ATTILA’S EUROPE?

ATTILA’S EUROPE?
STRUCTURAL TRANSFORMATION AND
STRATEGIES OF SUCCESS IN THE EUROPEAN
HUN PERIOD

15 000 Ft
€ 45

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
Foreword11

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 north-
western 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 1 The research project has been
realized within the project
of particular ethnic groups is impossible, even relying on the most recent method- framework entitled: Archaeol-
ologies. By taking a closer look at the earlier preconceptions about the territories of ogy Research on the Contacts
between Hungary and the East
various ethnic groups, the connection of the famous Szilágysomlyó hoards to the (Our Eastern Heritage, PPCU
Gepids also seems to be questionable so far. Based on the value and quality of the History and Archaeology In-
terdisciplinary Research Team;
objects (insignia), it is impossible, that such an aspiring aristocratic group as the TUDFO/51757-1/2019-2021/ITM),
Gepids could own them. This may be reinforced also by the fact that the Gepids did with the support of Thematic
Excellence Program, National
not operate along the borders of the Roman Empire before the Hun period.1 Research, Development and
Innovation Office. I would like to
thank Lóránt Vass (PPCU Institute
KEYWORDS: Early Gepidic archaeological culture, Șimleu Silvaniei / Szilágysomlyó, of Archaeology) for proofreading
ritual deposits, hoards from the Hun period, Ártánd group the English text of the study.
478
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 bar-
baric 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 classi-
cal 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-chron-
ological groups based on well-
known parallels. The youngest
of these was defined, due to the
pieces most similar in appear-
ance and size as the later group
of the later so-called silver plate
brooches.
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 specta-
cular, 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 depo-
sition 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.
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 Hun-
garian 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 cons-
tituted 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 Fig. 1 The artefacts of Hoard

I. 1. The gold chain decorated
1 with the miniature crafting
tools; 2, 4: Rings; 3: The snake-
headed ring; 5: The bracelet
fragment; 6: The gold mount
with a human figure;
2 3 4 7: Roman medallions; 8: Bar-
baric imitation of the Roman
medallion (1–6: Harhoiu 1998,
Taf. XCVIII/7–8: Barbarenschmuck ,
5 6 7 8 K atalog; K at. 4, 12).

The connection between the two hoards has been treated as evidence in the histo-
rical-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 Cons-
13 Stark 1999a, 148–149.
tantine II as well as on the lion and disc brooches pairs, the use of punched patterns 14 Fettich 1932, 53; Harhoiu 1998;
on the vine leaf of the gold ornamental chain and the lion and onyx brooch all point Harhoiu 2013, 114; Pulszky 1889.
480
4 5
Fig. 2 The first group of
brooches in Hoard II
(Horváth 2018, Abb. 1)
15 Harhoiu 2013, 113–115.
16 Horváth 2018.
17 Stark 1999a.
ATTILA P. KISS
2 3
2 cm
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
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… 481

3 4
1 2

2 cm

Fig. 3 The second group of

brooches in Hoard II
5 6 7 8 (Horváth 2018, Abb. 2)

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 18 Harhoiu 2013, 118–120; Quast
may arise as to whether the two depots were buried in the ground simultaneously 2011, 125–126. Interestingly, the
find could have belonged mainly
or at different occasions. There are no objects in the first hoard that can be dated to the representation of the
later than the first third of the 5th century according to their time of production. female members of a barbarian
royal court. This is not surprising,
However, mainly due to the objects that bear traces of long-term use, the possibility since in the Hun period, quality
of the deposition roughly at the same time cannot be excluded. The treasure trove products were retrieved mainly
from female graves.
carries the ornamental and formal traditions of three different cultures. A significant 19 Some of the medallions or their
portion of the medallions and the onyx brooch may have been the products of a suspension handles may not be
of Roman origin (barbarian imita-
Roman workshop (except the barbaric imitations and framing), while the gold breast tion): Schmauder 2007, 230–231. To
chain and polychrome brooches indicate a late antique-East Germanic workshop, the interpretation of the brooch-
es: Stark 1999a; the golden bowls:
whereas the gold bowls imply Hun-period craftsmen and cultural traditions.19 Of Kiss 1999b, 161; the golden chain:
the brooches, the onyx specimen can certainly be considered a product of a Roman Capelle 1994, 11–13, 83–85.
20 Bóna considered them objects
workshop that worked perhaps for the barbarian elite, but the identification of the from the Hun period (Bóna 1991,
workshop of the other brooches has not yet been decided.20 Most recently, Robert 154–158).
482
Fig. 4 Finds of Hoard II. 1: The
silver oath-ring; 2–4: Three
gold bowls (1: Barbarenschmuck ,
K atalog , Kat. 71; 2–4: Barbaren-
schmuck , K atalog , Kat. 72–74.)
21 Quast 2011, 132–136; Stark 1999a,
148.
22 Schmauder 2002, 165–169;
Schmauder 2007, 230–231. Ac-
cording 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.
ATTILA P. KISS
1 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 interpre-
tation 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 hypo-
theses 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, well-
known 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… 483

