COMUNE DI CIMITILE
FONDAZIONE PREMIO CIMITILE
SECONDA UNIVERSITÀ DI NAPOLI
DIPARTIMENTO DI LETTERE E BENI CULTURALI
UNIVERSITÀ DEGLI STUDI DEL MOLISE
DIPARTIMENTO DI SCIENZE UMANISTICHE, SOCIALI E DELLA FORMAZIONE
CENTRO DI STUDI LONGOBARDI
ARISTOCRAZIE E SOCIETÀ
FRA TRANSIZIONE ROMANO-GERMANICA
E ALTO MEDIOEVO
Atti del Convegno internazionale di studi
Cimitile-Santa Maria Capua Vetere, 14-15 giugno 2012
a cura di
Carlo ebanista e marCello rotili
TAVOLARIO EDIZIONI
2015
Enti promotori
Comune di Cimitile
Fondazione Premio Cimitile
Seconda Università di Napoli,
Dipartimento di Lettere e Beni culturali
Università degli Studi del Molise
Dipartimento di Scienze umanistiche, sociali e della formazione
Centro di Studi Longobardi
Impaginazione: Laura Iodice
In copertina: Città di Castello (Pg), Museo del Duomo: tesoro di Canoscio, piccolo piatto.
A pagina 1: Garda (Vr), ibula a vortice.
© 2015 by Tavolario Edizioni
San Vitaliano (NA)
tel. 0815198818 - info@tavolariostampa.com
ISBN 978-88-906742-9-7
CHRISTOPH EGER
HABITUS MILITARIS OR HABITUS BARBARUS?
TOWARDS AN INTERPRETATION OF RICH MALE GRAVES OF THE
MID 5TH CENTURY IN THE MEDITERRANEAN
1. Two conliciting points of view
An important question in late antique archaeology of the Mediterranean is the interpretation of few rich graves of the 1st half and the middle of the 5th century AD on
the Iberian Peninsula, in Northern Africa, and in Italy. The deceased, amongst them
both men and women, were equipped with golden or gold-plated jewellery and corresponding dress accessories; some males also had part of their military gear with them1.
This evidence is remarkable because, at this time, the inhabitants of many regions of
the Mediterranean had long adopted the habit of burying their dead, regardless of their
social standing, without any grave goods at all or only with singular pieces of jewellery,
a coin or a vessel2.
One wonders whether the deceased were, as has long been supposed, members of
such communities of half tribal and half military character which are called gentes and
dominated by barbarians and thus are a very concrete archaeological relexion of the
large-scale migrations that swept foreign groups into the western Mediterranean from
the late 4th century AD onwards. Or did they rather belong to a Late Roman military aristocracy that cannot ethnically be subdivided by means of archaeological criteria, likewise included Imperial Roman and barbarian elites, and distinguished itself by supra-regional dress fashions and similar customs of burial and grave goods?3 As far as archaeological inds are concerned, both positions are grounded on the same methods: namely
typo-chronological and chorological analyses of grave goods and comparative studies
of dress and burial habits in order to clarify their origin and distribution. Yet, the results
could not be more antithetic, because different distribution models of material goods
and divergent concepts of the nature and identity of Late Antique communities condi-
1
Attention is furthermore deserved by the fact that some of the grave goods seem unusual and almost
strange in their regional context, but have parallels in partly peripheral areas of the Mediterranean.
2
Social differences were mainly visible in the construction and position of the grave. For an overview
of burial customs in the western Mediterranean see bierbrauer 2003. This paper is the shortened version of my
presentation at Cimitile/Santa Maria Capua Vetere which can only illustrate the main lines of argumentation.
3
von rummel 2007, especially pp. 386-400.
214
CHRISTOPH EGER
Fig. 1. Map of the western Mediterranean. 1 Pax Julia/
Beja, Portugal;2 Thuburbo Maius/Henchir Kasbat, Tunisia;
3 Capraria/Capraia, Italy/Henchir Kasbat, Tunisia.
tioned these analyses. It seems necessary to view inds and features in
their wider contexts and to take into
account the contemporaneous material culture and rituals of the different
regions of the Mediterranean and its
northern periphery. This will result
in a more precise notion of terms
relevant for the discussion, such as
old, new, innovative, foreign, native,
barbarian, Germanic, steppe-nomadic, and Roman or Byzantine.
My paper will concentrate on
three male graves playing a central
role in the discussion on the interpretation of such Mediterranean graves
of the Early Migration Period (ig. 1):
the warrior grave of Pax Julia/Beja in
southern Portugal (ig. 2), the warrior
grave of Porto Capraia on the island
of Capraria/Capraia in the northern Tyrrhenian Sea (ig. 3), and the
grave of Arifridos at Thuburbo Maius/Henchir Kasbat, northern Tunisia
(ig. 4)4.
2. Barbarian elite or Roman military aristocracy?
On the basis of the personal equipment and the weapons, the three graves can be
dated to the 2nd and 3rd quarter of the 5th century AD. The time slot for all three inds
is the early phase of the Migration Period, and the notion that all three buried persons
had “immigrated” in the context of historically attested migrations of human groups
controlled by barbarians, has indeed dominated the interpretation of these graves for
quite some time. The warrior from Beja has been considered a Vandal or a Visigoth5.
Arifridos has been called a Vandal nobleman by researchers whose barbarian origin
4
The three graves have been analysed exemplarily by von rummel 2007, pp. 337-353. A closer
description of the three graves is dispensable here thanks to the following contributions: Beja cf. König
1981, pp. 346-352, pl. 52; von rummel 2007, pp. 342-343; Palma santos 2008. Thuburbo Maius: Poinssot 1921;
Poinssot-lantier 1934; König 1981, pp. 311-312 ig. 6d; von rummel 2007, pp. 337-338; aillagon (ed.) 2008,
pp. 334-336 (T. Ghalia); on the location within the church cf. König 1981, p. 332 ig. 11; Das Königreich der
Vandalen, p. 363 n. 306 (Ch. Eger). Capraia: DuCCi-CiamPoltrini 1991, pp. 53-59; DuCCi-CiamPoltrini-beDini
1992, pp. 369-376.
5
Cf. von rummel 2007, pp. 344-345 with an overview of earlier suggestions; Palma santos 2008, p. 364:
Visigothic; Das Königreich der Vandalen, p. 145, n. 113 (A. Wenzel): grave attributed to early East Germanic
horizon, connection with Vandals, Alans, and Suebi not to be excluded.
HABITUS MILITARIS OR HABITUS BARBARUS?
215
additionally seemed conirmed by
the mention of his Germanic name
in the mosaic inscription6. For the
warrior from Capraia, a Frankish or
Alemannic ancestry has been deliberated by the excavators. It was
thought possible that he had been
a member of Avitus’s army that had
embarked from southern Gaul to
Rome in AD 455 and mainly included mercenaries of West Germanic origin7.
However, the long favoured
“ethnic”, respectively “migrationist” model of interpretation has
increasingly been challenged in
the past ifteen years. On the one
hand, this criticism was determined
by fundamental considerations of:
a) the nature of ethnicity; b) the
methods of ethnic interpretation in
archaeology; c) the historical background. On the other hand it was
also governed by a re-interpretation of archaeological remains and
their cultural ‘localization’8.
It is not the aim of the present
contribution to deal with criticism
of ethnic interpretation in general
or its methodical and historical arguments, although this seems more
Fig. 2. Pax Julia/Beja, Portugal. Inventory of the warrior
necessary than ever, because some
grave. 1 Scale ca. 1:5; 1a Scale 1:2,5; 1b Scale 1:2; 2–4 Scale
points of criticism seem too undif2:3.
ferentiated or even based on misunderstandings. Thus, ethnic interpretation is often equalised, by both critics and supporters, with the quest for ethnic
identity. In fact, it is more an “external” description of typical features distinguishing
6
On earlier interpretations von rummel 2007, pp. 338-339; aillagon (ed.) 2008, pp. 334-336 (T. Ghalia):
Vandal; Das Königreich der Vandalen, p. 363, n. 306 (Ch. Eger): Vandal. Doubts about the expressiveness
of the name in merrills-miles 2010, pp. 86-87.
