NA HRANICÍCH IMPÉRIA EXTRA FINES IMPERII JAROSLAVU TEJRALOVI K 80. NAROZENINÁM NA HRANICÍCH IMPÉRIA EXTRA FINES IMPERII JAROSLAVU TEJRALOVI K 80. NAROZENINÁM MASARYKOVA UNIVERZITA ARCHEOLOGICKÝ ÚSTAV AKADEMIE VĚD ČR, BRNO, v. v. i. BRNO 2017 Michel Kazanski – On the funerary rite of a Hunnic-time ‘princely’ burial at Conceşti ON THE FUNERARY RITE OF A HUNNIC-TIME ‘PRINCELY’ BURIAL AT CONCEŞTI MICHEL KAZANSKI Abstract: The Hun-time ‘princely’ grave at Conceşti (Rumania) reichen Luxusgütern ausgestattet, einschließlich des Schmucks im stands out among élite burials of the epoch of Great Migrations polychromen Stil, der Wafen, Grabmasken aus Metall, wie z. B. im owing to the richness and originality of its grave goods and to spe- syrischen Homs, und der Pferdebestattungen, wie in Iberien und Nu- ciic traits of funerary rites unusual of European barbaricum. Such bien. Deswegen können wir mit Recht annehmen, dass sich entlang details of the burial rite as the presence of ceremonial arms, a ‘sta- der östlichen Grenze des Römischen Reichs eine Kette von Vasallen- tus-marking’ gold torque, elements of horse harness, ornaments in staaten herausformte, deren Aristokratie sich vermutlich unter dem the polychrome style, and an accompanying horse burial are typical Einluss Roms zahlreiche gemeinsame Züge angeeignet hat. Der both of the Barbaricum and the barbarized military nobility of the Bestattungsritus des Grabs von Conceşti aus der spätrömischen Zeit Late Empire and its satellites: on the Bosporus, in Syria, in Nubia or und der Völkerwanderungszeit auf der einen Seite und der aristokra- in Lasica and in Iberia. There burials were also accompanied with nu- tischen Gräber in den Satellitenkönigreichen des Römischen Reichs merous luxury items including ornaments in the polychrome style, auf der anderen Seite spiegelt den internationalen Charakter der arms, metal funeral masks, as in Syrian Homs, and horse burials, as Prestigekultur jener Zeit ab. Besonders interessant sind die Elemen- in Iberia and Nubia. Therefore it is reasonably safe to suggest that te wie Grabkonstruktion mit Steinplatte oder Anwesenheit eines mit a chain of vassal states whose aristocratic culture had acquired, Blättchen verzierten Grabdiadems aus Metall in der Grabausstat- probably under Roman inluence, a number of common traits was tung. Sie sind untypisch für die Barbaren, aber weitverbreitet auf forming along the eastern frontier of the Roman Empire. The funer- dem Gebiet des Reichs und seiner Satelliten. Sie liefern einen Beleg ary rite of the Conceşti burial of the Late Roman period and the time für die Nachahmung der repräsentativen Bestattungssitten der Herr- of Great Migrations, on the one hand, and of aristocratic graves of scherelite der römischen Foederati und vermutlich charakterisieren satellite kingdoms of the Roman Empire, on the other, which relects sie auch die Gräber der Häuptlinge, die zu dieser Elite gehört haben. the international character of the prestigious culture of that time. Schlüsselwörter: Hunnenzeit – Fürstengrab Such traits as the construction of a slab vault or the presence of a metal funerary diadem decorated with leaves among grave goods are of special interest. They are uncharacteristic of the barbarians O POHŘEBNÍM RITU „KNÍŽECÍHO“ HROBU Z HUNSKÉHO OBDO- yet widespread in the territory of the Empire and its satellites. It is BÍ V CONCEŞTI indicative of the imitation of prestigious funerary rites typical of the Abstrakt: „Knížecí“ hrob z hunského období v Conceşti (Rumunsko) ruling élite of Roman foederati and, probably, of the buried chief’s vyniká mezi hroby elity z období stěhovaní národů díky bohatství a výjimečnosti svých hrobových příloh a také díky speciickým rysům belonging to this élite. pohřebního ritu, které jsou v rámci evropského barbarika neobvyklé. Prvky pohřebního ritu, jakými jsou přítomnost obřadní zbroje, zla- Key words: Hunnic-time – princely grave. tého nákrčníku jako symbolu statusu, součástí koňského postroje, ÜBER DEN BESTATTUNGSRITUS DES HUNNENZEITLICHEN šperků v polychromním stylu a také doprovodného pohřbu koně, jsou „FÜRSTENGRABS“ VON CONCEŞTI typické jak pro území barbarika, tak pro barbarizovanou pozdně řím- Abstrakt: Das hunnenzeitliche „Fürstengrab“ von Conceşti (Rumä- skou vojenskou nobilitu na území říše i jejích satelitů: v Bosporu, Sý- nien) ragt aus den völkerwanderungszeitlichen Elitebestattungen rii, Núbii, Lazice a Ibérii. Tamější pohřby byly rovněž vybaveny mnoha dank dem Reichtum und der Originalität seiner Grabbeigaben sowie luxusními předměty včetně šperků v polychromním stylu, zbraní či dank speziischer Züge der Bestattungssitten heraus, die im europä- kovových pohřebních masek, např. v syrském Homsu, a také dopro- ischen Barbaricum ungewöhnlich sind. Elemente des Bestattungsri- vodnými pohřby koní, např. v Ibérii a Núbii. Můžeme tedy zcela opod- tus, wie die Anwesenheit von zeremoniellen Wafen, dem goldenen statněně předpokládat, že podél východní hranice Římské říše se Halsring als einem Abzeichen des hohen Sozialstatus, Pferdege- zformovala síť vazalských států, jejichž aristokracie si pravděpodob- schirrteilen, Schmuck im polychromen Stil und einer begleitenden ně pod vlivem Říma osvojila mnohé společné rysy. Pohřební ritus hro- Pferdebestattung sind typisch sowohl für das Barbaricum als auch bu v Conceşti z pozdní doby římské a doby stěhování národů i ritus für die barbarisierte spätrömische Militäraristokratie auf dem Ge- hrobů aristokracie v satelitních královstvích Římské říše odráží in- biet des Reichs und seiner Satelliten: Bosporus, Syrien, Nubien, Lasi- ternacionální charakter prestižní kultury té doby. Za pozornost stojí ca oder Iberien. Die dortigen Bestattungen waren ebenfalls mit zahl- zejména prvky jako konstrukce hrobky s kamennou deskou nebo pří- 197 NA HRANICÍCH IMPÉRIA – EXTRA FINES IMPERII 400/410). Other items cannot be securely dated to a suiciently short timespan because either of their fragmentary state of preservation (saddle ittings and leaves of the funerary crown) or of their rarity (silver ware and the birdshaped plaque1 and fragments of the folding stool.) According to Maculevič the topography and construction of the Conceşti burial is reminiscent of those of barbarian chiefs (Maculevič 1934, 58) such as the tomb of Alaric, leader of the Visigoths (Jordanes, Getica, 158). He held that it was an international rite pertaining to the high social status of the interred widespread in the barbarian milieu (Maculevič 1934, 92, 93). Without questioning Maculevič’s conclusions let us still try to ind certain parallels to the funerary rite of the Conceşti burial in order to elucidate its cultural context. Such details of the burial rite as the presence of ceremonial arms, a ‘status-marking’ gold torque, elements of horse harness, ornaments in the polychrome style, and an accompanying horse burial are typical both of the Barbaricum and the barbarized military nobility of the Late Empire and its satellites. They are so widespread geographically that the search for their analogies is simply preposterous and they cannot be used for the elucidation of the cultural context of the Conceşti burial. Likewise, the location of grave goods at a certain distance from the corpse is known both among barbarians and satellites of the Empire, e. g. on the Bosporus, in Syria or in Nubia. Aristocratic tombs in ‘client’ kingdoms on the eastern and southern periphery of the Empire, i.e. in Lasica, Iberia, Syria and Nubia, in spite of their geographical remoteness, a certain chronological gap and a totally different ethnocultural milieu, are reminiscent of noble burials of North Pontic centres under Roman aegis. There burials in stone tombs were also accompanied with numerous luxury items including ornaments in the polychrome style, arms, metal funeral masks, as in Syrian Homs (Seyrig 1952, pl. 26), and horse burials, as in Iberia (at Zguderi: Nemsadze 1977, 110) and Nubia (at Qustul and Ballana: Török 1988, 98, 99, 104, 106, 107, 108, 114, 119, 125, 132, 134, 145, pl. 43, 50, 54, 56, 57, 57). Therefore it is reasonably safe to suggest that a chain of vassal states whose aristocratic culture had acquired, probably under Roman inluence, a number tomnost kovového pohřebního diadému zdobeného lístky v hrobové výbavě. Představují doklady napodobování prestižních pohřebních zvyklostí typických pro vládnoucí elitu římských foederátů a pravděpodobně jsou i znakem pohřbů náčelníků patřících k této elitě. Klíčová slova: hunské období – knížecí hrob A ‘princely’ tomb of the migration period at Conceşti is well known to specialists and is often referred to in publications (see, for instance, Alföldi 1932, 77, 78, Taf. 20, 21; Zaseckaja 1994, 174, табл. 19–21; Harhoiu 1998, 172, Taf. 1–20). In this paper I would like to draw attention to certain traits of the funerary rite of this burial. In 1808 in the present-day Rumanian district of Botoşani on the right bank of the Prut river, near the source of the Podriga brook, seemingly on its lest bank, ‘in a specially prepared place (?)’ local dwellers found an arched burial vault constructed of ashlar masonry and paved with stone slabs. A rotten wooden coin decorated with gold containing a human skeleton was discovered in the left part of the vault. The decayed clothes yielded many golden appliqué ornaments and a headband decorated with stones. Several vessels, weapons and other artifacts were found deep in the vault (ig. 1–3). A horse’s carcass lay right of the coin. Its harness was richly ornamented with gold and inserted coloured stones (Harhoiu 1998, 172). The surviving grave goods including an iron helmet (ig. 2:1), gold leaves of a wreath (ig. 1:5), a gold torque (ig. 1:4), two gold belt tips (ig. 1:1), a bird-shaped plaque (ig. 1:3), gold and bronze appliqués and other plaques, those in the polychrome style among the number (ig. 1:2,9–14,16–18), a bronze trapeziform plaque (ig. 1:15), gold saddle ittings (ig. 1:7,8), silver details of a folding stool (ig. 2:2), and silver ware, i.e. a fragment of a jar throat, a vase-amphora, a bucket-situla and a dish (ig. 3) are kept in the Hermitage collection in St Petersburg (Zaseckaja 1994, 174). The ‘princely’ burial at Conceşti is practically unanimously assigned to the Hunnic time. Two items among the grave goods imply that it belongs to period D1 or early D2 according to the chronology of the European Barbaricum, i.e. can be dated to the late 4th or early 5th century AD. The irst early artifact is the helmet (ig. 2:1) whose more or less close analogies are dated either to the mid-3rd (Dura-Europos: James 1986) or, for the most part, to the 4th century AD (Roman ‘Guards’’ helmets of the epoch of Constantine-Constantius (Skalon 1973, 91-94; Harhoiu 1998, 50; Glad 2008, 42, 43). The second early element is represented by belt tips (ig. 1:1) typical of the second half of the 4th – early 5th century as evidenced, inter alia, by the inds at Muslyumovo and Kos-Asar (Malašev 2000, 200, 203–205, Fig. 2). It enables us to date the Conceşti burial to the initial phase of the Hunnic epoch, i.e. period D1 (circa AD 360/370 – AD 1 It is sometimes dated to the post-Hunnic time (Harhoiu 1998, 47; Gavritukhin 2000, 295). R. Harhoiu regards it as a decoration of a sword’s bouterolle and compares it with inds at Rommersheim (Thiry 1939, Taf. 6.52), Kerch (Thiry 1939, Taf. 6.27), and Taman (Böhner 1948, Abb. 37.4). In my opinion, besides the above-mentioned ibula from Kerch, bird-shaped ibulae from South Russia (Thiry 1939, Taf. 6.29), and a ibula from Lavigny (Thiry 1939, Taf. 6.30) are the closest parallels to the plaque from Conceşti. Unfortunately, these artifacts have no archaeological context. It seems likely that inds from Kerch, Conceşti and South Russia form a separate Pontic (?) variety of bird-shaped ornaments with scaled decoration. It supports L.A. Maculevič’s hypothesis of the local Pontic origin of the plaque in question (Maculevič 1934, 101). The date of this variety of bird-shaped ornaments can only be established owing to the ind at Conceşti. In general such ornaments were in vogue amid the barbarians, in particular the Huns (Alföldi 1932, Taf. 15.42; Werner 1956, Taf. 29.2), as early as in the irst half of the 5th century AD (Böhme 1974, Taf. 2.16,17; Harhoiu 1998, Taf. 26, 27). 