313Arheološki vestnik 73, 2022, 313–343; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AV.73.09; CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
Cast bronze vessels in the northern
Adriatic region (c. 600 AD).
 Rome and Ravenna, Nocera Umbra and Budakalász
Bronasto ulito posodje na severnojadranskem
območju (okrog leta 600). 
Rim in Ravena, Nocera Umbra in Budakalász
Joan PINAR GIL
Izvleček
Čeprav ni bilo odkritih prav veliko bronastih ulitih posod iz obdobja med 6. in 8. st., pa njihova izdelava in raz-
prostranjenost dokaj dobro kažeta splošne gospodarske usmeritve in razvoj trgovskih mrež v porimskem Sredozemlju.
Iz prostorske razprostranjenosti teh predmetov je razvidno, da je severnojadranski prostor na prelomu iz 6. v 7. st. 
postal glavna vhodna točka za redistribucijo posod v vzhodnjaškem slogu v srednjo Evropo in zahodno Sredozemlje in 
nadomestil dotlej glavno zahodno stičišče Rim z bližnjimi pristanišči. Z območja severnega Jadrana je več tipov posodja 
potovalo po kopnih poteh v Padski nižini in Porenju ter po morskih poteh, ki so povezovale Jadran z Novo Kartagino 
(Carthago Nova) in jugovzhodno Iberijo.
Nekatere značilnosti porimskih bronastih ulitih posod in njihovi najdiščni konteksti nakazujejo, da so bile izdelane po 
različnih standardih kakovosti za različna družbena okolja. Kartiranje razprostranjenosti posodja različnih kakovosti kaže, 
da je to lahko potovalo prek različnih trgovskih mrež, in razkriva vpliv stroškov prevoza na končno ceno teh izdelkov.
Ključne besede: zahodno Sredozemlje; srednja Evropa; Jadransko morje; zgodnji srednji vek; bronasto posodje; 
predelava kovin; gospodarstvo
Abstract
Although cast bronze vessels of the 6th–8th centuries are not recorded in particularly large numbers, their production 
and distribution provide a representative sample of the general economic trends and of the evolution of trade networks 
in the post-Roman Mediterranean.
The geographical dissemination of these objects shows that at the turn of the 6th century, the northern Adriatic region 
became the main gateway of ‘eastern-style’ vessels into Central Europe and the Western Mediterranean. The region was 
thus replacing the Rome area as the main Western hub for redistributing this type of object. From the northern Adriatic 
area, several types of vessels were distributed both over land along the Po and Rhine valleys and through maritime routes 
connecting the Adriatic with Carthage and the Spanish Levant.
The intrinsic features and the depositional contexts of the post-Roman cast bronze vessels suggest that they were 
manufactured according to different quality standards, which targeted different social milieus. Furthermore, mapping 
the distribution of the different quality standards reveals that each of them might have been distributed by different 
networks of merchants and unveils the impact of transportation costs on the final price of these products.
Keywords: Western Mediterranean; Central Europe; Adriatic Sea; Early Middle Ages; trade; economy; metalwork; 
bronze vessels
314 Joan PINAR GIL
More than 150 cast bronze vessels dating from 
the 6th–8th centuries have been recorded in Western 
and Central Europe. The typology and distribution 
of these objects have been recently discussed by Mi-
chelle Beghelli and Joan Pinar (Beghelli, Pinar 2019a, 
413–427, 433–435, with related literature, figures, 
and find lists). A long-lasting scholarly tradition 
attributes their origin to metalwork production in 
Coptic Egypt or, more generally, to Byzantine ter-
ritories in the Eastern Mediterranean (e.g., Werner 
1938; 1952; 1954–1957; 1961; Erdmann 1938–1939; 
Holmqvist 1939; Palol 1950; Dannheimer 1979; 
Mundell Mango 2001; 2009). However, further 
reviews on the issue have insisted on the multiplic-
ity of production centres and the role of Western 
workshops in the production of these artefacts 
(Carretta 1982; Périn 2005; Beghelli, Pinar 2013; 
2019a; Drandaki 2016; 2019; Pinar, Vizcaíno 2021).
A recent attempt to reframe the production of 
cast bronze vessels within its general economic 
background (Beghelli, Pinar 2019a, 428–432) 
suggests identifying three main periods in their 
timeline in the post-classical West. The first one 
stretches from the late 5th to the early 7th centu-
ries and is defined by the regular arrival in the 
Western Mediterranean of cast bronze vessels 
manufactured in Egypt or the Levant. The second 
period is broadly equivalent to the central decades 
of the 7th century and shows a remarkably dif-
ferent picture: as direct contacts with the eastern 
manufacturing centres faded, the production of 
cast bronze vessels began to be surely attested in 
several European regions. Finally, in the latest 
stage, in the late 7th and 8th centuries, the mobil-
ity of this type of good was even more limited, 
and ‘exports’ outside the regional background 
were rather exceptional. In these developments, 
it is not difficult to recognise an instance of the 
overall trade contraction that reliable economic 
indices such as fine wares and shipwrecks outline 
rather clearly for the 7th century (Beghelli, Pinar 
2019a, 431; Pinar, Vizcaíno 2021).
CAST BRONZE VESSELS
IN THE NORTHERN ADRIATIC
With this background in mind, one sees the 
significant role that the northern Adriatic appears 
to have played in the production and distribution 
of this type of product. However, this role can be 
difficult to notice, since the region’s heyday was 
during a transitional period dated to around 600 
AD when the latest imports from the Eastern 
Mediterranean apparently coexisted with the 
earliest Western products. Therefore, it can be 
difficult to attribute the cast vessels to a precise 
manufacturing tradition and even more so to a 
specific workshop or regional production.
A key issue in understanding the dissemination 
of cast bronze vessels is to assume that each type 
or variant had a specific distribution; moreover, 
finding different types in the same deposit does not 
necessarily imply a common origin, a coincident 
chronology of production or distribution through 
the same trade routes, as the accumulation, use and 
deposition patterns of these objects clearly show 
(Beghelli, Pinar 2019a, 431–432; 2019b, 285–287). 
Nevertheless, examining the dissemination of vari-
ous types in well-defined regional contexts and its 
evolution over time can provide relevant data on 
production centres and distribution channels of 
this particular group of artefacts.
The importance of the northern Adriatic in the 
supply of cast bronze vessels in Europe is clearly 
mirrored by the spread of B1 basins with an open-
work foot (Fig. 1: 7,8,11). The type is well attested 
in Egypt, the Mediterranean Levant, and Western 
Europe (Beghelli, Pinar 2019a, 414). In the West, 
it shows a well-defined pattern: almost 97% of 
the finds are located in Adriatic Italy, the Po and 
Rhine valleys and the North Sea region (Fig. 2).
It seems rather clear that the northern Adriatic 
was the vessels’ gateway into Europe: the northern 
half of Italy is, by far, the region which delivered 
the largest amount of B1 basins; 17 out of the 27 
basins recorded in northern Italy are nevertheless 
clustered around the Adriatic coastline. From 
there, the vessels were distributed mainly along 
the Po and Rhine axis, reaching the British Isles. 
A consistent quantity of parallels found in the 
Eastern Mediterranean and technological links 
with eastern metalwork traditions suggest that 
this may be the type’s original production area. 
Archaeometric data, albeit fragmentary, suggest, 
though, that the Eastern workshops may not have 
had a monopoly in the production of B1 basins: 
a proportion of British finds, for instance, could 
have been produced by local workshops (Périn 
2005, 91–92); it seems likely that at least some 
of the B1 basins recorded on the continent were 
also produced in the West, as was the case for 
several coeval types of vessels (see below in this 
chapter). In favour of this hypothesis, one should 
mention both the long period of use of B1 basins 
(deposited between the late 6th and the early 8th 
315Cast bronze vessels in the northern Adriatic region (c. 600 AD). Rome and Ravenna, Nocera Umbra and Budakalász
century) and the fact that the parallels recorded 
in Egypt show a wider range of decorative motifs 
(e.g., cross-shapes, rhomboid patterns made of 
pierced triangles) in their openwork feet (Fig. 3: 
1–2), features that are absent from the examples 
recorded in Europe. Although very relevant for 
studies on cultural transfer and the dissemination 
of forms and decorations, these sorts of ‘imprecise 
parallels’ may fail to define production centres 
and supply chains.
Fig. 1: Regional typological repertoire of cast bronze vessels in the Northern Adriatic.
Sl. 1: Nabor regionalnih tipov bronastih ulitih posod na severnem Jadranu.
1 – Prepotto (Carretta 1982); 2 – Montale (Gelichi 1988); 3,4 – Salona (Salona 1994); 5 – Cividale/Čedad–San Mauro, Gr. 
50 (Ahumada Silva 2010); 6 – Spilamberto, Gr. 62 (Medioevo svelato 2018); 7 – Cividale/Čedad–Santo Stefano in Pertica, 
Gr. 1 (© Museo Archeologico Nazionale, Cividale); 8 – Castel Trosino, Gr. 90 (Paroli 1995); 9 – Cividale/Čedad–San 
Mauro, Gr. 21 (Ahumada Silva 2010); 10 – Reggio Emilia (Baldini 2008); 11 – Cividale/Čedad–train station (Carretta 1982)
316 Joan PINAR GIL
The development of B1 basins in the West can 
be better understood by examining Prepotto ewers 
(Fig. 1: 1; 3: 5; 5: 1; 9: 7), another type attested in 
the northern Adriatic area (Beghelli, Pinar 2019a, 
416–417). The distribution map of these ewers 
(Fig. 4) shows many coincidences with that of the 
B1 type, but only in its easternmost half: the type 
is attested in Egypt’s peripheral regions (Ballana in 
Nubia) and in the northern Adriatic (Prepotto); 
in the westernmost territories, however, it is re-
Fig. 2: Distribution map of selected types of cast bronze vessels from c. 600 AD. 
Sl. 2: Razprostranjenost izbranih tipov bronastih ulitih posod iz časa okrog leta 600. 
(Icons with a dot / Simboli s piko = uncertain provenance / nezanesljivi najdiščni podatki)
317Cast bronze vessels in the northern Adriatic region (c. 600 AD). Rome and Ravenna, Nocera Umbra and Budakalász
corded exclusively on Mediterranean shores, as 
shown by examples from Rome and Tarragona. 
Above all, the importance of this vessel type is 
that it provides tangible evidence that Eastern 
Mediterranean (probably Egyptian) models were 
imported, (re)produced and (re)distributed in 
the West: the examples from Prepotto, Rome and 
Tarragona are distinct from their easternmost 
counterparts, as demonstrated by their smaller 
sizes and less profiled beaks. In addition, a chrono-
logical hiatus seems to be noticeable between the 
‘eastern’ and the ‘western’ variants of the Prepotto 
ewers: the examples from the Nile valley were 
deposited before the beginning of the 6th century 
(Emery 1938, 320–321; Török 1986), whereas the 
ewer from Tarragona was found in a grave dug 
after 590/600 AD (Hauschild 1994, 154–155). 
Production approximately during the central 
decades of the 6th century thus appears likely for 
the ‘western Prepotto’ ewers. Another significant 
piece of evidence lies in a similar ewer found in 
Rome, which can be interpreted as a simplified 
local version of the Prepotto ewers (Fig. 5: 2). Its 
main features (circular mouth and rather simple 
unsophisticated decoration) make it stand out as a 
possible link between the Prepotto type and later 
western types, such as some types of Spilamberto 
and A2 ewers (Fig. 1: 2–6).
Fig. 3: ‘Imprecise parallels’ for European cast ewers.
Sl. 3: “Nenatančne primerjave” za ulite vrče iz Evrope.
1 – Egypt? (Palol 1959); 2 – Dil-Eskelessi (Dannheimer 1979); 3 – ‘Negev desert’ (Golan et al. 2016–2017); 4 – ‘Middle 
Egypt’ (Hayes 1984); 5 – Ballana, Tomb 118, Chamber 8 (Emery 1938); 6 – El Bahnasa (Dannheimer 1979); 7 – Amathus, 
agora (drawing after / po: Byzart.eu); 8 – Sakha (Drandaki 2016)
318 Joan PINAR GIL
With A1 pans, Spilamberto and A2 ewers outline 
the main features of production and distribution 
of cast vessels in the West c. 600 AD. The main 
regional clusters of A2 type (Beghelli, Pinar 2019a, 
417–418)1 are located in the northern Adriatic 
1  The caption for Fig. 6.6 of Beghelli, Pinar 2019b is inco-
rrect: the picture is that of the Welsrijp ewer (after Boeles 1951).
Fig. 4: Distribution map of selected types of cast bronze vessels from c. 550 AD and of early medieval mentions of ‘urcei 
alexandrini’. (Icons with a dot = uncertain provenance)
Sl. 4: Razprostranjenost izbranih tipov bronastega ulitega posodja iz časa okrog leta 550 in zgodnjesrednjeveških omemb 
posod “urcei alexandrini”. (Simboli s piko = nezanesljivi najdiščni podatki)
319Cast bronze vessels in the northern Adriatic region (c. 600 AD). Rome and Ravenna, Nocera Umbra and Budakalász
and South-West Germany and French Alsace (Fig. 
2). The pattern largely coincides with that of the 
broadly coeval B1 type, but only on its central part: 
the type is absent in both the North Sea region and 
the Eastern Mediterranean. The earliest deposits 
date from c. 590–610 and mainly cluster in Italy 
(Crespellani 1887, 14; Gelichi 1988, 561–564; 
Pasqui, Paribeni 1918, 194–199; Palol 1950, 36; 
Rupp 2005, 25–27; Cardarelli, Malnati 2009, 30). 
In the upper Rhine valley, these ewers seem to 
have been used longer, from the late 6th–early 7th 
centuries to the late 7th century (Werner 1935, 
85–86; Werner 1943; Trier 1992, 290; Nawroth 
2001, 244–246; Gall, Teβmann 2018, 116). Two 
deposits containing A2 ewers were also recorded 
in Spain’s eastern coast and the middle Danube 
area, dating from c. 575–650 and c. 640–660 (Vida 
2017, 15–16; Pinar, Vizcaíno 2021). The diachronic 
Fig. 5: Regional typological repertoire of cast bronze vessels in Rome and surroundings.
