The Stirrup: Innovation, Invention, Adoption, and Diffusion

James L. Suhr

Clay horse statuette, complete with saddle and stirrups from the Kofun period (6th century
Japan) (Public Domain)

Assignment submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the

Master of Arts in World History, Norwich University

HI-526 Hunter-Gatherer and Agrarian Eras to 1500

Dr. Daniel Franke

19 May 2019
 James L. Suhr

The Stirrup: Innovation, Invention, Adoption, and Diffusion

The stirrup, incremental innovation, or creative invention? The earliest examples from

archeological digs, which physically appear indistinguishable from modern stirrups, are found in

third century CE China. However, from the domestication of the horse to the appearance of the

stirrup, nearly four millennia pass. Why is this? Many scholars, in various disciplines ranging

from history, anthropology, archeology, and even the medical profession, have researched the

stirrup and reached differing conclusions. Examining how something as fundamentally simple

as the stirrup failed to appear on the stage of world history almost immediately upon equid

domestication is not the purpose. The question is to ascertain by using archeology,

anthropology, other disciplines, and developmental changes in the armor and other clothing of

cavalry or horse-riding warriors to determine chronologically when the stirrup was adopted in

the various geographic areas of Eurasia. What historical literature exists specifically regarding

the stirrup that would help determine how the diffusion process functioned?

The horse (Equus Caballus) was domesticated long ago, probably in the early bronze age.

Archeologists believe domestication was initially as a food source, gradually transitioning to a

means of transportation and perhaps warfare. The exact time frame for this is unknown.

However, David W. Anthony states that archeological evidence indicates that, although

domestication of the equid began between 4500 and 3500 BC, mounted archery only “became a

widespread symbol in Iron Age Eurasia after about 800 BC” and that while raiding from

horseback probably began almost immediately, cavalry as a function did not.1 Between the

1
David W. Anthony and Dorcas R. Brown, “The Secondary Products Revolution, Horse-Riding, and Mounted
Warfare.” Journal of World Prehistory (2011) 24. DOI: 10.1007/s10963-011-9051-9. 154.

1
 James L. Suhr

advent of equine domestication and cavalry; wheeled vehicles such as wagons, and chariots were

used for both transportation and warfare.

Nonetheless, the stirrup, whether incremental innovation or outright invention, was a

catalyst to extraordinary changes to history and culture. Anthropologist H. G. Barnett indicates

that innovation is a significant basis for cultural change. He defines innovation as “any thought,

behavior, or thing that is new because it is qualitatively different from existing forms.”2 While

this definition is excessively broad in scope and therefore fundamentally lacking in the

specificity needed; the stirrup was undeniably at one point an entirely new invention. Was the

stirrup also an innovation? There is very little to no archeological or literary evidence to indicate

that the stirrup went through any form of developmental process. The adoption of the stirrup

appears to have crossed regions quite rapidly with remarkably similar constructive attributes.

There are singular archeological finds widely scattered across time and geographic regions, some

with incomplete provenance. None appear to indicate a developmental process that can

pragmatically apply to a study of the stirrup.

A. D. H. Bivar, in his article "Glyptica Iranica" examines a gem seal of Kushan origin

purported to have originated in the first century CE, similar to a stone held by the British

Museum, also alleged to be first century CE. Lyn White mentions the gem seal held by the

British Museum in both an article of 1960 and his controversial book of 1964. Both the seal

examined by Bivar and the British Museum gem seal display a “hint of an indistinct line beneath

the rider’s foot suggests that he may have been depicted as riding with hook-stirrups.”3

2
Thomas S. Robertson, “The process of Innovation and the Diffusion of Innovation.” Journal of Marketing, Vol. 31
(January, 1967) 14.
3
A. D. H. BIVAR, "Glyptica Iranica." Bulletin of the Asia Institute, New Series, 4 (1990), 195.

2
 James L. Suhr

However, there is no direct archeological provenance substantially limiting any premise of direct

stirrup adoption or usage by the Kushan, who were known to be equestrian oriented.

Picture: A. D. H. BIVAR, "Glyptica Iranica." Bulletin of the Asia Institute, New Series, 4 (1990), 194.

The position of the foot in statuary, funerary relief, and carvings is a contentious perspective in

examining the history of the stirrup. Differing opinions exist regarding the orientation of the foot

position. One group of scholars believes that the ‘ballerina’ foot position, toes pointed

downward, indicates no stirrups, while the opposite viewpoint holds that a horizontal foot

position does indicate the stirrup. As there are depictions of mounted warriors with the

‘ballerina’ foot position dating from after a society is known to have or have been likely to adopt

the stirrup, this may primarily be a stylistic representation following a cultures artistic values.

Farrokh states that the Sogdians did not use the stirrup before the Gok Turk expansion and that

Sogdian depiction of the downward pointing toe is only an example of their artistic conservatism

rather than the realism as seen in the post-Sassanian murals at Panjikent.4

This overall lack of evidence would seem to indicate that the stirrup was a

‘transcendentalist’ innovation. It is also known as the ‘inspiration of genius’ concept as

4
Kaveh Farrokh and Manouchehr Moshtagh Khorasani and Bede Dwyer. “Depictions of archery in Sassanian silver
plates and their relationship to warfare,” Revista de Artes Marciales Asiaticas. Volumen 13 (2), (Julio-Diciembre
2018).198.

3
 James L. Suhr

compared to the ‘mechanistic’ theory. The ‘mechanistic’ theory implies an accumulation of

developments over a period of time.5 A ‘mechanistic’ invention would more accurately be an

innovation per Barnett; there would be incremental developmental stages visible within history.

However, there is insufficient available evidence to indicate a previous form of the stirrup.

Instead, the stirrup seemingly appears in a form most recognizable to a modern vision, fully

formed and functioning. Marijke Van der Veen believed that her studies and those of

Schmookler, Evensen, Dyer, and Rosenberg, all of whom have studied the process of adaptations

to existing technologies indicate that skilled practitioners with their intimate understanding of

their specific requirements and resources would have developed a series of adaptations to a pre-

existing concept6. Van der Veen refers to this as the ‘micro-invention’ process. Everyone is

familiar with the incremental ‘improvements’ continually appearing in the consumer marketplace

to everyday products. The skilled artisan who is also a constant user of a product will, most

likely per Van der Veen be the innovator of a progression of improvements to that product. The

archeological and historical record currently does not show a ‘micro-invention’ stage to the

stirrup. Therefore, there appears to be no pre-existing proto-stirrup.

The Saddle and the Armor

How then did the stirrup get from third century CE China to eighth century CE Western

Europe to be mistakenly attributed to be a cause of that peculiar institution known as European

feudalism? Diffusion, the process by which an innovation spreads from its source to its end

users has been shown by sociologist Everett M. Rogers to have an orderly sequence of events.

Rogers was able to show that a diffusion curve is a typical ‘curve of distribution,’ basically a

5
Robertson, 15.
6
Marijke Van der Veen, “Agricultural Innovation: Invention and Adoption or change and Adaptation?” World
Archeology Vol. 42, No. 1 (March 2010) 7.

4
 James L. Suhr

near-perfect bell curve. While early adopters of innovation were numerically small in number,

once the initial acceptance of the invention was accomplished, there was a cumulative effect and

that there was always a group that lagged to even out the curve.7 However, is the stirrup an

innovation or an invention? Economist Abbott P. Usher believes that there are four steps to any

innovation process.

