Wings of Varagrayna on so-called "great Polish" helmets

Размещено на http: //www. allbest. ru/

Wings of Varagrayna on so-called "great Polish" helmets

Adam Lech Kubik

Abstract

A part of the decoration placed in the front of so-called “Great Polish” or “Chorna Mogila” (“Black Gray”) type - the II type of A. N. Kirpichnikov typology of helmets is investigated. Currently there are about forty finds directly related to that type of helmets. It is probably the most numerous form of medieval helmet finds, which are known today in Central and Eastern Europe, mainly in Poland and Ruthenian territory. These helmets have recently been the subject of many studies on the geographical occurrence, provenance or origin of such construction. However, a marginal part of the study was devoted to the meaning of individual decorative elements. Some elements of those helmet decorations show extraordinary continuity with helmets used centuries earlier. It is impossible to state unequivocally how much the decorative elements in “Chorna Mohyla” type helmets and their previous prototypes were the same. However, showing a certain way of evolution of particular decorative elements undoubtedly allows to understand not only the development of armaments of Central and Eastern Europe, but also a certain way of thinking and acceptance of symbolism (clearly related to religion), characteristic for our ancestors. Of course, it is difficult to state if they perceived the symbolism associated with the deity as decorations, which were treated as a sign of the corresponding royal power.

The frontal decoration of those helmets in the form of a decorative diadem is researched. The current theory of A. N. Kirpichnikov is criticized and a new interpretation of the meaning or at least very origin of those diadems is presented. As it is shown, they clearly correspond with diadems known from Central Asian helmets and art, created under the unquestionable influence of the religious art of pre-Islamic Iran.

Keywords: Iran, religion, Avesta, armour, helmets, Early Medieval Period

Анотація

Адам Леx Кубік

Крила Веретрагни на так званих “великопольських” шоломах

Досліджено фрагмент прикраси, розміщеної на передній частині шоломів так званого “великопольського” типу або типу “Чорна Могила” - II типу А. Н. Кірпічнікова. Станом на сьогодні відомо про сорок знахідок, безпосередньо пов'язаних з таким типом шоломів. Це, мабуть, найчисленніша форма середньовічних знахідок шоломів, відомих сьогодні в Центральній та Східній Європі, переважно в Польщі та на території Русі. Ці шоломи нещодавно були предметом багатьох досліджень щодо їхнього географічного походження або еволюції шоломових конструкцій. Незначна частина досліджень була присвячена значенню окремих декоративних елементів. Деякі елементи прикрас шолома демонструють значний рівень їхнього зв'язку та спадкоємності зі шоломами, які використовувалися століттями раніше. Не можна однозначно стверджувати, на скільки значення декоративних елементів у шоломах типу “Чорна Могила” та їхніх попередніх прототипів було однаковим. Проте, виявлення певного шляху еволюції окремих декоративних елементів дозволило зрозуміти не тільки розвиток озброєння Центральної та Східної Європи, але й певний спосіб мислення і прийняття символіки (явно пов'язаної з релігією) нашими предками. Звичайно, важко стверджувати, чи вони приймали символіку, пов'язану з божеством, як прикраси, які трактувалися як знак відповідної королівської влади.

На основі аналізу фронтального оформлення цих шоломів у вигляді декоративної діадеми здійснено критичну оцінку існуючої теорії А. Н. Кірпічнікова і представлено нове тлумачення сенсу або принаймні самого походження цих діадем. Обґрунтовано, о вони чітко відповідають діадемам, відомим з центральноазійських шоломів і мистецтва, створеним під безперечним впливом релігійного мистецтва доісламського Ірану.

