Historia, stan i potrzeby badań nad uzbrojeniem z ziem polskich okresów rzymskiego i wędrówek ludów. Spojrzenie subiektywne (pomimo dobrych chęci)
Authors: Kontny Bartosz 
Published: June 2021

History, State of and Necessity for Research on the Roman and Migration Period Military Equipment from Poland. Subjective Approach (Despite Good Intentions)Significant studies on military equipment from the Roman Period have been initiated by Martin Jahn (1916a; 1921). For many years his works have been the main point of reference for research on weaponry of the Germanic peoples. This picture has not been changed radically by the post-war works of Klaus Raddatz, devoted mostly to the Germanic military equipment in the Late Pre-Roman Period (1966), Younger Roman Period (1967), and wide spectrum from the Late Pre-Roman until the Migration Period (1985). Although important at the time, they were insufficiently involving inner cultural diversity of the ‘Germanic’ world, presenting the issue from the first and foremost northern European perspective.After the war the studies on weaponry of the Central European Barbaricumhave been based mostly on the materials of the Przeworsk culture, due to abundance of military equipment in graves of this cultural unit. It is achronicler’s duty to mention rather unsuccessful work of Janina Elantkowska (1961), but then underline also the fundamental works of Kazimierz Godłowski in the field of chronology of weapon graves (1970; 1992; 1994), enabling further, more precise works on armaments of the Przeworsk culture. This scholar has educated several hoplologists, experts in archaeological military equipment (active – just like him – at the Jagiellonian University) who broaden the knowledge in this field considerably. Among those one should name especially Piotr Kaczanowski (1988) – the author of the studies on inlaid pole weapon heads, finds of imported weapons from the area of Barbaricum (Kaczanowski 1992) or the classification of heads of shafted weapons from the Przeworsk culture (Kaczanowski 1995). The latter is especially important, because establishing typologies and chronology of the pole weapon heads enabled further studies on military equipment in multiple aspects, thanks to the ability to precisely date graves equipped only with spear- or javelin heads, until that time dated very widely. Equally important person ‘descended’ from Kraków is Marcin Biborski, to whom academics owe research on Barbarian and Roman swords from the Barbarian Europe (Biborski 1978; 1994a; 1994b; 1994c; 1994d; Biborski, Ilkjær 2006); he has also begun the discourse on the ritual weapon destruction (Biborski 1981), as well as decorations of shafted weapon heads and swords (1986). Both aforementioned researchers have initiated the metal analysis of swords, which enabled devising of criteria for identification of the Roman imports (Biborski et alii1982; 2003). In the Kraków’s academia the classification of spurs has also been developed (Ginalski 1991), as well as axes (Kieferling 1994). Acomplement to the abovementioned is the study of weapon sets from graves, i.e. Germ. Waffenkombination issue (Kontny 2001; 2002; 2003a; 2008b), and – embracing broader territorial range – studies on pole weapon heads ornamented with astitch-like pattern (Kontny 2008a) and negative ornament on their blades (Kontny 2017a), or an eye-motif decoration placed at the sockets (Czarnecka, Kontny 2008), as well as the newest registers of watery deposits of weapons from the area of Poland (Kontny forthcoming b).Piotr Kaczanowski has also initiated the studies on weaponry of the Wielbark culture (Kaczanowski, Zaborowski 1988). Due to the specifics of burial rituals (taboo on weapons in grave goods) the research on arms of the Wielbark culture has arather short history. In the aforementioned work singular finds of weapons from graves have been used, interpreted by enduring traditions of the Oksywie culture – in the period of the Wielbark culture formation – or the Przeworsk culture – at the former areas of this cultural unit, later occupied by the Wielbark culture peoples. What was used there abundantly was the archival source – the files of Martin Jahn, in which one could find notes and sketches presenting finds of weapons from, i.a. Pomerania. However, the authors did not refer to written sources, especially very important remark of Tacitus (Tacyt, Germania 44, 1) about short swords and round shields, which were supposed to be distinctive for the peoples of Gotones, Rugii, and Lemovii, associated with the area of the Wiebark culture. This gap has been filled, which gave an opportunity for verification of the part of archaeological sources for reconstruction of the Wielbark military equipment and complementing their list (Kontny 2006a; 2008d).The