Abstract
The assemblage of early medieval stone engravings discovered at the Libušín hillfort between 1949 and 1951 constitutes a unique find within the context of early medieval Bohemia. Despite its historical significance, the collection has received insufficient scholarly scrutiny in recent decades. This study aims to survey the current condition of the assemblage, prioritizing a detailed re-examination of the depicted motifs. Furthermore, it offers a critical reassessment of earlier interpretations and proposes a revised chronology based on the depicted military equipment. The methodology integrates an analysis of archival excavation reports and photography, a direct physical examination of the four extant stones held by the National Museum, comparative analysis with European iconographic analogies, and insights derived from experimental archaeology and revised archaeological analysis of the site. Investigations revealed that the majority of the original collection (15 of 21 stones) is currently unaccounted for, with the loss likely occurring between the 1950s and 1960s. Detailed analysis of the surviving artifacts identified potential elements that had previously been overlooked, including stirrups, spurs, a sword scabbard, a helmet, hair, and geometric motifs. The engravings are categorized into primary (predominantly equestrian scenes) and secondary groups. Based on an ergonomic evaluation, this study proposes a new hypothesis attributing the primary engravings to a child creator. Finally, contrary to the long-accepted dating by Z. Váňa and J. Kabát to the turn of the 10th and 11th centuries, current analysis suggests a potential chronological shift to the first two-thirds of the 11th century.
Keywords: Libušín – stone engravings – Early Middle Ages – fortification – iconography – graffiti – weaponry.
Introduction
Early medieval Bohemia is not characterized by an abundance of rich iconographic material featuring realistic human or animal depictions that would facilitate the study of daily life or warfare. While richly illuminated manuscripts from the Late Hillfort Period (late 10th – early 12th century) have survived, their provenance lies not within this territory, but rather in present-day Germany (Černý 2001; Winterer 2009: 143). Consequently, the study of indigenous iconography relies predominantly on archaeological evidence. This involves analyzing a highly heterogeneous assemblage of largely inorganic artifacts, such as belt and harness fittings, temple rings, coins, stone engravings, and marks on pottery bases. These depictions are typically highly stylized, as minute details were likely deemed superfluous to the intended message of the work. However, archival research continues to reveal overlooked finds of significant evidentiary value, offering unexpected insights.
Within this context, the present study – addressed to students of the Early Middle Ages, Czech history, and medieval military history – examines an assemblage of 21 engravings discovered in the mid-20th century at the Libušín hillfort. These artifacts warrant particular attention as they constitute the most motif-rich collection of stone engravings from early medieval Bohemia. Their significance lies in both their extent and their early dating. The nearest comparable assemblages in Bohemia date to the Romanesque period, specifically those found within St. George’s Basilica at Prague Castle (Chotěbor 1985; 2022) and on the masonry of the Lesser Town Bridge Tower in Prague (Dragoun 1992; 1994; Vilímková 1972). Evidence from the Bohemian Early Middle Ages is otherwise limited to isolated engravings. A notable exception is a 10th century fortification stone from Prague Castle (Frolíková-Kaliszová 2011a: 44-5, Fig. 15; 2011b: 188), which represents a relatively close analogy to the Libušín finds. Other examples of stone engravings include gaming boards from Prague-Butovice (9th century; Mašek 1970: Fig. 3.1) and Libice nad Cidlinou (likely 10th century; Princová 2000). Additionally, an engraved stone idol dating to the 9th–10th century has been documented at Kouřim (Profantová 2012), and engraved gravestones are recorded at thirteen Czech sites spanning the 10th to 12th centuries (Podhorský – Drnovský 2017).
Map 1: The Libušín hillfort on the map of Europe.
Libušín HillFort
The early medieval hillfort of Libušín near Kladno, situated on the strategic St. George’s hill roughly 20 km northwest of Prague, constitutes one of the premier fortified sites in Central Bohemia. Positioned where the plateau breaks sharply into the valley of two streams, and encompassing approximately 12.3 ha, the site is naturally well-defended. Its internal disposition – featuring an acropolis, inner and outer baileys, and a distinctively fortified annex protecting a spring – demonstrates a highly sophisticated fortification concept. Extensive archaeological campaigns conducted between 1929 and 1971 by scholars such as Jaroslav Böhm (Böhm 1950), Josef Kabát (Kabát 1949; 1952b), and notably Zdeněk Váňa (Váňa 1973a; 1975; Váňa – Kabát 1971), have yielded a systematic understanding of the site’s layout and development. Despite modern disturbance caused by coal mining, the extent of the surviving structures and the scale of the excavated area (nearly 3,000 m²) remain among the most significant in the region.
Fig. 1: Plan of the Libušín hillfort. Source: Sláma 1989: Fig. 13.
Video 1: Aerial visualization of the Libušín acropolis, state as of 2019.
Earlier interpretations by Zdeněk Váňa dated the origins of Libušín to the late 9th century, linking it to the legendary Czech-Lučan War, and posited its decline at the turn of the 11th century. This long-standing chronology was fundamentally revised by Ladislav Varadzin (2012). Through analysis of ceramic material recovered directly from the rampart fill, Varadzin shifted the foundation date to the mid-to-late 10th century – specifically, the era of Přemyslid state expansion under Boleslav I. Consequently, Libušín is no longer viewed as a pre-state tribal center, but rather as a manifestation of consolidated central power aimed at securing the core of the Přemyslid domain.
The fortification system at Libušín represents an exceptional feat of engineering. Originally designed as a tripartite complex comprising an acropolis (2.6 ha), an inner bailey (3.6 ha), and an outer bailey (4.6 ha), the site appears to have undergone gradual modification and reduction, suggesting the initial ambitious plan was never fully realized. Notably, the northern gate of the acropolis was reconfigured; rather than connecting to the bailey, it was diverted to access the fortified water source (spring) on the northern slope (1.5 ha). The construction techniques varied by strategic necessity (cf. Čtverák et al. 2003: 180-183; Lutovský 2001: 164-165; Sláma 1989: 35-9). The most robust defenses – a wood-and-earth rampart with a frontal stone revetment – were erected at critical points where the fortifications of the acropolis and inner bailey transversely severed the hill. In contrast to the dry-stone wall enclosing much of the acropolis, the spring area was defended by a wall bonded with clay. The outer bailey was protected by a more modest, low earthwork with a stone superstructure, bordered by a six-meter-wide ditch. Excavations also uncovered a unique southeastern gate featuring an entry space divided by a stone bastion.
The archaeological assemblage indicates that Libušín did not function as a standard administrative or economic hub. Evidence for craft specialization, production, or high-status residence is surprisingly scarce compared to contemporary sites such as Budeč. The paucity of permanent settlement traces, particularly in the baileys, suggests that Libušín was a grandiose strategic project that never reached its full potential. Rather than serving as a multifunctional center of the early state, it likely functioned as a fortified checkpoint on the route connecting central Bohemia with the middle Ohře basin. Its significance eventually waned, reducing its status to that of a minor manor (curia). The dilapidation of the ramparts began as early as the second third of the 11th century, with no evidence to support Váňa’s hypothesis of violent destruction.
Fig. 2: Drawn reconstructions of the southeastern gate (left) and northern gate (right).
Source: Váňa 1973a: Figs. VIII, IX.
Discovery and History of Research
During excavations conducted by Kabát in 1949, Probe 18/49 was established to investigate the junction between the southern perimeter rampart of the first bailey and the acropolis fortifications. Situated on a slope at the rounded southeastern corner of the transverse rampart, where structural stability was compromised, the fortification was reinforced by three retaining walls. The most meticulously constructed of these was the clay-bonded “third retaining wall,” which survived to a height of approximately 1.35 m (originally estimated at 2 m). Embedded in situ within the face of this wall were eighteen engraved stones (nos. 74/49 – 91/49). While the stones displayed no obvious organizational pattern and were distributed across various elevations, two distinct clusters can be identified: a loosely arranged group (nos. 79/49 – 85/49) and a more concentrated cluster (nos. 74/49 – 77/49; 86/49 – 89/49 and 91/49). Stones no. 78/49 and no. 90/49 occupied isolated positions, the former between the clusters and the latter near the second group (Váňa – Kabát 1971: 288). Three additional engraved stones were recovered in 1951 from the northern masonry of the southeastern gate bastion (Kabát 1952a: 8; Váňa – Kabát 1971: 209).
The chronological placement of these engravings can be framed only broadly, based on Varadzin’s revised site analysis, within the period spanning the second third of the 10th century to the second third of the 11th century. Although scholarly consensus traditionally assigns the retaining wall to the later phase of the hillfort (Váňa – Kabát 1971: 292), this dating relies on the approximate typology of the rider’s weaponry depicted on stone no. 85/49 – a premise explicitly challenged by Varadzin (2012: 731). Contextually, the retaining wall (Varadzin’s Phase 2) was clearly constructed some time after the transverse rampart (Varadzin’s Phase 1) it was designed to stabilize; however, the precise interval between these construction phases remains indeterminate.
Fig. 3: Situation of the southwestern corner of the acropolis rampart and its drawn reconstruction.
Source: Varadzin 2012: Fig. 6; Váňa 1973a: Fig. VII.
Fig. 4: Distribution of engraved stones on the retaining wall of the southeastern corner.
Source: Váňa – Kabát 1971: Fig. 12.
