Arbeiten zur Archäologie Süddeutschlands • Band 29
Wandel durch Migration?
26. internationales Symposium
„Grundprobleme der frühgeschichtlichen Entwicklung
im mittleren Donauraum“
Straubing 2014
herausgegeben von
Hans Geisler
Sonderdruck
Verlag Dr. Faustus • Büchenbach 2016
Inhaltsverzeichnis
Der nördliche Mitteldonauraum
Miroslava Švihurová
Transformation of the Púchov culture during the Early Roman Period
Karol Pieta
Fremde und einheimische Elemente im Fürstengrab von Poprad
Kristian Elschek
Zur Besiedlung des slowakischen Marchgebiets um die Zeitwende
am Beispiel ausgewählter spätlatène- und frühkaiserzeitlicher Fundstellen
Magdalena Mączyńska
Neues über die Völkerwanderungszeit in Pommern
11
20
23
27
Neue soziale Strukturen im Mittleren Donauraum
Katharina Winckler
„Wie aus dem Hause der Ägyptischen Knechtschaft“:
Römer, Barbaren und Migration im Donauraum nach der Vita Severini
29
Jaroslav Tejral
Die frühvölkerwanderungszeitlichen Elitengräber
und das Problem der Stilgruppe Untersiebenbrunn
39
Michel Kazanski, Anna Mastykova
„Princely“ finds and power centers
in Eastern European Barbaricum in the Hunnic time
85
Hedvika Sedláčková
Blučina und Žuráň. Beiträge zur Kenntnis der Glasgefäßfunde
aus Elitengräbern der Völkerwanderungszeit in Mähren
105
Gabriela Ruß-Popa, Karina Grömer
Organische Elemente als Bestandteil des Grabbrauchs
in Gräbern des 5. Jahrhunderts von Gobelsburg (NÖ)
117
Alois Stuppner
Die Völkerwanderungszeit:
Phänomene des Wandels im Siedlungswesen des Mitteldonauraumes
135
Einheimische und Fremde in Pannonien
Orsolya Heinrich-Tamáska
Romanitas im Wandel am Beispiel Pannoniens
153
Judith Benedix
Gedanken zur Rezeption von Kulturlandschaft
am Beispiel von drei Gräbergruppen des 6. Jh. aus dem Tullner Feld und dem Traisental
155
Jaromír Šmerda
The new Lombard burial site of Kyjov in Moravia
and its position in the development of the 6th c. AD
167
Lucia Kováčová
Social structure of selected early Merovingian period burial grounds
in the Middle Danube Region
181
Romanen und Fremde beiderseits der Alpen
Stefan Eichert
Wandel durch Migration – Der Ostalpenraum im Frühmittelalter als Fallstudie
197
Claudia Theune
Von der Provinz Germania Superior zur Alamannia
213
Elisa Possenti
Transformationen von Landschaft und Wirtschaft
im ländlichen Norditalien nach dem Jahr 568
221
Neue Methoden der Naturwissenschaften
Silvia Codreanu-Windauer, Michaela Harbeck
Neue Untersuchungen zu Gräbern des 5. Jahrhunderts: Der Fall Burgweinting
Hans Geisler
Die „üblichen Verdächtigen“ und ihre unvermuteten Begleiter.
Samplingstrategien bei archäologisch-anthropologischen Analysereihen
243
261
Migration und kein Ende?
Dieter Quast
Brain drain und Rückkehrer – Effekte von Migration in Abwanderungsgebieten
269
Marianne Pollak
Die Rezeption von Wanderung und Migration in den Donau- und Alpenländern
zwischen 1938 und 1945
275
Thomas Fischer
Die Internationalen Symposien zu den „Grundproblemen der frühgeschichtlichen
Entwicklung im mittleren Donauraum“ – Eine Erfolgsgeschichte
283
Verzeichnis der Tagungsorte, Themen und Publikationen
285
Die Durchführung der Tagung in Straubing vom 3. bis 7. Dezember 2014 wurde möglich
in Zusammenarbeit mit dem Gäubodenmuseum der Stadt Straubing (Leiter: Prof. Dr. Günther Moosbauer)
und durch einen Zuschuss der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG Projekt MO 2030 / 2-1).
Diese Publikation wurde herausgegeben mit freundlicher Unterstützung durch
• Archäologisches Institut der Slowakischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Nitra
• Archäologisches Institut der Akademie der Wissenschaften der Tschechischen Republik in Brünn
• Institut für Orientalische und Europäische Archäologie
der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Wien
• Institut für Urgeschichte und Historische Archäologie der Universität Wien
Das Signet der Tagung ist die polychrom cloisonnierte goldene Fischfibel
aus Grab 668 des Gräberfeldes Straubing-Bajuwarenstraße
(Länge 46 mm; Gäubodenmuseum Straubing; Zeichnung: Sonja Sutt).
Hans Geisler (ed.), Wandel durch Migration?
26. internationales Symposium
„Grundprobleme der frühgeschichtlichen Entwicklung im mittleren Donauraum“ Straubing 2014.
(Arbeiten zur Archäologie Süddeutschlands 29)
Büchenbach: Dr. Faustus 2016
ISBN: 978-3-946387-05-3
Redaktion, sprachliche Korrektur, Layout: Hans Geisler
Druck: inprint GmbH, 91058 Erlangen • Printed in Germany
© 2016 • Alle Rechte vorbehalten
Verlag Dr. FAUSTUS, Sandstr. 23, 91186 Büchenbach • www.Verlag-Dr-Faustus.de
Hans Geisler (ed.), Wandel durch Migration? 26. internationales Symposium
„Grundprobleme der frühgeschichtlichen Entwicklung im mittleren Donauraum“ Straubing 2014.
Büchenbach: Dr. Faustus 2016 (Arbeiten zur Archäologie Süddeutschlands 29)
Michel Kazanski, Anna Mastykova
„Princely“ finds and power centers
in Eastern European Barbaricum in the Hunnic time
The Hunnic time saw the emergence of a series
of burials and hoards pertaining to the princely
élite in the Eastern European Barbaricum on the
northeast boundary of the Chernyakhov civilization. They are marked by a set of ornaments
and costume elements typical of the so-called
Untersiebenbrunn „princely“ horizon (Tejral
2011, 128-195, 313-329) and yield ceremonial
weapons, namely swords, horse harness and
banquet sets of metal- and glassware. Hoards
contain Late Roman gold coins.