usefulness of the accounts of Tacitus for the reconstruction of weapons from the Roman Period occurred to be insignificant, but it came to light that the Roman author had not always used the contemporaneous sources (the aforementioned description fits the picture of weaponry of the Oksywie culture). Discoveries of further Wielbark military objects as well as the renewed analysis of the discovery from Żarnowiec (Kontny 2006b) considerably broaden the database of sources and were used to formulate the working hypothesis about the influence of the Przeworsk model on the Wielbark military equipment in the Early Roman and the beginnings of the Younger Roman Period, later replaced by the Scandinavian pattern (Kontny 2006b, 152; 2008d, 195). The probability of this concept grew, since the analysis of male belts led to similar inferences (Madyda-Legutko 2015). Therefore, the need for verification of the suggested picture occurred, with the use of possibly complete corpus of Wielbark military finds; all the more because the issue was complicated by the discovery of the inhumation burial with asword and sword bead in Juszkowo near Pruszcz Gdański, i.e. in the area of the important settlement centre of the Wielbark culture. The grave is dated to the time of the decline of this cultural unit (Dyrda, Kontny, Mączyńska 2014; Kontny, Mączyńska 2015). In effect, the synthesis of the Wielbark military equipment has been developed (Kontny 2019a, 69–113), in which it was possible to confirm the Przeworsk inspirations to Wielbark armaments in the Early Roman Period and subphase C1a, as well as to notice later influences of the northern European weaponry model. What was added to this picture was the probable introduction into the sphere of nomadic influences in the terminal stadium of the Wielbark culture, suggesting, that it was in fact the eastern-Germanic-type weaponry then, in which the nomadic influences are quite noticeable, manifesting in the adaptation of bow and trilobate arrows with rhomboid blades, as well as spathae of the Asian type. It was also possible to classify some conceptions formulated in the pioneering work; thus, the suggestion of the Wielbark origins of the negative ornament on shafted weapon heads has been rejected (Kontny 2017a), as well as the one about the important role of abow in the Wielbark armamentarium (Kontny 2019a, 85–87). On the other hand, in the light of current research the idea of the axes’ importance seems valid (Kontny 2019a, 83–85; 2019c,154–158).As opposed to the weapons, the Wielbark spurs were analyzed on multiple occasions. The newest classification of Wielbark spurs (Smółka 2014, 48–51) was mentioned only in the form of summary of the unpublished M.A. thesis and therefore it is hard to refer to it in details and evaluate it. It is beyond doubt, however, that spurs from the Early Roman and the beginnings of the Younger Roman Period, in principle, were based on Przeworsk forms – with obvious differences in material (the lack of iron examples in graves, which is conditioned by the burial rituals), slight morphological ones, as well as the larger popularity of the chair-shaped examples (Germ. Stuhlsporen). In the later timespan one should notice more explicit northern European influences, although along with the preservation of arangeof local forms (Kontny 2019a, 87–88), and at the dawn of the Wielbark culture’s existence one might indicate the examples of spurs having been imported or inspired by Roman solutions (Kontny 2020, 673–675; Kontny, Michalak 2020). These observations, to the large extent, inscribe into the general dynamics of changes in the Wielbark military equipment. Asaresearch objective one should recognise the intensification of studies on watery deposits, as at some sacrificial sites of this kind Wielbark-culture arms have been discovered.In the last few years there has been ahuge advancement in the research on weapons of the West Balt cultural circle from the area of north-eastern Poland. This issue has been basically unrecognised until recently, and the progress is owed to discovery and dissemination of the archives and collections of the former Prussia-Museum, as well as private files of scholars active in the pre-war period. Currently the researchers have at their disposal the studies on Bogaczewo and Sudovian cultures’ swords from the Roman Period (Kontny 2017b; see Nowakowski 1994; 2007) as well as seaxes of the Elbląg and Olsztyn group from the Late Migration Period (Kontny 2013a; 2019a, 142–147; see Prassolow 2018). Besides, the idea of the use of battle knives has been rejected, as they were too short to serve this purpose (Kontny 2019a, 128–129). The earliest (Kontny 2007a) and latest (Kontny 2008c) finds of weapons from Bogaczewo culture have been elaborated, which allowed