„Vadrózsából tündérsípot csináltam” Tanulmányok Istvánovits Eszter 60. születésnapjára „To make a fairy’s whistle from a briar rose” Studies presented to Eszter Istvánovits on her sixtieth birthday Három egész napon át bújtam erdő vadonát, gombamezőt, sziklatetőt bejártam. Három egész napon át faragtam egy furulyát, vadrózsából tündérsípot csináltam. Three days I spent in the forest’s arms exploring its enchanted charms, from its cliff-top crown to its mulchy toe Three days I spent in the forest’s arms and there a flute myself did carve to make a fairy’s whistle from a briar rose. (Weöres Sándor: Furulya) (Sándor Weöres: The flute) (Translated by John Conyers) NYÍREGYHÁZA, 2018 Almássy Katalin és Kulcsár Valéria közreműködésével szerkesztette L. Nagy Márta és L. Szőlősi Katalin / Edited by Márta L. Nagy and Katalin L. Szőlősi with the cooperation of Katalin Almássy and Valéria Kulcsár Jósa András Múzeum Nyíregyháza 2018 A Jósa András Múzeum Kiadványai 73. A kötet elkészítését támogatták: Nóra 97 Kft., Polgár Múzeumfalu Baráti Köre, Nyíregyháza Ásatárs Kft., Kecskemét Angol nyelvű fordítás: Kulcsár Valéria Szedés és tördelés: Szemán Attila A borítót tervezte: Beleznai Gabriella ISBN 978 615 5619 06 9 HU – ISSN 0133–8110 © Szerzők ©Jósa András Múzeum Kiadja a Jósa András Múzeum Felelős kiadó: a nyíregyházi Jósa András Múzeum igazgatója Példányszám: 400 Nyomdai munkálatok: Kapitális Kft., Debrecen Felelős vezető: Kapusi József Bowmen’s Graves from the Hunnic Period in Northern Illyricum Michel Kazanski This paper will analyse two bowmen’s graves from the Hunnic Period discovered in Northern Illyricum, with particular attention to the inds of bows in the context of European burials from the Great Migration Period. One of these burials was discovered in the cemetery of Singidunum IV, located near the walls of the Late Roman/Early Byzantine borderland castrum of Singidunum in the province of Moesia I. This grave no. 2/2006 was an inhumation with the body in extended position, in a rectangular 2.7 х 1.2 m large grave pit (Fig. 1). Iron nails in the grave indicate that there was a wooden coin. Although the burial was partially destroyed, relatively rich grave goods survived, particularly costume elements (a brooch, buckles, and a belt-end), weapons (a sword with details of a scabbard and a pendant, a spear, bone bow laths, arrows, shield boss and handle), a knife and a purse with coins of Marcus Aurelius and a ire-steel (Fig. 2). Publication of this grave is very detailed, suggesting its date to the late phase D2 according to the chronology of the European Barbaricum, that is to say, 420/430–450 AD (Ivanišević–Kazanski 2007.). Especially interesting are four laths of a bow, accompanied with a quiver with arrows (Fig. 2: 17). The second grave was discovered in a small cemetery from the Great Migration Period in the Sava River Basin, on the left bank of the latter’s tributary, Vranja, near the modern settlement of Hrtkovci (Dautova–Ruševljan 1998.). This territory was subordinated to the province of Pannonia II in the irst half of the 5th century. The grave contained a skeleton in extended position with the head to the west. Although contours of the grave pit remained untraced, there were iron clamps of a wooden coin. The ind material included a biconical vessel and eight bone laths of a bow (Fig. 3). The scull of the deceased bears traces of artiicial deformation. This rite originated among the Sarmatians and the Alans and became well-known in the Middle Danube Region in the 5th century (Anke 1998. 126–130). The ceramic pot from this grave is analogous with the vessel discovered in the same cemetery, in female grave no. 1, which was reliably dated to the late phase D2, that is to say, 420/430–450 AD (Tejral 2007. 