Here is a list of such finds east of the Dnieper:
(distr. = district / prov. = province )
Nezhin, distr. Nezhin, prov. Chernigov, Ukraine
(fig. 1,1).
A hoard found in 1872 contained 1312 Roman coins
dating from Nero (54-68) to Septimius Severus (193211), a bronze ring, two big fibulae in polychrome
style of the Ambroz 1 type (Ambroz 1966, 77-86)
with a foot widening to the end (fig. 2,7).
Kropotkin 1970, No. 1109; 2005, 223 f.; Kazanski 1998,
230 f; 2007, 92; Gavrituhin/Oblomsky 2006, 308-310.
Žigajlovka, distr. Trostianets, prov. Sumy, Ukraine
(fig. 1,2).
Two Late Roman silver jars probably from a burial,
discovered during roadworks (fig. 2,8.9).
Putsko 1984; Kazanski 1998, 230 f.; 2007, 93;
Gavrituhin/Oblomsky 2006, 308.
Rublevka, distr. Kotelva, prov. Poltava, Ukraine
(fig. 1,3).
A hoard containing 201 Late Roman gold coins dating
from 371 to 450-457 AD and a fragment of a massive
gold bracelet with widening ends was accidentally
found in 1891.
Kropotkin 2005, No. 813; Kazanski 1998, 231 f.;
2007, 92; Gavrituhin/Oblomsky 2006, 308.
Paniki, distr. Oboian, prov. Kursk, Russia
(fig. 1,4).
The so-called Oboian hoard of 1849: a gilt bronze
torque, over 70 stamped gold appliqué plaques
and an engraved glass cup, probably grave goods,
have survived (fig. 3).
Matsulievich 1934, 79-85; Kazanski 1998, 233; 2007, 92;
Gavrituhin/Oblomsky 2006; Radiush 2014, 237.
Bolshoï Kamenets, distr. Bolshoe Soldatskoe,
prov. Kursk, Russia (fig. 1,5).
An inhumation (t he finders remembered human
bones and even remnants of plaited hair), accidentally discovered in 1918-19 on a riverside in a chamber paved with stones, measuring appoximately 2 x
1.5 m. – Among the surviving artefacts there are Late
Roman metalware including a silver jar, a fragment
of a gilt bronze bucket and a bracket from a vessel,
stamped gold appliqué plaques and a silver phalera
(fig. 4). As to lost items, the finders mentioned bracelets, a torque with a medallion, a fingerring, a glass
cup and a glass dish.
86
Matsulievich 1934, 15-59; Kropotkin 1970, No. 730;
Kazanski 1998, 232; 2007, 91 f.; Gavrituhin/Oblomsky 2006, 307; Radiush 2014, 237-240.
A burial accidentally discovered in 1927 was allegedly located some 800 m from that of 1918-19. It yielded a gold torque with an inlaid medallion, two gold
bracelets with zoomorphous ends and a gold chain
(fig. 5). According to O. Radiush, these artefacts may
originate from the burial of 1918-1919.
Matsulievich 1934, 63-76; Kazanski 1998, 232; 2007,
92; Gavrituhin/Oblomsky 2006, 307 f.; Radiush
2014, 237-240.
Volnikovka, distr. Fatezh, prov. Kursk, Russia
(fig. 1,6).
Artefacts originating undoubtedly from a burial
were found in the course of construction work. Belt
plaques and details of a long sword with cloisonné
decorations, details of silver belt mounts, elements
of a sword-belt and details of a short sword with inlaid semi-precious stones in separately soldered-on
sockets, horse harness mounts with inlays in separately soldered-on sockets and fragments of a gold
covered saddle have survived (fig. 6; 7).
Volnikovsky “klad” 2014; Radiush 2014, 240-243.
Kruglitsa/Porshnino, distr. Uritsky, prov. Orel,
Russia (fig. 1,7).
The site, most probably a burial, was discovered in
1936, and yielded two big fibulae of the Ambroz II
type (Ambroz 1966, 86-91) with polychrome decoration, a fingerring and a long sword with an iron guard
(fig. 2,1-6).
Rybakov 1953, 50; Kropotkin 1970, No. 1044; Zasetskaya 1982, 30; Gavrituhin/Oblomsky 2006, 310;
Kazanski 2007, 89.
Mukhino, distr. Zadonsk, prov. Lipetsk, Russia
(fig. 1,8).
A female burial discovered at the multilayer site of
Mukhino-2. The deceased was buried in a pit with
her head pointing north. An impressive set of grave
goods includes stamped gold appliqué plaques,
gold tubes, such metal artefacts as a lunula, a mirror, toilet articles, a pair of tweezers, a bracelet with
zoomorphous ends, an iron knife covered with
imprinted gold foil and glass and amber (fig. 8-10).
A physical anthropological examination has shown
that the burial contained the skeleton of a woman
20-29 years old. An atomic absorption spectrometry analysis implies that the deceased spent the best
M. Kazanski / A. Mastykova
part of her life amid arid landscapes, i.e. far south
from the Upper Don basin.
Mastykova/Zemtsov 2014; Dobrovolskaya et al. 2015.
Pimenovo, dist. and prov. Kursk, Russia (fig. 1,9).
A hoard contained 184 Roman coins of 1st-2nd century,
silver buckles, and belt mounts (fig. 11).
Radiush 2014, 245.
It appears that the “princely” horizon of finds of
the Hunnic time east of the Dnieper is represented by both burials and hoards. The character of
burial is established in two cases. Inhumation in
a simple pit with the skeleton oriented north–
south as recorded at Mukhino (fig. 8,1) was fairly
widespread in Eastern Europe (Oblomsky/Kazimirtchuk 2015, 68-71), so the search for parallels
seems to be rather superfluous. It is, however,
worth noting that inhumations oriented either
north or north-west (though the latter is described as oriented north–south: Oblomsky/Kazimirtchuk 2015; 2015 a) prevail in the cemeteries
Ksizovo 17 and 19 located in the same microregion. The burial in a stone chamber from Bolshoi
Kamenets is reminiscent of the “princely” interment at Conceşti, in the northern part of Rumanian Moldova. Such a rite was well-known in the
Roman empire yet lacked almost completely
among the barbarians of Eastern and Central Europe of the Late Roman and Hunnic time. The
Huns practiced secondary use of classical burial
vaults, e.g. at Marfovka and Beliaus, but never
built such vaults themselves. Stone burial vaults
are extremely rare among Germanic tribes and
sedentary barbarians in general. Mention may
be made only of burial chamber 1 in the small
“princely” cemetery at Zakrzów (Kazanski 2014,
313 f.). The presence of expensive tableware
associates the burial at Bolshoi Kamenets with
that at Conceşti.
