The Croatian Ninth-Century Senmurv and Its Possible Ties to (East) Slavic Mythology

Full text

ФГБУК «Государственный историко-археологический
музей-заповедник «Херсонес Таврический»
ФГБУН «Институт археологии Крыма РАН»
Фонд поддержки гуманитарных наук «Моя история»
ВЛАДИМИРСКИЙ СБОРНИК
II
Материалы международной научной конференции
«III Свято-Владимирские чтения»
ST VLADIMIR’S READINGS
II
Materials of the Third International Scientic Conference
“St Vladimir’s Readings”
Севастополь • Sevastopol
2020

Владимирский сборник II. Материалы международной научной конференции
«III Свято-Владимирские чтения» / Отв. ред. В. В. Майко, Т. Ю. Яшаева. Севасто-
поль, 2020. с., илл.
Владимирский сборник включает в себя Материалы международной научной конференции «III Свя-
то-Владимирские чтения», посвященной 1030-летию Крещения Руси, которая проходила в сентябре
2018 г. на базе Государственного музея-заповедника «Херсонес Таврический» (г. Севастополь). В сбор-
ник вошли статьи российских и зарубежных исследователей, посвященные различным аспектам хри-
стианской истории. Публикуются новые материалы, охватывающие широкий круг вопросов, связан-
ных с христианизацией Древней Руси, историей Херсонесского Владимирского монастыря, а также
результаты археологических исследований памятников византийского Херсона и других христианских
средневековых центров.
Предназначен историкам, археологам, религиоведам, искусствоведам, а также всем, интересующимся
историей.
ББК 63.3(2)411я431
В 57
УДК 94(47).025(082)
ББК 63.3(2)411я431
В 57
Рекомендовано к изданию Ученым советом Государственного историко-археологического
музея-заповедника «Херсонес Таврический» от 11.09.2020 г.
Редакционная коллегия: А. И. Айбабин, д.и.н.; А. Г. Герцен, к.и.н.; Л. А. Голофаст, к.и.н.; Н. В. Жилина, д.и.н.; В. В. Майко, д.и.н.
(отв. редактор); В. Е. Науменко, к.и.н.; Т. В. Сарапулкина, к.и.н.; Л. В. Седикова, к.и.н.; Т. А. Прохорова, к.и.н.; А. А. Роменский, к.и.н.;
Л. Г. Хрушкова, д.и.н., проф.; Т. Ю. Яшаева (отв. редактор).
На обложке: Беседа князя Владимира с греческим философом.
Миниатюра Радзивиловской летописи. Конец XV в.
Издание сборника осуществлено при финансовой помощи
Фонда поддержки гуманитарных наук «Моя история»
ISBN 978-5-6043391-4-5 © Государственный историко-археологический
музей-заповедник «Херсонес Таврический», 2020
© Авторы – текст, иллюстрации, 2020
© Оформление – Издательство «РА «Телескоп», 2020

То новый Константин великого Рима;
как тот крестился сам и людей своих крестил,
так и этот поступил так же.
… Удивления достойно, сколько он
сотворил добра Русской земле, крестив ее.
… Память о нем чтут русские люди,
вспоминая святое крещение…
Повесть временных лет.
Начало XII в.

В 2020 году исполняется 1005 лет со дня преставления святого равноапостольного князя
Влади мира, Крестителя Руси. Эта дата дает повод задуматься о духовно-нравственном подвиге,
который совершил святой Владимир, о его значении для всей истории нашего народа и акту-
альности его для нас – людей, живущих в XXI веке.
Образ жизни, который вел князь до своего крещения, совершенно не соответствовал христи-
анским принципам: пиры, наложницы, захватнические набеги – летописцы, не стесняясь, опи-
сывают многочисленные пороки князя. Но, приняв крещение в древнем Херсонесе-Корсуне,
опустившись в корсунскую купель, он меняется. И эти перемены, это преображение правителя
было замечено всеми. Князь Владимир изменил свою личную жизнь, отношение к окружающим,
к народу, он стал милостивым, хотя и строгим правителем, чем снискал уважение и любовь
своих подданных, ласково называвших его Красным Солнышком. Однако после кончины князя
Русь снова погрузилась в междоусобные распри, было пролито много невинной крови и только
спустя несколько десятилетий стал возможен отказ от старых ценностей и обретение новых. Яркий
пример этому – дети князя Владимира – Борис и Глеб. Казалось, они должны были силой отво-
евывать престол у своего брата или же, зная, что тот способен на братоубийство, мечом защитить
себя. Но, столкнувшись лицом к лицу с посланной против них дружиной, они не обнажили мечи, а
смиренно склонили головы перед волей Божьей и погибли, свидетельствуя о жизненной силе того
духовного и нравственного идеала, который они восприняли через крещение своего отца – князя
Владимира, через крещение Руси, через личное крещение, и который стал нравственной нормой
для всего народа и остается ею и сегодня, спустя более 1000 лет после преставления князя.
Чествуя память Святого Владимира – крестителя и реформатора Древней Руси – Государ-
ственный музей-заповедник «Херсонес Таврический» совместно с Институтом археологии Крыма
РАН, Симферопольской и Крымской епархией и Фондом поддержки гуманитарных исследований
«Моя история» провел в 2018 году III международные научные Свято-Владимирские чтения, ма-
териалы которых легли в основу Владимирского сборника II.
Второй выпуск Владимирского сборника продолжает публикацию научных исследований, по-
священных истории и археологии средневекового Крыма, Византии, Древней Руси.
Директор Государственного
музея-заповедника
«Херсонес Таврический» Е. А. Морозова

Владимирский собор XIX в. и ранневизантийская базилика на херсонесской агоре (фото Н. Лось)

280
M. JURKOVIĆ, P. KRLEŽA
University of Zagreb (Zagreb, Croatia)
THE CROATIAN NINTH-CENTURY SENMURV
AND ITS POSSIBLE TIES TO (EAST) SLAVIC MYTHOLOGY
Abstract. The opus of the workshop of The Master
of the Zadar Ambos, active in the rst decade of the
ninth century in Northern Dalmatia, i. e. Zadar and its
surroundings, contains, in contrast to most of the oth-
er workshops from the period, scenes that include (then
very rare) human gure and a whole array of composite
(hybrid) animals. In this paper, we discuss one of those
composite animals – the senmurv, in the context of the
overall opus of The Master of the Zadar Ambos.
The senmurv is a creature with the head of a dog, pro-
truding tongue, paws of a lion and tail of a bird. It is quite
rare in early medieval sculpture, originates from the Irani-
an milieu and it was observed in Sasanian, Sogdian, early
Islamic and Byzantine art and through Byzantines spread
to the West. The motif usually appears on fabrics, plates
and other portable objects so it was easily spread quite far
from the area of its origin. The Master of the Zadar Am-
bos depicted them in two places, on a screen panel proba-
bly from the cathedral of Rab and on the screen panel also
probably from the church of Saint Chrysogonus in Zadar.
The reason why this motif appears on liturgical furniture
and its meaning within the Christian context is still un-
resolved, but the overall curious choice of motifs of the
Master, such as animals with phalluses, hunting scenes
that can be interpreted as the Divine Battle between Perun
and Veles, other examples of very rare composite animals
for this period such as hippogri, manticore and the quite
peculiar unicorn prompted us to connect the meaning of
our senmurv to the religious syncretism of Christian and
pagan (Slavic) beliefs.
To this, we add the established North-Iranian origins
of the deities Khors and Simargl from the pantheon
of prince Vladimir Sviatoslavich, especially Simargl,
which has been identied as a borrowing of the Iraninan
Senmurv (or Simurgh). Nevertheless, the function of Si-
margl remains unclear, as well as its iconography, since
there is no agreement that he was depicted as a hybrid
animal (as for example on the 12th-century capital in the
church of Boris and Gleb in Chernigov) and that its de-
pictions exist at all. However, the fact that the Iranian
deity has inltrated the pantheon of Prince Vladimir was
enough for us to propose some conclusions regarding
the religious syncretism in early medieval Dalmatia and
the unusual frequency of senmurvs that appear here in
the opus of a workshop that evidently has pagan back-
ground.
Through our analysis of the iconographic programme
of all the preserved fragments from the churches in
which the workshop was employed, along with com-
parative analysis of similar examples from Dalmatia
and abroad, we have uncovered that the commissioner
denitely made a deliberate decision of including cer-
tain pagan elements into otherwise clearly Christian
programme, probably to make them more receptive to
the recently Christianized and partly still pagan commu-
nity. This also explains why in Pridraga, in still unevenly
Christianized hinterland, those elements are more visi-
ble, while in Zadar and Rab, towns with long Christian
tradition, they are more subtle, and make way instead
for creative interpretations of patristic literature and bes-
tiaries.
Keywords: senmurv, early medieval sculpture, Dal-
matia, The Master of the Zadar Ambos, Zadar, Rab,
Slavic mythology.
М. Юркович, П. Крлежа
Загребский университет (Загреб, Хорватия)
Изображение Сэнмурва в Хорватии IX в.
и его возможные связи с (восточно)славянской мифологией
Аннотация. Работа мастерской Мастера амво
нов Задара, активной в первом десятилетии IX в.
в Северной Далмации, в городе Задаре и его окрест-
ностях, содержит, в отличие от большинства дру-
гих мастерских того времени, сцены, включающие
человеческую фигуру (тогда достаточно редкую)

THE CROATIAN NINTH-CENTURY SENMURV
AND ITS POSSIBLE TIES TO (EAST) SLAVIC MYTHOLOGY
281
и целый ряд гибридных животных. В настоящей
статье мы обсуждаем одно из этих животных – сэн
мурва – в контексте общей работы Мастера амво
нов Задара.
Сэнмурв – это существо с собачей головой, вы-
сунутым языком, львиными лапами и птичьим хво-
стом, встречающееся в искусстве средневековья до-
статочно редко. Он происходит из иранской среды и
встречается в сасанидском, согдийском, раннеислам-
ском и византийском искусстве, а через Византию
распространился на Запад. Этот мотив обычно изоб-
ражается на тканях, тарелках и других переносных
предметах и поэтому легко распространился далеко
за пределы своего происхождения. Мастер амвонов
Задара изобразил его в двух местах: на плите пре-
грады, которая, возможно, находилась в кафедраль-
ном соборе города Раба, и на плите преграды, воз-
можно, из церкви Святого Хрисогона в Задаре. До
сих пор непонятно, почему именно этот мотив по-
является на церковной утвари и какое его значение
в христианском контексте, но, в целом, выбор моти-
вов этой мастерской довольно необычный, напри-
мер, животные с фаллосами, сцены охоты (которые
могут быть интерпретированы как борьба между
Перуном и Велесом); другие примеры редких (для
этого периода) гибридных животных, таких как
гиппогриф, мантикора и необычный единорог, по-
зволили связать значение нашего сэнмурва с рели-
гиозным синкретизмом христианской и языческой
(славянской) веры.
К этому можно добавить установленное северо-
иранское происхождение божеств Хорса и Симаргла,
составлявших пантеон князя Владимира Святослави-
ча, особенно Симаргла, который становится славян-
ским заимствованием иранского божества Сенмурва
(или Симурга). Однако роль Симаргла и его иконогра-
фия до сих пор не являются вполне ясными, потому
что не все исследователи согласны, что он изображал-
ся как гибридное животное (как, например, на капите-
ли XII в. в храме Бориса и Глеба в Чернигове) или его
изображения вообще существуют. Несмотря на это,
самого факта присутствия иранского божества в пан-
теоне князя Владимира достаточно, чтобы мы могли
сделать некоторые выводы о связи религиозного син-
кретизма в раннесредневековой Далмации и частоты
изображения сэнмурвов, которые появляются в работе
мастерской с очевидно языческими корнями.
Проведя анализ иконографической программы
всех сохранившихся фрагментов из церквей, в ко-
торых работала мастерская, а также сравнительный
анализ аналогичных примеров из Далмации и зару-
бежья, мы установили, что заказчик преднамеренно
включил определенные языческие элементы в хри-
стианскую иконографическую программу, вероятно,
чтобы сделать ее более восприимчивой для недавно
христианизированной и еще частично языческой
общины. Это объясняет, почему в Придраге, в тогда
еще неравномерно христианизированных окрест-
ностях, эти элементы более заметны, в отличие от
городов Задара и Раба с более длительной христиан-
ской традицией, где они незначительны и уступают
место креативным интерпретациям патристической
литературы и бестиариев.
Ключевые слова: сэнмурв, раннесредневековая
скульптура, Далмация, Мастер амвонов Задара, За-
дар, Раб, славянская мифология.
During the clash between the Carolingians and
Byzantium in Dalmatia, in the rst decade of the
9th century, coastal towns, previously formally
belonging to Byzantium, sometimes changed
allegiance from one to the other superpower. This is
clearly a fact for Zadar, whose dux Paul and bishop
Donatus were on diplomatic missions to both sides
trying to preserve their town from destruction [Ančić,
2017, p. 30–31]. During this short period, Zadar was
periodically in the hands of the Carolingians, before
the town was restored to Byzantium in 812, following
the peace treaty of Aachen.
A few monuments corroborate the Carolingian
presence in Zadar – more than contemporary
documents – such as the rotunda of the Holy
Trinity (today St. Donatus) [Vežić, 1985; 2002] 1 or
St. Peter the Elder [Jurković, 1997], as well as the
presence of a stonemason-carving workshop called
The Master of the Zadar Ambos [Josipović, 2016],
1 P. Vežić has thoroughly analyzed the church and identied its
two building phases, which are today accepted by researchers,
while M. Jurković has divided them according to their functions,
connecting them to Carolingian and Byzantine practices; see:
[Vežić, 1985; 2002; Jurković, 1996].

