ATTILA’S EUROPE? STRUCTURAL TRANSFORMATION AND STRATEGIES OF SUCCESS IN THE EUROPEAN HUN PERIOD mnm_attila_boríto_47g_220x280+5.indd 1 2021. 08. 12. 16:11 ATTILA’S EUROPE? STRUCTURAL TRANSFORMATION AND STRATEGIES OF SUCCESS IN THE EUROPEAN HUN PERIOD Extended, annotated proceedings of the international conference organised by the Hungarian National Museum and the Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, June 6–8, 2019 Edited by Zsófia Rácz and Gergely Szenthe Budapest 2021 Edited by Zsófia Rácz and Gergely Szenthe English and German texts revised by Attila Király, Ágnes Merényi, László Oláh, Magdalena Seleanu and Péter Somogyi © 2021 Hungarian National Museum, Eötvös Loránd University and the authors All rights reserved. You are free to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format as long as you quote the source. You may not adapt it, remix, transform or build upon the material. This licence does not give you permission to use photographic and other images (where permission has been granted to us to use). Publisher Benedek Varga, director general of the Hungarian National Museum Dávid Bartus, dean of the Faculty of Humanities, Eötvös Loránd University Cover: Gold bowl, Șimleu Silvaniei hoard, photo: Ádám Vágó; Title pages: Chapter 1: Onyx brooch, Șimleu Silvaniei hoard, photo: Ádám Vágó; Chapter 2: Jug, Bátaszék, photo: Judit Kardos; Chapter 3: Artificially deformed skull, Pusztataskony-Ledence, Site 2, photo: Tamás Szeniczey; Chapter 4: Cup, Szeged-Nagyszéksós, photo: Ádám Vágó. 1–2, 4: Hungarian National Museum, Budapest; 3: Hungarian Natural History Museum, Budapest. The publication of this volume was supported by the Ministry of Innovation and Technology of Hungary from the National Research, Development and Innovation Fund, financed under the ELTE TKP2020-IKA-05 funding scheme. Cover design and layout concept: Anna Farkas Layout: Gábor Váczi Technical editor: Gábor Váczi Printed and bound by Dürer Nyomda Ltd. Managing director: István Aggod ISBN 978-615-5978-39-5 CONTENTS Benedek Varga Lectori Salutem 9 László Borhy Foreword 11 Zsófia Rácz – Gergely Szenthe Structural transformation and strategies of success in the European Hun period: Introductory remarks 15 ENCOUNTER OF CIVILIZATIONS Radu Harhoiu Die Hunnenzeit im unteren Donaubecken 21 Andreas Rau – Claus von Carnap-Bornheim Scandinavia and the Eurasian nomads: Comments on evidence and interpretations 77 Natalia P. Matveeva – Alexandr S. Zelenkov The impact of nomadic culture on the population of Western Siberia in the era of the Huns and ancient Turks 95 Judyta Rodzińska-Nowak The “princely” burial from Jakuszowice (western Lesser Poland) and its importance for the interpretation of the ethnic situation and political circumstances between the Odra and Vistula rivers during the period of Hunnic domination 113 Anton A. Strokov Two-chamber vaults of the Cimmerian Bosporus in the Migration period 131 Ágnes B. Tóth Authentic or fake? Do they belong to the “Caucasian-type” brooches? Copper alloy brooches in the collection of the University of Debrecen 159 REGIONAL TRAJECTORIES Tivadar Vida The Huns and the late antique settlement structure in Pannonia 173 Tina Milavec Crises and new beginnings: Collapse, adaptation and strategies of success along the road to Italy 201 Murtazali S. Gadzhiev The Maskut Kingdom and the Hun Empire: Textual sources and archaeological data 213 Dmitry S. Korobov The system of habitation of the North Caucasian Alans in the Hunnic era 223 Ivan Bugarski Consequences of Hunnic raids and the newly-established border: An archaeological panorama of the Central Balkans (ca. 450–500) 243 Balázs Wieszner – Emese Gyöngyvér Nagy A new sacrificial deposit of the Hun period from Debrecen 259 PEOPLE’S LIVES Bernadett Ny. Kovacsóczy – Zsófia Rácz – Viktória Mozgai – Antónia Marcsik – Bernadett Bajnóczi Archaeological and natural scientific studies on the Hun-period grave from Kecskemét-Mindszenti-dűlő 305 Alpár Dobos – Szilárd Sándor Gál – Imola Kelemen – Endre Neparáczki 5th -century burials from Sângeorgiu de Mureș-Kerek-domb (Mureș County, Romania) 327 Zsófia Masek Settlement research of the 5th century in the core of the Hunnic Empire: A chronological and stylistic approach 361 Nataša Miladinović-Radmilović A contribution to the study of archery on the basis of activity-induced stress markers on the skeleton 389 Tamás Szeniczey – Antónia Marcsik – Zsófia Rácz – Tamás Hajdu A survey of the 5th -century population in Hungary based on the published physical anthropological data 417 ATTILA’S EUROPE Eszter Istvánovits – Valéria Kulcsár The “argumentum ex silentio”: A possible new approach in the research of the Hun period 435 Zsolt Mráv – Viktória Mozgai – Annamária Bárány Fragments of silver-gilt saddle plates and horse bones buried in a Late Roman ditch at Göd (Pest County, Hungary). Contributions to the funerary sacrifice deposits and “horse skin” rituals of the Hun period 449 Attila P. Kiss Which came first, the chicken or the egg? The ethnic interpretations of the hoards of Șimleu Silvaniei / Szilágysomlyó: A case study in mixed argumentation 477 Zsuzsanna Hajnal – János Gábor Ódor A Hun-period gold assemblage from Diósjenő-Magashegy. Preliminary report 501 Vujadin Ivanišević The circulation of Roman solidi in the 5th century in Moesia Prima and the Barbaricum 519 Péter Somogyi Beiträge zu den spätrömisch-frühbyzantinischen Fundmünzen des 5. Jahrhunderts im Karpatenbecken 537 Gergely Szenthe Social power, identity and the ritual deposits in “Attila‘s Europe“ 563 477 WHICH CAME FIRST, THE CHICKEN OR THE EGG? THE ETHNIC INTERPRETATIONS OF THE HOARDS OF ȘIMLEU SILVANIEI / SZILÁGYSOMLYÓ: A CASE STUDY IN MIXED ARGUMENTATION Attila P. Kiss Institute of Archaeology, Pázmány Péter Catholic University, Budapest lordkisss@gmail.com In memory of Professor Ferenc Makk ABSTRACT: The archaeological concepts on the location of the Gepids in the 4th –5th centuries AD greatly influenced the ethnic interpretation of the hoards of Șimleu Silvaniei / Szilágysomlyó. Earlier research, after the works of István Bóna, placed the territory of the Gepids in the Upper Tisza Region in this period, including the northwestern part of present-day Romania due to the ethnic interpretation of the hoards. A highly diverse culture flourished in the Upper Tisza region in the 4th –5th centuries (Sarmatian, Przseworks, Chernyahov and Hun-period cultures), thus, the separation of particular ethnic groups is impossible, even relying on the most recent methodologies. By taking a closer look at the earlier preconceptions about the territories of various ethnic groups, the connection of the famous Szilágysomlyó hoards to the Gepids also seems to be questionable so far. Based on the value and quality of the objects (insignia), it is impossible, that such an aspiring aristocratic group as the Gepids could own them. This may be reinforced also by the fact that the Gepids did not operate along the borders of the Roman Empire before the Hun period.1 KEYWORDS: Early Gepidic archaeological culture, Șimleu Silvaniei / Szilágysomlyó, ritual deposits, hoards from the Hun period, Ártánd group 1 The research project has been realized within the project framework entitled: Archaeology Research on the Contacts between Hungary and the East (Our Eastern Heritage, PPCU History and Archaeology Interdisciplinary Research Team; TUDFO/51757-1/2019-2021/ITM), with the support of Thematic Excellence Program, National Research, Development and Innovation Office. I would like to thank Lóránt Vass (PPCU Institute of Archaeology) for proofreading the English text of the study. 478 ATTILA P. KISS INTRODUCTION Among the most famous assemblages of the early Migration period, the hoards (I–II) found in the boundaries of today Șimleu Silvaniei / Szilágysomlyó are truly spectacular, causing a lot of headaches for the research. According to the prevailing view, mainly represented by Hungarian archaeologists, the objects of the two hoards once had enriched Gepidic kings, but for some reason, the valuables were hidden by their former owners during the period of rapid change in the 5th century (the Hun period).2 For the time being, there is no consensus in the literature on the cause of their deposition and the identity of the former owners. However, to examine this kind of ethnic interpretation in more detail, it is also worth looking in detail at the arguments based on which the individual researchers associated the treasure find with the Gepids. To answer this, it is worth saying in brief about the two hoards and their age. 2 The archaeological and historical literature today is dominated by the Gepidic theory, which is linked to István Bóna and Attila Kiss. See: Bóna 1986a, 131–134; Kiss 1999c, 163–167. 3 Bernhard-Walcher 1999, 17–22. The catalouge of the finds see: BarBarenschmucK, K atalog, 178–197. 4 Kiss 1999a, 27–28. The catalouge of the finds see: BarBarenschmucK, K atalog, 198–211. 5 Kiss 1999a, 28. 6 PulszKy 1889. 7 PulszKy 1889, 233. 8 caPelle 1994, 79–82; starK 1999a, 149–152. Several medals, besides the framing style, may be barbaric imitations: schmauder 2002, 165–169. The possibility of dating the hoard I to around AD 400 was discussed by Radu Harhoiu (harhoiu 1998, 69). 9 Fettich 1932, 58. 10 Fettich 1932. 