While this assemblage constitutes the most compelling find from Libušín, its study has been hindered by the early date of its discovery. No petrographic analysis exists, though sources universally identify the material as marlstone. Apart from Kudrnáč (1950), who briefly addresses stone no. 85/49 without illustration, and various catalogue entries (Militký 2000; Váňa 1989), no dedicated monograph exists. The stones are invariably treated as sub-chapters within broader works on Libušín or early medieval Bohemia. The primary documentation remains the original excavation report (Kabát 1949) and an anonymous manuscript housed at the Institute of Archaeology of the CAS, Prague (Anonymous 1977), both of which contain detailed photographs and drawings of stones that are now missing. Lower-resolution versions of these photographs, accompanied by find contexts and interpretations, appeared in Váňa and Kabát (1971). The most widely cited source is Váňa’s 1973 book (Váňa 1973a); despite a print run of 6000 copies, it lacks photographs, relying instead on selected drawings and a summarized text. Váňa subsequently returned to the engravings in a cursory manner in his other works (Váňa 1977: 30-31; 1983: 166; 1989). Early references also appear in Böhm (1950: 86-87), Kaván (1969: Figs. 21-2), Poulík (1956: 228), Sláma (1977: 67), and Turek (1956: 237).
Scholarship of the last three decades has generally failed to offer new perspectives, largely reiterating the conclusions of Kabát and Váňa. This trend is evident in encyclopedias (Beranová – Lutovský 2009: 291; Čtverák et al. 2003: 182; Lutovský 2001: 165), conference proceedings (Frolíková-Kaliszová 2011b: 188; Malivánková Wasková 2014: 124; Štefan 2025: Fig. 6.5; Tomková 2001: 555), and academic theses (Bernart 2010: 91-2; Dlouhá 2012: 36-7; Frolíková-Kaliszová 2011a: 44; Luňák 2007: 83-4). Due to their visual qualities, reproductions of the engravings have become illustrations not only in archaeological but also in historical works (Třeštík et al. 2001: 74; Žemlička 1997: 38). The engravings are frequently depicted in local guidebooks (e.g., Koller 1968: 122; Krajník – Pospíšil 1985: Fig. 52; Sučková 2003: 148) and even in pseudoscientific pamphlets (e.g., Bauer 2013: 43; Dvořák – Snětivý 2020: 39-44; Sadílek 2001: 67-70).
Current Status
Research into the engravings was further stimulated by their long-standing inaccessibility to the public, prompting an investigation into their provenance and current whereabouts. The opening of the new medieval exhibition at the National Museum in Prague in 2022 revealed that four of the stones are currently on display (nos. 75/49, 80/49, 82/49, and 85/49). According to curator Jiří Košta (pers. comm.), two additional stones are housed in the National Museum’s Terezín depository (likely nos. 77/49 and 90/49). These six specimens were accessioned by the museum from the Institute of Archaeology of the CAS, Prague (ARUP).
Ladislav Varadzin, a researcher at ARUP responsible for the revised survey of Libušín, confirmed that the remaining stones are absent from the Institute’s collections and their status is unknown. Since the transfer of the extant stones to the National Museum occurred by the 1980s at the latest (see Váňa 1989), their destruction during the 2002 floods – which damaged the Institute’s depository – can be precluded. While Varadzin suggested the possibility that the missing stones were left in situ, this hypothesis is contradicted by excavation reports confirming their extraction (Kabát 1949; 1951). Furthermore, the removal is corroborated by photographic documentation produced by ARUP staff immediately following the excavation, which appeared in the initial reports.
Naďa Profantová (ARUP) confirmed that the artifacts are not stored in the Institute’s archives. She hypothesizes that Váňa or his contemporaries may have subjected the assemblage to a selection process, retaining the “aesthetically superior” equestrian scenes while the “lesser” engravings were subsequently lost. Although Váňa utilized a local depository in Kováry, Profantová deems it unlikely the stones were stored there, noting that the facility was primarily used for finds from Budeč and that she would have likely encountered them during her own earlier research. She does not rule out the possibility of private appropriation by former staff – a known issue with other artifacts – or that the stones remain misidentified in regional institutions, such as the Sládeček Museum in Kladno.
However, Zdeněk Kuchyňka, former director of the Sládeček Museum, confirmed the absence of the originals in their collection, noting that only replicas were previously exhibited. He suggested the loss might have occurred during temporary storage in local facilities, such as the rectory in Kvílice. Local heritage organizations (e.g., Czech Union for Nature Conservation Kladno Region) possess no information regarding the missing artifacts. All consulted parties expressed dismay at the loss of such significant archaeological material.
A crucial clue is provided by Koller (1968: 122), who notes that an unspecified number of stones were exhibited at the Memorial of National Literature at Strahov prior to 1968. This suggests the loss likely occurred during inter-institutional transfer between the 1950s and 1960s. Significantly, Váňa’s 1973 publication includes drawings of only the six stones currently held by the National Museum, implying the remainder of the assemblage was already inaccessible by that time. While this conclusion remains tentative, future archival research or an unexpected discovery in a private collection or estate may yet shed light on the fate of the missing artifacts.
Fig. 5: The discovery site today (as of December 2025). Author’s archive.
The discovery is commemorated by information boards installed by the Czech Union for Nature Conservation Kladno Region.
Style
The assessment of artistic style is an inherently subjective discipline, often yielding contradictory conclusions. Consequently, scholarly evaluations of the Libušín engravings range widely, from “masterful abbreviation” (Turek 1956: 237) to “primitiveness” (Váňa 1973a: 58; Váňa – Kabát 1971: 289-290) and “naivety” (Třeštík et al. 2001: 74; Váňa 1983: 166). Nevertheless, the consensus among authors is that these engravings represent the most compelling evidence of folk art in early medieval Bohemia (Böhm 1950: 87; Kaván 1969: 449; Poulík 1956: 228).
The engravings are highly schematic. Features such as a head modeled behind a shield (no. 85/49) or legs depicted side-by-side (no. 75/49) betray an undeveloped compositional logic, relegating the work to the tier of lower-quality contemporary production. This lack of detail and disproportion stem partly from the medium itself and the artistic conventions of the period; indeed, errors are not uncommon even in broader European contexts. Numerous continental parallels demonstrate that this schematic style was relatively widespread (e.g., Ovčarov 1982) and persists even in post-medieval engravings (e.g., Bucherie – Salaün 2013). Sláma (1977: 67) is undoubtedly correct in arguing that the simplicity of the engravings does not imply a low standard of living. On the contrary, evidence from elsewhere in Europe suggests that such simple art may be linked to the learning process (Janin 2007: 49-55). The lack of sophistication suggests the author was either unwilling or unable to achieve a more refined result.
The engravings possess an unofficial, spontaneous, and recreational character. As they were not commissioned, they do not adhere to formal artistic standards. Rather than being intended for public display, they appear to have been executed for the private amusement of the engraver or a small group, likely on a whim. The execution suggests a lack of planning and a rapid ductus, akin to sketching. Applying Malivánková Wasková’s (2014) typology, the Libušín graffiti fulfill both self-presentational and abstract functions, though it remains indeterminate whether they constitute visitor or residential graffiti.
The stones were engraved using a tool with a sharp iron point, such as a small knife or a similar graver. Based on a direct examination of the four available stones (nos. 75/49, 80/49, 82/49, 85/49), the engraving technique appears relatively inconsistent, as noted by Váňa and Kabát (1971: 290). While the precise production sequence is difficult to reconstruct, it appears probable that the primary figures of riders and animals were incised into unadorned or slightly worn surfaces. The primary lines are distinct, of varying depth, relatively wide, and often show evidence of repeated cutting at an angle. The uniformity of motifs and execution in these primary engravings suggests a single authorship. The lines are interconnected and occasionally overlap with other elements. A subsequent phase appears to involve secondary damage characterized by less distinct, shallow, vertical, and oblique (rarely horizontal) lines. These incisions, seemingly struck perpendicular to the surface, are concentrated over the original figures, suggesting intentional defacement. The hypothesis that these were practice lines predating the zoomorphic motifs (Váňa – Kabát 1971: 289) is unsupported. Certain lines remain ambiguous; for instance, the grid-like vertical and horizontal grooves previously interpreted as forests or enclosures (Váňa – Kabát 1971: 290) resist definitive classification. While some secondary scratches may form incidental shapes, the intentional scratches and holes noted by Váňa likely occurred during stone preparation, the original engraving, or subsequent defacement, rather than during combat (Váňa – Kabát 1971: 290). With the exception of the rider’s hair on stone no. 85/49, the incisions do not appear to possess any chromatic contrast.
Fig. 6: Details of engraving on stones no. 75/49 (left) and no. 85/49 (right).
Equestrian scenes
Despite their stylistic simplicity, the equestrian scenes on stones nos. 75/49, 85/49, and 90/49 yield valuable insights into early medieval military equipment. While the scene on stone no. 85/49 was previously analyzed by Kudrnáč (1950) and Váňa (1973; Váňa – Kabát 1971), these studies lacked the practical perspective gained from the reconstruction and usage of period gear. In the last two decades, archaeologists with backgrounds in historical reenactment – specifically Bernart (2010: 91-2) and Luňák (2007: 83-4) – have revisited the material, with Bernart personally examining the artifact. However, as their focus was restricted to shield typology, a comprehensive analysis integrating European analogies and practical reenactment experience remains absent. The following interpretation does not claim exhaustiveness but aims to objectively describe the maximum number of discernible details.
