In April 2026, the author of this paper was approached by metal detectorist Milan Navrátil seeking expert consultation and identification of an artifact representing a mount of imported origin. Prior to this, standard archaeological consultations had failed to classify the object more precisely. The artifact itself had been discovered earlier, in April 2025, by Martin Ján within a field in the cadastral area of Mohelnice, Czech Republic.
Due to the ongoing field assessment and the necessity of protecting the site, the precise coordinates of the findspot are currently withheld. Present evidence, however, suggests a multi-period site with continuous occupation spanning from the Bronze Age to the Early Middle Ages. Both finders are actively cooperating with the Regional Museum in Šumperk (Vlastivědné muzeum v Šumperku) under the professional guidance of archaeologist Jakub Halama, where the artifact will be duly deposited upon completion of the documentation process.
Given the scientific significance of this import, all parties involved consented to this preliminary publication. Its primary objective is to highlight the cultural and historical importance of the object during its acquisition into the museum collections. In the subsequent phase, the text is expected to be expanded with the results of specialized material analyses and developed into a printed peer-reviewed study.
Map 1: The location of Mohelnice within Europe.
Description
The object consists of a bilobed mount, with a closed, elongated loop integrated into its lower section. Measuring 22.6 mm in width and 21.3 mm in height overall, the artifact reaches a maximum thickness of 7.66 mm. Based on visual characteristics, its material composition likely corresponds to a copper alloy. The loop, with internal dimensions of 9.7 × 6.76 mm, exhibits thinning of the material in its upper arc, which can be interpreted as a consequence of secondary degradation resulting from prolonged use.
Structurally, the mount is designed as a hollow body; the internal space of 3.52 mm between the front and rear plates accommodated an organic substrate. Securement to this substrate was achieved by means of two rivets, the shafts of which measure 1.77 mm in diameter within the cavity. On the obverse side, the rivets terminate in hemispherical heads with a width of 3.35 mm, whereas on the reverse side, they have been flattened into a flush profile. The reverse side of the mount is entirely plain and devoid of decorative elements.
The obverse side of the artifact features a plastic, symmetrically conceived decoration. Traces of a contrasting metal are preserved within the recesses of the relief, the visual characteristics of which indicate the presence of gilding. This surface treatment enhanced both the aesthetic and material value of the object. However, to definitively determine the composition of the contrasting material, an exact material analysis is required.
Fig. 1: The mount from the Mohelnice region.
Authors: Milan Navrátil and Martin Ján.
Identification and Discussion
The artifact, initially interpreted by the finders as a buckle, exhibits morphological correspondences with the suspension mount of an Old Hungarian reflex bow case (Hungarian: függesztőveret) (Révész 1991; 1996: 164, 210, 304, 379). Historically, these mounts were erroneously classified in the literature as sabretache components (Schulze-Dörrlamm 1988: 392–3). Within the Czech archaeological context, this category of material culture is almost entirely absent – a notable exception being a find from the Litoměřice region (Profantová 2008: 153; Profantová – Lutovský 1992: 6–8, Fig. 2.4,6) – resulting in a persistent lack of both standardized terminology and diagnostic recognition. The closest analogies originate from Slovak territory, where such finds are associated with Old Hungarian grave assemblages (e.g. Borzová 2022: 55–6; Nevizánsky – Košta 2009: 319).
To contextualise this for the English-speaking researcher, it should be added that composite reflex bows were protected by two primary categories of cases:
- The first, designated as a “soft” or transport case, was utilised for storing the bow in an unstrung state (Mikhailov – Kainov 2011: 236–7). This variant could either enclose the bow entirely or leave the tip exposed (Kryganov 1996). Cases enclosing the entire weapon are characteristically associated with antler bow-tip reinforcements, which constitute one of the primary diagnostic indicators in the archaeological record (László 1955; Nevizánsky 2008: Fig. 12).
- The second variant is represented by a case made of rigid leather, termed a “combat” or “ready-use” case, intended for bows in a strung state. This type of case protected only the lower section of the weapon (Révész 1996: 164, 210, 304, 379).
