Early Medieval Sword

Guards from Bulgaria

Archaeologia Bulgarica Deyan RABOVYANOV
XV, 2 (2011), 73-86

Subjects of this study are a specific type of sword guards found on the territory
of Northern Bulgaria. A characteristic feature of these items is that at the bottom
there is a metal plate which outflanks the lower part of the blade. Although there
are three types of sword guards out of the four known to date, differentiated by the
shape, a common tendency in all these three particular types could be traced. The
chronology of the objects, based on archaeological evidence, falls into the period
of the First Bulgarian kingdom (681-1018) and the beginning of the Byzantine
domination (1018-1185) but not later than the 11th century.
The comparison of these sword guards with the ones found in Eastern and
Western Europe (Кирпичников 1966, 18-60; Измайлов 1997, 60-79; Jones et al.
2002; Nicolle 1999a; 1999b; Oakeshott 1994; 2000; Petersen 1919; Vinski 1977;
Marek 2005) did not show similarities between them. This fact requires adducing
other parallels which could establish the origin and the appearance of these sword
guards in Bulgaria.
The first to turn to these artefacts was Valeri Yotov, who suggested a date in
the 10th century, thereby attributing a Byzantine origin to them (Йотов 2004, 40-
45; 2009). However, the available information about these sword guards does not
seem to support his hypothesis.
The earliest object to appear in the scholarly literature is the bronze sword
guard discovered in 1948 during the excavations of St. Vaklinov in Pliska. It was
found northeast from the Little palace among the ruins of an edifice that had a
public purpose and dated to 10th – 11th c., thanks to the coins retrieved therein
(Станчев 1955, 190-194). The sword guard was defined as a part of a “bronze
cross-piece for a sword”, consisting of two halves, cast separately, and embracing
the iron part of the sword. The author identified the find as being a part of a typi-
cal medieval sword, which was widespread among the Slavs. The identification is
based on a photo obtained from Niederle (Станчев 1955, 208).
From the detailed photo (fig. 1), we can assume that the sword guard was
designed for a sword with a blade 6.5 cm wide, with the sleeve under the quillons
being 2 cm long. The quillons were relatively short, but well defined with rounded
ends. The cylindrical bush that was meant to embrace the sword hilt is 1.6 cm high
and 3.2 cm wide. In the base, there is a relief ring which is the only decoration of
the sword.
The sword from the village of Galovo was discovered by chance by tractor
drivers from the Ostrovo dike which were passing by the village (fig. 2). Nikolov is
quite brief in mentioning that the same sword guard was found in Pliska (Николов
1962, 36). The sword is 89 cm long and has a rounded point, without a fuller. Of
the hilt, there is a metal tang preserved with two openings for the rivets. This
object has been studied in details by V. Yotov (Йотов 2004, 40) who concludes
that there are no immediate or closer parallels for it. He considers, however, that
the sword of the Niederle’s monograph (fig. 26), as well as another one found in
Černi brod, Slovakia (fig. 9) and identified as being Byzantine are similar to this
one.
74 deyan rabovyanov

Fig. 3. Sword guard from

northeastern Bulgaria (after Йотов
2004, табло XXIX/429).

Fig. 1. Sword guard found in Fig. 2. Sword from Galovo vil-

1948 in Pliska (after Станчев lage, district Vratza (after Йотов
1955, 207, обр. 24). 2004, табло XXIX/421).

Fig. 4. Sword guard found in 2005 in

Pliska (after Йотов 2009, 256, рис. 2).

Fig. 6. Sword from grave 85 in Aradac-

Mečka (after Kiss 1987, 196, Abb. 2).

Fig. 7. Sword from Tekija (after Janković 1983, 63, Pl. IV/1).

Fig. 5. Sword from warrior’s grave from the Agora Fig. 8. Sword from Andalusia (after García 2001, 185, fig. 2).
of Corinth (after Weinberg 1974, 519, fig. 4).
early medieval sword guards from bulgaria 75

