АЛЕКСАНДЪР СТАНЕВ

ЕЛЕМЕНТИ НА ГЕРМАНСКИЯ ФИБУЛЕН КОСТЮМ

НА ЮГ ОТ ДУНАВ

ПО АРХЕОЛОГИЧЕСКИ ДАННИ ОТ БАЛКАНСКИТЕ ПРОВИНЦИИ НА ИЗТОЧНАТА РИМСКА ИМПЕРИЯ V - VI ВЕК

2012

Изданието е спечелило конкурс на Министерството на културата

© Александър Станев, автор, 2012

За корицата е използвана снимка от публикация на Ковачева, Т. 2003. Готското археологическо наследство в Плевенския край. В: Готите и старогерманското културно-

историческо присъствие по българските земи. Т. 1. София. 93-96

ISBN 978-954-337-143-3

АЛЕКСАНДЪР СТАНЕВ

ЕЛЕМЕНТИ НА ГЕРМАНСКИЯ ФИБУЛЕН КОСТЮМ

НА ЮГ ОТ ДУНАВ

ПО АРХЕОЛОГИЧЕСКИ ДАННИ ОТ БАЛКАНСКИТЕ ПРОВИНЦИИ

НА ИЗТОЧНАТА РИМСКА ИМПЕРИЯ V - VI ВЕК

Авангард принт

– 5 –

СЪДЪРЖАНИЕ

Въведение ............................................................................................................................................ 9І. Историографски поглед ............................................................................................................... 13

І. 1. История на археологическите проучвания до Първата световна война ............................. 13І. 2. История на археологическите проучвания след Втората световна война .......................... 14

ІІ. Исторически аспекти ................................................................................................................. 19ІІ.1.1. Проблемът „етноними” ........................................................................................................ 19ІІ.1.2. Географска граница на балканските провинции на Източната Римска империя през V-VІ век ............................................................................... 22ІІ.1.3. Германско присъствие в балканските провинции на Източната Римската империя през хунския и постхунски период ........................................ 23ІІ.1.4. Германското присъствие в балканските провинции на Източната Римската империя в края на V – VІ век ................................................................. 33

ІІІ. Анализ на материала ................................................................................................................ 38ІІІ.1. Фибули .................................................................................................................................... 39

ІІІ.1.1. Двуплочни фибули, изработени от пластини и техните производни типове ........... 39ІІІ.1.1.1. Двуплочни фибули, изработени от пластини ..................................................... 39

ІІІ.1.1.1.1. Двуплочни фибули, изработени от пластини ............................................. 43ІІІ.1.1.1.2. Лети имитации на двуплочни фибули, изработени от пластини .............. 52

ІІІ.1.1.2. Производни типове на двуплочните фибули, изработени от пластини ........... 55ІІІ.1.1.2.1. Фибули тип Братей ........................................................................................ 55ІІІ.1.1.2.2. Фибули тип Вишков ...................................................................................... 71ІІІ.1.1.2.3. Други типове и варианти .............................................................................. 76

ІІІ.1.2. Лъчеви фибули ............................................................................................................... 79ІІІ.1.2.1. Фибули с пет или повече лъча на челната и ромбовидна или многоъгълна форма на стъпалната плочка ........................................................................ 80

ІІІ.1.2.1.1. Фибули тип Домолошпуста/Бачордас ......................................................... 84ІІІ.1.2.1.2. Фибули, обособени на база орнаментация от тип Сексард-Паланк/Соколнице ............................................................................... 90ІІІ.1.2.1.3. Фибули с оформен гладък ромб в средата на стъпалната плочка („Гепидски” тип) ........................................................................................................... 101ІІІ.1.2.1.4. Фибули тип Реджио Емилия и Удине-Планис .......................................... 105ІІІ.1.2.1.5. Други типове и варианти .............................................................................111