11 BierBrauer 1980, 136–137. Based on Bierbrauer’s analyses on brooches, he accepted this dating: Bóna 1986a, 131–134; Kiss 1999c, 163–164; starK 1999a, 149; schmauder 2002, 40–43. Although the bowls in the hoard II can probably be dated to the classical Hun period, they cannot be dated more precisely due to the few analogies: Kiss 1999b, 161. 12 harhoiu 1998, 93–97. Harhoiu divided the brooches of Hoard II into 6 consecutive formal-chronological groups based on wellknown parallels. The youngest of these was defined, due to the pieces most similar in appearance and size as the later group of the later so-called silver plate brooches. The first hoard of Szilágysomlyó was discovered in 1797 as a fortunate finding by two Romanian shepherd boys. This included: 17 medallions with portraits of Roman emperors which were converted into pendants, a gold chain decorated with the miniature tools, a disc-shaped pendant, a bracelet fragment, 11 gold spherical plate rings, 13 gold plate rings, a snake-headed ring and a gold mount decorated with a human figure (Fig. 1).3 The second hoard of Szilágysomlyó was unearthed accidentally by two day labourers while they were planting potatoes in 1889. The finds included 9 pairs of polychrome brooches, an (“emperor”) brooch decorated with an onyx gem, a silver oath-ring and three gold bowls, as well as several parts belonging to the brooches (Figs 2–4). 4 Of course, the retrieved assemblage is not complete: the Hungarian National Museum and the Transylvanian National Museum presumably bought jewellery found in Szilágysomlyó, even a long time after the discovery of the hoards.5 From the time of their discovery on, the hoards were dated by the medallions they contained, as was customary in archaeology.6 Ferenc Pulszky, who published the second hoard almost immediately after its discovery, first dated the two treasures to the first half of the 5th century, while in a later study he only considered – taking into account the post quem dating of the medals – the end of the reign of Emperor Valens.7 On the other hand, the gold chain and the medallions of the first Szilágysomlyó hoard, some of which are presumably barbaric imitations, display heavy use-wear on their surfaces, which could also date them to the first third of the 5th century.8 After Pulszky, an analysis of Hoard II was carried out by Nándor Fettich independently of Hoard I.9 He did not take a clear position on the question of exact dating, as he placed the age of manufacturing and hiding the objects in the decades following the last quarter of the 4th century. He divided the examined brooches into two groups which also constituted a relative chronological order.10 Recently, considering the formal features and the manufacturing techniques of the brooches, the 2nd hoard of Szilágysomlyó was dated by a significant part of the research community to the middle third of the 5th century.11 Radu Harhoiu dated – in his monograph about the early Migration period in Romania – the youngest objects of Hoard II to the transitional period D2 / D3, to the middle of the 5th century, based on the time of their production.12 Robert Stark Which came first, the chicken or the egg? The ethnic interpretations of the hoards… 479 believes that the medallions of Valens can be considered a barbaric imitation, and the second group of brooches in Hoard II also shows certain temporal coincidence based on the use of the cast-and-carved technique.13 In any case, it seems certain that the oldest pieces of the assemblages are the medals with the emperors’ portrait, while the youngest are those defined by Fettich as the second group of brooches. 3 cm 1 2 3 5 4 6 7 8 Fig. 1 The artefacts of Hoard I. 1. The gold chain decorated with the miniature crafting tools; 2, 4: Rings; 3: The snakeheaded ring; 5: The bracelet fragment; 6: The gold mount with a human figure; 7: Roman medallions; 8: Barbaric imitation of the Roman medallion (1–6: HARHOIU 1998, Taf. XCVIII/7–8: BARBARENSCHMUCK , K ATALOG; K AT. 4, 12). The connection between the two hoards has been treated as evidence in the historical-archaeological literature since the publication of Pulszky’s work.14 Products of similarly good design and high quality, as well as the place of provenance (Șimleu Silvaniei / Szilágysomlyó, Magura hill), can also support this possibility. Most recently, Radu Harhoiu argued that the chimation on the medallion of Constantine I and Constantine II as well as on the lion and disc brooches pairs, the use of punched patterns on the vine leaf of the gold ornamental chain and the lion and onyx brooch all point 13 starK 1999a, 148–149. 14 Fettich 1932, 53; harhoiu 1998; harhoiu 2013, 114; PulszKy 1889. 480 ATTILA P. KISS 2 3 2 cm 1 4 Fig. 2 The first group of brooches in Hoard II (HORVÁTH 2018, Abb. 1) 5 6 7 to the activity of a single workshop.15 Eszter Horváth, who recently performed the microscopic examination of the brooches, successfully showed that, in many cases, several craftsmen at different levels of expertise worked on the artefacts. She considers, based on the composition of the backing paste under the inlays and the similar craft tradition, that the brooches of the second hoard may have been the products of the same workshop or same workshop area.16 Although it should be noted that the only connecting point between the gold brooches and the large silver plate brooches with a gold sheet and polychrome inlays is the similar backing mass because there are significant differences in terms of raw material use and technical design between the two groups. However, it is also conceivable that the objects were made in a workshop that operated for a long time, where design and technology changed over time. In the opinion of Robert Stark, the workshop for making the objects in Șimleu Silvaniei / Szilágysomlyó could have been a kind of trend-setting centre, where representatives of various special crafts had been working together and whose products could then determine the fashion of ‘barbarians’.17 15 harhoiu 2013, 113–115. 16 horváth 2018. 17 starK 1999a. The two hoards imply a carefully placed and selected composition of objects, rather than one that was hastily collected during a political crisis or turmoil (escape). While Which came first, the chicken or the egg? The ethnic interpretations of the hoards… 3 1 481 4 2 2 cm 5 6 7 8 the first hoard contains jewellery to decorate the breasts and neck, the second has mainly brooches to decorate the shoulders.18 For the time being, an additional question may arise as to whether the two depots were buried in the ground simultaneously or at different occasions. There are no objects in the first hoard that can be dated later than the first third of the 5th century according to their time of production. However, mainly due to the objects that bear traces of long-term use, the possibility of the deposition roughly at the same time cannot be excluded. The treasure trove carries the ornamental and formal traditions of three different cultures. A significant portion of the medallions and the onyx brooch may have been the products of a Roman workshop (except the barbaric imitations and framing), while the gold breast chain and polychrome brooches indicate a late antique-East Germanic workshop, whereas the gold bowls imply Hun-period craftsmen and cultural traditions.19 Of the brooches, the onyx specimen can certainly be considered a product of a Roman workshop that worked perhaps for the barbarian elite, but the identification of the workshop of the other brooches has not yet been decided.20 Most recently, Robert Fig. 3 The second group of brooches in Hoard II (HORVÁTH 2018, Abb. 2) 18 harhoiu 2013, 118–120; Quast 2011, 125–126. Interestingly, the find could have belonged mainly to the representation of the female members of a barbarian royal court. This is not surprising, since in the Hun period, quality products were retrieved mainly from female graves. 19 Some of the medallions or their suspension handles may not be of Roman origin (barbarian imitation): schmauder 2007, 230–231. To the interpretation of the brooches: starK 1999a; the golden bowls: Kiss 1999b, 161; the golden chain: caPelle 1994, 11–13, 83–85. 20 Bóna considered them objects from the Hun period (Bóna 1991, 154–158). 482 ATTILA P. KISS 1 Fig. 4 Finds of Hoard II. 1: The silver oath-ring; 2–4: Three gold bowls (1: BARBARENSCHMUCK , K ATALOG , Kat. 71; 2–4: BARBARENSCHMUCK , K ATALOG , Kat. 72–74.) 21 Quast 2011, 132–136; starK 1999a, 148. 22 schmauder 2002, 165–169; schmauder 2007, 230–231. According to Michael Schmauder, the main reason for hiding the treasures may have been the appearance of the Hun power in the Carpathian Basin. However, in a careful manner, the German researcher does not associate the famous hoard with a specific ethnicity/tribe/people in his recent work. István Bóna (Bóna 1986a, 134) placed this violent change of dynasties around AD 425. In his opinion, this treasure was hidden from the Huns. 23 Kiss 1999c, 164–167. 