The assemblage underlines the pivotal role of horse breeding and the utilization of horses for transport, hunting, and warfare in early Přemyslid Bohemia. Beyond the three rider scenes, equines appear in varying degrees of schematization on twelve additional stones (nos. 74/49, 76/49, 77/49, 78/49, 79/49, 80/49, 81/49, 82/49, 83/49, 87/49, 89/90, 91/49). This quantity significantly exceeds the evidentiary value of comparable early medieval Bohemian iconography, such as temple rings featuring horse motifs (Frolíková-Kaliszová 2023) or the zoomorphic depiction on a pottery base from Kolín (Valentová – Tvrdík 2004: 577). The significance of the horse is further corroborated by numerous archaeological finds of spurs, stirrups, and harness fittings (Měchurová 1983; Profantová 2013; 2019). Ibrahim ibn Yaqub recorded in the 960s that saddles and bridles were manufactured in Prague (MMFH III: 370), and 10th century written sources attest to the trade and export of horses from Bohemia to present-day Austria (MMFH III: 370; MMFH IV: 100). It is likely that significant numbers of horses were present within the hillfort or its hinterland. In this context, the hypothesis that certain framing lines around the horses on stones nos. 77/49, 84/49, and 90/49 represent enclosures (Váňa – Kabát 1971: 290) appears plausible. The presence of cavalry is particularly substantial given Libušín’s location “near the forest extending toward the village of Zbečno” (Cosmas I:4), suggesting it may have served as a base for hunting expeditions in the ducal forest (Razím 2010).
Fig. 7: Depiction of the bridle and reins in 11th century art.
From left: Libušín (stone no. 85/49); Bayeux Tapestry; Burgo de Osma, Archivo de la Catedral, Cod. 1, 85v.
The horses are generally depicted with a relatively small stature, consistent with archaeological data placing the withers height of early medieval horses typically between 130 and 140 cm (Ambros – Müller 1980; Ameen et al. 2021) – sizes classified as ponies in modern breeding. The engravings reveal potential grooming of the mane (nos. 82/49, 90/49), which appears combed or braided into tassels, and the tail (nos. 75/49, 77/49, 82/49, 90/49), which is long with a spade-shaped terminus. Male sexual characteristics are indicated in three instances (nos. 80/49, 83/49, and 90/49), suggesting a preference for stallions. This aligns with numerous iconographic parallels and bioarchaeological data; for instance, stallions comprise 94.5% of horses in Old Hungarian graves (Wilhelm – Flesch 2022: 197) and 100% of those in Icelandic burials (Nistelberger et al. 2019).
Fig. 8: Depiction of the mane in 11th century art.
From left: Libušín (stone no. 82/49); Bayeux Tapestry; Vatican, BAV, MS Reg. lat. 1263, 66v.
Fig. 9: Horse croup in 11th century art.
From left: Libušín (stone No. 90/49); Vatican, MSS Vat. lat. 5729, 342r; Bayeux Tapestry.
The depiction of tack is ambiguous. The saddle – crucial for the deep seat required by early medieval riding styles – is absent, as are the saddle blanket, girth, breastplate, and crupper (cf. Gřešák et al. 2019; Wilhelm – Flesch 2022). Regarding the bridle, only the headstall and browband are tentatively discernible; the bit, noseband, and cheekpieces are invisible. Reins extend from the mouth to the rider’s left hand, though the grip method remains unclear. Notably, a detail previously overlooked in the literature is the presence of stirrups suspended from straps in two cases (definitive on no. 75/49, probable on no. 85/49). The rider interacts with the stirrup using only the toe or the ball of the foot. This corresponds with historical riding practices, experimental studies (Wilhelm – Flesch 2022: 223), and detailed period iconography. On stone no. 85/49, the toe is slightly elevated relative to the heel, whereas on no. 75/49, it points downward. Furthermore, a previously unnoticed line extending upward from the rider’s heel on stone no. 85/49 may represent a spur, although an accidental scratch cannot be ruled out.
Fig. 10: Depiction of stirrups in 11th century art.
From left: Libušín (stone no. 75/49); Bayeux Tapestry; Paris, BnF, Latin 8878, 108v.
The dominant weaponry depicted in the Libušín engravings consists of spears (nos. 75/49 and 85/49). These weapons feature long, leaf-shaped heads and prominent wings on the sockets. The shafts are straight and, assuming realistic proportions, would measure at least 300 cm in length. Finds of spears of such dimensions in West Slavic contexts are documented at Ostrów Lednicki (Sankiewicz – Wyrwa 2018; Wilke 2014) and Oerenburg (Wachter 1985; 1989). The shaft on stone no. 85/49 widens toward the butt end and terminates in a point, theoretically suggesting a ferrule. Although rare in West Slavic material, ferrules are extant (e.g., Dostál 1966: 73; Hanuliak 2004: 145; Paddenberg 2012: 201; Sankiewicz – Wyrwa 2018: 212-5). Attached to the shaft on stone no. 85/49 is a square banner with five tassels and an oblique cross. Similar vexilloids appear throughout the centuries, notably on the Bayeux Tapestry and on the denarius of Duke Břetislav I (type Cach 311). An earlier analogy occurs in the 7th century equestrian scene from Hornhausen (Böhner 1977), and Czech banners are mentioned by Cosmas (I:13, II:17). Crucially, the spears are not couched but held at head level with the thumb facing away from the point; while the couched technique appears sporadically on the continent in the 10th century, it did not become standard practice until the 12th century (Ascherl 1988; Bachrach 1988; Ross 1963; Nicolle 2002).
Fig. 11: Method of gripping the spear.
From left: Bayeux Tapestry; Libušín (stone no. 85/49).
Fig. 12: Banner with a cross on a spear in 11th century art.
From left: Libušín (stone no. 85/49); coin type Cach 311; Bayeux Tapestry.
Fig. 13: Sharpened ends of cavalry spears.
From left: Paris, BnF, MS lat. 6401, 13v (12th century); Libušín (stone no. 85/49).
The equestrian scene on stone no. 75/49 contains a deep and wide groove near the rider’s knees, which has not yet been interpreted in the available literature. This groove is as deep as the spear grooves (the deepest groove on the stone) and therefore may not be accidental. Given its direction, length, and approximate location, it could theoretically represent a scabbard with a single-handed sword. However, it cannot be ruled out that this is an unrelated secondary scratch. A similar engraving symbolizing a sword or saber is found on the thighs of an engraved rider from Preslav, Bulgaria (Ognenova 1950; Ovčarov 1982: Tab. XLV).
Unlike swords, which are well documented in early medieval Bohemia (Hošek et al. 2019) and which usually feature simple iron hilts with straight, long guards and semi-circular or Brazil-nut pommels during the 10th and 11th centuries, we lack complete sword scabbards from Bohemia. However, available fragments indicate that scabbards were composites made of very thin slats of deciduous wood, covered inside and out with leather or textile (Vlasatý 2022a). The best West Slavic find of a scabbard from this period is a specimen from Gdańsk, Poland (Nadolski 1955). The inclination of the theoretical scabbard implies the use of a belt suspension, which in an equestrian context is dominantly fastened around the waist, not over the shoulder (Baumeister 1998).
Fig. 14: Depiction of attached swords in equestrian scenes of the 10th–11th centuries.
From left: Libušín (stone no. 75/49); Bayeux Tapestry; Paris, BnF, Latin 6 (3), 145r; engraving from Preslav (Ovčarov 1982: Tab. XLV).
The depiction of the shield on the Libušín stone no. 85/49 is unique in the context of the Czech lands. It complements the written mention by Ibrahim ibn Yaqub regarding local shield production in Prague (MMFH III: 370). Although early medieval shields are frequently speculated upon in archaeological literature (Luňák 2007; Vlasatý 2023a), the absence of material evidence due to their organic nature makes it impossible to determine their construction and shape more precisely. Therefore, this depiction has immense informational value.
However, the interpretation of the shield depiction is not unequivocal and raises a number of questions. Commentators do not agree even on its original shape: while Kudrnáč (1950: 112) and Váňa (1973a: 56, 79) believe it has a slightly pointed bottom, Lutovský (2001: 324), Luňák (2007: 83), and Bernart (2010: 91) hold the view that it is a round shield. The author of this text inclines toward the theory of a round or slightly oval shape. Kite shields became established in the West Slavic environment only in the second half of the 11th century, i.e., with a delay of one to two generations compared to Western Europe. Nevertheless, it should be taken into account that non-kite shields appeared until the end of the 11th century, as evidenced by the find from Lenzen, Germany (Kennecke 2015: 91–2; Vlasatý 2023b). The Libušín shield is shown without any details: it lacks a central boss, rivets indicating strap attachment, or a rim line depicting edge reinforcement. The only unambiguous information is its large size, which, given realistic proportions, would allow for coverage from head to knees, corresponding to a diameter of at least 100 cm. Since both of the rider’s hands are occupied with other activities, it is possible that the engraver intended to depict the shield suspended by a shoulder strap (guige). Currently, we assume that shield shoulder straps were split, could be shortened using a buckle, and could be attached to the shield body by rivets, loops secured in staples, or toggles made of rolled leather (Vlasatý 2022b; 2023a).
Stylistically, the most similar depiction of a large round shield in an equestrian scene is a schematic engraving from Pliska, Bulgaria, dated to the 9th century (Georgiev 1991; Vaklinov 1977: 103). A similarity can also be found in a plastic figurine from Lisów, Poland, which was part of a hoard from the early 11th century (Gabriel 1993; Neumayer 2000). Besides the Slavic sphere, numerous parallels occur in Frankish and Ottonian art as well as in Scandinavia (Imer 2004: Figs. 25-6, 49).
Fig. 15: Depiction of round shields in equestrian scenes of the 9th–11th centuries.
From left: Libušín (stone no. 85/49); engraving from Pliska (Jotov 2004: 117); figurine from Lisów (Gabriel 1993: 336).
Fig. 16: Depiction of round shields in an equestrian scene from the second quarter of the 11th century.
Source: Arras, fonds principal, 0559, vol. 1, fol. 144v.
