The Pontic-Danubian Realm in the Period of the Great Migration
ARHEOLOŠKI INSTITUT BEOGRAD
POSEBNA IZDANJA, KNJIGA 51
COLLÈGE DE FRANCE – CNRS C E N T R E D E R E C H E RC H E D’H I S TO I R E E T C I V I L I S AT I O N D E B Y Z A N C E
MONOGRAPHIES 36
The Pontic-Danubian Realm in the Period of the Great Migration edited by
Vujadin Ivanišević & Michel Kazanski
Paris – Beograd 2012
Published with a support of the Ministry of Education and Science of Republic of Serbia (Project n° 177021)
Вiдповiдальний редактор: Костянтин Цукерман
© Association des amis du Centre d’histoire et civilisation de Byzance (ACHCByz) – 2010 52 rue du Cardinal-Lemoine – 75005 Paris ACHCByz
Arheološki Institut Beograd
ISBN 978-2-916716-31-2 978-86-80093-78-9 ISSN 0751-0594 Composition et infographie Artyom Ter-Markosyan-Vardanyan
Suivi de la publication Emmanuelle Capet
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Vujadin Ivanišević, Michel Kazanski. Préface ..................................................... 7
I. The Balkans and the Middle Danube Ivan Bugarski. Occupation of the south Pannonian soil during Antiquity and the Migration period: Šajkaška revisited ....................................... 11 Perica Špehar. The Danubian limes between Lederata and Aquae during the Migration period ................................................................................ 35 Vujadin Ivanišević. Barbarian settlements in the interior of Illyricum: The case of Caričin Grad ..................................................................... 57 Tina Milavec. Late Antique settlements in Slovenia after the year 600 ............ 71 Federico Montinaro. Byzantium and the Slavs in the reign of Justinian: Comparing the two recensions of Procopius’s Buildings ....................... 89 Jaroslav Tejral. Cultural or ethnic changes? Continuity and discontinuity on the Middle Danube ca A.D. 500 .................................................... 115 Zuzana Loskotova. An early- 5th-century skeleton grave with gold neck-ring from Charváty (Moravia) ............................................ 189 Eszter Horvath. Cloisonné jewellery from the Langobardic Pannonia: Technological evidence of workshop practice ...................................... 207 Dieter Quast. Martial writers – Intellectual warriors: Remarks on a group of Late Antique male graves ................................................................ 243
II. The Occident Joan Pinar Gil. Ponto-Danubian traditions of dress in early Visigothic Hispania: Chronology, dissemination, contexts and evolution ............. 265 Eduard Droberjar. A propos des contacts entre l’empire d’Orient et les Germains de l’Elbe au vie siècle .................................................. 297 Dieter Quast. The Alamanni and Byzantium from the 5th to the 7th century ....... 317
III. The Northern Pontus Aleksandr Ermolin. Džurga-Oba – a cemetery of the Great Migration period in the Cimmerian Bosporus ................................................................ 339 Damien Glad. The Empire’s influence on the barbarian elites from the Pontic region to the Rhine (5th-7th centuries): A case study of lamellar weapons and segmental helmet ........................................................... 349 Alekseï Fourassiev. Byzance et la Crimée du Sud-Ouest au vie siècle : relations culturelles et particularités du costume féminin ..................... 363 Michel Kazanski. Radaigaise et la fin de la civilisation de Černjahov ............... 381
THE EMPIRE’S INFLUENCE ON BARBARIAN ELITES FROM THE PONTUS TO THE RHINE (5th-7th CENTURIES): A CASE STUDY OF LAMELLAR WEAPONS AND SEGMENTAL HELMET Damien Glad The question of the origin and dissemination of defensive weapons, in particular of lamellar weapons and of segmental helmets used in the Byzantine army in the 5th-7th cen tury, has caused much ink to flow. It will be our aim to show the common origin of these arms in the Near East and their spread in the Empire from the Eastern Mediterranean before their passage to the Germanic tribes in the 6th-7th centuries. A study of the origin of the relevant finds suggests that they should be considered as a typically Byzantine production. A careful examination of funeral deposits will allow us to assess the Empire’s influence on the Germanic elites through the distribution of prestige goods and to determine how they spread. Such an analysis will also reveal the role of the PontoDanubian region in the diffusion of early Byzantine weapons to the barbarian chiefs.
