Coat of Plates Bulgaria

Archaeologia BulgaricaXVII, 2 (2013), 73-88

Late Medieval Coat of Plates from the Lower Danube Fortress of Nikopol

Deyan RABOVYANOV / Vladimir NAYDENOV

Fragments of armament constitute a small part of all the finds from the centres of the Second Bulgarian Kingdom (1185-1396). Finding larger pieces of defensive armour during an excavation is unlikely, but one such find is the subject of this article. The plates found in the Nikopol fortress belonged to a coat of plates and are only the second artifact of their kind, after the ones found in the royal palace of the Tzarevetz, Veliko Tarnovo (Рабовянов / Димитров 2010). Of a great significance are the similar find locations of the two artifacts1.

The remains of the Nikopol armour were found during the ex-cavation of one of the most important fortresses north of the Balkan Mountains. Since the fortress of Nikopol became the capital of Bulgaria for a short while (until 1395) after the conquering of Tarnovgrad in 1393 the name of the fortress was chosen for the new Turkish administrative unit.

It is particularly interesting that armour from Nikopol has not been published. Though it has long been displayed in the Regional History Museum of Pleven it has remained relatively unknown.

Location and initial interpretation The plates were found during the excavations of Nikopol in 1973, un-der the leadership of Ekaterina Manova – that time an assistant at the Archaeological Institute with Museum in Sofia. The lack of documen-tation on the area and the provenience strongly hinders the object’s study2. Judging by the description in the report and the information in the field inventory book we can assume that the plates were found along with stone balls-trebuchet missiles (97 pieces of them) and nu-merous iron nails, brackets, and coatings at the edge of a considerably-sized room attached to the south-eastern wall of the fortress (Манова 1973). They were found at a depth of 110 cm and in square XXXVII4 (fig. 1). The layer in wich they were found and the surrounding finds should belong to the period of the Second Bulgarian Kingdom. The artifact’s find location makes its attribution to Late Antiquity or the Ottoman period doubtful. Especially significant is the expert’s obser-vation that the building or at least the explored ground floor was used as an arsenal. E. Manova attributes the military nature of the build-ing to the presumable entrance towards the plateau, which had to be guarded (Манова 1973).

Having in mind the nature of the finds we can assume that the building had a storage function. The armour found at the Royal palace

1 Both were found in store rooms in big administrative and military ensembles of the Second Bulgarian kingdom – the Fortress of Nikopol and the royal palace in Tarnovgrad.

2 In the scientific archive of the Regional Museum of History – Pleven were deposited just the field inven-tory book and the report of the excava-tions executed in 1973 (Манова 1973). Neither the field journal of the excava-tions, nor the photos and sketches giving out the exact situation and appearance of the armour’s plates were deposited.

at Tzarevetz, in Veliko Tarnovo was found in a similar situation. The plates were accompanied by a broken sword, a metal chain, padlocks and other iron and copper objects, which were the inventory of a store room situated at on the floor above the ground floor (Рабовянов / Димитров 2010, 77, oбр. 1, 2). The stone balls that were found to-gether with the plates at the Nikopol fortress were ammunition for trebuchets. This fact allows us to conclude that these premises were an arsenal. A similar room with such finds was excavated at another important centre – the fortress of Cherven (Рабовянов 2003). We can only suppose that the large number of iron nails, brackets, and coat-ings are all that remain of the wooden trebuchets that were kept in the same place. Similar assemblages were found with the fragments of plate coats at warehouses in Chalkis (Ffoulkes 1911), Szczerba (Marek 2008, 87-88, 112-115), Plemeta (Nadolski / Grabarczykowa 1985).

Unfortunately there is not a photo or sketch of the plates’ find location, of the armour in situ. These would have allowed us to obtain important information on its construction. The report contains just the fact that the plates were found together with the stone balls in some kind of “furrow” (perhaps they had in mind a niche – A/N). Together with the iron plates there were also “pieces of furred leather” which were interpreted by Manova to be the foundation onto which the armour’s plates were fastened (Манова 1973). There are traces on both sides of a textile which is evidence that the leather was only wrap-ping the armouring or, that the material’s nature was misinterpreted by the archeologist.

The plates were listed in the 1973 inventory book under the num-bers 98, 99 and 100, but the notes written there lack any data about their number or size. Initially they were listed as “parts of an iron cast-ing with some coins stacked on”3. Subsequently they were corrected as fragments of armour or “a coat of plates” (Манова 1973). However, there was no further research on this rare artifact of defensive armour. It is listed in the museum depository of the Regional Museum of History, Pleven on the May 30, 1983 under # 3163.

