IN LATE ANTIQUITY EDITED BY ALEXANDER SARANTIS and NEIL CHRISTIE LEIDENBOSTON 2013 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25257-8 CONTENTS VOLUME 8.1 Acknowledgements ........................................................................................ ix List of Contributors ........................................................................................ xi Foreword ........................................................................................................... xvii Alexander Sarantis and Neil Christie Waging War in Late Antiquity .................................................................... 1 Alexander Sarantis Bibliographic Essays War in Late Antiquity: Secondary Works, Literary Sources and Material Evidence ...................................................................................... 101 Conor Whately Military Equipment and Weaponry: A Bibliographic Essay .............. 153 Alexander Sarantis Tactics: A Bibliographic Essay .................................................................... 177 Alexander Sarantis Organisation and Life in the Late Roman Military: A Bibliographic Essay ............................................................................... 209 Conor Whately Strategy, Diplomacy and Frontiers: A Bibliographic Essay ................ 239 Conor Whately Fortifications in the West: A Bibliographic Essay................................. 255 Alexander Sarantis with Neil Christie Fortifications in Africa: A Bibliography Essay ....................................... 297 Alexander Sarantis vi contents 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25257-8 Fortifications in the East: A Bibliographic Essay .................................. 317 Alexander Sarantis VOLUME 8.2 Strategy and Intelligence Information and War: Some Comments on Defensive Strategy and Information in the Middle Byzantine Period (ca. A.D. 6601025) .................................................................................... 373 John Haldon Fortifications and Siege Warfare Fortifications and the Late Roman East: From Urban Walls to Long Walls .............................................................................................. 397 James Crow Siege Warfare and Counter-Siege Tactics in Late Antiquity (ca. 250640) ............................................................................................... 433 Michael Whitby Weaponry and Equipment Late Roman Military Equipment Culture ............................................... 463 J. C. N. Coulston Barbarian Military Equipment and its Evolution in the Late Roman and Great Migration Periods (3rd5th c. A.D.) ................. 493 Michel Kazanski Recreating the Late Roman Army ............................................................. 523 John Conyard contents vii 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25257-8 Literary Sources and Topography Reporting Battles and Understanding Campaigns in Procopius and Agathias: Classicising Historians Use of Archived Documents as Sources .......................................................................................................... 571 Ian Colvin Procopius on the Struggle for Dara in 530 and Rome in 53738: Reconciling Texts and Landscapes ....................................................... 599 Christopher Lillington-Martin Ammianus Marcellinus and the Nisibene Handover of A.D. 363 .... 631 Susannah Belcher The West Imperial Campaigns between Diocletian and Honorius, A.D. 284423: the Rhine Frontier and the Western Provinces .... 655 Hugh Elton The Archaeology of War and the 5th c. Invasions .............................. 683 Michael Kulikowski Controlling the Pyrenees: a Macaques Burial from Late Antique Iulia Libica (Llvia, La Cerdanya, Spain) ............................................. 703 Oriol Olesti, Jordi Gurdia, Marta Maragall, Oriol Mercadal, Jordi Galbany and Jordi Nadal The Balkans The Archaeology of War: Homeland Security in the South-West Balkans (3rd6th c. A.D.) ........................................................................ 735 John Wilkes Military Encounters and Diplomatic Affairs in the North Balkans during the Reigns of Anastasius and Justinian ................................. 759 Alexander Sarantis viii contents 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25257-8 Horsemen in Forts or Peasants in Villages? Remarks on the Archaeology of Warfare in the 6th to 7th c. Balkans ..................... 809 Florin Curta The East Military Infrastructure in the Roman Provinces North and South of the Armenian Taurus in Late Antiquity ........................................ 853 James Howard-Johnston El-Lejjn: Logistics and Localisation on Romes Eastern Frontier in the 6th c. A.D. ........................................................................................ 893 Conor Whately Civil War Wars within the Frontiers: Archaeologies of Rebellion, Revolt and Civil War ....................................................................................................... 927 Neil Christie The Justinianic Reconquest of Italy: Imperial Campaigns and Local Responses ......................................................................................... 969 Maria Kouroumali Abstracts in French ........................................................................................ 1001 Index ................................................................................................................... 1009 Series Information .......................................................................................... 1085 A. Sarantis, N. Christie (edd.) War and Warfare in Late Antiquity: Current Perspectives (Late Antique Archaeology 8.18.2 201011) (Leiden 2013), pp. 493521 BARBARIAN MILITARY EQUIPMENT AND ITS EVOLUTION IN THE LATE ROMAN AND GREAT MIGRATION PERIODS (3RD5TH C. A.D.) Michel Kazanski Abstract Military equipment and, as a consequence, types of combat underwent sig- nificant changes between the 3rd and 6th c. A.D. The Germanic peoples and their neighbours weapons became more appropriate to rapid and close tactical manoeuvres in dispersed ranks. The spread of Germanic weapons within Roman territory and in the Pontic region indicates that the same tactics were employed by the Roman armys barbarian troops and feder- ates. A similar evolution occurred within the armies of the steppe peoples, including those fighting for the empire. The Early Roman armoured cavalry was first replaced by a lighter Alanic cavalry, and then by Hunnic mounted archers. Finally, the light Slavic infantry, with its irregular guerrilla tactics, defeated the East Roman armies and conquered the Balkan Peninsula. During the Late Roman period, the Roman Empire faced two main groups of barbarian peoples across its European borders. The sedentary Germans in western and central Europe inhabited the region named Germania by Roman authors. As well as Germanic peoples, this area included the Celts of the British and Thracian Isles, namely the Carpi. Meanwhile, the Iranian-speaking nomadic people of eastern and central Europe lived in an area named Scythia or Sarmatia by the ancient sources. The Sarma- tians lived on the Hungarian plains, while the Alans inhabited the Ponto- Caucasian steppes. All the nomads living between the Danube and the Caucasus around the 4th c. A.D. were referred to as Alans. Lastly, dur- ing the reign of Justinian (ca. 52765), the empire was forced to confront a third civilisation: an eastern European forest-dwelling people named the Slavs. These three groups had clearly distinctive fighting styles and military equipment. The peoples of Germania were infantrymen, armed predomi- nantly with spears and shields (figs. 13).1 The geographical distribution of shields with bosses, and spurs, is particularly significant. These two 1Raddatz (1985). 