198 Michel Kazanski – On the funerary rite of a Hunnic-time ‘princely’ burial at Conceşti Fig. 1. Grave goods from Conceşti (Harhoiu 1998). Obr. 1. Hrobová výbava z Conceşti (Harhoiu 1998). of common traits was forming along the eastern frontier (limes) of the Roman Empire in the 1st – 4th centuries AD. ing, however, amid the barbarians of Eastern and Central Europe in the Late Roman and Hunnic time. Secondary use of classical vaults by the Huns is recorded at Marfovka and Belyaus (Zaseckaja 1993, 177, 178) yet the Huns themselves erected no such structures. Probably they associated Greek stone vaults with stone grottoes also used for burials by the Hunnic-time nomads (KyzylAdyr and Kamennaia Mogila: Zaseckaja 1993, Fig. 2; Mihajlov 1994, 109, 110). It is worth noting that Ammianus Marcellinus underlines the unwillingness of the Huns to Burials in stone vaults While examining details of the Conceşti funerary rite its traits originating in the classical Graeco-Roman tradition, such as burials in stone-slab vaults, immediately attract one’s attention. This rite is well known in the Roman Empire including the Greek population of the north Pontic area and the Balkan-Danubian Roman provinces. It is lack- 199 NA HRANICÍCH IMPÉRIA – EXTRA FINES IMPERII iconography, for instance, in Egypt (Doxiadis 1995, 234, рl. 9–12, 15, 16, 55, 56, etc.), in Syria (Dentzer-Feydy–Teixidor 1993, nos.° 171, 176, 179, 184, 186, etc.), and in the territory of Balkan-Danubian provinces in the west Pontic area in the Roman and early Byzantine time. By way of illustration let us cite the ind at Callatis in a burial of the mid2nd century AD (Goldhelm 1994, 203, № 80.1). Gold leaves were discovered near the scull of the deceased in a burial of the 1st – early 2nd century AD in the cemetery of the city of Tomis yet no metal band was recorded (Goldhelm 1994, 184, № 63.1). Wreaths of natural lowers have also been encountered in Mediterranean cemeteries, e. g., in early medieval burials in Marseille (Boyer 1987, 89, Fig. 86). As to client kingdoms of Rome such funeral diadems are known on the Cimmerian Bosporus and in Iberia. Diadems in the form of a golden foil band with attached leaves are typical of Panticapeion in the Roman time. The following inds can be cited: Julius Callisthenes’s burial, Tsarskiy Kurgan, the burial of 1910, Glinishche, the burial with the Gold Mask of 1837, Ajimushkai, the burial of 1841, and Glinishche-Karantinnnaia Slobodka, the burial of 1910 (Shchukin et alii 2006, Fig. 7.2, 9, 80, 92, 96) as well as burials in the territory of Kherkharulidzev’s plant of 1841 (Reinach 1892, 43, pl. 3.1,2) and 1842 (Reinach 1892, 44, pl. 4.1) and on the Mithridat mountain of 1869 (Stephani 1875, 24, № 16); the above list is by no means exhaustive. A particular diadem shape is represented by the ind at Ajimushkai in the burial of 1873 where leaves were attached by narrow bands to the central medallion depicting an ‘oriental’ personage. Outside Panticapaion diadems with leaves are recorded for period С3–D1 (circa AD 330–400), for instance, in burial 4 of the Zamorskoe cemetery (Korpusova 1973, Fig. 3). For the migration period diadems with leaves are recorded in the following Bosporan burials: Panticapaion/Bosporus, Glinishche 1896 (Štern 1897, Fig. 1), vault 145 of 1904 (Zaseckaja 1993, no. 21), vault 154 of 1904 / burial 2 (Zaseckaja 1993, no. 221), vault 165 of 1904 / burial 5 (Zaseckaja 1993, № 288), two vaults 24.6 of 1904 г. (Zaseckaja 1993, Nos. 72–75), burial 83 of 1910 (Škorpil 1913, 69), the so-called Messaxoudi burial of 1918 (ig. 4:2.; Beck et alii 1988, Fig. 2.1), Jurga-Oba, vault 4 of 2002 (ig. 4:1; Ermolin 2012, Fig. 3.1, 2). The ind from Tuzla, vault III of 1951 / chamber 1 (Zeest 1951, лист 38), probably dates to the same period. It seems likely that the rite of burial with diadems survived in the post-Hunnic time. It is implied by the ind of a diadem in burial 3 of 1986 (Zaseckaja 1998, Table 10.3) with digitate ibulae of the 6th century AD. Diadems of Graeco-Roman outlook have been recorded in a number of aristocratic burials in Iberia. Suice it to cite such inds as burial 45 of 1981 at Mtskheta (Apakidze et alii 1984, Table 64.6) and burial 905 at Samtavro (Apakidzе– Nikolaishvili 1994, р. 44, no. 38). Fig. 2. Helmet and folding stool from the Conceşti burial (Harhoiu 1998). Obr. 2. Přilba a skládací stolek z hrobu v Conceşti (Harhoiu 1998). stay in structures reminding them of burials: “They never take shelter in any buildings and loathe them as tombs estranged from everyday human life” (Ammianus Marcellinus, XXXI. 2.4). Nevertheless the use of stone vaults by the nomads was, judging from the archaeological record, merely occasional. Among settled barbarians the presence of stone facing of the burial chamber in ‘princely’ tombs is inferred only for the ind of 1918-1919 at Bolshoi Kamenets (Maculevič 1934, 55, 56). Burials with gold-foil diadems A diadem made of gold foil and decorated with gold leaves (ig. 1:5) worn by the deceased is the second unmistakable element of the classical Graeco-Roman tradition. According to Harhoiu this tradition pertains primarily to the Graeco-Bosporan milieu (Harhoiu 1998, 59) yet in reality it was much more widespread both in the Roman Empire and in its client kingdoms. Wreaths and diadems with leaves, including the funeral ones, are well known from the archaeological record and 200 Michel Kazanski – On the funerary rite of a Hunnic-time ‘princely’ burial at Conceşti aristocracy of client kingdoms. They are almost completely lacking, however, in the steppe context. Late Sarmatian nomadic burials with Roman iron tableware are sparse. Only a ‘princely’ burial at Kishpek in Kabarda-Balkaria dated to c. AD 300 can be cited in this connection (Betrozov 1987, Fig. 4.4). Finds of metal Roman ware in steppe burials of the Hunnic time are equally scarce. A silver basin with spotted decoration on the edge was found on the Don, at Pavlovka-Sulin (Kropotkin 1970, № 733). A metal goblet bearing a Greek inscription and a fragment of a cup with At the same time this rite is almost totally lacking amid the barbarians. The Conceşti ind is, as far as I know, unique in the European Barbaricum in the migration period. As to the earlier epoch only the ind in the Sarmatian princely burial of Kosika on the Lower Volga can be mentioned (Tesori della steppa 2005, Nos. 79–82). Burials with sets of metal tableware Sets of banqueting metal tableware of Late Roman origin (ig. 3) are frequent in burials of European barbarians and Fig. 3. Tableware from the Conceşti burial (Harhoiu 1998). Obr. 3. Stolní nádobí z hrobu v Conceşti (Harhoiu 1998). 