Brothers-in-arms. Balt warriors and their interregional contacts in the Roman and Migration periods (the case of the Bogaczewo and Sudovian cultures),   Lietuvos Archeologija 43, pp. 11-
62

Bartosz Kontny

This paper is the first attempt to summarize the state of research into the armament of the Bogaczewo and Sudovian cultures. Swords ended up with a higher than expected position. While shaft-hole axes and socketed axes played an important part, the military role of the so-called ‘fighting knives’ of the Roman period was rejected, with the exception of Dolchmesser, which were recognized as true weapons. Polearms and shields were used the most frequently. The latter, although fitting into the Central European pattern, had local traits. The bow was recognized as hunting equipment. And horses had a rather auxiliary character. Items with a Balt character that were discovered, for example, at Vimose Bog 1 and 2a and the sacrificial sites at Balsmyr, Sorte Muld, Kragehul, Skedemosse, and Uppåkra seem to prove that Balts participated in Scandinavian conflicts, which led to an exchange of ideas about such things as tactics and weapons.

LIETUVOS ARCHEOLOGIJA. 2017. T. 43, p. 11–62. ISSN 0207-8694 straipsniai BROTHERS-IN-ARMS. BALT WARRIORS AND THEIR INTERREGIONAL CONTACTS IN THE ROMAN AND MIGRATION PERIODS (THE CASE OF THE BOGACZEWO AND SUDOVIAN CULTURES) BARTOSZ KONTNY Institute of Archaeology, University of Warsaw, Krakowskie Przedmieście St. 26/28, PL 00-927 Warsaw, Poland, e-mail: bartosz. kontny@uw.edu.pl his paper is the irst attempt to summarize the state of research into the armament of the Bogaczewo and sudovian cultures. swords ended up with a higher than expected position. While shat-hole axes and socketed axes played an important part, the military role of the so-called ‘ighting knives’ of the roman period was rejected, with the exception of Dolchmesser, which were recognized as true weapons. polearms and shields were used the most frequently. he latter, although itting into the Central European pattern, had local traits. he bow was recognized as hunting equipment. and horses had a rather auxiliary character. items with a Balt character that were discovered, for example, at Vimose Bog 1 and 2a and the sacriicial sites at Balsmyr, sorte Muld, Kragehul, skedemosse, and Uppåkra seem to prove that Balts participated in scandinavian conlicts, which led to an exchange of ideas about such things as tactics and weapons. Keywords: weapons, the Western Balt circle, the Roman period, the Migration period, bog sites. straipsnyje pirmą kartą bandoma apibendrinti Bogačevo ir sūduvių kultūrų ginkluotės tyrimus. nustatyta, kad kalavijai buvo svarbesni nei manyta, taip pat didelį vaidmenį turėjo pentiniai ir įmoviniai kirviai. Vadinamųjų „kovos peilių“ karinė paskirtis romėniškuoju laikotarpiu atmesta (išskyrus Dolchmesser tipo peilius, kurie pripažinti tikrais ginklais). Dažniausiai naudoti ietys ir skydai. pastarieji, nors ir atitinka Centrinės Europos pavyzdžius, turi ir vietinių bruožų. Lankas laikytinas medžioklės įrankiu, o žirgai karyboje greičiausiai turėjo ne pagrindinį vaidmenį. Baltiškojo tipo dirbiniai, rasti, pvz., Vimose pelkėje (1 ir 2a) bei aukojimo vietose, tokiose kaip Balsmyr, sorte Muld, Kragehul, skedemosse ir Uppåkra, atskleidžia, kad baltai dalyvavo skandinavų kariniuose konliktuose, ir tai leido keistis žiniomis apie karybos taktiką bei ginklus. Reikšminiai žodžiai: ginklai, Vakarų baltų kultūrų ratas, romėniškasis laikotarpis, tautų kraustymosi laikotarpis, aukojimo pelkėse vietos. INTRODUCTION he armament of the Balts who lived in the territory of Poland during the protohistoric period has not been studied for years. It is possible to name only the Bogaczewo culture, the Sudovian culture, and the Elbląg group as relatively well-known cultural units, although this list is far from inal. Some general state- ments, however, can currently be made, at least in respect to the weaponry of the Bogaczewo and Sudovian cultures. his paper aims to present an up-to-date model of Balt armament based mainly but not exclusively on the studies of the present author (Nowakowski 1994a; 1995; 2007a; 2007b; 2009b; 2014; Kontny 2007a; 2007b; 2008a; 2011; 2013a; 2013b; 2015a; 2015b; 2016a; 2016b; 2017a; 2017c; forthcoming a). 12 BARTOSZ KONTNY POLEARMS hese were deinitely the basic ofensive weapon. Non-specialized types, i.e. implements that could have been used as either a spear or a javelin, as needed, probably prevailed in both cultures. he former function was likely to have been very important as shown by the large number of burials with one polearm head. his observation is especially valid for the Sudovian culture where only three burials containing more than one polearm head can be named out of 58 polearm burials1 (5.2%) whereas in the Bogaczewo culture 43 of the 267 such burials (16.1%) have been so identiied. A certain specialisation of heads with leaf-shaped blades has also been proven in the latter culture by the occurrence (although sporadic) of barbed spearheads (Nowakowski 2014), which unambiguously served as javelins2. Additionally, pairs of heads that clearly difered in size were occasionally placed in a burial, which allows the assumption to be made that they belonged to a spear and a javelin. his may be the result of the chronological situation: in the Bogaczewo culture no weapon burials occur ater C1b (Kontny 2008a, pp.100–101) whereas the tendency that existed in the Przeworsk culture to use specialized polearms ceased in C1b (Kontny 2008b, p.114, Diagram 34). hus the popularity of such weapons in the Bogaczewo culture should probably be considered proof of Przeworsk inluence in the Early Roman period and the early part of the Younger Roman period. Unfortunately, the predominance of cremations in the Bogaczewo culture means that no data are available for the dimensions of the wooden polearm elements. Based on the material from Sudovian inhumations, one may deduce that the long (roughly 3 m) shats known from Scandinavia were not popular among the Balts where shats close in length to the warrior’s height predominated (Kontny 2001, p.120), like in the Przeworsk culture (see Kontny 2008b, pp.114–117, note 44). A surprisingly diferent situation can be seen in respect to the spearhead types if the Bogaczewo and Sudovian cultures are taken into consideration (Kontny 2007b). In the former, the Przeworsk inluence is overwhelming. Almost all of the Roman period Przeworsk types are present in the Bogaczewo cultural material, Piotr Kaczanowski (1995) types VII, VIII, and XII being the most popular, but local types also sometimes occur (Kontny 2007b, pp.126–128, Figs. 7, 8). Other cultural elements, e.g. Scandinavian and Eastern, are barely recognizable: only some rarely noticed features like a concave upper blade, a wide conical socket, or the rather frequent use of nails to attach the socket seem to point to eastern features. Nevertheless, some forms seem to be more primitive than their models from the Przeworsk culture. It therefore seems that the overwhelming majority of the Bogaczewo specimens were produced in local workshops. It has so far been almost impossible to identify any Przeworsk imports. he opposite situation existed in the Sudovian culture. he polearm heads as a whole cannot be itted into Kaczanowski’s scheme. here are a few, typically Przeworsk, spearheads from the earliest stage which should probably be associated with Bogaczewo inluence. Nevertheless, Scandinavian inluences seem to be of greater importance; the vast majority of Sudovian spearheads should be linked with examples described by Vytautas Kazakevičius (Kазакявичюс 1988) (Fig. 18:4, 5). Most frequent are specimens of type IB/IБ, including a variant, followed by IVA, IA, ID, and II. Scandinavian patterns are rarely spotted and proven among objects from the Sudovian and Dollkeim-Kovrovo cultures (Fig. 1). As to decorated heads, they occur almost exclusively in the Bogaczewo culture (Fig. 2:1–5, 1 Osowa, barrow 114, burial 2 (Jaskanis 1962, pp.274–275, tabl. VII:3–10; collection of the Podlachia Museum in Białystok, inv. no. MB/A/128, cat. 542); Szurpiły, barrow XXII (Żurowski 1961, pp.71–73, tabl. XVIII, XIX:1–22); Szwajcaria, barrow 2, burial 1 (Antoniewicz et. al. 1958, pp.23–31, tabl. I–IX; Jaskanis 2013, pp.76–80, tabl. CXVII–CXXV; Kontny 2013b; 2016a; collection of the State Archaeological Museum in Warsaw, inv. no. PMA/IV/4498). 2 Because the presence of barbs made it impossible to use the weapon more than once, i.e. to quickly pull it out of the target (e.g. the opponent’s shield or body), this kind of weapon would be a hindrance in melee combat and so should be considered a missile. BROTHERS-IN-ARMS. BALT WARRIORS AND THEIR INTERREGIONAL CONTACTS IN THE ROMAN AND MIGRATION... 13 3 2 1 0 4 3 cm 5 6 Fig. 1. Imported Scandinavian polearm heads or imitations of them from the West Balts: 1, 2 – Type Vennolum from Szwajcaria, barrow 2, burial 1; 3 – an imitation Scandinavian single-barbed, type Saeli/Ilkjær 23 (?) javelin head made from a type Kaczanowski VIII head from Netta, burial 81; 4 – the type Sättra spearhead from Pervomajskoe, burial 49; 5 – the type Skuttunge spearhead from Dubravka, burial 28; 6 – the type Mollestad head from Osowa, barrow 13. 1 – ater Kontny 2007b; 2 – ater Jaskanis 2013; 3 – ater Kontny 2007b; 4 – drawing by B. Kontny; 5 – ater Raddatz 1993; 6 – ater Kontny 2007b, with further literature. 14 BARTOSZ KONTNY 2 3 0 1–6 5 cm 1 4 5 7 6 8 9 Fig. 2. Decorated and notched polearm heads from the West Balts and a parallel form: 1 – Łabapa, burial 67, the Bogaczewo culture (on the let) and Wesółki, burial 45, a Przeworsk parallel (on the right); 2 – Muntowo, burial 120, the Bogaczewo culture; 3 – Łabapa, burial 63; 4 – Stara Rudówka, burial 13, the Bogaczewo culture; 5 – Judziki, a stray ind; 6 – Szwajcaria, barrow 2, burial 1, the Sudovian culture; 7 – Stara Rudówka, burial 13, the Bogaczewo culture; 8 – Marcinkowo, burial 13, the Bogaczewo culture; 9 – Tûlenino, burial 154, the Dollkeim-Kovrovo culture. 1 (on the let) – ater La Baume 1941b; 1 (on the right), 2–9 – ater Kontny 2007b; 2017a, with further literature. 7–9 – not to scale. BROTHERS-IN-ARMS. BALT WARRIORS AND THEIR INTERREGIONAL CONTACTS IN THE ROMAN AND MIGRATION... 7–9). he designs, which also have analogies in the Dollkeim-Kovrovo culture, include short lines (Fig. 2:7–9) punched on the blade’s surface (stitch pattern) vertically or parallel to the blade’s edges (Kontny 2007b, p.118, Fig. 1; 2008c, pp.147, 149, 160–162, ryc. 3:e, 5:e–g). Although these designs have been identiied in diferent areas of Central Europe, it was the most popular in the Przeworsk culture during phase B2. Another decoration identiied with the Bogaczewo culture, i.e. a negative design consisting of triangles (Fig. 2:4) or zig-zag lines (Fig. 2:3), was quite popular in the Przeworsk culture during late B2–C1a (Kontny 2007b, pp.117– 118, Fig. 2; 2017a). Another decoration is an eye design formed from oblique lines placed around the rivet/nail holes on a socket (Fig. 2:5) (Kontny 2007b, pp.121–125, Fig. 4; Czarnecka, Kontny 2008). All of these motifs stem from the Przeworsk culture but were made in Balt territory by local cratsmen, as is proven by some local features. he one exception is an early head with notched edges from Łabapa burial 67 (Fig. 2:1 on the let; another notched head is indigenous – Fig. 2:2, see Kontny 2007a, pp.81–86, ryc. 4, 5, 6:a; 2007b, pp.120–121, Fig. 3:d–h); both items (Fig. 2:1, 2) date to the turn of the Early Roman period. In addition, one of the two Sudovian polearm heads, a specimen from 15 Szwajcaria, barrow 2, burial 1 (Fig. 2:6), which is ascribed to Kaczanowski (1995) type XV and adorned with inlaid silver designs known from Central European objects (solar and crescent motifs), was inspired by a Przeworsk design but made locally (Kontny 2007b, pp.125–126, Fig. 5; 2016a, p.256, Figs. 5:39, 6:58). SWORDS One of the long-lasting ideas regarding weapons was formulated by Wojciech Nowakowski (1994a) who stated that the Balts used swords only in exceptional cases. A later ‘outburst’ of archival data concerning the Balt lands as well as the relics that survived the Second World War (e.g. Bitner-Wróblewska 2008a) 3 did not change that view significantly. (Some specimens were verified and only a single sword was added to the list.) And so he confirmed his thesis (Nowakowski 2007a), which was mainly based on archaeological evidence, i.e. the scarcity of swords, but also supplementally on information given by Tacitus in ‘De origine et situ germanorum’ or ‘Germania’ (written in 98 AD), which states of the aestii, i.e. the Balts who 3 As to the evidence, this is connected with the reappearance of a signiicant part of the Prussia-Museum collection (hereinater referred to as the Prussia-Sammlung) and archives (both written data, hereinater the Prussia-Archiv, and photographs) now kept in the Museum of Prehistory and Early History (Ger. Museum für Vor- und Frühgeschichte) in Berlin as well as another part, which was unearthed at Fort Quednau near Kaliningrad and is now in the Regional Museum of History of Art (Rus. Oblastnoj istorikoChudožestvennyj Muzej; Областной историко-художественный музей) in Kaliningrad; both discoveries occurred in the 1990s; a smaller part of the collection, which is at the Museum of Warmia and Mazury (Pol. Muzeum Warmii i Mazur) in Olsztyn, was known much earlier. his was supplemented by further archival data like the so-called inventory books of the Prussia-Museum (partly published: Bitner-Wróblewska 2008b; mentioned in the text as the Prussia-Museum Inventory Books) as well as the private iles of archaeologists who were active in the pre-war period and strongly interested in the Balt area. In the ield of weaponry, the heritage of the following archaeologists was especially useful: Martin Jahn – now in the Institute of Archaeology, University of Warsaw (Pol. instytut archeologii Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego); Herbert Jankuhn – in the State Archaeological Museum Schloss Gottorf in Schleswig (Ger. archäologisches Landesmuseum schloss Gottorf in schleswig); partly published: Nowakowski 2013; Feliks Jakobson – in the National History Museum of Latvia in Riga (Latv. Latvijas nacionālais Vēstures Muzejs, Rīga); published: Jakobson 2009; Bitner-Wróblewska et al. 2011; Marta Schmiedehelm – in the Archaeological Research Collection, Tallinn University (Est. tallinna Ülikooli arheoloogia teaduskogu, arhiiv); prepared for publication by Anna Juga-Szymańska and Paweł Szymański; Kurt Voigtmann – in the Museum of Prehistory and Early History in Berlin; Rudolf Grenz – in the State Archaeological Museum Schloß Gottorf in Schleswig; and Carl Engel – in Grenz’s heritage and in Johann Gottfried Herder Institute in Marburg (Ger. Johann Gottfried Herder-institut in Marburg). 16 had lived on the Sambian Peninsula 4, that ‘rarus ferri, frequens fustium usus’; ‘he use of an iron weapon is rare, that of clubs common.’ [translated by J. A. Bakanauskas] (Germania, 45, 3; Tacitus 1990). Nowakowski’s idea was that the Balts had such a dislike for swords that they preferred the shortest possible specimens, sometimes even shortened ones, their main sword substitute being a ighting knife or dagger. However, Tacitus’ message concerning the lack of iron among the Balts may simply be a topos. Tacitus also used such clichés to describe German armaments: ‘ne ferrum quidem superest, sicut ex genere telorum colligitur. rari gladii aut maioribus lanceis utuntur’; ‘Even iron is not plentiful, as may be inferred from the nature of their weapons. Few swords and larger lances are used’ [translated by J. A. Bakanauskas] (Germania, 6; Tacitus 1990). his was apparently false as swords were quite popular among the Germans (see, for example, Biborski 1978; 1994; Kontny 2001, pp.106–107, wykres 1; 2004b, pp.151–153; 2008b, p.121, Diagram 11; Biborski, Ilkjær 2006; Miks 2007) as were spears with fairly large heads (Kontny 2008b, pp.108, 110– 117). he irst part of the quoted passage about the aestii does not seem clear: while organic bludgeons were popular in diferent periods, at the turn of the millennium they were probably quite rare. here are almost no data proving their existence in proto-historical Barbaricum aside from inds from Oberdorla in hüringen, sites that date to La Tène and Roman periods (Behm-Blancke 2003, pp.39–40, 50, 53, 89– 90, 145, 147, 149, 185–186, Taf. 24:4, 34:11, 37:10, 78:4, 100:1–6, 117:6), clubs from the Alken Enge bog site in East Jutland5, and inally club representa- BARTOSZ KONTNY tions on the miniatures in Hoard 1 (Early Migration period) at Şimleu Silvaniei (Hun. szilágysomlyó) in Transylvania, Romania (Gschwantler 1999, pp.67, 70, Abb. 11, 19). However, they served as hunting rather than ighting weapons and at Alken Enge, they were probably used to execute the prisoners of war (Kontny 2015a, p.279). Moreover one cannot exclude that Tacitus used slightly outdated information in describing the Venethi (Nowakowski 1996a, pp.190–191) and the swords of the Gothones, rugii, and Lemovii (Kontny 2008d, p.184). It seems that his statement about Aestian clubs (fustis) should be attributed to the West Balt Barrow culture thriving on the Sambian Peninsula until the 1st century, especially since the use of wooden clubs has been proven for that culture (Kontny 2015a). In societies that lack metal (e.g. iron) and cannot be described as warrior-societies, the boundary between hunting and fighting weapons is vague if it even exists (judging from ethnographic studies). It is therefore plausible that these were multi-purpose weapons that were soon replaced by the superior polearms, shaft-hole axes, and socketed axes of the later stages of the Roman period (Kontny 2015a, pp.279–280). In conclusion, the assumption can be made that the Aestian clubs and lack of iron mentioned by Tacitus can be interpreted as common ‘knowledge’ or as evidence of the realia of the preceding chronological periods. Nowakowski’s list, which includes swords from the Bogaczewo, Sudovian, and Dollkeim-Kovrovo cultures, should be supplemented by the recent ind of a big fragment of a sword close to the Bogaczewo cemetery at Grzybowo (Ger. Grzybowen), Ryn Commune6 4 hey are identiied with the inhabitants of the Sambian Peninsula and the neighbouring lands, i.e. the Dollkeim-Kovrovo culture (Nowakowski 1994a, p.379; 2008, pp.45–47; Kolendo 2008b, p.21), which reached its zenith in the Roman period owing to natural resources, i.e. amber, which was very popular in the Roman Empire. he picture of the aestii is quite precise and encompasses even some details of their language. It seems therefore that they were well known to the Romans, probably because they were at one end of the Amber Route and so were frequently in contact with Roman merchants (Kolendo 1998, p.34; 2008a, p.176; 2008b, pp.20–25). 5 Personal communication: Dr Mads Kähler Holst of the Moesgaard Museum, excavation coordinator at the site. See also: http:// www.skanderborgmuseum.dk/Status_2012-1141.aspx (Accessed 6 May 2017). 