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25257-8 494 michel kazanski 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25257-8 features were characteristic of the Germanic and Celtic peoples of west- ern and central Europe, before spreading into the West during the Roman period. The latter development only affected populations undergoing western military influence, such as the Balts (fig. 4) and the Baltic Finns.2 The steppe people, on the other hand, were exclusively horsemen. They did not carry shields, but were often armoured, at least during the first two centuries of our era.3 As for the Slavs, they mostly employed a light infantry, armed with javelins and bows. They clearly preferred guerrilla tactics to all other forms of combat.4 Ancient authors used such military fighting styles as ethnographic markers. It was on this basis that Tacitus, in the 1st c. A.D., classified the Veneti (the Slavs ancestors living on Ger- manias eastern border) as a Germanic people. The Veneti were swift like the Sarmatians and yet fought on foot with shields like the Germans.5 The Germanic Zone It is possible to distinguish three zones of barbarian weapon distribution during the Late Roman period from the archaeological evidence. The first zone comprises Germania, with the Baltic territories of the Baltic and Finnish peoples, and the Black Seas northern and eastern coastal areas which were populated by sedentary barbarians. Weapon finds in male tombs demonstrate these barbarians high level of militarisation. These weapons can regularly be associated with the Przeworsk culture in Poland (see figs. 1 and 2), and with Scandinavian peoples during the Late Roman period.6 There are exceptions to the rule, however: ernjahov tombs north of the Danube and the Black Sea, which belonged to the Goths and their allies, only rarely contain weapons (e.g. fig. 3).7 This is despite the fact that the Goths, one of the main groups living in these regions, were the empires most belligerent neighbours. The importance of war for these barbarian peoples is nevertheless confirmed by the discovery in northern 2Shchukin (1994). 3Hazanov (1971); Nefedkin (2004). 4Kazanski (1999). 5Tac. Germ. 66. 6Raddatz (1985); Godlowski (1992) and (1994); Ilkjaer (1990). 7See Kokowski (1993); Shchukin et al. (2006) 3851. barbarian military equipment 495 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25257-8 Fig. 1The evolution of military equipment within the Prze- worsk culture, periods C1a-C1b (160/80250/70 A.D.). 1: Czarno- cin; 2,3: Dziedzice; 4,11: Opatw; 58: Chorula; 9: Specymierz; 10: Czstkowice. (Godlowski 1992). 496 michel kazanski 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25257-8 Fig. 2The evolution of military equipment within the Przeworsk culture, periods C2D1 (250/60400/410 A.D.). 1: Specymierz; 2,7: Opatw; 35: abieniec; 6: Komorw; 8: Korze; 9,10,12: Dobordzie; 11: Nowa Wie Legnicka. (Godlowski 1992). barbarian military equipment 497 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25257-8 Fig. 3Some tombs of the ernjahov culture. 1: Mogoani, tomb 15; 2: Trgor, tomb 147; 3: Belenkoe, tomb 6; 4: Oselivka, tomb 70. Scalesa: 1,2; b: 3,4,6,8,11,12; c: 57,9,10; d: 1417; e: 2834; f: 1921; g: 2227. (Shchukin et al. 2006). 498 michel kazanski 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25257-8 Fig. 4Evolution of the military equipment of the eastern Balts civilisation. A: period C1a (160/80210/30 A.D.); B: periods C1a lateC1b (200250/70 A.D.); C: periods C1bC3 (220/30350/70 A.D.); D: periods C3D1 (300/320400/410 A.D.). (Godlowski 1994). barbarian military equipment 499 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25257-8 Fig. 5Shields from Thorsberg. (Raddatz 1987). Europe of the sacrificial deposition of weapons in peat bogs, including Illerup, Thorsberg (e.g. figs. 5 and 6) and Ejsbl.8 Archaeological funerary evidence, confirming information provided by written sources, shows that the majority of Germanic infantrymen carried spears and shields during the Late Roman and earlier periods. In fact, bar- barian infantrymen during the Roman period resemble those of even earlier periods (the La Tne period, during the last centuries B.C.), but with lighter equipment. Their spears, numerous of which have been found in funerary and sacrificial contexts, are generally en feuille (leaf-shaped) (e.g. figs. 3.2, 19).9 For instance, a series of relatively narrow leaf-shaped spearheads 8Von Carnap-Bornheim and Ilkjr (19901996); Raddatz (1987); rsnes (1988). 9For example, Kaczaowski (1995); Ilkjaer (1990). 500 michel kazanski 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25257-8 Fig. 6Coat of mail from Thorsberg. (Raddatz 1987). barbarian military equipment 501 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25257-8 have been identified in areas occupied by the Balts10 (fig. 2.7).11 Slender spearseffectively pikesalso appear (fig. 2.8) in Late Roman Scandina- via and central Europe.12 These spearheads mostly have two brackets, but in a minority of cases only possess one. The shields of Germanic groups were circular and made of wood (fig. 5). They were smaller than those dating from the La Tne period and had a metallic boss with a circular cap (see examples figs. 15).13 Older bosses with semi-circular caps, dating back to the Early Roman Empire (figs. 1.7, 4.8), are reminiscent of Roman shield bosses which were used to deflect missile weapons. These declined in number during the 3rd c. A.D. Instead, conical and pointed bosses, which already existed during the Early Roman period, became more prevalent during the Late Roman period.14 Some bosses possessed a needle (figs. 1.1,2, 4.1,2) which was designed for use during hand-to-hand fighting, when the sufficiently light and easily manageable shield could be used to push away or strike an enemy. Shield handles were made of iron, with fan-shaped ends (figs. 1.3,6,9, 2.4,5, 3.6,16). Asymmetrical axes with narrow bodies and simple edges were particu- larly common during the Late Roman period. Numerous axes have been found in the tombs of Germanic groups in western Germania and further east in the Elbe region. They have also been attested elsewhere, in eastern and northern Germanic contexts.15 West German axes were sometimes slightly curved, prefiguring the Merovingian francisca, while east German axes were mostly straight-bodied. It may thus be concluded that in this period, axes, along with spears and shields, made up the kit of the average Germanic infantry warrior. Third to 5th c. A.D. swords were longer than those of the Early Roman Empire (figs. 1.10,11, 2.6,10, 3.20, 4.11,17)16 and have more in common with those used during the La Tne period. A considerable proportion of sword finds are of Roman origin, something shown, for instance, by peat bog discoveries. The distribution of long swords indicates that they were used during dispersed combat rather than in tightly-formed ranks. During the 5th c., swords with solid iron hilts which derived from eastern Europe 10For example, Engelhardt (1867) pl. 2.5. 