Reconstruction of an Alanic Elite Warrior from the Time of the Khazar Khaganate (1st Half of the 9th Century)
My name is Szymon Szymala and I am from Alania Workshop. Alania Workshop is a tailoring and handicraft studio on a mission to bring history to life through faithful reconstructions of historical garments and accessories. With passion and precision, we create attire elements spanning a wide range of eras – from the Early Middle Ages right up to the 17th century. At the same time, I belong to a small reenactment group Drużyna Lędziańskich Wiciędzy Watra from Sanok. I have been involved in reconstruction since 2016. In the future, I will focus mainly on promoting a good level of reconstruction, especially of the East, which is a relatively new topic in reenactment.
I specialize in the reconstruction of an Alanic elite warrior from the period of the Khazar Khaganate, specifically from the first half of the 9th century. My work is primarily based on archaeological evidence from the North Caucasus, a region historically inhabited by Alanic tribes. In particular, I draw upon burial sites such as Moshchevaya Balka, Nizhniy Arkhyz, and Eshkakon, while also incorporating comparative material from other cemeteries associated with this cultural group. These sites are exceptionally rich in organic finds, yet they do not receive proper international attention.
The garments presented in this reconstruction are based on archaeological finds from Nizhniy Arkhyz, Moshchevaya Balka, and Nizhnyaya Teberda. They represent typical male attire of the North Caucasian Alans, with the exception of trousers, leggings (Orfinskaya 2001, p. 38), and short boots, which were unisex. It is important to stress that the fantastic material from this region is relatively poorly published, usually only in drawings and black-and-white and photos in old Soviet publications. A number of important finds still lie unpublished in archives.
The following documents the individial parts of my reconstructed gear and archaeological finds that guided its design. It seeks to make this regional reconstruction available to an international audience, encouraging new enthusiast and providing a list of relevant literature.
Map 1: The most important locations mentioned in the text.
Clothing (Figs. 1-7)
Trousers and Leggings (Figs. 1-2)
The basic garments include short trousers and linen leggings. These pieces are modeled after multiple archaeological finds, as they were consistently produced in the same or very similar manner. Examples of such garments can be found in Moshchevaya Balka (Ierusalimskaya 2012), Nizhniy Arkhyz (Orfinskaya 2001), and even in the collections of the MET Museum (Kajitani 2001).
They were worn in a systematic way: the drawstrings of the leggings were tied to a string that also secured the trousers. Alanic trousers lacked drawstring channels or loops and were instead fastened externally with a cord. This design prevented them from slipping while simultaneously allowing the leggings to be tied to the same string.
Fig. 1: The underpants from Moshchevaya Balka.
Source: Ierusalimskaya 2012, p. 210.
Fig. 2: Cut of the leggings from Nizhniy Arkhyz. Source: Orfinskaya 2001, p. 206.
First Linen Kaftan (Fig. 3)
In the very beginning of kaftan text, it must be mentioned that underkaftans are a single, unlined layer, whereas overkaftans are distinguished as lined and usually more decorated. In historical reenactment, we often encourter an error where the designs of outer kaftans are incorrectly applied to under kaftans.
My first underkaftan is reconstructed based on a find from Nizhniy Arkhyz (Orfinskaya 2017, p. 178). Similar linen kaftans are well known throughout the cultural sphere of the North Caucasian Alans. They feature a characteristic, highly economical cut typical of the region (which I will not elaborate on, as it has been extensively described in the literature). This design ensures excellent mobility. The kaftan has a low standing collar and is fastened on the left side, a traditional feature among Iranian-speaking peoples (Orfinskaya 2001, p. 30; Ierusalimskaya 2012, p. 240).
Fig. 3: The linen kaftan from Nizhniy Arkhyz. Source: Lubova 2010, p. 58.
Second Linen Kaftan (Fig. 4)
The second linen underkaftan is modeled after a piece from the MET Museum collection (Kajitani 2001, p. 86). It is sewn in a similar way to the first kaftan but features more decorative edging. I wear this kaftan under the mail.