 Perception of the problem.

 A setting of the stage. A configuration of events leading to some form of necessary
change.
 An act of insight.
 The critical revision.8

Using the four steps of Usher, the stirrup is both an innovation and an invention. The concept of

the stirrup, whether copied from the Steppe Nomads or created as a response, is the invention,

while the adoption and dissemination is the innovation.

This sequence raises a series of additional questions. Was a lack of stirrups an actual

problem? The Scythians have generally been considered the pinnacle of equestrian archery and

cavalry by many scholars for their era. Originally from the Eurasian Steppe, the Scythians moved

into the Near East south of the Caucasus Mountains, which brought them into contact with the

Assyrians, whose empire stretched from Egypt to Iran.9 At that time, 8th century BCE, non-

steppe equestrianship and cavalry were still in its infancy. Chariot oriented warfare still

predominated, although the Assyrian light cavalry was beginning to surpass the chariot in

effectiveness. Previously unarmored or lightly armored, the Scythians gained the armor

7
Robertson, 16.
8
Robertson, 16.
9
Erich B. Anderson, Cataphracts: Knights of the Ancient Eastern Empires. (South Yorkshire: Pen & Sword
Military, 2016). 7

5
 James L. Suhr

technology of the Assyrians. The Scythians took this rudimentary scale, or lamellar armor of the

Assyrians and expanded the protective coverage to include not just the cuirass, but the belt, thigh

and leg guards, shields, and helmets. The Scythians prized their new scale armor so much that

the mounts of the wealthiest began to receive chest armor. After the armor began to cover both

the rider and the horse a new category of cavalry developed, that of heavy cavalry. New

weapons commensurate with the additional armor dictated different tactics, longer spears, lances,

and differently configured swords. Archery dominated the tactics of the light cavalry, after a hail

of arrows the new heavy cavalry would charge with their lances and spears.10 Over the next

several centuries, the Scythians continued to move and expand their territories. Through their

dominance of the trade with the Black Sea communities and the Hellenes, the Scythian armor

began to add elements of Grecian helmets, cheek pieces, neck guards, and solid metal greaves.11

Anderson states that “most of the ancient accounts and archaeological evidence suggest that the

Scythians were the first highly skilled horsemen of the Eurasian steppes to fully embrace

extensive armour for both the rider and the mount of the heavy cavalry.”12

The Scythians did not possess a ‘treed’ saddle. Instead, they used a soft saddle consisting

of a shaped pad without wood or metal structural components for shaping. Mary Aiken Littauer

mentions explicitly that the ‘treed’ saddle (a saddle with paired longitudinal supports between

the front and back bows) can be considered a requirement for stirrups. She states that therefore,

it is futile to look for stirrups before any evidence of the correct type of saddle to attach them.

However, she continues and indicates that stirrups have been used in other parts of the far East

with flat pad saddles, which limits any claims linking stirrups with specific saddle designs, such

10
Erich B. Anderson, Cataphracts: Knights of the Ancient Eastern Empires. (South Yorkshire: Pen & Sword
Military, 2016). 8-9.
11
Anderson, 11.
12
Anderson, 13.

6
 James L. Suhr

as the statements made by László Bartosiewicz.13 The Scythians also did not possess the stirrup.

Elena Stepanova of the State Hermitage Museum in Russia, along with a talented staff of leather

workers, historians, and archeologists reconstructed a Scythian saddle from the Pazyryk grave

barrow number 3. “Pazyryk saddles are a variant of soft saddles of the Scythian type which were

widely used in the world from the 7th century BCE through the 2nd century CE.”14 Stepanova

indicates as well that starting in the fifth through the fourth centuries BCE, saddles of the

Scythian type are found beyond the boundaries of the steppe, “as evidenced in numerous images

from various regions, from Greece to China.”15 Pazyryk Barrow number 3 has been

dendrochronologically dated to 300-250 BCE, contemporaneous with other early Scythians and

the Hunno-Sarmatians.16 There were a total of ten saddles found in barrow number 3. Nine of

which are typical Scythian, the other possibly a ‘Chinese’ import per Stepanova in a separate

paper from 2002. “In its proportions and structural features it is similar to the saddles on the

terracotta Qin horses and on the saddle from Subashi: the flat panels….the even and widely

spaced quilting.…the low supports with oval plates covered in Chinese lacquer, the presence of

additional openings for pendants on the rear supports.”17 Subashi is in the Taklamakan Desert on

the ancient Silk Road, in present-day Xinjiang, China. Rear pendants are typical for Chinese

saddles of this era; the Scythians did not use that particular decoration. After the reconstruction

of the saddle, it was tested by two different professional equestrians on two different horses.18

Stepanova concluded that “the saddle performed beautifully, even when, spooked by a dog, the

13
Mary Aiken Littauer, “Early Stirrups” Antiquity, 55 No. 214 (July 1981), 101.
László Bartosiewicz, "Ex oriente equus... A brief history of horses between the Early Bronze Age and the Middle
Ages." Studia Archaeologica 12 (2011), 1-2.
14
Elena V. Stepanova, "RECONSTRUCTION OF A SCYTHIAN SADDLE FROM PAZYRYK BARROW №
3." The Silk Road 14 (2016), 1.
15
Stepanova, 1.
16
Stepanova, 1.
17
Stepanova, 9.
18
Stepanova, 13.

7
 James L. Suhr

horse reared up with its rider. [The rider remained firmly seated.] The general opinion was

positive; the saddle was comfortable for rider and horse….riding without stirrups on it was easier

than with a hard saddle and was much more comfortable than with no saddle at all. The horses

were calm and displayed no dissatisfaction with the unaccustomed harness.”19 Stepanova

continues her hypothesis regarding the saddles as depicted on Bosphoran funeral reliefs, frescos,

and terracottas. Previously these depictions have been presented as a ‘special’ type of hard

saddle, Roman ‘horn,’ or Parthian saddles. However, the Scythian saddle, as recreated by

Stepanova, displays a far greater correspondence in appearance and possible use.

“Depictions of soft saddles of the Scythian type on Bosphoran reliefs: 1) The stele of Cleon, son of Cleon; 2) the
Stele of Daphno, son of Psicharion: 3) the stele of Julius Patius, son of Demetrius: 4-6) replica of the Scythian
Saddle from Pazyryk Barrow No. 3.”20

19
Stepanova, 13-14.
20
Stepanova, 15.

8
 James L. Suhr

Overall, the design, construction, and testing indicate remarkable stability when riding. The

structural design is not a ‘treed’ saddle per Littauer yet shows capability for mounted warfare per

Drews and Anderson. Therefore, it can be postulated that the Steppe nomads, in particular, the

Scythians, perceived no issue with not having stirrups. It is the ever-increasing weight of armor

and horse armor, barding, that perhaps led to the invention of the stirrup in China and the rapid

adoption of this innovative device across the Steppe and into West Asia and Europe, both

because of the stirrup’s novelty and usefulness.

