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 Suivi de la publication

Artyom Ter-Markosyan-Vardanyan Emmanuelle Capet
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Vujadin Ivanišević, Michel Kazanski. Préface .................................................... 7

I. he Balkans and the Middle Danube

Ivan Bugarski. Occupation of the south Pannonian soil during Antiquity

and the Migration period: Šajkaška revisited ...................................... 11
Perica Špehar. he Danubian limes between Lederata and Aquae during the
Migration period ................................................................................ 35
Vujadin Ivanišević. Barbarian settlements in the interior of Illyricum:
he 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. he 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. he Alamanni and Byzantium from the 5th to the 7th century ...... 317
 III. he Northern Pontus

Aleksandr Ermolin. Džurga-Oba – a cemetery of the Great Migration period

in the Cimmerian Bosporus ............................................................... 339
Damien Glad. he Empire’s inluence 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 in 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

he 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 low. 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 inds 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
inluence 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 Ponto-
Danubian region in the difusion of early Byzantine weapons to the barbarian chiefs.

I. Origins of segmental helmets and of lamellar weapons

he irst 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. he 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 (Rostovtsef 1913-1914/2003, plate LXXIX).

Several scholars have considered segmental helmets to be of Sassanian origin. he

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
diferent 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). he
 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). he 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). he 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. his
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, ig.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 Pontic-
Scythian 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 hessaloniki (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.
 THE EMPIRE’S INFLUENCE ON THE BARBARIAN ELITES 353

he 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 irst 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). he igurative 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 inluence (Salihov 1985). his feature is also present on a helmet from Iatrus
(Bulgaria), dated to the early 5th century (Gomolka-Fuchs 2007, ig.13/1629). Helmets
from Kalkhni and Iatrus could be contemporary. hese igurative 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 inluence 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. he lamellae have the same dimensions and
disposition of holes as the early Byzantine specimens from the Balkans (Simonenko
2001, 275-277). he armour of the heavy horsemen on the wall painting from Panjikent
is composed of vertical splints attached to a skirt of mail (Fig. 4). his technique is

0 5 cm

Fig. 4: Panjikent wall painting (Raspopova 2006, ig.10).

354 DAMIEN GLAD

reminiscent of the armour of the Parthian cataphractus depicted on a 2nd century A D

graito 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 igurines 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. his technique
was preserved in the Caucasus until at least the 6th century. If the lamellar type may
ind 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: Graito of Dura Europos (James 1986, ig.12).

 THE EMPIRE’S INFLUENCE ON THE BARBARIAN ELITES 355

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. his 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 fortiied cities of the interior. he former are mostly complete
while the latter are used and broken.
he 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. he helmet

0 5 cm

Fig. 6: Helmet from Voivoda (Vagalinski 1998, ig.2)

0 5 cm

Fig. 7: Helmet from Heraklea Lyncestis (Maneva 1987, ig.2).

356 DAMIEN GLAD

from Batajnica (Serbia), the only one deposited in a grave (Vinski 1954), testiies to
the Empire’s inluence 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 inds, the Byzantine origin of the Baldenheim type is widely admitted. he
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 identiication 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 identiied by M. Vogt are Byzantine. hree 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 hessaloniki. he author explains the stability of the Baldenheim type by the central-
ized control of production exercised by the comes sacrarum largitionum.
he question of the production of the lamellar weapons is more complex. heir
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 fortiications far from the conlict
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 ind of
lamellar armour in Spartaria Carthago (Cartagena, Spain) along with early Byzantine
pottery conirms 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 inds 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
he 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 inluence on the barbarian elites. Depositing weapons in a grave
as an ofering 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 horsbjerg, Nydam, Vimose and Kragehul conirm the inluence
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) conirm 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 inds come from funeral
contexts. he great majority of lamellae attributable to the Avars, most often isolated
plates, come from women or children’s graves. he 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 inds 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. he depiction of
a horseman carrying lamellar armour and a segmental helmet on the Isola Rizza dish
(Italy) conirms 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. hese weapons, produced by the imperial fabricae for the use
of the imperial army, were considered as prestige goods by barbarian elites. hey were
difused 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 inluences,
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 oferings.
 THE EMPIRE’S INFLUENCE ON THE BARBARIAN ELITES 359

Bibliography

Arendt W. 1932: Beiträge zur Entstehung des Spangenharnisches. Ein alttürkischer Wafen-
fund aus Kertsch, Zeitschrift für Historische Wafen- 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 Bestattungs-
sitten), 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 (454-
568 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: horsbjerg 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 in de l‘Empire
romain, Paris 1994.
Gall H. von 1990: Das Reiterkampfbild in der iranischen und iranisch beeinlussten Kunst
parthischer und sasanidischer Zeit, Berlin 1990.
Gamber O. 1964: Dakische und sarmatische Wafen auf den Reliefs der Traianssäule,
Jahrbuch des Kunsthistorischen Museums Wien N. F. 60, 1964, 7-34.
Gamber O. 1966: Grundriss einer Geschichte der Schutzwafen des Altertums, Jahrbuch
des Kunsthistorischen Museums Wien N. F. 62, 1966, 7-70.
Gamber O. 1968: Kataphrakten, Clibanarier, Normannenreiter, Jahrbuch des Kunsthisto-
rischen 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 difusion de l’armement défensif corporel en
Mediterranée Orientale (IVe-VIIIe siècles) (BAR Series 1921), Oxford 2009.
Goldina 2003: ГолДинА Р. Д., Тарасовский могильник I­V 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, Северо­Восточное 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 Schutzwafen mit igürlichen 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 hessaloniki, 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 Северо­
Восточного Кавказа, Махачкала 1985, 167-187.
Simonenko A. V. 2001: Bewafnung 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, Soia 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: he Persian expedition 1933-1934,
Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin 29 (12/2), 1934, 3-22.