Kultura przeworska 

Procesy przemian
i kontakty zewnętrzne
Przeworsk Culture 
Transformation processes
and external contacts
Kultura przeworska
Procesy przemian
i kontakty zewnętrzne
Przeworsk Culture 
Transformation processes
and external contacts

pod redakcją:
Karoliny Kot-Legieć
Andrzeja Michałowskiego
Marka Olędzkiego
Magdaleny Piotrowskiej

Łódź 2019
 Jaroslav Jiřík, Joan Pinar Gil*

Late Przeworsk and post-Przeworsk, Elbian and Danubian. Vandals,

Suebi and the dissemination of Central European elements
of material culture in the Western Provinces
Pozdně przeworský a post-przeworský horizont, polabské a podunajské nálezy. Vandalové,
Svébové a rozšíření středoevropských prvků materiální kultury v Západních Provinciích

Keywords: Vandals, Suebi, Alans, Przeworsk culture, North Carpathian group, Elbe-Germanic culture, Černjahov culture,
“federate culture”, “eastern” influences, central and southern Moravia, Bohemia, Middle and Upper Danube provinces, Tisza
valley, western Germany, southern Germany, Rhine limes, Gaul in Late Antiquity, north-eastern Italy, Iberian Peninsula,
North Africa, late 4th and first half of the 5th century, long-distance contacts, elite networks, migrations
Klíčová slova: Vandalové, Svébové, Alani, przeworská kultura, severokarpatská skupina, labsko-germánský kulturní
okruh, černjachovská kultura, “kultura federátů”, “východní” vlivy, střední a jižní Morava, Čechy, provincie na středním
a horním Dunaji, údolí Tisy, západní Německo, jižní Německo, římský limit, Galie v pozdní antice, severovýchod Itálie,
Iberský poloostrov, severní Afrika, pozdní 4. a první polovina 5. století, dálkové kontakty, propojování elit, migrace

Abstract. Archaeological finds of the turn of the Late Roman and Early Migration Period in the central European
Barbaricum offer an overall picture of dynamical developments, wide exchange of material culture and status symbols.
Numerous innovations regarding mainly the metal and antler industry of likely (post-)Černjahov origin are widespread in
the late Przeworsk culture, and especially within the sites with cremation layers of the so called Dobrodzień group. Late
Przeworsk culture itself is found to be expanded southwards and to the south-east, to the Carpathians and also to the
Carpathian Basin. Typical Late Przeworsk assemblages (shieldbosses, brooches A 158 and A 162, storage vessels of type
Kraussengefässe, etc.) are recorded in wide areas of northern Slovakia (North Carpathian group), but also in Hungary, and
partly also in Transylvania. As an innovation we find numerous late Przeworsk imports (both metal objects and ceramics)
also in Moravia and Bohemia, “homeland” to populations of the Elbe-Germanic circle, and a certain process of uniformiza-
tion and “internationalization” of some aspects of material culture.
In such a backdrop, it seems that the area of provenance of the migrants of the 406-Rhine crossing was connected not
only to the territory of the Przeworsk culture, but also to the territories of North Carpathian group, central Slovakia, the
Carpathian Basin and, possibly, northernmost Pannonia. As for the origin of the “new Suebi”, not only the traditional “core”
in Moravia and south-western Slovakia are considered, but also Bohemia and the territories of the Main valley. The later
territories seem to play a particularly relevant role during the events of 401/402 AD and especially for the Rhine crossing
itself. These processes probably played a key-role for the essential structural changes which have taken place within a sub-
stantial part of the Elbe-Germanic circle.
The repertoire of portable finds recorded in the western provinces of the Roman Empire seem to confirm that
the composition of the 406-Rhine crossers included representatives of all these territories. That is best shown by the
so-called “post-Przeworsk” regional clusters in eastern Gaul (Bourgogne and Rheinhessen), south-western Hispania
and North Africa, stretching from the D1/D2 to the D2/D3 periods. Besides confirming their connections with
multiple territories of Central Europe, the comparison of the typological repertoires of these clusters enable to out-
line the main tendencies of development: gradual integration of post-Černjahov (Alan?) tradition, increasing use of
Mediterranean jewellery and disappearance of weapon graves. The tendency towards the full “Mediterranization”
of the portable objects can be followed up to the latest clothed graves recorded in Vandal Africa, corresponding to
the late D3 – early E1 period.
Outside these regional clusters, similar processes are perceptible in other territories of the West such as south-western Gaul,
north-eastern Italy, Raetia, the upper Rhine valley and northernmost Pannonia. It is not clear yet, to which extent these

* Joan Pinar’s contribution to this paper has been suported by a research fellowship of the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation,
hosted by the Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum in Mainz. Jaroslav Jiřík’s work was supported by the project of Faculty of Arts,
Charles University in Prague, entitled: Progres 3 Historie – klíč k pochopení globalizovaného světa / Progress 3 History – Key for the
Understanding of the Globalised World.

405
Jaroslav Jiřík, Joan Pinar Gil
finds were connected to the post-Przeworsk horizon in the West, although in some particular cases (especially northern
Pannonia) a participation in the movements of Vandals, Suebi and Alans seems likely.
Obsah. Archeologické nálezy z přelomu pozdní doby římské a počátku doby stěhování národů ve středoevropském barbariku
nabízejí celkový obraz dynamického vývoje, rozsáhlé výměny materiální kultury a symbolů statusu. Četné příklady inovací
postihující především kovovou a parohovou industrii s prototypy v (post-)černjachovském prostředí jsou rozšířeny v pozdní
przeworské kultuře, a především na lokalitách s tzv. vrstvovými kremačními hroby dobrodzieńské skupiny. Samotná pozd-
ně przeworská kultura zjevně expanduje jižním a jihovýchodním směrem do oblasti Karpat a Karpatské kotliny. Typické
pozdně przeworské nálezy (štítové puklice, spony s podvázanou nožkou typu A158 a A 162, velké zásobnicovité nádoby
Kraussengefässe, atd.) jsou známé z rozsáhlých území severního Slovenska (severokarpatská skupina), ale i z Maďarska,
a částečně též Transylvánie. Jakožto nové zjištění prezentujeme řadu importů pozdní przeworské kultury (jak kovových
předmětů, tak keramiky) rovněž z Moravy a Čech, „vlasti” populací, spjatých s labsko-germánským kulturním okruhem,
jež patrně souvisejí s procesem uniformizace a „internacionalizace” některých aspektů materiální kultury.
Na pozadí těchto zjištění se jeví původ migrantů ze známého překročení Rýna v roce 406 n. l. jako více heterogenní, zahr-
nující patrně též části populací severokarpatské skupiny, středního Slovenska, Karpatské kotliny, a patrně též severní části
Panonie. Za zdrojovou oblast tzv. „nových Svébů” je opět nověji považováno širší teritorium, nikoliv tedy jen tradiční „jádro”
na Moravě a jihozápadním Slovensku, nýbrž i oblast Čech, a také oblast Pomohaní. Právě oblast Pomohaní, zdá se, hraje
důležitou roli v průběhu událostí z let 402/401 n. l. a zejména při samotném překročení Rýna. Tyto procesy hrály patrně
klíčovou roli pro zásadní strukturální změny v podstatné části labsko-germánského okruhu.
Spektrum drobných nálezů, známých z oblasti západních provincií římského impéria, zdá se, potvrzují heterogenní složení
migrantů z roku 406, zahrnující „reprezentanty” všech těchto regionů. To se nejlépe projevuje tzv. „post-przeworskými”
regionálními enklávami ve východní Galii (Burgundsko, Rheinhessen), v jihozápadní Hispánii a severní Africe, trvající
od horizontu D1/D2 to stupně D2/D3. Vedle potvrzení jejich vztahu k různým oblastem ve střední Evropě, porovnání
typologických rejstříků těchto „enkláv” umožňuje odhalit hlavní tendence vývoje: postupná integrace post-černjachovské
(alanské) tradice, vzestupná tendence užívání šperků středomořské provenience a mizení hrobů se zbraněmi. Tendence
k naprosté „mediteranizaci” drobných předmětů může být sledována až do nejzazšího horizontu s milodary, obsahujícími
součásti oděvu, které ve vandalské Africe odpovídají pozdnímu stupni D3, až ranému stupni E1.
Mimo tyto regionální „enklávy” jsou podobné procesy patrné též v dalších oblastech na Západě, jako například v jihozápad-
ní Galii, severovýchodní Itálii, Récii, v oblasti horního Porýní a na severu Panonie. Není zdaleka jasné, do jaké míry tyto
nálezy odrážejí vztah k post-przeworskému horizontu na Západě, ačkoliv v některých konkrétních případech (speciálně
severní Panonie) se zdá účast na pohybech migrujících Vandalů, Svébů a Alanů pravděpodobná.
Introduction
Many generations of historians and archaeologists have tried to reconstruct the migration of the Vandals and their
allies, its motivations and circumstances, and to identify its trace on the material record. The goal is not an easy
one: as W. Goffart writes, “stalking the Vandals is like picking one’s way through a quaking bog” (Goffart 2006:
85) due to the insolvable gaps left by the available sources (both written and material ones). Instead of trying yet
one more time to stalk the Vandals, Suebi and Alans, throughout the next pages we propose a somewhat different
approach. Extensive archaeological research in many European countries during the past two decades has grad-
ually unveiled the dynamic character of the societies living in the Late Antique Barbaricum and the deepness of
the networks interconnecting the vast territories of the barbarians and linking them to the nearby empires. By
examining selected sequences of archaeological events (changing spatial distribution of artefacts, evolving produc-
tion, consumption and deposition patterns), we will try to outline some of the main social and cultural processes
recorded in several territories of Central and Western Europe and the Mediterranean basin, and to discuss what
might have been the role (if any) of the displaced barbarian groups in their shaping.
406
Late Przeworsk and post-Przeworsk, Elbian and Danubian. Vandals, Suebi and the dissemination of Central European…
In particular cases, archaeological observations might correspond consistently well to short-termed
events, such as migrations, acts of war, plundering campaigns, dissemination of fashions or market fluc-
tuations among other. That is particularly true when we are confronted with archaeological sequences
having a very precise chronological and spatial background. In this rare cases, we may turn to historical
narrative as a possibly valid explanation frame, using the written dataset and the archaeological one as
independent, yet potentially complementary and convergent. Under these rare conditions, we may risk to
connect the material evidence with a specific Late Antique ethnonyme. In doing so, we do not intend
to attribute any specific material features to any or to overlook the complexity of processes of building
of group identities, especially under the exceptional scenarios outlined by the sources (massive migrations,
military pressure and multiculturality/transculturality issues). Therefore, when trying to associate names,
events and archaeological assemblages we just imply than a specific archaeological sequence (for example,
the export of objects produced in the Barbaricum to Western Europe) may be related to the deeds of a par-
ticular group of people (for example, a migration from Central Europe recorded by a 5th century chronicler).
As for “name-giving”, our terminological choices in our description of the archaeological finds have
been rather pragmatic, repeating the most widely used terms in Late Antique and Migration Period Central
European archaeology. It is therefore worth stressing that, for example, our frequent mentions of the
Przeworsk and Černjahov cultures does not imply that we consider them as consistent ethnohistorical enti-
ties, but quick and useful terms to refer to specific types of assemblages occurring in a defined geographical
and chronological context. Similarly, we have chosen to use widely accepted (yet somewhat outdated) terms
referring to specific types of objects, named after some ancient ethnonyme: our conception of “Sarmato-
Alanic metal mirrors”, “Hunnic kettle” or “Elbe-Germanic pottery” it that of providing a quick framework
to the original area and dating of the alluded artefacts.
A short historiographic note
There is not full agreement among the historians of what had caused the invasions of Radagais and the al-
liance of the Vandals, Alans and Suebi during the years 405–406. Individual scholars adopted different po-
sitions, that can be divided into two main groups. The representatives of the first one (for example Goffart
2006: 75–78; Halsall 2007: 195–210) suggest an Empire-focused explanation for the crisis: the division of
the Empire into eastern and western halves (after the usurpations of Eugenius) is thought to have generat-
ed military and diplomatic disruption in the Roman North-west, and the Rhine crossing was its natural
outcome; the Huns just moved into the power vacuum the Vandals and their allies left behind (for ex-
ample: Goffart 1981: 271–306). P. Heather (2010: 10), on the contrary, prefers a more “classic” explanation:
the “Hunnensturm” swept all its way from the Black Sea to the middle Danube; the second phase of the
Hunnic intrusion into Europe, taking place after 395 AD, consequently resulted in the successive invasions
of 405–408 (Radagais, Vandals, Uldin).
Be as it may, the events of 405–408 represented a major convulsion among barbarians settled west
to the Carpathian Mountains. These territories were, from an archaeological point of view, homeland to
407
Jaroslav Jiřík, Joan Pinar Gil
finds were connected to the post-Przeworsk horizon in the West, although in some particular cases (especially northern
Pannonia) a participation in the movements of Vandals, Suebi and Alans seems likely.
Obsah. Archeologické nálezy z přelomu pozdní doby římské a počátku doby stěhování národů ve středoevropském barbariku
nabízejí celkový obraz dynamického vývoje, rozsáhlé výměny materiální kultury a symbolů statusu. Četné příklady inovací
postihující především kovovou a parohovou industrii s prototypy v (post-)černjachovském prostředí jsou rozšířeny v pozdní
przeworské kultuře, a především na lokalitách s tzv. vrstvovými kremačními hroby dobrodzieńské skupiny. Samotná pozd-
ně przeworská kultura zjevně expanduje jižním a jihovýchodním směrem do oblasti Karpat a Karpatské kotliny. Typické
pozdně przeworské nálezy (štítové puklice, spony s podvázanou nožkou typu A158 a A 162, velké zásobnicovité nádoby
Kraussengefässe, atd.) jsou známé z rozsáhlých území severního Slovenska (severokarpatská skupina), ale i z Maďarska,
a částečně též Transylvánie. Jakožto nové zjištění prezentujeme řadu importů pozdní przeworské kultury (jak kovových
předmětů, tak keramiky) rovněž z Moravy a Čech, „vlasti” populací, spjatých s labsko-germánským kulturním okruhem,
jež patrně souvisejí s procesem uniformizace a „internacionalizace” některých aspektů materiální kultury.
Na pozadí těchto zjištění se jeví původ migrantů ze známého překročení Rýna v roce 406 n. l. jako více heterogenní, zahr-
nující patrně též části populací severokarpatské skupiny, středního Slovenska, Karpatské kotliny, a patrně též severní části
Panonie. Za zdrojovou oblast tzv. „nových Svébů” je opět nověji považováno širší teritorium, nikoliv tedy jen tradiční „jádro”
na Moravě a jihozápadním Slovensku, nýbrž i oblast Čech, a také oblast Pomohaní. Právě oblast Pomohaní, zdá se, hraje
důležitou roli v průběhu událostí z let 402/401 n. l. a zejména při samotném překročení Rýna. Tyto procesy hrály patrně
klíčovou roli pro zásadní strukturální změny v podstatné části labsko-germánského okruhu.
Spektrum drobných nálezů, známých z oblasti západních provincií římského impéria, zdá se, potvrzují heterogenní složení
migrantů z roku 406, zahrnující „reprezentanty” všech těchto regionů. To se nejlépe projevuje tzv. „post-przeworskými”
regionálními enklávami ve východní Galii (Burgundsko, Rheinhessen), v jihozápadní Hispánii a severní Africe, trvající
od horizontu D1/D2 to stupně D2/D3. Vedle potvrzení jejich vztahu k různým oblastem ve střední Evropě, porovnání
typologických rejstříků těchto „enkláv” umožňuje odhalit hlavní tendence vývoje: postupná integrace post-černjachovské
(alanské) tradice, vzestupná tendence užívání šperků středomořské provenience a mizení hrobů se zbraněmi. Tendence
k naprosté „mediteranizaci” drobných předmětů může být sledována až do nejzazšího horizontu s milodary, obsahujícími
součásti oděvu, které ve vandalské Africe odpovídají pozdnímu stupni D3, až ranému stupni E1.
Mimo tyto regionální „enklávy” jsou podobné procesy patrné též v dalších oblastech na Západě, jako například v jihozápad-
ní Galii, severovýchodní Itálii, Récii, v oblasti horního Porýní a na severu Panonie. Není zdaleka jasné, do jaké míry tyto
nálezy odrážejí vztah k post-przeworskému horizontu na Západě, ačkoliv v některých konkrétních případech (speciálně
severní Panonie) se zdá účast na pohybech migrujících Vandalů, Svébů a Alanů pravděpodobná.
Introduction
Many generations of historians and archaeologists have tried to reconstruct the migration of the Vandals and their
allies, its motivations and circumstances, and to identify its trace on the material record. The goal is not an easy
one: as W. Goffart writes, “stalking the Vandals is like picking one’s way through a quaking bog” (Goffart 2006:
85) due to the insolvable gaps left by the available sources (both written and material ones). Instead of trying yet
one more time to stalk the Vandals, Suebi and Alans, throughout the next pages we propose a somewhat different
approach. Extensive archaeological research in many European countries during the past two decades has grad-
ually unveiled the dynamic character of the societies living in the Late Antique Barbaricum and the deepness of
the networks interconnecting the vast territories of the barbarians and linking them to the nearby empires. By
examining selected sequences of archaeological events (changing spatial distribution of artefacts, evolving produc-
tion, consumption and deposition patterns), we will try to outline some of the main social and cultural processes
recorded in several territories of Central and Western Europe and the Mediterranean basin, and to discuss what
might have been the role (if any) of the displaced barbarian groups in their shaping.
406
Late Przeworsk and post-Przeworsk, Elbian and Danubian. Vandals, Suebi and the dissemination of Central European…
In particular cases, archaeological observations might correspond consistently well to short-termed
events, such as migrations, acts of war, plundering campaigns, dissemination of fashions or market fluc-
tuations among other. That is particularly true when we are confronted with archaeological sequences
having a very precise chronological and spatial background. In this rare cases, we may turn to historical
narrative as a possibly valid explanation frame, using the written dataset and the archaeological one as
independent, yet potentially complementary and convergent. Under these rare conditions, we may risk to
connect the material evidence with a specific Late Antique ethnonyme. In doing so, we do not intend
to attribute any specific material features to any or to overlook the complexity of processes of building
of group identities, especially under the exceptional scenarios outlined by the sources (massive migrations,
military pressure and multiculturality/transculturality issues). Therefore, when trying to associate names,
events and archaeological assemblages we just imply than a specific archaeological sequence (for example,
the export of objects produced in the Barbaricum to Western Europe) may be related to the deeds of a par-
ticular group of people (for example, a migration from Central Europe recorded by a 5th century chronicler).
As for “name-giving”, our terminological choices in our description of the archaeological finds have
been rather pragmatic, repeating the most widely used terms in Late Antique and Migration Period Central
European archaeology. It is therefore worth stressing that, for example, our frequent mentions of the
Przeworsk and Černjahov cultures does not imply that we consider them as consistent ethnohistorical enti-
ties, but quick and useful terms to refer to specific types of assemblages occurring in a defined geographical
and chronological context. Similarly, we have chosen to use widely accepted (yet somewhat outdated) terms
referring to specific types of objects, named after some ancient ethnonyme: our conception of “Sarmato-
Alanic metal mirrors”, “Hunnic kettle” or “Elbe-Germanic pottery” it that of providing a quick framework
to the original area and dating of the alluded artefacts.
A short historiographic note
There is not full agreement among the historians of what had caused the invasions of Radagais and the al-
liance of the Vandals, Alans and Suebi during the years 405–406. Individual scholars adopted different po-
sitions, that can be divided into two main groups. The representatives of the first one (for example Goffart
2006: 75–78; Halsall 2007: 195–210) suggest an Empire-focused explanation for the crisis: the division of
the Empire into eastern and western halves (after the usurpations of Eugenius) is thought to have generat-
ed military and diplomatic disruption in the Roman North-west, and the Rhine crossing was its natural
outcome; the Huns just moved into the power vacuum the Vandals and their allies left behind (for ex-
ample: Goffart 1981: 271–306). P. Heather (2010: 10), on the contrary, prefers a more “classic” explanation:
the “Hunnensturm” swept all its way from the Black Sea to the middle Danube; the second phase of the
Hunnic intrusion into Europe, taking place after 395 AD, consequently resulted in the successive invasions
of 405–408 (Radagais, Vandals, Uldin).
Be as it may, the events of 405–408 represented a major convulsion among barbarians settled west
to the Carpathian Mountains. These territories were, from an archaeological point of view, homeland to
407
Jaroslav Jiřík, Joan Pinar Gil
the Przeworsk culture of the Late Roman Period and to the Middle Danubian sub-province of the Elbe-
Germanic culture, which included Moravia, Lower Austria and south-western Slovakia.
The dating of the presence of the Huns (as the possible initiators of the invasions) in the territories west
of the Carpathians is problematic both from a historical and archaeological point of view. The early intru-
sion of the Huns into the Middle Danube and seems to be proven by early “nomadic” features recorded
in several grave assemblages and in Roman military enclaves. The examples of the grave from Keszthely–
Gátidomb and the Roman fort at Hinova witness on behalf of the dating of the earliest Hunic elements to
the early 5th century (Tejral 2010: 102–116). These finds, however, are too meagre to provide any consistent
basis for a historically-based interpretation.
Later Przeworsk culture
The territory hosting the Przeworsk culture during the Late Roman Period furnishes a relatively restrained
typological inventory, most often recorded within poor cremation pit-graves, layers with scattered cremat-
ed remains and settlements; this kind of background renders very difficult to set these finds in a precise
chronological framework. It is likely that phase IV at the cemetery of Opatów corresponds to the stage
C3 of the Elbe-Germanic culture circle; however, to distinguish between C2 and C3 finds is very difficult
in most cases. The horizontal stratigraphy of the sites in Opatów and Częstochowa can be used as a sort of
chronological framework (Godłowski 1992a: 43–49; Tejral 1992: 231–233, fig. 3). Among the portable finds
of the stage C3, a crossbow brooch with knobbed end from gr. No. 37 at Korzeń can be mentioned; the
same grave contained also iron belt buckles with oval or rectangular frame, typical for this period (Tejral
1992: 231–233, fig. 3; Mączyńska 1999: 141–144). Various elements of military equipment are also datable
within the Late Roman Period; they occur in graves of K. Godłowski’s 3rd and 4th horizon and represent
a specific feature of the Przeworsk culture, as this equipment is unknown south to the Carpathians and
within the Elbe-Germanic territories during the C3 period. Umbones with low conical body and broad
edge and facetted spathae of IX class after M. Biborski (known from the site Ozernoje for example) can be
mentioned among the main typological indexes. Other examples of this late horizon of warrior graves are
the finds at Ługi and Nowa Wieś Legnicka, including high cupola-shaped shield bosses and long swords
of Biborski’s class XI (Godłowski 1992a: 43–49; 1992b: 84–85). Another type of object belonging to this
period are tapering, cylindrical glass beakers with round bases and thick walls, decorated with wheel-cut
or polished oval facets, known as type Kowalk.
A number of cemeteries of the Przeworsk area show a continuity of burials up to the stage C3; that is
the case of the burial yard at Opatów, for example. This continuity is coeval with a new phenomenon: the
emergence of cemeteries consisting of a layer with scattered cremated remains, widely known as Dobrodzień
group cemeteries: Dobrodzień, Szczedrzyk, Olstyn (Godłowski 1977: 221–223). K. Godłowski here points
out to numerous influences from the late Černjahov-Sȋntana de Mureş culture, especially visible in the
manufacturing of small metal and antler artefacts (for a comparison see for example: Rusanova, Symonovič
1993; Levinschi 1999) (fig. 1:2–4, 14–21).
408
Late Przeworsk and post-Przeworsk, Elbian and Danubian. Vandals, Suebi and the dissemination of Central European…
A number of objects finding their prototypes in the territory of the Černjahov culture can be identified
within the typological inventory of the following stage D1. It is the case of usually undecorated combs with
semi-circular handle of Thomas III class: Opatów, Żerniki Wielkie (fig. 2:19) and of buckles with thickened
round frame and no attached plate of type Madyda-Legutko AH 25, as well as specimens with rectangular
or round catchplate (for example: Tejral 1992: fig. 3:17, 19, 22, 26) (fig. 2:11–13). Tools and weapons were also
common in the assemblages of this period; an example is a type of object, interpreted by various authors
either as a stylus or as a part of a fire-striker set (for example Opatów, see Tejral 1992: fig. 3:15) (fig. 2:27).
Among the military equipment items, the shield bosses of type Dobrodzień with facetted body (fig. 2:25)
represent a particularly reliable chronological index (see dating issues in Godłowski 1977: 220). These um-
bones are known also in the Carpathian Basin, Moravia (fig. 9:4–5) and, less frequently, also in the territory
of Northern Caucasus; here the facetted umbones of the types Dobrodzień and Malaješti occurred within
a cemetery related to client groups of the Roman Empire at Tsibilium (fig. 1:27–34) during the stage II/3–4
(320/330–400/410 AD) (Kazanski, Mastykova 2013: 58, fig 2:22–23; see also Kazanski 2013: 509; 2018: 215,
on the possible role played by either “barbarised” Roman garrisons or by defeated Germanic groups relocat-
ed in the West after 401/402 AD in the dissemination of these weapons). Unique is a find of this umbo in
a fortress Hinova in the Late Roman Limes at Danube (Špehar 2012: 37–38, fig. 3B). Interestingly enough,
a facetted conical pattern clearly resembling the shape of this type of umbo can be observed on the bridle
mount fittings from the grave of the rich lady at Untersiebenbrunn (Kazanski, Mastykova 2017: 299, fig. 3)
(fig. 9:6–7); the same shape can be recognized on the facetted knobs of the Late Roman crossbow brooches
of the types Keller 2 and 6. This piece of evidence, together with the iconographical accordance between
the Stilicho diptych in Monza with the umbones of the Dobrodzień type (fig. 9:2)1, renders very likely the
Roman origin of the shield bosses. Moreover, it suggests the coexistence of certain cultural elements (per-
haps associated with warriors of different socioeconomic strata) during the partially overlapping D1 and
D2 horizons. A sword scabbard bridge mount with Sösdala decoration from Tibble (Kazanski, Mastykova
2017: 299, fig. 8) can be seen as a further example of this European-wide communication network of the
early Migration Period.
The territory of the Przeworsk culture witnessed substantial transformations of the settlement struc-
ture during the late Roman Period: both settlements and cemeteries seem to cluster in its southernmost
area (Silesia, Lesser Poland), whereas a noticeable decrease of the sites is to be observed in vast areas of
Greater Poland, Kuyavia and Mazovia (Godłowski 1992a: 43–49; Tejral 1992: 231–233, fig. 3; Mączyńska
1999: 25–28). Most of the sites of the Przeworsk culture declined and were abandoned during the stage D1;
however, some assemblages mirror a continuity in settlement between the Late Roman Period and the early
Migration Period. A clear example is Mokra in Polish Silesia, where seven urn-graves were recorded together
with 73 simple pit-graves and a layer with scattered cremated remains; the latter assigns this cemetery to the
1 The example of the umbo with a star-shaped flange represented in Stilicho’s diptych is exceptional within this group of Dobrodzień-
type umbones. Similar shield bosses, with star-shaped flange but no facetted bowl have been found in a slightly earlier context, corre-
sponding to a destruction event at Dura Europos in Syria (James 2004: 175, fig. 603–604). This counterpart supports the idea that the
discussed umbones followed the Roman tradition of military equipment.
409
Jaroslav Jiřík, Joan Pinar Gil
the Przeworsk culture of the Late Roman Period and to the Middle Danubian sub-province of the Elbe-
Germanic culture, which included Moravia, Lower Austria and south-western Slovakia.
The dating of the presence of the Huns (as the possible initiators of the invasions) in the territories west
of the Carpathians is problematic both from a historical and archaeological point of view. The early intru-
sion of the Huns into the Middle Danube and seems to be proven by early “nomadic” features recorded
in several grave assemblages and in Roman military enclaves. The examples of the grave from Keszthely–
Gátidomb and the Roman fort at Hinova witness on behalf of the dating of the earliest Hunic elements to
the early 5th century (Tejral 2010: 102–116). These finds, however, are too meagre to provide any consistent
basis for a historically-based interpretation.
Later Przeworsk culture
The territory hosting the Przeworsk culture during the Late Roman Period furnishes a relatively restrained
typological inventory, most often recorded within poor cremation pit-graves, layers with scattered cremat-
ed remains and settlements; this kind of background renders very difficult to set these finds in a precise
chronological framework. It is likely that phase IV at the cemetery of Opatów corresponds to the stage
C3 of the Elbe-Germanic culture circle; however, to distinguish between C2 and C3 finds is very difficult
in most cases. The horizontal stratigraphy of the sites in Opatów and Częstochowa can be used as a sort of
chronological framework (Godłowski 1992a: 43–49; Tejral 1992: 231–233, fig. 3). Among the portable finds
of the stage C3, a crossbow brooch with knobbed end from gr. No. 37 at Korzeń can be mentioned; the
same grave contained also iron belt buckles with oval or rectangular frame, typical for this period (Tejral
1992: 231–233, fig. 3; Mączyńska 1999: 141–144). Various elements of military equipment are also datable
within the Late Roman Period; they occur in graves of K. Godłowski’s 3rd and 4th horizon and represent
a specific feature of the Przeworsk culture, as this equipment is unknown south to the Carpathians and
within the Elbe-Germanic territories during the C3 period. Umbones with low conical body and broad
edge and facetted spathae of IX class after M. Biborski (known from the site Ozernoje for example) can be
mentioned among the main typological indexes. Other examples of this late horizon of warrior graves are
the finds at Ługi and Nowa Wieś Legnicka, including high cupola-shaped shield bosses and long swords
of Biborski’s class XI (Godłowski 1992a: 43–49; 1992b: 84–85). Another type of object belonging to this
period are tapering, cylindrical glass beakers with round bases and thick walls, decorated with wheel-cut
or polished oval facets, known as type Kowalk.
A number of cemeteries of the Przeworsk area show a continuity of burials up to the stage C3; that is
the case of the burial yard at Opatów, for example. This continuity is coeval with a new phenomenon: the
emergence of cemeteries consisting of a layer with scattered cremated remains, widely known as Dobrodzień
group cemeteries: Dobrodzień, Szczedrzyk, Olstyn (Godłowski 1977: 221–223). K. Godłowski here points
out to numerous influences from the late Černjahov-Sȋntana de Mureş culture, especially visible in the
manufacturing of small metal and antler artefacts (for a comparison see for example: Rusanova, Symonovič
1993; Levinschi 1999) (fig. 1:2–4, 14–21).
408
Late Przeworsk and post-Przeworsk, Elbian and Danubian. Vandals, Suebi and the dissemination of Central European…
A number of objects finding their prototypes in the territory of the Černjahov culture can be identified
within the typological inventory of the following stage D1. It is the case of usually undecorated combs with
semi-circular handle of Thomas III class: Opatów, Żerniki Wielkie (fig. 2:19) and of buckles with thickened
round frame and no attached plate of type Madyda-Legutko AH 25, as well as specimens with rectangular
or round catchplate (for example: Tejral 1992: fig. 3:17, 19, 22, 26) (fig. 2:11–13). Tools and weapons were also
common in the assemblages of this period; an example is a type of object, interpreted by various authors
either as a stylus or as a part of a fire-striker set (for example Opatów, see Tejral 1992: fig. 3:15) (fig. 2:27).
Among the military equipment items, the shield bosses of type Dobrodzień with facetted body (fig. 2:25)
represent a particularly reliable chronological index (see dating issues in Godłowski 1977: 220). These um-
bones are known also in the Carpathian Basin, Moravia (fig. 9:4–5) and, less frequently, also in the territory
of Northern Caucasus; here the facetted umbones of the types Dobrodzień and Malaješti occurred within
a cemetery related to client groups of the Roman Empire at Tsibilium (fig. 1:27–34) during the stage II/3–4
(320/330–400/410 AD) (Kazanski, Mastykova 2013: 58, fig 2:22–23; see also Kazanski 2013: 509; 2018: 215,
on the possible role played by either “barbarised” Roman garrisons or by defeated Germanic groups relocat-
ed in the West after 401/402 AD in the dissemination of these weapons). Unique is a find of this umbo in
a fortress Hinova in the Late Roman Limes at Danube (Špehar 2012: 37–38, fig. 3B). Interestingly enough,
a facetted conical pattern clearly resembling the shape of this type of umbo can be observed on the bridle
mount fittings from the grave of the rich lady at Untersiebenbrunn (Kazanski, Mastykova 2017: 299, fig. 3)
(fig. 9:6–7); the same shape can be recognized on the facetted knobs of the Late Roman crossbow brooches
of the types Keller 2 and 6. This piece of evidence, together with the iconographical accordance between
the Stilicho diptych in Monza with the umbones of the Dobrodzień type (fig. 9:2)1, renders very likely the
Roman origin of the shield bosses. Moreover, it suggests the coexistence of certain cultural elements (per-
haps associated with warriors of different socioeconomic strata) during the partially overlapping D1 and
D2 horizons. A sword scabbard bridge mount with Sösdala decoration from Tibble (Kazanski, Mastykova
2017: 299, fig. 8) can be seen as a further example of this European-wide communication network of the
early Migration Period.
The territory of the Przeworsk culture witnessed substantial transformations of the settlement struc-
ture during the late Roman Period: both settlements and cemeteries seem to cluster in its southernmost
area (Silesia, Lesser Poland), whereas a noticeable decrease of the sites is to be observed in vast areas of
Greater Poland, Kuyavia and Mazovia (Godłowski 1992a: 43–49; Tejral 1992: 231–233, fig. 3; Mączyńska
1999: 25–28). Most of the sites of the Przeworsk culture declined and were abandoned during the stage D1;
however, some assemblages mirror a continuity in settlement between the Late Roman Period and the early
Migration Period. A clear example is Mokra in Polish Silesia, where seven urn-graves were recorded together
with 73 simple pit-graves and a layer with scattered cremated remains; the latter assigns this cemetery to the
1 The example of the umbo with a star-shaped flange represented in Stilicho’s diptych is exceptional within this group of Dobrodzień-
type umbones. Similar shield bosses, with star-shaped flange but no facetted bowl have been found in a slightly earlier context, corre-
sponding to a destruction event at Dura Europos in Syria (James 2004: 175, fig. 603–604). This counterpart supports the idea that the
discussed umbones followed the Roman tradition of military equipment.
409
Jaroslav Jiřík, Joan Pinar Gil Late Przeworsk and post-Przeworsk, Elbian and Danubian. Vandals, Suebi and the dissemination of Central European…

Fig. 1. Černjahov–Sintana de Mureş culture (C3–D1 period) and northern Caucasus (D1–D2 period). Representative assemblages. Fig. 2. Late Przeworsk culture (C3–D1 period). Representative assemblages.

Obr. 1. Kultura černjachovská–Sintana de Mureş (stupeň C3–D1) a severní Kavkaz (stupeň D1–D2). Výběr nálezů. Obr. 2. Pozdní przeworská kultura (stupně C3–D1). Výběr nálezů.

1) Tîrgşor; 2) Gavrilovka; 3) Žurovka; 4) Koblevo; 5) Žovnyne; 6–7) Mihălăşeni; 8–11) Lazuri (Lázári)–Râtul lui Béla; 12–13) Fântânele “Rât”; 1–2) Kietrz; 3) Szczedrzyk; 4–10, 14) Jakuszowice; 11–12, 26) Szczedrzyk; 13) Ługi; 15) Kietrz; 16–17) Wojnowice; 18) Turawa;
14–18) Slobozia–Chişcăreni; 19–20) Kantěmirovka; 21) Kosanovo; 22–24) Lermontovskaja Skala, gr. No. 2; 25) Birk, gr. No. 77; 26–31) 19, 24) Żerniki Wielke; 20) Opatów, gr. No. 19; 21) Ligota; 22) Opole–Zakrzów; 23) Opatów, gr. X; 25) Dobrodzień; 27) Opatów
Tsibilium, gr. Nos. 57 and 61; 31–34) Tsibilium, graves (after/podle: Diaconu 1965; Rusanova, Symonovič 1993; Schultze, Strocen 2008; (after/podle: Godłowski 1959, 1977, 1992a, 1995; Tejral 1992).
Şovan 2005; Lazin, Gindele 2010; Marinescu, Gaiu1989; Levinschi 1999; Kazanski, Mastykova 2003, 2013; Kazanski 2011).

410 411
Jaroslav Jiřík, Joan Pinar Gil Late Przeworsk and post-Przeworsk, Elbian and Danubian. Vandals, Suebi and the dissemination of Central European…

Fig. 1. Černjahov–Sintana de Mureş culture (C3–D1 period) and northern Caucasus (D1–D2 period). Representative assemblages. Fig. 2. Late Przeworsk culture (C3–D1 period). Representative assemblages.

Obr. 1. Kultura černjachovská–Sintana de Mureş (stupeň C3–D1) a severní Kavkaz (stupeň D1–D2). Výběr nálezů. Obr. 2. Pozdní przeworská kultura (stupně C3–D1). Výběr nálezů.

1) Tîrgşor; 2) Gavrilovka; 3) Žurovka; 4) Koblevo; 5) Žovnyne; 6–7) Mihălăşeni; 8–11) Lazuri (Lázári)–Râtul lui Béla; 12–13) Fântânele “Rât”; 1–2) Kietrz; 3) Szczedrzyk; 4–10, 14) Jakuszowice; 11–12, 26) Szczedrzyk; 13) Ługi; 15) Kietrz; 16–17) Wojnowice; 18) Turawa;
14–18) Slobozia–Chişcăreni; 19–20) Kantěmirovka; 21) Kosanovo; 22–24) Lermontovskaja Skala, gr. No. 2; 25) Birk, gr. No. 77; 26–31) 19, 24) Żerniki Wielke; 20) Opatów, gr. No. 19; 21) Ligota; 22) Opole–Zakrzów; 23) Opatów, gr. X; 25) Dobrodzień; 27) Opatów
Tsibilium, gr. Nos. 57 and 61; 31–34) Tsibilium, graves (after/podle: Diaconu 1965; Rusanova, Symonovič 1993; Schultze, Strocen 2008; (after/podle: Godłowski 1959, 1977, 1992a, 1995; Tejral 1992).
Şovan 2005; Lazin, Gindele 2010; Marinescu, Gaiu1989; Levinschi 1999; Kazanski, Mastykova 2003, 2013; Kazanski 2011).

410 411
Jaroslav Jiřík, Joan Pinar Gil Late Przeworsk and post-Przeworsk, Elbian and Danubian. Vandals, Suebi and the dissemination of Central European…

Fig. 3. North Carpathian group and Carpathian Basin (D1 period). Representative assemblages. Fig. 4. Moravia, central and south-western Slovakia (D1 period). Representative assemblages.

Obr. 3. Severokarpatská skupina a Karpatská kotlina (stupeň D1). Výběr nálezů. Obr. 4. Morava, střední a jihozápadní Slovensko (stupeň D1). Výběr nálezů.

1–4, 8, 12, 15) Liptovská Mara; 5) Liptovský Ján; 6) Nová Lesná; 7, 14) Lazisko; 9–10, 17–18, 23–24, 27–28, 31, 33, 36–37, 41, 49) Vyšný 1–7) Kostelec na Hané; 8) Mušov; 9) Blatnica; 10) Branč; 11, 13, 15–16, 20) Banská Bystrica–Selce; 12) Kšinná; 14, 21) Bánská
Kubín; 11) Vrbov; 13, 25, 45) Turík; 16) Spišský Štvrtok; 19, 21) Liptovská Teplá; 20) Veľká Lomnica; 22, 51–52) Prešov; 26) Zahradné; Bystrica–Sásová; 17) Iža, gr. 1/87; 18) Sládkovičovo, gr. No. 2; 19) Vyšehradné; 22–27) Zlechov (after/podle: Zeman 1961; Tejral 1997;
29, 39–40) Lazisko; 30, 35, 43–44, 46–48, 50) Vrbov; 54–55, 57) Rytro; 56) Moszczenica Wyżna; 58–61) Tiszavalk–Sziget, gr. No. 6; Pieta 1999; Kolník et al. 2007; Werner 1981; Zeman 2006).
62–65) Újhartyján (after/podle: Pieta 1999; Madyda-Legutko, Tunia 2008; Tejral 1997).

412 413
Jaroslav Jiřík, Joan Pinar Gil Late Przeworsk and post-Przeworsk, Elbian and Danubian. Vandals, Suebi and the dissemination of Central European…

Fig. 3. North Carpathian group and Carpathian Basin (D1 period). Representative assemblages. Fig. 4. Moravia, central and south-western Slovakia (D1 period). Representative assemblages.

Obr. 3. Severokarpatská skupina a Karpatská kotlina (stupeň D1). Výběr nálezů. Obr. 4. Morava, střední a jihozápadní Slovensko (stupeň D1). Výběr nálezů.

1–4, 8, 12, 15) Liptovská Mara; 5) Liptovský Ján; 6) Nová Lesná; 7, 14) Lazisko; 9–10, 17–18, 23–24, 27–28, 31, 33, 36–37, 41, 49) Vyšný 1–7) Kostelec na Hané; 8) Mušov; 9) Blatnica; 10) Branč; 11, 13, 15–16, 20) Banská Bystrica–Selce; 12) Kšinná; 14, 21) Bánská
Kubín; 11) Vrbov; 13, 25, 45) Turík; 16) Spišský Štvrtok; 19, 21) Liptovská Teplá; 20) Veľká Lomnica; 22, 51–52) Prešov; 26) Zahradné; Bystrica–Sásová; 17) Iža, gr. 1/87; 18) Sládkovičovo, gr. No. 2; 19) Vyšehradné; 22–27) Zlechov (after/podle: Zeman 1961; Tejral 1997;
29, 39–40) Lazisko; 30, 35, 43–44, 46–48, 50) Vrbov; 54–55, 57) Rytro; 56) Moszczenica Wyżna; 58–61) Tiszavalk–Sziget, gr. No. 6; Pieta 1999; Kolník et al. 2007; Werner 1981; Zeman 2006).
62–65) Újhartyján (after/podle: Pieta 1999; Madyda-Legutko, Tunia 2008; Tejral 1997).

412 413
Jaroslav Jiřík, Joan Pinar Gil Late Przeworsk and post-Przeworsk, Elbian and Danubian. Vandals, Suebi and the dissemination of Central European…

Fig. 5. Bohemia (D1 period). Representative assemblages. Fig. 6. Raetia and upper Rhine (C3–D1 period). Representative assemblages.

Obr. 5. Čechy (stupeň D1). Výběr nálezů. Obr. 6. Réciea oblast horního toku Rýnu (stupně C3–D1). Výběr nálezů.

1–2) Prague–Dejvice, sladovny Podbaba; 3) Prague–Podbaba; 4) Prague–Čimice; 5) Doudleby nad Orlicí; 6) Kostelec nad Orlicí;
7) Trmice; 8) Budyně; 9–11) Pšovlky; 12) Prague–Ruzyně; 13) Hrobce u Roudnice; 14) Jíloviště u Prahy; 15) Praha–Střešovice;
16) Předslav; 17–19) Vlíněves; 20) Beroun–Závodí; 21) Prosmyky (after/podle: Kuchařík, unpublished; Svoboda 1965; Procházka 2009;
Jílek 2009; Reszczyńska 2008; Zápotocký 1969; Droberjar 2015; Kuchařík et al. 2008; Jiřík 2008; Zeman 1961; Hlava 2009; Rybová
1976; Limburský, unpublished; Droberjar 2007).
1) Götting; 2) Bregenz, gr. No. 519; 3) Bregenz, gr. No. 906; 4) Moosberg; 5–7) Neuburg an der Donau; 8–16) Abusina–Eining;
17) Augst; 18, 20) Lorenzberg bei Epfach; 19) Teriola/Zirl–Martinsbühel; 21–24) Kaiseraugst (after/podle: Keller 1979; Behrens 1931;
Keller 1971; Gschwind 2004; Schuster 2001b; Höck 2003; Marti 2000).

414 415
Jaroslav Jiřík, Joan Pinar Gil Late Przeworsk and post-Przeworsk, Elbian and Danubian. Vandals, Suebi and the dissemination of Central European…

Fig. 5. Bohemia (D1 period). Representative assemblages. Fig. 6. Raetia and upper Rhine (C3–D1 period). Representative assemblages.

Obr. 5. Čechy (stupeň D1). Výběr nálezů. Obr. 6. Réciea oblast horního toku Rýnu (stupně C3–D1). Výběr nálezů.

1–2) Prague–Dejvice, sladovny Podbaba; 3) Prague–Podbaba; 4) Prague–Čimice; 5) Doudleby nad Orlicí; 6) Kostelec nad Orlicí;
7) Trmice; 8) Budyně; 9–11) Pšovlky; 12) Prague–Ruzyně; 13) Hrobce u Roudnice; 14) Jíloviště u Prahy; 15) Praha–Střešovice;
16) Předslav; 17–19) Vlíněves; 20) Beroun–Závodí; 21) Prosmyky (after/podle: Kuchařík, unpublished; Svoboda 1965; Procházka 2009;
Jílek 2009; Reszczyńska 2008; Zápotocký 1969; Droberjar 2015; Kuchařík et al. 2008; Jiřík 2008; Zeman 1961; Hlava 2009; Rybová
1976; Limburský, unpublished; Droberjar 2007).
1) Götting; 2) Bregenz, gr. No. 519; 3) Bregenz, gr. No. 906; 4) Moosberg; 5–7) Neuburg an der Donau; 8–16) Abusina–Eining;
17) Augst; 18, 20) Lorenzberg bei Epfach; 19) Teriola/Zirl–Martinsbühel; 21–24) Kaiseraugst (after/podle: Keller 1979; Behrens 1931;
Keller 1971; Gschwind 2004; Schuster 2001b; Höck 2003; Marti 2000).

414 415
Jaroslav Jiřík, Joan Pinar Gil Late Przeworsk and post-Przeworsk, Elbian and Danubian. Vandals, Suebi and the dissemination of Central European…

1) Trebur; 2) Wolfsheim; 3) Mainz-Kastel; 4) Eisenberg; 5) Wiesbaden (after/podle: Möller 1987; Bernhard 1999; Schoppa 1962; Buchinger 1997).
Obr. 8. Oblast Rheinhessenu (stupně D1–D2).
Fig. 8. Rheinhessen (D1–D2 period).
Fig. 7. Main valley (D1 period).

Obr. 7. Pomohaní (stupeň D1).

1–4) Stockstadt; 5) Kahl am Main, hut 6/8; 6–7) Zellingen; 8) Geldersheim; 9) Schloßberg near Geisfeld; 10, 24) Altendorf, gr. No. 29;
11) Wetzlar; 12–20) Altenerdorf, gr. No. 74; 21) Altendorf, gr. No. 21; 22, 30–31) Unterhaid; 23, 28) Eggolsheim; 25–27, 29, 32)
Altendorf–Point (after/podle: Pescheck 1978; Teichner 1999; Schuster 2001a; Steidl 2000; Böhnlein 1993/1994; Haberstroh 2003).

416 417
Jaroslav Jiřík, Joan Pinar Gil Late Przeworsk and post-Przeworsk, Elbian and Danubian. Vandals, Suebi and the dissemination of Central European…

1) Trebur; 2) Wolfsheim; 3) Mainz-Kastel; 4) Eisenberg; 5) Wiesbaden (after/podle: Möller 1987; Bernhard 1999; Schoppa 1962; Buchinger 1997).
Obr. 8. Oblast Rheinhessenu (stupně D1–D2).
Fig. 8. Rheinhessen (D1–D2 period).
Fig. 7. Main valley (D1 period).

Obr. 7. Pomohaní (stupeň D1).

1–4) Stockstadt; 5) Kahl am Main, hut 6/8; 6–7) Zellingen; 8) Geldersheim; 9) Schloßberg near Geisfeld; 10, 24) Altendorf, gr. No. 29;
11) Wetzlar; 12–20) Altenerdorf, gr. No. 74; 21) Altendorf, gr. No. 21; 22, 30–31) Unterhaid; 23, 28) Eggolsheim; 25–27, 29, 32)
Altendorf–Point (after/podle: Pescheck 1978; Teichner 1999; Schuster 2001a; Steidl 2000; Böhnlein 1993/1994; Haberstroh 2003).

416 417
Jaroslav Jiřík, Joan Pinar Gil Late Przeworsk and post-Przeworsk, Elbian and Danubian. Vandals, Suebi and the dissemination of Central European…

Dobrodzień group. The site was surely functioning throughout the 4th century and the first decades of the
5th century. The grave/feature No. 361 contained a silver brooch of the type A 166 decorated with pearl-wire
(same type as Květnice, see below), dated within the stage C2; two iron brooches similar to A 158 and 168
types, a filigree kaptorga-shaped pendant with a direct counterpart in Zakrzów and a buckle of the type
Madyda-Legutko D30 completed the inventory. The latest chronological indexes correspond to a number
of typical D2-stage objects (Biborski 2004: 126–129, 132, fig. 2–3, 7i–j).
The rich grave found at Jakuszowice in 1911 in a depth of 11 metres is probably the best known site of ear-
ly Migration Period in Poland. There is no need to dwell in the description of the recorded grave goods, so we
will content ourselves with pointing out the nomadic character of the grave, which connects the assemblage
with the graves in Ługi and Jędrzychowice on one side and with the Carpathian Basin on the other (Godłowski
1995: 155–157). Particularly relevant appears to be the excavation undertaken in 1982–1997 in the settlement area
of Jakuszowice, which shows the continuity of the site for entire part of the Roman Period. The Late Roman/
Early Migration Period horizon is represented by a number of one-pieced brooches with attached foot of type
A VI, 158 and decoration of carved diagonal crosses and beveled pattern (see below the comparison) (fig. 2:5–7, 9),
a fragment of a comb of type Thomas III, and especially by wheel-thrown pottery with burnished decoration
and Krausengefässe. Important finds were also brought to light by a survey with metal detector, which revealed
connections with Wielbark culture (buckle with rectangular frame, brooches), and Černjahov-Sȋntana de Mureş
culture (pendant, fragment of a pitcher with facetted body). Of interest appears also the evidence for links with
the Danubian limes in Bavaria, especially a buckle tongue lined with a gold wire, which finds good counterparts
from the early 5th century in Frauenberg by Wellenburg and Lorenzberg by Epfach. Roman import is represented
by fragments of provincial crossbow brooches of Keller’s type 3–4, together with a fragment of late terra sigillata
and a glazed pitcher of Pannonian origin. The indexes of the first half of the 5th century are completed by a frag-
ment of a beaker of Snartemo type and by pottery of Murga type (Godłowski 1995: 157–159, fig. 5–10; Kaczanowski,
Rodzińska-Nowak 2008: 179–188, fig. 1–6).
The pottery in the Late Przeworsk culture deserves a separate comment. A feature of the local produc-
tion in that area is the fact that since the stage C1b (synchronically to other regions in Central Europe)
the manufacturing of wheel-thrown ceramics developed. The evolution of a wide range of forms can be
observed throughout the Late Roman Period, up to the stage D. Sites such as the cemeteries of Żerniki
Wielke, Olsztyn, Czeladź and Szczedrzyk, the furnaces at Igołomia or the settlement at Mogiła–Nowa Huta
should be mentioned among the most representative examples.
The overview of pottery forms published by H. Dobrzańska (Dobrzańska 1980: 136–140) shows that the
connections with the productions of the Middle Danube region and the late Černjahov area are a distinct fea-
ture of the late C3–D stages. “Eastern”, Černjahov related forms are represented, for example, by the bowls of
the form B, type II (Korzeń) and type V (Dobrodzień–Rędzina, Olsztyn and others, finding analogies in the
Fig. 9. Umbones of the Przeworsk culture. Middle Dnieper region) as well as by the type XXVI (Korzeń, with analogies at Sumach, Sumskij region).
Obr. 9. Štítové puklice przeworské kultury. The same applies to the beakers of Dobrzańska’s group D, types I (Dobrodzień–Rędzina, Szczedrzyk) and
1) Piedestal of the obelisque of Emperor Theodosius (Thutmose obelisque) in Constantinople; 2) Monza dyptich; 3) Chorula, IV and to the jars of her group F, types I, II, III and IV (Dobrodzień–Rędzina and Witów, with analogies
gr. No. 18; 4) Újhartyján; 5) Mušov; 6–7) Untersiebenbrunn (after/podle: Jiřík et al. 2015; Godłowski 1992b; Tejral 1997; Kazanski,
Mastykova 2017; original photograph by Jaroslav Jiřík). in Gurbintsi, Romanove Selo and Romašek in Ukraine). At the same time, relations to the pottery produced

418 419
Jaroslav Jiřík, Joan Pinar Gil Late Przeworsk and post-Przeworsk, Elbian and Danubian. Vandals, Suebi and the dissemination of Central European…

Dobrodzień group. The site was surely functioning throughout the 4th century and the first decades of the
5th century. The grave/feature No. 361 contained a silver brooch of the type A 166 decorated with pearl-wire
(same type as Květnice, see below), dated within the stage C2; two iron brooches similar to A 158 and 168
types, a filigree kaptorga-shaped pendant with a direct counterpart in Zakrzów and a buckle of the type
Madyda-Legutko D30 completed the inventory. The latest chronological indexes correspond to a number
of typical D2-stage objects (Biborski 2004: 126–129, 132, fig. 2–3, 7i–j).
The rich grave found at Jakuszowice in 1911 in a depth of 11 metres is probably the best known site of ear-
ly Migration Period in Poland. There is no need to dwell in the description of the recorded grave goods, so we
will content ourselves with pointing out the nomadic character of the grave, which connects the assemblage
with the graves in Ługi and Jędrzychowice on one side and with the Carpathian Basin on the other (Godłowski
1995: 155–157). Particularly relevant appears to be the excavation undertaken in 1982–1997 in the settlement area
of Jakuszowice, which shows the continuity of the site for entire part of the Roman Period. The Late Roman/
Early Migration Period horizon is represented by a number of one-pieced brooches with attached foot of type
A VI, 158 and decoration of carved diagonal crosses and beveled pattern (see below the comparison) (fig. 2:5–7, 9),
a fragment of a comb of type Thomas III, and especially by wheel-thrown pottery with burnished decoration
and Krausengefässe. Important finds were also brought to light by a survey with metal detector, which revealed
connections with Wielbark culture (buckle with rectangular frame, brooches), and Černjahov-Sȋntana de Mureş
culture (pendant, fragment of a pitcher with facetted body). Of interest appears also the evidence for links with
the Danubian limes in Bavaria, especially a buckle tongue lined with a gold wire, which finds good counterparts
from the early 5th century in Frauenberg by Wellenburg and Lorenzberg by Epfach. Roman import is represented
by fragments of provincial crossbow brooches of Keller’s type 3–4, together with a fragment of late terra sigillata
and a glazed pitcher of Pannonian origin. The indexes of the first half of the 5th century are completed by a frag-
ment of a beaker of Snartemo type and by pottery of Murga type (Godłowski 1995: 157–159, fig. 5–10; Kaczanowski,
Rodzińska-Nowak 2008: 179–188, fig. 1–6).
The pottery in the Late Przeworsk culture deserves a separate comment. A feature of the local produc-
tion in that area is the fact that since the stage C1b (synchronically to other regions in Central Europe)
the manufacturing of wheel-thrown ceramics developed. The evolution of a wide range of forms can be
observed throughout the Late Roman Period, up to the stage D. Sites such as the cemeteries of Żerniki
Wielke, Olsztyn, Czeladź and Szczedrzyk, the furnaces at Igołomia or the settlement at Mogiła–Nowa Huta
should be mentioned among the most representative examples.
The overview of pottery forms published by H. Dobrzańska (Dobrzańska 1980: 136–140) shows that the
connections with the productions of the Middle Danube region and the late Černjahov area are a distinct fea-
ture of the late C3–D stages. “Eastern”, Černjahov related forms are represented, for example, by the bowls of
the form B, type II (Korzeń) and type V (Dobrodzień–Rędzina, Olsztyn and others, finding analogies in the
Fig. 9. Umbones of the Przeworsk culture. Middle Dnieper region) as well as by the type XXVI (Korzeń, with analogies at Sumach, Sumskij region).
Obr. 9. Štítové puklice przeworské kultury. The same applies to the beakers of Dobrzańska’s group D, types I (Dobrodzień–Rędzina, Szczedrzyk) and
1) Piedestal of the obelisque of Emperor Theodosius (Thutmose obelisque) in Constantinople; 2) Monza dyptich; 3) Chorula, IV and to the jars of her group F, types I, II, III and IV (Dobrodzień–Rędzina and Witów, with analogies
gr. No. 18; 4) Újhartyján; 5) Mušov; 6–7) Untersiebenbrunn (after/podle: Jiřík et al. 2015; Godłowski 1992b; Tejral 1997; Kazanski,
Mastykova 2017; original photograph by Jaroslav Jiřík). in Gurbintsi, Romanove Selo and Romašek in Ukraine). At the same time, relations to the pottery produced

