Introduction
In 2015, a rescue archaeological excavation was initiated in Olomouc at No. 10 Křížkovského Street, conducted by specialists from the National Heritage Institute, Regional Specialist Workplace in Olomouc. The excavation was prompted by the planned reconstruction of the Faculty of Arts Dean’s Office building (Palacký University) on the Peter’s Hill (Petrské návrší). Its primary objective was to verify the potential presence of remains of an early medieval sanctuary associated with the restoration of the Moravian bishopric in 1063. Although the foundations of the 11th-century church were not detected, a unique early medieval sunken feature, hewn directly into the bedrock, was identified within the courtyard area in 2016. Within its lower strata – dated to the first half of the 10th century based on a ceramic assemblage and radiocarbon analyses – an exceptional slate plaque bearing an engraving of a male figure was recovered, among other finds.
The artifact itself consists of a roughly one-centimeter-thick fragment of slate measuring 11.7 × 10.7 cm. Its surface features a standing male figure depicted in a fine engraved line, dressed in a robe and low footwear. The figure, characterized by a detailed face and stylized hair, holds a cross in his left hand and an implement resembling a holy water sprinkler (aspergillum) or a whisk in his right hand. Scholars interpret the depicted individual as a priest captured during the liturgical rite of the Great Blessing of Waters during the Feast of the Theophany (Epiphany), a hypothesis further supported by the flanking wavy lines that likely symbolize the element of water. Traceological analysis demonstrated that the artisan, presumably right-handed, initially laid out the composition using small dimples and subsequently connected them using a sharp metallic tool (most likely a knife).
Map 1: The position of Olomouc on the map of Europe.
From a broader contextual perspective, this iconographic motif has no direct analogies within the territory of Moravia (theoretically, the only exception might be a metal sheet from the destruction layers of the 12th church at Mikulčice, see Kaván 1993: Pl. 3) and exhibits stylistic links to the sphere of the Preslav Literary School. At the turn of the 9th and 10th centuries, this school was shaped by the disciples of Archbishop Methodius, who had been expelled from Great Moravia following his death. The context of discovery of the slate plaque suggests it may have originally served as a cover slab for a sepulchrum – the cavity intended for relics within the altar mense of an unknown sacral structure. Based on this artifact, alongside discoveries of roof tiles and stained window glass, the excavators deduce the existence of a possible 9th-century monastery. After this ecclesiastical complex was presumably destroyed in the first half of the 10th century – perhaps as a consequence of the Hungarian incursions – the damaged slab was ritually buried in a pit as part of a votive deposit, accompanied by two earthenware vessels, an iron axe-shaped bar currency, and fish, which bore the character of symbolic offerings.
To date, the plaque has been published in six scholarly works (Dehnerová – Šlezar 2017; Dehnerová – Šlezár 2025; Dehnerová – Šlezar – Hrbáčová 2025; Maříková-Kubková – Šlezár – Dehnerová 2023: 257-8; Šlezár 2018: 131; 2023: 114-5). It was also featured in the exhibitions The City on three hills. Medieval Olomouc from the archaeological perspective (2025, Olomouc) and The Přemyslids. A Ruling Dynasty and Its Age (2026, Prague). The aforementioned scholarly publications focused on introducing the artifact and discussing its cultural-historical implications. The following brief commentary aims to draw attention to an overlooked clothing detail that contributes to our understanding of Great Moravian dress.
Fig. 1: Photograph and line drawing of the carving from Olomouc.
Source: Dehnerová – Šlezár 2025: Fig. 9.
The State of Research into Great Moravian Clothing
Despite the exceptional and long-standing popularity of early medieval dress, which has captured the interest of both the scholarly community and the general public for over a century, our understanding of the subject remains woefully limited. There are no detailed iconographic or written sources available to facilitate a straightforward reconstruction; consequently, we must rely on archaeological finds as our primary source of knowledge. However, this approach is fraught with numerous methodological challenges, among which the following may be highlighted:
- Organic remains, including textiles, are highly perishable. The finds currently at our disposal represent accidental, fragmented survivals, typically originating from elite graves or chance discoveries.
- Numerous excavations were conducted at a time when any organic material was regarded as waste or of negligible interest, rather than an object of scientific inquiry. As a result, a substantial volume of recovered textiles suffered damage during excavation or due to substandard storage conditions.
