Wykaz publikacji:
Publikacje oddane do druku:

Odwrotna strona medalu czyli w kwestii konstrukcji zapinek szczeblowych słów kilka, [w:] A. Urbaniak, R. Prochowicz, J. Schuster, M. Levada (red.), Terra Barbarica, Monumenta Archeologica Barbarica Series Gemina II, ŁódĽ-Warszawa 2010, s. 321-331.

The latest weapons in the Bogaczewo culture, [w:] The Turbulent Epoch. New Materials from the Late Roman Period and the Migration Period, t. II, red. B. Niezabitowska, M. Ju¶ciński, P. Łuczkiewicz, S. Sadowski, Lublin 2009, s. 89-104.

The war as seen by an archaeologist. Reconstruction of barbarian weapons and fighting techniques in the Roman Period basing on the analysis of weapon graves. The case of the Przeworsk Culture, "Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies", t. 16, 2009, s. 93-132.

The latest weapons in the Bogaczewo culture, [w:] The Turbulent Epoch. New Materials from the Late Roman Period and the Migration Period, t. II, red. B. Niezabitowska, M. Ju¶ciński, P. Łuczkiewicz, S. Sadowski, Lublin 2009, s. 89-104.

Horse and its use in the Przeworsk Culture in the light of archaeological evidence, [w:] The Horse and Man in European Antiquity (Worldview, Burial Rites, and Military and Everyday Life, Archaeologia Baltica, t. 11, Klaipeda 2009, s. 92-114.
(7,7 MB)

Foreign influences on the weaponry of the Bogaczewo and Sudovian cultures. The case of the shafted weapon, "Archaeologia Baltica", t. 8, 2007, s. 117-132.

Is There Reliable Archival Data? The Problem of Interpretation of an Unusual Specimen from Gurjevsk (formerly Trausitten) on the Sambian Peninsula, "Archaeologia Baltica", t. 8, 2007, s. 176-182.

Time of war or well-being? Changes in weapon sets in the Przeworsk culture burials from the late stage of phase B2

Wojna oczami archeologa. Uwagi na temat sposobów walki ludno¶ci kultury przeworskiej w okresie wpływów rzymskich w ¶wietle Ľródeł archeologicznych

Uzbrojenie kultury przeworskiej w okresie wpływów rzymskich i pocz±tkach okresu wędrówek ludów
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

In order to establish the changes in weapon assemblages in burials, the differences in weapon sets were studied (Diagram 2). To that aim the data from the Late Pre-Roman Period were also used. The study of the number of combinations of elements of weaponry in respective phases is groundless because each chronological  phase differed in the number of analysed weapon categories, and thus the numbers of  possible combinations were different. For that reason it was assumed that the diversification of the sets of weapons will be better measured by means of the relation between the number of observed combinations to the number of possible combinations (multiplied by 100 for greater clarity of the diagram)[12]. The pictures obtained in this way may differ depending on how many categories of weapons (and thus the number of possible combinations of weapons) are taken into consideration. For that reason it was decided to study this question using six (shaft weapon, sword, shield, bow, horse's equipment, axe[13]) or eight categories (additionally distinguishing between the appearance of one or more than one shaft weapon heads, and of single-edged swords and double-edged swords). The obtained pictures are surprisingly similar for both cases. According to the diagram in phase A2 of the Late Pre-Roman Period the weapon sets are considerably standardized (not diversified). In phase B1 the situation changes drastically, which is reflected by the high value of the difference ratio. In the following phases the differentiation decreases, and a clear standardization appears in phases B2b and B2/C1. In the later chronological periods the complexity of weapon sets in burials grows considerably. Only at the end of the Roman Period (or the beginning of the Early Migration Period) the weapon sets in burials become much more uniform. The error margin resulting from not including the material dated broadly to phases B2 and B2b-C1a is rather small for this material includes only sets of the same combinations as the ones appearing in the pairs of neighbouring phases.

It is worth to note that the low degree of standardization characterizes the phases in which considerable cultural changes occurred. For phase A1 it should probably be explained by the fact that it was the period of formation of the Przeworsk culture, when the custom of furnishing graves with weapons was introduced (the areas ultimately occupied by the Przeworsk culture were, in the phase of its formation, considerably diversified and had been subject to the influences of the Pommeranian, Jastorf, and La Tène cultures (D±browska 1988, p. 84-104). Alterations in phase B1 may have resulted from the process of graduate, long-lasting change of the existing standard formed by the influences of the La Tène culture in the Late Pre-Roman Period (reflected, i.a., in including weapons into grave goods) as well as the creation and adoption of a new model (in which an important part was played by the influences of the Roman Empire) (see, e.g., Godłowski 1985, p. 41; 1992, p. 76; D±browska 1988, p. 231). The strong standardization in phases A2, B2b, and B2/C1 might have theoretically had a military basis (involvement in Ariovistus' campaigns in the west, possible participation in the Marcomannic wars, etc.), which shall be discussed in the latter part of this paper. Diagram 2 does not indicate whether we have to do with the same, similar, or different standard. It only shows whether a standard exists or not. The increase of the complexity of weapon sets in the late part of phase C1a and phase C1b may result from, i. a., the changes in the burial rites that started seemingly in the late stage of phase C1b and of alterations of fighting techniques, caused by the direct contacts with the Roman army and weaponry[14]. The appearance of the new 'impoverished' standard in phases C2-D is probably a result of further changes in the burial rite (Kontny, in print)[15].

