THE ENEMIES OF ROMEEdited by László Kocsis Proceedings of the 15th International Roman Military Equipment Conference, Budapest 2005 JOURNAL OF ROMAN JOURNAL OF ROMAN MILITARY EQUIPMENT MILITARY EQUIPMENT STUDIES STUDIES VOLUME 16 2008 VOLUME 16 2008 literary sources1. up to now we have not devoted special attention to the most important and frequent of Sarmatian weapons: the side arms. 1: 3). 2. were present continuously in Sarmatian milieu. which corresponds to the evidence from Fig. 3. so-called „Meotian” type swords (Csongrád) JRMES 16 2008 95-105 . Long swords without metal pommels (Fig. 3. swords were kept in wooden scabbards. Ring-pommeled swords and daggers were in use mainly in the 1st–2nd centuries AD. depictions. All the pieces of this group found in the Sarmatian Barbaricum of the Carpathian Basin are short. In this study we examine the first group. The shape was formed in the 3rd century BC and spread into the North Pontic Region in the second half of the 2nd century BC. So-called “Meotian” or “Micia” type swords/daggers (Fig. In most of the examples from the graves they were found at the right side of the dead. 1): 1. This relatively large category of finds can be divided into three groups (Fig. It is a matter of discussion. swords without metal pommels (Hévízgyörk). The longest one hardly reaches 50 cm. or whether the ring shape evolved out of the volute shaped pommels of Scythian swords3. whether these weapons can be taken back to the Siberian Bronze Age or Far Eastern prototypes. We can find these weapons across the whole of the Sarmatian territory from the South Ural up to the Lower Danube. ring-pommeled swords (Újszilvás). the swords and daggers. that is to say. Different variants of this sword type. Subsequently the type of long swords without metal pommel disappeared. 1: 2). ANTECEDENTS IN THE STEPPE REGION Ring-pomelled swords appeared very early in the steppe Sarmatian milieu and became widely spread. Judging from certain steppe finds. 2. 1: 1). Swords/daggers with ring-shaped pommels (Fig. but there are pieces dated to the early 3nd century AD2. usually painted red. the straight and short cross-piece. 1: Three groups of the side-arms of the Sarmatians in the Carpathian Basin: 1. In some cases scabbards were covered with leather and lined with textile inside.Sarmatian swords with ring-shaped pommels in the Carpathian Basin Eszter Istvánovits – Valéria Kulcsár Previously we have been dealing with the armament of the Sarmatians of the Carpathian Basin from several aspects: archaeological finds. However. from the moment of its appearance up to the 3nd century AD. The main characteristics of these weapons are the closed ring at the end of the hilt. characterised by ring shaped pommel and straight cross-piece. but is very uncertain. 2)5. DAVYDOVA 1990. is the bow always held on the left side. It may be. Another weapon of the Bosporan depiction group. ris. This pommel shape was regulary met in the Early Avarian armament of the Carpathian Basin. That is to say. A ring-shaped pommel is undoubtedly depicted on a metal cup from Himlingøje. the depictions (see later). the burial rite is an explanation for the lack of weapons.) SARMATIAN RING-POMMELED SWORDS IN THE CARPATHIAN BASIN The number of ring-pommeled swords in the Sarmatian finds of the Great Hungarian Plain is small. that such a sword is worn by an archer depicted on a 1st century AD silver vessel from Kosika (Lower Volga) (Fig. In the Sarmatian Barbaricum of the Carpathian Basin we know six swords/daggers that definitely had ring-shaped pommel. 56–58. The blade and the pommel with ring were smithed from one piece in all cases. cat. 4: 6a) Fig. ringpommeled swords stayed in use over a very vast territory from Iran to China. The graves of the early Sarmatian period of the Great Hungarian Plain are generally characterised by the Fig 3: Depiction of ring-pommeled swords on the metal vessel found in Himlingøje (after LUNDHANSEN 1995. 4). The find material in question is homogenous: the majority of such swords were made with a similar technique. After the disappearance of the people called Sarmatians from the history of steppe. 3)6.7 where riders wore short swords or daggers with ring-shaped pommel always fixed to their right thigh (Fig. fig. 2: The archer of the first century silver vessel from Kosika probably had a ring-pommeled sword (after DVORNICHENKO – FJODOROVDAVIDOV 1994. 