- The recovered fragments usually measure no more than a few centimeters, which allows for the study of the weave structure, but not of the complete garment or its design and tailoring elements.
- Research is decentralised and carried out largely on a local scale. This lack of communication between individual European regions severely restricts the ability to identify analogies and formulate broader generalisations.
- Scholarship typically operates on a theoretical level and is burdened by the fact that researchers rarely attempt to physically reconstruct the garments and subject them to experimental testing.
The foundational research environment for the study of early medieval clothing within Czech territory was established primarily by L. Niederle (1913: 405–528; 1953: 232–260), J. L. Píč (1909: 148–172), and Č. Zíbrt (1892), who based their conclusions on iconography, written records, and linguistics. They reflected on archaeological material only rarely, and predominantly when searching for parallels across Slavic Europe. In some instances, this methodology persisted into the beginning of the second half of the 20th century (Trkovská 1965). Similarly, B. Dostál’s monograph (1966: 66) yields only minimal detail in this regard, presumably because its core research had already been developed during the 1950s (Dostál 1957).
Systematic excavations of the main Great Moravian centres shifted scholarly interest toward a more detailed analysis of preserved textile fragments. A pioneering work in this direction is the volume by V. Hrubý (1955: 215–222), which presented specialist analyses of fabrics from Staré Město near Uherské Hradiště. These initiatives were followed in the 1960s by the ethnologists J. Orel (1964a; 1964b; 1965) and J. Staňková (1964), who compared Great Moravian textiles with modern-era materials and attempted their reconstruction using traditional technological processes. A fundamental contribution to the study of Great Moravian dress was made by M. Kostelníková (1972a; 1972b; 1973; 1990), who, as part of her university thesis – subsequently published in an abridged printed version – documented now-lost Moravian textiles. Also noteworthy is the qualification thesis of J. Brychová (1980), which tracked textiles in the Czech lands from the 6th to the 13th century. A matching chronological framework is found in the widely cited study by H. Březinová (1997), which evaluates the quantity of textile finds and their material composition across individual centuries.
The post-1989 period is characterized by a plurality of research methodologies. On one hand, detailed case studies of specific textile fragments are being produced, primarily penned by H. Březinová (2013; 2014; 2022; Březinová – Přichystalová 2014); on the other hand, university qualification theses (Pavlíková 2015) build upon these findings. Concurrently, popularizing texts appear; though they do not fully reflect scholarly analyses, they contribute practical attempts at the physical reconstruction of garments (Galuška 2004: 87-9; 2021: 167-172; Kačer 2021). A distinctive position has been achieved by works that utilise scientific experimentation to reconstruct original, complete ensembles – these include university theses (Bínová 2019; Nožičková 2012; Salvetová 2010), magazine articles (Luňák 2012), and independent monographs (Urbanová – Pulpán 2016).
It follows from the preceding overview that while we possess a certain understanding of the textiles utilised during the Great Moravian period, the actual construction and tailoring of the garments remains beneath our analytical resolution due to the fragmentary nature of the finds. We were locked within this state of knowledge until further missing pieces of the puzzle could be discovered. The author entered this academic context with his own studies (Vlasatý 2017; 2023a; 2023b), aiming to establish a pan-European comparative framework of tailoring possibilities that would allow Great Moravian material to be viewed in a new light. This comparative approach appears to be yielding results in understanding the function of single and paired gombíky (spherical buttons), the application of which likely related to a significant degree to fastening neck slits at the neckline (Krupičková 2022a; 2022b; 2024; 2025; et al. 2019; et al. 2023; et al. 2025). It is precisely into this current stage of knowledge that the new discovery from Olomouc now enters.
Fig. 2: Examples of clothing depictions from Great Moravia (from top, left).
Silver plaque from Grave 15, Staré Město – Špitálky (Kouřil 2014: Cat. no. 128).
Metal sheet from the destruction layers of the 12th church at Mikulčice (Kaván 1993: Pl. 3).
Strap end from Grave 248 near the 3rd church at Mikulčice (Kouřil 2014: Cat. no. 175).
Strap end from Grave 390 near the 3rd church at Mikulčice (Kouřil 2014: Cat. no. 176).