Sl. 5: Regionalni nabor tipov bronastih ulitih posod iz Rima in okolice.
1,3 – ‘Rome’; 2 – Rome–Vittorio Emanuele monument; 4 – unknown provenance / neznano najdišče, Vatican Museums; 
5 – Rome–St. Stefano; 6 – Rome–Tiber; 7 – Sutri.
(After / po: Arena et al. 2001 [1–3,6]; Palol 1950 [4]; Monti 1858 [5]; Carretta 1972 [7])
320 Joan PINAR GIL
trends in its dissemination show two interesting 
phenomena. On the one hand, the earliest deposi-
tions are located exclusively in northern Central 
Italy (Montale and Nocera Umbra) and the Rhine 
valley (Ittenheim). On the other, there seems to 
be a direct correlation between distance from the 
Rhine banks and time of deposition of the ewers 
discovered in South-Western Germany: one can 
thus follow a pathway oriented West-East in a 
quite orderly manner outlined by the consecutive 
burials of Ittenheim, Pfahlheim and Oberbaar. A 
similar pattern is also mirrored by B1 basins, the 
earliest deposits (Winkel, Eppstein and Hüfingen: 
Schoppa 1966, 15; Engels 2002, 52; Vielitz 2003, 
169; Drauschke 2011, num. 455, 761, 1735) being 
clustered in the vicinity of the Rhine.
As for Spilamberto ewers (Beghelli, Pinar 2019a, 
418–419), they are found in north-eastern Italy 
and the lower Rhine valley; the chronological 
contexts (Ahumada Silva 2010, 117–123; De Vingo 
2010, 47–56) suggest a date of deposition around 
600 AD. Despite the limited amount of recorded 
finds, it seems clear that the dissemination of these 
ewers followed the same pathway as that of other 
coeval types. The tight correlations between the 
spread of all these items belonging to the same 
period indeed suggest that this pattern is not a 
fortuitous result of the state of research.
The last type of cast bronze vessel clearly re-
lated to the northern Adriatic area corresponds to 
Joachim Werner’s A1 pans (Fig. 1: 9–10; 3: 3–4; 6: 
3,6). As shown by Fig. 2, recorded examples once 
more cluster in north-eastern Italy, the Rhine valley 
and south-western Germany (Beghelli, Pinar 2019a, 
414–415). Much like B1 basins and A2 ewers, the 
earliest depositions of these pans (about 600 AD) 
occurred either in north-eastern Italy (Cividale–San 
Mauro: Ahumada Silva 2010, 35–50) or close to 
the Rhine (Ittenheim and Güttingen: Werner 1943; 
Fingerlin 1964); further east, they were buried as 
grave goods around the mid-7th century: the only 
available datum is given by a probably local vari-
Fig. 6: A1 and A2 vessels with punched and carved decoration. Different scales.
Sl. 6: Posode tipov A1 in A2 z vtolčenim in vrezanim okrasom. Različna merila.
1 – Montale; 2,3 – Ittenheim; 4 – Pfahlheim, Gr. 4/1891; 5 – ‘Bonn’; 6 – Cividale/Čedad–San Mauro, Gr. 21.
(After / po: Gelichi 1988 [1]; Werner 1938 [2–5]; Ahumada 2010 [6])
321Cast bronze vessels in the northern Adriatic region (c. 600 AD). Rome and Ravenna, Nocera Umbra and Budakalász
ant of an A1 pan, attested at Wittislingen (Werner 
1950; see also below); a ‘regular’ A1 example found 
in the Salgen cemetery in Bavaria lacks a proper 
stratigraphic context, although general contextual 
evidence supports a date within the 7th century 
(Franken 1944, 59–61).
A1 pans provide particularly relevant data 
regarding the production of cast bronze vessels 
in the Adriatic area. The type is well attested in 
the Eastern Mediterranean (Hayes 1984, 124–125; 
Golan et al. 2016–2017, 150–151); much like Pre-
potto ewers, however, the eastern examples show 
morphological details unattested in the West, for 
instance, the presence of a nodus in the pan’s foot 
or a zoomorphic ending on its handle (Fig. 3: 3–4). 
Therefore, it seems very likely once more that at 
least a significant proportion of the A1 pans were 
produced in the West.
This hypothesis is further strengthened when 
one compares the spread of A1, A2 and B1 vessels 
(Fig. 2). As mentioned above, they fully coincide 
and point to two major clusters in the northern 
Adriatic and the upper Rhine; the absence of A2 
ewers in the East supports the hypothesis that most 
of the vessels recorded in Europe were produced 
in the West. The fact that some A1 and A2 ves-
sels originated from the same production centres 
is best demonstrated by comparisons between 
the decoration of vessels found at Ittenheim (an 
actual drinking set consisting of pan and ewer), 
and that of examples from ‘Bonn’, Pfahlheim and 
Cividale–San Mauro (Fig. 6). Quantitatively richer 
evidence of B1 basins, widespread in Adriatic 
Italy, highlights this region as the likeliest source 
for producing and distributing cast bronze vessels 
in Europe.
A group of decorated A1 pans with Greek inscrip-
tions is useful in defining the main characteristics 
of their production centre. Here again, all examples 
recorded in proper archaeological context cluster 
around the Adriatic area (Cividale–San Mauro 
and Reggio Emilia: Werner, Bischoff 1952; Bal-
dini 2008, 411; Ahumada Silva 2010, 35–50) and 
South-West Germany (Güttingen: Fingerlin 1964); 
parallel finds from the antiquities trade are given 
generic east Mediterranean origins, an attribution 
that cannot be proven (Ross 1962, 46–48; Mundell 
Mango et al. 1989, 304). The find spots of the 
closely related inscriptions from Reggio Emilia 
and Cividale–San Mauro (Colussa 2003, 126–127) 
suggest they were manufactured in a workshop 
located in the northern Adriatic region, probably 
in a Greek-speaking environment: the largely bi-
lingual élites living in Ravenna at the turn of the 
6th century (Carile 1992; Cavallo 1992) stand out 
as the likeliest customers for this sort of product. 
In all likelihood, Ravenna was also the production 
centre for at least a fraction of the B1 basins, as 
well as for Spilamberto and A2 ewers. Regarding 
the latter, the Latin inscription on the specimen 
from Thierhaupten–Oberbaar (Trier 1992) can 
be regarded as further evidence of the bilingual 
milieu of origin of many bronze cast vessels dated 
to around 600 AD.
ALEXANDRIA, ROME
AND RAVENNA
Only three European regions have delivered 
three or more of the five types of cast bronze 
vessels discussed so far: Italy’s northern half, 
Type
Region
Northern / Central Italy Southern Germany / Switzerland / Alsace
Lower Rhine /
southern North Sea Egypt / Nubia
B1 27 17 3 8
A1 3 4 - 1
A2 2 3 2 -
Spilamberto 2 - 1 -
Prepotto 3 - - 3
Tab. 1: Composition of the typological repertoires of the main regions of clustering of cast bronze vessels between the 
mid-6th and the early 7th century. Regions where at least three types of vessels have been recorded are the only ones 
considered; types occurring in at least two regions are the only ones considered.
Tab. 1: Sestava tipoloških zbirov v glavnih območjih z najdbami ulitih bronastih posod v času med sredino 6. in zgodnjim 
7. st. Predstavljena so samo območja, kjer so bili najdeni vsaj trije tipi, in samo tipi, ki se pojavljajo vsaj na dveh območjih.
322 Joan PINAR GIL
South-West Germany and the lower Rhine valley 
up to the North Sea. As mentioned above, Italy’s 
northern Adriatic coastline appears as the source 
for the distribution of these items: not only does 
the region have the largest total amount of finds, 
but it is also the only one where every single type 
of vessel has been recorded. Comparisons between 
regional typological inventories thus point to 
Adriatic Italy, not only as a significant production 
and distribution centre of cast bronze vessels in 
Europe but also as the main redistributive centre 
for eastern imports (Tab. 1).
The general typological repertoire of cast bronze 
vessels in the West c. 525–625 has much more to 
do with Egypt than with any other eastern region: 
as a matter of fact, Egypt is the only non-European 
territory in which at least three types of the afore-
mentioned cast vessels have so far been recorded. 
Based on the current state of research, there is little 
doubt that a significant proportion of the vessels 
used in Western Europe were produced following 
specifically Egyptian models, rather than Levantine 
or generically ‘Byzantine’ ones.
Comparisons between regional repertoires of cast 
vessels are also useful to map the degree of con-
nectivity between Egypt, on the one hand, and the 
western territories on the other. The result is rather 
straightforward: Italy is the only Western region 
where every ‘Egyptian’ type has been recorded. This 
fact suggests that similarities between the various 
regional European repertoires derive from their 
connections with Italy rather than from direct con-
nections between each other: regional typologies 
mutually coincide in only 67% of recorded types, 
whereas all (100%) are attested in Italy.
The connection between Egypt and Italy was 
obviously seaborne: the Camarina shipwreck in 
eastern Sicily (Di Stefano 1995; Zagari 2005, 110), 
which included a B1 basin in its cargo, adds rather 
explicit empirical evidence to the already telling 
geographical distribution of the vessels, mainly 
clustered on coastal territories. In all likelihood, 
the port of Alexandria was the main export hub 
for Egyptian bronze vessels: evidence for the 
shipments of bronze items is preserved in written 
sources dating from the late 5th century (Mundell 
Mango 2001, 98), whereas the seaborne circula-
tion of ‘silver and other valuable goods’ between 
Alexandria and the Adriatic around 600 AD is 
mentioned by the 7th century Life of Saint John 
the Almsgiver (Mundell Mango 2001, 101–102).
The Italian end(s) of the route, however, may 
have changed over time. As seen, a snapshot of 
the situation around 600 AD seems quite clear and 
emphasises Ravenna or a nearby emporion as the 
likeliest ‘Italian gateway’ for cast bronze vessels 
into Europe. Nevertheless, a comparison between 
regional repertoires in and around Rome (Fig. 5), 
on the one hand, and in the northern Adriatic (Fig. 
1) on the other, suggests that the situation around 
550 AD may have been quite different (Tab. 2).
Earlier types are better documented in the central 
Tyrrhenian region than in the northern Adriatic. 
In addition to Prepotto ewers and derivatives (Fig. 
5: 1–2), an ewer with an ovoid body curated in the 
Vatican Museums (Palol 1950, 37–38) should be 
mentioned: on morphological grounds, it can be 
seen as a convincing prototype for later Spilam-
berto ewers (Fig. 5: 4). It can hence be argued 
that Rome or a nearby port could have been the 
Type
Region
Chronology
Rome, Latium and Tuscany Marche, Emilia Romagna, Veneto and Friuli
Proto-Spilamberto 1 -
~ 525–575Rome/Milano 1 -
Western Prepotto 2 1
B1 3 15
~ 575–625
A1 - 3
A2 - 1
Spilamberto - 2
Tab. 2: The Tyrrhenian-Adriatic shift. Typological repertoires of cast bronze vessels in Italy between the mid- and late 
6th century.
Tab. 2: Tirensko-jadranski premik distribucije. Tipološki zbiri bronastih ulitih posod v Italiji med sredino in poznim 6. st.
323Cast bronze vessels in the northern Adriatic region (c. 600 AD). Rome and Ravenna, Nocera Umbra and Budakalász
Fig. 7: Three Mediterranean deposits of bronze implements from the 6th century, selection of objects.
Sl. 7: Trije sredozemski konteksti z izborom bronastih predmetov iz 6. stoletja.
a – ‘Negev desert’ (Golan et al. 2016–2017); b – Milano–San Raffaele (Castoldi 1989); c – Pupput (Baratte 1998)
324 Joan PINAR GIL
preferential destination for Alexandrian shipments 
of cast bronze vessels during the central decades 
of the 6th century. In all likelihood, the production 
of the earliest ‘western’ cast ewers began in Rome; 
likewise, the city and its port probably acted as 
the main redistributive centre for other regions 
of the West, as one shall see.
Ravenna apparently replaced Rome at some 
point in the late 6th century as the main hub for 
trade and production of ‘Egyptian-style’ bronze 
vessels. Comparing the typological repertoire 
between the Tyrrhenian and the Adriatic areas 
indicates approximately when the shift occurred. 
The most relevant data are the absence of A1, A2 
and Spilamberto vessels (deposited from c. 590 
AD onwards) in the Tyrrhenian region, as well 
as the presence of the slightly earlier Prepotto 
type in both territories; this suggests that B1 ba-
sins, also present in both areas, may have had a 
similar, relatively early chronology. Of particular 
importance in this context is the B1 basin with 
trapezoidal drop handles (Fig. 5: 6) found in the 
Tiber in Rome (Arena et al. 2001, 421–422): this 
variant is particularly well attested in Egypt but 
extremely rare in the Adriatic region (Koch 1994, 
79; Werz 2005, 86); it appears very likely that 
trapezium-handled basins were the earliest B1 
vessels circulating in Europe, and that they were 
broadly coeval to Prepotto ewers. According to 
these data, the shift from the Tyrrhenian to the 
Adriatic should be placed no later than the 570/80s, 
a historical horizon of great importance: although 
no direct connection with the state of international 
affairs is necessarily implied, one should notice that 
this time-span coincides rather precisely with the 
reorganisation of Byzantine dominion in Italy and 
the institution of the Exarchate in Ravenna. In ad-
dition, it coincides quite well with late 6th and 7th 
century pottery evidence from the port of Classe, 
which highlights a significant boost in supplies of 
trade goods from the Eastern Mediterranean (Bal-
dassarri, Cirelli 2009, 925; Augenti, Cirelli 2010, 
609; Guarnieri 2020, 269–270); numismatic data 
emphasises the position of Ravenna as the main 
regional economic centre at the time (Rovelli 2012, 
274–278; Prigent 2020).
A deposit of metal implements unearthed at 
Milano–San Raffaele (Castoldi 1989, 84–86) is 
paramount in defining and dating the whole 
group of 6th century cast bronze ewers (Fig. 7b). 