Artefacts from burials and hoards in the Eastern
European Barbaricum are reminiscent of grave
goods from rich barbarian tombs of Hunnic time
in other European regions. The similarity of grave
goods from Conceşti and Bolshoi Kamenets represented by the presence of silver vessels (fig. 4,2-5)
„Princely“ finds and power centers in Eastern European Barbaricum in the Hunnic time
87
Fig. 1.
“Princely” burials
and hoards
east of Dnieper
in Hunnic time:
1 Nezhin;
2 Zhigailovka;
3 Rublevka;
4 Paniki;
5 Bolshoi Kamenets;
6 Volnikovka;
7 Kruglitsa/Porshnino;
8 Mukhino.
9 Pimenovo
was mentioned above. It can be added that
a reduced banquet set of tableware comprising a ceramic or glass jug and a glass cup is recorded for more modest burials of the “princely”
Unter-siebenbrunn horizon as well (Tejral 2011,
232-240, fig. 180; 181,1-3). Male burials of barbarian nobility show a number of specific traits of
grave goods (Kazanski 1999; Bierbrauer 2008,
39-42). The presence of a sword as the main,
often the only, weapon (fig. 1,6; 6,4-6.19-26.3640) and horse harness (fig. 4,1; 7) is typical of
“princely” burials of sedentary barbarians of the
Hunnic time both in the Barbaricum and in the
Roman empire (Kazanski 1996, 119-121; 1999). It is
worth noting that both ceremonial inlaid swords
apparently of Roman manufacture (Kazanski
1999, 294-298), and those with an iron guard
of the so-called “Asian type” (Menghin 1995,
165-175; Bierbrauer 2008, fig. 3; Tejral 2011, 282285) are present on the left bank of the Dnieper.
Both types are characteristic of “princely” burials of the Untersiebenbrunn horizon (Kazanski
1996, 119-121, fig. 8). A sword from Volnikovka
had a pommel typical of Iranian weapons (Bóna
2002, 199, fig. 104). Torques made from a metal
rod, as in the Paniki burial (fig. 3,2), are present
in the nobility burials in Barbaricum and on the
shores of Cimmerian Bosporus (Tejral 2011, 195199; Loskotova 2012; Kazanski 2014, 301 f.). Silver
belt mounts similar to those found at Volnikovka
88
M. Kazanski / A. Mastykova
Fig. 2. Finds from Kruglitsa (1-6), Nezhin (7) and Zhigailovka (8,9) (1-6 after Kropotkin 1970;
7 after Kazanski 2009; 8-9 after Gavrituhin/Oblomsky 2006).
„Princely“ finds and power centers in Eastern European Barbaricum in the Hunnic time
89
and Pimenovo (fig. 6,1-3.10-13; 11,4-5) go back to
Late Roman specimens widespread from Scotland to the Black Sea and the Urals (Kazanski
1993, 121-124). Gold buckles with inlaid headplates used as belt and sword-belt mounts were
fairly common in burials of a barbarian nobility
(Tejral 2011, 209 f.). They clustered mainly in the
Roman provinces of the Middle Danube and in
the North Pontic area (Kazanski 1996, fig. 9; Bóna
2002, fig. 146; Bierbrauer 2008, fig. 4; Tejral 2011,
fig. 307) where the pertaining workshops were
probaly located. Moreover, gold bracelets with
widening ends akin to that from Rublevka were
symbols of power among the Germanic peoples
(Werner 1980).
Female attire with big fibulae in polychrome
style of East Germanic origin (Bierbrauer 1975,
71–78; Kazanski 2009, 240 f.) like those at Nezhin
and Kruglitsa (fig. 1,1.7; 2,1-6.7) were typical of
“princely” élites in the Central European Barbaricum in Hunnic time (Bierbrauer 2008, 3739; Tejral 2011, 185-190. 280-329). This costume,
however, shows some Pontic elements as well
(Mastykova/Kazanski 2006; Kazanski 2009, 241),
such as stamped appliqué plaques (fig. 2,1; 4,6;
9,5-7; Tejral 2011, 162-164; for their spread see
Bierbrauer 2008, fig. 5). The lack of big fibulae,
typical of East Germanic costume, in the attire of
the deceased at Mukhino is revealing. It associates this burial with the late classical tradition
of the North Pontic sedentary population, e.g.
of the Cimmerian Bosporus and Tanais, where
in Hunnic time costumes without big fibulae
yet with gold appliqués and tubes are recorded
(Mastykova/Zemtsov 2014, 210 f.). The torque
with a medallion from Bolshoi Kamenets is yet
another prestige element (fig. 5,3). Its parallels
can be found in a privileged female burial in the
Alan cemetery of Klin-Yar in the Pyatigorye area
and at Redzin (Rausern) in Silesia in unknown
context (Mastykova 2007). Thus, finds related to
barbarian élites east of the Dnieper are close to
the sites of “princely” Untersiebenbrunn horizon
in material culture and known details of funerary
rites and are also reminiscent of prestige burials
of the North Pontic area.
Fig. 3. Finds from Paniki (1 after Radiush 2014;
2-3 after Matsulievich 1934).
The material culture of the common population of the Chernyakhov culture’s north-eastern
borderland is worth noting for a better understanding of the cultural-historical context of
the above-mentioned rich burials and hoards.
Archaeological excavations show that this area
was populated at that time by the Chernyakhov
culture people which by the majority of scholars
are related to the Goths and their Germanic and
non-Germanic allies (e.g. Magomedov 2001;
Shchukin et al. 2006, 37-52; Kazanski 2009, 110140). Chernyakhov sites of Hunnic time are reliably recorded on the left bank of the Dnieper
90
M. Kazanski / A. Mastykova
Fig. 4. Finds of 1918 from Bolshoi Kamenets (after Matsulievich 1934).
south of the Seim river (Kazanski 1998, 222-226;
Kazanski 2009, 119 f.; Radiush 2008, 188-196).
