| JOURNAL OF ROMAN MILITARY EQUIPMENT STUDIES Dedicated to the Study of the Weapons, Armour, and Military Fittings of the Armies and Enemies of Rome and Byzantium VOLUME 5 1994The re-use of Roman military equipment in barbarian contexts. A chain-mail souvenir? Katarzyna Czarnecka Military, trade or political contacts between the Roman Empire and Barbarian tribes living outside the limes are well evidenced by plenty of goods imported from the provinces of the Empire. It is not quite sure, however, if, together with importing Roman products the Barbarians also imported the way of using them. Judging from the context, some of the imported products might have been used in a very unusual way. That is the case of chain-mail, Finds of chain mail fragments are quite numerous as we know now thanks to our colleague Piotr Kaczanowski,! who has col- lected all imported weapons and other elements of military equipment from Barbaricum. Most of the chain-mail fragments were found in graves, some in bog sites, settlements or as loose finds.? The way of using them may be inferred from grave contexts, Some of them may have served as regular chain-mail as they were found in graves fur- nished with other types of weapons.> Also the weight of a fragment (even up to 15 kg) is good evidence that it was, more or less, a complete shirt of mail. However, such finds are not common. More numerous are finds of small fragments of chain-mail or even separate rings. In such cases it is the size of rings and the method of construction which suggest that they did originally constitute part of a complete shirt. Finds of this kind are not infrequent in the area of both the Preeworsk culture and the Elbian sphere (including the present-day Czech and Slovak regions). They are also known from Scandinavia. It is quite obvious that finds of small chain-mail fragments can not be interpreted as, elements of body armour. So the question remains: what did the Barbarians use them for? What is more confusing is that pieces of chain-mail Known from the Przeworsk culture cemeteries come mostly from female graves. The sex determination is based either on anthropological analysis. or archaeological determinants, namely the type of grave equipment. It should be noted here that the anthropological analysis of burnt bones, especially those very well cremated, is relitavely accurate as far as the age of an individual is concerned, but not so reliable for sex determination. Archaeological dence seems to give more convincing information. For the Przeworsk culture ay well as other cultures it is possible to create a more or less typical set of separate male and female grave goods, which would vary according to the richness and social position of a person.6 A good example could be grave 57 from Mtodzikowo cemetery of the Przeworsk culture. The grave furniture included a fragment of chain-mail composed of a few rings, a bronze brooch type Almgren 41, an iron belt buckle, three keys which are the most typical female attribute in the Przeworsk culture at that time, a needle, glass beads and a piece of melted bronze - probably remains of the second brooch of the same type since they usually come in pairs.7 Pieces of chain mail were found at Zadowice, urn- grave 67, here together with a brooch, glass beads melted in the fire and a knife;® at Drochlin, where beside a fragment of chain-mail there were also fragments of glass beads, an iron buckle, pieces of various mounts and terra sigillata sherds.° Grave TV at Starachowice was richly furnished.!0 Among the grave goods was a wooden box with a complete set of iron mounts, a key, an antler comb, a bone pin, a necklace of stone beads with a pendant made from an animal claw, melted glass beads, two small clay beads, four mysterious melon-shaped clay objects (amulets?), three spindle whorls, a needle, an awl, a piece of a knife, two corroded iron tools, maybe also a kind of awl, fragments of bronze mounts, miniature JRMES 5 1994 245-53246 clay vessel, and fragments of chain mail. The rich and also a bit unusually furnished grave 1563 from Kietrz produced small fragments of chain-mail with a bronze sieve and scoop set, together with another bronze vessel, three bucket-shaped iron pendants, a key, part of a box lock as well as probable box rivets and mounts, a silver bracelet, small pieces of golden foil that previously might have served as an ornament of, some kind, and a part of a bone pin.!! A bronze fragment might have come from a bronze brooch type Almgren 40-42, the same type as is found in some other graves with chain-mail fragments. Unfortunately those graves from Zakrz6w which contained fragments of chain-mail were damaged and we do not know the complete list of their grave goods.!2 Six separate rings which are supposed to be bits of chain-mail were found at Chorula cemetery together with fragments of two iron brooches, pro- bably type Almgren 96, a knife, a needle and two comb rivets.!3 Some loose finds of chain-mail frag- ments have also been found in cemeteries e.g, Drochlin, Mtodzikowo, Grzybéw,!