Recognizing Niello. Three Aegean Daggers, in Exotica in the Prehistoric Mediterranean, ed. Andrea...

This pdf of your paper in Exotica in the Prehistoric Mediterranean belongs to the publishers Oxbow Books and it is their copyright.

As author you are licenced to make up to 50 offprints from it, but beyond that you may not publish it on the World Wide Web until three years from publication (July 2014), unless the site is a limited access intranet (password protected). If you have queries about this please contact the editorial department at Oxbow Books ([email protected]).

An offprint from

Exoticain the

Prehistoric Mediterranean

Edited byAndrea Vianello

© Oxbow Books 2011ISBN 978-1-84217-424-1

13. Recognizing Niello: three Aegean daggers

Nancy R. Thomas

IntroductionThe beautiful, black-inlaid weapons found by Heinrich Schliemann in the Shaft Graves at Mycenae are among the most exotic creations from the Bronze Age eastern Mediterranean. The black material surrounding the silver and gold designs on these objects has often been cited as a very early example of niello. Niello is a black sulphide substance used to inlay and embellish richly decorated metal objects. Archaeometrists have demonstrated through chemical analysis that true niello appeared on Roman through Romanov metalwork, including on weapons, jewellery, horse trappings, tableware, and sacred and secular receptacles and regalia, (Fig. 13.1; Plate 23). To date, however, no niello has been unequivocally verified in the laboratory for the Bronze Age eastern Mediterranean. Here I present a different way to look for the presence of niello: identifying surface traits that are acknowledged signals of the sulphide material. Such visual evidence would not, in itself, establish the presence of niello on an object. However, a published set of visually evident surface traits of niello can be useful in two ways. First, it will enable museums holding Bronze Age black-inlaid objects to identify the most likely candidates for laboratory analysis, or re-analysis, using up-to-date equipment and procedures. These museums are the National Archaeological Museum in Athens, the Mycenae Archaeological Museum, the Patras Museum (Greece), the Chora Museum (Greece), the Copenhagen National Museum, the Cairo Museum, the Luxor Museum, the National Museum in Beirut, the Aleppo Museum, the Cyprus Museum in Nicosia, and the Brooklyn Museum in New York. Second, the checklist of surface traits of niello will help art historians and field archaeologists, who have no equipment available beyond a camera or a magnifying glass and no easy access to archaeometrists, to identify black-inlaid objects that may be worth the time and considerable expense of chemical analysis. In all cases, it is vital that accurate information be generated and disseminated about the identity of the black material in Bronze Age inlaid objects.

Once the nature of the black material is established by laboratory analysis, scholars can profitably resume investigating the questions of specialisation, mobility, and transfer that spring from these beautifully exotic objects. The present article is, therefore, an intermediate phase in this quest.

Niello and Black Patinated BronzeThree areas – the Levant, Egypt, and the Aegean – produced weapons and other objects ornamented with black inlay and precious metal foils during the second millennium BC. Although this black inlay has traditionally been called niello, scholars now recognize that another very different material can produce very similar visual results: black patinated bronze. The blackness of the two materials originates in quite different ways. In niello, the darkness is inherent in the chemical composition of the sulphide paste that has been formed by melting silver, copper, and/or lead with a quantity of sulphur. The resulting sulphide mass is dark throughout. In black bronze, on the other hand, the darkness is a thin surface patina, created when a piece of bronze, a hard copper alloy, has been immersed, for example, in a chemical bath. The surface of the bronze becomes dark but the interior remains unpatinated (Photos et al. 1994, 271). The two materials – niello and patinated bronze – are also worked differently. Simply stated, inlaying with niello involves heat whereas working with black patinated bronze is a cold process. Niello is a hot sulphide paste that, while soft, is worked into cuttings on a metal object where it cools, hardens, and becomes permanent. Black bronze (and its related cousin black copper) is a hard metal that is cold hammered into grooves in another hard metal. Niello and black bronze can both be inlaid on metal. Furthermore, both can furnish the dark bed to receive other inlays. In the latter procedure, the artisan attaches gold and silver foils to the black substance, either by pressing the foils into the soft niello or by hammering them into the hard blackened bronze. If the craftsman is working with niello, he must then wait as the niello


cools and solidifies on, around, and beneath the cut-outs. Finally, niello and black bronze can both be polished to a smooth surface. The results can be strikingly similar, (Figs 13.2, 13.3). The modern public is less familiar with niello but would recognize the general effect of black patinated bronze in so-called ‘damascened’ or ‘Toledo-style’ jewellery in which gold, silver, and copper cut-outs have been hammered into a hard, black metallic background, (Fig. 13.4). Black bronze is also familiar in the West as Japanese shakudo. Two other black substances, bitumen and enamel, are not generally thought to be present in the Aegean black-inlaid objects. Exceptions are suggested by Xénaki-Sakellariou and Chatziliou (1989, 27–28). Why does it matter whether the Bronze Age, black-inlaid objects from the Levant, Egypt, and the Aegean are made of niello or of black patinated bronze? Scholars want to trace the origins and transmission of exotic technologies around the triangle of the eastern Mediterranean. If both of these decorative processes were known to ancient craftsmen, where did each technology originate and how was each transferred? Would niello and black bronze metallurgies be transmitted in the same ways: by trade, gift exchange, and/or travelling artisans? Or would each technology have its own dominant form of transmission? Would the two kinds of inlay appear on the same types of objects? On the same object? Would they share the same iconographies? Since niello is recognized as the more difficult process, it may have left a visible trail of errors – a learning curve – in the ancient works (Laffineur 1991–1992, 270–273, 275). Could such a learning curve be tracked geographically? Finally,

Figure 13.1. (Plate 23) Riha paten. (Byzantine-1) (Courtesy of Dumbarton Oaks).

Figure 13.2. Modern niello. Silver on niello (after Boss and Laffineur 1997, pl. LXXIII a).

Figure 13.3. Levantine scimitar. Balâta-Sichem. Second millennium BC. Black patinated bronze inlaid with electrum. Munich, Ägyptischen Sammlung ÄS 2907, detail of blade (after Giumlia-Mair and Quirke 1997, pl. IX b).

Figure 13.4. Modern ‘Toledo-style’ black-inlaid brooch. Spain (photo: author).