201 NA HRANICÍCH IMPÉRIA – EXTRA FINES IMPERII Fig. 4. Diadems from burials of Cimmerian Bosporus. 1. Jurga-Oba, vault 4.2002 (Ermolin 2012); 2. Kerch, the Mithridate mountain, the socalled Messaxoudi burial of 1918 (photograph Musée d‘archéologie nationale). Obr. 4. Diadémy z hrobů v oblasti Kimerského Bosporu. 1. Jurga-Oba, hrobka 4.2002 (Ermolin 2012); 2. Kerč, hora Mithridates, tzv. Messaxoudiho hrob z roku 1918 (foto: Musée d‘archéologie nationale). a cloisonné incrustation from Szeged-Nagyszéksós (L’Or des princes barbares 2000, № 19.12,13) or a bronze bowl from Höckricht / Jędrzychowice (Alföldi 1932, Taf. 19.10; Anke 1998, Taf. 101.13) can also be cited.2 But then banqueting sets of metal tableware are well known among sedentary barbarians, irs of all Germans. They are represented in ‘princely’ burials of the Late Roman time of the Hassleben – Leuna and Osztrópataka / Ostrovany type (см. напр. Schulz 1953, Taf. 5.1, 6, 7.1, 16, 22–25; Schmidt 1982, Blatt DDR 5. 3 (1).4–6, DDR 6.4 (1).4,5, DDR 6.4 (2).6–8, DDR 9.4 (1).4,5, DDR 9.4 (3).18, DDR 10.11, DDR 11.6 (3).38, DDR 11.6 (6).111,113–115,118 ; Prohászka 2006, Taf. 11.6, 13). Sets of iron vessels have been encountered in Germanic ‘princely’ burials of the Hunnic time such as Bolshoi Kamenets (Maculevič 1934, Tables 1–6, Fig. 4, 6). Separate iron vessels can also be found as in the Wielbark cemetery at Praust / Pruszcz Gdański (La Baume 1934, 154, Taf. 75. g). In the post-Hunnic time Late Roman metal ware was also put in ‘princely’ burials, e. g. Apahida 1 in Transylvania (Harhoiu 1998, Taf. 60). Aristocratic burials in client states of the Empire also contain valuable metal ware. This trait is characteristic of funerary rites of Pontic aristocracy as early as in the Late Roman time; let us recall the well-known Bosporan burial of 1837 with a Gold Mask (Shchukin et alii 2006, ig. 85–87, 89–91). Silver ware can be found in a number of Bosporan vaults of the Hunnic time, e. g. Gordikovskiy 1891 (Shchukin et alii 2006, ig. 97.3, 98); vault 145 of 1904, cache (Zaseckaja 1993, no. 38), and two vaults 24.06.1904 (Zaseckaja 1993, nos. 182, 184). Besides Bosporus valuable metal ware was recorded in the burials of the Iberian nobility, e. g. at Armaziskhevi (Lordkipanidze 1985, 90), Samtavro, in burial 905 (Apakidzе– Nikolaishvili 1994, Nos. 6–15), Zguderi (Nemsadze 1977, 111, 112), Aragvispiri, in burial 13 (Ramišvili 1977, 117–120). Silver ware dated to the 1st century AD is also recorded in ‘princely’ tomb 1 in the cemetery of Homs in Syria governed at that time by a local dynasty of Arabic origin (Seyrig 1952, 246, 247, Fig. 27). A rich set of metal tableware was found, for instance, in a ‘princely’ burial in the cemetery of Hajar 2 It does not mean, of course, that the nomads of the Late Roman and Hunnic time had no gold and silver ware; it is repeatedly mentioned in Priscus’s account of Attila’s headquarters (Priscus, fr. 8). However, for some reasons it was excluded from grave goods. 202 Michel Kazanski – On the funerary rite of a Hunnic-time ‘princely’ burial at Conceşti am-Dhaybiyya dated to the 2nd – early 3rd century AD on the southern frontiers of the Arab world, in Hadramaut (Breton, Bǎfaquih 1993, 43–50). Finally, metal tableware is well represented in ‘regal’ cemeteries of post-Meroitic Nubia pertaining to the Blemmii. The latter were also satellites of the Empire. Their ‘aristocratic’ culture is known primatily from the inds in the cemeteries of Qustul and Ballana. They come from aristocratic burials in stone graves accompanied with sacriiced slaves and animals and containing rich gravegoods including imports of Late Roman and early Byzantine origin (for numerous examples see: Török 1988). spectively; for more details see: Kazanski 1995). Another helmet of a similar design, without decoration but with earlaps made in the classical tradition, was found in stone burial 3 in the cemetery of Kalkni in Southern Dagestan (Salihov 1985, 168, 172, 173, Fig. 5). The burial yielded a round buckle with a long trunk-shaped tapering pin and a ring with a widened fore-part, which enables one to date it to period (AD 360/370–400/410) or, with less probability, to period D2 (AD 380/400–440/450 гг.), since D2 is characterized mainly by round buckles with an evenly widened ring and a more massive pin tip (e. g., Tejral 1987, Abb. 6.3, 10.2, 8, 12; Tejral 1992, Abb. 2.17, 3.18, 28, 26).4 Helmets have been yielded by the ‘warlords’s’ burials of the Late Roman – early migration period in the Volga-Ural area. They were found, for instance, in barrows V and VII/1a in the cemetery of Turaevo on the middle reaches of the Kama river (Gening 1995, 282, 286, 313, Abb. 25.11, 28.1).5 The pertinent burials contained buckles with a relatively short pin typical of periods С3 and early D1 and at the same time belt tips more typical of periods D1 and D2 (cf. Kazanski–Akhmedov 2007, 255–258). The Turaevo burials can be chronologically linked with such sites as Muslyumovo, Bryukhanovskiy, and Utamysh dating on the whole to the second half of the 4th century AD (Kazanski 1995, 190–193; Малашев 2000, 204). Three helmets of either the Late Roman or early migration time were found in burials 6, 1685 and 1784 of the cemetery of Tarasovo on the reaches of the Kama river (Goldina 2003, Tables 4.17, 620 and 668). Judging from the characteristic buckles whose ring has a thickened forepart and the tip is short and bent, with a rectangular platform near the base found in all three burials and from a nearly arrow-shaped tip in burial 1784 these burials of the Tarasovo cemetery are consistent with period С3 of barbarian European chronology (AD 300/320–350/370) and can be dated either to the Late Roman time or to the initial phase of the migration period. Two helmets of the Late Roman time come from the Suvorovo cemetry on the Vyatka river. They were found in burials 27 and 306 of a marked warlike character; one of them (27) also yielded remnants of a chain mail (Gening 1963, 70, 122–124, Fig. 37). Burials with helmets Burials with helmets amid gravegoods (ig. 2.1) are rare in Eastern and Central Europe in the Late Roman and Hunnic time. No less exotic are they for the territory of the Roman Empire and its client states. One can cite the already mentioned aristocratic burial 1 in the necropolis of Homs; true, it