Fig. 4: The kaftan from Caucasus region. Source: MET museum collection.
Fur Lined Kaftan (Fig. 5)
Fur-lined kaftans are sewn in a similar manner to the plain linen versions, with some differences (Orfinskaya 2001, p. 31). They were insulated with various types of fur, ranging from common sheep and lamb to more expensive furs from small mammals. This is a very comfortable garment, perfectly suited to the mountain lifestyle of the people of that time. It ensures mobility while providing warmth on cold days and water resistance during rainy weather.
This linen kaftan lined with sheep fur is based on the pattern from a find at Moshchevaya Balka (Orfinskaya 2001, p. 283), with decorative elements drawn from a kaftan in the Hermitage collection (Ierusalimskaya 2012, p. 214). Although the entire kaftan is lined with sheep fur, it features a collar made of a different, more valuable fur. Such combinations are also archaeologically attested (Ierusalimskaya 2012, pp. 198-199).
In addition, I have employed tailoring techniques known from similar kaftans found at Nizhniy Arkhyz and Podorvannaya Balka. Specifically, the fur is not directly sewn onto the edge of the garment but rather to strips of fabric sewn on the inside (Dode 2001, p. 16, Fig. 9). It seems that this method was commonly used for fur-lined kaftans. This example also clearly demonstrates the long sleeves, which, although often overlooked, are characteristic of these garments. One can tuck the hand inside, creating a kind of mitten, which provides warmth. This practical solution is probably why winter gloves or mittens are absent in the preserved attire of the culture. I am omitting the well-known linen and leather fingerless gloves (Kajitani 2001, p. 90, Fig. 8), which likely had a protective or fashionable function rather than providing warmth (Orfinskaya 2001, p. 43).
Fig. 5: The kaftan from Moshchevaya Balka.
Source: Ierusalimskaya 2012, p. 214.
Samitum Kaftan (Fig. 6)
In this place, I would like to present another outer layer, which is a reconstruction of the iconic kaftan with senmurvs, made by Alania Workshop for János Mestellér. We thank him for the opportunity to borrow it for photographs, as it is an excellent example, an interesting curiosity, and fits well within the entire set.
This kaftan is based on a find from Moshchevaya Balka (Kato 2002, p. 176). It serves as an example of luxury and wealth. The entire kaftan is made of Byzantine silk. It is suspected that Byzantine silk was the most valued by the local population due to its superior quality, and only the wealthiest could afford it. The less prosperous were content with silk of Sogdian or Chinese origin (Orfinskaya 2001, pp. 55-56).
The kaftan is fully lined with the fur of fur-bearing animals (the original was lined with squirrel fur; Ierusalimskaya 1992, p. 14). Silk kaftans had a slightly different cut than linen kaftans (Orfinskaya 2001, p. 57), but still closely resembled them in overall design. The changes in the cut were likely due to the use of the much more valuable material, as well as possibly different widths of foreign silk fabrics compared to locally produced linen.
Fig. 6: The kaftan from Moshchevaya Balka.
Source: Ierusalimskaya 2012, p. 235.
Head Covering (Fig. 7)
The head covering is a hat based on a find from Nizhniy Arkhyz (Orfinskaya 2001, p. 294). It is made of silk and lined with fur. The hat is relatively long and deep, reaching the shoulders, with the top of the cap distinctly formed into a point. The analogical hat from Moshchevaya Balka is reinforced with leather inside and is understood as a light helmet (Ierusalimskaja 1996, pp. 144-5; Ierusalimskaya 1992, p. 19; 2012, pp. 185-6). It is not excluded the Nizhniy Arkhyz hat originally had the same construction.
It is possible that caps of this type were an important symbol of a man, a warrior or even elite within the local community (Dode 2001, p. 34; Ierusalimskaya 2012, p. 186; Orfinskaya 2001, pp. 32-33), which is why they were made of silk and adorned with valuable furs.
Fig. 7: The hat from Nizhniy Arkhyz.
