In the early medieval art of Central, Northern and Western Europe in the period of 8th–11th century, there is an almost complete absence of belts, which can be characterized as short and worn hidden in the folds of clothing. This practice probably has a functional reason (Vlasatý 2023a). For the modern interpreter, however, this iconographic convention complicates the analysis of the construction of belts, their ornamentation and any hanging objects, which are usually of secondary importance to the overall tone of the work. As a result, only a limited set of depictions is available that indicate the presence of a belt through strap ends (Jurčević 2016: Sl. 75; Vlasatý 2019), hanging knives (Bayley 1980: Pl. 13) or axes (Vlasatý 2023b). The situation in the 12th century is not fundamentally different; the only difference is the use of a long belt, the free ends of which hang down the middle of the body to the level of the thighs or knees (Schulze-Dörrlamm 1995: 96). In contrast, in the artworks of Eastern Europe and Asia, where composite belts were worn visibly, the situation is markedly different. Here, practical tools such as knives, bags and marlinspike-shaped awls are often visible on the belts (e.g. Kajitani 2001: Fig. 22). It is clear that iconography in both cases falls short of the potential of archaeological findings, although it provides valuable evidence of wearing methods and is irreplaceable especially in cases where archaeological sources are completely lacking.
According to available information, the only known depiction of an object hung on a belt (with the exception of swords) from the Hillfort period (7th-13th century) in the territory of the present-day Czech Republic is the so-called dedication folio of the Olomouc Horologium (now known as Olomouc Kollektar as well). The instruments hung on the belts of the three depicted figures have been the subject of long-term discussions in art historical literature and have served as a key to identifying the depicted individuals, but have not yet been subjected to detailed international comparative analysis. The aim of the following text is not to identify the depicted figures, but solely to interpret and decipher the hung objects. This knowledge can help as a guide for art historians and at the same time provide relevant information for the community of reenactors and manufacturers of historical equipment.
Fig. 1: The so-called dedication folio of the Olomouc Horologium.
Source: Library of Congress.
Introduction
The Olomouc Horologium, stored in the Royal Library in Stockholm under the signature Theol. Mss. A 144, represents a high-end and richly illuminated work, dating to the period of the episcopate of Jindřich Zdík (1126–1150). Although it is an important source, the manuscript is the subject of a number of interpretative disputes, which concern both its content and the exact place and time of creation. The current scholarly consensus places its creation at the turn of the 1130s and 1140s, and it is assumed that it was initiated by Jindřich Zdík in the territory of the present-day Czech Republic, probably in the Olomouc scriptorium (Bistřický – Červenka 2011; Černý 2009: 107). The analysis suggests that the author of the text part could have been a scribe originating from Bavaria or trained there, while the illuminators Hildebert and Everwin evidently followed the Cologne art school.
Folio 34v contains the only full-page illumination of the manuscript, the so-called dedicatory folio (now also a memorial folio), which depicts Pope Gregory I and Bishop Jindřich Zdík accompanied by prominent representatives of church and secular life, both living and deceased. The central meaning of this illumination is the proclamation of pastoral activity in the spirit of the legacy of Gregory the Great, but at the same time the scene serves to visualize Zdík’s preferences in the context of the investiture disputes and represents a group portrait of the elites of the time as a unified spiritual community (Černý 2009: 114-5). Part of the academic community believes that the manuscript, including the discussed image, was created on the occasion of the completion and consecration of the cathedral in 1141/2 (see Dohnal 2001: 115-6).