418 419
Jaroslav Jiřík, Joan Pinar Gil
in Moravia, south-western Slovakia and also Sarmatia is mirrored by bowls of the form B, type I (especial-
ly a specimen from Olsztyn, with analogiesat Šaratice, Vyškov, Velké Němčice, Csongrád–Kenderfőldek and
Laa an der Thaya among others); earlier contacts are suggested by the types IX (Wrocław–Zakrzów and Kietrz,
C2 stage, with analogies in Kostelec na Hané, Hrubčice in Moravia or even Pňov in Bohemia) (fig. 2:15), XX
(Werbkowice–Kościanka, C2 stage) and by the beakers of the type IV (Dobrodzień–Rędzina, with analogies
in south-eastern Hungary and Prague–Čimice, see below). “Eastern” origin is presupposed especially for the
ceramics decorated with burnished motives (fig. 2:14–17) (for comparison see Lazuri/Lázári–Râtul lui Béla:
Lazin, Gindele 2010: pl. 3, 11; and Mihălăşeni: Şovan 2005) (fig. 1:7–8).
The storage vessels, known mostly under the German term Krausengefässe, are among the most charac-
teristic forms of the late Przeworsk culture. They appear to be large and massive, thick-walled vessels with
usually elongated and tapering neck, decorated with deep grooves (fig. 2:18, 22) (see for example: Bulas et al.
2016: 179, fig. 7, with further reading). These storage vessels, however, have their counterparts also within
the Černjahov-Sȋntana de Mureş culture, especially in its western most territories (see for example: Lazuri/
Lázári-Râtul lui Béla: Lazin, Gindele 2010: 23, pl. 7–10) (fig. 1:9, 11).
A hand-made production coexisted alongside wheel-thrown ceramics throughout the Late Roman Period
(fig. 2:20–21). Most of the published forms from the C2–C3 stages (for example from Opatów) appear to be
hardly distinguishable from their counterparts in the Elbe-Germanic regions, for example in Bohemia. An
engraved pot from gr. No. 17, the coarse pots with tightened rim and engraved lines from gr. Nos. 18 and
65 (the latter associated with an A 158 brooch) or the coarse pots wit S-shaped profile and the shards with
nail and fingerprints from gr. Nos. 40, 59 and 97 (Godłowski 1959: fig. 7:2, 9:1, 21:1–3, 26:7, 13, 41:4, 44:3–12,
56:4) are eloquent examples: if found in Late Roman contexts in Prague, none of these forms would rise the
slightest suspicion of being an imported good or the result of foreign handwork traditions (see below).
During the Late Roman period, the Przeworsk culture expanded southwards, with the result that the
northern part of present day Slovakia can be regarded as an integral part of the late Przeworsk oikumene.
K. Pieta designed this settlement cluster, located around Liptov and Poprad, as North Carpathian group.
Typical for this group are one-pieced brooches with attached foot, brooches with straight foot, Thomas III
combs with semi-circular handle, buckles with oval frame and strap ends decorated with tremolo pattern,
well attested, for example, in the Dobrodzień group cemeteries. Both eastern influences and imports from
Roman provinces are well documented too. Among the pottery forms, storage vessels of type Krausengefässe
are typical (fig. 3:1–53). The abandonment of this settlement cluster can be dated to about 400 AD (Pieta
1999: 181–182, figs. 10–11). Spatial continuity with the sites of the North Carpathian group has been dis-
covered in the last years in the mountain region in southern Poland, within the upper catchment ar-
eas of the rivers Poprad, Dunajec, Moszczenica, Olszanica, Kalniczka, Hoczewka and San. The Polish sites
of this group have yielded numerous examples of Krausengefässe (fig. 3:54–57) too, whereas a restrained num-
ber of pottery with prototypes in (post-)Černjahov culture has been identified. The authors consider that
the occupation of these sites (for example Rytro, Lesko, and Równa) had a violent conclusion during the
early decades of the 5th century AD, i.e. during the horizon Untersiebenbrunn (Madyda-Legutko, Tunia
2008: 222–231, 244–245, figs. 5–26). The question of the precise dating of the termination of the sites,
420
Late Przeworsk and post-Przeworsk, Elbian and Danubian. Vandals, Suebi and the dissemination of Central European…
however, remains open: traces of equally violent ends are to be seen also in a number of settlements of cen-
tral Slovakia in the beginning of the 5th century, what raises the possibility that these events occurred syn-
chronically in both regions (see below). Lastly, to the environment of the North Carpathian group of the
Przeworsk culture belongs also the unique find of a princely chamber grave at Poprad–Matejovce. Dated
around 400 AD, the assemblage reveals the supra-regional contacts of the local (probably Vandal) nobility
and their relations with Roman provincial milieu (Pieta, Roth 2007: 44–47; Lau, Pieta 2017).
Late Przeworsk elements in Bohemia, Moravia and Slovakia
During the Later Roman Period, the territory of the present day Bohemia and Moravia hosted Elbe-Germanic
culture traditions. Relevant settlement changes can though be observed during the first half of the 3rd century.
They appear to be connected to a new wave of immigrants arrived from the lower Elbe territory, and are mirrored
by the grave goods recorded at large cremation cemeteries such as Plotiště nad Labem (Bohemia) and Kostelec
na Hané (Moravia) (Rybová 1980: 196, 203, 209, 213–214). A direct continuity of Marcomannic settlement in
the region from the early stage of the Roman Period up to Late Antiquity is therefore difficult to trace in the
archaeological record and, at least for Bohemia, it is virtually impossible to connect the archaeological finds of
the entire 3rd –4th centuries to any ethnonym recorded by the written sources. It can be assumed that a “common
Suevic background” was still present in Bohemia at that time, and that the mentioned changes in the settlement
structure should be approached from the wider perspective of the transformations taking place at the same time
within the “Suevic motherland”, for instance the crystallisation of the Alamanni in south-western Germany, the
formation of Semnoni-turned Juthungi in the upper Main river area or the later development of Hermunduri-
turned Thuringians in the Saale river area. The Late Roman period can be thus described as a major transitional
period which gave birth to brand new socio-political entities on the base of the ancient Suevic background. This
phenomenon may have paved the way for the colonization of new territories (Alamanni) (for example: Hoeper,
Steuer 1999: 197) and for structural changes within the areas settled from old (north-eastern Bavaria, Bohemia and
Thuringia)2. The appearance of the Suebi in the written sources as a newly defined group after 400 AD fits well
with the archaeological sequence; against such a backdrop, it does not matter whether they evolved directly from
the Danubian Marcomanni and Quadi environment (as suggested most often; for example: Lotter 1968; see also
2 A recent survey on the historical sources on Danubian Suebi has enabled to hypothesize that Hunimund’s escape to the Alamannia
(Jordanes, Getica 273–282) might be connected with Suevian settlements in South-Western Bohemia and Northern Bavaria, to be
identified as the settlement cluster characterized by the production of pottery of Přešťovice–Friedenhain type (Jiřík 2014). The new-
er proposals on the dating of these sites (i.e. D1–D2/D3 stages) raise a significant question: whether the supra-regional changes and
reorganization of the settlement structure in the Elbe-Germanic territories had an influence also on the emergence, during the stage
D1, of the Přešťovice–Friedenhain settlement cluster, which overlaps only partially with the settlement structure of the previous pe-
riods. The Přešťovice–Friedenhain pottery displays some “eastern” features: the shape of the bowls with oval faceting follow up the
older (C3 stage) forerunners in the Černjahov-Sȋntana de Mureş cultures (for example Tîrgşor, Mihălăşeni, Slobozia–Chişcăreni and
others; see: Diaconu 1965: pl. 91; Schultze, Strocen 2008; Şovan 2005: pl. 245; Levinschi 1999) (fig. 1:1, 5–6), even if the Elbe-Germanic
forms are hand-made and the “eastern” are wheel-thrown. The forms of the vessels and their plastic decoration may possibly belong to
a “set of eastern innovations” assimilated or imitated by the Central European populations. If this assumption is right, the location of
“Hunimund’s” Danubian Suebi in Southern Germany and south-western Bohemia since the stage D1 provides an interesting geograph-
ical link to the participants of the Rhine Crossing using the same ethnonyme. It would also underline the importance of this territory
during the crystalisation phase of the “new Suebi”.
421
Jaroslav Jiřík, Joan Pinar Gil
in Moravia, south-western Slovakia and also Sarmatia is mirrored by bowls of the form B, type I (especial-
ly a specimen from Olsztyn, with analogiesat Šaratice, Vyškov, Velké Němčice, Csongrád–Kenderfőldek and
Laa an der Thaya among others); earlier contacts are suggested by the types IX (Wrocław–Zakrzów and Kietrz,
C2 stage, with analogies in Kostelec na Hané, Hrubčice in Moravia or even Pňov in Bohemia) (fig. 2:15), XX
(Werbkowice–Kościanka, C2 stage) and by the beakers of the type IV (Dobrodzień–Rędzina, with analogies
in south-eastern Hungary and Prague–Čimice, see below). “Eastern” origin is presupposed especially for the
ceramics decorated with burnished motives (fig. 2:14–17) (for comparison see Lazuri/Lázári–Râtul lui Béla:
Lazin, Gindele 2010: pl. 3, 11; and Mihălăşeni: Şovan 2005) (fig. 1:7–8).
The storage vessels, known mostly under the German term Krausengefässe, are among the most charac-
teristic forms of the late Przeworsk culture. They appear to be large and massive, thick-walled vessels with
usually elongated and tapering neck, decorated with deep grooves (fig. 2:18, 22) (see for example: Bulas et al.
2016: 179, fig. 7, with further reading). These storage vessels, however, have their counterparts also within
the Černjahov-Sȋntana de Mureş culture, especially in its western most territories (see for example: Lazuri/
Lázári-Râtul lui Béla: Lazin, Gindele 2010: 23, pl. 7–10) (fig. 1:9, 11).
A hand-made production coexisted alongside wheel-thrown ceramics throughout the Late Roman Period
(fig. 2:20–21). Most of the published forms from the C2–C3 stages (for example from Opatów) appear to be
hardly distinguishable from their counterparts in the Elbe-Germanic regions, for example in Bohemia. An
engraved pot from gr. No. 17, the coarse pots with tightened rim and engraved lines from gr. Nos. 18 and
65 (the latter associated with an A 158 brooch) or the coarse pots wit S-shaped profile and the shards with
nail and fingerprints from gr. Nos. 40, 59 and 97 (Godłowski 1959: fig. 7:2, 9:1, 21:1–3, 26:7, 13, 41:4, 44:3–12,
56:4) are eloquent examples: if found in Late Roman contexts in Prague, none of these forms would rise the
slightest suspicion of being an imported good or the result of foreign handwork traditions (see below).
During the Late Roman period, the Przeworsk culture expanded southwards, with the result that the
northern part of present day Slovakia can be regarded as an integral part of the late Przeworsk oikumene.
K. Pieta designed this settlement cluster, located around Liptov and Poprad, as North Carpathian group.
Typical for this group are one-pieced brooches with attached foot, brooches with straight foot, Thomas III
combs with semi-circular handle, buckles with oval frame and strap ends decorated with tremolo pattern,
well attested, for example, in the Dobrodzień group cemeteries. Both eastern influences and imports from
Roman provinces are well documented too. Among the pottery forms, storage vessels of type Krausengefässe
are typical (fig. 3:1–53). The abandonment of this settlement cluster can be dated to about 400 AD (Pieta
1999: 181–182, figs. 10–11). Spatial continuity with the sites of the North Carpathian group has been dis-
covered in the last years in the mountain region in southern Poland, within the upper catchment ar-
eas of the rivers Poprad, Dunajec, Moszczenica, Olszanica, Kalniczka, Hoczewka and San. The Polish sites
of this group have yielded numerous examples of Krausengefässe (fig. 3:54–57) too, whereas a restrained num-
ber of pottery with prototypes in (post-)Černjahov culture has been identified. The authors consider that
the occupation of these sites (for example Rytro, Lesko, and Równa) had a violent conclusion during the
early decades of the 5th century AD, i.e. during the horizon Untersiebenbrunn (Madyda-Legutko, Tunia
2008: 222–231, 244–245, figs. 5–26). The question of the precise dating of the termination of the sites,
420
Late Przeworsk and post-Przeworsk, Elbian and Danubian. Vandals, Suebi and the dissemination of Central European…
however, remains open: traces of equally violent ends are to be seen also in a number of settlements of cen-
tral Slovakia in the beginning of the 5th century, what raises the possibility that these events occurred syn-
chronically in both regions (see below). Lastly, to the environment of the North Carpathian group of the
Przeworsk culture belongs also the unique find of a princely chamber grave at Poprad–Matejovce. Dated
around 400 AD, the assemblage reveals the supra-regional contacts of the local (probably Vandal) nobility
and their relations with Roman provincial milieu (Pieta, Roth 2007: 44–47; Lau, Pieta 2017).
Late Przeworsk elements in Bohemia, Moravia and Slovakia
During the Later Roman Period, the territory of the present day Bohemia and Moravia hosted Elbe-Germanic
culture traditions. Relevant settlement changes can though be observed during the first half of the 3rd century.
They appear to be connected to a new wave of immigrants arrived from the lower Elbe territory, and are mirrored
by the grave goods recorded at large cremation cemeteries such as Plotiště nad Labem (Bohemia) and Kostelec
na Hané (Moravia) (Rybová 1980: 196, 203, 209, 213–214). A direct continuity of Marcomannic settlement in
the region from the early stage of the Roman Period up to Late Antiquity is therefore difficult to trace in the
archaeological record and, at least for Bohemia, it is virtually impossible to connect the archaeological finds of
the entire 3rd –4th centuries to any ethnonym recorded by the written sources. It can be assumed that a “common
Suevic background” was still present in Bohemia at that time, and that the mentioned changes in the settlement
structure should be approached from the wider perspective of the transformations taking place at the same time
within the “Suevic motherland”, for instance the crystallisation of the Alamanni in south-western Germany, the
formation of Semnoni-turned Juthungi in the upper Main river area or the later development of Hermunduri-
turned Thuringians in the Saale river area. The Late Roman period can be thus described as a major transitional
period which gave birth to brand new socio-political entities on the base of the ancient Suevic background. This
phenomenon may have paved the way for the colonization of new territories (Alamanni) (for example: Hoeper,
Steuer 1999: 197) and for structural changes within the areas settled from old (north-eastern Bavaria, Bohemia and
Thuringia)2. The appearance of the Suebi in the written sources as a newly defined group after 400 AD fits well
with the archaeological sequence; against such a backdrop, it does not matter whether they evolved directly from
the Danubian Marcomanni and Quadi environment (as suggested most often; for example: Lotter 1968; see also
2 A recent survey on the historical sources on Danubian Suebi has enabled to hypothesize that Hunimund’s escape to the Alamannia
(Jordanes, Getica 273–282) might be connected with Suevian settlements in South-Western Bohemia and Northern Bavaria, to be
identified as the settlement cluster characterized by the production of pottery of Přešťovice–Friedenhain type (Jiřík 2014). The new-
er proposals on the dating of these sites (i.e. D1–D2/D3 stages) raise a significant question: whether the supra-regional changes and
reorganization of the settlement structure in the Elbe-Germanic territories had an influence also on the emergence, during the stage
D1, of the Přešťovice–Friedenhain settlement cluster, which overlaps only partially with the settlement structure of the previous pe-
riods. The Přešťovice–Friedenhain pottery displays some “eastern” features: the shape of the bowls with oval faceting follow up the
older (C3 stage) forerunners in the Černjahov-Sȋntana de Mureş cultures (for example Tîrgşor, Mihălăşeni, Slobozia–Chişcăreni and
others; see: Diaconu 1965: pl. 91; Schultze, Strocen 2008; Şovan 2005: pl. 245; Levinschi 1999) (fig. 1:1, 5–6), even if the Elbe-Germanic
forms are hand-made and the “eastern” are wheel-thrown. The forms of the vessels and their plastic decoration may possibly belong to
a “set of eastern innovations” assimilated or imitated by the Central European populations. If this assumption is right, the location of
“Hunimund’s” Danubian Suebi in Southern Germany and south-western Bohemia since the stage D1 provides an interesting geograph-
ical link to the participants of the Rhine Crossing using the same ethnonyme. It would also underline the importance of this territory
during the crystalisation phase of the “new Suebi”.
421
Jaroslav Jiřík, Joan Pinar Gil
Straub 2002) or from a more heterogeneous milieu that may have preferred to be named after a shared ancient
ethnonym, rather than of a particular, new one.
The supra-regional connections between the Elbe-Germanic milieu of Bohemia and the Przeworsk
culture were established especially during the stage C2 of the Late Roman period. It seems that one of
the branches of the famous amber road led also through Bohemia, as show the rich necklaces with mush-
room-shaped amber pendants of Mączyńska’s group LV3 from Soběsuky, Prague –Dolní Chabry, Hostivice
and Květnice (Droberjar, Snítilý 2011: 504–508; Sankot, Theune 2014). The latter corresponds to a rich child
grave, which particularly underlines these contacts thanks to the presence of a silver fibula of type Almgren
166, with good analogies in the Przeworsk culture (Mokra and Rajbrot) and in the Carpathian Basin4.
Generally speaking, the single relative-chronological stage D1 in Bohemia is hardly distinguishable from
the previous Late Roman period (this is the special example of local ceramics). However, it is possible to
identify a “transition horizon” in a number of assemblages (both residential and funerary), which mirror the
introduction of Late Przeworsk, Černjahov and even Wielbark elements into the local late antique milieu.
A good example of this process is the burial performed in the settlement pit 92B at Trmice, which included
an iron bell and a Thomas III comb (fig. 5:7). It is important to stress that the occupation at the settlement
of Trmice ended during this same period (Reszczyńska 2008: 233–241, fig. 1). Another example is a grave
of a warrior furnished with a spatha, a belt set, local Elbe-Germanic hand-made ceramics, a Thomas III
comb and a stylus/fire-striker set (see above) from Vlíněves (fig. 5:17–19). Graves with spathae are unusual
in Bohemia during the C3 stage; moreover, the equipment from Vlíněves strongly resembles Przeworsk
culture weapon graves of the 3rd and 4th horizon (Godłowski 1992b: 44, fig. 20:9; Limburský, Jiřík, in prepa-
ration). A mixed composition is also shown by the chamber grave from Beroun–Závodí (fig. 5:20), which
was furnished with a brooch of Elbe-Germanic tradition (type Almgren 185, variant Gerlachsheim “mit
Bügelkamm”) from the mid 4th century (Voß 1998: 272, fig. 1:1; Bemmann 2008: 27–28, fig. 5–6; Droberjar
2015: 716–717, fig. 5 and distribution map on the fig. 10) and with a collection of D1 objects, such as an
“eastern” buckle with thickened round frame and rectangular attached plate, a glass vessel of Černjahov or
Eastern Mediterranean origin and a shield boss of Przeworsk origin, comparable to the specimen found at
Îlot Castelbou near Toulouse (Godłowski 1992a: 83–84, fig. 3:7, 4:1; see also below). Interestingly enough,
the same type of shield boss is portrayed on the pedestal of the Theodosius’ obelisk in the hippodrome
of Constantinople (fig 9:1, 3). The grave goods from Beroun–Závodí included also a strap end with analo-
gies in the Main valley and in Central Germany, as well as pottery of Elbe-Germanic origin. The bronze
symbolic sword, lastly, appears to be a unique find (Droberjar 2008: 127, pl. 11:2–3, fig. 41:2). E. Droberjar
compares this grave with contemporary warrior graves found at Kleinlangheim and Scheßlitz, and also with
the Rhine-Main milieu (Droberjar 2007: 98).
Another group of relevant finds consists of Przeworsk ceramic imports recorded in the central part of the
Bohemian Basin. Good examples are shown by cylindrical beaker with horizontal ribs from Prague–Čimice
3 This type of amber beads is known also in Vigo (Pontevedra), in Suebian Gallaecia. See below.
“east Germanic”. That is the case of the one-pieced brooches A VI, 158 with attached foot and decoration
4 Another brooch of the same type was found in the grave No. 19 at Tiszakarád–Inasa, together with a brooch in silver sheet of the turn
of  the 4th and 5th centuries AD (Toth 2003: 293, fig. 21; Tejral 2016: 125, fig. 1:13). See also below on the cemetery of Tiszakarád.
422
Late Przeworsk and post-Przeworsk, Elbian and Danubian. Vandals, Suebi and the dissemination of Central European…
(fig. 5:4) with counterparts in Przeworsk culture sites of the stage C3–D, such as Dobrodzień–Rędzina
(Procházka 2009: 357–358, fig. 4:1; Godłowski 1977: 172). The excavations at Prague–Dejvice, sladovny
Podbaba, have brought to light further examples. Thus, in the semi-sunken hut No. 1 and in the feature
No. 3 some fragments of Krausengefässe of typical Przeworsk provenance were found (fig. 5:1–2). As import
must be considered a fragment of a jar handle, perhaps of Middle Danube or perhaps also of Przeworsk
provenance. Among the metal small finds, a brooch of A 174–176 type and a one-pieced specimen with
rectangular foot and bevelled decoration, finding numerous analogies in the cemetery at Kostelec na Hané
(Zeman 1961: fig. 42C, 47A, 47C, 48A, 48C, 52A, 69A, 71B, 79D; Tejral 1992: 231, fig. 2:3; Godłowski
1992b: 39). The predominant material recorded at Prague–Podbaba, however, corresponds to local Elbe-
Germanic pottery forms. The example of the Krausengefässe is not in any case an isolated shape in Prague–
Podbaba (fig. 5:3). An older find brought to light a wheel-thrown vessel of S-shaped profile with a burnished
wave-shaped motive set between two ribs, which finds good parallels in Szcedrzyk, Kietrz, Wojnowice,
Opole–Zakrzów, Ligota and, especially, Grzegorzowice and Ługi (Svoboda 1965: 106, fig. 32:1, pl. 16:4;
Godłowski 1977: pl. 7: 1, 14:4, 15: 3, 30:12, 38:10, 64:3; Tejral 2015a: fig. 25:16; for an identically shaped vessel
from Götting, decorated with a burnished band of grating, see below).
Krausengefässe are also known from the north-eastern corner of Bohemia, especially from the region
around Náchod and the streams of the rivers Metuje and Orlice. The specimens of this ceramic class are
known from Krčín, Kostelec nad Orlicí, Doudleby nad Orlicí and Dolsko (fig. 5:5–6). Further finds have
been recently reported in the Bohemian-Moravian borderland, i.e. from the sites Chornice and Biskupice,
and also from Předslav in western Bohemia (Rybová 1976: fig. 4:6) (fig. 5:16). Other relevant ceramic forms
include examples of Przeworsk-culture wheel-thrown pottery, such as the examples from Choustníkovo
Hradiště, Smiřice and a whole specimen from gr. No. 394 at Plotiště nad Labem, which, according to J. Jílek,
belongs to the 5th class of the “ceramika siwa” after K. Godłowski (Jiřík 2008: 160–161, fig. 4–5; Jílek 2009:
249–276, fig. 8–19).
The small metal objects recorded within cemeteries, settlements or as stray finds deserve special atten-
tion. A two-pieced brooch with knobbed end and rope-like decorated bow (Raupenfibel) is known from
Budyně; the specimen finds its best analogies within the territory of the Wielbark culture (Zápotocký
1969: 180, fig. 2:13; Jiřík 2008: 160, fig. 4:2; Droberjar 2015: 717) (fig. 5:8). A particularly numerous group
of finds are brooches with attached foot; however, they do not necessarily correspond to “eastern” imports.
That is the case of the brooches belonging to Almgren’s group VI, 158–162: on the basis of the original,
Eastern European prototypes from the C1b–C2 stages, these objects evolved through a number of regional
variants within a vast area of Central and Eastern European Barbaricum (fig. 2:1). An eloquent example
is the Sontheim type (A VI, 1), a two-pieced fibula whose upper bow end folds back on itself to form the
spring catch. The type dates from C2 stage and is characteristic for the Elbe-Germanic milieu of central
and southern Germany; a specimen found in Plotiště nad Labem represents the eastern most find exam-
ple recorded so far (Bemmann 1998: 257–259). Several other variants should instead be clearly identified as
of carved diagonal crosses on the foot and/or bow, for they occur frequently in the westernmost area of
423
Jaroslav Jiřík, Joan Pinar Gil
Straub 2002) or from a more heterogeneous milieu that may have preferred to be named after a shared ancient
ethnonym, rather than of a particular, new one.
The supra-regional connections between the Elbe-Germanic milieu of Bohemia and the Przeworsk
culture were established especially during the stage C2 of the Late Roman period. It seems that one of
the branches of the famous amber road led also through Bohemia, as show the rich necklaces with mush-
room-shaped amber pendants of Mączyńska’s group LV3 from Soběsuky, Prague –Dolní Chabry, Hostivice
and Květnice (Droberjar, Snítilý 2011: 504–508; Sankot, Theune 2014). The latter corresponds to a rich child
grave, which particularly underlines these contacts thanks to the presence of a silver fibula of type Almgren
166, with good analogies in the Przeworsk culture (Mokra and Rajbrot) and in the Carpathian Basin4.
Generally speaking, the single relative-chronological stage D1 in Bohemia is hardly distinguishable from
the previous Late Roman period (this is the special example of local ceramics). However, it is possible to
identify a “transition horizon” in a number of assemblages (both residential and funerary), which mirror the
introduction of Late Przeworsk, Černjahov and even Wielbark elements into the local late antique milieu.
A good example of this process is the burial performed in the settlement pit 92B at Trmice, which included
an iron bell and a Thomas III comb (fig. 5:7). It is important to stress that the occupation at the settlement
of Trmice ended during this same period (Reszczyńska 2008: 233–241, fig. 1). Another example is a grave
of a warrior furnished with a spatha, a belt set, local Elbe-Germanic hand-made ceramics, a Thomas III
comb and a stylus/fire-striker set (see above) from Vlíněves (fig. 5:17–19). Graves with spathae are unusual
in Bohemia during the C3 stage; moreover, the equipment from Vlíněves strongly resembles Przeworsk
culture weapon graves of the 3rd and 4th horizon (Godłowski 1992b: 44, fig. 20:9; Limburský, Jiřík, in prepa-
ration). A mixed composition is also shown by the chamber grave from Beroun–Závodí (fig. 5:20), which
was furnished with a brooch of Elbe-Germanic tradition (type Almgren 185, variant Gerlachsheim “mit
Bügelkamm”) from the mid 4th century (Voß 1998: 272, fig. 1:1; Bemmann 2008: 27–28, fig. 5–6; Droberjar
2015: 716–717, fig. 5 and distribution map on the fig. 10) and with a collection of D1 objects, such as an
“eastern” buckle with thickened round frame and rectangular attached plate, a glass vessel of Černjahov or
Eastern Mediterranean origin and a shield boss of Przeworsk origin, comparable to the specimen found at
Îlot Castelbou near Toulouse (Godłowski 1992a: 83–84, fig. 3:7, 4:1; see also below). Interestingly enough,
the same type of shield boss is portrayed on the pedestal of the Theodosius’ obelisk in the hippodrome
of Constantinople (fig 9:1, 3). The grave goods from Beroun–Závodí included also a strap end with analo-
gies in the Main valley and in Central Germany, as well as pottery of Elbe-Germanic origin. The bronze
symbolic sword, lastly, appears to be a unique find (Droberjar 2008: 127, pl. 11:2–3, fig. 41:2). E. Droberjar
compares this grave with contemporary warrior graves found at Kleinlangheim and Scheßlitz, and also with
the Rhine-Main milieu (Droberjar 2007: 98).
Another group of relevant finds consists of Przeworsk ceramic imports recorded in the central part of the
Bohemian Basin. Good examples are shown by cylindrical beaker with horizontal ribs from Prague–Čimice
3 This type of amber beads is known also in Vigo (Pontevedra), in Suebian Gallaecia. See below.
“east Germanic”. That is the case of the one-pieced brooches A VI, 158 with attached foot and decoration
4 Another brooch of the same type was found in the grave No. 19 at Tiszakarád–Inasa, together with a brooch in silver sheet of the turn
of  the 4th and 5th centuries AD (Toth 2003: 293, fig. 21; Tejral 2016: 125, fig. 1:13). See also below on the cemetery of Tiszakarád.
422
Late Przeworsk and post-Przeworsk, Elbian and Danubian. Vandals, Suebi and the dissemination of Central European…
(fig. 5:4) with counterparts in Przeworsk culture sites of the stage C3–D, such as Dobrodzień–Rędzina
(Procházka 2009: 357–358, fig. 4:1; Godłowski 1977: 172). The excavations at Prague–Dejvice, sladovny
Podbaba, have brought to light further examples. Thus, in the semi-sunken hut No. 1 and in the feature
No. 3 some fragments of Krausengefässe of typical Przeworsk provenance were found (fig. 5:1–2). As import
must be considered a fragment of a jar handle, perhaps of Middle Danube or perhaps also of Przeworsk
provenance. Among the metal small finds, a brooch of A 174–176 type and a one-pieced specimen with
rectangular foot and bevelled decoration, finding numerous analogies in the cemetery at Kostelec na Hané
(Zeman 1961: fig. 42C, 47A, 47C, 48A, 48C, 52A, 69A, 71B, 79D; Tejral 1992: 231, fig. 2:3; Godłowski
1992b: 39). The predominant material recorded at Prague–Podbaba, however, corresponds to local Elbe-
Germanic pottery forms. The example of the Krausengefässe is not in any case an isolated shape in Prague–
Podbaba (fig. 5:3). An older find brought to light a wheel-thrown vessel of S-shaped profile with a burnished
wave-shaped motive set between two ribs, which finds good parallels in Szcedrzyk, Kietrz, Wojnowice,
Opole–Zakrzów, Ligota and, especially, Grzegorzowice and Ługi (Svoboda 1965: 106, fig. 32:1, pl. 16:4;
Godłowski 1977: pl. 7: 1, 14:4, 15: 3, 30:12, 38:10, 64:3; Tejral 2015a: fig. 25:16; for an identically shaped vessel
from Götting, decorated with a burnished band of grating, see below).
Krausengefässe are also known from the north-eastern corner of Bohemia, especially from the region
around Náchod and the streams of the rivers Metuje and Orlice. The specimens of this ceramic class are
known from Krčín, Kostelec nad Orlicí, Doudleby nad Orlicí and Dolsko (fig. 5:5–6). Further finds have
been recently reported in the Bohemian-Moravian borderland, i.e. from the sites Chornice and Biskupice,
and also from Předslav in western Bohemia (Rybová 1976: fig. 4:6) (fig. 5:16). Other relevant ceramic forms
include examples of Przeworsk-culture wheel-thrown pottery, such as the examples from Choustníkovo
Hradiště, Smiřice and a whole specimen from gr. No. 394 at Plotiště nad Labem, which, according to J. Jílek,
belongs to the 5th class of the “ceramika siwa” after K. Godłowski (Jiřík 2008: 160–161, fig. 4–5; Jílek 2009:
249–276, fig. 8–19).
The small metal objects recorded within cemeteries, settlements or as stray finds deserve special atten-
tion. A two-pieced brooch with knobbed end and rope-like decorated bow (Raupenfibel) is known from
Budyně; the specimen finds its best analogies within the territory of the Wielbark culture (Zápotocký
1969: 180, fig. 2:13; Jiřík 2008: 160, fig. 4:2; Droberjar 2015: 717) (fig. 5:8). A particularly numerous group
of finds are brooches with attached foot; however, they do not necessarily correspond to “eastern” imports.
That is the case of the brooches belonging to Almgren’s group VI, 158–162: on the basis of the original,
Eastern European prototypes from the C1b–C2 stages, these objects evolved through a number of regional
variants within a vast area of Central and Eastern European Barbaricum (fig. 2:1). An eloquent example
is the Sontheim type (A VI, 1), a two-pieced fibula whose upper bow end folds back on itself to form the
spring catch. The type dates from C2 stage and is characteristic for the Elbe-Germanic milieu of central
and southern Germany; a specimen found in Plotiště nad Labem represents the eastern most find exam-
ple recorded so far (Bemmann 1998: 257–259). Several other variants should instead be clearly identified as
of carved diagonal crosses on the foot and/or bow, for they occur frequently in the westernmost area of
423
Jaroslav Jiřík, Joan Pinar Gil
the late Černjahov–Sȋntana de Mureş culture (in Fȋnt ȋnele “R ȋt”, these brooches can be seen as evidence
for Przeworsk “influences” into the late Sȋntana de Mureş culture: Tejral 2016: 125, 2:12–13; see also Ioniţă
1998: 234, fig. 2:1, 3; undecorated specimens: Vakulenko 1998: 244–245, fig. 2). Two examples of “eastern”
brooches A VI, 158 with diagonal crosses are known in Bohemia: an old find from Hrobce u Roudnice
(fig. 5:13) and a settlement find at Prague–Ruzyně, feature 618 (fig. 5:12) (Jiřík 2008; Kuchařík et al. 2008:
161, fig. 4:1). The brooches with attached foot and wide bow of Almgren’s VI group, ser. 1 (A 162 var.) from
a probable cremation cemetery at Jíloviště (near Prague) (fig. 5:14) and from gr. No. 311 at Kostelec na Hané
(central part of Moravia) find their closest counterparts in a wide area ranging from the Middle Danube
territory to the Carpathian Basin, the Sȋntana de Mureş culture and also the Dębczyno group in northern
Poland (Schuster 2001b: 93–94, fig. 7–8; Zeman 1961: 185, fig. 85; Machajewski 1992: 22–23, Taf. 12: 18, 21).
An example of possible Przeworsk import is a one-piece fibula with attached foot and engraved decoration
from Prague–Střešovice (Hlava 2009: 863, fig. 9:7) (fig. 5:15).
A special attention must be paid to the assemblage of Pšovlky, Central Bohemian region, probably cor-
responding to a group of disturbed cremation graves. E. Droberjar has thoroughly examined the unusual
collection of finds, consisting of local Elbe-Germanic material (knobbed crossbow brooches of the types
Leutkirch and Gerlachsheim, bag strapends of the type Scheßlitz/Kleinlangheim, a belt strap end of the
new type Pšovlky), provincial Roman crossbow brooches of type Zwiebelknopffibeln and foreign, especial-
ly East-Germanic, import: a brooch of the type Hăneşti (fig. 5:11), usual in the Sȋntana de Mureş culture;
a bronze omega-shaped buckle of Madyda-Legutko’s group E; an iron, double-framed rectangular buckle
(fig. 5:10) with analogies in Dančeny and Rakovec; belt strap endings of type Madyda-Legutko 11 (known
as “dziobowate okucie końca pasa”) (figs. 2:24; 5:9), especially numerous in the territories of the Wielbark
culture, the Baltic Dollkeim–Kovrovo culture, the Masłomęcz group and also the Przeworsk culture; and
a fragment of a bronze object decorated in style Untersiebenbrunn. The heterogeneous character of this
set of objects led the author to a preliminary, and yet important conclusion: the Late Roman communities
of Suevic/Alamannic tradition welcomed a number of newcomers during the turn of the 4th–5th century
(Droberjar 2015: 707–729, fig. 2–4).
The territories of Moravia, south-western Slovakia and Lower Austria appear to form a distinct “prov-
ince” within the Elbe-Germanic culture, characterized by a particular evolution in the typological reper-
toire of metal accessories, by the production of wheel-thrown ceramics of the so called Jiříkovice circle, and
by a direct continuity of the dwelling structures (semi-sunken huts of the so called “Suevic tradition”, ar-
ranged with post-holes in the corners or in the mid of the shorter sides). Imports from the Roman provinces
are especially conspicuous in this area; quantitatively less intense contacts with the Sarmatian area in the
Carpathian Basin are also recorded. During the stage D1, an increasing of the influences from south-east-
ern Europe and from the Przeworsk culture can be noticed.
The large cremation cemetery at Kostelec na Hané is probably the site which best illustrates the issue
of the “eastern” contacts in Moravia, for it has yielded a significant amount of late Przeworsk and (post-)
Černjahov material. 431 urn graves have been investigated in this cemetery, enabling to reconstruct the
evolution of the local culture and its supra-regional connections throughout the 3rd and 4th centuries. For
424
Late Przeworsk and post-Przeworsk, Elbian and Danubian. Vandals, Suebi and the dissemination of Central European…
the purpose of this study, the latest phase of the cemetery, dated in the D1 stage, is of particular relevance.
During that period, Przeworsk influences are visible in some types of small metal accessories, as well as
glassware and pottery finds; they coexisted with local material of Elbe-Germanic tradition. Direct con-
nections with the Przeworsk culture are mirrored by some belt buckles with thickened frame (fig. 4:6),
as well as by the “stylus” (see above) from gr. No. 169 (fig. 4:6) and the spur from gr. No. 290 (fig. 4:2);
(post-)Černjahov influences are displayed by the wheel-thrown ceramic vessel with burnished pattern from
gr. No. 172 (fig. 4:4) (Zeman 1961: fig. 34:Be–f, 35:Cg, 57:Ce) and by the aforementioned brooch with at-
tached foot and decorated bow from gr. No. 311 (fig. 4:1) (see above). Of “eastern” origin are also the pre-
served examples of glass vessels, such as a fragment of footed beaker of Straume’s type IX decorated with
oval motives in gr. No. 422 (fig. 4:7). It finds close parallels in the Černjahov–Sȋntana de Mureş milieu, in
gr. VIII at Izvoare or gr. No. 51 at Kholmskoje (Gavrituhin 2000: 261–281, fig. 1–5; Tejral 1997: 331–334;
2011: 44–45, 115). E. Straume observed, instead, western influences in the beakers of her types IV and V
recorded in gr. No. 59 (types Nyrup and Wansleben) (Straume 1987: 54–65; Tejral 1997: 333, pl. 18:15). The
beaker of type Kowalk from gr. No. 250 (fig. 4:5) can be identified as typical glassware of the late Przeworsk
and Černjahov–Sȋntana de Mureş cultures, although the type is sporadically recorded also in the West
(e.g. Cologne or Étaples) (Rau 1972: 167, 188).
Similar phenomena can be traced in the settlement of Zlechov, in southern Moravia. T. Zeman identi-
fied an unusual amount of late Przeworsk elements, especially from the Dobrodzień group: selected pottery
forms, a stylus and, perhaps, also the brooch with attached foot of the type A 158 from feature No. 55/67.
These Przeworsk imports occurred alongside local, “late Suevic” material and forms of (post-)Černjahov
tradition (Zeman 2006: 462, fig. 7:1–4) (fig. 4:22–27). Another clear example is the settlement at Mušov,
also in southern Moravia, in which a set of shield umbones of Dobrodzień type has been recorded in the
semi-sunken hut No. 10 (for example: Tejral 1997: 331, fig. 9:17) (fig. 4:8).
Of special interest for our topic appears to be the development of the Late Roman Period settlements
from the mountain region in central Slovakia. K. Pieta (Pieta 1999: 182, fig. 8) (fig. 4:9–21) presented several
of these sites, among which Banská Bystrica–Sásová (fig. 4:13, 15–16, 20), Banská Bystrica–Selce (fig. 4:14, 21)
and Kšinná (fig. 4:12) should be mentioned. Silver hoards containing richly decorated brooches related to
the type Wiesbaden of the early 5th century have been recorded in the last two sites; as we will see, this type
of object appears in some scenarios of the migration of Suebi, Vandals and Alans in the West (see below).
The hoard of Banská Bystrica–Selce was found in a destruction layer showing traces of fire and numerous
“nomadic” three-foil arrowheads (fig. 4:15–16). This central Slovakian settlement cluster came to an end
around 400 AD; it is located on the border between the “Danubian” Elbe-Germanic environment and the
North Carpathian group of the Przeworsk culture, with whom it shares an apparently violent final phase.
As said, the transformations in material culture and the “eastern” influences at the beginning of the
Migration Period reached also the traditional core of the Elbe-Germanic culture in central Germany.
The occurrence of Thomas III bone combs and few other objects within the Niemberg group is a good
example of this process. The dating corresponds to the first half of the 5th century AD (Schmidt 1982a:
160; 1982b: 211–213; Bemmann 2008: 146–149, 174, fig. 1–3). In this context, of particular interest is the
425
Jaroslav Jiřík, Joan Pinar Gil
the late Černjahov–Sȋntana de Mureş culture (in Fȋnt ȋnele “R ȋt”, these brooches can be seen as evidence
for Przeworsk “influences” into the late Sȋntana de Mureş culture: Tejral 2016: 125, 2:12–13; see also Ioniţă
1998: 234, fig. 2:1, 3; undecorated specimens: Vakulenko 1998: 244–245, fig. 2). Two examples of “eastern”
brooches A VI, 158 with diagonal crosses are known in Bohemia: an old find from Hrobce u Roudnice
(fig. 5:13) and a settlement find at Prague–Ruzyně, feature 618 (fig. 5:12) (Jiřík 2008; Kuchařík et al. 2008:
161, fig. 4:1). The brooches with attached foot and wide bow of Almgren’s VI group, ser. 1 (A 162 var.) from
a probable cremation cemetery at Jíloviště (near Prague) (fig. 5:14) and from gr. No. 311 at Kostelec na Hané
(central part of Moravia) find their closest counterparts in a wide area ranging from the Middle Danube
territory to the Carpathian Basin, the Sȋntana de Mureş culture and also the Dębczyno group in northern
Poland (Schuster 2001b: 93–94, fig. 7–8; Zeman 1961: 185, fig. 85; Machajewski 1992: 22–23, Taf. 12: 18, 21).
An example of possible Przeworsk import is a one-piece fibula with attached foot and engraved decoration
from Prague–Střešovice (Hlava 2009: 863, fig. 9:7) (fig. 5:15).
A special attention must be paid to the assemblage of Pšovlky, Central Bohemian region, probably cor-
responding to a group of disturbed cremation graves. E. Droberjar has thoroughly examined the unusual
collection of finds, consisting of local Elbe-Germanic material (knobbed crossbow brooches of the types
Leutkirch and Gerlachsheim, bag strapends of the type Scheßlitz/Kleinlangheim, a belt strap end of the
new type Pšovlky), provincial Roman crossbow brooches of type Zwiebelknopffibeln and foreign, especial-
ly East-Germanic, import: a brooch of the type Hăneşti (fig. 5:11), usual in the Sȋntana de Mureş culture;
a bronze omega-shaped buckle of Madyda-Legutko’s group E; an iron, double-framed rectangular buckle
(fig. 5:10) with analogies in Dančeny and Rakovec; belt strap endings of type Madyda-Legutko 11 (known
as “dziobowate okucie końca pasa”) (figs. 2:24; 5:9), especially numerous in the territories of the Wielbark
culture, the Baltic Dollkeim–Kovrovo culture, the Masłomęcz group and also the Przeworsk culture; and
a fragment of a bronze object decorated in style Untersiebenbrunn. The heterogeneous character of this
set of objects led the author to a preliminary, and yet important conclusion: the Late Roman communities
of Suevic/Alamannic tradition welcomed a number of newcomers during the turn of the 4th–5th century
(Droberjar 2015: 707–729, fig. 2–4).
The territories of Moravia, south-western Slovakia and Lower Austria appear to form a distinct “prov-
ince” within the Elbe-Germanic culture, characterized by a particular evolution in the typological reper-
toire of metal accessories, by the production of wheel-thrown ceramics of the so called Jiříkovice circle, and
by a direct continuity of the dwelling structures (semi-sunken huts of the so called “Suevic tradition”, ar-
ranged with post-holes in the corners or in the mid of the shorter sides). Imports from the Roman provinces
are especially conspicuous in this area; quantitatively less intense contacts with the Sarmatian area in the
Carpathian Basin are also recorded. During the stage D1, an increasing of the influences from south-east-
ern Europe and from the Przeworsk culture can be noticed.
The large cremation cemetery at Kostelec na Hané is probably the site which best illustrates the issue
of the “eastern” contacts in Moravia, for it has yielded a significant amount of late Przeworsk and (post-)
Černjahov material. 431 urn graves have been investigated in this cemetery, enabling to reconstruct the
evolution of the local culture and its supra-regional connections throughout the 3rd and 4th centuries. For
424
Late Przeworsk and post-Przeworsk, Elbian and Danubian. Vandals, Suebi and the dissemination of Central European…
the purpose of this study, the latest phase of the cemetery, dated in the D1 stage, is of particular relevance.
During that period, Przeworsk influences are visible in some types of small metal accessories, as well as
glassware and pottery finds; they coexisted with local material of Elbe-Germanic tradition. Direct con-
nections with the Przeworsk culture are mirrored by some belt buckles with thickened frame (fig. 4:6),
as well as by the “stylus” (see above) from gr. No. 169 (fig. 4:6) and the spur from gr. No. 290 (fig. 4:2);
(post-)Černjahov influences are displayed by the wheel-thrown ceramic vessel with burnished pattern from
gr. No. 172 (fig. 4:4) (Zeman 1961: fig. 34:Be–f, 35:Cg, 57:Ce) and by the aforementioned brooch with at-
tached foot and decorated bow from gr. No. 311 (fig. 4:1) (see above). Of “eastern” origin are also the pre-
served examples of glass vessels, such as a fragment of footed beaker of Straume’s type IX decorated with
oval motives in gr. No. 422 (fig. 4:7). It finds close parallels in the Černjahov–Sȋntana de Mureş milieu, in
gr. VIII at Izvoare or gr. No. 51 at Kholmskoje (Gavrituhin 2000: 261–281, fig. 1–5; Tejral 1997: 331–334;
2011: 44–45, 115). E. Straume observed, instead, western influences in the beakers of her types IV and V
recorded in gr. No. 59 (types Nyrup and Wansleben) (Straume 1987: 54–65; Tejral 1997: 333, pl. 18:15). The
beaker of type Kowalk from gr. No. 250 (fig. 4:5) can be identified as typical glassware of the late Przeworsk
and Černjahov–Sȋntana de Mureş cultures, although the type is sporadically recorded also in the West
(e.g. Cologne or Étaples) (Rau 1972: 167, 188).
Similar phenomena can be traced in the settlement of Zlechov, in southern Moravia. T. Zeman identi-
fied an unusual amount of late Przeworsk elements, especially from the Dobrodzień group: selected pottery
forms, a stylus and, perhaps, also the brooch with attached foot of the type A 158 from feature No. 55/67.
These Przeworsk imports occurred alongside local, “late Suevic” material and forms of (post-)Černjahov
tradition (Zeman 2006: 462, fig. 7:1–4) (fig. 4:22–27). Another clear example is the settlement at Mušov,
also in southern Moravia, in which a set of shield umbones of Dobrodzień type has been recorded in the
semi-sunken hut No. 10 (for example: Tejral 1997: 331, fig. 9:17) (fig. 4:8).
Of special interest for our topic appears to be the development of the Late Roman Period settlements
from the mountain region in central Slovakia. K. Pieta (Pieta 1999: 182, fig. 8) (fig. 4:9–21) presented several
of these sites, among which Banská Bystrica–Sásová (fig. 4:13, 15–16, 20), Banská Bystrica–Selce (fig. 4:14, 21)
and Kšinná (fig. 4:12) should be mentioned. Silver hoards containing richly decorated brooches related to
the type Wiesbaden of the early 5th century have been recorded in the last two sites; as we will see, this type
of object appears in some scenarios of the migration of Suebi, Vandals and Alans in the West (see below).
The hoard of Banská Bystrica–Selce was found in a destruction layer showing traces of fire and numerous
“nomadic” three-foil arrowheads (fig. 4:15–16). This central Slovakian settlement cluster came to an end
around 400 AD; it is located on the border between the “Danubian” Elbe-Germanic environment and the
North Carpathian group of the Przeworsk culture, with whom it shares an apparently violent final phase.
As said, the transformations in material culture and the “eastern” influences at the beginning of the
Migration Period reached also the traditional core of the Elbe-Germanic culture in central Germany.
The occurrence of Thomas III bone combs and few other objects within the Niemberg group is a good
example of this process. The dating corresponds to the first half of the 5th century AD (Schmidt 1982a:
160; 1982b: 211–213; Bemmann 2008: 146–149, 174, fig. 1–3). In this context, of particular interest is the
425
Jaroslav Jiřík, Joan Pinar Gil
collection of grave goods from the chamber grave 34 at Zwochau. The deceased was equipped with a spatha
of type Osterburken–Kemathen, an Elbe-Germanic brooch, a Przeworsk/Černjahov spur, an undecorated
Thomas III comb and an “eastern” buckle (Knaut 2005: 89–91); the assemblage dates from the first half
of the 5th century (Tejral 2015a: 195, 217, fig. 49). This group of finds suggests that the stream of post-Prze-
worsk and post-Černjahov influences flowed continually westwards during the early stage of the Migration
Period; apparently, central Germany was involved in this phenomenon somewhat later (D1–D2 periods)
than Moravia and Bohemia (C3–D1 periods).
The gold and silver hoard found at Großbodungen, whose latest coins were struck under the usurp-
er Constantine III (Grünhagen 1954), helps completing the picture of the processes taking part in the
Thuringian area. Its composition suggests that the local chiefs of this corner of the Barbaricum established
clientelist relations with the Roman Empire in a similar way as we observe it in the case of the far bet-
ter known Roman-Frankish/Alemannian/Burgundian connections (for example, by means of the chiefs
Neviogast and Edobich) (Ehling 1997: 4; Svoboda 1965: 216–218). Should that assumption be right, then
the archaeological evidence may reflect a growing multipolarity of regional powers across the European
Barbaricum, taking place just before the late 4th – early 5th century “migrant crisis” and going on through-
out the first decades of the 5th century. Other materializations of this process would be the emergence of
Radagais’ group and, as we will see, the formation of the Vandal-Suevic-Alan conglomerate crossing the
Rhine in 406.
The eve of the Rhine crossing
The archaeological picture of the Central European Barbaricum in the years preceding the famous “invasions”
of the Western Roman Empire in the early 5th century appears to be very dynamic. Wide-ranging material cul-
ture exchanges and “internationalization” of selected elements are likely to mirror inner tensions and the forma-
tion of newer ethno-political entities even before the alleged disruptive effect of the arrival of the Huns in Europe.
J. Schuster, for instance, analyzed the supra-regional distribution of A 185 brooches with attached foot, ranging
from Denmark and the Oder area up to the territories of the Černjahov and Wielbark cultures. With accordance
to the general view of J. Tejral, the scholar considers this type of brooch as an index of the “internationalisation”
process within the Barbaricum at the turn of the late Roman and early Migration Period (Schuster 2001b: 97).
That is the general picture in which the material traces of the development and displacement of Vandals,
Suebi and Alans is to be set. According to P. Heather (2009: 9)5, the accounts on the Vandals’ raids over
Raetia in 401/402 AD suggest that they were settled far west to the Carpathians in the years preceding
the famous Rhine crossing. Examining the geographical distribution of selected Elbe-Germanic and late
Przeworsk indexes may shed some light not only on the settlement area of the pre-406 Vandals, but
also on the meaning of the ethnonyme “Suebus” in this specific context, especially in terms of modern
archaeological research.
5 Citing here Claudian, Gothic War 278–281, 363–365, 400–404, 414–429.
426
Late Przeworsk and post-Przeworsk, Elbian and Danubian. Vandals, Suebi and the dissemination of Central European…
Of particular relevance in this specific context is an isolated grave found at Germering (west to
Munich, Germany). It was furnished with an armring with circle-dot decorated endings and a so called
Sarmatian torque, with a pear-shaped or keyhole-shaped eyelet. The distribution of this type of torque
is not restricted only to the population of the Carpathian Basin: it occurs frequently also within the
Przeworsk culture (Oder valley) and, especially often, among the Elbe-Germanic population settled
along the Saale. These torques are sporadically recorded in northern Gaul, while isolated finds were
published also from Prosmyky in Bohemia (Droberjar 2007: 93, fig. 1) (fig. 5:21) and in the Main valley
(Schefzik 1998: 104–105; Keller 1979: app. 2). M. Schefzik dates the assemblage of Germering to the mid-
dle third of the 4th – early 5th century AD. The author considers that the grave may have been connected
with the raid of the Juthungi/Semnoni (tribe also belonging to the Suebi) in 358. To illustrate the extent
of the barbarians’ presence on Roman soil south to the Danube, this scholar reports Germanic elements
found also atother Late Roman cemeteries, such as Neubiberg–Unterbiberg or Weßling (Schefzik 1998:
105). Special attention deserved the presence of common Germanic pottery in Kaiseraugst–Adler and
Kaiseraugst–Jakoblihaus; that included an Elbe-Germanic fine vessel with oblique facets (fig. 6:21), as
well as hand-made coarse pots. Some examples of wheel-thrown pottery, partly decorated with bands of
comb-waves, find also prototypes in the Middle Dabube region or even in the North Carpathian group
(figs. 3:3; 4:10; 6:22–24) (Kolník et al. 2007: pl. 143). R. Marti attributes these assemblages to the second
half of the 4th century; in his opinion, these finds were linked to the integration of Germanic troops in
the Roman army or to the presence of the Alemanni in the area (Marti 2000: 207, pl. 59:1, 66:43, 75:101).
In addition, an A 158 brooch with faceted decoration (fig. 6:17) and a Thomas III comb are reported in
or about the city, whereas an Ambroz IAA bow brooch has been identified in or about the nearby Basel
(Schuster 2001a: fig. 10:4; Kazanski 1993: 175, fig. 1:7, 2:16).
Further examples of late Elbe-Germanic artefacts south to the Danube include the fine hand-made
ceramic flasks found in gr. Nos. 519 and 906 in Bregenz (fig. 6:2–3), at Lake Constance, which have
their closest counterparts in archaeological assemblages of the lower Elbe valley and also in Bohemia.
Unfortunately, this hand-made pottery can not be certainly attributed to a precise time span within the
late Roman and the early Migration Period. Both graves were, however, equipped by Roman glass ves-
sels: No. 519 contained an Isings 106 beaker, dated from the mid 4th century and the 5th century; No. 906
hosted an Isings 105 unguentarium. The latter is usually dated in the 4th century assemblages, although
recent evidence tends to delay some centuries its chronology of use. Thus A. Antōnaras proposes a wide
persistence of this form in the 5th century AD Thessaloniki (Behrens 1931: 257, fig. 2–3; Isings 1957:
126–127; Antōnaras 2009: 93–103, 534–535, chronological table on page 489); far westwards, the so-called
grave of the “Patricius Regius” at Bourges contained an Isings 105 unguentarium and a Simancas knife,
a chronological index of period 1 (380/390–440/450 AD) in the Visigothic area (de Karsers et al. 1891:
pl. I; Pinar 2017a: fig. 22). Isings 106 beakers are another index of this same period in Narbonensis and
Carthaginensis (Pinar 2017a: fig. 22). Elbe-Germanic fine pottery has been identified also in the gr. Nos.
10 and 90 of the Late Roman cemetery of Neuburg an der Donau, where also number of post-Černjahov/
federate goods are known (Keller 1979: 33, 55, fig. 3) (fig. 6:5–7).
427
Jaroslav Jiřík, Joan Pinar Gil
collection of grave goods from the chamber grave 34 at Zwochau. The deceased was equipped with a spatha
of type Osterburken–Kemathen, an Elbe-Germanic brooch, a Przeworsk/Černjahov spur, an undecorated
Thomas III comb and an “eastern” buckle (Knaut 2005: 89–91); the assemblage dates from the first half
of the 5th century (Tejral 2015a: 195, 217, fig. 49). This group of finds suggests that the stream of post-Prze-
worsk and post-Černjahov influences flowed continually westwards during the early stage of the Migration
Period; apparently, central Germany was involved in this phenomenon somewhat later (D1–D2 periods)
than Moravia and Bohemia (C3–D1 periods).
The gold and silver hoard found at Großbodungen, whose latest coins were struck under the usurp-
er Constantine III (Grünhagen 1954), helps completing the picture of the processes taking part in the
Thuringian area. Its composition suggests that the local chiefs of this corner of the Barbaricum established
clientelist relations with the Roman Empire in a similar way as we observe it in the case of the far bet-
ter known Roman-Frankish/Alemannian/Burgundian connections (for example, by means of the chiefs
Neviogast and Edobich) (Ehling 1997: 4; Svoboda 1965: 216–218). Should that assumption be right, then
the archaeological evidence may reflect a growing multipolarity of regional powers across the European
Barbaricum, taking place just before the late 4th – early 5th century “migrant crisis” and going on through-
out the first decades of the 5th century. Other materializations of this process would be the emergence of
Radagais’ group and, as we will see, the formation of the Vandal-Suevic-Alan conglomerate crossing the
Rhine in 406.
The eve of the Rhine crossing
The archaeological picture of the Central European Barbaricum in the years preceding the famous “invasions”
of the Western Roman Empire in the early 5th century appears to be very dynamic. Wide-ranging material cul-
ture exchanges and “internationalization” of selected elements are likely to mirror inner tensions and the forma-
tion of newer ethno-political entities even before the alleged disruptive effect of the arrival of the Huns in Europe.
J. Schuster, for instance, analyzed the supra-regional distribution of A 185 brooches with attached foot, ranging
from Denmark and the Oder area up to the territories of the Černjahov and Wielbark cultures. With accordance
to the general view of J. Tejral, the scholar considers this type of brooch as an index of the “internationalisation”
process within the Barbaricum at the turn of the late Roman and early Migration Period (Schuster 2001b: 97).
That is the general picture in which the material traces of the development and displacement of Vandals,
Suebi and Alans is to be set. According to P. Heather (2009: 9)5, the accounts on the Vandals’ raids over
Raetia in 401/402 AD suggest that they were settled far west to the Carpathians in the years preceding
the famous Rhine crossing. Examining the geographical distribution of selected Elbe-Germanic and late
Przeworsk indexes may shed some light not only on the settlement area of the pre-406 Vandals, but
also on the meaning of the ethnonyme “Suebus” in this specific context, especially in terms of modern
archaeological research.
5 Citing here Claudian, Gothic War 278–281, 363–365, 400–404, 414–429.
426
Late Przeworsk and post-Przeworsk, Elbian and Danubian. Vandals, Suebi and the dissemination of Central European…
Of particular relevance in this specific context is an isolated grave found at Germering (west to
Munich, Germany). It was furnished with an armring with circle-dot decorated endings and a so called
Sarmatian torque, with a pear-shaped or keyhole-shaped eyelet. The distribution of this type of torque
is not restricted only to the population of the Carpathian Basin: it occurs frequently also within the
Przeworsk culture (Oder valley) and, especially often, among the Elbe-Germanic population settled
along the Saale. These torques are sporadically recorded in northern Gaul, while isolated finds were
published also from Prosmyky in Bohemia (Droberjar 2007: 93, fig. 1) (fig. 5:21) and in the Main valley
(Schefzik 1998: 104–105; Keller 1979: app. 2). M. Schefzik dates the assemblage of Germering to the mid-
dle third of the 4th – early 5th century AD. The author considers that the grave may have been connected
with the raid of the Juthungi/Semnoni (tribe also belonging to the Suebi) in 358. To illustrate the extent
of the barbarians’ presence on Roman soil south to the Danube, this scholar reports Germanic elements
found also atother Late Roman cemeteries, such as Neubiberg–Unterbiberg or Weßling (Schefzik 1998:
105). Special attention deserved the presence of common Germanic pottery in Kaiseraugst–Adler and
Kaiseraugst–Jakoblihaus; that included an Elbe-Germanic fine vessel with oblique facets (fig. 6:21), as
well as hand-made coarse pots. Some examples of wheel-thrown pottery, partly decorated with bands of
comb-waves, find also prototypes in the Middle Dabube region or even in the North Carpathian group
(figs. 3:3; 4:10; 6:22–24) (Kolník et al. 2007: pl. 143). R. Marti attributes these assemblages to the second
half of the 4th century; in his opinion, these finds were linked to the integration of Germanic troops in
the Roman army or to the presence of the Alemanni in the area (Marti 2000: 207, pl. 59:1, 66:43, 75:101).
In addition, an A 158 brooch with faceted decoration (fig. 6:17) and a Thomas III comb are reported in
or about the city, whereas an Ambroz IAA bow brooch has been identified in or about the nearby Basel
(Schuster 2001a: fig. 10:4; Kazanski 1993: 175, fig. 1:7, 2:16).
Further examples of late Elbe-Germanic artefacts south to the Danube include the fine hand-made
ceramic flasks found in gr. Nos. 519 and 906 in Bregenz (fig. 6:2–3), at Lake Constance, which have
their closest counterparts in archaeological assemblages of the lower Elbe valley and also in Bohemia.
Unfortunately, this hand-made pottery can not be certainly attributed to a precise time span within the
late Roman and the early Migration Period. Both graves were, however, equipped by Roman glass ves-
sels: No. 519 contained an Isings 106 beaker, dated from the mid 4th century and the 5th century; No. 906
hosted an Isings 105 unguentarium. The latter is usually dated in the 4th century assemblages, although
recent evidence tends to delay some centuries its chronology of use. Thus A. Antōnaras proposes a wide
persistence of this form in the 5th century AD Thessaloniki (Behrens 1931: 257, fig. 2–3; Isings 1957:
126–127; Antōnaras 2009: 93–103, 534–535, chronological table on page 489); far westwards, the so-called
grave of the “Patricius Regius” at Bourges contained an Isings 105 unguentarium and a Simancas knife,
a chronological index of period 1 (380/390–440/450 AD) in the Visigothic area (de Karsers et al. 1891:
pl. I; Pinar 2017a: fig. 22). Isings 106 beakers are another index of this same period in Narbonensis and
Carthaginensis (Pinar 2017a: fig. 22). Elbe-Germanic fine pottery has been identified also in the gr. Nos.
10 and 90 of the Late Roman cemetery of Neuburg an der Donau, where also number of post-Černjahov/
federate goods are known (Keller 1979: 33, 55, fig. 3) (fig. 6:5–7).
427
Jaroslav Jiřík, Joan Pinar Gil
In his overview on the Late Roman Period cemeteries south to the Danube in Bavaria, E. Keller men-
tions a number of sites and graves containing “common Germanic” as well as “Elbe-Germanic” elements:
cemeteries such as Königsbrunn, Göggingen, Weßling, Potzham and Regensburg, as well as settlements
and military enclaves such as Moosburg bei Murnau, Lorenzberg bei Epfach, Kempten, Kellmünz, Bürgle
bei Gundremmingen and Eining. The material reported by the author consists mainly in Elbe-Germanic
hand-made pottery, but includes also various brooches and belt components. Among them, a special at-
tention deserves the belt buckle with double frame from Moosberg (fig. 6:4): according to Keller (1971:
175–183), its best parallels are to be found in Wielbark, Göritz in central Germany and also Derevjannoe in
Ukraine. Another “exotic” item in south-Bavarian assemblages is the iron Armbrustfibel from Lorenzberg
bei Epfach (fig. 6:18), which finds its analogies in the territories between the Elbe and Oder courses. The
same site has also yielded the aforementioned tongue of an “eastern” buckle (see above) (fig. 6:20). An
important find of likely “east Germanic” provenance has been recorded at Götting, located south-east of
Munich (fig. 6:1). The grave was furnished with a “classical” bow brooch made of silver sheet and a wheel-
thrown S-profiled vessel with burnished decoration. The brooch finds its direct prototypes in the territory
of the late Černjahov culture, whereas the best parallels for the vessel’s profile and decoration are to be
found in the late Przeworsk culture, i.e. the finds from the settlement at Jakuszowice (considered represen-
tative of the classical repertoire of the Late Roman Period: see Godłowski 1995: 157, fig. 9:3) (fig. 2:14) and
others (see above). The chronology of most of these Bavarian finds falls between a wide time span, within
the 4th and early 5th century. E. Keller attributes to most of these Elbe-Germanic elements an origin in cen-
tral Germany, Bohemia and also Mecklenburg; however, he acknowledges a particularly significant role
to Alamannic influences. All in all, these finds probably mirrored shifting relations and particular events
involving the Roman Empire as much as the Barbaricum (Keller 1971: 175–183).
The occurrence of Elbe-Germanic and “eastern” artefacts is relatively frequent along the Danubian
limes in present day Bavaria. A good example is the auxiliary castellum Abusina/Eining (fig. 6:8–16),
founded about 300 AD. Of special interest are the graves of two alleged warriors. The first one was
equipped with arrow heads and a spear head, whereas the second was buried together with a horse.
Typical Elbe-Germanic ceramics of both fine and coarse shapes are also reported, as well as brooch-
es A VI, 174–176, bronze bag fittings of type Schleßlitz and antler combs with triangular handle of
Thomas’ II type (Gschwind 2004: 76–103). Another significant frontier castellum was also “Bürgle”
by Gundremmingen, where two settlement horizons were outlined. The older one corresponds to the
last quarter of the 4th century (according to the recorded military Kerbschnittgarnituren, fragments
of torques and brooches of type A 185 Gerlachsheim, variant “mit Bügelkamm”; see above for our re-
marks on the chronology of the type). The following settlement horizon should be dated about 400
AD, as shown by an “east Germanic” buckle with thickened frame and round belt-plate, a Roman
crossbow fibula of type Keller 6, a coin struck under the usurper Constantine III and numerous
weapons (Bender 1996). A similar collection of artefacts can be observed at the castellum of Teriola/
Zirl – Martinsbühel, in present day Tirol: an “eastern” fibula with attached trapezoidal foot (fig. 6:19)
and wire wrapped bow with analogies in east Germanic and Baltic territories, was found alongside
428
Late Przeworsk and post-Przeworsk, Elbian and Danubian. Vandals, Suebi and the dissemination of Central European…
a Roman cross-shaped brooch and some military belt fittings with carved decoration (Höck 2003:
10–50, figs. 2, 3, 4, 5, 43–44). On the basis of its decoration in Untersiebenbrunn style, the eastern
brooch can be safely attributed to the D2 period.
The overall evidence shows a remarkable presence of Elbe-Germanic finds in Raetia II, which appear in
some cases alongside Przeworsk and other eastern imports. The presence of auxiliary barbarian troops along
the Raetian limes is the interpretation preferred by most scholars. However, written sources are not explicit
of this point, and raise the question of the apparently passive role of the auxiliaries during the mentioned
events of 401/402. In addition, the combination of Elbe-Germanic and eastern artefacts seems to be specific
for Raetia II: in the neighbouring regions of northern Italy (Raetia I, Venetia et Histria) and Switzerland
(Maxima Sequanorum), C3–D1 “classical” Elbe-Germanic indexes (A VI, 177 two-pieced brooches with
rhomboid foot and A VI, 185 Bügelknopffibeln, hand-made ceramics) are widely attested (Buora 1998:
371–373; Voß 1998: 143, fig. 10; see also above on the pottery from Kaiseraugst and Bregenz), whereas the
“eastern” forms are almost completely missing6. Among the few examples, the aforementioned finds
from the area of Basel and Kaiseraugst can be mentioned (see above). Another apparent exception
corresponds to a handful of metal accessories from Concordia Sagittaria: they however belong to the
somewhat later, “post-Przeworsk” typological inventory recorded in the Western Roman provinces
during the stages D1–D2 (see below).
In the view of the phenomena observed during the C3–D1 stages in Bohemia and Moravia, we assume
that the settlement of the Vandals and Suebi in Raetia II at the beginning of the 5th century (Goffart 2006:
87–89) may have played a role in the dissemination of Elbe-Germanic and “eastern” elements south to
the Danube. A one-pieced brooch with straight foot and fluted bow, found at Mautern–Burggartengasse
(Wewerka 2004: 416–417, fig. 25), on the Noricum limes, may be mentioned as additional evidence: the
object finds direct parallels in the North Carpathian group of the Przeworsk culture and Moravia, and
foreshadows one of the main indexes of the Vandal period in the south-western Roman provinces (see
above and below). If that is to be accepted, it would seem that the use of artefacts of both Przeworsk and
Elbe-Germanic tradition was typical for these two barbarian groups. This two main components, as said,
occur together frequently in assemblages of the C3–D1 stages north to the middle Danube and announce
the typological inventory recorded in later (D1–D2 stages) scenarios of the westward migration of Vandals
and Suebi, such as eastern Gaul and south-western Spain and, possibly, the Main valley (see below). Should
the correctness of our assumption be confirmed, it would suggest that the material remains left by the
Vandals and the Suebi were nearly indistinguishable from each other at least from the end of the C3 stage;
this phenomenon seems to be confirmed by the few traces of their path throughout the Roman West, as we
will see (see below). The proposal, however, should be regarded as a mere working hypothesis in the current
state of research: the lack of a precise chronological background does not allow a straightforward connec-
tion to any specific historical event (e.g. the raid of the Juthungi in 358, or the Vandals’ and Suebi’ one in
6 Almgren 161 brooches found in north-eastern Italy cannot be surely dated to the late Roman/early Migration Period: Buora 1998: 371; Buora,
Seidel 2008: 208.
429
Jaroslav Jiřík, Joan Pinar Gil
In his overview on the Late Roman Period cemeteries south to the Danube in Bavaria, E. Keller men-
tions a number of sites and graves containing “common Germanic” as well as “Elbe-Germanic” elements:
cemeteries such as Königsbrunn, Göggingen, Weßling, Potzham and Regensburg, as well as settlements
and military enclaves such as Moosburg bei Murnau, Lorenzberg bei Epfach, Kempten, Kellmünz, Bürgle
bei Gundremmingen and Eining. The material reported by the author consists mainly in Elbe-Germanic
hand-made pottery, but includes also various brooches and belt components. Among them, a special at-
tention deserves the belt buckle with double frame from Moosberg (fig. 6:4): according to Keller (1971:
175–183), its best parallels are to be found in Wielbark, Göritz in central Germany and also Derevjannoe in
Ukraine. Another “exotic” item in south-Bavarian assemblages is the iron Armbrustfibel from Lorenzberg
bei Epfach (fig. 6:18), which finds its analogies in the territories between the Elbe and Oder courses. The
same site has also yielded the aforementioned tongue of an “eastern” buckle (see above) (fig. 6:20). An
important find of likely “east Germanic” provenance has been recorded at Götting, located south-east of
Munich (fig. 6:1). The grave was furnished with a “classical” bow brooch made of silver sheet and a wheel-
thrown S-profiled vessel with burnished decoration. The brooch finds its direct prototypes in the territory
of the late Černjahov culture, whereas the best parallels for the vessel’s profile and decoration are to be
found in the late Przeworsk culture, i.e. the finds from the settlement at Jakuszowice (considered represen-
tative of the classical repertoire of the Late Roman Period: see Godłowski 1995: 157, fig. 9:3) (fig. 2:14) and
others (see above). The chronology of most of these Bavarian finds falls between a wide time span, within
the 4th and early 5th century. E. Keller attributes to most of these Elbe-Germanic elements an origin in cen-
tral Germany, Bohemia and also Mecklenburg; however, he acknowledges a particularly significant role
to Alamannic influences. All in all, these finds probably mirrored shifting relations and particular events
involving the Roman Empire as much as the Barbaricum (Keller 1971: 175–183).
The occurrence of Elbe-Germanic and “eastern” artefacts is relatively frequent along the Danubian
limes in present day Bavaria. A good example is the auxiliary castellum Abusina/Eining (fig. 6:8–16),
founded about 300 AD. Of special interest are the graves of two alleged warriors. The first one was
equipped with arrow heads and a spear head, whereas the second was buried together with a horse.
Typical Elbe-Germanic ceramics of both fine and coarse shapes are also reported, as well as brooch-
es A VI, 174–176, bronze bag fittings of type Schleßlitz and antler combs with triangular handle of
Thomas’ II type (Gschwind 2004: 76–103). Another significant frontier castellum was also “Bürgle”
by Gundremmingen, where two settlement horizons were outlined. The older one corresponds to the
last quarter of the 4th century (according to the recorded military Kerbschnittgarnituren, fragments
of torques and brooches of type A 185 Gerlachsheim, variant “mit Bügelkamm”; see above for our re-
marks on the chronology of the type). The following settlement horizon should be dated about 400
AD, as shown by an “east Germanic” buckle with thickened frame and round belt-plate, a Roman
crossbow fibula of type Keller 6, a coin struck under the usurper Constantine III and numerous
weapons (Bender 1996). A similar collection of artefacts can be observed at the castellum of Teriola/
Zirl – Martinsbühel, in present day Tirol: an “eastern” fibula with attached trapezoidal foot (fig. 6:19)
and wire wrapped bow with analogies in east Germanic and Baltic territories, was found alongside
428
Late Przeworsk and post-Przeworsk, Elbian and Danubian. Vandals, Suebi and the dissemination of Central European…
a Roman cross-shaped brooch and some military belt fittings with carved decoration (Höck 2003:
10–50, figs. 2, 3, 4, 5, 43–44). On the basis of its decoration in Untersiebenbrunn style, the eastern
brooch can be safely attributed to the D2 period.
The overall evidence shows a remarkable presence of Elbe-Germanic finds in Raetia II, which appear in
some cases alongside Przeworsk and other eastern imports. The presence of auxiliary barbarian troops along
the Raetian limes is the interpretation preferred by most scholars. However, written sources are not explicit
of this point, and raise the question of the apparently passive role of the auxiliaries during the mentioned
events of 401/402. In addition, the combination of Elbe-Germanic and eastern artefacts seems to be specific
for Raetia II: in the neighbouring regions of northern Italy (Raetia I, Venetia et Histria) and Switzerland
(Maxima Sequanorum), C3–D1 “classical” Elbe-Germanic indexes (A VI, 177 two-pieced brooches with
rhomboid foot and A VI, 185 Bügelknopffibeln, hand-made ceramics) are widely attested (Buora 1998:
371–373; Voß 1998: 143, fig. 10; see also above on the pottery from Kaiseraugst and Bregenz), whereas the
“eastern” forms are almost completely missing6. Among the few examples, the aforementioned finds
from the area of Basel and Kaiseraugst can be mentioned (see above). Another apparent exception
corresponds to a handful of metal accessories from Concordia Sagittaria: they however belong to the
somewhat later, “post-Przeworsk” typological inventory recorded in the Western Roman provinces
during the stages D1–D2 (see below).
In the view of the phenomena observed during the C3–D1 stages in Bohemia and Moravia, we assume
that the settlement of the Vandals and Suebi in Raetia II at the beginning of the 5th century (Goffart 2006:
87–89) may have played a role in the dissemination of Elbe-Germanic and “eastern” elements south to
the Danube. A one-pieced brooch with straight foot and fluted bow, found at Mautern–Burggartengasse
(Wewerka 2004: 416–417, fig. 25), on the Noricum limes, may be mentioned as additional evidence: the
object finds direct parallels in the North Carpathian group of the Przeworsk culture and Moravia, and
foreshadows one of the main indexes of the Vandal period in the south-western Roman provinces (see
above and below). If that is to be accepted, it would seem that the use of artefacts of both Przeworsk and
Elbe-Germanic tradition was typical for these two barbarian groups. This two main components, as said,
occur together frequently in assemblages of the C3–D1 stages north to the middle Danube and announce
the typological inventory recorded in later (D1–D2 stages) scenarios of the westward migration of Vandals
and Suebi, such as eastern Gaul and south-western Spain and, possibly, the Main valley (see below). Should
the correctness of our assumption be confirmed, it would suggest that the material remains left by the
Vandals and the Suebi were nearly indistinguishable from each other at least from the end of the C3 stage;
this phenomenon seems to be confirmed by the few traces of their path throughout the Roman West, as we
will see (see below). The proposal, however, should be regarded as a mere working hypothesis in the current
state of research: the lack of a precise chronological background does not allow a straightforward connec-
tion to any specific historical event (e.g. the raid of the Juthungi in 358, or the Vandals’ and Suebi’ one in
6 Almgren 161 brooches found in north-eastern Italy cannot be surely dated to the late Roman/early Migration Period: Buora 1998: 371; Buora,
Seidel 2008: 208.
429
Jaroslav Jiřík, Joan Pinar Gil
401/402)7; alternative explanations such as the settling of federates/laeti (widely accepted by specialists) or
the individual presence of barbarians on Roman soil cannot be excluded, as they are hardly susceptible of
being recorded in the written sources8.
Another point of contact between the early Migration Period assemblages in the Raetian limes and
the western Roman provinces is suggested by a small crossbow brooch with straight foot from Straubing,
gr. No. 320 (Geisler 1998: 103–104, pl. 100). As C. Eger already remarked (Eger 2012: 184–185), the brooch
finds good parallels in Moravia (for example, Kostelec na Hané gr. No. 403, belonging to the C3/D1 periods:
Zeman 1961: 162, fig. 78A) and among the earliest Vandal-period grave goods of North Africa, particularly
at Thuburbo Maius (see below, with figs. 11E:55, 28A). The example from Straubing, buried about the mid
or late 5th century, appears to be an unusual find in the whole southern Germany.
There is one last archaeological phenomenon that may shed some additional light on the processes
linked to the Rhine crossing: a significant occurrence of eastern imports in the Main valley, above all
of (post-)Przeworsk and Middle Danube origin. Thus, a wheel-thrown bowl with wave-shaped decora-
tive bands has been recorded at Stockstadt, Lower Franconia (fig. 7:4). The bowl appears to be close to
the Jiříkovice-type pottery of southern Moravia, typical for the stages C3 and D1. The same site has also
yielded a “suspicious” fragment of a twisted vessel handle (fig. 7:1), which finds a good counterpart at
Velké Němčice (Břeclav) (Pescheck 1978: Taf. 137:B2; Tejral 1985: fig. 19:7). At Schloßberg near Geisfeld,
in the upper Main region, an example of (post-)Černjahov bow fibula in metal sheet of Kokowski’s type
E4 Hărman has been found (Böhnlein 1993–1994: 31, fig. 29:9; Kokowski 1996: 156, fig. 12) (fig. 7:9); a bir-
itual grave in Altendorf yielded a comb with triangular handle with zoomorphic decoration, which has
close analogies in Eastern Europe and the Carpathian basin during the C3–D1 period (Pescheck 1978:
10:5; Haberstroh 1995: 14) (fig. 7:20). An eastern origin has to be attributed to a Thomas III comb with
omega-shaped handle from Geldersheim (Pescheck 1978: 50, Taf. 74:3) (fig.7:8); several Thomas III combs
have been also recorded at Wiesbaden in Rheinhessen (Kazanski 1993: 175, fig. 2:10, 14; Buchinger 1997:
270, pl. 39–40; see also below) (figs. 8:5; 11B:12). Contacts with eastern Central Europe are mirrored by the
wheel-thrown pottery with burnished patterns from Eggolsheim (Haberstroh 1995: 17, fig. 9:4–5) and Kahl
am Main (Teichner 1999: 106–108, pl. 19:6, 35:8) (fig.7:5) and by two one-pieced brooches with attached
foot from Trebur: decorated with faceted motives (figs. 8:1; 26:1; 27:2), the brooches find exact analogies at
Augst (see above, with fig. 6:17), Kostelec na Hané (gr. No. 358) in Moravia and Sládkovičovo (gr. No. 2)
in south-western Slovakia (Zeman 1961: fig. 67:E, 88:m). The grave of Trebur, discovered in 1937 (Möller
1987: 132, pl. 104:1–17), contained not only eastern brooches, but also an undecorated Thomas III comb and
a strap end finding a direct counterpart in the late Wielbark culture (Mączyńska 2007: map 7). The A 158
7 The excavation of a well in Regensburg–Harting (Prammer 1985: 44–46) revealed traces of violent events connected to the barbarian raids
over Raetia between the late 3rd and the early 5th centuries.
8 Some examples of personal mobility are however preserved in the written sources: that is the case of two Suebi, reported to live in Rome:
one was a slave, the other served as a guard in the house of the Statilii, local citizens. A man named Suebus, attested in Rome too, was
probably from the Germania Magna. A similar origin may have had other “Germans”, Constans and Ingenuus, who were known respec-
tively in Rome and Cordoba as gladiators at the turn of the 4th – 5th century AD (Kakoschke 2004: 247, 268–269). The effect of these
immigrants on the material culture Late Roman cities must have been very weak.
430
Late Przeworsk and post-Przeworsk, Elbian and Danubian. Vandals, Suebi and the dissemination of Central European…
brooches from Zellingen (two single pieces) (fig. 7:6–7), Eggolsheim and Unterhaid suggest instead links
with the Przeworsk culture, as the parallel finds from Drochlin and the cave at Ciemna near Ojców, both
in Silesia, show (Schuster 2001a: 80–83, fig. 10). Further one-pieced brooches with attached foot are record-
ed at Hopferstadt, gr. No. 14 (Rosenstock 1992: fig. 6:1), at Tauberbischofsheim–Dittingheim (von Freeden
2003: 13, fig. 4:4), and at Lampertheim, gr. No. 24 (Schuster 2001a: 80–83, fig. 10:1–5). Significant is also
the apparently isolated find of an A VI, 158 brooch at Wetzlar (Hessen) (fig.7:11), about 80 km north-east
from Koblenz (Steidl 2000: 32, pl. 77:122; see Tejral 1998: 394, fig. 3:16, for analogies in the Middle Danube
area). Jochen Haberstroh has discussed the occurrence of “eastern” brooches of Almgren’s types 158 and
162 in southern Germany. A special attention is paid to the gr. Nos. 21 and 29 from Altendorf (fig. 7:21, 24),
which were furnished with A 162 specimens; the gr. No. 29 was further provided with an “eastern” buckle
of Madyda-Legutko’s type AH 25 (Haberstroh 2003: 250–253, fig. 30) (fig. 7:10). M. Olędzki and J. Ziętek
have recently pointed out that the spatial distribution of the types A 158 and A 162 within their “homeland”
regions within the Przeworsk culture was mutually exclusive (Olędzki, Ziętek 2017: 372). The aforemen-
tioned assemblage from Unterhaid shows instead the coexistence of both types on a single spot (fig. 7: 22,
30–31). This example gives a likely glimpse of the extent to which “eastern” features of material culture in-
termixed outside of its original territory. That is a well known trend in the evolution of “moving barbarian
culture” in the early Migration Period, that can be easily identified also in later scenarios of the Vandal-
Suevic displacements, for instance in south-western Hispania (see below). D. Neubauer examined the dis-
tribution of “eastern” belt buckles with thickened frame in the westernmost part of Barbaricum and also
in the western Roman provinces. He noticed that the examples of his type 2 (including buckles with both
rectangular and round plates as well as without plate, corresponding broadly to Madyda-Legutko’s type
AH 25) were relatively numerous both in Rheinhessen and in Bourgogne (see below), but relatively rare
in the “Limesvorland” and in the Main valley, where only three examples from the fortified settlement at
Wettenburg and the aforementioned cemetery at Altendorf have been recorded (Neubauer 1998a: 129–144).
The overall evidence is consistent and sticks to a pattern that has already been observed in Bohemia,
Moravia and Raetia II: a phenomenon of overlapping and mixing of Elbe-Germanic and eastern traditions.
This is probably the material background that a part of the “Rhine crossers” was used to at the very begin-
ning of the 5th century. We should assume that before their settlement in Raetia II, the Vandals and their
allies were established not far from the upper Danube limes, probably in the territory of southern Germany:
in this area, a wide majority of the population could right fully claim a descent from the ancient Suebi. In
archaeological terms, the material remains of these settlers are inscribed mainly in the Elbe-Germanic cul-
ture. Thus it is very likely that the “Suebi” crossing the Rhine were recruited from a much more wider ter-
ritory than a spatially limited area of Middle Danube, as claimed by a commonly accepted view. Bohemia,
as a transit area for migrating “easterners”, and the Main valley as a natural corridor between the heart of
the Central European Barbaricum and the Western Roman provinces appear to be among the most in-
clined regions to become scenarios of domino-effect phenomena caused by chained, partially overlapping
population displacements; therefore, they must be considered as highly probable recruitment lands for the
“new Suebi”. This fact would fit well with P. Heather’s suggestion (2009: 15) that “…the combination of
431
Jaroslav Jiřík, Joan Pinar Gil
401/402)7; alternative explanations such as the settling of federates/laeti (widely accepted by specialists) or
the individual presence of barbarians on Roman soil cannot be excluded, as they are hardly susceptible of
being recorded in the written sources8.
Another point of contact between the early Migration Period assemblages in the Raetian limes and
the western Roman provinces is suggested by a small crossbow brooch with straight foot from Straubing,
gr. No. 320 (Geisler 1998: 103–104, pl. 100). As C. Eger already remarked (Eger 2012: 184–185), the brooch
finds good parallels in Moravia (for example, Kostelec na Hané gr. No. 403, belonging to the C3/D1 periods:
Zeman 1961: 162, fig. 78A) and among the earliest Vandal-period grave goods of North Africa, particularly
at Thuburbo Maius (see below, with figs. 11E:55, 28A). The example from Straubing, buried about the mid
or late 5th century, appears to be an unusual find in the whole southern Germany.
There is one last archaeological phenomenon that may shed some additional light on the processes
linked to the Rhine crossing: a significant occurrence of eastern imports in the Main valley, above all
of (post-)Przeworsk and Middle Danube origin. Thus, a wheel-thrown bowl with wave-shaped decora-
tive bands has been recorded at Stockstadt, Lower Franconia (fig. 7:4). The bowl appears to be close to
the Jiříkovice-type pottery of southern Moravia, typical for the stages C3 and D1. The same site has also
yielded a “suspicious” fragment of a twisted vessel handle (fig. 7:1), which finds a good counterpart at
Velké Němčice (Břeclav) (Pescheck 1978: Taf. 137:B2; Tejral 1985: fig. 19:7). At Schloßberg near Geisfeld,
in the upper Main region, an example of (post-)Černjahov bow fibula in metal sheet of Kokowski’s type
E4 Hărman has been found (Böhnlein 1993–1994: 31, fig. 29:9; Kokowski 1996: 156, fig. 12) (fig. 7:9); a bir-
itual grave in Altendorf yielded a comb with triangular handle with zoomorphic decoration, which has
close analogies in Eastern Europe and the Carpathian basin during the C3–D1 period (Pescheck 1978:
10:5; Haberstroh 1995: 14) (fig. 7:20). An eastern origin has to be attributed to a Thomas III comb with
omega-shaped handle from Geldersheim (Pescheck 1978: 50, Taf. 74:3) (fig.7:8); several Thomas III combs
have been also recorded at Wiesbaden in Rheinhessen (Kazanski 1993: 175, fig. 2:10, 14; Buchinger 1997:
270, pl. 39–40; see also below) (figs. 8:5; 11B:12). Contacts with eastern Central Europe are mirrored by the
wheel-thrown pottery with burnished patterns from Eggolsheim (Haberstroh 1995: 17, fig. 9:4–5) and Kahl
am Main (Teichner 1999: 106–108, pl. 19:6, 35:8) (fig.7:5) and by two one-pieced brooches with attached
foot from Trebur: decorated with faceted motives (figs. 8:1; 26:1; 27:2), the brooches find exact analogies at
Augst (see above, with fig. 6:17), Kostelec na Hané (gr. No. 358) in Moravia and Sládkovičovo (gr. No. 2)
in south-western Slovakia (Zeman 1961: fig. 67:E, 88:m). The grave of Trebur, discovered in 1937 (Möller
1987: 132, pl. 104:1–17), contained not only eastern brooches, but also an undecorated Thomas III comb and
a strap end finding a direct counterpart in the late Wielbark culture (Mączyńska 2007: map 7). The A 158
7 The excavation of a well in Regensburg–Harting (Prammer 1985: 44–46) revealed traces of violent events connected to the barbarian raids
over Raetia between the late 3rd and the early 5th centuries.
8 Some examples of personal mobility are however preserved in the written sources: that is the case of two Suebi, reported to live in Rome:
one was a slave, the other served as a guard in the house of the Statilii, local citizens. A man named Suebus, attested in Rome too, was
probably from the Germania Magna. A similar origin may have had other “Germans”, Constans and Ingenuus, who were known respec-
tively in Rome and Cordoba as gladiators at the turn of the 4th – 5th century AD (Kakoschke 2004: 247, 268–269). The effect of these
immigrants on the material culture Late Roman cities must have been very weak.
430
Late Przeworsk and post-Przeworsk, Elbian and Danubian. Vandals, Suebi and the dissemination of Central European…
brooches from Zellingen (two single pieces) (fig. 7:6–7), Eggolsheim and Unterhaid suggest instead links
with the Przeworsk culture, as the parallel finds from Drochlin and the cave at Ciemna near Ojców, both
in Silesia, show (Schuster 2001a: 80–83, fig. 10). Further one-pieced brooches with attached foot are record-
ed at Hopferstadt, gr. No. 14 (Rosenstock 1992: fig. 6:1), at Tauberbischofsheim–Dittingheim (von Freeden
2003: 13, fig. 4:4), and at Lampertheim, gr. No. 24 (Schuster 2001a: 80–83, fig. 10:1–5). Significant is also
the apparently isolated find of an A VI, 158 brooch at Wetzlar (Hessen) (fig.7:11), about 80 km north-east
from Koblenz (Steidl 2000: 32, pl. 77:122; see Tejral 1998: 394, fig. 3:16, for analogies in the Middle Danube
area). Jochen Haberstroh has discussed the occurrence of “eastern” brooches of Almgren’s types 158 and
162 in southern Germany. A special attention is paid to the gr. Nos. 21 and 29 from Altendorf (fig. 7:21, 24),
which were furnished with A 162 specimens; the gr. No. 29 was further provided with an “eastern” buckle
of Madyda-Legutko’s type AH 25 (Haberstroh 2003: 250–253, fig. 30) (fig. 7:10). M. Olędzki and J. Ziętek
have recently pointed out that the spatial distribution of the types A 158 and A 162 within their “homeland”
regions within the Przeworsk culture was mutually exclusive (Olędzki, Ziętek 2017: 372). The aforemen-
tioned assemblage from Unterhaid shows instead the coexistence of both types on a single spot (fig. 7: 22,
30–31). This example gives a likely glimpse of the extent to which “eastern” features of material culture in-
termixed outside of its original territory. That is a well known trend in the evolution of “moving barbarian
culture” in the early Migration Period, that can be easily identified also in later scenarios of the Vandal-
Suevic displacements, for instance in south-western Hispania (see below). D. Neubauer examined the dis-
tribution of “eastern” belt buckles with thickened frame in the westernmost part of Barbaricum and also
in the western Roman provinces. He noticed that the examples of his type 2 (including buckles with both
rectangular and round plates as well as without plate, corresponding broadly to Madyda-Legutko’s type
AH 25) were relatively numerous both in Rheinhessen and in Bourgogne (see below), but relatively rare
in the “Limesvorland” and in the Main valley, where only three examples from the fortified settlement at
Wettenburg and the aforementioned cemetery at Altendorf have been recorded (Neubauer 1998a: 129–144).
The overall evidence is consistent and sticks to a pattern that has already been observed in Bohemia,
Moravia and Raetia II: a phenomenon of overlapping and mixing of Elbe-Germanic and eastern traditions.
This is probably the material background that a part of the “Rhine crossers” was used to at the very begin-
ning of the 5th century. We should assume that before their settlement in Raetia II, the Vandals and their
allies were established not far from the upper Danube limes, probably in the territory of southern Germany:
in this area, a wide majority of the population could right fully claim a descent from the ancient Suebi. In
archaeological terms, the material remains of these settlers are inscribed mainly in the Elbe-Germanic cul-
ture. Thus it is very likely that the “Suebi” crossing the Rhine were recruited from a much more wider ter-
ritory than a spatially limited area of Middle Danube, as claimed by a commonly accepted view. Bohemia,
as a transit area for migrating “easterners”, and the Main valley as a natural corridor between the heart of
the Central European Barbaricum and the Western Roman provinces appear to be among the most in-
clined regions to become scenarios of domino-effect phenomena caused by chained, partially overlapping
population displacements; therefore, they must be considered as highly probable recruitment lands for the
“new Suebi”. This fact would fit well with P. Heather’s suggestion (2009: 15) that “…the combination of
431
Jaroslav Jiřík, Joan Pinar Gil
Fig. 10. Post-Przeworsk horizon in the north-west of the Carpathian basin: typological
repertory.
Obr. 10. Post-przeworský horizont voblasti severozápadu Karparské kotliny: typologický
repertoár.
1, 4) Miskolc–Szirma–Fáskert; 2, 18–19) Solončy; 3, 8, 21) Tiszavalk–Kenderföldek; 5, 7, 10–13,
15–16) Tiszadob–Sziget; 6, 9, 14, 17, 22) Ártánd–Kisfarkasdomb; 20) Čaňa (after/podle: Soós
2018; Vakulenko 1998; Istvánovits 1992; Istvánovits, Kulcsár 1999; Tejral 1997).
432
Late Przeworsk and post-Przeworsk, Elbian and Danubian. Vandals, Suebi and the dissemination of Central European…
Fig. 11. Post-Przeworsk horizon in the Western Provinces: typological repertory.
Obr. 11. Post-przeworský horizontv západních provinciích: typologický repertoár.
A) Bourgogne; B) Rheinhessen; C) Reims; D) south-western Spain; E) North Africa. 1, 3–5) Crimolois; 2) Alésia; 6–9) “Saône valley”;
10) Dijon–La Maladière; 11) Nuits-Saint-Georges; 12, 15) Wiesbaden; 13) Alzey; 14) Mainz-Kastel; 16) Worms; 17) unknown provenance,
Museum of Worms; 18, 21–23) Wolfsheim, grave; 20) Mainz-St. Hilarius; 24, 26, 28, 48) Conimbriga; 25) Mérida; 27, 32, 34–37, 49)
Mérida-Almendralejo st.; 29) Sta. Vitória do Ameixial; 30) Málaga – Roman theatre; 31) Idanha-a-Velha; 33, 44) Mérida or Seville?;
38–39) Granada–Albaicín; 40–43) El Ruedo; 45) “Granada”; 46) “Los Pedroches”; 47) “Guadalquivir valley”; 50) Reims–Fosse Jean
Fat st.; 51) “Reims”; 52) Carthage-Douar-ech-Chott; 53, 59, 61, 63–64, 66–67) Carthage – Koudiat Zâteur; 54) “eastern Algeria”?;
55) Thuburbo Maius – “temple of Ceres church”; 56) Sétif; 57) Djémila; 58) Carthage?; 60, 62, 68–70) Hippo Regius – great basilica;
65) Hilil (after/podle: Vallet 1993; Kazanski 1993; Schoppa 1962; Bernhard 1982; Werner 1981; Almgren 1897; Kleemann 2008;
da Ponte 2006; Mariné 2001; Pérez 2008; Carmona 1998; Pinar 2017a; Eger 2012; Koenig 1981).
433
Jaroslav Jiřík, Joan Pinar Gil
Fig. 10. Post-Przeworsk horizon in the north-west of the Carpathian basin: typological
repertory.
Obr. 10. Post-przeworský horizont voblasti severozápadu Karparské kotliny: typologický
repertoár.
1, 4) Miskolc–Szirma–Fáskert; 2, 18–19) Solončy; 3, 8, 21) Tiszavalk–Kenderföldek; 5, 7, 10–13,
15–16) Tiszadob–Sziget; 6, 9, 14, 17, 22) Ártánd–Kisfarkasdomb; 20) Čaňa (after/podle: Soós
2018; Vakulenko 1998; Istvánovits 1992; Istvánovits, Kulcsár 1999; Tejral 1997).
432
Late Przeworsk and post-Przeworsk, Elbian and Danubian. Vandals, Suebi and the dissemination of Central European…
Fig. 11. Post-Przeworsk horizon in the Western Provinces: typological repertory.
Obr. 11. Post-przeworský horizontv západních provinciích: typologický repertoár.
A) Bourgogne; B) Rheinhessen; C) Reims; D) south-western Spain; E) North Africa. 1, 3–5) Crimolois; 2) Alésia; 6–9) “Saône valley”;
10) Dijon–La Maladière; 11) Nuits-Saint-Georges; 12, 15) Wiesbaden; 13) Alzey; 14) Mainz-Kastel; 16) Worms; 17) unknown provenance,
Museum of Worms; 18, 21–23) Wolfsheim, grave; 20) Mainz-St. Hilarius; 24, 26, 28, 48) Conimbriga; 25) Mérida; 27, 32, 34–37, 49)
Mérida-Almendralejo st.; 29) Sta. Vitória do Ameixial; 30) Málaga – Roman theatre; 31) Idanha-a-Velha; 33, 44) Mérida or Seville?;
38–39) Granada–Albaicín; 40–43) El Ruedo; 45) “Granada”; 46) “Los Pedroches”; 47) “Guadalquivir valley”; 50) Reims–Fosse Jean
Fat st.; 51) “Reims”; 52) Carthage-Douar-ech-Chott; 53, 59, 61, 63–64, 66–67) Carthage – Koudiat Zâteur; 54) “eastern Algeria”?;
55) Thuburbo Maius – “temple of Ceres church”; 56) Sétif; 57) Djémila; 58) Carthage?; 60, 62, 68–70) Hippo Regius – great basilica;
65) Hilil (after/podle: Vallet 1993; Kazanski 1993; Schoppa 1962; Bernhard 1982; Werner 1981; Almgren 1897; Kleemann 2008;
da Ponte 2006; Mariné 2001; Pérez 2008; Carmona 1998; Pinar 2017a; Eger 2012; Koenig 1981).
433
Jaroslav Jiřík, Joan Pinar Gil Late Przeworsk and post-Przeworsk, Elbian and Danubian. Vandals, Suebi and the dissemination of Central European…