M. JURKOVIĆ, P. KRLEŽA
282
This stonecarving workshop is of primary
interest for our paper, oering the possibility of
better understanding the political events of that
short period at the beginning of the 9th century,
as well as other matters, such as the social
stratication, and especially religious beliefs of the
involved protagonists. Unfortunately, none of the
groups of sculptures is intact; in fact, they are very
fragmentary, not allowing a thorough analysis;
however, they give enough information for this
paper.
I
The overall characteristics of the production of
The Master of the Zadar Ambos are: his compositions
are mostly organized in square, rectangular or
round cassettes lled with traditionally Christian
motifs (crosses under arcades, Solomon’s knots,
palmettes, rosettes and various vegetal motifs
[Josipović, 2016, p. 445]. However, the peculiarity
of this workshop lies in what other frames have
been lled with – hunting scenes, mythological or,
more precisely, composite or hybrid animals. It is
worth seeing it in detail.
The remaining fragments from the Zadar
cathedral belong to an ambo (Fig. 2,a) and a part
of a screen, which may be an altar screen or maybe
a part of the same ambo. Unfortunately, the slab
has been found as an imprint in mortar (Fig. 2,b)
and the original, of which some very small marble
fragments remain, is lost. That is why it is very
dicult to determine the function of that slab. The
motifs on the ambo framed in rectangles are the
symbols of the Evangelists: imago hominis, the
lion and the calf, as well as a cross and a peacock.
The unusual motif appears on the screen slab
fragment – a nude warrior with a sword riding a
horse, framed under an arcade.
The remaining fragments supposedly from the
church of St. Chrysogonus in Zadar belong to an
ambo and a screen slab. The motifs on the ambo
(Fig. 3,1), again framed in rectangles are: a logical
Agnus Dei, a less common hippogri, a bird of
prey, and parts of other birds. The unusual motif
appears again on an altar screen slab (Fig. 3,2),
lately identied as a senmurv [Jurković, 2015].
The remaining fragments from Rab cathedral
are three arches of a ciborium (Fig. 4) and an
altar screen slab. The motifs on the ciborium are
active not only in Zadar but also in its surroundings,
on both sides of the “moving borderline”.
This workshop executed liturgical furnishings,
fragments of which were found in Zadar, Pridraga,
and Novigrad in the hinterland of Zadar, the island
Pašman just in front of Zadar [Josipović, 2016]
and the island of Rab [Jurković, 2015]. However,
analysis has demonstrated that the fragments from
Neviđane on the island Pašman were probably
transferred there from Zadar later on [Jakšić,
Hilje, 2008, p. 88–89], and the fragment found
in Novigrad is actually from Pridraga [Petricioli,
1996, p. 212]. Therefore, we can assume that all
the sculptures from that workshop come from three
locations – Zadar, Pridraga, and Rab (Fig. 1). As
for Zadar, there is no doubt that some fragments
belong to the cathedral, and for the others, those
found in Neviđane on Pašman island, some think
they also belong to the cathedral [Petricioli, 1996,
p. 211], others, with whom we agree, that they
are from the Benedictine abbey church of St.
Chrysogonus [Jakšić, Hilje, 2008, p. 88–89]. For
the time being, we can ascertain that the works of
The Master of the Zadar Ambos have embellished
at least four churches.
The rst surprising fact is that the Master has
furnished a church on the Carolingian territory,
in the rising Croatian Dukedom (Pridraga), two
churches in a town that has changed hands between
Carolingians and Byzantines (Zadar), and on an
island that is presumed to have been all that time
under Byzantium (Rab). That illogicality should
be explained immediately. First of all, even if there
are no written sources, and the general opinion of
historians is that Rab, as well as all of the other
islands, were always under Byzantium, new nds
and reinterpretations of older archaeological
excavations have given enough material to consider
that the same thing happened to the islands of the
upper Adriatic as to Zadar – they have temporarily
fallen into the hands of the Carolingians [Jurković,
2020, p. 262–263]. It may, for the time being, be
concluded that all three locations were under the
Carolingians when The Master of the Zadar Ambos
has worked there. It is even more conceivable when
we know that the Master has probably arrived in
Dalmatia with the Carolingians, because his work
can be connected with the practices in north-
eastern Italy, specically in Cividale, a Carolingian
stronghold (see infra).

THE CROATIAN NINTH-CENTURY SENMURV
AND ITS POSSIBLE TIES TO (EAST) SLAVIC MYTHOLOGY
283
(Fig. 2,b): it has two registers, the lower one with
two arcades lled with a cross anked by trees of
life, a logical motif, and the upper one consisting of
three arcades, the central one bearing the warrior.
This central position is revealing the importance
of the depicted person. However, his nudity (his
nipples are visible) should be disturbing in a church
interior. Thinking of who may have had aorded
to be represented like that in a prominent position
in a church interior, the only possible solution
is that it is an example of self-representation or
representation of the power of a member of social
elites, obviously not Byzantine, but Carolingian.
The fact can be stressed with the material used –
marble [Petricioli, 1996].
However, most interesting from the point of
view of iconography are the fragments from the
church of Saint Martin in Pridraga (Fig. 6). The
motifs are once again organized inside round,
square or rectangular cassettes, and they show
warriors, hunters, and various quadrupeds, two of
which (a mounted horse of a warrior and another
animal, probably a lion) have clearly emphasized
phalluses (Fig. 6,e,c) [Josipović, 2016, p. 447].
The two preserved fragments with warriors show
the same elements as the one in Zadar. They are
on horses, in very characteristic actions. It has
already been suggested that the horseman with
the spear (Fig. 6,e), spreading his hands, moving
away his shield, and thus being unprotected, might
be depicted in a moment of triumph after having
defeated his opponent [Jakšić, Hilje, 2008, p. 92,
cat. No. 12]. Consequently, the other warrior
(Fig. 6,a) is putting his sword in its scabbard after
victory, instead of pulling it out for a duel. Again,
as in Zadar, those two scenes could be parts of
representation of the power of members of early
Croatian social elites, as investors in the church
furnishings, or merely the key protagonists.
Apart from the nude warriors, the only other
secular element on the analyzed sculptures are
erected phallus symbols on the horse (Fig. 6,e)
and a probable lion (Fig. 6,c) in Pridraga and a
hybrid animal on the ciborium from Rab (Fig. 8).
At this stage, they can hardly be interpreted, but
we will return to that motif later. To summarize
at this point, The Master of the Zadar Ambos has
depicted in two out of four churches, in St. Martin
in Pridraga and the cathedral in Zadar, the members
of the new elites, the probable investors. In the
the usual peacocks drinking from the cantharos
(the well of life), and two not yet identied hybrid
animals (see infra). On the only preserved altar
screen slab appears again a senmurv (Fig. 5).
The altar screen from the church of St. Martin
in Pridraga is very fragmented. Along with slabs
decorated with crosses under arcades and anked
by trees of life, we nd a bird, a lion, but also two
frames lled with nude warriors on horses, with
swords, spears and shields, and a narrative scene
with a nude warrior with a spear, a snake and a dear
(Fig. 6).
As we have said, the opus of The Master of the
Zadar Ambos is well dened. His provenance from
northeastern Italy is based on comparisons of the
treatment of motifs (such as the lion of St. Mark,
comparable to the same motif of Sigwald’s slab
from Cividale) [Petricioli, 1996, p. 213], the dating
in the rst decade of the 9th century is, therefore,
the only plausible chronological frame [Jurković,
2015, p. 48]. Besides the iconographic motifs, the
organization of gures inside cassettes is also one
of the details that makes The Master of the Zadar
Ambos stand out among Dalmatian early medieval
stonecutting workshops, as the closest parallel to it
exists only in Cividale. Only The Split Stonecutting
Workshop, active in the last quarter of the 8th c.,
uses a similar principle, but its stylistic execution is
still quite dierent [Basić, Jurković, 2011, p. 153].
The Master of the Zadar Ambos is a sculptor quite
dierent from most also because of the repertoire
he uses, especially the human gures, very rare
at the time. Naturally, one is compelled to ask
the questions: why these specic compositional
schemes, why the use of unusual motifs, what is
their iconography, what is their meaning? That is
where we will try to shed some light.
The iconography of the Zadar cathedral ambo
is nothing-unusual (Fig. 2,a). The only thing
that we can stress is the depiction of St. Luke’s
symbol, being a calf, not an ox. The lack of horns
representing a calf suggests in itself a somewhat
archaic representation and an early chronological
frame. The usual image of St. Luke is an ox, but
the chronologically earlier images are of a calf, as
in illuminated books, such as the Book of Durrow
(fol. 124v) or the Book of Kells [Petricioli, 1988,
p. 26]. Apart from this, the nude warrior on the
screen slab is very unusual for a church interior.
The composition of the slab speaks for itself

M. JURKOVIĆ, P. KRLEŽA
284
absolutely identical compositions of rectangular
frames lled with dierent motifs, among which is
the senmurv.
The fragment of a slab from Rab consists of a
tripartite bordure, which forms the shapes of three
rectangular frames: two of them contain in the
center the so-called Solomon’s knot and the last
one (in the bottom) a hybrid creature that has been
identied as a senmurv [Jurković, 2015, p. 43].
Today, unfortunately, we know about it only from
an older photograph [Schleyer, 1914, p. 117], since
that part of the fragment has meanwhile gone
missing. Although rare, this is not an isolated image
of a senmurv in early medieval Croatian art, one
more appearing on a screen slab fragment found
in Neviđane on the island Pašman, but, according
to the latest interpretations originating from the
church of St. Chrysogonus in Zadar.
In earlier historiography, the creature was
described as a peacock [Jarak, 2017, p. 107], but
because of the peculiarities some doubts were
expressed, and the creature said to resemble even
a squirrel [Josipović, 2013, p. 30]. However, by
closely examining the photograph, it is clear that
it diers signicantly from the usual depictions of
peacocks in medieval art, since its tail is curved,
following the line of its spine – so not being the
straight tail peacocks usually have; furthermore,
the creature has legs with claws/paws, resembling
more the legs of a predator, and denitely not a
bird. It appears to have ears on its head, not the
crown, as it would be common for the depiction
of a peacock. It also appears that its tongue is
protruding from its mouth. The other possibility is
that the creature holds an unidentied object in its
paw. It also has stylized wings tucked against its
body. In any case, it is clear that this can hardly be a
depiction of a peacock and that its closest parallel,
as analysis has shown, is the iconographical motif
of the senmurv – the hybrid animal with the head of
a winged dog, often with a protruding tongue, paws
of a lion and the tail of a bird [Jurković, 2015]. The
fragment from Neviđane (or St. Chrysogonus) has
found in the courtyard of the church of San Marino, which by the
way does not exist, but the description of its location corresponds
with St. Martin [Schleyer, 1914, p. 110; Brusić, 1926, p. 70], a
church destroyed at the beginning of the 20th c., giving place for
a blacksmith shop [Domijan, 2007, p. 52], and thus obstructing
further investigation.
liturgical furnishings he has produced, standard
Christian motifs were used, as on the ambo of
Zadar cathedral and the altar screen in Pridraga,
the ciborium from Rab as well as on the second
ambo in Zadar, probably from the church of St.
Chrysogonus. There, we can see among standard
motifs such as Agnus Dei and birds, even the bird
of prey, attacking a smaller bird, some much less
common, as the hippogri.
The choice of a hippogri on the ambo of St.
Chrysogonus (Fig. 3,1,b) adds to the peculiarity of
the motifs in the opus of the Master of the Zadar
Ambos, as – although it has Christian connotations
similar to the more popular grin [Sax, 2013, p. 195]
– it is uncommon in early medieval Dalmatian art.
One of the problems, which complicates the matter
of its identication, is the fact that sometimes it
is hard to make a distinction between grins and
hippogris, i. e. their lion or equine parts. There
exist in the early Middle Ages representations of
hippogris on stone sculpture, although they are
rare. One of the nest examples – and here we refer
only to examples in northeastern Italy, in Friuli, the
very probable origin of the Master – is found on
a slab in the chapel of St. Peter in the cathedral of
Aquileia, dated by the majority of scholars in the
early 9th century 2.
There is no doubt in our mind that the creature
on the slab found in Neviđane depicts a hippogri
and the choosing of this motif certainly deserves
more scholarly attention.
II
We can now concentrate on the really unusual
iconography (apart of the nude warriors) of the
liturgical furnishings on those four sites. The
rst motif, which has already been dened is the
senmurv. It was depicted in two locations: on a
screen slab from, presumably, the church of St.
Chrysogonus in Zadar (Fig. 3,2), as well on the
screen slab most probably originating from the
cathedral in Rab (Fig. 5) 3. Both screen slabs have
2 Although there is quite a consensus among Italian scholars on the
dating of those slabs in Aquileia, there are a few Italian [Zuliani,
1999, p. 108], and mostly Croatian scholars dating them to the
11th century [Jakšić, 2015, p. 451]. As this is not a problem we
should discuss here, we use the example just as a comparison of the
represented hippogri.
3 Its provenance, though, is not very clear. It was rst published as