2 3 4 Stark and Dieter Quast argued that brooches, although considered elements of the typical East Germanic women’s wear, barbarian goldsmiths were still unable to provide such high-quality artefacts to the owners. In their opinion, the high-quality jewellery, including the gold-plating techniques visible on their surfaces, could, in any case, have been the products of an antique Mediterranean workshop that considered the barbaric style and fashion and specialized in similar work.21 In light of these claims, a significant portion of the valuables gathered together was treated as quality goods from the Roman Empire, which in all likelihood was donated by imperial diplomacy to prominent barbaric dynasties. For the time being, two viewpoints have emerged in the research about the interpretation of the hoard’s burial: 1. Secret hoarding (due to the escape of former owner or dynasty-change) 2. The theory of ritual deposition. In connection with the hoarding scenario, which is considered to be more popular, several colourful historical hypotheses have been born, which cannot be substantiated by textual evidence. The most common of these is the panic caused by the appearance of the Huns and the dynasty change among the Gepids.22 According to Attila Kiss, the hoard was hidden in the Hun period by their owners belonging to the former Gepidic ruling dynasty, from whom the power was finally seized by another Gepidic-origin chief, Ardarich, wellknown from the written sources as Attila’s counsellor.23 Instead of the hoarding „in panic“, the possibility has recently arisen that the assemblage was buried for purely Which came first, the chicken or the egg? The ethnic interpretations of the hoards… ritual purposes. In the opinion of Dieter Quast and Radu Harhoiu, this would not be unique among the Germanic peoples in the Late Antiquity, as gifts to the gods in the form of deposits were also known in Scandinavian and East European contexts.24 The difficult, mountainous location – in the shadow of the Magura hill – suggests a similar sacred offering in this case as well. Erwin Gáll also presumed a ritual sacrifice in the case of a more modest hoard buried on a hill at Valea Strâmbă / Tekerőpatak. The total weight of the deposited finds was only 122.5 g, a value that renders the hoarding explanation highly unlikely. This is why Gáll explains this deposition as a ritual offering to the gods before battles, a popular custom among the Germans.25 Ritual purposes are considered also in the case of the Șimleu Silvaniei / Szilágysomlyó hoards; however, because the artefacts were not retrieved in the frames of a professional archaeological excavation, this explanation cannot be stated with absolute certainty either.26 Following the publication of the two hoards, the main research objective became the determination of the former owners’ identity and the reason for their burial. The earliest opinions, mainly based on the age of the medals, linked the deposition of the finds to the crisis of the 4th century and the early appearance of the Huns in the Carpathian Basin and identified the western Gothic (Tervingi) groups as the owners of the hoard.27 These claims were disproved by a detailed examination of the objects and a more careful determination of the chronology. Considering the possibilities of the 5th -century dating, historians for the most part, tried to link the finds to the East Goths (Ostrogothi), who also had commanded great political and military power in the Hun period. Herwig Wolfram and Walter Pohl based their work on the assumption that groups of the Ostrogoths, led by the Amal dynasty, were likely to have been lived close to the nomadic centre (ordu) in the Hun period, as after 455 they could migrate more easily from here to their new Pannonian homeland.28 However, it should be noted, that the opinion of the two historians also significantly reflects the contemporary views of the archaeologist Kurt Horedt about the hoard of Șimleu Silvaniei / Szilágysomlyó and the graves of Apahida.29 On the part of the Hungarian and Romanian research, when the ethnicity of the former owners of the hoard was to be determined, the “Gepidic theory” came up as an option. The possibility of this was first raised by Constantine Diculescu and, after him, Nándor Fettich during the evaluation of the second hoard.30 The development of the Gepidic theory among Hungarian archaeologists was presumably greatly influenced by Fettich’s work. These views were first formulated by István Bóna, and after him – with some nuances – by Attila Kiss.31 The “Gepidic theory” of Hungarian archaeologists was fundamentally influenced by the historical concept of István Bóna concerning the appearance and establishment of Gepids in the Carpathian Basin. Bóna considered the medallions of Roman emperors from Hoard I – among others – to be a perfect support for his theory related to the early Gepidic presence (3rd –4th centuries), based on the combination of written and archaeological sources (Fig. 5). In his view, these may have been perfect imprints of a Roman–Gepidic alliance against the Gothic people in the second half of the 3rd century. In the opinion of Bóna, the Szilágysomlyó medallions’ time of minting can be linked in each case to a more serious anti-Gothic conflict of 483 24 harhoiu 1998, 62–63; harhoiu 2013, 118–120; Quast 2011, 125– 126. Radu Harhoiu goes a little further in this case and fabricates a historical narrative. In his view, the hoard was offered to the gods by the Gepidic royal/ruling dynasty who won the battle of Nedao. In his opinion, the members of the Gepidic ruling family associated with Ardarich – a member of which could be buried in Grave II of Apahida – extended their rule after the battle to the whole area of Transylvania (harhoiu 2013, 119–120). 25 gáll 2005, 151; gáll et al. 2018. 26 At the same time, one should not forget that the 5th century AD was also a period of hiding rich hoards and ritual deposits in the Barbaricum (szenthe et al. 2019). 27 alFöldi 1933, 11; lindQuist 1945, 48. In Hungarian research, Ádám Szabó (szaBó 2020, 18–22) has recently argued for the Western Gothic (Tervingi) origin of the finds. However, it is important to note that Western Gothic identification of the former owners is difficult to prove due to the dating of the second hoard to the middle of the 5th century. 28 Pohl 1980, 249–250; WolFram 1990, 255–258. 29 horedt–Protase 1972, 216–220. 30 Based on data from written sources (Jordanes), Diculescu believed that the Gepidic groups could live in the territory of Northwestern Romania during the Late Roman period. Some of these groups, along with the Vandals, fled west in 406. diculescu 1922, 49–51. According to Diculescu, the famous hoard had been hidden by its former Gepidic owner before fleeing. Nándor Fettich’s interpretation about the former owners of the hoard was greatly influenced by Diculescus’ historical monography about the Gepids. Fettich 1932. 31 Bóna 1971, 274–276; Bóna 1986a, 131–134; Bóna 1991, 155–158; Kiss 1991; Kiss 1999c, 163–167. 484 ATTILA P. KISS Fig. 5 The barbarian politicalethnic groups of the Carpathian Basin in the Late Roman period (3rd–5th centuries), according to the opinion of István Bóna and Attila Kiss (KISS 1999c, Abb. 1) the Empire, where the Roman military assistance was provided by Gepids, which is, however, not mentioned by the written sources.32 In addition to the emperors’ medals, the Hungarian scholarship also included the emperors’ brooch in this line of reasoning. 32 Bóna 1986a, 132–133. 33 schmidt 1941, 529; WensKus 1961, 435, 469. 34 „Hi ergo Gepidae tacti invidia, dum Spesis provincia commanerent in insulam Visclae amnis vadibus circumactam, quam patrio sermone dicebant Gepedoios. Nunc eam, ut fertur, insulam gens Vividaria incolit ipsis ad meliores terras meantibus (Jord. get., 96).” For the archaeological remains: BierBrauer 1994, 96–98; godłoWsKi 1986, 147; WolagieWicz 1986. 35 „Denique Scytharum diversi populi, Peuci, Grutungi Austrogoti, Tervingi, Visi, Gipedes, Celtae etiam et Eruli, praedae cupiditate in Romanum solum inruperunt atque illic pleraque vasatarunt… (hist. aug.: claudianus, 6, 1–4).” „Sed cum ex aliis gentibus plerosque pariter transtullisset, id est ex Gepidis, Grauthungis et Vandulis, illi omnes fidem fregerunt et occupato bellis tyrannicis Probo per totum paene orbem pedibus et navigando vagati sunt nec parum molestiae Romanae gloriae intulerunt (hist. aug., ProBus, 18, 1–3).” KuliKoWsKi 2007, 20–21. 36 FieBiger–schmidt 1917, 136. 37 Jord. get. 94–100; schmauder 2002, 224–228; WolFram 1990, 34–36, 67–69. GEPIDIC “PREHISTORY” AND THEIR PRESENCE IN THE CARPATHIAN BASIN With the given aptitude of the written sources, one can hardly assign the moment of the Gepidic ethnogenesis. The first certain mentions date to the middle of the 3rd century, and this can be the initial moment, henceforth one can treat them as an independent ethnic group along with a political organization.33 Previous scholarly endeavours were dating their appearance in the Carpathian Basin to the second half of the 3rd century. Even, with a deficiency in the number of sources, one can establish that the main territory of the Gepids spread around the river Vistula’s northern ending, or slightly to the south.34 Only one written account (the biographies of the Historia Augusta) mentioned the Gepids among those tribes who attacked the Roman provinces near the river Danube, though the reliability of the mentioned source is poor (late editing, interpolations).35 Still, the possibility cannot be excluded that small groups had participated in these raids, which is demonstrated in several inscriptions from Rome and Ostia.36 One may admit, that not even in the 4th century was the Carpathian Basin inhabited by Gepidic communities, since none of the great numbers of written accounts noted their presence, neither at the attacks against the Roman Empire nor at the fights inside