148 Nancy R. Thomas

would the taste for these richly decorated objects be transmitted more readily than the metallurgical skill(s), thereby generating local simulations? Archaeologists and art historians need to know which material is involved before they can even begin to accurately answer these questions that are anchored in the basic technology of the exotic, black-inlaid objects. In most cases the only sure way to identify the black substance is through laboratory analysis, that is, by chemical tests that recognize the presence or absence of sulphides and can determine if the black material is niello or black patinated bronze. Laboratory testing of Bronze Age black-inlaid objects – weapons or otherwise – has been woefully scarce. At present patinated black bronze has been scientifically documented for the Levant and Egypt (Giumlia-Mair and Quirke 1997, Giumlia-Mair and Riederer 1998). Two of the six well-documented Levantine black-inlaid scimitars have been successfully analyzed and shown to be black bronze, but the black substance on the other four weapons remains to be conclusively identified (Thomas 2005a, 725, notes 82–87). A few Egyptian statuettes have been identified as black bronze, but the famous axe and dagger of Ahmose have not been analyzed to my knowledge (Thomas 2005a, 724, notes 77–79). The silver cup inlaid with bucrania from Late Bronze II Enkomi, (Fig. 13.5), was tested and restored at the British Museum and was published as containing niello (Plenderleith 1952). Because no sulphides had actually been found in the test, however, this conclusion was later argued in print among three experts (Claringbull, Moss and Plenderleith, 1960). Decades passed and the residue of the cleaning material, which had been kept at the British Museum all these years, was examined again (although now not in situ on the cup), revealing a shiny black piece of the most advanced type of sulphide compound used in niello

(La Niece 1998, 52, fig. 10). This finding reopened the question, at least theoretically. However, Giumlia-Mair is in process of publishing another look at the Enkomi cup and its analyses, and she says that the dark material is without doubt black patinated bronze (pers. comm.). In 1992 laboratory tests were conducted in Athens on an impressive number of Aegean black-inlaid objects: from the Patras Museum one dagger (Photos et al. 1994); from the National Archaeological Museum in Athens, six (of twelve) black-inlaid daggers, three silver vessels, and four other major fragment groups (Demakopoulou et al. 1995). The publications of the tests stated that the only material found in the black inlay was black bronze. Sulphide niello was not found. My 2005 critique of these tests demonstrated that problems with the calculating procedures and the equipment (the X-ray fluorescence machine could not detect sulphur) rendered null any conclusions concerning the presence or absence of sulphide niello (Thomas 2005a, b). A vase fragment was adequately tested with different equipment which did show the presence of black bronze and the absence of niello, but this test was not applied to the weapons (Demakopoulou et al. 1995, Thomas 2005a, 724, notes 73–74). My critique of the tests was corroborated by Eleni Mangou, NAM archaeometrist and one of the authors of the 1995 study, who said that because of the restrictions of method, “analytical results are still lacking concerning the sulphur determination” and that “further careful examination of the black-inlaid decoration is necessary in order to speak with safety [on whether] it is niello or not” (pers. comm). Because X-ray fluorescence (XRF) is the only type of chemical analysis performed to date on the well-documented Aegean daggers, no corrective data exists from other kinds of tests on these weapons. Even though the presence or absence of sulphide niello on the Aegean weapons has not yet been verified in the laboratory, the flawed tests continue to be cited by scholars who believe that the case of the Aegean weapons has been definitively settled solely in favour of black bronze. Although some of the objects analyzed in the 1992 Athens tests most likely do contain patinated bronze, archaeometrists who had already found black patinated bronze on Egyptian and Roman objects strongly suggest that all Aegean black inlay is black bronze, not niello (Giumlia-Mair and Craddock 1993, Giumlia-Mair 1995). This supposition continues to influence the literature and recently reappeared in a study of an inlaid sword from Early Bronze Age Sweden in which the sword is linked to the “famous black-patinated alloys from Egypt and Mycenae” in a stepping-stone pattern beginning in the “eastern Mediterranean” (Schwab et al. 2010, 27, 33). The case for niello is in danger of being closed without a true trial. My summary of the actual state of chemical analysis of the black-inlaid weapons from all three regions of the eastern Mediterranean is given in Figure 13.6.

Figure 13.5. Enkomi cup. Tomb 2. Late Bronze II, Nicosia, Cyprus Museum 4207 (after La Niece 1998, fig. 10).


Criteria and Method of InvestigationThis study looks for visible evidence of niello by comparing the surface details of the black substance on three Aegean inlaid daggers with comparable surface details on ten inlaid objects from later periods in which niello has been unquestionably verified by up-to-date laboratory analysis. I chose these objects because, in all cases, their surface topography has been examined and published in highly magnified photographs. The details selected for comparison are peculiar to the niello process itself and are not characteristic of black patinated bronze. The three Aegean daggers come from the Shaft Graves at Mycenae found by Heinrich Schliemann in 1876, (Fig. 13.7; Plate 25). The weapons are dated Late Helladic I, around the middle of the second millennium BC. All

three daggers are in the National Archaeological Museum, Athens (NAM), and are well-described with bibliography in Karo 1930–1933, Marinatos and Hirmer 1960, Laffineur 1974, Dickinson 1977, Hood 1978, Xénaki-Sakellariou and Chatziliou 1989, Boss & Laffineur 1997, Papadopoulos 1998, and Thomas (forthcoming).

The Lion Hunt Dagger Shaft Grave IV NAM 394 Figs 13.8, 13.9, 13.10 (Plate 26), 13.11

The Three-Lion Dagger Shaft Grave IV NAM 395 Figs 13.12, 13.13

The Nilotic Dagger Shaft Grave V NAM 765 Figs 13.14, 13.15, 13.16

The best colour photographs of details of these weapons are published in Xénaki-Sakellariou and Chatziliou (1989). Highly magnified black and white images of details are also published in Boss and Laffineur (1997) and on Martin Boss’ website (Boss 2010). The three daggers, which were probably decorated by two different artisans (Thomas forthcoming), share a common construction method: each is a bronze blade into which a smaller, dagger-shaped bronze panel has been embedded along each side. It is on these smaller panels that the polychrome figural decoration is inlaid. The Three-Lion dagger differs from the other two in that its lions were first formed as small, three-dimensional figures that were then attached to the panels. Thus these lions protrude slightly above the rest of the design which

SUMMARY: WELL-DOCUMENTED BLACK-INLAID OBJECTS

Figure 13.6. Table of results of laboratory analyses of well-documented, Bronze Age, black-inlaid weapons from Egypt, the Levant, and the Aegean, (after Thomas 2005a, table 7).

Figure 13.7. (Plate 25) Three inlaid daggers. Mycenae. (top) Nilotic, Athens, NAM 765; (center) Lion Hunt, Athens, NAM 394; (bottom) Three-Lion, Athens, NAM 395 Marinatos-Hirmer 1960, pl. XXXV (Courtesy of Hirmer Verlag).

150 Nancy R. Thomas

is composed of flat pieces of precious metals placed on the background around the running lions. The other two daggers – the Lion Hunt and Nilotic – are decorated entirely in this latter way, that is, by laying very thin, flat shapes of metal – variously described as electrum, silver, copper, and gold, in several shades – on the panels. The craftsman of these two daggers then incised a variety of marks and lines into the flat foils and black substance to add details of shape and texture. All three daggers present rich and exotic images composed of different coloured metals on a dark background. Ever since the daggers were cleaned in the later nineteenth century and the pictorial images emerged, most scholars have assumed that the black background and the incised details were filled with niello, a substance described by Pliny the Elder, Theophilus and Cellini and still made in modern times. Occasionally the Three-Lion dagger was singled out as different. Xénaki-Sakellariou examined it closely and said it showed no trace of niello (Xénaki-Sakellariou and Chatziliou 1989, 26). Unfortunately, this was the dagger chosen for laboratory analysis in 1992 (Demakopoulou et al. 1995), but as stated above that analysis was inconclusive. The ten Roman, Byzantine, and western medieval objects selected for comparison with the Aegean daggers come from the peripheries of the Roman and Byzantine capitals. They are thus parallel to the Aegean works in that all are products of craftsmen working at the fringes of older, more sophisticated civilisations. Bibliographic references pertain to the presence of niello on the objects.

