Suchergebnisse

International audience ; The history of the Cimmerian Bosporus in the Hunnic time (the last third of the 4th - the second third of the 5th centuries) remains largely unknown, although it has already been the subject of discussion more than once. An attempt will be made here to generalize those few archaeological finds that can be associated with the direct presence of the Huns in this region. Finds of Hunniс things in the Eastern Crimea and Taman (arrowheads, bone lining on the bow, tops of swords, diadem) as well as the presence of steppe customs (placing saddles and arrows, accompanying horse burials in burials) in the burial practice of the Bosporan population of the late IV - mid-V centuries are few and reflect only the episodic presence of the Huns on the territory of the Cimmerian Bosporus. At the same time, it is easy to see that these things and funeral customs are associated primarily with the "chieftain" and "military" civilization of that time and apparently do not affect the bulk of the Hellenized population. In reality, the entry of the Bosporus into the orbit of the "Hunnic empire" most likely took place in the 440s, when Attila subdued the Huns-Akatsiri.

International audience ; Th e main task of this work is to determine the meaning of weapons and equestrian equipment in the hierarchy ofburials of the Sambian-Natangian (Dolkeim-Kovrovo) civilisation of the Migration Period and the Early MerovingianPeriod, corresponding to the Balts, Aestii of written sources of the 6th century (Cassiodorus, Jordanes). In total,more than 180 burials with weapons and spurs have been identifi ed from this time. Th e weapons are dominatedby combat knives, while spears, axes and shields are less common. Burials with weapons and spurs at some burialgrounds, they are scattered over the entire investigated area and do not form pronounced clusters. Th ese are, forexample, the necropolises Lauth-Bolshoye Isakovo or Schlakalken-3. In other cases, it is possible to identify zones ofconcentration of burials with military equipment, for example, in the necropolises Corejten-Putilovo, Dollkeim- Kovrovo,Grebieten-Okunevo, Hünenberg-Rantau-Dobroe. It is diffi cult to say whether the identifi ed concentrations ofsuch graves correspond to any real social groups (families? clans?). It is also necessary to note the unevenness in therichness of the funerary inventory in diff erent necropolises. Th is diff erence is clearly evident in the armament of, forexample, the burial grounds of Mitino or Zaostrovye-1, where there are very few or no weapons at all, in comparison,for example, with the Warnikam-Pervomayskoye necropolis, where they are found much more oft en. Th e diff erenceis also manifested in the wealth of inventory in diff erent parts of the same necropolis, as can be seen from the exampleof the Mitino burial ground. It turned out that weapons play a limited role as a social marker and are inherent ina signifi cant part of male burials. Th e presence of "professional" weapons (shields) and equestrian equipment (spurs)in the burials clearly indicates that among the Aestii there were people who were profi cient in this equipment. Th espread of the fashion for belts, dating back to the late Roman military tradition, as well as the presence of spurs inburials, may indicate the emergence of a "military" culture, which resembles German culture in its external features.Maybe it is worth talking about the beginning of the formation of a permanent contingent of professional soldiers(squads)? At the same time, according to a number of signs, the burials of the leaders, most likely performing militaryfunctions, are distinguished, that in the burial inventory is emphasized by the presence of prestigious weaponsand horse gear, drinking horns and the burial of two or more horses. ; Аннотация. Для самбийско-натангийской культуры эпохи Великого переселения народов и раннемеровингского времени, соответствующей эстиям, выявлено более 180 погребений с оружием и шпорами этого времени. Оружие как социальный маркер играет ограниченную роль, однако находки шпор