7
DuCCi-CiamPoltrini 1991, p. 59; DuCCi-CiamPoltrini-beDini 1992, p. 371; on this cf. von rummel 2007, p.
352.
8
With regard to German research exemplary reference is made to Brather’s studies: bratHer 2004;
on the problem of dress and grave inds in particular: bratHer 2008. For critical statements also cf. the
international conferences of the last years on this topic, e.g. PoHl-meHofer (eds.) 2010; Quirós Castillo 2011;
ebanista-rotili (eds.) 2011.
216
CHRISTOPH EGER
(groups of) people from their
neighbours. There is an emphasis on cultural localization
within the space-time-system
but not identity as a subjective
sense of “we”. This difference
between “ethnographic” description and ethnic identity is
underlined by the fact that the
recognised borders often need
to be drawn much wider and
do not possess the desired clarity9. A closer approach seems
possible whenever individual
communities of known names
move to geographically distant
or culturally very different regions and are not fully acculturated or assimilated yet.
But the core problem,
with which I will deal below,
is largely limited to aspects of
archaeological interpretation of
inds and features: Can cultural
peculiarities and the distribution of certain archaeological
phenomena of the 5th century
AD be explained by a so-called
Fig. 3. Capraria/Capraia, Italy. Inventory of the warrior grave.
1–3 Scale 2:3; 4 Scale ca. 1:4.
ethnic approach and the migration of groups of people (gentes
or mixed parts of different gentes), or do alternative concepts based on the paradigms of “spatial turn”, respectively
“cultural turn” lead to a more convincing interpretation? - The sumptuous graves of
the 5th century in the Mediterranean have intensively been dealt with by Ph. von Rummel10. In his opinion, the grave equipment does not relect barbarian foreign origin of
the deceased, but increased desire for representation amongst the Late Roman military
elite, whose dress accessories and weaponry he characterised as Roman in the widest
sense11.
9
For the 5th century AD in particular, archaeologists are only able to separate major units from each
other in a satisfactory way, e. g. the “(East Germanic) Danubian Culture” which includes quite a number of
gentes. On this in detail bierbrauer 2008.
10
von rummel 2007, especially pp. 386-406. Whether exactly the present three graves can certainly be
considered sumptuous (princely) graves is doubtful, however. On this problem see below.
11
Another, intermediate position between this interpretation and the ethnic one was taken by D.
Quast in an inspiring article on Migration Period princely graves. He stressed that the burial ceremony with
rich grave goods was most likely understood and promoted by barbarian military elites and their social
HABITUS MILITARIS OR HABITUS BARBARUS?
217
Fig. 4. Thuburbo Maius/Henchir Kasbat, Tunisia, Inventory of the Arifridos grave. Scale 2:3.
Thus, what emerges as a central topic is the cultural allocation of these elites on
the basis of the archaeological material and their manners and rituals relected by it.
Both can provide important hints as to the origin and composition of the elite. But
what can be termed barbaric (Germanic, steppe-nomadic) and what Roman or Mediterranean in the 5th century AD? Although researchers have become very careful about
a Barbarian or Germanic attribution meanwhile, I observe very frivolous handling of
the terms Roman, Byzantine, and Mediterranean.
Therefore, I will explicitly investigate the following questions:
1) Can all inds from the presented three male graves be characterised as commonly Roman and did they belong to the familiar equipment of Roman soldiers/
oficers of the 5th century AD? It hardly requires further explanation that no conclusive
answer is possible to the second part of the question in particular12.
2) Are all graves with grave goods of the 5th century sumptuous burials of the military elite that concentrate in the western half of the Empire and thus relect a special
historic constellation of the West Roman Empire in the 5th century?
The methods for this investigation are well-known, but have by no means been
exhausted for the present topic: What is necessary is a comparative analysis of archae-
environment: Quast 2009, p. 378.
12
In order to obtain reliable results in this ield, a global study of the origin of recruits and equipment
of the Late Roman army of the 5th century would be required. This would be very dificult, however,
especially for the time after 430. No closer examination of this question in von rummel 2007 (short remarks:
pp. 121, 155, 181, 230, 386, 392), although this would have been essential for his hypotheses.
218
CHRISTOPH EGER
ological ind types as well as a dissection of the geographical distribution of inds and
features, respectively the mechanisms of their distribution. More intensely than was
done before, I will strive towards long-distance contextualisation of inds and features,
including the contemporaneous material culture and customs in the different regions
of the Mediterranean and its (northern) periphery.
3. The swords
Apart from dress accessories, weapons deposited in graves play an important
role for the cultural attribution and “ethnic interpretation” of buried persons. The
spathae from both Beja and Capraia have been interpreted as foreign types originating
in a different region of the Roman Empire or even outside the Empire. Typological
characteristics favouring a foreign origin were reviewed and refuted by von Rummel.
Thus, he arrived at the conclusion that both swords might ultimately be considered
Mediterranean, respectively Roman weapons that do not allow statements on a foreign
cultural habitus, not to speak of a foreign origin of the warrior. However, his explanations require amendment that will take us back to somewhere near the older position:
The spatha from Beja (igg. 2,1a-b, 3) is characterised by its long, but comparatively narrow blade, a massive iron cross guard decorated with cloisonné, probably
a solid pommel, and a magic sword pendant13. Migration period swords with a cross
guard are considered eastern types and were subdivided by W. Menghin into a “Pontic
type” (with cloisonné decoration) and an “Asiatic type” (without cloisonné decoration
of the cross guard)14 with clearly different main distribution areas: On the one hand,
examples with cloisonné are dominant in the north-eastern Black Sea Region and the
Caucasus forelands. On the other hand, swords with an undecorated solid iron cross
guard are almost exclusively found in the Carpathian basin15. However, M. Kazanski
pointed out that at least the specimens with a cloisonné cross guard were liable to
clearly Mediterranean inluence which he exempliied by the decorative elements
of the cellular work and other features16. Based on this, von Rummel tried to prove
that swords with a cloisonné cross guard were Roman weapons throughout and - as
in Beja - “would not have stood out as foreign”17. As a seeming proof for the use of
spathae with a broad cross guard in the Roman army, von Rummel quoted a silver
bowl of the Valentinian period found near Geneva in the 18th century (ig. 5)18. The
bowl, recently discussed in extenso by A. Arbeiter, features Emperor Valentinian II in
13
König 1981, p. 348, ig. 20; pl. 51; also cf. miKs 2007, p. 543, A43, pl. 143 (reproduction of an earlier
drawing without the pommel reconstructed by König); sword also without pommel: aillagon (ed.) 2008, p.
365, ig. e. On the magic sword pendant for the irst time DannHeimer 1961, pp. 466-467, ig. 1,3a-c.
14
First and fundamentally Werner 1956, pp. 38-43; mengHin 1994-95, pp. 165-186; for the spatha from
Beja: raDDatz 1959, pp. 145-146. On this also cf. von rummel 2007, p. 346; on its origin cf. anKe 1998, p.
75: independent development of the sword with elongated narrow blade and massive cross guard in the
Eurasian steppes. Most recently miKs 2007, pp. 133, 197-198.
15
KazansKi 1996, p. 120, ig. 8; KazansKi 2001, p. 411, ig. 13; also cf. anKe 1998, pp. 216-217, maps 6-6a.
16
KazansKi 2001, pp. 408-409.
17
von rummel 2007, p. 350.
18
von rummel 2007, p. 349, ig. 50.
HABITUS MILITARIS OR HABITUS BARBARUS?
219
Fig. 5. Silver bowl with representation of Valentinian II, found in the surroundings of Geneve, Suisse.
Without scale (the black arrow marks the Emperor´s sword).
parade armour amidst six bodyguards in its heavily worn relief19. In the lower part of
the bowl, at the feet of the emperor and his guard, there are a shield, a helmet, and
a sword sticking in its scabbard with a rectangular end and showing both a marked
cross guard and moulded hilt with a pommel end. Formally, the sword can therefore
be compared to the spatha from Beja. But according to all iconographic rules, the
sword does not belong to the emperor´s personal equipment. The incoherent arrangement of the weapons almost “thrown down” at the feet of the emperor indicates that
shield, sword, and helmet represent spolia from defeated enemies. In the case of the
sword this is beyond any doubt whatsoever, because the emperor is wearing a sword
19
arbeiter 2008, pp. 56-58.