The clear standardization of weapon sets in the Przeworsk culture is reflected not only in the general image of the low differentiation of these sets but also at respective burial grounds. The statistical analysis embraced material from eight cemeteries: Chorula, Gogolin commune, Krapkowice district, voivodeship opolskie (Szydłowski 1964), Chmielów Piaskowy, Bodzechów commune, Ostrowiec district, voivodeship ¶więtokrzyskie (Godłowski, Wichman 1998), Młodzikowo, Krzykosy commune, ¦roda Wielkopolska district, voivodeship wielkopolskie (Dymaczewski 1958), Ciebłowice Duże, Tomaszów Mazowiecki commune, Tomaszów Mazowiecki district, voivodeship łódzkie (unpublished materials excavated by Janusz Karolczyk, M.A., whom this author would like to thank for granting access to them; the materials are stored in Museum in Tomaszów Mazowiecki), as well as Kamieńczyk, Wyszków commune, Wyszków district, voivodeship mazowieckie (D±browska 1997), Łajski, Skrzeszew commune, Legionowo district, voivodeship mazowieckie (unpublished materials excavated by A. Kruk, stored in the Museum of Ancient Iron Smelting in Pruszków)[16], Nadkole, Łochów commune, Węgrów district, voivodeship mazowieckie (Andrzejowski 1998), and Oblin, Maciejowice commune, Garwolin district, voivodeship mazowieckie (unpublished materials excavated by Katarzyna Czarnecka, Ph.D., whom I would like to thank for granting access; the materials are stored in the State Archaeological Museum in Warsaw), located in the eastern zone of the Przeworsk culture (data after the catalogue from the doctoral dissertation of the present author (Kontny 2001). To assess the relations between them, Guttman's correlation measure, l[17], was applied.
The data are presented in Table 1 and the results of calculation of Guttman's lin a matrix (Table 3). In order to compare better the investigated burial grounds, the numbers of cases of respective weapon categories' occurence in chosen cemeteries are presented in Table 2. As the numbers are small, no percentages of respective categories are given, only the numbers of burials from respective cemeteries. Table 3 reveals clear similarities between pairs of necropolies: Łajski-Kamieńczyk, Oblin-Młodzikowo, Nadkole-Chorula, Łajski-Oblin, and Łajski-Chorula. The assumed significance level is nearly achieved by the results for the pairs: Nadkole-Łajski, Nadkole-Oblin, Łajski-Ciebłowice Duże, Ciebłowice Duże-Kamieńczyk, Nadkole-Kamieńczyk, Ciebłowice Duże-Chorula, Chorula-Młodzikowo,  Młodzikowo-Nadkole, Młodzikowo-Chmielów Piaskowy, and Młodzikowo-Kamieńczyk. Such a similar picture of weaponry at so many, often very distant sites, indicates a considerable uniformisation of weapon sets in burials in comparison to observations which can be made for other chronological periods (Kontny 2001). This should be linked to a progressing standardization of weapon sets in the analysed period (see Diagram 2). This standard was reflected especially by a considerable number of burials with a combination: more than one shaft weapon head, shield, as well as: more than one shaft weapon head (in approximately equal proportions), and a small percentage of burials with single shaft weapon heads (and sometimes shield fittings) (Kontny 2001, Diagrams 19-20).

The cemetery at Chmielów Piaskowy clearly differs from that uniform picture: the results indicating considerable differences were obtained for pairs: Ciebłowice Duże-Chmielów Piaskowy, Chorula-Chmielów Piaskowy, Nadkole-Chmielów Piaskowy, Łajski-Chmielów Piaskowy, and Kamieńczyk-Chmielów Piaskowy. It is not easy to explain this situation unequivocally. The group using this site might have been richer than other communities (perhaps owing to the profits from trade in iron produced in the area of the ¦więtokrzyskie Mountains). This may be indicated by the presence of imported Roman swords, or tools for working wood and metal among grave goods (see Godłowski, Wichman 1998, p. 58-59, 63-64). On the other hand, however, the 'non-standard' picture of weapon sets may to some extent have resulted from the outer influences on local grounds coming for example from the eastern zone of the Przeworsk culture (in that area also, e.g., a greater proportion of swords among grave goods has been recorded)[18].