Ключові слова: Іран, релігія, Авеста, броня, шоломи, ранньосередньовічний період

The so-called “Great Polish” helmets [1] or “Chorna Mogila” type helmets [2] - II type of A. N. Kirpichnikov clasification [3], type K. G. II, T. 4 of A. L. Kubik classification [4] have recently been the subject of many studies on the geographical occurrence, provenance or origin of such construction. Studies on the type of finds began as early as in the 1930s [1] (if not count some notes like for example W. Gaerte publication on GroЯ Friedrichsberg helmet from 1923 [7]). In 1930 Z. Bochenski, who was based on numerous finds from Poland, stated their Polish, Piast dynasty period origin. In the

second half of the 20th century A. N. Kirpichnikov began a series of his fundamental works on armaments from Ruthenian territory. Based on new findings, he proposed a theory of the Rus provenance of similar types of helmets [2; 3; 5]. In 2017, A. G. Pa- pakin, J. G. Bezkorovaina and V M. Prokopenko proposed a completely new theory, placing the production of type two helmets in the areas of Khazar Khaganate and Volga Bulgaria. In their opinion appearance of those kind of armament in Ruthenian territories could be related with armed conflicts between these countries and the Rus principalities. However, the location of manufacturing centres of similar helmets from the point of view of the following article seems to be irrelevant. Much more important seems to be the evolution changes known from individual finds of that type.

Helmets from type II of A. N. Kirpichnikov classification [3] consisted of four segments where front and back segments were located on the exterior side of the helmet bowl. A similar construction began to appear in Eastern Europe around the turn of the 8th and 9th centuries AD, an example of which was the Oskol river find (Belgorod Region, Russia) [6; 7], which shew similarities with previous constructions consisting of eight segments [7] (so called spangenhelme constructions). Technological progress and the ability to produce helmets from larger segments were likely to have led to a transition from eight to four-piece dome construction just as in the case of lamellar helmets in Central and Eastern Asia [8]. The type K. G. II, T. 4 of A. L. Kubik classification helmet constructions evolved to appear in the final form practically until the 13 th century AD. However, it should be noted that we deal with precious objects, often gilded and richly ornamented. So in the case of a helmet from GroЯ Friedrichsberg [9; 10] we cannot exclude that we are deal with so called long lives objects which were placed in the grave decades, by which they were manufactured [8; 11; 12]. We can assert that the peak of the development of similar constructions occurred at the turn of the 8th to 9th century AD by the end of the 10th century AD. This evolution concerned mainly decorative elements, such as copper sheet metal cladding, decorative segment cut-outs, decorative diadems at the front of helmets or cast brass or iron mounts placed on a lateral plate of the helmets.

The current author will focus on decorative diadems, not in the sense of their classification, which would require a deeper study of the existing finds, but on a general outline of the development of decoration in the frontal part of the helmets and their possible meaning (at least at the very beginning of their evolution). We must state that decorative diadems known from the findings of helmets in the discussed type could differ significantly and on some examples of helmets in the discussed type they did not occur at all. The author will therefore focus on a certain similarities, which have appeared practically during the entire period of use of similar helmets, namely on curved projections which were placed on the edges of decorative diadems. In eight-piece helmets, as for example on the Oskol river helmet, they appeared as the endings of the lateral parts of the nose-guard. A similar form of decoration (repair element?) appeared next to the nose-guard on the Kazazovo helmet [13], which could be currently dated to the 8th century AD [14; 15]. In the 10th, at the turn of the 10th and 11th century, they could still be observed on Central Asian clasp helmets (spangenhelme) construction of helmets, which have a distinct form placed on the upper part of nose-guard. A good example here is the helmet published in 2013 by L. A. Bobrov [16], in recent years practically identical helmet has been found close to Kyzyl-Enbek, Kazakhstan, but according to the author's knowledge it has not been published. Interestingly, there was a small decoration placed between the curved projections in both the Kazakhstan helmet and the helmet published by L. A. Bobrov. However, its size indicated a much lesser significance than the highlighted projections.