In the Romano-Germanic Museum in Cologne (Diergardt collection) there is a combat knife originating from Cimmerian Bosporos. Its hilt is decorated with a bronze image of eagle's head. The purpose of this publication is to call attention to this artifact almost not known to Eastern European archaeologists. The handles of swords decorated with eagle's heads from the Roman Period are well known primarily from iconographic data. Noteworthy is the image on a silver bowl from Avignon (the so-called "Briseis Cup") dated to the fourth century. It depicts a weapon with a rather short blade and a U-shaped chape; all these features resemble the Bosporan combat knife. In the Late Roman Period, swords with eagle-headed hilts were well represented in the images of the persons of status, probably indicating their prominent role of a symbol of power. Generally, eagle is well represented among the symbols of power of the Late Empire, for example, on consular rods or shields with the emblems of military units mentioned in the Notitia Dignitatum. In the Late Roman Period, sword hilts featuring bird's head also occurred outside the Empire. This is evidenced by the image of the Sassanian Shah Shapur II on a plate from Turusheva. In the "chieftain" culture of the Eastern and Central European Barbaricum and the Northern Black Sea Area from the Great Migration Period, the inlaid patterns showing eagle or bird's heads is well known on weapons, including swords and horse trappings. In the Barbaricum, there probably appeared the well-known phenomenon of imitatio imperii. ; В Римско-Германском музее в Кeльне (коллекция Диергардта) находится боевой нож, происходящий с Боспора Киммерийского. Его рукоять украшена бронзовым изображением орлиной головы. Цель данной публикации – привлечь внимание к этому предмету, который остается практически неизвестным для восточноевропейских археологов. Рукояти мечей, украшенные орлиными головами, для римского времени хорошо известны в первую очередь по иконографическим данным. Обращает на себя внимание изображение на серебряной чаше из Авиньона (так называемая чаша Брисеиды), датируемая IV в. Здесь изображено оружие с довольно коротким клинком и бутеролью в форме U, все это напоминает боспорский боевой нож. В позднеримское время мечи с орлиноголовой рукоятью хорошо представлены на изображениях «статусных» персон, что, вероятно, свидетельствует об их знаковой роли как символе власти. Орел в целом хорошо представлен во властной символике поздней Империи, например, на консульских жезлах или щитах с эмблемами воинских частей, упомянутых в Notitia Dignitatum. Рукояти мечей с птичьими головами существовали в позднеримское время и за пределами Империи: об этом свидетельствует изображение сасанидского шаха Шапура II на блюде из Турушевой. В «вождеской» культуре восточно- и центральноевропейского Барбарикума и Северного Причерноморья эпохи Великого переселения народов инкрустированный декор в виде орла или птичьих голов хорошо известен на оружии, в том числе на мечах и на конском снаряжении. В Барбарикуме здесь, вероятно, проявляется хорошо известный феномен imitatio imperii.

International audience ; The elements of prestigious horse harness of the Early Byzantine origin, decorated withcloisonné inlay style, have long been identified among the steppe nomads of the Post-Hunnic Period (theso-called Shipovo horizon from the second third of the fifth to the second third of the sixth centuries), aswell as among the sedentary barbarians in Eastern and Central Europe. These finds include disc-shapedbadges or plaques or appliques, rectangular belt-ends, and horse bits with zoomorphic images. Nowit is difficult to infer specific mechanisms for the distribution of prestigious Early Byzantine artefactsin the Barbaricum in the Post-Hunnic Period. It looks like that apart from the usual military trophiesthese items could have been included in diplomatic gifts. Written sources testify to specific cases ofdonation of horse accessories (saddles) to barbarian leaders. Along with weapons, these artefacts couldalso be obtained as a result of a symbolic investment of the Empire's allies on behalf of the emperor.The hypothesis of making the artefacts in the cloisonné inlay style directly in the Barbaricum seemsless probable, though the presence there of craftsmen including those who knew the technique ofthe Constantinople jewellery "school" is quite possible. However, it should be remembered that thetechnique of sawing and processing precious stones was particularly complex and was owned by a verylimited number of craftsmen. Therefore, the overwhelming majority of barbarian jewellery pieces fromthe Hunnic and Post-Hunnic Periods used the secondary-used stones, in contrast to the case of the findsin steppe, like those from Morskoi Chulek, Bylym-Kudinetovo, Ialpug, or Altynkazgan. Rather, thelatter were made in the Mediterranean workshops.