I. Origins of segmental helmets and of lamellar weapons The first students of segmental helmets (Spangenhelme) sought to trace their journey to Europe from the Black Sea region. R. Henning (1906) believed that these helmets were adopted by the Alans from the Huns, who subjugated them ca 370 A D; the Alans then transmitted them to the Ostrogoths in Crimea. Little was known about segmental helmets in the early 20th century, and the only two specimens discovered in an early Byzantine context, in Sveti Vid (Narona, Croatia), were attributed to Germans. M. Ebert (1909) believed that segmental helmets reached Central and Western Europe without passing through the Mediterranean and the Roman Empire. Marks on a helmet con served in the Museum of Art History in Berlin led A. Götze (1909) to conclude that segmental helmets, or at least their prototype, emerged from a crossing of Germanic and Scythian cultures on the Cimmerian Bosporus. The depiction of such helmets on a fresco from the “tomb of 1872” in Kerch (Fig. 1) seemed to support this theory. More generally, the sensational discoveries in Kerch burials led archaeologists to attrib ute the origin of many prestige goods to this region. Vujadin Ivanišević and Michel Kazanski eds, The Pontic-Danubian Realm in the Period of the Great Migration (Centre de recherche d’Histoire et Civilisation de Byzance, Monographies 36 / Arheološki institut, Posebna izdanja, Knjiga 51), Paris-Beograd 2012.
350
DAMIEN GLAD
Fig. 1: Segmental helmet on a fresco from Kerch (Rostovtseff 1913-1914/2003, plate LXXIX).
Several scholars have considered segmental helmets to be of Sassanian origin. The Byzantines could have adopted this type of helmet and then spread it to Central and Western Europe through trade relations with the Germanic elites (Alföldi 1934; Werner 1949/50; Arwidsson 1939). Forty years later S. V. Grancsay (1949, 276) suggested that segmental helmets could have been introduced into the Roman world by Sarmatian troops stationed in the Nile Valley. More recently, M. Feugère (1995, 147) sought again to locate their origin among the Sarmatians, citing the helmets worn by the Syrian archers on the spiral frieze of Trajan’s Column. At the same time, M. Kazanski (1995) called this theory into question indicating that helmets found in Sarmatian graves were quite different and that not one of these graves produced a segmental helmet. It is our belief that segmental helmets originated in the Eastern Mediterranean and in the Near East. As early as the 10th century B C, the Hittites adorned their gods with segmental helmets as seen on a relief from Malatya in Turkey (Gamber 1964, 15). The
THE EMPIRE’S INFLUENCE ON THE BARBARIAN ELITES
351
earliest specimen dating from the 6th century B C was excavated in Sardis in western Turkey, the capital of ancient Lydia (Fig. 2) (Greenewalt, Heywood 1992). The main features of a segmental helmet are already present: a conical helmet-bowl reinforced by riveted metal strips which come together under a circular plate riveted to the apex, and a T-shaped nasal plate. Only an oblong neck-guard distinguishes this Lydian helmet from its early Byzantine descendants. A segmental helmet appears on coins of the Parthian king Arsaces I (238-211 B C) (Overlaet 1982, 191). From Parthia, it reaches the steppe and the Kuban region where conical helmets, similar to those represented on Kerch frescos and on Trajan’s Column, were discovered at Gorodskoj in privileged graves dating from the 2nd century A D (Goroncharovski 2006, 446-450). The type of helmet worn by Syrian archers on Trajan’s column and some other eastern auxiliaries of the Roman army from the 2nd century A D is still found by archaeologists in the second half of the 5th century, at a time when the bulk of the Byzantine army was of oriental origin. This is also the time when a new type of segmental helmet, the Baldenheim type, makes its appearance, as we will discuss below. As for lamellar weapons, many scholars attribute their introduction to the Avars, a Nomadic people of Central Asia who came into contact with the Byzantine Empire in the mid-6th century. Once settled on the Danube, the Avars supposedly spread this type of arms to the Germanic tribes of Central and Western Europe, especially to the Lombards who left lamellar specimens at Castel Trosino and Val di Nievole in Italy, and then to the Alamanni beyond the Alps. P. Paulsen (1967) considers the helmet found in Niederstötzingen (Germany) not as Avar but as Lombard or Byzantine, possibly produced in a Pontic workshop. According to G. Arwidsson, the lamellar helmet