is dated to the earlier period, the 1st century AD. According to the inders the helmet was put near the head of the deceased (Seyrig 1952, 208, 210–227, pl. 21–25). The publication of the materials from Homs also cites the prewar inds in the aristocratic Thracian burial of Bizyé where a helmet was also near the head of the deceased (Seyrig 1952, 217). Yet another inhumation with an iron Roman helmet and red-lacquered pottery (АRS 59B and ARS 61A) dating, judging from the combination of forms in this closed complex, to ca. AD 350–420 was found in the cemetery of el-Haditha on the eastern shore of the Dead Sea. According to the Notitia Dignitatum the equites Mauri Illyriciani, equites indigenae sagittarii and, inally, legio IV Martia were quartered in this area in the late 4th – early 5th century AD. It seems likely that it was the burial of a soldier or a veteran of one of these bodies. The calotte of the helmet is made of two parts joined by a metal band. The helmet belons to the so-called Ridge Type represented by the inds at Intercisa, Kaiseraugst and Worms along the Roman limes (Parker 1994). The el-Haditha ind seems to be the closest chronologically to that of Conceşti in the territory of the Empire. In the European Barbaricum of the Late Roman and migration time inds of helmets in burials are also recorded in the North Caucasus and in the Volga-Ural region.3 I know of two such burials in the North Caucasus. A ‘princely’ burial in a wooden chamber beneath a barrow in the cemetery of Kishpek in Kabarda-Balkaria is older. The burial contained rich grave goods including a helmet made of narrow vertical plates joined together by the inial and decorated with cornelian (Betyrozov 1987, Fig. 3.1). Judging from grave goods the burial can be dated to ca. AD 300, i.e. the late С2 or early С3 period of the European Barbaricum (AD 250/260–300/320 and AD 300/320–350/370 re- 4 Both North Caucasian helmets, like those from the Volga-Ural cemeteries of Tarasovo, Tyum-Tyum and Suvoro (burial 27) discussed below, belong to a single group of helmets, the so-called Spangenhelme (cf. Pfafenbichler 2007), long-lived and spread from the Mediterranean to Central Asia, if not beyond. They were worn by Roman legionaries in the late 3rd century AD as their depictions on the arc of Galerius in Thessalonike erected in AD 298 imply. They have also been found on the Cimmerian Bosporus, in Kerch in the post-Hunnic context and in the fortress of Ilyichevka in Taman. Finally, such helmets were recorded among the Langobardi in Italy in the late 6th – early 7th century AD and among the Alamanni in Southern Germany in the 7th century AD (Kazanski 1993, 59, 60, pl. 40). 5 The helmet from burial VII/1a had a solid-forged iron calotte while that from burial V is heavily damaged and cannot be reconstructed. 3 Helmets have been recorded in Eastern European steppe burials dating to the earlier period, i.e. to the 1st – 3rd centuries AD. They are not dealt with here. 6 The helmet from the latter burial had a hemispheric calotte made of a solid iron plate. 203 NA HRANICÍCH IMPÉRIA – EXTRA FINES IMPERII ry8 is usually related to a high social status implied by rich grave goods and prestigious artifacts.9 Burials with a stool Burials containing a stool (ig. 2:2) are also extremely rare in the Barbaricum and in the territory of the Empire. The presence of a metal folding stool in barbarian burials is usually related to the high social status of the deceased. Such stools are well known in the Roman Empire (Mráv 2013, Abb. 21, Appendix 1), e. g., from inds in Pompeii, Ostia and Herculaneum (Wilson 1958, 45, 46; Mráv 2013, Abb. 2.1). An iron stool from a ‘princely’ burial of 1942 at Ureki in Lazica containing a coin of AD 275–276 can be safely dated to the Late Roman time (at irst the stool was taken for remnants of a funerary bed: Hoštarija 1955, 56, 57; Lekvinadze 1975, 195–196). The majority of burials with folding stools spread from the British Islands to Iran and Nubia belong, however, to the post-Hunnic period (cf. Wilson 1958; Kiss 1996, 275, 276; Kazanski 2002, 48, 49). Byzantine folding stools are known from the archaeological record (Waldbaum 1983, 79, pl. 26.423) and iconographic data (ig. 6; Grabar 1966, ig. 223) as well as from written sources (Maculevič 1934, 90). Burials with saddles Saddles in privileged burials (fragments of saddle-bow plaques; ig. 1:7, 8) appear among the barbarians as early as in the Late Roman period and this custom survives in the Hunnic and post-Hunnic time. A ind of remnants of a damaged wooden saddle in the ‘princely’ burial at Kishpek in Kabarda-Balkaria of the early 4th century AD is one of the earliest (Betrozov 1987, 15). Burials with rigid saddles are well known among the nomads in the Hunnic time (Zaseckaja 1994, 45–50). In a number of cases they are present in the burials of sedentary aristocracy of the Hunnic time. Thus, a saddle was found in burial 5 in the collective ‘family’ vault 165 of 1904 in the cemetery of the Gospitalnaia Street in Kerch. It was wooden with silver decorations and nails with gilt heads (Škorpil 1907, 49). Another Kerch vault, 6 of 1905, yielded mixed grave goods (Škorpil 1909, 3, 4) characteristic of the Hunnic (cf., for instance, Zaseckaja 1993, Table 3.37) and post-Hunnic (cf., for instance, Škorpil 1909, Fig. 1) time and remnants of a saddle (Zaseckaja 1993, Appendix 3, no. 17). Burials with saddles in the Late Roman west are related to the barbarized military milieu. A warlord burial at Mundolsheim in Alsace is one of them (ig. 7). It contained a sword and an axe that had not survived, belt and/or shoe Fig. 5. Warrior’s burial at Sarry (Chew 1993). Obr. 5. Bojovnický hrob ze Sarry (Chew 1993) Finally, three helmets of the Late Roman time (the late 3rd – early 4th century AD) were discovered in burials 367, 94 and 123 of the cemetery of Tyum-Tyum in the Vyatka river basin (Ošibkina 2010, 45). Among these burial 94 is undoubtly privileged judging from grave goods (including, for instance, such a rare ind as a metal cauldron) and funerary rite (the only twin burial in the cemetery). Burials 36 and 123 contain many arms and seem likely to be those of warriors. It is worth noting that in both cases we have to do with peripheral regions with regard to the steppes. As to the nomads, there were no helmets in burials in either the Late Sarmatian or Hunnic time. The presence of a helmet in a burial both in the Barbaricum and in the Roman territo- 8 There are, of course, exceptions to this rule such as the above-mentioned burial at el-Khaditha accompanied by fairly ordinary grave goods. 