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