he Eerdmans Encyclopedia of Early Christian Art and Archaeology Paul Corby Finney, General Editor William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company Grand Rapids, Michigan Copyrighted material. Not for reproduction or distribution. May not be published on institutional repositories or academia.edu before 1 January 2019. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 2140 Oak Industrial Drive N.E., Grand Rapids, Michigan 49505 www.eerdmans.com © 2017 Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. All Rights Reserved Published 2017 Printed in the United States of America 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Set ISBN Vol. 1 (A-J) ISBN Vol. 2 (K-Z) ISBN Vol. 3 (Plates and Maps) ISBN 978-0-8028-3811-7 978-0-8028-9016-0 978-0-8028-9017-7 978-0-8028-9018-4 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress Slipcase illustration: Ivory panel (416 × 143 mm) with an archangel (probably Michael); right panel of a diptych (let panel lost). In his right hand the igure holds a globe surmounted by a Greek cross; in his let, a long staf, perhaps a scepter. he architectural setting consists in an arch supported by luted columns, capped with Corinthian capitals; there are steps beneath the plinths below let and right. Beneath the arch is a wreath enclosing a Greek cross; a scalloped shell frames the wreath. Above the arch, within a long narrow rectangular tabula, is written: +ΔΕΧΟΥ ΠΑΡΟΝΤΑ ΚΑΙ ΜΑΘΩΝ ΤΗΝ ΑΙΤΙΑΝ (“Receive the suppliant, although you know his guilt”); London.BM, OA.9999. (Photo courtesy Trustees of the British Museum) Copyrighted material. Not for reproduction or distribution. May not be published on institutional repositories or academia.edu before 1 January 2019. Jesus Christ: Old Testament Types Jewelry inds. Controlled excavations in which j. has come to light and has been retrieved and recorded following professional archaeological standards are rare. Corinth (Davidson, 1952) and Sardis (Waldbaum, 1983) are two exceptions to this rule of thumb. Most late antique j. has come into the public realm under circumstances that are murky or unknown; in short, a documented archaeological provenance is wanting for most of the evidence as we have it. In the absence of j. found in secure contexts, chronology is a major problem; there is a great deal of guesswork in assigning dates to late antique j. And without a secure chronological grid, type sequences for individual categories of late antique j. are also wanting (Migration Period [5th/6th-c.] buckles and ibulae [see below] constitute exceptions). From the early modern period going forward, ancient j. has largely been the domain of rich private collectors; in the 16th-19th c. this meant bishops and aristocrats. By the middle of the 19th c., with the “democratization” of collecting, the well-heeled European bourgeoisie began to collect ancient art, including late antique/early Christian artifacts (Finney, 2003), j. included. Historically, rich private collectors have been drawn to high-prestige items, and for j. this means gemstones and pieces executed in gold. And where rich collectors congregate, there too are forgers, esp. forgers of high-prestige j. But for the late antique period,  forgery of j. is a subject that still awaits critical analysis; the percentage of fake late antique/early Christian pieces of j. in public and private collections is still unclear. he transition to late antiquity did not bring any noticeable change in the techniques of manufacture, or in the types and materials of j. Changes in iconography appearing on j. also came rather slowly. he conservative nature of the crat and of its patronage circle is relected in these facts. As for production centers, Rome continued to dominate in the West. Alexandria was another center of j. manufacture, and there must have been several workshops in the Syro-Palestinian environment. Goldsmiths always followed rich patrons, and naturally in the Greek East this meant Constantinople, which was evidently a center of j. production in late antiquity (although how important the capital was has not been determined). Jesus Christ: Old Testament Types Multiple OT igures were enlisted to render the image of Jesus Christ in early Christian art. he list is long. An online inventory can be found at ica.princeton.edu. Ed. Jesus Christ: Portrait  Portrait: Jesus Christ Jewelry  Ornament worn on the body, displayed typically at the following places: • head: top (crown) • head: forehead ( Diadem; see Damm, 2000, ig. 10.3; Deér, 1950; 1955; 1966; Randall, 1979, no. 420) • neck (necklace: below; neck ring,  Torque) • nose and ears (rings attached by piercing the body parts; earring: below) • arm (above and below the elbow;  Armband) • wrist (bracelet: below) • inger ( Finger Ring) • upper torso (pectoral: Weitzmann.1979, nos. 295-96). Some j. in late antiquity was attached directly to body parts and hence displayed against a skin-colored ground. Other j. was attached to fabric and thus displayed against a backdrop of varying chromatic values. Belt ornament (buckle: below) and upper-torso ornament (ibula: below) are examples of the latter. he materials of late antique j. were of four kinds:  bone (e.g., inger rings),  glass (e.g., inger rings and pendants), lithics ( Gemstone: Engraved), and  metal: precious, base, and alloyed. In addition, there was some limited late antique production of