ARHEOLO[KI INSTITUT Posebna izdawa broj 74 SVET SREDWOVEKOVNIH UTVR\EWA, GRADOVA I MANASTIRA Oma` Marku Popovi}u The Medieval World of Fortresses, Towns and Monasteries. Homage to Marko Popovi} UREDNICI Vujadin Ivani{evi} Vesna Biki} Ivan Bugarski Beograd 2021. ARHEOLO[KI INSTITUT, BEOGRAD INSTITUTE OF ARCHAEOLOGY, BELGRADE Posebna izdawa, kwiga 74 Monographs No. 74 IZDAVA^I PUBLISHED BY Arheolo{ki institut, Beograd Institute of Archaeology, Belgrade Grad Beograd – Omladinsko pozori{te DADOV The City of Belgrade – Youth theatre DADOV ZA IZDAVA^E FOR PUBLISHERS Miomir Kora} Miomir Kora} Vladimir Mijovi} Vladimir Mijovi} UREDNICI EDITORS Vujadin Ivani{evi}, Vesna Biki}, Ivan Bugarski Vujadin Ivani{evi}, Vesna Biki}, Ivan Bugarski RECENZENTI REVIEWED BY Miloje Vasi}, Bojana Krsmanovi}, Dragan Vojvodi} Miloje Vasi}, Bojana Krsmanovi}, Dragan Vojvodi} LEKTORI TEKSTOVA PROOFREAD BY Mirjana Radovanovi} (srpski), Dejv Kalkat Mirjana Radovanovi} (Serbian), Dave Calcutt GRAFI^KI DIZAJN GRAPHIC DESIGN BY Danijela Paracki i D_SIGN, Beograd Danijela Paracki and D_SIGN, Belgrade [TAMPA PRINTED BY BIROGRAF, Beograd BIROGRAF, Belgrade TIRA@ PRINTED IN 500 primeraka 500 copies ISBN 978-86-6439-057-6 Crte` na str. 2: Aleksandar Deroko, Grad Smederevo I (Umetni~ka zbirka SANU, inv. br. 956) Drawing on p. 2: Aleksandar Deroko, The Town of Smederevo I (The SASA Fine Art Collection, Inv. No. 956) Sadr`aj / Contents 10 Oma` Marku Popovi}u 14 Homage to Marko Popovi} 18 Bibliografija Marka Popovi}a Bibliography of Marko Popovi} 35 Sauro Gelichi, Jumping on the Dunes: Venice and the Myth of Origin Sauro \eliki, Skakawe po dinama: Venecija i mit o wenom poreklu Sauro Gelichi, Saltando sulle dune: Venezia e il Mito delle Origini 47 Mom~ilo Spremi}, Grad Kupinik Mom~ilo Spremi}, Castrum Kupinik 59 Desanka Kova~evi} Koji}, Srpsko zlato u Veneciji 1429–1439. Desanka Kova~evi}-Koji}, Serbian Gold in Venice (1429–1439) 69 Sr|an Kati}, Islamski verski objekti u Smederevskoj tvr|avi u prvim godinama osmanske vlasti Sr|an Kati}, Islamic Religious Buildings from the First Years of Ottoman Rule at Smederevo Fortress 81 Miroslava Mirkovi}, Prostorno razgrani~enje: vojska i grad u Singidunumu i Viminacijumu Miroslava Mirkovi}, Spatial Division between the Military and Civil Realms in Singidunum and Viminacium 97 Ivana Popovi}, Bojan Popovi}, Late Roman Structural Element Construction in Medieval Sacred Structures in the Area of Sirmium Imperial Palace Ivana Popovi}, Bojan Popovi}, Kasnoanti~ki gra|evinski elementi u sredwovekovnim sakralnim objektima na prostoru palatijalnog kompleksa u Sirmijumu 117 Vujadin Ivani{evi}, New Finds of “Slavic” Bow Fibulae Class I C from Northern Illyricum Vujadin Ivani{evi}, Novi nalazi „slovenskih” fibula grupe I C iz Severnog Ilirka 143 Ivan Bugarski, Grob kowa iz Viminacijuma i kopqa oblika trske Ivan Bugarski, A Horse Grave from Viminacium and Reed-Shaped Spearheads 157 Timotej Knific, Iron Fittings of Early Medieval Knife Sheaths: Evidence from Slovenia Timotej Knific, Ranosredwovekovni gvozdeni okovi kanija no`eva iz Slovenije Timotej Knific, @elezni okovi zgodnjesrednjeve{kih no`nic za no`e z najdi{~ v Sloveniji 179 Smiqa Marjanovi}-Du{ani}, Zami{qeni i stvarni prostori srpskog sredweg veka: skica za istra`ivawe rituala Smilja Marjanovi}-Du{ani}, Historicising Space in Medieval Serbia: Towards Exploring Rituals 199 Miklo{ Taka~, Vizantijski i italovizantijski uticaji na crkvenu arhitekturu Ugarske kraqevine u 11. i 12. veku Miklós Takács, Byzantine and Italo-Byzantine Influences on Sacral Architecture in the Hungarian Kingdom in the 11th and 12th Centuries Takács Miklós, Bizánci és italobizánci hatások a Magyar Királyság 11–12. századi egyházi építészetében 223 Branislav Todi}, Crkve Svetog Jovana u Studenici i Svetog Nikole u U{}u Branislav Todi}, The Church of St John in Studenica and the Church St Nicholas in U{}e 237 Svetlana Peji}, Pe}ine u sakralnom prostoru manastira Gradac Svetlana Peji}, Caves in the Sacral Space of Gradac Monastery 251 Smiqka Gabeli}, Reqefni ukras ju`nog portala Lesnova. Prilog vizantijskoj arhitektonskoj plastici 14. veka Smiljka Gabeli}, Relief Decoration of the Southern Portal of Lesnovo. A Contribution to the Byzantine Architectural Sculpture of the 14th Century 273 Branislav Cvetkovi}, Pectoral Cross from the Tersatto Reliquary in Prism of Chronology: The Brankovi} Dynasty, Relics of Neomartyrs, and Despot Vuk Branislav Cvetkovi}, Nadgrudni krst sa Trsatskog relikvijara u svetlu hronologije: dinastija Brankovi}a, mo{ti novomu~enika i despot Vuk 287 Vesna Biki}, Kerami~ke celine i dru{tveni konteksti u ranom sredwem veku – osvrt na primere iz srpske arheologije Vesna Biki}, Pottery Assemblages and Social Contexts in the Early Middle Ages – Examples from Serbian Archaeology 309 Milica Radi{i}, Arheolo{ki pokazateqi veza izme|u slovenskih kultura srpskog Podunavqa i Velike Moravske Milica Radi{i}, Archaeological Indications of Contacts between the Slavic Cultures of the Serbian Danube Region and Great Moravia 329 Nata{a Miladinovi}-Radmilovi}, Pojava ankiloziraju}eg spondilitisa, wegova etiologija i mogu}nost le~ewa u sredwem veku Nata{a Miladinovi}-Radmilovi}, The Appearance of Ankylosing Spondylitis, its Aetiology and the Possibility of Treatment in the Middle Ages 347 Nemawa Markovi}, Jelena Bulatovi}, Arheozoolo{ke odlike sredwovekovnog privre|ivawa na primerima Tvr|ave Ras, manastira Studenice i Rudnika Nemanja Markovi}, Jelena Bulatovi}, Archaeozoological Aspects of Medieval Subsistence in the Fortress of Ras, Studenica Monastery and Rudnik Fotografija: Arhiva Politike Photo: Politika Archive Izreka ka`e: „^ovek snuje, a Bog odlu~uje”. Tako je i sa kwigom Svet sredwovekovnih utvr|ewa, gradova i manastira – namera uredni{tva i `eqa prilo`nika bila je da ona bude zbornik radova u ~ast Marka Popovi}a. Uz veliko po{tovawe prema wegovim doprinosima u spoznavawu sredwovekovne pro{losti Srbije i o~uvawu nacionalnog kulturnog nasle|a, zbornik je tako|e trebalo da poka`e, kako stru~noj javnosti tako i samom Popovi}u, a na na~in uobi~ajen u nau~nom svetu, da wegovo delo predstavqa istinsku inspiraciju istra`iva~ima razli~itih disciplina i generacija. Na`alost, pred kraj rada na uobli~avawu publikacije zatekla nas je tu`na vest o wegovom odlasku. Ovom kwigom odajemo po~ast velikom arheologu, kolegi i prijatequ Marku Popovi}u. The saying goes that man proposes, but God disposes, and it has proved to be true for the book The World of Medieval Fortresses, Cities and Monasteries. Its editors and contributors intended it as a festschrift to honour Marko Popovi}. With great appreciation for his many contributions to unravelling the medieval past of Serbia and preserving the national cultural heritage, it was also meant to show, to specialised publics and Marko Popovi} himself, in the form common in the academic world, how truly inspiring his exhaustive work has been to researchers from different disciplines and generations. To our deep regret, the sad news of his passing came just as this collection of essays was being put into final form. With this book, we pay homage to the great archaeologist, colleague and friend Marko Popovi}. 10 Oma` Marku Popovi}u U DRUGOJ POLOVINI 20. VEKA ARHEOLOGIJA DO@IVQAVA PREPOROD NA ZAPADNOM BALKANU, u nekada{woj Jugoslaviji, pa samim tim i u Srbiji. Nakon obimnih iskopavawa u okviru zna~ajnog projekta izgradwe hidroelektrane \erdap, arheolo{ka istra`ivawa nastavqena su, izme|u ostalog, opse`nim programima za{tite i o~uvawa sredwovekovnog kulturnog nasle|a, od kojih pojedini traju prakti~no do na{ih dana. Kompleksni arheolo{ki projekti zahtevali su qude „od formata” – istovremeno dobre organizatore iskopavawa i nau~no akribi~ne istra`iva~e. Oba ta znamena, ali i mnogo vi{e od wih, bila su sadr`ana u li~nosti arheologa Marka Popovi}a. Du`e od pedeset godina on je bio dominantna figura srpske arheologije sredweg veka, sa izuzetno vrednim rezultatima na zahtevnom poqu izu~avawa, za{tite i promocije kulturnog nasle|a. *** Marko Popovi} je ro|en 1944. godine u U`icu, a {kolovao se u Beogradu. Na Filozofskom fakultetu u Beogradu diplomirao je 1966. godine, magistrirao 1971, a doktorirao 1980. Profesionalnu karijeru zapo~iwe 1968. godine u Zavodu za za{titu spomenika kulture grada Beograda, za koji ostaje vezan tokom cele svoje karijere, kako u~e{}em u realizaciji niza konzervatorsko-restauratorskih projekata na Beogradskoj tvr|avi, tako i ure|ivawem wegovog glasila Nasle|e, ~iji je i pokreta~. U Arheolo{ki institut dolazi 1976. godine i u wemu ostaje sve do odlaska u penziju 2011. godine. Pored toga {to je rukovodio brojnim istra`iva~kim projektima, godinama je vodio i nau~nu politiku te ku}e u svojstvu predsednika Nau~nog ve}a. Penzionisawe nije ozna~ilo kraj wegove karijere. Mnoge velike poslove uradio je u prethodnoj deceniji, pri ~emu mo`emo ista}i impresivne rezultate istra`ivawa i konzervacije Novog Brda, tim pre {to su se ti radovi odvijali u slo`enom politi~kom ambijentu. Nau~no usmerewe Marka Popovi}a na arheologiju punog i poznog sredweg veka iskazano je ve} na samom po~etku wegovog profesionalnog anga`mana, gde je s jednakom pa`wom pristupao istra`ivawima i fortifikacija i sakralnih kompleksa. Ipak, wegov najve}i, neiscrpan nau~ni izazov bilo je prou~avawe utvr|ewa i sistema odbrane u srpskim zemqama sredweg veka i na po~etku novog doba – sa Beogradskom tvr|avom u sredi{tu pa`we. Bio je jedan od osniva~a i dugogodi{wi rukovodilac Nau~noistra`iva~kog centra za Beogradsku tvr|avu pri Arheolo{kom institutu, gde je prikupqena ogromna gra|a i organizovana datoteka starih planova i fotografija, kao i dokumentacije arheolo{kih istra`ivawa i pokretnih arheolo{kih nalaza, koja se odnosi ne samo na tvr|avu ve} i na istorijsko podru~je grada Beograda. OMA@ MARKU POPOVI]U 11 Izuzetan doprinos ostvario je u izu~avawu sredwovekovnih utvr|ewa Beograda – od vremena gradwe vizantijskog kastela u 12. veku, dogradwe u vreme cara Du{ana i, naro~ito, graditeqske delatnosti despota Stefana Lazarevi}a koja oslikava veoma zna~ajnu etapu razvoja srpske sredwovekovne vojne arhitekture. Prou~avawem razvoja fortifikacija i urbanog jezgra Beograda u kasnijem periodu, izme|u 16. i 18. veka, podstakao je razvoj novovekovne arheologije u Srbiji, koja je poslu`ila kao uzor zemqama u okru`ewu. Uz to, dotakao se i problematike anti~kog Singidunuma, s posebnim osvrtom na preostale materijalne tragove u savremenoj urbanoj matrici, pri ~emu je pokrenuo i ure|ivao tematsku ediciju zbornika radova Singidunum, u kojoj su do sada iza{la ~etiri toma. Vi{e od dvadeset godina posvetio je Marko Popovi} istra`ivawima na podru~ju Ra{ke, Novog Pazara i Sjenice – centralne oblasti sredwovekovne Srbije. U sredi{tu wegove pa`we bio je kompleks na Gradini iznad Pazari{ta – Trgovi{ta, koji je nakon ukupnih saznawa do kojih se do{lo prepoznat kao Tvr|ava Ras – znamenito sedi{te prvih Nemawi}a. U nastavku izu~avawa kqu~nih problema na{e nacionalne pro{losti posvetio se sistematskim istra`ivawima Gradine u Vrsenicama, na rubu Sjeni~kog poqa. Tu je, osim ostataka anti~kog i paleovizantijskog utvr|ewa, otkriven ranosredwovekovni kulturni horizont sa veoma zna~ajnim tragovima utvr|ivawa iz 9. veka i materijalnom kulturom iz vremena uobli~avawa Srbije. Rezultate tih radova objavio je u detaqnim, uzorno sastavqenim monografijama. Obiman prate}i program terenskih rekognoscirawa u ~itavoj toj oblasti, prilikom kojih je otkriveno vi{e desetina a istra`eno preko dvadeset kasnoanti~kih i ranovizantijskih utvr|ewa, doneo je sasvim novo vi|ewe grani~nog podru~ja doline Ra{ke i Pe{terske visoravni u doba sutona antike i u ranom sredwem veku, {to je sna`no uticalo i na razvoj ranovizantijske arheologije kod nas. U tom kqu~u bi trebalo spomenuti i istra`ivawa utvrde Svetiwe, po svoj prilici Viminakiona 6. veka. Veliki deo opusa Marka Popovi}a obuhvata prou~avawe fortifikacija i nastanka urbanih naseobina – gradova u srpskim zemqama sredwega veka. Istra`ivawima tih problema on je pristupao temeqno, povezuju}i ishode sopstvenih arheolo{kih istra`ivawa, analize izvorne istorijske gra|e i rezultata ranijih istra`iva~a, {to se mo`e videti u publikacijama o U`i~kom gradu, Magli~u i najnovijoj o Novom Brdu. Kompleksnost utvr|enih gradova u vezi je i s pitawima koja se ti~u vladarskih i vlasteoskih boravi{ta, wihovog prostornog rasporeda i strukture. Komparativnom analizom raspolo`ivih podataka o boravku prvih Nemawi}a u oblasti Rasa i saznawa o poznijim dvorovima kraj i{~ezlog jezera na Kosovu i, docnije, u gradovima Beogradu i Smederevu, uspostavio je modele rezidencija sredwovekovnih srpskih vladara. Drugi veliki tematski krug u nau~nom radu Marka Popovi}a ~ine istra`ivawa sakralnih kompleksa – kako manastirskih celina tako i pojedina~nih crkvenih zdawa. Na osnovu rezultata arheolo{kih istra`ivawa, wegova prou~avawa bila su usmerena na analizu i tuma~ewe fizi~kih struktura, to jest arhitektonskih ostataka objekata u manastirskim kompleksima i wihove funkcije u okviru celine. Jo{ kao mlad istra`iva~, krajem {ezdesetih godina pro{log veka, otkrio je i obelodanio crkvene komplekse u Paniku kod Bile}e i Sv. Petra kod Trebiwa, da bi tokom svog radnog veka zaokru`io istra`ivawa sredwovekovne Mitropolije u Beogradu, Kumanice na Limu, crkve Sv. Nikole u Stani~ewu, katedrale grada Novog Brda i [udikove u Budimlji. Obavio je sistematska arheolo{ka istra`ivawa kompleksa manastira Studenice, koja su omogu}ila celovit uvid ne samo u nastanak i razvoj tog znamenitog svetili{ta nego i 12 OMA@ MARKU POPOVI]U u pojedine aspekte `ivota wegove mona{ke zajednice tokom sredweg veka. U sklopu prou~avawa sakralne arhitekture istakli bismo i wegovo bavqewe ktitorskim grobovima. Uvodna re~ je kratka da bi objedinila sve tokove plodotvorne nau~ne misli Marka Popovi}a, pa stoga ovde samo spomiwemo da je ostavio traga i na poqu sigilografije, a naro~ito heraldike. Va`no je, me|utim, naglasiti da je Marko Popovi} bio arheolog izuzetno {iroke erudicije i velikog talenta. Zahvaquju}i tome on je utirao nove puteve nau~ne spoznaje, prevazilaze}i konvencionalne