Clio Ancient Art Valentine's Sale

Hello Customers, Friends and Fans of Clio Ancient Art:

In honor of Valentine’s Day, we are holding a sale on selected antiquities. This sale ends 7:00 PM Saturday, February 15.

ROMAN ANTIQUITIES (coins not included), 15% OFF

56 items to select from in stone, ceramic, bronze and glass. You can find these here –

http://www.clioancientart.com/catalog/c15_p1.html

http://www.clioancientart.com/catalog/c16_p1.html

http://www.clioancientart.com/catalog/c17_p1.html

ANCIENT JEWELRY AND PERSONAL ADORNMENT, 15% OFF

36 items, Egyptian, Roman, Byzantine, Medieval European and early Islamic, in silver, bronze, faience, enamel and glass. You can find these here –

http://www.clioancientart.com/catalog/c19_p1.html

http://www.clioancientart.com/catalog/c19_p2.html

BOOKS, CATALOGS AND OTHER PUBLICATIONS, FRAMED AND UNFRAMED ART, 15% OFF

24 items available. You can find these here –

http://www.clioancientart.com/catalog/c25_p1.html

As always, thanks for looking.

Best wishes,

Chris M. Maupin
Clio Ancient Art and Antiquities
Chris Maupin Trust for Ancient Art
PO Box 7714
Wilmington, NC 28406
Phone: 704-293-3411
Web: http://www.clioancientart.com/

It's Always Nice to Get Positive Press Coverage...

http://www.wilmingtonbiz.com/retail/2014/01/03/clio_debuts_in_wilmington/11225

Every Coin Tells A Story: A Survivor from the Cilician Kingdom of Armenia

The silver coin pictured here, a “Tram” of the Cilician Armenian ruler Levon I, is a survivor from a rather remarkable episode in the Medieval history of the Eastern Mediterranean.

Our story begins far to the east, with the conquest of much of the Middle East by the Seljuk Turks. Fleeing their original homelands in what had been the ancient Kingdom of Armenia, long a pawn in the conflicts between the Roman and Persian Empires, thousands of Armenians established a principality in what today is the southernmost coastal region of Turkey and the northernmost coastal region of Syria. During the final quarter of the 11th Century, under the first King of the Rubenid Dynasty, they declared independence from the Byzantine empire. Our coin was issued by Levon I, perhaps the most successful ruler during this initial phase of the Kingdom’s history.

Although the new Kingdom prospered economically due to its geography, which included an arc of high mountains providing some degree of protection and a narrow but fertile coastal plain that featured several good ports for trade, it was always at risk and short on allies. Nearly surrounded by hostile Islamic states, at various times it allied itself with the new Mongol rulers of Iran, Mesopotamia and Syria, the Ilkhanids, who were not yet fully converted to Islam, occasionally with the Byzantine Empire to the north and especially with the European Crusader states that sprang up along the Levantine coast shortly after its own birth (see also a coin of the Crusader Principality of Antioch & County of Tripoli on our website: http://www.clioancientart.com/catalog/i280.html) .

One outcome of the Crusader alliance was extensive marriage between the new Crusader aristocracy and the 2 Armenian ruling families, the Rubenids and Hetumids. The Hetumids later formed a close marriage based alliance with the Frankish Lusignan Dynasty, who ruled the nearby Island of Cyprus. On our coin, this western influence is clearly visible, even during the Kingdom’s early years– http://www.clioancientart.com/catalog/i300.html. On the reverse is the Armenian rampant lion while the obverse includes a forward facing seated king holding a sceptre topped with the Frankish fleur-de-lis.

Conducting business in any of the Cilician ports or towns during the Kingdom’s almost 300 year history would have involved a bewildering array of currency. In addition to the silver and bronze coinage issued by the official mints of Armenian Cilicia, accepted forms of currency included Venetian, Genoese and Pisan coinage, Islamic Dirhems issued by the Mamluks, Ilkhanids and other local dynasties, and coins issued by the various Crusader principalities. While all of these had a rough, easy to understand relationship to one another based on weight of precious metal, implementing this in actual practice would have called for both good math skills and shrewd bargaining skills.