Fig. 8: Dumbarton Oaks. Byzantine silver plate from Justin II’s times, with enlarged depictions of liturgical implements 
(after Weitzmann 1979).
Sl. 8: Dumbarton Oaks. Bizantinski srebrni krožnik iz časa Justina II. Detajla: liturgični pripomočki (po Weitzmann 1979).
325Cast bronze vessels in the northern Adriatic region (c. 600 AD). Rome and Ravenna, Nocera Umbra and Budakalász
One of the two ewers recorded in this deposit 
displays close morphological affinities with finds 
in Africa (Fig. 7c, Pupput: Baratte 1998; Jacquest, 
Baratte 2005, 125–129), Gaul (Fig. 9: 5, Lavoye: 
Joffroy 1974, 86, 129–130) and Rome (Fig. 5: 3; 
Arena et al. 2001, 420), whereas the other seems 
to be morphologically related to a different type 
recorded in Rome, namely the already discussed 
‘western Prepotto’ type. Another deposit from an 
unspecified location in the Negev desert (Fig. 7a) 
is nevertheless very useful in dating the group, as 
it had a jug handle and an incense burner with 
exact parallels at both Milano–San Raffaele and 
Pupput (Golan et al. 2016–2017, 148–149, 153). 
The assemblage also included a variant of an A1 
pan decorated with a pearled rim (Golan et al. 
2016–2017, 150–151; see also above). Moreover, 
the object has a good counterpart among the 
components of a liturgical set depicted on a sil-
ver plate (Fig. 8) with control stamps of Justin II 
(565–582) (Weitzmann 1979, 88; Mundell Mango 
1986, 165–170) and is probably slightly older than 
Fig. 9: Cast ewers from the mid-6th century found west of Italy.
Sl. 9: Uliti vrči iz sredine 6. stoletja, najdeni zahodno od Italije.
1 – Vicq, Gr. 617 (Périn 1992); 2 – Frénouville, Gr. 508A (Pilet 2008); 3 – Meckenheim (Vallet 1976); 4 – ‘Arras’ (Schulze-
-Dörrlamm 2006); 5 – Lavoye, Gr. 307bis (Joffroy 1974); 6 – unknown provenance / neznano najdišče, Bardo Museum 
(Vida 2006); 7 – Tarragona–Cathedral cloister (Hauschild 1994)
326 Joan PINAR GIL
any of its western parallels; it thus helps place the 
early western cast jugs from Pupput and Milano 
within the 6th century. On the other hand, the 
grave goods found next to the ewers (Fig. 9: 3,5) 
in the graves of Lavoye and Meckenheim (Vallet 
1976; Die Franken 1997, 1003–1004) in Gaul sug-
gest that the burials are from the second third of 
the 6th century, thus narrowing the dating of the 
group. In particular, the Ostrogothic siliqua from 
Meckenheim provides an absolute terminus post 
quem of 526 AD.
The hypothesis of a ‘Tyrrhenian-Adriatic shift’ 
is clearly supported by evolution in the distribu-
tion of cast ewers in Western Europe between the 
mid-6th and the early 7th centuries. Western finds 
contemporary with the functioning of the Roman 
hub mainly cluster in the Seine basin in northern 
Gaul (Fig. 4; 9: 1–5), as suggested by the finds from 
Frénouville, Vicq, Lavoye, Arras and Meckenheim 
(Joffroy 1974, 89, 129–130; Vallet 1976, 75–78; Pilet 
1980, 254; Périn 1992, 44; Schulze-Dörrlamm 2006, 
605–620; Beghelli, Pinar 2019a, 431). It appears 
very likely that they travelled westwards from 
Rome: a seaborne itinerary connecting Rome to 
Marseille, then upriver through the Rhone valley, 
appears most convincing. This is best suggested 
by the exact parallel of the Arras jug recorded at 
the Santo Stefano basilica in Rome (Monti 1858; 
Schulze-Dörrlamm 2006, 618–619); broadly coeval 
imported goods, such as 5th–6th century Eastern 
Mediterranean amphorae, reached cities in the 
Seine valley by following the Mediterranean-Rhone 
route via Marseille (Pieri 1998, 105). A bronze 
cast ampulla with a Latin inscription, found in 
a 6th century grave in Concevreux (Pilloy 1912, 
209–210), probably arrived in the Seine basin by 
the same route.
If the jugs recorded at Milano–San Raffaele are 
to be connected with commercial operations along 
the Rome-Marseille route, they can also be probably 
understood as evidence for cabotage navigation 
along the Tyrrhenian and Ligurian coastlines, 
which communicated with Milano via Luni or 
Genoa.2 The present-day absence of 6th-century 
cast vessels in Corsica and Sardinia further sup-
ports this hypothesis. An ‘early’ trapeze-handled B1 
basin found at Testona near Turin (Carretta 1982, 
2  A broadly contemporary hammered ewer recorded 
at Milano–S. Satiro (Castoldi 1989, 86–87) has an almost 
exact counterpart in one of the cast ewers from Rome (Fig. 
5: 3), and is, therefore, evidence for a trade route between 
these two metropolises along which metal vessels circulated.
19–20) with an exact counterpart at Rome (Fig. 
5: 6) may also be considered from this viewpoint.
Based on the current state of research, archae-
ology cannot provide conclusive evidence on the 
nature and extent of links between the early cast 
ewers from Gaul, northern Italy and Africa on the 
one hand, and Egyptian manufacturing centres on 
the other. Nevertheless, an ewer from El Bahnasa 
(Fig. 3: 6: Dannheimer 1979, 131–132) and the 
aforementioned handle from the Negev area are to 
be seen as some of the best eastern counterparts 
for examples from the early typological repertoire 
in the West. Recollections of the distant origins 
of the Gallic finds (whether as actual production 
centre or a source of inspiration), however, may 
have left a trace in written sources: the term ur-
ceus alexandrinus is recorded in the 9th century 
at the abbey of Saint-Wandrille in the lower Seine 
Valley, a location within the area of the spread of 
Gallic cast ewers (Fig. 4). Furthermore, it has been 
surmised that the term was introduced into Latin 
at some point in the 6th century (Beghelli, Pinar 
2019a, 430). Thus, one may be dealing not just 
with a linguistic fossil describing a reality almost 
three hundred years old, but also with a local term 
deriving from an object whose spread was solely 
regional: this seems a convincing explanation for 
its extremely elusory presence in written sources.
The remaining early cast ewers recorded in the 
West show clear spatial correlation with major 
western cities, such as Tarragona, Milano, Pup-
put and possibly Carthage (Fig. 9: 6: Vida 2006, 
265–266). Unlike the Rome-Marseille connection, 
though, the seaborne axis connecting Italy with 
North Africa and the Spanish Levant is evenly 
outlined by finds of bronze ewers dating from 
c. 600 AD. The A2 ewers from Cartagena–Cerro 
del Molinete (Pinar, Vizcaíno 2021) and from an 
unspecified spot in Spain (Palol 1950, 62–63) are 
quite telling examples, since they have very close 
counterparts in Salona (Werner 1954–1957), sug-
gesting their likely Adriatic origin. Throughout the 
6th century, the occurrence of cast bronze ewers 
in the Western Mediterranean thus shows a tight 
correlation with major Byzantine trading places.
By 600 AD, however, the overall situation had 
changed significantly. The spread of B1, A1, A2 
and Spilamberto types resulted in major cluster-
ing in the territories neighbouring the Byzantine 
dominions of the northern Adriatic (Cividale, Reg-
gio Emilia, Montale, Spilamberto, Nocera Umbra, 
Castel Trosino). From this area, they probably 
followed the Po Valley westwards and reached the 
327Cast bronze vessels in the northern Adriatic region (c. 600 AD). Rome and Ravenna, Nocera Umbra and Budakalász
upper Rhine through the western Alpine passes, 
as Joachim Werner had already suggested (Werner 
1938). The finds of B1 basins in upper Piedmont and 
Lombardy (e.g., Momo, Trezzo sull’Adda, Brescia) 
may reflect the importance of this route. From 
the Rhineland, the vessels would spread during 
the next decades throughout southern Germany; 
judging by the chronology of depositions of A1, 
A2 and B1 vessels, they were in use for a long time 
before being buried.
Circulation of these vessels along the Rhine val-
ley led to their importation to the region around 
the North Sea coast; traces of their presence, 
however, become somewhat more blurred in this 
area: the amount of recorded vessels is far lower; 
consequently, recorded dating contexts are few. It 
seems, though, that B1 basins reached the area as 
early as approx. 600 AD or slightly later, as sug-
gested by evidence from Grave 122 at Beerlegem 
(Roosens, van Doorselaer 1966, 29–32). That might 
have been the case also for some of the ewers of 
the types Spilamberto and A2 recorded in the area. 
Apparently, only B1 basins, conspicuously recorded 
in England, continued their journey further north. 
As said, they may have been the inspiration for 
local productions inspired by these exotic imports.
The spread of the vessels very clearly shows that 
the Seine basin was completely outside the circula-
tion routes of cast bronze vessels dating from 600 
AD. Evidently, the shift from Rome to Ravenna 
was contemporary with a no less significant shift 
from the Rhône to the Rhine, which became the 
new main axis in the importation of bronze vessels 
from the Italian hubs to Central Europe.
Other categories of trade goods further detail 
the pattern outlined by the bronze vessels. The de-
cline in the exchange between Rome and Marseille 
is well attested by the distribution of Phocaean, 
Cypriot and Gallic orange-grey terra sigillata: once 
evidence for close connections between Rome and 
the Eastern Mediterranean and southern Gaul, 
these types of TS from Late Antiquity gradually 
vanished from Roman contexts in the 6th century 
(Panella, Saguì 2001, 786). At roughly the same 
time, south-western Italian Keay LII amphorae 
were not further recorded in southern Gaul after 
the early decades of the 6th century (Bonifay 2005, 
89); likewise, the amount of Eastern Mediter-
ranean amphorae imported to Marseille shrank 
significantly throughout the 6th century (Bonifay, 
Pieri 1995, 116).
NOCERA UMBRA
AND BUDAKALÁSZ
The ewer found at Budakalász (Fig. 10: 4) is 
the only example belonging to the Werner A2 
type recorded in the lands of the middle Danube 
(Vida 2017). This apparently unusual location, 
many miles from the main routes on which these 
vessels usually circulated, can be correlated with 
the exceptional features of the ewer, which display 
lavish figurative decoration in low-relief style with 
no counterparts on any other A2 ewers.
After a thorough examination of the object, 
Tivadar Vida concluded that it was manufactured 
following Byzantine metalworking traditions and 
was probably made in Constantinople or in Syria 
in the late 5th or early 6th centuries (Vida 2017, 
159–160). Its form, size, and proportions, however, 
do not reveal any substantial differences with A2 
ewers discovered in the West (in particular, the 
example from Pfahlheim, Fig. 6: 4). Connections 
with western vessels are also visible when looking 
at decorative details (Fig. 6), such as the figurative 
motifs organised in friezes (Pfahlheim, ‘Bonn’) and 
the bands of stylised acanthus leaves (Ittenheim). 
As mentioned, the entire group was most probably 
produced by a workshop active in the northern 
Adriatic area around the late 6th century: it seems 
reasonable to also attribute the Budakalász ewer 
to this same production milieu. This hypothesis 
is further supported by the fact that, despite its 
‘unusual’ location, the ewer strictly follows the 
dissemination and deposition patterns of the entire 
A2 group: beyond the best-connected territories 
(Adriatic Italy, the Po and the Rhine valleys), 
depositions tended to occur on average five to eight 
decades after the ewers’ estimated production date 
(see above). The Budakalász burial, attributed to c. 
640–660, quite comfortably fits into this pattern.
Its lavish and intricate relief decoration makes it 
a truly unique object. Tivadar Vida has pointed out 
that it is deeply rooted in Mediterranean artistic 
traditions, with solid iconographic, compositional 
and stylistic parallels in late antique metalwork 
(Vida 2009; Vida 2017, 25–39, 67–158), in particu-
lar among silver vessels with repoussé figurative 
decoration. The geographical clustering of some 
of these artefacts further supports the hypothesis 
of a northern Adriatic origin. Several examples of 
silverware deposited in Italy during the mid- or 
late 6th century, for instance, as part of the widely-
known treasures of Arten, Castelvint, Reggio 
Emilia, Perugia, Canoscio and Canicattini Bagni 
328 Joan PINAR GIL
(Giovagnoli 1935; Agnello 1954; Degani 1959; 
Bierbrauer 1975, 302–309; Calvi 1980; Ciampoltrini 
1985; Baldini, Pinar 2010; Aimone 2013a; 2015), 
share features with the Budakalász ewer: similar 
leave-shaped bands and wavy patterns can be 
observed on the silver cups from Reggio Emilia 
(Fig. 10: 1), Arten and Canicattini Bagni and, in 
particular, on a plate and basin from Canoscio, 
while comparable classicising figurative motifs 
are attested at Arten (Fig. 10: 2), Castelvint and 
Perugia (Fig. 14c).
It is well established among art historians that 
decorations should be considered as a whole and 
along with their background, since comparing 
only a selection of decorative elements is often 
misleading (e.g., Jurković 2000; 2016). What 
suggests that ornamental similarities may be 
of relevance in this particular case is the close 
chronological and spatial relationship between this 
group of silverware and the Adriatic cast bronze 
vessels. With the only exception of the Castelvint 
plate, the silver cups, basins and plates occurring 
in these deposits show a remarkable typological 
uniformity that renders it highly unlikely that they 
were exceptionally old objects at the moment of 
their burial. In addition, the composition of the 
treasures is consistent with other deposits surely 
dated to the mid- and late 6th century, such as the 
Fig. 10: The Budakalász ewer and selected Italian metalwork of the mid and late 6th century. Different scales.
Sl. 10: Vrč iz Budakalásza in izbrani italijanski izdelki iz sredine in poznega 6. st. Različna merila.