Description At present the plates of armour are damaged by corrosion and most of them are fragmented, which greatly hinders their research. The

3 She meant the heads of the rivets con-sisting of a cupric alloy initially misinter-preted as stacked coins.

Fig. 1. The fortress of Nikopol (from the Regional Museum of History, Pleven)

74 DEYAN RABOVYANOV / VLADIMIR NAYDENOV

drawings in the inventory book show that such was their condition at the moment of their discovery. Some evidence as to the nature of the corrosion and the condition of the rivets suggests that the finds may have been burnt. The excavation report mentions traces of burn-ing and bricked soil (Манова 1973). This comment is so vague that it cannot be concretely connected to the location where the discovery was found. Despite these limitations the plates can be divided into a few groups according to their shapes and sizes. This actually reflects the way that they were allocated on the armour they covered and thus they were listed in. The details on their measurements and other data can be found in table 14.

The first group is composed of nine big plates with rectangular shape and dimensions 5.5/6.5 to 9/10.5 cm (fig. 2, 3). Apart from # 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 13, 20 and 23, plates # 26, 31, 32, 33, 35, 46, 50, 53 and 55 belong to this group. However, they are not entirely preserved.

To the second group belong the large plates, which are almost square and measure 6.3 to 6.5 and 6.5 to 8 cm (fig. 4). Here can be found # 6, 7, 8, 14, 18, 21, 22, and probably also the fragments 25, 28, 30, 34, 52 and 54.

The third group includes three plates – # 10, 15 and 19 (fig. 5). They have a trapezoidal shape and relatively big size – 8 to 6.5 cm.

A limited number of items, # 11, 12 and 48, comprise the fourth group. These are narrow rectangular plates with average measure-ments of 4 to 10 cm (fig. 5).

The last and fifth group is just formal – it includes all the plates that do not have a specific shape. Numerous plates belong to this category # 16, 17, 24, 27, 29, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 47, 49, 51, 56, 57 and 58 (fig. 6). The specifics of this group do not allow their localization or identification of their function on the coat of plates.

Most of the plates are flat and only some of them have a slightly convex shape (# 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 38, 49, 50). Having in mind the large number of fragmented plates that belong to the fifth group it is very probable that the plates which had a convex shape were more numerous than these. In every group there are flat and convex plates which are not definable consid-ering the nature of the coat of plates.

The effects of the corrosion and the subsequent conservation do not permit us to measure the real thickness of the metal sheet from all the preserved items (fig. 1). The thickness now varies between 2 and 4 mm. There are no traces of a metal alloy (tin alloy) on the plates which would have prevented the corrosion of the metal due to the atmosphere or the wearer. A similar example was discovered at the Szczerba castle (Marek 2008, 93). However, the conditions they were found make the preservation of such a protective alloy improbable.

The traces of textiles on the front (of # 22, 23, and 35) and back sides (48 examples) of some of the plates, indicate that they were fixed to a textile base and covered by cloth, which is typical for this type of armour. There are no traces of leather, which would support the excavator’s supposition they were fixed to “patches of furred leath-er”. In order to fix the plates to the cloth they used iron rivets with round heads, 1 cm in diameter, on average. The condition of the plates

4 The plates are presented in table 1 and also in the illustrations to the text with the numbers given to them by their pres-ent researchers. This was made in order to facilitate the artifact’s study and re-search. The measurements that are miss-ing in table 1 reflect the impossibility for taking them down, having in mind the condition of the plates.

LATE MEDIEVAL COAT OF PLATES FROM THE LOWER DANUBE... 75

prevents us from determining the exact technique for fixing them (fig. 2-6), but we are still able to conclude that the rivets were in the upper two-thirds of the plate. On some of the pieces they form a di-agonal line – two at a line or are staying in two lines. There are also some plates that had just one centered rivet (table 1). Four of the plates (# 25, 48, 49 and 50) were fixed by copper rivets. Their heads’ diam-eter was 1 cm and they were round and flat. Some of them had a cone shape – 1.7 cm in diameter (# 25). Plate # 25 has three iron and one copper rivets. This combination is also present in the sketches found in the field inventory book for the excavations. Obviously the copper rivets replaced the original iron ones when the armour was repaired.

Fig. 2. Plates from the first group, # 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 13, 20, 23

Fig. 3. Plates from the first group, # 26, 31, 32, 33, 35, 46, 50, 53, 55


Supporting this theory is the number of iron rivets ant the uniformity of their size. The rivets’ heads are not decorated in any way.

In three of the cases (plates # 7, 8 and 25) two plates overlap. It is hard to identify if this was their original position on the armour or they were moved and overlapped later on. At least, we can say for sure, that # 25 was initially overlapping the neighbouring one be-cause there are traces of a rivet that fixed one to the other.