Despite intermarriage with the Lusignans, the Cillician Armenian Kingdom could not survive onslaughts from the powerful Mamluk rulers based in Egypt, who had effectively halted the Mongol advance. By the early 14th Century, the Mongol rulers of the Middle East had converted to Islam and the Crusader states along the coast of Palestine had all fallen or been abandoned, thus depriving the Armenians of key allies. The Kingdom fell in 1375, and the last King of Cilician Armenia died in exile in Paris in 1396.

This relatively minor but remarkable chapter in history serves to remind us of the religious, political and philosophical complexities of that part of the world, as we should be very much aware from recent news. The improbability of this chapter also reminds us that truth is always stranger than fiction. Of course, this is the beauty of ancient and medieval coinage; it always tells a fascinating story and sometimes provides the only clues to understanding particular events in history.

WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM A BUCKLE?

In a recent blog entry we examined characteristics of a 5^th-6^th Century Frankish cloissone’ silver buckle (http://www.clioancientart.com/catalog/i163.html), a high status object. In this entry we will examine aspects of some rather more mundane but also much more typical buckles from Late Antiquity and the transitional period involving the migration of peoples into Europe, the end of Roman authority in the west and the consolidation of Roman power in the east (the Byzantine Empire).

A group of 5 Visigoth bronze belt plates on our website (http://www.clioancientart.com/catalog/i125.html), found in Spain and formerly in both an old Spanish and a California private collection, date to the 5^th and 6^th Centuries. By the early 6^th Century, what is now the Iberian Peninsula was no longer part of the Roman world but largely under the control of the Visigoth Kingdom. The material culture and art of the Visigoths, their close relatives the Ostrogoths and Heruli, and other migratory people who settled in the former European provinces of the Roman Empire, focused on small, finely crafted objects, including jewelry and articles of personal dress. Such objects made from precious metals and adorned with cloissone’, gilding and other high status techniques tend to receive much attention in museum exhibitions and catalogs but these are not typical. Most personal dress items, such as the buckles listed here, were crafted from bronze or iron and decorated with simple incising or chip carving.

Some common iconographic themes among all these objects include bird heads with large beaks, presumably raptors, and quadra pedal animals, usually quite stylized and sometimes nearly impossible to make out amidst a mass of contorted ornamentation. Viewing a close up of our group (http://webhosting.web.com/imagelib/sitebuilder/misc/show_image.html?linkedwidth=actual&linkpath=http://www.clioancientart.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/Products/CA-09-126.JPG&target=tlx_new&title=A%20%20Group%20of%20Visigothic%20Bronze%20Belt%20Plates%20and%20Fragments) the small belt plate in the center is a good example of the large beaked bird motif. The 2 buckle plates on the left clearly portray animals of some type but any specific identification is impossible. The buckle 2^nd from right may include both animal and bird elements but these are far less distinct than on the other plates. A very clear related example of the beaked bird motif may be seen here (http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details.aspx?objectId=95393&partId=1&searchText=Byzantine+buckle&images=true&&page=1 ) on 2 mounts with all-over cloisonné garnet inlays in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, NY, dating to the late 4^th-5^th Century, found at Kerch in the Crimea.

Buckles provide a remarkable insight into the transition of the formerly Roman European provinces into the semi-Barbarous states established by the now settled “Migration Period” peoples. In the later days of Roman control in western Europe, specifically the late 4^th and the 5^th Century, very large numbers of officers in the Roman army were of “barbarian” extraction, some rising to very high office. Increasingly, the weapons and objects of personal adornments used by Roman troops and their non-Roman opponents converged in terms of materials, effectiveness and even decorative treatment.  To illustrate the point, a late Roman (4^th-5^th Century) chip carved buckle in the British Museum (http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details.aspx?objectId=86295&partId=1&searchText=Roman%20chip%20carved%20buckle) shows a remarkable similarity in its surface treatment, which is chip-carved, to a Germanic, possibly Gepid, chip carved buckle, also in the British Museum (http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details.aspx?objectId=85657&partId=1&searchText=Germanic+buckle&images=true&page=1).