11Compare this with Kazakeviius (1988) 41. 12Notably Ilkjaer (1990) 7985, 16769. 13Zieling (1989). 14For the chronology, see: Godlowski (1992) and (1994); Ilkjaer (1990) 257333. 15Kieferling (1994). 16Biborski (1978). 502 michel kazanski 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25257-8 became prominent among Germanic groups in the Danube area, and in smaller quantities in the West.17 Some swords designed for ceremonial use with rich cloisonn decoration and dating to the same century have been found in barbarian contexts (Beja).18 It is also interesting to note that swords, finds of which are fairly wide- spread in Germanic areas, are comparatively rare in the Balto-Finnish and Baltic zones (however, see figs. 4.11,17),19 even though other elements of Germanic infantry kit have been found there.20 Archaeologists have tended to think that this is reflective of reality given that swords are also completely absent from non funerary contexts in the Balto-Finnish area. Daggers with relatively long single-edged blades were also an important part of Germanic military equipment, especially among Scandinavian Germans (e.g. Ejsbl).21 By contrast, large cutlasses, typical of Germanic equipment during the Early Roman period, disappeared in around the 2nd c. Comparable daggers appeared among the Balts during the Great Migration period.22 Archery equipment was also used by the Germans during the Late Roman period, even though only arrow heads have been found in funerary contexts. The reinforced bow with bone plaques was used by the Roman army, but remains archaeologically unknown among finds of sedentary barbarian groups prior to the 5th c. However, a series of discoveries in the tombs of military chiefs (Bluina, Esslingen-Rdern, Singidumnum IV)23 demonstrate the diffusion of reinforced bows in Germanic contexts during the 5th c. Numerous types of double-hooked barbed arrows typi- cally used by Germanic groups were common. From the era of the Great Migrations onwards, nomadic arrows, which were large and had three fins, appeared in barbarian archers kits in Europe.24 Other types of weapon appear in funerary contexts, but are rarer. Seaxes and broadswords, in other words, oriental, single-edged weapons with short or long blades, which were, in my view, Byzantine, initially show up in princely contexts in Germanic tombs dating to the Great Migration period. Examples include discoveries in the western tombs of 17Menghin (199495) 16575. 18Menghin (1983) fig. 47; Kazanski (2001) fig. 4.712. 19Nowakowski (1994). 20See, in particular, Kazakeviius (1988). 21rsnes (1988) pl. 109. 22Kazakeviius (1988) 99114. 23Tihelka (1963) 48889; Christlein (1972) 26162. 24Kazanski (1991) 13536; Tejral (2003) 506507. barbarian military equipment 503 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25257-8 Altlussheim, Tournai (the Tomb of Childeric) and Pouan.25 These weap- ons were common among Germanic peoples living in the Danube area in the Hunnic period.26 Changes in the shape of shield bosses and swords and the distribution of axes and seaxes demonstrate the growing role of hand-to-hand combat during the Late Roman and Great Migration period. The appearance of fortified bows and nomadic arrowheads is undoubt- edly tied to the military influence of nomadic steppe peoples. Defensive equipment, with the exception of shields, was rare, and undoubtedly reserved for the ruling classes. This equipment, fragments of which were discovered in tombs, consisted of scale and lamellar armour and chain mail. The best preserved examples of Late Roman chain mail come from sacrificial contexts in Scandinavian or southern peat bogs (fig. 6). Helmets of Roman origin are exceptional discoveries. Of interest here are helmets from Scandinavian sacrificial sites,27 as well as a helmet of Roman origin, dating to the beginning of the 5th c., from the tomb of a chief, probably a Goth, at Conceti in Romania.28 There were no major changes in cavalry equipment among Germanic groups in the Late Roman period. Spurs, which initially consisted of a short plaque with a large needle (e.g. fig. 4.5), became progressively more arched with a smaller needle (e.g. figs. 4.13,14,21).29 Horse bits comprised a jointed mouthpiece with two rings, or stems, for fixing the bridle. Cavalry was, in fact, relatively unimportant to the sedentary barbarians of Europe: only chiefs and their personal guards had horses available to them. In spite of this, mounted troops did become more common in Germanic armies across the period. The important role played by the Gothic cav- alry in the Battle of Adrianople is of course well known. According to Procopius of Caesarea, in the 6th c., Gothic cavalrymen were mostly lanc- ers, who were, incidentally, rather ineffective when faced by Byzantine mounted archers.30 It is sometimes argued that the Alans had an impor- tant influence on the evolution of eastern Germanic cavalry, although this has never been proved conclusively. Germanic warrior elites are only attested in funerary contexts from the 2nd c. One of the earliest examples is the exceptionally rich, princely 25Kazanski (1991) 13234. 26Tejral (2003) 503506. 27Raddatz (1987) pl. 8691. 28Skalon (1973). 29For this evolution, see: Giesler (1978); Godlowski (1995). 30Procop. Pers. 1.27.2629. 504 michel kazanski 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25257-8 tomb of Muov in southern Moravia, which yielded weapons and spurs an indication of the militarised nature of social power among the Ger- mans during this period. Later on, the 3rd c. tombs of the Hassleben-Leuna chiefs contained silver arrows and spurs. In contrast, tombs of Germanic military chiefs were rare in the 4th c. A notable exception is provided by the high-status grave at Beroun-Zvodi, modern Czech Republic, which yielded many weapons, including a copy of a bronze sword.31 Finally, in the 5th c., the practice of burying military chiefs with only their ceremonial sword became widespread among the Germans in the Danube area. This was undoubtedly the influence of steppe peoples (e.g. Lengyeltti, Lbny, Netin: fig. 7). Swords were sometimes supple- mented by seaxes (Tomb 3 of Vienna-Leopoldau, Szyrmabeseny) and occasionally by bows and arrows (Bluina, Singidunum-IV). These tombs also yielded belt- and scabbard-fittings of which some elements had cloi- sonn decoration (figs. 7.6,15,3033), very much in fashion among 5th c. barbarians.32 Western and northern Germanic elite warrior tombs, such as Childerics, contained panoplies of arms in which the sword played a significant role, prefiguring the funerary practices of military chiefs at the beginning of the Merovingian period.33 Judging from archaeological dis- coveries in Gaul,34 it is worth noting that the Roman armys military equip- ment bore similarities to that discovered in contexts within Barbaricum. One may consequently conclude that West Roman armies, largely made up of German soldiers, adopted the same tactics as the barbarians on the other side of the frontier. It is difficult to understand how barbarian or Roman soldiers, being used to a particular model of warfare, could have changed their way of fighting as soon as they were compelled to fight together in the Roman army. Whatever the case, military equipment found in northern Gallic tombs is closely comparable with that found in Germania. Moving away from Europe to the Black Sea, the military equipment of sedentary Pontic groups was strongly influenced by the martial culture of the steppe nomads during the Roman period. Thus, in the 2nd c., the heavy cavalry of the eastern Crimea and the Taman Peninsula (its capi- tal at Pantikapaion, modern Kerch) made use of the Greek Cimmerian Bosporus spearhead in the manner of Sarmatian and Alan cataphracts. 