InterpretationThe available information from the Nikopol fortress finds makes it possible to identify the sheet metal fragments as the remains of coat of plates. This specific type of armour would typically comprise plates of different sizes and shapes that were riveted to a leather or more frequently to a textile basis which would also cover them. The covering not only fixed the plates and provided the articulation in

Fig. 4. Plates from the second group, # 6, 7, 8, 14, 21, 22, 25, 28, 30, 34, 52, 54

Fig. 5. Plates from the third group, # 10, 15, 19, and plates from the fourth group, # 11, 12, 48


between them but it also masked the crude make of the plates giving them a more pleasing aesthetic appearance and protecting them from the weather (Thordeman 1939, 210-211). It is theorized that this type of armour was developed based on armour made out of hardened pieces of leather fixed to a textile, which evolved around the third quarter of the 12th century (Nicolle 2002, 206-214; Southwick 1989, 49). However, the use of armour fixed to a textile backing occurred no earlier than the middle of the 13th century. This change was due to development of new weapons such as crossbows, the increased us-age of bows and combined arms with long handles and the change in sword design (Жуков / Коровкин 2005, 4-21; Blair 1959, 37-60; Nicolle 1999; 2002, 206-214). Furthermore, Europeans had to adapt to fighting traditions with which they were unfamiliar leading to the appearance of this new defensive means.

A group of scholars thinks that this armour appeared in the Germanic lands to the north of the Alps after the clash with the Mongol invasions in Central Europe (Thordeman 1939, 290; Жуков / Коровкин 2005, 4-21). Another group, like David Nicolle, attributes the armour appearance to the introduction of Arab armour of the “dyavshan” type. This armour was first adopted in Italy and spread from there to the rest of Europe (Nicolle 2002, 206-216). Another opinion is that this new type of armour has a purely European origin (Kalmar 1960). Regardless of the exact origin, in the middle of the 13th century, this type of armour dominated the fighting fields of Europe, worn over another defense – chain-mail. Not only coat of plates but also protectors for the warrior’s legs and arms were made from big iron plates attached to a textile backing.

Fig. 6. Plates from the fifth group, # 16, 17, 24, 27, 29, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 47, 49, 51, 56, 57, 58


# Length in cm

Width in cm

Thickness in cm

Number of rivets Metal of the rivets Shape Group

1 10.3 5.8 0.27 2 iron rectangular I2 10.5 6.3 0.33 3 iron rectangular I3 9 6.5 0.4 4 iron rectangular I4 8.3 5.5 0.32 3 iron rectangular I5 8.8 6 0.35 1 iron rectangular I6 7.6 6.5 0.25 2 iron square / rectangular II7 8 7.8 0.23 1 iron square / rectangular II8 9.2 5.4 0.3 2 iron square / rectangular II9 7.5 5.5 0.36 3 iron rectangular I

10 8 6.5 0.3 2 iron trapezoidal III11 9.4 4.5 – 1 iron rectangular IV12 6.7 3.9 – 1 iron rectangular IV13 8.4 6 0.3 1 iron rectangular I14 6.8 6.5 0.3 1 iron square / rectangular II15 7 7 0.39 – – square / rectangular III16 6.8 6.3 – 2 iron irregular V17 5.5 6 0.2 1 iron irregular V18 6.3 6.5 0.28 2 iron square / rectangular II19 7 6.5 – 1 iron trapezoidal III20 7.5 5.1 0.29 1 iron rectangular I21 7 6.2 0.31 2 iron square / rectangular II22 7.2 6.1 – 2 iron square / rectangular II23 7.3 5 0.32 2 iron rectangular I24 6 5.8 0.29 1 iron irregular V25 8.3 6.5 – 4 iron / copper alloy irregular II?26 6.5 5.5 – 1 iron irregular / rectangular I?27 5.4 4.2 0.33 2 iron irregular V28 5.7 7.2 0.3 1 iron rectangular / irregular II?29 – 6.5 – – – irregular V30 6.3 3.7 – 1 iron square / rectangular II?31 5.8 5 – – – rectangular / irregular I?32 7 4.9 – 2 iron irregular / rectangular I?33 6.3 5 – – – irregular / rectangular I?34 6.4 6.2 – – – irregular / square II?35 6.8 5.6 – 1 iron irregular I?36 5 6.7 – – – irregular V37 4.2 4.2 – 1 iron irregular V38 5.4 6 – 1 iron irregular V39 3.5 4.4 – – – irregular V40 2.8 4 – – – irregular V41 4.2 5.6 – – – irregular V42 5.6 4.2 – 1 iron irregular V43 4.6 7 – – – irregular V44 3.9 4.2 – 1 iron irregular V45 6.7 6.2 – – – irregular V46 4.7 5.3 – – – irregular I?47 5.2 5 – – – irregular V48 6.4 2.8 0.35 3 copper alloy rectangular IV49 6.4 4.4 – 1 copper alloy irregular / rectangular V?50 5 5.5 – 1 copper alloy irregular / rectangular I?51 4.2 4.9 – – – irregular V52 5.2 6 – – – square / rectangular II?53 5.9 5 – 1 iron irregular / rectangular I?54 5.7 6 – 1 iron irregular / rectangular II?55 6.8 5 – 3 iron irregular I?56 3.8 5.2 – 1 iron irregular V57 4.6 4.8 – 2 iron irregular / rectangular V58 4.6 7.5 – – – irregular / rectangular V

Table 1. Metric and technical data about armour plates


Reconstruction

Although the known number of coats of plates is increasing, they are rarely found in a condition that would allow experts to re-construct them. Thordeman is an exception. He describes the mass graves of Wisby on the island of Gotland – the biggest data base of this type of defensive armour. The defining of six types of armour according to their size, shape, the number of plates, and the method of their attachment made his reconstruction possible (Thordeman 1939, 210-224).