Commentary on the Carving
Tunics reaching approximately to the knees are depicted in various iconographic sources from the Great Moravian period. Within the Moravian context, these include strap ends from Graves 248 (Klanica et al. 2019: Fig. 20.2) and 390 (Klanica et al. 2019: Fig. 66.2) near the 3rd church at Mikulčice, a mount from the destruction layers of the 12th church at Mikulčice (Kouřil 2014: Cat. no. 380), a gaming piece from Grave 251 near the 3rd church at Mikulčice (Klanica et al. 2019: Fig. 22.2), and a silver plaque depicting a so-called falconer from Grave 15 near the church at Staré Město – Špitálky (Kouřil 2014: Cat. no. 128). Other sources exist whose interpretation leans towards ecclesiastical vestments. Alongside the strap end from Grave 100 near the 2nd church at Mikulčice (Kouřil 2014: Cat. no. 180.2), these primarily consist of a large number of pectorals or small crosses. Examples include crosses from Graves 339 (Klanica et al. 2019: Fig. 43), 375 (Klanica et al. 2019: Fig. 58), and 400 (Klanica et al. 2019: Fig. 70.2) near the 3rd church at Mikulčice, as well as crosses from Uherské Hradiště – Hradební Street (Kouřil 2014: Cat. no. 366), Uherské Hradiště – Sady (Kouřil 2014: Cat. no. 436), Staré Město – Na Dvorku (Kouřil 2014: Cat. no. 367), from Graves 467 and 481 at Dolní Věstonice – Na pískách (Měřínský 1988), and, last but not least, a metal plaque from Mikulčice – Kostelisko (Roganský 2009: Pl. XXII.6). Naturally, it is possible that not all these items are of domestic Great Moravian provenance, but rather represent imports.
In this context, the engraving on the Olomouc plaque is remarkable because it depicts a garment with an intentionally indicated neck slit. This slit extends downwards onto the chest; however, it is positioned at the left edge of the neckline and is off-centred. Such a constructional detail is entirely unique within the existing corpus of Great Moravian depictions.
Fig. 3: Detail of the neckline on the Olomouc carving.
Source: archive of Monika Baráková.
The primary logic behind most early medieval tunic necklines (excluding children’s garments) was to achieve the closest possible fit around the neck. Consequently, necklines were relatively small and were frequently equipped with slits to allow the head to pass through the opening when donning the garment. These slits could subsequently be fastened using closures. Opening the slit provided ventilation and greater comfort during warm weather. The length of these slits varied between male and female attire; Laxdæla saga (ch. 34) even notes that an excessively long slit on a man’s tunic could serve as grounds for a woman to initiate divorce proceedings, as the wearer did not appear sufficiently masculine (Ewing 2006: 55–6). Long slits typically facilitated breastfeeding (Vlasatý 2023b).
Fig. 4: Neckline shapes of early medieval tunics.
Source: Vlasatý 2023a.
Lateral neck slits extending onto the chest are most frequently associated with circular and square necklines in preserved tunics and dresses from the early to high medieval periods. Within the attached schematic diagram, these are designated as type 2d. Circular variants featuring a slit are documented on the Bernuthsfeld tunic (Schlabow 1976: Figs. 149–150), on Caucasian garments (Orfinskaja 2001: 225), on a series of 12th- to 13th-century tunics from sites such as Assisi (Braun 1907: Fig. 35), Castel Sant’Elia (Braun 1907: Figs. 28–32), Sens (Braun 1907: Fig. 27), and Utrecht (Braun 1907: Fig. 26), as well as on the coronation tunics of William II and Roger II (Brenker 2015: Figs. 5–6; Fillitz 1954). Exceptionally, this feature also appears in iconography (Brenker 2015: Fig. 7). The square variant is less widespread and is known only from Suzdal (Saburova – Elkina 1991) and Viborg (Fentz 1992). A chest-facing slit could be augmented by a shoulder-facing slit (type 3c in the diagram; see Orfinskaja 2001: 307), or alternatively by a second chest-facing slit (3e), as evidenced by the Guddal tunic (Vedeler Nilsen 1992: 34). A lateral slit could also be applied to an inverted tear-drop neckline (3b); this shape is known from the tunic of Henry II (Brenker 2015: Figs. 1–2), as well as from two manuscripts from the turn of the 9th and 10th centuries – St Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek, Cod. Sang. 22, f. 2 and Angers, BM, Ms. 24, f. 7v. In any case, this represents a logical constructional element that enhanced the practical functionality of the garment during dressing. Within the contemporary Great Moravian living history and reenactment community, this detail is frequently implemented; the Olomouc depiction thus retrospectively validates the legitimacy of a hypothesis practiced in living history for an entire decade. However, the presence of this practical element on the vestment of an ecclesiastical figure remains extraordinarily intriguing.