Although suspension mounts could form an integral component of both aforementioned types (see Flesch et al. 2019; Zágorhidi et al. 2019), the morphology of the specimen from Mohelnice under discussion diverges conspicuously. In comparison to Old Hungarian mounts, it is substantially smaller, lacks the characteristic elongated form, and features double-sided finishing. Owing to these discrepancies, it cannot be classified within the Old Hungarian typology, necessitating a search for parallels in regions further to the east. Exact analogies can be identified within the northern and eastern Black Sea regions, specifically in the funerary inventories of the Saltovo (Saltovo-Mayaki) culture and graves located in the North Caucasus.
Map 2: Findspots of the closest analogies to the Mohelnice mount.
Mounts are generally discovered in a depositional context that, due to the absence of organic remains, precludes an unambiguous determination of their exact function. Consequently, the literature frequently employs indefinite terms such as “mount” (Parusimov – Prokofjev 2005: 53) or “belt divider” (Gončarov – Kadjeva 2020: 50). Vladimir K. Grib, who was consulted regarding this find, suggests the use of the term “clip”. The interpretation of these objects as bow case suspension mounts was introduced by Kryganov (1996), and its validity is supported not only by Old Hungarian parallels but also by the remains of double-layered leather showing a widening tendency (Kryganov 1996: Fig. 6.4,6,8) and the presence of archery equipment within funerary inventories (Parusimov – Prokofjev 2005: Fig. 3). V. S. Aksenov, an expert on the Saltovo culture, also concurs with the interpretation of the Mohelnice find as a case suspension mount. For this reason, the dating of the mount points to the late 8th and first half of the 9th century.
The closest morphological analogies to the mount under discussion can be identified at the sites of Mayaki settlement (catacomb 1; Vinnikov – Afanasjev 1991: 16, Fig. 6.4), Krasnoyarsky burial ground I (grave 1; Parusimov – Prokofjev 2005: Fig. 3.6), Rubezhansky burial ground (catacomb 15; Aksenov 2001: Fig. 1.7), Dagravs (catacomb 31; Dzattiaty 2014: 120, Tab. LXXI), Goust (grave 5; Gončarov – Kadjeva 2020: Fig. 1.9), and Krasnogorsky burial ground (Kryganov 1996: Fig. 6.6). These finds exhibit approximately identical dimensions, with the suspension loop being most frequently rectangular, although the find from the Krasnoyarsky burial ground represents a rounded variant. The lobes of the mounts are generally unornamented; any occasional decoration is typically interpreted as a lotus motif, which is characteristic of the Saltovo-Mayaki culture (Gončarov – Kadjeva 2020: 50). Theoretically, the ornament on the obverse side of the Mohelnice mount can be classified as one of the variants of the Saltovo floral decoration defined by Fonjakova (1986: Fig. 1.1–6). Structurally, some analogous specimens are constructed from two riveted components. To date, the presence of gilding has not been documented in any of the recorded examples.
Fig. 2: The closest analogies of the mount and their interpretation.
1 – Mohelnice region; 2 – Dagravs (Dzattiaty 2014: Pl. LXXI); 3 – Goust (Gončarov – Kadjeva 2020: Fig. 1.9); 4 – Krasnogorsky burial ground (Kryganov 1996: Fig. 6.6); 5 – Mayaki settlement (Kryganov 1996: Fig. 6.8); 6 – Krasnoyarsky burial ground (Parusimov – Prokofjev 2005: Fig. 3.6); 7 – Rubezhansky burial ground (Aksenov 2001: Fig. 1.7). A – “ready-use” case for a strung-bow; B – transport case for an unstrung bow.
Adapted. Not to scale. Author: Diego Flores Cartes.
Higher resolution available here.