j. in other alloyed materials, such as glass paste (“tassies”),  enamel, and niello (Lat. nigellus = black metallic alloy of sulfur with silver, copper, or lead). Within the history of j. in antiquity, the years 200-600 signal a high-water mark. Colored stones, gold and silver, polychromatic amalgams, rich textures, and opulent design with multiple colored stones and precious metals — these all are characteristics of the late antique  aesthetic, which was much taken with visual displays of jeweled surfaces. his late antique love of polychromatic ornament is nicely mirrored in the worlds of poetry and rhetoric (M. Roberts, he Jeweled Style [Ithaca, 1989];  Prudentius). As in earlier periods of ancient history, gemstones and precious metals were sought ater as materials of high prestige, a fact of unparalleled importance in evaluating j. and placing it in a late antique social context. Sources for the study of j. in late antiquity are of two kinds: direct (the extant material evidence) and indirect (documentary sources, literary sources, and iconography). Indirect evidence can be a useful source of information, but its evidentiary value is secondary. he direct evidence is far more reliable. In the realm of literary sources there is a famous early Christian anti-j. moralizing strain, consisting of invectives against wealth and its ostentatious display (Clement’s Paid. is the most famous example; Chrys. also participated in the genre). his continued an older, Roman Republican puritanism that was esp. pronounced in the late Republic and in the antisumptuary legislation under the Augustan principate. he value of this literary tradition for the study of j. in late antiquity is marginal. he retrieval of late antique j. is largely a narrative of chance Armband his type of ornament, worn above or just below the elbow, was called armilla (OLD, s.v.) or bracchiale (Pliny, NH 25.129, 28.82, 28.261, 32.8). A common distinction (in English) between armband (worn on the upper or lower arm) and bracelet (worn on the wrist) is diicult to discern in Latin or Greek. Nevertheless, there are some extant examples of armbands dating to the period of late antiquity. Belt and Buckle he wearing of a belt was common with various kinds of ancient  clothing and at various levels of society, from the bottom to the top. Authors frequently used cingullum (marriage belt; see OLD, s.v.) or cingulum (belt or band wound round the midsection) for females and cinctus (OLD, s.v.) for males. But most belts were made of perishable materials, fabric or leather, and hence most of the direct evidence has not survived. Iconography indicates that belts were worn throughout late antiquity. In ivory reliefs, the Probus diptych in Aosta (Volbach.1976, no. 1) and the Pantomime igure on the Berlin fragment (no. 79) are representative: a fabric sash wound about the midsection and tied in front. For the study of j. the belt is important indirectly, because belts were embellished with metal and gemstone ittings attached to the belting material. hese ittings, or buckles, survive in large numbers and constitute an important category of late antique j. An 742 Copyrighted material. Not for reproduction or distribution. May not be published on institutional repositories or academia.edu before 1 January 2019. Jewelry Jewelry nently a Hellenistic type) declined signiicantly in importance in late antiquity. Most of the late antique evidence for these headdress types is iconographic; direct evidence is thin (see Deér, 1950; 1955; 1960). In early Christian iconography the martyr’s crown plays an important role in the 4th and 5th c. (e.g., Morey.1959, nos. 29, 36-37, 50, 58, 65-67, etc.). For 7th-c. Visigothic Spain the votive crowns (gold frames set with amethyst, emerald, garnet, glass, jasper, pearl, rock crystal, sapphire) in the Guarrazar Treasury are noteworthy (see O’Neill et al., 1993, nos. 12a-e). he crown set with gemstones (exempliied by the votive crowns just mentioned) is a product of the late 4th c. he type is attested iconographically on the missorium of heodosius, on the Probus diptych (above), on multiple 5th/6th-c. numismatic issues ( Coin), and on the socalled Colossus of Barletta (perhaps representing Emperor Marcian, 450-57). his same type of gold crown set with gemstones and pendant pearls is represented at S. Vitale and Sant’Apollinare Nuovo (Ravenna). excellent iconographic example (again in ivory) of a rectangular buckle itted with a large gemstone (perhaps a sardonyx or agate) worn at the center of the torso just beneath the breasts can be seen in the relief image of Serena (daughter of Honorius and wife of Stilicho) on the famous diptych (ca. 400, possibly executed in a Milan workshop) in the Monza Cathedral Treasury (ibid., no. 63). he belt that Serena wears is also studded with gemstones; in mosaic iconography similar belts can be seen worn by Mary at S. Maria Maggiore (Rome) and by the virgins in procession at Sant’Apollinare Nuovo (Ravenna). A 6th-c. ivory buckle is in the Musée de l’Arles Antique ( Arles, plate 9). he Barbarian evidence (commencing in the mid-5th c.) of ornamental buckles is substantial (see Bierbrauer, 1975; 1980; 2000; Boube, 1960; Brown, 1995; Damm; Garam, 2000, ig. 15.9; Gonosová & Kondoleon, 1994, nos. 49-54; Paroli, 2000, igs. 13.10, 12-15; Périn, 2000, igs. 21.39-47; Ripoll López, 2000, igs. 17.4-17; Roth, 2000). Some of the evidence has