220
CHRISTOPH EGER
at his left hip (although largely hidden). Unlike the sword on the ground, the pommel
of this weapon consists of a small offset cone while a cross guard deserving of this
name cannot be recognised. The contrast to the sword placed at the feet of Emperor
Valentinian II is striking and obviously wanted: By the cross guard and the pyramidal
pommel the metal worker, probably based at Milan20, exactly did not want to represent a standard weapon of the Imperial army, but a sword immediately recognisable
for the contemporaneous observer as an antagonistic, barbarian weapon by a few
characteristic features.
The fact that the broad cross guards of the 5th century most probably had no lasting effect on the development of western Mediterranean edged weapons is indicated
by their development in northern Gaul and south-west Germany: Sword types without
a cross guard make quite clear that different types of edged weapons existed in the
north-west of the Roman Empire and its periphery, and that types without a marked
cross guard were preferred here. Although the cloisonné decoration on the short cross
bar of the hilt edge and on the scabbard was taken over, the long drawn-out cross
guard is absent from Frankish and Alemannic swords of the middle and 2nd half of the
5th century21. In my opinion this evidence is signiicant for the interpretation of ind
lacunae in the western Mediterranean. If one assumes a lasting inluence of Roman
weaponry in areas north of the Alps (and so does von Rummel, too)22, then swords
without a cross guard should have been current in the western Mediterranean, too.
Another argument against an eastern origin of the spatha from Beja is the existence of an iron pommel made likely by König’s reconstruction (ig. 2,1a)23, because
amongst the eastern swords with a broad solid cross guard, none with a metal pommel
is known, while western sword types usually possessed a marked pommel ending offset from the tang. J. Pinar and G. Ripoll rightly objected, however, that swords with or
without a pommel confronted each other in the Middle Danube Area and that a mixture of both types might have occurred here at least24. Meanwhile the border between
the two sword types with a massive pommel ending has shifted further east: A spatha
from Kambulta in the northern Caucasus, kept at the Historical Museum in Moscow
for some time now, but overlooked by researchers so far, also possesses a pommel25.
Although it cannot be immediately compared to the swords discussed before as it
lacks a cross guard, it urges for caution in the assessment of swords with or without a
pommel. The small solid iron ending of the tang can no longer be taken for a reliable
proof of western origin of an edged weapon.
The spatha from Capraia (ig. 3,4) belongs to a completely different sword type
than does the previously discussed weapon. G. Ciampoltrini already hinted at its close
relation to a group of spathae in northern Gaul, which was termed type IIa (Samson-
arbeiter 2008, p. 60.
The cross guards with cloisonné of the spathae from Tournai and Flonheim grave 5 are hardly
broader than the width of the blade. Only the cross guard of the spatha from Planig grave 1 is drawn out
slightly more (cf. mengHin 1983, pp. 181, 215, 224).
22
von rummel 2007, p. 350.
23
KazansKi 2001, p. 411; von rummel 2007, pp. 349-350.
24
Pinar-riPoll 2008, pp. 118, 130, ig. 3-4.
25
The sword was bought long ago. For notice of this weapon I am greatly indebted to I. Akhmedov,
Historical Museum Moscow. Further information was kindly provided by M. Kazanski, Paris.
20
21
HABITUS MILITARIS OR HABITUS BARBARUS?
221
Oberlörick) by W. Menghin and is identical with group A after K. Böhner and M.
Martin26. Obligatory for this type are a double-edged blade some 5-5.5 cm wide and
80-85 cm long merging into a tang without a striking cross bar or a massive cross
guard as well as special characteristics of the scabbard, namely a chape adorned with
a mask, which is absent from the Capraia spatha, however, and a decorated locket
of type Samson-Abingdon27. Amongst the lockets executed in a very similar way,
closer attention is particularly deserved by the specimens from Krefeld-Gellep grave
43 on the Lower River Rhine, Germany, and Samson grave 11, Belgium. The majority
of spathae of type Samson-Oberlörick come from graves in the Rhine-Meuse Area.
Few specimens are also known from Kent, England, and south western Germany,
meanwhile only two pieces were found south of the Alps, namely the spatha from
Capraia and a fragment from Verona.
Because of this distribution pattern K. Böhner already assumed a production in
“indigenous Late Roman workshops of the Meuse Area” 28. Obviously we are dealing
with a regional sword type that reached neighbouring regions only in limited numbers.
This becomes particularly clear from swords in graves of south-east England and the
Alamannia. Both regions had a pronounced custom of depositing weapons in warrior graves which, however, mainly contained other sword types of limited regional
distribution29. The areas south of the Alps are dificult to consider due to the absence
of weapons from graves, but it is likely that the evidence from south-east England and
south-west Germany can be transferred. Therefore, the two pieces from Capraia and
Verona can rather be regarded as isolated examples of a sword type produced and
mainly used in the Rhine-Meuse Area, which were probably transported by warriors
on their way to the south from northern Alpine regions. An alternative transmission as
booty or present cannot be completely excluded either. We are not dealing, however,
with a typical Roman weapon being used in the entire western half of the Empire.
4. The belt buckles
Apart from a single-edged knife from Capraia, the other inds from the three male
graves exclusively consist of dress accessories decorated with inlays. Special attention
is deserved by the different buckles from all three graves which served for fastening waist belts, sword belts or shoe straps. For all represented types, the number of
known parallels is large enough to allow statements on regional centres of distribution
and thus on potential areas of origin of the items (and their wearers).
The buckle with a kidney shaped itting with stone inlay from Beja (ig. 2,4)
belongs to a large group of very similar gold buckles with a distribution focus in the
26
mengHin 1983, pp. 154-155; mengHin 1994-95, pp. 158-160; böHner 1987, pp. 411, 413-416; martin
1989, pp. 122, igg. 1, 124-125. On the spatha most recently miKs 2007, p. 556, A96.
27
miKs 2007, pp. 130-131: sword of type Illerup-Wyhl with a tendency towards type Wyhl; mengHin
1983, p. 138; böHner 1987, p. 413.
28
böHner 1987, p. 411; similarly mengHin 1983, p. 154: «in workshops in Late Roman tradition».
29
On this cf. the distribution maps in mengHin 1983, pp. 163-164, igg. 92-93; böHner 1987, pp. 450-451,
igg. 15-16; mengHin 1994-95, p. 162, ig. 17.
222
CHRISTOPH EGER
Middle Danubian Region and on the Black Sea Coast30. Characteristic of its most numerous variant are a massive golden frame of circular thickened form and a round
looped belt-plate with cellular work and marginal rivet sockets. The piece from Beja
deviates from this by its frame with inlay decoration, kidney-shaped itting and mounted cabochon, the last feature being considered typologically as a younger trait of these
buckles of the Danubian phase D2 (AD 400/10 to 440/50).
In southern Central Europe and in south western Europe this typological group
is represented only by few examples. According to R. Stark, the production of the
buckles involved Late Antique (East) Roman workshops31. This is not only revealed
by the cellular decoration and some cell patterns, but also by the technical solution
for ixing the itting: Placing rivet pins in sockets along the external edge of the plate,
connects the round gold buckles to some other buckle types mostly made of bronze
and predominantly found in the eastern half of the Empire32.
According to graves, small precious round buckles were worn by leading barbarian warriors in the service of Rome or - in the later 2nd quarter of the 5th century - of
Attila. There is disagreement amongst researchers about the question, whether such
gold buckles mainly represented a particularly ostentatious temporary fashion of the
Danubian military aristocracy or whether they were distributed all over the Mediterranean and belonged to the standard equipment of high-ranking oficers of the (East
and West) Roman army.