6 In keeping with French tradition, the oicial name for a gmina, the smallest Polish administrative unit (note by J. A. Bakanauskas). BROTHERS-IN-ARMS. BALT WARRIORS AND THEIR INTERREGIONAL CONTACTS IN THE ROMAN AND MIGRATION... (see Peiser 1919a) but its provenance is doubtful7. here are at least several more swords, mostly from bog sites, i.e. Wólka (Ger. Wolka-see), Kętrzyn Commune (Kontny 2015b, pp.315, 318–319, Fig. 1, with further literature) and the sensational ind from Czaszkowo, Piecki Commune (Nowakiewicz, Rzeszotarska-Nowakiewicz 2012, pp.59–61, Figs. 34–36). At least a few have been identiied as Roman imports (Kontny 2017c, p.90). he most impressive elements of the Czaszkowo swords are the pure gold guard and throat mount and the amber sword bead; it is speculated that the metal elements possess Mediterranean or Pontic/Byzantine (?) parallels (Nowakiewicz, Rzeszotarska-Nowakiewicz 2012, pp.74–78, Figs. 51–53) but this has not yet been proven. It plausibly dates to the Migration period, i.e. when the Bogaczewo culture no longer existed in this area which had been occupied by members of the Olsztyn group. he above image can be reinforced by new evidence from the archival data and published material, although this evidence consists of only small sword-related fragments that prove the use of such weapons (Kontny 2017c, Fig. 4), e.g. a possible scabbard throat mount found in Onufryjewo (Ger. Onufrigowen), burial 275 (Fig. 3:1, a Przeworsk culture parallel: Fig. 3:2), a C-shaped scabbard collar from Nowy Zyzdrój (Ger. neu-sysdroy), burial 148, and a baldric (Lat. balteus) itting: a bronze openwork circular plate, perhaps enamelled, from Babięta (Ger. Babienten) I, burial 305a. A couple of ‘new’ inds from old sources also come from the Dollkeim-Kovrovo culture: from Âroslavskoe (Ger. schlakalken), burial 16, an item published 17 (Jankuhn 1939, p.253, Abb. 9) as an iron itting with traces of two rivets actually served as a grip itting for a single-edged sword, Biborski type D (Fig. 3:3, a Balt parallel from Szurpiły: Fig. 3:4), which was characteristic for the end of the Early Roman period (see Biborski 1978, p.128; Kontny 2003a, p.69). his interpretation is supported by the fact that the burial included a scabbard (or part of one) from such a sword, as shown by the fragment of an iron C-shaped scabbard clasp. he premise that swords were used in the Dollkeim-Kovrovo culture is based on a winged chape found at Kotel’nikovo (Ger. Warengen), burial 4 (Fig. 3:5, Scandinavian parallel: Fig. 3:6; see: Peiser 1919b, p.322; Jankuhn’s heritage; Kontny 2017c, p.94, Fig. 4:5). Singleedged swords, which evolved from dagger-knives (Ger. Dolchmesser), and their scabbards were later proven to date to the Late Migration period in the Elbląg group, the Olsztyn group (chapes exclusively), the Sambian-Natangian area, and Lithuania (Fig. 4; Kontny 2017c, Figs. 6–8). It is theoretically possible to identify a baldric used for a sword. One may assume the use of the sword in a burial where two buckles were found: one presumably from a waist belt and another from a baldric. he solution, however, is not as simple and universal as it was in the Przeworsk culture where big rectangular belt buckles with double tongues are found together with smaller baldric buckles (Madyda-Legutko 1990). he appearance of these big buckles in the Bogaczewo culture has been treated as evidence of Przeworsk inluence (Nowakowski 1994b, p.374), the Przeworsk armament model having greatly inluenced the Bogaczewo culture. It therefore seems 7 Although fragmentarily preserved, it looks like to be a Marcin Biborski (1978, p.60, ryc. 2:d, 3:a) type I/6 or I/5 dating to B2, a group II Roman sword (Biborski 1994, pp.94–95, Abb. 494, 495), or a Roman spatha of the Newstead type (Kaczanowski 1992) or Straubing-Nydam type, Newstead variant according to Christian Miks (2007, pp.117–119). he association with a Roman sword was supported by the remains of a punched mark on the grip’s thong, although the mark’s elongated form is rather untypical of Roman ones; it was probably let from an efort to control it during the manufacturing process; rectangular stamps occur on blades, especially their upper parts (Biborski 1994; Biborski, Ilkjær 2006, pp.302–303). However metallographic studies carried out by Dr Grzegorz Żabiński from Jan Długosz University in Częstochowa proved that it was made of cast iron, i.e. a technology unknown to both the Romans and Barbarians. hus it appears it must be excluded from the collection of ancient inds (see Żabiński et al. 2016, note 8). 18 BARTOSZ KONTNY 2 0 3 cm 1 3 4 0 5 3 cm 6 Fig. 3. West Balt sword hilt and scabbard elements and their parallels: 1 – Onufryjewo, burial 275, the Bogaczewo culture; 2 – Cetula, burial 2, a Przeworsk parallel; 3 – Âroslavskoe, burial 16, the Dollkeim-Kovrovo culture; 4 – Szurpiły, site 4, the Sudovian culture (?); 5 – Kotel’nikovo, burial 4, the Dollkeim-Kovrovo culture; 6 – Kragehul bog site. 1 – ater Jankuhn’s heritage (Nowakowski 2013); 2 – ater Biborski 2000; 3 – ater Jankuhn 1939; 4 – ater Sawicka 2007; 5 – ater Jankuhn’s heritage; 6 – ater Iversen 2010. BROTHERS-IN-ARMS. BALT WARRIORS AND THEIR INTERREGIONAL CONTACTS IN THE ROMAN AND MIGRATION... 19 Fig. 4. Distribution of the Balt type seaxes: blue circles – early forms, red circles – developed forms, green circles – only chapes. Ater Kазакявичюс 1988; Kontny 2013a. 20 BARTOSZ KONTNY sensible to apply the Przeworsk culture-oriented model here and infer that two buckles (one of them with a double tongue) in a West Balt burial indicates the presence of a sword (Kontny 2017c, pp.97–99, 106–108). In conclusion, the idea of an almost complete absence of swords among the Balts is deinitely too pessimistic. he discovery of scabbards and baldric elements in burials as well as swords at bog sites instead proves that swords were treated diferently than in the neighbouring Przeworsk culture and Scandinavian area where scabbards alone were quite rare among grave goods (see Kontny 2003b, p.129, wykres 4). his could be the result of swords having a greater value than in the rest of Barbaricum and a subsequent intention to economize. SHAFT-HOLE AND SOCKETED AXES Apart from doubts concerning the use of fustes among the Balts in the Roman period as well as their real function (Kontny 2015a, also see the remarks above), one may point out unambiguous melee weapons in the Balt cultural environment, namely shat-hole (Kontny forthcoming a) and socketed axes (Kontny 2016b) which comprise one of the most prominent Balt weapons in the Roman period. here were two main shat-hole axe groups (Kontny forthcoming a): group I (Fig. 5) with an asymmetric bevelled head (subgroup 1 – specimens characterized by a strong asymmetry with distinct rear lugs as well as a head bevelled on both sides, Fig. 5:1, 2; subgroup 2 – less asymmetrical ones, 3 1 0 5 cm 4 5 2 Fig. 5. Bogaczewo axes of subgroups I.1 (1, 2) and I.2 (3–5): 1 – Bartlikowo (Ger. Bartlickshof), burial 7; 2 – Stręgiel II, burial 150; 3 – Lisy, burial 67; 4 – Radužnoe, burial I; 5 – Sterławki Małe, burial 342. 1, 5 – drawings by B. Kontny; 2–4 – ater Nowakowski 2013. BROTHERS-IN-ARMS. BALT WARRIORS AND THEIR INTERREGIONAL CONTACTS IN THE ROMAN AND MIGRATION... sometimes with an almost straight upper head line that drops only in the vicinity of the cutting edge, Fig. 5:3–5; subgroup 3 – waisted chunky ones) and group II (Figs. 6, 7) with an overall head symmetry, a length of 10.3–20 cm, and usually convex or slightly lattened polls (subgroup 1 – narrow ones with elongated-oval eyes hardly distinguishable from the body and wide, fan-shaped cutting edges, variety II.1.1 I – with wide bits and waisted bodies, see Fig. 6:1–4; subgroup 2 – ones with thick bodies, waisted on both sides, oval eyes, sometimes chamfered, occasionally lattened butts, and less laring 21 bits than those of subgroup II.1, see Fig. 6:5–8; subgroup 3 – an intermediate form, i.e. with thick bodies and indistinct butts, see Fig. 7:6). he chronology of group I encompasses the Early Roman period with the possible exception of subgroup I.3, for which no grounds for precise dating exist. Group I axes have been documented in the central and especially northern part of the Bogaczewo culture, but have also been proven to occur in the Dollkeim-Kovrovo culture (a stray ind from Bugrovo, Zelenogradsk District (Ger. Warglitten, Kreis Fischhausen) and in Lithuania, i.e. type 5 (Malonaitis 1 5 2 6 3 7 4 8 0 1–3, 5, 6, 8 5 cm Fig. 6. Bogaczewo axes of subgroups II.1 (1–4) and II.2 (5–8): 1 – Bogaczewo-Kula; 2 – Raczki, burial 6a; 3 – Bartlikowo, burial 384; 4 – Nowy Zyzdrój, burial 186; 5 – Bargłów Dworny, a stray ind; 6 – Judziki, burial 12; 7 – Koczek II, burial 121; 8 – Spychówko, a stray ind (?). 1 – ater Okulicz 1958; 2 – ater La Baume, Gronau 1941; 3 – ater Nowakowski 2013; 4 – ater Schmiedehelm’s heritage; 5 – drawing by B. Kontny; 6 – ater Engel et al. 2006; 7 – ater Juga et al. 2003; 8 – ater Gaerte 1929. 4, 7 – not to scale. 22 BARTOSZ KONTNY 1 4 2 5 3 6 0 5 cm Fig. 7. Sudovian (1–5) and Bogaczewo (6) group II axes: 1 – variant II.1.1 (Netta, burial 30); 2 – variant II.1.2 (Szwajcaria, barrow 26); 3 – variant II.1.3 (Szurpiły, barrow XXI, central burial); 4 – subgroup II.2 (Suwałki region, stray ind); 5 – subgroup II.3 (Szwajcaria, barrow 2, burial 1); 6 – subgroup II.3 (Paprotki Kolonia, burial 67). 1, 2 – ater Jaskanis 2013; 3 – ater Żurowski 1961; 4, 5 – drawings by B. Kontny; 6 – photo by M. Karczewski. 2008, pp.47–52, 298), e.g. Paragaudis, Šilalė District (the Lithuanian-Latvian Barrow culture). In Lithuania they continue into the Younger Roman period. At the moment, it seems that asymmetric axes irst appeared in the Bogaczewo culture, from which they spread to the north–north east, perhaps even inluencing 3rd–4th century Oka-Râzan’ axes. Based on a chronological analysis of grave inds, the chronological range of the speciic subgroups is as follows: subgroup II.1: B2–C2, II.2: B2–C1a, and II.3: B2/C1–C1a. Symmetrical axes have been documented in almost the entire territory of the Bogaczewo culture except for the northernmost area where group I axes predominated. his could indicate local weaponry diferences, but this supposition should be checked in the future. Fewer axes are known from the Sudovian culture but the state of the research is poor. heir absence in the Gołdap group should obviously be linked to the burial rites which excluded the placement of weapons in the grave. Sudovian axes are 10.5–17.5 cm long and generally have less distinct butts compared to Bogaczewo inds. hey represent exclusively subgroup II (Fig. 7:1–5), including not only the typical forms: II.1, II.2 (Fig. 7:4), and II.3 (Fig. 7:5), but also BROTHERS-IN-ARMS. BALT WARRIORS AND THEIR INTERREGIONAL CONTACTS IN THE ROMAN AND MIGRATION... variants II.1.1 (Fig. 7:1), II.1.2, an axe with a very wide, fan-shaped cutting edge (Fig. 7:2), and II.1.3, slightly asymmetrical axes reminiscent of group I (Fig. 7:3). he symmetrical inds from the Sudovian culture have been dated to C1–C2 and are thus close to the chronology of the Bogaczewo specimens and naturally exclude B2, which precedes the advent of the Sudovian culture. hey were probably in common use in the Bogaczewo culture even during C2 but this cannot be proven as the habit of placing weapons in graves was abandoned there in C1b. Parallel axes (group II) from the Dollkeim-Kovrovo culture have sometimes been found together with dating elements that allow their chronology to be extended to C2–C3 (Kontny forthcoming a). Hat size can be considered in determining the function of the shat-hole axes. Based on inds from the Roman period, including those from Scandinavian sacriicial bog sites, one may imagine their length as 60–90 cm, i.e. sword length. Speciically, those with symmetrical heads have frequently been found together with other weapons, leading to the conclusion that, like socketed axes, they served as a sword substitute. his does not exclude other uses and ethnographical analogies. It is therefore possible to imagine axes as multi-purpose tools, but with a primary military use (Kontny forthcoming a). Another group of edged weapons consisted of socketed axes (Figs. 8, 9). Very similar carpenters’ tools, i.e. adzes, also existed in Barbaricum, as is well documented among the Balts, but they can be quite easily distinguished8. Socketed axes are 23 known among the West Balts in the Roman period, Migration period, and Early Middle Ages but their direct prototypes lie in the West Balt Barrow culture of the Early Iron Age as is shown by their substantial size and morphology, especially the socket’s bulge and tapered lip. he axes from the Bogaczewo and Sudovian cultures have round cross-section sockets of varying depth that usually reach the base of the bit and generally have a wedge-shaped or lat bottom. he sockets are carefully inished, although sometimes a longitudinal seam is noticeable. No horizontal rivets or nails were used to secure any of the handles. he axes are 10–16 cm long with a socket diameter of 2.3–4.4 cm. he bit is demarcated by a waist, which is usually symmetrical. (his does not apply to the majority of the later Lithuanian inds; see Malonaitis 2008, pav. 48). he 10–14 cm long inds from the Bogaczewo culture have sockets of varying depths that usually reach the base of the bit and have a wedge-shaped or lat bottom. he axes can be divided into three types: I – those with a massive, clearly bulging socket and a waist between the socket and the fan-shaped bit (Fig. 8:1–3); II – axes similar to group I but with an evenly tapering socket that gives them a well-distinguished waist and an hour-glass shape (Fig. 8:4–6); and III – axes with parallel or almost parallel socket walls and a gently laring bit; both inds have an oblique socket lip, which can be considered a distinctive feature (Fig. 8:7, 8). Based on the collected material, it can be assumed that the form of socketed axes changed little over time. hey have so far been discovered in assemblages dating from B1 to B2/C1. It does not yet he bit’s transverse asymmetry, i.e. visible lattening on the outer side (a single cutting edge bevel) and its curvature allow an adze, a woodworking tool, to be distinguished from a socketed axe. A square cross-section socket also suggests an adze as it prevents the tool from revolving during work. his rotation was apparently much more likely for smaller tools that were more susceptible to tension during repeated revolving actions, which may occur when working wood, e.g. when making grooves. his is not to say that a round socket prevented a tool from being used as an adze. Adzes could also have uninished sockets, sometimes even with an incomplete bottom: such adzes seem to have been carelessly made. he bit is quite oten asymmetrical with an uneven upper part. he adzes made by the Balts were also quite small, not exceeding 10 cm in length. his likewise applies to the majority of the known Barbarian adzes from the Roman period. Longer specimens, which have symmetrical edges and sometimes round cross-section sockets, are very rare in Barbaricum (Kontny 2015b, pp.315–316; 2016b, pp.39, 41). 8 24 BARTOSZ KONTNY 3 1 2 6 4 5 7 8 0 5 cm Fig. 8. Bogaczewo socketed axes: 1, 2, 4 – Judziki, stray inds; 3 – Romoty, burial 70; 5 – Radužnoe, burial VI; 6 – Kosewo I, burial 292; 7 – Bargłów Dworny, a stray ind; 8 – Judziki, burial 7. 1, 2, 4, 7, 8 – drawings by B. Kontny; 3 – ater Grenz’s heritage; 5 – ater Bezzenberger 1896; 6 – ater Schmiedehelm’s heritage. BROTHERS-IN-ARMS. BALT WARRIORS AND THEIR INTERREGIONAL CONTACTS IN THE ROMAN AND MIGRATION... 1 2 0 25 3 5 cm 4 5 Fig. 9. Sudovian socketed axes: 1 – type II/III (Netta, burial 12); 2 – type III (Żywa Woda, barrow 7); 3 – type III (Szwajcaria, burial S.12); 4 – type III (Szwajcaria, barrow LXXII, burial 2); 5 – type Malonaitis 2 (Szwajcaria, barrow 40). 1 – ater Bitner-Wróblewska 2007; 2–5 – drawings by B. Kontny. 26 seem feasible to narrow down the dating of the socketed axe groups, although it may be supposed that type I, the massive axes with large diameter sockets, derives directly from forms known in the West Balt Barrow culture and so should be rather early. Compared to inds from the Bogaczewo culture, Sudovian axes have a broader spectrum of dimensions (Fig. 9): alongside smaller, 10–14 cm axes are substantially larger ones up to 17.5 cm long. heir morphology also difers. No type I axes have so far been identiied in the Sudovian culture. he straighter, generally slimmer sockets may be due to chronological, rather than cultural diferences, but owing to the scarcity of well-dated Bogaczewo assemblages, this remark has to remain hypothetical, a subject for future study. Sudovian socketed axes are usually slimmer and oten longer than their Bogaczewo equivalents; in addition their sockets have a smaller exterior diameter (2.3–3.6 cm compared to 3.5–4.4 cm). his may be owing to the use of a diferent, more secure fastening, e.g. leather straps or wooden wedges. On the other hand, it seems justiied to assume that the Sudovian culture (or, starting with the Roman period, since the cultural shit overlaps the chronological shit) used hats from another, more durable material, which allowed smaller diameter sockets. Specimens determined as type II can be linked with C1a (Osowa, barrow 8, burial 1). An intermediate II/ III form (Fig. 9:1) and type III (Fig. 9:2–4) belong to a broader chronological range: from B2/C1 to C1b– C2. Meanwhile the type 2 axe (see Malonaitis 2008, pp.105–109, 303) from barrow 40 in Szwajcaria (Jaskanis 2013, p.101, tabl. CLXXXVI:2) (Fig. 9:5) should be linked with C1a (Kontny 2016b, with further literature). Socketed axes probably played a role analogous to the shat-hole axes: they have a similar weight (0.25–0.5 kg) and similar numbers of shat-hole and socketed axes have been found at Bogaczewo and Sudovian cemeteries, which may indicate a similar status in the burial rites. No socketed axe has been found in the same burial as a shat-hole axe, which BARTOSZ KONTNY indicates that they were treated interchangeably, and this, together with similar functional features, seems to suggest that they were used for identical purposes. An artefact’s function may be determined with the help of the edge’s shape. A single-bevelled cutting edge (chisel-shaped) suggests that it was a tool and probably used for working wood (carpentry, boat-building, etc.). In the collection of specimens, from both the Bogaczewo and Sudovian cultures, the only single-bevel artefacts are the smallest ones; these have been determined to be adzes, which oten have a quadrangular cross-section socket and usually a visibly lared bit. he majority of the specimens, however, including all the bigger ones, have a double-bevelled cutting edge. he manner of hating is equally important. Based on the discoveries of Pre-Roman and Roman period socketed axes with preserved handles from Danish bog sites, one may assume that the Balts’ socketed axes also had both one- and two-piece knee-shaped handles. (he latter are known from Vimose: Christensen 2005, pp.62–63, Figs. 11, 12, and Hjortspring: Kaul 2003, p.155, Fig. 4:11.) he context of the discovery of Scandinavian socketed axes may lead to some doubts as to their function (although they may have been used in battle, they were designed for camp work, grubbing, and other needs that arose during the military expeditions, including boat-building) but the situation among the West Balts is clearer. Socketed axes frequently appear in their burial assemblages, including the ones from inhumations. heir location in the grave may suggest the manner of their hating: kneeshaped handles with an acute angle bend of about 70–80˚ in relation to the head’s axis. he shat-hole axes were also hated at a similar angle, which suggests a similarity between the two axe types. he cutting edge was parallel to the body in the grave pit, which excludes the possibility of their being adzes. he axe in Marvelė burial 312, Kaunas District (Central Lithuanian group) is particularly interesting (Fig. 10:1): the blade lay beside a type Vidgiriai shoulder belt, which had been placed above the head BROTHERS-IN-ARMS. BALT WARRIORS AND THEIR INTERREGIONAL CONTACTS IN THE ROMAN AND MIGRATION... (Bertašius 2005, pp.79–80, Taf. CXL). A clearly visible correlation exists in the Lithuanian material between type Vidgiriai shoulder belts, ighting knives, and polearms (half of the 14 cases), but even more so for socketed axes (Prassolow 2013, p.103). hus it appears that these belts were used to carry weapons, including socketed axes, which seems to conirm the military use of these axes. Another important premise as to their function derives from Szwajcaria, burial S.12 in a Sudovian cemetery (Antoniewicz 1962; Jaskanis 2013, p.69, tabl. CIII, CIV). he clear spatial division of the grave goods should be noted (Fig. 10:2). he domestic tools (a spoon-bit auger and a sickle-shaped knife) were placed next to the supine skeleton’s right leg, the weapons (a polearm head, a presumable arrowhead, and a socketed axe) and the tools, which were usually suspended from a warrior’s belt (a knife, a bar-shaped ire steel), next to and above the shoulder. he axe’s location suggests its symbolic connection with military rather than agricultural and woodworking activities. he contexts in which socketed axes have been found among the West Balts are not uniform. Such axes have been documented almost exclusively in burials with weapons. While they are not accompanied by other woodworking tools in the Bogaczewo and Sudovian cultures, in the Dollkeim-Kovrovo culture this happens quite oten which, in the tentative opinion of Klaus Raddatz (1993, pp.174–179), was explained by the exceptional role played by woodworkers, whose status was comparable to that of smiths in the Celtic and La Tène worlds; in his opinion, the Balts from Sambia, Natangia, and Nadrovia represent a speciic Holzkultur. While acknowledging the impossibility of conclusively establishing the purpose of socketed axes, the contexts in which they were found in Bogaczewo and Sudovian burials suggest that they did have a military designation, although, of course, they could have also been used in other ways, like shat-hole axes (for a detailed discussion see: Kontny 2016b, pp. 47–52, 64). 