* but only two come from settlements (Jakuszowice,!? Nowa Huta Mogital®), Clear evidence that the chain-mail fragments were used for special purposes or carried some special ‘meaning comes from the chain-mail fragments with a set of miniature tools attached. The Przeworsk culture cemetery at Opatéw in central Poland produced at least two graves which included such gadgets.!? Urn- grave 49 was furnished with a bronze brooch type Almgren 41 and a ‘strip’ of small rings (diameter of a ring c.7mm) from chain-mail together with seven pendants attached to it: a very precisely made minia- ture of a shield with a shield with a shield boss and a grip, two keys (one fragmentary), shears, a hammer, two knives and a lunula pendant decorated in the same style as the shield with a row of punched dots (fig. 1). Grave 147 from the same cemetery also produced a kind of ‘strip’ of chain-mail, very similar to the object from grave 49 but preserved in pieces, with pendant a miniature key, a knife, a kind of a fork, and a frag- ment of another tool (fig.2). There was also a fragment of a bronze brooch type Almgren 129, a fragment of another iron brooch and a very small antler comb. Pieces of melted bronze are evidence that other ‘ornaments were also present. Miniature tools and a Junula pendant also appeared in grave 890 of this cemetery, where a separate ring that could belong to chain-mail was found in the grave pit together with a Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies § 1994 fragment of a bronze brooch, most probably from Almgren group VIL. A chain-mail strip with miniature pendants similar to the object from grave 49 in Opat6w was found in another Przeworsk-culture cemetery at Piaski in an urn grave of a young woman, according to the anthropological analysis.!8 Since the grave pit was partly destroyed by tree roots the grave equipment seemed to be incomplete. It included only a fragment of a chainmail strip of the same type as from Opatéw, a beautifully preserved miniature shield of similar shape and with the same decoration as that from grave 49 at Opat6w, a fragment of a lunula pendant with the same decoration, miniature shears, a fragment of a small knife, fragments of a bronze brooch type Alm- gren 41, and various small pieces of undefinable iron ‘objects (fig. 3). The chronology of these items is exactly the same as both graves from Opatéw ceme- tery.!9 A grave accidently found at Cieblowice included a fragment of a chainmail band quite similar jn size and shape20 Unfortunately the grave was partly destroyed so we do not now know whether a decorated spindle whorl, large piece of melted glass, and pot sherds from the urn together with the chain- mail formed the complete equipment of the grave It is worth noting that all finds from well dated assemblages come from the same period, so called phase B,\C;, that is the end of the second century or beginning of the 3rd century. Only the finds from Drochlin could be a bit later. Another interesting observation concerns the fact that chain-mail bands with miniature tools come from cemeteries which are located in the same area, close to each other. Near the Piaski cemetery there is another unpublished cemetery at Mierzyn,2! where though no chain-mail was found, a set of miniature tools with a miniature shield almost the same as at Opatdw, grave 49, and Piaski occurred in grave 24 (fig. 4). In the Elbian area of influence, it seems that chain ‘mail fragments also occur in graves of woman, Such was the situation in the cemeteries in Westerwanna,2? Mattsted,23Abraham.24 In Otkov in Slovakia a frag- ment of chain-mail was found in the grave of a child.25 These are dated to the late Roman period, a bit later than the finds from Przeworsk culture. ‘The question is what was the chain-mail used for? The context in which they were found can help to solve the problem. Chain-mail fragments were usually referred to as bracelets. The basis