spurs from the sanctuary at the gurzufskoe sedlo in crimea. on the problem of hook spurs Spurs from the Sanctuary at the Gurzufskoe Sedlo in Crimea. On the Problem of Hook Spurs m ar i a novič enkova bartosz kontny A ntique spurs are quite rare artefacts discov- metal statuetes of Graeco-Roman deities, houseered on the northern Black Sea coast. here- hold items, coins, pieces of glassware and potery fore, discovering four specimens among the ofer- from various production centres of the Black Sea ings at the sanctuary near the Gurzufskoe Sedlo coast, the Mediterranean and Western Europe. (Gurzuf Saddle Pass) in the mountainous Crimea he earliest inds from the sanctuary are dated to signiicantly complements the group of these the 6th – 4th centuries BC,3 but the most signiicant inds, speciic to the rider’s outit around the turn activity lasted from the second half of the 1st cenof the millennia. tury BC to the mid-1st century AD. A large group he sanctuary at Gurzufskoe Sedlo was dis- of objects of Roman military equipment is dated covered in 1981 on the Main Ridge of the Crimean to this time, i.e., ofensive and defensive weapons, Mountains (at a height of 1434 m above sea level) cavalry equipment, military costume elements, during the construction of the pipeline Jalta- religious paraphernalia and camp gear.4 ComAlušta (Fig. 1). he excavations were carried out pared to other sites in the southern part of Eastby an archaeological expedition of the Jalta His- ern Europe, the largest selection of such artefacts, torical-Literary Museum under the direction of among which many were intentionally broken or N. Novičenkova and V. Novičenkov in 1981–1993. chopped, originates from this place. Over 2.400 sq. m were surveyed and layers of Iron spurs inds are related to layers of the diferent ages were discovered.1 Cultural accu- second stage of the sanctuary, comprising ash. mulations containing Graeco-Roman inds were Its presence results from the religious activities represented by two periods: the Hellenistic period carried out within the sacral area. In the 30s of (2nd – mid-1st centuries BC) and the second half of the 1st century BC, in the centre of the sanctuary, the 1st century BC – beginning of the 2nd century free from Hellenistic-period cultural layers, a new AD. It was in the former period when local people ritual complex was constructed as an oval area actively started to involve various votive objects covering about 2000 m2, surrounded by a double into rites of sacriice, including imported ones.2 line of 155 sacriicial pits with traces of burning.5 he cultural layers of these two periods occu- Subsequently, the place was occasionally puriied pied the entire area of the sanctuary, but remained for the rites of sacriice: the ashes and burnt bones undamaged only to the north of the pipeline trench were piled outside the line of pits. his practice (Fig. 2). hese layers were rich in inds of large could be traced by the line of dark ash layer visible and small catle jaws, but also contained jewellery, 1 2 Novičenkova 1994. Novičenkova 2002: 47. 3 4 5 Novičenkova 2002: 133, 136. Novičenkova 1998. Novičenkova 2002: 14–17. 303 maria novičenkova bartosz kontny Fig. 1. Map of Crimean mountain pastures with position of the sanctuary near the Gurzufskoe Sedlo Pass (drawning by V. I. Novičenkova) Pиc. 1. Карта плоскогорий Главной гряды Крымских гор с локацией святилища у перевала Гурзуфское Седло (Рис. В.И. Новиченкова) at the perimeter of the sanctuary. his layer of ash covered a large area and reached the peripheral areas outside the sacred centre. Among the inds discovered in the ash, there were many pieces of glass and potery, fused glass and metal products, including melted ones, although the density of metal and glass in the ash is signiicantly inferior to their accumulation in the centre of the complex. Spurs were found in diferent parts of the site (Fig. 4). Two were unearthed outside the ceremonial centre with the pits, in the eastern part of the sanctuary with undisturbed stratigraphy, another two — in the south-western part of the sanctuary, around the perimeter on the southern edge of the ritual centre, where ancient layers were damaged by the construction of three Christian churches from diferent chronological stages of the Middle Ages. We shall go on to consider the spurs in detail. he irst spur (Fig. 3.1) was found in square 10L (excavated in 1983) behind the pits, to the east, in a dark layer of ashes and burnt bones.6 he curveshaped spur possesses a sharp prick and terminals curved perpendicularly to form ring fastenings. Its 6 Novičenkova 2002: 87, ig. 40.3. 304 dimensions are as follows: width 7.1 cm, height 4.8 cm, thickness at the terminals 1.3–1.7 cm, fastening hole diameters 0.3 cm, width of the heel band 0.7– 0.8 cm, thickness of the heel band 0.3–0.5 cm (at the ends), length of the prick 0.9 cm (Jalta HistoricalLiterary Museum, inv. no KP 31681, A-3868). In the cultural layer of square 10L artefacts were discovered from the Hellenistic period as well as from the turn of the ages: many pieces of glass, including melted ones, and metal objects, e.g. a denarius of Augustus (Gaul, 13–14 BC); iron specimens — pincers, a stylus, an arrowhead, strigillum fragments; bronze items — fragments of ibulae, plates, an openwork belt buckle with leather remains, a chain; silver objects — a sword belt buckle with a triangular frame, a silver pendant encrusted with polychrome glass with an imprinted image of a rider and a hollow pedestal for a statuete. Among other inds, one may also list fragments of a polychrome glass plate with a lining of gold foil, the throat of one of three polychrome glass ritons, fragments of which were found in other squares, a black glass botle throat with blue threads, fragments of window glass from the 1st century BC – 1st century AD, as well as eye beads made of glass paste, chalcedony and rock crystal. spurs from the sanctuary at the gurzufskoe sedlo in crimea. on the problem of hook spurs Fig. 2. Plan of the Gurzufskoe Sedlo sanctuary (ater Novičenkova 2002: ig. 2) Pиc.2. План святилища у перевала Гурзуфское Седло (по Новиченковой 2002: рис. 2) he spur does not ind exact parallels, Olympia) and Roman Republican contexts. hey although certain of its traits, e.g. the ribbon- are atributed to the so-called “classic” form, Type shaped heel band or circular terminals with a cen- Kobarid, which is however equipped with diftral hole intended rather for rivets than for leather ferently shaped, rectangular rivet-plates and supstraps or cords (see the small diameters of the plemented with oblong midribs; they were dated holes),7 seem to ind analogies in the Mediterra- to the period from the end of the 3rd century BC nean milieu. One may mention here the Hellen- until the early 1st century BC.8 Type Casteggio, in istic- and early Empire-period spurs, known from turn, seems to be closer as it lacks a midrib, but Hellenistic sanctuaries (i.a., the Zeus sanctuary at — despite being chronologically close (the times of Caesar and Augustus) — it is characterized by 7 One may also consider metal rings atached to the loops as in the case of, e.g., the 1st-AD (?) Roman spurs from Longstock, Hants (Short 1959: 61, 70, ig. 1, pl. XIV). 8 Baitinger 2004: 357–360, ig. 5–6; see Bishop, Coulston 2006: 69, ig. 35.2–4. 305 maria novičenkova bartosz kontny a circular plate beneath the prick in which it differs from the Gurzuf ind.9 However, unique inds also exist with the widening accentuated only slightly (Gravina di Puglia, prov. Bari from the late 2nd – early 1st centuries BC)10 or not accentuated at all (the spur from the sanctuary of Athena-Ithonia in Philia, Tessaly). Nevertheless, the later is the earliest Greek spur known, dated to the second half of the 5th century BC, which excludes it from the discussion.11 Despite Mediterranean parallels, we are dealing most probably with a locally made item, which is suggested by the simplicity of its execution. he second spur (Fig. 3.2) comes from the eastern periphery of the sanctuary (square 10M, excavated in 1985), with a layer of dark grey clay mixed with ash and bones.12 he layer is also part of the “ash zone” but difers due to a signiicant amount of clay. he spur has a curved shape with a sharp prick and terminals bent into loops. It has the following dimensions: width 8.0 cm, height 5.2 cm, width of the heel band 1.3 cm ( Jalta HistoricalLiterary Museum, inv. no KP 48260). Related inds from square 10M included a catapult bolt head, 22 fragments of an iron helmet, bronze sheets (one silver-plated with serrated edges), plates, an iron bow-shaped ibula, a bronze necklace, a strigillum without handles, pieces of iron strigilla, the rim of Hellenistic and early Roman times cast glassware, fragments of light clay amphora with double-barrelled handles. his specimen looks similar to the former one (see: ribbon-shaped heel band together with the arms and their curve), but its prick and terminals are of a diferent shape. he arms’ ends are turned upwards to form a sort of loop, under which a strap could pass to bind the spur to the foot. Such a form of the terminals was quite typical for provincial Roman spurs, e.g. Romano-British ones from Hod Hill, Dorset (Fig. 5.5) dated to 9 10 11 12 Baitinger 2004: 360–366, ig. 7, 9. Baitinger 2004: 364, ig. 9.1. See Baitinger 2004: 371, ig. 12. Novičenkova 1998: ig. 7.2. 