The shapes and the sizes of the plates from Nikopol make it possible to assign them to Thordeman’s 4th type. What is typical for them is that the iron plates (basically rectangular) have relatively small size (4 to 10 cm in average) and are grouped in horizontal lines. The front part of the armour consists of three to six such lines. While these armours basically do not differ from the others described by Thordeman, the location of the put-on opening at the side, under the arm pit, causes it to stand out. A good example of armours of this type are # 20 and 21, as well as 22 and 23 from Wisby (Thordeman 1939, 216-218; 1940, pl. 90-116) (fig. 7, 8).

The coats of plates # 22 and 23 consist of 125 plates each. The similarity between the constituents of both armours and the Nikopol discovery is obvious (fig. 2-8). We can differentiate the central panels that were covering the chest and back as plates, as well as the side parts and the spaces around the arms and the neck, consisting of smaller plates that are more varied in shape.

In the case of the Nikopol armour we do not have the whole suit preserved. Even if we accept that each one of the fragmented parts of the fifth group (fig. 6) belongs to a separate element of the armour, which is improbable, the total number of pieces (58 plates) is even less than half that needed for such an armour. Besides, keeping in mind the circumstances of its find location, it is doubtful that the rest of the plates were lost or destroyed.

All this proves that only part of the plate armour was being kept in the storage next to the south-eastern courtine wall of the Nikopol fortress, which was a usual practice for the age. Examples of preserving damaged armour, for a long period of time, are found in Chalkis, Greece (Ffoulkes 1911), the Szczerba castle in Silesia (Marek 2008, 112-115), and enormous quantities of out-of-date armaments were preserved for ages at the Ottoman arsenal of St. Irene church in Constantinople and were sold just before World War I as scrap (Pyhrr 1989). That is not a surprise, given the high price of the armament, the large quantity of the metal and the practice of cannibalizing the old armours to produce new ones, as is the case of the knight’s armour from 14th c. in Azov (Горелик / Фомичев 1989) and the brigandine discovered around the trebuchet’s firing platform in the council’s palace of the Genoese for-tress Cembalo (Dyachkov 2011, 175-177, 182).

The condition of the find from the Nikopol fortification does not allow the identification of exactly what part of the armour had been kept there. The research of B. Thordeman made it clear that numer-ous variants of allocation, size and number of plates in this type of armour suit can exist (Thordeman 1939, 210-218; Thordeman 1940, pl. 90-116). This is normal, given the synergetic nature of the armour. In this particular case there were not sufficient observations made of


the plate’s order in situ, which was essential in the case of Thordeman’s discovery in Wisby. Hence, any attempt from our side to recreate the armour of the Nikopol fortress would be unjustified speculation.

A good indicator of the initial appearance of the armour is the above-mentioned armour # 22 from Wisby (fig. 7, 8). Worn over a mail shirt and covering the warrior’s torso, these were the typical ar-mours for the heavily armed Western and Central European eques-trian soldier in the period of 1250 and 1350 , which remain the same even until the end of the 14th century (Жуков / Коровкин 2005; Blair 1959; Nicolle 1999; Southwick 1989; Thordeman 1939).

Origin and datingAs we have already stated the characteristics of the Nikopol fortress armour find their best parallels in Western and Central Europe. Although there are only a few, together with the data we have gathered from the synchronic artifacts, we have a clear idea of the discovery’s date and origin.

Close to the armour from Nikopol in shape and construction are the ones – whole armours or fragments of them – found in the castles of Kusnah (Gesler 1925), Otepaa (Mäesalu 2001), Plemeta (Nadolski / Grabarczykowa 1985), Helfenstein (Fleischhauer 1934), Campilia (Scalini 2004) and Novo Myasto (Grygiel / Jurek 1996). Exact paral-lels, however, are the previously cited armours # 20-23 from Wisby (Thordeman 1940, pl. 90-116) and also the pieces found in the Szczerba castle (Francke 1999; Marek 2008, fig. 18-26) (fig. 9) and Reichenstein (Prihoda 1929) (fig. 10) in Silesia and Czchów in Poland (Szpunar / Glinianowicz 2006) (fig. 11). Some plates of this type are found in the Serbian fortress of Stalać which was used in the last three decades of the 14th and the beginning of the 15th century (Minić / Vukadin 2007, 6-9, 122, sl. 76, 212). These examples dispel any doubt that the plates found in the fortress of Nikopol belonged to the type of armour that was in use in Central and Western Europe. There is some ground for the proposition that the armour was imported somehow to Bulgaria, rather than being produced here. There are few ways that the armour might have entered Bulgaria – trade relations, foreign soldiers of for-tune bringing their own armaments, military clashes with enemies who used western tactics like the Hungarians, the Fleet of Count Amédée IV of Savoy etc. All these suggestions make further theorizing on the