okvire ~isto arheolo{ke metodologije. Uz besprekornu terensku dokumentaciju, na kojoj je insistirao, to se odnosi, s jedne strane, na ume{no kori{}ewe stare kartografske gra|e u istra`ivawima, a, s druge, na arhitektonske analize za koje je imao naro~itog dara. Razumevawe arhitektonskog prostora i „~itawe”, ~esto skromnih, terenskih ostataka zdawa, uz minuciozan stratigrafski pristup istra`ivawima, obezbedili su ~itav niz prepoznatqivih aksonometrijskih rekonstrukcija kojima obiluju wegove publikacije. Veoma obrazovan i u sferi istorije umetnosti, jo{ za potrebe svog magistarskog rada izveo je pionirsku komparativnu analizu arheolo{kih nalaza i wihovih predstava na freskama u sredwovekovnim crkvama. Ta veza }e naro~ito dobiti na zna~aju tokom decenija istra`ivawa srpske sakralne arhitetkture. Interdisciplinarni pristup Marka Popovi}a podrazumevao je i kori{}ewe aerofotografija, izradu stereofotogrametrijskih planova velikog formata i organizovawe geofizi~kih istra`ivawa na Beogradskoj tvr|avi jo{ pre raspada Jugoslavije, kada su takvi ekskursi predstavqali pravu retkost u na{oj arheologiji. Vredi ista}i i to da je podstakao rana arheozoolo{ka istra`ivawa nalaza iz Tvr|ave Ras. Ipak se po dobrim posledicama isti~e wegov kqu~ni uticaj na uvo|ewe u praksu prepoznatqivog sistema obrade i izu~avawa arheolo{ke keramike {to se ve} decenijama sprovodi u Nau~noistra`iva~kom centru za Beogradsku tvr|avu. Poseban zna~aj arheolo{ke delatnosti Marka Popovi}a jeste u tome {to je svoja istra`ivawa po pravilu krunisao sadr`ajnim publikacijama, ~esto monografijama. Iako je ve}inu radova napisao samostalno, nije se libio koautorstava, u duhu pravog rukovodioca, svesnog potrebe za timskim radom i interdisciplinarnim pristupom. Impozantna bibliografija, od{tampana u ovom zborniku, uputi}e zainteresovanog ~itaoca na jo{ mnogo detaqa wegove plodne aktivnosti. U svojoj pola stole}a dugoj karijeri obavqao je razli~ite stru~ne i dru{tvene funkcije. Bio je predsednik Srpskog arheolo{kog dru{tva (1987–1990), predsednik Upravnog odbora Zavoda za za{titu spomenika kulture grada Beograda (do 2010) i predsednik Komisije za spomenike od izuzetnog zna~aja i srpska kulturna dobra u inostranstvu pri Ministarstvu kulture (2008–2013). Glavni je urednik ~asopisa Nasle|e i edicije Singidunum, urednik je Zbornika Narodnog muzeja i ~lan redakcije ~asopisa Saop{tewa. Zapa`en doprinos dao je kao ~lan redakcija Novopazarskog zbornika (1982–2007), Starinara (1997–2016) i posebnih izdawa Arheolo{kog instituta. Bio je ~lan Odbora za istoriju Bosne i Hercegovine SANU. Za svoj nau~ni rad i ukupan anga`man na o~uvawu i prezentaciji srpskog kulturnog nasle|a stekao je ugledna priznawa. Dobio je tri puta Oktobarsku nagradu grada Beograda: 1974, 1976. (kolektivna) i 1983. godine. Dobitnik je i Aprilske nagrade grada Beograda 2005. godine (sa V. Biki}), zatim nagrade grada U`ica „S. Penezi} – Krcun” 1989. godine i Nagrade grada Novog Pazara 1985. godine. U februaru 2018. odlikovan je ordenom Krune I stepena, godine 2019. uru~ena mu je Velika poveqa grada U`ica, a u februaru 2020. odlikovan je Sretewskim ordenom III stepena za naro~ite zasluge u oblasti kulture. OMA@ MARKU POPOVI]U 13 *** Marko Popovi} slovio je za posve}enog, energi~nog i autoritativnog arheologa, a wegov zahtevan karakter nadaleko je poznat. Vojni~ka disciplina i {tedqivost resursa, naro~ito izra`eni u toku terenskih istra`ivawa, a mnogima nezamislivi kako u onom a jo{ vi{e u ovom vremenu, ~esto su mamili osmehe wegovih saradnika. Saradwa s wim predstavqala je izazov svakojake vrste, ali u kona~nici rezultat je uvek bio utemeqen i nesporan. Nesporna je i wegova nesebi~na pomo} koju je pru`ao kolegama u svakoj situaciji i pod svim uslovima. S velikim ponosom i zahvalno{}u mo`emo da istaknemo da je Marko Popovi} stvorio prepoznatqivu {kolu u okviru Arheolo{kog instituta. Dosta rano u karijeri postao je sinonim za srpsku sredwovekovnu arheologiju i uzor mnogim kolegama i u zemqi i u okru`ewu, a to je – zbog {irokog znawa, izuzetne motivacije, efikasnosti i izvanrednog istra`iva~kog dara – ostao i do danas. Zbornikom koji posve}ujemo uspomeni na Marka Popovi}a odajemo po~ast wegovoj nepresu{noj istra`iva~koj radoznalosti. Urednici 14 Homage to Marko Popovi} THE SECOND HALF OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY SAW A REVIVAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY IN THE WESTERN Balkans, the former Yugoslavia, and thus in Serbia. Large-scale rescue excavations ahead of the construction of the Djerdap hydroelectric power plant were followed by other archaeological projects, including extensive and, in some cases, still ongoing programmes of medieval cultural heritage protection and preservation. Complex archaeological projects required persons of high calibre, combining the qualities of a competent excavation leader and a scrupulous scholar. The archaeologist Marko Popovi} was both, and much more. For more than fifty years he was a dominant figure in Serbian medieval archaeology with exceptional achievements in the demanding area of the study, protection and promotion of cultural heritage. *** Marko Popovi} was born in U`ice in 1944 and educated in Belgrade, graduating from the Faculty of Philosophy in 1966, taking his master’s degree in 1971 and his PhD in 1980. His professional career began in 1968 when he joined the Cultural Heritage Preservation Institute of Belgrade, remaining tied to it ever since through participating in a number of conservation-restoration projects for the Belgrade Fortress and as the initiator and editor of its journal Nasledje/Heritage. In 1976 he joined the Institute of Archaeology in Belgrade and remained its member until his retirement in 2011, directing a number of the Institute’s research projects and steering its research policy in his capacity as chairman of its Scholarly Council. But retirement was by no means the end of his working days. During the past decade he accomplished much important work, notably the project of the excavation and conservation of Novo Brdo, all the more impressive for its results because it was carried out in complicated political circumstances. Marko Popovi} had been focused on the archaeology of the Central and Late Middle Ages from the very beginning of his career, dividing his research attention equally between fortifications and religious complexes. But what remained his biggest and inexhaustible challenge was the study of military architecture and defence systems in the Serbian lands in the medieval and early modern periods – with the Belgrade Fortress at its centre. He was one of the founders and long-standing director of the Institute of Archaeology’s Research Centre for the Belgrade Fortress, which has accumulated vast documentation and set up a database of old plans and photographs concerning not only the Fortress but also the whole historic area of Belgrade. He made an exceptional contribution to the study of Belgrade’s medieval fortifications – from the twelfth-century Byzantine castellum and the additions built under Emperor Stefan Du{an to, especially, the fifteenth-century building activity of Despot HOMAGE TO MARKO POPOVI] 15 Stefan Lazarevi} which marks a particularly important stage in the development of medieval Serbian military architecture. His research on the development of the defences and urban core of Belgrade in a later period, between the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries, encouraged the development of the archaeology of the modern era in Serbia, setting a model followed in neighbouring countries. His research interests included the period of Roman Singidunum as well, focusing especially on its surviving traces in the contemporary urban fabric. He initiated and edited a collective series on the subject, Singidunum, consisting of four volumes to date. Marko Popovi} devoted more than twenty years of research to the region of Ra{ka, Novi Pazar and Sjenica – the core area of medieval Serbia. His focus was on the complex at Gradina above Pazari{te (Trgovi{te), now identified as the Ras Fortress, the illustrious seat of the first rulers of the Nemanji} dynasty. Continuing his research on important issues of the national past, he embarked on the systematic excavation of the site of Gradina in Vrsenice, at the edge of Sjeni~ko Polje. Apart from the remains of a Roman and Early Byzantine fortress, the site yielded an early-medieval cultural horizon with significant vestiges of ninth-century fortification and the material culture from the period of the crystallisation of a Serbian polity. These excavations produced an exemplary monographic study. An extensive project of field survey of the whole area, which discovered several dozen and investigated more than twenty late-antique forts produced a very different picture of the border area of the Ra{ka Valley and Pe{ter Plateau in the period of the decline of late antiquity and in the Early Middle Ages, strongly influencing the development of Early Byzantine archaeology in Serbia. To be mentioned in the same context is the excavation of the fort on the site of Svetinja, most likely identifiable as sixth-century Viminakion. A good part of Marko Popovi}’s work was concerned with the study of fortifications and the genesis of fortified urban settlements in the medieval Serbian lands. His approach was always thorough, drawing on the results of his own archaeological investigations, rigorous scrutiny of surviving written sources and the work of earlier researchers, as can be seen from the books on the fortresses/castles of U`ice, Magli~, and the latest, Novo Brdo. The issue of fortified urban settlements is closely tied to the issue of royal and aristocratic residences, including their layout and structure. Based on a comparative analysis of the available information about the early Nemanji} rulers residing in the Ras area and the discoveries about the later royal residences by a now-vanished lake in Kosovo and, later still, in the cities of Belgrade and Smederevo, he established the patterns of medieval Serbian rulers’ residences. Another important set of topics addressed by Marko Popovi} concerned sacral complexes, both monastic enclosures and individual church buildings. Basing his research on the archaeological evidence, he focused on the analysis and interpretation of physical structures, i.e., structural remains, within monastic complexes and their original function. Even as a young archaeologist, in the late 1960s, Marko Popovi} discovered and draw attention to the sacral complexes in Panik near Bile}a and St Peter’s near Trebinje, wrapping up in the course of his career the exploration of the medieval complex of the metropolitan church in Belgrade, Kumanica on the Lim, the church of St Nicholas in Stani~enje, the cathedral of the city of Novo Brdo and Šudikova in Budimlja. His systematic archaeological investigation of the monastery of Studenica has made it possible to create a comprehensive picture of the origin and development of this illustrious religious house, and of some aspects of the everyday life of the monastic community in the Middle Ages. His work on religious architecture also included topics such as the tombs of the founders of churches or monasteries. This short introductory text cannot possibly 16 HOMAGE TO MARKO POPOVI] cover all areas of Marko Popovi}’s wide-ranging scholarly work, but it should be noted that he also made a contribution in the field of sigillography and, especially, heraldry. Owing to his exceptionally broad erudition and archaeological talent Marko Popovi} was able to open new avenues of research, going beyond the boundaries of conventional archaeological method. Apart from impeccably kept excavation records, on which he always insisted, this involved the competent use of historic cartographic sources, and the analysis of structural remains, which was one of his fortes. His understanding of architectural space and skilful reading of frequently meagre structural remains, combined with a meticulous stratigraphic approach, resulted in many axonometric reconstructions typically enriching his texts. Comprehensively knowledgeable about art history as well, even his master’s thesis offered a pioneering comparative analysis of archaeological remains and their visual representations in frescoes in medieval churches, establishing a link that would prove its importance particularly in the flourishing decades of the study of medieval Serbian religious architecture. Marko Popovi}’s interdisciplinary approach involved the use of aerial photography, large-format stereophotogrammetric plans and geophysical surveys in the Belgrade Fortress area even before the disintegration of Yugoslavia, when such techniques were still a rarity in the country’s archaeology. It should also be noted that he gave impetus to early archaeozoological studies of the finds from the Ras Fortress. But the part of his legacy that stands out for its beneficial impact is that he was instrumental in introducing the distinctive system of processing and studying archaeological pottery that has for decades now been standard practice at the Research Centre for the Belgrade Fortress. A particularly important aspect of Marko Popovi}’s archaeological work was that he as a rule crowned his research by publication, frequently in the form of insightful monographs. Although the sole author in most cases, he was never ill-disposed towards co-authorship, being aware, as a true leader, of the necessity of teamwork and interdisciplinarity. His impressive bibliography, provided in this volume, will introduce the interested reader to his fruitful archaeological work in more detail. In his fifty-year-long career Marko Popovi} held various professional and social positions. He served as president of the Serbian Archaeological Society (1987–1990), president of the Managing Board of the Cultural Heritage Preservation Institute of Belgrade (until 2010) and chaired the Ministry of Culture’s Committee on Monuments of Outstanding Importance and Serbian