78–81, Tejral 2011. 367–368). Both vessels were possibly made in the same workshop, and their chronologies are similar. Bows with bone laths originated in Asia (Hazanov 2008. 78–83). According to Joachim Werner, their distribution in Europe went on in several waves. They initially occurred among auxiliary “eastern” units of the Roman army that borrowed this type of bow from the Parthians. Then, in the Late Roman Period, bows with laths disappeared from the Roman army; following that, they occurred among the Huns, who originated from Inner Asia (Werner 1956. 46–50). Bone bow laths are actually well-known in the funeral context in Inner Asia from the 4th century, i.e. in the moment when the Huns migrated to the West (Anke 1998. 124–125, Taf. 62, Bóna 2002. 100–102, ig. 97). „Vadrózsából tündérsípot csináltam”. 2018. 407–417. 407 Michel Kazanski However, there are bone bow laths from the 3rd century known in the West, particularly in Mainz, Caerleon, Waden Hill, Buch, and Straubing, thus showing that this type of weapons continuously existed in the Empire (Hazanov 2008. 84–85, Kazanski 1991. 135). Simultaneously, before the arrival of the Huns, bone bow laths existed among the peoples populating steppes of Eastern Europe from the 1st to 4th centuries, particularly among the Alans and Sarmatians (Werner 1956. Taf. 37: 2, Karte 4, Hazanov 2008. 84–85). This weapon was also known in the “Late Sarmatian Period” (2nd–4th c.) and in the steppe of the Southern Ural and Northern Kazakhstan, i.e. in the area where the Huns should have arrived during their migration to the west in the 4th century (Hazanov 2008. 73–75). The 120–150 cm long bow with bone laths was the Huns’ main weapon (Alföldi 1932. 18–26, Zasetskaya 1994. 35–36, Bóna 2002. 117–121, Kazanski 2012. 193–194). The Huns usually used arrows with a relatively big, three-winged head (Zasetskaya 1994. ig. 4, type 3b), such as the pieces found in the grave of Singidunum IV (Fig. 3: 11). They caused the enemy and, no less important, its horses big open wounds doing voluminous bleeding. Three-winged arrowheads originated in the steppe but soon spread throughout Europe, so from the early 5th century on, they occurred among very diferent peoples along a vast tract from the forest zone of present-day Russia to Gallia (Kazanski 2009. 102, Kazanski 2014. 48–49). Bodo Anke compiled a list of inds of bows with bone laths from the Great Migration Period (Anke 1998. Karte 5, Fundliste 4). Although this list could be amended1, the data at our disposal clearly deine two main areas of their distribution: Russian-Ukrainian steppes and the Middle Danube Region, where, apart from Singidunum IV and Vranja, inds from the Hunnic Period also include a grave in Wien–Simmering (Fig. 4, Appendix, 10–12). It is important to mention bow laths discovered in the fortress of Intercisa, where barbarian foederati of the Empire were stationed (Tejral 1988. Abb. 12: 1). Besides, there are inds of laths of the type in the Early Byzantine fortress of Pontes on the Danube, in Northern Serbia (Špehar 2010. 128–129, tabl. 38: 693, 695). Graves from the Great Migration Period with bone laths of bow are known both among the peoples of the steppe and “settled” barbarians (Fig. 4, Appendix). This way, gold applications of bow are documented in graves of Hunnic leaders (Bóna 2002. 