akademien: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1985. Blockley, R. C. The Fragmentary Classicising Historians of the Later Roman Empire: Eunapius, Olympiodorus, Priscus, and Malchus. Liverpool, Great Britain: F. Cairns, 1981. Bna, Istvn. "From Dacia to Transylvania: The Period of the Great Migrations (271895)." History of Transylvania. By Gbor Barta and Bla Kopeczi. Budapest: Akadmiai Kiad, 1994. Brown, Katharine Reynolds, Dafydd Kidd, and Charles T. Little. "On the Frontiers of Byzantium." From Attila to Charlemagne: Arts of the Early Medieval Period in the Metropolitan Museum of Art. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2000. 120-31. Canepa, Matthew P. The Two Eyes of the Earth: Art and Ritual of Kingship between Rome and Sasanian Iran. Berkeley: University of California, 2009. Dandridge, Pete. Idiomatic and Mainstream: The Technical Vocabulary of a Late Roman Crossbow Fibula. Metropolitan Museum Journal 35 (2000): 71-86. Deppert-Lippitz, Barbara. "A Late Antique Crossbow Fibula in the Metropolitan Museum of Art." Metropolitan Museum Journal 35 (2000): 39-70. Feltham, Heleanor. "Lions, Silks and Silver: The Influence of Sasanian Persia." SinoPlatonic Papers 206 (August, 2010): 1-51. Web. 6 Apr. 2012. <http://sinoplatnoic.org>. Finaly, H. "Az Apahidai Lelet." Archaeologiai Ertest 9 (1889): 305-20.

17

DRAFT
Garam, Eva, Attila Kiss. Gold Finds of the Migration Period in the Hungarian National Museum. Milano; Budapest: Electa; Helikon, 1992. Geary, Patrick J. "Barbarians and Ethnicity." Late Antiquity: A Guide to the Postclassical World. By Glen W. Bowersock, Peter Brown, and Oleg Grabar. Cambridge, MA: Belknap of Harvard UP, 1999. 107-29. Gordon, Stewart. "A World of Investiture." Ed. Stewart Gordon. Robes and Honor: The Medieval World of Investiture. New York: Palgrave, 2001. 1-19. Greatrex, Geoffrey. "Roman Identity in the Sixth Century." Ethnicity and Culture in Late Antiquity. By Stephen Mitchell and Geoffrey Greatrex. London: Duckworth and the Classical Press of Wales, 2000. 267-92. Halsall, Guy. "Childeric's Grave, Clovis' Succession, and the Origins of the Merovingian Kingdom." Society and Culture in Late Antique Gaul: Revisiting the Sources. By Ralph W. Mathisen and Danuta Shanzer. Aldershot, Hants: Ashgate, 2001. Harhoiu, R. Die frhe Vlkerwanderungszeit in Rumnien. Archaeologia Romanica I. Bucharest: Editura Enciclopedica, 1998. Harlow, Mary. "Clothes Maketh the Man: Power Dressing and the Elite Male in the Later Roman World." Gender in the Early Medieval World: East and West, 300-900. By Leslie Brubaker and Julia M. H. Smith. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge UP, 2004. 44-69. Heather, Peter. "Disappearing and Reappearing Tribes." Strategies of Distinction: The Construction of Ethnic Communities, 300-800. By Walter Pohl and Helmut Reimitz. Leiden: Brill, 1998. 95-111. Heather, Peter. "The Barbarian in Late Antiquity: Image, Reality and Transformation." Constructing Identities in Late Antiquity. By Richard Miles. London: Routledge, 1999. 234-58. Heather, Peter. The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History of Rome and the Barbarians. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2007. Horedt, Kurt, and Dumitru Protase. "Das Zweite Frstengrab Von Apahida." Germania 50 (1972): 174-220. Horedt, Kurt. Siebenbrgen Im Frhmittelalter. Bonn: Habelt, 1986. Iluk, Jan. "The Export of Gold from the Roman Empire to the Barbarian Countries from the 4th to the 6th Centuries." Munstersche Beitrage Zur Antiken Handelsgeschichte IV.1 (1985): 79-102. James, Edward. The Franks. Oxford, UK: B. Blackwell, 1988. 18