It may be objected, however, that general use as a Roman military buckle can
neither be proven by the overall distribution of this type, not including the entire Mediterranean or all Imperial provinces, nor by taking into account the remaining contemporaneous military belts of the Roman Empire. In the north-western provinces of the
Roman Empire e. g. we encounter a completely different belt fashion of the late 4th and
1st half of the 5th century AD. The ind material is well known, particularly between the
River Loire and the lower River Rhine thanks to extensive studies by H.-W. Böhme33.
Independently from the much debated question of the ethnic interpretation of
northern Gaulish and Belgic graves34 it must be stressed that army equipment in this
part of the Roman world included a belt with multipart sets of metal ittings consisting
of extremely wide belt plates with chip carved and punched decoration (ig. 6). The
relatively small, but massive circular buckles with a looped belt-plate form a marked
contrast to these chip carved sets of ittings with regard to their very size and shape
and represent a totally different belt fashion. Signiicantly enough they are rarely found
in this area and, when present at all, they were exclusively used as additional inferior
buckles35. Above all, there are nearly no sumptuous buckles of precious metals with a
circular cloisonné plate in Gaul, the scattered specimens of which do not cross an im-
sCHmauDer 2002 II, p. 121, map 14; bierbrauer 2008, p. 40, ig. 40.
starK 2000, p. 194; starK 2004, pp. 30-31. On this buckle type also teJral 1987; KazansKi 1996, p. 123;
KazansKi 1999, pp. 304-307.
32
On buckle plates with rivet sockets along the edges cf. sCHulze-Dörrlamm 2002, pp. 84-86; starK 2000,
p. 201; starK 2004, p. 28, ig. 4,1-2.5-6.9-14.19-20.
33
böHme 1974, pp. 195-207; for the type spectrum cf. böHme 1974 pp. 53-81 text pl. A-B. Most recently
on chip carved sets of ittings: böHme 2008.
34
Cf. the contrary positions of böHme 2008 and Halsall 2007, pp. 152-162.
35
Thus e.g. in a grave from Vieuxville: böHme 1974, pl. 110,14; sommer 1984, pl. 59,5.
30
31
HABITUS MILITARIS OR HABITUS BARBARUS?
223
aginary line from the Rhine-Main
Area to the Lower Seine River in a
northerly direction36.
Another zone within the
West Roman Empire for which a
distinctive belt fashion of the 4th
to early 5th century is attested, is
the northern Meseta of the Iberian
Peninsula. Its comparatively good
state of source material as to belt
accessories is owed to the fact
that it possesses small cemeteries and grave groups with grave
goods of the so-called Douro Valley Culture37. The type spectrum
of these belt accessories mainly
involves regional types such as
buckles of type Simancas which
are just as markedly distinct from
eastern buckle fashions of the late
4th to mid 5th century as from chip
carved sets of the north-western
provinces (ig. 9 bottom)38.
Another belt fashion deviant
from Middle Danubian and eastern Imperial norms suggests itself
Fig. 6. Top: Distribution of belt ittings with Kerbschnitt.
for the North African provinces in
– Bottom: Parts of a belt set with Kerbschnitt from BaselAeschenvorstadt, grave from 1971, Suisse.
the time around AD 400 and the
1st half of the 5th century, although
the present state of research and
publication is very scarce39. Of particular signiicance for the question of North African
sumptuous belts of the Latest Roman Period are the belt ittings from the treasure of
Cartennae/Ténès most likely deposited around AD 420/3040.
Let us conclude by considering the overall development of Late Roman belt fashions and particularly the one of the Iberian Peninsula with regional types surviving
into the 5th century: It seems hardly believable that the Beja warrior was a regular
Cf. the examples quoted by KazansKi 1996, p. 122, ig. 9, nn. 28-29.48.
For a summary see zeiss 1934, pp. 90-91 («Early Castilian Group»); Caballero zoreDa 1974; fuentes
Domínguez 1989. On belt accessories cf. aurreCoeCHea fernÁnDez 2001.
38
On Hispanic belt types of the 4th/5th centuries see Pérez roDríguez-aragón 1992, pp. 258-260, ig. 3-5;
aurreCoeCHea fernÁnDez 2001, p. 27, ig. 9; on the dating of type Simancas into the late 4th and (advanced?)
5th century aurreCoeCHea fernÁnDez 2001, p. 158.
39
On the state of source material see maCKensen 2008.
40
Monographic: Heurgon 1958. I do not support the very late dating of its deposition by Heurgon
(Heurgon 1958, pp. 71-73, 77) on the basis of the large medallion disc brooch with cross pendilia. Cf. eger
2012, pp. 158-159.
36
37
224
CHRISTOPH EGER
Late Roman oficer buried with current accessories spread across the entire empire.
His equipment neither implies a widely distributed or even uniform fashion amongst
military aristocrats present in Hispania, nor a broader regional production41. Because
of his belt ittings and his sword, the soldier from Beja can hardly be related to military
contingents other than barbaric or barbarised units operating here in the 2nd quarter of
the 5th century, be it under Suebian or Visigothic-Roman command42.
In view of its (foreign) origin, the - presumptive - belt buckle from the Grave of
Arifridos must be interpreted similarly to the circular buckles discussed before. The
now lost specimen has most recently been classiied amongst “oval buckles with an
oval to kidney-shaped plate with a single or bipartite inlay of type C2” by M. Schulze-Dörrlamm43. Parallels are mainly found in the Black Sea and Middle Danubian
Areas, only few pieces were found further west, respectively in the western Mediterranean. M. Schulze-Dörrlamm and Ph. von Rummel supposed that this limited
distribution did not (only) relect a problem of the present state of source material.
Their hypothesis can be disproven by a comparative analysis of the distribution of
different cloisonné buckles: It reveals clear differences that refute a global explanation
exclusively resting on the bad state of research in the Mediterranean, for the limited
distribution of the early types of the 1st half to mid 5th century. These buckles must also
be considered a warning against a rashly generalising terminology when classifying
buckles as Roman/Byzantine or circum-Mediterranean.
In this respect the larger of the two buckles from the warrior grave at Capraia
demands careful examination, too. With its oval ring and upright oblong looped beltplate with a drop-shaped “plate-inlay” decoration the larger buckle belongs to the type
Komorn-Gültlingen-Bingen after Quast or type C14 after Schulze-Dörrlamm, the dating
of which reaches from the mid 5th century to the time around AD 50044. Several parallels
are known in southern Germany, but similar buckles are also known in the eastern
Mediterranean (ig. 7). As Schulze-Dörrlamm pointed out, the Merovingian examples
with their ittings mostly made of iron and with four corner rivets are distinct from
Byzantine buckles with a lat box itting of non-ferrous metal and three rivets and are
likely to have been locally made imitations45. The piece from Capraia must be counted
amongst the (Merovingian) imitation group and thus implies northern Alpine connections as does the sword from the same grave.
5. Special dress? The shoe buckles
The dress accessories of the three graves hardly allow any statements on the garments formerly worn with them. The basic element might have been a tunic with a
41
This does not exclude a production of very small numbers only for the demand of warrior elites of
the gentes that lived on the Iberian Peninsula from AD 409 onwards.
42
For the changeful history and the numerous military campaigns of this period cf. garCía moreno
1998, pp. 49-72; KamPers 2008, pp. 126-129.
43
sCHulze-Dörrlamm 2002, pp. 86-89.
44
Quast 1993, p. 86; sCHulze-Dörrlamm 2002, pp. 120-123.
45
Distinction of eastern Mediterranean and western types by sCHulze-Dörrlamm 2002, p. 121.
HABITUS MILITARIS OR HABITUS BARBARUS?