for such suggestion ‘was the find from Opatéw, grave 49, where, accordingJournal of Roman Military Equipment Studies $1994 247 GED oapaR: Fig.1: Opatow, distr. Czestochowa, grave 49 (GODLOWSKI, 1980, fig. 4). a. 1. fragment of chain mail (iron); 2. miniature shield (iron); 3. lunula shaped pendant (iron); 4, 5. miniature knives (iron); 6. miniature hammer (iron); 7. miniature shears (iron); 8, 9. miniature keys (iron); b. brooch, type Almgren 41 (bronze); c. urn (clay)248 Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 5 1994 Fig.2: Opatéw, distr. Czestochowa, grave 147 (GODLOWSKI, 1980, fig. 6). a. 1. fragment of chain mail (iron); 2. miniature knife (iron); 3. miniature fork (?) (iron); 4. miniature key, fragment (iron); 5. miniature tool (2). fragment (iron): b. brooch type A 129, fragment (bronze); ¢, d. fragments of a brooch (iron); e. comb (antler); f. urn (clay).Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 5 1994 249 0 Sem Fig. “iaski, distr. Piotrkéw Trybunalski, grave 95 (HORBACZ & OLEDZKI, 1983, pl. 307). 1. urn (clay); 2 knife, fragment (iron); 3. miniature shield (iron); 4. lunula shaped pendant, fragment (iron); 5, 6. fragments of iron sheet; 7. fragments of chain mail (iron); 8. rivet (iron); 9. fragment of a brooch (iron); 10. miniature shears (iron): 11. brooch, type Almgren 41, fragment (bronze)250 Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 5 1994 to the discoverer of the object, the chain formed a kind of circle with the ends clasped together by the miniature shield and with the other miniature tools hanging from it rather like chain bracelets or watch chains with fobs popular quite recently. However, this interpretation is not entirely self-evident. Although the length of the band corresponds to the diameter of an average bracelet, the size of its pendants (up to 7 cm long) makes it impossible to be worn comfortably. The discoverers assumption was based on the fact that the ends of the chain were closed.26 This is not convincing since both cremation or simple corrosion may produce similar results. And this is the only specimen to be interpreted as a bracelet.27 Miniature objects can be found both in the Prze- worsk culture area and the Elbian sphere of influence, as well as in Wielbark culture sites. Probably the earliest set of miniature tools comes from a cemetery of the Przeworsk culture at Siemiechéw, grave 13.28 The assemblage comprised 2 brooches of type Alm- gren 68 — a form characteristic of the earlier stage of the early Roman Period, that is first century A.D. Miniature shields of rectangular shape were found in graves 39 and 46 in this site.?? The Nadkole cemetery {: Mierzyn, distr. Piotrk6w Trybunalski, grave 24 miniature shield (iron). of the Przeworsk culture also produced a miniature shield and a similar shield was found in the Wiel- bark culture cemetery at Nowy Targ.3! Miniature tools ‘occurred also in the cemetery at Westerwanna, Ger- many where small fragments of chain-mail were found in a few graves.32 ‘The question of the functional interpretation of the chain-mail fragments is still open. Is it possible that a fragment of chain-mail could serve as a miniature representation of chain-mail, in the same sense as a miniature shield is representative of a shield? It might have been placed in a grave in the sense of “pars pro toto’ according to the belief that in the other world it would be quite satisfactory as a symbolic representation of the device. Against such interpreta- tion stands the fact that fragments of chain-mail were ussually found in graves which did not include any other weapon, complete or not. It is more probable that chain-mail fragments were used as amulets. The deeply hidden reason might have concerned the protective function of real chain-mail which covered the body of the warrior, so that in a magic sense, a fragment of chain-mail could have had the power to protect from some evil. The same mightJournal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 5 1994 251 8 100km, XY Fig.S: Concentration of chain mail strips and miniature tools. 