131–133), particularly in Jakuszowice (Werner 1956. Taf. 61, Godłowski 1995. Abb. 2: 1), even though not in all cases reconstructions of these bows seem reliable. Anyway, it is clear that bows were attributes of power in the “empire” of the Huns (László 1951.)2. In the Post-Hunnic Period, deposition of bow and arrows into grave symbolised a relatively high status of the deceased at the Germanic tribes. Bow with bone laths and arrows in quiver were excavated from “princely” graves from the middle and the second half of the 5th century in Blučina, Moravia (Tihelka 1963. 488–489, Tejral 2002. pl. 11: 11, 23), and in Esslingen–Rüdern in Southwestern Germany (Christlein 1972. 261–262). In the Early Merovingian Period (470/480–520/530 AD), bowman’s equipment, irst of all arrows, of the Franks and the Alemanni was found in Samson, grave 12; Hermes, grave 2581; Charleville–Mezières, grave 68; Flonheim, graves 1 and 9, and Hemmingen, graves 2 and 21 (Martin 1993. ig. 1: 2). Bow graves in Singidunum IV and Vranja are not connectable with 5th century social elites deined by Volker Bierbrauer for the Middle Danubian barbarians as Category I in his hierarchy. 1 2 It is important to remember the bow lath from building VI in the settlement of Khitsy, belonging to the Pen’kovka archaeological culture, in the left bank of the Dnieper, which testiies to the spread of bows with bone laths among the Slavs (Antae) in the Hunnic Period (Goriunov 1981. ig. 21: 9, Kazanski 2014. 47). In the night of Attila’s death, Emperor Marcian saw a dream with the broken bow of this great leader of the Huns (Jordanes Getica, 255), which is an indirect reference for the bow’s symbolic role among the Huns. 408 Bowmen’s Graves from the Hunnic Period in Northern Illyricum There actually were no “high-status” goods, such as gold and rare imports (Bierbrauer 1989.). However, bow graves undoubtedly possess speciic position among the graves of the next in hierarchy Category II, and therefore they could be identiied as those of “top middle class,” i.e. Category IIa. It is true that they contained remains of bows, which were relatively rare in the Hunnic Period outside civilisations of the steppe (see Appendix). It has already been stated that bow played a symbolic role among the Huns, and therefore among the peoples conquered by them. Bow became a part of grave goods of military leaders of the Germanic tribes in the Post-Hunnic Period (see above). No doubts, the Germans imitated prestigious funeral rituals of the Hunnic elite. The sword in the grave in Singidunum IV supplies another evidence of the special position of the deceased. This weapon most often occurred in privileged graves and clearly played an outstanding symbolic role in funeral rituals (Kazanski 1999.). *** In the Hunnic Period, the groups of cemeteries in the Middle Danube Region which contained weapon graves, particularly with bows and arrows, archaeologically relect small militarised polities (“barbarian kingdoms”), which were to some extent controlled by the Huns (Tejral 2007. 82–86, 92–96, Abb. 27). Materials of these sites, particularly warrior and horse equipment, show visible inluences from the steppe. Generally, the creators of these groups of sites were populations of heterogeneous culture, a part of which came to the Danube area from the outside. Their appearance was related to military, political and cultural changes happened when the Huns established themselves at the Middle Danube. After the fall of the “empire” of the Huns, these militarised groups established, sooner or later, alliances with the Roman Empire. These people formed embryos of “barbarian kingdoms”, or the gentes of the Post-Hunnic Period, such as the Ostrogoths, Gepids, Heruls, Langobards, and others (Tejral 1997. 139–162, Tejral 2002. 509–511, Tejral 2007. 102– 111, Tejral 2011. 