Yet their number is very limited probably
owing to the migration of the Goths and their
allies to the west. The majority of these sites are
concentrated in the north-eastern borderland of
the Chernyakhov zone in the interfluve of rivers
Psël and Seim (Radiush 2008, 188-196; Kazanski 2012, 392, fig. 1). Beside them the sites of the
Kolochin culture are recorded in the same territory in Hunnic time while those of the Penkovka
culture appear south of the Chernyakhov zone
„Princely“ finds and power centers in Eastern European Barbaricum in the Hunnic time
91
Its population continued to use wheel-thrown
Chernyakhov pottery, both polished and rough.
The abundance of encountered weapons, e.g.
various arrowheads, details of shields, swords,
spears and battle-axes, including some with
traces of damage, may imply that these sites were
ruined by enemies (Radiush 2014, 243-246).
The presence of Chernyakhov elements in the
material culture of the population living on the
left-bank Dnieper basin in Hunnic time as well as
the Eastern Germanic character of the “princely”
attire from Nezhin enable us to relate these sites
to the Ostrogoths. They were tentatively identified as archaeological traces of ‘Vinitarius’ “kingdom” (Kazanski 1998).
Fig. 5. Finds of 1927 from Bolshoi Kamenets
(after Matsulievich 1934).
on the left bank of the Dnieper. The bearers of
both cultures were Slavs; those of the Penkovka
culture probably Antes (Kazanski 2009, 157 f.).
It can be surmised that the areas populated by
the Goths and Slavs alternated. It seems likely
that the Huns exerted strict control over this region and suppressed clashes between their subjects manu militari as evidenced by the war of
the Ostrogoth king Vinitharius against the Antes
(Jordanes, Getica § 246-249).
Sites of the late 4th–early 5th century, conventionally called the Lgov-Fatezh group by O. Radiush,
are located on the northern periphery of the
Chernyakhov area. They yielded coins of Arcadius, Theodosius and Honorius and artefacts –
chronological markers dating to periods D1-D2
of “barbarian” European chronology, i.e. AD
360/370–400/410 and 380/400–440/450. This
group of sites was characteristically short-lived.
No “common” sites have been discovered north
of this zone, in the area of the “princely” burial(?)
Kruglitsa/Porshnino owing to the scarcity of
archaeological investigations of the Hunnic
epoch in present-day Orel province. Yet east
of it, on the Upper Don, whence the privileged
tomb of Mukhino originates, a large group of the
so-called Chertovitskoe-Zamiatnino sites belonging to the sedentary population of Hunnic
time was located. The civilization of this population includes highly heterogenous elements
including those of Chernyakhov and Pontic origin as well as elements of the so-called Kievan
culture whose bearers are usually believed to
be Jordanes’ Venethi, i.e. the ancestors of Slavs
(Oblomsky 2007, 75-77; Zemtsov 2012, 91-201;
Ostraya Luka 2004; Ostraya Luka 2015.)
Thus it may be inferred that “princely” finds are
connected with the settled population of the
Hunnic time, which, judging from elements of
the material culture, was often heterogenous.
It is also worth noting that no sites of the preceding Roman time pertaining to social élites have
been located in the the area between Dnieper
and Don. It seems likely that the sites of Hunnic time reflect a new military-political situation
caused by the invasion of the Huns.
It has long been supposed that the spread of
“princely” tombs, hoards, isolated prestige
arte-facts and gold coins reflects the geography of new power centers, i.e. “barbarian”
92
M. Kazanski / A. Mastykova
Fig. 6. Finds from Volnikovka (after Radiush 2014).
kingdoms emerged due to the expansion
of the Huns (Laszlo 1951; Ambroz 1982, 112115; Tejral 1997; Kazanski 1997; 1998, 227;
Magomedov 2001, 145; Akhmedov/Kazanski 2004, 170 f.). Such “kingdoms” are
well known for Western and Central Europe from written sources of the 5th century
AD. They could be either polities of Roman
foederati or vassal kingdoms of peoples subdued by the Huns (Tejral 1997; 1999; 2011, 352374). Unlike the large barbarian kindoms, e.g.
those of Marobodus or Hermanaric, they are
fairly small as can be seen from the example
of Danubian or Frankish kingdoms of the latter half of the 5th century AD. Thus a relatively
small territory of the Late Roman Pannonia west
„Princely“ finds and power centers in Eastern European Barbaricum in the Hunnic time
93
Fig. 7. Finds from Volnikovka (after Radiush 2014).
of the Danube was divided between three Ostrogoth kings from the dynasty of Amals (Jordanes, Getica, § 268; Kiss 1979). At least two
Frankish kingdoms, with their capitals in Tournai and Cambrai, were located in the limited
area of present-day southern Belgium and the
bordering northern France (Gregory of Tours,
Hist. Franc. II, 27.41.42).
Such kingdoms can also be identified archaeologically, first of all from clusters of prestige
burials and hoards, in particular on the Middle
Danube (Laszlo 1951; Ambroz 1982, 112-115; Tejral
1997; 1999; 2011, 352-374) and in the Baltic basin
(Ramqvist 1991; 1992; Wyszomirska-Werbart
1992; Kulakov 1998; Näsman 1999; 2006;
Kazanski 2010, 36, 37).
94
M. Kazanski / A. Mastykova
Fig. 8. Burial and finds from Mukhino-2 (1 after Dobrovoskaya et al. 2015).
The Lower Danube and Volyn (Volhynia) are of
particular interest since these territories are in
one way or another related to the history of the
Goths. Five centers of power located in what are
now Rumania and eastern Hungary, i.e. on the
Upper Tisza, in Transylvania, Oltenia, Muntenia and northern Rumanian Moldova, can be
identified archaeologically for the Hunnic time
when these areas were populated by sedentary
barbarians. They are characterized by the presence of coin and other object hoards, “princely” burials, burials with swords, female burials
with diadems and Hunnic cauldrons (Ciupercă/
Măgureanu 2008, 125, fig. 3). One of these king-
doms as stated above occupied the northern part
of present-day Rumanian Moldova in the Upper
Prut basin where the famous “princely” burial of
Conceşti was discovered (Kazanski 2013; 2015).
Another Chernyakhov centre of power was situated in Muntenia where such “princely” burials and hoards as the female burial at Chiojdu
with a big fibula of East Germanic tradition and
the hoard from Pietroasa comprising inter alia a
torque with a runic inscription, Late Roman metal tableware and magnificent eagle-shaped fibulae were found. This territory has yielded sites of
the “common” Chernyakhov population as well
(Kazanski 2009, 124 f., 144, with bibliography).