THE CROATIAN NINTH-CENTURY SENMURV
AND ITS POSSIBLE TIES TO (EAST) SLAVIC MYTHOLOGY
285
Byzantines). That is why Comparetti refers to
this being as a pseudo-senmurv, to distinguish
it from the “real” senmurv, the mythological
bird [Comparetti, 2006; 2016]. Adopting the
explanations of Comparetti, we will, however,
continue to refer to our motif of the composite
being as the senmurv, and not the pseudo-senmurv,
not to put more confusion in changing terminology.
The motif usually appears on fabrics, plates,
and other portable objects so it easily spread quite
far from the area of its origin. There are quite a
few examples of the depiction of the motif in the
Sasanian (and slightly lesser in Sogdian art), such
as the already mentioned 6th-century plate in the
Hermitage Museum, on a silk twill in Victoria and
Albert Museum and on the 6th–7th-century reliefs
in the grotto of Tāq-e Bostān in Iran (Fig. 9,a)
[Comparetti, 2006, p. 189]. In the early Islamic
period, the senmurv continues to be depicted on
portable objects (such as the plate and the brass
ewer from the British Museum) but also as a form
of architectural decoration, like on wall panels
(Iran, Chal Tarhan, 7th–8th c., Museum of Islamic
Art, Berlin) and mural paintings (Bath hall of the
Palace of the Khirbar al Mafjar, 8th c. – Umayyad
Caliphate, Palestine). There are also numerous
examples of the motif on portable objects of
Byzantine art, Caucasus, and Western Europe,
which is not surprising, due to the active trade and
overall entanglements between “dierent worlds”.
The Senmurv is especially prevalent as a decorative
motif on textiles (Fig. 9,b) originating from the
Eastern Mediterranean sphere from 11th to 12th c.,
but, as D. Walker notes, their exact origins are hard
to trace, because they reect the popular taste that
transcends religious and cultural boundaries, one
such example being the textile with roundels of
elephants, senmurvs and winged horses originating
from the Monastery of Santa Maria de l’Estay in
Catalonia [Walker, 1997, p. 414, no. 271].
Although the senmurv appears as a decorative
motif in both Cristian and Islamic cultural
milieu, it seems that only in Christian sphere it
can be found in a religious context, with possible
symbolic meaning, in churches, and on sacred
objects, while in Islamic art it remains purely
decorative [Comparetti, 2016, p. 18]. The earliest
depiction of senmurv in Eastern Christian art
is on one of the capitals of the half-columns on
the drum of Etchmiadzin Cathedral in Armenia
an absolutely identical composition and rendering
of the animal.
This is why we need to ask ourselves how and
why this very rare motif in early medieval sculpture
is used at least twice by the same sculptor. The
motif itself originates from the Iranian milieu and it
was observed in Sasanian, Sogdian, early Islamic,
and Byzantine art, and through Byzantines spread
to the West. Senmurv (in Pahlavi) or Simorgh (in
Neopersian) was a mythological bird, celebrated in
the Shahnameh by Ferdowsi, who has saved Zal, the
father of the hero Rostam after he was abandoned
on the mountain Alborz. In the Shahnameh and
the Zoroastrian literature in general, Simorgh is
described as a wonderful she-bird, which is both
benevolent and vicious, its nature changes along
with the transition of the Iranian kingdom from
the ancient religion to the ocial Zoroastrianism
[Comparetti, 2006, p. 190]. In 1930-es, K. Trever
has published a study, identifying the composite
creature seen on quite a few artefacts in the
Hermitage Museum (such as a golden sword
sheathe, a silver plate, and a silver pitcher) as the
mythical Senmurv [Trever, 1937]. This creature,
which she calls SenmurvPaskudj, the dog-bird, is
the one that, from the point of view of iconography
corresponds to the creatures from Rab and Zadar.
Although, before we continue, we must point
to one technical detail in identifying the senmurv.
According to the most recent research by M. Com-
paretti, who has revised the old theories about the
identication of the creature from the Shahnameh
and other examples of the ancient Iranian literature,
the Senmurv or Simurgh is always depicted as a
fantastic bird, whereas the composite creature
that, from the publication of Trever’s article, is
usually called senmurv, is actually a depiction of
the Divine Glory, associated with the Sasanian
ruling dynasty (it originated in late Sasanian
period and was popularized in the early Islamic
period) [Comparetti, 2006, p. 191; 2016]. This fact
should be understood as the rst transformation of
meaning, still in the country of origin of the motif.
The depiction of senmurv as an expression of the
Divine Glory, or Khwarna (Farn in Sogdian) would
thus be more acceptable to Christians and Muslims,
who in turn would adopt it as a decorative motif in
various artistic forms, than its depiction as a purely
Mazdean symbol (and the protector of the Sasanian
dynasty, who were enemies of both Muslims and

M. JURKOVIĆ, P. KRLEŽA
286
creating a new species of a winged-sea-dragon”
[Volbach, 1942, p. 178]. It is also stated that this
creature can be depicted alone or in the context
of the story of Jonah, as on the 10th-century
relief from the private collection that possibly
originated from the ambo of the Cathedral of
Sorrento. Interestingly, as a comparative example,
the two senmurvs are chosen, facing each other
on a marble plate from Constantinople, which are
called “the Sasanian peacock-dragon”. With the
conclusion that this composite creature will obtain
more classical features in a later period [Volbach,
1942, p. 178], the way was opened for the more
recent detailed analysis.
Creating some order in the genesis, the
contaminations, and the transformations of the
meanings in dierent milieus has been attempted
recently. The inuence of senmurv was discussed
in the context of gradual changes of the depictions
of ketos from Antiquity to the Middle Ages, with
the theory that depictions of ketos have, during the
11th and 12th centuries, changed in two directions:
a regular depiction of a big sh, or a depiction
of a composite creature, sometimes winged, with
dog’s head and sea-serpents tail [Riccioni, 2016,
p. 130]. However, the inuence of senmurv is not
emphasized in the genesis of ketos, as ketos, at least
in western medieval art, was primarily inuenced
by Antique models.
The issue that complicates the matter of the
identication of the symbolic meaning of senmurv
in the context of medieval Christian art is that
the motif appears in various contexts, even if we
exclude (or minimize) the inuence of senmurv
in the iconography of the whale in the story of
Jonah. For example, two senmurvs appear on
cloisonné enamel plates (possibly of Byzantine
origin) on the rectangular sections at the ends
of the Cross of Theophanu from 11th c. (Essen
treasury) [Beuckers, 1993, p. 91]. At the opposite
end of the cross, two grins are depicted in a
similar way. Two senmurvs also appear on the
elements of a diadem, which is missing today and
was part of the so-called “Preslav treasure” dated
to 10th c. (Bulgaria). The diadem consisted of ve
parts, the central plate showing Alexander the
Great in a carriage pulled by two grins, anked
by two plates showing senmurvs and two showing
grins. Senmurvs of Rab and St. Chrysogonus
(found in Neviđane) are shown isolated, but in
dated to 7th c., in iconography quite similar to the
example from Tāq-e Bostān. The reason for its
appearance is political, as the cathedral was built
by the Catholicos backed by the Sasanian king
[Hakobyan, Mykayelian, 2018, p. 41]. Comparetti
has noted that the image of senmurv (or pseudo
senmurv as he calls it) is “adopted and adapted”
as a whale in the depiction of the story of Jonas
in the 10th-century Armenian Cathedral of the
Holy Cross on Aght’amar. In the same church
the motif, although with wings added, functions
as a model for a serpent in the illustration of the
story of Adam and Eve [Hakobyan, Mykayelian,
2018, p. 41]. Another such depiction of senmurv,
according to Comparetti, appears relatively late,
in the 13th-century fresco cycle of the Armenian
Church of Tigran Honents (St. Gregory) in Ani
(present-day Turkey). Comparetti has noticed
the iconographical and mythological similarity
between the whale of Jonas and the Greek
mythological creature ketos, from the Myth of
Perseus and Andromeda but did not elaborate it
in much detail, although he emphasized the strong
Greek-Hellenistic inuence on the central Asian
art (visible in the depictions of marine composite
beings in Sogdian mid-8th-century painting, that
some scholars equalize with senmurv) since the
Antique period.
Imported Eastern textiles as sources of
inspiration for oriental decorative motifs on
liturgical furnishings have been studied early
enough on the example of medieval Campania
from 9th to 13th centuries 4. Most interesting for our
analysis are the reliefs from S. Aspreno in Naples
and the Cathedral in Sorrento dated to the 10th
century on which the Sasanian motifs appear in an
obviously religious context, on the choir screen and
other elements of liturgical furnishings. However,
the question of the choice of those motifs remains,
as it is believed that in such an early period, they
generally exhibit a purely demonic character
[Volbach, 1942, p. 175]. Although none of the
Sasanian creatures is explicitly named as senmurv,
it is mentioned that, in the case of the hippocampi,
the Campanian sculptors combined Eastern with
Antique features “adding a long shtail and thus
4 Those motifs are ducks with ribbons around their necks, horses,
elephants, lions, grins, hippocamps… all placed in some sort of a
medallion or a lozenge, see: [Volbach, 1942].

THE CROATIAN NINTH-CENTURY SENMURV
AND ITS POSSIBLE TIES TO (EAST) SLAVIC MYTHOLOGY
287
the meaning it originally had in the late-Sasanian
cultural sphere, translated into the Christian
context. Therefore, was this meaning of senmurv
conrmed already in the early middle ages in
Christian communities?
At this point, we can conclude that the
representation of the senmurv is extremely rare in the
9th-century western sculpture, as the only examples
known to us are sculpted by the Master of the Zadar
Ambos. The closest example is the relief depicting
the senmurv on Tower 16 of the Theophilus complex
in Constantinople, dated after 829 (Fig. 10). The
question that has to be raised is whether our motif
of the senmurv is merely decorative, copied from
other visual media or that the motif has a much more
deepened meaning, for example, representing, like
on the Constantinopolitan, Georgian and Armenian
examples, the divine glory and protection, or/and,
the one that we are now suggesting, being also
connected to Slavic mythology. To deepen further
our reasoning, we should now pass on the next
very unusual compositional scheme made by The
Master of the Zadar Ambos, the one in Pridraga,
depicting a warrior, a snake, and a deer.
III
The most interesting slab from Pridraga, made
by Master of the Zadar Ambos, long lost and known
only through photos has recently been “re-found”
[Bilogrivić, 2014]. It bears a warrior on horseback
pointing a spear, and a running deer (Fig. 6,d). The
scene has been interpreted and known as a deer
hunt [Prijatelj, 1954, p. 68, 78–80]. However, a
newer interpretation of the same scene has been
suggested: under the horse’s legs, there is a beast in
the form of a serpent (dragon), which the hunter is
killing with his spear to protect the deer [Milošević,
2011, p. 31].
This interpretation brings new possibilities in
our discourse, involving religious syncretism that
includes pagan beliefs, probably Slavic, that have
existed in Dalmatia since Late Antiquity. Apart
from this, there was just one additional attempt to
understand the meanings – the symbolical ones and
liturgical ones for those representations on an altar
screen in early medieval Croatia [Milošević, 2011].
We will try here to shed some light on the possible
pagan background of the iconographic choices for
the works of The Master of the Zadar Ambos.
a prominent place in the church, on the chancel
screen. It would be reasonable to presume that the
choosing of the senmurv for the chancel screen
was part of some iconographic plan and that
senmurvs there do bear some symbolical meaning,
instead of being just purely decorative motifs. On
Theophanu cross and the diadem, the senmurvs
are depicted alongside grins, the creatures that
(usually) 5 have positive connotations in medieval
Christian art, symbolizing Christ’s dual nature
(Eagle and Lion) and His Wisdom and Strength
[Neumann, 2008, p. 264]. Do Senmurvs depicted
on chancel screen panels of quite prominent and
important churches of the Adriatic coast have a
similar meaning as well?
We only know the original meaning of senmurv
as the Divine Glory in the context of the Sasanian
ruling dynasty. It appeared quite early (from
the early 7th century) in Armenian and Georgian
art, and, although its meaning in Christian and
Islamic milieu is still a matter of debate, some
scholars of Armenian and Georgian art assign
to it the meaning similar to the one it had in its
original context. When discussing specically the
depiction in Etchmiadzin Cathedral, Kazaryan
and Mikayelyan state that the Sasanian royal
symbolism in the form of ribbons, paired wings
and the senmurv, transformed its meaning in
early medieval Armenian and Transcaucasian art
(and specically this particular church) into the
glorication of the Cross and the mission of the
Apostles [Kazaryan, Mykayelian, 2019, p. 80].
In Georgia, the senmurv has the meaning of a
guardian and protector, appearing usually at the
entrances of churches like on the western façade
of the Ateni Sioni church from the 7th century
[Iamanidze, 2019, p. 94]. In Constantinople,
there is an interesting depiction of a senmurv on
Tower 16 of the so-called Theophilus complex
in the Blachernae Palace, dated shortly after
829 (Fig. 10). According to Asutay-Eenberger,
it follows a well thought out concept with the
symbolic meaning of “protection” and “victory”
and can be associated with the role of the Persian
noble Theophobos in the court of Emperor
Theophilos [Asutay-Eenberger, 2019, p. 153]. In
all of those cases, the senmurv more or less retains
5 Although grins can also represent the devil and the demons, see:
[Neumann, 2008, p. 264].

M. JURKOVIĆ, P. KRLEŽA
288
a few hundred meters distant from the church of
St. Martin [Milošević, 2011, p. 64]. The cult of
Silvanus was a phallic cult that was also widespread
in the Dalmatian hinterland during Late Antiquity.
The fragments from the church of St. Martin made by
The Master of Zadar Ambos, if connected to this cult,
would indicate the religious syncretism, not between
the ancient Slavic religion and Christianity, but even
older Illyrian-Roman cults [Milošević, 2011, p. 64] 6.
Milošević oers an explanation that the scenes from
Pridraga are interpreting The Resurrection in a way
where it was deliberately “contaminated” with earlier
pagan cults. This theme of “salvation and eternal
life after death”, central for Christianity but actually
prevalent in most religions, was acceptable for the
remnants of Silvanus’ cult, but more importantly, to
the newly arrived still unbaptized Slavic settlers as
well, as in their pantheon they had a deity of similar
characteristics as Silvanus – Veles [Milošević, 2011,
p. 65].
Besides, phallic cults were also not uncommon
among the ancient Slavs. N. Čausidis notes that the
male genitals in Slavic culture were represented in
the form of cult objects in their life-size [Čausidis,
1999, p. 291]. Even more common are objects
represented in the form of anthropomorphic phallus
that could serve as “iconographic basis of small
house idols as well as monumental idols placed in
shrines”. The second type, the one more relevant
to us, were the images of anthropomorphic gures
(a male deity of any other category of mythical
gures) with oversized and/or erect phallus that
represents its function of procreation: Čausidis
states the example of the clay gurines of mythical
hero German/Kalojan [Čausidis, 1999, p. 291].
Moreover, Čausidis states that the male principle
can represent various spheres of nature, the male
gure with oral motives growing out of its body is
a reection of the male factor within the vegetation
cycles; on the other hand, the death of the male gure
can represent the beginning of a new vegetation
cycle. Such mythical pictures can be found on
6 In his recent publication on a fragment of an idol of a Slavic deity
(most probably Perun) from Ljubuški in Herzegovina, Milošević
stated that there is an interestingly large number of indications of
Slavic sanctuaries in the “contact zones”, where Slavic settlers met
with Illyrian-Romanic na tives (sites of Vačani, in the hinterland of
Šibenik, Perun hill between Podstrana and Žrnovnica near Split,
Čun on the hill above Novigrad in Dalmatia and the site above the
source of Žrnovnica in Dalmatia), see: [Milošević, 2019, p. 253].
In the interpretation of A. Milošević, the lancer
killing a dragon from Pridraga can be confronted
with another relief of a similar subject of the late
eighth-century equestrian relief on the façade of the
parish church in Žrnovnica near Split (Fig. 11). It
also depicts a lancer that kills the beast with his
spear. Previously considered an image of St. George
killing the dragon, it was recently interpreted as the
depiction of the “Divine battle” between the two
supreme deities of the Slavic pantheon, Perun and
Veles [Milošević, 2013]. In that case, the mounted
gure would represent the god Perun, who, with his
spear, attacks the bear, the personication of the god
Veles, the scene that is also known from numerous
Russian medieval sources and legends [Milošević,
2011, p. 42]. In this context, the lancer that is
killing the snake (or the dragon) from Pridraga can
also probably be understood, as the snake or the
dragon is the second important transformation of
this Slavic deity [Milošević, 2011, p. 71].
What is interesting is that the lancer from Pridraga
is depicted nude to the waist, which is also the case
with the equestrians depicted by The Master of
Zadar Ambos, both in Zadar Cathedral and Pridraga
but on the relief from Žrnovnica as well. Milošević
has noted that all of the extant depictions of the god
Perun show him nude, or shirtless, which seems
to be either a common depiction of the supreme
deity or the depiction of a “barbarian” warrior
[Milošević, 2011, p. 51]. Although we do not yet
know the symbolic meaning of the equestrians
in the opus of The Master of Zadar Ambos, the
stylistic and iconographic parallels of the lancer
from Pridraga with the image of Perun on the relief
from Žrnovnica, strengthen the hypothesis about the
workshop’s pagan background. Especially because
the lancer appears to be “saving” a deer from the
beast/dragon, which A. Milošević interprets as
having an origin in the dualism between good and
evil central for Manichaean theology. Manichaeism
was quite well spread in Late-Antique Dalmatia,
and its traces could have survived until the Early
Middle Ages [Milošević, 2011, p. 31].
We should also take into consideration the theme
of emphasized phalluses of the animals in Pridraga,
evidenced before, but now with the possibilities
of further interpretation. The assumption has been
made that they could be connected with a relief of
Silvanus, found and re-used in the nearby early
medieval church of St. Michael in Pridraga, just