ІІІ.1.2.2. Фибули с три лъча на челната и ромбовидна форма на стъпалната плочка .. 119ІІІ.1.2.2.1. Фибули тип Гурзуф ..................................................................................... 119ІІІ.1.2.2.2. Фибули с ветрилообразна украса на челната плочка ............................... 126ІІІ.1.2.2.3. Други типове и варианти ............................................................................ 130

ІІІ.1.2.3. Фибули с три и пет лъча на челната плочка и профилирано краче ................ 134ІІІ.1.2.3.1. Фибули тип Кормадин-Яково ..................................................................... 135ІІІ.1.2.3.2. Фибули тип Крефелд ................................................................................... 136

ІІІ.1.3. Двуплочни фибули с правоъгълна челна и свободно развита по форма стъпална плочка ...................................................................................................... 140

ІІІ.1.3.1. Северни германски типове фибули с правоъгълна челна плочка ................... 141ІІІ.1.3.1.1. Фибули тип Кингс Фийлд/Чесъл Даун ...................................................... 141ІІІ.1.3.1.2. Тип фибули с пластичен бутон върху дъгата ............................................ 146ІІІ.1.3.1.3. Други типове и варианти ............................................................................ 148

ІІІ.1.4. Други типове фибули .................................................................................................. 150ІІІ.1.4.1. Двуплочни фибули с триъгълна челна и ромбовидна стъпална плочка ........ 150

ІІІ.1.4.1.1. Фибули тип Левице/Прша .......................................................................... 150

– 6 –

ІІІ.1.4.2. Фибули брошки ................................................................................................... 157ІІІ.1.4.2.1. Фибули брошки с орлова семантика ......................................................... 157ІІІ.1.4.2.2. Фибули брошки с геометрична форма ...................................................... 164ІІІ.1.4.2.3. Фибули брошки тип цикада ........................................................................ 166ІІІ.1.4.2.4. Фибули брошки с S-овидна форма ............................................................ 172

ІІІ.1.4.3. Други типове и варианти .................................................................................... 173ІІІ.1.4.3.1. Англосаксонски фибули ............................................................................. 173ІІІ.1.4.3.2. Фибули с равни рамене ............................................................................... 174ІІІ.1.4.3.3. Провинциалноримски типове фибули ....................................................... 176ІІІ.1.4.3.4. Други типове фибули ................................................................................. 179

ІІІ.2. Катарами ............................................................................................................................... 182ІІІ.2.1. Коланни катарами ........................................................................................................ 182

ІІІ.2.1.1. Коланни катарами с плочка с геометрична форма ........................................... 182ІІІ.2.1.1.1. Коланни катарами с плочка с ромбовидна форма .................................... 182ІІІ.2.1.1.2. Коланни катарами с плочка с правоъгълна форма ................................... 187ІІІ.2.1.1.3. Коланни катарами с плочка с овална или близка форма ......................... 197

ІІІ.2.1.2. Коланни катарами с плочка с орлова семантика .............................................. 201ІІІ.2.1.2.1. Коланни катарами с правоъгълна плочка с орлови глави ........................ 201ІІІ.2.1.2.2. Коланни катарами с различна по форма плочка с орлови глави ............. 213

ІІІ.2.1.3. Коланни катарами без плочка ............................................................................ 218ІІІ.2.1.3.1. Коланни катарами без плочка с В-образна дъга ....................................... 218ІІІ.2.1.3.2. Коланни катарами без плочка с D-образна дъга ....................................... 222ІІІ.2.1.3.3. Коланни катарами без плочка с удебеление в предната част на дъга ..... 227

ІІІ.2.2. Други елементи на коланната гарнитура .................................................................. 229ІІІ.2.2.1. Други елементи на коланната гарнитура .......................................................... 229

ІІІ.2.2.1.1. Закопчаващи механизми с S-овидна форма .............................................. 229ІІІ.2.2.1.2. Закопчалка на коланни чанти ..................................................................... 236

ІІІ.3. Украшения ............................................................................................................................ 242ІІІ.3.1. Обици ........................................................................................................................... 242