In the specialized literature, the head of the rider on stone no. 85/49 is described as potentially covered by a helmet (Váňa – Kabát 1971: 290). At first glance, it might appear to be a low, rounded variant of the Stromovka type (Vlasatý et al. 2023). This identification might be suggested by the supposed double line at the edge, symbolizing a rim band. However, it is important to realize that helmets of this type likely fell out of use by the end of the second half of the 10th century at the latest, when they were definitively replaced by one-piece conical constructions (Bravermanová et al. 2019). A detailed look at the original stone (as opposed to the redrawing) reveals that a whole head with a nose, chin, nape, and neck is modeled behind the shield. The part that initially appears as a rim band is actually an optical illusion stemming from the engraver’s method of incising individual elements successively, without attempting to connect lines smoothly. The head is thus crossed by the shield and the spear shaft, which is created by two discontinuous lines. From our perspective, there is no indication that the rider is wearing a helmet or other tall headgear that would affect the silhouette. Upon closer inspection, it even appears that short, thin, contrasting black dashes emerge from the back of the head, strikingly imitating hair, which are not engraved. These are, however, in the realm of speculation and cannot be verified other than by expert analysis.
Fig. 17: Detail of the rider’s head from stone no. 85/49.
Red = silhouette of the head. Green = shield. Blue = spear.
Author: Diego Flores Cartes.
Fig. 18: Indication of potential hair on the rider’s head from stone no. 85/49.
A somewhat different situation arises with stone no. 90/49. Here, the head is sharply cut, and its top is formed by two lines – one rounded and the other forming a point. In the facial area, there is a fine bifurcated line in the shape of a closed letter Y. Unless these are accidental lines, in 11th–12th century iconography such a depiction would correspond best to a one-piece helmet with a nasal covering a mail coif. Similar schematization can be found, for example, on the Bayeux Tapestry (tituli 50). Alternatively, it could be a ribbon wrapped around a helmet or other headgear, but in that case, the head would have to be turned toward the horse’s croup. In 11th century Western and Central European iconography, such ribbons do not commonly appear. One-piece helmets with coifs were usually combined with a mail shirt, which is not depicted in the scene.
Fig. 19: Depiction of one-piece helmets with nasal in 11th century art.
From left: Libušín (stone no. 90/49); Bayeux Tapestry; Paris, BnF, Latin 8878, 148v.
The original dating of the assemblage to the turn of the 10th and 11th centuries, performed by Kudrnáč and Váňa, is no longer sustainable from a methodological standpoint. This conclusion confirms the earlier skepticism expressed by Varadzin (2012: 731, 757). The shield, which was a key argument in the existing interpretation, does not allow for a more precise classification than stating that it likely does not relate to the period after the 11th century. Although long cavalry spears do not in themselves provide sufficient chronological support as they appear over a vast time span, the presence of winged spears in the Czech environment likely indicates a date from the 9th century onwards (Vlasatý 2025a). The method of holding the spear corresponds to the period before the 12th century, when spears in similar scenes are more frequently shown couched. The use of a cross on the banner suggests the Christian period, i.e., from the late 9th century, with the only Czech parallel coming from the first half of the 11th century. The most chronologically sensitive element is the theoretical depiction of a one-piece helmet with a nasal, which would unequivocally date the scene and consequently the entire assemblage to the 11th century (see Vlasatý 2025b). Given the destruction of the fortifications in the second third of the 11th century, we cautiously determine the first two-thirds of the 11th century as the likely time of origin for the Libušín engravings. This conclusion does not deviate fundamentally from Váňa’s dating to the beginning of the 11th century (Váňa 1977: 31).
The equestrian engravings can be interpreted as schematized depictions of high-end equestrian scenes and they have good parallels across the European continent in the 11th century. The original assessment of the riders as members of the ducal family (Váňa 1973a: 56) is likely beyond the evidentiary value of the source. A more realistic interpretation is offered by Tomková, according to whom it is rather a depiction of the hillfort’s military garrison (Tomková 2001: 555). The author of the text understands the scenes as depictions of anonymous professional riders who – if the helmet theory is true – are equipped with the best armament available in the Czech lands, rather than common soldiers.
Other selected motifs
The assemblage also features additional zoomorphic figures. A particularly interesting motif consists of two highly schematic “small horses” with raised necks, arranged in an antithetic composition with their muzzles essentially touching; one of these figures features a clearly depicted eye (Váňa – Kabát 1971: 201). In Central Europe during the 8th-10th centuries, this motif was prevalent on antler containers, as evidenced by finds from grave 48 at Sopronkőhida, Hungary (Török – Bökönyi 1973: Fig. 25), Tatabánya, Hungary (Török – Bökönyi 1973: Fig. 34), and grave 161 at Ždrijac near Nin, Croatia (Belošević 2007: 420). On the containers from Sopronkőhida and Ždrijac, the animals are horned and separated by a floral element; based on Asian analogies, this is interpreted as horses flanking the World Tree (Axis Mundi) – a presumed religious or ritual scene (Belošević 2007: 419-421; Török – Bökönyi 1973: 56-9). Conversely, the animals on the Tatabánya container resemble canids and lack the intervening floral motif, resulting in a closer proximity between the figures. Determining the precise meaning of the Libušín depiction is complicated by the fact that the closest analogies are not semantically uniform.
Fig. 20: Comparison of the Libušín “small horses” (no. 77/49) with analogies.
1 – Libušín; 2 – Sopronkőhida; 3 – China; 4 – Tatabánya.
Source: Török – Bökönyi 1973: Figs. 31, 32, 34.
Three stones (nos. 75/49, 84/49, 86/49) depict animals that likely represent cervids (roe deer or red deer) rather than horses. The figures on stones nos. 75/49 and 86/49 possess disproportionately long horns, while the animal on stone no. 84/49 features branched antlers, resembling engravings of deer from Preslav, Bulgaria (Ovčarov 1982: Tab. XXII.1) or certain Roman Era graffiti (Langner 2001: Taf. 97, 99). Beyond Bulgarian analogies, relevant parallels appear in the 10th–12th century cave church complex at Basarabi–Murfatlar, Romania, which contains numerous depictions of humans, equines, canines, and cervids (Barnea 1962; Komatarova-Balinova et al. 2023). The deer motif is rare in Hillfort-period Bohemia, appearing only on a 9th century plaque from Želénky near Duchcov (Beranová – Lutovský 2009: color appendix; Profantová 2008: 142-3). Several High Medieval engravings of deer are also preserved in St. George’s Basilica at Prague Castle (Chotěbor 2022).
Fig. 21: Possible depiction of a red or roe deer and its parallel.
From left: Libušín (stone no. 84/49); Preslav, Bulgaria (Ovčarov 1982: Tab. XXII.1).
On stone no. 74/49, a chaotic cluster of lines forms a pentagram-like motif near the presumed location of the horse’s croup. Whether this represents clumsy intent or mere coincidence is open to debate. However, intentionality is supported by a similarly composed pentagram from Kavarna, Bulgaria (Ovčarov 1982: Tab. CX.3) and another positioned above an animal’s hindquarters in a graffiti scene from Preslav (Ovčarov 1982: Tab. I). Although a modern synthesis of pentagram finds in Central Europe is lacking (cf. Eisner 1966: 187), this appears to be one of the few examples from Hillfort-period Bohemia, alongside potter’s marks from Stará Boleslav (Varadzin 2007: Fig. 4.279), Tetín (Sklenář 1978: Tab. XIII.783), Zabrušany (Váňa 1973b: 199, Fig. 2), and an unidentified site (Varadzin 2004: Fig. 277). One pentagram is also engraved on a pillar of St. George’s Basilica at Prague Castle and is dated to the 13th century at the latest (Chotěbor 2022). The five-pointed star is generally understood as a ubiquitous symbol, present since prehistory, often carrying an apotropaic function (Dostál 1981: 49; Gjorgjievski 2015; Langner 2001; Váňa 1973b: 209; 1988: 348; Zorova 2007).
Fig. 22: Comparison of the potential pentagram with analogies.
From left: Libušín (stone no. 74/49); Kavarna, Bulgaria; Pliska, Bulgaria; Pernik, Bulgaria.
Source: Ovčarov 1982: Tab. LXXXIV.2, CX.3, CXXII.2.
The assemblage also exhibits traces of additional geometric figures that appear to have been superimposed secondarily over the original compositions. These motifs primarily consist of lozenges (rhombuses) or bisected portions thereof. Stones nos. 74/49, 81/49, and 85/49 display semi-lozenge shapes with inscribed lines, while stone no. 88/49 bears a lozenge containing an inscribed cross. The most prominent example is a double lozenge with an inscribed line on stone no. 77/49, the execution of which was clearly intentional. The interpretation of these motifs remains ambiguous. In Bulgarian analogies, similar figures are often interpreted as vulvar symbols (Ovčarov 1982), a class of erotic graffiti well-attested in the Roman world (Langner 2001). Conversely, a geometric form positioned above the rider’s hand on stone no. 85/49 resembles the sail of a ship depicted on a stone from Preslav (Ovčarov 1982: Tab. LXIII.2), suggesting that the range of potential interpretations is broad.
Fig. 23: Rhomboid figures on stones nos. 77/49, 85/49, and 88/49.
Engraver
Who was responsible for the Libušín engravings? While a definitive answer remains elusive, several hypotheses can be advanced to challenge Váňa’s long-standing assumption that the author was a fortress guard (Třeštík et al. 2001: 74; Váňa 1983: 166). Given the military subject matter, the engraver was likely male. However, a spatial analysis of the rampart wall reveals that the engraved stones range from approximately 50 cm to 125 cm above ground level (Váňa – Kabát 1971: Fig. 12). Since the orientation of the stones indicates they were engraved in situ after the wall’s construction, these heights offer ergonomic clues. While 125 cm is a comfortable working height for a seated adult, 50 cm is suboptimal for an adult regarding tool ergonomics, safety, and visual control. Assuming a single authorship for the primary engravings, the vertical distribution suggests an individual for whom 50 cm was accessible while sitting on the ground and 125 cm while standing. This implies a stature below that of an average adult (cf. Stloukal – Vyhnálek 1976: 47), likely not exceeding 150 cm. In modern anthropometry, such a height corresponds to a pre-adolescent male under the age of 12 (Vignerová et al. 2006: 56). The hypothesis of a child creator has previously been suggested only by Štefan (Štefan 2026: Fig. 6.5).