„Princely“ finds and power centers in Eastern European Barbaricum in the Hunnic time
Fig. 9. Finds from burial Mukhino-2 (after Mastykova/Zemtsov 2014).
95
96
M. Kazanski / A. Mastykova
Fig. 10. Beads from burial Mukhino-2 (after Mastykova/Zemtsov 2014).
Three prestige hoards are recorded in Volyn.
That of Borochitsy, discovered in 1928, comprised some 50-60 kg of Roman coins from
Vespasian (AD 69-79) to Septimius Severus
(AD 193-211), partially in a ceramic vessel; some
1400 of them have survived. Moreover, there
were Roman silver tableware, a gold dish (lost),
and a gold medallion multiplum of the emperor
Iovianus (AD 363-364). The medallion was found
at the same place yet it is uncertain if it belongs
to the hoard. That of Laskiv/Laskov, found in 1610
and known only from Polish documents of that
time, contained a silver cup, some silver plaques,
seven gold medallions and two big fibulae of
polychrome style as at Nezhin, Kruglitsa or Untersiebenbrunn. The third hoard, that of Kachin,
„Princely“ finds and power centers in Eastern European Barbaricum in the Hunnic time
97
Fig. 11. Finds from Pimenovo (after Radiush 2014).
surviving completely, contained a pair of big
silver fibulae of Ambroz II type, a big silver buckle, silver details of a prestige horse harness and
a silver ingot (Kazanski 2007, 93 f. with bibliography; Bursche/Myzgin 2015). Sites of the local
variety of the Chernyakhov culture with a strong
component of the Wielbark culture are known
in Volyn in Late Roman time. The latter culture,
occupying the basin of the Lower Vistula, Western Bug and Pripiat in Roman time, is regarded
as the “ancestor” of the Chernyakhov culture
(Shchukin et al. 2006, 39). It neighbours upon
the so-called Maslomiecz group located in present-day Poland and being a part of the Wielbark culture. The Volyn group as well as that of
Maslomiecz might be related to the Gepids, the
nearest relatives of the Goths (Kazanski 1992,
200; Kokowski 1995, 102; Kazanski 1998, 225 f.;
Magomedov 2001 a; Kazanski 2007, 85 f.). We
know nothing about the area of this people from
their defeat at the Olta in AD 291 up to their
victory at Nedao in AD 454/455. The deposit
of hoards at Kachin, Laskov and Borochitsy
may be indicative of war stress such as the war
of Gepids against Ostrogoths recorded by Jordanes (Getica, § 264). Curiously, the emergence
of hoards with prestige artefacts and coins coincides with a quasi total disappearance of sites of
the Volyn group, which may also imply warfare
(Kazanski 1998, 225; 2007, 83; 2009, 152). Some
Polish colleagues relate the late phase of the
Maslomiecz group to the Heruli (NiezabitowskaWiśniewska 2009, 204 f.). Nothing, however,
is known about the area of the Heruli in Hunnic time. They are located on the shores of the
Maeotis in the 4th century AD (Jordanes, Getica
§ 117 f.), then they are mentioned in connection
with the battle at Nedao, i.e. somewhere in the
Carpathians (Jordanes, Getica § 261). The presence of artefacts of Eastern Germanic appearance at sites near the mouth of the Don, such
as Siniavka and Tanais (Bezuglov 2001), implies
that the Heruli left the shores of the Azov Sea
only in the early 450s.
98
Such petty “kingdoms” can be noted, in Hunnic
and post-Hunnic time, among the sedentary population of Eastern Europe as well. Clusters of
finds either akin or close to the “princely” Central
European ones as well as hoards of gold coins
have been encountered in densely populated
regions, i.e. on the shores of Cimmerian Bosporus, in the vicinity of Olbia and Tanais, in Piatigorie and Kabarda-Balkaria, in the Terek basin and
southern Daghestan. Isolated burials and hoards
have been recorded in the south-western Crimea
(Luchistoe, Alamyk-Dere) and on the north Caucasian shore of the Black Sea (Diurso). It is not
inconceivable that polities akin to petty barbarian kingdoms emerged there in the 5th century AD, too (Kazanski 1998, 228 f.; Kazanski/
Mastykova 2007; 2009, 245-247; Ahmedov/
Kazanski 2004, 169 f.; Mastykova 2008).
Petty kingdoms emerging in a specific situation
of heightened tension were structured as military organizations. Clans or families forming such
a kingdom as well as individual warriors making
up the prince’s armed force were strictly subordinated to the ruler. The king was primarily a war
leader while his other functions were secondary. He was the person unifying a hetero-geneous
armed band being the real foundation of his
power. Such a structure often accompanies the
first type of ethnogenesis distinguished by H.
Wolfram, i.e. the so-called “new peoples” headed by military leaders (Wolfram 1997, 129 f.).
Ethnic origins of either warriors or subjects in general are of minor importance. The fate of such
warring polities depends entirely on the luck
of war, hence their evanescence. It is worth noting that it were the kingdoms where Germa-nic
kings found some common ground with their
Roman subjects that had survived the endless
wars of the 5th century AD. There the barbarians
eagerly adopted the “Roman heritage”, first of all
the military institutions of the Late empire. One
may cite such glowing examples as the Merovingian kingdom in northern Gallia whose rulers included Roman troops of the Armorican defense
line into their army (Procope, BG I,12; Bachrach
1972, 3. 15) or the kingdom of Burgundy where the Romans formed part of military nobilty
M. Kazanski / A. Mastykova
and retained their status after the annexation of
Burgundy by the Merovingians (Bachrach 1972,
22-25). A prompt adoption of Roman militaryadministrative, economic, cultural and ideological heritage, including Christianity, was a sine
qua non for the success of early medieval Romano-Germanic kingdoms. The lack of this heritage
in the Barbaricum did not allow petty barbarian
kingdoms to turn into powerful states and finally
devoted them to destruction.
It can be surmised that the Germanic aristocracy
played a significant role in Eastern European
Barbaricum. It is attested by details of Eastern
Germanic female attire in hoards and burials.
At the same time warriors’ burials with swords
uncharacteristic of the Chernyakhov culture
and the Goths in general have been recorded.
It seems likely that the basically international
“princely” culture of the northeast border of
the Chernyakhov culture was formed under the
influence coming from outside, first of all from
the steppes and the North Pontic area.