ІІІ.3.1.1. Обици с многостенно мънисто .......................................................................... 242ІІІ.3.1.1.1. Обици с масивно кухо или ажурно многостенно мънисто ..................... 243ІІІ.3.1.1.2. Обици с плътно многостенно мънисто ..................................................... 249

ІІІ.3.1.2. Други типове обици ............................................................................................ 251ІІІ.3.1.2.1. Обици с висулки .......................................................................................... 251

ІІІ.3.2. Гривни .......................................................................................................................... 253ІІІ.3.2.1. Гривни с декоративно оформени краища .......................................................... 253

ІІІ.3.2.1.1. Гривни с разширени краища ...................................................................... 253ІІІ.4. Тоалетни принадлежности .................................................................................................. 258

ІІІ.4.1. Огледала ....................................................................................................................... 258ІІІ.4.1.1. Огледала с централно ухо ................................................................................... 258

ІІІ.4.1.1.1. Огледала тип Чми/Бригецио ...................................................................... 259ІІІ.4.1.1.2. Други типове огледала ................................................................................ 263

Заключение ...................................................................................................................................... 267Списък на съкращенията ............................................................................................................. 275Литература ...................................................................................................................................... 277Изворова база .................................................................................................................................. 298Каталог ............................................................................................................................................. 301Summary ........................................................................................................................................... 369

– 369 –

SUMMARY

The study concerns the elements of the fibula costume characteristic for the Old Germanic cultural heritage of the 5th and 6th centuries AD. Analyzing various types of evidence, the author outlines and focuses on several problematic subjects. These issues help to determine, from an archaeological point of view, the presence of Germanic infiltrations in the Roman provinces along the Lower Danube. All referenced archaeological finds are defined by types and variants according to the modern typology. The study makes an attempt at a correct dating of each artifact by correlating the context of its discovery and its general evolution south of the Danube river with the situation in Central Europe. A detailed mapping of the finds makes it possible to follow the routes of infiltration, the duration of presence and to ascertain the regions of concentration of Barbaric population. The artifacts that allow a more categorical ethnical interpretation are additionally examined in the context of the historical movement of the Germanic tribes, in order to locate ethnically identifiable territories.

The author maintains that there are specific periods of Germanic infiltrations, confirmed by several types of closed complex artifacts. From the end of the first third until the middle of the 5th century AD the Lower Danube is invaded by Barbarians, identified archaeologically as to belong to the common European horizon D2-D2/3, and historically as the peoples from the Central European Hun state. As a result of the decline of this political establishment and the subsequent migration of Germanic people, a new wave of monuments appears. They are related to the different Ostrogothic formations that grow to become an ethnos in a leading position in comparison to other Barbarians South of the Danube river. The first decades of the 6th century already see the presence of materials, characteristic for the territory of the Gepidic kingdom along the Tissa river, as well as non-traditional items of Northern or Western German origin. After mid-6th century AD only singular complexes and finds are registered, and the growing use of the Early Medieval belt mounts restricts the possibility of identifying and localizing the Germanic infiltrations in the Empire.

The geographical diffusion of the finds shows two clearly defined regions that display a permanent Barbaric presence and a variety of archaeological evidence: the Limes zone and Moesia Inferior. In all Danubian provinces can be observed the process of distribution of certain artifacts towards the hinterland over a long period of time. In Dardania, Dacia Mediterranea and Thrace only occasional monuments are found, typologically and chronologically limited. Single items are attested in Macedonia Secunda and in the mountain regions of Haemimons. No certain evidence confirming Germanic presence has been found so far in the other administrative districts of the Empire. The total absence of such artifacts along the entire Western border of the provinces Moesia Superior and Praevalitana certainly provokes interest. Bearing in mind the distribution of Barbaric materials at the same time in the neighboring regions, it can be suggested that foreign infiltrations were deliberately not allowed at the Western outskirts.

