ChapterPDF Available

Spurs from the sanctuary at the gurzufskoe sedlo in crimea. on the problem of hook spurs, [in:] A. Tomas (ed.), Ad Fines Imperii Romani. Studia Thaddaeo Sarnowski septuagenario ab amicis, collegis discipulisque dedicata Varsaviae 2015, p. 303–324

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

Р󰐰ссмотрены четыре железные шпоры 󰐰нтичного времени из святилищ󰐰 у перев󰐰л󰐰 Гурзуфское Седло (pис. 󰀱, 󰀲, 󰀴), которые относятся к числу ред-ких н󰐰ходок в Северном Причерноморье. Они имеют дугообр󰐰зную форму с небольшим острым шипом (pис. 󰀳). Две шпоры с з󰐰гнутыми петлеобр󰐰зно кон-ц󰐰ми, одн󰐰 — имеет оконч󰐰ния в виде круглых дужек с круглыми отверстиями, четверт󰐰я — с перевиты- ми плечик󰐰ми и петлеобр󰐰зными конц󰐰ми. Х󰐰р󰐰ктеристики шпор позволяют отнести их к числу л󰐰тенских и д󰐰тиров󰐰ть I в. до н.э. – I в. н.э. Д󰐰нный тип л󰐰тенских шпор отлич󰐰ется от н󰐰ходи-мых н󰐰 территории Польши, Румынии и З󰐰п󰐰дной Укр󰐰ины (pис. 󰀵, 󰀶). Это позволяет предположить отдельный источник их поступления, не связ󰐰нный с эксп󰐰нсией кельтов н󰐰 восток. Шпоры из святилищ󰐰 у перев󰐰л󰐰 Гурзуфское Седло и многие предметы римского военного сн󰐰-ряжения имеют 󰐰н󰐰логии в комплекс󰐰х из Алезии и бывших римских военных л󰐰герей н󰐰 территории Фр󰐰нции, Великобрит󰐰нии, Австрии, Швейц󰐰рии и Герм󰐰нии. Н󰐰личие в святилище многочисленных предметов римского военного сн󰐰ряжения сере-дины I в. до н.э. – I в. н.э. позволяет связ󰐰ть шпорыс этой группой н󰐰ходок и счит󰐰ть их продукцией м󰐰стерских Центр󰐰льной и З󰐰п󰐰дной Европы. Учи-тыв󰐰я применение республик󰐰нской к󰐰в󰐰лерией кельтских и л󰐰тенских предметов вооружения и сн󰐰-ряжения вс󰐰дник󰐰, в том числе шпор, эти н󰐰ходки из святилищ󰐰 у перев󰐰л󰐰 Гурзуфское Седло являются ценным свидетельством военных 󰐰кций римлян в Северном Причерноморье и конт󰐰ктов н󰐰селения Горного Крым󰐰 с Боспором и Римом н󰐰 рубеже эр.
Content may be subject to copyright.
303
spurs from the sanctuary at the gurzufskoe sedlo in crimea. on the problem of hook spurs
Antique spurs are quite rare artefacts discov-
ered on the northern Black Sea coast. ere-
fore, discovering four specimens among the oer-
ings at the sanctuary near the Gurzufskoe Sedlo
(Gurzuf Saddle Pass) in the mountainous Crimea
signicantly complements the group of these
nds, specic to the rider’s outt around the turn
of the millennia.
e sanctuary at Gurzufskoe Sedlo was dis-
covered in  on the Main Ridge of the Crimean
Mountains (at a height of  m above sea level)
during the construction of the pipeline Jalta-
Alušta (Fig. 1). e excavations were carried out
by an archaeological expedition of the Jalta His-
torical-Literary Museum under the direction of
N. Novienkova and V. Novienkov in –.
Over . sq. m were surveyed and layers of
dierent ages were discovered. Cultural accu-
mulations containing Graeco-Roman nds were
represented by two periods: the Hellenistic period
(nd – mid-st centuries BC) and the second half of
the st century BC – beginning of the nd century
AD. It was in the former period when local people
actively started to involve various votive objects
into rites of sacrice, including imported ones.
e cultural layers of these two periods occu-
pied the entire area of the sanctuary, but remained
undamaged only to the north of the pipeline trench
(Fig. 2). ese layers were rich in nds of large
and small cale jaws, but also contained jewellery,
1 N .
2 N : .
metal statuees of Graeco-Roman deities, house-
hold items, coins, pieces of glassware and poery
from various production centres of the Black Sea
coast, the Mediterranean and Western Europe.
e earliest nds from the sanctuary are dated to
the th – th centuries BC, but the most signicant
activity lasted from the second half of the st cen-
tury BC to the mid-st century AD. A large group
of objects of Roman military equipment is dated
to this time, i.e., oensive and defensive weapons,
cavalry equipment, military costume elements,
religious paraphernalia and camp gear. Com-
pared to other sites in the southern part of East-
ern Europe, the largest selection of such artefacts,
among which many were intentionally broken or
chopped, originates from this place.
Iron spurs nds are related to layers of the
second stage of the sanctuary, comprising ash.
Its presence results from the religious activities
carried out within the sacral area. In the s of
the st century BC, in the centre of the sanctuary,
free from Hellenistic-period cultural layers, a new
ritual complex was constructed as an oval area
covering about  m, surrounded by a double
line of  sacricial pits with traces of burning.
Subsequently, the place was occasionally puried
for the rites of sacrice: the ashes and burnt bones
were piled outside the line of pits. is practice
could be traced by the line of dark ash layer visible
3 N : , .
4 N .
5 N : –.
Spurs from the Sanctuary at the Gurzufskoe Sedlo
in Crimea. On the Problem of Hook Spurs
maria novičenkova
bartosz kontny
304
maria novičenkova bartosz kontny
at the perimeter of the sanctuary. is layer of ash
covered a large area and reached the peripheral
areas outside the sacred centre. Among the nds
discovered in the ash, there were many pieces of
glass and poery, fused glass and metal products,
including melted ones, although the density of
metal and glass in the ash is signicantly inferior to
their accumulation in the centre of the complex.
Spurs were found in dierent parts of the site
(Fig. 4). Two were unearthed outside the ceremo-
nial centre with the pits, in the eastern part of the
sanctuary with undisturbed stratigraphy, another
two  in the south-western part of the sanctuary,
around the perimeter on the southern edge of the
ritual centre, where ancient layers were damaged
by the construction of three Christian churches
from dierent chronological stages of the Mid-
dle Ages. We shall go on to consider the spurs in
detail.
e rst spur (Fig. 3.1) was found in square L
(excavated in ) behind the pits, to the east, in
a dark layer of ashes and burnt bones. e curve-
shaped spur possesses a sharp prick and terminals
curved perpendicularly to form ring fastenings. Its
6 N : , g. ..
dimensions are as follows: width . cm, height .
cm, thickness at the terminals .–. cm, fastening
hole diameters .cm, width of the heel band .–
. cm, thickness of the heel band .–. cm (at the
ends), length of the prick .cm (Jalta Historical-
Literary Museum, inv. no KP , A-).
In the cultural layer of square L artefacts
were discovered from the Hellenistic period as
well as from the turn of the ages: many pieces of
glass, including melted ones, and metal objects,
e.g. a denarius of Augustus (Gaul, – BC);
iron specimens  pincers, a stylus, an arrowhead,
strigillum fragments; bronze items fragments
of bulae, plates, an openwork belt buckle with
leather remains, a chain; silver objects  a sword
belt buckle with a triangular frame, a silver pen-
dant encrusted with polychrome glass with an
imprinted image of a rider and a hollow pedestal
for a statuee. Among other nds, one may also
list fragments of a polychrome glass plate with
a lining of gold foil, the throat of one of three
polychrome glass ritons, fragments of which were
found in other squares, a black glass bole throat
with blue threads, fragments of window glass
from the st century BC – st century AD, as well
as eye beads made of glass paste, chalcedony and
rock crystal.
Fig. . Map of Crimean mountain pastures
with position of the sanctuary near
the Gurzufskoe Sedlo Pass
(drawning by V. I. Novienkova)
Pc. .    
    