27 1 2 Fig. 10. Location of socketed axes in West Balt burials: 1 – Marvelė, burial 312; 2 – Szwajcaria, burial S.12. 1 – ater Bertašius 2005; 2 – ater Jaskanis 2013. SHIELDS Shield elements are mostly represented among the Balts by shield bosses while grips and other ittings are quite rare. Although they represent wellknown types from Barbarian Europe, some discrepancies are noticeable in respect to chronology. Certain types remained in use far longer among the Balts than elsewhere (Kontny 2015b, pp.308– 28 BARTOSZ KONTNY 2 1 4 3 5 7 6 Fig. 11. Archaic Balt shield boss elements: 1, 2 – big headed nails/rivets; 3–5 – numerous rivets/nails; 6, 7 – type Jahn 4a from the Roman period. 1, 2 – Nikutowo, stray inds; 3 – Spychówko, burial 247 from E. Hollack’s 1902 excavation; 4, 5 – L. J. Pisanski’s collection; 6 – Kovrovo, burial 15; 7 – Âroslavskoe (Ger. schlakalken), burial 14. 1 – ater Jahn’s heritage; 2 – ater Jahn’s heritage; Kontny 2007a; 3 – ater Jahn’s heritage; 4, 5 – ater Nowakowski 1998; 6 – ater Jankuhn’s heritage; 7 – ater Nowakowski 1996b. Not to scale. BROTHERS-IN-ARMS. BALT WARRIORS AND THEIR INTERREGIONAL CONTACTS IN THE ROMAN AND MIGRATION... 6 4 1–8 7 5 3 0 29 5 cm 9 2 1 8 10 Fig. 12. Shield board ittings from Scandinavia (1–3), the Przeworsk culture (5–7), the Dollkeim-Kovrovo culture (8), and the Bogaczewo culture (4, 9, 10): 1, 2 – Nydam; 3 – horsberg; 4 – Gąsior, burial 213; 5–7 – Kryspinów, burial 25; 8 – Kovrovo, burial 306; 9 – Nowy Zyzdrój, burial 117; 10 – Spychówko, burial 210, from E. Hollack’s 1902 excavation. 1, 2 – ater Bemmann, Bemmann 1998; 3 – ater Raddatz 1987; 4 – ater Schmiedehelm 2011; 5–7 – ater Godłowski 1972; 8 – ater Kulakov 2009; 9 – ater Schmiedehelm’s heritage; 10 – ater Jahn’s heritage. 9, 10 – not to scale. 30 BARTOSZ KONTNY 313; forthcoming b). Moreover, some general patterns represent a wider spectrum of forms in this region, e.g. type 7a blunt apex bosses (Jahn 1916, pp.175–176) while others were much more popular among the Balts than elsewhere in Barbaricum (e.g. types with very short blunt spikes or pseudospikes; Kontny forthcoming b). In addition, many ‘archaic’ traits can be found, like numerous rivetholes (Fig. 11:3–5), which are well known from the Late Pre-Roman period (Zieling 1989, p.303) and persisted among the West Balts far into the Roman period. One can likewise point out more outdated technological characteristics among the Balts, e.g. the use of large-headed rivets (Fig. 11:1, 2), which generally occurred in the Late Pre-Roman period (Adler 2002) and long nails (Jahn 1916, pp.156–158, Fig. 177) as well as inds of Late-Pre-Roman type 4a shield bosses (Jahn 1916, p.154) in an Early Roman period context in the Dollkeim-Kovrovo culture (Fig. 11:6, 7; Nowakowski 1996b, pp.49–50) and perhaps also in the Bogaczewo culture (Kontny forthcoming b). his allows one to infer that the Balts intermingled traditional aspects with modern trends in this area and were sometimes conservative in terms of the blacksmithing methods for making shield bosses. In addition to shield grips (see Kontny 2015b, pp.313–315) and trough-shaped rim ittings (La Baume 1941a), shield board ittings, especially type D (Zieling 1989, pp.247–251), have been documented in the West Balt area (Fig. 12). hese are mainly characteristic of Scandinavia (Fig. 12:1–3), being very rare outside this region (Fig. 12:5–7) with the exception of the Bogaczewo and Dollkeim-Kovrovo cultures (Fig. 12:4, 8–10; Kontny forthcoming b). BOWS AND ARROWS Although arrowheads are found in West Balt territory (e.g. Kazakevičius 2004), arrows probably served as a hunting weapon in the Roman period. In the Bogaczewo culture they are represented by both socketed (Fig. 13:11, 12)9 and tanged specimens (Fig. 13:1–10, 13)10. he former were quite typical for Central European Barbaricum, including the Przeworsk culture, and have been identiied as a hunting weapon (Kontny 2008b, pp.127, 130, Diagrams 13, 14). Experiments conducted with replicas of the longbows from the Nydam bog site have shown that at a distance 25–30 m the arrows did not pierce the shield replicas, i.e. the arrowhead did not reach the back of the planks. he efectiveness of the leaf-shaped arrowheads depended on whether the blade was parallel to the shield’s wood ibres (more efective) or perpendicular to them (less efective) whereas that of the needle-like tanged arrowheads was uniform. Even though the latter proved to be more eicient, penetrating deeper into the planks, they still did not pierce the shield and only made efective use of a shield covered with scattered arrowheads more diicult. In addition the former were more oten destroyed when striking a shield boss than the latter (Paulsen 1998, pp.423–424). he battle superiority of the latter was likewise proven by experiments involving the shooting of a dead pig: both types of arrowheads went right through an unprotected body but only the narrow nail-shaped ones were able to penetrate mail armour (Nielsen 1991). he observation has been made that wounds inlicted by leaf-shaped arrowheads are bigger and cause signiicantly more blood loss which facilitates A set of four from Mojtyny (Ger. Moythienen), Piecki Commune, burial 85 (Hollack, Peiser 1904, p.54, Taf. IX:59.d1, 2, 4, 5), and isolated ones from Spychówko (Ger. Klein puppen), Świętajno Commune, burials no. 217 from Emil Hollack’s 1902 excavation (Voigtmann’s heritage; Schmiedehelm’s heritage 7.1.203, 7.8a.114, 7.13.34, 7.13b.90, 7.22a.833; Prussia-Archiv, no. PM-A 1781.2.44.17; Prussia-Museum, inv. no. PM VII.573.13280) and no. 227 (Jahn’s heritage; Schmiedehelm’s heritage 7.13e.200; Voigtmann’s heritage; Prussia-Archiv, no. PM-A 1781.2.44; Prussia-Museum inv. no. PM VII.573.13280), a Bogaczewo-Kula (Ger. Bogaczewen), Giżycko Commune, stray ind (Okulicz 1958, tabl. XIII:5; collection of the Museum of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, inv. no. MWMO 125). 10 A set of ten from Paprotki Kolonia, Miłki Commune, burial 72 (Bitner-Wróblewska et al. 2001, pp.69, 72, 80, ryc. 8). 9 BROTHERS-IN-ARMS. BALT WARRIORS AND THEIR INTERREGIONAL CONTACTS IN THE ROMAN AND MIGRATION... 31 4 3 2 1 5 8 6 7 9 10 0 1–13 0 3 cm 14 3 cm 12 11 14 13 Fig. 13. A horse harness with chain reins (14) and arrowheads (1–13) from the Bogaczewo and Sudovian cultures: 1–10, 14 – Paprotki Kolonia, burial 72; 11–13 – Szwajcaria, barrow 15, burial 2. 1–10, 14 – ater Bitner-Wróblewska et al. 2001; 11–13 – ater Jaskanis 2013. 32 tracking. One has to agree with Xenia Pauli Jensen (2009a, p.372) that a broad, destructive cutting edge is the hunter’s choice, the narrow, penetrating point the soldier’s. he tanged arrowheads from Paprotki Kolonia, burial 72 (Fig. 13:1–10) should also be assigned to hunting equipment. hey include diverse sizes and shapes but the lat, wide blades are almost exclusively leaf- or fan-shaped. hey seem to form a set of specialized arrows used for diferent hunting purposes. Two barbed arrowheads are also known from the Bogaczewo culture: Wólka, Ruciane-Nida Commune, burial 10 (Tischler 1878, Taf. IX:31; Jahn’s heritage), and Zdory (Ger. sdorren), Pisz Commune, a stray ind (Schmiedehelm’s heritage 9.21.9; Prussia-Museum, inv. no. PM III.233.1134). hese have unfortunately been documented so inadequately that it is unreasonable to discuss their possible hunting functions in any detail. he inds from the Sudovian culture it the above image: three leaf-shaped arrowheads: one tanged and two socketed from Szwajcaria, Suwałki Commune, barrow 15, burial 2 (Fig. 13:11–13; Jaskanis 2013, pp.87–88, 177, Table CXLVI:2.3–5), and one socketed arrowhead from barrow XII (Jaskanis 2013, p.34, tabl. XVIII:1.1). he only possible needle-shaped tanged arrowhead, which would be useful for combat, came from burial S.12 (Fig. 10:2.3; Jaskanis 2013, p.69, tabl. CIV:2)11. he tantalizing idea that characteristically nomadic trilobate arrowheads were in use among the Balts must also be considered. his is very plausible for the Migration period when the Balts would have been likely to have obtained them from the Huns, Alans, or their Germanic allies (Bitner-Wróblewska, Kontny 2006) but the possibility of their acquisition, although on a limited scale, in the Roman period can also not be denied. his occurrence could BARTOSZ KONTNY be suggested by the arrowhead from burial 59 at Mojtyny, a Bogaczewo culture burial ground, but the published photograph is not entirely clear (Hollack, Peiser 1904, Taf. VII:59.a). It might likewise be conirmed by another, indisputable case of an arrowhead, a stray ind from the stronghold at Dybowo, Świętajno Commune (personal communication: Piotr Iwanicki from the State Archaeological Museum in Warsaw who conducted a ield survey there)12. It is currently possible to conclude that bows did not play any signiicant military role among the Balts. he efective use of the longbow apparently requires the creation of separate units that are placed, for example, at the wings to support an infantry attack (Kontny 2008b, p.127). he existence of such units, which probably required a central command (in order to synchronise the archers’ actions with other groups) seems possible in Scandinavia, where traces of supposedly developed military structures have been discovered in the bog site material (Pauli Jensen 2009b, pp.126–130) but this theory is much weaker in a West Balt context. he scarcity of Roman-period trilobate arrowheads also disavows the idea that nomadic-type bows, which were deinitely useful in ighting, especially from horseback, were known among the West Balts on any signiicant scale prior to the Early Migration period. hus the Balts probably used the longbows and leaf-shaped arrows for hunting. FIGHTING KNIVES he notion of a ighting knife (Ger. Kampfmesser) was generally used to describe items 25−40 cm in total length (Nowakowski 1994a, p.386) but the criteria of their identiication has not yet been deinitively determined. For example, some scholars have stated 11 It could theoretically be considered a needle-shaped ire striker but a bar-shaped ire steel typical of a diferent sparking method (Jonakowski 1996) was found among the grave goods (Jaskanis 2013, p.69, tabl. CIV:6) which excludes that assumption. 12 he item’s blades are triangular meaning it belongs to earlier, Sarmatian-type specimens, which are also known from a Roman military context (Xазанов 1971, pp.35–40, тaбл. XIX–XXII; Zanier 1988). BROTHERS-IN-ARMS. BALT WARRIORS AND THEIR INTERREGIONAL CONTACTS IN THE ROMAN AND MIGRATION... that 20 cm long blades it the deinition and, if found in burials together with weapons and belt ittings, even smaller, 15−20 cm ones do as well. Curiously, if a knife was decorated, this reduced the deinition ‘several centimetres’ (Karczewski 1999, pp.103–105, with further literature) which sounds absurd as ornamentation does not inluence function. Actually, knives over 30 cm in total length (tentatively for ighting) are extremely unique13 and so their position is deinitely exaggerated. Almost all of the knives from the Bogaczewo and Sudovian cultures should be treated as multi-purpose tools, not weapons. hey might have been useful in a warrior’s daily-life (e.g. for working wood, cutting up food, etc.). Utility knives are well-known to have been carried by Scandinavian warriors in the Younger Roman period: the knives excavated in the sacriicial bog sites are occasionally almost 40 cm long, but are usually far shorter (see Ilkjær 1993a, pp.260–262; 1993b, Taf. 182–227). In the present author’s opinion, none of them can unequivocally be called ighting knives as the warriors had at their disposal a spear, a javelin, a shield, and sometimes also a sword or a bow, leaving little occasion to use a knife unless all one’s ofensive weapons had been lost14. Such a last-chance, haphazard weapon cannot be treated as strictly a weapon; otherwise awls, ire strikers, and razors would have to be considered weapons. Only so-called dagger-knives (Ger. Dolchmesser) may be seen as real weapons. hey were typical of the Balt tribes, speciically the Dollkeim-Kovrovo culture, the West Lithuanian group, the Central Lithuanian group, and the Lower Neman group15, 33 and were characterized by a knife-like shape with a long, double edged point. hey mainly date to the Early Migration period (see e.g. Šimėnas 1996; Prassolow 2013, pp.119, 123–124). he Late Migration period Balt seaxes developed out of them (Fig. 4; Kontny 2013a, with further literature). WAR HORSES he position of horses among the Balts was uniquely signiicant in European Barbaricum as shown by the Roman period horse burials known from the Bogaczewo (these have no connection with the human burials), Sudovian (Gręzak 2007; Karczewska et al.; Nowakowski 2009a), and Dollkeim-Kovrovo cultures (Skvortsov 2009; Zinoviev 2009) as well as in Lithuania (Bliujienė, Butkus 2007). In the Migration period, such interments were also numerous in the Olsztyn and Elbląg groups and the Sambian-Natangian area (Kontny et al. 2009) or Lithuania (Bliujienė, Butkus 2009; Bliujienė, Steponaitis 2009). Another important fact is the signiicant number of spurs in the weapon burials of the Bogaczewo and Dollkeim-Kovrovo cultures. hese, however, are also documented in the Sudovian culture (Kontny, Natuniewicz-Sekuła 2009; Jaskanis 2013, pp.200–202) and, rarely, in Lithuania (Michelbertas 2000)16. Additionally, a spectacular element of horse harness, i.e. chain reins, appears among the Balts, namely in the Dollkeim-Kovrovo culture (Fig. 13:14; Wilbers-Rost 1994, pp.18–21). his suggests that horses played a 13 he present author knows of only two: one with a total length of 33.6 cm from site IVa, burial 61 in the Bogaczewo cemetery at Wyszembork, Mrągowo Commune (Szymański 2005, pp.67, 70–71, tabl. XXIV; Kontny 2008a, p.99, Fig. 10:a) and one with a total length of 40 cm from the central burial of barrow XXII in the Sudovian cemetery at Szurpiły, Jeleniewo Commune (Żurowski 1961, pp.71–73, tabl. XVIII, XIX:1–22). 14 Tomasz Bochnak (2003) interprets Late Pre-Roman period long knives from the Przeworsk culture in a similar way. 15 One prototype is also known from barrow III in the Sudovian cemetery at Netta, Augustów Commune (Bitner-Wróblewska 2007, pp.31–32, Plate. LVIII:2; the collection of the State Archaeological Museum in Warsaw, inv. no. PMA/IV/364). 16 See Smółka 2014. he paper focuses on the spurs of the South east Baltic region but it is very supericial in respect to the Balts, e.g. only ten of the more than 120 Bogaczewo features known to the present author are mentioned; the inds from the Sudovian culture as well as the Olsztyn and Elbląg groups are also deinitely underrepresented (Smółka 2014, pp.60–61), which does not allow it to draw any signiicant conclusions. It must be admitted that Emilia Smółka (2014, p.47) does mention the paper’s preliminary nature. 