Among the Goths a powerful aristocracy existed
as early as in Roman time. Jordanes’ work is strictly speaking a history of the royal house of Amals
having ruled the Ostrogoths-Greitungs (for a
detailed analysis of the history of Gothic dynasties
see Wolfram 1990). Tacitus mentions a relatively
firm royal rule among the Goths as early as in the
1st century AD (Tacitus, Germ. § 44). Royal power,
however, often fell far short of being effective, especially after the utter defeat inflicted by the Huns.
Moreover, judging from the epic songs related
by Jordanes, Germanic rulers were by no means
unanimous in their attitude towards the Huns.
While the Ostrogoth prince Vinitarius tried to oppose the Huns his relative Gesimund, probably the
ruler of the Pontic Greitungs (Magomedov 2001,
145), took an active part in anti-Gothic punitive
expeditions of the Huns (Jordanes, Getica § 247).
It can be assumed that under the Hunnic pressure
the centers of power of the Goths moved north.
Some of them, however, remained in the south
of the Chernyakhov Ostrogoth zone as witnessed
by finds of prestige artefacts at Bar (Levada 2011)
and Olbia (Kazanski 2007, 90). These centers of
„Princely“ finds and power centers in Eastern European Barbaricum in the Hunnic time
99
ges he stayed at en route to Attila’s court were
under direct rule of the Huns. Such relations are
implied by the archaeological record as well, e.g.
by the well-known grave of a Hunnic warlord at
Jakuszowice in Silesia. It was found near a large
habitation site of Hunnic time that was undoubtedly a centre of power. The materials recovered
from this settlement, however, show Late Przeworsk, i.e. Eastern Germanic, traits (Godlowski
1995). Other rich Hunnic finds in the Germanic
territory, such as Jędrzychowice/Höchkricht,
also in Silesia (Anke 1998, 51), can be interpreted
similarly. It is not excluded, however, that there
were buried not the Huns but local Germanic
chiefs and members of their families imitating
the prestigious Hunnic material culture and
funerary rites.
Fig. 12. Prestige artefacts of Hunnic time from Olbia
(1.3 after Kaposhina 1950; 2 after Pirzio Birolli 1992).
power were located, both in the south and in
the north, in a zone of military-political domination of the Huns. Thus, it is not inconceivable
that prestige artefacts from Olbia, such as an inlaid buckle, a gold ring with widened ends and
gold earrings (fig. 12; Kaposhina 1950, 104-106,
fig. 47 f., fig. 167; Pirzio Birolli 1992, 240, fig. 167),
may have something to do with the kingdom
of Gesimund, a faithful ally of the Huns against
Vinitarius (Kazanski 2007, 90). It appears that the
Huns used two forms of government towards the
dependent settled barbarians (Kazanski/Mastykova 2009, 236-247; Kazanski 2013, 95 f.). As
attested by written sources, they could be ruled
either by a governor appointed by the Huns or
by local sedentary aristocracy subservient to the
Huns. Priscus (fr. 8) relates that agricultural villa-
The second form of government involves the
dependent barbarian polities where the Huns
used the power of the local sedentary aristocracy. Written sources bear witness to the existence
of autonomous barbarian kingdoms ruled by
local dynasties under the aegis of the Huns. Thus,
Jordanes mentions such vassal rulers among
the Ostrogoths (Getica § 245-251) and Gepids
(Getica § 200 f.). According to H. Wolfram (1990,
262-272), the Hunnic invasion threw the Goths
of Eastern Europe into disorder, yet the dynasty
of Amals succeeded in restoring their power
over the Goths outside the borders of the Roman empire. Epic songs related by Jordanes imply, however, the emergence of several relatively
independent centers of power among the Ostrogoths-Greitungs (cf. Wolfram 1990, 266 f. on
the split of the Goths). The “princely” sites of the
Hunnic time on the north-eastern borderland of
the Chernyakhov culture are linked precisely to
such clans of chiefs of settled barbarians.
100
M. Kazanski / A. Mastykova
Bibliography
Akhmedov/Kazanski 2004: . .
,
.
, . .
(
.
Ambroz 1966: . .
.
Ambroz 1982: . .
. IЧ: . .
-
.
,
.),
. .
-
. IЧ: . .
2004, 168-202.
,Ф
1966.
,
, .Ф.
(
. .
.
.),
-
V-VIII
.
1982, 107-121.
Anke 1998: B. Anke, Studien zur reiternomadischen
Kultur des 4. bis 5. Jahrhuderts. Weissbach 1998.
Bachrach 1972: B.S. Bachrach, Merovingian Military
Organization 481-751. Minneapolis 1972.
Bezuglov 2001: S.I. Bezuglov, “Danubian fashion” and
Tanais (The early phase of the Migration Period.
In: E. Istvánovits, V. Kulcsár (ed.), International
Connections of the Barbarians of the Carpathian Basin in the 1st-5th centuries A.D. Aszód,
Nyíregyháza 2001, 275-284.
Bierbrauer 1975: V. Bierbrauer, Die ostgotischen
Grab- und Schatzfunde in Italien. Spoleto 1975.
Bierbrauer 2008: V. Bierbrauer, Ethnos und Mobilität im 5. Jahrhundert aus archäologischer Sicht:
Vom Kaukasus bis nach Niederösterreich.
München 2008.
Bóna 2002: I. Bóna, Les Huns. Le grand empire barbare d’Europe IVe-Ve siècles. Paris 2002.
Bursche/Myzgin 2015: A. Bursche, K. Myzgin, Gold
coins, Alexandria Troas and Goths. In: R. Bland,
D. Calomino (ed.), Studies in Ancient Coinage
in Honour of Andrew Burnett. London 2015,
237-257.
Ciupercă/Măgureanu 2008: B. Ciupercă, A. Măgureanu,
Huns and Other Peoples–Archaeological Eviden
ce in Present-day Romania. In: Hunnen zwischen
Asien und Europa. Weissbach 2008, 119-131.
Dobrovolskaya et al. 2015: . .
, . .
, . .
, . .
,
-2
.
:
1, 2015, 44-58.
Fischer et al. 1999: T. Fischer, G. Precht, J. Tejral (ed.),
Germanen beiderseits des Spätantiken Limes.
Köln, Brno 1999.