The most controversial figures in this scene are the three male figures located in the lower left corner of the illumination: Marcus, Modlata, and the figure marked with the letter T. All three figures are dressed in richly decorated lay clothing, with carefully groomed hair and beards, and decorated footwear. The figures of Marcus and Modlata are compositionally minimized and support the console under the throne of the Pope, highlighting him. The figure marked with the letter T, which reaches full height, holds an empty parchment scroll. A characteristic and remarkable detail in all three figures is an elongated object suspended from a belt on the right side of the body. The nature and identification of these three figures was the subject of intense academic discussion between Bistřický and Merhautová, which lasted three decades and ended with the passing of both researchers. This discussion did not bring a clear consensus, on the contrary – it created two opposing interpretative paths. The only common denominator between both camps remains the agreement that the depicted persons represent adults and socially recognized laypeople: their placement in the composition – below the bishops and abbots, but above the craftsmen working on the manuscript – indicates their higher status than the creators of the manuscript, but lower than church leaders and dukes. Let us now briefly outline the differences in their views:
Bistřický (1976a: 410-1; 1976b: 6; 1980; 1985: 245-6; 1998: 301-3; Bistřický – Červenka 2011: 130-1) consistently interpreted the objects hanging from the waists of the three figures as short swords (or their scabbards), which in the illumination intentionally differ from the two-handed sword of the duke. This identification led Bistřický to the conclusion that the bearers of these swords must be members of the high nobility. Specifically, he considered the figure marked with the letter T to be the the Olomouc prince Otto III. Dětleb. In his more recent works, he assessed the figures of Marcus and Modlata as retinues of this prince. In all his publications, Bistřický emphatically rejected any possibility that these figures represented stonemasons, bricklayers, other craftsmen or members of the building community. He argued that such persons would not be compositionally placed among the social elite, but rather in the lower part of the folio, where the creators of the manuscript are depicted.
Merhautová (1986a: 464; 1986b: 88; Merhautová-Livorová 1986: 29-30; Merhautová – Třeštík 1983: 175; 1985: 110) held the position that the objects in the belts of Marcus and Modlata are not swords, but measuring instruments. According to the author, these figures represent members of the building community, architects or sculptors. Although the author did not engage in a polemic regarding the identification of figure T as Otto III. Dětleb, whose instrument in the belt she also assessed as a short sword, this identification was questioned by Žemlička (1997: 245-248) and subsequently by Černý (2009: 112-113). Černý also assigned figure T to the building community and identified the figure of the duke depicted in the upper part of the scene as Otto III. Dětleb.
Fig. 2: Figures with belt tools.
Source: Library of Congress.
Close reading
Based on a deeper knowledge of archaeological finds from the early and high Middle Ages, we would like to present a new interpretation of the depicted cases. It is crucial to realize that previous research has been significantly limited by relying on indetailed and black-and-white facsimiles. These reproductions inevitably distorted the real appearance and the original intention of the illuminator. Fortunately, this significant handicap has been removed thanks to the availability of high-quality digital scans, which allow for more precise analysis. It is important to emphasize that all the objects discussed in the illumination are placed on the right sides of the wearers. This laterality suggests that these were cases intended for tools used in the right hand. The tools depicted in this scene undoubtedly serve to some extent as a badge of social status. It is therefore possible that their size is slightly exaggerated and deliberately emphasized so that these symbols are clearly legible.
All three hanging objects, which are almost identical in terms of proportions, construction and decoration (the case of the figure T is therefore no different, as Merhautová postulated), can be defined as rectangular cases of elongated shape. Their length would be approximately 20 cm or more in a realistic proportional scale. They are hung on disproportionately long straps, which cause the cases to reach the knees (figure T). The strap or loops are threaded through the back, non-viewable side and are attached to the edge of the case (Modlata), not perfectly centered. At the upper edge of the case there is a triangular formation or point, which can be interpreted as a lid covering the case. Merhautová mistakenly considered this formation to be a ring. The space below this formation creates the illusion of horizontally oriented slits into which a strap is inserted, creating a closing mechanism. The strap exceeds half the length of the case and appears to end in a knot. The lower part of the sheath is decorated with horizontal lines and dots. Considering the physical features of high medieval leather goods, it seems highly likely that this decoration represents sheet metal fittings, decorative stitching or embossing. The tools do not visually protrude from the sheaths, implying that they are shorter than the sheaths themselves and are fully concealed within them. In two cases (Marcus and the figure T) the edge lines are emphasized on only one side, which may relate to the presence of edge fittings or stitching.
Fig. 3: Tool details.
Source: Library of Congress.
Although the illustrated cases show an unusual level of detail and realism, their schematization makes definite identification problematic. Our goal should therefore be to find the most likely candidates, rather than an unequivocal identification. Given the almost complete absence of Late Hillfort Period cases from the territory of the Czech Republic, it is necessary to look for parallels abroad, especially in Poland and the Russian Federation. Cases with closable lids are omnipresent in the Middle Ages and were used to store very sharp, fragile, valuable or non-waterproof objects, such as coins, quilling sets, needles, scales, scissors, spoons, writing instruments or axes (see Matechina 2009; Virágos 2022; Volken – Goubitz 2020). A certain clue is that the cases usually copied the shapes of the stored tools. In light of this information, short swords can be clearly ruled out, and in this context it is worth recalling that the sword of the duke in the same scene has the usual one-handed length and is depicted in a realistic scabbard, so it is not a two-handed sword, as Bistřický suggested (see Grünzweig 2009: 256). The most likely candidates for the contents of these sheaths are long, narrow and sharp objects of uniform width.