A major part of the archaeological data demonstrates genetic relations with the Middle Danubian region. The objects appear either as direct imports, or slightly modified, which speaks for the evolution of types. Single imported goods of Italic, Northern and Western Germanic and Northern Black Sea origin are registered as well. In terms of chronology, most of the Lower Danube materials are synchronic or only slightly posterior to Middle Danubian ones, and earlier than those of the Northern Black Sea region. On the other hand, there are

– 370 –

Елементи на германския фибулен костюм на юг от Дунав

direct and indirect sources about local production. Examples include semi-manufactured items and leaden models; series of similar items, distributed only into the area in question; low-quality imitations of imported goods; specific products that are distributed later to other regions.

The correlation of archaeological evidence with historical data shows explicit connections to the so called Gotho-Gepidic group of people. Some types and findings are directly related to Ostrogoths and Gepids. There are hypotheseis about Herulan presence, as can be inferred from certain closed complexes (in terms of ritual specifics) and artifacts (fibulae and buckle types) which differ from the rest of the Eastern Germanic heritage. The Heruls are also associated to certain (historical?) sources. The defining of some artifacts distributed by the Hun invasion is disputable: the brooch-fibulae of the Cicada type and the central loop mirrors. Some of the artifacts of Western and Northern Germanic character also cannot be defined ethnically. Bent-stem and Viminacium types fibulae, as well as some elements of the belt mount (buckles with no plates and B and D- shaped frames), jewels (earrings with small opaque polyhedral beads), wide-end bracelets, are identified as Germanic only when they are registered in a complex with additional Barbaric materials.

The evidence on the wearers of Germanic fibula costume elements suggests social division. There are indications for members of the aristocracy, the military class and the lower levels of society, as well as for a differentiation based on age or sex. Certain artifacts related to the archaeological context and the characteristics of the geographical region make it possible to determine the occupation of the integrated population: the majority are military people with their families, but there are also certain cases of Barbarians pursuing a civil career.

The distribution of the studied finds begins around the second quarter of the 5th century AD with the appearance of double-plate tin-made fibulae and their derivatives – Bratei, Vyškov. The former are more or less strictly confined to the 30s-60s of the 5th century AD. The materials from the urban necropoleis of Viminacium and Singidunum belong to established stratigraphical horizons, while the date of the single grave from Almus is based upon its inventory as a complex, and the two finds from Lom and Grozka are interpreted in regard to their typological characteristics. The comparison to Central European artifacts demonstrate synchronicity, and their distribution is also evident in the historical data about the last decades of the Hun state and the time after its decline. The Bratei type develops between the first third and the end of the 5th century AD. The beginning of the period is attested by the samples from the Singidunum necropolis and castrum, and the Octavum castel. During the second third of the 5th century AD, they are further dispersed eastwards, as is evident from the single find near the Yagodina village and the necropolis at Han Krum village towards the Eastern parts of Moesia Mediterranea, and the mountainous region at the border with province Thrace. Their mass presence in the Balkan provinces of the Eastern Roman empire is observed after mid-5th century AD, while they grow out of use only a few decades later. Statistically speaking, the chronological span of this diffusion is confirmed by the Vyškov type artifacts, the imitations of double-plate tin-made fibulae and the singular items connected with them.

Simultaneously with the introduction of these fibulae appear some early examples of the Cicada brooch types. Terminus post quem for these objects is the period of Hun presence along the Middle Danube, where the earliest items of the proximity of Kostol village and Trajan’s bridge are synchronic with a bone plate from a Hun reflexive bow and two bone

– 371 –

Summary

single-rowed Germanic combs of a Late Chernyahovo character. All other items date to the second half of the 5th century and the end of their development is attested in grave 16 at Burdel from Viminacium’s territory at the end of 5th – beginning of 6th centuries AD.