A characteristic feature of the sword guard found in Galovo is the distinct

separation of the basic parts with profiled canals and the relatively long quillons
which end in relief protuberances set at an angle to the blade. Most probably they
had not only a decorative function, but they must have served as “holders” on
which the enemy’s swordblade would have been held up.
A similar shape has another sword guard from northeastern Bulgaria which is
part of a private collection (fig. 3). It is bronze cast and is 12.3 cm long. V. Yotov
compares it with the one found in 1948 in Pliska, as well as with the one in Galovo
and another one in the Louvre dating from the 9th – 10th centuries (Йотов 2004,
45).
The sword guard is differentiated by its detailed morphology (fig. 3), as well as
by its both sides, in between the bushing of the hilt and the sleeve which embraces
the blade there is a relief triangle pointing to the blade. The one preserved quillon
ends in a small ball separated by a relief ring.
The last of the objects discussed in my work (fig. 4) was found in 2005 during
archaeological excavations of the ‘wooden’ fortress in Pliska. It was found together
with 24 other objects of iron, copper, bronze, bone and glass in a layer of ash in a
pit plated with bricks in pit „И“. According to P. Georgiev, who explored the site,
the pit dates from the middle of 11th c., suggesting that the objects were equipment
hidden there during the Pecheneg invasions in the 1030’s – 1040’s (Георгиев 2008,
354).
Unfortunately, in both articles the sword guard is shown not to scale, thereby
hindering its further description. Distinctive features of this guard are the rela-
tively long sleeve that embraces the blade and also the proportionate bushing for
the sword’s handle. The short, concave quillons, which are joined by the concave
arcs with relief swelling, present a special characteristic of this sword guard (fig.
4).
The question of the origin and the chronology of the four sword guards is in
fact connected with the problem of the early medieval swords development in the
Eastern Mediterranean, which ties into the broader question of influence coming
from the Byzantine empire.
In the 1960’s Hoffmeyer pointed out that the lack of specific artefacts for
research makes it impossible to single out one particular kind of sword that is
Byzantine. The problem is complicated by the fact that the Roman heritage
intermingled with the traditions of different peoples in or outside the borders
of the Empire, which inevitably influenced the art of war (Hoffmeyer 1966, 13,
94-97). Besides, warfare is an area strongly susceptible to fashions coming from
the outside. The eclectic character of the two major military forces in the region –
Byzantium and the Arab caliphate, combined with the common Roman inherit-
ance is making the characteristic features of the Roman swords easily recognizable
in the early medieval arms of the Mediterranean region. These are the straight
two-edged blades and the small D-shaped protective sword guard that has more
confining than protective function (Bishop / Coulston 1993, 53-54, 69-74, 111-
112, 126-135, 162-165; James 2004, 140-142, 145-151; Rapin 2001; Miks 2007).
Bearing this in mind, Hoffmeyer introduces the term “Latin type of sword” to
distinguish the barbarian sword used by the warriors in Europe (Hoffmeyer 1961,
43-44). Besides, the straight double-edged swords with rounded point and a wide
blade were almost binding to the warriors from the Islamic and the Byzantine
regions as late as the 10th century (Nicolle 1991, 302-303; 1999b).
A sword found in the grave of a warrior in the Corinthian agora dates to the
7th century (Weinberg 1974, 517-521) (fig. 5), as does the one in grave 85 in the
76 deyan rabovyanov

Fig. 9. Sword from Černi brod

(after Kiss 1987, 199, Abb. 5).

Fig. 10. Sword from Garabonc (after

Szőke et al. 1992, 504, Taf. 20).

Fig. 11. Sword from Kunagota Fig. 12. Sword guard from Serce Liman
(after Kiss 1987, 200, Abb. 6). shipwreck (after Nicolle 2002a, 163, fig. 28).

necropolis of Aradac-Mečka (Kiss 1987, 203-204) (fig. 6), a sword of either a

Sasanian or Early-Islamic origin found in Oman (Nicolle 1991, 302-303, 312, 318;
2002a, 162-163) and part of the swords in the graves in the Tzebeldinskaya plain
(Воронов / Шенкао 1982, 130). The swords kept in Topkapı saray which were
unconditionally attributed to sacred Islamic personalities (Alexander 2001, 196-
199; Nicolle 1991, 302-303, 312, 318; 2002a, 162-163) should be revisited, since
such identification requires further proofs.
The sword from Galovo (fig. 2), as well as another one with an identical blade,
attributed to the Omayad caliphate in Spain (fig. 8) (García 2001, 183, 187), the
swords from Garabonc in Hungary (fig. 10) (Szőke et al. 1992, 504) and in Černi
brod in Slovakia (Kiss 1987, 204-205) are all dated to the 8th – 9th centuries.
The swords from Tekija (fig. 7) (Janković 1983, 58), Kunagota (fig. 11) (Kiss
1987, 205-206), Sfintu George (Kiss 1987, 206-207) in the region of the middle
Danube river are dated to the 10th century. Same is the dating of another sword
from the excavations in Nishapur (Nicolle 1991, 302-303, 318; 2002, 162-163).
Considerable number but unfortunately more stylized are the images from the
early medieval sword guards from bulgaria 77