225
Fig. 7. Distribution of belt buckles with rectangular plate and plate-inlaying-decoration, type KomornGültlingen-Bingen/C14.
belt around the hip. Only Arifridos possessed a ibula (ig. 3,1) for fastening a cloak,
probably a chlamys closed on the right shoulder according to Late Roman custom. Another striking peculiarity of this grave ind is the golden pair of miniature buckles that
might have served as shoe or garter buckles. They belong to the miniature buckles
with a D-shaped plate and individually mounted cabochon46. Their paring and minute
size of only some 2.5 cm support their use as precious shoe ittings, although their ind
position in the grave remains unknown. The supposition, that such sumptuous pairs
of small buckles of the 1st half of the 5th century and mid 5th century served as shoe fasteners, rests on few reliably documented inds mainly from the Middle Danubian Area,
where such small buckles were encountered in situ at the feet of the dead47. Thus,
the archaeological inds imply a barbarian rite. Von Rummel, in contrast, believed that
the use of buckles on shoes or stockings was once also and particularly known in
46
The type has not been included by sCHulze-Dörrlamm 2002. She only considers D-shaped buckle
plates with a bezel setting (buckles of type C7). KazansKi 1994, pp. 144 (group I.2.D), 178, ig. 5,9-10
attracted attention to two isolated miniature buckles from Paris and Kerč.
47
Cf. e.g. sCHmauDer 2002, II, pp. 21-27, ig. 5 (Blučina); pp. 35-37, ig. 9 (Lébény; only a small buckle
at the left foot survives). Earlier specimens still dating to the 4th century are known from the Černjachov
Culture: sCHmauDer 2002, I, p. 159; bierbrauer 2008, p. 42 note 145.
226
CHRISTOPH EGER
the Roman Empire and is suficiently documented by written sources and pictures48.
He added that Roman Emperors wore shoes richly decorated with jewels from the
3rd century onwards. However, buckles are neither mentioned in written sources nor
can they be recognised in pictures. Von Rummel continued that such an accuracy of
detail could not be expected in representations anyway, the missing iconographical
proof therefore being of no consequence for the matter49. I disagree with this, since
the oficial image program of Roman emperors deinitely included a high esteem for
detailed representation of pieces of garment despite all stylisation and idealisation.
Unless there is demonstrable regress to older traditional picture schemes, we may
expect representations closely committed to real Imperial costumes. This is made
quite clear by the famous sculpture of “The Tetrarchs” of around AD 300 in Venice
representing the Augusti and Caesares in similar military service clothing (ig. 8 top):
Emphasis is laid on the cloak ibula, the belt decorated with different jewel-clad plates
and the elaborately adorned sword50. Even the shoes were by no means neglected in
the image: Next to the different straps that ix the campagi there are round discs signifying decorative ittings. The lacing, however, could do completely without buckles
which, given the pronounced representation of one of the shoelace endings, cannot
be explained by deicient attention to details.
In the picture on the richly decorated Missorium from Almendralejo, Theodosius
the Great is wearing a grand courtly dress, which the silver smith represented with
great attention to detail. Here, too, the shoes do not possess buckles (ig. 8 centre)51.
At the upper bootleg there is only a circular disc that can be interpreted as a decoration or perhaps as a kind of a button, but hardly as a buckle. An important clue with
regard to this is an exceptionally well preserved shoe of leather dyed purple from
R. Forrer’s excavations in the Coptic cemetery of Panopolis/Akhmim in Egypt (ig. 8
bottom)52. Typologically the Egyptian shoe is very close to the pair worn by the emperor on the “Missorium of Theodosius”. On the instep there is a circular ornament of
gold colour or sheet gold reminiscent of the disc-shaped feature in the picture. Thus
one need not necessarily to think of precious jewel applications or even buckles,
but rather of coloured decorations or sewed-on appliques. According to Frauberger’s
publication neither this specimen nor the other shoes and boots found at Panopolis
had shoe buckles.
The 5th-century miniature buckles that most likely served as luxury shoe ittings
(shoe buckles) have typological relations to the Danube and Black Sea Regions. The
fashion of shoe buckles itself is likely to be of eastern origin (eastern Black Sea Region
or Sassanid Empire). As far as it is possible to assert by means of archaeological sources, shoe buckles never were a general Roman phenomenon, but were mainly current
amongst the warrior elite of the Danubian Area, respectively amongst the frontier society under Danubian inluence, before they were temporarily adopted by barbarian elites
of the west in the late 5th century, too. The almost complete absence of archaeological
rummel 2007, pp. 118, 341.
rummel 2007, p. 341.
DelbrueCK 1932, p. 88, ig. 33; ragona 1963.
Monographic: almagro et alii (ed.) 2000.
frauberger 1895-96.
48
von
49
von
50
51
52
HABITUS MILITARIS OR HABITUS BARBARUS?
227
Fig. 8. Top: Venice-San Marco, Stone sculpture of the tetrarchs, detail: shoes of one of the tetrarchs. – Mid:
Missorium of Theodosius, Almendralejo, Spain, details with shoes of the emperor and a dignitary. – Bottom:
Panopolis/Akhmim, Egypt; red coloured shoe of leather, with golden ornaments.
228
CHRISTOPH EGER
proof of shoe buckles in the Mediterranean cannot be explained across-the-board by
the absence of grave goods: I already mentioned different regions with ind material,
also including graves of the relevant time, in the context of my discussion of individual
buckle types. Amongst them is the Near East, but also certain zones of the Iberian Peninsula. In none of them do we get any evidence for the use of shoe buckles.
6. Towards an interpretation of burial customs and grave goods
In the discussion on the ethnic appraisal of the three male graves it has often
been argued that burial with dress accessories and a weapon was typically barbarian,
while the opponents of a primarily ethnic interpretation explained this by a changed
desire for representation amongst the Late Roman military elite of the western Empire.
Therefore we will subsequently have to ask whether weapon graves of the Late Roman world were per se a foreign feature and thus a hint at the presence of barbarians
or whether they may be considered proof of the quest for new means of expression
of the military elite. Secondly we will have to examine whether these tombs were always very richly equipped and connected to the social elite. Thirdly the quantity and
geographical distribution of these graves is signiicant: Do they come from regions
demonstrably connected to treks of Migration Period gentes or can they be found
wherever Late Roman armed forces were garrisoned?
6.1. Some remarks on weapons deposited in graves in the Late Roman Empire
Weapons were deinitely deposited in graves in the Late Roman Empire, but their
occurrence is limited to certain regions. In the Mediterranean one of these regions
is - northern Gaul and the Germanic provinces not being considered here53 - the
northern Meseta in Spain with its 4th- and 5th-century grave groups and cemeteries of
the Douro Valley as has been said before54. While the majority of graves had no grave
goods, some tombs contained a vessel, some jewellery or dress accessories (almost
exclusively buckles) and also components of arms in male graves. Particularly current
was the deposition of a dagger of type Simancas or a lance head (ig. 9)55. The weapon
deposits imply that a warlike rural population, possibly members of a militia set up
for the protection of latifundia, was buried here.
Another region with Late Antique weapon graves is the Near East. Here, however,
only isolated evidence has been found yet which underlines the exceptional character
of weapon deposits in graves of the Palestinian and Arabian provinces. As an example
I quote the grave of an archer at Be’er Sheva’ in Israel who was buried with a set of
tanged arrow heads in the 2nd half of the 4th century56. It is not unlikely that he was a
member of an auxiliary unit of Saracen archers also mentioned in the written sources.
These two examples should sufice for making two points:
53
54
55
56
On this cf. the explications by böHme 1974; most recently böHme 2008; contrariwise: Halsall 2007.
Fundamental literature Halsall 2007 note 82.
For customs of depositing grave goods cf. the tables by fuentes Domínguez 1989, pp. 123-147.
gorin 2003, p. 89, ig. 132.
HABITUS MILITARIS OR HABITUS BARBARUS?
229
Fig. 9. San Miguel de Arroyo, Spain, grave 10. Scale ca. 1:2; lance head Scale 2:5. – Bottom: Belt buckle of
type Simancas.
1) Late Antique weapon deposits in graves need not be connected to Barbarians
a priori; one rather has to analyse the context of the weapon graves and the ind material very carefully. The northern Castilian cemeteries of the so-called Douro Culture
were obviously a regional phenomenon of a native rural population. The still rare
examples in the Near East, however, elude closer evaluation. Here it seems likely in
230
CHRISTOPH EGER
the context of written traditions (Notitia Dignitatum) that weapon deposits in graves
were a custom of barbarian members of the Roman army, in this case “Saracens”57.