Elongated rectangular cases with lids, exceeding 10 cm in length, are relatively rare in archaeological material. The closest physical analogy we have in terms of shape comes from Opole, Poland, only 130 km as the crow flies from Olomouc (Hołubowicz 1956: Fig. 46.3). Rectangular cases of similar length usually belong to knives. However, due to the requirement for quick usability, such cases almost always lack a lid (see Gabriel 1988: Abb. 26; Knorr 1938; Kowalska 2010: Fig. 75; Samsonowicz 1982: 103-4). If we interpret the decoration on the tip of the sheath as a metal chape with stamped or openwork decoration, then no other interpretation than a knife sheath is possible (see Bolander 2017; Feveile 2017; Krabath 2001: Taf. 9). The stitching and embossing is also quite typical for archaeologically found knife sheaths (see Wiklak 1967).
Of course, the possibility that the cases contained other tools cannot be completely ruled out. For example, Legner (1985: 250) suggested that they could be writing implements. However, in such a case, the styli would have to be of an above-average size, since common archaeological finds – including those from Olomouc – are up to 15 cm long (Baarová et al. 2006: 213; Hrbáčová 2009: 195; Legner 1985: 287). The physical cases also give a minimalist impression and are quite narrow, since they tightly enclose the tool (Matechina 2009: Табл. XVII). It is true that some styli are oversized in 12th century iconography (see Legner 1985: 197, 233). However, it should be emphasized that the styli are always depicted naked and without cases, so this would be a unique depiction, which would make interpretation difficult for the contemporary reader. It is also important to remember that the bearers of these objects are laymen, which would contradict the established iconographic convention for styli (see Legner 1985: 195-197, 219, 231, 240).
Fig. 4: Examples of styli and dividers in medieval iconography.
Source: Legner 1985: 182, 197.
The identification of the tools as compasses seems realistic, especially considering the lengths of medieval archaeological finds, which reach up to 18 cm (see Goodall 2011). These tools were essential for a wide range of medieval thinkers and craftsmen, including mathematicians (De Vittori 2011; Victor 1979), architects (Bork 2011; 2023; Müller 2020; Shelby 1965), and swordsmiths (Johnsson 2015). They would have to be simple dividers without large circular handles and locking arms. The identification of these objects as compass cases naturally runs counter to the absence of comparative iconographic material, since all compasses and dividers known from medieval iconography are depicted naked (Legner 1985: 182). For the sake of completeness, it is worth adding that some types of shears also had long and narrow sheaths (Volken – Goubitz 2020: 43; viz Vlasatý 2021). The description could also correspond to some large razors, the sheaths of which are rarely preserved in the early Middle Ages (Gabriel 1981: Tab. 8.2; Wegewitz 1968: Taf. 11.5). Given the carefully groomed appearance of the wearers, this interpretation would make some sense. The last possibility to be mentioned here are ringed-pins up to 16 cm long that we know were worn in decorated rectangular sheaths (see Żak 1960: 413). However, their exact meaning is unknown and they are known only from the area of present-day Poland.
If the illuminator intended to indicate the profession of a scribe or architect for a particular figure, it would be logical from the symbolical perspective of the time to place the relevant tools directly in the hands of these figures, which corresponded to the iconographic custom of the time. If this is not a deliberate deviation from the norm, then it is necessary to state that the hanging tools must have had a clearly legible meaning for the contemporary observer even in the sheathed state, just as a sword is a clear symbol even when placed in a scabbard. For the reasons stated above, the most likely candidate seems to be the unusual depiction of a sheathed knife. Although we admit that the correspondence to the archaeological finds is not absolute and the presence of a lid is extremely unusual in this context, this interpretation remains the most convincing. If we were to accept the hypothesis that the tool kept in the sheath is not a knife, then the consequence would be that the decorated sheaths did not belong exclusively to knives.
Fig. 5: Preliminary scheme of the case from the so-called dedication folio of the Olomouc Horologium.
Source: Diego Flores Cartes.