the Barbaricum. Attempts to locate the Gepidic heartland based upon contemporary geographical and cartographical sources seem inefficient as long as they provide us with data applicable for a limited geographical range. The joint attack with the Vandals against the western Gothic residents does not necessarily mean that the fights were located in Dacia since it can be assumed that the core of the Gothic residence was also outside of the Carpathian Basin.37 Which came first, the chicken or the egg? The ethnic interpretations of the hoards… 485 Based on the considerations above, the theory of the early migration of the Gepids to the Carpathian Basin (3rd –4th centuries) in historical and archaeological literature is linked to the works of István Bóna. However, it should be noted that his work is not without any precedent, as the basic concept of ethnic identification already appeared in the works of Párducz.38 Bóna – as during his entire career – liked to mix different types of sources, and he bridged the missing connection points with unique ideas. In the present case, he tried to project data from written sources onto archaeological material, the interpretation of which often poses problems on their own. For Bóna, the story of Fastida with its uncertain chronological interpretation, which he compared with the data from Panegyricus of Mamertinus, became one of the main sources of early Gepidic presence in the Carpathian Basin. Fig. 6 A hypothetical reconstruction of the Gepidic migration based on the combined data of the written sources and the archaeological material (after HARHOIU 2013, Abb. 1, graphic: G. Szenthe) 38 Párducz 1972, 128–129; Párducz– KoreK 1948, 291–311. 486 ATTILA P. KISS In the case of cemeteries with “Germanic”, but primarily non-Przeworsk-culture characteristics, he saw the early settlement of the Gepids, following written sources of his choice. In the absence of written sources, Bóna also created additional narratives: based on the archaeological material, i.e., the dates of the beginning and the end of settlement at certain sites, he managed to draw a picture of migration from north to south into the Carpathian Basin, again, without reference in the written sources (Fig. 6).39 At the same time, it is important to note that the refutation of Bóna’s theory arose on the part of the researchers of the Sarmatian period (e.g., due to the research of the cemetery of Tiszadob) in the 1990s. 40 Although ethnic interpretation also appears in these writings, the technical terms/phrases of the Iranian and Germanic populations are used in the scientific literature instead of denoting a specific ethnicity. In recent research, the former Germanic orientation in the historiography of the region has been slowly replaced by the Sarmatian-Iranian concept. The archaeological sites included in Bóna’s theory can be dated to a later period than the Fastida story in Jordanes’ work. Recent research classifies these cemeteries into the so-called Tiszadob group, or the so-called Ártánd group (Fig. 7). However, the two groups have different chronologies. The sites of the Tiszadob group were located in the line of the Csörsz-ditch / Devil’s Dike and were dated to the period between the last third of the 4th century and the first third of the 5th century. Currently, it seems that these changes affected not merely the narrow strip of the Csörsz-ditch but the Barbaricum of the Carpathian Basin as a whole. In the present case, there is a kind of uniformisation, the first signs of which can be felt even on the eve of the Hun period 39 Bóna 1986b, 66–69. 40 istvánovits 1993, 100–103; istvánovits 2000, 203; istvánovits–Kulcsár 1999, 89–93. 41 Pinar–JiříK 2019. 42 teJral 2000, 6–12. 43 gindele 2011, 217–218. 44 stanciu 2008, 155–158. The consensus of the Sarmatian research community in Hungary on cultural stability and continuity in eastern Hungary, see: maseK 2018; soós 2019; sósKuti–Wilhelm 2005, 103–105; vaday 1984; vaday 1985; vaday 1989, 209; vörös 1983. 45 Based on the surviving burial customs (e.g., kurgans surrounded by ditches), Sarmatian researchers in Hungary agree that the newcomers settled in local Sarmatian territory. in the region and the whole area of Barbaricum. At the turn of the 4th and 5th centuries, significant changes took place in the various archaeological cultures of Barbaricum. 41 For instance, Jaroslav Tejral interpreted this period as a post- or a late Chernyahov culture era, as in many cases the former material culture continued to exist, but it was also spotted with completely foreign elements (burials with weapons, north-south, and west-east orientation, etc.). 42 Not only new objects but also new burial customs appeared in each local culture, although their frequency varied greatly from one micro-region to another. Cultural interactions between the autochthon population and newcomers could have been established almost immediately. This scenario is also perfectly illustrated by the current settlement research in northwestern Romania, where the elements of the Sarmatian culture, the Przeworsk culture and the Chernyahov culture were present simultaneously, side by side, mixed in this period. 43 In the valley of the upper reaches of the river Someșul / Szamos, the local Przeworsk culture had been influenced by several Chernyahov and post-Chernyahov culture elements. Here, mainly small isolated homogeneous cemeteries are known in which Chernyahov elements are mixed with Przeworsk ones. In the opinion of Ioan Stanciu, there was a mass migration of people at this time in the shadow of the Hun advance. The archaeological record indicates a highly integrated cultural picture in the Upper and Middle Tisza regions and northwestern Romania. 44 This diverse, heterogeneous material seems almost impossible to be separated according to groups mentioned by written sources (East Germans, Alans, Vandals, Gepids). 45 Which came first, the chicken or the egg? The ethnic interpretations of the hoards… 487 Fig. 7 Cemeteries in the Hungarian Great Plain during the period of the late 4th–early 5th centuries. Tiszadob-type cemeteries (marked with a square): 1. Mezőszemere-Kismari-fenék, 2. Sándorfalva-Eperjes, 3. Szihalom-Budaszög, 4. Szihalom-Pamlényi-tábla, 5. Tápé-Malajdok, 6. TiszadobSziget, 7. Tiszakarád-Inasa, 8. Tiszavalk-Kenderföldek. Ártánd-type cemeteries (marked with a circle): 1–2. Ártánd-Nagy- and Kisfarkasdomb, 3. Kisvárda-Darusziget, 4. Záhony (ISTVÁNOVITS 2000, Abb. 1). The written sources also offer an obscure account from an ethnic point of view. In addition to the well-known Vandal-Alan-Suebian retreat, we have information from the beginning of the 5th century about a presumably Gothic leader, Radagasius, who invaded Italy with a large army of mixed Gothic and Sarmatian-Alanic warriors, arriving from the Carpathian Basin. Regarding the origin of Radagaisus, contemporary sources are quite vague, but it is now accepted in historical studies that he was one of the leaders of the Gothic groups who lived in the East and fled from the Huns. 46 His army may have displayed the same mixed picture as the archaeological finds from the turn of the 4th and 5th centuries described above. According to Michel Kazanski, some of the archaeological sites that disappeared at the end of the 4th and the beginning of the 5th century can be attributed to this ethnically heterogeneous group and its migration. 47 The cemetery material of the Tiszadob group displays several cultural traditions, thus the isolation of the archaeological signal of the early Gepids in it seems impossible. Unfortunately, the classic “retrospective method” often used in the archaeological study of former peoples to determine their previous homeland (e.g. Hungarian prehistory) cannot help us in this case either. For the time being, we do not have information about a definite cultural unit from the Carpathian Basin, which can be traced back by 46 K azansKi 2012, 294–296; WolFram 1990, 175–176, 268. 47 K azansKi 2012, 296. 488 ATTILA P. KISS archaeological means to the Vistula region, where the Gepids could have lived in this time. Presently, written sources cannot help us either to determine where the homeland of the Gepidic communities outside the Carpathian Basin may have been during the 3rd –4th centuries. It is conceivable that a segment of the population, perhaps smaller warrior groups, had already left – according to Jordanes’ information – the region of the Vistula during the 3rd century (i.e. Burgundic war, the case of Fastida). 48 However, in this case, the location and character of the Gepidic archaeological record cannot be established. One can recognize it in the Wielbark culture at the central region of the Bug, or in the Chernyahov culture of the neighbouring region (Fig. 6). In any case, several communities (not the whole group!) from the Upper Vistula probably had lived closer to the Carpathian Basin on the eve of the Hun period, otherwise, they could not have been active participants in the political and military events of the 5th century there. 49 The migration of Vandals and other ethnic groups in the early 5th century may have contributed significantly to the influx of East Germanic people to the Carpathian Basin. Concerning this historical period, hardly any archaeological or textual evidence is available about the Gepidic groups in the Carpathian Basin during the age of the Huns. However, possibly several Gepidic groups had lived near to the Huns in the early 5th century, which may have contributed to the following migration of the Gepids into the Carpathian Basin. Collaborating with the Huns, they have probably taken part 48 Kontny–natunieWicz-seKuła 2011, 133. 