territories in the cultural influence of Byzantium and the Islamic world (Alexander
2001, 193-196; Nicolle 1991, 303, 320-323; 1999b).
There is one interesting observation made by Oakeshott, one of the eminent
scholars on ancient weapons, who suggests that if the blade changed in order to
satisfy the improvement of the defensive armour, the variations in the shape of
the protective sword guard and the pommel were there to satisfy the changes in
the fashion and the taste (Oakeshott 1951, 49). To this I would add as a factor the
preferred fighting technique.
The sword guards in which the sleeve embraces the base of the blade have their
specific shape that cannot be seen among the early Byzantine and Roman swords.
This shape owes to the use of “ricasso” fighting technique, or the so called “Italian
grip” which is the placement of the index finger of the hand which is holding the
sword in front of the protective sword guard, covering the side of the grip (fig. 27).
This style ensures better control over the sword and a variety of blows (Haskins
1952, 258-261; Nicolle 1991, 305-306; 2002a, 158).
We assume that this fighting technique was developed in India but its first
depictions can be seen on Sasanian silver vessels (fig. 27). Most probably, the
technique used in Sasanian Iran was easily adopted by the Arabs in the areas of
their invasions (Haskins 1952, 258-261; Hoffmeyer 1961, 67; Nicolle 1979, 179).
What is important is the fact that most of the instances of the “ricasso” technique
after the 8th century have to do with Islamic art (Nicolle 1979, 179; 1991, 320-323).
In Byzantine or Byzantium-inspired art such examples are less in number which
is also an indicative fact, having in mind the taboos in depicting a human in the
Islamic doctrine.
The Arabs’ affection to the use of the “ricasso” has been generally acknowledged
in Europe (Haskins 1952, 258-261; Hoffmeyer 1961, 51, 67; Nicolle 1991, 305-306;
2002a, 158). This factor was “to blame” for the large popularity and spread of the
sleeve sword guard, embracing the blade. This peculiar design was an innovation,
owing its existence to the application of this particular fighting technique.
Although there are a few similar items found on the territory of the Numidian
kingdom, dating from the Antiquity (Nicolle 2002a, 160-161, fig. 8), as well as in
some Apsilian graves from the 4th – 7th centuries in Caucasus (Воронов / Шенкао
1982, 121, 130), they were typical for the Middle ages.
The first one comprises the earliest examples. The most popular one is un-
doubtedly the bronze sword guard from the Arab pilgrim station al-Rabadah (fig.
16) found alongside other archaeological artefacts from the 8th – 9th c. during ar-
chaeological excavations. Nowadays it is kept at the archaeological department of
the King Saud university (Nicolle 1991, 305-306; 2002a, 164-165). Aside from the
shortened proportions and the relief edge at the end of the sleeve which embraces
the blade and the hilt of the sword, the sword guard is identical to the second one
from the group found in Pliska, in 2005 (fig. 4). To the same group we should
attribute another sword guard, almost identical in shape and decoration, bronze
cast from the Chersonese (fig. 17). It was found in 1905 by K. K. Kostsiushko-
Valyuzhinich during excavations of the acropolis in the southwestern part of the
city. This one was dated by B. Rybakov to the 10th century. This statement, together
with its Byzantine origin, was accepted by V. Yotov without further argumentation
(Йотов 2009).
To a different group should be attributed the sword guard found in 1948 in
Pliska (fig. 1), as well as two other richly decorated objects which on stylistic
grounds were attributed to this group as well. The earlier of these (fig. 18), accord-
ing to its shape and dimensions which are identical to the Pliska sword was dated
78 deyan rabovyanov

Fig. 13. Persian bronze matrices for moulds of Fig. 14. Seljuk or Persian bronze matrices for
sword guards and pommels and parts of scabbard moulds of sword guards and pommels from
from 12th – 13th c., Metropolitan museum, New 12th – 13th c., Rifaat Sheikh al Ard Collection,
York (after Nicolle 2002a, 163, fig. 29a-c). Geneva (after Nicolle 2002a, 165, fig. 30).

Fig. 15. Mameluke or Maghreb sword from 12th – 14th c.,

Askeri museum, Istanbul (after Nicolle 2002a, 165, fig. 35).

to the 9th – 10th century, originating from Fatimid Egypt. It is of bronze, entirely
preserved with its hilt, and decorated with plant motives and Surah 112 from the
Koran. It is mentioned as being a part of the Louvre collection (Nicolle 1991, fig.
5) and eventually as a part of the collection of D. Storm-Ryce (Nicolle 2002a, 178-
179, fig. 114). The other sword guard (fig. 19) is silver plated and decorated with
niello, distinguished by its short, relief quillons. It is in the collection of Rifaat
Sheikh al Ard in Genève, said to be of Seljuk origin from the 12th – 13th century
(Nicolle 2002a, 164-165, fig. 31).
A different group should be attributed to the Galovo sword (fig. 2) and the
sword guard found in northeastern Bulgaria (fig. 3), as well as a single-edged
sword from the Belgrade Military museum, inventory number 16 103 (fig. 20).
It is originating from Stara Pazova-Surduk, from the 8th – 9th century (Пековић
2006, 115). In spite of the corrosion and the photography’s bad quality, we can
identify the common features – the relatively large quillons of the sword guard
and short sleeve, embracing the base of the blade.
The peculiar shape of these sword guards directed the scholars’ attention to
earlier times, which is the reason why we have different theories about their origin
and chronology.
With no comparanda but the example from Niederle, St. Vaklinov attributed
the sword guard found by him in 1948 to the Slavs (Станчев 1955, 205).
Considering the early medieval swords with a straight double-edged blade and
a cast bronze sword guard found in Carpathian region, A. Kiss compared them
to the sword guard found by Vaklinov. As a working hypothesis he assumes that
these weapons are of Byzantine origin, showing the typological development for a
period of 200-300 years (Kiss 1987, 193-203).
V. Yotov develops Kiss’s thesis further, unifying all the items with cast bronze
sword guards, regardless of its shape, in one group. In his comparisons he consid-
ers the Bulgarian examples, the swords from Kunagota and Černi Brod described
 early medieval sword guards from bulgaria 79

Fig. 16. Sword guard from al- Fig. 17. Sword guard from Chersonese
Rabadah (after Nicolle 2009, 23). (after Йотов 2009, 255, рис. 1).