34 signiicant role in Balt society. his paper focuses on their military and, in part, symbolic importance. Nowakowski stated that the military equipment of the Balts was typical of the infantry and also that the shape and size of the shields exclude ighting on horseback (Nowakowski 2009b, p.177). his seems too restrictive: the elongation of a shield (La Baume 1941a; see Kontny 2008d, pp.188–189) does not prevent its equestrian use as it covers a warrior’s side quite eiciently and the use of a vertical shield grip allows the rider to easily control a horse with reins (Kontny, Rudnicki 2009, p.38). Considering what is known about the military techniques of the neighbouring Germans, one may suppose that mounted warriors were primarily used to harass the enemy, one of the activities of a military retinue (Kontny 2009, pp.100–101). heir use in regular combat required well-thought-out tactics, trace of which has yet to be found among the West Balts. As to the military use of horses, it seems that these animals were a means of transport to the battle and an element facilitating the pursuit of the enemy, or, in case of defeat, escape from the battleield. he horse’s combat potential might have been exploited in clashes on rare occasions but more signiicant use was made of it in executing short-term military objectives such as looting forays by the retinue (see Kontny 2003c). Because these expeditions were probably of-handed, it is diicult to assume that horses were used as part of tactical units. Although they helped units to move faster (better surprise value, attack effectiveness, pursuit of the defeated, escape in case of defeat or a fear of revenge, etc.), that does not mean that plundering forays were not also conducted by warriors on foot. hus the principle aim in employing horses was to make use of their speed. It is possible that a horse served as a means of transport not only for a mounted warrior but also a colleague on foot who could have ridden together with him bareback17, especially for a short distance. his was BARTOSZ KONTNY probably a very important ighting method for the retinue which consisted of both mounted and foot warriors. hose warriors who possessed their own horse were likely to have higher status than those without one (Kontny 2009, p.101). Undoubtedly, the possession of a steed also emphasised its owner’s status as is clearly shown by the placement of a spur(s) in a burial. BROTHERS-IN-ARMS he study of Scandinavian sacriicial bog sites and the weapon deposits in them comprises one of the most important ields in the archaeology of Roman and Migration period Barbaricum. he deposits, which are interpreted as oferings (including the spoils of war taken from attackers by local warriors) dedicated to deities, not only allow typological and chronological analyses to be conducted but also shed light on the hierarchy of the invading armies, the military tactics, and certain symbolic as well as technical aspects of the sacriice rites (see, e.g. Ilkjær 1990; von Carnap-Bornheim, Ilkjær 1996; Kontny 2008d, pp.192–194). he results of the typo-chronological studies have also shown the homelands of the attackers (Ilkjær 1993a, pp.374–386, Abb. 152, 153, 157). Nevertheless, there are some discrepancies which have raised doubts as to the method’s precision (see Rau 2010, pp.473–490, Abb. 198, 199, 202, 204; Blankenfeldt 2013, p.32, Fig. 4; Nørgård Jørgensen 2013, Figs. 122, 125, 130). he supposed homelands of the invaders frequently encompass vast areas, as demonstrated by, among other things, the diverse origin of speciic types of equipment. Some of the mixed material, e.g. from the C1b deposit in horsberg moor, Schleswig-Flensburg District, has been explained, at least partially, by alliances between military units of diferent origins as well as possibly by general cultural similarities 17 he earliest saddles known from Central and North European Barbaricum date to the Younger Roman period (Kontny 2013b, p.138). BROTHERS-IN-ARMS. BALT WARRIORS AND THEIR INTERREGIONAL CONTACTS IN THE ROMAN AND MIGRATION... (Blankenfeldt 2013, p.32). In certain instances, the East Baltic region has been considered an invasion route, especially in the Younger and Late Roman period or Early Migration period, for peoples from North Sweden and Norway (Ilkjær 1993a, p.385, Abb. 157). So far Ruth Blankenfeldt (2013, p.32, Fig. 4) has examined the South and South east Baltic origin of the attackers, linking them with earlier deposits (phases B2b–C1a) in horsberg, but only for the ‘East Germans’, not the West Balts. Pauli Jensen (2009c, p.59, Figs. 2, 7) also took the same position in respect to Vimose 1, Odense Municipality on Funen (early B2, i.e. late 1st century) and Vimose 2a (late B2, i.e. early 2nd century) but proposed very wide limits for the potential invaders’ core-area, while emphasising the deinitely Polish artefacts (Fig. 14) such as the single-edged swords from Vimose 1 and type 3c shield grips (Ilkjær 1990, Abb. 23) from Vimose 2a (Fig. 14:1–3, 12). he connections with the South Baltic region may also be proven by, among other things, the so-called ‘Polish’ ire steels from the Illerup bog site, Skanderborg Municipality, which are unique in Scandinavia (Fig. 14:6; see Ilkjær 1993a, pp.246–248, 250, 251). Nevertheless, Balt elements have been disregarded in the search for the invaders’ origins but in the opinion of the present author, this is not justiied owing to items typical of the West Balts having been among the gear in the bog deposits. One should mention the inds from the Vimose bog site where an atypically large number of tools were found (Engelhardt 1869, pp.26–28, 31, 32, pl. 18; Christensen 2005), i.e. blacksmith’s (hammers, anvils, pliers), carpenter’s (adzes, planes, chisels, augers), multi-purpose/weapons, i.e. axes, and agricultural tools (‘half-scythes’); these last 35 may have had a military connection, e.g. collecting horse fodder. Aside from the blacksmith’s tools, all of them are very characteristic of the Balt cultures (see Nowakowski 1995, pp.36–38; Malonaitis 2008; Kontny 2013c, pp.199, 201, 207, Fig. 3; 2015b, pp.315–316; forthcoming a; forthcoming b), although the Balts must have also had blacksmiths. Axes and other tools, except for knives, are generally rare in Scandinavian bog sites (except at Vimose and, in the smaller numbers, at Illerup and Nydam, Sønderborg Municipality) as well as in the settlements and amongst the grave goods (Christensen 2005, p.59). he large number of axes and adzes at Vimose is thought-provoking, the more so in that aside from those types unknown among the West Balts but well documented in Scandinavia, i.e. those with long, massive polls, some of the axes from Vimose were very similar to Balt types. he one labelled with inv. no. 15682 (Fig. 15:3; see Christensen 2005, Fig. 4, top) can be assigned to subgroup II.2 (Kontny forthcoming a), the one with inv. no. 17094 (Engelhardt 1869, pl. 18:18; Christensen 2005, Fig. 2, top), to subgroup II.3 (Fig. 15:1), and the one with inv. no. 21628 (Fig. 15:5; see Engelhardt 1869, pl. 18:20; Christensen 2005, Fig. 1) should be roughly associated with type 10 Lithuanian battle axes (Malonaitis 2008, pp.59–61, 300)18. To this can be added the socketed axes (Christensen 2005, pp.72– 75, Figs. 11–15), a weapon typical of the Balts and very rare in Scandinavia (Fig. 14:11) as well as the ‘Polish’ types C and D (Biborski 1978, pp. 124–128) single-edged swords (Fig. 14:1–3; see Engelhardt 1869, pl. 7:23–28) and the Ilkjær type 3 shield grips (nine with distinct rivet plates, including a rectangular one, Fig. 14:12; see Jahn 1916, pp.192–193) that date to B2b (group 4, Godłowski 1994, Abb. 1), were 18 Bearded axes with rear lugs and ridges at the lower part of the eye (Malonaitis 2008, p.300, pav. 14); aside from three Lithuanian specimens with no archaeological context (and so no grounds for dating, but linked by Arvydas Malonaitis to the Early Middle Ages), it is possible to mention a ind from Sapotskin (Pol. sopoćkinie), Grodno District in Belarus (Fig. 15:6; Nowakowski 2007b, p.20, Abb. 1:a), which has been ascribed to the group of asymmetrical, narrow axes with a downward-curving neck (Nowakowski 2007b, pp.21–23), i.e. Kontny type I. his attribution, however, is false as the upper part of the neck is straight and the poll has rear lugs which is not typical of type I but can be associated with Malonaitis types 3a and 6, which date from the 4th century to the Middle Ages (Malonaitis 2008, pp.297–298, pav. 13, 14) even though this dating is not based on reliable premises (see Kontny forthcoming a). 36 BARTOSZ KONTNY 1 4 5 3 2 6 9 8 7 10 11 12 Fig. 14. Examples of the Przeworsk and West Balt elements from the Vimose bog site (1–6, 8–12) and a possible saddle pommel (7). 1–5, 7–12 – ater Engelhardt 1869; 6 – ater Christensen 2005. Not to scale. BROTHERS-IN-ARMS. BALT WARRIORS AND THEIR INTERREGIONAL CONTACTS IN THE ROMAN AND MIGRATION... 37 1 2 3 0 5 cm 4 5 6 Fig. 15. Axes from Vimose and their possible parallels: 1 – Vimose, inv. no. 17094; 2 – Paprotki Kolonia, burial 67; 3 – Vimose, inv. no. 15682; 4 – Judziki, burial 12a; 5 – Vimose, inv. no. 21628; 6 – Sapotskin, a stray ind. 1 – ater Engelhardt 1869; 2 – ater Karczewski 1999; 3 – photo by B. Kontny; 4 – ater Engel et al. 2006; 5 – ater Engelhardt 1869; 6 – drawing by B. Kontny. documented in early Vimose deposits (Engelhardt 1869, p.13, Fig. 13; Pauli Jensen 2009c, Fig. 7), and are known in both the Przeworsk and the Bogaczewo cultures (see Kontny forthcoming b). Many of the Vimose spearheads also do not it the Scandinavian typology (Ilkjær 1990). Alongside the Scandinavian forms, a signiicant number of them represent forms popular in Central European Barbaricum rather than Scandinavia (Both the Przeworsk and the Bogaczewo cultures have similar models. See 38 BARTOSZ KONTNY Kontny 2007b, pp.126–128) which proves the existence of a southern connection19. hey include two Kaczanowski type VI spearheads (Fig. 14:4, 5) (Engelhardt 1869, pl. 14:7, 10) that are typical of B2b in the Przeworsk culture (Kaczanowski 1995, pp.17–18, tabl. VII)20 but appear in the Elbe region as type Lh1 (Adler 1993, p.97, Abb. 24) as well as in the Bogaczewo (Kontny forthcoming b, note 7) and Sudovian cultures (Kontny forthcoming b, note 8). Furthermore deposits at Vimose 1 and 2 contained Kaczanowski types VIII (two items, collection of the National Museum in Copenhagen, inv. no. 1439; Pauli Jensen 2003, Fig. 3: second row, on the let) and XII (Pauli Jensen 2003, Fig. 3: bottom in the middle, third row, on the right), both very popular in both the Przeworsk and the Bogaczewo cultures (Kontny 2007a, ryc. 8). In addition, one spearhead from burial 63 at Łabapa, Węgorzewo Commune, is close to Kaczanowski type VIII but with a design of dots and zig-zag lines, a ‘negative’ design variant, incised along the midrib (Fig. 2:3) (Kaczanowski, Zaborowski 1988, p.235, Abb. 9; Kontny 2017a). he image sometimes seems to depict two serpents lanking the midrib (with the serpents’ heads appearing to be slightly marked). Such heads are mostly known from the Przeworsk culture and only in exceptional instances, from Scandinavia (Öland and Gotland). However, local Balt variants of this type are known from the Bogaczewo culture (Kontny 2007a, p.118, ryc. 2; 2017a). he Vimose shield bosses include numerous forms from Barbaricum (Engelhardt 1869, pl. 5:1– 12): with a blunt apex, Jahn type 7a (Fig. 14:10), and with a sharp apex, Jahn type 7b (Fig. 14:8), from the Early Roman period and hemispherical bosses, Jahn type 8, and similar ones with a knob on the cone, Ilkjær type 5c/Zieling S2–3 (see Zieling 1989, pp.147–149; Ilkjær 2001, pp.294–299), from the Younger Roman period. Speciically Scandinavian forms were also found at the site but all of the above variants were characteristic of vast parts of Barbarian Europe, including the Przeworsk culture, North east Barbaricum, and the West Balts (Zieling 1989, pp.147–149; Godłowski 1994, Abb. 1:42; Schultze 1994, Abb. 3; Радюш, Скворцов 2008, p.125; Kontny 2015b, pp.310–313). Aside from these, the archaeological material contained two unique shield bosses, both wooden, one with a domed cone and a very short, blunt apex (Fig. 16:1; see Engelhardt 1869, pl. 5:9) and one representing Ilkjær type 3e or Jahn type 7a with a so called pseudo-spike (Fig. 16:8; see Engelhardt 1869, pl. 5:4). hese forms have almost never been documented anywhere else in the Scandinavian region and the slightly diferent forms of Ilkjær type 3 are also rather unique (see Ilkjær 2001, p.284, Abb. 279:ZNU, AAAF as well as EQL and MMK). heir rarity has prevented the establishment of their chronology in the Scandinavian region (see Ilkjær 1990, Tab. 192, Abb. 186; 2001, p.284). Moreover, they were also infrequent in the Przeworsk culture where hemispherical bosses prevailed during this chronological phase (C1b) (Godłowski 1992, p.82; 1994, Abb. 1:40, 41). Among the West Balts, however, they were very popular, as shown by the domed bosses which have been found in the Bogaczewo (Fig. 16:2, 3, 7; Kontny forthcoming b, note 11), Sudovian (Fig. 16:6; Kontny forthcoming b, note 12), and Dollkeim-Kovrovo cultures (Fig. 16:4, 5; Kontny forthcoming b, note 13), and date to Personal communication: Xenia Pauli Jensen, who defended a dissertation on the topic of the Vimose deposits. he author would like to thank Xenia Pauli Jensen for her help and for allowing him to handle some of the polearm heads, shield bosses, and melee weapons from Vimose. 20 he former has an outcurved blade which is almost undocumented for the Roman period; one of the very rare parallels comes from burial 302b in the Bogaczewo cemetery at Onufryjewo (Ger. Onufrigowen), Ruciane-Nida Commune and dates to the Younger Roman period (Kontny 2007a, pp.85–86, ryc. 6:a, tab. 1). he latter has proportions slightly in excess of the type’s limits but such wide forms are known from Barbaricum, e.g. spearheads A1 and A4 from the princely burial at Mušov (Droberjar, Peška 2002, pp.103, 106, Abb. 1). 19 BROTHERS-IN-ARMS. BALT WARRIORS AND THEIR INTERREGIONAL CONTACTS IN THE ROMAN AND MIGRATION... 2 1 39 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11 14 12 15 10 13 16 Fig. 16. he wooden shield bosses from Vimose (1, 8) and their Balt parallels made of iron (2–7, 9–16): 1 – Vimose; 2 – Sterławki Małe, burial 341; 3 – Paprotki Kolonia, burial 44; 4 – Ozerovo; 5 – Logvino, a stray ind; 6 – Osowa, barrow 71, burial 1; 7 – Miętkie; 8 – Vimose; 9 – Szwajcaria, burial S.25; 10 – Szwajcaria, barrow LXVIII, burial 2; 11 – Onufryjewo 370b; 12 – Elanovka, burial 38; 13 – Gračevka, burial 62; 14 – Prudy, a stray ind; 15 – Medvedevka, a stray ind; 16 – Kotel’nikovo, burial 4. 1 – ater Engelhardt 1869; 2 – ater Karczewska 1999; 3 – ater Karczewski 1999; 4, 5 – ater Радюш, Скворцов 2008; 6 – ater Jaskanis 1961; 7 – ater Jahn’s heritage; 8 – ater Engelhardt 1869; 9, 10 – ater Jaskanis 2013; 11 – ater Kontny 2008a; 12 – ater Радюш, Скворцов 2008; 13 – ater Raddatz 1993; 14–16 – ater Радюш, Скворцов 2008. Not to scale. 40 BARTOSZ KONTNY B2b–C1 (in the Sudovian and Bogaczewo cultures, only C1). he same popularity can be asserted for the shield bosses, which have a pseudo-apex and are known from the Bogaczewo (Fig. 16:11; Kontny forthcoming b, note 14), the Sudovian (Fig. 16:9, 10; Kontny forthcoming b, note 15), and especially the Dollkeim-Kovrovo cultures (Fig. 16:12–16; Kontny forthcoming b, note 16); a single stray ind is also known from Lithuania (Šarkai, Šilalė District; see Kiulkys 2010, p.52, pav. 12). he Balt inds date to C1, those from the Dollkeim-Kovrovo culture from B2/C1–C1a to C3–D21. hey should probably be considered a result of migrations from the north. Two boss types considered here are very typical of the Balts, which could mean that the two Vimose specimens are of Balt origin, which is further supported by the domed one originally having twelve rivet holes. As has been explained, ‘archaic’ traits like numerous rivet-holes, which trait is wellknown from the Late Pre-Roman period, remained in use among the West Balts in the Roman period (Fig. 11:3–5; Kontny forthcoming b, note 17) together with other outdated technological characteristics. he possible Balt origin of these wooden shield bosses from Vimose can be checked by future dendrological studies. Pauli Jensen (2011, p.47, Figs. 6, 7) also connected the rectangular belt buckles, which have a forked tongue and were found at Vimose (Fig. 14:9), and the type E2 spurs (Ginalski 1991, pp.61–62), both extremely rare in Scandinavia, with Przeworsk inluences. However, these artefacts were also quite popular among the Balts, especially in the Bogaczewo culture (see Godłowski 1994, Abb. 2:5; Nowakowski 1996b, Taf. 48:8; Michelbertas 2000, p.288, Abb. 1; Andrzejowski, Madyda-Legutko 2013, pp.18–20, Fig. 1). he same can also be said about the barshaped ‘Polish’ ire striker (Fig. 14:6) from Vimose (Christensen 2005, p.77, Fig. 45). One may assume that both Przeworsk and Bogaczewo cultural elements are present at Vimose. Nevertheless some traits are characteristic of only the Balts, such as for the axes (extremely rare traits in the Przeworsk culture. See Kontny 2008b, p.130, Fig. 15), certain shield boss types, and certain tools. hey conirm that Balts participated in attacks probably directed at an area close to Vimose. Vimose is not the only bog site with Balt weap22 ons . Five of the eleven spearheads in the bog deposit at Balsmyr on Bornholm were of Balt origin: two Kazakevičius type IB/IБ (inv. nos. 2587, 1 and 2588,1) and three type IG/IΓ (inv. no. 2588, 2, 3, 6). hey come from a deposit dated to the turn of the Early Germanic Period, i.e. circa 400, while the other spearheads are attributed to an earlier, C1b/ C2 deposit (Nørgård Jørgensen 2008, p.110, Fig. 67). Among the Balt elements in the Scandinavian bog oferings, one may also mention Kragehul, Assens Municipality on Funen and its inds of sword-shaped spearheads (Engelhardt 1867, pl. II:5, 6; Iversen 2010, p.225, Taf. 18:22545, 22546). hey were identiied as type Dresden-Dobritz/Gübs (Iversen 2010, pp.48–51) with unique parallels in Scandinavian bog sites. Besides the artefacts from Kragehul (Fig. 17:1–3), the following should also be mentioned: Nydam inv. no. x15088 (Fig. 17:4; Additionally, exceptional inds of pseudo-apex bosses have occurred further south: two stray inds from Horní Dunajovice, Znojmo District in the Czech Republic (Droberjar, Peška 1994, p.299, Abb. 4:4, 5) and a specimen from cellar Z in the ancient Bosporan city of Tanais (Kazanski 1994, pp.438, 479, Fig. 2:5; Bezuglov 2003, p.91, Abb. 2:3). 22 he present author is aware that bog sites with weapons and tools have also been documented in the territory of Lithuania and Latvia, e.g. Kokmuiža I and II in Vītiņi Parish, and that they are treated as war-booty oferings (see Bliujienė 2010, pp.149–150, 159, Figs. 7–9, with further literature). However, they include an enormous quantity of inds and require detailed studies to determine their origin. In general, it seems that they consist of items made by the Balts, especially the clothing elements and ornaments and so it is plausible that these deposits are the result of local conlicts. Only the boat-shaped ire-stones (Bliujienė 2010, Fig. 8:4, 10) may look like speciically Scandinavian ones, e.g. type 5 (Ilkjær 1993a, Abb. 89, 92), but it is premature to establish their origin based exclusively on their shape, as their absence in the burials may be the result of the funeral rites. (Research into the raw material should be conducted.) It is hoped that the present paper will inspire scholars to do such work. 21 BROTHERS-IN-ARMS. BALT WARRIORS AND THEIR INTERREGIONAL CONTACTS IN THE ROMAN AND MIGRATION... 