On the Medieval Battle Knives from Transylvania

7
ON THE MEDIEVAL BATTLE KNIVES FROM TRANSYLVANIA
Adrian Andrei Rusu (Cluj)
Although enriched and even stimulated by the recent volume of Zeno K.
Pinter,1 Romanian historical literature still has much to add in the field of the
identification and classification of medieval offensive weapons. Besides the
swords, which are already well studied and inventoried, a large number of different
categories of weapons need to be researched. A short overview of the
more recent historical literature indicates that battle knives have remained unstudied
so far.2
In the present article I will attempt to merge all the different aspects related
to battle knives. In Pinter’s book on swords and sabers one finds the almost
classical wall painting from Crişcior (Hunedoara County) depicting “jupan”
(also spelled župan) Balea as a “sword”-bearer (fig. 1a).3 It is apparent that the
weapon on his hip, hanging from his belt, is relatively short and without a guard,
elements which contradict all, or most of, the typological criteria used in the
classification of swords.4 Jupan Balea is not the only character wearing the
weapon. In fact, all the male characters of the wall painting, Balea’s brother,
children, and nephews are depicted wearing identical weapons. Other iconographic
evidence from Transylvania reveals the same or similar types of weapons.
The oldest example is to be found in the wall paintings of Ghelniţa (Covasna
County), dating from around 1330. There, St. Ladislas is represented three
times in the narrative cycle dedicated to him as wearing on his belt a short
1 Z. K. Pinter, Spada şi sabia medievală în Transilvania şi Banat (secolele IX-XIV) (The
medieval sword and saber in Transylvania and Banat between the ninth and the fourteenth
centuries) (Reşiţa, 1999) (henceforth Pinter, Spada şi sabia).
2 C. Vlădescu, C. König, D. Popa, Arme din muzeele din Romînia (Weapons from museums in
Romania) (Bucharest, 1973), 11 and passim; Istoria militară a poporului român II (The
military history of the Romanian people) (Bucharest, 1986), chapter “Înzestrarea, echiparea
şi asigurarea materială a oastei” (The equipment and the supplies of the army), 51 and
passim, (henceforth: Istoria militară).
3 Pinter, Spada şi sabia, 250, plate 24 a.
4 Although excluded in the case of Crişcior because of the abundance of depictions of this
type of weapon different from a sword worn by all the male characters, I do not rule out the
real existence of the sword without guard. A good example is the depiction of Archangel
Michael in the monastery of Bistriţa in Moldavia from the fifteenth century. See the color
image in Istoria militară.
8
weapon, without a guard, which reaches just above his knee (fig. 1b).5 The handle
is essential in the identification because it is shaped in such a way as to be
used with a single-edged blade.
Fig. 1: Iconographic evidence: a. jupan Balea (1411) (Crişcior); b. king Ladislas I the Holy
(1330) (Ghelniţa); c. strategos (1420) (Mediaş); d. Fifteenth-century stove tile.
The next depiction comes from the St. Nicholas narrative cycle from the parish
church of St. Margaret in Mediaş (Sibiu County), dated to 1420. In this image,
5 V. Drăguţ, Arta gotică în România (Gothic art in Romania) (Bucharest, 1979), 193, fig. 216
(henceforth Drăguţ, Arta gotică).
9
one of the three strategoi kneeling in front of the saint and kissing his hand
wears a battle knife attached to his belt (fig. 1c).6 The weapon also end above
the knee, and the end of the handle indicates clearly that it belongs to a single
edged blade, so to a knife. In Mărtiniş (Harghita County), the fifteenth-century
wall painting includes two knights, both wearing battle knives without guards.
One of them, a royal knight, has the handle of his weapon fashioned in the manner
typical for knives.7 Another depiction of such a knife is to be found on a fifteenth-
century stove tile whose place of discovery is unknown but which is kept
in the Bruckenthal Museum in Sibiu (fig. 1d).8
These iconographic examples may come from an incomplete series, but
they point to a clear chronology (1330-1420) and a geographical spread that
covers all of Transylvania from west to east. In none of the cases does the bearer
of the weapon come from a low social stratum that could not have afforded the
luxury of wearing a sword. They are kings, high-ranking military persons,
knights or nobles. By chance or not, the examples come mostly from the main
ethnic layers of the province: Szekler, Saxon, and Romanian.
Preliminary to the discussion of the archaeological material, the iconographic
evidence points to the need for introducing the category of battle knives
into taxonomies and repertories as weapons independent from sabres, swords or
other bladed weapons from the same family. In order to avoid any confusion and
doubt, one has to keep in mind that swords, also characterized by a single-edged
blade but almost always longer and without a guard, re-appeared in medieval arsenals
only from the second half of the fifteenth century. They ceased to be used
in Central Europe for several centuries after the arrival of the migrating Hungarians
(in the tenth century), the Cumans and the Tatars (in the thirteenth century).
It is not easy to track the individuality of the battle knife in other types of
sources. Meant for current use, it seems that the knife was a basic tool of all
people during the Middle Ages, regardless of social status, age or even sex. It is
precisely its everyday use that kept it anonymous. Just like the axe, the knife
was used both as a tool and as a weapon. But unlike an axe, the knife was an
object of personal wear, as one can discern, for instance, from the 1561 statutes
of tinsmith apprentices from Braşov.9 The usage of knives was such an important
daily necessity that they became an item of European production and trade.
Imre Holl recently discussed the production of knives in Central Europe.10 By
the later Middle Ages, the production of knives had become an urban specialty;
entire streets bore the name of the knife-makers. Production developed so much
that the knife-producers proper, who assembled the parts, differentiated among
6 Drăguţ, Arta gotică, 236, fig. 271.
7 J. Huszka, in Archaeologiai Értesitö 6 (1886), 128.
8 H. Klusch, Zauber alter Kacheln aus Rumänien (Sibiu, 1999), 78, fig. 12.
9 Quellen zur Geschichte der Stadt Kronstadt, vol. 9 (Braşov, 1999), 268.
10 I. Holl, “A középkori késes mesterség” (Medieval Knife Production), Archaeologiai Értesitö
121-122 (1994-1995): 159-188 (henceforth: Holl, “A középkori késes mesterség”).