Roman-1 (Fig. 13.17). Panther figurine. Copper alloy plated with silver and inlaid with niello. Cologne. Roman Imperial. Cologne, Römische-Germanisches Museum inv. D3803. Giumlia-Mair 2001, 770, figs 1 a, b.Roman-2 (Fig. 13.18). Inkwell. Bronze inlaid with gold and niello. First-second century. Unpublished. Trieste, Civici Musei di Arte e Storia. Giumlia-Mair (pers. comm.).Roman-3 (Fig. 13.19). Crossbow brooch. Silver inlaid with niello. Bath, Somerset. Fourth century. London, BM PRB 1881–1–25,1. La Niece 1998, 50, figs 1, 8.Roman-4 Buckle plate. Gold with gilt silver and niello. Fourth century. London, BM AF 333. Northover and La Niece 2009, 149, figs 5, 6.Byzantine-1 (Figs 13.1, 13.20, 13.21, 13.22). Riha paten. Silver with gilding and niello. Sixth century (?). Washington, DC, Dumbarton Oaks 24.5. Mundell-Mango 1986 (Cat. 35) 63, 165–167, figs 35.2, 35.3. Byzantine-2 (Fig. 13.23). Pectoral cross. Silver inlaid with niello. Syrian (?). Tenth century. Geneva, MAH inv. 8022. Schweizer 1994, 211–217, figs 1, 3, 4, and Pitarakis 2006, 37, 50, figs 18, 28.

Byzantine-3 (Fig. 13.24). Processional cross. Bronze covered with gilded silver, inlaid with niello. Eleventh century. Geneva, MAH inv. AD 2560. Schweizer 1993a, 172–183, figs 1, 3, 9, and Schweizer 1993b, 67–82, fig. 9.

Medieval-1 (Fig. 13.25). Sutton Hoo buckle. Gold inlaid with niello. Sutton Hoo, England. Sixth-seventh century. London, BM MLA 1939.10–10.1. Bruce-Mitford 1978, 555–556, fig. 409 a, b, c, and La Niece 1983, 292. Medieval-2 (Fig. 13.26). Strickland brooch. Silver inlaid with gold and niello. Anglo-Saxon. Ninth century. London, BM MLA 1949.7–2,1. Bruce-Mitford 1956, 191–192, Pl. XVI, A, B.Medieval-3 (Fig. 13.27). Door knocker. Copper alloy inlaid with niello. South Italy or Sicily (?). Eleventh century (?). Copenhagen, David Collection inv.50/2000. Northover and La Niece 2009, 151–152, figs 10, 11.

These ten objects meet all of the following criteria:

1. The black material in the objects has been identified in an up-to-date laboratory analysis as true sulphide niello. The equipment used in the tests can distinguish between sulphide niello and patinated black bronze/black copper.

2. An archaeometrist or scholar has seen and written about the specific surface details that he or she characterises as niello.

3. These surface details are visible in photographs taken with a camera with normal, high-magnification lenses or are visible to the naked eye with a magnifying glass. In other words, the details are visible without putting the object under a microscope.

4. These details are illustrated in a published photograph.

To summarize, I am correlating the surface topography of Aegean Bronze Age black-inlaid metalwork with details of later examples of true niello, looking for very strong correspondences in the visible features.

Identifying NielloEven though the general appearance of niello and black patinated bronze can be almost identical, there are several tell-tale traits that archaeometrists recognize as signs of niello that are not characteristic of black bronze. Many of these traits derive from heat. The signature features include: (1) notches or grid marks visible in the recessions where niello has fallen out, (2) bubbles, ridges, pits, and globules on the surface of the niello, (3) runny edges or overflow onto or under the inlaid foils, (4) different tones of blackness, (5) variegated textures, (6) expressively hand-drawn details, and (7) errors made when drawing on the niello. These traits will be pin-pointed individually on the Bronze Age daggers and then matched with their counterparts on the later objects. Black patinated bronze and black patinated copper, on


Figure 13.8. Lion Hunt dagger. Mycenae. Athens, NAM 394, detail (after Boss and Laffineur 1997, pl. LXXII b).

Figure 13.9. Lion Hunt dagger. Mycenae. Athens, NAM 394, detail (after Boss and Laffineur 1997, pl. LXXII a).

Figure 13.10. (Plate 26) Lion Hunt dagger. Mycenae. Athens, NAM 394, detail (after Xénaki-Sakellariou and Chatziliou 1989, Pl. I, 2).

Figure 13.11. Lion Hunt dagger. Mycenae. Athens, NAM 394, detail (after Boss and Laffineur 1997, pl. LXVII a).

Figure 13.12. Three-Lion dagger. Mycenae. Athens, NAM 395, detail (after Boss and Laffineur 1997, pl. LXIX c).

Figure 13.13. Three-Lion dagger. Mycenae. Athens, NAM 395, detail (after Boss and Laffineur 1997, pl. LXX a).

152 Nancy R. Thomas

the other hand, produce a different set of visible surface clues, (Fig. 13.3). These include: (1) marks of hammering without evidence of heat, (2) re-curved (undercut) edges of the recessions that receive the inlay, (3) gaps between the inlay and matrix, (4) blackness only on the surface patina and not deeper into the metal, and (5) a black layer too thin to be niello. For good images of ancient black bronze, see Craddock and Giumlia-Mair (1993), Giumlia-Mair and Quirk (1997) and Giumlia-Mair and Riederer (1998). Note that niello can be melted into tiny details and used as an adhesive, but that black bronze cannot be melted or used as an adhesive. Furthermore, niello is chemically different (a sulphide) from the metal into which it is inlaid (silver, copper, gold, bronze, brass). Although patinated bronze changes its visual appearance from the outside (a mineralized surface) to the inside (metal structure), it maintains a related composition (bronze) throughout. Two points of disagreement among archaeometrists are relevant to this study. First, according to Boss, black bronze cannot be hammered into a softer metal like silver or gold without deforming the cuttings in the more pliable silver or gold, but, he says, niello paste can be inlaid in these soft metals without deforming them; thus Boss believes that the very presence of black on a gold or silver field is a sign of niello (Boss and Laffineur 1997, 192). However, we should note that a similar effect (small black details in a larger field of gold or silver) can be achieved without using niello by cutting away the gold or silver, exposing an underlying layer of black material. At that point, we would look for signs of melting, running, or ridges around the black details. If found, they would indicate that the underlying layer is niello since black bronze cannot be melted into cuttings. Second, scholars disagree on whether sulphide containing silver can be inlaid on bronze without an intervening layer of silver to which the niello can adhere. Petersen (1994–1995, 145) states that the underlayment is necessary, but Giumlia-Mair disagrees (pers. comm.). Northover and La Niece (2009, 151–152) report that a tri-metallic niello containing silver adheres to the copper-alloy door knocker, our example Medieval-3. To summarize: sulphide niello is used on Roman and later objects in four ways: as a black background around and under a lighter design; as large black shapes within a lighter background; as small black details and contour lines on a light shape (either added to the surface or exposed as an underlayer); and as an adhesive. Black bronze is apparently used in four related but not identical forms: as the black body of the object itself (statuettes); as black shapes hammered into lighter-toned bronze; as a black background into which lighter-toned hard metals are hammered; and as dark details on gold or silver that has been cut away, exposing the underlying black bronze.