5). basically dated to the 1st century AD. 5) Fig 4: Ring-pommeled swords on Bosporan grave-stones (after ROSTOVTSEV 1913–1914. The ring has a round cross section. that does not mean that these weapons were less used here than on the steppe. 46–48) . such pommel can only be suggested (Fig. In two further cases. LXXXIV: 1.96 Eszter Istvánovits – Valéria Kulcsár lack of weapons. up to the 8th century4. However. Good examples can be seen in the Bosporan grave-stones. This type of weapon rarely appears on depictions. (Roman depictions will be discussed in the following. Denmark (Fig. diameter: 4. Beside the exterior side of the right femur. Fig. Today only some fragments are known8. 5 Spread of ring-pommeled swords in the Great Hungarian Plain . a bronze fibula: Scharnierfibel.2 cm. The blade was 37. In the N–S oriented male grave. Length: 42.5 cm long. the pommel is completed with a ring. 3. At the neck. Szolnok. 6. 5. probably secondarily dug into a barrow. Újtelep. was found. Fig. Judging from the remains. ring-pommeled sword. At the right part of the breast.5 cm diameter.1 cm.5 cm long. The cross-piece is short. (Fig. the length of the hilt is 8 cm.9 cm. it was lost10. its width is 7. 4.5 cm. Wooden traces were preserved on the hilt. Fragment of a ringpomeled sword. Similarly to the rest of the finds. At the right knee. Its full length is 55. Újszilvás–Gólyajárás grave 1: In 1992 Edit Tari excavated a male grave oriented S–N. 5. the cross-piece is bent upward.Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 16 2008 1. there was a 50. The circumstances are unknown. The disc had a hole in the middle and radial carved decoration on the convex part. (Fig. Gáva–Kató-halom grave 1: The grave. The utmost width of the blade is 5. the exact place was not specified9. golden torques ending in hooks. The following objects came from a male burial marked as “grave 1” by the publisher: 1. decorated with a white bead. was excavated by András Jósa. The width of the blade: 3. 3. The sword was placed with its edge up. The sword broke into two pieces after the discovery. a decorative disc made of a shell and probably belonging to the sword. 2. The latter was covered with textile (8 threads on 5 mm) in 2–3 layers. Fig. closed with a ring of 4. Traces of a wooden scabbard and of the wooden cover of the hilt were well preserved. DNy-i homokbánya (SW sand-pit). 2. but the measurements were made in situ by Jósa. The grave-goods were the following: 1. a brick-red. (Fig.. grave 1: Finds from several graves of a Sarmatian cemetery got to museum.4 cm. Szentes–Kistőke grave 143: A double-edged sword was found 130 cm deep. it could have been kept in a wooden scabbard. A one-edged iron knife was found rusted to the hilt of the sword (it was probably stuck into the sword’s scabbard)12. Several iron pieces of unknown function were also found in the grave. The hilt was made in a form of a prism narrowing towards its end. According to Jósa’s notes. Hilt of an iron knife with traces of bone covering (lost)11.8 cm (the object was lost). wheelmade vessel with two handles and smoothed decoration was found at the left side of the scull. 7: 4. double-edged sword with ring-shaped pommel at the left side of the skeleton.5 cm wide at its base. Surján. 180–0º. spread from the right hand as far as the thigh and foot bones. Törökszentmiklós. 3. 7: 1) 2. 8) 4. The ends of the 5 cm wide cross-piece were covered with two boat-shaped bronze decorations. A biconical green glass bead was placed into the middle of the ring. 97 3. Kastély-dűlő. The length of the fragment is 20 cm. a short. The exterior diameter of the ring is 5 cm. Beke Pál halma: A double-edged sword with ring-shaped pommel was found together with other finds in the vicinity of a Sarmatian cemetery.5 cm. White whetstone. spherical shaped green bead. beside a 175 cm long male skeleton. 7: 3) Beside the sword laid an iron knife and a large. length: 38. the short sword characterised Sarmatians in the period before the Marcomannic Wars. 1586. especially the hilt was in poor condition. at a rescue excavation conducted by Sándor Hajmási in 1949. Their chronological attribution is usually uncertain. It was placed with its edge up. Researchers dated pieces from Gáva and Fig. the drawing was made before restoration. farm no. A small round bronze buckle. The knife itself seemed to be one-edged and asymmetrical. 7: 3). XXII: 5). 2. among them a fragment of As we can see. starting beneath the elbow.5 cm. 3. because this type was in fashion in this age15. 