10
those creating the blades (Klingenschmied), those sharpening them (Schleifer),
and those who created the hilts (Schroter). The blade makers seem to have been
grouped around the places of metallic ore extraction, that is, in rural areas. Some
of the masters dealt with all the aspects of production. Knife blades started to be
marked with signs of the different masters and different cities; in London from
the second half of the thirteenth century, then in France and Switzerland from
the beginning of the fourteenth century, and in German areas from the end of the
same century.11 The outer end of the hilt was reinforced with metal and the inner
end of the handle has a small orifice where a metal blade is attached. Knife production
concentrated in Austria, Styria, and around Nuremberg. The urban production
of other places in Central Europe should not be excluded but rather accepted.
12 In the Carpathian Basin, knife production is not so often attested due to
the fragmentary preservation of written documents. It is clear, though, that large
quantities of knives were imported from specialized cities.13
One should not be surprised, therefore, to note that the knife held an exceptional
place in the trade among the Romanian medieval states. The early
trade is not documented through written documents. Knives produced in Steyr
have been excavated in two town houses in Baia, dated to 1440 and 1476, respectively.
In both Moldavia and Wallachia, knives have been excavated in rural
contexts.14 Knives of the same type came from Borniş and Lunca (Moldavia),
and Coconi (Wallachia).15 In Transylvania, they have only been identified at
Cristuru Secuiesc.16 Things started to change toward the end of the fifteenth century.
The first written evidence about the knife trade comes from 1500, when
Voivode Radu of Wallachia wrote a complaint to the city of Sibiu, asking for the
significant number of 31,000 knives.17 A series of other data is available from
the sixteenth century: in 1503 alone, 422,050 knives entered Wallachia and
25,327 entered Moldavia; in 1505 a single Wallachian merchant bought
18,000.18 In 1532, the unit measure in the knife trade is mentioned: the “bun-
11 Holl, A középkori késes mesterség, 163-168.
12 For Prague, see V. Huml and R. Pleiner, “Die Schmiede im mittelalterlichen Prag,” Archeologica
Pragensia 11 (1981): 194-195, plate 5-6. See other examples in Holl, “A középkori
késes mesterség.”
13 Holl, “A középkori késes mesterség,” 159-161.
14 Holl, “A középkori késes mesterség,” 177.
15 Holl, “A középkori késes mesterség,” 186.
16 E. Benkö, I. Demeter, and A. Székély, Közepkori mezöváros a Székélyföldön (Medieval
market towns in the Szeklers’ land) (Cluj, 1997), 114, 119, fig. 34.
17 E. Hurmuzachi, Documente privitoare la istoria Românilor (Documents related to the
history of the Romanians) vol. 15/1 (Bucharest, 1911), 152-153 (henceforth: DIR). See the
commentary by Şt. Pascu, Meşteşugurile din Transilvania până în secolul al XVI-lea
(Transylvanian crafts up to the sixteenth century) (Bucharest, 1954), 166 (henceforth:
Pascu, Meşteşugurile).
18 Pascu, Meşteşugurile, 171; Minerva Nistor, “Producţia şi negoţul cu feronerie, arme de foc,
clopote şi mortare ale Braşovului în secolele XV-XVIII” (The production of and trade in
iron tools, firearms, bells and mortars of Braşov from the fifteenth to the eighteenth
centuries), Cumidava 13, no. 2 (1983): 71-72.
11
dle.”19 In the sixteenth century luxury needs can be traced. For example, golden
knives from Vienna and Cracow and iron knives from Nürnberg are found in
Romanian areas.20
The demand for knives soon led to the appearance and organization of local
specialized production. For example, a guild from Sighişoara included masters
such as Gheorghe Cultifex (1412), Ioan Cultellificis (1420) and Ştefan
Cultellifaber (1472).21 In Braşov, a certain Iacob Messersmyd is mentioned in
1438.22 In 1469, a chaplain from Sibiu was called Anton Cultelifaber,23 probably
from what was once his family’s profession. The craft was also present in the
countryside. One Hans Messersmid is attested in Slimnic (Sibiu County) in the
last decade of the fourteenth century24 and a certain Petru was manufacturing
knives in Ţigmandu during the first years of the fifteenth century.25
The previous remarks point towards the need for a distinction between
knives considered as weapons, such as those depicted in the iconography, and
knives used as tools. Certain elements are suggested by the images. It seems that
the weapon-knives were slightly larger than those designed for home use. In the
trade documents though, this distinction is never made. One has to keep in mind
that in the sixteenth century, if not already in the second half of the fifteenth
century, the battle knife had already gone out of military fashion, being replaced
by weapons of similar character but very different from the tool knives. One can
suspect that the objects circulating in large bundles mentioned in the documents
were (primarily?) for non-military usage. Naturally, according to these observations,
the textual sources are unsatisfactory here. The only way of differentiating
the functions of a medieval knife is through archaeology.
Further on I will refer to the archaeological material that has greatly
stimulated this article. My research started from the archeological inventory of
the fortification of Măgura Codlei (Braşov County). It was excavated more than
thirty years ago by Ioan Pop and Florea Costea, but remained mostly unpublished.
26 Through the generosity of my colleague Florea Costea, the material has
19 Gr. Tocilescu, 534 documente istorice slavo-române din Ţara Românească şi Moldova
privitoare la legăturile cu Ardealul (534 Slavo-Romanian documents regarding the relations
of Wallachia and Moldavia with Transylvania) (Bucharest, 1931), 413.