For the non-specialist, general studies of niello based on laboratory analysis include Giumlia-Mair and La Niece (1998), La Niece (1983, 1998), Newman, Dennis, and Farrell (1982), Northover and La Niece (2009), Oddy, Bimson, and La Niece (1983), Petersen (1994–1995), and Schweizer (1977, 1993b, 1994). Comparable studies for black patinated bronze are Craddock and Giumlia-Mair (1993), Giumlia-Mair (1995), Giumlia-Mair and Craddock (1993), Giumlia-Mair and Quirke (1997), and Giumlia-Mair and Riederer (1998). Generalist introductions to chemical analysis for archaeologists and art historians include Henderson (2000, especially 8–23), Janssens et al. (2000), and Scott (1992, 2002, 2010).

Shared Surface TraitsThe visible surface characteristics of niello listed above can be divided into two groups based on whether the trait originated in the technology of constructing with niello or in the artistic means of designing in niello. Within these two groups – technology and artistry – I have clustered specific aspects of the surfaces of the Aegean daggers, followed by close parallels in the Roman through medieval objects. These traits are not inclusive of the many other forms and styles in which niello appears, but they do illustrate some of the most striking visual differences between niello and black patinated bronze.

TechnologyFour major types of traits arise from the physical production of sulphide niello and the handling of it as it is inlaid. These visible characteristics relate to the manufacturing aspects of the craft.

Channels, keying, lost nielloInlaying hot sulphides onto and into metal is tricky. Depending on the composition of the niello (silver sulphide, copper sulphide, silver-copper sulphide, or silver-copper-lead sulphide), the artisan devised different methods of application, including but not limited to grinding the sulphide into powder and layering it in, rubbing it on as hot sticks or bars, inlaying it as pre-cut chunks, or almost pouring it on (La Niece 1983, 282, Mundell-Mango 1986, 47, Photos et al. 1994, 268). Heat would be applied at various stages in these processes. To help the niello adhere to the underlying metal, the craftsman often cut deep grooves or channels and “keyed” these channels with rough notches or grids. Even so, niello has often fallen out, exposing the roughened furrows beneath. Keyed channels and lost material are visible on all three of the Aegean daggers and are consistent with the types of niello used before the eleventh century AD. On the Nilotic dagger, deep hollows are evident around the inlaid gold and silver cats, birds, and plants, (Figs 13.14, 13.15,


Figure 13.14. Nilotic dagger. Mycenae. Athens, NAM 765, detail (after Boss and Laffineur 1997, pl. LXXI b).

Figure 13.15. Nilotic dagger. Mycenae. Athens, NAM 765, detail (after Boss and Laffineur 1997, pl. LXXI a).

Figure 13.16. Nilotic dagger. Mycenae. Athens, NAM 765, detail (after Boss and Laffineur 1997, pl. LXX b).

Figure 13.17. Roman panther figurine. (Roman-1) detail (after Giumlia-Mair 2001, 770, fig. 1 b)

Figure 13.18. Roman inkwell. (Roman-2) detail (photo courtesy of Alessandra Giumlia-Mair).

Figure 13.19. Roman crossbow brooch. (Roman-3) detail (after La Niece 1998, fig. 8).

154 Nancy R. Thomas

13.16). Chatziliou speculates that the artisan mistakenly over-rubbed his creation while polishing it and pulled the black substance out of the design (Xénaki-Sakellariou and Chatziliou 1989, 27). The material could also have been lost over time or during restoration. On the Lion Hunt dagger, roughened areas appear in the lobes of the ox-hide figure-eight shield, (Figs 13.8, 13.9). Finally, near the top edge of the scene in the Three-Lion dagger, a sinuous line of dark material ends at an area left bare “par la chute de ce fragment de substance noire” (“by the falling out of this fragment of black substance”) according to Laffineur (1974, 23). Keyed channels and lost niello are easily detectable on Roman, Byzantine, and medieval objects inlaid with laboratory-verified niello. On the small Roman panther, Roman-1, (Fig. 13.17), Giumlia-Mair points out the “empty roughened keying on one of the [niello] spots [on the right]” (pers. comm.). On a Roman crossbow brooch, Roman-3, (Fig. 13.19), La Niece describes and illustrates the deep furrows where niello has fallen out (1998, 49–51). In the inscription on the Riha paten, Byzantine-1, (Fig. 13.20), the niello has fallen out of the letter Kappa, revealing the “chased, scored” grooves noted by Mundell-Mango (1986, 165–166). The Anglo-Saxon Strickland brooch, Medieval-2, (Fig. 13.26), shows the “ragged chasing of the channels, designed to grip the [lost] niello” (Bruce-Mitford 1956, 191).

Bubbles, Ridges, Pits, Droplets, SmudgesAnother cluster of surface traits deriving from the technology of working with heated niello includes bubbles created when gases rise to the surface; ridges and pits made when the pasty material is pushed around; shiny droplets formed when silver sulphide is reduced to metallic silver; and runny, smudged edges left when the niello overflows its channels (Petersen, pers. comm.). Bubbles are not peculiar to niello; they do form in cast metal objects but they normally do not survive the working of the metal (Tite 1972, 285). In the cloud-like formations on the Three-Lion dagger, (Fig. 13.12), Boss observes that “little holes were caused by gas bubbles and testify that the material was melted,” which, he says, is a phenomenon also seen on the pitted surface of a modern piece of inlaid niello, (Fig. 13.2; Boss and Laffineur 1997, 193–194). On the Three-Lion dagger, Boss identifies a “narrow raised zone” surrounding the running lion, (Fig. 13.13), which he describes as a niello ridge [on the lion’s throat and foreleg] that was not entirely flattened with a file by the ancient craftsman (Boss and Laffineur 1997, 192–193). A ridged, pitted, and pocked surface characterises the Nilotic dagger, (Figs 13.14, 13.15, 13.16). Bubbles, pits, and droplets are clearly visible on three of our later objects. On the Roman bronze inkwell,

Roman-2, (Fig. 13.18), the rows of darker-toned scrolls at top and bottom are made of niello inlaid on the bronze; Giumlia-Mair points out bubbles in these scrolls, noting a particularly elongated bubble that “has been deformed when the niello was applied in the keying” (pers. comm.). In the Riha paten, Byzantine 1, the inlaid letters of the inscription show bubbles, according to Mundell-Mango (1986, 165); these bubbles may be the white spots visible on the letter Pi, (Fig. 13.21). In 1983 La Niece analyzed three medieval objects in which “the niello is fused to the silver and bubbles are clearly visible on the surface” (La Niece 1983, 287). She and Northover recently re-analyzed several objects from her earlier study, finding more visible evidence of niello. For example, on a door knocker in the shape of a lion’s head, Medieval-3, (Fig. 13.27), they observed and illustrated a clear detail of “pits and white metal droplets” on the surface of the niello (Northover and La Niece 2009, 152). Runny, smudged areas where black material has overflowed onto the surrounding inlaid foils are clearly seen on Aegean and later objects. On the Lion Hunt dagger a blurry, jagged area separates the front of the warrior’s left leg from the figure-eight shield behind him, (Fig. 13.10). Similar runny edges where niello has either flowed unevenly or has been worn away are evident in the inscription in the Riha paten, Byzantine-1, (Figs 13.20, 13.21). Black smudges appear on the pectoral cross, Byzantine-2, at the edges of the cross behind Christ’s head, (Fig. 13.23).