The situation looks completely different in the case of type II of A. N. Kirpichnikov classification helmets from Eastern and Central Europe. On most helmets of the 10th to 11th century AD in this type, diadem occurs in the form of three straight projections - trident form. A. N. Kirpichnikov suggested that this form might have a connection with the battle tactics of Slavic tribes in the discussed period more precisely, on the partition of the army into three parts, a centre with a commander and two army wings [5]. However, a similar form of diadem, even if it dominates, is not the only one known. In the mentioned above finding from GroЯ Friedrichsberg the central part of the diadem took the form of a “net” ending with five(!) projections where only central part took straight position, two additional curved projections on the edges of decorative diadem were in a quite similar form to those known from the Kazakhstan helmet and the helmet published by L. A. Bobrov. What is more, in recent years another helmet with a similar type of diadem has been discovered in Ukraine. Diadem on the helmet has not survived, but traces of gold plating allows speculation about its form. It differed from the above mentioned GroЯ Friedrichsberg diadem with a form of central projection. It looks like a decorated with the form of a crescent(?) with arms pointing upwards. Unfortunately, the helmet was discovered by metal detector and probably was sold to an illegal private collection the only thing that remains of it are photographs posted on the Internet. However, the similarity between the h GroЯ Friedrichsberg helmet and the Central Asian helmets allow us to talk about correlation between those diadems even if the size of the individual elements has changed. The basic question is whether it is possible to relate those projections with another art elements? This would allow us to understand the symbolism of “Chorna Mohyla” type helmet diadems.

In the art of central Asia decorations in the form of wings, crescent placed on projection and other forms appear on warrior helmets [17; 18]. These wings undoubtedly refer to those known from Iranian art. In which they appear on the crowns of Sasanian rulers [19; 20]. In Iran those wings are clearly associated with Iranian god VaraBrayna the god of victory. Under the influence of Hellenism VaraBrayna was associated with Ares and Heracles [21] so the gods clearly associated with war. The avestan idea of VaraBrayna - bird of prey or falcon are associated with Bahrдm. This emblem and a name used by Sasanian kings Bahrдm signified the special relation between deity and a King. Wings of VaraBrayna were used for example by Perцz (whose name means victorious), or Kosrow Parwez (“The Victorious”). The wings of VaraBrayna (victory) under the influence of Iranian art were frequently adapted by close neighbours, as for example they do appears in the monetary pantheon of the Kushans [22], Huns and as it was mentioned above Iranian speaking tribes of Central Asia and were still in use after the fall and decline of the Sasanian Empire. Of course, the question remains whether the simple single projection (feather?) could be interpreted as a wing. This seems very likely, especially as an element adopted by neighbouring cultures. At the mentioned above representations of the Central Asian art wings can appear in a very simplified form [18]. What's more, on post Sasanian art representing Sasanian kings they sometimes do appear just in the simplified form known from mentioned helmets. For example, we can mention here painting depicting six kings from Qosayr Amra palace built under the Umayyad caliphs of Syria. Four of kings feature bilingual inscriptions in Arabic and Greek. The Sasanian Shahanshah described as “Kisra” (Kosrow) wears a diadem with wings in a form very similar to those of the curved projections mentioned above [23], the simplified crescent placed on the central projection also share some similarity to the one shown on lost Ukrainian helmet find. The object that has to be mentioned here is so called Jiulongshang crown currently held in the Ningxia Provincial Museum. Diadem mad of thin brass sheet in the form of long band with upper decoration. In the center there is a long projection ended with crescent decoration, on the sides of this diadem wings were presented as long, curved, separated projections very similar to those known from Central Asiatic helmets. Even if it wasn't part of the helmet it allows us to see the way of wing representations on metal objects.