Cultural Assets Abroad (2008–2013). At the time of death, he was editor-in-chief of the journal Heritage and the Singidunum series, editor of the annual of the National Museum in Belgrade, Zbornik Narodnog Muzeja, member of the editorial board of the journal Saop{tenja/Communications, and member of the Committee on the History of Bosnia and Herzegovina of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts. He also made a considerable contribution in his capacity as member of the editorial board of the journals Novopazarski Zbornik (1982–2007) and Starinar (1997–2016), and of the Monographs series of the Institute of Archaeology. His scholarly work and overall achievement in the preservation and presentation of the Serbian cultural heritage earned him prestigious awards. He was a three-time recipient of the October Award of the City of Belgrade: 1974, 1976 (collective) and 1983; of the 2005 April Award of the City of Belgrade (with Vesna Biki}); of the 1989 S. Penezi} Krcun Award of the City of U`ice; and the 1985 Award of the City of Novi Pazar. In February 2018 he was awarded the Order of the Crown 1st Class, and in 2019 the Order of Sretenje 3rd Class for Distinguished Contributions in Culture. HOMAGE TO MARKO POPOVI] 17 *** Marko Popovi} was reputed to be a dedicated, energetic and authoritative archaeologist, and his demanding nature preceded him. Unconceivable to many in earlier times and even more so today, his iron work discipline and careful management of resources, which could best be seen during fieldwork, often brought a smile to the faces of his colleagues. Working with him was a challenge in many ways but, at the end of the day, the results were always there, well founded and indisputable. And he generously shared his knowledge and assisted his colleagues in all situations and under all circumstances. It is with great pride and gratitude that we can say that Marko Popovi} created a recognisable school within the Institute of Archaeology. Quite early in his career he became a synonym for Serbian medieval archaeology, and a role model for many colleagues both in the country and in the region. And he remained one by virtue of his broad knowledge, exceptional motivation, efficiency and outstanding research talent. With this volume dedicated to Marko Popovi} we pay homage to his insatiable spirit of inquiry. Editors 117 New Finds of “Slavic” Bow Fibulae Class I C from Northern Illyricum Vujadin IVANIŠEVI] Institute of Archaeology, Belgrade 1 2 3 “Slavic” bow fibulae have been attracting attention since Joachim Werner published his paper in 1950 in which he classified a large group of bow fibulae from south-eastern and eastern Europe as Slavic, dating back to the 7th century. In that study, the renowned German archaeologist defined two groups of fibulae, one with eleven classes (I A – I K), and another with five (II A – II E).1 In later works, he moved the dating of the fibulae to the late 6th century,2 i.e. the second half of same century.3 In spite of the later reorganisation of the classes, this arrangement has, to a large extent, and with good reason, been kept to this day. “Slavic” bow fibulae are characterised by a headplate (most often semi-circular, less often triangular or in the shape of a horseshoe) with headplate knobs, most often five of them, with the smaller specimens having only three and the largest up to nine. Rarely can we find specimens manufactured without headplate knobs. The classes of fibulae were defined on the basis of their footplates – which can be different in shape, in the form of a trapezium, a “lyre”, a rhombus, or a combination of rhombus–triangle, rhombus–trapezium, and other forms. The footplates of fibulae were often decorated with a pair of protomes in the shape of bird J. Werner, Slawische Bügelfibeln des 7. Jahrhunderts, im: Reinecke-Festschrift zum 75. Geburtstag von Paul Reinecke am 25. September 1947, Hrsg. G. Behrens, J. Werner, Mainz 1950, 150–172. Idem, Neues zur Frage der slawischen Bügelfibeln aus südosteuropäischen Ländern, Germania 38 (1960) 114–120. I. K. Verner, K ïroisho`deniþ i rasïrosòraneniþ anòov i sklavenov, Sovetskaÿ arheologiÿ 2 (1972) 102–115. THE MEDIEVAL WORLD OF FORTRESSES, TOWNS AND MONASTERIES. Homage to Marko Popovi} 118 heads with short beaks, very stylised bird heads, or small hook extensions. Fibulae footplates ended in anthropomorphic or zoomorphic protomes, and most often with simple knob-like ends. Fibulae headplates and footplates were ornamented in various ways. The most representative classes had elaborate and complex decoration, while most specimens had simple motifs, and a small number was characterised by flat unornamented surfaces. “Slavic” bow fibulae were mainly manufactured from a variety of copper alloys, while specimens made of silver, most often poor quality, were rarely made. In extremely rare cases, some fibulae were gilded. After J. Werner, Dan Gh. Teodor,4 Lyudmil Vagalinski,5 Christina Katsougiannopoulou6 and, above all, Florin Curta7 gave their contributions to the study of “Slavic” fibulae. Numerous studies have been devoted especially to “Slavic” fibulae class I C, characterised by a “lyre”-shaped footplate, which have been found in a wide area stretching from Hungary to Ukraine and Russia, and from the Baltic to Greece. Individual specimens were recorded in Asia Minor, in Pergamon, and in Italy, in Rome. Werner defined I C fibulae more closely as the Maros-Gambas – Pergamon type.8 D. Teodor later divided class I C into two main types: Gîmbaş (larger fibulae with two pairs of bird heads) and Sărata Monteoru-Drănic (smaller fibulae with one 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEW FINDS OF “SLAVIC” BOW FIBULAE CLASS I C FROM NORTHERN ILLYRICUM pair of bird heads or a pair of hooks).9 L. Vagalinski classified these fibulae into Group L of his typology, and also divided it into two main types and one subtype, which is a combination of the first two.10 A somewhat more precise classification was provided by Ch. Katsougiannopoulou, who divided I C fibulae into three types: Gîmbaş, Pergamon, and Szakály-Öreghegy, and in addition, Pergamon into five subtypes (A–E). She also put class I C along with I G in what she called Group B in her arrangement of “Slavic” fibulae.11 F. Curta applied a different approach to the classification of I C fibulae, based on the analysis he conducted during his research into “Slavic” fibulae for his PhD and later published in his book “The Making of Slavs”. Believing that the conventional method of classification into classes and types was unsatisfactory, he analysed fibulae based on five characteristics: headplate shape and ornamentation, footplate, terminal lobe, the bow, and the headplate knobs. These elements, which came in various shapes and with various ornamentation, he further subjected to cluster analysis according to the Jaccard coefficient and the nearest neighbour, and established relationships between fibulae according to nearest-neighbour similarity. Based on the results of these analyses, he differentiated some types within the studied classes. His works are especially valuable for the exhaustive catalogues of finds with D. Gh. Teodor, Fibule “digitate” din secolele VI–VII in spatul carpato-dunäreano-pontic, Arheologia Moldovei 15 (1992) 119–152. L. F. Vagalinski, Zur Frage der ethnischen Herkunft der späten Strahlenfibeln (Finger- oder Bügelfibeln) aus dem Donau-KarpatenBecken (M. 6.–7. Jh.), Zeitschrift für Archäologie 28 (1994) 261–305. Ch. Katsougiannopoulou, Studien zu ost-und südosteuropäischen Bügelfibeln, Diss., Bonn 1999. F. Curta, On the dating of the “Veţel-Coşoveni” group of curved fibulae, Ephemeris Napocensis IV (1994) 233–265; Idem, The Making of the Slavs. History and Archaeology of the Lower Danube Region, c. 500–700, Cambridge – New York 2001; Idem, Werner’s class I H of “Slavic” bow fibulae revisited, Archaeologia Bulgarica 8/1 (2004) 59–78; Idem, Female dress and “Slavic” bow fibulae in Greece, Hesperia 74 (2005) 101–146; Idem, A contribution to the study of bow fibulae of Werner’s class I G, Arheologia Moldovei XXIX (2006) 93–123; Idem, Slavic bow fibulae? Werner’s class I D revisited, Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 57 (2006) 423–474; Idem, Once again on bow fibulae of the “Pietroasele type” (Werner’s class I F), Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 59 (2008) 319–346; Idem, Some remarks on bow fibulae of Werner’s class I C, Slavia Antiqua 49 (2008) 45–98; Idem, A note on the ‘Slavic’ bow fibulae of Werner’s class I J, Archaeologia Baltica 12 (2009) 124–136; Idem, Neither Gothic, nor Slavic: bow fibulae of Werner’s class II B, Archaeologia Austriaca 93 (2009) 45–77; Idem, The early Slavs in Bohemia and Moravia: a response to my critics, Archeologické Rozhledy 61 (2009) 725–754; Idem, Not “Slavic” after all: bow fibulae of Werner’s class II A, in: Între stepă şi imperiu. Studii în onoarea lui Radu Harhoiu, ed. A. Măgureanu, E. Gáll, Bucharest 2010, 149–176; Idem, Werner’s class I C: erratum corrigendum cum commentariis, Ephemeris Napocensis 21 (2011) 63–110; F. Kurta, @enùina iz Dýn~enü ili k voïrosu o fibulah òiïa II C ïo Verneru, Tyragetia 5/1 (2011) 153–192; F. Curta, The Jägala fibula revisited, or remarks on Werner’s class II D, Eesti arheoloogia ajakiri 16/1 (2012) 26–69; Idem, “Slavic” Bow Fibulae: Twenty Years of Research, Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission 93 (2012) 1–108. J. Werner, Slawische Bügelfibeln, 153, Taf. 29/15–24. D. Gh. Teodor, Fibule “digitate”, 124–126, fig. 2–3. L. F. Vagalinski, Zur Frage der ethnischen Herkunft, 269–273, Abb. 11. Ch. Katsougiannopoulou, Studien, 31–39. NEW FINDS OF “SLAVIC” BOW FIBULAE CLASS I C FROM NORTHERN ILLYRICUM drawings and photographs of a large number of fibulae.12 He used the same approach in studying fibulae class I C.13 In a special study of Werner’s fibulae group I, and especially class I C, Uwe Fiedler provided a critical review of F. Curta’s methodology. He pointed out inconsistencies in fibulae cluster classification, and in the interpretation of certain main elements. In addition, he provided a new arrangement of the Pergamon type of class I C, which he divided into several subtypes, in part following the classification by Ch. Katsougiannopoulou.14 F. Curta was quick to respond to the criticism and corrected some of the errors observed by the previous author, but he adhered to his method of arrangement of I C fibulae, and especially to his notion of their origins. In the same publication he added new finds to his fibulae catalogue.15 New finds of “Slavic” bow fibulae class I C from Northern Illyricum New discoveries from the Northern Illyricum region fill the corpus of Werner’s I C fibulae, also indicating a possible centre of manufacture and providing the probable answer to the question of the origin of this class, which has been interpreted differently until now. Pergamon fibulae type (2D1) from Korbovo The Belgrade Archaeological Institute has records of a find of a pair of fibulae, one wholly preserved and one fragmented, from Korbovo, on the banks of the Danube.16 The second fibula was broken into two parts, and the lower, which included the footplate, was later lost. During excavation of a pit, a skeleton was found with the fibulae at the shoulders (Fig. 1/1–2; Map. 1). They both belonged to the Pergamon type, with a clearly articulated “lyre”-shaped footplate, connected to the shoulders by two finely-modelled symmetrical 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 119 heads of birds of prey, with short curved beaks and prominent eyes. The footplate was ornamented with skilfully made prominent strips connecting the shoulder to the lower part of the fibula. The headplate was semi-circular with five oval headplate knobs. The headplate surface was decorated with a semi-circular line of pseudo-granules framed by two simple strips in relief. The neck was short, and a relief strip decoration connected the headplate to the footplate. The footplate ended in a pronounced anthropomorphic mask with discreetly modelled eyes and mouth. The catch for the pin mechanism was located on the back of the headplate. The fibulae were made from a copper alloy in the same mould, with no additional finishing of the plates and decorations. The preserved fibula is 5.1 cm long, while the length of the fragmented one is 3.2 cm. We should also mention that this grave and, most likely, the entire cemetery are located about three kilometres to the north east of the Early Byzantine fort of Rtkovo – Glamija.17 Our finds also point to these fibulae not being made, as F. Curta states, for a special occasion, but to them being a part of the local costume, as confirmed by their find at the shoulders.18 Gâmbaş fibula type (2A) from Srem A fragmented Gâmbaş type fibula was found in the region of Srem. It was an accidental find, and is kept in a private collection (Fig. 2/1; Map 1). Only the footplate of the fibula was preserved, with two pairs of symmetrical heads of birds of prey with short curved beaks and prominent eyes in the form of circular gouges. The lower part, connected by plastic strips to the bird heads, ends in a “lyre”-shape. The terminal lobe is a stylised anthropomorphic mask decorated with a line of parallel cuts, with a hole in the middle. The lower part of the footplate has a catch for securing F. Curta, Making an early medieval ethnie: The case of the early Slavs (sixth to seventh century A.D.), Diss. Kalamazoo, Michigan, 1998; Idem, The Making of the Slavs, 247–275; see note 7. Idem, Some remarks on bow fibulae, 45–77; Idem, The early Slavs in Bohemia and Moravia, 725–754. U. Fiedler, Die slawischen Bügelfibeln von Joachim Werners Gruppe I. Bemerkungen zum Forschungsstand unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Typs IC, in: Între stepă şi imperiu. Studii în onoarea lui Radu Harhoiu, ed. A. Măgureanu, E. Gáll, Bucharest 2010, 225–252. F. Curta, Werner’s class I C, 63–110. Institute of Archeology, Belgrade, Photo documentation no. 4496. V. Kondi}, Les formes des fortifications protobyzantines dans la région des Portes de fer, in: Villes et peuplement dans l’Illyricum protobyzantin, Actes du colloque de Rome (12–14 mai 1982), Rome 1984, 145. F. Curta, Some remarks on bow fibulae, 47–51, 69. 