DRAFT
James, Liz. Light and Colour in Byzantine Art. Oxford; New York: Clarendon; Oxford UP, 1996. John, Matthews. "Roman Law and Barbarian Identity in the West." Ethnicity and Culture in Late Antiquity. By Stephen Mitchell and Geoffrey Greatrex. London: Duckworth and the Classical of Wales, 2000. 31-44. Jordanes, and Charles Christopher Mierow. The Gothic History of Jordanes: In English Version. Cambridge: Speculum Historiale, 1966. Kazanski, Michel and Patrick Perin. Le mobilier funraire de la tombe de Childric Ier. Etat de la question et perspectives. Revue Archologique de Picardie 3/4 (1988): 13-38. Kiss, Attila. "Die "barbarischen" Knige Des 4-7. Jahrhunderts Un Karpatenbecken, Als Verbndeten Des Rmischen Bzw. Byzantinischen Reiches." La Noblesse Romaine Et Les Chefs Barbares Du IIIe Au VII Siecle. By Francoise Vallet and Michel Kazanski. Rouen (France): Association Francaise D'archeologie Merovingienne, 1995. 181-88. MacGeorge, Penny. Late Roman Warlords. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2002. MacMullen, Ramsay. "The Emperor's Largesses." Latomus 21 (1962): 159-66. MacMullen, Ramsay. "Some Pictures in Ammianus Marcellinus." The Art Bulletin 46.4 (1964): 435-55. Matthias, Hardt. "Royal Treasures and Representation in the Early Middle Ages." Strategies of Distinction: The Construction of Ethnic Communities, 300-800. By Walter Pohl and Helmut Reimitz. Leiden: Brill, 1998. 255-80. Miles, Richard. Constructing Identities in Late Antiquity. London: Routledge, 1999. Mitchell, Stephen, and Geoffrey Greatrex. Ethnicity and Culture in Late Antiquity. London: Duckworth and the Classical of Wales, 2000. Moore, Michael. "The King's New Clothes: Royal and Episcopal Regalia in the Frankish Kingdom." Robes and Honor: The Medieval World of Investiture. By Stewart Gordon. New York: Palgrave, 2001. 95-135. Oanta-Narghitu, Rodica, Gheorghe Niculescu, Doina Seclman, Roxana Bugoi, and Migdonia Georgescu. "The Gold Belt Buckle from Apahida III (Romania), 5th Century AD." ArcheoSciences 33 (2009): 227-33. Pohl, Walter, and Helmut Reimitz. Strategies of Distinction: The Construction of Ethnic Communities, 300-800. Leiden: Brill, 1998. 19

DRAFT
Pohl, Walter. "Introduction: Strategies of Distinction." Strategies of Distinction: The Construction of Ethnic Communities, 300-800. By Walter Pohl and Helmut Reimitz. Leiden: Brill, 1998. 1-15. Riegl, Alois. Late Roman Art Industry. Trans. Rolf Winkes. Roma: G. Bretschneider, 1985. Originally published Die sptrmische Kunstindustrie nach den Funden in sterreich-Ungarn (Vienna, 1901). Rose, Jenny. "Sasanian Splendor: The Appurtenances of Royalty." Robes and Honor: The Medieval World of Investiture. Ed. Stewart Gordon. New York: Palgrave, 2001. 35-56. Roth, Helmut. Kunst Der Vlkerwanderungszeit. Frankfurt am Main: Propylen-Verlag, 1979. Schmauder, Michael. "Imperial Representation or Barbaric Imitation? The Imperial Brooches (Kaiserfibeln)." Strategies of Distinction: The Construction of Ethnic Communities, 300-800. By Walter Pohl and Helmut Reimitz. Leiden: Brill, 1998. 281-96. Schmauder, Michael. "The 'Gold Hoards' of the Early Migration Period in South-Eastern Europe and the Late Roman Empire." The Construction of Communities in the Early Middle Ages: Texts, Resources and Artefacts. By Richard Corradini, Max Diesenberger, and Helmut Reimitz. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2003. 81-94. Stolz, Yvonne. "The Evidence for Jewellery Production in Constantinople in the Early Byzantine Period." Intelligible Beauty: Recent Research on Byzantine Jewellery. By Christopher Entwistle and Nol Adams. London: British Museum, 2010. 3339. Swift, Ellen. "Dress Accessories, Culture and Identity in the Late Roman Period." Association Pour Antiquit Tardive 12 (2004): 217-222. Swift, Ellen. Style and Function in Roman Decoration: Living with Objects and Interiors. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2009. ukin, Mark, and Igor Baan. "L'origine Du Style Cloisone De L'poque Des Grandes Migrations." La Noblesse Romaine Et Les Chefs Barbares Du IIIe Au VII Siecle. By Francoise Vallet and Michel Kazanski. Rouen (France): Association Francaise D'archeologie Merovingienne, 1995. 63-75. Todd, Malcolm. The Early Germans. Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 1992. Ustinova, Yulia. "The Bosporan Kingdom in Late Antiquity: Ethnic and Religious Transformations." Ethnicity and Culture in Late Antiquity. By Stephen Mitchell 20

