¹ Dr. Naďa Profantová, Ph.D.
Archeologický ústav AV ČR Praha, v.v.i.
profantova@arup.cas.cz
ORCID: 0000-0002-5033-272X
Keywords: Buckle with ends in shape of animal heads – Bohemia – Early Middle Ages – Bohemian-Lombard contact.
Introduction
When the monograph on Klučov, Kolín district, was published, identifying it as one of the oldest hillforts in Bohemia (Fig. 1), it became evident – as later observed at other hillforts – that the settlement context, characterized by cleared house structures, yielded no exclusive artifacts. Furthermore, the research methodologies of the 1950s and 1960s did not include metal detecting, which significantly reduced the number of metal objects recovered compared to contemporary archaeological practices. The assemblage of published artifacts was not adequately analyzed by specialists in the 1960s (Kudrnáč 1970). Their spatial distribution within the hillfort was also not visualized at the time. This visualization is crucial, as it reveals a concentration of these finds in close proximity to the outer fortification line (Fig. 1), with horse harness fittings, for instance, discovered directly within the ditch.
Some of these metal finds, such as the strap end from a horse bridle or the silver embossed fitting discovered outside the ramparts in a later context (originally classified as High Medieval), received subsequent attention (Profantová 1992, Taf. 2C; 2008; 2023, Fig. 9:3). This also includes a bronze earring from a house located in front of the rampart line (Fig. 1:5; Profantová 2016), which is now unfortunately untraceable. Other artifacts still await further evaluation. Among these is a seemingly inconspicuous iron buckle.
Description: The flat iron buckle frame features a straight inner edge and confronting animal heads at the ends of the open frame. The prong is not preserved. The animal heads may have originally had embossed eyes, though these were not visible at the time of documentation. Its dimensions are 30 × 27 mm (Fig. 3:1). It may have functioned as a fitting for a leather pouch.
Fig. 1: Hillfort Klučov. Lidar image with the lines of fortifications, trenches and the most important metal finds of the 8th and 9th centuries (1-6).
1-3 – finds related to horsemanship, 3 – location of our find (in the note inaccurately as Avar-type belt fittings), 4 – crucible, 5 – earrings. Graphics by K. Levá.
Circumstances of discovery
The buckle was discovered within a dark grey layer at a depth of 50 cm, situated just west of the dismantled younger rampart. This occurred during the extensive Trench 78 excavation, specifically in strip X-XI, placing the find within the hillfort’s outer bailey (Figs. 1 and 2, no. 3; Kudrnáč 1970, 123, Fig. 2, Appendix D: plan).
These strips (see Fig. 2) revealed sunken features a, b, and c, along with a portion of an above-ground house, designated no. 17, which included a kiln. Notably, Trench 78 also uncovered a strap end from a horse harness (found in the ditch near its edge), a spur likely equipped with hooks (Fig. 2:1), a probable crucible (Fig. 2:4), and socketed arrowheads (strips XII-XIII). From this context, we can deduce that the buckle originated from an area with a concentration of small, predominantly metal finds. Consequently, the buckle’s dating can only be broadly assigned to the entire period of the hillfort’s existence, spanning the 8th and first half of the 9th centuries, as the associated pottery does not allow for a more precise chronological determination.
Fig. 2: Detailed plan of a section of Trench 78 (segments 7-13) showing features and key finds.
It illustrates the proximity of the spur and the Avar-type fitting; our find corresponds to no. 3.
Cultural and chronological context of the find
Buckles terminated with animal heads first appear during the Roman period (Ortisi 2003). These, however, are typically made of silver or bronze, and the heads are usually connected by a bar-like element to which the prong is attached. They are primarily associated with horse harness decoration.
7th-8th century buckles
Of greater interest, in connection with the Klučov find, are later ornaments. Two beautiful and elaborate bronze “ring” buckles, exhibited in the Kunsthistorisches Museum Vienna within the collection of Antique Treasures (referring to Greece and Rome), serve as excellent examples. These older finds, acquired in 1891 without a known provenance (inv. nos. VI 3024 and VI 4589), bear inscriptions: ++ ALIPERTO (a name) and + LUCAS BIBAS (Luke, may you live!). The inscriptions are in Latin script, and the name is of Lombardic origin. These buckles feature a wider, flat frame and are terminated by animal heads. The prong, made of wire, is secured to the frame by being wound multiple times to prevent detachment. They are dated to the late 7th and most of the 8th century and also correspond in size (35 and 36 mm; Fig. 3:4; Noll 1958, cat. nos. 37 and 38; Noll 1965, Abb. 86). Further examples of inscribed buckles originate from more southerly parts of Italy (Noll 1965, Abb. 85; Salvatore 1977).
These are clearly Western European products, appearing within Germanic contexts, particularly among the Lombards, and are dated to the 7th, and often the first half or entire 8th century. All inscribed buckles from Italy have been thoroughly analyzed by R. Masiello (2023), who places the manufacture of these objects in the Lombard-Beneventan region of Italy, from where they also spread south to the areas around Naples, Basilicata, and Sicily.1 Southern finds are thus relatively later than those from the Lombardy region, which is geographically closer to Bohemia. They presumably also spread north, or possibly northwest, but high-quality grave assemblages from the 8th century are scarce.