been excavated under controlled circumstances by professional archaeologists, and type sequences exist based on regional classiication systems. Ornamental Barbarian buckles were fabricated (cast) in gold and bronze. hey were oten engraved with a mixed repertory, part plant and geometric abstractions, part theriomorphs (some of them derived from Sasanian prototypes). Lyre-shaped buckles have been connected with the Imperial court at Constantinople, and the late 6th-c. treasure found near coastal Mersin-Zapyron (southwest of Tarsus in western  Cilicia) contained buckles and other gold movables connected with high-status Germanic tribal people; see below on the Mersin Treasure pendant. Earring It appears that women wore earrings in late antiquity and men did not, although Augustine (Ep. 245.2, written ca. 410) laments the fact that some men are given to wearing a single earring. Isidore (Etym. 19.31.10) calls the same custom “Greek”: males wearing an earring on the right ear. Christian authors oten repeat injunctions (to women) against the wearing of earrings and the piercing of ears. In early Christian iconography of Mary and female saints, earrings are generally absent; in the real world, however, earrings were an extremely popular form of late antique j. he range of manufactured types was very broad, and markets in which this form of j. were distributed must have been quite active in the years 200-600. here is no type sequence, and professionally excavated pieces are relatively rare. Chronology is problematic for most pieces. Most of the examples that survive relect earlier Greek and Roman precedents (Buckton.1994, nos. 101-4; Damm, igs. 10.5-7; Deppert-Lippitz, ig. 7.4; Gonosová & Kondoleon, nos. 19-30, color plates 8-11; Hessen, 1971; Menghin, 2000, igs. 12.2c, 12.4; O’Neill et al., ig. 13; Périn, igs. 21.2-5; Vallet, 2000, ig. 3.9). Late antique earrings have two component parts: the hoop and the attachments to the hoop. he hoop metal may be precious or base. At the end where it is meant to pierce the lobe, the hoop is oten tapered and usually worked as a simple wire (i.e., not twisted or soldered with projecting features). Less common is a hoop that has been twisted in a spiral pattern (Damm, ig. 10.6; Gonosová & Kondoleon, no. 23). he sections of the hoop not intended to pass through the lobe may be itted with soldered sockets to accommodate paste (see Adams, 2003) or gemstone inserts (see Hessen, 1971). As for attachments to the hoop, these come in multiple forms: baskets, cubes, plaited gold strands with pendant pearls (Deppert-Lippitz, ig. 7.4; Gonosová & Kondoleon, no. 26, color plate 11; Randall, no. 447), polyhedra, lunulate gold sheet that is either pierced or chased or both (ibid, nos. 24-25; Buckton.1994, nos. 101-3), gemstone pendants attached with a wire pierced through the body of the stone (Gonosová & Kondoleon, nos. 20-21; see O’Neill et al., no. 12b, and Weitzmann, nos. 284, 289), and openwork wheels (Gonosová & Kondoleon, no. 23). his is only a sampling; there are numerous other attachment forms. Bracelet (Lat. armilla, bracchiale, spinter) C. Lepage (1971) gives a short survey of examples that fall under this rubric, covering the 2nd-6th c. he type is understood (in English) as a hoop worn at the wrist, in contrast to an armband worn elsewhere on the arm. Bracelets in late antiquity were executed in precious and base metals, in glass and bone (for a Coptic ivory example in the Walters Art Gallery, see Randall, no. 424). Bracelets in gold became heavier in the East during the 5th and 6th c. Openwork technique ( Opus Interrasile; Diatretus; Metalwork: Pierced) applied to bracelets (pierced laminae formed into tubes) became popular in the post-Constantinian period (see Buckton, 1983-84; Gonosová & Kondoleon, no. 16; Ogden, 1982, colorplate 3; Weitzmann.1979, no. 280). A good early Christian example is the gold bracelet (plate 68) composed of a central medallion featuring a frontal portrait of the heotokos and an open-work hoop ornamented with an  inhabited scroll (Buckton.1994, no. 99; see Buckton, 1983-84, ig. 6). For related late antique bracelets from Rome and possibly from Egypt, see DeppertLippitz, 2000, color pls. 1-2; igs. 7.5-9, 7.14-17. A chronological grid is wanting, as is a type sequence. Tertullian mentions uiriae (Pall. 4), and Isidore (Etym. 19.31) also mentions uiriolae; these must have been bracelets (or possibly armbands) rewarded to soldiers for valor in battle. Crown and Diadem he crown was an Imperial  insigne, as was the  diadem (see E. Piltz, “Insignien,” RBK 3 [1979], s.v.; fake late antique funerary diadems: Gonosová & Kondoleon, no. 126). Of the two, the crown was clearly the more common type in late antiquity, although both are attested, directly and indirectly. In the late 4th-6th c., gold torques were used as ersatz crowns in coronation ceremonies. he forms of crowns difered, perhaps signifying distinct powers, some military, some judicial, some religious. he Imperial headdress for male and female also difered. It appears the diadem (preemi- Fibula (Lat. igo + bula): Pin, Clasp, Brooch Two types are attested in late Roman archaeology: the straight pin (Randall, nos. 373, 377, 407-10) and the safety pin. he former consists of a narrow piece of stif wire, tapered and pointed at the end. he latter is also made of stif wire that, however, is bent 743 Copyrighted material. Not for