Fig. 19. Seljuk swordgard from 12th –

13th c., Rifaat Sheikh al Ard Collection,
Geneva (after Nicolle 2002a, 165, fig. 31).

Fig. 18. Egyptian sword guard and pommel Fig. 20. Sword from Stara Pazova-Surduk in the Military
from 9th – 10th c. with Surah 112 from the museum, Belgrade (after Пековић 2006, 115).
Koran (after Nicolle 2002a, 179, fig. 114).

by Kiss, the sword from Garabonc in Hungary, the bronze sword guards from
al-Rabadah, Chersonese and the Fatimid one with Surah 112. Without clearly
differentiating between them, he identified them as Byzantine dating from 9th and
mainly from 10th century (Йотов 2004, 42, 45; 2009).
D. Nicolle, who is apparently unfamiliar with the examples from Bulgaria, the
middle Danube and the Crimean, is of the opinion that the cast bronze sword
guards, the ones with the embracing sleeve, as well as those with the D-shaped
bushing for the hilt are of Islamic origin. The suggestion that they were adopted by
Byzantium and that his hypothesis could be altered by future finds (Nicolle 1991,
305-306) points to some uncertainty in his conclusions.
In my opinion, the available information could be interpreted in the sense that
the spread of the embracing-blade sword guards should be linked to the Arab
military tradition rather than the Byzantine. First, we have to consider that early
medieval items we are familiar with, dating from the “dark ages” (7th century), lack
certain characteristics, such as a sleeve around the blade and a bushing for the
hilt. Despite being cast in bronze, they are more likely to make use of the Roman
80 deyan rabovyanov

Fig. 23. Sword from Bajt

Fig. 21. Sword from Martin’s Cave, Fig. 22. Sword from Martin’s Cave, Masal tomb, Oman (after
Gibraltar (after Nicolle 2002a, fig. 2a-c). Gibraltar (after Nicolle 2002a, fig. 3a-c). Nicolle 2002a, 165, fig. 35).

Fig. 24. Relief of Goliath from Fig. 25. Numidian sword from Fig. 26. Drawing of a sword with
Armenian church at Akhtamar grave at al-Suma, 2nd – 1st c. BC scabbard from Jarognevice (after
(after Nicolle 2009, 169, fig. 182). (after Nicolle 2002a, 161, fig. 8). Нидерле 1956, 375, рис. 113з).

Fig. 28. Sword guards from

Pergamum and Salamis (after
Fig. 27. Sasanian silver plate (after Marschak 1986, fig. 5). Kazanski / Sodini 1987, 74, fig. 3).
 early medieval sword guards from bulgaria 81
Fig. 29. St. George from Protothrone church near
Chalki, island of Naxos (after Chatzidakis 1989, fig. 20).
Fig. 30. Steatite icon of St. Demetrius from Oruzheinaya
palata, Moscow (after Банк 1966, реп. 151).
type of a small sword guard. An example of this are
the sword guard from the Corinthian agora (fig. 5)
(Weinberg 1974, 517-521), the one from grave 85
from Aradac-Mečka (fig. 6) (Kiss 1987, 203-204), as
well as the ones found near Pergamum and Salamis in
Cyprus (fig. 28) (Weinberg 1974, 517-521; Kazanski /
Sodini 1987, 74, fig. 3).
The technique of bronze casting was common to
all Islamic sword guards (Nicolle 1991, 306). This was
also a result of adoption and the further development
of the Roman metallurgic traditions in the rich and
technologically receptive Arab caliphate (Craddock
1979, 75). The same technique was applied to another
type of sword guards from the same period, geneti-
cally close to the ones I consider here. As a whole,
it is a more developed form of the typical D-shaped
Roman sword guards. However, these were not made
of bone or antler; they are bronze cast with a swelled
bushing, embracing the lower part of the hilt. These
features are not present in the Roman swords.
Such are the protective guards of the swords found
in graves in Garabonc (fig. 10) (Szőke et al. 1992, 504)
and in Černi brod (fig. 9) (Kiss 1987, 204-205) dating
from the 9th century, as well as that from Kunagotha
(fig. 11) dated by coins to the 10th century. (Kiss 1987,
205-206). As originating from 10th – 11th c. is dated
the lavishly decorated bronze sword guard found in
the shipwreck at Serce Liman (fig. 12) (Bass / van
Doorninck 1978; Nicolle 1991, 306, 318; 2002a, 162-
163). From the 12th c. is a Persian or Seljuk bronze
matrix for sword guards from the collection of Rifaat
Sheikh al Ard in Geneva (fig. 14) (Nicolle 2002a, 164-
165) and a Persian one from the 12th – 14th c. which is
kept in the Metropolitan museum of art in New York
(fig. 13) (Nickel 1991, 126; Nicolle 2002a, 162-163).
From the same period is a sword kept in the Askeri
museum in Istanbul (fig. 15) (Nicolle 2002a, 164-
165), which is either of Mameluke or Maghreb origin.
So far, the spread of this particular sword guards
should be attributed mainly to the Islamic world. Non
Islamic are the swords in Kunagotha, Černi Brod and
Garabonc but the latter is an imitational make using
a local technique (Szőke et al. 1992, 504). Further
indications of this are provided by numerous icono-
graphic images from different sources, from Persia to
Andalusia (Alexander 2001, 194, fig. 1; Nicolle 1991,
figs. 19, 22, 28, 46b, 48a-f, 55; 2002a, figs. 64a-b, 69,
72, 96, 100, 104).
Further support to my claim is the data found in
the available iconography. As it was already men-
tioned, such sword guards are rather Islamic than
Byzantine, despite the fact that the human images
82 deyan rabovyanov