Source: Orfinskaya 2001, p. 294.
Belt and Belt Accessories (Figs. 8-11)
The belt is another very important attribute of the warrior. In Alanic culture, as in many other cultures from the East, the belt likely symbolized high rank within the local or military community (Dode 2001, p. 17; Kubarev 2005, p. 48; Pletneva 1967, p. 161).
This belt is based on a find from the rock burial site of Eshkakon, reconstructed based on the original number of fittings discovered in the grave in 1974 (Kuznetsov – Runych 1974, p. 199). Unfortunately, the grave had been previously looted, so there may have been more fittings, but based on analogical sets of belts, this was not necessarily the case. Since the fittings in the grave were scattered and we do not have an exact position drawing, the composition of the belt is inspired by analogies. I was also forced to add a strap end fitting that was not found in the grave. Therefore, I included a chronologically and typologically compatible strap end fitting in the Saltovo style (Komar 1999, p. 130). Fortunately, the original leather remains of the Eshkakon belt have survived, allowing us to know the belt’s width of 1.6 cm (which is not unusual for belts in this region from this period; they were generally narrow, typically not exceeding 2 cm).
Fig. 8: The belt fittings from Eshkakon. Source: Kuznetsov – Runych 1974, p. 199.
Pouches (Figs. 9-10)
The belt accessories include a leather pouch, based on a find from Moshchevaya Balka (Ierusalimskaya 2012, p. 47, Fig. 20) discovered in a boy’s grave, although I believe that men may have worn similar simple leather pouches.
A silk pouch, often used to hold amulets, is also commonly found in burials from the Caucasus, regardless of the age or gender of the deceased. A similar one was also found in the grave from Eshkakon (Kuznetsov – Runych 1974, p. 200, Fig. 2). Pouches from the North Caucasus often have an interesting closing system, i.e., two leather inserts in the shape of spectacles are sewn onto the pouch, through which cords for fastening pass (Ierusalimskaya 2012, p. 332).
Fig. 9 (left): The pouch from Moshchevaya Balka. Source: Ierusalimskaya 2012, p. 47.
Fig. 10 (right): The pouch from Eshkakon. Source: Kuznetsov – Runych 1974, p. 200.
Knife in a Wooden Sheath (Fig. 11)
A knife in a wooden sheath is also a very common item in burials from the North Caucasus. The sheath is constructed from two small wooden planks, hollowed out in the shape of the knife. The knife fits into the sheath along with its handle (Ierusalimskaya 2012, pp. 255-260). Examples of such knives come from the Moshchevaya Balka burial site.
Fig. 11: Wooden sheaths from Moshchevaya Balka.
Source: Ierusalimskaya 2012, p. 258.
Leather Footwear (Figs. 12-13)
The common footwear in the North Caucasus footwear have a central seam underneath the foot. The low shoes was sewn out of a single piece, while the high boots could be made from several pieces. Researchers note the continuation of these shoes in ethnography (Ierusalimskaya 2012, pp. 228-234; Orfinskaya 2001, pp. 29-43). My boots are made from soft leather, dyed black (a common colour in the North Caucasus). I use mainly two versions of boots depending on the needs.
Low Boots (Fig. 12)
Based on an artifact from Nizhnyaya Teberda (Demakov 1991, p. 105, Fig. 9), these boots deviate slightly from the standard design and resemble more of a sock. They may have been leather socks, though they could also have served their purpose independently as soft footwear (Orfinskaya 2001, p. 40). Contrary to popular belief, short boots were also common in men’s attire, as there are more artifacts of short boots than high ones (Ierusalimskaya 2012, pp. 228-234). However, to emphasize wealth and status, I also possess high boots.
Fig. 12: The low shoe from Nizhnyaya Teberda. Source: Demakov 1991, p. 105.