Tonality, TextureTechnologically derived characteristics of niello include tonality and texture. Unlike the black layer on patinated bronze, niello can be fairly thick. When eroded or broken, niello can reveal an homogenous appearance throughout, or it can have different tones of blackness and non-homogenous textures in depth. The surface of niello can also vary from grey to black. Boss distinguishes both black and greyish-black material on all three Aegean daggers; he considers this substance to be niello and particularly points it out in the flat surfaces of the cloud formations of the Three-Lion dagger, (Fig. 13.12; Boss and Laffineur 1997, 193). On the pectoral cross, Byzantine-2, (Fig. 13.23), Schweizer describes two different tones and textures of the surface of the niello: “soit come surface noire et lisse, soit en gris avec une surface granuleuse” (“in some places with a smooth black surface, in others with a grey, granular surface”; Schweizer 1993b, 80). Two tones of black are also visible in the niello of the Riha paten where niello fell out of the letter Omega, Byzantine-1, (Fig. 13.22). Note that here the change is a factor of depth, not surface. Mundell-Mango (1986, 165) describes this niello in the broken inscription as “lustrous black”


Figure 13.20. Riha paten. (Byzantine-1) detail, Kappa (Courtesy of Dumbarton Oaks).

Figure 13.21 . Riha paten. (Byzantine-1) detail, Pi (Courtesy of Dumbarton Oaks).

Figure 13.22. Riha paten. (Byzantine-1) detail, Omega (Courtesy of Dumbarton Oaks).

Figure 13.23. Pectoral Cross. (Byzantine-2) detail (after Pitarakis 2006, fig. 28).

Figure 13.24. Processional Cross. (Byzantine-3) detail (after Schweizer 1993a, fig. 9).

Figure 13.25. Sutton Hoo gold buckle. (Medieval-1) detail (after Bruce-Mitford 1978, Vol. 2, fig. 409 c).

Figure 13.26. Strickland brooch. (Medieval-2) detail (after Bruce-Mitford 1956, fig. XXVI, B).

156 Nancy R. Thomas

in the upper layer and “leaden in colour and uneven in the lower.” A Roman buckle plate, Roman-4, illustrates similar changes in texture and tone; Northover and La Niece (2009, 149, figs 5, 6) describe a cross-section of “spongy sintered” niello with a “range of grey tones.” Black patinated bronze, on the other hand, presents a thin black or purplish skin, under which the unpatinated bronze retains its bright metallic colour. Photos et al. (1994, 273, fig. 3) describe this phenomenon on the Aegean dagger in the Patras Museum as a skin-deep blackness over a “coppery red colour” which they say is consistent with black bronze. This colouration is unlike the thick homogenous blackness observed by Boss in the broken area of the Three-Lion dagger (Boss and Laffineur 1997, 192–193) or the colourless greys described above on the Roman buckle plate, Roman-4, and the Riha paten, Byzantine-1, (Fig. 13.22).

Silver UnderlayerAs already discussed, some scholars maintain that niello containing silver will not adhere to bronze unless a layer of silver is placed between the niello and the copper-alloy. Even if this is not always necessary, it is interesting that Xénaki-Sakellariou and Chatziliou detect silver support layers on the Lion Hunt dagger underneath the precious foils. These silver layers are visible where the foil has been lost, for example under the lion’s tail and under the rectangular shield with fallen warrior (Xénaki-Sakellariou and Chatziliou 1989, 25). The authors do not state whether any silver is visible under the black background material itself. Two of our later objects, Roman-1 and Byzantine-3, are copper alloys which have first been overlaid with silver. In summary, visible surface features due to the technology of working with niello include keyed and deeply cut channels, lost niello, bubbles, ridges, pits, droplets, smudges, multi-tone blackness, variegated textures from smooth to granular, and silver underlayers. All of these phenomena have been observed on the Aegean black-inlaid daggers and on later nielloed objects.

ArtistryThe next group of shared traits derives from the artistic process of designing in niello. These characteristics indicate an artist’s hand at work, marking on the niello and rich foils in order to add contours and interior details to the figures. Because precious foils as well as niello can be cut with bronze tools, the lack of iron tools in the Bronze Age Mediterranean did not hinder the designer of inlaid niello.

Incision StyleA style based on incision, akin to drawing, appears on all three of the Aegean weapons. Although this linear style

seems hesitant on the Three-Lion dagger, as seen in the very shallow chasing of the lions’ manes, (Fig. 13.13), it is fully realized on the Lion Hunt and Nilotic daggers. On these two weapons, the craftsman has cut deeply with chisel, burin, or point, creating running lines that accentuate the outlines of the figural elements and add clarity by separating men from shields, cats from birds, and even lion muzzle from lion mane, (Figs 13.8, 13.9, 13.10, 13.11, 13.14, 13.15, 13.16). Because niello encourages an experimental drawing style, the artist can nick and stab the surface of his figures, adding expressively irregular details. Expressive, interior line is a hallmark of the Lion Hunt dagger, as seen in the roaring lion’s malevolent eye, elastic haunches, and menacing paws, (Figs 13.7, 13.8). The wild creatures along the Nilotic river are defined and given direction and emotion by briskly dashed and notched lines on their bodies, (Fig. 13.15). Such spontaneously cut nicks, dots, and lines can easily be filled with niello but would be very difficult to simulate by hammering hard bits of black bronze into the soft foils. According to Boss, the multiple, tiny, adjacent shapes in the animals’ heads on the Nilotic dagger could not be achieved by inlaying black bronze without deforming the edges of the cuttings in the soft surrounding gold and silver fields, (Fig. 13.14); thus he considers the black material to be niello (Boss and Laffineur 1997, 192–193). Centuries later, a similarly expressive incision style creates the pathos in the face of the dead Christ on a Byzantine pectoral cross, Byzantine-2. Here a few deft marks, filled with niello, impart personality and death, (Fig. 13.23). Many more examples of this roughly dramatic drawing style on Byzantine crosses are illustrated by Pitarakis (2006). Expressionism is characteristic of niello from time to time, but not, to my knowledge, of patinated black bronze.