31Tejral (1999) fig. 14. 32Kazanski (1999a). 33See the examples in Bianchini (2000). 34Bhme (1974) 97114; Kazanski (1995). barbarian military equipment 505 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25257-8 Fig. 7Danubian tombs of military chiefs during the Great Migration period. 119: Lengyeltti; 2034: Lbny. Scalesa: 19; 1316, 35; b: 2; c: 18; d: 17; 17; e: 2123, 30,33; f: 22; g: 34. (Shchukin et al. 2006). 506 michel kazanski 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25257-8 Second to 3rd c. depictions on tombstones or in frescoes from funerary vaults depict horsemenoften cataphracts of Sarmatian or Iranian type who are heavily armoured with long swords, armour, conical helmets and large spears. Their combat technique was also reminiscent of Iranian peoples: the evidence depicts confrontations between groups of heavily armoured horsemen supported by infantry detachments.35 Archaeologi- cal finds indicate that long spathae swords, daggers (those with notches near the handle as in fig. 10.3),36 spears, and bows and arrows, constituted essential military equipment for peoples living north and east of the Black Sea during the Early Roman Empire. The presence in tombs of harness pieces (horse bits and harness trimmings) shows the importance of the cavalry. It should be recalled that during the Roman period, the kingdoms and peoples surrounding the Black Sea formed a network of imperial cli- ents, providing, as it were, the first line of defence for the Pontic frontier of the empire.37 From the 2nd c. onwards, however, European military equipment pro- gressively spread into the Pontic region, in other words, into the Crimea and areas along the east coast of the Black Sea.38 Julius Callisphenus tomb, discovered in the necropolis at Pantikapaion, and dated by its inscriptions to the first half of the 2nd c., yielded a shield boss, which is an exceptional discovery for the pre-3rd c. Crimea.39 Its presence in the tomb suggests a Thracian military influence which auxiliary troops from Rome, then sta- tioned at Chersonesus, spread to regions north of the Black Sea. Indeed, shield bosses in the Pontic region dating to this period are only attested in aristocratic Thracian tombs.40 It is, nevertheless, possible that the custom of shield deposition came from the Hellenised Roman West. In fact, a boss was found in a rich grave at Homs dating to the same period.41 The arrival of Germanic tribes north of the Black Sea during the migra- tion of the Goths and their allies was marked by the diffusion of northern weaponry types in the Crimea. Shield bosses and axes, and sometimes even spurs, are present in the burials of Iranian-speaking peoples living in south-west Crimea (sites of the Inkerman type), namely at Ozernoe, 35Mielczarek (1999); Goronarovskij (2003). 36Soupault (1996). 37Kazanaski (1991a). 38Kazanski (1994); Soupault (1995). 39Shchukin et al. (2006) fig. 8. 40Kazanski (1994) 436. 41Kazanski (1994) fig. 6.9. barbarian military equipment 507 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25257-8 Drunoe, Nejzac, Mangu, Skalistoe III and Sovhoz-10.42 Germanic military equipmentbossed shields, axes, spears of characteristic typesis well represented in necropolises of the Aj-Todor type on the Crimean south coast. These necropolises belonged to a Germanic group which came from the north.43 Bosses dating to the Late Roman and Great Migration periods are also attested in Cimmerian Bosporian necropolises: at Pantikapaion/Bosporus, particularly in aristocratic tombs, and at Staroilovo.44 Certain tombs at Bosporus yielded panoplies of prestigious weapons, in particular, richly decorated polychrome swords and golden bosses,45 as well as polychrome harness pieces.46 A series of bosses and spurs came to light at Tanas, the Greek city at the mouth of the River Don, which was a dependent of the Cimmerian Bosporus (fig. 8). It is nevertheless possible that these weap- ons belonged to the barbarians who destroyed the city in the mid-3rd c.47 In Abkhazia, on the Caucasian coast of the Black Sea (where places such as Tsibilium, apka, Aandra or Krasnaja Poljana are situated), necropolises belonging to client groups of the Roman Empire (Apsilii, 42Kazanski (1994) annexe 2. 43Shchukin et al. (2006) 8183. 44See, for example, Soupault (1995) pl. 4. 45For example, Soupault (1995) pl. 10.4.6.9. 46For example, Shchukin et al. (2006) figs. 82, 93 and 95. 47See the list in Kazanski (1994). Fig. 8Shield boss and spear from Tanas. Plates a: 13; b: 4. (Shchukin et al. 2006). 508 michel kazanski 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25257-8 Fig. 9Military equipment from tomb 61 at Tsibilium-1. (Voronov and enkao 1982). barbarian military equipment 509 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25257-8 Abasgians, Saniges) display a similar evolution in military equipment.48 While the spears and swords found in these graveyards were typical of the Early Roman period, from the 3rd c. onwards, characteristically Germanic shield bosses and axes started appearing in the funerary assemblages. An actual German presence in this area is extremely unlikely. It may thus be supposed that typically German weapons were diffused into these regions by barbarised Roman army garrisons in the coastal fortresses of Sebasto- polis (modern Soukhoumi) and Pitiunt (the modern city of Pitsunda). The distribution of three-finned nomadic arrows demonstrates the concurrent military influence of the steppe peoples. East Roman elite military fashion provided a further influence. This is demonstrated by the presence of cloisonn-decorated Byzantine swords and seaxes in 5th to 6th c. Abkhaze tombs. Tomb 61 from the Tsibilium necropolis, dated towards the end of the 4th or first half of the 5th c., is a good example of the mixture of these influences: in particular, it contains a Germanic bossed shield (fig. 9.4) and an oriental dagger (fig. 9.2) with four attach- ment points for a handle. Byzantine influence also reached the sedentary barbarians of the Black Seas north-east coast. The late 5th c. tombs of Tetraxite Gothic chieftains from the necropolis of Djurso, near the modern city of Novorossik, yielded ceremonial swords of Byzantine origin, as well as swords with sheet metal inlays which might indicate a Hunnic influence (see below).49 The Steppe Zone The second zone of weaponry distribution is the eastern part of Europe, the steppes of Scythia-Sarmatia. During the Roman period, Iranian speak- ing nomadsthe Sarmatians and the Alansdominated these areas. The Alans progressively imposed their name on all of the steppe tribes of the Late Roman period, only the Sarmatians of the Hungarian Plain retaining their original name. The presence of weapons in many of their tombs indicates that the Sarmatian and Alan peoples were highly milita- rised.50 Cavalry equipment was the basis of steppe military parapherna- lia. The frequently-attested long and pointed sword, usually with an iron 48Voronov and Senkao (1982); Soupault (1995). 