Additional examples are known from the Perugia region in Central Italy, albeit without precise localization, having ended up in Moscow after World War II (GIM Moscow, Inv. no. 81988, older inv. no. Berlin IVh124-126). These ring buckles are simply decorated (with grooves and stamped circles or triangles); in one case, the decoration is poorly legible due to corrosion (Fig. 3:2,3). Only one of them again bears a Latin inscription, and its animal heads are classified as leonine, featuring engraved manes, though they could also represent dragon heads. The inscription is not transcribed in the publication. All were dated to the turn of the 6th-7th century (Menghin 2007, 561, 4. VIII.22.3), making them appear to be the oldest within the group. However, in my opinion, this is not unequivocal, as their dating may have been based solely on analogy. I believe that today we would broaden the dating to encompass the entire 7th century, or even the early 8th century. The smaller of the two buckles is dimensionally closest to our Klučov buckle, as well as in the greater schematization of its animal heads.
It is precisely the uninscribed buckles with more simply stylized heads, featuring hinted muzzles and ears, that could have served as prototypes for cheaper buckles, such as the one from Klučov. Their dimensions range from 28 × 27 mm to 43 × 44 mm. All have preserved prongs, which, if detached, may not leave traces on the frame.
It’s also worth noting that confronted animal heads became a significant feature of Late Avar strap-ends, where their eyes were formed by the rivet heads securing the mounts to the strap. The heads could touch, but did not necessarily have to. These mounts typically date to the 8th century, often its second half. Such mounts are common in Bohemia; for instance, two pieces have been published from the nearby production center of Tismice, Kolín district, which belongs to the same hillfort group (Profantová et al. 2020, Fig. 22:4,5), and another example is known from Lipany, Kolín district (Profantová et al. 2022, Fig. 3). Unconnected heads with slightly open mouths adorn a strap-end from Ždánice in the same region (Profantová 2010, Abb. 17:3).
Animal-head terminations also appear on an 8th-century bronze rectangular buckle with a sheet plate, for example, from equestrian grave 4 at the Avar-period cemetery in Barca near Košice (Pástor 1954, Tab. 1:6). The entire ensemble is dated to the 8th century based on a two-part belt mount decorated with a foliate scroll and rivet projections in the form of confronted animal heads, or stirrups with loop-shaped eyelet. Crucially, the heads are located at the inner corners of the buckle (i.e., on the side where the prong was attached). This distinguishes it from our Klučov piece, whose heads were located where the buckle’s prong tip reached.
Fig. 3: Klučov and possible prototypes/inspirations.
1 – Klučov (Fe), 2-3 – Perugia (bronze), 4 – Kunsthistorisches Museum Vienna (N. Italy, Cu alloy), 5-6 – Grottaminarda near Naples, find published in the Society of Antiquaries of London in 1867, part of the Hodder Westropp collection (8th century, Cu alloy).
1 after Kudrnáč 1970, 123, Fig. 2; 2-3 after Menghin 2007; 4 – photo N. Profantová; 5-6 after Masiello 2023.
Function
I believe the function of this specific buckle was primarily for fastening a leather pouch attached to a belt, rather than serving as a direct belt buckle. Pouch buckles began to appear in Bohemia as early as the 7th century, with excellent examples including a Byzantine buckle from Jemníky near Mladá Boleslav and another from Úhy, Kladno district (Profantová 2023, Fig. 3:1,4). This also likely applies to an unpublished fragment with animal motifs/projections from the 2014 Prague-Šárka prospection. Merovingian pouch buckles are dated to the second half of the 6th to the 7th century (Martin 2012), and our buckle could derive from these or Lombard prototypes. I consider the Klučov buckle to be a simple iron imitation of more luxurious southern and western types, continuing traditions from the Roman period. It demonstrates an awareness of contemporary fashion trends in surrounding regions and, much like the damaged earring from the Upper Danube found near the hillfort, suggests long-distance contacts maintained by the hillfort’s inhabitants (Profantová 2016).
Dating and conclusion
How, then, should we date the Klučov find? The archaeological context only provides a broad dating to the 8th to the first half of the 9th century, indicating the existence of a hillfort. We must therefore remain with a wider interval, encompassing the 7th and 8th centuries. Buckles of this type could have begun to be imitated during the 7th century or even later (with dating extending into the 8th century, as suggested by Masiello 2023 and Noll 1965). Simpler versions likely persisted longer than their more luxurious, fashion-driven prototypes. When did such impulses reach Bohemia? Two pathways are plausible: either the Lombards in Bohemia already knew such examples at the close of the Migration Period (i.e., in the first half of the 6th century), or, more probably, these buckles spread through long-distance contacts later, in the advanced (?) 7th and 8th centuries, most likely along with Byzantine buckles from the south (from northern Italy). From Fredegar’s Chronicle, we know that a Lombard army participated in the Battle of Wogastisburg in 631, though it’s unclear whether they only reached southern Moravia or perhaps even Bohemia (Fredegar 2020, chap. LXVIII, p. 61). Thereafter, Lombards reappear in written sources concerning Bohemia only at the beginning of the 9th century, when, according to the Chronicon Gothanum, they participated in a campaign into Bohemia led by the Italian King Pepin (in 806; Třeštík 1997, 36). This is a relatively late context for the issue under consideration.