Top design: overall appearance with one-sided stitching based on Hołubowicz 1956: Fig. 46.3; chape based on Feveile 2017 and Knorr 1938; sewing of the strap to the lid and the locking system based on Grenander-Nyberg 1993; symmetrical holes on the back based on Wiklak 1967: Fig. 9.
Bottom design: overall appearance with one-sided stitching and lid stitched with a strap based on Hołubowicz 1956: Fig. 46.3; chape based on Feveile 2017 and Knorr 1938; threading system based on Grenander-Nyberg 1993; asymmetric holes on the back based on Wiklak 1967: Fig. 3, 10.
Analogies
When Legner published his text dedicated to the Olomouc Horologium in 1985, he compared the belt objects with the so-called Wolfram candlestick from Erfurt (Legner 1985: 250). Although it seems that this reference has not been sufficiently emphasized and developed in the Czech academia – probably due to the relative obscurity of this artifact – its importance for the interpretation of the dedicatory folio of the Olomouc Horologium is considerable.
Fig. 6: Wolfram candlestick in Erfurt.
Source: Schulze-Dörrlamm 1995: Abb. 49.
The Wolfram candlestick (Wolframleuchter), now on display in the Cathedral Church of St Mary in Erfurt, is a large anthropomorphic bronze statue dating to around 1160 (Bornschein 2019). The work is characterized by its extraordinary realism, which makes it one of the most faithful depictions of the human figure from the 12th century Europe. Based on the depicted clothing and hairstyle, the statue is assessed as a representation of a wealthy or high-ranking layman (Kania 2019). It is assumed that this is a faithful portrait of the man who financed the production of the candlestick, and that the Wolfram, whose name is given on the statue’s belt, could have been the Mainz ministerial Wolframus scultetus, whose relationship to Erfurt is documented in 1157 (Drescher 1997: 199).
Wolfram, like the figures of Marcus and Modlata, has his hands raised in an adoration gesture. Wolfram and Modlata are girded with textile belts with long ends that hang down to the level of the knees or below. On the left side of the body, a narrow leather strap reaches almost to the knees and ends with a knot. A rectangular, elongated case is attached to this strap and it proportionally corresponds to the previously discussed specimens from the Olomouc Horologium. The similarity of both cases, considering the rarity of such phenomena in contemporary iconography, is so striking that it is unlikely that these are two unrelated cases.
Fig. 7: Wolfram candlestick case details.
Source: Meyer 1985: Abb. 9 (left); kolomedievi.umk.pl (right).
The interpretation of the sheath depicted on the Wolfram candlestick has undergone a complex development and has been refined with more detailed analyses and comparisons with new archaeological finds. In the oldest literature, the object was identified as a plane (Overmann 1911: 6-7), later as a writing utensil (Legner 1985: 250) and subsequently as a fire-starting set (Lehmann – Schubert 1988: 144; Meyer 1985: 144). Currently, the prevailing opinion is that it is a knife sheath (Drescher 1997: 198-199; Gabriel 1988: 170-171; 1991: 209-210; Schanz 2010: 238). The sheath is equipped with a chape with additional plates and side fittings, which indeed show a significant similarity to a number of archaeological finds (see in particular Gabriel 1988: Abb. 26.13; Knorr 1938: Taf. 5). Despite the earlier opinion that the sheath is equipped with a lid (Meyer 1985: 143), it turned out that this is not the case and the top of the sheath is not covered. The strap, which extends from the top of the sheath and ends in a knot, must have been attached to the end of the knife by inserting it into a ring or eyelet. It is noticeable that the strap is bifurcated in the upper part, which means that the ring or eyelet was fixed using a simple knot, which was created by cutting the strap, wrapping it around the ring and pulling the strap through the cut (Vlasatý 2024; see approximate reconstruction). The knife itself is not visible at all and does not protrude from the sheath. The center of the sheath is surrounded by a wide formation, which probably represents a sheet metal strip. The sheath is secured to the vertical strap by a narrow cord, which is wrapped around the sheath twice and which at the same time binds the handle strap against being pulled out.
Fig. 8: Examples of rectangular knife sheaths from German territory.
Source: Gabriel 1988: Abb. 26.