Around the end of the 30’s of 5th century, the first types of massive buckles with rectangular and oval plates start to appear in the Germanic funerary context. The earliest items of the first group are introduced during the D2 phase, or 420-430 AD (the cloisonné object from Kruševac and the Kerbschnitt-decorated buckle from grave number 2/2006 of the Singidunum IV necropolis). After a hiatus, the massive rectangular plate buckles are registered again on a great scale from the first half of the 6th century on (grave number 1 of Singidunum III and graves 1-2 from Han Krum village). Their final appearance dates to the mid-6th century and after, when they are discovered as part of a composed belt mount (Viminacium and Ulpiana). A considerably more restricted type of Germanic costume elements are the oval- (or similar) plate buckles. They are introduced at the Barbarian grave complexes at the time of the rise of the Hun state along the Middle Danube, after which they follow the south-east movement of the Germanic peoples. The evolution of these items can be traced during the second half of 5th until the 30s of the 6th century AD, when their distribution is suddenly disrupted. Two finds from the vicinity of Tran and the ancient Variana are synchronic to the aforementioned types of buckles. They are characterized by the Cabochon technique and the specific shaping of the rear side of the plate into a eagle head.

Closely related to Germanic costume are also different types of adornments and personal belongings. As early as the 30s of the 5th century earrings with massive hollow and ajoure-style polyhedral beads are attested in the Viminacium necropolis. Their prototypes can be found in the territory of the European center of the Hun state around the middle of the 5th century (Laa on the Taya, Periam, Weltz), whence they diffuse with the movement of peoples after the demise of the coalition. A similar process occurs with the earrings of multiple beads of different shape and material. South of the Danube they evolve until the first decades of the 6th century (the necropoleis of Singidunum, Viminacium and Argamum), and after that their use ceases abruptly. Simultaneously with them various types of mirrors are introduced. Their chronological development coincides with the common European horizon Laa/Smolin, or 430/440-450/460 AD.

Particularly interesting are two belt mount elements of an uncertain ethnical attribution. The first of them are the composite S-shaped clasps which are also chronologically unclear. It is likely that their origin lies in Late Roman context, as a type that proved to be attractive to the Barbarians who distanced themselves from the Pannonian jewelry influence. Connecting these clasps to Barbarians/Germans is based on indirect evidence and above all on geographical distribution. All finds (except for the one from Kyustendil) are attested (or are supposed to be) from a region or a settlement of previously published or synchronic Barbarian (mostly Germanic) materials. What is unusual here is their complete absence in the Limes zone, while at the same time they are extant in the Western Balkans, which points to the evolution of a local type of monuments. The only other examples from another area belong to the Northern Black Sea region which has a similar ethnical population. A different situation is observed in the chronological distribution of Pursemounts. They are found in closed complexes from the beginning of 5th – mid-6th centuries AD – a date that corresponds to the common European development of the belt mount element.

The mapping of the finds from the first third of the 5th century demonstrates a distribution

– 372 –

Елементи на германския фибулен костюм на юг от Дунав

mostly among the Danubian Limes settlements. During the next decades the routes of infiltration towards the hinterland of the provinces are outlined via the imitations of double-plate tin-made fibulae and the types Bratei and Vyškov. Their way can be traced throughout Moesia Superior, Dacia Ripensis and the eastern parts of Moesia Inferior. Modern day north-east Bulgaria is the region of the greatest concentration of items of Germanic character. The wearers that are in touch with the Pannonian jewelry workshops show an identical costume (complexes with a diversity of buckle types, polyhedral bead earrings, middle-loop mirrors and other inventory), as well as similar funerary practices, to the Germanic Central Europe complexes which contain findings from the D2-D2/3 phase according to Tejral. It is of a great significance that the Middle Danubian fashion is transmitted directly into the Balkan Roman provinces. On a local level, after a given amount of time, evolution of shapes can be noticed, especially evident in mass production items such as the Bratei fibulae and the earrings with massive hollow or ajoure beads.