306 the middle of the 1st century AD,13 the ones from the National Museum in Rome, atributed to the times of Tiberius’ reign,14 or those from Mainz and Salzburg.15 It is also similar to the spur from Corbridge,16 made of a strip of metal hooked at the ends (Fig. 5.4).17 We doubt the chronology of the Corbridge spur suggested to the 3rd or 4th centuries AD; also the idea that it is of continental origin because of its rough appearance18 seems dubious. Generally, it seems to us that it could be of Roman origin. he third spur (Fig. 3.3) was found in the southern quarter 12I (1989 excavations) in a dark layer with ashes and burnt bones, placed in the rock and its cavities, disturbed in the Middle Ages. It can be described as a curve-shaped spur with loop-shaped terminals and intertwined arms. Its dimensions are: width 7.2 cm, height 6.0 cm, width of the heel band 1.2–1.5 cm. One loop ending is partially broken of ( Jalta Historical-Literary Museum inv. no ME 57091, A-3 4926). Along with the spur, two coins of Rhescuporis II (AD 68–79), a gold Chersonesus stater (AD 95/96), a military (‘half Roman’) brooch and fragments of others, fragments of an iron helmet, a twisted necklace, a carnelian inset intaglio and a gold ornamental plaque were also discovered. We have not found good parallels to the spur in question. Its overall shape corresponds with the other specimens from Gurzuf, but the idea according to which the loops were executed is strange for Mediterranean workshops: the bending of the metal terminals several times to create a loop appears rather to be a method/custom used by the Barbarians. We may mention here late Scythian items from Crimea made in a simi- Short 1959: 65, ig. 2.25; Manning 1985: 70, р1. 29, Н 26. de Lacy Lacy 1911: 21–22, ig. 5.1. Manning 1985: 69, ig. 18.1. Short 1959: 68, 70, ig. 3.6; Dixon, Southern 1997: ig. 26A. 17 he item is deformed so one cannot exclude that originally it possessed loops and not hooked terminals. 18 Short 1959: 68. 13 14 15 16 spurs from the sanctuary at the gurzufskoe sedlo in crimea. on the problem of hook spurs lar manner, i.e. bracelets,19 loops for closing Fig. 3. Sanctuary near the Gurzuf Saddle Pass. Four iron loop spurs (ater Novičenkova 2013: ig. 2. 1–4) earrings,20 wire decorations with beads on them21 Pиc. 3. Святилище у перевала Гурзуфское Седло. or necklaces.22 his method was in use until the Четыре железных шпоры с петлевидными дужками (по Новиченковой 2013: рис. 2.1-4) Younger Roman Period (ca. AD 200–400) in Crimea, e.g. in windings around bows of SarmatianType bow-shaped tendril ibulae.23 herefore, we assume that the spur shows a regional form inspired by the Roman way of fastening its arms, the more so that it is bar-shaped, not ribbon-like 19 Puzdrovskij 2007: ig. 52.13–15, 55.16, 59.3, 10. as the Roman spurs mentioned above. 20 Puzdrovskij 2007: ig. 69.15. Finally, the fourth spur (Fig. 3.4) was found 21 Puzdrovskij 2007: ig. 114.5. near the previous one, in quarter 12I in a dark layer 22 Puzdrovskij 2007: ig. 123.3–6, 124.2, 7. of lime mortar splashes from a ruined medieval 23 See e.g. Puzdrovskij 2007: ig. 200–201. 307 maria novičenkova bartosz kontny Fig. 4. Sanctuary near the Gurzuf Saddle Pass. A scheme of the spur ind locations on the plan of the sanctuary (ater Novičenkova 2013: ig. 1) Pиc. 4. Святилище у перевала Гурзуфское Седло. Схема расположения находок шпор на плане святилища (по Новиченковой 2013: рис. 1) Sestorian period army camp at Cáceres el Viejo (Hispania).25 Spurs with hooked ends formed as stylized animal heads were more popular; they are linked with north-western Greece and Illyria. heir chronology is not fully clear as stray inds prevail; only a single specimen from Irmaj, distr. Gramsch in Albania may be more speciically atributed to the late 2nd – 1st centuries BC.26 However, Hakensporen are documented mostly for Barbaricum (Figs. 5.6–12). hey are known from the Late Pre-Roman Period in Scandinavia, i.e. Vallbys, Ksp. Hogrän, Grave 3 on the island of Gotland (Fig. 5.12; a specimen with a ribbonshaped heel band tapering at its endings);27 exceptionally in Bulgaria, e.g. Veslec or Turnava, obl. Bjala Slatina in north-western Bulgaria (Fig. 5.10; also with quite wide arms);28 in the Przeworsk culture — Pikule, Janów Lubelski comm., temple (excavated in 1989).24 It is a curve-shaped Feature 35 in the Lublin region (Fig. 5.1129; one spur with a sharp prick and terminals turned out- with hooked terminals hammered to acquire oval ward to form open loop endings. Its dimensions shapes)30 and from the beginning of the Roman are: width 7.7 cm, height 5.95 cm, width of the heel Period in Nowa Dzierzążnia in Mazovia, Grave 77 band 1.05 cm ( Jalta Historical-Literary Museum (Fig. 5.7; bar-shaped in its cross-section).31 It was inv. no KP 61066, A3 6232). he antique layer was also assumed that they were used by the Scordiscii destroyed in the Middle Ages and therefore only in the Serbian area, see: Type III ater V. Filipović, a few inds are known from the area. Beside the although one may only deduce this from items spur, these included elements of bronze buckles, a plaque in the form of plant shoots and a silvered 25 Baitinger 2004: 356, ig. 3; with further literature. 26 Baitinger 2004: 356–357, ig. 4. bronze object with a loral ornament. It difers from the above mentioned spur with 27 Nylén 1956: 79, ig. 182.1. Łuczkiewicz 2006: 146, ig. 50.13; with further literahooked terminals (Germ. Hakensporn) as its heel 28 See ture. band is bar-shaped in the cross-section. Hooked 29 One should remark that the exact character and cultural ailiation of the Pikule site is equivocal (see Łuczkiewicz fastenings have been evidenced among Hellenis2007: 214–222). tic and late Republican inds (Figs. 5.1–5). hese 30 Wichrowski 1997: 104, ig. 6d; Łuczkiewicz 2006: 146, are unique items with the terminals turned out315, ig. 50.10. ward, forming a hook, but with a thickened end, 31 Bochnak 2004a: 266, ig. 1.1; Bochnak 2004b: 18, ig. III 6; Łuczkiewicz 2006: 301; collection of the Mazovian known from the sanctuary in Olympia and the 24 Novičenkova 1998: 57, ig. 7.1; 2002: 87, ig. 40.2. 308 Museum in Płock, inv. no MMP/A/603/158. We would like to express our gratitude to Tomasz Kordala, Ph.D. for granting us access to these materials. spurs from the sanctuary at the gurzufskoe sedlo in crimea. on the problem of hook spurs Fig. 5. Hooked spurs from the Hellenistic (1–3), Roman (4–5) and Barbarian milieu (6–12) dated from the Pre-Roman Period until the turn of the ages. 1 — Olympia, 2 — Dodona (Epirus), 3 — Irmaj, 4 — Corbridge, 5 — Hod Hill, 6 — Liptovská Mara VII, 7 — Dzierżążnia Nowa, Grave 77, 8 — Čaplin, 9 — Judziki, Grave 3b, 10 — Turnava, 11 — Pikule, Feature 35, 12 — Vallbys, Grave 3. Nos. 1–3: bronze; 4–12: iron (1–3 ater Baitinger 2004: ig. 3–4; 4–5 ater Short 1959: ig. 2.25, 3.6; 6 ater Pieta 1982: pl. XVII 31; 7, 9 — drawn by B. Kontny; 8 ater Perhavko 1978: ig. 2.8; 10 ater Torbov 1998: ig. 27; 11 ater Wichrowski 1997: ig. 6d; 12 ater Nylén 1956: ig. 182.1) Pиc. 5. Эллиниcтические (1–3), римские (4, 5) и варварские (6–12) шпоры с крючковидными дужками дoримского времени дo нaчала I. в. н.э. 1 — Олимпия, 2 — Додона (Епир), 3 — Ирмаж (Irmaj), 4 — Корбридж (Corbridge), 5 — Ход Хил (Hod Hill), 6 — Липтовска Мара (Liptovská Mara) VII, 7 — Дзиержонжня Нова (Dzierżążnia Nowa), погребениe 77, 8 — Чаплин, 9 — Юдзики (Judziki), погребениe 3b, 10 — Турнава, 11 — Пикуле (Pikule), ямa 35, 12 — Валбыс (Vallbys), погребениe 3. № 1–3: бронзa; 4–12: железо 309 maria novičenkova bartosz kontny without preserved endings (and their popularity in the surrounding areas), so their existence is only potentially possible.32 Further examples are known from the Zarubincy culture: hillfort at Čaplin, raj. Loeŭ (Fig. 5.8) on the upper Dnieper,33 a setlement in Mar’janìvka at the middle Southern Bug (the arm terminal of the later is split into two hooks)34 and Ezdočnoe on the upper Donec River (one with hooks bent to form loops),35 and the Striated Ceramic culture, e.g. the Belorussian hillforts Garadzišča, raj. Mjadzel’, Varonča, raj. Karèliči, Ivan’, raj. Sluck, Anoški, raj. Njasviž (Figs. 6.3–6; some of the items possess hooks bent to such an extent that they form loops);36 however they cannot be dated precisely. hey have also been evidenced for the Puchov culture in northern Slovakia (Fig. 5.6): at least 6 specimens,37 e.g. from the site at Liptovská Mara VII, okr. Liptovský Mikuláš;38 they are generally dated to the period from Phase LTC2 to LTD2.39 Among the Dacian spurs, apart from the ones with butonshaped terminals, there are also specimens with diferently formed endings, i.a. close to hooks, see, e.g. 1st-century BC – 1st-century AD spurs from the fortiications at Costeşti, jud. Hunedoara in Transilvania40 or Pietroasele-Gruiu Dării, jud. Buzău in Muntenia.41 Hooked terminals are also characteristic for a few later inds. One may enumerate some simple items with bar-shaped heel bands, similar to the one from Gurzuf: the closest territorial parallel, i.e. a late Scythian ind (1st century 32 Filipović 2009: 179–180, 188, ig. 8. 