International audience ; The elements of prestigious horse harness of the Early Byzantine origin, decorated withcloisonné inlay style, have long been identified among the steppe nomads of the Post-Hunnic Period (theso-called Shipovo horizon from the second third of the fifth to the second third of the sixth centuries), aswell as among the sedentary barbarians in Eastern and Central Europe. These finds include disc-shapedbadges or plaques or appliques, rectangular belt-ends, and horse bits with zoomorphic images. Nowit is difficult to infer specific mechanisms for the distribution of prestigious Early Byzantine artefactsin the Barbaricum in the Post-Hunnic Period. It looks like that apart from the usual military trophiesthese items could have been included in diplomatic gifts. Written sources testify to specific cases ofdonation of horse accessories (saddles) to barbarian leaders. Along with weapons, these artefacts couldalso be obtained as a result of a symbolic investment of the Empire's allies on behalf of the emperor.The hypothesis of making the artefacts in the cloisonné inlay style directly in the Barbaricum seemsless probable, though the presence there of craftsmen including those who knew the technique ofthe Constantinople jewellery "school" is quite possible. However, it should be remembered that thetechnique of sawing and processing precious stones was particularly complex and was owned by a verylimited number of craftsmen. Therefore, the overwhelming majority of barbarian jewellery pieces fromthe Hunnic and Post-Hunnic Periods used the secondary-used stones, in contrast to the case of the findsin steppe, like those from Morskoi Chulek, Bylym-Kudinetovo, Ialpug, or Altynkazgan. Rather, thelatter were made in the Mediterranean workshops.

International audience ; Th e main task of this work is to determine the meaning of weapons and equestrian equipment in the hierarchy ofburials of the Sambian-Natangian (Dolkeim-Kovrovo) civilisation of the Migration Period and the Early MerovingianPeriod, corresponding to the Balts, Aestii of written sources of the 6th century (Cassiodorus, Jordanes). In total,more than 180 burials with weapons and spurs have been identifi ed from this time. Th e weapons are dominatedby combat knives, while spears, axes and shields are less common. Burials with weapons and spurs at some burialgrounds, they are scattered over the entire investigated area and do not form pronounced clusters. Th ese are, forexample, the necropolises Lauth-Bolshoye Isakovo or Schlakalken-3. In other cases, it is possible to identify zones ofconcentration of burials with military equipment, for example, in the necropolises Corejten-Putilovo, Dollkeim- Kovrovo,Grebieten-Okunevo, Hünenberg-Rantau-Dobroe. It is diffi cult to say whether the identifi ed concentrations ofsuch graves correspond to any real social groups (families? clans?). It is also necessary to note the unevenness in therichness of the funerary inventory in diff erent necropolises. Th is diff erence is clearly evident in the armament of, forexample, the burial grounds of Mitino or Zaostrovye-1, where there are very few or no weapons at all, in comparison,for example, with the Warnikam-Pervomayskoye necropolis, where they are found much more oft en. Th e diff erenceis also manifested in the wealth of inventory in diff erent parts of the same necropolis, as can be seen from the exampleof the Mitino burial ground. It turned out that weapons play a limited role as a social marker and are inherent ina signifi cant part of male burials. Th e presence of "professional" weapons (shields) and equestrian equipment (spurs)in the burials clearly indicates that among the Aestii there were people who were profi cient in this equipment. Th espread of the fashion for belts, dating back to the late ...

International audience ; The history of the Cimmerian Bosporus in the Hunnic time (the last third of the 4th - the second third of the 5th centuries) remains largely unknown, although it has already been the subject of discussion more than once. An attempt will be made here to generalize those few archaeological finds that can be associated with the direct presence of the Huns in this region. Finds of Hunniс things in the Eastern Crimea and Taman (arrowheads, bone lining on the bow, tops of swords, diadem) as well as the presence of steppe customs (placing saddles and arrows, accompanying horse burials in burials) in the burial practice of the Bosporan population of the late IV - mid-V centuries are few and reflect only the episodic presence of the Huns on the territory of the Cimmerian Bosporus. At the same time, it is easy to see that these things and funeral customs are associated primarily with the "chieftain" and "military" civilization of that time and apparently do not affect the bulk of the Hellenized population. In reality, the entry of the Bosporus into the orbit of the "Hunnic empire" most likely took place in the 440s, when Attila subdued the Huns-Akatsiri.