The Saltovo, or Saltovo-Mayaki culture, which currently lacks comprehensive scholarly coverage in Czech historiography, was reflected within Czechoslovak research primarily in connection with the formation of the Slavs in Eastern Europe and through reviews of Eastern European literature. Originating at the beginning of the 8th century (Pitterová 1960: 329), this culture exhibits close affinities to the Proto-Bulgarian milieu and derives its name from the cemetery at Verkhniy Saltiv in Ukraine and the Mayaki hillfort at the mouth of the Tikhaya Sosna on the Russian Don (Eisner 1966: 124). Geographically, it extended across the upper reaches of the Donets and the middle and lower reaches of the Don as far as the Caucasian foothills (Eisner 1966: 124; Novotný 1986: 957), with several local variants existing (Révész 2014: 18). Alanic and Turkic tribes participated in the ethnogenesis and formation of the culture (Novotný 1986: 957). Throughout its existence, it maintained contacts with the Slavic region (Wollman 1952–1955: 644); its influence on Slavic tribes manifested through the dissemination of its cultural elements by the Bulgars into the Balkans (Novotný 1986: 957) and by the Hungarians into the Carpathian Basin (Rejholcová 1995: 42). Concrete traces of these influences can also be traced in Central Europe: pottery analogous to the Saltovo types occurs in Slovakia, either mediated or copied by the Hungarians (Rejholcová 1995: 42; Türk 2023), and burial pits similar to Saltovo graves are occasionally encountered in Central Europe (Marešová 1983: 13; Türk 2014: 141–4). The culture is also considered instrumental in the dissemination of carnelian, rock crystal, and specific bead productions across continental Europe (Mrázek 2000: 83), although definitive evidence pointing to the direct import of objects of Saltovo provenance has hitherto been lacking within the territory of the Czech Republic.
The significance of the mount under discussion lies primarily in the fact that it represents the first verifiable find of Saltovo provenance within the territory of the Czech Republic. This fact demonstrates that the Central European region was a recipient of elite items from this culture and that communication existed between the two areas. Concurrently, the find comports with the concept of Moravia as an important sphere of power within the Late Avar Khaganate, which absorbed cultural and spiritual impulses from vast parts of Europe (Kavánová et al. 2018: 963). Given the distance of approximately 1,500–2,000 km from the core area of its distribution and use, this is likely the most remote documented occurrence of this type of mount, which had previously been exclusively associated with the territories of present-day Russia and Ukraine. Although the precise mechanisms behind the dispersal of this artifact remain unknown, they may have been motivated by the intrinsic value of the metal used, though other factors cannot be discounted.
The scientific value of the mount is enhanced by several additional aspects. It represents the only known specimen of this type to date in which possible gilding has been detected. Furthermore, the find expands the existing corpus of 8th- to 10th-century archery material, which in the domestic context has hitherto been represented primarily by the Great Moravian bow from Mikulčice (Klanica 1967: 45, Tab. 22.1; Opravil 1983; Poláček et al. 2000: 197–8, 222, Fig. 21.1) and the antler reinforcing plates of composite bows from Mikulčice (Kavánová et al. 2018; Klanica 1984: 145; 1995: 383–5) and Libice nad Cidlinou (Profantová – Lutovský 1992: 11–12). The find is also of critical importance in the context of technological innovations: Sudár (2021) states that during the 8th century, “strung-bow” cases proliferated across Asia and subsequently penetrated the European continent. According to the same author, the Avars did not employ this type of equipment, and it was supposedly introduced to Central Europe only later by the Hungarians. In this light, the Mohelnice specimen – assuming its association with a “strung-bow” case – appears to represent the earliest evidence for the use of this innovation within the Central European region.
Appendix
Appendix 1: Photographs shared with the author by the finders, Milan Navrátil and Martin Ján.