33 Perhavko 1978: 116, ig. 2.8; Eremenko 1997: 60, ig. 11.2; Radjuš 2011: ig. 7.5. 34 Maksimov 1982: pl. XXIII 4; Radjuš 2011: ig. 7.4. 35 Radjuš 2011: ig. 7.6. 36 Egorejčanko 1996: 40–41, ig. 33.5; Egarejčanka 1999: ig. 48.1–4. 37 he cultural atribution of part of them is not completely sure. 38 Pieta 1982: 78, 259, pl. XVII 31; Bochnak 2004a: ig. 1.2; Bochnak 2004b: 18, ig. III 7. 39 Bochnak 2004a: 268. 40 Sibiu 1972: 173, pl. XXIX 150. 41 Dupoi, Sîrbu 2001: ig. 54.3, 55.6. See also Dumitraşcu, Sfrengeu 2012. 310 AD) from Ust’-Alma, raj. Bahčisaraj, Grave 777/5 in southern Crimea,42 a Bogaczewo culture spur from Judziki, Bargłów Kościelny comm., Grave 3b in the Augustów region (Fig. 5.9), dated to Phase B2 by a belt buckle Type Madyda-Legutko D643 and a ind from the setlement of the Kiev culture (Fig. 6.2) at Tajmanava, raj. Byhausk on the upper Dnieper.44 A further Bogaczewo culture spur comes from Babięta I, Piecki comm., Grave 494 in Masuria, unfortunately of unknown morphology.45 here are also rare hooked fastenings among much later inds with lat, ribbon-shaped heel bands, close to Subgroup G1 ater J. Ginalski.46 hey are traced to the Wielbark culture and Przeworsk culture.47 One may atribute them to Phases C1b – C2.48 Hooked spur terminals are documented also in the Černjahov culture on spurs of the Subgroup Ginalski F1a — a stray ind from Bila Cerkva, raj. Bila Cerkva on the middle Dnieper49 or F3/F3 — a spur from the setlement at Šankiv Jar (Boremel’), raj. Demidi- 42 Puzdrovskij 2007: 140, ig. 96.15. In the Crimea, apart from the spurs from Gursuf and Ust’-Alma, only single spurs from ancient times are known, i.e., one from the 2nd – beginning of 3rd c. AD late Scythian grave at Skeliaste/ Skalistoe III, raj. Bahčisaraj (Bogdanova, Guščina, Loboda 1976: 146) and a bronze spur from the 1st c. BC – turn of the ages found in layer III in the Bitaka necropolis, raj. Simferopol’, southern Crimea (Fig. 6.1; see Puzdrovskij 2007: 72, ig. 43.18). It is believed that the spur found in Ust’-Alma was taken by Sarmatians during their campaign in Central Europe (Puzdrovskij 2007: 140). 43 Madyda-Legutko 1986; Marciniak 1950: 50, pl. XII 5–9; collection of the State Archaeological Museum in Warsaw, inv. no. PMA IV/201.7. 44 Mjadzvedzeŭ 1999: 294, ig. 89.19. 45 In the archives of the former Prussia-Museum (PM-A 096/3; inv. no PM V 7990.1655–59), there are no drawings or detailed descriptions apart from its identiication as Hakensporn; the grave is dated to Phases B2b – C1a, i.e., 2nd – early 3rd c. AD, by a belt buckle with a doubled tongue (Germ. Gabeldornschnalle), which equals Types G35 – 41 ater R. Madyda-Legutko (1986). 46 Ginalski 1991. 47 Kontny, Natuniewicz-Sekuła 2010: 336, ig. 1 C4; with further parallels; see also Jahn 1921: 69–70, ig. 72–73. 48 Kontny, Natuniewicz-Sekuła 2010: 336. 49 Kokowski 1993: 342, ig. 8c; Kazanski 1994: 477, ig. 1.15; Magomedov, Levada 1996: 310, 313, ig. 8.12. spurs from the sanctuary at the gurzufskoe sedlo in crimea. on the problem of hook spurs Fig. 6. Barbarian hooked spurs from the Roman, Migration and Medieval Period: 1 — Bitaka, layer III, 2 — Tajmanava, 3 — Garadzišča, 4 — Varonča, 5 — Ivan’, 6 — Anoški, 7 — Nikadzinava, 8 — Garadok, 9 — Garadzišča, 10 — Kastryca, 11 — Darahi, Barrow 4, Grave 1, 12 — Tumiany, stray ind, 13 — Tumiany, Grave 39, 14 — Tumiany, Grave 102. Nos. 1–11: iron; 12–14: bronze (1 ater Puzdrovskij 2007: ig. 43.18; 2 ater Mjadzvedzeŭ 1999: ig. 89.19; 3–6 ater Egarejčanka 1999: ig. 48.1–4; 7–10 ater Šadyra 1999: ig. 119.12–14, 16; 11 ater Štyhau 1999: ig. 127.6; 12–14 ater Rudnicki 2006: ig. 5a, o–p) Pиc. 6. Варварские шпоры с крючковидными дужками римского времени, периода переселения народов и средневековья: 1 — Битака, cлой III, 2 — Тайманава, 3 — Гарадзища, 4 — Варонча, 5 — Ивань, 6 — Аношки, 7 — Никадзинава, 8 — Гарадок, 9 — Гарадзища, 10 — Кастрыца, 11 — Дарахи, курган 4, погребениe 1, 12 — Тумяны, случайнaя находкa, 13 — Тумяны, погребениe 39, 14 — Тумяны, погребениe 102. № 1–11: железо; 12–14: бронзa vka in Volhynia.50 A similar shape of the end- worsk culture, middle Donau area, even as far ings was employed in some spurs close to Type west as Baden-Würtemberg,51 but also in Eastern Leuna dated to the Late Roman Period and Early Europe, i.e. in the Černjahov culture (an earlier Migration Period from the Wielbark culture, Prze50 Magomedov, Levada 1996: 310, 319, ig. 8.11. 51 Kontny, Natuniewicz-Sekuła 2013: 14–20, pl. IV 1–2, V; with further literature. 311 maria novičenkova bartosz kontny form) — Perejaslav-Hmelnic’kij, raj. PerejslavHmelnic’kij, Grave 5 on the middle Dnieper from the same chronological range.52 he method of fastening spurs with the use of hooks was not forsaken in the Migration Period. It became even more popular, which is evidenced by the spurs from the West Balt circle, namely the Olsztyn group (Figs. 6.12–14): they were executed mainly from lat, ribbon-shaped heel bands, tapered at their ends to form hooks.53 However, they are also known from other Balt cultural units in the Migration Period, i.e. the Sudovian culture: a grave from Przebród, Suwałki comm., Suwałki region,54 the Samogitian Flat Cemeteries group: Sauginiai, raj. Šiauliai55 or from the territory of Latvia: the Semigallian cemetery at Sauka, Sauka pagasts,56 the last two made of lat heel bands. here is also a specimen with terminals bent upward, but ovalshaped, from the Long Barrows culture: Darahi/ Dorohi, raj. Gorodok, Barrow 4, Grave 1 on the upper Lovat (Fig. 6.11), treated as being of Balt origin, i.e. an import.57 More numerous examples, generally bar-shaped ones, are discovered in the Slavonic milieu, e.g. the Koločin culture or speciically the Tušemlja-Bancerovščina culture 52 Kazanski 1994: 434, 477, igs. 1.14, 13.4; Magomedov, Levada 1996: 310, 317, ig. 8.13. 53 Rudnicki 2006. 54 Nowakowski 2000: 18, ig. 5; Nowakowski 2007a: 153, ig. 10; collection of the Museum in Suwałki, inv. no MA/ A/106. We would like to thank Jerzy Brzozowski, the director of the museum for providing access to these materials. he pair is equipped with additional doubled hooks at the pricks. One of the spurs is supplemented with transverse grooves on the heel band (a decoration known also from the Olsztyn group). Here the terminals are only slightly bent upwards, not forming exact hooks; it seems problematic how they were mounted to avoid sliding. 55 Merkevičius 1984: 41, ig. 2. 56 Moora 1929: pl. 32.6. 57 Štyhau 1999: 382, ig. 127.6; Kazanski 2007: ig. 7.1; with further literature. See also Mihajlova 2012: 74, ig. 4.10, who mentions further parallels from that cultural unit, i.e., inds from setlements at Zaozer’e in the Msta river basin and Gorka in the Plyussa river basin. 312 (Figs. 6.7–10),58 where they possibly appeared as a result of Balt inspiration.59 An exceptional hooked spur is documented in the huringian area: Stössen, Burgenlandkreis, Grave 12,60 however the prick on this bar-shaped spur is situated signiicantly asymmetrically. Some of the above inds were treated as evidence of interregional or multi-stage relations, e.g. the inds from the Przeworsk culture were treated as proof of a Puchov culture inspiration or maybe even as Celtic (?) imports,61 while the specimen from Čaplin in the Zarubincy culture on the upper Dnieper as a certain Celtic item,62 and the Long Barrows culture item as a Balt import, whereas the inds from the Slavonic area were viewed as a consequence of contacts with the Balts.63 However, this does not seem so obvious, as we are dealing with a very simple form, easy to achieve independently by local artisans from different regions. herefore, we should be careful when proposing such far-fetched ideas. Nevertheless, it seems obvious that hooked spurs with bar-shaped heel bands were especially popular in Eastern Europe. Most probably, the spur from Gurzuf should be linked with eastern specimens and as refers to chronology — dated generally to the turn of the ages. However, one cannot ultimately exclude that it is of a later date: there are about ten items from the 4th – 6th centuries AD known from the site and the earliest of the Christian churches that disturbed the layers was built in 58 he ethnic identiication of this cultural unit is unclear (the Balts, Slavs or Balto-Slavs are considered, see: Šadyra 1999: 373–376; with further literature). he popularity of this kind of spurs (they are known from the north Belorussian setlements at Garadzišča, raj. Mjadzel’ and Garadok, raj. Polack, Kastryca, raj. Lepel’, as well as the hillfort at Nikadzinava / Nikodimovo, raj. Horki on the upper Dnieper; see Šadyra 1999: 369, ig. 119.11–16) seems to conirm the Balt inspiration. 59 Żak 1959: 95, 103, ig. 2.96; Kazanski 2007: 245; Rudnicki 2006, 352: ig. 3d–e; Šadyra 1999: 369, ig. 119.11–16. 60 Schmidt 1970: 22, pl. 9.39. 61 Bochnak 2004a: 266. 62 Eremenko 1997: 58, 60. 