Fig. 13. Post-Przeworsk horizon in Bourgogne (D1–D2 period). Representative assemblages.

Obr. 13. Post-przeworský horizont v Burgundsku (stupně D1–D2). Výběr nálezů. 1–4) Neully-les-Dijon; 5–18) Crimolois (after/podle:
Vallet 1993).

Fig. 14. Cicada brooches in

“classicizing” style from the Middle
Dannube area, Bourgogne and
south-western Spain.

Obr. 14. Cikádovité spony

v “klasicizujícím” stylu ve
středním Podunají, Burgundsku
a jihozápadním Španělsku.

1) Petronell–Carnuntum; 2) Jois;
3) Loretto; 4–5) Iža–Leányvár;
Fig. 12. “Eastern” objects from the early Migration Period in the northern Rhineland (A), the Mosel valley (B) and south to Worms (C). 6) Bratislava–Devín; 7–8) Mérida–
Almendralejo st., gr. No. 7; 9) Dijon–La
Obr. 12. “Východní” předměty časné doby stěhování národů v severním Porýní (A), údolí Mosely (B) a jižně od Wormsu (C).
Maladière; 10) Drösing (after/podle:
1, 4) Krefeld–Gellep; 2) Cologne; 3) Remagen; 5–6, 10–11, 13) Trier; 7) Rhamberg; 8) Dalheim; 9) Münstermaifeld; 12) Polch– Tejral 2015b; Vallet 1993; drawings by
Ruitsch; 14) Sponeck; 15) Mannheim–Neckarau; 16) Ruppertsberg; 17) “Strassbourg region”; 18) Mungolsheim (after/podle: Irene Gras after Heras Mora, Olmedo
Kazanski 1993; Werner 1956). Grajera 2015).

434 435
Jaroslav Jiřík, Joan Pinar Gil Late Przeworsk and post-Przeworsk, Elbian and Danubian. Vandals, Suebi and the dissemination of Central European…

Fig. 13. Post-Przeworsk horizon in Bourgogne (D1–D2 period). Representative assemblages.

Obr. 13. Post-przeworský horizont v Burgundsku (stupně D1–D2). Výběr nálezů. 1–4) Neully-les-Dijon; 5–18) Crimolois (after/podle:
Vallet 1993).

Fig. 14. Cicada brooches in

“classicizing” style from the Middle
Dannube area, Bourgogne and
south-western Spain.

Obr. 14. Cikádovité spony

v “klasicizujícím” stylu ve
středním Podunají, Burgundsku
a jihozápadním Španělsku.

1) Petronell–Carnuntum; 2) Jois;
3) Loretto; 4–5) Iža–Leányvár;
Fig. 12. “Eastern” objects from the early Migration Period in the northern Rhineland (A), the Mosel valley (B) and south to Worms (C). 6) Bratislava–Devín; 7–8) Mérida–
Almendralejo st., gr. No. 7; 9) Dijon–La
Obr. 12. “Východní” předměty časné doby stěhování národů v severním Porýní (A), údolí Mosely (B) a jižně od Wormsu (C).
Maladière; 10) Drösing (after/podle:
1, 4) Krefeld–Gellep; 2) Cologne; 3) Remagen; 5–6, 10–11, 13) Trier; 7) Rhamberg; 8) Dalheim; 9) Münstermaifeld; 12) Polch– Tejral 2015b; Vallet 1993; drawings by
Ruitsch; 14) Sponeck; 15) Mannheim–Neckarau; 16) Ruppertsberg; 17) “Strassbourg region”; 18) Mungolsheim (after/podle: Irene Gras after Heras Mora, Olmedo
Kazanski 1993; Werner 1956). Grajera 2015).

434 435
436
Jaroslav Jiřík, Joan Pinar Gil

Fig. 15. Northern Pannonia: assemblages and finds related to the post-Przeworsk horizon in the West.

Obr. 15. Severní Panonie: nálezové celky a jednotlivé nálezy se vztahem k post-przeworskému horizontu na Západě.

1–7) Budapest–Budafóki st., gr. No. 78; 8–9, 11–15) Vienna–Mödling, gr. No. 2; 10) Bratislava–Dubravka, settlement structures; 16–18) Páty, gr. No. 564; 19) Szőny/Brigetio; 20) Páty,
feat. No. 166; 21–23) Mörbisch; 24) Iža–Leányvár; 25) Bratislava–Devín (after/podle: Tejral 1997, 2011, 2015b; Elschek 2017; Ottományi 2001, 2008).

Fig. 16. Finds related

to the post-Przeworsk
horizon in south-western
France and north-
eastern Italy.

Obr. 16. Nálezy vztahující

se k post-przeworskému
horizontu v jihozápadní
Francii a severovýchodní
Itálii.

1–2) Bragayrac–Les
Portes;
3–4) Toulouse-îlot
Castelbou;
5) Le Canet;
6) Sérignac;
7) Saint-André-de-
Codols, gr. No. 8007;
8) Séviac;
9) Bapteste;
10) L’Estrade;
11) La Turraque;
12) Montmaurin;
13) Valentine;
14, 16) Monségur;
15) Saint-Étienne-de-
Gourgas;
17–19) Concordia
Sagittaria

(after/podle: Massendari
2006; Boudartchouk et
al. 2006; Kazanski 1998;
437
Late Przeworsk and post-Przeworsk, Elbian and Danubian. Vandals, Suebi and the dissemination of Central European…

Pinar2017c; Piussi 2008).

436
Jaroslav Jiřík, Joan Pinar Gil

Fig. 15. Northern Pannonia: assemblages and finds related to the post-Przeworsk horizon in the West.

Obr. 15. Severní Panonie: nálezové celky a jednotlivé nálezy se vztahem k post-przeworskému horizontu na Západě.

1–7) Budapest–Budafóki st., gr. No. 78; 8–9, 11–15) Vienna–Mödling, gr. No. 2; 10) Bratislava–Dubravka, settlement structures; 16–18) Páty, gr. No. 564; 19) Szőny/Brigetio; 20) Páty,
feat. No. 166; 21–23) Mörbisch; 24) Iža–Leányvár; 25) Bratislava–Devín (after/podle: Tejral 1997, 2011, 2015b; Elschek 2017; Ottományi 2001, 2008).

Fig. 16. Finds related

to the post-Przeworsk
horizon in south-western
France and north-
eastern Italy.

Obr. 16. Nálezy vztahující

se k post-przeworskému
horizontu v jihozápadní
Francii a severovýchodní
Itálii.

1–2) Bragayrac–Les
Portes;
3–4) Toulouse-îlot
Castelbou;
5) Le Canet;
6) Sérignac;
7) Saint-André-de-
Codols, gr. No. 8007;
8) Séviac;
9) Bapteste;
10) L’Estrade;
11) La Turraque;
12) Montmaurin;
13) Valentine;
14, 16) Monségur;
15) Saint-Étienne-de-
Gourgas;
17–19) Concordia
Sagittaria

(after/podle: Massendari
2006; Boudartchouk et
al. 2006; Kazanski 1998;
437
Late Przeworsk and post-Przeworsk, Elbian and Danubian. Vandals, Suebi and the dissemination of Central European…

Pinar2017c; Piussi 2008).

Jaroslav Jiřík, Joan Pinar Gil Late Przeworsk and post-Przeworsk, Elbian and Danubian. Vandals, Suebi and the dissemination of Central European…

Fig. 17. Elbe-Germanic brooches from Moravia, the Main valley and south-western France.

Obr. 17. Labsko-germánské spony z Moravy, Pomohaní a jihozápadní Francie.

1) Kostelec na Hané; 2) Reichelsheim, gr. No. 4; 3) Saint-André-de-Codols, gr. No. 8007 (after/podle: Zeman 1961; Steidl 2000; Pinar
2017c). Different scales.

Fig. 18. The post-Przeworsk horizon in north-western and central Hispania.

Obr. 18. Post-przeworský horizontv severozápadní a centrální části Hispánie.

1–3) Vigo-Hospital st., grave; 4) Bueu, grave; 5) “Galicia”; 6–7) Torrejón de Velasco, grave; 8) Castiltierra (?); 9) Casa de la Zúa (after/
podle: Casal, Paz 1997; Koenig 1981; García-Vuelta et al. 2013; Sanz et al. 1992).

Fig. 19. Bone/antler combs

(Thomas’ type III) found in the
Western Provinces.
Obr. 19. Kostěné/parohovéhřebeny
(typu Thomas III) nalezené v
západních provinciích.
1) Cacabelos–Castro Ventosa; 2)
Alzey (after/podle: Pérez Rodríguez-
Aragón 2008; Kazanski 1993).
Fig. 20. The post-Przeworsk horizon in south-western Hispania (D2–D2/D3 period). Representative assemblages.
Obr. 20. Post-przeworský horizont v jihozápadní Hispánii (stupně D2–D2/D3). Výběr nálezů.
1–7) Mérida–Almendralejo st., grave; 8–10) Mérida or Seville?; 11) El Hinojal–Las Tiendas; 12) “Guadalquivir valley”; 13) “Granada”;
14–15) Mérida–Almendralejo st., gr. No. 7; 16–18) Mérida–Almendralejo st., gr. No. 1; 19–20) “Extremadura”; 21) Granada–Albaicín,
grave; 22–26) Málaga – Roman theatre, grave (after/podle: López Quiroga 2015; Koenig 1980, 1981; Kazanski 2000; Ripoll 1998;
Zeiss 1934; Heras, Olmedo 2015; Gil 1931; Tempelmann-Mączyńska 1986).

438 439
Jaroslav Jiřík, Joan Pinar Gil Late Przeworsk and post-Przeworsk, Elbian and Danubian. Vandals, Suebi and the dissemination of Central European…

Fig. 17. Elbe-Germanic brooches from Moravia, the Main valley and south-western France.

Obr. 17. Labsko-germánské spony z Moravy, Pomohaní a jihozápadní Francie.

1) Kostelec na Hané; 2) Reichelsheim, gr. No. 4; 3) Saint-André-de-Codols, gr. No. 8007 (after/podle: Zeman 1961; Steidl 2000; Pinar
2017c). Different scales.

Fig. 18. The post-Przeworsk horizon in north-western and central Hispania.

Obr. 18. Post-przeworský horizontv severozápadní a centrální části Hispánie.

1–3) Vigo-Hospital st., grave; 4) Bueu, grave; 5) “Galicia”; 6–7) Torrejón de Velasco, grave; 8) Castiltierra (?); 9) Casa de la Zúa (after/
podle: Casal, Paz 1997; Koenig 1981; García-Vuelta et al. 2013; Sanz et al. 1992).

Fig. 19. Bone/antler combs

(Thomas’ type III) found in the
Western Provinces.
Obr. 19. Kostěné/parohovéhřebeny
(typu Thomas III) nalezené v
západních provinciích.
1) Cacabelos–Castro Ventosa; 2)
Alzey (after/podle: Pérez Rodríguez-
Aragón 2008; Kazanski 1993).
Fig. 20. The post-Przeworsk horizon in south-western Hispania (D2–D2/D3 period). Representative assemblages.
Obr. 20. Post-przeworský horizont v jihozápadní Hispánii (stupně D2–D2/D3). Výběr nálezů.
1–7) Mérida–Almendralejo st., grave; 8–10) Mérida or Seville?; 11) El Hinojal–Las Tiendas; 12) “Guadalquivir valley”; 13) “Granada”;
14–15) Mérida–Almendralejo st., gr. No. 7; 16–18) Mérida–Almendralejo st., gr. No. 1; 19–20) “Extremadura”; 21) Granada–Albaicín,
grave; 22–26) Málaga – Roman theatre, grave (after/podle: López Quiroga 2015; Koenig 1980, 1981; Kazanski 2000; Ripoll 1998;
Zeiss 1934; Heras, Olmedo 2015; Gil 1931; Tempelmann-Mączyńska 1986).

438 439
Jaroslav Jiřík, Joan Pinar Gil Late Przeworsk and post-Przeworsk, Elbian and Danubian. Vandals, Suebi and the dissemination of Central European…

Fig. 21. Two-pieced brooch from Idanha-a-Velha and parallels from Central Europe. Fig. 23. Iron buckle with elongated bent catch plate from El Ruedo and some parallels from Central Europe.

Obr. 21. Dvoudílná spona z Idanha-a-Velha a paralely vestřední Europě. Obr. 23. Železná přezka s protáhlouohnutou záchytnou ploténkou z El Ruedo a vybrané paralely ve střední Europě.

1) Dębczyno, gr. No. 8; 2) Miskolc-Szirma-Fáskert, gr. C; 3) Idanha-a-Velha (after/podle: Godłowski 1970; da Ponte 2006; drawing by 1) El Ruedo, gr. No. 125; 2) Opatów; 3) Dierżęcin, gr. No. 18; 4–5) Dobrodzień; 6) Zakrzów (after/podle: Carmona 1990, 1998; Tejral
Irene Gras after Soós 2018). 1992; Szydłowski 1974; Godłowski 1970, 1977).

Fig. 22. Bronze belt plate from

“Los Pedroches” region and
some parallels from Eastern
Europe.

Obr. 22. Bronzová záchytná

ploténka přezky z regionu
“Los Pedroches” a vybrané
paralely ve východní Europě.

1) “Los Pedroches”, Museum

PRASA Torrecampo;
2) Bârlad–Valea Seacă;
3) Velika Bugaïvka, gr. No. 146; Fig. 24. A 171 brooches with fluted decoration in Moravia, south-western Hispania and Africa.
4) Riživka, gr. No. 8;
5) Kosanovo, gr. No. 23/1961 Obr. 24. Spony typu A 171 s “housenkovitě” zdobeným lučíkem z Moravy, jihozápadní Hispánie a Afriky.
(after/podle: Mamalaucă
1) Břeclav–Libivá, gr. No. 9; 2) Mérida–Almendralejo st., grave; 3) Carthage – Koudiat Zâteur, grave (after/podle: Macháček,
2005; Petrauskas, Šiškin 2013;
Klanicová 1997; Eger 2012; drawing by Irene Gras after López Quiroga 2015).
Petrauskas 2009).

440 441
Jaroslav Jiřík, Joan Pinar Gil Late Przeworsk and post-Przeworsk, Elbian and Danubian. Vandals, Suebi and the dissemination of Central European…

Fig. 21. Two-pieced brooch from Idanha-a-Velha and parallels from Central Europe. Fig. 23. Iron buckle with elongated bent catch plate from El Ruedo and some parallels from Central Europe.

Obr. 21. Dvoudílná spona z Idanha-a-Velha a paralely vestřední Europě. Obr. 23. Železná přezka s protáhlouohnutou záchytnou ploténkou z El Ruedo a vybrané paralely ve střední Europě.

1) Dębczyno, gr. No. 8; 2) Miskolc-Szirma-Fáskert, gr. C; 3) Idanha-a-Velha (after/podle: Godłowski 1970; da Ponte 2006; drawing by 1) El Ruedo, gr. No. 125; 2) Opatów; 3) Dierżęcin, gr. No. 18; 4–5) Dobrodzień; 6) Zakrzów (after/podle: Carmona 1990, 1998; Tejral
Irene Gras after Soós 2018). 1992; Szydłowski 1974; Godłowski 1970, 1977).

Fig. 22. Bronze belt plate from

“Los Pedroches” region and
some parallels from Eastern
Europe.

Obr. 22. Bronzová záchytná

ploténka přezky z regionu
“Los Pedroches” a vybrané
paralely ve východní Europě.

1) “Los Pedroches”, Museum

PRASA Torrecampo;
2) Bârlad–Valea Seacă;
3) Velika Bugaïvka, gr. No. 146; Fig. 24. A 171 brooches with fluted decoration in Moravia, south-western Hispania and Africa.
4) Riživka, gr. No. 8;
5) Kosanovo, gr. No. 23/1961 Obr. 24. Spony typu A 171 s “housenkovitě” zdobeným lučíkem z Moravy, jihozápadní Hispánie a Afriky.
(after/podle: Mamalaucă
1) Břeclav–Libivá, gr. No. 9; 2) Mérida–Almendralejo st., grave; 3) Carthage – Koudiat Zâteur, grave (after/podle: Macháček,
2005; Petrauskas, Šiškin 2013;
Klanicová 1997; Eger 2012; drawing by Irene Gras after López Quiroga 2015).
Petrauskas 2009).

440 441
Jaroslav Jiřík, Joan Pinar Gil Late Przeworsk and post-Przeworsk, Elbian and Danubian. Vandals, Suebi and the dissemination of Central European…

Fig. 26. Post-Przeworsk one-pieced brooches with spring cord passing behind the bow.

Obr. 26. Post-przeworskéjednodílné spony s vnitřním vynutím.

1) Trebur; 2) Mérida–Morería; 3) Carthage – Douar-ech-Chott (after/podle: Möller 1987; Mariné 2001; Eger 2001).

Fig. 25. Undecored A 171 brooches in the late Przeworsk area and in south-western Hispania. Fig. 27. A 158/171 brooches with beveled decoration in Slovakia, Rheinhessen and south-western Hispania.

Obr. 25. Nezdobené spony A 171 pozdní przeworské kultury a v jihozápadní Hispánii. Obr. 27. Spony typu A 158/171 s fasetovaným zdobením na Slovensku, v oblasti Rheinhessenu a jihozápadní Hispanii.

1) Szedrzyk; 2) Tarnów, gr. No. 33; 3) Mérida; 4–5) Conimbriga (after/podle: Godłowski 1977; Mariné 2001; Alarcão et al. 1979). 1) Sládkovičovo; 2) Trebur; 3) Santa Vitória do Ameixial (after/podle: Zeman 1961; Möller 1987; da Ponte 2006). Different scales.

442 443
Jaroslav Jiřík, Joan Pinar Gil Late Przeworsk and post-Przeworsk, Elbian and Danubian. Vandals, Suebi and the dissemination of Central European…

Fig. 26. Post-Przeworsk one-pieced brooches with spring cord passing behind the bow.

Obr. 26. Post-przeworskéjednodílné spony s vnitřním vynutím.

1) Trebur; 2) Mérida–Morería; 3) Carthage – Douar-ech-Chott (after/podle: Möller 1987; Mariné 2001; Eger 2001).

Fig. 25. Undecored A 171 brooches in the late Przeworsk area and in south-western Hispania. Fig. 27. A 158/171 brooches with beveled decoration in Slovakia, Rheinhessen and south-western Hispania.

Obr. 25. Nezdobené spony A 171 pozdní przeworské kultury a v jihozápadní Hispánii. Obr. 27. Spony typu A 158/171 s fasetovaným zdobením na Slovensku, v oblasti Rheinhessenu a jihozápadní Hispanii.

1) Szedrzyk; 2) Tarnów, gr. No. 33; 3) Mérida; 4–5) Conimbriga (after/podle: Godłowski 1977; Mariné 2001; Alarcão et al. 1979). 1) Sládkovičovo; 2) Trebur; 3) Santa Vitória do Ameixial (after/podle: Zeman 1961; Möller 1987; da Ponte 2006). Different scales.

442 443
Jaroslav Jiřík, Joan Pinar Gil Late Przeworsk and post-Przeworsk, Elbian and Danubian. Vandals, Suebi and the dissemination of Central European…

and Hippo Regia.

Consolazione sq.;
for early Vandal-

Maius and Hippo

Almendralejo st.,

Sueborum 2017;
A) Džurga–Oba,
period jewellery

Thuburbo Maia
šperkům časně
from Thuburbo

Opreanu, Luca
Sibiului, gr. M3;

Ermolin 2012;
Counterparts

Mahéo 1990;
E) Miercurea
Protiklady ke

vandalského

vault No. 40;

(after/podle:

Ross 1965;
In tempore
gr. No. 109;

F) Mérida–
C) Rome –
B) Moréuil,

D) Beiral;
období z
Obr. 29.

gr. No. 2
Fig. 29.

Regius.

2007).
Fig. 28. Early Vandal-period grave goods in North Africa.

Obr. 28. Časně vandalský horizont v severní Africe a s ním spojené nálezy.

A) Thuburbo Maius – “temple of Ceres church”; B) Carthage – Douar-ech-Chott; C) Carthage – Koudiat Zâteur; D) Hippo Regius
– great basilica (Valilu’s grave?); E) Hippo Regius – great basilica, “rich grave in the cistern” (after/podle: Fantar 1982; Vössing 2014;
Eger 2001; Marec 1958).

444 445
Jaroslav Jiřík, Joan Pinar Gil Late Przeworsk and post-Przeworsk, Elbian and Danubian. Vandals, Suebi and the dissemination of Central European…

and Hippo Regia.

Consolazione sq.;
for early Vandal-

Maius and Hippo

Almendralejo st.,

Sueborum 2017;
A) Džurga–Oba,
period jewellery

Thuburbo Maia
šperkům časně
from Thuburbo

Opreanu, Luca
Sibiului, gr. M3;

Ermolin 2012;
Counterparts

Mahéo 1990;
E) Miercurea
Protiklady ke

vandalského

vault No. 40;

(after/podle:

Ross 1965;
In tempore
gr. No. 109;

F) Mérida–
C) Rome –
B) Moréuil,

D) Beiral;
období z
Obr. 29.

gr. No. 2
Fig. 29.

Regius.

2007).
Fig. 28. Early Vandal-period grave goods in North Africa.

Obr. 28. Časně vandalský horizont v severní Africe a s ním spojené nálezy.

A) Thuburbo Maius – “temple of Ceres church”; B) Carthage – Douar-ech-Chott; C) Carthage – Koudiat Zâteur; D) Hippo Regius
– great basilica (Valilu’s grave?); E) Hippo Regius – great basilica, “rich grave in the cistern” (after/podle: Fantar 1982; Vössing 2014;
Eger 2001; Marec 1958).

444 445
Jaroslav Jiřík, Joan Pinar Gil
Fig. 30. Dating contexts for Mediterranean gold jewellery from early Vandal-period graves.
Obr. 30. Datující kontexty pro středomořské zlaté šperky z časně vandalského období.
1) Repcélak; 2, 7, 14) Rome – pope Marcus’ basilica; 3) Mactar; 4, 12) Carthage – St.-Louis; 5, 6, 17) Rome – Consolazione sq.; 8,
13) Reggio Emilia; 9–11) Desana; 15) Thetford; 16) Raciaria (after/podle: Kiss 2001; Fiocchi Nicolai 2013; Gil Miguel 1931; Baratte et al.
2002; Ross 1965; Quast 2005; Degani 1959; Johns, Potter 1983; Džoržeti 1988).
446
Late Przeworsk and post-Przeworsk, Elbian and Danubian. Vandals, Suebi and the dissemination of Central European…
Fig. 31. Late Vandal-period grave goods in North Africa.
Obr. 31. Hrobové nálezy pozdně vandalského období v severní Africe.
A) “Hippo Regius”, gr. No. 1; B) “Hippo Regius”, gr. No. 2; C) Thuburbo Maius – “temple of Ceres church”, Arifridus’ grave;
D) Souk-el-Khemis – basilica, gr. No. 1 (after/podle: Quast 2005; Vössing 2014; Courtois 1955; Laporte 1999). D: different scales.
groups participating in the Rhine crossing represents an entirely new alliance in itself, and some lower level
shuffling was perhaps required to produce one of the participating groups, Suevi”. Our hypothesis is still
far from being conclusively proven, but it is supported by a wide set of contextual evidence derived from
historical and archaeological sources and cultural-geography relationships.
The south-eastern fringe of late Przeworsk settlement brings forward another valuable archaeologi-
cal sequence, which foreshadows the main processes taking place in the West during the first decades of
the 5th century. During the stage D1, contacts between the late Przeworsk culture and the neighbouring
territories in the northern part of the Carpathian Basin became very intense. A particular attention de-
serves a group of “late Sarmatian” cemeteries located on the upper Tisza valley, such as Tiszadob–Sziget,
Tiszavalk–Kenderfőldek, Tiszakarád–Inasa or Miskolc–Szirma–Fáskert. Generally speaking, the buri-
al customs at these cemeteries find their origin in the cultures of south-eastern Europe; however, the
D1 stage brought new elements of material culture showing tight connections with the late Przeworsk
area. A number of graves furnished with shield bosses of the Dobrodzień type – for example Tiszavalk,
gr. No. 6 and Újhartyján (Istvánovits, Kulcsár 1987–1989: 63, fig. 14–15, pl. II; 1999: 69–76, fig. 6, 10:2)
(fig. 3:4) are perhaps the clearest example, and yet one among many: one-piece brooches with attached
foot (Miskolc–Szirma–Fáskert; Tiszadob–Sziget gr. No. 5, Tiszavalk–Kenderföldek: Soós 2018: 370, pl.
II:7; Istvánovits 1992: 90–92, fig. 2:2, 3:1; Istvánovits, Kulcsár 1999: 69, 76, fig. 11:1, 4), iron and silver
belt buckles with rectangular plate (Istvánovits 1992: 97–98, fig. 8:6, 9:3–4; Istvánovits, Kulcsár 1999:
figs. 8:4–5, 15:3) and silver or bronze buckles with thickened frame (Istvánovits 1992: 97–98, fig. 9:2) are
447
Jaroslav Jiřík, Joan Pinar Gil
Fig. 30. Dating contexts for Mediterranean gold jewellery from early Vandal-period graves.
Obr. 30. Datující kontexty pro středomořské zlaté šperky z časně vandalského období.
1) Repcélak; 2, 7, 14) Rome – pope Marcus’ basilica; 3) Mactar; 4, 12) Carthage – St.-Louis; 5, 6, 17) Rome – Consolazione sq.; 8,
13) Reggio Emilia; 9–11) Desana; 15) Thetford; 16) Raciaria (after/podle: Kiss 2001; Fiocchi Nicolai 2013; Gil Miguel 1931; Baratte et al.
2002; Ross 1965; Quast 2005; Degani 1959; Johns, Potter 1983; Džoržeti 1988).
446
Late Przeworsk and post-Przeworsk, Elbian and Danubian. Vandals, Suebi and the dissemination of Central European…
Fig. 31. Late Vandal-period grave goods in North Africa.
Obr. 31. Hrobové nálezy pozdně vandalského období v severní Africe.
A) “Hippo Regius”, gr. No. 1; B) “Hippo Regius”, gr. No. 2; C) Thuburbo Maius – “temple of Ceres church”, Arifridus’ grave;
D) Souk-el-Khemis – basilica, gr. No. 1 (after/podle: Quast 2005; Vössing 2014; Courtois 1955; Laporte 1999). D: different scales.
groups participating in the Rhine crossing represents an entirely new alliance in itself, and some lower level
shuffling was perhaps required to produce one of the participating groups, Suevi”. Our hypothesis is still
far from being conclusively proven, but it is supported by a wide set of contextual evidence derived from
historical and archaeological sources and cultural-geography relationships.
The south-eastern fringe of late Przeworsk settlement brings forward another valuable archaeologi-
cal sequence, which foreshadows the main processes taking place in the West during the first decades of
the 5th century. During the stage D1, contacts between the late Przeworsk culture and the neighbouring
territories in the northern part of the Carpathian Basin became very intense. A particular attention de-
serves a group of “late Sarmatian” cemeteries located on the upper Tisza valley, such as Tiszadob–Sziget,
Tiszavalk–Kenderfőldek, Tiszakarád–Inasa or Miskolc–Szirma–Fáskert. Generally speaking, the buri-
al customs at these cemeteries find their origin in the cultures of south-eastern Europe; however, the
D1 stage brought new elements of material culture showing tight connections with the late Przeworsk
area. A number of graves furnished with shield bosses of the Dobrodzień type – for example Tiszavalk,
gr. No. 6 and Újhartyján (Istvánovits, Kulcsár 1987–1989: 63, fig. 14–15, pl. II; 1999: 69–76, fig. 6, 10:2)
(fig. 3:4) are perhaps the clearest example, and yet one among many: one-piece brooches with attached
foot (Miskolc–Szirma–Fáskert; Tiszadob–Sziget gr. No. 5, Tiszavalk–Kenderföldek: Soós 2018: 370, pl.
II:7; Istvánovits 1992: 90–92, fig. 2:2, 3:1; Istvánovits, Kulcsár 1999: 69, 76, fig. 11:1, 4), iron and silver
belt buckles with rectangular plate (Istvánovits 1992: 97–98, fig. 8:6, 9:3–4; Istvánovits, Kulcsár 1999:
figs. 8:4–5, 15:3) and silver or bronze buckles with thickened frame (Istvánovits 1992: 97–98, fig. 9:2) are
447
Jaroslav Jiřík, Joan Pinar Gil Late Przeworsk and post-Przeworsk, Elbian and Danubian. Vandals, Suebi and the dissemination of Central European…

Fig. 32. Dating contexts for late Vandal-period female grave goods. Fig. 33. Dating contexts for late Vandal-period male grave goods.

Obr. 32. Datující kontexty pro nálezy z ženských hrobů pozdně vandalského období. Obr. 33. Datující kontexty pro mužské hrobové nálezy z pozdně vandalského období.

A) Mihovo–Zidani gaber; B) Louviers-Mûrier st., gr. No. 118; C) Hersonesos, cistern P-1967; D) Sardis, Byzantine shop W3; E) Kerč’, A) Tournai, Childeric’s grave; B) Straubing–Bayuwarenst., gr. No. 100; C) Gualdo Tadino, gr. No. 11; D) Castellu, US 116; E) Blanzac–
vault No. 6/1905 (after/podle: Ciglenečki 2008; Carré, Jimenez 2008; Gavrituhin 2002; Stephens Crawford 1990; Ajbabin 1990; Porcheresse, gr. No. 561; F) Maguelone, gr. No. 2565; G) Duratón, gr. No. 286; H) Duratón, gr. No. 169; I) Deersheim, gr. No. 15
Kazanski, Mastykova forthcoming). E: different scales. (after/podle: Quast 2015; Geisler 1998; Umbria 1996; Pergola, Vismara 1989; Molinero Pérez 1948; Schneider 1983; drawings by
Irene Gras after Djouad et al. forthcoming and Hernandez, Raynaud 2005).

448 449
Jaroslav Jiřík, Joan Pinar Gil Late Przeworsk and post-Przeworsk, Elbian and Danubian. Vandals, Suebi and the dissemination of Central European…

Fig. 32. Dating contexts for late Vandal-period female grave goods. Fig. 33. Dating contexts for late Vandal-period male grave goods.

Obr. 32. Datující kontexty pro nálezy z ženských hrobů pozdně vandalského období. Obr. 33. Datující kontexty pro mužské hrobové nálezy z pozdně vandalského období.

A) Mihovo–Zidani gaber; B) Louviers-Mûrier st., gr. No. 118; C) Hersonesos, cistern P-1967; D) Sardis, Byzantine shop W3; E) Kerč’, A) Tournai, Childeric’s grave; B) Straubing–Bayuwarenst., gr. No. 100; C) Gualdo Tadino, gr. No. 11; D) Castellu, US 116; E) Blanzac–
vault No. 6/1905 (after/podle: Ciglenečki 2008; Carré, Jimenez 2008; Gavrituhin 2002; Stephens Crawford 1990; Ajbabin 1990; Porcheresse, gr. No. 561; F) Maguelone, gr. No. 2565; G) Duratón, gr. No. 286; H) Duratón, gr. No. 169; I) Deersheim, gr. No. 15
Kazanski, Mastykova forthcoming). E: different scales. (after/podle: Quast 2015; Geisler 1998; Umbria 1996; Pergola, Vismara 1989; Molinero Pérez 1948; Schneider 1983; drawings by
Irene Gras after Djouad et al. forthcoming and Hernandez, Raynaud 2005).