From the perspective of developmental psychology, the engravings exhibit characteristics of “descriptive” or “visual realism,” a stage typical of children aged 6-12. In this phase, the child attempts a two-dimensional imitation of optical reality with unified proportions, typically capturing figures in profile and in motion, with attention to details such as hair, clothing, and hand actions (Piaget 1971; Piaget – Inhelder 1967). This is also the stage where martial themes first emerge (Deguara 2024; Walker et al. 2003). A compelling parallel is found in the 13th century birch bark drawings of the Novgorodian boy Onfim (Janin 2007: 49-55). Created at the age of 6 or 7 alongside writing exercises, Onfim’s work includes equestrian combat scenes where he stylizes himself as a victorious rider. While the Libušín engravings display greater detail and utilize a different medium, the analogy holds. If the creator was indeed a child, the limited level of detail might reflect a restricted firsthand experience with equestrianism and combat.
However, caution is required to avoid projecting modern constructs onto the past. In the absence of textual evidence, the stylistic simplicity of early medieval graffiti cannot be solely attributed to the artist’s age; it often reflects the limitations of the medium or the work’s function. Seemingly crude engravings, such as the 8th–9th century “Hostage Stone” from Inchmarnock (Lowe 2007), were undoubtedly executed by adults. Therefore, in the Libušín case, the argument for a child creator relies less on style and more on the extrapolation of the engraver’s physical stature. Furthermore, the evidence suggests that the primary engravings were subsequently defaced or supplemented by a secondary hand utilizing a different technique and motif set.
Fig. 24: The engraving of the Libušín stones as rendered by artificial intelligence (Gemini 3 Pro).
List of stones
Stone no. 74/49, so-called stone 1
Original commentary (Váňa – Kabát 1971: 201):
“On a stone shaped like a truncated pyramid, there is an engraving with a very crude suggestion of a rider on a horse (?), framed from behind by a long vertical line, behind which is another group of small grooves. Traces of knife punctures on the surface.“
Author’s note:
The original commentary is accurate. The outlines of the arched horse’s head and legs correspond to other scenes depicting horses. Other features of the animal or the potential rider are illegible due to the density of surrounding lines. The horse’s croup appears to be duplicated. A semi-rhombus with internal lines in the upper section resembles the motif above the rider’s palm on stone no. 85/49. In the right part of the scene, there is a pentagram-like formation, which may be intentional. The stone is currently missing.
Fig. 25: Photograph and drawing of stone no. 74/49.
Source: Anonymous 1977; Kabát 1949.
Stone no. 75/49, so-called stone 2
Original commentary (Váňa – Kabát 1971: 201):
“On the narrow front face of a flat stone is an engraving of a rider on a horse with a leaf-shaped winged spear. The rider has only the torso and legs marked, with one hand wielding the reins above the horse’s head. The spear is deeply engraved over both the rider and the horse. The horse has a slender body and a long tail that flares into a triangle at the bottom. Behind the rider is another smaller horse with long ears and a long tail. The rider is vertically scored with fine lines. Traces of a sharp tool on the stone surface, predating the drawing.“
Author’s note:
The original description omits the stirrup, which is discernible at one of the legs. At the rider’s knees, a wide groove is depicted, which may symbolize a sword in a scabbard. The animal behind the horse could theoretically be a roe deer, as it possesses significantly longer ears than the other identifiable horses. The stone is held in the permanent exhibition of the National Museum in Prague, Inv. No. NM 232178.
Fig. 26: Drawings of stone no. 75/49.
Source: Váňa – Kabát 1971: Fig. 68 (left); Váňa 1973a: Fig. XIX (right).
Fig. 27: Photograph of stone no. 75/49, taken at the National Museum in Prague.
Author: János Mestellér.
Stone no. 76/49, so-called stone 3
Original commentary (Váňa – Kabát 1971: 201):
“A tangle of deeper and finer lines, predominantly vertical but also horizontal and oblique, occurring singly and in clusters, covering the greater part of the stone’s front face. Beneath them is an indistinct attempt at a drawing (a small horse?). Small pits from a sharp tool are present within the drawing.“
Author’s note:
The original commentary is accurate. Of the animal, only the forepart of the body, including the head, is identifiable. The stone is currently missing.
Fig. 28: Photograph and drawing of stone no. 76/49.
Source: Anonymous 1977; Kabát 1949.
Stone no. 77/49, so-called stone 4
Original commentary (Váňa – Kabát 1971: 201):
“A drawing of a horse with a slender body, marked ears, and a simple tail, overlaid at the legs by two horizontal lines, and across the head and behind the horse by vertical lines and a double rhombus. To the left below the horse are two smaller horses (foals?) rearing against each other; the one on the right is executed more clearly and includes a marked eye. Traces of a sharp tool on the stone surface.“
Author’s note:
The original commentary is relatively accurate; the horse’s tail is again triangularly widened, though more poorly executed. The published drawings do not faithfully reflect the smaller animals (foals?). The smaller animal on the left (not the right) appears to have a marked eye. The current location of the stone is unknown, but it is likely housed in the Terezín depository of the National Museum.
Fig. 29: Drawings of stone no. 77/49.
Source: Váňa – Kabát 1971: Fig. 69 (left); Váňa 1973a: Fig. XX (right).
Fig. 30: Photograph of stone no. 77/49.
Source: Anonymous 1977; Kabát 1949.
Stone no. 78/49, so-called stone 5
Original commentary (Váňa – Kabát 1971: 201):
“On the wider side of the stone’s front face is a barely distinct drawing (probably of a small horse), covered by a tangle of lines, among which a pair of diagonally crossed lines (a cross-out) stands out. A suggestion of another small horse, without overlying lines, appears on the narrower side of the face. Traces of a sharp tool.“
Author’s note:
No redrawing exists. The stone is currently missing.
Fig. 31: Photograph of stone no. 78/49.
Source: Váňa – Kabát 1971: Fig. 14.1.
Stone no. 79/49, so-called stone 6
Original commentary (Váňa – Kabát 1971: 201):
“Suggestions of drawings of small horses, covered by a tangle of lines – mainly vertical – over almost the entire front face of the stone. Traces of a sharp tool.“
Author’s note:
The redrawing is inaccurate; the horse in the left section is clearly defined. The stone is currently missing.
Fig. 32: Photograph and drawing of stone no. 79/49.
Source: Anonymous 1977; Kabát 1949.
Stone no. 80/49, so-called stone 7
Original commentary (Váňa – Kabát 1971: 201, 204):
“A drawing of a horse with a slender neck and body, ears marked by a single vertical line across the head, a simply depicted tail, male genitalia, and a line near the hind legs, possibly suggesting motion. In front of the head are fine lines which are likely a trial drawing, as they also resemble a horse’s head.“
Author’s note:
The original commentary is accurate. The stone is held in the permanent exhibition of the National Museum in Prague, Inv. No. NM 232176.
Fig. 33: Drawings of stone no. 80/49.
Source: Váňa – Kabát 1971: Fig. 70 (left); Váňa 1973a: Fig. XXI (right).
Fig. 34: Photograph of stone no. 80/49, taken at the National Museum in Prague.
Author: János Mestellér.
Stone no. 81/49, so-called stone 8
Original commentary (Váňa – Kabát 1971: 204):
“A very primitive suggestion of a drawing (a grazing horse?), separated by a vertical line from another drawing of a heart-shaped figure. Gashes from both coarser and finer tools.“
Author’s note:
The description is accurate but fails to note the existence of a double rhombus with inscribed lines in the right half of the stone. The redrawing is incorrect as it does not depict the closed heart-shaped form on the left (which is connected to the potential head of another horse). Above the back of the main horse are two lines which could represent the incomplete torso of a rider. The stone is currently missing
Fig. 35: Photograph and drawing of stone no. 81/49.
Source: Anonymous 1977; Kabát 1949.
Stone no. 82/49, so-called stone 9
Original commentary (Váňa – Kabát 1971: 204):
“A drawing of a horse with a narrow head and body, a marked mane, and a long tail widened into a triangle at the bottom. The legs are joined in pairs; above the horse is a long horizontal line (a spear?), and fine vertical and oblique lines run across the drawing.“
Author’s note:
The original commentary is accurate. The drawings do not reflect the actual quality of the mane. The stone is held in the permanent exhibition of the National Museum in Prague, Inv. No. NM 232177.
Fig. 36: Drawing of stone no. 82/49.
Source: Váňa – Kabát 1971: Fig. 71 (left); Váňa 1973a: Fig. XXII (right).
Fig. 37: Photograph of stone no. 82/49, taken at the National Museum in Prague.
Author: János Mestellér.
Stone no. 83/49, so-called stone 10
Original commentary (Váňa – Kabát 1971: 204):
“A primitive drawing of two small horses, of which the front one is smaller with legs positioned forward, and the rear one is larger, standing, with male genitalia marked by a simple line. Small pits on the surface.“
Author’s note:
The original commentary is accurate. On the forehead of the larger animal, there are small incisions that could suggest a mane. The stone is currently missing.
Fig. 38: Photograph and drawing of stone no. 83/49.
Source: Anonymous 1977; Kabát 1949.