   
(. .. )
305
spurs from the sanctuary at the gurzufskoe sedlo in crimea. on the problem of hook spurs
Fig. . Plan of the Gurzufskoe Sedlo
sanctuary (aer N
: g. )
Pc..    
  (
 : . )
e spur does not nd exact parallels,
although certain of its traits, e.g. the ribbon-
shaped heel band or circular terminals with a cen-
tral hole intended rather for rivets than for leather
straps or cords (see the small diameters of the
holes), seem to nd analogies in the Mediterra-
nean milieu. One may mention here the Hellen-
istic- and early Empire-period spurs, known from
Hellenistic sanctuaries (i.a., the Zeus sanctuary at
7 One may also consider metal rings aached to the loops as
in the case of, e.g., the st-AD (?) Roman spurs from Long-
stock, Hants (S : , , g. , pl. XIV).
Olympia) and Roman Republican contexts. ey
are aributed to the so-called “classic” form, Type
Kobarid, which is however equipped with dif-
ferently shaped, rectangular rivet-plates and sup-
plemented with oblong midribs; they were dated
to the period from the end of the rd century BC
until the early st century BC. Type Casteggio, in
turn, seems to be closer as it lacks a midrib, but
 despite being chronologically close (the times
of Caesar and Augustus)  it is characterized by
8 B : –, g. –; see B, C-
 : , g. .–.
306
maria novičenkova bartosz kontny
a circular plate beneath the prick in which it dif-
fers from the Gurzuf nd. However, unique nds
also exist with the widening accentuated only
slightly (Gravina di Puglia, prov. Bari from the late
nd – early st centuries BC) or not accentuated at
all (the spur from the sanctuary of Athena-Ithonia
in Philia, Tessaly). Nevertheless, the laer is the
earliest Greek spur known, dated to the second
half of the th century BC, which excludes it from
the discussion. Despite Mediterranean parallels,
we are dealing most probably with a locally made
item, which is suggested by the simplicity of its
execution.
e second spur (Fig. 3.2) comes from the
eastern periphery of the sanctuary (square M,
excavated in ), with a layer of dark grey clay
mixed with ash and bones. e layer is also part
of the ash zone” but diers due to a signicant
amount of clay. e spur has a curved shape with
a sharp prick and terminals bent into loops. It has
the following dimensions: width . cm, height .
cm, width of the heel band . cm (Jalta Historical-
Literary Museum, inv. no KP ). Related nds
from square M included a catapult bolt head, 
fragments of an iron helmet, bronze sheets (one
silver-plated with serrated edges), plates, an iron
bow-shaped bula, a bronze necklace, a strigillum
without handles, pieces of iron strigilla, the rim of
Hellenistic and early Roman times cast glassware,
fragments of light clay amphora with double-bar-
relled handles.
is specimen looks similar to the former
one (see: ribbon-shaped heel band together with
the arms and their curve), but its prick and ter-
minals are of a dierent shape. e arms’ ends
are turned upwards to form a sort of loop, under
which a strap could pass to bind the spur to the
foot. Such a form of the terminals was quite typi-
cal for provincial Roman spurs, e.g. Romano-Brit-
ish ones from Hod Hill, Dorset (Fig. 5.5) dated to
9 B : –, g. , .
10 B : , g. ..
11 See B : , g. .
12 N : g. ..
the middle of the st century AD, the ones from
the National Museum in Rome, aributed to the
times of Tiberius’ reign, or those from Mainz
and Salzburg. It is also similar to the spur from
Corbridge, made of a strip of metal hooked at
the ends (Fig. 5.4). We doubt the chronology
of the Corbridge spur suggested to the rd or th
centuries AD; also the idea that it is of continen-
tal origin because of its rough appearance seems
dubious. Generally, it seems to us that it could be
of Roman origin.
e third spur (Fig. 3.3) was found in the
southern quarter I ( excavations) in a dark
layer with ashes and burnt bones, placed in the
rock and its cavities, disturbed in the Middle
Ages. It can be described as a curve-shaped spur
with loop-shaped terminals and intertwined arms.
Its dimensions are: width . cm, height . cm,
width of the heel band .–.cm. One loop end-
ing is partially broken o (Jalta Historical-Literary
Museum inv. no ME , A- ). Along with
the spur, two coins of Rhescuporis II (AD –),
a gold Chersonesus stater (AD /), a military
(‘half Roman’) brooch and fragments of others,
fragments of an iron helmet, a twisted necklace,
a carnelian inset intaglio and a gold ornamental
plaque were also discovered.
We have not found good parallels to the spur
in question. Its overall shape corresponds with
the other specimens from Gurzuf, but the idea
according to which the loops were executed is
strange for Mediterranean workshops: the bend-
ing of the metal terminals several times to create
a loop appears rather to be a method/custom
used by the Barbarians. We may mention here
late Scythian items from Crimea made in a simi-
13 S : , g. .; M : , . ,  .
14 de L L : –, g. ..
15 M : , g. ..
16 S : , , g. .; D, S : g.
A.
17 e item is deformed so one cannot exclude that originally
it possessed loops and not hooked terminals.
18 S : .
307
spurs from the sanctuary at the gurzufskoe sedlo in crimea. on the problem of hook spurs
Fig. . Sanctuary near the Gurzuf Saddle Pass. Four iron loop spurs
(aer N : g. . –)
Pc. .     .
      
(  : . .-)
lar manner, i.e. bracelets, loops for closing
earrings, wire decorations with beads on them
or necklaces. is method was in use until the
Younger Roman Period (ca. AD –) in Cri-
mea, e.g. in windings around bows of Sarmatian-
Type bow-shaped tendril bulae. erefore,
19 P : g. .–, ., ., .
20 P : g. ..
21 P : g. ..
22 P : g. .–, ., .
23 See e.g. P : g. –.
we assume that the spur shows a regional form
inspired by the Roman way of fastening its arms,
the more so that it is bar-shaped, not ribbon-like
as the Roman spurs mentioned above.
Finally, the fourth spur (Fig. 3.4) was found
near the previous one, in quarter I in a dark layer
of lime mortar splashes from a ruined medieval
308
maria novičenkova bartosz kontny
temple (excavated in ). It is a curve-shaped
spur with a sharp prick and terminals turned out-
ward to form open loop endings. Its dimensions
are: width . cm, height . cm, width of the heel
band . cm (Jalta Historical-Literary Museum
inv. no KP , A ). e antique layer was
destroyed in the Middle Ages and therefore only
a few nds are known from the area. Beside the
spur, these included elements of bronze buckles,
a plaque in the form of plant shoots and a silvered
bronze object with a oral ornament.
It diers from the above mentioned spur with
hooked terminals (Germ. Hakensporn) as its heel
band is bar-shaped in the cross-section. Hooked
fastenings have been evidenced among Hellenis-
tic and late Republican nds (Figs. 5.15). ese
are unique items with the terminals turned out-
ward, forming a hook, but with a thickened end,
known from the sanctuary in Olympia and the
24 N : , g. .; : , g. ..
Sestorian period army camp at ceres el Viejo
(Hispania). Spurs with hooked ends formed
as stylized animal heads were more popular;
they are linked with north-western Greece and
Illyria. eir chronology is not fully clear as stray
nds prevail; only a single specimen from Irmaj,
distr. Gramsch in Albania may be more speci-
cally aributed to the late nd – st centuries BC.
However, Hakensporen are documented mostly
for Barbaricum (Figs. 5.612). ey are known
from the Late Pre-Roman Period in Scandinavia,
i.e. Vallbys, Ksp. Hogrän, Grave on the island
of Gotland (Fig. 5.12; a specimen with a ribbon-
shaped heel band tapering at its endings);
exceptionally in Bulgaria, e.g. Veslec or Turnava,
obl. Bjala Slatina in north-western Bulgaria (Fig.
5.10; also with quite wide arms); in the Prze-
worsk culture  Pikule, Janów Lubelski comm.,
Feature  in the Lublin region (Fig. 5.11; one
with hooked terminals hammered to acquire oval
shapes) and from the beginning of the Roman
Period in Nowa Dzierznia in Mazovia, Grave 
(Fig. 5.7; bar-shaped in its cross-section). It was
also assumed that they were used by the Scordiscii
in the Serbian area, see: Type III aer V. Filipovi,
although one may only deduce this from items
25 B : , g. ; with further literature.
26 B : –, g. .
27 N : , g. ..
28 See Ł : , g. .; with further litera-
ture.
29 One should remark that the exact character and cultural
aliation of the Pikule site is equivocal (see Ł
: –).
30 W : , g. d; Ł : ,
, g. ..
31 B a: , g. .; B b: , g. III
; Ł : ; collection of the Mazovian
Museum in Płock, inv. no MMP/A//. We would
like to express our gratitude to Tomasz Kordala, Ph.D. for
granting us access to these materials.
Fig. . Sanctuary near the Gurzuf Saddle Pass. A scheme of the spur
nd locations on the plan of the sanctuary (aer N
: g. )
Pc. .     . 
     