Fig. 7. Armour 22 from Wisby (after Thordeman 1940, Pl. 105)

Fig. 8. Scheme of the layout of the plates on armour 22 from Wisby (after Thordeman 1940, pl. 112)


subject unnecessary. Despite the fact that similar armours called “huy-ag” and “enforced hatangu d’ell” were used by the Mongols (Горелик 1987, 172-184; 2002, 21-24; Świętoslawski 1999, pl. VII) and that these are purported to be the antecedents which developed into the models used in Western Europe (see above), the ones we are referring in this article could not be associated with the armours used in Russia and the Steppes after the 1230s and 1240s (Медведев 1959; Кирпичников 1971, 15-21; Лупиненко / Макушников 2008) (fig. 12). A glance at the cited items clearly shows that they have entirely different charac-teristics. The shape and the size of the elements, as well as the make and construction of the Russian and Steppes armours are character-ized by the specific way of attaching the plates to the base – fixed by means of straps between the plates; rivets are sparingly used.

The early development of this type of armour and its relatively long usage – between the middle of the 13th and the middle of the 14th

century (Жуков / Коровкин 2005, 4-21; Thordeman 1939, 220-222) makes an exact date for this find difficult. This type of armour is not only amongst the earliest of its kind but is also one that kept utilizing the same techniques in its manufacture until latest – the middle of the 14th century. Important to the dating of this armour is the lack of rivet scars for fixing chains on the front of the armour. They attached the warrior’s sword and dagger to the armour making the occasional slip during fighting impossible – a fashion that initially appeared at around 1330-1340s and that was popular for about thirty years (Nicolle 1999, 454; Thordeman 1939, 220-225). To such evidence is added (dating the items before 1330-1340s) the lack of bigger plates covering the upper front and back parts, as well as the lack of a fix-ing means for the plates between one another, in lines. Such a con-struction can be seen in the armour found on the Tzarevetz fortress (Рабовянов / Димитров 2010, 85-86) and was in use until nearly

Fig. 9. Plates from armour found in Szczerba castle (after Marek 2008, 110, fig. 25)

Fig. 10. Plates from armour found in Reichenstein castle (after Prihoda 1929, Abb. 1-16)


1370s, as coat of plates # 13 from the arsenal of Churburg in South Tirol is testifying (Rossi 1990, 18; Wackernagel 1996, 34, 41). This development would eventually lead to the creation of a monolith cuirass.

Although formally the armours of this type should have been out-of-date until the middle of the 14th century they were in use long after this. The examples from Wisby (Thordeman 1939, 210-229), Czchów (Szpunar / Glinianowicz 2006, 188) and Szczerba (Marek 2008, 87-88) clearly illustrate that old armours were in use in battles and were also preserved in the arsenals.

The “long life” of the Nikopol find is proved by the fact that it was later repaired – the iron rivets were replaced by copper ones. The brigandine from Cembalo that was made by attaching parts of differ-ent armours is attached with different types of rivets – iron and copper ones (Dyachkov 2011, 182). At the same time, it is just natural that we cannot calculate the time while the armour was not in use (now just a part of the original armour) in the store of the south-east fortress wall of Nikopol. Unfortunately, despite the fact that it was discovered dur-ing excavation, the data regarding the condition of the plates in situ are totally lost. On the basis of the overall development of this type of armour and the archeological evidence we can conclude that the ar-mour from the Nikopol fortress could have been produced in a range of an extensive period (the middle of 13th – the middle of 14th century). Though we should not exclude the possibility that it was in use after 1350s , up until 1395, when the fortress fell under the Ottoman rule.

Fig. 11. Plates from armour found in Czchów castle (after Szpunar / Glinianowicz 2006, 151, pl. 7)

Fig. 12. Mongol armour from type “enforced hatangu d’ell” from Abaz, Abakan district, second half of 13th – middle of

14th century (after Горелик 1987, 167, рис. 3/23)


ConclusionFinally we should pay attention to some important conclusions as a result of our examination of the find from the Nikopol fortress. Together with similar items, such as the armour from the royal palace on Tzarevetz hill (Рабовянов / Димитров 2010), the bascinet from Uzana, the bascinet visor from Tarnovo (Димитров 2003) and the mail chausses from Bratzigovo, the coat of plates from Nikopol is im-portant proof that the armour used in Bulgaria was strongly influenced by Central and Western Europe. The repairing of the armour, and its preservation even in damaged condition speak to the widespread and long-lived popularity of European armour. The situation of the coat of plates from Tzarevetz and also of another type of typical European weapon – the crossbow is similar (Рабовянов 2010).

In conclusion, the armament of West-European origin and also such influenced by it, were accepted by the people of the Second Bulgarian kingdom. Together with the knowledge that the armament from the Steppes was simultaneously influential (Tatar – Mongol traditions)5, the complicated – eclectic nature of the Bulgarian me-dieval warfare in the period between the end of the 12th and the end 14th century is becoming apparent. In this way, any person that has ventured to recreate all the arms and armour of the Second Bulgarian kingdom is facing a difficult task, since the extent of both western and eastern influences need to be calculated, along with the local Balkan and Byzantine tradition.