9 The custom of putting helmets in burials was observed in the post-Hunnic time as well, for instance, in Kerch/Bosporus (Отчет Императорской Археологической Коммиссии за 1891 г. Санкт-Петербург, 1893, 59, 60; Post 1954, Abb. 6 и 23), and also among the Franks, Alamanni, Gepidi and Langobardi and in Scandinavia. 7 Judging from the design of buckles (Ošibkina 2010, Tables 8.5,6, 10.2) this burial can be dated to a somewhat earlier period. 204 Michel Kazanski – On the funerary rite of a Hunnic-time ‘princely’ burial at Conceşti Catacomb 10 of the Lermontovskaia Skala-2 cemetery in the Pyatigorsk area is also close chronologically to the Hunnic time. It is a collective Alan catacomb burial. A woman and a young man with grave goods of the Hunnic period and a man with grave goods of the post-Hunnic epoch were interred there. A saddle and other items of horse harness found in the burial chamber belong to a man’s burial, either Hunnic or post-Hunnic (Runič 1976; Zaseckaja et alii 2007, 124–136). Remnants of a wooden saddle were encountered in burial 3 of the Nubian cemetery of Ballana (Török 1988, 134– 144, pl. 94.286). It is a chamber aristocratic burial of an adult woman accompanied by horse sacriices. It is dating to ca. AD 450/460. Burials with gold sewn on appliqués The Conceşti burial yielded fragments of gold sticks being, according to Maculevič, remnants of gold ornaments (Maculevič 1934, 56). Zigzag-shaped appliqué gold sticks were indeed widespread in rich graves of sedentary barbarians and satellites of the Empire from Normandy to the Don and Eastern Crimea in the Hunnic time (Mastykova–Kazanski 2006, 291). Almost all the inds are dating to period D2, i.e. ca. AD 380/400–440/450. They mostly belong to female garments as implied by the inds at Mukhino, Airan, Regöly, and Luchistoe. At the same time such appliqués are sometimes encountered in male burials, e. g. at Lébény. There a zigzag-shaped appliqué was found in a burial with a sword and sword-belt ittings in the sand illing of the grave pit (Pusztai 1966. 3.5. ábra). It should be pointed out, however, that there is no direct evidence of the presence of such appliqués in the Conceşti burial. It is but a quite plausible assumption of Maculevič. Thus, the funerary rite of the Conceşti burial is reminiscent both of ‘princely’ barbarian graves of the Late Roman time and aristocratic burials of client states of the Roman Empire, which relects the international character of prestigious culture of that epoch. Such traits as the construction of a slab vault or the presence of a metal funerary diadem decorated with leaves among grave goods are of special interest. They are uncharacteristic of the barbarians yet widespread in the territory of the Empire and its satellites. It is indicative of the imitation of prestigious funerary rites typical of the ruling élite of Roman foederati and, probably, of the buried chief’s belonging to this élite. Fig. 6. Depiction of a folding stool from a manuscript of the early 6th century AD (Grabar 1966). Obr. 6. Zobrazení skládacího stolku v rukopise z počátku 6. století n. l. (Grabar 1966). Fig. 7. Mundolsheim, a tentative reconstruction of the saddle with gold saddle-bow plaques (Marin 1998, ig. on p. 53). Obr. 7. Mundolsheim, pokus o rekonstrukci sedla zdobeného zlatými destičkami (Marin 1998, obr. na s. 53). accessories, and horse harness pieces. The burial can be dated to period D2 or D2/3. Grave goods are indicative of North Pontic origin of the deceased probably connected with the sedentary milieu (Kazanski–Akhmedov 2007). A burial at Sarry (present-day département Marne) in Northern Gallia of the late 4th century AD containing, inter alia, a sword, a chain mail and metal parts of a saddle is also worth noting (Chew 1993). LITERATURE ALFÖLDI, A., 1932: Funde aus der Hunnenzeit und ihre ethnische Sonderung. Budapest. АПАКИДЗЕ, А. М.–НИКОЛАЙШВИЛИ, В. В.–СИХАРУЛИДЗЕ, А. Н.–САДРАДЗЕ, В. Г.–ХЕЦУРИАНИ, Л. Г.–ГИУНАШВИЛИ, Г. Д.–ИРЕМАШВИЛИ, Ш. А., 1984: Результаты 205 NA HRANICÍCH IMPÉRIA – EXTRA FINES IMPERII ГОЛДИНА, Р. Д., 2003: Тарасовский могильник I-V вв. на Средней Каме. Ижевск. GRABAR, A., 1966: L’age d’or de Justinien. Paris. HARHOIU, R., 1998: Die frühe Völkerwanderungszeit in Rumänien. Bukarest. ХОШТАРИА, Н. В., 1955: Археологическое исследование Уреки. In: Материалы по археологии Грузии и Кавказа I, 25–78. Тбилиси. JAMES, S., 1986: Evidence from Dura Europos for the Origins of the Late Roman Helmets, Syria 63, 107–134. JORDANES, 1991: Jordanes. Getica. Iordaniis de origine actibusque Getarum (Giunta, F.–Grillone, A., edd.). Roma. KAZANSKI, M., 1993: Les armes du wâdi Dura’. In: Breton J.-F.–Bafaqih M., Trésors du wâdi Dura’ (République du Yémen), 52–61. Beyrouth. – 1995: Les tombes des chefs alano-sarmates du IVe siècle dans les steppes pontiques. In: La noblesse romaine et les chefs barbares du IIIe au VIIe siècle (Vallet, F.–Kazanski, M., edd.), 189–205. Saint-German-en-Laye. – 2002: La nécropole gallo-romaine et mérovingienne de Breny (Aisne). Montagnac. KAZANSKI, M.–AKHMEDOV, I., 2007: La tombe de Mundoslheim (Bas-Rhin): un chef militaire nomade au service de Rome. In: Barbaren im Wandel. Beiträge zur Kultur- und Identitätsumbildung in der Völkerwanderungszeit (Tejral, J., ed.), 173–197. Brno. KISS, A., 1996: Das awarenzeitlich gepidische Gräberfeld von Kölked-Feketekapu A. Innsbruck. КОРПУСОВА, В. М., 1973: Сiльске населення пiзньоантичного Боспору, Археологiя 8, 27–45. LA BAUME, W., 1934: Urgeschichte der Ostgermanen. Danzig. MASTYKOVA, A.–KAZANSKI, M., 2006: A propos des Alains en Occident à l’époque des Grandes Migrations: le costume à appliques en or. In: Gallia e Hispania en el contexto de la presencia ‘germánica’(ss.V–VII). Balance y Perspectivas (López Quiroga, J.–Martínez Tejera, A. M.–Morín de Pablos, J., edd.), 291–305. Oxford. КРОПОТКИН, В. В., 1970: Римские импортные изделия в Восточной Европе (Свод Археологических Источников Д1–27). Москва. ЛЕКВИНАДЗЕ, В. А., 1975: Богатое погребение IV в. из Уреки (Грузия), Советская Археология 4, 193–208. L’Or des princes barbares, 2000: L’Or des princes barbares. Du Caucase à la Gaule Ve s. après J.