This convergence of styles was far less pronounced in the eastern provinces of the Empire – what we now call the Byzantine Empire (though the Byzantines themselves would not have understood this term, as they simply thought of themselves as Romans). A couple of complete belt buckles on our website, cast in the “cross and pelta” style, illustrate this: http://www.clioancientart.com/catalog/i188.html and http://www.clioancientart.com/catalog/i189.html. These show no hint of influence from the migratory cultures that had overrun the west. Their clean and solid lines suggest stability and authority. Far wealthier than the western provinces, and with central authority concentrated at Constantinpolis, the east was able, for the most part, to stay out of the chaotic relationships among the new semi-barbarous European kingdoms, and even to repel onslaughts from other migratory groups in the east, such as the Slavs, Avars, Alans and Huns.

Early Medieval Cloissone Decoration and a Frankish Connection on Our Website

Cloisonné was very popular decorative technique during the transitional period from Late Antiquity to the early Middle Ages. The name is derived from the French word “cloison” meaning “cell”. This refers to the technique of creating individual spaces by using thin metal wires or panels and filling these cells with garnets or other semi-precious stones or with colored enamel (glass paste). The most expensive cloisonné decoration involved garnets, typically imported from Sri Lanka. Enamel cloisonné was far more common and used on buckles and strap ends, weapon handles and scabbards, brooches, jewelry and many other small objects.

Although colored enamel decoration on metalwork had a long history in pre-Roman Europe, continuing through the Roman period in the western provinces, the particular type of cloisonné we are concerned with here seems to have reached Europe by contact with the migratory cultures of Goths, Vandals, Franks and others during the 4^th Century CE. This contact involved controlled settlement of some populations in exchange for military service, direct conflict with other groups (sometimes defeated militarily, sometimes paid off and kept at bay beyond the Roman frontiers) and forcible occupation of Roman territory, changing the cultural, political and artistic landscape of Europe over the next few centuries.

One object offered on our website, a Merovingian Frankish silver and cloisonné buckle dating to the 5^th or 6^th Century CE, is a high quality and illustrative example of this technique. Found in France and for many years in an old English private collection, this object (which may be found here: http://www.clioancientart.com/catalog/i163.html ) features a deep red roughly heart shaped glass panel set into the silver buckle plate. 

During conservation work on the Staffordshire Hoard, which includes many small objects decorated in cloisonné technique, conservators at the British Museum have had the opportunity to study in detail methods used in assembling such objects. Of special interest is how the amber and other colored glass was made to adhere to the metal. Combined with earlier research on the Viking Sutton Hoo treasure, this has shown that various types of complex patterned metal foils were used both to assist in making the enamel adhere securely to the object and to accentuate its reflectivity, making the enamel “stones” sparkle by allowing light to pass through and bounce off the foil patterns beneath. They also found that in some cases during the many centuries they lay in the ground, the leaching of soil into the spaces between the enamel and the metal foils compromised this reflectivity, clouding the effect.

In the case of our Frankish buckle, this has also proven to be the case. While still beautiful in color, the fifteen hundred years this object spent in the ground resulted in a loss of the “sparkle” that would have been so obvious when the object’s former owner wore it. Like so many other antiquities that have been changed in color, texture or completeness by the passage of time, we must use or imaginations to visualize this object in its original appearance. Perhaps this is part of the allure of antiquities: not quite being able to touch the original reality of an object. As Leonard Barkan pointed out in his remarkable book Unearthing the Past, Archaeology and Aesthetics in the Making of Renaissance Culture –

“…anything that is uncompleted or has been robbed of its completeness by the passage of time both fascinates us and offers us the special vantage point from which the salient characteristics of moments in history are divulged. Or perhaps the fragment reveals one of our salient characteristics: the wish to enter historical moments via their breaks or discontinuities.”