THE CROATIAN NINTH-CENTURY SENMURV
AND ITS POSSIBLE TIES TO (EAST) SLAVIC MYTHOLOGY
289
consideration another hybrid animal on the same
ciborium. On the three preserved arches from the
beginning of the 9th c. two quadrupeds, alongside
traditionally early Christian birds appear, and they
both still wait for identication, but one of them,
the one that has a very large tail resembling an axe
and very unusual horns on its head, also has, albeit
much smaller and undistinguished, phallus (Fig. 8).
In fact, those two animals add to the diversity
of the choice of motifs by The Master of the Zadar
Ambos as well as his unprecedented creativity.
One of the animals has always been referred to
as a lion with a cross on its head [Vežić, Lončar,
2009, p. 95; Jarak, 2017, p. 96] (Fig. 7). That would
really be something never seen in the visual arts
of the Middle Ages. Searching for a possibility
of a composite animal having a cross on its head
and trying to understand what kind of an animal is
depicted here (denitely not a lion) we have come
across some very instructive readings. Indeed when
we look at this beast, its main characteristics are
its long tail, feet that resemble cloven hoofs and
the horse-like head with a cross that stems from
its forehead, with two ears behind it. It also seems
to have an open mouth with a protruding tongue,
in a gesture of licking or grabbing an unidentied
object (possibly a leaf). These characteristics point
to the possibility of interpreting the animal as a
unicorn: a composite animal whose body, in early
medieval depictions, has the elements of a horse and
a goat, usually with cleft hooves, and in some cases
even oxen eyes or tail [Tagliatesta, 2007, p. 179].
The only problem that is evident here is the unusual
placement of a cross instead of a horn on its head.
The alicorn, unicorn’s horn, is always depicted
as straight, or sometimes curved in the front. The
peculiar horn-cross on the beast from Rab can
probably be explained by the symbolic meaning
of the alicorn and the unicorn itself. Physiologus
mentions the relationship of the unicorn, especially
its horn, with Christ [Curley, 2009, p. 51], but the
horn is specically associated with Holy Cross in
the writings of Justin Martyr 7, who in his Dialogue
7 Justin Martyr and Tertullian compare the Holy Cross with horns of
a unicorn when commenting on the Deuteronomy 33:17 “His glory
is like the rstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of
unicorns: with them he shall push the people together to the ends of
the earth: and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are
the thousands of Manasseh” [Justin Martyr, 1885, p. 214; Tertullian,
1885, p. 336].
tombstones, manuscripts, jewelry and ornaments
from the Christian milieu from the Middle Ages
and they have their zoomorphic variant with
plants growing out of animals of various kinds.
Furthermore, he states that in this zoomorphic
variant the god Simargl from Vladimir’s pantheon
may have been represented: as a dog with earthly
and heavenly attributes (with a tail of a snake or sh
and wings) and later its anthropomorphized variant,
most probably Pereplut [Čausidis, 1999, p. 291].
Milošević identied another motif of stylized
facemasks and gures on the bronze gilded
cross-shaped shackles from the site of Ždrijac at
Nin as the representation of the god Svantevid,
a hypostasis of the god Perun [Milošević, 2013,
p. 218]. He suggests that the shackles were re-used
in the grave of a child, probably from the 9th c. It is
evident that the cruciform shape, as a recognizable
Christian symbol, contributed to this re-use and it
may have been interpreted as an antique in times
when the old Slavic religion was gradually being
forgotten. Similar examples of re-used cruciform
shackles and other objects with pagan motifs are
found in the Czech Republic and Slovenia, but
also in non-Slavic areas, such as Visigothic Spain
or Lombard Italy [Milošević, 2013, p. 219–229].
The nding of the cruciform shackles in Ždrijac
indicates a lengthy process in which the newly
arrived Slavs in the territory of present-day
Dalmatia gradually abandoned their old religion
and accepted Christianity during the second half of
the seventh and in the eighth century [Milošević,
2013, p. 219–229]. The relief of the Divine Battle
that is still on the façade of the parish church in
Žrnovnica is also one of the indicators that the
transition between two religions was certainly
not abrupt in early medieval Dalmatia. The co-
existence and syncretism of dierent beliefs are
the phenomena, which should be taken into greater
account in the research of the Early Medieval art in
general. In the same light, the zoomorphic gures
with emphasized phalluses from Pridraga and the
cathedral of Rab should be analyzed, given that
the male principle has been represented by phallus
or gures with an emphasized phallus in ancient
Slavic culture as well.
The oversized phalluses in Pridraga belong to
a horse and a lion. The third phallus is seen on
a hybrid beast on the ciborium of the cathedral
in Rab. Before analyzing it, we will take into

M. JURKOVIĆ, P. KRLEŽA
290
animal as a deer, and what we perceive as its tail
she identied as a trefoil [Jarak, 2017, p. 96; 2010,
p. 89]. Indeed, this animal can easily be interpreted
as a deer if it were not for its tail, which most
certainly does not belong to a deer or any similar
animal. The closest parallel we were able to nd is
the manticore, an animal that enters the medieval
western bestiaries through the writings of Pliny the
Elder (Naturalis Historia 8:30) and whose main
characteristics are the human face and ears, the
body of a red lion and a scorpion-like tail [Pliny,
1967, p. 55]. The manticore is considered a very
dangerous animal with a special appetite for human
esh and its possible appearance on the ciborium
is highly unusual. Very interesting are also the
depictions of a pentagram, the symbol of the Five
Wounds of Christ and triquetra, or a trefoil knot,
the symbol of The Holy Trinity anking this animal
[Becker, 1994, p. 230; Sill, 1975, p. 225]. The
protective role of the pentagram that ranges from
the Iron Age up until the 14th century has already
been researched and there is no need to elaborate
it here [Coimbra, 2011, p. 129]. The trefoil knot,
meaning The Trinity, appears on a contemporary,
9th c., Roman example (possibly from the church of
S. Maria in Aracoeli): in two of the 16 rectangular
frames lled with various animals, some bearing
crosses on their backs. It is interesting that the
symbols of pentagram and trefoil knots, with
clearly Christian connotations, are anking the
animal on the Rab ciborium, and they are certainly
shown in some relation to it. If it were a manticore
(and the red color of its body should conrm it in an
absolute way), which is a thesis that still needs to
be supported by more thorough research, those two
symbols would also have an apotropaic character.
Clearly, the compositions of altar screens in
Pridraga and Rab are not the same as the one in the
Zadar Cathedral, the latter having mostly Christian
symbols on the preserved sculpture. Anyway, one
has to ask the question of what are such scenes of
animals with phalluses doing on an altar screen?
Apart from the symbols on the Zadar cathedral
ambo, practically all the rest has nothing to do with
Christianity. Or, does it? Furthermore, some of
the representations are inappropriate for a church
interior. The problem that interests us, in this case,
is to understand why, how, and with what purpose
were those altar screens carved. Many animals
depicted by The Master of Zadar Ambos are
with Trypho states: “Now, no one could say or
prove that the horns of a unicorn represent any
other fact or gure than the type which portrays the
cross” [Justin Martyr, 1885, p. 214]. Therefore, our
composite animal could and should be a unicorn,
even though we do not yet know any examples of
unicorns with such horns. The closest example is
the 8th-century depiction from the church San Saba
in Rome, the same church from which originates
a relief of a falconer that has been compared by
several researchers with the equestrian from the
Cathedral of Zadar and the relief from Žrnovnica
[Petricioli, 1996, p. 212–213; Milošević, 2011,
p. 26–27; Josipović, 2016, p. 449]. The unicorn
from San Saba, depicted with a usual, straight,
horn, is grabbing a leaf with its mouth, which is
a gesture that resembles the one in Rab. Another
unicorn with similarly shaped head and legs as in
Rab and also with a protruding tongue appears on
the 8th-century screen slab from the church of San
Concordio in Lucca, today in Museo nazionale di
Villa Guinigi. In anticipation of more comparative
examples, the unicorn of the Rab ciborium remains
unique in early medieval Dalmatian art and beyond.
The last one of those composite animals has been
identied in dierent ways. We ought to say here
that in general the ciborium from Rab has long not
been cleaned which contributes to the diculty of
identication of the gures. The one that we have
already mentioned having a phallus is especially
complex to identify (Fig. 8). It is a quadruped
that seems to have hoofs, with notable detail of
fur on its back, has a very strange head, almost
human-like, on top of which are either horns or
two peacock feathers 8. However, its most unusual
feature is its large tail, which in its form resembles
a weapon similar to an axe. Flanking this animal
are a pentagram in front of it and a triquetra behind.
Vežić has identied the motif of a pentagram in
front of what he interpreted as a he-goat and a
unicorn, whose head he identied in what we see
as the animals tail [Vežić, Lončar, 2009, p. 55].
M. Jarak has identied a pentagram and dened the
8 Although the ciborium was practically never cleaned and it is
very hard to spot any coloristic dierences, it seems pretty much
that the fur of the beast was red colored, today much faded, but
still perceivable. Therefore, it is either the original faded color,
conrming absolutely that the beast is a manticore; either later
coating conrming that posterior generations perceived the animal
as a manticore.

THE CROATIAN NINTH-CENTURY SENMURV
AND ITS POSSIBLE TIES TO (EAST) SLAVIC MYTHOLOGY
291
great detail (Rigveda, Mahabharata, Shahnameh)
and comes to the already stated conclusion that the
real Senmurv/Simurgh was originally a fantastic
bird, not a composite creature [Vasiliev, 1999,
p. 159]. He states that “Senmurv the bird” turned
into “the dog-bird” in the late-Sasanian period and
that this change did not “touch” the eastern-Iranian,
Sarmatian-Scythian-Massagetean, milieu from
which the Simargl would originate. That is why, as
Vasiliev states, Simargl was not a dog-bird.
Nevertheless, the function of Simargl remains
unclear, as well as its iconography, since not all
of the researchers agree that he was depicted as a
hybrid animal (as, for example, on the 12th-century
capital in the church of Boris and Gleb in Chernigov)
or that its depictions exist at all – Vasiliev states
that all of the depictions of a composite animal
considered as Simargl are actually dragons or
other fantastic beasts borrowed from “Romano-
Byzantine or Italo-Byzantine tradition” [Vasiliev,
1999, p. 166–171]. This conclusion was recently
repeated by E. I. Arkhipova, who has denied that
the depictions of dragons and birds on the capital
from Chernigov have any connections to folklore,
being instead animals typical for the medieval
bestiaries of the western tradition [Arkhipova, 2015,
p. 317]. Maybe two cases of the senmurv sculpted
in Northern Dalmatia and connected in the same
cultural and religious sphere as the Slavic gods
Perun and Veles, might further the investigations of
our Russian colleagues.
What is interesting in the context of our
research is that the motif of senmurv appears
twice in the opus of the same workshop (Master
of Zadar Ambos) and as a part of the chancel
screen of a church building. This could not
be possible if the motif did not have some
deeper symbolic meaning besides being just a
decorative motif borrowed from ancient Iran.
Comparetti has already stated the peculiarity of
the appearance of senmurv (or pseudo-senmurv)
in the religious context of the Christians, which
is not the case in the Islamic cultural sphere, but
he also warned that any religious implications
of the motif can only remain hypothetical, due
to the lack of comparative examples and written
sources [Comparetti, 2016, p. 18].
The two examples of senmurv in Rab and
Neviđane are the only ones known to us depicted in
accordance to a typical Sasanian iconography (with
hybrid creatures, that can if needed be understood
in a Christian way, such as in Neviđane and Rab
lapidarium and some are still not clearly identied,
for example on ciborium of the Rab cathedral. This
returns us to the depictions of senmurv and their
possible meanings.
IV
This interpretation of the Slavic warrior god
Perun by A. Milošević made us investigate the
meanings of our senmurv following the course of
pagan, more precisely, Slavic mythology, taking
into account the complexity of its recreation.
We have already stated the Iranian origins of the
motif, but we would also like to point to the ideas
of several researchers who have emphasized the
North Iranian origins of several gods in Slavic,
to be more precise, Eastern Slavic pantheon. In
the Laurentian version of The Russian Primary
Chronicle in the year 980, the gods forming the
pantheon of Vladimir’s state were: Perun, Khors,
Dazhbog, Stribog, Mokosh and Simargl. From
the listed, Zarko as North-Iranian emphasized
the origins of Khors and Simargl [Zaro, 1999,
p. 67–68]. Certain researchers (Trever, Rybakov,
Vasiliev) have connected the Iranian Senmurv (or
Simurgh) to Vladimir’s Simargl, the latter being
the Slavic borrowing of a Western-Iranian deity.
M. A. Vasiliev, who analyzed the Simargl from a
historiographical and etymological point of view,
did the most extensive research. At the end of the
19th c. and the beginning of the 20th theories appeared
that Simargl was actually a double deity: Sim and
Regl or that he was actually Jarilo [Vasiliev, 1999].
Since the publication of the K. Trever’s study in
1933, the theory that the deity Simargl had western-
Iranian roots and that he actually represents
Senmurv/Simurgh has become prevalent. Soviet
archaeologist B. A. Rybakov has expanded the
ndings of Trever by suggesting the function of the
Simargl within the Vladimir’s pantheon as the deity
connected with the nature, growth, and fertility
[Rybakov, 1967]. Rybakov even interpreted the
decorative motif of the winged dog on the 12th-
century bracelets as Simargl (which was in later
times replaced by the deity Pereplut). Today, this
identication seems largely unsupported, although
Trever’s theory of the Iranian roots of Simargl is
accepted. Vasiliev analyzes the ancient sources in

