HC-backside jpg
(221.22 KB, 1000x673)
Geobitzas jpg
(1.73 MB, 984x992)
Kon jpg
(1.4 MB, 926x935)
>>/26891/
The lower part however - besides a Christ (Pantokrator), 2 archangels and 4 saints - contains three lay figures at the back who are more or less identifiable. One icon says: geobitzas pistos krales Tourkias; the other kon basileus romaion ot porphurogenntos; the third (which isn't on the surface but above the rim, just as well the Pantokrator in front): ikh mienikho pistos basileus romaiono, duk. The shit historians have to deal with.
Ok, so we have a king (krales) and two emperors (basileos). But who are they? The king is of Turks, Byzantian sources oftentimes called Hungarians Turks, that's no problem. The problem is his name, we know not one Hungarian ruler who was called "Geobitzas". Nada. But with a hussar trick this name can be resolved as Géza whom we had a couple, even the father of Stephen I was called Géza. This name however was misspelled in many forms, Geuso, Duso, Jesse, etc. but never Geobitzas.
The emperor on level with Géza is a purple born one, someone whose name starts with Kon. That would be Konstantios or Constantine, they had a few from the latter, the first one is more conspicuous.
The dude above them, certain Mienikho (on exclusion basis this has to be the name) which name is missing from all the lists of Roman emperors, is interpreted as Michael. There is liek a ton of this name too, but when they forgot how to spell Mikhael is beyond me, it's not even a foreign name as Géza (assuming actual Greek/Byzantine artisans made these enamel plates). This icon gives another clue: duk, 10 out of 10 historians says it's short for Doukas which pinpoints Michael VII from 1067-1078 as the subject of this portrait.
Historians were very happy, they got an exact date and to this date they can match a Géza and a Kon: that's Géza I (1074-1077) and either Constantine X Doukas (1059-1067) or Konstantios Doukas (1060-1078, junior emperor).
Awesome huh?
