On the manufacture of a type of cross-encolpia

An interesting find, bearing visible traces of its manufacture, was received in the Shumen Museum in 2004. It was intended to be a crossencolpion, made of bronze and consisting of two halves held together by a flexible joint. Upon the two halves, the Crucifixion and Mother of God Orans are represented in relief. What had happened in reality? While the two parts of the cross were being cast in the double mold, a spilling of the molten metal occurred, distorting thus the normal shape of the object. The relief depictions upon the visible outer sides of the encolpion deserve no less attention. At first glance it would seem that the traditional combination of the Crucifixion of Christ on one side and the Mother of God Orans on the other side was represented. However, a more careful inspection has revealed that, as a matter of fact, the images on both sides are identical. And if this combination, no matter how rare it is, can still be encountered, then there are some peculiarities pertaining to that iconographic pattern, which have not been observed before. For instance, the Mother of God Orans is represented in a particularly stylized way on the upper part of the pictorial field of the two halves. Her face is elongated, its features being scarcely suggested by means of only a few lines, cut into the surface. Her chiton is represented by straight parallel lines in relief; unlike the traditional canonical depiction it is knee-long rather than reaching the ankles. The legs are clearly cut, ending by feet, which are turned left. This lower part of the image had been iconographically established in portraying the Savior (when presented in a short tunic, a perisoma), but not in portraying the Mother of God Orans. Apparently, it is not a new typeoly Mother of God Orans. Apparently, it is not a new type but rather a mistake on the engraver's part. To my best knowledge, there are no other encolpia of a similar kind. In the beginning I presumed that the identical images might mean that the same part of two different objects was manufactured; this assumption would have lead to the conclusion that the other part should represent the Crucifixion of Christ. However, this hypothesis was dropped out, because the joint pins' shape made them fit quite well, so that the entire two-component item was properly assembled. This fact was the reason why I had to consider the peculiarities of the iconographic interpretation, mentioned above. On the grounds of precisely these peculiarities, the question arises of the skill of the master engraver and his knowledge of image representation canon. If this item had been manufactured in a workshop in the capital or by a traveling craftsman, such a blunder would have been inadmissible. This is one more testimony that the object was produced in the area of its discovery - most likely at some of the already known production centers - near Novosel, Zlatar, and Nadarevo villages in Shumen region, or in a workshop adjoining a medieval settlement or fortress. The manufacturing of similar items in the above places has been proved by the exploration results in recent years. At this stage we can maintain with certainty that a well-organized production of small plastic art items existed and was concentrated in the vicinity of the more significant centers of the First Bulgarian Kingdom, and mostly near the capital Preslav.