120 NEW FINDS OF “SLAVIC” BOW FIBULAE CLASS I C FROM NORTHERN ILLYRICUM Fig. 1. “Slavic” fibulae class I C Pergamon type (2D.1): 1–2. Korbovo, grave (no. 103–104); 3. Velesnica, stray find (no. 92) (Documentation of the Institute of Archaeology, Belgrade) Sl. 1. „Slovenske” fibule grupe I C, vrste Pergamon (2D.1): 1–2. Korbovo, grob (br. 103–104); 3. Velesnica, slu~ajan nalaz (br. 92) (Dokumentacija Arheolo{kog instituta) the pin. The fibula was smelted from a copper alloy and was not additionally finished. The length of the preserved part of this fibula is 5.3 cm. What makes the find of Pergamon type fibulae in Korbovo so important is the fact that they were both made in the same mould, which separates these brooches from other finds in this group. The importance of this find is underscored by the existence of a third fibula from the same mould. This is a previously published fibula found in nearby Velesnica, on the bank of the Danube (Fig. 1/3; Map 1).19 The finds of three fibulae cast in the same mould and from the same re19 20 gion point to the fact that they were manufactured in this territory or in this region, most likely in the area between Pontes and Aquae. This interpretation is supported by the find of a Gâmbaş type fibula, reported to be from the Banat area. According to D. Teodor, this forming model most likely originated from the Iron Gates, which is why the same author hypothesised that the manufacturing centre might have been located in Orşova or Drobeta.20 It is difficult to imagine that the abovementioned fibulae arrived in the region by trade or through the migrations of their wearers. The finds of fibulae in Korbovo and Velesnica allow us \. Jankovi}, Podunavski deo oblasti Akvisa u VI i po~etkom VII veka, Beograd 1981, 194, T. 16/17; F. Curta, Some remarks on bow fibulae, 58, 97, fig. 7/80 ; Idem, Werner’s class I C, 79, 94, no. 92, pl. 7. D. Gh. Teodor, Fibule “digitate”, 125; F. Curta, Some remarks on bow fibulae, 67, 97, fig. 7/73; Idem, Werner’s class I C, 70, 78, 93, pl. 6/84; Idem, “Slavic” Bow Fibulae, 28–29. NEW FINDS OF “SLAVIC” BOW FIBULAE CLASS I C FROM NORTHERN ILLYRICUM 121 Fig. 2. “Slavic” fibulae class I C Gâmbaş type (2A): 1. Srem, stray find (no. 102); 2. Tordinci, stray find (no. 101) (1: Documentation of the Institute of Archaeology, Belgrade; 2. Courtesy of the Vinkovci Municipal Museum, photograph by I. Sokol) Sl. 2. „Slovenske” fibule grupe I C, vrste Gamba{ (2A): 1. Srem, slu~ajan nalaz (br. 102); 2. Tordinci, slu~ajan nalaz (br. 101) (1: Dokumentacija Arheolo{kog instituta; 2. Gradski muzej Vinkovci, fotografija: I. Sokol) to discuss the typology, distribution, origins, and development of “Slavic” bow fibulae class I C. The typology of “Slavic” bow fibulae class I C The bone of contention in the interpretation of fibulae class I C has been their typological identification, which has usually been seen from two different perspectives. The first is based on the typological analysis, which entails a stylistic comparison of fibulae in terms of their forms, attributes, and decorations. This was the approach used by Werner and followed by D. Teodor, L. Vagalinski, Ch. Katsougiannopoulou, and finally U. Fiedler. The latter two further classified fibulae class I C into several types and sub-types, the most numerous being the Pergamon variety.21 A different approach to classification was introduced by F. Curta, dividing 21 22 23 See notes 8–11 and 14. See notes 12–13. U. Fiedler, Die slawischen Bügelfibeln, 232–235. the body of the fibula into five essential elements (the headplate, the footplate, the terminal lobe, the bow, and the headplate knobs), which were later divided into sub-groups based on form and ornamentation. All known specimens were then grouped according to near-neighbour cluster analysis.22 This is where his typological analysis ends and, unlike other above mentioned authors, it does not sufficiently take into account morphological similarities. We are of the opinion that the methodology and approach of F. Curta would have yielded better results if the main attribute, the footplate (Curta 2A – 2E), had been the base for sorting fibulae into basic typological variants,23 which would have ultimately led towards one of the already proposed classifications, although Curta’s typology would, thus, have been more consistent than others. 122 Moreover, other important elements were not considered, such as the manufacturing, treatment of decorations, and especially fibula size. Disordering the principle of hierarchy, as the basic premise of typological arrangement, he arrived at a classification that did not indicate the real relationships between the main types; this is the question we consider most relevant to understanding fibulae class I C and all other “Slavic” fibulae. The disrespecting of the principle of hierarchy is best illustrated by the footplate attributes classification 2A – 2E, which does not take into account their mutual relationships. Types 2A and 2D are certainly very similar, followed by 2C, with 2B and 2E as isolated and distant variants.24 This is partially true of other attribute classifications. In addition, in Curta’s near-neighbour cluster analysis, morphologically similar fibulae from Pergamon and Drănic are presented as distant sub-types. At the same time, fibulae with two pairs of bird heads from Corneşti, Kruje and Rome are presented as very close, although they are different in a number of elements, especially the Italian specimen.25 These and other inconsistencies in classification in his first article on “Slavic” fibulae class I C by F. Curta were clearly pointed out by U. Fiedler, and we will not repeat his discussion here.26 The mentioned inconsistencies also appeared in Curta’s later works.27 In a summary of the hitherto classifications of I C fibulae into types and sub-types, we propose a classification based on an analysis of morphological characteristics, attributes, and ornamentation, which is, to a certain extent, in line with the proposed arrangement by Ch. Katsougiannopoulou and U. Fiedler.28 In our classification of subtypes we particularly examined the manufacturing and decoration work, and fibula size, all of which we consider to be important indicators in the classification into subtypes and variants. It is of special importance to stress that the manufac- 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 NEW FINDS OF “SLAVIC” BOW FIBULAE CLASS I C FROM NORTHERN ILLYRICUM turing and decoration treatment make significant indicators, which could point to the special characteristics of particular workshops or craftsmen. This new classification is based on the large number of studied specimens collected by F. Curta and his footplate classification (2A – 2E), which we extended.29 We decided to adhere to this arrangement for an easier comparison with already published material. The identification of Pergamon sub-types is no easy task, bearing in mind that it is constrained by the often vague published photographs and summary drawings. This fact has led to the same fibulae being classified into different sub-types by different researchers. This methodology, which relies significantly on subjective interpretation in fibulae classification (the same can be said for F. Curta’s approach), and on insufficiently clear photographs and drawings, has also directed our arrangement of certain sub-types. The Gâmbaş type (2A) This type is characterised by two pairs of symmetrical heads of birds of prey and a clearly articulated footplate in the shape of a “lyre”.30 We included the variant with stylised bird heads and prominent curved beaks from Corneşti in this group.31 This group of fibulae is uniform, with semi-circular heads ornamented with double spiral ornament and seven headplate knobs, connected to the bodies of the fibulae with a prominent wide bow. These fibulae end in anthropomorphic masks with simplified representations of eyes and mouth. The specimens where the anthropomorphic mask is replaced with simple knob-like ends are rare. Gâmbaş type fibulae are the largest fibulae in class I C, with sizes ranging from 8.5 to 9.6 cm. To the already documented specimens collected by F. Curta, we would like to add, along with the specimen from Srem, a new find from Tordinci, in the vicinity of Vinkov- F. Curta, Some remarks on bow fibulae, 66, fig. 11; Idem, Werner’s class I C, 73–79, pl. 8. Ibid., 96, Pl. 9/2: Corneşti, Kruje and Rome. U. Fiedler, Die slawischen Bügelfibeln, 229–235: F. Curta, Some remarks on bow fibulae, 66, fig. 11. F. Curta, Werner’s class I C, 96, Pl. 2; Idem,“Slavic” Bow Fibulae, 9–10, fig. 5. Ch. Katsougiannopoulou, Studien, 31–39; U. Fiedler, Die slawischen Bügelfibeln, 229, 234–237, Abb. 2. F. Curta, Werner’s class I C, 73–79, pl. 1–9. Ibid., 73–78, no. 12: Căprioara; no. 14: Corneşti; no. 17–18 Gâmbaş; no. 46–47: Kruje; no. 66: Prahovo; no. 68: Rome; no. 76. Tiszafüred; no. 84: Unknown location, Banat and no. 89: Unknown location, southern Russia. Ibid., 74, no. 17. NEW FINDS OF “SLAVIC” BOW FIBULAE CLASS I C FROM NORTHERN ILLYRICUM 123 Fig. 3. “Slavic” fibulae class I C Gâmbaş type (2A): Rome (no. 68) (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Slavic_fibula_Crypta_Balbi.jpg) Sl. 3. „Slovenske” fibule grupe I C, vrste Gamba{ (2A): Rim (br. 68) (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Slavic_fibula_Crypta_Balbi.jpg) ci.32 With its manufacture and ornamentation in the form of pseudo-granules, and its smallest size, the fibula from Rome stands apart from others in its type (Fig. 2; 3; 7/3–4). The footplate fragment from Vela is similar to it.33 The Pergamon type (2D.1 – 2D.4, 2C, 2B, 2E, 2F) The main group consists of Pergamon type fibulae, within which we can distinguish several sub-types, differentiated by footplate form, other elements, decorations, and size. The first subtype (2D.1) is represented by fibulae with a clearly defined single pair of bird heads, connected by strips to a “lyre”-shaped footplate forming an entity. The terminal lobe is most often an anthropomorphic mask (Fig. 1/1; 4/1; 7/1–2). These fibulae are smaller in size than the previous group, 32 33 34 35 36 37 ranging from 5.1 to 7.3 cm34 (Graph 1). This sub-type was identified by Ch. Katsougiannopoulou (A – first variant), and the same classification was accepted by U. Fiedler (A1).35 This subtype is not distinguished as separate in F. Curta’s classification.36 However, this is a clearly defined subgroup, which represented a model for other variants of this type. In most specimens, the semi-circular head is adorned by double spiral ornaments, except the fibulae from Korbovo and Velesnica. The headplates of these specimens are decorated with semi-circular lines of pseudo-granules framed by two simple strips. Variants of these fibulae were found in the hoard from Kamenovo, which included, among other objects, two smaller fibulae, distinguished by very schematic representations of bird heads, and their smaller sizes – 4.3 cm.37 A specimen from Ukraine, A. Rapan-Pape{a, Fibule seobe naroda s vinkova~kog podru~ja, Starohrvatska prosvjeta 39 (2012) 8–10, T. I/4, sl. 1/4, 2/4. On this occasion, I would like to thank Anita Rapan-Pape{a and the associates of the Vinkovci City Museum for the photos provided. F. Curta, Werner’s class I C, 77–79, no. 68 and 91. Idem, Werner’s class I C, 73–79, no. 1: Pergamon; no. 15: Drănic; no. 19: Horga; no. 71: Sărata Monteoru?; no. 86: Unknown location, Kiev district; no. 92: Velesnica and no. 96: Vini~ani. Ch. Katsougiannopoulou, Studien, 35; U. Fiedler, Die slawischen Bügelfibeln, 229, 236–238, Abb. 2. U. Fiedler, Die slawischen Bügelfibeln, 232. F. Curta, Werner’s class I C, 74, no. 20–21; It should not be overlooked that the fibula belongs to another subgroup, which is difficult to determine on the basis of the published photo. 