2) Late Antique graves containing a sword are known neither in the Roman
provinces of the Near East nor in the Douro Culture. The deposit of spathae in Beja
and Capraia is a new custom in their surroundings which must be considered in a differentiated way as to its sociological and cultural signiicance (origin of sword types,
closest contemporaneous parallels for the custom of swords as grave goods). As has
been demonstrated before, the next parallels for both the sword types and the custom
of depositing swords in graves imply different barbarian areas of origin for both cases.
6.2. Elite burials and princely graves? On the social position of the deceased
According to von Rummel, the male graves from Beja, Capraia, and Thuburbo
Maius together with sumptuous burials such as Pouan in France and Tournai (Childeric’s Grave) in Belgium and a number of magniicent female graves were proof of a
new burial custom of the Late Roman military aristocracy58. However, this argumentation puts very different graves on the same sociological level. The three Mediterranean
graves have clearly restricted furnishings with regard to quantity and in Capraia also
to quality (only gold-plated buckles) in comparison to the sumptuous and extremely
substantial equipment of the Frankish king Childeric (died 482)59 and to the one of the
nobleman buried at Pouan in the 3rd quarter of the 5th century60. Moreover, Arifridos
was buried without a weapon. This does not only imply considerable differences of a
social nature and of rank, but also implies the doubt: to what extent Arifridos can be
considered a typical representative of the army61. This, however, shakes one of von
Rummel’s core hypotheses, namely that the “inhumations habillée” of the 5th century
were generally richly furnished graves or even sumptuous ones, the appearance and
equipment of which should be explained by Kossack’s theory of princely burials62.
If it is already permissible to doubt the classiication as sumptuous graves in the case
of the three male graves, there is even more evidence for plainer equipment amongst
female graves of Vandal North Africa. Mention must be made of two graves excavated at
Hippo Regius/Annaba, Algeria, in the mid 19th century, the inventories of which range well
below the level of graves with gold jewellery and dress accessories such as Thuburbo Maius and Carthage-Koudiat Zâteur63. Isolated inds of crossbow and bow ibulae of non-fer-
57
This supposition would require further investigations of burial customs in the Limes apron,
respectively on the Arabic Peninsula.
58
von rummel 2007, pp. 375, 384, 386.
59
Good overview: Périn-KazansKi 1996; KoCH-von WelCK-WieCzoreK 1996.
60
Most recently Ph. Riffaud-Longuespé in aillagon (ed.) 2008, pp. 322-323.
61
Von Rummel’s (von rummel 2007, p. 404) suggestion that persons buried with a sword should be
considered members of the army, those without a sword members of the militia non armata, i. e. of the
Imperial administration, is unsatisfactory because this would reduce the deposition of a sword from the very
beginning to a merely functional aspect.
62
von rummel 2007, pp. 9, 377, 382-383 with a very problematic treatment of the term «sumptuous
grave». View in contrast the criteria listed by KossaCK 1974, pp. 4-5.
63
On the inventory of graves 1-2/1865 from Hippo Regius/Annaba: Quast 2005, pp. 242-247; on
Carthage-Koudiat Zâteur: eger 2001, pp. 353-370.
HABITUS MILITARIS OR HABITUS BARBARUS?
231
Fig. 10. Belt set from “Reastan” (probably ar-Rastan), Syria. Scale 2:3.
rous metals, that might come from undocumented graves because of their good state of
preservation, imply the existence of further graves of persons who cannot be counted
amongst the top level of Vandal society and probably not even Vandal upper class64.
6.3. A phenomenon of the West Roman Empire?
Another objection refers to von Rummel’s hypothesis that graves with more or
less elaborate jewellery and dress accessories were a phenomenon of the West Roman
Empire in particular, unparalleled in the East Roman Empire and connected to the
special political constellation of the western Empire65. This theory is plainly wrong.
Graves with grave goods of Late Roman and Byzantine Times also existed on the
north-eastern periphery of the East Roman Empire (Crimea, foothills of the Caucasus)
and in the south-eastern parts of the Empire: both in Egypt and in the Near East the
deceased continued to be buried wearing garments, jewellery and sometimes also
dress accessories from Roman times until the 6th and 7th century. It is true that, up to
date, there are no graves as rich in gold as the graves from Pouan and Tournai, but
64
65
Cf. eger 2008, pp. 192-193, ig. 1,4; 2,6; eger 2012, pp. 321-322.
Cf. von rummel 2007, pp. 384-386, 403.
232
CHRISTOPH EGER
the level of equipment of graves such as the one of the warrior from Capraia (dress
accessories of bronze and gold-plated bronze with cloisonné decoration) is reached
(ig. 10)66. Weapons were deposited rarely, however. Last but not least, the uneven
geographical distribution of “elite graves” within the West Roman half of the Empire
speaks against a connection with the Late Roman military elite: Thus it occurred to
von Rummel, too, that rich graves with the aforementioned elements massively concentrate on the north-eastern periphery, in the Carpathian Basin, and in Pannonia,
while they rapidly thin out by going away towards the west and south-west and they
are only sporadically found there. But at least Gaul and Upper Italy, where major
parts of the comitatenses and the operational headquarters of the Roman army were
garrisoned in the 1st half of the 5th century, should have produced numerous graves
according to von Rummel’s hypothesis. This is not the case, however67.
7. Conclusion
If we sum up our previous thoughts we cannot but develop a differentiated notion
of “Barbarian”, “Roman”, and “Mediterranean” for the interpretation of individual inds
and the custom of depositing grave goods in rich male graves of the 1st half till the
middle of the 5th century. Our most important inding with regard to the objects from
the graves at Beja, Thuburbo Maius, and Capraia is the proof of a regionally differentiated material culture even within the Roman Empire, respectively the Mediterranean
Area, which permits statements regarding the mobility of material goods and persons.
Depending on their particular focus of distribution, the distribution patterns of certain
products such as dress accessories and weapons seem to be explicable rather by personal mobility than with general diffusion, fashion, trade, or gift exchange. In this connection, we must not disregard the historically attested mobility of Barbarians, though
very heterogeneous groups of people in the Mediterranean since the late 4th century.
Peculiarities of dress can also be explained much more convincingly by members
of such communities than by a (uniform) new apparel of the Late Roman military aristocracy of the western Empire, as was demonstrated by the example of shoe buckles.
The habit of burying a deceased warrior with his sword is unparalleled in the Late
Roman Mediterranean, although it was deinitely common in different regions of both
the western and eastern part of the Roman Empire to inhume dead persons of certain
social standing with their personal equipment and additional grave goods, e. g. in
Meseta/Spain, Egypt and the Near East.
Instead of ascribing the warrior graves under discussion to an uniform West Roman military aristocracy, I would like to suggest - quasi as an alternative draft - a
modiied “ethnic” interpretation: The buried persons’ cultural habitus documented by
their equipment, armament, and burial customs is something new and strange within
Cf. the sets of ittings with cloisonné decoration from ar-Rastan («Reastan») near Homs: Quast 1999.
It is true that the number of graves increases, as can be seen e.g. from graves at Sacca di Goito,
Northern Italy, discovered some years ago (sannazaro 2006). But this does not compensate the existing
imbalance.
66
67
HABITUS MILITARIS OR HABITUS BARBARUS?
233
5th-century western Mediterranean, but it displays certain references to different regions on the northern periphery of the Empire. For this reason the deceased of the
three model graves - Beja, Capraia, and Thuburbo Maius - are considered non-locals as
to their place of origin. While the habitus and individual ind types of the Beja warrior
and the nobleman Arifridos from Thuburbo Maius possess afinities with the Danubian
Culture and might come from the Middle Danubian too, the evidence of the Capraia
warrior rather implies an origin in a Northern Alpine, perhaps the East Frankish Area.