448 449
Jaroslav Jiřík, Joan Pinar Gil Late Przeworsk and post-Przeworsk, Elbian and Danubian. Vandals, Suebi and the dissemination of Central European…

well represented in this group (fig. 10:1–4, 5v8, 14–19). Post- Černjachov elements are also visible thro-
ugh different types of bow brooches in metal sheet (Miskolc–Szirma–Fáskert, gr. C, Tiszakarád–Inasa,
Tiszadob–Sziget gr. No. 11 and 18: Soós 2018: 368, pl. III; Istvánovits 1992: 94–96, fig. 4:5–6; Istvánovits,
Kulcsár 1999: 69, fig. 5:1, 3) (fig. 10: 5–6, 9–10).
The finds from the upper Tisza valley are only the most eloquent examples of a somewhat wider phe-
nomenon, which embraces also southern Slovakia, the Ukrainian Transcarpathia and part of the Maramureș
and Crișana. Clothing accessories and weaponry recorded at Čaňa, Solončy and Ártánd–Kisfarkasdomb
(fig. 10:2, 6, 9, 14, 17–20, 22) are to be here mentioned (Tejral 1997: 342–343, fig. 21:9–18; Kotigoroško 1987;
Istvánovits, Kulcsár 1999: 82, figs. 13–15); also the shield bosses from Herpály and Bélavárhegy/Boineşti,
suggesting contacts with the Przeworsk area, fit into this pattern (Biborski, Kaczanowski 2001: 239–240,
fig. 2). The range of Przeworsk influences widened also further south-east in this period: thus the cemetery
of Bratei in Transylvania hosted a number of cremation urn-graves containing brooches with attached foot,
buckles with oval frame and a “stylus” tool, whereas one-pieced brooches with attached foot are reported
also from gr. No. 46 at Sȋntana de Mureş and from gr. No. 52 at Fȋnt ȋnele “R ȋt”. The latter shows a fre-
quent occurrence of brooches made of silver and bronze sheet, belonging to Ambroz’s series I: they suggest
direct contacts to the East (Harhoiu 1990: 180; 1999: 60–64; Tejral 1997: 330; latest Tejral 2015a: 160–165).
Fig. 34. Brooches related to the type Wiesbaden in Slovakia, Rheinhessen and North Africa.
The result of the local synthesis of different traditions in the north-west of the Carpathian basin is the
Obr. 34. Spony blízké typu Wiesbaden na Slovensku, oblasti Rheinhessen a v severní Africe.
shaping of a particular repertory of weapons and clothing accessories that appears to be of the greatest in-
1) Banská Bystrica–Selce; 2) Mainz-Kastel; 3) Djémila (after/podle: Pieta 1999; Schoppa 1962; Eger 2012).
terest, as it shows an unusual coincidence with the early Migration Period objects recorded in the western-
most scenarios of the Vandal (and Suevic) activities.
Thus, the shield boss from Ártánd–Kisfarkasdomb finds exact parallels in the cluster of finds
around Dijon (figs. 11A:1; 13:6, 18); A 158 brooches in bronze from Tiszavalk–Kenderföldek and
Tiszadob–Sziget can be seen as direct forerunners of early 5th century examples in south-western
Hispania and North Africa (fig. 11D:24–29, E:52–53); belt buckles with thickened frame in gold and
silver such as the ones recorded at Ártánd–Kisfarkasdomb and Tiszadob–Sziget are also known in
Bourgogne and in southern Spain; “oversized” iron and bronze one-pieced brooches with attached
foot (Kleemann 2008: 91) from Tiszavalk–Kenderfőldek, Tiszadob–Sziget and Solončy have exact
counterparts in Bourgogne (fig. 11A:2–3); the two-pieced bronze brooch with straight foot from
Miskolc–Szirma–Fáskert has a very close analogy in Lusitania (figs. 11D:31; 21:3); the iron belt buck-
les with rectangular or triangular plate found in the same cemeteries find a good parallel in north-
ern Andalusia (figs. 11D:43;23:1); similarly, the undecorated silver belt buckles with rectangular or
trapezoid plate from Tiszadob–Sziget and Ártánd–Kisfarkasdomb find exact analogies in Bourgogne
and Lusitania (fig. 11A:4, 8, D:44, 46–49) (see also below). A particular interest deserve the types of
bow brooches in metal sheet recorded between in this territory: Villafontana-type bow brooches with
double spring (Tiszadob–Sziget, Čaňa, Ártánd–Kisfarkasdomb) find exact counterparts in Spanish
Fig. 35. Bow brooches of type Ambroz I AA and their derivates from post-Przeworsk clusters.
Lusitania (figs. 11D:33; 20:8–9), whereas Ambroz I A A examples with one spring from Tiszadob–
Obr. 35. Spony lučíkové typu Ambroz I AA a jejich deriváty v rámci post-przeworských “clusterů”.
Sziget and Tiszakarád–Inasa can be counted among the direct forerunners of the North African
1) Tiszadob–Sziget; 2) Carthage?; 3) Carthage – Koudiat Zâteur (after/podle: Istvánovits, Kulcsár 1999; Eger 2012).
bow brooches (figs. 11E:58–59; 35:2–3) (see also below). Lastly, a silver circular pendant associated to

450 451
Jaroslav Jiřík, Joan Pinar Gil Late Przeworsk and post-Przeworsk, Elbian and Danubian. Vandals, Suebi and the dissemination of Central European…

well represented in this group (fig. 10:1–4, 5v8, 14–19). Post- Černjachov elements are also visible thro-
ugh different types of bow brooches in metal sheet (Miskolc–Szirma–Fáskert, gr. C, Tiszakarád–Inasa,
Tiszadob–Sziget gr. No. 11 and 18: Soós 2018: 368, pl. III; Istvánovits 1992: 94–96, fig. 4:5–6; Istvánovits,
Kulcsár 1999: 69, fig. 5:1, 3) (fig. 10: 5–6, 9–10).
The finds from the upper Tisza valley are only the most eloquent examples of a somewhat wider phe-
nomenon, which embraces also southern Slovakia, the Ukrainian Transcarpathia and part of the Maramureș
and Crișana. Clothing accessories and weaponry recorded at Čaňa, Solončy and Ártánd–Kisfarkasdomb
(fig. 10:2, 6, 9, 14, 17–20, 22) are to be here mentioned (Tejral 1997: 342–343, fig. 21:9–18; Kotigoroško 1987;
Istvánovits, Kulcsár 1999: 82, figs. 13–15); also the shield bosses from Herpály and Bélavárhegy/Boineşti,
suggesting contacts with the Przeworsk area, fit into this pattern (Biborski, Kaczanowski 2001: 239–240,
fig. 2). The range of Przeworsk influences widened also further south-east in this period: thus the cemetery
of Bratei in Transylvania hosted a number of cremation urn-graves containing brooches with attached foot,
buckles with oval frame and a “stylus” tool, whereas one-pieced brooches with attached foot are reported
also from gr. No. 46 at Sȋntana de Mureş and from gr. No. 52 at Fȋnt ȋnele “R ȋt”. The latter shows a fre-
quent occurrence of brooches made of silver and bronze sheet, belonging to Ambroz’s series I: they suggest
direct contacts to the East (Harhoiu 1990: 180; 1999: 60–64; Tejral 1997: 330; latest Tejral 2015a: 160–165).
Fig. 34. Brooches related to the type Wiesbaden in Slovakia, Rheinhessen and North Africa.
The result of the local synthesis of different traditions in the north-west of the Carpathian basin is the
Obr. 34. Spony blízké typu Wiesbaden na Slovensku, oblasti Rheinhessen a v severní Africe.
shaping of a particular repertory of weapons and clothing accessories that appears to be of the greatest in-
1) Banská Bystrica–Selce; 2) Mainz-Kastel; 3) Djémila (after/podle: Pieta 1999; Schoppa 1962; Eger 2012).
terest, as it shows an unusual coincidence with the early Migration Period objects recorded in the western-
most scenarios of the Vandal (and Suevic) activities.
Thus, the shield boss from Ártánd–Kisfarkasdomb finds exact parallels in the cluster of finds
around Dijon (figs. 11A:1; 13:6, 18); A 158 brooches in bronze from Tiszavalk–Kenderföldek and
Tiszadob–Sziget can be seen as direct forerunners of early 5th century examples in south-western
Hispania and North Africa (fig. 11D:24–29, E:52–53); belt buckles with thickened frame in gold and
silver such as the ones recorded at Ártánd–Kisfarkasdomb and Tiszadob–Sziget are also known in
Bourgogne and in southern Spain; “oversized” iron and bronze one-pieced brooches with attached
foot (Kleemann 2008: 91) from Tiszavalk–Kenderfőldek, Tiszadob–Sziget and Solončy have exact
counterparts in Bourgogne (fig. 11A:2–3); the two-pieced bronze brooch with straight foot from
Miskolc–Szirma–Fáskert has a very close analogy in Lusitania (figs. 11D:31; 21:3); the iron belt buck-
les with rectangular or triangular plate found in the same cemeteries find a good parallel in north-
ern Andalusia (figs. 11D:43;23:1); similarly, the undecorated silver belt buckles with rectangular or
trapezoid plate from Tiszadob–Sziget and Ártánd–Kisfarkasdomb find exact analogies in Bourgogne
and Lusitania (fig. 11A:4, 8, D:44, 46–49) (see also below). A particular interest deserve the types of
bow brooches in metal sheet recorded between in this territory: Villafontana-type bow brooches with
double spring (Tiszadob–Sziget, Čaňa, Ártánd–Kisfarkasdomb) find exact counterparts in Spanish
Fig. 35. Bow brooches of type Ambroz I AA and their derivates from post-Przeworsk clusters.
Lusitania (figs. 11D:33; 20:8–9), whereas Ambroz I A A examples with one spring from Tiszadob–
Obr. 35. Spony lučíkové typu Ambroz I AA a jejich deriváty v rámci post-przeworských “clusterů”.
Sziget and Tiszakarád–Inasa can be counted among the direct forerunners of the North African
1) Tiszadob–Sziget; 2) Carthage?; 3) Carthage – Koudiat Zâteur (after/podle: Istvánovits, Kulcsár 1999; Eger 2012).
bow brooches (figs. 11E:58–59; 35:2–3) (see also below). Lastly, a silver circular pendant associated to