Gavrituhin/Oblomsky 2006: I. Gavrituhin, A. Oblomsky,
Les découvertes „princières“ du Ve siècle dans
la région du Dniepr-rive gauche et leur contexte
historique. In: X. Delestre, M. Kazanski, P. Périn
(dir.), De l’Âge du fer à haut Moyen Age. Archéologie funéraire, princes et élites guerrières.
Saint-Germain-en-Laye 2006, 307-331.
Godlowski 1995: K. Godlowski, Das «Fürstengrab»
des 5. Jhs. und der «Fürstensitz» in Jakuszowice
in Südpolen. In: F. Vallet, M. Kazanski (dir.),
La noblesse romaine et les chefs barbares du
IIIe au VIIe siècle. Saint-Germain-en-Laye 1995,
155-180.
Gregory of Tours: Grégoire de Tours, Histoire de
Francs. Traduction du latin R. Latouche.
Paris 1979.
Ivanišević/Kazanski 2012: V. Ivanišević, M. Kazanski
(dir.), The Pontic-Danubian Realm in the Period
of the Great Migration. Paris, Belgrade 2012,
381-403.
Jordanes, Getica: Iordanis de origine actibusque
Getarum. Ed. Fr. Giunta et A. Grillone.
Roma 1991.
Kaposhina 1950: . .
,
.
33, 1950, 103-109.
Kazanski 1992: M. Kazanski, Les Goths et les Huns.
À propos des relations entre les Barbares sédentaires et les nomades. Archéol. Médiévale 22,
1992, 191-229.
Kazanski 1993: M. Kazanski, Les objets orientaux de
l’époque des Grandes Migrations découverts
dans le couloir rhodanien. Antiqu. Nationales
25, 1993, 119-127.
Kazanski 1996: M. Kazanski, Les tombes „princières“
de l‘horizon Untersiebenbrunn, le problème
de l‘identification ethnique. In: L‘identité des
populations archéologiques. Actes des XVIe
rencontres internationales d‘archéologie et
d‘histoire d‘Antibes. Sophia Antipolis 1996,
109-126.
Kazanski 1997: . .
,
:
. SЭrКЭЮЦ PlЮs,
1997, 181-193.
Kazanski 1998: M. Kazanski, Le royaume de Vinitharius: le récit de Jordanès et les données archéologiques. In: W. Pohl, H. Reimitz (ed.), Strategies
of Distinction. The Construction of Ethnic Communities, 300-800. Leiden, Boston, Köln 1998,
221-240.
Kazanski 1999: M. Kazanski, Les tombes des chefs
militaires de l’époque hunnique. In: Fischer et al.
1999, 293-316.
„Princely“ finds and power centers in Eastern European Barbaricum in the Hunnic time
Kazanski 2007: M. Kazanski, The Ostrogoths and the
Princely Civilisation. In: S.J. Barnish, F. Marazzi
(ed.), The Ostrogoths. From the Migration Period
to the Sixth Century. An Ethnographic perspective. Woodbridge 2007, 81-110.
Kazanski 2009: M. Kazanski, Archéologie des
peuples barbares. Bucureşti, Brăila 2009.
Kazanski 2010: . .
,
«
»
. SЭrКЭЮЦ PlЮs 4, 2010, 17-130
Kazanski 2012: M. Kazanski, Radagaïs et la fin de la
civilisation de Černjahov. In: Ivanišević/Kazanski
2012, 381-403.
Kazanski 2013: M. Kazanski, Les Huns et les Barbares
sédentaires: les différentes formes des contacts.
Banatica 23, 2013, 91-109.
Kazanski 2014: .
,
:
,
,
,
. SЭrКЭЮЦ PlЮs 4,
2014, 229-336.
Kazanski 2015 : M. Kazanski, La “tombe princière” de
l’époque hunnique à Conceşti et son contexte
historique et culturel. In: T. Vida (dir.), Romania
Gothica II. The Frontier World, Romans, Barbarians and Military Culture. Budapest 2015, 111-128.
Kazanski/Mastykova 2007: M. Kazanski, A. Mastykova, Machtzentren und Handelswege in Westalanien im V.-VI. Jahrhundert. In: J. Tejral (ed.),
Barbaren im Wandel. Beiträge zur Kultur- und
Identitätsumbildung in der Völkerwanderungszeit. Brno 2007, 173-197.
Kazanski/Mastykova 2009: . .
, . .
:
.
1, 2009, 225-251.
Kiss 1979: A. Kiss, Ein Versuch die Funde und das
Siedlungsgebiet der Ostgoten in Pannonien
zwischen 456-471 zu bestimmen. Acta Archaeol.
Acad. Scient. Hungar. 31, 1979, 329-339.
Kokowski 1995: A. Kokowski, Schätze der Ostrogoten.
Stuttgart 1995.
Kropotkin 1970: . .
,
(II .
. .-V .
. .).
1970.
Kropotkin 2005: V.V. Kropotkin, Les trouvailles de
monnaies romaines en U.R.S.S. Weteren 2005.
Kulakov 1998: . .
, HШlТЛШ.
Ф
5 . . . Т
Т
Т 13, 1998, 98-119.
Laszlo 1951: G. Laszlo, The Significance of the Hun
Golden Bow. Acta Archaeol. Acad. Scient.
Hungar. 1, 1951, 91-104.
101
Levada 2011: M. Levada, To Europe via the Crimea: on
possible migration routes of the northern people in the Great Migration period. In:
I. Khrapunov, F.-A. Stylegar (ed.), Inter Ambo
Maria. Contacts between Scandinavia and the
Crimea in the Roman Period. Kristiansand,
Simferopol 2011, 115-137.
Loskotova 2012: Z. Loskotova, An early 5th century
skeleton grave with gold neck-ring from
Charváty (Moravia). In: Ivanišević/Kazanski 2012,
189-206.
Matsulievich 1934: . .
,
.
.
,
1934.
Magomedov 2001: . .
,
.
. LЮЛlТЧ 2001.
Magomedov 2001 a: . .
,
.
І
.
2, 2001, 70–74.
Mastykova 2007: .
,
-
(
.
.),
. IЧ: . .
.
Mastykova 2008: . .
»
, .
.
2007, 472-490.
,«
.
. .
-
.
,
,
21, 2008, 149-159.
Mastykova/Kazanski 2006: A. Mastykova, M. Kazanski,
A propos des Alains en Occident à l’époque des
Grandes migrations: le costume à appliqués en or.