1 – Reggio Emilia (© Civici Musei di Reggio Emilia); 2 – Arten (Calvi 1980); 3 – Nocera Umbra, Gr. 1 (Die Langobarden 
2008); 4 – Budakalász, Gr. 740 (Vida 2017)
329Cast bronze vessels in the northern Adriatic region (c. 600 AD). Rome and Ravenna, Nocera Umbra and Budakalász
Desana, Pavia, Classe and Isola Rizza (Fig. 14b) 
treasures in northern Italy (von Hessen 1968, 
43–53; Peroni 1972; Bierbrauer 1975, 263–272; 
Bolla 1999; Maioli 2009; Aimone 2010; 2013b; 
Baldini 2017). Production taking place no earlier 
than 520/30 thus seems convincing in the case of 
this group of silverware, agreeing with the absolute 
dates provided by the inscription and the stamps 
recorded on the Gelimer plate from Arten and on 
the Nereid one kept in Turin (Cruikshank Dodd 
1961, 256–257), manufactured in 530–533/34 and 
541, respectively. This time-span slightly antedates 
and partially overlaps production of the earliest 
Italian cast bronze vessels (‘western’ Prepotto vari-
ant, ‘proto-Spilamberto’ prototypes and, somewhat 
later, types Werner A1–A2 and Spilamberto). The 
chronological proximity between both groups is 
thus complemented by a high degree of spatial 
correlation (Fig. 11), as silverware and cast bronze 
vessels cluster in the same regions: Spilamberto, 
Montale and Reggio in Emilia; Nocera Umbra, Pe-
rugia and Canoscio in Umbria; Prepotto, Cividale 
and Grado in Friuli.
Although some scholars suggest identifying some 
of the silver plates found in Italy as Eastern Mediter-
ranean products (e.g., Mango 2010), some stylistic 
details (Aimone 2015, 20–21), their geographical 
distribution and the typological homogeneity of the 
deposits in which they occurred argue in favour 
of a Western origin. Two of the group’s plates, the 
Gelimer and the ‘Turin’ ones, were most likely 
produced in Carthage (Baratte 1997, 124–127); 
the rest may be connected to northern Adriatic 
manufacturing centres, as suggested by stylistically 
related silverworks (e.g., Grado, identified as a 6th-
century regional product based on its inscription: 
Cuscito 1973, 311–313) and by their correlation 
with cast vessels: it is reasonable to suggest that 
a significant part of these silver and bronze arte-
facts were produced in or around Ravenna, and 
distributed along the same trade networks. In all 
likelihood, mid-6th century Italian silverware was 
one of the direct artistic sources of inspiration for 
the Budakalász ewer.
Another important piece of evidence on connec-
tions between the Budakalász ewer and Adriatic 
Italy comes from the well-known Lombard-period 
cemetery at Nocera Umbra. Located in one of the 
regions where 6th-century silverware and cast bronze 
vessels cluster, two of its graves strongly recall 
features of the Budakalász ewer. The first burial 
is the aforementioned Grave 17 (Pasqui, Paribeni 
1918, 194–199; Rupp 2005, 25–27), containing a 
female skeleton deposited with an A2 ewer with 
punched decoration. The second one is Grave 1 
(Pasqui, Paribeni 1918, 155–164; Rupp 2005, 3–5), 
which contained an exceptional assemblage of grave 
goods, including a sword with gold ornamentation, 
a set of gold belt fittings and a shield boss with 
openwork figurative decoration. The latter (Fig. 
10: 3; 14a), despite its fragmentary state, shares 
common features with the Budakalász ewer: the 
classicising hunting scene set in a central register 
and the lower band of acanthus leaves recall several 
examples of A2 ewers (e.g., Fig. 6: 4–5), and the 
low-relief effect of the openwork ‘shell’ applied to 
the boss appears to be a convincing parallel for 
the Budakalász decoration.
A recent re-examination of the shield suggests 
identification as a 4th century eastern Mediterranean 
production (De Pasca 2016), hence an antique at 
the time of the burial, which was dug around 600 
AD. The form of the shield boss is well attested 
during the 4th–5th centuries in northern, central 
and eastern Europe (e.g., Straume 1987, 88–89, 
93–94, 103, 109; Kazanski 1994, 441; Kontny 
2019, 109); it occurs rather frequently, however, 
in other Italian assemblages from about 600 AD, 
such as Graves 5 and 6 at Nocera Umbra itself 
(Pasqui, Paribeni 1918, 172–181; Rupp 2005, 
5–13). In addition, comparable openwork shells 
were noticed on famous examples of 6th-century 
metalwork (e.g., Weitzmann 1979, 606–608). In 
such circumstances, the only argument favouring 
the shield’s early dating is the decoration’s alleged 
Fig. 11: Distribution map of silverware deposits and cast 
bronze vessels found in north-eastern Italy (c. 530–600).
Sl. 11: Razprostranjenost srebrnih in ulitih bronastih posod 
v severovzhodni Italiji (pribl. v času 530–600).
330 Joan PINAR GIL
iconographic parallels. This evidence appears, 
though, to be far too flimsy: generally speaking, 
long-lasting, widely-spread motifs, such as hunting 
and mythological scenes, provide little assistance 
in refined archaeological chronology (e.g., Beghelli 
2020, 292, n. 26); in this particular case, moreover, 
comparison with the decoration of the Budakalász 
ewer can be used to attribute the shield to a period 
between the late 6th and the mid 7th century, as 
suggested by the depositional contexts of the A2 
ewers (see above).
The shield’s manufacture had earlier been dated 
to the late 6th–early 7th centuries by scholars 
(Melucco Vaccaro 1974, 362; Paroli 2001, 287; De 
Marchi 2021, n. 8): this assumption seems to be 
particularly well-founded when considering that 
Graves 1, 5, 6 and 17 of Nocera Umbra, respec-
tively containing the openwork shield, two shields 
with the same form and an A2 ewer, are from the 
very same period, that is c. 590–610. Likewise, 
the evidence derived from bronze vessels and sil-
verware treasures leaves little room for an exotic, 
easternmost origin of the shield: a provenance 
from Adriatic Italy, as the site’s location already 
suggests, appears to be the most probable choice.
Morphology, decoration, chronology and geo-
graphical location thus agree to attribute a northern 
Adriatic origin to the Budakalász ewer. That im-
plies that the most probable route of the A2 ewer 
to Budakalász may have been from the ports in 
the northern or north-eastern Adriatic, through 
passes in either the Julian or the Dinaric Alps. An 
‘indirect’ itinerary through South-West Germany 
and the Danube valley, although possible, is not 
supported by any archaeological finds and would 
thus appear as a lectio difficilior. Once more, the 
finds from Nocera Umbra, dating from the late 
6th–early 7th centuries, highlight the connections 
of the Budakalász ewer with Adriatic Italy (Fig. 
12): apart from the shield and the ewer from 
Fig. 12: Nocera Umbra and Pannonia (c. 600–650). A comparison of typological repertoires.
Sl. 12: Nocera Umbra in Panonija (pribl. v času 600–650). Primerjava izbranih tipov.
331Cast bronze vessels in the northern Adriatic region (c. 600 AD). Rome and Ravenna, Nocera Umbra and Budakalász
Graves 1 and 17, a B1 basin (Grave 27) and a 
bucket with a semi-circular handle (Grave 32) 
must also be mentioned (Pasqui, Paribeni 1918, 
216–218, 226–228; Rupp 2005, 39–41, 47–49). 
Both types of object are well attested in Italy; in 
Pannonia, however, they cluster with Budakalász 
within a quite restricted territory, located between 
the Balaton lake and the banks of the Danube, as 
shown by the examples from Zamárdi–Rétiföldek, 
Gr. 244 and Várpalota–Gimnázium, Gr. 204 (Vida 
2016, 73–88; 2017, 173–178). In all likelihood, 
the spread of these vessels reflects a trade route 
linking north-western Pannonia with the Adriatic 
ports. The regional picture is further completed by 
a bronze cast ewer found at Hurbanovo (Zábojník 
2004, 90–91, 159), about 80 km north-west of 
Budakalász: the object can be interpreted as a 
Sardinian local form of the mid- or late 7th century 
(Beghelli, Pinar 2019a, 419), and strongly backs 
the hypothesis of a connection between the middle 
Danube region and the Italian coasts.
QUALITY, COST AND DISTANCE
The ewer from Budakalász can be safely inter-
preted as a ‘higher-class version’ of the A2 vessels, 
the only example recorded so far: the sophisticated, 
time-consuming decoration of the object, plus the 
variety of the raw materials used (including silver 
and red copper inserts), reflects its greater cost 
and exclusivity (see Baratte 2003 and Pinar 2017 
on cost calculation in early medieval metalwork 
and its social implications) when compared to any 
other known ewer originating from the northern 
Adriatic.
It is a common phenomenon in intentional 
deposits that the most expensive items occur 
together with other expensive ones (Pinar 2017, 
130–139). Hence, observing and studying correla-
tions between the objects’ value-features and the 
deposits’ composition become possible. Further-
more, in particularly suitable contexts (for exam-
ple, long series of regionally and chronologically 
coherent graves), this kind of data may lead to the 
definition of an articulated sequence of relative 
‘investment per deposit’, which, combined with 
other relevant information (e.g., topographic, bio-
archaeological or epigraphic data), can be useful 
in tackling social and economic questions (Pinar 
2016; 2021). Likewise, the method can be applied 
to grasp the correspondences between quality and 
cost of particular types of objects occurring in 
archaeological deposits, provided that both objects 
and the composition of the deposits have enough 
common traits to enable thorough comparison.
Some graves from c. 600 AD, for example, 
suggest that differences in decoration of A2 ew-
ers may have impacted their cost/price and the 
exclusivity of their social use (Tab. 3). In central 
Italy, the ewers from Montale and Nocera Umbra 
were found in two broadly coeval female burials 
with quite similar associated goods, including two 
combinations of bow and disc brooches which 
nevertheless mirrored some economic differ-
ences between the two deposits. At Montale (Fig. 
13b), two bow brooches made in gilt silver and 
carved decoration were associated with a bronze 
disc brooch with punched decoration, and an A2 
ewer decorated with parallel grooves and punched 
acanthus leaves (Crespellani 1887, 14; Gelichi 
1988, 561–564; Cardarelli, Malnati 2009, 30); in 
the Umbrian grave (Fig. 13a), a pair of similar bow 
brooches was combined with a disc brooch deco-
rated in garnet-on-gold cloisonné, gold adornments 
such as necklace pendants and a foil cross, with 
another A2 ewer showing grooved and punched 
decoration (Pasqui, Paribeni 1918, 194–199; Rupp 
2005, 25–27). Despite similarities between these 
two typological contexts, some details (e.g., the 
‘expensive’ disc brooch and other gold adornments, 
absent at Montale) suggest that the assemblage of 
goods at Nocera Umbra was, generally speaking, 
costlier. Grave 62 at Spilamberto certainly pertains 
to the same typological background: the grave 
contained gold embroideries, a folding chair and 
a drinking horn (De Vingo 2010, 47–56; Roffia 
2010, 69–73), with very similar parallels appearing 
at Nocera Umbra Gr. 17. However, the cost of the 
disc brooch is to be described as ‘middle’ range, 
somewhere between that from Nocera Umbra and 
the one from Montale: it consists of a gilded silver 
pendant with inlaid decoration, later recycled into 
a brooch. Unlike items in the other graves, the 
Spilamberto ewer is decorated only with parallel 
grooves, a simpler decoration, much quicker to do. 
Spilamberto 62 should thus be placed somewhere 
between Nocera Umbra 17 and Montale in absolute 
levels of ‘funerary investment’.
The deposits containing A2 ewers recorded in 
the upper Rhine valley share crucial features with 
the aforementioned Italian graves: they display 
a similar combination of typologically homoge-
neous sets of objects and perceptible shades of 
meaning related to different levels of funerary 
investment. The composition of the grave goods 
332 Joan PINAR GIL
from Ittenheim and Pfahlheim, Gr. 4/1891 (Werner 
1943; Nawroth 2001, 244–246) included, among 
other objects, belt fittings, horse harness elements, 
weaponry and drinking sets. However, these ob-
jects were shaped in very different ways: the belt 
fittings and the silver phalerae from Ittenheim are 
considered costly imports made of silver, whereas 
Pfahlheim (Fig. 13c) was furnished with far less 
exclusive counterparts made of iron, widespread 
in southern Germany. Comparable differences are 
displayed in the drinking sets: the homogeneous 
and decorated combination of a cast bronze pan 
and an ewer from Ittenheim seems to have been 
much more exclusive than that of the somewhat 
motley set from Pfahlheim, consisting of an A2 
ewer and a hammered basin probably originating 
in the region (Beghelli, Drauschke 2017, 16–20).
The fact that the Ittenheim and Pfahlheim 
graves included male burials renders systematic 
comparison with their Italian counterparts quite 
difficult. Nevertheless, ‘links’ between the two 
regional groups can be spotted. The assemblage 
of artefacts recorded at Cividale–San Mauro, Gr. 
50 (Ahumada Silva 2010, 117–123) is one of them 
(Fig. 13d).
It was discovered in the burial of a 2–4-year-
old child who can plausibly be identified as a boy 
based on his grave goods. Apart from an ewer of 
Spilamberto type, the grave contained remains 
of a sax or knife scabbard, two belt buckles (one 
showing damascened decoration), and a finger-
ring. All these elements also occur at Pfahlheim 
Gr. 4/1891, permitting comparison, despite the 
geographical distance (south-western Germany 
vs north-eastern Italy), the chronology (mid-7th 
century vs late 6th–early 7th centuries) and the 
age of the people related to the grave goods (pre-
sumably adult vs young child). The result is very 
clear: the punch-decorated ewer from Pfahlheim 
was accompanied, among other items, by a gold 
finger ring and gold-on-iron damascened objects, 
whereas the Cividale child was furnished with less 
exclusive objects, such as a grooved ewer, a silver 
finger ring and a silver-on-iron belt buckle. The 
funerary investment in terms of grave goods in 
this burial was apparently much lower than the 
broadly contemporary graves in the Rhineland. 
Another chain link between the Rhineland and 
Italy is the heterogeneous drinking set recorded 
at Pfahlheim: formed by a hammered basin and a 
Tab. 3: Quality and exclusivity. Composition of the grave goods associated to A1 and A2 vessels with punched and 
grooved decoration.