Despite the significant similarity between the two sources being compared, the sheath from the Wolfram candlestick does not fully explain the triangular shape at the mouth of the sheaths from the Olomouc Horologium. It is possible that this is a certain optical illusion or a specific type of decoration. However, it cannot be ruled out that this is a relatively unusual or rare modification – a cut-out of the sheath at the upper edge, which exposed the top of the handle and made it easier to remove the knife, the handle of which is otherwise completely hidden. Examples of a similar cut-out are known from knife sheaths from present-day Germany (see Paulsen 1940: Tab. 27; Schnack 1998: Abb. 11.8).
Fig. 9: Components of a belt and sheath from Basedow and their approximate reconstruction.
Source: Schanz 2010: Abb. 10-11.
If we accept that both iconographic sources represent knives, which are very common finds in the archaeological record, it is legitimate to look for physical evidence that would support this assumption. The most promising candidate is grave 21 from the site of Basedow, Germany (Schanz 2010: 233, 242-243). An individual of unknown gender was buried in a SE-NW-oriented grave pit. Belt fittings were found at the waist, under which an elaborately decorated sheath with a knife was spread on the left side of the body. Although the sheath cannot be completely reconstructed faithfully and some fittings may be incorrectly placed in the proposed reconstruction, the author of the article works with the idea of suspending an elongated rectangular sheath on a long strap ending in a small strap end fitting. The enclosed knife consisted of a relatively short blade of Wesphalen type 8 (Westphalen 2002: 145-146), whose short tang (continuing in the line of the blade spine) was apparently set into a somewhat longer handle. Overall, this combination of fittings, the proposed reconstruction and the dating of the grave are relatively close to the above-mentioned iconographic specimens.
Fig. 10: Revised scheme of cases from the Olomouc Horologium based on the so-called Wolfram candlestick.
Source: Diego Flores Cartes.
Top design: overall appearance based on Gabriel 1988: Fig. 26 (with a seam instead of riveted applications); chape based on Feveile 2017 and Knorr 1938; locking system based on Schnack 1998: Fig. 10; fastening of cord under the strap based on Wolfram candlestick.
Bottom design: overall appearance based on Gabriel 1988: Fig. 26 (with a seam instead of riveted applications); cutout based on Schnack 1998: Fig. 11; chape based on Feveile 2017 and Knorr 1938; locking system based on Schnack 1998: Fig. 10; fastening of cord under the strap based on Wolfram candlestick..
Conclusion
An unambiguous and definitive identification of the objects of the so-called dedication scene of the Olomouc Horologium is impossible due to the nature of the source. However, based on a detailed reading and comparison with the Wolfram Candlestick from Erfurt and the archaeological find from grave 21, Basedow, we are convinced that the illuminator’s intention was most likely to depict a knife with an elaborately decorated sheath. This type of sheath was referred to in the archaeological literature as a Slavic feature (Knorr 1938; Timpel 1987; currently still Bolander 2017; Feveile 2017), but detailed revisions have shown that it was widespread throughout much of Europe during the 12th-13th centuries (Gross et al. 1993; Krabath 2001: Liste 4; Steuer 1989).
Finding comparable fittings from the Czech lands that would indicate the use of rectangular sheaths is not an easy task. The Hillfort Period grave finds of knives from the Czech territory either lack sheath fittings or are accompanied by simple non-rectangular chapes (Šikulová 1959) or a mouth pieces (Krumphanzlová 1974: 72; 2013: Tab. 71). So far, the closest but not identical fittings are the finds from Hradišťo u Davle (Richter 1982: Fig. 109.2) and Hradec Králové (Richter – Vokolek 1995: Tab. 118.27), which represent long chapes. It is of course possible that a closer analogy of such a sheath will be discovered in the future on the Czech territory. However, we should not rule out the possibility that the authors of the manuscript, who had a connection to the area of present-day Germany or came directly from it, could have transferred this feature from their home environment. The figure of Modlata can in any case be considered an inhabitant of the Czech lands, which can be proven by at least five namesakes in Bohemia and two in Moravia for the period of the 11th-13th century (Friedrich 1907: 506; Chytil 1850: 103).
Regarding the overall tone of the scene, we hold the working theory that the depicted knife sheaths could have served as a symbol of wealthy laypeople. These are portraits of specific figures who had a relationship with the Olomouc church organizations. It is possible that they were members of the nobility or well-situated servants. Future research could focus on finding and evaluating Central European scenes from around the mid-12th century that depict the archetype of a humble lay servant with his hands in an adoring gesture, a textile belt with two free ends in the middle of the body, and a knife at his waist.