Fig. 5: Neckline side slit reconstruction.
Roman Král archive (left) and Thomas Stemplinger archive (right).
Dehnerová and Šlezár (2025: 35) state that the left sleeve is fitted with a cuff. Sleeves are generally subjected to considerable stress at their narrowest points; it is therefore unsurprising that these sections might be reinforced by folding and doubling the material, by sewing on a braid or band (e.g. Løvlid 2009: Fig. 23; Østergård 1991: 133), or by inserting an organic stiffener, such as birch bark (Griciuvienė 2016: 20-21) or leather (Stepanova 2017: 309). Cuffs typically take two primary forms. The first variant, which appears to be more common, encircles the entire wrist without interruption. This is found on well-preserved tunics and dalmatics (e.g. Braun 1907: Fig. 26, Fig. 27, Figs. 28–32, Fig. 35; Fentz 1992; Fillitz 1954; Schlabow 1976: Fig. 149), caftans (e.g. Hensellek 2020; Jerusalimskaja 2012; Kajitani 2001; Orfinskaya – Pushkina 2011), and women’s dresses (e.g. Jerusalimskaja 2012: Il. 124; Zubkova et al. 2010: 292). In some instances, it is detectable solely through metallic sleeve decorations (Nockert 1982: Fig. 39). This variant is predominantly depicted in contemporary iconography.
The second, less common variant is a cuff that does not entirely encircle the wrist, but instead creates a small slit on one side of the sleeve (see the reconstruction example). The main reason for this design – much like in modern shirts – is to make donning the sleeve easier, to allow a very tight fit around the arm, and to enable the sleeve to be rolled or pushed up. In the archaeological record, this method is recognizable almost exclusively through metallic remains, such as sheet-metal mounts and cuff links or sleeve buttons (e.g. Nockert 1991: Figs. 21–22). The golden age of these metallic accessories is recorded between the 3rd and 6th centuries in Great Britain and Scandinavia (Hines 1993; Nockert 1991: 37-65; Kristoffersen 2000; Ræder Knudsen – Mannering 2007; Vedeler et al. 2018), as well exemplified by the Thorsberg tunic (Schlabow 1976: Fig. 137), though they are also known from the 8th to 9th centuries in Courland (Griciuvienė 2016: 20–21). A small slit has also been proposed for a sleeve fragment from Hedeby (Hägg 1984: 59). A rolled-up sleeve with a slit appears to be depicted in the Stuttgart Psalter (Stuttgart, Württembergische Landesbibliothek, Bibl. fol. 23, f. 9r) and on a Byzantine ivory casket engraving (Papanikola-Bakirtzi et al. 2002: 54). Finally, slits with a similar function were used on trousers (Løvlid 2009: Fig. 47) and stockings (Müller-Christensen 1960: Pl. 34–37).
Alternatively, this feature might represent a misunderstanding of a multi-piece sleeve. Since sleeves are spatially demanding components, it is not uncommon for them to be pieced together from smaller segments of various triangular or quadrangular shapes. Good examples include the tunics from Guddal (Vedeler Nilsen 1992: 34), Kragelund (Østergård 2004: Fig. 89), and Viborg (Fentz 1992). The same tailoring logic is shown by the sleeve from Hedeby (Hägg 1984: 59) and the sleeves of other garments (e.g. Orfinskaya – Lantratova 2010: 52; Orfinskaya – Pushkina 2011: Fig. 3). Regarding the rest of the garment, which is drawn very schematically, no further assessment can be made, save for the fact that it apparently reaches below the knees.
The narrow trousers of the depicted figure are engraved in a manner that might suggest a pieced or multi-panel construction of the leg. However, such shaping of the leg using a tailored cutout piece to contour the calf is unknown from archaeological materials. Available finds rather indicate that such a complex sartorial solution was not technically necessary. Although we do know of extensions on separately attached leggings (Herget 2011: 173–5), this applies only to the thigh area, not the calf. It is therefore probable that, in this instance, the engraver was attempting a schematic representation of the plasticity of the calf muscle and the folds of the fabric (for an analogous example, see Vatican, BAV, MS Reg. lat. 1263, f. 68v).