0
5 cm
Fig. 2: Parthian or Lydian segmental helmet from Sardis (Greenewalt, Heywood 1992, fig.21)
352
DAMIEN GLAD
1
2
3
4
0
5 cm
Fig. 3: Helmets from the Pontic-Caucasian realm. 1: Kertch, 2: Kishpek, 3: Illichevka, 4: Kalkhni
excavated in Kerch (Fig. 3 : 1), together with lamellar armour, could suggest a PonticScythian origin for lamellar armament. Regarding the origin of the lamellar weapons, O. Gamber (1964, 14-18; 1966, 17; 1968, 7-44) has shown that lamellar helmets were known to the Egyptians in the 15th century B C, to the Hittites in the 13th century B C and to the Romans in the 2nd century A D. According to H. Von Gall (1990, 64), such weapons were known in the Middle East as early as the Assyrian period. While the lamellar helmet is not attested in 3rd-4th-century Sassanian Iran (Kazanski 1995, 193), it is worn by eastern auxiliaries of the Roman army on the Arch of Galerius in Thessaloniki (Greece), built between 298 and 305 A D (Laubscher 1975). Horsemen depicted on the Arch wear lamellar helmets with a T-shaped nasal plate very similar to those found in the Eastern Pontus.
353
THE EMPIRE’S INFLUENCE ON THE BARBARIAN ELITES
The earliest lamellar helmet from this region was found in a 2nd-century A D Sar matian grave by the stanica Tbilisskaja on the Kuban; it has a hemispherical bowl re sembling the Roman helmets (Simonenko 2001, 263-265). Another Sarmatian burial, from Kišpek in Kabardino-Balkaria, dated between the late 3rd and the first half of the 4th century, contained glass-paste gems and a lamellar helmet with a T-shaped nasal plate (Fig. 3 : 2). Likewise, the early Byzantine fortress Il’ičevka on the Taman Peninsula delivered a helmet dated to the 5th-6th century (Nikolaeva 1986), with a hemispherical bowl and a T-shaped nasal plate (Fig. 3 : 3). The figurative ears of the 5th-century lamellar helmet with a conical bowl found in Kalkhni in Dagestan (Fig. 3 : 4) are clearly indicative of a Roman influence (Salihov 1985). This feature is also present on a helmet from Iatrus (Bulgaria), dated to the early 5th century (Gomolka-Fuchs 2007, fig.13/1629). Helmets from Kalkhni and Iatrus could be contemporary. These figurative ears are reminiscent of Weiler-Guisborough type helmets and face helmets of the early Empire (Feugère 1994). Archaeological evidences seems to suggest that the lamellar helmet was worn between the late 3rd and the 6th century between the Black Sea coast and the Caspian Sea in garrisons under Roman Byzantine influence long before the arrival of the Avars. Likewise, lamellar armour is attested on the Black Sea from the 4th century B C: in Čirgirin, in Kerch and in Volkovicy-Romny. Since the 2nd century B C, it is present in Sarmatian graves, including the Tbilisskaja. The lamellae have the same dimensions and disposition of holes as the early Byzantine specimens from the Balkans (Simonenko 2001, 275-277). The armour of the heavy horsemen on the wall painting from Panjikent is composed of vertical splints attached to a skirt of mail (Fig. 4). This technique is
0
Fig. 4: Panjikent wall painting (Raspopova 2006, fig.10).
5 cm
354
DAMIEN GLAD
reminiscent of the armour of the Parthian cataphractus depicted on a 2nd century A D graffito from Dura-Europos (Fig. 5), which is, in turn, very similar to that of the Sarmatian horsemen on Trajan’s Column and on the Kerch frescoes. Lamellar armours have been found in a Sassanian context in Dvin and in Aygavan in Armenia (Kalantarjan 2003, 331, with tab. 152), as well as in Qasr-i Abu Nasr, in Iran (Winlock, Upton, Hauser 1934). It is quite possible that the Sassanians transmitted lamellar armour to the Byzantines. Although a lamellar helmet is featured on ceramic figurines dating from the late 3rd century A D and on a fresco at Jamalpur (India) dating from the 2nd century A D, the reintroduction into the Mediterranean world of the lamellar technique by people from Central Asia and Far East is to be advanced with the greatest caution. This technique was preserved in the Caucasus until at least the 6th century. If the lamellar type may find its origin in Central Asia or in the Far East, we must bear in mind that a similar kind existed in the Mediterranean world long before Late Antiquity (Kazanski 1993, 59; 1995, 189-193).