63 Kazanski 2007: 245. spurs from the sanctuary at the gurzufskoe sedlo in crimea. on the problem of hook spurs the 7th century AD. herefore, the discussed spur may be theoretically linked with later periods, e.g. the Migration Period hooked spurs, however, this does not seem very probable to us. * * * For the further identiication of spurs, let us turn to the history of their occurrence and prevalence in Europe. he oldest inds of spurs belonging to the Celtic culture originate from Western Europe and date back to the Early La Tène period, e.g. Trugny, dep. Aisne in France.64 However in south-east Europe, spurs were found in the late Halstat culture graves already in the 5th century BC in the Dolenjsko region, Slovenia,65 e.g. Brezje, okr. Novo mesto, Barrow XIII, Grave 49 and Barrow VII, Grave 16,66 as well as further on.67 From East Hallstat Slovenia, spurs were probably adopted by the Greeks and Celts; the spread of spurs in Europe probably resulted from Celtic expansion, and later from the advancement of Roman troops.68 Spurs have been found during excavations of oppida, for example, the bronze spur of Alise-Sainte-Reine (Alésia) and the Geneva Cathedral.69 Two iron La Tène spurs (with buton-shaped terminals — Germ. Knopfsporen — but placed on hooked ends) from La Bute Sainte-Geneviève, dép. Aisne were found in a complex of weapons from the Republican period, together with, i.a., catapult bolts, a pilum head, two scabbard chapes, lorica hamata fastening armour, and a sword belt buckle.70 Researchers of the complex of Republican-period arms from La Bute ascribe the spurs to the La Tène D2 period and note parallel indings in a series of fortiications in Central Europe, including oppidum Déchelete 1927: 708–709, ig. 514.5. Božič 1984: 139. Kromer 1959.25, 35, 43, pl. 28.9, 43.9; Filip 1966: 165. Božič 1984: 137–139; Filipović 2009. See Perhavko 1978: 113; Żak, Maćkowiak-Kotkowska 1988: 247, 250–252; Meduna 1991: 546; Eremenko, Ščukin 1992: 110; Bochnak 2004b: 12–13. 69 Poux 2008: 387, pl. 61. 70 Dechezleprétre 2008: 100, pl. 5.1, 2. 64 65 66 67 68 Stradonice, okr. Kladno in Bohemia and Staré Hradisko, okr. Prostejov in Moravia. he spurs from Alésia and the Geneva Cathedral (Knopfsporen) are dated by M. Poux to the period between La Tène D2 and the times of Augustus’ reign. he researcher also notes that they undoubtedly soon began to be used by Roman troops and cavalry (auxiliari) and their opponents – the Gauls.71 Spurs occur in areas of ights and obviously belonged to both sides. hey are present in Gaul in the Middle and Late La Tène periods. Although they did not belong to the category of mandatory equipment at the time of Caesar’s conquests, they were used by the soldiers stationing in the camps of Iberian Numantia and Caćeres-el-Viejo. he bronze spurs from Alésia and the Geneva Cathedral are also likely to be related to the events of the Gallic Wars. Similar specimens are known from Mont Beuvray (Bibracte), Varennes-sur-Seine in northern France, Bäle-Münsterhügel near Basel.72 In Western Europe, except for Alésia, spurs come from excavated sites which were poorly documented.73 In Belgium, they were found mainly in graves, among horseman equipment, particularly in the tombs of the nobility. he high social status of the buried is conirmed in the case of inds of bronze decorated spurs from the Treveri grave at Goeblingen-Nospelt, Kehlen comm. and Esseylès-Nancy, dép. Meurthe-et-Moselle.74 he indings of La Tène spurs along with elements of Roman ofensive and defensive weapons from the Late Republican Period and the era of Augustus provide reasons for drawing parallels with the complex of sanctuaries near the Gurzufskoe Sedlo. We shall emphasize that the main group of Roman military equipment objects from the sanctuary coincides with the armament from the Late Republican period discovered at the Late La Tène oppida in Alésia, Lyon, Titelberg, Pétange comm. and Gergovia, dép. Puy-de-Dôme. 71 72 73 74 Poux 2008: 388. Poux 2008: 388. Dechezleprétre 2008: 99. Dechezleprétre 2008: 99. 313 maria novičenkova bartosz kontny In particular, in the sanctuary two entire shield bosses (one silvered) were discovered, together with the itings of oval shields of the scutum type, 892 fragments and 380 rings of lorica hamata, including two pieces with elements of bronze rings.75 We now know about six shield bosses of the early scutum type: three fragmented, from the Republican period, come from Lyon, Titelberg and Gergovia,76 while one — from Mainz — dates to the late 1st century BC.77 Finds of poorly-preserved fragments of lorica hamata armour from the Late Republican period are known from oppida at Vernon, dép. Eure in Upper Normandy; Závist, okr. Praha-západ in Bohemia and Titelberg,78 Haute-Marne,79 Bibracte.80 Seting the dating of the lorica hamata indings to the 1st century BC, including the ones from sites speciied above, the researchers emphasize the Celtic origin of this kind of armour.81 In oppidum Bibracte, a piece of armour was discovered together with La Tène spurs: bronze and iron, one of which was made in the German tradition, while the other in the Gallic.82 Individual bronze armour fragments were found in Renieblas or Numantia,83 at Fort Lunt (Baginton), Warwickshire,84 while one fragment originates from Mainz. Among other inds of Roman military equipment, common in the Roman sites of that time in Europe and the sanctuary near the Gurzufskoe Sedlo, we point out the following: catapult bolt heads, lance-heads and lance-shoes, cingulum buckles, Roman helmet and Gallic helmet cheeks dated to the middle of the 1st century BC (Agen / 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 314 Novičenkova 2011: 271. Poux 2008: 345, 405, pl. 31, 67. Сonnoly 1998: 231, ig. 6. Viand 2008: 41. Dechezleprĕtre 2008: 98, pl. 4.3. Pernet, Poux, Teegen 2008: 112, pl. 7.71. Viand 2008: 41, pl. 7. Pernet, Poux, Teegen 2008: 104, pl. 11.114, 115. Goldman 2013: 135. Hobley 1969: 65. Port Type A ater H.R. Robinson85 or the Western Celtic type86), which has analogies among the helmets of Giubiasco, cant. Tessin in southern Switzerland and Alésia;87 the mass inds of details of gladii Type Mainz (scabbard mounts, chapes, guards, edge itings) and items of military life.88 he Romans who took the best weapons from conquered peoples over time qualitatively improved such ‘borrowed’ equipment. M. Feugère has stated that the harness, saddle and other military equipment items of the Roman cavalry were based on Gallic originals, which, however, have been adopted mainly from the Celts living in Central Europe.89 At the beginning of the Principate period, as a result of Augustus’ reforms, the Roman cavalry evolved into a stable, uniied force within the army — auxilia units (ala quingenaria). However, 1st-century Roman spurs were partially similar to their La Tène predecessors. In particular, researchers distinguish three main types of Roman cavalry spurs — with curved ends, with holes and rivets or butons.90 Diferent types of spurs of the La Tène and Roman designs were found in Mainz.91 At the end of the 1st millennium BC, through contacts with the Celtic and Roman world, other European peoples started to use spurs, i.e. the Germans in the Elbian circle, Scandinavia, the peoples of the Oksywie culture and Przeworsk culture (in the later already in the Phase A2,92 i.e., late 2nd – early 1st c. BC).93 It has been stated that at the 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 Robinson 1975: 42, pl. 91–94. Egg, Waurick 1990: 32, ig. 25.1. Robinson 1975: 42; Egg, Waurick 1990: 32. Novičenkova 1998: 59. Feugère 2002: 134. Dixon, Southern 1997: 58. Connoly 1998: 236, ig. 7, 8. Bochnak 2004b:14–15. Spurs became much more popular among the barbarians in the Roman Period. From the burials of the Wielbark culture (the Roman Period and the beginning of the Migration Period), we know the spurs inspired by the Przeworsk culture and Scandinavian designs (Kontny, Natuniewicz-Sekuła 2009; Kontny, Natuniewicz-Sekuła 2010; Kontny, Natuniewicz-Sekuła 2013). Also in the West Balt circle spurs from the sanctuary at the gurzufskoe sedlo in crimea. on the problem of hook spurs turn of the millennia they also emerged in Eastern Europe,94 but taking into consideration the mentioned items from the Zarubincy culture, to which we may add a few Late Pre-Roman Period Knopfsporen from Mutin, raj. Krolevec’ on the middle Seim River,95 but also from the Zarubincy culture setlements at Obolon’ and Monastyrjok on the middle Dnieper,96 and the Przeworsk culture inds from Griniv, raj. Pustomyty, Grave 3 and a stray ind,97 as well as one made at Lučka, raj. Ternopil’ (both in western Ukraine),98 we may refute such a statement and claim that they were known in Eastern Europe at least from Phase A3, i.e. from the middle of the 1st century BC.99 he historical situation in Central and Eastern Europe at the end of the 3rd century BC, caused by the expansion of the Celts from the west, the Bastarnae from the middle and lower Elbe basin to the south-east, and later also the Cimbri from the Jutland Peninsula to the south/south-east and the Sarmatians