Tab. 3: Kakovost in ekskluzivnost. Sestava grobnih pridatkov, povezanih s posodjem tipa A1 in A2 z vtolčenim in ka-
neliranim okrasom.
   S
ilv
er
 p
ha
le
ra
e
 G
ol
d-
an
d-
ga
rn
et
 d
isc
 b
ro
oc
h
 G
ol
d 
fin
ge
rr
in
g
 G
ol
d 
co
in
 G
ol
d 
fo
il 
ap
pl
iq
ué
 Ir
on
 ch
ee
k 
pi
ec
e
 G
ol
d 
pe
nd
an
t/b
ea
d
 G
ol
d-
an
d-
br
on
ze
 h
ai
rp
in
 G
ol
d 
da
m
as
ce
ni
ng
 P
un
ch
ed
 p
an
 P
un
ch
ed
 e
w
er
 S
ilv
er
 b
el
t
 S
ilv
er
 d
isc
 b
ro
oc
h
 S
ilv
er
 b
ow
 b
ro
oc
h
 G
ro
ov
ed
 p
an
 H
am
m
er
ed
 b
ro
nz
e 
ba
sin
/p
an
 G
ol
d 
th
re
ad
 G
la
ss
 h
or
n
 B
ro
nz
e/
sil
ve
r h
ai
rp
in
 Ir
on
 b
el
t
 B
ro
nz
e 
be
lt
 S
ilv
er
/c
op
pe
r d
am
as
ce
ni
ng
 G
ro
ov
ed
 e
w
er
 B
ro
nz
e 
di
sc
 b
ro
oc
h
 S
ilv
er
 co
in
 S
ilv
er
 fi
ng
er
rin
g
Ittenheim
Güttingen 38
Wittislingen 1
Nocera Umbra 17
Pfahlheim 4/1891
Cividale/Čedad 21
Spilamberto 62
Montale
Cividale/Čedad 50
333Cast bronze vessels in the northern Adriatic region (c. 600 AD). Rome and Ravenna, Nocera Umbra and Budakalász
cast ewer, it can be compared to the combination 
of a hammered pan and a similar ewer recorded at 
Nocera Umbra Gr. 17. This feature could somehow 
connect the ‘poorer’ contexts in the Rhine valley 
with the ‘richer’ ones recorded in Italy.
The composition of these deposits suggests that 
ewers decorated with punched motifs and parallel 
grooves circulated in somewhat different social 
circles. Although both occurred in contexts related 
to people of ‘middle-range’ wealth (Spilamberto 
Gr. 62, Montale), punched decoration is the only 
one recorded in ‘richer’ graves, such as those at 
Ittenheim, Pfahlheim and Nocera Umbra Gr. 17; 
it is absent from amidst the ‘poorer’ grave goods 
at Cividale–San Mauro Gr. 50. A1 pans seem to 
confirm this trend: punched examples are pre-
dominant in ‘middle-range’ (Cividale–San Mauro 
Gr. 21) and ‘wealthier’ (Ittenheim, Güttingen) 
assemblages. Unlike A2 ewers, A1 pans include 
an apparently anomalous example occurring in a 
Fig. 13: Examples of funerary deposits with bronze cast ewers, selection of objects. Different scales.
Sl. 13: Primeri grobnih celot z bronastimi ulitimi vrči, izbor predmetov. Različna merila.
a – Nocera Umbra, Gr. 17 (Rupp 2005); b – Montale (Gelichi 1988); c – Pfahlheim, Gr. 4/1891 (Nawroth 2001); d – Cividale/
Čedad–San Mauro, Gr. 50 (Ahumada 2010)
334 Joan PINAR GIL
‘wealthier’ context, that of Wittislingen, Gr. 1. It 
is a common phenomenon that ‘cheaper’ objects 
occasionally occur in ‘rich’ contexts, since social 
groups with access to costly objects had more 
than enough resources also to acquire less exclu-
sive products. In this particular case, however, 
the Wittislingen grave goods could suggest that 
the pan should not be regarded as an A1 vessel, 
but as a later derivate from the mid-7th century, 
presumably originating from a different centre of 
manufacture and circulating via other distribution 
networks: the proportions between the pan’s body 
and the foot, indeed, show clear affinities to coeval 
B2 pans with an openwork foot.
The results of this survey thus agree in suggest-
ing that cast vessels belonging to types A1 and A2 
were manufactured according to different quality 
standards: in particular, ewers decorated with paral-
lel grooves were of a lower cost/quality level than 
those displaying more complex ornamentation. In 
addition, the examined evidence confirms that there 
was a direct correlation between the complexity 
of vessel decoration and the socio-economic en-
vironment in which they circulated. Apparently, 
the extra time and the display of artistic skills 
required by the craftsman by elaborate decoration 
directly impacted the price of the ewers, making 
the punched ewers more costly and exclusive: 
only wealthier customers and patrons could afford 
them. The frequent association between punched 
decorations and Greek inscriptions (a language 
mostly connected to Ravenna’s uppermost social 
strata: see above) further supports this observation.
In accordance with the same principle, it may 
be assumed that the Budakalász ewer was even 
more costly and exclusive than any of its punched 
and grooved counterparts. In this particular case, 
however, the context of deposition is not helpful 
for testing the hypothesis: the altered state of the 
grave, the uniqueness of the ewer when compared 
to its regional background and its late deposition 
as an ‘antique’, perhaps implying that the woman 
buried at Budakalász was not the original purchaser 
of the ewer, hinder any clear-cut conclusions. An 
approximate insight into the social milieu in which 
‘low-relief ’ ewers may have circulated is provided 
by the aforementioned Grave 1 at Nocera Umbra 
(Fig. 14a). As a working hypothesis, it can be argued 
that the shield decorated with openwork (see also 
Fig. 10: 3) can be used as an approximate instance 
for the ‘A2 top quality standard’, on the basis of 
its singular features and its decorative similari-
ties to the Budakalász ewer (see above). Among 
other objects, the shield occurred together with 
Fig. 14: Deposits with gold belts and figurative metalwork from the late 6th century. Different scales.
Sl. 14: Najdbe zlatih pasnih garnitur in figuralnega kovinskega posodja iz poznega 6. st. Različna merila.
a – Nocera Umbra, Gr. 1 (Rupp 2005); b – Isola Rizza (Bolla 1999); c – Perugia–palazzo Donini (Ciampoltrini 1985)
335Cast bronze vessels in the northern Adriatic region (c. 600 AD). Rome and Ravenna, Nocera Umbra and Budakalász
a combination of gold sword ornaments and belt 
fittings almost unparalleled in Lombard-period 
Italy, a combination associated with extremely ex-
clusive social circles (De Marchi 2021, with former 
literature). Similar milieus can connect some late 
6th-century deposits, such as the Perugia–Palazzo 
Donini grave and the Isola Rizza treasure (Fig. 
14b–c), which contain very select associations of 
gold belt fittings and silver plates with figurative 
decoration. Given this evidence, it becomes clear 
that the bronze ewers ornamented with ‘low relief ’ 
decoration were not only the most expensive and 
exclusive version of this entire category of finds 
but also that examples of these vessels such as 
the one from Budakalász were meant to circulate 
within the uppermost social milieus of early me-
dieval Europe.
A third element relates to quality and cost in-
dices: the average geographical distance between 
the centre of production and the findspot of a 
manufactured object. The comparison between 
the upper Rhine and the central-northern Italian 
groups of deposits already provides clues: as far 
as the limited amount of finds can tell, it is easy 
to notice that the deposits recorded in southern 
Germany and Alsace are, in average, ‘wealthier’ 
than those of Italy. In my view, this observation 
has twofold importance: on the one hand, it fur-
ther supports the hypothesis of the Adriatic origin 
of most A1 and A2 ewers recorded in the West; 
on the other, it suggests that transportation costs 
had a visible impact on the final monetary value 
of travelling objects. The same phenomenon can 
also be identified, although in a less clear-cut way, 
on a regional scale: it is probably no coincidence 
that the richest deposit recorded in Italy (Nocera 
Umbra Gr. 17) lies in a somewhat peripheral 
location, at quite a distance from the estimated 
production area in the northern Adriatic. The 
opposite aspect is represented by ‘middle-range’ 
contexts (Montale, Spilamberto, Cividale), which 
cluster around the northern Adriatic.
This type of qualitative evidence strongly sup-
ports the hypothesis that Ravenna was the main 
production and distribution centre of bronze cast 
vessels. The association of a ‘costly’ punched ewer 
and less expensive bronze accessories at Montale, 
for instance, could suggest that the purchase of 
such ewers was more affordable in territories well 
connected with Ravenna than at far more distant 
locations such as Cividale or Nocera Umbra. If 
one considers the Adriatic region only, these two 
localities are the most distant points from Ravenna 
where either A1 or A2 vessels have been recorded; 
the former displays ‘middle-range’ and ‘poorer’ 
deposition contexts, whereas the latter contained 
a single ‘wealthier’ deposit. The comparison be-
tween these two sites sheds further light on the 
links between the spread of cast bronze ewers and 
seafaring routes: Cividale is located less than 50 
km from major ports such as Aquileia and Grado, 
while the shortest route between Nocera Umbra 
and the Adriatic coast is about 100 km long. Ap-
parently, transportation costs grew significantly as 
the distance from the Adriatic ports increased. This 
phenomenon suggests a tight correlation between 
the purchase price of the ewers, their availability 
in local markets and the distance between those 
markets and the main trade routes.
Despite the scanty amount of recorded finds, 
the difference in distribution of the various ‘qual-
ity standards’ of A2 ewers clearly suggests that 
costlier ewers travelled afar much more often than 
simpler variants: Tab. 4 shows that 100% of top-
quality ewers recorded so far (i.e., the Budakalász 
ewer itself ) were found more than 500 km from 
the estimated production centre in the Ravenna 
area, whereas the percentage of exported ‘average 
or middle-quality’ items with punched decoration 
is lower than 67%. ‘Cheaper’ ewers with parallel 
Distance from Ravenna
(in km)
Type of decoration
Low relief motifs Punched and carved motifs Parallel grooves
 250 - 2 2
250–500 - - 2
 500 1 4 4
Tab. 4: Cost and distance. Linear distance between the find spots of A2 ewers and their estimated production centre 
(Ravenna).
Tab. 4: Cena in razdalja. Linearne razdalje med najdišči vrčev tipa A2 in njihovim predpostavljenim produkcijskim 
centrom (Ravena).
336 Joan PINAR GIL
grooves (including both A2 and Spilamberto ewers) 
retrieved more than 500 km away instead amount 
to just 50% of the total number.
It is certainly not by chance that the most ex-
clusive/expensive vessels were the ones travelling 
the furthest. Generally speaking, 6th–7th cen-
tury cast bronze vessels followed a pattern more 
reminiscent of fine pottery and glassware than of 
precious metal artworks. Byzantine silverware, 
for instance, was still reaching the West as late as 
the reign of Heraclius; available evidence suggests 
that it circulated only in major ports and inside 
exceptionally exclusive social circles (e.g., Valdonne, 
Dorestad, Sutton Hoo: Mundell Mango 1998; 2009). 
Quite the contrary, regular bronze vessels were 
diminishing their average travelling distances as 
their production centres in the West multiplied 
(Beghelli, Pinar 2019a, 428–432; Pinar, Vizcaíno 
2021): apparently, bronze vessels circulated more 
as a ‘middle-range cost’ product than as a status 
symbol intended for exclusive elite consumption. 
These observations fit well with the results of 
Heiko Steuer’s (1982, 325) and Jörg Drauschke’s 
(2011, 134–135) calculations: the average cost of 
the metal employed in the production of cast ewers 
was roughly one quarter to one-and-a-half solidus, 
which was the average monthly wage of a skilled 
craftsman in the Byzantine Empire (Ostrogorsky 
1932, 297): a rather expensive manufactured item, 
of course, yet affordable for a sizeable segment of 
the population.
With this general background in mind, the 
geographical location of the Budakalász ewer re-
inforces the impression that A2 ewers decorated 
with ‘low relief ’ motifs had more in common with 
luxury silverware than with undecorated ewers of 
the same type: as a high-quality product, A2 ewers 
circulated in a way rather similar to, for instance, 
7th century Byzantine silver plates. Geographical 
information regarding this remarkable artefact 
agrees with the results discussed above of the ex-
amination of depositional contexts such as Nocera 
Umbra 1, Perugia and Isola Rizza (see earlier in 
this chapter).
Correlations between depositional context, 
decorative features and geographical location sug-
gest that cast bronze vessels were manufactured 
according to different quality standards: therefore, 
it would be misleading to consider all of them 
as luxury products for the elite. A comparison 
with present-day wristwatches may be useful to 
understand how cast bronze ewers spread: the 
distribution patterns and the social profile of the 
users of top-quality versions has little to do with 
those associated with lower, cheaper instances of 
the same watch. In quite a similar fashion, the social 
profile of the original patron of the Budakalász 
ewer may have been sharply different from the 
users of ewers decorated in much simpler ways 
such as the Cividale, Spilamberto or Salona ones.
Cast bronze vessels as a whole should not, 
therefore, be regarded as reflections of ‘anomalous’ 
long-distance trade with the metropolises in the 
Eastern Mediterranean, an opinion that derives 
from their status as luxury goods (Wickham 2005, 
696–697, sums up the position of trade in luxury 
commodities within an economic system). Their 
connection to high-status social circles, as seen 
earlier, seems to be at least as blurred as their 
alleged eastern origin: one must assume that a 
majority of the cast bronze vessels of the 6th–8th 
centuries recorded in the West were middle-range 
products in terms of cost, originating in regional 
workshops. Changes in their geographical distribu-
tion between the mid-6th and the early 8th-century 
mirror the very same economic tendencies as 
those suggested by other coeval ‘middle-range 
cost’ productions such as pottery and glassware 
(e.g., Parker 1992; Panella 1993; Reynolds 1995; 
McCormick 2001, 83–114; Bonifay 2004; Pieri 
2005; Wickham 2005, 708–759; see also above in 
the introduction to this paper).