(  : . )
309
spurs from the sanctuary at the gurzufskoe sedlo in crimea. on the problem of hook spurs
Fig. . Hooked spurs from the Hel lenistic (–), Roman (–) and Barbarian milieu (–) dated from the Pre-Roman Period until the turn
of the ages.   Olympia,   Dodona (Epirus),   Irmaj,   Corbridge,   Hod Hill,   Liptovská Mara VII,   Dziernia
Nowa, Grave ,   aplin,   Judziki, Grave b,   Turnava,   Pikule, Feature ,   Vallbys, Grave . Nos. –: bronze;
–: iron (– aer B : g. –; – aer S : g. ., .;  aer P : pl. XVII ; ,   drawn by
B. Kontny;  aer P : g. .;  aer T : g. ;  aer W : g. d;  aer N :
g. .)
Pc. . c (–),  (, )   (–)      o  o a
I. . ..   ,    (),    (Irmaj),    (Corbridge),     (Hod Hill),  
  (Liptovská Mara) VII,     (Dziernia Nowa), e ,   ,   
( Judziki), e b,    ,    (Pikule), a ,    (Vallbys), e .  –: a; –:

310
maria novičenkova bartosz kontny
without preserved endings (and their popular-
ity in the surrounding areas), so their existence
is only potentially possible. Further examples
are known from the Zarubincy culture: hillfort at
aplin, raj. Loe (Fig. 5.8) on the upper Dnieper,
a selement in Mar’janìvka at the middle South-
ern Bug (the arm terminal of the laer is split into
two hooks) and Ezdonoe on the upper Donec
River (one with hooks bent to form loops), and
the Striated Ceramic culture, e.g. the Belorussian
hillforts Garadziša, raj. Mjadzel’, Varona, raj.
Karèlii, Ivan’, raj. Sluck, Anoški, raj. Njasviž (Figs.
6.36; some of the items possess hooks bent to
such an extent that they form loops); however
they cannot be dated precisely. ey have also
been evidenced for the Puchov culture in north-
ern Slovakia (Fig. 5.6): at least  specimens,
e.g. from the site at Liptovská Mara VII, okr. Lip-
tovský Mikuláš; they are generally dated to the
period from Phase LTC to LTD. Among the
Dacian spurs, apart from the ones with buon-
shaped terminals, there are also specimens with
dierently formed endings, i.a. close to hooks, see,
e.g. st-century BC – st-century AD spurs from the
fortications at Costeti, jud. Hunedoara in Tran-
silvania or Pietroasele-Gruiu Drii, jud. Buzu
in Muntenia. Hooked terminals are also charac-
teristic for a few later nds. One may enumerate
some simple items with bar-shaped heel bands,
similar to the one from Gurzuf: the closest terri-
torial parallel, i.e. a late Scythian nd (st century
32 F : –, , g. .
33 P : , g. .; E : , g. .;
R : g. ..
34 M : pl. XXIII ; R : g. ..
35 R : g. ..
36 E : –, g. .; E :
g. .–.
37 e cultural aribution of part of them is not completely
sure.
38 P : , , pl. XVII ; B a: g. .;
B b: , g. III .
39 B a: .
40 S : , pl. XXIX .
41 D, S : g. ., .. See also D,
S .
AD) from Ust’-Alma, raj. Bahisaraj, Grave /
in southern Crimea, a Bogaczewo culture spur
from Judziki, Bargłów Kocielny comm., Grave b
in the Augustów region (Fig. 5.9), dated to Phase
B by a belt buckle Type Madyda-Legutko D
and a nd from the selement of the Kiev cul-
ture (Fig. 6.2) at Tajmanava, raj. Byhausk on the
upper Dnieper. A further Bogaczewo culture
spur comes from Babita I, Piecki comm., Grave
 in Masuria, unfortunately of unknown mor-
phology. ere are also rare hooked fastenings
among much later nds with at, ribbon-shaped
heel bands, close to Subgroup G aer J. Ginal-
ski. ey are traced to the Wielbark culture and
Przeworsk culture. One may aribute them to
Phases Cb – C. Hooked spur terminals are
documented also in the ernjahov culture on
spurs of the Subgroup Ginalski Fa  a stray
nd from Bila Cerkva, raj. Bila Cerkva on the
middle Dnieper or F/F  a spur from the
selement at Šankiv Jar (Boremel’), raj. Demidi-
42 P : , g. .. In the Crimea, apart
from the spurs from Gursuf and Ust-Alma, only single
spurs from ancient times are known, i.e., one from the nd
beginning of rd c. AD late Scythian grave at Skeliaste/
Skalistoe III, raj. Bahisaraj (B, G, L-
 : ) and a bronze spur from the st c. BC – turn
of the ages found in layer III in the Bitaka necropolis, raj.
Simferopol’, southern Crimea (Fig. 6.1; see P
: , g. .). It is believed that the spur found in
Ust’-Alma was taken by Sarmatians during their campaign
in Central Europe (P : ).
43 M-L ; M : , pl. XII –;
collection of the State Archaeological Museum in Warsaw,
inv. no. PMA IV/..
44 M : , g. ..
45 In the archives of the former Prussia-Museum (PM-A /;
inv. no PM V .–), there are no drawings or de-
tailed descriptions apart from its identication as Haken-
sporn; the grave is dated to Phases Bb – Ca, i.e., nd – early
rd c. AD, by a belt buckle with a doubled tongue (Germ.
Gabeldornschnalle), which equals Types G
 aer
R. M-L ().
46 G  .
47 K, N-S : , g.  C; with
further parallels; see also J : –, g. –.
48 K, N-S : .
49 K : , g. c; K : , g. .;
M, L : , , g. ..
311
spurs from the sanctuary at the gurzufskoe sedlo in crimea. on the problem of hook spurs
Fig. . Barbarian hooked spurs from the Roman, Migration and Medieval Period:   Bitaka, layer III,   Tajmanava,   Garadziša,
  Varona,   Ivan’,   Anoški,   Nikadzinava,   Garadok,   Garadziša,   Kastryca,   Darahi, Barrow , Grave ,
  Tumiany, stray nd,   Tumiany, Grave ,   Tumiany, Grave . Nos. –: iron; –: bronze ( aer P :
g. .;  aer M : g. .; – aer E : g. .–; – aer Š : g. .–, ;  aer
Š : g. .; – aer R : g. a, o–p)
Pc. .       ,     :   ,
c III,   ,   ,   ,   ,   ,   ,   ,   ,
  ,   ,  , e ,   , a a,   , e ,  
, e .  –: ; –: a
worsk culture, middle Donau area, even as far
west as Baden-Würemberg, but also in Eastern
Europe, i.e. in the ernjahov culture (an earlier
51 K, N-S : –, pl. IV –,
V; with further literature.
vka in Volhynia. A similar shape of the end-
ings was employed in some spurs close to Type
Leuna dated to the Late Roman Period and Early
Migration Period from the Wielbark culture, Prze-
50 M, L : , , g. ..
312
maria novičenkova bartosz kontny
form) Perejaslav-Hmelnic’kij, raj. Perejslav-
Hmelnic’kij, Grave  on the middle Dnieper from
the same chronological range. e method of
fastening spurs with the use of hooks was not
forsaken in the Migration Period. It became even
more popular, which is evidenced by the spurs
from the West Balt circle, namely the Olsztyn
group (Figs. 6.1214): they were executed mainly
from at, ribbon-shaped heel bands, tapered at
their ends to form hooks. However, they are also
known from other Balt cultural units in the Migra-
tion Period, i.e. the Sudovian culture: a grave
from Przebród, Suwałki comm., Suwałki region,
the Samogitian Flat Cemeteries group: Sauginiai,
raj. Šiauliai or from the territory of Latvia: the
Semigallian cemetery at Sauka, Sauka pagasts,
the last two made of at heel bands. ere is also
a specimen with terminals bent upward, but oval-
shaped, from the Long Barrows culture: Darahi/
Dorohi, raj. Gorodok, Barrow , Grave on the
upper Lovat (Fig. 6.11), treated as being of Balt
origin, i.e. an import. More numerous exam-
ples, generally bar-shaped ones, are discovered
in the Slavonic milieu, e.g. the Koloin culture or
specically the Tušemlja-Bancerovšina culture
52 K : , , gs. ., .; M, L-
 : , , g. ..
53 R  .
54 N : , g. ; N a: ,
g. ; collection of the Museum in Suwałki, inv. no MA/
A/. We would like to thank Jerzy Brzozowski, the direc-
tor of the museum for providing access to these materials.
e pair is equipped with additional doubled hooks at the
pricks. One of the spurs is supplemented with transverse
grooves on the heel band (a decoration known also from
the Olsztyn group). Here the terminals are only slightly
bent upwards, not forming exact hooks; it seems problem-
atic how they were mounted to avoid sliding.
55 M : , g. .
56 M : pl. ..
57 Š : , g. .; K : g. .; with
further literature. See also M: , g. .,
who mentions further parallels from that cultural unit, i.e.,
nds from selements at Zaozer’e in the Msta river basin
and Gorka in the Plyussa river basin.
(Figs. 6.710), where they possibly appeared
as a result of Balt inspiration. An exceptional
hooked spur is documented in the uringian
area: Stössen, Burgenlandkreis, Grave , how-
ever the prick on this bar-shaped spur is situated
signicantly asymmetrically.
Some of the above nds were treated as evi-
dence of interregional or multi-stage relations, e.g.
the nds from the Przeworsk culture were treated
as proof of a Puchov culture inspiration or maybe
even as Celtic (?) imports, while the speci-
men from aplin in the Zarubincy culture on
the upper Dnieper as a certain Celtic item, and
the Long Barrows culture item as a Balt import,
whereas the nds from the Slavonic area were
viewed as a consequence of contacts with the
Balts. However, this does not seem so obvious,
as we are dealing with a very simple form, easy to
achieve independently by local artisans from dif-
ferent regions. erefore, we should be careful
when proposing such far-fetched ideas. Never-
theless, it seems obvious that hooked spurs with
bar-shaped heel bands were especially popular
in Eastern Europe. Most probably, the spur from
Gurzuf should be linked with eastern specimens
and as refers to chronology  dated generally to
the turn of the ages. However, one cannot ulti-
mately exclude that it is of a later date: there are
about ten items from the th – th centuries AD
known from the site and the earliest of the Chris-
tian churches that disturbed the layers was built in
58 e ethnic identication of this cultural unit is unclear
(the Balts, Slavs or Balto-Slavs are considered, see: Š
: –; with further literature). e popularity of
this kind of spurs (they are known from the north Belo-
russian selements at Garadziša, raj. Mjadzel’ and Gara-
dok, raj. Polack, Kastryca, raj. Lepel’, as well as the hillfort
at Nikadzinava / Nikodimovo, raj. Horki on the upper
Dnieper; see Š : , g. .–) seems to
conrm the Balt inspiration.
59  : , , g. .; K : ; R-
 , : g. d–e; Š : , g. .–.
60 S : , pl. ..
61 B a: .
62 E : , .
63 K : .
313
spurs from the sanctuary at the gurzufskoe sedlo in crimea. on the problem of hook spurs
the th century AD. erefore, the discussed spur
may be theoretically linked with later periods, e.g.
the Migration Period hooked spurs, however, this
does not seem very probable to us.
***
For the further identication of spurs, let us turn
to the history of their occurrence and prevalence
in Europe. e oldest nds of spurs belong-
ing to the Celtic culture originate from West-
ern Europe and date back to the Early La Tène
period, e.g. Trugny, dep. Aisne in France. How-