20 S. Golenberg, Clujul în secolul XVI (Cluj in the sixteenth century) (Bucharest, 1958), 262-
263.
21 G. Nüssbächer, “Documente şi ştiri documentare privind meşteşugurile din Sighişoara în
secolul al XV-lea” (Documents and textual information regarding the crafts from
Sighişoara in the fifteenth century), Studii şi comunicări. Arheologie-istorie 14 (1969): 226-
227.
22 Urkundenbuch zur Geschichte der Deutchen in Siebenbürgen,, ed. Franz Zimmermann et
al. (1892 ff.), vol. 5, 4 (henceforth: Urkundenbuch).
23 Urkundenbuch, 6, 381.
24 Urkundenbuch, 3, 85-95.
25 Pascu, Meşteşugurile, 238.
26 The only reference is to be found in Fl. Costea, “Obiecte metalice descoperite în cetatea
Codlea” (Metal objects excavated in the fortification of Codlea), Cumidava 2 (1968): 80-
89.
12
been available to me since 1998. Although a rich and complex material, it cannot
be dated except according to the documentary mentions of the fortifications,
that is in the interval between 1267 and 1335.27 The latter year is not attested as
the time of final destruction, but only as the last mention. The fortification was
certainly destroyed violently through a great fire, at a time that one has to establish
with the help of general analysis of the excavated material that, unfortunately,
does not include any coins. Anyway, what is important for the following
analysis is that the entire inventory of the fortification was kept in situ and preserved
in the ashes some time before the end of the fourteenth century.
Fig. 2: Knife blades a-d. Codlea, e-h. Dăbâca
27 For the history of the fortification, see W. Horwath, “Die Schwarzburg und ihre Bedeutung,”
Das Burzenland vol. 4, no. 1 (1929): 64-65.
13
The group of knives excavated at Codlea is one of the most important
ever discovered in Transylvania. The classification of these knives is relatively
easy: the largest type is formed by entire pieces or fragments of small and medium
knives, provided with tangs and wooden or bone handles. Only some of
the objects from this type have the handles provided with orifices that allow the
hilts to be fixed with nails. I will concentrate here on the knives from the second
type. It consists of six knifes, out of which only two are preserved in their entirety
(some are depicted on fig. 2a-d). Their dimensions vary between 31 and
41.4 cm. Without exception, the hilts are modelled carefully, with curved modelling
on the inner side for better grasping, with nail holes, and with additional
fittings for added strength. It would be a sufficient argument to accept the
grouping in two taxonomic types, according to the dimensions and quality of
execution, but first, I will compare the knives from Codlea with other similar or
related objects.
Very recently, a group of iron weapons excavated several years ago at the
fortification of Dăbâca have been published. Rightfully, Petre Iambor treated the
objects independently from everyday knives. The selection started from 120
pieces.28 He also took into account the different places of discovery. The battle
knives were found inside the fortification, many even inside the keep, while the
ordinary knives came mainly from the buildings. From the published knives, the
longest has a blade 23.3 cm long, narrowing from a width of 3 cm (fig. 2f).29
The handle, like most of the knives from Dăbâca, has a tang rather than a hilt.
Unfortunately, the tang is broken on this piece, but one can estimate that originally
the knife was 35 cm long, considering the handle at its minimum length
(10-11cm). There are also 21.5 cm long blades (fig. 2h),30 20.5 cm long ones
with seven centimeter-long tangs (fig.2e),31 and 18 cm (fig. 2g) long ones,
respectively.32 At least seven other fragmentary blades come from the same
group.33 Besides the description and the dimension taxonomy, one has to decide
whether the knives from Dăbâca can still be considered “daggers.”
Since a certain number of battleknives have been excavated from different
sites, one can re-analyze published items that have so far been misinterpreted.
“Large knives” were excavated from the site of the church in Căvăran (now
28 P. Iambor, “Aşezări fortificate din Transilvania în secolele IX-XIII (Aspecte economice,
sociale, politice, militare, demografice şi culturale)” (Fortified settlements in Transylvania
between the ninth and the thirteenth centuries. Economic, social, political, military, demographic
and cultural aspects), PhD dissertation (University of Cluj-Napoca, 2000), 277
(henceforth Iambor, “Aşezări fortificate”).
29 National History Museum of Transylvania, inventory no. F. 12470.
30 National History Museum of Transylvania, inventory no. F. 17931.
31 National History Museum of Transylvania, inventory no. F. 13594.
32 National History Museum of Transylvania, inventory no. F. 17904.
33 Iambor, “Aşezări fortificate”, plate LIV, nos. 1-5 entire pieces, nos. 6-8 fragments; plate L,
no. 31, 32 (?), 37; plate LI, nos. 1-2 (wrongly inventoried this time as saber fragments).
14
Constantin Daicoviciu, Caraş-Severin County).34 The knives excavated at St.
Gheorghe-Bedeháza (Covasna County) are almost identical to these. One of
them even preserved a metallic ring used for affixing the handle.35 At Cuhea
(Bogdan Vodă) there are also mentions of undifferentiated fragments of knife
blades. One of them is notable for its large size (17 cm in length);36 it can be included
into the battle knife category. A single sharp-edged blade with its corresponding
trapezoidal handle was excavated by chance at Ruştior (Bistriţa-Năsăud
County), on the site of a historically undetermined fortification. The handle
has a fixing orifice towards the blade. The total length of the object is 69 cm.37
One can suspect in this case that the object is a later, longer weapon resembling
a saber. The item excavated at the Viile Tecii fortification (Bistriţa-Năsăud
County) is much clearer. It has a blade of 30 cm and just the starting part of the
handle preserved, where one can only suspect the presence of a fixing orifice or
at least a narrowing for the tang. The knife was associated with fourteenth-century
ceramics.38 A 28.6 cm-long knife, with hilt affixed with rivets, was excavated
at Urmeniş (Mureş County).39 Another single blade of 68 cm, which could
be reconstructed, comes from the fortification of Haţeg (Hunedoara County).40 It
cannot be dated later than the fifteenth century. A fragmentary blade, longer
than 25 cm, was uncovered in the fortification of Căpâlna (Alba County). It
bears a master’s sign in the shape of an X and it was defined as single sharpedged
saber (!).41 It seems to date prior to mid-fifteenth century. The list of such
knives is certainly longer.42
34 I. Miloia, “Biserica medievală dela Căvăran” (The medieval church in Căvăran), Analele
Banatului 3 (1930): 41.