are tabooed in Islamic art. There are three Byzantine specimens that have come
down to us, which are having a sleeve but the sword guard itself has classical
straight quillons, thereby distinguishing them from the first two groups of sword
guards. These are as follows: St. George from the Protothrone church on the is-
land of Naxos (fig. 29) from the end of 11th century.; the miniature image of the
“Massacre of the innocents” from the Studite Psalter (1066) and a steatite icon of
St. Demetrius in Oruzheinaya palata in Moscow whose dating was revised to the
14th century (Kalavrezou-Maxeiner 1985, 198-200) (fig. 30). We should note that
all the three objects are relatively late compared to the items mentioned above.
There is a relief that has been pointed out as a proof for the use of this specific
guard shape in Byzantium from the 10th century, in the Akhtamar church (fig.
24). However, this relief is in fact an example of Armenian art. As well as this, the
negative personages such as Goliath are the traditional representations of the col-
lective enemy which for the period are the Arabs. It should also be noted that the
depicted warrior is a typical illustration of the Central Asian influence in armour,
which justified the specialists’ opinion that the image depicts a warrior from the
Byzantine-Arab border of Eastern Anatolia (Nicolle 2002b, 231).
Important proof to such identification is the preserving of the specific sword
guard shape even later in the Islamic countries. Such examples are the two swords
found in Martin’s Cave in Gibraltar, with a separate sleeve applied to the base of
the blade (fig. 21-22). The arms are identified as originating from Andalusia or
Morocco from the 12th century. (Nicolle 2002a, 199). The upper chronological
margin is represented by a broken double-edged sword with an iron hilt originat-
ing from the graves of Bait Massal in Oman from the 17th – 18th century (Nicolle
2002a, 164-165).
Considering the quick spread of the military fashion, the emergence of the
sword guards in the Byzantine Empire is hardly surprising. However, the uneven
number of such examples should be attributed not only to the scarcity of the arms
and armour in Byzantium or to the abundance of metal in the far-flung territory
of the early Islamic lands, as Nicolle claims (Nicolle 1991, 299-301). The spread
of these objects should be attributed not only to the fashion, but also to the cir-
culation of its material bearers – the bronze sword guards moulded in the Islamic
lands probably first reached the lands south of the Danube as parts of the swords.
Indicative is the fact that both artefacts found in Pliska were found alongside
other Arabic or Near Eastern objects. The one found in 1948 was with two bronze
archer-rings1 (Станчев 1955, обр. 25/6, 7), and the other one found in 2005 was
with a bronze mould for coin-shaped objects (Георгиев 2008).
In view of this, I think that the objects found in Pliska are of Arabic origin.
Earlier (8th – 9th century) is the one found in 2005 (fig. 4). The fact that it is related
to the guards from al-Rabadah and Chersonese is obvious. The guard found in
1948 by St. Vaklinov (fig. 1) should most probably be dated later, but a more
precise date than 10th – 11th c. could not be given with certainty. If we judge from
the background of the find, we may assume that it could not be later than the
1030’s – 1040’s. The item presents a more developed shape but unfortunately lacks
decoration that would have given more precise information.
Especially important is the fact that both objects originate from archaeological 1 I would like to express my

excavations of strata dated from the early 11th century. (Станчев 1955, 190-194; gratitude to the colleague
Yanko Dimitrov, one of the
Георгиев 2008, 354). These, however, cannot be attributed to this period, since Pliska’s most long-standing
they must have gone out of use by that time. The period when this guard was in researchers, who drew my
use cannot be pinpointed. attention to this detail.
 early medieval sword guards from bulgaria 83