from the southeast, caused the movements of Vistula and the Dnieper tribes. As a result of these multiple and complex events in Central and Eastern Europe, “latenized” cultures developed, i.e. the 94 95 96 97 98 99 spurs are well known, i.e., the Bogaczewo culture, Sudovian culture, Dollkeim-Kovrovo culture, on the territory of Lithuania (Nowakowski 1996: passim; Szymański 2005: 71–72; Nowakowski 2007b: 86–88; Kontny 2007: 97–99; Michelbertas 2000). Spurs have been evidenced for the Balt milieu also in the Migration Period, e.g., the Elbląg group (Kontny 2011: 95–97), the Olsztyn group (Rudnicki 2006) or the Sambian-Natangian area (Skvorcov 2010: 166–168). Examples of Roman- and Migration-Period spurs from Eastern Europe have been mentioned hitherto so we would like only to accentuate here research conducted by B. Perhavko (1978), A. Kokowski (1993), M. Kazanski (1994: 430–435), B. Magomedov and M. Levada (1996) as well as O. Radyush (2013). Perhavko 1978: 113. Łuczkiewicz, Terpilovskij 2012: 157, 161, ig. 5.7–8; Terpilovsky, Zharov 2013: 413, ig. 3.11–12. Łuczkiewicz, Terpilovskij 2012: 161, with further literature; Radjuš 2011: ig. 7.1–3. Śmiszko 1932: 11, pl. IV 21; Kozak 1985: 56, 62, ig. 1.9, 2.1–15, 18, 3.1–3; Łuczkiewicz 1999; Kokowski 1999: ig. 2f. Kozak 1984: 89, ig. 15; Kokowski 1999: 32. Finds from Mutin dated to Phase A3, whereas the one from Griniv to B1a and from Lučka to Phase A3/B1 or the beginning of B1: see Łuczkiewicz 1999: 117; Łuczkiewicz, Terpilovskij 2012: 164–165; Kokowski 1999: 32. Poienešti-Lukaševka culture, Przeworsk culture, Oksywie culture, and Zarubincy culture. he Przeworsk culture, covering a majority of the territory of modern southern and central Poland, seems to be of great potential here as it inluenced the neighbouring areas, leading to the formation of new cultural units, e.g. the Elbian circle or the Bogaczewo culture. Over the last decades of the 1st century BC, the peoples of the Przeworsk culture entered the upper Dniester area and came into contact with the Dacians, which resulted in the creation of setlements of a mixed character, where particular types of Przeworsk culture weapons together with spurs were adopted (i.a. Griniv and Lučka).100 However, this is not the only factor in the puzzle, as the Celtic migration also afected the territory of Ukraine.101 he most important aspect of the Celtic period in Western Ukraine was its impact on the metalworking and potery carriers of local cultures.102 From the middle of the 3rd century BC, the La Tène culture was dominant in the upper Tisza River, where economic, cultural and iron production centres existed, i.e. oppidum Gališ-Lovačka near Mukačevo103 and Novo-Klinove.104 Sets of arms with spurs come from Transcarpathian sites at Ardanove, raj. Iršava, Site I and II, and Bratove, raj. Vinogradov.105 Ju. Kuharenko noted that spurs and harness parts became widespread in Eastern Europe in the 1st century AD, based on the La Tène paterns,106 but it seems that the Przeworsk culture impact was of greater importance in those times. he inds of — as described by Kuharenko — “La Tène” type spurs made of iron from Eastern Europe mentioned by the researcher, i.e. the “Celtic” burial from Ardanove, the grave from Griniv or a stray 100 his is the Lipica culture, although its long-lasting character has been questioned (see Kokowski 1999: 32, 34, 37). 101 Kazakevič 2008: 28–29. 102 Eremenko 1997; Kazakevič 2008: 76–77; Kazakevich 2010: 172. 103 Kobal’ 1995–1996: ig. 1–11; Kazakevič 2008: 30–31. 104 Kotigoroško 2003: 31–38. 105 Kobal’ 1997–1998: pl. II, III, V. 106 Kuharenko 1959: 42. 315 maria novičenkova bartosz kontny ind from Pekariv, raj, Sosnicija,107 together with Lučka should be rather interpreted as Przeworsk culture specimens or at least as representing the Przeworsk cultural idea. In the Hellenistic period frequent contacts between the Celts and the Northern Black Sea population took place. Greek sources mention Celtic mercenaries employed by Mithridates VI Eupator in the Hellenistic kingdoms and the Bosporus in 63 BC.108 heir presence at Pantikapaion and in the surrounding areas is conirmed by the inds of weapons and ornaments dated to the end of the La Tène period. In the regions of the Upper Dniester and Middle Dnieper, treasures, burials, and numerous individual inds of La Tène type specimens have been evidenced.109 he fact that the spurs with arched heel bands from the sanctuary at Gurzuf have common features with the inds from the 1st century BC – 1st century AD of the Zarubincy culture sites110 allows us to compare further archaeological material. here are more items common to the Zarubincy culture and the sanctuary near the Gurzufskoe Sedlo, i.e. military brooches (‘half Roman’ ones) dated to the period from the 1st century BC till the turn of the eras.111 It should be noted that the sanctuary near the Gurzufskoe Sedlo seems to have had a speciic appeal. Although it is located in the Crimean Mountains, so it is in fact isolated from the outside world, sacriicial rites were continuously conducted there; moreover, one can trace several waves of imports coming there from Central and Western Europe, Asia Minor and the Eastern Mediterranean. he main groups of imported items used as votives along with those made locally in the Northern Black Sea region and the Crimean peninsula allow for the division of sacri- icial activities into six chronological stages: 1) 4th – irst half of the 2nd centuries BC; 2) second half of the 2nd – beginning of the 1st centuries BC; 3) irst half – mid-1st century BC; 4) second half of the 1st century BC (a great number of items, including the last decades of the period); 5) irst half of the 1st century AD (among the inds, one may accentuate the items from the 40s, speciically coins); 6) second half of the 1st century BC – turn of the 1st/2nd centuries AD, from which the decline in sanctuary activities begins.112 he inds of the La Tène imports and Roman military equipment are typical of Phases 3–5, i.e. starting from the 1st century BC, when most of Asia Minor was annexed to the Roman Empire.113 Marked growth of imports in the irst half – mid-1st century BC should be linked to the participation of the Crimean population in the Mithridatic wars.114 Republican denarii, fragments of the oval shield (scutum), a bronze helmet cheek of the Western Celtic type, and several elements of a military standard (signum), lanceheads and other pieces of military equipment can be atributed to this time span. During the fourth phase (second half of the st 1 century BC), the sanctuary received the largest amount of Roman military equipment115 of the late Republic, Second Triumvirate period and the beginning of Augustus’ reign. his group of inds is associated with the dramatic events reported by Dio Cassius.116 Ater the defeat of Mithridates, Chersonesos remained dependent from the client state of Bosporus until Caesar granted the city freedom (eleutheria). Ater Caesar’s death, the Bosporan King Asander (44–17 BC) atempted to subordinate Chersonesos and the southern part of the Crimean Mountains, which is evidenced by the construction of a fortress at Kutlak, raj. Sudak.117 Chersonesos, trying to free itself 107 Kuharenko 1959: 38. 108 App., Mithr. 111. 109 Kazakevich 2010: 171. 110 Apart from the works mentioned above, see also: Havljuk 1971: ig. 2.6; Maksimov 1982: pl. VI 7, XXIII 4; Kotigoroško 1989: 184, ig. 3.21. 111 Novičenkova 2000: 157–158. 112 113 114 115 116 117 316 Novičenkova 2002: 66, 134, 145. Novičenkova 2002: 33, 130, 146, ig. 65.8–17. App., Mithr. 15, 67. Novičenkova 2002: 138, 140, 146, ig. 66. Dio Cass. LIV, 24, 6. Lancov 1994: 183. spurs from the sanctuary at the gurzufskoe sedlo in crimea. on the problem of hook spurs from the tutelage of Bosporus, appealed to Rome for aid. Roman mediation resulted in an agreement between the Tauric polis and the Bosporan Kingdom and was marked by the introduction of the era of Chersonesus in 25 or 24 BC. However, Rome also provided assistance to Bosporus, trying to defend itself against barbarian tribes, especially the Sarmatians, Meotians and Sindi. We know that the Romans equipped the Bosporan army with weapons, even earlier, in the time of Dynamis’ rule (67–14 BC) and regularly supported the Bosporans inancially. he increasing danger of barbarian raids in the second half of the 1st century BC is shown by the construction of fortiications118 on the western borders of the Bosporan Kingdom and Fantalivsk Cape.119 Another large group of Roman artefacts from the sanctuary dates to the irst half of the 1st century AD,120 the time of Aspurgus’ reign (died AD 38) and the Romano-Bosporan war (AD 45–49). From an inscription on the pedestal of Aspurgus’ statue (KBN, 40), it is known that he subdued the Scythians and Tauri, taking over most of Crimea. his situation apparently remained unchanged during the reign of his wife, Gypaepyris, and later — of Mithridates VIII (AD 42–46).121 he events of the Roman-Bosporan war were recorded in a fairly detailed manner, including the testimony of Tacitus, who — among other information — reported on the Barbarians atacking Roman warships which moored on the coast of Tauri lands.122 he fact that the sanctuary at Gurzuf represents an extraordinary complex of La Tène and Roman inds dated to the 1st century BC – 1st century AD, in particular of weapons, is suggested also by a number of artefacts unique throughout the whole Northern Black Sea coast, e.g. parts of Roman oval shields (scutum) of the La Tène 118 Strabo VII 4, 6. 