Fig. 5: Graffito of Dura Europos (James 1986, fig.12).
355
THE EMPIRE’S INFLUENCE ON THE BARBARIAN ELITES
II. Early Byzantine productions A new type of helmet, of the so-called Baldenheim type, appears by the second half of the 5th century (Bavant 2008; Glad 2009; Vogt 2006). It has been found in many Germanic graves along the major European rivers: the Saône, the Rhine, the Danube and the Tisza, but also in the Elbe basin and on lake Léman. This segmental type becomes common in the Byzantine army between the second half of the 5th and the early 7th century. In the territory of the Early Byzantine Empire, these helmets come from border garrisons or fortified cities of the interior. The former are mostly complete while the latter are used and broken. The earliest specimens come from an Illyrian urban context. One helmet was found in an imperial fortress near Voivoda in Bulgaria (Fig. 6), destroyed in the second half of the 5th century (Vagalinski 1998), the other, in the late 5th – early 6th century destruction layer in the south annex of the basilica C in Heraklea Lyncestis in Macedonia (Fig. 7) (Maneva 1987). Other helmets from the Balkans are more recent. The helmet
0
5 cm
Fig. 6: Helmet from Voivoda (Vagalinski 1998, fig.2)
0
5 cm
Fig. 7: Helmet from Heraklea Lyncestis (Maneva 1987, fig.2).
356
DAMIEN GLAD
from Batajnica (Serbia), the only one deposited in a grave (Vinski 1954), testifies to the Empire’s influence on the Germanic elites. Others come from the last occupation layer of Iustinian Prima (Caričin Grad, Serbia), dated between the reign of Justin II and the abandonment of the city in 615. Novae (Svištov, Bulgaria), Selenca (Serbia) and Vodno (Markovi Kuli, Makedonia) have produced several more fragments (a complete bibliography can be found in Bavant 2008). Since the publication of the Lepcis Magna (Libya) (Pirling 1974) and the Heraklea Lyncestis finds, the Byzantine origin of the Baldenheim type is widely admitted. The distribution map produced by Z. Vinski (1982, cf. 1984) shows a concentration of Baldenheim-type helmets in the western part of the Empire around Italy, but also their occurrence on sites with no known Germanic presence in the 5th-6th centuries. Recent studies focus on the identification and localization of arm factories. M. Vogt (after Böhner 1993; 1994) argued for the existence of a western workshop, presumably in Ostrogothic Italy, but the publication of several fragments from Iustiniana Prima (Caričin Grad, Serbia) has invalidated this hypothesis. B. Bavant has demonstrated that all four arm factories identified by M. Vogt are Byzantine. Three of them could have been located in Constantinople or in area around the Sea of Marmara, in Nicomedia or Cyzicus. As for the fourth fabrica, the western group of M. Vogt, B. Bavant has suggested localizing it in Thessaloniki. The author explains the stability of the Baldenheim type by the central ized control of production exercised by the comes sacrarum largitionum. The question of the production of the lamellar weapons is more complex. Their appearance in the Empire has traditionally been dated to the second half of the 6th century. Placed in the context of the confrontation with the Avars, lamellar armour was considered as a means of resisting the penetrating power of their three-winged arrowheads. However, the earliest lamellae discovered at the site of a military warehouse in Topraichioi (near Babadag, Romania; not yet published) come from an occupation layer dating from the second half of the 5th century, before the Avars’ arrival. What is more, the discovery of a large number of lamellae in fortifications far from the conflict zone indicates the production of this type of armour by Byzantine arms factories (Bavant, Ivanišević 2003; Bugarski 2006; Ivanišević, Špehar 2006; Milinković 1995 and 2002). Several lamellar armours found in Viminacium show that they were supplied to the Gepids, positioned in the front line against the Avars. However, a recent find of lamellar armour in Spartaria Carthago (Cartagena, Spain) along with early Byzantine pottery confirms its wide availability in the Byzantine army (Vizcaíno Sanchez 2008). Likewise, 7th-century lamellar armour was excavated in a Byzantine context in Crypta Balbi in Rome (Ricci 2001, 400). None of these finds can be related to the Avars.