ErrorsCutting rapidly and expressively in somewhat pliable materials leads to errors. In the Lion Hunt dagger, the artisan wanted to visually separate the rectangular shield from the figure-eight shield, so he incised a deep line between them. In the process he cut through the foot of the fallen warrior, (Fig. 13.8). He also cut off a toe on this man’s other foot. When the artisan redrew the silhouette of the calf on the left-most figure, he cut through the gold that was in place, leaving a ragged sliver of gold foil outside the new contour of the calf, (Fig. 13.10). This last anomaly is noted by Xénaki-Sakellariou and Chatziliou, and the last two of these errors are quite visible in their close-up colour photographs (Xénaki-Sakellariou and Chatziliou 1989, 25, pls I, 2, 3). When the Aegean artisan designed the central warrior, he shaped the leg in a forward lunge. Then he realized that he had made the leg too large, so he trimmed it and left the excess to be


Figure 13.27. Door Knocker. (Medieval-3) view and detail (after Northover and La Niece 2009, figs 10, 11).

Figure 13.28. Scimitar of Ypchemouabi. Bronze inlaid with gold and black material. Byblos, Royal Tomb II, Middle Bronze II, Montet 1928–1929, no. 653, 174–176, pls 99–101. Beirut National Museum, view and detail (after Xénaki-Sakellariou and Chatziliou 1989, pl. XV a, b).

Figure 13.29. Dagger of Ahmose. Gold blade inlaid with black material and gold wire. Thebes, Tomb of Queen Ahhotep. Eighteenth Dynasty. Luxor Museum CG 52659, detail (after Rosenberg 1972, fig. 9).

158 Nancy R. Thomas

part of the shield. But instead of fitting the shield, this new edge protrudes in an awkward bulge, (Fig. 13.11). Similar errors appear on the famous Anglo-Saxon gold buckle from Sutton Hoo, Medieval-1. Bruce-Mitford (1978, 555) describes areas on the buckle where the punching tool cut through the tiny gold circles surrounded by niello, leaving ungainly shapes in the pattern, (Fig. 13.25). On the Byzantine processional cross, Byzantine-3, the artisan lightly incised the surface of the niello that makes up the beard and moustache. Then he drew the mouth too widely across the niello, accidentally extending the line of the mouth over the hair-covered cheek, (Fig. 13.24). There is obviously a learning curve in working with niello, one that could probably be tracked across space and time.

Discussion: Exotica, Hybrid Art, and Cross-CraftBlack-metal inlay automatically connotes wealth. Not only is the technique specialised and difficult, but inlaid objects are also expensive to produce. Thus a black-inlaid weapon embodies both wealth and power, since the possession of an expensive, highly decorated, non-workaday weapon signifies elite stature and the power to support it. If exotic connotes foreignness, a distant glamour, then the black-inlaid weapons from all three corners of the eastern Mediterranean are also fully exotic, since the weapons from each region evoke one or more of the other far-away realms. The scimitar of Ypchemouabi, from the MB II Royal Tombs at Byblos in the Levant, and probably the earliest known combination of black inlay and precious metal decoration with components of figural imagery, displays both local workmanship and Egyptian hieroglyphs, (Fig. 13.28). The dagger and axe of Ahmose, created in Egypt during the emergence of the eighteenth dynasty, combine Egyptian hieroglyphs and weaponry shapes with, probably, Levantine black-inlay technique and, remarkably, at least a breath of Aegean design in the running animals on the dagger, (Fig. 13.29) and the seated griffin on the axe (Saleh and Sourouzian 1986, nos 121, 122; these weapons are now in the Luxor Museum). In turn, the black-inlaid daggers from the Aegean embody indigenous typology, iconography, and style mixed with the foreignness of black-metal inlay and, in the case of the Nilotic dagger, more than a whiff of Egyptian exotica in the riverine scene, (Fig. 13.7, top). All of these weapons are hybrids, mixing local and foreign elements in varying combinations. The combinations seem more coherent than random. How could this come about? Contact is obvious but what moved, and why? Was it weapons or skilled craftsmen that were given, traded, or sold around the Mediterranean? How much contact was necessary for a local smith to boost his own skill and imagination to meet the raised desires of his patron? In the heady air of metallurgical

experimentation at late MH Mycenae, would an inlaid dagger alone, received by trade or gift, have been sufficient catalyst to spur the local artisans to combine inlay with black-metal and then, when the impact of Minoan Crete reached full swing, to add pictorial images? (Thomas 2004, 178–182). Or did the LH I smith at Mycenae need a Levantine artisan working hand-in-hand beside him to produce masterpieces like the Lion Hunt and Nilotic daggers? (Laffineur 1990–1991, 270, 273). Laffineur sees a possible division of labour between the foreign handler of the hot niello and the local Aegean designer of the scenes. In my opinion the division of labour would be between, on the one hand, the sword smith who forged the basic dagger blade and the smaller panels to be inserted into it, and, on the other hand, the person who decorated the smaller panels. The decorated panels were finished before they were put in the bronze dagger so that one side would not be ruined by turning the blade over and continuing on the other. Thus the maker of the inlaid scenes did not necessarily have to be a bronze smith, per se, although he would need experience in metalwork, perhaps acquired in making jewellery or gold seals (Thomas forthcoming). The seamless sequence of steps in the production of the scenes on the Lion Hunt and Nilotic daggers – the complete fusion of concept and handling – including the initial drawing, the cutting of foils, the piecing together of the interlocked bits of metal, the integration of colour and blackness, and the final redrawing of details, means, in my view, that for these two objects one person controlled both the technology and the artistry of the craft. By the time the Lion Hunt and Nilotic daggers were produced, Mycenae had experienced at least two to three decades of expert production of decorated weaponry (Dickinson 1977, 82, Xénaki-Sakellariou and Chatziliou 1989, 15, Graziadio 1991, 421). Whether the earliest impetus for black-inlay technology had been a foreign object, foreign artisan, or returning itinerant Aegean craftsman, there was no need for an eastern smith to be present in the Aegean workshop during the production of these two daggers. Would the nature of the black material make a difference in the above scenarios? Laffineur bases his proposal on the idea that the black material is hot sulphide niello. I, too, believe that niello best accounts for the character of the designs in these two famous Aegean daggers. Not everyone agrees. We must all wait for more laboratory analysis, remembering that the use of patinated bronze would not preclude the use of niello, and vice versa, perhaps even on the same weapon or vessel. Sulphide niello is thought to be more difficult to master, and if known in the Bronze Age Mediterranean, it was no doubt more rare, yet later smiths on the far reaches of the Roman empire managed its use. In the perspective of the entire eastern Mediterranean,