Ralph Linton stated in 1936 that “Diffusion really includes three fairly distinct processes;

Presentation of the new cultural element or elements to the society, acceptance by the society,

and the integration of the accepted element or elements into the preexisting culture.”21 James

W. Dearing indicates that early adopters tend to do so because of the novelty, and they have little

to lose.22 This step is followed by Roger’s model, in that once the initial reluctance is overcome,

the innovation is adopted because others have already done so. The initial adoption of stirrups by

the Chinese as well as the Byzantines appears to follow A. D. Bivar’s admonition that “No

technology is more quickly taken up by man from his neighbors….than that of self-

preservation.”23 The sedentary Chinese were not enjoying the depredations of the Steppe

Nomads raids and demands for tribute.

Separated by nearly a thousand years and many more miles, the author of the Strategikon

and King Wuling of Zhao in China in 307 BCE both specified that their troops were to adopt the

clothing and equipment of the barbarians. “King Wuling of Zhao ordered his chariot troops to

21
James W. Dearing, “Applying Diffusion of Innovation Theory to Intervention Development.” Research on Social
Work Practice, Volume 19 Number 5 September 2009,
22
Dearing, 506.
23
A. D. H. Bivar, “Cavalry Equipment and Tactics on the Euphrates Frontier.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers. Vol. 26
(1972) 271-291

9
 James L. Suhr

adopt the clothing of the barbarians (trousers and tight sleeves in place of flowing robes) and [to]

practice mounted archery as cavalry.24 The steppe nomads were mounted archers, equipped with

powerful short armed recurve bows. Capable of releasing a number of arrows in a matter of

seconds, a massed charge and arrow release could rain a veritable hail of sharp missiles upon

their foe. An abundance of aerial missiles can seriously negatively impact any army. This aerial

bombardment of sharp objects led to a change in armor. Specifically, additional armor for the

cavalry, both the rider and the horse. Herodotus wrote in his History 7.61 that the Persian

Infantry at Doriscus wore “on their bodies embroidered sleeved tunics, with scales of iron like

the scales of fish in appearance.”25 Indeed, lamellar armor for infantry pre-dates the stirrup and

is observed in 15th to the 10th centuries BCE in the Near East, Egypt, Syria, Cyprus and up into

northern Iran.26 In China, some Qin and early Han (3rd century CE) cavalry were equipped with

simple lamellar armor. Additionally, at the beginning of the 3rd century CE, the first literary

examples of horse armor are mentioned in China. By the fourth century, the mentions of horse

armor number in the thousands as evidenced by notes commenting on the capture of thousands

of armored horses in a single battle.27 Dien concludes in his research that heavily armored

horses are visible in many cave paintings and grave murals from the fourth to sixth centuries CE

from Mai-chi-shan, Tun-Huang (sixth century CE) and the tomb of Tung Shu (d. 357 CE). Fully

caparisoned horses with full multi-piece armor are depicted. Battle scenes from the Koguryo

period (fifth century CE) show that “there is a fully armored horse, with what seems to be plate

24
David A. Graff, Medieval Chinese Warfare: 300-900. (New York: Routledge, 2002), 22.
Xinru Liu Xinru and Lynda Norene Shaffer. Connections Across Eurasia: Transportation, Communication, and
Cultural Exchange on the Silk Roads (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2007), 23
25
D. T. Potts, “Cataphractus and kamandar; Some Thoughts on the Dynamic Evolution of Heavy Cavalry and the
Mounted Archers in Iran and Central Asia.” Bulletin of the Asia Institute, New Series, Vol. 21 (2007), 150.
26
Potts, 154.
27
Graff, 42.

10
 James L. Suhr

armor in front, a plate neck guard, and full chanfron.”28 A chanfron is the piece of horse armor

designed to fit and protect the horses long and vulnerable face. It may include flexible cheek

protectors and sometimes a decorative rondel with a spike in the center of the forehead just

between or above the eyes. The outline of the chanfron can be quite distinctively seen in tomb

drawings from Chao-t’ung-hou-hai-tzu, Yunnan dated 385-394 CE.29 Dien concludes that

“heavy armor and horse barding may develop without the stirrup, as they seem to have done in

Southwest Asia and some parts of Central Asia. However, in China, the appearance of the two

seem to coincide.”30 The addition of elaborate and multi-pieced armor for the horse indicates the

value in preserving the life of the cavalry mount. Therefore, Chinese expansion of horse armor

and barding are contemporaneous with the advent of the stirrup. Graff indicates as well that

horse armor began to appear in China after the Han Dynasty lost power along with new patterns

of edged weapons. “All [the] elements of the complex were present by the middle of the fourth

century at the very latest.”31

On the other side of the Steppe, during the same third through fifth centuries CE, the

military powers were the Sassanians, successors to the Parthians and the Iranian heavy cavalry

traditions of the cataphractoi. Conversely, the Sassanians have previously not been considered

to have utilized the stirrup. However, Kaveh Farrokh in his research has concluded that the

assertion that the Sassanians failed to adopt the stirrup is untenable. He refers to the Marlik

stirrups, found in Iran which date to the late sixth-early seventh century CE, at a minimum

indicate adoption by the Sassanians at least by that time.32 Farrokh also mentions stirrups

28
Albert E. Dien, “A Study of Early Chinese Armor” Artibus Asiae, Vol 43, No. 1/2, (1981), 37.
29
Dien, 37.
30
Dien, 38.
31
Graff, 41.
32
Kaveh Farrokh. The Armies of Ancient Persia: The Sassanians. (South Yorkshire: Pen & Sword Military, 2017).
107.

11
 James L. Suhr

currently held by the Irkutsk and Frunze museums of Turkic provenance dating from the 500’s

CE. He continues and indicates that his research, as well as that of Michalak and Herrman,

indicates that the later Savaran (the Pahlavi term used by Farrokh to indicate a cavalryman both

armed and armored on an armored horse) used stirrups. Michalak because of “the firm settling

in the [the] saddle and the position of the legs” on the carvings of the knight at Taghe Bostan.

Herrman because of the design of the saddle on the same carving.33 Erich Anderson concurs,

also referencing Michalak and Herrman in that after the third century the Sassanians developed a

new saddle with a raised bow and removed the rear horns.34 A possibly specious opinion that the

rearward stability offered by the posterior horns was no longer needed as stirrups had been

adopted. However, there is no archeological evidence to indicate such an event, at least none has

been presented to recent scholarship. Evidence does exist that during the latter half of the fifth

century during the reign of the Sassanian Emperor Peroz I (d. 484) the battles with the

encroaching Hephthalite Huns went badly. It has been speculated that these Huns had already

adopted the stirrup, which would explain their triumphs over the Sassanians.35

However, the Sassanian Empire survived their encounters with the Eastern Romans, the

Byzantines, as well as the Hephthalite Huns, but the expanding armies of Islam triumphed.

David Nicolle has indicated that the Prophet Mohammed commented in a hadith about the

Persian Sassanians and their use of stirrups in the Sassano-Byzantine wars of 603-628 CE.36

Markus Mode indicates that his interpretation of the carvings on the monument at Taq-I Bustan

show that it depicts King Yezdegard III (r. 633-651 CE) and that the extensive Turkic nomad

33
Farrokh, 310-311.
34
Anderson, Erich B. Cataphracts: Knights of the Ancient Eastern Empires. (South Yorkshire: Pen & Sword
Military, 2016). 89.
35
Anderson, 97.
36
Farrokh, 310-311.

12
 James L. Suhr

influences reflected in the carving, even though the lower portions have been damaged, show

that the late Sassanians possessed and used the stirrup. Mode states that the quiver used by

Yezdegard III, the last Sassanian king, is similar in shape and attachment to those used by the

Avars, who were known to possess the stirrup.37 At the end of their Empire, the Sassanians

appear to have had stirrups.

The Macedonians and Hellenes of Alexander’s cavalry were known to have less armor

than the Persians; nearly all the Greek horses were unarmored. However, the Hellenistic cavalry

was equipped with larger horses and longer lances and spears. How then, did heavy armored

cavalry develop in Western Asia without the stirrup? The Persians, precursors to the Sassanians,

according to many scholars started with mounted infantry archers only using the horses for

transportation to battle with substantial changes after encountering the Scythians. D. T. Potts

indicates that it was “Alexander the Great’s recruitment of east Iranian (Bactrian, Sogdian,

Scythian, Zarangian, Arian, and Parthian) cavalry into his Companion cavalry that introduced the

Turanian [style] tactics” that was to have such a profound influence on the armies of the

successor states of the Seleucids and even the Romans.38 The Turanian hypothesis was initially

presented by Eugene Darko, who emphasized the similarities in tactics as used by the Scythians

against the Persians, the Parthians against the Huns of Attila, and the Avars against the Turks.

Darko specified that the Turanian tactics were a shared community of culture across the Turanian

plains; defined as the steppe from the Aral Sea encompassing from the Oxus (Amu Darya) and

the Jaxartes (Syr Darya) rivers into West Asia. The Jaxartes is traditionally considered the

37
Marcus Mode, “Art and Ideology at Taq-I Bustan, The Armored Equestrian” in Arms and Armour as Indicators of
Cultural Transfer, ed. M. Mode and J. Tubach (Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag, 2006), 393-402.
38
D. T. Potts, 151-152.

13
 James L. Suhr

farthest point Alexander the Great reached before encountering serious native resistance.39

Berthold Laufer believes that the creation of heavy armor initiated from the region of Iran and

thence spread outward influencing China, Central Asia, and Siberia.40

Whether or not heavily armored cavalry originated in Iran seems redundant.

Asclepiodotus in his Tactica of the first century BCE section 1.3 “now the cavalry, which fights

at close quarters, uses a very heavy equipment, fully protecting both horses and men with

defensive armour, and employing, like hoplites, long spears.” Strabo, also first century BCE,

indicates that the Caucasian Albanians “still they fight both on foot and on horseback, both in

light armour and as cataphracts, like the Armenians.”41 Strabo also mentions that the

Sarmatians, apparently because of their full and most likely heavy armor, were helpless when

they fell from their horses.42 Arrian indicates that the Scythians defeated by Darius as part of the

Persian army on the banks of the Jaxartes wore defensive armor.43 Armor appears to be well

developed, universal, and in widespread usage across West and Central Asia.

The Chinese seem to have invented the stirrup simultaneously with their development of

extensive protective horse barding and cavalryman armor as a response to the steppe nomad

incursions into Chinese territory. The mounted warriors of the Steppe have not been traditionally

as heavily armored, either personally or upon their horses, as the cavalries of China, Persia,

Sogdia or other sedentary populations of this era. Potts does conclude that “stimuli and

technology moved in many directions over the course of a millennium and the story of

39
Frank Lee Holt. Alexander the Great and Bactria: the formation of a Greek frontier in central Asia. Vol. 104.
(Brill Archive, 1988). 53.
40
Potts, 150.
41
Anderson, 42. From Strabo 11.4.4
42
Dien, 38.
43
Potts, 153. Arrian 4.4.4 Herodotus, Hist. 1.215

14
 James L. Suhr

technology transfer between Iran and Central Asia, at least in the realm of heavy armour for both

horse and rider, was never a simple matter of diffusion from East to West or West to East.”44

In China, increased and heavy armor for both the cavalry and the horses coincided with

the stirrup. In Western Asia and Europe, heavy armor predated stirrups by more than several

centuries. Patryk Skupniewicz indicates that while Sassanian horse armor and barding are

similar to Chinese armor of the same age, there is no correlation between Chinese heavy cavalry

and the Sassanian Cataphract. However, those similarities in design, supplemented by Greco-

Roman literary evidence indicate that more substantial horse tack and armor resulting from the

creation of stirrups can be compared. Skupniewicz outright states that stirrups originated in

China but did not indicate a date for this momentous happenstance.45 Armor does indeed appear

to gain in mass and quantity with the adoption of the stirrup.

Chinese armor before the adoption of the stirrup is summarized by Yang Hung who

concludes that at least from the Shang (1700-1027 BCE) to the Warring States period (475-221

BCE) lacquered leather was the chief body armor. Twelve complete suits of lacquered leather

armor found in a tomb at Sui-hsien, Hupei, China date to 433 BCE or shortly after.46 Yang Hung

also believe that iron armor existed as early as the Warring States period and that defensive

armor for the horse had its origins in the Han Dynasty, with a “phenomenal increase in the use of

armor from the fourth century on.”47 The traditional words for armor were chia and chieh. In

the Han era, the ‘metal’ radical symbol began to appear. K’ai began to supplement chia.

Archeological finds of actual iron-scale armor from Lo-Yang and Erh-shih-chia-tzu in Inner

44
Potts, 156
45
Patryk Skupniewicz, "Sasanian horse armor." Historia i Świat3 (2014), 52.
46
Dien, 6.
47
Dien, 5.

15
 James L. Suhr

Mongolia have been found dating to the late Han period. The suit of armor depicted in the

reliefs at I-nan is similar to the Erh-shih-chia-tzu armored suit. The complete suit of armor from

Erh-shih-chia-tzu “consisted of a row of plates designed to protect the neck, four or five rows of

plates for the chest and back, joined along the sides, short sleeve to protect the shoulders, and

finally, three rows at front and back forming a kind of tasset or thigh guard….the suit was

composed of some 500 lamellae and estimated to have weighed twenty-two lbs.”48

The Stirrup in Writing

The first mention of the stirrup in Western European literature is in the Strategikon of

Maurice from the early seventh century CE. The original Strategikon was written in the Greek

vernacular instead of the upper-class scholarly style, being intended for the average commanding

officer. As translated by George Dennis; “The saddles should have large and thick cloths; the

bridles should be of good quality; attached to the saddles should be two iron stirrups, a lasso with

thong, hobble, a saddle bag large enough to hold three or four days’ rations for the soldier when

needed….the men’s clothing, especially their tunics, whether made of linen, goat’s hair or rough

wool, should be broad and full, cut according to the Avar pattern, so that can be fastened to cover

the knees while riding and give a neat appearance.”49 Dennis, the translator, makes a note that

the Greek word used in the original text is skala, (step or stair). The stirrup had only recently

come into use in Byzantine territories, and they had not yet invented a particular word for it.

Vasco La Salvia indicates that the context in which stirrups are mentioned in the Strategikon

implies that this innovative device was clearly an Avar import, and an object to be adopted for

48
Dien, 13.
49
Maurice Tiberius, Maurice’s Strategikon: Handbook of Byzantine Military Strategy.” trans. George T. Dennis.
(Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1984), 13.

16
 James L. Suhr

military purposes.50 Petr Shuvalov states that a philological analysis of the words used for

stirrups in Western Europe, stroppu/streup, and before the term scalae or the Hellenized skala

penetrated Eastern Europe indicates that stirrups were known no earlier than 472 CE but before

the dictionary of Hesychius. Hesychius, predating the Strategikon by at least a full century.

Shuvalov also believes that the term stroppu/streup may indicate a stirrup constructed of soft

materials such as wood as introduced by the Gothic foederati in the late fourth-first half of the

fifth centuries CE and later the Avars, after 562.51 Karantabias agrees and further indicates that

the adoption of the stirrup by the Byzantines, specifically by the Emperor Herakleios, allowed

the Byzantines to inflict crushing defeats upon the Sassanians at Ophalimos, Tigranocerta, and

Nineveh.52 Because of Sassanian conservativism, they had not yet adopted the stirrup, whereas

the Byzantines had, even though the Avars had been preying on both empires. Herakleios had

forced an extensive reconfiguring and training program on his army with particular attention to

the admonitions of the Strategikon. The steppe nomads “give special attention to training in

archery on horseback” and “prefer battles fought at long range, ambushes, encircling their

adversaries, simulated retreats and returns, and wedge-shaped formations, that is, in scattered

groups.”53 These steppe nomads are specified as “Avars, Turks, and Others Whose Way of Life

Resembles that of the Hunnish Peoples.”54 Theophanes called the Avars the ‘Western Huns.’55

50
Vasco La Salvia, "Germanic populations and Steppe people: an example of the integration of material cultures:
the diffusion of the Stirrup in the eastern Merovingian area." Chronica 11 (2011), 80.
51
Petr V. Shuvalov, “Two Iron Stirrups” in ΚΟΙΝΟΝ ΔΩΡΟΝ: Studies and Essays in Honour of Valerii P.
Nikonorov on the Occasion of his Sixtieth Birthday presented by Friends and Colleagues. Compiled and
Edited by Alexander A. Sinitsyn and Maxim M. Kholod (St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg State University,
2014) 575-576 (English synopsis of Russian paper, translation by Google)
52
Karantabias, Mark-Anthony. “the Crucial Development of Heavy Cavalry under Herakleios and His Usage of
Steppe Nomad Tactics” Hirundo: The McGill Journal of Classical Studies, Volume IV (2005-2006),38-39
53
Karantabias, 38. Strategikon 11.1.
54
Karantabias, 38. Strategikon 11.1.
55
Karantabias, 30.

17
 James L. Suhr

The Avars were Turkic steppe nomads causing just as many problems to the Byzantines

as the Xiongnu were causing the nascent Chinese sedentary populations 800 years earlier. The

elite leadership of these regions perceived the problem. Steppe Nomads are raiding, invading,

taking the property of, and killing the taxpaying subjects. The problem and the setting of events

have been established per Usher. Next up in the process is the insight that these nomads are not

conducting warfare in the same manner. It would be useful to fight them with the same tactics

and weapons. An elite leader issues a decree that the soldiers conduct war the nomad way.

Dress like them, fight like them, use the same types of weapons. Alofs explicitly iterates that

“cavalry can only attack or flee; it cannot defend.” The Strategikon (c. 600), al-Tabari (c.9th-10th

CE), al-Harawi (12th CE), and al-Ansari (14th CE), tactical manuals, all specify that the

conventional wisdom is that infantry should deal with infantry and cavalry should deal with

cavalry.56

Archeology

Littauer states that the most commonly accepted opinion held regarding stirrups and how

they arrived in Europe is that of Bivar. While White references Bivar, it appears that both

discounted stirrups constructed of any substance other than iron. Whereas White outright

dismissed wooden stirrups as too fragile.57 Littauer indicates that many modern stirrups in

diverse regions of the world are constructed of wood. The archeologic fragility of wooden

stirrups would limit grave finds.58 A decree of the Caliph al-Mutawakkil ordered that Christians

56
Eduard Alofs, “Studies on Mounted Warfare in Asia III: The Iranian Tradition – Cavalry Equipment, Infantry, and
Servants c. CE 550-1350,” War in History, Vol. 22 (2), (2014),147.
57
White, Medieval Technology and Social Change.19.
58
Mary Aiken Littauer, “Early Stirrups” Antiquity, 55 No. 214 (July 1981), 101.
However eighth and ninth century CE wooden stirrups have been found in Mongolia, in the permafrost
areas

18
 James L. Suhr

and all the rest of the ahl al-dhimmi were to only ride on saddles with wooden stirrups.59 This

decree dates from 850 CE and would seem to indicate that wooden stirrups were relatively

standard in the dar-al-Islam but specifically defined for those of lesser social-religious-political

status. Albert Dien mentions that a pair of stirrups found in a Xianbei (early-mid 4th century,

believed to be contemporaneous with Xiaomintun) tomb at Yuantaisi near Liaoning China has a

construction dissimilar to other finds of the area. “A wooden core, perhaps of rattan, is bound

with leather and then lacquered, with a painted cloud design in red.60 There are also

archeological finds of wood stirrups found in the tomb of Feng Sifu’, who died in 415,

manufactured with a core of mulberry wood covered in nailed gilded bronze plates.

Additionally, stirrups found in Tomb 78 at Wanbaoting (early 4th century) and Tomb 96 at

Qixingshan (early 5th century) also have wood cores with nailed bronze plates covering the

exterior surfaces.61 Dien concludes, with ample archeological evidence. “Thus one finds from

the fourth century onward, in North China, in northeast Asia, along the Yalu, farther south into

Korea, and even into Japan, the appearance of a particular type of stirrup: oval, flat, and with a

rather long handle, with either a wooden core covered by gilded bronze or iron plate or one

forged entirely from iron.”62 Therefore, attempting to track or calculate the invention or

dissemination of stirrups solely by the existence of metal stirrups, far more common in western

Asia and Europe, and ignoring the possibility or actual existence of wood cored stirrups is, at

best inaccurate and misleading. However, again, the archeologic fragility of wooden stirrups

limits scholarship directly relating to the dissemination of stirrups due to the lack of physical

evidence. Iron stirrups or metal clad stirrups remain archeologically stable. Wood cored or

59
Bat Ye’or, The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians under Islam (Cranbury: Associated University Press, 1985), 185.
60
Albert E. Dien, “The Stirrup and Its Effect on Chinese Military History” Ars Orientalis, Vol. 16 (1986),
61
Dien, “The Stirrup and Its Effect on Chinese Military History” 34.
62
Dien, “The Stirrup and Its Effect on Chinese Military History” 35.

19
 James L. Suhr

based ‘soft’ stirrups appear first in China, replaced with the far more durable and stable solid

iron stirrups within a few centuries.

Conversely, the archeological finds of stirrups in the west are of iron. Florin Curta

expounds on the evidence of pre-seventh century stirrups found in the Middle Volga region; near

other finds dating to the late fifth and early sixth centuries, and does agree with Bivar that the

Avars may have adopted the stirrup from other steppe nomads in Central Asia.63 Curta does

repeat the possibly incorrect assumption, per Littauer, that a ‘treed’ saddle is necessary for the

use of stirrups.64 There are extensive archeological finds of iron stirrups in Eastern Europe.

What of Western Europe, where Lyn White believed the stirrup caused feudalism? Before the

Carolingian period, stirrups in both archeology and literature are rare west of the Lombards. The

Golden Psalter of St. Gall (883-888 and 890-900), mentioned by White in his book, does depict

western knights mounted on horseback using stirrups.

65

63
Curta, 308-309.
64
Curta, 313.
65
https://www.e-codices.unifr.ch/en/doPages ubleview/csg/0022/140/Sequence-239, pages 140-141.

20
 James L. Suhr

Archeological finds in Italian necropoli indicate that different styles, sizes, and types of

stirrups have been found in multiple locations which do not correspond to descriptions of the

stirrups as found in the Strategikon, nor do they match other existing Avar stirrups as found on

the Pontic-Caspian Steppe or in other locations in Italian graves. La Salvia indicates his belief

that these stirrups are intended for women. An implicit conclusion could be that stirrups were

more common than previously thought if women, non-combatants, were riding horses using

stirrups. The similarities between stirrups, along with other grave goods, “make it clear that

significant relationships existed between these areas and the Carpathian Basin.”66 La Salvia

expands this concept by verifying with archeological evidence that there were long-distance

trade connections between the Alamanno-Bavarian zones, Italy, the Byzantine territories, and the

Avar territories. At a minimum, the Eastern Merovingian territories, the Lombard Kingdoms,

Alemannia, and Bavaria had a highly relevant role in trade. Trade would have included artifacts,

jewelry, people, animals, and the technology of the stirrup between the end of the sixth and the

middle of the seventh centuries.67 “The appearance of the stirrup in Italy and generally in the

Eastern Merovingian area, an object that is outside the classical heritage of these territories but

rather points to an East-Central European influence, must be considered as proof of the people

mentioned above's presence and influence in this geographical area.”68

Dissemination

László Bartosiewicz, a Hungarian anthropologist, views the horse as producing three

essential Secondary Products that do not require killing the animal, food products such as milk

and useful and practical items such as hair and wool, labor factors such as work or transportation,

66
Ibid, 86.
67
Ibid, 91.
68
Ibid, 92.
21
 James L. Suhr

and as a companion animal indicating social status. Bartosiewicz states that these relationships

between these aspects, food, mount, and symbol vary between geographic areas but are present

in all the Steppe cultures.69 The Steppe cultures, vast and diverse across thousands of miles of

desert, forest, and grassy plain appear to affect people everywhere they interact with the

sedentary cultures and civilizations of the East and West. Maliya Aihaiti believes that the

Hephthalitiai peoples from the Altai mountains, because of their connections to the Rouran

Khaganate, the Sogdian states, the Sassanian Empire, and the Indus Valley and the demonstrated

similarities between the archeological artifacts of the Altai Hephthalites and the Tian Shan

regions provided a pathway for the dissemination of the iron stirrup.70 The Tian Shan is part of

the Himalayan Orogenic belt and stretches 1,800 miles eastward from Tashkent Uzbekistan.71

Valentina I. Raspopova states that in the seventh century, all Sogdian horsemen were depicted

with stirrups based on her analysis of the Panjikent murals.72 The Sogdians, who lived in

present-day Uzbekistan, were the most visible trading community in the eastern part of Eurasia

as well as reaching to Byzantium and Sassanid Iran. The Sogdians were also economically

influential in China. A large number of Sogdians lived, traded, took Chinese names, and were

buried in China, both in Chinese style and Sogdian style graves.73 Beginning in the era of the

Northern Wei (386-534 CE), through the Northern Qi (550-577 CE) and into the Tang Dynasty

(618-906 CE) the Chinese government office that dealt with foreign traders used a transliterated

69
László Bartosiewicz, "Ex oriente equus... A brief history of horses between the Early Bronze Age and the Middle
Ages." Studia Archaeologica 12 (2011), 1-2,
70
Maliya Aihaita and Lin Meicun, “The Rise of Hephthalitai People and the Early Spreading of Iron Stirrups from
China to the Central Asian Steppes” (from the English synopsis of an unpublished paper in Chinese at
Academia.edu)
71
www.nationalgeographic.com
72
Valentina I. Raspopova, “Sogdian Arms and Armour in the Period of the Great Migrations” in Arms and Armour
as Indicators of Cultural Transfer, ed. M. Mode and J. Tubach (Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag, 2006), 79-
95.
73
Dien, Albert E. “The Tomb of the Sogdian Master Shi: Insights into the Life of a Sabao” The Silk Road 7. (2009)
42-50

22
 James L. Suhr

word of sabao, initially the Sogdian sartapao which in turn had been transliterated from the

Sanskrit sarthavaha. ‘caravan leader.’74 Valerie Hansen indicates that the Sogdians who lived,

worked, and traded from the region of Samarkand contributed significantly to the transmission of

technology, ideas, and art across the entirety of the Silk Road. The trade between Sogdiana and

China reached its apex in the 500-800 CE time frame.

Khotan Votive Plaque sixth century CE. Khotan is on the Southern Silk Road.75 Note the stirrups on the horse.

Additionally, Skupniewicz also states that the transregional Turkic khaganate aided in the

geographic dissemination of the stirrup, better weapons, improved armor, and general military

technology. Skupniewicz continues and indicates that the Steppe dwellers were part of the

cultural exchange and technological development progressing at this time.76 Roman silk arrived

74
Xinru Liu and Lynda Norene Shaffer. Connections Across Eurasia: Transportation, Communication, and Cultural
Exchange on the Silk Roads (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2007), 123.
75
Catherine Johns, Horses History Myth Art (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2006), 154.
76
Patryk Skupniewicz, "Sasanian horse armor." Historia i Świat3 (2014), 52.

23
 James L. Suhr

in Rome, having passed through Sogdiana on the long, arduous journey from China. In Palmyra

in present-day Syria, once the Roman Border with the Parthians, archeologists have found silk

textiles woven in Han China. Dating from the first and second centuries CE this indicates

extensive mercantile traffic.77 On the east coast of China sculptures dated from the second

century CE have been found carved in the Kushan style. These sculptures depict the clothing of

the Buddhist worshippers in the distinctive style of the Kushan horse nomads.78 Travel, both

east to west and west to east across the Silk Road predates the stirrup. The steppe nomads, of

various tribes, groups, and regions interacted both in commerce and conflict with each other as

well as with the different sedentary populations of Eurasia. The stirrup was merely a minuscule

portion of these interactions. How then is the dissemination of the stirrup traced when stirrups

are not found archeologically or where literacy and literature regarding it are limited or non-

existent?

A short, three-paragraph paper by an osteology-oriented archeologist, Christèle Baillif-

Ducros, indicates that there are bio-anthropological considerations visible in skeletal remains

regarding the use of stirrups. While the article only briefly mentions White and the Strategikon,

the existence of these microtrauma markers on both a Mongolian rider and an Avarian rider,

widely dispersed geographically, open a new orientation on the use of stirrups in archeological

populations and their diffusion in past societies. The presence of the ‘horse riding syndrome,’

77
Liu, 78.
78
Liu, 70.

24
 James L. Suhr

the microtrauma from the use of equestrian equipment, can indicate stirrup use in situations

where stirrups are not found in grave sites.79

The technological transfer of the stirrup in perhaps unique in the history of technology

transfers; it requires no separate packaging, marketing, or intensive design and becomes part of

the physical transfer itself. The use of the stirrup and its benefits are apparent on observation.

The Steppe nomad conducting a raid is going to be using the stirrup. The Sogdian merchant or

other merchant travelers on horseback will be using the stirrup as part of their travels. A military

that has not adopted the stirrup in conflict with a military that has these fixed footrests, when

next encountered, will possess the stirrup per Bivar. What appears to be the common factor in

the transmission of the stirrup is the Steppe nomad and their interactions with the sedentary

populations. Mercantile traffic between the Chinese and other regions, specifically along the

Silk Road, also appear to be influential. Szynkiewicz states that the previously held view of

relations between the pastoral nomads and the sedentary populations of East Asia of invasion and

resistance is incomplete. Instead, these relationships should be viewed as those of exchange;

with policies of conflict preceding relations based on force. The Steppe nomads were an active

dynamic factor in intercultural contacts and communications.80

Using the term ‘stirrup revolution’ would be grossly inaccurate. The revolution of the

stirrup is far more accurate. Determining the earliest occurrence of the stirrup might be useful

but likely not possible if we accept the earliest stirrups were made of leather, cloth, or wood and

79
Christèle Baillif-Ducros and George McGlynn. "Stirrups and archaeological populations: Bio-anthropological
considerations for determining their use based on the skeletons of two Steppe riders." Bulletin der Schweizerischen
Gesellschaft für Anthropologie 19, no. 2 (2013): 43-44.

80
Slawaj Szynkiewicz, „Interactions Between the Nomadic Cultures of Central Asia and China in the Middle Ages”
printed March 3, 2019, www.silkroadfoundation.org/artl/szynkiewicz.shtml

25
 James L. Suhr

are not available archeologically. Alternatively, is it more useful to determine the time frame

when the combination of new practices and techniques relating to the deceptively simple

technology of the stirrup impacted society and culture at large?81 History has provided, if not a

surplus of information, sufficient evidence of the stirrup in widespread usage by the end of the

first millennium CE, in both literary, archeological, and graphical forms. The Bayeaux

Tapestry, being a historical and graphic treasure beyond compare of the events in 1066 CE,

shows a multitude of equestrians in combat using the stirrup. The basic design of the Norman

armor is very similar to that of many other equestrians from China, Sogdia, Iran, Byzantium, and

the dar-al-Islam throughout history. The stirrup is now in every corner of Eurasia, from the

shores of China across the steppe to France. The outlier islands of Japan, England, and Ireland to

the African continent. From its beginnings as a device to help ward off the invading nomads of

Northern China and its slow meandering across the vast steppe and taiga of Eurasia, this little

apple shaped loop transformed every society encountered.

81
Van der Veen, 8.

26
 Stirrup from Tomb 41, Yushanxia. Mid-fifth
Hungary, Csengod. Iron Stirrup, Avar Period, Sixth
century.84
Century CE, or Later.82

Modern English Stirrup Iron83 Modern American ‘Western’ Stirrup (note the wood
construction)85

82 84
Bivar, Illustration 26. “Cavalry Equipment and Dien, Illustration 8. “The Stirrup and Its Effect on
Tactics on the Euphrates Frontier” Chinese Military History”
83 85
http://www.gladiator-
polo.com/index.php?route=product/product&product https://www.donorrellstirrups.com/products/buckaroo
_id=227 -stirrup
 James L. Suhr

It is 4,386 miles from Byzantium to Beijing. Note the locations of Kushan, Sogdiana, China, the
Sassanians, and the Taklaman Desert. The Avar territories are to the west of the Black Sea.86

86 http://www.distance-between.info/beijing/istambul
Map from Hansen, inside front cover.

1
 James L. Suhr

Bibliography

Aihaita, Maliya and Lin Meicun, “The Rise of Hephthalitai People and the Early Spreading of

Iron Stirrups from China to the Central Asian Steppes” unpublished paper in Chinese-

https://www.academia.edu/36877054/The_Rise_of_Hephthalitai_People_and_the_Early_

Spreading_of_Iron_Stirrups_from_China_to_the_Central_Asian_Steppes

Alofs, Eduard. “Studies on Mounted Warfare in Asia I: Continuity and Change in Middle

Eastern Warfare, c. CE 550-1350- What Happened to the Horse Archer?,” War in

History, Vol. 21 (4), (2014). 423-444.

Alofs, Eduard. “Studies on Mounted Warfare in Asia II: The Iranian Tradition – The Armoured

Horse Archer in the Middle East, c. CE 550-1350,” War in History, Vol. 22 (1), (2015).

4-27.

Alofs, Eduard. “Studies on Mounted Warfare in Asia III: The Iranian Tradition – Cavalry

Equipment, Infantry, and Servants c. CE 550-1350,” War in History, Vol. 22 (2), (2014).

4-27.

Alofs, Eduard. “Studies on Mounted Warfare in Asia IV: The Turanian Tradition – The Horse

Archers of Inner Asia c. CE 550-1350,” War in History, Vol. 22 (3), (2015). 274-297.

Anderson, Erich B. Cataphracts: Knights of the Ancient Eastern Empires. South Yorkshire: Pen

& Sword Military, 2016.

Anthony, David W., and Dorcas R. Brown. “the Secondary Products Revolution, Horse-Riding,

and Mounted Warfare.” Journal of World Prehistory (2011) 24: 131-160. DOI:

10.1007/s10963-011-9051-9.

2
 James L. Suhr

Anthony, David W. The Horse, the Wheel, and Language. Princeton: Princeton University Press,

2007. Nook.

Bachrach, Bernard S. “Charles Martel, Mounted Shock Combat, the Stirrup, and Feudalism.” In

Warfare in the Dark Ages, edited by John France and Kelly DeVries, 221-247.

Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing, 2008.

Baillif-Ducros, Christèle, and George McGlynn. "Stirrups and archaeological populations: Bio-

anthropological considerations for determining their use based on the skeletons of two

Steppe riders." Bulletin der Schweizerischen Gesellschaft für Anthropologie 19, no. 2

(2013): 43-44.

Bartosiewicz, László. "Ex Oriente Equus... A brief history of horses between the Early Bronze

Age and the Middle Ages." Studia Archaeologica 12 (2011): 1-10.

Bennett, Natasha. Chinese Arms and Armour. Leeds: Royal Armouries Museum, 2018.

Bivar, A. D. H. “The Stirrup and its Origins” Oriental Art New Series 1(2) (Summer 1955) 61-

65.

Bivar, A. D. H. “Cavalry Equipment and Tactics on the Euphrates Frontier.” Dumbarton Oaks

Papers. Vol. 26 (1972) 271-291.

Bivar, A. D. H. "Glyptica Iranica." Bulletin of the Asia Institute, New Series, 4 (1990): 191-99.

http://www.jstor.org.library.norwich.edu/stable/24048362.

Curta, Florin. “the Earliest Avar-Age Stirrups, or the “Stirrup Controversy Revisited.” In The

Other Europe in the Middles Ages: Avars, Bulgars, Khazars, and Cumans edited by

Roman Kovalev. Brill, 2008. ProQuest Ebook Central.

3
 James L. Suhr

de Camp, L. Sprague. “Before Stirrups” Isis, Vol. 51, No. 2 (June 1960) 159-160.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/226847.