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. 24 Harhoiu 1998, 62–63; Harhoiu
The total weight of the deposited finds was only 122.5 g, a value that renders the 2013, 118–120; Quast 2011, 125–
126. Radu Harhoiu goes a little
hoarding explanation highly unlikely. This is why Gáll explains this deposition as a further in this case and fabricates
ritual offering to the gods before battles, a popular custom among the Germans.25 a historical narrative. In his view,
the hoard was offered to the
Ritual purposes are considered also in the case of the Șimleu Silvaniei / Szilágysomlyó gods by the Gepidic royal/ruling
hoards; however, because the artefacts were not retrieved in the frames of a profes- dynasty who won the battle of
Nedao. In his opinion, the mem-
sional archaeological excavation, this explanation cannot be stated with absolute
bers of the Gepidic ruling family
certainty either.26 associated with Ardarich – a
member of which could be bur-
ied in Grave II of Apahida – ex-
Following the publication of the two hoards, the main research objective became tended their rule after the battle
the determination of the former owners’ identity and the reason for their burial. The to the whole area of Transylvania
(Harhoiu 2013, 119–120).
earliest opinions, mainly based on the age of the medals, linked the deposition of 25 Gáll 2005, 151; Gáll et al. 2018.
the finds to the crisis of the 4th century and the early appearance of the Huns in the 26 At the same time, one should
not forget that the 5th century
Carpathian Basin and identified the western Gothic (Tervingi) groups as the owners AD was also a period of hiding
of the hoard.27 These claims were disproved by a detailed examination of the objects rich hoards and ritual deposits
in the Barbaricum (Szenthe et al.
and a more careful determination of the chronology. Considering the possibilities of 2019).
the 5th -century dating, historians for the most part, tried to link the finds to the East 27 Alföldi 1933, 11; Lindquist 1945,
48. In Hungarian research, Ádám
Goths (Ostrogothi), who also had commanded great political and military power in Szabó (Szabó 2020, 18–22) has
the Hun period. Herwig Wolfram and Walter Pohl based their work on the assump- recently argued for the Western
Gothic (Tervingi) origin of the
tion that groups of the Ostrogoths, led by the Amal dynasty, were likely to have finds. However, it is important to
been lived close to the nomadic centre (ordu) in the Hun period, as after 455 they note that Western Gothic iden-
tification of the former owners
could migrate more easily from here to their new Pannonian homeland.28 However, is difficult to prove due to the
it should be noted, that the opinion of the two historians also significantly reflects dating of the second hoard to
the middle of the 5th century.
the contemporary views of the archaeologist Kurt Horedt about the hoard of Șimleu
28 Pohl 1980, 249–250; Wolfram
Silvaniei / Szilágysomlyó and the graves of Apahida.29 On the part of the Hungarian 1990, 255–258.
and Romanian research, when the ethnicity of the former owners of the hoard was 29 Horedt–Protase 1972, 216–220.
30 Based on data from written
to be determined, the “Gepidic theory” came up as an option. The possibility of this sources (Jordanes), Diculescu
was first raised by Constantine Diculescu and, after him, Nándor Fettich during the believed that the Gepidic groups
could live in the territory of
evaluation of the second hoard.30 The development of the Gepidic theory among Northwestern Romania during
Hungarian archaeologists was presumably greatly influenced by Fettich’s work. These the Late Roman period. Some
of these groups, along with
views were first formulated by István Bóna, and after him – with some nuances – by the Vandals, fled west in 406.
Attila Kiss.31 The “Gepidic theory” of Hungarian archaeologists was fundamentally Diculescu 1922, 49–51. According
to Diculescu, the famous hoard
influenced by the historical concept of István Bóna concerning the appearance and had been hidden by its former
establishment of Gepids in the Carpathian Basin. Bóna considered the medallions Gepidic owner before fleeing.
Nándor Fettich’s interpretation
of Roman emperors from Hoard I – among others – to be a perfect support for his about the former owners of the
theory related to the early Gepidic presence (3rd –4th centuries), based on the com- hoard was greatly influenced by
Diculescus’ historical monog-
bination of written and archaeological sources (Fig. 5). In his view, these may have raphy about the Gepids. Fettich
been perfect imprints of a Roman–Gepidic alliance against the Gothic people in the 1932.
31 Bóna 1971, 274–276; Bóna 1986a,
second half of the 3rd century. In the opinion of Bóna, the Szilágysomlyó medallions’ 131–134; Bóna 1991, 155–158; Kiss
time of minting can be linked in each case to a more serious anti-Gothic conflict of 1991; Kiss 1999c, 163–167.
484 ATTILA P. KISS