CONCLUSIONS
As shown in this overview, refined artefact 
typologies and short chronologies are useful both 
in defining and comparing regional typological 
inventories and in analysing the composition of 
archaeological deposits. In addition, the results 
contribute to clarifying general patterns of produc-
tion and distribution of early medieval cast bronze 
vessels and their evolution over time.
Available data agree in emphasising the key role 
played by the northern Adriatic region (mainly its 
Italian shore) in the spread of cast bronze vessels 
in the post-Roman West. There is little doubt that 
around 600 AD this region was the gateway for cast 
bronze vessels to be exported further into Europe: 
vessels manufactured in Egyptian workshops arrived 
in this area, and the local production of derived 
vessels was started. These Adriatic adaptations of 
Egyptian bronzeware were, in turn, distributed 
throughout Western and Central Europe. In all 
likelihood, the main hub for the production and 
337Cast bronze vessels in the northern Adriatic region (c. 600 AD). Rome and Ravenna, Nocera Umbra and Budakalász
(re)distribution of cast bronze vessels in the region 
was located in or around Ravenna. Apparently, a 
similar role had been fulfilled by Rome during the 
larger part of the 6th century; the shift from the 
Tyrrhenian to the Adriatic seems to have occurred 
as from the 570/80s, thus broadly coinciding in 
time with the establishment of the Exarchate.
Early medieval cast bronze vessels from Italy 
were distributed along sea routes leading to ports 
in Dalmatia, North Africa, eastern Spain, and 
southern Gaul. Continuous use of this trade axis 
can be observed throughout the 6th century, right 
up to the early 7th century. The main trade routes 
brings cast bronze vessels into Central Europe, 
however, fluctuated as the location of the main 
hub in Italy shifted: around 550 AD, the main 
overland route had been the Rhone valley, import-
ing Mediterranean vessels into the Seine basin; by 
600 AD, however, the distribution of cast bronze 
vessels shows that this route was no longer in 
use, apparently replaced by the Adriatic-Po-Rhine 
axis reaching as far as the North Sea coast. It thus 
seems that the circulation of cast bronze vessels 
along the Rome-Marseille route was interrupted at 
some point in the late 6th century, a phenomenon 
concomitant with the ‘Italian shift’.
Examining the cast bronze vessels thus rather 
sharply reveals a significant change in trade connec-
tions between major Western Mediterranean centres 
like Ravenna, Rome, Carthage and Marseille, thus 
confirming and further illustrating the tendencies 
revealed by other categories of archaeological finds, 
such as imported pottery. In particular, the slight 
chronological hiatus between the Egyptian LRA 
7 amphorae recorded in Carthage and Ravenna 
(well attested in late 6th century contexts: Bonifay 
2013, 533–534, n. 18; Baldassari, Cirelli 2009, 925; 
Guarnieri 2020, 264), on the one hand, and those 
found in Rome and Marseille (present only from 
the beginning of the 7th century onward: Bonifay, 
Pieri 1995, 114; Saguì 2002, 17), on the other, may 
be related to the same rearrangement of (re-)dis-
tribution centres that triggered the circulation of 
substantial amounts of cast bronze vessels in and 
around the northern Adriatic. Soapstone vessels 
from the western Alps, attested in Ravenna as from 
the late 6th century (Guarnieri 2020, 271, 273), may 
be regarded as another example of the movement 
of goods between the northern Adriatic, the Po 
plain and the Rhine valley.
Another Central European territory, namely 
north-western Pannonia between the Balaton lake 
and the Danube bank, was well-connected with the 
Adriatic hub c. 600 AD. The regional repertoire 
of cast bronze vessels (Budakalász, Zamárdi, Vár-
palota) shows clear parallels in coeval grave goods 
buried at the cemetery of Nocera Umbra in central 
Italy, well connected with coastal territories on the 
Adriatic. The north Pannonian finds, together with 
a Sardinian ewer found at Hurbanovo in Slovakia, 
highlight a trade route that had its most probable 
origin in the northern Adriatic ports, continuing 
overland through passes in either the Julian or 
the Dinaric Alps.
The Budakalász ewer is a particularly important 
piece of evidence for understanding the production 
and circulation of Werner A2 ewers between the 
Adriatic Sea and Central Europe. It proves that these 
ewers were manufactured according to different 
quality standards and that they targeted different 
social circles: as shown by the examination of 
depositional contexts, there is a clear correlation 
between the complexity of decoration of the ewers 
and the average cost of assemblages in which they 
occur. This is an important aspect when trying 
to understand the distribution of these objects, 
since the most valuable objects tended to travel 
over longer distances: this may help explain why 
the Budakalász ewer, presumably manufactured in 
Adriatic Italy, was found in such a faraway land. 
This pattern fits quite well with the general picture 
of Mediterranean trade during the 6th–7th century, 
reflecting a gradual contraction with luxury prod-
ucts being the only ones travelling long distances.
Quality and cost, albeit important, were not the 
only factors affecting patterns of dissemination of 
cast bronze vessels. Evidence related to A2 ewers, for 
instance, suggests the existence of a long-distance 
route, linking the Adriatic with the Balearic sea, 
which apparently traded exclusively in ‘cheaper’ 
versions of the ewers. This constitutes a specific 
phenomenon that cannot be evidenced along the 
contemporary Po-Rhine axis, since finely decorated 
and simpler vessels circulated regularly along the 
latter. Such differences may have been related to 
the intrinsic features of the supply chain itself, 
among which the strategies, network and logistics 
of merchants and the tastes and purchasing power 
of the patrons and customers.
Another interesting example lies in the spread 
of Werner B1 basins: although evidence suggests 
that they circulated between the northern Adriatic 
and the southern North Sea coasts along the same 
routes as other coeval vessels, they occur over a 
much wider territory than any of the latter, being 
abundantly attested in Britain and Egypt. There 
338 Joan PINAR GIL
is little doubt that the presumed multiplicity of 
production centres, whose extent cannot yet be 
defined archaeologically, is an important factor 
with which to be reckoned. However, available data 
suggest another interesting correlation: B1 are far 
more numerous than any of the other contempo-
rary vessels in every single region (Tab. 1), both 
in the East and West. Factors related to demand 
and representativeness must be mentioned and 
should be properly investigated: for instance, B1 
basins appear in exceptionally rich deposits (e.g., 
Chiusi/Castel Trosino: Pazienza 2006), and also in 
much humbler contexts, suggesting wider social 
use than other categories of vessels;3 on the other 
hand, the frequent occurrence of basins in graves, 
in higher proportions than any ewer and pan of 
the same period, may be related to a particular 
role of basins in burial ceremonies. An explana-
3  This phenomenon correlates with unusually high 
morphological variability within the type, which brings 
together basins of quite different sizes.
tion concerning the organisation of production 
can also be proposed, though: it may be argued 
that ‘mass production’ or, at least, production in 
larger numbers than any contemporary type, may 
have lowered transportation costs, thus enabling 
B1 basins to travel further than, for instance, A1 
and A2 vessels, produced in far more limited series.
However, the two hypotheses may be to a large 
extent complementary and mirror an important 
fact: each single type of cast bronze vessel and 
even each ‘quality standard’ were probably linked 
to different networks of distributors, patrons, and 
purchasers. Even in those cases where archaeologi-
cal evidence suggests that different types of vessels 
originated in a single production centre or area 
(e.g., Ravenna), the phenomenon is perceptible 
in the significant differences in both the patterns 
of geographical distribution and the contexts of 
deposition and is visible even along the same 
commercial route. The examples of B1 basins and 
A2 ewers, when compared with each other, are in 
themselves quite revealing.
AGNELLO, G. 1954, Le argenterie di Canicattini Bagni. – 
In: Pepragmena tu 9. Diethnus Byzantinologiku Synedriu 
I, 110–125, Athens.
AHUMADA SILVA, I. 2010, La collina di San Mauro a 
Cividale del Friuli. Dalla necropoli longobarda alla 
chiesetta bassomedievale. – Ricerche di Archeologia 
Altomedievale e Medievale 35–36.
AIMONE, M. 2010, Il tesoro di Desana. Una fonte per lo 
studio della società romano-ostrogota in Italia. – BAR. 
International Series 2127.
AIMONE, M. 2013a, Il tesoro di Canicattini Bagni. Nuo-
ve acquisizione e spunti di ricerca. – Archivio Storico 
Siracusano 48, 45–87.
AIMONE, M. 2013b, Il tesoretto di San Michele Maggiore 
a Pavia. Un riesame alla luce di recenti acquisizioni. – 
Museo in rivista. Notiziario dei Musei Civici di Pavia 
5, 11–24.
AIMONE, M. 2015, Il tesoro di Canoscio e le argenterie 
italiche di VI secolo. Nuove prospettive di ricerca. – 
In: C. Ebanista, M. Rotili (eds.), Aristocrazie e società 
fra transizione romano-germanica e alto medioevo, 
195–212, Napoli.
ARENA et al. 2001 = M. S. Arena, P. Delogu, L. Paroli, M. 
Ricci, L. Saguì, L. Vendittelli 2001, Roma dall’antichità 
al medioevo. Archeologia e storia nel Museo Nazionale 
Romano, Crypta Balbi. – Milano.
AUGENTI, A., E. CIRELLI 2010, Classe: un osservatorio 
privilegiato per il commercio della tarda antichità. – In: 
S. Menchelli, S. Santoro, M. Pasquinucci, G. Guiducci 
(eds.), LRCW3 Late Roman coarse wares, cooking wares 
and amphorae in the Mediterranean. Archaeology and 
archaeometry. Comparison between western and eastern 
Mediterranean, BAR. International Series 2185, 605–615.
BALDASSARRI, R., E. CIRELLI 2009, Amphorae and 
trade in Classe and Ravenna from 5th to 7th century. 
– In: J. Zozaya, M. Retuerce, M.A. Hervás, A. de Juan 
(eds.), Actas del VIII Congreso internacional de cerámica 
medieval en el Mediterráneo, 923–927, Ciudad Real.
BALDINI, I. 2008, L’età tardo antica. – In: A. Calzona (ed.): 
Matilde e il tesoro dei Canossa. Tra castelli, monasteri e 
città, 402–412, Milano.
BALDINI, I. 2017, Il tempo a tavola nel tesoro di argenterie 
da Classe. – In: I. Baldini, A. L. Morelli (eds.), Tempo e 
preziosi. Tecniche di datazione per l’oreficeria tardoantica 
e medievale, Ornamenta 6, 171–191, Bologna.
BALDINI, I., J. PINAR GIL 2010, Osservazioni sul tesoro 
di Reggio Emilia. – In: C. Ebanista, M. Rotili (eds.), 
L’Italia e il Mediterraneo occidentale tra il V secolo e la 
metà del VI, 113–128, Napoli.
BARATTE, F. 1997, La vaisselle d’argent dans l’Afrique 
romaine et byzantine. – Antiquité Tardive 5, 111–132.
BARATTE, F. 1998, Note à propos d’un trésor de vaisselle 
de bronze d’époque byzantine découvert à Pupput 
(Tunisie). – Cahiers archéologiques. Fin de l’antiquité 
et Moyen-Âge 46, 73–80.
BARATTE, F. 2003, Les objets précieux dans la vie écono-
mique et sociale du monde romain à la fin de l’Antiquité. 
– Revue Numismatique 159, 205–216.
BEGHELLI, M. 2020, Scultura altomedievale e analisi delle 
corrispondenze: l’atelier Piemontese-Provenzale (o la 
‘Bottega delle Alpi Marittime’ quarant’anni dopo). – 
Hortus Artium Medievalium 26, 288–325.
339Cast bronze vessels in the northern Adriatic region (c. 600 AD). Rome and Ravenna, Nocera Umbra and Budakalász
BEGHELLI, M., J. DRAUSCHKE 2017, Suppellettili liturgiche 
e vasellame in bronzo: tecniche di manifattura e centri 
produttivi. – In: M. Beghelli, M. De Marchi (eds.), L’alto 
medioevo. Artigiani e organizzazione manifatturiera 2. I 
maestri del metallo: l’intelligenza nelle mani, 9–36, Roma.
BEGHELLI, M., J. PINAR GIL 2013, Corredo e arredo 
liturgico nelle chiese tra VIII e IX secolo. Suppellettili 
antiche e moderne, locali e importate tra archeologia, 
fonti scritte e fonti iconografiche. – Jahrbuch des Römi-
sch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums 60, 697–762.
BEGHELLI, M., J. PINAR GIL 2019a, Cast bronze vessels 
in the 6th–9th centuries. Production centres, circulation 
and use in ecclesiastical and secular contexts. – Archäo-
logisches Korrespondenzblatt 49/3, 413–442.
BEGHELLI, M., J. PINAR GIL 2019b, Cast bronze vessels 
in the 6th–9th centuries. Remarks on an assemblage of 
liturgical implements found at Morbello (prov. Alessan-
dria, Piedmont / I). – Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 
49/2, 275–295.
BIERBRAUER, V. 1975, Die ostgotischen Grab- und Schatz-
funde in Italien. – Biblioteca degli Studi medievali 7.
BOELES, P. C. J. A. 1951, Friesland tot de elfde eeuw. Zijn 
vóór- en vroege geschiedenis. – ‘s-Gravenhage.
BOLLA, M. 1999, Il ‘tesoro’ di Isola Rizza: osservazioni 
in occasione del restauro. – Numismatica e Antichità 
Classica 28, 275–303.
BONIFAY, M. 2004, Études sur la céramique romaine tardive 
d’Afrique. – BAR. International Series 1301.
BONIFAY, M. 2005, La céramique en Provence à l’époque 
mérovingienne : un faciès résolument méditerranéen. – 
In: X. Delestre, P. Périn, M. Kazanski (eds.), La Méditer-
ranée et le monde mérovingien : témoins archéologiques, 
Bulletin Archéologique de Provence. Suppl. 3, 85–97.
BONIFAY, M. 2013, Africa: patterns of consumption in 
coastal regions versus inland regions. The ceramic 
evidence (300–700 AD). – Late Antique Archaeology 
10/1, 529–566.
BONIFAY, M., D. PIERI 1995, Amphores du Ve au VIIe 
s. à Marseille : nouvelles données sur la typologie et le 
contenu. – Journal of Roman Archaeology 8, 94–120.