124 NEW FINDS OF “SLAVIC” BOW FIBULAE CLASS I C FROM NORTHERN ILLYRICUM Fig. 4. “Slavic” fibulae class I C: 1. Korbovo (no. 103); 2. Tumiany (no. 78); 3. Kosewo (no. 41); 4. Kosewo (no. 39); 5. Unknown location, Vinnytsia district (no. 107); 6. Miętkie (no. 53); 7. Löbertshoff (no. 50); 8. Miętkie (no. 56); 9. Unknown location, Ukraine (no. 111); 10. Kielary (no. 31); 11. Unknown location, western Ukraine (no. 109); 12. Kielary (no. 34) (1: Documentation of the Institute of Archaeology, Belgrade; 2–4, 6–8, 10, 12 after: F. Curta, Werner’s class I C; 5, 9, 11 after: I. A. Ba`an, Dvuhïlasòin~aòûe, ïalü~aòûe) Sl. 4. „Slovenske” fibule grupe I C: 1. Korbovo (br. 103); 2. Tumiani (br. 78); 3. Kosevo (br. 41); 4. Kosevo (br. 39); 5. Nepoznato nalazi{te, Vincika oblast (br. 107); 6. Mietke (br. 53); 7. Lober{of (br. 50); 8. Mietke (br. 56); 9. Nepoznato nalazi{te, Ukrajina (br. 111); 10. Kielari (br. 31); 11. Nepoznato nalazi{te, Ukrajina (br. 109); 12. Kielari (br. 34) (1: Dokumentacija Arheolo{kog instituta; 2–4, 6–8, 10, 12 prema: F. Curta, Werner’s class I C; 5, 9, 11 prema: I. A. Ba`an, Dvuhïlasòin~aòûe, ïalü~aòûe) NEW FINDS OF “SLAVIC” BOW FIBULAE CLASS I C FROM NORTHERN ILLYRICUM 125 Graph 1. Length of “Slavic” fibulae class I C Grafikon 1. Du`ine „slovenskih“ fibula grupe I C from the Vinnytsia district, was inspired by the Korbovo fibulae, judging by its morphological characteristics, particularly its decorations of the headplate, bow, and footplate. This fibula is only 4 cm in length.38 (Fig. 4/5) A fibula fragment from Pastyrs’ka would also belong to a variant of this subtype.39 The second subtype (2D.2) is similar to the first, with the difference being that the bird heads and the neck are a separate element from the lower, “lyre”shaped part. The decorations in the form of thin, irregular strips, unlike the previous variant, do not connect the bird head representations to the “lyre”-shaped footplate.40 Likewise, in these fibulae, decorations in the shape of vertical strips connect the neck of the fibula to the footplate. In only one specimen is the terminal lobe of the fibula an anthropomorphic mask. 38 39 40 41 42 43 The ornamentation is less developed than in the previous subtype (Fig. 4/2; 7/6). These fibulae are also smaller than those of the previous subtype, ranging from 5.2 to 5.5 cm (Graph 1). Apart from similarities in size, the similarities in morphology and style make this a uniform subtype. Ch. Katsougiannopoulou clearly saw these fibulae as a separate sub-variant (B), while U. Fiedler considered it, together with the previous variant, to be one whole subtype (A1).41 F. Curta also defined this subtype within the first cluster based on nearest neighbour similarity.42 One specimen is shown as belonging to another important cluster.43 We classified fibulae that are removed further from the previous subtype through a simplified representation of bird heads, often reduced to the schematic representation of the beak, as belonging to the third I. A. Ba`an, Dvuhïlasòin~aòûe, ïalü~aòûe i zooanòroïomorfnûe fibulü iz slu~aénûh nahoäok na òerriòorii Vosòo~noé Evroïû (2009–2011 ãã), KSAN. Vûp. 3, Moskva 2011, 20–21, no. 3–2–25; We were unable to afford the other books in this series. F. Curta, Werner’s class I C, 77, no. 60. Ibid., 73–79, no. 2–5: Bogaczewo; no. 32, 35: Kielary; no. 71: Sărata Monteoru; no. 78, 81–82: Tumiany; no. 83: Tylkowo and no. 97–98: Waplewo. Ch. Katsougiannopoulou, Studien, 35; U. Fiedler, Die slawischen Bügelfibeln, 229, 236–238, Abb. 2. F. Curta, Werner’s class I C, 96, pl. 9/2: Kielary, grave 44 – Tumiany, grave 68: Fibulae that do not belong to this group are included, such as those from Paşcani and Szatymáz-Fehértó; Idem,“Slavic” Bow Fibulae, 9–10, Fig. 5: second cluster. Ibid., 96, pl. 9/2: Kielary, grave 100; Idem,“Slavic” Bow Fibulae, 9–10, Fig. 5: third cluster. 126 NEW FINDS OF “SLAVIC” BOW FIBULAE CLASS I C FROM NORTHERN ILLYRICUM Fig. 5. “Slavic” fibulae class I C, subtype 2D.4: 1. Poian (no. 65); 2. Paşcani (no. 64); 3. Sărata Monteoru (no. 72) (after: F. Curta, Werner’s class I C) Sl. 5. „Slovenske” fibule grupe I C, podvrsta 2D.4: 1. Pojan (br. 65); 2. Pa{~ani (br. 64); 3. Sarata Monteoru (br. 72) (prema: F. Curta, Werner’s class I C) subtype (2D.3). The same applies to the footplate, which is roughly made and decorated with simple ornamentation of thin, very often barely accented, circular strips. In this subtype, the anthropomorphic mask is changed for a thickened lobe or a thin point. These fibulae are distinctly smaller compared to previous types, ranging in size from 4.0 to 4.6 cm (Graph 1).44 The manufacture of these fibulae is rougher compared to the previous subtype, and so is the decoration, which is barely hinted at in some variants. A variant of this subtype, with more prominent hooks connected to the body and with six headplate knobs on the head-plate, comes from western Ukraine. This specimen’s length is only 3.5 cm (Fig. 4/3, 7 and 11; 7/7).45 The fibulae in this group were mostly classified by Ch. Katsougiannopoulou and U. Fiedler as belonging to subgroup D, and some were even classified as E by them.46 This entire subtype, along with the next, 2C, and even some specimens from 2D.4, was presented by F. Curta as a part of another cluster based on nearest-neighbour similarity.47 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 We included a number of variants in our fourth subtype (2D.4); they deviate from the basic model in several characteristics but do not form a coherent group, as can be testified by their size, ranging from 5.6 cm to as small as 2.8 cm (Fig. 5/1–3; Graph 1).48 Ch. Katsougiannopoulou identified these specimens as a variant of her subgroup A, and U. Fielder put them in subgroup B.49 It is worth mentioning that the fibulae in this group are limited to the eastern and western Subcarpathian region (Map 2). Our fifth subtype (2C), we identified on the basis of the form of footplate, as defined by F. Curta in his classification.50 The footplate is characterised by an extremely stylised bird’s head with a beak represented by hooks connected to the oval lower part of the body to form a single unit. The footplate surface is accentuated by a simple strip which follows and emphasises its “lyre”-shape. This subtype includes both fibulae with better manufacturing and those less well made specimens (Fig. 4/4 and 8; 7/8). The sizes of bow fibulae in this subtype range between 4.2 and 5.5 cm (Graph 1).51 Ibid., 73–79, no. 25–29: Kielary; no. 41–42, 45: Kosewo; no. 50: Löbertshoff and no. 99–100: Waplewo. I. A. Ba`an, Dvuhïlasòin~aòûe, ïalü~aòûe, 34–35, no. 3–2–74: Western Ukraine. Ch. Katsougiannopoulou, Studien, 36; U. Fiedler, Die slawischen Bügelfibeln, 229, 236–238, Abb. 2. F. Curta, Werner’s class I C, 96, pl. 9.2: Kosewo, grave 529 – Miętkie, grave 587; Idem,“Slavic” Bow Fibulae, 9–10, Fig. 5: third cluster. Ibid., 73–79, no. 13: Chornivka; no. 64: Paşcani; no. 65: Poian; no. 72: Sărata Monteoru and no. 93: Velika Sloboda; I. A. Ba`an, Dvuhïlasòin~aòûe, ïalü~aòûe, 40–41, no. 3–2–89–2: Kiev district. Ch. Katsougiannopoulou, Studien, 35; U. Fiedler, Die slawischen Bügelfibeln, 229, 236, passim, Abb. 2. F. Curta, Werner’s class I C, 95, pl. 8; In his previous work on Group I C the subtype 2C was indicated as 2D: Idem, Some remarks on bow fibulae, 62, fig. 9; Idem,“Slavic” Bow Fibulae, 9–10, Fig. 5: third cluster. Idem, Werner’s class I C, 73–78, no. 6–7: Bratei; no. 22: Kielary; no. 39–40: Kosewo; no. 48: Lăuni; no. 56–57: Miętkie; no. 67: Rish Pass; no. 70: Sărata Monteoru; no. 73: Shokshino and no. 80: Tumiany; I. A. Ba`an, Dvuhïlasòin~aòûe, ïalü~aòûe, 28–29, no. 3–2–49: Chernivtsi district. NEW FINDS OF “SLAVIC” BOW FIBULAE CLASS I C FROM NORTHERN ILLYRICUM Ch. Katsougiannopoulou and U. Fiedler did not identify this subtype as separate, classifying the fibulae in it mostly as their group D, and partly B.52 The sixth subtype, defined on the basis of F. Curta’s classification (2B), is represented by bow fibulae with a pair of bird heads, or their extremely stylised replicas incorporated into the triangular base of the footplate. The ornamentation is reduced to narrow strips adorning only the middle part of the footplate, and there are also specimens with minimal decoration.53 Unlike other subtypes, most of these specimens have an even number of headplate knobs on the headplate, six (Fig. 4/6 and 10; 7/9). According to size, the specimens in this group fit within the range between 3.5 and 4.4 cm, thus being the smallest among fibulae class I C (Graph 1). Ch. Katsougiannopoulou split this subtype into two (D and E), and U. Fiedler saw them as one variant (E).54 There are also variants, such as specimens from Pastyrs’ka.55 The seventh subtype, with its representation of one pair of bird heads and a rhombus-shaped footplate (2E), was clearly identified as a separate subgroup by Ch. Katsougiannopoulou (C), U. Fiedler (C),56 and F. Curta (2E).57 These are smaller fibulae, with sizes from 4.1 to 4.6 cm (Fig. 4/12; 7/11; Graph 1). Following the principle of hierarchy, with the footplate as the basis for classification, we identified a new, eighth subgroup (2F), characterised by a shieldshaped footplate, on which the basic elements of the Pergamon type can be discerned (Fig. 4/9; 7/10). 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 127 There is a known specimen from Szatymáz-Fehértó, hitherto classified by Ch. Katsougiannopoulou as her first variant (A var.) and by U. Fiedler as the second (B).58 For his part, F. Curta identified it as belonging to his first cluster, based on mapping nearest-neighbour similarity, with close ties to our subgroups 2D.2 and 2D.4.59 A specimen in this subgroup originates from Ukraine.60 These fibulae are 4.9 and 5 cm in size respectively (Graph 1). The fibula from SzatymázFehértó was found in an Avar cemetery dated to the 7th century.61 The Szakály-Öreghegy type (2G) Ch. Katsougiannopoulou identified Szakály-Öreghegy bow fibulae as a clearly separate type within class I C, according to their characteristics.62 They especially stand out by their finely worked ornamentation. Their footplates resemble those in 2C, while the headplate without knobs distinguishes them from all known types of bow fibulae (Fig. 7/5). All three known specimens are morphologically very close, although the ornamentation workmanship differs slightly. The ornamentation on specimens from Pastyrs’ka and northeastern Bulgaria was made of a series of thin strips, while the Szakály-Öreghegy fibula is decorated with pseudo granulated strips.63 Its dimensions are 8.4 cm (Graph 1). This type, although small in number, has a significant dispersion, from Ukraine via Bulgaria to Hungary, so that the origin of these bow fibulae is difficult to determine. Ch. Katsougiannopoulou, Studien, 35–36; U. Fiedler, Die slawischen Bügelfibeln, 229, 236–238, Abb. 2. F. Curta, Werner’s class I C, 75–79, no. 16: Dřeví~; no. 23–24, 30–31: Kielary and no. 53–55: Miętkie; I. A. Ba`an, Dvuhïlasòin~aòûe, ïalü~aòûe, 22–23, no. 3–2–33. Ukraine. Ch. Katsougiannopoulou, Studien, 36; U. Fiedler, Die slawischen Bügelfibeln, 229, 236, passim, Abb. 2. F. Curta, Werner’s class I C, 78, no. 60, 62: Pastyrs’ke. Ch. Katsougiannopoulou, Studien, 36; U. Fiedler, Die slawischen Bügelfibeln, 229, 236, passim, Abb. 2. F. Curta, Werner’s class I C, 75–79, no. 33–34: Kielary; no. 69: Săcuieni and no. 94–95: Velyki Budky; Fibulae from Ukraine should be attached to this subtype: I. A. Ba`an, Dvuhïlasòin~aòûe, ïalü~aòûe, 34–35, no. 3–2–66: Western Ukraine; 38–39, no. 3–2–85: Western Ukraine. Ch. Katsougiannopoulou, Studien, 35; U. Fiedler, Die slawischen Bügelfibeln, 229, 236–238, Abb. 2. F. Curta, Werner’s class I C, 96, pl. 9/2: Kielary, grave 44 – Szatymáz-Fehértó; 78, no. 75. I. A. Ba`an, Dvuhïlasòin~aòûe, ïalü~aòûe, 10–11, no. 3–2–3. It is preferable to name the cemetery Szeged–Fehértó A: L. Madaras, The Szeged–Fehértó “A” and “B” Cemeteries, Debrecen – Budapest 1995, 52, 69–70, n. 34, Pl. 37/375–2. Ch. Katsougiannopoulou, Studien, 38–39. F. Curta, Werner’s class I C, 78, no. 63: Pastyrs’ke; no. 74: Szákály-Öreghegy and no. 88: Unknown location, north-eastern Bulgaria. 128 Distribution and origin The distribution of bow fibulae class I C is an important issue, which could point to the origin of types and subtypes. This issue remained unresolved in the works of F. Curta. The interpretation of connections among types and locations of finds based on mapping nearest-neighbour similarity did not provide satisfactory answers to this important question.64 Thus, F. Curta suggests that the links between fibulae I C found in Mazuria and in the region of the Lower Danube speak in favour of contacts between the Baltic region and southeastern Europe. He also states that the connections between elites in neighbouring regions of the Carpathian Basin and the Lower Danube were weak.65 Distribution analysis indicates that the connections between distant regions were not that close, and that there were prominent connections between the Carpathian Basin and the Lower Danube, connected by the Danube river itself, and military actions of the Byzantine Empire, the Avars and the Slavs, along the Danubian frontier. Numerous finds of Gâmbaş type fibulae, which are a homogenous group, clearly point to the main zones of their distribution, the middle and eastern Carpathian Basin and neighbouring regions (Map 1). Near Barbaricum, we can also find them in the areas which used to be part of the Roman Empire, south of the Danubian frontier. The find of the fibula from Banat (the Iron Gates?) is especially significant,66 as it might indicate a manufacturing centre, which would match the distribution area of this type of bow fibulae class I C. Through population migration, these fibulae spread into southern Illyricum – into Epirus, and to Italy. The second direction of their spread was towards the Lower Danube, all the way to southern Russia. These bow fibulae were concentrated in the eastern part of the Carpathian Basin, especially in Transylvania, which 64 65 66 67 68 69 NEW FINDS OF “SLAVIC” BOW FIBULAE CLASS I C FROM NORTHERN ILLYRICUM indicates that their wearers should be sought among the members of the Gepid cultural circle. The grave of an inhumed skeleton from Gâmbaş, which had two fibulae, on the left and right shoulder, would have belonged to this traditions; the fibulae are interpreted as the influence of customs of Germanic populations.67 The Lower Danube region is the main zone of distribution of Pergamon type bow fibulae, subtype 2D.1, and their manufacturing centre, based on the find of three fibulae made from the same mould, can be located to the area between Pontes and Aquae. Variants of this subtype can be found in the eastern parts of the Lower Danube region, and in Ukraine. Finds from Macedonia and Asia Minor are of special significance, as they point to the migrations of populations from the region of the Lower Danube (Map 1). It is hard to say who the wearers of these bow fibulae were. A concentration of finds in the Lower Danube region, especially on the right bank of the great river, the Roman side of the frontier, would point to the fact that we can count on the population from Barbaricum having crossed into the territory of the Empire under pressure from the Avars. Just like Gâmbaş type fibulae, in this case we should also count on the presence of a Germanic population. The grave from Korbovo with the deceased buried with two fibulae at the shoulders would support this interpretation. Some specimens, particularly those from Ukraine and Russia, can be connected to a Slavic environment.68 The next two subtypes, 2D.2 and 2D.3, can be tracked as having a completely different distribution. The bow fibulae belonging to these subtypes are grouped practically exclusively in Mazuria, within the Olsztyn group. This clearly points to the fact, as earlier researchers