41 Fig. 17. Distribution of the Kazakevičius type III spearheads: 1–3 – Kragehul, 4 – Nydam, 5 – Sorte Muld, 6 – Balsmyr, 7, 8 – Nedergården, 9 – Skedemosse, 10, 11 – Dresden-Dobritz, burial 1, 12 – Gübs, 13 – Uppåkra, 14, 15 – Neravai-Grigiškės, barrow 20, burial 2 and barrow 22, burial 4, 16 – Taurapilis, barrow 5, 17, 18 – Vilnius, 19 – Lapušiškė, barrow 9, 20 – Kivyliai, a stray ind, 21, 22 – an unknown site in Lithuania, 23 – Santaka, barrow 4, burial 2, 24 – Chatyr-Dag, burial 2. Ater Kazakevičius 1988; Iversen 2010, supplemented by the author. Iversen 2010, p.188), from Skedemosse, Borgholm Municipality on Öland (Fig. 17:9; Hagberg 1967, Fig. 66:664), items in the deposit at Nedergården in Bohuslän, Sweden (Fig. 17:7, 8; two specimens in the collection of the Historical Museum in Stockholm, inv. no. SHM 14869; Iversen 2010, p.188, Fig. 25), a dry land ofering from the sacriicial site at Uppåkra, Stafanstorp Municipality, Scania, inv. no. x6227 (Fig. 17:13; Iversen 2010, p.188, Abb 25), and another from the one at Sorte Muld, Bornholm Municipality (Fig. 17:5; Bornholm Museum, inv. no. 1191 x 244Rb; Iversen 2010, p.188, Abb. 25)23. One may also add an artefact from the bog site at Balsmyr on Bornholm, inv. no. 2589, 1 (Fig. 17:6; Klindt-Jensen 1957, af. 64:8; Nørgård Jørgensen 2008, p.110, af. 67:8, which was identiied as Kazakevičius type V), three he author would like to thank Dr Finn Ole Nielsen from the Bornholm Museum in Rønne for letting him work with the spearheads from Sorte Muld. 23 42 BARTOSZ KONTNY sepulchral inds from Dresden-Dobritz, Dresden District (Ger. stadtkreis): burial 1 (two items) in a Luboszyce cemetery (Fig. 17:10–11; Meyer 1971, p.50, Abb. 24:7, 8)24 and one from Gübs, Jerichower Land District in Saxony-Anhalt (Fig. 7:12; Schmidt 1976, Taf. 3:2c). Although the type in question (including those specimens found in Scandinavia, see Iversen 2010, p.49) has been treated as stemming from North east Germany, the artefacts probably have diferent origins. Such spearheads have been discovered in considerable numbers in West Balt territory (Fig. 17:14–23). hey should be attributed to Kazakevičius type III, which is characteristic of East Lithuania (also found in Latvia) and date to the late 5th–7th centuries (Kазакявичюс 1988, pp.41–42, pиc. 15, карта VII)25. More such items are known from that territory, many from a sepulchral context; thus they were used by the Balts. he majority of the Scandinavian inds, however, are known from sacriicial deposits, both water and dry land, but none from burials. he inds from Scandinavian deposits seem to prove their foreign origin, i.e. that they were probably arms taken from warriors from the Balt lands. It seems that the Scandinavian inds should be compared with the Balt inds rather than with those from Saxony or Saxony-Anhalt, as the former are much more frequent and so cannot be treated as rare imports. he chronology proposed for this type is based on weak grounds (Kurila 2007, p.299; Iversen 2010, p.51); thus in the present author’s opinion, they might have appeared earlier, even in the Late Roman period. his seems probable if one takes into consideration the very similar forms, i.e. DresdenDobritz, burial 1 from the Early Migration period, which are typical of the last stage of the Luboszyce culture. An even earlier chronology has been set for the spearhead found far to the south east in burial 2 in the Crimean cemetery at Chatyr-Dag, Balaklava District (Ukr. raion) (Вознесенская, Левада 1999, рис. 5:1; Kontny 2013c, Fig. 2:1). It was dated to the second half of the 3rd–irst half of the 4th century, although even wider limits are possible (Мыц et al. 2006, pp.147–151; Kontny 2013c, pp.196–201). Its sword-like shape may be an imitation of spearheads made from broken sword blades (see Czarnecka 2010; Kontny 2013c, pp.197, 199, Fig. 2). So-called ‘spear-butts’ are unknown from Roman-period Scandinavia with the exception of two inds from Illerup and two from Kragehul bog sites (Iversen 2010, p.64). he former should be treated not as spear-butts but as a speciic spearhead type, i.e. type 99 (Ilkjær 1990, p.167) whereas the latter (Iversen 2010, pp.222, 241, Taf. 32:22525, C3146) may be true spear-butts. hey can also be found in the Balsmyr bog site, inv. nos 2588:11, 12 (Klindt Jensen 1957, af. 64:5–7; Nørgård Jørgensen 2008, pp.150, 223, 226, 227, pl. 67:5–7). Such elements, which are well documented for the Late Pre-Roman period, remained almost unknown not only in Scandinavia but also in Central European Barbaricum (Kontny 1999; 2013c, pp.206–207). Nevertheless, they have been proven to have existed in the Bogaczewo, Dollkeim-Kovrovo, and Sudovian cultures; some of them may have been identiied as conical spearheads (Kontny 2013c, pp.206–207, Fig. 5). It seems reasonable to link the ‘spear-butts’ from Kragehul and Balsmyr with the Balts, all the more so since other Balt elements were recorded there. Apart from the Balt weapons in Scandinavian bog oferings (Vimose, Kragehul, Balsmyr, Nydam, Skedemosse, Nedergården) and dry land sacriicial sites (Uppåkra, Sorte Muld), the participation of Balt warriors in Scandinavian battles may be proven by the gear from barrow 2, burial 1 in the Sudovian cemetery at Szwajcaria. he grave goods included a decorated spearhead of the Scandinavian he reconstruction of one of them does not seem entirely reliable but they resemble the sword-like spearheads quite closely. To the list of Lithuanian inds presented by Kazakevičius, one may add another from Barrow 4, burial 2 at Santaka, Vilnius District (Vaitkevičius 2007, pav. 55:1). 24 25 BROTHERS-IN-ARMS. BALT WARRIORS AND THEIR INTERREGIONAL CONTACTS IN THE ROMAN AND MIGRATION... type Vennolum (Fig. 1:1), horse headgear with local Balt and imported Scandinavian ittings (including scavenger bird and human head motives), possibly also Scandinavian headgear buckets as well as some Przeworsk inspirations and eclectic solutions. It seems that the person buried in Szwajcaria, Barrow 2 was involved in international enterprises during C1b. It is tantalizing to link this with the Scandinavian conlicts documented by the bog deposits from that time. One could imagine a Sudovian warrior participating in those military events as a member of a retinue, presumably of a multi-ethnical character, and the successful enterprise being the key to his elevation in his homeland (Kontny 2013b). here is also the Balt spearhead, which should be ascribed to Kazakevičius type II (Nørgård Jørgensen 2008, pp.91–92, af. 56), from burial 3 in the cemetery at Lovön, Ekerö Municipality (Arwidsson 1962, p.115, tav. 4:a). It may be considered evidence of an exchange of ideas (i.e. on weapon forms) among the members of ethically mixed military units. Such military inspirations, which may account for similar phenomena, can be spotted more frequently among the Balts. In addition to the imported Scandinavian spearheads (Fig. 1) known from Sudovian (Kontny 2007b, p.128, Fig. 9) and Dollkeim-Kovrovo cemeteries (Юганов 2007; Kontny forthcoming b, note 28), the imported type Ilkjær 8c shield boss from Babięta, burial 323 (Bogaczewo culture) (Peiser 1916, pp.14–17, 20, Abb. 66; Kontny 2008a, p.96, Fig. 9:a, Table 1, with further sources), and probably the type EjsbølSarry, subtype 3 Roman sword (Biborski, Ilkjær 2006, pp.263–267), which probably came from Scandinavia and was found in Szwajcaria, barrow 25 (Kontny 2017c, pp.101–102), clearly visible Scandinavian inluences can be seen in the Balt weaponry forms (Fig. 18). For example, the typi- 43 cal Balt spearheads, Kazakevičius types IB/IБ and II (Kазакявичюс 1988, pp.24–27, 36–41, pиc. 7, 13, кapтa II, IV), which are characterized by concave upper blade edges (Fig. 18:4, 5), seem to have been inluenced by Scandinavian models (Fig. 18:1–3) of types Vennolum, Skiaker, and Svennum (Ilkjær 1990, pp. 11, 95–96, 112, 133, Abb. 79, 82, 101). Another type of Balt weapon with Scandinavian inspiration is shield bosses with pearl-like decorations (Fig. 18:6–8). he design irst appeared in Scandinavia in C1b (the one in a burial at Hjartbro, Haderslev Municipality, Fig. 18:6, as well as bog inds from Ejsbøl and horsberg) but the decoration soon became typical of the East Lithuanian Barrow culture and appeared on various shield bosses (Fig. 18:7, 8) until at least the Early Migration period (Kontny 2004a, pp.250–255, ryc. 3, 4; 2006, pp.162– 167, ryc. 1, 2; Demidziuk, Kontny 2009, pp.164–166, 168, Figs. 1, 6, with further literature; Kiulkys 2010, pav. 4, 19, 23, 27, 28, 30, 31)26. Further Scandinavian inluence can be seen in the shapes of the shield board ittings, especially the Zieling type D ones, which are the most characteristic of the Scandinavian area (Fig. 12:1–3). heir appearance among the Balts points to cultural inluence. Military contacts with Scandinavia seem to explain the appearance of the scabbard chape from Kotel’nikovo, burial 4 (Peiser 1919b, p.322; Jankuhn’s heritage). Its appearance is close to that of the Scandinavian winged chapes (see Bemmann, Hahne 1994, p.402) from the second half of the 3rd century or irst half of the 4th century (Biborski, Ilkjær 2006, Abb. 16) but a detailed analysis has drawn the conclusion that it was probably a local imitation (Kontny 2017c, p.104, Fig. 4:5). Other phenomena which may be explained by Balt-Scandinavian military contacts include horse harnesses with chain reins, which were very popular in Scandinavia (see Ørsnes 1993; A similar shield boss from a destroyed grave was also found at the Przeworsk cemetery at Mokra, Miedźno Commune (Biborski 2010, p.146, ryc. 7:2). It should be connected with the cemetery’s inal stage, i.e. the advent of the Migration period. It seems to show far-reaching military contacts in this turbulent epoch. 26 44 BARTOSZ KONTNY 2 4 3 1 0 4–8 5 5 cm 6 7 8 Fig. 18. Scandinavian patterns (1–3, 6) and their Balt derivations (4, 5, 7, 8): 1 – a type Vennolum spearhead (Illerup, inv. no. MTL); 2 – a type Skiaker spearhead (Illerup, inv. no. FIV); 3 – a type Svennum spearhead (Svennum); 4 – a type Kazakevičius IB/ IБ spearhead (Osowa, barrow 41); 5 – a type Kazakevičius II spearhead (Netta, burial 55); 6 – a shield boss with a bronze pearl-like decoration on the rim from Hjartbro, burial A19/20; 7 – a shield boss with pearl-like decorations from Neravai-Grigiškės, barrow 13, burial 2; 8 – a shield boss with pearl-like decorations from former Slobotka, a stray ind. 1–3 ater Ilkjær 1990; 4 – ater Jaskanis 1961; 5 – ater Kontny 2007b, with further literature; 6–8 – ater Kontny 2004a, with further literature. 1–3 – not to scale. BROTHERS-IN-ARMS. BALT WARRIORS AND THEIR INTERREGIONAL CONTACTS IN THE ROMAN AND MIGRATION... Wilbers-Rost 1994), certain inds from the sacriicial bog site at Czaszkowo, Piecki Commune (Nowakiewicz, Rzeszotarska-Nowakiewicz 2012), and Late Migration period seaxes, which, by the time of their introduction in Scandinavia, were already well-known among the Balts (Kontny 2013a). Obviously these problems demand further studies. One may also ponder the Roman shield bosses found in West Balt territory27. It seems less likely that Balts acquired their hemispherical shield bosses with lat langes from service in the Roman auxiliary forces (which used them, see Bishop, Coulston 2006, p.92) or from victories over Romans on the battleield than from contacts in Scandinavia where Roman military equipment is well documented, including bronze shield bosses, e.g. at horsberg bog (Engelhardt 1863, pl. 8:11, 12; Raddatz 1987, p.43, Taf. 23:1–4, 24:1, 4, Abb. 16:2). Although they have also been recorded on rare occasions in other parts of Barbarian Europe, i.e. the Marcomannic-Quadic or Elbian circle (Kaczanowski 1992, pp.62–63), there is one more premise: that the decoration of the Roman bronze umbo with zig-zag rim edges from horsberg (Raddatz 1987, pl. 27:3) was probably copied on iron artefacts known from the Balts, i.e. the Dollkeim-Kovrovo type K1 shield boss (Zieling 1989, pp.121–122) from Gora Velikanov, burial 31k (Кулаков 2014, p.219, pиc. 95:3) and the type H2 (Zieling 1989, pp.102–104) from Gerojskoe-5 (Ger. Eisliethen), burial 130 (Jentzsch 1896, p.121, Taf. III:31). he above observations could well be illustrated by the retinue (Lat. comitatus, Ger. Gefolgschat) described by Tacitus, especially the information about young warriors taking part in military raids organized by foreign military leaders (Germania, 14, 2; 45 Tacitus 1990; Kristensen 1983, pp.31–32). During the second stage of the three-stage development of the comitatus, multi-ethnical retinues evolved from local ones with ixed payment being introduced later (Hess 1977; Steuer 1982, pp.52–54; cf., for example, Tymowski 1985, pp.233–234; Kontny 2003c, with further literature). One may reasonably infer that big retinues/quasi-armies appeared in the case of supra-regional conlicts such as the Marcomannic Wars (166/167–180), the Scandinavian conlicts documented by the sacriicial bog sites (namely late 2nd–3rd centuries), the deposition of Vannius, King of the Quadi in 50 (annales, XII, 29–30; Tacitus 1971), etc. In certain situations, the invaders could have embraced the exclusive use of foreign mercenaries to prevent their personal political interest in the afairs, e.g. Catualda, the Marcomannic noble who deposed King Maroboduus using Gothonian forces in 19 (annales, II, 62; Tacitus 1971); see also the Iazyges supporting Vannius (annales, XII, 29; Tacitus 1971). he big retinues probably consisted of several nuclei, i.e. local retinues (Wenskus 1961, p.349), which were also possibly of a multi-ethnical character. As to their size and complexity, they probably existed in times of war rather than peace (Wenskus 1961, p.348) as it is easiest to feed and maintain so many warriors during war. Under suitable conditions and during long-term conlicts, they could evolve into royal guards and participate in the machinery of the state (Wenskus 1961, pp.366–369). his is a good it for the archaeological observations. he items of Balt character seem to prove that Balts took part in Scandinavian conlicts, the best example being the Vimose 1 and 2a bog sites where the weapons of defeated Bogaczewo culture 27 he Bogaczewo culture: Babięta I, burial 309, described in the publication as Macharren II (now Machary) (La Baume 1941, p.10, Abb. 6; Kaczanowski 1992, pp.63, 96, ryc. 16:1; Nowakowski 1995, p.66, tabl. XX:2; 2001, p.72, Taf. V:3; Bitner-Wróblewska 2008b, pl. XCIX–CI; Kontny 2008a, p.96, Table 1; Prussia-Museum Inventory Books, 7.068, 069; PM-A 096/1.244; Schmiedehelm’s heritage, 7.13.18, 7.13.19, 7.13e.89, 7.13e.147, 7.13e.180; Grenz’s heritage; Engel’s heritage; Åberg’s heritage). he Dollkeim-Kovrovo culture: Kulikovo (Ger. Elchdorf), Zelenogradsk District, stray ind (La Baume 1941, p.9; Nowakowski 1996b, pp.71–72, Taf. 102:1; Радюш, Скворцов 2008, p.133, pиc. 4:18), Schakumehlen, a former village in Bagrationovsk District (Raddatz 1993, Fig. 8; Радюш, Скворцов 2008, p.137, pиc. 4:19; Jankuhn’s heritage; Jahn’s heritage). 46 warriors, who were perhaps allied with the retinue’s Przeworsk members, were deposited in the Early Roman period. his was not a unique phenomenon. he gear in Szwajcaria, barrow 2, burial 1 (phase C1b) seems to prove that the interred Balt served as a warrior under Scandinavian and Przeworsk military leaders. he Balt militaria that date from the turn of the Roman period and from the Migration period and were excavated at Balsmyr and Sorte Muld on Bornholm, Kragehul on Funen, Skedemosse on Oland, and Uppåkra in Scania, come from smaller deposits rather than mass ones and so do not allow the contribution of the Balts to the invaders to be assessed, but it was signiicant at the least. his does not mean that the Balts occupied high positions among the invaders. hey appear instead to have been cannon fodder but the conlict was also a stepping stone that allowed them to advance in the hierarchy, as shown by the aforementioned Szwajcaria burial. Moreover, their participation in military matters led to an exchange of ideas about tactics, weapons, and perhaps also certain rituals. his accounts for the adoption of the numerous Balt weaponry solutions that were inspired by the Scandinavians and Scandinavian imports. he opposite low of ideas is less frequent (e.g. the spearhead from Lovön, burial 3), which indicates that the centre was in the north. he Balts probably also participated in military raids at other targets. Balt weapons and other male cultural traits together with Przeworsk, Chernyakhov, Crimean, Sarmatian/Pontic, and perhaps also Scandinavian features have been recorded at the Crimean cemetery at Chatyr-Dag. he image of a cultural cocktail, reminiscent of J.R.R. Tolkien’s fellowship of the ring, strongly suggests the existence of multi-ethnic military units in South east Europe that contained, inter alia, Balts (Kontny 2013c). Another example of Balt military activity is the gradual ‘Baltisation’ of the post-Wielbark culture areas in the Early Migration period (Kontny 2017b). he incidence of Balt cultural elements from this period, inter alia brooches and weapons, may be explained by the movement of groups searching for new con- BARTOSZ KONTNY tacts with the people remaining in the area (e.g. of Pruszcz Gdański). he settlement clusters with good prospects for becoming trade centres such as natural harbours (e.g. the shores of Puck Bay and the Janów Pomorski region) were especially promising locations. In the case of Janów Pomorski, this strategy succeeded as was later proven by Truso (see Kontny, Szymański 2015, pp.340–341). he tentative military character of the exploration in half abandoned territories by Balt scouts can be deduced from the warlike activity of the Balts at the turn of the Early Migration period, which has been described in this paper. It seems that their possible participation in distant raids was even accomplished with the use of boats (as some Balt elements came from the Baltic Sea islands). his seems reasonable as trade (at least sea trade) and war parties were strictly connected (Kontny 2012, pp.69–71) since both needed a welltrained crew of oarsmen. he supposition that warriors formed the vital core of the migrants seems to also be suggested by the weapon burials from the earliest stage of the Balt migration along the shores of Vistula Bay, i.e. Horizon 0 of the Elbląg group (Kontny 2017b) and its well with the idea of Stefan Burmeister (2000, p.544) who tried to describe the theoretical grounds for ancient migrations, i.e. that warriors or traders formed the irst migrant wave. In conclusion, the Balts were probably not the leaders of interregional war parties but some of them reached the position of reputable brothers-in-arms in the Roman and Early Migration periods. heir involvement in military raids led to an exchange of weaponry ideas. his mechanism, which has been alleged to have occurred in the Germanic societies, has deinitely been neglected so far. It is hoped that the present paper will change this underestimation. Acknowledgements he paper was prepared with the inancial support of the National Science Centre (Maestro project ‘Migration period between Odra and Vistula’, led by Prof Aleksander Bursche from the Institute of Archaeology, University of BROTHERS-IN-ARMS. BALT WARRIORS AND THEIR INTERREGIONAL CONTACTS IN THE ROMAN AND MIGRATION... Warsaw, no. DEC-2011/02/A/HS3/00389). For access to archival sources and collections, the author would like to especially thank Dr Horst Junker, Dr Horst Wieder, and Dr Heino Neumayer from the Museum of Prehistory and Early History, Prof Claus von Carnap-Bornheim from the Regional Archaeological Museum Schloss Gottorf in Schleswig, Dr Anna Juga-Szymańska from Warsaw, Dr Habil Anna Bitner-Wróblewska from the State Archaeological Museum in Warsaw, Dr Habil Mirosław Hofmann from the Museum of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, Halina Karwowska from the Podlachia Museum in Białystok, and Jerzy Brzozowski from the Museum in Suwałki. translated by s. twardo and B. Kontny, English edited by J. a. Bakanauskas REFERENCES Adler, W., 1993. studien zur germanischen Bewafnung. Wafenmitgabe und Kampfesweise im niederelbegebiet und im übrigen Freien Germanien um Christi Geburt (=saarbrücker Beiträge zur altertumskunde, 58). Bonn: Habelt Verlag. Adler, W., 2002. Untersuchungen zu dem Schildnagel mit grossem lachem Kopf. in: von Carnap-Bornheim, C., Kokowski, A., Łuczkiewicz, P., Hrsg. Bewafnung der Germanen und ihrer nachbarn in den letzten Jahrhunderten vor Christi Geburt. akten der internationalen tagung in nałęczów, 23. bis 25. september 1999. Lublin: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej, 179–197. Andrzejowski, J., Madyda-Legutko, R., 2013. Bronze belt buckles with doubled tongue between Scandinavia and the Black Sea. In search of local and inter-regional connections during the Roman period. in: Khrapunov, I., Stylegar, F.