35 K. Horedt, in Materiale şi cercetări Arheologice 2 (1956): 22, 31, fig. 17/10, 15, 17.
36 R. Popa, M. Zdroba, Şantierul arheologic Cuhea (Cuhea archeologicalsSite) (Baia Mare:
publisher, 1966), 25, 26, fig. 17. The quality of the image only indicates that the hilt (?)
ended with a tang.
37 Şt. Dănilă, “Contribuţii la cunoaşterea unor cetăţi din nord-estul Transilvaniei” (Contributions
to the research on some northeastern Transylvanian fortifications), File de Istorie
2 (1972): 100, fig. 34, plate 101 (henceforth: Dănilă, “Contribuţii”).
38 Dănilă, “Contribuţii:” 104, fig. 38, 105.
39 A. Zrinyi, in Marisia VI (1976): 149, preserved in Reghin.
40 A. A. Rusu, in Sargeţia XVI-XVII (1982-1983): 340, 357, fig. 11/11.
41 Şt. Matei, in I. Glodariu, V. Moga, Cetatea dacică de la Căpâlna (The Dacian fortification
in Căpâlna) (Bucharest, 1989), 155, fig. 112/1.
42 See, for example, a blade from Cefa which cannot be added to the series due to its dating
(fourteenth to sixteenth century) and incomplete description ( I. Crişan, in Crisia 25 (1995):
58, plate IX, 3). The same can be said about “three fragments of knife blades” from Racoşul
de Sus (Covasna County). I disagree with their dating to the twelfth century, Repertoriul
arheologic al judeţului Covasna (The archaeological collection of Covasna County) (Sfântu
Gheorghe, 1998), 40.
15
It is also useful to mention the Moldavian examples. A battle knife found
in Baia, described as a hunting knife, has the same cluster of hilt-affixing holes43
as on one of the Codlea pieces. Other fifteenth-century fragmentary blades have
been considered sabers.44 The description of a twelfth or thirteenth-century
straight blade from Bâtca Doamnei as belonging to a saber seems quite uncertain.
45 At Coconi, in Wallachia, blades over 25 cm in length46 can be considered
as weapons. A high quality iron blade from Curtea de Argeş was classified as a
saber and dated around 1350.47 But, as I have pointed out earlier, the existence
of fourteenth-century sabers is improbable.
As mentioned above, the examples used here could be multiplied. Besides
the length that makes them recognizable, doubts about the function of such
blades and knifes still remain, since in the Middle Ages agricultural, hunting or
transportation tools were frequently transformed into weapons. Even the length
of knives, taken so far as an indicator of their military function, can be found in
tools, such as those of a butcher, for example.
The weapon-like function of a large knife becomes evident when analyzing
its accessories. A special sheath and or a special belt-attachment system
point more clearly to the use of the knife as a weapon. Therefore, the preservation
and excavation of the accessories becomes even more important than that of
the knives themselves. In some parts of Europe (London, Austria) the artisans
producing such accessories are mentioned separately.48
Through analogy with sword sheaths, the chape, made of stronger materials,
is the most probable sheath accessory. It is the small tip protecting the extremity
of a sheath made of wood, leather49 or a strong textile (like thick felt, for
example). In shape, the knife chapes must be similar to those of swords, but
smaller in size. Starting from this observation, the archaeological material from
the fortification of Codlea offers a few clues. A cone-shaped object, slightly
flattened and provided with a ring at the end is clearly a chape (fig. 3a). Its state
of preservation does not allow a reconstruction of how it was attached to the
43 E. Neamţu, V. Neamţu, and Stela Cheptea, Oraşul medieval Baia în secolele XIV-XVII (The
medieval town Baia from the fourteenth to the seventeenth century) (Iaşi, 1980), 166, fig.
14/7, 167, fig. 15/5 (henceforth: Neamţu, Neamţu, and Cheptea, Oraşul medieval Baia).
44 Neamţu, Neamţu, and Cheptea, Oraşul medieval Baia, vol. 2 (1987), fig. 39, 1-3.
45 V. Spinei, Moldova în secolele XI-XIV (Moldavia between the eleventh and fourteenth century),
(Bucharest, 1982), fig. 7/14.
46 N. Constantinescu, Coconi, un sat din Câmpia Română în epoca lui Mircea cel Bătrân
(Coconi, a village on the Romanian plain in the time of Mircea the Old) (Bucharest, 1972),
91 (henceforth: Constantinescu, Coconi).
47 N. Constantinescu, Curtea de Argeş (1200-1400). Asupra începuturilor Ţării Româneşti
(Curtea de Argeş (1200-1400). On the beginnings of Wallachia) (Bucharest, 1984), 109,
fig. 48/2 (henceforth: Constantinescu, Curtea de Argeş).
48 Holl, “A középkori késes mesterség,” 159.
49 The remains of such an object, decorated with small lozenges, was preserved on a knife
excavated in grave no. 140 from the cemetery of Négyszállás (See L. Selmeczi, A
négyszállási I .számú jász temetö (The Yazig cemetery no. 1 from Négyszállás) (Budapest,
1992), 36, 110, fig.VI/3 (henceforth Selmeczi, A négyszállási).