401–403). These groups appeared both in Roman provinces and in the neighbouring Barbaricum, on the other side of the Danube. According to Jaroslav Tejral, one of these groups formed the sites in Northern Illyricum (Tejral 1997. 143). Translated from Russian by Nikita Khrapunov Appendix Burials of the Hunnic Period with bone laths of the bow (Europe). Numbers correspond to the numbers on Fig. 4. 1. Solonchanka I (Солончанка I), barrow 1 (Liubchanskij–Tairov 1999. ig. 22). 2. Kyzyl-Adyr (Кызыл-Адыр), grave (Zasetskaya 1994. tabl. 36: 2–11, Anke 1998. Taf. 121). 3. Zeelman–Rovnoe (Зеельман–Pовное), barrow D-42 (Zasetskaya 1994. tabl. 29: 4, Anke 1998. Taf. 90: 1–11). 4. Engels-Pokrovsk (Энгельс-Покровск), barrow 17 (Zasetskaya 1994. tabl. 31: 4, Kazanski 2009. ig. 25: 16–17). The tomb may belong to the Post-Hunnic Period (Zasetskaya et al. 2007. 113). 409 Michel Kazanski 5. Engels-Pokrovsk (Энгельс-Покровск), barrow 18 (Zasetskaya 1994. tabl. 31: 12–14, Anke 1998. Taf. 90: 12–21, Kazanski 2009. ig. 25: 20, 22–24). The tomb may belong to the Post-Hunnic Period (Zasetskaya et al. 2007. 113). 6. Kubej (Кубей), barrow 8, grave 2 (Zasetskaya 1994. tabl. 47: 11, Anke 1998. Taf. 128). 7. Kerch (Керчь), vault 154.1904 (Zasetskaya 1993. no. 229). 8. Starozhilovo (Старожилово) I, vault 4/4 (Maslennikov 1997. ig. 11: 1–3). 9. Ust’-Alma (Усть-Альма), vault 635 (Puzdrovskij–Zaitsev–Nenevolia 1999. ig. 5). 10. Vranja, grave 2 (Dautova-Ruševljan 1998., Tejral 2011. Abb. 289). 11. Wien–Simmering, grave (Tejral 1988. Abb. 18: 11–13, 15–16, Anke 1998. Taf. 66: 14, Tejral 2011. Abb. 112). 12. Singidunum IV, grave 2/2006 (Ivanišević–Kazanski 2007., Tejral 2011. Abb. 288). 13. Almalyk-Dere (Алмалык-Дере), vault 118/2000, cremation grave 1/2000 (Mączyńska et al. 2016. Taf. 94). Bibliography Alföldi 1932. Andreas Alföldi: Funde aus der Hunnenzeit und ihre ethnische Sonderung. ArchHung 9. Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum, Budapest 1932. Anke 1998. Bodo Anke: Studien zur reiternomadischen Kultur des 4. bis. 5. Jahrhunderts. Beier&Beran, Wessbach 1998. Bierbrauer 1989. Volker Bierbrauer: Ostgermanische Oberschichtgräber der römischen Kaiserzeit und der frühen Mittelalters. Peregrinatio Gothica. Archaeologica Baltica VIII. 1989. 39–106. Bóna 2002. István Bóna: Les Huns. Le grand empire barbare d’Europe IVe–Ve siècles. Errance, Paris 2002. Christlein 1972. Reiner Christlein: Wafen aus dem völkerwanderungszeitlichen Grabfund von EsslingenRüdern. Germania 50. 1972. 259–263. Dautova-Ruševljan 1998. Велика Даутова-Рушевљян: Касноантички гроб на локалитету Врањ у Хртковцима. Рад Музеjа Воjводине 40. 1998. 97–101. Godłowski 1995. Kazimierz Godłowski: Das “Fürstengrab” des 5. Jhs. und der “Fürstensitz” in Jakuszowice in Südpolen. In: La noblesse romaine et les chefs barbares du IIIe au VIIe siècle. Dir. Françoise Vallet – Michel Kazanski. AFAM, Saint-Germain-en Laye 1995. 155–180. Goriunov 1981. Евгений Алексеевич Горюнов: Ранние этапы истории славян Днепровского Левобережья. Наука, Ленинград 1981. Hazanov 2008. Анатолий Михайлович Хазанов: Очерки военного дела сарматов. Филологический факультет СПбГУ, Санкт-Петербург 2008. 410 Bowmen’s Graves from the Hunnic Period in Northern Illyricum Ivanišević–Kazanski 2007. Vujadin Ivanišević – Michel Kazanski: Nouvelle nécropole des Grandes Migrations de Singidunum. Starinar 57. 2007. 113–135. Jordanes, Getica Jordanes: De origine actibusque Getarum. Ed. Francesco Giunta – Antonino Grillone. Istituto Palazzo Borromini, Rome 1991. Kazanski 1991. Michel Kazanski: A propos des armes et des éléments de harnachement “orientaux” en Occident à l’époque des Grandes Migrations (IVe–Ve s.). Journal of Roman Archaeology 1991: 4. 