Documentation of a detector find of medieval jewellery
The article represents a translation of the text from 2018 when the author was a store manager in Prague. In every person’s life, there are moments when an individual is speechless with amazement and is unable to comprehend the bizarreness of the moment. I would like to introduce regular readers, as well as random researchers and history enthusiasts, to one of my experiences, which was such a moment. As a history buff and employee of a store selling replicas, I was thrown into a situation that probably few people encounter.
Friday, February 16, 2018, was exceptionally relaxing. No stress, a great work team of positive people, pleasant weather, a hearty lunch. It was simply a pleasant end to the working week. Just as I was training a new colleague at the cash register, a colleague ran up to me and said: “Come with me, you’ll be interested in this.” Kept in ignorance, I came to the other roam where a customer was waiting in front of the cash register. A tall, bearded gentleman who had come to pick up his order. After paying, this gentleman boasted that he carried original pieces of miniature axes in his wallet, which he willingly showed.
Even though I had held a few swords, axes, pottery shards and other objects in my hands, it was always in museums under special conditions and with gloves. Now I had some jewellery that was about 1000 years old in my hands, and in an environment in which I would not have expected it. It was immediately clear to me that the gentleman was definitely not an archaeologist. I had already tried to work with some metal detectorists in the past, so I tried my luck this time too. Even though my moral compass prevents me from supporting illegal excavations, cooperation offers the opportunity to document artifacts that would otherwise escape archaeological research.
Miniature axes from Poland and Belarus.
Source: Kucypera et al. 2011: Tabl. I-XIII.
The conversation with the gentleman was not easy. Although he more than willingly lent the objects for documentation, it was clear that he was not a fan of official archaeology. The objects served him to support his own theories. I listened to his opinions and tried to find out more about the context of the finds. The customer told me that he found both objects on the same day near the Belarusian-Ukrainian border, where he regularly hunts and spends his free time with “beeping”. According to his own words, he owns a third miniature, which he does not carry with him. Some amulets were supposedly accompanied by beads, but I personally considered this to be a fabricated info, as well as the tales of Belarusian grandmothers who have been passing on stories about Perun’s axe, stories about the dominance of Russians in European prehistory, the Bosnian pyramids and Atlantis for a thousand years. However, I saw a sad grain of truth in one story – namely, when the gentleman mentioned the massive purchase of detector finds by collectors (which the gentleman condemned, not because it was an illegal devastation of cultural heritage, but because the collectors are “Jews” who create competing conspiracy theories about the origin of these objects). Although we were representatives of completely opposite camps, there was no polemic with the gentleman, and I am grateful to him for allowing documentation, which despite the field conditions (a mobile phone camera, a goldsmith scale and a digital caliper) was relatively detailed. The objects did not give the impression of fakes, as evidenced by comparison with other documented pieces.
Object no. 1
A complete miniature of an axe belonging to Makarov type 1 (dated to the late 10th–13th centuries). At least 95 axes of this type are currently known in the literature – including three finds from Belarus and seventeen pieces from Ukraine (Kucypera et al. 2011). In shape, this type corresponds to a bearded axe with a semicircular protrusion under the blade and a realistically profiled butt with thorns. The material is probably a copper alloy, since the entire surface of the object is covered with verdigris. The absence of decoration and a hole in the side of the blade is striking. The blade was relatively well sharpened; the original edge may once have been razor-sharp. When viewed from above, there was a clear transition between the thickness of the eye and the thickness of the edge, which was not smooth – this feature can also be seen on other contemporary casted axes.
- Weight: 10.7 g.
- Maximum length: 52.61 mm.
- Blade width: 31.77 mm.
- Eye thickness: 11.32 mm.
- Edge thickness: 1.26–4.37 mm.
- Butt height: 15.56 mm.
- Neck height: 4,10 mm.
- Eye size: 7,4 × 6,63 mm.
Object no. 2
An axe-shaped pendant of a chisel-like shape, which corresponds in shape to finds from the Late Roman period (approx. 3rd to mid-4th century), probably from the East Germanic cultural circle of the Przeworsk or Chernyakhov culture (see Belevec 2016; Kokowski 1997; 2009; Rypka 2023). Belonging to Makarov type 2 (Kucypera – Wadyl 2011) or hammer amulets (Staecker 1999) is less likely.
The material is probably silver, which has darkened due to poor conservation. The pendant is symmetrical and, unlike the previous object, does not have a narrowed edge. The eye is located on an oval flat surface, which is separated from the rest of the pendant by a sharply cut transition in the shape of a prism. The edge is decorated on one side – let’s say the visible side – with an engraved zigzag decoration, which is doubled in several places.
- Weight: 1.8 g.
- Maximum length: 20.13 mm.
- Width: 16.99 mm.
- Eye height: 4.2 mm.
- Eye thickness: 1.81 mm.
- Size of prismatic transition: approx. 3.46 × 3.15 mm.
- Size of middle teeth of decoration: approx. 2.26 × 1.86 mm.
Acknowledgment
Examination and subsequent comparison with the preserved material taught me a lot about the proportions and production of these interesting medieval ornaments. I thank the gentleman, whom I met completely by chance, and I wish that similar cooperation would occur more often. My thanks also go to my colleague Monika Baráková, who did not hesitate to photograph the objects.
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
Belevec 2016 = Белевец, В. Г. (2016). О находках топоровидных подвесок позднеримского времени на территории Беларуси // OIUM, Вип. 5: Черняхівська культура. До 85- річчя від для народжання І.С. Винокура, Киів, 59–67.
Kokowski, Andrzej (1998). Metalowe wisiorki w kształcie topora na terenie Barbaricum na północ i północny wschód od limesu rzymskiego w okresie rzymskim i we wczesnym okresie wędrówek ludów. In: Ilkjær, J. – Kokowski, A. (eds.). 20 lat archeologii w Masłomęczu, t. I – Weterani, Lublin, 99–116.
Kokowski, Andrzej (2009). Jeszcze raz w kwestii metalowych wisiorków w kształcie topora. In: Bitner-Wróblewska, A. – Iwanowska, G. (eds). Bałtowie i ich sąsiedzi: Marian Kaczyński in memoriam, Warszawa, 767-771.
Kucypera, P. – Pranke, P. – Wadyl, S. (2011). Wczesnośredniowieczne toporki miniaturowe, Toruń.
Kucypera, P. – Wadyl, S. (2011). Early medieval miniature axes of Makarov’s type 2 in the Baltic Sea Region. In: Archaeologia Lituana 12, 122–130.
Rypka, Luboš (2023). Dva sekerovité závěsky z Roudnicka (okr. Litoměřice) a poznámky k jejich rozšíření a typologicko-chronologickému členění. In: Archeologie severozápadních Čech 2, 39-65.
Staecker, Jörn (1999). Rex regum et dominus dominorum. Die wikingerzeitlichen Kreuz- und Kruzifixanhänger als Ausdruck der Mission in Altdänemark und Schweden, Stockholm.