International audience ; Belt sets belonging to the Early Byzantine tradition of the second half of 6th — first half of7th centuries are found in the Middle Dnieper region in hoards of Martynovka type and belong to the Slavsbeing bearers of the Penkovka and Kolochin culture. The Penkovka culture corresponds to the Antes knownfrom the written sources, while the ethnonym of Kolochin culture bearers is unknown. Distribution of suchbelts is indicative of military and political ties of the Antes and the Eastern Roman Empire, as well as offormation of 'princely' or 'warrior' culture among the Dnieper Slavs

International audience ; In the Romano-Germanic Museum in Cologne (Diergardt collection) there is a combatknife originating from Cimmerian Bosporos. Its hilt is decorated with a bronze imageof eagle's head. The purpose of this publication is to call attention to this artifact almostnot known to Eastern European archaeologists. The handles of swords decorated witheagle's heads from the Roman Period are well known primarily from iconographicdata. Noteworthy is the image on a silver bowl from Avignon (the so-called "BriseisCup") dated to the fourth century. It depicts a weapon with a rather short blade anda U-shaped chape; all these features resemble the Bosporan combat knife. In the LateRoman Period, swords with eagle-headed hilts were well represented in the images ofthe persons of status, probably indicating their prominent role of a symbol of power.Generally, eagle is well represented among the symbols of power of the Late Empire,for example, on consular rods or shields with the emblems of military units mentionedin the Notitia Dignitatum. In the Late Roman Period, sword hilts featuring bird's headalso occurred outside the Empire. This is evidenced by the image of the Sassanian ShahShapur II on a plate from Turusheva. In the "chieftain" culture of the Eastern and CentralEuropean Barbaricum and the Northern Black Sea Area from the Great MigrationPeriod, the inlaid patterns showing eagle or bird's heads is well known on weapons,including swords and horse trappings. In the Barbaricum, there probably appearedthe well-known phenomenon of imitatio imperii.

International audience ; The history of the Cimmerian Bosporus in the Hunnic time (the last third of the 4th - the second third of the 5th centuries) remains largely unknown, although it has already been the subject of discussion more than once. An attempt will be made here to generalize those few archaeological finds that can be associated with the direct presence of the Huns in this region. Finds of Hunniс things in the Eastern Crimea and Taman (arrowheads, bone lining on the bow, tops of swords, diadem) as well as the presence of steppe customs (placing saddles and arrows, accompanying horse burials in burials) in the burial practice of the Bosporan population of the late IV - mid-V centuries are few and reflect only the episodic presence of the Huns on the territory of the Cimmerian Bosporus. At the same time, it is easy to see that these things and funeral customs are associated primarily with the "chieftain" and "military" civilization of that time and apparently do not affect the bulk of the Hellenized population. In reality, the entry of the Bosporus into the orbit of the "Hunnic empire" most likely took place in the 440s, when Attila subdued the Huns-Akatsiri.