ever in south-east Europe, spurs were found in
the late Halsta culture graves already in the th
century BC in the Dolenjsko region, Slovenia,
e.g. Brezje, okr. Novo mesto, Barrow XIII, Grave
 and Barrow VII, Grave , as well as further
on. From East Hallsta Slovenia, spurs were
probably adopted by the Greeks and Celts; the
spread of spurs in Europe probably resulted from
Celtic expansion, and later from the advance-
ment of Roman troops. Spurs have been found
during excavations of oppida, for example, the
bronze spur of Alise-Sainte-Reine (Alésia) and
the Geneva Cathedral. Two iron La Tène spurs
(with buon-shaped terminals  Germ. Knopf-
sporen but placed on hooked ends) from La
Bue Sainte-Geneviève, dép. Aisne were found
in a complex of weapons from the Republican
period, together with, i.a., catapult bolts, a pilum
head, two scabbard chapes, lorica hamata fasten-
ing armour, and a sword belt buckle. Research-
ers of the complex of Republican-period arms
from La Bue ascribe the spurs to the La Tène D
period and note parallel ndings in a series of for-
tications in Central Europe, including oppidum
64 D : –, g. ..
65 B : .
66 K ., , , pl. ., .; F : .
67 B : –; F .
68 See P : ; , M-K
: , –; M : ; E,
Š : ; B b: –.
69 P : , pl. .
70 D : , pl. ., .
Stradonice, okr. Kladno in Bohemia and Staré Hra-
disko, okr. Prostejov in Moravia. e spurs from
Alésia and the Geneva Cathedral (Knopfsporen)
are dated by M. Poux to the period between La
Tène D and the times of Augustus’ reign. e
researcher also notes that they undoubtedly soon
began to be used by Roman troops and cavalry
(auxiliari) and their opponents
the Gauls.
Spurs occur in areas of ghts and obviously
belonged to both sides. ey are present in Gaul
in the Middle and Late La Tène periods. Although
they did not belong to the category of mandatory
equipment at the time of Caesar’s conquests, they
were used by the soldiers stationing in the camps
of Iberian Numantia and Caeres-el-Viejo. e
bronze spurs from Alésia and the Geneva Cathe-
dral are also likely to be related to the events of the
Gallic Wars. Similar specimens are known from
Mont Beuvray (Bibracte), Varennes-sur-Seine in
northern France, Bäle-Münsterhügel near Basel.
In Western Europe, except for Alésia, spurs come
from excavated sites which were poorly docu-
mented. In Belgium, they were found mainly in
graves, among horseman equipment, particularly
in the tombs of the nobility. e high social status
of the buried is conrmed in the case of nds of
bronze decorated spurs from the Treveri grave at
Goeblingen-Nospelt, Kehlen comm. and Essey-
lès-Nancy, dép. Meurthe-et-Moselle.
e ndings of La Tène spurs along with ele-
ments of Roman oensive and defensive weap-
ons from the Late Republican Period and the era
of Augustus provide reasons for drawing parallels
with the complex of sanctuaries near the Gur-
zufskoe Sedlo. We shall emphasize that the main
group of Roman military equipment objects from
the sanctuary coincides with the armament from
the Late Republican period discovered at the
Late La Tène oppida in Alésia, Lyon, Titelberg,
Pétange comm. and Gergovia, dép. Puy-de-Dôme.
71 P : .
72 P : .
73 D : .
74 D : .
314
maria novičenkova bartosz kontny
In particular, in the sanctuary two entire shield
bosses (one silvered) were discovered, together
with the ings of oval shields of the scutum
type,  fragments and  rings of lorica hamata,
including two pieces with elements of bronze
rings. We now know about six shield bosses of
the early scutum type: three fragmented, from
the Republican period, come from Lyon, Titel-
berg and Gergovia, while one from Mainz
 dates to the late st century BC. Finds of poor-
ly-preserved fragments of lorica hamata armour
from the Late Republican period are known
from oppida at Vernon, dép. Eure in Upper Nor-
mandy; Závist, okr. Praha-západ in Bohemia and
Titelberg, Haute-Marne, Bibracte. Seing
the dating of the lorica hamata ndings to the st
century BC, including the ones from sites specied
above, the researchers emphasize the Celtic ori-
gin of this kind of armour. In oppidum Bibracte,
a piece of armour was discovered together with
La Tène spurs: bronze and iron, one of which was
made in the German tradition, while the other in
the Gallic. Individual bronze armour fragments
were found in Renieblas or Numantia, at Fort
Lunt (Baginton), Warwickshire, while one frag-
ment originates from Mainz.
Among other nds of Roman military equip-
ment, common in the Roman sites of that time in
Europe and the sanctuary near the Gurzufskoe
Sedlo, we point out the following: catapult bolt
heads, lance-heads and lance-shoes, cingulum
buckles, Roman helmet and Gallic helmet cheeks
dated to the middle of the st century BC (Agen /
75 N : .
76 P : , , pl. , .
77  : , g. .
78 V : .
79 D : , pl. ..
80 P, P, T : , pl. ..
81 V : , pl. .
82 P, P, T : , pl. ., .
83 G : .
84 H : .
Port Type A aer H.R. Robinson or the West-
ern Celtic type), which has analogies among
the helmets of Giubiasco, cant. Tessin in southern
Switzerland and Alésia; the mass nds of details
of gladii Type Mainz (scabbard mounts, chapes,
guards, edge ings) and items of military life.
e Romans who took the best weapons
from conquered peoples over time qualitatively
improved such ‘borrowed’ equipment. M. Feugère
has stated that the harness, saddle and other mili-
tary equipment items of the Roman cavalry were
based on Gallic originals, which, however, have
been adopted mainly from the Celts living in
Central Europe. At the beginning of the Princi-
pate period, as a result of Augustus’ reforms, the
Roman cavalry evolved into a stable, unied force
within the army  auxilia units (ala quingenaria).
However, st-century Roman spurs were partially
similar to their La Tène predecessors. In particu-
lar, researchers distinguish three main types of
Roman cavalry spurs with curved ends, with
holes and rivets or buons. Dierent types of
spurs of the La Tène and Roman designs were
found in Mainz.
At the end of the st millennium BC, through
contacts with the Celtic and Roman world, other
European peoples started to use spurs, i.e. the Ger-
mans in the Elbian circle, Scandinavia, the peoples
of the Oksywie culture and Przeworsk culture
(in the laer already in the Phase A, i.e., late
nd – early st c. BC). It has been stated that at the
85 R : , pl. –.
86 E, W : , g. ..
87 R : ; E, W : .
88 N : .
89 F : .
90 D, S : .
91 C : , g. , .
92 B b:–.
93 Spurs became much more popular among the barbarians in
the Roman Period. From the burials of the Wielbark culture
(the Roman Period and the beginning of the Migration Peri-
od), we know the spurs inspired by the Przeworsk culture and
Scandinavian designs (K, N-S
; K, N-S ; K,
N-S ). Also in the West Balt circle
315
spurs from the sanctuary at the gurzufskoe sedlo in crimea. on the problem of hook spurs
turn of the millennia they also emerged in Eastern
Europe, but taking into consideration the men-
tioned items from the Zarubincy culture, to which
we may add a few Late Pre-Roman Period Knopf-
sporen from Mutin, raj. Krolevec’ on the middle
Seim River, but also from the Zarubincy culture
selements at Obolon’ and Monastyrjok on the
middle Dnieper, and the Przeworsk culture nds
from Griniv, raj. Pustomyty, Grave and a stray
nd, as well as one made at Luka, raj. Ternopil’
(both in western Ukraine), we may refute such
a statement and claim that they were known in
Eastern Europe at least from Phase A, i.e. from
the middle of the st century BC. e historical
situation in Central and Eastern Europe at the end
of the rd century BC, caused by the expansion of
the Celts from the west, the Bastarnae from the
middle and lower Elbe basin to the south-east, and
later also the Cimbri from the Jutland Peninsula
to the south/south-east and the Sarmatians from
the southeast, caused the movements of Vistula
and the Dnieper tribes. As a result of these mul-
tiple and complex events in Central and Eastern
Europe, “latenized” cultures developed, i.e. the
spurs are well known, i.e., the Bogaczewo culture, Sudovian
culture, Dollkeim-Kovrovo culture, on the territory of Lithu-
ania (N : passim; S : –;
N b: –; K : –; M-
 ). Spurs have been evidenced for the Balt
milieu also in the Migration Period, e.g., the Elblg group
(K : –), the Olsztyn group (R
) or the Sambian-Natangian area (S :
–). Examples of Roman- and Migration-Period spurs
from Eastern Europe have been mentioned hitherto so we
would like only to accentuate here research conducted by
B. P (), A. K (), M. K
(: –), B. M and M. L () as
well as O. R ().
94 P : .
95 Ł, T : , , g. .–; T-
, Z : , g. .–.
96 Ł, T : , with further litera-
ture; R : g. .–.
97  : , pl. IV ; K : , , g. ., .–,
, .–; Ł ; K : g. f.
98 K : , g. ; K : .
99 Finds from Mutin dated to Phase A, whereas the one from
Griniv to Ba and from Luka to Phase A/B or the begin-
ning of B: see Ł : ; Ł, T-
 : –; K : .
Poienešti-Lukaševka culture, Przeworsk culture,
Oksywie culture, and Zarubincy culture. e
Przeworsk culture, covering a majority of the ter-
ritory of modern southern and central Poland,
seems to be of great potential here as it inuenced
the neighbouring areas, leading to the formation
of new cultural units, e.g. the Elbian circle or the
Bogaczewo culture. Over the last decades of the
st century BC, the peoples of the Przeworsk cul-
ture entered the upper Dniester area and came
into contact with the Dacians, which resulted in
the creation of selements of a mixed character,
where particular types of Przeworsk culture weap-
ons together with spurs were adopted (i.a. Griniv
and Luka). However, this is not the only factor
in the puzzle, as the Celtic migration also aected
the territory of Ukraine. e most important
aspect of the Celtic period in Western Ukraine
was its impact on the metalworking and poery
carriers of local cultures. From the middle of
the rd century BC, the La Tène culture was domi-
nant in the upper Tisza River, where economic,
cultural and iron production centres existed, i.e.
oppidum Gališ-Lovaka near Mukaevo and
Novo-Klinove. Sets of arms with spurs come
from Transcarpathian sites at Ardanove, raj. Iršava,
Site I and II, and Bratove, raj. Vinogradov. Ju.
Kuharenko noted that spurs and harness parts
became widespread in Eastern Europe in the st
century AD, based on the La Tène paerns, but
it seems that the Przeworsk culture impact was of