450 451
Jaroslav Jiřík, Joan Pinar Gil
an A 171 brooch in a grave at Mérida–Almendralejo st. (fig. 20:7) appears to be a good counterpart
to the pendants recorded at Solončy. A further piece of evidence, perhaps less straightforward, is
the apparently uncommon presence of Thomas III bone combs in the graves of the north-western
Carpathian Basin: this is a feature shared by every early 5 th century grave recorded in Gaul, Spain
and Africa (see below).
In our opinion, the available evidence is consistent enough: the typological repertory of the D1/D2
stage in the north-west of the Carpathian basin repeats itself, with minor modifications, in the eastern
Gaul clusters (Rheinhessen and, particularly, Bourgogne), in south-western Spain and in North Africa. It
seems therefore very likely that this was one of the main areas of recruitment for the 406 AD Rhine-crossers.
Judging by the available evidence, also the role of central Slovakia-Moravia would have been significant:
in this case the path seems to be particularly well outlined by the distribution of early Wiesbaden-type
brooches and by A 171 brooches with straight foot and fluted decoration.
The great Rhine crossing: late Przeworsk
and Middle Danube elements in the Western Provinces
During the early weeks of the year 407 drag the Vandal-Suevic-Alanic coalition through Remi (Reims) to
Ambienum (Amiens), Atrabatar (Arras), and Tornacus (Tournai) (Hieronymus, Epistles, ep. 123.15; see Ehling
1997: 2), perhaps using a long-distance Roman trail from Metz to Boulogne, with a node of several roads
in Amiens. Perhaps reflexes of the presence of these raids would be the isolated grave at Fosse Jean Fat st.
in Reims with an “Alano-Sarmatian” metal mirror and a silver sheet brooch (Kazanski 1986; Tejral 2016:
129) (fig. 11C:50).
About further course of action we are informed once again by Zosimos (VI.3): “A furious engagement
ensued between then, in which the Romans gained the victory, and killed most of the barbarians. Yet by
not pursuing those who tied, by which means they might have put to death every man, they gave them
opportunity to rally, and by collecting an additional number of barbarians, to assume once more a fighting
posture. For this cause, Constantine [III, the usurper] placed guards in these places, that those tribes should
not have so free access into Gaul”. According to K. Ehling, this battle took place in province Germania
Superior (Ehling 1997: 4).
Generally speaking, “eastern” elements in the West are to be defined by a restrained invento-
ry of portable finds, mostly retrieved from graves. It can be difficult to identify sure Przeworsk-
culture and other “eastern” indexes among this conglomerate of C3/D1/D2-period objects. Thomas
III combs are among the most usual forms, and they show a major clustering along the Rhine val-
ley and the neighbouring territories to the west, as the finds from Cologne (fig. 12A:2), Wiesbaden
(fig. 8:5), Bad Kreuznach, Alzey (figs. 11B:13; 19:2), Trier (fig. 12B:5–6, 10–11, 13), Eisenberg (fig. 8:4),
Polch–Ruitsch (fig. 12B:12) and the aforementioned Kaiseraugst show (Kazanski 1993). It is wide-
ly accepted that these finds were connected to “eastern” barbarians enrolled in the defence of the
Late Antique limes (Kazanski 1993; 1997; 2009: 428–429). An unusually dense clustering can be
452
Late Przeworsk and post-Przeworsk, Elbian and Danubian. Vandals, Suebi and the dissemination of Central European…
recognized in Rheinhessen 9 around Mainz (Wiesbaden, Alzey, Bad Kreuznach); the typological in-
ventory of the stage D1 in these find spots includes also brooches in metal sheet of the type Wiesbaden
(Mainz-Kastel, Wiesbaden–Heidenberg, Wiesbaden–Schützenhofst.) (Schoppa 1962; Werner 1981:
229, app. 2:1–4) (figs. 8:3; 11B:14–15) and a number of “eastern” belt buckles of Neubauer’s type 2
(Wiesbaden, Mainz–St. Hilarius: Bernhard 1982: 98, fig. 33; Neubauer 1998b: 136) (fig.11:20). In the
same area has been discovered the famous grave of Wolfsheim (Bernhard 1982: 82–85, fig. 15), a rich
male individual equipped with a Lebény/Fürst cloisonné belt buckle and a gold variant of A 158
brooches (figs. 8:2; 11B:18, 21–23) 10. An A 171 one-pieced brooch with straight foot and f luted bow
kept at the Museum of Worms (Almgren 1897: 189, pl. VII:171) could perhaps be added to this small
group of early Migration Period indexes (fig. 11B:17): it finds convincing counterparts in the North
Carpathian group of the Przeworsk culture and in Moravia (figs. 3:24; 24:1), for example at Vyšný
Kubín and Břeclav – Libivá (Pieta 1999: 182, fig. 11:7; Macháček, Klanicová 1997: 58, fig. 2), and also
in the aforementioned cemetery of Mautern – Burggartengasse in Noricum (see above). To this group
of finds could perhaps be added the aforementioned grave at Trebur (see above), whose content fit
perfectly into the typological repertory of this regional cluster. As we will see, the inventory recorded
in western Rheinhessen corresponds fairly well to that of the historically attested settlement areas of
Vandals and Alans in south-western Hispania and North Africa (fig. 11D–E). It cannot be therefore
excluded that at least part of these finds may be connected to the Rhine crossers of 406 AD.
Early Migration Period “eastern” imports are known also in the neighbouring territories both to the north
and south; however, they display somewhat different features (fig. 12). Thus, several variants of Almgren 162
brooches are known in the Mosel valley (Trier, Dalheim, Rhamberg) and next to the Rhine north to Koblenz and
south to Worms (Remagen, Ruppertsberg, Worms itself) (Kazanski 1993: 175–176, fig. 1:13–17; Bernhard 1999: 20,
fig. 3:7–8) (figs. 11B:16; 12B:5–8, C:16). Further south, bow brooches in metal sheet are attested in or around
Strasbourg (fig. 12C:17) and Basel (Kazanski 1993). In these areas, these objects apparently coexisted not only with
the usual Thomas III combs (Trier, Cologne, Polch–Ruitsch, Mungolsheim), but also with “nomadic” artefacts
such as bronze cauldrons and three-winged arrows (Münstermaifeld, Mannheim–Neckarau, Sponeck) (fig. 12B:9,
9 For the historical events connected to Vandals just before the Rhine crossing and especially to their conflict with the the Franks (Roman
allies in that area), see Gregory of Tours, Hist. Franc. II.9: Ne pereant, quaeso, populi utriusque falangae, sed procedant duo de nostris in cam-
pum cum armis bellicis, et ipse inter se confligant. Tunc ille, cuius puer vicerit, regione sine certamine obtenebit’. Ad haec cunctus consensit populus,
ne universa multitudo in ore gladii rueret. His enim diebus Gundericus rex obierat, in cuius loco Trasamundus obtenuerat regnum.
10 The assemblage from Wolfsheim, however, presents a number of interpretative problems, deriving to a great extent from the presence of
a gold-and-garnet cloisonné plate recycled as the main component of a unique breastplate. The plate is made in Sassanian/north Caucasian
early cloisonné style, what is supported by an inscription mentioning the Sassanian ruler Ardashir I (224–241 AD) featuring on the ob-
ject’s backplate. The plate, manifestly, was not only exotic, but also a true antiquity by the time of its deposition in the early 5th century
(Quast 1999a); the question on how and when the “Wolfsheim prince” acquired this item remains totally open. A suggestive hypothesis by
M. Kazanski (2011) proposes to connect the occurrence of some (post-)Černjahov and (post-)Przeworsk elements of costume and military
equipment (buckles, brooches, umbones, etc.) with the presence of Germanic warriors on Rome’s service at the fortress of Tsibilum, in the
northern Caucasus (fig. 1:27–34). He also suggested that there may have been a sort of “payback traces”, corresponding to Sassanian objects
occurring in Europe: that may be the case of some types of daggers, and also of the Wolfsheim breastplate. In any case, we think that the
exceptional, old and recycled breastplate should not be the most determinant element to interpret the Wolfsheim assemblage: as said, ele-
ments such as the A 158 brooch and the Neubauer 1 buckles are both typologically and chronologically consistent with the overall evidence
at Rheinhessen and can be better understood in the framework of that regional cluster of post-Przeworsk finds.
453
Jaroslav Jiřík, Joan Pinar Gil
an A 171 brooch in a grave at Mérida–Almendralejo st. (fig. 20:7) appears to be a good counterpart
to the pendants recorded at Solončy. A further piece of evidence, perhaps less straightforward, is
the apparently uncommon presence of Thomas III bone combs in the graves of the north-western
Carpathian Basin: this is a feature shared by every early 5 th century grave recorded in Gaul, Spain
and Africa (see below).
In our opinion, the available evidence is consistent enough: the typological repertory of the D1/D2
stage in the north-west of the Carpathian basin repeats itself, with minor modifications, in the eastern
Gaul clusters (Rheinhessen and, particularly, Bourgogne), in south-western Spain and in North Africa. It
seems therefore very likely that this was one of the main areas of recruitment for the 406 AD Rhine-crossers.
Judging by the available evidence, also the role of central Slovakia-Moravia would have been significant:
in this case the path seems to be particularly well outlined by the distribution of early Wiesbaden-type
brooches and by A 171 brooches with straight foot and fluted decoration.
The great Rhine crossing: late Przeworsk
and Middle Danube elements in the Western Provinces
During the early weeks of the year 407 drag the Vandal-Suevic-Alanic coalition through Remi (Reims) to
Ambienum (Amiens), Atrabatar (Arras), and Tornacus (Tournai) (Hieronymus, Epistles, ep. 123.15; see Ehling
1997: 2), perhaps using a long-distance Roman trail from Metz to Boulogne, with a node of several roads
in Amiens. Perhaps reflexes of the presence of these raids would be the isolated grave at Fosse Jean Fat st.
in Reims with an “Alano-Sarmatian” metal mirror and a silver sheet brooch (Kazanski 1986; Tejral 2016:
129) (fig. 11C:50).
About further course of action we are informed once again by Zosimos (VI.3): “A furious engagement
ensued between then, in which the Romans gained the victory, and killed most of the barbarians. Yet by
not pursuing those who tied, by which means they might have put to death every man, they gave them
opportunity to rally, and by collecting an additional number of barbarians, to assume once more a fighting
posture. For this cause, Constantine [III, the usurper] placed guards in these places, that those tribes should
not have so free access into Gaul”. According to K. Ehling, this battle took place in province Germania
Superior (Ehling 1997: 4).
Generally speaking, “eastern” elements in the West are to be defined by a restrained invento-
ry of portable finds, mostly retrieved from graves. It can be difficult to identify sure Przeworsk-
culture and other “eastern” indexes among this conglomerate of C3/D1/D2-period objects. Thomas
III combs are among the most usual forms, and they show a major clustering along the Rhine val-
ley and the neighbouring territories to the west, as the finds from Cologne (fig. 12A:2), Wiesbaden
(fig. 8:5), Bad Kreuznach, Alzey (figs. 11B:13; 19:2), Trier (fig. 12B:5–6, 10–11, 13), Eisenberg (fig. 8:4),
Polch–Ruitsch (fig. 12B:12) and the aforementioned Kaiseraugst show (Kazanski 1993). It is wide-
ly accepted that these finds were connected to “eastern” barbarians enrolled in the defence of the
Late Antique limes (Kazanski 1993; 1997; 2009: 428–429). An unusually dense clustering can be
452
Late Przeworsk and post-Przeworsk, Elbian and Danubian. Vandals, Suebi and the dissemination of Central European…
recognized in Rheinhessen 9 around Mainz (Wiesbaden, Alzey, Bad Kreuznach); the typological in-
ventory of the stage D1 in these find spots includes also brooches in metal sheet of the type Wiesbaden
(Mainz-Kastel, Wiesbaden–Heidenberg, Wiesbaden–Schützenhofst.) (Schoppa 1962; Werner 1981:
229, app. 2:1–4) (figs. 8:3; 11B:14–15) and a number of “eastern” belt buckles of Neubauer’s type 2
(Wiesbaden, Mainz–St. Hilarius: Bernhard 1982: 98, fig. 33; Neubauer 1998b: 136) (fig.11:20). In the
same area has been discovered the famous grave of Wolfsheim (Bernhard 1982: 82–85, fig. 15), a rich
male individual equipped with a Lebény/Fürst cloisonné belt buckle and a gold variant of A 158
brooches (figs. 8:2; 11B:18, 21–23) 10. An A 171 one-pieced brooch with straight foot and f luted bow
kept at the Museum of Worms (Almgren 1897: 189, pl. VII:171) could perhaps be added to this small
group of early Migration Period indexes (fig. 11B:17): it finds convincing counterparts in the North
Carpathian group of the Przeworsk culture and in Moravia (figs. 3:24; 24:1), for example at Vyšný
Kubín and Břeclav – Libivá (Pieta 1999: 182, fig. 11:7; Macháček, Klanicová 1997: 58, fig. 2), and also
in the aforementioned cemetery of Mautern – Burggartengasse in Noricum (see above). To this group
of finds could perhaps be added the aforementioned grave at Trebur (see above), whose content fit
perfectly into the typological repertory of this regional cluster. As we will see, the inventory recorded
in western Rheinhessen corresponds fairly well to that of the historically attested settlement areas of
Vandals and Alans in south-western Hispania and North Africa (fig. 11D–E). It cannot be therefore
excluded that at least part of these finds may be connected to the Rhine crossers of 406 AD.
Early Migration Period “eastern” imports are known also in the neighbouring territories both to the north
and south; however, they display somewhat different features (fig. 12). Thus, several variants of Almgren 162
brooches are known in the Mosel valley (Trier, Dalheim, Rhamberg) and next to the Rhine north to Koblenz and
south to Worms (Remagen, Ruppertsberg, Worms itself) (Kazanski 1993: 175–176, fig. 1:13–17; Bernhard 1999: 20,
fig. 3:7–8) (figs. 11B:16; 12B:5–8, C:16). Further south, bow brooches in metal sheet are attested in or around
Strasbourg (fig. 12C:17) and Basel (Kazanski 1993). In these areas, these objects apparently coexisted not only with
the usual Thomas III combs (Trier, Cologne, Polch–Ruitsch, Mungolsheim), but also with “nomadic” artefacts
such as bronze cauldrons and three-winged arrows (Münstermaifeld, Mannheim–Neckarau, Sponeck) (fig. 12B:9,
9 For the historical events connected to Vandals just before the Rhine crossing and especially to their conflict with the the Franks (Roman
allies in that area), see Gregory of Tours, Hist. Franc. II.9: Ne pereant, quaeso, populi utriusque falangae, sed procedant duo de nostris in cam-
pum cum armis bellicis, et ipse inter se confligant. Tunc ille, cuius puer vicerit, regione sine certamine obtenebit’. Ad haec cunctus consensit populus,
ne universa multitudo in ore gladii rueret. His enim diebus Gundericus rex obierat, in cuius loco Trasamundus obtenuerat regnum.
10 The assemblage from Wolfsheim, however, presents a number of interpretative problems, deriving to a great extent from the presence of
a gold-and-garnet cloisonné plate recycled as the main component of a unique breastplate. The plate is made in Sassanian/north Caucasian
early cloisonné style, what is supported by an inscription mentioning the Sassanian ruler Ardashir I (224–241 AD) featuring on the ob-
ject’s backplate. The plate, manifestly, was not only exotic, but also a true antiquity by the time of its deposition in the early 5th century
(Quast 1999a); the question on how and when the “Wolfsheim prince” acquired this item remains totally open. A suggestive hypothesis by
M. Kazanski (2011) proposes to connect the occurrence of some (post-)Černjahov and (post-)Przeworsk elements of costume and military
equipment (buckles, brooches, umbones, etc.) with the presence of Germanic warriors on Rome’s service at the fortress of Tsibilum, in the
northern Caucasus (fig. 1:27–34). He also suggested that there may have been a sort of “payback traces”, corresponding to Sassanian objects
occurring in Europe: that may be the case of some types of daggers, and also of the Wolfsheim breastplate. In any case, we think that the
exceptional, old and recycled breastplate should not be the most determinant element to interpret the Wolfsheim assemblage: as said, ele-
ments such as the A 158 brooch and the Neubauer 1 buckles are both typologically and chronologically consistent with the overall evidence
at Rheinhessen and can be better understood in the framework of that regional cluster of post-Przeworsk finds.
453
Jaroslav Jiřík, Joan Pinar Gil
Fig. 36. Vandal-period clothing accessories in their Mediterranean context (ca. 470–500 AD).
Obr. 36. Oděvní doplňky vandalského období ve svém středomořském kontextu (cca 470–500 n. l.).
1, 4) Carthage?; 2) Sabrâta; 3, 9) Thuburbo Maius – “temple of Ceres church”; 5–7) “Hippo Regius”; 8) El-Kala; 10) “Oristano”?;
11) Castellu; 12) Syracuse; 13) Eivissa; 14) Maccari; 15) Milano – St. Ambrosius; 16) Écrille; 17) Castiltierra; 18) Saint-Sulpice;
19) Duratón; 20) Louviers-Mûrier st.; 21) Rutigliano; 22) Conimbriga; 23) Straubing–Bayuwarenstrasse; 24) Maguelone (after/podle:
Eger 2012; Pergola, Vismara 1989; Koenig 1981; Billoin et al. 2010; Arias, Balmaseda 2015; Martin 1994; Carré, Jimenez 2008;
Riemer 2000; Geisler 1998; Pinar 2017a; drawings by Irene Gras after Bierbrauer 1975 and original picture).
454
Late Przeworsk and post-Przeworsk, Elbian and Danubian. Vandals, Suebi and the dissemination of Central European…
11
C:14–15), or with “Sarmato-Alanic” bronze mirrors (Hochfelden, Obernai) . In our view, the finds in Rheinhessen
between Bingen and Worms suggest clearer connections with the late Przeworsk and Suebian milieus, whereas
the typological repertoire in other parts of the Rhine valley is closely bound to North Pontic and steppe tradi-
tions. Interestingly enough, this kind of difference in spatial distribution does not appear in the westernmost clus-
ters of “eastern” assemblages: thus, Almgren’s types 158 and 162 and Blechfibel brooches occur at the same time
in Bourgogne (see below), whereas A 162 and 171 and Blechfibel coexisted in Lusitania in the early 5th century (see
below). This kind of “mixed” typological repertoire is foreshadowed by the brooches recorded in the Worms re-
gion (A 162 and 171: fig. 11B:16–17) and, as said, also in Unterhaid (A 158 and 162) in the Main valley (see above,
with fig. 7:22, 30–31).
The hoard retrieved at Mainz–Kastel (fig. 8:3), containing late Roman coins and metal imple-
ments, is particularly relevant to our topic: the assemblage included two “eastern” buckles with rectangu-
lar plate and a bow brooch of type Wiesbaden in silver sheet, finding close analogies in Kšinná and Banská
Bystrica–Selce (Schoppa 1962: 164, 167, fig. 3:4; Werner 1981: 250, pl. 31:3, 32:1–2; Neubauer 1998a: 136), associated
respectively with the Late Suevic settlement area in Central Slovakia and to the North Carpathian group of the
Przeworsk culture (see above, with fig. 4:11–13). This connection is of particular interest, as it represent a clear chain
link between the Late Antique traditions in the Western Carpathians and the early Migration Period finds in the
Western Roman provinces; a close counterpart of this group of brooches, found at Djémila in Algeria, suggests
that the type spread westwards during the movements of Vandals and Suebi (see below, with fig. 34). The conceal-
ment of the hoard from Mainz–Kastel is dated after eight silver coins of the usurper Constantine III; several au-
thors agree to consider that it could mirror the military events of 407/408 AD and the fights between the usurper
and the Vandals in Gaul. Analogous importance has the aforementioned grave from Trebur (fig. 8:1), where an
unusual combination of brooches has been found. The first corresponds to an A 158 standard form, whereas the
second displays a less usual technology: its spring cord passes behind the brooch bow, a feature that finds good
counterparts in both early Vandal Africa (Eger 2012: 183–185) and south-western Spain (see below, with fig. 26).
“Eastern” objects are also to be found further west and south, scattered in central and southern Gaul as well as
in Italy. The main regional cluster (fig. 11A) has been identified in Bourgogne, in province Lugdunensis I, near the
borders of Germania Superior. It appears to be connected to the road relying Germania Superior with Lugdunum;
it can therefore be argued that these finds could mirror the movements of the barbarians after their defeat by
Constantine III’s troops. A coin struck under Jovinus (tpq 411 AD) was found within the grave of Bretenière: if
we are to accept a connection between the Bourgogne cluster and the Rhine crossers, the former should be ac-
knowledged as evidence that not all the barbarians entering Gaul in 406 left it for Hispania in 409. A similar case
would be that of the aforementioned grave at Wolfsheim, usually dated to 410–440 AD (Bernhard 1982: 82–85;
Neubauer 1998a: 136) and, quite probably, that of the Mainz–Kastel deposit (tpq 408 AD).
“Eastern” weapons (mainly spearheads and shield bosses) have been identified at Neuilly, Bretenière and
Crimolois (Vallet 1993; Kazanski 2009: 429–430) (fig. 11A:1; 13:1, 5–6, 18). The shield bosses are morpholog-
ically related to the type Horgos, well attested in the Carpathian basin and also in late Przeworsk culture
11 We are deeply thankful to Madeleine Châtelet (Strasbourg) for kindly sharing information on this important site. Further information
on: www.inrap.fr/un-site-archeologique-d-exception-obernai-bas-rhin-plus-de-6-000-ans-d-5306
455
Jaroslav Jiřík, Joan Pinar Gil
Fig. 36. Vandal-period clothing accessories in their Mediterranean context (ca. 470–500 AD).
Obr. 36. Oděvní doplňky vandalského období ve svém středomořském kontextu (cca 470–500 n. l.).
1, 4) Carthage?; 2) Sabrâta; 3, 9) Thuburbo Maius – “temple of Ceres church”; 5–7) “Hippo Regius”; 8) El-Kala; 10) “Oristano”?;
11) Castellu; 12) Syracuse; 13) Eivissa; 14) Maccari; 15) Milano – St. Ambrosius; 16) Écrille; 17) Castiltierra; 18) Saint-Sulpice;
19) Duratón; 20) Louviers-Mûrier st.; 21) Rutigliano; 22) Conimbriga; 23) Straubing–Bayuwarenstrasse; 24) Maguelone (after/podle:
Eger 2012; Pergola, Vismara 1989; Koenig 1981; Billoin et al. 2010; Arias, Balmaseda 2015; Martin 1994; Carré, Jimenez 2008;
Riemer 2000; Geisler 1998; Pinar 2017a; drawings by Irene Gras after Bierbrauer 1975 and original picture).
454
Late Przeworsk and post-Przeworsk, Elbian and Danubian. Vandals, Suebi and the dissemination of Central European…
11
C:14–15), or with “Sarmato-Alanic” bronze mirrors (Hochfelden, Obernai) . In our view, the finds in Rheinhessen
between Bingen and Worms suggest clearer connections with the late Przeworsk and Suebian milieus, whereas
the typological repertoire in other parts of the Rhine valley is closely bound to North Pontic and steppe tradi-
tions. Interestingly enough, this kind of difference in spatial distribution does not appear in the westernmost clus-
ters of “eastern” assemblages: thus, Almgren’s types 158 and 162 and Blechfibel brooches occur at the same time
in Bourgogne (see below), whereas A 162 and 171 and Blechfibel coexisted in Lusitania in the early 5th century (see
below). This kind of “mixed” typological repertoire is foreshadowed by the brooches recorded in the Worms re-
gion (A 162 and 171: fig. 11B:16–17) and, as said, also in Unterhaid (A 158 and 162) in the Main valley (see above,
with fig. 7:22, 30–31).
The hoard retrieved at Mainz–Kastel (fig. 8:3), containing late Roman coins and metal imple-
ments, is particularly relevant to our topic: the assemblage included two “eastern” buckles with rectangu-
lar plate and a bow brooch of type Wiesbaden in silver sheet, finding close analogies in Kšinná and Banská
Bystrica–Selce (Schoppa 1962: 164, 167, fig. 3:4; Werner 1981: 250, pl. 31:3, 32:1–2; Neubauer 1998a: 136), associated
respectively with the Late Suevic settlement area in Central Slovakia and to the North Carpathian group of the
Przeworsk culture (see above, with fig. 4:11–13). This connection is of particular interest, as it represent a clear chain
link between the Late Antique traditions in the Western Carpathians and the early Migration Period finds in the
Western Roman provinces; a close counterpart of this group of brooches, found at Djémila in Algeria, suggests
that the type spread westwards during the movements of Vandals and Suebi (see below, with fig. 34). The conceal-
ment of the hoard from Mainz–Kastel is dated after eight silver coins of the usurper Constantine III; several au-
thors agree to consider that it could mirror the military events of 407/408 AD and the fights between the usurper
and the Vandals in Gaul. Analogous importance has the aforementioned grave from Trebur (fig. 8:1), where an
unusual combination of brooches has been found. The first corresponds to an A 158 standard form, whereas the
second displays a less usual technology: its spring cord passes behind the brooch bow, a feature that finds good
counterparts in both early Vandal Africa (Eger 2012: 183–185) and south-western Spain (see below, with fig. 26).
“Eastern” objects are also to be found further west and south, scattered in central and southern Gaul as well as
in Italy. The main regional cluster (fig. 11A) has been identified in Bourgogne, in province Lugdunensis I, near the
borders of Germania Superior. It appears to be connected to the road relying Germania Superior with Lugdunum;
it can therefore be argued that these finds could mirror the movements of the barbarians after their defeat by
Constantine III’s troops. A coin struck under Jovinus (tpq 411 AD) was found within the grave of Bretenière: if
we are to accept a connection between the Bourgogne cluster and the Rhine crossers, the former should be ac-
knowledged as evidence that not all the barbarians entering Gaul in 406 left it for Hispania in 409. A similar case
would be that of the aforementioned grave at Wolfsheim, usually dated to 410–440 AD (Bernhard 1982: 82–85;
Neubauer 1998a: 136) and, quite probably, that of the Mainz–Kastel deposit (tpq 408 AD).
“Eastern” weapons (mainly spearheads and shield bosses) have been identified at Neuilly, Bretenière and
Crimolois (Vallet 1993; Kazanski 2009: 429–430) (fig. 11A:1; 13:1, 5–6, 18). The shield bosses are morpholog-
ically related to the type Horgos, well attested in the Carpathian basin and also in late Przeworsk culture
11 We are deeply thankful to Madeleine Châtelet (Strasbourg) for kindly sharing information on this important site. Further information
on: www.inrap.fr/un-site-archeologique-d-exception-obernai-bas-rhin-plus-de-6-000-ans-d-5306
455
Jaroslav Jiřík, Joan Pinar Gil
assemblages such as Mokra and Pludwiny during the D1 stage (Olędzki, Tyszler forthcoming). According
to the recent typological remarks by M. Olędzki and L. Tyszler, these umbones should be regarded rather
as derivates than as genuine Horgos-type objects. The umbones from Crimolois (figs. 11A:1; 13:6, 18), how-
ever, find exact parallels in eastern Central Europe at the beginning of the Migration Period, for example at
Ártánd–Kisfarkasdomb (Istvánovits, Kulcsár 1999: 82, fig. 13:1) (fig. 10:22). In addition, the earliest reports
on the Bretenière find (Vallet 1993: 250–251) claim that the grave hosted also an iron crossbow brooch, per-
haps suggesting a connection with the late Przeworsk area. A 158 brooches with attached feet (figs. 11A:2–3;
13:7–8) have been actually recorded at Crimolois and Alésia (Vallet 1993: 250, fig. 3:3–4; Kazanski 1998: 382).
The brooches of Crimolois were found together to Neubauer’s type 2 belt fittings, dating from the D1–D2
periods. In addition, further Neubauer 2 buckles (Neuilly and “Saône valley”), an Ambroz I AA bow brooch
(“Saône valley”) and an A 162 brooch with attached foot, variant Lebjažie (Nuits-Saint-Georges), complete
the list of “eastern” imports in the region (Vallet 1993: figs. 2 and 4; Kazanski 1993: 176, fig. 3:4). These two
brooches (fig. 11A:9, 11) derive from North Pontic traditions and find close counterparts in the Rhine valley
north and south to the post-Przeworsk cluster in Rheinhessen (fig. 12A:3, C:17).
Another relevant find is a “classicizing” cicada brooch (fig. 11A:10), presumably found at
Dijon–La Maladière (Vallet 1993: 252, fig. 4:3). Examples from Carnuntum, Jois, Loretto, Bratislava–Devín,
Iža–Leányvár and Páty in Pannonia (fig. 14:1–6) can be mentioned among its best counterparts (Tejral
2015b: 310–312, fig. 11:1–6; Ottományi 2001: 60–61, fig. 7a). Jaroslav Tejral has recently discussed the
chronology of this group of brooches, attributing them to the early Migration Period. The example record-
ed in a grave at the cemetery of Mérida–Almendralejo st. (fig. 14:7–8) solves the question: the whole site
is surely dated to the D2 and the early D2/D3 periods (Heras, Olmedo 2015: 278; Pinar 2017a: 63). This
type of cicada brooches shows a very specific spatial distribution, next to the Danubian limes, between
Vindobona and Aquincum. It is interesting to note that several variants of A 171 one-pieced brooches are
clustered in the same territory, as the finds from Brigetio, Szőny, Iža, Carnuntum, Deutsch–Altenburg,
Schwechat and perhaps Csakvár show (Kovrig 1937: 69, 75, pl. XII:132, XVI:167; Schulze 1977: 45–46,
51–52; Pieta 1999: 175, fig. 2; Sálamon, Barkóczi 1970: 41, 51, fig. 8). Among them, a special mention de-
serves the grave of Vienna–Mödling from the D2 period (Mossler 1958; Tejral 2011: 412, fig. 104), a sort
of “close relative” foreshadowing the rich graves of the early Vandal period in North Africa (see below).
Both A 171 and cicada brooches occur in two of the post-Przeworsk clusters in the West: Bourgogne
(D1–D2) and south-western Spain (D2). It seems therefore plausible to consider that both the cicada and
the A 171 brooches coexisted in Pannonia during the D1 and (more likely) D2 period. Other forms usual
in the western post-Przeworsk clusters are also present in northernmost Pannonia (fig. 15): Ambroz I AA
brooches (Brigetio and Pilismarót), A 158 brooches (Szentendre, Budapest–Budafóki st.), Neubauer’s type
1 and 2 belt buckles (Páty, Mörbisch, Mödling, Budapest–Budafóki st., Budakalász), Thomas III combs
(Bratislava–Devín, Páty, Torbágy, Csakvár, Budapest–Budafóki st., Budapest–Bécsi st., Budakalász) and
even breast chains fastened by pairs of pins (Páty) (Tejral 1988: 236–237, 254, figs. 8:10–11, 18–19, 21:14–16;
2015a: 138, fig. 12; Ottományi 2001: 43, fig. 7:1–3; 2008: 234–236, 238–242, 244–246, 250–251, figs. 5–9, 11),
not to mention widely attested objects such as Neubauer 2 belt buckles and Thomas III combs. A relevant
456
Late Przeworsk and post-Przeworsk, Elbian and Danubian. Vandals, Suebi and the dissemination of Central European…
admixture of local, provincial Roman and “eastern” material from the C3 and D1 period is recently re-
ported from Bratislava–Dúbravka, including a Roman crossbow brooch, an A 162 two-piece brooch with
attached foot, a number of A 171 one-piece brooches with straight foot (including examples with decorat-
ed bow: fig. 15:10) and a comb of the Thomas III class (Elschek 2017: 81–92, fig. 36, 38). It is interesting to
note that a number of the “late Roman” features occurring in the post-Przeworsk clusters in the West (pins,
earrings, early cicada brooches, rich male graves without weapons) may have had a Pannonian origin. The
clustered dissemination of these objects, their dating and their connections with the western finds enable
to list northernmost Pannonia among the likely areas of recruitment for the Rhine crossing of 406 AD. If
we are to give credit to Jordanes’ account, they may be among the rare material witnesses of the settlement
of the Hasdings in Pannonia up to the events of 401/402 (Getica 113–115)12.
A small group of examples of one-pieced brooches with straight foot (A 171) is scattered along the Garonne
valley in south-western Gaul (fig. 16: 12–14), in the villae of Montmaurin, Valentine and, probably, Monségur
(Camps 1972–1973: fig. 2bis; Kazanski 1998: 382). As said, good counterparts are known also in the southernmost
Przeworsk culture, Bohemia, Moravia and Slovakia between the C3/D1 and D2 periods (see above). Similar ob-
jects have also been found in south-western Spain; they occur in assemblages of the first half of the 5th century,
as we will see (see below). The distribution of the finds in the Garonne valley coincide broadly with some finds
of post-Černjahov character (fig. 16:5–6, 8–11), with other imports from the Middle Danube provinces (fig. 16:16)
and from the Barbaricum and also with the earliest Visigothic-period “customary” grave goods (period 2 of the
regional chronology, ca. 440/450–470/480 AD) (Pinar 2015: 538–544). It is not clear yet, to which extent (if any)
these early finds influenced later Visigothic-period manufacturing. These few objects can be probably understood
as a hint that the Visigothic-period grave goods were built on the basis of heterogeneous material cultures.
A similar case might be that of Bragayrac, where two ceramic vessels with “barbarian” features (fig. 16:1–2) were
found together with typical late Roman pottery and two early Visigothic-period crossbow brooches (periods
2 and 3, ca. 440/450–500/510 AD). Both the pot and the tall-footed bowl resemble of Černjahov-Sȋntana de Mureş
traditions (for example, at the settlement of Bârlad–Valea Seacă: Palade 2004); the latter finds also good counter-
parts in Bohemia/Elbe Germanic culture during the C3/D1 period (Droberjar, Prostředník 2004: 81–85, figs. 6–12;
Droberjar, Snítilý 2011: 508). A similar combination of heterogeneous Central European imports can be observed
in north-eastern Narbonensis (fig. 16: 7, 15): a one-pieced brooch with straight foot from Saint-Étienne-de-Gourgas
(Kazanski 1998: 382) and an Elbe-Germanic two-pieced brooch from gr. No. 8007 at the villa of Saint-André de
12 In this context it is interesting that also Genseric, the future leader of the Vandal-Alanic alliance, was probably born in Pannonia
Prima. Hasdings, however, were not the only barbarian group settled in Pannonia at that time. Since the 380s, the “Gothic” federates
led by Alatheus and Saphrax were stationed in Pannonian soil; warrior graves such as Lébény or Lengyeltóti are sometimes associated to
this group (see Jiřík et al. forthcoming, with earlier literature). Another significant barbarian group corresponds to the Marcomanni of
queen Fritigil, who probably had a Gothic origin herself. It is likely that they too were settled in the former Pannonia I (see for example
Lotter 1968). It is perhaps interesting that Genseric’s Vandals (and perhaps also part of Suebi) probably met a sort of “precursors” upon
their arrival to Northern Africa: the Marcomanni settled “legally” in Africa as a part of Imperial contingent. According to the Notitia
Dignitatum, the Legio II Herculia, located in Mauritania caesarienna, was of Danubian origin (Notitia Dignitatum, Or., XXXIX.29–31,
cited after: Cagnat 1892: 735). Also the Equites Marcomanni are listed among the known units (Cagnat 1892: 730). The exact origin, the
precise location and the ulterior fortunes of these federates are unknown. As far as the available evidence can tell, early 5th century ma-
terial culture (including jewellery sets and military equipment, especially belt sets) belongs without exception to the usual late Roman
repertoire in the West (Mackensen 2008; Eger 2012: 97–176). It can be therefore assumed that the material culture of the Central
Europeans was totally “Romanized” by the time of their arrival to Africa.
457
Jaroslav Jiřík, Joan Pinar Gil
assemblages such as Mokra and Pludwiny during the D1 stage (Olędzki, Tyszler forthcoming). According
to the recent typological remarks by M. Olędzki and L. Tyszler, these umbones should be regarded rather
as derivates than as genuine Horgos-type objects. The umbones from Crimolois (figs. 11A:1; 13:6, 18), how-
ever, find exact parallels in eastern Central Europe at the beginning of the Migration Period, for example at
Ártánd–Kisfarkasdomb (Istvánovits, Kulcsár 1999: 82, fig. 13:1) (fig. 10:22). In addition, the earliest reports
on the Bretenière find (Vallet 1993: 250–251) claim that the grave hosted also an iron crossbow brooch, per-
haps suggesting a connection with the late Przeworsk area. A 158 brooches with attached feet (figs. 11A:2–3;
13:7–8) have been actually recorded at Crimolois and Alésia (Vallet 1993: 250, fig. 3:3–4; Kazanski 1998: 382).
The brooches of Crimolois were found together to Neubauer’s type 2 belt fittings, dating from the D1–D2
periods. In addition, further Neubauer 2 buckles (Neuilly and “Saône valley”), an Ambroz I AA bow brooch
(“Saône valley”) and an A 162 brooch with attached foot, variant Lebjažie (Nuits-Saint-Georges), complete
the list of “eastern” imports in the region (Vallet 1993: figs. 2 and 4; Kazanski 1993: 176, fig. 3:4). These two
brooches (fig. 11A:9, 11) derive from North Pontic traditions and find close counterparts in the Rhine valley
north and south to the post-Przeworsk cluster in Rheinhessen (fig. 12A:3, C:17).
Another relevant find is a “classicizing” cicada brooch (fig. 11A:10), presumably found at
Dijon–La Maladière (Vallet 1993: 252, fig. 4:3). Examples from Carnuntum, Jois, Loretto, Bratislava–Devín,
Iža–Leányvár and Páty in Pannonia (fig. 14:1–6) can be mentioned among its best counterparts (Tejral
2015b: 310–312, fig. 11:1–6; Ottományi 2001: 60–61, fig. 7a). Jaroslav Tejral has recently discussed the
chronology of this group of brooches, attributing them to the early Migration Period. The example record-
ed in a grave at the cemetery of Mérida–Almendralejo st. (fig. 14:7–8) solves the question: the whole site
is surely dated to the D2 and the early D2/D3 periods (Heras, Olmedo 2015: 278; Pinar 2017a: 63). This
type of cicada brooches shows a very specific spatial distribution, next to the Danubian limes, between
Vindobona and Aquincum. It is interesting to note that several variants of A 171 one-pieced brooches are
clustered in the same territory, as the finds from Brigetio, Szőny, Iža, Carnuntum, Deutsch–Altenburg,
Schwechat and perhaps Csakvár show (Kovrig 1937: 69, 75, pl. XII:132, XVI:167; Schulze 1977: 45–46,
51–52; Pieta 1999: 175, fig. 2; Sálamon, Barkóczi 1970: 41, 51, fig. 8). Among them, a special mention de-
serves the grave of Vienna–Mödling from the D2 period (Mossler 1958; Tejral 2011: 412, fig. 104), a sort
of “close relative” foreshadowing the rich graves of the early Vandal period in North Africa (see below).
Both A 171 and cicada brooches occur in two of the post-Przeworsk clusters in the West: Bourgogne
(D1–D2) and south-western Spain (D2). It seems therefore plausible to consider that both the cicada and
the A 171 brooches coexisted in Pannonia during the D1 and (more likely) D2 period. Other forms usual
in the western post-Przeworsk clusters are also present in northernmost Pannonia (fig. 15): Ambroz I AA
brooches (Brigetio and Pilismarót), A 158 brooches (Szentendre, Budapest–Budafóki st.), Neubauer’s type
1 and 2 belt buckles (Páty, Mörbisch, Mödling, Budapest–Budafóki st., Budakalász), Thomas III combs
(Bratislava–Devín, Páty, Torbágy, Csakvár, Budapest–Budafóki st., Budapest–Bécsi st., Budakalász) and
even breast chains fastened by pairs of pins (Páty) (Tejral 1988: 236–237, 254, figs. 8:10–11, 18–19, 21:14–16;
2015a: 138, fig. 12; Ottományi 2001: 43, fig. 7:1–3; 2008: 234–236, 238–242, 244–246, 250–251, figs. 5–9, 11),
not to mention widely attested objects such as Neubauer 2 belt buckles and Thomas III combs. A relevant
456
Late Przeworsk and post-Przeworsk, Elbian and Danubian. Vandals, Suebi and the dissemination of Central European…
admixture of local, provincial Roman and “eastern” material from the C3 and D1 period is recently re-
ported from Bratislava–Dúbravka, including a Roman crossbow brooch, an A 162 two-piece brooch with
attached foot, a number of A 171 one-piece brooches with straight foot (including examples with decorat-
ed bow: fig. 15:10) and a comb of the Thomas III class (Elschek 2017: 81–92, fig. 36, 38). It is interesting to
note that a number of the “late Roman” features occurring in the post-Przeworsk clusters in the West (pins,
earrings, early cicada brooches, rich male graves without weapons) may have had a Pannonian origin. The
clustered dissemination of these objects, their dating and their connections with the western finds enable
to list northernmost Pannonia among the likely areas of recruitment for the Rhine crossing of 406 AD. If
we are to give credit to Jordanes’ account, they may be among the rare material witnesses of the settlement
of the Hasdings in Pannonia up to the events of 401/402 (Getica 113–115)12.
A small group of examples of one-pieced brooches with straight foot (A 171) is scattered along the Garonne
valley in south-western Gaul (fig. 16: 12–14), in the villae of Montmaurin, Valentine and, probably, Monségur
(Camps 1972–1973: fig. 2bis; Kazanski 1998: 382). As said, good counterparts are known also in the southernmost
Przeworsk culture, Bohemia, Moravia and Slovakia between the C3/D1 and D2 periods (see above). Similar ob-
jects have also been found in south-western Spain; they occur in assemblages of the first half of the 5th century,
as we will see (see below). The distribution of the finds in the Garonne valley coincide broadly with some finds
of post-Černjahov character (fig. 16:5–6, 8–11), with other imports from the Middle Danube provinces (fig. 16:16)
and from the Barbaricum and also with the earliest Visigothic-period “customary” grave goods (period 2 of the
regional chronology, ca. 440/450–470/480 AD) (Pinar 2015: 538–544). It is not clear yet, to which extent (if any)
these early finds influenced later Visigothic-period manufacturing. These few objects can be probably understood
as a hint that the Visigothic-period grave goods were built on the basis of heterogeneous material cultures.
A similar case might be that of Bragayrac, where two ceramic vessels with “barbarian” features (fig. 16:1–2) were
found together with typical late Roman pottery and two early Visigothic-period crossbow brooches (periods
2 and 3, ca. 440/450–500/510 AD). Both the pot and the tall-footed bowl resemble of Černjahov-Sȋntana de Mureş
traditions (for example, at the settlement of Bârlad–Valea Seacă: Palade 2004); the latter finds also good counter-
parts in Bohemia/Elbe Germanic culture during the C3/D1 period (Droberjar, Prostředník 2004: 81–85, figs. 6–12;
Droberjar, Snítilý 2011: 508). A similar combination of heterogeneous Central European imports can be observed
in north-eastern Narbonensis (fig. 16: 7, 15): a one-pieced brooch with straight foot from Saint-Étienne-de-Gourgas
(Kazanski 1998: 382) and an Elbe-Germanic two-pieced brooch from gr. No. 8007 at the villa of Saint-André de
12 In this context it is interesting that also Genseric, the future leader of the Vandal-Alanic alliance, was probably born in Pannonia
Prima. Hasdings, however, were not the only barbarian group settled in Pannonia at that time. Since the 380s, the “Gothic” federates
led by Alatheus and Saphrax were stationed in Pannonian soil; warrior graves such as Lébény or Lengyeltóti are sometimes associated to
this group (see Jiřík et al. forthcoming, with earlier literature). Another significant barbarian group corresponds to the Marcomanni of
queen Fritigil, who probably had a Gothic origin herself. It is likely that they too were settled in the former Pannonia I (see for example
Lotter 1968). It is perhaps interesting that Genseric’s Vandals (and perhaps also part of Suebi) probably met a sort of “precursors” upon
their arrival to Northern Africa: the Marcomanni settled “legally” in Africa as a part of Imperial contingent. According to the Notitia
Dignitatum, the Legio II Herculia, located in Mauritania caesarienna, was of Danubian origin (Notitia Dignitatum, Or., XXXIX.29–31,
cited after: Cagnat 1892: 735). Also the Equites Marcomanni are listed among the known units (Cagnat 1892: 730). The exact origin, the
precise location and the ulterior fortunes of these federates are unknown. As far as the available evidence can tell, early 5th century ma-
terial culture (including jewellery sets and military equipment, especially belt sets) belongs without exception to the usual late Roman
repertoire in the West (Mackensen 2008; Eger 2012: 97–176). It can be therefore assumed that the material culture of the Central
Europeans was totally “Romanized” by the time of their arrival to Africa.
457
Jaroslav Jiřík, Joan Pinar Gil
Codols (Manniez 2012: 158, fig. 171). The latter can be regarded as further evidence in support of our proposals on
the recruitment area of the Rhine crossers and the composition of the Suebi (fig. 17); a brooch of type Wiesbaden
found at Djémila in North Africa can be considered from this same perspective (see below, with fig. 34). The
list of Central European finds in south-western Gaul is completed by a grave unearthed at Îlot Castelbou near
Toulouse (Boudartchouk et al. 2006) (fig. 16:3–4). It is clearly connected to Central European traditions by the
remains of a shield belonging to Godłowski’s type Spicymierz (Godłowski 1992b: 83–84, fig. 4:1) (fig. 2:26), fully
comparable to late Przeworsk ones and to the aforementioned specimen from Beroun–Závodí (see above, with
fig. 5:20); in spite of C. Clement’s remarks (Clement 2010: 302), it seems thus that the umbo can be safely dated
to the late 4th or the early 5th century.
Typological repertoires related to the post-Przeworsk horizon have been recorded in other areas of the
West. Thus an A 158 brooch and typical gold and bronze belt buckles of Neubauer’s types 1 and 2 (fig. 16:17–19)
have been recorded in the late Roman cemetery of Concordia Sagittaria near Venice (Piussi 2008: 115, 128).
Much like in the aforementioned post-Przeworsk clusters, the finds from Concordia show typical late
Przeworsk brooches associated to “newer”, D2-period buckles, suggesting a coexistence of late Przeworsk
traditions and supra-regional aristocratic fashions. Interestingly enough, this kind of typological back-
ground can be also observed in the territory of the Przeworsk culture and in the neighbouring areas during
C3/D1 to D2 stage, as widely known examples such as Jakuszowice and Solončy show (Godłowski 1995;
Kaczanowski, Rodzińska-Nowak 2008; Kotigoroško 1987).
South-western Hispania and the forerunners
of early Vandal-period grave goods in Africa
More than thirty years ago, Gerd G. Koenig commented on the possible traces of the Vandals’ presence in
Hispania (Koenig 1981: 346–359). Since then, many scholars have become increasingly interested in the ear-
ly 5th century “barbarian” objects in that area (Pérez Rodríguez-Aragón 1997; 2008; Kazanski 2000; López
Quiroga 2001; 2015; Quast 2005: 296–299; Pinar 2007; Pinar, Padró 2007; Pinar, Ripoll 2008). The amount
of recorded finds has considerably increased in the last few years, including some well dated contexts; this
group of finds outlines nowadays a more consistent picture, which enables a new kind of approach to the
contacts between Iberian and African finds.
As a matter of fact, early 5th century “barbarian” finds appear as a heterogeneous ensemble of porta-
ble finds typologically related to D1 and D2-period indexes, unequally distributed throughout the Iberian
Peninsula: the major cluster is located in the south-western provinces (Lusitania and Baetica: figs. 11D,
20), whereas the rest of the finds are scattered throughout the neighbouring territories of Gallaecia (Vigo,
Bueu, “Galicia”, Castro Ventosa) and Carthaginensis (Albacete–Casa de la Zúa, “Castiltierra”, Torrejón
de Velasco: fig. 18), as well as the north-western outskirts of Tarraconensis (La Olmeda). The Thomas III
comb from Castro Ventosa shares with the aforementioned example from Alzey both similar proportions
and analogous bell-shaped handles (figs. 11B:13, 19). Gold jewellery related to the Untersiebenbrunn group
(La Valleta del Valero, La Vilanova d’Alcolea–L’Hostalot: Pinar 2007; Pérez Rodríguez-Aragón 1999) has
458
Late Przeworsk and post-Przeworsk, Elbian and Danubian. Vandals, Suebi and the dissemination of Central European…
been identified also in the Tarraconensis, where no steady barbarian presence is mentioned by the writ-
ten sources. Against A. Pérez’s speculative arguments (Pérez Rodríguez-Aragón 2008: 254), a number of
morphological and technological details (braided gold threads, lion-headed endings, cast needle-shaped
pendants and polyhedron-headed pins) bear witness of the West Mediterranean origin of these luxury
objects (see below on the evaluation of breast chains with pairs of pins). Parallel finds in Lusitania and
Gallaecia (Mérida–Almendralejo st. and Beiral: Heras, Olmedo 2015: 282–283, fig. 15:7; Rigaud de Sousa
1979: 296–300), moreover, were associated to classical types of late Roman gold beads13 (Deppert–Lippitz
1997) (fig. 29D, F). The available evidence renders an hypothetical barbarian intermediation both unneces-
sary and indemonstrable, what indeed corresponds fairly well with the available historical records on the
location of barbarians in early 5th century Hispania. In addition to the Beiral breast chain, a grave found at
the cemetery of Vigo–Hospital st. (fig. 18:1–3) underlines the weight of late Roman traditions in Gallaecia’s
post-Przeworsk horizon. In there a necklace of amber beads imported from Central or Northern Europe
occurred together with a typical late Roman set of adornments in glass: a necklace made of beads and a fin-
ger ring (Casal, Paz 1997). It is interesting to stress that the kind of mixture of Central European and
Mediterranean traditions mirrored by this grave is one of the main features of the earliest Vandal-period
assemblages in North Africa (see below).
The typological inventory on Baetica and Lusitania provinces (figs. 11D, 20) is the most varied and
numerous: it includes A 171 one-piece brooches with straight foot (Mérida–Almendralejo st., “Mérida”,
Mérida–Morería, Conimbriga, Santa Vitória do Ameixial), A 162 two-piece brooches with attached foot
(El Hinojal–Las Tiendas), big silver belt buckles with rectangular plate of Neubauer’s type 2 (Mérida?), gold
belt buckles with cloisonné plate of type Lebény–Fürst (“Granada”, Linares–Los Argamasones) and circular
thickened silver and gold belt buckles of Neubauer’s types 1 and 2 (Conimbriga, Málaga–Roman theatre,
“lower Guadalquivir valley”, “Los Pedroches”) (figs. 11D:24–29, 44–47; 20:1–5, 8–13, 22–23). Specific types
of objects, for example pendants and appliqués in gold foil shaped in North Pontic tradition, bow brooches
in silver sheet of type Villafontana and cicada brooches (figs. 11D: 32–33; 20:8–9, 14–15, 18, 20–21) appear
exclusively in Baetica and Lusitania (Granada, Mérida, “Extremadura”). The bulk of these objects is char-
acteristic for the post-Przeworsk horizon in several areas of Central and Western Europe (North-Western
Carpathians, Rheinhessen, Bourgogne).
Other objects from south-western Hispania may have had an origin in the European Barbaricum.
A two-piece brooch from Idanha-a-Velha (da Ponte 2006: 483) is clearly inscribed in Central European
metalwork with regard both to technological and ornamental features (fig. 21), as parallels from Dębczyno
gr. No. 8 and Miskolc–Szirma–Faskért gr. C show (Godłowski 1970: 57, pl. XIII:6; Soós 2018: 368, pl. III:1).
Another “eastern” import may be a bronze buckle plate of unknown provenance within the Los Pedroches
area (fig. 22), north to Cordova: it finds numerous counterparts in the Černjachov–Sȋntana de Mureş area,
among which a buckle from Bârlad–Valea Seacă (Mamalaucă 2005: 108), lacking junction rivets (fig. 22:2),
deserves a special mention. The small iron belt buckle with pentagonal plate from El Ruedo, gr. No. 125
13 A recent technical examination of these artefacts seems to overlook their abundant parallels among West Mediterranean jewellery of the
4th–5th centuries AD (López Quiroga, Figueiras 2018: 89–90).
459
Jaroslav Jiřík, Joan Pinar Gil
Codols (Manniez 2012: 158, fig. 171). The latter can be regarded as further evidence in support of our proposals on
the recruitment area of the Rhine crossers and the composition of the Suebi (fig. 17); a brooch of type Wiesbaden
found at Djémila in North Africa can be considered from this same perspective (see below, with fig. 34). The
list of Central European finds in south-western Gaul is completed by a grave unearthed at Îlot Castelbou near
Toulouse (Boudartchouk et al. 2006) (fig. 16:3–4). It is clearly connected to Central European traditions by the
remains of a shield belonging to Godłowski’s type Spicymierz (Godłowski 1992b: 83–84, fig. 4:1) (fig. 2:26), fully
comparable to late Przeworsk ones and to the aforementioned specimen from Beroun–Závodí (see above, with
fig. 5:20); in spite of C. Clement’s remarks (Clement 2010: 302), it seems thus that the umbo can be safely dated
to the late 4th or the early 5th century.
Typological repertoires related to the post-Przeworsk horizon have been recorded in other areas of the
West. Thus an A 158 brooch and typical gold and bronze belt buckles of Neubauer’s types 1 and 2 (fig. 16:17–19)
have been recorded in the late Roman cemetery of Concordia Sagittaria near Venice (Piussi 2008: 115, 128).
Much like in the aforementioned post-Przeworsk clusters, the finds from Concordia show typical late
Przeworsk brooches associated to “newer”, D2-period buckles, suggesting a coexistence of late Przeworsk
traditions and supra-regional aristocratic fashions. Interestingly enough, this kind of typological back-
ground can be also observed in the territory of the Przeworsk culture and in the neighbouring areas during
C3/D1 to D2 stage, as widely known examples such as Jakuszowice and Solončy show (Godłowski 1995;
Kaczanowski, Rodzińska-Nowak 2008; Kotigoroško 1987).
South-western Hispania and the forerunners
of early Vandal-period grave goods in Africa
More than thirty years ago, Gerd G. Koenig commented on the possible traces of the Vandals’ presence in
Hispania (Koenig 1981: 346–359). Since then, many scholars have become increasingly interested in the ear-
ly 5th century “barbarian” objects in that area (Pérez Rodríguez-Aragón 1997; 2008; Kazanski 2000; López
Quiroga 2001; 2015; Quast 2005: 296–299; Pinar 2007; Pinar, Padró 2007; Pinar, Ripoll 2008). The amount
of recorded finds has considerably increased in the last few years, including some well dated contexts; this
group of finds outlines nowadays a more consistent picture, which enables a new kind of approach to the
contacts between Iberian and African finds.
As a matter of fact, early 5th century “barbarian” finds appear as a heterogeneous ensemble of porta-
ble finds typologically related to D1 and D2-period indexes, unequally distributed throughout the Iberian
Peninsula: the major cluster is located in the south-western provinces (Lusitania and Baetica: figs. 11D,
20), whereas the rest of the finds are scattered throughout the neighbouring territories of Gallaecia (Vigo,
Bueu, “Galicia”, Castro Ventosa) and Carthaginensis (Albacete–Casa de la Zúa, “Castiltierra”, Torrejón
de Velasco: fig. 18), as well as the north-western outskirts of Tarraconensis (La Olmeda). The Thomas III
comb from Castro Ventosa shares with the aforementioned example from Alzey both similar proportions
and analogous bell-shaped handles (figs. 11B:13, 19). Gold jewellery related to the Untersiebenbrunn group
(La Valleta del Valero, La Vilanova d’Alcolea–L’Hostalot: Pinar 2007; Pérez Rodríguez-Aragón 1999) has
458
Late Przeworsk and post-Przeworsk, Elbian and Danubian. Vandals, Suebi and the dissemination of Central European…
been identified also in the Tarraconensis, where no steady barbarian presence is mentioned by the writ-
ten sources. Against A. Pérez’s speculative arguments (Pérez Rodríguez-Aragón 2008: 254), a number of
morphological and technological details (braided gold threads, lion-headed endings, cast needle-shaped
pendants and polyhedron-headed pins) bear witness of the West Mediterranean origin of these luxury
objects (see below on the evaluation of breast chains with pairs of pins). Parallel finds in Lusitania and
Gallaecia (Mérida–Almendralejo st. and Beiral: Heras, Olmedo 2015: 282–283, fig. 15:7; Rigaud de Sousa
1979: 296–300), moreover, were associated to classical types of late Roman gold beads13 (Deppert–Lippitz
1997) (fig. 29D, F). The available evidence renders an hypothetical barbarian intermediation both unneces-
sary and indemonstrable, what indeed corresponds fairly well with the available historical records on the
location of barbarians in early 5th century Hispania. In addition to the Beiral breast chain, a grave found at
the cemetery of Vigo–Hospital st. (fig. 18:1–3) underlines the weight of late Roman traditions in Gallaecia’s
post-Przeworsk horizon. In there a necklace of amber beads imported from Central or Northern Europe
occurred together with a typical late Roman set of adornments in glass: a necklace made of beads and a fin-
ger ring (Casal, Paz 1997). It is interesting to stress that the kind of mixture of Central European and
Mediterranean traditions mirrored by this grave is one of the main features of the earliest Vandal-period
assemblages in North Africa (see below).
The typological inventory on Baetica and Lusitania provinces (figs. 11D, 20) is the most varied and
numerous: it includes A 171 one-piece brooches with straight foot (Mérida–Almendralejo st., “Mérida”,
Mérida–Morería, Conimbriga, Santa Vitória do Ameixial), A 162 two-piece brooches with attached foot
(El Hinojal–Las Tiendas), big silver belt buckles with rectangular plate of Neubauer’s type 2 (Mérida?), gold
belt buckles with cloisonné plate of type Lebény–Fürst (“Granada”, Linares–Los Argamasones) and circular
thickened silver and gold belt buckles of Neubauer’s types 1 and 2 (Conimbriga, Málaga–Roman theatre,
“lower Guadalquivir valley”, “Los Pedroches”) (figs. 11D:24–29, 44–47; 20:1–5, 8–13, 22–23). Specific types
of objects, for example pendants and appliqués in gold foil shaped in North Pontic tradition, bow brooches
in silver sheet of type Villafontana and cicada brooches (figs. 11D: 32–33; 20:8–9, 14–15, 18, 20–21) appear
exclusively in Baetica and Lusitania (Granada, Mérida, “Extremadura”). The bulk of these objects is char-
acteristic for the post-Przeworsk horizon in several areas of Central and Western Europe (North-Western
Carpathians, Rheinhessen, Bourgogne).
Other objects from south-western Hispania may have had an origin in the European Barbaricum.
A two-piece brooch from Idanha-a-Velha (da Ponte 2006: 483) is clearly inscribed in Central European
metalwork with regard both to technological and ornamental features (fig. 21), as parallels from Dębczyno
gr. No. 8 and Miskolc–Szirma–Faskért gr. C show (Godłowski 1970: 57, pl. XIII:6; Soós 2018: 368, pl. III:1).
Another “eastern” import may be a bronze buckle plate of unknown provenance within the Los Pedroches
area (fig. 22), north to Cordova: it finds numerous counterparts in the Černjachov–Sȋntana de Mureş area,
among which a buckle from Bârlad–Valea Seacă (Mamalaucă 2005: 108), lacking junction rivets (fig. 22:2),
deserves a special mention. The small iron belt buckle with pentagonal plate from El Ruedo, gr. No. 125
13 A recent technical examination of these artefacts seems to overlook their abundant parallels among West Mediterranean jewellery of the
4th–5th centuries AD (López Quiroga, Figueiras 2018: 89–90).
459
Jaroslav Jiřík, Joan Pinar Gil
(Carmona 1990: fig. 7; 1998: 375), could have had a similar origin (figs. 11D:43; 23:1): the type appears to
be extremely rare in Spain, and shows formal and technical resemblances to objects produced in the late
Przeworsk culture and other areas of the Barbaricum (for example, Godłowski 1970: 26, 58, pl. IV:6, XIII:24;
Szydłowski 1974: 78, pl. XCVII:u, XCIX:i; Palade 2004: 123, fig. 201). The same cemetery (gr. Nos. 26,
33 and 69: Carmona 1998: 271, 278, 321, 375) has yielded some small silver earrings with thickened wire
(fig. 11D:40–42). The earrings at El Ruedo are not combined with any reliable chronological indexes; they
find an exact counterpart in the gr. No. 614 of Duratón (Molinero Pérez 1971: pl.LVII:1), dating from the
period 3 of the regional chronology (470/480–500/510 AD: Pinar 2017a: tab. 1). On topographical grounds,
C. Eger attributed the earrings, together with the aforementioned iron buckle, to the periods 1 and 2 of the
cemetery (i.e., broadly the 5th and 6th centuries: Eger 2005). It cannot be excluded that this type of earrings
circulated already in the early 5th century: that is suggested, for example, by similar objects recorded at vari-
ous graves in the basilica of Hippo Regius (a pair of them coming perhaps from Valilu’s grave), dating from
the early Vandal period (fig. 11E:68–70; 28D, see also below with fig. 30:9–10). A “nomadic” bronze earring
(fig. 11D:48) has been found at the forum of Conimbriga in Lusitania (Alarcão et al. 1979: pl. XXXIV:224);
it can be regarded as a possible prototype for the earrings with thickened wire from southern Spain.
If examined singularly, only few finds from south-western Hispania can be put in connection with
Central European traditions and to Vandal-period Africa in a straightforward way (Pinar, Ripoll 2008).
Considered in its entirety, though, the typological repertoire and the dynamics of cultural exchange re-
corded in the Iberian south-west appear to develop without interruption the picture outlined by the finds
of Rheinhessen and Bourgogne. Moreover, the “Baetic-Lusitanian snapshot” prefigures faithfully the main
components of the earliest African Vandal-period grave goods: belt buckles and gold appliqués related to
the Untersiebenbrunn milieu, post-Černjahov and post-Przeworsk brooches and Mediterranean jewellery.
One-pieced crossbow brooches of type Koudiat Zâteur are perhaps the clearest connection between the
Iberian south-west and Vandal-period Africa. The smallest examples, particularly numerous in Mérida, can
be seen as direct forerunners of the earliest Vandal-period African products (fig. 11D:24–28, E: 52–53): most
of Spanish-Portuguese examples are less than 4 cm long, whereas the African ones can be even smaller,
less than 3 cm long. One of the brooches found at Mérida–Almendralejo st. displays a fluted decoration
on its bow, which finds close counterparts in the brooches from Koudiat Zâteur in Carthage, from the
Worms area in Rheinhessen and from southern Moravia and Slovakia (fig. 24), among others (see above
and below, with figs. 3:24; 11:17). The same grave (fig. 20:1–7) hosted also a belt buckle and a pair of shoe
buckles (López Quiroga 2015: fig. 18): this combination of objects appears to be a possible forerunner to
later African assemblages, such as Arifridus’ grave goods or Souk-el-Khemis gr. No. 1 (see below). In addi-
tion, the presence of a bronze armring (fig. 20:6) finds a good counterpart in another Vandal-period African
grave, gr. No. 3 at Souk-el-Khemis (Laporte 1999: 379). Another grave at Mérida–Almendralejo st. con-
tained a pair of small undecorated brooches of the same type, very similar to the ones found at other spots
in Mérida and Coimbra and at Valentine in southern Gaul (figs. 11D:24–26; 16:12). Similar, undecorated
brooches are attested not only in North Africa, but also in some late Przeworsk assemblages, for example at
Szczedrzyk and Kietrz, or Jakuszowice (Godłowski 1977: pl. 33:16, 7:6; 1995: fig. 6:13) (figs. 2:2–3, 8; 25:1–2).
460
Late Przeworsk and post-Przeworsk, Elbian and Danubian. Vandals, Suebi and the dissemination of Central European…
Particularly significant are two one-pieced brooches from Mérida (Mariné 2001: 273, pl. 186:1426–1427),
displaying a relatively rare spring technology (fig. 26:2) that finds a direct counterpart in the brooches from
Douar-ech-Chott in North Africa (fig. 26:3; see also below, with fig. 28:B). As said, one of the brooches
from the grave of Trebur in Rheinhessen (fig. 26:1) can be regarded as a direct forerunner for these West
Mediterranean brooches (see above, with fig. 8:1). Another one-pieced brooch, found at the villa of Santa
Vitória do Ameixial, shows a faceted decoration that is widespread in Central Europe (fig. 27); among the
closest parallels, one may mention the brooches from Kostelec na Hané, gr. No. 358, Sládkovičovo, gr. No. 2,
Iža or Zlechov (see above, with fig. 4:3, 17–18, 27). Lastly, the gold jewellery recorded in this region finds
exact counterparts in early Vandal-period Africa: that is the case of both earrings with plate square inlays
and drop-shaped stone pendants and with polyhedric clasp (figs. 11D:49, E:65; 20:19). The latter are also
attested in northernmost Pannonia at the beginning of the 5th century (fig. 15:9).
Recently unearthed dating contexts have enabled to better integrate the finds from south-western Spain
into the regional chronological system: at Mérida–Almendralejo st. 41, the use of the cemetery is strati-
graphically dated to the late 4th-mid 5th century (Heras, Olmedo 2015: 278; Pinar 2017a: 63); the aforemen-
tioned grave (fig. 20:1–7), containing an A 171 crossbow brooch and three thickened buckles, hosted also
an Isings 96 glass bowl, dating to the first half of the 5th century. A similar glass bowl with coloured drop
decoration was found at L’Hostalot together with a pair or polyhedron-headed gold pins (Pérez Rodríguez-
Aragón 1999); at Torrejón de Velasco (García-Vuelta et al. 2013), the coexistence of D2-period buckles
(fig. 18:6–7) with typical regional objects of the pre-Visigothic period 1 (ca. 380/390–440/450) confirms that
the Central European chronologies fully apply to the Spanish finds, which were in use between the end
of the 4th century and the first half of the 5th century.
As said, the Iberian South-west happens to be one of the few regions in which all these elements oc-
curred together at the same time. It is therefore very likely, that it was mainly in this area where a signifi-
cant part of the processes crystallizing in the shaping of early Vandal-period African graves started. The
Iberian finds are slightly older than the African ones, and their relative position within the timeline of
Vandal-period grave goods mirrors indeed an early stage: Mediterranean, Pontic and Central European
traditions were known in the area, but they did not merge together within a single grave yet; that step
was to be undertaken, it seems, only in Africa (see below). Of course, this fact does not exclude that sim-
ilar parallel processes could take place in other parts of Europe, as assemblages such as Vigo–Hospital st.,
Crimolois, Concordia and especially Mödling and Prague–Zličín (a sort of “close relatives” to the Vandal-
period earliest graves in Africa, bringing together one-pieced crossbow brooches and typical D2 high-status
elements: see below) show.
According to Hydatius (Chronicle 41, 52, 55, 59–60), Baetica and Lusitania were controlled respectively
by Siling Vandals and Alans between 411 and 418 AD; shortly thereafter, Baetica was taken by Hasding
Vandals and Alans up to 429 AD, whereas the Western Roman Empire regained an ephemeral control
over Lusitania (Arce 2005: 52–56, 63–72, 102–127). If one compares the archaeological chronologies of the
southern Spanish and early African clusters (see below) with these historical dates, it turns out that each of
them correspond fairly well to two distinct major politic-historical periods: the dominion of Vandals and
461
Jaroslav Jiřík, Joan Pinar Gil
(Carmona 1990: fig. 7; 1998: 375), could have had a similar origin (figs. 11D:43; 23:1): the type appears to
be extremely rare in Spain, and shows formal and technical resemblances to objects produced in the late
Przeworsk culture and other areas of the Barbaricum (for example, Godłowski 1970: 26, 58, pl. IV:6, XIII:24;
Szydłowski 1974: 78, pl. XCVII:u, XCIX:i; Palade 2004: 123, fig. 201). The same cemetery (gr. Nos. 26,
33 and 69: Carmona 1998: 271, 278, 321, 375) has yielded some small silver earrings with thickened wire
(fig. 11D:40–42). The earrings at El Ruedo are not combined with any reliable chronological indexes; they
find an exact counterpart in the gr. No. 614 of Duratón (Molinero Pérez 1971: pl.LVII:1), dating from the
period 3 of the regional chronology (470/480–500/510 AD: Pinar 2017a: tab. 1). On topographical grounds,
C. Eger attributed the earrings, together with the aforementioned iron buckle, to the periods 1 and 2 of the
cemetery (i.e., broadly the 5th and 6th centuries: Eger 2005). It cannot be excluded that this type of earrings
circulated already in the early 5th century: that is suggested, for example, by similar objects recorded at vari-
ous graves in the basilica of Hippo Regius (a pair of them coming perhaps from Valilu’s grave), dating from
the early Vandal period (fig. 11E:68–70; 28D, see also below with fig. 30:9–10). A “nomadic” bronze earring
(fig. 11D:48) has been found at the forum of Conimbriga in Lusitania (Alarcão et al. 1979: pl. XXXIV:224);
it can be regarded as a possible prototype for the earrings with thickened wire from southern Spain.
If examined singularly, only few finds from south-western Hispania can be put in connection with
Central European traditions and to Vandal-period Africa in a straightforward way (Pinar, Ripoll 2008).
Considered in its entirety, though, the typological repertoire and the dynamics of cultural exchange re-
corded in the Iberian south-west appear to develop without interruption the picture outlined by the finds
of Rheinhessen and Bourgogne. Moreover, the “Baetic-Lusitanian snapshot” prefigures faithfully the main
components of the earliest African Vandal-period grave goods: belt buckles and gold appliqués related to
the Untersiebenbrunn milieu, post-Černjahov and post-Przeworsk brooches and Mediterranean jewellery.
One-pieced crossbow brooches of type Koudiat Zâteur are perhaps the clearest connection between the
Iberian south-west and Vandal-period Africa. The smallest examples, particularly numerous in Mérida, can
be seen as direct forerunners of the earliest Vandal-period African products (fig. 11D:24–28, E: 52–53): most
of Spanish-Portuguese examples are less than 4 cm long, whereas the African ones can be even smaller,
less than 3 cm long. One of the brooches found at Mérida–Almendralejo st. displays a fluted decoration
on its bow, which finds close counterparts in the brooches from Koudiat Zâteur in Carthage, from the
Worms area in Rheinhessen and from southern Moravia and Slovakia (fig. 24), among others (see above
and below, with figs. 3:24; 11:17). The same grave (fig. 20:1–7) hosted also a belt buckle and a pair of shoe
buckles (López Quiroga 2015: fig. 18): this combination of objects appears to be a possible forerunner to
later African assemblages, such as Arifridus’ grave goods or Souk-el-Khemis gr. No. 1 (see below). In addi-
tion, the presence of a bronze armring (fig. 20:6) finds a good counterpart in another Vandal-period African
grave, gr. No. 3 at Souk-el-Khemis (Laporte 1999: 379). Another grave at Mérida–Almendralejo st. con-
tained a pair of small undecorated brooches of the same type, very similar to the ones found at other spots
in Mérida and Coimbra and at Valentine in southern Gaul (figs. 11D:24–26; 16:12). Similar, undecorated
brooches are attested not only in North Africa, but also in some late Przeworsk assemblages, for example at
Szczedrzyk and Kietrz, or Jakuszowice (Godłowski 1977: pl. 33:16, 7:6; 1995: fig. 6:13) (figs. 2:2–3, 8; 25:1–2).
460
Late Przeworsk and post-Przeworsk, Elbian and Danubian. Vandals, Suebi and the dissemination of Central European…
Particularly significant are two one-pieced brooches from Mérida (Mariné 2001: 273, pl. 186:1426–1427),
displaying a relatively rare spring technology (fig. 26:2) that finds a direct counterpart in the brooches from
Douar-ech-Chott in North Africa (fig. 26:3; see also below, with fig. 28:B). As said, one of the brooches
from the grave of Trebur in Rheinhessen (fig. 26:1) can be regarded as a direct forerunner for these West
Mediterranean brooches (see above, with fig. 8:1). Another one-pieced brooch, found at the villa of Santa
Vitória do Ameixial, shows a faceted decoration that is widespread in Central Europe (fig. 27); among the
closest parallels, one may mention the brooches from Kostelec na Hané, gr. No. 358, Sládkovičovo, gr. No. 2,
Iža or Zlechov (see above, with fig. 4:3, 17–18, 27). Lastly, the gold jewellery recorded in this region finds
exact counterparts in early Vandal-period Africa: that is the case of both earrings with plate square inlays
and drop-shaped stone pendants and with polyhedric clasp (figs. 11D:49, E:65; 20:19). The latter are also
attested in northernmost Pannonia at the beginning of the 5th century (fig. 15:9).
Recently unearthed dating contexts have enabled to better integrate the finds from south-western Spain
into the regional chronological system: at Mérida–Almendralejo st. 41, the use of the cemetery is strati-
graphically dated to the late 4th-mid 5th century (Heras, Olmedo 2015: 278; Pinar 2017a: 63); the aforemen-
tioned grave (fig. 20:1–7), containing an A 171 crossbow brooch and three thickened buckles, hosted also
an Isings 96 glass bowl, dating to the first half of the 5th century. A similar glass bowl with coloured drop
decoration was found at L’Hostalot together with a pair or polyhedron-headed gold pins (Pérez Rodríguez-
Aragón 1999); at Torrejón de Velasco (García-Vuelta et al. 2013), the coexistence of D2-period buckles
(fig. 18:6–7) with typical regional objects of the pre-Visigothic period 1 (ca. 380/390–440/450) confirms that
the Central European chronologies fully apply to the Spanish finds, which were in use between the end
of the 4th century and the first half of the 5th century.
As said, the Iberian South-west happens to be one of the few regions in which all these elements oc-
curred together at the same time. It is therefore very likely, that it was mainly in this area where a signifi-
cant part of the processes crystallizing in the shaping of early Vandal-period African graves started. The
Iberian finds are slightly older than the African ones, and their relative position within the timeline of
Vandal-period grave goods mirrors indeed an early stage: Mediterranean, Pontic and Central European
traditions were known in the area, but they did not merge together within a single grave yet; that step
was to be undertaken, it seems, only in Africa (see below). Of course, this fact does not exclude that sim-
ilar parallel processes could take place in other parts of Europe, as assemblages such as Vigo–Hospital st.,
Crimolois, Concordia and especially Mödling and Prague–Zličín (a sort of “close relatives” to the Vandal-
period earliest graves in Africa, bringing together one-pieced crossbow brooches and typical D2 high-status
elements: see below) show.
According to Hydatius (Chronicle 41, 52, 55, 59–60), Baetica and Lusitania were controlled respectively
by Siling Vandals and Alans between 411 and 418 AD; shortly thereafter, Baetica was taken by Hasding
Vandals and Alans up to 429 AD, whereas the Western Roman Empire regained an ephemeral control
over Lusitania (Arce 2005: 52–56, 63–72, 102–127). If one compares the archaeological chronologies of the
southern Spanish and early African clusters (see below) with these historical dates, it turns out that each of
them correspond fairly well to two distinct major politic-historical periods: the dominion of Vandals and
461
Jaroslav Jiřík, Joan Pinar Gil
Alans over Baetica and Lusitania (411–429 AD) and the Vandal conquest of Africa (429–440 AD). Thus,
there is indeed a good chance that these objects, fashions and funerary traditions were brought to Africa
from south-western Spain during the displacement of Genseric’s followers.
The written and material evidence thus agree to identify south-western Spain as the territory where the
immediate forerunners of the early Vandal-period grave goods were shaped. Moreover, the dialogue be-
tween the chronics and the material sources unveils another interesting phenomenon: generally speaking,
the material remains of Suebi, Vandals and Alans settled in Hispania would have been virtually undistin-
guishable by the early 5th century14. This fact appears to be the logical result of the archaeological sequenc-
es observed in several areas of Central Europe (Bohemia, Moravia, southern Germany, Raetia) during
the C3 and D1 stages, and is directly foreshadowed by the development of the typological inventories in
Rheinhessen and Bourgogne at the turn of D1 and D2 stages. Against such a backdrop, there is little point
in trying to determine whether a specific early 5th century Spanish assemblage was connected to the Suebi
or to any other barbarian group, as J. Heras and A. Olmedo recently tried with regard to the cemetery at
Mérida–Almendralejo st. (Heras, Olmedo 2015: 284–286; 2017: 457–460). It is indeed likely that the ceme-
tery was used uninterruptedly both during the “Alan”, “Roman” and “Suevian” rules over the city between
409 and 456 AD, as gr. No.1 (fig. 20:16–18), probably dating to the mid 5th century, shows. That grave, just
like the broadly coeval spatha-furnished grave of Beja (Koenig 1981: 346–349), mirrors the circulation of
people, fashions or customs beyond the political-historic events described by the available written sources.
Vandal-period grave goods in Africa: a short-lived event?
As far as the available evidence can tell, there must have been hardly any recordable difference between
the material culture of Suebi, Vandals and Alans in Hispania; apparently, the same applies for the Vandal-
period grave goods in North Africa. That fits well with the available historical data: although they suggest
that the Vandal kingdom was inhabited by a heterogeneous population (e.g. the royal title rex Vandalorum
et Alanorum and the anthroponyms of alleged Vandal, Suevic and Alan origin) (Victor of Vita, Historia…
II.13, III.2; Francovich Onesti 2002: 145–183), the grave goods identified so far have a standardized character
and, as we will see, their diachronic evolution seems to follow a single and clear trend.
The grave goods of the Vandal period in Africa need no further presentation. Collected for the most
part and discussed together by G.G. Koenig (1981), our understanding on these assemblages has quickly
grown in the last years thanks to the publication of new finds and the widening of the current knowledge
on some artefacts, highlighting the connections of the North African finds with the European Barbaricum
(Kiss 1994; Kazanski 2000: 190–191; 2009: 427–454; Quast 2005: 278–303; Kazanski, Mastykova 2006;
Kleemann 2008; Eger 2001; 2008; 2012: 318–323). In addition, these graves have been at the centre of a vivid
-in-loop chain of the necklace from Douar-ech-Chott appears frequently in assemblages accumulated or deposited
14 Only a possible exception is recorded in early 5th century Spain: artefacts related to northern Pontic traditions (A 162 brooches with at-
tached foot, bow brooches in metal sheet and appliqués in gold foil) appear exclusively in Carthaginensis, Lusitania and Baetica, that is,
only in regions where the Alans settled. The phenomenon is perhaps reminiscent of the mutually exclusive geographical distribution of
certain types of “eastern” objects along the Rhine valley (see above).
462
Late Przeworsk and post-Przeworsk, Elbian and Danubian. Vandals, Suebi and the dissemination of Central European…
interpretative debate focused on identity issues, whose core took place in the early 2000s (von Rummel
2002; 2007; 2008; Kleemann 2002; Eger 2001; 2008; 2012; Quast 2005)15. In spite of the divergent inter-
pretations, there has been a broad consensus regarding the chronology of the assemblages. G.G. Koenig
was almost the only scholar attributing the Vandal-period assemblages to different time spans of the 5th–6th
century; almost every scholar dealing with this topic ever since has instead dated all the “barbarian-styled”
Vandal-period grave goods to the central third of the 5th century and thus attributed them to a single gen-
eration of people (most recently Eger 2012: 318–323).
Nevertheless, it seems to us that consistent evidence suggests that the Vandal-period grave goods were
deposited during a longer time span. A distinct, earlier group (fig. 28) is formed by the female ornaments
of Carthage–Douar-ech-Chott, Thuburbo Maius–“temple of Ceres church” and Carthage–Koudiat Zâteur
(Koenig 1981: 308–312; Eger 2001). These graves contain several objects finding close counterparts in dating
contexts from different cultural areas. One- and two-pieced crossbow brooches with straight foot are an
important chronological index, as we have seen. Their dating on typological criteria suggests a time frame
within the 5th century, most probably around its central decades (Schulze-Dörrlamm 1986: 638–639; Eger
2001: 361–363, 372–374; 2012: 183–187). Of particular importance appears the combination of two similar
brooches and a belt buckle with rectangular carved plate at Biharkeresztes–Kisfarkasdomb, grave No. 16,
in eastern Hungary16: it suggests a deposition date within the D2/D3 period, that might have been syn-
chronical to the early Vandal-period graves.
A dating around the mid 5th century is further supported by the pair of bow brooches from Koudiat
Zâteur (Eger 2001: 353–361; 2012: 177–182). The chronology suggested by these brooches fits well with the
appliqués in gold foil and the cloisonné belt buckle found in the grave (fig. 28C): they are two of the main
indexes of the Untersiebenbrunn group, roughly dated to the first half of the 5th century (Tejral 1988: 237–267;
1997: 334–342; Kazanski 1996: 117, 121–123; Eger 2001: 363–364, 368–370; 2012: 202–204). The necklace
with step-shaped gold pendants found at Henchir Kasbat/Thuburbo Maius (fig. 28A) finds a number of
formal counterparts in Crimean female graves of the 6th century (Schulze-Dörrlamm 1986: 639; Eger 2001:
373; Ajbabin, Chajredinova 2009: 78). The find from the vault 40 at the Džurga–Oba cemetery shows that
necklaces combining step-formed pendants and dark glass beads (fig. 29A), were actually in use by the
mid to late 5th century in that area (Ermolin 2012: 346, fig. 5); the objects recovered from the looted vault
53/1997 at Almalyk-dere suggest a chronology within the 5th century too (Mączyńska et al. 2016: 98–99,
pl. 13). Necklaces combining beads in gold foil and dark glass beads are also attested in the West during
the first half of the 5th century (fig. 29B), as the example from Moreuil shows (Bayard et al. 1981: 202, pl. 20;
Mahéo 1990: 310–311).
The jewellery sets from these African graves belong clearly to the typological repertoire of the West
Mediterranean gold deposits during the central decades of the 5th century (fig. 30). The same type of loop
15 A later review by C. Giostra (2010) may help introducing the issue to non-German speakers.
16 Mesterházy 2007: 276–280, 289.
463
Jaroslav Jiřík, Joan Pinar Gil
Alans over Baetica and Lusitania (411–429 AD) and the Vandal conquest of Africa (429–440 AD). Thus,
there is indeed a good chance that these objects, fashions and funerary traditions were brought to Africa
from south-western Spain during the displacement of Genseric’s followers.
The written and material evidence thus agree to identify south-western Spain as the territory where the
immediate forerunners of the early Vandal-period grave goods were shaped. Moreover, the dialogue be-
tween the chronics and the material sources unveils another interesting phenomenon: generally speaking,
the material remains of Suebi, Vandals and Alans settled in Hispania would have been virtually undistin-
guishable by the early 5th century14. This fact appears to be the logical result of the archaeological sequenc-
es observed in several areas of Central Europe (Bohemia, Moravia, southern Germany, Raetia) during
the C3 and D1 stages, and is directly foreshadowed by the development of the typological inventories in
Rheinhessen and Bourgogne at the turn of D1 and D2 stages. Against such a backdrop, there is little point
in trying to determine whether a specific early 5th century Spanish assemblage was connected to the Suebi
or to any other barbarian group, as J. Heras and A. Olmedo recently tried with regard to the cemetery at
Mérida–Almendralejo st. (Heras, Olmedo 2015: 284–286; 2017: 457–460). It is indeed likely that the ceme-
tery was used uninterruptedly both during the “Alan”, “Roman” and “Suevian” rules over the city between
409 and 456 AD, as gr. No.1 (fig. 20:16–18), probably dating to the mid 5th century, shows. That grave, just
like the broadly coeval spatha-furnished grave of Beja (Koenig 1981: 346–349), mirrors the circulation of
people, fashions or customs beyond the political-historic events described by the available written sources.
Vandal-period grave goods in Africa: a short-lived event?
As far as the available evidence can tell, there must have been hardly any recordable difference between
the material culture of Suebi, Vandals and Alans in Hispania; apparently, the same applies for the Vandal-
period grave goods in North Africa. That fits well with the available historical data: although they suggest
that the Vandal kingdom was inhabited by a heterogeneous population (e.g. the royal title rex Vandalorum
et Alanorum and the anthroponyms of alleged Vandal, Suevic and Alan origin) (Victor of Vita, Historia…
II.13, III.2; Francovich Onesti 2002: 145–183), the grave goods identified so far have a standardized character
and, as we will see, their diachronic evolution seems to follow a single and clear trend.
The grave goods of the Vandal period in Africa need no further presentation. Collected for the most
part and discussed together by G.G. Koenig (1981), our understanding on these assemblages has quickly
grown in the last years thanks to the publication of new finds and the widening of the current knowledge
on some artefacts, highlighting the connections of the North African finds with the European Barbaricum
(Kiss 1994; Kazanski 2000: 190–191; 2009: 427–454; Quast 2005: 278–303; Kazanski, Mastykova 2006;
Kleemann 2008; Eger 2001; 2008; 2012: 318–323). In addition, these graves have been at the centre of a vivid
-in-loop chain of the necklace from Douar-ech-Chott appears frequently in assemblages accumulated or deposited
14 Only a possible exception is recorded in early 5th century Spain: artefacts related to northern Pontic traditions (A 162 brooches with at-
tached foot, bow brooches in metal sheet and appliqués in gold foil) appear exclusively in Carthaginensis, Lusitania and Baetica, that is,
only in regions where the Alans settled. The phenomenon is perhaps reminiscent of the mutually exclusive geographical distribution of
certain types of “eastern” objects along the Rhine valley (see above).
462
Late Przeworsk and post-Przeworsk, Elbian and Danubian. Vandals, Suebi and the dissemination of Central European…
interpretative debate focused on identity issues, whose core took place in the early 2000s (von Rummel
2002; 2007; 2008; Kleemann 2002; Eger 2001; 2008; 2012; Quast 2005)15. In spite of the divergent inter-
pretations, there has been a broad consensus regarding the chronology of the assemblages. G.G. Koenig
was almost the only scholar attributing the Vandal-period assemblages to different time spans of the 5th–6th
century; almost every scholar dealing with this topic ever since has instead dated all the “barbarian-styled”
Vandal-period grave goods to the central third of the 5th century and thus attributed them to a single gen-
eration of people (most recently Eger 2012: 318–323).
Nevertheless, it seems to us that consistent evidence suggests that the Vandal-period grave goods were
deposited during a longer time span. A distinct, earlier group (fig. 28) is formed by the female ornaments
of Carthage–Douar-ech-Chott, Thuburbo Maius–“temple of Ceres church” and Carthage–Koudiat Zâteur
(Koenig 1981: 308–312; Eger 2001). These graves contain several objects finding close counterparts in dating
contexts from different cultural areas. One- and two-pieced crossbow brooches with straight foot are an
important chronological index, as we have seen. Their dating on typological criteria suggests a time frame
within the 5th century, most probably around its central decades (Schulze-Dörrlamm 1986: 638–639; Eger
2001: 361–363, 372–374; 2012: 183–187). Of particular importance appears the combination of two similar
brooches and a belt buckle with rectangular carved plate at Biharkeresztes–Kisfarkasdomb, grave No. 16,
in eastern Hungary16: it suggests a deposition date within the D2/D3 period, that might have been syn-
chronical to the early Vandal-period graves.
A dating around the mid 5th century is further supported by the pair of bow brooches from Koudiat
Zâteur (Eger 2001: 353–361; 2012: 177–182). The chronology suggested by these brooches fits well with the
appliqués in gold foil and the cloisonné belt buckle found in the grave (fig. 28C): they are two of the main
indexes of the Untersiebenbrunn group, roughly dated to the first half of the 5th century (Tejral 1988: 237–267;
1997: 334–342; Kazanski 1996: 117, 121–123; Eger 2001: 363–364, 368–370; 2012: 202–204). The necklace
with step-shaped gold pendants found at Henchir Kasbat/Thuburbo Maius (fig. 28A) finds a number of
formal counterparts in Crimean female graves of the 6th century (Schulze-Dörrlamm 1986: 639; Eger 2001:
373; Ajbabin, Chajredinova 2009: 78). The find from the vault 40 at the Džurga–Oba cemetery shows that
necklaces combining step-formed pendants and dark glass beads (fig. 29A), were actually in use by the
mid to late 5th century in that area (Ermolin 2012: 346, fig. 5); the objects recovered from the looted vault
53/1997 at Almalyk-dere suggest a chronology within the 5th century too (Mączyńska et al. 2016: 98–99,
pl. 13). Necklaces combining beads in gold foil and dark glass beads are also attested in the West during
the first half of the 5th century (fig. 29B), as the example from Moreuil shows (Bayard et al. 1981: 202, pl. 20;
Mahéo 1990: 310–311).
The jewellery sets from these African graves belong clearly to the typological repertoire of the West
Mediterranean gold deposits during the central decades of the 5th century (fig. 30). The same type of loop
15 A later review by C. Giostra (2010) may help introducing the issue to non-German speakers.
16 Mesterházy 2007: 276–280, 289.
463
Jaroslav Jiřík, Joan Pinar Gil
throughout the 5th century (fig. 30:1, 11–14), such as the early cores of the Reggio Emilia and Desana treasures
(Degani 1959: 58–59, pl. XIX–XX; Aimone 2010: 85–88; Baldini, Pinar 2010), on one hand, and gr. No. 373 in the
basilica of pope Marcus in Rome (14C-dated to 390–450 AD: Fiocchi Nicolai 2013), the Hoxne and Zeccone trea-
sures (numismatic tpq in 407 and 477 AD respectively: Johns 2010: 213; Peroni 1967: 103–106, pl. IX–XI), on the
other. Spherical (and hemispherical) clasp supports ends are also usual in this same milieu (fig. 30:17), as one of
the necklaces from the treasure of Rome–Consolazione sq. (mid-to-late 5th century), and the necklace from the
late 5th century treasure of Olbia show (Ross 1965: 1, 117, pl. I, LXXIX). Something similar can be said on the neck-
lace from Koudiat Zâteur: the chain with garnets and emeralds appears to be a variant of the usual pearl-and-em-
erald chains (fig. 30:12–14, 17) recorded in early to late-5th century western treasures (Carthage–Saint-Louis hill,
Rome–Consolazione sq., Rome–pope Marcus’ basilica, Reggio Emilia: Baratte et al. 2002: 77–79; Ross 1965: 1,
pl. I–II; Fiocchi Nicolai 2013: 64; Degani 1959: 58, pl. XIX), whereas its round, cloisonné-decorated ending is rem-
iniscent of endings with openwork chi-rho motives (fig. 30:1–2), recorded in well-dated depositions both in the
first (Rome–pope Marcus’ basilica) and in the second half (Repcélak) of the 5th century (Fiocchi Nicolai 2013: 63;
Kiss 2001: 119, 123–126). The earrings with rectangular plate inlays and pearl or drop-shaped stone pendants from
Douar-ech-Chott and Thuburbo Maius, instead, find their best counterparts (fig. 30:3–8) in jewellery assemblages
deposited during the first half or the middle of the 5th century in the West Mediterranean area (Baratte et al. 2002:
80–81; Ross 1965: 2, pl. III–IV; Fiocchi Nicolai 2013: 64–65; Degani 1959: 66, pl. XXVIII:1–2). The finger rings are
inscribed in the same milieu: for instance, the dolphin-ended ring from Koudiat Zateur finds close counterparts
(fig. 30:15–16) in early fifth-century deposits both in the West and East (Johns, Potter 1983: 84, pl. 1; Džoržeti 1988:
30–32; see also Marec 1958: 56), whereas the octagonal finger rings, produced and used throughout the Roman
and early Merovingian periods, seem to be particularly widespread in the West Mediterranean during the late
5th century: at the cemetery of Estagel, for instance, they appear to be a chronological index of the periods 2 and 3
(440/450–500/510 AD) (Pinar forthcoming a).
Another gold-furnished grave, discovered in the cistern from the basilica at Hippo Regius (fig. 28E) should
probably be included in this group of graves. It contained a pair of polyhedron-headed pins; judging from the small
hooks on the head side, they were destined to fasten a breast adornment that may have included also the small gold
beads found in the grave, as counterparts (figs. 15:16–18; 29B–F) from Spain, Gaul, Italy and the middle Danube
area suggest (Rigaud da Sousa 1979: 296–300; Bayard et al. 1981: 202, pl. 20; Ross 1965: 1, pl. V; Ottományi 2001:
43, fig. 7; Opreanu, Luca 2007: 566, fig. 2–3; see some general remarks on the use of these objects in Pinar, Ripoll
2008: 115–116). The majority of parallel finds date from the first half of the 5th century, whereas some of them be-
long to its second half (Quast 2005: 263–270; Pinar, Ripoll 2008: 113–115). The closest counterparts though are to
be found in southern Spain; in that area, the pins are frequently combined with typical indexes of the D2 period
(see above). As said, the interpretation of these adornments is disputed: local or barbarian jewellery? (see above).
In our view, the example from Rome–Consolazione sq. and the frequent presence of late Roman beads and spac-
ers (especially evident in the Spanish finds) account on behalf of their West Mediterranean origin. It cannot be
however excluded that this sort of breast chains entered the post-Przeworsk repertoire of adornments in northern
Pannonia, together with other “late Roman” elements (see above). The four-leaved adornments in gold foil instead
are reminiscent of the female graves of the Untersiebenbrunn group, although they find no exact counterparts
464
Late Przeworsk and post-Przeworsk, Elbian and Danubian. Vandals, Suebi and the dissemination of Central European…
among them (Quast 2005: 272). It might therefore be regarded as a local, “mediterranized” version of barbarian
appliqués in gold foil. With both West Mediterranean and North Pontic traditions occurring together, this grave
must have been broadly coeval to the other members of the group. Another grave inside the basilica contained
two small gold earrings with thickened wire (fig. 28D), finding close counterparts (figs. 11D: 40–42; 30: 9–10) in
Baetica and also in Mediterranean gold deposits such as the Desana treasure (Aimone 2010: 83–84, fig. 55), ac-
cumulated in the mid to late 5th century. Judging from the available descriptions, these earrings would belong to
Ualilu’s grave goods (Marec 1958: 74–83).
All the available data thus agree on the fact that the earliest Vandal-period graves date from the second
third of the 5th century (broadly corresponding to Central European D2/D3 period), a chronology that is
indeed widely accepted by the scholarly community.
This type of assemblage, however, is not the only one recorded in Vandal-period Africa. Thus, visibly different
combinations of objects come from two graves discovered in an imprecise spot at Hippo Regius (fig. 31A–B), which
contained pairs of big disc brooches with cloisonné decoration (Quast 2005: 240–248). They have been dated to
the mid 5th century on typological and stylistic arguments (Quast 2005: 248–253; Eger 2012: 189–191, 227–230); it
seems to us that the chronology of the burials can be instead safely delayed to the last third of the 5th century. That
is suggested most clearly by the belt buckle in gr. No. 1, a “Byzantine” product belonging to Schulze-Dörrlamm’s
type B10, also known as Bône-Csongrád. The type occurs in few and problematic dating contexts (Kazanski 1994:
160–161; Riemer 2000: 206–207; Schulze-Dörrlamm 2002: 54–59; Quast 2005: 258; Eger 2012: 227–230) and is ge-
nerically attributed to the last two thirds of the 5th century. The lower chronological boundary, however, is largely
speculative and derives from the comparison with other types of buckles found in Merovingian cemeteries. In our
view, there is no solid argument suggesting that these objects started to be deposited before 470 AD. Comparable
forms and technical features are shown by other types of Byzantine buckles (e.g. Schulze-Dörrlamm’s type B11
in its three-riveted variant, as well as cloisonné-decorated types C5, C14 and C15) that ended up in graves of the
late 5th and early 6th century (Schulze-Dörrlamm 2002: 95–97, 120–129); in the West Mediterranean, similar belt
buckles started to be deposited not before 470/480 AD, as far as the evidence from Spain and Gaul can tell (Pinar
2017a: 22–24, 137; Legoux et al. 2004: 18, 33, 60). The composition of a deposit retrieved from the cistern P-1967 at
Chersonesos in Crimea (fig. 32C), containing a B10 buckle, adds further support to this assumption: the core of
the deposit consists of belt fittings dating from the late 5th century up to the middle of the 6th century (Gavrituhin
2002). A similar collection of belt fittings, including another B10 buckle, has been recorded within the early layers
of a shop at Sardis (fig. 32D), dated between the early 5th and early 7th centuries (Stephens Crawford 1990: 33–37).
All the objects were found in the upper part of the layer, so there is a good chance that they were deposited through-
out the 6th century. The collection of metal finds discovered at the hill fort of Zidani gaber near Mihovo in Slovenia