The Galovo sword (fig. 2) and the sword guard from the northeastern Bulgaria
(fig. 3) remain unparalleled. Here, both theories about the Byzantine and Islamic
origin seem likely. Contributing to the “Byzantine theory” are the three monu-
ments of Byzantine art mentioned above (fig. 29-30). The shape of the blade, on
the other hand, was equally popular in both worlds. The find of the sword in the
Ostrovo dike could give some grounds for a date in the Pagan period (8th – 9th
century). Considering the circumstances under which it was found, we are unfor-
tunately unable to explain the fact of the presence of such an expensive artefact
there.
The sword guard from northeastern Bulgaria that is similar in shape to the
Galovo guard (fig. 3) is decorated with a relief triangle in the middle of the body.
This puts it closer to the Islamic sword guards (fig. 13, 16-17, 19, 21-22), where
the feature is a remarkably conservative element.
The presence of four such sword guards attested in a relatively limited terri-
tory is not an accident. It could be explained by their “barbarian” archaeological
background, presupposing the presence of a larger number of military objects, on
one hand, or by the extensive archaeological investigation of the Early Medieval
period in Bulgaria, on the other.
The possible ways of arrival of the sword guards in Bulgaria are numerous.
One is that they were spoils of war from the times of the military campaigns in
Thrace, an area in which the Byzantine empire moved population from Anatolia
or a population that had escaped from the Caliphate (Рашев 2004). Military units
from the Anatolian region were quite often involved in campaigns against the
Bulgarians and the renegades coming from Byzantium, some of which were of
Arabic origin, had always been welcome by the Bulgarian rulers. Although the
rulers were known to have had tendency to put restrictions on the trade with arms
and armour, we should consider this a probability.
Generally, arms and armour are artefacts of a great portability and durabil-
ity which complicates their research. That is why all the conclusions on the four
sword guards have a preliminary character, at least until we find another material
to compare them with.

BIBLIOGRAPHY (1907-2007)“. Шумен. Кирпичников, А. 1966. divino-humana. В чест на

353-364. Древнерусское оружие. I. професор Георги Бакалов.
Мечи и сабли IX-XIII вв. София. 151-162.
Банк, A. 1966. Византий-
(= Свод археологических
ское искусство в собра- Измайлов, И. 1997. источников. Е 1-36).
ниях Советского союза. Вооружение и военное Станчев, Ст. 1955.
Москва / Ленинград.
Ленинград / Москва. дело населения Волжской Разкопки и новооткрити
Булгарии X – начала XIII в. материали в Плиска през
Нидерле, Л. 1956. Славян- 1948 г. – Известия на
Воронов, Ю. / Шенкао, Н. Казан / Магадан. ские древности. Москва. Археологическия институт
1982. Вооружение воинов
20, 183-228.
Абхазии IV-VII вв. In: Николов, Б. 1962.
Древности эпохи Великого Йотов, В. 2009. Перекре-
стье меча из Херсонеса. Раннобългарски находки
преселения народов V-VII край Островския окоп. – Alexander, D. 2001. Swords
веков. Москва. 121-165. In: Античная древность and sabers during the Early
и средние века, вып. 39. Археология 4, 2, 33-37.
Islamic period. – Gladius 21,
Екатеринбург. 251-261. 193-220.
Георгиев, П. 2008. Калъп Пековић, М. 2006.
за монетовидни знаци Археолошка збирка Воjног
(брактеати) с псевдокуфи- Йотов, В. 2004. Въоръже- музеjа у Београду. Београд. Bass, G. / van Doorninck,
чески надпис от Плиска. нието и снаряжението от F. 1978. An 11th century
In: Юбилеен сборник „Сто българското Средновеко- Рашев, Р. 2004. Визан- shipwreck at Serce Liman,
години от рождението на вие (VII-XI век). Велико тийците в България до Turkey. – The International
доктор Васил Хараланов Търново. покръстването. In: Civitas Journal of Nautical Ar-
84 deyan rabovyanov

