Dovecote Church Un-named Saint This figure is noteworthy for a couple of features - firstly, the kremasmata, apparently of leather scales, are of an unusual shape, curving downwards at the centre - or is it upwards at the sides? Secondly, the sleeves of the white tunic have a pattern on them suggestive of armour scales. Is this a mistake of the artist which he later painted over? Or is there really armour here? And if so, what is its form? Detail of legs: the figure appears to be wearing full-length hose with a pattern of fine white dots on a dark brown background. The calves are protected with kampatoubia, rather than boots - there is a definite discontinuity between these and the footwear.

---

p.4, Byzantine Infantryman, Eastern Roman Empire c.900-1024 by Timothy Dawson
The fresco of the Forty Martyrs of Sevastê Church at Çavusin shows both infantry and cavalry. The foot soldiers’ armour is remarkably diverse. The man in the centre is protected by a lamellar klivanion supplemented by a skirt of large scales covering his lower belly and groin. (Photograph courtesy of Steven Lowe)

---

Referenced as figure 79A in Arms and armour of the crusading era, 1050-1350 by Nicolle, David. 1988 edition
79A-79C Wall-painting in subterranean church, Cappadocia, 963-69 A.D. (in situ “Dovecote Church”, Çavusin, Nevșehir province, Turkey) 79A—One of the “Forty Martyrs”, 79B-79C—donors. A number of figures among the Forty Martyrs wear armour. This particular one seems to be equipped in virtually the same way as two mounted donor figures. He and they might reflect the equipment used by the akritoi warrior élite of Byzantium’s eastern frontier. There is little reason to suppose that such arms and armour changed greatly over the following one hundred years. All three wear scale or lamellar cuirasses, the elements of which are painted in a brown colour which suggests a cuir-bouilli or hardened leather construction. Figure 79A seems to have mail chausses on his legs while his scale or lamellar cuirass appears to be divided across the abdomen, perhaps revealing a grey coloured mail hauberk beneath. Figure 79B, and less certainly fig. 79C, seem to have short sleeved mail hauberks beneath their scale or lamellar. The idea of dividing a relatively stiff cuirass across the abdomen could have made it easier to wear in the saddle, particularly at a time when a bent knee riding position was still the norm. Such armour is closer to that described in early medieval-Arabic sources than that in contemporary Byzantine writing. This could be explained by the fact that most Byzantine authors were referring to the equipment of élite troops in or around the capital, whereas the arms and armour of frontier regions like Cappadocia could have had more in common with that of their immediate foes. In this ease such foes would have been the Arab or Kurdish amirs of Syria and eastern Anatolia, not to mention the Armenians and western Iranians. It may also be significant that both mounted donor figures (79B and 79C) carry spears with bamboo or cane shafts, the weapons par excellence of the traditional Arab warrior. The sword held by fig. 79A is straight bladed but clearly single edged and has no pommel. This also brings to mind weapons from the steppes (figs. 15J-15M, 31A and 33) which was, of course, an area having considerable influence on both the Muslim and Byzantine worlds.