16
(presumably) softer parts of the sheath. Things become clearer in the light of
analogies such as a published chape from Curtea de Argeş dated around 135050
and another from Coconi, related to unpublished material from Zimnicea.51
.
Fig. 3: Chapes a. Codlea, b-d. Dăbâca.
Other examples from Transylvania have not been interpreted correctly, are unpublished
or have been published only recently. Chapes with similar dating were
excavated at Dăbâca. There are three such pieces, alike in execution (fig. 3b-d).
It is exceptional that two of them were found near or together with the corresponding
blades.52 One is clearly datable to the thirteenth or fourteenth century.
It is possible that the lower part of a small iron dagger sheath excavated at Piatra
Craivii53 also belonged to the same category, but the piece has not been published
or described typologically or chronologically.
An object from Codlea can be considered a metal fitting for a knife
sheath, although it could be a fitting used for fixing and strengthening the hilt,
too. The object is composed of an iron stripe, flattened at one end into two circular
surfaces (once with orifices?). The stripe was bent in half, remaining 3 cm
in length with a thickness of 0.5-0.6 cm. It is hard to reconstruct the shape of
fittings from the throat of a sheath, because they may be easily confused with
other fittings; such were also attached to other instruments, tools and weapons.
An alternative solution to the sheath with a chape is the sheath with a
metal frame, although one cannot tell whether this possibility was more efficient
50 Constantinescu, Coconi, 98, 245, plate XI/16.
51 Constantinescu, Curtea de Argeş, 111, 112, fig. 49/3.
52 National History Museum of Transylvania, inventory no. F 12470 and F. 17931. Published
by Iambor, Aşezări fortificate, plate LIV, 9, 10, 12.
53 I. Berciu, Gh. Anghel, “Cetatea feudală de pe Piatra Craivii” (The feudal fortification in
Piatra Craivii), Apulum V (1965): 317.
17
and easier to produce. I suggest that it proved impractical or went out of fashion
over time. Still, it is certain that sheaths with metal frames were used as accessories
for light, knife-like weapons. The material excavated from the fortification
of Măgura Codlei is conclusive from this point of view.54 The items are in fact
thin iron bars, rectangular in section and bent in the middle until it reached a
narrow U-shape, by hammering and flattening the metal at a length of around
24.5 cm. Each arm has a small angular or circular loop at both free ends. The
same type of loops were attached while the metal was hot, approximately towards
the middle of the bars. With the help of these loops the non-metallic parts
of the sheath and the frame were connected, and the entire knife was fixed to the
belt by cords, leather stripes or, maybe not so often, small metal chains. The
Măgura Codlei frame-group is composed of at least eight pieces (fig. 4a-g). This
is a significant number and, considering the small excavated area, I suspect the
number of knives from the entire fortification must have been impressive.
These frames have appeared now and then in published archeological
material. Their strange shapes and the lack of systematic European research has
led to their misinterpretation and even assignment to different eras. It is, therefore,
mandatory to proceed to the important task of correction and recovery of
such material. Here, I will start from the opposite direction, pointing towards
examples and analogies from areas other than Moldavia and Wallachia.
The earliest analogies that I know of were excavated in Slovakia and
dated to the second half of the twelfth and mid-thirteenth.55 Alexander Ruttkay,
the author of the research, uses the same terms of knife accessories to explain
their function (sheath components for Kampfmesser). Dealing with a restricted
series (from Hubiná), he suggested a reconstruction which can no longer be accepted.
Without being very strict in pointing towards a clear distribution area, he
just mentioned the Northern European, where similar pieces spread in the ninth
and tenth centuries. In the meantime, other knife accessories have been excavated
in Slovakia, and, based on this evidence, it has been suggested that their
shapes did not change essentially until the beginning of the fifteenth century.56
In present-day Hungary, such items are rarely known. A sheath frame was found
around the keep of Kács (county Borsod). Its hanging loop is larger than usual,
and it was dated to the fourteenth century.57 The author that thought it could be a
dagger sheath (Dolche), but it is known that such weapons had sharp doubleedged
blades. The sheath with a metal frame would not be efficient in such a
case since the frame affects one of the edges at every move. Other examples
have been mentioned in the village of Muhi58 and Abaújvár.59 Since then, an-
54 During restoration, some dimensions of the original pieces have changed and some loops
were lost; therefore, it is difficult to identify them.
55 Al. Ruttkay, in Slovenská Archeólogia 24, no. 2 (1976): 295-296, (type A 2), 297, fig. 34.
56 V. Hanuliak, in Archaeologia Historica 19 (1994): 210, fig. 3/1-2.
57 N. Parádi, in Acta Archaeologica, 34, fasc. 1-4 (1982), 140-141, fig. 7/8.
58 I. Éri. and A. Bálint, in Régeszeti Füzetek, Ser. 2, vol. 4 (1959): 39, fig. XXI/9.
59 Excavation of 1982 (unpublished).
18
other piece has been uncovered, again from a fortified complex.60 Sheath frames
are also present in Moravia,61 but they do not lead to new conclusions for our research.
Several similar discoveries from Bulgaria share the vague dating. The
archaeologist who published these knife accessories, however, introduced a new
element, their presence in the Slav milieu.62 In Rusia (Novgorod), similar
discoveries are dated from the ninth to the thirteenth century.63 These latter cases
bear a strong relevance for all future attempts at identifying the origins and distribution
of knife accessories. One needs to keep in mind, as a suggestion, the
possible Northern European origin and the chronology which usually ends at the
fourteenth century.
The first sheath frames to be published from the Romanian area originated
from Baia, in Moldavia.64 One of the pieces is dated by the stratigraphic context
to the fifteenth century.65 It could be an older inheritance, since the shape of
these frames changed as early as the end of the fourteenth and the beginning of
the fifteenth century. At the time the material from Baia was published, the authors
were engaging in a pioneering work since no analogies had been published
previously from Romania. Under such conditions any substantial research was
nearly be impossible.