-C. Paris. ЛОРДКИПАНИДЗЕ, О. Д., 1985: Иберия. In: Кошеленко Г.А. (отв. ред.), Древнейшие государства Кавказа и Средней Азии (Археология СССР), 79–93. Москва. МАЦУЛЕВИЧ, Л. А., 1934: Погребение варварского князя в Восточной Европе. Новые находки в верховьи реки Суджи. Москва-Ленинград. полевых изысканий в Мцхета. In: Полевые археологические исследования в 1981 году, 45–50. Тбилиси. APAKIDZE, A.–NIKOLAISHVILI, V., 1994: An Aristocratic Tomb of the Roman Period from Mtskheta, Georgia, The Antiquaries Journal 74, 16–54. BECK, F.–KAZANSKI, M.–VALLET, F., 1988: La riche tombe de Kertch du Musée des Antiquités Nationales, Antiquités Nationales 20, 63–81. БЕТРОЗОВ, Р. Ж., 1987: Курганы гуннского времени у селения Кишпек. In: Археологические исследвания на новостройках Кабардино-Балкарии. Т. 3., 11–39. Нальчик. BÖHME, H. W., 1974: Germanische Grabfunde des 4. bis 5. Jahrhunderts zwischen Unterer Elbe und Loire. München. BÖHNER, K., 1948: Das Langschwert der Frankenkönig Childerich, Bonner Jahrbücher 48, 218–248. BOYER, R., ed., 1987: Vie et mort à Marseille à la in de l’Antiquité. Inhumations habillées des Ve et VIe siècles et sarcophage reliquaire trouvés à l’abbaye de Saint-Victor. Marseille. BRETON, J.-F.–BǍFAQUIH, M., 1993: Trésors du wâdi Dura’ (République du Yémen). Bibliothèque Archéologique et Historique de l’IFAPO CXLI. Beyrouth. CHEW, H., 1993: Une sépulture militaire de l’époque romaine tardive à Sarry (Marne). In: L’armée romaine et les Barbares du IIIe au VIIe siècle (Vallet, F.–Kazanski, M., edd.), 313–321. Saint-Germain-en-Laye. DOXIADIS, E., 1995: The Mysterious Fayum Portraits. Faces from Ancient Egypt. London. ERMOLIN, A., 2012: Džurga-Oba – a Cemetery of the Great Migration Period in the Cimmerian Bosporus. In: The Pontic-Danubian Realm in the Period of the Great Migration (Ivanišević, V.–Kazanski, M., edd.), 339–348. Paris – Beograd. DENTZER-FEYDY, J.–TEIXIDOR, J., 1993: Les antiquités de Palmyre au Musée d Louvre. Paris. ГАВРИТУХИН, И. О., 2000: Финал традиций культур римского времени в восточном Прикарпатье. In: Die spätrömische Kaiserzeit und die frühe Völkerwanderungszeit in Mittel- und Оsteuropa (Mączyńska, M.–Grabarczyk, T., edd.), 261–324. Lódź. ГЕНИНГ, В. Ф., 1963: Азелинская культура III - V вв. Очерки истории Вятского края в эпоху великого переселения народов (Вопросы археологии Урала 5). Ижевск. GENING, V. F., 1995: Völkerwanderungszeitliche Kriegergräber aus Turaevo im Uralvorland, Eurasia Antiqua 1, 265–325. GLAD, D., 2009: Origine et difusion de l’équipement défensif corporel en Méditerranée orientale (IVe–VIII e s.). Oxford. 206 Michel Kazanski – On the funerary rite of a Hunnic-time ‘princely’ burial at Conceşti SCHULZ, W., 1953: Leuna. Ein germanischer Bestattungsplatz der Spätrömischen Kaiserzeit. Berlin. SEYRIG, H., 1952: Antiquités syriennes. Antiquités de la nécropole d’Emese, Syria 29, 204–250. SHCHUKIN, M.–KAZANSKI, M.–SHAROV, O., 2006: Des Goths aux Huns : Le Nord de la mer Noire au Bas –Empire et a l’époque des Grandes Migrations. Oxford. SKALON, K. M., 1973: Der Helm von Conceşti, Rumänien. In: Spätrömische Gardenhelme (Klumbach, H., ed.), 91–94. München. ШКОРПИЛ, В. В., 1907: Отчет о раскопках в Керчи в 1904 г. Известия Императорской Археологической Коммиссии 25, 1–66. – 1909: Отчет о раскопках в Керчи в 1905 г. Известия Императорской Археологической Коммиссии 30, 1–50. – 1913: Отчет о раскопках в Керчи и в станице Таманской в 1910 г. Известия Императорской Археологической Коммиссии 47, 42–72. STEPHANI, L., 1875: Erklärung einiger im Jahre 1874 im südliche Russland gefundener Kunstwerke. Отчет Императорской Археологической Коммиссии, 5–91. ШТЕРН, Э., 1897: К вопросу о происхождении «готского стиля» предметов ювелирного искусства. Записки Одесского Общества Истории и Древностей 20, 1–15. TEJRAL, J., 1987: Zur Chronologie und Deutung der südöstlichen Kulturelemente in der frühen Völkerwanderungszeit Mitteleuropas, Anzeiger des Germanischen Nationalmuseums 1987, 11–46. – 1992: Einige Bemerkungen zur Chronologie der späten römischen Kaiserzeit in Mitteleuropa. In: Probleme der relativen und absoluten Chronologie ab Latènezeit bis zum Frühmittelalter. Materialien des III. Internationalen Symposiums: Grundprobleme der frühgeschichtlichen Entwicklung im nördlichen Mitteldonaugebiet. Kraków – Karniowice 3.–7. Dezember 1990 (Godlowski, K.–Madyda-Legutko R., edd.), 227–248. Kraków. TESORI DELLA STEPPA, 2005: Tesori della steppa di Astrakhan. Milano. THIRY, G., 1939: Die Vogelibeln der Germanischen Völkerwanderungszeit. Bonn. TÖRÖK, L., 1988: Late antique Nubia. History and Archaeology of the Southern Neighbour of Egypt in the 4th –6th c. A.D. (Antaeus 16). Budapest. WALDBAUM, J. C., 1983: Metalwork from Sardis: the Finds through 1974. Cambridge – Massachusetts – London. WERNER, J., 1956: Beiträge zur Archäologie des Attila-Reiches. München. WILSON, D. M., 1958: An Inlaid Folding Stool in the British Museum, Medieval Archaeology 1, 39–56. ЗАСЕЦКАЯ, И. П., 1993: Материалы Боспорского некрополя второй половины IV- первой половины V вв. Материалы по Археологии, Истории и Этнографии, Таврии 3, 23–105. МАЛАШЕВ, В. Ю., 2000: Периодизация ременных гарнитур позднесарматского времени. In: Гугуев Ю.К. (отв. ред.), Сарматы и их соседи на Дону (Матералы и исследования по археологии Дона 1), 194–232. Ростов-на-Дону. MARCELLINUS, A., 1978: Ammianus Marcellinus. Rerum gestarum libri XXXI (Seyfarth, W., ed.). Leipzig. MARIN, J.