black-inlaid objects and Aegeanizing wall paintings are the two most currently disputed sets of hybrid art. Both share striking similarities in their hybrid nature and in the scholarly problems they generate. They occur in the same locales, sometimes with remarkable connectedness: consider the Nilotic scene on the inlaid dagger from Mycenae, the Nilotic scene on the wall painting at Akrotiri, and the Aegeanizing scenes on wall paintings at Tell el-Dab‘a on the Nile. I believe that information gained about one set of hybrid art will help us understand the other, particularly in teasing out the variables in artistic transference. As we continue to move away from the simple seeking of point of origin and lines of transfer to more nuanced studies of the art work as a fusion of technology-craft-design-style-subject-meaning, we see that this artistic unity breaks apart upon transfer. We know that the parts do not transfer simultaneously or identically, but we do not yet have a full explanatory theory for the hybrid art forms shared by Egypt, the Levant, and the Aegean. These hybrid arts are interconnected in another way: cross-craft. Cross-craft in my view is not about collaboration or shared iconography. Cross-craft means taking the character and technique of one craft into another. When a skilled artisan moves into a new medium, he carries at least part of his concepts of form and his actual handling of tools and materials to his new medium. Studies of cross-craft are relatively new, but the phenomenon itself is old. Cross-craft was documented by Anglo-Saxon writers who were contemporary with several of the medieval works cited above. The eleventh-century Abbot of Evesham was praised in his time for his calligraphy, painting, and goldsmith work; the Abbot of Abingdon was noted for excellence as a painter, gold-engraver, and goldsmith; in the Anglo-Saxon vocabulary for metalworking, the same verb meant “to draw”, “to inscribe”, and “to engrave” (Coatsworth and Pinder, 2002, 209, note 8, 256). Cross-craft questions have begun to be applied to the broad range of hybrid art shared by the Aegean, Egypt, and the Levant. Brysbaert has discussed the phenomenon with particular reference to frescoes (Brysbaert 2007). I have proposed that the metalworking artisan who made the Lion Hunt and Nilotic daggers had previously worked as an expert painter of frescoes, probably at Akrotiri, and I tracked multiple, similar aspects of his handling of tools in both media (Thomas forthcoming). We need to know more. Does an artisan have a personal or technical microstyle that is relatively constant? What aspects of microstyle can be carried into a new craft? Where are the limits of transfer among crafts? Information on these questions will help us understand the formation of workshops, the economies of patronage, and the larger dispersal of styles and techniques across regions.

ConclusionThis study examines the surface topographies of three black-inlaid daggers from the Shaft Graves at Mycenae and compares them with the surface features of ten Roman, Byzantine, and western medieval black-inlaid objects on which bona fide niello has unquestionably been verified by up-to-date laboratory analysis. The close correlation between the surface traits on the two sets of objects strongly supports the scholarly contention that sulphide niello may be present on the Aegean daggers. To date neither the presence nor absence of sulphide niello on Aegean objects has been ascertained in laboratory analysis, despite previous publications to the contrary. Visible, signature traits of niello, however, do appear on the three Aegean daggers studied here. This fact hopefully will speed laboratory analyses of black-inlaid exotica that have been found in all three areas of the eastern Mediterranean. Identifying the material in the black inlay is the first and necessary component of our understanding of this beautifully exotic, hybrid art form in the Bronze Age Aegean, Egypt, and Levant.

AcknowledgementsFor their very generous help in providing photographs of objects for this article, I heartily thank Alessandra Giumlia-Mair at Merano; Robert Laffineur at the University of Liége; and Marta Zlotnick at Dumbarton Oaks. Dr Giumlia-Mair kindly gave me much information about her analyses of the Roman objects and shared her conclusions about the Enkomi cup. Karen Stemann Petersen walked me through the medieval niello collection in the National Museum, Copenhagen, and enabled me to personally inspect the museum’s Aegean inlaid dagger. She and Dr David A. Scott made useful suggestions on my lists of surface traits of niello and patinated bronze. As an art historian, I benefitted greatly from Dr Scott’s workshop on ancient metallurgy held at UCL in August 2010. I thank an anonymous reviewer and Dr Andrea Vianello for bringing the article on the Swedish sword to my attention, and I particularly thank Dr Andrew Shapland, Curator in the Greek and Roman Department of the British Museum, for arranging for me to examine Roman objects inlaid in laboratory-verified niello and black bronze.

BibliographyBoss, M. 2010. Mykenische Metalleinlegearbeiten. Available

at: http://www.aeria.phil.uni-erlangen.de/staff_html/boss_html/niello_html/niello_01.html, (Accessed on 05 June 2010).

Boss, M. and Laffineur, R. 1997. Mycenaean Metal Inlay: A Technique in Context. In R. Laffineur and P. Betancourt

160 Nancy R. Thomas

(eds), TEXNH: Craftsmen, Craftswomen, and Craftsmanship in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 6th International Aegean Conference, Philadelphia, Temple University, 18–21 April 1996, Aegaeum 16, 191–197. Liège, University of Liège.

Bruce-Mitford, R. 1956. Late Saxon Disc-Brooches. In D. Harden (ed.), Dark-Age Britain. Studies presented to E. T. Leeds, 171–201. London, Methuen.

Bruce-Mitford, R. 1978. The Sutton Hoo Ship-Burial, 2 Arms, Armour and Regalia. London, British Museum.

Brysbaert, A. 2007. Cross-craft and cross-cultural interactions during the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean Late Bronze Age. In S. Antoniadou and A. Pace (eds), Mediterranean Crossroads, 325–359. Athens, Pierides Foundation.

Claringbull, G., Moss, A. and Plenderleith, H. 1960. Archaeology: The Enkomi Cup. Nature [London], (September 17, 1960) 1051–1052.

Coatsworth, E. and Pinder, M. 2002. The Art of the Anglo-Saxon Goldsmith: Fine Metalwork in Anglo-Saxon England: Its Practice and Practitioners. Woodbridge, Boydell.

Craddock, P. and Giumlia-Mair, A. 1993. Ḥsmn-Km, Corinthian bronze, shakudo: black patinated bronze in the ancient world. In S. La Niece and P. Craddock (eds), Metal Plating and Patination: Cultural, Technical, and Historical Developments, 101–127, esp. 108–112. Oxford, Butterworth.

Demakopoulou, K., Mangou, E., Jones, R. and Photos-Jones, E. 1995. Mycenaean Black Inlaid Metalware in the National Museum, Athens: A Technical Examination. Annual of the British School at Athens 90,137–154.

Dickinson, O. T. P. K. 1977. The Origins of Mycenaean Civilisation, Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology, 49. Göteborg, Paul Åströms Förlag.

Giumlia-Mair, A. 1995. The Appearance of Black Patinated Copper-Gold Alloys in the Mediterranean Area in the Second Millennium B.C.: Material Characterisation and Problem of Origin. In G. Morteani and J. Northover (eds), Prehistoric Gold in Europe: Mines, Metallurgy, and Manufacture. Proceedings of the NATO Advanced Research Workshop on Prehistoric Gold in Europe, Sceon, Germany, September 27–October 1 1993, NATO ASI Series E, Applied Sciences 280, 425–434. Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Giumlia-Mair, A. 2001. Colouring treatments on ancient copper-alloys. Revue de Métallurgie, 767–776.

Giumlia-Mair, A. and Craddock, P. 1993. Corinthium Aes: Das schwarze Gold der Alchimisten. Antike Welt 24, 1–62, esp. 19–21.

Giumlia-Mair, A. and Quirke, S. 1997. Black Copper in Bronze Age Egypt. Revue d’Égyptologie 48, 95–108, Pl. IX.