Indeed, the pieces existed now but, not yet being understood, they remained
unpublished. The group from Codlea was the first illuminating case. The
accumulation of evidence has surpassed all expectations, because the knives and
their accessories from there form the largest group of similar items from all the
geographic areas invoked for analogies and reference.
At Căpâlna, the excavations concentrated on the Dacian fortification. Despite
this, the medieval material published as such or misattributed to other ages
shows that the site also functioned as an important (fortified?) settlement during
the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. Knife accessories from Căpâlna were
published, but one cannot be sure if they comprise all the material of this sort or
just parts of it.66 Anyway, just two of the four mentioned objects with unknown
use are knife accessories. One fragment belongs represents the two frame bars of
a sheath, both broken at 10,5 cm, conveying the impression of a chape. Another
frame is composed of two arms (20 cm) connected at the ends with a small
60Zs. Mikós, in Castrum Bene I (1989-1990): 195, fig. 5-2.
61 Vl. Nekuda, Mstĕnice (Brno, 1985), 28/, 29, fig. 34/f, 35, fig. 35/I, without clear context
and dated only through analogies.
62 Z. Kurnatowska, in Slavia antiqua 20 (1973): 95, with bibliography for the Slav milieu on
page 92, fig. 2/9.
63 A. N. Kirpičnikov, Snarjaženije vsednica I v Rrchovogo konja na Rusi IX-XIII vekov
(Horsemen and horse equipment in Russia from the ninth to the thirteenth century) (Leningrad,
1973), fig. 5/8.
64 Neamţu, Neamţu, and Cheptea, Oraşul medieval Baia, vol. 2, 106, 108, fig. 39/7, 109.
65 Neamţu, Neamţu, and Cheptea, Oraşul medieval Baia, vol. 2, 109, 108, fig. 39/7.
66 The author says: “…among which we present as illustration just four items”. See Şt. Matei,
in I. Glodariu and V. Moga, ed., Cetatea dacică de la Căpâlna (The Dacian foritifcation in
Căpâlna) (Bucharest, 1989), 156 (henceforth Matei, Căpâlna).
19
metal ring. One arm is provided with two holes and the other with only one. The
author did not know the function of these objects and found them strange, looking
like scale beams.67
Fig. 4: Sheath frames: a-g. Codlea, h-o. Cladova, p-r. Dăbâca.
67 Matei, Căpâlna, 156, 112 fig. 19 and 20. Unfortunately, the dimensions cannot be read
from the graphic scale.
20
An entire sheath frame from Cladova was published in 1980 but not identified
as such.68 It was dated to the fifteenth century. Inquiring about this discovery
and with the help of my colleagues from the County Museum of Arad, I
found out that it was not a unique item but one in a series of sheath frames produced
at Cladova, along other metal objects. The objects from Cladova are the
same thin metal bars with rectangular sections, around 27 cm long. They are
flattened at the top, and loops for tying them to the belt are attached (fig. 4, h-o).
All in all, there are at least six sheath frames from Cladova, with debated dating
concerning which of them can best be attributed to the thirteenth century.69
Probably based on the association of sheath frames with a Dacian fortification,
suggested at Căpâlna, a sheath fragment from the fortification of Mereşti
(Harghita County) was also classified as Dacian. The fragment has all the
attributes of a sheath frame as described so far. It is a bar with an angular
section, provided with the characteristic loop for hanging from the belt. As in
the case of Căpâlna, at Mereşti the Dacian fortification was re-used in the early
Middle Ages. Unfortunately, all that is known about these re-uses is that they
date back to the twelfth-thirteenth century.70 Sheath frames were also found at
Dăbâca (fig. 4, p-r). They are part of the inventory of the keep and were dated to
the thirteenth-fourteenth centuries.
Based on the assembled information about sheath frames, it can be seen
that the preferred dimension was around 20 cm, never less. Different solutions
were used for the top of the sheath, from a slight flattening to more visible
methods. Probably for knives with parallel blade edges, an extra metal segment
was attached on the top, meant to protect the back side of the sheath.
All the sheath frames (some 20 or 30 pieces) came from fortifications.
Two cases, Cladova and Codlea, could even have been centers of production.
The number of fortifications to be connected with battle knives increases even
more if one also takes into consideration the findings of blades. This cannot be
surprising, because fortifications always had small workshops that repaired and
adjusted the garrison’s weapons produced elsewhere. If this is true, the kniferelated
items are the first material to clearly attest the existence of such workshops.
* * *
The attributes of battle knives have already been established: a handle with hilts
connected with tangs or bolts, shaped for a single, sharp-edged blade, around 30
68 V. Boroneanţ, “Săpăturile arheologice de la Cladova (jud. Arad) din anul 1979” (The 1979
archeological excavations in Cladova (Arad County), Ziridava 12 (1980): plate 2, no. 7.
69 Repertoriul Arheologic al Mureşului Inferior. Judeţul Arad (The Archaeological Inventory
of Lower Mureş, Arad County) (Timişoara, 1999), 57.
70 V. Crişan, Dacii din Estul Transilvaniei (Dacians in eastern Transylvania) (Sfântu
Gheorghe, 2000), 54-56 (the settlement), 136 (erroneous classification of the sheath among
Dacian materials), plate 107/4.
21
cm long, with a sheath, sometimes decorated, connected or tied to the belt. In the
case of the battle knife in a metal-framed sheath, I suggest a graphic reconstruction
(fig. 5). So far, the metal-framed sheath seems characteristic for the battle
knife. Such weapons were quite frequent, as one can see from the iconographic
and archaeological evidence presented above.
Fig. 5: Reconstruction of a battle knife with metal frame sheath.