However, their burial mode, dress, and armament do not relect their ethnicity, but a
cultural imprint that allows more or less a precise geographical localisation depending
on the available criteria and the particular state of research. Whether the deceased
originally came from the relevant region or only obtained an indirect imprint from
there, cannot be precisely determined by archaeological means. Thus, we must face
the possibility that a certain habitus could be adopted by persons joining a barbarian
community (gens) at a later point in their lives. In the case of migrations, this presupposes a certain prestige of the particular culture and facilities for the continuous production of “foreign” objects typical of the outit in new, distant areas68. Why a particular
burial mode in complete apparel with jewellery and accessories was practised in the new
settlement area cannot be extensively discussed here. One of the reasons certainly was
the crisis of legitimation and identity of the leading barbarian classes, a fact which von
Rummel has explicitly expressed by the example of the Vandals, too69. But in contrast
to his further argumentation my accent will be considerably shifted back towards the
barbarian, tribal element: The grave inds must not be seen connected to members of
the Late Roman military aristocracy of the western half of the Empire in general, but to
certain clansmen of barbarian gentes. From the discussion of ind types and customs it
becomes quite obvious that this approach is not at all based on a strict dichotomy Germanic/barbarian vs. Roman as a background image and characterising the interpretation:
Sometimes it is only nuances and regional shifts that allow a differentiation.
abbreviations
anD
bibliograPHy
aillagon J.J. (ed.) 2008, Rome and the Barbarians. The birth of a new world, Venice.
almagro gorbea m. et alii (ed.) 2000, El disco de Teodosio. Publicaciones del Gabinete de
Antigüedades de la Real Academia de la Historia. Estudios 5, Madrid.
anKe B. 1998, Studien zur reiternomadischen Kultur des 4. bis 5. Jahrhunderts 1-2, Weissbach.
arbeiter A. 2008, Der Kaiser mit dem Christogramm-Nimbus. Zur silbernen Largitionsschale
Valentinians in Genf, in «Helvetia Archaeologica», 39/154, pp. 42-73.
aurreCoeCHea fernÁnDez J. 2001, Los cinturones romanos en la Hispania del Bajo Imperio.
Monographies Instrumentum 19, Montagnac.
bernDt g.m.-steinaCHer R. (eds.) 2008, Das Reich der Vandalen und seine (Vor-) Geschichten.
Forsch. Gesch. Mittelalter 13, Wien.
68
Little is known, however, about the supply of mobile groups of people with consumer goods,
accessories, and jewellery.
69
von rummel 2007, p. 385. It would certainly be mistaken to reduce the burial customs to this very
aspect. Religion and concepts of moral and tradition are also likely to have played their role. These aspects
need not exclude each other.
234
CHRISTOPH EGER
bierbrauer V. 2003, RGA² 25, Berlin, New York, pp. 210-242, s.v. Romanen.
bierbrauer V. 2008, Ethnos und Mobilität im 5. Jahrhundert aus archäologischer Sicht:
Vom Kaukasus bis nach Niederösterreich. Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften,
Philosophisch-historische Klasse, Abhandlungen Neue Folge 131, München.
böHme H.W. 1974, Germanische Grabfunde des 4. bis 5. Jahrhunderts zwischen unterer Elbe
und Loire. Münchner Beiträge zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte 19, München.
böHme H.W. 1986, Bemerkungen zum spätrömischen Militärstil, in rotH H. (ed.) 1986, Zum
Problem der Deutung frühmittelalterlicher Bildinhalte. Akten des 1. Internationalen
Kolloquiums in Marburg a. d. Lahn, 15. bis 19. Februar 1983, Sigmaringen, pp. 25-49.
böHme H.W. 2008, Gallische Höhensiedlungen und germanische Söldner im 4./5. Jahrhundert,
in steuer H.-bierbrauer v. (eds.) 2008, Höhensiedlungen zwischen Antike und Mittelalter
von den Ardennen bis zur Adria. Ergänzungsband Reallexikon der Germanischen
Altertumskunde 58, Berlin, New York, pp. 71-103.
böHner K. 1987, Germanische Schwerter des 5./6. Jahrhunderts, in «Jahrbuch des RömischGermanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz», 34/2, pp. 411-490.
bratHer S. 2004, Ethnische Interpretationen in der frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie. Geschichte,
Grundlagen, Alternativen. Ergänzungsband Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde
42, Berlin, New York.
bratHer S. 2008, Kleidung, Bestattung, Ritual. Die Präsentation sozialer Rollen im frühen
Mittelalter, in bratHer S. (ed.) 2008, Zwischen Spätantike und Frühmittelalter. Archäologie
des 4. bis 7. Jahrhunderts im Westen. Ergänzungsband Reallexikon der Germanischen
Altertumskunde 57, Berlin, New York pp. 237-273.
Caballero zoreDa L. 1974, La necrópolis de Fuentespreadas (Zamora). Excavaciones Arqueológicas
en España 80, Madrid.
DannHeimer H. 1961, Zum Germanengrab von Beja - Pax Julia, in «Germania», 39, pp. 466-467.
Das Königreich der Vandalen = Das Königreich der Vandalen. Erben des Imperiums in
Nordafrika, ed. Badisches Landesmuseum Karlsruhe, Mainz.
DelbrueCK R. 1932, Antike Porphyrwerke, Berlin.
Die Franken = Die Franken Wegbereiter Europas. vor 1500 Jahren: König Chlodwig und seine
Erben 1-2, Mainz 1996.
DuCCi s.-CiamPoltrini G. 1991, Capraia (Livorno). Tomba di un militare tardoantico. Materiali di
corredo tardoantico, in «Bollettino di Archeologia», 7, pp. 53-59.
DuCCi s.-CiamPoltrini g.-beDini e. 1992, Una sepoltura tardoantica dal Porto di Capraia Isola, in
«Archeologia Medievale», 19, pp. 369-377.
ebanista C.-rotili m. (eds.) 2011, Archeologia e storia delle migrazioni. Europa, Italia,
Mediterraneo fra tarda eta romana e alto medioevo. Atti del Convegno internazionale di
studi Cimitile-Santa Maria Capua Vetere, 17-18 giugno 2010, Cimitile.
eger Ch. 2001, Vandalische Grabfunde aus Karthago, in «Germania», 79/2, pp. 347-390.
eger Ch. 2008, Vandalisches Trachtzubehör? Zu Herkunft, Verbreitung und Kontext ausgewählter
Fibeltypen aus Nordafrika, in bernDt-steinaCHer (eds.) 2008, pp. 183-195.
eger Ch. 2012, Spätantikes Kleidungszubehör aus Nordafrika I. Trägerkreis, Mobilität und
Ethnos im Spiegel der Funde der spätesten römischen Kaiserzeit und der vandalischen Zeit.
Münchner Beiträge zur Provinzialrömischen Archäologie 5, Wiesbaden.
frauberger H. 1895-96, Antike und frühmittelalterliche Fussbekleidungen aus Achmim-Panopolis,
Düsseldorf.
fuentes Domínguez A. 1989, La necrópolis tardorromana de Albalate de Las Nogueras (Cuenca)
y el problema de las denominadas Necrópolis del Duero, Cuenca.
garCía moreno L.A. 1998, Historia de España Visigoda, Madrid.
gorin Y. 2003, Be’er Sheva’, in «Hadashot Arkheologiyot», 115 (Hebrew section 90-91), pp. 65-66.
Halsall G. 2007, Barbarian migrations and the Roman West 376-568, Cambridge.
Heurgon J. 1958, Le trésor de Ténès, Paris.
HABITUS MILITARIS OR HABITUS BARBARUS?
235
KamPers G. 2008, Geschichte der Westgoten, Paderborn.
KazansKi M. 1994, Les plaques-boucles méditerranéennes des Ve-Vie siècles, in «Archéologie
Médiévale», 24, pp. 137-173.
KazansKi M. 1996, Les tombes «princières» de l´horizon Untersiebenbrunn, le problème de
l´identiication ethnique, in L´identité des populations archéologiques. XVIe Rencontres
Internationales d´archéologie et d´Histoire d´Antibes, Sophia Antipolis 1996, pp. 109-126.
KazansKi M. 1999, Les tombes des chefs militaires de l’époque hunnique, in fisCHer tH.-PreCHt g.teJral J. (eds.) 1999, Germanen beiderseits des spätantiken Limes. Spisy Arch. Ústavu AV ČR
Brno 14, Brno, pp. 293-316.