Stone no. 84/49, so-called stone 11
Original commentary (Váňa – Kabát 1971: 204):
“A drawing of a small horse framed by three long lines, with a group of fine oblique lines in front of the horse, perhaps suggesting grass or hay. Another group of vertical and oblique lines is located behind the horse. Small pits on the stone surface.“
Author’s note:
The original description is accurate, but bifurcated branching elements protrude from the animal’s head. For this reason, the possibility that this represents a roe deer or red deer with antlers cannot be ruled out (see Ovčarov 1982: Tab. XXII.1). The stone is currently missing.
Fig. 39: Photograph and drawing of stone no. 84/49.
Source: Anonymous 1977; Kabát 1949.
Stone no. 85/49, so-called stone 12
Original commentary (Váňa – Kabát 1971: 204):
“A rider on a horse with a marked head, rising above a large circular shield pointed at the bottom, beneath which legs reaching the ground are visible. One hand holds the reins, the other a long spear with a leaf-shaped head and wings, behind which is attached a banner with tassels bearing the sign of an oblique cross. The horse is small relative to the rider; the legs, suggesting running, are joined in a band; the ears and tail are marked by simple lines. Grooves in the upper part of the shield form the same oblique cross as on the banner. Traces of a sharp tool on the surface.“
Author’s note:
The most valuable scene in the assemblage. The original description is relatively accurate, though the drawings omit important details. The shield is more likely circular; the pointed shape is not intentional. The decoration of the shield with a cross cannot be substantiated. Below the shield, instead of legs, a leg in a stirrup may be present. A theoretical spur protrudes upward from the heel. The rear part of the spear is pointed. Stone dimensions: 31 × 20.5 cm (Militký 2000) or 29.5 × 19.7 cm (Váňa 1989). The stone is held in the permanent exhibition of the National Museum in Prague, Inv. No. NM 232175
Fig. 40: Photograph and drawing of stone no. 85/49.
Left: photograph taken at the National Museum in Prague, by János Mestellér.
Right: Váňa 1973a: Fig. 42.
Stone no. 86/49, so-called stone 13
Original commentary (Váňa – Kabát 1971: 204):
“A discontinuous tangle of fine lines, among which two pairs of vertical lines, curved upwards at the bottom, stand out.“
Author’s note:
A clear attempt to depict a tall animal – a horse or deer – with a defined head, forelegs, and back. The motif resembles scenes on stones nos. 74/49 and 76/49. The stone is currently missing.
Fig. 41: Photograph and drawing of stone no. 86/49.
Source: Anonymous 1977; Kabát 1949; Váňa – Kabát 1971: Fig. 16.1.
Stone no. 87/49, so-called stone 14
Original commentary (Váňa – Kabát 1971: 204):
“A drawing of a horse, elongated to fit the narrow, long surface of the stone; the head and neck are marked only by a pair of curved lines with two short vertical ones depicting ears. The elongated torso transitions via a curve into the hind legs, while the front legs are not distinct. Around and over the drawing are further discontinuous grooves. Small pits on the surface.“
Author’s note:
The original commentary is accurate. The stone is currently missing.
Fig. 42: Photograph and drawing of stone no. 87/49.
Source: Anonymous 1977; Kabát 1949.
Stone no. 88/49, so-called stone 15
Original commentary (Váňa – Kabát 1971: 204):
“A crudely engraved drawing of difficult-to-discern meaning and discontinuous groups of other fine lines. Small pits on the stone surface.“
Author’s note:
The original commentary is accurate. In the photograph, the most prominent feature is a rhombus with an inscribed cross. The stone is currently missing.
Fig. 43: Photograph and drawing of stone no. 88/49.
Source: Anonymous 1977; Kabát 1949.
Stone no. 89/49, so-called stone 16
Original commentary (Váňa – Kabát 1971: 204):
“On the narrow front side of a flat stone is a tangle of fine lines, from which a drawing of a small horse stands out, featuring a head made of a curved pair of lines, with a suggestion of front legs and a torso. Small pits on the surface.“
Author’s note:
The original commentary is accurate. No redrawing exists. The stone is currently missing.
Fig. 44: Photograph of stone no. 89/49.
Source: Anonymous 1977; Kabát 1949.
Stone no. 90/49, so-called stone 17
Original commentary (Váňa – Kabát 1971: 204):
“A rider on a horse with a rhomboidally marked head, a circular torso, and short legs, with a bent arm holding reins. The horse, with a slender body and head, is in motion (running), with both front and hind legs extended forward; it has marked ears, male genitalia, and a long tail widened triangularly at the tip. The drawing shows an attempt at framing with a horizontal line below the legs and vertical lines in front of and behind the horse. Over the drawing and on the surface behind it is fine striation, mostly vertical.“
Author’s note:
The original commentary is accurate. It is possible that the rider is wearing a conical helmet. The current location of the stone is unknown, but it is likely housed in the Terezín depository of the National Museum.
Fig. 45: Drawings of stone no. 90/49.
Source: Váňa – Kabát 1971: Fig. 73 (left); Váňa 1973a: Obr. XXIII (right).
Fig. 46: Photograph and drawing of stone no. 90/49.
Source: Anonymous 1977; Kabát 1949; Váňa – Kabát 1971: Fig. 17.1.
Stone no. 91/49, so-called stone 18
Original commentary (Váňa – Kabát 1971: 204):
“A dense tangle of lines, predominantly vertical, less frequently horizontal, from which pairs of curved lines (small horse heads?) emerge in places. Overlaid by a group of deeper gashes and small pits.“
Author’s note:
The original commentary is accurate. The stone is currently missing.
Fig. 47: Photograph and drawing of stone no. 91/49.
Source: Anonymous 1977; Kabát 1949.
3 stones from the bastion of the southeast gate
In 1951, excavations of the northern face of the southeastern gate’s bastion revealed three stones bearing markings described variously as “incoherent jumbles of lines” (Váňa 1973a: 59), “indistinct engravings” (Váňa – Kabát 1971: 209), or “indistinct linear engravings” (Kabát 1952b: 292). Although these blocks were extracted from the masonry (Kabát 1951), no visual documentation was ever published. The artifacts are currently unaccounted for, and their original accession numbers remain unknown.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to express their sincere appreciation to the colleagues who contributed to this study, specifically: Jiří Košta (National Museum, Prague), Zdeněk Kuchyňka (Sládeček Museum, Kladno), Naďa Profantová (Institute of Archaeology of the CAS, Prague), Michal Procházka (Czech Union for Nature Conservation Kladno Region) and Ladislav Varadzin (Institute of Archaeology of the CAS, Prague). We also extend our gratitude to Diego Flores Cartes for his willing help in preparing the illustrations. We would like to express our gratitude to János Mestellér (Kazár Bazar) for the opportunity to use his photographs.
We hope you liked reading this article. If you have any question or remark, please contact us or leave a comment below. If you want to learn more and support our work, please, fund our project on Patreon, Buymeacoffee, Revolut or Paypal.
Fig. 48: Artistic rendition of the scene from stone no. 85/49.
Author: Skele.Artist (Escuela De Arte Medieval).
A higher resolution drawing can be found here.
Bibliography
Archival materials
Anonymous (1977). Document C-TX-197702091. Archeologický ústav AV ČR, Praha, v.v.i. Available from: https://digiarchiv.aiscr.cz/id/C-TX-197702091.
Kabát, Josef (1949). Document C-TX-194900055. Archeologický ústav AV ČR, Praha, v.v.i. Available from: https://digiarchiv.aiscr.cz/id/C-TX-194900055.
Kabát, Josef (1951). Document C-TX-195104780. Archeologický ústav AV ČR, Praha, v.v.i. Available from: https://digiarchiv.aiscr.cz/id/C-TX-195104780.
Kabát, Josef (1952a). Document C-TX-195200585. Archeologický ústav AV ČR, Praha, v.v.i. Available from: https://digiarchiv.aiscr.cz/id/C-TX-195200585.
Primary sources
Cosmas : Chronicle of the Czechs = Kosmas : Kronika Čechů. Přel. Hrdina, K. – Bláhová, M. – Moravcová, M., Praha 2011.
MMFH III = Bartoňková, Dagmar – Večerka, Radoslav (2011). Magnae Moraviae fontes historici III – Diplomata, epistolae, textus historici varii, Praha.
MMFH IV = Bartoňková, Dagmar – Večerka, Radoslav (2013). Magnae Moraviae fontes historici IV – Leges, textus iuridici, Praha.
Literature
Ambros, Cyril – Müller, H. H. (1980). Frühgeschichtliche Pferdeskelletfunde aus dem Gebiet der Tschechoslowakei, Bratislava.
Ameen, Carly et al. (2021). In search of the ‘great horse’. A zooarchaeological assessment of horses from England (AD 300–1650). In: International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 31, 1247–1257.
Ascherl, Rosemary (1988). The Technology of Chivalry in Reality and Romance. In: Chickering, Howell – Seiler, T. H. (eds.). The Study of Chivalry: Resources and Approaches, Kalamazoo, MI, 263–311.
Bachrach, B. S. (1988). Caballus Et Caballarius in Medieval Warfare. In: Chickering, Howell – Seiler, T. H. (eds.). The Study of Chivalry: Resources and Approaches, Kalamazoo, MI, 173–211.
Barnea 1962 = Барня, Ион (1962). Предварительные сведения о каменных памятниках в Бассараби (обл. Добруджа). In: Dacia N.S. 6, 293-313.
Bauer, Jan (2013). Bílá místa našich dějin, Řitka.
Baumeister, Martin (1998). Grundsätzliche Überlegungen zur Rekonstruktion frühmittelalterlicher Schwertgehänge. In: Jenssen, Walter et al. (eds.). Zeitenblicke. Ehrengabe für Walter Janssen, Rahden/Westf., 157-197.
Belošević, Janko (2007). Starohrvatsko groblje na Ždrijacu u Ninu, Zadar.