-A., eds. inter ambo Maria. northern barbarians from scandinavia towards the Black sea. Kristiansand, Simferopol: “DOLYA” Publishing House, 6–25. Antoniewicz, J., 1962. Odkrycie grobu rolnika 47 jaćwieskiego z narzędziami produkcji z okresu rzymskiego. rB, III, 205–223. Antoniewicz, J., Kaczyński, M., Okulicz, J., 1958. Wyniki badań przeprowadzonych w 1956 roku na cmentarzysku kurhanowym w miejsc. Szwajcaria, pow. Suwałki. Wa, XXV/1, 22–57. Arwidsson, G., 1962. Lovö-Bor med Kontinentala Förbindelser på 400-Talet. in: Hamberg, P.G., ed. proxima hule. sverige och Europa under Forntid och Medeltid. Hyllningsskrit till H.M. Konungen den 11 november 1962. Stockholm: Norstedt, 113–122. Behm-Blancke, G., 2003. Heiligtümer der Germanen und ihrer Vorgänger in hüringen. Die Kultstätte Oberdorla. Forschungen zum alteuropäischen religions- und Kultwesen, 1. text und Fototafeln (=Weimarer Monographien zur Ur- und Frühgeschichte, 38). Stuttgart: heiss. Bemmann, G., Bemmann, J., 1998. Der Opferplatz von nydam. Die Funde aus älteren Grabungen: nydam-i und nydam-ii. Neumünster: Wachholtz Verlag. Bemmann, J., Hahne, G., 1994. Wafenführende Grabinventare der jüngeren römischen Kaiserzeit und Völkerwanderungszeit in Skandinavien. Studie zur zeitlichen Ordnung anhand der norwegischen Funde. Bericht der römisch-Germanischen Kommission, 75, 283–640. Bertašius, M., 2005. Marvelė. Ein Gräberfeld Mittellitauens. Vidurio Lietuvos aukštaičių ii–Xii a. kapinynas, I. Kauno technologijos universitetas. Bezuglov, S.I., 2003. Alanen-Tanaiten und Germanen der Maiotis – Fragen der Kontakte in spätrömischer Zeit (3.–4. Jahrhundert). in: von Carnap-Bornheim, C., Hrsg. Kontakt – Kooperation – Konlikt. Germanen und sarmaten zwischen dem 1. und dem 4. Jahrhundert nach Christus (=schriten des archäologischen Landesmuseums. Ergänzungsreihe, 1). Neumünster: Wachholtz Verlag, 89–101. Biborski, M., 1978. Miecze z okresu wpływów rzymskich na obszarze kultury przeworskiej. Ma, XVIII, 53–165. Biborski, M., 1994. Die Schwerter des 1. und 2. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. aus dem römischen Imperium 48 und dem Barbaricum. specimina nova Dissertationum ex instituto Historico Universitatis Quinqueecclesiensis de iano pannonio nominatae, 1993, 91–130. Biborski, M., 2000. Nowe znaleziska rzymskich mieczy z Barbaricum w świetle problemów konserwatorskich. in: Madyda-Legutko, R., Bochnak, T., red. superiores barbari. Księga ku czci profesora Kazimierza Godłowskiego. Kraków: Instytut Archeologii Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, 49–80. Biborski, M., 2010. Chronologia cmentarzyska kultury przeworskiej z młodszego i późnego okresu rzymskiego oraz z wczesnej fazy wędrówek ludów w Mokrej na Śląsku. Wa, LXI, 137–151. Biborski, M., Ilkjær, J., 2006. illerup Ådal, 11. Die schwerter. textband (=Jasp, XXV (11)). Aarhus: Jysk Arkaeologisk Selskab, Moesgård Museum. Bishop, M., Coulston, J., 2006. roman Military Equipment from the punic Wars to the Fall of rome, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Bitner-Wróblewska, A., 2007. netta. a Balt Cemetery in northeastern poland (=Monumenta archaeologica Barbarica, XII). Warszawa: Państwowe Muzeum Archeologiczne, Fundacja Monumenta Archaeologica Barbarica. Bitner-Wróblewska, A., 2008a. Śladami kolekcji Prussia-Museum (1943–2008) / Auf dem Spuren der Kollektion des Prussia-Museums (1943–2008) / По следам коллекции музея ”Прусcия”. in: BitnerWróblewska, A., red. archeologiczne księgi inwentarzowe dawnego prussia-Museum (=aestiorum Hereditas, I). Olsztyn: Archiwum Państwowe w Olsztynie, 46–67. Bitner-Wróblewska, A., 2008b, red. archeologiczne księgi inwentarzowe dawnego prussia-Museum (=aestiorum Hereditas, I). Olsztyn: Archiwum Państwowe w Olsztynie. Bitner-Wróblewska, A., Karczewska, M., Karczewski, M., 2001. Nowa odmiana uzdy z wodzami łańcuchowymi z cmentarzyska kultury bogaczewskiej w Paprotkach Kolonii, stan. 1. Wa, LV, 65–85. Bitner-Wróblewska, A., Kontny, B., 2006. Controversy about three-leaf arrowheads from Lithuania. aL, 7, 104–122 BARTOSZ KONTNY Bitner-Wróblewska, A., Rzeszotarska-Nowakiewicz, A., Nowakiewicz, T., 2011. Katalog. in: Nowakiewicz, T., red. archeologiczne dziedzictwo prus Wschodnich w archiwum Feliksa Jakobsona (=aestiorum Hereditas, II). Warszawa: Ministerstwo Kultury i Dziedzictwa Narodowego, Departament Dziedzictwa Kulturowego, 58–511. Bezzenberger, A., 1896. Das Gräberfeld bei Rominten. sap, 20 (1895/1896), 35–56. Blankenfeldt, R., 2013. Weapon deposits in the horsberger Moor – 150 years of research and new perspectives. in: Khrapunov, I., Stylegar, F.A., eds. inter ambo Maria. northern barbarians from scandinavia towards the Black sea. Kristiansand, Simferopol: “DOLYA” Publishing House, 26–38. Bliujienė, A., 2010. he Bog Oferings of the Balts: ‘I give in order to get back’. aB, 14, 136–165. Bliujienė, A., Butkus, D., 2007. Armed Men and their Riding Horses as a Relection of Warrior Hierarchy in Western Lithuania during the Roman Iron Age. aB, 8, 95–116. Bliujienė, A., Butkus, D., 2009. Burials with horses and equestrian equipment on the Lithuanian and Latvian littorals and hinterlands (from the ith to the eight centuries). aB, 11, 149–163. Bliujienė, A., Steponaitis, V., 2009. Wealthy horsemen in the remote and tenebrous forests of East Lithuania during the Migration Period. aB, 11, 185–205. Bochnak, T., 2003. „Długie noże” w grobach kultury przeworskiej z młodszego okresu przedrzymskiego – broń czy narzędzie?. Ma, 34, 5–18. Burmeister, S., 2000. Archaeology and Migration. Approaches to an Archaeological Proof of Migration. Current anthropology, 41 (4), 539–567. Carnap-Bornheim, C. von, Ilkjær, J., 1996. illerup Ådal, 6. Die prachtausrüstungen (=Jasp, XXV (6)). Aarhus: Jysk Arkaeologisk Selskab. Christensen, A.E., 2005. he Roman Iron Age tools from Vimose, Denmark. aa, 76 (2), 59–86. Czarnecka, K., 2010. Nietypowe groty włóczni ze schyłku starożytności z ziem polskich. Wa, LXI, 111–132. BROTHERS-IN-ARMS. BALT WARRIORS AND THEIR INTERREGIONAL CONTACTS IN THE ROMAN AND MIGRATION... Czarnecka, K., Kontny, B., 2008. Simply ornament or something more? Marks of undetermined function found on Barbarian lance- and spearheads. JrMEs, 16, 17–42. Demidziuk, K., Kontny, B., 2009. Materials of the East Lithuanian Barrows Culture from the area of Smorgon basing on the iles from the territory of Silesia. aL, 10, 163–173. Droberjar, E., Peška, J., 1994. Wafengräber der römischen Kaiserzeit in Mähren und die Bewafnung aus dem Königsgrab bei Mušov. in: von CarnapBornheim, C., Hrsg. Beiträge zu römischer und barbarischer Bewafnung in den ersten vier nachchristlichen Jahrhunderten. Marburger Kolloquium 1994. Marburg, Lublin: Vorgeschichtliches Seminar der Philipps-Universität, 271–301. Droberjar, E., Peška, J., 2002. Die Wafen. in: Peška, J., Tejral, J., Hrsg. Das Germanische Königsgrab von Mušov in Mähren. Mainz: RömischGermanischen Zentralmuseum, 97–125. Engel, M., Iwanicki, P., Rzeszotarska-Nowakiewicz, A., 2006. “Sudovia in qua Sudovitae”. he new hypothesis about the origin of Sudovian Culture. aL, 7, 184–211. Engelhardt, C., 1863. horsbjerg Mosefund. Kjöbenhavn: Gad. Engelhardt, C., 1867. Kragehul Mosefund 1751– 1865. Kjöbenhavn: Gad. Engelhardt, C., 1869. Vimose Fundet. Kjöbenhavn: Gad. Gaerte, W., 1929. Urgeschichte Ostpreussens. Königsberg i. Pr.: Gräfe und Unzer. Ginalski, J., 1991. Ostrogi kabłąkowe kultury przeworskiej. Klasyikacja typologiczna. przegląd archeologiczny, 38, 53–84. Godłowski, K., 1972. Badania na cmentarzysku z okresu rzymskiego w Kryspinowie, pow. Kraków. sprawozdania archeologiczne, XXIV, 129–148. Godłowski, K., 1992. Zmiany w uzbrojeniu ludności kultury przeworskiej w okresie wpływów rzymskich. in: Głosek, M., Mielczarek, M., Świętosławski, W., Walenta, K., red. arma et Ollae. studia dedykowane profesorowi andrzejowi nadolskiemu w 49 70 rocznicę urodzin i 45 rocznicę pracy naukowej. sesja naukowa, Łódź, 7–8 maja 1992 r. Łódź: Stowarzyszenie Naukowe Archeologów Polskich, 71–88. Godłowski, K., 1994. Die Chronologie der germanischen Wafengräber in der jüngeren und späten Kaiserzeit. in: von Carnap-Bornheim, C., Hrsg. Beiträge zu römischer und barbarischer Bewafnung in den ersten vier nachchristlichen Jahrhunderten. Marburger Kolloquium 1994. Marburg, Lublin: Vorgeschichtliches Seminar der PhilippsUniversität, 169–178. Gręzak, A., 2007. Groby koni na cmentarzyskach kultury bogaczewskiej. in: BitnerWróblewska, A., red. Kultura bogaczewska w 20 lat później. Materiały z konferencji, Warszawa, 26–27 marca 2003 (=seminarium bałtyjskie, I). Państwowe Muzeum Archeologiczne w Warszawie, Stowarzyszenie Naukowe Archeologów Polskich, Oddział w Warszawie, 353–367. Gschwantler, K., 1999. Die Anhänger der Kette und ihre Deutung. in: Seipel, W., Hrsg. Barbarenschmuck und römergold. Der schatz von szilágysomlyó. Milano, Wien: Skira, Kunsthistorisches Museum, 63–79. Hagberg, U.E., 1967. he archaeology of skedemosse, II. he Votive Deposits in the skedemosse Fen and their relation to the iron-age settlement on Öland, sweden. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. Hess, H., 1977. Die Entstehung zentraler Herrschatsinstanzen durch die Bildung klientelären Gefolgschat. Kölner Zeitschrit für soziologie und sozialpsychologie, 29, 762–778 (non vidi). Hollack, E., Peiser, F., 1904. Das Gräberfeld von Moythienen. Königsberg: Gräfe und Unzer. Ilkjær, J., 1990. illerup Ådal, 1. Die Lanzen und speere. textband (=Jasp, XXV (1)). Aarhus: Jysk Arkaeologisk Selskab. Ilkjær, J., 1993a. illerup Ådal, 3. Die Gürtel. Bestandteile und Zubehör. textband (=Jasp, XXV (3)). Aarhus: Jysk Arkaeologisk Selskab. Ilkjær, J., 1993b. illerup Ådal, 3. Die Gürtel. Bestandteile und Zubehör. tafelband (=Jasp, XXV (3)). Aarhus: Jysk Arkaeologisk Selskab. Ilkjær, J., 2001. illerup Ådal, 9. Die schilde. 50 textband (=Jasp, XXV (9)). Aarhus: Jysk Arkaeologisk Selskab. Iversen, R.B., 2010. Kragehul Mose: Ein Kriegsbeuteopfer auf südwestfünen (=Jysk arkaeologisk selskabs skriter, 73). Højbjerg: Jysk Arkaeologisk Selskab. Jahn, M., 1916. Die Bewafnung der Germanen in der älteren Eisenzeit, etwa von 700 v. Chr. bis 200 n. Chr. (=Mannus-Bibliothek, 16). Würzburg: Verlag Curt Kabitzsch. Jakobson, F., 2009. Die Brandgräberfelder von Daumen und Kellaren im Kreise allenstein, Ostpr. Daumen und Kellaren – tumiany i Kielary, 1 (=schriten des archäologischen Landesmuseums, 9). Neumünster: Wachholtz Verlag. Jankuhn, H., 1939. Ein Gräberfeld der ersten Jahrhunderte u. Z. aus Schlakalken, Kr. Fischhausen. sap, 32 (2), 245–260. Jaskanis, J., 1961. Wyniki badań przeprowadzonych na cmentarzysku kurhanowym w miejscowości Osowa, pow. Suwałki w latach 1958–1959. rB, I, 131–191. Jaskanis, J., 1962. Wyniki badań cmentarzyska kurhanowego w wsi Osowa, pow. Suwałki w latach 1960–1961. rB, III, 233–297. Jaskanis, J., 2013. Szwajcaria. Cmentarzysko bałtyjskie kultury sudowskiej w północno-wschodniej polsce. Warszawa: Stowarzyszenie Naukowe Archeologów Polskich, Oddział w Warszawie, Państwowe Muzeum Archeologiczne, Muzeum Okręgowe w Suwałkach. Jentzsch, A., 1896. Bericht über die Verwaltung des Ostpreuβischen Provinzialmuseums in den Jahren 1893–1895, nebst Beiträgen zur Geologie und Urgeschichte Ost- und Westepreuβens. spÖG, XXXVII, 49–138. Jonakowski, M., 1996. Komplet narzędzi do krzesania ognia w kulturze przeworskiej ze szczególnym uwzględnieniem krzesiw sztabkowatych. in: Nowakowski, W., red. Concordia. studia oiarowane Jerzemu Okuliczowi-Kozarynowi w sześćdziesiątą piątą rocznicę urodzin. Instytut Archeologii Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, 93–104. BARTOSZ KONTNY Juga, A., Ots, M., Szymański, P., 2003. Über die Vorteile der Bildung einer „didaktischen Kollektion“. Materialien der Bogaczewo-Kultur und OlsztynGruppe in Ajaloo Instituut in Tallin (Estland). in: Bursche, A., Ciołek, R., red. antyk i barbarzyńcy. Księga dedykowana profesorowi Jerzemu Kolendo w siedemdziesiątą rocznicę urodzin. Instytut Archeologii Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, 218–243. Kaczanowski, P., 1992. importy broni rzymskiej na obszarze europejskiego Barbaricum. Kraków: Uniwersytet Jagielloński. Kaczanowski, P., 1995. Klasyikacja grotów broni drzewcowej kultury przeworskiej z okresu rzymskiego (=Klasyikacje zabytków archeologicznych, I). Kraków: Uniwersytet Jagielloński. Kaczanowski, P., Zaborowski, J., 1988. Bemerkungen über die Bewafnung der Bevölkerung der Wielbark-Kultur. in: Gurba, J., Kokowski, A., red. Kultura wielbarska w młodszym okresie rzymskim, I. Lublin: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej, 221–239. Karczewska, M., 1999. Cmentarzysko z okresu wpływów rzymskich i wędrówek ludów w Sterławkach Małych, w Krainie Wielkich Jezior Mazurskich. in: Hofmann, M.J., Sobieraj, J., red. archeologia ziem pruskich. nieznane zbiory i materiały archiwalne. Ostróda 15–17.X.1998. Stowarzyszenie Naukowe Archeologów Polskich Oddział w Olsztynie, 239–275. Karczewski, M., 1999. Chronologia grobów z bronią odkrytych na cmentarzysku kultury bogaczewskiej z okresu wpływów rzymskich i wędrówek ludów w Paprotkach-Kolonii, stan. 1, w Krainie Wielkich Jezior Mazurskich. aL, I, 72–109. Karczewski, M., Karczewska, M., Gręzak, A., 2009. he role of horse burials in the Bogaczewo Culture. he key studies of Paprotki Kolonia Site 1 Cemetery, Northeast Poland. aB, 11, 56–88. Kaul, F., 2003. he Hjortspring ind. in: CrumlinPedersen, O., Trakadas, A., eds. Hjortspring. pre-roman iron-age Warship in Context (=ships and Boats of the north, 5). Roskilde: Viking Ship Museum, 141–185. BROTHERS-IN-ARMS. BALT WARRIORS AND THEIR INTERREGIONAL CONTACTS IN THE ROMAN AND MIGRATION... Kazakevičius, V., 2004. Geležies amžiaus strėlės Lietuvoje ii–Xii/Xiii a. Vilnius: Generolo Jono Žemaičio Lietuvos Karo akademija, Lietuvos Istorijos institutas. Kazanski, M., 1994. Les éperons, les umbo, les manipules de boucliers et les haches de l’époque romaine tardive dans la région pontique: origine et difusion. in: von Carnap-Bornheim, C., Hrsg. Beiträge zu römischer und barbarischer Bewafnung in den ersten vier nachchristlichen Jahrhunderten. Marburger Kolloquium 1994. Marburg, Lublin: Vorgeschichtliches Seminar der Philipps-Universität, 429–485. Kiulkys, D., 2010. Senojo ir vidurinio geležies amžiaus skydai Lietuvoje. aL, 11, 33–114. Klindt Jensen, O., 1957. Bornholm i Folkevandrings tiden. København: Nationalmuseet. Kolendo, J., 1998. Kontakty ekonomiczne i polityczne między Imperium Romanum a ludami barbarzyńskimi w świetle źródeł pisanych. in: Bursche, A., Chowaniec, R., Nowakowski, W., Kolendo, J., red. Świat antyczny i barbarzyńcy. teksty, zabytki, releksja nad przeszłością (=instytut archeologii Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego: seria podręczników, 1). Instytut Archeologii Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, 33–39. Kolendo, J., 2008a. Komentarz do tekstu Germanii Tacyta. in: Płóciennik, T., Kolendo, J., red. p. Cornelius tacitus, Germania / publiusz Korneliusz tacyt, Germania (=Fontes Historiae antiquae, X). Poznań: Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza, 109–199. Kolendo, J., 2008b. Ziemie u południowowschodnich wybrzeży Bałtyku w źródłach antycznych. pruthenia, IV, 11–41. Kontny, B., 1999. Znaleziska toków z obszaru kultury przeworskiej. Śns, I/XLII.B, 128–137. Kontny, B., 2001. Zestawy uzbrojenia w grobach z cmentarzysk kultury przeworskiej w okresie wpływów rzymskich (PhD thesis). University of Warsaw, Library of the Institute of Archaeology. Kontny, B., 2003a. Die Wiederentdeckung eines Fundes aus Grudynia Mała – Versuch einer 51 Neuinterpretation des Grabes 2. in: Nowakowski, W., Lemke, M., Hrsg. auf der suche nach der verlorenen archäologie. Instytut Archeologii Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, 61–71. Kontny, B., 2003b. Przekaz z zaświatów. Analiza zestawów uzbrojenia z grobów w kulturze przeworskiej z okresu wczesnorzymskiego i początków młodszego okresu rzymskiego. Śns, V/XLVI.B, 111–178. Kontny, B., 2003c. Z motyką na Słońce? Możliwości odzwierciedlenia instytucji drużyny w materiale archeologicznym. in: Bursche, A., Ciołek, R., red. antyk i barbarzyńcy. Księga dedykowana profesorowi Jerzemu Kolendo. Instytut Archeologii Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, 253–267. Kontny, B., 2004a. Broń z cmentarzyska kultury kurhanów wschodniolitewskich w Słobódce (?) na Białorusi w świetle podobnych odkryć. in: Juga-Szymańska, A., Nowakowski, W., Szymański, P., red. (=Światowit supplement series B: Barbaricum, 7). Instytut Archeologii Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, 249–263. Kontny, B., 2004b. Uzbrojenie kultury przeworskiej w okresie wpływów rzymskich i początkach okresu wędrówek ludów. in: Andrzejowski, J., Kokowski, A., Leiber, Ch., red. Wandalowie. strażnicy bursztynowego szlaku. Lublin, Warszawa: Państwowe Muzeum Archeologiczne w Warszawie, 143–161. Kontny, B., 2006. Zabytki bałtyjskie w zbiorach wrocławskich, czyli nowe (stare?) materiały kultury kurhanów wschodniolitewskich z miejscowości Slobotka. sa, 43, 157–173. Kontny, B., 2007a. Najwcześniejsze elementy uzbrojenia w kulturze bogaczewskiej w świetle zewnętrznych wpływów kulturowych. in: BitnerWróblewska, A., red. Kultura bogaczewska w 20 lat później. Materiały z konferencji, Warszawa, 26–27 marca 2003 (=seminarium bałtyjskie, I). Państwowe Muzeum Archeologiczne w Warszawie, Stowarzyszenie Naukowe Archeologów Polskich, Oddział w Warszawie, 73–111. Kontny, B., 2007b. Foreign inluences on the 52 weaponry of Bogaczewo and Sudovian cultures. he case of the shated weapon. aB, 8, 117–132. Kontny, B., 2008a. he latest weapons in the Bogaczewo culture. in: Niezabitowska, B., Juściński, M., Łuczkiewicz, P., Sadowski, S., eds. he turbulent Epoch. new Materials from the Late roman period and the Migration period, II. Lublin: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Marii CurieSkłodowskiej, 89–104. Kontny, B., 2008b. he war as seen by an archaeologist. Reconstruction of barbarian weapons and ighting techniques in the Roman period based on the analysis of burials containing weapons. he case of the Przeworsk Culture. JrMEs, 16, 1–39. Kontny, B., 2008c. Dawna technika na nowo odkryta – uwagi na marginesie znaleziska grotu z Łodzi-Łagiewnik. sa, 44, 135–169. Kontny, B., 2008d. Breves gladii et rotunda scuta. Remarks on the Goths’ weapons on the margin of Tacitus’ text. in: Карнап-Борнхайм, К., Новаковский, В., Симоненко, А., рeд. Germaniasarmatia. Древности центральной и восточной Европы эпохи римского влияния и переселения народов. Калининград: Янтарный сказ, 180–209. Kontny, B., 2009. Horse and its use in the Przeworsk Culture in the light of the archaeological evidence. aB, 11, 92–114. Kontny, B., 2011. Weaponry. in: Kontny, B., Okulicz-Kozaryn, J., Pietrzak, M., eds. nowinka site 1. he cemetery from the Late Migration period in the northern poland. Archaeological Museum in Gdańsk, Institute of Archaeology University of Warsaw, 86–97. Kontny, B., 2012. Trade, salt and amber. he formation of Late Migration period elites in the ‘Balticulti’ area of northern Poland (the Elbląg group). aB, 17, 60–76. Kontny, B., 2013a. Seaxes from the cemeteries of the Balt tribes in northern Poland (the Elbląg group). in: Sanader, M., Rendić-Miočević, A., Tončinič, D., Radman-Livaja, I., eds. Weapons and military equipment in funerary context. proceedings of the XViith roman Military Equipment Conference. Zagreb 2010. BARTOSZ KONTNY Filozofski fakultet Sveučilišta u Zagrebu, Odsjek za arheologiju, Arheološki muzej u Zagrebu, 215–233. Kontny, B., 2013b. New traces in old barrow. A reinterpretation of particular inds from barrow 2 at Szwajcaria cemetery (Sudovian culture). aB, 19, 132–143. Kontny, B., 2013c. New traces to solve the riddle: weapons from Chatyr-Dag in the state of current research. in: Khrapunov, I., Stylegar, F.