greater importance in those times. e nds of
 as described by Kuharenko  “La Tène” type
spurs made of iron from Eastern Europe men-
tioned by the researcher, i.e. the “Celtic” burial
from Ardanove, the grave from Griniv or a stray
100 is is the Lipica culture, although its long-lasting character
has been questioned (see K : , , ).
101 K : –.
102 E ; K : –; K
: .
103 K’ –: g. –; K : –.
104 K : –.
105 K’ –: pl. II, III, V.
106 K : .
316
maria novičenkova bartosz kontny
nd from Pekariv, raj, Sosnicija, together with
Luka should be rather interpreted as Przeworsk
culture specimens or at least as representing the
Przeworsk cultural idea.
In the Hellenistic period frequent contacts
between the Celts and the Northern Black Sea
population took place. Greek sources mention
Celtic mercenaries employed by Mithridates
VI Eupator in the Hellenistic kingdoms and the
Bosporus in  BC. eir presence at Pantika-
paion and in the surrounding areas is conrmed
by the nds of weapons and ornaments dated to
the end of the La Tène period. In the regions of
the Upper Dniester and Middle Dnieper, treas-
ures, burials, and numerous individual nds of La
Tène type specimens have been evidenced.
e fact that the spurs with arched heel bands
from the sanctuary at Gurzuf have common fea-
tures with the nds from the st century BC st
century AD of the Zarubincy culture sites
allows us to compare further archaeological
material. ere are more items common to the
Zarubincy culture and the sanctuary near the
Gurzufskoe Sedlo, i.e. military brooches (‘half
Roman’ ones) dated to the period from the st
century BC till the turn of the eras.
It should be noted that the sanctuary near
the Gurzufskoe Sedlo seems to have had a spe-
cic appeal. Although it is located in the Crimean
Mountains, so it is in fact isolated from the out-
side world, sacricial rites were continuously
conducted there; moreover, one can trace sev-
eral waves of imports coming there from Central
and Western Europe, Asia Minor and the Eastern
Mediterranean. e main groups of imported
items used as votives along with those made
locally in the Northern Black Sea region and the
Crimean peninsula allow for the division of sacri-
107 K : .
108 App., Mithr. .
109 K : .
110 Apart from the works mentioned above, see also: H-
 : g. .; M : pl. VI , XXIII ;
K : , g. ..
111 N : –.
cial activities into six chronological stages: ) th
rst half of the nd centuries BC; ) second half of
the nd beginning of the st centuries BC; ) rst
half – mid-st century BC; ) second half of the
st century BC (a great number of items, including
the last decades of the period); ) rst half of the
st century AD (among the nds, one may accen-
tuate the items from the s, specically coins);
) second half of the st century BC – turn of the
st/nd centuries AD, from which the decline in
sanctuary activities begins. e nds of the La
Tène imports and Roman military equipment are
typical of Phases –, i.e. starting from the st cen-
tury BC, when most of Asia Minor was annexed to
the Roman Empire. Marked growth of imports
in the rst half – mid-st century BC should be
linked to the participation of the Crimean pop-
ulation in the Mithridatic wars. Republican
denarii, fragments of the oval shield (scutum),
a bronze helmet cheek of the Western Celtic type,
and several elements of a military standard (sig-
num), lanceheads and other pieces of military
equipment can be aributed to this time span.
During the fourth phase (second half of the
st century BC), the sanctuary received the largest
amount of Roman military equipment of the
late Republic, Second Triumvirate period and the
beginning of Augustus’ reign. is group of nds
is associated with the dramatic events reported
by Dio Cassius. Aer the defeat of Mithridates,
Chersonesos remained dependent from the cli-
ent state of Bosporus until Caesar granted the city
freedom (eleutheria). Aer Caesar’s death, the
Bosporan King Asander (– BC) aempted
to subordinate Chersonesos and the southern
part of the Crimean Mountains, which is evi-
denced by the construction of a fortress at Kutlak,
raj. Sudak. Chersonesos, trying to free itself
112 N : , , .
113 N : , , , g. .–.
114 App., Mithr. , .
115 N : , , , g. .
116 Dio Cass. LIV, , .
117 L : .
317
spurs from the sanctuary at the gurzufskoe sedlo in crimea. on the problem of hook spurs
from the tutelage of Bosporus, appealed to Rome
for aid. Roman mediation resulted in an agree-
ment between the Tauric polis and the Bosporan
Kingdom and was marked by the introduction
of the era of Chersonesus in  or BC. How-
ever, Rome also provided assistance to Bosporus,
trying to defend itself against barbarian tribes,
especially the Sarmatians, Meotians and Sindi.
We know that the Romans equipped the Bospo-
ran army with weapons, even earlier, in the time
of Dynamis’ rule (– BC) and regularly sup-
ported the Bosporans nancially. e increasing
danger of barbarian raids in the second half of
the st century BC is shown by the construction
of fortications on the western borders of the
Bosporan Kingdom and Fantalivsk Cape.
Another large group of Roman artefacts from
the sanctuary dates to the rst half of the st cen-
tury AD, the time of Aspurgus’ reign (died AD
) and the Romano-Bosporan war (AD –).
From an inscription on the pedestal of Aspurgus’
statue (KBN, ), it is known that he subdued the
Scythians and Tauri, taking over most of Crimea.
is situation apparently remained unchanged
during the reign of his wife, Gypaepyris, and later
 of Mithridates VIII (AD –). e events
of the Roman-Bosporan war were recorded in
a fairly detailed manner, including the testimony
of Tacitus, who  among other information 
reported on the Barbarians aacking Roman war-
ships which moored on the coast of Tauri lands.
e fact that the sanctuary at Gurzuf repre-
sents an extraordinary complex of La Tène and
Roman nds dated to the st century BC – st cen-
tury AD, in particular of weapons, is suggested
also by a number of artefacts unique throughout
the whole Northern Black Sea coast, e.g. parts
of Roman oval shields (scutum) of the La Tène
118 Strabo VII , .
119 Z’, Z’ : –, .
120 N : , , g. .
121 Dio LXI .
122 Ta c . , Ann. XII , .
type, fragments of a military standard, fragments
of a ring-mail (lorica hamata), many ings from
scabbards characteristic of the gladii Type Mainz
(Augustus’ era). Spurs from the sanctuary, which
represent a form possibly inspired by the La
Tène paern, also represent a separate group, not
typical either for the areas of Celtic inuence in
the rest of Ukraine or other La Tène nds from
the sanctuary, rare or absent in other sites of
the Northern Black Sea region. In all cases, the
same chronological limits for La Tène imports
and Roman military equipment and glassware
apply, also evidenced by coins; the items came
to the sanctuary in groups, simultaneously and at
certain times.
In particular, taking into consideration the
chronology, one may state that items of the La
Tène type were sacriced during Phases – along
with Roman military equipment objects of the
Late Republican and Early Principate times. To
the rst group of La Tène imports from the rst
half – mid-st century BC, one may assign frag-
ments of bronze ware executed in the north Italian
centre, including a dipper handle of the Pesate
type, two bronze hooks, bronze and silver pen-
dants with duck and swan heads (similar in style to
the images of bird heads known from the handles
of the Late La Tène metal ware dated to the rst
half of the st century BC, found in the sanctuary),
military brooches (“half Roman”), a bronze frag-
ment of a La Tène harness. Among the nds of the
second group, i.e. from the second half of st cen-
tury BC – rst half of the st century AD, we may
enumerate spurs and an iron razor with a twisted
handle and a loop at its end, which is similar to the
Celtic-like antiquities of the turn of the eras in the
territory of Moldova, Bohemia, as well as Central
and Northern Europe. Similar La Tène type
objects were found in Europe in sacricial com-
plexes, where arms were also deposited (helmets,
shields and other items). ese complexes are usu-
ally immersed in rivers and other bodies of water,
123 N : , g. ..
318
maria novičenkova bartosz kontny
using them as a kind of sanctuary. Not coinci-
dentally, perhaps, a combination of these items
can be observed in sacricial gis at the sanctuary
at Gurzufskoe Sedlo.
us, according to stratigraphic data, the
income of spurs (at least of their majority) to
the sanctuary chronologically coincides with the
major groups of Roman military equipment items
from the Late Republican period, the Second Tri-
umvirate (s – s BC) and the Early Principate
(from the reign of Augustus to Claudius, i.e. 
BC rst half of the st century AD) also being
brought there.
e spurs from Gurzuf have several features
in common with spurs of the Late Pre-Roman
Period from Central and Eastern Europe, as well
as Scandinavia, but also with the La Tène ones.
On one hand, the specic nature of most La Tène
products from the sanctuary suggests their origi-
nal, i.e. Celtic production, but  on the other
hooked spurs are unique among the Celtic nds
(except the Puchov culture nds). Moreover, the
spur with twisted loops (Fig. 3.3) was probably
124 N : , gs. ., ..
made locally. Additionally, one should remember
that the dating of the fourth spur (Fig. 3.4) is not
entirely sure and theoretically it may come from
the Migration Period. e reception of the spurs
seems not to have been associated with the Celtic
expansion to the east. It seems rather to have been
the result of the multi-stage spread of ideas among
the peoples of Eastern Europe or which is
a tantalizing concept  along with the spread
of Roman military equipment items (by mem-
bers of auxiliary troops?). We have to accentuate
here that at the turn of the ages Roman horsemen
were recruited mostly from among Barbarians,
i.e. the Celts, thus the Roman riders’ equip-
ment was inuenced strongly by the Barbarian
model. Taking into consideration the use of La
Tène armaments and rider equipment by Repub-
lican cavalry, including spurs, nds in the Gurzuf-
skoe Sedlo sanctuary can be a valuable indication
of Roman war activity in the Northern Black
Sea region and contacts between the Crimean
Mountain population and the Bosporus and
Rome.
125 B : ; F : ; B, C
: –.
    