The high-quality expensive elements of costume produced of precious metals (such as the massive fibulae, made of tin plates), are traditionally attributed to aristocracy. Such a statement can be supported by the synchronic complexes of the Laa/Smolin horizon that can be interpreted as belonging to a society of noblemen in some dependent or contractual relationship with the Hun state. At the same time, the mass bronze production of the Bratei and Vyškov types, as well as some Cicada type fibulae and oval-plate buckles can be attributed to a population of a lower social status.

Another yet unsolved problem remains the exact format of receptio of the Barbarian infiltrations, coming from north-east. A possible solution could be sought in the historical sources on the diplomacy between the Huns and the Eastern Roman empire, where traditionally exists the problem of the return of the ‘Hun fugitives’. That would explain the finds in the eastern parts of Moesia Inferior – a territory distant enough from Hun control. On the other hand, the discovery of such items in a Limes zone of the empire provokes the interpretation of a presence justified by military duties or another type of contract responsibilities.

After the fall of the Hun coalition and the subsequent migration wave, another type of jewels is introduced south of the Danube. This type shows direct connections with the jewelry traditions of the Middle Danube. The common feature of most of the items is the Kerbschnitt decoration.

Various types of fibulae (by shape and decoration) available in series or as singular finds are detected south of Danube around the end of the 60s of the 5th century, i.e. the first decades after the political events that accompanied the fall of the Hun state. Some of the most attractive and popular types are the countless modifications of the Bügelfibeln. Chronologically speaking, the earliest items belong to the Domoshpusta/Bacordas horizon, which falls into the period between the last third of the 5th (Oescus and Krasen village) and the beginning of the 6th centuries AD (the grave complexes of Histria, Marcianopolis and Sirmium). In the span of about a decade later appear the first monuments with an ornamentation of the type Seskard-Palank/Sokolnice (the pair from Oescus, the Chiflika vicinity). As a result, they develop into the most distributed variant of the Bow fibulae. There are local series that can be traced, and for the first time direct evidence of local production can be inferred (the lead model of Rish). Their complete development ceases around the end of the 30s of the 6th century (Ratiaria, Iatrus).

In the span of the 60s-70s of the 5th century appear the first examples of fibulae with three

– 373 –

Summary

knobs on the head plate, in series (Gurzuf, Bakodpusta/Zemun) and as singular monuments (Cifer/Pac, Kormadin/Yakovo, Krefeld). The graves from Argamum and number 1311 of the “Više Grobalja” site, Kostolac, give us a terminus post quem for the Gurzuf fibulae. The end of the type is again attested in archaeological context at Augustae and Dimum. More peculiar is the situation with the fan-shaped head plate items (Bakodpusta/Zemun). They do not demonstrate any local specifics or variations, and all available examples have an identical shape and decoration, which implies their mass introduction and, later, rejection in the second half of the 5th century. In the analysis of this type the author suggests that the jewels of Bakodpusta/Zemun can be attributed to a specific Barbarian group – the Ostrogoths of Teodorich. This can hypothetically narrow down the date to the last quarter of the 5th century. The diversity of types is evident at grave number 8 of Singidunum III necropolis (a singular piece Cifer/Pac), grave number 2 of the same necropolis (Comradin/Jakovo) and two pairs from the city necropoleis of Viminacium – 46 and 106 (Krefeld).

Another popular variant in the Roman provinces that draws attention is Levice/Prša. Although all published examples come from archaeological sites or at least an archaeological context, their date remains uncertain. Considering the common Europaen development of the type, they fall into the second half of the 5th century AD. It is a fact that so far no Levice/Prša examples have been found with 6th century materials, and this may suggest an ethnical identification with the Barbarian population of the Teodorich union that leaves the area of the Lower Danube in 488 AD, after which the type does not persist and falls out of use.

The second half of the 5th century AD is characterized by brooch-fibulae that demonstrate a variety of shapes and decoration. The Cicada type also continues to be present, and it is seen in closed complexes (grave number 54 from the early Christian necropolis at Novae and grave number 16 at the Burdel site, Viminacium). In Novae (grave 76 of the early Christian necropolis) for the first time is registered a brooch with eagle semantic. Another such piece, in a rhomboid shape, is found in quarter 36/28 of the necropolis. The eagle decoration remains one of the solid indicators of Germanic presence in the 6th century.