Acknowledgements
This study could not have been realised without the assistance and contribution of numerous individuals. First and foremost, sincere thanks are due to the finders, Milan Navrátil and Martin Ján, who not only discovered the artifact but also selflessly made it available for professional analysis and processing. We are grateful to Naďa Profantová (Institute of Archaeology of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Prague) for facilitating contact and recommending the author to the finders. Thanks are also due to Jakub Halama (Regional Museum in Šumperk) for his kind permission to publish this material. For valuable scholarly consultations, we are deeply indebted to V. S. Aksenov (Kharkiv Historical Museum), V. K. Grib (Donetsk National University), and János Mestellér (Kazár Bazar). Last but not least, our gratitude goes to Diego Flores Cartes for the prompt and precise execution of the article’s illustration.
We hope you liked reading this article. If you have any question or remark, please contact us or leave a comment below. If you want to learn more and support our work, please, fund our project on Patreon, Buymeacoffee, Revolut or Paypal.
Bibliography
Aksenov 2001 = Аксьонов, В. С. (2001). Рубежанский катакомбный могильник салтово-маяцкой культуры на Северском Донце // Донская археология 1-2/2001, 62–78.
Borzová, Zuzana (2022). Maďari v Európe včasného stredoveku, Brno.
Dzattiaty 2014 = Дзаттиаты, Р. Г. (2014). Аланские древности Даргавса, Владикавказ.
Eisner, Jan (1966). Rukověť slovanské archeologie. Počátky Slovanů a jejich kultury, Praha.
Flesch, Márton et al. (2019). A honfoglalás kori tegezöv egy új rekonstrukciója a karosi II 52. sír íjászfelszerelésének átdolgozása és keleti analógiák nyomán. In: Sudár, Balázs – Türk, Attila (eds.). Hadak útján. A népvándorláskor kutatóinak XXIX. konferenciája. Budapest, 2019. november 15–16, Budapest, 34–41.
Fonjakova 1986 = Фонякова, Н. А. (1986). Лотос в растительном орнаменте металлических изделий салтово-маяцкой культуры VIII–IХ вв. // Советская археология 3/1986, 36–47.
Gončarov – Kadjeva 2020 = Гончаров, С. А. – Кадиева, А. А. (2020). Катакомба с поясным набором «общетюркского типа» из могильника Гоуст (по материалам раскопок В.И. Долбежева 1890 года) // Кавказология 3/2020, 48–59.
Kavánová, Blanka et al. (2018). Zbraně a Múzy: nápis na zlomku konstrukce reflexního luku z Mikulčic. In: Archeologie ve středních Čechách 22, 959–970.
Klanica, Zdeněk (1967). Předběžná zpráva o výzkumu slovanského hradiska v Mikulčicích za rok 1966. In: Přehled výzkumů 1966, 41–51.
Klanica, Zdeněk (1984). Die Südmährischen Slawen un anderen Ethnika im archäologischen Material des 6.-8. Jahrhunderts. In: Šalkovský, Peter (ed.). Interaktionen der Mitteleuropäischen Slawen und anderen Ethnika im 6.-10. Jahrhundert, Nitra, 139–150.
Klanica, Zdeněk (1995). Zur Periodisierung vorgrofimahrischer Funde aus Mikulčice. In: Daim, Falko – Poláček, Lumír (eds.). Studien zum Burgwall von Mikulčice I, Brno, 379–469.
Kryganov 1996 = Крыганов, А. В. (1996). Налучья и их ношение раннесредневековыми кочевниками Евразии // Культуры евразийских степей второй половины I тысячелетия н.э., Самара, 344–352.
László, Gyula (1955). A kenézlői honfoglaláskori íjtegez. In: Folia archeologica 7, 111–122.
Marešová, Kristina (1983). Uherské Hradiště – Sady. Staroslovanské sídliště na Horních Kotvicích, Brno.
Mikhailov, K. A. – Kainov, S. Yu. (2011). Finds of structural details of composite bows from Ancient Rus. In: Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 62, 229–244.
Mrázek, Ivan (2000). Drahé kameny ve středověku Moravy a Slezska, Brno.
Nevizánsky, Gabriel (2008). Aktuálne problémy výskumu pamiatok staromaďarského etnika na území dnešného Slovenska. In: Štefanovičová, T. – Hulínek, D. (2008). Bitka pri Bratislave v roku 907 a jej význam pre vývoj stredného Podunajska, Bratislava, 265–278.