The feet are clad in low, ankle-height footwear. The exact construction of the shoes cannot be further commented upon. Within the corpus of 9th- to 10th-century continental footwear, however, low-cut designs represent the most numerous group (Volken 2014: 123–9). Leaving aside fragments of leather shoes attached to spurs (Mikulčice Graves 44 near the 2nd church and 446 near the 3rd church; Klanica et al. 2019: 74; Poulík 1967: 81), the chronologically closest surviving shoe is represented by a find from Přerov, dated to the turn of the 10th and 11th centuries (Procházka 2017: 264–6; Vlasatý 2022). Conversely, the silver falconer plaque from Staré Město – Špitálky depicts a different type entirely – namely, high riding boots (Kouřil 2014: Cat. no. 128).
Acknowledgements
This text and research would not have been possible without the kind assistance and valuable suggestions of numerous colleagues. Sincere thanks are due, first and foremost, to Monika Baráková (recreating_the_past), who drew our attention to the existence of the plaque and its potential significance for reenactors. The author would also like to thank the other members of the Gombík Study Group – Kristýna Boháčová, Roman Král (King’s Craft), Šárka Krupičková (Institute of Archaeology of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Brno), and Anna Staňková – for their stimulating collaboration. Finally, gratitude is expressed to Roman Král and Thomas Stemplinger (Rastislavs Hantverk) for their kind permission to publish their photographic documentation.
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
Laxdæla saga = Sága o lidech z Lososího údolí. Přel. Ladislav Heger. In: Staroislandské ságy, Praha 2015, 213–362.
Secondary sources
Bínová, Martina (2019). Raně středověký oděv a jeho rekonstrukce ve světle výzkumů Znojma-Hradiště, Brno: Masarykova univerzita.
Braun, Joseph (1907). Die liturgische Gewandung im Occident und Orient. Nach Ursprung und Entwicklung, Verwendung und Symbolik, Freiburg.
Brenker, Fabian (2015). Unzurechnungsfähig. Historische und kostümkundliche Anmerkungen zum Ursprung der Tunika im Bamberger Domschatz. In: Bericht des Historischen Vereins Bamberg 151, 37-58.
Brychová, Jana (1980). Tkalcovství a oděv Slovanů v 6. až 13. století, Praha : Univerzita Karlova.
Březinová, Helena (1997). Doklady textilní výroby v 6. – 12. století na území Čech, Moravy a Slovenska. In: Památky archeologické 87, 124–179.
Březinová, Helena (2013). Finds of Textile Fragments and Evidence of Textile Production at a Major Excavation Site of Great Moravia in Mikulčice (South Moravia, Czech Republic). In: Banck-Burgess, Johanna – Nübold, Carla (eds.). NESAT XI: The North European Symposium for Archaeological Textiles XI: 10-13 May 2011 in Esslingen am Neckar, Rahden/Westf., 193-196.
Březinová, Helena (2014). Rozbor textilních fragmentů z meče a šavle z pohřebiště Olomouc – Nemilany. In: Přichystalová, R. – Kalábek, M. (eds.). Raněstředověké pohřebiště Olomouc – Nemilany. Katalog, Brno, 181-198.
Březinová, Helena (2022). Luxusní textilie z elitních velkomoravských hrobů. In: Poláček, Lumír et al. (eds.). Velkomoravské elity z Mikulčic, Brno, 339-349.
Březinová, Helena – Přichystalová, Renáta (2014). Úvahy o textilní výrobě na Pohansku na základě analýzy nálezů textilních fragmentů a předmětů souvisejících se spřádáním a tkaním. In: Památky archeologické 105/1, 155-214.
Dehnerová, Hana – Šlezar, Pavel (2017). Olomouc (k. ú. Olomouc-město, okr. Olomouc). Křížkovského 10, č. p. 512, parc. č. st. 208. In: Přehled výzkumů 58/2, 232-234.
Dehnerová, Hana – Šlezar, Pavel (2025). Olomouc jako sakrální centrum 9. – 10. století: nové poznatky archeologických výzkumů. In: Konštantínove listy 18/2, 32–44.