Acknowledgment
This text was created with the help of colleagues we would like to mention. We thank Kristián Jócsik (University of Łódź) and Roman Král (King’s Craft) for consulting the dedication folio from an archaeological perspective. We are indebted to Katrin Kania for sharing literature. We must also mention Diego Flores Cartes, who is the author of the illustrative graph.
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
Primary sources
Friedrich, Gustav (ed.). (1904–1907). Codex diplomaticus et epistolaris regni Bohemiae I, Praha.
Chytil, Josef (ed.). (1850). Codex diplomaticus et epistolaris Moraviae, I-V Index, Brno.
Secondary sources
Baarová, Zuzana et al. (2006). Obrazový katalog vybraných exponátů. In: Sága moravských přemyslovců. Život na Moravě od XI. do počátku XIV. století, Olomouc – Brno, 199-250.
Bailey, R. N. (1980). Viking Age Sculpture in Northern England, London.
Bistřický, Jan (1976a). Dedikační obraz olomouckého kolektáře. In: Umění 24/5, 407-416.
Bistřický, Jan (1976b). Das Dedikationsbild des Olmützer Kollektariums. In: Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte 39/1, 3-11.
Bistřický, Jan (1980). Ještě k dedikačnímu obrazu olomouckého kolektáře. In: Umění 28/4, 382.
Bistřický, Jan (1985). Nochmals zum Dedikationsbild des Olmützer Kollektariums. In: Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte 48/2, 243-248.
Bistřický, Jan (1998). Zdíkovy listiny. In: Český časopis historický 96/2, 292-306.
Bistřický, Jan – Červenka, Stanislav (2011). Olomoucké horologium. Kolektář biskupa Jindřicha Zdíka, Olomouc.
Bolander, Adam (2017). Västslaviska knivslidebeslag : med utgångspunkt i fynden från Örja bytomt i Skåne. In: Fornvännen 112, 166-182.
Bork, Robert (2011). The Geometry of Creation. Architectural Drawing and the Dynamics of Gothic Design, Ashgate.
Bork, Robert (2023). Paper Thin? The Evidence for 12th-Century Gothic Design Drawings. In: Arts 12: 220.
Bornschein, Falko et al. (2019). Der Wolfram-Leuchter im Erfurter Dom Ein romanisches Kunstwerk und sein Umfeld, Erfurt.
Černý, Pavol (2009). Iluminované rukopisy Zdíkova skriptoria. In: Hrbáčová, Jana – Bláha, Josef (eds.). Jindřich Zdík. (1126–1150), Olomoucký biskup uprostřed Evropy, Olomouc, 88–147.
De Vittori, Thomas (2011). The perfect compass: conics, movement and mathematics around the 10th century. In: Barbin, Evelyne et al. (eds.). History and epistemology in mathematics education. Proceedings of the 6th European Summer University, Vienna, 539-548.
Dohnal, Vít (2001). Olomoucký hrad v raném středověku (10. až první polovina 13. století), Olomouc.
Drescher, Hans (1997). Zur Herstellungstechnik des Erfurter Wolfram-Leuchters. In: Ullmann, Ernst (ed). Halberstadt. Studien zu Dom und Liebfrauenkirche, Berlin, 186-204.
Feveile, Claus (2017). Ombukkede knivskedebeslag af blik. In: By, marsk og geest 29, 50-120.
Gabriel, Ingo (1981). Karolingische Reitersporen und andere Funde aus dem Gräberfeld von Bendorf, Kreis Rendsburg-Eckernförde. In: Offa. Berichte und Mitteilungen zur Urgeschichte, Frühgeschichte und Mittelalterarchäologie 38, 245–258.
Gabriel, Ingo (1988). Hof- und Sakralkultur sowie Gebrauchs- und Handelsgut im Spiegel der Kleinfunde von Starigard/Oldenburg. In: Müller-Wille, Michael (ed.), Oldenburg – Wolin – Staraja Ladoga – Novgorod – Kiev. Handel und Handelsverbindung im südlichen und östlichen Ostseeraum während des frühen Mittelalters. Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission 69, Mainz, 103-291.
Gabriel, Ingo (1991). Hofkultur, Heerwesen, Burghandwerk, Hauswirtschaft. In: Müller-Wille, Michael (ed). Starigard/Oldenburg. Ein slawischer Herrschersitz des frühen Mittelalters in Ostholstein, Neumünster, 181-251.
Goodall, I. H. (2011). Ironwork in Medieval Britain. An Archaeological Study, London.