The remnants of armour at the Fortress of Nikopol, together with the cuirass from the royal palace of Tzarevetz show that the medieval Bulgarian warrior cannot be represented in the traditional clichéd way – in a mail-shirt, with a cone helmet. The discovery of a coat of plates in two fortresses that were connected to the King’s institution indicates that the kings used a heavily armoured cavalry which was close to the Western knight from the same period. It is not exactly known to what extent it was a typical or a limited occurrence for the armaments and warfare of the Second Bulgarian kingdom but the re-search will surely prove its credibility.

5 The examples for armament arti-facts with Tatar – Mongol origin are increasing in number: the helmet from Yasenovo (Горелик 2003, 231-240), the bone plates for quiver (Рабовянов 2011), and an axe with a tang instead a socket from Cherven erroneously called halberd (Нешева 1985, 183, обр. 32; Kotowicz / Michalak 2007).

Bibliography

Аспарухов, М. 1997. Археологически приноси към историята на среднове-ковния Никопол. Враца.

Горелик, М. 2003. Шлемы и фа-льшьоны: два аспекта взаимовли-яния монгольского и европейского оружейного дела. In: Евглевский, А. (ред.). Степы Европы в эпоху Средневековья. Том 3. Половецко-золотоордынское время. Донецк. 231-244.

Горелик, М. 2002. Армии монголота-тар X – XIV вв. Москва.

Горелик, М. 1987. Ранний монгольский доспех (IX – первая половина XIV в.). In: Дерявенко, А. / Нацакдорж, Ш. (ред.). Археология, этнография и антропология Монголии. Новосибирск. 163-207.

Горелик, М. / Фомичев, Н. 1989. Рыцарские доспехи XIV века из Азова. In: Федоров-Давыдов, Г. (ред.). Северное Причерноморье и Поволжье во взаимоотношениях Востока и Запада в XII-XVII веках. Ростов-на-Дону. 73-76.

Димитров, С. 2003. Западноевропейски шлем от

Великотърновския Археологически музей. In: Харитонов, Хр. (ред.). Юбилеен сборник в чест на проф. Йордан Йорданов. Велико Търново. 299-307.

Жуков, К. / Коровкин, Д. 2005. Западноевропейский доспех Раннего Ренессанса. Санкт-Петербург.

Кирпичников, А. 1971. Древнерусское оружие. Вып. 3. Доспех, комплекс боевых средств IX – XIII вв. Ленинград.

Кузев, Ал. 1981. Никопол и Холъвник. In: Кузев, Ал. / Гюзелев, В. (ред.).


Български средновековни градове и крепости. Т. 1. Варна. 125-139.

Лупиненко, Ю. / Макушников, О. 2008. Чешуйчатый доспех восточ-нославянского ратника XII – XIII вв. (по материалам раскопок в Гомеле). – Матэрыялы па археалогii Беларусi 15, 140-154.

Манова, Е. 1973. Отчет за разкопките на Калето в Никопол през 1973 г. Научен архив на РИМ-Плевен, инв. # 106, архивна единица 32.

Медведев, А. 1959. К истории пластинчатого доспеха на Руси. – Советская археология 2, 119-134.

Нешева, В. 1985. Металообработване, ювелирство, предачество, шивачество, тъкаче-ство и обущарство. Селско стопан-ство и риболов. In: Михайлов, Ст. (ред.). Средновековният Червен. Том 1. Цитаделата на града. София. 166-216.

Рабовянов, Д. 2011. Костени пластини за колчан. – Археология 52, 2, 53-72.

Рабовянов, Д. 2010. За употреба-та на арбалета в средновековна България. In: Борисов Б. (ред.). Великотърновският университет „Св.Св. Кирил и Методий” и българската археология. Том 1. Велико Търново. 561-570.

Рабовянов, Д. 2003. Каменните ядра от Червен, извор за военната история на България през средните векове. In: Харитонов, Хр. (ред.). Юбилеен сборник в чест на проф. Йордан Йорданов. Велико Търново. 272-278.

Рабовянов, Д. / Димитров, Ст. 2010. Средновековно защитно въоръжение от Царския дворец в Търновград. – Археология 51, 1-2, 77-89.

Blair, Cl. 1959. European Armour circa 1066 to circa 1700. New York.

Dyachkov, S. 2011. The 15th Century Brigandine of a Crossbowman from the Genoese Fortress of Cembalo. – Acta Militaria Mediaevalia 7, 175-190.

Ffoulkes, C. 1911. On Italian Armour from Chalkis in the Ethnological Museum at Athens. – Archaeologia 62, 2, 381-390.

Fleischhauer, W. 1934. Spangenharnischfund aus Burg Helfenstein. – Zeitschrift für historische Waffenkunde 4, 250-252.