High Boots (Fig. 13)
The best-known specimen of a decorated high boot from the region comes from the site of Khasaut (Runych 1971). My reconstruction is based not only on that piece, but also on an amulet from the Nizhniy Arkhyz cemetery, as the amulet exactly replicates the shape of a miniature boot (Orfinskaya 2001, pp. 40, 210). The boots are decorated with a silk trim along the upper edge, as was often the case with Alanic footwear.
Fig. 13: Miniature high boot from Nizhniy Arkhyz.
Source: Orfinskaya 2001, p. 210.
Conclusion Concerning the Outfit
According to the current knowledge, archaeology, and the current state of research, linen was the main fabric for the clothes of the Alans from the Caucasus and there is no clear information about clothes made of woven wool, except for the carpets (see Elkina et al. 2017). We have evidence of felt usage in the clothing tradition.
The entire outfit incorporates a lot of silk, in the form of inserts and whole elements. Silk was an incredibly expensive fabric, highly favoured by the inhabitants of the Caucasus. The local population controlled a branch of the Silk Road and had much easier access to it than the rest of Europe, which is why it was used for making clothes, bags, children’s toys, and even decorating shoes (Ierusalimskaya 1992, p. 5). Despite this, it was still a prestigious and very costly fabric. While silk probably did not carry the same hierarchical symbolism as a belt, its use in the outfit also highlights the wealth and status of the recreated figure (Orfinskaya 2001, pp. 55-56).
Protective Armour and Weapons (Figs. 14-19)
Protective armour of the Alans is not often found in archaeology, and this issue has been discussed in many publications, with several hypotheses proposed to explain the phenomenon (Ierusalimskaya 2012, pp. 287, 292; Komar – Sukhobokov 2000; Slanov 2007, pp. 129-130). According to Slanov, this relates to a cultural practice after the 7th century of not placing protective armour in graves due to the Alans’ beliefs about the afterlife. According to the Tales of the Narts, warriors continued to fight in the afterlife, but could not be killed, which is how the traditional literature explains the presence of offensive weapons but the absence of protective armour. Slanov appears to attribute excessive significance to these narratives. However, suspecting that the armament of the Khazar Khaganate during this specific period did not differ much and was subject to similar technologies and access to resources, my armour is based on equipment that most likely dominated in at least a larger part of the Khazar Khaganate during this time – the 9th century (Komar – Sukhobokov 2000).
The entire set of armament fits within the timeframe of the first half of the 9th century and presents the typical equipment of elite warriors from the Khazar Khaganate. This combination of weapons and gear reflects the advanced military culture of the Khazars, characterized by a blend of both steppe traditions and influences from neighbouring regions, such as the Byzantine and Islamic worlds.
Mail (Fig. 14)
In the case of mail, we can confidently state that it was known and used by warriors on the central-northern Caucasus. Mail armour appears to be the most prevalent form of metal protective gear documented in Alanic funerary contexts, in contrast to lamellar armour. Although no fully preserved examples have been discovered, the presence of mail is supported by numerous fragments found in graves, interestingly, often in female graves (Ierusalimskaya 2013, p. 111). This phenomenon is also known from other parts of Europe and has symbolic significance (Wijnhoven 2023).
Written sources also mention mail among the Alans (Gabrielyan 1985, p. 43): “‘What kind of land lies within?’. And the man said: ‘The country is full of every wealth; within there is much gold, magnificent clothes, thoroughbred horses, metal weapons tempered with the blood of reptiles, cuirasses of mail and precious stones.'” According to written sources, mail was also produced on the Northern Caucasus and may have been distributed to neighbouring areas of the Khazar Khaganate (Magomedov 1983, p. 79).
A typical feature of mail from this region is a combination of solid and riveted rings. In many cases, the rings have relatively small inner diameters, but because the wire is flat, the outer diameter can reach up to 1.6 cm. This feature distinguishes local armour from European parallels. The armour could have been decorated with rows of non-ferrous rings (see Vlasatý 2020). The design of my mail is based on the find discovered in Kazazovo, grave 106 “З” (Pyankov et al. 2023, p. 75; Vlasatý 2022).