Beranová, Magdalena – Lutovský, Michal (2009). Slované v Čechách. Archeologie 6.-12. století, Praha.
Bernart, Miloš (2010). Raně středověké přílby, zbroje a štíty z Českých zemí, Praha: Univerzita Karlova.
Böhm, Jaroslav (1950). Výzkum libušínského hradiště. In: Archeologické rozhledy 2, 79-87.
Böhner, Kurt (1977). Die Reliefplatten von Hornhausen. In: Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz 23-24, 89-138.
Bravermanová, Milena et al. (2019). Nová zjištění o přilbě a zbroji zv. svatováclavské. In: Archeologie ve středních Čechách 23, 235–310.
Bucherie, Luc – Salaün, Cécile (2013). Les archives de la pierre : actes graphiques bateliers au fil de la Charente (XVIIe-XXIe s.). In: Dumont, Annie – Mariotti, Jean-François (eds.). Archéologie et histoire du fleuve Charente. Taillebourg-Port d’Envaux. Une zone portuaire du haut Moyen Âge sur le fleuve Charente, Dijon, 53-79.
Cach, František (1970). Nejstarší české mince. Díl I. České denáry do mincovní reformy Břetislava I., Praha.
Černý, Pavol (2001). Kodex vyšehradský, „korunovační charakter“ jeho iluminované výzdoby a některé aspekty „politické teologie“ 11. století. In: Nechvátal, Bořivoj (ed.). Královský Vyšehrad II.: Sborník pří spěvků ke křesťanskému miléniu a k posvěcení nových zvonů na kapi t ulním chrámu sv. Petra a Pavla, Praha, 32-56.
Čtverák, Vladimír et al. (2003). Encyklopedie hradišť v Čechách, Praha.
Deguara, Josephine (2024). “I Don’t Want War in My House”: Young Children’s Meaning‐Making of War and Peace Through Their Drawings. In: Social Inclusion 12, Article 8787.
Dlouhá, Helena (2012). Motivy pohanství v české literární tvorbě 10. – 12. století, Plzeň : Západočeská univerzita v Plzni.
Dostál, Bořivoj (1966). Slovanská pohřebiště ze střední doby hradištní na Moravě, Praha.
Dostál, Bořivoj (1981). Duté trojcípé parohové předměty v raném středověku. In: Sborník prací Filozofické fakulty brněnské univerzity. E, Řada archeologicko-klasická 30, č. E26, 43-58.
Dragoun, Zdeněk (1992). Rytiny v interiéru románské Malostranské mostecké věže. In: Hojda, Zdeněk et al. (eds.). Seminář a jeho hosté. Sborník prací k 60. narozeninám doc. dr. Rostislava Nového, Praha, 21–28.
Dragoun, Zdeněk (1994). Rytiny v románské Malostranské mostecké věži v Praze a otázka jejich restaurování. In: Archaeologia historica 19, 307–317.
Dvořák, Otomar – Snětivý, Josef (2020). Krajinou prvních Přemyslovců. S českými knížaty ze Stadic, Řitka.
Eisner, Jan (1966). Rukověť slovanské archeologie. Počátky Slovanů a jejich kultury, Praha.
Frolíková-Kaliszová, Drahomíra (2011a). Možnosti poznání velkomoravských vlivů na počátky státu Přemyslovců, Praha : Univerzita Karlova.
Frolíková-Kaliszová, Drahomíra (2011b). Nové poznatky k vývoji příčného opevnění Pražského hradu – výsledky výzkumu ve Středním křídle Pražského hradu v roce 2010. In: Archaeologia historica 36, 177–191.
Frolíková-Kaliszová, Drahomíra (2023). Raně středověké pohřebiště Triangl v Praze-Střešovicích, Praha.
Gabriel, Ingo (1993). Panzerreiter-Statuette von Lisów. In: Brandt, Michael – Eggebrecht, Arne (eds.). Bernward von Hildesheim und das Zeitalter der Ottonen. Katalog der Ausstellung Hildesheim 2, Hildesheim, 335–337.
Georgiev 1991 = Георгиев, Павел (1991). Прабългарска култова церемония върху рисунки-графити с надписи от Плиска Прабългарската култова церемония върху рисунки-графити с надписи от Плиска (по времето на хан Маламир (831 – 836) // Проблеми на прабългарската история и култура 2, 198–208.
Gjorgjievski, Dejan (2015). On the symbolic representations of a few types of medieval rings. In: PATRIMONIUM.MK VIII, Skopje, 129-136.
Gřešák, Václav et al. (2019). Reconstruction of the Riding Saddle Used in Great Moravia in the 8th-9th Centuries. In: Poláček, Lumír – Kouřil, Pavel (eds.). Bewaffnung und Reiterausrüstung des 8. bis 10. Jahrhunderts in Mitteleuropa. Waffenform und Waffenbeigaben bei den mährischen Slawen und in den Nachbarländern, Brno, 373-383.
Hanuliak, Milan (2004). Veľkomoravské pohrebiská. Pochovávanie v 9.–10. storočí na území Slovenska, Nitra.
Hošek, Jiří et al. (2019). Ninth to mid-sixteenth century swords from the Czech Republic in their European context, Praha – Brno.
Chotěbor, Petr (1985). Středověké ryté kresby na stěnách interiéru baziliky sv. Jiří na Pražském hradě. In: Archeologické rozhledy 37, 628-644.
Chotěbor, Petr (2022). Středověké ryté kresby na stěnách interiéru baziliky sv. Jiří. In: Kroupa, Petr – Novák, Jan (2022). Pražský hrad – srdce českého státu, Praha, 76-81.
Imer, L. M. (2004). Gotlandske billedsten : datering af Lindqvist gruppe C og D. In: Aarbøger for nordisk oldkyndighed og historie 2001, 47-111.
Janin, V. L. (2007). Středověký Novgorod v nápisech na březové kůře, Červený Kostelec.
Jotov 2004 = Йотов, Валери (2004). Въоръжението и снаряжението от Българското средновековие VII— XI в., Варна.
Kabát, Josef (1952b). Brány na přemyslovském hradišti v Libušíně. In: Archeologické rozhledy 4, 268–269, 289–294.
Kaván, Jaroslav (1969). Slovanské lidové umění v době hradištní. In: Památky archeologické 60/2, 443–457.
Kennecke, Heike (2015). Burg Lenzen : Eine frühgeschichtliche Befestigung am westlichen Rand der slawischen Welt, Materialien zur Archäologie in Brandenburg 9, Rahden.
Koller, Rudolf (1968). Nástin regionálních dějin okresu kladenského, Kladno.
Komatarova-Balinova, Evgenia et al. (2023). Church № 4 from the Murfatlar rock complex – some newly documented graffiti along the east-west axis and their analogies. In: Pontica LVI, 161–199.
Krajník, Stanislav – Pospíšil, Zdeněk (1985). Kladensko, Praha.
Kudrnáč, Jaroslav (1950). Rytina bojovníka na hradišti v Libušíně. In: Novotný, Bohuslav (ed.). Filipův sborník. Žáci k padesátinám svého učitele, Praha, 111-114.
Langner, Martin (2001). Antike Graffitizeichnungen. Motive, Gestaltung und Bedeutung, Wiesbaden.
Lowe, Christopher (2007). Image and imagination: The Inchmarnock ‘hostage stone’. In: Smith, B. B. et al. (eds.). West over Sea. Studies in Scandinavian Sea-Borne Expansion and Settlement Before 1300, 53–67.
Luňák, Petr (2007). Slovanské štíty v archeologických nálezech na území ČR, Brno: Masarykova univerzita.
Lutovský, Michal (2001). Encyklopedie slovanské archeologie v Čechách, na Moravě a ve Slezsku, Praha.
Malivánková Wasková, Marie (2014). Návrh klasifikace historických spontánních nápisů. In: Sborník archivních prací 64, 109-150.
Mašek, Norbert (1970). Nové poznatky z výzkumu na hradišti v Praze-Butovicích. In: Archeologické rozhledy 22, 272–285.
Militký, Jiří (2000). Stein mit einer Reitergravur. In: Wieczorek, Alfried – Hinz, Hans-Martin (eds.). Europas Mitte um 1000, Katalog, Stuttgart, 165.
Měchurová, Zdeňka (1983). Třmeny a jiné součásti sedla z časně středověkého období. In: Časopis Moravského muzea – Vědy společenské 68, 61-87.
Nadolski, Andrzej (1955). Pochwa miecza znaleziona w osadzie miejskiej z XI wieku w Gdańsku. In: Wiadomości Archeologiczne XXII/2, 186–192.
Neumayer, Heino (2000). Panzerreiterstatuette. In: Wieczorek, Alfried – Hinz, Hans-Martin (eds.). Europas Mitte um 1000, Katalog, Stuttgart, 165.
Nicolle, David (2002). The Impact of the European Couched Lance on Muslim Military Tradition. In: Nicolle, David (ed.). Warriors and Their Weapons Around the Time of the Crusades: Relationships Between Byzantium, the West and the Islamic World, Aldershot, 6-40.
Nistelberger, H. M. et al. (2019). Sexing Viking Age horses from burial and non-burial sites in Iceland using ancient DNA. In: Journal of Archaeological Science 101, 115–122.
Ognenova 1950 = Огненова, Люба (1950). Рисунки на конници върху вътрешната крепост на Преслав // Разкопки и проучвания 4, 195-206.
Ovčarov 1982 = Овчаров, Димитър (1982). Български средновековни рисунки-графити, София.
Paddenberg, Dietlind (2012). Die Funde der jungslawischen Feuchtbodensiedlung von Parchim-Löddigsee, Kr. Parchim, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Wiesbaden.