(fig. 32A) included two buckle plates with direct parallels in Vandal Africa: a B10 example and a kidney-shaped one,
comparable to the one from Arifridus’ grave (see below). The rest of the objects suggest, once again, a chronology
between 500 and 600 AD (Ciglenečki 2008: 507–508, fig. 13). An untypical iron version of a B10 buckle has been
retrieved at another Slovenian hill fort, that of Korinjski hrib. According to the available evidence, the site may
465
Jaroslav Jiřík, Joan Pinar Gil
throughout the 5th century (fig. 30:1, 11–14), such as the early cores of the Reggio Emilia and Desana treasures
(Degani 1959: 58–59, pl. XIX–XX; Aimone 2010: 85–88; Baldini, Pinar 2010), on one hand, and gr. No. 373 in the
basilica of pope Marcus in Rome (14C-dated to 390–450 AD: Fiocchi Nicolai 2013), the Hoxne and Zeccone trea-
sures (numismatic tpq in 407 and 477 AD respectively: Johns 2010: 213; Peroni 1967: 103–106, pl. IX–XI), on the
other. Spherical (and hemispherical) clasp supports ends are also usual in this same milieu (fig. 30:17), as one of
the necklaces from the treasure of Rome–Consolazione sq. (mid-to-late 5th century), and the necklace from the
late 5th century treasure of Olbia show (Ross 1965: 1, 117, pl. I, LXXIX). Something similar can be said on the neck-
lace from Koudiat Zâteur: the chain with garnets and emeralds appears to be a variant of the usual pearl-and-em-
erald chains (fig. 30:12–14, 17) recorded in early to late-5th century western treasures (Carthage–Saint-Louis hill,
Rome–Consolazione sq., Rome–pope Marcus’ basilica, Reggio Emilia: Baratte et al. 2002: 77–79; Ross 1965: 1,
pl. I–II; Fiocchi Nicolai 2013: 64; Degani 1959: 58, pl. XIX), whereas its round, cloisonné-decorated ending is rem-
iniscent of endings with openwork chi-rho motives (fig. 30:1–2), recorded in well-dated depositions both in the
first (Rome–pope Marcus’ basilica) and in the second half (Repcélak) of the 5th century (Fiocchi Nicolai 2013: 63;
Kiss 2001: 119, 123–126). The earrings with rectangular plate inlays and pearl or drop-shaped stone pendants from
Douar-ech-Chott and Thuburbo Maius, instead, find their best counterparts (fig. 30:3–8) in jewellery assemblages
deposited during the first half or the middle of the 5th century in the West Mediterranean area (Baratte et al. 2002:
80–81; Ross 1965: 2, pl. III–IV; Fiocchi Nicolai 2013: 64–65; Degani 1959: 66, pl. XXVIII:1–2). The finger rings are
inscribed in the same milieu: for instance, the dolphin-ended ring from Koudiat Zateur finds close counterparts
(fig. 30:15–16) in early fifth-century deposits both in the West and East (Johns, Potter 1983: 84, pl. 1; Džoržeti 1988:
30–32; see also Marec 1958: 56), whereas the octagonal finger rings, produced and used throughout the Roman
and early Merovingian periods, seem to be particularly widespread in the West Mediterranean during the late
5th century: at the cemetery of Estagel, for instance, they appear to be a chronological index of the periods 2 and 3
(440/450–500/510 AD) (Pinar forthcoming a).
Another gold-furnished grave, discovered in the cistern from the basilica at Hippo Regius (fig. 28E) should
probably be included in this group of graves. It contained a pair of polyhedron-headed pins; judging from the small
hooks on the head side, they were destined to fasten a breast adornment that may have included also the small gold
beads found in the grave, as counterparts (figs. 15:16–18; 29B–F) from Spain, Gaul, Italy and the middle Danube
area suggest (Rigaud da Sousa 1979: 296–300; Bayard et al. 1981: 202, pl. 20; Ross 1965: 1, pl. V; Ottományi 2001:
43, fig. 7; Opreanu, Luca 2007: 566, fig. 2–3; see some general remarks on the use of these objects in Pinar, Ripoll
2008: 115–116). The majority of parallel finds date from the first half of the 5th century, whereas some of them be-
long to its second half (Quast 2005: 263–270; Pinar, Ripoll 2008: 113–115). The closest counterparts though are to
be found in southern Spain; in that area, the pins are frequently combined with typical indexes of the D2 period
(see above). As said, the interpretation of these adornments is disputed: local or barbarian jewellery? (see above).
In our view, the example from Rome–Consolazione sq. and the frequent presence of late Roman beads and spac-
ers (especially evident in the Spanish finds) account on behalf of their West Mediterranean origin. It cannot be
however excluded that this sort of breast chains entered the post-Przeworsk repertoire of adornments in northern
Pannonia, together with other “late Roman” elements (see above). The four-leaved adornments in gold foil instead
are reminiscent of the female graves of the Untersiebenbrunn group, although they find no exact counterparts
464
Late Przeworsk and post-Przeworsk, Elbian and Danubian. Vandals, Suebi and the dissemination of Central European…
among them (Quast 2005: 272). It might therefore be regarded as a local, “mediterranized” version of barbarian
appliqués in gold foil. With both West Mediterranean and North Pontic traditions occurring together, this grave
must have been broadly coeval to the other members of the group. Another grave inside the basilica contained
two small gold earrings with thickened wire (fig. 28D), finding close counterparts (figs. 11D: 40–42; 30: 9–10) in
Baetica and also in Mediterranean gold deposits such as the Desana treasure (Aimone 2010: 83–84, fig. 55), ac-
cumulated in the mid to late 5th century. Judging from the available descriptions, these earrings would belong to
Ualilu’s grave goods (Marec 1958: 74–83).
All the available data thus agree on the fact that the earliest Vandal-period graves date from the second
third of the 5th century (broadly corresponding to Central European D2/D3 period), a chronology that is
indeed widely accepted by the scholarly community.
This type of assemblage, however, is not the only one recorded in Vandal-period Africa. Thus, visibly different
combinations of objects come from two graves discovered in an imprecise spot at Hippo Regius (fig. 31A–B), which
contained pairs of big disc brooches with cloisonné decoration (Quast 2005: 240–248). They have been dated to
the mid 5th century on typological and stylistic arguments (Quast 2005: 248–253; Eger 2012: 189–191, 227–230); it
seems to us that the chronology of the burials can be instead safely delayed to the last third of the 5th century. That
is suggested most clearly by the belt buckle in gr. No. 1, a “Byzantine” product belonging to Schulze-Dörrlamm’s
type B10, also known as Bône-Csongrád. The type occurs in few and problematic dating contexts (Kazanski 1994:
160–161; Riemer 2000: 206–207; Schulze-Dörrlamm 2002: 54–59; Quast 2005: 258; Eger 2012: 227–230) and is ge-
nerically attributed to the last two thirds of the 5th century. The lower chronological boundary, however, is largely
speculative and derives from the comparison with other types of buckles found in Merovingian cemeteries. In our
view, there is no solid argument suggesting that these objects started to be deposited before 470 AD. Comparable
forms and technical features are shown by other types of Byzantine buckles (e.g. Schulze-Dörrlamm’s type B11
in its three-riveted variant, as well as cloisonné-decorated types C5, C14 and C15) that ended up in graves of the
late 5th and early 6th century (Schulze-Dörrlamm 2002: 95–97, 120–129); in the West Mediterranean, similar belt
buckles started to be deposited not before 470/480 AD, as far as the evidence from Spain and Gaul can tell (Pinar
2017a: 22–24, 137; Legoux et al. 2004: 18, 33, 60). The composition of a deposit retrieved from the cistern P-1967 at
Chersonesos in Crimea (fig. 32C), containing a B10 buckle, adds further support to this assumption: the core of
the deposit consists of belt fittings dating from the late 5th century up to the middle of the 6th century (Gavrituhin
2002). A similar collection of belt fittings, including another B10 buckle, has been recorded within the early layers
of a shop at Sardis (fig. 32D), dated between the early 5th and early 7th centuries (Stephens Crawford 1990: 33–37).
All the objects were found in the upper part of the layer, so there is a good chance that they were deposited through-
out the 6th century. The collection of metal finds discovered at the hill fort of Zidani gaber near Mihovo in Slovenia
(fig. 32A) included two buckle plates with direct parallels in Vandal Africa: a B10 example and a kidney-shaped one,
comparable to the one from Arifridus’ grave (see below). The rest of the objects suggest, once again, a chronology
between 500 and 600 AD (Ciglenečki 2008: 507–508, fig. 13). An untypical iron version of a B10 buckle has been
retrieved at another Slovenian hill fort, that of Korinjski hrib. According to the available evidence, the site may
465
Jaroslav Jiřík, Joan Pinar Gil
have been occupied during a short time span, within the boundaries of the 6th century17. Let us conclude this short
survey on the available dating contexts with the examination of the objects retrieved from the plundered vault 6,
found at Kerc’ in 1905 (Škorpil 1909: 3–4). Objects from several graves (including a B10 belt buckle) were found
mixed on the vault’s floor (fig. 32E); according to A.I. Ajbabin, they date from the late 4th to the mid 7th century
(Ajbabin 1990: 19). Objects from the late 5th – early 6th century are well represented in this collection: in particu-
lar, a horse saddle of Zaseckaja’s type 4, variant V and a griffin-headed horse bit suggest a chronology between
AD 470–520 on the basis of parallel finds recorded in the northern Caucasus (Bylym–Kudinetovo, Djurso, horse
gr. No. 5: Ambroz 1989: fig. 30; Dmitriev 1979: 214–215, fig. 4:3), Scandinavia (Högom, mound No. 2: Ramqvist
1992: 31–146, pl. 41a), north-eastern Gaul (Charleville–Mézières gr. No. 68 and Krefeld–Gellep gr. No. 1782: Périn
1995: 247–250, fig. 9 and 15) and south-western Germany (Horb–Altheim gr. No. 69, located next to graves be-
longing to Ursula Koch’s periods 2–3: Beilharz 2011: 295, 305–306, pl. 52–53, 56–57). There is little doubt on the
dating of the westernmost assemblages; regarding the easternmost ones, it is important to stress the presence of
one-piece buckles with triangular plate in the assemblages of Kudinetovo and Djurso: these objects are associated
to late 5th – early 6th century brooches in North Pontic female graves (Kazanski 2002: 151; Gavrituhin, Kazanski
2010: 92–96, 130–131). Together with the B10 buckle and perhaps the rectangular buckle (see a similar combination
of horse harness in Djurso horse burial 9: Dmitriev 1979: 217, fig. 3), these objects from Kerch’ vault 6/1905 build
a consistent assemblage of a high-status male grave (Kazanski, Mastykova forthcoming), dating from the end of
the 5th century. Thus, the available evidence from both settlements and cemeteries, both in the East in the West,
agrees to attribute the deposition of B10 belt buckles to the time about 500 AD.
The big disc-shaped cloisonné brooches seem to confirm this chronological remark rather than to chal-
lenge it. The type is attested in Western European dating contexts only from the late 5th century on. A pair
of these brooches found in Louviers in northern Gaul (Carré, Jimenez 2008: 188–189) was accompanied by
a number of imported goods (fig. 32B): a pair of Anglo-Saxon button brooches and an iron belt buckle of type
Le Mouraut 104, a chronological index of Visigothic period 3 (470/480–500/510 AD). In view of the consis-
tency of the available morphological and typological arguments, we believe that they should prevail over the
strictly stylistic ones: Michael Schmauder, for instance, considered that the four brooches from Hippo Regius
should be regarded as evidence of the long period of use of some cloisonné motives, up to the early 6th century
(Schmauder 2002: 253–254). It is well known, indeed, that the diffusion and popularization of decorative mo-
tives did not always happen synchronically in the East and West: besides the aforementioned kidney-shaped
motives, examples such as the motives in Greek cross (documented about 430 AD in the East, and only from
470 AD in the West) or the symmetrically disposed pentalobate cells (late 5th century in the East, early 6th cen-
tury in the West) clearly illustrate this phenomenon.
If considered in a West Mediterranean perspective, the stylistic features of the cloisonné brooches
from Hippo Regius do fit well into the late 5th century cloisonné products. The main features of the
cloisonné decoration of the brooches from gr. No. 2 (rectangular or arch-shaped cells with small cen-
tral round cabochons and symmetrically disposed heart-shaped cells) appear in dating contexts of the
17 We are deeply thankful to Tina Milavec (Ljubljana) for kindly sharing information about her ongoing researches on the site.
466
Late Przeworsk and post-Przeworsk, Elbian and Danubian. Vandals, Suebi and the dissemination of Central European…
Visigothic area only in the last third of the 5th century and the first third of the 6th century (Pinar 2017a:
22–24, 40–41, 137, 140–141). Similarly, the heart-shaped cells were well known in central France and
North Africa by the late 5th century. In the Gourdon treasure, the motive appears on a basin decorated in
Tournai–Apahida cloisonné style; the treasure was though surely deposited after 518 AD (Lafaurie 1958;
Baratte, Metzger 1991: 307–308, 314). As for Africa, the belt fittings from La Calle/El Kala and Souk-
el-Khemis (Koenig 1981: 315–316; Laporte 1999: 378; Quast 2005: 277–278; Eger 2012: 373–374) suggest
a similar chronological framework: convincing formal counterparts from Maguelone gr. 2565 (Hernandez,
Raynaud 2005: 179, fig. 2) and Blanzac–Porcheresse gr. 561 (Djouad et al. forthcoming) can be attribut-
ed to Visigothic period 3 (470/480–500/510 AD) on topochronological grounds (Pinar 2017a: 22–24); in
Deersheim gr. 15 (central Germany), a similar belt buckle was found together with a tremissis minted
under Basiliscus, which places the burial after 475 AD (Schneider 1983: 266–269, pl. 22–24) (figs. 31D;
33E–F, I; 36:8). In Spain, some of these belt buckles were still in use in the early or mid 6th century (for
instance, fig. 33G): the deposition contexts suggest though that they were old objects by then (Pinar
2017b: 139–141). The decoration of the pair of cloisonné disc brooches from Hippo Regius gr. No. 1 shows
instead features that are extremely rare in the West, particularly the Greek cross with kidney-shaped cells
(Quast 1999b: 111–112; 2005: 248–250; 2007: 37–42). This pattern can perhaps be regarded as a forerunner
of Greek-cross cloisonné motives, popular in the West Mediterranean during the last third of the 5th cen-
tury, as finds from Spain, Italy and Slovenia suggest (Manzelli, Pinar 2017: 119–124). Should we accept
this hypothesis, then the use of the brooches from “Hippo Regius” gr. 1 should be placed somewhere
near 470 AD. In this regard, it is important to stress that the deposition of another western example of
kidney-shaped garnet inlays (the world-famous grave of king Childeric: fig. 33A) is surely dated from
about 481 AD (Quast 2015: 180, pl. 15, 18).
The available evidence, thus, suggests that the latest Vandal-period grave goods were buried during
the last third of the 5th century or the very beginning of the 6th century, in the period immediately after
the early group (D2/D3 stage). This group should be regarded as broadly coeval to Central European D3 and
early E1 stages. Therefore, it appears very likely that “barbarian-styled” clothed inhumation lasted in Vandal
Africa at least for two generations, throughout the last two thirds of the 5th century; the typological reper-
toire of the North African stray finds from the Vandal period outlines a similar picture (Eger 2012: 177–342).
“Contraction” and “mediterraneization”:
trends in the evolution of Vandal-period funerary assemblages
Comparing the components of the earlier and later groups of grave goods enable to define some overall
trends in the evolution of funerary deposits during the last two thirds of the 5th century.
As said, the earlier group (fig. 28) is defined by an unusual heterogeneity, as it integrated Mediterranean
jewellery sets, brooches of Central European tradition and selected elements of far-reaching barbarian
aristocratic fashions. The frequent presence of gold artefacts clearly indicates that these graves belonged to
exceptionally wealthy people.
467
Jaroslav Jiřík, Joan Pinar Gil
have been occupied during a short time span, within the boundaries of the 6th century17. Let us conclude this short
survey on the available dating contexts with the examination of the objects retrieved from the plundered vault 6,
found at Kerc’ in 1905 (Škorpil 1909: 3–4). Objects from several graves (including a B10 belt buckle) were found
mixed on the vault’s floor (fig. 32E); according to A.I. Ajbabin, they date from the late 4th to the mid 7th century
(Ajbabin 1990: 19). Objects from the late 5th – early 6th century are well represented in this collection: in particu-
lar, a horse saddle of Zaseckaja’s type 4, variant V and a griffin-headed horse bit suggest a chronology between
AD 470–520 on the basis of parallel finds recorded in the northern Caucasus (Bylym–Kudinetovo, Djurso, horse
gr. No. 5: Ambroz 1989: fig. 30; Dmitriev 1979: 214–215, fig. 4:3), Scandinavia (Högom, mound No. 2: Ramqvist
1992: 31–146, pl. 41a), north-eastern Gaul (Charleville–Mézières gr. No. 68 and Krefeld–Gellep gr. No. 1782: Périn
1995: 247–250, fig. 9 and 15) and south-western Germany (Horb–Altheim gr. No. 69, located next to graves be-
longing to Ursula Koch’s periods 2–3: Beilharz 2011: 295, 305–306, pl. 52–53, 56–57). There is little doubt on the
dating of the westernmost assemblages; regarding the easternmost ones, it is important to stress the presence of
one-piece buckles with triangular plate in the assemblages of Kudinetovo and Djurso: these objects are associated
to late 5th – early 6th century brooches in North Pontic female graves (Kazanski 2002: 151; Gavrituhin, Kazanski
2010: 92–96, 130–131). Together with the B10 buckle and perhaps the rectangular buckle (see a similar combination
of horse harness in Djurso horse burial 9: Dmitriev 1979: 217, fig. 3), these objects from Kerch’ vault 6/1905 build
a consistent assemblage of a high-status male grave (Kazanski, Mastykova forthcoming), dating from the end of
the 5th century. Thus, the available evidence from both settlements and cemeteries, both in the East in the West,
agrees to attribute the deposition of B10 belt buckles to the time about 500 AD.
The big disc-shaped cloisonné brooches seem to confirm this chronological remark rather than to chal-
lenge it. The type is attested in Western European dating contexts only from the late 5th century on. A pair
of these brooches found in Louviers in northern Gaul (Carré, Jimenez 2008: 188–189) was accompanied by
a number of imported goods (fig. 32B): a pair of Anglo-Saxon button brooches and an iron belt buckle of type
Le Mouraut 104, a chronological index of Visigothic period 3 (470/480–500/510 AD). In view of the consis-
tency of the available morphological and typological arguments, we believe that they should prevail over the
strictly stylistic ones: Michael Schmauder, for instance, considered that the four brooches from Hippo Regius
should be regarded as evidence of the long period of use of some cloisonné motives, up to the early 6th century
(Schmauder 2002: 253–254). It is well known, indeed, that the diffusion and popularization of decorative mo-
tives did not always happen synchronically in the East and West: besides the aforementioned kidney-shaped
motives, examples such as the motives in Greek cross (documented about 430 AD in the East, and only from
470 AD in the West) or the symmetrically disposed pentalobate cells (late 5th century in the East, early 6th cen-
tury in the West) clearly illustrate this phenomenon.
If considered in a West Mediterranean perspective, the stylistic features of the cloisonné brooches
from Hippo Regius do fit well into the late 5th century cloisonné products. The main features of the
cloisonné decoration of the brooches from gr. No. 2 (rectangular or arch-shaped cells with small cen-
tral round cabochons and symmetrically disposed heart-shaped cells) appear in dating contexts of the
17 We are deeply thankful to Tina Milavec (Ljubljana) for kindly sharing information about her ongoing researches on the site.
466
Late Przeworsk and post-Przeworsk, Elbian and Danubian. Vandals, Suebi and the dissemination of Central European…
Visigothic area only in the last third of the 5th century and the first third of the 6th century (Pinar 2017a:
22–24, 40–41, 137, 140–141). Similarly, the heart-shaped cells were well known in central France and
North Africa by the late 5th century. In the Gourdon treasure, the motive appears on a basin decorated in
Tournai–Apahida cloisonné style; the treasure was though surely deposited after 518 AD (Lafaurie 1958;
Baratte, Metzger 1991: 307–308, 314). As for Africa, the belt fittings from La Calle/El Kala and Souk-
el-Khemis (Koenig 1981: 315–316; Laporte 1999: 378; Quast 2005: 277–278; Eger 2012: 373–374) suggest
a similar chronological framework: convincing formal counterparts from Maguelone gr. 2565 (Hernandez,
Raynaud 2005: 179, fig. 2) and Blanzac–Porcheresse gr. 561 (Djouad et al. forthcoming) can be attribut-
ed to Visigothic period 3 (470/480–500/510 AD) on topochronological grounds (Pinar 2017a: 22–24); in
Deersheim gr. 15 (central Germany), a similar belt buckle was found together with a tremissis minted
under Basiliscus, which places the burial after 475 AD (Schneider 1983: 266–269, pl. 22–24) (figs. 31D;
33E–F, I; 36:8). In Spain, some of these belt buckles were still in use in the early or mid 6th century (for
instance, fig. 33G): the deposition contexts suggest though that they were old objects by then (Pinar
2017b: 139–141). The decoration of the pair of cloisonné disc brooches from Hippo Regius gr. No. 1 shows
instead features that are extremely rare in the West, particularly the Greek cross with kidney-shaped cells
(Quast 1999b: 111–112; 2005: 248–250; 2007: 37–42). This pattern can perhaps be regarded as a forerunner
of Greek-cross cloisonné motives, popular in the West Mediterranean during the last third of the 5th cen-
tury, as finds from Spain, Italy and Slovenia suggest (Manzelli, Pinar 2017: 119–124). Should we accept
this hypothesis, then the use of the brooches from “Hippo Regius” gr. 1 should be placed somewhere
near 470 AD. In this regard, it is important to stress that the deposition of another western example of
kidney-shaped garnet inlays (the world-famous grave of king Childeric: fig. 33A) is surely dated from
about 481 AD (Quast 2015: 180, pl. 15, 18).
The available evidence, thus, suggests that the latest Vandal-period grave goods were buried during
the last third of the 5th century or the very beginning of the 6th century, in the period immediately after
the early group (D2/D3 stage). This group should be regarded as broadly coeval to Central European D3 and
early E1 stages. Therefore, it appears very likely that “barbarian-styled” clothed inhumation lasted in Vandal
Africa at least for two generations, throughout the last two thirds of the 5th century; the typological reper-
toire of the North African stray finds from the Vandal period outlines a similar picture (Eger 2012: 177–342).
“Contraction” and “mediterraneization”:
trends in the evolution of Vandal-period funerary assemblages
Comparing the components of the earlier and later groups of grave goods enable to define some overall
trends in the evolution of funerary deposits during the last two thirds of the 5th century.
As said, the earlier group (fig. 28) is defined by an unusual heterogeneity, as it integrated Mediterranean
jewellery sets, brooches of Central European tradition and selected elements of far-reaching barbarian
aristocratic fashions. The frequent presence of gold artefacts clearly indicates that these graves belonged to
exceptionally wealthy people.
467
Jaroslav Jiřík, Joan Pinar Gil
This type of assemblage, however, underwent evident transformations as time went by. Thus,
a comparison with later graves (fig. 31A–B) outlines two major phenomena: the quantity of objects
deposited in the grave was dramatically reduced and the typology of the objects is clearly inscribed
in Mediterranean traditions rather than in Central European, “barbarian” ones. The comparison
between the combination of clothing accessories from Koudiat Zâteur and “Hippo Regius” gr. 1 il-
lustrates well this phenomenon: the use of similar combinations of accessories (a pair of brooches
and a belt buckle) suggests that the two deceased women were buried dressed in analogous types of
clothes; the later accessories, however, show no particular connections to barbarian milieus anymore.
In addition, the presence of non-functional adornments (such as earrings, necklaces or finger rings)
seems to be much weaker in the later graves18: the earrings from “Hippo Regius” gr. 2 are the only
recorded example. Moreover, it seems that the average cost of the grave goods decreased: the later
assemblages contained fewer objects, which in addition appear to be “cheaper” than the earlier ones.
Let us compare once more Koudiat Zâteur and “Hippo Regius” gr. 1: the earlier cloisonné brooches
were made of garnet-on-gold, whereas the later consisted in garnet and glass on a copper-alloy (per-
haps gilded) support; the earlier belt buckle was made of gold and garnets, while the later one, in
gilded bronze. As a matter of fact, the earlier graves contained bigger quantities of gold (brooches,
earrings, necklaces...) than the later ones (only earrings). Although they were probably quite expen-
sive combinations of objects, late 5th century assemblages appear to be significantly cheaper than the
earlier ones (Quast 2005: 262; Eger 2012: 322).
The number of assemblages available to make such an analysis is extremely small; furthermore, we have
no consistent local or regional archaeological series. However, the underlying trend seems to be easy to
identify: “barbarian” traditions were gradually replaced by Mediterranean ones.
This process of “mediterraneization” of the grave goods can be somehow regarded as the final stage of
the “reduction” of the east Germanic traditional female costume, a process that M. Mączyńska outlined
some time ago (Tempelmann-Mączyńska 1989). The Vandal case, however, shows a number of specificities,
which find their best parallels in other territories of the West between the 5th and 6th centuries (Martin
1991; Pinar 2015: 263–270). In Visigothic Spain, a thorough qualitative examination of the grave goods sug-
gests that this process is mirrored somewhat earlier by the most expensive grave goods than by the cheaper
ones: that suggests a descendant model of fashion dissemination (Pinar 2016: 38–40). Due of the extremely
restrained number of samples, no comparable data are available for Vandal Africa so far.
Mediterranean taste had also a big influence on male clothing during the Vandal period, to the extent that the
grave goods known so far (Arifridus’ grave and Souk-el-Khemis gr. No. 1: fig. 31C–D) are purely Mediterranean.
Both graves are broadly coeval to the late 5th-century graves of Hippo Regius. The recent identification of the
bronze buckle from Arifridus’ grave as a kidney-shaped “Byzantine” product (Eger 2012: 204–205) enables to place
it to the late 5th – early 6th century: again, the use of this type in the West is not attested before 470/480 AD, as
the combination of brooches from Straubing–Bayuwarenstraße gr. 100 (Geisler 1998: 26, pl. 24), Childeric’s grave
18 Assuming, of course, that the preserved objects do correspond to the original content of the grave, something that cannot be proven so far.
468
Late Przeworsk and post-Przeworsk, Elbian and Danubian. Vandals, Suebi and the dissemination of Central European…
(Quast 2015) and the aforementioned settlement context at Zidani gaber (Ciglenečki 2008: 507, fig. 3:12) suggest
(figs. 32A; 33A–B). The best parallels for Arifridus’ buckles with D-shaped plates come actually from Souk-el-
Khemis gr. No. 1: their association with a rectangular cloisonné belt plate suggests clearly a chronology in the last
third of the 5th century (see above). The oval brooch from Arifridus’ grave finds a number of formal counterparts
in the Mediterranean and Pontic regions as well as in northern Gaul; scholars propose a wide dating, between the
mid 5th and the early 6th century (Marti 1990: 49–52; Martin 1994: 569; Quast 1996: 533; 1999b: 113; 2005: 273–276;
2006: 262; Legoux 2005: 319–320; Mastykova 2009: 36–37, 245; Eger 2012: 192–195). Again, the available West
Mediterranean dating contexts (fig. 33D, H) suggest a chronology within the last third of the 5th century: Duratón
gr. 169 (Molinero Pérez 1948: 56, pl. XXXI.4, L.3; 1971: pl. XIV.2) is topochronologically dated to 470/480–500/510
AD (Pinar 2017a: 22–24), whereas a number of coins (tpq in 355 and 364 AD) and fragments of TSAD pottery
(Hayes’ types 88, 93, 95 and 99) date the deposition of the brooches from US 102 and 116 at Castellu (Corsica) after
470 AD (Pergola, Vismara 1989: 27–38; Bonifay 2004: 175–177, 181).
Grave goods, it seems, virtually disappear from Vandal Africa around 500 AD. That further confirms the
tendency towards “mediterraneization”, as the deposition of grave goods inside the graves occurs seldom in the
Mediterranean area, both in the times preceding and following the Vandal period. This trend is further confirmed
by other archaeological sources. D. Quast summed up the problem of the relation between Vandal-period grave
goods and Germanic names in grave inscriptions (Quast 2005: 290–293, fig. 44). They of course are sources be-
longing to different categories, and their mutual dialog does not always convey consistent results, for they address
and mirror clearly different cultural aspects. Moreover, no extensive corpus of evidence is available, as grave goods
and Germanic names occur only three times together. Anyway, a clear tendency is outlined: the earliest grave
goods never occur together with funerary inscriptions, whereas one of the later, “mediterraneized” grave goods
do (Arifridus’ grave); a similar case could have been that of Ualilu’s grave (fig. 28D), buried with a rather discrete
jewellery set that apparently fits better into the Mediterranean aesthetic standards than into the “barbarian” ones.
It is important to stress that none of the epigraphically or stylistically later “Vandal” inscriptions (6th century) has
been ever connected to any grave good. Funerary epigraphy is deeply rooted in Mediterranean traditions, it was
quite popular among North African wealthy strata during Late Antiquity (Duval 1976). It can be therefore hy-
pothesized that there was an interdependence between the decrease in “barbarian” grave goods and the increase
in Mediterranean grave inscriptions. If we assume that both grave goods and Germanic names address to a similar
social group, as their coincident geographic distribution suggests (Quast 2005: 292, fig. 43), then it turns out that
the funerals and graves of the descendants of the people having left the earliest Vandal-period grave goods became
virtually indistinguishable within a couple of generations.
Final remarks on the typological repertory in Vandal-period Africa
The early repertoire identified at the graves can be completed through a number of stray finds. Two of them
appear to be of remarkable importance to underline our diagnose on the processes taken place in Central
Europe. The first one is a late (judging from its proportions) derivate from Wiesbaden-type brooch found
at Djémila (Kazanski 2000: 192; Quast 2005: 286; Eger 2008: 189–190; 2012: 187–189). This type of object
469
Jaroslav Jiřík, Joan Pinar Gil
This type of assemblage, however, underwent evident transformations as time went by. Thus,
a comparison with later graves (fig. 31A–B) outlines two major phenomena: the quantity of objects
deposited in the grave was dramatically reduced and the typology of the objects is clearly inscribed
in Mediterranean traditions rather than in Central European, “barbarian” ones. The comparison
between the combination of clothing accessories from Koudiat Zâteur and “Hippo Regius” gr. 1 il-
lustrates well this phenomenon: the use of similar combinations of accessories (a pair of brooches
and a belt buckle) suggests that the two deceased women were buried dressed in analogous types of
clothes; the later accessories, however, show no particular connections to barbarian milieus anymore.
In addition, the presence of non-functional adornments (such as earrings, necklaces or finger rings)
seems to be much weaker in the later graves18: the earrings from “Hippo Regius” gr. 2 are the only
recorded example. Moreover, it seems that the average cost of the grave goods decreased: the later
assemblages contained fewer objects, which in addition appear to be “cheaper” than the earlier ones.
Let us compare once more Koudiat Zâteur and “Hippo Regius” gr. 1: the earlier cloisonné brooches
were made of garnet-on-gold, whereas the later consisted in garnet and glass on a copper-alloy (per-
haps gilded) support; the earlier belt buckle was made of gold and garnets, while the later one, in
gilded bronze. As a matter of fact, the earlier graves contained bigger quantities of gold (brooches,
earrings, necklaces...) than the later ones (only earrings). Although they were probably quite expen-
sive combinations of objects, late 5th century assemblages appear to be significantly cheaper than the
earlier ones (Quast 2005: 262; Eger 2012: 322).
The number of assemblages available to make such an analysis is extremely small; furthermore, we have
no consistent local or regional archaeological series. However, the underlying trend seems to be easy to
identify: “barbarian” traditions were gradually replaced by Mediterranean ones.
This process of “mediterraneization” of the grave goods can be somehow regarded as the final stage of
the “reduction” of the east Germanic traditional female costume, a process that M. Mączyńska outlined
some time ago (Tempelmann-Mączyńska 1989). The Vandal case, however, shows a number of specificities,
which find their best parallels in other territories of the West between the 5th and 6th centuries (Martin
1991; Pinar 2015: 263–270). In Visigothic Spain, a thorough qualitative examination of the grave goods sug-
gests that this process is mirrored somewhat earlier by the most expensive grave goods than by the cheaper
ones: that suggests a descendant model of fashion dissemination (Pinar 2016: 38–40). Due of the extremely
restrained number of samples, no comparable data are available for Vandal Africa so far.
Mediterranean taste had also a big influence on male clothing during the Vandal period, to the extent that the
grave goods known so far (Arifridus’ grave and Souk-el-Khemis gr. No. 1: fig. 31C–D) are purely Mediterranean.
Both graves are broadly coeval to the late 5th-century graves of Hippo Regius. The recent identification of the
bronze buckle from Arifridus’ grave as a kidney-shaped “Byzantine” product (Eger 2012: 204–205) enables to place
it to the late 5th – early 6th century: again, the use of this type in the West is not attested before 470/480 AD, as
the combination of brooches from Straubing–Bayuwarenstraße gr. 100 (Geisler 1998: 26, pl. 24), Childeric’s grave
18 Assuming, of course, that the preserved objects do correspond to the original content of the grave, something that cannot be proven so far.
468
Late Przeworsk and post-Przeworsk, Elbian and Danubian. Vandals, Suebi and the dissemination of Central European…
(Quast 2015) and the aforementioned settlement context at Zidani gaber (Ciglenečki 2008: 507, fig. 3:12) suggest
(figs. 32A; 33A–B). The best parallels for Arifridus’ buckles with D-shaped plates come actually from Souk-el-
Khemis gr. No. 1: their association with a rectangular cloisonné belt plate suggests clearly a chronology in the last
third of the 5th century (see above). The oval brooch from Arifridus’ grave finds a number of formal counterparts
in the Mediterranean and Pontic regions as well as in northern Gaul; scholars propose a wide dating, between the
mid 5th and the early 6th century (Marti 1990: 49–52; Martin 1994: 569; Quast 1996: 533; 1999b: 113; 2005: 273–276;
2006: 262; Legoux 2005: 319–320; Mastykova 2009: 36–37, 245; Eger 2012: 192–195). Again, the available West
Mediterranean dating contexts (fig. 33D, H) suggest a chronology within the last third of the 5th century: Duratón
gr. 169 (Molinero Pérez 1948: 56, pl. XXXI.4, L.3; 1971: pl. XIV.2) is topochronologically dated to 470/480–500/510
AD (Pinar 2017a: 22–24), whereas a number of coins (tpq in 355 and 364 AD) and fragments of TSAD pottery
(Hayes’ types 88, 93, 95 and 99) date the deposition of the brooches from US 102 and 116 at Castellu (Corsica) after
470 AD (Pergola, Vismara 1989: 27–38; Bonifay 2004: 175–177, 181).
Grave goods, it seems, virtually disappear from Vandal Africa around 500 AD. That further confirms the
tendency towards “mediterraneization”, as the deposition of grave goods inside the graves occurs seldom in the
Mediterranean area, both in the times preceding and following the Vandal period. This trend is further confirmed
by other archaeological sources. D. Quast summed up the problem of the relation between Vandal-period grave
goods and Germanic names in grave inscriptions (Quast 2005: 290–293, fig. 44). They of course are sources be-
longing to different categories, and their mutual dialog does not always convey consistent results, for they address
and mirror clearly different cultural aspects. Moreover, no extensive corpus of evidence is available, as grave goods
and Germanic names occur only three times together. Anyway, a clear tendency is outlined: the earliest grave
goods never occur together with funerary inscriptions, whereas one of the later, “mediterraneized” grave goods
do (Arifridus’ grave); a similar case could have been that of Ualilu’s grave (fig. 28D), buried with a rather discrete
jewellery set that apparently fits better into the Mediterranean aesthetic standards than into the “barbarian” ones.
It is important to stress that none of the epigraphically or stylistically later “Vandal” inscriptions (6th century) has
been ever connected to any grave good. Funerary epigraphy is deeply rooted in Mediterranean traditions, it was
quite popular among North African wealthy strata during Late Antiquity (Duval 1976). It can be therefore hy-
pothesized that there was an interdependence between the decrease in “barbarian” grave goods and the increase
in Mediterranean grave inscriptions. If we assume that both grave goods and Germanic names address to a similar
social group, as their coincident geographic distribution suggests (Quast 2005: 292, fig. 43), then it turns out that
the funerals and graves of the descendants of the people having left the earliest Vandal-period grave goods became
virtually indistinguishable within a couple of generations.
Final remarks on the typological repertory in Vandal-period Africa
The early repertoire identified at the graves can be completed through a number of stray finds. Two of them
appear to be of remarkable importance to underline our diagnose on the processes taken place in Central
Europe. The first one is a late (judging from its proportions) derivate from Wiesbaden-type brooch found
at Djémila (Kazanski 2000: 192; Quast 2005: 286; Eger 2008: 189–190; 2012: 187–189). This type of object
469
Jaroslav Jiřík, Joan Pinar Gil
was produced and used over a wide area in Central Europe during the first half of the 5th century (Werner
1981); as seen, it was well known in the Main valley and the Rheinhessen at the time of the Rhine cross-
ing. It is therefore not unlikely that the type entered the repertoire of clothing accessories of the crossers
during the first years of the 5th century. On behalf of this proposal speak the proportions of the rhomboid
footplate of the African brooch, closer to the finds from Wiesbaden, Thüngersheim and Gaukönigshofen
than to the parallels in Central and Eastern Germany (Werner 1981: app. 2: 2–3, 8–9). The simple, punched
decoration of the Djémila example, moreover, finds a particularly close parallel in Wiesbaden. On the
other hand, the form of the foot of the African brooch finds its best parallels in the North Carpathian
group of the Przeworsk culture (particularly at Kšinná, where a pair of luxury one-pieced brooches dat-
ing from the D2 period has been found: Werner 1981: 250; see also Tejral 1997: 337 on the chronology
of these brooches). As a matter of fact, the “intermingling” of the forms and decorative patterns of the
brooches of type Wiesbaden with A 184 bow brooches (the famous Zakrzów type) underlines the “eastern
connection”. The brooch from the aforementioned hoard from Mainz–Kastel represents an actual chain
link between the Kšinná and the Djémila brooches, as it displays a sort of halfway form and decoration
(fig. 34). D. Neubauer connected the “classical” brooches of the type Wiesbaden and their dissemination
in the lower Main valley to the settlement of the Burgundians (Neubauer 1998b: 143); on the basis of the
available evidence it appears very likely that the dissemination of the westernmost Wiesbaden brooches
was instead connected to the processes and events leading to the Rhine crossing of 406 AD. The deposits
of Banská Bystrica–Selce and Mainz–Kastel give interesting snapshots of two different moments of the
sequence. The first one is connected with the violent end of a settlement, probably caused by a nomad-
ic raid: it thus suggests what was the ultimate cause of the “domino effect” shown by the historically
attested migrations of Central European populations to the West. The hoard of Mainz–Kastel, instead,
probably mirrors the historical events following Constantine III’s raise to power and his fights with the
Rhine crossers in 407–408 AD.
Another form connected with Barbaricum traditions is well attested in Africa, but so far not in
Spain or elsewhere in the West: the cloisonné bow brooches of type Koudiat Zâteur (Quast 2005:
286–288; Eger 2001: 353–361; 2008: 184–187; 2012: 177–182, pl. 1: 4–5, 6: 8, 10: 7, 15: 8). A morphologically
very similar example, yet made in undecorated silver sheet and found somewhere in Carthage (Eger
2001: 361, fig. 7: 2; 2008: 184–185; 2012: 183, pl. 1:3), confirms the link between the African type and
the forms produced in the European Barbaricum (fig. 35). The Central European prototypes (type
Ambroz I A A) belong to the D1 stage and are widely spread in the Carpathian basin (for example,
F ȋ nt ȋ nele “R ȋt”, gr. No. 13 and the aforementioned Tiszadob–Sziget, gr. No. 18: Marinescu, Gaiu
1989: 131, fig. 7a; Istvánovits 1992: 95, fig. 2:8; see also Tejral 1997: 330, fig. 9:10–13, 10:10, 11:1–2, 8–9;
Nothnagel 2013: 52–54, 102, fig. 10); this fact highlights the already suggested affinities between the
finds in the north-western part of the Carpathian basin and the Roman West (see above). This type
of bow brooch, as said, has not been recorded in Spain so far; it is however known in Raetia (fig. 6:
1), the Main valley (fig. 7: 9), in the Bourgogne post-Przeworsk cluster (fig. 11A: 9) and in Reims in
northern Gaul (fig. 11C: 50), a city in which the presence of Alans in the early 5 th century is explicitly
470
Late Przeworsk and post-Przeworsk, Elbian and Danubian. Vandals, Suebi and the dissemination of Central European…
recorded by the written sources (Kazanski 1986). That might be a hint that this type of brooch reached
the West together with the Alan groups19; as said, the geographical distribution of some Villafontana-
type bow brooches suggest a similar explanation (see above). The aforementioned bow brooches from
Götting and Schloßberg near Geisfeld could thus be regarded as evidence for the presence of Alans
in the processes recorded at Raetia and at the Main valley (see above). The city of Reims, it seems,
offers a small-size sample of the typological repertory of objects related to the 406-Rhine crossers in
the West: besides the mentioned brooch, a gold, cloisonné-decorated belt buckle (fig. 11C: 51) find-
ing an almost exact counterpart in Baetica is presumed to have been found somewhere in or around
the city (Kleemann 2008: 93–94, fig. 8).
To a certain extent, the Central European reminiscences displayed by the small crossbow brooches from
Thuburbo Maius (figs. 11E:55; 28A) are comparable to those of the Koudiat Zâteur bow brooches. As said,
the general form of these objects finds good counterparts in Moravia and Raetia (see above). According to
M. Schulze-Dörrlamm (1986: 638–639), the peculiar technological features of the African brooches (the
hinge embracing the spring from below) find their best counterparts in the territory between the North-
Eastern Alps and the Danube valley.
As our analysis on Vandal-period grave goods has shown, the later horizon of clothed inhumation cor-
responds broadly to the last third of the 5th century, and it is defined by a broad use of accessories produced
in the Mediterranean area and deeply rooted in local fashions and dress styles: big disc brooches with cloi-
sonné decoration, oval brooches with inlaid stones, belt brooches with punched or cloisonné decoration and
composite belt sets are widely attested in other parts of the West Mediterranean. The typological repertory
of late 5th century North Africa, significantly enlarged and updated in the last years, can be nowadays cer-
tainly identified as a part of a West Mediterranean “clothing koiné”, into which different Barbaricum-rooted
traditions eventually merged and faded (fig. 36).
This is also stressed by an important, yet fragmentarily known find from the Oristano region in
Sardinia. It is an eagle-shaped brooch with cloisonné decoration (fig. 36:10), known only from an old
photograph preserved in L. Caballero’s personal archive20. The object is a close counterpart for the fa-
mous brooch from Sant’ Ambrogio in Milano (Bierbrauer 1975: 286–288, pl. XXVI:1), and appears to
be a unique find in Vandal-period Sardinia. The cloisonné motives in the centre of the wings of the
Milano brooch fit well into the western finds of the last third of the 5th century. The type should there-
fore be counted among the earliest eagle-shaped brooches found in the West, together with the Ville-sur-
Cousance/Talavera type, sparsely attested in Gaul and Spain during the same period (Pinar forthcoming
b). The distribution of these two types of West Mediterranean brooches point out that they hardly were
connected to any specific ethno-cultural or political regional entity: if the Ville-sur-Cousance/Talavera
type is attested in Visigothic Spain and Frankish Gaul, the Milano/“Oristano” brooches occur in Vandal
19 Ambroz I AA bow brooches occurred also in the Northern Caucasus together with other post-Černjahov indexes; researchers tend to
attribute some of these finds to Alan populations (see for instance Kazanski, Mastykova 2003).
20 A copy of the picture was handed to Prof. Caballero by the archaeologist Sebastiano Demurtas, without any precise data on the circu-
mstances or location of the find. Joan Pinar wish to sincerely thank Prof. Caballero for kindly sharing information on this important
document.
471
Jaroslav Jiřík, Joan Pinar Gil
was produced and used over a wide area in Central Europe during the first half of the 5th century (Werner
1981); as seen, it was well known in the Main valley and the Rheinhessen at the time of the Rhine cross-
ing. It is therefore not unlikely that the type entered the repertoire of clothing accessories of the crossers
during the first years of the 5th century. On behalf of this proposal speak the proportions of the rhomboid
footplate of the African brooch, closer to the finds from Wiesbaden, Thüngersheim and Gaukönigshofen
than to the parallels in Central and Eastern Germany (Werner 1981: app. 2: 2–3, 8–9). The simple, punched
decoration of the Djémila example, moreover, finds a particularly close parallel in Wiesbaden. On the
other hand, the form of the foot of the African brooch finds its best parallels in the North Carpathian
group of the Przeworsk culture (particularly at Kšinná, where a pair of luxury one-pieced brooches dat-
ing from the D2 period has been found: Werner 1981: 250; see also Tejral 1997: 337 on the chronology
of these brooches). As a matter of fact, the “intermingling” of the forms and decorative patterns of the
brooches of type Wiesbaden with A 184 bow brooches (the famous Zakrzów type) underlines the “eastern
connection”. The brooch from the aforementioned hoard from Mainz–Kastel represents an actual chain
link between the Kšinná and the Djémila brooches, as it displays a sort of halfway form and decoration
(fig. 34). D. Neubauer connected the “classical” brooches of the type Wiesbaden and their dissemination
in the lower Main valley to the settlement of the Burgundians (Neubauer 1998b: 143); on the basis of the
available evidence it appears very likely that the dissemination of the westernmost Wiesbaden brooches
was instead connected to the processes and events leading to the Rhine crossing of 406 AD. The deposits
of Banská Bystrica–Selce and Mainz–Kastel give interesting snapshots of two different moments of the
sequence. The first one is connected with the violent end of a settlement, probably caused by a nomad-
ic raid: it thus suggests what was the ultimate cause of the “domino effect” shown by the historically
attested migrations of Central European populations to the West. The hoard of Mainz–Kastel, instead,
probably mirrors the historical events following Constantine III’s raise to power and his fights with the
Rhine crossers in 407–408 AD.
Another form connected with Barbaricum traditions is well attested in Africa, but so far not in
Spain or elsewhere in the West: the cloisonné bow brooches of type Koudiat Zâteur (Quast 2005:
286–288; Eger 2001: 353–361; 2008: 184–187; 2012: 177–182, pl. 1: 4–5, 6: 8, 10: 7, 15: 8). A morphologically
very similar example, yet made in undecorated silver sheet and found somewhere in Carthage (Eger
2001: 361, fig. 7: 2; 2008: 184–185; 2012: 183, pl. 1:3), confirms the link between the African type and
the forms produced in the European Barbaricum (fig. 35). The Central European prototypes (type
Ambroz I A A) belong to the D1 stage and are widely spread in the Carpathian basin (for example,
F ȋ nt ȋ nele “R ȋt”, gr. No. 13 and the aforementioned Tiszadob–Sziget, gr. No. 18: Marinescu, Gaiu
1989: 131, fig. 7a; Istvánovits 1992: 95, fig. 2:8; see also Tejral 1997: 330, fig. 9:10–13, 10:10, 11:1–2, 8–9;
Nothnagel 2013: 52–54, 102, fig. 10); this fact highlights the already suggested affinities between the
finds in the north-western part of the Carpathian basin and the Roman West (see above). This type
of bow brooch, as said, has not been recorded in Spain so far; it is however known in Raetia (fig. 6:
1), the Main valley (fig. 7: 9), in the Bourgogne post-Przeworsk cluster (fig. 11A: 9) and in Reims in
northern Gaul (fig. 11C: 50), a city in which the presence of Alans in the early 5 th century is explicitly
470
Late Przeworsk and post-Przeworsk, Elbian and Danubian. Vandals, Suebi and the dissemination of Central European…
recorded by the written sources (Kazanski 1986). That might be a hint that this type of brooch reached
the West together with the Alan groups19; as said, the geographical distribution of some Villafontana-
type bow brooches suggest a similar explanation (see above). The aforementioned bow brooches from
Götting and Schloßberg near Geisfeld could thus be regarded as evidence for the presence of Alans
in the processes recorded at Raetia and at the Main valley (see above). The city of Reims, it seems,
offers a small-size sample of the typological repertory of objects related to the 406-Rhine crossers in
the West: besides the mentioned brooch, a gold, cloisonné-decorated belt buckle (fig. 11C: 51) find-
ing an almost exact counterpart in Baetica is presumed to have been found somewhere in or around
the city (Kleemann 2008: 93–94, fig. 8).
To a certain extent, the Central European reminiscences displayed by the small crossbow brooches from
Thuburbo Maius (figs. 11E:55; 28A) are comparable to those of the Koudiat Zâteur bow brooches. As said,
the general form of these objects finds good counterparts in Moravia and Raetia (see above). According to
M. Schulze-Dörrlamm (1986: 638–639), the peculiar technological features of the African brooches (the
hinge embracing the spring from below) find their best counterparts in the territory between the North-
Eastern Alps and the Danube valley.
As our analysis on Vandal-period grave goods has shown, the later horizon of clothed inhumation cor-
responds broadly to the last third of the 5th century, and it is defined by a broad use of accessories produced
in the Mediterranean area and deeply rooted in local fashions and dress styles: big disc brooches with cloi-
sonné decoration, oval brooches with inlaid stones, belt brooches with punched or cloisonné decoration and
composite belt sets are widely attested in other parts of the West Mediterranean. The typological repertory
of late 5th century North Africa, significantly enlarged and updated in the last years, can be nowadays cer-
tainly identified as a part of a West Mediterranean “clothing koiné”, into which different Barbaricum-rooted
traditions eventually merged and faded (fig. 36).
This is also stressed by an important, yet fragmentarily known find from the Oristano region in
Sardinia. It is an eagle-shaped brooch with cloisonné decoration (fig. 36:10), known only from an old
photograph preserved in L. Caballero’s personal archive20. The object is a close counterpart for the fa-
mous brooch from Sant’ Ambrogio in Milano (Bierbrauer 1975: 286–288, pl. XXVI:1), and appears to
be a unique find in Vandal-period Sardinia. The cloisonné motives in the centre of the wings of the
Milano brooch fit well into the western finds of the last third of the 5th century. The type should there-
fore be counted among the earliest eagle-shaped brooches found in the West, together with the Ville-sur-
Cousance/Talavera type, sparsely attested in Gaul and Spain during the same period (Pinar forthcoming
b). The distribution of these two types of West Mediterranean brooches point out that they hardly were
connected to any specific ethno-cultural or political regional entity: if the Ville-sur-Cousance/Talavera
type is attested in Visigothic Spain and Frankish Gaul, the Milano/“Oristano” brooches occur in Vandal
19 Ambroz I AA bow brooches occurred also in the Northern Caucasus together with other post-Černjahov indexes; researchers tend to
attribute some of these finds to Alan populations (see for instance Kazanski, Mastykova 2003).
20 A copy of the picture was handed to Prof. Caballero by the archaeologist Sebastiano Demurtas, without any precise data on the circu-
mstances or location of the find. Joan Pinar wish to sincerely thank Prof. Caballero for kindly sharing information on this important
document.
471
Jaroslav Jiřík, Joan Pinar Gil
Sardinia and Herul/Ostrogothic Italy. The “Oristano” find, together with a bronze eagle-shaped brooch
with punched and carved decoration kept in the Museum of Carthage (Eger 2012: 198–199, pl. 2:1), shows
that this group of brooches (particularly well attested in Italy and Spain) was also known and used in
the Vandal kingdom.
Conclusions
In spite of numerous gaps in our knowledge, the collected material suffices to propose a general picture of
the processes connected to the movements of Vandals and Suebi (and Alans) at the end of Antiquity, in-
cluding their mutual links and eventual offshoots.
Our survey on selected evidence from Central Europe and the Mediterranean basin clearly shows the
dynamic character of the societies dwelling in the Central European Barbaricum and the complexity of
both their inner bounds and the supra-regional networks in which they took part. These changes were
already taking place long before the arrival of the Huns in Europe, and are perceivable throughout a num-
ber of examples of intensive long-range contacts and processes of “internationalization” of aesthetic tastes
and status symbols. In the examined territories west to the Carpathian basin and north to the Middle Danube,
these processes are clearly attested during the C3 stage. The following chronological stage (D1) witnessed
the intensification of these processes, with a wide diffusion over Central and Western Europe of “eastern
elements” originated in the territories of the Roman-period Przeworsk, Černjachov and Wielbark cultures;
broadly at the same time, a number of artefacts and habits connected with the nomadic cultures of the
Eurasian steppes appeared in Europe.
In some spots of the Western Roman provinces (especially, in eastern Gaul and in Hispania’s South-
west), the occurrence of “eastern” elements can be recognized as one of the material traces of the move-
ments of Vandals, Suebi and Alans; a comparison between this piece of evidence can also shed some
light on some archaeological sequences which seem to have been invisible to the Late Antique writers.
That is the case of the repeatedly observed association between late Elbe-Germanic and (post-)Przeworsk
cultural elements in Raetia and in the Main valley, which in our view must be regarded as one of the
archaeological sequences culminating in the shaping out of the material repertory of the 406-Rhine
crossers. The phenomena identified along the Main valley is of particular interest: acting as a natural
corridor for two-way connections between the Rhineland and the easternmost part of Central Europe,
it may have played a significant role in the recruitment of the Rhine crossers. Another interesting se-
quence, as said, is located in the north-western Carpathian basin. In that area, the outcome of the over-
all processes taking place during the D1 stage was a repertory of portable objects and burial customs
that directly foreshadowed early 5th century finds in Gaul and Hispania. The combination of these two
different archaeological sequences (Elbe-Germanic and circum-Carpathian) explains a high percentage
of the traces of material culture left by the migration of Vandals, Suebi and Alans to the West. Using
written sources to locate precisely ancient populations in this part of the Barbaricum is a delicate ques-
tion; however, the available archaeological datasets of the late 4th – early 5th century agree with the Late
472
Late Przeworsk and post-Przeworsk, Elbian and Danubian. Vandals, Suebi and the dissemination of Central European…
Antique commentators on the participation of at least parts of the Suebi and of the Vandal Hasdings in
the westward displacements. Furthermore, the material evidence also suggests that these groups were
from the first moment remarkably heterogeneous in terms of material culture, and also that they were
probably enlarged by other groups in a more or less permanent way.
Every piece of evidence suggests that the boundaries between the material culture of Suebi, Vandals
and Alans faded away at an early stage of their migration westwards. As far as the limited traces from
Gaul and Hispania can tell, it seems that the process bringing together Suevic and Vandal traditions was
already finished at the beginning of the 5th century. The mutually exclusive distribution of some types of
brooches in the Rhineland (Almgren’s type 162 and Ambroz’s type I AA, on one hand, and Almgren’s
types 158 and 171, on the other) might suggest that the integration of the easternmost, North Pontic el-
ements into the post-Przeworsk assemblages was not yet completed; in Spain, as said, bow brooches in
metal sheet, A 162 objects and ornaments in gold foil have been recorded exclusively in the provinces
controlled by the Alans. That might suggest that the Alanic traditions merged into the post-Przeworsk
repertoire somewhat later, during the first decades of the 5th century. Should we assume the risk to look
at this phenomenon as an index of relative chronology, then the result is that the three post-Przeworsk
clusters in Western Europe (fig. 11A–B, D) would have been only partially coeval, and that they would
have emerged successively following an east-west pathway: Rheinhessen (D1–D2), Bourgogne (D1–D2),
south-western Hispania (D2). That corresponds fairly well to both the available absolute dating (Mainz–
Kastel, Bretenière, period 1 in Spain) and to the historical chronologies. The earliest stages of the process
are difficult to reconstruct archaeologically: the introduction of late Przeworsk and Černjachov elements
in Moravia and Slovakia (C3–D1 periods), Bohemia and both central and southern Germany (D1–D2
period) could be regarded as one of the samples of the process (figs. 4–7). A parallel process occurring in
the north-west of the Carpathian basin during the D1–D2 periods (fig. 10) appears of particular relevance,
as it resulted in the emergence of a typological inventory that clearly foreshadows the main features of
the post-Przeworsk cultures in the West.
In our view, the examined archaeological sequences leave little doubt on the connections and
continuities between the various regional clusters both in Central Europe (southern Poland, central
Slovakia, Moravia, Bohemia and the north-western Carpathian basin) and in the Western Roman
provinces (Gaul, Hispania, Africa). In view of the persistence of late Przeworsk traditions in these
areas, we consider that the available data outlines a consistent “post-Przeworsk horizon” occurring
during the D1/D2 period in Europe and in the D2/D3 period in Africa (figs. 10–11). These clusters
should not be however attributed to the successive stages of the migration of Vandals, Suebi and
Alans in a straightforward way. Generally speaking, the evolution of material culture and the deposi-
tion/obliteration of selected artefacts follow rules and rhythms that have little to do with historically
attested sequences of events. The identified post-Przeworsk regional clusters show indeed a middle
or long-term continuity that goes well beyond the strict limits of the movements of Vandals, Suebi
and Alans: as said, this is supported in Bourgogne by the available numismatic evidence, and by
the continuity of the main “post-Przeworsk sites” in Spanish Lusitania and in the north-western
473
Jaroslav Jiřík, Joan Pinar Gil
Sardinia and Herul/Ostrogothic Italy. The “Oristano” find, together with a bronze eagle-shaped brooch
with punched and carved decoration kept in the Museum of Carthage (Eger 2012: 198–199, pl. 2:1), shows
that this group of brooches (particularly well attested in Italy and Spain) was also known and used in
the Vandal kingdom.
Conclusions
In spite of numerous gaps in our knowledge, the collected material suffices to propose a general picture of
the processes connected to the movements of Vandals and Suebi (and Alans) at the end of Antiquity, in-
cluding their mutual links and eventual offshoots.
Our survey on selected evidence from Central Europe and the Mediterranean basin clearly shows the
dynamic character of the societies dwelling in the Central European Barbaricum and the complexity of
both their inner bounds and the supra-regional networks in which they took part. These changes were
already taking place long before the arrival of the Huns in Europe, and are perceivable throughout a num-
ber of examples of intensive long-range contacts and processes of “internationalization” of aesthetic tastes
and status symbols. In the examined territories west to the Carpathian basin and north to the Middle Danube,
these processes are clearly attested during the C3 stage. The following chronological stage (D1) witnessed
the intensification of these processes, with a wide diffusion over Central and Western Europe of “eastern
elements” originated in the territories of the Roman-period Przeworsk, Černjachov and Wielbark cultures;
broadly at the same time, a number of artefacts and habits connected with the nomadic cultures of the
Eurasian steppes appeared in Europe.
In some spots of the Western Roman provinces (especially, in eastern Gaul and in Hispania’s South-
west), the occurrence of “eastern” elements can be recognized as one of the material traces of the move-
ments of Vandals, Suebi and Alans; a comparison between this piece of evidence can also shed some
light on some archaeological sequences which seem to have been invisible to the Late Antique writers.
That is the case of the repeatedly observed association between late Elbe-Germanic and (post-)Przeworsk
cultural elements in Raetia and in the Main valley, which in our view must be regarded as one of the
archaeological sequences culminating in the shaping out of the material repertory of the 406-Rhine
crossers. The phenomena identified along the Main valley is of particular interest: acting as a natural
corridor for two-way connections between the Rhineland and the easternmost part of Central Europe,
it may have played a significant role in the recruitment of the Rhine crossers. Another interesting se-
quence, as said, is located in the north-western Carpathian basin. In that area, the outcome of the over-
all processes taking place during the D1 stage was a repertory of portable objects and burial customs
that directly foreshadowed early 5th century finds in Gaul and Hispania. The combination of these two
different archaeological sequences (Elbe-Germanic and circum-Carpathian) explains a high percentage
of the traces of material culture left by the migration of Vandals, Suebi and Alans to the West. Using
written sources to locate precisely ancient populations in this part of the Barbaricum is a delicate ques-
tion; however, the available archaeological datasets of the late 4th – early 5th century agree with the Late
472
Late Przeworsk and post-Przeworsk, Elbian and Danubian. Vandals, Suebi and the dissemination of Central European…
Antique commentators on the participation of at least parts of the Suebi and of the Vandal Hasdings in
the westward displacements. Furthermore, the material evidence also suggests that these groups were
from the first moment remarkably heterogeneous in terms of material culture, and also that they were
probably enlarged by other groups in a more or less permanent way.
Every piece of evidence suggests that the boundaries between the material culture of Suebi, Vandals
and Alans faded away at an early stage of their migration westwards. As far as the limited traces from
Gaul and Hispania can tell, it seems that the process bringing together Suevic and Vandal traditions was
already finished at the beginning of the 5th century. The mutually exclusive distribution of some types of
brooches in the Rhineland (Almgren’s type 162 and Ambroz’s type I AA, on one hand, and Almgren’s
types 158 and 171, on the other) might suggest that the integration of the easternmost, North Pontic el-
ements into the post-Przeworsk assemblages was not yet completed; in Spain, as said, bow brooches in
metal sheet, A 162 objects and ornaments in gold foil have been recorded exclusively in the provinces
controlled by the Alans. That might suggest that the Alanic traditions merged into the post-Przeworsk
repertoire somewhat later, during the first decades of the 5th century. Should we assume the risk to look
at this phenomenon as an index of relative chronology, then the result is that the three post-Przeworsk
clusters in Western Europe (fig. 11A–B, D) would have been only partially coeval, and that they would
have emerged successively following an east-west pathway: Rheinhessen (D1–D2), Bourgogne (D1–D2),
south-western Hispania (D2). That corresponds fairly well to both the available absolute dating (Mainz–
Kastel, Bretenière, period 1 in Spain) and to the historical chronologies. The earliest stages of the process
are difficult to reconstruct archaeologically: the introduction of late Przeworsk and Černjachov elements
in Moravia and Slovakia (C3–D1 periods), Bohemia and both central and southern Germany (D1–D2
period) could be regarded as one of the samples of the process (figs. 4–7). A parallel process occurring in
the north-west of the Carpathian basin during the D1–D2 periods (fig. 10) appears of particular relevance,
as it resulted in the emergence of a typological inventory that clearly foreshadows the main features of
the post-Przeworsk cultures in the West.
In our view, the examined archaeological sequences leave little doubt on the connections and
continuities between the various regional clusters both in Central Europe (southern Poland, central
Slovakia, Moravia, Bohemia and the north-western Carpathian basin) and in the Western Roman
provinces (Gaul, Hispania, Africa). In view of the persistence of late Przeworsk traditions in these
areas, we consider that the available data outlines a consistent “post-Przeworsk horizon” occurring
during the D1/D2 period in Europe and in the D2/D3 period in Africa (figs. 10–11). These clusters
should not be however attributed to the successive stages of the migration of Vandals, Suebi and
Alans in a straightforward way. Generally speaking, the evolution of material culture and the deposi-
tion/obliteration of selected artefacts follow rules and rhythms that have little to do with historically
attested sequences of events. The identified post-Przeworsk regional clusters show indeed a middle
or long-term continuity that goes well beyond the strict limits of the movements of Vandals, Suebi
and Alans: as said, this is supported in Bourgogne by the available numismatic evidence, and by
the continuity of the main “post-Przeworsk sites” in Spanish Lusitania and in the north-western
473
Jaroslav Jiřík, Joan Pinar Gil
Carpathian basin up to at least the D2/D3 period. In our view, the various post-Przeworsk clusters
should be regarded as a succession of different snapshots outlining the main guidelines in the devel-
opment of the material culture of Vandals, Suebi and Alans rather than consecutive stages of a single
historical sequence.
As seen, the processes recorded in the post-Przeworsk clusters are visible, on a smaller scale, in territories
such as south-western Gaul, north-eastern Italy and both the Upper and the Lower Rhine regions. The extent
to which they were connected to the main post-Przeworsk sequence remains unclear; the same applies to other
archaeological phenomena taking place at the same time, for example the dissemination of post-Černjahov
artefacts in the Western Provinces (Kazanski forthcoming). The overall picture is of remarkable complexity:
population displacements, long-distance contacts, trade and manufacturing structures and elite networks over-
lapped and influenced material culture in many ways between the last decades of the 4th and the first decades
of the 5th century. Such a complexity, difficult to apprehend, explains why can be so difficult to attribute the
5th century “barbarian” artefacts found in Western Europe to any specific people.
The only material sources recorded so far in Gaul, Hispania and Africa is little more than a handful of
reliquiae originated in the Barbaricum; it is very difficult to reconstruct coherent cultural processes on that
basis, at least before the times of the African kingdom of the Vandals. However, a number of observations can
be still made. The first one corresponds to a generally overlooked phenomenon: the evidence for people left
behind by the “barbarian migrations”, taking part in only a part of the historically documented succession of
events. Thus, should we assume a link between the 406-Rhine crossers, on one hand, and the Rheinhessen
and Bourgogne clusters, on the other, finds such as the graves at Bretenière and Wolfsheim, and perhaps
also the Mainz–Kastel deposit (fig. 8: 2–3), would imply that these people chose (or were forced) to remain
in Gaul after the bulk of their former group left Gaul for Hispania. A similar case could be that of the rich
grave with big bow brooches in silver sheet at Mérida–Almendralejo st., provided that we take for granted
a direct continuity in the use of the cemetery throughout the two generations that it lasted (Pinar 2017a: 63).
The second one is a faint impression that there was some kind of guiding thread connecting the evolution of
the grave goods throughout the first half of the 5th century. Thus, a comparison between the eastern Gallic
cluster, the south-western Hispanic one and the North African one show a continued and apparently coherent
evolution of the clothing accessories and also of the burial practices: deposits of weapons occur very frequently
in the Barbaricum (for instance, in the north-west Carpathian area) and in the Bourgogne graves; instead it
is so far unknown in the south-west of Hispania and in Africa. The rich grave of Wolfsheim in Rheinhessen
and perhaps also those of Fürst in Noricum (Werner 1960: 169–179, pl. 15) and Mörbisch in Pannonia (Tejral
1988: 254, fig. 21:14–16; 2011: 411, fig. 100) (the latter having yielded a combination of belt and shoe buckles
that can be regarded as a distant forerunner of Arifridus’ and Souk-el-Khemis graves in North Africa: figs. 15:
21–23; 31: C–D) may be regarded as early samples of this process; a possible case of pars pro toto weapon burial
in Vandal-period Africa (Quast 2005: 277–278) would thus sketch out a sort of guiding thread between the
Wolfsheim grave and later assemblages. If that is to be believed, it can be reasonably argued that this practice
was born among the uppermost social strata and thereafter “descended” into the less wealthy milieus. Another
trend is the increasing integration of late Roman objects and traditions into the post-Przeworsk typological
474
Late Przeworsk and post-Przeworsk, Elbian and Danubian. Vandals, Suebi and the dissemination of Central European…
inventory: as seen, West Mediterranean jewellery was very typical among the Spanish and early African as-
semblages (figs. 20; 28), and become hegemonic among the later African grave goods (fig. 31). The process was
perhaps foreshadowed in northern Pannonia and eastern Gaul (figs. 11A; 15), as late Roman cicada brooches
and polyhedron-headed earrings suggest.
In southern Spain, it seems, an important step foreshadowing the earliest African graves was under-
taken: for the first time, a particular amalgam of North Pontic adornments, Central European clothing
accessories and West Mediterranean jewellery sets occurs together not only in a single region, but also in
a single site (most clearly: the Mérida–Almendralejo st. cemetery). Few years after, the successive stage
in this evolutionary pathway is to be observed in Africa: the combination of these three main components
within a single grave became usual. As seen, after some decades, the history of the “Vandal grave goods”
met its final chapter with their full integration into a new supra-regional network: that of the early West
Mediterranean regna, a network the wealthy classes of the Vandal kingdom shared aesthetic tastes, manu-
facturing traditions and status symbols with (fig. 36).
Common tastes bound together also the wealthiest strata of the late Przeworsk and post-Przeworsk
milieus along considerable distances, it seems. The wide spreading of precious-metal, often oversized and
decorated “luxury” versions of A 158 brooches gives a good glimpse on the phenomenon: they occurred in
the D2 stage in the Przeworsk-culture area (Siedlików: Petersen 1944: 77–80), in the Masłomęcz group
(Zamość: Sulimirski 1966), north and south to the middle Danube (Vienna–Mödling, Banská Bystrica,
Tiszaládány, Smolín: Mossler 1958; Csallány 1961: 234, pl. CCXVII; Tejral 1973: 30–31, pl. I; Bárta et al.
1987) and in eastern Gaul, as we have seen (Wolfsheim, Crimolois: see above, with figs. 8:2; 13:5–18). In
addition, many brooches from the easternmost assemblages of this group (Siedlików, Banská Bystrica,
Vienna–Mödling: fig. 15:8–9, 11–15) show a typological development present also among the finds from
South-Western Europe and North Africa: the “traditional” bended and attached foot was increasingly
replaced by a straight foot with a long catch plate, thus adopting the main features of Almgren’s type
171. To the “luxury” versions of late A 171 brooches may be attributed also the pairs of brooches from
Prague–Zličín gr. No. 42 and 135 (Jiřík et al. 2015: 155–157). Dating from D2b period, their feet show
two late typological features: short catch plate (to be observed also on some examples from south-west-
ern Hispania, see below) and beaded wire extremity, rolled in spiral (somehow “announcing” later
Viminacium/Lauriacum-type crossbow brooches). These brooches (nowadays described as “type Zličín”)
display a unique combination of late Roman-period technology and newer decorative patterns, spreading
widely for the first time during the Untersiebenbrunn horizon. Pearl-wire patterns (including spirals)
such as the ones at Zličín thus interconnect very distant finds, such as the aforementioned Wolfsheim
in Rheinhessen and Młoteczno/Hammersdorf in the north-eastern corner of present-day Poland. The
Zličín brooches belong to a spectrum of Central European prestige goods, whose best Mediterranean
counterparts are the gold crossbow brooches of the early Vandal period in North Africa (see below). It is
hard to discern whether the aristocratic fashion in both regions underwent parallel developments based
on a common source (the foederati culture) or, on the contrary, it mirrors the long-distance interweaving
of the leading goldsmiths and their customers. In this context, Procopius’ notice on the contacts between
475
Jaroslav Jiřík, Joan Pinar Gil
Carpathian basin up to at least the D2/D3 period. In our view, the various post-Przeworsk clusters
should be regarded as a succession of different snapshots outlining the main guidelines in the devel-
opment of the material culture of Vandals, Suebi and Alans rather than consecutive stages of a single
historical sequence.
As seen, the processes recorded in the post-Przeworsk clusters are visible, on a smaller scale, in territories
such as south-western Gaul, north-eastern Italy and both the Upper and the Lower Rhine regions. The extent
to which they were connected to the main post-Przeworsk sequence remains unclear; the same applies to other
archaeological phenomena taking place at the same time, for example the dissemination of post-Černjahov
artefacts in the Western Provinces (Kazanski forthcoming). The overall picture is of remarkable complexity:
population displacements, long-distance contacts, trade and manufacturing structures and elite networks over-
lapped and influenced material culture in many ways between the last decades of the 4th and the first decades
of the 5th century. Such a complexity, difficult to apprehend, explains why can be so difficult to attribute the
5th century “barbarian” artefacts found in Western Europe to any specific people.
The only material sources recorded so far in Gaul, Hispania and Africa is little more than a handful of
reliquiae originated in the Barbaricum; it is very difficult to reconstruct coherent cultural processes on that
basis, at least before the times of the African kingdom of the Vandals. However, a number of observations can
be still made. The first one corresponds to a generally overlooked phenomenon: the evidence for people left
behind by the “barbarian migrations”, taking part in only a part of the historically documented succession of
events. Thus, should we assume a link between the 406-Rhine crossers, on one hand, and the Rheinhessen
and Bourgogne clusters, on the other, finds such as the graves at Bretenière and Wolfsheim, and perhaps
also the Mainz–Kastel deposit (fig. 8: 2–3), would imply that these people chose (or were forced) to remain
in Gaul after the bulk of their former group left Gaul for Hispania. A similar case could be that of the rich
grave with big bow brooches in silver sheet at Mérida–Almendralejo st., provided that we take for granted
a direct continuity in the use of the cemetery throughout the two generations that it lasted (Pinar 2017a: 63).
The second one is a faint impression that there was some kind of guiding thread connecting the evolution of
the grave goods throughout the first half of the 5th century. Thus, a comparison between the eastern Gallic
cluster, the south-western Hispanic one and the North African one show a continued and apparently coherent
evolution of the clothing accessories and also of the burial practices: deposits of weapons occur very frequently
in the Barbaricum (for instance, in the north-west Carpathian area) and in the Bourgogne graves; instead it
is so far unknown in the south-west of Hispania and in Africa. The rich grave of Wolfsheim in Rheinhessen
and perhaps also those of Fürst in Noricum (Werner 1960: 169–179, pl. 15) and Mörbisch in Pannonia (Tejral
1988: 254, fig. 21:14–16; 2011: 411, fig. 100) (the latter having yielded a combination of belt and shoe buckles
that can be regarded as a distant forerunner of Arifridus’ and Souk-el-Khemis graves in North Africa: figs. 15:
21–23; 31: C–D) may be regarded as early samples of this process; a possible case of pars pro toto weapon burial
in Vandal-period Africa (Quast 2005: 277–278) would thus sketch out a sort of guiding thread between the
Wolfsheim grave and later assemblages. If that is to be believed, it can be reasonably argued that this practice
was born among the uppermost social strata and thereafter “descended” into the less wealthy milieus. Another
trend is the increasing integration of late Roman objects and traditions into the post-Przeworsk typological
474
Late Przeworsk and post-Przeworsk, Elbian and Danubian. Vandals, Suebi and the dissemination of Central European…
inventory: as seen, West Mediterranean jewellery was very typical among the Spanish and early African as-
semblages (figs. 20; 28), and become hegemonic among the later African grave goods (fig. 31). The process was
perhaps foreshadowed in northern Pannonia and eastern Gaul (figs. 11A; 15), as late Roman cicada brooches
and polyhedron-headed earrings suggest.
In southern Spain, it seems, an important step foreshadowing the earliest African graves was under-
taken: for the first time, a particular amalgam of North Pontic adornments, Central European clothing
accessories and West Mediterranean jewellery sets occurs together not only in a single region, but also in
a single site (most clearly: the Mérida–Almendralejo st. cemetery). Few years after, the successive stage
in this evolutionary pathway is to be observed in Africa: the combination of these three main components
within a single grave became usual. As seen, after some decades, the history of the “Vandal grave goods”
met its final chapter with their full integration into a new supra-regional network: that of the early West
Mediterranean regna, a network the wealthy classes of the Vandal kingdom shared aesthetic tastes, manu-
facturing traditions and status symbols with (fig. 36).
Common tastes bound together also the wealthiest strata of the late Przeworsk and post-Przeworsk
milieus along considerable distances, it seems. The wide spreading of precious-metal, often oversized and
decorated “luxury” versions of A 158 brooches gives a good glimpse on the phenomenon: they occurred in
the D2 stage in the Przeworsk-culture area (Siedlików: Petersen 1944: 77–80), in the Masłomęcz group
(Zamość: Sulimirski 1966), north and south to the middle Danube (Vienna–Mödling, Banská Bystrica,
Tiszaládány, Smolín: Mossler 1958; Csallány 1961: 234, pl. CCXVII; Tejral 1973: 30–31, pl. I; Bárta et al.
1987) and in eastern Gaul, as we have seen (Wolfsheim, Crimolois: see above, with figs. 8:2; 13:5–18). In
addition, many brooches from the easternmost assemblages of this group (Siedlików, Banská Bystrica,
Vienna–Mödling: fig. 15:8–9, 11–15) show a typological development present also among the finds from
South-Western Europe and North Africa: the “traditional” bended and attached foot was increasingly
replaced by a straight foot with a long catch plate, thus adopting the main features of Almgren’s type
171. To the “luxury” versions of late A 171 brooches may be attributed also the pairs of brooches from
Prague–Zličín gr. No. 42 and 135 (Jiřík et al. 2015: 155–157). Dating from D2b period, their feet show
two late typological features: short catch plate (to be observed also on some examples from south-west-
ern Hispania, see below) and beaded wire extremity, rolled in spiral (somehow “announcing” later
Viminacium/Lauriacum-type crossbow brooches). These brooches (nowadays described as “type Zličín”)
display a unique combination of late Roman-period technology and newer decorative patterns, spreading
widely for the first time during the Untersiebenbrunn horizon. Pearl-wire patterns (including spirals)
such as the ones at Zličín thus interconnect very distant finds, such as the aforementioned Wolfsheim
in Rheinhessen and Młoteczno/Hammersdorf in the north-eastern corner of present-day Poland. The
Zličín brooches belong to a spectrum of Central European prestige goods, whose best Mediterranean
counterparts are the gold crossbow brooches of the early Vandal period in North Africa (see below). It is
hard to discern whether the aristocratic fashion in both regions underwent parallel developments based
on a common source (the foederati culture) or, on the contrary, it mirrors the long-distance interweaving
of the leading goldsmiths and their customers. In this context, Procopius’ notice on the contacts between
475
Jaroslav Jiřík, Joan Pinar Gil
northern African and European Vandals (War with Vandals I.22) can be of interest. Even if probably in
an indirect way, the connections between Central Europe and North Africa are archaeologically attest-
ed by several remains of African terra sigillata recorded in sites such as Kahl am Main (Teichner 1999:
90–92) and Závist in Bohemia (Motyková et al. 1991: 56–63).
To conclude with, the examination of this selection of post-Przeworsk stories brings forward a num-
ber of general issues. It is worth stressing that, along the processes connected to the westwards migra-
tion of Vandals, Suebes and Alans, almost not even a single “migration fossil index”, occurring in every
one of the stages of the process between Central Europe and North Africa, can be identified. The case
of (post-)A 171 one-pieced brooches with fluted decoration or without decoration and (proto-)Wiesbaden
bow brooches are the closest we get (figs. 24; 34), however accepting that these objects underwent a vis-
ible typological evolution. It is interesting, however, that the prototypes of both types of brooches are
to be located in the Western Carpathians, what strengthens our proposal to identify that region as one
of the main recruitment areas of the groups crossing the Rhine in 406 AD. Another trace of continuity
between Barbaricum traditions and Western post-Przeworsk assemblages is the development of Ambroz
I AA bow brooches in metal sheet into North African bow brooches. The biography of all these objects,
thus, speaks not only about their circulation through long distances, but also of a persistence in their
production that implied also a recreation in the West (by local craftsmen?) of the traditions rooted in
the Barbaricum. Generally speaking, this phenomenon suggests that means that the recorded elements
of living material culture changed very quickly: we tried to define and examine an extremely short se-
quence of events, embracing barely two or three generations of people (360–430 AD); apparently, very
few elements survived that long.
Only a small percentage of imports seems to “survive” after a displacement took place. And only
a smaller part of them entered the local traditions and started to be produced in place: clear examples are
the North African bow brooches and one-pieced crossbow brooches, surely produced in Africa by local
craftsmen, no matter whether of local, “barbarian” or any other descent. Apparently, the newcomers turned
quickly to the local market for the acquisition of everyday life implements: the almost complete absence in
the West of pottery forms indubitably related to Barbaricum traditions may be the best example. On the
fast acquisition of new status symbols and aesthetic tastes witness explicitly the local, West Mediterranean
jewellery sets recorded in the earliest Vandal-period graves in Africa, and also the evolution of the reper-
tory of small finds between the second and the last thirds of the 5th century: this phenomenon is explicit
enough not only on the existence of a growing identification with local items and tastes, but also on how
fast it got its way among the wearers of barbarian-rooted clothes. Something similar can be said about the
apparent reduction of the personal adornments deposed in the grave: besides fashion standards, this phe-
nomenon has probably to do also with the acceptance of social standards on decorum at funerals, that is,
with “cultural capital” in P. Bourdieu’s conception (Bourdieu 1979).
The integration of “new” elements became visible at every stage of the process: “eastern” imports, su-
pra-regional status symbols, Mediterranean craftworks… That phenomenon provides us with a foretaste
of how pointless could be looking for “pure” elements of material culture among the groups involved in
476
Late Przeworsk and post-Przeworsk, Elbian and Danubian. Vandals, Suebi and the dissemination of Central European…
the late 4th – early 5th century migrations. Besides arising a number of epistemological questions, doing so
might indeed undermine any practical chance to identify the material traces of a migration process and to
grasp the complexity of the associated processes. In our view, our approach based on the analysis of whole
assemblages and (micro-)regional typological inventories proves to be more successful than looking for sin-
gle “migration indexes”. In spite of the length limits of this study, we hope that we have succeeded to record
a number of new “shades of meaning” lying behind the examined archaeological sequences.
To a certain point, the examination of the distribution and evolution of the repertories of portable
artefacts and of their depositional contexts brings forward a picture that fits well into the pattern outlined
by the results of the available systematic isotopic analyses on Migration Period communities: they appear to
be formed by rather heterogeneous people from different (sometimes unexpected) provenances (for example,
Vida et al. 2017), their “biologic origin” and their “material culture label” not always corresponding to the
classic standards. This picture, moreover, appears to be broadly compatible with the written sources, which
agree to describe the barbarian groups as multicultural communities with a high social mobility, quickly
evolving over time and very permeable to influences from the surrounding environment(s).
Bibliography
Ancient sources
Claudian, Panegyricus de Sexto Consulatu Honorii Augusti, ed. M. Dewar, Oxford 1996.
Gregory of Tours, Libri historiarum X, ed. B. Krusch, Berlin 1884 [= Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores rerum
Merovingicarum, 1.1].
Hieronymus, Epistoles, ed. L. Manuellei, Florence 1861.
Hydatius, Chronicle, ed. R.W. Burgess, Oxford 1988.
Jordanes, Getica (Czech edition: Gótské dějiny, transl. S. Doležal, Praha 2012).
Notitia Dignitatum, ed. O. Seeck, Frankfurt am Main 1876.
Procopius of Caesarea, Hyper ton polemon logoi (Czech edition: Prokopios z Kaisareie, Válka s Peršany a Vandaly, transl.
A. Hartman, K. Rubešová, Praha 1985).
Victor of Vita, Historia persecutionis Africanae provinciae sub Geiserico et Hunirico regibus Wandalorum, Berlin 1879
[= Monumenta Germaniae Historica. Auctores Antiquissimi, 3.1].
Zosimos, Nea historia, ed. O. Veh, Stuttgart 1990.
Literature
Aimone M. 2010: Il tesoro di Desana. Una fonte per lo studio della società romano-ostrogota in Italia. Oxford [= BAR International
Series, 2127].
Ajbabin A.I. 1990: Hronologia mogil’nikov Kryma pozdnerimskogo i rannevizantijskogo vremeni. Materialy po Arheologii, Istorii
i Etnografii Tavrii 1, 4–86.
Ajbabin A.I., Chajredinova E.A. 2009: Das Gräberfeld beim Dorf Lučistoe. Ausgrabungen der Jahre 1977, 1982–1984. Mainz
[= Monographien des römisch-germanischen Zentralmuzeums, 83].
Alarcão J., Étienne R., Moutinho A., da Ponte S. 1979: Fouilles de Conimbriga VII. Trouvailles diverses – conclusions générales. Paris.
477
Jaroslav Jiřík, Joan Pinar Gil
northern African and European Vandals (War with Vandals I.22) can be of interest. Even if probably in
an indirect way, the connections between Central Europe and North Africa are archaeologically attest-
ed by several remains of African terra sigillata recorded in sites such as Kahl am Main (Teichner 1999:
90–92) and Závist in Bohemia (Motyková et al. 1991: 56–63).
To conclude with, the examination of this selection of post-Przeworsk stories brings forward a num-
ber of general issues. It is worth stressing that, along the processes connected to the westwards migra-
tion of Vandals, Suebes and Alans, almost not even a single “migration fossil index”, occurring in every
one of the stages of the process between Central Europe and North Africa, can be identified. The case
of (post-)A 171 one-pieced brooches with fluted decoration or without decoration and (proto-)Wiesbaden
bow brooches are the closest we get (figs. 24; 34), however accepting that these objects underwent a vis-
ible typological evolution. It is interesting, however, that the prototypes of both types of brooches are
to be located in the Western Carpathians, what strengthens our proposal to identify that region as one
of the main recruitment areas of the groups crossing the Rhine in 406 AD. Another trace of continuity
between Barbaricum traditions and Western post-Przeworsk assemblages is the development of Ambroz
I AA bow brooches in metal sheet into North African bow brooches. The biography of all these objects,
thus, speaks not only about their circulation through long distances, but also of a persistence in their
production that implied also a recreation in the West (by local craftsmen?) of the traditions rooted in
the Barbaricum. Generally speaking, this phenomenon suggests that means that the recorded elements
of living material culture changed very quickly: we tried to define and examine an extremely short se-
quence of events, embracing barely two or three generations of people (360–430 AD); apparently, very
few elements survived that long.
Only a small percentage of imports seems to “survive” after a displacement took place. And only
a smaller part of them entered the local traditions and started to be produced in place: clear examples are
the North African bow brooches and one-pieced crossbow brooches, surely produced in Africa by local
craftsmen, no matter whether of local, “barbarian” or any other descent. Apparently, the newcomers turned
quickly to the local market for the acquisition of everyday life implements: the almost complete absence in
the West of pottery forms indubitably related to Barbaricum traditions may be the best example. On the
fast acquisition of new status symbols and aesthetic tastes witness explicitly the local, West Mediterranean
jewellery sets recorded in the earliest Vandal-period graves in Africa, and also the evolution of the reper-
tory of small finds between the second and the last thirds of the 5th century: this phenomenon is explicit
enough not only on the existence of a growing identification with local items and tastes, but also on how
fast it got its way among the wearers of barbarian-rooted clothes. Something similar can be said about the
apparent reduction of the personal adornments deposed in the grave: besides fashion standards, this phe-
nomenon has probably to do also with the acceptance of social standards on decorum at funerals, that is,
with “cultural capital” in P. Bourdieu’s conception (Bourdieu 1979).
The integration of “new” elements became visible at every stage of the process: “eastern” imports, su-
pra-regional status symbols, Mediterranean craftworks… That phenomenon provides us with a foretaste
of how pointless could be looking for “pure” elements of material culture among the groups involved in
476
Late Przeworsk and post-Przeworsk, Elbian and Danubian. Vandals, Suebi and the dissemination of Central European…
the late 4th – early 5th century migrations. Besides arising a number of epistemological questions, doing so
might indeed undermine any practical chance to identify the material traces of a migration process and to
grasp the complexity of the associated processes. In our view, our approach based on the analysis of whole
assemblages and (micro-)regional typological inventories proves to be more successful than looking for sin-
gle “migration indexes”. In spite of the length limits of this study, we hope that we have succeeded to record
a number of new “shades of meaning” lying behind the examined archaeological sequences.
To a certain point, the examination of the distribution and evolution of the repertories of portable
artefacts and of their depositional contexts brings forward a picture that fits well into the pattern outlined
by the results of the available systematic isotopic analyses on Migration Period communities: they appear to
be formed by rather heterogeneous people from different (sometimes unexpected) provenances (for example,
Vida et al. 2017), their “biologic origin” and their “material culture label” not always corresponding to the
classic standards. This picture, moreover, appears to be broadly compatible with the written sources, which
agree to describe the barbarian groups as multicultural communities with a high social mobility, quickly
evolving over time and very permeable to influences from the surrounding environment(s).
Bibliography
Ancient sources
Claudian, Panegyricus de Sexto Consulatu Honorii Augusti, ed. M. Dewar, Oxford 1996.
Gregory of Tours, Libri historiarum X, ed. B. Krusch, Berlin 1884 [= Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores rerum
Merovingicarum, 1.1].
Hieronymus, Epistoles, ed. L. Manuellei, Florence 1861.