International audience ; Th e main task of this work is to determine the meaning of weapons and equestrian equipment in the hierarchy ofburials of the Sambian-Natangian (Dolkeim-Kovrovo) civilisation of the Migration Period and the Early MerovingianPeriod, corresponding to the Balts, Aestii of written sources of the 6th century (Cassiodorus, Jordanes). In total,more than 180 burials with weapons and spurs have been identifi ed from this time. Th e weapons are dominatedby combat knives, while spears, axes and shields are less common. Burials with weapons and spurs at some burialgrounds, they are scattered over the entire investigated area and do not form pronounced clusters. Th ese are, forexample, the necropolises Lauth-Bolshoye Isakovo or Schlakalken-3. In other cases, it is possible to identify zones ofconcentration of burials with military equipment, for example, in the necropolises Corejten-Putilovo, Dollkeim- Kovrovo,Grebieten-Okunevo, Hünenberg-Rantau-Dobroe. It is diffi cult to say whether the identifi ed concentrations ofsuch graves correspond to any real social groups (families? clans?). It is also necessary to note the unevenness in therichness of the funerary inventory in diff erent necropolises. Th is diff erence is clearly evident in the armament of, forexample, the burial grounds of Mitino or Zaostrovye-1, where there are very few or no weapons at all, in comparison,for example, with the Warnikam-Pervomayskoye necropolis, where they are found much more oft en. Th e diff erenceis also manifested in the wealth of inventory in diff erent parts of the same necropolis, as can be seen from the exampleof the Mitino burial ground. It turned out that weapons play a limited role as a social marker and are inherent ina signifi cant part of male burials. Th e presence of "professional" weapons (shields) and equestrian equipment (spurs)in the burials clearly indicates that among the Aestii there were people who were profi cient in this equipment. Th espread of the fashion for belts, dating back to the late Roman military tradition, as well as the presence of spurs inburials, may indicate the emergence of a "military" culture, which resembles German culture in its external features.Maybe it is worth talking about the beginning of the formation of a permanent contingent of professional soldiers(squads)? At the same time, according to a number of signs, the burials of the leaders, most likely performing militaryfunctions, are distinguished, that in the burial inventory is emphasized by the presence of prestigious weaponsand horse gear, drinking horns and the burial of two or more horses. ; Аннотация. Для самбийско-натангийской культуры эпохи Великого переселения народов и раннемеровингского времени, соответствующей эстиям, выявлено более 180 погребений с оружием и шпорами этого времени. Оружие как социальный маркер играет ограниченную роль, однако находки шпор

International audience ; The history of the Cimmerian Bosporus in the Hunnic time (the last third of the 4th - the second third of the 5th centuries) remains largely unknown, although it has already been the subject of discussion more than once. An attempt will be made here to generalize those few archaeological finds that can be associated with the direct presence of the Huns in this region. Finds of Hunniс things in the Eastern Crimea and Taman (arrowheads, bone lining on the bow, tops of swords, diadem) as well as the presence of steppe customs (placing saddles and arrows, accompanying horse burials in burials) in the burial practice of the Bosporan population of the late IV - mid-V centuries are few and reflect only the episodic presence of the Huns on the territory of the Cimmerian Bosporus. At the same time, it is easy to see that these things and funeral customs are associated primarily with the "chieftain" and "military" civilization of that time and apparently do not affect the bulk of the Hellenized population. In reality, the entry of the Bosporus into the orbit of the "Hunnic empire" most likely took place in the 440s, when Attila subdued the Huns-Akatsiri.

International audience ; The elements of prestigious horse harness of the Early Byzantine origin, decorated withcloisonné inlay style, have long been identified among the steppe nomads of the Post-Hunnic Period (theso-called Shipovo horizon from the second third of the fifth to the second third of the sixth centuries), aswell as among the sedentary barbarians in Eastern and Central Europe. These finds include disc-shapedbadges or plaques or appliques, rectangular belt-ends, and horse bits with zoomorphic images. Nowit is difficult to infer specific mechanisms for the distribution of prestigious Early Byzantine artefactsin the Barbaricum in the Post-Hunnic Period. It looks like that apart from the usual military trophiesthese items could have been included in diplomatic gifts. Written sources testify to specific cases ofdonation of horse accessories (saddles) to barbarian leaders. Along with weapons, these artefacts couldalso be obtained as a result of a symbolic investment of the Empire's allies on behalf of the emperor.The hypothesis of making the artefacts in the cloisonné inlay style directly in the Barbaricum seemsless probable, though the presence there of craftsmen including those who knew the technique ofthe Constantinople jewellery "school" is quite possible. However, it should be remembered that thetechnique of sawing and processing precious stones was particularly complex and was owned by a verylimited number of craftsmen. Therefore, the overwhelming majority of barbarian jewellery pieces fromthe Hunnic and Post-Hunnic Periods used the secondary-used stones, in contrast to the case of the findsin steppe, like those from Morskoi Chulek, Bylym-Kudinetovo, Ialpug, or Altynkazgan. Rather, thelatter were made in the Mediterranean workshops.