Francke, Cz. 1999. Fragmenti zbroi z zamku Szczerba w Gniewoszowie, pow. Kłodzko. – Silesia Antiqua 40, 100-114.

Gesler, E. 1925. Die Spangenharnisch von Kussnach. – Zeitschrift für historishe Waffenkunde 1, 211-215.

Grygiel, R. / Jurek, T. 1996. Doliwowie z Nowego Miasta nad Warta. Dębnai i Biechowa. Łόdź.

Kalmar, J. 1960. A brigantin. – Folia archaeologica 12, 226-242.

Kotowicz, P. / Michalak, A. 2007. Late Medieval Battle-Axes with Tangs from the Polish Lands. A Component of Tatar or Local Weaponry? – Fasciculi Archaeologiae Historicae 20, 9-22.

Mäesalu, A. 2001. Weapons in Otepää castle in 1396. – Castella Maris Baltici 5, 91-98.

Marek, L. 2008. Medieval Armour from Szczerba Castle. – Acta Militaria Mediaevalia 4, 87-124.

Minić, D. / Vukadin, O. 2007. Srednjovekovni Stalać. Beograd.

Nadolski, A. / Grabarczykowa, E. 1985. Militaria z grodziska w Plemiętach. Uzbrojenie ochronne. In: Nadolski, A. (ed.). Plemięta. Średniowieczny grόdek w ziemi Chełmińskej. Warszawa / Poznań / Toruń. 85-98.

Nicolle, D. 2002. Jawshan, Cuirie and Coats-of-Plates: An Alternative Line of Development for Hardened Leather Armour. In: Nicolle, D. (ed.). A Companion to Medieval Arms and Armour. Woodbridge. 179-221.

Nicolle, D. 1999. Arms and Armour of the Crusading Era, 1050-1350. Western Europe and the Crusader States. London.

Prihoda, R. 1929. Der Reichensteiner Spangenharnisch. – Zeitschrift für historische Waffenkunde 3, 109-112.

Pyhrr, S. 1989. European Armour from the Imperial Ottoman Arsenal. – Metropolitan Museum Journal 24, 85-116.

Rossi, F. 1990. Medieval Arms and Armour. Bergamo.

Scalini, M. 2004. Corazzine e bacinetti dalla Rocca di Campiglia. In: Bianchi, G. (ed.). Campiglia. Un castello e il suo territorio. II. Indagine archeologica. Firenze. 382-396.

Southwick, L. 1989. Knightly Armour in England in the Age of the Black Prince. PhD Thesis. University of London.

Świętoslawski, W. 1999. Arms and Armour of the Nomads of the Great Steppe in the Times of the Mongol expansion. Łόdź.

Szpunar, A. / Glinianowicz, M. 2006. Uzbrojenie pόznośredniowieczne z zamku Czchowie w Małopolsce. – Acta Militaria Mediaevalia 2, 137-188.

Thordeman, B. 1940. Armour from the Battle of Wisby. 1361. Vol. II. Plates. Stockholm.

Thordeman, B. 1939. Armour from the Battle of Wisby. 1361. Vol. I. Stockholm.

Wackernagel, R. 1996. The Armoury of the Castle of Churburg. Udine.


Късносредновековна пластинчата броня от долнодунавската крепост НикополДеян РАБОВЯНОВ / Владимир НАЙДЕНОВ

(резюме)

Предмет на статията са намерени в Никополската крепост пластини, принадлежали на „пластинчата“ броня. Те са втори-ят подобен паметник от България след тези от Царския дворец на Царевец във Велико Търново (Рабовянов / Димитров 2010). Останките са открити по време на археологически разкопки на една от най-значимите крепости на Второто българско царство в земите на север от Стара планина, която за кратко (между 1393 и 1395 г.) дори става негова столица.

Запазената археологическа документация е оскъдна и затруд-нява изследването6. Пластините от бронята са открити заедно с каменни „бойни топки“ (97 на брой) и многобройни железни гвоздеи, скоби, клинове и обкови, в рамките на помещение със значителни размери, долепено до югоизточната крепостна стена, използвано за складиране на военни материали (Манова 1973) (фиг. 1). То без съмнение се отнася в периода на Второто българ-ско царство.

Пластините от бронята са силно корозирали, а повечето и във фрагментирано състояние. Те са разделени на групи според форма и размери, отразяващи реалното им положение в броня-та. Метричните и други данни са представени в табл. 1.