KazansKi M. 2001, Les épées “orientales” à garde cloisonnée du 5e-6e siècle, in International
connections of the Barbarians of the Carpathian Basin in the 1st-5th centuries A. D.
Proceedings of the International Conference held in 1999 in Aszód and Nyíregyháza,
Nyíregyháza 2001, pp. 389-418.
KoCH u.-von WelCK K.-WieCzoreK a. 1996, Das Grab des Frankenkönigs Childerich, in Die
Franken, pp. 879-883.
König G.G. 1981, Wandalische Grabfundes des 5. und 6. Jhs., in «Madrider Mitteilungen», 22,
pp. 299-360.
KossaCK G. 1974, Prunkgräber. Bemerkungen zu Eigenschaften und Aussagewert, in KossaCK
G.-ulbert g. (eds.) 1974, Studien zur vor- und frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie. Festschrift
für Joachim Werner zum 65. Geburtstag. Münchner Beiträge zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte
Ergänzungsband 1, München, pp. 3-33.
maCKensen M. 2008, Tonabformung eines spätantiken kerbschnittverzierten Gürtelbeschlags
aus dem zentraltunesischen Töpfereizentrum Sidi Marzouk Tounsi. Zur Mobilität
comitatensischer Truppen, in «Germania», 86/1, pp. 307-322.
martin M. 1989, Bemerkungen zur chronologischen Gliederung der frühen Merowingerzeit, in
«Germania», 67/1, pp. 121-141.
mengHin W. 1983, Das Schwert im frühen Mittelalter, Stuttgart.
mengHin W. 1994-95, Schwerter des Goldgriffspanthenhorizonts im Museum für Vor- und
Frühgeschichte, Berlin, in «Acta Praehistoria et Archaeologica», 26-27, pp. 140-191.
merrills a.-miles R. 2010, The Vandals, Oxford.
miKs Ch. 2007, Studien zur römischen Schwertbewaffnung in der Kaiserzeit. Kölner Studien zur
Archäologie der Römischen Provinzen 8, Rahden.
Palma santos A. I. 2008, The Visigothic tomb of Beja (Portugal), in aillagon (ed.) 2008, pp. 364-365.
Pérez roDríguez-aragón F. 1992, Los cingula militiae tardorromanos de la Península Ibérica, in
«Boletín del Seminario de Estudios de Arte y Arqueología», 58, pp. 238-261.
Périn P.-KazansKi M. 1996, Das Grab Childerichs, in Die Franken, pp. 173-182.
Pinar J.-riPoll G. 2008, The so-called Vandal objects of Hispania, in bernDt-steinaCHer (eds.)
2008, pp. 105-130.
PoHl W.-meHofer M. (eds.) 2010, Archaeology of identity. Archäologie der Identität, Wien.
Poinssot L. 1921, Tombeau d´Arifridos, in «Bulletin archéologique du Comité des Travaux
Historiques et Scientiiques», pp. LVII-LVIII.
Poinssot l.-lantier R. 1934, L’archéologie chrétienne en Tunisie (1920–32), Thuburbo Majus, in
Atti del 3° Congresso Internazionale di Archeologia Cristiana, Ravenna 25-30 settembre
1932, Roma 1934, pp. 403-405.
Quast D. 1993, Die merowingerzeitlichen Grabfunde aus Gültlingen (Stadt Wildberg, Kreis
Calw). Forschungen und Berichte zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte in Baden-Württemberg 52,
Stuttgart.
Quast D. 1999, Garnitures de ceintures méditerranéenes à plaques cloisonnées des Ve et début
VIe siècles, in «Antiquités Nationales», 31, pp. 233-250.
Quast D. 2005, Völkerwanderungszeitliche Frauengräber aus Hippo Regius (Annaba/Bône) in
Algerien, in «Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz», 52, pp. 237-315.
236
CHRISTOPH EGER
Quast D. 2009, Erben Roms. Völkerwanderungszeitliche Prunkgräber auf ehemaligem römischen
Reichsgebiet, in 2000 Jahre Varusschlacht. Konlikt, ed. Varusschlacht im Osnabrücker
Land GmbH Museum und Park Kalkriese, Stuttgart, pp. 372-378.
Quirós Castillo J.A. (ed.) 2011, Dossier Archaeology and ethnicity: Reassessing the „Visigothic
necropoleis“, in «Arqueología y Territorio Medieval», 18, pp. 9-53.
raDDatz K. 1959, Das völkerwanderungszeitliche Kriegergrab von Beja, Südportugal, in «Jahrbuch
des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz», 6, pp. 142-150.
ragona A. 1963, I tetrarchi dei gruppi porirei di S. Marco in Venecia, Caltagirone.
sannazaro M. 2006, Elementi di abbigliamento e ornamentali “barbarici” da alcune sepolture
della necropoli tardoantica di Sacca di Goito (MN), in buora M.-villa l. (eds.) 2006, Goti
nell’arco alpino orientale, in «Archeologia di Frontiera» 5, pp. 59-73.
sCHmauDer m. 2002, Oberschichtgräber und Verwahrfunde in Südosteuropa im 4. und 5.
Jahrhundert. Zum Verhältnis zwischen dem spätantiken Reich und der barbarischen
Oberschicht aufgrund der archäologischen Quellen. I Text. II Katalog - Beilagen Verbreitungskarten - Tafeln. Arch. Romanica 3, Bukarest.
sCHulze-Dörrlamm M. 2002, Byzantinische Gürtelschnallen und Gürtelbeschläge im RömischGermanischen Zentralmuseum 1: Die Schnallen ohne Beschläg, mit Laschenbeschläg und
mit festem Beschläg des 5. bis 7. Jhs., Mainz.
sommer M. 1984, Die Gürtel und Gürtelbeschläge des 4. und 5. Jahrhunderts im römischen Reich.
Bonner Hefte zur Vorgeschichte 22, Bonn.
starK R. 2000, Studien zu den Schatzfunden von Szilágysomlyó. Beiträge zum edelsteinverzierten
Goldschmuck in der Selbstdarstellung von Eliten spätantiker Gesellschaften, München.
starK r. 2004, Ein Gürtelbeschlag mit Konsuldarstellung aus dem 5. Jahrhundert, in graenert
g.-marti r.-motsCHi a.-WinDler r. (eds.) 2004, Hüben und drüben - Räume und Grenzen in
der Archäologie des Frühmittelalters. Festschrift für Max Martin zu seinem 65. Geburtstag.
Archäologie und Museum. 48, Liestal, pp. 21-32.
teJral J. 1987, Zur Chronologie und Deutung der südöstlichen Kulturelemente in der frühen
Völkerwanderungszeit Mitteleuropas, in «Anzeiger des Germanischen Nationalmuseums »,
pp. 11-46.
von rummel PH. 2007, Habitus barbarus. Kleidung und Repräsentation spätantiker Eliten im 4.
und 5. Jahrhundert. Ergänzungsband Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde RGA
55, Berlin, New York.
Werner J. 1956, Beiträge zur Archäologie des Attila-Reiches. Bayerische Akademie der
Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Klasse, Kleine Abhandlungen Neue Folge 38A,
München.
zeiss H. 1934, Die Grabfunde aus dem spanischen Westgotenreich. Germanische Denkmäler der
Völkerwanderungszeit II, Berlin, Leipzig.
References to the illustrations
Figg. 1, 4 (Ch. Eger)
Fig. 2 (after KazansKi 2001, ig. 4F)
Fig. 3 (after DuCCi-CiamPoltrini 1991, igg. 3-6)
Fig. 5 (after arbeiter 2008, ig. 9)
Fig. 6 (top: after böHme 1986, ig. 8; bottom: after sommer 1984, taf. 44)
Fig. 7 (after Quast 1993, ig. 51 with additions)
Fig. 8 (top: Foto Ch. Eger. - Mid: DAI Madrid, Negativ R189-97-7; bottom: after frauberger 189596, taf. 22)
Fig. 9 (after aurreCoeCHea fernÁnDez 2001, ig. 25. – bottom: after Pérez roDríguez-aragón 1992, ig. 4)
Fig. 10 (by courtesy of The British Museum, London).