to establish the timeframes of the phenomenon of including weapons in grave inventories: from the dawn of the Late Pre-Roman Period until subphase C1b. Particular categories of blunt weapons have been comprehensively analyzed, i.e. socketed axes (weapon characteristic for the West Balt circle and some areas of eastern Europe) and axes from Bogaczewo and Sudovian cultures (Kontny 2016a; 2018). Furthermore, the issue of using the organic blunt weapons has been introduced, which popularity in the Balt milieu is suggested by the Tacitus’ remark about fustis. It has been established (Kontny 2015a) that such weapon has been used in the West Balt Barrows culture, but most probably it has not played any important role in the Roman Period, and the account of Tacitus is (in this aspect) anachronic. Elaboration of shafted weapon heads (Kontny 2007b) has shown that examples from the Bogaczewo culture imitate solutions known from the Przeworsk culture, although they show some local features (e.g. asocket is frequently mounted on ashaft with ause of asingle nail, and not rivet, as it was in the Przeworsk culture). On the other hand, in the Sudovian culture similar inspirations might be indicated only in the earliest stadium of its development and they are rather scarce. Shafted weapons match, however, the Lithuanian pattern, proposed by Vytautas Kazakâvičius (Kazakâvičius 1988, 12–63). One can also encounter here the Scandinavian imports. In the case of the Sudovian culture it was also possible to attempt to reconstruct sizes of shafted weapons, thanks to the analysis of the position of their heads in inhumation graves (Kontny 2019a, 119–124). It was also indicated that the significance of javelins in both cultures is rather scarce, which manifests in the sporadic presence of more than one weapon head in grave inventories (Kontny 2019a, 119, table 1), as well as the sparsity of barbed heads (Nowakowski 2014). The influences of the Przeworsk culture are noticeable also in the decorations of weapon heads (see: Kontny 2008a; 2017a; Czarnecka, Kontny 2008). Only recently the topic of bow and arrows from the Bogaczewo and Sudovian cultures has been introduced. They were mainly used for hunting purposes (Kontny 2019a, 137–139). Equine equipment is quite well-represented in the Balt area, the proof of which are quite numerous finds of headgear and horse tack with chain reins, requiring – similarly to spurs – comprehensive studies (see Kontny 2019a, 139–141). On the presented background the research on Balt shields from the area of Poland seems at adisadvantage. It is necessary to challenge the possibility of an uncritical use of the (still incomplete) classification of middle-European shield-bosses and grips for the analysis of the Balt examples, as they indicate adifferent rhythm of popularity and morphological development, and in the same time also arange of primitive features (shield-bosses assembled from two parts, joint with rivets) and archaisms in construction (e.g. many attaching points at the brim; using big disc-headed nails and rivets as late as the Roman Period). It is also important to notice the large diversification in morphology of shield-bosses with blunt apex and probability of popularity of wooden shield-bosses (Kontny 2019a, 132–133, fig. 25), as well as the use of metal supports of shield constructions (Kontny 2019a, 136, fig. 30). The reconstruction of the shape of Sudovian culture shields was also proposed, on the basis of the location of shield elements in inhumation graves (Kontny forthcoming a).Numerous are the finds of the military equipment of the so-called Lubusz group (see the paper by Bartłomiej Rogalski in the hereby volume), located by the lower Oder River in the Early Roman Period and the beginnings of the Younger Roman Period. Distinctive feature of this cultural unit is the use of cremation and including into graves burnt and sometimes – by the Przeworsk custom – destroyed weapons. Studies of this issue still have not been fully published, although it has been approached for some time now (Wołągiewiczowie 1964); aM.A. dissertation was even written on this topic (Czarnecka 1995). The theses, which have been included there, became obsolete due to the rapid increase in the archaeological record, i.a. thanks to the fieldwork at the necropolis in Czelin, as well as the lake sacrificial site in Lubanowo. On the basis of the hitherto observations, it has to be acknowledged that the model of the military equipment is very similar to the solutions known from the Przeworsk culture (Kontny 2019b, 349). The forms of shafted weapon heads, single- or double-edged 74B. Kontnyswords, shield-bosses, grips, and even arrowheads and spurs (with the documented exam-ples of the so-called bow-shaped – Germ. Bügelsporen – and