Magister Melias |
The two cavalry figures at the end of the frieze seem to bear little relationship to the saints who precede them,
and Jerphanion believes on the basis of the inscription beside this figure that rather than martyrs,
these two horsemen represent donors who paid toward the establishment and/or embellishment of the Dovecote Church.
|
Detail of the picture above, possibly showing mail rings at the neck |
Detail of the scale klibanion. There appears to be protection for the upper arm of the same construction. |
Melias wears a klibanion of what appears to be leather scale armour, with kremasmata of a similar construction. Close inspection suggests that, like the other mounted figure, mail rings can be seen at the neck, indicating that he is wearing a mail lorikion under the scale. However, the mural has been extensively damaged - I believe I can see one or two rings, but it is hard to be certain.
All three figures at the right-hand end of the frieze carry spears which Nicolle points out are made of bamboo. Those of the cavalrymen are much longer than the infantry spear, which is about 6 feet long - perhaps a javelin. All have quite small heads. |
The two mounted donors are referenced on p.45, Byzantine Cavalryman c.900-1204 by Timothy Dawson (Author), Giuseppe Rava (Illustrator)
The fresco of the Forty Martyrs of Sevaste in the Dovecote Church at Çavusin in Kappadokhia shows both infantry and cavalry. The horsemen are armed with kontaria and protected by a mixture of lamellar and scale armour.
Referenced as figure 79C in Arms and armour of the crusading era, 1050-1350 by Nicolle, David. 1988 edition
79A-79C Wall-painting in subterranean church, Cappadocia, 963-69 A.D. (in situ “Dovecote Church”, Çavusin, Nevșehir province, Turkey) 79A—One of the “Forty Martyrs”, 79B-79C—donors. A number of figures among the Forty Martyrs wear armour. This particular one seems to be equipped in virtually the same way as two mounted donor figures. He and they might reflect the equipment used by the akritoi warrior élite of Byzantium’s eastern frontier. There is little reason to suppose that such arms and armour changed greatly over the following one hundred years. All three wear scale or lamellar cuirasses, the elements of which are painted in a brown colour which suggests a cuir-bouilli or hardened leather construction. Figure 79A seems to have mail chausses on his legs while his scale or lamellar cuirass appears to be divided across the abdomen, perhaps revealing a grey coloured mail hauberk beneath. Figure 79B, and less certainly fig. 79C, seem to have short sleeved mail hauberks beneath their scale or lamellar. The idea of dividing a relatively stiff cuirass across the abdomen could have made it easier to wear in the saddle, particularly at a time when a bent knee riding position was still the norm. Such armour is closer to that described in early medieval-Arabic sources than that in contemporary Byzantine writing. This could be explained by the fact that most Byzantine authors were referring to the equipment of élite troops in or around the capital, whereas the arms and armour of frontier regions like Cappadocia could have had more in common with that of their immediate foes. In this ease such foes would have been the Arab or Kurdish amirs of Syria and eastern Anatolia, not to mention the Armenians and western Iranians. It may also be significant that both mounted donor figures (79B and 79C) carry spears with bamboo or cane shafts, the weapons par excellence of the traditional Arab warrior. The sword held by fig. 79A is straight bladed but clearly single edged and has no pommel. This also brings to mind weapons from the steppes (figs. 15J-15M, 31A and 33) which was, of course, an area having considerable influence on both the Muslim and Byzantine worlds.