1. Ciebtowice, distr. Piotrkéw Trybunalski; 2. Mierzyn, distr. Piotrkéw Trybunalski; 3. Opatéw, distr. Czestochowa; 4. Piaski, distr. Piotrkéw Trybunalski; 5. Siemiechéw, distr. Sieradz. concern miniature shields. This would also explain why fragments of chain-mail were even found in a child’s grave (Odkov), for children’s graves arc usually fur- nished with various amulets. Maybe the combination of chain-mail and miniature tools and weapons constituted amore powerful and effective amulet. It is exceptionally interesting that gadgets with purely military references such as chain-mail frag- ments and miniature weapons or tools ~ typical male attributes — were found in female and occasionally even children's burials. Maybe it was a kind of special magic equipment for woman of a special category. We know that among Germans some woman had very high status and some political influence.33 Possibly it was just a sign or symbol of importance, a kind of emblem of a society. This interpretation might be supported by the fact that graves with chain- mail are very often furnished with special things and unusual items. In the first place, miniature tools, but also other amulets or just extraordinarily rich com- paried (o other graves of that time. All the shield miniatures attached to chain-mail fragments are of a very specific, unusual shape, which is not known from the Barbaricum, where252 circular, oval or hexagonal shields seem to be more common. Some analogies can be found inside the Roman Empire, for instance the shield of a signifer (Standard bearer) from the fort at Carrawburgh.¥ Is it possible dhat the makers of the miniature shields tried to imitate this kind of parade shield? Or, since all three shields of that type came from three cemeteries located close to each other (fig. 5) and from the same chronological phase, were they made after the same model and, maybe, by the same local craftsman? On the other hand it could be just a fashion to have such an ornament, just like a souvenir from the distant land of Roman provinces, made in a way local golds- miths were not familiar with. This was the suggestion of K. Raddatz.35 Such fragments could be worn not only (if at all) as a bracelet but also as a pendant, an accessory sewn to the dress and so on. Anyway it is clear that, judging from the context, Roman military equipment was not always used by the Barbarians in a proper way. This is nothing unusual. It is quite close to Aborigines wearing alarm- clocks as ornamental pendants. NOTES 1. KACZANOWSKI, 1992. 2. Ibid. 93, 94. 3. For example graves 2 and 7 from Hagenow, Germany (EGGERS, 1951, 113), Brokjer, Ribe, Denmark (LUND-HANSEN, 1987, 429), grave A 4137 from Hedegird, Jutland, Denmark (unpublished excavations by O. Madsen, I would like to thank Jacek Andrzejowski for this information). Several are richly furnished, most probably male graves, but without weapons: for example Witaszewice, grave 22 (KASZEWSKA, 1971, pl.167), Kemnitz, grave 622 (GEISLER, 1974, 71). 4, Kemnitz grave 622 ~ about 15,5 kg, Brokjer ~ about 12 kg, Agerholm ~ 14,5 kg. CZARNECKA, 1988, 124; 1990, 12 CZARNECKA, 1990, 63-9. DYMACZEWSKI, 1958, 228, fig. 102.3. ABRAMOWICZ, 1956, 81, pl. X18 KACZANOWSKI, 1987, 10, 23, 38, 89, pl. I11, 12; XI8-11; XX,6; XXIX 48-53. 10. Unpublished, State Archaeological Museum in Warsaw, no, 1V-248, 1, GEDL & GEDL, 1976, pl. 225-30. 12, SZYDLOWSKI, 1964a, 18, 204, fig.39a; 56. 13, SZYDLOWSKI, 1964b, 27, fig. 13.4 14. GARBACZ, 1990, 189. 15. Unpublished, excavations by K. Godlowski. Institute of Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies $ 1994 Archaeology, Jagiellonian Universit 887/85; 1249/87. 16. Unpublished, Muzeum Archeologiczne w Krakowie (Archaeological Museum of Cracow), Nowa Huta Chapter. 17. GODLOWSKI, 1980, 89. 18, HORBACZ & OLEDZKI, 1983, pl. 307 19. GODLOWSKI, 1980, 89, 91, fig. 4:6. 20. Grave 1, unpublished, excavations of J. Karolezyk, Regional Museum in Tomasz6w Mazowiecki, no. MT/A/ 90.1104, Cracow, no.36/82; 21. Mierzyn, distr. Piotrkéw, grave 24, unpublished, Regional Museum in Piotrkéw Trybunalski, no. MP/A/ 199/1350.21. 22, ZIMMER-LINNFELD, 1960. 23, Grave 8, MILDENBERGER, 1970, 126, pl. 268h, 24, Grave 156, KOLNIK, 1980, 58. 25. Grave 47, KOLNIK, 1956, fig. 5.4 26, REYMAN, 1987, 166, fig. 2,2. 27. The famous golden necklace from Szilégy-Somlyo (HAMPEL, 1905, 16, pl14) where miniature tools and ‘weapon were attached t0 a chain often served as an analogy. However chronological and territorial distance lessen the relevance ofthis analogy. 28, JAZDZEWSKA, 1983, pl. 300.11 29, Id., 1985, 119, pl. VIN2,3. 30. Grave 141b, unpublished, excavations by J. Andrzejow- ski, State Archaeological Museum Warsaw, no, 1V-8283/ 104, 31. Grave 69, KAZIMIERCZAK, 1980, 141, fig. 13}. 