Fig. 5 The barbarian political-

ethnic groups of the Car-
pathian Basin in the Late
Roman period (3rd–5th centu-
ries), 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. GEPIDIC “PREHISTORY” AND THEIR PRESENCE

33 Schmidt 1941, 529; Wenskus 1961,
435, 469. IN THE CARPATHIAN BASIN
34 „Hi ergo Gepidae tacti invidia, dum
Spesis provincia commanerent in
insulam Visclae amnis vadibus cir- With the given aptitude of the written sources, one can hardly assign the moment
cumactam, quam patrio sermone of the Gepidic ethnogenesis. The first certain mentions date to the middle of the
dicebant Gepedoios. Nunc eam,
ut fertur, insulam gens Vividaria
3rd century, and this can be the initial moment, henceforth one can treat them as an
incolit ipsis ad meliores terras independent ethnic group along with a political organization.33 Previous scholarly
meantibus (Jord. Get., 96).” For the
endeavours were dating their appearance in the Carpathian Basin to the second half
archaeological remains: Bierbrauer
1994, 96–98; Godłowski 1986, 147; of the 3rd century. Even, with a deficiency in the number of sources, one can establish
Wolagiewicz 1986. that the main territory of the Gepids spread around the river Vistula’s northern ending,
35 „Denique Scytharum diversi populi,
Peuci, Grutungi Austrogoti, Tervingi, or slightly to the south.34 Only one written account (the biographies of the Historia
Visi, Gipedes, Celtae etiam et Eruli, Augusta) mentioned the Gepids among those tribes who attacked the Roman provinces
praedae cupiditate in Romanum
solum inruperunt atque illic pler- near the river Danube, though the reliability of the mentioned source is poor (late
aque vasatarunt… (Hist. Aug.: editing, interpolations).35 Still, the possibility cannot be excluded that small groups
Claudianus, 6, 1–4).” „Sed cum ex
aliis gentibus plerosque pariter had participated in these raids, which is demonstrated in several inscriptions from
transtullisset, id est ex Gepidis, Rome and Ostia.36 One may admit, that not even in the 4th century was the Carpathian
Grauthungis et Vandulis, illi omnes
fidem fregerunt et occupato bellis Basin inhabited by Gepidic communities, since none of the great numbers of written
tyrannicis Probo per totum paene accounts noted their presence, neither at the attacks against the Roman Empire nor
orbem pedibus et navigando
vagati sunt nec parum molestiae at the fights inside the Barbaricum. Attempts to locate the Gepidic heartland based
Romanae gloriae intulerunt (Hist. upon contemporary geographical and cartographical sources seem inefficient as long
Aug., Probus, 18, 1–3).” Kulikowski
2007, 20–21. as they provide us with data applicable for a limited geographical range. The joint
36 Fiebiger–Schmidt 1917, 136. attack with the Vandals against the western Gothic residents does not necessarily
37 Jord. Get. 94–100; Schmauder 2002,
224–228; Wolfram 1990, 34–36,
mean that the fights were located in Dacia since it can be assumed that the core of
67–69. 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 recon-

struction of the Gepidic migra-
tion based on the combined
data of the written sources
and the archaeological mate-
rial (after Harhoiu 2013, Abb. 1,
graphic: G. Szenthe)

38 Párducz 1972, 128–129; Párducz–

Korek 1948, 291–311.
486
39 Bóna 1986b, 66–69.
40 Istvánovits 1993, 100–103; Istváno-
vits 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 con-
sensus of the Sarmatian research
community in Hungary on cul-
tural 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 surround-
ed by ditches), Sarmatian re-
searchers in Hungary agree that
the newcomers settled in local
Sarmatian territory.
ATTILA P. KISS
In the case of cemeteries with “Germanic”, but primarily non-Przeworsk-culture cha-
racteristics, 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
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 Cher-
nyahov 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 Hun-