-A., eds. inter ambo Maria. northern barbarians from scandinavia towards the Black sea. Kristiansand, Simferopol: “DOLYA” Publishing House, 196–212. Kontny, B., 2015a. Was Tacitus right? On the existence of hitting weapons of organic materials amongst the Balt tribes. in: Wefers, S., Karwowski, M., FriesKnoblach, J., Trebsche, P., Ram, P.C., Hrsg. Wafen, Gewalt, Krieg. Beiträge zur internationalen tagung der aG Eisenzeit und des instytut archeologii Uniwersytetu rzeszowskiego – rzeszów 19.–22. september 2012 (=Beiträge zur Ur- und Frühgeschichte Mitteleuropas). Langenweissbach: Beier & Beran. Archäologische Fachliteratur, 271–283. Kontny, B., 2015b. his came out of the swamp. Wolka See revisited: some debatable problems concerning Balt weapons. in: Kontny, B., red. Ubi tribus faucibus luenta Vistulae luminis ebibuntur. Jerzy Okulicz-Kozaryn in memoriam (=Światowit supplement series B: Barbaricum, 11). Instytut Archeologii Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, 307–331. Kontny, B., 2016a. Imitation and inspiration in the ield of militaria at Szwajcaria cemetery (the Sudovian culture). he case of a ‘princely burial’ from Barrow 2. JrMEs, 17, 255–268. Kontny, B., 2016b. Siekiery tulejkowe z kultur bogaczewskiej i sudowskiej / Socketed axes in the Bogaczewo and Sudovian cultures. Wa, LXVII, 37– 64. Kontny, B., 2017a. Smok (?) z Łabapy. Ze studiów nad ornamentowanymi grotami z okresu rzymskiego. in: Andrzejowski, J., von CarnapBornheim, C., Cieśliński, A., Kontny, B., red. Orbis barbarorum. studia ad archaeologiam Germanorum et Baltorum temporibus imperii romani pertinen- BROTHERS-IN-ARMS. BALT WARRIORS AND THEIR INTERREGIONAL CONTACTS IN THE ROMAN AND MIGRATION... tia adalberto nowakowski dedicata. Państwowe Muzeum Archeologiczne w Warszawie, Instytut Archeologii Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, 191–207. Kontny, B., 2017b. How did Vidivarii emerge? he transition between Germanic and Balt settlement in the late 5th c. in northern Poland. in: Bursche, A., ed. Migration period between Odra and Vistula. Warszawa (in press). Kontny, B., 2017c. Really unique? On the Swords in the West Balt Circle. Študijiné zvesti archeologického ústavu saV, 61, 85–116. Kontny, B., forthcoming a. Topory bałtyjskie z okresu wpływów rzymskich na ziemiach polskich. in: Materiały do archeologii Warmii i Mazur, II. Kontny, B., forthcoming b. Dogs of war in the Baltic Sea area. he case of Balt retinues in the Roman period and Migration period. in: Cieśliński, A., Kontny, B., eds. interacting Barbarians. Contacts, Exchange and Migrations in the First Millennium aD. proceedings of the 65th. international sachsensymposion 13–17 september 2014, Warsaw, institute of archaeology, University of Warsaw (=neue studien zur sachsenforschung, 7). Instytut Archeologii Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego. Kontny, B., Natuniewicz-Sekuła, M., 2009. A spur from Myślęcin (?) as an odd piece in a puzzle. in: Kontny, B., Szela, A., Kleemann, J., red. Światowit supplement series B: Barbaricum, 8. Instytut Archeologii Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, 153–160. Kontny, B., Okulicz-Kozaryn, J., Pietrzak, M., 2009. Horse graves in the Elbląg Group. he case of the cemetery at the Nowinka, Tolkmicko commune. aB, 11, 164–184. Kontny, B., Rudnicki, M., 2009. Miniatura tarczy z Pełczysk – mały przedmiot, wielkie sprawy. in: Kaim, B., red. Blisko i daleko. Księga jubileuszowa instytutu archeologii Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego. Instytut Archeologii Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, 29–40. Kontny, B., Szymański, P., 2015. Bałtyjska zapinka z początku późnego okresu wędrówek ludów z Pucka. in: Kontny, B., red. Ubi tribus faucibus luenta Vistulae luminis ebibuntur. Jerzy Okulicz-Kozaryn 53 in memoriam (=Światowit supplement series B: Barbaricum, 11). Warszawa: Instytut Archeologii Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, 333–350. Kristensen, A.K.G., 1983. tacitus’ germanische Gefolgschat (=Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes selskab Historisk-ilosoiske Meddelelser, 50 (5)). København: Munksgaard. Kulakov, V., 2009. Dollkeim-Kovrovo, Kaliningrad region, russia. research on the cemetery conducted in 1879 and 1992–2002 (=Bar international series, 1950). Oxford: Archaeopress. Kurila, L., 2007. Graves of the unburied: symbolic Iron Age warrior burials in East Lithuania. aB, 8, 202–301. La Baume, W., 1941a. Der altpreuβische Schild. alt-preuβen, 6 (1), 5–12. La Baume, W., 1941b. Vorgeschichtliche Forschung und Denkmalplege in Ostpreußen (1939 und 1940). nachrichtenblatt für Deutsche Vorzeit, 17 (3–4), 82–88. La Baume, W., Gronau, W., 1941. Das Gräberfeld von Raczki, Kreis Suwalki. alt-preuβen, 5 (4), 59–61. Madyda-Legutko, R., 1990. Doppeldornschnallen mit rechteckigem Rahmen im europäischen Barbaricum. Germania, 68 (2), 551–558. Malonaitis, A., 2008. Geležiniai siauraašmeniai kirviai Lietuvoje. Vilniaus pedagoginio universiteto leidykla. Meyer, E., 1971. Die germanischen Bodenfunde der spätrömischen Kaiserzeit und der frühen Völkerwanderungszeit in sachsen (=arbeits- und Forschungsberichte zur sächsischen Bodendenkmalplege, 6). Berlin: Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaten. Michelbertas, M., 2000. Die Bronzesporen der römischen Kaiserzeit in Litauen. in: MadydaLegutko, R., Bochnak, T., red. superiores barbari. Księga ku czci profesora Kazimierza Godłowskiego. Kraków: Instytut Archeologii Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, 287–292. Miks, Ch., 2007. studien zur römischen schwertbewafnung in der Kaiserzeit. text (=Kölner studien 54 zur archäologie der römischen provinzen, 8). Rahden/Westf.: Verlag Marie Leidorf GmbH. Nielsen, O., 1991. Skydeforsøg med jernalderens buer. in: Madsen, B., ed. Eksperimentel arkæologi – studier i teknologi og kultur, 1. Lejre: HistoriskArkæologisk Forsøgscenter, 134–148. Nowakiewicz, T., Rzeszotarska-Nowakiewicz, A., 2012. Jezioro nidajno koło Czaszkowa na Mazurach: niezwykłe miejsce kultu z okresu późnej starożytności / Lake nidajno near Czaszkowo in Masuria: a unique sacriicial site from Late antiquity. Warszawa: Komitet Nauk Pra- i Protohistorycznych Polskiej Akademii Nauk, Instytut Archeologii Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, Instytut Archeologii i Etnologii Polskiej Akademii Nauk. Nowakowski, W., 1994a. Krieger ohne Schwerter – Die Bewafnung der Aestii in der römischen Kaiserzeit. in: von Carnap-Bornheim, C., Hrsg. Beiträge zu römischer und barbarischer Bewafnung in den ersten vier nachchristlichen Jahrhunderten. Marburger Kolloquium 1994. Marburg, Lublin: Vorgeschichtliches Seminar der Philipps-Universität, 379–391. Nowakowski, W., 1994b. Kultura przeworska a zachodniobałtyjski krąg kulturowy. in: Gurba, J., Kokowski, A., red. Kultura przeworska. Materiały z konferencji. Lublin: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej, 373–388. Nowakowski, W., 1995. Od Galindai do Galinditae. Z badań nad pradziejami bałtyjskiego ludu z pojezierza Mazurskiego (=Barbaricum, 4). Instytut Archeologii Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego. Nowakowski, W., 1996a. U źródeł etnogenezy Bałtów i Słowian – Wenetowie Tacyta w świetle archeologii. in: Nowakowski, W., red. Concordia. studia oiarowane Jerzemu Okuliczowii-Kozarynowi w sześćdziesiątą piątą rocznicę urodzin. Instytut Archeologii Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, 187–191. Nowakowski, W., 1996b. Das samland in der römischen Kaiserzeit und seine Verbindungen mit dem römischen reich und der barbarischen Welt (=Veröfentlichung des Vorgeschichtlichen seminars Marburg, 10). Marburg, Warszawa: Vor- BARTOSZ KONTNY geschichtliches Seminar der Philipps-Universität Marburg. Nowakowski, W., 1998. Die Funde der römischen Kaiserzeit und der Völkerwanderungszeit aus Masuren. Berlin: Staatliche Museen Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Museum fur Vor- und Frühgeschichte. Nowakowski, W., 2001. Corpus der römischen Funde im europäischen Barbaricum, 1. Masuren. Instytut Archeologii Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego. Nowakowski, W., 2007a. Aestiorum Gladii. Swords in the West Balt Circle in the Roman Period. aB, 8, 85–94. Nowakowski, W., 2007b. Die Streitaxt aus „Sopoćkinie, Kr. Augustów“ – ein seltsamer Wafenfund aus dem mittleren Memelgebiet. apa, 39, 19– 23. Nowakowski, W., 2008. Z problematyki kontaktów bałtyjsko-skandynawskich w okresie wpływów rzymskich. pruthenia, IV, 43–85. Nowakowski, W., 2009a. Horse Burials in Roman Period Cemeteries of the Bogaczewo Culture. aB, 11, 115–129. Nowakowski, W., 2009b. “Ein Pferd, ein Kleid, ein Schwert”. Die Suche nach kaiserzeitlichen Reiterkriegergräbern in Masuren. in: Brather, S., Geuenich, D., Huth, Ch., Hrsg. Historia archaeologica. Festschrit für Heiko steuer zum 70. Geburtstag (=Ergänzungsbände zum rGa, 70). Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter, 165–177. Nowakowski, W., 2013. Masuren in der römischen Kaiserzeit. auswertung der archivalien aus dem nachlass von Herbert Jankuhn (=studien zur siedlungsgeschichte und archäologie der Ostseegebiete, 12). Neumünster: Wachholtz. Nowakowski, W., 2014. Kaiserzeitliche Speerspitzen mit Widerhaken aus Masuren. in: Madyda-Legutko, R., Rodzińska-Nowak, J., red. Honoratissimum assensus genus est armis laudare. Kraków: Uniwersytet Jagielloński, Towarzystwo Wydawnicze „Historia Iagellonica”, 195–204. Nørgård Jørgensen, A., 2008. porskjær Mosefund. Jernalderen i nordeuropa (=Jysk arkæologisk selskabs skriter, 59). Højbjerg: Jysk Arkæologisk Selskabs. BROTHERS-IN-ARMS. BALT WARRIORS AND THEIR INTERREGIONAL CONTACTS IN THE ROMAN AND MIGRATION... Nørgård Jørgensen, A., 2013. Kriegsbeuteopfer im Moor von Ejsbøl – Schlussfolgerungen und Zusammenfassung. in: Nørgård Jørgensen, A., Andersen, H.Ch.H., Hrsg. Ejsbøl Mose. Die Kriegsbeuteopfer im Moor von Ejsbøl aus dem späten 1.Jh.v.Chr. bis zum frühen 5.Jh.n.Chr. (=Jysk arkæologisk selskabs skriter, 80). Moesgård: Aarhus Universitetsforlag, 232–264. Okulicz, J., 1958. Cmentarzysko z okresu rzymskiego odkryte w miejscowości Bogaczewo, na przysiółku Kula, pow. Giżycko. rocznik Olsztyński, I, 47–116. Pauli Jensen, X., 2003. he Vimose Find. in: Jørgensen, L., Storgaard, B., homsen, L.G., eds. he spoils of Victory. he north in the shadow of the roman Empire. Copenhagen: National Museum, 224–238. Pauli Jensen, X., 2009a. North Germanic archery. he practical approach – results and perspectives. in: Schalles, H.-J., Busch, A.W., Hrsg. Wafen in aktion. akten des 16. internationalen roman Military Equipment Conference (rOMEC), Xanten, 13.–16. Juni 2007 (=Xantener Berichte, XVI.), 369–375. Pauli Jensen, X., 2009b. Die Bögen und Pfeile. in: Pauli Jensen, X., Nørbach, L.Ch., illerup Ådal, 13. Die Böger, pfeile und Äxte (=Jasp, XXV (13)). Aarhus: Jysk Arkaeologisk Selskab, Moesgård Museum, 11–258. Pauli Jensen, X., 2009c. From fertility rituals to weapon sacriices. he case of the south Scandinavian bog inds. in: von Freeden, U., Friesinger, H., Wamers, E., Hrsg. Glaube, Kult und Herrschat. phänomene des religiösen im 1. Jahrtausend n. Chr. in Mittel- und nordeuropa akten des 59. internationalen sachsensymposions und der Grundprobleme der frühgeschichtlichen Entwicklung im Mitteldonauraum (=Kolloquien zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte, 12). Bonn: Rudolf Habelt GmbH, 53–64. Pauli Jensen, X., 2011. Friend or foe – alliances and power structures in southern Scandinavia during the Roman Iron Age. Lund archaeological review, 2011, 35–47. 55 Paulsen, H., 1998. Bögen und Pfeile. in: Bemmann, J., Bemmann, G., Hrsg. Der Opferplatz von nydam. Die Funde aus älteren Grabungen: nydam-i und nydam-ii. Neumünster: Wachholtz Verlag, 387–427. Peiser, F.E., 1916. Das Gräberfeld von pajki bei prassnitz in polen. Königsberg i. Pr.: Gräfe und Unzer Verlag. Peiser, F.E., 1919a. Gräberfeld bei Grzybowen. sap, 23, 313–318. Peiser, F.E., 1919b. Gräberfeld bei Warengen. sap, 23, 319–327. Prassolow, J., 2013. Schulterriemen vom Typ balteus Vidgiriai im Verbreitungsgebiet der Samländisch-Natangischen Kultur. apa, 45, 87– 107. Raddatz, K., 1987. Der horsberger Moorfund. Katalog (=Ofa Bücher, 65). Neumünster: Karl Wachholtz Verlag. Raddatz, K., 1993. Der Wolka-See, ein Opferplatz der Römischen Kaiserzeit in Ostpreussen. Ofa. Berichte und Mitteilungen zur Urgeschichte, Frühgeschichte und Mittelalterarchäologie, 49/50, 127– 187. Rau, A., 2010. nydam Mose 1. Die personengebundenen Gegenstände. Grabungen 1989–1999 (=Jysk arkæologisk selskab skriter, 72). Åarhus Universitetsforlag. Sawicka, L., 2007. he Roman period singleedged sword from the Szurpiły settlement (Suwałki Region, Poland). aB, 8, 171–175. Schmidt, B., 1976. Die späte Völkerwanderungszeit in Mitteldeutschland. Berlin: VEB Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaten. Schmiedehelm, M., 2011. Juga-Szymańska, A., Szymański, P., red. Das Gräberfeld Gąsior am Jaskowska-see in Masuren. studien zur westmasurischen Kultur der römischen Kaiserzeit. Instytut Archeologii Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego. Schultze, E., 1994. Die halbkugeligen germanischen Schildbuckel der jüngeren römischen Kaiserzeit. in: von Carnap-Bornheim, C., Hrsg. Beiträge zu römischer und barbarischer 56 Bewafnung in den ersten vier nachchristlichen Jahrhunderten. Marburger Kolloquium 1994. Marburg, Lublin: Vorgeschichtliches Seminar der Philipps-Universität, 357–367. Skvortsov, K.N., 2009. Burials of riders and horses dated to the Roman Iron Age and Great Migration period in Aleika-3 (former Jaugehnen) cemetery on the Sambian Peninsula, aB, 11, 130–148. Smółka, E., 2014 he presence of spurs in the south-eastern Baltic area in the Roman Iron Age and Migration period – some remarks. aL, 15, 47–64. Steuer, H., 1982. Frühgeschichtliche sozialstrukturen in Mitteleuropa. Eine analyse der auswertungsmethoden des archäologischen Quellenmaterials. abhandlungen der akademie der Wisseschaten in Göttingen (=philologisch-Historische Klasse, 3 (128)). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Szymański, P., 2005. Mikroregion osadniczy z okresu wpływów rzymskich w rejonie jeziora salęt na pojezierzu Mazurskim (=Światowit supplement series p: prehistory and Middle ages, X). Instytut Archeologii Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego. Šimėnas, V., 1996. Smailieji kovos peiliai-durklai baltų kraštuose I m. e. tūkstantmečio viduryje. in: Astrauskas, A., Bertašius, M., sud. Vidurio Lietuvos archeologija. Etnokultūriniai ryšiai. Vilniaus universiteto leidykla, 27–71. Tacitas, P.K., 1972. rinktiniai raštai. Vilnius: Vaga. Tacitus, P.C., 1971. Koestermann, E., ed. annales, I, 3rd ed. Leipzig: B.G. Teubner. Tacitus, P.C., 1990. Germania. in: Perl, G., Hrsg. Griechische und lateinische Quellen zur Frhgeschichte Mitteleuropas bis zur Mitte des 1. Jahrtausends u. Z., II. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. Tischler, O., 1878. Bericht über die Praehistorisch-anthropologischen Arbeiten der Physikalisch-Oekonomischen Gesellschat. spÖG, XVIII, 271–272. Tymowski, M., 1985. Karabin i władza w afryce XiX wieku. państwa i armie Kenedugu i samoriego oraz ich analogie europejskie. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. BARTOSZ KONTNY Vaitkevičius, V., 2007. Santakos pilkapiai (Vilniaus r.). Lietuvos archeologija, 30, 181–212. Wenskus, R., 1961. stammesbildung und Verfassung. Das Werden der frühmittelalterlichen Gentes. Köln, Graz: Böhlau-Verlag. Wilbers-Rost, S., 1994. pferdegeschirr der römischen Kaiserzeit in der Germania libera. Zur Entstehung, Entwicklung und ausbreitung des „Zaumzeugs mit Zügelketten“ (=Veröfentlichungen des urgeschichtlichen sammlungen des Landesmuseum zu Hannover, 44). Oldenburg: Isensee Verlag. Zanier, W., 1988. Römische dreilügelige Pfeilspitzen. saalburg Jahrbuch, 44, 5–27. Zieling, N., 1989. studien zu germanischen schilden der spätlatène und der römischen Kaiserzeit im freien Germanien (=Bar international series, 505). Oxford University Press. Zinoviev, A.V., 2009. Horses from two burials in Samland and Natangen (second century AD, Kaliningradskaia Province, Russia). aB, 11, 50–55. Żabiński, G., Rzeszotarska-Nowakiewicz, A., Nowakiewicz, T., Kontny, B., Kucypera, P., 2016. A possible Roman period sword from Grzybowo (Grzybowen), Masuria, NE Poland. he archaeological and technological context. Gladius, XXXVI, 97–139. Żurowski, T., 1961. Sprawozdanie z badań w 1957 r. cmentarzyska kurhanowego na stanowisku 2 we wsi Szurpiły pow. Suwałki. Wa, XXVII (1), 58–81. Ørsnes, M., 1993. Zaumzeugfunde des 1.–8. Jahrh. nach Chr. in Mittel- und Nordeuropa. aa, 64, 183–292. Вознесенская, Г.А., Левада, М.Е., 1999. Кузнечные изделия из могильника Чатыр-Даг: попытка типологического анализа и технология производства. in: Левадa, M.E., ред. Сто лет черняховской культуре. Киев: Toвариство Археології та Антропології, 252–276. Kазакявичюс, В., 1988. Оружие балтских племен ii–Viii веков на территори Литвы. Вильнюс: “Moкслас”. BROTHERS-IN-ARMS. BALT WARRIORS AND THEIR INTERREGIONAL CONTACTS IN THE ROMAN AND MIGRATION... Кулаков, В., 2014. Hünenberg-“Горa Великанов”. Могильник III–IV вв. на севере Сaмбии. in: Kontny, B., Wiśniewska, A., Juga-Szymańska, A., Jaremek, A., red. Światowit supplement series B: Barbaricum, 10. Instytut Archeologii Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, 199–362. Мыц, В.Л., Лысенко, A.B., Щукин, M.B., Шаров, O.B., 2006. Чатыр-Даг – некрополь римской эпохи в Крыму. Санкт-Петербург: Издательство СПбИИ РАН “Нестор-История”. Радюш, О.А., Скворцов, К.Н., 2008. Находки деталей щитов в ареале Самбийсконатангийской культуры. in: Карнап-Борнхайм, К., Новаковский, В., Симоненко, А., ред. Germania-sarmatia. Древности центральной и восточной Европы эпохи римского влияния и переселения народов. Калининград: Янтарный сказ, 122–145. Юганов, K.Л., 2007. Редкие типы наконечников копий из ареала Самбийско-натангийской культуры римского времени. Российская Археология, 3, 76–80. 57 Хазанов, А.