4. Iron pieces between the feet. The other piece comes from beside a robbed male skeleton. József Csenki. The width of the cross-piece was 5 cm. remains of a scabbard chape could be traced. At the right side of the skeleton a grey. 202. The point of the knife is missing. Taf. XXV: 5). 3–4: after ISTVÁNOVITS 1986. It was oriented SE–NW (120–310º). ring-pommeled knife. The object. they could not belong to a different group of swords: a. Three bronze belt terminal plates. 1. Height: 12. 6: Grave find from Gáva–Kató-halom 1–2: after JÓSA 1915. (Motorway M0) grave 7501: In the course of excavation conducted by Valéria Kulcsár in 2003. The earliest find (Újszilvás–Gólyajárás) is dated to the late 1st – early 2nd century by the Scharnierfibel that accompanied the sword. After the restoration the ring-pommeled hilt fell apart. According to common opinion. XXI. Under the left part of the pelvis. Újszilvás– Gólyajárás grave 1 (after TARI 1994. Length: 17. an iron object at the upper right part of the breast13. 2. almost parallel with the left femur. a long. 2: 2) . 3.5 cm. Üllő site 5.98 Eszter Istvánovits – Valéria Kulcsár a sword with a cross-piece. 1. handmade vessel.) A grave was found on the land owned by Mrs. a grave surrounded by a ditch was found. 6. wheel-made vessel between the ankles. Mihály Párducz suggested that it had a ring-shaped pommel. At the lower part. A fluted blue glass bead. Fig. Width: 4.8 cm (Fig. and these swords usually had ring-shaped pommels. Only a 3. (Fig. b. István Dinnyés accepted this argument and added that the narrow blade and the cross-piece also refer to the ring-shaped type16. but Mihály Párducz suggested that. 9). (known also as Petőfiszállás– Majsai u. 3: Szentes–Kistőke grave 143 (after PÁRDUCZ 1944. 5. the short pieces of the type were spread across the Great Hungarian Plain. A 42. Gáva–Kató-halom (after JÓSA 1915. Kiskunfélegyháza–Belsőferencszállás. judging from the size of the weapons.2 cm long fragment of the hilt was preserved. Tápiószele–Szumrák grave 90. In the case of two further swords the characteristic ringshaped pommel was not found.5 cm long iron sword. was found. Other finds: a grey. 4. Handmade brick-red vessel with black spots and irregular imprints on the side and bottom. 2: Kiskunfélegyháza– Belsőferencszállás (after PÁRDUCZ 1956. 7: Ring-pommeled short swords of Sarmatian type in the Carpathian Basin: 1. A strongly profiled (kräftigprofilierte) bronze fibula14. The deceased was buried in a coffin and partly robbed at the breast. Judging from the shortness of the sword. its thickness 0.7 cm. fig. 202). the basis for the dating was the strongly profiled (kräftig profilierte) fibula. following Géza Nagy. we do not have dating material from the grave. it is questionable whether the weapons really had a ring shaped pommel. In the case of Gojeva Gora we see also a ring (here we have to note. and this suggests a similar dating for the grave in question. that the hilt goes beyond the ring and does not seem to organically belong to it. Roman pieces also got to the German Barbaricum. Marcin Biborski dated the use of Roman ring-pommeled swords between 160/170–260 and separated two basic types: the longer. Opoka – Poland. In reality the accompanying finds do not support this dating. it seems that its length did not reach even 20 cm. in the case of the latter – the belt terminals and the bead. . Another difference is that unlike the rest of pieces in question. Most of them were found in the Elba Region. from the very beginning refer to a Pannonian weapon from Szil as an analogy. on the first hand at the territory of Schleswig-Holstein. we can assume that at the turn of the 1st–2nd centuries. Jutland and the island of Fyn17. Brokær Mark – Denmark. dagger like pieces18. Most researchers. In the course of the study of Barbarian swords we should overview also provincial pieces with ring-shaped pommels. with no traces of riveting on the hilt19. Mihály Párducz was right to put the swords from Kiskunfélegyháza and Tápiószele to the second period of the Sarmatian Age. The basis for the dating was provided by analogies from the steppe. as if it was not the ring of the sword. Today we know of a total of sixty ring-pommeled swords from the territory of the Roman Empire. 9: Ring-pommeled dagger from Üllő. it is too short even for a dagger. Four swords (Ardánháza/Ardanovo – Ukraine. In this case we have to emphasize that the weapon(?) differs from the usual type in many respects. 