32. Graves 389, 723, ZIMMER-LINNFELD, 1960, 29, 35, pl 50,95, 33. CZARNECKA, 1990, 118 34. A shield of a similar shape is depicted on a Celtic sculpture from Bormio, Italy (1 would like to thank W-B. Gifts for this information). The similarity, however, could be accidental 35. RADDATZ, 1961, 52. RIRLIOGRAPHY ABRAMOWICZ 1956: Abramowicz, A., Materialy 2 cmentar- zyska w Zadowicach, pow. Kalisz (Materials from cemetery in Zadowice, district Kalisz), Prace i Materialy ‘Muzeum Archeologicznego i Emograficznego w todei 1, 61-95 CZARNECKA 1988: Czamecka K., Age-related Changes of Social Status. An Attempt at Reconstruction Based on the Przeworsk Culture Cemeteries with Anthropological Determinants. Archaeologia Polona 28, 23-148Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 5 1994 253 CZARNECKA 1990: Czarnecka K., Struktura spoteczna ludnosci kultury preeworskiej (Social Structure of the Praeworsk-Culture), Warszawa DYMACZEWSKI 1958: Dymaczewski A., Cmentarzysko 2 uhienu tzyimskiegy w Miodzikowie, pow. Sada (A Cemetery from the Roman Period in Mlodzikowo, District Sroda), Fontes Archaeologici Posnanienses 819, 179-442 EGGERS 1951: Eggers HJ., Der rémische Import im freien Germanien, Hamburg, GARBACZ 1990: Garbacz K., Wstepne wyniki badad przeprowadzonych na cmentarzysku kultury prze- worskiej w Greybowie, gm. Stasz6w, wo. Tamobrzeg (Preliminary Results of Excavations on the Preeworsk culture cemetery in Grzybéw, comm. Stasz6w, Woj. ‘Tamobrzeg), Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 41, 181-94 GEDL & GEDL 1976: Gedl, B. and Gedl, M., Kietrz, dép. d'Opole, Période Romaine ~ civilisation de Przeworsk, Inventaria Archaeologica 36, Pologne GEISLER 1974: Geisler, H., Das germanische Urnen- sriberfeld bei Kemnitz, Kr. PotsdamLand, Veréffentlich- ungen des Museums fiir Ur- und Frithgeschichte Potsdam GODLOWSKI 1980: Godiowski, K., Zur Frage des Miniatur- erits in der Preeworsk-Kultur, [in] Beitrige zur Archiologie Nordwestdeutschlands und Mitteleuropas, Hildesheim, 85-100 HAMPEL 1905: Hampel, J., Altertiier des frithen Mittelaliers in Ungarn, Braunschweig. HORBACZ & OLEDZKI 1983: Horbacz T., & Oledzki M., Cimetidre de la période Romaine & Piaski (Pologne Centrale), Inventaria Archaeologica 81, Pologne JAZDZEWSKA 1983: Jazdzewska, M., Cimetitre de La Tene TI et de la période Romaine a Siemiech6w (Pologne Centrale), Inventaria Archaeologica 49, Pologne JAZDZEWSKA 1985: Jazdzewska, M., Najcickawsze obiekty na stanowisku kultury przeworskiej w Siemiechowie nad gérna Warta (Selected features from the Przeworsk culture site at Siemiech6w on the upper Warta), Prace i Materiaty Muzeum Archeologicznego i Etnograficznego w todei 32, 109-42 KACZANOWSKI 1987: Kaczanowski, P., Drochlin. Cialopalne cementarzysko kultury przeworskiej 2 okresu wplyw6w rzymskich (Cremation Graves of the Przeworsk Culture from the Roman Period), Prace Archeologiczne 40, Krakow KACZANOWSKI 1992: Kaczanowski, P., Importy broni reymskie] na obszarze europeskiego Barbaricum (Imported Roman Weapons in the European Barbari- cum), Krakow KASZEWSKA 1971: Kaszewska, E., Tombe “princiére” n. 22, Witaszewice, distr. de Leczyca, —_Inventaria Archaeologica 28, Pologne, pl. 167 KAZIMIERCZAK 1980: Kazimierezak, E., Poch6wki Ptnolatefiskie iz wezesnego okresu wplyw6w rzym- skich w Nowym Tagu, woj. Elblag (Burials from the Late La Tene and Early Roman Periods from Nowy Targ, Province of Elblag), Sprawozdania Archeolog- icone 32, 135-60 KOLNIK 1956: Kolnik, T., Popolnicové pohrebisko mladej doby Fimskej a potiatku doby stéhovania nérodov v Otkove pri Piestanoch, Slovenskd Archeoldgia 4, 233-82 KOLNIK 1980: Kolnik, T., Rémerzeitliche Graberfelder in der Slowakei, Bratislava LUND HANSEN 1987: Lund Hancon, U, Rémischer Import im Norden, Warenaustausch zwischen dem Rémischen Reich und dem freien Germanien, Kobenhavn MILDENBERGER 1970: Mildenberger, G., Die thiiringischen Brandgraber der spatrémischen Zeit, KéIn-Wien RADDATZ 1961: Raddatz, K,. Ringknaufschwerter aus germanischen Kriegergribern, Offa 17/18, 26-55 REYMAN 1947: Reyman, T,. Dwa groby z okresu rzymskiego w Opatowie, pow. czestochowski (Two Graves from the Roman Period from Opatéw, distr. Czestochowa), Swiatowit 18, 165-77 SZYDLOWSKI 1964a: Szydtowski, J., Ciatopalne cmentar- zysko rzymskie w Zakrzowie, pow. Krapkowice (Cremation Graves of the Roman Period at Zakrz6w, Krapkowice District), Materialy Starosytne 10, 187-223 SZYDLOWSK 1964b: Szydiowski, J., Cmentarzysko 2 okresu wplywow reymskich w Choruli, pow. Krapkowice (A Roman Period Cemetery in Chorula, Krapkowice District), Wroclaw-Warszawa-Krakéw ZIMMER-LINNFELD 1960: Zimmer-Linnfeld, K., Wester- wanna I, Hamburg