reproduction or distribution. May not be published on institutional repositories or academia.edu before 1 January 2019. Jewelry Jewelry had been inscribed (and ensouled), typically it was rolled up and inserted into a cylindrical capsule, which was oten suspended from a chain and hung round the neck or carried otherwise on one’s person as an  apotropaion. In the study of j., lamellae of this sort might be denominated pendants (below). he early Hellenistic, Orphic lamellae have been proposed as prototypes (Kotansky, 1991, 114f.). Jewish phylacteries were derivatives of the type. back on itself to form a spring and itted with a plate (or sheath or guard) to cover the point and prevent accidental fastening. In late antiquity it was common to solder ornamental plates to both types of pins. It is the ornamental plates that have constituted the focus of archaeological scholarship over the past 150 years. he broad range of plate types includes theriomorphs executed in bronze sheeting with glass and gemstone inserts (plate 69) and openwork gold laminae (below) formed on a design resembling a crossbow (plate 70; see Deppert-Lippitz, 66-70). Both males and females used ibulae (Isid., Etym. 19.31.17; Proc., Bell. Vand. 1.25) to secure and fasten garments. Beyond the latter, which was the purely functional purpose, ibulae were symbols of status and power, esp. (but not exclusively) in the Germanic kingdoms. High-status persons (e.g., Arcadius, Galla Placidia, Justinian, Licinia Eudoxia, Stilicho, heodora, heodosius, and Valentinian II) are represented in the pictorial arts with conspicuous ibulae as markers of their importance. Christ and the Archangel Gabriel are also shown wearing ibulae at Sant’Apollinare in Classe (Ravenna). Extant direct evidence is extensive (esp. in Migration Period archaeology). Relative chronologies have been worked out based on examples excavated together with dated, associated inds. Type sequences also have been established (see Bierbrauer, 2000; Damm, ig. 10.8; Deppert-Lippitz, igs. 7.10-13; Gonosová & Kondoleon, nos. 55-56; Menghin, igs. 12f-g; Nieveler, 2000, ig. 4.16; O’Neill et al., nos. 23-24; Paroli, igs. 13.20-23; Ripoll López, igs. 17.1-3; Vallet, igs. 3.9-12). Necklace Cord, chain, or plaited wire worn around the neck. Metal chain in late antiquity consisted of links that were joined; wire was also plaited (interlaced or woven) to constitute the primary structure of a necklace (plates 71-72). Rigid, tubular, or solid gold rod formed into a neck ring was a third type common in late antiquity (see Brown, 1995, ig. 22; Damm, 102f.). Beads were typically pierced (drilled) and strung on wire to form necklaces; pierced amethysts and emeralds were esp. popular on late antique necklaces (Weitzmann, no. 286). Pendants in glass, metal, and stone were attached to late Roman necklace chain and wire (see Deppert-Lippitz, 5861: Piazza della Consolazione necklaces). Pendant In the study of j., a pendant is any object of ornament worn on the body and displayed by hanging or suspension. In late antiquity, crowns, earring hoops, and necklace chain were the primary props from which pendants were suspended. he primary material of late antique pendants was metal (both precious and base), esp. laminae that were cut or stamped into circular or lunate ( Pendant, plate 120) forms. Bracteates, coins, medals, medallions, and lunulate laminae were all exhibited, either alone or framed, with a loop attached to the upper rim. Open-work technique plays a conspicuous role as the ornament of laminae functioning as pendants. he second most common form of late antique pendant was the pierced gemstone (or pearl) suspended on a wire passed through the body of the stone. he two cameocut agates in the Paris pendant (Weitzmann, no. 279) are unique ( Bulla). he third category consists of glass medallions with a glass loop attached to the upper rim; this type of pendant is poorly published and not well understood ( Glass: Pendant). Most late antique pendants have come into public collections from vendors working in the antiquities trade; examples retrieved and recorded in controlled excavations are rare. here is no type sequence for pendant metals or for pendant gemstones; dating is mostly a matter of informed conjecture. For the (gold) pieces, which command high prices at auction,  forgery is a persistent issue. Late antique pendant types include the following: • gold coins ( Solidus) set in an opus interrasile frame (Buckton, 1983-1984, color plate no. 1; Buckton.1994, no. 98; Weitzmann, no. 276) • gold medallion exhibiting opposing proiles of a male and female (a so-called marriage portrait; Deppert-Lippitz, igs. 7.2-3) • gold medallion set with glass and gemstone inserts (Weitzmann, no. 283) • gold openwork medallion (Gonosová & Kondoleon, color plate no. 12) • gold medallion with a central image of a winged female igure (ibid., color plate no. 14) • gold medallion with a proile portrait of Alexander ( Contorniate) set in an opus interrasile frame (Randall, no. 331) • gold opus interrasile leaf, medallions, gold capsule, and gold cross (Bank, 1985, no. 99) from the Mersin Treasure (plate 73) Finger Ring Metal hoops (gold, silver, bronze, base alloys) worn round a inger; the evidence for the years 200-600 is extensive. Some examples (in the West) come from controlled excavations. here is no type sequence per se, but F. Henkel’s study (1913) of