DRAFT
and Geoffrey Greatrex. London: Duckworth and the Classical of Wales, 2000. 151-72. Werner, Joachim. Namensring und Siegelring aus dem Gepidischen Grabfund von Apahida (Siebenbrgen). Klner Jahrbuch fr Vor- und Frhgeschichte 9 (1967 - 1968): 120-123.

21

Figures:

Fig. 1- 11. Finds from the grave of Omharus, Apahida I

Fig. 12- 21. Finds from Apahida II

Fig. 22 -23. Purse lid from Apahida II

Fig. 24. Saddle ornaments from Apahida II

Fig. 28. Fitting from Apahida II

Fig. 28 - 39. Assorted horse fittings from Apahida II

Fig. 40 - 41. Spatha fittings from Childeric burial Fig. 42 - 43. Seax scabbard fittings from Childeric burial

Fig. 44 - 45. Lost finds from Childeric burial, illustrated by Chiflet.

Fig. 47. Portrait ring of Childeric (replica)

Fig. 46. Crossbow fibula from Childeric burial, illustrated by Chiflet.

Fig. 48 - 49. Crossbow fibula from Innsbruck, possibly a 17th century replica of Childerics fibula.

Fig. 50 - 52. Left: Buckles, arm rings, fibula from Blucina,. Right: scabbard fittings from Blucina. Fig. 53 - 54. Top: scabbard fittings from Blucina. Bottom: Shoe buckles and fittings from Blucina.

Fig. 55 Left: Assemblage of Blucina grave goods.

Fig. 56. Reconstruction of Blucina man (Pavel Dvorsk!).

Fig. 57. Portrait of the Four Tetrarchs, Venice.

Fig. 58. Detail of the scabbard from the Four Tetrarchs.

Fig. 59. Diptych panel depicting Stilicho.

Fig. 60. Detail of Stilichos scabbard.

Fig. 61. Finds from tomb near Phasis, on eastern shore of Black Sea. After 276 CE.

Fig. 62. Finds from Aragvispiri Necropolis (near Tbilsi, Georgia). Mid-late 3rd century CE

Fig. 64. Top: Centralnyj necropolis, near Tanais. Bottom: Kazaklija tomb, Moldavia. Late 3rd - early 4th century.

Fig. 63. Nedvigovka Tomb, near Tanais. Late 3rd - early 4th century

Fig. 65. Wolfsheim Treasure, Germany First half of the 5th century (solidus of Valens, 364-378).

Fig. 66. Plaque inscribed with the name Ardashir in Pahlavi script.

Fig. 67 Buckle tongues from Apahida II

Fig. 69 Buckle tongue from Constantinople

Fig. 68 Buckle tongues from Tournai

Fig. 71. Apahida II fitting (see also fig. 28).

Fig. 70. Comparison of sixth century Sassanian seax wih Childeric and Apahida II fittings (after Arrhenius)

Fig. 72. Apahida II fitting (see also fig. 28).

Fig. 73. Finds from Pouan burial.

Fig. 74. Scabbard fittings from Pouan burial.

Fig. 75 - 76. Top: buckles, necklace, name ring, and arm ring from Pouan burial. Bottom: Buckles from Pouan burial.

Fig. 77 - 78. Apahida III buckle

Fig. 79. Schematic of Apahida III buckle illustrating correspondence to Roman measurement units.

Fig. 81. Buckle from Apahida I (Omharus grave)

Fig. 80. 1st - 4th century Roman belt buckles

Fig. 82. Buckle from Apahida II

Fig. 84. Horse fittings, Apahida II.

Fig. 83. Senmurv plate, 7th century. British Museum

Fig. 85. Senmurv jug, 5th-6th century. Hermitage