    
(pис. 1, 2, 4),     -
    .  
     
(pис. 3).      -
,        
 ,    -
    .
     
    I .  .. I . ..
      -
   ,   
 (pис. 5, 6).   
   ,  
    .
     
      -
       
     
, , , 
 .    
    -
 I .  .. – I . ..   
Шпоры из святилища у перевала Гурзуфское Седло
в горном Крыму
(Pезюме)
319
spurs from the sanctuary at the gurzufskoe sedlo in crimea. on the problem of hook spurs
Maria Novičenkova
Institute of Archaeology
Ukrainian Academy of Sciences
Geroiv Stalingrada St. , Kiev, Ukraine
novichenkovamaria@gmail.com
Bartosz Kontny
Institute of Archaeology
University of Warsaw
ul. Krakowskie Przedmiecie /
- Warszawa, 
bartosz.kontny@uw.edu.pl
       
    . -
   
      -
 ,    ,   
     
     
   
        .
Ancient authors
App., Mithr. Appian, Mithridates
Dio Cassius Dio, Historiae
Strabo Strabo, Geographica
Tac., Ann. Tacitus, Annales
Abbreviations
BAR-IS British Archaeological Reports. International Series
KBN Korpus Bosporskih Nadpisej, Struve, V.V. [ed.], Leningrad .
M B
Sur les traces de César. Militaria tardo-républicains en contexte gaulois. Actes de la table ronde
organisée par Bibracte, Centre archéologique européen, Glux-en-Glenne,  octobre ,
Poux, M. [ed.], Glux-en-Glenne .
SA /  Sovetskaja Arheologija /  
Literature
B, H. . Hellenistisch-frühkaiserzeitliche Reitersporen aus dem Zeusheiligtum von Olympia, Germa-
nia , –.
B, M.C. . Cavalry Equipment of the Roman Army in the First Century A.D. [in] Military Equipment and
the Identity of Roman Soldiers. Proceedings of the Fourth Roman Military Equipment Conference, BAR-IS, ,
J.C.N. Coulston [ed.], Oxford, –.
B, M.C., C, J.C.N. . Roman Military Equipment om the Punic Wars to the Fall of Rome, London.
. Roman Military Equipment om the Punic Wars to the Fall of Rome, London (nd edition).
B, T. a. Rola kultury puchowskiej i grupy tynieckiej w kształtowaniu si modelu uzbrojenia kultury
przeworskiej w fazie A młodszego okresu przedrzymskiego [in] Okres lateski i rzymski w Karpatach pol-
skich. Materiały z konferencji, J. Garncarski [ed.], Krosno, –.
b. Zrónicowanie typologiczne ostróg oraz bojowe zastosowanie konia w kulturze przeworskiej
w młodszym okresie przedrzymskim, Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Rzeszowskiego. Seria Socjologiczno-
Historyczna , Archeologia , –.
B, N.A., G, I.I., L
, I.I. . Mogil’nik Skalistoe v Jugo-Zapadnom Krymu (I–III vv. n. e.),
SA /, –. / , .., , .., , ..,   -
  (I–III . ..), CA /, –.
B, D. . O starosti konjeniškega groba št.  z latenskoga grobiša na beograjski Karaburmi [in] Keltski
voz, M. Guštin, L. Pauli [eds.], Brežice, –.
C, P. . Greece and Rome at War, London.
D, J. . Manuel d’archéologie préhistorique, celtique et gallo-romaine IV: Second Age du Fer ou époque
de La Tne, Paris.
320
maria novičenkova bartosz kontny
D, T. . Présence de militaria sur quelques oppida de l’est de la Gaule [in] M
B, –.
D, K., S, P. . e Roman Cavalry, London.
D, S., S, F. . Dacian Iron Spurs
A Collection. In Memory of Professor Kurt Horedt,
Analele Universitatii din Oradea. Fascicola Istorie-Arheologie , –.
D, V., S, V. . Incinta dacic forticat de la Pietroasele-Gruiu Drii, Buzu.
E (E, ), A.A. . Drevnejšie gorodiša belorusskogo Polesja (VII–VI vv.
do n.e. – II v. n.e.), Minsk. /     (VII–VI . .. – II . ..), .
. Kultura štryhavanaj keramiki [in] Arheologija Belarusi , Minsk, –. /  
 []   , , –.
E, M., W, G. . Antike Helme, Mainz.
E, M. . Scutum. Die Entwicklung einer Italisch-Etruskischen Schildform von der Anfängen bis zur Zeit
Caesars, Frankfurt am Main – Bern – New York – Paris.
E, V.E. . «Kel’tskaja vual’» i zarubineckaja kul’tura, Sankt-Peterburg. / , .., «-
 »   , -.
, V.., Š, M.B. . Kimvry, tevtony, kel’toskify i nekotorye voprosy hronologii pohi latena i rim-
skogo vremeni, Sankt-Peterburg. / , .., , .., , ,   -
       , -.
F, M. . Weapons of the Romans, Paris.
F, J. . Enzyklopädisches Handbuch zur Ur- und Frühgeschichte Europas, Vol. , Praha.
F, V.M. . Mamuze iz mlaeg gvozdenog doba u Srbi’i, Glasnik Srpskog arheološkog drušstva , –.
G, J. . Ostrogi kabłkowe kultury przeworskiej. Klasykacja typologiczna, Przegld rcheologiczny
, –.
G, A.L. . Weapons and the Army [in] A Companion to the Archaeology of the Roman Republic,
J. DeRose Evans [ed.], Malden (MA), –.
H, I.I. . Pamjatki zarubinec’koj kul’tury na Pobužži, Arheologija (Kyiv) , –. / , ..,
' ï   ,  (ï) , –.
H, D.F. . Neronian-Vespasianic Military Site at «e Lunt», Baginton, Warwickshire, Transactions of
the Birmingham Archaeological Society , –.
H, K. . Die Dakischen Silbertunde, Dacia , –.
J, M. . Der Reitersporn, seine Entstehung und üheste Entwicklung, Mannus-Bibliothek, , Leipzig.
J, A., O, M., S, P. .
Über die Vorteile der Bildung einer «didaktischen Kollektion». Materialien
der Bogaczewo-Kultur und Olsztyn-Gruppe in Ajaloo Instituut in Tallin (Estland) [in] Antyk i Barbarzycy.
Studia dedykowane profesorowi Jerzemu Kolendo, A. Bursche, R. Ciołek [eds.], Warszawa, –.
K (K), G. . Vidgomin karniksìv: vìjskovì tradicìj davnìh kel’tìv na zemljah Ukrajni,
IV–I st. do n. è., Militaria Ukrainica, Kyiv. / , .  i:   
    ïi, IV–I .  .., Militaria Ukrainica, ï.
. e Late La Tène Decorated Scabbard from the Upper Dniester Area: a Far Relative of the Gunde-
strup Cauldron? [in] Dimensions and Categories of Celticity: Studies in Literature and Culture, M. Fomin,
J. Jarniewicz, P. Stalmaszczyk [eds.], Studia Celto-Slavica, , Łód, –.
K, M. . Les éperons, les umbo, les manipules de boucliers et les haches de l’époque romaine tardive
dans la region pontique: origine et diusion [in] Beiträge zu römischer und barbarischer Bewanung in den
ersten vier nachchristlichen Jahrhunderten. Marburger Kolloquium , C. von Carnap-Bornheim [ed.], Mar-
burg – Lublin, –.
. e Armament, Horsemen’s Accoutrements, and Riding Hear of Long Barrow Culture (Fih to
Seventh Centuries) [in] Weapons, Weaponry and Man. In memoriam Vytautas Kazakeviius, A. Bliujien [ed.],
[= Archaeologia Baltica ], –.
K     ’, J . –. Manche probleme der La Tène-kultur des oberen eibgebietes (Karpatoukraine), Acta
Archaeologica Carpathica , –.
–. A Przeworsk kultúrához tartozó harcossírok és fegyverleletek Kárpátalján, Nyíregyházi Jósa
András Múzeum Évkönyve –, –.
321
spurs from the sanctuary at the gurzufskoe sedlo in crimea. on the problem of hook spurs