49 It should be noted that several groups of warriors may have presumably arrived in the Carpathian Basin from the north during this period, who also took part in the campaigns of the Huns. To their archaeological traces, see: Kontny–mączyńsKa 2015, 248; levada 2011; Quast 2019. 50 Jord. rom. 331; Jord. get. 199. Historical elaborations on the issue, see: Pohl 1980, 248–249; sticKler 2002, 96–98. 51 Jord. rom. 331; sidonius aPollinaris, vii, 319–325; Paulus diaconus t. Xiv/2; Jord. get. 217. To the participation of Germanic peoples in the campaigns of the Huns, see: Kiss 2011. 52 Kiss 2015, 62–64. 53 BierBrauer 2006, 194–196. in successful raids and therefore, a new warrior elite emerged, led by Ardaric who became the most prestigious and prominent leader of the Gepids.50 Written sources indicate that the Gepids took part in raids in 447, 451 and 452, but they could have been involved in previous military actions (before the age of Attila) as well, under the direction of nomadic leaders.51 One can consider them winners of the Hun era so far. Moreover, due to the successful battles, various new allied groups could have merged with, thus modified the Gepidic tradition.52 Another major development concerning this period is the fact that the Gepids reached the frontier regions of the Roman Empire, which proved to be profitable to them. Unfortunately, due to the insufficient sources and the limited range of archaeological interpretation, one cannot locate the East Germanic tribes inside the Carpathian Basin more precisely.53 The Hungarian scholarship – primarily at the suggestion of István Bóna – recognized the finds from the cemeteries at Ártánd as the archaeological traces of the Gepids in the Hun period. A total of four archaeological sites are known from the period of the 5th –6th centuries, out of which the Ártánd-Kisfarkasdomb and Ártánd-Nagyfarkasdomb (only partially published) came to the forefront of interest. The possibility of Gepidic identification was greatly facilitated by the fact that the site of the Șimleu Silvaniei / Szilágysomlyó find complex, which was then treated as a Gepidic treasure, is located only 100 km away. Only 120 graves have been known from the cemeteries of Ártánd, a site which has been treated as “suspicious of Gepids”, yet both their finds and burial customs were diverse. The burials with the west-east and north-east orientation differ from the Which came first, the chicken or the egg? The ethnic interpretations of the hoards… 3 5 cm 1 2 4 5 traditions of the local Sarmatian communities in terms of orientation, and their finds, although cultural traces of the earlier Sarmatian period can be discovered in the material of both cemeteries (burial rites and find types). However, graves of this type represent only a fraction of the burials in the Ártánd burial ground.54 Presumably, these are rather chronological markers than materialized imprints of actual ethnic traditions. Károly Mesterházy also draws attention in his publication to the fact that north-south-oriented graves can be considered one of the most common forms of grave orientations in the Hun period.55 Based on these considerations, it would be wrong to draw any conclusions about ethnicity (neither of an Iranian or Germanic character), since it should be valid, otherwise, even for the communities buried similarly in Transdanubia where graves with similar burial rite and grave goods were found in the same era. This statement also applies to the group of finds and customs associated with these burials, as they rather reflect the general style and traditions of the Hun period. Long double-edged swords with an oriental-type guard, Murga-type pottery placed next to the head, buckles on footwear, and other finds dated to the Hun period (cast-and-carved buckles, silver plate brooches) are known mainly from these burials. We know a whole series of warrior graves with similar parameters throughout the entire area of the Carpathian Basin from the period of the Hun Empire (Fig. 8/1–2).56 Presumably, the warrior elite of the Hun Empire, whose ethnicity cannot 489 Fig. 8 Finds from the cemeteries of Ártánd. 1: The Libenau-type shield boss from Grave 30 in Ártánd-Kisfarkasdomb; 2: The long, double-edged, flexed sword with an oriental-type crossguard from Grave 28 in Ártánd-Kisfarkasdomb; 3: A silver plate brooch from the cemetery of Ártánd-Kisfarkasdomb; 4: Záhony-type brooches from the cemetery of Ártánd-Nagyfarkasdomb; 5: The Wiesbaden-type brooches and a cast, chip-carved belt buckle from Grave 182 in Ártánd-Nagyfarkasdomb (1–2: TEJRAL 1999, Abb. 29; 3–4: ISTVÁNOVITS–KULCSÁR 1999, Fig. 14, Fig. 16; 5: MESTERHÁZY 1984, Abb. 5) 54 In Ártánd-Kisfarkasdomb 3 W-E, 2 N-S, and in Ártánd-Nagyfarkasdomb 17 W-E and 10 N-S oriented graves were excavated. The other burials followed the S-N orientation typical for the earlier Sarmatian period (istvánovits–Kulcsár 1999, 76–82). I would like to express my gratitude to Eszter Istvánovits for the accurate information related to the orientations of the burial places in Ártánd. 55 mesterházy 2009, 85–86. 56 In the opinion of Jaroslav Tejral (teJral 2007, 82–86), most of these burials can be dated to the D2/D3 period. 490 ATTILA P. KISS be determined due to the uniform material culture, may have been buried in these graves. Jaroslav Tejral classified these almost uniform burials – referring to Volker Bierbrauer – as parts of the so-called East Germanic “koine,” which provided one of the largest populations and cultural unity of nomadic rule, as well as the basis of its power.57 There are cemeteries loosely related to the archaeological sites of Ártánd, even in the vicinity of Csongrád, where, in addition to burial customs, the finds also show similar characteristics.58 Besides the uniform find horizon of the Hun period, a common feature of these necropolises is that they are also connected to the former Sarmatian material culture with many threads. However, it should be noted that the cemeteries around Csongrád, which were thoroughly plundered, do not contain any finds older than the middle third of the 5th century. 57 teJral 2002. 58 Unfortunately, a significant part of the data of graves and cemeteries around Csongrád is not fully known, but some customs (ritualy flexed swords), objects (5th century types of shields, Micia type of swords and spears), adornment and dress objects (silver plate brooches, mirrors, returned foot brooches, mirrors, polyhedric earrings) show many similarities with Ártánd cemeteries (istvánovits–Kulcsár 1999, 88; Párducz 1959; Párducz 1963). 59 Such was the belt buckle from the grave 71 of Ártánd-Nagyfarkasdomb and the grave 3 of Ártánd-Lencsésdomb (mesterházy 2005, Taf. 1, Taf. 3/1; mesterházy 2007, 91, Abb. 3/8). To their parallels from the graves of the row-grave cemeteries during the early Gepidic period, see: GyulaFövenyes (Bóna 2002a, Taf. 2/5); Grave 202 of Szentes-Berekhát (csallány 1961, Taf. LXXXIII/8); Grave 77 of Szolnok-Szanda (Bóna 2002b, Taf. 39, Taf. 77/1, 3). 60 About the cast-and-carved brooches of types Záhony and Wiesbaden and their date, see: istvánovits–Kulcsár 1999, 93; mesterházy 1984, 82; mesterházy 1989, 198–199; teJral 2002, 324–325. Fig. 9 Belt buckles from the cemeteries of Ártánd and the early row-grave cemeteries. 1: Grave 3 in Ártánd-Lencsésdomb (MESTERHÁZY 2005, Taf. 1, Taf. 3/1); 2: Grave 77 in Szolnok-Szanda (BÓNA 2002, Taf. 39, Taf. 77/1, 3); 3: Grave 71 in Ártánd-Nagyfarkasdomb (MESTERHÁZY 2009, Abb. 3/8); 4: Grave 82 in HódmezővásárhelyKishomok (BÓNA–NAGY 2002, Taf. 23, Taf. 82/1) 1 2 3 4 Overall, the material of the three cemeteries contained only a handful of characteristic finds, which can also be treated as a common trait of the later row-grave cemeteries. In addition to the ceramic products which have been related to the Gepidic-period material without any certainty, the parallels of the different belt buckles found in Ártánd are also retrieved from a few early burials in the row-grave cemeteries of the Tisza region (Fig. 9).59 Of the two cemeteries next to Ártánd-Nagyfarkasdomb – in terms of the Wiesbaden-and-Záhony-type cast-and-carved brooches and a cast-andcarved belt buckle – ended probably in the last third of the 5th century, while Kisfarkasdomb ceased in the middle of the century (Fig. 8/3, 5).60 Ártánd-Nagyfarkasdomb and Ártánd-Lencsésdomb (also based on the brooches) have continuously been used until the initiation of the row-grave cemeteries in the Gepidic kingdom era. Although connections between the cemeteries of Ártánd and the classic row-grave cemeteries can be detected in the case of a few artefacts, this relationship can still be grasped along a thin thread. Similar to the burial rites, it is still an elusive matter whether these objects were only contemporary or they constituted the material culture of a Which came first, the chicken or the egg? The ethnic interpretations of the hoards… 491 possible common, identical circle of users (i.e., ethnic significance). In any case, it is clear that, except for one or two small finds, the archaeological material of the two Ártánd cemeteries are much closer