49Kazanski (2001). 50Hazanov (1971); Nefedkin (2004). 510 michel kazanski 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25257-8 hilt and a long tang for fixing the handle, is the sign of Iranian influence. Older swords dating to the 2nd c. possessed a ring-shaped pommel. These nomadic swords were often accompanied by beads, which are frequently mistakenly named magic pendants (as on fig. 11.2). These were in fact either belt-scabbard attachments or sword-knot endings, in other words, straps for tying the sword handle to a hand. The swords just mentioned were carried Iranian style, tied to the belt, and not in the West Roman style, attached to a shoulder strap. The princely tombs of Brut (Northern Caucasus) yielded examples of ceremonial swords, probably part of an eastern tradition, which had gold sheet scabbards and were decorated in a polychrome style.51 Byzantine swords with large hilts bearing cloisonn decoration were brought to light in the sedentary Alan sites of the central northern Caucasus (Mokraja Balka, Lermontovskaja Skala).52 Daggers are well-attested in funerary contexts. Most noteworthy are the ceremonial daggers from Brut (end of the 4th to first half of the 5th c.), which have iron hilts, cloisonn style decoration and gold sheet scabbards. The tombs of settled northern Caucasian Alans have also yielded daggers with gold and silver sheet scabbards decorated in scale.53 While finds of spears (fig. 10.2) are rare, missile weapons for fighting at a distance played a dominant role in nomadic military equipment culture. Arrow heads usually had three fins, serving to increase the size of the wound they inflicted, and bows were reinforced with bone. Other types of offensive weaponry are rare. Defensive equipment is particularly typical of the first three centuries of our era, as shown by the tombs of Kouban (Gorodskoj, Zolotoe Kladbie). Helmets with lamellar, scale armour and chain mail were abundant, although bossed shields were extremely rare. However, this type of kit became much rarer in the 3rd to 4th c. according to tombs dating from this period. One exception is the lamellar helmet of Roman origin found in the grave of Kipek in the northern Caucasus. This dates approximately to A.D. 300. Iconographic parallels to this helmet are depicted on the Arch of Galerius in Thessalonica, which is of A.D. 298.54 Cavalry equipment from tombs includes horse bits with jointed mouth- pieces, bridal rings and harness trimmings (figs. 10.57). Those dating to 51Gabuev (2000) and (2005) 3342. 52Kazanski (2001). 53For example, Atabiev (2000). 54Kazanski (1995a) 193. barbarian military equipment 511 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25257-8 Fig. 10Military equipment and cavalry equipment from the tomb at Kipek. (Kazanski 1995a). 512 michel kazanski 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25257-8 the Late Roman era present the sort of polychrome decoration typical of the period (figs. 10.5,6).55 Spurs are completely absent from steppe con- texts. Great Migration period harness trimmings bore cloisonn deco- ration, as shown by the finds from Brut.56 The same tombs at Brut also yielded examples of horse whips. Finally, the Alanic tomb of the Hunnic period at Lermontovskaja Skala contained among its furnishings metal saddle fittings, proof that the Alans used hard saddles. Funerary contexts generally impart the impression that Late Roman Alan cavalry was lighter than that of the earlier period. The cataphracts, heavy shock cavalry, which are attested in both written and archaeologi- cal sources for the two first centuries of our era, disappeared towards the 3rd c. and were replaced by faster mounted troops. For the latter, combat at a distance became increasingly characteristic and thus prefigured the appearance of the Hunnic cavalry. High levels of political stratification in the nomadic world can be observed throughout the Roman period: 1st c. princely tombs from Porogi (Ukraine) and Dai (in the Don region), and Late Roman finds at Aero- drom (the Don region) and Kipek (North Caucasus, fig. 10), are particularly noteworthy.57 The discovery of the princely tumuli at Brut in Northern Ossetia, alongside the tombs of sedentary Alan military chieftains in the central Caucasus (Mokraja Balka, Lermontovskaja Skala, Zaragi) provides further evidence for the elite military culture of the Hunnic period.58 The appearance of the Huns in Europe marks the end of Antiquity and the beginning of the Middle Ages. Swift and agile on their steppe horses, the Huns were unpredictable and formidable archers who fought within tightly organised military units. These steppe cavalrymens mobility and superiority in numbers during decisive battles were the reasons for their military success. Only states such as China, Iran and Russia, which pos- sessed professional armies and a developed system of fortifications, were able to withstand them. The Russians, moreover, only conquered the nomadic world in the 16th c., and this was down to the advent of fire-arms. The monstrous Tzar Pushka, the King of Canons, is today proudly com- memorated at the Kremlin. This 39-tonne bronze cannon, dating to the time of Ivan the Terrible, symbolises the beginning of the nomadic worlds 55Malaev (2000). 56Gabuev (2000) and (2005) 3342. 57Kazanski (1995a). 