There were certainly some exceptions and particularities in respect to these general
characteristics. Looking again at the weapon on Jupan Balea, one sees that it
is longer than the usual battle knives. The same case was found in Ruştiori. The
knife from the cemetery of Négyszállás, dated to the reign of Sigismund, was
0.70 cm long.71 The end of the handle could also have different shapes; it also
might have ended in an independent pommel.72
The period of use of battle knives seems fairly extended. As a weapon of
the military elite from western (present-day) Romania, it seems to have become
frequent in the thirteenth century. In Transylvania proper, it was frequent in the
fourteenth century and perhaps still in the first decades of the fifteenth century.
After this period, the battle knife must have become connected to lower and
poorer social groups. Being much cheaper than a sword, the use of battle knives
71 Selemeczi, A négyszállási, 51, fig. 32, 113, table IX/75.
72 See the northern Slovak example from Liptovská Mara in K. Pieta, Liptovská Mara. Ein
frühgeschichtliches Zentrum des Nordslowakei (Bratislava, 1996), 105, fig. XIII/6.
22
extended to burghers and servants.73 The way it was attached to the belt and the
quality of the material were the only attributes which made it a noble or common
weapon. Generally, It was mostly used by soldiers. Its use in close combat
led to its association with other infantry weapons like the lance, spear, bow, axe
or club. For knights, the battle knife was always an auxiliary weapon besides the
sword, being worn even when the sword was not. The most useful example is
the statue of King Ladislas from Oradea, erected in the middle of the fourteenth
century by Martin and Gheorghe, brothers from Cluj. Before being melted down
by the Turks, the statue was described about 1600 in a land-register: The king
reportedly wore a sword and “dagger.”74
Much more could be written on this type of weapon. In Classical Antiquity
a similar weapon was known as machaira, and in the Middle Ages as
semispatha or sax, sacramasax, semitiar.75 They were used throughout the early
Middle Ages. Their dimensions always drew attention to them and distinguished
them from other cutting and piercing weapons.76
The oldest Latin term that one finds in regional documents from the second
half of the thirteenth century is pugio, perhaps incorrectly translated as
“dagger.”77 One has to wait another half-century (until 1354) to find another
similar reference. A nobleman from the county of Szolnoc, from the village of
Chegea (Satu Mare County), wore a sword (gladium) and a bicellum.78 The
term used in Romanian was again “dagger.” In 1366, a nobleman from Sătmar,
unhappy with the decision of the vicecomes, attacked him with a bicello in his
hand.79
It is generally accepted that Latin does not make fine distinctions when referring
to the material culture. Terms like pugio and bicellus are equated with
parva quaedam species hastae, malleus bellicus, hasta amentata, and, at least in
Hungarian, they could also mean hammer.80 The Hungarian translation (tör) is
still used, demonstrating that, as in the case of Romanian translations, the lack pf
formal and functional distinctions could apply to these weapons. In the Teutonic
Prussian weapon production, one single term was used for both objects that we
consider here as battle knives and for daggers.81 Practically, the battle knife
73 The last traces of the use of this medieval weapon date to a bloody episode from the beginning
of state nazism , the so called “night of the long knifes” (30 June 1934).
74 D. Prodan, Iobăgia în Transilvania în secolul al XVI-lea (Servitude in Transylvania in the
sixteenth century), vol. 2 (Bucharest, 1968), 820.
75 Pinter, Spada şi sabia, 29, 69-70.
76 D. Nicole, Medieval Warfare Source Book I (London, 1995), 34, 80-81, 190-191.
77 DIR, vol. 13, II, no. 304
78 Documenta Romaniae Historica, vol. C 10 (Bucharest, 1977), no. 248, 255, translation on
page 256 (henceforth: DRH).
79 DRH, vol. 13 (Bucharest, 1994), no. 128, 233.
80 A. Bartal, Glosarium mediae et infimae latinitatis regni Hungariae (Leipzig, 1901; reprint
1983), 76, with reference to Du Cange.
81 A. Nowakowski, Arms and Armour in the Medieval Teutonic Order’s State in Prussia
(Łódž, 1994), 89-90.
23
represented no terminological identity, although, as I have shown, it enjoyed an
obvious material individuality.
Battle knives preceded the sixteenth-century daggers with saber guards.
The first were relatively sturdy, but soon a new type appeared and took over,
with a slimmer blade: bicellus (Lat.),82 dagger (Engl), tör (Hung.), stilet (Ro.).
Such a dagger is depicted on the Mediaş altar (second half of the fifteenth
century) in the Resurrection scene83 and on the Hălchiu altarpiece (first half of
the sixteenth century) in the scene of the martyrdom of St. Peter.84 Daggers of
this type have been excavated in the fortifications of Piatra Craivii and Tăuţi.85
From the same period it may be expected that also so-called “Hussite knives”86
have been found.
The knife types that were used during the following centuries were
designated by more and more diverse terms, which create serious identification
problems. As an example, I want to enumerate the knife types traded in Cluj in
the first half of the seventeenth century: peasant knifes with wooden handles;
knives with square, decorated hilts; batolfw; peasant knives; Viennese knives;
Styrian knives; Polish knives.87 But this is already beyond the scope of the
present article. It is an invitation for continuing the research on the general
history of the mistreated and common knife.
82 1441, Zs. Jakó, A kolozsmonostori konvent jegyzökönyvei (1289-1556) (The registers of the
Cluj-Mănăştur monastery between 1289 and 1556) I (Budapest, 1990), 277. no. 351.
83 G. and O. Richter, Siebenbürgische Flügelaltäre (Thaur bei Innsbruck, 1992), 178, plate
XVII (henceforth: Richter and Richter, Siebenbürgische Flügelaltäre).