CALVI, M. C. 1980, I tesori bizantini. – In: Da Aquileia a 
Venezia. Una mediazione tra l’Europa e l’Oriente dal II 
secolo a.C. al VI secolo d.C., 487–501, Milano.
CARDARELLI, A., L. MALNATI 2009, Atlante dei Beni 
Archeologici della Provincia di Modena 3. Collina e Alta 
Pianura. – Firenze.
CARILE, A. 1992, La società ravennate dall’Esarcato agli 
Ottoni. – In: A. Carile (ed.), Storia di Ravenna II. Dall’età 
bizantina all’età ottoniana 2. Ecclesiologia, cultura e arte, 
379–404, Venezia.
CARRETTA, M.C. 1982, Il catalogo del vasellame bronzeo 
italiano altomedievale. – Ricerche di Archeologia Alto-
medievale e Medievale 4.
CASTOLDI, M. 1989, Recipienti di bronzo tardo romani 
da Milano. – Rassegna di studi del Civico museo arche-
ologico e del Civico gabinetto numismatico di Milano 
43–44, 61–90.
CAVALLO, G. 1992, La cultura scritta a Ravenna tra 
antichità tarda e alto medioevo. – In: A. Carile (ed.), 
Storia di Ravenna II. Dall’età bizantina all’età ottoniana 
2. Ecclesiologia, cultura e arte, 79–125, Venezia.
CIAMPOLTRINI, G. 1985, Considerazioni sul ‘tesoro’ di 
Perugia. – Prospettiva 40, 53–56.
COLUSSA, S. 2003, L’iscrizione della padella rinvenuta 
nella tomba 21 della necropoli longobarda di San Mauro 
(Cividale del Friuli-Udine). – Forum Iulii 27, 121–142.
CRADDOCK, P., S. LA NIECE, D. HOOK 1998, Brass in 
the medieval Islamic world. – London.
CRESPELLANI, A. 1887, Di alcuni oggetti gallo-celtici 
scoperti nel Modenese. – Vignola.
CRUIKSHANK DODD, E. 1961, Byzantine silver stamps. 
– Washington D.C.
CUSCITO, G. 1973, L’argenteria paleocristiana nella Valle 
del Po. – Antichità Altoadriatiche 4, 295–317.
DANNHEIMER, H. 1979, Zur Herkunft der koptischen 
Bronzegefässe der Merowingerzeit. – Bayerische Vor-
geschichtsblätter 44, 123–147.
DEGANI, M. 1959, Il tesoro romano barbarico di Reggio 
Emilia. – Firenze.
DE MARCHI, P. M. 2021, Sepolture: la varietà dei privilegi 
in età longobarda. – In: P. de Vingo, Y. A. Marano, J. Pinar 
Gil (eds.), Sepolture di prestigio nel bacino mediterraneo 
(IV–IX secolo). Definizione, immagini, utilizzo. Atti del 
Convegno (Pella, 28–30 giugno 2017), 85–104, Firenze.
DE PASCA, V. 2016, Un umbone di scudo da parata in 
bronzo dorato da Nocera Umbra: nuove considerazioni su 
un manufatto venuto da lontano. – Gilgameš 1, 114–129.
DE VINGO, P. 2010, Spilamberto. Archeologia di una 
necropoli longobarda. – In: A. Breda (ed.), Il tesoro di 
Spilamberto. Signori longobardi alla frontiera, 29–67, 
Spilamberto.
DI STEFANO, G. 1995, Un triclinio per Afrodite. – Ar-
cheologia Viva 52, 26–32.
Die Franken 1997 = Die Franken, Wegbereiter Europas 
(Mainz 1997).
Die Langobarden 2008 = Die Langobarden: das Ende der 
Völkerwanderung (Darmstadt 2008).
DRANDAKI, A. 2016, From centre to periphery and bey-
ond: the diffusion of models in late antique metalware. 
– In: L. James, A. Eastmond (eds.), Wonderful things: 
Byzantium through its art,163–184, London.
DRANDAKI, A. 2019, Late antique metalware. The pro-
duction of copper alloy vessels in the fourth to eighth 
centuries: the Benaki Museum collection and related 
material. – Turnhout.
DRAUSCHKE, J. 2011, Zwischen Handel und Geschenk. 
Studien zur Distribution von Waren aus dem Orient, aus 
Byzanz und Mitteleuropa im östlichen Merowingerreich.– 
Freiburger Beiträge zur Archäologie und Geschichte des 
ersten Jahrtausends 14.
EMERY, W. 1938, The Royal Tombs of Ballana and Qustul. 
Mission archéologique de Nubie 1929–1934. – Cairo.
ENGELS, Ch. 2002, Das merowingerzeitliche Gräberfeld 
Eppstein, Stadt Frankenthal (Pfalz). – Dissertation, 
Universität Marburg (unpublished).
ERDMANN, K. 1938–1939, Einige Bemerkungen zu den 
gegossenen Bronzegefäßen des 6. und 7. Jahrhunderts 
nordwärts der Alpen. – Bonner Jahrbücher 143/144, 
255–260.
FINGERLIN, G. 1964, Grab einer adligen Frau aus Güttingen 
(Ldkr. Konstanz). – Badische Fundberichte Sonderheft 4.
340 Joan PINAR GIL
FRANKEN, M. 1944, Die Alamannen zwischen Iller und 
Lech.– Germanische Denkmäler der Völkerwande-
rungszeit 5.
GALL, F., B. TEßMANN 2018, 100 neue Gräber aus Ober-
baar. Archäologische und anthropologische Einblicke in 
ein bedeutendes spätmerowingerzeitliches Gräberfeld. – 
Bericht der Bayerischen Bodendenkmalpflege 59, 107–155.
GELICHI, S. 1988, Modena e il suo territorio nell’alto 
medioevo. – In: Modena dalle origini all’anno Mille, 
Studi di archeologia e storia 1, 551–576.
GIOVAGNOLI, E. 1935, Una collezione di vasi eucaristici 
scoperti a Canoscio. – Rivista di Archeologia Cristiana 
12, 313–328.
GOLAN et al. 2016–2017 = K. Golan, H. Goldfus, D. Mevorah 
2016–2017, Why Hide? Hoarding in Late Antiquity in 
view of a Byzantine hoard from Israel. – Israel Museum 
Studies in Archaeology 8, 117–171.
GUARNIERI, C. 2020, Ravenna, Classe and its surroundings: 
pottery as a mirror of everyday life. – In: S. Cosentino 
(ed.), Ravenna and the traditions of Late Antique and 
Early Byzantine craftsmanship. Labour, culture, and the 
economy, 259–292, Berlin, Boston.
HAUSCHILD, Th. 1994, Hallazgos de la época visigoda en 
la parte alta de Tarragona. – In: III Reunió d’Arqueologia 
Cristiana Hispànica, Monografies de la Secció Històrico-
Arqueològica de l’IEC 2, 151–156.
HAYES, J.W. 1984, Greek, Roman, and related metalware 
in the Royal Ontario Museum: a catalogue. – Ontario.
HOLMQVIST, W. 1939, Kunstprobleme der Merowinger-
zeit. – Kungliga Vitterhets Historie och Antikvitets 
Akademiens Handlingar 47.
JACQUEST, H., F. BARATTE 2005, La vaisselle de bronze 
dans l’Afrique byzantine : état des questions. – Antiquité 
Tardive 13, 121–134.
JOFFROY, R. 1974, Le cimetière de Lavoye (Meuse) : nécro-
pole mérovingienne. – Paris.
JURKOVIĆ, M. 2000, Méthodes de recherches sur la 
sculpture du haut Moyen Âge: exemple de la Croatie, 
avec quelques considérations sur la sculpture de Gel-
lone. – In: C. Amado, X. Barral i Altet (eds.), Saint-
Guilhem-le-Désert dans l’Europe du haut Moyen Âge, 
225–235, Montpellier.
JURKOVIĆ, M. 2016, Quando il monumento diventa 
documento. Una bottega lapicida del Quarnero. – In: 
A. Chavarría Arnau, M. Jurković (eds.), Alla ricerca di 
un passato complesso. Contributi in onore di Gian Pietro 
Brogiolo per il suo settantesimo compleanno, 231–242, 
Zagreb, Motovun.
KAZANSKI, M. 1994, Les éperons, les umbo, les manipules 
de boucliers et les haches de l’époque romaine tardive 
dans la region pontique : origine et diffusion. – In: C. 
von Carnap-Bornheim (ed.), Beiträge zu römischer und 
barbarischer Bewaffnung in den ersten vier nachchristli-
chen Jahrhunderten, 429–485, Lublin, Marburg.
KOCH, U. 1994, Franken in Heilbronn. Archäologische 
Funde des 6. und 7. Jahrhunderts. – Museo 8.
KONTNY, B. 2019, Dogs of war in the Baltic Sea area. The 
case of Balt retinues in the Roman Period and Migration 
Periods. – In: A. Cieśliński, B. Kontny (ed.), Interacting 
barbarians. Contacts, exchange and migrations in the first 
millennium AD, Neue Studien zur Sachsenforschung 
9, 101–122.
MAIOLI, M. G. 2009, Un tesoretto di oggetti in argento 
da Classe (Ravenna). – In: R. Farioli, C. Rizzardi, P. 
Porta, A. Augenti, I. Baldini (eds.), Ideologia e cultura 
artistica tra adriatico e mediterraneo orientale (IV–X 
secolo), Studi e scavi 19, 261–268.
MANGO, M. 2010, Teller mit der Darstellung von Aphro-
dite und Adonis. – In: Byzanz: Pracht und Alltag, 196, 
München.
MCCORMICK, M. 2001, Origins of the European eco-
nomy. Communications and commerce, A.D. 300–900. 
– Cambridge.
Medioevo svelato 2018 = Medioevo svelato. Storie dell’Emilia-
-Romagna attraverso l’archeologia (Bologna 2018).
MELUCCO VACCARO, A. 1974, Un bronzo con scene di 
battaglia da una tomba longobarda. – Memorie dell’Ac-
cademia dei Lincei 17, 341–364.
MONTI, A. 1858, Il fonte battesimale e alcuni membri 
ornamentali della Basilica di Santo Stefano sulla Via 
Latina. – L’Album: giornale letterario e di belli arti 25, 
163–164.
MUNDELL MANGO, M. 1986, Silver from Early Byzantium. 
The Kaper Koraon and related treasures. – Baltimore.
MUNDELL MANGO, M. 1998, The archaeological context 
of finds of silver in and beyond the eastern Empire. – In: 
N. Cambi, B. Marin (eds.), Radovi XIII. Međunarod-
nog kongresa za starokršćansku arheologiju / Acta XIII 
Congressus Internationalis Archaeologiae Christianae 2, 
213–215, Città del Vaticano, Split.
MUNDELL MANGO, M. 2001, Beyond the amphora: 
non-ceramic evidence for Late Antique industry and 
trade. – In: S. Kingsley, M. Decker (eds.), Economy 
and exchange in the East Mediterranean during Late 
Antiquity, 87–106, Oxford.
MUNDELL MANGO, M. 2009, Tracking Byzantine silver 
and copper metalware, 4th–12th centuries. – In: M. 
Mundell Mango (ed.), Byzantine trade, 4th–12th centu-
ries. The archaeology of local, regional and international 
exchange, Publications of the Society for the Promotion 
of Byzantine Studies 14, 221–236.
MUNDELL MANGO et al. 1989 = M. Mundell Mango, 
C. Mango, A. Care, E. Hughes, M. Hughes 1989, A 
6th-century Mediterranean bucket from Bromeswell 
Parish, Suffolk. – Antiquity 63, 295–311.
NAWROTH, M. 2001, Das Gräberfeld von Pfahlheim und 
das Reitzubehör der Merowingerzeit. – Wissenschaftliche 
Beibände zum Anzeiger des Germanischen National-
museums 19.
OSTROGORSKY, G. 1932, Löhne und Preise in Byzanz. 
– Byzantinische Zeitschrift 32, 293–333.
PALOL, P. de 1950, Bronces hispanovisigodos de origen 
mediterráneo 1. Jarritos y patenas litúrgicos. – Barcelona.
PANELLA, C. 1993, Merci e scambi nel Mediterraneo 
tardoantico. – In: Storia di Roma III/2. L’età tardoantica. 
I luoghi e le culture, 613–697, Torino.
PANELLA, C., L. SAGUÌ 2001, Consumo e produzione 
a Roma tra tardoantico e alto medioevo: le merci, i 
contesti. – In: Roma nell’alto medioevo, Settimane di 
studio del CISAM 48, 757–818, Spoleto.
PARKER, A. J. 1992, Ancient shipwrecks of the Mediterra-
nean and the Roman provinces. – BAR. International 
Series 580.
341Cast bronze vessels in the northern Adriatic region (c. 600 AD). Rome and Ravenna, Nocera Umbra and Budakalász
PAROLI, L. (ed.) 1995, La necropoli altomedievale di Castel 
Trosino. Bizantini e Longobardi nelle Marche. – Milano.
PAROLI, L. 2001, La cultura materiale nella prima età 
longobarda. – In: J. Arce, P. Delogu (eds.), Visigoti e 
Longobardi, 257–304, Firenze.
PASQUI, A., R. PARIBENI 1918, La necropoli barbarica 
di Nocera Umbra. – Monumenti Antichi dei Lincei 25, 
137–352.
PAZIENZA, A. 2006, I longobardi nella Chiusi di Porsenna. 
Nuove fonti per la necropoli dell’Arcisa. – Archeologia 
Medievale 33, 61–78.
PÉRIN, P. 1992, À propos des vases de bronze ‘coptes’ du 
VIIe siècle en Europe de l’Ouest : le pichet de Bardou-
ville (Seine-Maritime). – Cahiers archéologiques. Fin de 
l’Antiquité et Moyen-Âge 40, 35–50.
PÉRIN, P. 2005, La vaisselle de bronze dite ‘copte’ dans les 
royaumes romano-germaniques d’Occident. État de la 
question. – Antiquité Tardive 13, 85–97.