Rhenish examples is still very valuable in laying out a range of types, as is C. Beckmann’s study (1967) of types found in Germany beyond the Roman limes. Gemstone Uncut stones and engraved gemstones survive from the years 200600. he size of the total corpus (East and West) is unknown. Fundgemmen (stones excavated under controlled circumstances) are rare. Chronology is uncertain. here is no type sequence. Lamina A thin sheet of beaten metal; in the case of j., the material used was typically gold or silver. Base metal laminae are less common. One of the commonest Migration Period by-products of thin gold sheeting was the bracteate, a medallion that was formed by impressing (embossing) gold sheeting over an engraved (cameocut) wood mold. Loops were commonly attached to the rim of bracteates so that they could be worn hanging from a chain as pendants (Axboe & Arrhenius, 1982). he Metropolitan Museum (New York) recently acquired a superb example (diam. 4.8 cm) of a gold bracteate (2001.583). he bracteates, found in 1817, together with a coin dating to 443 (heodosius II) at Tjurkö (Blekinge archipelago), are famous for their Runic inscriptions. he male embosser of laminae was called brattarius (CIL 6:95); his female counterpart, brattaria (6:9211); we know that under Constantine the skills of these persons were highly valued, as evidenced in the fact that the government accorded them tax-exempt status. Many laminae exhibit open-work ornament. Students of magic oten use the diminutive form (lamina + la = lamella) to denote a tiny strip of gold sheet or foil on which words of power were inscribed ( Word Magic). Once a miniature foil 744 Copyrighted material. Not for reproduction or distribution. May not be published on institutional repositories or academia.edu before 1 January 2019. Jewelry Jewelry Böhme, A. “Frauenschmuck der römischen Kaiserzeit,” AW 3 (1978): 3-16. Bordenache Battaglia, G. Corredi funerari di età imperiale e barbarica nel Museo nazionale romano (Rome, 1983). Boube, J. “Fibules et garnitures de ceinture d’époque romaine tardive,” BAM 4 (1960): 319-79. Breglia, L. Catalogo delle oreicerie del Museo nazionale di Napoli (Rome, 1941). Bréhier, L. La sculpture et les arts mineurs byzantins (Paris, 1936). Brown, K. R. “he Mosaic of S. Vitale: Evidence for the Attribution of Some Early Byzantine Jewelry to Court Workshops,” Gesta 18 (1979): 57-62. ―. “A Note on the Morgan Bracelet in the Metropolitan Museum,” Byzantine Studies 9 (1982): 48-51. ―. Frankish Art in American Collections (New York, 1984). ―. he Gold Breast Chain from the Early Byzantine Period in the Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum (Mainz, 1984). ―. Migration Art, a.d. 300-800 (New York, 1995). Brown, K. R., D. Kidd & C. T. Little, eds. From Attila to Charlemagne: Arts of the Early Medieval Period in the Metropolitan Museum of Art (New York, 2000). Buckton, D. “he Beauty of Holiness: Opus interrasile from a Late Antique Workshop,” Jewellery Studies 1 (1983-1984): 15-19. Buckton.1994. Chavane, M.-J. Salamine de Chypre, vol. 6: Les petits objets (Paris, 1975). Coche de la Ferté, E. Antique Jewellery from the Second to the Eighth Century a.d. (Bern, 1967). Content, D. J. Glyptic Arts, Ancient Jewelry: An Annotated Bibliography (Crow Hill, 1985). Ćorović Ljubinković, M. “Les arts mineurs de la Serbie du Moyen Âge et Byzance,” CorsiRav 10 (1963): 147-79. D’Angela, C. “Le oreicerie bizantine del Museo nazionale di Taranto,” VetChr 21 (1984): 181-96. Damm, I. G. “Huns and Goths: Jewelry from the Ukraine and Southern Russia,” in From Attila to Charlemagne, ed. Brown et al. (2000), 102-19, igs. 10.10-12: Ostrogothic buckles; 10.4, 14-17: shoe buckles. Dannheimer, H. Byzantinische Grabfunde aus Sizilien (Munich, 1989). Davidson, G. R. he Minor Objects, Corinth 12 (Princeton, 1952). Davidson, P. F., & A. Oliver. Ancient Greek and Roman Gold Jewelry in the Brooklyn Museum (Brooklyn, 1984). Deér, J. D. “Der Ursprung der Kaiserkrone,” Schweizer Beiträge zur allgemeinen Geschichte 8 (1950): 51-87. ―. “Die Frauendiademe im spätrömisch-byzantinischen Zeremoniell,” in Herrschatszeichen und Staatssymbolik, 3 vols., SMGH 13 (Stuttgart, 1954-56), 2:445-49. ―. Die heilige Krone Ungarns (Vienna, 1966). Degani, M. Il tesoro romano barbarico di Reggio Emilia (Florence, 1959). Delvoye, C. “Les ateliers d’art somptuaire à Costantinople,” CorsiRav 12 (1965): 171-210. Dennison, W. A Gold Treasure of the Late Roman Period (New York, 1918). Deppert-Lippitz, B. “Late Roman and Early Byzantine Jewelry,” in From Attila to Charlemagne, ed. Brown et al. (2000), 58-77. De Rinaldis, A. “Senise, monili d’oro di età barbaric,” NSc (1916): 329-32. Devoto, G., & A. Molayem. Archeogemmologia pietre antiche, glittica, magia e litoterapia (Rome, 1990). Dimitrov, D. I. “Trésor en or de Varna des débuts de l’époque byzantine,” BAN 5 (1963): 35-40. • gold amphorae and leaves (Weitzmann, no. 285) • gold medallions with images of the heotokos and the baptism of Christ (ibid., no. 287) • gold, lapis, and pearl shell with an image of  Aphrodite (ibid., no. 288) • gold medallion with images of the Annunciation and the  wedding at Cana miracle (ibid., no. 296) • gold cross (ibid., no. 301) • gold cross with garnet cabochon (Gonosová & Kondoleon, no. 38) • gold cross with granulation (ibid., no. 33) • gold, garnet, glass Ostrogothic collar mount (Menghin, ig. 12.3) • bronze cross (Gonosová & Kondoleon, no. 40) • steatite cross (ibid., no. 39) • sardonyx mounted in a gold setting and engraved with a  Christogram (ibid., no. 32). One of the more intriguing examples (plate 74) is the large (diam. 7.9 cm) gold medallion suspended from a chain of 20 identically stamped smaller gold medallions in a necklace attributed to the Mersin Treasure (Weitzmann, no. 62; Bank, no. 95). he large medallion shows the coronation of Constantine lanked by two female  personiications, a horned Luna to the let (reminiscent of Tanit) and a crowned Sol to the right (the spiked crown reminiscent of late 3rd-c. numismatic types;  Coin). Constantine stands facing front holding a long cross. Below Constantine’s feet are abstractions of birds feeding from a  kantharos. In the irst concentric annular surround there are plant abstractions; in the second, prancing animals. Bibliography Adams, N. “Sources of Cloisonné Enamel: Some Early Fused Gold and Glass Inlays,” in hrough a Glass Brightly: Studies in Byzantine and Medieval Art and Archaeology Presented to David Buckton, ed. C. Entwistle (Oxford, 2003), 37-46. Alarcão, J., et al. Fouilles de Conimbriga, vol. 7 (Paris, 1979). Amandry, P. Collection Hélène Stathatos, vol. 3: Objets antiques et byzantins (Strasbourg, 1963). Angiolini Martinelli, P. “Il costume femminile nei mosaici ravennati,” CorsiRav 16 (1969): 7-64. Axboe, M., & B. Arrhenius. “On the Manufacture of the Gold Bracteates,” FS 16 (1982): 302-18. Babritsa, A. K. “Anaskafe Kratigou Mytilenes,” PAAE (1954): 317-29. Baldini Lippolis, I. “Gli orecchini a corpo semilunato. Classiicazione tipologica,” CorsiRav 38 (1991): 67-101. ―. L’oreiceria nell’impero di Costantinopoli (Bari, 1999). Bank, A. Byzantine Arts in the Collections of Soviet Museums, 3rd ed. (Leningrad, 1985). Becatti, G. Oreicerie antiche dalle minoiche alle barbariche (Rome, 1955). Beckmann, C. “Metallingerringe der römischen Kaiserzeit im freien Germanien,” SaalJb 24 (1967): 7-106. Beliaev, A. “La ibule à Byzance,” SemKond 3 (1929): 49-101. Bierbrauer, V. Die ostgotischen Grab- und Schatzfunder in Italien (Spoleto, 1975). ―. “Frühgeschichtliche Akkulturationsprozesse in der germanischen Staaten am Mittelmeer,” in Atti del VI congresso internationale di studi sull’alto medieovo (Spoleto, 1980), 89-106. ―. “A Luxury Brooch from the Second Szilágy-Somlyó Treasure?” in From Attila to Charlemagne: Arts of the Early Medieval Period in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, ed. K. R. Brown, D. Kidd & C. T. Little (New York, 2000), 90-99. 745 Copyrighted material. Not for reproduction or distribution. May not be published on institutional repositories or academia.edu before 1 January 2019. Jewelry Jewelry dalle origini alla ine del Medioevo, 3000 a.C.–1500 c.C. (Florence, 1975). Manière Lévêque, A. M. “L’évolution des bijoux ‘aristocratiques’ féminins à travers les trésors proto-byzantins d’orfèvrerie,” RA (1997): 79-106. Marshall, F. H. Catalogue of the Jewellery, Greek, Etruscan, and Roman in the Departments of Antiquities, British Museum (London, 1911). Melucco Vaccaro, A. “Oreicerie altomedievali da Arezzo. Contributo al problema dell’origine e della difusione degli orecchini a cestello,” BollA 57 (1972): 8-19. Menghin, W. “he Domagnano Treasure,” in From Attila to Charlemagne, ed. Brown et al. (2000), 132-39. Metzger, C. “Les bijoux monetaires dans l’antiquité tardive,” Les Dossiers de l’archéologie 40 (1980): 82-90. ―. “Colliers, diadèmes ou ceintures? Eléments de bijoux consus dell’antiquité tardive,” Revue du Louvre et des musées de France 30 (1980): 1-5. ―. Musée du Louvre, bijoux grecs, étrusques et romains (Paris, 1983). Miner, D. E. Early Christian and Byzantine Art (Baltimore, 1947). Nieveler, E. “he Niederbreisig Collection,” in From Attila to Charlemagne, ed. Brown et al. (2000), 28-41. Ogden, J. Jewellry of the Ancient World (New York, 1982). O’Neill, J. P., et al., eds. he Art of Medieval Spain, a.d. 500-1200 (New York, 1993). Orsi, P. “Byzantina Siciliae III: Oreicerie bizantine del R. Museo di Siracusa e della Sicilia,” BZ 19 (1910): 462-75. Pani Ermini, L., & M. Marinone. Catalogo del materiali palaocristiani e altomedievali. Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Cagliari (Rome, 1981). Paroli, L. “he Langobardic Finds and the Archaeology of Central Italy,” in From Attila to Charlemagne, ed. Brown et al. (2000), 140-63. Périn, P. “Aspects of Late Merovingian Costume in the Morgan Collection,” in From Attila to Charlemagne, ed. Brown et al. (2000), 242-67, igs. 21.39-47: Frankish copper-alloy buckles, late 6th/early 7th c. Peroni, A. Oreicerie e metalli lavorati tardoantichi e altomedievali del territorio di Pavia (Spoleto, 1967). Petrassi, M. Gli ori in Italia (Rome, 1985). Pfeiler, B. Römischer Goldschmuck des ersten und zweiten Jahrhunderts n. Chr. nach datierten Funden (Mainz, 1970). Pieridou, A. Jewellery in the Cyprus Museum (Nicosia, 1971). Pirzio Biroli Stefanelli, L. L’oro dei Romani. Gioielli di età imperiale (Rome, 1992). Possenti, E. Gli orecchini a cestello altomedievali in Italia (Florence, 1994). Randall, R. H., Jr., ed. Jewelry: Ancient to Modern (New York, 1979). Ripoll López, G. “Visigothic Jewelry of the Sixth and Seventh Centuries,” in From Attila to Charlemagne, ed. Brown et al. (2000), 188-203, igs. 17.4-17: Visigothic and Hispano-Visigothic buckles. Ross, M. C. Arts of the Migration Period in the Walters Art