have already observed, that these fibulae were manufactured in this region.69 The uniformity of Idem, The Making of the Slavs, 250–256, fig. 44; Idem, Werner’s class I C, 65–67, fig. 12; Idem, Some remarks on bow fibulae, 71–72, fig. 10/1. Idem, Werner’s class I C, 72. Idem, Some remarks on bow fibulae, 67, 97, fig. 7/73; Idem, Werner’s class I C, 70, 78, 93, pl. 6/84; Idem, “Slavic” Bow Fibulae, 28–29. J. Werner, Slawische Bügelfibeln, 162, 170–172. U. Fiedler, Die slawischen Bügelfibeln, 240–241; M. Kazanski, The Middle Dnieper Area in the Seventh Century: An Archaeological Survey, in: Constructing the seventh century, Travaux et mémoires 17, ed. C. Zuckerman, Paris 2013, 769–864. Ch. Katsougiannopoulou, Studien, 35–36; U. Fiedler, Die slawischen Bügelfibeln, 236–237; F. Curta, The Making of the Slavs, 250–254; Idem, Some remarks on bow fibulae, 63–67; Idem, Werner’s class I C, 71–72; Idem, “Slavic” Bow Fibulae, 34. NEW FINDS OF “SLAVIC” BOW FIBULAE CLASS I C FROM NORTHERN ILLYRICUM 129 Map 1. Distribution of “Slavic” fibulae class I C, types: 2A, 2D.1 and 2G (Map: European Environment Agency) Karta 1. Distribucija „slovenskih“ fibula grupe I C, vrsta 2A, 2D.1 i 2G (Karta: Evropska agencija za `ivotnu sredinu) style, characteristic craftsmanship, and uniformity of size within each separate subgroup of fibulae would be an indication of this. One specimen, albeit fragmented, comes from the Sărata Monteoru cemetery (Map 2). On the other hand, the distribution our 2D.4 subgroup, representing different variants of Pergamon type fibulae, is focused on the region of the eastern Carpathian foothills – eastern Romania and western regions of Ukraine (Map 2). We should not exclude the possibility that the variants in this subgroup originated in these regions, populated primarily by Slavs.70 The only subtype that can be traced to a wider area from Mazuria to Transylvania and the Lower Danube 70 71 are 2C bow fibulae. Given the similarities of these fibulae with subtype 2D.3 fibulae, we can assume, with a large degree of certainty, that they also originated in the region of Mazuria, within the Olsztyn group. Whether particular variants originated in the area of Transylvania and the Lower Danube remains an open question (Map 3). Subtype 2B fibulae are also Baltic in origin, as pointed out earlier by Ch. Katsougiannopoulou.71 A different distribution of bow fibulae 2E finds from Mazuria to Ukraine and the eastern Carpathian Basin prevents us from connecting them with any certainty to a manufacturing centre in the Baltic region. The low number of finds of subtype 2F fibulae U. Fiedler, Die slawischen Bügelfibeln, 240–241; I. O. Gavrituhin, Ponÿòie ïra`skoé kulüòurû, v: Slo`enie russkoé gosudarstvennosti v kontekste rannesrednevekovoé istorii starogo sveta, Materialû Me`dunarodnoé konferencii, sostoÿv{eésÿ 14—18 maÿ 2007 goda v Gosudarstvennom Ýrmita`e, red. B. S. Korotkevi~, Sankt-Peterburg 2009, 7–25; M. Kazanski, The Middle Dnieper Area, 769–780. Ch. Katsougiannopoulou, Studien, 36. 130 NEW FINDS OF “SLAVIC” BOW FIBULAE CLASS I C FROM NORTHERN ILLYRICUM Map 2. Distribution of “Slavic” fibulae class I C, types: 2D.2, 2D.3, 2D.4 and 2C (Map: European Environment Agency) Karta 2. Distribucija „slovenskih“ fibula grupe I C, vrsta 2D.2, 2D.3, 2D.4 i 2C (Karta: Evropska agencija za `ivotnu sredinu) is not sufficient to enable us to more closely determine their distribution, and particularly not their origin (Map 3). Dating and evolution The dating and evolution of fibulae class I C poses a particular problem in their interpretation. J. Werner and L. Vagalinski dated I C fibulae to the period between the second half of the 6th century and the second half of the 7th century; D. Teodor dated them only to the first half of the 7th century.72 Ch. Katsougiannopoulou briefly discussed the dating of some fibulae types, emphasising that Pergamon type fibulae could 72 73 74 75 be dated to the late 6th and the first half of the 7th century. She also stated that a relative chronology of different subtypes could not be determined, adding that the different variants seem to have been used at the same time.73 Contrary to the above opinions, U. Fiedler dated I C fibulae to the first half of the 6th century.74 For his part, in one of his latest works on “Slavic” bow fibulae, F. Curta dated fibulae class I C from the second quarter of the 6th century to the second half of 7th century, covering a period of about one hundred years.75 The typology and evolution of fibulae was not taken into consideration in the proposed dating of J. Werner, Slawische Bügelfibeln, 157; Idem, Neues zur Frage, 114, 120; I. K. Verner, K ïroisho`äeniþ, 104; D. Gh. Teodor, Fibule “digitate”, 136; L. F. Vagalinski, Zur Frage der ethnischen Herkunft, 269–273. Ch. Katsougiannopoulou, Studien, 38. U. Fiedler, Studien zu Gräberfeldern des 6. bis 9. Jahrhunderts an der unteren Donau, Bonn 1992, 103. F. Curta, “Slavic” Bow Fibulae, 31–38. NEW FINDS OF “SLAVIC” BOW FIBULAE CLASS I C FROM NORTHERN ILLYRICUM 131 Map 3. Distribution of “Slavic” fibulae class I C, types: 2B, 2E and 2F (Map: European Environment Agency) Karta 3. Distribucija „slovenskih“ fibula grupe I C, vrsta 2B, 2E i 2F (Karta: Evropska agencija za `ivotnu sredinu) some fibulae from this class. Thus, some of the oldest dated specimens belong to subtypes (2B and 2D.3), found mostly in Mazuria, and they must have been modelled on the initial specimens of class I C.76 The dated fibulae had lost all the attributes of the initial type with clearly defined bird heads, a “lyre”-shaped footplate, an anthropomorphic terminal lobe, and elaborate ornamentation. According to the same author, these fibulae would, at the same time, be among the oldest “Slavic” bow fibulae! It is quite certain that the above examples are a far removed from their models found among the Danubian Germanic fibulae of the 6th century. It should be emphasised that M. Rudnicki argues that the Pergamon type fibulae from Mazuria, 76 77 78 belonging to the Olsztyn group, should be dated at the earliest to late phase E2, which was defined as the period between 525 and 600.77 We hold that, without clearly defining the course of I C fibulae development, we cannot determine even a rough chronology for them, bearing in mind, of course, other artefacts found alongside I C fibulae. We should also not lose sight of the fact that our fibulae might be the youngest artefact in one find, and the oldest in another. We can use the fibulae from the Kamenovo hoard, which were used at the end of the 7th and in the beginning of the 8th century, as our example.78 The typological development of I C fibulae must be examined through the evolution of their form, Ibid., 34–35: Kielary 8 and Waplewo. M. Rudnicki, The Olsztyn Group in the Early Medieval Archaeology of the Baltic Region: The Cemetery at Leleszki, Leiden – Boston 2019, 37, 192. F. Curta, Some remarks on bow fibulae, 55; Idem, “Slavic” Bow Fibulae, 36. 132 NEW FINDS OF “SLAVIC” BOW FIBULAE CLASS I C FROM NORTHERN ILLYRICUM Fig. 6. Evolution of fibulae from Mazuria from type Tumiany-Dour to Wolka Prusinowska (after: M. Rudnicki, The Olsztyn Group, fig. 4/20) Sl. 6. Razvoj fibula iz Mazurije, od vrste Tumian-Dour ka Volka Prusinovska (prema: M. Rudnicki, The Olsztyn Group, fig. 4/20) attributes, manufacture, decoration, size, and distance from the initial model. The degeneration of class I C can be traced both in time and in space, as evidenced by the simplification of fibulae construction and the emergence of specific variants in particular territories. This process can be clearly demonstrated by the example of Mazurian bow fibulae and the evolution of fibulae from the Tumiany-Dour type towards the Wolka Prusinowska type, where the deviation from the original Scandinavian model can be clearly traced (Fig. 6).79 An important role was played by itinerant craftsmen, whose roles were naturally taken on by local masters in the remote areas, creating “new” types adapted to their taste, but primarily to their own skill and tech79 80 81 82 83 nology.80 M. Rudnicki’s claims that bow fibulae in Mazuria were made based on Frankian, Gothic, and Scandinavian models would be arguments in support of this interpretation.81 Pergamon type fibulae, subtype 2D.1 were the prototype for “Slavic” fibulae of class I C (Fig.7/1–2). According to U. Fiedler, they served as a prototype for the more developed fibulae of this class, Gâmbaş type fibulae,82 which is in direct opposition to the opinion of Ch. Katsougiannopoulou, who considered the development process to have moved in the opposite direction.83 The same author held that Gâmbaş type fibulae had elements in common with the large fibulae of the Coşovenii de Jos type, and that they could also be M. Rudnicki, The Olsztyn Group, 109–111, fig. 4/20. K. Høilund Nielsen, The real thing or just wannabes. Scandinavian-style brooches in the fifth and sixth centuries, in: Foreigners in Early Medieval Europe. Thirteen International Studies on Early Medieval Mobility, ed. D. Quast, Mainz 2009, 105–106. M. Rudnicki, The Olsztyn Group, 144; Same: U. Fiedler, Die slawischen Bügelfibeln, 236–237. U. Fiedler, Die slawischen Bügelfibeln, 237. Ch. Katsougiannopoulou, Studien, 36. NEW FINDS OF “SLAVIC” BOW FIBULAE CLASS I C FROM NORTHERN ILLYRICUM linked with Byzantine Boly-@elovce brooches.84 Based on this, along with the distribution of these fibulae and the distribution of Pergamon 2D.1 fibulae, as well as the find of a fibulae mould in the Avar cemetery in Felnac, she believed this type of fibulae to have originated in Byzantine-Avar workshops.85 U. Fiedler put forward the opinion that I C fibulae would most likely have originated after the model of Crimean-Gothic fibulae of Gursulf type, according to H. Kühn, or class IV, according to Zaseckaja.86 We consider it to be difficult to precisely determine the origin of bow fibulae class I C, which must have taken some motifs from other similar fibulae and other items integral to garments worn at the time. We consider Pergamon fibulae, subtype 2D.1, to have been the model from which numerous other variants developed (Fig. 7/1–11). The basic model is characterised by a clearly accentuated shape, finely elaborated details, and ornamentation in the form of a series of well elaborated strips (Fig. 1/1; 4/1 and 5; 7/1–2). This subtype of fibulae originated, as indicated by their distribution and the finds of Korbovo and Velesnica fibulae from the same mould, in the Lower Danube region. The popularity of this model is testified to by the numerous variants of this class, which were found outside of the region of origin, and its further development, which branched out in several directions. This model, certainly, must have been the inspiration for Gâmbaş type fibulae, which were made for the wealthy class (Fig. 7/3–4).87 They can be dated to the first half of the 7th century, while some specimens, like those from Gâmbaş, were in use in the second half of the 7th century as well.88 Their distribution is mostly connected to the Carpathian region, where we might look for a manufacturing centre, based on the Banat forming model find. Gâmbaş type fibulae have 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 133 been known to come in several variants, of which the specimen from Rome, with ornamentation of pseudogranules, deserves a special mention (Fig. 3).89 The same manner of decoration can be found in Szakály-Öreghegy type fibulae, which clearly stand out from all other known specimens of I C fibulae. They have a unique stylised headplate without headplate knobs, and a “lyre”-shaped body with curved ends. This rare, developed bow fibulae type was found in a wide area from Hungary through Bulgaria and all the way to Ukraine, which makes it difficult to more accurately identify its origin (Map 1). Further development of I C fibulae can be traced through a gradual transformation from the basic Pergamon 2D.1 subtype, especially in Mazuria. Specimens of subtype 2D.2 diverge from the basic model. The representations of a pair of bird heads are not connected into one unit with the lower, “lyre”-shaped part, and the ornamentation is simpler (Fig. 4/2; 7/6). These fibulae are also smaller in size. This is a coherent group of bow fibulae of similar style and unified dimensions, all of which clearly indicates one manufacturing centre having been in Mazuria. The concentration of finds of these fibulae is in the Baltic region, which is also true of the next subtype (Map 2). The next stage of development of I C fibulae were subtype 2D.3 fibulae, characterised by a further stylisation of the footplate and ornamentation, and a reduction in size. Bird head representations are schematic, and are barely recognisable in some fibulae. The lower “lyre”-shaped part assumes a unique shape, which, in some specimens, devolves to a circular extension. (Fig. 4/3, 7, 11; 7/7) This is a homogenous group, judging from the regular sizes, and its distribution in the region of Mazuria (Map 2), where this type of fibulae would be dated, according to F. Curta, to the late 6th and early 7th centuries.90 A further stylisation Ibid., 32–34. Ibid., 38. U. Fiedler, Die slawischen Bügelfibeln, 237: H. Kühn, Die germanischen Bügelfibeln der Völkerwanderungszeit in Süddeutschland, Graz 1974, 727–742, Taf. 261–262; I. P. Zaseckaÿ, Daòirovka i ïroisho`äenie ïalü~aòûh fibul bosïorskoão nekroïolÿ rannesrednevekovoão ïerioäa, Materialû po istorii, arheologii, ýtnografii Tavrii VI (1998) 404, 462, Tab. 6/75–76, 92. U. Fiedler, Die slawischen Bügelfibeln, 237. F. Curta, Werner’s class I C, 67. Ibid., 77, no. 68. Ibid., 70. 