84 Richter and Richter, Siebenbürgische Flügelaltäre, 218.
85 Gh. Anghel, I. Berciu, Cetăţi medievale din sud-vestul Transilvaniei (Medieval fortifications
from southwestern Transylvania) (Bucharest, 1968), 16, fig. 8, 26, fig. 13/7.
86 J. Kalmár, Régi magyar fegverek (Ancient Hungarian weapons) (Budapest, 1971), 117-118.
87 Fr. Pap, “Comerţul Clujului cu Cracovia în registrele vamale din prima jumătate a sec.
XVII” (The trade of Cluj with Cracow in the trade registers from the first half of the
seventeenth century), Acta Musei Napocensis 13 (1976): 365.
24
Fig. 6: Distribution of battle knives in Transylvania:
chapes
blades
iconographic evidence
frames
25
Identification of the settlements:
1 Codlea
2 St. Gheorghe
3 Ghelniţa
4 Mărtiniş
5 Sibiu
6 Mediaş
7 Ruştior
8 Viile Tecii
9 Urmeniş
10 Căpâlna
11 Piatra Craivii
12 Dăbâca
13 Crişcior
14 Cladova
15 Cuhea
M E D I U M A E V U M
Q U O T I D I A N U M
51
KREMS 2005
HERAUSGEGEBEN
VON GERHARD JARITZ
GEDRUCKT MIT UNTERSTÜTZUNG DER KULTURABTEILUNG
DES AMTES DER NIEDERÖSTERREICHISCHEN LANDESREGIERUNG
Titelgraphik: Stephan J. Tramèr
Herausgeber: Medium Aevum Quotidianum. Gesellschaft zur Erforschung der
materiellen Kultur des Mittelalters, Körnermarkt 13, 3500 Krems, Österreich.
Für den Inhalt verantwortlich zeichnen die Autoren, ohne deren ausdrückliche
Zustimmung jeglicher Nachdruck, auch in Auszügen, nicht gestattet ist. –
Druck: Grafisches Zentrum an der Technischen Universität Wien, Wiedner
Hauptstraße 8-10, 1040 Wien.
INHALTSVERZEICHNIS
Vorwort …………………………………………………………………………………………………. 5
Adrian Andrei Rusu, On the Medieval Battle Knives from Transylvania ………. 7
Helmut Hundsbichler, Tanta mansuetudo in bestia.
Unerwartete mediävistische Begegnungen mit Tieren ………………………. 26
Elisa Heinrich, Die Ordnung und ihr Anderes?
Einige Anmerkungen zum Cross Dressing
am Beispiel der Heiligen Kümmernis …………………………………………… 40
Besprechungen …………………………………………………………………………………….. 48

5
VORWORT
Das vorliegende Heft von Medium Aevum Quotidianum soll neuerlich die Verschiedenheit
von Fragestellungen und Ansätzen vermitteln, die in einer Geschichte
von Alltag und materieller Kultur des Mittelalters von Wichtigkeit erscheinen.
Dabei geht es vor allem auch um trans- und interdisziplinäre Aspekte,
welche regelmäßig zu berücksichtigen sind und ohne die eine moderne Forschung
nicht auskommen kann. Dies gilt für Untersuchungen zu spätmittelalterlichen
‚Kampfmessern‘ genauso wie für die Auseinandersetzung mit dem Einsatz,
der Funktion und den symbolischen Werten von Tieren zu den unterschiedlichsten
Anlässen und in verschiedensten Diskursen, besonders auch dann
und dort, wann und wo man dieselben vielleicht nicht erwarten würde. Ebenfalls
trifft dies für jede theoriegeleitete Einzeluntersuchung zur Gender-Problematik
zu, wie am bekannten Beispiel von spätmittelalterlichen Cross-Dressing-Darstellungen
der Heiligen Kümmernis wieder einmal gut vorgestellt werden kann.
Die nächsten Hefte und Sonderbände unserer Reihe werden auch auf derartige
Forschungsdesiderata und -prinzipien Bezug nehmen. Dies gilt vor allem
für einen Sonderband, zu dem der erwähnte Beitrag von Helmut Hundsbichler in
diesem Heft über die Rolle von Tieren in Kontexten, in welchen man sie nicht
erwartet, gleichsam als ‚Vorhut‘ angesehen werden kann. Dieser Sonderband
wird sich mit „Tierwelten – Animal Worlds“ auseinandersetzen, sich den verschiedensten
Möglichkeiten des Zugangs zur mittelalterlichen Beziehung von
Mensch und Tier widmen und sich vor allem auf entsprechende Vernetzungen
beziehen. Die Beiträge des Bandes werden unter anderem erste Ergebnisse des
internationalen Forschungsprojektes MAD („Medieval Animal Database“) beinhalten,
sowie überarbeitete Vorträge und Diskussionsbeiträge, die an den heurigen
Internationalen Mittelalter-Kongressen von Kalamazoo (Sektion „Animal
Networks“) und Leeds (Sektion „Representing and ‘Transforming’ Medieval
Fauna“ und Round Table-Diskussion „A Digital Net of Medieval Animals?“)
angeboten wurden.
Ein weiterer Sonderband wird sich an Hand eines niederösterreichischen
städtischen Beispiels mit der Rolle, Aussagekraft und den Analysemöglichkeiten
von spätmittelalterlicher Rechnungsbuchüberlieferung für die Geschichte von
Alltag und materieller Kultur beschäftigen.
Schließlich wird ein dritter Sonderband die bereits mehrmals angekündigte
neue Auswahl-Bibliographie zu „Alltag und materieller Kultur des Mittelalters“
enthalten und nun entweder Ende 2005 oder Anfang 2006 zum Erscheinen
kommen.
6
Darüber hinaus wird Heft 52 noch heuer vor allem wieder neue, internationale
Beiträge aus der Forschungspraxis der Mitglieder von Medium Aevum
Quotidianum anbieten können.
Gerhard Jaritz