58Gabuev (2000) and (2005) 3342; Atabiev (2000). barbarian military equipment 513 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25257-8 decline. With the power of fire-arms, the Russians conquered the steppes in their vast entirety, from Kazans ramparts on the Volga, crushed on 2nd October 1552, to the ramparts of Geok-Tepe in Turkmenistan, conquered on 12th January 1881. The Mongolian cavalrys quick-march to Beijing on 10th August 1945admittedly flanked by the Soviet armys armoured tankswas the last episode in the long history of the steppe warriors. The offensive component of the Hunnic army consisted of horsemen, each of whom was supplied with two horses in accordance with steppe traditions. Their main weapons were the reinforced bow, and arrows with large heads and three fins (figs. 3, 9, 10). The shape of certain arrows was characteristic of central Asian styles (fig. 11.10). When fired from a fortified bow, this type of arrow could split a plank of wood at 30 m. In combat, a steppe warrior would have been equipped with at least one, if not two, quivers containing 20 to 30 arrows. Every arrow was precious, and Hun- nic warriors would not fire them wastefully. Hunnic offensive manoeuvres were quick and numerous, enveloping enemy flanks and attacking them by surprise from behind. The Huns only ever engaged in direct hand-to- hand combat when in pursuit of a routed enemy. Indeed, without stir- rups, which only appeared in the steppes in the 6th c., these horsemen would have lacked the stability for close combat. Attilas warriors thus preferred to use archery to annihilate their opponents at range. Long swords, discovered in Hunnic funerary contexts (fig. 11.9), were used to cut down enemies who had been dispersed by arrow fire. These swords some- times possessed iron hilts (fig. 11.5). Ceremonial swords, daggers bearing polychrome decoration, and scabbards covered with gold sheeting (figs. 11.1,8), are indicative of the rich military equipment culture of the tombs of military chiefs. Defensive equipment, especially chain mail (fig. 11,7), is rare. Harnesses and riding equipment are often found in steppe tombs from the Hunnic period.59 They include horse bits with jointed mouthpieces, which have rings and stems for tying bridles (figs. 11.13,14). Hard wooden saddles, decorated with sheet metal appliqus have also been discovered (figs. 11.11,12). These saddles provided a stable seat for stirrup-less riders. Jordanes reports that during a difficult moment in the Battle of the Cata- launian Plain in A.D. 451, Attila decided to commit suicide. He ordered his 59Zaseckaja (1994); Anke (1998); Bona (2002); Nikonorov and Hudjakov (2004); Kazan- ski (2012). 514 michel kazanski 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25257-8 Fig. 11Military equipment and Hunnic cavalry equipment. 1: Novo-Ivanovka; 2,4,5,8: Novogrigorevka; 3,10: Kyzyl-Adyr; 6,14: Kubej; 7,9,13: Fedorovka; 11: Mundolsheim; 12: Pecsszg. (Zaseckaja 1994). barbarian military equipment 515 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25257-8 men to gather all of their saddles to form an improvised funerary pyre.60 Even though Jordanes was writing his history at a later date, his testi- mony correlates archaeological evidence, which confirms that cremation was a Hunnic funerary rite. The episode reinforces what we know from the archaeological evidence: that Hunnic saddles were made of wood. Stirrups are entirely absent from Hunnic archaeological sites, as in other nomadic contexts for that matter. Aside from soldiers who were, strictly speaking, Huns, Hunnic armies comprised troops donated by subordinate allies, notably Germanic infantry and Alan cavalry. These were sometimes numerous, as on Attilas expedition to Gaul. Slavic Groups The third group of barbarian peoples under discussionthose of the for- ested areas of eastern Europeappeared on the borders of the ancient world towards the beginning of the 6th c. They were the Slavs: the Sklaveni (who were the real Slavs) and their close kin, the Antae. The Slavs funerary practices did not include the deposition of weapons in tombsarchaeo- logical data is thus confined to the habitation sites of Slavic civilisations attested by the Prague (Sklaveni), Penkovka (Antae) and Koloin (uniden- tified group, related to those of the Penkovka civilisation) archaeological cultures. Other, more northern, forest-dwelling populations, known as the Tuemlja and the Long Kurgans, were either Slavic or Baltic or Balto- Slavonic. According to the archaeological evidence, light weaponsspearheads, javelin points and arrowswere commonly used by Slavic groups.61 This type of equipment suggests that they engaged in military actions that may be categorised as guerrilla warfare, correlating Tacitus testimony regard- ing the 1st c. A.D. ancestors of the Slavs, the Veneti.62 Further, 6th c. authors on the Slavic military, such as Procopius and Maurice, characterised the Slavs first and foremost as light infantrymen, well-adapted to commando style actions or to combat in forested and mountainous terrain. This type of warfare was ultimately rewarded because around 600620 A.D., the Slavsmore or less under the aegis of the Avar Khaganbecame masters of the Balkans following the collapse of the Byzantine defensive system. 60Jord. Get. 213. 61Kazanski (1999). 62For weapons of the Veneti in Late Antiquity, see Kazanski (1997). 516 michel kazanski 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25257-8 The role of the Avars in the conquest of the Balkans was very important and frequently decisive. They had established their domination over the Danubian Slavs during the 570s. From the early 580s, Slavic invasions of the Balkans were in most cases perpetrated in co-ordination with Avar cavalry, and were often in fact initiated by the Avar Khagan. However, Avar involvement in the Slavicisation of the Balkans should not be exag- gerated. From 540 to 550, before the Avars arrived in the Balkans, the Sklaveni had succeeded in devastating the Balkan provinces on numer- ous occasions. Further, the Sklaveni, who started settling permanently in the Balkans from the 580s, were not entirely subordinate to the Avars. For example, in 618, the Slavic tribes living around Thessalonica proposed a military alliance to the Avar Khagan, effectively submitting to him, in order to attack Thessalonica.63 This proves that these tribes had previ- ously been independent of the Avars. Returning to the Slavs military equipment and mode of warfare, we also have written evidence for cavalrymen among the Slavs, who, accord- ing to Procopius, were incorporated by the same Byzantine troop units as the Huns, in other words, units of mounted archers.64 The discovery of steppe-type three-finned arrows (figs. 12.114,1620) and fragments of a reinforced bow (fig. 12.15) at Hitcy, in a building associated with the Penkovka culture, confirms the evidence of Byzantine authors for Slavic cavalry. Of the other pieces of material evidence suggesting steppe mili- tary influence on the Slavs, it is worth mentioning a solid iron dagger hilt from the territory of Velyki Budki (fig. 12.21), and some bone-harnessing rings characteristic of nomadic groups (figs. 12.2224). All of this con- firms, therefore, a significant steppe nomadic influence on Slavic military equipment. Byzantine authors (Procopius and Menander) discuss the military role of Slavic chieftains. The diffusion among Slavic groups of prestigious Byz- antine military belts reinforces the literary evidence for the existence of these military elites. For instance, Matynovkas princely treasure con- tained silver belt fittings.65 The majority of objects of this type brought to light at Slavic sites were made of bronze, however. 63Jord. Get. 213. 64Kazanski (2009). 65Pekarskaja and Kidd (1994) pl. 3135. This has sometimes been wrongly attributed to steppe nomadic groups despite the fact that the treasure clearly contains no steppe-type object and is situated in the middle of the Slavic Penkova culture. barbarian military equipment 517 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25257-8 Fig. 12Pieces of Slavic military and cavalry equipment of nomadic steppe origin (5th to 8th c.). 