M. JURKOVIĆ, P. KRLEŽA
292
the very sophisticated representation of a unicorn
based on patristic literature, the depiction of
ambivalent narratives as the one in Pridraga, the
use of hybrid animals that can work in Christian
and pagan surroundings with dierent meanings
as well as the use of phalluses in remembering
Silvanus’ cult or possibly even Slavic phallic
cults, gives us plenty of data to understand the
commissioner – an intellectual, very educated
and very pragmatic (we really doubt that there
was more than one mentor to The Master of the
Zadar Ambos). This is the only way to understand
the fragmentary scenery of these liturgical
furnishings, speaking to Christians as well as
pagans. The senmurvs of the same workshop may
probably have also acquired a symbolic meaning
that was acceptable from both pagan and Christian
point of view, hence their (unusual) position on a
chancel panel screen. However, this is a hypothesis
that demands further research, but maybe the key
lies in tracing the possible ties between the Slavic
world and ancient Iranian religion in greater detail,
with Vladimir’s Simargl being one of the “clues”.
dog’s head, protruding tongue, wings, lion paws a
long tail of a peacock), in Early Medieval art of
the West that are placed in such a prominent place
in the church; other examples, such as the ones on
the Preslav diadem and the Theophanu cross are
depicted on portable objects; whereas the examples
of the composite creature as a whale in the story of
Jonas (like on the medieval ambos from Campagnia,
among others) are, to follow S. Riccioni’s
conclusions, mutations of the sea-creature ketos
originating from the Classical Antiquity, with the
dubious inuence of the Sasanian senmurv.
Senmurv, or Simurgh, as a mythological bird
may have connections with the deity Simargl
from the pantheon of the Prince Vladimir, with
researchers such as Trever, Rybakov, or Vasiliev
emphasizing its (northern)-Iranian roots. Although
it is not known how Simargl was depicted, the fact
that we know of its possible Iranian roots allows
us to bring up some of our own ideas about the
Croatian senmurvs.
The depicting of nude and semi-nude
representatives of the elites in church interior,
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ančić M. Zadarska biskupija u okviru Splitske
metropolije od 805. do 1154. godine. Ars
Adriatica, 2017, vol. 7, pp. 29–46.
Arkhipova E. I. Arhitekturnyj dekor i skul’ptura
XII veka juzhnoj, jugo-zapadnoj Rusi i Rjazani.
Lifshits L. I. (Ed.). Istorija russkogo iskusstva.
Vol. 2. Part 2. Iskusstvo vtoroj poloviny XII
veka. Moscow, State Institute for Art Studies
Publ., 2015, pp. 306–353 (in Russian).
Asutay-Eenberger N. Die Theophilos-Türme in
den Blachernen und der Senmurw. AsutayEen 
berger N., Daim F. (Hrsg.). Sas anidische Spu
ren in der byzantinischen, kaukasischen und
islami schen Kunst und Kultur [Sasanian Ele
ments in Byzantine, Caucasian and Islamic Art
and Culture]. Mainz, Verlag des Römisch-Ger-
manischen Zen tralmuseums, 2019, pp. 143–154.
Basić I., Jurković M. Prilog opusu Splitske klesar -
ske radionice kasnog VIII. stoljeća. Starohrvats
ka prosvjeta, 2011, vol. III, No. 38, pp. 149–185.
Becker U. The Continuum encyclopedia of sym
bols. New York, Continuum, 1994, 368 p.
Beuckers K.G. Die Ezzonen und ihre Stiftungen:
eine Untersuchung zur Stiftungstätigkeit im 11.
Jahrhundert. Münster, LIT Verlag, 1993, 295 p.
Bilogrivić G. Ulomak pluteja s prikazom lova
na jelena iz Novigrada i ljetnikovac Werner u
Zagrebu. Radovi Instituta za povijest umjetnosti,
2014, No. 38, pp. 41–50.
Brusić V. Otok Rab: geografski, historijski i
umjetniki pregled. Rab, Franjevački samostan
Sv. Eufemije, 1926, 196 p.
Coimbra F.A. The symbolism of the pentagram in
west European Rock Art: a semiotic approach.
XXIV Valcamonica Symposium Proceedings,
Art and Communication in preliterate socie
ties. Capo di Ponte, (CCSP/UNESCO), 2011,
pp. 122–129.
Comparetti M. The So-called Senmurv in Iranian
art: A Reconsideration of an Old Theory.
Borbone P.G., Mengozzi A., Tosco M. (Eds.).
Loquentes linguis. Studi linguistici e orientali in
onore di Fabrizio A. Pennacchietti. Wiesbaden,
Harrassowitz Verlag, 2006, pp. 185–200.

THE CROATIAN NINTH-CENTURY SENMURV
AND ITS POSSIBLE TIES TO (EAST) SLAVIC MYTHOLOGY
293
Josipović I. Predromaniki relje na teritoriju
Sklavinije Hrvatske između Zrmanje i Krke
do kraja 9. Stoljeća: Doctoral Thesis. Zagreb,
University of Zagreb, 2013, 865 p.
Josipović I. Il Maestro degli amboni zaratini. Hortus
Artium Medievalium, 2016, vol. 22, pp. 443–450.
Jurković M. La rotonde de Saint-Donat à Zadar et
les églises hexaconques préromanes en Croatie.
Sapin Chr., Jannet M. (Eds.). Guillaume
de Volpiano et l’architecture des rotondes.
Dijon, Éditions universitaires de Dijon, 1996,
pp. 237–256.
Jurković M. Sveti Petar Stari u Zadru i njegova
kripta. Starohrvatska prosvjeta, 1997, vol. 3,
No. 24, pp. 77–90.
Jurković M. Un raro motivo iconograco
sulla scultura altomedievale – i senmurv di
Arbe e Neviđane. Jurković M., Marković P.
(Eds.). Scripta in honorem Igor Fisković.
Zbornik povodom sedamdesetog rođendana
(Dissertationes et Monographiae, 7). Zagreb,
University of Zagreb; Motovun, International
Research Centre for Late Antiquity and the
Middle Ages, 2015, pp. 43–51.
Jurković M. Transformacije povijesnog pejzaža
kvarnerskih otoka između antike i ranog
srednjeg vijeka. Sanader M. et al. (Eds.).
Zbornik I. Skupa hrvatske ranokršćanske
arheologije (HRRANA). Zagreb, FF Press,
2020, pp. 247–269.
Justin Martyr. Dialogue with Trypho (Transl. by
G. Reith). Roberts A., Donaldson J. (Eds.). An
teNicene Christian Library. Vol. II. Edinburgh,
T. & T. Clark, 1885, pp. 85–278.
Kazaryan A., Mykayelian L. Architectural Deco -
rations of Armenian Churches of the 7th
and the 10th–11th Centuries and Their Pre-
sumably Sasanian Sources. AsutayEen ber
ger N., Daim F. (Hrsg.). Sasanidische Spuren
in der byzantinischen, kaukasischen und isla
mischen Kunst und Kultur [Sasanian Ele ments
in Byzantine, Caucasian and Islamic Art and
Culture]. Mainz, Verlag des Römisch-German-
ischen Zentralmuseums, 2019, pp. 75–92.
Milošević A. Slika “Božanskog boja” – likovni
i ikonografski pogled na konjanički reljef iz
Žrnovnice u Dalmaciji. Pleterski A., Vinšćak T.
(Eds.). Perunovo koplje. (Studia Mythologica
Slavica – Supplementa, Supplementum 4).
Comparetti M. La ragurazione della “Gloria
iranica” nell’ arte Persiana e la sua distinzione
dall ucello fenice/simurgh. Archivi di Studi
IndoMediterranei, 2016, vol. 6, pp. 1–32.
Curley M.J. (Transl.). Physiologus. A Medieval
Book of Nature Lore. Chicago, University of
Chicago Press, 2009, 144 p.
Čausidis N. Mythical pictures of the South Slavs.
Studia Mythologica Slavica, 1999, vol. 2, pp.
275–296.
Domijan M. Rab. Citta d’arte. Zagreb, Barbat,
2007, 261 p.
Eyice S. Ein Senmurwenrelief auf einem Turm der
Stadtmauern von Istanbul. Schumacher W.N.
(Hrsg.). Tortulae. Studien zu altchristlichen
und byzan tinischen Monumenten (Römische
Quartalschrift für christliche Altertumskunde und
Kirchengeschichte. Supplementheft, Bd. 30).
Rom, Herber, 1966, pp. 110–119.
Hakobyan Z., Mykayelian L. The senmurv and
Other Mythical Creatures with Sasanian
Iconography in the Medieval Art of Armenia and
Transcaucasia. Comparetti M. (Ed.). Fabulous
Creatures and Spirits in Ancient Iranian
Culture. Proceedings of a Workshop held on
May 3rd 2016 at the Near Eastern Department,
University of California Berkeley. Bologna,
Paolo Emilo Persiani, 2018, pp. 39–76.
Iamanidze N. Georgian reception of Sasanian
art. AsutayEenberger N., Daim F. (Hrsg.).
Sasanidische Spuren in der byzantinischen,
kaukasischen und islamischen Kunst und Kultur
[Sasanian Elements in Byzantine, Caucasian
and Islamic Art and Culture]. Mainz, Verlag
des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums,
2019, pp. 93–106.
Jakšić N. Klesarstvo u službi evangelizacije. Studije
iz predromanike skulpture na Jadranu. Split,
Književni krug – Muzej hrvatskih arheoloških
spomenika, 2015, 607 p.
Jakšić N., Hilje E. Umjetnika baština Zadarske
nadbiskupije – Kiparstvo I (od IV. do XVI. sto lje
ća). Zadar, Zadarska nadbiskupija, 2008, 323 p.
Jarak M. Starokršćanska i ranosrednjovjekovna
skulptura otoka Raba. Starohrvatska prosvjeta,
2010, vol. III, No. 37, pp. 77–109.
Jarak M. Studije o kasnoantikoj i ranosred
njovjekovnoj skulpturi s otoka Raba. Zagreb, FF
Press, 2017, 235 p.

M. JURKOVIĆ, P. KRLEŽA
294
Schleyer W. Arbe, Stadt und Insel. Ein Schatzkast
lein der Natur und Kunst in Dalmatien. Wiesba-
den, C.W. Kreidel’s Verlag, 1914, 180 p.
Sill G.G. A Handbook of Symbols in Christian Art.
London, Cassell, 1975, 256 p.
Tagliatesta F. Iconography of the Unicorn from
India to the Italian Middle Ages. East and West,
2007, vol. 57, No. 1–4, pp. 175–191.
Tertullian. The Five Books Against Marcion
(Transl. by P. Holmes). Roberts A., Donaldson J.
(Eds.). AnteNicene Fathers. Vol. III. Part II.
AntiMarcion. New York, Christian Literature
Publishing Co., 1885, pp. 269–475.
Trever K.V. SenmurvPaskudž, sobakaptica.
Leningrad, Gosudarstvennyj Ermitaž Publ.,
1937, 74 p. (in Russian).
Vasiliev M.A. Jazyestvo vostonyh slavjan
nakanune krešenija Rusi: Religiozno
mifologieskoe vzaimodejstvie s iranskim
mirom. Jazyeskaja reforma knjazja Vladimira.
Moscow, Indrik Publ., 1999, 328 p. (in Russian).
Vežić P. Crkva Sv. Trojstva (Sv. Donata) u Zadru.
Zagreb, Mala biblioteka Godišnjaka zaštite
spomenika kulture Hrvatske, 1985, 64 p.
Vežić P. Sveti Donat – rotonda Sv. Trojstva u Za
dru. Split, Muzej hrvatskih arheoloških spome-
nika, 2002, 144 p.
Vežić P., Lončar M. Hoc tigmen: Ciboriji ranoga
srednjeg vijeka na tlu Istre i Dalmacije. Zadar,
Sveučilište, 2009, 338 p.
Volbach W.F. Oriental Inuences in the Animal
Sculpture of Campania. The Art Bulletin, 1942,
vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 172–180.
Walker D. Textile with Roundels of Elephants,
Senmurvs, and Winged Horses. Evans H.C.,
Wixom W.D. (Eds.). The Glory of Byzantium: Art
and Culture of the Middle Byzantine Era, A.D.
843–1261. New York, Metropolitan Museum of
Art, 1997, pp. 414–416.
Zaro R. Organized Pagan Cult in Kievan Rus’.
The Invention of Foreign Elite or Evolution of
Local Tradition? Studia Mythologia Slavica,
1999, vol. 2, pp. 47–76.
Zuliani F. Il Romanico. Gianfranco F. (Ed.). Arte
in FriuliVenezia Giulia. Udine, Magnus, 1999,
pp. 104–129.
Ljubljana, Inštitut za arheologijo ZRC SAZU,
Založba ZRC, 2011, pp. 17–72.
Milošević A. Tragovi starih vjerovanja u kršćanstvu
ranoga srednjeg viieka [Traces of Ancient Beliefs
in Early Medieval Christianity]. Dubrovnik;
Split, Filozofski fakultet Sveučilišta u Splitu,
Centar “Studia Mediterranea”, 2013, 240 p.
Milošević A. Ostatci naših pretkršćanskih
vjerovanja u okolici Ljubuškog u Hercegovini.
Godišnjak. Centar za balkanološka ispitivanja,
2019, Bd. 48, pp. 249–266.
Neumann H. Symbol. Fahlbusch E., Lochman J.M.
et al. (Eds.). The Encyclopedia of Christianity.
Vol. 5. Leiden, Eerdmans; Boston, Brill, 2008,
pp. 257–264.
Petricioli I. Ulomci ranosrednjovjekovnog ambona
zadarske katedrale. Radovi Instituta za povijest
umjetnosti, 1988, No. 12–13, pp. 25–26.
Petricioli I. Predromanički ambon zadarske
katedrale i srodna skulptura. Jurković M.,
Lukšić T. (Eds.). Starohrvatska spomenika
baština. Rađanje prvog hrvatskog kulturnog
pejzaža. Zagreb, Muzejsko-galerijski centar,
1996, pp. 209–214.
Pliny. Natural History. Vol. III. Libri VIII–XI
(Transl. by H. Rackham). Cambridge, Massachu-
setts, Harvard University Press; London,
Wil liam Heineman LTD, 1967, ix, 616 p.
(The Loeb Classical Library, No. 353).
Prijatelj K. Skulpture s ljudskim likom iz
starohrvatskog doba. Starohrvatska prosvjeta,
1954, vol. III, No. 3, pp. 65–91.
Radić F. Ostanci starohrvatske crkvice S. Mi hovila
u Nevidjanima na otoku Pašmanu. Starohrvats
ka prosvjeta, 1901, vol. VI, No. 3–4, pp. 84–86.
Riccioni S. Dal ketos al senmurv? Mutazioni
iconograche e transizioni simboliche del
ketos dall’Antichità al Medioevo (secolo XIII).
Hortus Artium Medievalium, 2016, vol. 22,
pp. 130–144.
Rybakov B.A. Rusalii i bog Simargl-Pereplut.
Sovetskaja arheologija, 1967, No. 2, pp. 91–116
(in Russian).
Sax B. Imaginary Animals. The Monstrouus, the
Wondrous and the Human. London, Reaktion
Books, 2013, 272 p.