to the material culture of the earlier periods (late Sarmatian, and Hun periods). Similarities are rare between the finds of the earliest horizon of row-grave cemeteries and the final phase of Ártánd cemeteries. Although the Lencsésdomb and Nagyfarkasdomb archaeological sites are contemporary, it is still questionable how these graves and the buried population are related to the population of the other two Ártánd cemeteries. In any case, it is clear that in the case of Nagyfarkasdomb and Kisfarkasdomb, no significant correspondence can be detected to the early row-grave cemeteries horizon, nor can they be treated as a forerunner of the latter. In light of this, we are still unable to determine relying solely on archaeological methods the area where the Gepids began to organize their kingdom and developed a characteristic material culture much associated with the Merovingian civilization. Volker Bierbrauer questioned the connection between the cemeteries of Ártánd and Gepids in his study published in 2006. In his opinion, the material of the East Germanic people before the row-grave cemetery era could not be recognised in the Carpathian Basin. Moreover, in addition to the finds from Ártánd, he also refuted the connection of the large silver plate brooches to the Gepidic ethnic group, as he interpreted these finds as an interethnic characteristic of the 5th century.61 The archaeological record of the Tisza region and the Transylvanian row-grave cemeteries does not reflect a material culture related to a unified people, but rather suggests a new kingdom organized under unified leadership, in which the ethnic groups living here gradually merged, giving up their unique cultural features.62 Presumably, the process of the creation of a unified Gepidic-period find-horizon can be related in many respects to the later “uniformization” of the Middle and Late Avar periods, which symbolized a political power rather than the Avar ethnicity.63 WHO COULD HAVE OWNED THE TREASURE THEN? FERTILE UNCERTAINT Y INSTEAD OF A CONCLUSION Concerning the ethnic and historical interpretation of the Szilágysomlyó hoard, the presented theories illuminate the decisive influence of Hungarian archaeologists on research about the presence of the new East Germanic (Gepidic) settlers in present-day northwestern Romania (Sălaj / Szilágyság) and Transylvania during the 4th –5th centuries.64 In Hungarian and Romanian research, there is a consensus on this issue, as each party considers the Gepids to be the carriers of local material cultures in the period of the hoard’s deposition. These claims can be traced back to the claims of István Bóna in the 1970s and 1980s. However, if we examine Bóna’s concept about the early presence of Gepids in the Carpathian Basin, it becomes evident that such a clear-cut definition of the East Germanic homeland inside and outside the Carpathian Basin is not possible in the given period. It is also questionable whether the Gepids could have played such a significant role in the Roman system of alliances as 61 BierBrauer 2006. 62 teJral 2012, 125–127. Jaroslav Tejral believes that Gepids also merged several groups under their power at this time, thus a new ethnogenesis began in their communities. Ágnes B. Tóth (B. tóth 1996, 112; B. tóth 1999, 25) has a similar opinion about the establishment of Gepidic row-grave cemeteries. In her view, the Gepids were able to incorporate the Sarmatian and Hun-period peoples of the area in the new Gepidic ethnic traditions and material culture. On the cultural transition between the Hun and Gepidic period based on the female costume, see: rácz 2016. 63 vida 2016. 64 BărBulescu 2008; 119–121, 173– 176; harhoiu 2013, 112; Kiss 1999c, 164–167. In Romanian research, only Kurt Horedt showed some scepticism about the Gepidic identification. 492 ATTILA P. KISS it was attributed to them in the interpretation of the Șimleu Silvaniei / Szilágysomlyó hoards. Similarly rich and well-executed products were received almost exclusively by groups (Goths, Vandals) with permanent ties to the Roman Empire and greater political and military potential during the 4th century.65 The Gepids, as we have seen in this period, certainly did not belong to the ranks of these peoples yet. The role of the Gepids became appreciated in the Hun period, as our written sources point out. However, before the 440s, we have no information about their internal relations at all. The kind of richness reflected in the treasures of Șimleu Silvaniei / Szilágysomlyó during the last third of the 4th and the beginning of the 5th centuries, may not be attributed to the prominent role of the Gepidic monarchy/dynasty. Although the prestige objects given to the leaders of each tribe (lat. gens) may have been very important in the system of the Hun Empire, it is far from certain that a single dynasty would have been rewarded by nomadic rulers with prestige objects of this quality and rank (or insignia). Previous research about the exclusivity of the Gepidic theory has considered the donations of medals with Roman emperors’ portraits, starting in the 3rd century, as one of the proofs in favour. Artefacts similar to the Roman medals are known from several places in the Barbaricum from the Roman Imperial period, but mainly from regions inhabited by former East Germanic groups (Goths, Vandals, Jutes). In these hoards, the „coins” issued by the rulers of the Constantine and Valentinian dynasties form the bulk of these artefacts, which were usually functioned as medals on a necklace.66 Most of the other high-quality objects from the assemblages were gathered by their former owners for a long time, similarly to the finds of the hoard of Șimleu Silvaniei / Szilágysomlyó. In the light of these, there is no uniqueness in the case of Șimleu Silvaniei / Szilágysomlyó at all, especially if we consider that several medals with the same portraits of Roman emperors in Eastern and Northern Europe were found in deposits together with other high-quality sets of objects. If we accept the view that these medals were collected for generations by the ruling dynasty of an unknown Germanic people, the possibility of a change of ownership still stands.67 This possibility has been raised by Michael Schmauder earlier. He did not refuse that the series of coins and the other finds dated older in Hoard I could have been part of an even former treasury (e. g., in the property of Ermanarich, king of the Greuthungi Goths) that came to a new owner after the fall of the Gothic ruler. In the case of the emperor portrait medallions donated specifically for “anti-Gothic” purposes, one should also encounter the possibility of a reverse gift (e. g., a donation in the favour of peace with the Goths). The series of medals indicate that either peaceful or hostile, but surely intense contacts were established between the Romans and the Goths in this period.68 Thus, a few older finds from the first (medallions) and second deposits (onyx brooch) may have come into the possession of the final owner in other ways. However, scientific studies 65 schmauder 1999, 128–130; schmauder 2002, 55–75. 66 Bursche 2001, 87. 67 schmauder 2002, 165–169. 68 WolFram 1990, 67–83, 95–99. pointed out that the brooches of the second hoard may have been made in the same workshop, although certain specimens may have been manufactured by various craftsmen (the connection of the enamelled brooches with the other objects is in question), and presumably, there are similarities between the two hoards in terms of technical and stylistic traits. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? The ethnic interpretations of the hoards… 493 Finally, the identity of the former owners of the famous treasure remains uncertain. In any case, it can be stated that only leaders with established diplomatic relations with the Roman Empire could have had access to the products of such a high-quality Mediterranean workshop. In addition to the gifts associated with simple diplomatic envoys, some of the Șimleu Silvaniei / Szilágysomlyó finds (the onyx brooch, a group of brooches, medals) may have been paraphernalia of an inauguration ceremony, as insignia (a sort of legitimation in point of view by the Roman Empire) and not as an official gift.69 Besides Roman craftsmanship, several objects suggest a Germanic or Hunnic origin and cultural milieu. Apart from Priskos’ description, the fashion and costumes in the former Hunnic court are not known, especially from an archaeological point of view. Thus, we cannot state unequivocally that the elite in the Hunnic court, exposed to Germanic and Romanizing influences for nearly a century, did not adapt to them. Previous research, on account of brooch wearing, has stated that the former owners of the hoard were Germanic without any doubt. However, it should not be forgotten that the Hun Empire fused many cultural influences and ethnicities during its presence in the Carpathian Basin. Archaeological studies narrowed the time of the hoard’s burial down to one or two decades. This way, particular historical concepts may have gained more space. However, for the time being, it can only be stated that the oldest pieces of the Șimleu Silvaniei / Fig. 10 The development of the Gepidic theory about the former owner of the Șimleu Silvaniei / Szilágysomlyó hoards, or the classical “mixed argumentation” in the archaeological research 69 engemann 2005, 43, 51–53. 