Първата група обединява девет големи пластини с изразена правоъгълна форма и размери 5.5/6.5 на 9/10.5 см (фиг. 2-3). Във втора група са отделени големи пластини с правоъгълна, почти квадратна форма и размери от 6.3 на 6.5 до 6.5 на 8 см (фиг. 4). Третата група включва три пластини – # 10, 15 и 19 (фиг. 5). Те имат изразена трапецовидна форма и сравнително големи раз-мери – 8 на 6.5 см. Ограничена като брой е и четвъртата гру-па – # 11, 12 и 48 (фиг. 5). Това са тесни правоъгълни пластини със средни размери 4 на 10 см. Последната пета група (фиг. 6) обединява всички, при които липсва форма, която да позволи да се търси тяхното място или функция в бронята. Във всички групи има както извити, така и плоски пластини. Дебелината им варира между 2 и 4 мм. Липсват следи да са имали метално по-критие (от калаена сплав), което да ги предпазва от ръждясване. Следите от тъкан по лицевата и тилната страна на някои плас-тини показват, че те са били прикрепени върху текстилна основа и покрити с плат.

За прикрепване към текстилната основа са използвани же-лезни нитове с кръгли глави с диаметър средно 1 см. Лошата запазеност на пластините пречи да се установи схемата на

6 Запазени са само полевата инвен-тарна книга и отчетът за разкопките през 1973 г. (Манова 1973). Не можа да бъде открит полевият дневник от разкопките, липсват и снимки или чертежи, даващи точното положение и вида, в който са открити пластините от бронята.


закрепване при много от тях (фиг. 2-6). При четири пластини (табл. 1) железните нитове са заменени с изработени от медна сплав. Те имат кръгли плоски глави с диаметър около 1 см или такива с вид на нисък конус с диаметър 1.7 см. Очевидно нитове-те от медна сплав са сложени да заместят оригиналните железни при по-късни поправки на бронята.

Наличната информация за находката дава възможност тя да бъде интерпретирана като останки от пластинчата броня. При този специфичен тип доспех различни по големина и форма же-лезни пластини са прикрепвани с нитове върху кожена или по-често текстилна основа, която ги покрива и отгоре. Формата и размерите на пластините и разположението на нитовете я свърз-ват с броните от тип IV по Тордеман. Типичен пример за такива са доспехите с # 20 и 21, и най-вече 22 и 23 от Висби (фиг. 7, 8).

Обстоятелствата на намирането свидетелстват, че в складо-вото помещение е съхранявана само част от броня. Липсват на-блюдения за подредбата на пластините в момента на откриване-то. Поради това всеки опит за реконструкция би бил спекулация. Носени върху плетена ризница и покриващи торса на воина, тези доспехи са били типичен атрибут на тежко въоръжения конен воин от Западна и Централна Европа в периода между 1250 и 1350 г., като се употребяват дори до края на XIV в. (фиг. 8).

Характерните особености на бронята от Никополската кре-пост намират близки паралели сред други доспехи с европей-ски произход – като откритите в замъците Шчерба (фиг. 9) и Райхенщайн (фиг. 10) в Силезия и Чхув в Малополша (фиг. 11). Може да се приеме, че по-скоро става въпрос за внесен, откол-кото направен на място, доспех. Независимо, че доспехи от този тип, наричани „хуяг“ и „подсилен хатангу де’ель“, са били използ-вани от монголите и дори са посочвани като първоизточник за развитието на разглежданата форма защитно средство в Западна Европа, никополската находка не може да се отнесе към тях.

Сравнително дългата употреба – между средата на XIII и сре-дата на XIV в., пречи да се даде по-точна датировка за направата на бронята. Важен датиращ белег е липсата на следи от нитове за закрепване на вериги, които са били свързани с меча и кинжала на воина – мода, появила се около 1330-1340 г. и запазила се около 30 години. За датировка преди 1330-1340 г. свидетелства и липса-та на по-големи пластини, покриващи горната част на гърдите или гърба, както и липсата на захващане на плочките една към друга по редове. Макар че от формална гледна точка доспехите от този тип трябва да се считат за остарели след средата на XIV в., тяхната употреба се запазва дълго след това. За „дълъг живот“ на никополската находка свидетелства и поправката с нитове от медна сплав. Можем да заключим, че разглежданата броня би мо-гла да е изработена в рамките на широк период (между средата на XIII и средата на XIV в.), като е възможно да е ползвана и съхра-нявана и след 1350 г.

Заедно с други паметници от България бронята от Никопол е свидетелство за влияние върху българското късносреднове-ковно защитното въоръжение от страна на Западна и Централна Европа. В съчетание с данните за едновременна употреба и на въоръжение, следващо степните (татаро-монголски) традиции,


стигаме до извод за сложния и еклектичен характер на военното дело във Второто българско царство (1185-1396). Откриването на пластинчати доспехи в две пряко свързани с царското упра-вление крепости свидетелства, че българските владетели са из-ползвали тежко въоръжена кавалерия, много близка до западно-европейските рицари от същия период.

Dr. Deyan S. RabovyanovNational Archaeological Institute with MuseumBranch Veliko Tarnovo29 Ivan Vazov St.BG-5000 Veliko [email protected]

Vladimir Naydenov, MARegional Historical Museum – Pleven3 Stoyan Zaimov St.BG-5800 [email protected]


Coat of Plates Bulgaria

Documents

nikopol fortress

nikopol armour

excavations of nikopol

armours plates

late medieval coat of

royal palace

bulgarian kingdom

military nature