chaeology and Underwater
Exploration 7, 2, 119-132.
Bishop, M. / Coulston, J.
1993. Roman military equip-
ment from the Punic Wars to
the fall of Rome. London.
Chatzidakis, M. 1989.
Byzantine art in Greece.
Athens.
Craddock, P. T. 1979. The
copper alloys of the medieval
Islamic world – inheritors
of the Classical tradition.
– World Archaeology 11, 1,
Early Chemical Technology
(Jun.), 68-79.
García, A. 2001. Una espada
de época Omeya del siglo IX
D.C. – Gladius 21, 183-192.
Haskins, J. 1952. Northern
origins of “Sasanian”
metalwork. – Artibus Asiae
15, 3, 241-267.
Hoffmeyer, A. 1966. Military
equipment in the Byzantine
manuscript of Scylitzes
in Biblioteca Nacional in
Madrid. – Gladius 5, 1-194.
Hoffmeyer, A. 1961.
Introduction to the history
of the European sword. –
Gladius 1, 30-75.
James, S. 2004. The excava-
tions at Dura – Europos
conducted by Yale University
and the French Academy of
Inscriptions and Letters 1928
to 1937. Final report VII.
The arms and armour and
other military equipment.
London.
Janković, M. 1983. Imple-
ments and weapons from
9th-11th centuries found at
Ključ Dunava. – Balcano-
slavica 10, 55-70.
Jones, L. / Oakeshott, R. /
Peirce, I. 2002. Swords of the
Viking age. Woodbridge.
Kalavrezou-Maxeiner, I.
1985. Byzantine icons in
steatite. Wien.
Kazanski, M. / Sodini,
J.-P. 1987. Byzance et l’art
“nomade”: remarques à
propos de l’essai de J. Werner
sur le dépôt de Malaja
Pereščepina (Pereščepino).
– Revue archéologique 1,
71-90.
Kiss, A. 1987. Frühmittel-
alterliche byzantinische
Schwerter im Karpatenbe-
cken. – Acta Archaeologica
Academiae Scientiarum
Hungaricae 39, 193-210.
Marek, L. 2005.
Early medieval swords from
Central and Eastern Europe.
Wrocław.
Marschak, B. 1986. Silber-
schätze des Orients. Leipzig.
Miks, C. 2007. Studien zur
römischen Schwertbewaff-
nung in der Kaiserzeit.
Leidorf.
Nickel, H. 1991. A crusader’s
sword: Concerning the effigy
of Jean d’Alluye. – Metro-
politan Museum Journal 26,
123-128.
Nicolle, D. 2002a. Two
swords from the foundation
of Gibraltar. – Gladius 22,
147-200.
Nicolle, D. 2002b. No way
overland? Evidence for
Byzantine arms and armour
on the 10th – 11th century
Taurus frontier. In: Nicolle,
D. (ed.). Warriors and their
weapons around the time of
the Crusades: relationships
between Byzantium, the
West and the Islamic world.
Aldershott. 226-245.
Nicolle, D. 1999a. Arms and
armour of the Crusading era,
1050-1350. Western Europe
and the Crusader states.
London.
Nicolle, D. 1999b. Arms and
armour of the Crusading era,
1050-1350. Islam, Eastern
Europe and Asia. London.
Nicolle, D. 1991. Byzantine
and Islamic arms and
armour: Evidence for mutual
influence. – Graeco-Arabica
4, 299-323.
Nicolle, D. 1979. An intro-
duction to arms and warfare
in Classical Islam. In: Hitti,
P. / Elgood, R. (eds.). Islamic
arms and armour. London.
162-186.
Oakeshott, R. 2000. Records
of the medieval sword.
Woodbridge.
Oakeshott, R. 1997. The
sword in the age of chivalry.
Woodbridge.
Oakeshott, R. 1951. Some
medieval sword-pommels:
an essay in analysis. –
Journal of the British
Archaeological Association
14, 47-62.
Petersen, J. 1919. De norske
vikingesverd. Kristiania.
Rapin, A. 2001. Des épées
romaines dans la collection
D’Alise-Sainte-Reine. –
Gladius 21, 31-56.
Szőke, B. / Éry, K. / Müller,
R. / Vándor, L. 1992. Die
Karolingerzeit im unteren
Zalatal. Gräberfelder und
Siedlungsreste von Garabonc
I – II und Zalaszabar-
Dezsősziget. Budapest.
Vinski, Z. 1977. Novi
ranokarolinški nalazi u
Jugoslaviju. – Vjesnik Arh.
Muzeja Zagreb 3, s. X-XI,
143-208.
Weinberg, G. 1974. A
wandering soldier’s grave in
Corinth. – Hesperia 43, 4,
512-521.

Ранносредновековни предпазители за меч от България

Деян РАБОВЯНОВ
(резюме)

Предмет на това изследване са един тип ранносредновековни предпазители

за меч, произхождащи от територията на днешна Северна България. Обща
черта при тях е метална пластина, обхващаща основата на клина на меча
(фиг. 1). Първият предпазител е открит през 1948 г. от Ст. Ваклинов при
проучването на гражданска постройка североизточно от Малкия дворец
early medieval sword guards from bulgaria 85