-Y., ed., 1998: Attila. Les inluences danubiennes dans l’Ouest de l’Europe au Ve siècle. Caen. МИХАЙЛОВ, Б. Д., 1993: Погребение гуннского времени на Каменной Балке в Северной Таврии. Материалы по Археологии, Истории и Этнографии, Таврии 3, 109–111. MRÁV, Z., 2013: Eiserne Klappstühle aus Kaiserzeitlichen Bestattungen der einheimischen elite in Pannonien. Zu den Beigaben der Bade- und Reinigungsgarnitur pannonischer Wagengräber, Archaeologiai Értesítő 138, 105–144. НЕМСАДЗЕ, Г. М., 1977: Погребения иберийской знати из Згудери, Краткие Сообщения Института Археологии 151, 108–114. ОШИБКИНА, С. В., 2010: Вятские древности: могильник Тюм-Тюм III–IV вв. Москва. PARKER, S. T., 1994: A Late Roman Soldiers’s Grave by the Dead Sea, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 38, 385–394. PFAFFENBICHLER, M., 2007: Spangenhelme. In: Attila und die Hunnen, 245–251. Speyer. POST, P., 1954: Der kupferne Spangenhelm, Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission 34, 1951–1953, 115–150. PRISCUS, 1868: Priscus Panites. Fragmenta. In: Fragmenta historicorum Graecorum IV (Müller, C., ed.). Paris. PROHÁSZKA, P., 2006: Das vandalische Königsgrab von Osztrópataka (Ostrovany, Sk). Budapest. PUSZTAI, R., 1966: A lébényi germán fejedelmi sír, Arrabona 8, 99–118. РАМИШВИЛИ, Р. М., 1977: Новые открытия на новостройках Арагвского ущелья, Краткие Сообщения Института Археологии 151, 114–122. REINACH, S., 1892: Antiquités du Bosphore Cimmérien. Paris. РУНИЧ, А. П., 1976: Захоронение вождя эпохи раннего средневековья из Кисловодской котловины, Советская Археология 3, 256–266. САЛИХОВ, Б. М., 1985: Калкнийский могильник In: Маммаев М.М. (отв. ред.) Древние культуры Северо-Восточного Кавказа, 167–187. Махачкала. SCHMIDT, B., 1982: Die münzdatierten Grabfunde der Spätromischen Kaiserzeit im Mittelelbe-Saale-Gebiet. Inventaria Archaeologica. Deutsche Demokratische Republik. Heft 1. Berlin. 207 NA HRANICÍCH IMPÉRIA – EXTRA FINES IMPERII cie na území klientských království. Téměř úplně však chybí v stepním prostředí období stěhování národů. Pohřby s přilbami jako součástmi hrobové výbavy jsou ve východní a střední Evropě v pozdní době římské a hunském období vzácné. Za zmínku stojí, že v obou případech se jedná o periferní oblasti vzhledem ke stepím. V prostředí nomádů, ať už v pozdně sarmatském či hunském období, se pohřby s přilbami nevyskytují vůbec. Přítomnost přilby v hrobové výbavě jak v barbariku, tak na území Římské říše, je obvykle spojená s vyšším společenským statusem, který se odráží v bohatství hrobových příloh a přítomnosti prestižních artefaktů. Pohřby obsahující stolek jsou rovněž velmi vzácné jak v barbariku, tak na území říše. Přítomnost kovového skládacího stolku v hrobech barbarů obvykle souvisí s vyšším sociálním statusem pohřbených osob. Sedla se v hrobech privilegovaných jedinců objevují v barbarském prostředí už v pozdní době římské a tento zvyk poté přetrvává i v hunském a pohunském období. Pohřby se sedly z pozdní doby římské na západě souvisejí s barbarizovaným vojenským prostředím. Z hrobu v Conceşti pocházejí fragmenty zlatých tyčinek, které původně tvořily součást zlatých šperků. Zlaté tyčinkovité nášivky ve tvaru klikatky byly v hunském období skutečně rozšířené v bohatých hrobech usedlých barbarů a na satelitních územích říše od Normandie až po Don a východní Krym. Pohřební ritus hrobu z Conceşti připomíná jak „knížecí“ hroby barbarů z pozdní doby římské, tak aristokratické pohřby na území klientských států Římské říše. Tato skutečnost odráží internacionální charakter prestižní kultury té doby. Za pozornost stojí zejména prvky jako konstrukce hrobky s kamennou deskou nebo přítomnost kovového pohřebního diadému zdobeného lístky v hrobové výbavě. Ty nejsou typické pro barbary, ale jsou běžně rozšířeny na území říše a jejích satelitů. Představují doklady napodobování prestižních pohřebních zvyklostí typických pro vládnoucí elitu římských foederátů a pravděpodobně jsou i znakem pohřbů náčelníků patřících k této elitě. – 1994: Культура кочевников южнорусских степей в гуннскую эпоху (конец IV – V вв.). Санкт-Петербург. – 1998: Датировка и происхождение пальчатых фибул Боспорского некрополя раннесредневекового периода. Материалы по Археологии, Истори и Этнографии Таврии 6, 394–478. ЗАСЕЦКАЯ, И. П.–КАЗАНСКИЙ, М. М.–АХМЕДОВ, И. Р.– МИНАСЯН, Р. С., 2007: Морской Чулек. Погребения знати из Приазовья и их место в истории племен Северного Причерноморья в постгуннскую эпоху. Санкт-Петербург. ЗЕЕСТ, И. Б., 1951: Синдская экспедиция 1951 года. Дневник. Архив Института Археологии Российской Академии Наук, Р1-582а. Resume O POHŘEBNÍM RITU „KNÍŽECÍHO“ HROBU Z HUNSKÉHO OBDOBÍ V CONCEŞTI „Knížecí“ hrob z hunského období v Conceşti (Rumunsko) vyniká mezi hroby elity z období stěhování národů díky bohatství a výjimečnosti svých hrobových příloh a také díky speciickým rysům pohřebního ritu, které jsou v rámci evropského barbarika neobvyklé. Prvky pohřebního ritu, jakými jsou přítomnost obřadní zbroje, zlatého nákrčníku jako symbolu statusu, součástí koňského postroje, šperků v polychromním stylu a také doprovodného pohřbu koně, jsou typické jak pro území barbarika, tak pro barbarizovanou pozdně římskou vojenskou nobilitu na území říše i jejích satelitů (např. Bospor, Sýrie, Núbie, Lazica, Ibérie). Tamější pohřby byly rovněž vybaveny mnoha luxusními předměty včetně šperků v polychromním stylu, zbraní či kovových pohřebních masek. Jsou rozšířeny na tak velkém území, že hledání jakýchkoli analogií postrádá smysl a nemůžou být tedy využity k objasnění kulturního kontextu hrobu z Conceşti. Při zkoumání detailů pohřebního ritu na lokalitě Conceşti si nepochybně zaslouží pozornost prvky vycházející z klasických řecko-římských tradic, jakými jsou například pohřby v hrobkách s kamennou deskou. Tento zvyk je dobře známý z Římské říše včetně řeckého obyvatelstva severního Přičernomoří a balkánsko-podunajských provincií. Chybí však v barbarském prostředí východní a střední Evropy v pozdně římském a hunském období. Druhým nezaměnitelným prvkem klasické řecko-římské tradice, který byl rozšířený jak na území říše, tak v jejích klientských královstvích, je diadém z tenkého zlatého plechu zdobený zlatými lístky, který měl zesnulý na hlavě. Tento zvyk se téměř vůbec nevyskytuje v barbarském prostředí. Soupravy kovového stolního nádobí pozdně římského původu jsou běžnými součástmi pohřbů v barbarském prostředí v rámci Evropy i aristokra- Dr. Michel Kazanski Centre d´Histoire et de Civilisation de Byzance Rue du Cardinal Lemoine 52, F–75005 Paris e-mail: michel.kazanski53@gmail.com 208 NA HRANICÍCH IMPÉRIA EXTRA FINES IMPERII JAROSLAVU TEJRALOVI K 80. NAROZENINÁM Redakce: Ústav archeologie a muzeologie FF MU Překlady: Jana Klíčová Sazba a graická úprava: Šárka Trávníčková Vydaly Masarykova univerzita, Žerotínovo nám. 617/9, 601 77 Brno a Archeologický ústav AV ČR, Brno, v. v. i., Čechyňská 363/19, 602 00 Brno Vydání první, 2017 Náklad 500 výtisků Tisk: Metoda spol. s. r. o., Hluboká 14, 639 00 Brno ISBN 978-80-210-8579-4 (Masarykova univerzita) ISBN 978-80-7524-008-8 (Archeologický ústav AV ČR, Brno, v. v. i.)