K, A. . L’art militaire des Goths à l’époque romaine tardive (Daprès les données archéologiques)
[in] Larmée romaine et les barbares de IIIe au VIIe siècle, F. Vallet, M. Kazanski [eds.], Mémoires publiées
par lAssociation Française dArchéologie Mérovingienne et Musée des Antiquités Nationales, , Paris,
–.
.
Strefy kulturowe w młodszym okresie przedrzymskim i w okresie rzymskim na łuku Karpat. Cz
I
od młodszego okresu przedrzymskiego do młodszego okresu rzymskiego [in] Na granicach antycznego
wiata. Sytuacja kulturowa w południowo-wschodniej Polsce i regionach ssiednich w młodszym okresie przed-
rzymskim i okresie rzymskim, S. Czopek, A. Kokowski [eds.], Rzeszów, –.
K, B. . Najwczeniejsze elementy uzbrojenia w kulturze bogaczewskiej w wietle zewntrznych wpły-
wów kulturowych [in] Kultura bogaczewska w  lat póniej. Materiały z konferencji, Warszawa, – marca
, A. Bitner-Wróblewska [ed.], Seminarium bałtyjskie, , Warszawa, –.
. Weaponry [in] B. Kontny, J. Okulicz-Kozaryn, M. Pietrzak, Nowinka Site . e Cemetery om the
Late Migration Period in the Northern Poland, Gdask – Warszawa, –.
K, B., N-S, M. . A Spur from Mylcin (?) as an Odd Piece in a Puzzle [in] Bar-
baricum, Vol. , B. Kontny, A. Szela, J. Kleemann [eds.], wiatowit Suppl. Ser. B: Barbaricum, , Warszawa, –
.
. «Jedziec bez głowy» et alii, czyli znaleziska ostróg z cmentarzyska kultury wielbarskiej w Wekli-
cach [in] Terra Barbarica. Studia oarowane Magdalenie Mczyskiej w . rocznic urodzin, A. Urbaniak et al.
[eds.], Monumenta Archaeologica Barbarica Series Gemina, , Łód – Warszawa, –.
. Astonishing Finds in a Well-Known Site. Newly Found Spurs from Weklice (the Wielbark Culture)
[in] From Studies on Ancient Arms and Armour Production Technology, J. Maik [ed.], Fasciculi Archaeologiae
Historicae, , Łód, –.
K, V.G. . Remeslennoe proizvodstvo na dakijskom gorodiše Malaja Kopanja, SA /, –
. / , ..,       , CA
/, –.
 . Verhnè Potissja v konteksti starodavn’o stor Karpato-Dunajs’kogo arealu, Užgorod. /  
 i ï iiï - , .
K, D.N. . Pševors’ka kul’tura u Verhn’omu Podnistrov’i i Zahidnomu Pobužži, Kyiv. / , .., -
    ’ï i  i, ï.
. Mogil’nik pševors’koj kul’tury poblizu s. Griniv na verhn’omu Podnistrov’ij, Arheologija (Kyiv) ,
–. /  ï   . i   i’ï, 
(ï) , –.
K, K. . Brezje. Halštatske gomile z Brezij pri Trebelnem, Arheološki katalogi Slovenije /, Ljubljana.
K, Ju.B. . Rasprostranenie latenskih vešej na territorii Vostonoj Evropy, SA /, –. /
, ..,       , CA /,
–.
de L L, C. . e History of the Spur, London – Derby.
L, S.B. . Izuenie Kutlakskogo ukreplenija v Jugo-Vostonom Krymu [in] Arheologieskie Issledo-
vanija v Krymu.  god, Simferopol’, –. / , ..,     -
  []    .  , , –.
Ł, P. . Grób nr  z cmentarzyska w Hryniowie (Zachodnia Ukraina)
w kwestii kontaktów kul-
tury przeworskiej z bałkaskim krgiem kulturowym [in] Na granicach antycznego wiata. Sytuacja kulturowa
w południowo-wschodniej Polsce i regionach ssiednich w młodszym okresie przedrzymskim i okresie rzymskim,
S. Czopek, A. Kokowski [eds.], Rzeszów, –.
. Uzbrojenie ludnoci ziem Polski w młodszym okresie przedrzymskim, Archaeologia Militaria, , Lublin.
. Späteisenzeitliche Waenopferplätze in Polen [in] Keltische Einüsse im nördlichen Mieleuropa wäh-
rend der mileren und ngeren vorrömischen Eisenzeit, S. Möllers, W. Schlüter, S. Sievers [eds.], Kolloquien
zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte, , Bonn, –.
Ł, P., T, R.W. . Grób wojownika z młodszego okresu przedrzymskiego z miejsco-
woci Mutyn na północno-wschodniej Ukrainie, Materiały i Sprawozdania Rzeszowskiego Orodka Archeolo-
gicznego , –.
322
maria novičenkova bartosz kontny
M-L, R. . Die Gürtelschnallen der römischen Kaiserzeit und der ühen Völkerwanderungszeit im
mieleuropäischen Barbaricum, BAR-IS, , Oxford.
M, A.M. . Kieskaja kul’tura, [in] Arheologija Belarusi , Minsk, –. / , ..,
  []   , , –.
M, B.V., L, M.E. . Oružie ernjahovskoj kul’tury, Materialy po Arheologii, Istorii i Etnograi
Tavri i , –. / , .., , ..,   ,  
,     , –.
M, E.V. . Zarubineckaja kul’tura na territorii USSR, Kiev. / , ..,  
  , .
M, W.A
. . Catalogue of the Romano-British Iron Tools, Fiings nd Weapons in the British Museum, London.
M, J. . Dwa cmentarzyska ciałopalne z okresu rzymskiego w Judzikach i Bargłowie Dwornym
w pow. augustowskim, Wiadomoci Archeologiczne , –.
M, J. . e Oppidum of Staré Hradisko [in] e Celts, S. Moscati et al. [eds.], New York, –.
M, A. . Saugini plokštinis kapinnynas, Lietuvos Archeologija , –.
M, M. . Die Bronzesporen der römischen Kaiserzeit in Litauen [in] Svperiores Barbari. Ksiga
pamitkowa ku czci profesora Kazimierza Godłowskiego, R. Madyda-Legutko, T. Bochnak [eds.], Kraków,
–.
M, E. . Lokal’nye varianty veševogo kompleksa kul’tury pskovskih dlinnyh kurganov /
, .,        , Acta
Archaeologica Albaruthenica , –.
M, H. . Die Eisenzeit Lelands bis etwa  n. Chr. Vol. , Die Funde, Tartu-Dorpat.
N, M.V. (, ..) . Rimskaja koluga Lorica Hamata I v. do n.è. I v. n.è. iz
ritual’nogo kompleksa svjatiliša u perevala Gursufskoe Sedlo, Bosporskie Issledovanija , –. / -
  Lorica Hamata I .  .. – I . ..       -
 ,   , –.
. Špory zi svjatiliša bilja perevalu Gurzufs’ke Sidlo v Girs’komu Krymu, Arheologija (Kyiv) /,
–. /          ,  (ï)
/, –.
N, N.G. (, ..) . O kontaktah naselenija Gornogo Kryma s Bosporom po
materialam svjatiliša u perevala Gursufskoe Sedlo, Bosporskij Sbornik , –. /   
          ,  -
 , –.
. Rimskoe voennoe snarjaženie iz svjatiliša u perevala Gursufskoe Sedlo, Vestnik Drevnej Istorii
/, –. /         , 
 /, –.
. Fibuly iz svjatiliša u perevala Gursufskoe Sedlo, Rossijskaja Arheologija, /, –. / 
     ,  , /, –.
. Ustrojstvo i obrjadnost’ svjatiliša u perevala Gursufskoe Sedlo, Jalta. /   
    , .
N, W. . Das Samland in der römischen Kaiserzeit und seine Verbindungen mit dem römischen Reich
und der barbarischen Welt, Marburg – Warszawa.
. Die Balten zwischen Weichsel und Memel zwischen  und  n. Chr. Ein Entwurf der For-
schungsproblematik, Archaeologia Baltica , –.
a. East Prussia as a Bridge between Eastern and Western Europe: Finds of the th toth Centuries
[in] e Merovingian Period
Europe Without Borders. Archaeology and History of the th toth Centuries,
W. Menghin [ed.], Berlin, –.
b. Kultura bogaczewska na Pojezierzu Mazurskim od schyłku pónego okresu przedrzymskiego do
starszej fazy pónego okresu wpływów rzymskich. Próba analizy chronologiczno-kulturowej [in] Kultura