PERONI, A. 1972, Argenti paleocristiani ritrovati presso 
San Michele maggiore di Pavia: rapporto preliminare. – 
In: P. Cairoli (ed.), Archeologia e storia nella Lombardia 
padana. Bedriacum nel XIX centenario della battaglia, 
157–169, Como.
PIERI, D. 1998, Les importations d’amphores orientales en 
Gaule méridionale durant l’Antiquité tardive et le haut 
Moyen-Âge (IVe–VIIe siècles après J.-C.). Typologie, 
chronologie et contenu. – In: L. Rivet, S. Saulnier (eds.), 
Importations d’amphores en Gaule du Sud, du regne 
d’Auguste à l’Antiquité tardive, 97–106, Istres.
PIERI, D. 2005, Le commerce du vin oriental à l’époque By-
zantine (Vè–VIIè siècles): le témoignage des amphores en 
Gaule. – Bibliothèque Archéologique et Historique 174.
PILET, C. 1980, La nécropole de Frénouville : étude d’une 
population de la fin du IIIe à la fin du VIIe siècle. – BAR. 
International Series 83.
PILET, C. 2008, The Coptic ewer of Frénouville (France). 
– In: J.-J. Aillagon (ed.), Rome and the barbarians. The 
birth of a new world, 516–517, Milano.
PILLOY, J. 1912, Études sur d’anciens lieux des sépultures 
dans l’Aisne 3. – Saint-Quentin.
PINAR GIL, J. 2016, Ukrašenia, topografia i arhitektura: 
indikatory social’noj stratifikacii na mogil’nikah rannego 
vestgotskogo perioda v Ispanii i južnoj Francii. – Kratkie 
Soobščenia Instituta Arheologii 244, 13–47.
PINAR GIL, J. 2017, Materie prime, tecniche e tempi di 
lavorazione: costo degli oggetti e potere d’acquisto 
nell’età gota. – In: M. Beghelli, M. De Marchi (eds.), 
L’alto medioevo. Artigiani e organizzazione manifattu-
riera 2. I maestri del metallo: l’intelligenza nelle mani, 
129–155, Roma.
PINAR GIL, J. 2021, Again on the transition from gentes 
to regna in the West: an alternative regard based on 
cost calculation and topography. – In: E. Droberjar, B. 
Komoróczy (eds.): Přechodné a zánikové horizonty u 
barbarů, 307–320, Brno.
PINAR GIL, J., J. VIZCAÍNO SÁNCHEZ 2021, A Werner 
A2 ewer from Byzantine Cartagena and the distribution 
of bronze cast vessels in the Western Mediterranean 
around 600 CE. – Journal of Roman Archaeology (first 
view) DOI: 10.1017/s1047759421000556.
PRIGENT, V. 2020, Notes on the production and circulation 
of the Byzantine Ravennate Coinage. – In: S. Cosentino 
(ed.), Ravenna and the traditions of Late Antique and 
Early Byzantine craftsmanship. Labour, culture, and the 
economy, 293–310, Berlin, Boston.
REYNOLDS, P. 1995, Trade in the Western Mediterranean, 
AD 400–700. The ceramic evidence. – BAR. International 
Series 604.
ROFFIA, E. 2010, I vetri di Spilamberto. – In: A. Breda 
(ed.), Il tesoro di Spilamberto. Signori longobardi alla 
frontiera, 69–75, Spilamberto.
ROSS, M. C. 1962, Catalogue of the Byzantine and Early 
Medieval Antiquities in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection 
1. Metalwork, Ceramics, Glass, Glyptics, Painting. – 
Washington D.C.
ROOSENS, H., A. VAN DOORSELAER 1966, Enkele mer-
kwaardige graven uit de merovingische begraafsplaats 
van Beerlegem. – Archaeologia Belgica 91, 26–45.
ROVELLI, A. 2012, Gold, silver and bronze: an analysis 
of monetary circulation along the Italian coasts. – In: 
S. Gelichi, R. Hodges (eds.): From one sea to another. 
Trading places in the European and Mediterranean Early 
Middle ages, 267–296, Turnhout.
RUPP, C. 2005, Das langobardische Gräberfeld von Nocera 
Umbra. – Firenze.
SAGUÌ, L. 2002, Roma, i centri privilegiati e la lunga durata 
della tarda antichità. Dati archeologici dal deposito di 
VII secolo nell’esedra della Crypta Balbi. – Archeologia 
Medievale 29, 7–42.
Salona 1994 = Salona christiana (Split 1994).
SCHOPPA, H. 1966, Zur Siedlungsgeschichte des Rheingaues 
in fränkischer Zeit. – Nassauische Annalen 77, 1–15.
SCHULZE-DÖRRLAMM, M. 2006, Taufkannen der 
Karolingerzeit. – Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen 
Zentralmuseums 53, 605–629.
STEUER, H. 1982, Frühgeschichtliche Sozialstrukturen in 
Mitteleuropa. Zur Analyse der Auswertungsmethoden 
des archäologischen Quellenmaterials. – Abhandlun-
gen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, 
Philologisch-Historische Klasse 128.
STRAUME, E. 1987, Gläser mit Facettenschliff auf skan-
dinavischen Gräbern des 4. und 5. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. 
– Instituttet for Sammenlignende Kulturforskning B, 
Skrifter 73.
TÖRÖK, L. 1986, The chronology of the Qustul and Ballana 
cemeteries. – In: M. Krause (ed.), Nubische Studien, 
191–197, Mainz.
TRIER, M. 1992, Ein ‘koptisches’ Bronzegefäss des 7. Jahr-
hunderts aus dem Gräberfeld bei Thierhaupten-Oberbaar: 
Beobachtungen zur Siedlungs- und Sozialgeschichte des 
Ortes während der späten Merowingerzeit. – Bayerische 
Vorgeschichtsblätter 57, 277–298.
VALLET, F. 1976, Ensemble mérovingien provenant de 
Mackenheim (Bas-Rhin). – Antiquités Nationales 8, 75–83.
VIDA, T. 2006, Hunting jug from Budakalász and related 
forms. To the question of development of late antique 
vessel forms. – Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientarum 
Hungaricae 57, 259–271.
VIDA, T. 2009, Komposition und Stil der Jagddarstellungen 
der Budakalászer Messingkanne. – Acta Archaeologica 
Academiae Scientarum Hungaricae 60, 97–114.
VIDA, T. 2016, Late antique metal vessels in the Carpathian 
Basin. Luxury and power in the Early Middle Ages. – 
Hereditas Archaeologica Hungariae 1.
342 Joan PINAR GIL
VIDA, T. 2017, Die frühbyzantinische Messingkanne mit 
Jagdszenen von Budakalász (Ungarn). – Budapest.
VIELITZ, K. 2003, Die Granatscheibenfibeln der Merowin-
gerzeit. – Europe médiévale 3.
VON HESSEN, O. 1968, I ritrovamenti barbarici nelle 
collezioni civiche veronesi del Museo di Castelvecchio. 
– Verona.
WEITZMANN, K. (ed.) 1979, Age of spirituality. Late 
antique and early Christian art, third to seventh centu-
ry. – New York.
WERNER, J. 1935, Münzdatierte austrasische Grabfunde. – 
Germanische Denkmäler der Völkerwanderungszeit 3.
WERNER, J. 1938, Italisches und koptisches Bronzegeschirr 
des 6. und 7. Jahrhunderts nordwärts der Alpen. – In: 
J. F. Crome (ed.), Mnemosynon Theodor Wiegand, 
74–86, München.
WERNER, J. 1943, Der Fund von Ittenheim. Ein alamannisches 
Fürstengrab des 7. Jahrhunderts im Elsass. – Strasbourg.
WERNER, J. 1950, Das alamannische Fürstengrab von 
Wittislingen. – Münchner Beiträge zur Vor- und Früh-
geschichte 2.
WERNER, J. 1954–1957, Zwei gegossene koptische Bronze-
flaschen aus Salona. – Vjesnik za arheologiju i historiju 
dalmatinsku 59, 115–128.
WERNER, J. 1961, Fernhandel und Naturalwirtschaft im 
östlichen Merowingerreich nach archäologischen und 
numismatischen Zeugnissen. – Bericht der Römisch-
Germanischen Kommission 42, 307–346.
WERNER, J., B. BISCHOFF 1952, Langobardische Grabfunde 
aus Reggio Emilia. – Germania 30, 190–194.
WERZ, K. 2005, ‘Sogenanntes Koptisches’ Buntmetallgeschirr. 
Eine methodische und analytische Untersuchung zu den 
als koptisch bezeichneten Buntmetallgefäßen. – Disser-
tation, Universität Konstanz (unpublished).
WICKHAM, Ch. 2005, Framing the early Middle Ages. 
Europe and the Mediterranean, 400–800 AD. – Oxford.
ZÁBOJNÍK, J. 2004, Slovensko a avarský kaganát. – Studia 
Archaeologica et Mediaevalia 6.
ZAGARI, F. 2005, Il vasellame bronzeo dell’inizio dell’epoca 
bizantina: l’Italia. Riflessioni e storia degli studi. – An-
tiquité Tardive 13, 105–113.
V zahodni in srednji Evropi je bilo odkritih več 
kot 150 bronastih ulitih posod iz obdobja 6.–8. 
stoletja. Dolgo časa so jih raziskovalci tradicionalno 
pripisovali kovinski obrti koptskega Egipta ali bolj 
splošno bizantinskih ozemelj vzhodnega Sredoze-
mlja. Bolj poglobljene raziskave so poudarjale, da 
je gotovo delovalo več produkcijskih centrov in da 
so vlogo pri tem imele tudi delavnice na Zahodu. 
Še več, pred kratkim je bilo pokazano, da sta iz-
delava in razprostranjenost bronastih ulitih posod 
na Zahodu zanesljiv pokazatelj splošnega krčenja 
trgovine na dolge razdalje, katere vzpostavitev dobro 
orisujejo gospodarski indici, dokazani z najdbami 
fine keramike in odkritimi ostanki brodolomov.
Splošni nabor tipov bronastega ulitega posodja 
na Zahodu v letih od približno 525 do 625 ima več 
povezav z Egiptom kot s katerokoli drugo vzhodno 
regijo. Glede na trenutno stanje raziskav ne gre 
dvomiti, da je pomemben delež posodja, ki so ga 
uporabljali v zahodni Evropi, izdelan po egipčan-
skih modelih. Povezava med Egiptom in Italijo je 
potekala po morju, z Aleksandrijo kot glavnim 
izvoznim središčem. Na italijanski strani pa so se 
konci te poti skozi čas lahko spreminjali. V desetle-
tjih iz sredine 6. st. so bili najbolj priljubljeni cilji 
pošiljk ulitega bronastega posodja iz Aleksandrije 
verjetno Rim ali bližnja pristanišča. Prav tam se je 
najverjetneje začela tudi najzgodnejša “zahodna” 
produkcija posod. Rim je s svojimi pristanišči 
verjetno deloval kot glavni redistribucijski center 
za druge zahodne regije, kot so severna Afrika, 
vzhodna Španija (prek Nove Kartagine) in severna 
Galija (prek današnjega Marseilla).
Iz razprostranjenosti najdb pa je videti, da je 
bila okrog leta 600 najverjetnejša vhodna točka v 
Evropo za bronasto ulito posodje Ravena ali bli-
žnji emporij. Severnojadranski prostor je bil, kot 
kaže, v tistem času središče izdelave in distribucije 
bronastega ulitega posodja. Od tam je znano ne 
le največje skupno število tovrstnih predmetov, 
ampak so tudi zastopani vsi tipi. Od tu so vrči in 
kozice potovali po Padski nižini in Porenju do obal 
Severnega morja, po morju pa v severno Afriko 
in jugovzhodno Iberijo.
Primerjava nabora tipov, najdenih v tirenskem 
in jadranskem prostoru, kaže na čas, ko se je 
Bronasto ulito posodje na severnojadranskem
območju (okrog leta 600).
Rim in Ravena, Nocera Umbra in Budakalász
Povzetek
343Bronasto ulito posodje na severnojadranskem območju (okrog leta 600). Rim in Ravena, Nocera Umbra in Budakalász
zgodil ta premik, datiramo ga lahko najpozneje 
v desetletje med letoma 570 in 580. Ob tem kaže 
omeniti, da to obdobje sovpada z reorganizacijo 
bizantinskih posesti v Italiji in z ustanovitvijo 
ravenskega eksarhata.
Poleg Porenja in severnomorskih obal je bilo 
severnojadransko jedro povezano tudi s Panonijo, 
kjer se tovrstne najdbe pojavljajo na precej ozkem 
območju med Blatnim jezerom in Donavo. Iz tega 
je mogoče sklepati na potek trgovske povezave med 
severozahodno Panonijo in jadranskimi pristanišči 
prek Julijskih Alp ali Dinarskega gorovja.
Konteksti z bronastimi ulitimi vrči, najdenimi 
v Italiji in srednji Evropi, jasno kažejo, da so bili 
ti predmeti izdelani po različnih standardih ka-
kovosti za različne družbene kroge. Zavajajoče bi 
bilo misliti, da je vedno šlo le za luksuzne izdelke 
za elito. Prodajali so jih prek različnih trgovskih 
mrež, dražji predmeti pa so daleč potovali precej 
pogosteje kot cenejše različice. Korelacije med grob-
Joan Pinar Gil
Department of Archaeology, 
University of Hradec Králové
Rokitanského 62 
500 03 Hradec Králové
Czech Republic
joan.pinargil@uhk.cz
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0398-129X
Illustrations: Fig. 3: 7 (drawing by M. Pleska after Byzantine Art and Archaeology on Europeana – Byzart.eu).
Slikovno gradivo: sl. 3: 7 (risba: M. Pleska, po Byzantine Art and Archaeology on Europeana –Byzart.eu).
nimi konteksti, okrasjem in prostorskimi podatki 
govorijo, da je bila končna cena bronastih ulitih 
posod močno odvisna od njihove dostopnosti na 
lokalnem trgu, ki je pogosto odsevala razdaljo med 
krajem in glavnimi trgovskimi potmi in emporiji.
Prevod: Tina Milavec