The question remains whether there are any finds of the helmets with similarlooking decorations from the territory of Iran? Currently the author is not familiar with similar findings. This does not mean that VaraBrayna-related symbolism not appear on the Sasanian helmets. For example, on the helmet from Bagdad Museum discovered during excavations near the site of the Assyrian temple of Ishtar and the one of four Sasanian helmets excavated on the mound of Kuyunjik at Nineveh in Nineveh (current Iraq) currently deposed in British Museum of London (inv. nr. BM 22498) we can note feather pattern in the form of embossed feather motif (Bagdad Museum) and fabric covering (British Museum of London). The same motive appears also on the other Sasanian helmets like the Amlash helmet from Brussels Museum [24] or Rцmisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz [25]. It is possible that feather motif known from those find was also associated with victorious god of VaraBrayna [24], but of course we are talking here about completely different form of decoration. However, the connection between the symbolism of victory placed on helmets, as a way of thinking, seems to be quite clear. As it has been noticed, the very way of wing representation known from discussed helmet diadems seems to be much closer to the elements appearing in the art that was influenced or let's say in art which has its roots in the Iranian art. Currently we cannot speak of direct absorption of those decorations from Iranian helmets.

Ill. 1: fig. 1.1 - Kidarite Kingdom crown form shown on coin of Buddhamitra; 4 th or 5 th century AD; fig. 1.2 - the humic crownform shown on coin ofAduman, Alkhan Kingdom, Kabulistan, simplified wings and visible trident decoration in a central part of the crown; 5th century AD; fig. 1.3 - view on the frontal part of the Jiulongshang diadem; most likely post Sasanian period, currently held in the Ningxia Provincial Museum; fig. 1.4 - Sasanian crown of Sasanian Shahanshah described as “Kisra” (Kosrow), Qosayr Amrapalace built under the Umayyad caliphs of Syria, wings were simplified and presented as long, curved, separated projections; beginning of the 8th century AD; fig. 1.5 - diadem form shown on Sogdian helmet, Osrushana, Tajikistan; 8th-9th century AD, drawings by author, no scale 2: fig. 2. 1 - nose guard of the Oskol river helmet; second half of the 8th century - beginning of the 9th century AD, Russian Federation; fig. 2.2 - view on the frontal part of the Kazazovo helmet, repair element/ decoration(?) appears next to the nose-guard; 8th century AD, Russian Federation; fig. 2.3 - nose guard of the Kyzyl-Enbek, Kazakhstan helmet find; 10th - very beginning of the 11th century AD; fig. 2.4 - view on the frontal part of the Manvelevka helmet, based on current knowledge - helmet is heavily rusted; 10th century AD; fig. 2.5 - diadem form discovered on the territory of Veliky Novgorod; 11th century AD; drawings by author, no scale

The whole study presented here was based on diadems that probably occurred only on two “Chorna Mohyla” type helmets. It shows the direct contact of armaments from Eastern Europe and Central Asia in the early Middle Ages. However, it does not explain the other elements of diadems, which may have taken different forms. In particular, the appearance of trident form projections know for example from Chorna Mohyla, Ukraine find [2] or the one discovered near Giecz village in Poland [1]. The earliest finding decorated with trident form diadem is the helmet discovered near Manvelivka village in Ukraine [26]. Unfortunately, the state of its preservation does not allow to study its form in details. We can say that the side projections were small separate elements partially covered by the middle element. Central projection was made of two elements: long vertical one and small horizontal decoration placed in the upper part of it. Comparing its form with the later ones, like for example of the 11th century AD helmet discovered on the territory of Veliky Novgorod [27] or the helmet found near Olszowka village in Poland [1], diadem known those later ones have clearly evolved into a single element. It seems likely that, over time, they have lost their original meaning and that the separation of the various elements has become incomprehensible.

It, of course, cannot be excluded that a diadem in the form of a trident, or more precisely two side projections have had a different meaning. Undoubtedly those diadems development, as shown above, is connected with mutual contacts with armament and art of Central Asia. The Mentioned earliest finding decorated with trident form diadem from Manvelivka came from nomadic burial. This indicates that there also is possible that similar decorations have been directly brought with moves of nomadic people from Asia in to Eastern Europe. In an effort to closely trace the development of decorative diadems there is a need to closer study on currently known finds of type K. G. II, T. 4 of A. L. Kubik helmet classification. Currently, apart from a general typological outline, the level of study of the subject in question is far from being sufficient. Therefore, it is impossible to unambiguously answer all questions of the discussed subject.