Gallery (Baltimore, 1961). ―. Catalogue of the Byzantine and Early Medieval Antiquities in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection, 2 vols. (Washington, D.C., 1965). ―. “Jewels of Byzantium,” Arts in Virginia 9 (1968): 12-31. Roth, H. “he Silver-Inlaid Iron Belt Fittings in the Morgan Collection,” in From Attila to Charlemagne, ed. Brown et al. (2000), 292-307. Ebersolt, J. Les arts somptuaires de Byzance (Paris, 1923). el-Chehadeh, J. “Untersuchungen zum antiken Schmuck in Syrien” (Ph.D. diss., Freie Universität, Berlin, 1972). Entwistle, C., ed. hrough a Glass Brightly: Studies in Byzantine and Medieval Art and Archaeology Presented to David Buckton (Oxford, 2003). Ergil, T. Küpeler. İstanbul Arkeoloji Müzeleri Küpeler Kataloğu (Istanbul, 1983). Fallicao, A. M. “Sul tesoro bizantino di Pantalica,” Sileno 1 (1975): 311-30. Farioli Campanati, R. “La cultura artistica nelle regioni bizantine d’Italia dal VI all’XI secolo. Le arti suntuarie,” in I Bizantini in Italia, ed. G. Cavallo et al. (Milan, 1982), 333-415. ―. “Il reliquiario e l’arte per la liturgia,” in Splendori di Bisanzio. Testimonianze e rilessi d’arte e cultura bizantina nelle chiese d’Italia (Milan, 1990), 125-205. Finney, P. C. “Senicianus’ Ring,” BJbb 194 (1994): 175-96. ―. “Abbé James Hamilton: Antiquary, Patron of the Arts, Victorian Anglo-Catholic,” in hrough a Glass Brightly, ed. Entwistle (2003), 190-98. Formigli, E. Tecniche dell’oreiceria Etrusca e Romana. Originali e falsiicazioni (Florence, 1985). Fuchs, S. Die langobardischen Goldblattkreuze aus der Zone südwärts der Alpen (Berlin, 1938). Garam, É. “he Vrap Treasure,” in From Attila to Charlemagne, ed. Brown et al. (2000), 170-79. Gjerstad, E. he Hellenistic and Roman Periods in Cyprus, ed. O. Vessberg & A. Westholm, Swedish Cyprus Expedition 4.3 (Stockholm, 1956). Gonosová, A., & C. Kondoleon. Art of Late Rome and Byzantium in the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts (Richmond, 1994). Grabar, A. “Un médaillon en or provenant de Mersine en Cilicie,” DOP 6 (1951): 27-49. Greifenhagen, A. Schmuckarbeiten in Edelmetall, 2 vols. (Berlin, 1971-74). Grierson, P. “he Kyrenia Girdle of Byzantine Medallions and Solidi,” NumChr, 6th ser., 15 (1955): 55-70. Hackens, T., & R. Winkes, eds. Gold Jewelry: Crat, Style, and Meaning from Mycenae to Constantinopolis (Louvain-la-Neuve, 1983). Henig, M. “Continuity and Change in the Design of Roman Jewellery,” in he Roman West in the hird Century, ed. A. King & M. Henig, BAR.Int 109 (Oxford, 1981), 1.127-43. Henkel, F. Die römischen Fingerringe der Rheinlande (Berlin, 1913). Hessen, O. von. “Zwei byzantinische Grabfunde aus Sizilien,” Bayerische Vorgeschichtsblätter 36 (1971): 333-38. ―. “Langobardische Goldblattkreuze aus Italien,” in Die Goldblattkreuze des frühen Mittelalters, ed. W. Hübener (Fribourg, 1975), 113-22. ―. “Some ‘Langobardic’ Earrings,” in From Attila to Charlemagne, ed. Brown et al. (2000), 164-69. Heurgon, J. Le trésor de Ténès (Paris, 1958). Higgins, R. A. Greek and Roman Jewellery (London, 1980). Janes, D. God and Gold in Late Antiquity (Cambridge, 1998). Klauser, T. “Fibeln,” RAC 7 (1969), s.v. Kotansky, R. “Incantations and Prayers for Salvation on Inscribed Greek Amulets,” in Magika Hiera, ed. C. A. Faraone & D. Obbink (New York, 1991), 107-37. Laineur, R. “Collection Paul Canellopoulos, XV. Bijoux en or grecs et romains,” BCH 104 (1980): 345-457. Lepage, C. “Les bracelets de luxe romains et byzantins du IIe au VIe siècle,” CA 21 (1971): 1-23. Lipinsky, A. Oro, argento, gemme e smalti. Tecnologia delle arti 746 Copyrighted material. Not for reproduction or distribution. May not be published on institutional repositories or academia.edu before 1 January 2019. Jewish Art Jewish Art Shelton, K. J. “he Esquiline Treasure: he Nature of the Evidence,” AJA 89 (1985): 147-55. Siviero, R. Gli ori e le ambre del Museo nazionale di Napoli (Florence, 1954). Sodini, J.-P. “L’artisanat urbain à l’époque paleóchrétienne (IVeVIIIe s.),” Ktema 4 (1979): 71-119. Spier, J. “A Byzantine Pendant in the J. Paul Getty Museum,” J. Paul Getty Museum Journal 15 (1987): 5-14. Spieser, J. M. “Collection Paul Canellopoulos II: Bagues romaines et médiévales,” BCH 96 (1972): 117-35. Stylianou, A., & J. Stylianon. he Treasures of Lambousa (Nicosia, 1969). Tait, H. Seven housand Years of Jewellery (London, 1986). Vallet, F. “he Golden Age of Merovingian Archaeology,” in From Attila to Charlemagne, ed. Brown et al. (2000), 12-27. Vierck, H. “Folienkreuze als Votivgraben,” in Die Goldblattkreuze des frühen Mittelalters, ed. W. Hübener (Bühl, 1975), 125-43. Vikan, G. “Early Christian and Byzantine Rings in the Zucker Family Collection,” JWalt 45 (1987): 32-43. ―. “Guided by Land and Sea: Pilgrim Art and Pilgrim Travel in Early Byzantium,” in Tesserae. Festschrit für Josef Engemann, JbAC suppl. 