THE CROATIAN NINTH-CENTURY SENMURV
AND ITS POSSIBLE TIES TO (EAST) SLAVIC MYTHOLOGY
295
СПИСОК ЛИТЕРАТУРЫ
Архипова Е.И. Архитектурный декор и скуль-
птура XII в. южной, юго-западной Руси и
Рязани // История русского искусства. Т. 2.
Ч. 2. Искусство второй половины XII в. / Отв.
ред. Л.И. Лифшиц. М.: Государственный ин-
ститут искусствознания, 2015. С. 306–353.
Васильев М.А. Язычество восточных сла-
вян накануне крещения Руси: Религиозно-
мифологическое взаимодействие с иран-
ским миром. Языческая реформа князя
Владимира. М.: Индрик, 1999. 328 с.
Рыбаков Б.А. Русалии и бог Симаргл-Переплут
// СА. 1967. № 2. С. 91–116.
Тревер К.В. Сэнмурв-Паскудж, собака-птица.
Л.: Государственный Эрмитаж, 1937. 74 с.
Ančić M. Zadarska biskupija u okviru Splitske
metropolije od 805. do 1154. godine // Ars
Adriatica. 2017. Vol. 7. P. 29–46.
Asutay-Eenberger N. Die Theophilos-Türme in
den Blachernen und der Senmurw // Asutay-
Eenberger N., Daim F. (Hrsg.). Sasanidische
Spuren in der byzantinischen, kaukasischen
und islamischen Kunst und Kultur [Sasanian
Ele ments in Byz antine, Caucasian and Islamic
Art and Culture]. Mainz: Verlag des Rö-
misch-Ger manischen Zentralmuseums, 2019.
S. 143–154.
Basić I., Jurković M. Prilog opusu Splitske kle-
sarske radionice kasnog VIII. stoljeća //
Starohrvatska prosvjeta. 2011. Vol. III. No. 38.
S. 149–185.
Becker U. The Continuum encyclopedia of sym-
bols / Transl. by L.W. Garner. New York:
Continuum, 1994. 368 p.
Beuckers K.G. Die Ezzonen und ihre Stiftungen:
eine Untersuchung zur Stiftungstätigkeit im 11.
Jahrhundert. Münster: LIT Verlag, 1993. 295 S.
Bilogrivić G. Ulomak pluteja s prikazom lova
na jelena iz Novigrada i ljetnikovac Werner u
Zagrebu // Radovi Instituta za povijest umjetno-
sti. 2014. No. 38. S. 41–50.
Brusić V. Otok Rab: geografski, historijski i um-
jetnički pregled. Rab: Franjevački samostan Sv.
Eufemije, 1926. 196 s.
Coimbra F.A. The symbolism of the pentagram in
west European Rock Art: a semiotic approach
// XXIV Valcamonica Symposium Proceedings,
Art and Communication in preliterate societ-
ies. Capo di Ponte, (CCSP/UNESCO). 2011.
P. 122–129.
Comparetti M. The So-called Senmurv in Iranian
art: A Reconsideration of an Old Theory //
Borbone P.G., Mengozzi A., Tosco M. (Eds.).
Loquentes linguis. Studi linguistici e orientali in
onore di Fabrizio A. Pennacchietti. Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz Verlag, 2006. P. 185–200.
Comparetti M. La ragurazione della “Gloria
iranica” nell’ arte Persiana e la sua distinzione
dall ucello fenice/simurgh // Archivi di Studi
Indo-Mediterranei. 2016. Vol. 6. P. 1–32.
Čausidis N. Mythical pictures of the South Slavs
// Studia Mythologica Slavica. 1999. Vol. 2.
P. 275–296.
Curley M.J. (Transl.). Physiologus. A Medieval
Book of Nature Lore. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 2009. 144 p.
Domijan M. Rab. Citta d’arte. Zagreb: Barbat,
2007. 261 s.
Eyice S. Ein Senmurwenrelief auf einem Turm der
Stadtmauern von Istanbul // Schumacher W.N.
(Hrsg.). Tortulae. Studien zu altchristlichen
und byzantinischen Monumenten (Römische
Quartalschrift für christliche Altertumskunde und
Kirchengeschichte. Supplementheft. Bd. 30).
Rom: Herder, 1966. S. 110–119.
Hakobyan Z., Mykayelian L. The senmurv and
Other Mythical Creatures with Sasanian
Iconography in the Medieval Art of Armenia
and Transcaucasia // Comparetti M. (Ed.).
Fabulous Creatures and Spirits in Ancient
Iranian Culture. Proceedings of a Workshop
held on May 3rd 2016 at the Near Eastern
Department, University of California Berkeley.
Bologna: Paolo Emilo Persiani, 2018. P. 39–76.
Iamanidze N. Georgian reception of Sasanian art
// Asutay-Eenberger N., Daim F. (Hrsg.).
Sasanidische Spuren in der byzantinischen,
kaukasischen und islamischen Kunst und Kultur
[Sasanian Elements in Byzantine, Caucasian
and Islamic Art and Culture]. Mainz: Verlag
des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums,
2019. S. 93–106.
Jakšić N. Klesarstvo u službi evangelizacije.
Studije iz predromaničke skulpture na Jadranu.
Split: Književni krug – Muzej hrvatskih arhe-
oloških spomenika, 2015. 607 s.

M. JURKOVIĆ, P. KRLEŽA
296
und Kultur [Sasanian Elements in Byzantine,
Cau casian and Islamic Art and Culture]. Mainz:
Ver lag des Römisch-Germanischen Zentral-
museums, 2019. S. 75–92.
Milošević, A. Slika “Božanskog boja” – likovni
i ikonografski pogled na konjanički reljef iz
Žrnovnice u Dalmaciji // Pleterski A., Vinšćak T.
(Eds.). Perunovo koplje. (Studia Mythologica
Slavica – Supplementa. Supplementum 4).
Ljubljana: Inštitut za arheologijo ZRC SAZU,
Založba ZRC, 2011. S. 17–72.
Milošević A. Tragovi starih vjerovanja u kršćanstvu
ranoga srednjeg viieka [Traces of Ancient Beliefs
in Early Medieval Christianity]. Dubrovnik;
Split: Filozofski fakultet Sveučilišta u Splitu,
Centar “Studia Mediterranea”, 2013. 240 p.
Milošević A. Ostatci naših pretkršćanskih vjero-
vanja u okolici Ljubuškog u Hercegovini //
Godišnjak. Centar za balkanološka ispitivanja.
2019. Bd. 48. S. 249–266.
Neumann H. Symbol // Fahlbusch E., Lochman J.M.
et al. (Eds.). The Encyclopedia of Christianity.
Vol. 5. Leiden: Eerdmans; Boston: Brill, 2008.
P. 257–264.
Petricioli I. Ulomci ranosrednjovjekovnog ambona
zadarske katedrale // Radovi Instituta za povijest
umjetnosti. 1988. No. 12–13. S. 25–26.
Petricioli I. Predromanički ambon zadarske katedrale
i srodna skulptura // Jurković M., Lukšić T. (Eds.).
Starohrvatska spomenička baština. Rađanje
prvog hrvatskog kulturnog pejzaža. Zagreb:
Muzejsko-galerijski centar, 1996. S. 209–214.
Pliny. Natural History. Vol. III. Libri VIII–XI / Transl.
by H. Rackham. Cambridge, Massachusetts:
Harvard University Press; London: William
Heineman LTD, 1967. ix, 616 p. (The Loeb
Classical Library. No. 353).
Prijatelj K. Skulpture s ljudskim likom iz
starohrvatskog doba // Starohrvatska prosvjeta.
1954. Vol. III. No. 3. S. 65–91.
Radić F. Ostanci starohrvatske crkvice S. Mihovila
u Nevidjanima na otoku Pašmanu // Staro hrvats-
ka prosvjeta. 1901. Vol. VI. No. 3–4. S. 84–86.
Riccioni S. Dal ketos al senmurv? Mutazioni
iconograche e transizioni simboliche del ketos
dall’Antichità al Medioevo (secolo XIII) // Hortus
Artium Medievalium. 2016. Vol. 22. P. 130–144.
Sax B. Imaginary Animals. The Monstrouus, the
Wondrous and the Human. London: Reaktion
Books, 2013. 272 p.
Jakšić N., Hilje E. Umjetnička baština Zadarske na-
dbiskupije – Kiparstvo I (od IV. do XVI. stolje-
ća). Zadar: Zadarska nadbiskupija, 2008. 323 s.
Jarak M. Starokršćanska i ranosrednjovjekovna
skulptura otoka Raba // Starohrvatska prosvjeta.
2010. Vol. III. No. 37. S. 77–109.
Jarak M. Studije o kasnoantičkoj i ranosrednjov-
jekovnoj skulpturi s otoka Raba. Zagreb: FF
Press, 2017. 235 s.
Josipović I. Predromanički relje na teritoriju
Sklavinije Hrvatske između Zrmanje i Krke
do kraja 9. Stoljeća: Doctoral Thesis. Zagreb:
University of Zagreb, 2013. 865 s.
Josipović I. Il Maestro degli amboni zaratini //
Hortus Artium Medievalium. 2016. Vol. 22.
P. 443–450.
Jurković M. La rotonde de Saint-Donat à Zadar et
les églises hexaconques préromanes en Croatie
// Sapin Chr., Jannet M. (Eds.). Guillaume
de Volpiano et l’architecture des rotondes.
Dijon: Éditions universitaires de Dijon, 1996.
P. 237–256.
Jurković M. Sveti Petar Stari u Zadru i njegova
kripta // Starohrvatska prosvjeta. 1997. Vol. 3.
No. 24. S. 77–90.
Jurković M. Un raro motivo iconograco sulla
scultura altomedievale – i senmurv di Arbe e
Neviđane // Jurković M., Marković P. (Eds.).
Scripta in honorem Igor Fisković. Zbornik po-
vodom sedamdesetog rođendana (Dissertationes
et Monographiae 7). Zagreb: University of
Zagreb; Motovun: International Research
Centre for Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages,
2015. P. 43–51.
Jurković M. Transformacije povijesnog pejzaža
kvarnerskih otoka između antike i ranog sred-
njeg vijeka // Sanader M. et al. (Eds.). Zbor-
nik I. Skupa hrvatske ranokršćanske arheo-
lo gije (HRRANA). Zagreb: FF Press, 2020.
P. 247–269.
Justin Martyr. Dialogue with Trypho / Transl. by
G. Reith // Roberts A., Donaldson J. (Eds.). An-
te-Nicene Christian Library. Vol. II. Edinburgh:
T. & T. Clark, 1885. P. 85–278.
Kazaryan A., Mykayelian L. Architectural Deco-
rations of Armenian Churches of the 7th and
the 10th–11th Centuries and Their Presumably
Sasanian Sources // Asutay-Eenberger N., Daim
F. (Hrsg.). Sasanidische Spuren in der byzan-
tinischen, kaukasischen und islamischen Kunst

THE CROATIAN NINTH-CENTURY SENMURV
AND ITS POSSIBLE TIES TO (EAST) SLAVIC MYTHOLOGY
Vežić P., Lončar M. Hoc tigmen: Ciboriji ranoga
srednjeg vijeka na tlu Istre i Dalmacije. Zadar:
Sveučilište, 2009. 338 s.
Volbach W. F. Oriental Inuences in the Animal
Sculpture of Campania // The Art Bulletin.
1942. Vol. 24. No. 2. P. 172–180.
Walker D. Textile with Roundels of Elephants,
Senmurvs, and Winged Horses // Evans H.C.,
Wixom W.D. (Eds.). The Glory of Byzantium:
Art and Culture of the Middle Byzantine Era,
A.D. 843–1261. New York: Metropolitan
Museum of Art, 1997. P. 414–416.
Zaro R. Organized Pagan Cult in Kievan Rus’.
The Invention of Foreign Elite or Evolution of
Local Tradition? // Studia Mythologia Slavica.
1999. Vol. 2. P. 47–76.
Zuliani F. Il Romanico // Gianfranco F. (Ed.). Arte
in Friuli-Venezia Giulia. Udine: Magnus, 1999.
P. 104–129.
Schleyer W. Arbe, Stadt und Insel. Ein Schatzkast-
lein der Natur und Kunst in Dalmatien Wiesba-
den: C.W. Kreidel’s Verlag, 1914. 180 S.
Sill G.G. A Handbook of Symbols in Christian Art.
London: Cassell, 1975. 256 p.
Tagliatesta F. Iconography of the Unicorn from
India to the Italian Middle Ages // East and
West. 2007. Vol. 57. No. 1–4. P. 175–191.
Tertullian. The Five Books Against Marcion /
Transl. by P. Holmes // Roberts A., Donaldson J.
(Eds.). Ante-Nicene Fathers. Vol. III. Part II.
Anti-Marcion. New York: Christian Literature
Publishing Co., 1885. P. 269–475.
Vežić P. Crkva Sv. Trojstva (Sv. Donata) u Zadru.
Zagreb: Mala biblioteka Godišnjaka zaštite
spomenika kulture Hrvatske, 1985. 64 s.
Vežić P. Sveti Donat – rotonda Sv. Trojstva u Zadru.
Split: Muzej hrvatskih arheoloških spomenika,
2002. 144 s.