Giumlia-Mair, A. and Riederer, J. 1998. Das tauschierte Krummschwert in der Ägyptischen Sammlung München. Berliner Beiträge zur Archäometrie 15, 91–94.

Giumlia-Mair, A. and La Niece, S. 1998. Early Niello Decoration on the Silver Rhyton in the Museo Civico, Trieste. In D. Williams (ed.), Art of the Greek Goldsmith, 139–160. London, British Museum.

Graziadio, G. 1991. The Process of Social Stratification at Mycenae in the Shaft Grave Period: A Comparative Examination of the Evidence. American Journal of Archaeology 95, 403–440.

Henderson, J. 2000. The Science and Archaeology of Materials. An investigation of inorganic materials. London, Routledge.

Hood, S. 1978. The Arts in Prehistoric Greece. Harmondsworth, Penguin.

Janssens, J. et al. 2000. Use of Microscopic XRF for Non-destructive Analysis in Art and Archaeometry. X-Ray Spectrometry 29, 73–91.

Karo, G. 1930–33. Die Schachtgräber von Mykenai. 2 vols. Munich, F. Bruckmann.

La Niece, S. 1983. Niello: An Historical and Technical Survey. Antiquaries Journal 63, 279–297.

La Niece, S. 1998. Niello before the Romans. Jewellery Studies 8, 49–56.

Laffineur, R. 1974. L’incrustation à l’époque mycénienne. L’Antiquité Classique 43, 5–37.

Laffineur, R. 1990–1991. Material and Craftsmanship in the Mycenaean Shaft Graves: Imports vs. Local Productions. Minos 25–26, 245–295.

Marinatos, S. and Hirmer, M. 1960. Crete and Mycenae. New York, Hirmer Verlag.

Montet, P. 1928–1929. Byblos et l’Égypt: Quatre campagnes de fouilles à Gebeil, 1921–1922–1923–1924. Paris, Librairie orientaliste Paul Geuthner.

Mundell-Mango, M. 1986. Silver from Early Byzantium. The Kaper Koraon and related Treasures. Baltimore, Walters Art Gallery.

Newman, R., Dennis, J. and Farrell, E. 1982. A Technical Note on Niello. Journal of the American Institute for Conservation 21, 80–85.

Northover, P. and La Niece, S. 2009. New thoughts on niello. In A. Shortland, I. Freestone, and T. Rehren (eds), From Mine to Microscope. Advances in the Study of Ancient Technology, 145–154. Oxford, Oxbow.

Oddy, W., Bimson, M. and La Niece, S. 1983. The Composition of Niello Decoration on Gold, Silver and Bronze in the Antique and Medieval Periods. Studies in Conservation 28, 29–35.

Papadopoulos, T. 1998. The Late Bronze Age Daggers of the Aegean 1. The Greek Mainland. Prähistorische Bronzefunde, VI, ii. Stuttgart, Franz Steiner Verlag

Petersen, K. 1994–1995. Danish niello inlays from the Iron Age. Journal of Danish Archaeology 12, 133–149.

Photos, E., Jones, R. and Papadopoulos, T. 1994. The Black Inlay Decoration on a Mycenaean Bronze Dagger. Archaeometry 36, 267–275.

Pitarakis, B. 2006. Les croix-reliquaires pectorals byzantines en bronze. Paris, Picard.

Plenderleith, H. 1952. Technical Report. In Schaeffer, C. Enkomi-Alasia: Nouvelles missions en Chypre, 1946–1950, 381–389 and pl. CXVI.

Rosenberg, Marc 1972. Geschichte der Goldschmiedekunst auf technischer Grundlage (reprint of Niello bis zum Jahre 1000 nach Chr. 1924). Osnabrück, Otto Zeller Verlag.

Saleh, M. and Sourouzian, H. 1987. The Egyptian Museum Cairo. Official Catalogue. Cairo, Organization of Egyptian Antiquities.

Schwab, R., Ullén, I. and Wunderlich, C.-H. 2010. A sword from Vreta Kloster, and black patinated bronze in Early Bronze Age Europe. Journal of Nordic Archaeological Science 17, 27–35.


Schweizer, F. 1977. Analyses et examen technique. In Schweizer, F., Lasovic, M., Durr, N., Durand, H. and Houriet, C. Objets byzantins de la collection du Musée d’art et d’histoire. Genava n.s. 25, 51–62.

Schweizer, F. 1993a. Nielle byzantin: Étude de son évolution. In C. Eluère (ed.), Outils et ateliers d’orfevres des temps anciens, 171–184. St.-Germaine-en-Laye, Société des Amis du Musée des Antiquités Nationales et du Château de Saint-Germain-en-Laye.

Schweizer, F. 1993b. Nielle byzantin: Étude de son évolution. Genava n.s. 41, 67–82.

Schweizer, F. 1994. Etude de l’orfèvrier antique. Une approche scientifique nouvelle par la caractérisation du nielle. In L’oeuvre d’art sous le regard des sciences, 211–226. Geneva, Slatkine.

Scott, D. A. 1992. Metallography and Microstructure in Ancient and Historic Metals. Los Angeles, Getty Trust Publications.

Scott, D. A. 2002. Copper and Bronze in Art: Corrosion, Colourants, Conservation. Los Angeles, Getty Publications.

Scott, D. A. 2010. Ancient Metals: Metallography and Microstructure. Vol. 1. Ware and Los Angeles, Conservation Science Press.

Thomas, N. 2004. The Early Mycenaean Lion Up To Date. In A. Chapin (ed.), Xapis: Essays in Honor of Sara A. Immerwahr, Hesperia Supplement 33, 161–206. Princeton, American School of Classical Studies at Athens.

Thomas, N. 2005a. Niello or Not? Laboratory Analyses of the Black-Inlaid Weapons of the Aegean, Egypt, and the Levant. In R. Laffineur and E. Greco (eds), Emporia: Aegeans in the Central and Eastern Mediterranean, 10th International Aegean Conference, 14–18 April, 2004. Aegaeum 25, Vol. II, 717–730. Liège, University of Liège.

Thomas, N. 2005b. The Mycenaean Pictorial Daggers: Patina and Inlay. Surface Engineering 21, 424–430.

Thomas, N. forthcoming. Adorning with the Brush and Burin: Cross-Craft in Aegean Ivory, Fresco, and Inlaid Metal. In M.-L. Nosch and R. Laffineur (eds), KOSMOS. Jewellery, Adornment and Textiles in the Aegean Bronze Age, 13th International Aegean Conference, University of Copenhagen, 19–23 April, 2010.

Tite, M. 1972. Methods of physical examination in archaeology. London, Seminar Press.

Xénaki-Sakellariou, A. and Chatziliou, C. 1989. “Peinture en métal” à l’époque mycénienne: Incrustation, damasquinage, niellure. Athens, Ekdotike Athenon.

Recognizing Niello. Three Aegean Daggers, in Exotica in the Prehistoric Mediterranean, ed. Andrea...

Documents

Transcript of Recognizing Niello. Three Aegean Daggers, in Exotica in the Prehistoric Mediterranean, ed. Andrea...