garian Great Plain during the
period of the late 4th–early 5th
centuries. Tiszadob-type cem-
eteries (marked with a square):
1. Mezőszemere-Kismari-fenék,
2. Sándorfalva-Eperjes,
3. Szihalom-Budaszög,
4. Szihalom-Pamlényi-tábla,
5. Tápé-Malajdok, 6. Tiszadob-
Sziget, 7. Tiszakarád-Inasa,
8. Tiszavalk-Kenderföldek.
Ártánd-type cemeteries
(marked with a circle): 1–2.
Ártánd-Nagy- and Kisfarkas-
domb, 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, arri-
ving 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)
46 K azanski 2012, 294–296; Wolfram
cannot help us in this case either. For the time being, we do not have information 1990, 175–176, 268.
about a definite cultural unit from the Carpathian Basin, which can be traced back by 47 K azanski 2012, 296.
488
48 Kontny–Natuniewicz-Sekuła 2011,
133.
49 It should be noted that several
groups of warriors may have pre-
sumably arrived in the Carpathi-
an 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. His-
torical 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 par-
ticipation of Germanic peoples
in the campaigns of the Huns,
see: Kiss 2011.
52 Kiss 2015, 62–64.
53 Bierbrauer 2006, 194–196.
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
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-Nagyfarkas-
domb (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… 489

Fig. 8 Finds from the cem-

eteries of Ártánd. 1: The
Libenau-type shield boss
5 cm 3 from Grave 30 in Ártánd-Kis-
1 farkasdomb; 2: The long,
double-edged, flexed sword
with an oriental-type cross-
guard from Grave 28 in
Ártánd-Kisfarkasdomb; 3: A
silver plate brooch from the
cemetery of Ártánd-Kisfar-
2 4 kasdomb; 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,
5 Abb. 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
54 In Ártánd-Kisfarkasdomb 3 W-E,
grave orientations in the Hun period.55 Based on these considerations, it would be 2 N-S, and in Ártánd-Nagyfar-
wrong to draw any conclusions about ethnicity (neither of an Iranian or Germanic kasdomb 17 W-E and 10 N-S
oriented graves were excavated.
character), since it should be valid, otherwise, even for the communities buried The other burials followed the
similarly in Transdanubia where graves with similar burial rite and grave goods were S-N orientation typical for the
earlier Sarmatian period (Istváno-
found in the same era. This statement also applies to the group of finds and customs vits–Kulcsár 1999, 76–82). I would

associated with these burials, as they rather reflect the general style and traditions of like to express my gratitude to
Eszter Istvánovits for the accu-
the Hun period. Long double-edged swords with an oriental-type guard, Murga-type rate information related to the
pottery placed next to the head, buckles on footwear, and other finds dated to the orientations of the burial places
in Ártánd.
Hun period (cast-and-carved buckles, silver plate brooches) are known mainly from 55 Mesterházy 2009, 85–86.
these burials. We know a whole series of warrior graves with similar parameters 56 In the opinion of Jaroslav Tejral
(Tejral 2007, 82–86), most of
throughout the entire area of the Carpathian Basin from the period of the Hun Empire these burials can be dated to the
(Fig. 8/1–2).56 Presumably, the warrior elite of the Hun Empire, whose ethnicity cannot D2/D3 period.
490
57 Tejral 2002.
58 Unfortunately, a significant part
of the data of graves and cem-
eteries 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 cemete-
ries (Istvánovits–Kulcsár 1999, 88;
Párducz 1959; Párducz 1963).
59 Such was the belt buckle from
the grave 71 of Ártánd-Nagy-
farkasdomb and the grave 3 of
Ártánd-Lencsésdomb (Mester-
házy 2005, Taf. 1, Taf. 3/1; Mester-
házy 2007, 91, Abb. 3/8). To their
parallels from the graves of the
row-grave cemeteries during the
early Gepidic period, see: Gyula-
Fövenyes (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; Mes-
terházy 1984, 82; Mesterházy 1989,
198–199; Tejral 2002, 324–325.
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.
Fig. 9 Belt buckles from the
cemeteries of Ártánd and the
early row-grave cemeteries.
1: Grave 3 in Ártánd-Lencsés- 1 3
domb (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 Hódmezővásárhely-
Kishomok (Bóna–Nagy 2002,
2
Taf. 23, Taf. 82/1) 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-and-
carved belt buckle – ended probably in the last third of the 5th century, while Kisfar-
kasdomb 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 Nagyfar-
kasdomb 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 Kis-
farkasdomb, 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 ceme-
teries does not reflect a material culture related to a unified people, but rather sug-
gests 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 61 Bierbrauer 2006.
in many respects to the later “uniformization” of the Middle and Late Avar periods, 62 Tejral 2012, 125–127. Jaroslav
Tejral believes that Gepids also
which symbolized a political power rather than the Avar ethnicity.63
merged several groups under
their power at this time, thus a
WHO COULD HAVE OWNED THE TREASURE THEN? FERTILE UNCER- new ethnogenesis began in their
communities. Ágnes B. Tóth
TAINT Y INSTEAD OF A CONCLUSION (B. Tóth 1996, 112; B. Tóth 1999,
25) has a similar opinion about
the establishment of Gepidic
Concerning the ethnic and historical interpretation of the Szilágysomlyó hoard, the row-grave cemeteries. In her
presented theories illuminate the decisive influence of Hungarian archaeologists view, the Gepids were able to
incorporate the Sarmatian and
on research about the presence of the new East Germanic (Gepidic) settlers in pre- Hun-period peoples of the area
sent-day northwestern Romania (Sălaj / Szilágyság) and Transylvania during the 4th –5th in the new Gepidic ethnic tra-
ditions and material culture. On
centuries.64 In Hungarian and Romanian research, there is a consensus on this issue, the cultural transition between
as each party considers the Gepids to be the carriers of local material cultures in the the Hun and Gepidic period
based on the female costume,
period of the hoard’s deposition. These claims can be traced back to the claims of see: Rácz 2016.
István Bóna in the 1970s and 1980s. However, if we examine Bóna’s concept about 63 Vida 2016.
64 Bărbulescu 2008; 119–121, 173–
the early presence of Gepids in the Carpathian Basin, it becomes evident that such 176; Harhoiu 2013, 112; Kiss 1999c,
a clear-cut definition of the East Germanic homeland inside and outside the Carpa- 164–167. In Romanian research,
only Kurt Horedt showed some
thian Basin is not possible in the given period. It is also questionable whether the scepticism about the Gepidic
Gepids could have played such a significant role in the Roman system of alliances as identification.
492
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.
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 fun-
ctioned 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
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 archaeolo-
gical 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 archae-
ological research