Dehnerová, Hana – Šlezar, Pavel – Hrbáčová, Jana (2025). Krycí deska sepulchra s rytinou kněze. In: Hrbáčová, Jana (ed.). Město na třech pahorcích. Katalog k výstavě, Olomouc, 18–21.
Dostál, Bořivoj (1957). Hmotná kultura moravských Slovanů v době říše Velkomoravské, II. díl – Archeologické prameny, Brno.
Dostál, Bořivoj (1966). Slovanská pohřebiště ze střední doby hradištní na Moravě, Praha.
Ewing, Thor (2006). Viking Clothing, Stroud.
Fentz, Mytte (1992). Vikingeskjorten fra Viborg, Viborg.
Fillitz, Hermann (1954). Die Insignien und Kleinodien des Heiligen Römischen Reiches, Wien – München.
Galuška, Luděk (2004). Slované – doteky předků. O životě na Moravě 6.-10. století, Brno.
Galuška, Luděk (2021). Slované – stopy předků. O Moravě v 6.-10. století, Brno.
Griciuvienė, Eglė (2016). Kuršiai: genties kultūra: papuošalai ir nešiosena = Curonians: tribal culture according to the ornaments and wear, Vilnius.
Hägg, Inga (1984). Die Textilfunde aus dem Hafen von Haithabu. Berichte über die Ausgrabungen in Haithabu, Bericht 20, Neumünster.
Hensellek, B. L. (2020). The Age of the Polychrome Kaftan: Sartorial Systems of Central Eurasia 400-900 CE, Cornell : Cornell University.
Herget, Melanie (2011). Des Kaisers letzte Kleider. Neue Forschungen zu den organischen Funden aus der Herschergräbern im Dom zu Speyer, München.
Hines, John (1993). Clasps, Hektespenner, Agraffen. Anglo-Scandinavian Clasps of Classes A–C of the 3rd to 6th Centuries A.D. Typology, Diffusion and Function, Stockholm.
Hrubý, Vilém (1955). Staré Město: Velkomoravské pohřebiště „Na Valách“, Praha.
Jerusalimskaja 2012 = Иерусалимская, А. А. (2012). Мощевая Балка. Необычный археологический памятник на Северокавказском шёлковом пути, СПб.
Kačer, Jindřich (2021). Temné počátky českých dějin, Příbram.
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.
Kaván, Jaroslav (1993). Technologie velkomoravských omítek a zbytek maleb z kostelů v Mikulčicích a pokus o jejich rekonstrukci. In: Archeologia technica 8, 9–21.
Klanica, Zdeněk et al. (2019). Mikulčice – die Nekropole an der dreischiffigen Basilika, Brno.
Kostelníková, Marie (1972a). Zvláštní tkanina ze Starého Města. In: Časopis Moravského musea. Vědy společenské LVII, 185-186.
Kostelníková, Marie (1972b). Slovanský textil na Moravě, Brno : Univerzita J. E. Purkyně v Brně.
Kostelníková, Marie (1973). Velkomoravský textil v archeologických nálezech na Moravě, Praha.
Kostelníková, Marie (1990). Eine kurzgefasste Übersicht über die Textilforschung in Mähren (Tschechoslowakei). In: Walton, P. – Wild, J.-P. (eds.). Textiles in Northern Archaeology, NESAT III: Textile Symposium in York 6-9 May 1989, London, 113-118.
Kouřil, Pavel (2014). Velká Morava a počátky křesťanství, Brno.
Kristoffersen, E. S. (2000). Sverd og spenne. Dyreornamentikk og sosial kontekst. Katalog, Kristiansand.
Krupičková, Šárka (2022a). Gombíky. Jedinečné symboly velkomoravské elity. In: Poláček, Lumír et al. (eds.). Velkomoravské elity z Mikulčic, Brno, 295-308.
Krupičková, Šárka (2022b). Velkomoravské gombíky. Původ, účel a vývoj artefaktů v živé kultuře 9. století, Brno: Masarykova univerzita.
Krupičková, Šárka (2024). Gombíky from Mikulčice and Their Regional and Supraregional Context, Brno.
Krupičková, Šárka (2025). Where Did the Spherical Hollow Buttons Come From? Comparing Great Moravian Gombíky with Examples from the Preslav Treasure. In: Bosselmann-Ruickbie, Antje et al. (eds.). The Preslav Treasure from Bulgaria (Tenth Century): Historical Context, Excavations, Objects and Technology, Heidelberg, 149–166.