1: Kolodeznyj Bugor; 2: Hohlov Vir; 3: Tajamnova; 4: Pesanoe; 5: Demjanka; 6: Hotomel; 7: Rakov; 8: Dresden-Schtezsch; 9, 12: Izvoare-Bahia; 10, 14, 19: Davideni-Neam; 11: Sarata-Monteoru; 13: Hutor Miklaevskij; 15: Hitcy; 16: Tarancevo; 17: Novye Bratuany; 18: Ostrov Kyzlevyj; 20: Trebu-eny; 21: Velyki Budki; 22: Voloskoe-Surskaja Zabora; 23: Klementovii; 24: Selite. (Kazanski 1999). 518 michel kazanski 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25257-8 Concluding Remarks It can thus be noted that barbarian military equipment, and consequently modes of combat, underwent notable changes between the 3rd and 6th c A.D. Germanic peoples weapons and those of their neighbours became more appropriate to rapid and close combat in dispersed ranks. The dis- tribution of Germanic-type weapons in the Pontic region and in Roman territory demonstrates that the same tactics were adopted by the bar- barised Roman army and federate, or allied, groups. A similar evolution occurred among steppe nomadic groups. The heavily-armoured lancers of the Early Roman period were replaced by first a light Alan cavalry and then by Hunnic mounted archers. Finally, the Slavic light infantry, fighting in dispersed ranks in a guerilla mode of warfare, defeated the armies of the eastern Empire and conquered the Balkan Peninsula. Bibliography Primary Sources Jord. Get. = Giunta Fr. and Grillone A. (1991) edd. Getica: Iordaniis de origine actibusque Getarum (Rome 1991). Miracles of St. Demetrius = Lemerle P. (1981) Les plus anciens recueils des Miracles de Saint- Dmtrius et la pntration des Slaves dans les Balkans Books I and II (Paris 1981). Procop. Pers. = Dewing H. B. (191468) ed. and trans. Procopius, History of the Wars (Cam- bridge, Mass. and London 191468). Tac. Germ. = Perret J. (1983) ed. and trans. Tacitus, Germania (Paris 1983). Secondary Works Anke B. (1998) Studien zur Reiternomadischen Kultur des 4. bis 5. Jahrhunderts (Weissbach 1998). Atabiev B. (2000) Tombe 118. Zaragij, Naltchik, in LOr des princes barbares. Du Caucase la Gaule Ve s. ap. J.-c., ed. M.-C. Bianchini (Paris 2000) 16265. Bemmann J. (1994) Zur zeitlichen Ordnung von Waffengrbern der jngeren rmischen Kaiserzeit in Norwegien, in Beitrage zu rmischer und barbarischer Bewaffnung in der ersten vier nachchristlichen Jahrhunderten: Akten des 2. Internationalen Kolloquiums in Marburg a.d. Lahn, 20. Bis 24. Februar 1994, ed. C. von Carnap-Bornheim (Lublin and Marburg 1994) 17988. Bianchini M.-C. (2000) ed. LOr des princes barbares. Du Caucase la Gaule Ve s. ap. J.-c. (Paris 2000). Biborski M. (1978) Miecze z okresu wplyww rzymskich na obszarze kultury przewor- skiej, Materialy Archeologiczne 18 (1978) 53165. Bhme H. W. (1974) Germanische Grabfunde des 4. bis. 5. Jahrhunderts zwischen unterer Elbe und Loire (Munich 1974). Bona I. (2002) Les Huns: Le grand empire barbare dEurope IVeVe sicles (Paris 2002). Christlein R. (1972) Waffen aus dem vlkerwanderungszeitlichen Grabfund von Esslingen- Rdern, Germania 50 (1972) 25963. barbarian military equipment 519 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25257-8 Engelhardt C. (1867) Kragehul mosefund 17511865: et overgangsfund mellem den ldre jer- nalder og mellem-jernalderen (Copenhagen 1867). Gabuev T. A. (2000) Mobilier dune tombe de cavalier. Brut, Ossetie du Nord, Russie, in LOr des princes barbares. Du Caucase la Gaule Ve s. ap. J.-c., ed. M.-C. Bianchini (Paris 2000) 13841. (2005) Alanskii vsadnik: Sokrovishcha kniazei IXII vekov (Russian=The Alan Cavalry: Treasures of the Princes 1st13th c.) (Moscow 2005). Giesler U. (1978) Jngerkaiserzeiltiche Nietknopfsporen mit Dreipunkthalterung vom Typ Leuna, SaalbJb 35 (1978) 566. Godlowski K. (1992) Zmiany w uzbrojeniu ludnoci przworskiej w kresie wplyww rzym- skich, in Arma et ollae (Ld 1992) 7188. (1994) Die Chronologie der germanischen Waffengrber in der jngeren und spten Kiaserzeit, in Beitrage zu rmischer und barbarischer Bewaffnung in der ersten vier nachchristlichen Jahrhunderten: Akten des 2. Internationalen Kolloquiums in Marburg a.d. Lahn, 20. bis 24. Februar 1994, ed. C. von Carnap-Bornheim (Lublin and Marburg 1994) 16978. Goroncharovskii V. (2003) Mezhdu imperii i varvarami: Voennoe delo Bospora rimskogo vre- meni (Russian=Between the Empire and the Barbarians: the Military Art of the Cimmerian Bosporous during the Roman Era) (Moscow and Saint Petersburg 2003). Ilkjaer J. (1990) Illeurp dal. 1: Die Lancen und Speere (Aarhus 1990). Kaczanowski P. (1995) Klasyfikacija grotw broni drzewcowejnkultury przeworskiej z okresu rzymskiego (Cracovie 1995). Kazekeviius V. (1988) Oruzhie baltskikh plemen IIVIII vekov na territorii Litvy (Russian=The Weaponry of the Baltic Tribes during the 2nd-8th c. in the Territory of Lithuania) (Vilnius 1988). Kazanski M. (1991) Contribution lhistoire de la dfense de la frontire pontique au Bas- Empire, TravMm 11 (1991) 487526. (1991a) A propos des armes et des lments de harnachement orientaux en Occi- dent lpoque des Grandes Migrations (IVe-Ve s.), JRA 4 (1991) 12339. (1994) Les perons, les umbo, les manipules de boucliers et les haches de lpoque romaine tardive dans la rgion pontique: origine et diffusion, in Beitrage zu rmischer und barbarischer Bewaffnung in der ersten vier nachchristlichen Jahrhunderten: Akten des 2. Internationalen Kolloquiums in Marburg a.d. Lahn, 20. bis 24. Februar 1994, ed. C. von Carnap-Bornheim (Lublin and Marburg 1994) 42985. (1995) Lquipement et le matriel militaires au Bas-Empire en Gaule du Nord et de lEst, Revue du Nord-Archologie 77 (1995) 3754. (1995a) Les tombes des chefs alano-sarmates au IVe sicle dans les steppes pon- tiques, in La noblesse romaine et chefs barbares du IIIe au VIIe sicle, edd. F. Vallet and M. Kazanski (Saint-Germain-en-Laye 1995) 189205. (1997) Oroozhiye Kiyevskoy kooltoori (Russian=The weaponry of the Kiev civilisa- tion), in Pamyatniki starini, kontsyeptsii, otkritiya, vyersii. Pamyati Vasiliya Dmitriyevi- cha Byelyetskogo, 19191997 (Russian=Ancient Monuments, Conceptions, Discoveries and Versions. In Memory of Vassily Dmitrievitch Beletsky, 19191997) (Saint Petersburg and Pskov 1997) 26269. (1999) Larmement slave du haut Moyen-Age (VeVIIe sicles). A propos des chefs militaires et des guerriers professionnels chez les anciens Slaves, Pehled vzkum 39 (1999) 197236. (1999a) Les tombes des chefs militaires de lpoque hunnique, in Germanen beider- seits des sptantiken Limes, edd. T. Fischer, G. Precht and J. Tejral (Cologne and Brno 1999) 293316. (2001) Les pes orientales garde cloisonne du VeVIe sicle, in International Connections of the Barbarians in the 1st5th Centuries A.D., edd. E. Istvnovits and V. Kulcsr (Aszod and Nyiregyhaza 2001) 389418. (2009) La cavalerie slave lpoque de Justinien, Archaeologia Baltica 11 (2009) 22939. 