134 NEW FINDS OF “SLAVIC” BOW FIBULAE CLASS I C FROM NORTHERN ILLYRICUM NEW FINDS OF “SLAVIC” BOW FIBULAE CLASS I C FROM NORTHERN ILLYRICUM 135 Fig. 7. Evolution of “Slavic” fibulae class I C: 1. Dranic (no. 15); 2. Korbovo (no. 103); 3. Gâmbaş (no. 17); 4. Rome (no. 68); 5. Szakály-Öreghegy (no. 74); 6. Tumiany (no. 78); 7. Kosewo (no. 41); 8. Kosewo (no. 39); 9. Miętkie (no. 53); 10. Unknown location, Ukraine (no. 111); 11. Kielary (no. 34) (1, 3, 5, 6–9, 11 after: F. Curta, Werner’s class I C; 2: Documentation of the Institute of Archaeology, Belgrade; 10 after: I. A. Ba`an, Dvuhïlasòin~aòûe, ïalü~aòûe) Sl. 7. Razvoj „slovenskih” fibula grupe I C: 1. Dranik (br. 15); 2. Korbovo (br. 103); 3. Gamba{ (br. 17); 4. Rim (br. 68); 5. Sakali-Oregegi (br. 74); 6. Tumiani (br. 78); 7. Kosevo (br. 41); 8. Kosevo (br. 39); 9. Mietke (br. 53); 10. Nepoznato nalazi{te, Ukrajina (br. 111); 11. Kielari (br. 34) (1, 3, 5, 6–9, 11 prema: F. Curta, Werner’s class I C; 2: Dokumentacija Arheolo{kog instituta; 10 prema: I. A. Ba`an, Dvuhïlasòin~aòûe, ïalü~aòûe) would have happened in bow fibulae of subtypes 2D.4, which deviate from the abovementioned models, and which we could not classify more precisely based on summary drawings (Fig. 5/1–3). They certainly point to the popularity of this model, which was manufactured in the wider region of eastern Europe and Ukraine (Map 2). One direction of further development of Pergamon type fibulae was a further stylisation of the footplate, where the bird heads turn into the hooks characteristic of subtype 2C, which in turn is a simplification of subtype 2D.3 models (Fig. 4/4 and 8; 7/8).91 Specimens of these fibulae were found in Mazuria, Transylvania, and a smaller number in the Lower Danube region. Subtype 2B represents another model of further divergence from the original through a transformation of the footplate to a triangular base, which included representations of a pair of bird heads and a barely recognisable representation of the “lyre” shape (Fig. 4.6 and 10; 7.9). Subtype 2F represents another variety of stylisation with the footplate shaped as a shield (Fig. 4/9; 7/10). Both of these subtypes were inspired by 2D.1 subtype fibulae, especially by variants like the one from an unknown site in the Vinnytsia district (Fig. 4/5, 6 and 9). Lastly, let us mention subtype 2E, which shows a considerable divergence from the original model with its footplate with two bird heads and a rhombusshaped lower part with an extended terminal lobe; its 91 92 distribution is indicative of this, since there is a higher percentage of finds of this type of fibula in Ukraine and Russia than in Mazuria (Fig. 4/12; 7/11). This is certainly a separate subtype, which might also belong to another class of “Slavic” bow fibulae. Conclusion Our analysis, based on the “classic” study of “Slavic” bow fibulae, their manufacture, decoration, and size, pointed to a clearer differentiation of types and particularly subtypes of Pergamon variety fibulae. In addition, their distribution indicates a clear grouping of subtypes in particular territories, at the same time pointing to manufacturing centres (Maps 1–3). Thus, Pergamon fibulae, subtype 2D.1, were grouped in the Lower Danube, where a manufacturing centre must have been between Pontes and Aquae, as evidenced by the finds of two fibulae from Korbovo and one from Velesnica that were cast in the same mould. This type of mould was used especially for making parts of belts and brooches, as indicated by finds from Cari~in grad (Justiniana Prima).92 Variants of this subtype can be found in the region of Ukraine, and sporadically in Macedonia and Asia Minor. Fibulae of varying manufacture, ornamentation, and especially dimensions (Graph 1), indicate that this subtype would have been manufactured for longer and probably in the wider region of the Lower Danube, and possibly in Ukraine. U. Fiedler, Die slawischen Bügelfibeln, 237. V. Ivani{evi}, Metal Workshops of Cari~in Grad (Justiniana Prima), im: Lebenswelten zwischen Archäologie und Geschichte. Festschrift für Falko Daim zu seinem 65. Geburtstag, Hrsg. J. Drauschke, E. Kislinger, K. Kühtreiber, T. Kühtreiber, G. Scharrer-Li{ka, T. Vida, Mainz 2018, 711–723. 136 This subtype of fibulae was the inspiration for the Gâmbaş type, which represents a more luxurious variant worn among the population settled in the Carpathian Basin and northern Illyricum. An argument in support of a manufacturing centre in this area is the find of the fibulae from Banat (the Iron Gates?). D. Teodor proposed that the workshop might have been in Orşova or Drobeta, in the vicinity of the abovementioned Pontes.93 There are finds of these bow fibulae in Russia, Albania, and Italy. Bow fibulae of subtype 2D.1 and Gâmbaş type 2A can be linked to the populations that settled in the eastern Carpathian Basin and Transylvania, and in the areas along the frontier (Map 1). These were mostly Gepids, although there were also Avars and Slavs. There are records by Theophylact Simocatta that in the area around the Tisa River during the last Priscus campaign, in 599, the Avars suffered a defeat, and that 3,000 Avars, 6,200 other Barbarians, and 8,000 Slavs were captured on that occasion. By other barbarians he must have meant the Gepids, who were settled in the south-eastern Carpathian Basin.94 For his part, Teophanes writes that during a battle on the Danube, 3,000 Avars, 3,200 Gepids, 2,000 other barbarians, and 800 Slavs were captured.95 Finds of this subtype of fibulae along the right banks of the Sava and Danube rivers, in the Empire territory, are significant, as they might point to the existence of the last contingents of Foederati in the 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 NEW FINDS OF “SLAVIC” BOW FIBULAE CLASS I C FROM NORTHERN ILLYRICUM late 6th and early 7th centuries. This might also be an explanation for a significant concentration of finds of “Slavic” bow fibulae in the region between Pontes and Aquae, in the location of an important Danube crossing point. Apart from the abovementioned fibulae, we also have records of a find of a fibula class I C in the area of Prahovo (Aquae),96 three bow fibulae class I B from Velesnica,97 Prahovo (Aquae)98 and Korbovo,99 two unpublished fragments of fibulae class I F from Velesnica and \erdap,100 and of one fragmented fibula class I J from Negotin.101 The presence of Foederati engaged in the 6th century has been documented in Viminacium.102 We should also mention that “Slavic” bow fibulae have also been found in early Byzantine towns in the interior of Illyricum, as was the case with the finds in Cari~in grad – Justiniana Prima.103 We should also not exclude the possibility that, when it comes to the finds of these fibulae along the Danube frontier, what happened was the settling of Barbarians in the regions of the former Empire following the end of Early Byzantine rule in northern Illyrcum after 600.104 The second direction of development of Pergamon type fibulae was the appearance of imitations of this type of fibula in the region of Mazuria, within the Olsztyn group. Our research indicates that subtype 2D.1 fibulae cannot be equated to the other specimens discovered in the Mazurian region, especially not subtypes 2D.2 and 2D.3 (Fig. 4 and 7; Graph 1), which D. Gh. Teodor, Fibule “digitate”, 125. M. and M. Whitby, The History of Theophylact Simocatta: an English transl. with introduction and notes, Oxford 1986, VIII.3. The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor: Byzantine and Near Eastern history AD 284–813, transl. with introduction and comment by C. Mango and R. Scott, with the assistance of G. Greatrex, Oxford, 1997, I, 282. \. Jankovi}, Podunavski deo oblasti Akvisa, 194, 250, T. XVI/16; Werner’s class I C, 77, no. 66, Pl. 4/66. J. Werner, Slawische Bügelfibeln, 151–152, Abb. 2; F. Curta, Female dress, 106, 137, no. 30, fig. 10/30. \. Jankovi}, Podunavski deo oblasti Akvisa, 194, 250, T. XVI/12; F. Curta, Female dress, 106, 117, 135, no. 14, fig. 7/14. \. Jankovi}, Podunavski deo oblasti Akvisa, 194, 250, T. XVI/15; Werner’s class I C, 75, no. 38, Pl. 3/29: Group tip I C. Documentation of the Institute of Archaeology, Belgrade. F. Curta, A note on the ‘Slavic’ bow fibulae, 125, 134, no. 4, fig. 1/4. M. Popovi}, Svetiwa, novi podaci o ranovizantijskom Viminacijumu, Starinar XXXVIII/1987 (1988) 1–37; V. Ivani{evi}, M. Kazanski, A. Mastykova, Les nécropoles de Viminacium à l’époque des Grandes Migrations, Paris 2006, 133–136. V. Ivani{evi}, Barbarian Settlements in the Interior of Illyricum: The Case of Cari~in Grad, in: The Pontic-Danubian Realm in the Period of the Great Migration, eds V. Ivani{evi}, M. Kazanski, Paris – Beograd 2012, 60–62, Fig. 1/1–2; B. Bavant, V. Ivani{evi}, Catalogue des objets des fouilles anciennes, in: Cari~in Grad IV, Catalogue des objets des fouilles anciennes et autres études, éds. B. Bavant, V. Ivani{evi}, Rome – Belgrade 2019, 234–235, Pl. LIV/1851–1852. V. Popovi}, Les témoins archéologiques des invasions avaro-slaves dans l’Illyricum byzantin, Mélanges de l’École française de Rome 87 (1975) 488–504; W. Pohl, The Avars: A Steppe Empire in Central Europe, 567–822, Ithaca – London 2018, 194–197. NEW FINDS OF “SLAVIC” BOW FIBULAE CLASS I C FROM NORTHERN ILLYRICUM are characterised by recognisable style, manufacture, ornamentation and size, and a distribution limited primarily to their region of origin. These fibulae were certainly manufactured in Mazuria, which has been pointed out by numerous authors. The same would apply to subtype 2C, which dispersed slightly more widely from Mazuria to the western and eastern Subcarpathian region (Map 2). To the east of this region we can find most of the fibulae belonging to the under-defined 2D.4 subtype, characterised by various variants of Pergamon type fibulae. With the discovery of a larger number of specimens and especially with the publication of better quality drawings and photographs, we might be able to say something more about these fibulae. Subtype 2B fibulae would be Mazurian in origin, with a triangular footplate; these fibulae were also found in Ukraine. The place of origin and manufacturing centre of fibulae in subtypes 2E and 2F is hard to determine, given that the former are found in Mazuria, but a significant number were also found in Ukraine, Russia, and the northern Carpathian Basin (Map 3). The latter subtype comprised only two specimens and it is, therefore, too early to discuss their primary territory. Analysis of “Slavic” fibulae class I C has revealed the need for a clearer differentiation between types and a classification which would include not just a typological determination, but also the manufacture, ornamentation, and size. The identified separate types and subtypes have enabled us to propose a developmental sequence for class I C, and to determine the distribution and manufacturing territories for most of them, which was partially dealt with by other researchers. The distribution of I C fibulae was mostly connected to their origin territories and the popula- 105 106 107 137 tions that settled there, which is a completely opposite standpoint to that of F. Curta, who holds that these fibulae cannot be linked to particular territories.105 Distribution analysis of the identified subtypes clearly indicated that we cannot speak, as F. Curta particularly emphasised, of close links between Mazuria and the Lower Danube. The same author concluded, in his studies of “Slavic” fibulae class I C, that, after the year 600, communication between the Baltic and Danubian regions was not disrupted by the migrations of Avars and Slavs.106 In some cases, we can speak about the expansion of certain subtypes, such as 2C, which could indicate trading connections, but could also point to the existence of local craftsmen. A small number of finds of individual fibulae in remote territories indicate migrations, which must have been caused by the arrival of the Avars in the 560s, causing population movements and an influx of new populations in the late 6th and early 7th centuries. These processes are undeniable.107 The main problem with the interpretation of “Slavic” bow fibulae still remains, and that is the issue of their more precise dating, which would contribute to a clearer idea about their appearance, manufacturing centres, and distribution. We put aside the question of ethnic determination, bearing in mind that many societies, including Slavs, who wore these bow fibulae settled in the wide regions of eastern Europe, from Hungary to Russia, and from the Baltic region to northern Greece, Asia Minor, and Italy. This issue must definitely be examined in the light of other “Slavic” bow fibulae, other finds, and the rare preserved historical sources, which are often omitted from the interpretation of settlements and particularly of migrations in certain territories. F. Curta, Some remarks on bow fibulae, 70. Ibid., 55, 65 and 73. The last example is the article by F. Curta, Migrations in the Archaeology of Eastern and Southeastern Europe in the Early Middle Ages (Some Comments on the Current State of Research), in: Migration History of the Medieval Afroeurasian Transition Zone, eds J. Preiser-Kappeler, L. Reinfandt, I. Stouraitis, Leiden 2020, 116–121; For another point of approach: M. Kazanski, The Land of the Antes according to Jordanes and Procopius, in: The Steppe Lands and the World Beyond Them. Studies in Honor of Victor Spinei on his 70th Birthday, eds F. Curta, B.-P. Maleon, Iaşi 2013, 37–42; M. M. Kazanskié, Slavÿne i äunaéskie ãermancû v VI veke: sviäeòelüsòva ïisümennûh isòo~nikov i nekoòorûe arheoloãi~eskie äannûe, v: [trihi k portretam minuv{ih ýpoh, ur. E. P. Tokareva, V. G. Lu{in, Zimovniki 2014, 175–200. 138 NEW FINDS OF “SLAVIC” BOW FIBULAE CLASS I C FROM NORTHERN ILLYRICUM APPENDIX List of “Slavic” fibulae class I C:108 1. Pergamon (Bergama), stray find (Turkey), 2D.1. 2–5. Bogaczewo, stray find (Poland), 2D.2. 6–7. Bratei, grave 130 (Romania), 2C. 8. Bratei, grave 131 (Romania), 2C. 9–10. Bratei, grave 174 (Romania), 2E. 11. Butrint, settlement (Albania), – . 12. Căprioara, stray find (Romania), 2A. 13. Chornivka, settlement (Ukraine), 2D.4. 14. Corneşti, grave (Romania), 2A var. 15. Drănic, stray find (Romania), 2D.1. 16. Dřeví~, stray find (Czech Republic), 2B. 17–18. Gâmbaş, grave 3 (Romania), 2A. 19. Horga, stray find (Romania), 2D.1. 