M. JURKOVIĆ, P. KRLEŽA
298
Fig. 1. Political map of the Eastern Adriatic as in year 812, with the localities where works of
The Master of the Zadar Ambos have been attested (as until 2019) (drawn by I. Kranjec).

THE CROATIAN NINTH-CENTURY SENMURV
AND ITS POSSIBLE TIES TO (EAST) SLAVIC MYTHOLOGY
299
è
Fig. 2. Zadar cathedral, The Master of the Zadar Ambos, first decade of the 9th c.:
a – fragment of the ambo; b – fragment of a screen slab (photo by I. Josipovic).
è
è
Fig. 3. St. Chrysogonus in Zadar (presumably), The Master of the Zadar Ambos,
first decade of the 9th c.:
1 – fragments of the ambo (photo by I. Josipovic); 2 – altar screen slab from the same
church [Radic, 1901, p. 84].

M. JURKOVIĆ, P. KRLEŽA
300
è
Šćer
Fig. 4. Ciborium, Rab cathedral,
The Master of the Zadar Ambos,
first decade of the 9th c.
(photo by M. Scerbe).
Fig. 5. Fragment of a screen slab, Rab cathedral
(presumably), The Master of the Zadar Ambos,
first decade of the 9th c. [Schleyer, 1914, p. 117].
Fig. 6. St. Martin in Pridraga, The Master of the Zadar Ambos, first decade of the 9th c.:
a–e – fragments of an altar screen (photo by I. Josipovic).

THE CROATIAN NINTH-CENTURY SENMURV
AND ITS POSSIBLE TIES TO (EAST) SLAVIC MYTHOLOGY
301
Fig. 7. Arcade of the ciborium depicting a unicorn in a rectangular frame, Rab cathedral,
The Master of the Zadar Ambos, first decade of the 9th c. (photo by Z. Alajbeg).
Fig. 8. Arcade of the ciborium depicting a beast (possibly a manticore), Rab cathedral,
The Master of the Zadar Ambos, first decade of the 9th c. (photo by Z. Alajbeg).

M. JURKOVIĆ, P. KRLEŽA
Ž
Fig. 9.
a – Senmurv, Taq-e Bostan, Iran, 6th–7th c. [Comparetti 2006, p. 196, fig. 2]; b – Silk textile
with a senmurv, Florence, Museo Nazionale del Bargello, 6th–7th c. [Riccioni, 2016, fig. 20].
Fig. 10. Senmurv, Tower 16 of the so-called
Theophilus Complex in the Blachernae Palace,
Constantinople, after 829 [Eyice, 1966, Tab. 27a].
Fig. 11. Divine Battle between Perun and Veles,
Zrnovnica near Split, 8th c. (photo by Z. Alajbeg).

370
СВЕДЕНИЯ ОБ АВТОРАХ
Артамонов Тимофей Юрьевич, аспирант
Центра источниковедения истории России
Института российской истории Российской
академии наук (Москва, Россия), e-mail:
tartamonov@yandex.ru
Артамонов Юрий Александрович, канди-
дат исторических наук, доцент, начальник
кафедры истории государства и права Мо-
сковского университета МВД России имени
В. Я. Кикотя, старший научный сотрудник
Института российской истории Россий-
ской академии наук, научный сотрудник
Института всеобщей истории Российской
академии наук (Москва, Россия), e-mail:
artamonov5@yandex.ru
Афиногенов Дмитрий Евгеньевич, доктор
филологических наук, ведущий научный со-
трудник Института всеобщей истории Рос-
сийской академии наук, профессор кафедры
византийской и новогреческой филоло-
гии филологического факультета МГУ им.
М. В. Ломоносова (Москва, Россия), e-mail:
logotheta@mail.ru
Афиногенова Ольга Николаевна, кандидат
исторических наук, заведующая научной ре-
дакцией Восточной агиографии ЦНЦ «Пра-
вославная энциклопедия», доцент кафедры
Истории и теории церковного искусства
Московской духовной Академии (Москва,
Россия), e-mail: helgaharen@mail.ru
Букатов Андрей Алексеевич, кандидат физи-
ко-математических наук, заведующий отде-
лом подводной археологии Государственно-
го историко-археологического музея-запо-
ведника «Херсонес Таврический» (Севасто-
поль, Россия), e-mail: bukat@list.ru
Бутырский Михаил Николаевич, старший на-
учный сотрудник Государственного музея
Востока (Москва, Россия), e-mail: chalkites@
mail.ru
Голофаст Лариса Алексеевна, кандидат исто-
рических наук, научный сотрудник Института
археологии Российской академии наук (Мо-
сква, Россия), e-mail: larisa_golofast@mail.ru
Денисова Елена Алексеевна, старший науч-
ный сотрудник Государственного историко-
археологического музея-заповедника «Хер-
сонес Таврический» (Севастополь, Россия),
e-mail: elden68@mail.ru
Дюженко Татьяна Валерьевна, старший на-
учный сотрудник Государственного историко-
археологического музея-заповедника «Хер-
сонес Таврический» (Севастополь, Россия)
Жилина Наталья Викторовна, доктор исто-
рических наук, ведущий научный сотрудник
Института археологии Российской академии
наук (Москва, Россия), e-mail: nvzhilina@
yandex.ru
Кирилко Владимир Петрович, кандидат
исторических наук, старший научный со-
трудник Института археологии Крыма Рос-
сийской академии наук (Симферополь, Рос-
сия), e-mail: kir.vlad33@gmail.com
Корженков Андрей Михайлович, доктор гео-
лого-минералогических наук, заведующий
лабораторией палеосейсмологии и палео-
геодинамики в Институте физики Земли
им. О. Ю. Шмидта РАН (Москва, Россия),
e-mail: korzhenkov@ifz.ru
Крлежа Палмира, ассистент, философский
факультет, Отделение истории искусств За-
гребского университета (Загреб, Хорватия),
e-mail: pkrleza@zg.hr
Ларьков Александр Сергеевич, научный со-
трудник лаборатории сейсмотектоники и
сейсмического микрорайонирования в Ин-
ституте физики Земли им. О. Ю. Шмидта РАН
(Москва, Россия), e-mail: las119@yandex.ru
Лидов Алексей Михайлович, Академик РАХ,
Институт мировой культуры Москов ского
государственного университета им. М. В. Ло-
мо носова, директор Научного Центра вос-
точнохристианской культуры (Москва, Рос-
сия), e-mail: alidov@gmail.com
Майко Вадим Владиславович, доктор истори -
ческих наук, директор Института археологии
Крыма Российской академии наук (Симферо-
поль, Россия), e-mail: vadimmaiko1966@mail.ru
Моисеев Дмитрий Анатольевич, заведую-
щий музеем Археологии и «пещерных горо-

СВЕДЕНИЯ ОБ АВТОРАХ
371
дов» Бахчисарайского историко-культурного
и археологического музея-заповедника (Бах-
чисарай, Россия), e-mail: ohota_d@ukr.net
Овсюченко Александр Николаевич, канди-
дат геолого-минералогических наук, заве-
дующий лабораторией сейсмотектоники и
сейсмического микрорайонирования в Ин-
ституте физики Земли им. О. Ю. Шмидта
РАН (Москва, Россия), e-mail: ovs@ifz.ru
Олейник Татьяна Владимировна, аспирант
Института археологии Российской акаде-
мии наук (Москва, Россия), e-mail: opus.
spicatum.herringbone@gmail.com
Пономарев Леонид Юрьевич, научный со-
трудник Центра археологических исследо-
ваний Благотворительного фонда «Деметра»
(Керчь, Россия), e-mail: l_ponomarev@mail.ru
Прохорова Татьяна Александровна, канди-
дат исторических наук, заведующая научно-
архивным отделом Государственного исто-
рико-археологического музея-заповедника
«Херсонес Таврический» (Севастополь,
Россия), e-mail: grejpfrut@mail.ru
Роменский Александр Александрович, кан-
дидат исторических наук, научный сотруд-
ник Государственного историко-археологи-
ческого музея-заповедника «Херсонес Тав-
рический» (Севастополь, Россия), e-mail:
pergamen-romen@mail.ru
Туминская Ольга Анатольевна, доктор ис-
кусствоведения, ведущий научный сотрудник
Государственного Русского музея (Санкт-
Петербург, Россия), e-mail: touminskaya@mail.ru
Ховард Джереми, PhD, Сент-Эндрюсский
Университет (Сент-Эндрюс, Шотландия),
е-mail: jch2@st-andrews.ac.uk
Хрушкова Людмила Георгиевна, доктор
исторических наук, профессор, Москов-
ский государственный университет имени
М. В. Ломоносова (Москва, Россия), e-mail:
khrushkoval@list.ru
Чхаидзе Виктор Николаевич, кандидат исто-
рических наук, научный сотрудник отдела
средневековой археологии Института архео-
логии Российской академии наук (Москва,
Россия), e-mail: chkhaidze.v@yandex.ru
Юркович Миленко, PhD, профессор, фило-
софский факультет, Отделение истории ис-
кусств Загребского университета (Загреб,
Хорватия), e-mail: mjurkovi@zg.hr
Юрочкин Владислав Юрьевич, кандидат
исторических наук, старший научный со-
трудник Института археологии Крыма Рос-
сийской академии наук (Симферополь, Рос-
сия), e-mail: yuro4kin.vladislav@yandex.ru
Яшаева Татьяна Юсуфовна, заведующая от-
делом византийской истории Государствен-
ного историко-археологического музея-за-
поведника «Херсонес Таврический» (Сева-
стополь, Россия), e-mail: tatjus2@mail.ru

372
CONTRIBUTORS
Anogenov Dmitrii, DSc (philology), Leading
Researcher at the Institute of World History,
Russian Academy of Sciences; Prof., Dept. of
Byzantine and Modern Greek Philology, Lo-
monosov Moscow State University (Moscow,
Russia), e-mail: logotheta@mail.ru
Anogenova Olga, CSc, Head of the Dept. of
Eastern Hagiography of Ecclesiastical research
center “Orthodox Encyclopaedia”; Ass. Prof.,
Dept. of History and Theory of Medieval Art,
Moscow Ecclesiastical Academy (Moscow,
Russia), e-mail: helgaharen@mail.ru
Artamonov Timofey, Post-graduate Student of
the Department of Source Studies of Russian
History, Institute of Russian History, Rus-
sian Academy of Sciences (Moscow, Russia),
e-mail: tartamonov@yandex.ru
Artamonov Yury, CSc, Ass. Prof., Head of the
Dept. of History of State and Law, Moscow
University of the Ministry of Internal Aairs
of Russia named after V.Ya. Kikot; Senior Re-
searcher at the Institute of Russian History,
Russian Academy of Sciences; Researcher at
the Institute of World History, Russian Aca-
demy of Sciences (Moscow, Russia), e-mail:
artamonov5@yandex.ru
Boutyrski Mikhail, Senior Researcher at the the
State Museum of Oriental Art (Moscow, Rus-
sia), e-mail: chalkites@mail.ru
Bukatov Andrey, CSc (physics and mathemat-
ics), Head of the Department of Underwater
Archaeology, State Museum-Preserve “Tau-
ric Chersonese” (Sevastopol, Russia), e-mail:
bukat@list.ru
Chkhaidze Viktor, CSc, Researcher at the
Insti tute of Archaeology, Russian Acade-
my of Sciences (Moscow, Russia), e-mail:
chkha idze.v@yandex.ru
Denisova Elena, Senior Researcher at the State
Museum-Preserve “Tauric Chersonese” (Se-
vastopol, Russia), e-mail: elden68@mail.ru
Dyuzhenko Tatiana, Senior Researcher at the
State Museum-Preserve “Tauric Chersonese”
(Sevastopol, Russia)
Golofast Larisa, CSc, Researcher at the Insti-
tute of Ar chaeology, Russian Academy of Sci-
ences (Moscow, Russia), e-mail: larisa_golo-
fast@mail.ru
Howard Jeremy, PhD, University of St An-
drews (St Andrews, Scotland), е-mail:
jch2@st-andrews.ac.uk
Jurković Miljenko, PhD, Prof., Faculty of Hu-
manities and Social Sciences, Department of
Art History, University of Zagreb (Zagreb,
Croatia), e-mail: mjurkovi@zg.hr
Khrushkova Ludmila, DSc, Prof., Lomonosov
Moscow State University (Moscow, Russia),
e-mail: khrushkoval@list.ru
Kirilko Vladimir, CSc, Senior Researcher at the
Institute of Archaeology of Crimea, Russian
Academy of Sciences (Simferopol, Russia),
e-mail: kir.vlad33@gmail.com
Korzhenkov Andrey, DSc (geology), Head of
Laboratory of Paleoseismology and Paleogeo-
dynamics, Schmidt Institute of Physics of the
Earth, Russian Academy of Sciences (Moscow,
Russia), e-mail: korzhenkov@ifz.ru
Krleža Palmira, Research Assistant, Faculty of
Humanities and Social Sciences, Dept. of Art
History, University of Zagreb (Zagreb, Croa-
tia), e-mail: pkrleza@zg.hr
Larkov Alexander, Researcher at the Laboratory
of the Seismotectonic and Seismic microzona-
tion, Schmidt Institute of Physics of the Earth,
Russian Academy of Sciences (Moscow, Rus-
sia), e-mail: las119@yandex.ru
Lidov Alexei, Academician of the Russian Acade-
my of Arts, Institute of World Culture of the Lo-
monosov Moscow State University, Director of
the Research Centre for Eastern Christian Culture
(Moscow, Russia), e-mail: alidov@gmail.com
Maiko Vadim, DSc, Director of the Institute
of Archaeology of Crimea, Russian Acade-
my of Sciences (Simferopol, Russia), e-mail:
vadimmaiko1966@mail.ru
Moiseev Dmitry, Head of the Archaeology and
“Cave Towns” Museum, Bakhchysarai His-
torical, Cultural and Archaeological Muse-
um-Preserve (Bakhchysarai, Russia), e-mail:
ohota_d@ukr.net
Oleynik Tatiana, Post-graduate Student of the
Institute of Archaeology, Russian Academy of