Krupičková, Šárka et al. (2019). Exact evidences of the use of spherical buttons (gombíky): two case studies from Moravian finds – Exaktní doklady používání gombíků: dva příklady z moravských nálezů a jejich paralely. In: Přehledy výzkumů 60/2, 57-77.
Krupičková, Šárka et al. (2023). Rozdělené páry. Identifikace a interpretace výskytu gombíků s identickou tepanou výzdobou z různých nálezových kontextů velkomoravské aglomerace Mikulčice–Kopčany. In: Přehled výzkumů 64/2, 73–101.
Krupičková, Šárka et al. (2025). Gold gombíky from Mikulčice and Staré Město – Uherské Hradiště: An analysis and comparison of two unique find assemblages. In: Krupičková, Šárka et al. (eds.). Early medieval elite culture in supra-regional perspective. Society, centres, artefacts, Brno, 209-247.
Løvlid, D. H. (2009). Nye tanker om Skjoldehamnfunnet, Bergen.
Luňák, Petr (2012). Jak vypadali Velkomoravané. In: Tajemství české minulosti 14, 68-73.
Maříková-Kubková, Jana – Šlezár, Pavel – Dehnerová, Hana (2023). Praha – Olomouc. Sídelní potenciál a vznik biskupství. In: Kotous, Jan – Sommer, Petr – Vaníček, Vratislav (eds.). Tisíc a padesát let pražského biskupství, Praha, 244-266.
Měřínský, Zdeněk (1988). Kosočtverečné olověné křížky a jejich chronologické postavení v rámci hmotné kultury střední doby hradištní. In: Rodná země : sborník k 100. výročí Muzejní a vlastivědné společnosti v Brně a k 60. narozeninám PhDr. Vladimíra Nekudy, CSc, Brno, 122-145.
Müller-Christensen, Sigrid (1960). Das Grab des Papstes Clemens II. im Dom zu Bamberg, München.
Niederle, Lubor (1913). Život starých Slovanů. Dílu I. svazek 2, Praha.
Niederle, Lubor (1953). Rukovět slovanských starožitností, Praha.
Nockert, Margareta (1982). Textilfunde von Önsvala, Nevishög ksp., Schonen. In: Acta Archaeologica 52, 202-208.
Nockert, Margareta (1991). The Högom find and other Migration Period textiles and costumes in Scandinavia, Umeå.
Nožičková, Kamila (2012). Textilie a textilní výroba 9. – 12. stol. v českých zemích, Olomouc: Univerzita Palackého v Olomouci.
Orel, Jaroslav (1964a). Textil z velkomoravského období. In: Věstník NSČ při ČSAV a SNS pri SAV 1/1964, 20-22.
Orel, Jaroslav (1964b). Tkaniny z období Velké Moravy. In: Umění a řemesla 7/1, 33-37.
Orel, Jaroslav (1965). Rekonstrukce tkanin z velkomoravského období. In: Bárta, Oldřich (ed.). Almanach Velká Morava, Brno, 141-142.
Orfinskaja 2001 = Орфинская, О. В. (2001). Текстиль VIII-IX вв. из коллекции Карачаево-Черкесского музея: технологические особенности в контексте культуры раннесредневековой Евразии, Москва.
Orfinskaya, Olga – Lantratova, Olga (2010). Female costume of the Golden Horde period from burial 93 of the Maiachnyi Bugor I cemetery in the Astrakhan region of Russia. In: Archaeological Textiles Newsletter 52, 48-63.
Orfinskaya, Olga – Pushkina, Tamara (2011). 10th century AD textiles from female burial Ц-301 at Gnëzdovo, Russia. In: Archaeological Textiles Newsletter 53, 35-51.
Østergård, Else (1991). Textilfragmenterne fra Mammengraven. In: Iversen, Mette et al. (eds.). Mammen. Grav, kunst og samfund i vikingetid, Århus, 123-138.
Østergård, Else (2004). Woven into the Earth: Textile finds in Norse Greenland, Århus.
Papanikola-Bakirtzi, Demetra et al. (2002). Everyday life in Byzantium. Byzantine Hours. Works and days in Byzantium, Athens.
Pavlíková, Kristýna (2015). Výskyt vzácných (importovaných) textilií z období Velké Moravy na území bývalého Československa na základě publikovaných nálezů. Zhodnocení stavu výzkumu, Brno: Masarykova univerzita.