Fig. 14: The mail from Kazazovo. Source: Pyankov et al. 2023, p. 75.
Helmet (Fig. 15)
Since there are no helmet finds from the relevant period in the region I am reconstructing (central-northern Caucasus), I decided to use a helmet from Dyurso, burial 161 (Kainov et al. 2020, p. 209, Fig. 7.2; Makarova – Pletneva 2003, p. 256; Malyshev 2021, pp. 264-7). The helmet was constructed with the help of Tomáš Vlasatý. The helmet is dated to the 9th century, and it is likely that this type of helmet was used in the Khazar Khaganate during this period, as can be inferred from iconography as well (Flyorova 1997, p. 123, Tab. 10, Fig. 6; Glebov – Ivanov 2007a; 2007b, p. 174, Fig. 8). The helmet features an attached mail aventail with an exposed face, like the helmets from Dyurso and Kazazovo (Makarova – Pletneva 2003, p. 256; Pyankov et al. 2023, p. 76). Inside my helmet there is a felt cap that serves as a liner.
Fig. 15: The helmet from Dyurso. Source: Malyshev 2021, p. 265.
Axe (Fig. 16)
The axe is a very common weapon among Alanic warriors, found in both wealthy and less wealthy furnished graves, and used by both infantry and cavalry (Vladimirov 2015; 2021-2022, p. 79). It has a narrow blade with a hammer-shaped butt on the other side, typical of this period, and appears throughout the Khazar Khaganate region. It is based on a find from the Dargavs cemetery (Uspenskiy – Albegova 2021, pp. 188, 238). Since I am reconstructing a high-ranking warrior, my version is fitted to a character fighting from horseback, and the axe is mounted on a long handle. The length of the handle is based on a find from the Alanic cemetery at Koltso-Gora, dating from the 10th-12th century, where a complete axe of a similar type and purpose was discovered, with a handle length of 93 cm (Savenko 2017, p. 188). Early medieval dogwood and maple axe handles were reportedly found in the North Caucasus, but specific graves or localities were never given (Kaminskiy 1991: 110; Kaminsky 1996: 99).
Fig. 16: The axe from Dargavs. Source: Uspenskiy – Albegova 2021, p. 238.
Sabre (Fig. 17)
Starting from the early 8th century, sabres began to spread among the Alans in the Northern Caucasus (Kochkarov 2008; Slanov 2007, pp. 49-50). Early sabres were primarily intended for delivering cutting blows from horseback.
The complete set, including the scabbard, is modelled after a find from the Eshkakon cemetery. The sabre was also accompanied by the aforementioned belt (Kuznetsov – Runych 1974, p. 199). The sabre has mostly been reconstructed based on the artifact from Eshkakon, with missing details regarding the design of decorative elements (due to the lack of detailed drawings in the publication) being borrowed from typologically and chronologically analogical sabres, like for example a sabre discovered in Verkhnii Saltiv, belonging to the Saltovo-Mayaki culture (Tóth 2010, p. 60).
The sabre has a slightly curved blade with a triangular cross-section, 0,5 cm thick and 4 cm wide at the base, tapering towards the tip. It lacks a ricasso, and at the end, it features a 20 cm yalman (sharp back edge) in a rhomboidal cross-section. The sword is decorated using cast, punched, and engraved elements, with characteristic four protrusions for the fingers and a hollow pommel. The texture of the skin of a stingray or sturgeon, which is a common feature of sabres from this period, has been used (see Arendt 1935).
Fig. 17: The sabre from Eshkakon. Source: Kuznetsov – Runych 1974, p. 199.
Bow and Cases (Figs. 18-20)
The bow, a primary weapon of the Alanic warrior, is modelled after an artifact from Moshchevaya Balka (though not an exact reconstruction due to budget constraints; Milovanov – Ierusalimskaya 1976). Composite bows were widely used by the Alans, as evidenced by numerous archaeological finds, mainly bone grips but also a few complete bows (Tikhonov – Khafizova 2014; Ierusalimskaya 2012, p. 273).