123–139. Kazanski 1999. Michel Kazanski: Les tombes des chefs militaires de l’époque hunnique. In: Germanen beiderseits des spätantiken Limes. Hrsg. Thomas Fischer – Gundolf Precht – Jaroslav Tejral. Archäologisches Institut der Universität Köln – Archäologisches Institut der Akademie der Wissenschaften Brno, Köln–Brno 1999. 293–316. Kazanski 2009. Michel Kazanski: Archéologie des peuples barbares. Editura Academiei Romăne, Bucureşti– Brăila 2009. Kazanski 2012. Michel Kazanski: Les armes et les techniques de combat des guerriers steppiques du début du Moyen-âge. Des Huns aux Avars. In: Le cheval dans les sociétés antiques et médiévale. Ed. Stavros Lazaris. Brepols, Turnhaut 2012. 193–199, 287–296. Kazanski 2014. Michel Kazanski: Les inluences steppiques dans l’équipement militaire et équestre des Slaves (Ve–VIIe siècles). In: Warriors, weapons, and harness from the 5th–10th centuries in the Carpathian Basin. Ed. Cosma Călin. Mega, Cluj-Napoca 2014. 45–56. László 1951. Gyula László: The signiicance of the Hun Golden Bow. Contribution to the Structure of the Hun Nomad Empire. [Значение гуннских золотых луков (Археологические сведения к познанию организации империи гуннов-кочевников).] ActaArchHung 1.1951. 91–106. Liubchanskij–Tairov 1999. Илья Эдуардович Любчанский – Александр Дмитриевич Таиров: Археологическое исследование комплекса Курган с „усами” Солончанка I. In: Курган с „усами” Солончанка I. Ред. Александр Дмитриевич Таиров. Челябинский государственный университет, Челябинск 1999. 5–62. Mączyńska et al. 2016. Magdalena Mączyńska – Alexandr Gercen – Olga Ivanova – Sergej Černyš – Sergej Lukin – Agnieszka Urbaniak – Jan Bemmann – Katharina Schneider – Ireneusz Jakubczyk: Das frühmittelalterliches Gräberfeld Almalyk-Dere am Fusse des Manguр auf der Südwestkrim. Verlag des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums, Mainz 2016. Martin 1993. Max Martin: Observations sur l’armement de l’époque mérovingienne précoce. In: L’armée romaine et les Barbares du IIIe au VIIe siècle. Dir. Françoise Vallet – Michel Kazanski. AFAM, Saint-Germain-en-Laye 1993. 395–409. 411 Michel Kazanski Maslennikov 1997. Александр Александрович Maсленников: Семейные склепы сельского населения позднеантичного Боспора. Институт aрхеологии РАН, Москва 1997. Puzdrovskij–Zaitsev–Nenevolia 1999. Александр Евгеньевич Пуздровский – Юрий Павлович Зайцев – Иван Иванович Неневоля: Погребение воина гуннского времени на Усть-Альминском могильнике. Херсонесский Сборник 10. 1999. 194–207. Špehar 2010. Perica Špehar: Materijalna kultura iz ranovizantijskih utveđenja u Đerdapu. Arheološki Institut, Beograd 2010. Tejral 1988. Jaroslav Tejral: Zur Chronologie der frühen Völkerwanderungszeit im mittleren Donauraum. ArchaA 77. 1988. 223–304. Tejral 1997. Jaroslav Tejral: Neue Aspekte der frühvölkerwanderungszeitlichen Chronologie im Mitteldonauraum. In: Neue Beiträge zur Erforschung der Spätantike im mittleren Donauraum. Hrsg. Jaroslav Tejral – Herwig Friesinger – Michel Kazanski. Archäologisches Institut der Akademie der Wissenschaften, Brno 1997. 321–392. Tejral 2002. Jaroslav Tejral: Neue Erkenntnisse zur Frage der donauländisch-ostgermanischen Kriegerbeziehungsweise Männergräber des 5. Jahrhunderts. FÖ 41. 2002. 496–552. Tejral 2007. Jaroslav Tejral: Das Hunnenreich und die Identitätsfragen der barbarischen “gentes” im Mitteldonauraum aus der Sicht der Archäologie. In: Barbaren im Wandel. Beiträge zur Kultur- und Identitätsumbildung in der Völkerwanderungszeit. Hrsg. Jaroslav Tejral. Archäologisches Institut der Akademie der Wissenschaften, Brno 2007. 