119 Zubar’, Zin’ko 2006: 164–168, 176. 120 Novičenkova 2002: 139, 146, ig. 67. 121 Dio LXI 12. 122 Tac., Ann. XII 15, 17. type, fragments of a military standard, fragments of a ring-mail (lorica hamata), many itings from scabbards characteristic of the gladii Type Mainz (Augustus’ era). Spurs from the sanctuary, which represent a form possibly inspired by the La Tène patern, also represent a separate group, not typical either for the areas of Celtic inluence in the rest of Ukraine or other La Tène inds from the sanctuary, rare or absent in other sites of the Northern Black Sea region. In all cases, the same chronological limits for La Tène imports and Roman military equipment and glassware apply, also evidenced by coins; the items came to the sanctuary in groups, simultaneously and at certain times. In particular, taking into consideration the chronology, one may state that items of the La Tène type were sacriiced during Phases 3–5 along with Roman military equipment objects of the Late Republican and Early Principate times. To the irst group of La Tène imports from the irst half – mid-1st century BC, one may assign fragments of bronze ware executed in the north Italian centre, including a dipper handle of the Pesčate type, two bronze hooks, bronze and silver pendants with duck and swan heads (similar in style to the images of bird heads known from the handles of the Late La Tène metal ware dated to the irst half of the 1st century BC, found in the sanctuary), military brooches (“half Roman”), a bronze fragment of a La Tène harness. Among the inds of the second group, i.e. from the second half of 1st century BC – irst half of the 1st century AD, we may enumerate spurs and an iron razor with a twisted handle and a loop at its end, which is similar to the Celtic-like antiquities of the turn of the eras in the territory of Moldova, Bohemia, as well as Central and Northern Europe.123 Similar La Tène type objects were found in Europe in sacriicial complexes, where arms were also deposited (helmets, shields and other items). hese complexes are usually immersed in rivers and other bodies of water, 123 Novičenkova 2002: 71, ig. 47.1. 317 maria novičenkova bartosz kontny using them as a kind of sanctuary.124 Not coincidentally, perhaps, a combination of these items can be observed in sacriicial gits at the sanctuary at Gurzufskoe Sedlo. hus, according to stratigraphic data, the income of spurs (at least of their majority) to the sanctuary chronologically coincides with the major groups of Roman military equipment items from the Late Republican period, the Second Triumvirate (40s – 30s BC) and the Early Principate (from the reign of Augustus to Claudius, i.e. 27 BC – irst half of the 1st century AD) also being brought there. he spurs from Gurzuf have several features in common with spurs of the Late Pre-Roman Period from Central and Eastern Europe, as well as Scandinavia, but also with the La Tène ones. On one hand, the speciic nature of most La Tène products from the sanctuary suggests their original, i.e. Celtic production, but — on the other — hooked spurs are unique among the Celtic inds (except the Puchov culture inds). Moreover, the spur with twisted loops (Fig. 3.3) was probably made locally. Additionally, one should remember that the dating of the fourth spur (Fig. 3.4) is not entirely sure and theoretically it may come from the Migration Period. he reception of the spurs seems not to have been associated with the Celtic expansion to the east. It seems rather to have been the result of the multi-stage spread of ideas among the peoples of Eastern Europe or — which is a tantalizing concept — along with the spread of Roman military equipment items (by members of auxiliary troops?). We have to accentuate here that at the turn of the ages Roman horsemen were recruited mostly from among Barbarians, i.e. the Celts,125 thus the Roman riders’ equipment was inluenced strongly by the Barbarian model. Taking into consideration the use of La Tène armaments and rider equipment by Republican cavalry, including spurs, inds in the Gurzufskoe Sedlo sanctuary can be a valuable indication of Roman war activity in the Northern Black Sea region and contacts between the Crimean Mountain population and the Bosporus and Rome. Шпоры из святилища у перевала Гурзуфское Седло в горном Крыму (Pезюме) Р ассмотрены четыре железные шпоры античного времени из святилища у перевала Гурзуфское Седло (pис. 1, 2, 4), которые относятся к числу редких находок в Северном Причерноморье. Они имеют дугообразную форму с небольшим острым шипом (pис. 3). Две шпоры с загнутыми петлеобразно концами, одна — имеет окончания в виде круглых дужек с круглыми отверстиями, четвертая — с перевитыми плечиками и петлеобразными концами. Характеристики шпор позволяют отнести их к числу латенских и датировать I в. до н.э. – I в. н.э. Данный тип латенских шпор отличается от находи- мых на территории Польши, Румынии и Западной Украины (pис. 5, 6). Это позволяет предположить отдельный источник их поступления, не связанный с экспансией кельтов на восток. Шпоры из святилища у перевала Гурзуфское Седло и многие предметы римского военного снаряжения имеют аналогии в комплексах из Алезии и бывших римских военных лагерей на территории Франции, Великобритании, Австрии, Швейцарии и Германии. Наличие в святилище многочисленных предметов римского военного снаряжения середины I в. до н.э. – I в. н.э. позволяет связать шпоры 124 Novičenkova 2002: 44, igs. 17.8, 66.23. 125 Bishop 1988: 114; Feugère 2002: 134; Bishop, Coulston 2006: 120–121. 318 spurs from the sanctuary at the gurzufskoe sedlo in crimea. on the problem of hook spurs с этой группой находок и считать их продукцией мастерских Центральной и Западной Европы. Учитывая применение республиканской кавалерией кельтских и латенских предметов вооружения и снаряжения всадника, в том числе шпор, эти находки из святилища у перевала Гурзуфское Седло являются ценным свидетельством военных акций римлян в Северном Причерноморье и контактов населения Горного Крыма с Боспором и Римом на рубеже эр. Maria Novičenkova Institute of Archaeology Ukrainian Academy of Sciences Geroiv Stalingrada St. 12, Kiev, Ukraine novichenkovamaria@gmail.com Bartosz Kontny Institute of Archaeology University of Warsaw ul. Krakowskie Przedmieście 26/28 00-927 Warszawa, pl bartosz.kontny@uw.edu.pl Ancient authors App., Mithr. Dio Strabo Tac., Ann. Appian, Mithridates Cassius Dio, Historiae Strabo, Geographica Tacitus, Annales Abbreviations BAR-IS British Archaeological Reports. International Series KBN Korpus Bosporskih Nadpisej, Struve, V.V. [ed.], Leningrad 1965. Militaria Bibracte Sur les traces de César. Militaria tardo-républicains en contexte gaulois. Actes de la table ronde organisée par Bibracte, Centre archéologique européen, Glux-en-Glenne, 17 octobre 2002, Poux, M. [ed.], Glux-en-Glenne 2008. SA / СА Sovetskaja Arheologija / Советская Археология Literature Baitinger, H. 2004. Hellenistisch-frühkaiserzeitliche Reitersporen aus dem Zeusheiligtum von Olympia, Germania 82, 351–379. Bishop, M.C. 1988. Cavalry Equipment of the Roman Army in the First Century A.D. [in] Military Equipment and the Identity of Roman Soldiers. Proceedings of the Fourth Roman Military Equipment Conference, BAR-IS, 394, J.C.N. Coulston [ed.], Oxford, 67–195. Bishop, M.C., Coulston, J.C.N. 1983. Roman Military Equipment rom the Punic Wars to the Fall of Rome, London. — 2006. Roman Military Equipment rom the Punic Wars to the Fall of Rome, London (2nd edition). Bochnak, T. 2004a. Rola kultury puchowskiej i grupy tynieckiej w kształtowaniu się modelu uzbrojenia kultury przeworskiej w fazie A3 młodszego okresu przedrzymskiego [in] Okres lateński i rzymski w Karpatach polskich. Materiały z konferencji, J. Garncarski [ed.], Krosno, 263–287. — 2004b. Zróżnicowanie typologiczne ostróg oraz bojowe zastosowanie konia w kulturze przeworskiej w młodszym okresie przedrzymskim, Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Rzeszowskiego. Seria SocjologicznoHistoryczna 23, Archeologia 1, 9–61. Bogdanova, N.A., Guščina, I.I., Loboda, I.I. 1976. Mogil’nik Skalistoe v Jugo-Zapadnom Krymu (I–III vv. n. e.), SA 1976/4, 121–152. / Богданова, Н.А., Гущина, И.И., Лобода, И.И., Могильник Скалистое в ЮгоЗападном Крыму (I–III вв. н.э.), CA 1976/4, 121–152. Božič, D. 1984. O starosti konjeniškega groba št. 16 z latenskoga grobišča na beograjski Karaburmi [in] Keltski voz, M. Guštin, L. Pauli [eds.], Brežice, 133–139. Connoly, P. 1998. Greece and Rome at War, London. Déchelete, J. 1927. Manuel d’archéologie préhistorique, celtique et gallo-romaine IV: Second Age du Fer ou époque de La Tѐne, Paris. 