THE EMPIRE’S INFLUENCE ON THE BARBARIAN ELITES
357
III. Diffusion among the Germanic peoples: the evidence of burials The presence of armour plates in graves at Bdinci (Văžarova 1976, 141-146) and Stara Zagora (Bulgaria)1 as well as of a helmet in the Gepid grave in Batajnica (Vinski 1954) attests to the imperial influence on the barbarian elites. Depositing weapons in a grave as an offering was neither a Roman nor a Christian funeral custom, but this did not preclude using imperial prestige goods for this purpose. In the Conceşti grave (Moldavia) from the early 5th century (Matzulewitsch 1929, 123-137), the deceased was buried with a late Roman crested helmet, a funeral wreath in a Roman fashion and a treasure of silver objects carrying marks of the imperial workshop of Constantinople. Latin inscriptions on weapons from the bogs of Thorsbjerg, Nydam, Vimose and Kragehul confirm the influence of the Later Empire on the Germanic elite (Engelhardt 1863; 1865; 1867; 1869). In the Byzantine context, segmental helmets were commonly worn by regular troops and by the Gothic foederati, eventually left behind in abandoned fortresses or deposited in graves by the foederati after their retirement. Byzantine coins are frequently found in graves with the helmets. An imitation of a solidus of Anastasius in the grave in Gellep near Krefeld (Germany), a real solidus of Tiberius II in Morken (Germany), a solidus of Leo I in Planig (Germany) (Pirling 1964; Böhner 1959; Kessler 1940) confirm the density of links between Byzantium and the West Germanic principalities as of the second half of the 5th century. At the other end of the continent, the segmental helmet of Kerch (Crimea) was excavated with a lamellar helmet and a coin of Leo I (Arendt 1932; Arwidsson 1939), while the grave of Batajnica (Serbia) contained a coin of Anastasius. Lamellar weapons are known in the Balkans, in Central Europe and, to a lesser extent, in some western graves. Apart from the Balkans, all finds come from funeral contexts. The great majority of lamellae attributable to the Avars, most often isolated plates, come from women or children’s graves. The presence of lamellae in male graves on the Avar territory is rare and of full body armour, even rarer. J. Kovačević (1977, 115-116) has highlighted the apotropaic value of isolated lamellae deposit, which is also current in Altaic graves. By way of contrast, the complete armour finds can all be related to Byzantium or its Germanic allies, with the only exception of the goldsmith’s grave from Kunszentmárton, of Avar origin. Coins are often present in graves along with lamellar armour: a coin of Maurice at Szegvár-Sápoldal, a coin of Heraclius at Hajdúdorog (Hungary) and Ostryj-Mys (Russia), Roman bronze coins at Kölked-Feketekapu B (Hungary) and Szekszárd (Hungary) (Bóna 1979 and 1980; Garam 1992; Kiss 2001; Rosner 1999). Likewise, lamellar armour was found in the destruction layer dated around 550 in the Byzantine fortress of Tsibilium (Abkhazia) (Kubarev 2006). Coins of Heraclius were found with a lamellar helmet 1. These specimens of lamellar armour and lamellar helmet have not yet been published. I would like to express my gratitude to Dr. Dieter Quast for having informed me of this discovery. Publication is imminent.
358
DAMIEN GLAD
in a grave at Sînpetru-German (Romania) (Dörner 1960; Garam 1992). While the discovery of a lamellar helmet and a segmental helmet along with a pierced coin of Leo I in Kerch (supra) suggested to P. Paulsen (1967, 133-138) the possibility of production of the famous lamellar armour from Niederstötzingen in a Pontic workshop, the growing body of evidence rather points to its manufacture within the Empire. The depiction of a horseman carrying lamellar armour and a segmental helmet on the Isola Rizza dish (Italy) confirms the wide spread of the lamellar type from Armenia to Germany and the Empire’s cultural impact on barbarian elites. * * *
A critical analysis of theories on the origin and spread of early Byzantine segmental helmets and lamellar weapons reveals the important part played by the Ponto-Danubian area. It is the barbarian tribes who provided soldiers for the imperial army that became the main vectors in the spread of early Byzantine weapons in the Barbaricum from the Steppes to the Rhine. These weapons, produced by the imperial fabricae for the use of the imperial army, were considered as prestige goods by barbarian elites. They were diffused by the same trans-continental routes, including the Silk Road, the Rhine and the Danube, which promoted cultural transfers from East to West. It would only be fair, however, to recall a movement in the opposite direction: the study of shield bosses shows the spread of western Germanic weaponry into the Empire. If the Eastern Empire was fairly susceptible to the Caucasian and Oriental influences, the western Germanic peoples showed little receptiveness to a direct impact of a foreign culture. Only the elite and the foederati showed attachment to imperial prestige goods, to which they attributed a particular symbolic value in funeral offerings.
THE EMPIRE’S INFLUENCE ON THE BARBARIAN ELITES
359
Bibliography Arendt W. 1932: Beiträge zur Entstehung des Spangenharnisches. Ein alttürkischer Waffen fund aus Kertsch, Zeitschrift für Historische Waffen- und Kostümkunde 4, 1932, 49-55. Arwidsson G. 1939: Armour of the Vendel Period, Acta Archaeologica 10, 1939, 31-59. Atanasov G. 2001: Das römische Wegengrab von Silistra (Bulgarien) in Stein&Sinn, Burg&Mensch, Wien, 2001, 130-136. Bavant B., Ivanišević V. 2003: Iustiniana Prima – Caričin Grad, Belgrade 2003. Bavant B. 2008: Fragments de casques de type Baldenheim trouvés à Caričin Grad, Mélanges de l'École Française de Rome 120/2, 2008, 327-353. Böhner K. 1959: Das Grab eines fränkischen Herren aus Morken im Rheinland (Kunst und Altertum am Rhein 4), Köln 1959. Böhner K. 1993: Zur Herkunft der frühmittelalterlichen Spangenhelme, in J. Pavuk, dir., Actes du XIIe Congrès international des sciences préhistoriques et protohistoriques (Bratislava 1991), IV, Bratislava 1993, 199-207. Böhner K. 1994: Die frühmittelalterlichen Spangenhelme und die nordlichen Helme der Vendelzeit, Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz 41, 1994, 471-549. Bona I. 1979: A Szegvár-sápoldali lovassír, adatok a korai avar temetkezési szokásokhoz (Das Reitergrab von Szegvár-Sápoldal. Beiträge zu den frühawarischen Bestattungssitten), Archaeologiai értesitő 106, 1979, 3-32. Bona I. 1980: Studien zum frühawarischen Reitergrab von Szegvár, Acta Archaeologica 32, 1980, 31-95. Bugarski I. 2006: A Contibution to the Study of Lamellar Armours, Starinar 55, 2006, 161-177. Greenewalt C. H., Heywood A. M. 1992: A Helmet of the Sixth Century B.C. from Sardis, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 285, 1992, 1-31. Csallány D. 1961: Archäologische Denkmäler der Gepiden in Mitteldonaubecken (454568 u. Z.), Budapest 1961. Dörner E. 1960: Mormînt din epoca avara la Sînpetru-German, Studii și cercetări de istorie veche și arheologie 11, 1960, 423-434. Ebert M. 1909: Die frühmittelalterlichen Spangenhelmen von Baldenheimer Typus, Praehistorische Zeitschrift 1, 1909, 65-77. Engelhardt C. 1863: Thorsbjerg Mosefund, Copenhagen 1863. Engelhardt C. 1865: Nydam Mosefund, Copenhagen 1865. Engelhardt C. 1867: Kragehul Mosefund, Copenhagen 1867.