CONTRIBUTORS
Sciences (Simferopol, Russia), e-mail: opus.
spicatum.herringbone@gmail.com
Ovsyuchenko Alexander, CSc (geology), Head of
Laboratory of the Seismotectonic and Seismic
microzonation, Schmidt Institute of Physics of
the Earth, Russian Academy of Sciences (Mos-
cow, Russia), e-mail: ovs@ifz.ru
Ponomarev Leonid, Researcher at the Archaeologi-
cal Center of the Demetra Charitable Foundation
(Kerch, Russia), e-mail: l_ponomarev@mail.ru
Prokhorova Tatiana, CSc, Head of Scientic and
Archival Department, State Museum-Preserve
“Tauric Chersonese” (Sevastopol, Russia),
e-mail: grejpfrut@mail.ru
Romensky Alexandr, CSc, Researcher at the State
Museum-Preserve “Tauric Chersonese” (Sevas-
topol, Russia), e-mail: pergamen-romen@mail.ru
Tuminskaya Olga, DSc (arts), Leading Research-
er at the State Russian Museum (St. Petersburg,
Russia), e-mail: touminskaya@mail.ru
Yashaeva Tatiana, Head of the Department of
Byzantine History, State Museum-Preserve
“Tauric Chersonese” (Sevastopol, Russia),
e-mail: tatjus2@mail.ru
Yurochkin Vladislav, CSc, Senior Researcher at
the Institute of Archaeology of Crimea, Rus-
sian Academy of Sciences (Simferopol, Rus-
sia), e-mail: yuro4kin.vladislav@yandex.ru
Zhilina Natalya, DSc, Leading Researcher at
the Institute of Archaeology, Russian Aca-
demy of Sciences (Moscow, Russia), e-mail:
nvzhilina@yandex.ru

374
СПИСОК СОКРАЩЕНИЙ / LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
АДСВ – Античная древность и средние века
(Свердловск/Екатеринбург)
БИ – Боспорские исследования (Симферополь,
Керчь)
БИАС – Бахчисарайский историко-археологи-
ческий сборник (Симферополь)
Бюллетень ИИМК РАН – Бюллетень Инсти-
тута истории материальной культуры РАН
(Санкт-Петербург)
ВВ – Византийский временник (Москва)
ВДИ – Вестник древней истории (Москва)
Вестник ВолГУ – Вестник Волгоградского госу-
дарственного университета (Волгоград)
Вестник ПСТГУ – Вестник Православного
Свято-Тихоновского гуманитарного уни вер-
ситета (Москва)
ГАИМК – Государственная академия истории
материальной культуры
ГИМ – Государственный исторический музей
ГМИИ – Государственный музей изобразитель-
ных искусств им. А.С. Пушкина
ГмМК – Государственные музеи Московского
Кремля
ГОП – Государственная Оружейная палата
ГПБ – Государственная Публичная библиотека
им. М.Е. Салтыкова-Щедрина
ГРМ – Государственный Русский музей
ГТГ – Государственная Третьяковская галерея
ГЭ – Государственный Эрмитаж
ДРВМ – Древняя Русь. Вопросы медиеви стики
(Москва)
ЖМНП – Журнал министерства народного
просвещения (Санкт-Петербург)
ЗООИД – Записки Одесского общества исто-
рии и древностей (Одесса)
ЗРАО – Записки Императорского Русского
ар хео логического общества (Санкт-Петер-
бург)
ИАК РАН – Институт археологии Крыма РАН
ИИАК – Известия Императорской Археологи-
ческой комиссии (Москва)
ИОРЯС – Известия Отделения русского язы-
ка и словесности Академии наук (Санкт-
Петербург/Петроград/Ленинград)
ИТУАК – Известия Таврической ученой архив-
ной комиссии (Симферополь)
КСИА – Краткие сообщения Института архео-
логии АН СССР (Москва)
МАИАСК – Материалы по археологии, истории
античного и средневекового Крыма
МАИЭТ – Материалы по археологии, истории и
этнографии Таврии (Симферополь)
МАР – Материалы по археологии России
(Санкт-Петербург)
МИА – Материалы и исследования по археоло-
гии СССР (Москва, Ленинград)
МОН РК, НАН РК – Министерство образова-
ния и науки Республики Казахстан, Нацио-
нальная академия наук Республики Казах-
стан
НА БИКАМЗ – Научный архив Бахчисарайско-
го историко-культурного и археологическо-
го музея-заповедника
НА ИАК РАН – Научный архив Института ар-
хеологии Крыма Российской академии наук
НА ИИМК РАН – Научный архив Института
истории материальной культуры РАН
НАО ГМЗ ХТ – Научно-архивный отдел Госу-
дарственного музея-заповедника «Херсонес
Таврический»
ОАК – Отчет Императорской Археологической
Комиссии (Москва)
ПВЛ – Повесть временных лет
ПИФК – Проблемы истории, филологии, куль-
туры
ПХХ – Памятники христианского Херсонеса
ППС – Православный Палестинский сборник
(Санкт-Петербург)
ПСРЛ – Полное собрание русских летописей
РА – Российская археология (Москва)
РГБ – Российская государственная библиотека
СА – Советская археология (Москва)
СГИХМЗ – Сольвычегодский государствен ный
историко-художественный музей-заповедник
Сообщения ИППО – Сообщения Император-
ского Православного Палестинского обще-
ства (Санкт-Петербург)
ТГЭ – Труды Государственного Эрмитажа
(Санкт-Петербург)
ТОДРЛ – Труды отдела древнерусской литера-
туры (Ленинград/Санкт-Петербург)
Тр. ГИМ – Труды Государственного историче-
ского музея (Москва)
УІЖ – Український історичний журнал (Київ)
ХСб – Херсонесский сборник (Севастополь)
AnBoll – Analecta Bollandiana (Bruxelles)
BHG – Bibliotheca Hagiographica Graeca / Εd.
F. Halkin. Bruxelles, 1957. Vol 1–3 (Subsidia
hagio graphica, 8a); Novum auctarium Biblio-
thecae Hagiographicae Graecae / Ed. F. Halkin.

СПИСОК СОКРАЩЕНИЙ / LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Bruxelles, 1984 (Subsidia hagiographica, 65)
BHL – Bibliotheca Hagiographica Latina
BiblSS – Bibliotheca sanctorum (Roma)
CSHB – Corpus scriptorium historiae byzantinae
(Bonnae)
MGH SS rer. Germ. N. S. – Monumenta Germaniae
Historica. Scriptores rerum Germanicarum,
Nova series (Berlin)
PG – Patrologiae cursus completus. Ser. Graeca /
Ed. J.P. Migne. Paris, 1857–1866. 161 t.

376
СОДЕРЖАНИЕ
Слово директора ........................................................................................................................... 4
Артамонов Т. Ю.
К вопросу об участии духовенства Древней Руси в военных походах (XI –XIII вв.)................... 6
Артамонов Ю. А.
К вопросу об интронизации архиереев в Древней Руси ........................................................... 13
Афиногенов Д. Е.
Славянский перевод жития св. Евфимия великого как источник по истории
палестинских монастырей XI в. .........................................................................................................................24
Афиногенова О. Н.
Пространные мученичества на основе кратких источников: методика
византийских агиографов ......................................................................................................................................31
Бутырский М. Н.
Иконография Христа Халкитиса: согласование источников .................................................................37
Дюженко Т. В., Букатов А. А.
Грушевидные амфоры XI в. Из подводных находок в портовой части Херсонеса .....................43
Жилина Н. В.
Основные мотивы византийского растительного орнамента и их роль
в христианском искусстве .....................................................................................................................................50
Кирилко В. П.
Храм алуштинского могильника ........................................................................................................................70
Лидов А. М.
Амвон в сакральном пространстве византийского и древнерусского храма .................................88
Майко В. В.
Археологические исследования храма Иоанна Предтечи в Керчи 1956–1957 гг. .................... 107
Моисеев Д. А., Корженков А. М., Овсюченко А. Н., Ларьков А. С.
Сейсмические деформации в стенах храма Ай-Триада (с. Лаки – керменчик, Крым) .......... 126
Пономарев Л. Ю.
Церкви Ени-Кале (последняя четверть XVIII – первая половина XIX в.) ................................... 145
Прохорова Т. А.
Рукопись послушника Матвея Головина как источник по истории создания
монастыря и строительства храма святого Владимира в Херсонесе .............................................163
Роменский А. А.
Грехи и добродетели князя Владимира ........................................................................................................ 192

377
Туминская О. А.
Юродство в русском изобразительном искусстве конца XV –XIX веков .................................... 204
Ховард Дж.
Наглядное «училище» Бурцова: контекстуальный анализ трактовки учения
в букваре Василия Бурцова (1637 г.) ............................................................................................................. 212
Хрушкова Л. Г.
Между классической филологией и раннехристианской археологией:
Россия и Запад ........................................................................................................................................................224
Чхаидзе В. Н.
Новые находки христианских крестов на Таманском полуострове ................................................ 270
Юркович М., Крлежа П.
Изображение сэнмурва в Хорватии IX в. и его возможные связи
с (восточно)славянской мифологией ............................................................................................................. 280
Юрочкин В. Ю., Олейник Т. В.
Средневековый скальный комплекс в ущелье Глубокий Яр в юго-западном Крыму ............. 303
Яшаева Т. Ю., Голофаст Л. А., Денисова Е. А., Моисеев Д. А.
Христианский комплекс на плато Девичьей горы в свете последних
археологических исследований ....................................................................................................................... 318
Memoria ..................................................................................................................................................................... 362
Памяти Татьяны Валерьевны Дюженко. Т. В. Сарапулкина ...............................................................362
Очень музейная история ..................................................................................................................................... 364
Библиография научных работ Татьяны Валерьевны Дюженко.
Составитель Т. А. Прохорова .......................................................................................................................... 366
Отчеты о раскопках и подводных экспедициях, в которых принимала участие
Татьяна Валерьевна Дюженко. Составитель Т. А. Прохорова .........................................................368
Сведения об авторах .......................................................................................................................................... 370
Список сокращений .......................................................................................................................................... 374

378
CONTENTS
Director’s Word .............................................................................................................................. 4
Artamonov T.
To the Question of Participation of the Clergy of the Ancient Rus’ in Military Campaigns
(11th–13th centuries) ........................................................................................................................... 6
Artamonov Yu.
On the Enthronement of Church Hierarchs in Old Rus .................................................................. 13
Anogenov D.
Slavonic Translation of the Life of St Euthymios the Great as Source on the History
of Palestinian Monasteries of the 11th c. ........................................................................................ 24
Anogenova O.
Expanded Passions Based on Concise Sources: Methods of Byzantine Hagiographers ................ 31
Boutyrski M.
The Iconography of Icon “Christ Chalkites”: Reconciliation of Sources ....................................... 37
Dyuzhenko T., Bukatov A.
The Pear-Shaped 11th Century Amphorae from Underwater Finds in the Port of Chersoneses ..... 43
Zhilina N.
Early Motives of the Byzantine Plant Ornament and Their Role in Christian Art ......................... 50
Kirilko V.
The Temple of Alushta’ Burial Ground .......................................................................................... 70
Lidov A.
The Ambo in the Sacred Space of Byzantine and Medieval Russian Churches ............................. 88
Maiko V.
Archaeological Researches of the Temple of John the Forerunner in Kerch in 1956–1957 ........ 107
Moiseev D., Korzhenkov A., OvsyuchenkoA., Larkov A.
Seismic Deformation in the Walls of Ai-Triada Church .............................................................. 126
Ponomarev L.
Yeni-Kale Churches (Last Quarter of the 18th – First Half of the 19th Century) ........................... 145
Prokhorova T.
The Manuscript of the Novice Matvey Golovin as a Source for the History of the Monastery
and the Church of Saint Vladimir in Chersonesos ........................................................................ 163
Romensky A.
Sins and Virtues of Prince Vladimir ............................................................................................. 192

Тuminskaya О.
Holy Foolishness in the Russian Fine Art of the Late 15th–19th Centuries .................................... 204
Howard J.
Burtsov’s Visual ‘School’ («Училище»): A Contextualising Analysis
of the Representation of Learning in Vasilii Burtsov’s Primer (1637) ......................................... 212
Khrushkova L.
From Classical Philology to Early Christian Archeology: Russia and the West .......................... 224
Chkhaidze V.
New Finds of Christian Crosses on Taman Peninsula .................................................................. 270
Jurković M., Krleža P.
The Croatian Ninth-Century Senmurv and Its Possible Ties to (East) Slavic Mythology ............ 280
Yurochkin V. , Oleynik T. A
Medieval Rock-Cut Complex in Deep Ravine Gorge in South-Western Crimea ......................... 303
Yashaeva T., Golofast L., Denisova E., Moiseev D.
Сhristian Complex on the Plateau of Devichya Hill in the Light of Recent
Archaeological Research ............................................................................................................. 318
Memoria ...................................................................................................................................... 362
In Memory of Tatiana Dyuzhenko. T. Sarapulkina ..................................................................... 362
The True Museum Story .............................................................................................................. 364
Bibliography of Tatiana Dyuzhenko. Compiled by T. Prokhorova ............................................... 366
Reports on Excavations and Underwater Archeological Researchers
in which Tatiana Dyuzhenko Participated. Compiled by T. Prokhorova ...................................... 368
Contributors ................................................................................................................................ 372
List of abbreviations ................................................................................................................... 374

Научное издание
ВЛАДИМИРСКИЙ СБОРНИК II
Материалы международной научной конференции
«III Свято-Владимирские чтения»
ST VLADIMIR’S READINGS II
Materials of the Third International Scientic Conference
“St Vladimir’s Readings”
Ответственные редакторы: В. В. Майко, Т. Ю. Яшаева
Подготовка материалов к печати: Е. А. Денисова
Корректор: Е. А. Денисова
Обложка: М. О. Воронежская
Верстка: С. Н. Меркулов
Подписано в печать 21.12.2020. Формат 70x100 1/16.
Гарнитура Times. Печ. л. 47,5.
Тираж 200 экз. Заказ № G-7729
Издательство ООО «РА “Телескоп”».
299053, г. Севастополь, ул. Вакуленчука, 22,
телефон: (8692) 45-54-24 e-mail: ryn@tavrida.com
Отпечатано в типографии ООО «Буки Веди»
115093, г. Москва, Партийный переулок,
д. 1, корп. 58, стр. 3, пом. 11
+7 (495) 926-63-96, www.bukivedi.com, info@bukivedi.com