chair-shaped spurs correspond with the Przeworsk prototypes. There are no axes known from burial grounds of the Lubusz group so far, which diversifies it from the Wielbark-culture armament, and shows even more ties with the military equipment of the Przeworsk culture. However, their presence has been confirmed at the sacrificial sites; it is possible that the weapons discovered there have been seized from the defeated Wielbark-culture invaders from the east (similar interpretation is accepted for the analogical northern European deposits). Scarce examples of weapons from the dawn of the Lubusz group refer to the solutions known from Scandinavia. It is thus probable that the change, which can be observed here, is analogous to the process known from the Wielbark culture.Basically unrecognised remains the military equipment of the Dębczyno group, which superseded the Wielbark culture in Western Pomerania in the Younger Roman Period and functioned until the Migration Period. Also in the case of Luboszyce culture what is lacking is the synthetic approach towards the issue of military equipment from the typological and chronological point of view. The finds of weapons were collected in the monograph of this culture; the attention has been paid in this case to the diversity from the Przeworsk model of military equipment, expressed in the use of axes (their classification was proposed); singular ties to the Scandinavian patterns have been observed (Domański 1979, 43–54), although one cannot find here comprehensive analysis of the issue. Adissertation devoted to military equipment of the Luboszyce culture has been written lately; unfortunately, it was not printed (Demkowicz 2014); only some of the issues approached there were published (Andrzejewska, Demkowicz 2015a; 2015b; 2016). They indicate the emulation – with slight modifications – the Przeworsk-culture model of weaponry in the early phases of development of the Luboszyce culture (phase C1), which might be indicated e.g. by the forms of shafted weapon heads and spurs, while new elements, such as asymmetric axes parallel to the ones known from the Elbe region, became numerous only from the C2 phase (Andrzejewska, Demkowicz 2015a; 2015b; 2016). Scandinavian elements are represented i.a. by the knives with along grip, associated with the equipment of warriors (Andrzejewska, Demkowicz2016), although most probably not used in battle. Among the Scandinavian forms one might indicate also range of pole weapon heads (Andrzejewska, Demkowicz 2015b, 119), as well as ashield-boss and grip from the grave XII at Grzmiąca (Marcinkian 1978, 98, fig. 14:g,h).One has to notice new possibilities which occurred in amoment when the picture of diversities in the military equipment of the cultures: Przeworsk, Sudovian, Bogaczewo, and Wielbark has been recognised (see the synthesis of the hoplological research: Kontny 2019a), as well as – reaching beyond the borders of Poland – northern European Barbaricum, and – partly – Elbe circle. It presents possibilities of creating comparative models of military equipment, indicating mutual influences and reconstructing their mechanisms. Already now it was possible to indicate the culture-forming position of the Przeworsk pattern of military equipment in the Early Roman Period and subphase C1a; in the later time asimilar role was played by the Scandinavian model, although this influence was not that standardizing (Kontny 2019c). It was also possible to identify Przeworsk-culture and Balt archaeological materials at the chosen sacrificial sites in Scandinavia (Kontny 2017c; 2019e), as well as Crimea (Kontny 2013c). It allowed to form ahypothesis on undertaking even far-going military expeditions by the warriors from the area of current Poland in the Roman Period, while participating in frequently ethnically heterogeneous war bands (Kontny 2003b; 2019d); it can clarify, to some extent, also some changes in cultural ranges. Fuller knowledge of the picture of military equipment diversity in Barbaricum (paying attention especially to the analysis of the shafted weapon heads, being agood indication of the cultural affiliation) will allow to continue similar comparisons and deepen the knowledge in the field of history of wars in Barbaricum, on the top of that, reconstructed without any precise data from the written sources. Northern European sacrificial sites showed huge potential which is presented by this kind of studies. Such direction is even more promising because the studies of lake and riverine deposits identified lately in the area of Poland should create new research perspectives, although they not necessarily have acharacter identical to – truly not homogeneous – Scandinavian sites. It seems that there is an abundance of the most exciting topics for along time!