319 maria novičenkova bartosz kontny Dechezleprétre, T. 2008. Présence de militaria sur quelques oppida de l’est de la Gaule [in] Militaria Bibracte, 93–102. Dixon, K., Southern, P. 1997. he Roman Cavalry, London. Dumitraşcu, S., Sfrengeu, F. 2012. Dacian Iron Spurs – A Collection. In Memory of Professor Kurt Horedt, Analele Universitatii din Oradea. Fascicola Istorie-Arheologie 22, 32–34. Dupoi, V., Sîrbu, V. 2001. Incinta dacică fortiicată de la Pietroasele-Gruiu Dării, Buzău. Egorejčenko (Egarejčanka, Егорейченко), A.A. 1996. Drevnejšie gorodišča belorusskogo Poles’ja (VII–VI vv. do n.e. – II v. n.e.), Minsk. / Древнейшие городища белорусского Полесья (VII–VI вв. н.е. – II в. н.е.), Минск. — 1999. Kul’tura štryhavanaj keramiki [in] Arheologija Belarusi 2, Minsk, 113–173. / Культура штрыхаванай керамікі [в] Археалогія Беларусі 2, Минск, 113–173. Egg, M., Waurick, G. 1990. Antike Helme, Mainz. Eichberg, M. 1987. Scutum. Die Entwicklung einer Italisch-Etruskischen Schildform von der Anfängen bis zur Zeit Caesars, Frankfurt am Main – Bern – New York – Paris. Eremenko, V.E. 1997. «Kel’tskaja vual’» i zarubineckaja kul’tura, Sankt-Peterburg. / Еременко, В.Е., «Кельтская вуаль» и зарубинецкая культура, Санкт-Петербург. Еrеmеnkо, V.Е., Ščukin, M.B. 1992. Kimvry, tevtony, kel’toskify i nekotorye voprosy hronologii еpohi latena i rimskogo vremeni, Sankt-Peterburg. / Еременко, В.Е., Щукин, М.Б., Кимвры, тевтоны, кельтоскифы и некоторые вопросы хронологии эпохи латена и римского времени, Санкт-Петербург. Feugère, M. 2002. Weapons of the Romans, Paris. Filip, J. 1966. Enzyklopädisches Handbuch zur Ur- und Frühgeschichte Europas, Vol. 1, Praha. Filipović, V.M. 2009. Mamuze iz mlaćeg gvozdenog doba u Srbi’i, Glasnik Srpskog arheološkog drušstva 25, 163–188. Ginalski, J. 1991. Ostrogi kabłąkowe kultury przeworskiej. Klasyikacja typologiczna, Przegląd Аrcheologiczny 38, 53–82. Goldman, A.L. 2013. Weapons and the Army [in] A Companion to the Archaeology of the Roman Republic, J. DeRose Evans [ed.], Malden (MA), 123–140. Havljuk, I.I. 1971. Pamjatki zarubinec’koj kul’tury na Pobužži, Arheologija (Kyiv) 4, 85–92. / Хавлюк, И.И., Пам'ятки зарубинецькоï культуры на Побужжи, Археология (Киïв) 4, 85–92. Hobley, D.F. 1969. Neronian-Vespasianic Military Site at «he Lunt», Baginton, Warwickshire, Transactions of the Birmingham Archaeological Society 83, 65–129. Horedt, K. 1973. Die Dakischen Silbertunde, Dacia 18, 127–168. Jahn, M. 1921. Der Reitersporn, seine Entstehung und rüheste Entwicklung, Mannus-Bibliothek, 21, Leipzig. Juga, A., Ots, M., Szymanski, P. 2003. Über die Vorteile der Bildung einer «didaktischen Kollektion». Materialien der Bogaczewo-Kultur und Olsztyn-Gruppe in Ajaloo Instituut in Tallin (Estland) [in] Antyk i Barbarzyńcy. Studia dedykowane profesorowi Jerzemu Kolendo, A. Bursche, R. Ciołek [eds.], Warszawa, 205–243. Kаzakevič (Kazakevich), G. 2008. Vidgomin karniksìv: vìjskovì tradicìj davnìh kel’tìv na zemljah Ukrajni, IV–I st. do n. è., Militaria Ukrainica, Kyiv. / Казакевич, Г. Видгомин карниксiв: вийскови традиций на давних кельтив на землях Украïнi, IV–I ст. до н.э., Militaria Ukrainica, Киïв. — 2010. he Late La Tène Decorated Scabbard from the Upper Dniester Area: a Far Relative of the Gundestrup Cauldron? [in] Dimensions and Categories of Celticity: Studies in Literature and Culture, M. Fomin, J. Jarniewicz, P. Stalmaszczyk [eds.], Studia Celto-Slavica, 5, Łódź, 171–179. Kazanski, M. 1994. Les éperons, les umbo, les manipules de boucliers et les haches de l’époque romaine tardive dans la region pontique: origine et difusion [in] Beiträge zu römischer und barbarischer Bewafnung in den ersten vier nachchristlichen Jahrhunderten. Marburger Kolloquium 1994, C. von Carnap-Bornheim [ed.], Marburg – Lublin, 429–485. — 2007. he Armament, Horsemen’s Accoutrements, and Riding Hear of Long Barrow Culture (Fith to Seventh Centuries) [in] Weapons, Weaponry and Man. In memoriam Vytautas Kazakevičius, A. Bliujienė [ed.], [= Archaeologia Baltica 8], 238–253. Kobal’, J. 1995–1996. Manche probleme der La Tène-kultur des oberen heibgebietes (Karpatoukraine), Acta Archaeologica Carpathica 23, 140–184. — 1997–1998. A Przeworsk kultúrához tartozó harcossírok és fegyverleletek Kárpátalján, Nyíregyházi Jósa András Múzeum Évkönyve 39–40, 113–134. 320 spurs from the sanctuary at the gurzufskoe sedlo in crimea. on the problem of hook spurs Kokowski, A. 1993. L’art militaire des Goths à l’époque romaine tardive (D’après les données archéologiques) [in] L’armée romaine et les barbares de III e au VII e siècle, F. Vallet, M. Kazanski [eds.], Mémoires publiées par l’Association Française d’Archéologie Mérovingienne et Musée des Antiquités Nationales, 5, Paris, 335–354. — 1999. Strefy kulturowe w młodszym okresie przedrzymskim i w okresie rzymskim na łuku Karpat. Część I – od młodszego okresu przedrzymskiego do młodszego okresu rzymskiego [in] Na granicach antycznego świata. Sytuacja kulturowa w południowo-wschodniej Polsce i regionach sąsiednich w młodszym okresie przedrzymskim i okresie rzymskim, S. Czopek, A. Kokowski [eds.], Rzeszów, 25–44. Kontny, B. 2007. Najwcześniejsze elementy uzbrojenia w kulturze bogaczewskiej w świetle zewnętrznych wpływów kulturowych [in] Kultura bogaczewska w 20 lat później. Materiały z konferencji, Warszawa, 26–27 marca 2003, A. Bitner-Wróblewska [ed.], Seminarium bałtyjskie, 1, Warszawa, 73–111. — 2011. Weaponry [in] B. Kontny, J. Okulicz-Kozaryn, M. Pietrzak, Nowinka Site 1. he Cemetery rom the Late Migration Period in the Northern Poland, Gdańsk – Warszawa, 86–97. Kontny, B., Natuniewicz-Sekuła, M. 2009. A Spur from Myślęcin (?) as an Odd Piece in a Puzzle [in] Barbaricum, Vol. 8, B. Kontny, A. Szela, J. Kleemann [eds.], Światowit Suppl. Ser. B: Barbaricum, 8, Warszawa, 153– 160. — 2010. «Jeździec bez głowy» et alii, czyli znaleziska ostróg z cmentarzyska kultury wielbarskiej w Weklicach [in] Terra Barbarica. Studia oiarowane Magdalenie Mączyńskiej w 65. rocznicę urodzin, A. Urbaniak et al. [eds.], Monumenta Archaeologica Barbarica Series Gemina, 2, Łódź – Warszawa, 333–345. — 2013. Astonishing Finds in a Well-Known Site. Newly Found Spurs from Weklice (the Wielbark Culture) [in] From Studies on Ancient Arms and Armour Production Technology, J. Maik [ed.], Fasciculi Archaeologiae Historicae, 26, Łódź, 11–24. Kotigoroško, V.G. 1989. Remeslennoe proizvodstvo na dakijskom gorodišče Malaja Kopanja, SA 1989/2, 182– 200. / Котигорошко, В.Г., Ремесленное производство на дакийском городище Малая Копаня, CA 1989/2, 182–200. — 2003. Verhnè Potissja v konteksti starodavn’oї іstorії Karpato-Dunajs’kogo arealu, Užgorod. / Верхнэ Потисся в контекстi стародавньоï iсторiï Карпато-Дунайского ареалу, Ужгород. Kozak, D.N. 1984. Pševors’ka kul’tura u Verhn’omu Podnistrov’i i Zahidnomu Pobužži, Kyiv. / Козак, Д.Н., Пшеворська культура у Верхньому Поднистров’ï i Захидному Побужжi, Киïв. — 1985. Mogil’nik pševors’koj kul’tury poblizu s. Griniv na verhn’omu Podnistrov’ij, Arheologija (Kyiv) 52, 52–64. / Могильник пшеворськоï культуры поблизу с. Гринiв на Верхньому Поднiстров’ï, Археология (Киïв) 52, 52–64. Kromer, K. 1959. Brezje. Halštatske gomile z Brezij pri Trebelnem, Arheološki katalogi Slovenije 2/2, Ljubljana. Kuharenko, Ju.B. 1959. Rasprostranenie latenskih veščej na territorii Vostočnoj Evropy, SA 1959/2, 31–51. / Кухаренко, Ю.Б., Распространение латенских вещей на территории Восточной Европы, CA 1959/2, 31–51. de Lacy Lacy, Ch. 1911. he History of the Spur, London – Derby. Lancov, S.B. 1994. Izučenie Kutlakskogo ukreplenija v Jugo-Vostočnom Krymu [in] Arheologičeskie Issledovanija v Krymu. 1993 god, Simferopol’, 180–183. / Ланцов, С.Б., Изучение Кутлакского укрепления в ЮгоВосточном Крыму [в] Археологические Исследования в Крыму. 1993 год, Симферополь, 180–183. Łuczkiewicz, P. 1999. Grób nr 3 z cmentarzyska w Hryniowie (Zachodnia Ukraina) – w kwestii kontaktów kultury przeworskiej z bałkańskim kręgiem kulturowym [in] Na granicach antycznego świata. Sytuacja kulturowa w południowo-wschodniej Polsce i regionach sąsiednich w młodszym okresie przedrzymskim i okresie rzymskim, S. Czopek, A. Kokowski [eds.], Rzeszów, 117–123. — 2006. Uzbrojenie ludności ziem Polski w młodszym okresie przedrzymskim, Archaeologia Militaria, 2, Lublin. — 2007. Späteisenzeitliche Wafenopferplätze in Polen [in] Keltische Einlüsse im nördlichen Miteleuropa während der mitleren und jüngeren vorrömischen Eisenzeit, S. Möllers, W. Schlüter, S. Sievers [eds.], Kolloquien zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte, 9, Bonn, 211–226. Łuczkiewicz, P., Terpilovskij, R.W. 2012. Grób wojownika z młodszego okresu przedrzymskiego z miejscowości Mutyn na północno-wschodniej Ukrainie, Materiały i Sprawozdania Rzeszowskiego Ośrodka Archeologicznego 33, 155–174. 321 maria novičenkova bartosz kontny Madyda-Legutko, R. 1986. Die Gürtelschnallen der römischen Kaiserzeit und der rühen Völkerwanderungszeit im miteleuropäischen Barbaricum, BAR-IS, 360, Oxford. Mjadzvedzeŭ, A.M. 1999. Kieŭskaja kul’tura, [in] Arheologija Belarusi 2, Minsk, 290–298. / Мядзведзеў, А.М., Киеўская культура [в] Археалогія Беларусі 2, Минск, 290–298. Magomedov, B.V., Levada, M.E. 1996. Oružie černjahovskoj kul’tury, Materialy po Arheologii, Istorii i Etnograii Tavrii 5, 304–323. / Магомедов, Б.