М., 1971. Очерки военного дела сарматов. Москва: Издательство “Наука”. ABBREVIATIONS AA – Acta Archaeologica AB – Archaeologia Baltica AL – Archaeologia Lituana APA – Acta Praehistorica et Archaeologica JASP – Jutland Archaeological Society Publications JRMES – Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies MA – Materiały Archeologiczne RB – Rocznik Białostocki SA – Silesia Antiqua SAP – Sitzungsberichte der Altertumsgesellschat Prussia SPÖG – Schriten der Physikalisch-Ökonomischen Gesellschat zu Königsberg i. Pr. ŚNS – Światowit nowa seria WA – Wiadomości Archeologiczne GINKLO BROLIAI. BALTŲ KARIAI IR JŲ TARPREGIONINIAI KONTAKTAI ROMĖNIŠKUOJU IR TAUTŲ KRAUSTYMOSI LAIKOTARPIAIS (BOGAČEVO IR SŪDUVIŲ KULTŪRŲ ATVEJIS) Bartosz Kontny Santrauka Straipsnyje pristatoma Vakarų baltų kultūrų rato, ypač Bogačevo ir Sūduvių kultūrų, ginkluotės tyrimų būklė. Tai pirmasis bandymas apibendrinti šiuos duomenis, daugiausia remiantis straipsnio autoriaus tyrimų rezultatais. Ietys neabejotinai buvo pagrindiniai puolamieji ginklai. Greičiausiai abiejose kultūrose vyravo ne- specializuotos jų formos, t.y. dauguma iečių galėjo būti naudojamos, priklausomai nuo poreikio, kaip duriamosios ir svaidomosios. Didelis kapų, kuriuose rastas tik vienas ietigalis, skaičius rodo, kad pirmoji funkcija greičiausiai buvo labai svarbi. Tai ypač pasakytina apie Sūduvių kultūrą, kur žinomi tik trys (5,2%) atvejai, kai viename kape aptikta daugiau 58 BARTOSZ KONTNY nei vienas antgalis, o Bogačevo kultūroje – 16,1%. Pastarajai kultūrai būdingą tam tikrą antgalių lapo formos plunksna specializaciją patvirtina epizodiškai kartu aptinkami ietigaliai su užbarzda, vienareikšmiškai naudoti svaidomosioms ietims. Kartais į kapus dėtos poros aiškiai dydžiu besiskiriančių antgalių leidžia daryti prielaidą, kad jie priklausė duriamosioms ir svaidomosioms ietims. Remiantis Sūduvių kultūros griautinių kapų duomenimis galima teigti, kad Skandinavijoje paplitusios ilgos, apie 3 m, ietys tarp baltų nebuvo populiarios, jie dažniausiai naudojo beveik kario ūgio ietis. Kalbant apie duriamųjų iečių antgalių tipus, Bogačevo ir Sūduvių kultūrose pastebima labai skirtinga situacija. Pirmuoju atveju – didžiulė Pševorsko kultūros įtaka, o Sūduvių kultūroje rasta tik keletas Pševorsko kultūrai būdingų antgalių, kurie atitinka ankstyviausią kultūros fazę ir greičiausiai yra susiję su Bogačevo kultūros įtaka Sūduvių kultūros formavimosi procesui. Didesnė yra Skandinavijos įtaka, o dauguma Sūduvių kultūros ietigalių sietini su V. Kazakevičiaus aprašytais pavyzdžiais (18:4, 5 pav.). Ornamentuoti ietigaliai beveik išimtinai aptinkami tik Bogačevo kultūroje (2:1–5, 7–9 pav.). Viena iš ilgai egzistuojančių baltų ginkluotės idėjų, kurios autorius yra W. Nowakowski, kad baltai kalavijus naudojo tik išskirtiniais atvejais. Jis rėmėsi archeologine medžiaga (kalavijų aptinkama retai), dar pasitelkdamas Tacito „Germanijoje“ pateikiamą informaciją (45, 3), kad aestii, t.y. Sembos pusiasalyje gyvenę baltai „[…] kardus vartoja retai, dažniau vėzdus1“. W. Nowakowski teigia, kad baltai kalavijus naudojo retai, pirmenybę teikė trumpesniems, kartais sutrumpintiems, dažniausiai kalavijus pakeisdavo kovos peiliais ar durklais. Remdamasis archeologine medžiaga šio straipsnio autorius daro prielaidą, kad Tacito minimi aisčių vėzdai bei geležies trūkumas gali būti traktuojama kaip bendrinė frazė arba kad tai atspindi ankstesnio chronologinio etapo – Vakarų baltų pilkapių kultūros – situaciją. 1 Cituojama pagal lietuvišką vertimą (Tacitas 1972, p.30). Bogačevo, Sūduvių ir Dollkeim-Kovrovo kultūrų kalavijų sąrašą papildo keletas gerai išlikusių kalavijų ir mažų fragmentų, kurie ne visada yra kalavijų dalys, bet liudija jų naudojimą (pvz., makštų ar kalavijo diržo detalės) (3 pav.). Galima manyti, kad kalavijo naudojimą rodo ir tame pačiame palaidojime aptiktos dvi diržo sagtys: viena stačiakampė dvigubu liežuvėliu priklauso juosmens diržui, kita, mažesnė – balteus. Iš esmės atrodo, kad kalavijai buvo naudojami kitaip nei kaimyninėje Pševorsko kultūroje ir Skandinavijoje, kur tuščios makštys yra gana reta įkapė. Visgi teiginys, kad baltų kraštuose labai trūksta kalavijų, yra pernelyg pesimistinis, juo labiau kad tautų kraustymosi laikotarpiu baltiškieji vienašmeniai kalavijai tapo labai populiarūs (4 pav.). Svarbią vietą užėmė smogiamieji ginklai. Be neabejotinai naudotų vėzdų (fustis), galima išskirti pentinius ir įmovinius kirvius. Pagrindinės pentinių kirvių grupės yra: grupė I (5 pav.) – kirviai asimetriniu lenktu liemeniu ir grupė II (6, 7 pav.) – beveik simetriniu liemeniu. Grupės I chronologija apima ankstyvąjį romėniškąjį laikotarpį, gal tik išskyrus pogrupį 3, kuriam tiksliai datuoti nepakanka duomenų. Grupės I kirvių aptikta centrinėje ir daugiausia šiaurinėje Bogačevo kultūros dalyse, nors jų esama ir Dollkeim-Kovrovo kultūroje (atsitiktinis radinys Bugrovo) bei Lietuvoje – tipas 5 pagal A. Malonaitį, pvz., Paragaudis (Šiaurės Lietuvos pilkapių kultūra). Įkapių chronologinės analizės duomenimis, galima nustatyti tokią grupės II chronologinę seką: pogrupis II.1 – B2–C2 fazės, II.2 – B2–C1a, II.3 – B2/C1– C1a. Simetriniai kirviai paplitę beveik visoje Bogačevo kultūros teritorijoje, išskyrus šiaurinę jos dalį, kur vyrauja grupės I radiniai. Tai gali reikšti lokalius ginkluotės skirtumus, tačiau šią prielaidą dar reikėtų patikslinti ateityje. Sūduvių kultūroje žinoma mažiau kirvių, bet ši situacija susiklostė dėl mažos tyrimų apimties. Kirvių nebuvimas Gołdap grupėje akivaizdžiai susijęs su papročiu jų nedėti į kapus. Sūduvių kultūros kir- BROTHERS-IN-ARMS. BALT WARRIORS AND THEIR INTERREGIONAL CONTACTS IN THE ROMAN AND MIGRATION... viai yra mažiau išreikšta pentimi, palyginti su Bogačevo kultūros dirbiniais. Simetriniai Sūduvių kultūros kirviai datuojami C1–C2 fazėmis, taigi yra artimi Bogačevo kultūros dirbinių chronologijai, žinoma, neįtraukiant B2 fazės, ankstesnės nei Sūduvių kultūra. Tikėtina, kad šiuos kirvius Bogačevo kultūros žmonės naudojo ir C2 laikotarpiu, bet sunku tai pagrįsti, kadangi Bogačevo kultūroje paprotys dėti ginklus į kapus išnyko C1b subfazėje. Analogijos (grupės II) iš DollkeimKovrovo kultūros, kartais aptinkamos su gerai datuojamais radiniais, leidžia pratęsti jų chronologiją iki C2–C3 fazės. Kitą ašmenis turinčių ginklų grupę sudaro įmoviniai kirviai (8, 9 pav.). Beje, Barbaricume būta labai panašių dailidžių naudotų įrankių, kurie gerai žinomi baltų kraštuose, tokių kaip vedegos, nors juos galima lengvai atskirti pagal skersinę krašto asimetriją, išgaubtą centrinę darbinio paviršiaus dalį, dažniausiai kvadratinę ir mažesnio skerspjūvio įmovą. Bogačevo kultūros dirbiniai pasižymi įvairaus gylio įmova, kuri dažniausiai siekia pleišto formos arba plokščius ašmenis. Galima išskirti tris kirvių tipus: I – masyvia, vidurinėje dalyje žymiai storesne įmova, su įlenkimais tarp įmovos ir vėduoklės formos ašmenų (8:1–3 pav.); II – panašūs į grupės I dirbinius, bet tolygiai siaurėjančia mova, tai kirviams suteikia smėlio laikrodžio formą (8:4–6 pav.); III – lygiagrečiomis arba beveik lygiagrečiomis įmovos sienelėmis, nežymiai išsiskiriančiais ašmenimis; šių dirbinių išskirtinis bruožas yra nuožulnus įmovos kraštas (8:7, 8 pav.). Remiantis surinkta medžiaga galima teigti, kad įmovinių kirvių formos laikui bėgant mažai keitėsi. Iki šiol jų aptikta B1–B2/C1 periodais datuojamuose kompleksuose. Palyginti su Bogačevo kultūros radiniais, Sūduvių kultūros kirvių matmenys yra įvairesni (9 pav.). Taip pat įvairuoja kirvių morfologija. Kol kas tipo I dirbinių Sūduvių kultūroje nerasta. Nepastorinta įmova ir lieknesnė forma greičiausiai yra susiję su chronologiniais, ne tik kultūriniais skirtumais, nors dėl mažo gerai datuotų Bogačevo kultūros objektų skaičiaus šis pastebėjimas lieka hi- 59 potetinis ir turėtų būti patikrintas ateities tyrimais. Sūduvių kultūros įmoviniai kirviai dažniausiai yra lieknesni ir dažnai ilgesni nei Bogačevo kultūros analogai, taip pat įmovos yra mažesnio skersmens. Tai gali būti susiję su kitokiu, saugesniu tvirtinimo būdu, pvz., odinių dirželių, medinių pleištų ar kitų patvaresnių medžiagų naudojimu. Įmoviniai kirviai greičiausiai turėjo panašų vaidmenį kaip ir pentiniai: jie buvo panašaus svorio (0,25–0,5 kg), panašus abiejų rūšių kirvių, aptiktų Bogačevo ir Sūduvių kultūrose, skaičius. Tai rodo, kad laidojimo ritualuose jie turėjo panašią reikšmę. Nė vienu atveju įmoviniai kirviai nebuvo rasti tame pačiame kape kartu su pentiniais, tai leidžia daryti prielaidą, kad jie buvo naudojami identiškiems tikslams. Žinoma, kad neįmanoma atkurti tikrojo įmovinių kirvių naudojimo tikslo, galima manyti, kad, bent Bogačevo ir Sūduvių kultūrų atveju, kirvių radimo kontekstas byloja apie karinę jų paskirtį, tačiau, žinoma, jie, kaip ir pentiniai kirviai, galėjo būti naudojami ir kitoms reikmėms. Autorius atmeta vadinamųjų „kovos peilių“ karinę paskirtį romėniškuoju laikotarpiu. Jo nuomone, nė vienas šių dirbinių negali būti vienareikšmiškai priskiriamas kovos peiliams dėl to, kad kariai naudojosi duriamąja ietimi ir skydu, kartais kalaviju, pentiniu ar įmoviniu kirviu arba svaidomąja ietimi, tad peilio naudoti nebereikėjo, nebent visų kitų puolamųjų ginklų praradimo atveju. Toks „paskutinės galimybės“ atsitiktinis panaudojimas neleidžia laikyti įrankio ginklu. Tai netaikytina smailiesiems kovos peiliams – durklams (Dolchmessern), kurie yra pripažįstami tikrais ginklais. Gynybiniams ginklams priskiriami skydai, kurie turi vietinių bruožų (pvz., „archajinių“ elementų, tokių kaip didelis kniedžių skaičius (11:3–5 pav.), gerai žinomas iš vėlyvojo ikiromėniškojo laikotarpio, kniedžių stambiomis galvutėmis (11:1, 2 pav.) arba ilgų vinių naudojimas, vėlyvojo ikiromėniškojo laikotarpio tipo 4a pagal M. Jahn antskydžių radiniai ankstyvojo romėniškojo laikotarpio kompleksuose), tačiau kartu jie atitinka ir bendrąjį Centrinės Europos kontekstą. Esama tam tikrų neatitikimų 60 BARTOSZ KONTNY kai kurių tipų apkalų chronologijoje. Kai kurie tipai buvo naudojami daug ilgesnį laikotarpį nei nebaltiškose teritorijose. Tikėtina, kad šioje srityje baltų kultūrose tradicija susipynė su tuometėmis moderniomis kryptimis, ir kalvystėje antskydžių gamybos praktika išliko konservatyvi. Be to, Vakarų baltų kultūrų rate aptinkama skydo rankenų ir skydo krašto bei korpuso apkalų (12 pav.). Lankas ir strėlės laikomi medžioklės įrankiais (13 pav.). Žirgai karo antpuolių ir žygių metu atliko labiau pagalbinę funkciją, t.y. kavalerija galėjo būti apskritai nenaudojama. Žirgas neabejotinai pabrėždavo jo savininko statusą: raitelio svarbą atskleidžia į kapus dedami pentinai. Baltiškieji daiktai atskleidžia baltų dalyvavimą skandinavų karuose. Tai rodo ankstyvojo romėniškojo laikotarpio Vimose 1 ir 2a aukojimo pelkėse vietų radiniai: antskydžiai, pentiniai ir įmoviniai kirviai, kiti įrankiai (14–16 pav.), taip pat tautų kraustymosi laikotarpio aukojimo pelkėse (Balsmyr, Kragehul, Skedemosse) ir kitos vietos (Sorte Muld, Uppåkra), kuriose rasta tipo III pagal V. Kazakevičių ietigalių (17 pav.). Šis dalyvavimas leido keistis žiniomis apie karybos taktiką ir ginkluotę. Tai parodo ietigalių ir antskydžių formos (18 pav.), skydų apkalai (12 pav.), importiniai ginklai (2 pav.), Szwajcaria pilk. 2 kapo įkapės. ILIUSTRACIJŲ SĄRAŠAS 1 pav. Importiniai skandinaviški ietigaliai ir jų imitacijos Vakarų baltų kultūrų rate: 1, 2 – Vennolum tipas, Szwajcaria, pilk. 2, k. 1, 3 – skandinaviško Saeli/Ilkjær 23 (?) tipo ietigalio su užbarzda imitacija, pagaminta iš Kaczanowski VIII tipo ietigalio, Netta, k. 81, 4 – Sättra tipo ietigalis, Pervomaiskoje, k. 49, 5 – Skuttunge tipo ietigalis, Dubravka, k. 28, 6 – Mollestad tipo ietigalis, Osowa, pilk. 13. 1 – pagal Kontny 2007b, 2 – pagal Jaskanis 2013, 3 – pagal Kontny 2007b, 4 – B. Kontny pieš., 5 – pagal Raddatz 1993, 6 – pagal Kontny 2007b ir kt. literatūra. 2 pav. Dekoruoti ir rantyti ietigaliai (Vakarų bal- tų formos ir jų analogijos): 1 – Łabapa, k. 67, Bogačevo kultūra (kairėje) ir Wesółki, k. 45, Pševorsko kultūros analogija (dešinėje), 2 – Muntowo, k. 120, Bogačevo kultūra, 3 – Łabapa, k. 63, 4 – Stara Rudówka, k. 13, Bogačevo kultūra, 5 – Judziki, atsitiktinis radinys, 6 – Szwajcaria, pilk. 2, k. 1, Sūduvių kultūra, 7 – Stara Rudówka, k. 13, Bogačevo kultūra, 8 – Marcinkowo, k. 13, Bogačevo kultūra, 9 – Tiulenino, k. 154, Dollkeim-Kovrovo kultūra. 1 (kairėje) – pagal La Baume 1941b, 1 (dešinėje), 2–9 – pagal Kontny 2007b; 2017a ir kt. literatūra. 7–9 – nemasteliniai. 3 pav. Vakarų baltų kalavijo rankenos ir makštų dalys ir jų analogijos: 1 – Onufryjewo, k. 275, Bogačevo kultūra, 2 – Cetula, k. 2, Pševorsko kultūros analogija, 3 – Jaroslavskoje, k. 16, Dollkeim-Kovrovo kultūra, 4 – Szurpiły, radimvietė 4, Sūduvių kultūra (?), 5 – Kotelnikovo, k. 4, Dollkeim-Kovrovo kultūra, 6 – Kragehul pelkė. 1 – pagal H. Jankuhn archyvą (Nowakowski 2013), 2 – pagal Biborski 2000, 3 – pagal Jankuhn 1939, 4 – pagal Sawicka 2007, 5 – pagal H. Jankuhn archyvą, 6 – pagal Iversen 2010. 4 pav. Baltiškojo tipo kovos peilių paplitimas: mėlyni apskritimai – ankstyvosios formos, raudoni apskritimai – ištobulintos formos, žali apskritimai – tik makštų apkalai. Pagal Kазакявичюс 1988; Kontny 2013a. 5 pav. Bogačevo kultūros grupės I, pogrupių I.1 (1, 2) ir I.2 (3–5) kirviai: 1 – Bartlikowo (vok. Bartlickshof), k. 7, 2 – Stręgiel II, k. 150, 3 – Lisy, k. 67, 4 – Radužnoe, k. I, 5 – Sterławki Małe, k. 342. 1, 5 – B. Kontny pieš., 2–4 – pagal Nowakowski 2013. 6 pav. Bogačevo kultūros grupės II pogrupio II.1 (1–4) ir II.2 (5–8) kirviai: 1 – Bogaczewo-Kula, 2 – Raczki, k. 6a, 3 – Bartlikowo, k. 384, 4 – Nowy Zyzdrój, k. 186, 5 – Bargłów Dworny, atsitiktinis radinys, 6 – Judziki, k. 12, 7 – Koczek II, k. 121, 8 – Spychówko, atsitiktinis radinys (?). 1 – pagal Okulicz 1958, 2 – pagal La Baume, Gronau 1941, 3 – pagal Nowakowski 2013, 4 – pagal M. Schmiedehelm archyvą, 5 – B. Kontny pieš., 6 – pagal Engel ir kt. 2006, 7 – pagal Juga ir kt. 2003, 8 – pagal Gaerte 1929. 4, 7 – nemasteliniai. BROTHERS-IN-ARMS. BALT WARRIORS AND THEIR INTERREGIONAL CONTACTS IN THE ROMAN AND MIGRATION... 7 pav. Sūduvių (1–5) ir Bogačevo (6) grupės II kirviai: 1 – variantas II.1.1 (Netta, k. 30), 2 – variantas II.1.2 (Szwajcaria, pilk. 26), 3 – variantas II.1.3 (Szurpiły, pilk. XXI, centrinis k.), 4 – pogrupis II.2 (Suvalkų regionas, atsitiktinis radinys), 5 – pogrupis II.3 (Szwajcaria, pilk. 2, k. 1), 6 – pogrupis II.3 (Paprotki Kolonia, k. 67). 1, 2 – pagal Jaskanis 2013, 3 – pagal Żurowski 1961, 4, 5 – B. Kontny pieš., 6 – M. Karczewski nuotr. 8 pav. Bogačevo kultūros įmoviniai kirviai: 1, 2, 4 – Judziki, atsitiktiniai radiniai, 3 – Romoty, k. 70, 5 – Radužnoe, k. VI, 6 – Kosewo I, k. 292, 7 – Bargłów Dworny, atsitiktinis radinys, 8 – Judziki, k. 7. 1, 2, 4, 7, 8 – B. Kontny pieš., 3 – pagal R. Grenz archyvą, 5 – pagal Bezzenberger 1896, 6 – pagal M. Schmiedehelm archyvą. 9 pav. Sūduvių kultūros įmoviniai kirviai: 1 – tipas II/III (Netta, k. 12), 2 – tipas III (Żywa Woda, pilk. 7), 3 – tipas III (Szwajcaria, k. S.12), 4 – tipas III (Szwajcaria, pilk. LXXII, k. 2), 5 – tipas Malonaitis 2 (Szwajcaria, pilk. 40). 1 – pagal Bitner-Wróblewska 2007, 2–5 – B. Kontny pieš. 10 pav. Įmovinių kirvių radimo vietos Vakarų baltų kapuose: 1 – Marvelė, k. 312, 2 – Szwajcaria, k. S.12. 1 – pagal Bertašius 2005, 2 – pagal Jaskanis 2013. 11 pav. Baltų archajinių antskydžių dalys: 1, 2 – vinys/kniedės stambiomis galvutėmis, 3–5 – vinys/ kniedės, 6, 7 – tipas Jahn 4a, romėniškasis laikotarpis. 1, 2 – Nikutowo, atsitiktiniai radiniai, 3 – Spychówko, k. 247, iš E. Hollacko 1902 m. kasinėjimų, 4, 5 – L. J. Pisanskio kolekcija, 6 – Kovrovo, k. 15, 7 – Jaroslavskoe (vok. schlakalken), k. 14. 1 – pagal M. Jahn archyvą, 2 – pagal M. Jahn archyvą; Kontny 2007a, 3 – pagal M. Jahn archyvą, 4, 5 – pagal Nowakowski 1998, 6 – pagal H. Jankuhn archyvą, 7 – pagal Nowakowski 1996b. Nemasteliniai. 12 pav. Skydų apkalai iš Skandinavijos (1–3), Pševorsko kultūros (5–7), Dollkeim-Kovrovo kultūros (8) ir Bogačevo kultūros (4, 9, 10): 1, 2 – Nydam, 3 – horsberg, 4 – Gąsior, k. 213, 5–7 – Kryspinów, k. 25, 8 – Kovrovo, k. 306, 9 – Nowy Zyzdrój, k. 117, 10 – Spychówko, k. 210, iš E. Hollacko 1902 m. ka- 61 sinėjimų. 1, 2 – pagal Bemmann, Bemmann 1998, 3 – pagal Raddatz 1987, 4 – pagal Schmiedehelm 2011, 5–7 – pagal Godłowski 1972, 8 – pagal Kulakov 2009, 9 – pagal M. Schmiedehelm archyvą, 10 – pagal M. Jahn archyvą. 9, 10 – nemasteliniai. 13 pav. Kamanos su vadžiomis (14) ir strėlių antgaliai (1–13) iš Bogačevo ir Sūduvių kultūrų: 1–10, 14 – Paprotki Kolonia, k. 72, 11–13 – Szwajcaria, pilk. 15, k. 2. 1–10, 14 – pagal Bitner-Wróblewska ir kt. 2001, 11–13 – pagal Jaskanis 2013. 14 pav. Pševorsko ir Vakarų baltų kultūrų elementų pavyzdžiai iš Vimose pelkės (1–6, 8–12) ir galimai balno guga (7). 1–5, 7–12 – pagal Engelhardt 1869, 6 – pagal Christensen 2005. Nemasteliniai. 15 pav. Vimose kirviai ir galimos analogijos: 1 – Vimose, inv. Nr. 17094, 2 – Paprotki Kolonia, k. 67, 3 – Vimose, inv. Nr. 15682, 4 – Judziki, k. 12a, 5 – Vimose, inv. Nr. 21628, 6 – Sapotskin, atsitiktinis radinys. 1 – pagal Engelhardt 1869, 2 – pagal Karczewski 1999, 3 – B. Kontny nuotr., 4 – pagal Engel ir kt. 2006, 5 – pagal Engelhardt 1869, 6 – B. Kontny pieš. 16 pav. Mediniai antskydžiai iš Vimose (1, 8) ir baltiškosios geležinės analogijos (2–7, 9–16): 1 – Vimose, 2 – Sterławki Małe, k. 341, 3 – Paprotki Kolonia, k. 44, 4 – Ozerovo, 5 – Logvino, atsitiktinis radinys, 6 – Osowa, pilk. 71, k. 1, 7 – Miętkie, 8 – Vimose, 9 – Szwajcaria, k. S.25, 10 – Szwajcaria, pilk. LXVIII, k. 2, 11 – Onufryjewo, k. 370b, 12 – Elanovka, k. 38, 13 – Gračevka, k. 62, 14 – Prudy, atsitiktinis radinys, 15 – Medvedevka, atsitiktinis radinys, 16 – Kotelnikovo, k. 4. 1 – pagal Engelhardt 1869, 2 – pagal Karczewska 1999, 3 – pagal Karczewski 1999, 4, 5 – pagal Радюш, Скворцов 2008, 6 – pagal Jaskanis 1961, 7 – pagal M. Jahn archyvą, 8 – pagal Engelhardt 1869, 9, 10 – pagal Jaskanis 2013, 11 – pagal Kontny 2008a, 12 – pagal Радюш, Скворцов 2008, 13 – pagal Raddatz 1993, 14–16 – pagal Радюш, Скворцов 2008. Nemasteliniai. 17 pav. Kazakevičius III tipo ietigalių paplitimas: 1–3 – Kragehul, 4 – Nydam, 5 – Sorte Muld, 6 – Balsmyr, 7–8 – Nedergården, 9 – Skedemosse, 10, 11 – Dresden-Dobritz, k. 1, 12 – Gübs, 13 – Uppåkra, 14, 15 – Neravai-Grigiškės, pilk. 20, k. 2 ir pilk. 22, k. 4, 62 16 – Taurapilis, pilk. 5, 17, 18 – Vilnius, 19 – Lapušiškė, pilk. 9, 20 – Kivyliai, atsitiktinis radinys, 21, 22 – nežinoma radimvietė Lietuvoje, 23 – Santaka, pilk. 4, k. 2, 24 – Čatyr-Dag, k. 2. Pagal Kazakevičius 1988; Iversen 2010, papildyta autoriaus. 18 pav. Skandinaviški pavyzdžiai (1–3, 6) ir baltiškosios išvestinės formos (4, 5, 7, 8): 1 – Vennolum tipo ietigalis (Illerup, inv. Nr. MTL), 2 – Skiaker tipo ietigalis (Illerup, inv. Nr. FIV), 3 – Svennum tipo ietigalis (Svennum), 4 – Kaza- BARTOSZ KONTNY kevičius IB/IБ tipo ietigalis (Osowa, pilk. 41), 5 – Kazakevičius II tipo ietigalis (Netta, k. 55), 6 – antskydis su žalvarinių gūbrelių pakraščių puošyba (Hjartbro, k. A19/20), 7 – antskydis su gūbrelių pakraščių puošyba (Neravai-Grigiškės, pilk. 13, k. 2), 8 – antskydis su gūbrelių pakraščių puošyba (buv. Slobotka, atsitiktinis radinys). 1–3 pagal Ilkjær 1990, 4 – pagal Jaskanis 1961, 5 – pagal Kontny 2007b ir kt. literatūra, 6–8 – pagal Kontny 2004a ir kt. literatūra. 1–3 – nemasteliniai. Vertė J. Žukauskaitė Gauta 2017 01 11 Priimta 2017 05 12

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS

Log In

Brothers-in-arms. Balt warriors and their interregional contacts in the Roman and Migration periods (the case of the Bogaczewo and Sudovian cultures), Lietuvos Archeologija 43, pp. 11- 62

Brothers-in-arms. Balt warriors and their interregional contacts in the Roman and Migration periods (the case of the Bogaczewo and Sudovian cultures), Lietuvos Archeologija 43, pp. 11- 62

Related Papers

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS