Montfauçon, however, believed it to be really a horseshoe, and adds, ‘the shoe is small; whence it is conjectured the animal it belonged to was of a diminutive size.’ And in reply to the objection that the Franks did not shoe their horses, he replies: ‘Perhaps only the greatest persons had their horses shod in those times; and afterwards, probably when the practice of shoeing was more general, the Franks only shod their cavalry occasionally, as in frost, for example, in the ninth century.’
In the accompanying copy of this restored, but doubtful, shoe (fig. 5), it will be seen that there was but a slender instalment to base such an outline upon, Montfauçon says, in explanation of the drawing: ‘The horse-shoe of Childeric has been there represented entire, although only a portion of it
téressante d'Oberflacht, ont rencontré un équipement complet de cheval sans fer . . . . . le fer de Childeric Ier, ainsi que les squelettes de chevaux francs trouvés en Allemagne, prouve que cette race était petite, ce qui est confirmé par Tacite:
Equi (eorum) non forma conspicui.
...........
Namur, rapporteur des fouilles de Dalheim, dit: ‘Il parait étabiì que les chevaux gaulois des premiers siècles de l'ère chrétienne élaient de petits chevaux de selle, demi-sauvages, à petits sabots durs et rétrécis, comme le sont encore aujourd'hui les chevaux demi-sauvages éléves dans l'Ukraine et dans les steppes qui avoisinent la mer Caspienne.’—Le Tombeau de Childeric Ier. Paris, 1862.