69 Engemann 2005, 43, 51–53.

494 ATTILA P. KISS

Szilágysomlyó hoards are the large silver plate brooches with gold-sheet and poly-
chrome 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 illus-
trious 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 Roman-
orum. 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.
Bărbulescu, M. 2008: Mormântul princiar germanic de la Turda – Das germanische Fürsten-
grab 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.
70 Stark 1999b, 174–175. B ierbrauer , V. 1980: Zur chronologischen, soziologischen und regionalen Gliederung
 Which came first, the chicken or the egg? The ethnic interpretations of the hoards… 495

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. Früh-
mittelalterliche Studien 28, 51–171.
B ierbrauer , V. 2006: Gepiden im 5. Jahrhundert – Eine Spurensuche. In: Michailescu-Bĩr-
liba, 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: Mak-
kai, 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.): Sza-
bolcs-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 king-
doms. Aspects of technical, socio-political, socio-economic, artistic and intellectual
development, A.D. 1–550. Symposium in Stockholm 14th –16th November 1997. Stock-
holm, 83–102.
C apelle , T. 1994: Die Miniaturkette von Szilágysomlyó (Simleul Silvaniei). Universitäts-
forschungen 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. Mittei-
lungen 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 aspek-
tusai Északnyugat-Románia területén. In: Körösfői, Zs. (ed.): Erdély és kapcsolatai a kora
népvándorlás korában. Molnár István Múzeum Kiadványai 3. Székelykeresztúr, 205–248.
496 ATTILA P. KISS

G odłowski, K. 1986: Gegenseitige Beziehungen zwischen der Wielbark- und der Prze-
worsk-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 műhelyös�-
szefüggései 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 Pazmani-
ensia 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. Auseinan-
dersetzung – 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 Köz-
lemények 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… 497

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 north-
ern 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. Cul-
tural-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 Weichselmün-
dung 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.–Mes-
terházy, 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 Aca-
demiae 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 Archaeo-
logica 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.
498 ATTILA P. KISS

Q uast, D. 2019: Die nördliche Grenzzone des Oströmischen Reiches und Skandina-
vien im 5. und 6. Jahrhundert. In: Vida, T.–Quast, D.–Rácz, Zs.–Koncz, I. (eds): Kollaps
– Neuordnung – Kontinuität. Gepiden nach dem Untergang des Hunnenreiches. Tagungs-
akten 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. Jahr-
hundert im Karpatenbecken. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae
47, 301–359.
S chmauder , M. 1999: Die Onyxfibel aus Szilágysomlyó und die Gruppe der sogenann-
ten 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 hunni-
schen 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-pannoni-
schen 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 nörd-
lich 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… 499

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 Mid-
dle 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.