It seems that the burial grounds from the eastern zone of the Przeworsk culture are similar to some extent: almost all the results concerning pairs of cemeteries from this area either indicate a significant similarity or are close to it. The relation Oblin-Kamieńczyk (l = 0.400) is the only exception, which may, however, be caused by the fact that the Oblin cemetery is located at a considerable distance from the other investigated burial grounds. In the light of the data from Tables 1 and 3 this similarity and simultaneously diversity from cemeteries located outside the eastern zone of the Przeworsk culture is reflected by a greater proportion of burials with swords (mainly double-edged). Only at the site of Nadkole there were found no swords in burials dated to phase B2b, although such a possibility may exist (grave 44a, generally dated to phase B2 contained a single-edged sword). At the remaining discussed sites (except for Chmielów Piaskowy), they appear very seldom. Another feature common for the above-mentioned burials from the eastern zone of the Przeworsk culture (except for Łajski) is the relatively great number of barbed spearheads. This does not mean that such heads or the swords did not appear in other areas but it indicates that at the above-mentioned sites they were more frequent. It is possible that the trend of excluding of such shaft weapon heads in grave assemblages reached these areas later than elsewhere[19]. As it seems, shield fittings appeared there more frequently than in other areas (except for Oblin, where, like at the other discussed cemeteries they made up ca half of the weapon graves). It is possible that these areas are also characteristic for their lack of axes and arrowheads among grave goods, yet too few of them have been found for the whole Przeworsk culture to allow for any definite statements. It should not be forgotten that for phase B2b, especially in the eastern zone, certain similarities of weaponry in the Przeworsk and Wielbark cultures are believed to exist, concerning especially the so-called negative ornament stamped with a punch, having the form of contrasted, adjacent triangles located in the central parts of the  shaft weapon heads' leaves (Kaczanowski, Zaborowski 1988, p. 235, fig. 9; D±browska 1997, p. 122; Andrzejowski 2001, p. 76-77)[20].

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

[12] The multiplication by 100 does not change the degree of diversification.

[13] The category 'shaft weapons' is manifested by the presence of a head (or heads) and only exceptionally lance shoes, ' shield', by its metal elements: the boss, the grip, edge-mountings or surface fittings, 'sword', by either parts of the sword or the scabbard, 'horse's equipment', by a spur (spurs) or, occasionally, bits, 'bow', by arrowheads.

[14] As an example of Roman influences a shield is frequently mentioned (see e.g. Godłowski 1992, p. 82-83; Kaczanowski 1992, p. 70-71; Kontny 2002a, p. 108).

[15] On the changes in burial rites see, e.g., Szydłowski 1977, p. 76-81, or recently: Błażejewski 1998, p. 91-96, 108-116, hitherto other literature.

[16] I would like to express my gratitude to Stefan Woyda, director of the Museum, for granting me access to the materials from Łajski.

[17] It is treated rather as a measure of correlation of the data than a test (for the description of the method see, e.g., Fletcher, Lock 1995, p. 135-136). Although it is not a symmetrical measure, it can be applied when several cells in the data tables have low or zero values. Guttman's l was used on the basis of the principle of comparing the correlations of two variables: a pair of cemeteries and a combination of weapon sets appearing in burials at each of the site. The range of the value of the investigated measure is: <0.1>, where large values indicate that weapon sets are correlated with two investigated cemeteries in a different way (various weapon combinations are 'assigned' to various cemeteries) while low values indicate similarity in the weapon combinations at cemeteries (regardless of the analysed cemetery the sets of weapons are similar). As the number of weapon burials taken into consideration is not great and the method itself is not the most precise, I have considered as reliable (i.e., resulting in significant information) only the extreme results: high (here scores from critical value 0.700 upwards), which indicate a low degree of similarity between cemeteries and low (below 0.300), testifying for a significant similarity. The other results have been assumed to be within the general standard characteristic for one cultural unit. It was impossible to apply test c2 , better for the purposes of this paper, as the investigated set is too small to fulfill the requirements of this test.

[18] The influence of the eastern zone of the Przeworsk culture on the population burying their dead in the cemetery at Chmielów Piaskowy is reflected, i. a., in costume and other ornaments, pottery, presence of 'negative' ornament on shaft weapon heads, and appearance of shield bosses with edge-mounts (Godłowski, Wichman 1998, p. 85).

[19] The greatest number of barbed spearheads appeared in the Przeworsk culture in phase B2a and then this custom clearly loses its importance (Kontny 2002a, diagram 4).

[20] Shaft weapon heads type VIII.2, after P. Kaczanowski (Kaczanowski 1995, p. 19); heads type XII, e.g., Niemirów, Mielnik commune, Siemiatycze district, voivodeship podlaskie, grave 1 (Rusin 2001, fig. 2), Chmielów Piaskowy, Bodzechów commune, Ostrowiec district, voivodeship ¶więtokrzyskie, grave 20 (Godłowski, Wichman 1998, pl. XXVII:10), Kryspinów, Liszki commune, Cracow district, voivodeship małopolskie, grave 10 (Godłowski 1976, Fig. 6:17), heads type VI, e.g. Garwolin, Garwolin commune, Garwolin district, voivodeship mazowieckie, grave 57 (Niewęgłowski 1991, fig. 35:c), Kryspinów, grave 10 (Godłowski 1976, Fig. 6:18), Serby, Głogów commune, Głogów district, voivodeship dolno¶l±skie, grave II (Tackenberg 1925, pl. 8:91). Of course, examples given above come from the whole territory of the Przeworsk culture.