bogaczewska w  lat niej. Materiały z konferencji, Warszawa, – marca , A. Bitner-Wróblewska
[ed.], Seminarium bałtyjskie, , Warszawa (CD aachment).
N, E. . Die jüngere vorrömische Eisenzeit Gotlands, Stockholm.
323
spurs from the sanctuary at the gurzufskoe sedlo in crimea. on the problem of hook spurs
P V.V. . Pojavlenie i rasprostranenie špor na territorii Vostonoj Evropy, SA /, –. /
, ..,        , CA /,
–.
P, L., P, M., T, W. . Militaria gaulois et romains sur loppidum de Bibracte, Mont Beuvray
(Nivre) [in] M B, –.
P, K. . Die Púchov-Kultur, Nitra.
P, M. . Lempreiente du militaire tardo-républicain das les faciés mobiliers de La Tène nale [in] M-
 B, –.
P, A.E. . Krymskaja Skija II v. do n.e. – III v. n.e. Pogrebalnye pamjatniki, Simferopol. /
, ..,   II .  .. – III . ..  , .
R (R), O.A. . Predmety vooruženija i kavalerijskogo snarjaženija zarubineckoj kultury
[in] Voennaja Arheologija. Sbornik Materialov Problemnogo Soveta “Voennaja Arheologija” pri Gosudarstven-
nom Istorieskom Muzee, Vol. , Moskva, –. / , ..,    
   []  .    
« »    , . , , –.
. e Second and ird Century Knob Spurs (Knopfsporen) in the Middle and Upper Dnieper Area
[in] Inter Ambo Maria. Northern Barbarians om Scandinavia towards the Black Sea, I. Khrapunov, F.-A. Style-
gar [eds.], Simferopol’ – Kristiansand, –.
R, B.A., S, A.V., T, M.Y. . Etrusco-Italic and Celtic Helmets in Eastern Europe,
Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz , –.
R, H.R. . e Armour of Imperial Rome, London.
R, M. . Ostrogi z haczykowatymi zaczepami odgitymi na zewntrz z obszaru grupy olsztyskiej
w wietle ródeł archiwalnych. Próba nowego spojrzenia [in] Pogranicze trzech wiatów. Kontakty kultur prze-
worskiej, wielbarskiej i bogaczewskiej w wietle materiałów z bada i poszukiwa archeologicznych, W. Nowa-
kowski, A. Szela [eds.], wiatowit Suppl. Ser. P: Prehistory and Middle Ages, , Warszawa, –.
S, B. . Die späte Völkerwanderungszeit in Mieldeutschland (Katalog), Veröentlichungen des Lan-
desmuseums für Vorgeschichte in Halle, , Berlin.
S, H.  S. . A Provincial Roman Spur from Longstock, Hants, and Other Spurs from Roman Britain,
Antiquaries Journal , –.
S, I.P. . Illiri i Daci. Illyriens et Daces, Cluj – Bucureti.
S, .. .  krestovidnyh i podkovoobraznyh ‘psalijah rannesarmatskogo vremeni [in] Evrazija
v skifo-sarmatskoe vremja. Pamjati Iriny Ivanovny Gušinoj, D.V. Žuravlev, K.B. Firsov [eds.], Trudy GIM, ,
Moskva, –. / , ..,     ‘ 
    - .    , .. ,
..  [.],  , , , –.
S, K.N. . Mogil’nik Mitino V–XV vv. (Kaliningradskaja oblast’) po rezul’tatam issledovanij  g.,
Materialy ohrannyh arheologieskih issledovanij, , Moskva. / , ..,   .
( )     .,   -
 , , .
Š, V.I. . Bancaraskaja kul’tura [in] Arheologija Belarusi , Minsk, –. / , .. -
  [] i i , , -.
, M. . Kultury wczesnego okresu epoki cesarstwa rzymskiego w Małopolsce wschodniej, Lwów.
Š, G.V. . Kul’tura rannih dogih kurgano (V–VII st.) [in] Arheologija Belarusi , Minsk, –. /
, ..,     (V–VII .) []   , , -.
S, P. . Mikroregion osadniczy z okresu wpływów rzymskich w rejonie jeziora Salt na Pojezierzu
Mazurskim, wiatowit Suppl. Ser. P: Prehistory and Middle Ages, , Warszawa.
T, R.V., Z, G. . A Warrior Cemetery from the Turn of the Eras on the River Seym [in]
Inter Ambo Maria. Northern Barbarians om Scandinavia towards the Black Sea, I. Khrapunov, F-A. Stylegar
[eds.], Simferopol – Kristiansand, –.
V, A. . Les fragments de coe de mailles de Vernon. Armure souple veliocasse ou presence Romaine
aux portes de loppidum? [in] M B, –.
324
maria novičenkova bartosz kontny
W, Z. . Cmentarzysko z młodszego okresu przedrzymskiego w Pikulach, stan. , woj. tarno-
brzeskie, Archeologia Polski rodkowowschodniej , –.
Z’, V.M., Z’, V.N. . Bospor Kimmerijskij v antinuju èpohu. Oerki social’no-ekonomieskoj istorii,
Bosporskie Issledovanija , Simferopol’ – Ker. / , .., , ..,  
 .  - ,   , -
 – .
, J. . Najstarsze ostrogi zachodniosłowiaskie. Ostrogi o zaczepach haczykowato zagitych do wntrza, Biblio-
teka Archeologiczna, , Wrocław.
 J., M-K L. . Studia nad uzbrojeniem rodkowoeuropejskim VI–X wieku.
Zachodniobałtyjskie i słowiaskie ostrogi o zaczepach haczykowato zagitych do wntrza, Archeologia. Uniwer-
sytet im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu, , Pozna.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Book
Full-text available
Publication of the cemetery of the Elbląg Group (West Balt Circle) at Nowinka, in northern Poland. It is dated to the 6th-7th c AD (Late Migration Period). One may find here the chapter dedicated to weapons.
Book
Bénéficiant des travaux les plus récents des spécialistes qui, un peu partout en Europe, étudient les armes romaines, cet ouvrage fait le point des connaissances actuelles sur l'armement légionnaire et auxiliaire, ses origines et son évolution. Pour chaque catégorie, il développe les multiples aspects de l'évolution historique : apparition, adaptation aux modes de combat, utilisation, causes de son abandon...
Article
In 1953 a bronze prick-spur was found without other remains, at a depth of about 2 ft. on Cleave Hill, in the parish of Longstock, Hants (no. 17, fig. 1, pl. XIV). The finder, Mr. J. Chandler, presented it to the Salisbury Museum (ace. 21/54) and it is recorded and illustrated in the Museum's Annual Report (1955), p. 11 pl. 1 a . It is of extremely delicate manufacture, and the riveted prick appears to be ornamental rather than useful. It is also ornamented with a row of dots in circles round the heel, and these are enclosed in expanding lines all engraved in the bronze. The edges are lightly serrated. The arms are engraved with a spiral line, which seems to imitate the leather binding of some rougher iron prototype. Delicate bronze rings, attached to the loops, have flattened ends which are pressed together and probably once held a light leather strap, though the bronze has broken away leaving only parts of the rivet holes. There are few ornamental features from which to date this spur, but according to Jahn's typology it should fall within the first Century A.D.
Hellenistisch-frühkaiserzeitliche Reitersporen aus dem Zeusheiligtum von Olympia
  • H Baitinger
Baitinger, H. 2004. Hellenistisch-frühkaiserzeitliche Reitersporen aus dem Zeusheiligtum von Olympia, Germania 82, 351-379.