Nonetheless, the context of this simple iron buckle points to the 8th century, coinciding with the establishment of one of Bohemia’s oldest hillforts. However, the buckle itself was already a discarded item or had been lost. It’s probable that the buckle did not serve as a belt buckle but rather fastened a small leather pouch. Such a pouch would more likely have been carried by a warrior than, for instance, a woman. It remains true that this buckle has no known analogies within Bohemia.
Notes
- One of the buckles bears the inscription “handmaiden of Rateidi / Rateldi”, thus referring to a female owner of the jewell. The name Rateidi or Rateldi is an early form of the Germanic feminine name Ratilde.
Bibliography
Primary sources
Fredegar (Tř.) 2020: Fredegarovy kroniky. Čtvrtá kniha a pokračování. Praha: Argo.
Secondary sources
Kudrnáč, J. 1970: Klučov. Staroslovanské hradiště ve středních Čechách – Ein altslawischer Burgwall in Mittelböhmen. Praha: Academia.
Martin, M. 2012: Tasche oder Täschchen? Zu einem Accessoire der merowingischen Frauentracht. In: N. Krohn – U. Koch (eds.): Grosso Modo: Quellen und Funde aus Spätantike und Mittelalter; Festschrift für Gerhard Fingerlin. Weinstadt: Verlag Bernhard Albert Greiner, 73-80.
Masiello, R. 2023: Le fibule altomedievali di Grottaminarda. In: VICATIM VII/2, 51-58.
Menghin, W. 2007: The Merovingian Period. Europe without Borders. Archaeology and history of the 5th to 8th century. Berlin: Staatliche Museen zu Berlin.
Noll, R. 1958: Vom Altertum zum Mittelalter. Spätantike, altchristliche, völkerwanderungszeitliche und frühmittelalterliche Denkmäler. Wien: Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien.
Noll, R. 1965: Altitalisch oder frühmittelalterlich? Zu einer Inschrift aus Sepinum? In: Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes in Wien XLVII, 145-149.
Ortisi, Ch. S. 2003: Studium zum römischen Pferdegeschirr aus Pompeii, Herculaneum und den Vesuvvillen. Metallzäume, Trensen und Kandaren. Dissertation, LMU München: Faculty of Cultural Studies.
Pástor, J. 1954: Avarsko-slovanské pohrebište v Barci, okres Košice. In: Slovenská archeológia II, 136-143.
Profantová, N. 1992: Awarische Funde aus den Gebieten nördlich der awarischen Siedlungsgrenzen. In: F. Daim (ed.), Awarenforschungen II. Wien: Institut für Ur- und Frühgeschichte der Universität Wien, 605–778.
Profantová, N. 2008: Die frühslawische Besiedlung Böhmens und archäologische Spuren der Kontakte zum früh- und mittelawarischen sowie merowingischen Kulturkreis. In: J. Bemmann – M. Schmauder (eds.), Kulturwandel im Mitteleuropa – Langobarden – Awaren – Slawen. Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, 619–644.
Profantová, N. 2010: Awarische Funde in der Tschechischen Republik – Forschungsstand und neue Erkenntnisse. In: Acta Archaeologica Carpathica 45, 203–270.
Profantová, N. 2016: Errichtung und Zerstörung der ersten frühmittelalterlichen Burgwälle in Böhmen (8./9. Jahrhundert). In: F. Bierman – T. Kersting – A. Klammt (eds.), Die frühen Slawen – von der Expansion zu gentes und nationes. Teil 2. BUFM 81. Langenweissbach: Beier & Beran, 223–239.
Profantová, N. 2023: Trade and Relationships at the Turn of the Epochs: From Hildigis to Samo. In: J. Jiřík – K. Blažková – J. Bezáková (eds.), Royal Insignia of Late Antiquity from Mšec and Řevničov, Rakovník: Muzeum TGM, 209–221.
Profantová, N. – Křivánek, R. – Fikrle, M. – Zavřel, J. 2020: Tismice jako produkční a nadregionální centrum Čech 8. a 9. století. In: Památky archeologické 111, 193-271
Profantová, N. – Militká, L. – Šámal, Z. 2022: Lipany (okr. Kolín) v raném středověku: výpověď prospekce s detektory kovů. In: Archeologie středních Čech 26, 363–380.
Salvatore, M. 1977: Fibule con iscrizione dall’Italia meridionale. In: Vetera Christianorum 14, 339-356.
Třeštík, D. 1997: Počátky Přemyslovců. Praha: Nakladatelství Lidové noviny.