The bow is stored in a leather case designed to carry an unstrung bow, based on Eastern and Saltovo-Mayaki iconography, and inspired by an artifact from Nizhniy Arkhyz (Flesch et al. 2019, p. 38; Kryhanov 1996, p. 351). The Alans were also familiar with cases (gorythos) for strung bows in the sajdak type (Ierusalimskaya 2012, p. 281). The prevalence of bow cases is supported by fitting finds from various locations within the Khazar Khaganate (e.g., Sarkel, Verkhnii Saltiv, Sadovskiy, Lisogorskiy, Krasnogorskiy; Kryhanov 1996, p. 352), although not all cases had fittings, and many more likely existed. Thus, it can be assumed that each bow had its own case.
Fig. 18: The bow from Moshchevaya Balka.
Source: Ierusalimskaya 2012, p. 273.
Fig. 19: Possible Eurasian variations of cases for an unstrung bow.
Source: Kryhanov 1996, p. 351.
Fig. 20: The case for a strung bow from Moshchevaya Balka.
Source: Ierusalimskaya 2012, p. 281.
Quiver (Fig. 21)
The quiver, a “tubular” type, is primarily based on an incomplete artifact from Moshchevaya Balka, with a wooden base made of thin planks wrapped in leather. It lacked metal fittings, and the quiver was fastened using holes reinforced with bone plates (Ierusalimskaya 2012, pp. 283-4). The shape of the top is modelled after a quiver of the same type from Nizhniy Arkhyz (though it seems to be unpublished). The bottom is carved in the Alanic style, as the Alans favoured decorating wooden bottoms with patterns. The exact purpose of this carving is not fully known, but it was likely decorative. This motif is characteristic of Alanic quivers, and similar designs have also been found at the Dargavs cemetery (Tuallagov 2017, p. 28-38, Uspenskiy – Albegova 2021, p. 195).
Fig. 21: The quiver from Moshchevaya Balka.
Source: Ierusalimskaya 2012, p. 258.
Reconstruction
Fig. 22: Fur-lined linen kaftan.
Fig. 23: Fur-lined samitum kaftan.
Fig. 24: Belt, belt accessories and weapons.
Fig. 25: Warrior equipment. Please note the horsegear is modern.
Video 1: Footage of a trial cavalry charge in full armour.
Bibliography
Arendt, W. W. (1935). Türkische Säbel aus den VIII. – IX. Jahrhunderten. In: Archaeologica Hungarica 16, 48–68.
Demakov 1991 = Демаков, А.А. (1991). Скальные погребения в долине реки Теберды // Вопросы археологии и истории Карачаево-Черкесии, Черкесск, 90-106.
Dode 2001 = Доде, З. В. (2001). Средневековый костюм народов Северного Кавказа. Очерки истории, Москва.
Elkina et al. 2017 = Елкина, И. И – Пахунов, А. С. – Кочкаров, У. Ю. – Гринько, А. – Дэвлет, Е. Г. (2017). Шерстяные изделия из могильников Мощевая и Подорванная Балки (VIII-X вв.): качество сырья и технология изготовления // Проблемы истории, филологии, культуры 2017/4 (58), 223–232.
Flesch et al. 2019 = Flesch, Márton – Strohmayer, Ádam – Türk, Attila (2019). A honfoglalás kori tegezöv egy új rekonstrukciója a karosi II 52. sír íjászfelszerelésének átdolgozása és keleti analógiák nyomán. In: Sudár, Balázs – Türk, Attila (eds.). „Hadak útján”. A népvándorláskor fiatal kutatóinak XXIX. konferenciája, Budapest, 34-41.
Flyorova 1997 = Флёрова, В. Е. (1997). Граффити Хазарии, Москва.
Gabrielyan 1985 = Габриелян, Р. А. (1985). Армянские источники об аланах, Вып. II, Ереван.