520 michel kazanski 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25257-8 (2012) Les armes et les techniques de combat des guerriers steppiques du debut du Moyen-age. Des Huns aux Avars, in Le cheval dans les socits antiques et mdivales, ed. S. Lazaris (Turnhout 2012) 19399, 28796. Khazanov A. M. (1971) Ocherki voennogo dela sarmatov (Russian=Studies on the Military Art of the Sarmatians) (Moscow 1971). Kieferling G. (1994) Bemerkungen zu xten der rmischen Kaiserzeit und der frhen Vlkerwanderungszeit im mitteleuropischen Barbaricum, in Beitrage zu rmischer und barbarischer Bewaffnung in der ersten vier nachchristlichen Jahrhunderten: Akten des 2. Internationalen Kolloquiums in Marburg a.d. Lahn, 20. bis 24. Februar 1994, ed. C. von Carnap-Bornheim (Lublin and Marburg 1994) 33556. Kokowski A. (1993) Lart militaire des Goths lpoque romaine tardive (daprs les don- nes archologiques), in Larme romaine et les barbares du IIIe au VIIe sicle, edd. F. Vallet and M. Kazanski (Saint-Germain-en-Laye 1993) 33554. Malashev V. Iu. (2000) Periodizaciia remennyk garniture pozdnesarmatskogo vremeni (Russian=The periodisation of belt fittings in the Late Sarmatian period), in Sarmaty i ikh sosedi na Donu (Russian=The Sarmatians and their Neighbours on the River Don), ed. Ju. Guguev (Rostov-na-Don 2000) 194232. Menghin W. (1983) Das Schwert im frhen Mittelalter (Stuttgart 1983). (199495) Schwerter des Goldgriffspathenhorizonts im Museum fr Vor- und Frh- geschichte, Berlin, Acta Praehistorica et Archaeologica 26/27 (199495) 14091. Mielczarek M. (1999) The Army of the Bosporan Kingdom (Ld 1999). Nefedkin A. K. (2004) Pod znamenem drakona: Voennoe delo sarmatov do II v. do n. e.-V v. n. e. (Russian=Under the Curtain of the Dragon: the Military Art of the Sarmatians 2nd to 5th c. A.D.) (Moscow and Saint Petersburg 2004). Nikonorov V. P. and Khudiakov Iu. S. (2004) Svistialishche strely Maoduna i Marsov mech Attily (Russian=The Whizzing Arrows of Maodun and the Sword of Mars of Attila) (Mos- cow and Saint Petersburg 2004). Nowakowski V. (1994) Krieger ohne Schwerter Die Bewaffnung der Aestii in der Rmis- chen Kaiserzeit, in Beitrage zu rmischer und barbarischer Bewaffnung in der ersten vier nachchristlichen Jahrhunderten: Akten des 2. Internationalen Kolloquiums in Marburg a.d. Lahn, 20. bis 24. Februar 1994, ed. C. von Carnap-Bornheim (Lublin and Marburg 1994) 37993. rsnes M. (1988) Ejsbl I: Waffenopferfunde des 4.5. Jahrh. nach Chr. (Copenhagen 1988). Pekarskaja L. and Kidd D. (1994) Der Silberschatz von Martynovka (Ukraine) aus dem 6. und 7. Jahrhundert (Innsbruck 1994). Raddatz K. (1985) Die Bewaffnung der Germanen vom letzten Jahrhundert v. Chr. bis zur Vlkerwanderungszeit, ANRW 2.12.3 (Berlin and New York 1985) 281361. (1987) Der Thorsberger Moorfund: Katalog: Teile von Waffen und Pferdgeschirr (Offa- Bcher-65) (Neumnster 1987). Shchukin M. B. (1994) Shields, swords and spears as evidence of Germanic-Sarmatian contacts and Barbarian-Roman relations, in Beitrage zu rmischer und barbarischer Bewaffnung in der ersten vier nachchristlichen Jahrhunderten: Akten des 2. Internationalen Kolloquiums in Marburg a.d. Lahn, 20. bis 24. Februar 1994, ed. C. von Carnap-Bornheim (Lublin and Marburg 1994) 48595. Shchukin M., Kazanski M. and Sharov O. (2006) Des Goths aux Huns: Le Nord de la Mer Noire au Bas-Empire et lpoque des Grandes Migrations (BAR International Series 1535) (Oxford 2006). Skalon K. M. (1973) Der Helm von Conceti, in Sptrmische Gardenhelme, ed. H. Klum- bach (Munich 1973) 9194. Soupault V. (1995) Les tombes pe au nord-est et lest de la mer Noire au Bas-Empire, in La noblesse romaine et chefs barbares du IIIe au VIIe sicle, edd. F. Vallet and M. Kazan- ski (Saint-Germain-en-Laye 1995) 22757. (1996) A propos de lorigine et de la diffusion des poignards et pes encoches (IVeVIIe s.), Matyeriali po Arhyeologii, Istorii i Etnografii Tavrii 5 (1996) 6076. barbarian military equipment 521 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25257-8 Tejral J. (1999) Die sptantiken militrischen Eliten beiderseits der norisch-pannonischen Grenze aus der Sicht der Grabfunde, in Germanen beiderseits des sptantiken Limes, edd. T. Fischer, G. Precht and J. Tejral (Cologne and Brno 1999) 21892. (2003) Neue Erkentnisse zur Frage der donaulandisch-ostgermanischen Krieger- beziehungsweise Mnnergrber des 5. Jahrhunderts, Fundberichte aus sterreich 41 (2003) 496524. Tihelka K. (1963) Knec hrob z obdob sthovn nrod u Bluiny, okr; Brno-Venkov, Pamtky Archeologick 65/2 (1963) 46798. Von Carnap-Bornheim C. and Ilkjr J. (199096) Illerup dal (Aarhus 199096), Bd. 18. Voronov Iu. N. and henkao N. K. (1982) Vooruzhenie voinov Abkhazii IVVII vv. (Russian=The military equipment of the Abkhazian peoples during the 4th to 7th c. A.D.), in Drevnosti epokhi velikogo pereseleniia narodov VVIII vv. (Russian=Antiquities of the Era of the Great Migrations, during the 5th to 8th c.), edd. A. K. Ambroz and I. Erdelyi (Moscow 1982) 12164. Zaseckaia I. P. (1994) Kultura kochevnikov iuzhnorusskikh stepei v gunnskogo epokhu (konec IVV vv.) (Russian=The Nomadic Civilisation of the Steppes in the South of Russia during the Hunnic era (Late 4th to 5th c.)) (Saint Petersburg 1994). Zielung N. (1989) Studien zu germanischen Schilden der Sptlatne und der rmischen Kai- serzeit im freien Germanien (BAR International Series 505) (Oxford 1989). List of Figures Fig. 1The evolution of military equipment within the Przeworsk culture, periods C1a-C1b (160/80250/70 A.D.). 1: Czarnocin; 2,3: Dziedzice; 4,11: Opatw; 58: Chorula; 9: Specy- mierz; 10: Czstkowice. (Godlowski 1992). Fig. 2The evolution of military equipment within the Przeworsk culture, periods C2D1 (250/60400/410 A.D.). 1: Specymierz; 2,7: Opatw; 35: abieniec; 6: Komorw; 8: Korze; 9,10,12: Dobordzie; 11: Nowa Wie Legnicka. (Godlowski 1992). Fig. 3Some tombs of the ernjahov culture. 1: Mogoani, tomb 15; 2: Trgor, tomb 147; 3: Belenkoe, tomb 6; 4: Oselivka, tomb 70. Scalesa: 1,2; b: 3,4,6,8,11,12; c: 57,9,10; d: 1417; e: 2834; f: 1921; g: 2227. (Shchukin et al. 2006). Fig. 4Evolution of the military equipment of the eastern Balts civilisation. A: period C1a (160/80210/30 A.D.); B: periods C1a lateC1b (200250/70 A.D.); C: periods C1bC3 (220/30350/70 A.D.); D: periods C3D1 (300/320400/410 A.D.). (Godlowski 1994). Fig. 5Shields from Thorsberg. (Raddatz 1987). Fig. 6Coat of mail from Thorsberg. (Raddatz 1987). Fig. 7Danubian tombs of military chiefs during the Great Migration period. 119: Lengyeltti; 2034: Lbny. Scalesa: 19; 1316, 35; b: 2; c: 18; d: 17; 17; e: 2123, 30,33; f: 22; g: 34. (Shchukin et al. 2006). Fig. 8Shield boss and spear from Tanas. Plates a: 13; b: 4. (Shchukin et al. 2006). Fig. 9Military equipment from tomb 61 at Tsibilium-1. (Voronov and enkao 1982). Fig. 10Military equipment and cavalry equipment from the tomb at Kipek. (Kazanski 1995a). Fig. 11Military equipment and Hunnic cavalry equipment. 1: Novo-Ivanovka; 2,4,5,8: Novogrigorevka; 3,10: Kyzyl-Adyr; 6,14: Kubej; 7,9,13: Fedorovka; 11: Mundolsheim; 12: Pecsszg. (Zaseckaja 1994). Fig. 12Pieces of Slavic cavalry equipment of nomadic steppe origin (5th to 8th c.). 1: Kolodeznyj Bugor; 2: Hohlov Vir; 3: Tajamnova; 4: Pesanoe; 5: Demjanka; 6: Hotomel; 7: Rakov; 8: Dresden-Schtezsch; 9, 12: Izvoare-Bahia; 10, 14, 19: Davideni-Neam; 11: Sarata-Monteoru; 13: Hutor Miklaevskij; 15: Hitcy; 16: Tarancevo; 17: Novye Bratuany; 18: Ostrov Kyzlevyj; 20: Trebueny; 21: Velyki Budki; 22: Voloskoe-Surskaja Zabora; 23: Klementovii; 24: Selite. (Kazanski 1999).
(History of Warfare 84) John Baker, Stuart Brookes - Beyond The Burghal Hidage - Anglo-Saxon Civil Defence in The Viking Age (2013, Brill Academic Publishers) PDF