8: Ring-pommeled sword from Újszilvás– Gólyajárás grave 1 (photo by Eszter Istvánovits) Szentes-Kistőke to the period after the Marcomannic-Sarmatian Wars.Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 16 2008 99 Fig. In the case of the former. So. as the latest. so we can define it with more probability as a knife. it is one-edged. but an object of another function rusted to it). Transcarpathian Region. site 5 (Motorway M0) grave 7501 RING-POMMELED SWORDS IN PANNONIA The ring-pommeled sword of the Sarmatian Barbaricum of the Carpathian Basin was found in Gáva. spatha like type and the shorter. However. Burials found in the vicinity can be dated to the 4th century. that is to say. Fig. short swords with ring-shaped pommel (Újszilvás) appeared in the Great Hungarian Plain and stayed in use at least up to the 4th century. Despite its bad preservation. In the case of the ring-pommeled knife from Üllő. Jutland and Gojeva Gora – West Ukraine) have short blades and a short guard. in the list of Pannonian Roman swords. 10: Hilts of Roman ring-pommeled swords (after BIBORSKI 1994 Abb. To-date we know of eight ring-pommeled swords in the find material of Pannonia. shield bosses covered with golden sheets with figural relief decoration (like pieces from Herpály and Lilla Harg). In his opinion. Fig. and 10): 1. Péter Kovács was dealing with this question in connection with the miniature versions of the so-called beneficiarius spears. Ulla Lund-Hansen connected the Scandinavian appearance of such swords with the impact of Marcomannic Wars (in the sense. Unfortunately. So. and also from a Danish site of Himlingøje the silver vessel with unique decoration is known. Biborski assumed that the appearance of the cross-piece was the result of Sarmatian impact20. On the basis of datable cases. Let us see these differences (cf. most of them come from stray finds. At the same time. that Scandinavian participants of the war brought this type home)22. It cannot be a coincidence that pieces from the German Barbaricum are concentrated in this region. Recent research poured light on to several Scandinavian-Sarmatian connections. There are also four depictions. these two objects could serve as badges of rank for soldiers who had different functions in administration and public order. in several cases found together with sword-shaped pendants. On the rim of the vessel we see images of humans holding a ring-pommeled sword. opposing the opinions of Nándor Fettich.25 the common characteristic of Roman pieces is that the ring . While Sarmatian swords were made as one piece. 5) In the case of short swords. 7. That means that the ring was not riveted. To common elements. but smithed as one piece with the hilt21. the so-called Kolbenarmringen. we think that significant difference can be made between ring-pommeled swords of Roman and of Sarmatian origin.100 Eszter Istvánovits – Valéria Kulcsár Fig. is the exceptional Barbarian site. As to our opinion. and recently a bronze pendant depicting such a weapon was found in Baracs24. Mihály Párducz and Jenő Fitz. reflecting the relationship between the elite of the Carpathian Basin and of Scandinavia belongs the sword from Geszteréd and the buckle from TiszalökRázom23. he did not consider the piece from Szil to be Barbarian. M. We can mention mainly insignia of rank: golden (or gilded) bracelets with widening ends. golden torques. where a ring-pommeled sword definitely analogous to Sarmatian pieces was found. Kovács made this conclusion from the fact that all the objects found in the warrior grave from Szil are typically Roman. the origin of the weapon itself must be judged not from the accompanying finds. Hamfelde (Period B2/C1) situated at the southern border of the Jutland Penninsula. On the basis of the lamp and the coin. The present total length is 45 cm.5 cm. but in several historical situations (e.4 cm thick iron ring with an interior diameter of 2. the already mentioned sword from (Somogy)Szil seemed to be clearly Barbarian. 11: Hilts of Roman ring-pommeled swords: 1–2. the thickness of the ring is regular. the rhomboid cross-section of the ring refers to Roman origin29. 