In: J. López Quiroga, A.M. Martínez Tejera, J. Morín
de Pablos (ed.), Gallia e Hispania en el contexto de
la presencia ‘germánica’ (ss. V–VII). Balance y Perspectivas. Actas de la Mesa Redonda hispano-francesca celebrada en la Universidad Autónoma de
Madrid (UAM) y Museo Arqueológico Regional de
la Comunidad de Madrid. Oxford 2006, 289-306.
Mastykova/Zemtsov 2014: . .
, . .
,«
»
-2
.
234, 2014, 200-222.
Menghin 1995: W. Menghin, Schwerter des Goldgriffspathenhorizonts im Museum für Vor- und
Frühgeschichte, Berlin. Acta Praehist. et Archaeol.
26/27, 1994/1995, 140-191.
Näsman 1999: U. Näsman, The Ethnogenesis of the
Danes and the Making of a Danish kingdom. In:
T. Dickinson, D. Griffiths (ed.), The Making of
102
M. Kazanski / A. Mastykova
Kingdoms. Anglo-Saxon Studies in Archaeology
and History 10, 1999, 1-10.
Näsman 2006: U. Näsman, Danerne og het danske
kongeriges opkomst. Om forskingsprogrammet
“Fra Stamme til Stat i Danmark”. Kuml 2006,
205-241.
Niezabitowska-Wiśniewska 2009: B. NiezabitowskaWiśniewska, Archaeology, History and the
Heruls. The Lublin Region in the Late Roman
Period and the Migration Period. Barbaricum 8,
2009, 195-239.
Oblomsky 2007: . .
,
. IЧ: . .
, . .
,
I
. .
2007, 73-132.
Oblomsky/Kazimirtchuk 2015: . .
, . .
,
-17. IЧ: OsЭrКвК LЮkК 2015,
37-74.
Oblomsky/Kazimirtchuk 2015 a:: . .
,
. .
,
-19 IЧ: OsЭrКвК LЮkК 2015, 134- 164.
Ostraya Luka 2004: . .
( .
.),
.
.
2004.
Ostraya Luka 2015: . .
( .
.),
.
.
(
IV-V .).
2015.
Pirzio Birolli 1992: L. Pirzio Birolli Stefanelli (éd.), l‘oro
dei Romani. Gioielli di età impériale. Roma 1992.
Priscus: Priscus Panites, Fragmenta. In: Fragmenta
historicorum Graecorum IV. Ed. C. Müller.
Paris 1868.
Procope BG: Procopii Caesarensis De Bello Gothico
(De Bellis libri V-VIII). Ed. J. Hauy. Leipzig 1905.
Putsko 1984: . .
,
.
4, 1984,
77-89.
Radiush 2008: . .
,
III-V
. . .
. IЧ: . .
( .),
.
Radiush 2014: . .
»
:
223-233.
,«
V
2008, 181-208.
» «
.
234, 2014,
-
-
Ramqvist 1991: P.H. Ramqvist. Über ökonomische
und sozio-politische Beziehungen der Gesellschaften der nordischen Völkerwanderungszeit.
Frühmittelalterl. Studien 25, 1991, 45-72.
Ramqvist 1992: P.H. Ramqvist, Högom. The excavations 1949-1984. Neumünster 1992.
Rybakov 1953: . .
,
,
. 17, 1953, 23-104.
Shchukin et al. 2006: M. Shchukin, M. Kazanski,
O. Sharov, Des Goths aux Huns. Le Nord de
la mer Noire au Bas-Empire et a l’époque des
Grandes Migrations. Oxford 2006.
Tacitus Germ.: Tacite, La Germanie. Texte établi et
traduit par J. Perret. Paris 1983.
Tejral 1997: J. Tejral, Les fédérés de l’Empire et la formation des royaumes barbares dans la région
du Danube moyen à la lumière des données
archéologiques. Antiqu. Nationales 29, 1997,
137-166.
Tejral 1999: J. Tejral, Die spätantiken militärischen
Eliten beiderseits der norisch-pannonischen
Grenze aus der Sicht der Grabfunde. In:
Fischer et al. 1999, 217-292
Tejral 2011: J. Tejral, Einhemische und Fremde.
Das norddanubische Gebiet zur Zeit der
Völkerwanderung. Brno 2011.
Volnikovsky „klad“ 2014: . .
, .
, . .
( .)
„
“.
1V . . .
2014.
Werner 1980: J. Werner, Der goldene Armring der
Frankenkönigs Childerich und die germanischen
Handgelenkringe der jüngeren Kaiserzeit.
Frühmittelalterl. Studien 14, 1980, 1-49.
Wolfram 1990: H. Wolfram, Histoire des Goths.
Paris 1990.
Wolfram 1997: H. Wolfram, La typologie des ethnogénèses: un essai. Antiqu. Nationales 29, 1997,
127-136.
Wyszomirska-Werbart 1992: B. Wyszomirska-Werbart, Scandinavians and the Eastern Baltic during
the Migration Periode. The Cultural Interactions.
In: B. Hårdt, B. Wyszomirska-Werbart (eds.),
Contacts across the Baltic Sea during the Late Iron
Age (5th - 1st centuries). Lund 1992, 59 -72.
Zasetskaya 1982: . .
,
. IЧ: . .
, .Ф.
( .
.),
V-VIII
.
1982, 13-30.
Zemtsov 2012: . .
,
III-V
.
2012.
„Princely“ finds and power centers in Eastern European Barbaricum in the Hunnic time
103
Summary
The Hunnic time saw the emergence of a series of
burials and hoards pertaining to the „princely“ élite
in the Eastern European Barbaricum on the northeast
boundary of the Chernyakhov civilization. They are
marked by a set of ornaments and costume elements
typical of the so-called Untersiebenbrunn „princely“ horizon and yield ceremonial weapons, namely
swords, horse harness and banquet sets of metaland glassware. These finds are mostly connected
with the sedentary, often polyethnic, population of
the Hunnic time. They reflect the location of power
centers and correspond to new military-political
formations emerged as a result of the Hunnic expansion, i.e. „barbarian“ kingdoms.
Keywords
„princely“ finds, Eastern European Barbaricum,
Goths, Huns
Authors
Dr.habil. Michel Kazanski
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique,
UMR-8167 “Orient et Méditerranée”
Paris (F)
michel.kazanski53@gmail.com
Dr.habil. Anna Mastykova
Institute of Archaeology,
The Russian Academy of Sciences
Moscow (RUS)
amastykova@mail.ru