Píč, J. L. (1909). Starožitnosti země české. Díl 3, sv. 1. Čechy za doby knížecí, Praha.
Poulík, Josef (1967). Pevnost v lužním lese, Praha.
Procházka, Rudolf (2017). Hrad Přerov v raném středověku (9. -11. století) a počátky mladohradištní hmotné kultury, Brno.
Roganský, Lukáš (2009). Signa Christiana. Artefakty kresťanského rázu z poslednej tretiny prvého tisícročia medzi Čechami a Potisím, Nitra.
Ræder Knudsen, Lise – Mannering, Ulla (2007). A Danish Early Germanic Iron Age Grave with Tablet Woven Cuffs. In: Rast-Eicher, Antoinette – Windler, Renate (eds.). NESAT IX – Archäologische Textilfunde – Archaeological Textiles, Braunwald, 18.-21. Mai 2005, Ennenda, 119-123.
Saburova – Elkina 1991 = Сабурова, М. А – Елкина, А. К. (1991). Детали древнерусской одежды по материалам некрополя г. Суздаля // Материалы по средневековой археологии Северо-Восточной Руси, Москва, 53-78.
Salvetová, Marie (2010). Rekonstrukce velkomoravského oděvu na základě archeologických, písemných a ikonografických pramenů, Brno: Masarykova univerzita.
Schlabow, Karl (1976). Textilfunde der Eisenzeit in Norddeutschland, Neumünster.
Staňková, Jitka (1964). Etnografické marginálie k textiliím z období velkomoravské říše. In: Český lid 51, 334-347.
Stepanova, Iuliia (2017). The Burial Dress of the Rus‘ in the Upper Volga Region (Late 10th–13th Centuries), Leiden.
Šlezár, Pavel (2018). Olomouc between the Great Moravian and Přemyslid Duchies. In: Kouřil, Pavel – Procházka, Rudolf (eds.). Moravian and Silesian Strongholds of the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries in the Context of Central Europe, Brno, 115-135.
Šlezár, Pavel (2023). Olomoucké knížectví Přemysla Otakara I. (1201-1212), Olomouc.
Trkovská, Věra (1965). Poznámky k vývoji oděvu na našem území v raném středověku. In: Český lid 52, 295-304.
Urbanová, Kristýna – Pulpán, Jan (2016). Oblékání pravěku, Litomyšl.
Vedeler, Marianne et al. (2018). Dressed for Ritual, Dressed for Life. A Migration-Period Grave from Sande in Norway. In: Medieval Archaeology 62, 1, 1-27,
Vedeler Nilsen, Marianne (1992). Draktmaterialet fra Guddal: Funksjon og visuell kommunikasjon, Bergen.
Vlasatý, Tomáš (2022). Je gombík knoflíkem? Návrh funkcí velkomoravského gombíku. In: Project Forlǫg – Reenactment and science [online]. [2026-06-05]. Available at: https://sagy.vikingove.cz/je-gombik-knoflikem/.
Vlasatý, Tomáš (2022). The shoe from Přerov, Czech Republic. In: Project Forlǫg – Reenactment and science [online]. [2026-06-05]. Available at: https://sagy.vikingove.cz/en/the-shoe-from-prerov-czech-republic/.
Vlasatý, Tomáš (2023a). Construction of early medieval tunics. In: Project Forlǫg – Reenactment and science [online]. [2026-06-05]. Available at: https://sagy.vikingove.cz/en/construction-of-early-medieval-tunics/.
Vlasatý, Tomáš (2023b). Notes on Early Medieval Women’s Dress. In: Project Forlǫg – Reenactment and science [online]. [2026-06-05]. Available at: https://sagy.vikingove.cz/en/notes-on-early-medieval-womens-dress/.
Volken, Marquita (2014). Archaeological Footwear: Development of Shoe Patterns and Styles from Prehistory til the 1600’s, Zwolle.
Zíbrt, Čeněk (1892). Dějiny kroje od nejstarších dob, až po války husitské, Praha.
Zubkova, E. S. et al. (2010). Studies of the Textiles from the 2006 Excavation in Pskov. In: Strand, E. A. et al. (eds.). North European Symposium for Archaeological Textiles X, Oxford, 291-298.