Glebov – Ivanov 2007a = Глебов, В. П. – Иванов, А. А. (2007). Реликварий из кочевнического погребения хазарского времени на нижнем Дону // Проблеми на изкуството 3, 12-16.
Glebov – Ivanov 2007b = Глебов, В. П. – Иванов, А. А. (2007). Кочевническое погребение хазарского времени из могильника Таловый II // Средневековые древности Дона, Москва – Иерусалим, 154-176.
Ierusalimskaja, A. A. (1996). Die Gräber der Moščevaja Balka, München.
Ierusalimskaya 1992 = Иерусалимская, А. А. (1992). Кавказ на Шёлковом пути. Каталог временной выставки, Санкт-Петербург.
Ierusalimskaya 2012 = Иерусалимская, А. А. (2012). Мощевая Балка. Необычный археологический памятник на Северокавказском шёлковом пути, Санкт-Петербург.
Ierusalimskaya 2013 = Иерусалимская, А. А. (2013). Некоторые штрихи к картине верований алано-адыгских племен VIII–IX вв. // Очерки средневековой археологии Кавказа. К 85-летию со дня рождения В. А. Кузнецова, Москва, 98–113.
Kainov et al. 2020 = Каинов, С. Ю. – Меньшиков, М. Ю. – Рукавишникова, И. В. (2020). Шлем из комплекса 3 могильника у хутора им. Карла Маркса // Древние памятники, культуры и прогресс. A caelo usque ad centrum. A potentia ad actum. Ad honores. Отв. ред. И. В. Рукавишникова – О. А. Радюш, Москва, 200-211.
Kajitani 2001 = Kajitani, Nobuko (2001). A Man’s Caftan and Leggings from the North Caucasus of the Eight to Tenth Century: A Conservator’s Report. In: Metropolitan Museum Journal 36, 85–124.
Kaminskiy 1991 = Каминский, В. Н. (1991). Вооружение племен аланской культуры Северного Кавказа I–XIII вв., Владикавказ.
Kaminsky, V. N. (1996). Early medieval weapons in the north Caucasus – A preliminary review. In: Oxford Journal of Archaeology 15, 95-105.
Kato 2002 = 加藤定子著 (2002). 中央ユーラシア古代衣服の研究 : 立体構成の起源について(紀元前5世紀-紀元後10世紀) (Study on ancient clothing in Central Eurasia: On the origin of three-dimensional structure (5th century BC – 10th century AD), 東京.
Kochkarov 2008 = Кочкаров, У.Ю. (2008). Вооружение воинов Северо-Западного Предкавказья VIII-XIV вв. (оружие ближнего боя), Москва.
Komar 1999 = Комар, А. В. (1999). Предсалтовские и раннесалтовские горизонты Восточной Европы (вопросы хронологии) // Vita antiqua 2, 111-136.
Komar – Sukhobokov 2000 = Комар, О. В. – Сухобоков, О. В. (2000). Вооружение и военное дело Хазарского каганата // Восточноевропейский Археологический журнал, №2.
Kubarev 2005 = Кубарев, Г. В. (2005). Культура древних тюрок Алтая (по материалам погребальных памятников), Новосибирск.
Kuznetsov – Runych 1974 = Кузнецов, В. А. – Рунич, А. П. (1974). Погребение аланского дружинника IX в. // Советская археология 1974/3, 196-203.
Kryhanov 1996 = Крыганов, А. В. (1996) Налучья и их ношeние раннесредневековыми кочевниками Евразии // Культуры евразийских степей второй половины I тысячелетия н.э., Самара, 344-352.
Lubova 2010 = Лубова, С. Ф. (2010). О типологии костюмов населения района Кавказских Минеральных Вод и верховьев Кубани V – XIII вв. // Из истории культуры народов Северного Кавказа: сборник научных статей, Вып. 2, 45-59.
Magomedov 1983 = Магомедов, М. Г. (1983) Образование Хазарского каганата. По материалам археологических исследований и письменным данным, Москва.