55–120. Tejral 2011. Jaroslav Tejral: Einheimische und Fremde. Das nord-danubische Gebiet zur Zeit der Völkerwanderung. Archäologisches Institut der Akademie der Wissenschaften, Brno 2011. Tihelka 1963. Karel Tihelka: Knížecí hrob z období stĕhování národů u Blučiny, okr. Brno–Venkov. PA 65: 2. 1963. 467–498. Werner 1956. Joachim Werner: Beiträge zur Archäologie des Attila-Reiches. Verlag der Bayerischen Akademien der Wissenschaften, München 1956. Zasetskaya 1993. Ирина Петровна Засецкая: Материалы Боспорского некрополя второй половины IV – первой половины V вв. МАИЭТ 3, 1993. 23–105. Zasetskaya 1994. Ирина Петровна Засецкая: Культура кочевников южнорусских степeй в гуннскую эпоху (конец IV–V вв.). Эллипс, Санкт-Петербург 1994. 412 Bowmen’s Graves from the Hunnic Period in Northern Illyricum Zasetskaya et al. 2007. Ирина Петровна Засецкая – Михаил Михайлович Казанский – Илья Рафаэлевич Ахмедов – Рафаил Сергеевич Минасян: Морской Чулек. Погребения знати из Приазовья и их место в истории племен Северного Причерноморья в постгуннскую эпоху. Издательство Государственного Эрмитажа, Санкт-Петербург 2007. Michel Kazanski CNRS–UMR 8167 “Orient et Méditerranée” F–75005 Paris 52. rue du cardinal Lemoine e-mail: michel.kazanski53@gmail.com Hun kori íjásztemetkezések Észak-Illyricumból A tanulmány az Észak-Illyricumban talált íjásztemetkezésekkel foglalkozik: a Singidunum IV. lelőhely 2/2006. sírjával és a vranjai temető 2. sírjával. Az európai barbaricumi kronológia szerinti D2 fázisra keltezhetők, vagyis a Kr.u. 420/430–450 közötti periódusra. A népvándorláskorban a csont íjlemezek széles körben elterjedtek a sztyeppei népeknél és kevésbé általánosan a „letelepedett” barbárok között. Mivel a Hun Birodalomban az íjak hatalmi jelképként szolgáltak, okunk van feltételezni, hogy a letelepedett népesség temetkezéseiben egyrészt hun hatást tükröznek, másrészt az elhunyt személy különleges társadalmi helyzetét jelzik. A singidunumi és vranjai íjásztemetkezések az V. századi közép-Duna-vidéki barbároknak nem az elit rétegét képviselik, mivel sírjaikban nem kerültek elő „státusz” leletek, aranymellékletek és idegen származású tárgyak. Nagyobb valószínűséggel kapcsolhatók a „középosztály” privilegizált részéhez. A hun korban a Közép-Duna-vidéken ismerünk olyan temetőcsoportokat, ahol fegyveres sírokat, köztük íjat és nyilakat tartalmazókat találunk. Ezek régészetileg a kisebb katonai államalakulatokra („barbár királyságok”) utalnak, amelyek a hunok különböző mértékű ellenőrzése alatt álltak. Az itt nyugvóhelyre talált lakosság heterogén volt. Az észak-illyricumi íjásztemetkezések, köztük a cikkben tárgyalt singidunumi és vranjai sír, egy ilyenfajta csoporthoz tartozhattak. Michel Kazanski CNRS–UMR 8167 “The Orient and the Mediterranean” F–75005 Paris 52. rue du cardinal Lemoine e-mail: michel.kazanski53@gmail.com 413 Michel Kazanski Fig. 1 Singidunum IV, grave 2/2006 1. kép Singidunum IV, 2/2006. sír 414 Bowmen’s Graves from the Hunnic Period in Northern Illyricum Fig. 2 Singidunum IV, grave 2/2006. Part of the grave goods 2. kép Singidunum IV, a 2/2006. sír néhány lelete 415 Michel Kazanski Fig. 3 Grave from Vranja 3. kép A vranjai sír 416 Bowmen’s Graves from the Hunnic Period in Northern Illyricum Fig. 4 Burials of the Hunnic Period with bone laths of the bow. 1: Solonchanka, 2: Kyzyl-Adyr, 3: Zeelman–Rovnoe, 4: Engels-Pokrovsk, 5: Engels-Pokrovsk, 6: Kubej, 7: Kerch, 8: Starozhilovo, 9: Ust’-Alma, 10: Vranja, 11: Wien–Simmering, 12: Singidunum, 13: Almalyk-Dere 4. kép Hun kori sírok csont íjlemezekkel. 1: Szoloncsanka, 2: Kizil-Adir, 3: Zeelman–Rovnoe, 4: Engels-Pokrovszk, 5: Engels-Pokrovszk, 6: Kubej, 7: Kercs, 8: Sztarozsilovo, 9: Uszty-Alma, 10: Vranja, 11: Wien–Simmering, 12: Singidunum, 13: Almalik-Dere 417