Grenander-Nyberg, Gertrud (1993). An Elisenhof Find as a Product of its Milieu. In: Arwidsson, Greta et al. (eds.). Sources and Resources. Studies in Honour of Birgit Arrhenius, Strasbourg, 519-526.
Gross, Uwe et al. (1993). Ein Messerscheidenbeschlag aus der Zeit um 1200 von Sandhausen bei Heidelberg. In: Zeitschrift für Archäologie des Mittelalters 21, 71-86
Grünzweig, F. E. (2009). Das Schwert bei den “Germanen”: kulturgeschichtliche Studien zu seinem “Wesen” vom Altertum bis ins Hochmittelalter, Wien.
Hołubowicz, Włodzimierz (1956). Opole w wiekach X-XII, Katowice.
Hrbáčová, Jana (2009). Románské umělecké řemeslo v Olomouci. In: Hrbáčová, Jana – Bláha, Josef (eds.). Jindřich Zdík. (1126–1150), Olomoucký biskup uprostřed Evropy, Olomouc, 185–203.
Johnsson, Peter (2015). Die Geometrie und das mittelalterliche Schwert. In: Grotkamp-Schepers, Barbara et al (eds.). Das Schwert: Gestalt und Gedanke, Solingen, 16-26.
Jurčević, Ante (2016). Arhitektura i skulptura s lokaliteta Crkvina u Biskupiji kod Knina, Zagreb.
Kajitani, Nobuko (2001). A Man’s Caftan and Leggings from the North Caucasus of the Eight to Tenth Century: A Conservator’s Report. In: Metropolitan Museum Journal 36, 85–124.
Kania, Katrin (2019). Die Kleidung des Erfurter Wolfram-Leuchters. In: Bornschein, Falko et al. (eds.). Der Wolfram-Leuchter im Erfurter Dom Ein romanisches Kunstwerk und sein Umfeld, Erfurt, 215-227.
Knorr, H. A. (1938). Die slawischen Messerscheidenbeschläge. In: Mannus 30, 479-545.
Kowalska, A. B. (2010). Wytwórczość skórzana we wczesnośredniowiecznym Szczecinie, Szczecin.
Krabath, Stefan (2001). Die hoch- und spätmittelalterlichen Buntmetallfunde nördlich der Alpen. Eine archäologisch-kunsthistorische Untersuchung zu ihrer Herstellungstechnik, funktionalen und zeitlichen Bestimmung, Band 2 – Katalog und Tafeln, Rahden/Westf.
Krumphanzlová, Zdenka (1974). Chronologie pohřebního inventáře vesnických hřbitovů 9.–11. věku v Čechách. In: Památky archeologické 35, 34–110.
Krumphanzlová, Zdeňka (2013). Raně středověké pohřebiště v Praze-Lahovicích, Praha.
Legner, Anton (1985). Ornamenta Ecclesiae. Kunst und Künstler der Romanik I, Köln.
Lehmann, Edgar – Schubert, Ernst (1988). Dom und Severikirche zu Erfurt, Leipzig.
Matechina 2009 = Матехина, Т. С. (2009). Кожаные изделия средневекового Новгорода. Чехлы, футляры, сумки, Москва : Московский государственный университег им. М. В. Ломоносова.
Merhautová, Anežka (1986a). Ještě k tzv. Horologiu olomouckému. In: Umění 34/5, 464-465.
Merhautová, Anežka (1986b). K olomouckému kapitulnímu domu. In: Archaeologia historica 11, 87-94.
Merhautová-Livorová, Anežka (1986). Poznámky k titulnímu obrazu Horologia olomouckého. In: Umění 34/1, 29-34.
Merhautová, Anežka – Třeštík, Dušan (1983). Románské umění v Čechách a na Moravě, Praha.
Merhautová, Anežka – Třeštík, Dušan (1985). Ideové proudy v českém umění 12. století, Praha.
Meyer, H. G. (1985). Der Erfurter Wolfram und die Magdeburger Wettinwerkstatt. In: Gosebruch, Martin (ed.). Der Braunschweiger Burglöwe, Göttingen, 135-153.
Müller, Martin (2020). Umění geometrie a geometrie v umění. In: Čiháková, Jarmila – Müller, Martin (eds.). Malostranská rotunda svatého Václava v Praze, Praha, 156-216.