Dearing, James W., “Applying Diffusion of Innovation Theory to Intervention Development.”

Research on Social Work Practice, Volume 19 Number 5 September 2009, 503-519

DeVries, Kelly, and Robert Douglas Smith. Medieval Military Technology 2nd Ed. New York:

University of Toronto Press. 2012. 99-114

Dibon-Smith, Richard. “The Stirrup as a Revolutionary Device.”

http://www.dibonsmith.com/stirrup.pdf

Dien, Albert E. “A Study of Early Chinese Armor” Artibus Asiae, Vol 43, No. 1/2, (1981); 5-66.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/3249826.

Dien, Albert E. “The Stirrup and Its Effect on Chinese Military History” Ars Orientalis, Vol. 16

(1986), 33-56. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4629341

Dien, Albert E. “The Tomb of the Sogdian Master Shi: Insights into the Life of a Sabao” The

Silk Road 7. (2009) 42-50.

Drews, Robert. Early riders: The beginnings of mounted warfare in Asia and Europe. New

York: Taylor & Francis, 2004.

Farrokh, Kaveh. The Armies of Ancient Persia: The Sassanians. South Yorkshire: Pen & Sword

Military, 2017.

Farrokh, Kaveh, Gholamreza Karamian, and Katarzyna Maksymiuk. A Synopsis of Sasanian

Military Organization and Combat Units. Publishing House of Siedlce University of

Natural Sciences and Humanities, 2018.

4
 James L. Suhr

Farrokh, Kaveh and Manouchehr Moshtagh Khorasani and Bede Dwyer. “Depictions of archery

in Sassanian silver plates and their relationship to warfare,” Revista de Artes Marciales

Asiaticas. Volumen 13 (2), (Julio-Diciembre 2018). 82-113.

Ferdowsi, Abolqasem. Shahnameh: The Persian Book of Kings. Translated by Dick Davis. New

York: Penguin Books, 2016.

Graff, David A. Medieval Chinese Warfare 300-900. New York: Routledge, 2002.

Halfond, Gregory I. “Transportation, Communication, and the Movement of Peoples in The

Frankish Kingdom, ca. 500-900 C.E.” History Compass 7/6 (2009): 1554-1569. DOI:

10.1111/j.1478-0542.2009.00644.x

Hansen, Valerie. The Silk Road. New York: Oxford University Press, 2017.

Herodotus. The Histories. Translated by Robin Waterfield. Oxford: Oxford University Press,

1998.

Holt, Frank Lee. Alexander the Great and Bactria: the formation of a Greek frontier in central

Asia. Vol. 104. Brill Archive, 1988.

Karantabias, Mark-Anthony. “the Crucial Development of Heavy Cavalry under Herakleios and

His Usage of Steppe Nomad Tactics” Hirundo: The McGill Journal of Classical Studies,

Volume IV (2005-2006): 28-41.

La Salvia, Vasco. "Germanic populations and Steppe people: an example of the integration of

material cultures: the diffusion of the Stirrup in the eastern Merovingian

area." Chronica 11 (2011): 78-95.

Littauer, Mary Aiken. “Early Stirrups” Antiquity, 55 No. 214 (July 1981) 99-105.

5
 James L. Suhr

Liu, Xinru and Lynda Norene Shaffer. Connections Across Eurasia: Transportation,

Communication, and Cultural Exchange on the Silk Roads. New York: McGraw-Hill,

2007.

Milošević, Ante. "The Early Medieval Stirrup from Bribir." Hortus Artium Medievalium 23, no.

2 (2017): 750-760.

Mode, Markus, and Jürgen Tubach, eds. Arms and Armor as Indicators of Cultural Transfer: The

Steppes and the Ancient World from Hellenistic Times to the Early Middle Ages. Vol. 4.

Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag, 2006.

Morillo, Stephen. "The “Age of Cavalry” Revisited." in The Circle of War in the Middle Ages:

essays on medieval military and naval history. 45-58. Rochester: The Boydell Press,

1999.

Mujani, Wan Kamal and Roziah Sidik. "The Impacts of Shu’ubite in Islamic Historiography."

Advances in Natural and Applied Sciences, 6 (6) 2012: 1010-1013.

Oakeshott, R. Ewart. The Archaeology of Weapons: Arms and Armour from Prehistory to the

Age of Chivalry. New York: Dover Publications, 1996.

Potts, D. T. “Cataphractus and kamandar; Some Thoughts on the Dynamic Evolution of Heavy

Cavalry and the Mounted Archers in Iran and Central Asia.” Bulletin of the Asia

Institute, New Series, Vol. 21 (2007), 149-158.

Roland, Alex. “Once More into the Stirrups.” Review of Lynn White Jr., Medieval Technology

and Social Change. In Technology and Culture, 44, 3. (July 2003) 574-585.

6
 James L. Suhr

Szynkiewicz, Slawaj. “Interactions Between the Nomadic Cultures of Central Asia and China in

the Middle Ages” printed March 3, 2019,

www.silkroadfoundation.org/artl/szynkiewicz.shtml

Stepanova, Elena V. "Reconstruction of a Scythian Saddle from Pazyryk Barrow № 3." The Silk

Road 14 (2016): 1-18.

Tiberius, Maurice. Maurice’s Strategikon: Handbook of Byzantine Military Strategy.”

Translated by George T. Dennis. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1984.

Raspopova, Valentina I. “Sogdian Arms and Armour in the Period of the Great Migrations” in

Arms and Armor as Indicators of Cultural Transfer: The Steppes and the Ancient World

from Hellenistic Times to the Early Middle Ages. Vol. 4., ed. M. Mode and J. Tubach.

Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag, 2006, 79-95.

Robertson, Thomas S. “The process of Innovation and the Diffusion of Innovation.” Journal of

Marketing, Vol. 31 (January 1967) 14-19.

Sherratt, Andrew. "Plough and pastoralism: aspects of the secondary products revolution." In

Pattern of the Past: Studies in honour of David Clarke. Edited by Glenn L. Isaac and

Norman Hammond. 261-306. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1981.

Shuvalov, Petr V. “Two Iron Stirrups” in ΚΟΙΝΟΝ ΔΩΡΟΝ: Studies and Essays in Honour

of Valerii P. Nikonorov on the Occasion of his Sixtieth Birthday presented by

Friends and Colleagues. Compiled and Edited by Alexander A. Sinitsyn and

Maxim M. Kholod (St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg State University, 2014) 568-576

(English synopsis of Russian paper, translation by Google)

Skupniewicz, Patryk. "Sasanian horse armor." Historia i Świat3 (2014): 35-59.

7
 James L. Suhr

Stone, John. “Technology, society, and the Infantry Revolution of the Fourteenth Century.” The

Journal of Military History. Vol. 68, No. 2 (April 2004) 361-380.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/3397472.

Marijke Van der Veen, “Agricultural Innovation: Invention and Adoption or change and

Adaptation?” World Archeology Vol. 42, No. 1 (March 2010) 1-12.

White, Lynn, Jr. Medieval Technology and Social Change. New York: Oxford University Press,

1964.

—. “Tibet, India, and Malaya as Sources of Western Medieval Technology.” The American

Historical Review, Vol. 65, No. 3. (April 1960) 515-526.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/1849619.

Yeʼor, Bat. The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians under Islam. Associated University Presse, 1985.