494 ATTILA P. KISS Szilágysomlyó hoards are the large silver plate brooches with gold-sheet and polychrome inlays, dated to the middle of the 5th century. It seems more likely that the hiding of the finds took place amid the general turmoil and political shifts following the Hun era. Certain artefacts in the assemblage most probably represent significant diplomatic investment, precluding the possibility that they belonged to the rulers of a less-important tribe. Robert Stark may have come close to the truth when he asserted that the hoard of Șimleu Silvaniei / Szilágysomlyó could have been tied to an elite member of the former Hun Empire (Germanic, Hun, other ethnicities).70 This paper presented firm arguments against the previously prevailing Gepidic theory. In any case, it should be noted that Șimleu Silvaniei and the wider region itself was one of the peripherical geographical areas of the later Gepidic Kingdom, as not any illustrious or other Gepidic archaeological sites are known nearby. The connection of the treasure of Șimleu Silvaniei / Szilágysomlyó to the Gepids was the result of a chain of theories built on an insufficiently supported archaeological-historical concept, the location of the homeland area of the Gepids in the pre-Hun and Hun periods (Fig. 10). Thus, the answer to the question posed in the title is clear: the chicken or the egg dilemma was created by Bóna’s Gepidic theory, which dominated the study of the Șimleu Silvaniei / Szilágysomlyó treasures for decades. PRIMARY SOURCES H ist. Aug .: Scriptores Historiae Augustae. Ed. Hohl, E. Leipzig 1971. J ord. g et.: Jordanis Getica. De summa temporum vel origine actibusquegentis Gothorum. MGH AA Tom. 5. Ed. Mommsen, Th. Berlin 1882, 53–138. J ord. r om .: Jordanis Romana. De summa temporum vel origine actibusquegentis Romanorum. MGH AA Tom. 5. Ed. Mommsen, Th. Berlin 1882, 1–52. Fiebiger , o.–s cHmidt, L. 1917: Inschriftensammlung zur Geschichte der Ostgermanen. Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-Hist. Kl., Denkschriften 60. Wien. s idonius A ppoLinAris : Gaii Sollii Apollinaris Epistulae et carmina. MGH AA Tom. 8. Ed. Leutjohann, Ch. Berlin 1887. pAuLus d iAconus: Pauli Diaconi Historia Romana. In: MGH SRG Tom. 49. Ed. Droysen, H. Berlin 1879. REFERENCES A LFöLdi, A. 1933: Materialen zur Klassifizierung der gleichzeitigen Nachahmung von römischen Münzen aus Ungarn und den Nachbarländern III. Nachahmungen römischer Goldmedaillons als germanischer Halsschmuck. Numizmatikai Közlöny 28–29, 10–25. bArbArenscHmuck , k AtALog: Katalog. In: Seipel, W. (ed.): Barbarenschmuck und Römergold. Der Schatz von Szilágysomlyó. Wien, 178–211. 70 starK 1999b, 174–175. bărbuLescu, m. 2008: Mormântul princiar germanic de la Turda – Das germanische Fürstengrab von Turda. Publicariile Institutului de Studii Clasice 10. Cluj-Napoca. b ernHArd -WALcHer , A. 1999: Das Schatzfund I von Szilágysomlyó. In: Seipel, W. (ed.): Barbarenschmuck und Römergold. Der Schatz von Szilágysomlyó. Wien, 17–25. b ierbrAuer , V. 1980: Zur chronologischen, soziologischen und regionalen Gliederung Which came first, the chicken or the egg? The ethnic interpretations of the hoards… des ostgermanischen Fundstoffes des 5. Jahrhunderts in Südosteuropa. In: Daim, F.– Wolfram, H. (eds): Die Völker an der mittleren und unteren Donau im fünften und sechsten Jahrhundert. Wien, 131–142. b ierbrAuer , V. 1994: Archäologie und Gesichte der Goten vom 1.–7. Jahrhundert. Frühmittelalterliche Studien 28, 51–171. b ierbrAuer , V. 2006: Gepiden im 5. Jahrhundert – Eine Spurensuche. In: Michailescu-Bĩrliba, V.–Hriban, C.–Munteanu, L. (eds): Miscellanea Romano-Barbarica. In honorem septuagenarii magistri Ion Ioniţă oblata. Bucureşti, 167–216. b ónA , i. 1986a: Dáciától Erdőelvéig. A népvándorlás kora Erdélyben (271–896). In: Makkai, L.–Mócsy, A. (szerk.): Erdély története I. A kezdetektől 1606-ig. Budapest, 107–234. b ónA , i. 1986b: Szabolcs-Szatmár megye régészeti emlékei 1. In: Entz, G. (ed.): Szabolcs-Szatmár műemlékei 1. Magyarország műemléki topográfiája 10. Budapest, 15–91. b ónA , i. 1971: Ein Vierteljahrhundert Völkerwanderungszeitforschung in Ungarn (1945–1969). Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 23, 265–336. b ónA , i. 1991: Das Hunnenreich. Budapest–Stuttgart. b ónA , i. 2002a: Gyula-Fövenyes. In: Bóna, I.–Nagy, M. (eds): Gepidische Gräberfelder am Theissgebiet I. Monumenta Germanorum Archaeologica Hungariae 1. Budapest, 29–31. b ónA , I. 2002b: Szolnok-Szanda. In: Bóna, I.–Nagy, M. (eds): Gepidische Gräberfelder am Theissgebiet I. Monumenta Germanorum Archaeologica Hungariae 1. Budapest, 197–239. b ónA , i.–n Agy, m. 2002: Hódmezővásárhely-Kishomok. In: Bóna, I.–Nagy, M. (eds): Gepidische Gräberfelder am Theissgebiet I. Monumenta Germanorum Archaeologica Hungariae 1. Budapest, 34–189. b urscHe , A. 2001: Roman gold medallions as power symbols of the Germanic elite. In: Magnus, B. (ed.): Roman gold and the development of the early Germanic kingdoms. Aspects of technical, socio-political, socio-economic, artistic and intellectual development, A.D. 1–550. Symposium in Stockholm 14th –16th November 1997. Stockholm, 83–102. c ApeLLe , t. 1994: Die Miniaturkette von Szilágysomlyó (Simleul Silvaniei). Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 22. Bonn. csALLány, d. 1961: Archäologische Denkmäler der Gepiden im Mitteldonaubecken (454–568 u.Z.). Archaeologia Hungarica 38. Budapest. d icuLescu, c. 1922: Die Gepiden. Forschungen zur Geschichte Daziens im frühen Mittelalter und zur Vorgeschichte des rumänischen Volkes. Bd. 1. Halle. engemAnn, J. 2005: Diplomatische „Geschenke” – Objekte aus der Spätantike. Mitteilungen zur spätantiken Archäologie und byzantinistischen Kunstgeschichte 4, 39–64. FetticH, n. 1932: A szilágysomlyói második kincs – Der zweite Schatz von Szilágysomlyó. Archaeologia Hungarica 8. Budapest. g áLL , e. 2005: Néhány gondolat a tekerőpataki kincs keltezéséről és elrejtésének okairól. A Jósa András Múzeum Évkönyve 47, 145–159. g áLL , e.–k Apcsos , n.–isVorAnu, t.–i Ván , A. 2018: From absolutization to relativization: the hoard from Valea-Strâmbă (Hu: Tekerőpatak)-Kápolnaoldal revisited. In: Bârcă, V. (ed.): Orbis Romanus and Barbaricum. Cluj-Napoca, 331–343. gindeLe, r. 2011: A császárkori és kora népvándorlás kori anyagi kultúra fejlődésének aspektusai Északnyugat-Románia területén. In: Körösfői, Zs. (ed.): Erdély és kapcsolatai a kora népvándorlás korában. Molnár István Múzeum Kiadványai 3. Székelykeresztúr, 205–248. 495 496 ATTILA P. KISS g odłoWski, k. 1986: Gegenseitige Beziehungen zwischen der Wielbark- und der Przeworsk-Kultur, Veränderungen ihrer Verbreitung und das Problem der Gotenwanderung. In: Kmieciński, J. (ed.): Peregrinatio Gothica 1. Archaeologia Baltica 7. Łódz, 125–152. HAmpeL , J. 1905: Alterthümer des frühen Mittelalters in Ungarn I–III. Bd. II. Braunschweig. HArHoiu, r. 1998: Die frühe Völkerwanderungszeit in Rumänien. Archaeologia Romanica 1. Bucharest. HArHoiu, r. 2013: Der Schatzfund von Simleul Silvaniei und die Schlacht von Nedao. Banatica 23, 111–142. H oredt, k.–protAse , d. 1972: Das zweite Fürstengrab von Apahida (Siebenbürgen). Germania 50, 174–220. H orVátH, e. 2018: Van új a lencse alatt – A szilágysomlyói kincs fibuláinak műhelyöszszefüggései a legújabb optikai mikroszkópos vizsgálat alapján. In: Korom, A. (ed.): Relationes rerum. Régészeti Tanulmányok Nagy Margit tiszteletére – Relationes rerum. Archäologische Studien zu Ehren von Margit Nagy. Studia ad Archaeologiam Pazmaniensia 10. Budapest, 355–372. istVánoVits, e. 1993: Das Gräberfeld aus dem 4.–5. Jahrhundert von Tiszadob-Sziget. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 45, 91–146. istVánoVits, e. 2000: Völker im nördlichen Theisstal am Vorabend der Hunnenzeit. In: Bouzek, J.–Friesinger, H.–Pieta, K.–Komoróczy, B. (eds): Gentes, reges, Rom. Auseinandersetzung – Anerkennung – Anpassung. Spisy Archeologického ústavu AV ČR Brno 16. Brno, 197–208. istVánoVits , e.–kuLcsár , V. 1999: Sarmatian and Germanic people at the Upper Tisza region and the South Alföld at the beginning of the migration period. In: Tejral, J.– Pilet, C.–Kazanski, M. (eds): L’Occident romain et l’Europe centrale au début de l’époque des grandes migrations. Spisy Archeologického ústavu AV ČR Brno 13. Brno, 67–94. k AzAnski , m. 2012: Radagaise et la fin de la civilisation de Černjahov. In: Ivanišević, V.–Kazanski, M. (eds): The Pontic-Danubian realm in the period of the Great Migration. Arheloški Institut Beograd, Posebna Izdanja 51. Collège de France–CNRS, Centre de recherché d’histoire et civilisation de Byzance. Monographies 36. Paris–Beograd, 381–391. k iss, A. 1991: Die Schatzfunde I und II von Szilágysomlyó als Quellen der gepidischen Geschichte. Archaeologia Austriaca 75, 249–260. k iss, A. 1999a: Fundgeschichte und Fundumstände von Schatz II. In: Seipel, W. (ed.): Barbarenschmuck und Römergold. Der Schatz von Szilágysomlyó. Wien, 27–29. k iss, A. 1999b: Die Schalen. In: Seipel, W. (ed.): Barbarenschmuck und Römergold. Der Schatz von Szilágysomlyó. Wien, 161–162. k iss , A. 1999c: Historische Auswertung. In: Seipel, W. (ed.): Barbarenschmuck und Römergold. Der Schatz von Szilágysomlyó. Wien, 163–168. k iss, A. p. 2011: Germán népek részvétele a hunok hadjárataiban. Hadtörténelmi Közlemények 2010/1–2, 137–167. k iss, A. p. 2015: „…ut strenui viri…” A gepidák Kárpát-medencei története. Szeged. kontny, b.