Piaget, Jean (1971). The Child’s Conception of the World, London.
Piaget, Jean – Inhelder, Bärbel (1967). The Child’s Conception of Space, New York.
Podhorský, Jan – Drnovský, Pavel (2017). Raně středověké náhrobníky z Čech. In: Archeologie ve středních Čechách 21, 373-407.
Poulík, Josef (1956). Z hlubin věků, Praha.
Princová, Jarmila (2000). Fragment eines Mühlespielbrettes. In: Wieczorek, Alfried – Hinz, Hans-Martin (eds.). Europas Mitte um 1000, Katalog, Stuttgart, 176.
Profantová, Naďa (2008). Byzantské nálezy v 6.-11. stol. v Čechách a na Moravě. In: Charvát, Petr – Maříková Vlčková, Petra (eds.). Země Koruny české a východní Středomoří ve středověku a novověku, Praha, 73–120.
Profantová, Naďa (2012). Pohanský idol z Kouřimi, Česká republika. In: Studia mythologica Slavica XV, 79-90.
Profantová, Naďa (2013). Frühmittelalterliche Gräber mit Sporen aus Böhmen. In: Biermann, Felix et al. (eds.). Soziale Gruppen und Gesellschaftsstrukturen im westslawischen Raum, Langenweissbach, 57-76.
Profantová, Naďa (2019). Neue Funde von Waffen und Reitzeug aus Mittel- und Ostböhmen. In: Poláček, Lumír – Kouřil, Pavel (eds.). Bewaffnung und Reiterausrüstung des 8. bis 10. Jahrhunderts in Mitteleuropa. Waffenform und Waffenbeigaben bei den mährischen Slawen und in den Nachbarländern, Brno, 263–282.
Razím, Václav (2010). Křivoklátsko knížecí. In: Razím, Václav (ed.). Přemyslovské Křivoklátsko. 900 let hradu Křivoklátu, Praha, 78-111.
Ross, D. J. A. (1963). L’Originalité De Turoldus: Le Maniement De La Lance. In: Cahiers De Civilisation Mediévale 6, 127–138.
Sadílek, Josef (2001). Kosmovy staré pověsti ve světle dobových pramenů, Praha.
Sankiewicz, Paweł – Wyrwa, A. M. (2018). Broń drzewcowa i uzbrojenie ochronne z Ostrowa Lednickiego, Giecza i Grzybowa, Lednica.
Sklenář, Karel (1978). Okresní muzeum v Berouně. Katalog pravěké sbírky. Zprávy Československé společnosti archeologické 20, Praha.
Sláma, Jiří (1977). Poznámky k problému historického významu některých raně středověkých hradišť ve středních Čechách. In: Archeologické rozhledy 29/1, 60-79.
Sláma, Jiří (1989). Střední Čechy v raném středověku. III. Archeologie o počátcích přemyslovského státu, Praha.
Stloukal, Milan – Vyhnálek, Luboš (1976). Slované z velkomoravských Mikulčic, Praha.
Sučková, Kateřina (2003). Staročeské hrady. Slovanská hradiště v Čechách, Příbram.
Štefan, Ivo (2026). From clan leaders to medieval nobility: The elites of Bohemia in the eighth to twelfth centuries as an interpretative challenge. In: Antonín, Robert – Macháček, Jiří (eds.). The Emergence of the Nobility in East Central Europe between the Eighth and Thirteenth Centuries, Abingdon – New York.
Tomková, Kateřina (2001). Ke studiu opevnění v raně středověkých Čechách. In: Archeologie ve středních Čechách 5, 547-560.
Török, Gyula – Bökönyi, Sándor (1973). Sopronkőhida IX. századi temetője, Budapest.
Třeštík, Dušan et al. (2001). Králové a knížata zemí Koruny české, Praha.
Turek, Rudolf (1956). Nový slovanský výzkum v Čechách. In: Vznik a počátky Slovanů I, Praha, 216-238.
Vaklinov 1977 = Ваклинов, Станчо (1977). Формиране на старобългарската култура (VI-XI век), София.
Valentová, Jarmila – Tvrdík, Radek (2004). Předlokační osídlení Kolína. In: Archeologie ve středních Čechách 8, 547-583
Váňa, Zdeněk (1973a). Přemyslovský Libušín: Historie a pověst ve světle archeologického výzkumu, Praha.
Váňa, Zdeněk (1973b). Značky na keramice ze slovanských hradišť v Zabrušanech a v Bílině, okr. Teplice. In: Archeologické rozhledy 25, 196–217.
Váňa, Zdeněk (1975). Výzkum Libušína v letech 1970 a 1971. Doplňující poznámky k postavení hradiště ve středočeské oblasti. In: Archeologické rozhledy 27, 52–71.
Váňa, Zdeněk (1977). Objevy ve světě dávných Slovanů, Praha.
Váňa, Zdeněk (1983). Svět dávných Slovanů, Praha.
Váňa, Zdeněk (1988). Archeologické doklady kultu a magie u Slovanů. In: Slovenská archeológia 36/2, 343-352.
Váňa, Zdeněk (1989). 103. Kámen z hradby s rytinou jezdce; opuka. In: Kočí, Josef – Vondruška, Vlastimil (eds.). Památky národní minulosti. Katalog historické expozice Národního muzea v Praze v Lobkovickém paláci, Praha, 42.
Váňa, Zdeněk – Kabát, Josef (1971). Libušín. Výsledky výzkumu časně středověkého hradiště v letech 1949-52, 1956 a 1966. In: Památky archeologické 62, 179-313.
Varadzin, Ladislav (2004). Značky na dnech keramických nádob ve středověku. In: Studia mediaevalia pragensia 5, 165-199
Varadzin, Ladislav (2007). Značky na dnech keramických nádob ze Staré Boleslavi. In: Archeologické rozhledy 59, 53-79.
Varadzin, Ladislav (2012). Raně středověké hradiště Libušín. Hlavní poznatky z revizního zpracování výzkumů. In: Archeologické rozhledy 64, 723–774.
Vignerová, Jana et al. (2006). 6. Celostátní antropologický výzkum dětí a mládeže 2001. Česká republika. Souhrnné výsledky, Praha.
Vilímková, Milada (1972). Ryté kresby na kvádříkovém zdivu Malostranské mostecké věže v Praze. In: Obnova památek 3, 68–71.
Vlasatý, Tomáš (2022a). Wood species used for sword scabbards. In: Project Forlǫg – Reenactment and science [online]. [2025-10-31]. Available from: https://sagy.vikingove.cz/en/wood-species-used-for-sword-scabbard/.
Vlasatý, Tomáš (2022b). Lesser known aspects of the Viking shield. In: Project Forlǫg – Reenactment and science [online]. [2025-10-31]. Available from: https://sagy.vikingove.cz/en/lesser-known-aspects-of-the-viking-shield/.
Vlasatý, Tomáš (2023a). Defining Slavic shields of 9th-11th century. In: Project Forlǫg – Reenactment and science [online]. [2025-10-31]. Available from: https://sagy.vikingove.cz/en/defining-slavic-shields-of-9th-11th-century/.
Vlasatý, Tomáš (2023b). Slavic shield from the Lenzen hillfort. In: Project Forlǫg – Reenactment and science [online]. [2025-10-31]. Available from: https://sagy.vikingove.cz/en/slavic-shield-from-the-lenzen-hillfort/.
Vlasatý, Tomáš (2025a). Winged spears from the Czech Republic (8th-11th century). In: Project Forlǫg – Reenactment and science [online]. [2025-10-31]. Available from: https://sagy.vikingove.cz/en/winged-spears-from-the-czech-republic-8th-11th-century/.
Vlasatý, Tomáš (2025b). Helmet from “Salerno”, Italy. In: Project Forlǫg – Reenactment and science [online]. [2025-10-31]. Available from: https://sagy.vikingove.cz/en/helmet-from-salerno-italy/.
Vlasatý, Tomáš et al. (2023). A Carolingian Helmet from Pohansko near Břeclav (Czech Republic). Its Archaeological Context and Social Interpretation. In: Medieval Archaeology 67/2, 302-331.
Wachter, Berndt (1985). Die Oerenburg – eine unbekannte Burg der Slawen in Hannoverschen Wendland. In: Wilhelmi, Klemens (ed.). Ausgrabungen in Niedersachsen. Archäologische Denkmalpflege, 1979-1984, Stuttgart, 258-261
Wachter, Berndt (1989). Zur politischen Organisation der wendländischen Slawen vom 8. bis 12. Jahrhundert. In: Hammaburg N. F. 9, 163–173.
Walker, Kathleen et al. (2003). Understanding War, Visualizing Peace: Children Draw What They Know. In: Art Therapy: Journal of the American Art Therapy Association 20 (4), 191-200.
Wilhelm, Á. S. – Flesch, Márton (2022). A soltszentimrei nyereg újabb rekonstrukciója. In: Sudár, Balázs (ed.). Dentumoger II. Tanulmányok a korai magyar történelemről, Budapest, 197-227.
Wilke, Gerard (2014). Militaria – broń drzewcowa. Analiza formalno-typologiczna. In: Kola, Andrzej – Wilke, Gerard (eds.). Wczesnośredniowieczne mosty przy Ostrowie Lednickim Tom II: Mosty traktu poznańskiego, Kraków, 95–134.
Winterer, Christoph (2009). Das Fuldaer Sakramentar in Göttingen. Benediktinische Observanz und römische Liturgie, Petersberg.
Zorova 2007 = Зорова, Орхидеја (2007). Пентаграм во средниот век – прелиминарни истражувања врз основа на балканските примери. In: Studia Mythologica Slavica X, 51-82.
Žemlička, Josef (1997). Čechy v době knížecí (1034-1198), Praha.