Hydatius, Chronicle, ed. R.W. Burgess, Oxford 1988.
Jordanes, Getica (Czech edition: Gótské dějiny, transl. S. Doležal, Praha 2012).
Notitia Dignitatum, ed. O. Seeck, Frankfurt am Main 1876.
Procopius of Caesarea, Hyper ton polemon logoi (Czech edition: Prokopios z Kaisareie, Válka s Peršany a Vandaly, transl.
A. Hartman, K. Rubešová, Praha 1985).
Victor of Vita, Historia persecutionis Africanae provinciae sub Geiserico et Hunirico regibus Wandalorum, Berlin 1879
[= Monumenta Germaniae Historica. Auctores Antiquissimi, 3.1].
Zosimos, Nea historia, ed. O. Veh, Stuttgart 1990.
Literature
Aimone M. 2010: Il tesoro di Desana. Una fonte per lo studio della società romano-ostrogota in Italia. Oxford [= BAR International
Series, 2127].
Ajbabin A.I. 1990: Hronologia mogil’nikov Kryma pozdnerimskogo i rannevizantijskogo vremeni. Materialy po Arheologii, Istorii
i Etnografii Tavrii 1, 4–86.
Ajbabin A.I., Chajredinova E.A. 2009: Das Gräberfeld beim Dorf Lučistoe. Ausgrabungen der Jahre 1977, 1982–1984. Mainz
[= Monographien des römisch-germanischen Zentralmuzeums, 83].
Alarcão J., Étienne R., Moutinho A., da Ponte S. 1979: Fouilles de Conimbriga VII. Trouvailles diverses – conclusions générales. Paris.
477
Jaroslav Jiřík, Joan Pinar Gil
Almgren O. 1897: Studien über nordeuropäische Fibelformen der ersten nachchristlichen Jahrhunderte. Stockholm.
Ambroz A.K. 1989: Hronologija drevnostej Severnogo Kavkaza V–VII vv. Moscow.
Antōnaras A. 2009: Rōmaïkē kai palaiochristianikē yalurgia. 1os ai. p. Ch.–6os ai. m. Ch.; paragōgē kai proïonta; ta angeia apo tē
Thessalonikē kai tēn periochē tēs. Athens.
Arce J. 2005: Bárbaros y romanos en Hispania, 400–507 AD. Madrid.
Arias Sánchez I., Balmaseda Muncharaz L.J. 2015: La necrópolis de época visigoda de Castiltierra (Segovia). Excavaciones dirigidas por
E. Camps y J.M. de Navascués, 1932–1935. Materiales conservados en el Museo Arqueológico Nacional, I: Presentación de sepulturas
y ajuares. Madrid.
Baldini I., Pinar Gil J. 2010: Osservazioni sul tesoro di Reggio Emilia. In: C. Ebanista, M. Rotili (ed.), L’Italia e il Mediterraneo
occidentale tra il V secolo e la meta del VI. Cimitile, 113–128.
Baratte F., Metzger C. 1991: L’orfèvrerie christianisée. In: Naissance des arts chrétiens. Paris, 306–315.
Baratte F., Lang J., La Nièce S., Metzger C. 2002: Le trésor de Carthage. Contribution à l’étude de l’orfèvrerie de l’Antiquité tardive. Paris.
Bárta J., Mácelová M., Pieta K. 1987: Ďalší prieskum Netopierskej jaskyne v Sásovskom krase. In: Archeologické výskumy a nálezy
na Slovensku v roku 1986. Nitra, 29–30.
Bayard D., Piton D., Schuler R. 1981: Le cimetière mérovingien de Moreuil. Cahiers Archéologiques de Picardie 8, 157–205.
Behrens G. 1931: Frühgermanische Funde aus der Friedberger Gegend. Germania 15, 255–260.
Beilharz D. 2011: Das frühmerowingerzeitliche Gräberfeld von Horb-Altheim. Studien zu Migrations- und Integrationsprozessen am
Beispiel einer frühmittelalterlichen Bestattungsgemeinschaft. Stuttgart [= Forschungen und Berichte zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte
in Baden–Württemberg, 121].
Bemmann J. 1998: Anmerkungen zu einigen Fibeln mit umgeschlangenem Fuß (Almgren Gruppe VI, Serie 1). In: J. Kunow (ed.),
100 Jahre Fibelformen nach Oscar Almgren. Internationale Arbeitstagung, 25.–28. Mai 1997, Kleinmachnow, Land Brandenburg.
Wünsdorf [= Forschungen zur Archäologie im Land Brandeburg, 5], 255–262.
Bemmann J. 2008: Mitteldeutschland im 5. Jahrhundert – Eine Zwischenstation auf dem Weg der Langobarden in mittleren
Donauraum? In: J. Bemmann, M. Schmauder (ed.), Kulturwandel im Mitteleuropa. Langobarden – Awaren – Slawen. Bonn,
145–227.
Bender H. (ed.) 1996: Das „Bürgle” bei Gundremmingen, die Grabung 1971 und neue Funde. Espelkamp [= Passauer
Universitätsschriften zur Archäologie, 3].
Bernhard H. 1982: Germanische Funde der Spätantike zwischen Straßburg und Mainz. Saalburg–Jahrbuch 38, 72–109.
Bernhard H. 1999: Germanische Funde in römischen Siedlungen Pfalz. In: T. Fischer, G. Precht, J. Tejral (ed.), Germanen beiderseits
des spätantiken Limes. Brno [= Spisy Archeologického Ústavu AV ČR Brno, 14], 15–46.
Biborski M. 2004: Dalsze ratownicze badania wykopaliskowe na cmentarzysku kultury przeworskiej z późnego okresu wpływów
rzymskich i wczesnej fazy wędrówek ludów w Mokrej, województwo śląskie. In: E. Tomczak, V. Janák (ed.), Badania
archeologiczne na górnym Śląsku i ziemiach pogranicznych w latach 2001–2002. Katowice, 125–139.
Biborski M., Kaczanowski P. 2001: Zur Differenzierung der spätkaiserzeitlichen und frühvölkerwanderungszeitlichen Bewaffnung im
Barbaricum. In: E. Istvánovits, V. Kulcsár (ed.), International Connections of the Barbarians of the Carpathian Basin in the 1st–5th
Centuries AD. Proceedings of the International Conference Held in 1999 in Aszód and Nyíregyháza. Aszód–Nyíregyháza
[= Múzeumi füzetek (Aszód), 51], 235–247.
Bierbrauer V. 1975: Die ostgotischen Grab- und Schatzfunde in Italien. Spoleto [= Studi Medievali. Biblioteca, 7].
Billoin D., Escher K., Gaillard de Sémainville H., Gandel P. 2010: Contribution à la connaissance de l’implantation burgonde en
Gaule au Ve Siècle: à propos de découvertes récentes de fibules zoomorphes. Revue Archéologique de l’Est 59, 567–583.
Böhnlein A. 1993–1994: Geisfeld, Gde. Litzendorf (Lkr. Bamberg). Ausgrabungen und Funde in Oberfranken 9, 31, 74.
Bonifay M. 2004: Études sur la céramique romaine tardive d’Afrique. Oxford [= BAR International Series, 1301].
Boudartchouk J.-L., Arramand J.-C., Grimbert L. 2006: Une sépulture de relégation découverte dans un fossé antique sur
le site de l’îlot Castelbou (Toulouse, 1991). Un guerrier vandale inhumé à la hâte? In: X. Delestre, M. Kazanski, P. Périn
(ed.), De l’Âge du Fer au haut Moyen Âge. Saint-Germain-en-Laye [= Mémoires de l’Association française d’archéologie
mérovingienne, 15], 123–133.
Bourdieu P. 1979: La distinction. Critique sociale du jugement. Paris.
Buchinger B. 1997: Die frühmittelalterlichen Grabfunde von Wiesbaden. Frankfurt am Main [= Europäische Hochschulschriften, 3].
Bulas J., Link-Lenczowski M., Okońska M. 2016: The Roman Period Pottery Kiln from Kraków–Górka Narodowa, Site no. 6.
Recherches Archéologiques 8, 173–184.
478
Late Przeworsk and post-Przeworsk, Elbian and Danubian. Vandals, Suebi and the dissemination of Central European…
Buora M. 1998: Fibeln germanischen Ursprungs in Oberitalien. In: J. Kunow (ed.), 100 Jahre Fibelformen nach Oscar Almgren.
Internationale Arbeitstagung, 25.–28. Mai 1997, Kleinmachnow, Land Brandenburg. Wünsdorf [= Forschungen zur Archäologie
im Land Brandeburg, 5], 369–374.
Buora M., Seidel S. (ed.) 2008: Fibule antiche del Friuli. Rome.
Cagnat R. 1892: L’armée romaine d’Afrique et l’occupation militaire de l’Afrique sous les empereurs. Paris.
Camps S. 1972–1973: Fouilles de Neujon. Bulletin du Groupe Archéologique de Monségur, 2–50.
Carmona Berenguer S. 1990: La necrópolis tardorromana de „El Ruedo” (Almedinilla, Córdoba). Anales de Arqueología
Cordobesa 1, 153–171.
Carmona Berenguer S. 1998: Mundo funerario rural en la Andalucía tardoantigua y de época visigoda. La necrópolis de El Ruedo
(Almedinilla, Córdoba). Córdoba.
Carré F., Jimenez F. (ed.) 2008: Louviers (Eure) au haut Moyen Âge. Découvertes anciennes et fouilles récentes du cimetière de la rue du
Mûrier. Saint-Germain-en-Laye [= Mémoires de l’Association française d’archéologiemérovingienne, 18].
Casal García R., Paz Lobeiras R. 1997: Un collar de ámbar suévico en Vigo. Gallaecia 16, 315–322.
Ciglenečki S. 2008: Castra und Höhensiedlungen vom 3. bis 6. Jahrhundert in Slowenien. In: H. Steuer, V. Bierbrauer (ed.),
Höhensiedlungen zwischen Antike und Mittelalter von den Ardennen bis zur Adria. Berlin–NewYork [= Reallexikon der
germanischen Altertumskunde, 58], 481–532.
Clement C. 2010: The Suburban Necropolises of Northern Toulouse: a Comparative Study of the Burial Rites of Saint-Sernin and Saint-
Pierre-des-Cuisines. In: J. Pinar Gil, T. Juárez Villena (ed.), Contextos funeraris a la Mediterrània nord-occidental (segles V–VIII).
Sant Cugat del Vallès [= Gausac, 34–35], 293–308.
Courtois C. 1955: Les Vandales et l’Afrique. Paris.
Csallány D. 1961: Archäologische Denkmäler der Gepiden im Mitteldonaubecken (454–568 n.C.). Budapest [= Archaeologia
Hungarica, 38].
Degani M. 1959: Il tesoro romano barbarico di Reggio Emilia. Florence.
Deppert-Lippitz B. 1997: Spätrömische Goldperlen. In: U. von Freeden, A. Wieczorek (ed.), Perlen. Archäologie, Techniken,
Analysen. Bonn, 63–76.
Diaconu Gh. 1965: Tîrgşor. Necropola din secolele III–IV e.n. Bucarest [= Biblioteca de Arheologie, 8].
Djouad S., Corrochano A., Mitton C. (forthcoming): Le site de Blanzac-Porcheresse (Charente, France): un ensemble funéraire
des Ve–VIe s. en Aquitaine wisigothique. In: E. Boube, A. Corrochano, J. Hernandez (ed.), Du royaume goth au Midi
mérovingien. Bordeaux.
Dmitriev A.V. 1979: Pogrebenia vsadnikov i boevyh konej v mogil’nike epohi pereselenia narodov na r. Djurso bliz Novorossijska.
Soveckaja Arheologia 4, 212–222.
Dobrzańska H. 1980: Zagadnienie datowania ceramiki toczonej w kulturze przeworskiej. Archeologia Polski 24, 87–152.
Droberjar E. 2007: Neue Erkenntnisse zu den Fürstgräbern der Gruppe Hassleben–Leuna–Gommern in Böhmen. Přehled Výzkumů 48, 93–103.
Droberjar E. 2008: Mladší doba římská. In: V. Salač (ed.), Doba římská a stěhování národů. Praha [= Archeologie Pravěkých
Čech, 8], 127–155.
Droberjar E. 2015: Cizorodý nálezový soubor z konce doby římské až počátku doby stěhování národů z Pšovlk, okr. Rakovník.
Archeologie ve středních Čechách 19, 707–729.
Droberjar E., Prostředník J. 2004: Turnov–Maškovy zahrady – germánský dvorec ze 3. století. Památky Archeologické 95, 31–106.
Droberjar E., Snítilý P. 2011: Bohatý dětský kostrový hrob z mladší doby římské v Květnici, okr. Praha-východ. Archeologie ve
středních Čechách 9, 501–513.
Duval N. 1976: La mosaïque funéraire dans l’art paléochrétien. Ravenna [= Antichità, archeologia, storia dell’arte, 3].
Džoržeti D. 1988: Căkrovišče ot zlatni nakiti i srebărni predmeti ot Raciarija. Arheologija 3, 30–38.
Eger C. 2001: Vandalische Grabfunde aus Karthago. Germania 79, 347–390.
Eger C. 2005: Anmerkungen zur Belegungsabfolge und Beigabensitte im spätantiken Gräberfeld von El Ruedo (Almedinilla, Prov.
Córdoba). Madrider Mitteilungen 46, 417–436.
Eger C. 2008: Vandalisches Trachtzubehör? Zu Herkunft, Verbreitung und Kontext ausgewählter Fibeltypen in Nordafrika.
In: G.M. Berndt, R. Steinacher (ed.), Das Reich der Vandalen und seine (Vor-)Geschichten. Wien [= Österreichische Akademie
der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse, 366; Forschungen zur Geschichte des Mittelalters, 13], 183–196.
479
Jaroslav Jiřík, Joan Pinar Gil
Almgren O. 1897: Studien über nordeuropäische Fibelformen der ersten nachchristlichen Jahrhunderte. Stockholm.
Ambroz A.K. 1989: Hronologija drevnostej Severnogo Kavkaza V–VII vv. Moscow.
Antōnaras A. 2009: Rōmaïkē kai palaiochristianikē yalurgia. 1os ai. p. Ch.–6os ai. m. Ch.; paragōgē kai proïonta; ta angeia apo tē
Thessalonikē kai tēn periochē tēs. Athens.
Arce J. 2005: Bárbaros y romanos en Hispania, 400–507 AD. Madrid.
Arias Sánchez I., Balmaseda Muncharaz L.J. 2015: La necrópolis de época visigoda de Castiltierra (Segovia). Excavaciones dirigidas por
E. Camps y J.M. de Navascués, 1932–1935. Materiales conservados en el Museo Arqueológico Nacional, I: Presentación de sepulturas
y ajuares. Madrid.
Baldini I., Pinar Gil J. 2010: Osservazioni sul tesoro di Reggio Emilia. In: C. Ebanista, M. Rotili (ed.), L’Italia e il Mediterraneo
occidentale tra il V secolo e la meta del VI. Cimitile, 113–128.
Baratte F., Metzger C. 1991: L’orfèvrerie christianisée. In: Naissance des arts chrétiens. Paris, 306–315.
Baratte F., Lang J., La Nièce S., Metzger C. 2002: Le trésor de Carthage. Contribution à l’étude de l’orfèvrerie de l’Antiquité tardive. Paris.
Bárta J., Mácelová M., Pieta K. 1987: Ďalší prieskum Netopierskej jaskyne v Sásovskom krase. In: Archeologické výskumy a nálezy
na Slovensku v roku 1986. Nitra, 29–30.
Bayard D., Piton D., Schuler R. 1981: Le cimetière mérovingien de Moreuil. Cahiers Archéologiques de Picardie 8, 157–205.
Behrens G. 1931: Frühgermanische Funde aus der Friedberger Gegend. Germania 15, 255–260.
Beilharz D. 2011: Das frühmerowingerzeitliche Gräberfeld von Horb-Altheim. Studien zu Migrations- und Integrationsprozessen am
Beispiel einer frühmittelalterlichen Bestattungsgemeinschaft. Stuttgart [= Forschungen und Berichte zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte
in Baden–Württemberg, 121].
Bemmann J. 1998: Anmerkungen zu einigen Fibeln mit umgeschlangenem Fuß (Almgren Gruppe VI, Serie 1). In: J. Kunow (ed.),
100 Jahre Fibelformen nach Oscar Almgren. Internationale Arbeitstagung, 25.–28. Mai 1997, Kleinmachnow, Land Brandenburg.
Wünsdorf [= Forschungen zur Archäologie im Land Brandeburg, 5], 255–262.
Bemmann J. 2008: Mitteldeutschland im 5. Jahrhundert – Eine Zwischenstation auf dem Weg der Langobarden in mittleren
Donauraum? In: J. Bemmann, M. Schmauder (ed.), Kulturwandel im Mitteleuropa. Langobarden – Awaren – Slawen. Bonn,
145–227.
Bender H. (ed.) 1996: Das „Bürgle” bei Gundremmingen, die Grabung 1971 und neue Funde. Espelkamp [= Passauer
Universitätsschriften zur Archäologie, 3].
Bernhard H. 1982: Germanische Funde der Spätantike zwischen Straßburg und Mainz. Saalburg–Jahrbuch 38, 72–109.
Bernhard H. 1999: Germanische Funde in römischen Siedlungen Pfalz. In: T. Fischer, G. Precht, J. Tejral (ed.), Germanen beiderseits
des spätantiken Limes. Brno [= Spisy Archeologického Ústavu AV ČR Brno, 14], 15–46.
Biborski M. 2004: Dalsze ratownicze badania wykopaliskowe na cmentarzysku kultury przeworskiej z późnego okresu wpływów
rzymskich i wczesnej fazy wędrówek ludów w Mokrej, województwo śląskie. In: E. Tomczak, V. Janák (ed.), Badania
archeologiczne na górnym Śląsku i ziemiach pogranicznych w latach 2001–2002. Katowice, 125–139.
Biborski M., Kaczanowski P. 2001: Zur Differenzierung der spätkaiserzeitlichen und frühvölkerwanderungszeitlichen Bewaffnung im
Barbaricum. In: E. Istvánovits, V. Kulcsár (ed.), International Connections of the Barbarians of the Carpathian Basin in the 1st–5th
Centuries AD. Proceedings of the International Conference Held in 1999 in Aszód and Nyíregyháza. Aszód–Nyíregyháza
[= Múzeumi füzetek (Aszód), 51], 235–247.
Bierbrauer V. 1975: Die ostgotischen Grab- und Schatzfunde in Italien. Spoleto [= Studi Medievali. Biblioteca, 7].
Billoin D., Escher K., Gaillard de Sémainville H., Gandel P. 2010: Contribution à la connaissance de l’implantation burgonde en
Gaule au Ve Siècle: à propos de découvertes récentes de fibules zoomorphes. Revue Archéologique de l’Est 59, 567–583.
Böhnlein A. 1993–1994: Geisfeld, Gde. Litzendorf (Lkr. Bamberg). Ausgrabungen und Funde in Oberfranken 9, 31, 74.
Bonifay M. 2004: Études sur la céramique romaine tardive d’Afrique. Oxford [= BAR International Series, 1301].
Boudartchouk J.-L., Arramand J.-C., Grimbert L. 2006: Une sépulture de relégation découverte dans un fossé antique sur
le site de l’îlot Castelbou (Toulouse, 1991). Un guerrier vandale inhumé à la hâte? In: X. Delestre, M. Kazanski, P. Périn
(ed.), De l’Âge du Fer au haut Moyen Âge. Saint-Germain-en-Laye [= Mémoires de l’Association française d’archéologie
mérovingienne, 15], 123–133.
Bourdieu P. 1979: La distinction. Critique sociale du jugement. Paris.
Buchinger B. 1997: Die frühmittelalterlichen Grabfunde von Wiesbaden. Frankfurt am Main [= Europäische Hochschulschriften, 3].
Bulas J., Link-Lenczowski M., Okońska M. 2016: The Roman Period Pottery Kiln from Kraków–Górka Narodowa, Site no. 6.
Recherches Archéologiques 8, 173–184.
478
Late Przeworsk and post-Przeworsk, Elbian and Danubian. Vandals, Suebi and the dissemination of Central European…
Buora M. 1998: Fibeln germanischen Ursprungs in Oberitalien. In: J. Kunow (ed.), 100 Jahre Fibelformen nach Oscar Almgren.
Internationale Arbeitstagung, 25.–28. Mai 1997, Kleinmachnow, Land Brandenburg. Wünsdorf [= Forschungen zur Archäologie
im Land Brandeburg, 5], 369–374.
Buora M., Seidel S. (ed.) 2008: Fibule antiche del Friuli. Rome.
Cagnat R. 1892: L’armée romaine d’Afrique et l’occupation militaire de l’Afrique sous les empereurs. Paris.
Camps S. 1972–1973: Fouilles de Neujon. Bulletin du Groupe Archéologique de Monségur, 2–50.
Carmona Berenguer S. 1990: La necrópolis tardorromana de „El Ruedo” (Almedinilla, Córdoba). Anales de Arqueología
Cordobesa 1, 153–171.
Carmona Berenguer S. 1998: Mundo funerario rural en la Andalucía tardoantigua y de época visigoda. La necrópolis de El Ruedo
(Almedinilla, Córdoba). Córdoba.
Carré F., Jimenez F. (ed.) 2008: Louviers (Eure) au haut Moyen Âge. Découvertes anciennes et fouilles récentes du cimetière de la rue du
Mûrier. Saint-Germain-en-Laye [= Mémoires de l’Association française d’archéologiemérovingienne, 18].
Casal García R., Paz Lobeiras R. 1997: Un collar de ámbar suévico en Vigo. Gallaecia 16, 315–322.
Ciglenečki S. 2008: Castra und Höhensiedlungen vom 3. bis 6. Jahrhundert in Slowenien. In: H. Steuer, V. Bierbrauer (ed.),
Höhensiedlungen zwischen Antike und Mittelalter von den Ardennen bis zur Adria. Berlin–NewYork [= Reallexikon der
germanischen Altertumskunde, 58], 481–532.
Clement C. 2010: The Suburban Necropolises of Northern Toulouse: a Comparative Study of the Burial Rites of Saint-Sernin and Saint-
Pierre-des-Cuisines. In: J. Pinar Gil, T. Juárez Villena (ed.), Contextos funeraris a la Mediterrània nord-occidental (segles V–VIII).
Sant Cugat del Vallès [= Gausac, 34–35], 293–308.
Courtois C. 1955: Les Vandales et l’Afrique. Paris.
Csallány D. 1961: Archäologische Denkmäler der Gepiden im Mitteldonaubecken (454–568 n.C.). Budapest [= Archaeologia
Hungarica, 38].
Degani M. 1959: Il tesoro romano barbarico di Reggio Emilia. Florence.
Deppert-Lippitz B. 1997: Spätrömische Goldperlen. In: U. von Freeden, A. Wieczorek (ed.), Perlen. Archäologie, Techniken,
Analysen. Bonn, 63–76.
Diaconu Gh. 1965: Tîrgşor. Necropola din secolele III–IV e.n. Bucarest [= Biblioteca de Arheologie, 8].
Djouad S., Corrochano A., Mitton C. (forthcoming): Le site de Blanzac-Porcheresse (Charente, France): un ensemble funéraire
des Ve–VIe s. en Aquitaine wisigothique. In: E. Boube, A. Corrochano, J. Hernandez (ed.), Du royaume goth au Midi
mérovingien. Bordeaux.
Dmitriev A.V. 1979: Pogrebenia vsadnikov i boevyh konej v mogil’nike epohi pereselenia narodov na r. Djurso bliz Novorossijska.
Soveckaja Arheologia 4, 212–222.
Dobrzańska H. 1980: Zagadnienie datowania ceramiki toczonej w kulturze przeworskiej. Archeologia Polski 24, 87–152.
Droberjar E. 2007: Neue Erkenntnisse zu den Fürstgräbern der Gruppe Hassleben–Leuna–Gommern in Böhmen. Přehled Výzkumů 48, 93–103.
Droberjar E. 2008: Mladší doba římská. In: V. Salač (ed.), Doba římská a stěhování národů. Praha [= Archeologie Pravěkých
Čech, 8], 127–155.
Droberjar E. 2015: Cizorodý nálezový soubor z konce doby římské až počátku doby stěhování národů z Pšovlk, okr. Rakovník.
Archeologie ve středních Čechách 19, 707–729.
Droberjar E., Prostředník J. 2004: Turnov–Maškovy zahrady – germánský dvorec ze 3. století. Památky Archeologické 95, 31–106.
Droberjar E., Snítilý P. 2011: Bohatý dětský kostrový hrob z mladší doby římské v Květnici, okr. Praha-východ. Archeologie ve
středních Čechách 9, 501–513.
Duval N. 1976: La mosaïque funéraire dans l’art paléochrétien. Ravenna [= Antichità, archeologia, storia dell’arte, 3].
Džoržeti D. 1988: Căkrovišče ot zlatni nakiti i srebărni predmeti ot Raciarija. Arheologija 3, 30–38.
Eger C. 2001: Vandalische Grabfunde aus Karthago. Germania 79, 347–390.
Eger C. 2005: Anmerkungen zur Belegungsabfolge und Beigabensitte im spätantiken Gräberfeld von El Ruedo (Almedinilla, Prov.
Córdoba). Madrider Mitteilungen 46, 417–436.
Eger C. 2008: Vandalisches Trachtzubehör? Zu Herkunft, Verbreitung und Kontext ausgewählter Fibeltypen in Nordafrika.
In: G.M. Berndt, R. Steinacher (ed.), Das Reich der Vandalen und seine (Vor-)Geschichten. Wien [= Österreichische Akademie
der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse, 366; Forschungen zur Geschichte des Mittelalters, 13], 183–196.
479
Jaroslav Jiřík, Joan Pinar Gil
Eger C. 2012: Spätantikes Kleidungszubehör aus Nordafrika I. Trägerkreis, Mobilität und Ethnos im Spiegel der Funde der spätesten
römischen Kaiserzeit und der vandalischen Zeit. Wiesbaden [= Münchner Beiträge zur provinzialrömischen Archäologie, 5].
Ehling K. 1997: Zur Geschichte Constantins III. Francia 23 (1), 1–11.
Elschek K. 2017: Bratislava–Dúbravka im 1. bis 4. Jahrhundert n. Chr. Germanische Fürstensitz und die germanische Besiedlung. Nitra
[= Archaeologica Slovaca Monographiae Studia, 29].
Ermolin A. 2012: Džurga–Oba – a Cemetery of the Great Migration Period in the Crimean Bosporus. In: V. Ivanišević, M. Kazanski
(ed.), The Pontic-Danubian Realm in the Period of the Great Migration. Paris–Belgrade [= Monographies du Centre de
recherche d’histoire et civilisation de Byzance, 36], 339–348.
Fantar M. (ed.) 1982: De Carthage à Kairouan. 2000 ans d’art et d’histoire en Tunisie. Paris.
Fiocchi Nicolai V. 2013: Corredi aurei da una tomba della basilica di papa Marco sulla via Ardeatina. In: M. Barbera (ed.),
Costantino, 313 d.C. Milano, 60–66.
Francovich Onesti N. 2002: I Vandali. Lingua e storia. Rome.
Freeden U. von 2003: Das frühmittelalterliche Gräberfeld von Dittigheim. Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission 84, 5–48.
García-Vuelta O., Perea A., Montero-Ruíz I., Sanabria P.J., Flores R. 2013: Estudio arqueométrico del ajuar metálico de la tumba
tardorromana de Torrejón de Velasco (Madrid). In: N. Benet Jordana, R. Pérez (ed.), Actas de las séptimas Jornadas de Patrimonio
Arqueológico en la Comunidad de Madrid. Madrid, 449–454.
Gavrituhin I.O. 2000: Final tradicij kultur rimskogo vremeni v vostočnoj Prikarpatje. In: M. Mączyńska, T. Grabarczyk (ed.), Die
spätrömische Kaiserzeit und die frühe Völkerwanderungszeit in Mittel- und Osteuropa. Łódź, 261–319.
Gavrituhin I.O. 2002: Fibuly i remennye garnitury iz cisterny P – 1967 v Hersonese. Materialy po Archeologii, Istorii i Etnografii
Tavrii 9, 217–223.
Gavrituhin I.O., Kazanski M. 2010: Bosporus, the Tetraxite Goths and the Northern Caucasus Region during the Second Half of the Fifth
and the Sixth Centuries. In: F. Curta (ed.), Neglected Barbarians. Turnhout [= Studies in the Early Middle Ages, 32], 83–136.
Geisler H. 1998: Das frühbairische Gräberfeld Straubing-Bajuwarenstraße. Rahden.
Gil Miguel R. 1931: Zarcillos, colgantes y otras joyas, de diversas épocas. Madrid.
Giostra C. 2010: La presenza vandala in Africa alla luce dei ritrovamenti funerari: dati e problemi. In: C. Ebanista, M. Rotili (ed.),
L’Italia e il Mediterraneo occidentale tra il V secolo e la metà del VI. Cimitile, 141–162.
Godłowski K. 1959: Materiały z cmentarzyska z późnego okresu wpływów rzymskich w Opatowie, pow. Kłobuck. Materiały
Archeologiczne 1, 173–277.
Godłowski K. 1970: The Chronology of the Late Roman and Early Migration Periods in Central Europe. Kraków [= Zeszyty Naukowe
Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego. Prace Archeologiczne, 11].
Godłowski K. 1977: Materiały do poznania kultury przeworskiej na Górnym Śląsku. Część II. Materiały Starożytne
i Wczesnośredniowieczne 4, 7–238.
Godłowski K. 1992a: Zmiany w uzbrojeniu ludności kultury przeworskiej w okresie wpływów rzymskich. In: M. Głosek,
A. Nowakowski (ed.), Arma et Ollae. Studia dedykowane Profesorowi Andrzejowi Nadolskiemu w 70 rocznicę urodzin
i 45 rocznicę pracy naukowej. Łódź, 71–88.
Godłowski K. 1992b: Die Chronologie der jüngeren und späten Kaiserzeit in den Gebieten südlich der Sudeten und Karpaten.
In: K. Godłowski, R. Madyda-Legutko (ed.), Probleme der relativen und absoluten Chronologie ab Latènezeit bis zum
Frühmittelalter. Kraków, 23–54.
Godłowski K. 1995: Das «Fürstengrab» des 5. Jhs. und der «Fürstensitz» in Jakuszowice in Südpolen. In: F. Vallet, M. Kazanski
(ed.), La noblesse romaine et les chefs barbares du IIIe au VIIe siècle. Paris [= Mémoires de l’Association française d’archéologie
mérogingienne, 9], 155–179.
Goffart W. 1981: Rome, Constantinople, and the Barbarians. American Historical Review 76, 275–306.
Goffart W. 2006: Barbarian Tides. The Migration Age and the Later Roman Empire. Philadelphia.
Grünhagen W. 1954: Der Schatzfund von Gross Bodungen. Berlin [= Römisch-Germanische Forschungen, 21].
Gschwind M. 2004: Abusina. Das römische Auxiliarkastell Eining an der Donau vom 1. bis 5. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. München.
Haberstroh J. 1995: Germanische Stammesverbände an Obermain und Regnitz. Zur Archäologie des 3.–5. Jahrhunderts in Oberfranken.
Archiv für Geschichte von Oberfranken 75, 7–40.
Haberstroh J. 2003: Der Riesberg bei Scheßlitz-Burgellern in der Völkerwanderungszeit. Überlegung zum 5. Jahrhundert n. Chr. in
Nordbayern. Germania 81, 201–262.
480
Late Przeworsk and post-Przeworsk, Elbian and Danubian. Vandals, Suebi and the dissemination of Central European…
Halsall G. 2007: Barbarian Migrations and the Roman West 376–568. Cambridge.
Harhoiu R. 1990: Chronologische Fragen der völkerwanderungszeit in Rumänien. Dacia 34, 169–208.
Harhoiu R. 1999: Das Ende der Sîntana de Mureş-Černjachov-Kultur und die Phase der hunnischen Expansion. In: G. Gomolka-
Fuchs (ed.), Die Sîntana de Mureş-Černjachov-Kultur. Akten des Internationalen Kolloquiums in Caputh vom 20. bis 24.
Oktober 1995. Bonn [= Kolloquien zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte, 2], 59–68.
Heather P. 2009: Why Did the Barbarians Cross the Rhine? Journal of Late Antiquity 2 (1), 3–29.
Heras Mora F.J., Olmedo Grajera A.B. 2015: Identidad y contexto en la necrópolis tardorromana de Mérida. In: J.A. Quirós Castillo,
S. Castellanos (ed.), Identidad y etnicidad en Hispania. Propuestas teóricas y cultura material en los siglos V–VIII. Vitoria/Gasteiz
[= Documentos de Arqueología Medieval, 8], 275–290.
Heras Mora F.J., Olmedo Grajera A.B. 2018: «Rechila, Rex Suevorum, Emeritam Ingreditur». La sedes regia de Mérida a través de sus
princesas. In: J. López Quiroga (ed.), In tempore Sueborum. El tiempo de los suevos en la Gallaecia (411–585). Volumen de estudios.
Ourense, 457–460.
Hernandez J., Raynaud C. 2005: La Septimanie du Ve au VIIIe siècle: archéologie du changement culturel. In: X. Delestré,
P. Périn, M. Kazanski (ed.), La Méditerranée et le monde mérovingien. Témoins archéologiques. Aix-en-Provence [= Bulletin
Archéologique de Provence. Supplément, 3], 177–188.
Hlava M. 2009: Poznámky k některým laténským hrobům a tzv. nálezům hrobového charakteru z Prahy – II. Archeologie ve středních
Čechách 13, 849–867.
Höck A. 2003: Archäologische Forschungen in Teriola 1. Die Rettungsgrabungen auf dem Martinsbühel bei Zirl von 1993–1997.
Spätromanische Befunde und Funde zum Kastell. Vienna [= Fundberichte aus Österreich. Materialhefte A, 14].
Hoeper M., Steuer H. 1999: Eine völkerwanderungszeitliche Höhenstation am Oberrhein – der Geißkopf bei Berghaupten,
Ortenaukreis. Höhensiedlung, Kultplatz oder Militärlager. Germania 77, 185–246.
In tempore Sueborum 2017: In tempore Sueborum. El tiempo de los suevos en la Gallaecia (411–585). Ourense.
Ioniţă I. 1998: Die Fibeln mit umgeschlangenem Fuß Almgren Gruppe VI, 2. In: J. Kunow (ed.), 100 Jahre Fibelformen nach Oscar
Almgren. Internationale Arbeitstagung, 25.–28. Mai 1997, Kleinmachnow, Land Brandenburg. Wünsdorf [= Forschungen zur
Archäologie im Land Brandeburg, 5], 231–240.
Isings C. 1957: Roman Glass from Dated Finds. Groningen–Djakarta [= Archaeologica Traiectina, 2].
Istvánovits E. 1992: Some Data on the Late Roman – Early Migration Period Chronology of the Upper Tisza Region.
In: K. Godłowski, R. Madyda-Legutko (ed.), Probleme der relativen und absoluten Chronologie ab Latènezeit bis zum
Frühmittelalter. Kraków, 89–101.
Istvánovits E., Kulcsár V. 1987–1989: Pajzsos temetkezések a Dunától keletre esö kárpát-medencei Barbaricumban. A nyíregyházi Jósa
András Múzeum Évkönyve 30–32, 47–96.
Istvánovits E., Kulcsár V. 1999: Sarmatian and Germanic People at the Upper Tisza Region and South Alföld at the Beginning of
the Migration Period. In: J. Tejral, C. Pilet, M. Kazanski (ed.), L’Occident romain et l’Europe centrale au début de l’époque des
Grandes Migrations. Brno [= Spisy Archeologického Ústavu AV ČR Brno, 13], 67–94.
James S.T. 2004: Excavations at Dura-Europos 1928–1937. Final Report 7. The Arms and Armour and Other Military
Equipment. London.
Jílek J. 2009: Doklady kontaktů mezi polabskými Germány, przeworskou a wielbarskou kulturou ve východních Čechách.
In: M. Karwowski, E. Droberjar (ed.), Archeologia Barbarzyńców 2008. Powiązania i kontakty w świecie barbarzyńskim.
Rzeszów, 249–280.
Jiřík J. 2008: Ein Beitrag zur Erforschung der Besiedlung Ost- und Nordostböhmens während der späten Kaiserzeit und der frühen
Völkerwanderungszeit. In: B. Niezabitowska-Wiśniewska et al. (ed.), The Turbulent Epoch. New Materials from the Late Roman
Period and the Migration Period. Lublin [= Monumenta Studia Gothica, 5], 156–177.
Jiřík J., Pinar Gil J., Vávra J. (forthcoming): Raiders, Federates and Settlers: Parallel Processes and Direct Contacts between Two
Distant Regions, from the Final Phase of the Chernyakhov Culture to the Decline of the Vinařice Group in Bohemia and the Birth
of the Visigothic-Period Cemeteries in Castile. In: E. Boube, A. Corrochano, J. Hernandez (ed.), Du royaume goth au Midi
mérovingien. XXXIVe journées internationales d’archéologie mérovingienne de l’AFAM. Bordeaux.
Jiřík J., Kuchařík M., Šmolíková M. –Vávra J. 2015: Hroby barbarů v Praze Zličíně. Svět živých a mrtvých doby stěhování národů.
Praha. Johns C. 2010: The Hoxne late Roman Treasure. Gold Jewellery and Silver Plate. London.
Johns C., Potter T. 1983: The Thetford Treasure. Roman Jewellery and Silver. London.
481
Jaroslav Jiřík, Joan Pinar Gil
Eger C. 2012: Spätantikes Kleidungszubehör aus Nordafrika I. Trägerkreis, Mobilität und Ethnos im Spiegel der Funde der spätesten
römischen Kaiserzeit und der vandalischen Zeit. Wiesbaden [= Münchner Beiträge zur provinzialrömischen Archäologie, 5].
Ehling K. 1997: Zur Geschichte Constantins III. Francia 23 (1), 1–11.
Elschek K. 2017: Bratislava–Dúbravka im 1. bis 4. Jahrhundert n. Chr. Germanische Fürstensitz und die germanische Besiedlung. Nitra
[= Archaeologica Slovaca Monographiae Studia, 29].
Ermolin A. 2012: Džurga–Oba – a Cemetery of the Great Migration Period in the Crimean Bosporus. In: V. Ivanišević, M. Kazanski
(ed.), The Pontic-Danubian Realm in the Period of the Great Migration. Paris–Belgrade [= Monographies du Centre de
recherche d’histoire et civilisation de Byzance, 36], 339–348.
Fantar M. (ed.) 1982: De Carthage à Kairouan. 2000 ans d’art et d’histoire en Tunisie. Paris.
Fiocchi Nicolai V. 2013: Corredi aurei da una tomba della basilica di papa Marco sulla via Ardeatina. In: M. Barbera (ed.),
Costantino, 313 d.C. Milano, 60–66.
Francovich Onesti N. 2002: I Vandali. Lingua e storia. Rome.
Freeden U. von 2003: Das frühmittelalterliche Gräberfeld von Dittigheim. Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission 84, 5–48.
García-Vuelta O., Perea A., Montero-Ruíz I., Sanabria P.J., Flores R. 2013: Estudio arqueométrico del ajuar metálico de la tumba
tardorromana de Torrejón de Velasco (Madrid). In: N. Benet Jordana, R. Pérez (ed.), Actas de las séptimas Jornadas de Patrimonio
Arqueológico en la Comunidad de Madrid. Madrid, 449–454.
Gavrituhin I.O. 2000: Final tradicij kultur rimskogo vremeni v vostočnoj Prikarpatje. In: M. Mączyńska, T. Grabarczyk (ed.), Die
spätrömische Kaiserzeit und die frühe Völkerwanderungszeit in Mittel- und Osteuropa. Łódź, 261–319.
Gavrituhin I.O. 2002: Fibuly i remennye garnitury iz cisterny P – 1967 v Hersonese. Materialy po Archeologii, Istorii i Etnografii
Tavrii 9, 217–223.
Gavrituhin I.O., Kazanski M. 2010: Bosporus, the Tetraxite Goths and the Northern Caucasus Region during the Second Half of the Fifth
and the Sixth Centuries. In: F. Curta (ed.), Neglected Barbarians. Turnhout [= Studies in the Early Middle Ages, 32], 83–136.
Geisler H. 1998: Das frühbairische Gräberfeld Straubing-Bajuwarenstraße. Rahden.
Gil Miguel R. 1931: Zarcillos, colgantes y otras joyas, de diversas épocas. Madrid.
Giostra C. 2010: La presenza vandala in Africa alla luce dei ritrovamenti funerari: dati e problemi. In: C. Ebanista, M. Rotili (ed.),
L’Italia e il Mediterraneo occidentale tra il V secolo e la metà del VI. Cimitile, 141–162.
Godłowski K. 1959: Materiały z cmentarzyska z późnego okresu wpływów rzymskich w Opatowie, pow. Kłobuck. Materiały
Archeologiczne 1, 173–277.
Godłowski K. 1970: The Chronology of the Late Roman and Early Migration Periods in Central Europe. Kraków [= Zeszyty Naukowe
Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego. Prace Archeologiczne, 11].
Godłowski K. 1977: Materiały do poznania kultury przeworskiej na Górnym Śląsku. Część II. Materiały Starożytne
i Wczesnośredniowieczne 4, 7–238.
Godłowski K. 1992a: Zmiany w uzbrojeniu ludności kultury przeworskiej w okresie wpływów rzymskich. In: M. Głosek,
A. Nowakowski (ed.), Arma et Ollae. Studia dedykowane Profesorowi Andrzejowi Nadolskiemu w 70 rocznicę urodzin
i 45 rocznicę pracy naukowej. Łódź, 71–88.
Godłowski K. 1992b: Die Chronologie der jüngeren und späten Kaiserzeit in den Gebieten südlich der Sudeten und Karpaten.
In: K. Godłowski, R. Madyda-Legutko (ed.), Probleme der relativen und absoluten Chronologie ab Latènezeit bis zum
Frühmittelalter. Kraków, 23–54.
Godłowski K. 1995: Das «Fürstengrab» des 5. Jhs. und der «Fürstensitz» in Jakuszowice in Südpolen. In: F. Vallet, M. Kazanski
(ed.), La noblesse romaine et les chefs barbares du IIIe au VIIe siècle. Paris [= Mémoires de l’Association française d’archéologie
mérogingienne, 9], 155–179.
Goffart W. 1981: Rome, Constantinople, and the Barbarians. American Historical Review 76, 275–306.
Goffart W. 2006: Barbarian Tides. The Migration Age and the Later Roman Empire. Philadelphia.
Grünhagen W. 1954: Der Schatzfund von Gross Bodungen. Berlin [= Römisch-Germanische Forschungen, 21].
Gschwind M. 2004: Abusina. Das römische Auxiliarkastell Eining an der Donau vom 1. bis 5. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. München.
Haberstroh J. 1995: Germanische Stammesverbände an Obermain und Regnitz. Zur Archäologie des 3.–5. Jahrhunderts in Oberfranken.
Archiv für Geschichte von Oberfranken 75, 7–40.
Haberstroh J. 2003: Der Riesberg bei Scheßlitz-Burgellern in der Völkerwanderungszeit. Überlegung zum 5. Jahrhundert n. Chr. in
Nordbayern. Germania 81, 201–262.
480
Late Przeworsk and post-Przeworsk, Elbian and Danubian. Vandals, Suebi and the dissemination of Central European…
Halsall G. 2007: Barbarian Migrations and the Roman West 376–568. Cambridge.
Harhoiu R. 1990: Chronologische Fragen der völkerwanderungszeit in Rumänien. Dacia 34, 169–208.
Harhoiu R. 1999: Das Ende der Sîntana de Mureş-Černjachov-Kultur und die Phase der hunnischen Expansion. In: G. Gomolka-
Fuchs (ed.), Die Sîntana de Mureş-Černjachov-Kultur. Akten des Internationalen Kolloquiums in Caputh vom 20. bis 24.
Oktober 1995. Bonn [= Kolloquien zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte, 2], 59–68.
Heather P. 2009: Why Did the Barbarians Cross the Rhine? Journal of Late Antiquity 2 (1), 3–29.
Heras Mora F.J., Olmedo Grajera A.B. 2015: Identidad y contexto en la necrópolis tardorromana de Mérida. In: J.A. Quirós Castillo,
S. Castellanos (ed.), Identidad y etnicidad en Hispania. Propuestas teóricas y cultura material en los siglos V–VIII. Vitoria/Gasteiz
[= Documentos de Arqueología Medieval, 8], 275–290.
Heras Mora F.J., Olmedo Grajera A.B. 2018: «Rechila, Rex Suevorum, Emeritam Ingreditur». La sedes regia de Mérida a través de sus
princesas. In: J. López Quiroga (ed.), In tempore Sueborum. El tiempo de los suevos en la Gallaecia (411–585). Volumen de estudios.
Ourense, 457–460.
Hernandez J., Raynaud C. 2005: La Septimanie du Ve au VIIIe siècle: archéologie du changement culturel. In: X. Delestré,
P. Périn, M. Kazanski (ed.), La Méditerranée et le monde mérovingien. Témoins archéologiques. Aix-en-Provence [= Bulletin
Archéologique de Provence. Supplément, 3], 177–188.
Hlava M. 2009: Poznámky k některým laténským hrobům a tzv. nálezům hrobového charakteru z Prahy – II. Archeologie ve středních
Čechách 13, 849–867.
Höck A. 2003: Archäologische Forschungen in Teriola 1. Die Rettungsgrabungen auf dem Martinsbühel bei Zirl von 1993–1997.
Spätromanische Befunde und Funde zum Kastell. Vienna [= Fundberichte aus Österreich. Materialhefte A, 14].
Hoeper M., Steuer H. 1999: Eine völkerwanderungszeitliche Höhenstation am Oberrhein – der Geißkopf bei Berghaupten,
Ortenaukreis. Höhensiedlung, Kultplatz oder Militärlager. Germania 77, 185–246.
In tempore Sueborum 2017: In tempore Sueborum. El tiempo de los suevos en la Gallaecia (411–585). Ourense.
Ioniţă I. 1998: Die Fibeln mit umgeschlangenem Fuß Almgren Gruppe VI, 2. In: J. Kunow (ed.), 100 Jahre Fibelformen nach Oscar
Almgren. Internationale Arbeitstagung, 25.–28. Mai 1997, Kleinmachnow, Land Brandenburg. Wünsdorf [= Forschungen zur
Archäologie im Land Brandeburg, 5], 231–240.
Isings C. 1957: Roman Glass from Dated Finds. Groningen–Djakarta [= Archaeologica Traiectina, 2].
Istvánovits E. 1992: Some Data on the Late Roman – Early Migration Period Chronology of the Upper Tisza Region.
In: K. Godłowski, R. Madyda-Legutko (ed.), Probleme der relativen und absoluten Chronologie ab Latènezeit bis zum
Frühmittelalter. Kraków, 89–101.
Istvánovits E., Kulcsár V. 1987–1989: Pajzsos temetkezések a Dunától keletre esö kárpát-medencei Barbaricumban. A nyíregyházi Jósa
András Múzeum Évkönyve 30–32, 47–96.
Istvánovits E., Kulcsár V. 1999: Sarmatian and Germanic People at the Upper Tisza Region and South Alföld at the Beginning of
the Migration Period. In: J. Tejral, C. Pilet, M. Kazanski (ed.), L’Occident romain et l’Europe centrale au début de l’époque des
Grandes Migrations. Brno [= Spisy Archeologického Ústavu AV ČR Brno, 13], 67–94.
James S.T. 2004: Excavations at Dura-Europos 1928–1937. Final Report 7. The Arms and Armour and Other Military
Equipment. London.
Jílek J. 2009: Doklady kontaktů mezi polabskými Germány, przeworskou a wielbarskou kulturou ve východních Čechách.
In: M. Karwowski, E. Droberjar (ed.), Archeologia Barbarzyńców 2008. Powiązania i kontakty w świecie barbarzyńskim.
Rzeszów, 249–280.
Jiřík J. 2008: Ein Beitrag zur Erforschung der Besiedlung Ost- und Nordostböhmens während der späten Kaiserzeit und der frühen
Völkerwanderungszeit. In: B. Niezabitowska-Wiśniewska et al. (ed.), The Turbulent Epoch. New Materials from the Late Roman
Period and the Migration Period. Lublin [= Monumenta Studia Gothica, 5], 156–177.
Jiřík J., Pinar Gil J., Vávra J. (forthcoming): Raiders, Federates and Settlers: Parallel Processes and Direct Contacts between Two
Distant Regions, from the Final Phase of the Chernyakhov Culture to the Decline of the Vinařice Group in Bohemia and the Birth
of the Visigothic-Period Cemeteries in Castile. In: E. Boube, A. Corrochano, J. Hernandez (ed.), Du royaume goth au Midi
mérovingien. XXXIVe journées internationales d’archéologie mérovingienne de l’AFAM. Bordeaux.
Jiřík J., Kuchařík M., Šmolíková M. –Vávra J. 2015: Hroby barbarů v Praze Zličíně. Svět živých a mrtvých doby stěhování národů.
Praha. Johns C. 2010: The Hoxne late Roman Treasure. Gold Jewellery and Silver Plate. London.
Johns C., Potter T. 1983: The Thetford Treasure. Roman Jewellery and Silver. London.
481
Jaroslav Jiřík, Joan Pinar Gil
Kaczanowski P., Rodzińska-Nowak J. 2008: Die späteste Phase der Siedlung der Przeworsk-Kultur in Jakuszowice, Fdst. 2, Kleinpolen.
In: B. Niezabitowska-Wiśniewska et al. (ed.), The Turbulent Epoch. New Materials from the Late Roman Period and the
Migration Period. Lublin [= Monumenta Studia Gothica, 5], 179–188.
Kakoschke A. 2004: “Germanen” in der Fremde. Eine Untersuchung zur Mobilität aus den römischen Provinzen Germania inferior
und Germania superior anhand der Inschriften des 1. bis 3. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. Möhnesee [= Osnabrücker Forschungen zu
Altertum und Antike-Rezeption, 8].
Karsers A. de, Marquerye R. de, Guère R. de la 1891: Tombes du cimetière des Capucins. Mémoires de la Société des Antiquaires du
Centre 18, 51–63.
Kazanski M. 1986: Un témoignage de la présence des Alano-Sarmates en Gaule: la sépulture de la Fosse Jean-Fat à Reims. Archéologie
Médiévale 16, 33–39.
Kazanski M. 1993: Les barbares orientaux et la défense de la Gaule aux IVe–Ve siècles. In: F. Vallet, M. Kazanski (ed.), L’armée romaine
et les barbares du IIIe au VIIe siècle. Paris [= Mémoires de l’Association française d’archéologie mérovingienne, 5], 175–186.
Kazanski M. 1994: Les plaques-boucles méditerranéennes des Ve–VIe siècles. Archéologie Médiévale 24, 137–198.
Kazanski M. 1996: Les tombes «princières» de l’horizon Untersiebenbrunn, le problème de l’identification ethnique. In: L. Buchet,
C. Pilet (ed.), L’identité des populations archéologiques. XVIe Rencontres Internationales d’Archéologie et d’Histoire d’Antibes.
Sophia Antipolis, 109–126.
Kazanski M. 1997: La Gaule et le Danube a ľépoque des Grandes Migrations. In: J. Tejral, H. Friesinger, M. Kazanski (ed.),
Neue Beiträge zur Erforschung der Spätantike im mittleren Donauraum. Brno [= Spisy Archeologického Ústavu AV ČR
Brno, 8], 285–319.
Kazanski M. 1998: Les fibules germaniques orientales et danubiennes en Gaule (périodes C2–D2). In: J. Kunow (ed.), 100 Jahre
Fibelformen nach Oscar Almgren. Internationale Arbeitstagung, 25.–28. Mai 1997, Kleinmachnow, Land Brandenburg. Wünsdorf
[= Forschungen zur Archäologie im Land Brandeburg, 5], 375–386.
Kazanski M. 2000: Les fibules originaires de l’Europe centrale et orientale trouvées dans les Pyrenées et en Afrique du nord. À propos
des traces archéologiques des Suèbes, des Vandales et des Goths dans la Méditerranée occidentale à l’époque des Grandes Migrations.
In: R. Madyda-Legutko, T. Bochnak (ed.), Superiores Barbari. Księga pamiątkowa ku czci Profesora Kazimierz Godłowskiego.
Kraków, 189–202.
Kazanski M. 2002: Die Chronologie der Anfangsphase des Gräberfeldes von Djurso. In: J. Tejral (ed.), Probleme der frühen
Merowingerzeit im Mitteldonauraum. Brno [= Spisy Archeologického Ústavu AV ČR Brno, 19], 137–157.
Kazanski M. 2009: Archéologie des peuples barbares. Brăila–Bucureṣti [= Florilegium magistrorum historiae archaeologiaeque
Antiquitatis et Medii Aevi, 5].
Kazanski M. 2011: Iranskije kinžaly 5 v. iz nekropolja Cibilium. In: Problemy arheologii Kavkaza (k 70-letiju Ju.N. Voronova).
Suhum, 146–152.
Kazanski M. 2013: Barbarian Military Equipment and Its Evolution in the Late Roman and Great Migration Period (3rd–5th c. A.D.).
In: A. Sarantis, N. Christie (ed.), War and Warfare in Late Antiquity. Leiden–Boston, 493–521.
Kazanski M. 2018: Northern Barbarians and the Later Roman Empire’s Pontic Border. In: B. Niezabitowska-Wiśniewska et al. (ed.),
Studia Barbarica. Profesorowi Andrzejowi Kokowskiemu w 65. rocznicę urodzin. Lublin, 206–220.
Kazanski M. forthcoming: Les objets archéologiques du type Černjahov en Occident romain a l’époque des grandes migrations.
In: P. de Vingo, J. Pinar Gil (ed.), Romania Gothica II. Bárbaros en la ciudad tardoantigua. Turin.
Kazanski M., Mastykova A. 2003: Les peuples du Caucase du Nord. Le début de l’histoire (Ier–VIIe s. apr. J.-C.). Paris.
Kazanski M., Mastykova A. 2006: A propos des Alains en Occident à l’époque des Grandes Migrations: le costume à appliques en
or. In: J. López Quiroga, A.M. Martínez Tejera, J. Morin de Pablos (ed.), Gallia e Hispania en el contexto de la presencia
‘germánica’ (ss.V–VII). Balances y Perspectivas. Oxford [= BAR International Series, 1534], 291–305.
Kazanski M., Mastykova A. 2013: Hronologija cebeldinskoj kultury (II–VII vv.). In: Problemy drevnej i srednevekovoj archeologii
Kavkaza materialy konferencii. Suhum, 55–62.
Kazanski M., Mastykova A. 2017: The Sösdala Finds in the Perspective of Central and South-Eastern Europe. In: C. Fabech,
U. Näsman, N. Khrapunov (ed.), The Sösdala Horsemen and the Equestrian Elite of Fifth Century Europe. Moesgård
[= Jysk Arkaeologisk Selskab, 99], 297–311.
Kazanski M., Mastykova A. (forthcoming): La Méditerranée dans le barbaricum: les tombes privilégiées du Bosphore Cimmerien
à l’époque post-hunnique (deuxième moitié du Ve – première moitié du VIe siècle). In: P. de Vingo, Y.A. Marano, J. Pinar Gil (ed.),
Sepolture di prestigio nel bacino mediterraneo (IV–IX sec.). Definizione, immagini, utilizzo. Florence.
482
Late Przeworsk and post-Przeworsk, Elbian and Danubian. Vandals, Suebi and the dissemination of Central European…
Keller E. 1971: Die spätrömische Grabfunde in Südbayern. München [= Münchner Beiträge zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte, 14;
Veröffentlichungen der Kommission zur Archäologischen Erforschung des spätrömischen Raetien, 8].
Keller E. 1979: Das spätrömische Gräberfeld von Neuburg an der Donau. Kallmünz [= Materialhefte zur bayerischen Vorgeschichte A, 40].
Kiss A. 1994: Stand der Bestimmung archäologischer Denkmäler der gens Alanorum in Pannonien, Gallien, Hispanien und Afrika. Acta
Antiqua Hungaricae 35, 167–204.
Kiss A. 2001: Das germanische Frauengrab von Répcelak (Westungarn) aus der zweiten Hälfte der 5. Jahrhunderts. Acta Archaeologica
Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 52, 115–144.
Kleemann J. 2002: Quelques réflexions sur l’interprétation ethnique des sépultures habillées considérées comme Vandales. Antiquité
Tardive 10, 123–129.
Kleemann J. 2008: Vandals went West – was die archäologischen Quellen über die Westmigration der “Vandalen” aussagen können.
In: G.M. Berndt, R. Steinacher (ed.), Das Reich der Vandalen und seine (Vor-)Geschichten. Wien [= Österreichische Akademie
der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse, 366; Forschungen zur Geschichte des Mittelalters, 13], 87–96.
Knaut M. 2005: Reiche germanische Gräber aus Zwochau. In: M. Knaut, D. Quast (ed.), Die Völkerwanderung. Europa zwischen
Antike und Mittelalter. Stuttgart, 89–91.
Koenig G.G. 1980: Archäologische Zeugnisse westgotischer Präsenz im 5. Jahrhundert. Madrider Mitteilungen 21, 220–247.
Koenig G.G. 1981: Wandalische Grabfunde des 5. und 6. Jhs. Madrider Mitteilungen 22, 299–360.
Kokowski A. 1996: O tak zwanych blaszanych fibulach z półokrągłą płytą na główce i rombowatą nóżką. Studia Gothica 1, 153–184.
Kolník T., Varsik V., Vladár J. 2007: Branč. Germánská osada z 2. až 4. století – Eine germanische Siedlung vom 2. bis zum 4.
Jahrhundert. Nitra [= Archaeologica Slovaca Monographiae Catalogi, 10].
Kotigoroško V.G. 1987: Žertvennik III–IV vv. n.e. u sela Solončy. Sovetskaja Archeologija 2, 176–191.
Kovrig I. 1937: A császárkori fibulák föformái Pannoniában. Budapest [= Dissertaniones Pannonicae II, 4].
Kuchařík M., Bureš M., Pleinerová I., Jiřík J. 2008: Nové poznatky k osídlení západního okraje Prahy v 5. století. In: E. Droberjar,
B. Komoróczy, D. Vachůtová (ed.), Barbarská sídliště. Chronologické, ekonomické a historické aspekty jejich vývoje ve světle
nových archeologických výzkumů. Brno [= Spisy Archeologického Ústavu AV ČR Brno, 37], 201–232.
Lafaurie J. 1958: Sur le trésor de Gourdon (Saône-et-Loire). Bulletin de la Société nationale des Antiquaires de France, 61–76.
Laporte J.-P. 1999: Deux basiliques chrétiennes de Maurétanie césarienne. Antiquité Tardive 7, 371–382.
Lau N., Pieta K. 2017: Die Antike Öffnung des Kammergrabes von Poprad–Matejovce. In: Na hranicích impéria – Extra Fines Imperii.
Jaroslavu Tejralovi k 80. narozeninám. Brno, 255–265.
Lazin G., Gindele R. 2010: Contribuţii la Probleme legate de evoluţia ceramicii în epoca Romană Tărzie şi în prima epocă a migraţiilor
în Bazinul Tisei Superioare. Arelierele Ceramice de la Lazuri (Lázári)-Râtul lui Béla. In: A. Mǎgureanu, E. Gáll (ed.), Între Stepă
şi Imperiu / Zwischen der Steppe und dem Reich / Between the Steppe and Imperium. Bucureşti, 2–40.
Legoux R. 2005: La nécropole mérovingienne de Cutry, Meurthe-et-Moselle. Paris [= Mémoires de l’Association française
d’archéologie mérovingienne, 14].
Legoux R., Périn P., Vallet F. 2004: Chronologie normalisée du mobilier funéraire mérovingien entre Manche et Lorraine.
Saint-Germain-en-Laye [= Bulletin de liaison de l’Association française d’archéologie mérovingienne. Hors-série, 1].
Levinschi A. 1999: Gräberfeld der späten Sintana de Mureş-Černjachov-Kultur. In: G. Gomolka-Fuchs (ed.), Die Sîntana de Mureş-
Černjachov-Kultur. Akten des Internationalen Kolloquiums in Caputh vom 20. bis 24. Oktober 1995. Bonn [= Kolloquien zur Vor-
und Frühgeschichte, 2], 23–32.
Limburský P., Jiřík J. (in preparation): Grave of Late Antique Warrior from Vliněves, okr. Mělník in Bohemia. Archeologické Rozhledy.
López Quiroga J. 2001: Elementos “foráneos” en las necrópolis tardorromanas de Beiral (Ponte de Lima, Portugal) y Vigo (Pontevedra,
España): de nuevo la cuestión del siglo V d.C. en la Península Ibérica. Cuadernos de Prehistoria y Arqueología de la Universidad
Autónoma de Madrid 27, 115–124.
López Quiroga J. 2015: „Barbares danubiens” en Hispania au Ve siècle? Gentes „étrangers” et armées „romaines” en Péninsule Ibérique.
In: T. Vida (ed.), Romania Gothica II. The Frontier World. Barbarians, Romans and the Military Culture. Budapest, 477–496.
López Quiroga J., Figueiras Pimentel N. 2018: La orfebrería de los «príncipes barbaros». Estudio de las técnicas de fabricación en oro
y plata de los ajuares funerarios (siglos III–VII). In: J. López Quiroga (ed.), In tempore Sueborum. El tiempo de los suevos en la
Gallaecia (411–585). Volumen de estudios. Ourense, 85–98.
Lotter F. 1968: Zur Rolle der Donausueben in der Völkerwanderungszeit. Mitteilungen des Instituts für Österreichische
Geschichtsforschung 76, 275–298.
483
Jaroslav Jiřík, Joan Pinar Gil
Kaczanowski P., Rodzińska-Nowak J. 2008: Die späteste Phase der Siedlung der Przeworsk-Kultur in Jakuszowice, Fdst. 2, Kleinpolen.
In: B. Niezabitowska-Wiśniewska et al. (ed.), The Turbulent Epoch. New Materials from the Late Roman Period and the
Migration Period. Lublin [= Monumenta Studia Gothica, 5], 179–188.
Kakoschke A. 2004: “Germanen” in der Fremde. Eine Untersuchung zur Mobilität aus den römischen Provinzen Germania inferior
und Germania superior anhand der Inschriften des 1. bis 3. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. Möhnesee [= Osnabrücker Forschungen zu
Altertum und Antike-Rezeption, 8].
Karsers A. de, Marquerye R. de, Guère R. de la 1891: Tombes du cimetière des Capucins. Mémoires de la Société des Antiquaires du
Centre 18, 51–63.
Kazanski M. 1986: Un témoignage de la présence des Alano-Sarmates en Gaule: la sépulture de la Fosse Jean-Fat à Reims. Archéologie
Médiévale 16, 33–39.
Kazanski M. 1993: Les barbares orientaux et la défense de la Gaule aux IVe–Ve siècles. In: F. Vallet, M. Kazanski (ed.), L’armée romaine
et les barbares du IIIe au VIIe siècle. Paris [= Mémoires de l’Association française d’archéologie mérovingienne, 5], 175–186.
Kazanski M. 1994: Les plaques-boucles méditerranéennes des Ve–VIe siècles. Archéologie Médiévale 24, 137–198.
Kazanski M. 1996: Les tombes «princières» de l’horizon Untersiebenbrunn, le problème de l’identification ethnique. In: L. Buchet,
C. Pilet (ed.), L’identité des populations archéologiques. XVIe Rencontres Internationales d’Archéologie et d’Histoire d’Antibes.
Sophia Antipolis, 109–126.
Kazanski M. 1997: La Gaule et le Danube a ľépoque des Grandes Migrations. In: J. Tejral, H. Friesinger, M. Kazanski (ed.),
Neue Beiträge zur Erforschung der Spätantike im mittleren Donauraum. Brno [= Spisy Archeologického Ústavu AV ČR
Brno, 8], 285–319.
Kazanski M. 1998: Les fibules germaniques orientales et danubiennes en Gaule (périodes C2–D2). In: J. Kunow (ed.), 100 Jahre
Fibelformen nach Oscar Almgren. Internationale Arbeitstagung, 25.–28. Mai 1997, Kleinmachnow, Land Brandenburg. Wünsdorf
[= Forschungen zur Archäologie im Land Brandeburg, 5], 375–386.
Kazanski M. 2000: Les fibules originaires de l’Europe centrale et orientale trouvées dans les Pyrenées et en Afrique du nord. À propos
des traces archéologiques des Suèbes, des Vandales et des Goths dans la Méditerranée occidentale à l’époque des Grandes Migrations.
In: R. Madyda-Legutko, T. Bochnak (ed.), Superiores Barbari. Księga pamiątkowa ku czci Profesora Kazimierz Godłowskiego.
Kraków, 189–202.
Kazanski M. 2002: Die Chronologie der Anfangsphase des Gräberfeldes von Djurso. In: J. Tejral (ed.), Probleme der frühen
Merowingerzeit im Mitteldonauraum. Brno [= Spisy Archeologického Ústavu AV ČR Brno, 19], 137–157.
Kazanski M. 2009: Archéologie des peuples barbares. Brăila–Bucureṣti [= Florilegium magistrorum historiae archaeologiaeque
Antiquitatis et Medii Aevi, 5].
Kazanski M. 2011: Iranskije kinžaly 5 v. iz nekropolja Cibilium. In: Problemy arheologii Kavkaza (k 70-letiju Ju.N. Voronova).
Suhum, 146–152.
Kazanski M. 2013: Barbarian Military Equipment and Its Evolution in the Late Roman and Great Migration Period (3rd–5th c. A.D.).
In: A. Sarantis, N. Christie (ed.), War and Warfare in Late Antiquity. Leiden–Boston, 493–521.
Kazanski M. 2018: Northern Barbarians and the Later Roman Empire’s Pontic Border. In: B. Niezabitowska-Wiśniewska et al. (ed.),
Studia Barbarica. Profesorowi Andrzejowi Kokowskiemu w 65. rocznicę urodzin. Lublin, 206–220.
Kazanski M. forthcoming: Les objets archéologiques du type Černjahov en Occident romain a l’époque des grandes migrations.
In: P. de Vingo, J. Pinar Gil (ed.), Romania Gothica II. Bárbaros en la ciudad tardoantigua. Turin.
Kazanski M., Mastykova A. 2003: Les peuples du Caucase du Nord. Le début de l’histoire (Ier–VIIe s. apr. J.-C.). Paris.
Kazanski M., Mastykova A. 2006: A propos des Alains en Occident à l’époque des Grandes Migrations: le costume à appliques en
or. In: J. López Quiroga, A.M. Martínez Tejera, J. Morin de Pablos (ed.), Gallia e Hispania en el contexto de la presencia
‘germánica’ (ss.V–VII). Balances y Perspectivas. Oxford [= BAR International Series, 1534], 291–305.
Kazanski M., Mastykova A. 2013: Hronologija cebeldinskoj kultury (II–VII vv.). In: Problemy drevnej i srednevekovoj archeologii
Kavkaza materialy konferencii. Suhum, 55–62.
Kazanski M., Mastykova A. 2017: The Sösdala Finds in the Perspective of Central and South-Eastern Europe. In: C. Fabech,
U. Näsman, N. Khrapunov (ed.), The Sösdala Horsemen and the Equestrian Elite of Fifth Century Europe. Moesgård
[= Jysk Arkaeologisk Selskab, 99], 297–311.
Kazanski M., Mastykova A. (forthcoming): La Méditerranée dans le barbaricum: les tombes privilégiées du Bosphore Cimmerien
à l’époque post-hunnique (deuxième moitié du Ve – première moitié du VIe siècle). In: P. de Vingo, Y.A. Marano, J. Pinar Gil (ed.),
Sepolture di prestigio nel bacino mediterraneo (IV–IX sec.). Definizione, immagini, utilizzo. Florence.
482
Late Przeworsk and post-Przeworsk, Elbian and Danubian. Vandals, Suebi and the dissemination of Central European…
Keller E. 1971: Die spätrömische Grabfunde in Südbayern. München [= Münchner Beiträge zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte, 14;
Veröffentlichungen der Kommission zur Archäologischen Erforschung des spätrömischen Raetien, 8].
Keller E. 1979: Das spätrömische Gräberfeld von Neuburg an der Donau. Kallmünz [= Materialhefte zur bayerischen Vorgeschichte A, 40].
Kiss A. 1994: Stand der Bestimmung archäologischer Denkmäler der gens Alanorum in Pannonien, Gallien, Hispanien und Afrika. Acta
Antiqua Hungaricae 35, 167–204.
Kiss A. 2001: Das germanische Frauengrab von Répcelak (Westungarn) aus der zweiten Hälfte der 5. Jahrhunderts. Acta Archaeologica
Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 52, 115–144.
Kleemann J. 2002: Quelques réflexions sur l’interprétation ethnique des sépultures habillées considérées comme Vandales. Antiquité
Tardive 10, 123–129.
Kleemann J. 2008: Vandals went West – was die archäologischen Quellen über die Westmigration der “Vandalen” aussagen können.
In: G.M. Berndt, R. Steinacher (ed.), Das Reich der Vandalen und seine (Vor-)Geschichten. Wien [= Österreichische Akademie
der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse, 366; Forschungen zur Geschichte des Mittelalters, 13], 87–96.
Knaut M. 2005: Reiche germanische Gräber aus Zwochau. In: M. Knaut, D. Quast (ed.), Die Völkerwanderung. Europa zwischen
Antike und Mittelalter. Stuttgart, 89–91.
Koenig G.G. 1980: Archäologische Zeugnisse westgotischer Präsenz im 5. Jahrhundert. Madrider Mitteilungen 21, 220–247.
Koenig G.G. 1981: Wandalische Grabfunde des 5. und 6. Jhs. Madrider Mitteilungen 22, 299–360.
Kokowski A. 1996: O tak zwanych blaszanych fibulach z półokrągłą płytą na główce i rombowatą nóżką. Studia Gothica 1, 153–184.
Kolník T., Varsik V., Vladár J. 2007: Branč. Germánská osada z 2. až 4. století – Eine germanische Siedlung vom 2. bis zum 4.
Jahrhundert. Nitra [= Archaeologica Slovaca Monographiae Catalogi, 10].
Kotigoroško V.G. 1987: Žertvennik III–IV vv. n.e. u sela Solončy. Sovetskaja Archeologija 2, 176–191.
Kovrig I. 1937: A császárkori fibulák föformái Pannoniában. Budapest [= Dissertaniones Pannonicae II, 4].
Kuchařík M., Bureš M., Pleinerová I., Jiřík J. 2008: Nové poznatky k osídlení západního okraje Prahy v 5. století. In: E. Droberjar,
B. Komoróczy, D. Vachůtová (ed.), Barbarská sídliště. Chronologické, ekonomické a historické aspekty jejich vývoje ve světle
nových archeologických výzkumů. Brno [= Spisy Archeologického Ústavu AV ČR Brno, 37], 201–232.
Lafaurie J. 1958: Sur le trésor de Gourdon (Saône-et-Loire). Bulletin de la Société nationale des Antiquaires de France, 61–76.
Laporte J.-P. 1999: Deux basiliques chrétiennes de Maurétanie césarienne. Antiquité Tardive 7, 371–382.
Lau N., Pieta K. 2017: Die Antike Öffnung des Kammergrabes von Poprad–Matejovce. In: Na hranicích impéria – Extra Fines Imperii.
Jaroslavu Tejralovi k 80. narozeninám. Brno, 255–265.
Lazin G., Gindele R. 2010: Contribuţii la Probleme legate de evoluţia ceramicii în epoca Romană Tărzie şi în prima epocă a migraţiilor
în Bazinul Tisei Superioare. Arelierele Ceramice de la Lazuri (Lázári)-Râtul lui Béla. In: A. Mǎgureanu, E. Gáll (ed.), Între Stepă
şi Imperiu / Zwischen der Steppe und dem Reich / Between the Steppe and Imperium. Bucureşti, 2–40.
Legoux R. 2005: La nécropole mérovingienne de Cutry, Meurthe-et-Moselle. Paris [= Mémoires de l’Association française
d’archéologie mérovingienne, 14].
Legoux R., Périn P., Vallet F. 2004: Chronologie normalisée du mobilier funéraire mérovingien entre Manche et Lorraine.
Saint-Germain-en-Laye [= Bulletin de liaison de l’Association française d’archéologie mérovingienne. Hors-série, 1].
Levinschi A. 1999: Gräberfeld der späten Sintana de Mureş-Černjachov-Kultur. In: G. Gomolka-Fuchs (ed.), Die Sîntana de Mureş-
Černjachov-Kultur. Akten des Internationalen Kolloquiums in Caputh vom 20. bis 24. Oktober 1995. Bonn [= Kolloquien zur Vor-
und Frühgeschichte, 2], 23–32.
Limburský P., Jiřík J. (in preparation): Grave of Late Antique Warrior from Vliněves, okr. Mělník in Bohemia. Archeologické Rozhledy.
López Quiroga J. 2001: Elementos “foráneos” en las necrópolis tardorromanas de Beiral (Ponte de Lima, Portugal) y Vigo (Pontevedra,
España): de nuevo la cuestión del siglo V d.C. en la Península Ibérica. Cuadernos de Prehistoria y Arqueología de la Universidad
Autónoma de Madrid 27, 115–124.
López Quiroga J. 2015: „Barbares danubiens” en Hispania au Ve siècle? Gentes „étrangers” et armées „romaines” en Péninsule Ibérique.
In: T. Vida (ed.), Romania Gothica II. The Frontier World. Barbarians, Romans and the Military Culture. Budapest, 477–496.
López Quiroga J., Figueiras Pimentel N. 2018: La orfebrería de los «príncipes barbaros». Estudio de las técnicas de fabricación en oro
y plata de los ajuares funerarios (siglos III–VII). In: J. López Quiroga (ed.), In tempore Sueborum. El tiempo de los suevos en la
Gallaecia (411–585). Volumen de estudios. Ourense, 85–98.
Lotter F. 1968: Zur Rolle der Donausueben in der Völkerwanderungszeit. Mitteilungen des Instituts für Österreichische
Geschichtsforschung 76, 275–298.
483
Jaroslav Jiřík, Joan Pinar Gil
Macháček J., Klanicová E. 1997: Die Gräber aus der Völkerwanderungszeit in Břeclav–Líbivá. In: J. Tejral, H. Friesinger,
M. Kazanski (ed.), Neue Beiträge zur Erforschung der Spätantike im mittleren Donauraum. Brno [= Spisy Archeologického
Ústavu AV ČR Brno, 8], 57–65.
Machajewski H. 1992: Z badań nad chronologią dębczyńskiej grupy kulturowej w dorzeczu Parsęty. Poznań.
Mackensen M. 2008: Tonabformung eines spätantiken kerbschnittverzierten Gürtertelbeschlags aus dem zentraltunesischen
Töpfereizentrum Sidi Marzouk Tounsi. Germania 86, 307–322.
Mączyńska M. 1999: Schyłkowa faza kultury przeworskiej. In: A. Kokowski (ed.), Kultura przeworska, vol. 4. Lublin, 25–53.
Mączyńska M. 2007: Zmierzch kultury wielbarskiej – czego nie wiemy? W: M. Fudziński, H. Paner (ed.), Nowe materiały
i interpretacje. Stan dyskusji na temat kultury wielbarskiej. Gdańsk, 365–401.
Mączyńska M., Gercen A., Ivanova O., Černyš S., Lukin S., Urbaniak A., Bemmann J., Schneider K., Jakubczyk I. 2016: Das
frühmittelalterliche Gräberfeld Almalyk-dere am Fuße des Mangup auf der Südwestkrim. Mainz [= Römisch-Germanisches
Zentralmuseum zu Mainz. Monographien, 115].
Madyda-Legutko R., Tunia K. 2008: Late Roman and Early Migration Period in Polish Beskid Mts., Carpathians. Settlement Aspect.
In: B. Niezabitowska-Wiśniewska et al. (ed.), The Turbulent Epoch. New Materials from the Late Roman Period and the
Migration Period. Lublin [= Monumenta Studia Gothica, 5], 227–248.
Mahéo N. 1990: Les collections archéologiques du Musée de Picardie. Amiens.
Mamalaucă M. 2005: Obiceiuri de port in aria culturii Sântana de Mureş: obiecte de podoabă, amulete, accesorii de vestimentaţie
şi toaletă. Bucureşti.
Manniez Y. 2012: Les ensembles funéraires de la fin de ľAntiquité. In: H. Pomarèdes et al. (ed.), La villa de Saint-André de Codols
(Nîmes, Gard) du Ier au XIIe s. de n.è. Evolution de l’habitat et de l’espace rural nîmois de l’Antiquité au Moyen Âge. Lattes
[= Monographies d’Archéologie Méditerranéenne, 32], 149–166.
Manzelli V., Pinar Gil J. 2017: La tomba 185 del cimitero di Villa Clelia ad Imola: elementi di cronologia relativa e assoluta.
In: J. Pinar Gil (ed.), Small finds e cronologia. Esempi, metodi e risultati. Rome, 89–135.
Marec E. 1958: Monuments chrétiens d’Hippone. Ville épiscopale de Saint Augustin. Paris.
Mariné M. 2001: Fíbulas romanas en Hispania: la Meseta. Madrid [= Anejos de Archivo Español de Arqueología, 24].
Marinescu G., Gaiu C. 1989: Die Nekropole bei Fantanele „Rât”, Gem. Matei, Kr. Bistrita–Nasaud aus dem 4. Jahrhundert
u.Z. Dacia 33, 125–144.
Marti R. 1990: Das frühmittelalterliche Gräberfeld von Saint–Sulpice VD. Lausanne [= Cahiers d’Archéologie Romande, 52].
Marti R. 2000: Zwischen Römerzeit und Mittelalter. Forschungen zur frühmittelalterlichen Siedlungsgeschichte der Nordschweiz
(4.–10. Jahrhundert). Liestal [= Archäologie und Museum, 41].
Martin M. 1991: Tradition und Wandel der fibelgeschmückten frühmittelalterlichen Frauenkleidung. Jahrbuch des
Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz 38 (1), 629–680.
Martin M. 1994: Fibel und Fibeltracht. Späte Völkerwanderungszeit und Merowingerzeit auf dem Kontinent. In: H. Bech (ed.),
Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde, vol. 8. Berlin–New York, 541–582.
Massendari J. 2006: La Haute-Garonne (hormis le Comminges et Toulouse). Paris [= Carte Archéologique de la Gaule, 31/1].
Mastykova A.V. 2009: Zenskij kostjum central‘nogo i zapadnogo predkavkaz‘ja v konce IV – seredine VI v. n.e. Moscow.
Mesterházy K. 2007: Bemerkungen zum gepidischen Corpus. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 58, 265–293.
Molinero Pérez A. 1948: La necrópolis visigoda de Duratón (Segovia). Excavaciones del Plan Nacional de 1942 y 1943. Madrid
[= Acta Arqueológica Hispánica, 4].
Molinero Pérez A. 1971: Aportaciones de las excavaciones y hallazgos casuales (1941–1959) al Museo Arqueológico de Segovia. Madrid
[= Excavaciones Arqueológicas en España, 72].
Möller J. 1987: Katalog der Grabfunde aus Völkerwanderungs- und Merowingerzeit im südmainischen Hessen (Starkenburg). Stuttgart
[= Germanische Denkmäler der Völkerwanderungszeit B, 11].
Mossler G. 1958: Zwei neue Fundorte frühgeschichtlicher Gräber in Niederösterreich. Österreichische Zeitschrift für Kunst und
Denkmalpflege 12, 108–110.
Motyková K., Drda P., Rybová A. 1991: Some Notable Imports from the End of the Roman Period at the Site of Závist.
In: P. Charvát (ed.), Archaeology in Bohemia 1985–1990. Praha, 56–63.
Neubauer D. 1998a: Das Maintal zwischen Würzburg und Karlburg. Eine neue entdeckte völkerwanderungszeitliche Siedlungskammer.
In: E. Krenig (ed.), Beiträge zur Archäologie in Unterfranken. Büchenbach [= Mainfränkische Studien, 63], 129–145.
484
Late Przeworsk and post-Przeworsk, Elbian and Danubian. Vandals, Suebi and the dissemination of Central European…
Neubauer D. 1998b: Ostgermanen beiderseits des Rheins? Ein Beitrag zu völkerwanderungszeitlichen Schnallen in Mittel- und
Westeuropa. In: B. Berthold (ed.), Zeitenblicke. Ehrengabe für Walter Janssen. Rahden, 133–155.
Nothnagel M. 2013: Weibliche Eliten der Völkerwanderungszeit. Zwei Prunkbestattungen aus Untersiebenbrunn. St. Pölten
[= Archäologische Forschungen in Niederösterreich, 12].
Olędzki M., Tyszler L. (forthcoming): The Shield Bosses of the Horgos Type in the Light of New Findings from the Przeworsk Culture.
Olędzki M., Ziętek J. 2017: Typologia, chronologia i rozprzestrzenienie fibul typu A.162 na terytorium kultury przeworskiej.
In: E. Droberjar, B. Komoróczy (ed.), Římské a germánské spony ve střední Evropě. Archeologie barbarů 2012. Brno
[= Spisy Archeologického Ústavu AV ČR Brno, 53], 363–383.
Opreanu C.H., Luca S.A. 2007: Die Gräber der Völkerwanderungszeit von Miercurea Sibiului (Jud. Sibiu). Archäologisches
Korrespondenzblatt 37, 563–568.
Ottományi K. 2001: „Hunkori” sírok a Pátyi temetőben. Archaeologiai Értesitő 126, 35–74.
Ottományi K. 2008: Hunnenzeitliche Gräber in Budakalász und Páty. Communicationes Archaeologicae Hungariae, 229–266.
Palade V. 2004: Aşezarea şi necropola de la Bârlad-Valea Seacă, secolele III–V. Bucureşti.
Pérez Rodríguez-Aragón F. 1997: Elementos de tipo bárbaro oriental y danubiano de época bajoimperial en Hispania.
In: R. Teja Casuso, C. Pérez Gonzáles (ed.), Actas del Congreso Internacional “La Hispania de Teodosio”, pt. 2.
Valladolid–Segovia, 629–647.
Pérez Rodríguez-Aragón F. 1999: La tumba femenina germano oriental del yacimiento de L’Hostalot (La Vilanova d’Alcolea, Castellón).
In: XXIV Congreso Nacional de Arqueología, vol. 4. Murcia, 581–585.
Pérez Rodríguez-Aragón F. 2008: Testimonios materiales de la presencia de tropas ‘bárbaras’ en la ‘Hispania’ romana del siglo
V. Sautuola 14, 241–266.
Pergola P., Vismara C. 1989: Castellu (Haute-Corse). Un établissement rural de l’Antiquité tardive. Fouilles récentes (1981–1985). Paris
[= Documents d’Archéologie Française, 18].
Périn P. 1995: Les tombes de «chefs» du début de l’époque mérovingienne. Datation et interprétation historique. In: F. Vallet,
M. Kazanski (ed.), La noblesse romaine et les chefs barbares du IIIe au VIIe siècle. Paris [= Mémoires de l’Association française
d’archéologie mérogingienne, 9], 247–301.
Peroni A. 1967: Oreficerie e metalli lavorati tardoantichi e altomedievali del territorio di Pavia. Catalogo. Spoleto.
Pescheck Ch. 1978: Die germanischen Bodenfunde der römischen Kaiserzeit in Mainfranken, vol. 1, Text, vol. 2, Tafeln. München.
Petersen E. 1944: Bekannte und unbekannte germanische Funde der frühen Völkerwanderungszeit aus dem Osten. Posener Jahrbuch
für Vorgeschichte 1, 75–86.
Petrauskas O.V. 2009: Čas pojavi dejaki osoblivosti rozvitku trupopokladen‘ iz zahidnoju orientacieju v černjahivskij kul‘turi
(za danimi mogil‘nikiv Ukraini). In: K. Myzgin (ed.), Ostrogothica. Arheologia Central‘noj i Vostočnoj Evropy pozdnerimskogo
vremeni v epohi Velikogo Pereselenia Narodov. Harkov, 186–215.
Petrauskas O.V., Šiškin R.G. 2013: Mogil‘nik i poselenie černjahovskoj kul‘tury u s. Velikaja Bugaevka (arheologičeskij istočnik).
Kiev [= Oium, 2].
Pieta K. 1999: Anfänge der Völkerwanderungszeit in der Slowakei: (Fragestellungen der zeitgenössischen Forschung). In: J. Tejral,
C. Pilet, M. Kazanski (ed.), L’Occident romain et l’Europe centrale au début de l’époque des Grandes Migrations. Brno [= Spisy
Archeologického Ústavu AV ČR Brno, 13], 171–189.
Pieta K., Roth P. 2007: Kniežacia hrobka z Popradu–Matejoviec. Pamiatky a Múzea 3, 44–47.
Pinar Gil J. 2007: Some Remarks on Early Fifth-century Gold Necklaces with Pin-shaped Pendants. With Regard to an Ancient Find
from La Valleta del Valero (Soses, Lleida, Spain). Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 58, 165–185.
Pinar Gil J. 2015: A Note on Female Clothing in 5th Century Southern Gaul. In: T. Vida (ed.), Romania Gothica II. The Frontier World.
Barbarians, Romans and the Military Culture. Budapest, 517–555.
Pinar Gil J. 2016: Ukrašenia, topografia i arhitektura: indikatory social’noj stratifikacii na mogil’nikah rannego vestgotskogo perioda
v Ispanii i južnoj Francii. Kratkie Soobščenia Instituta Arheologii 244, 13–47.
Pinar Gil J. 2017a: La cronologia dei corredi funerari di epoca visigota in Spagna e Francia meridionale. Peculiarità, problemi, soluzioni
e stress testing. Rome.
Pinar Gil J. 2017b: Materie prime, tecniche e tempi di lavorazione: costo degli oggetti e potere d’acquisto nell’età gota. In: M. Beghelli,
M. De Marchi (ed.), L’alto medioevo. Artigiani e organizzazione manifatturiera, vol. 2, I maestri del metallo: l’intelligenza nelle
mani. Rome, 129–155.
485
Jaroslav Jiřík, Joan Pinar Gil
Macháček J., Klanicová E. 1997: Die Gräber aus der Völkerwanderungszeit in Břeclav–Líbivá. In: J. Tejral, H. Friesinger,
M. Kazanski (ed.), Neue Beiträge zur Erforschung der Spätantike im mittleren Donauraum. Brno [= Spisy Archeologického
Ústavu AV ČR Brno, 8], 57–65.
Machajewski H. 1992: Z badań nad chronologią dębczyńskiej grupy kulturowej w dorzeczu Parsęty. Poznań.
Mackensen M. 2008: Tonabformung eines spätantiken kerbschnittverzierten Gürtertelbeschlags aus dem zentraltunesischen
Töpfereizentrum Sidi Marzouk Tounsi. Germania 86, 307–322.
Mączyńska M. 1999: Schyłkowa faza kultury przeworskiej. In: A. Kokowski (ed.), Kultura przeworska, vol. 4. Lublin, 25–53.
Mączyńska M. 2007: Zmierzch kultury wielbarskiej – czego nie wiemy? W: M. Fudziński, H. Paner (ed.), Nowe materiały
i interpretacje. Stan dyskusji na temat kultury wielbarskiej. Gdańsk, 365–401.
Mączyńska M., Gercen A., Ivanova O., Černyš S., Lukin S., Urbaniak A., Bemmann J., Schneider K., Jakubczyk I. 2016: Das
frühmittelalterliche Gräberfeld Almalyk-dere am Fuße des Mangup auf der Südwestkrim. Mainz [= Römisch-Germanisches
Zentralmuseum zu Mainz. Monographien, 115].
Madyda-Legutko R., Tunia K. 2008: Late Roman and Early Migration Period in Polish Beskid Mts., Carpathians. Settlement Aspect.
In: B. Niezabitowska-Wiśniewska et al. (ed.), The Turbulent Epoch. New Materials from the Late Roman Period and the
Migration Period. Lublin [= Monumenta Studia Gothica, 5], 227–248.
Mahéo N. 1990: Les collections archéologiques du Musée de Picardie. Amiens.
Mamalaucă M. 2005: Obiceiuri de port in aria culturii Sântana de Mureş: obiecte de podoabă, amulete, accesorii de vestimentaţie
şi toaletă. Bucureşti.
Manniez Y. 2012: Les ensembles funéraires de la fin de ľAntiquité. In: H. Pomarèdes et al. (ed.), La villa de Saint-André de Codols
(Nîmes, Gard) du Ier au XIIe s. de n.è. Evolution de l’habitat et de l’espace rural nîmois de l’Antiquité au Moyen Âge. Lattes
[= Monographies d’Archéologie Méditerranéenne, 32], 149–166.
Manzelli V., Pinar Gil J. 2017: La tomba 185 del cimitero di Villa Clelia ad Imola: elementi di cronologia relativa e assoluta.
In: J. Pinar Gil (ed.), Small finds e cronologia. Esempi, metodi e risultati. Rome, 89–135.
Marec E. 1958: Monuments chrétiens d’Hippone. Ville épiscopale de Saint Augustin. Paris.
Mariné M. 2001: Fíbulas romanas en Hispania: la Meseta. Madrid [= Anejos de Archivo Español de Arqueología, 24].
Marinescu G., Gaiu C. 1989: Die Nekropole bei Fantanele „Rât”, Gem. Matei, Kr. Bistrita–Nasaud aus dem 4. Jahrhundert
u.Z. Dacia 33, 125–144.
Marti R. 1990: Das frühmittelalterliche Gräberfeld von Saint–Sulpice VD. Lausanne [= Cahiers d’Archéologie Romande, 52].
Marti R. 2000: Zwischen Römerzeit und Mittelalter. Forschungen zur frühmittelalterlichen Siedlungsgeschichte der Nordschweiz
(4.–10. Jahrhundert). Liestal [= Archäologie und Museum, 41].
Martin M. 1991: Tradition und Wandel der fibelgeschmückten frühmittelalterlichen Frauenkleidung. Jahrbuch des
Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz 38 (1), 629–680.
Martin M. 1994: Fibel und Fibeltracht. Späte Völkerwanderungszeit und Merowingerzeit auf dem Kontinent. In: H. Bech (ed.),
Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde, vol. 8. Berlin–New York, 541–582.
Massendari J. 2006: La Haute-Garonne (hormis le Comminges et Toulouse). Paris [= Carte Archéologique de la Gaule, 31/1].
Mastykova A.V. 2009: Zenskij kostjum central‘nogo i zapadnogo predkavkaz‘ja v konce IV – seredine VI v. n.e. Moscow.
Mesterházy K. 2007: Bemerkungen zum gepidischen Corpus. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 58, 265–293.
Molinero Pérez A. 1948: La necrópolis visigoda de Duratón (Segovia). Excavaciones del Plan Nacional de 1942 y 1943. Madrid
[= Acta Arqueológica Hispánica, 4].
Molinero Pérez A. 1971: Aportaciones de las excavaciones y hallazgos casuales (1941–1959) al Museo Arqueológico de Segovia. Madrid
[= Excavaciones Arqueológicas en España, 72].
Möller J. 1987: Katalog der Grabfunde aus Völkerwanderungs- und Merowingerzeit im südmainischen Hessen (Starkenburg). Stuttgart
[= Germanische Denkmäler der Völkerwanderungszeit B, 11].
Mossler G. 1958: Zwei neue Fundorte frühgeschichtlicher Gräber in Niederösterreich. Österreichische Zeitschrift für Kunst und
Denkmalpflege 12, 108–110.
Motyková K., Drda P., Rybová A. 1991: Some Notable Imports from the End of the Roman Period at the Site of Závist.
In: P. Charvát (ed.), Archaeology in Bohemia 1985–1990. Praha, 56–63.
Neubauer D. 1998a: Das Maintal zwischen Würzburg und Karlburg. Eine neue entdeckte völkerwanderungszeitliche Siedlungskammer.
In: E. Krenig (ed.), Beiträge zur Archäologie in Unterfranken. Büchenbach [= Mainfränkische Studien, 63], 129–145.
484
Late Przeworsk and post-Przeworsk, Elbian and Danubian. Vandals, Suebi and the dissemination of Central European…
Neubauer D. 1998b: Ostgermanen beiderseits des Rheins? Ein Beitrag zu völkerwanderungszeitlichen Schnallen in Mittel- und
Westeuropa. In: B. Berthold (ed.), Zeitenblicke. Ehrengabe für Walter Janssen. Rahden, 133–155.
Nothnagel M. 2013: Weibliche Eliten der Völkerwanderungszeit. Zwei Prunkbestattungen aus Untersiebenbrunn. St. Pölten
[= Archäologische Forschungen in Niederösterreich, 12].
Olędzki M., Tyszler L. (forthcoming): The Shield Bosses of the Horgos Type in the Light of New Findings from the Przeworsk Culture.
Olędzki M., Ziętek J. 2017: Typologia, chronologia i rozprzestrzenienie fibul typu A.162 na terytorium kultury przeworskiej.
In: E. Droberjar, B. Komoróczy (ed.), Římské a germánské spony ve střední Evropě. Archeologie barbarů 2012. Brno
[= Spisy Archeologického Ústavu AV ČR Brno, 53], 363–383.
Opreanu C.H., Luca S.A. 2007: Die Gräber der Völkerwanderungszeit von Miercurea Sibiului (Jud. Sibiu). Archäologisches
Korrespondenzblatt 37, 563–568.
Ottományi K. 2001: „Hunkori” sírok a Pátyi temetőben. Archaeologiai Értesitő 126, 35–74.
Ottományi K. 2008: Hunnenzeitliche Gräber in Budakalász und Páty. Communicationes Archaeologicae Hungariae, 229–266.
Palade V. 2004: Aşezarea şi necropola de la Bârlad-Valea Seacă, secolele III–V. Bucureşti.
Pérez Rodríguez-Aragón F. 1997: Elementos de tipo bárbaro oriental y danubiano de época bajoimperial en Hispania.
In: R. Teja Casuso, C. Pérez Gonzáles (ed.), Actas del Congreso Internacional “La Hispania de Teodosio”, pt. 2.
Valladolid–Segovia, 629–647.
Pérez Rodríguez-Aragón F. 1999: La tumba femenina germano oriental del yacimiento de L’Hostalot (La Vilanova d’Alcolea, Castellón).
In: XXIV Congreso Nacional de Arqueología, vol. 4. Murcia, 581–585.
Pérez Rodríguez-Aragón F. 2008: Testimonios materiales de la presencia de tropas ‘bárbaras’ en la ‘Hispania’ romana del siglo
V. Sautuola 14, 241–266.
Pergola P., Vismara C. 1989: Castellu (Haute-Corse). Un établissement rural de l’Antiquité tardive. Fouilles récentes (1981–1985). Paris
[= Documents d’Archéologie Française, 18].
Périn P. 1995: Les tombes de «chefs» du début de l’époque mérovingienne. Datation et interprétation historique. In: F. Vallet,
M. Kazanski (ed.), La noblesse romaine et les chefs barbares du IIIe au VIIe siècle. Paris [= Mémoires de l’Association française
d’archéologie mérogingienne, 9], 247–301.
Peroni A. 1967: Oreficerie e metalli lavorati tardoantichi e altomedievali del territorio di Pavia. Catalogo. Spoleto.
Pescheck Ch. 1978: Die germanischen Bodenfunde der römischen Kaiserzeit in Mainfranken, vol. 1, Text, vol. 2, Tafeln. München.
Petersen E. 1944: Bekannte und unbekannte germanische Funde der frühen Völkerwanderungszeit aus dem Osten. Posener Jahrbuch
für Vorgeschichte 1, 75–86.
Petrauskas O.V. 2009: Čas pojavi dejaki osoblivosti rozvitku trupopokladen‘ iz zahidnoju orientacieju v černjahivskij kul‘turi
(za danimi mogil‘nikiv Ukraini). In: K. Myzgin (ed.), Ostrogothica. Arheologia Central‘noj i Vostočnoj Evropy pozdnerimskogo
vremeni v epohi Velikogo Pereselenia Narodov. Harkov, 186–215.
Petrauskas O.V., Šiškin R.G. 2013: Mogil‘nik i poselenie černjahovskoj kul‘tury u s. Velikaja Bugaevka (arheologičeskij istočnik).
Kiev [= Oium, 2].
Pieta K. 1999: Anfänge der Völkerwanderungszeit in der Slowakei: (Fragestellungen der zeitgenössischen Forschung). In: J. Tejral,
C. Pilet, M. Kazanski (ed.), L’Occident romain et l’Europe centrale au début de l’époque des Grandes Migrations. Brno [= Spisy
Archeologického Ústavu AV ČR Brno, 13], 171–189.
Pieta K., Roth P. 2007: Kniežacia hrobka z Popradu–Matejoviec. Pamiatky a Múzea 3, 44–47.
Pinar Gil J. 2007: Some Remarks on Early Fifth-century Gold Necklaces with Pin-shaped Pendants. With Regard to an Ancient Find
from La Valleta del Valero (Soses, Lleida, Spain). Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 58, 165–185.
Pinar Gil J. 2015: A Note on Female Clothing in 5th Century Southern Gaul. In: T. Vida (ed.), Romania Gothica II. The Frontier World.
Barbarians, Romans and the Military Culture. Budapest, 517–555.
Pinar Gil J. 2016: Ukrašenia, topografia i arhitektura: indikatory social’noj stratifikacii na mogil’nikah rannego vestgotskogo perioda
v Ispanii i južnoj Francii. Kratkie Soobščenia Instituta Arheologii 244, 13–47.
Pinar Gil J. 2017a: La cronologia dei corredi funerari di epoca visigota in Spagna e Francia meridionale. Peculiarità, problemi, soluzioni
e stress testing. Rome.
Pinar Gil J. 2017b: Materie prime, tecniche e tempi di lavorazione: costo degli oggetti e potere d’acquisto nell’età gota. In: M. Beghelli,
M. De Marchi (ed.), L’alto medioevo. Artigiani e organizzazione manifatturiera, vol. 2, I maestri del metallo: l’intelligenza nelle
mani. Rome, 129–155.
485
Jaroslav Jiřík, Joan Pinar Gil
Pinar Gil J. 2017c: The Earliest Brooches from Clothed Inhumations in the Territory of the Regnum Tolosanum (ca. 450–500 AD).
In: E. Droberjar, B. Komoróczy (ed.), Římské a germánské spony ve střední Evropě. Archeologie barbarů 2012. Brno [= Spisy
Archeologického Ústavu AV ČR Brno, 53], 397–411.
Pinar Gil J. (forthcoming a): Le cimetière d’époque wisigothique de “Les Tombes” à Estagel. Paris.
Pinar Gil J. (forthcoming b): Accesorios de indumentaria del regnum visigodo temprano (siglos V–VI). Barcelona–Rome.
Pinar Gil J., Padró Centellas E. 2007: Un colgante reniforme de oro de posible procedencia extremeña: nuevos datos sobre la circulación
de adornos personales en el Mediterráneo tardoantiguo. Florentia Iliberritana 18, 423–432.
Pinar Gil J., Ripoll López G. 2008: The So-called Vandal Objects of Hispania. In: G.M. Berndt, R. Steinacher (ed.), Das Reich der
Vandalen und seine (Vor-)Geschichten. Wien [= Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Historische
Klasse, 366; Forschungen zur Geschichte des Mittelalters, 13], 105–130.
Piussi S. (ed.) 2008: Cromazio di Aquileia, 388–408. Al crocevia di genti e religioni. Milano.
Ponte S. da 2006: Corpus signorum das fíbulas proto-históricas e romanas de Portugal. Coimbra.
Prammer J. (ed.) 1985: Ausgrabungen und Funde in Altbayern 1983/1984. Ausstellung im Gäubodenmuseum Straubing,
Fraunhoferstraße 9 vom 8. Dezember 1984 bis 10. März 1985. Straubing.
Procházka J. 2009: Osídlení pozdní doby římské v Praze–Čimicích. In: M. Karwowski, E. Droberjar (ed.), Archeologia Barbarzyńców
2008. Powiązania i kontakty w świecie barbarzyńskim. Rzeszów, 353–362.
Quast D. 1996: Ein byzantinischer Gürtelbeschlag der Zeit um 500 aus Weingarten (Lkr. Ravensburg) Grab 189. Fundberichte aus
Baden–Württemberg 21, 527–539.
Quast D. 1999a: Das „Pektorale” von Wolfsheim, Kr. Mainz-Bingen. Germania 77, 705–718.
Quast D. 1999b: Cloisonnierte Scheibenfibeln aus Achmim-Panopolis (Ägypten). Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 29, 111–124.
Quast D. 2005: Völkerwanderungszeitliche Frauengräber aus Hippo Regius (Annaba/Bône) in Algerien. Jahrbuch des Römisch-
Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz 52, 237–315.
Quast D. 2006: Mediterrane Scheibenfibeln der Völkerwanderungszeit mit Cloisonnéverzierung – eine typologische und chronologische
Übersicht. Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 36, 259–278.
Quast D. 2007: Zwischen Steppe, Barbaricum und Byzanz. Bemerkungen zu prunkvollem Reitzubehör des 5. Jahrhunderts n. Chr.
Acta Praehistorica et Archaeologica 39, 35–64.
Quast D. (ed.) 2015: Das Grab des fränkischen Königs Childerich in Tournai und die Anastasis Childerici von Jean-Jacques Chifflet aus
dem Jahre 1655. Mainz [= Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum. Monographien, 129].
Ramqvist P.H. 1992: Högom. The Excavations 1949–1984. Högom part 1. Umeå [= Archaeology and Environment, 13].
Rau G. 1972: Körpergräber mit Glasbeigaben des 4. nachchristlichen Jahrhunderts im Oder-Weichsel-Raum. Acta Praehistorica
et Archaeologica 3, 109–214.
Reszczyńska A. 2008: New Materials from the Migration Period at the Settlement Trmice–Ústí nad Labem in Northwestern Bohemia.
In: B. Niezabitowska-Wiśniewska et al. (ed.), The Turbulent Epoch. New Materials from the Late Roman Period and the
Migration Period. Lublin [= Monumenta Studia Gothica, 5], 285–290.
Riemer E. 2000: Romanische Grabfunde des 5.–8. Jahrhunderts in Italien. Rahden [= Internationale Archäologie, 57].
Rigaud de Sousa J.J. 1979: Novas considerações sobre a necropole do Beiral (Ponte de Lima). Gallaecia 5, 293–303.
Ripoll López G. 1998: Toréutica de la Bética (siglos VI y VII d.C.). Barcelona.
Rosenstock D. 1992: Kulturverbindungen Mainfrankens während der römischen Kaiserzeit im Spiegel der Fibelfunde. In: S. Dušek
(ed.), Beiträge zur keltisch-germanischen Besiedlung in Mittelgebirgsraum. Weimar, 184–199.
Ross M.C. 1965: Catalogue of the Byzantine and Early Mediaeval Antiquities in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection, vol. 2, Jewelry,
Enamels and Art of the Migration Period. Washington D.C.
Rummel P. von 2002: Habitus Vandalorum? Zur Frage nach einer gruppenspezifischen Kleidung der Vandalen in Nordafrika.
Antiquité Tardive 10, 131–141.
Rummel P. von 2007: Habitus barbarus. Kleidung und Repräsentation spätantiker Eliten im 4. und 5. Jahrhundert. Berlin–New York
[= Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde. Ergänzungsbände, 55].
Rummel P. von 2008: Where Have All the Vandals Gone? Migration, Ansiedlung und Identität der Vandalen im Spiegel archäologischer
Quellen aus Nordafrika. In: G.M. Berndt, R. Steinacher (ed.), Das Reich der Vandalen und seine (Vor-)Geschichten. Wien
[= Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse, 366; Forschungen zur Geschichte des
Mittelalters, 13], 149–182.
486
Late Przeworsk and post-Przeworsk, Elbian and Danubian. Vandals, Suebi and the dissemination of Central European…
Rusanova I.P., Symonovič E.A 1993: Slavjane i ih sosedi v konce 1 tysjačeletia do n.e. – pervoj polovine 1 tysjačeletia n.e.
[= Arheologia SSSR, 13].
Rybová A. 1976: Význam středoevropské produkce keramiky na kruhu pro dějiny Čech ve 4.–5. století n.l. Památky
archeologické 67, 85–114.
Rybová A. 1980: Plotiště nad Labem. Eine nekropole aus dem 2.–5. Jahrhundert. 2. Teil. Památky archeologické 71, 93–224.
Sálamon A., Barkóczi L. 1970: Bestattungen von Csákvar aus dem Ende des 4. und dem Anfang des 5. Jahrhunderts. Alba
Regia 11, 35–75.
Sankot P., Theune C. 2012: Das germanische Grab 2536 in Hostivice, okr. Praha-západ, Tschechien. Germania 90, 145–184.
Sanz R., López Precioso J., Soria L. 1992: Las fíbulas de la Provincia de Albacete. Albacete [= Estudios del Instituto de
Estudios Albacetenses, 66].
Schefzik M. 1998: Eine spätantike Frauenbestattung mit germanischem oder sarmatischen Halsring aus Germering, Landkreis
Fürstenfeldbruck, Oberbayern. Das archäologisches Jahr in Bayern (1998), 104–105.
Schmauder M. 2002: Oberschichtgräber und Verwahrfunde in Südosteuropa im 4. und 5. Jahrhundert. Bucharest
[= Archaeologia Romanica, 3].
Schmidt B. 1982a: Stand und Aufgabender Frühgeschichts-forschung im Mittelelbe-Saale-Gebiet. Jahresschrift für Mitteldeutsche
Vorgeschichte 65, 145–172.
Schmidt B. 1982b: Hermunduren – Warnen – Thüringer. Zur Geschichte des 3. bis 5. Jh. im Saalgebiet anhand des birituellen
Gräberfeldes von Murseburg-Süd. Jahresschrift für Mitteldeutsche Vorgeschichte 65, 173–216.
Schneider J. 1983: Deersheim. Ein völkerwanderungszeitliches Gräberfeld im Nordharzvorland. Jahresschrift für Mitteldeutsche
Vorgeschichte 66, 75–358.
Schoppa H. 1962: Ein spätrömischer Schatzfund aus Wiesbaden–Kastel. Fundberichte aus Hessen 2, 158–167.
Schultze E., Strocen B. 2008: Ovalfacettierte Keramik – eine Untersuchung zur Chronologie der Černjachov-Kultur.
In: B. Niezabitowska-Wiśniewska et al. (ed.), The Turbulent Epoch. New Materials from the Late Roman Period and the
Migration Period. Lublin [= Monumenta Studia Gothica, 5], 315–328.
Schulze M. 1977: Die spätkaiserzeitlichen Armbrustfibeln mit festem Nadelhalter (Gruppe Almgren VI, 2). Bonn [= Antiquitas, 19].
Schulze-Dörrlamm M. 1986: Romanisch oder germanisch? Untersuchungen zu den Armbrust- und bügelknopffibeln des 5. und
6. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. aus den Gebieten westlich des Rheins und südlich der Donau. Jahrbuch des römisch-germanischen
Zentralmuseums Mainz 33, 593–720.
Schulze-Dörrlamm M. 2002: Byzantinische Gürtelschnallen und Gürtelbeschläge im Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseum, pt. 1,
Die Schnallen ohne Beschläg, mit Laschenbeschläg und mit festem Beschläg des 5. bis 7. Jahrhunderts. Mainz [= Kataloge Vor- und
Frühgeschichtlicher Altertümer, 30.1].
Schuster J. 2001a: Zwischen Wilhelmsaue und Lampertheim. Bemerkungen zur Burgundenproblematik. Germania 79, 63–92.
Schuster J. 2001b: Untersuchungen zu den spätkaiserzeitlichen Fibelformen Almgren 185 und 172 und deren gegenseitigem Verhältnis.
Veröffentlichungen zur brandenburgischen Landesarchäologie 35, 85–102.
Škorpil V.V. 1909: Otčet o rabote v Kerči v 1904 g. Izvestia Imperatorskoj Arheologičeskoj Komissii 25, 1–66.
Soós E. 2018: New Data on the Post-Chernyakhov Horizon. Re-evaluation of an Old Collection from Miskolc–Szirma–Fáskert
(NE-Hungary). In: M.-L. Nagy, K. Szőlősi (ed.), „Vadrózsából tündérsípot csináltam”. Tanulmányok Istvánovits Eszter 60.
születésnapjára. Nyíregyháza, 367–380.
Şovan O.-L. 2005: Necropola de tip Săntana de Mureş de la Mihălăşeni, (Judetul Botoşani). Tărgoviştę [= Bibliotheca Archaeologica
„Hierasus” Monographica, 1].
Špehar P. 2012: The Danubian Limes between Lederata and Aquae during the Migration Period. In: V. Ivanišević, M. Kazanski (ed.),
The Pontic-Danubian Realm in the Period of the Great Migration. Paris–Belgrade, 35–56.
Steidl B. 2000: Die Wetterrau vom 3. bis 5. Jahrhundert n. Chr. Materialien zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte von Hessen. Wiesbaden.
Stephens Crawford J. 1990: The Byzantine Shops at Sardis. Cambridge–London [= Archaeological Exploration of Sardis, 9].
Straub P. 2002: Die Hinterlassenschaft der Ostgoten in Fenékpuszta. In: R. Müller (ed.), Germanen am Plattensee. Traismauer, 9–12.
Straume E. 1987: Gläser mit Facettenschliff aus skandinavischen Gräbern des 4. und 5. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. Oslo [= Instituttet for
Sammenlignende Kulturforskning B, 73].
Sulimirski T. 1966: Znalezisko z Zamościa i jego tło. Archeologia Polski 11, 118–173.
Svoboda B. 1965: Čechy v době stěhování národů. Praha.
487
Jaroslav Jiřík, Joan Pinar Gil
Pinar Gil J. 2017c: The Earliest Brooches from Clothed Inhumations in the Territory of the Regnum Tolosanum (ca. 450–500 AD).
In: E. Droberjar, B. Komoróczy (ed.), Římské a germánské spony ve střední Evropě. Archeologie barbarů 2012. Brno [= Spisy
Archeologického Ústavu AV ČR Brno, 53], 397–411.
Pinar Gil J. (forthcoming a): Le cimetière d’époque wisigothique de “Les Tombes” à Estagel. Paris.
Pinar Gil J. (forthcoming b): Accesorios de indumentaria del regnum visigodo temprano (siglos V–VI). Barcelona–Rome.
Pinar Gil J., Padró Centellas E. 2007: Un colgante reniforme de oro de posible procedencia extremeña: nuevos datos sobre la circulación
de adornos personales en el Mediterráneo tardoantiguo. Florentia Iliberritana 18, 423–432.
Pinar Gil J., Ripoll López G. 2008: The So-called Vandal Objects of Hispania. In: G.M. Berndt, R. Steinacher (ed.), Das Reich der
Vandalen und seine (Vor-)Geschichten. Wien [= Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Historische
Klasse, 366; Forschungen zur Geschichte des Mittelalters, 13], 105–130.
Piussi S. (ed.) 2008: Cromazio di Aquileia, 388–408. Al crocevia di genti e religioni. Milano.
Ponte S. da 2006: Corpus signorum das fíbulas proto-históricas e romanas de Portugal. Coimbra.
Prammer J. (ed.) 1985: Ausgrabungen und Funde in Altbayern 1983/1984. Ausstellung im Gäubodenmuseum Straubing,
Fraunhoferstraße 9 vom 8. Dezember 1984 bis 10. März 1985. Straubing.
Procházka J. 2009: Osídlení pozdní doby římské v Praze–Čimicích. In: M. Karwowski, E. Droberjar (ed.), Archeologia Barbarzyńców
2008. Powiązania i kontakty w świecie barbarzyńskim. Rzeszów, 353–362.
Quast D. 1996: Ein byzantinischer Gürtelbeschlag der Zeit um 500 aus Weingarten (Lkr. Ravensburg) Grab 189. Fundberichte aus
Baden–Württemberg 21, 527–539.
Quast D. 1999a: Das „Pektorale” von Wolfsheim, Kr. Mainz-Bingen. Germania 77, 705–718.
Quast D. 1999b: Cloisonnierte Scheibenfibeln aus Achmim-Panopolis (Ägypten). Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 29, 111–124.
Quast D. 2005: Völkerwanderungszeitliche Frauengräber aus Hippo Regius (Annaba/Bône) in Algerien. Jahrbuch des Römisch-
Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz 52, 237–315.
Quast D. 2006: Mediterrane Scheibenfibeln der Völkerwanderungszeit mit Cloisonnéverzierung – eine typologische und chronologische
Übersicht. Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 36, 259–278.
Quast D. 2007: Zwischen Steppe, Barbaricum und Byzanz. Bemerkungen zu prunkvollem Reitzubehör des 5. Jahrhunderts n. Chr.
Acta Praehistorica et Archaeologica 39, 35–64.
Quast D. (ed.) 2015: Das Grab des fränkischen Königs Childerich in Tournai und die Anastasis Childerici von Jean-Jacques Chifflet aus
dem Jahre 1655. Mainz [= Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum. Monographien, 129].
Ramqvist P.H. 1992: Högom. The Excavations 1949–1984. Högom part 1. Umeå [= Archaeology and Environment, 13].
Rau G. 1972: Körpergräber mit Glasbeigaben des 4. nachchristlichen Jahrhunderts im Oder-Weichsel-Raum. Acta Praehistorica
et Archaeologica 3, 109–214.
Reszczyńska A. 2008: New Materials from the Migration Period at the Settlement Trmice–Ústí nad Labem in Northwestern Bohemia.
In: B. Niezabitowska-Wiśniewska et al. (ed.), The Turbulent Epoch. New Materials from the Late Roman Period and the
Migration Period. Lublin [= Monumenta Studia Gothica, 5], 285–290.
Riemer E. 2000: Romanische Grabfunde des 5.–8. Jahrhunderts in Italien. Rahden [= Internationale Archäologie, 57].
Rigaud de Sousa J.J. 1979: Novas considerações sobre a necropole do Beiral (Ponte de Lima). Gallaecia 5, 293–303.
Ripoll López G. 1998: Toréutica de la Bética (siglos VI y VII d.C.). Barcelona.
Rosenstock D. 1992: Kulturverbindungen Mainfrankens während der römischen Kaiserzeit im Spiegel der Fibelfunde. In: S. Dušek
(ed.), Beiträge zur keltisch-germanischen Besiedlung in Mittelgebirgsraum. Weimar, 184–199.
Ross M.C. 1965: Catalogue of the Byzantine and Early Mediaeval Antiquities in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection, vol. 2, Jewelry,
Enamels and Art of the Migration Period. Washington D.C.
Rummel P. von 2002: Habitus Vandalorum? Zur Frage nach einer gruppenspezifischen Kleidung der Vandalen in Nordafrika.
Antiquité Tardive 10, 131–141.
Rummel P. von 2007: Habitus barbarus. Kleidung und Repräsentation spätantiker Eliten im 4. und 5. Jahrhundert. Berlin–New York
[= Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde. Ergänzungsbände, 55].
Rummel P. von 2008: Where Have All the Vandals Gone? Migration, Ansiedlung und Identität der Vandalen im Spiegel archäologischer
Quellen aus Nordafrika. In: G.M. Berndt, R. Steinacher (ed.), Das Reich der Vandalen und seine (Vor-)Geschichten. Wien
[= Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse, 366; Forschungen zur Geschichte des
Mittelalters, 13], 149–182.
486
Late Przeworsk and post-Przeworsk, Elbian and Danubian. Vandals, Suebi and the dissemination of Central European…
Rusanova I.P., Symonovič E.A 1993: Slavjane i ih sosedi v konce 1 tysjačeletia do n.e. – pervoj polovine 1 tysjačeletia n.e.
[= Arheologia SSSR, 13].
Rybová A. 1976: Význam středoevropské produkce keramiky na kruhu pro dějiny Čech ve 4.–5. století n.l. Památky
archeologické 67, 85–114.
Rybová A. 1980: Plotiště nad Labem. Eine nekropole aus dem 2.–5. Jahrhundert. 2. Teil. Památky archeologické 71, 93–224.
Sálamon A., Barkóczi L. 1970: Bestattungen von Csákvar aus dem Ende des 4. und dem Anfang des 5. Jahrhunderts. Alba
Regia 11, 35–75.
Sankot P., Theune C. 2012: Das germanische Grab 2536 in Hostivice, okr. Praha-západ, Tschechien. Germania 90, 145–184.
Sanz R., López Precioso J., Soria L. 1992: Las fíbulas de la Provincia de Albacete. Albacete [= Estudios del Instituto de
Estudios Albacetenses, 66].
Schefzik M. 1998: Eine spätantike Frauenbestattung mit germanischem oder sarmatischen Halsring aus Germering, Landkreis
Fürstenfeldbruck, Oberbayern. Das archäologisches Jahr in Bayern (1998), 104–105.
Schmauder M. 2002: Oberschichtgräber und Verwahrfunde in Südosteuropa im 4. und 5. Jahrhundert. Bucharest
[= Archaeologia Romanica, 3].
Schmidt B. 1982a: Stand und Aufgabender Frühgeschichts-forschung im Mittelelbe-Saale-Gebiet. Jahresschrift für Mitteldeutsche
Vorgeschichte 65, 145–172.
Schmidt B. 1982b: Hermunduren – Warnen – Thüringer. Zur Geschichte des 3. bis 5. Jh. im Saalgebiet anhand des birituellen
Gräberfeldes von Murseburg-Süd. Jahresschrift für Mitteldeutsche Vorgeschichte 65, 173–216.
Schneider J. 1983: Deersheim. Ein völkerwanderungszeitliches Gräberfeld im Nordharzvorland. Jahresschrift für Mitteldeutsche
Vorgeschichte 66, 75–358.
Schoppa H. 1962: Ein spätrömischer Schatzfund aus Wiesbaden–Kastel. Fundberichte aus Hessen 2, 158–167.
Schultze E., Strocen B. 2008: Ovalfacettierte Keramik – eine Untersuchung zur Chronologie der Černjachov-Kultur.
In: B. Niezabitowska-Wiśniewska et al. (ed.), The Turbulent Epoch. New Materials from the Late Roman Period and the
Migration Period. Lublin [= Monumenta Studia Gothica, 5], 315–328.
Schulze M. 1977: Die spätkaiserzeitlichen Armbrustfibeln mit festem Nadelhalter (Gruppe Almgren VI, 2). Bonn [= Antiquitas, 19].
Schulze-Dörrlamm M. 1986: Romanisch oder germanisch? Untersuchungen zu den Armbrust- und bügelknopffibeln des 5. und
6. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. aus den Gebieten westlich des Rheins und südlich der Donau. Jahrbuch des römisch-germanischen
Zentralmuseums Mainz 33, 593–720.
Schulze-Dörrlamm M. 2002: Byzantinische Gürtelschnallen und Gürtelbeschläge im Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseum, pt. 1,
Die Schnallen ohne Beschläg, mit Laschenbeschläg und mit festem Beschläg des 5. bis 7. Jahrhunderts. Mainz [= Kataloge Vor- und
Frühgeschichtlicher Altertümer, 30.1].
Schuster J. 2001a: Zwischen Wilhelmsaue und Lampertheim. Bemerkungen zur Burgundenproblematik. Germania 79, 63–92.
Schuster J. 2001b: Untersuchungen zu den spätkaiserzeitlichen Fibelformen Almgren 185 und 172 und deren gegenseitigem Verhältnis.
Veröffentlichungen zur brandenburgischen Landesarchäologie 35, 85–102.
Škorpil V.V. 1909: Otčet o rabote v Kerči v 1904 g. Izvestia Imperatorskoj Arheologičeskoj Komissii 25, 1–66.
Soós E. 2018: New Data on the Post-Chernyakhov Horizon. Re-evaluation of an Old Collection from Miskolc–Szirma–Fáskert
(NE-Hungary). In: M.-L. Nagy, K. Szőlősi (ed.), „Vadrózsából tündérsípot csináltam”. Tanulmányok Istvánovits Eszter 60.
születésnapjára. Nyíregyháza, 367–380.
Şovan O.-L. 2005: Necropola de tip Săntana de Mureş de la Mihălăşeni, (Judetul Botoşani). Tărgoviştę [= Bibliotheca Archaeologica
„Hierasus” Monographica, 1].
Špehar P. 2012: The Danubian Limes between Lederata and Aquae during the Migration Period. In: V. Ivanišević, M. Kazanski (ed.),
The Pontic-Danubian Realm in the Period of the Great Migration. Paris–Belgrade, 35–56.
Steidl B. 2000: Die Wetterrau vom 3. bis 5. Jahrhundert n. Chr. Materialien zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte von Hessen. Wiesbaden.
Stephens Crawford J. 1990: The Byzantine Shops at Sardis. Cambridge–London [= Archaeological Exploration of Sardis, 9].
Straub P. 2002: Die Hinterlassenschaft der Ostgoten in Fenékpuszta. In: R. Müller (ed.), Germanen am Plattensee. Traismauer, 9–12.
Straume E. 1987: Gläser mit Facettenschliff aus skandinavischen Gräbern des 4. und 5. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. Oslo [= Instituttet for
Sammenlignende Kulturforskning B, 73].
Sulimirski T. 1966: Znalezisko z Zamościa i jego tło. Archeologia Polski 11, 118–173.
Svoboda B. 1965: Čechy v době stěhování národů. Praha.
487
Jaroslav Jiřík, Joan Pinar Gil Late Przeworsk and post-Przeworsk, Elbian and Danubian. Vandals, Suebi and the dissemination of Central European…