18 (Münster, 1991), 74-92. Waldbaum, J. C. Metalwork from Sardis: he Finds through 1974 (London, 1983). Yerolanou, A. “he Byzantine Openwork Gold Plaque in the Walters Art Gallery,” JWalt 46 (1988): 2-10. ―. Diatrita: Gold Pierced-Work Jewellery from the hird to the Seventh Century (Athens, 1999). Zouhdi, B. “Les inluences réciproques entre l’Orient et l’Occident. D’après les bijoux du Musée national de Damas,” AAASyr 21 (1971): 95-103. ―. “Les bijoux antiques du Musée national de Damas,” in Archéologie et histoire de la Syrie, vol. 2: La Syrie de l’époque achéménide à l’avènement de l’Islam, ed. J. M. Dentzer & W. Orthmann (Saarbrücken, 1989), 557-65. I.B.L. & Ed. torians began to familiarize themselves with the pictorial arts of Judaism from the period of late antiquity; and ater World War II it became clear (Gutmann, 1971) that early Christian biblical iconography contained details that could be best explained in the light of rabbinic exegesis. In the three decades following World War II a broad consensus emerged. Study of the Ashburnham Pentateuch and the Byzantine  Octateuchs conirmed suspicions about the Jewish inluences (Talmud, Midrash, Targum) on the iconography of these Christian illustrated Bibles. Various studies appeared (Schubert, 1974) demonstrating that rabbinic attitudes toward the visual arts became less rigoristic in the period of the early Roman Empire, thereby inviting the development of distinctly Jewish iconographies. H. Brandenburg challenged the consensus in 1975 (published in 1978), but J. Fink (1978) responded by suggesting that Brandenburg’s essay was little more than a step backward because in a strange way it elevated to the status of an absolute the well-known fact that early Christian art borrowed substantially from Hellenistic and Greco-Roman (pagan) late antique models. Brandenburg’s student R. Stichel (1979) continued the argument against the Jewish origins of early Christian art. J. Gutmann also joined this camp. W. Tronzo (1986), a student of E. Kitzinger, took a more moderate view on the possibility of Jewish models for the iconography found in the Via Latina catacomb. But the discovery of ever more rabbinic inluences (Mazal, 1980; Revel-Neher, 1984) has continued. A symposium (Vienna, 1990) dedicated to the Jewish origins of early Christian art presented a summary of the evidence for rabbinic inluences in early Christian book illustration; this was published in Kairos 32-33 (1990-91). An important argument in favor of Jewish models comes from the evidence of images in the Dura Synagogue (Weitzmann & Kessler, 1990). Gutmann expressed (1988) the counterargument, underscoring the diferences between the iconography found at the Dura Synagogue and early Christian types; he also observed that early Christian frescoes dating to the later 200s could not possibly have been inluenced by a monument (the Dura Synagogue) that was so close in time. But this argument is wrong on two counts; it ignores the probability that there existed earlier Jewish models that were no doubt copied at Dura, and it also ignores the equally strong probability that there existed other synagogues contemporaneous with Dura and embellished with pictorial cycles; these lost monuments would surely help clarify the relationship between Jewish pictorial recensions of OT subject matter and their Christian cognates. It seems very likely that beyond Dura there were other Jewish pictures in circulation during the 3rd c. In fact, a zoographia is attested on the ceiling of the Sardis synagogue (L. Robert, Nouvelles inscriptions de Sardes [Paris, 1964], 49), and a “Eudoxios zographos” in Rome’s Vigna Randanini catacomb (J. B. Frey, CIJ 1 [Vatican City, 1936], no. 109). A further argument against the acceptance of the Jewish models that informed early Christian pictorial cycles consists of the fact that there are certain iconographic types that are common to Jewish, Christian, and Islamic illustrated MSS (Gutmann, 1973). Strauss has argued in a similar vein that the artists who worked for Christian patrons learned what they knew about Jewish pictorial traditions from word-of-mouth exchange rather than from actual illustrated Jewish MSS. But these observations overlook the fact that in early Christian contexts there are iconographic types that were uniquely at home in Jewish settings and therefore had no natural Sitz im Leben within the Christian (or Islamic) belief system. In the appropriation and transmission of Jewish pictorial subjects, one must reckon with a secondary transmission in Jewish Art Source of early Christian art. his theory argues that early Christians borrowed their biblical (OT) iconography from Jewish models. Accordingly, illustrated Jewish Bibles must have existed before a.d. 200. he debate surrounding this subject began in the late 19th c. (prompted by O. von Gebhardt’s facsimile edition of the  Ashburnham Pentateuch and by J. Strzygowski’s speculations on its Jewish prototypes). At the end of World War II, a new generation took up the discussion of this subject; the two prominent names were Joseph Gutmann and Kurt Weitzmann. In the 1960s Kurt Schubert entered the discussion. Today a new generation of scholars is researching this subject, and there is still a good deal of disagreement on basic issues, both of method and of substance. Some continue to believe that Jewish pictures illustrating the Hebrew Bible existed before 200 and inluenced the development of Christian biblical iconography from the pre-Constantinian period going forward. Others doubt the premise. In the two sections below, Kurt Schubert represents the former point of view (pro), Joseph Gutmann the latter (contra). Ed. Pro he relationship of Jewish art to early Christian art gradually came to the fore in the period between the two World Wars, when his- 747 Copyrighted material. Not for reproduction or distribution. May not be published on institutional repositories or academia.edu before 1 January 2019.