14)36. The Hungarian Historical Museum bought it together with a large number of Roman provincial finds. At the base of the hilt. iron mountings. The point of the sword is missing. the length was 64 cm. The double-edged. like the characteristic Roman swords. that is to say.. After restoration it shows an absolutely different shape. On the basis of the facts outlined above we can suggest. Two of them were damascened27. these circumstances throw a new light on the character of the Roman-Barbarian relationship. iron knife. On the basis of the drawing in the inventory book. and the riveting can be well seen..“. Trajan’s Dacian Wars) they fought as the allies of the Empire. “. According to its characteristic features (regular ring without riveting) this sword recalls Sarmatian types35. Siscia. ring-pommeled short swords or daggers became part of Roman provincial armament also. (Fig. The question is whether there is a relationship between Sarmatian and Roman ring-pommeled swords. 12)30.it was broken into two pieces at the base of the hilt. but the pieces precisely fit together. The same was Géza Nagy’s opinion. we do not claim that these were Sarmatian warriors’ burials. It is evidenced by the angled cross-sections of the thickening ring and the riveted hilt. The situation is different in the case of the sword from Matrica. in cremation grave 14. It came to light that the ring part is a so called “kidney shaped” one. We could not study the original object.. iron nails and objects of unknown function). It is said to have been found in a horseman’s burial. Fettich also mentions that it is absolutely similar to the Gáva sword with ring-shaped pommel. Sarmatians usually played the role of enemies of Rome. 11). The ring has a round cross-section. An unusually long sword from the Budaörs carriage grave also had Sarmatian features.g. as also noted by András Jósa”31. However. generally known and used in Sarmatian territories for centuries in the Carpathian Basin. we’ll assume the following: Two swords from Siscia. The shape of the ring is different. as a working hypothesis that the Romans. To these features belong the breaking of the weapon before burial. The upper end of the hilt ends in a 1. (Fig. recently Zsolt Mráv succeeded in identifying the ring-shaped fragment of the hilt (in the 1950s the piece was 101 Fig. It is notable that some features of the burial rite – emphasizing that the majority of grave-goods are Roman – have Barbarian (Sarmatian) character. Abb. In the case of Roman pieces the ring is thickening towards its top. In this regard it is significant that both types are met in the Carpathian Basin Here we should again emphasize that in the early period it is not characteristic of the Sarmatians of the Carpathian Basin to place weapons into burials.Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 16 2008 was riveted to the hilt. In the case of Sarmatian weapons. from which the present blade is 32. Of course. in the case of Sarmatians. Further grave-goods were characteristic Roman objects (sherds. but of Sarmatian type. lamp. the object shows features characteristic of Roman swords32. the publisher dated the sword to the late 2nd century34. probably took over this kind of sword. the hilt is plain. Judging from the publication. ring-pommeled sword was found in the Southern cemetery of Százhalombatta/Matrica. The pommel of the sword from Aquincum is thickening. because for a long time it seemed to be lost. So. 7) reinventoried as of unknown provenience). The burial was dated to the middle third of the 2nd century.. 3. as on the published drawings.1 cm. that they were hardly used. the ring is a “kidney shaped” one28. and pieces from Poetovio and Savaria are of definitely Roman origin (Fig. In the case of the piece from Carnuntum. coin. If . As we can see. Savaria (after HUNDT 1955. However. Its ring’s thickness is regular and the hilt was smithed as one piece and not riveted to the blade (Fig. 5: 1–2. the straight cross-piece significantly protrudes at both sides. the small number of finds of swords in question does not mean. If we examine the eight Pannonian weapons in this regard. The features of the swords from Százhalombatta and Budaörs show that these weapons are not of Roman. the cross-section is angled. 13). 2. The latter pieces are frequently encrusted26. It was broken in the process of the burial33. According to depictions. So. the borrowing of the form could had happened somewhen in the first half of the 2nd century37. The piece from Üllő represents a transition form between dagger and knife. 13: Sword from Fig. the earliest datable case is the Budaörs one. 15: A family grave-stone from Aquincum. 