Szydłowski J. 1974: Trzy cmentarzyska typu dobrodzieńskiego. Bytom. Werner J. 1981: Zu einer elbgermanischen Fibel des 5. Jahrhunderts aus Gaukönigshofen, Ldkr. Würzburg. Ein Beitrag zu den Fibeln
Teichner F. 1999: Kahl am Main. Siedlung und Gräberfeld der Völkerwanderungszeit. Kallmünz [= Materialhefte zur Bayerischen vom „Typ Wiesbaden” und zur germanischen Punzornamentik. Bayerische Vorgeschichtsblätter 46, 224–254.
Vorgeschichte A, 80]. Wewerka B. 2004: Spätantike Gräber im Bereich der Burggartengasse in Mautern a.d. Donau: Ein Vorbericht. In: H. Friesinger,
Tejral J. 1973: Mähren im 5. Jahrhundert. Die Stellung des Grabes XXXII aus Smolín im Rahmen der donauländischen Entwicklung A. Stuppner (ed.), Zentrum und Peripherie. Gesellschaftliche Phänomene in der Frühgeschichte. Vienna [= Mitteilungen der
Prähistorischen Kommission der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 57], 411–430.
zu Beginn der Völkerwanderungszeit. Praha [= Studie archeologického ústavu Československé Akademie Věd v Brně, 3.1].
Zápotocký M. 1969: Materiály k osídlení Litoměřicka v době římské. Archeologické Rozhledy 21, 178–201.
Tejral J. 1985: Spätromische und völkerwanderungszeitliche Drehscheibenkeramik in Mähren. Archeologia Austriaca 69, 105–145.
Zeiss H. 1934: Die Grabfunde aus dem spanischen Westgotenreich. Berlin–Leipzig [= Germanische Denkmäler der
Tejral J. 1988: Zur Chronologie der frühen Völkerwanderungszeit im mittleren Donauraum. Archaeologia Austriaca 72, 223–304.
Völkerwanderungszeit, 2].
Tejral J. 1992: Einige Bemerkungen zur Chronologie der späten Kaiserzeit in Mitteleuropa. In: K. Godłowski, R. Madyda-Legutko
Zeman J. 1961: Severní Morava v mladší době římské. Praha [= Monumenta Archaeologica, 9].
(ed.), Probleme der relativen und absoluten Chronologie ab Latènezeit bis zum Frühmittelalter. Kraków, 226–248.
Zeman T. 2006: Sídliště z pozdní doby římské ve Zlechově. Stav zpacování, východiska a cíle projektu. In: E. Droberjar, M. Lutovský
Tejral J. 1997: Neue Aspekte der frühvölkerwanderungszeitlichen Chronologie im Mitteldonauraum. In: J. Tejral, H. Friesinger, (ed.), Archeologie barbarů 2005. Pozdně keltské, germánské a časně slovanské osídlení. Praha, 451–469.
M. Kazanski (ed.), Neue Beiträge zur Erforschung der Spätantike im mittleren Donauraum. Brno [= Spisy Archeologického
Ústavu AV ČR Brno, 8], 321–392.
Tejral J. 1998: Die Grundprobleme der kaiserzeitlichen Fibelforschung im norddanubischen Raum. In: J. Kunow (ed.), 100 Jahre
Fibelformen nach Oscar Almgren. Internationale Arbeitstagung, 25.–28. Mai 1997, Kleinmachnow, Land Brandenburg. Wünsdorf Jaroslav Jiřík, PhD
[= Forschungen zur Archäologie im Land Brandeburg, 5], 387–398. 1) Institute of Archaeology, Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague
Tejral J. 2010: Zur Frage der frühesten Hunnischen anwesenheit in Donauländischen Provinzen am Beispiel der Archäologischen Celetná 20, Praha 1, 116 35
Befundes. Slovenská Archeológia 58, 81–122. 2) Archeological Department, Prácheň Museum in Písek
Velké náměstí 114, Písek 397 24
Tejral J. 2011: Einheimische und fremde. Das norddanubische Gebiet zur Zeit der Völkerwanderung. Brno [= Spisy Archeologického
jardajirik@seznam.cz
Ústavu AV ČR Brno, 33].
Tejral J. 2015a: Spätantike Körperbestattungen mit Schwertbeigabe in römisch-barbarischen Grenzzonen Mitteleuropas und
ihre Deutung. In: T. Vida (ed.), Romania Gothica II. The Frontier World. Barbarians, Romans and the Military Culture.
Budapest, 129–236. Joan Pinar Gil, PhD
Tejral J. 2015b: Zum Problem der Feinschmiedeproduktion im Mitteldonauraum während des 5. Jahrhunderts nach Chr. Památky Department of Archaeology
Archeologické 106, 291–362. University Hradec Králové
Rokitanského 62, 500 03 Hradec Králové
Tejral J. 2016: Nochmals zum archäologischen Niederschlag der frühen Völkerwanderungszeit in Nordprovinzen des Römischen Reiches.
joan.pinargil@uhk.cz / jpinarg@msn.com
Přehled Výzkumů 57, 123–146.
Tempelmann-Mączyńska M. 1986: Der Goldfund aus dem 5. Jahrhundert n. Chr. aus Granada–Albaicín und seine Beziehungen
zu Mittel- und Osteuropa. Madrider Mitteilungen 27, 375–386.
Tempelmann-Mączyńska M. 1989: Das „reduzierte” Trachtmodell der gotischen Frauen und seine Ursprünge. Archaeologia
Baltica 8, 203–230.
Toth Á. 2003: Germanic Peoples in the Great Hungarian Plain during the 5th Century. In: Z. Visy (ed.), The Migration Period.
Hungarian Archaeology at the Turn of the Millennium. Budapest, 293–294.
Umbria 1996: Umbria longobarda. La necropoli di Nocera Umbra nel centenario della scoperta. Rome.
Vakulenko L.V. 1998: One-piece Fibulae with Chord in High Position and Inverted Foot (Almgren 158) and Aspects of the Chronology
of the Roman Age Sites in the Transcarpathian Ukraine. In: J. Kunow (ed.), 100 Jahre Fibelformen nach Oscar Almgren.
Internationale Arbeitstagung, 25.–28. Mai 1997, Kleinmachnow, Land Brandenburg. Wünsdorf [= Forschungen zur Archäologie
im Land Brandeburg, 5], 241–247.
Vallet F. 1993: Une implantation militaire aux portes e Dijon au Ve siècle. In: F. Vallet, M. Kazanski (ed.), L’armée romaine et les
barbares du IIIe au VIIe siècle. Paris [= Mémoires de l’Association française d’archéologie mérovingienne, 5], 249–258.
Vida T., Alt K.W., Knipper C., Skriba P., Winger D., von Freeden U. 2017: A Multidisciplinary Study on the Langobard Period
Cemetery of Szólád in Pannonia. Hungarian Archaeology. E-Journal, 46–62.
Vössing K. 2009: Das Königreich der Vandalen: Erben des Imperiums in Nordafrika. Mainz.
Voß H.-U. 1998: Die Bügelknopffibeln. Almgren Gruppe VI,2, Fig. 185 und 186. In: J. Kunow (ed.), 100 Jahre Fibelformen nach Oscar
Almgren. Internationale Arbeitstagung, 25.–28. Mai 1997, Kleinmachnow, Land Brandenburg. Wünsdorf [= Forschungen zur
Archäologie im Land Brandeburg, 5], 271–282.
Werner J. 1956: Beiträge zur Archäologie des Attila-Reiches. München [= Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Philosophisch-Historische Klasse. Abhandlungen N.F., 38A].
Werner J. 1960: Die frühgeschichtliche Grabfunde vom Spielberg bei Erlbach, Lkr. Nördlingen, und von Fürst, Lkr. Laufen a.d. Salzach.
Bayerische Vorgeschichtsblätter 25, 164–179.

488 489