Overmann, Alfred (1911). Die älteren Kunstdenkmäler der Plastik, der Malerei und des Kunstgewerbes der Stadt Erfurt, Erfurt.
Paulsen, Peter (1940). Das sog. Jagdmesser Karls des Großen. In: Bonner Jahrbücher 145, 126-144.
Richter, Miroslav (1982). Hradišťko u Davle, městečko ostrovského kláštera, Praha.
Richter, Miroslav – Vokolek, Vít (1995). Hradec Králové. Slovanské hradiště a počátky středověkého města, Hradec Králové.
Samsonowicz, Agnieszka (1982). Wytwórczość skórzana w Polsce wczesnofeudalnej, Wrocław.
Shelby, L. R. (1965). Medieval Masons’ Tools. II. Compass and Square. In: Technology and Culture 6/2, 236-248.
Schanz, Elke (2010). Das jungslawische Körpergräberfeld bei Basedow, Lkr. Demmin, mit einer bemerkenswert beschlagenen Messerscheide. In: Bodendenkmalpflege in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern 57, 207-263.
Schnack, Christiane (1998). Mittelalterliche Lederfunde aus Schleswig: Futterale, Riemen, Taschen und andere Objekte ; Ausgrabung Schild 1971–1975. Ausgrabungen in Schleswig Berichte und Studien 13, Neumünster.
Schulze-Dörrlamm, Mechthild (1995). Das Reichsschwert. Ein Herrschaftszeichen des Saliers Heinrich IV. und des Welfen Otto IV., Sigmaringen.
Steuer, Heiko (1989). Mittelalterliche Messerscheidenbeschläge aus Köln. In: Hammaburg, NS 9, 231-246.
Šikulová, Vlasta (1959). Moravská pohřebiště z mladší doby hradištní. In: Pravěk východní Moravy I, 88-162.
Timpel, Wolfgang (1987). Mittelalterliche Messerscheidenbeschläge in Thüringen. In: Alt-Thüringen 22/23, 275-295.
Victor, S. K. (1979). Practical Geometry in the High Middle Ages. Artis Cuiuslibet Consummatio and the Pratike de Geometrie, Philadelphia.
Virágos, Gábor (2022). Sabretache Plates. Treasures of the Hungarian Conquerors of the Carpathian Basin, Budapest.
Vlasatý, Tomáš (2019). The Length of Early Medieval Belts. In: Project Forlǫg – Reenactment and science [online]. [2025-05-26]. Available here: https://sagy.vikingove.cz/en/the-length-of-early-medieval-belts/.
Vlasatý, Tomáš (2021). Early Medieval Shears Cases. In: Project Forlǫg – Reenactment and science [online]. [2025-05-26]. Available here: https://sagy.vikingove.cz/en/early-medieval-shears-cases/.
Vlasatý, Tomáš (2023a). Construction of early medieval tunics. In: Project Forlǫg – Reenactment and science [online]. [2025-05-26]. Available here: https://sagy.vikingove.cz/en/construction-of-early-medieval-tunics/.
Vlasatý, Tomáš (2023b). Transportation of axes in the early medieval Europe. In: Project Forlǫg – Reenactment and science [online]. [2025-05-26]. Available here: https://sagy.vikingove.cz/en/transportation-of-axes-in-the-early-medieval-europe/.
Vlasatý, Tomáš (2024). Simple medieval knot. In: Project Forlǫg – Reenactment and science [online]. [2025-05-26]. Available here: https://sagy.vikingove.cz/en/unknown-medieval-knot/.
Volken, Marquita – Goubitz, Olaf (2020). Covering the blade. Archaeological Leather Sheaths and Scabbards, Zwolle.
Wegewitz, Willi (1968). Reihengräberfriedhöfe und Funde aus spätsächsischer Zeit im Kreis Harburg, Neumünster.
Westphalen, Petra (2002). Die Eisenfunde von Haithabu. Die Ausgrabungen in Haithabu 10, Neumünster.
Wiklak, Henryk (1967). Gdańskie pochewki na noże z X-XIII wieku. In: Kamińska, Janina (ed.). Gdańsk wczesnośredniowieczny 6, Gdańsk, 67–81.
Żak, Jan (1960). O pochodzeniu “szpil” pierścieniowatych na ziemiach polskich. In: Slavia Antiqua 7, 407–442.
Žemlička, Josef (1997). Čechy v době knížecí (1034-1198), Praha.