–m ączyńskA , m. 2015: Ein Kriegergrab aus der frühen Völkerwanderungszeit von Juszkowo in Nordpolen. In: Ruhmann, C.–Brieske, V. (eds): Dying Gods: religious beliefs in northern and eastern Europe in the time of Christianisation. Neue Studien zur Sachsenforschung 5. Darmstadt, 241–261. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? The ethnic interpretations of the hoards… kontny, b.–nAtunieWicz-sekułA , m. 2011: A Cemetery of the Wielbark Culture on the Eastern Margin of Vistula Delta (Excavations 1984–2004). Monumenta Archaeologica Barbarica 17. Warszawa. kuLikoWski, m. 2007: Rome‘s Gothic Wars. From the third century to Alaric. Cambridge. L eVAdA , m. 2011: To Europe via the Crimea: on possible migration routes of the northern people in the Great Migration period. In: Khrapunov, I.–Stylegar, F.-A. (eds): Inter Ambo Maria. Contacts between Scandinavia and the Crimea in the Roman Period. Cultural-Historical Reports 10. Kristiansand–Simferopol, 115–137. L indquist, s. 1945: Vår svenska guldålder. Uppsala. m Asek , z s . 2018: Settlement History of the Middle Tisza Region in the 4th –6th centuries AD: According to the Evaluation of the Material from Rákóczifalva-Bagi-földek 5–8–8A sites. Dissertationes Archaeologicae Ser. 3/6, 597–620. m esterHázy, k. 1984: Beiträge zu den gepidisch-thüringischen Beziehungen im 5–6. Jahrhundert. Folia Archaeologia 35, 77–84. m esterHázy, k. 1989: Ethnische und Handelsbeziehungen zwischen der Weichselmündung und der Ungarischen Tiefebene in der römischen Kaiserzeit. In: Peregrinatio Gothica 2. Archaeologia Baltica 8. Łódz, 185–202. m esterHázy, k. 2005: Ártánd-Lencsésdomb. In: Cseh, J.–Istvánovits, E.–Lovász, E.–Mesterházy, K.–Nagy, M.–Nepper M., I.–Simonyi, E.: Gepidische Gräberfelder im Theissgebiet II. Monumenta Germanorum Archaeologica Hungariae 2. Budapest, 54–56. m esterHázy, k. 2007: Bemerkungen zum gepidischen Corpus. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 58, 265–293. m esterHázy, k. 2009: Eine Gräbergruppe mit nordsüdlicher Grablegung im gepidischen Gräberfeld von Biharkeresztes-Ártánd-Nagyfarkasdomb. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 60, 73–95. párducz , m. 1959: Archäologische Beiträge zur Geschichte der Hunnenzeit in Ungarn. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 11, 309–398. párducz , m. 1963: Die ethnischen Probleme der Hunnenzeit in Ungarn. Studia Archaeologica 1. Budapest. párducz , m. 1972: Sarmatisches Gräberfeld der Hunnenzeit von Bugac-Pusztaháza. Cumania 1, 115–129. párducz, m.–korek , J. 1948: Germán befolyás a Maros–Tisza–Körös-szög késő szarmata emlékanyagában. Archeologiai Értesítő 75, 291–311. pinAr , J. g.–J iřík , J. 2019: Late Przeworsk and post-Przeworsk, Elbian and Danubian. Vandals, Suebi and the dissemination of Central European elements of material culture in the Western Provinces. In: Kot-Legieć, K.–Michałowskiego, A.–Olędzkiego, M.–Piotrowskiej, M. (eds): Przeworsk culture. Transformation processes and external contacts. Łódź, 405–489. poHL , W. 1980: Die Gepiden und die Gentes an der mittleren Donau nach dem Zerfall des Attilareiches. In: Daim, F.– Wolfram, H. (eds): Die Völker an der mittleren und unteren Donau im fünften und sechsten Jahrhundert. Wien, 239–305. puLszky, F. 1889: A szilágysomlyói kincs. Archeologiai Értesítő 9, 233–238. q uAst, d. 2011: Der Schatz der Königin? Völkerwanderungszeitliche Schatzfunde und weibliche Eliten. In: Quast, D. (ed.): Weibliche Eliten in der Frühgeschichte – Female Elites in Protohistoric Europe. RGZM Tagungen 10. Mainz, 121–141. 497 498 ATTILA P. KISS q uAst, d. 2019: Die nördliche Grenzzone des Oströmischen Reiches und Skandinavien im 5. und 6. Jahrhundert. In: Vida, T.–Quast, D.–Rácz, Zs.–Koncz, I. (eds): Kollaps – Neuordnung – Kontinuität. Gepiden nach dem Untergang des Hunnenreiches. Tagungsakten der Internationalen Konferenz an der Eötvös Loránd Universität, Budapest, 14–15. Dezember 2015. Budapest, 333–368. r ácz , z s . 2016: Zwischen Hunnen- und Gepidenzeit. Frauengräber aus dem 5. Jahrhundert im Karpatenbecken. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 47, 301–359. s cHmAuder , m. 1999: Die Onyxfibel aus Szilágysomlyó und die Gruppe der sogenannten Kaiserfibel. In: Seipel, W. (ed.): Barbarenschmuck und Römergold. Der Schatz von Szilágysomlyó. Wien, 121–137. s cHmAuder , m. 2002: Oberschichtgräber und Verwahrfunde in Südosteuropa im 4. und 5. Jahrhundert. Zum Verhältnis zwischen dem spätantiken Reich und der barbarischen Oberschicht aufgrund der archäologischen Quellen. Bd. I–II. Archaeologia Romanica 3. Bukarest. s cHmAuder , m. 2007: Der Erde anvertraut. Die Verwahrfunde im Umkreis der hunnischen Völkerkonföderation. In: Anke, B.–Externbrink, H. (eds): Attila und die Hunnen. Begleitbuch zur Ausstellung. Speyer, 229–237. s cHmidt, L. 1941: Die Ostgermanen. München. soós, e. 2019: Békés együttélés vagy erőszakos hódítás? Adatok a kontinuitás kérdéséhez a hun korban az északkelet-Kárpát-medencei települések alapján. Pontes 2, 123–158. s óskuti, k.–WiLHeLm, g. 2005: A Maty-ér mente történeti képe az 5. században. Múzeumi Kutatások Csongrád Megyében, 99–115. stAnciu, i. 2008: Etapa finală a epocii romane imperiale şi inceputul epocii migraţiilor in Barbaricum-ul din nordvestul Romaniei. Ephemeris Napocensis 18, 147–169. stArk , r. 1999a: Die Fibeln. In: Seipel, W. (ed.): Barbarenschmuck und Römergold. Der Schatz von Szilágysomlyó. Wien, 139–159. stArk , r. 1999b: Die Bedeutung der Schatzfunde als archäologische Quelle. In: Seipel, W. (ed.): Barbarenschmuck und Römergold. Der Schatz von Szilágysomlyó. Wien, 169–175. stickLer , t. 2002: Aëtius. Gestaltungsspielräume eines Heermeisters im ausgehenden Weströmischen Reich. Vestigia. Beiträge zur Alten Geschichte 54. München. szAbó, á. 2020: A terving törvénymondók kora Erdélyben (Kr.u. 271–376). Korunk 2020/3, 11–26. szentHe , g.–m ozgAi , V.–H orVátH , e.–bAJnóczi , b. 2019: Ritual deposit from the Hun period from Telki (Central Hungary). A preliminary report. Hungarian Archaeology 2019 Spring, 9–19. teJrAL , J. 1999: Die spätantiken militärischen Eliten beiderseits der norisch-pannonischen Grenze aus der Sicht der Grabfunde. In: Fischer, T.–Gundolf, P.–Tejral, J. (eds): Germanen beiderseits des spätantiken Limes. Spisy Archeologického ústavu AV ČR Brno 14. Köln–Brno, 217–292. teJrAL , J. 2000: The Problem of the primary acculturation at the beginning of the Migration Period. In: Mączyńska, M.–Grabarczyk, T. W. (eds): Die spätrömische Kaiserzeit und die frühe Völkerwanderungszeit in Mittel- und Osteuropa. Lódz, 5–31. teJrAL , J. 2002: Beiträge zur Chronologie des langobardischen Fundstoffes nördlich der mittleren Donau. In: Tejral, J. (ed.): Probleme der frühen Merowingerzeit im Which came first, the chicken or the egg? The ethnic interpretations of the hoards… Mitteldonauraum. Spisy Archeologického ústavu AV ČR Brno. Brno, 313–358. teJrAL , J. 2007: Das Hunnenreich und die Identitätsfragen der barbarischen „gentes“ im Mitteldonauraum aus der Sicht der Archäologie. In: Tejral, J. (ed.): Barbaren im Wandel. Beiträge zur Kultur- und Identitätsbildung in der Völkerwanderungszeit. Spisy Archeologického ústavu AV ČR Brno 26. Brno, 55–119. teJrAL , J. 2012: Cultural or ethnic changes? Continuity and discontinuity on the Middle Danube ca A.D. 500. Ivanišević, V.–Kazanski, M. (eds): The Pontic-Danubian realm in the period of the Great Migration. Arheloški Institut Beograd, Posebna Izdanja 51. Collège de France–CNRS, Centre de recherché d’histoire et civilisation de Byzance. Monographies 36. Paris–Beograd, 115–188. b. tótH, á. 1996: Die Gepiden während der Hunnenzeit. In: Daim, F. (ed.): Reitervölker aus dem Osten. Hunnen+Awaren. Begleitbuch und Katalog. Eisenstadt, 111–112. b. tótH, á. 1999: „Gothiscandza”-tól a Tisza vidékig. A gepidák eredete, vándorlása, korai régészeti emlékanyaga. In: Havassy, P. (ed.): A gepidák. Kora középkori germán királyság az Alföldön. Gyulai Katalógusok 7. Gyula, 11–29. VAdAy, A. 1984: Késő szarmata agyagbográcsok az Alföldön – Spätsarmatenzeitliche Tonkessel von der Tiefebene. A Móra Ferenc Múzeum Évkönyve 1980–81/1, 31–42. VAdAy, A. 1985: A bagi lelet. Újabb adatok a késő szarmata besimított kerámia kérdéséhez – Der Fund von Bag. Weiterer Beitrag zur Frage der spätsarmatischen eingeglätteten Keramik. Archaeologiai Értesítő 112, 25–35. VAdAy, A. 1989: Die sarmatischen Denkmäler der Sarmatenzeit des Komitats Szolnok. Ein Beitrag zur Archäologie und Geschichte des sarmatischen Barbaricums. Antaeus 17–18. VidA , t. 2016: “They asked to be settled in Pannonia…” A study on integration and acculturation – the case of the Avars. In: Bollók, Á.–Csiky, G.–Vida, T.–Miháczi-Pálfi, A.– Masek, Zs. (eds): Zwischen Byzanz und der Steppe. Archäologische und historische Studien. Festschrift für Csanád Bálint zum 70. Geburtstag – Between Byzantium and the Steppe. Archaeological and Historical Studies in Honour of Csanád Bálint on the Occasion of His 70th Birthday. Budapest, 251–270. Vörös, g. 1983: Hunkori szarmata temető Sándorfalva-Eperjesen – Eine sarmatische Begräbnisstätte aus der Hunnenzeit in Sándorfalva-Eperjes. A Móra Ferenc Múzeum Évkönyve, 129–172. Wenskus, r. 1961: Stammesbildung und Verfassung. Das Werden der frühmittelalterlichen gentes. Köln. WoLAgieWicz , r. 1986: Die Goten im Bereich der Wielbark-Kultur. In: Kmieciński, J. (ed.): Peregrinatio Gothica 1. Archaeologia Baltica 7. Łódz, 63–98. WoLFrAm , H. 1990: Die Goten. München. 499