Nevizánsky, Gabriel – Košta, Jiří (2009). Výskum staromaďarského jazdeckého pohrebiska v Strede nad Bodrogom v rokoch 1926 a 1937. In: Slovenská archeológia 57/2, 301–354.
Novotný, Bohuslav (1986). Encyklopédia archeológie, Bratislava.
Opravil, Emanuel (1983). Dřevo luku z Mikulčic (okr. Hodonín). In: Přehled výzkumů 1981, 45–46.
Parusimov – Prokofjev 2005 = Парусимов, И. Н. – Прокофьев, Р. В. (2005). Салтовский грунтовый могильник у г. Цимлянска // Труды Археологического научно-исследовательского бюро, Том II, Ростов-на-Дону, 50–77.
Pitterová, Anna (1960). Zpravodajství ze slovanské archeologie za léta 1955-56. In: Eisner, Jan (ed.). Vznik a počátky Slovanů III, Praha, 317–382.
Poláček, Lumír et al. (2000). Holzfunde aus Mikulčice. In: Poláček, Lumír (ed.). Studien zum Burgwall von Mikulčice IV, Brno, 177–302.
Profantová, Naďa (2008). Problém interpretace staromaďarských nálezů v Čechách. In: Štefanovičová, Tatiana – Hulínek, Drahoslav (eds.). Boj pri Bratislave v r. 907 a jeho význam pre vývoj stredného Podunajska, Bratislava, 149–168.
Profantová, Naďa – Lutovský, Michal (1992). Staromaďarské nálezy z Čech. In: Sborník přátel starožitností 3, 3–16.
Rejholcová, Mária (1995). Pohrebisko v Čakajovciach (9.-12. storočie). Analýza, Nitra.
Révész, László (1991). Készenléti íjtartó tegezek a magyar honfoglalás kori sírokban. In: Herman Ottó Múzeum Évkönyve 28‒29, 31‒50.
Révész, László (1996). A Karosi honfoglalás kori temetők. Régészeti adatok a Felső-Tisza-vidék X. századi történetéhez, Miskolc.
Révész, László (2014). The Era of the Hungarian Conquest, Budapest.
Schulze-Dörrlamm, Mechthild (1988). Untersuchungen zur Herkunft der Ungarn und zum Beginn ihrer Landnahme im Karpatenbecken. In: Jahrbuch des Römisch-germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz 35, 373–478.
Sudár, Balázs (2021). A készenléti tegzek keleti hátteréről. In: Magyar Történelmi Íjász Társaság [online]. [2026-05-01]. Available from: https://magyartortenelmiijasz.com/sudar-balazs-a-keszenleti-tegzek-keleti-hattererol/
Türk, Attila (2014). Towards a Classification of Grave Types and Burial Rites in the 10th–11th Century Carpathian Basin. In: Doncheva-Petkova, Lyudmila et al. (eds). Avars, Bulgars and Magyars on the Middle and Lower Danube, Sofia − Piliscsaba, 137–156.
Türk, Attila (2023). Az Uráltól a Kárpátokig. Régészet és korai magyar történelem, Budapest – Szeged.
Vinnikov – Afanasjev 1991 = Винников, А. З. – Афанасьев, Г. Е. (1991). Культовые комплексы Маяцкого селища, Воронеж.
Wollman, Slavomír (1952-1955). Zpravodajstvi ze slavistiky za rok 1951. In: Slavia 21/4, 517–668.
Zágorhidi, C. B. et al. (2019). Honfoglalás kori magyar jellegű sír Rovanci (UA) határából. Adatok a 10. századi veretes készenléti íjtartó tegezek kelet-európai elterjedéséhez. In: Sudár, Balázs – Türk, Attila (eds.). Hadak útján. A népvándorláskor kutatóinak XXIX. konferenciája. Budapest, 2019. november 15–16, Budapest, 11–17.