Changes are observed in terms of the belt mounts as well, where new typological shapes are introduced. Closely related to the Domolushpusta/Bacordas are the massive rhomboid plate buckles, decorated in the Kerbschnitt technique (Sadovsko kale). They are further attested in grave 149 at Mačvanska Mitrovica from the first decades of 6th century on. During the second third of the 5th century, in the Germanic costume can be observed buckles without a B- or D-shaped plate (grave 10 from Kosharevo necropolis, grave 69 from Singidunum III, and a series of graves at the Barbarian necropoleis of Viminacium). They demonstrate an exceptionally long period of use that goes beyond the chronological span of the study. These pieces can be connected to a provincial Roman fashion that is introduced into Barbarian medium. The same situation is observed with some emblematic adornment pieces such as the earrings with an oblique polyhedral bead and the bracelets with widened ends. In graves with additional Germanic materials, the earrings are evident from the second third of the 5th until the first decades of the 6th century (the necropoleis at Viminacium I-II, Singidunum III, grave 38, Kosharevo, grave 25, single grave from Karaburma), and the bracelets continue to be used after the end of the 6th century in Barbarian environment.

The geographical positioning of the finds confirms the regions of the Danubian Limes and the Eastern parts of Moesia Inferior as zones with a persisting concentration of Barbarian finds. It is a crucial moment that during the second half of the 5th century for the first time are

– 374 –

Елементи на германския фибулен костюм на юг от Дунав

found series of Germanic monuments in the area of the eastern Balkan mountains – an area that belongs to the eastern part of provinces Thrace and Haemimons. A substantial part of the archaeological evidence is derived from Late Roman castels of the Haemus fortification system. That ultimately leads to the question: why strategic points of the defensive line are occupied by Barbarians? An explanation could be sought in the historical evidence about the letting of the provinces Moesia Inferior and Dacia Ripensis over to Ostrogoth formations related to the families of Amal and Strabo, which is most clearly observed between 481 and 488 AD. In fact, during this period, the Balkan mountain range plays the role of a limit zone with the Empire and the Barbarians inside of it guarded the passages from the south. The localization of finds of the last decade of the 5th century suggests that the same garrisons later do an effective imperial military service.

A great amount of archaeological evidence from the southern Danubian provinces during the second half of the 5th century can be directly connected to the Ostrogothic infiltrations that play a leading role at the that moment in the region. In reference to that are the direct parallels from geographical areas such as the Middle Danube, the Carpathian valley and the Crimean peninsula, where very similar complexes are registered. From a historical point of view, this is one of the periods that offer the most information on the Germanic presence south of the Danube. The author describes the movements of different Barbarian groups, the dynastical interplay for the territories that were let from the Empire, as well as the presence of federate units in the Lower Danubian provinces.

The first decades of the 6th century continue to display a diversity of fibulae with five knobs on the head plate. For the first time a direct Italic import is evident through the finds of the type Reggio-Emilia (grave 1 of Singidunum III) and Udine-Planis (grave 2 from the necropolis of church 2 at Han Krum village and a grave finding from Voinikovo village), which is distributed entirely during the first third of the 6th century.

Another route of import is related to the simultaneously existing Gepidic kingdom along the Tisa river. The most eloquent example is a classical type fibula with an inscribed rhomboid on the foot plate which receives the ethnonym of their wearers. To this group can be added some non-traditional shapes for the region, as demonstrated by some singular finds such as the fibulae from Kamenovo and Kabyle, as well as the grave find of Troyan-Karnare. The same ethnical element can be related to earlier shapes of square-headed plate fibulae (grave 149 from the Mačvanska Mitrovica necropolis).