12: Drawing of the Szil sword in the inventory book (courtesy of the Hungarian National Museum) Fig. Sarmatians and other Iranians or people under Iranian influence (Fig. Romans wore it in a different way than Sarmatians did. At the same time. and these objects were made by Sarmatians themselves. as it can be well seen on the family gravestone from Aquincum (Fig. 15)38.102 Eszter Istvánovits – Valéria Kulcsár Fig. This fact refers to the circumstance that ring-shaped pommels were in general use in Sarmatian mileu. whereas Romans suspended it onto the belt. As we could see on the Kerch depictions cited above. Later the technology of ring-pommeled swords (riveting). VI: 5) . Budaörs (after Southern cemetery. MRÁV 2006. Abb. their shape (strongly thickening ring at the upper part) and decoration (inlay) developed mainly according to Roman taste. the custom of wearing the sword formed in different ways. This is a new aspect supporting the hypothesis that it was the Romans who borrowed this Fig. 14: Sword from Százhalombatta. with a ring-pommeled sword at the side of man at the left (photo by Valéria Kulcsár) this adoption really went on. 4) wore it fixed to the thigh. 9) grave 14 (after TOPÁL 1981. see BIBORSKI 1994. BIBORSKI 1993. 386–387. KS 64. 19.:Archaelógiai Értesítő. NOTES 1. polgárok Aquincumban.4. 8. ISTVÁNOVITS–KULCSÁR 1995. 170. 147. Exhibition arranged on the 100th anniversary of the Aquincum Museum] Budapest 1995. 38.63–64. 3.1–3. ISTVÁNOVITS 1993. photo or drawing of the sword can be found. soldiers. Abb.1. Taf. – finds were published on the basis of the inventory description. for the time being it is difficult to say. 85... 961 with earlier reference. 31. 39–40. Cegléd inv. Cf. 35. CARNAP-BORNHEIM 2001.383. BIBORSKI 1994. ISTVÁNOVITS–KULCSÁR 1994.no. 100–101. 107–108. 22.Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 16 2008 type of weapons from Sarmatians and not vice versa. 6.47. 63. 28.4. Length: 28. Die Schwerter des 1. Budapest AH: Archaeologia Hungarica. BIBORSKI 1993. 151. BIBORSKI 1993. PÁRDUCZ 1944. 266. ris. XVI: 8. BÂRCĂ 1999. 2. TOPÁL 1981. Biborski. 259–260. Inv. cat. 39. similar to ours. with a summary of earlier references PÁRDUCZ 1944. 360–365. 90. HAZANOV 1971. IV. Nr.2. Cf. 171. 144. CARNAP-BORNHEIM–ILKJÆR 1996. [Gods. katonák.7. JÓSA 1915. XXIV: 11. 14. Fig. in print). Abb. Nyíregyháza inv. BIBORSKI 1994. 385–388. 12. In the catalogue of the exhibition no precise description. Kossuth Museum. DINNYÉS 1991. was made by Polish archaeologist Sylwester Sadowski (Lublin). The latter would be realistic from chronological point of view. 10. ISTVÁNOVITS–KULCSÁR 1992. VADAY 1989. 64–65.no. Hungarian National Museum. Abb. This information is important. In the question of differences between Sarmatian and Roman swords an independent conclusion. ISTVÁNOVITS–KULCSÁR– CARNAP-BORNHEIM 2006. PÁRDUCZ 1956. 26. 33. with further references. citizens in Aquincum. 7. He also thinks that Romans borrowed the type from Sarmatians. this hypothesis was not repeated in his later study: BIBORSKI 1994. 11. 16. 43. 102. ISTVÁNOVITS 1986 with further references. 960–965 with further reference. For the description of Roman weapons. LUND-HANSEN 1995. Aquincum Museum inv. fig. Kiskun Museum. 66. cat. 17. We thank Zsolt Mráv for the possibility to study his work in print and especially for placing the drawing of the Budaörs sword at our disposal. Cegléd. However. HAZANOV 1971. unpublished. Abb. Abb.no. 35. 37. 151. 24.27. 21. 43–44. fig. It was dated to the 3rd century. PÁRDUCZ 1966. 4: 1–3. BIBORSKI 1994. DAVYDOVA 1990. 402. CARNUNTUM 1992. BIBLIOGRAPHY 103 158–163. BIBORSKI 1993. 30.no. XXII: 5. 25. – finds were published on the basis of the inventory description. Hungarian National Museum inv. taking into consideration that this custom is known at the Sarmatians (cf. 9:5. Abb. 57. 4: 6). DVORNICHENKO–FIODOROV-DAVYDOV 1994. KOVÁCS 2005. 102–103. 93. 166. 29. 6. 74. 18. 15.11. 79–81.1904. 52. Kiállítás az Aquincumi Múzeum megnyitásának 100. (disc: 93. 46–48. 4. 56–58. 137). 9. 33. Nr. LUND-HANSEN 2001. Cat. 13. See also MRÁV 2006. BIBORSKI 1993.1. 4: 6. no. Jahrhunderts n. 2: 2. 93. Despite the serious chronological difference. 36. 136.1–3.5. Kiskunfélegyháza inv. ISTVÁNOVITS– KULCSÁR 2001. 1. PÁRDUCZ 1944. 2. VADAY 1989. 17. 91.5. HAZANOV 1971. Our consultation proved to be very useful for both studies. 960–961 with further reference. cat. old inv. 21: 4. 