International audience ; Th e main task of this work is to determine the meaning of weapons and equestrian equipment in the hierarchy ofburials of the Sambian-Natangian (Dolkeim-Kovrovo) civilisation of the Migration Period and the Early MerovingianPeriod, corresponding to the Balts, Aestii of written sources of the 6th century (Cassiodorus, Jordanes). In total,more than 180 burials with weapons and spurs have been identifi ed from this time. Th e weapons are dominatedby combat knives, while spears, axes and shields are less common. Burials with weapons and spurs at some burialgrounds, they are scattered over the entire investigated area and do not form pronounced clusters. Th ese are, forexample, the necropolises Lauth-Bolshoye Isakovo or Schlakalken-3. In other cases, it is possible to identify zones ofconcentration of burials with military equipment, for example, in the necropolises Corejten-Putilovo, Dollkeim- Kovrovo,Grebieten-Okunevo, Hünenberg-Rantau-Dobroe. It is diffi cult to say whether the identifi ed concentrations ofsuch graves correspond to any real social groups (families? clans?). It is also necessary to note the unevenness in therichness of the funerary inventory in diff erent necropolises. Th is diff erence is clearly evident in the armament of, forexample, the burial grounds of Mitino or Zaostrovye-1, where there are very few or no weapons at all, in comparison,for example, with the Warnikam-Pervomayskoye necropolis, where they are found much more oft en. Th e diff erenceis also manifested in the wealth of inventory in diff erent parts of the same necropolis, as can be seen from the exampleof the Mitino burial ground. It turned out that weapons play a limited role as a social marker and are inherent ina signifi cant part of male burials. Th e presence of "professional" weapons (shields) and equestrian equipment (spurs)in the burials clearly indicates that among the Aestii there were people who were profi cient in this equipment. Th espread of the fashion for belts, dating back to the late Roman military tradition, as well as the presence of spurs inburials, may indicate the emergence of a "military" culture, which resembles German culture in its external features.Maybe it is worth talking about the beginning of the formation of a permanent contingent of professional soldiers(squads)? At the same time, according to a number of signs, the burials of the leaders, most likely performing militaryfunctions, are distinguished, that in the burial inventory is emphasized by the presence of prestigious weaponsand horse gear, drinking horns and the burial of two or more horses. ; Аннотация. Для самбийско-натангийской культуры эпохи Великого переселения народов и раннемеровингского времени, соответствующей эстиям, выявлено более 180 погребений с оружием и шпорами этого времени. Оружие как социальный маркер играет ограниченную роль, однако находки шпор

International audience ; The elements of prestigious horse harness of the Early Byzantine origin, decorated withcloisonné inlay style, have long been identified among the steppe nomads of the Post-Hunnic Period (theso-called Shipovo horizon from the second third of the fifth to the second third of the sixth centuries), aswell as among the sedentary barbarians in Eastern and Central Europe. These finds include disc-shapedbadges or plaques or appliques, rectangular belt-ends, and horse bits with zoomorphic images. Nowit is difficult to infer specific mechanisms for the distribution of prestigious Early Byzantine artefactsin the Barbaricum in the Post-Hunnic Period. It looks like that apart from the usual military trophiesthese items could have been included in diplomatic gifts. Written sources testify to specific cases ofdonation of horse accessories (saddles) to barbarian leaders. Along with weapons, these artefacts couldalso be obtained as a result of a symbolic investment of the Empire's allies on behalf of the emperor.The hypothesis of making the artefacts in the cloisonné inlay style directly in the Barbaricum seemsless probable, though the presence there of craftsmen including those who knew the technique ofthe Constantinople jewellery "school" is quite possible. However, it should be remembered that thetechnique of sawing and processing precious stones was particularly complex and was owned by a verylimited number of craftsmen. Therefore, the overwhelming majority of barbarian jewellery pieces fromthe Hunnic and Post-Hunnic Periods used the secondary-used stones, in contrast to the case of the findsin steppe, like those from Morskoi Chulek, Bylym-Kudinetovo, Ialpug, or Altynkazgan. Rather, thelatter were made in the Mediterranean workshops.