360
DAMIEN GLAD
Engelhardt C. 1869: Vimose Fundet, Copenhagen 1869. Feugère M. 1994: Casques antiques. Les visages de la guerre, de Mycènes à fin de l‘Empire romain, Paris 1994. Gall H. von 1990: Das Reiterkampfbild in der iranischen und iranisch beeinflussten Kunst parthischer und sasanidischer Zeit, Berlin 1990. Gamber O. 1964: Dakische und sarmatische Waffen auf den Reliefs der Traianssäule, Jahrbuch des Kunsthistorischen Museums Wien N. F. 60, 1964, 7-34. Gamber O. 1966: Grundriss einer Geschichte der Schutzwaffen des Altertums, Jahrbuch des Kunsthistorischen Museums Wien N. F. 62, 1966, 7-70. Gamber O. 1968: Kataphrakten, Clibanarier, Normannenreiter, Jahrbuch des Kunsthistorischen Museums Wien N. F. 69, 1968, 7-44. Garam E. 1992: Die münzdatierten Gräber der Awarenzeit, in: F. Daim (Hrsg.), Awaren forschungen, Wien 1992, 135-250. Garam E 2001: Funde byzantinischer Herkunft in der Awarenzeit vom Ende des 6. bis zum Ende des 7. Jahrhunderts, Budapest 2001. Glad D. 2009: Chronotypologie, origine et diffusion de l’armement défensif corporel en Mediterranée Orientale (ive-viiie siècles) (BAR Series 1921), Oxford 2009. Goldina 2003: Голдина Р. Д., Тарасовский могильник I-V вв. на Средней Каме, т. II, Ижевск 2003. Goroncharovski V. A 2006: Some Notes on Defensive Armament of the Bosporan Cavalry in the First Centuries A D, in M. Mode, J. Tubach (eds.), Arms and Armour as Indicators of Cultural Transfer, Wiesbaden 2006, 445-452. Gomolka-Fuchs G. 2007: Die Kleinfunde in Iatrus-Krivina, t. VI, 2007, 265-277. Götze A. 1909: Ostgotische Helme und symbolische Zeichen, Mannus 1, 1909, 121-123. Grancsay S. V. 1949: A barbarian chieftain’s helmet, Bulletin of the Metropolitan Museum of Art 7, 1949, 272-281. Henning R. 1906: Der Helm von Baldenheim und die verwandten Helme des frühen Mittelalters, Mitteilungen des Gesellschaft für Erhaltung des geschichtlichen Denkmäler im Elsass 21, 1906, 267-357. Ivanišević V., Špehar P. 2006: Early Byzantine Finds from Čečan and Gornji Streoc (Kosovo), Starinar 55, 2006, 133-158. Ivanišević V., Kazanski M., Mastykova A. 2006: Les nécropoles de Viminacium à l'époque des Grandes Migrations, Paris 2006. James S. 1986: Evidence from Dura-Europos for the Origins of the Late Roman Helmets, Syria 63, 1986, 107-134. Jeremić M., Milinković M. 1995: Die byzantinische Festung von Bregovina (Südserbien), Antiquité tardive 3, 1995, 209-225. Kalantarjan 2003: Калантарян A. A., Армения: Раннее средневековье (IV- VIII вв.), in: T. I. Makarova, S. A. Pletneva (otv. red.), Крым, Северо-Восточное Причерноморье и Закавказье в эпоху средневековья. IV–XIII века, Москва 2003, 321-334.
THE EMPIRE’S INFLUENCE ON THE BARBARIAN ELITES
361
Kazanski M. 1993: Les armes du Wādī Dura’, dans J.-F. Breton, M. Bafaqih, Trésors du Wādī Dura’, Beyrouth 1993, 51-61. Kazanski M. 1995: Les tombes des chefs alano-sarmates au ive siècle dans les steppes pontiques, in: F. Vallet, M. Kazanski (dir.), La noblesse romaine et les chefs barbares du iiie au viie siècle, Paris 1995, 189-205. Kazanski M., Mastykova A., Perin P. 2002: Byzance et les royaumes barbares d’Oc cident au début de l’époque mérovingienne, in: J. Tejral (Hrsg.), Probleme des frühen Merowingerzeit im Mitteldonauraum, Brno 2002, 159-194. Kessler P. 1940: Das merowingerzeitliche Fürstengrab von Planig in Rheinhessen, Mainzer Zeitschrift 35, 1940, 4-10. Kiss A. 2001: Das awarenzeitliche Gräberfeld in Kölked-Feketekapu B, Budapest 2001. Kovačević J. 1977: Avarski kaganat, Beograd 1977. Kubarev G. V. 2006: Die Schutzwaffen mit figürlichen Lamellen als indikator der Nomadenmigration in Eurasiens Steppenzone im 6.