The introduction of items with Northern and Western Germanic origin (the S-shaped fibula from Ukosa and the Anglo-Saxon fibula from Margum respectively) arouse several questions. In both cases we can assume Thuringian or other Elbe-Germanic mediation in the transmission of foreign products for the eastern Germanic cultural environment on the Lower Danube.

The development of the Seskard-Palank/Sokolonice fibulae still continues, as variations of brooches with eagle symbolic (V�gelscheibenfibeln), or with three knobs on the head plate (Gurzuf, Cifer/Pac, Krefeld).

The use of buckles with massive rectangular plates and Kerbschnitt decoration is revived, as can be seen in the necropoleis Singidunum III and Han Krum (including some pieces with an oval or similar plate – Grozka). The first decades of the 6th century AD probably witness the appearance of the related eagle-head buckles (Adlerkopfschnallen), which appear as one of the basic elements of the costume in this period. There is a noticeable presence of buckles without

– 375 –

Summary

a D-shaped plate, but with a D-shaped, widened at the front tongue with a shield-shaped base. These two types are the most used in the Gepidic necropoleis of the 6th century, which could serve as an ethnically defining factor about their introduction in the South Danubian Roman provinces.

The geographical distribution shows that the two regions (the Limes zone and Moesia Inferior) keep their permanent concentration of Barbaric evidence, which results into a solid continuity of Barbaric presence over more than a century. At the same time, specific types of monuments can be defined, such as the “Gepidic type” fibulae found exclusively in the Limes zone, or the eagle-head buckles that are attested only in Moesia Inferior. Such distribution suggests definite zones for the different Barbaric infiltrations.

In terms of ethnical identity, for the first time it is possible to indicate direct examples for the Gepidic presence. An interesting attempt has been made at the archaeological identification of Heruls, to whom certain types of monuments are attributed: Reggio Emilia, Ramersdorf, as well as some of the later rectangular-plate fibulae. For the presence of the Heruls there are also historical sources, including direct evidence for a defined territory (in the hinterland of modern-day Belgrade), given to the Heruls in the first decades of the 6th century. The appearance of the monuments of Northern- and Western German origin remains problematic.

After the middle of the 6th century the typological diversity of Germanic-related objects decreases. Some new types are still introduced, like in the case of the rectangular-plate fibulae and the belt mounts with massive rectangular-plate buckles. These items are singular finds from the Limes zone (except for grave 6 of ancient Ulpiana) and they demonstrate the latest changes in the Germanic fibula costume along the Lower Danube. During this period, the Early Medieval belt mount is quickly accepted, and it replaces the fibula as a leading element of costume. This makes the identification of Germans among the common Barbarian population on the Lower Danube difficult. The last reminiscence of Germanic costume elements can be seen in the buckles with eagle symbolic from the Kaliakra type which probably surpasses the chronological limits of the 7th century.

The study of the elements of the Germanic fibula costume outlines one of the possibilities for identification of the Barbarian infiltrations at the end of the Late Antiquity and the beginning of the Early Medieval period. Certainly, this examination does not allow us to clarify the entire situation of the presence of Germans in the Lower Danube provinces. For the achievement of this goal, it is necessary to carry out a thorough research on all accompanying archaeological groups of monuments and their correlation with the common European status of the problem.

In the end of this study, the significance of the archaeological evidence in the Southern Danubian provinces should be once again underlined. The wide chronological span and the consistency of material in certain geographical areas demonstrates some traditions that contradict the common perception of sporadically invading population. In the 5th-6th centuries AD, this territory proves to be attractive for various groups of Barbarians, among which the Germans play a leading role.

Александър СтаневЕлементи на германския фибулен костюм на юг от Дунав

По археологически данни от балканските провинции на Източната Римска империя V - VI век

Научен редактор: доц. д-р Людмил ВагалинскиКоректор: Николай Светлозаров

Формат: 16/70х100П.к.: 23,5

Тираж: 300 брояЦена: 12 лв.

ISBN 978-954-337-143-3

Издателство “Авангард принт”

За контакт с автора: alexander.stanev@gmail.com