Makarova – Pletneva 2003 = Макарова, Т. И. – Плетнева, С.А. (2003). Крым, Северо-Восточное Причерноморье и Закавказье в эпоху средневековья IV–XIII века, Москва.
Malyshev 2021 = Малышев, А. А. (2021). Могильник Дюрсо. Каталог, Часть I, Москва.
Milovanov – Ierusalimskaya 1976 = Милованов, E. А. – Иерусалимская, А. А. (1976). Лук из Мощевой Балки. // Сообщения Государственного Эрмитажа XLI, 40-43.
Orfinskaya 2001 = Орфинская, О. В. (2001). Текстиль VIII-IX вв. из коллекции Карачаево-Черкесского музея: технологические особенности в контексте культуры раннесредневековой Евразии, Москва.
Orfinskaya 2017 = Орфинская, О. В. (2017). Анализ кроя мужских кафтанов и женских платьев алан Северного Кавказа // Поволжская археология 2 (20), 173-186.
Pletneva 1967 = Плетнева, С. А. (1967). От кочевий к городам. Салтово-маяцкая культура, Москва.
Pyankov et al. 2023 = Пьянков, А. В. – Схатум, Р. Б. – Полицын, Е. Б. (2023). Погребение 106 «запад» могильника «Казазово-1» в Адыгее // Воинские традиции в археологическом контексте: от позднего Латена до позднего Средневековья. Сост. Ю. А. Кулешов – С. Ю. Каинов – Г. В. Баранов, Тула, 60-91.
Runych 1971 = Рунич, А. П. (1971). Скальные захоронения в окрестностях Кисловодска // Советская археология 1971/2, 167-178.
Savenko 2017 = Савенко, С. Н. (2017). Характеристика социального развития аланского общества Северного Кавказа по материалам катакомбных могильников X-XII вв.н.э., Пятигорск – Казань.
Slanov 2007 = Сланов, А. А. (2007). Военное дело алан I – XV вв., Владикавказ.
Tikhonov – Khafizova 2014 = Тихонов, Н. А. – Хафизова, Е. Н. (2014). Сложносоставной лук из Нижне-Архызского городища // Военная археология 3 : Сборник материалов Проблемного совета «Военная археология» при Государственном Историческом музее. Отв. ред. О. В. Двуреченский, Москва, 6-14.
Tóth 2010 = Tóth, Cs. Z. (2010). Magyar őstörténeti tanulmányok, 2005-2010, Hága.
Tuallagov 2017 = Туаллагов, А. А. (2017). Аланские колчаны раннего средневековья Северного Кавказа // ALANICA: сборник избранных статей доктора исторических наук А. А. Туаллагова, Владикавказ, 28-38.
Uspenskiy – Albegova 2021 = Успенский, П. С. – Албегова (Царикаева), З. Х. (2021). Древности Центрального Кавказа VII-XIII вв. (по материалам Даргавского могильника), Москва.
Vladimirov 2015 = Владимиров, С. И. (2015). Топоры Маяцкого археологического комплекса // Краткие сообщения института археологии 239, 358-368.
Vladimirov 2021-2022 = Владимиров, С. И. (2021-2022). Вооружение донских и кавказских аланов: общие черты и особенности // Хазарский альманах 18, 78-98.
Vlasatý, Tomáš (2020). Decorative edging of mail armour. In: Project Forlǫg – Reenactment and science [online]. [2025-08-05]. Available at: https://sagy.vikingove.cz/en/decorative-edging-of-mail-armour/.
Vlasatý, Tomáš (2022). The mail from Kazazovo, Russia. In: Project Forlǫg – Reenactment and science [online]. [2025-08-05]. Available at: https://sagy.vikingove.cz/en/the-mail-from-kazazovo-russia/.
Wijnhoven, M. A. (2023). Armour for the afterlife. On the presence and meaning of mail armour in burials of women and children // Воинские традиции в археологическом контексте: от позднего Латена до позднего Средневековья. Сост. Ю. А. Кулешов – С. Ю. Каинов – Г. В. Баранов, Тула, 20-32.