4: 6a. In the material collected by Biborski we find also piece analogous to the ones found on Sarmatian territory. KOVÁCS 2005. 282. ISTVÁNOVITS– KULCSÁR 2001. we did not succeed in finding the sword in the Sarmatian collection. Jósa András Museum. LXXXIV: 1. We thank Zsolt Mráv for this information. Chr. fig. AAH: Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarium Hungarica. We thank him for the opportunity to study his unpublished manuscript. (SADOWSKI. The sword is displayed on the permanent archaeological exhibition of the Aquincum Museum.: Istenek. mapping of the majority of the sites shows a sort of system: most of them were found by the route Aquincum–Porolissum. 23. Abb. PÁRDUCZ 1950. 6–9. with the summary of the most important data on ring-pommeled swords. KOVÁCS 2005.. 34.no. évfordulója alkalmából. LUND-HANSEN 1995. 5. 79 with further reference. 3: 2. See also MRÁV 2006. Biborski himself examined this piece separately (BIBORSKI 1994. Anhang 1. 276. 12–13. 103. 13. XXV: 5. 6. HAVASSY 1998. 21.10: 3. For their spread see: KACZANOWSKI 1994. 32. Budapest ArchÉrt.no. 27. Budapest BIBORSKI 1993: M.) TARI 1994. LUND-HANSEN 1995. 5. MRÁV 2006. where this borrowing went on (in the Carpathian Basin or east of it). ROSTOVTSEV 1913–1914. 20. und 2. Kossuth Museum. Taf. 63. aus dem römischen Imperium und dem . 311. 43–44.5 cm.1. Carnap-Bornheim von– J. (Hrsgg. Давыдова. STUPPNER. Kulcsár. Specimina Nova.) «Наука». d. Saalburg Jahrbuch XIV. Brăila. Múzeumi Füzetek 51. Katalógus. 1991.-J. alánok. Havassy. 1994. Roman and Germanic elements in the armament of the barrow-graves of the 2nd-3rd centuries AD in the Great Hungarian Plain. Kulcsár – C. TEJRAL–A. Februar 1994 (Hrsg. Aszód – Nyíregyháza. Dinnyés. ISTVÁNOVITS – KULCSÁR 1992: E. Ленинград. (1987–1989) 1992. Istvánovits – V. Bârcă. 1989. Kulcsár.А. 50–59 ISTVÁNOVITS 1986: E. Ásatások a gávai Katóhalmon és környékén. Ursachen und Wirkungen. Visegrád. Altum Castrum IV. Istros IX. Kulcsár. Archeologický Ústav Akademie Věd České Republiky Brno. Múzeumi Füzetek 51. Spisy Archeologického Ústavu AV ČR Brno 1. ArchÉrt. А. Gyula. Sarmatians through the eyes of strangers. 91–110 JAMÉ: A Jósa András Múzeum Évkönyve. Jutland Archaeological Publications XXV: 5. JOBST) Wien. In: Markomannenkriege. Jósa András Múzeum Kiadványai 47. – III в.-5. AAH XLV. 91–146.) H.) ZS. Ursachen und Wirkungen. In: Сокровища сарматских вождей и древние города Поволжья (Отв. до н. Фёдоров-Давыдов. 1995. Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 36. (Hrsgg. 2001. KULCSÁR. Kandidátusi disszertáció. 1993 (1994) 91–130 Budapest. In: Beiträge zu römischer und barbarischer Bewaffnung in den ersten vier nachchristlichen Jahrhunderten.э. (szerk HAVASSY P. И. In: Limes XIX. Archeologický Ústav Akademie Věd České Republiky Brno.104 Eszter Istvánovits – Valéria Kulcsár Barbaricum. Jósa. The Sarmatian warrior. Дворниченко–Г. Illerup Ådal. Proceedings of the international archaeological conference held in Aszód and Nyíregyháza in 1999 (ed. Istvánovits – V. ISTVÁNOVITS–V. 1994. TEJRAL–A. Typologie und Chronologie der Ringknaufschwerter. – Sarmatian graves from Hévízgyörk. Spisy Archeologického Ústavu AV ČR Brno 1. In: Markomannenkriege. In: International Connections of the Barbarians of the Carpathian Basin in the 1st–5th centuries AD. Москва. В. 1996 CARNAP-BORNHEIM 2001: C. Istvánovits – V. Kulcsár. Die Prachtausrüstungen. Istvánovits – V. Budapest HAVASSY 1998: P. Akten des 2. Das Gräberfeld aus dem 4. 2006. The place of the barbarian warrior burial from Tiszalök-Rázompuszta in the third century history of the Upper Tisza region. 139–148 KOVÁCS 2005: P. 9–32 ISTVÁNOVITS – KULCSÁR 2001: E.э. 1971 HUNDT 1955: H. Carnap-Bornheim von.) H. М. Боспорские надгробные рельефы V в. Brno. 20. Istvánovits. Proceedings of the XIXth International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies (ed. Раскопки курганов в зоне строительства Калмыцко-Астраханской и Никольской рисовых оросительных систем. FRIESINGER–J.) E. W. 145–201 DVORNICHENKO–FIODOROV-DAVYDOV 1994: В. Gyulai Katalógusok 6. Dosenortbändern und Miniaturschwert anhängern. 85–97 BÂRCĂ 1999: V.) E. Ilkjær. 1999. 1992 DAVYDOVA 1990: Л. 197–210 KACZANOWSKI 1994: P. KULCSÁR. 125–138 CARNUNTUM 1992: Carnuntum. Nyíregyháza JÓSA 1915: A. Katalog der Ausstellung des Archäologischen Museums Carnuntinum in Bad Deutsch Altenburg. Kovács.). ISTVÁNOVITS – V. 2001. Carnap-Bornheim von: Das Waffengrab von Geszteréd (Komitat Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg) aus „germanischer” Sicht. 