В., Левада, М.Е., Оружие черняховской культуры, Материалы по Археологии, Истории и Этнографии Таврии 5, 304–323. Maksimov, E.V. 1982. Zarubineckaja kul’tura na territorii USSR, Kiev. / Максимов, Е.В., Зарубинецкая культура на территории УССР, Киев. Manning, W.A. 1985. Catalogue of the Romano-British Iron Tools, Fitings аnd Weapons in the British Museum, London. Marciniak, J. 1950. Dwa cmentarzyska ciałopalne z okresu rzymskiego w Judzikach i Bargłowie Dwornym w pow. augustowskim, Wiadomości Archeologiczne 17, 47–76. Meduna, J. 1991. he Oppidum of Staré Hradisko [in] he Celts, S. Moscati et al. [eds.], New York, 546–547. Merkevičius, A. 1984. Sauginių plokštinis kapinnynas, Lietuvos Archeologija 3, 41–63. Michelbertas, M. 2000. Die Bronzesporen der römischen Kaiserzeit in Litauen [in] Svperiores Barbari. Księga pamiątkowa ku czci profesora Kazimierza Godłowskiego, R. Madyda-Legutko, T. Bochnak [eds.], Kraków, 287–292. Mihajlova, E. 2012. Lokal’nye varianty veščevogo kompleksa kul’tury pskovskih dlinnyh kurganov / Михайлова, Е., Локальные варианты вещевого комплекса культуры псковских длинных курганов, Acta Archaeologica Albaruthenica 8, 69–82. Moora, H. 1929. Die Eisenzeit Letlands bis etwa 500 n. Chr. Vol. 1, Die Funde, Tartu-Dorpat. Novičenkova, M.V. (Новиченкова, М.В.) 2011. Rimskaja kol’čuga Lorica Hamata I v. do n.è. – I v. n.è. iz ritual’nogo kompleksa svjatilišča u perevala Gursufskoe Sedlo, Bosporskie Issledovanija 25, 271–297. / Римская кольчуга Lorica Hamata I в. до н.э. – I в. н.э. из ритуального комплекса святилища у перевала Гурсуфское Седло, Боспорские Исследования 25, 271–297. — 2013. Špory zi svjatilišča bilja perevalu Gurzufs’ke Sidlo v Girs’komu Krymu, Arheologija (Kyiv) 2013/3, 44–53. / Шпоры из святилища у перевала Гурзуфське Седло в Гирському Криму, Археология (Киïв) 2013/3, 44–53. Novičenkova, N.G. (Новиченкова, Н.Г.) 1994. O kontaktah naselenija Gornogo Kryma s Bosporom po materialam svjatilišča u perevala Gursufskoe Sedlo, Bosporskij Sbornik 4, 53–59. / О контактах населения Горного Крыма с Боспором по материалам святилища у перевала Гурсуфское Седло, Боспорский Сборник 4, 53–59. — 1998. Rimskoe voennoe snarjaženie iz svjatilišča u perevala Gursufskoe Sedlo, Vestnik Drevnej Istorii 1998/1, 51–66. / Римское военное снаряжение из святилища у перевала Гурсуфское Седло, Вестник Древней Истории 1998/1, 51–66. — 2000. Fibuly iz svjatilišča u perevala Gursufskoe Sedlo, Rossijskaja Arheologija, 2001/1, 153–166. / Фибулы из святилища у перевала Гурсувское Седло, Российская Археология, 2000/1, 153–166. — 2002. Ustrojstvo i obrjadnost’ svjatilišča u perevala Gursufskoe Sedlo, Jalta. / Устройство и обрядность святилища у перевала Гурсуфское Седло, Ялта. Nowakowski, W. 1996. Das Samland in der römischen Kaiserzeit und seine Verbindungen mit dem römischen Reich und der barbarischen Welt, Marburg – Warszawa. — 2000. Die Balten zwischen Weichsel und Memel zwischen 400 und 800 n. Chr. Ein Entwurf der Forschungsproblematik, Archaeologia Baltica 4, 9–25. — 2007a. East Prussia as a Bridge between Eastern and Western Europe: Finds of the 5th to 8th Centuries [in] he Merovingian Period – Europe Without Borders. Archaeology and History of the 5th to 8th Centuries, W. Menghin [ed.], Berlin, 145–155. — 2007b. Kultura bogaczewska na Pojezierzu Mazurskim od schyłku późnego okresu przedrzymskiego do starszej fazy późnego okresu wpływów rzymskich. Próba analizy chronologiczno-kulturowej [in] Kultura bogaczewska w 20 lat później. Materiały z konferencji, Warszawa, 26–27 marca 2003, A. Bitner-Wróblewska [ed.], Seminarium bałtyjskie, 1, Warszawa (CD atachment). Nylén, E. 1956. Die jüngere vorrömische Eisenzeit Gotlands, Stockholm. 322 spurs from the sanctuary at the gurzufskoe sedlo in crimea. on the problem of hook spurs Perhavko V.V. 1978. Pojavlenie i rasprostranenie špor na territorii Vostočnoj Evropy, SA 1978/3, 113–126. / Перхавко, В.В., Появление и распространение шпор на территории Восточной Европы, CA 1978/3, 113–126. Pernet, L., Poux, M., Teegen, W. 2008. Militaria gaulois et romains sur l’oppidum de Bibracte, Mont Beuvray (Niĕvre) [in] Militaria Bibracte, 103–139. Pieta, K. 1982. Die Púchov-Kultur, Nitra. Poux, M. 2008. L’empreiente du militaire tardo-républicain das les faciés mobiliers de La Tène inale [in] Militaria Bibracte, 299–432. Puzdrovskij, A.E. 2007. Krymskaja Skiija II v. do n.e. – III v. n.e. Pogrebal’nye pamjatniki, Simferopol’. / Пуздровский, А.Е., Крымская Скифия II в. до н.э. – III в. н.э. Погребальные памятники, Симферополь. Radjuš (Radyush), O.A. 2011. Predmety vooruženija i kavalerijskogo snarjaženija zarubineckoj kul’tury [in] Voennaja Arheologija. Sbornik Materialov Problemnogo Soveta “Voennaja Arheologija” pri Gosudarstvennom Istoričeskom Muzee, Vol. 2, Moskva, 1–13. / Радюш, О.А., Предметы вооружения и кавалерийского снаряжения зарубинецкой культуры [в] Военная Археология. Сборник Материалов Проблемного Совета «Военная Археология» при Государственном Историческом Музее, Т. 2, Москва, 1–13. — 2013. he Second and hird Century Knob Spurs (Knopfsporen) in the Middle and Upper Dnieper Area [in] Inter Ambo Maria. Northern Barbarians rom Scandinavia towards the Black Sea, I. Khrapunov, F.-A. Stylegar [eds.], Simferopol’ – Kristiansand, 317–334. Raev, B.A., Simonenko, A.V., Treister, M.Yu. 1991. Etrusco-Italic and Celtic Helmets in Eastern Europe, Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz 38, 465–496. Robinson, H.R. 1975. he Armour of Imperial Rome, London. Rudnicki, M. 2006. Ostrogi z haczykowatymi zaczepami odgiętymi na zewnątrz z obszaru grupy olsztyńskiej w świetle źródeł archiwalnych. Próba nowego spojrzenia [in] Pogranicze trzech światów. Kontakty kultur przeworskiej, wielbarskiej i bogaczewskiej w świetle materiałów z badań i poszukiwań archeologicznych, W. Nowakowski, A. Szela [eds.], Światowit Suppl. Ser. P: Prehistory and Middle Ages, 14, Warszawa, 349–362. Schmidt, B. 1970. Die späte Völkerwanderungszeit in Miteldeutschland (Katalog), Veröfentlichungen des Landesmuseums für Vorgeschichte in Halle, 25, Berlin. Short, H. de S. 1959. A Provincial Roman Spur from Longstock, Hants, and Other Spurs from Roman Britain, Antiquaries Journal 39, 61–76. Sibiu, I.P. 1972. Illiri şi Daci. Illyriens et Daces, Cluj – Bucureşti. Simonenko, А.В. 2012. О krestovidnyh i podkovoobraznyh ‘psalijah’ rannesarmatskogo vremeni [in] Evrazija v skifo-sarmatskoe vremja. Pamjati Iriny Ivanovny Guščinoj, D.V. Žuravlev, K.B. Firsov [eds.], Trudy GIM, 191, Moskva, 208–216. / Симоненко, А.Б., О крестовидных и подковообразных ‘псалях’ раннесарматского времени в Евразия в скифо-сарматское время. Памяти Ирины Ивановны Гущиной, Д.В. Журавлёв, К.Б. Фирсов [ред.], Труды ГИМ, 191, Москва, 208–216. Skvorcov, K.N. 2010. Mogil’nik Mitino V–XV vv. (Kaliningradskaja oblast’) po rezul’tatam issledovanij 2008 g., Materialy ohrannyh arheologičeskih issledovanij, 15, Moskva. / Скворцов, К.Н., Могильник Митино вв. (Калининградская область) по результатам исследований 2008 г., Материялы охранных археологических исследований, 15, Москва. Šadyra, V.I. 1999. Bancaraŭskaja kul’tura [in] Arheologija Belarusi 2, Minsk, 359–376. / Шадыра, В.И. Банцарауская кулътура [в] Археологiя Беларусi 2, Минск, 359-376. Śmiszko, M. 1932. Kultury wczesnego okresu epoki cesarstwa rzymskiego w Małopolsce wschodniej, Lwów. Štyhau, G.V. 1999. Kul’tura rannih doŭgih kurganoŭ (V–VII st.) [in] Arheologija Belarusi 2, Minsk, 376–384. / Штыхау, Г.В., Культура ранних доугих курганоу (V–VII ст.) [в] Археология Беларуси 2, Минск, 376-384. Szymański, P. 2005. Mikroregion osadniczy z okresu wpływów rzymskich w rejonie jeziora Salęt na Pojezierzu Mazurskim, Światowit Suppl. Ser. P: Prehistory and Middle Ages, 10, Warszawa. Terpilovsky, R.V., Zharov, G. 2013. A Warrior Cemetery from the Turn of the Eras on the River Seym [in] Inter Ambo Maria. Northern Barbarians rom Scandinavia towards the Black Sea, I. Khrapunov, F-A. Stylegar [eds.], Simferopol’ – Kristiansand, 409–419. Viand, A. 2008. Les fragments de cote de mailles de Vernon. Armure souple veliocasse ou presence Romaine aux portes de l’oppidum? [in] Militaria Bibracte, 33–46. 323 maria novičenkova bartosz kontny Wichrowski, Z. 1997. Cmentarzysko z młodszego okresu przedrzymskiego w Pikulach, stan. 2, woj. tarnobrzeskie, Archeologia Polski Środkowowschodniej 2, 98–105. Zubar’, V.M., Zin’ko, V.N. 2006. Bospor Kimmerijskij v antičnuju èpohu. Očerki social’no-ekonomičeskoj istorii, Bosporskie Issledovanija 12, Simferopol’ – Kerč. / Зубарь, В.М., Зинько, В.Н., Боспор Киммерийский в античную эпоху. Очерки социально-економической истории, Боспорские Исследования 12, Симферополь – Керч. Żak, J. 1959. Najstarsze ostrogi zachodniosłowiańskie. Ostrogi o zaczepach haczykowato zagiętych do wnętrza, Biblioteka Archeologiczna, 12, Wrocław. Żak J., Maćkowiak-Kotkowska L. 1988. Studia nad uzbrojeniem środkowoeuropejskim VI–X wieku. Zachodniobałtyjskie i słowiańskie ostrogi o zaczepach haczykowato zagiętych do wnętrza, Archeologia. Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu, 31, Poznań. 324