в Плиска, датирана с византийски монети от IX-X в. Съставеният от две

отделно отлети половини предпазител е със сравнително къси, заоблени
рамене, като пластините, обхващащи клина и ръкохватката на меча, са с
еднаква височина.
Вторият предпазител принадлежи на меч, изоран от насипа на
Островския вал до с. Галово, Врачанско (фиг. 2). Мечът е с прав клин, за-
облен връх и без жлеб. Характерни за отлетия предпазител са отделянето
на основните му части с профилирани отстъпи и дългите релефни рамене.
Близък по форма и изработка е друг предпазител от частна колекция, про-
изхождащ от Североизточна България (фиг. 3). Отличава се с по-изявена
релефна украса.
Последният предпазител (фиг. 4) бе открит през 2005 г. при проучването
на източната линия на Дървената крепост в Плиска, в облицована с тухли
яма заедно с други предмети – инвентар, укрит при печенежките нашествия
през 30-те – 40-те години на XI в. Този отлят от бронз предпазител се отличава
с по-дълги пластини, обхващащи клина и ръкохватката на меча, и със силно
скъсени и извити към клина рамене, обединяващи се в характерен триъгъ-
лен издатък в средата.
Произходът и датировката на тези предпазители засягат проблема за раз-
витието на ранносредновековните мечове в Източното Средиземноморие.
Още през 60-те години на XX в. Хофмайер изтъква, че липсата на предмети
за изследване и стилизираността на изображенията пречи да се установи
специфично византийският тип меч. Същевременно военната технология
е област, в която културите с лекота се копират, и военната мода лесно
преминава границите. Еклектичните култури на основните военни сили –
Византийската империя и Арабския халифат, съчетани с общото римско на-
следство, правят характерните за римските мечове черти лесно откриваеми
в ранносредновековните мечове. Това са правите, двуостри и сравнително
широки клинове и малкият предпазител, по-скоро ограничаващ ръкохват-
ката, отколкото предпазващ ръката.
Предпазителите, при които пластина обхваща клина на меча, са специ-
фична форма, която не откриваме при известните римски и ранновизан-
тийски мечове. С основание тя се свързва с използването на „рикасо“ или
т. нар. „италиански захват“ в стила на бой. Развита в сасанидски Иран, тази
техника лесно е възприета от арабите в зората на тяхното завоевание.
Разглежданият тип предпазители не са многобройни и по своите особе-
ности могат да се разделят на три групи. Първата включва най-ранните об-
разци. Това е бронзовият предпазител от арабската поклонническа станция
ал-Рабада, открит при археологически разкопки заедно с друго въоръжение
и датиран VIII-IX в. (фиг. 16), откритият в Плиска през 2005 г. (фиг. 4) и
един почти идентичен на тях, намерен през 1905 г. в акропола на Херсонес
(фиг. 17). В друга група трябва да се отделят откритият през 1948 г. в Плиска
предпазител (фиг. 1) и още два, богато украсени – от Фатимидски Египет
(IX-X в.) и селджукски от XII-XIII в. (фиг. 18, 19).
В отделна група трябва да се обединят мечът от Галово и предпазителят,
открит в Североизточна България (фиг. 2, 3), както и този на едноостър
меч от Стара Пазова-Сурдук от VIII-IX в. (фиг. 20). Разпространението на
този тип предпазители трябва да се свърже с арабската военна традиция, за
което подсказват следните аргументи:
На първо място, известните ранносредновековни византийски пред-
пазители като тези от Коринт, Пергам, Саламин и сходния им от Арадац
86 deyan rabovyanov

(фиг. 5, 6, 28), макар и отлети от бронз, не притежават характерните черти

– пластина около клина и втулка на ръкохватката, а по-скоро продължават
римската традиция.
Второ, техниката да се отливат от бронз е характерна за почти всички ис-
лямски предпазители за мечове и отразява високата технология, развиваща
се в богатия халифат. Отражение на тази практика са друг тип предпазители
от същия период, генетично близки с разглежданите тук. Тяхното разпрос-
транение също е свързано основно с ислямския свят. Засега изключения са
мечовете от Кунагота, Черни Брод и Гарабонц от Средния Дунав, като по-
следният със сигурност е местна имитация. Представяният като византий-
ски релеф на Голиат от Ахтамар (фиг. 24) е от арменска църква на военната
граница с халифата и отразява по-скоро типичния тежковъоръжен воин от
района.
Също така изображенията на мечове с такива предпазители са много
по-редки във византийското изкуство, отколкото в ислямското, въпреки
типичното за последното нежелание да се изобразяват човешки фигури.
Известни са три византийски изображения, при които е представена плас-
тина в основата на клина, но предпазителят е с класически прави и дълги
рамене, което го различава от първите две групи образци (фиг. 29, 30).
Важно доказателство е и наличието на късни преживелици на разглеждана-
та форма именно в ислямския свят.
Откритите в Плиска предпазители имат арабски произход. Този от 2005
г. е най-ранен (VIII-IX в.), а откритият през 1948 г. трябва да се датира в X-XI
в. Мечът от Галово и предпазителят от Североизточна България остават без
пряк аналог. Еднакво внимание заслужават идеите и за византийски и за
източен произход, а откриването на меча върху насипа на Островския вал
насочва датировката в езическия период. Релефният триъгълник в украсата
на предпазителя от Североизточна България го сближава с украсата на
предпазителите на ислямски мечове.
Появата на четири предпазителя от този тип в ограничена територия
при общата им малобройност е учудваща и може да се обясни както с
„варварската“ среда, така и с мащабните археологически изследвания на
ранносредновековния период в България.
Възможностите за проникването на тези предмети са достатъчно много,
за да се правят хипотетични предположения. Затова до откриването на нов
сравнителен материал заключенията за тези предпазители остават с предва-
рителен характер.

Deyan Rabovyanov, PhD

National Archaeological Institute with Museum
Veliko Tarnovo Branch
29а, Ivan Vazov Str.
BG-5000 Veliko Tarnovo
rabovyanov@gmail.com