139–169 ISTVÁNOVITS – KULCSÁR–CARNAP-BORNHEIM 2006: E. 14–132 FontArchHung: Fontes Archaeologici Hungariae. 1998. Kaczanowski. Lublin–Marburg. – Погребения с умбонами в Барбарикуме Карпатского бассейна к востоку от Дуная. – Stichwaffen und Bögen östlich der Donau gelegenen sarmatisches Barbaricum des Karpatenbeckens. н. 1990 DINNYÉS 1991: I. Jahrhundert von Tiszadob-Sziget. 35. . In: International Connections of the Barbarians of the Carpathian Basin in the 1st-5th centuries AD.) CLAUS von CARNAP-BORNHEIM. 1993. Istvánovits. bis 24. Каталог выставки. Szarmaták az Alföldön. Sarmatic swords and daggers with ring-shape hilt in the Northern and North-western of the Black Sea. Das Problem der Wiederspielung der Markomannenkriege in der Waffenfunden des Barbaricums. 1955. Aszód – Nyíregyháza. Internationalen Kolloquiums in Marburg a. StudCom 22. «Наука». Hundt. A hévízgyörki szarmata sírok. К. 99–120 CARNAP-BORNHEIM–ILKJÆR 1995: C. Proceedings of the international archaeological conference held in Aszód and Nyíregyháza in 1999 (ed. Északkelet-Magyarország területének római kori története. Istvánovits – V. Biborski. STUPPNER. Beneficiarius lances and ring-pommel swords in Pannonia. Смирнов. 47–96 ISTVÁNOVITS – KULCSÁR 1994: E. In: Jazigok. 147–174 HAZANOV 1971: А. 1915. 1986 manuscript ISTVÁNOVITS 1993: E. Nachträge zu den römischen Ringknaufschwetern. JAMÉ XXX–XXXII. Århus. Хазанов. Москва. 405–416 ISTVÁNOVITS – KULCSÁR 1995: E. Pajzsos temetkezések a Dunától keletre eső Kárpát-medencei Barbaricumban. roxolánok. (Hrsg. Jósa András Múzeum Kiadványai 47. Schild-Bestattungen im östlich der Donagelegenen Barbaricum des Karpatenbeckens. 1994. Marburger Kolloquium 1994. ред. Brno. Lahn. BIBORSKI 1994: M. FRIESINGER–J. Очерки военного дела сарматов. Das Erbe Roms an der Donau I. Szálfegyverek és íjak a Dunától keletre fekvő kárpát-medencei szarmata Barbaricumban. Százhalombatta. Párducz. Contribution to the researches upon origin and spread of the swords with ring-shaped pommel. Die sarmatischen Denkmäler des Komitats Szolnok. Korai szarmata sír Újszilváson. VICZE. Band 13. Андреа Вадаи – Валерия Кульчар. Die Waffengräber der lokalen Elite in Pannonien. In: U. Санкт-Петербург. AAH 18. 1950 PÁRDUCZ 1956: M. Állandó kiállítás vezetője. Mráv. In: Százhalombatta története. Római kor. Sadowski. 385–416 LUND-HANSEN 2001: U. 2001. Ein Gräberfeld der jüngeren römischen Kaiserzeit auf Seeland. POROSZLAI – M. 1981 VADAY 1989: A. 157–188 MRÁV 2006: Zs. 955–970 LUND-HANSEN 1995: U. 141–169. (1988–1989) 1989 VADAY – KULCSÁR 1984: Х. Matrica Múzeum. Beiträge zur Geschichte der Sarmaten in Ungarn im II. Das Fundmaterial. Античная декоративная живопись на юге России. 33–73 PÁRDUCZ 1944: M. Gold Rings – Symbols of Sex and Rank. Ringknaufschwert und Lanzen aus einem Römerzeitlichen Wagengrab in Budaörs. – Early Sarmatian grave from Újszilvás. 1998. University of Pécs. II. AH XVIII. – Denkmäler der Sarmatenzeit Ungarns. Stockholm. AAH XXXVI. III. Paradeschild. SOPRONI 1998: S. II. 239–261 . A szarmatakor emlékei Magyarországon. 259-261 TOPÁL 1981: J. The sword from 8th grave on cemetery in Zvenihorod–„Goeva gora” in Ukraine.). Párducz. seine Bedeutung und internationalen Beziehungen. 1995. Budapest. Párducz. Vaday. 1984. The Scythian Age cemetery of Tápiószele. A szarmatakor emlékei Magyarországon. Antaeus 17–18. ArchÉrt 131. Lőrinczy G. Überregionale Betrachtungen. 1944 PÁRDUCZ 1950: M. AH XXX. Szeged. – Von der Steinzeit bis zum Mittelalter. születésnapjára (szerk. Párducz. AAH VII. The Southern Cemetery of Matrica (Százhalombatta-Dunafüred). FontArchHung. 2005. 1913–1914 SADOWSKI in print: S. Topál. – Denkmäler der Sarmatenzeit Ungarns. Soproni. К вопросу о так называемых сарматских пряжках.Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 16 2008 VISY. 35–91 105 ROSTOVCEV 1913–1914: М. Jahrhundert. Ростовцев. H. Nordiske Fortidsminder Serie B. И. In: A kőkortól a középkorig. und III. 1966. Ein Beitrag zur Archäologie und Geschichte des sarmatischen Barbaricums. 1956 139–182 PÁRDUCZ 1966: M. KVHAA Konferenser 51. 15–21 StudCom: Studia Comitatensia. 2006. Lund-Hansen. (szerk. Tari. I. Himlingøje – Seeland – Europa. Lund-Hansen. Budapest TARI 1994: E. III. Necklaces and bracelets in Scandinavia and Continental Europe from the Late Roman and Migration periods. Lund Hansen et alii: Himlingøje – Seeland – Europa. 1994. Tanulmányok Trogmayer Ottó 60. København.