20–21. Kamenovo, hoard (Bulgaria), 2D.1 var. 22. Kielary, grave 2 (Poland), 2C. 23–24. Kielary, grave 8 (Poland), 2B. 25–26. Kielary, grave 9 (Poland), 2D.3. 27–28. Kielary, grave 13 (Poland), 2D.3. 29. Kielary, grave 30 (Poland), 2D.3. 30–31. Kielary, grave 43 (Poland), 2B. 32. Kielary, grave 44 (Poland), 2D.2. 33. Kielary, grave 68 (Poland), 2E. 34. Kielary, grave 74 (Poland), 2E. 35. Kielary, grave 100 (Poland), 2D.2. 36. Kiev, stray find (Ukraine), – . 37. Kletsk, settlement (Belarus), – . 38. Korbovo, settlement (Serbia), – . 39–40. Kosewo, grave 202 (Poland), 2C. 41–42. Kosewo, grave 529 (Poland), 2D.3. 43–44. Kosewo, grave 542 (Poland), – . 45. Kosewo, grave 548 (Poland), 2D.3. 46–47. Kruje, grave 28 (Albania), 2A. 48. Lăuni, stray find (Romania), 2C. 49. Lezhë, grave 32 (Albania), – . 50. Löbertshoff, stray find (Russia), 2D.3. 51. Medvedevka, stray find (Ukraine), – . 52. Medvedevka, stray find (Ukraine), – . 53. Miętkie, grave 84 (Poland), 2B. 54–55. Miętkie, grave 462 (Poland), 2B. 56–57. Miętkie, grave 587 (Poland), 2C. 58. Orlea, stray find (Romania), – . 59. Pastyrs’ke, stray find (Ukraine), – . 108 60. Pastyrs’ke, stray find (Ukraine), 2D.1 var. 61. Pastyrs’ke, stray find (Ukraine), – . 62. Pastyrs’ke, stray find (Ukraine), 2B var. 63. Pastyrs’ke, stray find (Ukraine), 2F. 64. Paşcani, stray find (Romania), 2D.4. 65. Poian, settlement (Romania), 2D.4. 66. Prahovo, stray find (Serbia), 2A. 67. Rish Pass, stray find (Bulgaria), 2C. 68. Rome, stray find (Italy), 2A. 69. Săcuieni, stray find (Romania), 2E. 70. Sărata Monteoru, grave (Romania), 2C. 71. Sărata Monteoru, grave 463a (Romania), 2D.2? 72. Sărata Monteoru, grave 1185 (Romania), 2D.4. 73. Shokshino, grave 913 (Russia), 2C. 74. Szákály-Öreghegy, grave 12 (Hungary), 2F. 75. Szatymáz-Fehértó (Szeged–Fehértó A), grave 375 (Hungary), 2G. 76. Tiszafüred, stray find (Hungary), 2A. 77. Tiszanagyfalu, grave (Hungary), – . 78. Tumiany, grave 68 (Poland), 2D.2. 79. Tumiany, stray find (Poland), – . 80. Tumiany, stray find (Poland), 2C. 81. Tumiany, stray find (Poland), 2D.2. 82. Tumiany, stray find (Poland), 2D.2. 83. Tylkowo, stray find (Poland), 2D.2. 84. Unknown location, Banat, stray find (Romania), 2A. 85. Unknown location, Bitola district, stray find (North Macedonia), – . 86. Unknown location, Kiev district, stray find (Ukraine), 2D.1. 87. Unknown location, northeastern Bulgaria, stray find (Bulgaria), – . 88. Unknown location, northeastern Bulgaria, stray find (Bulgaria), 2F. 89. Unknown location, southern Russia, stray find (Russia), 2A. 90. Vârtop, stray find (Romania), – . 91. Vela, stray find (Romania), 2A. 92. Velesnica, stray find (Serbia), 2D.1. 93. Velika Sloboda, settlement (Ukraine), 2D.4. 94–95. Velyki Budky, hoard (Ukraine), 2E. Numbers 1–100 according to F. Curta, Werner’s class I C, 73–79; Numbers 101–112 represent new specimens. NEW FINDS OF “SLAVIC” BOW FIBULAE CLASS I C FROM NORTHERN ILLYRICUM 96. Vini~ani, grave (North Macedonia), 2D.1. 97–98. Waplewo, grave 21 (Poland), 2D.2. 99–100. Waplewo, grave 22 (Poland), 2D.3. 101. Tordinci, stray find (Croatia), 2A.109 102. Unknown location, Srem, stray find (Serbia), 2A. 103. Korbovo, grave (Serbia), 2D.1. 104. Korbovo, grave (Serbia), 2D.1. 105. Unknown location, Chernivtsi district, stray find (Ukraine), 2C.110 106. Unknown location, Kiev district, stray find (Ukraine), 2D.4.111 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 139 107. Unknown location, Vinnytsia district, stray find (Ukraine), 2D.1 var.112 108. Unknown location, western Ukraine, stray find (Ukraine), 2E.113 109. Unknown location, western Ukraine, stray find (Ukraine), 2D.3 var.114 110. Unknown location, western Ukraine, stray find (Ukraine), 2E.115 111. Unknown location, Ukraine, stray find (Ukraine), 2F.116 112. Unknown location, Ukraine, stray find (Ukraine), 2B.117 A. Rapan-Pape{a, Fibule seobe naroda, 8–10, T. I.4, sl. 1/4, 2/4. I. A. Ba`an, Dvuhïlasòin~aòûe, ïalü~aòûe, 28–29, no. 3–2–49. Ibid., 40–41, no. 3–2–89–2. Ibid., 20–21, no. 3–2–25. Ibid., 34–35, no. 3–2–66. Ibid., 34–35, no. 3–2–74. Ibid., 38–39, no. 3–2–85. Ibid., 10–11, no. 3–2–3. Ibid., 22–23, no. 3–2–33. 140 NEW FINDS OF “SLAVIC” BOW FIBULAE CLASS I C FROM NORTHERN ILLYRICUM Vujadin Ivani{evi} Arheolo{ki institut, Beograd Novi nalazi „slovenskih” fibula grupe I C iz Severnog Ilirka „Slovenske” fibule zaokupqaju pa`wu istra`iva~a od 1950. godine kada se pojavio ~lanak Joakima Vernera u kojem je on veliku grupu fibula sa prostora jugoisto~ne i isto~ne Evrope opredelio kao slovenske. Tom prilikom je znameniti nema~ki arheolog izdvojio dve grupe fibula – prvu sa jedanaest tipova (I A – I K) i drugu sa pet (II A – II E). Tokom posledwe tri decenije objavqen je o fibulama ve}i broj radova, a posebno o onima iz grupe I C, karakteristi~nim po telu u obliku „lire”, koje su nala`ene na {irokom prostoru od Ma|arske do Ukrajine i Rusije i od Baltika do Gr~ke. Pojedina~ni primerci zabele`eni su u Maloj Aziji, u Pergamonu i u Italiji, u Rimu. U radu su prikazani nalazi triju novih fibula ove grupe sa podru~ja Srbije. Ujedno, predlo`eni su nova tipologija grupe I C i weno poreklo, i dato je tuma~ewe wenog razvoja. Nalazi triju fibula grupe I C sa podru~ja \erdapa – dve iz jednog groba u Korbovu i jedne iz Velesnice (sl. 1/1–3), izlivenih u istom kalupu, dovedeni su u vezu sa postojawem radionice na prostoru izme|u Pontesa i Akva. U toj radionici izra|ivani su najstariji tipovi „slovenskih” fibula grupe I C, vrste Pergamon (podvrsta 2D.1). Ovom prilikom objavqen je i nalaz fragmentovane fibule tipa Gamba{ (2A) iz Srema, sa nepoznatog nalazi{ta (sl. 2/1). Kamen spoticawa u interpretaciji fibula grupe I C predstavqa wihovo tipolo{ko odre|ewe, koje je u dosada{woj literaturi sagledavano iz dva razli~ita rakursa. Prvi je po~ivao na tipolo{koj analizi koja je podrazumevala stilsko komparativno pore|ewe fibula na osnovu forme, atributa i dekora. Taj pristup, koji je primenio J. Verner, sledili su Dan Teodor, Qudmil Vagalinski, Kristina Kazugianopulu i Uve Fidler. Posledwa dva autora klasifikovala su fibule grupe I C na tri glavne vrste: Gamba{, Pergamon, s vi{e podvrsta i Sakali-Oregegi. Drugi princip klasifikacije primenio je Florin Kurta – razlo`io je telo fibule na pet osnovnih atributa (glava, telo – noga, zavr{etak noge, luk i prstasti dodaci na glavi), a wih je zatim izdvojio u podtipove na osnovu forme i ornamenta. Daqe je te elemente, koji se javqaju u razli~itim oblicima i dekoru, posmatrao na osnovu analize klastera prema Xakardovom koeficijentu sli~nosti, a vezu izme|u fibula na osnovu iscrtavawa najbli`e sli~nosti. Sumiraju}i dosada{we razvrstavawe fibula iz grupe I C na vrste i podvrste, u radu predla`emo novu klasifikaciju koja se zasniva na analizi morfolo{kih odlika, atributa i ornamenta, dr`e}i se u izvesnoj meri predlo`enih podela K. Kazugianopulu i U. Fidlera. Prilikom klasifikacije podtipova posebno smo posmatrali na~in izrade i obrade dekora, kao i dimenzije fibula, {to sve zajedno smatramo va`nim indikatorima u razvrstavawu na podvrste i varijante (sl. 4–5 i 7; grafikon 1). Posebno treba naglasiti to da na~in izrade fibula i tretman dekora predstavqaju va`ne elemente koji upu}uju, sasvim izvesno, na osobenosti pojedinih radionica, odnosno zanatlija. Smatramo da fibule vrste Pergamon, podvrsta 2D.1, predstavqaju model iz kojeg su se razvili brojni ostali varijeteti. Osnovni model karakteri{u jasno nagla{ena forma, fino izvedeni detaqi i ornament u vidu niza skladnih traka. Ovaj podtip fibula nastao je, kako ukazuje wihova distribucija, kao i nalazi fibula iz Korbova i Velesnice koje poti~u iz istog kalupa, na prostoru Doweg Dunava. O popularnosti ovog modela svedo~e ne samo brojni varijeteti te podvrste {to su nala`eni van mati~nih oblasti ve} i wegov daqi razvoj, koji je i{ao u vi{e pravaca (sl. 4/1, 5 i 7/1–2; karta 1). Ovaj model je, svakako, predstavqao uzor za fibule vrste Gamba{, koje su izra|ivane za imu}niji sloj stanovni{tva. One se mogu datovati u prvu polovinu 7. veka, dok su pojedini primerci, kao oni iz Gamba{a, bili u upotrebi i u drugoj polovini tog stole}a. Wihova distribucija mahom se vezuje za oblast Karpatskog basena, gde bi se na osnovu nalaza modela iz Banata (\erdapa?) mogao tra`iti i proizvodni centar (sl. 7/3–4; karta 1). Fibule ovog tipa javqaju se u nekoliko varijeteta, od kojih se svakako izdvaja primerak iz Rima sa ornamentom izvedenim u vidu pseudogranula (sl. 3). Ovaj na~in ukra{avawa nalazimo i na fibulama tipa Sakali-Oregegi, koje se jasno izdvajaju od svih poznatih primeraka fibula grupe I C. Re~ je o jedinstve- NEW FINDS OF “SLAVIC” BOW FIBULAE CLASS I C FROM NORTHERN ILLYRICUM noj stilizaciji glave bez prstastih dodataka i tela u obliku „lire” sa uvijenim krajevima. Ova razvijena, retka vrsta nala`ena je na {irokoj teritoriji – od Ma|arske, preko Bugarske, pa sve do Ukrajine – {to ote`ava weno jasnije opredeqewe (sl. 7/5; karta 1). Daqi sled razvoja fibula grupe I C mo`emo pratiti prema postupnom udaqavawu od osnovnog modela tipa Pergamon, podvrste 2D.1, a posebno u Mazuriji. Primerci podtipa 2D.2 odstupaju od osnovnog modela – prikazi para pti~jih glava nisu povezani u jedinstvenu celinu sa dowim delom u obliku „lire”, dok je ornament svedeniji i upro{}eniji. Ove fibule su ujedno i mawih dimenzija. Re~ je o koherentnoj grupi fibula sli~nog stila i ujedna~enih dimenzija, {to sve zajedno jasno ukazuje na jedan proizvodni centar u Mazuriji. Takve fibule su koncentrisane na balti~kom prostoru, kao {to su i one slede}ih podvrsta (sl. 4/2 i 7/6; grafikon 1; karta 2). Naredni stupaw u wihovom razvoju ozna~avaju fibule podvrste 2D.3, koje se odlikuju daqom stilizacijom tela – noge i ornamenta, kao i smawewem veli~ine. Prikazi pti~jih glava se {ematizuju tako da se kod pojedinih fibula jedva prepoznaju. Dowi deo u obliku „lire” dobija jedinstven oblik, koji se na pojedinim primercima svodi na kru`no pro{irewe. Radi se o jedinstvenom podtipu, ako je suditi prema ustaqenim veli~inama kao i distribuciji na prostoru Mazurije, gde bi se ovaj podtip, prema F. Kurti, datovao u kasni 6. i rani 7. vek (sl. 4/3, 7 i 7/7; grafikon 1; karta 2). Daqoj stilizaciji pripadale bi fibule podvrste 2D.4, koje se udaqavaju od navedenih modela i koje nismo mogli bli`e da odredimo na osnovu sumarnih crte`a. One svakako ukazuju na popularnost ovog modela koji se proizvodio na {irem prostoru isto~ne Evrope – Ukrajine (sl. 5; karta 2). Jedan od daqih pravaca u razvoju vrste Pergamon jeste dodatna stilizacija tela – noge gde pti~je glave prerastaju u patrqke, {to je odlika podvrste 2C koja predstavqa upro{}ene modele podtipa 2D.3. Primerke podvrste 2C nalazimo u Mazuriji, na prostoru Transilvanije i, u mawem broju, na Dowem Dunavu (sl. 4/4, 8 i 7/8; karta 2). 141 Podvrsta 2B predstavqa jo{ jedan model u pravcu udaqavawa od prvobitnog modela – svo|ewem tela – noge na trougaonu osnovu u koju su ukomponovane predstave para pti~jih glava i jedva prepoznatqiv prikaz „lire” (sl. 4/6, 10 i 7/9; karta 3). Podvrsta 2F predstavqa drugi tip stilizacije – sa oblikom tela – noge u vidu „{tita” (sl. 4/9 i 7/10; karta 3). Oba podtipa imaju za uzor fibule podvrste 2D.1, posebno varijante sa nepoznatog nalazi{ta iz Vini~ke oblasti (Ukrajina). Na kraju navedimo i podvrstu 2E koja se – sa svojim telom – nogom sa dve pti~je glave i dowim delom u obliku romba kao i produ`enim zavr{etkom – znatno udaqava od osnovnog modela, na {ta ukazuje i wena distribucija s ve}im procentom nalaza u Ukrajini i Rusiji nego u oblasti Mazurije (sl. 4/12 i 7/11; karta 3). Re~ je svakako o posebnoj podvrsti, koja bi mogla da pripada i nekoj drugoj grupi „slovenskih” fibula. Analiza „slovenskih” fibula iz grupe I C ukazala je na potrebu jasnijeg diferencirawa i klasifikacije, koja ukqu~uje, pored tipolo{kog odre|ewa, analizu obrade i na~ina izvo|ewa dekora kao i veli~inu (sl. 7; grafikon 1). Izdvojene vrste i, posebno, podvrste omogu}ile su nam da predlo`imo razvoj grupe I C, kao i da za ve}inu odredimo teritoriju distribucije i proizvodwe, na {ta su delom ukazali i prethodni istra`iva~i (karte 1–3). Wihova distribucija bila je najve}im delom vezana za mati~ne oblasti i populacije koje su ih naseqavale, {to je u suprotnosti s mi{qewem F. Kurte da se ove fibule ne mogu vezati za odre|ene teritorije. Analiza distribucije izdvojenih vrsta i podvrsta je pokazala da ne mo`emo govoriti, kako je to posebno isticao pomenuti autor, o bliskim vezama izme|u Mazurije i oblasti Doweg Dunava. Etni~ko opredeqewe ovih fibula ostavqeno je po strani, budu}i da su ih nosile brojne zajednice, ukqu~uju}i i Slovene, koje su naseqavale {iroke oblasti isto~ne Evrope – od Ma|arske do Rusije i od Baltika do Severne Gr~ke, kao i Male Azije i Italije. Ovo slo`eno pitawe trebalo bi svakako sagledati u kontekstu ne samo ostalih „slovenskih” fibula i drugih nalaza ve} i retkih sa~uvanih izvora. CIP – Katalogizacija u publikaciji Narodna biblioteka Srbije, Beograd 902/904(497.11)"04/14"(082) 902/904(4)"04/14"(082) 902.3(082) 012 Popovi} M. SVET sredwovekovnih utvr|ewa, gradova i manastira : oma` Marku Popovi}u = The Medieval World of Fortresses, Towns and Monasteries : homage to Marko Popovi} / urednici Vujadin Ivani{evi}, Vesna Biki}, Ivan Bugarski. – Beograd : Arheolo{ki institut : Omladinsko pozori{te Dadov = Belgrade : Institute of Archaeology : Youth theatre Dadov, 2021 (Beograd : Birograf). – 359 str. : ilustr. ; 28 cm. – (Posebna izdawa / Arheolo{ki institut ; br. 74) Radovi na srp. i engl. jeziku. – Tekst }ir. i lat. – Slika M. Popovi}a. – Tira` 500. – Str. 10–13: Oma` Marku Popovi}u / Urednici. – Napomene i biliografske reference uz radove. – Rezimei na vi{e jezika. ISBN 978-86-6439-057-6 (AI) 1. Ivani{evi}, Vujadin, 1958– [urednik] 2. Biki}, Vesna, 1963– [urednik] 3. Bugarski, Ivan, 1975– [urednik] a) Popovi}, Marko (1944–2020) – Biobibliografije b) Arheolo{ka nalazi{ta – Srbija – Sredwi vek – Zbornici v) Arheolo{ki nalazi – Srbija – Sredwi vek – Zbornici g) Arheolo{ka nalazi{ta – Evropa – Sredwi vek – Zbornici d) Arheolo{ki nalazi – Evropa – Sredwi vek – Zbornici |) Arheolo{ka istra`ivawa – Zbornici COBISS.SR-ID 30560009