-8. Jh,, in: Mode, Tubach 2006, 453-484. Laubscher H.-P. 1975: Der Reliefschmuck des Galeriusbogens in Thessaloniki, Berlin 1975. Maneva E. 1987: Casque à fermoir d’Héraclée, Archaeologia lugoslavica 24, 1987, 101-111. Matzulewitsch L. 1929: Der Grabfund von Concesti in der Moldau, in: Id., Byzantinische Antike. Studien auf Grund der Silbergefäße der Ermitage, Berlin/Leipzig 1929, 123-137. Milinković M. 1995: Die Gradina auf dem Jelica Gebirge und die frühbyzantinischen Befestigungen in der Umgebung von Čačak, Westserbien, Antiquité tardive 3, 1995, 227-250. Milinković M. 2002: Die byzantinische Höhenanlage auf der Jelica in Serbien – ein Beispiel aus dem nördlichen Illyricum des 6. Jh., Starinar 51, 2001 (2002), 71-133. Mode M., Tubach J. (eds.) 2006: Arms and Armour as Indicators of Cultural Transfer, Wiesbaden 2006. Nefedkin A. K. 2006: Sarmatian Armour According to Narrative and Archaeological Data, in Mode, Tubach, 2006, 433-444. Nikolaeva 1986: Николаева. Э. А., Находки оружия на Ильичевском городище, in: Проблемы античной культуры, Москва 1986, 183-188. Overlaet B. J. 1982: Contribution to Sassanian armament in connection with a decorated helmet, Iranica Antiqua 17, 1982, 189-206. Paulsen P. 1967: Alamannische Adelsgräber von Niederstotzingen, Kreis Heidenheim, Stuttgart 1967. Pirling R. 1964: Ein fränkisches Fürstengrab aus Krefeld-Gellep, Germania 42, 1964, 188-216. Pirling R. 1974: Ein Spangenhelm des Typus Baldenheim aus Leptis Magna in Libyen, in: G. Kossack, G. Ulbert, Studien zur vor- und frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie. Festschrift für J.Werner zum 65. Geburtstag, II, München 1974, 471-482.
362
DAMIEN GLAD
Raspopova V. I., Sogdian Arms and Armour in the Period of the Great Migrations, in: Mode, Tubach 2006, 79-95. Ricci M. 2001: Armi, in: M. S. Arena et al. (a cura di), Roma dall’antichità al medioevo. Archeologia e storia nel Muzeo nazionale romano Crypta Balbi, Milan 2001, 395-402. Rosner G. 1999: Das awarenzeitliche Gräberfeld in Szekszárd-Bogyiszló Strasse, Budapest 1999. Rostovtseff M. I. 1913- 1914/2003: La peinture décorative antique en Russie méridionale (Mémoires de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres), 2 vol., Paris 2003 (titre original: М. И. Ростовцев, Античная декоративная живопись на юге России, СПб 1913- 1914). Salihov 1985: Салихов Б. М. Калхинский могильник, in Древние культуры СевероВосточного Кавказа, Махачкала 1985, 167-187. Simonenko A. V. 2001: Bewaffnung und Kriegswesen der Sarmaten und der späten Skythen im nördlichen Schwarzmeergebiet, Eurasia Antiqua 7 2001, 251-327. Vagalinski L. 1998: Ein neuer spätantiker Segmenthelm aus Voivoda, Schumen Gebiet (Nordostbulgarien), Archaeologia Bulgarica 2, 1998, 96-106. Vǎzarova Z. N. 1976: Slavjani i Prabǎlgari (po danni na nekropolite ot VI-XI v. na teritorijata na Bǎlgarija, Sofia 1976. Vinski Z. 1954: Ein Spangenhelmfund aus dem östlichen Syrmien, Germania 32, 1954, 176-182. Vinski Z. 1982: Šljem epohe seobe naroda naden u Sinju, Starohrvatska prosvjeta 12, 1982, 7-36. Vinski Z. 1984: Dodatna zapažanja o šljemovima tipa Narona/Baldenheim, Staro hrvatska prosvjeta 14, 1984, 95-106. Vizcaíno Sánchez J. 2008: Early byzantine lamellar armour from Carthago Spartaria (Cartagena, Spain), Gladius 28, 2008, 195-210. Vogt M. 2006: Spangenhelme: Baldenheim und verwandte Typen, Mainz 2006. Winlock H. E., Hauser W., Upton J. M. 1934: The Persian expedition 1933-1934, Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin 29 (12/2), 1934, 3-22.
